Latest Breaking News On - Process issue - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
discussing today which involved an irregular channel which is her request that went against u.s. policy that would undermine the rule of law and our long-standing policy goals in ukraine as in other countries in the post-soviet space. >> policies that were indeed championed by ambassador yovanovitch. you also testified in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country and you cited the importance of reforming certain institutions, notably security service. was investigating president trump's political opponents a part of those necessary reforms? was it on that list of yours and was it on any list? >> no, they weren't. >> in fact, historically is it not true than a major problem in the ukraine is bennett's misuse
of prosecutors, precisely to conduct an investigation of political opponents. that's a legacy i dare suggest from the soviet era which as you said in your testimony prosecutors like the kgb were and i quote you now "instruments of oppression." >> i said that and i believe it's true. >> finally, mr. kent, for as long as i can remember, u.s. foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interests in democratic values, notably freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion. free and fair and open elections. in the rule of law. mr. kent, would american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals? doesn't that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of of those democratic values western mark >> i believe it makes it
more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. >> how is that? >> there is an issue of credibility. i hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u.s. leaders saying something else. >> ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir? >> i would. >> anything you would like to add about how it might make it more difficult for you to do your job, sir. >> our credibility is based on a respect for the united states and if we damage that respect, then it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. >> anyone looking can see what happened was an abuse of power. anyone looking at the facts can seem that what happened was unethical. anyone looking at the facts can see, anyone looking at the facts
can see that what went on was just plain wrong. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. jarman. >> thank you. 55 days that there was a delay on sending hard earned tax dollars of the american people to the ukraine. ernst & young said one of the most three corrupt countries on the planet. our witness friday testified in her deposition corruption is not just prevalent in ukraine. it's the system. so our president said timeout. time out. let's check out this new guy. let's see if zelensky is the real deal. he got elected in april, his party took power in july. let's see if he's legitimate. keep in mind this has already been discussed. in 2018 president trump out already done more for ukraine that obama did.
that's right. president trump who doesn't like foreign aid, wanted european countries to do more, who know how corrupt ukraine was, did more than obama because he gave him javelins. take busting javelins to fight the russians. obama gave him blankets and trump gave him missiles but when it came time to check out the new guy, president trump said let's see if he's legit. for a 55 days we checked him out. president zelensky had five interactions with senior u.s. officials in that time frame. one was the phone call. the july 25th phone call. there were four other face-to-face meetings with other senior u.s. officials. guess what. not one of those interactions, not one were security assistance dollars linked to investigating burisma or biden. u.s. senators, ambassador
bolton, vice president pence, all became convinced that zelensky was worth the risk. he was legit and the real deal and a real change and guess what. they told the president he's a reformer. release the money. that's exactly what president trump did. over the next few weeks, we are going to have more witnesses like we've had today that the democrats will parade in here and they're all going to say so-and-so said such and such to so-and-so and therefore we've got to impeach the president. actually we can get more specific. we cover this a little bit ago. they will say something like ambassador sondland said in his deposition ambassador taylor recalls mr. morrison told pastor taylor that i told mr. morrison that i convey this message to mr. yermak with connection to the visit to warsaw in a meeting with president zelensky. if you can follow that, that is the democrats plan and why they want to impeach the president. that's what we are going to hear over the next couple weeks. that's what we're going to hear
but no matter what they do and how many witnesses they bring in, four facts will not change and they will never change. the call shows no linkage between dollars and the investigation into burisma and the bidens. president trump and president zelensky have both said there was no linkage, no pressure, no pushing. ukrainians didn't know the aide was withheld at the time of the phone call and most importantly as it's been pointed out, the ukrainians didn't take any specific action relative th to e investigation. there is one witness, one witness they won't bring in front of us. they won't bring in front of the american people. that's the guy who started it all, the whistle-blower. no. 435 members of congress, only one gets to know who that person is, only one member of congress has a staff that gets to talk to that person. the rest of us don't. only chairman schiff knows who that was glorious. we don't. we will never get the chance. we will never get the chance to
see the whistle-blower raise his right hand, swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. we'll never get that chance. more portly, the american people won't get that chance. this anonymous so-called whistle-blower with no firsthand knowledge who worked with joe biden, the reason we are all sitting here today, and will never get a chance to question an individual. democrats are trying to impeach the president based on all that, all that? 11 and a half months before an election? who will not get to check out his credibility, motivations, bias. i sent this last week but this is a sad day. it's a sad day for this country. you think about what the democrats have put on our nation through for the last three years. started in july of 2016 when they spied on two american citizens associated with the presidential campaign and all that unfolded after that and when that didn't work, here we are. based on this. based on this is -- the american
people see through it, they understand the facts support the president. they understand the process is unfair. they see through the whole darn sham. with that, i yield back. >> mr. welch. >> thank you. i say to my colleague, i've be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. president trump is welcome to take a seat right there. [laughter] >> you know, the question here is not a dispute about the enormous power that a president has. the question is whether in this case there was an abuse of that power. the president can fire an ambassador. for any reason whatsoever. the president can change his policy, as he did when he opened the door for turkey to go in and invade curtis
dan despite many oppositions from senior advisors. the president could change his position and his position on ukraine but is there a limit? there is. because our constitution says no one is above the law. that limit is that one cannot even its president use the public trust for personal gain. the law prohibits any one of us here on the dais from seeking foreign assistance in her campaigns. the question for us is whether the use of power by the president was for the benefit of advancing his political interests in the 2020 campaign and by the way, my colleagues -- if the president wants to attack joe biden and his son, he is
free to do it fair and square in campaigns. he just not free to change our foreign policy unless he gets his way to a system in that campaign. that's a line you can't cross. now you all have been very clear about what our continuous foreign policy was and ambassador taylor, very quickly describe why us withholding aid interfered with achieving our national security goals. >> one of our national security goals is to resolve conflicts in europe. there's one major conflict in europe. it's a fighting war. our national security goals in support of ukraine, in support of a broader strategic approach
to europe is to facilitate that negotiation, try to support ukraine when it negotiates with the russians. >> i want to go back because in the historical context, mr. ke mr. kent, and ambassador taylor provided, we had seven years of peace after the war in which we lost 400,000 american lives and that took care of that was in jeopardy, as you described, ambassador taylor, and that threatened each and every one of us appear and the constituents we represent. is that a fair statement? i want to do three dates. i only have a little time. july 24, july 25, july 26. july 24th, director mueller testified about his investigation and he established beyond doubt that it was the russians who interfered in our
elections. he expressed the fear that that would be the new normal. on july 25, according to the readout of the president's campaign, he asked the ukrainians to investigate ukrainian interference in our election that had been repudiated. and then july 26, as i understand it, this person who reported to you heard the president saying he wanted investigations again in ukraine. so this is a question. the new normal that director mueller feared, is there a new normal that you fear that a president, any president, can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that's in his interest but not the public interest. >> that should not be the case,
mr. welch. >> i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i turn to the transcript of the call between president trump and president zelensky. you have mischaracterized the call. in the first open hearing. >> gentlewoman will suspend. i would be happy to enter the call record into the record. you are recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you for being here today. ambassador taylor, what year did you graduate from west point? >> 1969, sir. >> the height of the vietnam war, wasn't it? >> the height was about that time. >> what was your class rank at west point? >> i was number five. >> how many people in your class? >> 800. >> 800 cadets and you were number five. >> yes, sir. >> the top 1% of your class was point, you probably get your pick of assignments you picked
the infantry. >> yes, sir. >> rifle company commander. >> sir. >> where did you serve? >> in vietnam. >> did you see combat in vietnam, sir? >> i did. >> did you earn -- >> i was awarded the combat infantry badge which is my highest, i am proudest of. there was a bronze star. >> for valor. >> it is. >> let's talk about july 26. a lot of years later. you go to the front with ambassador volker and you are looking on the front line of the russian soldiers. is that what you recall? you said that ukrainian commander saying to for the american military assistance ths
being withheld. how did that make you feel? >> badly. it was clear that commander counted on us. it was clear that commander had confidence in us. it was clear that commander was appreciative of the capabilities that he was given by that assistance but also the reassurance that we were supporting him. >> you don't strike me as a quitter but you threaten to resign or you mentioned in your statement. before i ask about that, let's talk about a couple days later on august 28. you find yourself in ukraine with the national security advisor, mr. bolton. you conveyed him your concerns, you testified to this previously about the withholding of military assistance. what does he say to you? >> he says he shares my concern and he advises me to express it
in a very special way to the secretary of state. >> he is a national security advisor, works directly with the president, but he tells you you should bring it up with the secretary of state. how many times in your career have you sent a cable directly to the secretary of state? >> ones. >> this time. >> yes, sir. >> in 50 years. >> rifle company commanders don't send cables but yes, sir. >> the national security advisor who could tell it to the president shares your concern says you, the ambassador serving in ukraine, should cable the secretary of state directly and you do so, don't you? >> yes, sir. >> what are the cable say? >> it's a classified cable. >> without going into classified information. >> without going into classified information, security assistance to ukraine at this particular time is very important.
ukraine, i also make the point that we've talked about here today. ukraine is important for our national security and we should support it. not to provide that would be folly. >> did you get an answer to your cable? >> not directly, no, sir. >> do not happen to her? >> secretary kent. >> secretary kent, do you know what happened to it? >> i was on vacation when his cable came in but my understanding is it made it to its recipient, intended recipient, secretary pompeo. >> we know that secretary pompeo was on the call on july 25. it's not like he's in the dark with any of it. what did he do with it? >> i honestly can say for sure what happened with the cable once the message was brought in at the highest level. >> one other question, gentlemen. on september 1, you recall a meeting between the vice president and the president of ukraine, mr. zelensky, and which right off the bat, the president of ukraine raises security assistant and the
vice president according to your telling says i will talk to the president tonight about that. do you know what the vice president made that call? >> i don't know, sir. >> do you know what if anything the vice president had to do with any of this? what more can you tell us about the vice president's role in this? do you know if he ever raised this issue for trigger with anyone in the administration, whether he pushed for the release of the security assistance. >> i can, sir. >> i believe to the best of my understanding the vice president was an advocate for the release of the assistance. >> thank you. yield back. >> mr. chairman. i have a unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the politico article on ukraine authored by ken vogel, now with "the new york times." >> representative deming's. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being with us
today. mr. kent, you said that president has the right to remove an ambassador because the ambassador serves at the pleasure of the president. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> does that removal usually come with a smear campaign of that ambassador by the president? >> i think the right of the president to make decisions about representatives is separate from whatever happens outside the confines of u.s. government processes. >> do you have any idea why it was important to discredit ambassador yovanovitch? what she was not willing to do or to do, why that was important. >> it probably depends on the motivation of other people and i'm not one of them. >> the committee's investigation has uncovered a web of shadow diplomacy engaged in an executed by several state department officials and the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani and ultimately directed by
president trump. we've heard several ways of describing this shady, shadow operation, shadow diplomacy, rogue back channel. ambassador taylor, you have described what you encountered is the top diplomat on the ground in ukraine and i quote "highly irregular informal channel of u.s. policymaking." you testified that the channel included ambassador volker, sondland, secretary perry, and as he later learned, the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> both of you of it explained that you grew seriously concerned when he realized that the interests of this irregular channel diverged from official u.s. policy and interests. was mr. giuliani promotingon't . >> mr. kent. >> no, he was not. >> what interest you believe he
was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor. >>what interests do you believee was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> the state department's role is to promote u.s. policies overseas, not to help the current president win reelection. is that correct, mr. kent question marks to go all federal government employees are subjected to the hatch act. promoting policy and not involved in partisan politics. >> ambassador taylor. >> i agree. >> what is the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy that is completely outside of normal channels and does not further u.s. policy goals, and asked? >> ms. deming's, it's possible to do one but not the other. if it's completely against u.s. policy goals, then that's a mistake and it's not helpful. you can get advice and you can
have conversations outside of the normal channels, but then they need to be part of u.s. foreign policy. approaching those goals. >> mr. kent? >> agree. >> ambassador taylor, you have described in your previous testimony one instance shortly after you arrived in ukraine in which ambassador sondland asked state department officials not to listen to a july 20 call he had planned to hold with president zelensky. did you find that unusual? >> i did. >> what was the impact of ambassador sondland making that request? >you found it unusual. what do you believe the impact was? >> ms. dennings, i'm not sure there was an immediate impact. >> was there a recording or transcription? >> that was not -- that was the impact, it was not recorded. >> do you believe that's why the request is made, that there would not be normal
state department employees from the operation center would've been there transcribing and taking notes? >> that's the norm but it's also not unusual do not have it recorded. >> so you know that the state department is holding your notes and refuses to provide them to congress despite a duly authorized subpoena. we know that in some instances, your notes may be the only documentary record of what happened. you are aware of that. >> yes, ma'am. >> mr. kent, you are aware that your notes have not been turned over to congress. >> i have turned all records that i had in my possession to the state department because whatever we do is considered a federal record, not a personal record. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, i yelled back. -- i yield back. >> i have a "new york times" op-ed stating why president obama should have done more to investigate ukraine by a trio of investors which includes
william taylor. >> good afternoon. i would like to walk you through a couple points raised by my colleagues on the other side. one is a claim that the july 25 call summary shows no evidence of pressure on the ukrainian government. in fact, they argue the ukrainians do not feel any pressure at any time to comply with any of president trump's request for investigation. in fact, ambassador taylor, and your deposition in october, you stated that due to the hold president trump placed on aid to the ukraine, the ukrainians became quote-unquote desperate. isn't that right? >> in august, they did not know, as fa far as i'm aware. at the end of august, the article came out.
in september, the ministry of defense came to me, i would use the word desperate, to figure out why the assistance was being withheld. he thought that perhaps if he went to washington to talk to you, to talk to the secretary of defense and the president, he would be able to find out and reassure, provide whatever answer was necessary to have that assistance released. >> infect, my colleagues on the other side suggest that president zelinsky personally personally did not feel any pressure at any time. yet, later on in september, he finally relented in a conversation with gordon sondland, according to your deposition, in which he agreed to make a statement on cnn. isn't that right? >> he had planned to make a statement on cnn, yes, sir. >> my colleagues also same that the hold on u.s. securities assistance was lifted on september 11 without any investigations happening on the
part of the ukrainians and therefore everything ended up finding the end. however, mr. kent, as you know, the house intelligence, foreign affairs, and oversight committees began this current investigation leading to the proceedings today on sub number nine. -- on september 9. it was only two days after this particular set of committees began their investigations that the trump administration eventually released the military aid, correct? >> that is the timeline, yes. >> ambassador taylor, between the time of your october deposition and now, did anyone from the trump administration contact you about your appearance before the committee today? >> no, sir. >> how about you, mr. kent? >> no, sir. >> investor taylor, i would like to turn toward that for my account you used 13 times in your opening statement and that word is concerned. you were concerned that aid was being conditioned on political
investigations, isn't that right? >> yes, sir. >> you were concerned that irregular channels of diplomacy were being used in our foreign policy in the ukraine, right? >> yes, sir. >> investor taylor, can you rule out the possibility that these regular channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct foreign policy? >> i can't -- i've not heard of any other separate channels that has this kind of influence. that is, the giuliani kind of guidance. >> but you can't rule it out. >> no, sir. >> how about you, mr. kent? >> i have no basis to make a determination. >> you don't believe the july 25 call was perfect, do you?
>> i think some of the language in the call give cause for concern. >> ambassador taylor. >> i agree. >> what was the cause for concern for you? >> there was -- the discussion of the previous ambassador was a cause for concern. >> ambassador taylor, i want to draw on your experience finally as a west point cadet and an infantry commander in vietnam. in a battlefield situation, is the commanding officer allowed to hold up action placing his troops at risk until someone provides him a personal benefit? >> no, sir. >> is that because if committees officers did that, they would be betraying their responsibility to the nation and the men and women under their command? >> yes, sir. >> if that happened and were found out, could that person be subject to discipline? >> yes, sir. >> could that type of conduct trigger a court-martial? >> yes, sir. >> thank you.
i yield back. >> mr. chairman, by unanimous consent, ask unanimous consent to enter into the record mr. mulvaney's statement where he said there was no quid pro quo. >> recognize for any closing comments. >> mr. chairman. >> i recognize mr. nunes. we will get your motion. after brief closing remarks. my intention to excuse the witnesses. we will have a brief recess. members should not go far. we will resume. mr. nunes. >> thank you. i want to reiterate what i said earlier and that is that we really should stop holding these hearings until we get the answer to three important topics. the first being the full extent of the democrats prior coordination with the
whistle-blower and who did the whistle-blower coordinate with. second, the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against the trump campaign. and third, why did burisma hire hunter biden and what did he do for them and did his position affect any u.s. government actions under the obama administration? you're not allowing those witnesses to appear before the committee, which i think is a problem. so we will expect hopefully you will allow us to bring the whistle-blower, the folks he spoke to, and also numerous democratic operatives who work with ukraine to meddle in the election. with that, i will yield back. >> i thank the gentleman i want to thank the witnesses. you exemplify so many courageous
men and women who serve in the diplomatic corps, who served in our military, who represent the united states so well around the world. i appreciate how you endeavored to stay out of the fray, to relate what you heard, we saw without additional commentary. that is as it should be. you were both compelled to appear and we are grateful that you answered the lawful subpoenas you received. the story that you have shared with us today and your experiences i think is a very deeply troubling one. it is the story of a dedicated ambassador, someone who served with great distinction, ambassador yovanovitch, who is the subject of a vicious smear campaign at the beginning of the year. it's the story of, once this
ambassador was pushed out of the way, the creation of an irregular channel which ambassador taylor, you described went all the way from the president through mick mulvaney, ambassador sondland, through ambassador volker, to rudy giuliani. that over time became apparent was not serving the u.s. interest but running deeply contrary to the u.s. interests. was in fact conditioning a white house meeting that the president of ukraine desperately sought to establish himself as the new president of ukraine and to demonstrate to her friend and foe alike that he had a relationship with his most powerful patron, the united states of america. and conditioned $400 million of bipartisan taxpayer-funded military support for a nation at war. on the front lines of russian
expansionism. a suspension of which was not in the u.s. interests, not an ukraine's interest, not in our national security interests in no way, shape, or form. you have described a situation in which those in the service of the president made it clear to the ukrainians they need to publicly announce these investigations or they weren't going to get that meeting and they sure weren't going to get that military assistance. i would point out, and this may not come to your attention but it certainly come to our attention. on september 9, inspector general informed our committee that the director of national intelligence was withholding a whistle-blower complaint in violation of the statute. by that point, on september 9, that complaint had made its way to the white house. on september 9, when the inspector general informed congress that that complaint had been withheld, the white house
also learned that congress now inevitably would learn about the complaint. it was less than 48 hours later that the military aid would be released. over the weeks to come over over the days to come, rather, we will hear from other dedicated public servants about other aspects of this effort to invite foreign interference in our election, to condition a white house meeting and military aid for the performance of political favors for the president's reelection campaign. we will hear from other witnesses. i appreciate numbers on both sides of the aisle who i think participated today in a serious way and in a civil way. this is as it should be. there's no shortage of strong feelings about what this means to the country. at the end of the day, we are going to have to decide based on the evidence that you and others
provide whether we are prepared to accept in the president of the united states a situation where the president for their own personal or political benefit can condition military aid, diplomatic meetings, or any other performance of an official act in order to get help in their reelection. whether we will need to accept this president or any future president the idea that the president of the united states can invite a foreign country to intervene in our affairs. these are the decisions we will have to make when we have to decide whether this president should be impeached. but i want to thank you again. i will conclude by saying, because i can't let it go unanswered, several of my colleagues made the statement repeatedly that i have met with the whistle-blower or that i know with a whistle-blower is. it was false the first time they said it. the second through the 40th time, it will be false the last time they say it. without, this concludes this portion of the hearing.
i want to thank you, gentlemen. i asked everyone to remain in their seats. witnesses are excused. please let them leave the committee room. once they leave the committee room, we will take a brief recess and then we will resume to take up mr. conaway's motion and once again, i thank you, gentlemen. >> the chairman of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff, after more than five and half hours of testimony, questions that started out with 45 minutes for each side with the councils from the house majority in the house. already on the committee asking a lot of those initial questions and then this round with each of the members of the committee getting 5 minutes each, really a ping-pong match between republicans and democrats. congressman jim jordan questioning ambassador taylor about how he got to what he called a clear understanding that the aide was withheld unless it was an investigation
of the democrats 2016 efforts in the bidens saying that it was second, thirdhand information, again hitting that again and again, then eric swalwell coming back and say we won't have to deal with that hearsay if we heard from people like white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and national security advisor, former national security advisor, john bolton. others, democrats like joaquin castro saying the president of ukraine was desperate for the aide to protect his people from the russians to continue the fight and then republican will hurd singh did you get the aid? was it legal aid? one key moment was when radcliffe questioned what about the impeachable offenses from this?
>> in this impeachment hearing today, where is the impeached fence in that call. are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense? shout it out. anyone. i've got one minute left. >> you ask the witness. >> i withdraw the question. >> bret: that was a key moment in that as we been watching. we have been watching the panel all day long including fox news sunday host and anchor, chris wallace for your perceptions. >> i said this morning or at noon after the opening statement by ambassador taylor that i thought he'd been an effective witness than i thought he had presented a persuasive case. very detailed.
he was apparently a compulsive notetaker in every meeting he had from the spring of this year until late september, after the release of the transcript of the phone call, that he had with a variety of aids in great detail, he discussed his growing realization that there was a condition, a link that aid to the ukraine, aid -- meeting with president trump and president zelensky depended upon zelensky making a public statement that there would be an investigation. an investigation of potential ukraine interference in the 2016 campaign and also the circumstances under which joe biden's son hunter biden had gotten his high-paying job at burisma and whether or not the vice president had exercised any undue influence. i don't think that during theuby
really took the basic facts of the case that taylor laid out. i think they need a couple points. one was that yes, the aide eventually was released. but no, zelensky never did have to promise or conduct an investigation either in 2016 or of biden. on one hand, the republicans read a note that had been given by sondland which was like a word salad up all the people that are talk to the other people, second, third, and fourth hand. some democrats are the reason it is so remote from the president and they were specifically asking, did you ever meet with the president and both said no. democrats pointed out well, the reason we don't have somebody more first-hand is because the president and the administration won't allow them to testify. bottom line, i think there are two points.
one is that the testimony of taylor sets up the ambassador sondland's testimony. he was direct and often in contact with the president. it's going to be interesting to hear what he has to say. that we first-hand information and secondly perhaps most importantly, this is largely a political exercise, not even the slightest hint today that any republican is taking the evidence that they've been given by kent and taylor and reconsidering their complete support for the president. >> bret: that's exactly right. ambassador taylor, there was one moment. he brought in sondland and something new. everything else we have pretty much seen in the transcripts but this was a new moment where he's talking to an aide who listened into a phone call with sondland and president trump.
>> last friday, member of my staff told me of events that occurred on july 26. while ambassador volker and i visited the front, a member of my staff accompanied ambassador sondland. ambassador sondland met with mr. yermak. ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings. the member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland about the investigations. ambassador sondland told president trump the ukrainians were ready to move forward. following the call with president trump from the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland responded and sent president trump cares more about the investigations of biden, which giuliani was pressing for. at the time, i gave my deposition on october 22, i was not aware of this information.
i'm including it here for completeness. as the committee knows, i reported this information through counsel to the state department's legal advisor as well as to counsel for both the majority and minority of this committee. it's my understanding that the committee is following up on this matter. >> bret: mar. -- let's bring in dana perino and martha maccallum. martha, first to you. >> one of the big takeaways is going to be the question, how do americans respond to what they saw today. does it convince them one way or the other that the offense is impeachable. one of the things that come through pretty clearly is if these witnesses are to be believed and the accounts they present her to be believed, it was obvious the very important to the president for the ukrainians promise that they would do these investigations and that they would investigate joe biden as well as part of that arrangement.
the question that comes out of that is is it trump being trump so to speak? is it the president pushing for more before he gets anything out of this ukraine relationship? we know that from the very beginning of the trump presidency he sought to create, you know, bilateral relationships with every single country and he has sort of starting from square one at every opportunity. whether it's trade or with north korea or whether it's ukraine. he started with a clean slate and this was a new opportunity to do that with ukraine. also i think bears remembering that this phone call happened the day after the mueller investigation ended with a big thud. clear that the president wanted to continue home that it was not russia that had been behind th
this. that has hung him up where we are today. whether or not american step away from it and feel like it's that circular argument that goes around and around and is partisan in each camp, then we will still be at a 46-44 mph, don't impeach. whether it gets this whole argument or whether we end with an impeachment in the house and going nowhere in the senate. it could be where it ends. >> bret: that's right. dana, we should point out where looking live at the white house because the president will hold a news conference with the president of turkey and we expect that soon. president erdogan spending the day. some g.o.p. senators also meeting with the president of turkey which in and of itself is a rare event. dana, your thoughts on this day and to martha's point, does it move the needle for any people who pay that on the fence based on the testimony today?
>> will have to wait and see what the polls say but anecdotally i will tell you i had a republican friend sent me a note saying wow, the republicans sliced and diced the democrats today. they are done. two seconds later, democratic friend sent me a note saying the democrats totally destroy the republicans today. it's over. opinions have been hardened. you could see what you wanted to see in today's hearing. we had not seen up to now is how this republican team would work together and i think what you saw today from the members is used on message cohesion, and ability to execute on the strategy. they had a strategy and they were working together and they yielded back to jim jordan and mr. ratliff over and over again. they brought more heat and passion the democrats did and i think at some ways that might be persuasive to some people and others it might be very grading. the point that they bring up, these two witnesses, as you see
bill taylor finishing his long day of testimony, no doubt glad to believing the capital. that he did not have first-hand knowledge and that he did not talk to the president. the same is true of mr. kent for there are witnesses to come in the days ahead, hearings happening next wednesday, ambassador sondland, he will testify no doubt he'll be asked these questions. did you actually have firsthand knowledge. ambassador sondland already has changed his testimony. he's had his memory refreshed after reviewing other people's testimonies. he had done that. the last thing, they make a good point, the republicans about the waste of time and waste resources. people understand, just as they can understand why is hunter biden getting $50,000 a month from this ukrainian energy company? that sounds off to them. also the time and money spent on these hearings has an effect on people.
if they have her home on that, maybe they will get a ticker upon times square and show how much it's costing the american people. >> bret: at one point george kent testified today that he thought there should be an investigation into burisma and what was happening all throughout that. we have judge can start with us. people were questioning whether he got to but it seem like jim jordan and steve ratcliffe hit at home as far as our questioning. >> the members were very strong. the members acquitted themselves externally well. the quality of the questioning was extreme lehigh. -- extremely high, for the most part. the republicans not only are rock-solid. that means if this trend continues. there is no hope for impeachme impeachment.
in the senate. to me, this was something that was very telling. no crime was proven today. there were a lot of terms used. extortion and bribery but no crime. >> bret: juan williams is joining us. we should point out adam schiff's reconvening. they will take a vote on a motion by a republican on the committee. they're not going to take anymore testimony today. your thoughts on the five and half hours we witnessed? >> expectations for the g.o.p. council, when he began questioning, we heard what adam schiff had to say. we heard from devin nunes in the introductory statements from the candidates -- from the witnesses. i thought let's wait until we hear the republican counsel really go at these guys. when he did, i thought what's he doing? he's leading us down a rabbit hole. i think jim jordan did a much better job of establishing,
saying that you are the star witnesses and you can't prove the case. and then you had the comeback from peter welch saying glad to have you. the person starting it, that would be president trump. >> bret: looking at the committee, let's take a listen in as they are getting ready to vote. >> allowing us to have the debate but apparently that's not the case. >> point of order, mr. chairman. speak with the motion of table nondebatable. call the role. >> chairman schiff. >> aye. mr. carson. mr. quigley. mr. castro. mr. welch. mr. maloney. ms. demings.
>> bret: this is a process issue, they are motioning to table the one motion. they want to hear from the whistle-blower. we saw the back-and-forth, not going to get the whistle-blower in this discussion. adam schiff shutting it down. also saying that he does not know who it is which is kind of surprising. someone on the house intelligence committee on the majority knows who it is because they dealt with him beforehand, him or her, i should say. before all of this starts. let's bring in andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney, fox news contributor. andy, your thoughts. >> i don't think anything really moved in the way of the needle and the divide between the parties. i would be stunned if in public opinion, it's moved in anyway. my only observation tactically or strategically looking at this is that you could be on offense or you can be on defense. from the republican standpoint, i thought when this arose weeks
ago that their this was to say there was not an impeachable offense. that is there was not misconduct that was sufficiently egregious, particularly now, less than a year out from when the sovereign, the public it's to go to the ballot box and decide whether president trump gets to keep his job or not. that there is not a basis for the political class to come in and impeach and remove the president. the misconduct, if there was any and if you assume for argument sake there was, it seems he was not serious enough to remove the president from office. instead what they've tried to do is go at this by saying nothing bad happened. it was perfect. as a result, i think we are going to have in a very painstaking and maybe painful way a kind of itemization of a number of irregularities that happened and a lot of very admirable and articulate government witnesses getting in the witness stand to say they
shouldn't have happened, that shouldn't happen. this is a departure from american interests, departure from american norms. politically, i know i'm supposed to be the legal guy but politically i don't see how that helps the president. it doesn't mean he's going to get impeached but i've always thought that to the extent you credit the idea that with the democrats have wanted from day one is to paralyze and perhaps shorten the trump presidency and that the ultimate idea is to try to render him politically unelectable come the stretch run of the 2020 campaign, it seems that today is a good >> brett: it really quickly, when the republicans say that the aide eventually flowed, came two days after the article came out about the whistleblower, two, the president of ukraine said that he felt no pressure behind the scenes publicly. three, this aid had been flowing before the call and after and in
contrast to workers in the obama administration. all those effective arguments even though we are dealing with the substance of this call and what happened around it with others? >> i think they are very effective arguments. if you cut to the chase, if this is an impeachable offense or not, president trump, no matter what got us there, people in the eye and say, ukraine was in a better position in 2019 than it ever was during the obama administration. while people are concerned about his american policy, with respect to ukraine and holding off russian -- that was being more effectively carried out now than it was during the obama administration. >> brett: we are waiting for president trump at the white house. we are more than likely to hear the president way in. he said he was not watching. but he did say that they have tv
lawyers that are arguing the case. >> i wanted to pick up on andy mccarthy's remark, because i completely agree that i've always thought that the strongest argument that the president can make an republicans make is that this does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. we are talking about a dramatic overturning of a democratic election in which more than 120 million people voted. do you really want to do that particular when it's 11.5 months until the next election? part of the problem with making at the key argument. he keeps saying no, the call was perfect. i did nothing wrong. he has specifically called out some republicans who have said, well, maybe he did something inappropriate, but it's not it's not impeachable. the present has rejected that and said no, i didn't do anything wrong. hence a little bit hard for republicans who are supporting the president to go against the argument that he is making.
it is not just a matter of whether it is a misdemeanor or felony or an impeachable offense, but in fact that there was no crime at all. >> brett: let's go to the senior producer on capitol hill. he was in the hearing room today. your perspective? >> the interesting thing was what we saw and what the democrats that they were going to do was let bill taylor and george kent tell their stories here. republicans were going to try to undercut some of their knowledge or what they presumed to be the administration policy. they brought in jordan from the oversight committee and made him a part-time member -- an interim member, i should say of the intelligence committee. he came at the witnesses at a couple of points with a gatling gun style delivery jumping on them and rattling off a couple of things of note was going on. we should have adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee.
keep in mind, after they let their witnesses go a couple of moments ago, they have departed the office building. they came back in this session to vote on a question raised by mike conway, republican of texas to try and subpoena the whistleblower. that issue is white hot here on hill. it was not a vote up or down on issuing the subpoena. it was a motion to table and set aside. it was a party line vote, 13 to 9. at this point we will not hear from the whistleblower. adam schiff was pretty defensive about his contact, his contact with the whistleblower over the summer time. >> brett: that's not a surprise, that party line vote. adam schiff had a couple of moments that had people scratching their heads were interrupted the republicans questioning and it did not interrupt the democrats. and then he came back to the comment about president obama talking to the russian president, while he went back
there. it was mind-boggling. you go back and look at this hearing at the end of the day, what happens? basically it's at the table for the rest of the hearings and the biggest one being the ambassador. final thoughts, let's go to jim jordan. he speaking live. let's take a listen. >> both president zelensky and president trump have said -- of course zelensky did not pledge to the investigation prior to it being released. they did not know was on hold at the time of the call. their first two witnesses -- either one of them has talked to the president, talk to the chief of staff or talked with mayor giuliani. and as i said with ambassador taylor, he had three meetings with president zelensky. in all three of those meetings, never wants that this idea of linking security is assessed dollars to an investigation ever
come up. of course, we know what president zelensky said. no pledge, no promise, no start of the investigation prior to it being released. i think this is a sad chapter for the country, but a good day for the facts, and a good day for the president of the united states. >> thank you, mr. jordan. this was adam schiff's first opportunity in front of the public. the hearings have been conducted in a basement bunker. this was an abject failure for the democrats and for adam schiff. he still refuses to hear from the whistleblower, which started off this whole process. number two, and less than 20 minutes, adam schiff interrupted republicans questions. we want to make sure that all members are able to ask questions, that includes republican members. this is a continuation of his conduct in closed-door meetings. as jim jordan mentioned, the key facts here as follows. one, ukraine got the eight. two, there was no investigation into the bidens. those facts speak for themselves. i'm proud that those facts were
Trump-havePartOpponentsSecurity-serviceUkraineFactProblemListWeren-tReformsMisuseHis-bennetthillary clinton was supposed to be the next president and everybody got scared that she might lose that's what this is really all about the recovering for her at the time and they wanted her to be president so they lied. barack obama was briefed that she lied and laundered information into the intelligence community and rational collusion with them interfering in the 2016 election but they were not successful for the 2020 election, the cover-up of the fbi form 1023 and the cover-up that that was hunter biden's laptop. the cover-up of the fact that the bidens took millions of dollars from burisma in a public corruption scandal with joe biden including joe biden and they covered it up that was interfering in the 2020 election. here we are in 2024 and dykman after indictment, all ridiculous and silly issues. even if you want to say there is a document issue, that is a process issue. there are no criminal convictions in the presidential records act.
PresidentEverybodyHillary-clintonRecoveringHunter-bidenElectionFactInformationLaptopCover-upFbiCommunityhillary clinton was supposed to be the next president and everybody got scared that she might lose that's what this is really all about the recovering for her at the time and they wanted her to be president so they lied. barack obama was briefed that she lied and laundered information into the intelligence community and rational collusion with them interfering in the 2016 election but they were not successful for the 2020 election, the cover-up of the fbi form 1023 and the cover-up that that was hunter biden's laptop. the cover-up of the fact that the bidens took millions of dollars from burisma in a public corruption scandal with joe biden including joe biden and they covered it up that was interfering in the 2020 election. here we are in 2024 and dykman after indictment, all ridiculous and silly issues. even if you want to say there is a document issue, that is a process issue. there are no criminal convictions in the presidential records act.
PresidentEverybodyHillary-clintonRecoveringHunter-bidenElectionFactInformationLaptopCover-upFbiCommunitynaive to think that they did not want the report to get caught up in the coverage of volodymyr zelenskyy's visit to washington yesterday. there's probably a bit of logistics, a bit of just the timing of everything that led to the report being delayed until today. it has no real tangible impact on the results of their findings. they had already adopted the report on monday. so it's basically just a process issue at this point. to your point, jose, they have already begun the process of releasing some of the transcripts. you point out, all of those individuals who they released yesterday, most of which pled the fifth. they just in the last few minutes released the transcript of star witness cassidy hutchinson who did the exact opposite of pleading the fifth. we're pouring through the transcript right now. we already know a lot of the revelations that she provided the committee, much of it in public under oath. but there's more information that we have not yet learned about her role in this investigation and the role that
Volodymyr-zelenskyyReportTimingBitEverythingLogisticsLedCoverageVisit-to-washington-yesterdayPointJoseSomehappen is that housing providers are understanding what their tenants are experiencing, listening to it and acting upon it. no process should get in the way of that. also to go back to the social housing regulation bill, if we did have these ofsted style inspections of social housing property, then that would automatically bring this sort of thing to light, and mean that this process issue wouldn't arise. i think the fundamental point is about listening to tenants, hearing their concerns and acting upon them. that should have been the lesson of 6renfell and has definitely got to be the legacy of this tragic case. chief executive of shelter, thank you for your time. joining us now is the labour mp clive betts, chair of the labour mp clive betts, chair of the levelling up housing and communities committee. thank you for joining us. we know the coroner in
ProcessWaySocial-housing-regulation-billTenantsHousing-providersActingListeningRochdale-housingPointThingPropertyInspectionskatie hobbs to not debate kari lake? >> she's allowed it to become an issue, kind of a process issue. her basic argument that lake would turn it into a circuit i think has validity to it. like larry, i don't think the process issues are going to decide this. as you say, we have a state that is divided almost exact li in half and you have two candidates that are very close. lake is suffering among college educated voters. the key dynamic in arizona, as in other states, how few republican leaders or voters are basically following the liz cheney line of saying they will essentially draw the line and ex-communicate candidates who deny the reality of the 2020 election because so many republican leaders and republican voters are crossing that line and sticking with
Kari-lakeKindKatie-hobbsIssueLakeCircuitProcess-issueArgumentStateCandidatesIssuesLarry-sabadomalice here, if there was a coverup, i think that that would have come to light already. what this is, this is sloppy governance. this is, you know, oversight that wasn't followed, followed through in terms of the technology upgrades, but i don't, i just find it really hard to believe that, you know, they opened up this criminal investigation, meaning that they thought there was criminal malicious activity engaged by a secret service agent, i just feel 14 years in the agency, i just find it very hard to believe, and i hope that it is not true. >> so you think it's more sloppy work versus suspicious activity that these text messages -- >> exactly. and i said this time and time again, this is a self-inflicted wound by the secret service, right? i think that the way that they, this is a process issue, they didn't follow the guidelines as set forth by the federal records act. they didn't retain critical information. again, they should have done
TermsGovernanceWasn-tCoverupMaliceOversightActivityDon-tAgencySecret-service-agentCriminal-investigationTechnology-upgrades