Their firsthand accounts packed an emotional and factual punch adding to two weeks of public testimony indicates was an effort by the president to squeeze personal political favors out of a country at war and in dire need of american assistance. The question tonight given all the testimony and what all the facts before the House Intelligence Committee appear to establish, what happens next . How politically risky is it for democrats to move forward, and what does it say given all the evidence not one republican has so far moved . Well talk about all that in the hour ahead. But first some of the key moments from today and the last two weeks. The impeachment inquiry into donald j. Trump. Reporter on the first day of open hearings the top u. S. Diplomat of ukraine bill taylor told Committee Members of the discovery of the trump administrations unofficial policy in ukraine and the people who were running it. I encountered an irregular informal channel of u. S. Policymaking with respect to ukraine. Unaccountable to congress, a channel that included then special envoy kurt volker, u. S. Ambassador to the European UnionGordon Sondland, secretary of energy rick perry, white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, and as i subsequently learned mr. Giuliani. The odd push to make president zelensky publicly commit to investigations of burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official Foreign Policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by mr. Giuliani. Reporter he testified alongside Deputy Assistant secretary of state george kent who also found Rudy Giulianis actions in ukraine deeply troubling. What interests do you believe he was promoting, mr. Kent . I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. I agree with mr. Kent. Two days later former ambassador to ukraine Marie Yovanovitch sat down for questioning. Trump has publicly criticized yovanovitch whos a career diplomat who has served for more than 30 years. As she spoke he kept up his attack tweeting about her during the hearing. Ambassador yovanovitch, as we sit here testifying, the president is attacking you on twitter. I mean, i cant speak to what the president is trying to do, but i think the effect is to be ind intimidating. Democrats pounced saying his tweet aamounted to witness tampering yovanovitch testifying she felt threatened by what trump had said about her. What was your reaction when you heard the president of the United States refer to you as bad news . I couldnt believe it. Again, shocked, appalled, devastated that the president of the United States would talk about any ambassador like that. Reporter taylor, kent, yovanovitch set the tone for the inquiry, stark dramatic warnings from career apolitical officials. I will begin by swearing you in. Reporter then it was the turn of two people who heard directly from President Trump talking about investigations that he wanted during a july 25th phone call with the ukrainian president. Lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams an aid to Vice President mike pence listened in to that call. In that july 25th call between the president of the United States and ukraine, President Trump demanded a favor of president zelensky to conduct investigations that both of you acknowledge were for President Trumps political interests not the national interest. And in return for his promise of a much desired white house meeting for president zelensky. Colonel vindman, is that an accurate summary of the excerpts we just looked at . Yes. Ms. Williams . Yes. Reporter vindman was so concerned he went to the nse lawyers. It was inappropriate. It was improper for the president to request to demand an investigation into a political opponent. Raise your right hand. Reporter later that day former u. S. Envoy to ukraine kurt volker testified alongside former senior fse director tim morrison. Volker a witness the republicans had been counting on said he is now aware of a request for an investigation into the bidens, though he claims he didnt realize it at the time. In hindsight i now understand others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption of the Ukrainian Company in burisma as equivalent to investigating Vice President biden. I saw them as different. House democrats inched even closer to the president by next calling Gordon Sondland, the u. S. Ambassador to the European Union. Sondland is the only witness so far who spoke directly to President Trump about investigations. He previously said it was Crystal Clear no quid pro quos of any kind. But he then reversed his testimony, admitting in his Opening Statement it happened and it was not a secret. Was there a quid pro quo . The answer is yes. Reporter republicans jumped on sondland saying he was merely assuming a quid pro quo. Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything . No. Reporter dr. Fiona hill was next and expressed her frustration with sondland while she was working as the top russia expert at the white house. And i did say to him ambassador sondland, gordon, i think this is all going to blow up, and here we are. Reporter hill says she didnt realize at the time sondland was carrying out a very different mission than her own. He was being involved in a domestic political errand and we were being involved in a National Security policy and those two things had just diverged. Reporter next to hill david holmes from the u. S. Embassy in ukraine testified he overheard trump speaking to sondland by phone. Ambassador sondland replied, yes, he was in ukraine and went onto state president zelensky, quote, loves your ass. I then hurd President Trump ask so hes going to do the investigation, ambassador sondland replied hes going to do it adding president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. Reporter making him one more witness who heard the president himself asking about investigations. Five days of testimony, 12 witnesses, democrats ready to move forward. Republicans saying none of this shows evidence of a crime. Cnn, washington. Having set the stage lets talk about the drama. David gergen, lets start with you. Two weeks of the hearings. From the tone of chairman schiff tonight it sounds like he has more or less wrapped up his phase. Do you think the democrats made a solid case . I think they made a very solid case on the merits. On the question whether in fact there was a series of misdeeds on the part of the white house as cohorts i think it is compeing. I think they may not have judged properly how its going to play in the country. The early signs are the country is not paying attention. There were top ten surveys what the priorities ought to be, impeachment number ten. I think its been hard for the public to follow it. You have ten different characters who come on stage. None of them were known to the public before this had all happened. And trying to keep up whos who and, you know, theres no crinology, were not walking our way through the chronlogically, and i think its really hard for people to follow. I think a lot of people are emotionally exhausted. Thats not to say the democrats cant recoop. It is to say were still looking toward settling this at the ballot box november. Do you think thats the case . I think thats right. There are more phases to this and itll go over to the Judiciary Committee at some point. The things youre talking about in terms of whether the public understands this, whether or not a clear narrative was set forth, maybe thats something the house judiciary can get to. If theres no more depositions, apparently some transcripts will be released from some of the depositions that happened behind closed doors. Listen, i think the case had very compelling moments. The fact impeachment is number ten on this list you talk about, it almost suggests its not going to properly be a voting issue for these people. Maybe its under water in battleground states, maybe its split nationally, but its not clear who its going to be a voting issue for. If youre a democrat you like it and you think the president should be impeached. Its unclear where its going to fall if youre an independent, and its going to motivate somebody to change their vote either way. Thats a key thing that independents and actually in the markette poll as well democrats are clearly against impeachment. Thats the thing that should be concerning because youre right. We kind of know where democrats are going to end up and republicans are going to end up. But democrats need to be concern about what independents are doing and they do need to be concerned whats happening in battleground states. Theres at least one poll in wisconsin showing its not working to their advantage. I think we need to pull away from the politics. Although politics is important and lets not lose sight of right or wrong. I dont see any way any kind of fairminded neutral observer can possibly doubt donald trump was in fact guilty of trying to extort ukraine into helping him politically and withholding u. S. Aid to do that. There is no way to reach any other conclusion based on these hearings, because these witnesses were very clear, very consistent and their evidence corroborated each other and also corroborated the outside piece of evidence we have such as the rough transcript of the phone call between trump and zelensky on july 25. This is the very definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. And it is very frustrating me to hear even republicans like will hurd who i think are somewhat more fair minded than the jim jordans or devin nunes of the world this is improper or not impeachable. If this is not impeachable, what is impeachable . This is most impeachable conduct i think weve seen from a president of the United States, and we have to hold him account no matter when about the politics are. Thats been the refrain from most of the democrats since President Trump was elected and from a lot of people who dont support the president. Theyve wanted to impeach him from day one, and i actually think thats worked against the democrats about to change minds here. Even if you think everything is true and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there has been a lot of moments during this presidency where the republicans have seen it where the democrats cried wolf. And with an election looming therell be a lot of republicans like will hurd who say i dont love everything ive heard hear here, but i think the americans should get time to weigh in on this. I think the democrats succeeded in one thing, they scratched inch in their party that has existed since election night, but they did not succeed apparently in convincing one republican in the United States congress to see it their way. Do you think the facts are on the democrats side on this . I think they have laid out a case that shows bad judgment for sure. Certainly Rudy Giuliani in this wuss a dumb idea. Ive said this on your show many times. But i think along the way they have done things that have been hyperpartisan and caused republicans to question the process itself. So i think theyve made some interesting points. But i dont think they ever got to a place with any of these witnesses or any of these hearings where a republican would say you know what, ive heard enough and im coming to your side. Will hurds speech today i predict is what youre going to hear, varying degrees of discomfort, but nobody wants to throw a president out of office for the first time in American History over a process that will be totally onesided in terms of its partisanship at the end of its vote count. This is not a legal case. I guess the closest thing in the court system its akin to is a grand jury. How do you think the democrats did prosecuting their case in. I think they did a good job given the limitations they had. Remember the most important witnesses and virtually all of the relevant documents were blocked by the white house and administration from being released. But i think what they need to do now is what max was talking about, and this is part of the grand jury process where a prosecutor would make his or her arguments before they vote. And this is a chance they have to talk to the house before the vote. And thats where they can put it all together in a logical way and chronlogical order so its not piecemeal and people have to Pay Attention to all these different witnesses. They have a chance to put it out there in a way people can understand. And i dont know whether itll move the House Republicans or not, but that will be the opportunity to do that, to persuade them and the American Public. To that point were going oo look at the next chapter and to the potential final chapter, a senate trial. Joining us later one of the prospective jurors. Well be right back. These folks dont have time to go to the post office they use stamps. Com all the services of the post office only cheaper get a 4week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps. Com tv and never go to the post office again. Get a 4week trial plus in the last year, aof cybercrime every second. When a criminal has your personal information, they can do all sorts of things in your name. Criminals can use ransomware, spyware, or malware to gain access to information like your name, your birthday, and even your Social Security number. [announcer] thats why norton and lifelock are now part of one company, providing an all in one membership for your cyber safety that gives you identify theft protection, device security, a vpn for online privacy, and more. And if you have an Identity Theft problem, well work to fix it with our Million Dollar protection package. There are new Cyber Threats out there everyday, so protecting yourself isnt a one time job, its an ongoing need. Now is the time to make sure that you have the right plan in place. Dont wait. [announcer] norton 360 with lifelock. Use promo code get25 to save 25 off your first year and get a free shredder with annual membership. Call now to start your membership or visit lifelock. Com tv as we look ahead to house Judiciary Committee hearings we also want to look at what could come after that during a possible trial in the senate. Im joined by new jersey democratic senator john menendez. Looking at the last two weeks of hearings, how do you think it went for your democratic colleagues in the house . I think that chairman schiff outlined very clearly a series of witnesses including Many Republican witnesses, those who are working for the administration. An outline that is troublesome, that seems to appear to have created a real picture of an abuse of power by the president. And one that i think fiona hill, dr. Hill today made very clear whats the consequences to the average american. The consequences that we have a narrative that undermines our democracy, that invites a Foreign Government to get involved in our elections, and that creates a National Security threat because some of our colleagues and the president continue to put out a false narrative about ukraine when its really russia that we should be concerned about and russia that is still seeking to interfere as we approach next years president ial elections. Do you think House Democrats need to get some republican support before this goes to a full house vote . Well, you know, all i can say is listening to the information that has been brought forth at these hearings where the narrative is pretty wellestablished including with ambassador sondland and today ambassador hill and the political attache, the u. S. Political attache at the Ukrainian Embassy that overheard the conversation between ambassador sondland and the president , its pretty clear theres a direct line where the president abused his power, invited a Foreign Government to get involved in our elections and undermines the National Security of the United States. If that is not of concern to our republican colleagues, i dont know what will. And if you take the oath of office to up hold the constitution seriously then i think that some of them have a real cause to think about what vote their going to cast in this regard. Because its beyond a partisan issue. This is about the nations d democracy. Its about the nations security. And at the end of the day that oath of office is to the constitution, not to the president of the United States. Theres reporting tonight that the republican senators in talks with the white house about possibility of limiting the impeachment trial in the senate to two weeks. Is that something you would support . Is two weeks enough time in your opinion . Im not for the limitation of time. My only limitation of time is whatever it takes to present a full case to the senate for its consideration about guilt or innocence, and, you know, to my colleagues who are running for president , you know, im sure they would take equally as serious their oath of office, and that means being in the senate for whatever period of time is necessary to make a full and complete case of all