>> see you back here tomorrow. "outnumbered" starts now. >> harris: we begin with a fox news alert, we are waiting remarks from the house intelligence community chairman adam schiff. democrats release the very first transcript from closed-door depositions. this is "outnumbered," i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis, host of "kennedy" on the fox business network, kennedy. marie harf, and in the center seat, host of "the next revolution," steve hilton is here. "outnumbered." we will get to all of you in just a second. want to go straightaway to our senior producer on capitol hill

for more of the fresh rate release transcript from the democrats. take it away. >> i'm just going to read you right would have gotten here from the three committee chairs. the acting chair of the oversight committee and eliot engel, the chair of the foreign affairs committee. two transcripts released today. this is important because it's the first time i get a look behind that closed the door the intelligence committee where for weeks now they've been having these closed-door depositions and interviews. this is a key turning point in this impeachment investigation and paves the groundwork for other transcripts to come out in the next couple weeks and also public hearings. i'm going to redo this statement from those committee chairs. the transcripts of interviews and ambassadors, marie yovanovitch, the former ambassador to the ukraine and david mckinley, an ambassador to the state department advisor here, demonstrate clearly how

president trump approved the removal of a highly respected and effective diplomat based on public falsehoods and smears against ambassador yvonn marie yovanovitch's character. now i'm going to go here again, we are looking at this in real time, looks like we have, kind of a compendium about what is said here and i'm just kind of looking here to try to parse this a little bit. again, this is coming at a real time here, when did you first become aware that rudy giuliani had an interest in communicating with anyone in the ukraine? in that november, december time frame of 2018. in the same time period, rudy giuliani met with the general prosecutor of the ukraine. from your staff members and your conversations, what did you

learn about giuliani's interest in ukraine? the answer, from yovanovitch, there have been a number of meetings and they were looking at how he was trying to hurt the u.s. those are at first blush twenty-first and initial readings of what was told to investigators in those closed-door interviews with the former ambassador to the ukraine. that's going to be key. there were supposed to be depositions today, four different figures including two councils for the national security council, no one has shown up in the big question later this week is whether the former national security advisor john bolton will come on thursday. one source told m told me this morning that it was not necessay a probability as it was a possibility. harris? >> harris: we are all poring over this, what is the significance? this is a key development, what is the significance of this for the president's tweet today

calling on republicans to release their own version of the transcript? >> there has been some supposition by some republicans and some republicans commented this morning that democrats may try to cook the books on this, contour these transcripts in a way that's favorable to them. i was told by one republican source early this morning that when they did structure a release for these transcripts, the democrats would probably release the one that was favorable to the democratic because first and the ones that were less favorable down the road. that's key, but again, i think the important point to note is this is the first time we are seeing behind that closed door other than these few selective leaks coming from the committee and these opening statements we were getting a as the individual witnesses appeared before the committee's. >> harris: this email of course came from you and our team on capitol hill, certain sections you provided for us where you can click on here and

you can go to the october 11th and october 16th transcripts, click on it and read it for themselves. speak all right, and that's what i'm doing right now in real ti time. i looked down here, there is kind of a compendium of breaking it down in the two or three different sections. the section i'm looking at deals heavily with a series of questions between house investigators and yovanovitch about rudy giuliani and his dealing with ukraine and what he was trying to do. he is a key figure because she was actually fired, there was a question as to whether or not the administration had confidence in her and whether her firing was handled correctly, some of the state department said they had never seen a diplomat be removed from a post overseas and fashion that a this heavy-handed. >> harris: chad, i'm sure you get a preview ahead of time, who you think are some of the most significant details we

are looking for? we are all reading this transcript right now and they talk a little bit -- >> i was given a hand signal that something may be coming earlier but that's about it. >> melissa: let me tell you what's catching my eye here, there's a lot of testimony, it seems like, from the ambassador or senior advisor to the secretary of state, michael mckinley, who you mentioned, talking about morale within the department and about the removal and i wonder how much of that goes to this idea that there is a lot of disgruntled folks within the infrastructure, i don't want to call it deep state by people that were there about four, and just that being unhapy with the way things were going as it was different to what they were used too. i mean, if you come out and that's what you see within these transcripts i don't know whose side that really supports? >> that's are some republicans

might try to say that's reflective of that point of view, there were a lot of disgruntled employees here, they've suggested as much with the whistle-blower, we don't know exactly where that person fits but again, to say, maybe these folks have an ax to grind, is there a credibility issue? you can see republicans start to use that line of attack to discredit some of the testimony here especially if it is not favorable to the president or their cause. >> harris: i know chairman schiff, we are expecting him in the next three or 4 minutes, he's going to come talk with reporters. we may come back to you as the news warrants. it gives you an opportunity, we want to get your take on it. we've printed out and now have in front of us some of it so let's maybe circle back. my friend, you do a great job. i appreciate it, thank you.

look at this. on my phone, it would read like page 57, it's hard to tell but it says -- this is where he is mentioned by the questionnaire, "the former ambassador of the united states, the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing within the ukraine are bad news, i just want to let you know that." add to the question of the ambassador, marie yovanovitch, former ambassador to the ukraine, do you see that? she must be looking at something, she says yes. what was your reaction when you saw that, meaning from the president? "again, i need to be repetitive but i was shocked, i was very surprised that i would feature repeatedly in a presidential phone call but the president would speak about me or any ambassador in that way to a foreign counterpart." we are getting it word for word, what's your reaction? >> steve: a lot of people will be hearing this, from a bunch of

disgruntled bureaucrats and diplomats, is this really what the country should be focused on? most normal people don't care about any of this, they are enjoying living in a booming economy with jobs being created. what this tells you is that democrats are abusing their power. >> harris: i don't be mean to be routed to ask you a question and then interrupt you. this is adam schiff, we promise we will listen in. >> melissa: numeral. >> steve: i would gladly say to him, look. this is a really classic example of what we've just seen, how people can't have faith in this process. clearly an abuse of power by the democrats, using that power to try to overturn an election,

abusing the processes of the house to selectively leak information. if they cared about transparency they wouldn't be putting out those transcripts that help their case, they would be putting all of them out there at the same time. because the truth is, what we've seen so far is conflicting evidence through different bits of a bureaucracy. so the democrats, these diplomats with all their years of expertise, even among that group you've got one of them, curt walker who in his sworn witness statement to the committee exonerated the president six times on the main impeachment charges. why don't they release kurt walker's testimony at the same time? because it helps the president, the facts help the president, that's why the democrats are trying to rake the process. >> harris: marie, was this preemptive by democrats? trying to get out in front of the process? because some of seven of them were in the room, they had

access to the transcripts. they had access to about the seven who could ask questions. >> marie: there were dozens of republicans who have been part of this process we have seen this information. the democrats -- >> steve: they've seen the information. >> marie: we can talk about the political reasons why they did that but the bottom line is all the transcript will be out in the public and we are going to start having public hearings about all these questions. the process argument in two days or a week or two pro weeks will be there anymore for the republican side because all of this will be public. there will be a public trial. the idea of the democrats holding back information, they know it will all be out publicly. quite frankly, i wanted all to be out publicly because the president is very focused on this. i absolutely do, steve, you think you know everything kurt walker said, there's a lot kurt walker has said that was selectively leach.

>> steve: witness statements. >> marie: let me finish with your you jump on me over this. the president wants you to focus on one transcript of one call because he thinks he can spend map of these transcripts. let me finish, these transcripts will show that the impeachment process is about much more than one call, it's about months and months. all these other witnesses speak to the broader -- >> harris: you know what, in the very beginning, several weeks ago, the whistle-blower wasn't needed, nothing was needed except for the record and now we are seeing what we call the military mission. >> marie: or additional evidence. >> harris: okay, let's call it that. whatever you want to call it, republicans were there, too. this does take away the republican narrative that there are potentially not enough of them in the room with access to gain the information. clearly some of them were there for most if not all of it. >> kennedy: that's fine.

i feel like steve and marie are both right on some level. you are right about these career people in diplomatic service, why shouldn't we question what they are doing? why shouldn't we question their motives and how we have this framework of the federal government set up? because it is set up in a way that protects these people who have career longevity and can do a great deal of damage because they don't have a level of accountability that politicians have. and we do need to have a transparent process. so far it has not been transparent and for those critical voters who are somewhere in the middle, democrats or in one of two parties and are incredibly frustrated, this selective political process is a great disservice for them, it's completely dishonest and we do need to have open hearings so we don't have a level of extracti extraction. >> melissa: chad, the one thing that strikes me as it's a lot more effective to leak little sentences from these transcript as opposed to now they've been downloaded.

i'm looking at just one, it's 317 pages and there is a zillion of them. the odds that everybody's going to go and read the whole thing when you can just hold back and take one sentence and leak it out there for the impact you want, talk to me a little bit about what you've seen. >> it's very important to understand context, context leads us to accuracy when we go through the process like this, you have to look at all of the transcripts, not just these little pieces. a couple things have jumped out at me in my cursory reading. number one, the ambassador to the european union apparently, according to marie yovanovitch's testimony, the former ambassador to the ukraine, has suggested that she tweak her support for the president, that she should "go big or go home" is what she was up with the impression and there was a suggestion that the rug would be pulled out from under her, that's a term she used in the transcript, if she

wasn't indicating foursquare support for the president of the united states. there's been another interesting part here, i will read this as we go. a question about the phone call, the president said, this is a a question posed to marie yovanovitch. the former ambassador for the united states, it was bad news to the people she was dealing with and i just want to let you know that. do you see that? she says yes, what was your reaction when you saw that? yovanovitch's answer, "i hate to be repetitive but i was shocked, i was very surprised that president trump first of all would feature repeatedly in -- that i would feature repeatedly in a presidential phone call but that the president would speak about me or any ambassador that way to a foreign counterpart. question, at the bottom of the same page, president trump says "well, she is going through some rough things," what do you understand that to mean? answer from yovanovitch, "i don't know what it meant, i was very concerned.

i still am. question, did you feel threatened?" yovanovitch, "yes." one of the things we have to look at as we go through this transcript line by line is democrats are moving potentially to punt this over to the judiciary committee and the next month or so, they have to figure out how to craft a narrative around articles of impeachment, taking these complex ideas and say okay, that goes toward a potential article of impeachment, obstruction of congress, abuse of power, something else. those are very key things when you go to write articles of impeachment. and also, to members of congress and the senate, that's going to be key as well. >> harris: maybe we are already saying this because i'm looking down here to see the three chairs issued that following statement along with the release, paragraph one, two,

three, says ambassadors yovanovitch and mckinley testimony demonstrates that contamination of u.s. foreign policy by a regular back channel to advance the president's personal and political interest. they are already doing what you are saying. >> something that that i've asked the house speaker. but when you go to write those articles of impeachment you really have to narrow it down into a short charge, almost like a criminal charge, much like a prosecutor. you don't want to overcharge, you don't want to under charge, you want to get it just right but you have to educate the public, if you're going to go down that road, i have asked the house speaker, the house majority leader, are they are already prejudging the president? and when you look at some of the

statements -- >> harris: let me guess, they didn't say no. >> that's right. when i put the question to mitch mcconnell as to whether his members on the republican side can be fair jurors when they've already criticized the democratic process, he says the same thing, "of course we can be fair jurors." >> harris: we know this is a political process and i'm sure if you flashback to when bill clinton was being impeached end of the process, if you asked republicans, "do you think you will be fair," of course everyone in the room says yes but it's an impeachment process, they clearly have a political push. so my question is now, republicans, doesn't this make their job easier now that they know what some of the charges are? >> i spoke to a senior republican late last week and he said to me that impeachment is what the house of representatives determines it to be at any one time and when you look at the articles of impeachment with president clinton in 1998,

one of them was perjury which is a criminal issue, the other one was dealt with, not telling the truth here. they only approved two of the four articles of impeachment on the house floor with president clinton. how do they craft this, did they go for obstruction of congress, look, we can give you a chapter and verse where we ask for witnesses and documents that you didn't provide for us, that's one thing. abuse of power, that's more vague, a little more and more if it is. it's kind of a feel thing, one republican, lead republican back in 1998 was asked, how can they impeach president clinton at that point and they said "because we can." when you go back to the founders of how they were crafting the impeachment process, they wanted it to be in a political body, the house and therefore the senate. when you look at federal 65, written by alexander hamilton,

the reason is if you go to impeach somebody and it doesn't turn out too hot for you, you face the voters. in those days the senate was elected by the state legislature. but still, it was a political process for all involved, the house and the senate. >> harris: chad, you know are showing everybody that whenever there is an occasiona occasion,e to sit next to you. you are historically the smartest man in the room. we are able to print 350 of the 500 pages so far in the transcript. >> that's going to be of a paper airplane. >> harris: thank you for your reporting. as we come out and pour over this, melissa, it does challenge the narrative that we aren't going to get to see much. my question all along is, is there too much to see? it's a lot, it's a lot and there is no necessarily that we've seen so far, we are in the process, you and me but there's no -- section that's

highlighted, here it is, it's a crime and blah, blah, blah. >> melissa: i think everybody will be able to look at it and find the thing they want. one thing that i see is -- marie can speak to this, too, when you are out there in a post stand there is a new administration to carry out their wishes, and you don't like it and you don't agree with it, that person won the election. that's the difference between coming you are disgruntled, you can move on someplace else or you can be like -- weight, i feel like this is a danger to the nation and i need to take it up to the top and try to get rid of my boss. >> steve: you used the term "deep state" earlier. >> melissa: ice that i wasn't going to. >> steve: let's use their term, which is "resistance.

remember, someone wrote an op-ed to saying there is an organized resistance to the bureaucracy. that person, on top of all the transcripts, their book is coming out in the next couple weeks. these people in the bureaucracy take president trump, they can't believe he is the president, they've been working against him since day one. combine that with the democrats trying to overturn the election and that's what you have now. that's why we shouldn't take it seriously. these people inside the bureaucracy, the other thing they are doing is protecting joe biden. the only real corruption allegation is against joe biden. he supervised ukraine policy, supervised billions of dollars of aid that went from the u.s. taxpayer to ukraine. much of that went to a gas company paying his son. how much money did joe biden channel to his son's business? that's the corruption allegation no one wants to explore that. they are protecting against that. a third element of corruption

needs to be looked into, again things ukraine should investigate, john carries corruption, he was secretary of state at the time, also involved in channeling money t to the ukraine. his chief of staff was hired by them soon after hunter biden went on the board, they hired john kerry's former chief of staff, paid in money that could have come from the u.s. that money went to the u.s., more money to be sent to buris burisma. >> marie: i worked at the state department then. >> steve: you are covering up the corruption, too. >> marie: are you kidding me? i am on this couch with you covering the news. i was there and there is no evidence. >> steve: the money went from

the u.s. taxpayer to burisma. >> both of them defied congressional subpoenas and refused to appear, as is the case with other witnesses who have done the same thing. this will be further evidence and effort by the administration to obstruct the constitutional duties of congress. we expect the witnesses who have been subpoenaed to come in this afternoon, also to be no-shows. this will only further add to the body of evidence on a potential obstruction of congress charge against the president. indeed, in the nixon impeachment there was an article of impeachment based on the obstruction of congress that itemized each of the subpoenas the white house had to find. today we have four additional subpoenas to add to the list with a potential charge involving the president of the united states and his

obstruction of our constitutional duties. these witnesses are significant and the white house understands their significance. based on the testimony the committees have already received, we know these witnesses of those that were in the law office of the national security council, those who worked for mick mulvaney either in the chief of staff's office or the management budget men are first-hand witnesses to the allegation of serious misconduct. the effort to use that aid to get ukraine to do these political investigations to help the president's reelection campaign. but also in efforts to potentially hide the evidence of the president's misconduct by placing that call record in classified system that would be beyond most individuals access and system in which that call record did not belong.

very pertinent testimony, very relevant to the other witnesses that have come forward and we may infer that their testimony would be further incriminating the president. i will say this is quite obvious and we fully expected this, we have seen a series of shifting, ever-changing rationales for this campaign of obstruction. first there was the argument, we don't have to comply until there is a former vote on the house floor. we had a formal vote on the house floor. then it was, we don't had to mae these witnesses available because they are senior offician though they no court has ever upheld claims of absolute immunity. there is no such thing as absolute immunity. it's been the uniform position of democrats and republicans that we do not respect any claims of absolute immunity. people who were subpoenaed, had little or no interaction with the president and there couldn't

be any claim of some kind of immunity, the explanation shifted once again. and again, that would violate the house deposition rules. it would also violate the practice used by both democrats and republicans for depositions in the past when there are concerns that agency lawyers are representing agencies that engaged in wrongdoing from used facts gained in the investigation or prejudice other witnesses. this was the practice for the current members of our investigative committees, people like jim jordan, mike pompeo, mick mulvaney all participated in depositions of senior agency officials without the presence of agency counsel so if they join the president's objection there they do so in a fashion

that is directly contradictory to their practices when they were in the majority. today we also are beginning the process of releasing transcripts of our depositions, this morning we released the position of ambassador mckinley and ambassador yovanovitch and i believe you all to review those transcripts. there are a few things i will become immediately clear. the first is that contrary to the claims of the president and his acolytes on the hill, these have been proceedings in which the republicans have not been able to be present or ask questions, republicans were present for all these depositions and had equal opportunity with democrats to ask questions and you will see they took full advantage of those opportunities to ask questions. you will see in ambassador yovanovitch's testimony what a dedicated public servant she is. this is someone who served their

country with distinction for decades, someone who also is one of the first witnesses to this irregular back channel the president established with rudy giuliani and the damage it was doing to america's national security and foreign policy interests. how it was working at -- in opposition, not in support, of u.s. policy objectives. ambassador yovanovitch had well earned reputation as a fighter of corruption and she was working with ukraine to get ukraine to fight corruption. what does our regular back channel sanctioned by the president do? it looks to remove someone fighting corruption in ukraine by employing a vicious smear campaign which the state department had no merit whatsoever. that smear campaign orchestrated by this irregular channel was successful in removing the u.s.

ambassador and tarring her reputation. of course you see the president's comments about the ambassador in the call record. we also released to the today of ambassador mckinley and other career diplomats, and someone who is asked by the secretary of state to come back and assess the state department at a very difficult time for the department. and what is so striking about his testimony is the degree to which he sought to get the state department to issue support for its own ambassador and how those repeated efforts were rebuffed. but you also see ian reading his transcript, his growing arm at the degree to which the apparatus of the state department itself is being used to seek political information for a political purpose by the president of the united states and others. and you see that these are two

of the principal reasons that caused this career as a public servant to decide he must resign his office as he did. we will be releasing further transcripts. tomorrow we are scheduled to release the transcripts of ambassadors and we will continue to release the transcripts in an orderly way, we will continue to allow witnesses the opportunity to review their transcripts, continue to make redaction's or private information, personal identifying information. we will continue to release the transcripts and we will soon although we can't release the timetable, i am happy to respond to questions. >> one of the witnesses, essentially forced overruling.

talking with john bolton, will you -- to ensure you get their testimony, for these key witnesses? >> we are not going to delay our work, that would merely allow these witnesses in the white house to succeed with their goal, to delay and deny obstruction. the lawsuit is on its face without merit. somebody gets a subpoena, to avoid the subpoena doesn't get to sue in court to try to avoid the subpoena. i think undoubtedly the lawsuit will be dismissed. but the whole point of it is to delay and i would say this to those who would use litigation like the white house or others for purposes of delay to avoid their duty, which is to follow the law and follow congressional subpoena, they should follow the

example of the courageous people that have come forward. people who work for john bolton, people who have in their careers much more at risk have shown the courage to come forward, they have not hidden behind litigation, they have not hidden behind the white house as witnesses today have. they've showed enormous courage and patriotism and i would urge others to follow their example, not follow the corrupt example of the white house which is seeking to obstruct this investigation. >> some of these individuals say they would be willing to, they were allowed to bring agency lawyers, why not let them do that? >> a consistent house rule that we do not permit agency counsel, particularly when we have concerns about those agencies. the state department, for example, you will also see in the transcripts, and the mckinley transcripts,

state department representatives made the claim to their employees that they were being bullied by congress and in fact, state department employees were concerned about being bullied by their own state department. and that that bullying was being misrepresented to congress. these are the same agency person all of these wanted to bring in but this isn't just a decision that the chairs are making in this investigation, it's a decision troy gaudi made as chair, the decision jim jordan made in his participation in the benghazi investigation, the decision maline made, this has been a uniform policy practice. >> when it comes to yovanovitch and mckinley, do you anticipate bringing them back for a public hearing? >> at this point i am not going to comment on who our witnesses

will be in open hearings but we will make a decision about who the most important witnesses are and try to provide testimony in an orderly way where people can understand the nature of the allegations and the facts involving the heart of this investigation and that is, the president's abuse of his office to coerce an ally that is fighting off russians international security interest, fighting off art russians in their interest well, to withhold vital military support from that nation, to withhold a vital meeting from the president of that nation as leverage to get that nation to engage in a corrupt act of these investigations the president believes will help his reelection campaign. we are also obviously looking at allegations that there may have an effort to cover up these activities. so the witnesses that bear most directly on those issues.

>> talking now about the transcript with the president of ukraine, is it your understanding that john eisenberg moved that transcript over to the super secret intelligence server on its own or did he do it -- >> i think you will see as we release more transcripts that they may have been others involved in those discussions. but one of the reasons we want him to come in is to find out what his role was, what the role of others was, and why transcript that plainly did not belong in a classified system that is meant for some of the most secret intelligence activities, that is covert

action activities, why would a record that the president would have the country believe was perfect, why would he have him in this classified system? clearly the white house does not want him to testify. they do not want the american people to know why mr. eisenberg or others made that decision and i think we can infer that the reason they don't want the public to hear from mr. eisenberg is that it would tend to corroborate allegations against the president. but that's the very reason we want to bring him in and of course we are concerned that he has a top lawyer in the administration would engage in a lawless act of refusing to abide by a lawful process. thank you. >> harris: okay, all right, as we come out of the house intelligence chairman, that's a live look on capitol hill you've been watching. bret baier, chief political anchor and executive editor of "special report," air 6:00 p.m. eastern, he's going to join us. are you with us?

as we watch that, any surprises any any sort of context that you weren't expecting to get? >> not released surprises, harris. for these officials not showing up today, you heard adam schiff say that builds in their obstruction case. democrats likely will put together what they believe is obstruction by the white house as one of the articles of impeachment they move forward to eventually. i think the transcripts are interesting, i have the excerpts of the transcripts here, they obviously put out the things that support the democratic majority on these committees, the meat of the transcript, the actual transcript itself. you can see the pushback by republicans on some of the cross examination if you will. that's the important thing. as of today there will be more transcripts coming out tomorrow. >> harris: i'm thinking back may be a week, ten days ago, you

know, if they don't answer our questions, we can get the sergeant in arms to come out and put them in "a little jail" that they have a room for in capitol hill. with the white house not making certain people available do we expect to see that? >> no. we do expect, however, some battles in fort and it was referenced a little bit in that q&a, it's basically a time issue and they could go to court and fight some of the subpoenas and it's a battle for timing and once you get into the new year, it changes their perspective. then you are just days away from the iowa caucuses, it starts another focus on another election that will be at the end of next year where people would say perhaps, why do this impeachment push, we have a choice to reelect him or not.

>> harris: they can vote and it won't be up to congress. fox news polling now shows that those who are in favor, impeach and remove the president has ticked down from the way the questions were asked and we get kind of a really good view to see where that actually happened, it happened among republicans. 8% now favor impeachment compared to 13% in early october. what's working for republicans on this? maybe it's just the time that's passing? >> i think of the administration hearkening back to the russia investigation and saying listen to what happened the last time and again and again and again, including from adam schiff who said he had specific evidence of collusion and then it just fell apart with the mueller testimony and went away. now we are in the ukraine part and obviously there are serious questions here about perhaps as time goes on it loses a little

more steam especially in republican and independent circles. >> harris: we have steve hilton from the next revolution on the couch with us today, and he and i were -- we were talking previously while everything was kind of breaking news and all of that, trying to get through some of the 700, 500 pages of transcript and one question that kept popping up was what happens next? to fill in the void of those witnesses or testimonies we won't see this week are now the release of these transcripts. is that an accident or is that part of a strategy on the part of democrats? >> i think it's part of a strategy, they want to keep a train moving, they aspire to have public hearings and about two weeks' time and that will be another moment for them to make the case to the american people but as time goes on you have the transcript and the phone call,

the phone call, what people said about the phone call and what people said about what was happening in ukraine with rudy giuliani and others and the public testimony if it does not deliver on that to the american people, it will be a tough sell for some of the democrats who come from trump won districts to move forward with that. >> melissa: bret baier, thank you so much, i want to get a quick reaction from my folks on the couch because you have been patiently sitting and listening to what's going on. >> kennedy: i'm wondering if the president decides to make rudy giuliani the fall guy here, how much that neutralizes the political -- that he's in right now. it seems like he can pretty easily do that because rudy giuliani has been acting as an agent of the federal government in ways he probably shouldn't have and there are a number of conflict of interest here that could be pushed aside conveniently. >> marie: tomorrow we will get you more transcripts, these take

time to go there and we will have hearings soon. we want this to be discussed in public, we want all the information out there, that is happening. we should look at that transparency, go through it and treat this impeachment process with the seriousness it deserves. >> harris: an interesting point. >> steve: i don't think any of these details will change anyone's opinion. if you look at the opinions for and against impeachment, totally matches the opinions for and against president trump, his approval ratings from the beginning, none of this will change anything. >> harris: we are waiting for a response from house intelligence chairman devin nunes -- excuse me, ranking member. the whistle-blower offers to respond to written g.o.p. questions. what will republicans do with that? what other republican lawmakers are on the hill saying about that offer as well? stay tuned. >> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield.

with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. dealing with psoriatic arthritis pain was so frustrating. ♪ my skin... it was embarrassing. my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the tenderness. the psoriasis. i had to find something that worked on all of this. i found cosentyx. now, watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are getting real relief with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx.

before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms. if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i got real relief. i got clearer skin and feel better. now, watch me. get real relief with cosentyx. hi, my name is sam davis and i'm going to tell you about exciting plans available to anyone with medicare. many plans provide broad coverage and still may save you money on monthly premiums and prescription drugs. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you have to meet a deductible for each and then you're still responsible for 20% of the cost. next, let's look at a medicare supplement plan. as you can see, they cover the same things as original medicare and they also cover your medicare deductibles and co-insurance. but they often

have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. now, let's take a look at humana's medicare advantage plans. with a humana medicare plan, hospital stays, doctor office visits and medicare deductibles are covered. and, of course, most humana medicare advantage plans include prescription drug coverage. in fact, in 2018, humana medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $7400, on average, on their prescription costs. most humana medicare advantage plans help you stay active and keep fit by including a silver sneakers fitness program at no extra cost. and, you may be able to save on dental and vision expenses, because coverage is now included with most humana medicare advantage plans. you get all this coverage for as low as a zero dollar monthly plan premium in many areas. and your

doctor and hospital may already be a part of humana's large network. if you want the facts, call right now for the free decision guide from humana. there is no obligation, so call the number on your screen right now to see if your doctor is in our network; to find out if you can save on your prescriptions and to get our free decision guide. licensed humana sales agents are standing by, so call now. 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.

>> melissa: house democrats releasing the first transcript from closed door testimony, we are expecting more to be released tomorrow, we are awaiting a response from house intelligence committee ranking member devin nunes. after the whistle-blower offers to answer written questions from g.o.p. lawmakers, here is republican congressman mark meadows. >> why should adam schiff get to call his witnesses and have them come in and testify in a back-and-forth dialogue, yet the whistle-blower is supposedly only going to answer questions in her wrist and written format? if the only way we can get answers to our questions will be in some other format, i am willing to consider that but i can't imagine chairman schiff would allow written question and answers.

>> melissa: can i just ask you quickly, the numbers, i just want to give everybody a chance, the numbers you were quoting about the money, where you getting that from? >> steve: what we know is that roughly $4 billion of u.s. aid, they -- obama didn't do that. this is general aid, going to ukraine in this period, roughly $4 billion. a lot of that was earmarked to boost the ukrainian gas industry, generally. what we don't know is how much of that money went to burisma, the company. we know some of it went because some of it was specifically earmarked for burisma, by congress. but remember, joe biden boasted on camera about controlling the aid of. we don't know the answer to how much of that $4 billion, roughly $4 billion ended up in the bank

account of burisma while hunter biden was on the board. the other financial information that we know, that burisma after hunter biden went on the board, they hired as a lobbyist guy called david later -- >> marie: who i had never heard of, by the way. >> steve: john kerry's secretary of state at the time. he paid $90,000 by burisma, makes $60,000 of donations to democrats, three of them, richard blumenthal, then pressed the administration to specifically give aid to the ukrainian gas industry. >> marie: but not burisma, and this is the point. i get to say my piece because you just did yours. you laid out a bunch of facts and you are making insinuations about why u.s. policy was in place to support the ukrainian gas industry. the entire western world wanted to crackdown on corruption.

there is no evidence we have seen that joe biden or john kerry or ed markey did anything improper, did anything untoward and this impeachment process is not about them. it's about what donald trump did. you are going to hear a lot of these arguments and you are going to hear republicans push on this. there is no evidence that the facts as you laid out are the result of anything unethical or illegal and you know what? impeachment isn't even about that. it's about donald trump and the more republicans think there is bad news for trump, they are going to try to change it and talk about democrats. >> melissa: it's interesting, kennedy, to bring it back to the impeachment issue and the stuff that was revealed today, it strikes me that it's the same kind of murky water. >> kennedy: it is and it's very subjective water and that's my problem with it. we do have this very fuzzy line between unethical and illegal and maybe we have to sharpen some of those distinctions. we have the same set of rules for different people and i think

the reason people like steve are laying out the case that this has happened another way with both parties and different administrations, universally it's wrong. it's not just wrong because donald trump did something. so we have to -- that sort of pointed political sphere, you have to recognize that that is sort of a sharp blade cutting both ways and that's very inconvenient for democrats right now. we have to be very careful. i think democrats should be more careful because the lens looking back on the obama administration will be very unkind and in terms of burisma, that is a state-funded energy company. so yes, there is a direct connection. >> steve: just one detail i'd like to put out that which is that ed markey, one of the senators here, he is the sponsor of the green a new deal, he

wants to close down the fossil fuel industry in this country. he is lobbying to boost the gas industry in ukraine. he is paid by the lobbyist for the ukraine's biggest gas company. >> marie: there is no evidence that all these democrats you mentioned funded president trump's personal to my policy decisions for personal political gain. there is no evidence that they wanted to crackdown on corruption for domestic political purposes. >> kennedy: i think they are better at hiding it. >> marie: are you kidding me? that is factually inaccurate. donald trump, for personal political favors -- >> melissa: it strikes me that all of these situations are something that benefits the person that is talking personally and is cloaked in the good of the nation and i think you can say that about president trump and you can say that about joe biden, about so

many politicians. they can cloak themselves in this thing that's also right for the taxpayer, for u.s., for corruption but underneath it is their own personal -- what they want out of it. second thoughts, top house democrat says there impeachment push could backfire big time in 2020. newday usa can help you refinance your mortgage and save thousands a year. i urge you to call newday usa now.

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. geico would like to take a moment to say thank you to our military service members at home and abroad for all their hard work and sacrifice. we all sleep easier knowing you're out there keeping us safe. and on a personal note... sfx: jet engines ... i just needed to get that off my chest. thank you. geico: proudly supporting the military for over 75 years.

>> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?!

>> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. my team's working overtime to make sure every veteran can refinance now to save $2000 every year >> melissa: house majority whip jim clyburn admits the probe could backfire for democrats at the ballot box in 2020. >> sure, it could. that would make this whole process much more political than i would like for it to be. i believe this whole process, to me, is about preserving this republic, protecting the democracy that we hold dear. >> melissa: could it backfire? >> marie: we will see, it depends. you have the presidential

election, and obviously it's a national race. as determined by the states at that level. the reason a lot of these democrats that one i can discredits sign-on to impeachment is because they are national security in factional 's don't act on my thought it >> kennedy: murray is right. we don't know how this is going to land. it could be spectacularly bad for democrats if they miss. if they miss and impeachment doesn't work and the president is reelected, that could be very traumatic for them. >> melissa: or if they say, "we worked on impeachment instead of health care." >> steve: they were elected to do that, in the ditch it in impeachment procession this will fire up trump supporter's. people will be annoyed that a democratic presidential candidate is sticking with her oxygen. they haven't gotten any momentum on their campaign. that may go all the way through to beyond iowa. >> marie: some of these campaigns are getting some momentum. it's really firing up the base.

impeachment could also turn out that president trump is found guilty of something or is actually impeached. we will see how that impacts it. house democrats will say, "we passed dozens of bills and they are sitting on the senate side and mcconnell won't touch them." >> melissa: that never flew. >> marie: but it's true. >> melissa: thank you, steve hilton. back here noon eastern tomorrow. here's harris. >> harris: we begin with this fox news alert as this is developing now. house democrats begin releasing details of closed-door testimony in the impeachment investigation. we are bringing that to you. at several hundred pages. we are getting through it. you're watching "outnumbered overtime," i'm harris faulkner. they released the first couple transcripts of testimony by a former top state prompt advisor michael mckinley, and former u.k. and ambassador marie jovanovich. this, as house democrats have reportedly set to call in seven weaknesses this week as part of their impeachment