but he can answer the last one.

and we are live back at the capitol and we're going to return to our impeachment inquiry coverage and we're going to take your phone calls. if you are watching the hearing that was on for about six hours today, we want to get your reaction to william taylor and george kent's testimony. and the questions they were asked by the democrats and republicans and by the general counsels. 202 is the area code. 748-8920 for democrats. 202-748-8921 for republicans. and 202-748-8922 for all others. and we will be getting to those calls very shortly. now, if you noticed in the press

conference that presidents erdogan and trump held, john roberts of fox asked president trump about one of the -- about william taylor and some testimony that he offered during the impeachment inquiry public hearing. and we want to show you that video right now before we get to your calls. >> last friday a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on july 26th. while ambassador volker and i visited the front, a member of my staff accompanied ambassador sondland. following that meeting in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. the member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland about the investigations. ambassador sondland told president trump the ukrainians were ready to move forward.

following the call with president trump, the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. mr. sondland responded that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden which giuliani was pressing for. at the time i gave my deposition on october 22nd, i was not aware of this information. i'm including it here for completeness. as the committee knows, i reported this information through counsel to the state department's legal adviser as well as to counsel for both the majority and the minority of this committee. it is my understanding that the committee is following up on this matter. mr. chairman, i recognize that this is rather -- >> and that was acting u.s. ambassador william taylor earlier today. now, we're going to show you the entire hearing after we're done taking your phone calls in about 20 minutes or so. we'll show you the entire hearing and it will be be rebroadcast on c-span 2 tonight

at 8:00 p.m. plus, if you're away from your tv and you want to watch it, c-span.org/impeachment. that's our impeachment page. it's got everything on there that has happened in the last couple of months with regard to the impeachment inquiry. our first call comes from cannon city, colorado on our democrats line. burk, you're on c-span. what did you think of the hearing today? >> caller: hi there. thanks for taking my call. i just want to make sure the general that's watching these proceedings don't fall for the republican smokescreen of what's actually going on. follow the facts, listen to the testimony and stick with the truth. >> anything in the hearing -- anything in the hearing today that really caught you? >> caller: well, there's no real new information that hasn't already been out. but here again, just watch -- watch the facts and listen to the testimony and do not fall

for the republicans' smokescreen of bringing up unsubstantiated facts and total mistruths of the whole situation. >> all right. that's burk in colorado. our public hearing coverage continues on friday. former ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch will be testifying and, of course, we will be live with all that, as well. kale, mokina, illinois. republican. hi. >> hi. thanks for taking my call. i watched the hearings all day long, and i don't know -- what i gathered from it, the facts are that there was no withholding of any aid that expect over there in the ukraine knew about. those people didn't do anything. it's like having a murder and there's no gun and there's no evidence, but they're still

going to say there was a murder, and i don't know, the hearing, the way it's handled, mr. schiff -- it seems very fair and un-american that witnesses that the other side want to call can't be called and he interrupted questioning by the republican side and then he doesn't allow them to make motions and in the end just dismisses and wastes everybody's time and gavels out the session with no debate, no questions. that was supposed to be about everybody being able to go on, and that's want what happened with mr. schiff. thank you. another one of the names that got mentioned quite a bit was eu ambassador gordon sondland and he'll be toughing in a public hearing next week. lawrence, urbandale i io, iowa e others line. >> thanks for taking my call. >> i don't think they had any evidence at all.

it's all, like, five time hearsay stuff and then i heard one of the democrats say that it's many people have been convicted over hearsay. i would like to know who? that's illegal. >> do you think the whistle-blower should testify? >> i -- i think so because one of the other questions that schiff wouldn't answer was did he leave with him beforehand and that's a pretty relevant thing because he met with them and they called this whole thing then it really was a sham. >> thanks for your call, north palm beach florida, democrats line, you're on c-span. yes. thanks for taking my call. what bothered me today about the hearings was the lack of

specificity with regard to the ' democrats and presenting the case. when a waste of time when there are so many issues that need to be addressed and for example, if we can take this time on infrastructure where there's great bipartisan support for this or certain aspects of health care. certainly the national debt and the budget should take a greater priority. so the democrats and i'm a long time democrat and objectively, i think they're wasting their time and they should get down to the business of really helping the average american make a go and do things rather than, you know, just like the person -- he's a buff an, but we've got him and we have an economy and may as well utilize that for the benefit of the citizenry. those are the comments i have. thank you for taking my call. >> it should be noted that

george kent are still employed as diplomats in the state department. mary, billings, montana, on the others line. mary, you're on. >> yes. i think the testimony of the two witnesses. they did well in answering as best they could with the information they had. however, regarding the caller from illinois likening this to a murder, was there no gun and therefore there was no murder. i thought if you conspire to a murder that's a crime and evidently that doesn't go in politics. >> next call is robert in hometown, illinois. republican line. robert, go ahead and make your comment. >> yeah. i watched all seven hours and i agree it was a total waste of time if those are the best two witnesses they've got, i didn't see any impeachable offense at all. i agree with what larry said.

let's get together and do a few things for the country and the next seven months they'll re-elect donald trump, in the meantime, save some of the money wasted on this and somebody coming in friday and next week a couple of times and they'll be worse than these two guys and i agree, the infrastructure, the border, so many things just passing the budget and they always blame the president for not passing the budget and it's not his fault. put the budget forward and let him sign it. they can't be blaming president trump for not signing a budget. they have to get the budget and hash it out amongst themselves and agree on the stuff. they show every hour on the hour they spend 235 billion on illegal aliens and all trump wanted was 5 billion. thanks so much for hearing me

out. >> thanks for calling in. speaking of the budget, the federal government funding runs out at midnight november 20th and there's a proposal for a new, continuing resolution to fund the government through december 20th and right before christmas. so we'll see what happens there. helen's in las vegas, democrat. helen, please go ahead. >> the republicans seem to be chasing some really far-fetched conspiracy theories in order to support the president, and i would encourage every american to watch the proceedings to determine and the actions from any future president. thank you. >> helen, did you have a chance to watch most of the hearing today? >> yes, i did. >> what did you think of the two general counsels, the democratic

general counsel and the republican general counsel questioning the witnesses? >> i don't think that the republican general counsel was prepared as far as what processes go on within the government which i think is a reflection of the current administration as a whole. the administration doesn't understand the bigger picture. >> thanks for calling in. what do you do in vegas? >> i'm retired. >> all right. we appreciate you watching. mark, sterling height, michigan, on our independent line. mark, go ahead. >> hi. i watched it all day. i think all anyone has to do is read the transcript to and in my opinion i read the transcript and i don't see the problem with anything he said he wants to -- trump wants to get to the bottom

of corruption and obviously what happened in the 2016 election is there seems to be a lot of nefarious things going on in the 2016 election and a lot of the head ukraine involvement and there's been a court case in the ukraine that determined that, and the real trials coming up with durham and see what kind of criminal investigation that they -- the evidence they've found and here trump has been fighting this since he took office and this impeachment has been going on since he's taken office, the democrats have wanted to impeach him. so to me, this looks like a continuation of the witch hunt that began as soon as he took office. >> well, the president was occupied with turkish president

erdogan today. we kind of expected him to be sending out some tweet, but he did start off the day this morning prior to the hearing with two tweets. one that said read the transcripts and never trumpers referring to the two witnesses and that question came up during the hearing which we will re-air shortly. gayle, in merrimac, new hampshire, hi, gayle. >> yes. i agree with the previous gentleman. the democrats have been trying to hurt this president even before he took his oath of office because of that false dossier everything -- everything these democrats are trying to do to him and they never give up no matter what and there's so much other work that needs to be done and they're not doing their job.

why do we pay them such huge salaries to not do their job? >> gayle, what did you think about the two witnesses today? >> i think they were probably honest, but they were giving opinions and things they heard, not facts, and the republicans have real facts and that's what we should be looking at, not hearsay and what adam schiff makes up that it's the truth when it's not. look at how he read the transcript on tv in a hearing. he made up the words as he read aloud. he didn't read the real transcript and he said he was and that's a bold-faced lie. it's outrageous. >> all right. that's gayle in merrimac new hampshire. up next it's anna and forest

hills new york, a democrat. what did you think of the hearing today? >> i'm not exactly a democrat, but the fact is i am on the side of the democrats in this very important issue. >> i read that transcript the very day it was released and i read what the whistle-blower said, and i was up all night and i was so shocked and it was so clear what transpired, and that the president thinks it was an appropriate call and every time he says it -- i don't know, i grimace. according to everything that went on today because i heard almost every word, the two things that stood out were that -- well, actually three, sondland actually was taking direction directly from the president. that was very obvious and that was the biggest revelation when

taylor said that, you know, that he overheard that conversation and heard the president's voice and the president asking about the investigations and obviously though the republicans didn't want to say the investigations were referring to biden and the gas company in ukraine and the other two issues and the democrat from vermont, he said it all that the republicans were asking for the whistle-blower to sit in the chair there as a witness and he said, well, because the whistle-blower was the one that started it all. actually, that democrat said, yes, we should have the person who started this all. the president, he should be sitting there as a witness because he is the one that really scheduled all of this, and the other thing is that i was so impressed with that 50-year public service of the

public servant mr. taylor and in those 50 years, he sent a cable to the secretary of state, the state department and which he did, and there was no response to that cable. that was shocking. and finally, though this is not one of my issues and i do see that the president is a clear and present danger to our national security and that's what i got out of what came out of this today. >> ana, do you think the whistle-blower should testify? >> excuse me? >> do you think the whistle-blower should testify? >> absolutely not. it would be against the law, first of all. the whistle-blower, that whole concept is something that has been ingrained in our history that they should be protected. we have saved billions of dollars in our -- in our govern ch government through the help of whistle-blower and if you

intimidate and accuse a whistle-blower of being a spy? i thought that was outrageous when the president said it, but no. definitely not. no. >> ana, thanks for your time. she referenced that call or that remark by peter welsh of vermont who at 72 is the oldest member of the committee and elise stephanic and 35, the youngest member of the intelligence committee. ken, port orange, florida. independent line. hi, ken. >> the comment i have is about mr. kent telling us all that the lag time on the security assistance is about a year. so any withholding that would have been done is not going to be recognized until further on down the road. so this urgency that's being talked about is questionable. >> thank you for calling in. tom in alexandria, virginia,

republican line. go ahead, tom. >> i'm calling the republican line. i want to note that both of the principal witnesses were both very good and i comment that ambassadors historically have tended to become in the sense clients of the nations that they represent. i'm not saying that's the case here, but certainly it was the fact that there was an apparent abrupt change in policy that caught their eye and perhaps tended to condition their responses and note again here that it's the president that sets the foreign policy and it's been noted and if you oppose it then you must resign, beyond that, i might note that much has been made of this unusual circumstance of having mr. giuliani performing tasks that -- for the president, an area that is foreign policy. historically, of course, you have colonel house who did

things for mr. wilson. i don't believe he had any particular special rule in the government. either that, and harry hopkins who in, july, for example went to moscow to get an idea whether or not the russians who would in fact insist and his input that they appeared to be doing that, of course, helped cause our policy and supporting to do so and go into place. third, the whistle-blower talking about the whistle-blower giving a name and that sort of thing supposedly illegal and that was not my understanding of the statute. it is a case of trying to protect a so-called whistle-blower, and again, i think some of the criticisms of the abuse of that term in this context seem to be valid and it is a case of trying to protect him or her against reprisals and that can certainly be done and yet we need to know who that might be.

otherwise, it is interesting that in accepting the position that one cannot mention the whistle-blower or talk to him, cross examine him opens the possibility that any kind of anonymous because it would be, anonymous charge that could lead to impeachment has to be accepted at face value without any kind of a chance to check whether or not the person who offered the so-called whistle blowing is biased or not and has a particular agenda. i thought they offered the republicans that there should be a closed-door session at which the committee members could question the whistle-blower without necessarily letting his name out, would be an excellent idea. the leafing of things, in this case, i regret to say a monopoly of mr. schiff and some people on

the democratic side --? tom, you're calling here from the washington area. are you a retired federal employee? >> i am a retired air force officer, yes. i also have a history i'm interested in. >> well, thanks. we'll leave it there. we have a lot of calls lined up, but we appreciate very much your time. james in houma, louisiana. go ahead, james. >> i would just like to point out to the listens are even if you attempted murder and were not successful in the murder you attempted a crime and you still must be held accountable to the crime. just because the president attempted to extort ukraine did not mean that he should not be held accountable because it was not a successful attempt. >> that was james in houma, louisiana. next up is mary in new jersey. is it absecomb?

did i get that right? is it absecomb, new jersey? >> absecomb. please go ahead. >> first of all, it doesn't matter if it's first hand, secondhand, third hand information. trump screwed up when he released the transcript of the call. in my opinion he pled guilty when he did that and i would like to see them release an actual recording of the call. second of all, they say it's no problem because the aid was eventually released and there was no investigation into the bidens after they got caught. president zelensky actually booked an interview and canceled it after they got caught. the republican talking points are laughable. >> that's mary in new jersey. janet, hercules, california, republican. you're the last voice, janette. yeah. i was just thinking that i think the whole thing is a sham. i think it's a waste of time when so many other things should

be done for the homeless or whatever and those cities in america need money and i think this is a waste of time and money, and i believe that trump will be re-elected president. thank you. >> thank you, janette, for calling in. in just a minute we will show you right now on c-span3, the entire re-air of the hearing, but if you want to see it tonight, 8:00 p.m. c-span2 is when you will see today's entire hearing, about four or five hours in total and then on friday morning former ambassador to the u.s. until may marie yovanovitch will be testifying and that begins at 9:00 a.m. and that will be on c-span2 because the house will be in, but you can also watch it online at c-span.org and if you're away from your computer, your phone, you can also listen to the c-span radio app. just download