in flood communities. he see winds coming up the ocean. the rain coming in sheets sideways. this wind is strong enough to break off parts of the houses along the beach. [sound of wind blowing] [ ] we need a boat to get everybody out of there. jesse: wilmington, north carolina took a direct hit.
mom s not going back. the devastation has been too much and she said she is done with it. reporter: we have some business to show you of rex s business. rex is a funeral director and he opened up a funeral home. tell me who you have got staying there now. we had 20 people who were rescued. and it was sheltering to take care of thing while the storm was going on. we heard about people who were in trouble through facebook and they were friend of ours. we just began to be praying but after that, found out they were safe and they had no place to go, i said bring them on. reporter: we were down earlier today off the coast in beaufort. we saw people in 40-knot wind
trying to rescue people
yes, i believe so. okay. and this is just investigation, generally making a public to of openness generally. right? i think by august 11th, mr. castor, i think we were talking about 2016 and burisma. the investigation generally was really early in the but do we know that secretary pompeo knows that? i think so. why? only because i think councilor breakable was briefed on all of these things. by who, by you? i think ambassador volker, by myself. does not he testified to. i didn t know he testified. ambassador volker. oh, okay. he didn t testified that he briefed mr. brechbuhl. this email to the secretary, he is talking about the statement
which by the way, you said that the statement didn t go anywhere. ambassador volker said it wasn t a good idea. mr. yermak said it wasn t a good idea. the secretary, it relates to a generic openness subject. right? yeah, i think the secretary that was on the july 25th call. which obviously i was not on and i didn t kn
about fighting corruption, we should also say specifically, burisma in 2016. mr. yermak provided me a statement. i wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to president trump and solve this problem that i had observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. the problem being that he is getting a bad set of information, a statement like this could potentially correct that. was mr. guiliani satisfied with the statement? no, he was not. he believed it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, would not mean anything. so in fact, mr. guiliani wanted a statement that referenced burisma and the 2016 elections explicitly. one that would benefit, essentially, president trump.
it is to invest or come here is the text you sent to the ukrainian official on august august 13th. let s put that up on the screen. you s
that is correct. you explained earlier that your job in the white house was to coordinate united states and ukraine policy, is that right? it is to coordinate united states policy vis-à-vis ukraine, correct. you testified in the spring of this year that these officials, these ukrainian officials began asking you, quote, advice on how to respond to mr. giuliani s advances, end quote. is that correct? that is correct. what do you understand they meant by mr. giuliani s advances? i understood that to mean both his public commentary, so publicly calling for investigations into 2016, burisma, and hunter biden, as well as his direct overtours to the government of ukraine directly and through proxies. that s what i understood. as you understand it, under whose authority do you think mr. giuliani was acting under? congresswoman, i don t know. did the ukrainian officials you were speaking to tell you that they were being asked to i m sorry, can you say that again, ma
giuliani. mr. giuliani said they thought ukraine should make a statement about fighting corruption and mr. yermac provided me a draft statement and i wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to president trump and solve this problem that i had observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. the problem being that he s getting bad set of information. a statement like this could potentially correct that. so was mr. giuliani satisfied with this statement? no, he was not. why not? he believed it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, it would not mean anything. so in fact mr. giuliani wanted a statement that referenced burisma and 2016 elections explicitly. one that would benefit
essentially president trump. mr. ambassador, here s the text you sent to the ukrainian official august 13th. you said hey