an hour later, there's a call with omb that lasts 12 minutes and 56 seconds. omb to rudy giuliani. there's a couple of zero time calls from rudy giuliani to a, the omb number. maybe that was a pocket dial or butt dial then at 15:57. 3:57, 40 odd minutes the call with the omb number, there's a 22 sexd call with tsecond call the white house switchboard. a 17 second call. a couple hours later. seems like he's trying to get ahold of somethibody and is not being put through with the duration of these calls. >> this adds to the evidence people saw in those public hearings because this is all happening, this log is august 8th. on august 9th, we know from public tennells that became public, and i'm reading again from this new report you have, sondland saying potus wants a deliverable on august 9th, you have ambassador volcker saying we've consulted with everythion quote, including rue di, let's get back on the phone. so we knew there was a lot of plotting going on. what's new is not only is rudy giuliani in the center of this plot, we knew that. but rudy giuliani is having what sounds like

question, okay, so this person who worked at omb legal expressed concerns and resigned from omb. does this person tell you they were leaving or resigning from omb because of their concerns or frustrations about the hold on ukraine security assistance? >> yes, in terms of how -- yes, in terms of the process. and then there's back and forth with the lawyer who's there with mark sandy, but eventually sandy comes back to the point and says, the individual who resigned from the legal office at omb, did note a disagreement on this topic. and this topic being the hold on ukraine security assistance? yes. just to be clear, what was the disagreement with? was the disagreement with the fact that omb was handling the hold? i think the best way to characterize it would be a accidenting opinion vis-a-vis the control act provisions. in other words, whether what the president ordered is illegal or not. it's a basic idea, congress appropriated these military funds for ukraine, that meant the white house was legally obligated to disburse those funds. congress appropriates the money, white house i

in this case, phone records from the white house and omb. i don't think the members of the committee are at that point, at least we know of, where they're ready to start subpoenaing records from the white house and omb. that certainly an escalation. that's normally what you would do. now, they only have one-sided records, rudy guiliani records and his associate, les parnes. that would tell us who was placing these calls and use the timing when calls were made and made connections which is what we're missing right now, wolf. >> we will stay on top of this story. an important development indeed. everybody stand by. ♪ only roomba i7+ uses two multi-surface rubber brushes. and picks up more pet hair than other robot vacuums. and the filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™. the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra

to omb at around the same time that mark sandy says who was at omb he was worried about the aid being held up and mick mulvaney who was running omb says there was a quid pro quo. how do you explain all that away? >> look chris, at the end of the day, all of this testimony like i've said time and time again is going to come down to, you know, there was no legitimate investigation. there was no testimony. >> forget about it. that's process. how do you explain what i just said? >> process matters here, chris. >> no, the process has been fine. you guys had half the room -- you had half the room working as counsel for the president in that intel committee hearings. we've never seen anything like it. >> half the room with an arm tied behind their back and you know it. >> i have to leave it there. we'll see what happens with the judiciary tomorrow. it's really a historical play but once it starts to move, i love having you guys in to explain it and make the case to everybody else. but not process. you will not argue process here no matter how handsome you are. >>> a whole lot of people are c

an omb director telling us to get over it. a partisan congressman moonlighting as a gop operaterative and a columnist pushing conspiracy theories. we've learned all these players were dark alley partners in a common scheme to bewin in 2020. president trump telling ukraine he wanted a favor, rudy giuliani working hand in hand with the omb which controlled the arms aid and giuliani working the phones with the bunch and omb, all working with a french columnist who pushed out their dirty message. not lone operative, not lone operators, not a vague troop of allies but a confidence gang, a syndicate, a mob all advancing the corrupt plan to discredit the case against trump in 2016 and destroy the hopes of a democrat challenging him in 2020. in other words, one and the same criminal enterprise. that's what we're learning from the final report by the house intelligence committee today, which just minutes ago cast a momentous vote to approve their findings in the impeachment inquiry. the 300-page report is the basis for the core article

giuliani contacting and texting office of the omb over and over and over. to put it in different media language, this would be a front page story, huge deal that the president's personal lawyer and ukraine fixer not only has but is talking to omb for 14 minutes. no one at the office of management or budget had the reason to talk to him. >> acting as the president's personal lawyer, not in government. to go back to your point about congress, framers expected congress to have institutional interests that would transcend politics and we've seen a complete breakdown of that set of functions with this particular congress and devin nunes' role in the middle of this is an amazing example of that. >> yeah. the report starts with a quote from george washington, from his farewell address, in which he is warning the country about unscrupulous, cunning, ambitious, i think that's washington's term, men that will use the power to subvert democracy, take away democracy. about a third of the way into it they've centered this very much around the constitutional principles a

which omb provided in the first week of september. the aide was released of course on september 11th. the democrats wanted to impeach the evidence that taxpayer funds are spent efficiently and responsibly. the democrats accused them of a myriad of things. that prohibits executive from essentially pocket comic pocket be dealing funds. this letter than i'm trying to introduce shows instead that the administration never intended or actually violated the law. in fact it shows that it always intended to disburse the funds and that's why dod was permitted to engage in all activities in preparation for the delivery of the aide. you have not made your case again. the omb walks through the history behind programmatic delays and i'm sure this would be boring to my friends on the other side since it technique radically destroys their central theory for impeachment. in the letter of the omb general counsel said even with the temporary withholding the department of defense was able to obligate 84% of the $250 million before the end of the fiscal y

it says omb. hold on. a source tells us the number listed in the democrats' impeachment report associated with omb, that was the chart we all saw. but that number can go to multiple officials in the white house. mike quigley joins us now. thank you, congressman. good to have you on. appreciate it. the significance of this discrepancy? >> we said at the beginning, don't read too much into all of this. what we learn from these call records is that it was a whole of the administration effort. what did ambassador sondland say? everyone was in on the loop. they were all engaged in this. clearly this was the administration and the white house working in its entirety, to move this scheme forward. i don't know that i can say who each number is attached to that isn't identified. >> right. >> and i think i tell people, don't jump to the conclusions until we learn more. >> well, to be fair -- >> the chairman said just the other day -- >> finish. >> -- yeah, the chairman said the other day, we're going to continue to

omb is repeatedly putting taer hol -- temporary holds on this money. dod says we need this in writing. they're skeptical. you see the bureaucratic infighting play out because no one understands why suddenly the president has called for a hold on this money. but omb, as you said, was stonewalled. these deputies have not testified. the only person with omb who testified was one career official, mark sandy. everyone else is in a black hole. "new york times," cnn that have filed for four years have tried to get documents from omb. what's interesting in omb is in the white house, both documents don't have to go. at some point more and more and more is going to come out with what happened inside omb through lawsuits, through information requests, through lots of things they have to comply with that the white house doesn't. how long could the democrats have waited? what if they stalled three months, six months? how long can that process play out? i don't know that that works, either. >> it may get delayed until the president gets reelected, maybe it goes to t

a nearly 13-minute call also from omb to giuliani in august. all of which is surprising and strange. why is the office of management and budget calling the president's personal attorney? she has been on the forefront of this coverage, her latest piece focusing on those call logs. rebecca, what do we know about these calls between rudy and omb? >> still very little. what we learned yerld as you said is that these calls existed. previously nobody had said that rudy had been in contact with omb, and rudy who this whole time has denied knowing that the aid was frozen over the summer has never mentioned speaking to anyone from omb. and what we learned today is that omb after conducting a review of their officials call records, didn't find anybody in their agency who spoke to giuliani. so that, of course, begs the question of how are they categorizing these calls, and is there someone else who might qualify for that? and one clear question is whether it could be mick mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff who is also the omb director. >> rig

you mentioned the information from omb. but when the acting chief of staff gave his press conference, he said, very clearly, that the aid was being withheld because of the need to investigate the 2016 election. now, you are talking about corruption. i think that the notion that president zelensky did not feel pressure and was just fine with military assistance being withheld. first of all, they did know that the military assistance was being withheld. and there was no reason for the administration to hold back because of corruption, considering that the department of defense had already said that there was no problem. and that the aid could be released. the aid was released after the administration was busted. after there was pressure from congress for the aid to be released. after word leaked out and the whistle-blower came forward, then the aid was released. i think it's very important to remember that. president zelensky, not feeling pressure and he was just fine. he was essentially being held hostage. he was a newly-ele

including, surprise, the news that at the time omb was in this crisis, that omb was macgyvering together this slapdash effort to try to make it look legal that the president was illegally holding up military aid to ukraine and omb officials are quitting in protest and saying we can't do this, this is illegal, and they're installing their own trump political appointee to take over the process because all the career people keep sighing at meeting after meeting hey, this is illegal, we can't do this, at the same time that's going on at that agency, hey, look at that, now we know, somebody at that office, somebody at omb is repeatedly on the phone with rudy giuliani? wait a second. rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer who has no government job, is on the phone with the office of management and budget? quote, in the middle -- excuse me, in the midafternoon of august 8th someone using a telephone number associated with the office of management and budget, omb, called mr. giuliani and the call lasted nearly 13 minutes. mr. giuliani called the omb number and the white house situation r

rebecca, what do we know about these calls between rudy and omb? >> still very little. what we learned yesterday, as you said, is that these called existed. previously nobody had said that rudy had been in contact with omb, and rudy, who this whole time has denied knowing that the aid was frozen over the summer, has never mentioned speaking to anyone from omb. and what we learned today is that omb, after conducting a review of their official's call reports, didn't find anybody in their agency who spoke to giuliani. so that of course begs the question of how are they categorizing these calls, and is there someone else who might qualify for that? and one clear question is whether it could be mick mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff, who is also the omb director. >> right. you could imagine a very sort of like -- a sort of finely parsed answer that says no one in omb spoke to rudy giuliani, but mick mulvaney, because he wears two hats maybe did. >> right. so we posed that question to various white house officials and to rudy, and while rudy acknowledged speakin

this provides a window into omb's legal explanation for that hold-up. the hold-up is part of this debate on the floor as part of this mark-up. one other thing i should notice. the president is tweeting this morning about the impeachment process. he's claiming this would be the first impeachment of a president where no crime has been committed but as you know, there is no crime that needs to happen in order for a president to be impeached. >> we're also learning that the retired harvard law professor alan dershowitz could emerge as a legal adviser to the president. what exactly are you hearing on that front? >> that's right. alan dershowitz has a close relationship with the president. he took his side during the mueller investigation. very outspoken about that. he's been playing this role as an informal adviser to the white house during this impeachment process. a source familiar with the matter tells me that he very well could join the president's legal team and play a role in the senate trial by arguing the constitutional merits. but at this point, it'

including surprise the news that at the time omb was in this crisis, that omb was mcgivering together and they're installing their own trump political appointee to take over the process because all the career people keep saying meeting after meeting hey this is illegal, we can't do this. hey, look at that now we know somebody at that office, somebody at omb is repeatedly on the phone with rudy giuliani. wait a second. rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer who has no government job is on the phone with the office of management and budget? quote, in the middle of -- excuse me, on the midafternoon of august 8th someone using a telephone number associated with the office of management and budget, omb, called mr. giuliani and the call lasted nearly 13 minutes. mr. giuliani called the omb office and white house situation room several times that evening. this is the office of management and budget. they're in charge of dispersing the money the federal government sends. here's a serious agency with a real job to do. that's in the middle of a crisis here because of the president order

>> essentially what omb is trying to say here is, look, this was all a routine policy process that was taking place, and so we as omb, as the agency responsible for either doling out these funds or holding them back, we held them back. >> we had testimony counter to that, and isn't this something would you have said as soon as someone asked about it as opposed to in the last hour? >> well, this is coming in response to a letter from the government accountability office, which is essentially a nonpartisan congressional watchdog. >> sure. >> but as you mentioned, chris, we have heard testimony, including from mark sandy, one of the senior officials, career officials at omb, that this was anything but a routine policy process, that this was extremely unusual the way that this was all carried out. >> and when he asked about it, the oversight of it was taken from him, that there was another employee that there was a similar situation with and a trump political appointee ended up taking it even though he was new to the situation, and this explanation was not offered at that time according to

omb received request for information on what other countries were contributing to ukraine which omb provided in the first week of spent the aid was released, of course, on september 11th. democrats want to impeach the president to ensure taxpayer funds are spent responsibly. -- which prohibits the executive from essentially pocket vetoes funds appropriated by congress. this letter that i'm trying to introduce shows instead that the administration never intended or actually violated the law, in fact, it shows that it always intended to disperse the funds. that is why dod was permitted to engage in all activities in preparation for delivery of the aid. you've not made your case, again. the omb letter walks through at great length the history behind progr programmatic delays. it technocratically destroys their impeachment. says even with the temporary withholding the department of defense was able to obligate 84% of the $250 million for the end of the fiscal year on september 0th. in the last year of the obama administration, it was only 79%. more recently in 2018, 83%, in 2017, 91%. let's get

yet omb says this is something that had been discussed. these are e-mails taken out of context. do they have a point? >> no. the fact that they may have been in the works before the phone call with zelensky simply adds to the story line. the reality is they were in this period of time when the president was going to be calling zelensky. clearly the president wanted zelensky to interfere in the u.s. 2020 presidential election by launching this ridiculous investigation. so this was clearly on the president's mind both before the phone call, but it was right after the phone call that they put this into action with the official withholding documents. so the fact that they were already discussing this before the phone call seems to me just adds to the narrative that this was part of the president's plan to abuse the office of the presidency to extract this political favor from ukraine. again, if that's not true and if the white house says there's nothing to this, why not give the congress the documents? that's the basic question. what are you trying to hide? >> senator, a lot of peop

were calls to omb. the white house is now saying, that isn't necessarily true. there's a wide range of possible white house numbers that those calls could have been made to so are you certain this morning it was omb? >> what i'm certain of is the white house has not given us any of the records we've requested. if they want to be helpful they should respond to the 72 document requests we've made. but what you see sheer that rudy giuliani, president of the lawyer -- rudy giuliani, lawyer to president trump, is out there doing the work of donald trump, including making calls that we believe are to omb. >> do you believe they were to omb? here's the thing. if there's no question he made a lot of calls to the white house and omb is part of the white house. no one is disputing the white house has this information and could turn it over today. i want to know if the intelligence committee still thinks those calls were to omb. >> i've not had a reason we think otherwise. the white house excuse this morning was i

>> yeah, so even in september there were questions to one omb -- in one omb official's mind as to why this was still even happening, why there was withholding of aid, that she didn't have enough information to even know for herself why this was taking place, so we're not going to have a full story until we have unrededucted versions of these documents, which i should note we're back in court fighting the center for public integrity to get exactly that, the unredacted documents. >> do you think these add to the narrative of what exactly happened here? does it fill in the blanks? >> i think it's just further confirmation of a lot of the facts we've gotten from the impeachment inquiry and testimony from a lot of career documents. one of the first things that came to mind to me, especially when reading the july 25th email from michael duffey, basically saying that we want to hold off on this funding was, of course, the fact that it came an hour and a half after this phone call that the president had with ukraine's president in which, if you recall from the transcript, zelensky indicated t

omb letter walks through his try behind problematic delays. boring to friends on the sorry i'd since technocraticly denies their theory forn't r impeachment. the department of defense able to get about 84% of the $250 million before end fiscal year september 30th. last year of the obama administrati administration, 39 percea lesse. get back to specific language appropriations authority says for the ukraine authority initiative, $250 million appropriated to remain available until september 30th of 2019. point one. remain available until september 30th, 2019. authorizing funds we give administration a deadline. administration complied with that deadline. administration acted completely and totally within the bounds of the law. secondly, the omb's letter now definitively destroys the insinuation that president close to delay for malicious or corrupt purposes. the bottom line is the aid was lawfully delayed and lawfully delivered. that means that this entire process has been a sham. with that i'm going to address a couple of issues i heard. i hear

we also know who was at omb at one point was mick mulvaney. i don't know if he kept his same phone exchange. but it had to do with the hold on foreign election aid. why the president's personal, private attorney would be doing that is very much an open question but all rudy is saying there is you don't know what i said. that could change if lev parnas flips. >> one more thing that was interesting in the jonathan turley opening statement which is 52 pages long. we don't know how much -- we don't know how much he'll read. he said it is not wrong what's happening because we're in an election year. there is never a good time for an impeachment. on that note we should leave it there. there's never a good time, but today you'll see the next step of it. elie, thank you. >>> we're expecting to hear from president trump soon. cnn's special coverage of the impeachment hearings begins right now with wolf blitzer in washington. >>> good morning. welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. any minu

two omb staffers quit. one of them, because they were concerned that there was a violation of the law that the president was withholding aid that was congressionally-appropriated. and they weren't being given reasons why. also, remember that in the testimony that we saw before the intelligence committee, that there was someone -- there was one of the witnesses who testified that they heard an omb official saying that order came from trump. mr. duffy could tell us whether that's accurate. >> heidi, just to follow up. do we have any sense that there have been any negotiations between leader mcconnell and chuck schumer? are they getting anywhere? or is this a standoff that is just deepening by the minute? >> it's a standoff through the holidays, which i have to say, like i think we're all personally thankful for that a little bit just in terms of the timing. but it is a real standoff. that we don't know how that's going to end because, you know, leader mcconnell is technically accurate that in 1999, there was

i would also note that just recently, just a few weeks ago, two omb officials resigned. and they resigned because of deep concerns that they had about what they were being asked to do. one of those individuals worked in the legal department that issued this after-the-fact cover-up memo from omb. now let me just ask the american people this. if the president was waiting, had deep concerns about corruption and was waiting for ukraine to take major steps on corruption, let me ask you what you think any president might do in that situation. might they ask the department of defense to follow up on those major anti-corruption things that they were trying to get done? he did not do that. would they -- would that president inform top agencies about those concerns? no, he didn't do that either. in fact, they were all universally in agreement that the aid should be released. and might the president inform congress that this was something that he was concerned about and he had to withhold the aid? he didn't do that either. after-the-fact cover-up memo. that's all this is. we need t

that's their choice. >> isn't omb at the white house? i think omb is part of the executive office of the president. >> i was referring to russ who is running the place and is currently defying the subpoena but doing interviews with another network. >> i think i can guess which one. vivian, house republican leader kevin mccarthy of california made this argument using the speaker's own words from earlier this year. take a listen. >> she laid out a criteria, the speaker of the house, telling the american public in march of this year that impeachment was so divisive that it would divide the nation, that the only way we could move down it had to be compelling, it had to be overwhelming and it had to be bipartisan. the stand that she gave to the nation, that she gave to her own conference, she will not hold her own self to. >> i think pelosi would argue that it is definitely compelling and it is definite ling overwhelming. what is the response to the idea it is not bipartisan, at least in terms of votes? is that a failure of the democrats or i

in a statement released this morning an omb spokesperson says it's reckless to tie ukraine funding to the july 25th call. the spokesperson says that decision was announced july 18th. meanwhile, president trump at a summit for young conservatives last night striking a familiar theme on impeachment. >> there's no crime. there's no nothing. how do you impeach is this you had no crime. even their people said there was no crime. crazy nancy, she's crazy. >> from the impeachment to the battle for 2020, we have a team of reporters and analysts this morning to help break it all down for us. let's go to nbc's hans nichols who is traveling with the president on this holiday weekend in west palm beach, florida. these are heavily redacted documents. what else can you tell us about what's in them? >> reporter: yeah, well, it gives us a sense a little bit of what the bureaucracy looks like behind the scenes, but only a sense, phillip. we don't have a complete and clear picture, this in large part because many of the officials writing these emails haven't testified before -- they didn't testify befo

i would also note that just recently, just a few weeks ago, two omb officials resigned. and they resigned because of deep concerns that they had about what they were being asked to do. one of those individuals worked in the legal department that issued this after the fact cover-up memo from omb. now, let me just ask the american people this. if the president was waiting, had deep concerns about corruption and was waiting for ukraine to take major steps on corruption, let me ask you what you think any president might do in that situation. might they ask the department of defense to follow up on those major anti-corruption things that they were trying to get done? he did not do that. would that president inform top agencies who are about those concerns? no, he didn't do that either. in fact, they were all universally in agreement that the aid should be released. and might the president inform congress that this was something that he was concerned about, and he had to withhold the aid? he didn't do that either. act the fact cover-up memo, that's all this is, and we need to

the logs the intel committee provided also suggested that giuliani talked to omb. we don't have that specifically, but you can see it on the chart if you get a look at it. it says rudy giuliani called o rks mb number. we're now learning that it was possible that it wasn't necessarily an omb number. it could have been a white house number and just the way the at&t records were, it would come up omb. what's the significance of that to you? >> well, it does suggest to me that first of all, the democrats need to be a lot more careful about some of this evidence that they're putting out there. if they're not sure about what it signifies. but also, i mean, i think it just raises questions. people that jump to the conclusion that giuliani was talking to omb about the status of the security assistance to ukraine. now it opens the door of possibilities that giuliani could simply have been calling white house aides. we don't know about what. we do know giuliani has had numerous contacts with people in the white house on all kinds of topics. i think it just -- we're taking a

i would also note that just recently, just a few weeks ago, two omb officials resigned. they resigned because of deep concerns they had about what they were being asked to do. one of those individuals worked in the legal department that issued this after-the-fact cover-up memo from omb. let me just ask the american people come if the president had deep concerns of corruption and was waiting for ukraine to take major steps on corruption, let me ask you what you think any president might do in that situation. might they ask the department of defense the follow up on those major anticorruption things that they were trying to get done? he did not do that. without president informed top agencies who are about those concerns? no, he didn't do that either. they were all universally in agreement that the agent be released. might the president informed congress that this was something he was concerned about and he had to withhold the aide, he didn't do that either. after-the-fact cover-up memo, that's all this is and we need to oppose this amendment. >> time is expired what. what

was sent from michael duffey after the phone call, and now they are saying it is coincidence, and so omb official is very clear that we are wrong to draw the inference, but the timing is a challenge when you are trying to explain this all. you know, when you are looking at the balance of the morning on all of the talk shows, what we have heard is a couple of things, and back and forth on dingle and one issue, and where the white house is on this time line is one, but the issue of a short or long trial, and when the trial is going to happen, it is clear that the senate democrats believe it is going to be taking place, and nancy pelosi is going to transmit the articles of impeachment, and they believe it is a political winner for them, and view reflected by the president's own press secretary. >> i wanted to make sure that people know, and we will get some reaction in a moment, but i wanted to make sure that people know that michael duffey, his title is associate director of national programs of office and budget, and so you would think that he would know exactly what is going on and the p

and there is giuliani with the omb, giuliani at the white house. there is the white house to giuliani. so this is going to be an area of inquiry that the press will pursue. but one of the things that these call logs show with the rest of the report is that this call that the president made to zelensky was not a oneoff. you know, he was explicit, he wanted a favor. he wanted that investigation into the bidens. but what this report shows and what these call logs show is that there was a ferocious determined relentless effort on the part of the president led by him to have the apparatus of government get what he wanted. and that was the investigation into the bidens. that is what is really stunning when you look at the report as a whole including these call logs. >> congressman walsh, thank you for spending some time with us. >> thank you. >>> joining our conversation now is reverend al sharpton. let me throw it open to all of you know. i feel like on these days where donald trump's corruption is investigated in detail in lack a black and white lit ea

mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff is also the head of omb. and we don't quite know how those numbers have been coded, why it's been coded omb. so one mystery is is that actually mick mulvaney, the president's chief of staff? also very interesting for him to be talking to him but maybe not necessarily directly about budgetary issues. on the other hand, could it be an omb staffer or that rudy giuliani was talking about this issue of military aid all the way back in april? at this moment we just don't know. >> what about negative 1? who could that be? >> negative 1, the widespread thought is that it is likely the president. there's sort of a striking pattern of calls in which rudy giuliani calls the white house switch board and then very soon thereafter receives a phone call back from this negative 1 number. so it would stand to reason that that perhaps is a phone associated with the president. but of course we just don't really entirely know for sure. >> we will be waiting to find out. rod lyndh, thank you so much. michael, thank you as well. >

and omb took its first official action to withhold that aid. mr. goldman, i'm placing in front of you an email from bast sondland to members of the white house administration in which ambassador sondland said i would ask zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once ukraine's new justice folks are in place zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president and the united states hopefully that will break the log jam. did the investigative committees uncover any evidence of of what ambassador sondland meant when he suggested that president zelensky would have to move forward publicly on, quote, issues of importance to the president, to receive military aid. >> ambassador sondland said those were the two investigations that president trump mentioned on the july 25th call which secretary pompeo, who received that email, listened into. >> so the president was concerned about the two investigations and that was the predicate for releasing military aid to our ally? >> at the time of

to omb. you have ambassador taylor who heard that related from an official on the teleconference on the 18th of july. in addition to taylor there are several witnesses that corroborate not only that teleconference but other interactions with folks who say this was coming direct from the white house. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >>> times are tense. it is rare to see nancy pelosi or joe biden do what they did today. did you hear their quotes? you don't want to be on the other end of that finger. let's talk about what happened and why. (contemplative synth music) - [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. i'm happy to give you the tour, i lohey jay. it. jay? charlotte! oh hi. he helped me set up my watch lists. oh, he's terrific. excellent tennis player. bye-bye. i recognize that v

it's the calls to omb. it's putting someone outside government who's self-professed profession right now is to dig up dirt on the president's political opponents injecting himself into the budget process. i mean, omb is an organization that basically counts the money. they get it from congress, they disperse it. and if rudy giuliani's in there saying don't. hold onto it, hold onto it. then it is a very valuable piece of information for the democrats and impeachment. >> one other key development yesterday which is that white house lawyers and officials, the guy who runs legislative officials meeting with senators. republican senators, thank you. to talk about what will happen during the likely senate impeachment trial. the one thing we know is that the white house now is saying they want witnesses. they want to be able to mount an active defense which they really haven't done yet. what do you see as the significance of this? >> it'll be interesting to see what that defense is. i suspect they're not going to

and in a text message, giuliani told cnn he didn't remember calling omb and not about military aid. multiple calls between giuliani who was not a government employee and the white house including the situation room, and the budget office came just days before the president's first call with ukraine's new president on april 21st and a few days after that call. the records only show the calls and not the content, but giuliani speaking directly to the agency that in june instructed the state department and pentagon to freeze military aid to ukraine is raising concerns. >> pay attention to ukraine. >> april 12th, eight hours before this fox news apparent, a short call from the office of management and budget phone number and seconds later, another call lasting more than 12 minutes. this time from the mysterious dash-one. after fox news, giuliani is back on the phone with the white house for more than five minutes. >> i think i'd get interesting information from joe biden about the ukraine about his son, hunter biden. >> the same warning of this fox news appearance on april 24th, records

and before you know it critically as you mentioned omb was also nagsiating calls to giuliani showing they were taking the orders to talk to this guy. >> that's a key point. again, it's one thing for giuliani to say i don't think it passes the sniff test, but it's one thing to say i'm going to ukraine on behalf of my client, it's another when he's interfacing with kirk volker and the machinery of american foreign policy and still when he's talking to omb -- i mean there's no possible justification for him to be interacting with omb. >> this explains in my view why they were willing to take the hit on the defiance. this report lays out worst that nixon immeasurable ways in obstructing the probe. the only two presidents who have ever actually been impeached because nixon left beforehand, johnson and clinton faced articles on obstruction in congress. donald trump has doubled down on both of those things. he is smarter than the reality show star he sometimes plays on tv. it might be because letting these people testify, giuliani havingzerred the question what did you do in april, that mig

the fact that this dictate went out from omb to the defense department within 90 minutes suggests that some be in the oval office, the chief of staff, the president or some senior official placed that call immediately to omb to start that call. and i think this is just a fraction of the documents that we hope to see. and i think senator schumer, if he were able to get his hands on, we'd start to fill out this picture of what exactly happened. >> we are looking at this email in the context of senator schumer's letter to his senate colleagues. what type of information, what type of documents does senator schumer belief might be offered that would change the contours of this impeachment inquiry? >> well, first of all we know that there is a series of communications that would go back and forth from the state department to the embassy in ukraine. we also know that in any kind of interagency process, which is what happened here, there would be communications between, let's say, the state department, omb, the department department, and the white house as well. and we also know from gordon so

newly released e-mails showing the office of management, you know them as the omb asked the pentagon to freeze aid to ukraine on the same day president trump asks president zelensky to do him a favor. pete buttigieg is taking both sides from the party. mayor pete is just not experienced enough for the white house. overseas, north korea expanded a factory associated with the production of nuclear missiles according to the analysis of photos provided to nbc. the revelation is fuelling concer concerns. we'll begin today with the latest on the impeachment inquiry. here is what's happening now. the office of management and budget advised the pentagon to holdup aid to ukraine on the same day president trump asked ukrainian president zelensky to do us a favor, investigate the 2016 elections and former vice president joe biden and his son hunter. rudy giuliani is promoting baseless conspiracy theories, debunked storied otherwise known as lies about joe biden. and ambassador yovanovitch committing perjury. mitch mcconnell says he hopes nancy pelosi will send impeachment articles to the senate

>> various offices domestic policy council to omb i have not been directly involved with discussions with the white hous house. >> so you would agree with me the white house domestic policy house is led by joe rogan that the fda should be regulating tobacco products. >> that's our job. >> is not a waste of time? >> is something i have devoted the last 25 percent of my life. >> i'm so concerned white house domestic counsel headed by joe grogan is part of these discussions he said it was a huge waste of time for fda to regulate tobacco i will recognize others for questioning took a couple extra minutes so that some time on your clock. >> we have been trying to figure out the events for a while. can you speak to why we just know see cases of this illness? >> i don't think there is a definitive answer only why in the last three or four months we have seen so many cases of pulmonary illness but there is a working hypothesis that because so many cases are associated with the vaping of thc something was added to the product more recently that is associated with a rash of injuries. >> do we

he joined us about a year ago when he was an associate director at omb and so we look forward to hearing about your new role and health care priorities as the director of the domestic policy council. thank you for being here again, mr. grogan. thank you to all of you for being here and with that i will turn it over to bill to get us started. >> thank you, kathryn. welcome everybody, welcome on behalf of apco where with along with the alliance we think these are important events to hold. the breakfast is an important thing to hold since we believe strongly a well-informed press is extremely important to the washington, d.c. world and that a dialogue like this is extremely important. so we really appreciate, joe, you being willing to come in here and subject yourself to the questioning of this group of folks. so i'm senior director here at apco worldwide. joe and i have known each other for quite some time, worked in the bush administration together and as kathryn noteds this is his second go round, the first time must have been okay, then, i guess. with he appreciate you coming here today

and you had the opportunity to take the deposition of mark sandy, who is a career official at omb. is that right? >> correct. >> and he had some information about the reason for the pause. is that true?i ink that he had conversation with an individual named rob blair and mr. blair provided some insight into the reasons for the pause. >> sandy was one of the few witnesses that we had that was able to give us a firsthand account inside of omb that the reason for the pause related to the president's concern about european burden sharing in the region. >> and, in fact, in his sations, the president's conversations with senator johnson, he mentioned his concerns about burden sharing. and i believe he referenced a conversation that he had with the chancellor of germany, and in fact, the whole first part of the july 24th transcript, he was talking about burden sharing and wanting the europeans to do more. >> senator johnson was, and president trump, they were pretty candid and they believed that allies like germany were laughing at us because we were so willing to spend the aid. >> right.

>> correct. >> part of this, the department has sent a final -- an interim final rule to omb. and in this particular rule, it deals with the expansion of cbp's collection of biometric data. the understanding that i've been given is that the process that you are engaging in is a closed process. and we don't have -- the committee doesn't have the benefit of what is being considered, what you're asking for. instead, you've used another process that forecloses that opportunity. so i'm asking, why would you choose to do that? what is it that you're asking for that you can't share in the asking? not after the fact. or is there not such a thing and we're just completely uninformed? >> no. it is just different portions of the rule-making process and before the rule is even finalized, it would be premature to talk about what's in it or what's not in it, because that is going to change. based on the feedback and our discussions with omb, it is going to change. >> but you do that on other rule-making requests but not on this specific area? >> we will be publishing a notice of proposed ru

he says, i don't remember calling omb and not about military aid. never knew anything about it. okay? he also told the "times" that he is an expert on so many things, it could have been some very esoteric subject. those calls are going to be something else that house investigators are going to look into, right? >> yeah, they are and they're trying to. i think they need a lot more information in terms of figuring out where these calls original naited. the thing is whoever was talking to rudy giuliani at the time is now potentially a witness. not so much for congress but also for federal investigators who are looking into some of this activity. it's very convenient for rudy giuliani to say he doesn't remember, but the phone records don't lie. it's there. i think the fact that congress was able to get all these phone records so quickly and kept it so quiet, they didn't tell anyone they had this. they sat on this. they worked through this. they questioned witnesses. they had all this information. think about it. during this hearing, they had all of this information, never said anyth

and those are phone calls rudy giuliani to omb. i spoke to several sources tonight who said, why in the world is rudy giuliani calling omb? there is just no reason for that whatsoever. and the quote was, it was highly suspicious. so now we have to ask, you know, what were those calls about, and why in the world was the president's personal lawyer involved with that? >> one is a 13-minute phone call with the office of management and budget, omb, as you mentioned. what does that mean, guy? >> it means they were setting up the hold on the military aid, and he had probably either was just about to or just had communicated to the ukrainians that if you don't do what we're asking you or telling you to do, you're not getting the aid. >> jamie, can you expound more on what you said about jim acosta's reporting about the president -- the campaign is souring on giuliani? >> so here's -- you know, the other day we heard rudy said -- he said he was joking but that he has insurance on the president. when you talk to former white house officials