They would have liked to have us sent it over on Christmas Eve eve so they could dismiss it. Perhaps they dont realize a dismissal is coverup, but that has been one of their chains of thought. Dismissal is coverup. I was so dispointed the other day, friday, thursday, when the leader of the United States senate, rather than strengthening the institution in which he served, became subservient and said and signed onto a resolution that would dismiss charges, dismiss, dismissal is coverup. In the course of the time since we passed the resolution, and not because of the time, we passed it on december 18th, on december 20th, new emails show 91 minutes after trumps phone call with the ukrainian president the top office of management and budget aid asked the department of defense to hold off sending military aid to ukraine. On december 29th, revelations emerged the omb director and acting chief of staff delayed aid and lawyers of the administration to justify the delay. And the alarm, most importantly the alarm in the administration, that that delay caused. Within the administration. January 2nd, unredacted pentagon emails the house and the pentagon blocked raised questions about the legality on the president s hold on the aid to ukraine. January 6th, former National Security advisor, john bolton said he would comply with a subpoena of his testimony and his lawyers saying he had new relevant information. On january 13th, the russian government hacked the Ukrainian Gas Company burisma about the influence of testimony for trump. Mr. Nadler, mr. Schiff and angle and congresswoman maloney produced new evidence to a house subpoena of parnas, and showing the president was a central player for a scheme in his own benefit of the 2020 election. The Senate Leader and president are afraid of more facts coming to light. That is why the leaders signed on that dismissal resolution. A dismiss taal is a coverup. They will understand the trial without witnesses and documents is a pure political coverup. Whatever the outcome we want a fair trial. The constitution require as trial, fair trial. The American People let me just make this briefer. The house is now moving forward the vote to transmit the articles and appoint managers. As speaker, i am proud to appoint outstanding american patriots to serve in the impeachment panel. Chairman schiff, chairman nadler, chair woman zoe lofgren, this is her third impeachment as a staff to a House Judiciary Committee member, in the nixon impeachment, as a member of the Judiciary Committee on the clinton and now as a house messager. Madam chair, hakeem jeffries, a serious respected litigator. Val demings, member of the police force of orlando for 27 years and for part of that time, the first woman and africanamerican police chief of orlando. She knows her way around the courtroom. Jason crowe from colorado, an army ranger, served our country in the military and iraq and afghanistan, and now in the congress of the United States, and he, too, a respected litigator. And Sylvia Garcia of texas, a judge in a number of capacities in texas and member of the Judiciary Committee. Were very honored that you have taken the responsibility, all of you, to bring the articles of impeachment over to the United States senate, with a case for the constitution, a case for the constitution. So back to the children. Back to the children. We dont want this president or any president to ever violate the constitution. It is very very important that we see that that constitution is central to who we are as a country. Our system of government, our system of government, our constitution, so valued, so respected, hopefully so honored by everyone who takes an oath of office to support and defend it. We see the russians now hacking in ukraine, just came out yesterday, the day before, it just reminds me most americans would think that voters in america should decide who our president is, not vladamir putin in russia deciding who our president is. Im very concerned that in all of this, whether withholding funds for ukranians, the Ukrainian Government to fight the russians, whether undermining our commitment to nato, whether its again making decisions of what happens in syria, visavis turkey, favoring the russians, that all roads lead to russia, all roads lead to putin. While some in the Administration May think thats okay, i dont. But we do insist and wonder why this president and some in this congress will not come to the defense of our electoral system. By allowing that to happen, denying that its happening, placing the blame elsewhere, this as serious as it gets for any of us. Only the vote to declare war would be something more serious than this. We take it very seriously. Its not personal, its not political, its not partisan, its patriotic. Again, i thank our distinguished managers for their courage, their dedication, for being willing to spend the time to do the job, to honor the oath that we take. And honor the pledge that our children take. Allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands. With that, i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. Our time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the previous question is ordered. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted. Gentleman from georgia. Does the gentleman ask for ayes and nays . They are requested. Those favoring a vote will rise. A sufficient number of them are ordered. Members will record their votes by Electronic Device and pursuant by clause 9 and rule 20, this 15 minute rule on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a five minute vote agreeing to the speakers approval of the journal, if ordered. This will be a 15 minute vote. I am brianna keeler, youre watching history being made, putting the final touches on the impeachment process. This is the vote on house impeachment messagers, these were chosen by House Speaker, nancy pelosi, to prosecute the case in the senate and these managers will lay out the resolution against the president on abuse of power and his own political benefit and obstruction of congress. Then, they will be formally handcarried to the senate later today. Then, up to the senate to act to put the rules in place, take the oath and we in america are off and running with just the third ever president ial impeachment trial we have had. Our reporter is on capitol hill and the day is finally here. Reporter no question about it. The ceremonial steps set to take place today after the vote will happen. It will be on party lines and see if any democrats ultimately defect. We did see during the impeachment itself, two democrats vote against the abuse of power impeachment of power and one democrat has become a republican and we saw three vote against obstruction of congress including from maine. And we will see if any vote against this procedural vote. It comes along party lines and when those are formally approved by the house, thats when the steps take place. Nancy pelosi will formally sign documents relating the transmission of those articles and then there will be a procession of seven impeachment managers walking steps from where i am now walking from the capital rotunda to the doors of the senate where they will actually have the articles of impeachment. I am told the senate will formally accept the articles. They do not plan to formally accept the articles. Instead, the house will read a message saying theyre ready to deliver the articles and senate sends a message back to the house saying they can deliver the articles tomorrow and we can expect the articles to be formally accepted by the senate tomorrow. At that point, the house impeachment messagers will read aloud from each article of impeachment and leads to the swearing in of the chief justice of the Supreme Court and swearing in of all the senators who act as jurors in this trial and then the opening arguments wont begin until next week. The ceremonial steps happening today and tomorrow and behind closed doors each side, democrats and white house prepare their arguments, democrats making their case why the president should be removed, the white house pushing back and makes their briefs and arguments. Historic moments right now essentially finishing the formal proceeding to send the articles of impeachment to set up an historic trial in the senate. Thank you so much for walking us through all of that. Its all incredibly simple, isnt it . I want to talk about this with alan fruman, there with president clintons impeachment trial and from the gop investigative trial during clinton impeachment and cnn chief political correspondent, dana bash with us. Theyre voting on impeachment messagers, seven of them. What did you think of the folks the speaker chose . Underscore what manu just said, happening right now, this is the last official act of the house of representatives when it comes to this major step that they took, which is to impeach a president of the United States. The seven managers you just talked about, they will have big big roles in the trial. As it comes to the entire house, this is it that were seeing right now. This managers, i first went up to capitol hill 21 years ago to help out on reporting on the clinton impeachment trial. I remember the managers back then. They didnt look like the managers that nancy pelosi, you know, theyre voting on right now. Look, it was republican white guys. This is a diverse, not just the ethnicity, but also geographically and in many other ways. But most importantly, these are members of congress who have many of them have a lot of background and experience in prosecuting a case, which is the job these managers have, they will prosecute the case. Its quite a legal team. How long has it been since they practiced law. Thats a different question. Symptom not so long ago. Thats right. Some not so long ago. They dont forget. They have a base level of knowledge many members of congress dont have. Lets talk about this moment. We are watching the vote we should point out totally party lines so far. 5536, yeas all democrats. The number is 216. The outcome is not in doubt. Thats right. What is going to happen here, what do you think about what this symbolizes as an historic day . Its an amazingly historic day and i think it will be when they walk over, hand over to the secretary of the senate and as stated by manu, the secretary of the senate have to notify the house they received them. Its a process. The constitution says and rules say you are supposed to start the trial immediately when the articles are received. Theyre not going to do that. I think tuesday . They will start the ceremonial and swear them in. They will do the ceremonial part and wont start the trial immediately probably something they would have done back 100 plus years ago, done it immediately and done their business. Its an amazing day and a sad day, the president is in the west wing in the white house signing a deal with china, trade deal and were impeaching him, sending articles already impeached him but thats a real juxtaposition. He did mention it in the middle of the china deal, said some of you congressman will have to go vote and the word that came up, the hoax. Its getting under his skin. On a good day of an important announcement he brought it up. Take us through the process youre familiar with. We heard manu detail it. Walk us through what its like to go through this. You talk about the senate process, you say the senate always does or the senate must do, you will find yourself in trouble. We know what the senate is supposed to do, we know what the rules say it should do and what the senate has done in the past. Frequently, thats a poor guideline. Lets go back to what usually happens when one house has a message for the other house. Messages are usually taken by managers, clerks not officials. They carry it between the two houses and usually received by the secretary of the senate. Its not a big deal. This is a big deal. We saw in the clinton impeachment, when the senate adjourned for the year, the housingers assembled en masse to the secretary of the senate. He was there and the staff works all the time whether the house or senate is in session or not. We were speculating the managers will themselves carry the articles to the senate. That wouldnt surprise me. Why not . Its a photoop. They will presumably be announced at the back door of the Senate Either by the sergeantatarms or secretary for the majority, announcing that the house of representatives has adopted impeachment against the president , et cetera, et cetera. Now, under the senates impeachment rules the secretary of the senate shall quote immediately immediately notify the house of representatives that the senate is ready to have the managers quote exhibit the articles, which means read them on the floor of the senate, and the senate will take proper notice thereof, words to that effect. The word immediate means immediately notify but not necessarily right then. There is some play, right . The chief justice enters after the managers have been invited back, whatever that time is. Once youre in an impeachment trial, every decision is within the power of the majority. The republican majority will determine exactly when the messagers are invited to come back and exhibit or present the articles of impeachment, which means reading them. After that happens the senate will appoint an Escort Committee to bring the chief justice into the senate. The senate, while this is going on, has probably notified or will formally notified the chief justice by manager he is invited to attend and preside over the impeachment trial. Invited. Means Something Different here in washington. It was fascinating to watch chief Justice Rehnquist in the clinton trial pareparing his remarks with respect to his presence in the senate. The nature of his language changed from something along the lines to at your command to consistent with your request. I wonder sorry. Go on. With Justice Rehnquist, if you recall, they took that oath several times and did it individually, not just as a body. Recall what im talking about . I wonder if this is the position the chief justice wants to be in. Doesnt have a choice. Invited. This may not be an invitation quoteunquote one jumps at. Certainly, with the gravity of the situation, and it is a sad day for the country that the chief justice has to do this. Im sure no chief justice wants to do this. I think chief Justice John Roberts has made it clear that he is going to follow rehnquists lead. He is not going to be interfering with the process, hes going to be presiding over the process. Just to go back to our guidance what is going to happen today, i ran into nancy pelosi this morning. What she said was she believes the house managers will walk over, that it will happen at about 5 30 this evening. So thats the end of the day. And that then they will be called back tomorrow for the swearing in, for them to read the articles. What i thought was interesting is she gets to decide today, at 5 30, that they go over. Tomorrow, its up to Mitch Mcconnell. The power changes over to him. One quick point i think is worth noting for the public. Once were done with the process, 51 senators control what happens, though. I dont want people to get the misimpression somehow Mitch Mcconnell is going to control this whole thing. Thats not really true. When it comes down to questions and things they have to vote on, 51 senators, just a simple majority control that. Those four or five, six republicans become critical what will happen, whether its witnesses or et cetera. Can you speak to that tension that they have between especially ones in more moderate states, where their voters expect maybe Something Different from them. Theyre in a bind between Mitch Mcconnell and them. Theres a reason why democrats, since nancy pelosi started using the term coverup on sunday, saying it more and more, along with the term, fair trial, the reason is to put the squeeze on republicans. Our tsay they are pretty confident what will happen at the end, that the president is going to get acquitted. What happens between now and then is totally in flux. We dont know any witnesses will go down. Now, we have the information about Rudy Guilliani and so forth, whether or not these documents or any documents will be pushed on the senate trial. Those are really important questions. And as you said, brianna, its all senators but in particular the senators who publicly, three senators, republican senators have said they want witnesses, and the others have said, were open it to. With each question as the steps of the trial go along, there will be different dynamics that play into how its going to go depending how those senators feel. As the senators come to a decision on whether there should be witnesses or documents, and when we would see that in this impeachment trial, that might give them relief in order to say, hey, i voted for there to be more information. Theres a bit of conundrum in that democrats believe the more information that comes out, the harder it is to vote no on impeachment. This is sort of the trap theyre in. Thats what i said during the break. You told me im an optimist. I am. Lets remind, they have to get twothirds, right, in order for a conviction to happen. Thats a high number. Its going to be a high bar for people like Susan Collins and not just cory gardner and others, how do you explain all this stuff is happening or you flat out said no or voted for a hokie motion you shouldnt have or voted for Mitch Mcconnell versus your conscience or constituents. It wont be an easy walk for them. At least 10 of them will struggle with this. It will be interesting to see if any more evidence comes in. A lawyer who has worked at the justify department and familiar with the Southern District of new york has been saying to me for weeks, what is coming from the Southern District of new york . Could there be something with Rudy Guilliani . Could that evidence, something new, documents, emails, texts, end up that might make a move. Make your optimism count for something . You have covered so many of these senators. Allen, you were there on the hill in the Senate Parliamentarians office where you get a lot of casual access to senators. I wonder what your reflexctions are as you look at some of them struggling with their conscience making political decisions. We know some of them are. I certainly wont name names. I have to assume there is what i think of as a quote critical mass, substantial number of senators who know the right thing, but are constrained by the political realities against doing the right thing. I think this must be enormously difficult for them. One of the things i learned in my 35 years on the hill is senators take their roles very seriously. The constitution created the senate as a different quote more mature body. For the most part over the years the senators understood that and took on those responsibilities really taking a solemn oath. Its been eight years since ive been there and i dont talk to them but many are honorable men and women who if they could, would do the right thing. You will not see the food fight you saw in the house, the very nasty comments back and forth, one because, you pointed out, the senators have to be silent. I dont know what the public knows about this. Theyre jurors and sitting there and can only submit questions in writing. Thats it. Not only do they have to be silent, i saw the note you wrote, no electronics, pain of imprisonment. What the senate should do and what the senate does do is entirely different. What are you expecting . I dont really know. I will sit back and watch. I do know again some of the senators have begun to talk more favorably about having witnesses. Every impeachment trial the senate has conducted has had some number of witnesses. I think the senators know that and are being told that more and more. I think the pressure will be on a number of senators in the middle to form just the number of senators necessary for there to be some sentiment for witnesses. If Mitch Mcconnell had his way, what would this look like . No witnesses. Hes very open and honest about that. Does he reflect what that might mean if history shows there are witnesses. Is that a concern for him . 19 impeachments, all had witnesses. The end of the day, he wants this over with as quickly as possible. He had a meeting with the republican conference, one of the lunch meetings, and he said to them, this is going to be unpleasant, was the word he used, for the next couple of weeks. I dont know about you, he said, but i like to get through unpleasant things as quickly as possible. What hes saying is no witnesses. He thinks he has the votes to acquit, and he wants to get there. Whats his objective . Exactly what jamie just said. Will he worry about how history will maybe judge this moment . Its a hard question to answer. If you ask that question in a broader context, you probably should also look at what happened with Merrick Garland and people who are historians and, you know, even some republicans will say, hmmm, we dont remember there being an actual rule that you cant even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee just because its an election year. That is part of Mitch Mcconnells history. This will be part of Mitch Mcconnells history. Mitch mcconnell also wants to stay majority leader. He wants to stay in charge an wants his fellow republicans to have control of the senate. Back to the discussion before of pressure points on several members of his conference, the republicans who are up for reelection, it goes both ways. Maybe not on the end game, on the acquittal, because you can already hear Susan Collins and cory gardner in colorado who have a tough reelection gain. I voted to acquit. Who am i to take that power away from you which is also unprecedented. And the middle part i did what i could to have a fair trial and justice and constitution i know is right. Thats what mcconnell is trying to keep flowing and move fast. That is such a good argument they can say. You can understand how voters would say, yes, it is my decision. Democrats we heard today, what they were messaging, i think a lot of us have watched and said their messaging hasnt been that great around impeachment but today sounded very cogent and sounded like strong arguments. One was you can vote a president out of office if he does something wrong basically or you can impeach them. They basically said, what we heard from the democrats and the impeachment managers and speaker was what he is trying to do is affect this upcoming election. So in a way it delegitimizes that as an option and impeachment is the option. What did you think . I want to push back on one thing. Impeachment is not in the hands of we the people, in the house of the house and senate. The framers were clear. The house had the ability to impeach. No. I agree with what youre saying. I totally agree with you when it comes to what the constitution says. What im saying is we have never had a president impeached on trial in the senate in an election year, where in 11 months or less than 11 months, people will go to the ballot. That just gives these senators an out politically. Its political coverage, no question. That was the reason for impeachment because you werent supposed to wait for an election. There was a word we heard a lot today, dana mentioned Speaker Pelosi mentioned it, a hyphenated word, i think, coverup. You heard that messaging over and over again. You heard jerry nadler, one of the strongest today, he said quote any trial that doesnt allow witnesses is not a trial, its a coverup. Then, you heard adam schiff again say, coverup. I think we will hear that over and over and thats the political messaging. Can i put one other dynamic into this conversation . Were talking so much about the politics of Mitch Mcconnell and the Senate Majority and people up for reelection to help them keep it. The politics for the president at the heart of this are totally different. His Campaign Even though is not a pleasant thing to have impeached as part of your legacy, his campaign is like, okay, bring it on because they believe theyre stirring up galvanizing supporters to raise money and even for potential voters who are on the fence who are convinced this is unfair. One of the other parts of the visuals surrounding the president , this, alan, could push into and likely will the state of the union. As you reflect on that, what is that going to look like . Very awkward. I believe it will be very awkward, especially since, if it pushes into the state of the union, the president , as the speaker indicated, has been impeached, thats a feta conplit. Bill clint was in the same posture, an impeached president yet delivered his state of the union address. Awkward, unprecedented, no. I want to say on the screen, time remaining zero, right . Zero minutes and zero seconds. 10 people left to vote, got it. Its. So they have the votes. But Everyone Wants to get on the record here, right . Everyone wants to have their chance to vote. This is what happens a lot with house votes. But the time is up. Why isnt it this has to, gavelled to a close. Like in the senate, what the house is supposed to do and what they do. This is more than 10 minutes. Talking about politics, adam schiff is one of the managers i think will get interesting. Hes been someone they attacked quite a bit. Isnt he one of the ones they want to call as one of their witnesses . Oh, this could get really ugly, yeah. The president is relentless on adam schiff on twitter and his rallies and they will use him as a whipping boy for lack of a better word. Not that hes afraid of that. I dont remember the clinton managers attacked like that. The president pretended like it wasnt happening back then, totally different world. No twitter either. What do republicans who handle them, who want witnesses or are open to it, look like they can move in that direction, how concerned are they about preventing a situation where democrats get to hear from john bolton, but republicans say, you know what, we want to hear from hunter biden or adam schiff. How likely dana, you have a good read on it. Theyre all republicans. I cant image its proposed as a package deal by democrats. Lets listen in. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Pursuant to classa rule 20 the Unfinished Business is the question on agreeing to the speakers approval of the journal which the chair will put denovo. Im agreeing to spe speakers agreement all for it ay and against it, no. The ayes have it. I recommend they revise and extent their remarks. Without objection, so ordered. The chair lays before the house a communication. The honorable speaker house of representatives madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause so, this is done, as we expected, right, a bit of a foregone conclusion. We want the final vote on this. What was the final vote on this, eric . Lets listen back in actually and then we will discuss the final vote. With best wishes signed sincerely, cheryl l. Johnson. The chair lays before the house a communication. The honorable the speaker house of representatives, madam, i write to respectfully tender my resignation as a member of the committee on financial services. It has been an honor to serve this is done, right . The impeachment managers resolution has passed, as we expected. Now, its onto the senate. Wrap this up for us, dana. This is a big moment for the house. They still have the walk over, but largely, they are finished with the official business. As we started this conversation, this was the last act in this really remarkable extraordinary step that the house any house takes, when it comes to a president of the United States, the ultimate attempt at a punishment, impeachment of a president. He was impeached before christmas. This was a last step for them to send their managers, or prosecutors to the senate. I want to go to manu, who is at capitol hill. 228193. Reporter thats right. There was a democratic defection, looks like it was colin peterson, daemocratic fro minnesota who voted against those articles of impeachment from the start. Thats the only democratic defection we saw. The other defection on the republican side, former republican now independent, justin amass, someone who supported impeachment. The other republicans voted in line. Justin, the independent, voted with the democrats in naming those managers. 228193, concluding the house portion of this impeachment inquiry that started in september, that led to the president s impeachment in late december, and now we set the stage for transferring articles of impeachment to the senate and that senate trial, ceremonial aspect, and will continue through the course of the day and see a procession of house managers walking to the senate, where they have the articles of impeachment, where they will be formally read aloud and tomorrow Morning House managers will do that. Senators get sworn in and chief justice gets sworn in and articles remain in place. Looming over all of this, how long will this impeachment trial take . We expect about a week or so for House Democrats to make their case, similar amount of time, six hours per day, four days on each side, probably take about a week or so for each side to make their case. Then, we expect the questions to the managers and White House Team and about three days of questions were expecting from senators to question people making their case on each side. Will they bring in witnesses and subpoena for documents . Those are questions the democrats and republicans have to make on the floor of the senate. That will be a dramatic event and votes that put members in a difficult spot whether they should subpoena witnesses extenting this trial for even longer. A lot of uncertainty in days and weeks ahead how this will play out. Today, wrapping up the house portion of impeachment inquiry sending articles of impeachment over to the senate which should occur in a matter of minutes. Thank you. Lets head to pennsylvania avenue to Kaitlan Collins at the white house. You have news there. Tell us. Reporter the Administration Just held a ground call with reporters meaning we can use the information and say Senior Administration official and cant say who it is with the information, detailing what exactly the president impeachment strategy is going to be. They repeated things you heard from the president , they do believe this is a trial charges should be dismissed outright but manu has made clear they do not believe it is something the republican senators have an appetite for and Mitch Mcconnell said it yesterday. It doesnt appear it its likely. The white house says they are predicting a trial that does not go longer than two weeks. They dont think it will take longer than that because they think they have an easy case. Thats the timeline they presented us with. Still no clarification whether the president is taking that trip out of the country next week, supposed to be out of the country on the day mcconnell predicted this trial will get started and at this point we expect the president is still expected to go. The other big question, House Speaker nancy pelosi naming who her impeachment messagers are, we are still waiting to see if they include republican members on the house team. He has people like senator mcconnell telling him, its not a good idea, has a lot of risk with it and wont appeal to more moderate republican senators. But the president wants to listen to his own instincts here. He wants his most ardent defenders onto the floor making his case. Right now, during that call, officials said they have not announced who will be on the team and do expect to do so in the future but did not detail exactly when that is going to be. I want to point to one other thing they did talk about, john bolton, former National Security ambassador who has been a wild card who offered to testify if he is asked to testify before the senate and no decision made about witnesses. There will be a fight if they do do that. They think it will be extraordinary to have the former National Security advisor to testify about conversations with the president and those conversations are at the center of what this impeachment is all about. They sure are. Thank you for letting us know what youre getting out of the white house. We appreciate that. More evidence from an indicted associate of Rudy Guilliani, the president s personal probono lawyer as part of surveillance of an apparent diplomat the president warned would be going through some things and what it exposes about the president s role trying to get ukraine to investigate joe biden and his son. As senators await the articles of impeachment to be delivered only hours from now, there is a new twist in the case. House democrats released record documenting how the president s associates pressured ukraines president to investigate his political rivals. But evidence of a Surveillance Campaign of u. S. Ambassador marie yovanovitch. Our cnn correspondent, alex, is here to take us through the new records. A huge new trove of evidence that not only reinforces how deeply Rudy Guilliani was involved in ukraine, that irregular channel, you remember it was called, but documents revealing a much darker side to the story, specifically e by guiliani and his team to have u. S. Ambassador yovanovitch removed by President Trump he ended up doing. Lets look at this first. This is a letter from Rudy Guiliani to the newly elected president of ukraine asking for a meeting, quote in my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent. Remember, guiliani is not a diplomat and had no role on the administration but already working on digging up dirt on the bidens. Then his associate, lev parnas was texting to someone, robert hyde, who appears to be watching and monitoring yovanovitch. They are moving her tomorrow. Shes talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off. He then goes on to say next slide, she is next to the embassy, not in the embassy. That speaks to the level of surveillance he was carrying out if that was indeed true. He also appears to offer parnas something nefarious, saying, they, we dont know who they are referring to, willing to help if you would like a price guess you can do anything in ukraine with money, what i was told. His lawyers said hyde had a dubious mental state. After seeing in that transcript what he said in the july 25th phone call with zelensky. Take a listen. What did you think when President Trump told president zelensky and you read that you were going to go through some things . I didnt know what to think, but i was very concerned. What were you concerned about . Shes going to go through some things. It didnt sound good. It sounded like a threat. Did you feel threatened . I did. Now, in april yovanovitch was told in the middle of the night to get on the next plane back to d. C. , and then she was removed from her role as ambassador. Now were learning she might have been watched, indeed stalked in kyiv, and we should note that the state department has not yet said anything about one of their most respected diplomats being possibly under threat, not just a political threat during her time as ambassador. Thank you for that and making that also clear. Dana back with me now, and im joined by National Security Attorney Brad moss and also the former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine john hurst. Thank you, sir, so much for being with us, and i mean, i saw you watching youve seen the report, but you were watching very closely to what i thought was a very good explanation of this back and forth. What did you think as you were hearing that is this. Well, the first thing is we dont know if its true. This could just be very ugly boasting by this gentleman. If it is true, of course, its appalling. Its outrageous, and it seems to me that there should be some statement from either the Department State Department Overall or a senior official expressing that Something Like this is completely unacceptable. Ambassador yovanovitch did a terrific job in ukraine under difficult circumstances. She was apparently removed as a result of a smear campaign, which had about this much substance to it, and this suggested maybe something even worse than that was in play, although, again, we dont know. We dont know because theres potential reason to believe that robert hyde is not a reliable person, right . Or is lev parnas, right . These are some of the questions. Is this real . If even there was discussion of some sort of surveillance of an ambassador, what do you make of that, bradley . That is extremely chilling and disturbing that this was these were people in the president s inner circle, lev parnas is part of the president s was part of the president s legal team assisting Rudy Giuliani during the mueller probe. Robert hyde is constantly in all these different photos and videos with members of the president s inner circle including the president and house leader mccarthy at the World Series Game here in d. C. A few months back. These are people in the president s inner circle engaging in what i would politely call thugery. They were surveilling and tracking a u. S. Ambassador. They were talking about price quotes for things to get rid of her or to deal with her. It is a felony to threaten the life of a u. S. Government official. And lets just put this into context about who this ambassador was. As you said ambassador, this is someone who in your view and the view of many people in your space was doing a good job under difficult circumstances. This is someone who at the time was very much serving u. S. Interests in the ukraine. So lets get back to the reason of why she would be someone who President Trump, Rudy Giuliani wouldnt like . Well, thats exactly right, and so the fundamental question is as you both said, we dont know if these are real, meaning we dont know if they actually acted on surveilling, acted on the things that they were saying that they were going to do, or if they were just boasting, but the fact that there are Unanswered Questions is really key to why and how House Democrats we just saw seven of them appointed managers in the president s impeachment trial are no doubt going to try to inject this into the trial to try to get the answers to those questions whether through maybe not through these characters but more broadly because it goes to the heart of why the president was impeached. It goes to the heart of the question did he direct anybody to withhold aid, congressional approved military aid to a u. S. Ally ukraine, in exchange for demanding a political investigation of his opponent joe biden. Ambassador, can you speak to why its so important for the state department to come out and explain what may or may not have happened here or expressed some support. What does it mean for people in the Foreign Service to not have that becoacking, which has been big concern of a number of officials coming out of the state department. Its simple. Any commanders supposed to take care of their troops. If you want them to do the job assigned to them, youve got to take care of them when they do it. And this has been a serious management issue in the department over the past, what, now, nine months since this campaign guess ambassador yovanovitch began no later than last march. She has been taken down by a smear effort with no real talking back, certainly not publicly by senior people in the department. Now, it is true, it is true that then secretary deputy secretary sullivan met with Masha Yovanovitch after she came back and said you did a great job, but thats not the same thing as a ringing Public Defense of her. If you want the people to do the job our National Interests demand, you take care of them. Its a National Security issue you could easily argue, brad. Absolutely. These unresolved issues as dana mentioned, what will state departments say . Was there a threat assessment . Was this part of the reason she was pulled out . And if this was why she was pulled out, why was the decision to remove her as opposed to refer this to the fbi for possibly felony and criminal investigations . There are too many Unanswered Questions to just, you know, sweep this under the rug. Bradley, ambassador, dana, thank you so much for the discussion. The house voting moments ago to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. What the white house is saying about that and how the trial is likely to play out next. [alarm beeping] {tires screeching} {truck honking} avo life doesnt give you many second chances. But a subaru can. dad you guys ok . You alright . Wow. avo eyesight with precollision braking. Standard on the subaru ascent. The threerow subaru ascent. Love. Its what makes a subaru a subaru. This is cnn breaking news. All right, here we go, youre watching cnn. Im brooke baldwin, thank you for being with me on this historic day. In just a couple of hours the articles of impeachment against President Trump will be physically walked from the house of representatives over to the senate where a trial is expected to begin next tuesday. After the house approved mostly along party lines, a resolution to send them over along with the selection of these seven democrats as impeachment managers. Earlier they joined Speaker Pelosi to defend the delay in transmitting the articles and also took aim straight at senate republicans. What is at stake here is the constitution of the United States. This is what an impeachment is about. Mitch mcconnell made it clear that he didnt want a trial in the senate, that he didnt want to hear from witnesses, that he didnt want documents, and this time has given us the ability to show the American People the necessity of a fair trial. The senate is on trial as well as the president. Does the senate conduct the trial according to the constitution to vindicate the republic, or does the senate participate in the president s crimes by covering them up . Now, the top
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.