mick mulvaney and that's what we don't have. and i don't think there's any indication we're ever going to get that. >> well, i think right now probably we won't. but i think that's why it is so frustrating because the order went from mick mulvaney to the omb staff. mulvaney, obviously, has the hat of the omb director. so the order went there, but we don't know whether mulvaney decided to do that on his own or whether mulvaney talked to the president and the president directed him to do it. that's critical to this kind of case. yet the republicans are blocking us from knowing what's true and what is not true. one more thing, it's also very interesting that when they talk about getting the person to the microphone, and talking about biden and clinton, when they say the word clinton, that sends an obvious example, this is about politics, it's not about national security. >> so you don't have mulvaney saying i got the order. you have a transcript of the call where the president makes an explicit connection, does he not, and says you

mick mulvaney, ambassador somnolent -- gordon sondland, down to rudy giuliani. the president sought to expand his political ought the expense security.l he did that by pressing this vulnerable ally to get involved in the next presidential election in the way the president thought would advance his reelection prospects. more than that, it serves with conditioning the white house meeting as well as ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid needed by this ally. a couple points on the white house meeting and on the military aid. was a new and politically inexperienced president of ukraine with a lot of promise. theran a campaign based on conflict in ukraine with the russians but also fighting corruption. it was a euphoric time for ukrainians to have this reformer as their president. it was important that this tosident could demonstrate his countrymen and adversaries, that they have a strong relationship with the president of the united states. zelinski --thing said time after time, when will we schedule that meeting that you said we would get? time

it would be great to have mick mulvaney. >> he's been in the middle of this. he was putting a freeze on aid to ukraine. >>> this is "new day," with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> welcome to our viewers in the united states and all around the world. this is "new day." it's friday, november 8th. 6:00 here in new york. alisyn is away. bian bianna golodryga is here this morning. the michael bloomberg is preparing to join the democratic race for president. now in november. this after declining to jump in several months ago. cnn has learned he spoke with the dnc last night. so what moved the 77-year-old to reconsider? what does it say about joe biden and the current faeield of contenders? >> and what does the president think about this too? >>

the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and the white house counsel's office are at each other's throats. also this morning, we're getting our first look at new excerpts from a book by an anonymous trump administration official stating that the president will, quote, abuse any power he is given. cnn has obtained exclusive r excerpts and will bring you those in just a moment. all this comes as we're getting new details about how tomorrow's historic public impeachment hearings will unfold before our eyes. >>> the republican staff of three house panels involved in the impeachment inquirely has sent a memo detailing the defense they plan to use to make the case for president trump. suzanne mall s suzanne ma suzanne mall sow is live on capital hill. >> lawmakers making their way back to washington. republicans trying to get ahead of that public testimony releasing this 18-page memo. these are the four talking points they're going to use to defend the president saying the july 25th call shows no evidence of pressure, that presidents trump and zelensky have said there was no pressure on the cal

the president's acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney had the office of management and budget put a hold missiles because they were concerned that russia would react negatively to the provision of-and-a-half ly jave ukraine. all other parts of the u.s. government involved in the javelin deal supported it. we're learning christopher anderson, a career foreign officer testified the president's special envoy to ukraine believed rudy giuliani was an obstacle to improving relations and putting pressure on russia. there's a third testimony that we're seeing tonight for first time from top pentagon official laura cooper. the deputy assistant secretary of defense telling lawmakers about a meeting back in july where officials raised concerns about whether it was illegal for trump to withhold crucial military aid for ukraine in exchange for dirt on joe biden. cooper saying immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion. that's a quote from the testimony. what is president trump saying about the three transcripts. he tweeted that adam schiff is fabricat

missing link is mick mulvaney who be has not agreed to testify. waiting to hear if any of these officials can directly tie the president to this month-long abuse of power. >> thank you both very much. >>> big news today out of the roger stone trial. we are learning how the trump team reacted to the information on li wikileaks. a former aide, happiness. >>> and former president carter is recovering from brain surge what's ahead for president carter. >>> and nikki haley leaven no doubt about her loimt loyalty t president trump. her latest comments about his ability to tell the truth. >>> you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. we'll be right back. so skin looks like this and you feel like this. aveeno® skin relief. get skin healthy™ of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between word

after the president decides that he wants to freeze the aid to ukraine we see this effort by mick mulvaney, the white house chief of staff acting and the omb director to come up with a rationale for doing so. what's another interesting point in the story is that mulvaney starts checking in on this after the white house has been put on notice that the cia employee has filed a whistle-blower complaint. so it seems the timeline would suggest that mulvaney now understands that there's mounting pressure to come up with some kind of legal rationale for what the president did in freezing the aid. and remember too, this aid had been appropriated by congress and had already gone through some reviews to determine that ukraine had met all the conditions necessary for receiving it so when the president decides in july to put this freeze on, there's no clear, at least stated reason for the record, as to why he's doing it. that appears to be what's being described in those emails now. >> lis, how damaging could this be to the republicans in their case that president trump did nothing wrong? does it show

>> from mick mulvaney, no. i'd be very surprised. there are a number of extraordinary claims this administration is making, saying they have no reason to respond to a valid lawful congressional subpoena. that's mostly bravado. that's mostly frankly trash. but when it comes to the chief of staff and the president of the united states, there can be some claims of executive privilege that are sort of in a different category than the rest of the folks who are not responding to the subpoenas. so i'd be very surprised if they actually get mick mulvaney there. on the other hand, they may not need him do what he needs do. there's one school of thought that says they ought to issue a blanket contempt finding for anyone who doesn't answer subpoenas and just move forward because the reality is you don't necessarily need mr. mulvaney to clarify step by step exactly what happened. if you hear from all of the people around him who testify under oath, credit inably and factually with dates and times and nuances, that he who by the way as omb direct

i was talking to mick mulvaney, the chief of staff, about it. and he brought everyone into the alleged conspiracy about what they were doing leading up to that phone call. and i think he did a lot to damage his own credibility in the process. i think it seemed he was going out of his way to make it clear, that he could not rely on his own memory for a lot of the information, which made him a frustrating witness. but on the key points, he was pretty clear this was something that he believed everybody agreed upon. and it wasn't until later on that he realized that it was also -- that it also included the bidens, which is when he realized that allegedly, he realized this was something that would be inappropriate. >> elie, you're a former prosecutor. have you ever had someone on the stand admit so much in a short period of time. yes, it happened. yes, i was ordered to do it. yes, everyone knew about it. that seems like a lot. you can answer that question as a yes or no. >> no. not that much that quickly. that was condensed and concentrated. >> which

and someone who work closely with mick mulvaney. both of them defied congressional subpoenas and refused to appear for their scheduled depositions, as has been the case with other witnesses who have done the same thing. this will be further evidence of an effort by the administration to obstruct the lawful and constitutional duties of congress. i would also say and we expect the witnesses who have been subpoenaed to come in this no-shows,also to be this will only further add to the body of evidence on a potential obstruction of congress charge against the president. indeed, in the nixon impeachment, there was an article impeachment based on the obstruction of congress that itemized each of the subpoenas that the white house had defied. well, today we have four additional subpoenas to add to that list of a potential charge involving the president of the united states and his obstruction of our constitutional duties. these witnesses are significant and the white house understands their sick neck ends. based on -- their significance. b

and in mick mulvaney's case because he was in charge of the office of budget and management. he's knowing why the decision was made to withhold aid. he knows whether the president directed him to do that. and here is the important thing to understand about executive privilege, wolf. it doesn't cover illegal acts. so, yes, mick mulvaney doesn't need to tell us about his advice to president trump about russia or ukraine but he needs to expose if there was illegality and that is not covered by executive privilege. >> but you are not going to court to fight him because it will take too long, right? >> we're going to continue to fight it but not hold up the entire process to do that. and here is my view. i think we were -- will have the public hearings an the evidence will be overwhelming and we'll have a vote in the house and have a trial in the senate and then over the next few years more and more information is going to come out and people will going to realize how deep this went and how wrong it was and how much of nan bruce of the constitution it was. unfortunately we can't g

and it would be great to have mick mulvaney. he's been in the middle of this. he was putting a freeze on aid to ukraine. >> this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning and welcome to your "new day." friday, november 8th. 8:00 in the east. alisyn is away. bianna golodryga joins me. >> great to be with you. >> michael bloomberg, the multi, multibillionaire and former new york city mayor is preparing to enter the presidential race now, in november, less than 90 days before iowa votes. bloomberg will file paperwork today to get on the democratic primary ballot in alabama. why alabama has the first deadline where you have to sign up first. now bloomberg declined to jump in months ago. so what changed his mind here? "the new york times" reports that bloomberg sees weakness in the top tier of the democratic field and doesn't think that joe biden, elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are strong enough to defeat president trump. the 77-year-old has financial resources no other democrats, really almost no other humans on earth can match. he's a

i'm talking about mick mulvaney, one of the president's top aides. and to gord sondland as well, the u.s. ambassador for the european union. both testifying that sondland told ukrainian officials at a meeting at the white house -- this was on july 10th -- that they would have to open an investigation into biden in order to secure a meeting between president trump and ukraine's president. fiona hill telling investigators ambassador sondland, in front of the ukrainians as i came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with chief of staff mulvaney for a meeting with the ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. and vindman testifying there was, quote, no ambiguity what sondland was asking of the ukrainians on the 10th of july, it became completely apparent that what the deliverable would be in order to get a white house meeting. that deliverable was reinforced by the president. the demand was in order to get the white house meeting, they had to deliver on investigation. so here are a couple of things here, okay, to look at h

in these emails, mick mulvaney is asking, what temporary means legally. he wanted to know how long this temporary hold could actually last, also important to point out in this post reporting, two white house officials tell the washington post the president made the decision to withhold aid back in july, without an assessment of reasoning or legal justification, even if you step back from all of the controversy this led to, it's more evidence of the way this white house runs with the president making decisions based on his gut, not on actual legal reasoning, brooke? >> thank you so much with all the reporting. let's discuss what he just laid out with our legal experts. a former federal prosecutor and paul callan is a former prosecutor. first starting with the emails, how might this impact the impeachment inquiry going-forward? >> it all goes to the same conclusion that the democrats are likely to draw from this, there was bad behavior and a cover-up. and it's the acts of deception after the fact, the fact is, this was a reverse engineer, the democrats will

there are people who work with mick mulvaney, junior to him, that have not complied. >> that is right. it was surprising for them to even invite him. i took that as congressional democrats trying to create a paper trail that they have attempted to get all of these witness depositions, they that i have attempted to get everyone they think is close to the decision making process on ukraine knowing full well that mulvaney was unlikely to appear while he still has that job. >> let's talk about what we learned from the testimony of marie yovanovitch and michael mckinley. it seems everyone may have different opinions about what the president was up to but they have continued to cooperate on what he did. >> yeah, they are secondary figures. it introduces us to the things they were doing behind the in ukraine. te was before we became aware of the phone call, we saw rudy and the other associates handy work here. they were back channelling to try to push her out and so far. republicans have been dismissing that says she is an obama holdover. >> i apologize, but you proved how valuable you are a

the implication is that bolton has, he and mick mulvaney, all roads seem to be leading more to mick mulvaney, the thing with mick, he seems loyal and agrees with the president and bolton had policy differences, whether it is troops to venezuela or iran or series of policy differences. i read the letter several times. you can say one, this is a brushback to the white house and say look, i know a lot. it is another way to look at it though and say, he's saying because he knows so much, therefore executive privilege should be clearly attach to him. and i can't divine the intent of his attorneys or bolton from that letter. you can take it both ways. bottom line, he knows a lot. >> hans nichols, thank you very much. always a pleasure. >>> still more on the news concerning the longest held hostage in american history, robert levinson vanished from an iranian island more than 12 years ago. we will go live to tehran. ill g. do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stor

there was a debate involving mick mulvaney, about whether the delay was legal. it's not clear if these records pose legal problems for trump but they could be embarrassing. let's get more from jeremy diamond at the white house. >> reporter: the white house has been conducting an internal review of president trump's decision last summer to withhold nearly $400 million in security aid to ukraine. according to "the washington post," that review is turning up hundreds of documents to suggest that white house officials and officials in the office of management and budget, were trying to draw up a legal justification for that move after the fact. this was another instance of a scramble by officials to catch up with another one of president trump's decisions. the office of management and budget, though, is denying that anything improper took place. here's a statement from a spokeswoman for the office of management and budget, rachel semmel. she said, to be clear, there was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld in order to conduct t

. >> i think it is significant, jamie, that the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, who is refusing to testify before these committees as so many others including secretary pompeo refusing to testify, his name repeatedly came up during the hearing today, listen to this exchange. >> you've testified that mulvaney was aware of this quid pro quo, of this condition that the ukrainians had to meet that is announcing the public investigations to get the white house meeting, is that right? >> yeah, a lot of people were aware of it. and -- >> including mr. mulvaney? >> correct. >> and including the secretary of state? >> correct. >> now, have you seen the acting chief of staff press conference in which he acknowledged that the military aid was withheld in part because of a desire to get that 2016 investigation you've talked about? >> i don't think i saw it live. i saw it later, yeah. >> so you saw him acknowledge publicly what you have confirmed, too, that mr. mulvaney understood that two plus two equals four, is that right? >> well, again, i didn't know that the aid was conclus

so let's start with the first one on mick mulvaney's role. what are we learning about on that front? >> this is significant, because the new line of defense from trump allies is that while maybe there was a quid pro quo and we now have six witnesses testifying to that effect, that it didn't necessarily connect itself to the president, because he hasn't been involved in those discussions, according to the witnesses that we've seen. we saw gordon sondland in his clarified testimony saying he communicated that quid pro quo to ukrainian officials, not because he had heard it from the president, but because he had presumed it was the only credible explanation for the military aid being withheld. so the fact that alexander vindman and fiona hill now connect this to mick mulvaney, who is the president's top aid brings this one step closer to the president and makes it a little more difficult to argue that this wasn't the president's will. >> i want to talk a little bit about the, the republicans and how they're going to try to link mulvaney's role t

mulvaney and many others testify about the phony impeachment hoax. it is a democrat scam that is going nowhere but, future presidents should in no way be compromised. what has happened to me should never happen to another president!"

acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney caught in di dicey e-mail exchanges. the washington post broke that story about the white house lawyers review the events after the center of the

both of them have said they don't want mick mulvaney in this lawsuit. so that's a pretty interesting development. >> so will mulvaney be filing his own separate lawsuit? >> well, he may still be allowed to join. that's just the view of those two different entities. kupperman's argument about why mulvaney shouldn't be joining the suit is that, first, you know, kupperman and bolton are both former officials. mulvaney is the current acting chief of staff and head of omb. he says, for example, those other officials are national security officials. he doesn't really, you know, handle national security matters as much as the chief of staff. and you know, he is the subject of a more recent subpoena where as the one to kupperman has been officially dropped. so, they're saying, why don't you file your own lawsuit, mr. mulvaney, although they say it would be okay with them to keep it in front of judge leon who is the bush appointee, george w. bush appointee assigned to the kupperman suit at the moment. so we'll see how all this works out at 5:00 p.m. this afterno

mick mulvaney, mr. president? >> i do. >> president trump gave an an ag thumbs-up t to to rudy giuliani. according to "the wall street journal," federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas that suggest the investigation into lev parnas goes beyond campaign finance violation to possible money laundering and obstruction of justice. and that prosecutors may be looking closely at the work of giuliani himself. >> the strongest mayor, the best mayor. rudy is a great crime fighter. i think that may be the press isn't treating rudy very well and i think that's unfair. >> and congress returns from the thanksgiving break, the ranking member of the house intelligence committee plans to sue cnn and "the daily beast" for reporting that he was working with ukrainian officials who try to dig up dirt on joe biden. congressman devin nunes tells fox news it's the fake news story of the century and he is saying he will file two lawsuits likely in federal court. >> to go back to where we started, federal district judge rulin

acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney caught in di dicey e-mail exchanges. the washington post broke that story about the white house lawyers review the events after the center of the impeachment inquiry and they report quote, the research includes early august e-mail exchanges between acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney and white house budge et cetera officials for withholding the funds after the president ordered a hold in mid-july on the merely $400 million in security assistance. brand new e-mails thrust mike pompeo ever closer to rudy giuliani. giuliani is known to burnto und investigation by the south korean district of new york. from the new york time, quote, the e-mails kaindicate that mr. pompeo spoke twice by telephone with mr. giuliani in march as mr. giuliani was urging ukraine to investigate mr. trump's rivals and trying to oust a respected american ambassador to ukraine who had been promotie i anti-corruption efforts. mr. pompeo ordered her removal the next month. one call between giuliani and pompeo was arranged with guidance from mr. trump's

the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney has defied a subpoena ordering him to testify at the impeachment inquiry the committee wanted more of a need to explain why millions of dollars of aid to ukraine was blocked in august. so brazil's top court has overturned a law requiring convicted criminals to go to jail after losing their 1st appeal the court decided that a person can only be jailed after all of their appeals have been exhausted the ruling means. former president louise and the silver and thousands of prisoners could be released lower since a prison in april last year is part of a corruption investigation his attorney is demanding his immediate release there is a boat has more from one of neighboring origins you know. just a while ago his lawyers entered the prison in order to talk to him and see what he wants and what they're saying is that they will request he immediately we know that he's also requesting the whole case against him to be to be canceled and that's one has been a very very strong request because he's been maintaining of these he's being politically

mick mulvaney subpoenaed to appear at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. but will he? that's a question for michael gearhart, james harris, next. these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again! >>> we have some breaking news on the impeachment investigation. subpoena for a top white house official. a top white house official. i want to bring in cnn's legal analyst michael gearhart and shane harris from "the washington post." gentlemen, good evening. thank you very much. the breaking news, shane, the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney, has been subpoenaed in the impeachment inquiry. the question is will he show up tomorrow morning. the white house says he won't. so what happens? >> well, you're ri

so the outspoken the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney has been asked to testify but how likely is that kimberly. it's pretty unlikely and we've got a window into why the white house thinks he should be there according to the deputy press secretary who can get laid this is a ridiculous partisan an illegitimate process so bad is why the president has advised mick mulvaney not to appear before this hearing so we expect that he is going to be a no show but as you point out he is scheduled and why have the democrats and democratic investigators are so interested in mick mulvaney is because of a press conference that he gave on october 17th last month he was asked directly by reporters if there was a quid pro quo if in fact he was one of the people inside the white house withholding military aid to ukraine in exchange for the president getting a promise from the ukrainian president to investigate his political rival former vice president joe biden and it was at that time that mick mulvaney answered we do it all the time get over it well he since walked back that statement but it was tel

the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney has defied a subpoena ordering him to testify at the impeachment inquiry the committee wanted mowbray need to explain why millions of dollars of aid to ukraine was blocked in august. brazil's top court has overturned a law requiring convicted criminals to go to jail after losing their 1st appeal court decided that a person can only be jailed after all of their appeals have been exhausted so the ruling means that former president who is in austria lula da silva and thousands of prisoners could be released who that was sent to prison in april last year as part of a corruption investigation as attorneys demanding his immediate release and lawyers representing the disco are demanding his release as well. we are asking for the release order to be published immediately because there's no judicial reason to keep x. president lula in prison for even an hour that reason never existed and now after yesterday's verdict from the supreme court nothing exists that could keep him in prison. to risible has more from one a series in neighboring arge

two witnesses pointing finger at mick mulvaney, chief of staff. a witness with first hand knowledge in the infamous phone call. the army officer alexander vindman at the white house who was a staffer and has a purple heart. he is testifying that the entire plan was to dangle the trump-zelensky meeting as a way to get them to do the political investigations into biden and cooked up by mulvaney. there was a conversation with mulvaney and this is what was required in order to get a meeting. they had to deliver an investigation. vindman saying the bribery was explic explicit. no ambiguity. according to other testimony released today from fiona hill, mulvaney also was all up in the negotiations. sondland saying he was meeting with mulvaney and they already had an arrangement for the big meeting to be worked out with, guess who, mulvaney. hill says she was shocked by all of this and the bribery was blatant adding that seeing the president undermine national security was basically fulfilling some of her worst fears and nightmares. mick mulvaney who is th

your reaction to the latest report from "the washington post" showing that officials from the omb and mick mulvaney were trying to justify withholding that aid. >> well, it's more corroboration of what the hearings i think clearly established, president trump used the -- he dangled the white house meeting and withheld the aid in order to get ukraine to agree to do his dirty work on vice president biden. and everything that we've seen just corroborates what the president said in his phone call, and now it appears there's a paper trail that shows the machinations that the white house went through to try to keep that congressionally authorized aid, bipartisan vote, strong bipartisan vote, to keep that at bay so ukraine didn't get it until the president got what he wanted. >> and adam schiff over the weekend seemed to suggest that we won't be hearing from any more witnesses. does this new report give that a

there's evidence president trump told mick mulvaney to -- as mick mulvaney called it the extortion scheme. there's evidence from ambassador sondland the president said everything is on the line not just the white house meeting but security assistance. and there's evidence the president told ambassador sondland and volker, rudy giuliani is our person. so anything rudy does yosh you can attribute to the president. >> yes or no, do you think your republican colleagues as well as your democratic colleagues understand if you let this go as business as usual, this is the way presidents are allowed to play their games, do they understand they're projecting that value in the endless future? the two or three presidents from now can cite this precedent and say they say it was okay back in 2019, i guess it's okay now. do they see the projecting powers into the future of this bad behavior, republicans especially? >> our job is to make them see that, chris, because if we accept this as normal presidential behavior, there's no going back. >> in an interview this morning on the "today" show, a great int

there was a debate involving mick mulvaney, about whether the delay was legal. it's not clear if these records pose legal problems for trump but they could be embarrassing. let's get more from jeremy diamond at the white house. >> reporter: good morning. the white house has been conducting an internal review of president trump's decision last summer to withhold nearly $400 million in security aid to ukraine. according to "the washington post," that review is turning up hundreds of documents to suggest that white house officials and officials in the management and budget, were trying to draw up a legal justification for that move after the facts. this was another instance of a scramble by officials to catch up with another one of president trump's decisions. the office of management and budget, though, is denying that anything improper took place. here's a statement from a spokeswoman for the office of management and budget, rachel semmel. she said, to be clear, there was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld in order to cond

"the washington post" also has an early august exchange between mick mulvaney and the acting head of the office of management and budget, russ vogt, in which mulvaney asks for an update on the justification. two administration officials say that doesn't mean that mulvaney was seeking to change that justification or that one wasn't already in place.

so does mick mulvaney, so does don mcgahn there are so many key people we did not hear from. i think he probably hasio inform he is teasing us a bit. he wan to sell a book or get the information out there. remember, they did not part on good terms here, john bolton and donald trump, and they had a feud back-and-forth on who got fired or whether he resigned.it he is puttinut there like i have some information. i think the democrats will move on ahead. they don't want to wait, they want to get this done by ngristmas time, and so they can't be waior these other people to come forward. nada: anita kumar, thank you very much. anita: sure, thanks. nada: well, from u.s. politics to u.k. politics, and the upcoming election took center stage night. with less than three weeks to go until vo the leaders of the four biggest parties appeared on the bbc to answer voters' questions. john pienaar sent this report. he is looking confident it is what he does, but the campaign is getting gog. just look at jeremy yn. young voters often like him, and he needs them. tonight, though, he wants to re

blair well as from the office of management and budget and someone working close with mick mulvaney. >> they both refused to appear. this adds to the potential obstruction of congress charge against the president. in the nixon impeachment, there was an article of impeachment based on the obstruction of congress that itemized each of the subpoenas that the white house had defied. today we have four additional ofpoenas to add to the list the potential charge involving the president of the united states and his obstruction of our constitutional duties. these misses are significant in the white house understands this -- and the white house understands this. witnesses arehese those that were in the law office of the national security council and those who work for mulvaney, either in the chief of staff's office or the office of management and budget, our first-hand witnesses to of serious misconduct, vis-a-vis military aid and the effort to use that as a lover to do ukraine to do these political investigations to help the reelection campaign but also in efforts to potentially hide the evi

mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, a couple deputies who were involved in the decision to withhold the aid, a hundred million dollars of military assistance to ukraine being held up. but if you go to the next phase, if there is compelling testimony first from the documents and then of witnesses, it makes it harder to say no, doesn't it, we won't let you see the documents of these witnesses? >> the people who have come guard so far have put forward damaging information, negative information, that has not been countered by anyone in the administration that's testifying. so the strategy the white house is pursuing is sort of questionable because they could put people out there like mick mulvaney who may try to put some sort of spin on it even though he would be under oath. he could try putting it in the right context according to the white house that might make the president look better, but they decided to block all these loyalists from testifying and people who are maybe less loyal or less mired in the president's own political apparatus, those people are willing to testify and they

two key figures in the impeachment inquiry unfolding with the hearings getting underway because of mick mulvaney role in a lot of this as the officials have testified and of course pat cipollone is leading everything behind the scenes with jared kushner and so keep an eye on that as you watch the president's reactions tomorrow and those are going on as he's welcoming a foreign leader the tush turkish president to the white house. >> kaitlan collins traveling with the president, thank you so much. >>> so let's talk about the big

we have asked other individuals like the acting director mick mulvaney as well as others around the white house. we have seen issues that are pertinent to this testimony today who have refused to come in. it is with gratitude that we want to thank him for coming in today and providing useful testimony. always, when witnesses come and we learn more and today we learned more because he honored his duty to cooperate in our investigation. >> [indiscernible] mr. sandy's testimony relates that the administration placed on security assistance to ukraine. i will not go into what he testified to. this investigation is most importantly about $391 million in taxpayer money that was leveraged to ask the ukraine's to look into the president's political opponent. this was authorized by congress, signed into law by the president by wheny day that went that money was not given to the ukrainians, the ukrainians were dying. by when [indiscernible] >> the question is whether he was reluctant. i will say he cooperated and answered all of our questions. we learn more about this investigation and as a former p

mulvaney when he was talking than drug deal. the question that i have is how are they going to get him up there and what venue. you know, his attorney is also the attorney representing somebody else who wants it to go

they are requesting that acting chief of staff mick mulvaney give a deposition. remember, mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo over ukraine aid, and he told the white house press corps, quote, get over it. the testimony we're expecting today is from kurt volker. he was president trump's special envoy to ukraine, but he resigned one day after the release of the whistleblower report. he was mentioned in the report. volker revealing the existence of text messages that talked about quid pro quo and withholding military aid to ukraine withholding opponent investigations. gordon sondland was one of the men leading diplomatic efforts there, and he testified that the president told him to involve rudy giuliani and that giuliani's efforts in ukraine had secretary of state's mike pompeo's blessing. manu raju, tell us what you're hearing and what you're hearing about mick mulvaney. >> democrats want to hear from mick mulvaney and his role in about $14 million in military aid, as well as discussions he heard in that july phone call between president trump and president zelens

mulvaney came along. >> and four white house officials refused to show up. two national security council

sunlen, in the letter request mick mulvaney's testimony, the democratic chairman write the evidence and public reporting suggest you played a central role in president trump's attempt to coerce ukraine into launching his desired political investigations. they go on to describe his briefing at the white house last month as a, quoting televised confession. but most white house officials have been refusing to go to these depositions even if subpoenaed and this isn't a subpoena. >> exactly. and it goes to -- to see whether they take that additional step to compel him to testify but even if he does, you could turn this to the courts which is what is going on with current subpoenas and with the courts sometimes the democrats do win the legal battle but what is working against them is time and i think considering that the various west wing advisers who have -- or administration officials who have declined to appear before congress so far, i would not -- be extremely surprised if mick mulvaney came along. >> and four white house officials refused to show up. two national security council lawyer

something we should note, mick mulvaney wasn't on the call. she was on in addition to mike pence the chief security adviser not called to testify and she's more likely to go than a political appointee. that's notable. so far a lot of questions what the vice president knew and that role part of this scandal and so far the vice president in the most recent interview done with cbs refused to answer several questions about what he knew about these conditions, this deal that the president wanted the ukrainians to move on before he released ta aid. that's something we could find out as soon as thursday. jennifer williams is a potential possible witness that people need to keep their eye on. >> we will. thank you very much. also keeping in mind this inquiry began after that whistle-blower complaint that the president and his allies escalated demands that that individual be unmasked despite a right to an minute anonymity ul law. and joining the call for the whistle-blower's name to be released. >> the whistle-blower needs to come before congress as a

we got jeff sessions, we got news on mick mulvaney, so i've got to run. thank you, sir, see you soon. >>> this is "cnn tonight," i'm don lemon. the impeachment inquiry barrelling ahead, house democrats doing everything they can to fast track and pointing to the very real possibility that the president could be impeached by christmas. that was news on 2020, okay? a new candidate is preparing to jump into the crowded field of 2020 democrats. we just talked about it. the real billionaire, former new york city mayor michael bloomberg preparing for a potential run. a trump campaign source telling cnn that bloomberg entering the race could pose a threat to trump, not likely to be happy that there's another billionaire, a real billionaire, on the scene. and more closed door testimony released today, this time it's from a top state department official, his name is george kent. he's telling congress about what he calls rudy giuliani's campaign of lies against former ambassador marie yovanovitch, trying to smear her as disloyal to president trump. and i quote here,

the documents include e-mails to and from the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and his deputy office of management and budget chief ross fot. alex thomas of politico joins the conversation. the e-mails which the counsel's office dug up, once the impeachment area was launched, let's find out what happened here, for now, the white house says not sharing. >> skpand that's been part of t issue with the impeachment investigation to begin with, the documents that the democrats have subpoenaed, have been demanding have not been turned over to capitol hill, and those documents that would be part of the review ordinarily presumably would if they were to comply with the subpoena. that's why there are still some questions about exactly what happened with the freezing of the aid. we do know from all the witness testimony that there was a conference call that happened in mid july in which omb officials told senior officials in the government that they were putting a hold on the aid and it came as a direction from the president to mick mulvaney, but there was no clear explanation as

what was mick mulvaney trying to get at and what's the impact on the impeachment inquiry now? remember, this is what mick mulvaney told reporters from the white house just last month. >> i have news for everybody. get over it. elections do have consequences and they should, and your foreign policy is going to change. >> let's start there. cnn's sara westwood is at the white house with much more. what is the white house saying about this new reporting coming out now? >> reporter: kate, the white house, so far, is staying quiet. budget office spokesman said there's been a legal consensus at every step of the process with regard to ukrainian aid. that's not what this internal review shows. this internal review led by white house counsel's office shows in early august there was a retroactive search, led by acting chief of staff mick mulvaney to find an explanation for why that aid was suspended. keep in mind the hold, cnn has reported, was placed on that nearly $400 million of support for ukraine in mid-july, about a week before the president had that now infamous phone call with

and if the democrats think they have the sound bites they need without john bolton and mick mulvaney, they'll do that. the republicans obviously think they have some of the sound bites that they need. and so i think part of the motivation on everybody's side to move this more quickly is to get past this and to the sort of appeals court, which is the american public. >> and to back up the point, as the hearings wound down, everyone is watching the retiring house republicans to see will two break, three break. one on the committee is will herd of texas who is not a fan of the president when it comes to immigration and not a fan of the constant attacks on the intelligence community. but at the end of the hearing he said this is bungle, this is a mess, i don't see a case to impeach. >> the american people have learned about a series of events that in my view have undermined our national security and undercut ukraine. an impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous, and it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. i've not heard evidence proving the p

mick mulvaney admitted that there was a quid pro quo, which is not even necessary. he admitted what we're all saying the behavior was and the behavior is not that indicative of the president of the united states. is that worthy of impeachment? each sitting member will have to decide, but democrats have to continue to build a case. >> i completely agree and tomorrow there will be a district court decision on this very issue, does the president have absolute immunity to prevent his witnesses, his staff from testifying. if that court rules in favor of congress, there is no reason why we shouldn't subpoena mulvaney, subpoena pompeo, subpoena rudy giuliani, subpoena those who have knowledge -- >> well, rudy -- >> he's going to take the fifth, i know! >> but let me ask you a question. because what i'm hearing from democrats here on the panel is that democrats in the house need to make their case a little bit more. and it sounds like what i'm hearing from republicans is that republicans on capitol hill need to acknowledge this is not acceptabl acceptable. you agree with th

learn in the testimony that it was mick mulvaney that was driving the decision, pushing the decision to suspend the aid, and everybody who saw it happen will tell you we had no idea where it was coming from and it was unanimously opposed. it would be good to have mulvaney explain to us his conversations with the president, but remember, chuck, his conversations with the president, unlike all the other claims of privilege, that is actually probably covered by executive privilege. but the american people are going to need to decide, did mick mulvaney go home and think this up, what the heck, i'm going to suspend $400 million in military aid to ukraine, or did he perhaps get some kind of suggestion or order from the president of the united states? >> is there at all a distinction since he is still a confirmed head of a cabinet level agency, office of management and budget, does that at all impact his claims of executive privilege? >> well, that's a good question. i can tell you for certain that the white house would say that the conversations that mick mulvaney as chief of staff would h

. >>> mick mulvaney refused to testify with the committee. here is michael d'antoni. good evening, to both of you. >> absolutely immunity is what they are asserting. is that a real thing? >> no, they are made-up things. coming out of the nixon's impeachment, people had to testify. tom foreman ran a show how much evidence there are. mulvaney clearly is a participant in this. so maybe instead of the insanity defense, maybe it ought to be the fifth amendment. >> you said this absolutely immunity, you said it is a made-up thing. is it a bigger or better defense than executive privilege? a lot of people have been claiming it is executive privilege. >> i think they're trying to say it is all the same thing. >> yeah. >> michael, there is rudy giuliani today. let me read this. the lunatic dem. >> there we go, off to a great start from rudy giuliani. >> the lunatic dems now say defending potus is a personal not national interest. they ignore that defending a potus against false charges is in the nation's best interest. >> is that what he's saying although he's not appointed or