and gave her father who of course is still mourning her that that award the woman of courage and another kurt woman of courage award stem from her anti-corruption efforts in ukraine yes that is true was it ever determined to through the acid and killed her there have been investigations but. while some of the lower ranking individuals that were involved in this have been arrested those who ordered this have not yet and apprehend after you stepped away from this anti-corruption event to take this call what did the director general tell you she said that there was great concern on the 7th floor of the state that's where the leadership of the state department sits there is great concern they were worried she just wanted to give me a heads up about this and you know. things seemed to be going on and so she just wanted to give me

a heads up i you know hard to know how to react to something like that i asked her what it was about what did she think it was about she didn't know she said that she was going to try and find out more but she had wanted to give me a heads up in fact i think she may even have been instructed to give me a heads up on that and so i asked her you know what is the next step here so she said she would try to find out more and she would try to call me by midnight. what happened next around 1 o'clock in the morning she called me again and she said that there were great concerns there were concerns up the street and she said i needed to get on home it come home immediately get on the next plane to the u.s. . and i asked her why and she said she wasn't sure but there were concerns about my security aster my physical security because sometimes washington knows more than we

do about these things and she said now she hadn't gotten that impression that it was a physical security issue but they were concerned about my security and i needed to come home right away. you know i argued this is extremely irregular and no reason given but in the end i did get on the next plane you said you there were concerns up the street what did you understand that to me the white house. did she explain in anymore detail what she meant by concerns about your security no she didn't i did specifically ask whether this had to do with the mayor giuliani's. allegations against me and so forth and she said she didn't know it didn't even actually appear to me that she seemed to be aware of that. no no no reason was offered to cheer explain what the urgency was for you to come back on the next

flight. the only thing that's part into that was that when she said that they were there were concerns about my security that's all but it was not further explained. that prior to this abrupt call back to washington d.c. had you been offered an extension of your post by the state department. yes undersecretary the undersecretary for political affairs had asked whether i would extend for another another year and departing in july of 2021 was that request made in early march so about a month and a half before this call yes did anyone at the state department ever express concerns about your job performance. now after you returned to washington a couple days that after that you met with the deputy secretary of state and that your deposition you said the decorative deputy secretary of state told you that you

had done nothing wrong but that there was a concerted campaign against you what did what did he mean by that i'm not exactly sure but i took it to me that the allegations that mayor giuliani and others were putting out there that that's that's what it was and who else was involved in this concerted campaign against you . there were some members of the press and others in mayor giuliani's circle and who are from ukraine. in ukraine i think well mr lutes and the prosecutor general. and mr shogun his his predecessor certainly. and at this time mr le sankoh was the lead prosecutor general is that right that's correct and had president selenski indicated whether or not he was going to keep

him on after the election. he had indicated he would not be keeping on the students and. and i believe you testified earlier that mr wood sankoh had a reputation as for being corrupt is that right that's correct now during this conversation did the deputy secretary tell you about your future as the ambassador to ukraine while he told me i needed to leave. what did he say. he said that i mean there was a lot of back and forth but ultimately he said the words that you know every foreign service centers officer understands the president has lost confidence in him that was you know a terrible thing to hear and and i said well you know i guess i have to go but no no real reason was offered as to why i had to lead and why it was being done in such i mean did you have any indication that the state department had lost confidence in you now and were you provided any reason why now.

and where you provided any reason why the president lost confidence in you now now you testified in your deposition that you were told at some point that secretary pompei o had tried to protect you but that he was no longer able to do that were you aware of these efforts to protect you know i was not until until that meeting with deputy secretary sullivan and were you did you understand who he was trying to protect you from well my understanding was that. the president had wanted me to leave and there was some discussion about that over the prior months. did you have any understanding why secretary pop pale was no longer able to protect you now it was just

a statement made that he was no longer able to protect you so just like that you had to leave ukraine as soon as possible yes how did that make you feel terrible honestly i mean after 33 years of service to our country. it was terrible it's not the way i wanted my career to end and you also told this deputy secretary that this was a dangerous precedent what did you mean by that i was worried. i was worried about our policy but also personnel that and i asked him how how are you going to explain this to. people in the state department the press the public the craning ins because everybody is watching and so if people see somebody who

and of course it had been very public the frankly the attacks on me by mayor giuliani and others and mr root sankoh in ukraine if people see see that i have been. you know promoting our policies on anti corruption. if they can undermine me and get me pulled out of ukraine what does that mean for a policy do we still have that same policy how are we going to affirmatively put that forward number one number 2 when other countries other actors and other countries see that private interests foreign interests can come together and get a u.s. ambassador removed what's going to stop them from doing that in the future in other countries often the work we do we try to be diplomatic about it but as

deputy assistant secretary george kent said you know sometimes we get people really angry with us uncomfortable and we are doing our jobs but sometimes people become very angry with us and if they realize that they can just remove us they're going to do that how did the deputy secretary respond. he he said those were good questions and he would get back to video or get back to you he asked me the following day what did he say to you that. he really the conversation was more. and you know again i'm grateful for this but really wanted to see how i was doing and you know what would i do next kind of how could he help but he didn't address the dangerous precedent that you feel like for him now you understood of course that the president the united states could

remove you and that you served at the pleasure of the president is that right that's right but in your 33 years as a foreign service officer have you ever heard of a president of the united states recalling another ambassador without cause based on allegations that the state department itself knew to be false. now you testified in your opening statement that you had left ukraine by the time of the july 25th call between president trump and president selenski when was the 1st time that you saw the call records for this phone call. when it was released publicly at the end of september and prior to reading that call record were you aware that president trump had specifically made reference to you in that call now what was your reaction to learning that i was

shocked absolutely shocked and devastated frankly what i mean by devastated. i was. shocked and devastated that. i would feature and a phone call between 2 heads of state in such a manner where president trump said that i was bad news to another world leader and that i would be going through some things and so i was it was it was a terrible moment a person who saw me actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from my face i think i even had a physical reaction. i i think you know even now words can family well. without upsetting you too much i'd like to show you the excerpts from the call in the 1st one where president trumps

as the former ambassador from the united states the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news so i just want to let you know what was your reaction when you heard the president of the united states refer to you as bad news i couldn't believe it i mean again shocked appall devastated that the president of the united states would talk about any ambassador. like that to a foreign head of state and it was made i mean i couldn't believe the next excerpt when the proper president references you eat a short one but he said well she's going to go through something else what did you think when president trump told president selenski and you read it you

were going to go through some things. i didn't know what to think but i was very concerned were you concerned about. she's going to go through some things it didn't sound good sounded like a threat did you feel threatened. i didn't. i was so i didn't know exactly it's not you know very precise phrase but i think. if it didn't feel like i was. i really don't know how how to answer the question any further except to say that it kind of felt like a vague threat and so i wondered what that meant concern to me now in this same call where the president as you just said threatens you to

a foreign leader he also parade praises rather the corrupt ukrainian prosecutor who led the false smear campaign against you i want to show you another excerpt or 2 from the transcript of the call record rather where the president of the united states says good because i heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair a lot of people are talking about that the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved and he went on later to say i heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything now ambassador evanovich after nearly 3 years in ukraine where you tried to clean up the prosecutor general's office was it the end u.s.

embassies view that the former prosecutor general was a very good and very fair prosecutor. it was not in fact he was rather corrupt is that right that was our belief the prosecutor general's office is a long running problem in ukraine is that right yes so how did you feel when you heard president trump speak so highly of the corrupt ukrainian prosecutor who helped to execute the smear campaign to have you removed. well as. it was disappointing it was concerning it wasn't certainly based on anything that the state department would have reported or frankly anybody else in the u.s. government there was a interagency consensus that while when mr litvinenko came into office we were very

hopeful that he would actually do the things that he said he would set out to do including reforming the prosecutor general's office but that did not materialize so this was not the uniform position of official u.s. policy makers is that right right now let's go back to the smear campaign that you referenced and in march when you said it became public and you previously testified that you had learned that rudy giuliani president trump's lawyer and representative who was also mentioned in that july 25th call was in regular communication with the corrupt prosecutor general in late 2018 and in early 2019 and at one point in your deposition you said that they that being giuliani and a corrupt foreign prosecutor general had plans to quote do things to me what did

you mean by that i didn't i don't really know but that's what i have been told by ukrainian officials did you subsequently understand a little bit more what that meant. you know now with the advantage of hindsight i think that meant removing me from my job in ukraine how did you understand to be working with mr giuliani as his associates in ukraine. certainly mr lee tanka mr show him and. i believe that there were also ukrainian americans mr pronounce and mr freeman who have recently been indicted they those are the 2 who have been indicted in new york and the district of new york. now at the end of march this effort by giuliani and his associates resulted in a series of articles in the hill publication that were based on

allegations in part from sankoh the corrupt prosecutor general and just to summarize some of these allegations there were among others 3 different categories one category included the attacks against you which you referenced in your opening statement including that you had bad mouth the president and had given the prosecutor general a do not prosecute list there was another that included allegations of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and then there was a 3rd that related to allegations concerning the research and bidets that is that accurate. yes were these articles and allegations then promoted by others associated with the president in the united states they seem to be promoted by those around me giuliani. i'm going to show you a couple of. exhibits including

a tweet here by president trump himself on march 20th which was the 1st day that one of these articles was published it appears to be a. quote that says john solomon is the author of the articles colin as russia collusion fades ukrainian plot to help clinton emerges unquote at sean hannity at fox news and then if i could go to another tweet 4 days later this is the president's son donald trump jr. who tweets we need more richard grinnell's who is the ambassador germany is that right that's correct and less of these jokers as ambassadors and it's a retreat of one of john solomon's articles or an article referencing the allegations that says calls grow to remove obama's u.s. ambassador to ukraine were you aware of these tweets at the time yes what was your

reaction to seeing this well i was worried. were you worried about. that this didn't see these attacks were you know being repeated by the president himself and and his son and were you aware whether they received attention on primetime television on fox news as well yes they did now where that was the allegation that you were badmouthing president trump true. was the allegation that you had created a do not prosecute list to give to the prosecutor general in ukraine true. in fact didn't the corrupt prosecutor general himself later recant those allegations yes now when these articles were 1st published did the state department issue a response as you said there were 3

a series of articles so after the 1st article which was an interview with mr with sankoh and was only really about me and made to an allegation is about me the state department came out the following day with a very strong statement. saying that you know these these allegations are fabrications so the statement addressed the falsity of the allegations themselves yes it didn't say anything about your job performance in any way. honestly i haven't looked at it in a very long time and it was generally probably a lot of tory i can't recall did anyone of the state department raise any concerns with you or express any belief in these allegations. now and people thought it was ridiculous now after these false allegations were made against you did you have any discussions with anyone in leadership in the state department about

a potential statement of support from the department or the secretary himself. after. the tweaks that you just showed us. him it seemed to me that if the president's son is. saying things like this that it would be very hard to continue in my position and have authority in ukraine unless the state department came out pretty strongly behind me and so. you know over over the weekend of march 22nd i think that's about the date. there was a lot of discussion on email among a number of people about what could what could be done i and under secretary the undersecretary for political affairs called me on on sunday and i said you know it's really important that the secretary himself come out and be supportive because

otherwise it's hard for me to be the kind of representative you need here. and he said he would talk to the secretary i mean that was that's my recollection of the call that may not be exactly how played out but that was. my recollection this is david hale the undersecretary political affairs is the number 3 person at the state department yes did he indicate to you that he supported such a statement of support for you. i think he must've because i don't think he would have gone to the secretary if he if he didn't support it and you wouldn't bring a bad idea to the secretary of state and your general understanding is that you did have the full support of the state department is that right yes and in fact during your 33 year career as a foreign service officer did you ever hear of any serious concerns about your job

performance now. was this statement of support ultimately issued for you now is now did you learn why not yes yes i was told that there was a concern on the 7th floor that if a statement of support was issued whether by the state department or by the secretary personally that it could be undermined how would it could it be undermined that the president my issue a tweet contradicting that or something to that effect so let me see if i get this right you are one of the most senior diplomats in the state department you've been there for 33 years and won numerous awards you've been appointed as an ambassador 3 times by both republican and democratic presidents and the state department would not issue a statement in support of you against false allegations because they were concerned

about a tweet from the president the united states that's my understanding. from the fica on that question it seems like an appropriate time. that you want to bitch as we sit here testifying the president is attacking you a twitter. and i'd like to give you a chance to respond read part of one of his tweets everywhere maria on a beach when turned bad she started off in somalia how did that go he goes on to say. later in the tweet is a u.s. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors 1st of all about 5 out of each senate has a chance to confirm or deny it about or do they not yes advise and consent but would you like to respond to the president's attack that everywhere you went turned

bad. i mean and i don't think i have such power is not in the dishes smiley in the somalia not in other places i actually think that where i've served over the years. i and others have demonstrably made things better you know for the u.s. as well as for the countries that i've served in ukraine for example where there are huge challenges including you know on the issue that we're discussing today of corruption huge challenges they've made a lot of progress since 2014 including in the years that i was there and i think in part i mean the ukrainian people get the most. the most credit for that but a part of that credit goes to the work of the united states and and to me as the ambassador in in the united in ukraine but. you shown the courage to come

forward today testified notwithstanding the fact you were by the white house or state department not to notwithstanding the fact that as you testified earlier the president implicitly threatened you in that call record and now the president real time is attacking you what effect do you think that has on other witnesses willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing well it's very intimidating to dine designed to intimidate is it not. i mean i can't speak to what the president is trying to do but i think the effect is to be intimidating. well i want to let you know of the vaster that some of us here take witness intimidation very

very seriously mr goldman investor even to you indicated that those same articles in march that included the smear campaign also included allegations related to ukraine's interference in the $26000.00 election and the biden connection that right yes so i'm going to end my questioning where. we were before which was the july 25th call and president trump not only insults you and praises the corrupt prosecutor general but he also as you know by now references these 2 investigations 1st immediately after president selenski thanks president trump for his quote great support in the area of defense unquote president trump response i would like you to do us

a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it i would like at you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine they say crowd strike i guess you have one of your wealthy people the server they say ukraine has it and then he goes on in that same paragraph to say whatever you can do it's very important that you do it if that's possible now ambassador of out of it from your experience as the ambassador in ukraine for almost 3 years and understanding that president selenski was not in politics before he ran for president and was a new president on this call i would you expect president selenski to interpret a request for a favor the u.s. relationship for ukraine is the single most important relationship and so i think

that the president's lenski any president would. you know do what they could to. you know lean in on a favor requests i'm not saying that that's a yes i'm saying they would try to lean in and see what they could do fair to say that a president of ukraine that is so dependent on the united states would do just about anything within his power to please the present united states if you could you know if you could i mean i'm i'm sure there are limits and i understand there are a lot of discussions in the ukrainian government about all of this. but yeah i mean we are an important relationship on the security side and on the political side and so the president of ukraine one of the most important functions that individual has is to make sure the relationship with the u.s. is rock solid now are you familiar with these allegations of ukrainian interference

in the 2016 election. i mean there have been rumors out there about things like that but you know there was nothing hard at least nothing that i was aware of there's nothing based in fact i support these allegations yes and in fact who was responsible for interfering in meddling in the 2016 election well the u.s. intelligence community has concluded that it was russia and passing it on which are you aware that in february of 2017 the latter mere putin himself promoted this theory of ukraine and interference in the 2016 election you know maybe i knew that once and have forgotten but i am not familiar with it now well let me show you a press statement that. president putin made in

a joint press conference with viktor orbán of hungary on february 2nd of 2017 where he says 2nd as we all know during the presidential campaign in the united states the ukrainian government adopted a unilateral position in favor of one candidate more than that certain oligarchs certainly with the approval of the political leadership funded this candidate or female candidate to be more precise now how would this theory of ukraine interference in the 2016 election be in lattimer putin's interest well i mean president putin must have been aware that there were concerns in the u.s. about russian meddling in the 2016 elections and what the potential was for russian meddling in the future. you know classic for an intelligence

officer to try to throw off the scent and you know create an alternative narrative that maybe might get picked up and get some credence and alternatively narrative that wouldn't solve his own wrongdoing yeah. and when he talks about an oligarch and he talks about. the support of the ukrainian government there's also a reference in the july 25th call to a wealthy ukrainian. is it your understanding that what vladimir putin is saying here in this press statement in february 2017 is similar to what president trump says on the july 25th call related to the 26000 election maybe. you know let me show you another exhibit. from the call related to the bidens which i'm sure you're familiar with president trump says the other thing there's

a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it it sounds horrible to me now are you familiar with the allegation these allegations related to vice president biden yes . do you know whether he ever went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution of anyone now and in fact when vice president biden acted to remove the former corrupt prosecutor in ukraine did he do so as part of official united states policy official us policy and that was endorsed and. was the policy of a number of other international stakeholders other countries other monetary institutions i mean the institutions and in fact if he were to help to remove

a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor general who was not prosecuting enough corruption that would increase the chances that corrupt companies in ukraine would be investigated isn't that right when the things are and that could include very small right yes now at the time of this call vice president biden was the front runner for the democratic nomination for president and president trump's potential next opponent in the election is it your understanding that president trump's request to have vice president biden investigated as a part of official u.s. policy is you know it. well i should say that i had at the time of this phone call i had already departed ukraine 2 months pre right but you're familiar with it didn't change that much in 2 months right. it certainly would not have been the policy in me when i left and were were these 2

investigations part of the anti-corruption platform that you championed in ukraine for 3 years we know. in these investigations that they appear to you to be to benefit the president's personal and political interests rather than the national interest well they certainly can now just returning to the allegations in the hill publication in march that were promoted by mr giuliani the president's lawyer for those 2 allegations similar to the 2 allegations that the president wanted president selenski to investigate yes so ultimately in the july 25th phone call with the ukrainian president president the united states indorsed the false allegations against you and the bidens is that right

yes i yield back mr chairman i have a parliamentary inquiry please the general suspended. votes are fairly imminent we're going to take a brief recess i would ask everyone to remain as soon after you know allow the organizing to leave to exit the room. and we will resume after votes which i would have probably been a core. jemma can seek recognition after we resume. so if you're just joining us here on this is our continuing coverage of the impeachment inquiry of a u.s. president donald trump and the question of president trump's dealings with ukraine and whether he had abused his presidential power for political ends this is day 2 of those hearings and we've been hearing for the last hour or hour and a half or so from marie you vonage the former u.s.

ambassador to ukraine she says that she was abruptly recalled from a post after a concerted efforts against her led by trump castro has been watching these hearings with us so let's go to her now so pretty damning testimony there from the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. that's right has a minutes interesting because the facts that maria maria von of that she has just shared on a u.s. television screens aren't so new they're the same things that she testified to in closed door hearings previously but the u.s. public has never really had a chance to hear it like the democrats put her forth as a witness as a star witness in a sense because she is relatable and because she has a sit experience in the foreign service for more than 30 years and as you just heard she shared about not only the facts but also her emotional reaction to

her house to which she says was unjustified she started this hearing by laying out exactly how she committed she is to fulfilling u.s. policy in ukraine she talked about her background growing up as an immigrant as the child of refugees from the soviet union and then the privilege she felt indeed able to be named a u.s. ambassador to ukraine then she says that about a year ago that is where she caught word of the president's private attorney rudy giuliani was needed. with certain corrupt ukrainian officials individuals that she had already been dealing with that she knew disliked her because she was so adamant on her anti corruption crackdown which was part of the u.s. policy toward cuba crate and she says in these meetings between giuliani and these officials from ukraine that that's where these lies about her the smear campaign

and she put that started and that giuliani then apparently took those those lies about her back to president trump and eventually leading him to lose confidence in her and call for her immediate recall from ukraine she was told to get on the next flight home back in april and she talked about her response to that she has always denied that she was against trump she has denied that she is partisan in any way despite the president's accusations now against her and she says that when she heard the words that the president lost confidence in her at those were the words that every career foreign service officer dreads but understands as she knew that her time was over and she spoke out them with it was a certain wistfulness that she says she still thinks there is hope in ukraine that they were on the right track with the election of president

a lot of the lewinsky and she laid out the stakes too she really almost made a plead to the american public to care about this that what's happening in ukraine doesn't matter in these seem abstract to people who are watching at home and considering the impeachment of president trump the she said this sends a message not only to ukraine but to any other as she called shady or a nation that if corrupt interests are involved that they can successfully oust an american ambassador and that this shakes the confidence that other nations have. in there us said that it was about whether or not they truly speak for the president and there was a moment heidi in the middle of that 45 minute session that the democratic lawyer daniel goldman when he was questioning. vonage when the committee chairman adam schiff interjected and informed maria of each of the the treat the tweet from

president trump in which he had attacked her in real time and asked her to to respond to that in which he he said and i'm just quoting from it here everywhere maria von of which went to turn bad she started off in somalia how did that go then fast forward to ukraine where the new ukrainian president spoke on favorably about her in my 2nd phone call with him it is a u.s. president's absolute right to appoint. a citizen she was asked at that moment what was her reaction to it she said it was intimidating i mean how how on precedent is that to to hear from. a former diplomat responding to a tweet from the from the president attacking her in real time like that. in real time and that was extraordinary has and i think for people watching at home that certainly a moment that would have grabbed their attention and she hesitated for a moment you know she was kind of prepped for that reaction for that for that question rather than she had just been asked prior to that how she felt when her

name came up and trump said that she was bad news in his phone call with president the lenski and how she felt when she was told that he had lost confidence in her and her answers to all of those instances was. she hesitated she as she said in response to these latest tweets that she has demonstrably improved the situations in those postings that trent mentioned that in somalia and in ukraine that the situation there improved during her time there she's really she's really she's known as a cautious. matt has and she is known as a person who doesn't enjoy speaking off the cuff and you could really see her. thinking before she answered she didn't take any bait to launch into any sort of partisan attack against the president rather she she embodied this role of being like the thoughtful person who was being targeted she never use that

word targeted but it was clear that this was one person a u.s. diplomat who was committed to her duty to serve the country versus the most powerful man on the world the u.s. president she didn't put it in those terms but it was very. it was palpable how she felt the intimidation just from the contradiction between those positions alone yeah and it's important to point out that she was forced out from her post in april that is 2 months before that critical july 25th phone call. which was the focus of this entire investigation the phone call between president trump and president zelinsky of ukraine so the republicans are going to get their chance off to this recess to question her and it's likely that they may they will focus on that kimberly how kit is live for us. outside the white house she is our white house correspondent and we just mentioned there cuban can believe the tweets

from from president trump. so pretty clearly they're getting their their attacks in not wasting any time. yeah there has just been one tweet has and there have been several you recall perhaps that the president said he wasn't watching the proceedings the last time around a couple of days ago but we got indication from stephanie grisham the white house press secretary that the president would at least be watching the opening statements particularly from the ranking republican on that committee to have a nunez the president subsequently tweeted out those opening statements that he feels perhaps or in his defense then we understand he will be working for the american people but there is no question that this white house tried to get ahead of this story even to frame the story that's because that promise transcript of a 2nd telephone call between the u.s. president and the ukrainian president was released in advance of that 1st gavel

opening the 2nd day of public hearings to isn't anything sort of enormously groundbreaking in terms of what was exchanged in that transcript it was the typical sort of pleasantries this call apparently taking place about 3 months before the july 25th phone call that is now the foundation of these public hearings but very interesting the president did tweet out the transcript of that as well and in it he makes reference to an invitation to the white house we have lots of things to talk about he says now that invitation is of course what became very very notable later on in the july 25th phone call between those 2 leaders because of course where democrats are alleging in this impeachment proceeding is that the president essentially withheld that meeting kind of dangled it out there as he pressed and tried to secure for investigations inside ukraine against his political rival former vice president joe biden so this does become relevant relevant although it

appears that that july 25th phone call is still what democrats will be focusing on now having said that hasn't there have been other tweets that the president has been sending out as he continues to try and essentially disk. credit these proceedings what we're seeing just in advance of the public hearings was another tweet where he really tried to undermine the credibility of house speaker nancy pelosi very harsh tweets saying nervous nancy should be home cleaning up the dangerous and disgusting club slum she's making of her district in san francisco alleging that she's getting nothing done why is he saying this well he's trying to undermine not just the proceedings but also make the point to the american public look at well all of this is going on well this it pietschmann inquiries going on taxpayer funds being used here's what's not happening there not the democrats are not passing the trade agreement between the united states canada mexico known as the u.s. m.c.a. and so many other things that congress could be doing so he's trying to as we see this very emotional argument of the from the diplomat the former diplomat

ambassador to ukraine on the television screens he's trying to get ahead of it frame the news cycle something that he has been very skillful at doing up to this point and how does that contrast kimberly with the real the reaction from trump on the 1st day in which he's essentially said i believe he was meeting with the turkish president that day and he basically said he wasn't watching anybody was he wasn't fazed by any any of it in the end better things to do. yeah he called it as he has repeatedly a witch hunt he did that again today when i say he sent out a few tweets he's definitely indicating that he seems to be reacting to this in real time it's hard to imagine he's not watching these proceedings because one other point that he tried to underscore through this as he frames his arguments not only that he he maintains he's done no wrongdoing but he's trying to highlight some of the things he says that he's done well for the american public tweeting out in fact the gains in the stock market and once again using the sort of the wording

witchhunt to say that he's sort of a victim in all of this is he's trying to work for the american people this is something that we've heard repeatedly whether it's read the transcript this is a witch hunt i'm not really watching i'm working and we should be getting things done this is what the argument is now whether or not it's working it's hard to say the polls still seem to show that majority of americans but just a very narrow majority still support impeaching this president but democrats want something more than that and so this is the challenge trying to convey through these arguments that this is something historic that needs to be done that it is incumbent upon this the house of representatives to conduct the checks and balances of this white house the problem is we're in such a deeply divided america that is so partisan that it doesn't feel the needle has moved quite as much as democrats maybe hoping to stay with us kimberly for now because we're going to hear what the former ambassador maria von of each had to say

about the the trump tweet attacking her she was very informed about it in the middle of that testimony here's what you have to say. i actually think that where i've served over the years. i and others have. demonstrably made things better you know for the u.s. as well as for the countries that i've served in ukraine for example where there are huge challenges including you know on the issue that we're discussing today of corruption huge challenges but they've made a lot of progress since 2014 including in the years that i was there and i think in part i mean the ukrainian people get the most. the most credit for that but a part of that credit goes to the work of the united states and. to me as the ambassador in the united in ukraine. yes so

a fairly measured. i should say diplomatic response there from marie vonn of h.s. as she would say earlier told by the committee chairman adam schiff about that sweet from the president yeah what i really took away from that testimony and i think this is what one of the things that was strategic about the democrats' placement of this witness the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine is that here is a very credible stablished impeccable record as a career foreign service that she had no doubt has served her country honorably has the lineage of her diverse background that had her well placed and well suited for the issues that she was tackling and you hear that note of emotion and i think that's what is trying to be put forward in terms of the arguments that are being made. kimberly halkett for the moment live for us there at the white house let's

turn now to philip grey he's an assistant professor of political science at texas a and m. university here in doha he joins us from our studio here thanks very much for being with us so you've been watching these hearings from from the beginning what did you make of the testimony so far of a memory of on which the testimony is helpful for the democrats in that it tries to humanize the case they're trying to make that given her background given her measured responses that this can try and humanize the case they're trying to make the difficulty so far is as much as humanize things as i was listening through the testimony the biggest challenge is it humanizes but it doesn't seem to necessarily make any clear what would be a clear high crime and misdemeanor that would usually be the basis for impeachment that in many ways it's helpful for humanizing is helpful for putting a face to the impeachment proceedings but presumably something will come up with the republicans is there start to speak to saying. we might be able to say the

trump was acting like a jerk which is probably appropriate that he was acting perhaps harshly towards his employees in the executive branch but being a bad boss isn't necessarily an impeachable offense and at least so far with the questioning in the with this particular witness narrowing down what would actually be an impeachable offense. is still rather ambiguous at this point so how much it will help the democrats might be might be a little bit more up in the air yes she was she was essentially giving an assessment of the direction that she felt the u.s. policy was was going in the time that she she was there and how it was being hijacked by. what she called shady interests and that that was compromising the united states so is but but as we've been saying before she was forced out from her post 2 months before that july 25th phone call so she she didn't really have anything to to say specifically on that is that something that the republicans are

likely to seize on when they begin their questioning most likely if i was to make a guess probably 2 things they would seize on is one that for the the main issue that's that's at hand here at least of the democrats are focusing upon the ambassador doesn't really provide any new information to 2nd and this may actually be something that may end up helping trump's case is they may make the argument we hear a lot about how the president how the shift in policy are going on as much as it may break the delusions of grandeur of the state department it is the president who sets foreign policy whether that foreign policy is necessarily wise or not is another issue of course but it's not necessarily the role of the state department to countermand that in many ways my suspicion is that at least one of the republicans is probably going to hammer on that saying and trying to use it against the democrats in the sense of saying you are trying to impeach a president for policy differences rather than for i crimes and misdemeanors i would i don't know if representative news would do that but i can imagine that one

or 2 of republicans may try and hammer on what we're talking about is a policy dispute we're not talking about a high crime mr miller. and how how much of this is going to come down to public opinion. opinions. given how partisan things are in in washington the moment opinions by hadan sides is this likely to to kind of move the needle either way in terms of. where the public what the public thinks about this and where members of congress. in terms of the general public by a suspicion is it would probably have very minimal influence in terms of moving the needle one way or the other it will probably remain about the same that there's nothing again while this does humanize the impeachment case to an extent that's probably going to appeal more to individuals in the public who are already inclined towards the idea of impeachment and probably won't really have much of an effect on

those who don't similarly the arguments from say what i see in the a problems we're going to bring up about whether this is just about a policy difference will appeal to those who don't want to pietschmann it will have almost no effect on those who who are prefer and yet my own guess is the testimony today is probably not going to really influence public opinion and. given that it is so partisan is it going to have much of an influence on congress at least at the moment things will probably remain about the same unless some sort of major change happens the next week or 2 public opinion is going to be able to have much of an effect on this i was just going to play a clip now from some of that testimony former ambassador you vonage saying that corrupt ukrainians found americans willing to partner with them to remove. not all ukrainians embraced our anti-corruption work that's perhaps it was not surprising that when our anti-corruption efforts got in the way of a desire for profit or power ukrainians who prefer to play by the old corrupt rules sought to remove what continues to amaze me. is that they found americans willing

to partner with them and working together they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of a u.s. ambassador all right so how how credible overall do you think. maria vonage makes his testimony was that well it's probably credible but and this is as the other correspondents have mentioned. the former ambassador is being very concise with her words in terms of both the kind of responses where she would say things such as it was my impression that there was a sort of change or that is my view that certain types of persons i mean it is notable and wise that she probably held off on necessarily specifying who would be these these people because that could could open up other issues that irk credibility the credibility of what she has said is probably high but especially

once we have some of the career prosecutors especially on the republican star side sir and try and parse it most likely the idea will be that what she has said is credible but what she said is not much at least in terms of something that might be a high crime misdemeanor unless she's. more willing to say in the silly express specifically who are these corrupt individuals. there's a reasonable case to be made to say that yes she may be very credible but on the other hand she also may be i mean presumably the argument being that she's suffering from she's involved in sour grapes that if you've been removed from your office you're probably not necessarily going to have positive hoose about those who are moved you. presumably the republican side is going to bring up of what is it that corrupt individuals were involved in a conspiracy to knock her out or was it that the president for whatever reasons just cited he didn't want her to be the investor ship anymore that gave lease creates a reasonable doubt in effect. all right well republicans been saying that the

testimony not good enough evidence essentially we're going to have some of that now the problem of trying to overthrow a president based on this type of evidence is obvious but that's what their whole case relies on beginning with 2nd and 3rd hand information cited by the whistleblower that's why on wednesday the democrats were forced to make the absurd argument that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence all right so the republicans i mean this is that is the ranking republican devin news they're the most senior republican on the intelligence committee essentially saying what republicans have been saying about this from the beginning that a lot of this is based on 2nd and 3rd hand information that very few people had any direct contact with with the president to. back up these these

accusations indeed and that is something that may come up again and say in this sort of case that again especially with the of the former ambassador she was very very forthright very cautious in our language so she wasn't claiming necessarily uncertain especially with save the the phone call 2 months after her departure was not make claiming to have information that she she didn't have this is something that i suspect congressman nunes is going to emphasize that this is a continuation their argument being that this is a continuation of just using hearsay using 2nd or 3rd hand information since again their main case they're trying to make i mean it effectively are trying to make the case that this isn't something that would be an impeachable offense and that this isn't a higher crime and misdemeanor and that if it is a high crime and misdemeanor one needs better evidence then that effectively i heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone which may be the strongest that we've is probably a strong case the republicans can make try and defend their side.