tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN October 1, 2019 5:00am-6:00am PDT
about a whistle-blower. >> any rational person would be concerned about a whistle-blower safety. >> president now has to worry about conversations he's having with world leaders being leaked to the press. that is not good. >> fact that mike pompeo would be part of this call, he doesn't say anything about it, or he doesn't bring it to anyone's attention in congress is problematic. >> this could get awfully messy if it includes the secretary of state. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. all right, good morning. welcome to your "new day." it is tuesday, october 1st. it's 8:00 in the east. honestly, every time you blink, there are new allegations on the impeachment investigation. did the president lean on a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent joe biden, and we've seen evidence of that in black and white, in the notes from the phone call. everything else is just context. to that end, while you were blinking, rudy giuliani was
subpoenaed for all documents related to his admitted role in pressuring the ukrainians for dirt on joe biden. it remains unclear whether the president's personal attorney will comply. cnn has also learned th ed that secretary of state mike pompeo was on the july 25th phone call and has been less than fulsome in answers to questions to that. that could trigger a new subpoena on pompeo's testimony. and also president trump pushed australia's president to help attorney general william barr on the probe. and also a new probe on it in general ahead. >> all of this as president trump is trying to figure out the whistle-blower's identity. and that's raising concerns about the individual's safety. and now the intelligence community's inspector general who is a trump nominee is refuting president trump's
claims that the whistle-blower lacked first hand knowledge of the conduct outlined in that whistle-blower complaint. and the ideas debunking the conspiracy theory. the inspector general is expected to testify on friday. it will be a busy week ahead, as the impeachment inquiry heats up. >> and one member of congress moo will be in the middle of it is democratic congressman mike quigley who serves on the house intelligence committee. congressman, thank you. let's start with rudy giuliani because a subpoena went out to him yesterday. what do you hope to learn from the president's attorney? >> well, first of all, we also subpoenaed documents and had a friendly letter asking three of his associates to come talk to the intelligence committee. first of all, what was rudy's role in this, and that's going to affect our legal proceedings as well. was he indeed the president's personal attorney? was he acting under orders from the state department?
was he self-dealing? was he working towards a political campaign and all that matters. remember, a week ago, i asked the head of the united states intelligence what was mr. giuliani's role. and he honestly had no clue. that's a horrible way to run a government. it's particularly dangerous, especially when you're talking about classified information. what was his role, what exactly was he doing? what exactly did he request from ukraine? and did it conflate with all of these other roles. >> well, it's interesting because as your committee notes in the subpoena, rudy giuliani admitted to much of what you just asked in an interview with chris cuomo. did you lean on the ukrainians for dirt on joe biden. and rudy giuliani, of course, i did. right? so many of the answers are out there in plain sight, correct? >> surebrating and go into
greater detail what else was said in a hot war with russia at this point in time, occupied in crimea. the balance of the country is facing the full brunt of the kremlin playbook. much of the country was particularly vulnerable, using the justice department. this is an extraordinary crime. i suspect this is the greatest crime a president has committed in my lifetime. >> well, you were alive during watergate, so that remains to be seen. we will wait for the investigation before we make that investigation. >> this is far worse than watergate. >> what happens if rudy giuliani does not comply with the subpoena? >> well, again, it gets extremely complicated because we're not sure which role he was taking. in the final analysis, i suspect we'll probably need the courts to enforce the action. during watergate, we always wonder what the president decided not to respond to the courts and say, no, i'm not
going to, despite an 8-0 decision. again in our lifetime, we're facing that possibility. and that would be a true constitutional crisis. i am hoping that the fact that many more of the american public are starting to realize the crimes committed by this president. courts don't live in a vacuum. they must understand and appreciate the national security implications here. and will force and compel this president and his associates to turn over relevant information and testify truthfully to congress. >> obstruction was an article of impeachment for richard nixon if rudy giuliani does not comply, if the white house does not comply with everything you're asking, do you see that as an avenue toward a specific article of impeachment and obstruction? >> i think it was an obvious article already within the special counsel's report. but since that time, the president has continued to obstruct. and now that we know so much more about the ukraine incident, it is going to be even more
paramount. so i think the president continues to obstruct. it's the reason i came over to the impeachment side. the fact that the president disregarded the constitutional ability of congress to oversee the executive branch. and i think more importantly, on the heels of the special counsel's testimony, the call with ukraine takes place. >> right. >> the president's never been held accountable -- >> the day after. >> -- for wrongdoing. >> the day after, the day after. >> the day after. he says, well, i dodged that bullet. i can do something worse. i'm immune. i'm above the law. the public can focus on the fact that this president never does anything wrong once. he continues his actions because he feels it doesn't affect him. >> congressman, the inspector general wrote last night, we'll remind our viewers this is a trump appointee. he was pushing back against
arguments that the president has made that the whistle-blower complaints were hearsay and shouldn't be considered valid. the inspector general the other information supported the complainant information. other information obtained. what do you hope -- and you have the inspector general coming in on friday, i believe -- what do you hope to learn about this other information obtained? >> on my question, the inspector general talked about how he corroborates a complaint that comes in. i think everyone in the room would agree that he's a straight shooter who is extremely thorough, who spent 14 days day he had to go into as much detail as possible to corroborate this. and i think indeed, he did. what i want to learn from him is now he can talk about the specific complaint, because as we've said, the cat is out of the bag. what are the details of how he corroborated this, beyond that which we already know.
what concerns me beyond all that is that i'm glad he's pushing back, is the president is inciting violence. he's also putting at risk what's incredibly important to the intelligence committee. it operates in secret for a reason, to keep us safe. to protect sources and method. but it only works in an open democratic system where we have a whistle-blowing system. a fresh valve, if you will. after oversight by congress. otherwise, we can see what happens, two bad things, if the whistle-blower system doesn't work, leaks happen. and that's risky. >> you're talking about the president's statement about the whistle-blower. and he wants to find out who the whistle-blower is and there will be major consequences once he does. do you view that as a threat? and if so, again, does that in and of itself become an avenue for you to investigate?
and can that ultimately be something in the discussion with articles of impeachment? >> absolutely, first, it is inciting violence. it's also suppressing the system that is so important for the intelligence community to operate. it is particularly dangerous on the heels of the president using the word "civil war," talking about those who are investigating him. listen, a president has the right, obviously, to serve out the balance of his term. unless they commit high crimes and misdemeanors. that's not a civil war. that's the constitution. president nixon did not complete his term of office because he k34 committed high crimes and misdemeanors. i think this president does as well. and what's extreme ll lly dange is more republicans aren't doing what alabama abecomalabama's ad
did. >> saying those were repugnant. thank you for being with us this morning. >> thank you. all right. we have now reporting that inside the president's team there is concern that they may not be prepared for the impeachment fight ahead. how will the white house handle all this investigation? we'll discuss, next.
>> -- oftnonanswer about those y conversations. >> what do you know about those conversations? >> you just gave me a report about a whistle-blower complaint, none of which i've seen. >> hmm. well, but you did hear it. joining me now cnn political analyst david gregory and cnn chief legal analyst and former prosecutor jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, i'll start with you is secretary of state mike pompeo in trouble? >> well, i don't think he's in legal trouble. but, i think, you know, what that nonanswer contributes to is just the sense that there was this secret effort to get countries to help re-elect donald trump and no one wants to talk about it, because they understood how inappropriate it was. and, you know, whether it's the involvement here of secretary pompeo or attorney general barr's involvement which, you know, pompeo, since he was on
the phone call heard, heard trump repeatedly invoke barr. you know, the question is whether the entire federal government was doing the nation's business, or whether they were doing the trump re-election campaign business. you know that gets ever-more important to respond. >> your mouth is open like you want to respond to this. >> you know wee me so well. i think the overall picture here is if any president of the united states feels that there is an important investigation to be done about foreign influence on an american election, the appropriate thing to do is to go to your justice department and say, i think there's a real issue here, perhaps you should investigate. and then recognize some independence of the justice department to do that. here, what we have is more and more evidence that the president said, no, i'll take care of it. and everyone, i'm the quarterback for this investigation. i'll have my private people on
the outside, rudy giuliani take care of it. and everybody else who works with me is going to be involved. and there are people who recognize that this is inappropriate at the very least. who are not doing anything to stop it. in fact, according to the complaint, they're doing things to minimize it. so, i think that's what we're getting at here. this is a president who feels he is a victim of the deep state, as he would say, the bureaucracy of the intelligence community of the united states, and he's going to lash out in all ways. and he's going to be obsessed by it. that's what his presidency will be about, to get back at these perceived enemies. >> he's a victim of his own words. he's a victim of saying things out loud on the phone which we can all now see which is him leaning on the president of ukraine to investigate joe biden. it's just simply there. and the strategy that he and his allies have used to defend it now to my mind seems to be back firing, jeffrey. i was struck by the inspector general, the intelligence community, last night, in
response to the claims that the whistle-blower complaint is all hearsay. he fought back and saying, no, no, no, not just hearsay. i have other information that i've obtained that corroborates that statement. there's nor evidencmore evidenc. >> right and this endless invocation of hearsay is wrong. the key part, the summary of the phone call between the president of the united states donald trump and the president of ukraine. that's not hearsay evidence. that is direct evidence. that said out of the president's mouth. now, what you know, the rest of the whistle-blower's complaint -- i mean, much of it is hearsay. but it is a road map for other people to interview. >> right. >> and get nonhearsay evidence. the whole point of doing an investigation is to find the witnesses. so the idea that there's something inappropriate about hearsay evidence at the beginning of an evidence, i mean, it's just never how it
works. >> and it was remarkable for second hand information how on point it was, and how do we know this? because the president told us exactly what he said. >> also, the inspector general said, and i quote, the whistle-blower had, quote, direct knowledge of alleged conduct. that's not second hand. it's direct knowledge. i don't know, david, i'm just struck by how awkward or how pained some of the president's surrogates seem in attempting to assign this. not only are they relying on, you know, things like hearsay which is immediately debunked and proven not to be true, they're sort struggling to come up with a thread or consistent and coherent message. wing with mike pompeo, i think it's telling to replay that moment with martha raddatz. he's under no obligation to tell martha raddatz the truth. you can lie to a journalist. but in that moment saying
nothing untoward happened. here's what the president was trying to do. he didn't do that. >> right, he didn't do that then. but he was certainly happy in a previous appearance, i think a week before, to talk about how appropriate it was to investigate joe biden's son hunter with regard to his service on the board of the ukrainian gas company, if there was interference into the election that we ought to be going into that. here, all he was denying was the existence of an inspector general report which he may or may not have known about, but he certainly knew about the call. look, i think what is obvious which is you have a president who will go to any lengths to fight and to pummel his enemies. and all you need is the evidence of his own tweets saying he wants to meet with the whistle-blower now, he wants to violate federal law to protect whistle-blowers, to confront this pass then. all of the things that he has done to despairage and that adam
schiff should be arrested. when you have a president who will says those things out loud, i think it's pretty clear how you want to toe the line to keep your job. >> if we can just talk about the tweets a little bit, we have become so inured to donald trump bringing the crazies on tweets. but the tweets over the past few days have been so outrageous and really evidence of obstruction of justice. >> exactly. >> you know, i would not be surprised to see some of these tweets actually referenced in an impeachment proceedings. i mean, the idea that adam schiff, you know, is guilty of treason. you know, if any ceo of a public company talked about an internal whistle-blower the way donald trump is talking about whistle-blowers, the board would fire that ceo. >> that's the impeachment, what part of that is impeachable about that? >> el werwell, look, the differ
now with an official impeachment inquiry everything that is said could be construed as witness tampering. with rudy giuliani, they use the words adverse inference against you. that's new. >> that's really important. another thing that's important about the giuliani subpoena is that it's for documents, not for testimony. i think there's actually something very clever about that. because if they were to subpoena giuliani for testimony there is the possibility of attorney/client privilege arising but there is no attorney/client privilege for his documents with the ukrainians. i mean that is certainly no, there is no privilege there. there's no privilege relating to his documents or hi interactions with the state department and what seems clear is that if giuliani refuses to produce these documents, the intelligence committee is not going to go to court. they don't have time to go to court. they're just going to say this is more evidence of obstruction
of justice that's chargeable against the president because you're his lawyer. >> but, alisyn, i think you bring up a key point, too, which we have to keep raising, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. i think anyone can look at the president and his tweets, his threats and call them out for what they are which is completely worse is that impeachable? i don't know. it's whatever congress says is impeachable. that's how you define a high crime and misdemeanor. even during nixon and watergate, until the tapes came out where you could hear him directing the investigation to be shut down. i think that would be the case here. one of the things jeffrey and i were talking about before, one of my questions is, with this transcript, it is what it is. and people will make a decision. as more details emerge. or more is tacked on to the inquiry and ultimately, if there's articles, does that tend
to mitigate the case? or does it make it stronger? we don't know, in this political environment, i don't know i have the answer to that. >> we do know this is happening very quickly and more continues to come out basically by the hour. jeffrey, david, thank you very much. to that point, the impeachment investigation is really galloping along this week. so, will we see a vote on articles of impeachment? weeks from now. what is the time frame for all of this? and what's the scope of this impeachment inquiry? we ask a democratic leader in the house, next. saturdays happen.
several of president trump's top men are under fire. his attorney rudy giuliani has been subpoenaed by house dems to hand over documents about his dealings with ukraine. cnn has learned that secretary of state mike pompeo was on that july 25th phone call between president trump and ukraine's leader. and "the washington post" reports that attorney general bill barr has urged foreign governments to help discredit u.s. intelligence conclusions about russian interference in the 2016 election. joining us now is democratic congresswoman kathryn clark, he's the vice chair of the democratic caucus. congresswoman, great to have you here to talk about all of the nuts and bolts about how this impeachment inquiry is going to unfold. are house democrats interested in investigating rudy giuliani and secretary of state mike pompeo and attorney general william barr or are you trying to stay laser focused on what
president trump did? >> thank you for having me, alisyn. and i can tell you that we are squarely focused on the whistle-blower complaint, the allegations of abuse of power by this president. putting his political gain over the interests of our national security and the american people. that is what we are going to be investigating in this impeachment inquiry. and we are doing it with urgency. but i have to say, the facts are come fast and furious. and we will proceed with urgency, but we also want to do it with consistency. and fairness. and so that is how we are going to conduct this inquiry. but it really stems from the whistle-blower complaint. >> okay. so, let's talk about what that's going to look like. let's tell our viewers and the american people what to expect this month. because it does seem as though things have shifted into a
higher gear. so, just, for instance, i mean, this week, the house intel committee will be calling former beca ambassadors they'll be calling mike pompeo and documents will be subpoenaed from rudy giuliani, and they're asking for them from mike pompeo. are you saying this has shifted into a higher gear just because of the whistle-blower complaint? >> exactly. what we have had revealed to congress and more importantly to the american people is that the president has put his self interest once again, above that of the american people. and as these facts come out, the facts are what is going to set the time line for this inquiry. but we do think it is important to note, that when the office of the inspector general for national intelligence reviewed
this complaint, it met -- it met the standard of being urgent and credible. and we have to continue our investigation meeting that same standard. you know, call the credible witnesses, the leads we have from the complaint and do it with an urgency. this is -- this is about a betrayal of the oath of office. this is about a threat to our national security. and it is about a president who is willing to put the integrity of our elections coming up in just a year at risk for his own political gain. >> and so, in terms of that time line, are you saying that you believe that some articles of impeachment will be ready for a vote this month? october? >> again, alisyn, the truth is going to set the time line. and we are going to move forward, as you've already seen, with subpoenas, for documents,
for live witnesses. we're moving forward with depositions. but this is about getting to the bottom of the whistle-blower complaint. getting the allegations fully investigated so that we get to the facts. we get to the truth. and we're going to do that as expeditiously as possible. >> yeah. >> but the time line will really be driven by how these facts unfolds. >> got it. and just in terms of the scope, very quickly because we've heard from maxine waters that she would like to include the deutsche bank records, as well as obstruction of justice that may have been seen in the mueller report. are you saying that the focus will only be at whistle-blower complaint and what happened with ukraine? >> as a caucus, we have decided, agency t as the speaker has said that the
impeachment inquiry does cover all six committees that have oversight jurisdiction. but because of the dangerous nature of this whistle-blower complaint and the direct actions that are evident in the evidence that the white house itself has put forth to the american people, they are the ones that put forth a memorandum of this call. and within that memorandum, there is direct evidence of abuse of power by this president. so, that is naturally the focus of our investigation, but we have not cut off any other area of national import, threat to our constitution, or to our elections that may arise. >> okay. congresswoman katherine clark, thank you very much. sorry for the short time. we've had so much news this morning. we really appreciate you telling us what to expect next. >> thank you, alisyn. >> john. all right, the president
likes to brag about the stock market gains son his watc s on . but how does it compare to prior admissions? numbers don't lie -- coming up. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar?
president trump has repeatedly touted the stock market as one of his biggest achievement. the s&p is up 19% this year. and 31% so far in his presidency. chief business correspondent christine romans is here to say how that measures. >> hi, guys. good morning. john, those are good numbers the s&p rose enough to make it the best year so far since 1997. let's see how the stock market numbers stack up. since trump's inauguration, s&p, 29%. pretty close to the regan aula administration. less than bill clinton. and trump's stock market trails out one of barack obama where the s&p 500 rose 44% from the ashes of a financial crisis. but it seems the president doesn't want to come president to president obama. the president tweeting this morning, you cannot judge my
stock market performance since the inauguration which was very good. but only from the day after the big election win. in fact, since the election win the s&p 500 is up a little better 37.6%. he's done this before, guys. moving the goalpost to aggravate what is already good news. the president's protocol is to not take credit because you have to take blame for the crash. it will be unpredictable for a president and investor who cheer leads the stock market. there's the u.s./china trade war. and october 10 meeting, and fed meets again and earnings again, alisyn. >> thank you for the context. now, this story, a texas jury will resume deliberations to decide the fate of former dallas police officer amber
guyger. she's about duccused of killing shooting a man. cnn's ed lavandera has more. >> reporter: amber guyger arrived at the courthouse a short while ago. this jury is expected to resume deliberations for 45 minutes. they deliberated for four hours yesterday afternoon before retiring for the night. the jury has sequestered in a hotel, so they're back at work here this morning. one of the things that this jury can now consider is a lesser charge. of course, amber guyger is facing the murder charge for the shooting death of botham jean, just a few blocks away from dallas police headquarters but this jury was instructed in their instruction that's they could consider the lesser charge of manslaughter. that was determined yesterday just before the jury began deliberations. and they can also consider what is known as the castle doctrine. this idea that you're able to defend yourself using deadly
forcing if needed if you're in your own home. defense lawyers have argued because she thought she was entering her own apartment that she was defending herself and she had every right to use deadly force. the prosecutors are calling this defense garbage. these are some of the intense opinions and intense attitudes that we're hearing in these deliberations as this jury has a lot to mull through. so this could take quite a bit of time as this jury continues the deliberations here in dallas. >> that's an awful lot for the jury to have to consider and make sense of. ed, thank you very much. please keep us posted as the jury deliberates. now, here's what else to watch today. >> so, i can buy from enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in? >> that's right. >> great. >> there you go. >> well, it does need to be a vehicle. >> but i need this out of my face. >> with fair transparent value, enterprise makes it easy. >> how a new law in california
>> vo: my car is more than four wheels. it's my after-work decompression zone. so when my windshield broke... >> woman: what?! >> vo: ...i searched for someone who really knew my car. i found the experts at safelite autoglass. >> woman: hi! >> vo: with their exclusive technology, they fixed my windshield... then recalibrated the camera attached to my glass so my safety systems still work. who knew that was a thing?! >> woman: safelite has service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
a new california law could be a game-changer for college sports, allowing college athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. but it puts the state of california at odds in a big way with the ncaa. the organization that oversees student athletes. cnn's lucie caveanaugh explains. has our sports! >> reporter: for pro athletes it's more than just a sport -- >> i never tell you to drink sprite even if i was in a commercial for surprise. >> reporter: that brings big bucks. commerces, endorsement deals. even video games. >> take the ball! >> reporter: but for college athle athletes, those lucrative revenue streams have been off limits until now.
>> ready? let's do it, man, all right. >> reporter: a new historic law signed monday that california governor gavin newsom would let college athletes earn big paychecks for endorsements. >> gig's up. >> reporter: in lebron james "the shock." >> big and plus revenue to the ncaa itself and the actual product, and the folks putting their lives on the line, putting everything on the line are getting nothing. >> young athletes have been taken advantage of for a long time. >> that's what we all believe. >> reporter: known as the fair pay to play act the law allows college athletes to profit from their names and likeness to sign deals and hire agents to represent them. >> this isn't about colleges paying players everything. this is about the right of players to contain compensation through third parties. video game publishers. apparel makers. camps that might want an athlete to opinione ersponsor them. >> reporter: the law pits the
state against the thak whincaa the nba. and powerful universities, texas, texas a&m and ohio state each raking in in a statement the ncaa says, quote, it agrees that changes are needed but improvement needs to happen on a naegsal level through the rules making process. unfortunately, this new law already is creating confusion for current and future student athletes, coaches, add min traitors and campuses, and not just in california. the law's set to go into effect in 2023. california's hoping that gives states time to change their laws but experts say a battle could loom. >> this will get tied up in court. >> reporter: a game changer if the law holds up. cnn, los angeles. joining me now is draymond green, forward for the golden
state warriors. and a player from michigan state. thank you for being with us. you are hugely supportive of this new law. why? >> first off, thanks for having me. i'm supportive of this new law because it's the right thing to do. for 50-plus years you've had young college athletes going out and putting on shows in their perspective fields, and not being compensated for it. i think it's -- this is a huge step in the right direction. it's k it's kind of ironic the ncaa continues to fight this and no one's taking money out of their pocket directly. indirectly yes because sponsors will go to the source which is being an athlete but it's not taking money out of their ticket sales, not taking money out of the team sponsorships or university sponsorships they selling and yet the dictatorship wants to continue to go by the same system that's been broken for several yores. >> you called the ncaa a
dictatorship. what do you mean by that? >> it's their way or no way. if a kid is broke in college, can't find food, don't have the money to get food, don't have the time to get a job, that kid is not allowed to take money from pretty much anywhere outside of family or you're ineligible, suspended but yet the colleges go or the ncaa can take a money of money off these student athletes. that's a dictatorship. i'm going to tell you what i want you to do, take all of the profit and if you do this, then you have to deal with the consequences. >> the difference in a dictatorship is that as a resident 0 of a country you don't choose to live there. students choose to go to these colleges. correct? >> yes. but what's the alternative? there's only so many athletes who can go straight to the pros. even if the rule wasn't in
place. and so, what's the alternative? alternative to go overseas and play? because if that's the alternative we'll follow then, you know, you're pretty much telling me that these athletes shouldn't go to college. then these colleges don't profit. no one wants to see a crappy product on the floor an i'm thrilled to be talking to you about this because you went to michigan state for four years. lebron james and gavin newsom signed the bill. lebron james went straight to the pros. how would this law have changed your college experience? >> it would have changed it a ton. the nights that you are trying to figure out what to eat, the nights that you're trying to figure out how to get money to go on a date or hang out with your friends or, you know, whatever the situation is, there was several times that i didn't have it and some of my teammates didn't have it. what do you do next? i think it's great of lebron for
speaking up on this issue. you know? i'm sure a lot of people will say, oh, this didn't affect him. he went to the pros. ask yourself the question. if lebron james was able to be compensated for his likeness, maybe he would have went to ohio state and then entirely different narrative for that university. but because he weren't able to be compensated he probably did the smart thing and going straight to the nba and capitalizing on his likeness more so before letting anyone else capitalize on it. >> changes the equation for athletes. i want to read you this write-up of sports and an interesting take on it. he says i'm not arguing for or against college endorsements. the end of the ncaa, complete professionalization of college sports, players won't be tied to academics, likely won't need to go to class. how do you respond to that? >> i disagree with that.
just because you're making money don't mean you'll go to class? like, that really doesn't make sense to me. there's a bunch of students on campus with jobs that still go to class. now, they're probably not making as much or near as much as what a college athlete would make off their likeness but no different than any other profession. professions don't make as much money as a nba player, as a nfl player. you still have to go do your job. those students are still attending class. i completely disagree with that. just because you make money don't mean you lose all responsibility and just ride off into the sunset. you have responsibilities and a part of you being able to capitalize on the likeness is being eligible. well, in order to be eligible you have to attend class. >> draymond green, thank you very much for coming in and joining us this morning. thank you for being part of this fight. and please come join the celtics as soon as you can. thanks for being with us. >> all right. thanks a lot. appreciate you having me.
all right. good morning, everyone. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm jim sciutto. today a series of developments in the inquiry of impeachment. here's what we have learned in the last 24 hours. there's another phone call, source telling cnn president trump recently pushed australia's prime minister to help attorney general bill barr with his investigations into the origins of the russia probe. >> this official says the call was barr's idea and completely different from that phone call with ukraine but speaking of the ukraine call, a source now says that secretary of state poem poa was actually on that call as