Words crazy and frightening to describe that call. And after that july 25th call, according to multiple sources, a freakout ensues. National Security Officials began talking about whether president had crossed a line. White house lawyers were notified and a transcript of the call was later put onto that highly classified server. Again, this is new reporting that fleshes out what we know about the call and the efforts that followed to secure what the key players either seemed to know or had reason to fear was a quid pro quo with ukraine. Reporting that adds context to those Text Messages among the american players and their ukrainian counterparts over what was eected of ukraine, namely investigating the bidens and a Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 campaign. And now tonight we know more about what went on at a crucial moment, which began playing out on the 1st of september, shortly after more than a month after that july 25th call. Bill taylor, the top diplomat, messaging gordon sondland, the ambassador to the European Union and a major Trump Campaign donor, not a Career Foreign Service officer. Taylor says, quote, are we now saying that Security Assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations . Ambassador sondland reporting, quote, call me. About a week later, ambassador taylor tries again. Quote, as i said on the phone, i think its crazy to withhold Security Assistance for help with a political campaign. And then, importantly, there is a gap of nearly five hours in the conversation after which Ambassador Gordon Sondland replies, quote, bill, i believe you are incorrect about President Trumps intentions. The president has been crystal clear. No quid pro quos of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that president zelensky promised during his campaign, end quote. He then adds, quote, i suggest we stop the back and forth by text. Tonight a source with knowledge tells cnn that before he sent that text, which sounds a lot like the president s talking points, sondland in fact spoke with the president , who told him exactly that. No quid pro quo, which ironically today the president suggested somehow exonerates him, tweeting, ambassador sondlands tweet, which few reports stated, i believe you are incorrect about President Trumps intention. The president has been crystal clear. No quid pro quos of any kind. That says it all. It certainly says something that the president is citing the restatement of his own talking points which he gave ambassador sondland as evidence. In addition, he blocked sondlands testimony before Congress Today which also says something. Cnns jim acosta starts us off tonight at the white house. Jim, clearly the white house thinks they have a political argument. Does the president s team really think this letter has legal merit . Reporter they do, anderson. I just talked to a source close to the impeachment deliberations inside the white house, and the president s legal team, who says that the president s legal team is prepared to take this battle to the courts, that, quote, all options are on the table. Theyre declining to describe this at this point as a war in terms of the letter that was fired off to the House Speaker nancy pelosi earlier today. But the source did agree that this is an escalating skirmish. Anderson, we are now approaching the way life was during the bill clinton impeachment saga and watergate. Remember during watergate, a federal judge forced the Nixon Administration to cooperate with that investigation. Were nearing that kind of constitutional crisis at this point. If in fact the full house does vote on authorizing the impeachment inquiry, is there any reason to think the white house would cooperate, because the letter from the white House Counsel calls on House Democrats to, quote, abandon the entire thing . Reporter right. There is no indication that the white house will cooperate. As a matter of fact, Senior Administration officials held a Conference Call with reporters earlier this evening to talk about this letter after it was fired off up to capitol hill and one Administration Official was asked, well, what criteria would House Democrats have to meet in order to trigger white house cooperation in this matter . And this official responded by saying that theyre not going to get into hypotheticals or a hypothetical situation. That is a clear signal at this point, anderson, that they are ready to fight this out. And so the question becomes, as it always has been with President Trump, is who is willing in this Nations Capital to try to curb his behavior . As we saw during the mueller investigation, the special Counsel Robert Mueller wasnt willing to insist the president sit down for a live, inperson interview. They took written answers from the president instead. You get the sense once again that the president s legal team is trying to box in the opposition in terms of what kind of options theyll agree to. And at this point theyre not agreeing to anything. Anderson . Jim acosta, thanks very much. One item the white house is not raising objections to, Senate JudiciaryCommittee ChairmanLindsey Graham says he plans to invite Rudy Giuliani to speak to the committee about, in his words, corruption in ukraine. Perspective on a big day. Cory booker, i spoke with him just before air. Senator booker, what happens now . I feimean if the white house continues to stonewall congress, what are democrats going to be able to do about it, if anything . I think were heading towards a constitutional showdown, and some of the reasons that taheye talking about make no sense to me. It seems not like stonewalling but slowwalking or slow tactics. The American Public deserves to learn the truth, and im sure we will push for that, and god willing, the courts will be on our side. Starting an impeachment inquiry gives us a higher constitutional standard to get information from the president of the United States. But he has to answer to the checks and balances of the constitution, or else he is undermining the very foundations of our government that no one is above the law, above oversight. And his behavior right now, to me, is unacceptable. Its reckless, and its undermining what i believe our country the foundations of our country stands on. There are a lot of democrats who had hoped to sort of try to finish this by the end of october. If this does go to courts, as seems likely based on i mean if stonewalling is their idea, then dragging it through the courts is the way to go. That could take months, couldnt it . It absolutely could. Again, these are tactics that are not like somebody who should be the leader of the free world. Hes acting more like an authoritarian figure that does not think that theyre subject to oversight, to checks and balances designed by our constitution. So this is a very troubling moment. But we must persist in holding him accountable, and i think the public deserves to know the truth. It will only come from a thorough investigation. Is there enough evidence in your mind already out there based on the partial transcript, the president s statements, whatever other testimony may be possible, or the testimony that folks in congress have already heard . Is there enough for the house to actually move forward with an impeachment if they decided to . Well, i believe there is, but i think that they have to go through their processes. Theyre a large body wit many different members, republican and democrat, that have a lot of different views on this. And i think the more information comes out, the more people who will stand firmly on moving forward and writing up articles of impeachment. If a formal impeachment inquiry if a vote in the house would prompt more cooperation from the white house, which is what theyre you know, one of the things that they are claiming from the entire house, should Speaker Pelosi go ahead and do that . Well, again, ive been really respectful of the leadership of Speaker Pelosi. I think she is dealing with a lot of the challenges that theyre facing in the house in an incredible manner, and i know that this is something that shes talking about. So far be it from me to direct her. Clearly i think they need to take as strong steps possible to get compliance from the executive. We are the article 1 branch of government. We all swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. That means the constitutional mandates to provide oversight of the executive. If hes not cooperating with that, we must do everything necessary to make sure he does because he is not the dictator in chief. Hes not the authoritarian in charge of our government. He is the president. That is an office of the people, and he is subject to the peoples house, the house of representatives. Youre a member of the judiciary committee. Do you think Rudy Giuliani should, in fact, come and testify in front of your committee . And if so, what would you want to hear from him . First of all, i would savor the opportunity. I would, especially if its done publicly. And i know Rudy Giuliani is, you know, from new york, very close to broadway. He loves the theatrics, but there are real things he has to answer for, and the conduct that hes been doing, the direction hes been taking from the president , his intervention in areas where there are Critical National security interests yeah, theres a lot id like to know from him, and i believe his behavior has been despicable and the lies and halftruths, the deception that hes been doing at the direction of this president and beyond is unbecoming, and he should stand before congress and answer for it. So, again, i would be happy to, as a member of the judiciary committee, to ask him publicly to answer for it. And it may end up being you know, he may not be cooperative. He may not he may be obstructionist, but i do not see a problem with having a public hearing with him. Senator booker, i appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, anderson. Senator booker will be among the nine democrats at a cnn town hall this week focused on equality in america. Ill be one of the interviewers for the town hall. The event kicks off at 7 30 p. M. This thursday night. Much more ahead tonight including some late new reporting on what were now learning about who else was working with Rudy Giuliani on the ukrainians. Also our legal and Political Team join us next to talk about the white house letter, all the new reporting, and more. And later, a republican senator who is trying hard not to say much about all of this, like many republicans. Well see what happens when we ask her the same question her constituents are about where she really stands. My body is truly powerful. I have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. Because i can still make my own insulin. And trulicity activates my body to release it like its supposed to. Trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. Its not insulin. I take it once a week. It starts acting in my body from the first dose. Trulicity isnt for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. Dont take trulicity if youre allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis. Taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. I have it within me to lower my a1c. Ask your doctor about trulicity. Outdated. The paperwork. The calling for everything. The searching for id cards. Its like youre stuck in the 90s. Thats why esurance makes it simple with an app that has everything you need because thats how we live nowadays. Rad. Your id card is on a bodacious tiny future tv. Wow youre really committed to this whole 90s thing, arent ya . No, im just saying whats in the script. Thats true. Everything were sayings in the script. When insurance is simple, its surprisingly painless. Its got all my favorite shows turn oright there. Boom, i wish my Trading Platform worked like that. Well have you tried thinkorswim . This is totally customizable, so you focus only on what you want. Okay, its got screeners and watchlists. And you can even see how your predictions might affect the value of the stocks youre interested in. Now this is what im talking about. Yeah, itll free up more time for your. Uh, true crime shows . British baking competitions. Hm. Didnt peg you for a crumpet guy. Focus on what matters to you with thinkorswim. With the white house now making it clear tonight they will not cooperate with house impeachment inquiry, the stage is set for a constitutional showdown. With President Trumps decision to block the appearance of a key player, not to mention a big dollar donor, its also clear he intends to starve House Democrats of witnesses to what actually happened. That said, would the president take it a way the multitude of sources now giveth. Pamela brown is with us tonight along with Jeffrey Toobin and former Ohio Governor and 2016 republican president ial candidate john kasich. Jeff, when it comes to this white house letter saying essentially that they will not cooperate unless a formal vote is taken in the house, from a legal perspective, is there anything to that, or is this just a political move and a stalling take tick . You know, that letter is eight pages singlespaced, but it could be summed up in a single hand gesture, which i will not demonstrate. I mean the breadth of the objections is so extraordinary. Its not we wont provide this witness. Its not that executive privilege covers this document. Its that were not cooperating at all. And the argument that, well, you havent voted a full impeachment inquiry, the letter very carefully does not say they will cooperate if there is such a vote. So, i mean, this seems to me an act of complete defiance to the house of representatives, and the majority in the house is going to have to decide are they going to fight in court, which could take months, or are they simply going to add this as another article of impeachment . Governor, in the letter, the white house claims the president s Due Process Rights have been circumvented without a vote and that he has no choice but to not cooperate. Do you buy that at all . Anderson, trump started all this with this outrageous call, this terrible call. And think about this for a second. We know for sure that he was pressuring the leader of another nation, in fact, one that was weak and beleaguered, to start an investigation. We know that. Theres no question about that. So this all started with donald trump. Now, today we were supposed to hear from this ambassador sondland, who had a series of Text Messages with this gentleman, taylor, from the embassy, and i think volker right. The former ambassador also involved. And this was very interesting because it began to look as though there could have been some quid pro quo. In fact, thats what one of the Text Messages said. Thats why i was so interested in this testimony. Anderson, what this gets down to is this. Trump made a terrible call. It needs to be investigated. I fully support the impeachment inquiry, and all of these facts need to come out. And delay and obfuscation isnt going to solve this problem. In fact, i just noticed this Washington Post poll that says that like 58 of americans now support this inquiry. So theyre going to delay and, you know, its going to work against, you know, their favor. This is not a good thing to do, and frankly im pretty outraged that theyre trying to delay this like this. This isnt right. Lets get to the bottom line and let the people know what really happened. Pamela, i know you have some new reporting that former congressman trey gowdy is going to assist the president as an outside counsel. Its really interesting, anderson, because in this letter the white house released, it makes the case that this isnt a formal impeachment process. Its illegitimate. But the white house is gearing up for an impeachment fight, bringing in outside counsel, including trey gowdy, the former republican congressman from south carolina. He was at the white house today and met with chief of staff mick mulvaney, and were told he is expected to help President Trump in a private capacity as counsel. Hes expected to work with jay sekulow, other outside lawyers as well. But i you look back at what he has said in the past in similar situations, its very interesting because youll recall in 2012 during the House Oversight hearing with eric holder when doj didnt turn over documents, trey gowdy criticized doj saying that they should hand over documents in that proceeding. Heres what he said. The notion that you can withhold information and documents from congress no matter whether youre the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of l