Our live coverage has ended for today, but you can scroll through the posts to read more.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, is set to testify on Tuesday – and his planned remarks appear to contradict previous testimony from Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union.
What Vindman says: The statement says that in a July 10 meeting with Ukrainian and US officials, Sondland “started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President,” which prompted John Bolton to cut the meeting short.
Afterward, in a debriefing, Sondland “emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma.”
What Sondland said: Vindman’s account stands in contrast to Sondland’s testimony about the meeting wherein he stated “if Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, or others harbored any misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later.”
Backing up Taylor: Notably, Vindman’s accounting of the meeting matches the testimony of Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, who told investigators Vindman and Hill had detailed the meeting to him.
“Specifically, they told me that Ambassador Sondland had connected ‘investigations’ with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelensky, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting, telling Dr. Hill and Mr. Vindman that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics. He also directed Dr. Hill to ‘brief the lawyers,’ ” Taylor testified.
A Republican official said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s resolution may not corner Republicans as Democrats may hope when it comes to White House complaints about due process.
“This has been over a month of closed hearings and selective leaks. We’ll see if any of that changes but this seems like a symbolic vote after bending to pressure,” the official said.
A source close to the White House agreed and said the “objective” was to force Pelosi to call for a vote on the impeachment inquiry.
But a Trump legal team source was taking a much more cautious approach to the Pelosi resolution, acknowledging the president’s lawyers don’t know what’s in it yet.
“I don’t know what the resolution actually says,” the source said. “So we will see.”
In contentious interviews with CNN’s Manu Raju, two House Republicans struggled to defend President Trump when pressed about whether it was okay for him to ask a foreign country to investigate the Bidens.
Rep. Mark Amodei, who has previously signaled public support for the impeachment inquiry, repeatedly refused to answer questions about the substance of Trump’s now-infamous July 25 call with the Ukrainian president.
Rep. Rodney Davis, whose seat is vulnerable in 2020, also sidestepped questions about the substance of the whistleblower allegation.
Davis told CNN that there is “no dispute” Trump asked the Ukrainian President to investigate the 2016 election, adding, “I thought we all were supposed to investigate what happened in the 2016 election.”
But when pressed further, Davis again dodged questions about Trump calling for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
“Let’s actually see what the witnesses are saying,” Davis said. “Let’s hear from everybody, not selective leaks that the Democrats want us to put out.”
Asked about the House resolution House Speaker Pelosi announced today that would set out ground rules for the impeachment probe, both Republicans said that they would take a look. Davis, however, added that he “can’t imagine” voting for what he described as “the sham process that they have put in place already.”
CLARIFICATION: This article has been updated to clarify that Amodei has previously signaled public support for the impeachment inquiry, not impeaching the President.
Some Democrats have given CNN mixed reactions to the House impeachment inquiry vote later this week.
“I truthfully hate to see us get further and further and further into it,” said Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, one of the remaining few House Democrats who has not called for an impeachment inquiry. “It concerns me that we’re going to get as I’ve said many times before less good work done in a bipartisan way.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Max Rose of New York, who has come out in support of the impeachment inquiry, argued that Republicans will still attack Democrats over the inquiry whether they take the vote or not.
Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who has also come out in support of the inquiry, said he was “eager” to see the resolution, and that he would comment further after he read it.
CNN has obtained a copy of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s opening statement ahead of his scheduled closed-door deposition Tuesday morning, in which he plans to say that he twice reported concerns about President Trump’s pressure on Ukraine.
In the statement, Vindman, the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, says he reported his concerns out of a “sense of duty.”
Vindman said in his statement that he had listened to Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and was “concerned” by what he heard.
The New York Times first reported on Vindman’s statement.
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway reacted tonight to the announcement that the House will vote on the impeachment inquiry
She asked reporters, “Isn’t this something they could have done five weeks ago?”
Conway added that the vote will happen “five weeks after the fact.”
Asked whether the vote on Thursday will change the White House’s calculation on how to handle the inquiry, Conway said simply, “No, it doesn’t.”
Conway then went after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, saying he has “no credibility” and called on Democratic Rep. Jim Himes to take over the investigation.
Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican from Utah and frequent critic of President Trump, explained today why he also didn’t sign onto the Senate impeachment resolution.
“I’ve been reluctant from the beginning trying to advise the House on how they should proceed. Now that the Speaker has scheduled a vote on the impeachment inquiry, I think the issue has been over taken by events,” he said.
More on the resolution: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham introduced a resolution critical of the House impeachment process against Trump. It calls on the House to hold a vote to initiate a formal inquiry.
The resolution, co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also argues that the House is “denying President Trump basic fairness and due process accorded every American.”
Judge Richard Leon wants to hear from lawyers for the Trump White House, the House of Representatives and from impeachment witness Charles Kupperman this Thursday, after Kupperman filed a lawsuit asking the federal court to decide whether he would need to testify.
Kupperman’s House testimony was set for today, but Kupperman didn’t show up, citing White House and Justice Department reasoning that he was immune from testifying because of his previous work on the National Security Council.
Leon will meet the parties in court at 3 p.m. ET Thursday “due to the time-sensitive nature of the issues raised in this case,” the DC District Court Judge wrote tonight.
House Democratic leaders announced earlier today that the full House will vote Thursday to formalize the procedures of the impeachment inquiry.
House investigators conducting the impeachment inquiry are hoping to hear testimony tomorrow from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, about his possible knowledge of the July 25 phone call when President Donald Trump pressed his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
That phone call between Trump and Zelensky is at the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump had solicited foreign interference to dig up information on a political rival and the White House tried to cover it up.
Vindman could be subpoenaed before he appears, as the committees have issued subpoenas to the current administration officials who have testified this far.
Yet it remains unclear if he will show up Tuesday.
The uncertainty around whether Vindman will appear for his scheduled deposition has only increased after former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman, who was listening to Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky, failed to comply with a subpoena Monday.
About Vindman: He was one of five Trump administration officials chosen for a US delegation, led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, to attend Zelensky’s inauguration ceremony in May alongside Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt Volker, who was then Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine.
House Democrats are discussing a timeframe that would include public impeachment hearings before Thanksgiving and then votes to impeach President Trump by Christmas, according to multiple Democratic sources.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not put a timeframe on it at a closed-door leadership meeting and she has been hesitant to do so. And this is subject to change depending on how witnesses cooperate or if additional leads come up, according to multiple Democrats.
Still, the working theory among Democrats is this: This week there will be more closed depositions, which could spill into next week. Public hearings before House Intel committee could happen next week but more likely the week of Nov. 11. Plus, there could be multiple public hearings.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler told CNN just now it’s “possible” they could vote in his committee on articles of impeachment by Christmas. “My preference is to do it right,” he said.
Nadler also said they would have to “get reports from the other committees first” detailing their findings.
The House Judiciary Committee also may hold its own public hearing before voting on articles of impeachment but that hasn’t been decided yet.
Here’s why Democrats are pushing the procedural resolution this week: House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff wants to allow staff members to also participate in the questioning, according to multiple sources.
Sources also said the resolution this week surprised even top members and leaders who were unaware of these plans.
Rep. David Cicilline, a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said a resolution setting ground rules for the impeachment probe is still being developed, but that it will “acknowledge” that the House is in an impeachment probe and outline procedures for public testimony.
Cicilline added he doesn’t think it will set forth a timeline for the next phases of the probe.
Asked if he was worried they were playing into Republican talking points on the issue, he said, “Not at all.”
House Judiciary committee chair Jerry Nadler told CNN that the House vote this week to affirm the impeachment inquiry is “the logical thing” to do.
He added this is “quite different” than what Republicans have been pushing for, noting the vote will be “on procedures.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a statement today about the inquiry resolution, saying that it will establish a format for open hearings.
Schiff made clear his committee will conduct the open hearings. But he did not mention the House Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees, who have been conducting depositions with the Intelligence Committee.
About the resolution: The House will vote on Thursday to formalize the procedures of its impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Democratic sources say the resolution was necessary to set forth the exact procedures to transfer evidence from House Intelligence Committee over to the House Judiciary Committee — and to detail the procedures for holding public hearings in the impeachment inquiry.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it will set out how the Democratic will proceed.
“The resolution just sets out how we will proceed in our committees,” she said.
White House officials have insisted for weeks that Democrats must hold a formal floor vote to make their impeachment inquiry legitimate.
Democrats have now planned their first floor vote for this week, and behind the scenes, aides inside the West Wing are still privately figuring out what their strategy should be.
Until now, they have argued that Democrats were conducting an illegitimate investigation in secret — two aspects that could change with the vote to formalize it and hold public hearings.
The thinking inside the White House for the last several weeks has been that if Democrats vote to authorize an inquiry, the administration will no longer be able to argue that Democrats have no legislative purpose to their investigations. It would likely rob Republicans of the talking point that this is a sham investigation that has denied President Trump his due process rights. It could force Republicans to solely focus on defending the President’s actions, instead of attacking the process, which so far several key figures of his party have been hesitant to do.
But there could be some benefits for the White House: A formal floor vote could mean that the White House is able to review the evidence that is gathered, have counsel present and cross-examine witnesses during depositions on Capitol Hill.
So far, Trump’s aides have been forced to learn about the developments from news reports, and are not given transcripts of what’s said behind closed doors. Right now, officials say they are waiting to see what the text of the resolution says — though it’s unclear where they’ll go from there.
Republican lawmakers are reacting to a House vote scheduled this week to formalize procedures of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Here’s what they are saying:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, issued a statement this evening on the House vote this week to formalize the procedures of its impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
“A vote now is a bit like un-ringing a bell as House Democrats have selectively leaked information in order to damage President Trump for weeks,” the lawmaker said.
Read the rest of Graham’s statement:
While some Republicans — and the White House — are complaining that the impeachment resolution announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is too little too late, the second-ranking Senate Republican said it “would create an entirely different environment.
South Dakota Sen. John Thune went on to say that “it would be great” if the House “would open this process up.”
Thune’s comments came in response to questions from CNN about whether he would now (with the passage of the resolution, expected Thursday) like to see the White House stop stonewalling requests and fighting subpoenas and instead cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.
“The White House is going to make decisions based upon what the nature of the request is, I’m sure. But I suspect that it would create an entirely different environment if, you know, in order to have this conversation if the House was playing ball in terms of trying to make this a fair process where everybody has due process under the law,” he said.
Rep. Ted Lieu, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, tells CNN that Democrats would have held a vote on the resolution establishing procedures for the impeachment inquiry regardless of GOP criticism of the inquiry process.
The California Democrat also expressed hope it would end the White House’s refusal to comply with House investigators.
He said the decision wasn’t contingent on GOP complaints about the inquiry process.
“If the Republicans had never made those calls, we would have taken this vote at some point anyways because we had to make these procedural changes,” Lieu told CNN. He added that he has not seen the resolution yet.
“We’re moving to the next phase of the impeachment inquiry,” Lieu said. “This bill will allow us to release the transcripts publicly. It will set procedures for open hearings. And we’re continuing to do to people’s work, and hopefully we’ll no longer get obstruction from the White House, because they said that they’re obstructing some of these witnesses because there’s been no vote. Well, the vote’s going to happen.”
Republican Rep Will Hurd told CNN he thinks impeachment inquiry is “premature” because “we still have some oversight to do here in Congress and we haven’t exhausted all of those capabilities.”
The Texas lawmaker said he still wants to hear from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, and senior officials from the National Security Council.
Hurd also said he believes most Republicans have said that it is not appropriate for the President to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political opponents.
“I think most Republicans have said, you know, that that is not appropriate,” he said.
Watch for more:
