time this morning. good morning, jim. good morning, poppy. you were in the room for fiona hill s testimony and other officials testifying. have you heard evidence to this point that would support articles of impeachment against this president? yes, jim. we have. but the president s going to get a fair process. it will be a swift process, but we ll continue to do our work. and just so your viewers understand, essentially a tip was placed through the whistle-blower tip line that, you know, the president was engaged in this extortion scheme with the ukrainians and that a cover-up was under way. now we have sought to interview witnesses who may have seen this going on and every arrow continues to point in the same direction which corroborates what the whistle-blower said, corroborates what the president said in his own words confessing to the act. and we re going to continue to fill the picture in and very shortly release the transcripts to the american people and then decide, where
in the government about the possibility of coming forward. it would stop a lot of people from considering coming forward. well it could. but i think what we re seeing is more people come forward. now we have a second whistle-blower with firsthand experience of what happened. corroborating exactly what is already out there and indeed president trump s own transcript corroborates what is the whistle-blower statement. so i actually think, anderson, that we have enough patriots still working in this government all throughout the agencies who have to be deeply disturbed about this. when you hear the president saying repeatedly it was the perfect phone call, nothing wrong with it then asking china for help, that china should investigate the bidens. you ve read the transcript of the call. the president clearly believes in just repeating a lie over and over again until everybody becomes so exhausted they just
whistleblower comes forward with firsthand information that corroborates what the first whistleblower said, this would be huge. not only that twoor, it would ay permit other whistleblowers to step forward knowing they have some cover in this limited milieu that are also coming forth. it is not unusual to see its allies descending on this poichblt. alyce, you say this is huge, and evan, this has been corroborated. what hasn t checked out in the first whistleblower account that this second whistleblower one could urnderscore or help bolster? one of the president s allies keep pointing out to everyone that there was a hold on the ukranian assistance, the aid that had been approved by congress. but the ability to sort of show
their own words. there s no spin ability. and from the time when this was all happening. what you see is the people on the inside who are working the channels understand that really what comes through all the texts there s only one thing trump cares about that s the investigations. the benefit his own political campaign. it just it comes through from the direct players who are involved and corroborates and backs up and support the calls we have seen. it supports what the whistleblower told us. this is really important evidence. it gives us insight. for those who say we don t need i don t know. you have to have evidence of a crime. or others say what does this say? it helps build the case there is a crime. you do not need a crime in order to impeach. abuse of power is enough. i think we have a crime. this builds the case there was an exchange. bribery. whatever you want to call it. it s darn close to an actual stated quid pro quo. here s the deal.
it s in their own words. there s no spin ability. and from the time when this was all happening. what you see is the people on the inside who are working the channels understand that really what comes through all the texts there s only one thing trump cares about and that s the investigations. the benefit his own political campaign. it just it comes through from the direct players who are involved and corroborates and backs up and support the call we have seen. it supports what the whistleblower told us. this is really important evidence. it gives us insight. for those who say we don t need i don t know. you have to have evidence of a crime. orr others say you don t need a crime. what does it say? it helps build the case there is a crime. you do not need a crime in order to impeach. abuse of power is enough. i think we have a crime. this builds the case there was an exchange. bribery. quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it. it s darn close to an actual stated quid pro quo. he