>> you are recognized. >> thank you. madame ambassador, like a hallmark movie. you ended up at georgetown, this is all okay. [laughter] but it was not your preference seven or eight months ago, correct? >> no, it was not. >> it was not your preference to be a victim of a smear campaign, was it? >> no. >> it was not your preference to be defamed by the president of the united states including today, was it? >> no. it wasn't your preference to be ousted at seemingly the pinnacle of your career, was it? >> no. >> you wanted to finish your extended tour, correct? >> i did. >> what did you want to do after that? did you know? >> i was not sure.

>> there is nothing wrong with georgetown, it is a fine place, right? >> it is a wonderful place. >> but it is your only choice at the end of a distinguished career after all of that. it is not the end of a hallmark movie. it is the end of a really bad reality tv show. brought to you by someone who knows a lot about that. [laughter] why did you, you previously testified that you sought advice from ambassador sondland at this time about what to do, is that correct? >> i did. >> why did you reach out to the ambassador? >> because this was clearly so political, and was not going to be -- you know, the state department was not in a position, shall i say to manage the issue. it did not appear to me.

and so, i asked ambassador sondland who said that he, you know, he was a political appointee. he said he was close to the president. and so, he had just been in ukraine for a ship visit with some of his e.u. colleagues from brussels, so i reached out to him for advice. when this was no longer a ukraine kind of interview with mr. lutsenko, kind of ukrainian, but became sort of the american politicians and pendants, et cetera were repeating those allegations, i asked him for advice. >> it meant a lot to you. this is an extraordinary time. and the advice meant a lot. and what was his advice? >> well, he suggested that i needed to go big or go home. and he said that the best thing to do would be to, you know,

send out a tweet. praise the president, that sort of thing. >> and what was your reaction to that advice? >> well, my reaction was that i'm sure he meant well, but it was not advice that i could really follow. it felt, it felt partisan. it felt political. and that was not something that i thought was in keeping with my role as ambassador and a foreign service officer. >> did he give you any specific suggestions on what to say about the president of the united states, or just say something nice about them? >> just to praise him. >> thank you. i yield the balance to the chairman. >> i want to follow up on the line of question, and also hearken back to something you were asked by the minority counsel earlier. asked a couple of questions. do you think you could have done

more to push back against the smear campaign? and i'm not suggesting this is what the council was getting at. but sometimes victims are asked, aren't you responsible for your own victimization, what would you say to people who say isn't it kind of your fault, ambassador that you did not fight your own smear harder? >> well, i think that, you know, i've been a foreign service officer for a long time. and just like the military, we have our own culture. we have our own kind of chain of command, so to speak. and i did everything that i could to -- yeah, to address these issues and ask the state department to do what i felt was the right thing. which was support me. when it was important to do so.

because it was also about supporting the policy. i think it was for others to stand up to me -- for me. >> i quite agree. >> thank you, since the chair man has gaveled out all of my colleagues with their unanimous consent. i am going to read for the record many of the chairman's comments in september of the importance of hearing from the whistle-blower. again, ambassador, thank you for your patience. thank you for your service, but since we have not been able to conduct ourselves in normal procedures, i'm just going to use a 5 minutes for this. september 29th in "the wall street journal" "the whistle-blower at the center of the impeachment instigation of president trump will testify very soon." ""usa today"" september 29th. talking with abc news, schiff said that the whistle-blower would testify very soon. the only thing standing in the way was getting security clearances for the attorneys representing the whistle-blower.

from "vox" adam schiff said sunday the whistle-blower at the center of a growing scandal surrounding president donald trump will testify before the house intelligence committee very soon. on cnn, september 29th. schiff said on sunday as well as nbc's meet the press that he expects to testify very soon. "the washington post," september 2,029th. schiff echoed pelosi's message to hear from the whistle-blower very soon, pending a security clearance, joseph maguire. in "the huffington post," schiff told abc this week that he expects a whistle-blower to appear before the committee very soon. in "the new york post" "we will get the unfiltered testimony of that whistle-blower." in "the washington times" "that whistle-blower will be allowed to come in." these are all quotes from chairman adam schiff. in the memo, this was by george stephanopoulos, have you reached an agreement with the

whistle-blower and his or her attorneys about coming before the committee "yes, we have" schiff responded, and promised during the hearing that the whistle-blower will be able to come in without the justice department to tell the whistle-blower what they can and cannot say. we will get the unfiltered testimony of that whistle-blower. in daily kos, we are ready to hear from the whistle-blower as soon as that is done, and we will keep riding shotgun to make sure that the acting director does not delay in that clearance process. in cnbc "we will get the unfiltered testimony of the whistle-blower." market watch, adam schiff said that an agreement had been reached where the whistle-blower will testify before the committee very soon. i can keep going, but again, the chairman refused to allow us to put these into the record with unanimous consent. so i've read those out, and as we know, it is important to protect whistle-blowers from

retaliation and from firing. and we want to make sure that whistle-blowers are able to come forward, but in this case, the fact that we are getting criticized by chairman adam schiff for statements that he himself made early on in this process shows the duplicity and just the abuse of power that we are continuing to see with 1:54 seconds left i will yield. >> thank you for yielding, i will add that the chairman says that we get to see the transcripts, but there are four people that we have deposed that have not been able to see their transcripts, user transcripts, and relief and therefore, the testimony they provided were not able to use in these open hearings. if it is an open hearing, all of the available testimony from the deposition taken by the committee should be available to be discussed for the american people to see. but no, no, no, mr. morris and mr. hale, and a two other, miss williams and another one have not been released. i hope the chairman releases

that. one other point i would make in the last minute of miss elise stefanik's time, releasing that the whole thing, ambassador yovanovitch wasn't some some sinister scheme by the white house, to get mr. zelensky to do an investigation. if we are calling ambassador yovanovitch a part of some scheme by trump and pompeo, and giuliani to get president zelensky to do an investigation, why would they replace her with the democrats first witness? their star witness, bill taylor? i mean, if that is the plan, not the best plan that i've ever seen put together. their star witness, their first witness, mr. taylor is here wednesday. that's what they were up to? that just demonstrates that that is not what went on here. mr. zelensky never undertook any investigations. and the reason the aide was

released as we discussed on wednesday was because vice president pence, and ambassador bolden, u.s. senators all talked with president zelensky and were convinced that he was the real deal as ambassador has alluded to in her testimony. that's why it was released. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, a lot has changed since the whistle-blower came forward. two things in particular. first, most of what the whistle-blower has alleged has been cooperated by the witnesses that we have heard from. second, the president who my colleagues so shamelessly continue to defend continue to pressure, threatening, and intimidate the whistle-blower. so i would like unanimous consent to put into the record a september 26, 2019 article from "business insider" trump suggested the whistle-blower who filed the complaint against him was treason, punishable by death. how about september 26, 2019,

"vanity fair," trump suggests executing the whistle-blower like "in the good old days." third, september 29th, the whistle-blower lawyer raises fear for client safety. mr. chairman, the whistle-blower has an absolute right to anonymity. the whistle-blower's lawyer says he fears for his personal safety and will only answer question now in writing. i wish my colleagues would join me in protecting the whistle-blower's right to anonymity. but miss doral, we are here to talk about you and what you witnessed. and you saw a lot as a relates to mr. giuliani. i want to read a quote from you from mr. giuliani, but ask when you were in ukraine, you understood that rudy giuliani was donald trump's personal lawyer, is that right? >> yes, that is correct. >> are you familiar with rudy giuliani's quote in "the new york times" describing himself as a lawyer saying "he basically knows what i am doing,

sure, as his lawyer." were you familiar with that quote? >> it sounds familiar. >> and you have a lawyer with you today, ms. yovanovitch. and you understand that lawyers act on their client's behalf, is that right? >> yes. >> that it would be improper for a lawyer to go outside any directive that a client gives, is that correct? >> that is my understanding. >> are you familiar with a "new york times" story on may 29th, 2019 where rudy giuliani says that he intends to visit ukraine and says, we are not meddling in an election, we are meddling in an investigation? are you familiar with that quote? yes. >> that was 11 days before you were removed as investor, is that correct? >> yes. >> he is talking about on designs coming to ukraine, but what is interesting is that mr. giuliani said we're as in we are. he does not say i am not

meddling in an election. not i am not meddling in investigation pete he says we. he is speaking for himself and his client. and i want to talk about that quote, we are not meddling in an election, we are meddling in an investigation. is it proper for you or anyone who acts on behalf of the united states government to meddle in an investigation? >> no, i do not believe so. >> why not? >> well, there are law-enforcement channels, and things need to be handled properly. and without any kind of political bias. >> now this anticorruption crusader, president trump, who my colleagues have touted out as having such a great interest in anticorruption, and both the calls referenced today. the august 21 call and the july 25 call, isn't it true that president trump never mentions the word "corruption?" >> yes, it is true.

>> as regard to the foreign aid my colleagues says cannot be guilty, he did not completely achieved. the aide went to the ukrainians. isn't it true that the only reason the aide or they only time the aide went to the ukrainians was after the whistle-blower complaint became public? >> yes, it was after the whistle-blower complaint became public. >> so you don't really get points when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar and someone says, hate, he has his hand in the cookie jar, and then you take your hand out. which is essentially what to my republican colleagues and the president are trying to take credit for. finally, i want to put up the disgusting tweet from the president today. where he attacks your character, but i think i know who you are ambassador, i think the country knows who you are, he smeared you when you were in ukraine, and he smeared on that phone call with president zelensky on july 25, he is smearing you right now as you are testifying,

ambassador yovanovitch, are the president's smear is going to stop you from fighting corruption? >> well, i will continue with my work. >> if your country asks again to fight corruption will you do that despite the smears? >> yes. >> thank you, i yield back. >> your excellency, 33 years -- i will move over here. 33 years, six senior foreign service awards. five state department superior honor awards. the presidential distinguished service award, and the secretaries diplomacy and human rights award. you're tough as nails, and you are smarter is hell. you are a great example of what are ambassador should be like.

you are an honor to your family, and you are an honor to the foreign service. and you are an honor to this country. and i thank you for all that you have done and continue to do on behalf of your country. i am nervous about what i am getting ready to do. i want to do a five year history of ukraine in about 45 seconds. and as a professor, you can grade my paper. okay. valentine's day 2014, ukrainian people get fed up with the ukrainian president and basically overthrow him. he goes on the run. this was the revolution of dignity. who was the acting president during that time when he went out? >> i think it was -- >> church enough. excellent. in march of 2014, that is when we saw a little green men coming into ukraine and ultimately the

russians invaded the ukraine, and not only, but try to annex crimea, but it's also trying to -- they invited an entire country as well. >> yes. >> than there wasn't a lecturer in and to the ukrainian president was in june of 2014, then you came to post in 2016 of august, is that correct? >> two years later. later. >> january 2017 trump was elected, and in december of 2017 is when the javelins were approved, right? and we saw those delivered in april 2019 to be put to use. then we had zelensky elected in 2019, april? correct? now as zelensky defeated the previous president poroschenko. no loss between those two dudes, is there? >> i don't think so. >> and then in may of 202019,

zelensky is sworn in? >> yes. >> so my question we talk a lot about rudy giuliani, do we know what officials within the zelensky regime he actually met with? i know two, a gentleman by yermak who was a senior adviser. and we know of the former attorney general that we have already established here, was corrupt lutsenko. and he served under mr. zelensky for a couple of months. until august? >> that is correct. >> and their parliament voted him out, is that correct? >> yes, that is right. >> so if rudy giuliani is trying to influence the zelensky regime, what a guy that worked under the previous regime under pershing company, would he be the right guy to do it? >> are you saying mr. lutsenko?

>> yes. did mr. lutsenko have much credibility within the zelensky regime? the current regime? >> i don't think so. >> he did not. and to do you know of any other ukrainians that mr. giuliani was meeting with that was part of the zelensky regime? >> just to her mind, i would have already left ukraine by that point. i'm not aware. >> even with the administration to come. zelensky won the election, there was a two-month period of preparing to be installed in the president, even during that time, were you aware of any -- >> there is one of the oligarchs as we have heard about. one of the oligarchs is named, who met with mr. sherman and

parnas to get a meeting with rudy giuliani. >> but those are not people in the zelensky regime? >> no. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. castro. >> thank you chairman, think you ambassador for your 32 years of service to our nation. a big question here today is why you were pushed aside as ambassador, for example, americans know that an employer has a right to fire an employee, but they should not do it for certain reasons. you should not be fired because you are disabled, because you are a woman. , because you are black, and for other reasons. and most americans agree that a president should not recall in a basilar because ambassador standing in his way of doing a corrupt act. so i want to ask you, did the president ever tell you why he was recalling you? >> no. >> did anybody at the white house tell you why you were being recalled? >> no. >> did the president consult you

about who the good guys and the bad guys were i in the ukraine? >> no. >> did secretary pompeo ever tell you why you were being recalled? >> no. >> and it appears in the testimony that we have heard in the intelligence committee so far that there was a group of the presidents men, perhaps secretary perry, rudy giuliani, ambassador sondland who were in on this game to help the president get the bite ins and burisma investigated. and i want to put aside president trump for just a second and ask you, and all of your years of service, have you ever come across a president, been asked for a president or known of colleagues who were asked by an american president to help that president get an american investigated overseas? >> i'm not aware of that.

>> and if a president asked you to investigate a former vice president for this purpose, what would you say? >> i mean, with what i know today, i would have said "no." >> would you consider it an unlawful act? >> i don't know that it is unlawful, per se. but i think, again, that there are channels for conducting proper investigations. and that that would've been the best way to handle something like this. >> but certainly, it is bizarre for a president to ask that some american be investigated? by another government? >> it is very unusual. >> and also, you mentioned that there is corruption in ukraine.

ukraine is not the only country that confronts corruption. if the people in power in a country where corruption is rampant are being asked by a foreign leader, who has a lot of leverage over them to conduct an investigation, could that be dangerous, because they could trump up charges against someone if they wanted? >> they could. >> and i also want to ask you, i spoke to ambassador kent, he made a comment yesterday about selective prosecutions, and what it means going forward. what kind of precedent it sets. and you have spoken about a dangerous precedent for the state department and diplomats. but i want you to help us consider the president going forward, if there is no consequences for president trump or any president who does this, what are the consequences for this country and for any american? not just a former vice president

or presidential candidate, or even somebody in politics, but a person in business who does business in saudi arabia, or some other country. if a president is going to speak to another head of state or some foreign official and tried to get that person investigated, what does that mean for the future of the country and for americans? >> well, i think that investigations, prosecutions, judicial decisions properly should remain with investigators, prosecutors, and the courts. and i think that, as i said before, i think senator vanderburg, when he said that politics needs to stop at the water's edge, he was right in that. >> i yield back to the chairman. >> thank you, chairman, and ambassador yovanovitch, i would like to join in all of my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle in thanking you for your service. i would like to ask you about your earlier testimony about your senate confirmation and congresswoman stepanek had asked you how the obama-biden state department had prepared you to answer questions about burisma and hunter biden specifically, do you recall that? >> yes. >> she mentioned that you had been asked or prepared for questions about hunter biden's role on the board of burisma, but i don't think that you gave us the answer or answers that the obama-biden state department prepared you to give in response to that question. do you remember what those answers were? >> yeah. it was something along the lines of i would refer you to the vice president's office on that. >> so did they in the course of that brief you about the amount

of money that hunter biden was ? >> no, this was not part of their briefing. i had big old books with questions that might come up. >> in preparation for your confirmation? and they thought that hunter biden's role at burisma might be significant enough that it would come up during your confirmation, is that correct? >> apparently so. there were hundreds of questions. >> well, hundreds of questions, but where there are hundreds of companies? how many companies other than burisma did the obama-biden state department prepare you to give answers for? if there were others, which on ones? >> i just don't recall. >> you don't recall that there were any other companies, is that correct? >> i'm quite sure that there were some companies. but you know, this is a while ago. i don't recall. >> but you specifically recall

burisma? >> yes. >> all right, out of thousands of companies in the ukraine, the only one that you recall the obama-biden state department preparing you to answer questions about was the one where the vice president son is on the board? is that fair? >> yes. >> you understood from deputy assistant secretary george kent's testimony as it has been related to that he testified a few days ago, you understand that that arrangement, hunter biden's role on the burisma board caused him enough concern that as he testified in his statement that in february of 2015, i raised my concern that hunter biden's status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of the ukraine -- ukrainian policy as one of those factors. do you recall that? >> yes. >> do you agree with that?

>> yeah. >> that it was a legitimate concern to raise? >> i think that it could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. >> did you discuss that ever with mr. kent? >> i don't believe so. >> shortly before your confirmation august of 2016, prosecutor general shogun was fired by president poroschenko, correct? >> yes. general was the one who opened the investigation into burisma, correct? >> i think that is right, but i'm not actually sure? >> he was in charge of it at the prosecutor general, are you aware of the very public statement by the vice president that that firing of the prosecutor general occurred in march of 2166 hours after the

vice president told petrenko that he needed to fire at the prosecutor general or he would not receive $1 billion from the united states, do you beliee that? >> yes. >> do you think that that raises a potential concern or conflict of interest to that to the vice president of the united states was ordering the firing of the prosecutor in charge of a company that had been identified as one that was substantially corrupt? >> i actually don't. i don't think that the view that mr. viktor shokin was not a good prosecutor fighting corruption, that did not have anything to do with the burisma brief. >> the concern about hunter biden's role was legitimate, correct? >> it creates a concern that there could be an appearance -- >> based on your testimony, ambassador, i would like to renew my request, mr. chairmant-

>> the time of the gentleman has been expired. >> it being legitimate rather than a sham -- >> you will suspend. your time is expired. >> i have a unanimous request. >> ambassador, i would like to thank you very much. add my voice to gratitude for your years of service. frankly, you're the best of this nation. and i cannot think of anybody else i would rather have representing us in a foreign capital then you. my colleagues have gone to a great deal of effort to better understand the facts surrounding your removal. i think the facts are pretty clear. it was a smear campaign. it was orchestrated by a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor. the president's attorney. the president son, and even some of the president's allies at his favorite tv station. so that campaign led to your removal, despite 33 years of

outstanding service and responsibility and awards. so i kind of sit here with a mix of emotions, on the one hand, there is some pride and gratitude for all of your outstanding service, and on the other hand, i am angry. like my friend from connecticut. in fact, i am very angry. about how it is the most powerful person on the face of the earth would remove you from office after your stellar service, and somehow feel compelled to characterize you as bad news. and then to ominously threaten that you are going to go through some things. so i am angry. but i am not surprised. after all, as was suggested earlier, he said the whistle-blower may have committed treason, a crime punishable by death. even though the whistle-blower strictly adhered to the letter of the law as independently attested to by both the trump

appointed inspector general and the acting dni. after all, he even demeaned the memory of senator mccain after he lied in his grave at the naval academy grounds despite a lifetime of public service and serving six years as a prisoner of war in a tiny cell being beaten and tortured every day. and after all, he belittled the gold star family whose son captain kahn gave his last full measure of devotion out of this country. and let me tell you, as somebody who's older brother never saw his 35th birthday because of service in the vietnam war, those words are deeply offensive. words matter. and the words leveled against you constitute bullying of the worst order. your good character, your outstanding reputation have been been -- besmirched in a way that

is a void of common decency. but here is my message to you, there is nothing, ambassador yovanovitch, nothing he can do, not a thing that will in any way diminish the nature and quality of the service you have rendered to our great nation. not a thing. and there is not a thing he can say or do that will diminish our gratitude to you for that service. and i thank you again for it. >> thank you. >> so as to the larger point. i would like you to answer what does this mean to ukraine when the united states actually engages in the kind of behavior that we are attempting to discourage them from engaging in? namely a politically motivated prosecution? what does that mean to them in their struggling efforts to

become a robust democracy? what is the impact in ukraine for this behavior? >> i think ukraine, like many countries looks to us for the power of our example. and i think that when we engage in questionable activities that raises a question. and it emboldens those who are corrupt who do not want to see ukraine become a democracy, a free market economy, a part of europe, but once ukraine to stay under russia's role. and that is not in our national security interests. >> thank you, ambassador yovanovitch. thank you so very much. i yield the balance of my time to the chair.

>> i understand that the council would like to take a short break. let's take a five minute recess, if members of the audience could please remain in their seats to allow the witness or counsel to leave ahead of us, we will resume in a few minutes. we are in recess. >> we will take it over from there while they give us a five minute break at 2:35. this hearing started at 9:00 a.m. sharp, took a break for lunch, but going at it with the members of congress five minute each, and we had the 45 minutes of republican questioning from the lawyer that they have hired to do that, john castor. let's take it around the table. we still ever amazing panel, bret baier, chris wallace, we have ken mccarthy, and here with me here martha maccallum, and juan williams in new york. bret baier, can i turn to you first for any thoughts over how this afternoon has gone? >> well, slowly.

the republican counsel at times, i think it was tough to follow where exactly he was going to try to land at some of those questions. there were some moments that he had from the witness from the ambassador that she was not a part of some of the decision-making. that she was removed, that she was not a first-hand witness to a lot of what has happened. some of the questioning from the congressman, especially devin nunes got that out a little bit more. what we have not seen as any questions about this. this is the rudy giuliani statement and letter paid any questions about the conspiracy that he talks about on 2016 that was happening inside the ukraine. any questions about george soros and his activities. any questions about her knowledge of any of that. that questioning has not happened. and that raises questions about giuliani statement and where it has gone from here. >> dana: chris wallace, do you have any thoughts why they would not bring that up? maybe it was too new, they were not able to check it?

>> it is not new, because a lot of it is the basis for the whole campaign to giuliani involved than with other people to try to force out. and destroy the credibility of marie yovanovitch, so this has been out for a long time that she was somehow linked to george soros, that the ukraine embassy was linked to interference in the 2016 campaign. that she was personally bad mouthing president trump and telling people in ukraine, you don't have to pay attention to him, because he is going to be impeached anyway. and she flatly denied today under direct questioning from adam schiff and from his counsel danny goldman that she had done any of those things. and when we saw the giuliani memo that bret just pointed out, maybe there's something there, maybe she has not come clean about what she has done and the republicans will bring it up. they have stayed away from this with a 10-foot pole, and the

only reason i have to think they have is because it is not new, they are not comfortable with it and they do not think it is credible. with all full credit to sherlock holmes, i would say that the story this afternoon has been the dog that did not bark. we expected a lot more pointed attacks by the republicans on the credibility of marie yovanovitch that maybe she was a bad actor. maybe there was a reason she was forced out. and the republicans really have not been able to make that case at all. >> dana: martha maccallum, we were here talking during the hearing that a lot of the members of congress are really trying to lay it on pretty thick about their appreciation for her 33 years of service. the democrats really pointing out that she has been treated very unfairly, she still has a job, and the republicans are saying shouldn't she be glad that she has a job and no harm came to her, but you talked earlier today about whether any of this so far this week has moved the needle, how do you feel at 2:38:00 p.m.?

>> not so much. it does not feel that way when you watch what is playing out here. it feels like we are sort of going over ground that has been tried before, i did think that was an interesting moment from mr. quigley, congressman quigley who said after mike conaway had questioned her and basically sort of laid out a scenario where he said, you are fine, right? you have a job at georgetown, you came back. euro state department employee. sort of painting the picture that all of this egregious behavior has not really hurt you, now has it, and then the democrat mr. quigley said, boy, this is just like a hallmark movie. everything turned out great, you got a job at georgetown, right? which was an interesting moment, i thought as we watch all of this carry out this afternoon. but one of the things that continues to come up. and it is a very salient point, we expected some pushback based on what rudy giuliani has said. nobody has tried to nail her

down. what about when you said this about president trump? or when you pushed back in this way against president trump? none of that. which definitely leaves a big question mark about whether or not there is anything there. republicans have been criticized for not addressing the substance of the allegations here, and focusing much more on the process. this would go right to the substance, and they are not going there. >> dana: juan, one of the things i did come up, mr. radcliffe, the congressman from texas brought us up, and a least a phonic did as well, that apparently there was sufficient concern in the obama administration that they provided a q&a guidance in case you were asked about hunter biden and being a part of buris, that at least that was a p.r. cn in the administration. >> that's right, a perception issue, dana, that was a legitimate point to raise the dead to no matter whether or not you can say that hunter biden

vice president biden were ever found to have been guilty of any wrongdoing, there was a perception issue and was one that a democratic administration thought was sufficiently problematic that they were calling state department's attention to the issue. i think overall that might've been the strongest point. but just to get back to what everybody else has said. i thought this afternoon was going to be a republican effort to make it clear that there were holes in what we were hearing from marie yovanovitch. but that has not occurred. in fact, her statement seemed to stand strong as we are here this afternoon. it has not been a good day, really, if you stop and think about it for the republican side with roger stone's conviction, and on seven counts. and that adds the idea that it's really now, you are wondering about the president's men. and here i am using worldly terminology, but where is mick mulvaney who could come in and say, here's what i know? he had a problematic press

conference, where's john bolton? is he able to come up and give any support to the president's perspective? if the president was not involved. >> dana: both of them saying, we will go to andy mccarthy, both of those men that you mention, mick mulvaney coming on john bolton, the former national security adviser saying it will take a court to compel them to testify. that will not happen right away. but andy, i understand in washington, d.c., you also picked up on the point that there was a q&a that is sent around that is supposed to be guidance for the ambassador and her staff if they are ever asked about hunter brian? >> yes, and the interesting thing is they raise it so that it obviously shows that they are concerned about it, but she was also told -- her instructions were to put any questions to the vice president's office. and i think that is pretty typical too. you don't want to load people up with information if the position that you want to take in the hearing is that they don't have an information and you have to seek it from elsewhere.

so it is not surprising that they raised it with her. it is also not surprising that she did not have a lot of information to impart about it. >> dana: what else did you think, andy, about the questioning today. we had john castor since we have had the break, asking questions for 45 minutes, what did you make of what he was trying to do? excuse me, on that note, we will go to president trump talking about this right now. let's go to him. >> president trump: people not allowed to ask questions. nobody has had such horrible due process. there was no due process. and i think it is considered a joke. all over washington and all over the world, the republicans are given no due process whatsoever. we are not allowed to do anything. it is a disgrace what is happening. but the american public understands it. that's why the poll numbers are so good. and that's why other things are so good. what they are doing in washington with that hearing, and by the way, it is a political process. it is not a legal process. if i have somebody saying i'm allowed to speak up, if somebody

says about me, we are not allowed to have any kind of representation. we are not allowed to have almost anything. and nobody has seen anything like it. in the history of our country there has never been a disgrace like what is going on right now. so you know what, i have the right to speak. i have freedom of speech just as other people do. but they have taken away the republicans rights. and i watched today as certain very talented people wanted to ask questions and they were not even allowed to ask questions. republicans. they were not allowed to ask questions. it is a very sad day. go ahead. >> reporter: sir, with your freedom, were you trying to intimidate ambassador yovanovitch? >> president trump: i just want total freedom of speech. that is a political process. the republicans have been treated very badly. i watched a little bit today. i was not able to yesterday because we had the president of turkey here. i watch some of it this morning. i thought it was a disgrace. when we have great republican

representatives, people elected by the people, and they are not allowed to even ask a question. they are not allowed to make a statement, we are not allowed to have witnesses. we are not allowed to have legal counsel, white house counsel. that is a disgrace and an embarrassment to her nation. >> reporter: sir, do you believe -- >> president trump: quiet. quiet please. >> reporter: do you believe the words to be intimidating? >> president trump: i don't think so. i should not be, and last night it ended. spin on the president is talking in the roosevelt room, we will bring it back to the panel, andy mccarthy, i wanted to play something for you. he was referring to a least a phonic, the congresswoman who was trying to ask some questions and was shot down by the chairman, let's take a look and get your reaction. >> will determine continue to prohibit witnesses from asking questions as you have done in closed hearings and as you did when he interrupted our

question. >> suspend. the gentleman will suspend. it is not recognized. chairman is not recognized. gentleman is not recognized. >> i want to respond. >> the gentleman is not recognized. it is out of order. the gentleman is not recognized. >> holy cow. >> dana: holy cow is what jim jordan said, andy, what are the rules? president trump said the republicans are getting no due process and are not allowed to ask questions, is the chairman following the rules? is that the way it is supposed to go? or does the president have a point? >> there are technical rules and what you're doing the circumstances, so i think it was a tactical error on schiff's part. he did not make many today, but this was a tactical error to interrupt congresswoman stepanek when she was asking these questions, because she would ask them at some point at any event. the four corners of the rules say that the majority, schiff

and his counsel and devin nunes the ranking member and his counsel each get 45 minutes in tandem. the majority first and then the minority. and then the members get 5 minutes rounds unless schiff decides to have another 45 minute round. and technically speaking those 45 minutes rounds belong to the chair of the ranking member or the council that they have there, not the other members of the committee. to have relied on that for purposes of interrupting, if i were chairman schiff, i think i would've just just let her do her thing -- >> dana: get that done. ken starr if i can bring you income of the republicans continued to hammer on the point of process, what about the substance as you hear it so far today? >> well, we have moved once again the focus from bribery to poor behavior, abuse of power,

smear campaigns, so this clearly was in the nature of a political exercise today that probably drew some blood. when you hear without any rebuttal whatsoever that this was a smear campaign is going to resonate. and then you say, wait a second, are we going to remove the president of the united states from office because he engages in this kind of behavior, which he did again this very day. he attacks people. he attacked people during the 2016 campaign prayed he is an attack person. are we going to impeach and remove someone from that? this is impeachment in search of a solid rationale. >> dana: ken starr, thank you so much pride we have a great panel here at the fox news channel, we are going to see the chairman of the committee adam schiff getting ready to gavel back end. there he goes. we are back. >> you are recognized for 5 minutes. >> mr. ambassador, thank you for being here. >> thank you for your service to

our country. should ambassadors try to interfere with host country elections? >> no. >> as you said in your opening statement, partisanship of this type is not in the as service officers, right? yes. >> that's what happened in august of 2016, he went to ukraine as our ambassador, the ukrainian ambassador here wrote an op-ed in the hill said this, trump's comments send wrong message. our ambassador to the ukraine rights that op-ed, and it was not just that attack as was getting into earlier. not just that attack on the president. we had the ukrainian prime minister, we had mr. yanukovych, earlier you said that mr. yanukovych was the individual that first alerted you to the efforts of giuliani.

mr. yanukovych in the same period, prior to the 2016 election called then candidate trump all kinds of names. called him a terrorist, and of course you have mr. lutsenko, member of parliament who is a source for fusion gps, and now somewhat famous dossier that flowed from that work. he said this in the financial times, again in august of 2016 when he first arrived in ukraine. he said this "the majority of ukrainians politicians are on hillary clinton side." several high-ranking officials in the government and the ukrainian government, and president poroschenko is president of ukraine criticizing president trump, then candidate trump all in the late summer and fall of 2016. what i want to know, ambassador, when this was all happening, did you talk to anyone in the

ukraine government about this? did you go say to some of these officials, you guys need to knock this off. their perception, the majority of ukrainian officials on hillary clinton side, did you have that conversation? >> no. >> you did not talk to anybody in the government? president pershing company? >> no. >> you did not alert anyone in n the government? >> no. >> one of the things we have heard so much over the last six weeks in the depositions and in the hearings on wednesday is how much importance bipartisan support is for ukraine. democrats and republicans agree that we want to help ukraine. in fact the democrats first witness on wednesday, mr. taylor said ukraine's most important asset is this bipartisan support. you agree with that? >> i do. >> he said this in his testimony on wednesday, on september 11th, i learned that the hold had been

lifted the next day. he said i conveyed this news to president zelensky, and -- not getting involved in other countries elections. what i am wondering is, this is the day after the aid has been lifted that ambassador taylor made the statement to the ukrainian government. and he makes this after there has been nothing done by ukraine to influence our election. because president zelensky did not announce he was doing an investigation and the aide was lifted. but he felt he needed to say that. but in 2016 when we know that the majority of ukrainian officials want clinton to win it, because it was said by a member of parliament when the ambassador to the united states from the ukraine writes an op-ed criticizing then candidate trump, when mr. yanukovych calls president trump all kinds of names, nobody goes and talks to them and tells them to knock it off. did you have any conversations

coming ambassador, with victoria nuland? or secretary of state perry about what was going on in 2016 and the ukrainian politicians being for candidate clinton and not -- and opposed to president trump? >> no, i did not. >> no one did anything? no one did anything? you see why maybe the president was a little concerned? about what went on in ukraine, and you couple that with the corruption level that we know exists in the ukraine. you add to that this idea that he is not a big fan of foreign aid, why he might be a little bit concerned about sending the hard earned tax dollars of the american people to the ukraine? >> i'm sorry, was there a question there? >> there was. >> could you repeat it, please? >> i am asking --

>> the time has expired, but i will allow you to repeat the question. >> maybe we can kind of see why the president was a little concerned when you have the highest ranking officials in the government. members lutsenko requesting it, when you have yanukovych criticizing. all of this going on, and then a couple that with the concerns of corruption and you're not doing enough, the concerns about the reluctance to get hard earned tax dollars -- >> i have indulged you with extra time, but the indulgence is running out. >> i appreciate it. our indulgence ran out for you a long time ago. >> i'm about to gavel you down. >> i'm asking her if there was a reason that president trump's concern was justified? >> you know, i cannot speak for the president on this. but what i would say is you

listed a number of actions, i think from my point of view, that does not, that does not create a ukrainian government strategy to interfere in our election. >> please allow the ambassador to answer the question. >> i would just say that u.s. politicians will often set aside policies of foreign counterparts, even perhaps during their election. this happens in politics, and i think that it does not necessarily constitute interference. >> would you ever right an op-ed -- >> jordan, your time is expired. mr. welch, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like dul

like everybody here i am thank you for your service, like your colleagues you do not complain. you are doing your job. i feel badly about the insults, the tweet this morning, the fact that you were smeared, not fir fired. but the question as you know is not how you were treated, the question is why the president did what he did and whether what he did was a breach of trust. the question really is about whether the president of the united states, any president has the authority to withhold congressionally approved aid to condition a white house meeting on extracting from a foreign leader a willingness to assist him in his political campaign. that is the question.

and that brings us to you as part of the story. because the question is, why were you fired? from that position? i want to read a portion of the president's call on july 25th with president zelensky. this is the painful part 21st heard about it. "the former ambassador from the united states, the woman was bad news. and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news. so i just want to let you know that, the other thing -- he goes right into this. there is a lot of talk about biden's son that he stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great." you indicated in response to my

colleague mr. castor's question that if you were asked to approach a foreign leader in condition american support on their being involved in our campaign that you would refuse to do that. >> yes. >> you are aware now, but i don't know if you were aware then, but that july 25th occurrence happened after director mueller directed that the interference was not from ukraine, it was acted concerted energetic and by the russians. correct? >> yes. >> now as ambassador, you had no knowledge of whatever it is president trump ultimately seems to have wanted to get for cooperation in this investigation, that is correct?

>> yes. >> you have been asked about whether a president has authority to replace and ambassador, and you have agreed that that is the president's prerogative. >> yes, that is true. >> but assumes that the reasons are not related to the personal private political interest at the interest of the national security, right? >> yes. >> you have been the target of insults from the president. you join some very distinguished company, by the way. senator mccain, general kelly, man i admire. i think all of us do, general general mattis. we are not here to talk about that unless the reason you get insulted as you did today. essentially blaming you for

somalia. as if this is another step by the president to intimidate witnesses. he did not intimidate to you. you are here. you have endured. there are other people out there that can expect this before treatment if they come forward. that is a question for us. you also indicated that the president has a prerogative to appoint a noncareer person, and to be candid, republican presidents and democratic presidents have done that. mr. sondland's transcript is out, and he was someone who indicated that everything hinged, the white house meeting and the release of the