Ukrainian diplomat in that country, then theyll also hear from george kent, a Career State Department official. And on friday, theyll hear from marie yovanovitch, and a senior aide telling me the story on wednesday will be about what has occurred over the last several months. Theyll be able to tell the American People exactly what events transpired. And on friday, of course, yovanovitch will be able to tell her story about being ousted from her post. Jim and poppy . Lauren, you have this request list for witnesses from the republicans. I have in front of me eight, at least, that they want to hear from, some of whom have already testified behind closed doors. Some not. You have people like nelly orr, hunter biden, devon archer, former board member of burisma. Inthought it was interesting, we heard patrick moloney, a democratic congressman on fox yesterday saying, we can see calling some of them, obviously, not people like hunter biden or nelly orr. Where does this thing go . Reporter democrats have been very clear, they are not going to be calling the whistleblower, which has been a key point that republicans and democrats have been fighting about. And you know, its very interesting, because lindsey graham, who is the Senate Judiciary committee chairman, he said, look, if you dont call the whistleblower as part of your impeachment inquiry, this whole thing will be dead on arrival once you send articles of impeachment over to the senate. But republicans and democrats, obviously, are going to continue to be fighting about that witness list. Republicans, of course, can continue to fight about this process, saying, it hasnt been fair, they havent been given the witnesses that democrats tried to promise them as part of that resolution. Of course, the chairman has the ultimate say in who can be called as part of this inquiry. Poppy . Lauren fox on the hill, we know youre going to be there on wednesday. Thanks very much. This weeks impeachment witnesses expected to testify about a campaign to pressure ukraine into investigating the bidens while withholding crucial military aid in their war against russia. And now an associate of the man implicated in that campaign, the president piece personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, is backing those witnesses up. Lev parnas, who is now under indictment, we should note, says that giuliani directed him to threaten ukraine, warning that if the investigation did not happen, the u. S. Would freeze that military aid. And in addition, Vice President mike pence would not attend the ukrainian president s inauguration. Giuliani strongly denied that report. There are some contradictions from parnas own business partner, but as we know, the aid was frozen and pence dipped stay home. Joining me now to talk about this, cnn legal analyst, michael gearhart, hes a law professor at the university of north carolina. Michael, always good to have you on. Lets talk for a moment about lev parnas. Questions, i imagine, about his character, his credibility, and that hes under indictment now for past business dealings. That said, oftentimes, in cases like this, do you have people flip in this way under legal pressure . Well, flip, sometimes. But in this case, at least what were hearing so far from this person is quite consistent with Everything Else that weve been hearing from every other witness whose testimony has been made public so far. There is a very consistent, even coherent story thats emerged about the president putting together a systemic effort to pressure the ukraine leader, to make a Public Statement about investigating the bidens. Right. And that is the core, of course, that this is what the democrats will attempt to do, is match up all of this witness testimony to paint a consistent picture here. Public hearings are a big step in this case. I ask you this when you appear. Based on what youve seen now, particularly the transcripts that have come out since we last spoke, do you see sufficient evidence here from a legal and political standpoint to move forward with an article of impeachment on abuse of power . Theres certainly evidence to support that the president has committed an Impeachable Offense. This may not be the only Impeachable Offense that the house is looking at right now, but for the president to put together this scheme, so to speak, to pressure the ukraine leader again to make a Public Statement, to open an investigation into the bidens, to help his reelection, is a classic Impeachable Offense. Hes used power that only he has to put together this effort and everything, again, that were hearing so far is consistent with that. Theres at least a strong case for the house to look into this. Theres certainly a credible case for the house to formulate an impeachment article based upon all of this. Legally, and some of this is about the language here. You have some democrats saying, now, lets forget this whole quid pro quo, the latin phrase meaning this for that, lets call it bribery. And bribery, as you know, is cited specifically as an example of a high crime and or misdemeanor that would justify impeachment. From a legal standpoint, holding back military aid in exchange for an investigation that would benefit you politically, does that fit the Legal Definition of bribery . It fits the constitutional definition of bribery. Its important to keep in mind that Impeachable Offenses do not have to be actual crimes or felonies. Every example that the framers gave in the Constitutional Convention was not something that was an actually felony or crime, it was an abuse of power or a breach of the public trust. In this circumstance, we can think of very common language to capture what the president is doing. We dont need to use criminal language or the language of a criminal statute to do that. So bribery, as understood as an illicit exchange that the president has arranged in order to use his power for something that will help him purposefully or illicitly to help his election, that fits the definition of an Impeachable Offense. It might be a phrase that folks at home are more likely to understand as well. Mick mulvaney, seen as a loyalist to the president on this case and other issues, hes taken an unexpected step of joining a lawsuit by charles cupperman, deputy to john bolton, other witnesses who it seems actually want to testify, want to get kind of a legal pass to testify here, a judge ruling on this. Mulvaney seen as not actually wanting to testify. Tell can you read this as a lawyer here to understand what mulvaney is up to here . I think what mulvaney is up to is trying to find a way to delay his testimony and maybe even to avoid it. So theres been a pattern of people seeking judicial involvement to rule on whether or not they need to comply with a subpoena. Its very obvious they need to comply with the subpoena as a legal matter, but theyre seeking the courts advice, so to speak, or the courts declaration. And i understand that as simply an effort to delay, which actually works in the president s favor. Michael gearhart, thanks very much. Poppy . Okay. Lets bring in National Security commentator, former House Intelligence Committee chairman, mike rogers. Thank you, chairman rogers, for being here. And just for a moment, thank you, its veterans day, you served in the army, thank you for that, for this country. Thanks very much to all those veterans out there, absolutely. The ultimate sacrifice, thank you very much. Lets begin with john bolton. You have the same legal argument from his lawyer that mulvaney is now signing on to. Were not going to decide, the courts decide whos right, the president or the house. But what john boltons lawyer did on friday in that letter saying, my client was in really important meetings and he knows things that have not been testified about yet and the way that he ends it, i think, is so striking, the letter. He says, quote, if the house chooses not to pursue through testimony the testimony of dr. Cupperman and ambassador bolton, let the record be clear, that is the houses decision. Does that make it a more difficult argument for democrats to move forward and try to wrap this thing up before the holidays without hearing from bolton . Well, and you know, im a traditionalist due process is a really important thing. Especially if youre going to undo the votes of 60 Million People across america. So i wouldnt put an artificial date of the holidays. If it takes a little longer, the judge has said that he would review that case. If i were with the democrats, theyve got other you know, they can continue to bring witnesses throughout this week and into next week. They have plenty to do. I would wait. I think that no stone should be unturned in this, this notion that were going to pile it all on and show you our side of the story and then were going to say, were going to impeach. I think its really dangerous, just because its so splitting to america. If you believe you have the evidence that you need to do it, then present it and let the republicans have their say, as well, just as we would in any other due process where the government makes allegations against you. I just think its really important to get that piece right. So to your point about being a traditionalist and giving things time and due process, lets talk about Mitch Mcconnell and if this goes to a trial in the senate, how he would or should handle that. There was Something Interesting that we heard from hugh hewitt over the weekend that struck me. Listen to this. I dont think the senate should take it up. I think they should reject the motion to proceed and never touch it. Otherwise, we will have this done again in secret hearings, ex parte contacts. Just a bad president. I should note that in september, on cnbc, Mitch Mcconnell himself said the senate would have to and would take up an impeachment trial, if you will. But then he said, quote, how long youre on it is a whole different matter. How should mcconnell handle this . Well, listen, i think what hugh hewitt was describing was this notion that there are all of these other meetings, theyre not giving access to the whistleblower, who by the way, the ig did determine that there was political bias, but he thought the facts of the case overweighed that. Thats great, except that you should give access to republican investigators to make that determination, as well. So all of those Little Things give the republicans an opportunity to say, this wasnt fair. It was absolutely a railroad, blah blah blah blah. And thats why i think, do it right q theyre not on the whistleblower point, the whistleblowers lawyer offered republicans to bypass democrats and directly submit written questions to his client and didnt take him up on that. I would have taken him up on that, but i also would have requested access. They need to have the investigator now, i dont think that they should disclose the whistleblower, but i think investigators should get access to the whistleblower because of all the other context that they have. Any investigator would like that option to say, i want to know what other things that maybe we didnt talk about, that didnt fit in that 8 1 2 x 11 piece of paper in his complaint. Theres other facts there and i would like to know what those are. Again, my whole point of this, poppy, is to say, if youre going to do this, then do it right. Allow all of that. If you think your case is strong enough, you dont have to exclude access to the whistleblower, you dont have to seclude republicans from certain depositions. You dont have to exclude their witness list. Just do it right, present your case, allow a defense, and then make your vote. Okay. But you know the opposition to having the whistleblower testify in public is to the whistleblowers safety, which is a major concern right now. You can respond to that in a moment, but listen to what republican congressman will hurd said he thinks may be a solution to that. Here he was yesterday. So if you want to protect the identity of the whistleblower, i think its important for chairman schiff to answer questions about his interaction with him. Solution . Listen, i think the solution is and i didnt say that the whistleblower should testify. I did say that the investigators should get access to the whistleblower, so they can do their own deposition of the whistleblower in the context of an ongoing impeachment hearing, if you will, inquiry, that the house is doing. I dont believe, yet, that that whistleblower should be forced to testify. I do believe that whistleblower this, to me, is the solution. Give them access to republican investigators or members so that they can have a full accounting of that application by the whistleblower. It doesnt mean that that whistleblowers identity should be disclosed. What they might find is theres material case that later, because it was so material to the defense, that would require that person to come testify. But, again, i think theres a way to do this, to keep the whistleblower safe, but there are lots of questions. And thats my point, poppy. Lets get those questions aired out there. If youre going to vote to impeach and the railroad is blowing its whistle and leaving the station, i think we all do that. But do it right so americans can make an honest assessment. What theyre doing is giving republicans and half the country that thinks this thing is a little fishy, youre feeding into that split america down two again. And i think thats really unhealthy. Youve got so many people that have testified, corroborating what the whistleblower wrote in their complaint. Were out of time. You know youll be back. Thank you for coming and thank you for your service. Thanks so much, poppy. Enjoy it. You got it. Jim . Still to come, former Vice President joe biden focusing on hi his own Health Care Plan as he gets ready to take questions from iowa voters during a live cnn town hall tonight. Will that message resonate with voters there . And the president is set to speak in just a few minutes right there. Beautiful morning here in new york and thats where the president will be for this 100th anniversary of veterans day parade and ceremony in new york. Well bring you his comments, live. When you shop with wayfair, you spend less and get way more. So you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. For small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. Shop everything home at wayfair. Com for all of the heroes who serve us, tmobile is here to help serve them. Thats why were offering 50 off family lines for military, veterans and first responders. So they can stay connected, on our newest, most powerful signal ever. And now, we are also offering half off our top samsung phones for military, veterans and first responders. Our service is just one way we say thank you. For theirs. Theres a company thats talked than me jd power. People 448,134 to be exact. They answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. And when they were done, chevy earned more j. D. Power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. So on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say thank you, real people. Youre welcome. Were gonna need a bigger room. Fun fact 1 in 4 of us millennials have debt we might die with. And most of that debt is actually from credit cards. Its just not right. But with sofi, you can get your credit cards right, by consolidating your Credit Card Debt into one monthly payment. You can get your Interest Rate right by locking in a fixed low rate today. And you can get your money right with sofi. Check your rate in two minutes or less. Get a nofee personal loan up to 100k. Aewith Medicare Advantage plans designed for the whole you. Get a nofee personal loan and monthly premiums starting at 0. Plus hospital, medical and Prescription Drug coverage in one simple plan. And Health Coaching and fitness memberships to help you age actively. So you can be ready for what matters most. Call today. Well send you a 10 visa reward card with no obligation to enroll. Medicare annual enrollment ends december 7th. Too many afterparties. New neutrogena® bright boost with dullnessfighting neoglucosamine. Boosts cell turnover by 10 times for instantly brighter skin. Bright boost neutrogena®. cause no matter how far away for you roam. Ys. When you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze. For the holidays you cant beat home sweet home. The United StatesPostal Service goes the extra mile to bring your holidays home. All right. Secretary of state mike pompeo backing up the president s argument that the administration was just trying to fight corruption in ukraine. This in an interview conducted just a short time ago. He says, quote, i was part of americas ukraine palace. We were very clear. He wanted to make sure that the corruption that has been existing in ukraine for an awfully long time was reduced and president zelensky had the capability to do that. Joining us now to discuss this and other things, daniel straus, politics reporter for politico and ab stoddard. Whats interesting about that line from pompeo, hes basically owning it, saying, we did do this, but its justified, because we were trying to fight corruption. So the new thing is, as dana bash said earlier, its okay, but. Everyone says, this is what happened, but were cool with it. The problem is, what they asked for was for president zelensky to do an interview on cnn with fareed zakaria, announcing an investigation. The announcement was more important than the investigation. Which meant that the purpose of it was to dirty up his potential rival, the democratic nominee, joe biden, the former Vice President. It was always about that. He is not in front of the cameras been able to name another case of corruption in the ukraine that they were concerned about, or any other country. But mike pompeo has been so deeply exposed by this entire scandal that he has to Start Talking more bluntly about it. He goes on to say, then the president wants to make