[Erin Burnett, Cnn:] OUTFRONT next, Trump's top Ukraine expert who was on the President's call with the Ukrainian leaders still behind closed doors at this hour. What more is he saying? Plus, more breaking news, democrats releasing their plan for how they'll proceed with impeachment hearings. Will they give the President a chance to make his case? And a 2020 sweep according to one report, Republicans are growing concerned, they could lose the Senate and the White House in the election and keep the House, really? Let's go out front. Good evening. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight the breaking news, new details at this hour about the explosive impeachment testimony from a decorated veteran. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the White House's top Ukraine expert defying President Trump, testifying before impeachment investigators for about nine hours. Shortly after he arrived this morning in full uniform, Colonel Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient delivered a devastating blow to President Trump, telling investigators that he twice reported concerned about Trump's behavior and his team's insistence that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden. Now, Vindman was on the phone call between Trump and the Ukraine President Zelensky. He testifies and I'm going to quote here from his opening statement, "I was concerned by that call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine." So Vindman reported those concerns to the lead lawyer for the National Security Council after that call. And I want to just emphasize that that is not a small thing to do. Colonel Vindman is a 20-year veteran. He is the National Security's top Ukraine expert. He testifies, "As an active duty military officer, the command structure is extremely important to me." So he's choosing to report what the President United States did on a phone call as inappropriate was not a small decision. In his testimony today, of course, totally refutes what the Commander-in- Chief continues to insist.
[Donald Trump, President Of The United States:] The conversation was perfect. I made a perfect call. Not a good call, a perfect call. This was a perfect conversation.
[Burnett:] But Vindman did not only raise concerns about that call and Trump's behavior on it, Vindman also reported a meeting that he had with Trump's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland. A meeting in which he testified, "I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with National Security." That damning statement contradict Sondland's testimony, a Trump defender, a man who donated a million dollars to Trump's inauguration. Sondland under oath said that no one from the NSC where again Vindman is the top Ukraine advisor ever expressed any concerns. That's a quote from Sondland. As for Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, he says he raised his concerns out of duty. He tells lawmakers, "I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics." Yet, that has not stopped the President and his allies for trying to smear this Purple Heart recipient. Here are two of them implying Vindman is a spy working against the United States because he was not born here.
[Laura Ingraham, Fox News:] Here we have a U.S. National Security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the President's interest and usually they spoke in English. Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?
[John Yoo, Former Justice Department Official:] I find that astounding and some people might call that espionage.
[Burnett:] I mean, it is stunning. Of course, he came here when he was three years old. Trump himself is trying to say Vindman is a politically motivated liar, tweeting, "How many more never Trumpers will be allowed to testify about a perfectly appropriate phone call?" Now, there's no evidence Vindman is a never Trumper nor frankly would it matter to whether he tells the truth under oath as an American citizen. And this is not the first time though that Trump has gone after a member of the military for coming forward. Listen to how he referred to 30-year public servant Vietnam War vet Ambassador Taylor who served under presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama.
[Unidentified Male:] Are you calling him a liar?
[Trummp:] Here's the problem, he's a never Trumper.
[Burnett:] Of course, Taylor also testified about a quid pro quo from the President. Phil Mattingly is out front live on Capitol Hill. And Phil, we are learning much more about what Vindman is saying behind closed doors on these nine hours and counting. What can you tell us?
[Phil Mattingly, Cnn Congressional Correspondent:] Yes, and counting still behind closed doors. What we're learning right now from sources who were inside the room is that Alexander Vindman kind of addressed one of the questions people have had since the White House released that rough transcript of the July 25th phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president and that is, is it entirely accurate. Vindman who, as you'll recall, was actually in the situation room listening to the call. The first person to come to Capitol Hill was on the call to actually testify, said that he believed the transcript was mostly accurate, but there were two specific changes that he thought he would have made based on the notes that he had taken from that call. One of them related to a specific reference to the company Burisma that had hired Hunter Biden in the transcript related to something Zelensky said to Ukrainian President. It says just company. Today, he testified that he would have said or believed that the correct interpretation would have said to mention Burisma directly. He also noted during the testimony, we're told, that he raised some of the concerns. You'll note that he went to National Security Council lawyers twice based on concerns related to two separate incidents related to the Ukrainian funding. He actually told his brother as well, his twin brother who also works in the White House, also works in the National Security Council in the ethics office to raise some of those concerns as well. I'm also told that Republicans throughout the course of this testimony including very early on in the testimony when there's actually a shouting match that broke out between a Democratic member and a Republican member were continuously asking about specific names. Democrats interpreted that as an effort to try and surface who the whistleblower was. Vindman told lawmakers explicitly he did not know who the whistleblower was. But Erin, this is something that has come up on multiple depositions and looks like it's going to continue to as republican search for who made this initial complaint.
[Burnett:] All right. Thank you very much. Of course, searching for who made it is not frankly relevant. As everyone should understand at this point what's relevant is whether what the person said is true, which of course, everything thus far has shown it to be. Kaitlan Collins is out front at the White House. And Kaitlan, the Democrats just released new details on the impeachment resolution that they've put out there. How is the White House responding now that they have seen some of the specifics?
[Kaitlan Collins, Cnn White House Correspondent:] Well, Erin, they're not pleased and you can see why because of the White House's position so far. They said they were waiting to see what the text of this was going to be. And when you read this resolution, it shows that essentially they are handing the reins of this to Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Chairman who is going to have a pretty broad latitude here. And that is something that the White House is attacking directly tonight in a new statement going after this vote that the House Democrats have announced they are slated to vote on, on Thursday, this first impeachment inquiry vote that they are going to have. Something the White House has been saying for weeks that they need to have before they even consider cooperating or see this as legitimate, but now they're not pleased with the terms of what they're getting. In a statement tonight, the press secretary saying that essentially by voting on this, it shows that this has been quote an illegitimate sham from the start. They go after the fact that Adam Schiff is going to have so much power here, essentially, so really essentially holding the reins of this. And then, of course, Erin, they say that essentially they feel like they are not getting enough say here. This was kind of what we reported on last night that they felt they were torn that a vote would empower them to have counsel present to be able to review the evidence of this. But the White House is disputing that in their statement tonight, saying essentially they don't feel like they're going to be able to participate fully until more of this moves over from House Intelligence to the House Judiciary Committee. Now, this is something that you've heard from Republicans. You're going to see them start to turn their defense as the White House is essentially putting out this statement pushing back on this. But there are going to be questions about what they've been doing so far. Because you heard from one Republican today who is on one of those three committees that right now is allowed in the room for those closed door depositions, something that the White House has been complaining is being done in secret, Ted Yoho is saying he hasn't even attended any of the depositions so far. We're hearing from the White House tonight officials so far have not been pleased to hear that a Republican member isn't even sitting in on the room. The question is how they change their tactic if it all going forward after this vote on Thursday.
[Burnett:] All right. Kaitlan, thank you very much. And, obviously, you lose all ground to stand on if you say you're not getting access when you actually have access, you never bother show up. Out front now Democratic Congressman David Cicilline. He sits on the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees. And Congressman, so let me just start with you with the impeachment resolution that Kaitlan was just talking about. In it in part it says, "Republicans may request witnesses to be called and issue subpoenas." But it continues to say those subpoenas can only be issued "with the concurrence of the chair", which, of course, means Democrats are the chairs that Democrats get to sign off on any subpoenas republicans want. So let me just cut to the chase, OK? If Republicans want to subpoena Hunter Biden, will you guys let him?
[Rep. David Cicilline:] Well, look, that will be a decision that the full committee makes by vote, but the reality is this resolution contains protections that are greater than the protections that were afforded to President Clinton and President Nixon. So this is a resolution that sets forth the procedures we will follow in the public hearing phase of the impeachment inquiry and ensures that the President has an opportunity to present witnesses that the Republicans have the opportunity to call witnesses. And so all of that is set forth in the resolution. There's even a process if they attempt to do it and it's not permitted by the chair to ask for vote of the full committee.
[Burnett:] Of course, the committee though, there's more Democrats than Republicans. What I'm just getting at, the Hunter Biden example would be basically no way, because the Chairman say, "No," they can appeal to the Committee, there's more Democrats, they build it down, there's no Hunter Biden.
[Cicilline:] Look, the Democrats have been the ones that have been leading the effort to collect evidence and to get at the truth. I think we will continue to behave in that spirit. We certainly don't want to waste time with witnesses that don't have anything to contribute. But if there are witnesses that the Republicans suggest that will actually contribute to the fact finding, I think the Committee will embrace it. But we shouldn't lose sight of what this is really about. This is about the President of the United States, getting on a telephone call, attempting to bully a foreign leader into ginning up a phony investigation of one of his political rivals and holding up military aid to that country and holding up a meeting with that President until that investigation is announced. This is a betrayal of his oath of office. It's a betrayal of the integrity of our elections and it undermined the National Security interests of our country. The conduct of the President is really our focus.
[Burnett:] OK. So you heard, obviously, the statement from the White House in response to the resolution thus far. They're not happy. I know that you all say the President's lawyers will have an opportunity to present their case, to attend the hearings, to raise objections, due process. It also says if Trump doesn't make witnesses available though and he doesn't provide all requested documents, then essentially all bets are off. So are you really giving him due process and the chance to make his case?
[Cicilline:] Of course. Look, we should remember we are still in the investigation phase. This is akin to the grand jury. I was a criminal defense lawyer, defendants don't have the right to cross examine witnesses or attend grand jury proceedings. These are done in secret to protect the integrity of the investigation, so witnesses don't align their testimony by reading the transcript or watching the testimony of other witnesses. This is standard procedure investigations. Due Process attaches at trial, so when the President is tried in the Senate, if in fact we move forward with articles of impeachment, he will have all the due process rights that anyone has. He will be able to call witness, he'll be able to cross examine witnesses, he'll be represented by counsel. It's in the trial proceedings that process applies and that's the case when he's tried in the Senate if we move forward on an articles of impeachment.
[Burnett:] In the Senate, OK. And before we go, Congressman, is it safe to say if you could just let me know if you're in the room today and did you learn anything specific from Colonel Vindman beyond what we have all seen in the opening statement?
[Cicilline:] Yes. I mean, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was an extraordinary witness. A person of incredible integrity. He was a very credible witness. He was, of course, an eye witness in a sense, he was on the call in which the President asked the new President of Ukraine to investigate his political opponents. So he had firsthand knowledge which he shared with the Committees during his testimony. Again, when you hear these incredible patriots, these foreign service officers and military officers share information that they've learned in the course of their work, it's shocking. And this, again, is the President of the United States asking a foreign leader to interfere in an American presidential election. Our elections are decided by the American people. It's unpatriotic and unAmerican to have anybody else weigh in, particularly a foreign government, and that's what the President did in that phone call and he has to be held accountable for it.
[Burnett:] Congressman Cicilline, thanks for your time tonight.
[Cicilline:] My pleasure.
[Burnett:] And next, Trump has touted his EU ambassador's testimony.
[Trump:] He said by the way there is no quid pro quo.
[Burnett:] But did Ambassador Gordon Sondland commit perjury? Did he lied to Congress? Plus, the impeachment investigation descending into a shouting match, what sparked it? And new questions tonight about where President Trump got this information?
[Trump:] He died a coward. Crying, whimpering, screaming...