Anything he said. After all, what he said is what you said. He was in that july 10th meeti meeting, we heard the same quid pro quo, the same comments by sondland. If you want this meeting, ukrainians, and we have an agreement about this. Youve got to announce that you will do these investigations. They are the same quid pro quo that you did. Why are they smearing him . Mr. Holmes, you testified just as colonel vindman said he warned zelensky about joining politics. Why smear this purple heart recipient . Just like the smear of ambassador yovanovitch, it is just gratuitous. They dont question the fact, it is just gratuitous. The attack on you, mr. Holmes, that you are discreet in mentioning this conversation to others. I think that you are quite right. The discussion is when the president on a secure line in a country known for Russian Telecommunications and eavesdropping. Thats more than an indiscretion, thats a security risk. But why attack you, mr. Holmes . They didnt question anything that you said. They didnt question what conversation you overheard. Ambassador sondland didnt question what you said. He acknowledged that the one thing that president wanted to know the day after that conversation with zelensky was, is he going to do the investigations . And sondland said, yes, he will do anything you ask. They dont question that. So why attack you . They didnt question your testimony when you said and i think you asked, those donald trump give us a blank and i would like to use the word here, about ukraine . And he said, he doesnt give up blank about ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff. You said, there is some big stuff here. Ukraine is at war with russia. Thats kind of big stuff. No, no, no, no. He cares about the big stuff that matters to him. His personal investigation that giuliani wants. One question posed by your testimony, mr. Holmes, is what do we care about . Do we care about the big stuff like the constitution, like an oath of office, or do we only care know about party . What do we care about . Lets go beyond your testimony today. What do we know now after these depositions, these secret depositions people watching at home i not know that in these secret depositions, which apparently no one else is allowed to hear, no members are allowed to participate. It sounds like its just me and the witness. Only over 100 members of congress are able to participate in those secret depositions. And of the minority was so unable to participate. They got the same time they got in these open hearings, it was the same format. That was the secret star chamber that youve been hearing so much about. What have we learned through these depositions in the testimony . So much of this is undisputed. We learned that a dedicated Public Servant named marie yovanovitch, known for fighting corruption, widely respected throughout the diplomatic corps was ruthlessly smeared by Rudy Giuliani, by the president s own son, by their friends on fox prime time and a whole host of other characters. Her reputation was solid so they could get her out of the way, which they did. And you are right, it was gratuitous. The president could have gotten rid of her anytime he wanted. But that is not enough for this president. No, he has to smear and destroy those that getting his way. And someone fighting corruption in ukraine was getting in his way, so shes gone, shes gone. And this makes way almost immediately thereafter, she leaves the three amigos come in. The three amigos. Two of home never made the connection that burisma means biden. It took ten seconds on google to figure that out. But we are to believe that in all of the companies in all of the world that Rudy Giuliani happens to be interested in this one . That is absurd. The interest of course was in an investigation of Donald Trumps arrival, the one that he apparently feared the most. And they were willing to do whatever was necessary to get ukraine to do that dirty work, to do that political investigation. And so it began, we are not going to set up a phone call until you make certain commitments. That was ambassador sondlands testimony. The first quid pro quo was getting on the phone with President Trump. And then there was the quid pro quo involving the white house meeting. Witness after witness, none of my colleagues contested this. They talked about how important that was to let president of ukraine, and why they are at war with russia and are most important ally its United States. The most important in United States is the president of the United States. And if president zelensky can show that he has a Good Relationship with the president of the United States, it means to his people that this new president has the support of their most important patron, and it means to the russians, that we have their back. This new president that is negotiating with a far superior power that has invaded this country is going into negotiation with Vladimir Putin over how to resolve this conflict whether he has Good Laboratory housing leverage and the president would not give him that, not without getting something in return. Would not give him that official act, that white house meeting without getting something in return, and that return was investigations of his rival would help his reelection, an official act for something of clear value, and something very important, the big stuff as sondland explained to you, mr. Holmes, to help his campaign. Now, we also heard abundant testimony about the other woodbrook will, the withholding of Security Systems that no one can explain. There is no debate among my colleagues. Everyone in the sondland a six, everyone all of the reviews that needed to be done to be sure that ukraine was meeting its anticorruption standards had been done. They had found to meet the criteria. No one could understand or get a clear explanation for why. Until it became clear to everyone, it is all about the investigations. Its all about the leverage. If there was any doubt about it, the man closest to the president to meet with them every day, Mick Mulvaney, erased all doubt. You are darn right, yes, we talked about the 2016 election investigation. And, yes, this was in the context of holding up the military aid, and just get used to it. Just get over it or whatever it was that he said. Because thats how we roll. Those are my words, not his, but that is the import. Yeah, theres going to be politics, and just get over it. Well, if we care about the big stuff, we cannot just get over it. Now, my colleagues have had a lot of defenses to all of this evidence which is piled up day after day. Its amazing to hear you testify, mr. Five, it was clear that the is Security Assistance was being withheld. It was clear to the americans and ukrainians. You testified that they felt pressure. They still pressure to this day. I mean, i guess they are not listening. Ukrainians felt no pressure. There was no evidence they felt pressure. It gets into their next offense, which is, it is all hearsay. Notice my colleagues are not lawyers, lawyers out there understand just how wrong they are about hearsay use. As tlets discuss this and words will understand. Because we in this committee were not in that boardroom with you, dr. Hill, we were not in that meeting earlier with dr. Bolton, because we were not in the room, its all hearsay. You are relating what you heard, and you are saying it, so it must be hearsay. And therefore, we dont have to think about it, do we . We dont have to consider that you have direct evidence that this meeting in the white house was being withheld because the president wanted these meetings, these investigations, we cant accept that. If that were true, you can never present any evidence to the court unless the jury was also in the boardroom. That is absurd. I dont accept the documentary evidence, the Text Messages about quid pro quos. All we really say and thats crazy. And my worst nightmare, they dont accept the documents, the few documents that we have from the state department that were produced by the state department where sondland communicates directly with the secretary of state about this investigative interest of the president. And they dont accept the documents either. I guess the documents are also hearsay. It might be a little more convincing. Of course, they are not. And, we know why not. Because the documents are like that one we saw on the screen to implicate others including secretary pompeo. Of course donald trump and secretary pompeo dont put us to see those documents. Apparently it is all hearsay. Even when you actually hear the president , mr. Holmes, that is all hearsay. We can only rely on what the president says, and there, we shouldnt even rely on that either. We shouldnt really rely on what the president said on the call record. We should imagine he said something else. We should imagine he said something about actually fighting corruption inside of what he actually said, which was i want you to do us a favor, though. I want you to look into this 2016 crowd strike conspiracy theory, and i want you to look into the bidens. We should not rely on that because thats hearsay. That is absurd. That would be like saying, you cannot rely on the testimony of the burglars during watergate, because it is only hearsay. Or you cannot consider the fact that they tried to break in because they got caught. The actually did not get what they came for, so, no harm, no foul. Thats absurd. That is absurd. But the other defense besides the scheme failed, they got caught them out the other defense is the president denies it. Well, i guess that his case closed, right . The president says, really quite spontaneously, its not as if he was asked in this way. No quid pro quo. What do you want from ukraine . No quid pro quo. This is the i am not a crook defense. You say it, and i guess that is the end of it. Well, the only thing we can say is that it is not so much that the situation is different in terms of nixons conduct and trumps conduct, what we have seen here is far more serious than a third rate burglary. What we are talking about is the withholding of recognition in the white house meeting, the withholding of military aid to an ally at war. Thats beyond anything that nixon did. The difference between then and now is not the difference between nixon and trump, is the difference between that congress and this one. We are asking, where is howard baker . Where is howard baker . Where are the people that are willing to go beyond their party to look to their duty . I was struck by a colonel vindmans testimony, because he said he acted out of duty. What is our duty here . Thats what we need to be asking. Not using metaphors about balls and strikes, or our team and your team. Ive heard my colleagues use those metaphors. This is about duty. What is our duty . We are we are the indispensable nation. We still are. People look to us from all over the world. In turkey, the victims of mass x traditional killings, in the philippines, the people that gather in the square, people want representative government, people in china who are people in ukraine who want a better future. They look to us. They are not going to look to the russians. They are not going to look to the chinese. They cant look to europe with all of its problems. They look to us, and increasingly, they dont recognize what they see. What they see is americans saying, dont engage in political prosecutions. And what they say back is, oh, you mean like the bidens and the clintons that you want us to investigate . What they see, they dont recognize. And that is a terrible tragedy for us, but its a greater tragedy for the rest of the world. Now, i happen to think that when the founders provided a mechanism in the constitution for impeachment, they were worried about what might happen if someone unethical took the office of the highest office of the land and use it for personal gain, and not because of deep care about the big things that should matter, like our National Security, and our defense, and our allies, and wha what the coy stands for. I happened to think that is what they put that rate i remedy in e constitution. I think we need to consult our conscious or less and constituents and decide whether that remedy is a appropriate hee necessary here. And you know, notwithstanding what my colleagues said, i resisted going down this path for a long time, but i will tell you why i could resist no more. And it came down to this. It actually came down to timing. It came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, hey, russia, if youre listening, come get hillarys emails, and later that day, they tried to hacker surv survey. The day after he testified that not only did trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help in the campaign, they made full use of it. They lied about it. They instructed the investigation into it. Although this is in his testimony report. The day after that, donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u. S. Election. That says to me, this president believes that he is above the law, beyond accountability. And in my view, there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president that believes they are above the law. And i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, and the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. Adjourned. [applause] neil all right, you have been watching the week 2, dave t hearing. They both closed out with at the other. Russian advisor who left her post, forced out of her post to size past summer and holmes counselor in ukraine, it was mrs. Hill who generated the most fireworks, the former top russian expert that said it was domestic political errands that forced Gordon Sondland, our ambassador to ukraine to do the president s bidding. He went on to say that sondland was involved in a domestic political errands, and we were being involved in National Security, foreign policy. Those two things had just diverged. Many of her comments were echoed by mr. Holmes, repudiated by republicans on that panel and reinforced by democrats. Whether this moves the needles who might be leaning on the fence over the republicans could be more inclined to ask tougher questions of the president or raise doubts about the president , it is anyones guess. Tell mike they have been frequent critics of his position and how we have handled this matter. No needles seem to have moved here. It is still way too early to tell. This process is apparently know where neil done. My colleagues chris wallets and brett bayer right now what is your sense of where we go from here . What did we learn here . Today was interesting. David holmes was there to testify about his phone call. What he heard about ambassador sondland talking to President Trump, he was very confident in what he says he heard and made sure his feelings were clear on a big Opening Statement. Hill was really a powerful witness for the democrats. What you just mentioned was a back end of a g. O. P. Counsel question. Steve castor went down a number of culdesacs with hill, and one of them, she answers, ambassador sondland was involved in a domestic political exercise and errand, and we were involved in National Security policy. There were a number of those where she was a very impressive witness to the point where a number of g. O. P. Lawmakers just gave speeches. They did not ask her questions. When they did ask her questions, a couple of things came out. The dossier was a rabbit hole. She also said that Christopher Steele behind at dossier got played. That was an interesting point that may be explained down the road. The whole thing for me came down to one person. That was republican lawmaker will hurd was a moderate republican. He said the president acted inappropriately on that call, but he does not see anything that is bribery, extortion, or impeachable. Thats a sloppy process, but it is not impeachable. That, to me, suggests, if you cant get will hurd, its going to get tough to get 20 republican senators. Neil jim jordan is speaking to reporters. Hes never been in this town, this new guy came in here checking this place up. That drives him crazy. If they never accepted the will of 63 million americans. They never excepted the will that donald trump came in a landslide. It was first an fbi investigation then the Robert Mueller investigation and now this. Theyre trying to do everything they can as a democratic representative al green said, impeach him because they know he is going to win reelection. That is the unfortunate position he put our country is in. Weve got to quit this stuff that is tearing our country apart. That is so true. Thats what is happening is not good for our culture, not good for our nation, and yet the democrats do not care. They are bound and determined to do everything to get after this president. I think the people see through it. They know this process has been entirely unfair. Frankly, i dont know where it goes next. We will just have to wait and see and we will take some questions. All of these allegations you say, they have gotten past the election. Is not a creative narrative, thats a fact, chad. He called the president of the United States an imposter. How is that not tearing our country apart . He did not call her an imposter. She got elected speaker of the house. He got elected president of the United States. You guys have to establish a narrative. We dont have to establish any narrative. The facts are on our side. The truth is on the president s side. [report question] how do you get past even if you disagree with what the democrats have found, how do you get past what your argument is . Did you watch the hearing yesterday . I asked ambassador sondland when it happened . He asked what happened . The announcement before they got the call, the meeting, and the money. He said there was no announcement. That says it all. There was never remember when this call came out, they said there was going to be a quid pro quo. We havent seen it. Hill rejected very strongly the notion that ukraine may have meddled in the 2016 election. She said this is a fictional narrative that is perpetrated of propaganda about that russian servers. Are you willing to accept your testimony . We all know that russia meddled in the election. Thats not to say that ukraine didnt try to influence the election. Thats the words weve used all along with a member of parliament. The vast majority of ukraine politicians want hillary to win. They took actions to win. Is that on the same level that russia did . We never alleged that. It never happened. For them to dismiss it out of hands doesnt make sense. It still happened. What she said today when i asked her, i said was the dossier a rabbit hole and the deposition . She said yes. At was the biggest example of what you just brought up. It was the biggest example of how russians try to impact the election. That document where he got played running down a rabbit hole, the fbi used it to spy on american citizens. Why are you not concerned about that . The fact that that happened in this country is so darn wrong. When i cannot find anything, Robert Mueller spent 2. 5 years doing the same thing. And now it comes to this. Thats what happened. You are not accepting her explanation. No, im giving you the answer i just gave you. [report question] it doesnt change the facts, whether he is right or she is right, it doesnt change the facts. There was no quid pro quo. This is what happened. Four or five hours refuting the fact that the quid pro quo that he talked about in his Opening Statement was all based on guesses and presumptions, and no facts. [report question] that was his perception, that is correct. Despite all of the work that youve done, they are going to impeach the president from the house. Is that going to be a failure on your part to protect the president from having that happen . I think that was probably determined 1. 5 weeks ago in the vote. What was the vote . I thought the telling sign from that vote was every single republican understands what this is for and how wrong this is. And so did two democrats. If they ever get to a vote, we will see. If they go to gc terry we dont know what the articles are going to be. When that plays out, we will see the final vote. The real vote is the one thats going to happen in 11. 5 months. Weve got to go, thank you all. Have you heard neil you have been hearing from jim jordan on the republican side of this. No quid pro quo. The president was involved in a swap getting dirt on the president ial opponent in the next president ial election for aid that was pending for that country close to 4 million that eventually did make its way there. Again, it is not really change impressionable minds as bret baier pointed out. I am neil cavuto in new york. Neil all right, back with bret baier and chris wallace. It always comes down to that. You mention the texas congressman who probably had a reason not to necessarily be penned into taking the party line and did not appear to be. I wonder if others are still inclined to stick to their positions, that it is not moving those who are undecided or into a column that others wouldnt be. I will defer to chris. But i think there hasnt been a movement on lawmakers. I am saying that will hurd is somebody that could have moved. Hes not up for reelection purity is a moderate republican. I think everybody sees it through the prism of, are you going to be able to sway somebody . Remember, they are living today and not coming back until december 3rd. The momentum, if there was any, has to continue all the way to the Judiciary Committee and then the cement floor, and vote to kick this president out of office. Neil s before leaving now. Im curious what you make of the impact of her remarks on the warning that the russians are going to do this again. They are going to be very, very much involved in the 2020 election. Your impressions of her testimony . I thought it was the fiona hill showed today. It was interesting because in the morning she gave her Opening Statement in which she warned particularly republicans that she thought they were playing into the russian hands by pushing this narrative that ukraine, not russia was a prime actor in interference in election. And she was questioned for 45 minutes by the chairman, adam schiff, and by his lawyer, daniel goldman. As like direct examination. They had their witness and getting what they wanted out of her. What was going to happen this afternoon . This afternoon, she had to go through 45 minutes of questioning by devin nunes and by steve castor, his lawyer for the republicans who are going to try to poke holes in her argument and also david holmes. This was they fiona hill show. I think before it was over, republicans realized they shouldnt really try to mess around with this witness. At one point, steve castor i was not sure whether he was trying to say sondland is a kook or you are in a possible bureaucrat, but said you and sondland didnt get along, did you . As you pointed out, she said, no, thats true, we didnt get along. At one point, we fought a few times. She said i watch what he said yesterday and understood. I would now cut Gordon Sondland a break, because he was involved in a domestic political errand, which is an interesting choice of words. We were involved in National Security policy. Most tellingly, she said that it one point shes had to Gordon Sondland during one of their disagreements, i think, gordon, that this is all going to blow up. And she felt that this was not the result of that, that we had a policy toward ukraine that on one track was National Security policy. Whats best for ukraine, how do they stand up to russia. On the other hand, the three amigos, Rudy Giuliani, on the behest of the president were involved in a domestic political errand. One other point that i thought she made is pretty striking. She was asked about these claims of ukrainian interference. Yes, russia did interfere, but it didnt ukraine also . She said there were some ukrainian officials that expressed concerns about a donald trump during the campaign. I thought it was illadvised. They bet on the wrong horse. Clinton didnt win and speak 24 did. That wasnt like russia that was using the Security Services to intervene, interfere in the u. S. Election. It was a few officials making statements. Finally, we dont have any sense that there are going to be more public hearings, closing statements today from devin nunes, the top republican, and from adam schiff, the chairman, the top democrat. He really see where i think the fault lines in this debate live. As far as devin nunes is concerned, ever since donald trump was elected in november of 2016, there have been a group of democrats who are dutybound and hellbent on ousting him from office. They do not respect they do not legitimize the election. 63 Million People voting for a donald trump. In fact, at one point, fiona hill was asked about Hillary Clinton about the electoral vote as opposed to the popular vote, which she won, and does that claim to the hands of the russians . Fiona hill says yes, it does. As the republican argument. The democratic argument is that this is an abuse of power. A president that using his powers of the presidency and as commander in chief for his own personal and political agenda, and as adam schiff said, on juln the very next day he gets on the phone and seeks help from president zelensky of ukraine. I dont think, online long answer to your very short and distinct question pete i dont think any minds seem to have been changed. I see no signs that any republicans in the house with the senate are going to vote with the democrats to impeach the president in the house or to remove the president and the senate. Neil it is certainly awkward behavior. Whether it is impeachable is in the eyes of the beholder. The timing in which we stand right now, these guys lea have gained as a result of these hearings today and the latest comments from fiona hill who was a mesmerizing witness from your perspective one way or the oth other, its a way, isnt it . I guess the question is, where this goes from hill. They have to come up with articles of impeachment. Whether they call the same witnesses, its hard to believe that. They have to payment an argument that they are going to make the case that will be voted on in the house. And then likely, according to partisan vote would go over to the senate for a trial. One other thing about today, when democrats were asking questions and being very emotional about defending for the ukrainians to defend against russia and the fact that labs were on the line, it did echo a Little Hollow considering the fact that we as a country have given ukraine 300 million per year since 2014. 1. 6 billion, but the only administration to give lethal weapons is the trump administration. As these questions coming out, where were you during the obama years when ukraine was trying to get lethal weapons . Neil this domestic political errand kept coming up in fiona hills remarks. Thats up to the beholder whether you find that to be an Impeachable Offense. Indeed it was a political errand, people can argue and dispute that and still are. Is that an impeachable defense . Is that a high crime or misdemeanor . The answer is, there is no definition. The way the founders wrote it, it basically says all it says is that the houses responsible for the possibility of impeaching the president. It talks about bribery, treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors. What does that mean . It means everything from what nixon did in watergate and what built clinton did in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Thats a broad spectrum. If it somewhere along that spectrum. And basically, what is an Impeachable Offense . Anything that gets 218 votes on the house. You know, in the end, its ultimately not a legal act, its a political act. If nancy pelosi is able to marshal a majority as she did for the vote to authorize impeachment inquiry a couple of weeks ago, if she is able to do that even though she did lose democrats, republicans stood firm, democrats, on a single strayer. It goes on to. In terms of what happens next, we did not hear from adam schiff whether hes going to announce anymore witnesses. I very much doubt it. Why are you in such a rush . Why dont you wait to see what happens in this lawsuit in early december to find out whether or not john bolton wouldnt he be an important witness . I dont get the sense that that will happen. And something that nancy pelosi and adam schiff and a lot of the top Democratic Leaders are going to discuss and figure out what to do. Then they are going to have to right a report. It will obviously be two very different reports, the majority report, they will both be sent to the Judiciary Committee. They have to decide what to do. One big difference in the Judiciary Committee according to the House Resolution is that now, the president , the white house will be able to have counsel there. One suspects that they will be able to argue on behalf of donald trump as they werent in these hearings as to why this was an entire waste of time. Neil gentlemen, i want to thank you both very much. Bottom line here, if you have a mind to impeach the president , that probably did not change. If you are of mind to say that hes being railroaded, that in change. What is gained . More after this. Can be tough. You diet. Exercise. But if youre also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fdaapproved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. To treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. Proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33 , without raising bad cholesterol. Look. Its clear. Theres only one prescription epa vascepa. Vascepa is not right for everyone. Do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. Tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2. 3 of patients reported joint pain. Ask your doctor about vascepa. Prescription power. Proven to work. For a limited time, get a outb4course meal your holidays even better starting at 15. 99. Treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4course wont last long and now, get a 10 gift with every 50 in gift cards. And you know what they isay about curiosity. Itll ruin your house. So get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like meow. When youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. So you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. For small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. Shop everything home at wayfair. Com i am totally blind. And non24 can make me show up too early. Or too late. Or make me feel like im not really there. Talk to your doctor, and call 8442342424. Neil we dont know exactly how much the president had a chance to ask todays events. We do know that he had a busy day at the white house meeting with a number of republican senators and big critics of his when it came to this matter and other matters as well. Thats go to kevin with the latest on whats happening there. We will talk about the meeting that took place between the president and those two sometimes unreliable senators. Unreliable in the sense that i dont always back is policies and positions. Another busy day of impeachment as we have been talking about throughout as witnesses make their weight once again to capitol hill and perhaps the breakout star of the entire week. Dr. Fiona hill mixed expert analysis with her recollection of events leading up to and beyond the infamous call, notably by the way, she pushed back against this notion that partisanship should have played a part in the participation in the days proceedings. We relate to what we heard, what we saw, and what we did. And to be of some help to all of you and really making a very momentous decision here. We need to be together again in 2020. The president was active again on twitter. No surprise there. He offered a president ial challenge. Never have a been watching a person making a call that was not on speakerphone, and be able to hear or understand a conversation. I even tried to, but to no avail pit try is life. That was in reference to the testimony of david holmes. He claims to have overheard a phone call between the president and e. U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland. We talked a lot about that over the past couple of days. Thats weird that were talking about now and the latest effort into aggressively combat unfavorable testimony as the inquiry over on the hill. That includes a tough Statement Like this one from the White House Press secretary stephanie grisham. She referred to the process is a sham. Its a process where witnesses were relying heavily on their own presumptions, assumptions, and opinions. He also pointed out that Susan Collins was here this afternoon, along with romney. They were talking to the president a little bit, very little bit about what was happening over a capitol hill. By and large, they were talking about prescription drugs and other issues facing the senate. As you can well imagine, the specter of the Senate Getting a crack at what has been a very interesting requirement on the house making their way to them. Neil how was it with romney . This is the thing about this in a day. A lot of people dont know that he is the ultimate pragmatist. People that know mitt romney and know the people that have been around him would tell you this. He is someone who understands not just the rules of engagement, but certainly understands how to play the game, which is to say, he has not been a big fan of the president. Everyone knows that. He is still thought to be reasonably reliable at least to some degree. We will see if he talks tough and involves online, if this makes its way over to the senate as expected. Neil i love that, reasonably reliable at least to some degree. I think that you are a lawyer. All said, my friend. Thank you very much. Lets get the read on what happens right now if theres really any kind of a proverbial smoking gun or something so black and white that it is irrefutable to move toward impeachment. What do you think . Well, it has been a very impactful week. Weve seen a lot of witnesses and many hours of testimony. I dont think theres a single witness that really hits a home run for the democrats. There is no single knockout punch. I think theres a couple of themes that ring through pretty clearly. I think that you have clarity with regard to the firsthand knowledge of the witnesses. They were there during the relevant parts of the time frame that they are testifying about, particularly on july 25th and 26th. When you go through the testimony in the week, but i also think theres a theme of consistency. Yes, there was very effective crossexamination by the republicans this week. But if you really put everything together, largely, theres not a very significant dispute as to the central facts that are at issue here and when you tie those five together with the public statements of the president with respect to the bidens, i agree that its an uphill battle that is very much ongoing on capitol hill. Neil what would be next . Are they going to impose more kisses . We have this break to consider and whatever momentum the democrats might have had, as i continue after the break and we get kneedeep into the coming caucuses and primaries, the account begins to play against them, it could be for them, but he think . I think there will be more witnesses and hearings. There is a very crucial wild cards that still sitting out there with respect to john bolton. He and one of his deputies have a lawsuit pending in federal court in d. C. If mr. Bolton receives an order from the trial judge over the next couple of weeks, he has stated that if he is ordered to go ahead and testify that he will go ahead and do so. I agree with martha what has been stated on the show thats a big wild card. If john bolton gets an order from the judge which i predict that he will over the coming weeks that he is authorized to testify, i think that could be a game changer. Remember, this is not about anyone witness, this is about putting the fact pattern together. You have a relatively concise pattern that fits within a couple of months. When you talk about high crimes and misdemeanors, there is some wiggle room there. I think the adam schiff is telegraphing very quickly they are going after bribery. Thats going to be that an abuse of power as the major targets. Thats very clear and concise peer the question becomes, as they going to be development over the next couple of weeks such as a ruling for john bolton that could really change the mix as it relates to the republicans that have their decisions moved once we get the articles of impeachment and it rolls over to the senate for trial. Neil we will watch closel closely. We do know that everything is in limbo, including a lot of stuff that a lot of people want to see done. The big moves in mexico and canada is frozen in place right now. It might not even get done this year. I guy says if that were to be the case, he is worried. Neil all right, impeachment has already solved a lot of activities in a lot of different things. Trade deal is hanging into balance. Im not talking about the one with china, im talking about the one on the table but the leaders of mexico. Nancy pelosi indicating today that its possible he could get bumped to do next year. That might be optimistic. The Ranking Member of the house kevin brady. That would be a big mistake. What do you make of what she is saying or publicly putting out there . I think the biggest worry around here is democrats have been such a high already on impeachment that they will not get to the key Economic Issues by this new trade agreement that will stall out the economy. As politically bad for them as well. I will tell you that i continue to remain encouraged. I think the discussions between House Democrats and President Trumps continue to be constructive as richie neil, the chairman of the Committee Said today, they are narrowing their differences and certainly, if there is time to get this past from the house this year. With the way the committee is prepared to act once we get a green light from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the act this year. Im hopeful that they say at the table, this week is pretty important for the timing of this agreement. Neil theres an idea being kicked around by the democrats i even think certain republicans, although you would know more about this than i would, stop the impeachment process aimed toward centering the president. What do you make of that . I was here in congress during the clinton impeachment. My first term. This process is dramatically different. I think far more unfair than i had one, certainly more partisan. If there was no due process for the president. I think that is the most troubling part of all of this. I think it would be wise for democrats to recognize, they are not moving the needle. Theyre not convincing anyone. Most people see it for exactly what it is, overall political power play. Weve got bigger things to be tackling like this new agreement. You know the list. Thats what we ought to be working on. Neil do you worried that maybe it was the comment of fiona hill talking about the political nature all all about and the president trying to exact favors im paraphrasing here. Already the testimony has been rejected by Mick Mulvaneys office. Saying that she based much of her testimony on things allegedly heard from unnamed staffers, and many people, the fact that miss hill has never met despite all of the great intention or comment scott today, she doesnt know what shes talking about. What do you of that . I think the two things that have come out of this week are the opposite of what mr. Burns said to you a few minutes ago. There have been little firsthand knowledge. Every witness seemed to admit that it was second, third, or fourth hand knowledge that they had. Thats pretty tough to base facts on. When asked what is their quid pro quo, was there extortion or bribery or an Impeachable Offense, all in their own way admitted, no. I think that is what has come out of this first week. Again, i think out of fairness, the president republicans ought to be able to call their witnesses. Out of fairness, the president ought to be able to call his as well. Neil thank you, always great to catch up with you as well. All right, lawmakers are leaving now for the thanksgiving break. Who comes back from that looking like a turkey, the democrats or republicans . More after this. Memory support brand. You can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. Prevagen. Healthier brain. Better life. Where people go to learn about their Medicare Options before theyre on medicare. Come on in. Youre turning 65 soon . Yep. And youre retiring at 67 . Thats the plan its also a great time to learn about an aarp Medicare Supplement insurance plan, insured by Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company. Heres why. Medicare part b doesnt pay for everything. This part is up to you. A Medicare Supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesnt. Call Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company today to request this free decision guide. And learn about the only Medicare Supplement plans endorsed by aarp. Selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. This type of plan lets you say yes to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. Do you accept medicare patients . I sure do so call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. Oh, and happy birthday. Or retirement. In advance. It also has the highest growth in manufacturing jobs in the us. Its a competition for the talent. Employees need more than just a paycheck. You definitely want to take advantage of all the benefits you can get. 2 3 of employees said that the workplace is an important source for personal savings and protection solutions. The workplace should be a source of financial security. Keeping your people happy is what keeps your people. Thats Financial Wellness. Put your employees on a path to Financial Wellness with prudential. Now what . These guys are going to go on thanksgiving break and what happens after that . What do you think . What they have to do right now both sizes frame the narrative over the next week and a half. Jim jordan the republican from ohio was just here a minute ago. They said they dont have to frame the narrative on the republican side because the truth is with the president. Also in the last couple of minutes, we got the statement from the council for Mick Mulvaney the acting white house chief of staff Robert Bristol about some of the comments in the testimony from fiona hill. He says that her testimony is riddled with speculation about mulvaneys role in relation to ukraine so the next steps here, do they have other hearings, do they have other depositions in the Intelligence Committee or do they go ahead and craft their report and send it to the Judiciary Committee and at that point, the Judiciary Committee, do they actually have opened hearings on impeachment . This is what the president and republicans would have placed a call in and refute the democratic points here or do they go directly to writing articles of impeachment. I was told earlier today the four articles they will probably focus on our bribery, contempt of congress, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Thank you very much. We will be following this on fox business as well. So far has not materialized in 12 00 p. M. Eastern time eastern time coast to coast. We look at the implications for a market that is still shrugging his shoulders. He was the five. Hello, everyone. I am juan williams. With jesse watters, dana perino, and greg gutfeld. Is at 5 00 in new york city. This is the five. Another blockbuster day of impeachment hearings on capitol hill. Forma National Security a counsel official testified as well as david holmes the state Department Aide who overheard President Trump and ambassador Gordon Sondland july 26 phone call in the ukraine. Fireworks erupting early on today when fiona hill clashed with republicans over claims of ukrainian 2016 election