into the bidens. those facts speak for themselves and i'm proud of our members making sure those facts were clear for the american public. i'll turn it back over to -- >> we'll take a couple of questions. >> what about the idea and this is something mr. castro got into it, the idea that there is attempted crimes, attempted murder, attempted burglary and even if something was attempted and there was no deliverable, isn't that relevant if something was -- >> chad, chad, chad -- as they said one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. our administration was checking them out and after vice president pence visited with president zelensky after senators johnson and murphy visited with president zelensky and six days later the aid is released because they are convinced this is the guy sending the hard earned tax dollars to. and that is clear in the record. never once in the 55-day time frame never once did he announce he would start any type of

investigation into burisma or biden. you could talk about all you want and the democrats could do all you want and the facts will not change and i think the american people clearly see that. >> what about the secondhand witnesses -- >> it is not secondhand. sondland talked to yermak and this all happened in warsaw where vice president pence is meeting with zelensky. and nothing happens there. >> to finish the question. the white house is blocking first harnd witnesses from coming and participating in this inquiry from responding to requests to justify -- >> he's a close adviser to the president. >> should they be coming -- >> that is a long tradition and precedent in our country. these are close advisers to the president. there is a court case. and i think december 11 they'll rule. >> do you not believe that gordon sondland made clear after his conversation with mr. president trump that everything

was contingent on announcing investigations -- >> i understand the facts as miss stefanik just said, i understand the facts and the facts are squarely strongly on the president's side and i think, again, the american people see that. >> when you talked to gordon sondland -- >> we'll take one more. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> i want to hear from -- in the whistle-blower's complaint bullet point number one i said this, over the past four months i have talked to more than half a dozen u.s. officials. i want to hear from the whistle-blower and the officials that he or she talked to and hear from those individuals. >> but my question is why not ask the white house? >> why not bring witnesses from the white house -- >> again, that is their call. these are close advisers to the president, our long history to the country is they don't have to testify. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> we'll see what the court says on bolton and mulvaney.

>> [ inaudible question ]. >> that is up to them. thank you. >> and you mean just because there are alleged associates to the whistle-blower that that biases that person inherently. is that part of your summation? >> all i've ever said is there is one member of congress who knows who the whistle-blower is and whose staff has met with the whistle-blower and that is adam schiff. >> is it okay for the president to ask for an investigation into the bidens from the ukrainians? is that okay? >> i think what should happen is the whistle-blower should testify. all we ask for today was to depose the whistle-blower. >> and what about the intel committee -- >> and that is congress jim jordan just named to the committee and you heard reporter there trying to get him to answer the question, is it okay for the president to try to get a foreign country in this case ukraine to investigate his political rivals in this case the bidens and congressman jordan refused to answer the

question. it is a question that many republican members of the house and senate have refused to answer altogether. mike gerhart i want to go to you, because when congressman jordan was talking you said that's not right. he said something not correct. what was he saying. >> it is a long tradition in our country of having people working in or near the white house or any administration not testifying. that's just completely not true. and the fact is there is no privilege under our constitution and in our law that prevents people from talking about or disclosing criminal activity or abuse of power. so no privilege will protect somebody from reporting that, especially if they were witness to it and if they heard it. >> good point for clarification. >> assuming criminal activity or abuse of power. >> but that is what this hearing is about. we have a -- the chairman of the house intelligence committee adam schiff is about to speak. let's listen in. >> thank you. just want to make a few observations about the hearing

today. first of all, i want to thank these incredible public servants for their testimony and decades of experience and i think between the two of them they have half a century to a century of experience in serving the country in war as well as in peace. i thought their testimony very powerful, obviously these are two very credible witnesses who speak from the heart. and who have the greatest dedication not only to the united states but the deepest care for ukraine. a deep and abiding interest in ukraine and its future and its prospects. the portrait that i think their testimony paints is one of an irregular channel that ran from the president through mick mulvaney and ambassador sondland, ambassador volker on down to rudy giuliani in which the president sought to advance

his political and personal interest at the expense of the united states national security. and the president did that by pressing this vulnerable ally to get involved in the next presidential election in a way that the president thought would advance his reelection prospects. did so by inviting zelensky to do these political investigations and more than that did so by conditioning a white house meeting as well as ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid needed by this ally. now a couple of points on the white house meeting and on the military aid. this was a new and politically inexperienced president of ukraine with a lot of promise. who ran a campaign based on ending the conflict in ukraine with the russians but also fighting corruption. it was, i think, a euphoric time

for ukrainians to have this reformer as their president. it was important as we heard today that this new president could demonstrate to friend and foe alike to both his own countrymen but also to his adversary the russians that he had a strong relationship with the president of the united states. a white house meeting is one of the best ways to demonstrate that. and so this is something zelensky clearly wanted. he came back to time after time and as people came back time after time, when are we going to get that meeting and schedule that meeting you said we would get. and time and time again the answer came back we first want you to commit to these political investigations to help the president's reelection campaign and we want you to do it publicly. and then we would learn as they learned and as they testified that not only was this meeting conditioned but also this military aid at a time when ukrainians were dying every

week. and so we will hear other witnesses, i think, who will corroborate much of what you heard today. today allowed you to hear from ukraine, from ambassador taylor's perspective and from the view from washington from mr. kent's perspective. other witnesses will fill in some of the pieces before, after and during. but we don't expect the facts are largely going to be contested. there wasn't much of an effort by the republicans today to contest these facts. ultimately what we will need to decide and what i hope members on both sides of the aisle in the house and if necessary in the senate, what i hope members will think about is what are these facts mean for the future of our country? what do these facts mean in terms of what americans should expect from a president of the united states. are we prepared to say that asking a foreign nation not to

intervene in our elections is something that is a perk of the office of the presidency? are we prepared to say that conditioning tax fair funded military assistance to a ally fighting a fight in which we have a deep stake is also now a perk of the office of the presidency. are we now going to say that other official acts can be conditioned on another country giving something of value to the president of the united states is just now going to be the new normal for the president of the united states. i don't think we can allow that to be the new normal, acceptable in any way, shape or form or it will not only permit this president to seek other ways to bring about interference in our election, but it will invite future presidents to do the same. so we have some very difficult questions to answer at the end of the day about what these facts require us to do. but you'll be hearing shortly

from other witnesses who i think will corroborate much of what you heard today. and with that i'm happy to answer a couple of questions. >> what do you make of the new information today that he presented that mr. taylor's aide overheard this phone call with gordon sondland and the president. and second do you believe that gordon sondland, when he testified, would be truthful to your committee about his interactions with the president? >> well, first of all, in terms of the new information that ambassador taylor gave today about this conversation, the day after president trump is on the phone with president zelensky in which one of the taylor's staff is overhearing conversation between sondland and the president and the president is speaking loud enough where he could hear part of the conversation and the president is interested in whether the ukrainians are going to do the investigation and sondland assures him that they are. this is very obviously very important because there is an effort apparently to by the

president's allies to throw sondland under the bus, through mulvaney or anybody under the bus in an effort to protect the president. but what this call indicates as other testimony has likewise indicated is that instructions are coming from the president on down. mick mulvaney made that abundantly clear in his press conference. but this call also makes it abundantly clear and i think ambassador taylor make it abundantly clear when he testified that he wanted sondland to push back on trump's demand for the investigations. that is not asking sondland to change his view, it is asking sondland to help change the president's view, the president's demand. and so i think this witness is potentially very important and of course we're moving to depose this witness and we have already scheduled their deposition. >> last question. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> look, i'm reserving judgment

on the ultimate questions once the testimony is complete. about what should fall from this, what are the consequences. it is certainly the case that the founders were deeply concerned that a president of the united states one day may be elected to office that would put his or her interests above the country and sacrifice our national security either to get a political or personal favor or owing to some foreign influence. so the facts that have come to light are very much what the founders had in mind i think when they provided a remedy. so we're going to have to make that decision. i'm not pre-judging it. the only thing i'll say because i didn't answer the second part of the question, manu, in terms of ambassador sondland, one of the reasons we want to do the hearings now in public, having done the deposition in closed session is we want the american people to evaluate the

credibility of the witnesses for themselves and i'm confident they will. >> as chairman of the house intelligence committee adam schiff democrat of california we'll squeeze in a quick break and have much more of the coverage of this momentous day, the first day of public impeachment inquiry hearings. stay with us. we'll be right back. why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl... imagine what it can do for you. you wanna see something thatamazing?ing. go to hilton instead of a travel site and you'll experience a whole new range of emotions like... the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. these'll work. the utter delight of free wi-fi... .

oh man this is the best part. isn't that you? yeah. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton. man 1 vo: proof of less joint pain woman 1 oc: this is my body of proof. and clearer skin. man 2 vo: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis...

woman 2 vo: ...with humira. woman 3 vo: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. avo: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. man 3 vo: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4 vo: go to humira.com to see proof in action. o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c

of less than 7 and maintained it. oh! under 7? (announcer) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (announcer) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation.

some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) if eligible, you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. a historic day on capitol hill for the first public impeachment inquiry hearings for president trump.

let's chew over all of this. we are awaiting president trump and turkish president erdogan taking questions and we'll go to that live. but before we do that, there was a point you were making because jim jordan had talked about, the republican jordan had been asked if you are criticizing the people for secondhand information, these two witnesses what about bringing in the people with firsthand information and he said there is a tradition of that not happening because of executive privilege and you said that is not necessarily correct. >> i want to give you one great history cal example where someone h t come in and talk about the president, that is president nixon white house counsel john dean. they had one person and john dean and he came in and testified in front of congress and that was significant testimony and the reason he was able to do that because he was testifying about things that were not lawful. and that is what we've heard john bolton call this a drug deal, we've also -- mulvaney at one point said it was a quid pro quo. so these are people to hear

from. but the president right now is keeping them away from the public. >> there is a tradition, a long tradition of executive privilege. it is not in the constitution, it is implied as separation of powers and we saw it during whitewater and monica lewinsky and bush administration and obama administration on fast and furious to say this doesn't exist -- >> but what about people that are no longer in the white house, for instance such as john bolton and that is a question, would you support john bolton testifies. >> there is a legitimate issue of powers that needs to be resolved by the courts. i believe it is absolutely true. i've come on here before, listen, when the president tried to get the emergency executive order for spending, i opposed it and thought it was a bad idea because of separation of powered and i think the court is the ultimate arbiter and the court will determine. >> and this came up in the testimony today, not only has the president refused to allow witnesses to testify but all of

the documents, all of the underlying emails, memos, all of the -- how government works is largely on paper or through electronic transmission and as we learned today, they've turned over none of that. >> but that is exactly -- but, jeff, did it happen in fast and furious. >> they turned over some -- >> they didn't turn over everything you wanted in that totally manufactured and fake scandal. >> of course you say that. >> but there was a dispute. but here they've turned over nothing. absolutely zero. >> so let me ask you a question, jen psaki as a democrat on the panel, do you think that the democrats achieved what they needed to achieve today? >> i do. and in part because i think adam schiff is exactly the person who should be leading this testimony and leading these hearings at this point in time. he tried to conduct it with a somber note, with a serious note. and what i heard from him in his closing remarks during the press conference is really important. he's taking this beyond trump. it is not just about removing

trump from office. it is not just about democrats disliking trump. it is about the precedent we're setting for the future and was very clear on that by saying that we don't want to set the precedent that in the future any president should be able to get political dirt on their opponent. they should be able to use their office for political gain and that is the question for the public. he's trying to pose this question to the public that they're ultimately going to need to decide on and it is not just -- >> and what about speaker pelosi statement in may we won't go to impeachment unless we have clear and overwhelming bipartisan support. >> i was not an advocate for moving for impeachment and neither were the national security democrats who came forward in "the washington post" op-ed, the ukraine situation changed the dynamic in congress -- >> but what about her statement? what about that statement that she made saying that unless there is clear and overwhelming support, bipartisan support i'm not going to move forward because it is so divisive. >> well there is. if you look at polling -- >> no, come on.

no bipartisan support in congress. i'm talking about nancy pelosi. >> listen, there is growing support in the public. >> not in congress. >> overwhelm support -- >> i think, david, this isn't the easiest thing honestly for the democrats to do because there is not a clear path for 20 republicans to come on board for impeachment. they're doing it because they feel they can't not do it. >> what about nancy pelosi's statement about -- >> i'm answering your question. >> but david, let me ask you, do you think it's okay for any white house, any politician to use whatever pressure they have, even if it is just phrased as a polite question to ask a foreign government to investigate and announce a investigation of a political rival. >> and no, again, i look at this, again, and the conversation with president and president zelensky based on the server notion, this -- >> the crowdstrike hearing. >> primary based on there and zelensky raised the biden stuff

and they talk about it briefly and zelensky said i didn't feel pressure by it -- >> but you're changing the subject. do you think it is okay -- no. >> i don't think -- no. i prefer the president wouldn't have said those things about the bidens. i think crowdstrike, retrospective corruption i think it completely fine and within his purview. so i think you could have talked about past corruption with biden and hunter biden, the past thing there. i don't think prosectively it is a good thing. >> could i make a quick point about constitutional law. i want to clarify this and make sure the public gets it right. the president does not have an absolute executive immunity in impeachment investigations. he doesn't have an absolute executive privilege over the information produced in the administration some of which may have nothing to do with him but if the president succeeds on those arguments he is above the law and holding himself accountable and what is left is the election and he's trying to gain the election. that is the problem. >> is it not true that democrats have decided to not fight these

fights because they think it will take way too long in the courts and they would rather just make an article of impeachment obstruction of congress just like happened in the nixon impeachment. >> that is a good point. going to the courts was a risk for the democrats. one problem with going to the courts is you could lose and the other problem is delay. instead the house made a decision to stand on its own authority which it always had and to go forward with the investigation and the president tries to obstruct that or interfere and undermine that, that is a problem with the separation of power. >> i want to bring in the biggest news of the day, which is the news that bill taylor and the current top diplomat in ukraine announced today, it is so the number one about what one of his aides overheard. let's roll that sound. >> ambassador sondland and told president trump of the meetings in kiev. the member of my staff could

hear them on the phone asking about the investigations. ambassador sondland told president trump the ukrainians were ready to move forward. following the call with president trump the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland responded that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden, which giuliani was pressing for. >> so that is a pretty big bombshell considering that we did not know that. we had not heard that. we believe that on friday that aide of bill taylor's is going to take questions behind closed doors in depositions. we'll go now to the white house where the president and the turkish president are taking questions from reporters. >> -- we'll keep them apprised but some of them joined us. senator jim rich and thank you very much and ted cruz, thank you very much. and lindsey graham, thank you. and rick scott, thank you rick very much. joanie is here.

joni ernst someplace. these are people that want to see peace in the middle east and i thought it would be appropriate to have them come over and they met with the president and we had a lot of very frank discussion and we're dealing with a very big subject, a complex subject going on for centuries in many cases. but we're making a lot of progress, tremendous progress in the middle east. okay, a couple of questions. go ahead. oan, go ahead. >> thank you mr. president. first i would like to start out getting your general reaction today to the impeachment hearing on the hill. do you feel that democrats made their case and how do you feel about the republican performance? >> you're talking about the witch hunt? is that what you mean? >> what you're talking about. i hear it is a joke. i haven't watched. i haven't watched for one minute because i've been with the president which is much more important as far as i'm concerned. this is a sham. and shouldn't be allowed.

it was a situation that was caused by people that shouldn't have allowed it to happen. i want to find out who is the whistle-blower because the whistle-blower gave a lot of very incorrect information including my call with the president of ukraine which was a perfect call and highly appropriate. and he wrote something that was much different than the fact. i want to find out why the ig, why would he have presented that when, in fact, all you had to do was check the call itself and he wofr seen it. i'm going to be releasing i think on thursday a second call which was the first of the two and you'll make a determination as to what you think there. but i've heard just a report, they said it's all thirdhand information. nothing direct at all. can't be direct because i never said it. and all they have to do is look very, very simply at the transcript. if you read the transcript, there was analyzed by great lawyers, this was analyzed by

greg jared, analyzed by mark levine and analyzed by everybody and they said this statement that i made, the whole call that i made with the president of ukraine was a perfect one. so that this country gets put through that, that we have to waste this gentleman's time by even thinking about it and talking about it i would much rather focus on peace in the middle east and i hear that it's -- i hear that it is a hoax and it is being played as a hoax. that is what i hear. but you'll have to tell me. go ahead. >> then if i may, on syria and piece in the middle east, president erdogan talked about repatriating syrian refugees back to their homeland. have you had those discussions with european leaders -- >> he think that frankly europe should be paying for this. as of this moment turkey has been paying for most of it and the president said they've spent

over $40 billion on the cost of that. $40 billion. >> how much? 13 -- >> 40. >> that is what i said. whatever. he spent a lot, okay. throwing out all of the different numbers. i heard it was $40 billion. is that $40 billion correct. so $40 billion and i've heard that number from others and that is a lot. europe has contributed about $3 and a lot of these people would go throughout europe. it would be a devastating situation for europe because he has 4 million people. he has a lot of kurds, too, that they're helping and taking care of. so i have spoken to europe about it. i think they should help us with isis because many of them left france and they left germany and they left u.k. they left different countries. and these countries should help us because if they ever did get released which we won't be doing, but if they ever did get

released that is where they want to go to, france and german and the other countries that are not helping us. and i gave them the option if they would like to have them back and intelligently they told you no thank you. and i could tell you that turkey captured when some escaped during the conflict when they had the heavy shooting and i think i know how they happened to escape but one of those things. it doesn't matter because turkey captured everybody that was escaped plus an additional group. when we took over, when i became president, isis was rampant all over the middle east and as of about a month ago, i think lindsey we can say that we have now 100% of the caliphate. they'll always try and grow but they haven't been able to do that and what we did last week with al baghdadi and set them

back and we got his number two and we have our sights on his number three. so they are not growing too fast. but i will say turkey has been helping us a lot. >> so with that, i also have a question for president erdogan. with the -- what you're calling a realignment along the northern syria border, a lot of christians in that region are feeling very vulnerable, groups on the ground are saying that attacks on christians have increased under the new policy and that they're not feeling safe any longer. can you guarantee that the turkish government will also protect christians in that region? in fact, there was an attack on a priest who died, he and his father this week. isis is claiming responsibility. >> translator: thank you. thank you. on the contrary, cal doany and injuries edie and christian minorities is a area where we're

especially sensitive about and we have certain different plans. whether it be the ones remaining on the side of syria whose sanctuaries have been destroyed whose churched had been destroyed, we'll see their sanctuaries getting revived and they're churches will be reconstructed so they could go back and start praying their again and these are the plans that we're making for them. as i said before, the christian minorities, christian and catholic and the yizidi living on our side of the border have no problems whatsoever but the ones on the side of the syrian territory will see their worshipping practices restored and revived in a special manner. they are receiving health care and humanitarian aid in every

aspect possible. thank you. >> thank you very much. would you like to pick somebody? a friendly person from turkey, please. friendly. only friendly reporters. there aren't too many of them around. >> thank you mr. president. >> thank you. >> you have the burden of obama's foreign policy and one of the flaws was aligning the u.s. with the u.s. designated -- organization the pkk and the ypg. your trying to -- the damage that it did to u.s./turkey relations however you also invited the ringleader of rpg to the white house. he's called -- [ inaudible ] and he's responsible for 18 terrorist attacks in turkey which caused the death of 164 soldiers and 48 civilians. so up to today's meeting do you think still of inviting -- to

invite them which will be very offensive and hurtful for the turkish public. thank you. >> well we had a very good talk with him. we had a very good -- recently. and we're working very closely together and we're also working very closely together with your great president. and a lot of things are happening. a lot of very positive developments are happening. a lot of that is definition. what is your definition of the various groups within the kurds. you call the kurds and then you have various groups and some like them and some don't. but i think we've made a tremendous amount of -- we've gained a tremendous amount of momentum and strength and knowledge over the last short period of time so we'll see what happens. but i will say that the relationship with president erdogan and turkey has been outstanding. and it is amajor country with a tremendous military. they're one of our very big purchasers of military equipment. they have the finest equipment

in the world. which the united states makes. we make by far the best equipment in the world. turkey understood that a long time ago. so i think a tremendous amount of progress is being made. okay. thank you very much. you could ask the president a question now. same reporter -- you share a reporter. you don't work for turkey with that question? >> i'll be glad to. another question -- >> translator: mr. president about fetto, we are not getting the best of fuse out of the united states and the feddo office targeting turkey is extensively invested in their daily works but i can see certaime is ready to understand more about fetto so my question is how do you perceive the situation developing vis-a-vis the feta organization and the american

approach to fetto in that regard. >> can we expect anything further? yes. thank you. during this current visit we are going to submit as we already have, actually, a great deal of documents and evidence. and fetto is a terrorist organization and he is he the ringleader of the terrorist organization. they have killed 251 people in turkey. they tried to undertake a coup against the government state and more than 2,000 people have been injured and the ringleader is living an on area of 400 acres in the united states running his network all around the globe. and this is something unacceptable. and during this visit, as i've said before, we have introduced an additional array of documents. we will submit them to the relevant authorities including

mr. president and in the light of these documents i think they will appreciate the situation. we sent the terrorists back if they ask for them and i'm sure they will do the same for us. >> fox, please. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> i know that you didn't spend a lot of time glued to the tv today but there was one moment where ambassador bill taylor recanted a conversation that an aide of his overheard, it was the day after the phone call with zelensky on july the 26th in which the aide said that he overheard you say to sondland how are things going with the -- proceeding with the investigations, sondland repeated back to you, according to this aide, that ukraine was prepared to do everything that you wanted to do. could you -- is that correct? and can you fill in some more -- >> i know nothing about that. the first time i've heard it. the thing i seen that sondland said is that he did speak to me

for a brief moment and i said no quid pro quo under any circumstances. and that is true. i've never heard this. in any event, it is more secondhand information but i've never heard. >> do you recall having a conversation with -- >> i don't recall. not at all. not even a little bit. the only thing -- and i guess sondland stayed with his testimony that there was no quid pro quo. pure and simple. yes, please. >> and president trump sent you a letter on october the 9th urging you not to launch a military action into northern syria. he said, quote, don't be a tough guy, don't be a fool. you ignored that letter and you went ahead and you launched a military action into northern syria. can you explain why you ignored the president's warning? >> translator: well, this letter was represented to mr. president

this afternoon and i've also underlined the fact that a terrorist such as feta shrine should not considered an int locketure by the country such is the united states and this individual has been instrumental in the killings of hundreds of turkish civilians and he is a person that is labelled like a son for the terrorist leader who is currently incarcerated in turkey abdullah ajelm so a person like this should not be welcomed in a country such as the united states. and similarly this person was welcomed by a country such as russia. so it's very difficult for me to understand these when we're trying to fight terrorism on a global scale. if we're going to sustain our

fight against terrorism in a healthy fashion we need to be much more sensitive than we currently are. it happens to us today and it will happen to an else tomorrow is a saying that goes in our language. we have also provided information and the document thereof to our inter-locketures in the white house including mr. president. and i've also submitted a document produced by cia pointing out to the fact that this individual is a terrorist to mr. president. and as i've said before, i've shared them with mr. president and we gave back the letter that we have received. >> thank you very much.

mr. crew from kurdistan. thank you very much mr. president for all you have done for kurdistan and for peshmerga in fight against isis. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. >> my question is also i meet -- all of them i interviewed them believe kurdistan is very unique in the middle east and proud of all minorities -- >> right. >> -- what is your policy toward the kurds right now and as a question for president erdogan, why are you not able for negotiation with the kurds in syria as -- do you think they will be your friend in the future? thank you very much. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. and i will say that we've had a great relationship with the kurds. and we fought with them very successfully against isis. we fought together. we had -- we have great generals and great equipment and it

certainly helped a lot. but we were very, very successful and we captured as i said before 100%. i was going to -- when we were at 97%, i was going to say, well, that sounds pretty high to me. and i was thinking about stopping it then and a lot of people said please go to 100 and very quickly and rapidly the military got the 100. i wanted to have that. but we have a great relationship with the kurds. we have have had. we're with them now. we get along with them. and by the way, i think the president, he may have some factions within the kurds, but i think the president has a great relationship with the kurds. many kurds live currently in turkey and they're happy and they're taken care of, including health care. we were talking about it before. including health care and education and other things. so that is really a misnomer. but our relationship with the kurds has been a very good one. okay.

thank you. >> translator: first we have to make a distinction between two things. we have no problems with the kurds. we have problems with terrorist organizations. some terrorists coming out of the kurds which are they, what are they, are they pyd which are off shoots of the terrorist organization pkk just as we have no problems with iraq where we enjoy great relations and we have no problems with similarly our brothers and sisters in the northern part of syria. during the times when assad was not recognizing the kurdish presence in the northern part, i told him that he needs to give these individuals passports and that he was making a mistake. and secondly there is something really important i want you to know this. my political party has more than 50 mps of kurdish ethnicity in

the turkish parliament. we don't have problems with the kurds but we have problem to the terrorists. of course you are not going to own up to the terrorists, are you? whoever they may be, we have to make a distinction here. we're just fighting terrorists, period. because the terrorists don't have an ethnicity, they don't have a nationality, they don't have a flag. if they are a terrorist, that is a terrorist. if you don't fight back then tomorrow you have to pay a very hefty price. thank you. >> thank you very much, everybody. thank you. thank you. president trump taking questions alongside the president of turkey, erdogan. and kaitlan collins is live at the white house and kaitlan, president trump said he hadn't watched one minute of the hearings today and asked about the bombshell news from former ambassador bill taylor about a phone call between gordon sondland and president trump in

which president trump was overheard to be pushing for ukraine to be conducting this investigations. what did he have to say about that? >> reporter: that was the call where sondland later told the aide traveling with him that the president cared more about the investigations in joe biden than he did about the issues that were happening in ukraine. the president was just asked about that new revelation today and he said he knows nothing about it and he doesn't recall the conversation that bill taylor testified he heard that happened the day after the call with the ukrainian president zelensky so he didn't really give a lot of air to that just essentially saying he didn't know anything about it. but the other thing the president did there along with projecting this confidence saying he hasn't been watching this impeachment hearing, even though earlier he cited the staff attorney that democrats were using for their first round of questioning. the president complained about the inspector general for the intelligence community who essentially jump started this when they took the whistle-blower complaint to congress. president thinks if the inspector general had read the transcript of his call this won't have happened but we

should know that the inspector general did investigate this complaint for two weeks and found it credible and that is why they took it and "the new york times" reported that the president has waived firing that inspector general in recent days even though multiple people have corroborated this whistle-blower's account. >> and in fact the director of national angst, the acting director, said that the whistle-blower complaint was in alignment with the transcript, the rough transcript of the phone call. kaitlan collins, thanks so much. we'll have much more coverage of the impeachment hearings and president trump's reaction after this quick break. stay with us.

do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth,

and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. (count) time for one chore [thunder crashing], ah! ahh! my mower! (burke) the number "one." seen it, covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two

because we've seen a thing or two. (bert) mmm. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ anyoonly marco's can deliver america's most loved pizza. hot and fresh, and right to your door. dough made from scratch, every day. sauce from our original recipe. and authentic toppings like crispy, old world pepperoni™. because the italian way is worth celebrating. every day at marco's, get two medium, one-topping pizzas for just $6.99 each. hello to america's most loved pizza. hello marco's.

welcome back. so as we wrap up day one of the house impeachment inquiry hearings we're looking aled to a number of days just like today with witnesses and democrats and republicans and lots of analysis and, jeff toobin, let me start with you. two people that i think everybody would like to hear from, who wants to get to the bottom of what actually happened, rudy giuliani, who i suppose could invoke attorney/client privilege and mick mulvaney the acting white house chief of staff who could invoke executive privilege. so are we never going to hear from them. >> and add john bolton to the

list. the only way we'll hear from them is if we go to their speaking agent and pay them thousands of dollars to speak because bolton is on the speaking circuit which is incredible when you think that perhaps the most consequential thing the congress could do is weigh impeachment and he won't talk to them but will give speeches for money. and the democrats have made the decision and i understand it. i'm not sure it is the right decision, that it will take too long for the courts to resolve it. even if they think they're going to win. and they are right, that you're talking months not weeks to resolve these issues. and they feel like impeachment has to be done on a pace that simply doesn't allow that kind of delay. that is the choice they made. which means no -- no bolton, no mulvaney, no giuliani. >> david, what are you looking and think is going to happen as these hearings continue? >> listen, i think today was the high water mark for democrats presumably. you put your best people on, the

people they think are the strongest witnesses and i think it was -- if today was the high water mark i think they have a long road ahead of them. >> what do you think, jen? >> i don't think that is the strategy. they had two unimpeachable witnesses who could lay out the time line in a very comprehensive way and that is what they did. they want to build on it. and getting closer to trump as they have more witnesses this week and next week. and i think they saw the tone they would take. adam schiff didn't take the bait and that is the tone they want to keep between the next week or two because they're betting if they'll pull more of the american public in and that is serious and that is what they'll try to convey. >> and the big question is the american public because you're not going to see movement in the senate where republicans control power, you're not going to see movement until the public shows movement and i last report i saw 52% support impeachment and removing president trump from

office and that is a small and narrow majority. >> and there are polls that show some people just haven't made up their minds. they need more information. something like 15% or something like that and that is what this is aimed to do. over the next week or so we'll hear from these witnesses, these are willing witnesses in a way that bob mueller wasn't. they want to tell their story, they want to testify before congress and get out in great detail as we saw from bill taylor what they saw and what their experienced. we have another one coming up on friday and into next week i think sondland is going to be really important. everybody keeps name dropping him as someone who talked directly to the president. so, listen, it is a long process. so far democrats should feel good because they have brought the public along certainly from where we were months ago about how the public felt about impeachment and can they keep doing that is a big question. >> and michael i want to come to you as not an impeachment lawyer but somebody who lives in north carolina. what do you think the effect of

this testimony is in not just the people's republic of chapel hill but out in the rest of the state, are people paying attention? do they care, are they getting their information from partisan or ideology sources. >> i'm sure they care. north carolina is ground zero for a lot of things including political divide and i think we have sharp divisions in the state of north carolina and it may well be that the tribalism we're experiencing elsewhere in the united states is also there in north carolina. >> do you think this seeps into the day-to-day lives of the people at momma dips in downtown chapel hill for example? >> well, you hope so. i think that is the college town, though. so i think with the college town you may expect people to be very into it whereas we don't elsewhere. >> thanks for being here. our special coverage of the impeachment hearings rolls on. stay with us. these are real people,

under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe.

tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent. rather than worry about how to pay for long-term care. brighthouse smartcare℠ is a hybrid life insurance and long-term care product. it protects your family while providing long-term care coverage, should you need it. so you can explore all the amazing things ahead. talk to your advisor about brighthouse smartcare. brighthouse financial. build for what's ahead℠ brighthouse financial. wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month.

prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right. have you ever worked with dr. francis? oh yeah, he's ok. just ok? guess who just got reinstated! well, not officially. nervous? yeah. yeah me too. don't worry about it, we'll figure it out. i'll see ya in there! just ok is not ok. at&t has america's best network, now with our best plans, at our best prices, starting at $35 a line for 4 lines. new from at&t.

>> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." and we're following breaking news. day one of the first public televised hearing in the impeachment inquiry into president trump. for only the fourth time in american history americans are now seeing opposition lawmakers trying to make a case that the president of the united states has committed acts that warrant removing him from office, in this case by seeking political advantage from a foreign government, ukraine.

the house intelligence committee questioning career diplomats george kent andil