tv CBS This Morning CBS November 15, 2019 7:00am-8:58am PST
>> was it ever determine who had threw the acid and killed her? >> there have been investigations but whilethe lower-ranking individuals that were involved in this have been arrested, those who ordered this have not yet been apprehended. >> after you stepped away from this anti-corruption event to take the call, what did the general tell you? >> she said there was great concern on the seventh floor of the state department. there was great concern. they were worried. she wanted to give me a heads up about this. and, you know, things seemed to be going on. she just wanted to give me a heads up. i -- you know, hard to know how to react to something like that. i asked her what it was about. what did she think it was about? she said she didn't know. she was going to try to find out more but she had wanted to give
me a heads up. in fact, i think she may have even been instructed to give me a heads up on that. i asked her kind of, what is the next step here? she said she would try to find out more and she would try to call me by midnight. >> what happened next? >> around 1:00 in the morning she called me again and she said that there were great concerns. there were concerns up the street. and she said i needed to come home immediately. get on the next plane to the u.s. i asked her why. and she said she wasn't sure but there were concerns about my security. i asked her, my physical security? sometimes washington knows more about these things than we do. she said, no, she hadn't gotten that impression it was a physical issue about my security but they were concerned about my security and i needed to get
home right away. i argued this was extremely i guess regular and no reason given. i did get on the next plane home. >> you said there were concerns up the street. what did you understand that to mean? >> the white house. >> did she explain in any more detail about what she meant by concerns about your security? >> no, she didn't. i did specifically ask whether this had to do with the -- mayor giuliani's allegations against me and so forth. she said she didn't know. didn't even actually appear to me that she seemed to be aware of that. no reason was offered. >> did she explain what the urgency was for you to come back on the next flight? >> the only thing that's pertinent to that is when she said there were concerns about my security. that's all. but it was not further
explained. >> now, prior to this abrupt callback to washington, d.c., had you been offered an extension of your post by the state department? >> yes. under secretary -- the under-secretary for political affairs asked whether i would extend for another year departing in july of 2020. >> when was that request made? >> in early march. >> so about a month and a half before this call? >> yes. >> did anyone at the state department ever express concerns about your job performance? >> no. >> now, after you returned to washington a couple days after that, you met with the deputy secretary of state. and at your deposition you said the deputy secretary of state told you that you had done nothing wrong, but that there was a concerted campaign against you. what did he mean by that? >> i'm not exactly sure.
but i took it to mean that the allegations that mayor giuliani and others were putting outs there, that that's what it was. >> and who else was involved in this concerted campaign against you? >> there were some members of the press and others in mayor giuliani's circle. >> who from ukraine? >> in ukraine, i think -- well, mr. lutsenko, the prosecutor general, and mr. shokin, his predecessor, certainly. >> at this time mr. lutsenko was the lead prosecutor general, is that right? >> that's correct. >> had president zelensky indicated whether or not he was going to keep him off after the election? >> he indicated he would not be keeping on mr. lutsenko. >> i believe you testified earlier that mr. lutsenko had a
reputation for being corrupt, is that right? >> that's correct. o about your future as the ambassador to ukraine? >> well, he told me i needed to leave. >> what did he say? >> he said that -- there was a lot of back and forth, but ultimately he said th that, you know, every foreign service officer understands, the president has lost confidence in you. that was a terrible thing to hear. and i said, well, you know, i guess i have to go then. but no -- no real reason was offered as to why i had to leave and why it was being done in such a manner. >> did you have any indication that the state department had lost confidence in you? >> no. >> and were you provided any reason why the president lost confidence in you? >> no. >> now, you testified at your deposition that you were told at some point that secretary pompeo
had tried to protect you, but that he was no longer able to do that. were you aware of these efforts to protect you? >> no, i was not, until -- until that meeting with deputy secretary u and e you -- did yo understand who he was trying to protect you from? >> well, my understanding was that the president had wanted me to leave, and there was some discussion about that over the prior months. >> did you have any understanding why secretary pompeo was no longer able to protect you? >> no. iwas st a statement made that he was no longer able to protect me. >> so, just like that, you had to leave ukraine as soon as possible? >> yes. >> how did that make you feel? >> terrible, honestly. i mean, after 33 years of service to our country, it was
terrible. it's not the way i wanted my career to end. >> now, you also told the deputy secretary that this was a dangerous precedent. what did you mean by that? >> i was worried -- i was worried about our policy, but also personnel. that -- and i asked him how -- how are you going to explain this to people in the state department, the press, the public, ukrainians, because everybody is watching. so, if people see somebody who -- and, of course, it had been very public. frankly, the attacks on me by mayor giuliani and others, and mr. lutsenko and ukraine. if people see that i, who have been, you know, promoting our
policies on anti-corruption, if they can undermine me and get me pulled out of ukraine, what does that mean for our policy? do we still have that same policy? how are we going to affirmatively put that forward, number one? number two, when other countries, other actors in other countries see that private interests, foreign interests can come together and get a u.s. ambassador removed, what's going to stop them from doing that in the future in other countries? often the work we do, we try to be diplomatic about it, but as deputy assistant secretary george kent said, sometimes you get people really angry with us, it's uncomfortable. we are doing our job but sometimes people become very angry with us. if they realize they can just remove us, they're going to do that.
>> how did the deputy secretary respond? >> he said those were good questions, and he would get back to me. ee me e ever get back to you? following day. >> what did he say to you then? >> really the conversation was more -- you know, again, i'm grateful for this, but really more to see how i was doing and, you know, what would i do next kind of -- how could he help? >> but he did address the dangerous precedent you flagged for him? >> no. >> now, you understood, of course, that the president of the united states could remove you and that you served at the pleasure of the president, is that right? >> that's correct. >> in your 33 years as a foreign service officer, have you ever heard of a president of the united states recalling another
ambassador without cause based on allegations that the state department itself knew to be false? >> no. >> now, you testified in your opening statement that you had left ukraine by the time of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky. when was the first time that you saw the call record for this phone call? >> when it was released publicly at the end of september, i believe. >> and prior to reading that call record, were you aware that president trump had specifically made reference to you in that call? >> no. >> what was your reaction to learning that? >> i was shocked. absolutely shocked. and devastated, frankly. >> what do you mean by devastated? >> i was shocked and devastated
that i would feature in a phone call between two heads of state in such a manner where president trump said that i was bad news to another world leader and that i would be going through some things. so, i was -- it was -- it was a terrible moment. a person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face. i think i even had a physical reaction. i think -- even now words -- >> without upsetting you too much, i would like to show you excerpts from the call. and the first one where president trump says, the former ambassador from the united states, the woman, was bad news. and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news, so i just want to let you know. what was your reaction when you
heard the president of the united states refer to you as bad news? >> i couldn't believe it. again, shocked, appalled, devastated that the president of the united states would talk about any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state. and it was me. i mean, i couldn't believe it. >> the next excerpt from the president references you is a short one, but he said, well, she's going to go through some things. what did you think when president trump told president zelensky and you read that you were going to go through some things? >> i didn't know what to think, but i was very concerned. >> what were you concerned about? >> she's going to go through some things. it didn't sound good. it sounded like a threat.
>> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> how so? >> i didn't know exactly. it's not, you know, a very precise phrase, but i think, but it didn't feel like i was -- i really don't know how to answer the question any further except to say that it kind of felt like a vague threat. so, i wondered what that meant. it concerned me. >> now, in the same call where the president, as you just said, threatens you to a foreign corrup ukrainian prosecutor who led the false smear campaign against you. i want to show you another excerpt or two from the
transcript -- or the call record, rather, where the president of the united states says, good, because i heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. a lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. and he went on later to say, i heard the prosecutor was treated very badly, and he was a very fair prosecutor, so good luck with everything. now, ambassador yovanovitch, after nearly three years in ukraine where you tried to clean up the prosecutor general's office, was it the u.s. embassy's view that the former prosecutor general was a very good and very fair prosecutor? >> no, it was not. >> in fact, he was rather corrupt, is that right? >> that was our belief.
>> the prosecutor office is a long-running problem in ukraine, is that right? >> yes. >> so, how did you feel when highly of the corrupt ukrainian prosecutor who helped to execute the smear campaign to have you removed? >> well, it was disappointing, it was concerning. it wasn't certainly based on anything that the state department would have reported or, frankly, anybody else in the u.s. government. there was an interagency consensus that while -- when mr. lutsenko came into office, we were very hopeful that he would actually do the things he said he would set out to do, including reforming the prosecutor general's office, but that did not materialize. >> so, this was not the uniform position of the official u.s. policymakers, is that right?
>> right. >> now, let's go back to the smear campaign that you referenced. and in march when you said it became public. you previously testified that you had learned that rudy giuliani, president trump's lawyer and representative, who was also mentioned in that july 25th call, was in regular communication with the corrupt prosecutor general in late 2018 and early 2019. and at one point in your deposition you said that they -- that being giuliani and the corrupt foreign prosecutor general -- had plans to, quote, do things to me. what did you mean by that? >> i didn't really know but that's what i had been told by ukrainian officials. >> did you subsequently understand a little bit more of what that meant? >> well, you know, now with the advantage of nthink that meant removing me from my
job in ukraine. >> who did you understand to be working with mr. giuliani as his associates in ukraine? >> well, certainly mr. lutsenko, mr. shokin, i believe that there were also ukrainian-american, mr. parnas, who has been recently indicted. >> they were indicted in new york? >> southern district of new york. >> now, at the end of march, this effort by giuliani and his associates resulted in a series of articles in "the hill" publication that were based on allegations, in part, from lutsenko, the corrupt prosecutor general. and just to summarize some of these allegations, there were, among others, three different categories. one category included the attacks against you, which you referenced in your opening
statement, including that you had bad-mouthed the president and had given the prosecutor general a do not prosecute list. there was another that included allegations of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, and then there was a third that related to allegations concerning burisma and the bidens. is that accurate? >> yeah. yes. >> were these articles and allegations then promoted by others associated with the president in the united states? >> they seem to be promoted by those around mayor giuliani. >> i'm going to show you a couple of exhibits, including a tweet here by president trump himself on march 20th, which is the first day one of these articles was published. it appears to be a quote that says, john solomon, the author
of the articles, as russian collusion fades plot emerges to help clinton, quote quote, @seanhannity @foxnews. a couple days later, this is the son, donald trump jr., we need more at richard grin el, ambassador of germany, is that right? >> that's correct. >> less of jokers as ambassador. it's a retweet of one of john solomon's articles -- or an article referencing the allegations that says, calls grow to remove obama's u.s. ambassador to ukraine. were you aware of these tweets at the time? >> yes. >> what was your reaction to seeing this? >> well, i was worried. >> what were you worried about? >> that this didn't seem -- these attacks were being
repeated by the president himself and his son. >> and were you aware whether they received attention on prime time television on fox news as well? >> yes, they did. >> now, was the allegation you were bad-mouthing president trump true? >> no. >> was the allegation that you had created a do not prosecute list to give to the prosecutor general in ukraine true? >> no. >> in fact, didn't the corrupt prosecutor general later himself recant those allegations? >> yes. >> when these articles were first published, did the state department issue a response? >> as you said, there were a series of articles, so after the first article, which was an interview with mr. lutsenko and was only really about me, and allegations about me, the state department came out the following day with a very strong
statement saying that, you know, these allegations were fabrications. >> so, the statement addressed the falsity of the allegations themselves? >> yes. >> it didn't say anything about your job performance in any way? >> honestly, i haven't looked at it in a very long time. i think generally probably lauditory. i can't recall. >> did anyone in the state department raise any concerns with you or express any belief in these allegations? >> no. people thought it was ridiculous. >> now, after these false allegations were made against you, did you have any discussions with anyone in leadership in the state department about a potential state of support from the department or the secretary himself? >> yes. after the tweet that you just showed us, and it seemed to me
that if the president's son is saying things like this, it would be very hard to continue in my position and have authority in ukraine unless the state department came out pretty strongly behind me. and so, you know, over the weekend of, like march 22nd, i think that's about the date, there was a lot of discussion on email among a number of people about what could be done. i and the under secretary for political affairs called me on sunday. i said, you know, it's really important that the secretary himself come out and be supportive because otherwise it's hard for me to be the kind of representative you need here. and he said he would talk to the secretary. i mean, that's my recollection of the call. that may not be exactly how it's
laid out but that was my recollection. >> this is david hale, under secretary of political affairs, the number three person at the state department? >> yes. >> did he indicate to you that he supported such a statement of support for you? >> i think he must have because i don't think he would have gone to the secretary if he didn't support it. i mean, he wouldn't bring a bad idea to the secretary of state. >> your general understanding is that you did have the full support of the state department, is that right? >> yes. >> and, in fact, during your 33-year career as a foreign service officer, did you ever hear of any serious concerns about your job performance? >> no. >> was the statement of support ultimately issued for you? >> no, it was not. >> did you learn why not? >> yeah -- yes. i was told that there was concern on the seventh floor
that if a statement of support was swhther by the state department or by the secretary personally, that it could be undermined. >> how could it be undermined? >> that the president might issue a tweet contradicting that or something to that effect. >> let me see if i get this right. you are one of the most senior diplomats in the state department. you've been there for 33 years. you've won numerous awards. you've been appointed as an ambassador three times by both republican and democratic presidents. and the state department would not issue a statement in support of you against false allegations because they were concerned about a tweet from the president of the united states? >> that's my understanding. >> it seems like an appropriate
time ambassador yovanovitch, as we sit here testifying, the president is attacking you on twitter. i'd like to give you a chance to respond. i'll read part of one of his tweets. everywhere marie yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in somalia. how did that go? he goes on to say later in the tweet, it's the u.s. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors. first of all, ambassador yovanovitch, the senate has a chance to confirm or deny an ambassador, correct? >> yes, advice or consent. >> would you like to respond to the president's attack that everywhere you went turned bad? >> well, i -- i don't think i have such power. not in somalia and not in other places. i actually think where i've
served over the years, i and others have demonstrably made things better, you know, for the u.s. as well as for the countries that i've served in. ukraine, for example, where there are huge challenges, including on the issue we're discussing today of corruption, huge challenges. but they've made a lot of progress since 2014, including in the years that i was there. and i think, in part, ukrainian people get the most credit for that, but a part of that credit goes to the work of the united states and to me as the ambassador in the -- in ukraine. >> ambassador, you've shown the courage to come forward today and testify. notwithstanding the fact you were urged by the white house or state department not to, notwithstanding the fact that as
you testified earlier, the president implicitly threatened you in that call record. and now the president in real time is attacking you. what effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing? >> well, it's very intimidating. >> it's designed to intimidate, is it not? >> i mean, i can't speak to what the president is trilg to do, but i think the effect is to be intimidati intimidating. >> well, i want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously. mr. goldman. >> ambassador yovanovitch, you indicated that those same articles in march, that include
included allegations related to ukraine's interference in the 2016 election and the burisma/biden connection, is that right? >> yes. >> i'm going to end my questioning where we were before, which is the july 25th call. and president trump not only insults you and praises the corrupt prosecutor general, but he also, as you know by now, references these two investigations. first, immediately after president zelensky thanks president trump for his, quote, great support in the area of defense, unquote, president trump responds, i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like for you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. they say crowdstrike. i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server, they
say ukraine has it. he goes on in that same paragraph to say, whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it, if that's possible. now, ambassador yovanovitch, from your experience as the ambassador in ukraine for almost three years, and understanding that president zelensky was not in politics before he ran for president and was a new president on this call, would you expect president zelensky to interpret a request for a favor? >> the u.s. relationship for ukraine is the single most important relationship. and so i think that president zelensky and the president would, you know, do what they could to, you know, lean in on a favor request. i'm not saying that's a yes. i'm saying they would try to lean in and see what they could do. >> fair to say that a president
of ukraine so dependent on the united states would do just about anything in his power to please the president of the united states, if he could? >> you know, if he could. i mean, i'm sure there are limits. and i understand there were a lot of discussions in the ukrainian government about all of this. but, yeah, i mean, we are an important relationship on the security side and on the political side. and, so the president of ukraine, one of the most important functions that individual has is to make sure the relationship with the u.s. is rock solid. >> now, were you familiar with these allegations of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election? >> i mean, there have been rumors out there about things like that. but, you know, there was nothing hard, at least nothing that i was aware of.
>> there was nothing based in fact -- >> right. >> -- to support these allegations? >> yes. >> in fact, who was responsible the 2016 election? >> well, the u.s. intelligence community has concluded that it was russia. >> ambassador yovanovitch, are you aware that in february of 2017, vl this theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election? >> you know, maybe i knew that once and have forgotten, but i'm not familiar with it now. >> well, let me show you a press statement that president putin made in a joint press conference with victor orbahn of hungary on february 22nd of 2017 where he says, second, as we all know, during the presidential campaign in the united states, the ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position in favor of
one candidate. more than that, certain oligarchs, certainly with the approval of the political leadership, funded this candidate or female candidate, to be more precise. now, how would this theory of ukraine interference in the 2016 election be in vladimir putin's interest? >> well, i mean, president putin must have been aware that there were concerns in the u.s. about russian meddling in the 2016 election, and what the potential was for russian meddling in the future. so, you know,sic for an intelligence officer to try to throw off the scent and, you know, create an alternative narrative that might get picked up and get credence. >> an alternative narrative that
would absolve his own wrongdoing? >> yeah. >> when he talked about an oligarch and he talks about the support of the ukrainian government, there's also a reference in the july 25th call to a wealthy ukrainian. is it your understanding that what vladimir putin is saying here in this press statement in february 2017 is similar to what president trump says on the july 25th call related to the 2016 election? >> maybe. >> now, let me show you another exhibit from the call related to the bidens, which i'm sure you're familiar with. president trump says, the other thing, there's a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stopped the prosecution. and a lot of people want to find out about that. so, whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me.
now, are you familiar withonrel? >> yes. >> do you know whether he ever went around braggin of anyone? >> no. >> in fact, when vice president biden went to remove the former prosecutor general in ukraine, did he do so as part of official united states policy? >> official u.s. policy. that was endorsed. and was the policy of a number of other international stakeholders. other countries, other monetary institutions, financial institutions. >> in fact, if he helped to remove a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor general, who was not prosecuting enough corruption, that would increase the chances that corrupt companies in ukraine would be investigated,
isn't that right? >> one would think so. >> and that could include burisma, right? >> yes. >> now at the time of this call, vice president biden was the front-runner for democratic nomination for president, and president trump's potential next opponent in the election. is it your understanding that president trump's request to have vice president biden investigated, was that part of official u.s. policy as you knew it? >> well, i should say that i had at the time of this phone call, i had already departed ukraine two months prior. >> right. but you're familiar -- it didn't change that much in two months, right? >> it certainly would not have been the policy when i left. >> and were these two investigations part of the anti-corruption platform that you championed in ukraine for >> no.
>> these investigations, do they appear to benefit the president's personal and political interests rather than the national interest? >> well, they certainly could. >> now, just returning to the allegations in "the hill" publication in martha were promoted by mr. giuliani, the president's lawyer, were those two allegations similar to the two allegations that the president wanted president zelensky to investigate? >> yes. >> so, ultimately in the july 25th phone call with the ukrainian president, the president of the united states endorsed the false allegations against you and the bidens, is that right? >> yes. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i have an inquiry. >> gentleman will suspend. votes are fairly imminebr
cess. a eeryono remain-->> alow he>> 'll resum ater votes. >> chairman. >> the gentleman resume. >> we have just heard some stunning testimony from ambassador yovanovitch, who was recalled from ukraine by the president of the united states and the state department after what she alleges was a smear campaign waged against her by rudy giuliani. she says, in fact, that her tenure she was kneecaped, her words, which she says limits the ability to safeguard vital u.s. national security. she said it was done by others who tried to hijack our ukraine policy. and then she goes on while she
was requested to describe what it was like to learn that the president of the united states was discussing her in a phone call with the new leader of ukraine. she says she was shocked and she was devastated. she couldn't believe it. and in fact, she had a physical reaction that the color, as she said, drained from her face, as someone who was watching her e e ret. i want to bring in margaret brennan, who, of course, covers the state department and moderator of "face the nation." those things i just laid out, also in that july 25th call summary, which the president has described that call as perfect and has been released, we also learned that he says about ambassador yovanovitch, quote, she's going to go through some things. and ambassador yovanovitch said it sounded like a threat. the president at this hour also tweeting about ambassador yovanovitch, accusing her of doing some bad things.
the question is whether she is being a witness before the united states congress, a current diplomat of the united states government who started serving under ronald reagan, whether that is intimidation. she said, quote, it is very intimidating. is that one of the headlines, that a career diplomat is being threatened by the commander in chief? >> well, that the president is certainly not helping his own case here before that july 25th call that we just pointed out, it sounded like a threat. and then to have him in real time tweet about her and, in fact, sort of blame her for all sorts of different problems. she said the effect is intimidating. adam schiff, the chairman, of course, saying, we take that seriously. but this gets to that chilling effect that was felt throughout the state department when she watched someone -- she's one of ambassadors. highest ranking -- one of the highest ranking female ambassadors. when something like that happens to someone of that rank, what
does it do to the rank and file? that's something she also tried to illustrate there. this is something even just this week we saw the inspector general report felt targeting b because of thursday ethnic background or political bias. she's digging into something the trump administration has been accused of and have the president of the united states make that argument, somewhat, for her. >> i want to dig back into the details but pull back. what is the effect of essentially a crackdown or a smear campaign being waged about the official diplomat that's been assigned to ukraine, what, that effect, is happening to russia at this point? does russia go stronger? does the crackdown weaken there in ukraine? >> yes, is the short answer. that's part of what the counsel there, goldman, was trying to make clear to viewers. that vladimir putin has a vested interest in keeping those
leaders in ukraine aligned with him in power versus those favored by the west. that's why you're hearing this discussion of prosecutors in that country who were, you know, helping to fight corruption are complicit in it. what you heard the ambassador describe is someone extremely close to the president of the united states, rudy giuliani, was, in fact, in business and very close to and talking to some of these corrupt officials that she was trying to push and crack down on for their corrupt activity. so, by encouraging the corruption, it only encourages the interest of america's enemies, like vladimir putin. >> margaret, stand by. we want to go to nancy cordes, who covers capitol hill, and has covered every little detail of this impeachment inquiry. this was quite a case that was laid out about ambassador yovanovitch, about why she was removed and, in her words, she called this concerted campaign by a close ally of the president to smear her.
>> i don't think i've ever seen anything quite like this at a hearing in my 11 years of covering capitol hill. a u.s. ambassador with an unblemished record over decades basically describing how she was taken down by forces here in the u.s., apparently with the backing of the president of the united states. she even talked about the fact that when she was recalled, and multiple individuals urged the secretary of state to put out some kind of statement supporting her, she was told that while she had done nothing wrong, the decsiadbeen made not to support her because they worried that the president might tweet something that contradicted that support. so, she said she felt as if she had been hung out to dry and she was even asked, norah, if she knew of any other instance in her 33 years of another ambassador being sent home over
allegations that the state department knew were not true. she said she was not aware. she agreed. of course, the president has the right to remove a u.s. ambassador at any point, but she had never seen another situation like this. it was really a very devastating indictment that she, herself, thought to make bigger than just one individual. she talked about the fact that it sent a chilling effect across embassies around the world, that other ambassadors might be afraid to tackle corruption because they, too, might be sent home. and that other diplomats who are in harm's way, serving difficult posts around the world, might feel they don't actually have the support of the state department and the president of the united states. it was really remarkable. >> well, i want to bring in major garrett as well, who has covered congress for many years as well and also has great sources within inside the white house.
what do you make of the president tweeting about ambassador yovanovitch as she is testifying before congress and then the chairman of the committee giving her the opportunity to respond to it, which i think had to be one of the most breathtaking parts of this where she described essentially intimidation? >> exactly, norah. i can tell you that's not the script the republicans looking at this hearing and planning for it put forward to their own members. i was texting with a significant republican in the leadership. they had prepared a memo for the house intelligence committee republicans, look, this is a very tough witness, don't try to badger her, don't try to undercut her credibility. go back to two main points. the president does have the power to recall you or remove you for any reason or no reason and you're not a fact witness to the july 25th call because you were removed a couple months before that. just stick with that. they knew ambassador yovanovitch would come across as a credible witness, as someone who had served the country and had lots of dangerous posts and had
always worked consistently with u.s. policy. don't try, this moment mow said, to undercut her or badger her or put her on the spot. just try to deal with the witness as it is, make those two points and try to back off. and you could see in the opening statement of representative devin nunes, the first republican to talk, he didn't try to attack any of the underlying evidence. he knew ambassador yovanovitch had already testified to. 2016, ukraine this, that it's a star chamber for the democrats, she have watergate fantasies. basically everything but what the witness in front of this committee was about to say. so the president jumping into this with a real-time tweet tells us two things, a, he's watching, dignifying this process, figures out it's a threat, wants to engage even though the very house republicans he depends on to fortify his defense did not and did not go down that road. >> to attack her, and the president did.
>> exactly. >> i also want to -- i want to talk about the political effect of this, the people involved in all of this very quickly, again, because i do think the gravity of what we're learning and the effect on our u.s. policy is so significant. returning here to margaret brennan here. one of the things the ambassador talked about is that she said the abrupt removal of a u.s. ambassador, she was abruptly removed just after hosting a women in courage event for a woman who had been killed by acid, in efforts to crack down on corruption pushed by the russians, ambassador yovanovitch today said her abrupt removal played into hands of shady interests the world over. those shady interests learned how little it takes to remove an american ambassador who does not give them what they want. what's the effect of that? >> she put that so clearly and succinctly, the threat felt by doing something like this. by spreading disinformation, about spreading lies, known
falsehoods, the state department at the very highest levels said they knew were false, that you could remove someone not useful to you, if you are vladimir putin, if you are an authoritarian leader in another country if you don't like what the american ambassador is telling you, you can get them removed. >> why would vladimir putin or oligarchs who support vladimir putin not want marie yovanovitch serving as ambassador? >> as she tells it, assist been described, she's been extremely tough on anti-corruption, but specific to her case, and as the journal first reported, these two individuals linked to rudy giuliani, had interests not served by what the ambassador was doing. they if elt she was getting in the way. there were business interests not served by her cracking down -- >> these two individuals met with president trump ten times, as has been reported, although president trump says he doesn't know who they are. >> these two individuals that
have business interests with the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, who had his own business in ukraine. he was making a lot of money there. so, it's ironic in this when we talk about -- and the president talks about the need to crack down on corruption. that there was the appearance of emboldening and enabling it by removing this ambassador. >> i think motive is important. i wonder why the president of the united states would be concerned about the ambassador to ukraine. there are so many ambassadors, they're career foreign service appointed who have helped raise money for the president, like ambassador sondland, but in this case this is a foreign servicerb an mocrats ad ces oheeoreig is. >> she ouldn't be onprent's ras radar? >> that is part of the case the democrats are trying to lay out. it's a key question. part of it is -- as she
describes it, the president not listening to official policy and not listening to foreign service officials but personnel he has a relationship with, like rudy giuliani. rudy giuliani or other allies are telling him about the u.s. ambassador, that she's getting in the way, she's not loyal, he will listen to them versus her looking at her public service record and listen to what the state department is saying. it's another pattern the democrats are trying to make here. >> thank you. we have reporters covering this all over washington. i want to bring in ed o'keefe, who is also on capitol hill, who has covered the federal rkfo co ional hearings for several years. you know about these career diplomats. you've covered congress as well. have you ever heard such a strong defense of american diplomats and civil servants like this before? >> not quite like this, norah. you know, public service loyeke this come to consll the time, but the ambassador seems
to understand she had a pretty broad audience and an opportunity to defend her colleagues. the fact she went all the way back to the iranian regime in the '70s to the death of ambassador chris stevens and to those who have suffered from the audio attacks in china and cuba and the growing concern, the brain drain at the state department headquarters, she took full advantage of the moment. as they head to votes, republicans and democrats are responding in real time by a text message to this. i asked one senior republican aide, what did you make of that tweet from the president? >> quote, that tweet did not help, the aide says. would have been much better he pointed out she admitted she didn't have firsthand knowledge and was two months away from ca. so, republican leadership now admitting what the president did there was not helpful in any way. democrats, meanwhile, they might be taking cartwheels on their way to this vote.
very pleased by what they've seen this more than. very strong for us, one democratic member says. she's a greatness so far. another points out they're struck by the contrast between the professionalism and the patriotism of the three witnesses that have testified so far and the reaction from the republicans and what the president said this more than. clearly democrats believe they're in good shape. there had been some concern. what was she going to share today that would move the ball forward or, perhaps, draw more public interest and concern to these proceedings? clearly, now, based on her testimony and based on the president's reaction in real time, we now have a bit of intrigue and a belief among democrats that they may now have the president in quite a spot. >> we're going to go down two tracks in our coverage. we'll talk about the political effect, because impeachment is a political act that the house will take. and i want to talk about the substantive effect here about what this is doing to america's strength around the world and foreign policy. quickly on that political track, because, ed, there's been much
discussion about the lack of a defense within the white house or the president. this is why you need trained lawyers around you, a defense so you don't further get yourself in trouble as a political inquiry is made against you. and the president doesn't have a team. he brought on pam bondi, former attorney general in florida and another, who is not on board. the president is tweeting about that. he's not on message with what the republicans are doing in the house of representatives. does he have a weak defense, a weak team? does he need a stronger team? >> the fellow republicans would say, yes, he does. he said a few weeks ago on the south lawn, i don't need a team. i've got this. i can do it on my own. all they have, norah, is this 18-page memo sent out earlier this week by republican leadership on the hill that outlines basically their belief that what happens here is not establish an impeachable
offense. it goes to the testimony they'll hear from witnesses. otherwise, most of the republican concern up here has been about the process. their belief certain witnesses will be brought out into the public sphere, they won't be able to ask certain questions or call people like hunter biden to testify. democrats argue they don't need to do that because he's not relevant to the process. as it started out pretty coordinated, the white house releasing at 9:00 a.m., the call from april between the new ukrainian president and president trump and having devin nunes read it into the public record. that was. of the. that was clearly coordinated. but have him spout out that tweet a little while later, as republican leadership tells us, not helpful at all. >> i want to bring in paula reed who is at the white house and continuing that discussion about the president's defense, but also just explain because now this has become an issue about the president's tweet today, which is now being used as a
threat of intimidation against an american dpdoes the presidend tweet or does someone tweet for him? explain how that process works? >> reporter: there are some tweets composed on behalf of the president, but most of them he composes himself. this appears to be in his voice. he has no incentive to tweet something like this in the middle of an impeachment hearing. it's definitely a switch-up in his strategy. on wednesday he was mostly retweeting supporters. he did that about 30 times. here for the first time he directly attacked a witness and gave the chairman of this committee an opening to establish that, perhaps, the president was trying to intimidate a witness, which could potentially factor into those articles of impeachment. there's something else in his tweet that's significant. this is a talking point. this is a mischaracterization the president repeated. he talks about how marie yovanovitch was somehow responsible for political unrest in somali and ukraine and he
talks about how the president of ukraine spoke unfavorably about her. every time the. the is asked about the ambassador, he says, i didn't know her but the president of ukraine spoke unfavorably about her. if you look at that phone call of their july phone call, president trump brings her up first. he describes her as, quote, bad news. and then the president of ukraine chimes in. it's a switch up of strategy, attacking the witness and using talking points he's been using for weeks. >> paula, all right. i also want to ask you about -- i feel like today, even walking into this, that this would not only be a question of the intimidation of a career foreign policy official, but also the focus would enter on rudy giuliani today. why was rudy giuliani feeding information to the president about ambassador yovanovitch? why has he become such a central character in this ukraine policy? and whether the president's personal lawyer has served the
interest of his client in this regard. describe how rudy giuliani is really now become in some ways really a hindrance to the president's future. >> he continues to be a member of the president's personal legal team. i'm told he's not supposed to handle any matters related to ukraine. but he published an op-ed defending his client in "the wall street journal" and he did with his attorney, he did an interview with "the guardian" earlier this week. he's still out there on this issue. and there are questions why the president continues to employ him in this role but the president believes rudy giuliani brings gravitas to his defense. he still sees rudy giuliani like he was around 9/11. he sees him as valuable. but rudy giuliani is under investigation by federal prosecutors in manhattan for possibly violating federal lobbying laws through this pressure campaign. as he was trying to pressure the
president and other entities to push out the ambassador, the question is, well, why? was he doing this on behalf of his client? there's also questions about whether he was frustrated that she was somehow blocking efforts to investigate joe biden. that question of why rudy giuliani was doing this, that is under federal investigation by the president's own justice department. >> paula reed, thank you. i want to go back to capitol hill because we still have the republicans questioning of ambassador yovanovitch. nancy cordes is on capitol hill, as has been reported by ed and major republicans stunned by the president tweeting and attacking her personal. what do republican lawyers and lawmakers do? >> reporter: they're going to go down two central tracks, norah. first of all, they're going to try to make the point that the president was under no obligation to keep yovanovitch in her post as ambassador to ukraine. that she didn't do anything wrong by recalling her, as the president of the united states.
he has the right to remove any ambassador at any time. so, they are going to say that the fact she went home a few months early doesn't indict the president in any way. and then beyond that, they are going to argue, they've been making this case all along, all it's second hand, third hand. what they're going to say in yovanovitch's case, she wasn't a witness at all to the central incident that democrats are now pointing to as, in their words, a case of bribery because the itai the president withheld in july, $400 million worth, that happened after she had already left ukraine. they'll say, she doesn't have any special incite into what happened there, as to why the president withheld the aid, what u.s. officials and rudy giuliani were telling ukrainians about what they needed to do to have that aid unfrozen. they're going to say that, you know, democrats are trying to prop her up as a star witness
when really she wasn't privy to the events in question. >> quickly also, that's what -- we'll come back to that. also today there is testimony behind closed doors, right? >> reporter: yes. david holmes will be interviewed later today by congressional investigators because he told the current top u.s. diplomat in ukraine that he actually overheard a phone call between ambassador sondland and the president of the united states. >> nancy cordes, thank you. we should note the house intelligence committee hearing is expected to be in recess for about an hour or so. we will return when the committee's republican counsel starts questioning ambassador yovanovitch. our coverage of the impeachment hearing will continue on our 24-hour streaming network cbsn. you can watch it at cbsnews.com or our cbs news app, download
it. those in the west will return to "cbs this morning." this has been a cbs news special report. we'll be back on the air when the hearing re today, we hear from rudy giuliani who says he staged a smear campaign. >> she served the country for more than 30 years through six presidents. seven different countries she has served. >> democrats are hoping that yovanovitch can put a human face on this pressure campaign. >> ambassador yovanovitch did not just piss off corrupt ukrainians but also certain americans like rudy giuliani, donald trump's personal attorney. >> the democrats have convened
to advance their operation to topple a duly elected president. >> how could our system fail like this? how is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government? which country's interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been criticizing is allowed to prevail. such conduct undermines the u.s., exposes our friends and widens the playing field for autocrats like president putin. >> welcome back to "cbs this morning." this is day two of the historic public hearings in the impeachment inquiry into president trump. we heard from former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch. she's testified that she believed rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney, pushed to have her removed. the career diplomat who served under six presidents was in ukraine from 2016 until she was suddenly recalled in may.
president trump is accused of withholding military aid to pressure ukraine to investigate political rivals and yesterday house speaker nancy pelosi called that bribery. he denies any wrongdoing. while yovanovitch was testifying, the president slammed her on twitter writing, everywhere marie yovanovitch went turned bad. her testimony is on hold right now while lawmakers vote on the house floor. here's some of what we've heard from her so far. >> i do not understand mr. giuliani's motives for attacking me nor can i offer an opinion whether he believed the allegations he spread about me. clearly, no one at the state department did. what i can say is that mr. giuliani should have known those claims were suspect coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives. when i returned to the united states, deputy secretary of state sullivan told me there had been a concerted campaign against me, that the president
no longer wished me to serve as ambassador to ukraine and that, in fact, the president had been pushing for my removal since the prior summer. although then and now, i have always understood that i served at the pleasure of the president. i still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine u.s. interests in this way. these events should concern everyone in this room. ambassadors are the symbol of the united states abroad. they are the personal representative of the president. they should always act and speak with full authority to advocate for u.s. policies. if our chief representative is kneecapped it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the united states. >> we will rejoin the testimony as soon as it resumes. we'll bring you that in a special report. you can find continuous coverage on our stream.
a deadly high school shoot income santa clarita, california, that is just north of los angeles. police say a teenager killed two students and wounded three others before shooting himself yesterday. cbs news has identified the susp a nathaniel burhowl. david begnaud is at the hospital where some of the victims are being treated. >> reporter: we've come to the hospital 15 minutes from the high school where two of the students wounded were treated. they are in good spirits and have nonlife-threatening injuries. the latest on the investigation now, the gun mann acted alone according to the sheriff and investigators really have no idea why he did this. they have no motive to speak of as of now. you know, one of the lead officials in the case actually watched the video that showed everything as it happened and described him wearing all black pulling a handgun out of a
backpack opening fire, shooting people and then saving the very last bullet for himself and it all lasted just 16 seconds. ♪ last night there were tears, hugs and raw emotion as this unh earlier. two teenage victims were killed on the campus of their own high school by one of their own classmates. >> how are you feeling now? >> still feeling like confused. >> reporter: julian is a freshman at the school. he told me he saw the shooter from just 50 feet away and he took off running. hours later when we met him he was still trying to make sense of the senseless. >> i want to know why he did it and like what was the reason for it? >> we've got an active shooter at saugus high school. we need all units to respond. >> reporter: that was the police call at 7:38 a.m., the school day was just beginning and off-duty officers whose studechn
were students were first at the scene. >> we all raced out and then while we were racing out we heard three more gunshots behind us. it's just the scariest part you don't know where they're coming from. >> i need paramedics right now. >> reporter: inside the schoolteachers heard the shots and they reacted quickly securing the doors and building barricades using their desks. >> i saw people running outside our window and so we all -- we locked the door and we hid ourselves behind the teacher's desk. >> she was shot in her side and actually shot again in her shoulder as well. >> reporter: choir teacher kaitlin holt was inside and helped the student. >> there was nothing that i as a teacher that could have prepared me for that. if you have been following this story you may remember the sheriff here in l.a. county saying yesterday there was an
instagram post from an account that the sheriff said belonged to the gunman and the post read, saugus, have fun at school tomorrow. well now instagram is telling cbs news that account did not belong to the gunman but the account has been disabled for violating instagram's policies and gietdlines. i should tell you that the company everytown which is a gun control advocacy group that says what happened at this high school was the 85th incident of gun violence in a school this year. >> david begnaud for us, thank you. colin kaepernick could be headed back to the nfl. the controversial quarterback and activist will work out for teams tomorrow and james brown is your
american, plus very disturbing case of a murder victim who apparently predicted his own death. >> i'm peter vanzant, "48 hours." a beloved pennsylvania father of two is killed by a sniper in the woods outside his home. friends say he foretold his own murder. that's coming up on "cbs this morning." on "cbs this morning." most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. (woman) but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. ♪ roll introducing jimmy dean a nebiscuit roll ups.st.
we took delicious sausage, eggs, and cheese and rolled it all up, in a soft flakey biscuit. give your family a good hearty breakfast that you can eat on the go. [it's funny what happens when people get together. holiday inn. holiday inn express. we're there. so you can be too. the roomba i7+ with cleanng base automatic dirt disposal and allergenlock™ bags that trap 99% of allergens, so they don't escape back into the air. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™
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! and take an extra 15% off! save on cuddl duds sheets - starting at $25.49... an air fryer - $84.99... and a single-serve coffee maker - just $33.99. plus - save even more on your home sale purchase!... plus - get kohl's cash! this weekend - at kohl's. introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy.
and you find a deal on cookware that makes you say. you know when you're at ross yes! ...oh, yeah! bring on the holidays! that's yes for less. everything you need to prep, cook and serve up the season. it feels even better when you find it for less-at ross. yes for less. ♪ ready or not here i come colin kaepernick will work out in front of the nfl teams for the first time since he last played professional football nearly three years ago. kaepernick began kneeling down during the national anthem in 2016 to protest police brutality and racial injustice against black americans in this country. since the end of that season, no team has offered him a contract.
yesterday cbs news special correspondent and cbs sports anchor, james brown, spoke to nfl commissioner roger goodell and asked him about this upcoming workout which is all scheduled for tomorrow. good to see you james. >> good to be here. >> we all know colin has a lot of detractors and also supporters. why did the nfl decide now is the time to give him this opportunity. is it an opportunity. >> it is. it absolutely is an opportunity. there were a number of teams inquiring of the league throughout the season about his football readiness and that they wanted to check him out. this is the best way to maximize the more than dozen teams that will be there. it's going to be significantly more who will have representatives. absolutely, tony. that's the number so rather than have him do 12 or more individual workouts why not maximize -- fest. >> set up just for him. it's not a pr stunt? >> if it was a pr stunt they ought to fire the pr director there because this is the worst hinge they can do. it was a major detraction when
they did do it. the season is going exceedingly way. ratings are well. why would you make a move like this if it it was disingenuous. >> people want to see if he can play but owners are probably going to ask, we know you're passionate. what form will it take? >> absolutely. hey, tony, that's real world. if we come to cbs, i was telling gayle and said you have to wear a green dress and blue suit you have to determine if you want to play by those rules. his passion should not be waned at all but the foquestion is wh form will it take? >> there are still players who are still kneeling. >> absolutely but colin is the face so he will bring a lot more attention to it. >> j.b., what do you think are the real chances he plays in the league again? >> if he's football ready, if he still possesses the nfl caliber skills he showed when he was a quarterback in san francisco, somebody will frak a chance. here's a number. last year, there were 15 teams that had injuries or starting
quarterbacks who were benched. the backup quarterbacks took over. most of them are very mobile and getting it done. there have been 16 of those occurrences thus far so you need to have a very capable backup. if he shows he has nfl caliber skills and dangerous escapability moves he had before he'll get a shot. >> he said he's been working out every single day. >> every day he says and he is certainly ready. what are the teams specifically looking for and who ultimately makes a decision on whether he gets to play? >> hey, like in every game in life, the boss makes the determination about -- >> the boss. the ceo here, whatever, they make the ultimate decision about whether or not because they've got to factor in a number of elements in is that decision. but, again, if he still has that escapability, he's got a great arm. can he still, you know, read the defenses as well as he did before. this is at the highest level of football and you've got to have the ability to adapt and adjust. the game is changing so you're
seeing a lot more exciting quarterbacks. lamar jackson, deshaun watson, russell wilson continues to be the face of the seattle seahawks. >> what one argument owners and coaches won't be there tomorrow. is it a waste of his time? >> no, because they hire a staff who's tasked with that responsibility. if they aren't doing that job they get fired. believe me, there will be a number of team personnel videotaping it. >> if kaepernick brower wows them then questions will be raised why it didn't happen two years ago. an apparent whistle-blower says google may be putting patients' medical data in jeopardy. nicholas thompson is here to explain what the privacy and security concerns could mean for you. you're watching "cbs this morning." good morning to you and welcome to "cbs this morning." ♪ i've got the good feeling
well, the marine corps scholarship foundation is an organization that gives your children the opportunity to better their lives through an education. it has taken the financial burden and made it almost disappear. i would assume that they're doing it because they believe in what we did and the sacrifices that we made. but that's what we do. i mean that's what we volunteered and raised our right hand for. to be honest they really don't need to thank us. it was our honor. an apparent whistle-blower
said they had no choice but to say that google was collecting medical records from 50 million americans without telling them or their doctors. they say it raised red flags including a security rick of placing medical data in the pa not been de-identified. >> under project nightingale google got millions of records from ascension and uploaded them to google cloud. they are using the information to improve health care and reduce medical costs under strict privacy and security standards. wired editor in chief nicholas thompson is a cbs news contributor and joins us now. medical data is different from other data. if someone steals your credit card information, i know it's a problem. if someone has my medical information, why should i care? >> it's very personal and intimate. i don't want the world knowing all the medical procedures i've undergone. i don't even want the world
knowing my weight. >> because the world will do what with it. >> it's embarrassing. your medical data in the worst case scenario combined with other data could mean you don't get a mortgage or a loan. right? if somebody sees you're really sick maybe the bank won't extend a loan. that's not at risk right hire. that isn't what happened or google isn't being accused of that. they're not accused of merging the two but as a general principle that's why the story weirds us out. >> ascension and google say this deal that they have complies with patient policy laws. >> yep. >> are they right? >> well, that is under investigation. and a number of legal authorities will be looking into that so it will comply with them if, indeed google is just using the data for operations at the essential hospital, right, the ascension hospitals so if they're working with ascension and making their databases more efficient and making it easy for the doctor to look up your medical history, just within
that institution, that is fine. if somehow the data came out that google merged it with other data or even maybe if google used it for research purposes for some independent arm of google that is trying to cure cancer, that is a big problem. >> why is it so significant it's de-identified? in other words, the data is attached to real people, real names. >> so this is what the whistle-blower's big concern s the whistle-blower thinks that when the data passes through the system and when all these google and ascension employees look at it it shouldn't have your name or address. it should be stripped of that because then you can't see anything embarrassing. you can't see what my weight is but the reason you would want the name and date of birth on it because you need to merge databases and match ha vmuch. >> we'll be right back. stay wit