as well since he was the and by that he clearly meant responsible for doing that; that president trump was is that correct? thinking about or had in >> that's what i had been inflammatory to all of ukrainians. front of him the possibility told. that's what we heard on that of providing security conference call, yes. >> but to neither of your so,. >> i think so i can assistance to ukraine. knowledge, the ukrainians understand that are you it was similar to writing a were not aware of that at that point? >> not to my knowledge. aware during the -- i >> not to my knowledge. check to someone who you are >> but right after president believe it was the 2012 zelensky thanks president about to send. trump for his great support election when at the time he used that analogy very in the area of defense, president obama leaned over on a hot mic to the then clearly to indicate that president trump then says russian president and said and we will go to the next that he would have to wait until after the election? this would require excerpt: i want you to do something. if that person owed him us a favor though because was that inflammatory to the something before he signed our country has been through ukrainians, also? the check, he wanted to get a lot and ukraine knows a >> i don't know, sir. that -- get whatever he was lot about it. owed paid back to him. i would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ambassador volker used very similar language about a ukraine. they say crowdstrike. >> i just want to be clear that some government week later which indicates i guess you have one of your to me that they had that officials oppose president conversation as well. wealthy people. >> did ukraine owe anything the server, they say ukraine trump's approach to ukraine, has it. and then at the end of the but many had no idea what to the united states? paragraph he says whatever concerned him. >> mr. goldman, they didn't. you can do, it's very in this case it was numerous important that you do it if they owed appreciation for that's possible. indications of ukrainian the support and they were interference in the 2016 election to oppose his mr. kent, you testified getting getting support and they appreciated that, but about how important this white house meeting was to campaign and support hillary there was not -- there wast -- g clinton.

president zelensky. how would you expect a new once you know that, it's easy to understand the owed to president trump on ukrainian president to that. >> but you understood the president's desire to get to interpret a request for a the bottom of this upshot of this comment made favor from the president of corruption and to discover the united states? by both ambassador sondland exactly what happened in the 2016 election. with that i willo and ambassador volker to be >> i cannot interpret the that president trump believed that ukraine owed mind of president zelensky him something personally. mr. caster. other than to say it was is that accurate? very clear that what they were hoping to get out of >> hard to understand but >> ambassador taylor, this meeting was a date and mr. kent, president trump's concerns about ukraine's there was a feeling by confirmation that he could role in the 2016 election, come to washington. >> obviously, you can't put you believe he genuinely yourself in the mind but if believed they were working against him, right? president trump that he -- the ukrainian president for a country so dependent for ambassador taylor? and this came out in the the united states for all >> mr. caster, i don't know things, including military transcript -- i'm sorry, what president or candidate this came out in the discussion with the assistance is requested to trump was thinking about the inaugural delegation when do a favor. they came back to have a how do you think the ukrainians. >> didn't he in his oval ukrainians would interpret office meeting may 23rd conversation with president that? >> trump on may 23rd that he >> well, if you go further after the zelensky into the call record as part inauguration, didn't he of this, and we don't have lament that the ukrainians had a feeling of having been it on screen, but to the were out to get him? best of my recollection, reading it after it was wrong ukrainians. released on september 25th, >> i heard that his response and so this was something president zelensky went in to the suggestion that that he thought they owed to having whatever your problems were, that was the mr. zelensky visit him to fix that wrong. old team, i have got a new >> right. mr. trump, president trump in the oval office was not

but what he -- what he was team. talking about, as you and we will do whatever is understood it, because in the context of the appropriate and be well-received and that he conversation, is that what transparent and honest about had concerns about he owed him were these investigations that he it. i don't remember the exact ukrainians, yes. wanted? >> that would have been to words. but he was trying to be in >> but from the president's fix the wrong, exactly. >> and those investigations his own words in response be perspective, if the ambassador -- ukrainian ambassador to the united into the 2016 election and states, one of the most biden and burisma? influential diplomats is >> that's correct. >> now, during this early responsive to conduct the business of ukrainian period in september, we have pending an op-ed, certainly government in a transparent talked a little bit about and honest manner. >> now, when he talks about with the okay of president the fact that you continually heard that the this crowdstrike and the pooporoshenko, conferringssy. president was repeatedly server, what do you understand this to be in saying that there was no reference to? >> to be honest, i had not quid pro quo. is that right? >> that's correct. >> he still says that heard of crowd strike until repeatedly today. i read this transcript on but, regardless of what you call it, whether it's a quid former prime minister is the 25th. >> do you now understand saying things on social what it relates to. pro quo, bribery, extortion, >> i understand it has to do media. with the story that there is interior minister who has abuse of power of the office a server with missing spanned both poroshenko and of the presidency, the fact of the matter, as you emails. i also understand that one the zelensky realm is also understood it, is that saying some very unkind of the owners of crowdstrike things on social media about security assistance and the the president. white house meeting were not you certainly can appreciate going to be provided unless is a russian-american. i'm not aware of any that president trump was ukraine initiated these two ukrainian connection to the investigations that would company. >> now, are you aware that very concerned that some benefit donald trump's this is all part of a larger elements of the ukrainian re-election. is that what you understood establishment were not in the facts to be? allegation that ukraine favor of him, did not

>> mr. goldman, what i can interfered in the 2016 support him, and were out to do here for you today is election? get him. >> and i will allow the >> yes. that is my understanding. tell you what i heard from >> and, to your knowledge, is there any factual basis question but. people. >> are you -- inquiry, are and in this case it was -- to support the allegation what i heard from ambassador that ukraine interfered in you seriously interrupting the 2016 election? our time. >> i am allowing the sondland. he described conditions for >> to my knowledge, there is question. i won't dock this from the no factual basis, no. time. i just want to be clear, the security assistance and ambassador, if you are able to verify the things that the white house meeting in >> in fact, who did counsel has asked you in the those terms. interfere in the 2016 that is -- dependent upon, election. >> i think it's amply clear prerequisite of the that russian interference question, that's fine. otherwise in questions from conditioned on pursuing was at the heart of the the majority or the these investigations. interference in the 2016 minority, that may assume facts not in evidence before >> and you heard that from election cycle. >> let's move to the third ambassador sondland himself, you, you should be cautioned excerpt that i mentioned about that. correct? >> correct. >> and you also heard a related to vice president similar story from biden. and it says the other thing, mr. morrison as well; is there is a lot of talk about >> mr. chairman, point of that right? >> who also talked to biden's son. this is president trump ambassador sondland about the conversations that he speaking that biden stopped order. had had in warsaw with the prosecution and a lot of >> the time is with minority people want to find out ukrainians. about that. >> and what morrison so whatever you can do with counsel. >> mr. ratcliff. the attorney general would recounted to you was be great. >> chairman, i sat here substantially similar to biden went around bragging what mr. sondland recounted that he stopped the to you. right? prosecution so if you can >> yes. >> and so, regardless of look into it, it sounds through the first what ukrainians may say now, horrible. now, at the time of this now that everything is out call, vice president biden in the public and we're here was the frontrunner for the democratic nomination in the foundation of every question in this public hearing that that mr. goldman asked they felt no pressure from 2020 election.

mr. kent, are you familiar, regarding facts not in as you indicate in your opening statement, about evidence, leading, but house president trump it was your these allegations related to clear understanding, was it vice president biden? resolution 660 does not say >> i am. that we are under the >> and did he act federal rules of evidence. not early september when the if it is your position that pressure campaign was secret i should be asserting that ukrainians believed objections to questions that that they needed to announce violate the federal rules of these public investigations. evidence, let me know now is that right? because this hearing is going to change significantly. >> as i said, mr. ratcliff, >> mr. goldman, i know that i will allow the question. the ukrainians were very >> i think the gentleman has concerned about the security a different question about assistance. and i know that that they the rules. so what are the rules that are going to govern this? were prepared or preparing >> just the ranking member seek recognition? to make a public statement >> i'm yielding you for a that is with a cnn interview question -- to the question i just asked you. >> what purpose do you seek that that was being planned. recognition? >> to answer mr. ratcliff's those are the two pieces question? that i know. >> that cnn interview was to >> i have answered it. >> not respectfully, announce these mr. chairman. you haven't answered my investigations as you understood it, right? >> that was the implication. question whether or not i should be asserting assumes that was certainly the implication. facts not in evidence or >> we have been focused a leading objections to lot on the september time questions that are posed from this point forward. frame. but i want to go back two that's my question. months to july before the >> mr. ratcliffe i will say

july 25th call. and you testified, once again i'm not objecting ambassador taylor, in your to the question but i am opening statement, that it instructing the witness they should not presume questions was in the middle of july from the majority or the when you understood that the minority that may represent white house meeting was facts not in evidence are first a condition on these correct. this is -- i have answered investigations; is that the question. we will resume the questioning and resume the accurate? >> clock. >> yes. we were preparing and i agreed that the white house meeting was going to be an important step in u.s.-ukrainian relations. so, in june and in early so you certainly can appreciate president trump's july, attempts to work out a way to get that meeting concerns? included a phone call. and so there were several mr. cast tore, i don't know the nature of president trump's concerns. conversations about how to have this phone call that eventually happened on july 25th. >> and you described in your opening statement a if there my deposition i july 10th white house meeting with a number of know you handed me the political article which officials where ambassador listed three of the elements that you described earlier and you recognize and i have confirmed with the ranking bolton used term that something was a drug deal. minority member that i -- what did you understand him to mean in hearing that he this is the first i had heard of those and was said -- used this term drug surprised by those.

i don't know president trump's reaction to those. >> an in the information deal? >> mr. goldman i don't know what ambassador bolton had in mind. >> was that in relation to a published by lorchenko discussion related to the white house meeting that member of the parliament president zelensky wanted about the black book ledgers and in connection with to the investigations? >> the context of that in august of 2016. the very day that was comment was the discussion published, mr. manafort resigned from the campaign, correct? >> i don't know, mr. castor. that mr. danylyuk was >> but, certainly that gives bolton's ukrainian part, rise to some concern that there are elements of the national security advisor, ukrainian establishment that had had with mr. bolton. were out to get the president. that's a very reasonable that investigation was very substantive up until the belief of his. point where the white house correct? >> i don't know. meeting was raised and >> the run-up to the 2016 mr. -- ambassador sondland intervened to talk about the election, there is many facts that remain investigations. it was at that point that unresolved. agreed? ambassador bolton ceased the >> i'm sorry, what's the question? >> there are many facts relating to the run-up to meeting, closed the meeting, finished the meeting. the 2016 election that remain unresolved? >> any further? and told his staff to report >> well, attorney general

barr in may of 2019 tasked this meeting to the lawyers the u.s. attorney for and he also later then connecticut john durham to broadly examine the government's collection of indicated to the fiona hill who intelligence involving the president's campaign. that effort initially was an administrative review has was also a participant in turned into a criminal nsc staff that ambassador probe. and u.s. attorney durham is bolton didn't want to be associated with this drug deal. so it was -- the implication casting a wide net and is was it was the domestic following the facts where they may lead. are you aware of that? >> i'm aware that there is politics that was being an investigation. cooked up. that's as much as i'm aware. >> and did ambassador >> and to the extent any information resides in sondland say this in front of the ukrainian officials ukraine, it's perfectly to your understanding? appropriate for the ukrainians to try to get to >> ambassador sondland in the bottom of that for the ukrainians to cooperate with the united states through the meeting where ambassador official channels to share that information, correct? bolton was having the conversation with his >> mr. castor, can you say counterpart, raised the that one again? i would appreciate if you issue of investigations would restate the question. >> to the extent ukraine has being important to come facts related to the run-up before the white house of the 2016 election that meeting that had just been raised. are under the u.s. attorney >> and ukrainian officials durham's probe, ukraine were there. >> and ukrainian officials should cooperate with the united states and to the

were in that meeting, yes, sir. >> now, around this same extent they are ukrainians time in mid july, did you doing improper things the have any discussions with ukrainians ought to investigate that themselves, ukrainian officials about these investigations? correct? >> mr. castor, the ukrainia >> ukrainian-american relations are very supportive. the ukrainians will >> i don't recall. >> let me show you a text certainly be responsive to message that you wrote on requests. >> so when the president on the call transcript of july 25th raises this with july 21st where you wrote president zelensky and he it again to ambassador urges that there be a sondland and volker. if you could just read what connection between the you wrote here on ukrainian government and the july 21st. justice department >> gordon, one thing kurt officially, i mean, that's and i talked about yesterday the appropriate way to raise an issue with the ukrainian was danylyuk's point that president, correct? >> it's appropriate for the president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine justice department and the being taken seriously not merely as an instrument in prosecutor general to washington domestic cooperate and to exchange re-election politics. >> and sasha danylyuk is information, yes. >> but to the extent that the president has concerns and to the extent that the ambassador bolton's attorney general is having counterpart. >> he was, he is no longer u.s. attorney durham look but was at the time. >> what did you understand into it, isn't it entirely appropriate for the it to mean when that president to flag this for zelensky had concerns about president zelensky and say being an instrument in that you should be in touch with our official channels?

washington domestic >> mr. castor, i don't know re-election politics? >> mr. danylyuk understood the precise appropriateness of these kind of relations. >> now, were you involved, that these investigations either of you involved with the preparation for the 7/25 were pursuant to call? >> i was not. >> i was not. >> and how do you account mr. giuliani's request to develop information, to find for that? information about burisma i mean, you were the two of and the bidens. the key officials with this was very well-known in responsibility for ukrainian public. mr. giuliani had made this point clear in several policy. if the president of the united states is going to have a call with the leader instances in the beginning of the springtime and mr. danylyuk was aware that was a problem. agreed that president zelensky was concerned about this they understood there was some pressure for them to pursue these investigations. is that fair? >> mr. danylyuk indicated that mr. zelensky certainly understood it that he did not want to get involved in these type of activities.

>> now, i'm going to move ahead now to july 25th, which was when president trump and president zelensky had the phone call. but, before we get to the phone call, i want to show both of you a text message neither of you is on this text message. it is between ambassador volker and andriy yermak a top aide to president zelensky. i will read it because neither of you is on it. ambassador volker says good lunch. thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z swinses trumconvinces trump that he will investigate/get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 we will nail down visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow. kurt. and this was a half hour less than a half hour before the call actually occurred. now, ambassador taylor was ambassador volker with you in ukraine at this time? >> he was. >> did you know that he was prepping president zelensky for this phone call with president trump in this way? >> not in this way,

mr. goldman, but i knew that ambassador volker was prepping ukrainians for the phone call earlier on. that is in -- at a meeting in toronto on july 2nd. ambassador volker had a conversation with president zelensky. and had indicated in a phone call that he, at that time, was going to talk mr. zelensky, president zelensky through the steps that needed to be taken in order to get to the phone call. >> understood. and you testified earlier that the security assistance had already been frozen, to your knowledge, at least by july 18th; is that right? >> that's correct. >> so that was just a week earlier than this? >> that's correct. >> so, just so we are clear, ambassador taylor, before this july 25th call, president trump had frozen the security assistance that

ukraine needed and that the white house meeting was conditioned on ukraine initiating this investigation and that had been relayed to the ukrainians. is that an accurate state of play at this time? >> that's an accurate state of play. i, at that point, had no indication that any discussion of the security assistance being subject to -- conditioned on the investigations had taken place. >> right. but you understood that the white house meeting -- >> -- that's correct. >> all right. let's move ahead to this july 25th call and -- between the presidents. now, am i correct, that neither of you were on this call. is that right, mr. kent? >> that's correct. >> that's correct. >> and you were neither as well? >> so you both read it after it was released publicly at the end of september? >> yes. >> yes. >> i want to spend just a little time reading the transcript as we have been encouraged to do. and i want to particularly

note four excerpts of the transcript. one that relates to the security assistance we have been talking about. another that discusses a favor that president trump asked of president zelensky. a third where president trump asks the ukrainian president to investigate his political opponent, former vice president biden, and then a final one where the ukrainian president directly links the desired white house visit to the political investigations that president trump wanted. so let's look at the first e excerpt which is near the beginning of the call when president zelensky discusses the military aid that the united states provides to ukraine. he says i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes. now, at the time of this phone call, ambassador taylor, and mr. kent, you

both knew that the aid had been frozen; is that right? >> that's >> yes. >> frozen

in accordance with official u.s. policy? >> he did. >> now, let's go to then the last excerpt that i wanted to highlight, which is president zelensky speaking. and he says: i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, specifically washington, d.c. on the other hand, i also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and we will work on the investigation. now, ambassador taylor, right after president zelensky mentions his much desired washington visit he says on the other hand and then says that ukraine will be very serious about the investigation. is this the same link

between the white house visit and the investigations that ambassador volker had texted to andriy yermak just a few minutes before this conversation? >> that's my assumption. >> now, just to summarize what we have just read in this july 25th call between the presidents, the ukrainian president thanked president trump for security assistance that president trump had just frozen, to which president trump responded that he wanted president zelensky to do him a favor though by investigating the 2016 u.s. election and the bidens. then president zelensky says that he will pursue these investigations right after he mentions the white house visit. is that your understanding, ambassador taylor, of what we just read? >> yes. >> and mr. kent, is that yours? >> yes. >> i yield back. >> the majority time has expired. >> bret: we will take a 60 second break here. we'll be back to questioning in just a minute.

>> bret: welcome back to washington and the impeachment inquiry. alongside my colleague martha mccallum in new york. we have you covered all day long they are now on a five-minute break. martha, after the testimony from the majority side. now we are waiting for the minority questioning to begin after they come back from the break. >> martha: it is very interesting to watch william taylor tell his story here. one of the definitions that he clarifies is that it's his understanding that whenever the word "investigations" was used in these dialogues between president zelensky and all the people who were involved in ukraine policy, that that word or term "investigations" pointed directly to their promise to look into 2016 election meddling, that the administration believed ukraine was involved. in and also that it would mean looking into hunter biden and joe biden the former vice president and now presidential candidate. bill taylor's testimony only

really changed from what we saw in the manuscript a bit. he added one conversation which sort of further clarified the notion that gordon sondland, the ambassador to the eu, believed that president trump wanted this to happen and that both things were going to be contingent on that. a white house meeting and also aid to ukraine, bret. >> bret: obviously taylor is a very compelling witness in part because he took such a detailed notes in all of these conversations. all of these different interactions. he is as a matter of fact. diplomat from both sides. worked with presidents of both parties and administrations of both parties. the long prism though through througlookingthrough see and aid. there is how president trump ukraine and providing aid before and after that call on july 25th, and how the obama administration dealt with it. so that context is important as you look at the security

assistance to ukraine. let's bring in our panel, chris wallace, judge ken starr, juan williams and dana perino. chris, let's start with you. your thoughts? >> chris: well, as somebody who has covered a lot of trials, and i know judge starr has probably been on a lot more than i have, when you listen to direct examination and the prosecutor for -- is talking to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is getting a chance to tell his story, it usually is pretty devastating. and then when you get cross-examination by the defense attorney, sometimes it turns out not to be quite as effective. so you have to be somewhat cautious in reacting to what we have heard so far. we haven't heard what devin nunes or his lawyer, steven caster is going to ask. having said that i think that william taylor was a very impressive witness and was very damaging to the president. first of all, as you pointed out, he took very copious notes at almost every conversation when he put

quotes in his opening statement he said those were direct quotes from what was said. it also doesn't hurt that he has a voice like edward r. murrow. he is a pretty impressive presence up there. i think very nonpolitical. he went out of his way to talk about what he knew, what he was specifically testament to. the only thing he talked about was a strong feeling that it was in the u.s. national security interest to support ukraine in the fight against russia. but he certainly wasn't taking any partisan position i thought the two most important part of his testimony recounting new news july 26th. he says he has found out since he testified before the committee in closed doors that gordon sondland who was really the point person between president trump and the ukrainians much more so than taylor was who actually never talked to the president, was on the phone, in a restaurant, in ukraine, with the president on july 26th, the day after the trump-zelensky phone

call and that he could overhear the staff member for taylor could overhear the president saying what about the investigations? so, clearly, the investigations and by that taylor thought the investigations into the democrats in 2016 also the investigation into biden, that was very much on the president's mind and then the aide asked sondland what the president thought about ukraine and this was a quote from the taylor statement: ambassador sondland responded to president trump cares more about the investigations of biden, which giuliani was pressing for, he was asked queried about it more than and taylor said ukraine, one other exchange. daniel goldman asked him have you ever seen -- remember,e foreign service. have you ever seen foreign aid con pushback will be one this is second hand, third hand and in one case listening in on telephone and they will say, in the big picture, is this

impeachable offense to kick a president of the united states out of office? >> it's very important as impressive as the ambassador was and he was very impressive, is that it is hearsay. not even admissible in a court of law. we are not in a court of law. my reaction to this, this is serious stuff for an oversight hearing. why did this happen and i think it's entirely appropriate with house of representatives to be having oversight hearing? how did this happen in the aid was released. we keep ignoring the fact on september 11th the house was -- aid was released. >> chris: can i just say as a point it was released two days after the whistleblower complaint went to the intelligence committee. >> there's no question. but the point is it was released as it should have been released before september 30th. so, the other thing i would say is the president, i think, has covered himself by saying at critical times no quid pro quo. and so it is taking a lot of effort to overcome.

there's no quid pro quo. i am a business guy. i do have interest in this. the other contextual point in this everyone admits that corruption was endemic in ukraine including in the energy industry. >> martha: all right, let's take it over here in new york and go back to dana perino. dana, your thoughts so far as we have heard, as we pointed out sort of one half of the equation at this point? >> dana: so, i agree with what's been said so far, especially about the credibility and sincerity of the witnesses, especially bill taylor who spoke the most. but, i think that if i were on the republican side, and also for the democrats. you are looking at this from a communications standpoint. we have had up to now squirmishes in the impeachment war. and this is the first battle and only the first three hours of a very long battle to come. so we hope everyone stays with us because you will now get the chance in the next little bit to see republicans cross-examine. i think that they will not go to the question of the credibility of the witness.

i do think that they will try to see about this common ground. that what bill taylor repeatedly said was he was concerned about ukraine. that he had grown in admiration and respect and felt protective of ukraine and felt that the united states had been doing the right thing for a long time in providing the aid in order to beat back russian aggression and that he was concerned that because of this irregular channel he talked about that they were going to risk hurting the united states foreign policy and hurting ukraine and that the president of the united states had actually been the one who had been fulfilling those wishes of the ukraine in order to get aid to help beat back russian aggression. so, if they are going to talk about the president's state of mind, i think they will be able to find some agreement there with bill taylor. i think that might be the smarter way to go rather than to try to beat him up. >> martha: seems that that release of aid which was not forthcoming in the obama administration and which is worth pointing out yovanovitch the ambassador who we are going to hear

from on friday was adamant, she wanted the obama administration to release lethal aid on behalf of ukraine in order to support themselves and fortify themselves against russia. none of that happened during the obama administration. senator john mccain was very outspoken on the meals ready to eat that had been sent to ukraine. that did get released in this administration. now, there was a hold on it, which we have heard a lot about today. to characterize the whole of ukrainian policy against russia it clearly strengthened during the trump administration. just one other point on george kent. george kent in his testimony testimony, his closed door testimony, pointed out that he had expressed concerns and he mentioned this earlier as well that he was concerned about hunter biden's role at burisma and the kind of conflict of interest that it might create or at least a conflict of interest that it might create and we would expect at some point in sort of the defense side here that we are about to hear from we may hear questions with regard to that as well.

bret? >> bret: martha, you know, you bring the opening of this hearing and the contrast between adam schiff's opening statement and devin nunes' opening statement could not have been greater. juan williams. devin nunes was fiery, going after the beginnings of this and also the russia collusion investigation that adam schiff said he had evidence that there was in fact russian collusion. view of what they are looking at here in the ukraine situation. >> you know, bret, i was struck by devin nunes describing what's going on here as -- here i'm quoting low rent sequel end quote to the mueller investigation. and what you are seeing here is politics playing out among democrats as we saw that sign behind him that said you fear that you can't beat president trump in 2020.

he said this in a way that was almost intimidating as opposed to the witnesses to say you guys are being used by the democrats. and it stood in sharp contrast, as you were pointing out, to what we heard from adam schiff. schiff taking a less partisan approach and saying, you know, this is about the balance of power, about what the founding fathers intended. and when you disrupt that balance of power, then you suggest that any oversight of the executive by the congress is to be questioned. and that it's then to be dismissed as simply partisan, the coup, the witch-hunt and all the rest. so he was trying to down play the partisanship and i suspect that's because he was going to rely on what i think everyone here on the panel has agreed is a very strong presentation by taylor. ambassador taylor came across as the west point grad, the man who has served in our military. the man whose family has been dedicated, as he said, taking the oath to serve the

united states. i don't know how that will hold up this afternoon as he undergoes questioning from the republican's counsel, but i think for the morning, in terms of the initial impact on the american people, it was pretty powerful. >> bret: and we will see whether the american people were paying attention to this in the weeds and whether it moves any republican votes, because that's what it comes down to. we are going to take another 60-second break very quickly. getting to the house minority questioning which is obviously the other side of the coin here. stay with us. continuing coverage on fox news channel. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry. and we won't stop.

join us in fighting for what's right. >> martha: back to the action in the long worth building on the hill in congress as we watch these impeachment hearings playing out this morning. we have heard from bill taylor and we have heard from george kent and we are about to hear from the minority side, devin nunes getting ready to tee up the beginning of his questioning. and, you know, one of the moments that i just wanted to draw everyone's attention to in the beginning of this

came from jim jordan, who we are also going to hear from as part of this questioning. he said to adam schiff, the chairman, only you know the identity of the whistleblower. and schiff said i do not know the identity of this whistleblower. a bone of contention here. and we haven't heard much about the whistleblower. i suspect when we move on to this next section we are going to hear about the origins of this very much like we heard about the origins of the russian investigation where all this started, who this whistleblower was, a sort of concerted effort. republicans will argue here to take the president down. and when they ran out of, you know, sort of the -- pulled out all the string in the mueller investigation, they moved right on to ukraine. as was pointed out it was called a low rent ukraine sequel that they were being part of. those are the words of devin nunes. chris wallace, a look from you at what you expect when we move over to the opposition side here. >> well, that's going to be interesting to see the degree to which the republicans go after taylor

on the substance and was this just a political dispute. aid to ukraine or not aid to ukraine and that kind of thing and to what degree. you saw this. i was a little bit surprised at how political devin nunes' opening statement was because he basically said that this has been an attempted coup by the democrats ever since donald trump raised his right hand on january 20th, 2017. and that as he put it, you know, you try first with mueller and the russia investigation, you, adam schiff, talked about that you had evidence of collusion. that failed, so now, as you say, a low rent sequel on ukraine. it will be interesting to seat degree to which they try to make this just a political effort by the democrats to find some way to get donald trump or not. and not really go after the evidence. >> bret: the key part here is this is the first act in what is going to be many acts and many witnesses. judge starr here on the panel. there are other witnesses that will be asked about

what was just testified to. >> and it's a little odd, it's theater that the key witness namely ambassador sondland is not on tap yet. so we are hearing all these conversations and testimony about what he said, what he meant. well, you would say, as a judge in a trial, excuse me, this is all hearsay, bring on ambassador sondland. >> bret: not only that now we have this new element which chris referenced earlier which is the phone call that is supposedly between sondland and president trump where a a cell . so now we are triple bank shot to the president in this particular testimony and we will see whether sondland testifies about all of that as well. >> chris: don't you think, judge starr, one of the reasons they're doing it this way because sondland has been not the most reliable witness. he testified in closed door and then he had to have an addendum in which he said well now my memory has been

refreshed and i do remember that, yes, at a certain point i began to believe there was a quid pro quo. so, you have had a lot of times here where taylor says specifically ambassador sondland said this with a quote. ambassador sondland said this. so when sondland gets up, won't they be able to ask him well, you were in this meeting, for instance, with lunch on the 26th with a staffer in july in ukraine and you were on the phone with the president? what happened there? >> chris, i think this demonstrates that this is an impeachment trial in the house. look at who is chairing? instead of -- go back to history respected on both sides of the aisle peter row dean know, a respected on both sides of the aisle henry hide, clinton. deeply partisan came across chairman schiff in a very different light today. we are in a trial right now. >> bret: let me point out as we are here talking about this the president of the united states is currently at the white house meeting with the turkish president erdogan which in itself is

an entire huge story filled with controversy with what turkey has done inside syria. we are covering this impeachment hearing and we'll get you all the highlights from that as well. martha? >> martha: yeah, just look at the sign on the dice dia 93 days since adam schiff learned of the identity of the whistleblower. he denied that. it did all start with that as nancy pelosi said. i want to bring in andy mccarthy who is here in new york with us. andy, your thoughts on what you have seen so far and what you expect going forward? >> well, the witnesses were very credible, particularly taylor who just like his -- he appeared on his crypt, i thought he was very compelling, straight-forward witness. and it occurs to me, watching this, that is the real difficulty the republicans have here is the best things they have going for them are the argument

about due process and the argument about policy that -- what's being pushed here is one vision of what ukraine policy ought to be but there may be an alternative vision. that's a tough row to who he. policy arguments are good on paper. once the game starts nobody wants to hear plane was late and lost your equipment. the game is on and it depends on the impression that you make in this proceeding right here and now. so, all those -- all the crying about, you know, we don't have confrontation, we don't have our own witnesses, we don't have subpoena power, i think that falls on deaf ears once the narrative starts. it's also going to be tough to make this alternative ukraine policy argument. >> martha: the other argument, andy, which you have made in a couple of your columns is does this rise to the level of impeachment? is this something that a president says on a phone call or puts forth with his,

you know, policy members as something he is interested in? does it rise to the level of impeachment? >> yeah. and that is where i think they have to get because at the end of the day they did get the aid. there hasn't been any indication that the delay, which was a short delay, actually caused meaningful pain or meaningful vulnerability to ukraine. so and, also, they didn't have to make the promise to conduct the investigations of the bidens. so even though there is a lot of huffing and puffing here, that is the bottom line. >> martha: no public box moment. bret? >> bret: as andy mentions, the process question doesn't really factor in that much now but it does factor, in obviously, when this likely goes over to the senate and do you get any republicans who sign on to how this process has gone throughout because that's the key vote counting. chad pergram is our fox news senior capitol hill producer. he is up there today for your perspective on this behind the scenes.

chad? >> yeah, a couple things i will point out here. i'm looking at one thing from the testimony from taylor here today. and taylor just walked back into the room here, i'm told. where he was communicating with sondland, the ambassador to the eu. he said he tried to explain to me that president trump is a businessman. when a businessman is about to sign a check, he wants him, you know, to pay up before signing the check. this goes to this key if you go to article 2 section 4 of the constitution where they talk about bribery and whether or not that constitutes a quid pro quo and maybe is an impeachable offense. now, mark meadows, republican congressman from north carolina, he is kind of the conscience of the republicans. he is sitting in the back of the hearing room. and i see that they're starting now. steve caster will be leading the questions now for the republicans for the next 45 minutes. back to the hearing. >> bret: all right, chad, thank you. back to the hearing for which devin nunes house minority questioner now. let's listen. >> nefarious depiction of it. what it actually shows is a pleasant exchange between two leaders who discussed

mutual cooperation over a range of issues. the democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery, and a host of other monstrous crimes being committed against president zelensky. yet, president zelensky himself insists there was nothing improper whatsoever about the conversation. indeed, the routine nature of the call helps to explain why in this committee's last public hearing democrats recited a fictitious version of the call instead of reading the actual transcript. the democrats depicted the president saying, quote: i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? lots of it. on this and on that. unquote. the transcript did not show president trump saying anything remotely like that. the president did not ask ukraine to make up dirt on

anyone. but the democrats are not trying to discover facts. they are trying to invent a narrative. and if the facts they need do not exist, then they will just make it up. not only does president zelensky deny the democrats' characterization of the call, but as ambassador taylor testified to this committee, the ukrainians did not even know at the time of the call that a temporary delay was put on the security assistance for them. furthermore, as the ambassador testified, these holds occur from time to time. both he and ambassador volker were confident the delay would be lifted. and, in fact, military aid to ukraine has actually improvee president trump took office. ambassador taylor testified that president trump was the first president to see that ukraine was afforded javelin anti-tank weapons. this was a very strong message that americans are willing to provide more than

blankets. this was the obama administration's approach. note this important fact. the security assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackmailed to do. so we're supposed to believe that president trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred, and which the supposed victim denies ever happened. i would like to briefly speak about the core mistruth at the heart of the democrats' impeachment drive. they claim that the president tried to get the ukrainians to, quote, manufacture dirt. against his political rivals. this is supported by precisely zero evidence. once again, the democrats simply made it up. but let's consider the broader question about why president trump may have wanted answers to questions about ukraine meddling in 2016.

the democrats down play, ignore, outright deny the many incorporated occasions that ukrainians actually did meddle in the election. a shocking about face for people who for three years argued that foreign election meddling was an intolerable crime that threatened the heart of our democracy. while the brazen suddenness of this u-turn is jarring. this denial is a necessary part of their argument. after all, if there actually were indications of ukraine election meddling and if foreign election meddle something a dire threat, then president trump would have a perfectly good reason for wanting to find out what happened. and since the meddling was aimed against his campaign, he would have good reason for sending his personal attorney to make inquiries about it. what's strange is that some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions, who expressed alarm about these inquiries,

were remarkably uninformed about these indications of ukrainian election meddling and why the president may have been concerned by them. for example, i noted previously alexander that lupe, a staffer for the democratic national committee admitted to political that she worked with officials for the ukrainian embassy in washington, d.c. to dig up dirt on the trump campaign which she passed onto the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign chalupa revealed ukrainian officials themselves were also working directly with reporters to trade information and leads about the trump campaign. ambassador kent, you didn't seem to be too concerned about that in the last round of questioning so i will just skip you because we know that wasn't a concern. but, ambassador taylor, you testified to this committee that you only recently became aware of reports of this cooperation between ukrainian embassy officials and chalupa to undermine the

trump campaign on your last deposition; is that correct? >> mr. nunes, it is correct that i had not known about this before. >> i'm just going over your last deposition. >> that's exactly right. >> the political article cites three named officials citing the hillary clinton campaign. it quotes ukrainian parliamentarian andre saying, quote: it was clear they were supporting hillary clinton's candidacy. they did everything from organizing meetings with the clinton team to publicly supporting her to criticizing trump. i think that they simply didn't meet with the trump campaign because they thought hillary would win. unquote. ambassador taylor, you testified you were unfamiliar with that statement. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> you also said you were unaware that then ukrainian ambassador to the u.s. israeli shalay wrote an

op-ed in the hill 2016 campaign criticizing then president trump; is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you said did you not know that sir hay a then a ukrainian parliamentarian had admitted that part of his information spreading information about the so-called black ledger a disputed document purporting to reveal corruption by a former trump campaign official was to undermine the trump's candidacy. this was in your deposition. is that still correct? >> that is still correct, sir. >> thank you, mr. taylor. fusion gps contractor nellie ohr testified to congress that la then co-was a source for fusion gps's operation to dirty up the trump campaign. including the compilation of the steele dossier on behalf of the dnc and the clinton campaign you testified you were enaware that he served as a source for that project. ambassador taylor, is this still correct?

>> it is, sir. >> you said you did not know ukrainian internal affairs minister mocked and disparged then candidate trump on facebook and twitter. is that still correct? >> >> that is correct. >> ambassador taylor in your testimony to this committee you said you were never briefed on these reports and statements. that you did not do due diligence before taking your post to discover that president's and mayor giuliani's concerns may have been and that you did -- what they may have been and that you did not discuss them with ambassador yovanovitch. that's still correct? >> yes, sir. >> furthermore, you said it upset you to hear about the ministry indications of ukrainian election meddling. your precise words were -- i want to read them back to you: based on this politico article, which, again, surprises me, disappoints me, because i think it's a mistake for any diplomat or

government official in one country to interfere in the political life of another. that's disappointing, unquote. ambassador taylor, is that still your testimony? >> mr. nunes, it is. subsequent to that i looked into the circumstances for several of the things that you just mentioned. in 2016 candidate trump had made a statement saying that it was possible that he would allow crimea to go to russia. he expressed that -- he expressed the sentiment or thatd to go back to amazingly