to continue, and republicans will resume the questioning ven. chad pergram has an update from the hill as to why the delay, and what's holding it up. when we will resume. >> sandra: hey, chad. >> well, the house of representatives started a vote series about 11:30. we were thinking about vote series might start as early as about 10:50 a.m., and therefore the committee would have adjourned and come back with a republican set a questioning of the two witnesses today. but it started later, and they just finished the first boat out of five. and could do that debate series is a short debate, and that is a short debate itself. i think that's probably going to be after 1:00 when they resume with republicans getting back with the witnesses. some years ago i was here with dominic late one night, 1:20 a.m. on a saturday morning, there is a very urgent meeting called in the house majority leader's office. there was a member and said to me, "we are having a meeting here." and i said, "at 1:20 a.m.?" and they said, "things happen

right here, chad, when they happen." this will happen when in fact happens. what will happen is the republicans have their 45-minute tranche of questions. steve castor, the council for the republicans, will pose questions to fiona hill and david holmes, the witnesses, along with devin nunes. then the house will be done with wood and probably until early december. your members will be out of town for thanksgiving, so they should be able to forge ahead than with that second round of 5-minute questions where they toggle through the 21 members on both sides of the aisle. the other issue is how democrats and republicans portray this over the break. which side is up, which site is down? most importantly, which narrative scripts with the public. which narrative sticks? to be have any polling that comes out over thanksgiving? is this a conversation over turkey and stuffing and apple pie that sinks giving dinnertable is a source of argument over the recess? we don't know.

the waltham set the die. nancy pelosi indicated that the nixon impeachment took much longer, when she was asked about this was why this was "taking so long." it's unclear whether they will go down that road, but when the intelligence committee is done, this being the final potential open hearing, do they sent over the report to the judicial committee and go immediately to writing articles of impeachment can i go to the conduct of their hearings and continue this investigation, potentially stretching this out past christmas time? >> sandra: chad pergram will keep us posted on how that vote is proceeding. when the hearing may resume, and let's bring in to add to our fox team coverage, dana perino is here. juan williams, and andy mccarthy. what you think the headline has been so far from the hearing this morning? >> if i could come i would like to start where chad did. on the overall point. is this going to thanksgiving? are people going to be talking

about this? looking at a wide range of coverage this morning, i feel like the democrats feel like they've done a pretty good job of setting all this up. but i think they know, and they at least say on background, they are not saying it on the record but they know it's not overwhelming. they are not making the case where you will get any republicans to say, "yes, the president absolutely must be a patron activity. they might be able to get >> if this had been a week where the democrats felt like they had absolutely nailed president trump to the wall, and they were going to be able to re into the election season on impeachment. all these candidates who want to be president would have absolutely flogged that. they did not. they quickly pivoted, they moved off of it, and that's why i think even today if you see some headlines coming out of it that make you think, "the president is in real trouble now," i don't think it's actually going to at that mark. although i do say -- fiona hill,

i was saying to andy mccarthy, this hearing definitely needed some sort of an accent to pique our attention and make us really listen. i think what she did was to zoom out and say, "we have a problem in america. we have russians who are aggressively trying to meddle in our elections," and republicans are going to say, "we've done is much as we can." that's why the 2018 elections were much better than 2016 in terms of interference. overall, refocusing the minds for all americans that we do have this problem, we need to work on it on a bipartisan basis, and the preacher does not necessarily the way to get there. >> bill: so you are making the case that you cannot convict. ken starr was making about point about three hours ago to juan williams. welcome to the coverage, and good afternoon. based on what we've heard, should jerry nadler and speaker pelosi go forward? >> i don't think there's any question. i think this week you have advanced the cause, if it's a

democrats' because, in terms of connecting not only president trump to this so called quid pro quo, or with the democrats now often called bribery, but i think if you go beyond that to what we just heard this morning from fiona hill, from david holmes, i think you see the larger issue here that these are people inside the white house. people with intimate knowledge, people inside the embassy in the ukraine, who say they understood exactly what we heard yesterday, that there was this quid pro quo. that everybody was in the loop. >> bill: take the evidence you've heard today from the witness, david holmes, there. describing overhearing a conversation on a cell phone, on behalf of the e.u. ambassador. and he described the voice as loud, and the investor had to pull the phone away from his ear and winced. you go from that to impeachment. >> i'm not making that connection. i'm saying what you have here is

a case. you asked me about a case, and i think what we've seen now over the course of, especially this week, but even going back to last week. people who are not part of the deep state, but people who look to me to be fairly sober, foreign diplomats. or people working in the top national security office. who have said this is what's going on. they've set it on the record, set it in public hearings before the american people. we are at the point where you would have to have some of the president's own men -- and i begin with rudy giuliani -- but also extend that than to john bolton, the former national security advisor. to come forward and say, "here's our understanding, here's where it's different." without their presence, bill, what you have is basically they are saying, "yes, that's the truth. we can't counter it and we don't have anything to say against it." there were times earlier where you say, "we are waiting for the afternoon because no doubt they will come back and undermined

that witness' credibility with a counter narrative." and said we have heard all these theories about, "where's the whistleblower?" >> bill: let's see what happens in the afternoon and we will cover that when you get to it. so far there is no lying under oath, no deposition, no blue dress, no hidden tape. sandra, to you and andy mccarthy. >> sandra: we have more details. andy mccarthy and i was a legal analysis on this. we heard from ken starr earlier. we have more detail from that moment at the restaurant, when holmes overheard ambassador sondland talking to the president on that cell phone. to quote david holmes, in the hearing this morning, "my clear impression was that usaid was connected to ukraine's investigation of biden." that is the conclusion he drew." andy? >> in the law, there is this 2-cited sliding scale, right? the more openly and obviously criminal and act is, the top of

the scale, something like treason or terrorism or murder, the less we need in the way of compelling evidence, particularly of intent. if you connect somebody to that by evidence. by contrast, the more you get you kind of a hypertechnical violation of the law, the higher you have to show -- the higher a prosecutor's burden would be to show willfulness and intent and understanding, evidence along those lines. the problem that you have with bribery in particular, which is what the democrats' current theory is, we all have kind of a common usage understanding of what bribery is. as i've maintained, i think the framers had a very specific understanding of the kind of bribery in the nature of treason that is the bribery they intended in the impeachment clause of the constitution. but the bribery statute itself,

that the democrats are relying on, is not like one straightforward crime. it's another one of these federal statutes that contains a whole bunch of different kinds of gradations of bribery, from stuff that is very obvious and straightforward to things that are a little bit more difficult to wrap your brain around and understand. with this transaction, we are on that part of the scale. so you're not really talking about a completed bribe, you are talking about what they call a corrupt demand. it doesn't necessarily have to have the completion. that is, the bribe does not have to be paid in order for the bribery statute to attach. at the same time, there are all kinds of proof issues that go to -- for example, was the intent corrupt? in analyzing the outcome of the president gets the benefit, for example, even if this wasn't particularly important to him, of the fact that the statute

that authorizes these payments to ukraine calls for the government to promote anticorruption in ukraine. you have proof issues on intent, as we saw yesterday with sondland's testimony. you have a proof issue connecting up the official act that the ukrainians wanted, with a direct order by the president to withhold the act until the investigation was done. these are not straightforward, easy cases to prove, and i think the goals that you have here is the harder it is for the democrats to explain what the misconduct is, and the more they have seemed to grope around for a theory to hang criminal liability on, the harder it is to make the much bigger step to say, "this is not only wrong and not only potentially criminal,

but actually impeachable." i just don't think they can get there. >> bill: ken starr was making the point -- we can bring it back into the conversation, and auntie, hang with us here. he said it was ambiguous at best a bit earlier today. to both of you gentlemen -- and andy, i will ask you first -- we know the president believes or is convinced , anyway, that ukraine had a role in meddling in elections in 2016. if you want to help said, "i refuse to be a part of an effort to legitimize an alternative narrative that the ukrainian government is the u.s. adversary, and that ukraine, not russia, attacked us in 2016." these are your words now. "there is abundant evidence that ukrainian officials colluded with democrats in the 2016 campaign." so, mary the two and explained that. >> i was very disappointed in how political fiona who was in her testimony. as she must know -- i'm not saying you have to agree that this is the case, but there is not one theory of ukrainian

collusion in the 2016 election. there are two series. one of them, as has been pointed out a number of times, quite rightly, is completely discredited and debunked. that is this idea that it was somehow the ukrainians rather the russians who did the hacking on the dnc accounts. i think it's very regrettable that president trump seems to be at least open to that theory, and that is the impression we get from the july 25th conversation. >> bill: your position has been, "go ahead and admit it, and use your fallback position." >> my position with respect to this is totally different, which is that theory that it was the ukrainians on the russians, nobody was talking about ukrainian collusion who is credible believes that orr has peddled that or has propagated that. the theory of ukrainian collusion that is actually viable, and that people talk

about, is that there's a lot of evidence ukrainian officials were impressed by obama administration officials to do investigations that would be helpful to clinton and harmful to the trump campaign. you don't have to take my word for it. there is a ukrainian court decision in december of 2018 that found that two ukrainian officials, a legislator and the head of the anticorruption police, meddled in the american election. and there is a lot of evidence that you had ukrainian officials who were very openly pro-clinton and anti-trump. this isn't stuff that is pulled out of the sky. it's a difference theory, and she suggested that because the one theory she talked about had been debunked,s have been debunked. that's simply not true. >> bill: thank you, andy. ken starr, your reaction on that? how do you evaluate it legally? >> i completely agree with what anand he just very astute

he said. going back to that we are in the high court of impeachment, how do we think about this? and the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, today, as i heard at least the excerpts, did not use the term "bribery." i thought we had a focus group that said, "you have to use bribery. we can't use quid pro quo." yesterday sondland said there was a quid pro quo, and he has somewhat walked back during the afternoon. there was ambiguous and conflicting information. there are interpretations, there are assumptions and presumptions and the like. i'm not surprised that what we heard today from the speaker, who is very astute, we are really talking about abuse of power. chairman schiff today, final points, the first complaint he had and the critique that he has

was "hypocrisy" on the part of the administration. you are telling ukraine, don't go and have political investigations, politically-inspired. and that you are encouraging them to do the same thing. that is a fair point to criticize the president, the administration. again, we are very far removed, as i see it, from impeachment. truly, the final point -- abuse of power in the clinton hearings -- read count 11 of the so-called starr referral, and makes a strong case that there was an abuse of power over time by the president of united states and those around him. it went absolutely nowhere. it is difficult to say abuse of power unless you can be very countable, very concrete , so the american people can say, "a-ha, i get it, the president has got to go." we are not there. >> sandra: some any questions about what happens next with his impeachment inquiry. bret, here with nancy pelosi a

short time ago, giving perhaps a little hint on what might be coming next. here's the speaker. >> we aren't finished yet. the day is not over. you never know what testimony of one person may lead to the need for testimony of another, as we saw with ambassador taylor at the beginning of last week, bringing forth mr. holmes today. again, that will be a judgment made by the committees of jurisdiction. the >> sandra: not over yet, more witnesses make space might be to come. what did you take from that, bret can max be when i'm at the take it to 30,000 feet. to her point, there's a process. to go through committee, there's a vote, there's article of impeachment that go through the house is your committee. and then the house floor, that goes over to the sender for the trial. the 30,000-foot perspective, if people are watching this and they think, "oh, my gosh, our government is in chaos, this is nuts," there is a process. at this hour, and about 14 minutes, the israeli attorney general is going to indict the prime minister of

israel, benjamin netanyahu, on corruption charges. netanyahu has denied those charges, but that indictment is moving forward. that throws into question about the leadership of israel. in great britain, there is all kinds of chaos as brexit has thrown a wrench into all of their leadership. they are in the middle of a general election, as they are heading that way. later today, president trump is expected to sign a measure to support hong kong protesters. that is a really interesting moment, as he continues his trade negotiations with china. point being, there are a lot of chaotic things happening around the world. there is a process for this, and congress is following it. >> sandra: we will hear those corruption charges. they are expected to be announced in a few moments. bret, thank you. our team in washington and new york, everyone will stand by. the recess is still happening, the vote is still happening on capitol hill. we are in a break. we will take a quick break and be right back. attentions veterans th va loans, va mortgage rates have just dropped to near 50 year lows.

veterans can refinance their va loans with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. newday has extended our call center hours so that every veteran in america can take advantage of this unexpected drop in interest rates. one call can save you $2000 every year. to start saving on your next mortgage payment go to

and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

do your asthma symptoms ever hold you back? about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

♪ >> some of you on this committee appeared to believe that russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country, and that perhaps somehow, for some reason, ukraine did. this is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the russian security services themselves. >> bill: fiona l, part of her testimony, repaired statements, i want to bring back in chris wallace. i thought dana brought an interesting point to the debate last night that was held in atlanta, georgia, with the democrats pursuing the nomination. the issue of impeachment came up, but only at the very beginning. then it was pretty much onto the other issue that democrats have debated. i will take you back to last night. let's play a quick clip from that. now. >> i learned something about

these impeachment trials. i learned, number one, that donald trump does not want me to be the nominee. secondly, i found out vladimir putin does not want me to be president. >> we have a president is not only a pathological liar, he is likely the most corrupt president in modern history of america. >> the constitutional process of impeachment should be beyond politics, and it is not a part of the campaign. but the president's conduct is. >> anyone who wants deeply of a donation, don't ask me to be in about a sitter, but i'm not can have that happen. >> bill: the pushed on the other issues and that pretty hot primary, you could argue. what did not come but not questioning last night was a direct question to joe biden about hunter, his son, or his dealings in ukraine, or burisma. none of that was brought up. what does it say about maybe where this party is, while we watch us play out in washington, d.c.? >> i think you can make too much of that.

that somehow the democrat candidates are shying away from impeachment. the restaurant at the beginning. they all weighed in and said pretty tough things about the presidents. these are the democrats talking now, about being a criminal and a variety of other subjects. i agree with you, i would certainly think they would ask about his son, hunter. remember, one of the things, the lessons the democrats took from the 2016 election, was that every clinton talked, in their view now postmortem, too much about donald trump and not enough about her own affirmative agenda for the country. i think we don't want to make that same mistake. they may feel, "look, everything that needs to be said about donald trump is being said in this house intelligence committee hearings that are running on this channel and other cable news channels." for hours on end. "we want to focus more on what the real issues facing america

are and i we are going to do with those." i just want to get, if i can, just for a minute, back to this question about ukrainian -- that fiona was talking about, whether ukraine was involved, interferen or not. we just heard and to make it mccarthy see there were two theories, and one was completely debunked. that they hacked into the dnc computers. a few that this company, an american company named crowd strike, covered up the fact that it was the ukrainians who act and said it was the russians. and even that the dnc server is now in ukraine. and that has been largely debunked, as andy said, part of the problem however is that at the specific point on the specific reference that president trump made in his phone call in july 25th with zelensky. he wasn't talking about other allegations, which i'm going to get her in a second. he was talking specifically --

and he mentioned by name crowdstrike and the idea that somehow it was the ukrainians who had attacked the dnc computer. if that's the theory, that andy is saying is debunked, that's the one the president mentioned on july 25th. there is theory, which is the ukrainians weren't very happy, they were very critical about president trump. they had reason to be critical of president trump, because throughout 2014, '15, '16, president trump took kind of a soft line on the russian invasion and annexation of crimea, and in fact in july 2016, in that same news conference in which president trump called on the russians to try and find hillary clinton's emails, he was also asked by a german reporter, "would you recognize crimea's annexation by russia and perhaps lift sanctions on russia?" which have been imposed by the united states and by the e.u. he said, "we look into that."

that set off a real alarm bell in ukraine. so the idea that ukrainians was critical of him, i think it's pretty hard to argue that that was interference. yes, they were critical of him, but that was a policy disagreement. it wasn't undue interference in a political election. >> sandra: that is grabbing the headlines. martha joining us now. martha, "the wall street journal," "the hill," warned against the fictional narrative. that's grabbing a lot of the headlines. devin nunes will have his chance to question witnesses along with the g.o.p. counsel in that room. what do you expect these republican strategies will be as this year and continues moments from now? >> martha: just on that note, i think it's really important and i think andy mccarthy waited out really well in terms of the different things we are talking about here. that the president of rudy giuliani hold onto that crowdstrike narrative for a long time. i think that's primarily what fiona was talking about. the difference in terms

ukrainian policy. and the president also talked about back then that there were a lot of people in crimea who wanted to be part of russia. a lot of narratives that were disturbing to some people in that part of the world who had russia breathing down their neck and trying to continue its expansionist desires. one other thing i would just mention it is sort of the u.s. political backdrop here, especially on the republican side. you have mitt romney, centered around, senator susan collins, going to the white house today for lunch. this is part of a campaign that has been going on for the past couple weeks by the white house to spend time with the senators. camp david trips, movies, baseball games, lunches of the white house, to sort of make sure that the team is all on board. today some of -- maybe the most significant members of the team, susan collins being one, and mitt romney has certainly been very outspoken against the president. susan collins, not as much though. just shoring up the base. the base is pretty solid out in

america. the president understands he needs to shore up that base on the white house and on the hill if this thing indeed heads over to the centage. i don't think anybody thinks there are 20 senators who would vote to impeach, especially after the last several days. it doesn't look like they have moved that ball at all at this point. no doubt, there is a big effort underway to make sure that the president's support at home and in his own party is solid. >> sandra: not much happening at the white house today. >> bill: allowed to follow. we mentioned a moment ago about the attorney general of israel set to announce corruption charges against the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. that is expected to start any moment now. so we will follow that, 7:30 local time in israel, 12:30 east coast time. remember, this comes at a moment -- there's a lot of political turmoil in israel. netanyahu and his main opponent failed to form a government which could force a third, likely third election in the year in the country of israel. we were watch that and bring in the news and they get from

tel aviv and jerusalem. in the meantime, we will get a break here. we might be about 30 minutes away from the hearing resuming. when it does, will have it for you. more analysis and news right after this. hi, my name is sam davis and i'm going to tell you about exciting plans available to anyone with medicare. many plans provide broad coverage and still may save you money on monthly premiums and prescription drugs. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you have to meet a deductible for each and then you're still

responsible for 20% of the cost. next, let's look at a medicare supplement plan. as you can see, they cover the same things as original medicare and they also cover your medicare deductibles and co-insurance. but they often have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. now, let's take a look at humana's medicare advantage plans. with a humana medicare plan, hospital stays, doctor office visits and medicare deductibles are covered. and, of course, most humana medicare advantage plans include prescription drug coverage. in fact, in 2018, humana medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $7400, on average, on their prescription costs. most humana medicare advantage plans help you stay active and keep fit by including a silver sneakers fitness program at no extra cost. and, you may be able to

save on dental and vision expenses, because coverage is now included with most humana medicare advantage plans. you get all this coverage for as low as a zero dollar monthly plan premium in many areas. and your doctor and hospital may already be a part of humana's large network. if you want the facts, call right now for the free decision guide from humana. there is no obligation, so call the number on your screen right now to see if your doctor is in our network; to find out if you can save on your prescriptions and to get our free decision guide. licensed humana sales agents are standing by, so call now.

>> bill: 12:33 p.m. here in new york, bit after 7:30 in the evening and jerusalem. getting word from the attorney general in israel, he will announce charges against the sitting prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, indictments of bribery, fraud, breach of trust. the first time a sitting pen minister has been charged while in office. we will await the fallout from the report there in jerusalem. in the meantime, we are awaiting a hearing to resume on capitol hill, just getting word from chad pergram. nothing what has been scheduled on the floor of the house. which may postpone the resumption a bit further than even the 1:00 expected to restart date. as we await that, we know the white house has a big meeting with intermedia's republican senators heading down pennsylvania avenue. to john roberts and from what he's picking up on that.

>> a couple key senators are going to be there, along with charles grassley and rand paul. susan collins of maine and mitt romney of utah. rob in particular is one the white house is very concerned about may vote with the democrats if this thing does get to the senate and there is a trial and the vote on whether or not to convict. romney said in the halls of congress before heading down to the white house that he will not bring up impeachment at this meeting, and that if it is brought up he will sit there and listen like he is doing to the television set. there are other things he wants to talk about including the trust act. impeachment not big on his agenda. with this follows along with what the white house has been doing over the last several weeks. it has held now more than 80 meetings with members of congress. they've had a couple movie nights, meetings up at camp david. just to kind of get everybody on the same page here, and really -- it was described to me at one

a time-share sails pitch and terms of the intensity to say, "we need you folks to step up." "the democrats are to against on this road and we need the republicans to hang together and stick with the president. if you listen to lindsey graham talk, the republicans are in lockstep. again, with maybe one or two wavering, certainly jeff flake is one that's wavering and maybe mitt romney, as well. but the white house trying with the best of its ability to get everybody on track here. just a little bit more about what andy mccarthy was talking about a few minutes ago. we were discussing this during the break. there is plenty of evidence, and the trump campaign pointed to this maybe about half an hour or 45 minutes ago. that there was some sort of interference, action on the part of ukraine, in the 2016 election. and he mentions the ukrainian court decision in december of last year, in which to cope ukrainian officials were found to have meddled in the u.s. election, for putting out

the information about paul manafort, who was then the campaign chairman for the trump campaign. who then had to resign because of that. it was the so-called "black ledger" that came out. certainly the ukrainian government was not particularly happy about president trump. but where president trump has this idea of crowdstrike and the dnc covering up that it was really ukraine behind it by blaming russia, there is not in the evidence for. but there is something i've talked to a lot of current and former white house officials about. that is regarding president trump and russian meddling in the 2016 election. what is partly at the heart of all of this that we are talking about now is the fact that, i am told, president trump -- if you were to admit that russia interfered in the 2016 election -- that it would somehow question the legitimacy of his victory in november of 2016.

he is just fixated on this. i've talked to a number of people currently of the white house, formerly at the white house, who have told me they wish he could just let it go, but he won't. bill? >> sandra: to dana perino now. thank you. danna, you pointed out now the opening statement from david holmes, one of the key witnesses we are hearing from this morning, expected to resume a few moments from now. in his opening statement, one of the first things he said is that while it's an honor to appear before you, i want to make cleae opportunity to testify today." he and fiona hill were subpoenaed to be there. "since you determined i might have something of value to these proceedings and issued a subpoena, his navigation to appear and tell you what i know. what did you take away from th that? >> let's go back to -- i worked on capitol hill in 1997, '98.

when the clinton impeachment was ongoing. there were several people who worked in the clinton white house. justice staffers, who ended up being subpoenaed. they had to get lawyers. you have to pay for that out of your own pocket. the white house lawyers do not represent you. you have to do it yourself. because a lot of people to go into a lot of debt. these were young staffers on government salaries. even if they didn't know anything, they got roped into it and it caused a lot of damage, including when very tragic situn during that period so fast forward. i was working with the executive branch, during the white house year, what you keep in mind is you have to be aboveboard. i mention that every day, that the chief of staff would say to us, "remember, you do not work for the party, you do not work for the president. he worked for the people of united states of america and that's your obligation." when i heard holmes say that today, he reminded me that for all the civil servants being called to testify that didn't

raise their hand, they are not there was a boy. i think holmes was saying, "i did not volunteer but i will appear and i will tell you what i know because you think it's valuable i believe, and maybe someone can check me on this, when they get called to testify they have to pay for it themselves. you have to have counsel because you don't want to get into a situation where you lied to congress even if you didn't mean to, because you misremembered something later on and they catch you in that. that can happen to people. when nancy pelosi says, "we might not be through with this, there might be more to come," he will have more people dragged into it. the lawyers racking up those billable hours. as we said yesterday, if this then goes to the judiciary committee, these witnesses could possibly be called back again. and this could be a real collision, because you have thanksgiving next week, then you get into december and you have the michael horowitz report coming out december 9th. that's the inspector general of the justice department.

who then will testify in congress on december 11th. this could be a real pilot paper for the holidays. >> bill: danna, think of it. send will try avoiding the government shutting down at midnight. we are also awaiting a houseboat to wrap appear as the hearing should get back underway. may be around 1:15 p.m. eastern time. andy mccarthy is with us, and ken starr. i want to touch on this in a moment here. google can be an amazing thing. if you google a politico investigation from january of 2017, this is with the headline reads. "ukrainian efforts to sabotage trump backfire. kyiv officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost clinton." that is before he was sworn in. if you're wondering where president trump get the idea that ukraine was meddling, there is an investigation that pops up

on a very popular website in washington, d.c., that will tell you that. if you just go to the second or third paragraph, government officials and ukraine tried to undermine trump by publishin puy questioning his fitness for office. the implication of the top trump aid and corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. they helped clinton's allies and resourcing a quick point on that, andy, this is going to be relevant to understand the entire context of the republic an argument when they resume." >> i would say two things that are important. to john's point, we are talking about is not the debunked theory that the ukrainians, not the russians, were involved in the hacking operation. but that doesn't mean there isn't a considerable amount of evidence.

to kris' point before, i don't question -- in fact, i think it's absolutely clear that there were very sound policy reasons for the ukrainians to be worried about donald trump. i never assume that anybody who indulges in things they shouldn't do does it irrationally. i'm sure they had very good reasons for wanting to see hillary clinton or at least the factions who were in ukraine involved in this, and the operatives who were involved, they had very good reasons in their mind to prefer hillary clinton to donald trump for the american presidency. but that doesn't change the fact that there is what we have regarded for the last three years, certainly in looking at the trump-russia collusion narrative, what you would call conspiratorial or collusive evidence. >> bill: let's see how devin nunes gets to that, or john ratcliffe or some others who have been deep in this matter now for two and a half plus years. andy, thank you. you will go on old and get a

quick commercial break. as center likes to say, the dow is sharply unchanged. [laughter] it has barely moved while this hearing has gone on day 5. our coverage continues after this.

do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

♪ the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪

we have no debt, we don't owe anybody anything, and it's fantastic ♪ ♪ >> sandra: welcome back to our continuing coverage on the fox news channel. by all this is happening, there is a recess happening on capitol hill right now with the committee pausing for a moment while members go over to a series of votes. john roberts is joining us now as we also discussed the fact that the president is hosting some republican senators at the white house today for lunch. >> a moment ago i said to senator flake, maybe a no vote. clearly that's not the case. it might be too long living in the basement of the white house or inhaling too many jet fuel fumes as the helicopter departure, just creeping dementia. the two who are the most

uncertain where mitt romney and susan collins of maine, they are over at the white house right now. again, it's part of this -- i don't want to call it a charm offensive, but with those two it might be a little bit of that or more of an exercise in, "let's do what's pragmatic for the party." but the white house has been pretty aggressive over the last six weeks in terms of getting people on board to make sure they either eliminate or limit the number of defections there might be, should this come to a vote in the senate. i don't think there are any republican senators who would suggest that 20 of them would defect, which is the number you would need to get to 67 to vote to remove the president from office. but the white house certainly isn't taking any chances, which is why they have been holding all of these meetings. whether it's on capitol hill or the white house or camp david, or even movie nights. just trying to make sure they get as many people on board as possible. they are pretty upbeat and optimistic that they have got that accomplished.

again, they're leaving nothing to chance, which is why today -- >> sandra: we are being told the houseboat series is complete. no guidance on when the impeachment hearing will resume, but we expect that momentarily. >> bill: it looks as if david holmes is back at the table. breaking news from jerusalem, the ag in that country has charged prime minister benjamin netanyahu with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. the announcement coming moments ago. the ag they're saying, in jerusalem, effie hyder decision based on legal evidence. the first time sitting per minister in israel has been indicted. as we wait for the hearing to begin, i want to get to juan williams and bring into the conversation pair there's been some reaction in the halls of congress today. this is maxine waters reacting to the hearing and what she has taken away thus far. >> the republicans of lost credibility because they attack

everybody. they try and take any testimony and turn it to their advantage. but i think if you are watching, the people can see the difference. >> bill: i assume she is a "yes" vote on impeachment, then. [laughter] >> i think you're good at this! you are really terrific. yes, i think you are right, bill. i don't think there's any sense among the democrats that there is anything going on on the republican side alder then throwing spaghetti at the mall at this point. they spend so many different attempts to try and say, "hey, this is the democrats going at it, this is the media going at it. this is the never trumpers, the deep state is going at it." even with regard to the president's phone call, saying, "there was no quid pro quo," people don't then put it in context of coming after the whistleblower complaint and trump being on the hot seat with the congress of the united states pressuring him and pressuring the administration to release money that had previously been approved by the congress to protect the ukraine

against the russian incursion. i think it is really also critical in the democrats' mind that when ambassador sondland testified yesterday, with regard to the corruption argument that the president was solely concerned about corruption, that sondland said, "no, he just wanted an announcement. on the basis of the media strategy that it would force american newspapers and television stations to carry the report that the bidens were under investigation in the ukraine for corruption, even if there was no corruption or corruption investigation. so i think what you are seeing here is that the democrats do feel they had been building a solid narrative, and the press conference room speaker pelosi, they suggest that rather than coming to an end today -- and there are no more witnesses scheduled going to the thanksgiving break -- that there may be more coming. on one last point, i was struck today in reading an editorial in

"the new york times" that suggested, "take your time." to me, there is the potential -- i think it was dana who said that for a huge collision coming, with the ig report, as well as the democratic primary politics as we head into january and february of next year. this is going to be, like, unbelievable in terms of news. it's going to be an implosion of american politics. >> bill: quan, standby on this. just looking back at the notes were earlier today, devin nunes, toward the end of his opening statement, he took a large block of paper and placed on the desk and said, "here's a report on russian active measures." so we expect a little bit of that to be in the bloodstream now when republicans resume here. to ken starr, where do you lead and a cross examination right now? we made the comment a bit earlier that sometimes we are scoring this in terms of morning sessions and afternoon sessions. now it's the republicans in the afternoon that have an opportunity. where do they start?

or ribbed you start >> you always want to think about bias, inconsistencies, and the testimony and the like. we've already pointed to fiona hill in terms of the substantive policy. that is very intriguing, that she was opposed to security assistance, military assistance, once upon a time. so you want to come to the fullest extent you can, unpack what the witnesses said during the opening statement and the like, and then start finding holes in terms of credibility. but also, to paint a broader picture of the president's perspective. you've brought your perspective witness to bear, but let's look at the president's perspective. i think our conversation over the last hour about the ukraine and the ukrainian participation in 2016, part of that narrative that you're not going to hear from the witnesses.

brought in the lens and look at it from the president's perspective coming coming coming back again, "i don't like foreign aid, i don't like that the european allies are not doing their part." >> sandra: testimony set to resume any moment now. a few minutes ago, the two witnesses, fiona hill and david holmes, walked into the room and took their seats. but then they walked back out of the room. perhaps that's because the lawmakers had not returned from the series of votes. we are going to return to the impeachment hearing on capitol hill as soon as it is underway. we will take a quick break and we will be right back. saturdays happen. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪

♪ >> sandra: we want to turn your attention to capitol hill as the chairman of the house intelligence committee has just reentered the room and taken his seat. indicating to us that the hearing may resume momentarily. >> bill: just about 1:00. we will pause for a moment allow our stations across the country to join our coverage here as we

see fiona hill come down the hallway. she and david holmes will be seated back at the table in a matter of moments here, and then they will be the republicans' turn to begin their cross-examination. we expect some questions from devin nunes before he hands it off to the republican attorney, and then we will go into 5-minute q&a segments for all the lawmakers, about 22 in total. it's going to go on for a while. let's pause right now for stations across the country. this is fox news coverage of the impeachment hearings come a day 5. i am bill hemmer in new york city. good afternoon, everyone. just a tick past 1:00 in the afternoon, as we watch a gavel to order on day 5 of. fiona hill and david holmes, two of the only witnesses at the table that you will see today. it might be the end of the hearings after today. there has been no announcement for any witnesses after today. to bret baier, my colleague in washington, on what we can expect now. bret?

>> bret: