Skip to main content

tv   The Five  FOX News  November 19, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm PST

2:00 pm
was one of the largest allegations? >> i believe it was the largest national delegation. >> included in that delegation was secretary perry. >> secretary perry, ambassador sondland, myself, ron johnson was there, and at the u.s. embassy at the time joe pennington. >> we have talked a little bit this morning, but the president zelensky's inauguration came together quickly? >> did. we had three days' notice in which to put the delegation together. >> there has been discussion whether the vice president was going to lead that effort and as it turned out, he was not able to lead it. do you have any information where the vice president was unable to join? >> i don't. >> mr. morrison, do you have any information as to why the vice president was unable to participate in the delegation?
2:01 pm
>> no. >> ambassador volker, you testified during your deposition that aid in fact gets held up from time to time for a whole assortment of reasons, is that your understanding? >> that is true. >> sometimes the holdups are rooted in something at omb, sometimes it is the defense department, sometimes it is at the state department, sometimes it is on the hill, correct? >> that is correct. >> so when it was held up her 55 days for the ukraine, that did not in it of itself strike you as uncommon? >> no, it is something that had happened in my career in the past. i'd seen holdups as assistance. i just assumed it was a part of the decision-making process. if somebody had an objection and we had to overcome it. >> in fact, there were concerns that perhaps president zelensky was not going to be the reformer
2:02 pm
that he campaigned on? >> that was a supposition that i made because of the meeting with the president on may 23rd, i thought that could be what was behind it. >> in fact the aide was lifted shortly after he was able to convene a parliament? >> i believe he -- let me get the date straight. yes, he was able to convene the parliament around the 1st of september, and i believe the aide was released on the 11th of september. >> when he was able to convene a parliament, he pushed through anticorruption initiatives? >> that began with a parliament seated on that day, a 24-hour session but then it continued for some time. >> that was an encouraging sign? >> it started off in a very encouraging way. yes. >> other than these things going on in the background with the pause in the aide, the u.s. regulations with the ukraine, you testified, you stated it was about as good as he would want them to be? >> can you repeat the question,
2:03 pm
i'm sorry. >> you testified at your deposition that once the aide was lifted despite all of the things in the background that u.s.-ukrainian relations were strong and as good as you will want them to be? >> yes. >> you reference to that the security sector assistance was lifted, any hold on that that there was a positive meeting in new york? >> that's correct. >> was momentum putting pressure? >> that is correct. >> in your deposition you made it clear that president trump had a deep-rooted negative view on the ukraine in the corruption environment? >> yes. >> and you are first aware of his views back in september of 2017? >> that is correct. >> can you tell us about that? >> yes, and september 2017, i was invited by secretary tillerson to do a debrief with president trump before his meeting with president protege can go, i did
2:04 pm
the prebrief, and then i took part in the bilateral meeting. >> long before president zelensky was elected, president trump had a negative view of -- >> yes, a very strongly negative view. >> back in 2017 can you remember anything he said or did they gave you a feeling that he had these negative views? >> yes. i want to be very careful here, because this was a bilateral meeting between the two presidents. i don't want to stray and to classified material, i can tell you my impression was that he had a very strongly negative view of ukraine at the time. >> fair enough. he described the president's skepticism at your deposition as a reasonable position? >> yes. >> and i believe that you said most people who know anything about ukraine would possibly think that. >> yes. and you viewed it as your role to change his mind, that
2:05 pm
president zelensky was a former, not running for office for self enrichment, that he was indeed a good person? >> that is correct. >> during the may 23rd meeting with the president and the oval office, can you relate to us the concerns that president articulated about ukraine? >> yes, the president came into the meeting and immediately started speaking, he had just a string of comments that ukraine is a terrible place. they are all corrupt, they are terrible people. they tried to take me down. i tried to explain along with the others that were there, each of us took turns speaking, i tried to explain that president zelensky agrees with you. that he was elected because of that situation in ukraine and
2:06 pm
that he has a strong mandate from the people of ukraine to change it. that's why it is important that we actually show him very strong support now. but the president was not convinced, and he said that zelensky is no different. that he has terrible people around him. you know, it is not what i hear about ukraine, but we are telling him, but i hear that nothing has changed. talk to rudy, that kind of dialogue as i described. >> when the president said that ukrainians tried to take them down, did you have any idea what he was referring to? >> i did. i believe that he was referring to the rumors of efforts to interfere in the 2016 election by providing damaging information about the president or about paul manafort to the hillary clinton campaign. that was one of the rumors that had been out there and had gotten some support from the ukrainian prosecutor general. >> to the best of your
2:07 pm
knowledge, the president actually believe that? >> i believe that he was concerned about it. i don't know what he actually believed, but he brought it up. >> and mr. morrison, you are also aware of the president skeptical view of foreign aid, generally? >> yes. >> that there was an initiative that he was looking at foreign aid pretty broadly? >> yes. >> i'm trying to scrutinize and make sure that the u.s. taxpayers were getting their money's worth? >> yes. >> the president was also interested in better understanding opportunities for increased burden sharing among the europeans? >> yes. >> what can you tell us about that? >> the president was concerned that the united states seem to bear the exclusive brunt of security assistance to the ukraine. he wanted to see the europeans step up and contribute more security assistance. >> was there any interagency activity whether it was with the
2:08 pm
state department or the defense department, coordination by this national security council to look into that for the president? >> we were surveying the data to understand who was contributing what and sort of and what categories. >> and so the president expressed concerns of the inner agency trying to address them? >> yes. >> and by late august, as we just discussed with administer volker -- was there some hope that president zelensky will pushed through some of the forms? >> yes. >> did you hope throughout this period that eventually zelensky will be able to demonstrate his bona fides and would subsequently be able to get the president to lift the aide? >> yes.
2:09 pm
>> in fact, you traveled with ambassador bolden to the ukraine right around labor day weekend, correct? >> yes. >> and met with president zelensky on august 29th? >> ambassador bolden had a meeting in a staff that meeting. >> and that's right around when they met through and pushed through the forms? >> as i recalled, the meeting between ambassador bolden and zelensky was the first day of the new product. >> and they were named to prosecutor? >> a brand-new persecutor general, a brand-new cabinet, yes. >> pushing through some legos dominic legislation -- >> yes, immunity. >> and i believe that you provided some color into this meeting and experience, and he said that the ukrainians had been up all night working on
2:10 pm
some of these legislative initiatives. >> yes, the ukrainians with whom we met were by all appearances exhausted from the activity. >> was ambassador bolden encouraged by the activity? >> yes, he was. >> was a meeting altogether favorable? >> quite. >> at that point in time after the meeting, ambassador bolden, did he head off to warsaw with the vice president? or did he just, i know that you went to warsaw? >> we had a few stops between ukraine and poland, but yes. ambassador bolden proceeded to warsaw where we were expecting to ensure everything was staged properly for the president's arrival. >> did you have an opportunity to brief the vice president? >> i did not. >> did ambassador bolden? >> he did. >> did what do you remember with what ambassador bolden shared
2:11 pm
about those zelensky meeting? >> i was not there. the issue i remember most starkly was ambassador bolden was quite annoyed that sondland crashed. but the ambassador at everything he needed to ensure that the president or the vice president were well prepared. >> did you brief ambassador bolden before he had an opportunity to meet with the vice president? >> i do not need to. ambassador bolden was there. >> but as far as you know, ambassador bolden communicated to the vice president that the goings-on in ukraine were positive? >> that is my understanding. >> with president zelensky, and at this time ambassador bolden was advocated for the lifting of the aide? >> he had been for some time, yes. >> did you participate in the warsaw meetings? >> we had a reduced schedule from what had been arranged for the present and in the vice president, but the
2:12 pm
vice president met with president duda of poland, then he met with president zelensky and i participated in both meetings. >> what do you remember from the meeting with president zelensky? >> it seemed very positive. >> what was the message? president zelensky raise the issue of the aide? >> correct. >> and how did the vice president respond? >> he represented his support of the aide and the strong commitment of the united states to the ukraine, and explained that president trump because this is after the politico article had come out that made clear that there was a hold, he explained what we were doing was the united states government and the inner agency was examining what more europe could do in the security space, and taking a look at how ukraine was performing what has been a history of corruption. >> was there any discussion during the meeting with
2:13 pm
president zelensky on the part of vice president about any of these investigations we have come to talk about? >> no. >> so burisma was not raised? >> no. >> the 2016 election was not raised? >> no. >> in the president did not mention any investigations at all, did he? >> no. >> you mention the august 28th politico article, was that the first time that you believe that the ukrainians may have had a real sense that the aide was on hold? >> yes. >> from the 55-day period spinning july 18th through september 11th, it did not really become public until august 28th? >> that is correct. ambassador taylor and i had a number of phone calls where we in fact talked about did the ukrainians know yet, because we both felt very strongly that it was important that we ensure that the president was able to make the decision to release the aide before they ever found out
2:14 pm
about it. >> ambassador volker, is that also your recollection? >> yes, it is. >> it was not until the politico article -- >> that is correct, i received a text message from one of my counterparts on august 29th forwarding that article, that's a first they raised it with me. >> can you share a little bit about your communications during that time period about the aide? >> i did not have any communications with the ukrainians about the hold on eight until after they raised it with me for the same reason that tim just gave, the hope that we could get it taken care of ourselves before it became something that they became aware of. inside the u.s. government, i was aware that the hold was placed. i was aware of that on july 18th. it was referenced at an inner agency meeting, and i got to read out from that meeting from one of my assistance. i then immediately spoke with several people when the administration to object.
2:15 pm
i thought that this was a bad decision, or a bad hold. maybe not a decision, but a process, and i wanted to make sure that all of the arguments were marshaled to get it lifted. so i spoke with the pentagon. cooper, i spoke with the assistant secretary of affairs at the state department who would represent the state department at the next higher meeting. i spoke with officials in the european borough, national security council staff. so i was actively trying to convey that this needed to be lifted. and i wanted them to be able to use my name in doing so, because i felt that the best prospect for positioning ourselves for negotiations with russia is the strongest defense capability for ukraine. >> and during this time period, did you come to believe that any of these investigations were part of the hold up in the aide? >> no, i did not. >> backtracking just a little bit on july 3rd, you met in
2:16 pm
tehran, with president zelensky. and there has been some -- you know, ambassador taylor and mr. kent provided some testimony that they had some apprehension that part of this irregular channel that ambassador taylor referenced would rear its head in toronto. i'm just wondering if you can tell us whether that in fact happen? >> yes, thank you. i can only tell you what i know. [laughs] there may have been other conversations or other things. but i know that we had a conversation, bill taylor, and i believe gordon sondland and i around the 28th of june that later connected to i believe a conversation with president zelensky. i may not have been a part of the latter. that being said, i was convinced after that conversation that we had gotten nowhere. we had our white house briefing of president trump on may 23rd, he signed a letter inviting president zelensky to the
2:17 pm
white house on may 29th. and for several weeks, we were just temporizing with the ukrainians saying we are working on it. it is a scheduling issue. we will get there, don't worry. and i told bill and gordon that i was going to see president zelensky in toronto, and i feel an obligation to tell them the truth, that we have a problem here and we are not getting a date scheduled. here is what i think the problem is. it is the negative information flow from mayor giuliani. and that he would, also that i would advise him that he should call president trump personally. because he needed to renew that personal relationship and be able to convey to president trump that he was serious about fighting corruption and investigating things that happened in the past and so forth. i did all of that with president zelensky in a public side after a formal bilateral meeting. >> during that meeting in toronto, or the series of meetings, there was no discussion of preconditions,
2:18 pm
investigations or anything? >> no. 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
2:19 pm
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 may. but on the july 10th meeting, this was a meeting that we had arranged between alex to nelly oak who was the national head of security defense counsel, and national security advisors bolden attending the meeting was also secretary perry, ambassador sondland, myself, i believe fiona hill, and zermak. it wa was a counterpart visit. i thought that this would be the best opportunity, the first high-level meeting we were having in washington with a senior u.s. official to ambassador bolden after president zelensky's inauguration. i thought it would be an opportunity for the ukrainians to make their case that they are
2:20 pm
the new team in town, real deal about fighting corruption. i was disappointed with the meeting. as it transpired, it struck me as down in the weeds. talking about reform of national security structures in ukraine, legislation that they were working on coming in at the big picture and now the bilateral relationships. so i was a bit disappointed by that. at the end of the meeting, i do recall having seen some of the other testimony, i believe ambassador sondland raised the point of investigations in a generic way. this was after the meeting was already wrapping up and i think all of us thought it was inappropriate. and the conversation did not pick up from there. it was -- the meeting was over. we all went outside and we had a picture taken in front of the white house, and then all of us except ambassador bolden went down to wardrobe to talk
2:21 pm
follow-up on how we follow up to keep up the momentum and to the relationship. we broke up into several small groups. i remember having a conversation with secretary perry and one of his assistants about energy reform as part of that. i don't recall other conversations following up on investigations of burisma. >> went to the best of your knowledge there certainly was no precondition discussed, right? >> no. no. again, the issue, the security assistance was one where i thought that this was really related to a general negative view about ukraine. there was nothing specific ever communicated to me about it or the reasons why it was held. and we certainly did not want to talk about it with the ukrainians. we wanted to fix it. >> okay. a couple of weeks later, the
2:22 pm
july 25th call happens, and you were headed to ukraine during that time period? >> yes, i was already on my way to ukraine two days prior to that. >> and he received readouts both from the u.s. side and the ukrainian side, can you tell us about that? >> yes, so i was not on the phone call. i had arrived in ukraine and i had had that lunch with mr. yermak's that we saw on the day of the phone call. i'd been pushing for the phone call, because i thought it was important to renew the personal connection between the two leaders and to congratulate president zelensky on the parliamentary election. the readout that i received from mr. yermak and also the u.s. side, even though i'm not exactly sure who it was from on the u.s. side, but there was a u.s.-ukrainian readout that was largely the same. it was a good call. it was a congratulatory phone call for the president's win in the parliamentary election. president zelensky did reiterate his commitment to reform and
2:23 pm
fighting corruption in the ukraine. in president trump did reiterate his invitation for president zelensky to visit him in the white house. that's exactly what i thought the phone call would be, so i was not surprised as getting that as the readout. >> did you have any discussions about ambassador taylor about this? >> at that time. we were together in ukraine at that time, we went the next day to visit the conflict zone. and i'm sure that he heard the same readout that i did. >> and you had a meeting with president zelensky on the 26th? >> yes, we had a meeting the day after in the morning before heading to the conference. >a some witnesses have raised about the call in the meeting with president zelensky? >> only the very bare-bones readout that i had received that was also how it was discussed in the meeting with president zelensky. >> so to the extent there is been assertions that president zelensky was concerned about demands president trump had made? >> i don't recall that. >> you do not recall that?
2:24 pm
>> let me turn that around and say, he was very positive about the phone call. i don't recall him saying anything about demands, but he was very up beat about the phone call. >> there was no discussion on part of president zelensky about how to navigate the various -- >> i do not recall that. >> concerns that people have articulated? >> i do not remember that. >> and mr. zelda nasty on the deposition that in no way, shape, or form in either readouts from the united states or ukraine did you receive any indication whatsoever or anything that resembles a quid pro quo, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the same with what would go for this new allegation of bribery? >> i only saw an allegation of bribery in the last week. >> it is the same common set of facts. instead of quid pro quo, now it is bribery. >> i was never involved in
2:25 pm
anything that i consider to be bribery at all. >> or extortion? >> or extortion. >> okay. >> mr. castor, may i just two specific points? >> of course. >> one is that i am reminded that the meeting with ambassador bolden took place on july 10th, and i did not become aware of the security assistance until july 18th, that is another reason why that did not come up. >> at that point in time you did not know that the potential pause in the security assistance was brewing? >> i did not. i heard about it for the first time on the 18th as well. and a second observation? >> absolutely. >> i remember seeing some of the testimony from mr. kent, a conversation where he had asked me about the conspiracy theories that were out there in the ukraine. i don't remember the date of this conversation. in my view was if there are things like that, then why not
2:26 pm
investigate them? i don't believe that there is anything to them. if there is, 2016 election interference but i was thinking of, we will want to know about that. but i do not believe that there was anything there to begin with. >> you deposition -- testified in your deposition that it was perfectly appropriate in your mind? >> correct. that is been u.s. policy for years. >> so certain ukrainians involved with burisma company -- >> that i think is the only possible thing to look at, as i said. i don't think it is plausible or figure that vice president biden would be taken in his duties, but the ukrainians in the society that we know ukraine has been for decades trying to act in a corrupt way or to buy influence, that is possible. >> secretary kent last wednesday told us that there was an investigation into burisma trying to recruit millions of
2:27 pm
taxpayer dollars and the ukrainians were pursuing an investigation, there was a bribe paid, where you tracking that? >> i was aware of those kind of things. i could not give you those kinds of details. i just know that there was a reputation around the company. >> okay. subsequent to those facts and the bribe being paid, the burisma company wanted to improve their image and added some folks to their board including the president of poland, and hunter biden, are you familiar? >> that's what i understand. >> and to the point that the ukrainians worked with the folks of burisma emma hired those people to their board where protection purposes so that they could engage in misdeeds. if that was a fact worth investigating, you certainly would be supportive of ukrainians trying to get to the bottom of that, right? >> i cannot speculate any of the specifics of what was motivating
2:28 pm
burisma or not. ukrainian government authorities investigating possible corruption by ukrainian citizens is a perfectly appropriate thing for them to do. >> mr. morrison, i want to turn our attention back to the july 25th call, you are in the room. did anything concern you on the call? >> no. >> after the call ended, you will like colonel than men, one of your next steps was to engage the nfc lawyers, and your reasons for doing that were slightly different than colonel vinmen's. you went over three concerns. do you want to share them with us or would you rather i do it? >> i think i articulated two concerns, if i'm forgetting one, please remind me. but the two that i had were one,
2:29 pm
i did not see representatives of se regal on the call, so i want to make sure that the legal adviser and his deputy were aware of the call, and i was also concerned about taking steps to protect the limited disclosure for fear of the consequences of it leaking. >> you were concerned about it leaking because you are worried about how it will play out in washington's polarized political environment, correct? >> yes. >> you were also worried how that would lead to the bipartisan support here in congress of towards the ukraine, right? >> yes. >> you were also concerned that it might affect the ukrainians perception negatively? yes. >> in fact all three of those things have played out, haven't they? >> yes.
2:30 pm
>> you did not ask the lawyers to put it on the code word system, correct? >> i want to be precise about the lexicon here. i did not ask for it to be moved to a compartment and system. >> you just wanted the transcript to be controlled. >> i wanted access to be restricted. >> okay. when you learn that the transcript had been stored on the department server, you believe that was a mistake, correct? >> it was represented to me that it was a mistake. i was trying to pull up that man can't, because we were in the process of pulling together ambassador bolden's materials and the presidents materials for what was a planned by lat between potus and president zelensky, and when i went to do that, i could not pull up the package in our system. and i did not understand why. i spoke with the nfc secretary
2:31 pm
of state staff, asked him why, they did their research and told me that it had been moved to the direction of john eisenberg, whn i asked why? that was the judgment he made, that's not necessarily mind a question, but i did not understand it. and he essentially told me i gave them such direction, he did his own inquiry and represented back to me that it was his understanding that it was kind of an administrative error. when he also gave direction to restrict access, the executive secretary of staff understood that as an apprehension that there was something in the content of the men con that could not exist on the lower classification system. >> so to the best of your knowledge there is no malicious intent in moving the transcript to the compartment and server >> correct. >> to your knowledge anybody on the nsc staff that needed the
2:32 pm
transcript for their official duties always was able to access it, correct? people that had a need to know i need to access it. >> once it was moved? yes. >> the memcon of the july 25th call was in your experience prepared normally? >> yes. >> there is not an exact transcription of what is set on the call, correct? >> correct. >> that is no takers in the situation room, and they prepare a draft. it is circulated around relevant parties? >> essentially. yes. >> you had a responsibility for coordinating any evidence? >> yes. we look at the shorthand, we will call it a transcript, but the memorandum of conversation. and we make sure that the transcription is as close to accurate as possible given our
2:33 pm
requirements on what the president act. >> it was testified that he thought it was very accurate, did you as well? >> i view it as complete and accurate. >> colonel vin mended say that he wanted a couple of burisma's inserted, i think it was on page country in one of the sections where president zelensky was ta, were you aware of that edit request? >> i understand that he said in either this proceeding where the deposition that he wanted that request, yes. >> at the time did you understand that he asked for that? >> i don't recall that. it was my practice. if i waved and edit accurately representing the call, i would edit it. if he did not exist in my notes, i would not have made the edit. >> he just on page 4 wanted to swap out the word company for
2:34 pm
burisma. and when that edit from colonel vindman was not installed, did he give you any negative feedback that it was crucial that that edit get in the document? >> not that i can recall. >> did he raise any concerns to you about the accuracy of the transcript? >> not that i can recall. >> did he ever raise any concerns you generally about the call? >> when we were discussing the track changes version of the memcon, he had some concerns about the call. we agreed that we wanted that more full throated embrace of president zelensky and his reform agenda. and we did not get it. >> okay. you indicated in your deposition
2:35 pm
that when you took over the portfolio of poor dr. hill, julo potential issues in colonel vindman's judgment? >> yes. >> did she relay anything specifically to you? why she thought that? >> not as such. it was more of an overarching statement from her and her deputy who became my deputy that they had concerns about judgme judgment. >> did any other nsc personnel raise concerns with you or colonel vindman? >> yes. >> what were some of the concerns that were brought to your attention? >> i'm sorry, i'm going to instruct you not to answer. i'm going to instruct him not to answer. because i think it is beyond the scope of what you are asking
2:36 pm
for. these concerns mr. castor, predated any involvement in with the ukrainian sector assistance. >> well, during the deposition i asked mr. morrison whether others raised a concern that colonel vindman may have leaked information. >> you did ask that, yes. >> and your answer was? >> others have represented that, yes. >> i asked whether you were concerned colonel vindman did not keep you in the loop at all times with his official duties? >> yes. >> and in fact when he went to the national security council lawyers following the july 25th call, he did not first come to you, is that correct? >> correct. >> and you were his supervisor, correct? >> correct. >> do you wish that he had come to your first before going to the lawyers? yes. >> and why is that?
2:37 pm
>> if he had concerns about something on the contents of a call, that is something i would have been notified of. just as a matter of practice, since we both went to the lawyers, he did not necessarily both need to, and economy of effort may have prevailed. >> at any point subsequently did he become frustrated that he felt cut out of some of the ukraine portfolio? >> yes. >> what was the nature of his concerns? >> well, the easiest way to say it was he was concerned with the ukraine trip that he was not -- he did not go. he asked me why it is my practice to have a number of the conversations with ambassador taylor one-on-one. and there were certain other matters. >> okay. and did you ever get the sense that you resolve these concerns? or did they linger?
2:38 pm
>> i explained to him my thinking. and that was that. >> okay. before my time expires, investors volker, i want to turn quickly to what ambassador taylor describes as the irregular channel. he was a participant with you and ambassador sondland hundreds of text messages, correct? >> correct. >> did he ever raise concerns about what was going on during the time period of the early august time period? >> only has he are reflected in the text messages themselves, where he said is this now linkage or are we doing this? he had a concerned about in general rudy giuliani, which i think a lot of us had, but he
2:39 pm
said what you do about it? about the role that he is playing? and as you note, we were in frequent contact, near daily cont that on in charge of, and one was an irregular channel? >> yes. i don't agree with his characterization of that, because i have been in my role for a couple of years, i have been the lead on u.s.-ukraine negotiations and negotiating with russia and the inner agency, work and work with our allies. and we had a secretary of energy who is a cabinet official, and i think having the support from the various u.s. officials for strengthening our engagement with ukraine, i view it as a very positive thing. and if the concern is not us so much, because we are all u.s. officials, but mayor rudy giuliani, i don't view that as a channel at all, because he is not a represent of the u.s. government pretty is a private citizen. he was a useful barometer in
2:40 pm
understanding what could be helpful communication from the ukrainian government, but not someone in a position to represent the u.s. government at all. >> okay, thank you. >> why don't we take a five or ten minute break. if i could ask the audience to allow the witnesses to leave the room first. we are in recess. >> welcome to "the five," taking a break in the second impeachment proceeding. kurt volker and national security official to morrison testifying this afternoon, at it for about two and a half hours, taking a 5-10 minute break, we will use that time wisely to get some commentary for "the five," greg, why don't we start with you and your overall impressions of the day. >> greg: what an absolute tremendous waste of time for everyone who watches this. this is not a hearing. it is a human resources meeting, okay. anybody who has been on both
2:41 pm
sides of the coin, right? either you have been in charge of a project, or an incoming boss. understands what you are seeing. it works like this, you are in charge of a department, a new boss comes in, he needs to establish a new way, his stamp, your priorities don't jive, there is a tug-of-war between sides, the boss always wins. here's the great news about th this, the priorities that the person leaving often remains the custodian is gone. but the struggle is necessary to prove the viability of the existing structure, right? they say we need this for the ukraine. and trump is like, i don't know. it comes together. this is not impeachment. this is what happens in the office. the irony is the people who work for a living are not here to watch this to laugh at this. the media thinks it is important, because they have never been at a workplace situation. they have never managed anything. they have never been an incoming
2:42 pm
boss. so they are tricked into thinking that this is something important when this is something that happens every single day in everyone's business. it's a freaking joke. >> dana: jesse, let's get some thoughts from you. volker did say that he changed -- that sondland who testifies tomorrow, he already amended his testimony. volker did that today. he did not know burisma equaled an investigation into the bide bidens. >> jesse: volker, sondland, and burisma. i turn on the television and cbs is on. they have a hearing. i watch, take a break. i go out, i come back. and a soap opera is on. cbs jumps out of it. and i'm thinking, what is the difference between this and a soap opera? it is a bunch of cliques of people talking about their feelings. they have opinions. they have concerns.
2:43 pm
you know at the bottom line was today? they asked straight up, was there a bribe? no. did anybody ask you to bribe anyone? >> no. was there extortion? no. and they understand why a schiff lead with the witnesses he did. he leads with the small ballplayers, the smaller bureaucrats who did not know anything. they were not involved in anything that complained about everything, and then when you get to the bigger guys like these guys and the guys that we will see in the next few days, all of the big dog say, yeah, it was not a problem. you cannot have a phone call that everybody listens to, and everybody on the phone call, at least most of them say, yeah, it is fine. and then one guy freaks out and goes to and talks to the whistle-blower and then you get to the juicy stuff. the guys vindman talks to the whistle-blower and schiff shuts it down. and the media does not even care. you have the big juicy nugget sitting out right there, and the media does not even want to talk about it. that's how you know this thing
2:44 pm
is rigged. >> dana: if you guys can prepare the sound bite to numbeo get katie in here and juan. this is about the political climate and something that i thought was notable about lieutenant colonel vindman said earlier. >> as i stated during my deposition, i feared at the time of the call on july 25th how its disclosure would play in washington's political climate. my fears have been realized. >> after this call, did you ever hear from any ukrainians either in the united states or the ukraine about any pressure that they felt to do these investigations that president trump demanded? >> not that i can recall. >> dana: all right, katie, those were two pieces. >> katie: backing up with the president of ukraine has been
2:45 pm
saying for months on end that adam schiff has been questioning almost calling the present and if you can a liar for saying that there has been no pressure. i think the democrats brought him in saying that he would provide some substance of what he was saying. he was on the call with firsthand information, but he did the opposite. adam schiff tried to jump in and protect the whistle-blower, but exposed that vindman had actually talked to the whistle-blower who had secondhand information about the phone call. vindman also blew out of the water and other point that they have been saying that the phone call was put onto the secure server as a way to cover up the call, well, vindman who is on the call says we put it there, because we are afraid of leaks and a number of witnesses who back that up. so when it comes to the person that we have first hand information. which we do too, because we have the transcript. there was nothing damaging when it comes to bolstering the
2:46 pm
narrative, the democrats despite being on the phone. >> dana: if you have in the control room the volker sound bite that was just from a little bit ago, we will get one to reply to that. >> in hand site i know that they saw the corruption involving the company burisma as to vice president biden, so that is very different. it was remarkable, the latter being unacceptable. in retrospect, i should've seen that differently. had i done so, whatever is my own objections. >> dana: that was part of his revising of remarks from earlier. >> juan: what we have learned today specifically is that we have a much clearer picture now that when people say, well, this is about the president seeking to look into corruption in a corrupt state, the ukraine, this is pretty clear today from the testimony we have heard that it is about joe biden. he was not interested in the larger aspect of corruption in
2:47 pm
the ukraine, he was interested in joe biden that there was a server they are really was involved in the 2016 campaign interference another work of the russians. we have heard that today from people saying that is not the case. the other side of this comes from the very start, dana, when we heard devin nunes who is the lead republican on the house intelligence committee impeachment panel here, and what he said was about the media. this will pick up on what we're hearing, the media has blown this out of proportion and the media is making something out of it, but you watch the hearing and you see the media and you say, this is mind-blowing testimony, i don't hear anything like that, says devin nunes. it is a bunch of scams. and then there were the questions about dual loyalty for vindman, were you offered a job by the ukrainian? it keeps going. it's like they have, they are looking for any issue or anything to take away from the
2:48 pm
idea that we are talking about impeachment of president trump, not impeaching joe biden. >> dana: can i ask you something about looking ahead? >> greg: i would love to look ahead. >> dana: tomorrow night is yet another democratic debate, ten or 11 of the candidates will be on stage. i'm going to make a prediction, but i will let you talk about your prediction. i don't think they will talk about this. >> greg: i don't think you can, what can you talk about? i feel like this is a human resource discussion, remember that this is supposed to be politically motivated. the phone call. who is a benefiting? if they found nothing on joe biden, that would benefit him. if they found bad stuff on by then, that would benefit the democrats because you get the loser out of the race. so this is beneficial for the democrats. i would stay away from this, because half the people eyelids, they are turning this off. >> dana: do you think tomorrow night in that debate that the question is about impeachment and the president?
2:49 pm
what you think candidates would do of that? will there be any candidate that says impeachment is not what we need to do? >> jesse: that is a bold answer to distinguish yourself from the rest of these people, but i don't think anybody will say that tomorrow. and i don't think any of the moderators are going to have sort of any strong aggressive follow-ups when joe biden says look the other way. you have testimony here that the former ambassador to ukraine called for an investigation into burisma. you have testimony under oath saying that to lobbyists of the burisma went to the state department and try to get this prosecutor fired. biden is on the phone three times with the president of ukraine, a corrupt guy that left the country with billions of dollars right after the prosecutor replied. why don't we know what is on that phone call? i would like to see the transcript of that. there is so much damaging information on joe biden and on his son, and the media has no
2:50 pm
interest in it whatsoever, the american people are looking at the dense, boring testimony. the ratings are going to go down and down day after day, and at the end of the day, this is about impeaching a president. and there is no clear crime. if there was a clear and impeachable high crime misdemeanor, it would be right in front of everybody's face. but because there isn't, half of the washington people think this guy should be locked up, the other half think it is a scam and the american people have had enough. if you look at the poll that just came out today, independents are now opposing impeachment 10% more. this is not working well with the american people, especially independents. >> dana: is that because it does not feel overwhelming day after day on this? >> juan: the numbers are pretty overwhelming. >> dana: i meant evidence.
2:51 pm
>> juan: the fox poll has 49% impeaching him or move. but when you talk about tomorrow's debate, that's where you want to take this, dana. i think that there is a lot going on. and democrats are again pretty clearly in support of impeachment and removal, i don't think that is too contentious an issue for tomorrow's debate. i think the issues are what is going on with elizabeth warren's campaign, number one. which looks to be flatlining. and then of course the rise of pete buttigieg. you just told me about a poll you saw. >> dana: out of -- pete buttigieg up 25%. and biden and warren at 15%. he has momentum. >> juan: and compounding, that is also in line with what we are seeing an eye well where he has jumped to the lead in iowa. so i think there will be new attention on pete buttigieg as now potentially a front runner. and joe biden. everybody talks about joe biden,
2:52 pm
oh, poor joe biden. he is looking weak. joe biden is doing great in the national polls, in fact, fantastic, where he is lagging is in fund-raising, and i think right now when you see people entering the race, and of course we are talking about former mayor bloomberg and the former governor of massachusetts coming to say they are going after biden. what happens on the stage tomorrow night? the people like pete buttigieg, warren, sanders go after biden? we don't know. if you want to prove that he cannot fire real fire from the real donald trump, tomorrow is the night. >> katie: the question about impeachment is an interesting one. if they answer a question, they will probably use the word "bribery" because in swing states, democrats think that is a good word to use. but a good question for elizabeth warren would be how do you think the impeachment process if it gets to the senate will impact your ability to campaign? because if you look at the timeline of this, senate
2:53 pm
judiciary staffers have been told that they should not make christmas or new year's plans they are going to be working. that goes right into the iowa caucuses and super tuesday, and she will be sucking d.c. unable of getting the momentum that she was expecting. >> dana: they say that january could be when you basically have to sit there six days a week, six hours a day, as a juror you are not allowed to speak. you cannot talk about anything in regards to impeachment. can we pull up sound bite numbe? it would be interesting to see you tomorrow night, greg, if anybody brings this up again for vice president biden and if you would have to answer a question about that. do you have a number 8? >> do you believe that hunter biden on the board of burisma has the potential for a conflict of interest? >> certainly the potential coming at. >> miss williams? >> yes. >> dana: it is a 99% agreemen
2:54 pm
agreement. >> greg: i don't think they saw this coming. a lot of these things when they go after trauma, it has a weird blowback. it is always a boomerang, whoever throws it it comes back and hits them in the face. the democrats have managed to make a trump scandal into a democrat scandal, and make trump sympathetic and every time they go after him with these human resource questions, it becomes really boring. the only thing that is not boring is the hunter biden stuff, that is exciting. >> juan: i think we know why it is exciting to you. but it was somebody talking about a perception. it is not only a perception, on the republican side. articles in the new yorker, "the new york times" about whether or not to -- never any instance of finding wrongdoing. >> greg: that's exactly what you say about the other side. >> juan: you say read the transcript, when i read the transcript -- >> greg: that is your
2:55 pm
perception, juan. >> dana: it was a perception you saw this morning, jesse. read jennifer williams who was detailed with vice president pence. she was troubled by the call but did not talk to anybody about it. so that was her perception, then there is vindman with a different perception, it's all about perception, not about nailing something down. >> jesse: if my president commits and impeachable offense and i think that is an impeachable offense, i go and tell my boss. i tell everybody. i say, listen, this is a crime. this is bad. no one did that except for one guy. and he did not go to his boss. he went to the whistle-blower at the cia, and that is very, very fishy. and how can you have five phone calls and meetings with the president of ukraine during this freezing of the aid and there was nothing brought up about freezing military aid? there was nothing brought up about an investigation that was needed? you cannot have a bribe if there was no bribe. and no one knows there is a
2:56 pm
bribe. and no one did the thing that they were supposed to be bribed for. if this is a fake scandal, and to pretend like this is a high crime, the american people do not buy it. it is not believable. >> juan: that's why 70% say -- >> jesse: i will show 70% what they think of something. i can work a poll up. i will get a question up there and i will have them believing whatever i want. >> katie: republicans have done a good job of presenting the evidence against the argument that it was a quid pro quo or bribery, at it has been pointed out that the aide was given and was essential to what the investors were asking for in terms of backing ukraine and a long-standing policy that we have had as they said both republicans and democratic administrations. for burisma, multiple people every single witness has had on the record that they were serious concerns of a conflict of interest with hunter biden being on the board. burisma was a very corrupt
2:57 pm
country, we express these concerns. in the fact is it has not been thoroughly investigated, that's why republican senators are asking the state department for more information. >> dana: they will come back in a few minutes, we will continue the coverage. tonight, greg. tonight you are having fried chicken. >> greg: i'm not going to pull a small well, that's for sure. i take a little bit you know after aid. if i do a tv hit, no way i'm breaking wind on national television and trying to blame it on a coffee mug. that's the scandal, that and abstain. he did not kill himself, and it was not a coffee mug that because that noise. >> dana: i am running out of questions. >> katie: it is dinner time, we can avoid the potty talk. >> jesse: back to that testimony today, if you have a freeze on aide in pakistan, and a freeze on aid in the central american countries, a 55 day freeze on aid where you're trying to figure out what is the deal with this new
2:58 pm
prime minister who was just elected, and if we can trust this country, because the country is corrupt, the biggest gas company corrupt. they are so corrupt today colluded against me, donald trump in the last election. working with the democrats. that is a matter of fact. and so, there is no harm. there is no wrongdoing. and all you are trying to say is, there is an ally. we will send him some aid. we are good. we are trying to fight and kill russians unlike the obama administration. >> juan: are you i never-trumper? are you i never-bidener? it seems like you're just trying -- >> jesse: i don't have to, juan. there is nothing there. >> juan: the abuse of power in the most powerful man, the most powerful country, we do not have kings -- >> jesse: at the are abusing their power. >> greg: firing your assistant, that is not an abuse of power. a >> jesse: it's not like the
2:59 pm
ukraine's are going to investigate joe biden? are they going to call joe biden to ukraine? joe biden, come on over to ukraine! it's never going to happen! spewing all they had to do apparently was announce an investigation. okay, that is it for us. they hearing is set to resume shortly, but now we have "special report" up next. ♪ spewing that evening, welcome to washington. i am bret baier. continuing coverage of the impeachment hearings day 3, nine hours on capitol hill as you look alive at the chairman adam schiff getting ready to gavel into the next round of questions this from the lawmakers themselves, while we wait, we will bring in our panel here. byron york, chief political correspondent of the national -- and josh holmes, former top advisor to mitch mcconnell, now president of the cavalry consultants as you look there at tom morrison, tim morris and
3:00 pm
heading back in for testimony, and kurt volker right behind him. quickly down the row, your thoughts on


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on