>> the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump the 45th president of the united states. >> member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland about the investigations. >> i know nothing about that. >> the president's defense is this is a perfect call. i don't hear any republican on the call saying this is a perfect call. >> i understand the facts and the facts are squarely, strongly on the president's side. and i think again the american people see that. >> there's a sunrise. welcome to our viewers around the united states and all around the world. this is a special coverage of the impeachment hearings. there was a bombshell that might show the direct link between the president himself and this coordinated effort to get a foreign country to investigate his political rivals. by that i mean directly beyond the rough notes from the phone call where the president himself

pressured the ukrainian leader. the ambassador talked about a call made after the day the president asked the ukrainian leader to investigate the bidens. >> in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. the member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland 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. responded that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden which giuliani was pressing for. >> all right. no one knew about this testimony until bill taylor arrived yesterday. president trump was asked about this call yesterday. this is what he said. >> i know nothing about that.

first time i heard that. >> the aide who allegedly heard this call, david holmes, he will testify behind closed doors tomorrow. >> and gordon sondland is one of four witnesses scheduled to testify next week who have first hand knowledge in the ukraine controversy. republicans were critical yesterday of the secondhand information they claim was provided by taylor and kent. former ukrainian ambassador marie yovanovitch will testify tomorrow. we have a lot to talk about. let's bring in karen bass of california. she was in the hearing room during the historic proceedings. thanks so much for being here. not only were you in the room yesterday, you also sit on two of the committees that are key in investigating all of this ukraine controversy. so tell me what did you think when you heard the revelation

from bill taylor about this previously undisclosed phone call? >> first of all, i think it's shocking on so many levels. it's shocking that the ambassador could pick up the phone and call the president in a restaurant. the president said he didn't even know the ambassador. it's shocking he could be overheard. and so my republican colleagues say it's all hearsay. so we will hear directly from the gentleman as well as ambassador sondland next week. so it'll be interesting to see how they move the ball further when we do hear from two people with first hand knowledge. >> and so in the room when that was disclosed, just give me the vibe. were you stunned? i mean, what happened inside the room there? >> i absolutely was stunned. i was stunned because i was in

the skiff when the ambassador testified the first time. and i thought his testimony the first time was shocking but to hear this added in, absolutely. i'm glad he did. i think the two gentlemen are patriots and we knead need to t them. i was ashamed with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle how they treated them. >> what part did you find shameful? >> the way they have ridiculed. the way they have tried to minimize the hearings, you know, the ranking member, his opening statement. they don't have anything to say on the substance so they attack the process. you remember they were upset we were having closed door depositions. the transcripts weren't released. okay so we've done all of that and they don't have anything to say to challenge the substance so they attack the process. i think they look desperate. >> what i hear is they're now saying this is hearsay. this is not first hand. they say both of the witnesses yesterday only had hearsay.

it was their opinion. they basically kept saying. many of them say there's nothing wrong with a president i plying pressure to a foreign president. that that happens all the time. >> well, i do not believe that the united states is corrupt like that. and i also think that you heard from the ambassador that that is completely out of the ordinary. of course we put pressure on countries. of course we attacked issues like corruption. but that is clearly not what the president was doing. the president was trying to pressure another country for his own personal political gain. and to me what is so startling about this is that when we were going over the mueller report, the mueller report is talking about the past. what is happening in this instance is the president attempting to impact the current election process. and there is absolutely, positively nothing normal about

that. and also the fact that this is an ally that we withheld military assistance from while they were under attack, you heard the ambassador taylor talk about how he's in ukraine. he was there recently. he talked about people who have been killed. and so the idea that we would withhold military assistance and try to force a president to go out publicly and say he's going to investigate the opponents of trump is really just shameful. and this happens on the world stage. so the whole world is looking at us. and i think it's a very important moment in our history. i was honored to be there, but i do look forward to this process being over. >> congresswoman, there were many questions raised about the disclosure of this phone call yesterday. and some possibly problematic for democrats. if it happened on july 26th and bill taylor's staffer heard it on july 26th, why did bill taylor only learn of it on friday as he said in his opening

statement? >> that i have no idea. perhaps we'll learn when the gentleman comes in the closed door session in the next couple of days and also from sondland. i don't know why he just learned about it. he seemed to be surprised, as well, remember. >> again, that does beg a question. did the staffer not think it was important? had the staffer forgotten about it? obviously you need to know more about this. >> and considering the administration has been trying to do everything they could to cover up the details, there are complaints that this is no first hand knowledge. both the ambassador and the other gentleman that spoke said that they have detailed notes. but the state department is holding onto them and will not allow them to release them. so when there is an opportunity for first hand information, my republican colleagues and the administration don't want to see it come forward. >> but to be clear, you and/or your committee will get a chance to question that staffer tomorrow. >> yes, we will.

but we're still waiting to see if we're going to get the notes from the ambassador and the other information that the state department and the administration is holding onto. there's also the other witnesses that have first hand knowledge that the administration won't allow to come forward. so on the one hand, don't say that this is just hearsay when the administration that you guys are so adamantly defending will not allow more first hand information to come forward. >> so congresswoman, i know you were one of the more reluctant democrats in terms of impeachment. you certainly weren't pressing for it to begin with. so where are you today and what do you think changed yesterday? if anything. >> not so much yesterday. what changed for me fundamentally was the whistle-blower coming forward. it's one thing to talk about what happened in the past and i don't dismiss that. i think the mueller report giving ten examples of obstruction of justice was very, very serious. but the fact of the matter is

what was going on this summer is impacting the current election and also one of our allies. so not only did it. also our international standing and compromising an ally. those are different things. >> quickly, do you think something changed yesterday in terms of the understanding of what happened? >> i do. i mean, i think the hearing about that phone call and then, you know, hopefully the public hearing from these two american heroes coming forward and saying that they have put in decades of public service. and never in their career that they ever experienced anything like this. >> congresswoman karen bass, we look forward to hearing what you all learned tomorrow. thank you very much for being on "new day." >> thank you. >> that big revelation, that new phone call we just learned about yesterday that members of congress just learned about yesterday morning. it's just one part of this

fast-moving impeachment picture. we're going to break down what you can expect to see going forward. next. ferent to a disney movie. (vo) verizon knows you love all things disney. i think we've watched every single movie at least twice. four times. 100 times. (vo) that's why your unlimited plan now comes with disney+ on us for a year. because the network more people rely on gives you more. laso you can enjoy it even ifst you're sensitive. se. yet some say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit!

here hold this. follow that spud. [ tires screech ] the big idaho potato truck is touring america telling folks about idaho potatoes. and i want it back.

what is it with you and that truck? hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

this week marks the start of the historic public impeachment hearings. these are public events americans can watch in realtime. what will happen next? joining us now we have elie honig. great to have you here. >> nk thats. >> more witnesses coming up. who are we expecting? >> if you found yesterday's hearing as riveting as i did, plenty more to come. starting tomorrow with marie

yovanovitch. she was the former ambassador to ukraine who was bounced because she was seen as a road block to giuliani's agenda. she was told this is about your security, you need to come home on the next plane. it was like a tom clancy novel. next week we have a full slate of witnesses including lieutenant colonel vinman who will talk about his understanding of this exchange. quid pro quo, if you will. he has testified before. this was about getting a white house meeting. it was a demand for him to fulfill this prerequisite in order to get a meeting. also next week, gordon sondland. stakes are up now with this new information he had in the restaurant with the president. it kept getting more insidious as the time went on. and kurt volker. it's interesting because yesterday the republicans embraced him as their star witness. he sent this text to andriy yermak clearly setting forth a

quid pro quo. assuming president zelensky he will investigate, we will nail down date for visit to washington. if that's the star witness, they may be in trouble. >> that really spells it out right there. and in terms of the schedule and next steps, i mean, is next week the end? >> no. it looks like -- that could be the end of the live witnesses. but there will be further proceedings in the house of representatives. of course the constitution giving the house the sole power of impeachment. adam schiff's committee passed this resolution on what is going to set forth the hearings. adam schiff will put together a public report of his findings and recommendations. i think it will be like the mueller report. hopefully shorter. then that goes over to judiciary committee. which is headed by jerry nadler. they will recommend articles of impeachment to the full house. and the full house will vote at that point. i think the expectation is this should happen before christmas. now, of course in the house of representatives, a majority vote. simple majority required in

order to impeachment. our current breakdown in the house, we have a democratic majority. 233 of the current seats are democrat. they have a handful of democrats they can actually lose and still impeachment. >> so what happens then in the senate? >> then we go to the senate if there is an impeachment. the senate will hold a trial. that is mind boggling to me. we had one in 1999 for bill clinton. one of the features of a senate trial, unique features constitutionally is the chief justice of the supreme court presides. chief justice rehnquist presided over the clinton trial. chief justice john roberts would preside over the senate trial. who prosecutes the case? a team of managers who essentially serve as prosecutors. i think you'll see adam schiff and others on it. this is not a criminal trial. let's remember that. and of course republicans control the senate. they will set the procedural ground rules. >> and do they have to have a

trial? is there any way for mitch mcconnell to just shut down the process and not have a trial? >> there is an argument because the constitution gives the senate full power to try impeachments, mcconnell could say, i'm exercising that power not to. that said, mcconnell says he feels he has no choice. i think politically it would be tough for him to shut it down. interesting feature. the senators serve as jurors. many said where they would vote. others say i need all the facts. in the senate you need two-thirds of the senators in order to convict. right now the republicans hold the majority with 53. we would need to see 20 republican senators flip over to vote for a conviction in order for the president to be convicted. and if he is convicted, he would be removed and disqualified. some say can he be convicted and run again in 2020. the answer in the constitution is no. he's disqualified from future office as well. >> fascinating. thank you for all the information. that was helpful. so there's this previously

undisclosed phone call between ambassador gordon sondland and the president of the united states that is now a major factor in the impeachment hearings going forward. what that means, what the big takeaways were from these first days of the public hearings and what's next. stay with us. at bayer, we're helping put more gold into the golden years. with better heart treatments, advanced brain disease research, and better ways to age gracefully. at bayer, this is why we science.

seaonly abreva cany to help sget rid of it in... ...as little as 2 1/2 days when used at the first sign. abreva starts to work immediately to block the virus and protect healthy cells. abreva acts on it. so you can too. 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.

so this is cnn's special coverage of the impeachment hearings and there was this major revelation on day one. >> you can't say there aren't sprazs because we've seen the written testimony. then there was one.

>> republicans said there weren't going to be any a-ha moments. there was. bill taylor said he had an aide that overheard a phone call between the president and the ambassador of the european union. >> following the call, my staff asked what president trump thought about ukraine to sondland. sondland responded president trump cares more about the investigation of biden. >> david holmes overheard the call in kiev in a packed restaurant. joining us now joe lockhart, bianna golodryga, and anne milgram. i want to step back and talk about the day as a whole, anne, and there was a moment that i think summed up the testimony

from william taylor and george kent. these career diplomats with decades of service to the united states of america and how they felt about what they saw. >> in your decades of military service and diplomatic service representing the united states around the world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the united states? >> no, i have not. >> so where are we this morning? >> that is a terrific summary of what we saw yesterday. they came in, they were forthright. they answered all the questions. they made a powerful case the president had done exactly this. had basically conditioned foreign aid on his own political and personal advantage. to me yesterday was a home run. the other piece is they talked about in a way that i thought

was -- excuse me -- really powerful, this phone call, this connection to the president. and the idea of the investigations being the overriding force. they seemed truthful because they were truthful. so i think they set the stage for the rest of the investigation. they have literally framed this as the president's abuse of power. and in my view they were not impeached at all yesterday. i think that's where we sit today. >> you've lived through impeachment before. so i'm told. i was too young. what's so funny? >> i wish i was. so give us the big picture. >> i agree with everything anne said. if this was a criminal trial and you had 12 jurors who were carefully selected, it was a slam dunk. i don't know that you would need the rest, but they would go and just pile up. it's not a criminal trial. it's a political trial.

and the real jury here is the people who donald trump thinks he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and say the guy or girl deserved it. so while they made a compelling case that donald trump abused power, extorted the ukraine government, i don't know that this alone will push the maga people enough. i think we have at least two more weeks. eight or nine more witnesses. so something can come. we have a new witness that brings it, but i think without mr. bolton, without mr. mulvaney coming in, it's very hard to see that group moving. i think the house will impeach him. they believe strongly in their case. they're making that case. the politics in the senate right now still among republicans favors the president. you know, we have to see more to

see that dynamic change. >> one dispute there. i don't think necessarily the important audience here is the hard-core donald trump supporters. it's probably the republican who is don't necessarily love him but tend to vote with him or support him loosely. it's people like will hurd who was in that committee. and both of them yesterday indicated they will stay loyal to the president. so i think they perhaps are the more important audience there. >> yeah. but i think the bulk and if you look at the dynamic of any senator who's up, it's that 20% or 30% that if you cross -- it's a cult. you cross the leader of the cult, they'll turn against you. so i think there is a soft part of the republican party. and we've already seen it move. the abc poll had 74%. this is having an impact but to get the votes in the senate, you're going to have to take that base and really peel off some of it. and we're going to have to see

more to see that happen. >> what i thought was reassuring was that was not political. who was highly skilled in their area of expertise. >> bill taylor said he preferred president trump's policy on ukraine and giving the defense weapons over obama. >> and they've worked with both democratic and republican administrations. and for americans, we should be proud we have diplomats like this serving our country abroad. and not only ukraine. right? imagine all the other countries where there are unknown diplomats doing the same hard work that these two are. especially when you hear opening testimonies. because there's a difference between reading it and hearing it. they carried it with the gravitas that maybe we didn't see in the mueller hearings. but what we heard from them was dedication to this mission, right? and we heard expertise as to why the u.s. should care about u.s./ukraine foreign policy. why it was so important for

russians to know that we were supporting this turn towards western civilization, western democracy for ukraine. why it was so important for russia to know that we were on ukraine's side. and there was something that taylor said that really stood out to me. he said the russians are violating all of the rules and treaties that committed to to actually keep the peace. that rule of law and order was violated by the russians and if we don't push back and if that continues, that affects the kind of world we live in. and to hear both of them sum up why this relationship is so key, why lives are at stake made me think if only the president who said he didn't know bill taylor, if only he spent as much time with them talking about the geopolitical issues in that part of the world as he does to vladimir putin. >> you know what they've done in kiev? listen in on phone calls many times. this new evidence submitted yesterday by william taye already that he had an aide who

heard president trump's voice asking about the investigations the day after president trump leaned on president zelensky to investigate first reflect on how this is as a piece of evidence. and the are you kidding meness of hearing the president's voice in a restaurant in kiev. >> they have this meeting on july 26th with ukrainians. sondland then goes to a restaurant with one of the staffers for bill taylor and he's having a call with the president of the united states in the restaurant. there's bad judgment here just to begin with, like, this is the conversation you have. then you have an aide listening and hearing this conversation about, you know -- and then following up saying what does the president think of ukraine to which sondland replies he's more concerned about the bidens and the investigations than about ukraine. that is to all the points we're

making, that is in direct of the rule of law and all the work we're trying to do abroad. this wasn't one call, one innocent. this was a campaign that went on for months to try to force the ukrainians to do something that would benefit the president. that's why it's an important piece of evidence. it's yet another link, another piece of corroboration. this one frankly overhearing the president makes it very clear it also -- one other piece of this. it brings sondland right back into focus. and so sondland now needs to -- excuse me. he needs to answer for this. >> and speaking to this irregular channel, castor at one point was saying if you were so alarmed why didn't you speak out sooner? he said as he had in his original testimony, that he wasn't that bothered by an irregular channel. it may have been unusual, but if it had access, if sondland had access directly to the president and it worked, why not? the only time he became bothered by it was when it diverged from

foreign policy and what was meant to help the president for his re-election campaign and not to serve u.s. national interests. >> and how many times have you in your vast long career ever sent a cable to the secretary of state. he said once. >> right. >> i think one of the things to bring some of this stuff together, one of the things democrats have to do to make this more relevant to the public is show there's a move away from democracy, away to ukraine to looking after russia's interests. we have everything from the helsinki meeting to syria to everything we heard yesterday and we have -- you know, it's become kind of a running joke that vladimir putin is the president's national security adviser. it's not a joke. i think that's something even bigger than the president violating the rule of law because that's -- and that's something that republicans will have a very hard time defending.

>> and it also raises an important question that we haven't answered yet. and that is did vladimir putin and how long has vladimir putin known that money and aid was being withheld? if he had that leverage, if he knew that, that is detrimental. >> friends, thank you very much for all of the analysis this morning. the key question after day one of the hearings, are democrats going to be able to make a convincing case? so we have an impeachment lawyer on that next. ♪

hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

(employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy.

we have a developing story right now. cnn has learned that during a meeting in the oval office on wednesday, turkish president erdogan pulled out an ipad to show a group of republican senators and president trump a propaganda video that cast the kurds in a negative light. this is according to a gop

source who is familiar with the situation. bianna golodryga is back with us. this is interesting because yesterday it seemed during that press conference that president trump was sort of outsourcing any criticism of erdogan or turkey to these republican senators. he was saying you're going to hear an earful from these republican senators about, you know, new weapons and stuff like that. and so it sounds like during that meeting, erdogan showed this propaganda video to the senators and the president that was really, you know, negative about the kurds. >> right. it wasn't as if this was an objective meeting to begin with because the president introduced erdogan as his good friend and someone he strongly supports and is a strong leader. so it was a really surreal scenario where you have republicans there and the president of the united states having to sell them on president erdogan. instead of erdogan coming to the u.s. and perhaps at least acquiescing to some of the demands that are coming from the u.s. and republican senators, he comes in and what gumption to

come in with this ipad and show the kurds in a negative light. clearly his government views the kurds as terrorists. that's not how the u.s. sees them. this is just a month after the one phone call the president allowed erdoga to come in and invade syria and disperse so many of these syrian kurds. many of them were killed as well. there are accusations of genocide and human rights violations. and for erdogan to come in with this doctored video to try to convince u.s. senators and good for u.s. senators. many of them stood up to erdogan and said why are you showing this to us? we have a lot of evidence to show you, you know, what atrocities you've committed as well. so once again, it's just this situation where a few years ago no one would have believed you have a dictator come into the united states and instead of coming in as a u.s. guest and

being gracious to his hosts, he's coming if here showing us propaganda videos. >> it shows the autocratic thinking of someone who doesn't deal with senators like this. these are bipartisan support senators for the kurds. >> not to mention the human rights violations in his own country. >> all right. thank you very much. want to get back now to the impeachment hearings as we watched the first day unfold publicly yesterday. more testimony tomorrow. joining me now is ross garber who has represented four governors facing impeachment proceedings. mike might be the most preeminent impeachment lawyer in the country. along those lines from what you saw yesterday -- and i'm going to ask you both questions. you know, if your job is to get the president off, okay? what hurt your case yesterday? >> yeah. so if i were defending the president, i think i'd be concerned that the witnesses

yesterday came off as incredibly credible and solid. and in second, the process actually seemed to work. i thought chairman schiff did a great job controlling the committee. and the questions were actually very good and solid from the democrats. i think schiff did a good job with his questions. i think goldman did a very good job with his questions. i think those things would concern me if i were representing the president. >> and then the flipside of that, if you were representing the president and your job is to get him off, not impeach or aconvicted in the senate trial, what worked in your favor yesterday? >> so it is very early in the process. as i've seen in my practice, things can change very quickly. i think as our country awe in the nixon situation, you know, the president had a ton of support until it collapsed from under him. it is very early in the process. but if i were representing the

president, i wouldn't mind sort of how things went yesterday in as much as i don't think there were sort of, you know, direct hits on the president. i think the republicans made decent points that the witnesses didn't have direct interactions with the president on these issues. and that there wasn't really anything, i thought, that would probably grab the attention of the american people who aren't already paying attention to this or convince potentially persuadable republicans to vote in favor of impeachment. >> how do you see this new piece of evidence? look, we're not often surprised in this business at the moment. and i think we were all surprised yesterday when william taylor in his opening statement announced there was this new phone call where an aide heard the president pressuring or talking about the investigations with an ambassador. what's the significance there? >> in terms of surprise, i'm actually waiting for some surprises. there are a lot of things here.

think about it, that we don't know. you know, we don't know about the interactions between bolton and the president and pompeo and the president and the white house counsel's office. there's a lot we don't know here that we may learn. but with respect to this phone call, i think it was interesting. you know, there's going to be a deposition of the guy who actually, you know, overheard the phone call and talked to sondland about it. i'm not sure yet we can make really anything of it and kind of, you know, i'm not sure it's either here nor there yet. >> all right. i have two questions which i hope i can get to here. number one, the democrats focused a lot and taylor and kent focused a lot on foreign policy and the implications of all this on foreign policy. they thought this was important. you thought maybe they focused too much on that and not enough on rudy giuliani. why? >> yeah. i think rudy is a big issue in all of this.

you know, what is the president's personal lawyer doing conducting foreign policy? i think that's the big vulnerability here. but yesterday focused a lot on foreign policy. i think that was a concern for the democrats for two reasons. one is i'm not sure our position vis-a-vis ukraine actually sort of captivates the public's imagination and then second, you know, foreign policy is entrusted to the president. you know, i think what we're going to see is the republicans make a potentially valid point is that if what this is about is a disagreement between the president and career diplomats about the -- about u.s. foreign policy under the constitution, the president wins. >> one of the things you have to be careful of as an attorney -- a defense attorney, is setting a bar that then can be met in the course of the trial. and the republicans set this bar yesterday while taylor and kent,

they didn't speak to the president personally. they're not firsthand witnesses to any of this. well, next week we are going to hear from people who spoke to the president personally. ambassador gordon sondland. we're going to hear from colonel vinman who listened to a call. laura cooper, a firsthand witness to the issue of funding here. so there are people we are going to hear from who are directly involved. >> indeed. and i think sondland so far is going to be the most interesting witness. because he had a lot of personal interactions not just with the president but with rudy giuliani. i think it's not so much sort of setting a bar as kind of pulling out pieces of the jenga tower that the democrats are trying to build here. it's going to be sort of a scatter shot approach. so far the republicans haven't had a cohesive narrative. we haven't heard from the republicans. look, relax, everybody. here's what actually happened. here's what the president was actually doing. here's why it was okay.

and in part, i think it's because there's so much we don't know. so yes. yesterday what the republicans said was these guys didn't interact directly with the president. i think you're going to see different arguments with other witnesses. >> ross, this is really helpful. ross garber. you look at this i think through experienced eyes that really inform the process for us. appreciate you being with us. >> happy to be here. former president jimmy carter is making progress in his recovery from a serious brain procedure. doctors at emery university hospital in atlanta performed the procedure monday to relieve pressure on president carter's brain caused by bleeding after some recent falls. dr. sanjay gupta joining us now. he is a practicing neurosurgeon at emery hospital but is not involved with president carter's care. how's he doing this morning? >> he's doing well. 95 years old has this operation on monday. up walking around by the second

day post-operatively. there's still the need for physical therapy. he may still have weakness on one side of his body as a result of this pressure on the brain. but all signs very favorable. needs some follow-up and we'll hear about that. but sounds like he's making a great recovery. >> that's really good news. and while we have you, i want to ask you about what sounds like very bad news and that is this new cdc report on deadly drug resistant superbugs. that sounds worrisome. how worried are you? >> look, i -- you know me not to be a hyperbolic person, alisyn. i don't want to overstate this, but i think antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest health threats we have around the world. it was roughly a hundred years ago we discovered penicillin. and since then it's been a game of whack a mole. we come up with new antibiotics,

the bacteria become hard to treat. it's really challenging. you know, the numbers -- you didn't used to have any antibiotic resistant infections in the past. a hundred years ago. now there was 2.8 million in 2017. a person died of an antibiotic resistant infection of 15 minutes. about 35,000 deaths a year occurring. and the cdc center for disease control has added new organisms they consider urgent threats. there are five bacteria on the list that are either impossible or very difficult to treat with antibiotics. we've got to stop using existing antibiotics so much. let me show you something quickly that i think might be one of the most important full screens i put up. we'll put this on our website as well. when do you need antibiotics and when do you absolutely not need

antibiotics. look at the bottom right corner. common cold, sore throat, flu. those are caused by viruses. and antibiotic is not -- it won't work, and it's problematic because when you use the antibiotics, it causes resi resistance. remember that list of things there and don't ask for antibiotics for a cold. >> people can find that on cnn.com. sanjay, thank you very much for that troubling yet helpful information. >> the normally unflappable dr. sanjay gupta flapped -- >> i didn't call that flapping. >> no, this is something that sanjay is deeply concerned about for years. this first day of the public impeachment hearings. what has the effect been inside washington? what are the insiders saying? one man has had his ear to the ground all night. >> only one man knows. >> hasn't slept a wink. yet some say it isn't real milk.

i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit! sleep this amazing? that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. there's just something different to a disney movie. (vo) verizon knows you love all things disney. i think we've watched every single movie at least twice. four times. 100 times. (vo) that's why your unlimited plan now comes with disney+ on us for a year. because the network more people rely on gives you more. can't imagine doing it any other way. this is caitlin dickerson from the new york times. this isn't the only case. very little documentation. lo que yo quiero estar con mi hijo. i know that's not true. and the shelters really don't know what to do with them. i just got another person at d.h.s. to confirm this. i have this number. we're going to publish the story.

- [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. well i didn't choose metastatic breast cancer. not the exact type. not this specific mutation. but i did pick hope... ...and also clarity...

...by knowing i have a treatment that goes right at it. discover piqray, the first and only treatment that specifically targets pik3ca mutations in hr+, her2- mbc, which are common and linked to cancer growth. piqray is taken with fulvestrant after progression on hormone therapy and has been proven to help people with a pik3ca mutation live longer without disease progression. do not take piqray if you've had a severe allergic reaction to it or to any of its ingredients. piqray can cause serious side effects including severe allergic and skin reactions, high blood sugar levels and diarrhea that are common and can be severe, and lung problems known as pneumonitis. tell your doctor right away if you have symptoms of severe allergic reactions or high blood sugar while taking piqray. your doctor will monitor your blood sugar before you start and during treatment and may monitor more often if you have a history of type 2 diabetes. before starting, tell your doctor if you have a history of diabetes, skin reactions... ...are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include rash, nausea, tiredness and weakness, decreased appetite, mouth sores, vomiting, weight loss, hair loss, and changes in certain blood tests.

if you've progressed on hormone therapy, and have a pik3ca mutation... ...ask your doctor about piqray. ( ♪ ) only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes.

they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®. did day one of the historic trump impeachment hearings set the tone for what's to come tomorrow and next week? let's get the bottom line with david chalian, cnn political director. let's talk about day one. what were your takeaways? >> it certainly set the tone. one of my big takeaways was how different this looked than other hearings. i thought because of the way it was structured, having the 45-minute chunks for each side to sort of delve into a deeper questioning with the witnesses

and not going immediately to five minutes for each member. it sort of kept the side shows that we normally see at these hearings at bay, i thought and kind of matched the moment. the quite sobering moment of what we're going through here as a country which is the potential impeachment of the president of the united states. in that sense, i do think it set the tone. >> interesting to watch because what this is technically is an investigation. this is still a fact-finding process ua process, and this is the time where the american people get to watch and learn those facts. that's how adam schiff is painting it and the democrats are painting it. what the white house and republicans are doing is just declaring victory. just trying to say we won the day. and there are two different strategies there. one side is saying we're trying to find stuff out and the other side is saying we're trying to win. if they're playing two different things, i wonder what you think is more effective. i do think the white house, the rnc, the trump campaign, they're

playing by the moment by moment, i wouldn't say win the day, but the twitter minute or hour on facebook and getting their messaging out. the republican message yesterday about everything that these witnesses were saying was just hearsay. they didn't have any direct conversations. that is a message that has a shelf life of 30 seconds or so. next week we're going to be hearing from witnesses who had direct conversations with the president. so it seems to me they're playing for just the moment to moment trying to control the narrative. you're right. schiff is trying to lay out a case and build a foundation which may be a tougher task to do in this news environment, though clearly the democrats were helped by that big bombshell revelation that you were talking about all morning about that sondland/trump phone call the day after the zelensky phone call. >> schiff is laying out a case, but isn't it also a foregone conclusion. don't the democrats in the house know how they're voting at this point?

>> yeah, i would extend that one step further, don't most of the senators in the senate know how they'll vote on a trial? we can sort of fast forward to a trial but have to allow for this being a dynamic process. these things have biorhythms of their own. and so, yes, all the numbers add up that the house is going to impeach and the senate is most likely to acquit the president here. i don't think anything happened yesterday if you're trying to come up with a list of 20 republican senators who are going to flip in a senate trial against the president and vote to remove him from office. i don't know whose name you added to that list after just yesterday. but we've got some time to go here. and these things do tend to have their own sense of rhythm. >> that's a different calculation once again than are we finding out new things? is the goal to find out as much as you can about this, period, or is it to convince 20 senators? and those might be two different things there. we did learn about this new testimony. we have these new witnesses and i wonder if there is new pressure largely based on the

argument the republicans are making to have some of these witnesses who have refused to testify or aren't being allowed to if there will be new pressure to get them. mick mulvaney, john bolton, maybe even rudy giuliani. >> it may provide some new pressure. it may from a political calculus make it somewhat easier for nancy pelosi to keep the entirety of her caucus together when we get to a house impeachment vote. maybe yesterday by having this new information that brings it closer to the president, maybe she loses fewer members on the vote. it can be small bite sized developments. >> and tomorrow that new witness, previously undisclosed who even bill taylor didn't know about until friday, will be meeting behind closed doors. so then we'll have new information. we can assume. david chalian, thank you very much for all of the analysis. >> this is a remarkable moment that we're witnessing right now. and cnn is all over it.

our live special coverage of the impeachment hearings continues right now with wolf blitzer. >> good morning. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. we want to welcome our viewers here in the united states and around the world. in hours of testimony during this, the first impeachment hearing of the trump presidency, the stunning new information came in just during the first few minutes. the top u.s. diplomat in ukraine, bill taylor, revealing that just days ago, he learned that a senior embassy staffer overheard a phone conversation between president trump and the united states ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland. the political affairs counsel david holmes said he heard the president ask sondland about investigations into the bidens. president trump says he doesn't remember the phone call and he called it secondhand information. the firsthand information will come next week, raising the stakes dramatically for sondland's testimony next wednesday. and tomorrow,