Two Prison Guards, who were on duty the night the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, took his own life have been charged with falsifying records. Plus, the anti Meth Campaign in south dakota that has raised a few eyebrows. Well explain why. Hello and welcome. Im Michelle Fleury in washington and Christian Fraser is in london. For the first time, we have heard publicly from two people who had direct knowledge of thatjuly 25th phone call between President Trump and the ukrainian president. The House Intelligence Committee has been hearing evidence from Lieutenant ColonelAlexander Vindman an army officer on the National Security council and Jennifer Williams, a veteran Foreign Service officer, in the Vice President s office. In his evidence, lt col vindman revealed that he had twice raised concerns about how senior officials had been handling ukraine. He took his concerns to the nsc lawyer, john eisenberg, once onjuly 10th and again onjuly 25th. He told the committee he was so alarmed by the phone call on the 25th that he reported it without hesitation. I was concerned by the call. What i heard was inappropriate. And i reported my concern to mr eisenberg. It is improperfor the president of the United States to demand a Foreign Government investigate a us citizen and a political opponent. It was also clear that if ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016 investigation, the bidens and burisma, it would be into the 2016 elections, the bidens and burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. The second witness, sitting next to lt col vindman, wasJennifer Williams, aid to mike pence. Ms williams who has served three administration, two of them republican, said she was surprised by the call on the 25th, because, in her view, it was more political in nature. During my closed door deposition, members of the committee asked about my personal views and whether i had any concerns about the july 25th call. As i testified then, i found the july 25th phone call unusual because in contrast to other president ial calls i had observed it involved discussion of what appear to be a domestic political matter. President trump dismissed todays hearings and the witnesses who came forward to testify. I dont know vindman, i never heard of him. I dont know any of these people. Mr trump has questioned the credibility of Jennifer Williams and Alexander Vindman. With me now is white house columnist at the hill, niall stanage. Thank at the hill, niall stanage. You so much forjoining the thank you so much forjoining us on the programme. We have heard from vindman saying it was unusual, inappropriate, those were the comments from him and williams. How much does this further the case and the facts as we knew them . It does turn up the heat more on President Trumpi turn up the heat more on President Trump i think. Principal because these are people who did hear the call directly. This is not hearsay evidence, this is people on the call. And they are talking about the fa ct call. And they are talking about the fact that the call was unusual, the request was unusual, and the suggestion of holding back was not supported by anyone in the National Security apparatus. This differs from last week where witnesses were providing context. What are we learning from the republicans . Because last week they were going after the process. What was the line of attack you . The line of attack was multifaceted but it was talking about the tenant colonel vindman, suggesting that sometimes it seemed like he had dual loyalty, that is a very controversial line of attack but for example they were raising a rather bizarre offer that he could become the Ukrainian Defence minister, that general attack seemed to be intended to undercut his credibility. To suggest that he was not a reliable witness. There was an interesting moment where the Ranking Member try to pressure vindman to reveal the identity of the whistle blower. Lets just watch that. Mr vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistle blower. Ranked member, its Lieutenant Colonel vindman, please. Lieutenant colonel vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know. Who the whistle blower was. Or is. I do not know who the whistle blower is, that is correct. A good moment that elicited some laughter in the room. Lets talk about why the republicans are so focused on knowing the identity of the whistle blower when they have to people sitting in front of them who had first hand experience of the fungal. Its a great question, i think the answer really is whomever the whistle blower is, they will try to impugn that persons motives to suggest they have a partisan motivation in making the allegations they have made. But your point is very well taken, the idea of impugning the whistle blower is made enormously more difficult when you have other witnesses in essence corroborating what the whistle blower has said. I dont see how that sort of casting aspersion really overcomes those obstacles for republicans. For that reason these are two important witnesses but they we re are two important witnesses but they were not the most charismatic. Some people have been saying on the sidelines in the last few days that the democrats really need best to keep hitting the richter scale. Do you think you did that today . |j dont you think you did that today . dont think it has done so far, i dont think it has done so far, i dont think it has done so far, i dont think there was one moment thatis dont think there was one moment that is going to explode on social media or carry things further than they have already in advanced. In saying that i think there is a sort of accretion of the weight of evidence and i think that is where the problem arises for President Trump. But will that change the existing partisan lines that we see . 0n existing partisan lines that we see . On this issue . I think that is question of. Good to see you, thank you for coming in and talking to us. Throughout these hearings, many republicans and the president himself have questioned the motivation of the witnesses, calling them never trumpers. For more on that, we are joined by nicholas burns, who served in the Us State Department and multiple diplomatic posts. He is also an adviser to former Vice President , joe biden. The republican line of attack involved quite a lot of innuendo, let me show viewers that was a treat that was put out biter as President Trumps supporters which they have used for fundraising purposes. That was the line of attack we had from the republican congressmanjim jordan in the committee room. What you make of that . I think its despicable. The republicans are not contesting the facts of what happened here. That President Trump tried to end effect extort the Ukrainian Government into investigating Vice President joe biden so what they are doing is trying to impugn the reputation of these stellar witnesses, career military and Foreign Service officers. And frankly this morning was a new low. That was actually a White House Press statement that came out this morning, challenging the integrity of Lieutenant Colonel vindman, exactly when he was testifying, i have never seen anything like that. An american government. Going back a0 years, i worked at the white house between 1990 and 95 and i can assure you that would never have happened under George Hw Bush or bill clinton or George Hw Bush or bill clinton or George W Bush or barack 0bama, it is happening under President Trump and you have to consider the moral depravity of the president , his son donald trump junior came out depravity of the president , his son donald trumpjunior came out and attacked little Lieutenant Colonel vindmans character this morning. This is all the republicans have, they dont have much of a case when it comes to impeachment and they will be in trouble. And yet, the problem we have at the moment is if you look at the impeachment enquiry, pulling scenes to suggest that those we re pulling scenes to suggest that those were supporters of donald trump sticking by him, those who wear critics want to see him impeached. Do you think anyones mind is likely to be changed by this process . The recent polls indicate some of them at least that 70 of americans think its wrong to ask a Foreign Government to investigate an american politician, a political rival of our leader. So i think that isa rival of our leader. So i think that is a challenge for the democrats, to get that point across. There is a long way to go here. The house has to decide whether or not they actually want to proceed with impeachment. They have not done that yet. And then of course there would bea yet. And then of course there would be a trial in the senate but frankly i think these members of congress have to do theirjobs. Its their job to decide whether or not the president used his office, that is the high bar for the president used his office, that is the high barfor the democrats, certainly. And i think for the republicans, i would certainly. And i think for the republicans, iwould really certainly. And i think for the republicans, i would really hope that some of them would search their conscience, and just try to judge this on its objective merits, and not blindly support a president who has been so weak in office and who has been so weak in office and who has done so many things that are suspect in office. Ambassador, i wa nt to suspect in office. Ambassador, i want to pick up on some of those thoughts you expressed. Let me play viewers are cut from last night, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Listen to this. Clearly, asking for personal favours and using United States assets as collateral is wrong. Theres just no two ways about it. So if you are seeking some kind of personal gain and youre using, whether it is American Foreign aid or american weapons or american influence, thats wrong. And i think everyone understands that. Everyone understands that. I suppose what this is showing Us Ambassador is that there is less defined within the white house, between the political hires and the professional class of officials who work for the bureaucracy and that has been there throughout President Trumps administration. I certainly respected former secretary Rex Tillerson for what he said so clearly. I think most americans would agree with him when the here that. For me, also i think one of the most powerful images of the last two weeks has been these career for Foreign Service officers and this morning Lieutenant Colonel vindman along with another former service officerJennifer Williams, the professional, not partisan, they are deeply intelligent, they are deep on the issues, and if you contrast them with some of the members of Congress Questioning them, the contrast is quite severe. Severely in favour of these career diplomats and Korean Military officers, it is such a blessing for the United States government that we have a nonpartisan civil service, they are not politicised. I think the American People are saying, maybe it has surprised some people but it is welcome nonetheless. Ambassador we have to leave it but thank you for joining us today. Right, lets move from one grilling to another. Tonight, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn will go head to head, in theirfirst general election tv debate. Its their first major clash of the campaign, ahead of the election on december 12th. The hour long debate is on itv. It will be in front of a live studio audience of about 200 people. The bbcs iain watson is in salford, in the so called spin room, where the teams of the two leaders will be Briefing Journalists and trying to convince them, when it is all over, that their man won the day. Absolutely right, without a doubt. They have started already. Some are already here, trying to make sure they get their guest in front of the camera immediately after. And to say their man has won. Irrespective of performance. Interestingly, in the performance. Interestingly, in the performance preparation, the first ofa performance preparation, the first of a clash between a Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition without it being diluted with other parties, people who could basically form a government after december the 12th, the date of the election, borisjohnson was at a boxing gym, underlining the fact he sees this as a very pugilistic encounter, perhaps trying to score points at the very least againstJeremy Corbyn. Jeremy corbyn more relaxed, apparently had a caesar salad, feet cups of tea and trimmed his beard. So we will have very different styles on show, different policies on show but also judging character. Thinking about who would make a good Prime Minister, given that neither of them had been elected for the job. Presumably, Jeremy Corbyn in some ways ca n presumably, Jeremy Corbyn in some ways can afford to look a bit more relaxed. Because borisjohnson arguably has more to lose as you say as the sort of sitting Prime Minister, up on the stage . as the sort of sitting Prime Minister, up on the stage . I think thats probably too. Certainly the conservatives are consistently ahead in the opinion polls and there are fewer expectations onJeremy Corbyn, in other words if you does better than expected, some people may see that as a victory. That said, Boris Johnson has the benefit of incumbency, he has the Prime Minister. You can also make announcements about what hes doing in office and what he intends do if continues in office, something which Jeremy Corbyn cannot do. He has to convince the that he could be fit to go to number ten. When it comes to the policy differences, Boris Johnson, surprise surprise, will be concentrating on getting brexit done. His slogan, even put on the side of a campaign bus. Jeremy corbyn, the onus on him, which is more difficult, to try to broaden the debate, get away from brexit, Start Talking about issues which could appeal to leave as well as remain voters. Talking about austerity, Public Service investment, the National Health service. We will see have successfully is in trying to get away from Boris Johnsons territory. I difficult task for borisjohnson but i would still say he stands with a slight advantage. Best of luck in the spin room this morning. So, how will the Party Leaders be preparing for the debate . Here to shed some light is guto harri, borisjohnsons director of communications when he was the mayor of london. Nice to see you. What goes through their mind on a night like this . Is it nerves . Is it more and more preparation . How does it work . There was a time when boris would rock up and win it and got away with it more often than he should but for tonight i think we can see both of them will have been prepared in great detail. Notjust on policy, the framing, killer punch as they want to land but also the tone. 0ften killer punch as they want to land but also the tone. Often not only when the camera is looking at you but when the other person is talking, the way you look at them can project an arrogance, contempt, smugness. All of those things will be battered out of them. Have been for days now. And yet, on the night itself, just not losing is not good enough. You also have to show that you are inspiring, you are a real character, you are warm, particularly someone like boris. People are watching even when youre not talking, i know what that is like. You said he wins it . He used to. He used to get frustrated when you prep them on something . There we re you prep them on something . There were occasions when he. Had not quite got as familiar as he should have with the policy was did not mention the punch line, why we were doing an interview, to ask something. Tonight is very clear, he wa nts something. Tonight i