What weve been discussing w today, which involved in a regular channel, was a request that went against u. S. Policy that have have undermined the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine, as in other countries in the postsoviet space. Those policies which were indeed championed by ambassador yovanovitch. You also testified on october 15th in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country. And you t cited the importance reforming certain institutions, notably was investigating President Trumps political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list of yours or indeed was it on any list . No, they werent. In fact, historically, is it not true that a major problem in the ukraine has been its misuse of prosecutors, precisely to conduct investigation of political opponents. Thats a legacy i dare suggest from the soviet era when, as you stated in your testimony, prosecutors like the kgb were, and i quote you now, instruments of oppression. Is that correct, sir . I said that and i believe its true. So finally, mr. Kent, for as long as i can remember, u. S. Foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interest and democraticpr values. Notably, freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, free, fair, and open elections. And the rule of law. Mr. Kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesnt that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those Democratic Values . I believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. How is that, sir . Thos well, theres an issue o credibility. They hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u. S. Leaders saying something else. Ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir . I would. Sir, anything youd like to add about how it might make it more difficult forht you to do your job, sir . Re our credibility is based on a respectse for the United States and if we damage that respect, then itda hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. Anyone looking at the facts can see t what happened was an abuse of power. Anyone looking at the facts can see that what happened was unethical. Anyone looking at the facts can see, anyone looking at the facts can see, that what went on was just plain wrong. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Ac jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 55 days. 55 days between july 18th and September 11th that there was a delay on sending hardearned tax dollars of the American People to ukraine. Not talking any country. Were talking ukraine. Ernst and young said one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. Our witness on friday, she testified in her deposition, corruption is not just prevalent in ukraine, its the system. So our president said, timeout. Timeout. Lets check out this new guy. Lets see if zelenskys The Real Deal. This Newre Guy Who got elected april, whose party took power in july, lets seewe if hes legitimate. Now, keep in mind, as has already been discussed, in 2018, President Trump had already done more for ukraine than obama did. Thats right. President trump, who doesnt likees foreign aid, who wanted European Countries to do more, who knew how corrupt ukraine was, did more than obama because he gave em javelins. Tank busting javelins to fight the russians. Our witnesses have said this. Others have said this. Obama gave em blankets. Trump gave em missiles. But when it came time to check out this new guy, President Trump said lets just see if hes legit. So for 55 days, we checked him out. President ck zelensky had five interactions with senior u. S. Officials in that timeframe. One was of course the phone call. Ci the july 25th phone call between President Trump and president zelensky. And there were four other facetoface meetings with other senior u. S. Officials. And guess what . Not one of those interactions, notac one, were Security Assistanceri dollars linked to investigating burisma or biden. But guess what did happen in those 55 days . U. S. Senators, ambassador bolton, Vice President pence all becamede convinced that zelensk was, in fact, worth the risk. He was, in fact, legit and The Real Deal and a real change. And guess what . They told the president hes a reformer. Release the money. Th and thats exactly what President Trump did. Over the next few weeks, were going to have more witnesses likeg weve had today that the Democrats Will Parade in here and theyre all going to say this. So ande so said such and such so and so and, therefore, we got to impeach the president. Actually, we can get more specific. We covered this a little bit ago. Theyll Say Something like, ambassador sondland said in his deposition where he said Ambassador Taylor recalls that mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that i told mr. Morrison that ito conveyed this message september 1st, 2019, in connection with Vice President pences visit to warsaw and a meeting with president zelensky. If you can follow that,re that the f Democrats Plan and why th want to impeach the president. Thats what we are going to hear the next couple of weeks. But no matter what they do, no matter how many witnesses they bring in here, four facts will not change. Have notou changed. Will never change. Ha the callha shows no linkage between dollars and the investigation into burisma or the bidens. President trump and president zelensky have both said on the call there was no linkage. There was no pressure. There was no pushing. Ukrainians didnt even know the aidn was withheld at the time theth phone call and most importantly, as has been pointed out, ukrainians didnt take any specific action relative to investigations to get the money released. Now, there is one witness. One witness that they wont bring in front of us. They wont bring in front of the American People. And thats the guy who started it all. The whistleblower. Nope. 435 members of congress. Only one gets to know who that personto is. Congress has r of the staff thatof gets to talk t that person. The rest of us dont. Only chairman schiff knows who the whistleblower is. We dont. We will never getwh the chance seeth the whistleblower raise s right hand, swearai to tell the truth and nothing but well never get thatno chance. More importantly, the American People wont get that chance. This anonymous socalled whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who isno biased again the president who worked with joe biden who was the reason weren all sitting here today, well never get a chance to question that individual. Democrats are trying to impeach the president based on all that. All that . 11 1 2 months before an election. Will not get to check out his credibility, his motivations, his bias. I said this last week but this is this is a sad day. This is a sad day for this country. You think about what Thefo Democrats Have Putu our nation through for the last three years. Started july of 2016 when they spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign and all that unfolded with the Mueller Investigation after that. And when that didnt work, here we are. On based on this. Based on this. This is a the American People see through all this. They understand the facts support the president. Theyor understand this process unfair. And they see through the whole darn sham. With that, i yield back. Ou mr. Welch. Thank you. I say to my colleague, id be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President trump is welcome to take a seat right there. Tr [ laughter ] you know, the question here, its not a dispute about the enormous power that a president has. The question is whether, in this case, there was an abuse of that power. Es a president can fire an ambassador for any reason whatsoever. A president can change his policy, as he did when he opened the door for turkey to go in and invade kurdistan despite opposition from many of his senior advisors. A president could change his position and our position on ukraine. But is there a limit . There is. Because our constitution says no one is above the law. And that limit is that one cannot, even as president , use the public trust of high office for personal gain. Th the law prohibits any one of us hereof from seeking foreign assistance in our campaigns. The question for us is whether the use of power by the president was for the benefit of advancing his political interest in thead 2020 campaign. And by the way, my colleagues, if the president wants to attack joe biden and his son, hes free to do it. All fair and square in campaigns. Hes just not free to change our Foreign Policy unless he gets his way to a system in that campaign. Thats a line you cant cross. Now, you all have been very clear about what our continuous Foreign Policy was. And Ambassador Taylor, just very quickly, describe why us Withholding Aid interfered with achieving our National Security goals. Mr. Welch, one of our National Security goals is to resolve conflicts in europe. There is one major conflict in europe. Its afl fighting war. Our National Security goals in support ofec ukraine, in suppor of a broader strategic approach to europe, is to facilitate that negotiation. Is to try to support ukraine when it negotiates with the russians. And i want to go back because in the historical context, mr. Kent, you and Ambassador Taylor provided, we had 70 years a piece after the war in which we lost over 400,000 american lives. And that took care and that was inoo jeopardy, as you described it,y, Ambassador Taylor. And that threatened each and every one of us up here and the constituents we represent. Is that a fair statement . Thats a fair statement. I want to do threeha dates, too. I only have ae little time but july 24, july 25, and july 26. July 24th, Director Mueller testified about his investigation and he he established beyond doubt that it was the russians who interfered in our election. Is and he expressed a fear that that would be the new normal. On july 25th, according to the readout of the president she campaign, he asked the ukrainians to investigate ukrainian interference in our election that had been reputiated. And then in july 26th, as i understand it, this person who reported to you heard the president saying he wanted investigations again in ukraine. So this is the question. The new normal that Director Mueller feared. Is there a new normal that you fear that a president , any president , can use congressionallyapproved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that is in his interest but not the Public Interest . Ng that should not be the case, mr. Welch. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript from the July 25th Call between President Trump and president zelensky. You yourself, mr. Chairman, have mischaracterized the call. In theky first open hearing, yo had Ir Gentlewoman will suspend. By unanimous consent, be happy to enter the call record into the record. Thank you. Mr. Mueller, youre recognized for five mntds. Thank coyou, gentlemen. Thank you for being here today. Ambassador taylor, what year did you graduate from west point . 1969, sir. Height of the vietnam war, wasnt it, sir . The height was about that time. What wasat your class rank a west point . I was number five. How many people were in your class . In 800. 800 cadets, you were number five. Yes, sir. So when youre top 1 of your class at west1 point, you probably get your pick of assignments. But you picked the infantry. I did, sir. Yes, sir. You were a Rifle Company commander. Sir. Whered you serve . In vietnam. Did you see combat in vietnam, sir . I did. Did you earn any accommodations for that service . I wasy awarded the combat infantrymans badge, which is my my highest im proudest of. There was a bronze star. There was an air medal. Thats for valor, isnt it, sir . Sn it is. Lets talk about july 26th. Lot of years later. You go to the front with ambassador volker i believe and youre on the bridge and youre looking over on the front line at the russian soldiers, is that what you recalled . Yes, sir. And you said the commander there, Theth Ukrainian Commande thanked you for the American Military assistance that you knew was being withheld at that moment. Thats correct. Howd that make you feel, sir . Y badly. Why . Because it was clear that that commander counted on us. It was clear that that commander had confidence in us. It was clear that that commander had was appreciative of the capabilities that he was given by that assistance but also the reassurance that we were supporting him. You dont strike me asre a quitter, ambassador. But you threatened to resign or you mentioned it in your statement. Before i ask you about that, lets just talk about a couple days later on july excuse me, one monthex later on august 28th. You find yourself in ukraine with the National Security advisor mr. Atbolton, right . Yes, sir. And you convey to him your concerns. Youve testified to this previously about the withholding of militaryhe assistance. What does he say to you . He says that he shares my concern and he advises me to express that in a very special way to the Secretary Of State. Now, heshe the National Security advisor, works directly with the president but he tells you that you should bring it up with theho Secretary Of State. Yes, sir. Have you ever sent a cable like that . How many times in your career of 4050 years have you sent a cable directly to the Secretary Of State . Once. Ye this time . Yes, sir. In 50 years . Rifle company dont send cables but yes, sir. So the National Security advisor who can tell it to the president himself and who shares your concern says you, the ambassador servingu, in ukraine should cable the Secretary Of State directly and you do so, dont you . Yes, sir. Whatd the cable say, sir . Its classified cable. Without going into classified information. Without going into classified, itut says Security Assistance. Its what weve been talking about today. Security assistance to ukraine at this particular time, as in previous times, is very important. Ukraine, i also make the point that weve also talked about here today, ukraine is important for our National Security. And we should support it. Not notan not to provide that would be folly. Did you get an answer to your cable . Notyo directly. No, sir. Do you know what happened to it . Secretary kent. Secretary kent, do you know what happened to it . Tells me that i was on vacation when his cable came in but my understanding is it made it to its recipient, intended recipient pompeo. And we know pompeo was on the call on july 25th. Its not liken hes in the dar about any of this. Whatd he do with it . I honestly cant say for sure what happened with the cable once the message was brought in at the highest level. Pe one other question, gentlemen. On september 1st, you recall a meeting between theep Vice President and the president of ukraine, mr. Zelensky, in which right off the off the bat the president of ukraine raises Security Assistance and the Vice President according to your telling says ill talk to the president about that tonight. Ill make a call. Do you know whether the Vice President made that call . I dont know, sir. Do you know what, if anything, the Vice President had to do with, any of this . What more can you tell us about the Vice President s role in this . Do you r know if he ever raised this issue with anyone in the administration . Whether he ever pushed for the release of that Security Assistance . I cant sir. I believe i to the best of my understanding, the Vice President was an advocate for the release of the assistance. Thankof you. Yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to commit for the record the politico article that will be a entered in th record. Thank you. Representative demings. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman, and thank you to both of you for being with us today. Mr. Kent, you said that a president has the right to remove an ambassador because the ambassador at the pleasure of the president , is that correct . That is correct, maam. Does that remove usually come with a Smear Campaign of that ambassador by the president . I think the right of the president to make a decision about the president s personal representative as confirmed by the senate isre separate from whatever happens outside the confines of u. S. Government processes. Nm do you have any idea why i was important to discredit ambassador yovanovitch, what she was not willing to do or to do . Why that was important . Well, i guess it probably depends on the motivation of other people and i am not one of them. The Committees Investigation has uncovered a web of shadow diplomacy. Ha engaged in and executed by several state Department Officials and the president s personal attorney, rudy giuliani, and ultimately directed by President Trump. We have heard several ways of describing this shady, shadow operation, shadow diplomacy, rogue back channel. Ambassador taylor, you have described what you encountered as the top diplomat on the ground in ukraine and i quote, highly irregular informal channel of u. S. Policy making. You testified that the channel included ambassador volker, sondland, secretary perry, and as you later learned, the president s personal attorney, rudy tgiuliani. Is that correct . Yes, maam. Both of you have explained that you grew seriously concerned when you realized that the interest of this irregular channel diverged from official u. S. Policy and interest. Was mr. Giuliani promoting u. S. Nation onest or policy in ukraine . Ambassador . I dont think so, maam. Mr. Kent . No, he was not. On what interest do you believe he was promoting, mr. Kent . I believe he was looking to dig up Political Dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. Ambassador taylor . Va what interest do you believe he was promoting . I agree with mr. Kent. The State Departments role is to promote u. S. Policies overseas, not to help the current president win reelection, is that correct, mr. Kent . All federal government employeesal are subject to the interactions are supposed to be promoting policy and not involved in partisan politics. Ambassador taylor . I agree. What is the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy that is completely outside of normal channels and does not further u. S. Policy goals, Ambassador Taylor . Ms. Demings, its possible to do one butit not the other. That is, if its completely against u. S. Policy goals, then thats a mistake. Then its not helpful. What you can go you can get advice and even have conversations outside of the of theou normal channels. But then they need to be part of u. S. Foreign policy and and approaching those goals. Ol mr. Kent . Agree. Ambassador taylor, you have described in your previous testimony shortly after you arrived Iny Ukraine In which ambassador sondland asked State Departmentam officials not to listen to a july 28th call he had planned to hold with president zelensky. Did you find that unusual . I did. Us what was the impact of ambassador Sondland Making that request . When you found it unusual, what do you believe the impact was . Ms. Demings, im not sure there was an immediate impact. Was there a recording or transcription . There was not. That was the impact. It was not recorded. Do you think thats why the ac made . Was so there would not be normal state Department Employees from the Operations Center would have been there transcribing and taking notes . That is the norm but it is also it is not unusual to not have it recorded. So so you know that the State Department isyo holding your nos andld refuses to provide them t Congress Despite a dually authorized subpoena. And we know that in some be thees, your notes may only documentary record of what happened. Do you you are aware of that . Yes, maam. And, mr. Kent, you are aware that your notes have not been turned over to congress . I have turned all records that i had in my possession to the State Department because whatever we do is considered a federal record, not a personal record. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, i have a unanimous consent request. State his request. I have a New York Times oped stating why president obama should have done more Inpr Investing in ukraine by ambassadors which includes Willi William taylor. Wi without objection. Christian murphy. Good bjafternoon, gentlemen. Id like to walk you through a couple points raised by my colleagues on the other side. One, theyot claim the July 25th Call summary shows no evidence of pressure on the Ukrainian Government. In fact, they argue the ukrainians didth not feel any pressure at any time to comply with any of president s President Trumps request for investigations. In fact, Ambassador Taylor, at your deposition in october, you statedct that due to the hold tt President Trump placed on aid to theac ukraine, The Ukrainians Became Quote unquote desperate. Isnt that right . In august, they did not know as far as im aware. But at the end of august, the article came out in september. The minister of defense, for example, came to me i would use the word desperate to figure out why the assistance was being held. He thought that perhaps if he went to washington to talk to you, to talk to secretary of defense, to talk to the president , he would be able to find out and and reassure, provide whatever answer was necessary to have that assistance released. In fact, my colleagues on the other side suggest that president zelensky personally did not feel any pressure at any time. And yet, later on in september, he finally relented in a conversation with Gordon Sondland, according to your deposition, in which he agreed to make a statement on cnn, isnt that right . He had planned to make a statement on cnn. Yes, sir. H my colleagues also say that the hold on u. S. Security assistance was lifted on September 11th without any investigations happening on the part of the ukrainians and, therefore, everything ended up fine in the end. However, mr. Kent, as you know, the house intelligence, foreign affairs, and Oversight Committees beganrs this current investigation leading to the proceedings today on september 9th. In fact, it was only two days after this particular set of committees began their investigations that the Trump Administration eventually released the military aid, correct . Um that is the timeline, yes. Ambassador taylor, between the time of your October Deposition and now, did anyone from the Trump Administration contact you about your appearance before the committee today . No, sir. Co how about you, mr. Kent . No, sir. Ambassador taylor, i would like to turn to a word that, by my account, you used 13 times in your opening statement. And that word is concern. You were concerned that aid was being conditioned on political investigations investigations isnt that right . Yes, atsir. You wereri concerned that irregular channels of diplomacy were being used in our Foreign Policy in the ukraine, right . Yes, sir. Ambassador taylor, can you rule outas the possibility that these irregular channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct Foreign Policy . I cant ive not heard of any other separate channel that has this kind of influence. That is, the giuliani kind of guidance. But you cant rule it out, right . No, sir. And how about you, mr. Kent . You cantou rule it out either, right . I have no basis to make a determination. You dont believe the July 25th Call was perfect, did you . Do you . I think some of the language in the call gave cause for concern. Ambassador taylor . I agree. Or and what was the cause for concern for you . There was part of the the constitution of the previous ambassador was a cause for concern. Ns Ambassador Taylor, i want to draw on your experience finally as aer West Point Cadet and as Infantry Commander in vietnam. In a battlefield situation, is a Commanding Officer allowed to hold up t action, placing his troops at risk, until someone provides him a personal benefit . No, sir. Is that because if Commanding Officers did that, they would be betraying their responsibility to the nation and the men and women under their command . Yes, sir. And if thatan happened and we found out, could that person be subject to discipline . Yes, sir. Could that type of conduct trigger a Court Marshal . Yes, sir. Thank you. I yield back. L . Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman. I have unanimous consent to enter into the record mulvaneys statement where he said theres no quid pro quo from 2019. Without objection. Recognized for any closing comment. Ng mr. Chairman. Ive recognized mr. Nunes for his comments. Mr. Conway, we will get your motion after mr. Nunes brief Closing Remarks and my Closing Remarks, it is my intention to excuse the witnesses. We will have a very brief recess. Members should not go far. We will resume. Thank you. Chair, ill just be brief. I want to reiterate what i said earlier, and that is that we really should stop holding these hearings until we get the answer to three important topics. The first being the full extent of the democrats prior coordination with the whistleblower and who did the whistleblower coordinate with . Second, the full extent of ukraines Election Meddling against the Trump Campaign. And third, why did Burisma Hire Hunter Biden and what did he do for them and his position affect any u. S. Government actions under the obama administration. You are not allowing those witnesses to appear before the committee, which i think is a problem. So well expect, hopefully, you will allow us to bring in the whistleblower, the folks that he spoke to, and also numerous democratic operatives who worked with ukraine to meddle in the election. With that, ill yield back. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. For your decades of service to the country. I think you exemplify so many courageous men and women who serve, who have served in our military, who represent the United States so well around the world. I appreciate how you endeavored to stay outou of the fray. To relay what you heard, what you saw, without additional commentary. That is as it should be. You are both compelled to appear and we are grateful that you answered the Lawful Subpoenas that you received. Th the story that you have shared with used today in your experiences i think is a very deeply troubling one. Da it is the story of a dedicated ambassador, someone who served with, great distinction, ambassador yovanovitch, who was the subjectba of a Vicious Smea Campaign at the beginning of the year. T it is the story of once this ambassador was pushed out of the way, the creation of a irregular channel, which Ambassador Taylor, youmb described went al the way from the president through Mick Mulvaney through ambassador sondland through ambassador volker to rudy giuliani. That, over time, became apparent was not serving the u. S. Interest but running deeply contrary to the u. S. Interest. Te was, in fact, conditioning a white house meeting that the president of ukraine desperately sought to establish himself as the new president to ukraine and to demonstrate to friend and foe alike that he had and relationsp with his most powerful patron, the United States of america. And conditioned 400 million of bipartisan, taxpayer funded military support for a nation at war. On the front lines of russian expansionism. A suspension of which was not in the u. S. Interest, not in ukraines interest, i not in ou National Security interest in no way, shape, or form. You described a situation in which those in the service of the president made it clear to Thee Ukrainians they need to publicly announce these investigations or they werent going to gete that meeting and they sure werentt going to ge that military assistance. Now, i would point out, and this may not have come to your attention but it certainly came to our attention, on september 9th, Inspector General informed our committee that the director of National Intelligence was withholding a whistleblower complaint in violation of the statute. By that point, on september 9th, that complaint had made its way to the white house. On september 9th, when the Inspector General informed congress that that complaint had been withheld, the white house also learned that congress now inevitably would learn about the complaint. It was less than 48 hours later that the military aid would be released. Over the weeks to come or over the days to come rather, we will hear from other dedicated Public Servants about otheric aspects this effort to invite foreign interference in our election, to condition a white house meeting and military aid for the performance of political favors for the president s reelection campaign. We will hear from other witnesses. I appreciate members on both sides of the aisle who i think participated today in a serious way and in a civil way. This is as it should be. There is no shortage of strong feelings about what this means to the country. At the end of the day, were going to have to decide based on the evidence that you and others provide whether were prepared to accept in the presence of the United States, a situation where the president for their own personalei or political benefit can condition military aid, diplomatic meetings or any other performance of an official act in order to get help in their reelection. Whether we will need to accept in this president or any future president the idea that the president of the United States could invite a foreign country to intervene in our affairs. These are the decisions we will have to maketh when we have to decide whether this president should be impeached. But i want to thank you, again. Justu, conclude by saying becau i cant let it go unanswered, several of my colleagues made this statement repeatedly that i have met with the whistleblower. That i know who thete whistleblower is. It was false theow First Time Ty said it. It was Falseid The Second Throu 40th Time they said it. It will be false the last time they say it. With that, this concludes this portion of the hearing. I want to thank you, gentlemen. I ask everyone too remain in their seats. The witnesses are excused. Please, allow them to leave the committee room. We will, once they leave the committee room, take a brief recess. And then we will resume to take up mr. Conways motion and once again, i thank you, gentlemen. The committee is in a Brief Recess Subject to the call of the chair when we resume shortly, well take up mr. Conways motion. A long days journey and tonight the first impeachment hearing of this era is now history. Featuring two witnesses with unimpeachable credentials. Youd agree . It was an unbelievable display of the kinds of people in our government that dont make it to your program or mine very often. Mostly because they dont want to. Right. But largely, because they do their work out of public view and other than this extraordinary scandal in which were all in the middle of, they usually dont have much to say about the normal goings on. It was an incredible window into the almost visceral aversion to getting wrapped up in politics. You saw ambassador bill taylor and george kent repeatedly refuse to get sucked into what was obviously some of the partisan dynamics on this committee. And i think with a couple of exceptions, this functioned as it should. Welcome back to our viewers here in the studio with us. Chuck rosenberg is here. Neil is here. Claire mccaskill is here. And George Conway. Yes, George Conway is here. That George Conway. Starting with you, george, what have we just witnessed . Well, i i dont think the republicans made much headway there and i think its exactly as nicolle expressed it. You saw some nonpartisan professionals basically just tell us the facts. And the facts are quite damning. And the defenses that were put up by the republicans were fundamentally illlogical and incoherent. I mean, one defense was, hey, they actually got the money. The ukrainians got the money and zelensky didnt make a statement. But the fact of the matter is, it was the ask that was illegal. The second point they tried to make was that the these witnesses didnt have firsthand communications with the president of the United States. Well, the reason why we dont have testimony of firsthand communications with the president of the United States is because the white house has been blocking that. And other than that, there were just a lot of irrelevancies. Claire mccaskill. You know, i think their defense was scatter shot and not very effective. It didnt happen this is all hearsay. Oh, shut up about the hearsay. If youre brockilocking all the witnesses. You cant claim this is defective because we dont have firstperson testimony of bolton and mulvaney when the president is in court trying to block the testimony of bolton. So, you know, thats phony. And this whole idea that they released the aid so, therefore, no harm, no foul. You it is not a defense to an illegal act or an Impeachable Offense that you didnt get it done. As george said, you know, failure to accomplish a crime is not a defense of that crime. It is still a crime. And this notion that somehow because its hearsay or it really didnt happen or really then if it did really happen, then theres nothing wrong with it. Im not sure they persuaded anybody today on the republican side of the aisle. Other than theyre totallyn the tank for donald trump. Neil, since weve been on the air, you made an analogy on social media about a bank robbery, correct . Absolutely. I think this is a very, very bad day for republicans. If you are President Trump, i think you should be worried. The republicans were outmatched in two respects. One, just who they had up there. Schiff sounded in command of the facts, calm, a reasonable lawyer. And devin nunes sounded, well, like devin nunes. And didnt really, i think, Marshal Anything except distraction. And that goes to exactly what you were saying about the bank robbery. The big argument that we heard in the hearing today was, well, the aid ultimately flowed. The aid flowed because of a decision that the Executive Branch made on September 11th. Unfortunately, for this story, on september 9th, Congress Learned about the whistleblower report by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and on september 10th, the house sent a formal request to the Executive Branch saying, hey, whats up with this whistleblower report . So thats the only reason the aid flowed. Thats not a particularly powerful defense. Oh, i didnt get away with the crime, therefore, theres no crime. Chuck. Yeah. You started with a literary reference. A long days journey and tonight. I think i have one. Two. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. There you go. It was the best of times because nicolles point, you had these two dignified principal Public Servants who had rather be anywhere on the planet. And they made it very clear they werent picking sides. They were there to talk about what they saw and what they heard. It was the worst of times because to points all my colleagues have made, it developed into nonsensical bickering about irrelevant facts. Right . The president solicited something for personal gain and was Withholding Aid and a meeting in the white house until he got what he wanted. So the bank didnt get robbed. But they sure as heck tried to rob it. And that is the problem. Said and done. And so i i very much enjoyed listening to those two wonderful kent and taylor. This is whats best about Foreign Service or the Intelligence Community or federal law enforcement. It gives me hope. It makes me feel better. And then there was a lot of nonsense. And career Public Servants are a familiar breed to you after your years in government. Yeah, and listen, i havent spent a nanosecond in a courtroom but ive spent my career in the court of Public Opinion. And if you look at what the democrats have set out to do and you look at why this has swung Public Opinion in a way the Mueller Probe never did is that they have laid brick on top of brick on top of brick. And none of those bricks are out of line and none of them are of a different color or stripe or size. So the whistleblower complaint comes out. Now, the public ever since sort of the era of upton sinclair, trust people blowing whistles. They are sounding an alarm for people who cant or wont. So the whistleblower complaint comes out. Every single witness, there have been more than a dozen, corroborates some or all of the whistleblower complaint. And then these two men sit down before cameras and they have no ill motive. They are simply fact witnesses. But they, again, lay brick after brick after brick, which is uniform in content and tenor with the the the transgressions that are now known to the public. Donald trump used his position as president of the United States to get dirt on a political rival. And he extorted or held out foreign aid, military assistance, and today if you sat and watched the whole thing, the country got an education on why thats so important for a Country Threatened by russia. If you are scoring at home, three literary references within five minutes by my count. One more question. I want to bring mike mcfaul into this conversation. One of our colleagues came into the studio while we were on the air. Theres no gentle way to say this. But he expressed that maybe this Ambassador Taylor was what the democrats thought they were getting in bob mueller as a witness months ago. Yeah. And look, bob muellers testimony is going to be compared not in a flattering way to bob mueller. But let me defend bob mueller. What bob mueller did on july 24th was he conditioned the public to believe that maybe donald trump doesnt shoot straight. What bob mueller testified to were 150 contacts between the Trump Campaign and the russians during the campaign, which while not a criminal conspiracy in the conclusions of the mueller report, sounded like maybe donald trump viewed foreign governments as something to be used for his political purposes. And then Robert Muellers service to the country was also in that second volume an obstruction report. And if you read the report in the New York Times yesterday, that donald trump is seeking to fire as recently as a few weeks ago the watchdog in charge of the Intelligence Community, who transmitted or delivered to congress the original whistleblower complaint. Robert mueller probably has a better place in history for having conditioned the public to understand just how donald trump rolls so that all this information doesnt sound with what we already know about donald trump the president. On that note, mike mcfaul, our former u. S. Ambassador to russia who knows both of these gentlemen today. And, mike, speak to the role of career Public Servants and speak to what we saw on display today. Transactional versus traditional. Well, i was very proud of what they did. I mean, i know both gentlemen. But i especially know Ambassador Taylor. And just to be clear, as he pointed out too, hes he was a political appointee in his last job as u. S. Ambassador to ukraine. But had served for decades in many different jobs in nonpolitical positions. Neither were partisan. Exactly as i expected. They both knew the facts clear as day. Cold, comprehensively in a way that nobody else in the room did. And i just think when you hear the facts and you listen to them, they tell the stories everybody else has been saying. If your best defense is there was a crime that was almost committed and then we stopped it, thats not doesnt sound very convincing. We make whole movies, by the way, about those who stop crimes from happening. And thats what really came through to me, especially with the last comment from Congressman Schiff when he pointed out that if not for the whistleblower, we the the assistance probably would have been held. And none of this would have taken place and we would not have known these facts. So that made a big impression on me. The second thing, just to underscore because it was hours ago, i just want to remind everybody how involved the president of the United States was in this quote unquote drug deal. Not my words. Ambassador boltons words. That he took the time to call ambassador sondland literally one day after he spoke to president zelensky to see how his quid pro quo was going. That, to me, suggests that this was the thing that he cared about and the only thing that he cared about with regard to ukraine. And finally, if i can, one last thing. I want to make clear everybody understands. When were all saying that President Trump is undermining a u. S. Foreign policy here, i want to remind everybody its Trump Administration Foreign Policy that he is also undermining. Remember, secretary pompeo, Secretary Mattis before, you know, when they got together and decide we were going to deliver tho those javelins, that was policy of the Trump Administration, not the private policy of the two witnesses today. And and remember that is how why this is in addition even more outrageous. Did listening to them, looking at them, watching this testimony today, did it restore your faith that when its said and done, rigor and expertise will carry the day . Thats to me, i hope so. Thats more to people who are more expert about americans and Public Opinion. I do have to say that this has been a tough time for the State Department. Let me tell you. I know lots of people. The last three years have been a really tough time. And i think this day today will make people proud of the people that they serve with and hopefully make other people serving our country getting in because we need people like the two people we just saw testify for several hours today. Thank you, ambassador. Quick program note to all those folks waiting for deadline white house at 4 00 p. M. Eastern time, so are we. And when the hour arrives, i will vanish and leave it to its proper host. Ari melber, who hosts the 6 00 p. M. Eastern time hour on this network has been watching and listening with us having been part of our initial coverage those many hours ago this morning. Ari, your takeaways . I think its very clear that the democrats set out to put a little more meat on the bone of those infamous Text Messages and i thought particularly their lawyer Daniel Goldman was effective at doing that because that record from the standpoint of the prosecution and the potential articles of impeachme impeachment if Congress Writes them is the contemporaneous account. It is, as some of your guests just mentioned, trumps own appointees saying this is crazy, i dont want to be a part of this. Boltons testimony, not in a text. But again, a realtime objection. So its very important to remember today is one piece of that case. Some of the questions that came from republicans said, well, you didnt see this or who else saw this . Or how do you know . And one of the answers, anytime you put together a case is, okay, this was two peoples testimony as fact witnesses. There will be others. And things that are attested to by more than one person tend to be considered more corroborated. So i thought on the references to the investigations, to what the money was conditioned on, to what john bolton objected to being cooked up as a quote drug deal, to what crazy meant in Ambassador Taylor, i thought all that was well done. I did think as a stylistic matter, some of the republican questioning landed a few blow, brian. Because it tried to argue not a legal case but a more of a larger kind of a so what . What really happened . What really went wrong here . What was the specific harm . And the answer to that question might take more time to answer. The democrats and witnesses laid it out and there is harm and i think our analysts have, as well. But stylistically, you see that in trials as well. Its not saying nothing happened, its poking holes in how bad it there may be people yeah, did it rise to the level of removal and do those points cut against convicting the president in a senate trial. Ari melber, thank you. We are going to dip back into the hearing room for a second because as a committee they are taking on a motion to subpoena the whistleblower in a closeddoor deposition. Mr. Maloney, ms. Demings, mr. Krishnamoorthi. Ranking member nunes. No. Mr. Conaway . No. Mr. Turner . No. Stewart . No. Ms. Stefanik . No. Mr. Hurd . Mr. Ratcliffe . Mr. Jordan . No. Is there any member wishing to vote or wishing to change his or her vote . The clerk shall report the vote. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 eyes and nine nos. On this vote there were 13 ayes and nine nos. The motion to table is carried. We are adjourned. I would love an explanation of what the vote Claire Mccaskill has raised her hand. Typically the majority will want to make an affirmative motion. And that is to table what is being requested by the minority. So the minority requested the subpoena for a closeddoor deposition, and then one of the majority members made a motion to table that motion. So thats why it was an affirmative vote to table it. Its the same thing as beating it. Its just a fancy way of saying, no, you are not getting that. And ari melber remains with us. Ari, why not hear from the whistleblower and settle this matter if the whistleblowers identity can be kept private in a closeddoor session . I think thats the big if. And i think it was sfrtriking t see as the senator was pointing out. Thats one more piece of breaking news. And i think its a reminder that the federal laws that protect whistleblowers are of course written by the people in that room in the congress. We actually just saw something pretty extraordinary which is several members of the committee on the republican side basically pushing against those laws that they passed to protect the whistleblower and echoing the president who has argued for to unmask or expose the whistleblower. When you hear advocacy for that for exposing the whistleblower, you are Hearing Advocacy for a new and separate crime. Whether the Security Rationales can be taken out in a way where this would be a classified setting and they wouldnt be exposed in any way, thats certainly possible. And at some point in the process it could be an interesting thing to do. But against a backdrop where some of the people who are subject to the investigation have been calling to expose the whistleblower, i think that vote looks more like of a piece of that intimidation and not necessarily a factfinding request by the minority. Ari thanks, Garrett Haake is in the hallway having been in the room for much of today. Garrett, the coverage has been interesting. I guess social Media Coverage has been focused on mr. Kent as a bow tie and nalgene bottle enthusiast. What is the actual takeaway news from inside the room that you were able to glean that perhaps we couldnt see as viewers . Reporter the addition to Ambassador Taylors testimony about this other phone call between Gordon Sondland and the president of the United States that he was told about by a staffer was the big news on the investigative side of this. And we now confirmed that the staffer who heard that call is under subpoena to show up for a deposition of his own on friday. So well hear much more about that call in the coming days. That was probably the news highlight of the day. You saw in the early part of the day members of congress both on the dias and in the audience following very closely along with the printouts of the anticipating statements from these two witnesses following very closely of the deposition. And then interest flagged on the dios and the audience. Lots of these members in the room left to go on about their business. As i listened to the conclusion of the hearing, remember for the republicans here, the goal is not necessarily to change the minds of undecided people on impeachment, its to get them to change the channel. So if any of their arguments here were dense or confusing or just made you want to scratch your head or put the tv on mute in. Some ways that is just as effective as convincing on the merits. If people tune this out and see this as another extension of 2016, republicans have done their job to a certain extent. Remember thats the goal snas mh as it is to provide evidence to impeach the president. Having watched with us all afternoon, michael, as i mentioned earlier this morning, i tend to toss out any comparisons to watergate just because the eras dont match up. Its a different world in so many ways. Right. But where history was watching today, what do you think we witnessed . Well, i think the differences do tell us a lot. I think what we saw on these performances today really justifies the decision to start with these two major witnesses, which is what they did not know they did not do, as you know, brian, in the Watergate Committee hearings in 1973, they started with an Office Manager for the Nixon Campaign who explained that and worked upward. And that was particularly important because when you think about it, look at Impeachment Investigations in history. This is the first one that really centers around an issue of foreign and military policy that a lot of americans dont necessarily know a lot about ukraine. That was why it was so important that it be explained. And the other thing is that if you want to take a watergate comparison or compare this to other impeachment inquiries, the polarization that we saw today, the obvious tension between the chair and the Ranking Member and between the two parties, those protest signs in the background, thats not something that you saw in the senate in 1973. Absolutely correct. George conway, if you can talk to the republicans in that room in some sort of truth serum as afternoon gives way to evening, what do you think they would honestly tell you about what they learned today and their prospects what this is going to look like Going Forward . I think they have to realize they dont have a factual defense because we didnt hear a factual defense. We heard, you know, a little chipping away at whether or not there was firsthand knowledge. We heard a little argument about whether or not it matters that it doesnt matter that the quid pro quo didnt go to completion. But none of that works. And deep down they know that, which is why they spent so much time on irrelevancies. Well, they had actually good reason not to like him because he wants to give crimea back to the russians. They spent a ton of time on corruption which is not a horrible idea. Except for the fact that five weeks ago a former senior doj official said to me you cannot find one example of donald trump ever pursuing a single Anticorruption Initiative anywhere, internationally or domestically. So in a vacuum its not a terrible line. But it doesnt exist in trumps world. And it doesnt even make sense what they were saying today. If donald trump cares so much about corruption, okay, so hes having this corrupt Ukrainian Government investigate two american citizens. That doesnt even make sense. Its incoherent. Wow, put it that way. And to say that i mean, what they were trying to do is broaden this corruption theme. And so you saw them trying to sort of should have the round pegs of these individuals into a square hole. You know its fictitious because they are trying to portray donald trump as acting on principle. He doesnt act on principle. The only principle he acts on is what benefits donald trump. And they know that. And Claire Mccaskill, there is a certain amount of the jim jordan presence on this committee that is kind of a press play and he did his job, i guess, today. Well, you know, i was reminded watching him in one of my trials as a very young woman, i really went after an alibi witness. And they said you were just too mean. Its not sometimes what you ask. Its how you ask it. And it was almost frantic the republicans demeanor was almost frantic. Compare and contrast that with Ambassador Taylor and compare and contrast that with most of