rival. mr. morse son? >> in that hypothetical, no, i don't think he should do that. >> mr. volker, ambassador volker i'm sure you would agree. >> yes. >> the same thing would be true if it were the budget holder doing the same thing unless the state police agreed to conduct an investigation on a political rival? >> yes. correct. >> in your view is it any different for a member of congress? of course not, right? would you agree that the president has the same obligation unless he gets an investigation into a political rival. mr. morse son? >> yes, sir, i would agree with that hypothetical. >> i would agree. >> we're having a debate, both sides here, how to read what's

plainly before us, the presidential phone call where the president ignored the work of the advisors, national security council, talking points, instead chose to talk about the bidens and hunter biden and asked for an investigation. so we are just going to have to debate that but isn't the principle that no bern, including the president, is above the law absolutely essential and worth the effort to make certain that we continue to guarantee, ambassador morrison? >> sir, i haven't -- >> i'm sorry, a.mbassador volke? >> yes. >> mr. morse son? >> sir, the rule of law is essential to our democracy. >> that's so true. you know, we've had some discussions and challenge from the other side that the

president has authority in foreign policy to do what he likes. in fact, he does. a recent precedent to take our troops out of syria and allow the turkish forces to go in literally meant that some kurdish families went back to bed saturday night and woke up sunday morning, packed their kids and fled for their lives. a lot of people including both sides of the aisle totally disagreed with that. the president has the authority to do it, compulsive as it may have been, as unwise as it may have been as threatening to our national security. we're not talking about that here. ambassador volker, i've listened to your testimony and i thank you for trying to advance what will been a bipartisan ukraine policy, help ukraine get rid of

rush schaabsian aggression. what you learned is there was a side bar and it appears ambassador sondland was involved. >> i don't know everything about that, sir. >> you don't. but as you have been involved and with the benefit of hindsight, while you were working on what you thought was ending corruption there was side deals, correct? >> yes. so my objective was squarely focused on support for ukraine. i've learned about the testimony about investigating biden and other conversations that i did not know about. >> right. thank you for that and thank you for your candor about vice president biden's indid he go grit at this and service.

the bottom line is, at the end of the day we have to wonder what he was up to with respect to that favor and how it repudiated the policy that was the bipartisan effort in ukraine and raises questions about he in that hypothetical example i gave of the mayor held himself to be above the law. i yield back. >> mr. maloney? >> gentlemen, thank you for being here. ambassador volker, struck by your opening statement. moved a long way from the testimony you presented in october. and i know that you gave a reason about that, that you were in the dark about a lot of these things, fair to say? >> that is one thing, i learned a lot out of the testimony. >> you learned a lot. and what you said on page 8, i'm

referring to the statement you gave this morning -- i'm sorry, this afternoon. i did not know -- this is quoting, i did not know that president trump and others had raised vice president biden with the ukrainians or conflated it. >> correct. >> you didn't know ba ris ma meant biden, is that correct? >> i had separated the two. >> you didn't know, do we have to go through it, sir? you were there on may 23rd for the meeting with the president and he said talked to rudy. rudy cared. you missed it on may 23rd, right? >> no, sir. i understood hunter biden -- >> i understand that, but you didn't read that to be an investigation? >> correct. >> there were two meetings where

ambassador raised the investigations. >> i did not think he was saying anything specific. >> you heard him say investigations, you thought it was inappropriate. i didn't know it was the bidens, i thought it was inappropriate. in the war room sondland mentioned it and you missed it, as i understand it? >> that's correct. >> then in august you spent a good part of the time with the statement with rudy giuliani, you were the guy making the changes. you put in rudy's changes which called for investigating ba ris ma and the 2016 elections which you know meant bidens, right? you didn't know it at the time, right? but now we know it, right? on september 21st, you were at warsaw and you were there when ambassador so ndland told andre

he was not going to get a white house meeting unless there was an investigation. >> that is not correct. i was not in warsaw. >> you were not in warsaw. but you heard about it afterwards from sondland, is that correct? >> no, it was sometime after. >> now we know. you said in retrospect i should have seen that differently and if i had, i would have raised my own objections. what would you have raised? >> that people are conflating investigating the bidens -- >> would you have objected to the president asking for an investigation to the biden, you said, i would have raised my own objections -- >> yes. >> -- if i knew we were talking about vice president biden

and -- >> and his son. >> that would have been inappropriate. i would have said no. in retrospect we would have been confusing, right? it would have put them in the position of having to do something inappropriate. >> i think confusing is the right word because they were clearly hearing something different from the president in one conversation and different from me as the u.s. -- >> maybe, sir, they understood that investigating ba ris ma and investigating 2016 meant the bidens, you didn't. you were putting in yurmack and the point being that they were put in an impossible position. you now know that. >> i know they were asked in the phone call to do that. in the phone conversations i had

with the ukrainians, we were not asking them to do that. and at that point the ukrainians, we just don't want to go there. >> right. so in retrospect, you would have raised objections. you would have said it was inappropriate for the president to do this. >> correct. >> can i just ask you, sir, i'm stuck on this issue of you didn't see anything wrong with the call but you went straight to nsc legal to property it. is that your testimony today? >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to both of you, thank you for your service. it's been a long day. you responded to a series of questions about the call and saw nothing wrong with it yet you skipped your chain of command to go to legal counsel to find

out -- i guess to find out what to do because you were concerned about the political fallout, not about anything being appropriate or wrong with the call, is that correct? >> ma'am, i don't agree with the question. you saw basically nothing wrong with the call yet you skipped your chain of command to go to counsel because of what? what was the reason for that? >> again, i don't know the premise. if i had seen something wrong -- >> who's your direct report? >> the deputy national security advisor. >> and the name of the person? >> dr. charles cupperman. >> did you speak to him before the legal counsel? >> no. >> you don't feel you skipped your chain of command by going to counsel? >> i viewed my job based on

matters. if that's an administrative matt matter, i was sure they needed to be aware of the call. >> why were you so concerned about the legal advisor being aware of this call that you saw nothing basically wrong with the substance or consent of the call? >> because i did not see anybody from the legal advisor's office in the listening room and i wanted to make sure somebody from the legal advisor's office was aware and i wanted it to be a senior person. >> what did you want them to be aware of specifically? >> i wanted them to be aware of the call and know what had transpired. >> what concers you to the point where you wanted to know that you went directly to legal counsel to inform them of?

>> my equivalent was and is john eisenberg. i wouldn't go to somebody subordinate to him. >> didn't you testify you were concerned about the political fallout based on the political climate in d.c. >> yes, ma'am. yes, ma'am. >> how long have you supervised lieutenant colonel vin man? >> approximately -- i guess not july 15 too october 31 or so. >> thank you. ambassador volker, you testified you believed the security assistance is being released. do you still stand by that testimony today. >> i met with the senator. i was briefed about the possibility of a couple of phone

calls from some senior members of the senate as well. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield my remaining time to you. >> thank the gentleman from yielding. master volker, i want to follow up on a couple of things and the aid being withheld. he was contacted by someone within the ukrainian elementary. >> i was not aware of that. >> are you aware of the props and testimony where the hole was placed in july. they wanted to keep it silent. >> i saw that in her testimony. >> so the ukrainians did find

out when it was public, at least between these two witnesses. the ukrainians found out it was public when it was done. >> that is correct, august 29th. >> they still hadn't had the white house meeting and they still didn't have the eight and at that point they had already had the conversation with the president in which he asked them to investigate the bidens, correct? >> that is correct. >> good evening to both of you. thank you for your service. ambassador volker, on page 7 of your opening statement today you said since events surrounding your earlier testimony october 3rd quote, unquote, a great deal

of additional information, perspectives have come to light. i learned many things that i didn't know at the time of the investigation, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> that occurred as a result of meeting and such that you hadn't heard. >> sir, you were not part of the july 25th call, is that right. >> that's correct. >> you weren't aware that sondland had a conversation with the president on the 26th? >> that is correct. >> you weren't present between the side bar meeting, is that right? >> that is correct. you certainly weren't part of the phone call between ambassador taylor and ambassador sondland, according to multiple

aid, we're dependent on public announcements of investigations, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> and sirly, sir, you weren't part of the phone calls between when president trump and president ze hen ski go to a public mike. and certainly you weren't part of the september 8th and ambassador -- i'm sorry, prum where president trump insists these have to keep, is that right? >> that's right. >> if you say you weren't a witness to any kwooid or condition at between military experience and it's sometimes

called missions for elementary kits. they were tracking it. >> that is correct. sir, let me turn your attention to another topic that's come up today or actually came up last friday. you have high regard for ambassador yavonovich. >> i presume you were aware that as he was tweeted very disparaging sharks, is that right? >> i presume you disagree with those. you've supervised many, many ideas. you would never do that with one of your direct reports or any of your organizations.

it's just wrong. >> that's all right. i believe. >> praise is public. i also believe you were not attack a veteran. you are with someone who's in the duty. >> i respect that. there's a senator that we both liked, that's charlesly morrison. i presume that you would disapprove of all of those attacks on john mccain. >> i knew joon a smile. >> today as lie tenant and they

used the office of the president to attack lieutenant colonel vin man's availability. >> i assume you don't approve. >> i wasn't aware. >> thank you for your service. >> that concludes the member questioning. i now recognize ranking member for any closing comments he has. >> thank you. as this draws to a close, i'd like to remind the american people what we're watching. culmination is three years to find a crime to impeach the president. first they tried to manufacture evidence that the president colluded with russia.

they worked with a sign. still, adossier. next they primed their hopes on the work of robert mueller. he spent two years seeking a crime that we know wasn't committed. mueller's failure didn't provide for the removal of the president. we are witnessing the ukraine hoax to the russia collusion hoax. the plot of the ukraine hoax is hard to follow low. first they said they had kwooid,

exportion. >> like any good hollywood production, democrats needed a screen test before releasing your latest attack. they leveraged the cast of characters in preparation. with the media's support they were based on this. they are seeking the truth. they want to know the answers to the following questions they refuse to ask. to what extent did the whistle-blowers contact the merger. >> what is the plan for 2016? why did ba reesema hire hunter biden and did his position impact any conditions under the

snowball derby. >> i don't get why we have this. they got the comedy they've been working on for three years. good night. see you in the morning. >> i thank the gentleman. i thank you both for your testimony today. i would highlight what we've heard this afternoon. first mr. volker, your written testimony in which you say in hindsight i now understand that others saw the idea of involving possible tore rupgs as equivalent to investigating former white house. the latter being unacceptable. in receipt throw spekt you said

i should have seen that differently and i would have raised my own objections. that's where we appreciate your willingness to a meant your earlier testimony in light of what you now know. i think you made it clear that, in fact, the investigation of his political rival. you would not have countenanced them to continue in such conduct. i criticize you were able to debunk for the last time the idea that joe biden wrong when he in accordance sought to replace a corrupt prosecutor. something the u.s. state wanted and european union wanted it?

it's united states. you didn't get a lot of guess. we appreciate your candor. ism immediately after the president met with zelensky and then sondland told you two that if he had gone down and done the 400 million in military aid, they will have to do those investigations that the president wanted. this is also significant as you've testified here today. the sond land is corruption.

president zelensky had to do it himself. now you've been asked to opine on the meeting of bribery. you weren't asked to opine on the words high crimes and misdemeanors. we've explained. the official acts we were talking about here with a white house reading and ambassador volker was keeply important to this country at war with russia. >> to show the united states had these new trips back. the military assistance is even more significant.

because ukrainians are dying every single day which if it's left in kenyon's store. it means the sacrifice but american national security for the interest of the president personally and politically. my republican colleagues, all they seem to be upset, not that he withheld a white team to pressure you on it. their objection is someone blew the whistle. they would like this

whistle-blower identified and the president wants this whistle-blower punished. that's that. he got caught. that doesn't make this any less odious. americans may be watching this and asking why should the united states care about ukraine? why should we care about ukra e ukraine. gordonsnap shotted. all he had was zelensky. not whether they had passed some new anticorruption reform.

are the people going to do it? based on the vice president. i think that sond lls land has after warts in which i'm sure the president basically doesn't give an expletive about yukrain. war is at the read den. >> he cares about big things that affect his personal interests. this is why americans should care about this. menks should care about what happens with their own allies. they have you had have in congress. are we prepared to accept that a president of the you states

leveraged official acts, white house meetings to get an investigation of a political rival. are we talking about just if the president was here. >> i don't think we want to go there. i don't think the founding fathers wanted us to go there. they had the very concern that president obama might have interfered with the presents of it. they put that into the comedy just because they wanted it to willey nilly antifor rupgs mechanism when that corruption came from the highest office in the land. they're adjourned.

i ask the audience to please allow the witnesses to leave the room before they exit. a marathon day of impeachment testimony on the books. we have learned a lot that we didn't know. in fact, from the four witnesses, the president's fo former had told lawmakers behind closed doors. from tim morrison, there was both a benign assessment with the president of ukraine but a call he did go straight to nesc. it was also his recollection, the ambassador from eu. >> he said, their prosecutor

general. and about that july 25th call morgan stanley told lawyers about, he told them they should restrict actions again. result he said on error. somebody at refugee spoke about his actions after listening in. the white house responded with tweets casting doubts on his employment. joining us is john, david, carrie and rick santorum. let's get some quick thoughts in between here. i may interrupt because we may hear from devin new necessary and adam schiff.

who i think is -- >> he is leaving. >> he was a -- came across as a character witness for joe bides den. i'm sorry, i didn't know at the time that ba reesema eninterpreted biden and proceeded a lot and the second thing, of course, was the lieutenant colonel vin man. he was so striking in proclaiming his pay the triotism. he felt effectively that it was unpay tree otic. then he was attacked by the white house and people on the committee. >> you know, on volker i think he was in part trying to clean up the record for himself. he was trying to clean up his

reputation there. we'll get aid and we wanted a meeting with all of the characters to get it done. i any there was one last point on this. here you go. big policy. >> see now why chairman schiff wanted to put them as a -- here, do this. you'll get two pieces of transcript from this. and getting them out there. he was the special envoy. i think you'll tell the story is the one part, laurie annual exactly what happened. >> it go the worked out without

any product, film. this was a very -- what have you got? the sad thing is i said in the hearing, these two individuals are no longer working in our government. they're the kind of public servants that you appreciate. >> some of the important facts to recap, ambassador volker says that president zelensky gets a hold on eight. it's all exportion, bribery, there's no reference to quip, primary, i hope your ambassador

isn't great. there is no reference in any of those conversations before you go quite. it's not until the end of august. they get korch firm mags. the aid gets released shortly thereafter and guess what ukraine had to do north to get that hold listed. something else that's really important. the barisma's ol chef ski guy, by hunter biden's last name. at least $50,000 a month.

no ukraine experience, no energy experience. higgs father -- >> that's congressman lee zeld den. i wanted to get to some good testimony. >> right. what i think are the facts are that he is a soult on the process. rick can peek to it. for now what the president needs is a hole in the slide on him. i think democratic are going to use a political game. >> today was a graveyard. let's start with three, two, the

president second half. >> july. >> july 25th, really, just established how clearly he was doing an investigation of biden, second point. the idea that this couldn't be an exchange because you didn't know that the aid and the meeting were being hold because of the failure of the roads. not true. 124erd, the idea that what's this big press sell by lore.

>> but the reason, the reason that the president had to give the i had r a i had is because he got caught and the whistle-blower, the timing with the whistle-blower get complained. it's only then. >> that the aid is great. we do want to protect the russians. that's not true. >> john? >> big difference for me, anderson. today it became very clear. the republicans were very civil in the early days. it's not so much. this is not a pret at the sesor of watergate.

this is a whole new breed of investigation and inquiry. more polarized. >> i thought the two haergts were different. in the morning we had lieutenant colonel down there. they couldn't really speak to his exact rules and what he was orchestrating behind the scenes. >> with ambassador volker we get closer to the core group that was working more in the president's direct interests and was in touch with the president personally even though ambassador trying to rehumiliate

myself. this is part of the activities of rudy giuliani and i think there is an enormous amount of -- going into gordon's software and he was working with the state department. >> he said a lot of things to a lot of people. >> weg, i couldn't made you the money. he could be in touch with the president any time he wants. they tried to defend the president. they tried the republican talking points but they basically acknowledged that

everything that was done was wrong and they didn't know about it as gloria said. i think that completely strains credibility to suggest that volker, somebody who's been in washington for decades running a think tank didn't know. ultimately they said biden didn't do anything wrong. they said that the ukraine crowd strike is a conspiracy theory. they both acknowledged they should not be seeking political dirt? >> did you believe morrison? he said immediately he worked for your grandmothers if it's raining. he didn't see it in the room. >> no, that makes no sense. you don't go to a lawyer unless you think something is wrong in the white house.

in the nsc or if you're working on any portion of the white house. he clearly heard something he was concerned about for understandable reasons and he reported it to the lawyer. the only thing wrong is, he didn't acknowledge that. >> following that, morrison said he did not also press ukrainians ever about what the president had said on the call, not because he -- he said he didn't agree with it but he didn't say that's why he pressed. >> you might find it hard to believe. i don't see it the way they do. i think if you 4r50kd at the witnesses today, the witnesses last week what you see is that everybody involved in ukraine policy was on the same page. by the way, the president put all o those people in place. >> now he's mad about it. >> well, every one of the people

there had the same thing, which is to change the obama policy. >> no, it was leaving ukrainians without any way to defend themselves who are supporting ukraine, we have them in there and fighting for ukraine and now the democrats are saying, well, this is wonderful -- >> let me just ask you the question. because of this lethal eight has been important. it gives them quite a bit of leverage, the president, if he wants them. as you know, he has given it to us the first. the reality is -- here's my point. i'd like to compare this to the obstruction case on the mueller

report. what you had is a bins bunch of adults, the president spouting off, we should go after this guy, we should go after him. why? >> because he puts up with the wild ideas. that's exactly -- >> i don't start out and say i want to -- >> that's not happened here. what happened here, they all followed the president's direction to hold out their aid in an exchange. they didn't do it because they were caught. >> you heard the col setter, and doesn't want to involve himself in shooting wars everyone when his parents turn away from that. one, you said that everybody's

on the same page. they actually weren't. they thought it was a bad idea. >> also, they weren't where she were to yield and another emp-- >> i said all of the people that testified the last few days are all on the same page. i agree with you. rudy giuliani is not -- >> what we all heard today, they were all on the same page in bewilder meant. is prone to saying things that are problematic. does it said i would say he froze the eight for a variety of reasons.

give the president the benefit of the dot. >> i heard congressman schiff say he cleared up biden. he's a good 7.51, why did he have the investigation the day after. >> because -- >> look, i -- they -- it comes back to the point i've been making. just because aide in this -- we talked about the same conversation, doesn't mean one was traited for the other. >> here's volker when he's amended the private testimony. >> i did not know that president trump raised it and i conflated

it. in retrospect, it would have been confusing. others saw it as investigating former vice president biden. the former doesn't have to be remarkable. in retrospect. >> so if it -- >> my question. >> the constraints for julie, if you don't know it recognizes 59, maybe rudy journey. >> that's what they look like. >> which it is. >> what were the deliverables here?

why was it -- why did he -- did someone say to this group only the person cares about ukraine. volkerr, pair, he also referenced the 2016 -- he referenced the 2016 investigations. the crowd striking there in these orders. he was fine with getting sure. sod he said there was no. >> question. today was more attacks by looking for a position. >> yeah, anderson, it was a bit more muted coming from the president.

responding to the day's testimony somewhere between a tie and a win. that's what they're hanging their hat on. the president did not roughly attack and that came as a rewill have to some people inside. they were sort of bracing for this to happen but when the president went to the microphones, earlier today in a cab, i'm going to be going through this. some refer to him as mr. vin man. they were glad they got to be him. thanks, jum a kooeds a.

>> just on this point of -- that the press's not a big important and even in the call on the 25th, the only thing he raised were crowd source. it begs the question is he really concerned about corruption in ukraine -- >> he was asked about russia and saudi arabia and turkey and the president of turkey just visited. >> every that he's employed at the state department at nsa are all pushing ukraine on corruption. so the answer is, yes. you can say the president personally doesn't know. this administration does lots of things. he doesn't talk about anything. he talks about you, the media.

he doesn't talk about -- >> wait. this argument is insane. you cannot argue that the president of the united states' words do not matter or that he's just sort of spouting off or he has his own views. when you're talking about issue -- and they held up the aid and jennifer williams testified this morning they had absolutely no idea, everybody was confounded of why the aid was held up. omb said it was from the white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, who won't come and testify. the president's words matter. it cannot be on within hand we're supposed to teak him seriously as the commander perse government and on the other hand, it doesn't matter what he says, ignore all that other crazy. >> the reality is we ignore 80 to 90% of what the president says -- >> then he shouldn't be in office. >> look at the tweets.

we ignore most of those things he tweets and say it's trump being trump. >> your position is he shouldn't be impeached because he's surrounded by people that are less corrupt and crazy than he is. >> this is a man who has been under attack for three years as an illegitimate president with a congress looking to impeach him from the day he got in. i would say he gets a little -- >> so mitch mcconnell said his primary objective as soon as barack obama was elected was that barack obama should be a one-term president. in return barack obama should have gone to canada and said give me dirt on john mccain or i'll end relations. so what he has political opponents. tough luck. that's how it works. >> there's a deferenifference b political opponents who want to fight him out or drive him out of office. >> let's go back to how it

started. the day after mueller testified, the president called the president of ukraine and specifically asked him to open an investigation on his political opponent and i'm telling you, i appreciate that you are a strong and able advocate, but you -- if this were another president, another -- you would have a different view of that conversation. >> no, look, i would say that what the president did and i'll use the term that volker used. it was inappropriate. i don't think he should have asked about biden, he shouldn't have mentioned him in the conversation. should he be impeached for doing so? >> that would be the smart place for republicans to go politically. instead you've got people -- >> there are people who think it's inappropriate. >> but people won't say it. and you have a committee full of piece who are arguing that up is down and down is up and everything is fine and there's nothing to see here. that isn't a good argument. >> you know, even mike pence's

aide thought it was unusual, as she put it and morrison went to the -- >> has she been disavowed -- >> has been disavowed for the state department. enough people thought that it was weird that it was put in file 13 because they didn't want people to see it. so it was beyond inappropriate. >> i disagree. i don't think it beyond inappropriate. i think, you know, we have a president who does a lot of outrageous things. >> so it's outrageous. >> i said does a lot of outrageous things. in this case it was inappropriate. as i said before, he has a bunch of people around him to make sure we stay on the straight and narrow. >> we'll take a quick break. we'll be back at 11 p.m. for another edition of 360. "cuomo prime time" is next. best deal on iphone. d rie

get 4 lines of unlimited with 4 iphone 11 included for only $35 a line. all on a signal that goes farther than ever before. that's right. get 4 unlimited lines and 4 iphone 11 for $35 a line. only at t-mobile.

too shabby! too much!

i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com.

when it comes to using data, which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to other top wireless carriers. and now get $250 off when you buy a new samsung phone during xfinity mobile beyond black friday. plus, you can save up to $400 a year. click, call or visit a store today.

hey, i'm chris cuomo, welcome to "primetime." this has been the biggest day yet in the bulk of testimony that calls the president's defense came from a witness republicans wanted to testify. we also can't lose sight of the big testimony that happened this morning also. it's good to have analysts and experts and we do but i have two big players here tonight, a democrat who had one of the biggest moments daof the day an we're going to bring in a republican player to test their side of it. let's get after it. all right.

four firsthand witnesses means they saw, they heard, that's how they know. they've just raised the impeachment stakes. republicans may now be starting to regret calling two of them, particularly the former u.s. envoy to ukraine kurt volker. here's a taste of why. >> but the accusation that vice president biden acted inappropriately did not seem at all credible to me. i rejected the conspiracy theory that variety biden would have been influenced in his duties by vice president by money paid to his son. he's han honorable man that i hold in the highest regard. >> when he was talking about burisma, the company that had hunter biden on its board, which is no question a controversial decision, he said, oh, i didn't know that burisma meant biden. if i did, i would have said something at the time. we'll see how people take that. all eyes were also on a purple heart