>> organization. i'd like to have that. >> quickly you're recognized. you're recognized. >> thank you. madam ambassador, it's like a hallmark movie you ended up at georgetown. this is all okay! but it wasn't your preference seven, eight months ago. correct? >> no, it was not. >> it wasn't your preference to be the victim of a smear campaign. was it? >> no. >> wasn't your preference to be defamed by the president of the united states including today, was it? >> no. >> it wasn't your preference to be ousted at seemingly the pinnacle of your career. was it? >> no. >> you wanted to finish your extended tour. correct? >> i did. >> what did want to do after that? did you know? >> i wasn't sure.

>> there's nothing wrong with georgetown. it's a fine place. right? >> it's a wonderful place. >> but it's the only choice at the end of a distinguished career, after all that. it's not the end of a hallmark movie. it's the end of a really bad reality tv show brought to you by someone who knows a lot about that. why did you -- you previously testified that you sought advice from ambassador sondland at this time about what to do. is that correct? >> i did. >> and why did you reach out to the ambassador? >> because this was clearly so political and was not going to be -- you know, the state department was not in a position, shall we say, to manage the issue. it didn't appear to me.

and so i asked ambassador sondland, who said that he, you know, he was a political appointee. said he was close to the president, and so he had just been in ukraine for a ship visit with some of his eu colleagues from brussels and so i reached out to him for advice. when this was no longer a ukraine kind of, an interview with mr. yut sienko and others repeating allegations i asked for him advice. >> meant a lot to you. an extraordinary time, the advice went a lot and what was his advice? >> well, he suggested that i needed to go big or go home and he said that the best thing to

do would be to, you know, send out a tweet, praise the president, that sort of thing. >> and what was your reaction to that advice? >> well, my reaction was that i'm sure he meant well, but it was not advice that i could really follow. it felt -- it felt partisan. it felt political, and i -- i just -- that was not something that i thought was in keeping with my role as ambassador as a foreign service officer. >> did he give you suggestions what to say to the president of the united states? or just say something nice about him? >> yes. just praise him. >> i yield the balance to the chairman. >> i want to follow-up on a question and come back to

something asked by minority counsel earlier. do you think you could have gone more to push back against this smear campaign and i'm not suggesting this is what counsel was getting at bun sometimes victims are asked, aren't you responsible for your own victimization. what would you say to people who say, isn't it kind of your fault, ambassador, that you didn't fight your own severe harder? smear harder? >> well, i think that i've been a foreign service officer for a long time. and just like the military we have our own culture. we have our own kind of chain of command, so to speak, and i did everything that i could to, you know, to address these issues and ask the state department to do what i felt was the right thing, which was support me when it was important to do so,

because it was also about supporting the policy. i think it was for others to stand up for me. >> quite agree. representative stefanik. >> thank you. since the chairman has gavelled out all of my colleagues with their unanimous consent i am going to read for the record many of the chairman's comments in september of the importance of hearing from the whistle-blower. again, ambassador, thank you for your patience. thank you for your service, but since we haven't been able to conduct ourselves in normal procedures i'm going to use the five minutes for this. september 29th, in the "wall street journal," the whistle-blower will testify in the house very soon. this is a quote by the chairman. "usa today" september 29th. talking with abc news this week. schiff, the democrat who chairs the house intelligence committee said the whistle-blower would testify very soon. the only thing standing in the way was getting security clearances for the attorneys representing the whistle-blower to attend the testimony.

from vox, september 29th, rep adam schiff said sunday the whistle-blower at the center of a growing scandal surrounding president donald trump will testify before the house intelligence committee very soon. on cnn, september 29th, schiff said sunday on abc as well as nbc's "meet the press" he expects the kwwhistle-blower to testify very soon. "washington post," in appearance on abc news this week schiff echoed pelosi's message and expected the intelligence committee to hear from the whistle-blower very soon pending a security clearance from acting director of national intelligence joseph maguire. in the huffington post, schiff expects the whistle-blower to appear before this committee very soon. in the "new york post" we'll get the unput itered testimony of the whistle-blower." in the "washington times" what whistle-blower will be in. quotes from adam schiff, chairman. the question posed by george

stephanopoulos. have you reached agreement with the whistle-blower and his or her attorneys about coming before the committee and providing information firsthand? "yes, we have" schiff responded. that whistle-blower will be allowed to come in without from the justice department or white house to tell the whistle-blower that we can and cannot say. we'll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistle-blower. also we're ready to hear from the whistle-blower soon as that is done and keep obviously riding shotgun to make sure the acting director doesn't delay in the clearance process. in cnbc, we'll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistle-blower. market watch, house intelligence committee said sunday an agreement is reached where the whistle-blower will testify before the committee very soon. i can go on but the chairman refused to put these into the record as unanimous consent,

it's important to prevent whistle-blower from retaliation and firing and want to make sure whistle-blowers are able to come forward but in this case the fact we are getting criticized by chairman adam schiff for statements he made early on in the process shows the due police duplicity and i'll yield to colleague jordan. >> thank you, general lady for yielding and add the chairman promised we'll see the transcripts but there's still four people deposed we have not been either to see their transcripts and have their transcripts released and the testimony provided we're not able to use in these open hearings. it's an open hearing, all of the available testimony from depositions that has been taken by the committee should be available to be discussed for the american people to see but, no, no, no. mr. morse morris and mr. hale, and two others, ms. williams and another one not yet released. i hope the chairman releases

them. one other point i would make in the last minute of ms. stefanik's time. democrats asserted this whole thing with ambassador yovanovitch was part of a sinister scheme by the white house. to get mr. zelensky to do an, president zelensky to do an investigation. if recalling ambassador yovanovitch was part of some scheme by trump and pompeo and giuliani to get president zelensky to do an investigation, why would they replace her with the democrat's first witness? their star witness. bill taylor. i mean, if that's the plan, not the best plan i've ever seen put together. their star witness, their first witness, mr. taylor, was here wednesday. that's what they were up to? i think that just -- demonstrates that is not what went on here. mr. zelensky never undertook any investigations and the reason the aide was released as we

discussed wednesday was because vice president pence, ambassador bolton, u.s. senators all talked with president zelensky and were convinced he was the real deal as the ambassador alluded to in her testimony. that's why the money was released. i yield back. >> mr. swalwell. >> mr. chairman a lot changed since the whistle-blower came forward. two things in particular. first most of what the whistle-blower has alleged has been corroborated by the witnesses that we have heard from. second, the president who my colleagues so shamelessly continue to defend continue to pressure, threaten and intimidate the whistle-blower. i'd like unanimous consent to put into the record a september 26th, 2019 article from "business insider." trump suggested the whistle-blower who filed a complaint against him is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death. >> without objection. >> how about september 26, 2019,

"vanity fair." trump suggests executing the whistle-blower sources like "in the good old days." >> without objection. >> third, september 29th. whistle-blower's lawyer raises fear for client's safety. axi axios. the whistle-blower has a right to anonymity and will only answer questions now in writing. i wish my colleagues would join me protecting the whistle-blower's rights of anonymity. we're here to talk about you, and you saw a lot about mr. giuliani. i want to read a quote from mr. giuliani but first ask when you were in ukraine you understood that rudy giuliani was donald trump's personal lawyer. is that right? >> yes, that's right. >> are you familiar with rudy giuliani's quote in the "new york times" describes himself as the lawyer saying, "he basically knows what i'm doing, sure, as

his lawyer." were you familiar with that quote? >> it sounds familiar. >> and you have a lawyer with you today, ms. yovanovitch? >> uh-huh. >> and you understand that lawyers act on their client's behalf. is that right? >> yes. >> that it would be improper for a lawyer to go outside any directive that a client gives. is that right? >> that's my understanding. >> are you familiar with a "new york times" story on may 9, 2019 where rudy giuliani said that he intends to visit ukraine and said, we're not meddling in an election. we're meddling in an investigation. are you familiar with that quote? >> yes. >> that's 11 days before you were removed as ambassador. is that right? >> yes. >> he is talking publicly about designs on coming to ukraine but what i think is interesting is that mr. giuliani says, "we're," as in, we are. he doesn't say, "i" am not

meddling in an election. he doesn't say i'm not meddling in an investigation. he says, "we." he's speaking for himself and his client. and i want to talk about that quote, "we're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation." is it proper for you or anyone who acts on behalf of united states government to meddle in an investigation? >> no, i don't believe so. >> why not? >> well, there are law enforcement channels and if things need to be, they need to be handled properly and without political bias. >> now, this anti-corruption crusader, president trump, who my colleagues touted out as having such a great interest in anti-corruption, in both the calls referenced today, the august 21 call and the july 25 call, isn't it true that president trump never mentions the word corruption? >> yes, that's true.

>> as far as the foreign aid my colleagues keep saying, well, he can't be guilty. he didn't complete the cheat, the aid went to the ukrainians. isn't it true that the only reason the aid or the only time the aid went to the ukrainians was after the whistle-blower complaint became public? >> yes, it was after the whistle-blower complaint became public. >> so you don't really get points when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar and someone says, hey, he's got his hand in the cookie jar and then you take your hand out, which is essentially what my republican colleagues and the president are trying to take credit for. finally i want to put up the disgusting tweet from the president today. where he attacks your character, but i think i know who you are ambassador, i think the country knows who you are. he smeared you when you were in ukraine, he smeared you on that phone call with president zelensky on july 25, he smeared

you now as you are testifying. ambassador yovanovitch, are the president's smears going to stop you from fighting corruption? >> well, i will continue with my work. >> if your country asks you again to fight corruption, will you still do that despite the smears? >> yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. hurd? >> your excellenciy, 33 years -- >> move over here. >> 33 years, six senior foreign service performance awards, five state department subpoena hperi awards. president's distinguished service award and the secretary's diplomacy in human rights award. you're tough as nails and smart at hell, and i will hear a great example of what our ambassadors

should be like. you're an honor to your family, you are an honor to the foreign service, you are an honor to this country and i thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country. i'm nervous about what i'm getting ready to do. i want to do a five-year history of ukraine in about 45 seconds, and now that you're a professor you can grade my paper. okay? valentine's day 2014, ukraine people get fed up with the ukrainian president yanukovych and basically overthrow him. he goes on the run. this was the revolution of dignity. who was the acting president during that time when yanukovych went out? >> i think it was -- >> churchnov? >> thank you for helping me. >> in march of 2014 we saw little green men coming into

ukraine and ultimately the russians invade the ukraine and yone annex, try to annex crimea, but also try to invade, they invade the entire country and eastern donbass as well. >> yes. >> and then an election and the ukrainian president pass poorchenko in june of 2014 then you came to post in 2016 of august. correct? >> two years later. >> january 2017 trump elected. and in december of 2017 is when the javelins were approved. right? and we saw those javelins delivered in april of 2018 to be put to first use. then we had zelensky elected in 2019, april. correct? now at the zelensky defeated the previous president poroshenko. >> yes. >> no love lost between those two dudes is there? >> i don't think so. >> okay. then in may 2019 zelensky is

sworn in? >> yes. >> so my questions, we talk a lot about rudy giuliani. do we know what officials within the zelensky regime he actually met with? i know two. a gentleman named yermak, one of zelensky's senior advisers and then we also know of the former attorney general that we've already established here, was corrupt, lachenko. he served -- xooumexcuse me. august? >> yes. >> and their parliament voted him out. >> yes, that's correct. >> so if rudy giuliani is trying to influence the zelensky regime, would a guy that worked under the previous regime, under poroshenko, be the right guy to

do it? >> so are you saying mr. lutsenko? >> yes. >> that he -- could you -- >> so did mr. lutsenko have much credibility within the zelensky regime? current, the current regime? >> i don't think so. >> he didn't. do you know of any other ukrainians that mr. giuliani was meeting with that was part of the zelensky regime? >> just to remind, i would have already have left ukraine by that point so i'm not aware. >> even with the administration to come, right? zelensky won the election. there was a two-month period of preparing to be installed as president. even during that time were you aware of any -- >> there was, so there is a, one of the oligarchs as we've heard about, one of the oligarchs met with mr. fruman and mr. parnas when that was apparently to get

a meeting for mr. giuliani. >> but those are not people actually in government or became in the zelensky regime. is that correct? >> no. >> okay. mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> mr. castro. >> thank you, chairman an thank you ambassador for your 33 years of service to our nation. a big question here today is why you were pushed aside as ambassador. for example, americans know that an employer has a right to fire an employee but shouldn't do it for certain reasons. you shouldn't be fired because you're disabled, because you're a woman, because you're black, and for other reasons. and i think most americans agree that a president shouldn't fire an ambassador or recall an ambassador because the ambassador is standing in his way of doing a corrupt act. so i want to ask you, did the president ever tell you why he was recalling you? >> no. >> did anybody at the white house ever tell you why you were being recalled? >> no. >> did the president ever

consult you about who the good guys and the bad guys were in the ukraine? >> no. >> did secretary pompeo ever tell you why you were being recalled? >> no. >> and it appears in the testimony that we've heard and the intelligence committee so far, that there were a group of the president's men, perhaps secretary perry, rudy giuliani, ambassador sondland, who were in on this scheme to help the president get the bidens and barisma investigated. and i want to put aside president trump for just a second. and ask you, in all of your years of service, have you ever come across a president, been asked by a president or known of colleagues who were asked by an american president to have, to help that president get an american investigated overseas?

>> i'm not aware of that. >> and if a president asked you to investigate a former vice president for this purpose what would you have said? >> i mean -- with what i know today i would have said, no. >> and would you have considered it an unlawful act? >> i don't know that it's unlawful, per se, but -- i think, again, that there are channels for conducting proper investigations, and that that would have been the best way to handle something like this. >> but certainly it would be -- it's bizarre for a president to ask that some american be inv t investigated by another government? >> it's very unusual. >> also you mentioned that there

is corruption in ukraine. ukraine isn't the only country that confronts corruption. if the people in power in a country where krups is rampant are being asked by a foreign leader who's got a lot of leverage over them to conduct an investigation, could that be dangerous, because they could trump up charges against someone? if they wanted? >> they could. >> and i also want to ask you. i spoke to ambassador kent who made a comment yesterday about selective prosecutions, and what it means going forward. what kind of precedent it sets and you had spoken about a dangerous precedent for the state department and diplomats. help us consider the precedent going forward if there's no consequences for president trump or really any president who does this. what are the consequences for this country and for any american, not just a former vice

president or a presidential candidate, or even somebody in politics, but a person in business who does business in saudi arabia or some other country, if a president is going to speak to another head of state or some foreign official and try to get that person investigated, what does that mean for the future of the country and for americans? >> well, i think that investigations, prosecutions, judicial decisions properly should remain with investigators, prosecutors and the courts, and i think that as i said before, i think senat senator -- when he said politics need to stop at the water's edge, i think he's right in that. >> i yield back to the chairman. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> i thank the chairman and ambassador yovanovitch, i'd like

to join all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in thanking you for your service. i'd like to ask you about your earlier testimony, about your senate confirmation and congresswoman stefanik had asked you how the obama/biden state department had prepared you to answer questions about barisma and hunter biden specifically. do you thrall? >> yes. >> and the she mentioned that you had been asked or been prepared for a question about hunter biden's role on the board of barisma, but i don't think that you gave us the answer or answers that the obama/biden state department prepared you to give in response to that question. do you remember what those answers were? >> yes. it was something along the lines of, i would defer you to the vice president's office on that. >> so did they in the course of that, brief you about the amount

of money that hunter biden was being paid by barisma? >> no. this wasn't part of a briefing. i mean, i had sort of big, old books with questions that might come up. >> right. in preparation for your confirmation, and they thought that hunter biden's role at barisma might be significant enough it would come up during your confirmation. is that correct? >> apparently so. i mean, there were hundreds of questions. >> well, hundreds of questions, but were there hundreds of companies? how many companies other than barisma did the obama/biden state department prepare you to give answers for? and if so, if there were others, which ones? >> i just don't recall. >> you don't recall that there were any other companies. is that correct? >> i'm quite sure there probably were some companies but i mean, you know, this is a while ago and i don't recall. >> but you specifically recall

barisma? >> yes. >> all right. out of thousands of companies in the ukraine the only one that you recall, the obama/biden state department preparing you to answer questions about was the one where the vice president's son was on the board. is that fair? >> yes. >> you understood from deputy assistant secretary george kent's testimony as it's been related to you he testified a few days ago. do you understand that that arrangement, hunter biden's role on the barisma board caused him enough concern that as he testified in his statement, that in february of 2015 i raised my concern that hunter biden's status as a board member could create the perception of a conflictf responsibilities over the ukraine or over ukrainian policy as one of those factors. do you recall that? >> yes. >> did you ever, do you agree

with that? >> yeah. >> that it was a legitimate concern to raise? >> i think that it could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. >> and did you discuss that ever with mr. kent? >> irtly before your confirmation august of 2016, prosecutor general shokin was fired by president poroshenko. correct? >> yes. >> and president -- or prosecutor general shokin was the one who opened the investigation into barisma. correct? >> i think that's right but i'm not actually sure. >> he was in charge of it at least at that point in time as prosecutor general. >> uh-huh. >> and are you aware of the very public statements by the vice president that, that firing of the prosecutor general occurred in march of 2016, six hours

after the vice president told president poroshenko that he needed to fire the prosecutor general who that he wouldn't receive $1 billion from the united states? do you recall that? >> yes. >> all right. and do you think that that raises a potential concern or complicate of interest that the vice president of the united states was ordering the firing of the prosecutor in charge of a company that has been identified as one that is substantially corrupt? >> i actually don't. i don't think that the, the view that mr. shokin was not a good prosecutor general fighting corruption, i don't think that had anything to do with the barisma case. >> but the legitimate concern about hunter biden's role was legitimate. correct? >> i creates a concern that there could be an appearance of -- >> based on your testimony, ambassador, i'd like to renew my request, mr. chairman, that

hunter biden's testimony, that has been requested -- >> the time has expired. >> requested by republicans be considered. >> gentleman's time expired. >> as a sham -- >> suspend for -- >> by the chairman. >> time is expired. >> unanimous, i have a unanimous consent request. >> you're not recognized. mr. kemp, you are. >> ambassador, i would like to thank you very much much and add my gratitude for your years of service. frankly you're the best of this nation and i cannot think of anybody else i would rather have representing us in a foreign capital than you. my colleagues have gone to a great deal of effort to better understand the facts surrounding your removal. i think the facts are pretty clear. there was a smear campaign, and it was orchestrated by a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor. the president's attorney. ed president's son and even some of the president's allies at his favorite tv station. so that campaign led to your removal. despite 33 years of outstanding

service, progressive responsibility, and awards. so i kind of sit here with a mix of emotions. on the one hand, there's some pride and gratitude for all of your outstanding service and on the other hand i'm angry. like my friend from connecticut. in fact, i'm very angry. about how it is the most powerful person on the face of the earth would remove you from office after your seller service and somehow feel compelled to characterize you as bad news and then to ominously threaten that you're going to go through some things. so i am angry. but i'm not surprised. after all, as was suggested earlier, he said the whistle-blower may have committed treason, a crime punishable by death. even though the whistle-blower strictly adhered to the letter of the law as independently

attested to by both trump appointed inspector jern and the acting dni. after all, he even demeaned the memory of senator mccain after he lied in his grave at naval academy grounds despite a lifetime of public service and serving six years as a prisoner of war in a tiny cell in hanoi, beaten and tortured every day. and after all, he belittled the gold star khan family whose son captain khan gave his last full measure of devotion out of love for this country and let me tell you, as somebody who's older brother never saw his 35th birthday because of service in the vietnam war, those words are deeply offensive. words matter. and the words leveled against you constitute bullying of the worst order. your good character, your outstanding reputation have been desmirched in a way that is

devoid of common decency. but here's my message to you. there is nothing, ambassador yovanovitch, nothing he can say or do, not a thing, that will in any way diminish the nature and quality of the service you have rendered to our great nation. not a thing. and there is not a thing he can say or do that will diminish our gratitude to you for that service. and i thank you again for it. >> thank you. >> so as to the larger point. i would like you to answer what does this mean to ukraine when the united states actually engages in the kind of behavior that we are attempting to discourage them from engaging in, namely a politically-motivated prosecution? what does that mean to our -- what does that mean to them and their struggling efforts to

become a robust democracy? what's the impact in ukraine for this behavior? >> i think ukraine like many countries looks to us for the power of our example. and i think that when we engage in questionable activities, that raises a question, and it -- it emboldens those who are corrupt, who don't want to see ukraine become, you know a democracy a free market economy, a part of europe, but want ukraine to stay in, you know, under russia's in reca thrall, and not in our national security interests. >> thank you, ambassador yovanovitch.

thank you so very much much. i yield 0 the balance of my time. >> a short break. let's take a five-minute recess. if members of the audience could remain in their seats to allow witness and her counsel to leave ahead of us, we will resume in a few minutes. we are in recess. you have been watching cnn's live coverage of the president trump impeachment inkwquiry hearings. hearing dramatic testimony from ousted ambassador yovanovitch. yovanovitch laying out and attempting to debunked the smear campaign that led to her removal and possibly clear the way for president trump to accomplish his political goals in ukraine. the ininvestigations bidens. in the past republicans using playbook. adding any president can remove an ambassador whenever he or she

chooses and the military aid held up veneventually did get t ukraine albeit aid obama didn't provide, only after waves on capitol hill with the investigation and the whistle-blower complaint. democrats of course stressing other points noting that yovanovitch was removed for attempting to fight corruption, the corruption that president trump claims he so badly wanted rooted out of ukraine, and much more. let's discuss this. taking a five-minute break, and then they'll come back and we'll briv it to you live. chairman rogers, start with you. you were once the house intelligence committee chairman. though you are a republican and schiff is a democrat. what are your takeaways from the hearing so far? >> i think the president blew up any republican plan to treat the witness with respect. when he tweeted out this morning. so i think that kind of screwed up their rhythmaliti alitie lit.

i walk away saying the president doesn't understand the coalitions. just because it's a witness called by the democrats doesn't necessarily mean that witness couldn't be helpful to what you're trying to prove, and it shocks me they have take than tone about attacking this woman's service. she agreed with the president's policy. she agreed with energy independence in trying to get ukraine energy independent helping with national security interests in russia. agreed with the stepping up of lethal aid which meant including trying to do for years prior to that. all that she agreed with. that turned into something positive. the other bad piece of this is always shows that duel tract diplomacy gets you in trouble. i don't understand that a president could remove her at any time to go a different direction. called said i want to go in a different direction. change you out. tap you. hit the sidelines. they created this big mystery

thing which, again, makes me question what role rudy giuliani had in trying to influence the president to do exactly that. to me, that's the most interesting part of this hearing. >> and jen, you know yovanovitch, used to be the state department spokesman under secretary of state john kerry during the obama years. you know her. is she acting consistently as in private? >> exactly. what america is seeing today is what yovanovitch is like and many foreign officers serving around the world every single day. she's not -- i would never her known what her political beliefs were, whether she liked or didn't like hillary clinton, john kerry or barack obama. she serves the united states and the interests of the united states above all political beliefs. i think that's what we're seeing today. i will note and we've been talking a little about this during the hearing. i think the democrats are worried that her feelings are hurt. and certainly this is not an easy day for her. what i know of her and anyone in

her position is that you're not trying to be testifying in front of the public. that's kind of the worst nightmare they want to be in embassies but need to stop cossaling her. she's fine. she's tough. need to keep it focused on the issue the hand. why he was fired. she can't exactly answer that question but she can give context what was happening at the time and ted more about the work happening to fight corruption, which is why he fired her, it seems. i would like to see more focus of the testimony moving forward. >> one part of her feelings, jen, and i want to bring you in, is that is relevant, how she felt after president trump tweeted that attack on her. which was read to her by the democratic chairman adam schiff. and she said she felt intimidated whether or not that was the president's intention, said she couldn't get into his mind, the result, she felt intimidated and congressman schiff, chairman schiff, made it clear he thinks that's witness intimidation what he said in

realtime and to me that seems that it's likely to go into some sor sort of article of impeachment, discouraging witnesses or the like that happened in the bill clinton impeachment. is that bridge too far? republicans push back. just a tweet. didn't even know about it until schiff read it to her. can't possibly be witness intimidation. >> i do not think. appropriate to give a hard look at the witness intimidation. articles of impeachment. think about times. on the stand. think about the nature. a personal attack directed right at her. what's the purpose? the purpose disrupt her and send a message to future witnesses. we have a slate next week. message i think is clear. they need to take serious action and protect the witness and integrity of this process. >> actually the result of the president's tweet is reverberated, reverberating far beyond the witness. house republicans who are

talking to our own manu raju on capitol hill about the president's tweet, attacking ambassador yovanovitch while she was testifying, going after her personally, seeming to blame her for the mess in somalia and in ukraine. two different postinging she'd had. joining us from capitol hill what are you hearing from republicans? >> reporter: several republicans uneasy about that line of attack. you saw that hearing, in the hearing room. a number actually praising her not denigrating her service as the president did. some involved in the impeachment inquiry likes congressman francis roney kept open the option of impeaching the president said the president should not be beating up or harassing officials. other members including one who sits on the house intelligence committee elise stefanik did not agree with the president's tweet and some republicans siding with the president laying out frustration. congressman jim jordan one. president's staunchest defenders here in congress.

democrats on the other hand, of course, saying this is clear examples of witness intimidat n intimidation. i talked to jim clybourne, could this be part of articling of impeachment ghent this president, se head may well be. other democrats think it should be. hank johnson, house judiciary, something they will consider, considering whether to impeach this president. one person who has not specifically said is that yesterday is nancy pelosi. of course, her termination will be key. she did say witness intimidation is a crime and told reporters she hadn't seen the tweet. when she sees the tweet we'll see how she reacts. democrats moving forward articles of impeachment part of a pattern with this president. >> thank you so much, manu rauch yew for the breaking news. appreciate it. remind viewers of some testimony of ambassador yovanovitch, because this is not the first

time she has felt threatened or intimidated by president trump. she said that when she first heard or read the rough transcript of the phone call between president trump and ukraine president zelensky and saw how president trump was talking about her in that transcript, she felt threatened. play that sound, if we can. >> what 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 did. >> how so? >> i didn't know exactly. it's not, you know, very precise phrase, but i think -- it didn't feel like i was -- i really

don't know 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. it concerned me. >> so nia, not the first time that ambassador yovanovitch has been on the receiving end of comments from the president that she didn't like. >> that's right. i mean, she learns about this phone call after she's already pulled from her post. in ukraine. this phone call happens in july. she later learns that the president has been disparaging her to president zelensky and basically praising someone who is corrupt, and likely had something to do with her removal. it was clear that her testimony, which lasted about 22 minutes, which was very credible, very moving, very compelling, got under the president's skin. right? he didn't tweet during bill taylor's testimony and george kent's testimony on wednesday but felt the need to tweet

during her testimony, because she was laying out i think the case that democrats wanted to lay out more. she was fighting corruption in a specific way in ukraine and saw the president really as colluding with people who were corrupt in ukraine and this shocked her, surprised her and in that way clearly got under the president's skin so much he wanted to go after her again in the way he did in this transcript with president zelensky. >> and michael, you're an academic who specializes in impeachments. let me ask you. would you be surprised if what happened today ended up in the articles of impeachment should they cull actually be filed? >> i would not largely because it fits into a pattern. one of the patterns we're experiences now not just tweets but other actions from the president to sort of intimidate people like pompeo. intimidated by him and afraid of a tweet. why he didn't defend this ambassador. most importantly maybe, you don't need a crime in order to do be an impeachable offense.

thinking just witness intimidation might make it too narrow. doesn't matter if it's not witness intimidation. it has the effect of making her afraid, and has an affect of sdruchti in disrupteding the hearings and those aren't good things. >> article one of the impeachment of president bill clinton said something along the lines are dissuading witnesses from testifying, something along those lines. not quieting it exactly. was what bill clinton was accused of having done, i don't think ever adjudicated, right? >> no. >> what he is accused of having done markedly different in any way than what president trump is -- >> president trump is at a whole different level, because it's not just the effort to intimidate witnesses or whatever word you want to use think. also ordering people not to testify. also ordering people not to bring documents. the pattern, again, is a larger one in which the president is doing everything he can to disrupt the hearings and put the attention on the bidens. not on himself.

a tremendous lack of discussion of the president's conduct in this hearing. >> and let me ask you, chairmn rogers, it's interesting that the president is seemingly so undisciplined in terms of what the republicans wanted the message of the day to be, because the white house just tweeted out a little video clip of congresswoman stefanik basically saying, george kent who testified earlier this week agreed that the hunter biden appointment to the board of barisma create add potential conflict of interests or at least appearance of one and u.n. ambassador yovanovitch, you wanted ukraine to receive lethal military aid, obama didn't provide that and president trump did. that seems to be where republicans wanted to focus their energy and attention as opposed to what president trump did. >> well, again, completely. i don't know if it's undisciplined. intemperate. he cannot contain himself obviously with his twitter machine. he just can't keep his fingers

off of it, and i wish he had taken the tact of what he said yesterday as not watching any of the impeachment, not watching one minute. he clearly is emotionally tied to it and ought to be doing other things. he's not going to help. republicaned weren't very organized in line of questions. they're hunting and pecking to figure what message did work and used representative stefanik. i think they would have been bet are af to lay out the case, a., a very talented, dedicated award-earning diplomat for the united states of america. we put a to be proud of her service, and she could be a fact witness about certain things. i thought it was effective when they said, gosh, asked a question by the obama administration about this hunter biden thing and oh, by the way, they went to the biden office nothing ever happened. right? to me pretty effective. >> let's listen in. >> -- thank you for being here and thank you for your service to our country.

ambassador, should ambassadors ever try to influence host country elections? >> no. >> ip think you said in your opening statement, partisanship of this type is not compatible with the role of a career foreign service officer. is that right? >> yeah. >> that's exactly what happened in 2016. august of 2016 the very month you went to ukraine as our ambassador ukraine ambassador here in the united states the ambassador wrote an op-ed in the hill that said this, trump's comments send wrong message. the very message you're in ukraine the ambassador writes that article. and not just that attack on the president. we had former ukraine prime minister criticize candidate trump. and earlier you said mr. vokov

first alerted you to efforts of mr. jgiuliani. and excuse me, then candidate trump all kinds of names. calmed him a terrorist and of course a member of parliament from ukraine a source for fusion gps and now somewhat famous dossier that flowed from fusion's work said this in the financial times. again in august of 2016 when you first arrive in ukraine, he said this. the majority of kukrainian politicians are on hillary clinton side. several high-ranking officials in the government in the ukrainian government and president poroshenko when he's president of ukraine criticize president trump then candidate trump all in the late summer and fall of 2016. what i want to know, ambassador, when this was all happening, did you go talk to anyone in the

ukrainian government about this? did you go say to some of these officials, hey, you guys, you guys need to knock this off. this perception we got as mr. leschenko said, majority of ukrainian politicians are on hillary clinton's side, that's not good. did you have that conversation? >> no. >> didn't talk to anyone in the government? talk to president poroshenko? >> no. >> didn't alert anyone in the government? >> no. >> well, one of the things we've heard so much over the last six weeks in depositions and frankly in the hearing on wednesday is how important bipartisan support is for ukraine. democrats and republicans agreed they want to help ukraine. in fact, democrats first star witness on wednesday, mr. taylor said ukraine's most important strategic asset is this bipartisan support. you would agree? >> i do. >> you said this. in his testimony on wednesday, on september 11 i learned the hole was lifted the next day.

ambassador taylor said i conveyed this news to president zelensky the ukrainian foreign minister and reminded him of the high value of bipartisan support for ukraine and not getting involved in other country's elections. i'm wondering, the day after the aid has been lifted, ambassador taylor made this statement to the ukrainian government. and he makes this after there is nothing been done by ukraine to influence our election. because president zelensky didn't announce he was doing an investigation and the aid was lifted. but he felt he needed to say that. but in 2016, when we know that the majority of ukrainian politicians want clinton to win because said by a member of parliament, when the ambassador to the united states from ukraine writes an op-ed criticizing then president trump, calling candidate trump all kinds of names, nobody tells him to go and knock it off?

any conversations, ambassador, with victoria nuland or secretary perry what's going on being for clinton clinton and not opposed to president trump? >> no, i did not. >> no one did anything. no one did anything. you see why maybe, maybe the president was a little concerned about what went on in ukraine and you couple that with the corruption level that we know existed in ukraine. you add to that this idea that he's not a big fan of foreign aid? why he might be a little concerned about sending hard-earned tax dollars of the american people to ukraine? >> i'm sorry. is there a question in there? >> there was. >> okay. could you repeat it, please? >> i'm asking --

>> gentleman's time expired but let you repeat the question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm asking maybe we can see why the president was a little concerned when you have the highest ranking officials in the government, the ambassador criticizing it, parliament remembered, lysenko criticizing it. ovakov, guy told you about giuliani criticizing. all this going on and which you couple that with concerns he has about corruption the concerns he has about europe not doing enough, concerns about reluctance to send hard-earned money to -- >> indulged you with extra time -- >> my indulgence for you ran out a long time ago. >> i'm about to gavel you down. >> asking don't you think this is a reason president trump's concerns were justified? >> i can't speak for the president on this. but what i would say is you've

listed a number of actions. i think from my point of view, that doesn't that doesn't create a ukrainian government strategy to interfere in our election. >> i didn't say that. >> mr. jordan, please allow the ambassador to answers the question. >> so i would just say that, you know, u.s. politicians will often criticize policies of foreign counterparts, even perhaps during their elections. you know, this happens in politics, and i think that it doesn't necessarily constitute interference. >> would you ever write and op-ed about a presidential candidate in ukraine? >> mr. jordan your time is expired. mr. welch, you're recognized. >> thank, mr. chairman. i'd like everybody here, i'm extraordinaire grateful for your

service and feel very badly what you've had to endure. like your colleagues, you don't complain. you're doing your job. i feel badly about the insults, the tweet this morning. the fact you were smeared, not fired. the question is, you know not how you were treated. the question is, why the president did what he did and whether what he did was a breach of trust. the question really is about whether the president of the united states, any president, has the authority to withhold congressionally approved aid to condition a white house meeting on extracting from a foreign leader a willingness to assist

him in his political campaign. that's the question. and that brings us to you as part of the story, because the question is, why were you fired? from that position. i want to read a portion of the president's call on july 25th with president zelensky, and this is the painful part, when you first heard about it. the former ambassador from the united states, the woman, was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in ukraine were bad news. so i just want to let you know that. the other thing, he goes right into this, there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of the people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. you indicated in response that

my colleague mr. castro's question, that if you were asked to approach a foreign leader in condition american support on their being involved in our campaign, you would refuse to do that? >> yes. >> and are you -- you're aware now, but i don't know if you were then, but that july 25th phone call occurred the day after director mueller reported that the interference in our 2016 campaign was not from ukraine. it was active concerted energetic and, by the russians. correct? >> yes. >> now as ambassador, you had no knowledge of whatever it is president trump ultimately seems to have wanted to get for cooperation in this

investigation. isn't that -- that's correct ask. >> yes. >> all right. now, you've been asked about whether a president has authority to replace an ambassador, and you have agreed that that's the president's prerogative. >> yes, that's true. >> but that assumes that the reasons are not related to the personal, private political interests of the president at the expense of our national security. right? >> yes. >> and you've been the target of insults from the president. you joined some very distinguished company, by the way, senator mccain, general kelly. a man i admire, i think all of us do, general mattis. we're not here to talk about that. unless the reason you get insulted as you did today

essentially blaming you for somalia, is if this is another step by the president to intimidate witnesses. he didn't intimidate you. you're here. you've endured. but there are other people out there that can expect the trump treatment if they come forward. that's a question for us. now, you also indicated that the president has a prerogative to appoint a non-career person and to be candid republican presidents and democratic presidents have done that. the, mr. sondland's transcript is out, and he was someone who indicated that everything hinged, this meet, the meeting, the white house meeting, and the release of the vital defensive

aid, everything hinged on the president, president zelensky, being will to ing to do that investigation that would benefit the trump campaign. you're aware of that? >> yes. >> and you indicated that is something you would not agree to do? >> yes. >> and sondland was quite willing to do, apparently so. >> i thank you for your professional service and i yield back. >> thank you. >> mr. maloney. >> ambassador, thank you for being here. it's been a long day. first time we met it wasn't clear. i want to start with a quick comment, but your testimony in this inquiry broke the dam. you were the first one through 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's an old expression that first person through the wall gets a little bit bloody and i -- i think you must understand that expression in a new way.

but, thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to ask you about the day you were let go, and i know this is a painful series of events, forgive me but very important. april 24th. you told us a few things that stuck with me. you said you were at the embassy in ukraine honoring a ukrainian woman, anti-corruption activist i believe her name is katerina -- saying that correctly? >> at my house. >> at your house. excuse me. giving her the woman of courage award i believe? >> yes. embassy keys woman of courage award. >> right. and, of course, that's the date you get a call from carol perez, senior member of the foreign service. did you know carol perez? >> yes. >> you doeth are senior woman in the foreign service and opportunity to meet her before? >> yes. >> she says trouble coming. heads up. correct me if i get this wrong. i don't know a lot but it's

coming from the white house i'll call you later. >> that sums it up. >> you're literally that evening honoring ace anti-corruption activist. is that right? . yes. >> not just any woman, a woman you said was horribly attacked and killed for her efforts, and she wasn't just killed, you said i believe someone threw acid on her. >> that's correct. >> and i went and checked during the break, and turns out she was horribly injured and it took four months for her to die? >> a very painful death. >> why would somebody attack her with acid? there are easier ways to kill people. why did they do it whip acid? >> wanted her out of the way but the message was this could happen to you, too, if you continue her work. >> that's what happens when you go up against corrupt people in ukraine? >> it is something that can happen. i mean, there are other ways of

sidelining peope ining events. >> you remember speaking. >> yes. >> you said katerina paid the ultimate price for her farelessness in fighting against corruption and for her determined efforts to build a democratic ukraine. remember saying that? >> yes. >> and then your phone rings. you hear this trouble up the street, and carol perez called you back later that night. right? >> uh-huh. >> 1:00 a.m. i believe. >> yes. >> were you sleeping? >> no. >> you stayed up. >> yes. >> to get the phone call. >> yes. >> and that's when she says, two things i believe that stuck with me. she said we're worried about your security. >> yes. >> you've just been honoring a woman killed for fighting anti-corruption efforts and she says got to get on the next plane. was she speaking uth mi ing euphemistically, when you have time or mean literally the next plane? >> i think she meant as soon as

possible pretty much it was the next night. >> from kiv to washington and on your way to meet with secretary sullivan and he says two things. there was a concertedest against you and he says, you've done nothing wrong. >> right. >> when he -- i'm fascinating when he says you've done nothing wrong what did you expect the united states government would do next? >> it was pretty clear that a decision had been made by the president implemented by the state department has i had to leave ukraine. but i, you know, i had hoped there would be more public support. >> did you expect them to have your back? >> yes. >> and were you surprised when you found out they weren't going to? >> not at that point anymore. >> why? >> well, because over the last several months that had not been the case.

>> ma'am, your opening statement you said, how can our system fail like this? how is it that a foreign -- excuse me, how is it foreign corrupt interests can manipulate our government? how is it foreign corrupt interests is manipulate our government. ma'am 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 in answering that question. i yield back, mr. chairman's. >> thank you. >> ms. demings. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. ambassador, everyone in this room should be thankful for your service to our nation. i have four little girls in my life, and as i sit here thinkig about them and as a woman i cannot be prouder of you, and i consider you an inspiration for women around the world and just have to say before i get into my

questioning, is, i think it's 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, abecause i think that's how the president referred to you, i'm not sure he knows your name or there's some other meaning there, to supggesting that the woman should be thankful for whatever she was left with, smear campaign and all, after your, you were recalled, but i want you to know today that we thank you for your service, your 33 years of service. ambassador, on a press conference call october 17th acting white house chief of staff mulvaney discussed his belief that it's entirely appropriate to politicize u.s.

foreign policy. read the news reports and believe them, what did mckinley say yesterday? well, mckinley said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. one. reasons he was so upset about this. and i have news for everybody. get over it. there's 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, i think it's important to keep political influence out of foreign policy because we all whether we are republican or democrats or something else have common security interests, and that needs to be safeguarded and advanced. >> and what message to 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's deeply troubling. 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 tweeted an article that included a letter from representative pete sessions that said you had, i quote "spoken privately and repeatedly about your disdain for the current administration in a way that might call for the expulsion of you as u.n. ambassador to ukraine immediately." did you speak publicly and privately about your disdain for the trump administration? >> no. >> why do you think the president would want to push such a lie? >> i don't know. i don't know.

>> policies change, but u.s. interests don't. not for those who are seeking to do the work of protecting our nation, the work you have done for decades. the president's chief of staff and aal l allies seem to want t nothing more than smear the good people trying to protect this countries and hijack our institutions for their personal and political gain. again, ambassador, we thank you so much for your service. i'll yield my remaining time to the chairman. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentlemenwoman and go to mr. christian murphy. >> good afternoon, ambassador, and thank you to 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 ukraine. congress on an overwhelmingly

bipartisan basis appropriated hundreds of million s of dollar in military assistance to ukraine. correct? >> yes. >> that aid is being used by ukraine to fight a common adversary, namely russia. right? >> yes. >> the u.s., in fact, 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 ukraine helps maintain peace so that americans don't 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 were in ukraine was may 20th of this year. right? >> yes. >> in his opening statement ambassador taylor said he took charge in ukraine on june 17th. >> yes. >> 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's my understanding. >> in other words, isn't it the case that your departure and the one-month gap between the time you left and when ambassador taylor arrived provided the perfect opportunity for another group of people to basically take over ukraine policy. isn't that right? >> yes.

>> ambassador, you have to speak a little louder and into the mic. >> yes -- yes. >> thank you. on page 10 of your opening statement you mentioned, quote/unquote, corrupt interests apparently hijacking our ukraine policy. right? >> yes. >> a couple suspect individuals in that regard were lev parnas and igor fruman. right? >> yes. >> you mention in response to minority counsel earlier that you learned that fruman and parnas were attempting to open a liquefied natural gas company. correct. >> yes. >> how did you learn that, by the way? >> from the minister of interior. >> interestingly 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'd like to direct you to another line of questioning that i had for ambassador taylor earlier this week. he said that there were irregular channels of diplomacy in ukraine circumvented normal diplomatic channels and threatening american interests in favor of private interests. i asked the question, can you rule out the possibility these to irregular channels of diplomacy of used in other countries where we conduct foreign policy? in response he said that he could not rule it out. ambassador yovanovitch, i ask you. and i assume that you can't rule it out either. correct? >> i can't but i will also add 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's a possibility. >> you testified that it was a quote/unquote dangerous precedent that private interests and people who don't 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, in your service as an american diplomat you encountered various dictators and strong men ruling other countries. right? >> yes. >> in your personal life, your parents fled the soviet union and nazi germany and they became familiar with despots and dictators as well. correct? >> yes. >> indeed you're an authority on authoritarianism, right? >> well, maybe. >> is it a feature of authoritarianism to allow corrupt interests to hijack foreign policy? >> yeah. >> is it a feature of authoritarianism for the rulers there to claim absolute rights? >> yes. >> and is it a hallmark of authoritarianism for those rulers to smear their opponents?

>> sometimes, yes. >> thank you. >> time of the jgentleman expired. mr. nunes, closing remarks? >> i would just say to the american people today's show trial has come to an end. we're headed down now to the basement of the capitol to go until, i don't know what time. we'll be back there hiding again behind the closed doors. interviewing of 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's 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, mexico and canada has would actually help the american people out, because this is an embarrassment.

i yield back. >> mr. chairman may i be recognized for a motion? >> no. i have 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 others that also witnessed wrongdoing that, they, too, could show the same courage you have, could stand up, speak out, answer questions they could endure whatever threats, insults may come their way. and 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 thank you gathered from our

comments that we not only agree with what you went through but what damage is being done to the state department, to career federal foreign service officers all over the country. i am profoundly grateful to you, mr. kent, ambassador taylor, who have done so much in the last two days or 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, as you have, and so i'm glad they've gotten to see you, because you're often vilified as bureaucrats or diplomacy is diminished as unimportant, anything other than military doesn't really matter. when it's your efforts that often prevent us from going to war. sometimes you're 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 i'm 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 this 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 that relationship with the most powerful patron of ukraine, the united states of america. the fact that they failed in this solicitation of bribery

doesn't make it any less bribery. doesn't make it any less immoral or corrupt. it just means it was unsuccessful. and to that we owe other dedicated public servants who blew the whistle. and had they not blown the whistle we wouldn't be here and i think it is appalling that my colleagues continue to want to out this whistle-blower so that he or she can be punished by this president. but let's underscore once again, while you are the beginning of this story, you're not the end of it, but nonetheless, the beginning is important, because the beginning of the story is annest to get you out of the way. annest by rudy giuliani and fruman and parnas and corrupt ukrainians like lutsenko, to get you out of the way, because they felt you were an impediment to the political investigations the president so desperately wanted.

giuliani played it abundantly clear he was in ukraine on a mission for his client for the president to investigate the bidens. and you were viewed as an obstacle that had to go. not just by giuliani but by the president of the united states, and if people had any doubt about it, do what the president asks. read the transcript. what they're see in the transcript is the president praises the corrupt. he praises the 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. mr. speaker, a condition. mr. speaker. >> allow the witness to -- >> you disparaged those members on this side of aisle and should

have a chance to respond to your disparaging remarks. mr. chairman, i demand to speak. mr. chairman -- [ applause ] [ applause ] you're watching a somewhat chaotic end to today's house impeachment une menment inquiry which we heard testimony from former u.s. ambassador to ukraine maria yovanovitch. there was at the end of the

hearing the house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff made comments and you heard republicans objecting they didn't get a chance to respond before he gavelled the proceedings closed. it was an eventful hearing, and one of the participants via twitter was president trump who in the middle of ambassador yovanovitch's testimony at the beginning of the day tweeted an attack on her saying "everywhere maria yovanovitch went turned bad. she started off in somalia. how did that go? fast forward to ukraine the new ukraine president president spoke unfavorly about her in my second phone call. a u.s. ped's absolute right to appoint a ambassador calming in serving at pouter of the president. it is called quite simply america first with all that,

however, i have done far more more ukraine than president obama." and obviously, that caused quite the ruckus. the chairman of the committee asked ambassador yovanovitch to respond in realtime to the tweet. she said that she found it intimidating and now chairman schiff is suggesting that the tweet constituted in one way at least witness intimidation. let's as we watch the republican members including congressman jim jordan not actually a member of the house intelligence committee normally but put on the committee to be a bulldog of sorts. we are expecting him and the chairman of the committee adam scschiff to come out and take questions from reporter and will bring it to you like when it happensal while we wait, review of the day. jen sakai, what do you think was

headline of the day? >> no question looking back at day everyone will remember the moment you described. when president trump tweeted in the middle of the testimony, when adam schiff went back to maria yovanovitch asked her about it and she said it's very intimidating. i can't speak to what the president is trying to do but the effect is very intimidating. that's what we will remember. he doubled down, went out publicly said i'm allowed to speak. he's suggesting that he, that every president can fire an ambassador, can hire an ambassador, what he's not acknowledging -- >> which is true. >> which is true. he's not acknowledging and democrat s pushing on, he pushe tore her to be fired because she was pushing back on him advancing his own personal interests. what this is about. adam schiff brought it back to that, that tweet and her response is what we will remember. >> and you were a member once of

the house intelligence committee. >> i was never chairman of whatever that committee is. >> because this is a, almost an impeachment committee. >> it is. can i just say this. i really -- i'm disheartened by this in the sense that that committee is really very important. it's the on place that you can do really sensitive work outside the microphones, in a classified area where you can get the most sensitive information, our intelligence services collect. none of that work is being done. this is what worries me. i'm not sure what the democrats got accomplished today. a lot of it seemed emotional to me that didn't hurt your feelings, that, you got fired, that people were talking bad about it. >> a lot of questions. that's not a legal matter. they may have been right. she was certainly mistreated in this. again, did they point out there is a bad system of this duel diplomacy operating in ukraine by somebody who had business

deals in ukraine? we all, democrat, republican, everybody in between should be fend e offended by that. at least they pointed that out. republicans didn't seem to get their act together about a series of questions to lead the audience to their position. if there was, i didn't see it. >> your successor op the committee although interrupted by devin nunes, line of succession, chairman adam stiff. democrat from california. listen to be what he has to say. >> share a few observations after the testimony today. i think we could all see what an incredible public servant ambassador yovanovitch is. we are so fortunate to have dedicated professionals like her serving around the world. she 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 i think level of devotion and courage

and commitment to country today. so we're grateful to her and the other witnesses who testified as well showing country what it means to be a public servant. what it means to be a career foreign service officer. we're enormously proud of them. that she had to endure yet another attack today even as she was testifying, 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 and the president felt it was necessary to gelt ht her out of way. notwithstanding what the president and others were told about her dedication to country, her commitment to fighting

corruption, if anything, her commitment to fighting corruption was part of the reason why she was pushed out. pushing her out made it possible to put in the three amigos two conduct ukraine policy. if there were any doubt why she was pushed out i think the call record eliminates that doubt. is apparent from the that call record that the president associated his bias in favor of his corrupt prosecutor lutsenko with a need to push out yovanovitch, with a need to move forward with the investigations he wanted of his political rival. that u.s. ambassador would be so shamelessly smeared and cast aside to further this corrupt's effort just adds further instault to the injury done to the country and to our national security. thank you. >> mr. chairman -- quick question.

expect anything -- understand why you have the witness paired the way you do? fiona hill's public testimony at the last -- [ inaudible ]. >> well, we have, as you've seen, we've combined witnesses from time to time, different panels, depending how long we think the testimony of any one witness may go. we also tried at times to accommodate schedules but mostly the witnesses have accommodated us. in terms of whether ambassador hill did a final testimony i'm not prepared to say. but as we have endeavored all along we are moving expeditiously but trying to move methodically. >> mr. chairman -- >> issue what is intimidation, talk today this could potentially be considered im impeachment. more obstruction of justice or abuse of power in your view? >> i would say the president's attack on a witness today is not

something that we view in isolati isolation. it's part of a pattern of 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 whistle-blower who exposed wrongdoing in his administration was we treat traitors and spies and we used to execute traitors and spies. this is a part of a pattern to intimidate witnesses. it's also part of a pattern to obstruct the investigation. it was also a part, frankly, of the pattern to obstruct justice, and so we need to view the president's actions today as part of a broader and incriminating pattern of conduct. >> mr. chairman -- >> the first --

all right. that was the chairman of the committee adam schiff. democrat from california. talking about how he thinks the day went and obviously a highlight or lowlight rather for him when president trump, on twitter, attacked the witness. ambassador yovanovitch. what she said at the time was intimidating. let's continue with our panel and so there's a theory, right? that giuliani and president trump wanted yovanovitch gone so that this rogue foreign policy where ukraine was being encouraged not just on that phone call, but in all sorts of other conversations, to publicly announce an investigation into the bidens. a theory she was removed because they was getting in the way of that. where is the evidence for that? that's a theory and not one anybody at this table would have any difficulty believing is

actually the case. >> right. but where is the evidence that's why it happened? >> a good question. evidence may ultimately have to be circumstanceal. >> supposed to be the focus of this entire inquiry. third witness never talked to the president, third witness never toke spoke with chief mulvaney, third witness not on the call. third witness wasn't even as i said in ukraine when the relevant, during the relevant time frame. wasn't even there which prd zelensky, left before inaugurated as the new president. so, again, four facts, say it every time. it's the truth. four factsd have never changed won't change, call transcript. no conditionality or linkage on the call between an investigation, security assistance, two individuals on the call. both said that there was no pressure no linkage ukrainians

aid was withheld and president zelensky never took official action to get the aid released. so those facts never change and will never change. i'll let ms. stefanik. >> day two of adam schiff and regime of secrecy. we saw today he'd making up the rules as he goes. did not let republicans put forth unanimous consents, did not let us with our team, i was interrupted six times throughout the hearing. more of a ridiculous use of power we see from adam schiff. one. most important facts that 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. then in my line of questioning i wanted to highlight the obama state department was so

concerned about conflicts of interest with hunter biden sitting on barisma's board that the obama state department, the first instance where ambassador yovanovitch had ever heard the word barisma. that's an important fact to note for all viewers here today. we'll continue asking about hunter biden's role on behalf of the millions of americans who want to know the answer to that question. on the whistle-blower, it is important to note adam schiff and i listed all instances of this. adam schiff was adamant hearing from the whistle-blower and changed when it became clear there was coordination between democratic staff and the whistle-blower before the whistle-blower complaint was issued. >> let me say two other quick things. thought we were in the public stage of this so-called impeachment inkwirpy yet here in a few minutes going back to the bunker in the basement of the capitol for another deposition the american people won't get to see. what they also haven't seen yet,

four transcripts of people all right held. 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 are prohibited under house rules from doing that. great question for you to ask mr. schiff, when will he release those transcripts to use that information in the public hearings? >> mr. -- >> once the president said -- sent the tweet, didn't that undercut what you were trying to do at the hearing? >> we're not here to talk about tweets but impeachable offenses. let me answer your question. he's hearings are not about tweets. they are about impeachment of the president of united states. this is a constitutional matter. you can disagree or dislike the tweet but we are here 20 talk about impeachment and nothing in that room today and nothinging in that room earlier this week, noz nothing rises to the level of impeachable offenses. this is wishful political thinking by the democrats. not the first or last tweet

they're going talk about and there is not a single impeachable act conducted by this president. the witness was able to answer questions. you saw the only people limited from asking questions republican members because we were muzzled by schiff. >> would you agree with the tweet? >> i said i disagree with the total tweet. again, talking about impeachment we are talking about ever cha e ab impeachable offenses. as we know, agree or not with the tweet. democrats want to continue making this a political food fight and going about it in a partisan way. a very serious matter when we're talking about impeachment. a constitutional matter and not about tweets. >> congresswoman, do you worry what the president is continuing to recall ambassador yovanovitch based and what you learned today? >> i agree with ambassador yovanovitch's testimony she thinks it is good policy that the president of the united states can determine who serves as their ambassador. >> do you agree with his decision ultimately? >> i agree with the president's ability to pick and kmooz who

his ambassador and choose and -- >> president can have whom he wants in diplomatic positions. >> -- [ inaudible ]. >>president's. >> what we do have, president zelensky, a new administration in ukraine didn't have the same confidence in this ambassador and so isn't it appropriate with all the foreign service diplomats we had to put someone in with a new regime in the ukraine that can actually work on the president's behalf or on behalf of the american people? >> why is it appropriate for the president's kpa 's cabinet, pres personal attorney, rudy giuliani he testified was a smear campaign. why is that okay? >> the president can say who he wants to do diplomatic work for the country. all of talk about irregular channel. folks in the irregular channel senate confirmed ambassador

sondland and secretary perry, some want to make a big deal about that and had the president's lawyer part of that group. presidents are allowed to have whom they want doing the work of the country. >> said it was a smear campaign under oath. testified a smear campaign. do you believe her? >> democrats say the president is -- is it appropriate for the president to be attacking a witness while she is testifying? >> i think -- >> i don't know that it's -- excuse me. i don't know it was an attack on the witness. it was really characterization of her resume and when you look at this, when you look at this, you guys want him to go in with no attorneys, no witnesses, no twitter or no anything. at some point you've got to say, when is it going to be a fair process? today was not a fair process in there. it's not going to be a fair process in the bunker that we're about to have to go to and not a fair process when they muzzled the general woman from new york

over and over again. it's not fair. >> reporter: they're going to -- [ inaudible ]. >> do you think it's a fair process for the witness? >> the second sentence of that tweet, for example. one example. adam schiff never brought this up. second sentence of the tweet goes back to the july 25th call transcript. in that president slnzelensky i saying to president trump he's concerned that ambassador yovanovitch is a "bad ambassador" and president zelensky believed that ambassador yovanovitch had a loyalty to president poroshenko. now, adam schiff when posing the question to ambassador yovanovitch to respond to the tweet never mentioned that. this is what adam schiff does. acting director of national intelligence in front of the committee, his opening statement, he made up a fictitious call transcript of july 25th. because the real one doesn't have the bribery that he wants to allege. just like that make-belief what he called parody, instead created a parody versus of the

tweet. a partial rendition where he left that out and asked ambassador yovanovitch to respond. more responsible if adam schiff wants to ask that question to let ambassador yovanovitch read the entire tweet to digest it and then respond. by the way, if you want to talk about what president trump said to president zelensky about ambassador yovanovitch? why would he cherry pick out once again, loves to withhold key facts. that's how he rolls. he withholds information, outright lies and cherry picks leaks. in this case, he took a part of a tweet. it was the entire approach to it. they never asked ambassador yovanovitch w yovanovitch about what president zelensky said about her. that is how about he rolls with alls this. why is the president tweeting? schiff wants only part of the information and to create the

world's greatest parody, why didn't you ask? >> saying it right now. i'm not on the house committee. by the we we have asked the ambassador and anybody can read her deposition. spent seven, eight hours, that's not public even though morrison the is not. president trump wants to defend himself and make sure it gets out there because adam schiff isn't going to tell the american people the entire thing. >> impeachment about withholding aid? that's what i thought it was all about. i thought interesting. heard from somebody in the intraagencies today, who recommended that we give ukraine lethal 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's getting impeached? what about the previous president who denied the intraagency and denied congress? thank you. >> is there any way you can characterize this as a good day today for republicans? you said abject failure? >> abject official for adam schiff. be clear. abject failure for adam schiff. so that's the house republican response talking about it's house intelligence committee's impeachment inquiry today, in which you heard from congressman jim jordan of ohio and congresswoman stefanik of new york and many others talking how they think the process is unfair and you heard from congressman wenstrup at the end talking ultimately the aid to ukraine was released so where's the scandal?

we point out of course the aid was only released after the whistle-blower complaint was filed with the intelligence community, inspector general. let's continue to talk and i cut you off before, here was the question. the question was, if the theory of the case the ambassador was fired by president trump on a advice from rudy giuliani somehow she was getting in the way to have this desire of foreign policy ultimately end up with ukraine announcing public invest gagts igationing into th bidens, where is the evidence that was the reason? >> the problem with the witnesses all over the case. the people who give direct evidence, interacted direct with with president trump are john bolton, mick mulvaney, mike pompeo more relevant now still missing in actions. democrats haven't been able to action the people because the white house put up a stone wall and instead doing the best they can and building off circumstantial evidence not as

strong from ambassador yovanovitch, from george kent and fiona hill we'll hear from next week. saying it was unusual. contrary to american interests a campaign smear by rudy giuliani, this is the problem with not having access to full information. >> i want to note the impeachment hearings are continuing right now although behind closed doors. about to testify behind xloclos doors, david holmes. the diplomatic aide according to the in ub one ambassador, number one diplomat in ukraine right now bill taylor. holmes overheard a call between president trump and ambassador sondland and told president trump cares more about the investigations are bidens, the bidens, than he does about ukraine. that interview was going on behind closed doors right now. we assume that has been, as has been the case with all depositions behind closed doors, ultimately it will be released

to the public after the counsel goes through it and redacts nip names and information that should not be public. in fact after congressman jordan asked congressman schiff where are these four depositions that have not been released? i asked the house intelligence committee. being released on a rolling basis. expect more to be released soon. ultimate one mpt things holding it up if not the on thing house counsel going through redacting information that would otherwise put individuals whose names should not be made public, public. continue our conversation. gloria, start with you. joining our panel now. first of all, what's your impression? the headline from today's hearing? >> for me the president threw a grenade into any republican effort to try and discredit the ambassador in any way, shape or form. i think the republicans had a couple goals here. one, to say you're irrelevant to the story, because as you

yourself pointed out, you were not serving during the july 25th phone call. why are you even here? they wanted to talk about that a little and also make the president into a somewhat sympathetic figure. people in ukraine out to get him during the election. don't you think he has a real reason to be a little paranoid what the ukrainians were trying to do and you, ambassador did nothing about that. you didn't try and defend the president against people in ukraine who were on hillary clinton's side in this election. those are two points they wanted to make. >> can i interrupt one second and come back to you. because during one of the breaks i looked at one of the op-eds, that congressman jordan was citing as evidence of the ukrainians trying to interfere in our election. what it actually was, was the ukrainian ambassador to the united states noting that candidate trump had just said he was thinking about, if he became

president, allowing crimea, which the russians illegally seized from ukraine, just considering that to be russian territory going forward. that would be -- ukrainian ambassador understandably wrote an ob p-ed saying not a good id. it was not ukrainian interference. somebody saying we shouldn't hand over our territory to rush. appeasement. >> republicans by the way defending that? the world is upside-down. right? >> the only allegiance is to president trump in their minds. >> these are republicans saying it's okay we're going to give back crimea. right? to the russians? then the president drops a grenade into the middle of the hearing and suddenly they have to pay homage to the ambassador, because they couldn't believe what they heard from the president. and adam schiff i think was very

smart to read this tweet to her. she was clearly shocked and offended by it and i thought handled it with a great amount of dignity and i think the american public got to watch it. >> interesting. a possible article of impeachment happening in real time before our very eyes. take a very quick break and come back and talk to somebody on the house intelligence committee about what she just saw. stay with us.

hi, i'm joan lunden. when my mother began forgetting things, we didn't know where to turn for more information. that's why i recommend a free service called a place for mom. we have local senior living advisors who can answer your questions about dementia or memory care and, if necessary, help you find the right place for your mom or dad. we all want what's best for our parents, so call today. ♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like?

it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on

billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. make fast, family sized meals in the time it takes some ovens to preheat. with ninja's superheated air, you can air fry for extra crispy, guilt free, delicious results. and because it's a ninja foodi, it can do things that no other oven can. and even flip up and out of the way. the ninja foodi air fry oven, the oven that crisps and flips away.

tampering is when schiff doesn't let us havh i've been watching today for the first time and it's really sad when you see people not allowed to ask questions. nobody's ever had such horrible due process. there was no due process. i think it's considered a joke all over washington and the world. the republicans are given no due process whatsoever. we're not allowed to do anything. it's a disgrace what's happen g happening. >> sir, do you believe your tweets can be intimidating? >> i don't think so at all. >> president trump moments ago asked about allegations of witness tampering after he

launched a twitter attack op marie yovanovitch while she was testifying today. she said that she did feel intimidated when asked by chairman schiff, the democrat who leads the committee. joining me now is jackie speier and she questioned yovanovitch. congresswoman, first of all, your u reaction to the president about witness tampering and the fairness of the process. this was another bombshell today just like on wednesday when david holmes overheard mr. sondland speaking to the president and the president talking about wanting the investigations. today the bombshell was the president in realtime tampering with a witness, intimidating a witness. it's so consequence shl that you saw the republican members i think we're going to interrogate the ambassador more than they actually did ch absolutely do a

180 and talk very you know, respectfully to her. i think jordan was the only one xho congressman jordan was the only one who wanted to try and challenge her when she didn't speak up when there was the op-ed that was printed that was seemeded to be from their perspective, promoting one candidate over another. as to the word due process, this is not a trial. the members on the republican side are not being given due process where each side is being given equal time. equal time. every member has 45 minutes to have their counsels ask questions and five minutes for each of the members to speak. the president once again spewing out lies because it's in his interest to do so. >> what do you think the odds are that assuming there are articles of impeachment, what do you think the odds are that what

the president did today and how chairman schiff referred to it as witness intimidation, that that would appear in the articles of impeachment? >> i think the obstruction of congress article is gaining more momentum by the day. not one piece documentation has been b provided by the secretary of state even though many of these witnesses have turned over chief of documents. reams of documents. we have not been able to have people like mulvaney, john bolton, mike pompeo come before the committee to testify. who have firsthand knowledge of so very much. i think that article of impeachment has a great validity. >> who do you make of the moments earlier in the process in the hearing when the congresswoman tried to speak and was told several times by chairman schiff that she was out

of order? what's going on there? are the republicans rebelling against rules they think are are unfair that democrats imposed on them? >> i'm not quite sure why they wanted to message with the sequence. they know what it was going to be. they also have the opportunity at the end to make motions unanimous consent motions to have documents placed into the r record so i'm not sure what that was about. oaf the course of the day as it turned out, people were able to yield time to each other and the chairman made that available to them. >> we asked members of the house intelligence committee to come on the show and talk about the hearing and they have declined to appear at least in the 3:00 and 4:00 hour on cnn. ranking member nunes, the congressman from california, said that house democrats are ignoring real business in favor of a partisan process of impeachment, that you're

pursuing watergate fantasies, the closed door depp sgs sigss downstairs are a strange cult. what's your response? >> i respond strongly when he uses the term i witnessed a cult in 1978 with jones town and i find his use of that quite offensive, but i what i will say is that these depositions take place in closed doors as they did in the benghazi hearings. there were 107 closed door aeroings that took place during the time that the benghazi hearings were going on that the republicans were in charge of f. so put that aside. as to the rest of the business of the house, there are 21 committees in the house of representatives. this is only one committee that is focused on the impeachment right now. 20 are having hearings, taking votes. we just passed a bill on the restoration of o funding for the

xm bank today. there's over 400 members doing all kinds o of work within their jurisdiction and under their job description right now. so again, it's phony argument but republicans are really having a difficult time trying to come up with a message that works for them. >> so one of the theorys of f the case is that the reason am bass cory yovanovitch was asked to leave her post, was fired, was that she was somehow going to be an obstruction to president trump, to rudy giuliani, in their attempt to push the president of ukraine to publicly announce investigations into the bidens and into the discredited theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. where is the evidence that that's the reason why she was pushed out?