mr. kent, ambassador taylor, thank you for your service. i have a great deal of appreciation for your profession. you have very little direct contact with decisionmakers, a tremendous amount of responsibility and not a lot of authority to effect u.s. policy bilateral engagements or multilateral engagements. you are try trying to shepard through issues with allies. ambassador taylor you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the president of the united states; is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> mr. taylor, mr. kent have you had any contact with the president of the united states. >> i have not. >> so not only no conversations with the president of the united states about ukraine. you have not had any contact with the president of the united states? correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. so, you both know that this impeachment inquiry is about the president of the united states, don't you? i mean, the man that neither of you have had any contact with, you

mr. kent, are pretty sophisticated about u.s. politics, are they not? >> perhaps. >> you would agree that if president zelensky contradicted president trump and said of course i felt pressured, they were holding up 400 million in military assistance, we have people dying every day, if he were to contradict president trump directly, they would be sophisticated enough to know they may pay a very heavy price with his president, were they not? >> that's a fair assessment. >> and president zelensky not only had to worry about retribution from donald trump should he contradict donald trump publicly, he has to worry about how he's perceived domestically, doesn't he, ambassador taylor? >> president zelensky is very sensitive to the views of ukrainian people, who indeed are very attentive to ukrainian/u.s. politics, yes. >> so if president zelensky were to say i had to capitulate and agree to the investigations, i was ready to go on cnn until the aid got restored, that would obviously be hurtful to him

mr. kent, have you had any contact with the president of the united states? >> i have not. >> so not only no conversation with the president of the united states about ukraine, you've not had any contact with the president of the united states. correct? >> that's correct. >> correct. >> so you both know that this impeachment inquiry is about the president of the united states. don't you? i mean, the man that neither one of you have had any contact with you're the first-up witnesses. i just find that amazing that -- that the first up would be two people who have never had any contact with the president himself. kurt volker did have contact with the president and contact with the president of ukraine. mr. ambassador, taylor you said he's a man of highest integrity. i know kurt volker and i know he served as the nato ambassador, director of mccain institute. highest professional ethics one of the most knowledgeable people about europe. absolutely a truthful man. would you agree with ambassador ta

mr. kent, for as long as i can remember, u.s. foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled entrants and democratic values notably freedom of speech, press awe assembly religion, free and fair open elections and the rule of law. mr. kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesn't that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those democratic values. >> i believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. >> how is that, sir? >> well, thrice an credible -- there's been an issue of credibility hearing diplomats on the ground one thing and hearing leaders say something else. >> would you agree >> iould. >> would you add how it would make it more difficult for you to do your job, sir. >> our credibility is based on respect for united states. and if we damage that respect it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. >> anyone looking

mr. kent, ambas dasador taylor, thank you for your service. you have very little direct contact with decisionmakers, a tremendous a amount of responsibility and not a lot of authority. to affect multi-lateral enga engageme engagements. you're trying to shepard through issues with our allies. one example of that, ambassador taylor, is that you testified in your prior testimony that you have p not had any contact with the president of the united states, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> mr. taylor, mr. kent, have you had anyr. contact with the president of the united states? >> i have not. >> iso, not only no conversati with the president of the united states about ukraine, but you have not had any contact with the president of the united states? >> that is correct. >> so, you both know this impeachment inquiry is about the president of the united states, don't you? the man neither one of you had contact with you're the first up witnesses. i just find that a little amazing that the fir

i would like to start with you, mr kent. t, it was clear to me that mr giuliani's attempts to gin up investigations were affecting ukraine, leveraging president zele ns ky‘s ukraine, leveraging president zelensky‘s desire for a white house meeting. did you actually write a memo documenting your concern is that there was an effort under way to pressure ukraine to open an investigation to benefit president trump? yes, i wrote a file on august 15. we don't have access to that, do we? we have not received one piece of paperfrom we? we have not received one piece of paper from the state department relative to this investigation. both of you have made compelling cases of the importance of ukraine to europe, to the 70 years of peace, the benefit that it has to the united statesnational security, and the goal of maintaining the sovereignty of independent nations. meanwhile, russia was violently attacking people in ukraine. so, withholding military aid, does that we can ukraine? well, i think it sends a wrong signal, and it did for a

mr. kent, ambassador taylor, thank you for your service. i have a great deal of appreciation for your profession. you have very little direct contact with decision makers, a tremendous amount of responsibility and not a lot of authority to affect u.s. policy, bilateral engagements or multilateral engagements. you're trying to shepherd through issues with our allies. one example of that, ambassador taylor, is that you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the president of the united states, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> mr. kent, have you had any contact with the president of the united states? >> i have not. >> so not only no conversations with the president of the united states about ukraine, you've not had any contact with the president of the united states, correct? >> that's correct. >> so you don't know that this impeachme impeachment inquiry is about the president of the united states, do you? someone who has had no contact with the man, i

i consulted with mr. kent mr. kent of this and also i had a conversation with mr. bret bull. >> that was a june 28th call, i believe? >> that's correct. >> and in your opening statement you expressed some concerns about what ambassador sondland had said. once zelensky got on the phone it proceeded in a very regular channel way, correct? >> that's correct. the june 28th call didn't ultimately as it played out present any problems for you? the call poor president zelensky did not. the preparation for that call. the preparation included maybe 15 minutes of just the -- just irregular in that it didn't have the staff. it was also in that pre-call in that 15 minutes before president zelensky got on the phone where ambassador volker bamentsz volker told the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation with in toronto in three or four days where he would outline for president zelensky the important components of the phone call that we were trying to establish. >> okay. and you didn't have any issue with that, did you? >> the only issue i had with th

mr. kent, for as long as i can remember, u.s. foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interests in democratic values, notably freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion. free and fair and open elections. in the rule of law. mr. kent, would american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals? doesn't that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of of those democratic values western mark >> i believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. >> how is that? >> there is an issue of credibility. i hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u.s. leaders saying something else. >> ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir? >> i would. >> anything you would like to add about how it might make it more difficult for you to do your job, sir. >> our credibility is based on a respect for the united states and if we damage that respect, then it hurts our credi

mr. kent, for as long as i can remember. policy predicated on principled interest in democratic values notely freedom of speech, pre and fair and other elections in the rule of law. mr. kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesn't that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those democratic values? >> i believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. >> how is that, sir? >> well, there's an issue of credibility. they hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u.s. leaders saying something else. >> ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir. >> i would. >> is there anything you'd like to add how it mike mate it more difficult for you to do your job, sir? >> our credibility is based on a respect for the united states, and if we damage that respect, then it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. >> anyone

mr. kent, i'd like to welcome you here. i'd like to congratulate you for passing the democrats' star chamber editions hell in the basement of the capital. it seems you agreed witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama, with the main performance, the russia hoax has ended and you've been cast in the low-rent ukrainian sequel. i'll conclude by noting the immense damage the politicized bureaucracy has done to americans' faith in government and noe though executive branch employees are charged by implementing the policy set by the president who was elected and responsible for the american people and elements of the civil service have decided that they, not the president, are really in charge. this is what we'll learn in these hearings. after expressing skepticism of foreign aid the campaign trail, president trump outraged the bureaucracy by asking about foreign aid and expressing concerns about foreign corruption. official alarm that the president's actions was typically based on secondhand,

mr. kent, for as long as i can remember, u.s. foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interest and democraticpr values. notably, freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, free, fair, and open elections. and the rule of law. mr. kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesn't that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those democratic values? >> i believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. >> how is that, sir? >>thos well, there's an issue o credibility. they hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u.s. leaders saying something else. >> ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir? >> i would. >> sir, anything you'd like to add about how it might make it more difficult forht you to do your job, sir?re >> our credibility is based on a respectse for the united states and if we damage that respect, then itda hurt

mr. kent, i would like to welcome you here. i would like to congratulate you for passing the democrat's auditions held in the basement of the capital. it seems you agreed, witting or unwittingly participate in a drama, the main performance, a russian hoax has ended and you have been cast in the low rent ukrainian sequel. i will conclude by noting the immense damage a politicized bureaucracy has done to americans in government although executive branch authorities are charged in implementing executive branch policies who is responsible to the american people. laments of the civil service have decided that they, at the president are in charge. learn, afterill expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about corruption on the campaign trail, president trump outrage the bureaucracy by acting skeptically and expressing concern about foreign corruption. actions the president's were based on secondhand, thirdhand, and fourth hand rumors and innuendo. they believe it was an outrage for the presi

mr. kent, in preparation for the call? >> i was given notification the day before on july 24th. and to the extent i had any role, it was to reach out to the embassy, give them the heads-up and ask them to ensure that the secure communications link in the office of the ukraine was functional so the call could be patched through to the white house situation room. >> did you provide any substantive advice to colonel vindman about the call and what ought to be the official position? >> i was not asked and i did not provide. >> okay. same with you, ambassador? >> the same. >> the call was scheduled -- you know, you testified earlier that the call was on again/off again and after the july 10th meeting with ambassador bolton the consensus was the call was not going to happen, was that correct? >> i would not say that was the consensus. the state department's position was that a call between the two presidents would be useful. and once zelensky's party won the majority on july 21st, the idea of a cong

i consulted with mr. kent, and at his suggestion made a note of this and also, i believe at that point i had a conversation with mr. brechbuhl. >> that is the june 28th call i believe? >> yes, that is correct. >> in your opening statement, you expressed some concerns about what ambassador sondland had said, and then once zelensky got on the phone, it proceeded in a regular channel way, correct? >> that is correct. >> so the june 28th call at least in and of itself didn't ultimately as it played out didn't present any problems for you? >> the call with president zelensky did not. the preparation for that call, the preparation included maybe 15 minutes of just the americans that would stay on the call and that, again, that was irregular in that it did not have the staff, and also in that precall, in that 15 minutes before president zelensky got on the phone where ambassador volker told the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation with president zelensky in toronto in three days, four

. >> mr. kent, that vital military assistance that was not the only thing that president trump was withholding from ukraine. what else was contingent on ukraine initiating these investigations? >> well, as we've talked earlier today, the possibility of a white house meeting was being held contingent to an announcement. >> how important to president zelensky was a white house meeting? >> new leaders, particularly countries that are trying to have good footing in the international arena, see a meeting with the u.s. president in the oval office as the white house as a -- as the ultimate sign of endorsement and support from the united states. >> president zelensky was a relatively new president, is that right? >> that's correct. he was elected on april 21st and his government was formed after parliamentary elections in july. >> would a white house meeting for president zelensky boost his legitimacy as a new president in ukraine? >> it would primarily boost his leverage to negotiate with vladimir putin

cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our department of justice that's completely legitimate mr kent were you aware of any formal department of justice cooperation request made to the ukrainians i am not aware that there was any formal department justice request in this matter no was mr maule of any statement false i think you'd prefer that question again to the department justice since i don't have full knowledge of whatever they may have been working on just about an hour before the 2 of you sat down to testify today the president tweeted multiple times about this hearing and he put in all caps never trumpeters mr kent are you a never trump or. i am a career nonprofessional who serves whatever president is duly elected and carries out the foreign policies of that president of the united states and i've done that for 27 years for 3 republican presidents and 2 democrat presidents ambassador taylor you never trump or no sir ambassador taylor finally you said in your statement on page 19 mr chairman there are 2 ukrainian stories today the 1st is the one we were discussing this morning

participating in a requesting a thoughtful and well calibrated anti-corruption program i do not and mr kentand mr taylor. the defenders of the president's behavior have made a big deal out of the fact that vice president biden encouraged the ukrainians to remove a corrupt former ukrainian prosecutor 2016 mr show can in fact senator rand paul on sunday said and i quote him there impeaching the president president trump for exactly the same thing that joe biden did. is that correct is what the president. what the president did in his phone call and what joe biden did in terms of mr show can you are those exactly the same things and if not how are they different i do not think they are the same things what former vice president biden requested of former president of ukraine portion go was the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general victor show can who had undermined a program of assistance that we had spent again u.s. taxpayer money to try to build an independent investigator unit to go after corrupt prosecutors and there was a case called the diamond prosecutor case and which show can destroy

i con sukted with mr. kent and his sugts made a note of this. i think at thp point i had a conversation with mr. -- >> that was a june 28th call. >> that's correct. >> in your opening statement, you expressed concerns. so the june the 28th call did not play out or presented any problems to you. >> the president where presid-- call. that again was irregular and it did not have the staff. it was almost in that precall, that 15 minutes before president zelensky ot gone the phone wearing a vest or volker told the rest of the participant that he was planning to have a conversation with president zelensky in toronto in three or four days. where he'll outline president zelensky the important components of the phone call that we are trying to establish. >> you didn't have an issue with that, did you? there was reference to investigation. i have to check my notes on that. the raised issues for me that i did not understand what ambassador volker had in mind that he was going to raise with mr. zelensky. that was a little bit of concerns. the president expre

mr george kent currently serves as deputy assistant secretary in the department of state 's bureau of european and eurasian affairs, overseeing policy towards ukraine in other countries. he has served twice in ukraine from 2000 and 42,007. he was the deputy political counsel including during the orange revolution, and from 2015 to 2018, he served as deputy chief of mission in care. sincejoining he served as deputy chief of mission in care. since joining the foreign service in 1992 mr kent has served in poland, uzbekistan and thailand. he also served as the senior anti—corruption coordinator to strengthen the rule of law. all witness depositions, as part of this enquiry, were unclassified in nature and all hearings will also be at the unclassified level. any information that may touch on classified information will be addressed separately. congress will not tolerate any reprisal, threat of reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any us government official

caster. >> ambassador taylor, mr. kent, president trump's concerns about ukraine's role in the 2016 election, you believe he genuinely believed they were working against him, right, ambassador taylor? >> mr. caster, i don't know what president trump or candidate trump was thinking about the ukrainians. >> didn't he in this oval office meeting on may 23rd after the zelensky inauguration, didn't he lament that the ukrainians were out to get him? >> i heard that his response to the suggestion that mr. zelensky visit mr. trump, president trump in the oval office was not well-received and that he had concerns about ukrainians, yes. >> but from the president's perspective, if the ukrainian ambassador to the united states, one of the most influential diplomats is penning an op-ed, certainly with the okay of president poroshenko, the dnc consultants are conferring with ukrainian officials at the embassy. former prime minister is saying things on immediate. the interior minister who has spanned both the poroshenko and the zelensky

caster. >> ambassador taylor, mr. kent, president trump's concerns about ukraine's role in the 2016 election, you believe he genuinely believed they were working against him, right? ambassador taylor? >> mr. caster, i don't know what president or candidate trump was thinking about the ukrainians. >> didn't he in his oval office meeting may 23rd after the zelensky inauguration, didn't he lament that the ukrainians were out to get him? >> i heard that his response to the suggestion that mr. zelensky visit mr. trump, president trump in the oval office was not well-received and that he had concerns about ukrainians, yes. >> but from the president's perspective, if the ambassador -- ukrainian ambassador to the united states, one of the most influential diplomats is pending an op-ed, certainly with the okay of president pooporoshenko, conferringssy. former prime minister is saying things on social media. interior minister who has spanned both poroshenko and the zelensky realm is also saying some very unkind things on social medi

that you have not had any contact with the president states that correct the scripture was taylor mr kent have you had any contact with president's aides i have not so not only no conversation with the president's aides about ukraine you have not had any contact with the president stays correct that's correct so you both know that this impeachment inquiry is about the president i'd say so you i mean the man that neither one of you have had any contact with your the 1st up witnesses i just find that a little mazing that that the 1st up would be to people who have never had contact with the president himself now kurt volker did have contact with the president and condi with president on ukraine mr ambassador doug taylor you said that he's well a man of highest integrity why no current fork or and i know you he served as the nato ambassador you served as the director of the mccain institute he's the highest professional ethics or the most knowledgeable people about europe he's absolutely truthful man mr kant would you agree with them bassett or taylor that he's of the highest integrity i bel

mr. kent, are you a never-trumper? >> i am a career nonprofessional who serves whatever president is duly lected and carries out and i've done that for 27 years. >> ambassador taylor are you a never trumper? >> no, sir. >> what do you think of that, larry? >> well i think they are -- the president tweets out in big bold letters never trumpers. they proved today they're actually all americans. they served in their country, public servants. they answered the call to public service. and they've gone it. they're the people the president should be relying on and instead of they're being discarded and mistreated. >> they laid fact upon fact and i think the major newspapers tomorrow will lead with the strong case made by the democratic majority of that

>> that's correct, sir. >> mr. kent, have you had any contact with the president of the united states if. >> i have not. >> now, kurt volker did have contact with the president and contact with the president in ukraine. do either of have any evidence that kurt volker perjured himself or lied to this committee in his testimony? ambassador taylor, any evidence? >> mr. turner, i have no evidence. >> mr. kent? >> i believe ambassador volker's deposition was over 400 pages, and i don't have it in front of me, so i can't -- >> but you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself. >> i have no basis to make that judgment, no, sir. >> again, congressman, acknowledging that the white house has blocked witnesses who could speak to that. to this point, democrats don't have that eyewitness testimony as it were. how much does that weaken your case? >> i don't think it does. i mean first of all, we start with the evidence that was supplied by the white house itself with the summary of the call notes that he had with the presiden

>> i agree with mr. kent. >> that's val demings of florida being sharp and getting sharper answers there. rudy giuliani is up to no good. >> i think the key thing we heard today is we have a bipartisan foreign policy associated with ukraine that was being undermined by rudy giuliani and the others. but this was actually the declared trump foreign policy. >> how come ukraine president never admitted he was being pressured? because the minute he was being pressured he would have lost the whole game, right? these are stupid things these arguments. >> the republicans problem is they have about seven defenses and they really can't get to the core defense because trump won't let them which is we know he did it, we know he liked it, we know he's not sorry, but it's not impeachable. that's where they want to go, but they can't. so they have scatter shot defenses not effective. >> thank you u.s. congresswoman jackie spier, and we've got a lot more to get to on tonight's assessment of the dramatic impeachment hearing t

now, mr. kent, you've testified a little bit about how important this white house meeting was to president zelensky. how would you expect a new ukrainian president to interpret a request for a favor for the president of the united states? >> i cannot interpret the mind of president zelensky other than to say that it was very clear that what they were hoping to get out of this meeting was a date and a confirmation that he could come to washington. >> obviously you can't put yourself in the mind, but if the ukrainian president for a country that's so dependent on the united states for all things, including military assistance, is requested to do a favor, how do you think the ukrainians would interpret that? >> if you go further into the call record as part of this, and we don't have it on screen, but to the best of my recollection, reading it after it was released on september 25th, president zelensky went into having -- whatever your problems were, that was the old team, i've got a new team, and we

. >> what interest to you think he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor? what interests do you think he was promoting? >> i agree with abassador kent. >> the main performance, the russia hoax has ended. and you have been cast in the low-rent ukrainian sequel. >> i've seen church prayer chains easier to understand than this. >> no threats, no demands. no blackmail, nothing corrupt. >> reporter: but house democrats standing firm. >> is this what we want a president to do, to leverage their power? i think for most americans, that's sinking in. >> reporter: and bill taylor and george kent defended ousted ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch. she will testify in round two tomorrow, that will wrap up with eight witnesses testifying. and sources tell us who the aide tell us who taylor said told him about the president to sondland, that aide will testify behind closed doors. alisyn? >> jessica, thank you for all of that. >>> how will

now, mr. kent, you've testified a little bit about how important this white house meeting was to president zelensky. how would you expect a new ukrainian president to interpret a request for a favor from the president of the united states? >> i cannot interpret the mind of president zelensky other than to say it was very clear that what they were hoping to get out of this meeting was a date and a confirmation that he could come to washington. >> obviously, you can't put yourself in the mind, but if the ukrainian president for a country that's that's so dependent on the united states for all things, including military assistance, is requested to do a favor, how do you think the ukrainians would interpret that? >> well, if you go further into the call record as part of this, and we don't have it on screen, but to the best of my recollection reading it after it was released september 25th, president zelensky went into having whatever your problems were, that was the old team, i've got a new team and w

>> absolutely. >> i do remember having seen some of the testimony of mr. kent, a conversation in which he had asked me about the conspiracy theories that were out there in ukraine. i don't remember what the date of this conversation was. and my view was, well if there are things like that, then why not investigate them. i don't believe that there is anything to them. if there is, 2016 election interference is what i was thinking of, we want to know about that but i didn't believe there was anything there to begin with. >> you testified in your deposition to the extent the ukrainians were going to investigate other ukrainians for wrongdoing, that is appropriate in your mind. >> correct. that is u.s. policy for years. >> so if certain ukrainians involved with burisma company -- >> that is the only plausible thing to look at there. as i said, i don't find it plausible or credible that vice president biden would have been influenced in his dudy but ukrainians in the society we know ukraine has been for decades were trying to act in a corrupt way or buy influence, t

no. >> and you were there with mr. kent? >> yes, i believe so. >> did you ever have any discussions with him about preconditions or investigations? >> not at that time. i think later on, these things came up, when we were talking about a statement, whether there were investigations. but i believe at this time in toronto it was really more referring to investigations generically, that that is how you go about fighting corruption and that president zelensky should reaffirm his commitment to president trump in a direct phone call. >> okay. and at any point in time, had mr. kent raised any concerns to you about any of this? >> not at that time. >> next is the july 10th meeting, in ambassador bolton's office. we talked a little bit about that this morning, i don't know if you caught the coverage. there was testimony that at some point, ambassador sondland mentioned investigations and reportedly the meeting ended abruptly. what can you tell us about that fact? >> thank you. and let me answer that question first, i would like to co

no. >> you were there with mr. kent? >> yes, i believe so. >> did you have any discussions with him about preconditions or investigations? >> not at that time. later on these things came up we were talking about a statement, whether there were investigations. but i believe at this time toronto it was more referring to investigations generically that that is how you go about fighting corruption and that president zelensky should reaffirm his commitment to president trump in a direct phone. >> at any point in time had mr. kent raised any concerns to you about any of this? >> not at that time. >> next event i want to cover is the july 10th meeting. in ambassador bolden's office. we talked about it a little bit this morning. i don't know if you caught the coverage, but there was a testimony that at some point mr. sondland mentioned investigations and reportedly the meeting ended abruptly, what can you tell us about that? >> thank you. and let me answer that question first, i would like to come back to your prior question if

>> i agree with mr. kent. >> reporter: eager to defend the president, republicans repeatedly noted that taylor and kent never spoke to the president directly, that they were relying on second-hand information. >> you weren't on the call, were you? you didn't listen into the call? >> i did not. >> you never talked with ctaff ? >> i never did. >> you didn't meet the president? >> that is correct. >> you had meetings -- >> two of those they never heard about as far as i know. there was no reason for it to come up. president zelenskiy never made the sr wiu'elve u' theirir witnessorter: republd on the end result, that the white house did release the hold on that military aid, saying it shows trump did nothing wrong. >> security assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackmailed to do. >> reporter: but democrats say the money only started to flow after congress launched an investigation and the whistle-blower filed the complaint. >> mary br

mr. kentand saying it actually makes the case. a joint statement from several top democrats sameness. secretary of state george kent strongly corroborates testimony from other numerous witnesses. mr. kent affirms that he and his colleagues recognize the impropriety of pressuring ukrainian officials to undertake politically motivated investigations to help president trump's reelection prospects in 2,020. we look over to his public testimony. >> none of these folks were first-hand witnesses, this was based on hearsay and conversation. the other two ingredients i came out, one was that mr. kent did believe that joe biden, it wasn't involved in quid pro quo. the other component is mr. camp warned the previous administration some four years ago about hunter biden saying this doesn't look good and it was potentially some damaging proprieties that come out of that. they ignore that at the time and now they see that coming back really full circle. >> shannon: on issue with the biden's, there has been

>> i don't think so, ma'am. >> mr. kent?ve he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor? what interests do you believe he was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> what do you think? >> look, i think that's the key part of his testimony. the center of all of this controversy and why -- i think we want to hear more from some of the other witnesses including ambassador yovanovitch and certainly gordon sondland, this is part of the story, the story democrats are laying out for the impeachment inquiry. there is also another part of this, wolf, i think the prosecutors in the southern district of new york who are watching this testimony today no doubt and trying to see whether it fits into the criminal investigation still ongoing in which guiliani is the center of. i think today, hearing from these two very credible witnesses talk about what they heard and what they knew, it's incorrect, frankly, even the democrats have

he is a senior state department official overseeing ukraineir af mr. kent: i do not believe thete united sshould ask other countries to engage in selective, politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents t se in power, because such selective actions undermine the rule of law. president ordered a halt to military aid to ukraine until it agreed it to dig dirt on the gas company, burisma, that hunter biden, son of former vice president joe biden and donald trump's potential 2020 rival, was a director of. next up, bill taylor, acting ambassador to ukrain he says the president was trying to strong-arkiev. mr. taylor: by mid-july it was meetingg clear that th president zelensky wanted was conditioned on investigations of buria and alled ukrainian interference in the 2016 u.s. elections.li jon: t repn strategy seems to be to cast doubt on everyone and everything involvep in thechment inquiry, including the undermining of these lifelong public servants. >> ambassador taylor and mr. kent, i would like to welcome you here. i would like to con

>> i agree with mr. kentt every turn. >> you didn't listen on president trump's call and president zelensky's call? >> i did not. >> you never talked with chief of staff mulvaney. >> i never did. >> you didn't meet the president. >> that is correct. >> president zelensky never made an announcement. this is what i can't believe. and you're their star witness. you're they're their first witness. >> let me just say that i don't consider myself a star witness for anything. >> they do. >> i don't. >> reporter: one republican called this "a low rent ukrainian sequel" to the russia probe. insisting there's not even any proof of a crime. >> the security assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackmailed to do. >> for the millions of americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following. number one, ukraine received the aid. number two, there was, in fact, no investigation into biden. >> reporter: democrats quickly countered

i was so impressed by mr. kent. i think he was unbiased and everyone would be served well listening to how he answered the questions. this is how we all should approach these hearings. i think he established the efficiently that security and onruption with ukraine is the top of the list in our foreign policy. remember, that is what the president says he was concerned with. secondcally, the whole idea of the litany, the six people a sentence and the absurdity of it, look at the reaction.'s he was actually laughing about it., at the absurdity of and the most shocking part of was when ng for us oflupa was identified as one the whistleblowers and his direct line to the d.n.c. and digging up and clinton, digging up dirt on reaction of mr. piquish, he s started to sweat. and then later he confirmed the of the whistleblower, and the media hasn't even spoken morning.s this and so i just -- i'm just this, and i ll of think that the president will be acquitted. also, our last -- my last comment is my husband and i love c-span

mr. kent, presidentnt trump's concern about ukraine's role in the 2016 election, you believe he genuinely believed they were working against him right? >> i don't know what president or candidate trump was thinking about the ukrainian. >> didn't he and his meeting in may 23 in the zelensky and gratian, and that he admit the ukrainians route to get him? >> i heard that his response to the suggestion that mr. zelensky visited mr. trump in the oval office was not well received and he had concerns about ukrainians. yes. >> from the president's perspective if the ambassador of ukrainian of the united states most influential diplomats is handing it off the with okay of the president, the dnc consultants are conferring with ukrainian officials at the embassy, former prime minister is saying things on social media and to a span the zelensky round is also saying very unkind things on social media about the president, you certainly can appreciate that president trump was very concerned that some element

. >> what interests do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> i agree with mr. kent. >> both men making clear how unsettled they were with the rogue ukraine policy and the demands on the ukrainians. >> it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house. it's another thing, i thought, to leverage security assistance, security assistance to a country at war dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support. it was -- it was much more alarming. >> as a general principle i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective, politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country. >> republicans led by ranking member of the intelligence committee devin nunes blasted the hearing and the gop united that the president never actually demanded investigations. >> i

he also -- mr. kent said there is never a formal request from our attorney general to the ukrainians through the established channels to look into this. this was only coming from the president. i think that is a consciousness of guilt. if you went through the proper channels, he knew that it would be rejected because there is no evidence there. he ran a smear campaign with an ambassador and then he was trying to, through sondland and giuliani and others, smear -- >> martha: i will ask him some of those questions and all of us. let me ask you this because if eric trump got a job on the board for a company in turkey, okay, would you be okay with that? would you think that should be something that would be looked into? >> you would need to give me another 20 minutes to talk about the trumps. ivanka trump getting trademarks granted to her while she is working at the white house from china, john jr. -- >> martha: i ask you -- >> yes, that's a whole another segment, martha. >> martha: they've been in real esta

. >> what interests do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> i agree with mr. kent. >> reporter: taylor also mentioned another call that he had himself with sondland on the 1st of september, right after the ukrainians learned that the aid was being held up. >> during that phone call, ambassador sondland told me that president trump had told him that he wants president zelensky to state publicly that ukraine will investigate burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. he said that president trump wanted president zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigation. >> reporter: both men making clear how unsettled they were with the rogue ukraine policy and the demands on the ukrainians. >> it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house. it's another thing, i thought, to leverage security assistance. >> as a general principle, i do not believe the united states shoul

taylor and mr. kent on wednesday. that's a big deal for ukraine and a big deal for a new ukrainian president. it gives them stature, it gives them standing in the eyes of the world. mr. zelensky very much wanted that. there's another thing they very much wanted in ukraine which the president also held back, which was military assistance. as we also learned on wednesday, some people probably knew this a long time before i did, ukraine is under grave threat from the russians. russians possess, have taken 7% of ukrainian territory, an area about the size of texas. ukrainian soldiers are dying in ukraine. >> this week. ambassador taylor said, this week. >> in ukraine, ukrainian soldiers are dying at the hands of russians. put that in an american context. could you imagine if american soldiers were dying in america right now at the hands of russians? because that's what's happening there. and that's how crass this scheme was, right, to leverage two things that the ukrainians wanted and needed in return for political dirt on

. >> what interest do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dedig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> i agree with mr. kent. >> reporter: taylor also mentioned another call he had himself with mr. sondland ornb t -- on the first of september. >> he told me president trump told him that he wants president zelensky to state publicly that ukrain will investigate in the 2016 election and that he wanted the president in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such a investigation. >> both men saying how unsettled they were. >> it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in a white house it's another thing, i thought, to leverage security assistance. >> as a general principal i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective, politically associative investigations or pr prosecutions. >> reporter: the gop united in their defense that the president never actually demanded investigations. jim jordan who was added to the sole purpose

ambassador taylor and mr. kent, i like to welcome you here. i'd like to congratulate you for passing the democrats' star chamber editions held in the last weeks of the basement of the capitol. it seems you agreed witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama. but the main performance a russia hoax, has ended. and you've been cast in the low rent ukrainian sequel. >> as to respond to the smears against their character, here is george kent and bill taylor leading by example. >> mr. kent, are you a never-trumper? >> i am a career nonprofessional who serves whatever president is duly elected and carries out the foreign policies of that president in the united states. i've done that for 27 years for three republican democrats and two democrat presidents. >> ambassador taylor, are you a never-trumper? >> no, sir. >> to help us unpack an explosive day of testimony that we heard on capitol hill, conservative attorney george conway, neal katyal, claire mccaskill. plus a guest we haven't heard from yet today, former chief of staff for the cia and dep

however, mr. kentse intelligence, foreign affairs, and oversight committees, began this current investigation leading to the proceedings today, on september 9th. in fact, it was only two days after this particular set of committees began their investigations that the trump administration eventually released the military aid, correct? >> that is the time line, yes. >> so democratic congressman peter welch quickly shut down republican congressman jim jordan why he questioned why the whistle-blower would not come forward and testify. >> there is one witness, one witness that they won't bring in front of us, they won't bring in front of the american people, and that's the guy who started it all. the whistle-blower. >> can i say to my colleague, i'd be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. president trump is welcome to take a seat right there. >> what a moment. it gained so much traction online that jim jordan became the second most trending topic on twitter only behind hashtag imp

goldman, i have not. >> mr. kent, that vital military assistance that was not the only thing that president trump was withholding from ukraine. what else was contingent on ukraine initiating these investigations? >> well, as we've talked earlier today, the possibility of a white house meeting was being held contingent to an announcement. >> how important to president zelensky was a white house meeting? >> new leaders, particularly countries that are trying to have good footing in the international arena, see a meeting with the u.s. president in the oval office at the white house as a -- as the ultimate sign of endorsement and support from the united states. >> and president zelensky was a relatively new president, is that right? >> that's correct. he was elected on april 21st and his government was formed after parliamentary elections in july. >> would a white house meeting for president zelensky boost his legitimacy as a new president in ukraine? >> it would primarily boost his leverage to negotiate with vladimir pu