What is plainly before us. The president ial phone call where the president ignored the work of the advisors and the National Security council talking points and instead chose to talk about the bidens and talk about hunter biden and ask for an investigat we are just going to have to debate that. But isnt the principal that no one including the president is above the law . Absolutely essential and worth the effort to make certain that we continue to guarantee, ambassador morrison . Im sorry, ambassador volker. And mr. Morr. The rule of law is essential to our democracy. It is so true. We have had some discussion and challenge from the other side that the president has authority in Foreign Policy to do what he likes. And in fact, he does. President trump, taking the troops out of syria, allowing the Turkish Forces to go in literally meant that some kurdish families went to bed saturday night and woke up sunday morning, packed their kids, and fled for their lives. A lot of people, including both sides of the aisle, totally disagreed with that. The president has the authority to do it, impulsive as that decision may have been, as threatening to our National Security. We are not talking about that here. An ambassador, i wasnt your testimony, and i take it and thank you for making efforts to try to advance what had been a bipartisan ukraine policy. Help ukraine get rid of corruption, help resist restaurant aggression. But what you came to learn painfully is that there was a sidebar ukraine policy with giuliani as the advocate, and it appears ambassador sondland is very much involved. Is that correct . I dont know everything about that, sir. You dont, but as you have been involved, and with the benefit of hindsight, while you are working on what you thought the stopping aggression and ending eliminating corruption, it was a side deal here to get investigations going, correct . Yes. Sir, my objective was purely focused on support for ukraine. National security, and i now have learned through other testimony about the president s statement about investigating biden and other conversations that i did not know about. Thank you for that and thank you for your candor about Vice President bidens integrity, his service. But the bottom line here is at the end of the day, we have to make a judgment about what the president was up to you, with respect to that request for the favor, and how it repudiated the policy that was a bipartisan effort in ukraine and raises questions about key, and a hypothetical example i gave of the mayor, held himself to be above the law. I yield back. Mr. Maloney. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Ambassador v9, i was struck by your Opening Statement. You moved a long way from the testimony you presented to us in october. I know you gave a reason for that, which is that you were in the dark about a lot of these things. Is that fair to say . That is one thing that i have learned a lot out of the testimony you learned a lot. What you said on page eight, im referring to your statement you gave this morning this afternoon, that i did not know, quoting, i did not know that President Trump or others had raised Vice President biden with ukrainians or had conflated the investigation of possible ukrainian corruption with investigation of the former Vice President biden. Right . You did not know that meant biden, that is what you are saying, correct . I separated the two. I got it. You did not know. We have to go through it, sir, you were there on may 23rd for the meeting with the president when he talked to rudy, and rudy sure cared about the investigations, which you now know meant biden, right . What you missed it on may 23rd, right . No, sir. I understood at the time that hunter bided and Vice President bidens son had been a board member i understand that but you did not read that as a request to investigate the bidens at that time. On july 10th, not one, but two meetings at the white house for ambassador sondland rays of the investigations but you did not know it was about the bidens, that is your testimony, right . I did not think he was talking you heard him say investigations, you thought it was an appropriate, and the german ask you, and you said you did not know it was because of the bidens. In the wardroom, ambassador sondland raised burisma on the bidens in 2016, you missed that, too, as i understand it. On july 18th, you new aid was withheld and in august, you spent a good part of the time with a statement with rudy giuliani. You were the guy making the changes and interacting with ukrainians. You were putting in rudys changes, which included a call for investigating burisma and a 2016 elections, which you now know meant the seven, right . You did not know it at the time. Right . But now we know it, right . On september 1st, you were in warsaw. I mean, you are at every point in this, you were in warsaw, you were there were an ambassador sondland told Andriy Yermak that he was not going to give Security Assistance, he was not going to get a white house meeting unless there was the investigation and i understand you missed that, you are out of the loop then. That is not correct. I was not in warsaw. Excuse me. What you heard about it right after from sondland, is that right . No, that is not quite correct. It was sometime later. I got it. But now you know what it meant and you said, in retrospect, they should have seen that connection differently, and had i done so, i would have raised my own objections. That is correct. What are the objections you whatever is . That what i would have raised is that people are conflating investigating the bidens with investigating this ukrainian company, burisma bu would you have objected to the president asking for an investigation of bidens. As you sit here now, you say you would have raised your own objections. If we knew we were investigating Vice President biden, that would have been inappropriate. I would have attracted to that. If you heard him ask for it on the call, you said, in retrospect, ukrainians would have been confusing, right . Is confusing the right word, sir . What up at them in a position to put them in something inappropriate, investigate the bidens . They were clearly hearing Something Different from the president in one conversation, and different from me as the u. S. Special representative may be they understood that investigating b6 and investigating 2016, in fact, meant bidens pride at facts, you are talking to yermak and putting those changes. He had talked to sondland at the same time, and so the point being, they were putting in an impossible position. They were being asked to do something inappropriate and you now know that brady would have raised your own objections. I know they were asked in the phone call to do that, and the conversations that i had with the ukrainians, we were not asking them to do that. Even at that point, the ukrainians perhaps with the knowledge of this phone call, which i did not have knowledge about the time, we just dont want to go there. Right. In retrospect, though, you would have raised objections, you would have said it was inappropriate for the president to do this . And mr. Morrison, can i just ask you, sir, i am stuck on this issue of you did not see anything wrong with a call but you went straight to nic legal to report it. Is that your testimony to us today . Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrison, to both of you, thank you so much for your service, thanks for being here. Its been a long day. Mr. Morrison, just a follow up on question from my colleague, you responded earlier to a series of questions about the call and basically done nothing wrong with it, yet you give your chain of command to go to Legal Counsel to find out, i guess, to find out what to do because you were concerned about the political fallout, not about anything being inappropriate or wrong with the call, is that correct . Maam, i dont agree with the premise, no. Could you tell me why you felt the need, you sign nothing basically wrong with the call, yet you kept your skip to your chain of command to go to counsel because of what . What was the reason for that . I dont know again, i dont agree with the premise. I dont think i skipped my chain of command. If i would have seen something wrong who is your direct report . The deputy National Security advisor. The name of the person . Dr. Government. Did you speak with him before he spoke with Legal Counsel . No. But you dont feel that you skip your team of all my chain of command in doing so, going directly to counsel . If i may, i viewed my engagement with the Legal Advisor as one focused on administrative matters. I was interested in locking down the transcripts, thats an administrative matter. I was interested in making sure that the Legal Advisor was aware of the call because i didnt see anybody from the Legal Advisors office. Why were you so concerned about the Legal Advisor being aware of this call that you saw nothing basically wrong with the substance or content of the call . Because i did not see anybody from the Legal Advisors office in the listening room and i wanted to make sure somebody from the Legal Advisors office was aware and wanted to make sure it was a senior person. What is it that you wanted it wow them to be aware of specifically . I wanted them to be aware of the call because i wanted them to know what had transpired. What concerned you to the point where you wanted them to know what had transpired that you went directly to Legal Counsel to inform them of . My equivalent, the head of nsc legal, was, john eisenberg, my equivalent in that position, i wouldnt go to somebodys subordinates to him. I would go to him. You testified earlier that you were concerned about the political fallout based on the Political Climate in d. C. Yes, maam. All right. So how long did you supervise Lieutenant Colonel vindman . Maam, approximately, i guess not approximately, july 13th to october 31st or so. Okay, thank you. Ambassador volker, you testified that you believe congressional pressure helped unfreeze the Security Assistance being released. Do you still stand by that testimony today . I believe it was important. I met with Staff Members of the Senate Armed Services committee. I then saw the letter that several senators signed and sent to chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and i was briefed about the possibility of a couple of phone calls from some senior members of the senate as well. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield my remaining time to you. Thank you for yielding. Ambassador volker, just want to follow up on a couple of questions about ukrainians not being aware of the aid being withheld. You are aware, im sure, the testimony of colonel vindman that in fact he was contacted by someone within the Ukrainian Embassy was concerned about the whole prior to it becoming public . I was not sure. Are you aware of the testimony and transcripts that have been released that in fact ukrainians found out quite quickly after the hold was placed in july that she was impressed with ukrainian tradecraft and they had a reason to keep it silent and not make it public . I saw that in a testimony. You dont have any reason to question whether, in fact, that testimony was accurate . I do not. Speak with the ukrainians did find out before it was public, according to these two witnesses, but nevertheless, the ukrainians certainly found out it was public, published in the newspaper, right . That is correct, august 29th. At the time i found out from a newspaper, they still had not had the white house meeting, and they still didnt have the aid, and at that point, they had already had the conversation with the president in which he asked them to investigate the bidens, correct . That is correct. Good evening to both of you and thank you for your service. Ambassador volker, on page seven of your Opening Statement to today, you said, since events surrounding your earlier testimony, october 3rd, a great deal of Additional Information and perspectives have come to light, i have learned many things that i did not know at the time of the events in question. Correct . That is correct. That includes conversations that occurred as well as meetings that occurred i would you werent a part, correct . Speak thats correct. Sir, you obviously were not a part of the july 25th call. Isnt that right . That is correct. You were not aware that ambassador sondland, according to your Opening Statement, had a call with President Trump on july 26th, correct . That is correct. Want september 1st, you were not present for the sidebar meeting between ambassador sondland and special advisor yermak, is that correct . That is correct. And you certainly werent part of the phone call between ambassador taylor and ambassador sondland in which ambassador sondland, according to multiple people now, said that everythi everything, a white house meeting, as well as military aid, were dependent on public announcements of investigations. Isnt that right . That is correct. Certainly, sir, you werent part of the phone call on september 7th between ambassador sondland and President Trump in which President Trump insisted that president zelensky go to a mic and publicly announce investigations of President Trumps domestic rivals. That is correct. You are not part of a september 8th phone call between abbasid or sondland and ambassador im sorry, President Trump, where President Trump again insists that these announcements have to happen. Isnt that right . Tha that is correct. Sir, you say that you were gelatinous to any kind of quid pro quo or conditionality between military assistance and investigation, which someone called missiles from us information today, is about right . That is correct. But sir, you werent present for many, if not all of the phone calls and conversations where these alleged instances of quid pro quo occurred, isnt that right . That is correct. Oh, let me turn your attention to another topic that has come up today. Actually, came up last friday. You have high regard for ambassador yovanovitch, correct . Yes, i do. I presume that you are aware that as the ambassador was testifying, President Trump actually tweeted very disparaging remarks about her, right . I saw that moment. And i presume that you disapprove of those types of tweets, correct . I dont think thats appropriate. Youve supervised many, many people over the years during your career in the Foreign Service, right . Yes, i have. You would never do that to one of your direct reports or anybody who work in your organization, right . No, i would not. Its just wrong. I believe that even when you feel like you need to criticize, criticism is private, praise is public. And i also believe that you are a man of honor and you would not attack a veteran, you were not attack someone who is currently serving in the military who is doing their duty, correct . I respect the service, our members in uniform. In fact, there is a certain man that we both admire, the late senator john mccain. Yes. A speaker unfortunately was attacked, not only when he was alive, but after he died, by the current president. As of that right . That is true. I presume that you would disapprove of all of those attacks on john mccain, right . Yes, i knew john mccain very, very well for a very long time. He was an honorable man and very much a war hero for this country. Well, today, sir, as Lieutenant Colonel vindman was testifying, our president used the official twitter account of the office of the president to attack Lieutenant Colonel vindmans credibility. I presume you dont approve of those types of tweets either, do you . I was not aware of that, and as with ambassador yovanovitch, not appropriate. Thank you, sir, thank you for your service, and thank you, mr. Morrison, for yours as well. That concludes the member questioning. I now recognize the Ranking Member for any closing comments he may have. Thank you, as the first wee weeks impeachment marathon draws to the close, i want to remind the American People what we are watching. Public hearings are the culmination of three years of incessant democrat efforts to find a crime to impeach the president. First, they tried to manufacture evidence that the president colluded with russia to accomplish this task, the dnc and the Clinton Campaign work with a former british spy, christopher steele, assembled a dossier of false information alleging that Trump Campaign colluded with russia. That dossier was largely assembled from russian and ukrainian sources of the democrat contractors worked with. Next they primed their hopes on the works of robert mueller. Mueller spent two years and millions of taxpayer dollars seeking evidence of a crime that we know was not committed. Muellers failure was devastating blow to democrats who clearly hoped his work to be the basis for the removal of the president. Today, we are witnessing the ukraine hoax, a direct to tvc fall to the russia collusion hoax. The plot of the ukraine hoax is hard to follow. It shifts from daytoday. First the democrats claimed they had evidence of quid pro quo, then extortion, and witness intimidation. Now democrats are putting their hopes on bribery. Like any good hollywood production, democrats needed a screen test before releasing their latest pack on the president. They leveraged the secrecy of the House Intelligence Committee to interview a cast of characters in preparation for these public hearings. With the medias enthusiastic support, they built a narrative based on selectively leaked testimony. Speaker pelosi and the democrats on this committee are seeking the truth. They would want to know the answers to the following questions that they refuse to ask. To what extent do the whistleblower coordinate with the democrats on this committee and or the staff . What is the full extent of ukraines election meddling against the Trump Campaign in 2016 . Why did burisma hire hunter biden and what did he do for them and ended his position impact any u. S. Government actions under the Obama Administration . The American People were promised a brave and somber impeachment inquiry. Instead, they got this alicias spy screen, the that they have been working on for three years. Good night for you to see the morning. Thank you, gentlemen. I thank you, both, for your testimony today. I would highlight a couple of things about what we have heard this afternoon. First, ambassador volker, your written testimony in which you say, and hindsight, i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving ukraine and Company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President biden. I saw them as very different, the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, you said, i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so, i would have raised my own objections. Ambassador, we appreciate your willingness to amend your earlier testimony in light of what you now know. And i think youve made it very clear that knowing what you do today, that, in fact, the president sought an investigation of his political rival, Vice President biden, that you would not have counted vents to any effort to encourage the ukrainians to engage in such conduct. I appreciate also that you were able to debunk, i hope, for the last time, the idea that joe biden did something wrong when he come in accordance with u. S. Policy, sought to replace a corrupt prosecutor, something that not only the u. S. State department wanted, not only the European Union wanted, not only the imf wanted, but was the consensus position of United States National Security infrastructure. You did not get a lot of questions about that today as other witnesses did because i think you effectively said that was all nonsense. We appreciate your candor about that. Mr. Morrison, i think what is most remarkable about your testimony is the acknowledgment that immediately after Vice President met with president zelensky in warsaw, you witnessed Gordon Sondland meeting with andre your mock, top advisor to president zelensky, and then immediately thereafter, sondland told you that he had informed the ukrainians that if you wanted that 400 million in military aid, they would have to do those investigations that the president wanted. You were later informed, and this is also significant, as he testified here today, that the ambassador sondland had a subsequent conversation with President Trump and informed you that it wasnt going to be enough for the ukrainian prosecutor general to announce the investigation as the president wanted. President zelensky had to do it himself if he wanted to get that aid, let alone the meeting in the white house. Now you have been asked to opine on the meaning of the term bribery. Although, you werent asked to opine on the meaning of the terms high crimes and misdemeanors. But bribery, for those watching at home, if the conditioning of official acts in exchange for something of personal value. The official acts we are talking about here are a white house meeting that president zelensky desperately sought, and as you have acknowledge, ambassador volker, was deeply important to this country at war with russia. To show the United States had this new president s back. That meeting was important. That meeting is an unofficial act. The military assistance is even more significant because ukrainians are dying every day in their war with russia. And so, the withholding of military assistance to get these investigations, which you now have acknowledged, ambassador volker, was wrong for the president to request, the idea of withholding that military aid to get these political investigations should be anathema, repugnant to every american, because it means the sacrifice, not just of ukrainian National Security, but american National Security for the interest of the president personally and politically. My republican colleagues, all they seem to be upset about with this is not that the president sought an investigation of his political rival, not that he withheld a white house meeting and 400 million in aid, we all pastor of a bipartisan basis to pressure you going to do those investigations, they objection as he got caught their objection is that someone blew the whistle. They would like this whistleblower identified. The president wants this whistleblower punished. That is their objection, now that the president engaged in misconduct, but that he got caught. Their defenses, well, they ended up releasing the aid, yes, after they got caught. This doesnt make this any less odious. Americans may be watching this and asking, why should the United States care about ukraine . Why should we care about ukrai ukraine . This was the important, i think come off the conversation, the now infamous conversation in that restaurant with Gordon Sondland holding the home phone away from his head because the president was talking so loud. What does the president asking the call the day after the now infamous call he had with zelensky . What is he asked on that cell phone call . Not whether they passed the new anticorruption reform, no. Are the ukrainians going to do the investigation . Meaning into biden. And sondlands answer is, they are going to do it. They will do essentially anything the president wants. What is more telling is the conversation, i think, that sondland has with a Foreign Service officer in which the president says basically, donald trump doesnt give an expletive about ukraine. He cares about the big things. Mr. Holmes says, welcome ukraine is at war with russia, the russians, that is a big thing. And sondlands answer is, no, no, he cares about big things that affect his personal interests. This is why americans should care about this. Americans should care about what happens to our allies who are dying. Americans should care about their own National Security and their own president and their own constitution, and they will need to ask themselves, as we will have to ask ourselves in congress, are we prepared to accept that a president of the United States can leverage official acts, military assistance, white house meetings, to get an investigation of a political rival . Are we prepared to say, well, you know, i guess thats just what we should expect from a president of the United States. I dont think we want to go there. I dont think our Founding Fathers would have wanted us to go there. Indeed, i think when the Founding Fathers provided a remedy, that remedy being impeachment, they had the very concerned that the president of United States may betray the National Security interest of the country for personal interests. They put that remedy in the constitution, not because they wanted to willynilly overturn elections. No, because they wanted a powerful anticorruption mechanism when that corruption came from the highest office in the land. We are adjourned. I ask the audience to please allow the witnesses to leave the room before the exit. Tucker well, there you go. That went on basically all day. The impeachment hearings on capitol hill. Great evening as we continue our show tonight, the circus train of impeachment remains installed on the tracks. Official washington trapped in gridlock, thanks to what you just saw. Around the world, foreign governments are quaking and toppling. Our own economy come by the way, is making ominous noises that you would think somebody in charge might Pay Attention to. But no, here in washington, our leaders remain transfixed by what you just saw, transfixed by figures like alexander big men, the lowlevel u. S. Army officer who played the role of Star Entities hearings. Its a measure of how central vindman and people like vindman are to a certain kind of story line that many Media Outlets today resolutely ignored the following exchange. Maybe the most markable thing that happened today. It happened on Live Television come but you may not have seen it. Here it is. You want to ukraine for the inauguration. Correct. At any point during the trip did they offer you a position of defense minister with Ukrainian Government . He did. How many times did he do that . I believe it was three times. Wait, what . He was offered defense minister three times . Keep in mind that Alexander Vindman was born in ukraine, speaks ukrainian, and clearly has strongly held views about ukrainian politics, views that may or may not align with u. S. Policy on the subject. Now we learn that the Ukrainian Government repeatedly asked vindman to take formal control of the entire ukrainian military, which, for the record, it is very strange thing to ask of an activeduty American Military officer. And yet somehow, that constellation of facts did not raise a single red flag for our selfappointed watchdogs in the news media. Alexander vindmans hurting trump, therefore, hes an american hero. That is what they know and they dont want to know any more than that. They are adamantly uninterested, for example, the identity o of the socalled whistleblower. We learned that today from this, probably the weirdest exchange. Watch vindmans cryptic description of the man with no name. I spoke to two individuals with regards to providing some sort of readout of the call. What agencies were these officials with . Department of state, department of state, Deputy Assistant secretary george kent, who was responsible for the portfolio on eastern europe, including ukraine, and an individual from the office of in the Intelligence Community. Tucker an individual in the Intelligence Community. Well, who is that exactly, devin nunes wanted to know. Sorry, adam schiff, who, by the way, claims not to know the identity of the whistleblower, interrupted to block the question. Watch this. As you know, the Intelligence Community has 17 different agencies. What agency was this individual from . If i could interject here, we dont want to use these proceedings it is our time. We need to protect the whistleblower. Please stop. I want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistleblower through these proceedings. If the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistleblower, that is not the purpose that we are here for and i want to advise the witness accordingly. Tucker wait a second. If you are trying at home to follow the logic chain, ask yourself this if schiff doesnt know the whistleblowers name, as he has repeatedly claimed, how can he know that name is about to be revealed . By the way, you could ask the same question of Alexander Vindman. Vindman also claims not to know who the whistleblower is, yet at the same time, he told us today, his testimony could reveal the identity of the whistleblower. The one whose name he doesnt know. Lieutenant colonel vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistleblower was. I do not know who the whistleblower is. How is it possible for you to name these people and then out the whistleblower . Per the advice of my counsel, ive been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the Intelligence Community. Tucker ed raises some questions. His claim is, my lawyers have instructed me not to say relevant things. But when devin nunes pushed him on that, vindman protested that he wasnt being treated with a proper respect. Watch. Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower. Ranking member, lieutenant kernel vindman please. Tucker leading candidate for defense minister of ukraine, your insolence has been noted. It went on like this today, around and around for hours and hours and hours, literally hours and hours. The one thing nobody seemed to want to talk about was how we got here in the first place, which is to say, hunter biden. Remember him . Hunter biden. He is lackluster politicians son who was somehow not only got into Yale Law School did you get into Yale Law School . Not only did that with me close to a Million Dollars working in the Ukrainian Energy business despite knowing nothing about ukraine or energy. Even by the standards of international corruption, it turned out that he struck a remarkably corrupt deal. How corrupt . And analysis by watchdog rager dominic Research Found that Hunter Bidens pay on the board of Burisma Energy announced a 12 times what is typical for a company of that size. And yet some are claiming that hunter biden was hired by burisma to assist with transparency and corporate reform. Amazing. Hilarious, actually, but also depressing because in the end, this isnt really about hunter biden. Its not actually really about the impeachment of the president. What you are seeing here, the story that is unfolding, a story about americas ruling class, some of which has been bought off by foreign entities. Not surprisingly, in fact, because of that fact, that is the one thing that you are not supposed to ask about. So shut up and praise Alexander Vindman, potential Ukrainian Defense minister and american hero, that is your job as you are watching along. Brit hume watched along all day, he is foxs senior political analyst and he joins us tonight. Im not impugning the integrity of alexander of inman but it did seem like one of those moments where watching at home, you are thinking, what . By the way, fits with the russian hearing and he was a protrump witness, they were because for his imprisonment, at least. You may be right about that. Obviously, the hosannas that are being flung along with rose petals of its witnesses stem from the fact that many in the media, and the washington political world want donald trump gone and then to applaud anything that tilts in that direction. There are some problems, however, with this, which are the following, in my view. One of them is that while the president is loath to admit there was anything wrong with his phone call, and some witnesses are trying to avoid saying that the president really did seek investigation of joe biden and his son, what you just recounted about hunter biden suggests his relationship to burisma and the role that biden played on ukraine policy are subjects for investigation, not only perhaps by ukraine but perhaps the United States as well. So a lot of people might look at this and say, this things dont come of this deal stunk, i dont blame the president for wanting him investigated, never mind the fact that biden was one of the president s challengers for the right house. I think it was inappropriate for him to raise that all not called with ukraine but a lot of people i might look at it and say, not a bad idea. The second thing of course is this, the president seemed to condition eight on that and at other times he did not. Lets assume, tucker, for the sake of discussion, that the aided continue to be withheld and russia mounted a devastating attack on ukraine. One that would have been much more easily repelled had the 400 million with of american aid been provided. That would have certainly put this in a different light. Nothing like that happened. The aid was provided and prior to that, javelin missiles, which the Obama Administration had insistently refused to provide, the airport and antitank weapons, had been provided by the trump administration, and a number of witnesses, even some who are skeptical of the way the president conducted this whole matter, have agreed that the trumpukraine policy, in terms of helping ukraine, was better than the obama policy. So all of those things go into the kind of makes that if the house and peaches, and it probably will, would be in the mix of things, senators on the republican side, 20 of whose votes will be needed to give it the president , those editors will will be considering those matters. I think that the case for impeachment is pretty weak because, while this was an offense of some kind, it was not worthy of the strongest possible remedy, the most drastic remedy available to congress. That is the bottom line. This is probably not impeachment stuff. Tucker i just wonder, i am personally not sure why we need to take sides in the conflict between russia and ukraine. That is my view, north of the minority view in washington. Let me ask this should we be concerned that the Ukrainian Government thought that this u. S. Army officer wasnt so sympathetic to the interests of ukraine that he might actually consider being the defense minister of the country . Should we at least pause and ask what is that . I think it shows that the ukrainians believed that they had in the presence of Alexander Vindman, a very strong advocate for the policies, as he pointed out, they offered him not job. Really nothing wrong with that, although it may suggest that Lieutenant Colonel vindmans view of all this, in which he saw aid for a time not going through, was influenced by his sentiments toward what was after all his native country. That seems to be a fair way of looking at it in light of the fact that that is where he is originally from. That doesnt mean hes a bad man or anything of the kind. It just means he has what i think could be considered understandable sympathies for ukraine. Tucker that makes me nervous. I want to ask you about the press and its role. They picked up basically where they left off covering impeachment. Every witness is a brief Public Servant and they definitely dont have any kind of political agenda, no political agenda. Two dedicated Public Servants, speaking truth to power in the face of withering public criticism from President Trump and his allies. The witnesses that have been called clearly are not political. Its absolutely an impressive morning for these witnesses who, as everyone is pointed out, are so clearly fact witnesses. Vindman struck me as the most devastating weve seen in the public hearing to date. This is someone who obviously looks the part. We heard republicans today attacking Lieutenant Colonel for doing one thing and one thing only, and frankly, doing it well, and that is doing his job. To go i will tell you this. I want this guy and his mother to protect me. I want them standing up for america today, Alexander Vindman gave the country an opportunity to reclaim patriotism. He watches testimony, he is who you want your children to grow up to be. Tucker im sure im not against witnesses but that doesnt seem like cheerleading that analysis, no . One of the things we should expect from journalists as a kind of permanent state of skepticism, and which we dont become terribly enamored of people and while we may praise an official or a witness here and there, we are not in the state of absolute smittenness that we see from the people that we whose quotations you just played. Youd think that they would be a note of skepticism. You would not think you would see that kind of worship, particularly when the number of the witnesses, inconsistencies in her testimony, things that have been pointed out, and except for certain tweets a lot at the white house, no one on the applicants that have attacked these witnesses. Tucker [laughs] brit hume, great to see you tonight. Thank you. Thanks, tucker. B1 congressman devin nunes asked an obvious question, which democrats are no answer to her a if bribery is such a threat to the republic, why isnt have provideds behavior worth invesg well talk about that next. Prior to going to aspen dental ive had nineteen surgeries. Im 100 permanently disabled from the military and after i went in to aspen dental it was just like night and day. They told me they were gonna take some xrays, she said and its gonna be no charge to you. Im not used to getting that type of service. My name is robert chackley and my rank for the military was retired sergeant major. At aspen dental were all about yes. Like yes to payments on your timeline not ours. Yes to free exam and xrays for patients without insurance. And yes whenever youre ready to get started so are we. Call or book online at aspendental. Com a general dentistry office. The medicare enrollment deadline is only days away. Having the wrong plan may cost you thousands of dollars out of pocket. Thats why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. With their new fitscore, they compare thousands of plans from National Insurance companies to find the right medicare plan that fits you. In minutes, you can find out if your current plan is the right fit. Does your plan have 0 copays, 0 deductibles, and 0 premiums . If not, maybe its not the right fit. Does it include dental and vision coverage . If not, maybe theres a better fit for you. Call healthmarkets now or visit healthmarkets. Com for your free fitscore. Compare thousands of medicare plans with all of these benefits and more. They work to help you and they do it all for free. Only healthmarkets has the free fitscore. Call before the deadline. Call the number on your screen now. I got this Mountain Bike for only 11. Dealdash. Com, the fair and honest bidding site. We sold an ipad worth 505 for less than 24. A stand mixer for less than 20. A 4k television for under 2. A macbook pro for under 16. As well as a playstation 4 for under 16. And brand new cars for less than 900. Dealdash. Com offers hundreds of auctions every day. All auctions start at 0 and everything must go. And dont forget, we offer a full 90 day money back guarantee on your first bid pack purchase. I won these bluetooth headphones for 20. I got these three suitcases for less than 40. And shipping is always free. Go to dealdash. Com today and see how much you can save. There are auctions going on right now, so what are you waiting for . Tucker the current line you are hearing from democrats as the president must be impeached immediately for bribery, even though there is no evidence he bribed anyone. There is some evidence that hunter biden was in effect bribed by a foreign g so why are we not investigating . Devin nunes raised that query atearlier today. After trying out several different accusations against President Trump, the democrats have recently settled on bribery. Both the democrats in the media are suddenly so deep deeply concerned about bribery, you would think they would take some interest in burisma fang hunter biden 83,000 a month. Tucker Mark Hemingway is a Senior Writer at realclearpolitics. You will be concerned . 83million a month, that seems like a fair deal for doing what, exactly . The more we lookst at what Hunter Bidens arrangement with burisma, the more doesnt make sense. His lawyer putns out a Statement Last month saying it was about corporate performance transparency and he was helping them with improving their Business Practices while serving on their board essentially. Ir i got my hands on a report from a group called Watchdog Research in florida, and they specialize in doing things like looking at corporate governance. Me they look at this arrangement, and it just doesnt data up. For one thing, reuters independently said that there is paperwork saying that he was not paid for his board service, which is what his lawyer say he was paid for. He was paid for consulting services, not his board servi service. Being a consultant for the company the same time youre supposed to to be an independent member of s the board, if this were a u. S. Company, this may very well be in violation of u. S. Securities laws. Tucker real quick, as anyone in the Obama Administration Foreign Policy world, they may have known about this. Did they say anything about her . Not that im aware of. Its interesting that it came out in the testimony last week that the former Ukrainian Ambassador yovanovitch, she said that they prepped her for a question for the Senate Confirmation t hearing, to deflt any questions about hunter biden. Tucker they knew, they worried. I wish we had more time. Thank you for pricing on this. Mark hemingway, thank you. Sean davis, cofounder of the federalist. Hes been one of the most dogged reporter on the subject of the very beginning parades of the hunter biden story, are we asking too many questions about her . Is it unpatriotic to wonder why he made all that money . There arent too many questions at all. I think everyone should know why and how the Vice President son, who had no experience in energyo or ukraine or business, somehow i paid a million bucks a year for who knows what exactly. I think we all deserve answers on this, especially if we are going to be dealing with yet another coup effort to throw the president out of office because he had a phone conversation, some sniveling midlevel bureaucrat did not happen to like. Tucker did you think that it was more or less on the level than his admission to Yale Law School . [laughs] i cant speak to his law acumen. So i dont know how to answer that one. Tucker im starting to think this is jim is rotten and i am starting to think that people who say that out loud are in peril. You are one of them. Thank you for coming on. Thank you, tucker. Tucker there is news in the Jeffrey Epstein saga, speaking of ron. Thats next. Tucker Jeffrey Epstein wasnt supposed to be able to kill himself, now two guards have been hit with federal charges for their behavior on the day he died. Trace gallagher has the latest on this unfoldin. At the time of his death, Jeffrey Epstein was arguably the highest profile jail inmate in the country being held in a jail that had previously housed both terrorists and drug kingpins. The guards sat 15 feet away, and during the 8hour shift, when they should have checked on him 16 times, they allegedly failed to check on him even once. Instead, prosecutors say they shopped online for furniture and motorcycles, walked around theua common area, and slept for two yhours. It wasnt until they finally want to give him breakfast that Jeffrey Epstein was found unresponsive. Prosecutors say that is when the guards tried to covereg their tracks by falsifying documents claiming they had checked on epstein every 30 minutes. Today, before congress, the bureau of prisons director said this about the guards. Watch. We have some bad staff. We want rid of those bad staff who dont do their job. We want them gone one way or another, even by prosecution or termination. Bought the guards pleaded not guilty and were freed on 100,000 bond. An attorney for one of them said they were being scapegoated in a rush to judgment. The guards indictment also included information that could tamp down the conspiracy theories surrounding epsteins death, specifically that Security Camera footage confirms that nobody entered the area near epsteins cell on the night he died. His death was ruled a suicide but renowned g pathologist believes he was the victim of a homicide. Tucker . Tucker thank you for that. Bureau of prisons director testified before the senate today about epsteins death. Senator john kennedy of louisiana was there and expressed some skepticism about the official story. Watch. Christmas ornaments, drywall, and jerry epstein. Name three things that dont hang themselves. That is what the American People think. That is with the American People think. They deserve some answers. Tucker senator kennedy of louisiana joins us tonight. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. A wonderful line. Do you think that . I dont know. Maybe it is all an odd coincidence, but the point i was trying to make was dr. Sawyer, the head of the bureau of prisons, is that the American People have very little trust in government, and they may not believe the investigations, once they are completed. But they certainly are entitled to wonder when its taking a while to do the investigations. I have had questions the death in august with the American People are entitled to the facts, both of which are doing the investigations, need need to move this thing on. Sean why do you think they are not . I agree with you. I am assuming they are being careful. They should be thorough, they should be careful. But this is a high priority. The alleged victims, i dont know who did what to whom, tucker. Alleged victims are entitled to know what happened. The American People are entitled to know what happened. I can tell you, if 9 out of 10 americans, if you ask them, secretly, gave them the truth serum, do they think that he was murdered . You know, maybe not 9 out of 10e but many would say yes, and the other ones could be lying. I mean, its just an odd tucker what is it say . I agree with you completely. If a huge percentage of the American Population believes that there is a massive coverup right to the top, that says a lot about how people feel about their leaders. It is symptomatic of the mistrust that people not only have an entrenched politicians, but in the entire managerial elite. The bureaucrats comeme with academics, the journalist, the corporate phonies. I dont want to paint with too broad of a brush. But all of them all academics are not in the managerial elite but many of them are, and the American People, a large portion of American People elected President Trump for two reasons. First, trump doesnt talk down to people. He didnt talk down to them. And secondly, Many Americans voted for the him as an insult to the managerial elite. By the managerial elite, i mean everybody in this town who thinks they are smarter and more virtuous than the average american. There are a bunch of them. Tucker yep. I would say the fruits of their leadership prove they are not. Senator, it is great to see you. As it always is. Thank you for coming on. We are out of time, sadly. Thats okay. We back tomorrow night. 8 00 p. M. They show tha that is the sworn and totally sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, which is everywhere, all, all of a sudden, in case you hadnt noticed. Our plea to you tonight, figure out how to dvr this show. We have no idea but certainly there must be engineers among you who can figure it out. Well see you tomorrow. Good night from washington. The great sean hannity standing by in new york city to take over in the 9 00 p. M. Our. Sean tucker, great show as always. Welcome to hannity. We are glad you are with us. Tonight we start with a fox news alert. If youre like most americans, you didnt watch todays impeachment charade, heres the big take away. Another huge dud, and frankly, an embarrassing spectacle for the entire country. What democrats are doing to thiu country, this is humiliating to all of us, a display that needs to come to c an end, common sen, reason, intellectual honesty never played a part in any of those. Nothing but one opinion after another opinion after another opinion followed by conjecture on the opinion and now my feelings are about whatever. No actual evidence, no wrongdoing, whatsoever, none, all of it, every bit of it,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.