is why i'm here representing the house managers to strongly support this amendment to subpoena robert blair and michael duffy. blair and duffy are the two officials who carried out president trump's order to freeze vital military aid to ukraine. their testimony would shed light on central facts the house uncovered in our impeachment inquiry. their testimony will further affirm that president trump had no i didn't tell policy reason for the order. blair works in the white house as a senior advisor to the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney. duffy is a political appointee. he works in the office of management and budget. there he serves as the associate director for national security programs. both were subpoenaed by the house investigative committees. both were ordered not to appear, so both failed to appear. for the scheduled depositions. despite repeated outreach and despite their legal duty to comply, blair and duffy are not household names. many americans have never heard of them. but they operated the machinery of the executive branch. they implemented president trump's instruction to f

mulvaney and robert blair. a senior administration adviser on june 27. when mr. mull vemulvaney asked ever find out about the money or ukraine and whether we can hold it back? what prompted that e-mail? according to public reports, mr. mulvaney was on air force i. air force i. with president trump when he sent it. what other conversations did mr. mulvaney have with the president and white house officials about this unlawful freeze? the american people deserve to know. there is other significant evidence concerning mr. mulvaney's role in implementing the scream. acco -- scheme. according to multi-le witneple , the direction to freeze the aid to ukraine was delivered by mick mulvaney himself. mark sandy testified about a july 12th e-mail from mr. blair stating that president trump is directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine. was mr. blair acting at mr. mulvaney eav's express direction? the members of this distinguished body deserve to know. on july 18th, those present were blindsided by the announcement that the security aid appropriated by this con

on the other hand, "the new york times" reported just last week that this aide, robert blair, essentially wrote mick mulvaney, they had a back-and-forth conversation, and he said that congress would become unhinged if they were to do this. and that entire series of emails between mick mulvaney and robert blair really painted mulvaney was closer to this exchange, to the withholding of funds than we had seen before. it's clear mulvaney asking his aide if this was even allowed that mulvaney was then going through blair. so this is raising a lot of antennas here as to whether or not this really was presidential communication or if there's something that is in those emails that could be critical to this trial. >> kristen holmes, thank you. let's talk more with margaret talev and david swerdlick. good to see you both. happy new year, by the way. >> happy new year. >> happy new year. >> margaret, you first. doesn't the white house withholding these emails now adam in addition to the house democrats' articles of obstruction, abuse of power allegations? >> well, it gives democrats a new predicate

committees in response to which nine administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely robert blair, mick mulvaney, john eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, russell t bott, michael duffey, brian mccormick, and t ulrich brengle. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine the united states government investigations into foreign interference in united states elections. through these actions, president trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of the impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its sole power of impeachment. in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. this abuse of office to cover up the president own misconduct and seize and control the power of impeachment and thus nullify

namely john michael mick mulvaney, robert blair, john eisenberg, michael ellis, preston griffith, russell locke, michael duffey, ryan mccormick, nt orrick reptile, these actions were consistent with president trump previous efforts to undermine the united states governmentfe investigations into foreign interference in the united states elections. through these p actions presidet trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine scope and nature of the impeachment inquiry into his own conduct. as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its sole power of impeachment. in the history of the republic, no president have ever reported the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede, sohe comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. this abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct. and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify the vital constitutionat safeguard inve

the amendment by senator schumer to subpoena robert blair. that will not happen, i am guessing as they go to this vote probably another 53-47. molly, a republicans opening to criticism because they are not allowing any of these votes or witnesses? >> they want to hear the case from both sides and make a decision about whether they should hear more evidence or get more witnesses or whatnot, this is the same pattern that was followed for the clinton impeachment and they just want to follow that same thing. i think you have to go based on the merits of the case, decide whether you need more evidence. what is really important in this case is also think about the larger context, you have in the situation a group of people who have been trying to impeach the president for many years. it was obviously supposed to happen around the russian collusion hoax, when not complete we fell apart in dramatic fashion. >> shannon: let me stop you, let's listen into the senate majority leader. >> to the chamber, we will go with a hard 5 minutes. >> without object

he, former national security adviser john bolton and many others with relevant testimony like robert blair and michael duffy. mister blair, who serves as senior advisor to acting chief of staff mulvaney worked with mister duffy, political appointee in the office of management and budget to carry out the president's order to freeze vital military and security assistance to ukraine. the trump administration refused to disclose communications even though we know from written testimony, public reporting and freedom of information act laws but they were instrumental in implementing the hold and extending it at the present express direction, even as career officials warned, accurately, that doing so would violate the law. the president has also made the insupportable claim the house should be forced to subpoena in court and allow the president to delay impeachment for years. if we had done so we would have abdicated our constitutional duty to act on the overwhelming facts before us and the evidence the president was seeking to cheat in the next election. we could not engage in a deliberately pro

john bolton, nick maldini, robert blair and all people that have significant information about what donald trump has been charged with. we don't have a single document. we don't have a single minute of testimony under oath, and by? because they directed them not to cooperate with the house, not to testify under oath, not to say anything. if these witnesses have performed the legal duty. benefit hearing from witnesses to say all of the them after the relevanhave directrelevant infot president trumps with respect in ukraine and there is no reason to postpone the testimony. the former national security adviser so my question for all of senators is a key was personally involved it hasn't been discussed and the testimonies this far. we already know that includes the conversation they described it and we nowil know he's willig to talk to us for the first ti time. how can we say if we don't even ask, c how can we ignore such critical first-hand testimony? no matter how they vote on guilt ore innocence, keeping the american people in the dark to make the united states senate complicity in a cover-

robert blair and michael duff not just the presidents menrond but the presidents henchmen to execute the drug deal. each of these witnesses had eyes and ears on the president of the united states with firsthand knowledge they are the witnesses who must appear and maybe they will have evidence to show the presidents is innocent. maybe they will help to exonerate that the president has refused all of those witnesses. he has blocked all the documents. as we argue to the jury the documents don't lie it's black and white. it is there and an effort by the team to use a document they have blocked should be excluded as it would be in any trial. they should be playing by the rules of a full and fair proceeding not a cover-up which is what the president has sought to do. so i hope my republican colleagues will in fact put country aboveop party and decide the american people want a full fair and open proceeding. so that they will know the truth in all of these corroborating witnesses. the case is already overwhelming. listening be closely to every word , watching every video and document that w

colleagues want to see from -- want to hear from john bolton, want to hear from mick mulvaney and robert blair of these witnesses, michael duffy, who have firsthand, direct knowledge of the president's conduct that's being alleged. and frankly, i assume that the president may want to bring witnesses. this is a time where he can present his case and he chose really not to during the house impeachment inquiry and, you know, that's the president's choice but i think that it would, you know, behoove him now that he has his full legal team announced to be thinking about the case that he's going to present. >> senator tammy baldwin, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> i appreciate yours. thanks. >> coming up, allegations the president called the nation's top military commanders quote, a bunch of dopes and babies. details ahead. but she wanted to be close to nature. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you

michael duffy and robert blair who executed the scheme. john bolton who tried to talk him out of it. and mick mulvaney, who in fact took that order from the president to withhold money from ukraine in return for personal benefits to the president in the investigation of the bidens. and most important is the focus on those witnesses and documents firsthand and direct knowledge. that is what i hope my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, will focus on. the gravity of this moment certainly struck us yesterday as we took that oath, as we raised our right hand, as we watched the chief justice of the supreme court come into the chamber, never before seen by most of us. >> i asked senator markey in the last hour, let me ask you -- in order to get those four witnesses, you also have to include, say, hunter biden, would you vote for that kind of resolution? interestingly, my answer depending on what senator mcconnell comes to us to propose. >> what if he says you have the four, but you also have to have witnesses that the president wants. the pr

mulvaney and robert blair. a senior administration advisor on june 27th when mr. mulvaney asked did we ever find out about the money for ukraine and whether we can hold it back? what prompted that e-mail? according to public reports, mr. mulvaney was on air force one, air force one with president trump when he sent it. what other conversations did mr. mulvaney have with the president and white house officials about this unlawful freeze? the american people deserve to know. there is other significant evidence concerning mr. mulvaney's role in implementing the scheme. according to multiple witnesses, the direction to freeze the security assistance to ukraine was delivered by mick mulvaney himself. office of management and budget official mark sandy testified about a july 12th e-mail from mr. blair stating that president trump is directing the hold on military support funding for ukraine. was mr. blair acting at mr. mulvaney's express direction? the members of this distinguished body deserve to know. on july 18th, the hold was announced to the agencies in the adminis

direct contact with the president of the united states, robert blair and michael duffy, not just the presidents men but they were the president's henchmen and they executed the drug deal and each of these witnesses had eyes and ears on the president of the united states and they had first-hand knowledge and they are the witnesses who must appear and maybe they will have evidence to show the presidents innocence. maybe they will help to exonerate him and the president has refused all of those witnesses and have gagged them as he has blocked all the documents and let me say about the documents, as we argue to the jury documents don't lie. it is black-and-white. it is there without any shading and an effort by presidents defense team to use a document they have blocked should be excluded and as it would be in any trial. they should be plain by the rules of a full and fair proceeding, not a cover-up which is what the president has sought to do and so, i hope my republican colleagues will, in fact, put country above party and decide that the american people want a full, fair and open proc

emails also show mulvaney asking his senior adviser robert blair back in june, did we ever find out aboutor ukraine and whether we can hold it back? blair responded it was possible, but expect congress to become unhinged. blair said it would also be seen as more evidence trump was pro-russia. blair was the one who delivered the message to russ vogt that the aid needed to be held. buff it fell to michael duffey to carry out the program. after 90 minutes of president trump's controversial call with the ukrainian president on july 25th, duffey told officials at omb and the pentagon to withhold security aid for ukraine. he seemed to know it could cause concerns given the sensitive nature of the request, duffey wrote i appreciate you keeping that information closely held. as the hold dragged on and pentagon officials sounded the alarm that the freeze could run afoul of the law, duffey told a top pentagon official on july 30th that the demand was coming from the top. clear direction from potus to continue to hold. sara murray, cnn, washington. >> back now with our political legal team. david ge

mulvaney former national security advisor john bolton and many others with relevant testimony like robert blair and michael duffy mr blair who serves as a senior advisor to acting chief of staff will veiny work directly with mr duffy a political appointee in the office of management and budget to carry out the president's order to freeze vital military and security assistance to ukraine the trump administration has refused to disclose or communications even though we know from written testimony public reporting and even freedom of information act lawsuits that they were instrumental in implementing the hold and extending it at the president's express direction even. even as career officials warned accurately that doing so would violate the law the president has also made the insupportable claim that the house should have enforce its subpoenas in court and allow the president to delay his impeachment for years if we had done so we would have abdicated our constitutional duty to act on the overwhelming facts before us and the evidence the president was seeking to cheat in the next election we cou

former national security adviser john bolton, acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and robber -- robert blair and michael duffy, high-ranking white house officials with firsthand, direct knowledge of all the president's conduct that's being alleged in these articles of impeachment. >> one of the things that professor dershowitz was saying was if democrats get the witnesses they want to have that republicans should be able to have witnesses as well, and there's been indications from some republicans that they would like to have hunter biden or vice president biden. does that make sense to you? >> well, the articles are very specific. abuse of power referring of course to the president soliciting foreign assistance to -- for his personal benefit and political benefit in the upcoming election. and obstruction of congress. i know you've discussed those articles. i have no idea what relevant and firsthand information somebody like hunter biden could provide that would provide any clarity on the two articles of impeachment. and so i don't see a reason why they would want to bring a witness like tha

reflecting emails between white house official robert blair and omb official michael duffy that relateectly to the freezing of the u.s. security systems. omb would not release them in a lawsuit. they have refused to produce these documents at the direction of the president in response to the house is a lawful

robert blair, and michael duffy, not just the presidents men, they were the president's henchmen.they executed the drug deal. each of these witnesses, had eyes and ears on the president of the united states. they have firsthand knowledge. they are the witnesses who must appear, and maybe they will have evidence to show the president innocent. maybe they will help to exonerate, but the president has refused all of those witnesses. he hasn't gagged them as he has blocked all of the documents. and let me say about the documents, if we argue to the jury, documents don't lie. it's black and white. it's there, without any shading. and an effort by the president's defense team to use the documents they have blocked, should be excluded. as it would be in any trial. they should be playing by the rules of a full and fair proceeding, not a cover-up, which is what the president has sought to do. and so, i hope my republican colleagues will in fact put country above party and decide the american people want a full, fair, and open proceeding. so that they will know all of the truth, and all of

emails show mulvaney asking his senior advisor robert blair back in june did we ever find out about theoney for ukraine and whether we can hold it back? blair responded it was possible, but expect congress to become unhinged. blair said it would also be seen as more evidence trump was pro russia. blair was the one who delivered the message to acting office of management budget director that the aid needed to be held up. but it fell to michael duffy, omb's associate director of national security programs to carry out the order. emails released as part of a lawsuit revealed that 90 minutes after president trump's controversial call with the ukrainian president on july 25th duffy told officials that omb and the pentagon to withhold security aid for ukraine. he seemed to know it could cause concerns. given the sensitive nature of the request, duffy wrote, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held. >>> as the hole dragged on and pentagon officials said it could run afoul of the law, on august 30th they said the demand was coming from the top potus to continue to hold. sara murr

before we came on the air there was a proposal by chuck schumer on another subpoena to subpoena robert blairand michael duffey so we will have two hours of debate. i'm trying to decipher what they might do because the hour is getting late, people are getting cranky and there might be an effort to wrap this up. last hour they finished a vote and chuck schumer told the senate majority leader it might be a while, we have a number of amendments to go through it looks like they are going to start on the next proposal. you would have to get unanimous consent meaning all 100 senators agree on how they are going to proceed and as long as chuck schumer doesn't back down that means you are locked in and he can continue to offer these amendments and you keep toggling back and forth in these debates and right now sylvia garcia, democrat from texas, a freshman, one of the 7 impeachment managers is now talking about this issue subpoenas for robert blair and michael duffy which means we will be locked back in here for at least an hour and a half at the minimum. it seems democrats, house prosecutors have be

john bolton, nick mulvaney, robert blair, and michael duffey. all people have significant information about but donald trump is been charged with. we don't have any single documents. would i have a single of testimony on oath. and why, because the president directed them not to cooperate. the house. enough to testify. not to say anything. if these witnesses performed, their legal duty and having been and they are cooperated with the house. we would it be in this position. and there's no question that all senators republicans and democrats alike will benefit. premiering with this witnesses have to say. all of them have direct relevant information about president trump news with respect to retain. there's no good reason tooo postpone the testimony. take just months. the national advisory travel in. son. my question of all of the center is this. they already know that according to mr. bolton news lawyer, he was personally involved in many of the events. makes and conversations that are not yet been discussed the testimonies thus far. where any know

at among between or referring to director michael john mikell lady, assistant to the president robert blairacting director russell vaught, associate director, michael duffey or any other office of management and budget employee. two communications related to request by president trump for information about ukraine security or military assistance and responses to those requests. three, communications related to concerns raised by any office of management and budget employee related to the legality of any hold on foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance to ukraine. four, communications sent to the department of state regarding hole or block on congressional notification regarding the release, of fmf funds to ukraine. five, communications between one officials at the department of defense including but not limited to, undersecretary of defense and nine and two, associate director michael duffey, deputy associate director mark sandy, or any other office management budget employee. six, all urges of the august 7th, 2019 memorandum prepared by the national security division

president from the so-called drug deal direct contact with the president of the united states, robert blair, and michael duffey not just the president's men, they were the president henchmen. they executed, the drug deal. each of these witnesses had eyes and ears on the president of the united states. they have firsthand knowledge and they are the witnesses who must appear and maybe they will have, events to show the president's innocence. maybe they will help to exonerate him. but the president has refused all of those witnesses. he has skated them, and he has locked all of the documents. let me say about the documents, as we argued to the jury, documents don't lie. it is like my. . . . not a cover-up which is what the president has sought to do and so i hope my republican colleagues will in fact put country above party and decide that the american equal want a full, fair and open proceeding so that they will no all the truth and all of these corroborating witnesses, the cases are the overwhelmed but i'm going to be listening. i will be listening closely to every word, watching every video

mulvaney's senior adviser robert blair, secretary rick perry and brian mccormack, secretary perry's chief of staff, and we should at least start with, if we're seeious about gse serious about getting to the truth, issue a subpoena for stat department emails. in the emails sondland stated quote, i talked to zelensky just now. he is prepared to receive potus's call. we'll ensure him he intends to run an investigation and will turn over every stone. he will greatly appreciate a call prior to sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call prior to ukraine election on sunday. i asked nsc to set up a call for tomorrow, section days before president trump's infamous july 25th call in which he told president zelensky to conduct investigations into the biden and the 2016 elections. he sent an e-mail to the top aides updating them on the status of the scheme. again, quote, everyone was in the loom. august 11th, ambassador sondland e-mailed to asked him to brief secretary pompeo on the statement he was negotiating with president zelensky with the aim of, quote, making

. >> mick mulvaney, john bolton, michael duffy, and robert blair were intimately involved and had direct knowledge -- >> reporter: rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney, has conducted his own investigations into unsubstantiated claims about the bidens in the 2016 election. he says he's willing to testify. >> i'm not going to tell you what i found out until i have a proper forum. >> reporter: when the senate trial does happen, supreme court chief justice john roberts will preside. >> he will try to preside in a way that is honorable and impartial and lends a credit to the court that he leads. >> reporter: yesterday, roberts released his annual year-end report. in it he wrote, "we should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch." the senate returns from its winter break on friday. and secretary of state mike pompeo is heading to ukraine this week. on friday he'll meet with president zelensky who we know was at the center of that whistle-blower call. wendy? >> laura podesta in new york. thanks. >>> in southeas

he, former national security adviser john bolton and many others with relevant testimony like robert blair and michael duffy. mister blair, who serves as senior advisor to acting chief of staff mulvaney worked with mister duffy, political appointee in the office of management and budget to carry out the president's order to freeze vital military and security assistance to ukraine. the trump administration refused to disclose communications even though we know from written testimony, public reporting and freedom of information act laws but they were instrumental in implementing the hold and extending it at the present express direction, even as career officials warned, accurately, that doing so would violate the law. the president has also made the insupportable claim the house should be forced to subpoena in court and allow the president to delay impeachment for years. if we had done so we would have abdicated our constitutional duty to act on the overwhelming facts before us and the evidence the president was seeking to cheat in the next election. we could not engage in a deliberately pro

the last couple seconds there was a proposal by chuck schumer on another subpoena to subpoena robert blair and michael duffy, the officials who are probably going to have two hours to debate on that. i'm looking at our monitor here trying to decipher what they might do because of the hour is getting late. people are getting antsy, people are getting cranky, and you know, there might be an effort to wrap this up. last hour they finished about and chuck schumer told the senate majority leader that it might be a while. a number of amendments to go through here and it looks like they are going to go ahead and start on the next proposal. you will have to get unanimous consent. unanimous consent means all 100 senators agree on how they're going to proceed and as long as the senate minority leader chuck schumer doesn't back down, that means you're kind of locked in he can continue to offer these amendments and keep toggling back and forth in these two hour debates. right now sylvia garcia, democrat from texas, a freshman, she is one of the impeachment managers, she's not talking about the issue o

mick mulvaney, robert blair, russell voit, and the president chief legal adviser on the national security council, john eisenberg, among others. the managers will present in detail what these officials knew about their role in executing different parts of the president's scheme. there is no dispute, nor could there be, that president trump's orders substantially obstructed the house impeachment inquiry. that obstruction continues unabated today, even as we stand here at the start of the president's trial. and the president has been able to do so only because of the uniquely powerful position that he holds as our commander in chief. no other american could seek to obstruct an investigation into his own wrong-doing this way. no other american could use the vast powers and levers of his government to conduct a corrupt scheme to benefit themselves, and then use those same powers to suppress evidence and bar any cooperation with the authorities investigating him. not a police chief, not a mayor, not a governor, not any elected official in the country. and certainly not any non-elected official

about by the democrats as witnesses in addition to mulvaney and bolton are in a two mulvaney named robert blair who is basically a deputy and staff of mick mulvaney and michael duffey was a budget official at the office of management and budget who was involved in actually halting the distribution of a to ukraine. and they want those witnesses, not clear to me whether blair and duffey would really qualify as close presidential advisers or not. obviously mulvaney and bolton did and another reason for this playing out the weight might is the question of whether john bolton might be more entitled to or the the president more entid to executive produce because of bolton's role as a national security adviser as opposed to just a general white house lawyer or routine policy official. there are some previous rulings from the court suggesting those kinds of visuals that work on foreign policy and national security matters might be entitled to some more deference. but exactly how that would play out is curious and there's also this question of whether john roberts as i said earlier the chief justice wou

including secretary pump ale acting white house chief of staff mel veiny and his senior adviser robert blair and this is e-mail he noted that he prepared president selenski who was willing to make the announcements of political investigations that president trump desired secretary perry and mick mulvaney then responded to solomon acknowledging they received the e-mail and recommending to move forward with the phone call that became the july 25 call between the presidents of the united states and ukraine. we know all of this not because the state department provided us with critical documents but instead because and basser a solemn provided us a reproduction of the e-mail and its public testimony ambassador sol and quite correctly explain that this e-mail demonstrated quote everyone was in the loop. the loop. it was no secret everyone was informed via e-mail on july 19th days before the presidential call as i communicated to the team i told president selenski in advance that assurance is to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in this call with presid

any event, even after the resolution passed, the committees issued subpoenas to mick mulvaney, robert blair and other businesses and the president continued to block the witnesses. the argument about a full house vote is an excuse about president trump's obstruction. the president refused to comply with the house subpoena before the house vote and after the house vote. the only logical explanation is the one president trump gave us all along. he was determined to fight all of subpoenas because in president trump's new according to what he said, he can do whatever he wants. now that isn't what the the constitutional republic entrusted to us by the founders had in mind. this argument doesn't just imply to impeachment. it woul would imply to oversight investigations coming and it fodoesn't just apply to the hou. it would also apply to the senate by sanctioning the president's blanket obstruction, the senate would be curtailing its own subpoena power in the future as well and the oversight obligation that we have as we now know would be permanently altered. i yield back. mr. chief justice. >> i

according to public reporting, the day after dod's press release a white house official named robert blair called omb's acting director russell vought to talkar about the military aid to ukraine. according to public reports mr. blair said quote we need to hold it up. omb has refused to produce any documents related to this conversation. the senate can get them by passing the amendment and issuing a subpoena. but there's more. the same day blair told vought to hold up the aid, michael duffey a political appointee at omb reports to vought e-mailed deputy undersecretary defense elaine mccusker and told her the president had questions about the aid. duffey copied a career official at ombol who told us about the e-mail in his testimony before the house. like all others that email was not produced by the trump administration in thehe house impeachment investigation. we know this email exist, however, because in response to a freedom of information act lawsuit trump administration was forced to release a redacted in a consistent with the description. but omb provided none of those documents to th

. >> mick mulvaney, john bolton, michael duffy and robert blair were intimately involved and had direct knowledge. >> reporter: rudy giuliani the president's personal attorney has conducted his own investigations into unsubstantiated claims about the bidens in the 2016 election. he says he is willing to testify. when the senate trial does happen, supreme court chief justice john roberts will preside. >> he will try to preside in a way that is honorable and impartial and lens credit to the court that he leads. >> reporter: yesterday roberts released his annual year-end report. in it he wrote, we should reflect on our duty to judge without here or favor deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch. the senate returns from its winter break on friday. laura podesta, cbs news. >>> still ahead on kpix 5 and streaming on cbsn bay area, coming up the clock struck midnight and the revelers have now cleared out of times square. we wrap up the nation's biggest new year's party. >>> and let head outside as we take a live look at the bay bridge. on this new year's day, kicking off a n

refused to testify the president's direction clearing his chief of staff mick mulvaney his deputy robert blair only official michael duffy all of them all of them defied congressional subpoenas but were included in important e-mail communications that have been made public only recently as you know these and many other categories of documents from the white house defense department only was subpoenaed by the house and none was produced none at the president's direction and through mr simple on his intervention although the investigation developed an overwhelming body of evidence that clearly proves that the president implemented this old to pressure ukraine to announce investigations the full story. behind the hold the full and complete story is within your power to request. as you consider the evidence we present to you ask yourselves whether the documents and witnesses that have been denied by the president's complete and unprecedented struction could shed more light on this critical topic you may agree with the house managers that the evidence of the president's withholding of military aid

, formal national security advisor john bolton, and many others with relevant testimony like blair and robert. blair who serves as a senior advisor to acting chief of staff mall veiny he worked directly with mr. duffy, a political appointee in the office of management and budget to carry out the president's order to freeze vital military and security assistance to ukraine. the trump administration has refused to disclose communications even though we know from written testimony, public reporting, even freedom of information act lawsuit that they were instrumental unable mentoring the hold and extending in at the presidents express direction. even as career officials warned accurately that doing so would violate the law. the president has also made the insupportable claim that the house should've been forcing subpoenas in court, and allow the president to delay its impeachment for years. if we had done so, we would have abdicated our constitutional duty to act on the overwhelming facts with force, and the evidence the president was seeking to cheat in the next election. we could not engage in

look at the potential witnesses we heard about, make mulvaney, john bolton, michael duffy and robert blair you see a problem with any of those witnesses? >> i do, especially mcilvain and bolton. the president enjoys executive privilege and it is one of the most disturbing things the house is done, to charge him with obstruction for saying he's not going to allow those witnesses or documents from the white house to come into evidence but every president of every party has asserted executive privilege with a variety of menus. the president has the right to have counsel from close advisers to advise him and have that be done in confidence so that he can get candid advice that differs. people will not feel they have to pull their punches on if they are going to testify and ultimately -- heather: no one knows what they would say. john bolton in his testimony could support the president. in terms of the gop other witnesses we heard from, we heard about include joe biden, hunter biden, adam schiff and potentially the whistleblower but at the same time this is going on republicans hope to avoid a

john bolton knows more about this than the whistleblower and michael duffy and robert blair and the othernesses, we would like to talk to have firsthand information, some have first-hand conversations with the president. why is it that the administration doesn't want them outed. >> could you explain how the question process will work? i know it's written limited questions are every senator gets one who decides how to do it? these questions could bring up on both sides in the sense of rebuttals that neither side has. >> i think that's exactly how the process will work and did work the last time it was used. that is there will be 16 hours set aside for questioning. if we follow the practice that has been used in the past, it will alternate questions but democratic senators and questions by republican senators. they will go to one side or the other. the president team or house managers. one other point i want to make him and i want to write any of the other house managers who haven't had a chance to talk yet that would like to add anything is as we outlined in the beginning of the process, t

is also an interesting email exchange the new york times reported on between mick mulvaney and robert blairness that the democrats want to hear from. blair is one of the top advisers and when he emailed him in june and said essentially can we hold off on this aid to ukraine, robert blair said we could, but you should expect for congress to become unhinged, which is, of course, what happened after all of this. now, the man who was supposed to carry this all out was michael duffey, top official at the office of management and budget, the one who sent an email to the pentagon, 90 minutes after president trump got off the phone with the ukrainian president and said hold off on the aid. back to you. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. democrats are also making new demands on a top white house official. they sent a letter to the president's defense team demanding white house counsel pat cipollone turn over any information of which he has firsthand knowledge. the house managers also accused cipollone of being a material witness in the case against the president. joining me now, one of the top c

mulvaney, former national security adviser john bolton, and many others with relevant testimony like robert blair and michael duffey. mr. blair who serves as a senior adviser to acting chief of staff mulvaney worked directly with mr. duffey a political appointee in the office of management and budget to carry out the president's order to freeze vital military and security assistance to ukraine. the trump administration has refused to disclose their communications, even though we know from written testimony, public reporting and even freedom of information act lawsuits that they were instrumental in implementing the hold and extending it at the president's express direction, even -- even as career officials warned accurately that doing so would violate the law. the president has also made the insupportable claim that the house should have enforced its subpoenas in court and allowed the president to delay his impeachment for years. if we had done so, we would have abdicated our constitutional duty to act on the overwhelming facts before us and the evidence the president was seeking to cheat in the

president trump also ordered another white house official, robert blair not to testify. mr. blair is mr. mulvaney's senior adviser and his closest aide. he was involved in communications about the hold on ukraine aid, the day after his initially scheduled deposition, mr. blair's personal attorney sent a letter to the house. it said "mr. blair has been directed by the white house not to appear and testify." the house also wanted testimony from john eisenberg, the season attorney on the president's national security counsel. as you heard the past few days, key witnesses including dr. hill, lieutenant colonel vindman said they were concerned by president trump's efforts to pressure ukraine. they were told to report the concerns to mr. eisenberg. on the day before his scheduled deposition, the white house sent a letter to mr. eisenberg's personal attorney. it said "the president directs eisenberg not to appear at the deposition." that language is started to sound familiar. >> bill: all right. house managers continue to make the case for impeachment. republicans will get their cha

and michael duffey and michael -- robert blair, the other witnesses we would like to talk to have firsthand information. some of them had firsthand conversations with the president. so why is it that the administration doesn't want them outed? why doesn't the administration want them to talk to the american people? it is because they know it would only incriminate the president. make it the last question. >> could you explain how the question process will work? meaning i know it's going to be written. is it unlimited questions? does every senator just get one? who decides how to do it? because it seems these questions could bring up, on both sides, a sense of rebuttal that neither side has. >> yeah. i think that's exactly how the process will work and did work the last time it was used, and that is there'll be 16 hours set aside for questioning. if we follow the practice that has been used in the past, it will alternate questions by democratic senators and then questions by republican senators. they will go to one side or the other, the president's team or the house managers, but not both.