Somalia. As if this is another step by the president to intimidate witnesses. He did not intimidate to you. You are here. You have endured. There are other people out there that can expect this before treatment if they come forward. That is a question for us. You also indicated that the president has a prerogative to appoint a noncareer person, and to be candid, republican president s and democratic president s have done that. Mr. Sondlands transcript is out, and he was someone who indicated that everything hinged, the white house meeting and the release of the vital
defensive aid, everything hinged on the president president zelensky being able to do that election that would benefit the trump campaign. You are aware of that . Yes. And you have indicated that would be something that you would not agree to do . Yes. And sondland was quite willing to do . Apparently so. I think you for your professional service and a yield back. Ambassador yovanovitch, thank you for being here. It has been a long day. The first time we met it was not clear, so i want to start with a quick comment. Your testimony in this inquiry broke the dam. You are the one who first threw that stone wall that the president was trying to set up. And i just want to thank you for that. Because others have followed your example. There is an old expression that the first person through the wall gets a little bit body. And i think you must understand that expression in a new way. But thank you. Thank you. I want to ask you about the day that you were let go. And i know this is a painful series of events, but apri april 24th, and you told us a few things that really stuck with me. You said you were at the embassy in ukraine, you are honoring a ukrainian woman, anticorruption activist, i believe her name is kateryna handziuk. Giving her the woman of courage award . Correct. Did you know carol perez . Yes. Youre both the senior women of service, you had an opportunity to meet her before . Yes. And she says there is trouble coming come i want to give you a heads up. Correct me if i am wrong. But coming from the white house,
i will call you later. That sums it up. But literally that evening honoring this anticorruption activist, is that right . Yes yes. Not just any woman, a woman who is horribly attacked and killed for her efforts, and she was not just killed, you said that she i believe that someone threw acid on her . That is correct. And i went and i checked during the break, and it turns out she was horribly injured, and it took four months for her to die, is that correct . A very painful death. Why would Somebody Attack her with acid . There are easier ways to kill people, why did they do it with acid . They wanted her out of the way, but the message was that this could happen to you too if you continue her work. Thats what happens when you go up against corrupt people in the ukraine . It is something that can happen. There are other ways of sidelining people. Do you are a Member Speaking at that event . I do. I looked at what you said. You said kateryna paid the ultimate price in fighting against corruption and building a democratic process for ukraine. Do you remember saying that . Yes. Than your phone rings and you hear trouble up the street. And carol perez called you again that night . It was 1 00 a. M. , right . Were you sleeping . No. You stayed up to get the phone call . Yes. She says two things that really stuck with me. She said we are worried about your security . Yes. You adjustment honoring a woman who was killed for fighting anticorruption efforts, and she said you need to get on the next plane, was she speaking euphemistically . Could get on the next plane, or did she mean the next plane . I think she meant as soon as possible. But pretty much it was the next plane. That is a pretty good flight back from kiev to washington in your meeting with secretary sullivan. And he says two things. There was a concerted effort against you, and he says you have done nothing wrong. Right. And what i am fascinating about is when he said you did nothing wrong, what did you expect the United States government would do next . You know, it was pretty clear that a decision had been made by the president , implemented by the State Department that i had to leave ukraine, but i coming in no, i had hoped that there would be more public support. Did you expect them to have your back . Yes. Were you surprised when they were going to . Not at that point anymore. Why . Well, because over the last several months that i not been the case. Maam, in your Opening Statement you said, how could our system feel like this . How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government . How could the system feel like this, how is it that foreign corrupt interest could manipulate our government . I want you to know, maam, that is the very question we are determined to get an answer for. And i want to thank you on behalf of your country for your service and with our work and answering that question. I go back back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, everyone in this room should be thankful for your service. I have four little girls and my work life, as i am thinking about them as a woman, i could not be prouder of you. And i consider yourself an inspiration for women Around The World. I just want to say before i get
in to my questioning, i think it is disgraceful to hear my colleagues refer to your sworn testimony as a Performance Today or speak in a condescending way basically suggesting that the woman, because i think thats how the president referred to you, im not sure he knows your name or if there is some other meaning they are, but basically suggests that the woman should be thankful for whatever she was left with. A Smear Campaign and all after you were recalled. Thank you for your service, your 33 years of service. Ambassador on the press Conference Call october 17, acting white house Chief Of Staff mulvaney expressed his belief that it is entirely appropriate to politicize u. S. Foreign policy. Heres what he said. If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did mckinley say yesterday . Well, mckinley said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in Foreign Policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And i have news for everybody, get over it there is going to be political influence in Foreign Policy. Ambassador yovanovitch, do you share the concern raised by ambassador mckinley in testimony before this committee about political influence in Foreign Policy . Well, as i said before. It is important to keep political influence out of Foreign Policy, because we all, whether we are republican or democrat or Something Else have Common Security interests, and that needs to be safeguarded and advanced. And what message do you think it sends to other Foreign Service officers and Public Service, which we so desperately
need good ones when an administration refuses to support its own officials . In the face of a Smear Campaign. Well, it is deeply troubling. It is deeply troubling. And there are morale issues at the State Department. Morale issues at the State Department. I can understand why. On march 20th of 2019, President Trump we did an article that included a letter from representative Pete Sessions that said that you had spoken privately and repeatedly about your disdain for the Current Administration in a way that might call for the expulsion of you as you ambassador to ukraine immediately. Did you speak publicly and privately about your disdain for the Trump Administration . No. Why do you think the president will want to push such a lie . I dont know. I dont know. Policies change, but to u. S. Interests dont. Not for those who are seeking to do the work of protecting our nation. The work that you have done for decades. The president , his Chief Of Staff, and his allies seem to want nothing more than to smear the good people trying to protect this country. And to hijack our institutions for the personal and political gain. Again, ambassador, we thank you so much for your service. And i will yield my remaining time to the chairman. Thank you. I think the general woman. Im going to go to mr. Krishnamurthy. Good afternoon, ambassador, and think into the family as well for being here in support of you today, i would like to direct you to an area of bipartisanship, namely aid to the ukraine. Congress on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis appropriating
hundreds of millions of dollars in Military Assistance to the ukraine, correct . Yes. That aid is being used by ukraine to fight a common adversary, namely russia, right . Yes. To speak of the u. S. Has consistently partnered with other European Countries to keep russia at bay and maintain the peace in europe, right . Yes. As ambassador taylor suggested earlier this week, supporting the ukraine helps maintain peace so that americans do not have to go to war again in europe, right . Yes. Suspending that aid and weakening ukraine can increase the likelihood of the opposite, correct . Yes, it is extremely shortsighted. The last time you are in ukraine was may 20th of this year, right . Yes. In his Opening Statement, ambassador taylor said he took charge of ukraine in june 17th. Therefore there was almost a one
month gap between the time you departed and when taylor took over, right . Yes. During that time on may 20th ambassador sondland, rick perry and others came to the inauguration of president zelensky, right . Yes. And during that gap in time, ambassador sondland visited the white house along with others and got directions from President Trump to talk to rudy. Those were his words, talk to rudy about what to do in ukraine, right . That is my understanding. In other words, isnt it the case that your departure, and the one month gap between the time that you left and when ambassador taylor arrived provided the perfect opportunity for another group of people to basically take over ukraine policy, isnt that right . Yes. Ambassador, youre going to have to speak a little bit louder into the microphone. Yes. Thank you. On page 10 of your Opening Statement, you mention corrupt interests apparently hijacking the ukraine policy, right . Yes. A couple of the suspect individuals in that regard yes. You mention earlier that you learn that they were attempting to open a Liquefied Natural Gas company, right . Yes. How did you learn that . I heard that from the minister of interior. Interesting at noon today the Wall Street Journal reported that federal prosecutors in manhattan are investigating whether Rudy Giuliani stood to personally profit from that Liquefied Natural Gas venture. Do you have any knowledge of that . No, i do not. Maybe we should talk to rudy, huh . Ambassador, i would like to direct you to another line of questioning that i had for ambassador taylor. He said that there were Irregular Channels of diplomacy that work in Ukraine Circumventing normal diplomatic channels and threatening american interests in favor of private interests. I asked him the question, can you rule out the possibility that these Irregular Channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct Foreign Policy . In response he said he could not rule it out. Ambassador yovanovitch, i ask you, and i assume that you cannot rule it out either, correct . I cant, but i would add that i have no knowledge of that. I understand. Are you concerned that these Irregular Channels of diplomacy may be at work elsewhere . I think it is a possibility. You testified that it was a dangerous precedent that private interest in people who do not like a particular ambassador could combine to replace that ambassador. Are you concerned that other ambassadors may suffer the same fate as you . Yes. Ambassador, as her service as an american diplomat, you have encountered various dictators and strongmen rolling other countries, right . Yes. In your personal life, your parents fled the soviet union and nazi germany, and they became familiar with dictators as well, correct . Yes. You are an authority on authoritarianism, right . Well, maybe. Is it a future of authoritarianism to allow corrupt interest to hijack Foreign Policy . Yes. Is it a feature of authoritarianism for the rulers they are to claim absolute rights . Yes. And is it a hallmark of authoritarianism for those rulers to smear their opponents . Sometimes, yes. Thank you. Speak of the time of the gentleman has expired, mr. Nunez, if you have any concluding remarks . I would just say to the American People todays show trial has come to an end. We are headed down now to the basement of the capital to go until, i dont know what time, we will be back there hiding again behind the closed doors interviewing more witnesses that you may or may not be able to see in the public. I hate to break it to my colleagues if there is anyone else out there watching television ratings, but they must be plummeting right now, and i would suggest that we get back to the work of the Intelligence Committee that we pass a Trade Agreement with the United States and mexico and canada that would help the American People out, because this is an embarrassment. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, can i be recognized for emotion . No, i have some concluding remarks. Ambassador, i want to thank you for your decades of service. I want to thank you as mr. Maloney said for being the first one through the gap. What you did in coming forward and answering a lawful subpoena was to give courage to other that also witness wrongdoing, that they too could show the same courage that you have that they could stand up, speak out, answer questions, they could endure what ever threats, insults may come their way. So in your long and distinguished career, you have done another great Public Service in answering the call of our subpoena, and testifying before us today. I think you
think you gathered from our comments that we not only understand what you went through, but what damage is being done to the State Department, to career federal Foreign Service officers around the country. I am profoundly grateful to you and mr. Kent and ambassador taylor who have done so much in the last two days, three days to show the American People the face of our diplomatic corps. The extraordinary Public Servants who work all Around The World in very dangerous places of you as you have. Im glad that they have gone to see you, because you are often vilified as bureaucrats or diplomacy is diminished as unimportant. Anything other than military does not matter. When it is your efforts that often prevent us from going to war. Sometimes you are disparaged as the deep state. But what you are is what holds this country together. What holds our Foreign Policy together, what makes it seamless, what makes it work. And im glad america gets to see that. I will just emphasize once again about the importance of your testimony. Mr. Kent and ambassador taylor gave us the broad outlines of the story. This is a story about an effort to coerce, condition, or bribe a foreign country into doing the dirty work of the president. Investigations of his political rival. By conditioning u. S. Taxpayer money, by Conditioning A meeting that president zelensky desperately wanted and needed to establish the relation of the United States of america. The fact that they failed in this solicitation of bribery
does not make it any less bribery, does not make it any less immoral or corrupt, it just means it was unsuccessful. Into that we owe other dedicated Public Servants who blew the whistle. Had they not blown the whistle, we would not be here. And i think it is appalling that my colleagues continue to want to out this whistleblower so that he or she can be punished by this president. But lets underscore once again, while at the beginning of the story, you are not the of it. But the beginning is important, because the beginning of the story is an effort to get to you out of the way. An effort by Rudy Giuliani and through parnas and people like lutsenko to get you out of the way, because they thought you were an impediment to the investigations that the
president so desperately wanted. Giuliani has made it abundantly clear that he was in ukraine for the president to investigate the bidens and you are viewed as an obstacle that had to go. Not just by giuliani, but by the president of the United States. If any one had any doubt about it, they should do with the president asks, read the transcript. What they will see in that transcript is the president praises the corrupt. He praises corrupt, lutsenko. He condemns the just, you. And then he asks for an investigation of the bidens. There is no camouflaging that corrupt intent. We are adjourned. Speaker i have a condition. Mr. Chairman, you disparaged the members on the side of the
aisle. We should have a chance to respond. Mr. Chairman, i demand. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. [applause] the hearing wrapping up after five hours of testimony. The former ambassador to ukraine, the committee chairman, the House Intelligence Chairman adam schiff wrapping up with an impassioned speech after a day where republicans felt that he gaveled them to order too many times. You heard at the end congressman conway trying to say that he
was that schiff was disparaging them. The president during this process complaining the due process is not something republicans have in this entire Impeachment Inquiry. That said, after the five hours of testimony, Marie Yovanovitch has had impassioned at times a defense of the State Department, of her job, of what she was doing and one of the biggest moments happened real time when President Trump tweeted about the former ambassador to the ukraine, and adam schiff chose to read that tweet to her. The republicans said that she was not a witness to this is all about. That is a democrat saying that it is about bribery. In fact, they focus group to that with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee saying quid pro quo does not really work anymore. Bribery is it. She was not a firsthand witness to that. And she testified that to the
house minority and Ranking Member of devin nunes. Were you involved in the jule call or preparations for the call . No, i was not. Where you involved in the deliberations about the pause and military sales to ukraine as the Trump Administration renewed president zelenskys commitment to corruption reform . For the delay in for the pause. The pause, no, i was not. Were you involved in the proposed trumpzelensky in warsaw, poland, On September 1st . No, i was not. Did you ever talk to President Trump in 2019 . No, i have not. Mick mulvaney . No, i have not. Thank you, ambassador. Im not exactly sure what the ambassador is doing here today. Bret it was compelling testimony throughout the day. We have our panel, Chris Wallace, martha maccallum, dana perino, juan williams, andy mccarthy, and judge ken starr, your thoughts for spray to the last time we had a break i was quite critical of the republicans in the fact that i said the dog that has not barked, there were all of these allegations, Rudy Giuliani had made, various republicans had made that she was disloyal to the president , that she really was not a corruption fighter, ue last republican congressman jim jordan who went after her on the fact that there were a number of top ukrainian officials, even the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States here in washington who during the 20 2016 Campaign Said very critical things about candidate donald trump, and in s very effective way, jim jordan asked Marie Yovanovitch, who did
you go to see about that . Who did you say knock that off . Because the idea of ukraine being involved in partisan politics, she had said would be bad or the ukraine, and she said over and over again, no one. And i thought it was the republicans best moment paired her worst moment. She then went on to say however, politicians say things. She did not view it as a government moved by ukraine to interfere in the election. But overall, as you look at this day and started at 9 00 a. M. Eastern time today, Yovanovitchs Basic Story was unchallenged and untouched. And that story is that she was a corruption fighter. That she was working to with the Ukrainian Government to try to improve relations. That she was a victim of a Smear Campaign by Rudy Giuliani and some of his associates, that she was taken out of the embassy, told at 1 00 in the morning, you better be on the next plane. And then while the deputy
secretary of state said you have done nothing wrong, she got no vote of confidence, no support from top people of the white house, or at the State Department. And to that testimony. That basic testimony went unchallenged today. And then finally bret i will interrupt you, adam schiff is at the microphone. Lets listen to the house Intelligence Committee chairman getting ready to speak to reporters in the hallway. I just want to share a few observations after the testimony. I think we could all see what an incredible Public Servant ambassador yovanovitchs. We are so fortunate to have dedicated professionals like her serving Around The World. She has served in some of the most dangerous places. And has done so always with great distinction, with great courage under fire, sometimes quite literally. She showed that same level of devotion and courage and
commitment to country today. So we are grateful to her. We are grateful to the other witnesses that have testified as well who show the country what it means to be a Public Servant. What it means to be a career Foreign Service officer. We are enormously proud of them. That she had to endure yet another attack today even as she was testifying with the president of the United States is just appalling, but as we have observed so often. Appalling in this administration is not the least bit surprising. Nonetheless, she endured the attack and went on. We are grateful for that. But it is quite clear that i think from her testimony as well as others that Rudy Giuliani on the president felt that it was necessary to get her out of the way. That notwithstanding what the president and other members were told about her dedication to
country, her dedication to fighting corruption. If anything that was part of the reason she was pushed out. Pushing her out made it possible to put in the three amigos to conduct ukraine policy. If there was any doubt why she was pushed out, i think the call record eliminates that doubt. It is apparent from the call record that the president associated his bias in favor of this corrupt prosecutor lutsenko with a need to put Shout Yovanovitch and move forward with the investigations he wanted to of his political viab. That the u. S. Ambassador would be so shamelessly smeared and cast aside to further this corrupt effort just adds further insult to the injury done to the country and national security. Thank you. Reporter what is your
expectation for next week . Is there a reason why you have the witnesses. The way you do . And the public testimony for the last hearing that the committee will hear . Well, we as you have seen, we combine witnesses from time to time in different panels with how long we think the testimony of any one witness will go. We have also tried at times to accommodate schedules, but mostly the witnesses have accommodated us. In terms of whether ambassador hill with the final testimony, im not prepared to say. But as we have endeavored all along, moving expeditiously, but trying to move methodically. Reporter on the issue talking potential for impeachment, is it more obstruction of justice or abuse of power in your view . I would say that the president s attack on a witness
today is not something that we. This is part of a pattern the president of the United States. A pattern that goes back to praising Paul Manafort for not cooperating, condemning Michael Cohen as a rat, because he was cooperating with authorities. Attacking other witnesses who come forward suggesting that we ought to treat those like the whistleblower who exposed wrongdoing in the administration as we treat traitors and spies pretty and we use to execute traitors and spies. This is a part of a pattern. To intimidate witnesses, and it is also part of a pattern to obstruct the investigation. It is a part of the pattern to obstruct justice. And we need to view the actions today as part of a broader and incriminating pattern of condu conduct. Bret chairman adam schiff talking to reporters, expecting republicans to come to the microphone as well. When they do, we will take that in the hallway outside the committee room. Chris, you were rudely interrupted. Lets hear what well, actually. I just want to say one last quick thing that refers directly to what you just heard from adam schiff. The argument that she was treated badly or she was the victim of a Smear Campaign, Marie Yovanovitch is somewhat persuasive. The argument that they wanted to get her out of the way so that they could conduct their policy, i dont think it is especially persuasive. Maybe one of the weak points in the democratic argument, because who did they replace it with . It took a month, but they replaced it with William Taylor who was the lead witness for the democrats. And you know, who has seen absolutely as straight as can be and as tough as can be, and the fact is that the three amigos, whatever you think they did or did not do were able to operate and couldve operated regardless
of who the u. S. Ambassador was. Bret as republicans gather around the microphone, you can see jim jordan, lets take a listen. A third witness who has no firsthand knowledge of the assessment that is supposed to be the focus of the entire inquiry. The third witness who never talk to the president part of the third witness who never talked with Chief Of Staff, the third witness who was not on the call, third witness who is not even as i said in ukraine when the relevant, during the relevant time frame. Was not even there when president zelinski left. So four facts. I say this every time. By four facts have never change. Will never change. We got the Call Transcript, there was no conditionality or linkage on the call between an investigation, security assistance. We are officials on the call that both said that there was no pressure, no linkage. We know that the ukrainians did not even know aid was withheld
or on hold at the time of the call, and most important, the ukrainians specifically president zelensky never took any official action to get the aid released. So those facts never changed and will never change. I will let ms. Stefanik say a word. This is day two of an abject failure of adam schiff. As we saw today, he is making up the rules as he goes pretty did not lead republicans put forth any unanimous consent. He did not lead us control our own time. Republican members time. I was interrupted about six times throughout the hearing. So this just more of the ridiculous abuse of power that we are seeing from adam schiff. I think one of the most important facts i came across today ambassador yovanovitch testified that the president can appoint ambassadors at will. That is important. The president has a right to pick who his or her ambassadors are. In my line of questioning, i just wanted to highlight the Obama State Department was so
concerned about conflicts of interest with hunter biden sitting on burismas board, the Obama State Department, that was the first instance where yovanovitch had ever heard the word burisma. So we will continue asking about Hunter Bidens role on behalf of a million americans that want to know the answer to that question. On the whistleblower, it is important to note that adam schiff and i listed all of the instances of this, adam schiff initially in september said he is adamant about hearing from the whistleblower. And only change when it became clear that there was coordination between democratic staff and the whistleblower. Before the whistleblower complaint with issues. Let me say two other quick things, first, i thought we were in the public stage of the socalled Impeachment Inquiry, but back we are going to the bunker for another deposition that the American People will not get to see. But they also have not seen at our four transcripts of people who have already been deposed. Which means under house rules we cannot use that testimony in these proceedings. We would like to use parts of the testimony from mr. Morrison as an example in the open hearings, but we are prohibited under house rules from doing that. So great question for you all to ask mr. Schiff, when will he release those transcripts so that we can use that informati information . Reporter tenant that undercut anything you were trying to do in the hearing today . We are not here to talk about tweets. Let me answer your question. These hearings are not about tweets, they are about impeachment of the president of the United States. This is a constitutional matter. You can disagree or dislike a tweet, but we are here to talk about impeachment and nothing in that room today and nothing in that room earlier this week, nothing arrives to the level of impeachable offenses. This is political wishful thinking. This is not the first or last week they will complain about, we are talking about impeachment and there is not a single fact that is impeachable in terms of
the president. Is it intimidating . No, the witness was able to answer questions. The only people that were limited from asking questions were republican members because we were muzzled by adam schiff. When we are talking about impeachment, we are talking about impeachable offenses. You can disagree or agree, i happen to disagree with a tweet, but as we know, the democrats wanted to continue making this a political food fight. They are going about this in a partisan way. This is a very serious matter when we are talking about impeachment. This is a constitutional matter, not about tweets. Reporter congresswoman, do you worry about the president s decision to recall based on what you learn today . I agree with ambassador yovanovitchs testimony where she says it is good policy that the president of the United States can determine who serves as their ambassador . Reporter you agree with his decision . I agree with the right to
pick his ambassadors and that they are chosen by the senate. The president can have who he wants in diplomatic position. That is the president s call. We have a new administration in the ukraine that did not have the same confidence in this ambassador, and so isnt it appropriate with all the Foreign Service diplomats that we have to put someone in with a new regime and in the ukraine that can actually work on the president s behalf or behalf of the American People . Reporter why is it appropriate for Rudy Giuliani, which he testified to, a Smear Campaign against her, why is that okay . As i said the president can have who he desires doing diplomatic work for the country. There has been all this talk about the Irregular Channel, it is important to focus on Irregular Channel where it was
confirmed senator perry, you want to make a big deal about that, and you had the president s employer are all part of that group. I think president s are allowed to have who they want doing the work of the country. Reporter she testified under oath that it was a Smear Campaign, do you believe her . Reporter democrats say that the president is intimidating a witness, is it appropriate for the president to intimidate her wetness while she is testifying . I dont know that it was an attack on the witness, it was really characterization of her resume. When you look at this. If you guys wanting to go in with no attorneys, no witnesses, note twitter, no anything, you know, at some point you have to say, when is it going to be a fair process . And today was not a fair process in there. Its not going to be a fair process and the bunker that we are about to have to go to command it was not a fair process when they muzzled the
general woman from new york over and over again. It is not fair. Reporter do you think it is a fair process the second sentence of that tweet, for example, one example, adam schiff never brought this up. The second sentence goes back to the july 25th Call Transcript, and in that president zelensky is saying to President Trump that he is concerned that ambassador yovanovitch is a bad ambassador and president zelensky believes that ambassador yovanovitch had an alliance toe present in person ankle. Adam schiff when posing that to respond to the tweet never even mention that. Thats what adam schiff did and does. The acting director of national intelligence, his Opening Statement, he made up a fictitious Call Transcript of july 25th, because the real one does not have a bribery that he wants to allege. So just like that, make believe what he called, and he created a
parody version of the tweet, a partial rendition where he left that out, and asked ambassador yovanovitch to respond. It wouldve been more responsible if adam schiff wants to ask that question to let ambassador yovanovitch read the entire tweet to digest and respond. If you want to talk about what President Trump said about ambassador yovanovitch, why would he cherry picked out, he loves to withhold key facts, thats how he rolls. He withholds information, he outright lies, and he cherry picks leaks, in this case it took apart a tweet. So it was the entire approach. That they never asked ambassador yovanovitch about what president zelensky said about her. Thats how he rolls with all of this. Why is President Trump putting out information fighting back . Its because adam schiff only once the American People to have 3 of the information, and connect dots that are not connected to right the greatest
parody. Reporter why dont you ask him . Not on the house committee, and we have asked ambassador yovanovitch, you can go back and read her deposition, because we spent seven, eight, nine hours, that is nonpublic, but President Trump is right to want to defend himself and ensure that the other 97 of the story gets out there, because adam schiff is only going to tell the American Public 3 . Reporter is the impeachment about Withholding Aid . I find it pretty interesting, we heard from somebody who is in the interagencies today who recommended that we give ukraine aid, we heard her say that. She said it even in the previous administration, this is what they wanted, okay. And Congress Approved it, okay, this is about providing the aid or not, right . The previous administration
against the interagency, against congress denied ukraine lethal aid. This president provided, and for this he is getting impeached . What about the previous president who denied the interagency, and denied congress . Thank you. Is there anyway you guys can characterize this as a good day . You said this was an abject failure . This was an abject failure for adam schiff. Let me be clear. Bret republicans talking to reporters there, stefanik saying that adam schiff had an abject failure and a regime of secrecy is. A stefanik getting a lot of face time here. Interesting that devin nunes, the Ranking Member was not there. They are heading down to the closed area, closed off to reporters and anyone off the committee to listen to a deposition of an aide who was said to carry phone call between ambassador sondland and
President Trump. We will hear a lot more of that in sondlands testimony in front of the committee. To hear the republicans talk about it. There was not any Movement Made towards the giant effort that is being made here on impeachment that deals with bribery, back with the panel, andy mccarthy, as you look at today, how do you wrap it up . You just heard adam schiff and the republicans characterize it. I think at the very end, you hear the best case why it is still not impeachable. When we say that the needle is not moving on impeachment, i think that is a fair point. To say at the end you still say, they got the aid, they did not have to promise the investigation of the bidens and so long, and terms of the investigation needle, that remains to be seen. That was a bad day politically, and if the narrative is about the way that the State Department has run, the way that Foreign Policy is conducted, i think you know, they have a story to tell. And i would expect that they
would continue to tell it. Bret martha maccallum, the ambassador had 30 years of foreign experience, six different administrations for republican, two democrat, it did not seem like they laid a glove on her as far as her credibility today, there were a couple of questions where she felt a little bit uncomfortable, but for the most part they did not come after her, the republicans. Would not have benefited republicans to do that in this case, and they were aware of that, but it is interesting that nobody dug into sort of exactly what her role was in terms of fighting corruption. They talked about what a great job she did, but i dont think we heard that much in terms of detail about what sort of things she was able to do in ukraine the kind of move that ball forward. And it is very interesting as Chris Wallace mentioned, i was thinking the same thing. They upset the apple cart, they being the Trump Administration with the aid of Rudy Giuliani. They upset the apple cart, who
did they get . They got William Taylor. They do not work very hard, it appears if that was her goal to find someone who was stronger, sort of proponent of the policies of the Trump Administration, which is just sort of making the whole thing look a little bit clumsy if that was their aim. The other thing that i thought was interesting is something that was also touched upon, which is that president zelensky also demonstrates that he was having a problem with her. And i wouldve liked to hear a little bit more questioning along those lines, why do you think he said is this about you . Why do you think that he was concerned that you were an ally of pershing company and that you were not going to support his new government. I think that i was sort of a stone that was left unturned. I also think bret there were a lot of them, martha. Thinking 45 minutes. The 2016 investigation, that was sort of probed, but the idea of why the president thought he could press the Biden Investigation as part of this was really not. That was something that i guess astefanik brought up a little bit. Whether there was a legitimate ask did not seem that it was something republicans wanted to go near. Bret judge ken starr, the questioning by republicans about burisma, she was not really interested, she was not really aware or figuring out the ukrainians going after candidate donald trump, that the State Department again had prepped her about the hunter biden situation for her testimony, she did get uncomfortable and that kind of exchange with jim jordan at that point. Yes, i think she was uncomfortable with that. The view of the day, briefly is that the deep partisan divide, the immunity directed towards the chairman, again, the contrast of prior impeachments. If you dont have some sort of bipartisan support, or at least
bipartisan empathy, then this is absolutely going to go nowhere in the United States senate. Moreover, the chairman today, even though he is very smart and elegant guy at times and can give a dandy speech has generated such hostility, the senate is watching. Bret dana perino, the focus on this tweet by the president. He says he has free speech. He wanted to weigh in, but it is clearly causing some problems for republicans on the hill to try to defend it. You are at some of them around the microphone trying to do that. Yes, i think that they probably handled it pretty well. You heard stefanik, congresswoman from Upstate New York says this is not about tweets. I do not agree with a tweet. But we are actually talking about the removal of a president from office. Talk about impeachment. Lets get some perspective here, folks. And i do think that the democrats, they try to overplay their hands on the tweet. It is a part of the story. It is not the biggest takeaway. The biggest takeaway is that her testimony did not damage the president today, and it did not bolster the democrats. Bret juan, your thoughts. I think it was a strong day for the democrats, it was not one particular moment of damning testimony against the president. I think the president s tweet was damaging, and we heard that from republican standpoint, Congresswoman Stefanik says she did not approve of it. But it goes beyond one phone call. We do not know exactly what it is that the democrats are going to write up in terms of articles of impeachment. Is it the bribery . Is it obstruction . Is it witness of intimidation . After the three diplomats have testified, taylor, kent, and now yovanovitch, it looks like they are onto something. And next week could be firewor fireworks. Bret hearing two in the books, Continuing Coverage On Fox News Channel paired we will go live to the white house where white house reaction to this dae up on capitol hill. Eligible for. Gimme one minute. And ill tell you some important things to know about medicare. First, it doesnt pay for everything. Say this pizza is your part b medical expenses. This much about 80 medicare will pay for. Whats left is on you. Thats where an aarp Medicare Supplement insurance plan, insured by Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company comes in. This type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesnt. These are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement for meeting their high standards of quality and service. So call Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company today and ask for your free decision guide. With this type of plan, youll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. And when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. Whew Call Unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. Thats ensure max protein,oday with high protein and 1 gram sugar. Its a situp, banana bend at the waist im tryin keep it up. Youll get there. Whoahoahoa 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. Ensure max protein. Bret Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump, the second testimony, second day of testimony up on capitol hill. Lets head to the white house. Reaction early, we heard from the president publicly today. Yes command a lot of the focus here has focused on this tweet that President Trump sent out earlier today as maria jovah was set testifying on capitol hill, as you mention, is could be a potential game changer as it relates to what articles of impeachment democrats may put on the president down the line. Going into this Yovanovitch Hearing earlier today, this was not expected to be any sort of game changer. However, as yovanovitch was testifying, the president sent out that tweet about her earlier today at one point in which he said Everywhere Maria Jovanovich went turned bad. She started off in somalia, how did that go . At that point that tweet was read in the hearing to yovanovitch in which she was then reacting to it where she said it was as she sees it intimidation. What adam schiff was essentially doing was laying out the case led to may be president could be committing witness intimidation. The white house was asked about this, and stephanie grisham, the press secretary sent out a statement where she said the tweet was not witness intimidation. It was simply the president s opinion, which he is entitled to do. President trump was asked about this at the white house just a little bit ago, there was an event earlier today on health care transparency, and pricing trying to bring down the cost of health care prices, and the president said, he is entitled to free speech. He said he was nonintimidating witness. And he tried to move on from that subject and talk about the Impeachment Inquiry as he sees it not to necessarily being anything of substance or anything of value for the
country. And he went on to continue to bash what is going on up on capitol hill. Bottom line, bret, with what happened today, this Yovanovitch Hearing as republicans have been trying to build up the case saying that she is not a firsthand witness to the incident in question here, suddenly this hearing took on importance, because of that tweet from the president coming out the argument that is being built up by adam schiff and democrats as they see it that the president engaged in witness intimidation. Bret. Thank you. Lets head over to chad program on capitol hill, chad, the Committee Members now behind closed doors. Yes, david holmes who was a diplomat was assigned to the u. S. Embassy in the ukraine, testifying behind closed doors. We will have another one tomorrow as well. The saturday deposition. A couple of points i will make it, as blake said in his reporting, this hearing completely went and in another
direction once that tweet was read into the record here. This is where at least stefanik says it is not about a tweet he said to the beginning of the story is to get to you, meaning yovanovitch out of the way. They wanted those bidens and viewed you as the obstacle. The sound bite that we will probably reminder depending on how Public Opinion goes, Chris Stewart, a republican of utah earlier in the hearing said i bet this does not change the direction of public in pinon for impeachment at all. You can see obviously that people will fire that back at Chris Stewart if that effect changes. But again, so they are done for the day. And adam schiff would not commit to next thursday being the final open impeachment hearing, the russian experts will be here that afternoon. Bret chad, thank you, i will bring in the panel of new york before we head over to neil cavuto. We mentioned this earlier, but
the threepage statement about Rudy Giuliani not touched on it all to press or even defend any of the actions . He stands by his story that he had a very legitimate reason to press for a bigger, deeper investigation into corruption and the ukraine, that he believes was aimed at the president. And he believes that they have five officials who can back up his story about ambassador Yovanovitch Sort of speaking badly about the president and not being supportive of him. We did not see the evidence of anything in that statement really today. So he will have to strike out and sort of fortify that case on his own. Bret juan. In fact yovanovitch said that state Department Officials indicated to her that they knew that this was fall. That there had never been a letter saying to the ukrainians, do not prosecute these people including the bidens. If so then the question is why
was she removed . To mind mind, i just think that you know, at some point to the pressure builds for people like john bolton, mick mulvaney, the Chief Of Staff, maybe even Rudy Giuliani to step up and testify. Bret all right, dana, you have 30 seconds. Well, i think for her, she testified for five hours and came out of it pretty well coming in tonight she will be able to reconnect with her family. Maybe she has a dog. I would have a drink and put this behind her. Focus on the classes at georgetown paired but clearly she was disappointed paired she loves being a Foreign Service officer. I may be that will return in her future. But for her eye think that her testimony was not that damaging to donald trump, but it did not give the republicans anything great to go into the weekend with. We wait till next week and will do this all again. Bret thats exec the right day two of testimony in the books. Thank you very much. It was something to watch
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.