Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Fiona Hill & David Holmes Testify Publicly in Impeachment Hearing; Trump Responds to David Holmes Testimony; Trump Invites GOP Senates to White House Including Romney, Collins; Pelosi Maintains Trump Abuse Office; Israeli P.M. Netanyahu to Face Bribery, Fraud Charges. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired November 21, 2019 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00] HILL: -- sitting behind him -- and basically said well, you know, it's been really great to see you, I'm afraid I've got another -- another meeting.
GOLDMAN: And did Ambassador Sondland say who his agreement on this White House meeting was with?
HILL: In that particular juncture, I don't believe so. It was later, which I'm sure you'll want to talk about, that he did say more specifically.
GOLDMAN: And what did he say later?
HILL: Later, he said that he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney, that -- in return for investigations, this meeting would get scheduled.
GOLDMAN: And was he specific at that point later about the investigations that he was referring to?
HILL: He said the investigations in Burisma.
GOLDMAN: Now did you have a conversation with Ambassador Bolton after this subsequent meeting with Ambassador Sondland?
HILL: I had a -- a discussion with Ambassador Bolton both after the meeting in his office, a very brief one, and then one immediately after -- it was the subsequent meeting.
GOLDMAN: So the subsequent meeting -- or the -- after both meetings, when you spoke to him and relayed to him what Ambassador Sondland said, what did Ambassador Bolton say to you?
HILL: Well I just want to highlight first of all that Ambassador Bolton wanted me to hold back in the room immediately after the meeting. Again, I was sitting on the sofa with a colleague ...
GOLDMAN: Right, but just in that second meeting, what -- what did he say? HILL: Yes, but he was -- he was making a very strong point that he wanted to know exactly what was being said. And when I came back and related to him -- to him, he had some very specific instruction for me. And I'm presuming that that's ...
GOLDMAN: What was that specific instruction?
HILL: The specific instruction was that I had to go to the lawyers, to John Eisenberg, our Senior Counsel for the National Security Council, to basically say you tell Eisenberg, Ambassador Bolton told me, that I am not part of the -- this -- whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.
GOODMAN: What did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?
HILL: I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.
GOODMAN: Did you go speak to the lawyers?
HILL: I certainly did.
GOODMAN: You relayed everything that you just told us and -- and more?
HILL: I relayed it precisely and then the -- more of the details of how the meeting had unfolded, as well, which I gave a full description of this in my October 14 deposition.
GOODMAN: Mr. Holmes, you have testified that by late August, you has -- you had a clear impression that the security assistance hold was somehow connected to the investigations that President Trump wanted. How did you conclude that -- how did you make -- reach that clear conclusion?
HOLMES: Sir, we've been hearing about the investigation since March, months before, and we've been -- President Zelensky had received a letter -- congratulatory letter from the President saying he'd be pleased to meet him following his inauguration in May and we hadn't been able to get that meeting and then the security hold came up with no explanation. And I -- I'd be surprised if any of the Ukrainians you said earlier -- we discussed earlier, you know, sophisticated people -- when they received no explanation for why that hold was in place, they wouldn't have drawn that conclusion.
GOODMAN: Because the investigations were still being pursued ...
HOLMES: Correct.
GOODMAN: ... and the hold was still remaining without explanation?
HOLMES: Correct.
GOODMAN: So this to you was the only logical conclusion that you could reach?
HOLMES: Correct. GOODMAN: Sort of like 2 pluse 2 equals 4?
HOLMES: Exactly.
GOODMAN: Chairman, I yield.
SCHIFF: That concludes the majority questioning. We are expected to have votes I think fairly soon. This would be an appropriate time to break and we'll resume with the minority 45 minutes. If people, before they leave, could allow the witnesses to leave first and if committee members could come back promptly after votes.
[11:03:33]
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right, here we are monitoring the ongoing impeachment inquiry. We had Dr. Fiona Hill and Mr. David Holmes, very profound perspective on key events. We're in the middle of a break but it's a little different than the ordinary format. Some of the members of Congress have votes so this could be a little bit longer.
Don't worry about that. There's so much for us to unpack with a complete panel of experts here that cover everything from the facts to the journalism issues, to the policy issues and, of course, the legal issues.
Jeffrey, the idea of my setup there, that Hill and Holmes are speaking to specific context of key events in a way that I didn't even foresee in their openings.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Who knew this would be so dramatic and fascinating? I'm telling you. David Holmes was -- I mean, that guy should be a journalist if he's not going to be a foreign service.
He has the hair for it.
TOOBIN: He does have impressive hair, as do you.
CUOMO: Like I said.
(LAUGHTER)
[11:05:07]
TOOBIN: But his story of how the relationship between the Trump administration and the Ukrainian government evolved from the perspective of our embassy in Kyiv. That, which I've learned to pronounce over the course of the week. That was riveting.
And then this meeting, this now famous lunch meeting where, you know, the president was on the cell phone.
You know, if anyone has any doubts about what President Trump wanted out of the Ukrainians, how much more proof do you need? I mean, how many more witnesses have to say that he didn't care about the Ukrainian people, he didn't care about the geopolitical situation.
All Donald Trump wanted out of Ukraine was the investigation of Burisma and the Bidens. It's what started this investigation with the partial transcript and witness after witness has come forward and told the story.
CUOMO: John Dean, you jumped in while we were almost at the end of the testimony. Did you hear the part where counsel for the Democrats was with Fiona Hill going through the meeting with Bolton?
(CROSSTALK)
JOHN DEAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I didn't catch that.
CUOMO: She did him a very big favor. He wanted very quickly to get to a secondary meeting where Fiona Hill was previously testified she was told to go to the NSC lawyer but he was missing a step and she literally kept interrupting him to fill it in.
When Bolton bolted back, excuse the pun. The Republicans can weigh on this right after. They have an argument that Bolton had to go. Bolton had other meetings. Bolton didn't bolt because he was upset. He had to leave.
She must have anticipated that and said no, no, no, forget about the second meeting for a second. He sat back like this. He looked at the clock. He left. But he instructed me, you must say in that room and you must take notes and you must note everything that happens in that room.
Communicating that this wasn't just about leaving for another meeting. It was not liking what was in that meeting. And then he said to her, you go and deliver this message. I'm not part of Sondland and Mulvaney's drug deal, key distinction.
DEAN: And, of course, she reported back after the follow-up meeting that what she heard and what she interrupted was clearly she sensed his disquiet with what was going on and took action to try to interrupt it, not totally successfully, but obviously Sondland knew he was on bad footing as far as the national Security Council was concerned.
CUOMO: John and Dana, let's get a better sense of this substance.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: If you connect the dots, Mr. Holmes and Fiona Hill are critical for trying to make the case of corruption.
Republicans are going to argue this is Trump being Trump, he was working outside the system. Maybe you question Rudy Giuliani, but he doesn't trust the bureaucracy, he doesn't trust the State Department officials. He wanted his guy, hands on the policy. You may not like it. Maybe it got ugly but it's not an impeachable offense. That's where the Republicans are going to get us.
Mr. Holmes saying, look, we warned from the very beginning that the people Giuliani was working with were known corrupt actors. They are people we worked for years pushing to the sidelines. In he comes, working with the criminals. You have Giuliani working with corrupt people. And then the drug deal line, that they knew it was wrong.
Fiona Hill is telling you in the West Wing of the White House, the man with the stature and standing of the national security adviser knew this was wrong. Not just outside the lines, not just a policy that he didn't like, that it was wrong. So go to the lawyers and say I am not, we are not part of a drug deal.
They need the corrupt intent to take it from Trump being Trump, Trump being disruptive, Trump being different, to Trump competing an impeachable offense.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yesterday, we had such powerful testimony from Gordon Sondland. But as we all know, he is a compromised witness in some respects because he has given different stories, OK?
This is so different today, right? These are two people, one of whom has given his career to the United States of America, for people of both parties, apolitical. He made that clear in his words and in the content of what he said.
And the alarm with which he wanted the committee and the country to know that he felt, as he watched firsthand what was happening. As you said, as this administration he saw pushing the opposite of what should be happening, but in the name of fighting corruption.
[11:10:56]
And then second, Fiona Hill. I mean, that was -- I know we keep saying bombshell. That was so powerful. This is a -- yes, she's historically with the foreign service, but she is somebody who was, number two, a Republican appointee, effectively. And she was clearly so upset by this.
And then more broadly, this is about the corruption and the drug deal, but more broadly how outraged she was and others were that the president of the United States was basing American foreign policy on what his own Intelligence Community said was a conspiracy theory.
The Ukrainians did not, you know, infiltrate American democracy in 2016. It was the Russians. And, in fact, it is a Russian talking point to claim that it is the Ukrainians.
CUOMO: We have these things that keep getting called bombshells but the reason they keep come something because the people inside the bunker are not feeling the reverberations.
DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Let me unpack Jeff's part. Shocking, people at foggy bottom don't like the president, right? Career foreign service people --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Who said they don't --
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: No, no. Jeff's part. Like you hear they were upset with policy decisions, right?
(CROSSTALK)
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: That's not what they said at all.
URBAN: What I'm saying is what Jeff said earlier, talking about his testimony and things.
Listen, I have no doubt that Fiona Hill or Holmes or any of these folks who were working, doing their best job, thinking they're taking the policy in the right direction, disagree with the policy direction or where the president wanted to go in Ukraine, right? That's not an impeachable offense.
Nobody today I heard talking about the president withholding aid, even withholding the meeting. They're talking about we didn't like the president's direction. We think the people he was dealing with -- Rudy was going in a bad direction of this stuff. I've heard nothing new.
CUOMO: Have you been listening?
URBAN: I have. I have.
Listen, what I do hear --
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: One thing, talking about Ukrainians, this is a political article, 10,000 words, really well researched by Ken Vogel. Just to read it. It's really important. This starts out. The headline is, you know, "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage the president backfired."
CUOMO: When was that?
URBAN: It was 2017, right after the election. Ken Vogel, 10,000 words. "Ukrainian officials tried to help Hillary Clinton undermine Trump by questioning his fitness for office."
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: Hold on.
URBAN: Why would you read something that you know has been debunked by your own Intelligence Community --
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: No, no. I'm not saying that they did not -- the Russians did not interfere. (CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: But you're reading something --
URBAN: I'm saying --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: -- that undermines the finding of the Intelligence Community.
URBAN: No, I'm not. Chris, hold on.
CUOMO: And you're doing it to distort a reality that --
URBAN: No, I'm not.
BASH: Can I chime in here?
David, I have heard --
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: The testimony, there was nothing new.
There was nothing else.
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: You haven't seen the intelligence report.
URBAN: There was nothing.
BASH: You haven't seen the intelligence report.
URBAN: No, I haven't.
BASH: I haven't. None of us have.
I have talked to people who have, who say it is not just looking at the computers and so forth. It is a real intelligence report with the sources and methods that they can't talk about, which Fiona Hill alluded to there.
URBAN: Sure.
BASH: That completely debunks the fact that the Ukrainians were involved. This isn't a John Brennan, Obama administration thing. These are real people --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: So, you're holding up a single political article as the findings of your Intelligence Community?
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Come on.
URBAN: Chris, I'm not saying that the Russians did not have a major role to play. I'm saying there's to say there was nothing going on with the Ukrainians, nothing?
CUOMO: Yes.
URBAN: Is completely false, too.
CUOMO: It's not completely false because your Intelligence Community said --
URBAN: Ukraine had nothing to do with it?
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: Ukrainians had nothing to do with it.
KING: The Ukrainians were critical of Candidate Trump after he said in the campaign that maybe Russia should just keep Crimea. So, Ukrainian --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: -- they were very critical of him. No question.
URBAN: Let's get to the report.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: This reporting is not garbage.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: The reporting is not garbage.
That's an ant, first of all. Russian intervention is --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Let's not forget you are defending an administration that calls news fake whenever it doesn't like it. So let's not play those rules.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: You defend it all the time. You defended the president calling things fake news all the time.
URBAN: Chris, I haven't.
CUOMO: You're not going to do it today.
Let's get back to the facts.
We'll you're not going to do it today. Let's get back to the facts.
CORDERO: Can we talk about David Holmes testifying to --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Get our basis of speculation from one piece that was debunked by your Intelligence Community and you know it.
URBAN: And Holmes had facts there? It's all testimony --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: He's telling you what he saw and what he heard.
URBAN: Speculation.
CUOMO: That's not speculation. What you see and hear is direct testimony.
URBAN: He sat across from Sondland and said, I only heard part of the conversation. Just so happens the only part of the conversation I heard was the part relevant to this. I didn't hear anything else --
CUOMO: That's called direct testimony. Not speculation.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: It's not hearsay.
URBAN: He said the only part of the conversation that I heard --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Then that's the only part that he can be a factor to.
URBAN: Amazingly. Only heard one sentence.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Let's get back to the substance.
Go ahead.
[11:15:09]
CORDERO: Let's talk about what David Holmes actually testified today.
So David Holmes actually testified, based on his firsthand knowledge that the president, in fact, had knowledge that, "Senior officials were using the levers of our diplomatic power to induce the new Ukrainian president to announce the opening of a criminal investigation against President Trump's political opponent."
That's from David. That's not from a news article.
(CROSSTALK)
CORDERO: Let me finish, please.
URBAN: OK.
CORDERO: That's not from a news article. That is from David Holmes, a career foreign services officer, sworn testimony in front of Congress today.
He also testified, based on his firsthand, personal knowledge that when he was in a meeting listening to Office of Management and Budget officials describe why the foreign aid was when would, "That the OMB official said that the money being on hold came from the president of the United States."
He said today, quote, "From the president of the United States via his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney.
And David Holmes also testified today that he understood throughout the events that were going on that when people were talking about Burisma, they were talking about an investigation of the Bidens.
And this is somebody who presented in all sorts of questioning today that he had extraordinarily detailed, personal, firsthand knowledge that he took notes about.
CUOMO: Fiona Hill said about the same thing about Burisma --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Go ahead.
URBAN: So he's -- you're saying it's so credible because he said an OMB official told me that he was told by somebody that the president and Mick Mulvaney said to withhold the aid? That's his testimony.
CORDERO: No.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Told him. And the president has not allowed the OMB official to testify.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: We could clear this up easily.
CORDERO: -- that the information came from Mick Mulvaney. And that came from the president. Mick Mulvaney is the president's chief of staff. Mick Mulvaney refuses to testify in this proceeding.
URBAN: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
CORDERO: So the only people willing to testify are the individuals who are taking their oath seriously and understand the gravity of the hearings that are going on and who are appearing under subpoena to testify before the proceeding.
URBAN: Firsthand knowledge, he was told by someone who was told.
KING: Fiona Hill said -- to get to the Mulvaney point, Mr. Holmes made the case about the aid. Fiona Hill in the meeting said Sondland said he was told by the chief of staff. He had a deal with the chief of staff. "In return for the investigations this meeting will be scheduled."
URBAN: Right.
KING: OK.
URBAN: Sondland's testimony is completely different. I agree.
KING: So as a supporter and defender of the president --
URBAN: Sondland's -
KING: -- wouldn't it be easier to clear this up if Mick Mulvaney would testify?
URBAN: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: I agree. I agree.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: It's not totally different. It's consistent. They have different reference points for how he knows the information. They don't have different testimony.
But to John's point, why don't you want the big shots in here with all the firsthand knowledge?
URBAN: Again, I don't think the president has to prove himself innocent. Does he have to prove himself innocent that he didn't do anything?
CUOMO: No. Your party is saying we don't have people with the firsthand information.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: President doesn't have to prove himself innocent.
CUOMO: That's not about --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: I'm stating facts. URBAN: Is it about -- the House is trying to impeach him. They need
to put forth the evidence. The president has a presumption of innocence. Everybody does in this country. Maybe Donald Trump doesn't.
CUOMO: Do you think he owns these people?
URBAN: What do you mean does he own --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Does he own Mick Mulvaney?
URBAN: No.
CUOMO: Is he the property of him?
URBAN: No.
CUOMO: When you think Congress says they need something for oversight, do you think it's in your discretion whether they give it to them?
URBAN: I think --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: That's a yes, no.
URBAN: No, no. I think there's an absolute executive privilege that needs to be exercised and examined. Not just because of the president but the institution. I do believe that's actual and needs to be examined here.
If the House wants to wait until the court plays it out, they could wait until the court plays it out. If they compel them to testify, they should go testify.
BASH: Just as a political operative, as you have been, and a policymaker, somebody who wants a president to win Pennsylvania again, for example --
URBAN: Sure.
BASH: -- which you helped deliver for him last time. Isn't it in your interest on the raw politics to have people, if he feels he is totally innocent and this is all not true, to have people go up there and say they're talking about me, I was in those meetings? Not true.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: I think that would be a great thing. I don't think that they would ever get a fair shake.
CUOMO: If they're not getting a fair shake, they've got half the room doing nothing but trying to defend them. John Dean, get in on this.
DEAN: Dave, I've been here before in a different context.
URBAN: John, don't get me started.
DEAN: I heard the same kind of arguments about what Nixon knew, when did he know it. I knew, my limited knowledge, had to make some presumptions based on conversations and the feel of a conversation. What's this man really understand, what doesn't he understand?
[11:20:14]
I'm seeing the same thing go on right now. In this instance, however, we start with the smoking-gun tape, which is the transcript of the call out or the readout of the conversation. Didn't have that with Nixon. That comes at the end.
What we're arguing about are the events that happened before or around that conversation. That conversation resolves virtually all the questions.
URBAN: Well, as Ross Garber correctly pointed out this morning -- I watched his show this morning -- Chris, it goes to the mens rea, the intent of the president.
CUOMO: State of mind.
URBAN: The Supreme Court had the big case on Governor McDonald of Virginia. Interestingly, Sondland's testimony yesterday talked about a meeting because a meeting -- not the aid, because a meeting, believe it or not, is not considered an official act by a Supreme Court case.
CUOMO: The meeting of McDonald was not considered an official act because it's was nondetermined of any action --
(CROSSTALK)
CORDERO: Not an official act.
URBAN: I believe bribery will turn on that.
CUOMO: Right.
KING: That's not a court of law. That's the United States government.
CUOMO: That's exactly right.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: That's why I ask you about responding to Congress. If we were at a trial, you don't want to help out the prosecution if you don't need to. This is different.
We need to take a break. There's plenty to discuss, plenty of perspective on it. I'm lucky to be with all of you.
When we come back, you'll have testimony resume once these votes take place. I think it's fair to say more came out this morning than at least I was expecting from reading the opening statements. So we'll discuss what came out that was surprising. This now infamous phone call and how the president is now responding to it.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:25:52]
CUOMO: I'm Chris Cuomo, back with CNN's special live coverage of the impeachment hearings.
Moments ago, David Holmes described in great detail how it is this that he came to overhear this now infamous call that E.U. ambassador, Gordon Sondland, had with the United States president.
Now it's important because this isn't hearsay. It's not something he heard from someone else. It's called direct testimony, which means he heard it. He saw it. He spoke to the principle.
Here is how he explained it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID HOLMES, POLITICAL COUNSELOR, U.S. EMBASSY TO UKRAINE: While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speaker phone I could hear the president's voice during the earpiece of the phone. The president's voice was loud and recognizable. Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a time presumably because of the loud volume.
I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explain he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify I heard Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state that President Zelensky, quote, "loves your ass."
I then heard President Trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation. Ambassador Sondland replied that he's going to do it, adding that President Zelensky will do anything that you ask him to do.
After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the president was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning.
I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression for the president's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it's true that if the president did not give an expletive about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland agreed that the president did not give an expletive about Ukraine.
I asked, why not. The ambassador stated that the president only cares about big stuff. I noted that, there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right. Now, this kind of testimony about this kind of phone call is damaging. And when something is damaging, with one thing is for sure in this political environment, the president is going to respond.
Let's go to Kaitlan Collins at the White House.
What are we hearing in terms of the fight back?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Chris, clearly the president has been watching this morning. It didn't take long to push back on that account of David Holmes, overhearing the president's call.
He tweeted shortly thereafter, talking about the fact that he has great hearing, even despite that fact, he said he has never been able to overhear someone's conversation when it wasn't on speaker phone.
You hear him saying there, 'Never have I been watching a person not on speaker and be able to hear or understand a conversation." Said, quote, I've even tried but to no avail."
Of course, that comes as you watched Holmes really lay out in detail there, hearing that and exactly what it was exactly what the president was saying, how Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, was responding in all of that.
The president is essentially trying to undermine that account, saying it wasn't something that he heard.
There's when I should note that when had Bill Taylor testified, first revealing that this call had happened and his aide, David Holmes, sitting there, had overheard it.
[11:30:00]
The president was asked about this and he said he didn't recall any conversation like that with Gordon Sondland, the ambassador, and essentially said he didn't recall any conversation like that.
Now he's pushing back, saying he didn't think David Holmes would be able to overhear it.
The president is paying close attention to this also. It comes as we're being told by officials inside the White House that the president is going to have a lunch today, inviting Republican Senators over.
Chris, who is on that invite list is pretty notable. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins are Senators that have been at the center of everyone's questions about what it will look like if the House impeaches the president and it does go to the Senate for trial.
The president has feuded with Mitt Romney back and forth since he became president. Two months ago, he was calling him pompous and, in return, Mitt Romney has said he believes the president asking for help from a foreign government for his political rivals, he believes, is deeply troubling.
Susan Collins, someone who is middle of the road. There's also been a question about what kind of decisions she would make it if it did come down to that. She's been pretty coy about indicating anything that she would do.
But they will be here at the White House. It is pretty notable that the president is inviting them over.
CUOMO: Notable, indeed. He needs to see who is with him and who isn't.
Kaitlan, thank you very much.
Very interesting theory from our president that he has really good hearing, some would say, the best hearing ever, and he has never been able to hear a phone call when it wasn't on speaker phone from anybody.
So, let's just play with that for a second.
Mom, can you hear me?
All right. So if I were holding the phone here -- I'm with Dana Bash.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: I always let her talk because she's so smart and I shouldn't say so much.
Can you just say hello? Mom?
She probably can't hear me.
Mom, can you hear me?
MOTHER OF CHRIS CUOMO: Yes, I hear you. When you talk to me, I hear you.
CUOMO: I'm talking to you. Say hello to Dana Bash.
BASH: Hi, Mrs. Cuomo. How are you?
All right. I can't hear your mother, Chris.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: This is not on speaker phone.
(CROSSTALK) CUOMO: It's a regular phone. It's two feet away from Dana. She can hear my mother. I'm not sure mom can hear us.
Mom, thank you very much. Thank you for not saying anything that will get me in trouble. I'll call you back. I love you.
All right so --
DEAN: Can I offer direct testimony?
CUOMO: Please.
DEAN: It was -- he did say mom.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Yes. It's definitely my mom. Although she does constantly tell people I'm a mistake.
(LAUGHTER)
CUOMO: She says --
DEAN: How did he know it wasn't on speaker phone, though?
CUOMO: Whether he did or not --
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: -- on speaker phone.
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Accidentally, you can hit your ear and make it go on speaker phone.
CUOMO: He said he had an earpiece in and he was moving the earpiece. Earpiece is a magnifier sound.
I was giving the president the best benefit of his own analysis, which I would probably argue is nothing more than a distraction to try to undermine actual direct testimony. This iPhone, without an earpiece, on regular phone mode, trying it live, literally on live TV, Dana could hear my mother. I'm just happy she didn't take me down a couple of notches.
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Me or your mother?
CUOMO: You can do it, when my mom does it hurts a little deeper.
The point is this, Dave. The president wants to undermine the case. There's a balance as our highest elected official. We only have one president.
When you call everybody a liar and they know the guy is not lying, -- Sondland was there and remembers the phone call, remembers Holmes hearing it. Holmes has impeccable recitation of the fact.
When the president tweets something like that, why doesn't he understand or why don't good people like you tell him, you're undermining the credibility of the truth and the truth matters. It doesn't mean it's worthy of removal. Why lie about it?
URBAN: Sondland yesterday had different testimony about the call and the recollection of the call, how the call went down. Right? Holmes and Sondland's testimony is not necessarily overlay one another, right?
CUOMO: Yes, they do.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: OK so --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: No, no.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: He said he didn't recall saying the Bidens. Right. And Holmes has much more specificity about it.
As to whether the call occurred or not, don't - I defer to the president at this point.
CUOMO: Even if Sondland doesn't --
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: No, I'll tell, but to my point, I'm saying, I agree with --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Here's the problem. This is what I don't get and I want your --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: And everybody weigh in. Except mom. I hope I hung up. Did I? Good.
(LAUGHTER)
CUOMO: Is this, what happened here really can't be a reasonable dispute. The facts, the truth of the matter as asserted is clear. You have this whole company of people that were freaked out by the same things. None of them has been demonstrated as partisan. You can't have the big shots come in to explain their actions, but
what happened that the aid was delayed, that it was a pressure campaign?
It all happened, David.
(CROSSTALK)
[11:35:09]
CUOMO: Why do you just argue it's not worthy of removal?
URBAN: That's part of it, too. There are lots of instances on the aid part. It all gets kind of, you know, wrapped in one, right? There's a meeting request, the aid request.
The aid -- there was a huge issue. You may remember this. It was in the news briefly. The president withheld $2 billion to $4 billion USAID funding for weeks.
CUOMO: It's why.
URBAN: I don't know --
CUOMO: It's why. It's not apples to apples.
URBAN: It is apples to apples. Nobody knew. Nobody in the State Department, in the Foreign Aid Committee, USAID --
CUOMO: Here they did know why.
URBAN: They didn't know. Nobody knows.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: The Office of Management and Budget guy told them it was upheld because of this.
URBAN: Let's get the Office of Management and Budget guy in here.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: He won't let him testify.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: He won't let him testify, Dave.
URBAN: Was it Russ Vought that called him? They're saying someone --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: They won't let the OMB guy testify.
URBAN: They won't let Russ testify is who they're talking about.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Why won't they let these people testify if it's all perfect?
URBAN: Because again --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Come on, Dave.
CUOMO: There's no presumption that the president --
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: If you want to defend the president of the United States holding up aid to investigate a conspiracy theory, go after a political opponent --
URBAN: Chris.
CUOMO: -- their only argument is that it's not worthy of -- you can't argue the fact.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: Because that is not the fact. Chris, there's no fact here.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Tell me what's not a fact.
URBAN: Show me direct testimony where somebody said the president told me to withhold aid. Mick Mulvaney told me to withhold aid.
CUOMO: I can't get Mulvaney.
URBAN: There's nobody else. All these people, amazingly, all these people have come forward --
(CROSSTALK)
LAURA COATES, CNN COMMENTATOR: You're so disingenuous about your statement. You cannot require somebody to prove something with information that you explicitly withhold. If you were to --
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: It is true.
If you were to say to somebody the one information I need to have are the following statements. I'm not going to give you access to statements, I'm not going to allow those people who would have those statements.
Even Gordon Sondland said I would have benefitted to having more holistic testimony had I had access to the State Department, et cetera. (CROSSTALK)
COATES: I'm going to finish my point.
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: The notion here is you cannot say I'm going to withhold information and then hold you to that standard. That is circular.
It might ultimately be the Senate says there's insufficient evidence, as Chris' point was, to ultimately convict, but you can't be the reason you withhold information and not have an adverse inference drawn as to why.
URBAN: You're telling me not one person in this chain that all these people have testified that said I talked to Mick Mulvaney, I talked to somebody at OMB? Give a name, give a date. They told me to withhold the aid because of this issue.
CUOMO: I don't know that they can't provide that testimony.
URBAN: Not one person has testified to that yet.
I would think that if this firsthand witness testimony is coming forward about the president told me to withhold aid, it has to be transmitted to somebody. Somebody has to be willing to testify before the Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: This is what the White House acting chief of staff said in the briefing room.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: He later took it back.
URBAN: Right.
KING: What you're describe something a quid pro quo. We do that all the time, by Mulvaney. Did he also mention the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question. That's it. That's why we held up the money.
URBAN: Mick Mulvaney has to testify for himself.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: They won't let him testify, David.
URBAN: Again, you know, I hear what he said. I've got no answer for that.
CUOMO: No, no, no.
(CROSSTALK) CUOMO: I will say this. He was telling the truth. What happened here was wrong. It was obvious. But you don't see it worthy of removal. You lose your credibility.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: He walked it back.
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: He walked it back when a bunch of guys like you yelled at him.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: Come on, come on, Dave.
CORDERO: What's important about Gordon Sondland's testimony yesterday was that finally, now that he was in open session and he was under oath, he said that everybody knew what was going on.
He said that everybody that was involved in this from himself, Kurt Volker, he named names, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney. He named names in his statements and went farther than that. He described emails he sent to Secretary Pompeo and described how the aid prints off the emails and takes them to the secretary.
And repeatedly, time after time after time, in his testimony yesterday, he said everybody knew what was going on and the fact that aid was being held up, he realized later, but the fact that the meeting was being held up.
(CROSSTALK)
CUOMO: So let me take a break. They want me to take a break. We have more time to talk about this.
Look, eventually you will get to the point in a debate here, in Congress, where the facts are as they are assumed by Congress, from their development, and then they'll debate the consequence. It will happen in the Judiciary Committee.
[11:40:08]
By the way, that's when all these arguments about representation from each side starts to become more relevant. It's never happened that the stage of the game.
So, we'll take a break. When we come back, testimony will resume in a few minutes. Members of Congress are taking votes. There's still plenty to unpack about what's already happened this morning.
Stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:25] CUOMO: All right. So, we're waiting for testimony to resume. This is a little bit of a different type of break. We had the Democrats have their 45 minutes. Now we're moving to the Republicans for 45 minutes.
But Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time, as they keep saying. So, they're taking some votes.
Now, moments ago, we heard from speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi maintaining the stance that the president abused his office for personal gain. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The evidence is clear that the president, the president has used his office for his own personal gain, and in doing so, undermined the national security of the United States by withholding military assistance to the Ukraine to the benefit of the Russians.
That he has undermined the integrity of our elections by what he has done. Again, the Russian interference being ignored by him.
And third, he has violated his oath of office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right. For some context, let's go to Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.
We're listening to Speaker Pelosi there, talking about the inquiry timeline. What are you hearing?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. It's significant what she is saying. She is making it very clear that they are not going to fight it out in court to get some of those key witnesses that the Democrats have wanted to speak to, but who the White House has made sure they cannot speak to, including Mick Mulvaney, White House chief of staff, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as the former national security adviser, John Bolton.
She was asked by Haley Bird (ph) whether or not they would fight, do everything in court to get these witnesses to come forward, and she said they're not.
In her statement just now, they keep taking it to court and, no, we're not going to wait until the courts decide. She said that might be information that could be available to the Senate in terms of how far we go and when we go, but we can't wait for that, because it's a technique.
She is calling it obstruction of Congress. Some of the most explicit language yet from the speaker. It's been circulating for some time they would not go down that route to get these key witnesses.
We're at the key phase at the end of the public hearings before the House Intelligence Committee. Next they're going to draft a report by the House Intelligence Committee that will turn this over to the House Judiciary Committee that would consider articles of impeachment in its own committee before House votes could occur before Christmas to impeach this president.
Chris, what she's saying here, that's not going to be delayed, that timeframe, because she does not want to wait in court to get witnesses that could provide more details.
And Democrats I've spoken to agree with her because they believe they have more than enough evidence to link the president to both withholding the security aid as well as this key meeting in exchange for this announcement by Ukraine to look into the president's political rivals, help the president politically. They believe they have enough evidence to move forward.
And Pelosi making clear here, this crucial moment of this inquiry that they're ready to move ahead. They will not get dragged down by this court fight, even though she claims they've not made a decision yet.
By all indications, Democrats are plowing ahead and Trump could almost certainly be impeached before the end of the year -- Chris?
CUOMO: There are calculations in this, right? There are matters of politics. How fast do you go, what does that cost you in terms of completeness? What does the timing do for you?
One the litigation side -- I was checking with Jeffrey Toobin -- people make the assumption, if they win one case to compel somebody to testify, it compels everybody. It doesn't. So every case you start, you have to fight individually.
They're making a judgment there, too, about whether it's worth the fight. The question becomes, whom does it help or hurt more to not have Mulvaney, Pompeo and these other people being held back.
Manu Raju, thank you for keeping us up-to-date, as always.
We're waiting for testimony to resume. Members of Congress are taking votes. When they do, it will be the Republicans' turn at bat.
[11:49:29]
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CUOMO: We expect the impeachment hearings to resume in just a few minutes.
But we do have some breaking news out of Israel involving the legal fate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
We have CNN's Oren Liebermann joining us live from Jerusalem.
What's the latest? OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Israel's attorney
general has just unveiled charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in three separate crime ongoing corruption investigations, marking the first time in Israel's history that a sitting prime minister faces criminal indictment.
[11:54:58]
In the largest of these cases, known as case 4000, or the Bezeq Affair, the attorney general said he intends to charge Benjamin Netanyahu with bribery and mistrust, which is a single charges in Israel. And in the smaller cases, known as case 1000 and 2000, the attorney general has said Netanyahu will face a charge of fraud and breach of trust in each case.
We are expecting a statement from the attorney general in about half an hour. An hour after that, we'll get a statement from Benjamin Netanyahu himself.
Even before we hear that, I don't think it will be surprising what we hear if him or his angle. From the beginning, he was proclaiming his innocence, even at the beginning, using his catch phrase, "There will be nothing because there's nothing."
As to the investigations advanced, Netanyahu claimed he insisted upon his innocence. And as we near his indictment, his allies, including the justice minister, sharpened their rhetoric against the justice ministry and judiciary, even accusing the prosecutors of having a state prosecutor's office within the state prosecutor's office that acted with political motives to unseat Netanyahu.
On the crucial question of, does this break Israel's political deadlock, even with Netanyahu facing criminal indictment, that answer may very well be no. The deadlock we've seen for months may continue even with this.
CUOMO: Oren Liebermann, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Let's reset. We're live at the capitol now. This is part of CNN's special live coverage of the public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. This is day five.
It offered a second witness, who directly ties President Trump with pressuring to Ukraine in announcing investigations involving his political rival, Joe Biden.
Career foreign service officer, David Holmes, testified he overheard the president's voice in a phone call with the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, asking if the Ukrainians would do investigations.
He also made a point in his opening statement to call out the role that the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, played in negotiations with Ukraine. Here's a sample.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID HOLMES, POLITICAL COUNSELOR, U.S. EMBASSY TO UKRAINE: Over the following months, it became apparent that Mr. Giuliani was having a direct influence on the foreign policy agenda that the three amigos were executing on the ground in Ukraine.
In fact, at one point in the preliminary meeting of the inaugural delegation, some wondered aloud why Rudy Giuliani was so active in the media with respect to Ukraine.
My recollection is Sondland stated, quote, "Damn it, Rudy. Every time Rudy gets involved, he goes and Fs everything up."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: The other witness today is Dr. Fiona Hill. She used to be the president's top adviser for Russia. She dedicated her opening statement to debunking the conspiracy theory that Giuliani pushed and several witnesses say the president believes, that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FIONA HILL, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL: Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct campaign against our country, and that perhaps for some reason Ukraine did.
This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated in propaganda by the Russian securities themselves.
The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systemically attacked our Democratic institutions in 2016. This is a public conclusion of our intelligence agencies confirmed in bipartisan congressional reports. It is beyond dispute. Even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: OK, let's get some legal analysis on this.
Jeffrey, the idea of the defense on this is, well, he believes it, so it's OK for him to pursue it, versus, if he really believes this debunked conspiracy theory, he's more of a national security threat than was expected even by the Democrats. How does it play?
TOOBIN: The most important thing to remember about impeachment is it's a political process, not a legal process.
CUOMO: Yes.
TOOBIN: So parsing what constitutes the elements of bribery in a courtroom is a very different thing from deciding what members of Congress decide is an impeachable offense. I think the issue of what the president's state of mind is not as
relevant as what actually happened. And I think that's why David Holmes' testimony is so interesting. And so important.
Because what you have is a conversation between Sondland and the president overheard, and what does he say about the relationship between the United States and Ukraine. He says one thing. I want to see investigations. I want to see investigations. And we know from the context, he means investigations of his political rival, the Biden family.
That's what the country has to decide. Is that acceptable as a way for the president to behave, or is it simply something that the president is allowed to do in his discretion?
[12:00:03]
But I think -- the facts are so overwhelming at this point. When you combine all the witnesses together --
