insult insulted as you did today essentially blaming you for somalia. as if this is another step by the president to intimidate witnesses. he didn't intimidate you. you're here. you've endured. but there are other people out there that can expect the trump treatment if they come forward. that's a question for us. now, you also indicated that the president has a prerogative to appoint a non-career person and to be candid, republican presidents and democratic presidents have done that. the -- mr. sondland's transcript is out and he was someone who indicated that everything hinged, this -- the white house meeting and the release of the vital defensive aid. everything hinged on the president, president zelensky, being willing to do that investigation that would benefit the trump campaign. you're aware of that? >> yes. >> and you've indicated that's something that you would not agree to do. >> yes. >> and sondland was quite willing to do. >> apparently, so. >> i thank you for your professional service and i yield back. >> thank you. >> mr. maloney. >> ambassador yovanovitch, thank you for being here. it's been a long day. you know, the first time we met, it wasn't clear. so i just want to start with a quick comment. but, you know, your testimony in this inquiry broke the dam. you were the first one through that stonewall that the president was trying to set up. and i just want to thank you for that because others have followed your example. and there's an old expression that the first person through the wall gets a little bit bloody and i -- i think you must understand that expression in a new way. but thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to ask you about the day you were let go. and i know this is a painful series of events so forgive me but i think it's very important. it's april 24th and you -- you -- you told us a few things that really stuck with me. you said you were at the embassy in ukraine. you were honoring a ukrainian woman, anti-corruption activist. i believe her name is katerina, am i saying that correctly? >> i was at my house. yeah. >> excuse me. and you were giving her the woman of courage award i believe. >> yeah. embassy kiev's woman of courage award. >> right. and of course, that's the day you get a call from carol perez, a senior member of the foreign service, did you know carol perez? >> yes. >> you're both senior women in the foreign service. you had an opportunity to meet her before? >> yes. >> and she says there's trouble coming. want to give you a heads up. correct me if i get this wrong and i don't know a lot but it's coming from the white house. i'll kale y i'll call you later. >> yeah. that sums it up. >> but you're literally that evening honoring this anti-corruption activist, is that right? >> yes. >> and not just any woman but a woman you said was horribly attacked and killed for her efforts. and she wasn't just killed. you said she -- you said i believe that someone threw acid on her. >> that's correct. >> and i went and i checked during the break and it turns out she -- she was horribly injured and it took four months for her to die. is that right? >> a very painful death. >> why would somebody attack her with acid? there are easier ways to kill people. why do you think they did it with acid? >> well, i think they wanted her out of the way but i think the message was this could happen to you, too, if you continue her work. >> that's what happens when you go up against corrupt people in ukraine. >> it is something that can happen. i mean, there are other ways of sidelining people. >> do you remember speaking at that event? >> i do. >> i went and looked at what you said. you said katerina paid the ultimate price for her fearlessness in fighting against corruption and for her determined efforts to build a democratic ukraine. do you remember saying that? >> yes. >> and then your phone rings. and you hear this trouble at the street and carol perez called you back later that night, right? >> uh-huh. >> it was 1:00 a.m. i believe. >> yes. >> were you sleeping? >> no. >> you had stayed up? >> yes. >> to get the phone call. >> yes. >> and that's when she says two things, i believe, that really stuck with me. she said, we're worried about your security. >> yes. >> you've just been honoring a woman who was killed for fighting anti- -- for her anti-corruption efforts and she says you got to get on the next plane. was she speaking you've mystically? did she mean literally the next plane? >> well, i think she meant, you know, as soon as possible. but pretty much it was the next plane. >> and that's a pretty good flight back from kiev to washington and you're on your way to meet with deputy secretary sullivan. >> yes. >> and he says to you two things. he says there was a concerted effort against you. and he says you've done nothing wrong. >> right. >> and what i'm fascinated about is when he says you've done nothing wrong, what did you expect the united states government would do next? >> you know, it was pretty clear that a decision had been made by the president, implemented by the state department, that i had to leave ukraine. but i -- you know, i -- i'd hope that there'd be more public support. >> did you expect them to have your back? >> yes. >> and were you surprised when you found out they weren't gonna? >> not at that point anymore. >> why? >> well, because over the last several months, that had not been the case. >> ma'am, in your opening statement, you said how could our system fail like this? >> yeah. >> how is it that a foreign -- excuse me -- how is it that foreign corrupt interests could -- our government? how is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government? i want you to know, ma'am, that that is the very question we are determined to get an answer for and i want to thank you on behalf of your country for your service and with our work in answering that question. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you you. >> ms. demings. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. ambassador, everyone in this room should be thankful for your service to our nation. i -- i have four little girls in my life and as i sit here thinking about them and as a woman, i could not be prouder of you. and i consider you an inspiration for women around the world. >> thank you. >> i just have to say before i get into my questioning is, i think it's disgraceful to hear my colleagues refer to your sworn testimony as a performance today. or speak in a condescending way. basically, suggesting that the woman, because i think that's how the president referred to you, i'm not sure he knows your name or there's some other meaning there. but to basically suggest that the woman should be thankful for whatever she was left with. smear campaign and all after your -- you were recalled. but i want you to know today that we thank you for your service, your 33 years of service. ambassador, on a press conference call on october 17th, acting white house chief of staff mulvaney discussed his belief that it's entirely appropriate to politicize u.s. foreign policy. here's what he said. if you read the news reports and you believe them, what did mckinley say yesterday? well, mckinley said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. and i have news for everybody. get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. ambassador yovanovitch, do you share the concern raised by ambassador mckinley in testimony before this committee about political influence in foreign policy? >> well, as i said before, i think it's important to keep political influence out of foreign policy because we all, whether we are republican or democrats or something else, have common security interests and that needs to be safeguarded and advanced. >> and what message do you think it sends to other foreign service officers and public servers, which we so desperately need good ones, when an administration refuses to support its own officials in the face of a smear campaign? >> well, it's -- it's deeply troubling. it's deeply troubling and there are morale issues at the state department. >> morale issues at the state department. i can understand why. on march 20th of 2019, president rom p tweeted an article that representative pete sessions that said you had and i quote spoken privately and repeatedly about your disdain for the current administration. a way that might call for the expulsion of you as you ambassador to ukraine immediately. did you speak publicly and privately about your disdain for the trump administration? >> no. >> why do you think the president would want to push such a lie? >> i don't know. i don't know. >> policies change but u.s. interests don't. not for those who are seeking to do the work of protecting our nation. the work you have done for decades. the president, his chief of staff, and his allies seem to want nothing more than to spear the -- smear the good people trying to protect this country and to hijack our institutions for their personal and political gain. again, ambassador, we thank you so much for your service. and i'll yield. my remaining time to the chairman. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentlewoman. i'm going to go to mr. christian murphy. >> good afternoon, ambassador, and thank you to the family, as well. >> thank you. >> for being here in support of you today. i'd like to direct you to an area of bipartisanship, namely aid to ukraine. congress on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to ukraine, correct? >> yes. >> and that aid is being used by ukraine to fight a common adversary, namely russia, right? >> yes. >> the u.s. has consistently partnered with other countries to keep russia at bay and maintain the peace in europe, right? >> yes. >> as ambassador taylor suggested earlier this week, supporting ukraine helps maintain peace so that americans don't have to go to war again in europe, right? >> yes. >> suspending that aid and weakening ukraine can increase the likelihood of the opposite, correct? >> yes, it is extremely short sighted. >> the last time you were in ukraine was may 20th of this year, right? >> yes. >> in his opening statement, ambassador taylor said he took charge in ukraine on june 17th. >> yes. >> therefore, there was almost a one-month gap between the time you departed and when taylor took over. right? >> yes. yes. >> during that time on may 20th, ambassador sondland, rick perry and others came to the inauguration of president zelensky, right? >> yes. >> and during that gap in time, ambassador sondland visited the white house, along with others, and got directions from president trump to talk to rudy. those were his words. talk to rudy about what to do in ukraine, right? >> that's my understanding. >> in other words, isn't it the case that your departure and the one-month gap between the time you left and when ambassador taylor arrived provided the perfect opportunity for another group of people to basically take over ukraine policy. isn't that right? >> yeah. >> ambassador, you're going to have to speak a little louder into the mic. >> yes. yes. >> thank you. on page ten of your opening statement, you mentioned quote/unquote corrupt interests apparently hijacking our ukraine policy, right? >> yes. >> a couple of suspect individuals in that regard were lev parnas and igor fruman, right? >> yes. >> you mentioned in response to minority counsel earlier that you learned that fruman and parnas were attempting to open a liquified natural gas company, correct? >> yes. >> how'd you learn that, by the way? >> i heard it from the minister of interior. >> interestingly, at noon today, the wall street journal reported that federal prosecutors in manhattan are investigating whether rudy giuliani stood to personally profit from that liquified natural gas venture. do you have any knowledge of that? >> no, i do not. >> maybe we should talk to rudy, huh? ambassador, i'd like to direct you to another line of questioning that i had for ambassador taylor earlier this week. he said that there were irregular channels of diplomacy at work in ukraine circumventing normal diplomatic channels and threatening american interest in favor of private interest. i asked him the question, can you rule out the possible -- possibility that these irregular channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct foreign policy? in response, he said that he could not rule it out. ambassador yovanovitch, i ask you and i assume that you can't rule it out either, correct? >> i can't but i would also add i have no knowledge of that. >> i understand. are you concerned that these irregular channels of diplomacy may be at work elsewhere? >> i think it's a possibility. >> you testified that it was a quote/unquote dangerous precedent that private interests and people who don't like a particular ambassador could combine to replace that ambassador. are you concerned that other ambassadors may suffer the same fate as you? >> yes. >> ambassador, in your service as an american diplomat, you have encountered various dictators and strong men ruling other countries, right? >> yes. >> in your personal life, your parents fled the soviet union and nazi germany and they became familiar with despits and dictators as well, correct? >> yes. >> and you're an authority on authoritarianism, right? >> maybe. >> is it a feature of authoritarianism to allow corrupt interest to hijack foreign policy? >> yeah. >> is it a future of authoritarianism for the rulers there to claim absolute rights? >> yes. >> and is it a hallmark of authoritarianism for those rulers to smear their opponents? >> sometimes, yes. >> thank you. >> time of the gentleman's expired. mr. nunes, do you have any concluding remarks? >> i would just say to the american people today's show trial has come to an end. we're headed down now to the basement of the capitol to go until i don't know what time and we'll be back there hiding again behind the closed doors. interviewing more witnesses that you may or may not be able to see in the public. i hate to break it to my colleagues, if there's anyone else out there watching television ratings but they must be plummeting right now. and i would suggest that we get back to the work of the intelligence committee. that we pass a trade agreement with the united states, mexico, and canada that would actually help the american people out because this is an embarrassment. i'll yield back. >> mr. chairman, may i be recognized for a motion? >> no, i have some concluding remarks. ambassador, i want to thank you for your decades of service. i want to thank you you as mr. maloney said, for being the first one through the gap. what you did in coming forward and answering a lawful subpoena was to give courage to others that also witnessed wrongdoing. that they, too, could show the same courage that you have. that they could stand up, speak out, answer questions. they could endure whatever threats, insults may come their way. and so in your long and distinguished career, you have done another great public service in answering the call of our subpoena and testifying before us today. i think you gathered from our comments that we not only grieve for what you went through but what damage is being done to the state department, to career federal foreign service officers all over the country. i am profoundly grateful to you and mr. kent and ambassador taylor who have done so much in the last two days or three days to show the american people the face of our diplomatic core. the extraordinary public servants who work all around the world in very dangerous places, as you have. and so i'm glad they've gotten to see you because you're often v vilified as bureaucrats or diplomacy is diminished as unimportant. anything other than military doesn't really matter when it's your efforts that often prevent us from going to war. sometimes you're disparaged as the deep state. but what you are is what holds this country together, what holds our foreign policy together. what makes it seamless, what makes it work. and i'm glad america gets to see that. i will just emphasize, once again, about the importance of your testimony. mr. kent and ambassador taylor gave us the broad outlines of this story. this is a story about an effort to coerce, condition, or bribe a foreign country into doing the dirty work of the president. investigations of his political rival. by conditioning u.s. taxpayer money. by conditioning a meeting that president zelensky desperately wanted and needed to establish that relationship with the most powerful patron of ukraine, the united states of america. the fact that they failed in this solicitation of bribery doesn't make it any less bribery. doesn't make it any less immoral or corrupt. it just means it was unsuccessful. and to that, we owe other dedicated public servants who blew the whistle. had they not blown the whistle, we wouldn't be here and i think it is appalling that my colleagues continue to want to out this whistle-blower so that he or she can be punished by this president. but let's underscore once again while you are the beginning of this story, you're not the end of it. but nonetheless, the beginning is important because the beginning of the story is an effort to get you out of the way. an effort by rudy giuliani and fruman and parnas and corrupt ukrainians to get you out of the way. because they felt you were an impediment to these political investigations the president so desperately wanted. giuliani's made it abundantly clear he was in ukraine on a mission for his client, for the president, to investigate the bidens. and you were viewed as an obstacle that had to go. not just by giuliani but by the president of the united states. and if people had any doubt about it, they should do what the president asks. read the transcript. and what they'll see in that transcript is the president praises the corrupt. he praises the corrupt. lutzenko. he condemns the just. you. and then he asks for an investigation of the bidens. there is no camouflaging that corrupt intent. we are adjourned. >> speak on condition. mr. chairman, you've disparaged -- you've disparaged those members on this side of the aisle. we should have a chance to respond to your disparaging remarks. mr. chairman, i demand to -- mr. chairman. mr. chairman. mr. chairman. [ applause ] it has been a topsy tevy day of unexpected, unanticipated twists and turns in the second public day of testimony in the impeachment proceedings into donald j. trump. a veteran of the career foreign service, marie yovanovitch, who served as the ambassador, u.s. ambassador, in ukraine until she was called at 1:00 in the morning and told for her security to get on the next plane out of ukraine. yovanovitch not just a witness to the shadow campaign but a victim of it. a victim. the first victim of rudy giuliani's smear campaign against her. campaign that's under scrutiny by prosecutors of the southern district of new york. sometimes referred to as sdny. headlines today say that offices investigation into two of rudy giuliani's associates now includes an investigation into rudy giuliani and some of his business dealings. whether or not they intersect with anything we heard today from marie yovanovitch is a known unknown at this hour. what we do know, republicans spent a lot of their time reading seemingly unrelated headlines into the record and trying to compliment marie yovanovitch after donald trump seemed to make an effort at tampering with this witness and intimidating her earlier today. chris, what do you think the lasting impact of today will be? before we came on the air, we're listening to a spontaneous round of applause for ambassador yovanovitch. >> well, a couple things. first of all, the news today will be from the morning where the president tweeted his attempt to intimidate the witness in the words of the chair. that he went in there attacking her saying she's caused -- around the world. wherever she's been going, it's been going to hell. but it was an attempt to really smear her in real time and it may well be part of the impeachment indictment that the house puts together. first or second articles. i thought it's interesting just in terms of competition. i mean, i am a political person. i was watching the two dugouts when we had the last intermission there. the democrats were all laughing together. i know this is just partisan. but there's a partisan aspect to this. they had a winning witness today. they had a star who hit many home runs today. the republican side, in a couple ways, they looked miserable first of all. they looked angry because they had a bad day. but they also avoided anita hill moments. they were very careful not to be -- there was none of these back and forth with the woman witness. the woman as the president called her. none of those strong, stern, indicting questions that can be used against him in the next election. i think these men, they're all men except for stephenic, knew they were on very dangerous territory with that witness. if they go after somebody that fine, they're the bad guy. it's what they didn't do this afternoon. they didn't -- even jordan was pretty measured. these cowboys out there decide this is no time to mess with her. they knew what the picture's going to look like tonight and tomorrow. >> and i guess if that's where we are that the best thing we can say about the republicans is there were no anita hill moments, then that's where we are. >> yeah. and -- but one thing is like very crystal clear at this moment. there was one question asked in the opening statement of this amazing american woman. and it was why was i smeared? why was i removed? that was the question that hung over the hearing room hour after hour after hour. and you know what the republicans came with? crickets. nothing. as ambassador mcfaul said, no one even attempted to try to explain why they needed to get her out of ukraine quickly and why it was this whole campaign to smear her and remove her came about. we know what it is now. you know, looking at it from a distance, we can tell what it was. but it is really interesting to me that they wanted to somehow make it about we don't know who the whistle-blower is. or, you know, some people in ukraine didn't like trump because he was saying that russia deserved crimea. well, what -- what did trump think the people in ukraine were going to do when he said in the campaign, well, russia deserves crimea. of course, they were not going to be for him. she wouldn't let herself be drawn in. it was perfect. >> because if she'd been bradra into a reasonable argument about why the ukrainians would have been upset, then she wouldn't have been partisan and they would have nailed her. >> chairman schiff. let's listen in. >> so just wanted to share a few observations after the testimony today, i think we could all see what an incredible public servant ambassador havenyovanov is. we are so fortunate to have dedicated professionals like her serving around the world. she's served in some of the most dangerous places. and has done so always with great distinction, with great courage. under fire sometimes quite literally. she showed that same, i think, level of devotion and courage and commitment to country today. sowe so we're grateful to her. we're grateful to the other witnesses who have testified as well who show the country what it means to be a public servant. what it means to be a career foreign service officer. we're enormously proud of them. that she had to endure yet another attack today even as she was testifying with the president of the united states is just appalling. but as we have observed so often, appalling in this administration is not the least bit surprising. nonetheless, she endured the attack and went on. we are grateful for that. but it is quite clear that i think from her testimony, as well as others, that rudy giuliani and the president felt it was necessary to get her out of the way. that notwithstanding what the president and others were told about her dedication to country, her commitment to fighting corruption. if anything, her commitment to fighting corruption was part of the reason why she was pushed out. pushing her out made it possible to put in the three amigos to conduct ukraine policy. if there were any doubt about why she was pushed out, i think the call record eliminates that doubt. it is apparent from that call record that the president associated his bias in favor of this corrupt prosecutor lutzenko, with a need to push out yovanovitch. with the need to move forward with the investigations he wanted of his political rival. that a u.s. ambassador would be so shamelessly smeared and cast aside to further this corrupt effort just adds further insult to the injury done to the country and to our national security. thank you. >> chairman, real quick. what's your expectation for next year? the expectation that fiona hill's testimony will be the last public hearing that your committee will hear in this impeachment proceeding. >> well, we, as you've seen, we've combined witnesses from time to time on different panels depending on how long we think the testimony of any one witness may go. we've also tried at times to accommodate schedules. but mostly, the witnesses have accommodate us. in terms of whether ambassador hill will be the final testimony, i'm not prepared to say. but as we have endeavored all along, we are moving expeditiously but we are trying to move methodically. >> on the issue of witness intimidation, there's been talk today that this could potentially be considered impeachable. is it more obstruction of justice? or abuse of power in your view at this point? >> well, i would say that the president's attack on a witness today is not something that we view in isolation. this is part of a pattern the president of the united states, a pattern that goes back to praising paul manafort for not cooperating. condemning michael cohen as a rat because he was cooperating with authorities. attacking other witnesses who come forward. suggesting that we ought to treat those like the whistle-blower who exposed wrongdoing in his administration as we treat traitors and spies. and we used to execute traitors and spies. this is a part of a -- a pattern to intimidate witnesses. and it's also part of a pattern to obstruct the investigation. it was also a part, frankly, of the pattern to obstruct justice. and so we need to view the president's actions today as part of a broader and incriminating pattern of conduct. >> that was congressman adam schiff underscoring some of the developments today. maya. >> yeah. absolutely. i think what was so important about what adam schiff said is that this is a peach -- impeachable conduct that we've seen from the president. we already had impeachable conduct just in barring congress from getting access to fact witnesses and to documents to get at the truth. and if, in fact, the president did nothing wrong, why is the white house blocking information from getting to congress so it can conduct its business which is oversight? that's its job under the constitution. >> maya, are you surprised none of those argument -- i mean, those are not democratic talking points. those are about one branch of government and its oversight role. are you surprised no republican walks out and makes any of the arguments? >> i'm shocked because what they're essentially doing is seating the power and the job responsibilities that they got elected to do. >> and when there's -- when the shoe's on the other foot, does it -- are they weakening? >> yeah. listen. this is the congress. this is the republican party that complained when it couldn't get all the documents on fast and furious. right? if they have made these complaints. >> all right. we are going to listen in to jim jordan for a minute. >> third witness who was not on the call. third witness who wasn't even in -- as i said, in ukraine when -- when -- when the relevant during the relevant timeframe. wasn't even there when president zelensky left before he was even inaugurated as -- as the new president. so, again, four facts. i say this every time but it's the truth. four facts have never changed, will never change. we've got the call transcript. there was no conditionality or linkage on the call between an investigation, security assistance. we have the two individuals on the call who both said that there was no pressure, no linkage. we know that the ukrainians didn't even know aid was withheld or on hold at the time of the call. and most importantly, the ukrainians specifically president zelensky never took any official action to get the aid released. and so those -- those facts never change and -- and will never change. >> sure. so this was day two of an abject failure. as we saw today, he is making up the rules as he goes. he did not let republicans put forth any unanimous consents. he did not let us control our own time, republican members' time. i think i was interrupted about six times throughout the hearing. so this is just more the ridiculous abuse of power we're seeing from adam schiff. i think one of the most important facts that came across today, ambassador yovanovitch testified that the president can appoint ambassadors at will. that is important. the president has a right to pick who his or her ambassadors are. and then in my line of questioning, i just wanted to highlight the obama state department was so concerned about conflict of interest with hunter biden sitting on burisma's board that the obama state department, that was the first instance where ambassador yovanovitch had ever heard the word burisma. that's an important fact to note for all of the viewers here today. so we're going to continue asking about hunter biden's role on burisma on behalf of the millions of americans who want to know the answer to that question. and then on the whistle-blower, it is important to note that adam schiff and i listed all the instances of this. adam schiff initially in september said he was adamant about hearing from the whistle-blower and it only changed when it became clear that there was coordination between democratic staff and the whistle-blower before the whistle-blower complaint was issued. >> let me just do two other real quick things. first, i thought we were in the public stage of this so-called impeachment inquiry. but yet, here in just a few minutes, we're going back to the bunker in the basement of the capitol for another deposition that the american people won't get to see. what they also haven't seen yet are four transcripts of people who've already been deposed, which means under house rules, we cannot use that testimony in these proceedings. we would like to use parts of the testimony from mr. morrison as an example in the open hearings. but we're prohibited under house rules from doing that. so a great question for you all to ask mr. schiff is when is he going to release those transcripts so we can use that information in the public hearing? >> once the president sent his tweet, didn't that completely undercut anything you were trying to do in the hearing today? >> chad, we're not hear to talk about tweets. we're hear to talk about impeachable offenses. chad, let me answer your question. these hearings are not about tweets. they are about impeachment of the president of the united states. this is a constitutional matter. you can disagree or dislike the tweet but we are here to talk about impeachment and nothing in that room today and nothing in that room earlier this week, nothing rises to the level of impeachable offenses. this is wishful political thinking by the democrats. this is not the first or last tweet that they're going to complain about but we are talking about impeachment and there is not a single fact that is impeachable in terms of this president. >> all right. we're going to go about business of quickly fact checking. jim jordan still hasn't found his jacket. but there were some lies being disseminated there and what i don't understand, chris, is why? >> well, when it's transparent, they know by house resolution, they ruled that the opening statement would be shared between the ranking member and his counsel. that's it. there'd be no one else they can yield to. and right there, they tried to yield to stefanic so she would do her usual hit job. they're aiming at the audience that isn't been following it, haven't read the paper. and it falls on democrats i say to -- schiff should have read out at that moment the resolution that said only ranking members and the chair and their counsels are allowed to talk in those first 45 minutes, which they work out through the whole house. and those people were able to act like they're getting cheated. the tropes here are, we're being treated unfairly. there is a transparency problem here when there's 40 republicans going down now it's called the basement. now, it's called the bunker. it's the scif. but they're going to make it weirder and weirder. yeah. they keep doing this and by the way, when they testify down there in the scif, that's secret, cult-like behavior. when they come forward and repeat their testimony, it's called a performance. there's no way you can satisfy the critics because their goal here is righteous indignation for the 40% of the country that buys this stuff. by the way, i've never heard politicians talk through talking points by listing the talking points. they actually list one, two, three. they actually, you know, we've been in that business. but they actually say, here are my talking points and they're the same all the time. >> but the amazing thing is they said, oh, the news? the news? that donald trump threat ened or witness in real time. i'm not going to talk about that. that's a tweet. the idea that anything has gone on, i actually think the speed with which the transcripts have been made public is remarkable. and a scif just for anyone who doesn't know is a secure briefing room. it's usually used for reading and sharing classified information and it's to do the opposite of what they say. everything that's happened in those scifs or bunkers has been released to the public. so the republicans, you know, they're dancing so quickly because the -- the attacks are sort of undermined almost as soon as they come out of their mouths. >> well, nicolle, a scif is -- of a restaurant in kiev. in a local restaurant, there is a room of spies. >> i'm glad you said that. >> you immediately start talking on your little walkie-talkie to the president of the united states who picks up the call. >> so trump should be in a scif. david holmes, though, we had a little bit of news made there or since we've been on the air. and i think jeff bennett's with us. jim jordan talking about a new witness in a close-door deposition. his name is david holmes. the significance here, the bombshell from the first day of public testimony came from ambassador taylor, who added to his public record of testimony that there was another call. another conversation between president donald trump and his hand-picked ambassador to the eu, gordon sondland, and on that call donald trump asked gordon sondland, hey, what about the investigations? this was the day after the call between zelensky and trump. so the only thing on trump's mind wasn't are we going to get them their aid? it wasn't how'd it go? what did they think of me? it was how are my investigations into biden going. jeff, what do we know about the importance of this witness, when he was called, and how long this deposition is scheduled to go today? >> well, nicolle, house republicans are keeping this new key witness waiting. he arrived here on capitol hill almost an hour ago. but over my other shoulder here, you have i think -- what -- mark meadows now talking to reporters. but yes, you laid out why david holmes is a key witness now because he overheard or is said to have overheard this key conversation between president trump and gordon sondland on july 26th. a day after that key call in question. the july 25th call between presidents trump and zelensky. so house investigators clearly want to know what he heard on that call and more to the point what gordon sondland had to say after it. now, gordon sondland is set to give public testimony back in that same room here on wednesday. we should mention that david holmes was subpoenaed. he's testifying here willingly. perhaps not altogether enthusiastically because as we saw today from ambassador yovanovitch's testimony, no foreign service officer wants to be caught in the middle of this political push and pull. this back and forth that represents the impeachment inquiry. but this testimony goes really to the heart of democrats' case. somebody described house democrats as playing a game of wheel of fortune where they've already solved the puzzle but yet they keep throwing letters at the screen. house democrats say they know what the underlying impeachable offense is. president trump, house speaker nancy pelosi, has said already admitted to it. but what they're doing behind closed doors, why they're in the scif across the street, two floors below in the basement level, is that they're piecing together. they're stitching together really a tapestry of evidence and testimony to build an iron-clad case for impeachment. nicolle and chris. >> thank you so much. jump back in front of a camera with any updates from that important new witness up there on capitol hill today. thanks, jeff. >> let's bring in new york congressman democratic congressman sean patrick maloney. he joins us from the house. congressman, i've been pressed by your line of questioning. i have watched the pattern of it by the way. it's fascinating. when you sought to do, i believe, is to bring in the human factor here. the heroic aspect of these persons. not just the fact witness aspect. but who they are. why have you chosen that route of questioning? >> because they're remarkable americans and they remind us about everything that's good in our government. they remind us that there are still people who know right from wrong and it's no accident that there are people who fought for the country, who've served it honorably, and they are continuing that service by -- by breaking the stone wall the president tried to build around this. and at risk to their own professional careers, telling the truth. responding to lawful requests from congress. i have an enormous respect for ambassador yovanovitch, for ambassador taylor, and the other witnesses you're going to see because they're reminding us that there are still good people fighting for the right things in the american government. >> even deeper than that, i thought you got to bill taylor the other day when you said here's a guy who graduated fourth in his class of 800 at west point, which is a serious academic institution. number four says a lot. and you pointed out that he could have picked his own built when he came out. he didn't have to go into the infantry. he didn't have to go into the jungle. and he did. >> exactly right. i mean, this is a person who could've chosen any, any military occupational specialty, any mos as they call it. and he picked the infantry. he was a rifle company commander at the height of the vietnam war. by the way, he was 506 regimen, the famous band of brothers brigade. and let me tell you what. from that moment in 1969 until two days ago, he's been serving his country. so who do you believe? ambassador bill taylor? or -- or an extraordinary person like ambassador yovanovitch who -- who was told to get on the next plane because they were concerned for her safety at the very moment she's honoring an anti-corruption fighter who was killed by corrupt ukrainian elements by an acid attack. this is not a laughing matter. she is told to get out. we're worried about your security. get on the next plane. but here's the point. that threat's not coming from the bad guys abroad. it's not coming from the ukrainian mob per se. it's coming from her own government and that is the heart of the question she asked, which is how could our system fail us like this? how could corrupt foreign interest take control of our government policy? she deserves an answer to that and that's what we're doing up here. >> how does the president line up in that comparison with those two public servants you mentioned? taylor and yovanovitch. how would you rate donald trump in that regard? >> well, look. look, i'm not trying to pile on here. but we all know what -- what the president did in vietnam and -- and the bone spurs excuse for service. and that was a difficult time and a lot of people faced very difficult decisions and there were complex feelings about the war. but i think we can all agree ambassador taylor demonstrated extraordinary heroism with the choices he made and he's been doing it ever since. and here's marie yovanovitch, who has literally faced -- faced fire, incoming fire in her career. had a bunch of hardship posts. was doing exemplary work in ukraine. had her term extended moments -- a few weeks before she was fired. and these are the kinds of people we've got in our foreign service, in our military. and i'm -- i'm glad it's on display because we've heard so much about those institutions being demoralized and i know that at embassies around the world, they're watching these ambassadors. and military installations, they're looking at guys like lieutenant colonel vindman, who we'll hear from next week, and they're being reminded about what an oath means. about what integrity means and you're note getting it from the white house. >> we're seeing kind of a reenactment, restaging of the iron curtain today with the oligarchs replacing the old nomenclature. the old big shots of the soviet union. and we're seeing a tyranny by putin. against anybody in the near empire, which they're trying to reclaim. we see it all happening. what side of that fight is the president of the united states on? for that fight for the bad side? or our side, trying to prevent it? which side is he on? >> well, let the people judge for themselves. >> you're a member of congress. you're on the intel committee. what side is president trump on? >> well, let me tell you. look at -- look at who's on that team. you've got rudy giuliani. you've got parnas and fruman, who are now indicted. you got guys like roger stone, who just got convicted of seven counts today. for lying to the intel committee, by the way. you've got people like ambassador sondland who bought with a million dollars a fancy title in europe and then tried to further the president's scheme and has been having trouble recalling it despite multiple attempts. and on the other side, you've got war heroes like lieutenant colonel vindman, who earned a purple heart. you've got guys like ambassador taylor who we just spoke about. you've got ambassador yovanovitch. it's pretty clear, isn't it? who the good guys are and the bad guys are. the one thing mike quigley was joking about but it's' kind of true it felt like a movie hearing her talk about being at the embassy honoring a courageous woman who lost her life fighting corruption when she gets the call that leads to the realization that the own government is going to kneecap her for doing the same thing. and we've got to set this right. i got to tell you after this testimony, we are more determined than ever to hold this president accountable and to make sure the american people know who the good guys are here and what the right things are to be fighting for and it sure as hell isn't the russians. >> sean patrick murphy -- sean patrick maloney. one of the irish guys. thank you for joining us. i like your values, sir. thank you so much. jason, i do think this is not an ethics matter. this is not something for the house ethics committee or the senate. this seems to be a question of what side are you on? >> right. right. are you on the side of the united states, right? i mean, how many different times have we seen donald trump insult our intelligence community, insult the fbi, insult the cia, now insult the state department? anyone who's not about whatever ridiculous graft, that happens to be his enemy. and the problem is he has no problem insulting or destroying the reputations of any individual he sees as being in his way. i want to point this out. congressman -- i want to make sure i'm pronouncing this properly. i thought he did one of the best jobs in questioning when he laid out this is not about taylor versus yovanovitch. this is about that window of time between when yovanovitch was gone and they moved in taylor, which allowed trump to put in all of his minions to make sure this got done. so i thought that was a very good setup, a very good timeline to see, look, the president can't even get everybody to engage in his sort of ridiculous plans so he puts in other people. >> just another big thought here about what we're really doing here. we're looking at the post cold war era. our relationship with the old eastern block with the former warsaw pact. the ussr as it was once assembled and now an attempt to bring it back together. first, crimea. then eastern ukraine. in the midst of all that, talking about our president, what side he's on. apparently, he is on the side of rebuilding the old empire. >> yes, we are talking about it at the 30th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. it's kind of astounding. and i think graft was a great word, jason. but there really should only be one side and it should be the side of democracy. it should be the side of the u.s. constitution. we can debate a lot of things about what policies we need in this country but the one policy that was bipartisan that no one had a debate about was the importance of the ukraine as the front line. as the front line in maintaining the rule of law and peace in europe. and that that was fundamental to the -- to u.s. security, to our national interest. and that was not at issue until now. >> you know, before world war ii, we had big power politics. you know, you had stalin. you of course had stalin after the war, too. you had hitler. you had mussolini. the rule was then let the big boys kick the little mussolini. the bad boys kicked the good guys around because these are the big boys. all the way through the cold war we said that's not acceptable. we have a u.n., a general assembly. every country counts. even vulnerable countries like ukraine count. trump seems to be back to the old way of doing things. three or four big shot countries, china, us, russia, we kick everybody around. this is what seems to be -- he's quite happy with russia kicking ukraine around. he's happy with it. >> well, there is a theme to his presidency when it comes to foreign policy. he is attracted to the strong men, to the ones who like to bully. not only the other nations that they are not fond of but their own people. >> like congressman jordan. >> yeah. whether it's putin or erdogan or kim jong-un. the fact that he is trying to lift these guys up. and the irony is, chris, i remember when the republicans were talking about freedom fries and all about liberty and freedom and freedom. >> freedom agenda. >> their president is going for the guys who have no respect for freedom. no wonder ukrainians were worried about donald trump because they had seen how much he was attracted to putin and how he was playing up to putin. so, and i'll tell you what. the tweet. for him to act like this tweet was not a problem, ken star who we all remember, pretty big player in the clinton impeachment, he said on fox news today that tweet was very injurious to the president, not well advised. so when ken star is calling you out on fox news about the tweet being legally damaging -- >> and liz cheney too. >> and, i mean, i'm sure you'll agree that tweet was really damaging to the president. >> i agree, and to the process. >> let me get back to ambassador mcfaul. in terms of the history we are in now, post berlin wall, you know that part of the world. what are they watching us to see? are we along to go along with russia's ambition to reclaim the empire? what are they seeing us do right now as we fight over this? >> first, chris, i just have to say that was an incredible performance by ambassador yovanovitch. somebody i've known for a long time to sit there and take those questions and not take the bait to go partisan. i was extremely impressed with that. to your question here. here is the issue. in both russia and ukraine, the trump administration has one policy, and the president of the united states has a different strategy. and in ukraine, we know why. because he was trying to get dirt on his presidential opponent in 2020. what's interesting to me is why does he have an alternative strategy when it comes to russia. >> right. well, explain, put it together. [ laughter ] these are big thoughts, ambassador. what is the relation between his righteous strategy which is pro putin and his zelensky strategy which was used for personal, political gain? >> we have a trump administration. i know a lot of these people. some of them work with me here at stanford. they developed a policy. they sat in the white house situation room. they came up with a strategy vis-a-vis russia and ukraine. and it was basically to push back on that empire that you were just talking about. but we know in russia we have talked about for a long time the president has never really agreed with it. maybe for private reasons too. but in ukraine, he's undermining his own policy. i think that's really important for people to understand. ambassador yovanovitch doesn't have her own policy. ambassador taylor doesn't have his own policy. they were conducting and executing the policy of the trump administration. and then in parallel to that with the three amigos, with giuliani and his sidekicks, president trump was just advancing his own personal agenda that had to do only with the 2020 election. >> let's go back. thank you very much, ambassador mcfaul. let's go to the president. here's the president of the united states this afternoon defending himself against the charge from the chairman of the committee adam schiff that he engaged basically in witness tampering today. >> i'm the most transparent president in history. and i'll tell you about what tampering is. tampering is when a guy like shifty shift doesn't let us have lawyers, doesn't let us speak. i've been watching today for the first time i started watching, and it's really sad when you see people not allowed to ask questions. it's totally -- nobody's ever had such horrible due prochlts there was no due process. and i think it's considered a joke all over washington and all over the world. the republicans are given no due process whatsoever. we are not allowed to do anything. it's a disgrace what's happening. but you know what? the american public understands it. and that's why the poll numbers are so good. and that's why other things are so good. what they are doing in washington -- and by the way it's a political process, it's not a legal process. so if i have somebody saying i'm allowed to speak up. if somebody says about me we are not allowed to have any kind of representation, we are not allowed to have almost anything, and nobody's seen anything like it in the history of our country there has never been a disgrace like what's going on right now. so you know what? i have the right to speak. i have freedom of speech just as other people do. but they've taken away the republicans' rights. and i watched today as certain very talented people wanted to ask questions and they weren't even allowed to ask questions, republicans. they weren't allowed to ask questions. it's a very sad thing. >> claire mccaskill, what do you make of him falling back on the first amendment? >> yeah. well, first of all, i've said this a million times. he lies more often than most people brush their teeth. he stood there at that podium in that important position surrounded by important officials in our government and lied and lied and lied. anybody who watched the hearing knows the republicans were allowed to ask questions. all of them had the same amount of time to ask questions. all that congressman schiff was doing was enforcing the rules. and by the way most of these rules they wrote, the private depositions, that was written in the gowdy era, that's what they used in benghazi. so i think him saying it's freedom of speech. you have the power to speak, the right to speak. you do not have the right to abuse your power or to intimidate witnesses. and that's where he crosses the line. and he's right. this is a disgrace. it is a national disgrace. never happened before in the history of our country. but it's him. >> jason, he plays to the chip on the shoulder brilliantly. the leadership group always say if you let me answer the question no matter what they're saying it's not answering the question. but they have these little memes and tropes they use. he got all the chance in the world. >> he had all the chances in the world. he has the biggest bully pulpit in the world. he sounds like don king after his fighter failed. it was rig ld and the net wasn't good and the fists weren't good and everything didn't work in my favor and the refs were against me. >> well, don king is republican too. the [ laughter ] john, we are trying to get the history here. your thoughts. >> well, i think the president should stop using the phrase "e"in the history of the country" because he doesn't know enough about it to justify it. to use the word unprecedented kind of doesn't quite capture it. at some point it seems to me there's got to be 10% of self-identified republicans. i know a lot of republicans whose hearts are in the right place. but their minds have been captured by the pursuit of power. they have decided that taxes and judges are worth putting up with this kind of behavior. and it's not american. it's not dignified. walter, the founder of the economist wrote that the british constitution had two functions. there is the efficient and the dignified. the president of the united states embodies both of those, is supposed to. and in this case he's managed to commit an impeachable act in realtime in front of all of us. >> that's not often we got to watch it on television. we have watched assassinations on television. we have never seen a president in the midst of an impeachment proceeding commit what could well turn out to be, could well turn out to be an impeachable act in itself, tampering with a witness. >> right. and as you say, it's not even like the nixon tapes we had to subpoena those. this just unfolds in plain sight. and i think people have to think about it. and they may come to a different conclusion. but as john adams once said, facts are stubborn things. and the fact of the matter is people have to decide is this the person you want sitting there at the pinnacle of power with the charge of the