tune into fox news channel for coverage of the story. tucker carlson picks up. i am martha maccallum in new york. >> the same would be true if it were a governor. >> tucker: this is tucker carlson and washington paired the impeachment hearings on capitol hill continue as you can see, been going on all day, hours and hours and hours. we have the highlights, going to put into perspective and tell you what it means, if anything in just a few minutes but for now, we are going to dip back in just for a bit. >> would you agree that the president has the same obligation as the mayor, as the governor, as a member of congress to not withhold aid and less he gets an investigation into a political rival, mr. morrison? >> yes, sir, i would agree with that hypothetical. >> i would agree. >> we are having a debate here, both sides, as to how to read what is plainly before us.

the presidential phone call where the president ignored the work of the advisors and the national security council talking points and instead chose to talk about the bidens and talk about hunter biden and ask for an investigation. we are just going to have to debate that. but isn't the principal that no one including the president is above the law? absolutely essential and worth the effort to make certain that we continue to guarantee ambassador morrison? i'm sorry, ambassador volker. . we have had challenges on the other side that the president had authority in foreign policy

to do what he likes. allowing the turkish forces to go in, literally meant that some families went to bed saturday night and sunday morning at their kids and fled for their lives. both sides of the aisle totally disagreed with that. the president has the authority to do it, the impulsiveness that decision may have been on why this may have been as threatening to our national security. we are not talking about that here. ambassador volker, i have listen to your testimony, and i take it and thank you for making efforts to try to advance what had been a bipartisan ukraine policy. help ukraine get rid of

corruption, help resist russian aggression. but what you came to learn painfully is that there was a sidebar ukraine policy with giuliani as they advocate and it appears ambassador sondland is very much involved, is that correct? >> i don't know everything about that, sir. >> you don't, but as you have been involved with the benefit of hindsight, while you were working on what you thought was stopping aggression and ending -- eliminating corruption, there was a side deal here to get investigations going, correct? >> my objective was purely focused on support for ukraine. national security, and i now have learned throughout their testimony about the president's statement about investigating biden and other conversations that i did not know about. >> thank you for that and thank you for your candor about vice president biden's integrity and service. up at the bottom line here is at the end of the day, we are going

to have to make a judgment about what the president was up to, the request for a favor, and how it repudiated the policy that was the bipartisan effort of ukraine and raises questions about the hypothetical example i gave of the mayor, held himself to be above the law. i yield back. >> mr. maloney. >> gentlemen, thank you for being here. ambassador volker, i am struck by your opening statement. he moved a long way from the testimony you presented to us in october, and i know you gave a reason for that, which as you were in the dark about a lot of these things. is that fair to say? >> that is one thing that i learned a lot out of the testimony. >> you learned a lot, and what you said on page eight, referring to your statement you

gave this morning, this afternoon, "i did not know that president trump or others had raised vice president biden with ukrainians or had conflated the investigation of possible ukrainian corruption within investigation of the former vice president biden. "you didn't know that burisma met biden. you didn't know. we have to go through it? you were there on may 23rd with the president when he said talk to rudy, and rudy sure cared about the investigators of this which you now know meant biden. >> i understood at the time that hunter biden and vice president biden's son had been up board member for burisma. >> you didn't read that as a request to investigate the bidens at that time. on july 10th, you were in not one, but two meetings on the white house where ambassador sondland raised the

investigations, but you didn't know about the bidens, that's your testimony. >> i did not think he was talking about anything specific. >> you heard him talk about investigations and you thought there was an appropriate and the chairman asked you about that, and i guess when they were in the wardroom and ambassador's ambassador sondland raised that, you are concerned about that too. you knew it was withheld and then in august, you spent a good part of the time with this statement with rudy giuliani, right? you were the guy making the changes that interacting with ukrainians. you were putting in rudy's changes which included a call for investigating burisma and the 2016 elections, which you now know meant biden, right? you didn't know it at the time, right? now we know it, right? that on september 1st, you were in warsaw. you were in warsaw anywhere they were there when ambassador sondland told yermak that he was not going to get security

assistance, and wasn't going to get a white house meeting unless there was the investigation, and i understand you missed that, you are out of the loop then. >> that's not correct, sir. i was not in warsaw at these meetings. >> you are not in warsaw but you heard about it right after from ambassador sondland. >> that's not correct. that was some time later. >> now you know what it meant, and you said in retrospect, i should have seen that connection differently and had i done so, i would've raised my own objections. >> that is correct. >> what is the objection you would have raised? >> what i would've raised is that people are conflating investigating the bidens with investigating the ukrainian company burisma. >> when you objected to the president asking for an investigation of the bidens as you sit here now, you said you would've raised her own objections. you knew it was the bidens. >> if we knew we were talking about investigating vice president biden, that would be inappropriate and i would have objected to that.

>> so you've had heard him ask on the call and in retrospect, ukrainians would have been confusing, is confusing the right word? it would've put them in the position of having to do something inappropriate, right? >> confusing is the right word because they were clearly hearing something different from the president. in one conversation, and different from me as a u.s. special representative. >> they understood that investigating burisma and investigating 2016 meant the bidens even though you didn't. at the time, you are talking to yermak and putting those changes in a statement, he had talked to ambassador sondland at the same time and the point being that they were put in an impossible position and asked to do something inappropriate. he would have raised your own objection. >> i know they were asked in a phone call to do that in the conversations that i had with ukrainians, we were not asking

them to do that and even at that point, the ukrainians perhaps with the knowledge of this phone call which i did not have knowledge of at the time is we just don't want to go there. >> so in retrospect, you would have raised objections, you would've said it was inappropriate for the president to do this. mr. morrison, can i just ask you, sir, i am stuck on this issue of you didn't see anything wrong with the call, but you went straight to nse legal to report it. is that your testimony today? >> yes, sir. >> thank you, sir. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. morrison, and to both of you, thank you so much for your service, thank you for being here. has been a long day. just a follow up on the question from my colleague, you responded earlier to a series of questions about the call and basically saw nothing wrong with it, yet you skipped your chain of command to go to legal counsel to find out

what to do because you were concerned about the political fallout, not about anything being inappropriate or wrong with the call, is that correct? >> i don't agree with the premise, no. >> can you tell me why you felt the need, you saw nothing basically wrong with the call, yet you skipped your chain of command to go to counsel because of what? what was the reason for that? >> i don't know -- i don't agree with the premise. i didn't think i skipped my chain of command. >> who is your direct report? >> the deputy national security advisor. >> on the name of the person? >> dr. kupperman. >> i viewed my engagement with the nsc legal advisor as one

largely focused on administrative matters. i was interested in locking down the transcript. that's an administrative matter. i was interested in making sure the legal advisor was aware of the call because i didn't see anybody from the legal advisor's office. >> why were you so concerned about the legal advisor being aware of this call that you saw nothing basically wrong with the substance or content of the call? >> i did not see anybody from the legal advisor's office and the listening room and i wanted to make sure somebody from the legal advisor's office was aware and i wanted to make sure it was a senior person. >> what is that you wanted them to be aware of specifically? >> i wanted them to be aware of the call because i wanted them to know what had transpired. >> what concerned you to the point where you wanted to know what had transpired that you went directly to legal counsel to inform them of? >> the equivalent of nsc legal

was and is john eisenberg, equivocal in that position, i wouldn't go to somebody subordinate to him. >> didn't you testify earlier that you were concerned about the political fallout based on the political climate in d.c.? >> yes, ma'am. >> so how long have you supervised lieutenant colonel vindman? >> july 15th to october 31 or so. >> thank you. ambassador volker, you testify that you believe congressional pressure helped unfreeze the security assistance being released. do you still stand by that testimony today? >> i believe it was important. i met with staff members of the armed services committee. i then saw the letter that several senators signed and sent to chief of staff mulvaney, and i was briefed about the possibility of a couple of phone

calls from some senior members of the senate as well. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield my remaining time to you. >> think the gentle lady for yielding. just want to follow up on a couple of questions about ukrainians not being aware of the aid being withheld. you are aware, i'm sure, the testimony of colonel vindman that in fact he was contacted by someone within the ukrainian embassy was concerned about it prior to it becoming public? >> i was not aware of that, but i take that. >> were you aware of the testimony that ukrainians found out quite quickly after the hold was placed in july that she was impressed with ukrainian tradecraft and that the ukrainians had a reason to keep it silent and not make it public? >> i saw that in her testimony. >> you don't have any reason to question whether in fact that testimony was accurate, do you? so the ukrainians did find out before it was public, at least according to these two

witnesses. but nevertheless, ukraine certainly found out it was public when it was published in the newspaper, right? >> that is correct, august 29th. >> by the time they found out from the newspaper, they still hadn't had the white house meeting, and they still didn't have the aid, and at that point, they had already had the conversation with the president in which he asked them to investigate the bidens, correct? >> that is correct. >> good evening to both of you and thank you for your service. ambassador volker, on page seven of your opening statement today, you said since the events surrounding your earlier testimony october 3rd, "a great deal of additional information,

perspectives had come to light. i have learned many things that i did not know at the time of the events in question." correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> that includes conversations that occurred and meetings that occurred in which you weren't a part, correct? >> that is correct. >> you office they were not a part of the july 25th call, isn't that right? >> that is right. >> you are not aware that ambassador sondland according to your opening statement had a call with president trump on july 26th, correct? >> that is correct. >> on september 1st, you were present for the sidebar meeting between ambassador sondland has special advisor yermak, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> and you certainly weren't part of the phone call between ambassador taylor and ambassador sondland in which ambassador sondland according to multiple people now said everything, the

white house meeting as well as military aid, were dependent on public announcement of investigations, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> certainly, sir, you weren't part of the phone call on september 7th between ambassador sondland and president trump in which president trump insisted that president zelensky go to a mic and publicly announce investigations of president trump's domestic rivals, isn't that correct? and certainly, you weren't part of the september 8th phone call between ambassador sondland and president trump where president trump again insists that these announcements have to happen, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> sir, you say that you weren't a witness to any kind of quid pro quo or conditioning between military assistance and investigations when someone called missiles for misinformation today, is that right?

>> that was correct. >> but sir, you weren't present for many, if not all of the phone calls and conversations where these alleged instances of quid pro quo occurred, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> sir, let me turn your attention to another topic that has come up today. actually came up last friday. you have high regard for ambassador yovanovitch, correct? >> yes, i do. >> i presume you are aware that as the abbasid was testifying, president trump tweeted very disparaging remarks about her, right? >> i saw that moment. >> i saw you disapprove of those types of treats. >> i don't think that's appropriate. >> you advised many people over the years in your career in the foreign service, right? and you would never do that to one of your direct reports or anyone who worked in your organization, right? >> you know, i would not.

>> it's just wrong. >> i believe even when you feel like you need to criticize, criticism is private, praises public. >> i also believe that you are a man of honor and you would not attack a veteran. he would not attack someone who lays currently serving in the military who is doing their duty, correct? >> i respect the service. >> in fact, there was a certain man that we both admire, the late senator john mccain who unfortunately was attacked not only when he was alive, but after he died by the current president, isn't that right? >> that is true. >> i presume that you would disapprove of all of those attacks on john mccain, right? >> i knew john mccain very, very well for a very long time. an honorable man and very much a war hero for this country. >> today, sir, as lieutenant colonel vindman was testifying,

our president used the official twitter account of the office of the president to attack lieutenant colonel vindman's credibility. i presume you don't approve of those types of tweets either, do you? >> i was not aware of that and as for ambassador yovanovitch, not appropriate. >> thank you, sir. thank you for your service and mr. morrison for yours as well. >> that concludes the member questioning. i now recognize ranking member for any closing comments he has. >> the first day of this week's tv marathon draws to a close. i would like to remind the american people what we are watching. the public hearings are the culmination of three years of incessant democrat efforts to find a crime to impeach the president. first, they try to manufacture evidence that the president colluded with russia. to accomplish this task, the dnc

and the clinton campaign worked with the former british by christopher steele. steele assembled a dossier of false information alleging that trump campaign colluded with russia. that dossier was largely assembled from russian and ukrainian sources that the democrat contractors worked with. next, they primed their hopes on the work of robert mueller. mohler spent two years and millions of taxpayer dollars seeking evidence of a crime thae know wasn't committed. his failure was devastating blow to democrats who clearly hoped his work to be the basis for the removal of the president. today, we are witnessing the ukraine hoax, the directv sequel to the russia collusion hoax. it is hard to follow. shifts from day-to-day. first, the democrats claimed they have evidence of quit propos, then witness

intimidating, then pinning their hopes on bribery. like any good hollywood production, democrats needed a screen test before releasing their latest attack on the president. they leverage the secrecy of the house intelligence committee to interview a cast of characters in preparation for these public hearings. with the media's enthusiastic support, they built a narrative based on selectively leaked testimony. speaker pelosi and the democrats on this committee are seeking the truth. they want to know the answers to the following questions that they refused to ask. to what extent that the whistle-blower coordinate with the democrats on this committee and or his staff? what is the full extent of the meddling in the trump campaign in 2016? why did burisma hire hunter biden and what did he do for them and did his position impact in a u.s. government actions under the obama administration? the american people were

promised a grave and somber impeachment inquiry. instead, they got the salacious five screen comedy that they have been working on for three years. tonight, see you in the morning. >> i think the gentleman, and i think you both for your testimony today. i would highlight a couple of things about what we've heard this afternoon. first, ambassador volker, your written testimony in which you say "in hindsight, i now understand others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the ukrainian company burisma as equivalent to investigating former vice president biden." i saw them as being inappropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. in retrospect," you said, "i should've seen that connection

differently and had i done so, i would have my own objections." ambassador, we appreciate your willingness to amend your earlier testimony in light of what you now know. and i think you've made it very clear that knowing what you do today, that in fact the president sought an investigation of his political rival, vice president biden, that you would not have countenanced any effort to encourage the ukrainians to engage in such conduct. i appreciate also that you were able to debunk, i hope, for the last time, the idea that joe biden did something wrong when he, in accordance with u.s. policy, sought to replace out corrupt prosecutor, something that not only the u.s. state department wanted, not only the european union wanted, and not only the imf wanted, but was the consensus position of the united states national security infrastructure.

you didn't get a lot of questions about that today as other witness is dead because you effectively said that was all nonsense. we appreciate your candor about that. what i think is most remarkable about your testimony is the acknowledgment that immediately after the vice president met with president zelensky in warsaw, you witnessed gordon sondland meeting with yermak, top advisor to president president zelensky, and then immediately thereafter, ambassador sondland told you he had informed the ukrainians if they wanted that 400 million in military aid, they were going to have to do those investigations that the president wanted. and you were later informed, and this is also significant as you testified here today, that the ambassador sondland had a subsequent conversation with president trump and informed you that it wasn't going to be enough of the ukrainian prosecutor general to announce the investigation of the

president wanted. president zelensky had to do it himself if he wanted to get that aid, let alone the meeting in the white house. now, you've been asked to opine on the meaning of the term "bribery," but not on "high crimes and misdemeanors." but bribery, for those watching at home is official acts in exchange for something of personal value. official acts we are talking about here are a white house meeting, that president zelensky desperately sought and as you have any knowledge, ambassador volker, was deeply important to this country at war with russia. to show the united states had this new president back. that meeting was important. that meeting is an official act. the military assistance is even more significant because ukrainians are dying every day

in their war with russia. and so, the withholding of military assistance to get these investigations which you now have acknowledged, ambassador volker, was wrong of the president to request, the idea withholding that military aid to get these political investigations should be a maximum to everywhere american because it means the sacrifice not just of ukrainian national security, but american national security for the interest of the president personally and politically. my republican colleagues, all they seem to be upset about with this is not that the president sought an investigation into his political rival, not that he withheld a white house meeting in $400 million of aid. we all pass on a bipartisan meeting to pressure ukrainian into those, his objection is that he got caught. in their objection is that someone blew the whistle. and they would like this

whistle-blower identified. and the president wants this whistle-blower punished. that is their objection, not that the president engaged in this conduct, but that he got caught. their defense is "well, you end up releasing the aid." yes, after he got caught. that doesn't make this any less odious. americans may be watching this and asking, "why should the united states care about ukraine? why should we care about ukraine? "and this was the import of the conversation and now infamous conversation in that kiev restaurant with gordon sondland holding the phone away from his head because the president was talking so loud. what does the president asking not call the day after the now infamous call he had with zelensky? what does he ask on that cell phone call? not whether they had passed some new anticorruption reform. no. are the ukrainians going to do the investigation? meaning, it is a biden thing.

and ambassador sondland's answer is they are going to do it. they will do essentially anything the president wants. what is more telling of the conversation i think that ambassador sondland us has in which the president says basically, donald trump doesn't give an expletive about ukraine. he cares about the big things. mr. holmes says ukraine is at war with the russians, that is kind of a big thing. and ambassador sondland's answer is no, no, he cares about big things that affect his personal interests. this is why americans should care about this. americans should care about what happens to our allies who are dying. americans should care about their own national security and their own president and their own constitution, and they will need to ask themselves as we will have to ask ourselves in congress, are we prepared to accept that a president of the

united states can leverage official acts of military assistance, white house meetings, to get an investigation of a political rival? i we prepared to say well, you know, i guess that's just what we should expect from a president of the united states. i don't think we want to go there. i don't think our founding fathers would have wanted us to go there. indeed, i think when the founding fathers provided a remedy, that remedy being impeachment, they had the very concerned that the president of the united states may betray the national security interests of the country for personal interests. they put that remedy in the constitution, not because they wanted to willy-nilly overturn elections. no, because they wanted a powerful anticorruption mechanism when that corruption came from the highest office in the land. we are adjourned.

i asked the audience to please allow the witnesses to leave the room before they exit. >> tucker: there you go. that went on basically all day. the impeachment hearings on capitol hill. we continue our show tonight, the circus train of impeachment remains stalled on the tracks. official washington trapped in gridlock thanks to what you just saw. around the world, foreign governments are quaking and toppling. our own economy is making some ominous noises that you would think somebody in charge might want to pay some attention to, but no. here in washington, our leaders remain transfixed by what you just saw, transfixed by figures like alexander vindman, a low level u.s. army officer who played the role of star in today's hearings. is a measure of how central vindman and people like vindman are to a certain type of story line that many media outlets today resolutely ignored the following exchange. maybe the most markable things that happened and happen on live television that you may not have seen it. here it is.

>> he went to ukraine for the inauguration. >> correct. they make at any point during that trip, did he offer you a position of defense minister with the ukrainian government? >> he did. >> how many times that he do that? >> i believe it was three times. >> tucker: wait, what? he was offered defense minister three times? keep in mind that alexander vindman was born in ukraine, speaks ukrainian and clearly has strongly held views about ukrainian politics, views that may or may not align with u.s. policy on the subject. now we learn that the ukrainian government repeatedly asked vindman to take formal control of the entire ukrainian military, which, for the record, it is a very strange thing to ask of an active-duty american military officer. and yet somehow, that constellation of facts did not raise a single red flag for our self-appointed watchdogs in the news media. alexander vindman is hurting trump, therefore he is an american hero. that's what they know, and they don't want to know any more than

that. they are adamantly uninterested, for example, in the identity of the so-called whistle-blower. we learn from this weirdest exchange, watch vindman's cryptic description of the man with no name. >> i spoke to two individuals with regards to providing aid. some sort of readout of the call. >> what sort of agencies where these officials with? >> department of state, department of state, deputy assistant secretary george kent who was responsible for the portfolio. eastern europe including ukraine. and an individual from the office -- individual from the intelligence community. >> tucker: an individual in the intelligence community. who is that, exactly, devin nunes wanted to know. sorry, adam schiff, who claims not to know the identity of the

whistle-blower, interrupted to block the question. watch this. >> as you know, the intelligence community has seven different agencies, what agency was as individual from? >> if i could interject here. we don't want to use these proceedings. >> it is our time. >> we need to protect the whistle-blower. please stop. i want to make sure that there is no effort to out the whistle-blower through the use of these proceedings. the witness has a good faith belief that this may reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, that is not the purpose that we are here for, and i want to advise the witness accordingly. >> tucker: wait a second. you are trying at home to follow the logic chain, ask yourself this, if adam schiff doesn't know the whistle-blower's name, as he has repeatedly claimed, how can he know that name is about to be revealed?

you can ask the same question about alexander vindman. vindman also claims not to know who the whistle-blower is. at the same time he told us today his testimony could reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, the one whose name he doesn't know. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know who the whistle-blower was. >> i do not know who the whistle-blower is. >> how is it possible for you to name these people and then out the whistle-blower? >> per the advice of my counsel, i have been advised not to answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community. >> tucker: it raises some questions. his claim is "my lawyers have instructed me not to say relevant things." but when devin nunes pushed him on that, vindman protested that he wasn't being treated with the proper respect. watch. >> mr. vindman, you testified in

your deposition that you did not know the whistle-blower. >> ranking member, it is lieutenant colonel vindman, please. >> tucker: got that, it is lieutenant colonel vindman to you, leading candidate for defense minister of ukraine. your insolence has been noted. spinning around like this for hours and hours and hours, literally. the one thing no one seems to want to talk about is how we got here in the first place, which is to say hunter biden. remember him, hunter biden? he is the lack luster politician son who not only got into yale law school, you are not a genius, no you didn't. not only that, but made close to a million dollars working in the ukrainian energy business despite knowing nothing about ukraine or energy. even by the standards of international corruption, it turns out he struck a remarkably corrupt deal. how corrupt? and analysis by watchdog research found that hunter biden's pay on the board of burisma energy amounted to 12 times what is typical for a

company of that size. and yet, some are still claiming that hunter biden was hired by burisma to assist with "transparency and corporate reform." amazing. hilarious, actually, but also depressing because in the end this isn't really about hunter biden. it's not actually even really about the impeachment of the president. what you are seeing here, the story that is unfolding as a story about america's ruling class, some of which has been bought out by foreign entities. not surprisingly, in fact, because of that fact, that is the one thing you are not supposed to ask about. so shut up and praise alexander vindman, potential ukrainian defense minister and american hero. that's your job as you're watching a long period of brit hume watched along all day, fox news senior political analyst and joins us tonight. i am not impugning the integrity of lieutenant colonel vindman, did it seem like one of those moments where watching at home, you say what? if this was the russia hearing and there -- he were pro tem,

there would be cause for his arrest. >> of the hosannas that are being flung along with rose petals at all these witnesses stem from the fact that many in the media and the washington political world want donald trump gone and tend to applaud anything that tilts in that direction. there are some problems, however, with this, which are the following in my view. one of them is that while the president is loath to admit there was anything wrong with this phone call and some witnesses are trying to avoid saying that the president really did seek an investigation of joe biden and his son as what you've just recounted about hunter biden suggests that his relationship to burisma and the role that biden played on ukraine policy are fit subjects for investigation, not only perhaps by ukraine, but perhaps by the united states as well.

so a lot of people might look at this and say well, this deal stunk. i don't blame the president for wanting them investigated, never mind the fact that biden was one of the president's challengers for the white house. i think it was inappropriate for him to raise it on that call with ukraine, but a lot of people might look at it and say not a bad idea. the second thing, of course, is this. yes, the president at times seem to condition eight on that and other times, he did not. but let's assume for the sake of discussion here that the aide had continued to be withheld and russia amounted a devastating attack on ukraine. one that would have been greatly dollars worth of american aid been denied. that would've put this in a different light. nothing like that happen, the aide indeed was provided and prior to that, javelin missiles was the obama administration had consistently refused to provide had been provided by the trump administration and a number of

these witnesses, even some that were skeptical of the way the president conducted this whole matter had agreed that the trump ukraine policy and terms of helping ukraine was better than the obama policy. so all of those things go into the kind of makes that if the house and peaches and it probably will will be in the mix of things, senators on the republican side, 20 of those we need to convict the president, those senators will be considering those matters. i think the case for impeachment is pretty weak because while this was an offense of some kind, it was not worthy of the strongest possible remedy, the most drastic remedy available to congress. and that is the bottom line. this is probably not impeachment stuff. >> tucker: i am personally not sure why we need to take sides between russia and ukraine, that is my view. i know it's a minority view in washington. but let me ask this, should we be concerned that the canadian government thought this u.s. army officer was so sympathetic to the interest of ukraine that

he might actually consider becoming the defense minister of the country? should be at least pause and ask what is that? >> that shows that the ukrainians believe that they had in the presence of alexander vindman a very strong advocate for policy supporting, which as you point out, they are good at that. there was really nothing wrong with that although it may suggest that lieutenant colonel vindman's view of all this in which he saw aide at least for a time not going through was influenced by his sentiments toward what was after all his native country. that seems to be a fair way of looking at it and lies in the fact that's where he is from originally from. that doesn't mean he is a bad man. i just means what i could say is understandable sympathies for ukraine. >> tucker: that makes me nervous. i want to ask about the press and its role here. they picked up where they left off last week. every witness we are told is a brave public servant risking his or her career to come forward and they definitely don't have

any kind of political agenda at all, no political agenda. >> this morning, dedicated public servants spoke to truth to power in the face of withering public criticism from president trump and his allies. >> the witnesses have been called clearly are not political. >> it is absolutely an impressive morning for these witnesses who, as everyone has pointed out, are so clearly backed witnesses. >> vindman struck me as the most devastating we have seen in a hearing today. someone that looks the part. >> we heard republicans today attacking lieutenant colonel for doing one thing and one thing only and doing it well, and that is doing his job. >> i'm going to tell you this. i want this guy and his brother protecting me. i want them standing up for america. >> today, alexander vindman gave the country an opportunity to reclaim patriotism. you watch his testimony, he is who you want your children to

grow up to be. >> tucker: i am not against all the witnesses, but that does seem more like cheerleading than analysis, no? >> one of the things -- at least we should expect from journalists is a permanent state of skepticism. in which we don't become terribly enamored of people, and while we may praise an official order witness here and there, we are not in a state of absolute smittenness that you see whose quotations you just played. you would think they would be no to skepticism. you wouldn't think you would see that kind of worship particularly when they were inconsistencies in their testimony and things that have been pointed out and so on and except for certain tweets a lot down at the white house, no one on the republican side has really attacked these witnesses. >> tucker: brit hume, great to see you tonight, thank you.

congressman devin nunes asked an obvious question, which democrats are a no answer to hurry. bribery is such an attack to the public, why isn't hunter biden's behavior worth investigating? will talk about that next.

>> tucker: the current line you are hearing from democrats as the president must be impeached immediately for bribery, even though there is no evidence he bribed anyone. there is some evidence that hunter biden was in effect bribed by a foreign government, so why are we not investigating that? devin nunes raise that query earlier today. >> after trying out several different accusations against president trump, the democrats have recently settled on bribery. the democrats in the media are suddenly so deeply concerned about bribery, you would think they would take some interest in burisma paying hunter biden $83,000 a month. >> tucker: does great work, and he joins us. thank you so much for coming on. should we be concerned. that seems like a fair deal from doing what exactly. >> that's a good question. the more we look at what hunter biden's arrangement with burisma is, the more it doesn't make

sense. his lawyer put out a statement last month saying it was all about corporate respond an end improving their business practices while serving on their board. i got my hands on and report from a group called watchdog florida and they specialize in looking at things like corporate governments. they look closely at this arrangement and it just doesn't add up. for one thing, mortars independently reported the paperwork is saying he wasn't paid for his board service, which is what his lawyer paid for, he was paid for "consulting services." being a consultant at the same time you were supposed to be an independent member of the board, if this were a u.s. company as opposed to a ukrainian company, this would be in violation of u.s. security laws. >> tucker: is anybody in obama's foreign policy world, they must've known about this, have they said anything about it? >> not that i'm aware of, that was interesting it has come out and the testimony last week that

the former ukrainian investor ar yovanovitch said that they prepped turk for a question during her senate confirmation hearing to deflect about questi. >> tucker: i wish we had more time, thank you for pressing on for this, thank you. sean davis cofounded "the federalist." he has been one of the most dogged reporters on this subject from the very, very beginning. the hunter biden story, are we asking too many questions about it? do you think it is unpatriotic to wonder why he made all that money? >> no, there aren't too many questions at all and i think everyone should know why and how the vice president son who has no experience in energy or ukraine or business somehow got paid a million bucks a year for who knows what exactly? we all deserve answers on this especially if we are going to be dealing with yet another coup effort to throw the president out of office because he had a phone conversation some sniveling low level bureaucrat didn't happen to like.

>> tucker: do you think that was more or less on the level of his admission to yale law schoo school? >> i can't speak to his law acumen, so i don't know how to answer that one. >> i am started to think the system is rotten and that people who say that out loud are in peril. thank you for coming on tonight, appreciate it. there is news and the jeffrey epstein saga, speaking of rotten. that is next

>> tucker: jeffrey epstein wasn't supposed to be able to kill himself, now two guards have been hit with federal charges for their behavior on the day he died. trace gallagher has the latest on this unfolding story. >> at the time of his death,

jeffrey epstein was hard arguably the highest profile jail inmate in the country. the guards set 15 feet away and during their 8-hour shift when they should have checked on him 16 times, they allegedly failed to check on him once. prosecutors say they shopped online for furniture and motorcycles, walked around the common area, and slept for two hours. it wasn't until they finally went to give him breakfast that he was found unresponsive and the prosecutors say that's when the guards tried to cover their tracks by falsifying documents claiming they had checked on epstein every 30 minutes. today before congress, the bureau of prisons director said this about the guards. >> we have some bad staff, we got rid of those bad staff who don't do their job, we want them gone one way or another either by prosecution or by terminati termination. >> both of the guards pleaded not guilty and were freed on

$100,000 bond, an attorney for one of them said they were being scapegoated in a rush to judgment and the guards indictment also included information that could tamp down the conspiracy theories surrounding his death, specifically that security camera footage confirms nobody enter to area near epstein's sell on the night he died, his death was ruled a suicide but renowned pathologist dr. michael barton believes he was a victim of homicide. >> tucker: bureau of prisons director kathleen sawyer testified before the senate about epstein's death, senator john kennedy from louisiana was there and expressed some skepticism about the official story. >> christmas ornaments, drywall, and epstein, name three things that don't hang themselves, that's what the american people think. that's with the american people think. and they deserve some answers.

>> tucker: senator kennedy of louisiana, thanks much for coming on wonderful line, do you think that? >> i don't know. maybe it's all an odd coincidence but the point i was trying to make with dr. sawyer, i knew he had bureau of prisons is that the american people had very little trust in government and they may not believe the investigations once they are completed but they certainly are entitled to wonder what it's taking a while to do the investigations. i realize the death happened in august but the american people are entitled to the facts and the fbi and inspector general, both of which are doing the investigations need to move this thing on. >> tucker: why do you think they are not? >> i'm assuming they are being careful and they should be thorough and careful but this is a high priority, and of the

alleged victims -- i don't know who did what to whom -- but the alleged victims are entitled to know what happened. the american people are entitled to know what happened and i can tell you if 9 out of 10 americans, if you ask them secretly gave them truth serum, do they think he was murdered -- maybe not 9 out of 10 but many would say yes and the other ones could be lying. >> tucker: what does this say? i agree with you completely, if a huge percentage of the american population believes there's a massive cover-up right to the top, that says a lot about how people feel about their leaders. >> it's symptomatic of the mistrust that people not only have entrenched politicians but in the entire managerial elite. the bureaucrats, the academics, the journalists, the corporate

phonies, i don't want to paint with too broad of a brush but all academics are not in the managerial elite, but many of them are and the american people, a large portion of the american people elected president trump for two reasons. first, he doesn't talk down to people, he didn't talk down to them, and secondly many americans voted for him as an insult to the managerial elite. by the managerial elite, i mean everybody in this town who thinks they are smarter and more virtuous than the average american. and there are a bunch of them. >> tucker: i would say the fruits of their leadership through they arprovethey are no. thanks so much for coming on. we are out of time, stolen by adam schiff in part. we will be back tomorrow night,

8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn and sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink which is everywhere and all of a sudden. our plea to you tonight, figure out how to dvr this show. there must be engineers among you can figure it out, we will see you tomorrow. the great sean hannity standing by in new york city to take over in a 9:00 p.m. hour. >> sean: great show as always, welcome to "hannity." we start with a fox news alert, if you are like most americans, you didn't watch today's impeachment charade, here's a big take away. another huge dud and frankly unembarrassing spectacle for the entire country. what democrats are doing, this is humiliating to all of us, a display that needs to come to an end. common sense, reason, intellectual honesty never played a part in any of this.