. >> mr. kent? >> no, he was not. >> what interest do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a political rival. >> ambassador taylor? what interest do you believe he was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> the state department's role is to promote u.s. policies overseas, not to help the current president when re-election, is that correct, mr. kent? >> all federal government employees are subject to the hatch act and our actions are supposed to be promoting policy. >> ambassador taylor? >> i agree. >> what is the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy that is completely outside of normal channels and does not further u.s. policy goals, ambassador taylor? >> it's possible to do one, but not the other. if it's completely against u.s. policy goals, then that's a mistake. then it's not helpful. you can get advice and even have conversations outside of the normal channels, but then they need to be part of u.s. foreign policy and approaching those goals. >> mr. kent? >> i agree. >> ambassador taylor, you have

>> mr. turner, i have no evidence. >> mr. kent? >> i believe ambassador volker's deposition was over 400 pages and i don't have it in front of me so i can't -- >> but you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself. >> i have no judgmen basis to me that judgment. >> we're not in court if we were sixth amendment would apply and hearsay and opinion. most of your testimony would not be admissible whatsoever. i understand in your profession you deal in words of understanding, words of beliefs and feelings because in your profession that's what you work with to try to pull together policy and to go in and out of meetings to try to formulate opinions that affect other people's decision-making. ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting with a president or prime minister of a country or where you were told one thing before you went into the meeting as to what it would be about and the meeting would be another thing and you get in there or the beliefs of the opinions of the prime minister were other than you believed? >>

>> mr. turner, i have no evidence. >> mr. kent? >> i believe ambassador volker's deposition was over 400 pages and i don't have it in front of me -- >> but you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself -- >> i have no way to make that judgment, no, sir. >> we're not in a court gentlemen and if we were the sixth amendment would apply and rules on hearsay and opinion and most of your two testimonies would not be admissible whatsoever but i understand in your profession you deal in words of understanding, words of beliefs and feelings, because in your profession that's what you work with to try to pull together policy and to go in and out of meetings to try to formulate opinions that affect other people's decision-making. ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting for the president or prime minister of a country or told one thing before you went into the meeting what it was to be about? and the meeting be about another thing or you get in there and the beliefs of the prime minister or the president were other than

kent. no, he sests do you bee he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor, what interests do you believe he was promoting. >> i agree with mr. kentucky. >> the state department's role is to promote u.s. mall ceases overseas not to help the current president when re-election, is that correct, mr. kents. >mr. -- kept. >> all employees are subject to the hatch act promoting policy and not impart and partisan politics. >> bietz taylor. >> i agree. >> what is the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy further u.s. policy goeschannelt ambassador taylor. >> it's possible to do one but not the other. that is if it's completely against u.s. policy goals then that's a mistake and it's not helpful. you can get advice and even have conversations outside of the normal channels. but then they need to be part of u.s. foreign policy and approaching those goals. >> mr. kent. >> agree. >> ambassador taylor you have described in your previou

and mr kent?” united states, is that correct? correct. and mr kent? i have not. you have not had any contact with the president of the united states, let alone about ukraine? that is correct. you both know this impeachment enquiry is about the president of the united states? the man neither a few have had contact with, you are the first up witnesses? i find it with, you are the first up witnesses? ifind it amazing with, you are the first up witnesses? i find it amazing that the first up would be just make people who have never had any contact with the president himself? now, kurt volker did have contact. mr ambassador taylor, you said he is a man of the highest integrity. he served as the ambassador and the director of the mccain institute, the highest professional. he is a truthful man. mr kent, would you agree that he is of the highest integrity? i believe kurt volker has served the us as a public servant very well. do have evidence that kurt volker committed perjury? or lied in his testimony? do either of you have any evidence that kurt volker perjured himself

approaching those goals. >> mr. kent? >> agree. >> ambassador taylor, you have described in your previous testimony one instance shortly after you arrived in ukraine in which ambassador sondland asked state department officials not to listen to a july 20 call he had planned to hold with president zelensky. did you find that unusual? >> i did. >> what was the impact of ambassador sondland making that request? >you found it unusual. what do you believe the impact was? >> ms. dennings, i'm not sure there was an immediate impact. >> was there a recording or transcription? >> that was not -- that was the impact, it was not recorded. >> do you believe that's why the request is made, that there would not be normal state department employees from the operation center would've been there transcribing and taking notes? >> that's the norm but it's also not unusual do not have it recorded. >> so you know that the state department is holding your notes and refuses to provide them to congress despite a duly authorized subpoena. we know

>> mr. turner, i have no evidence. >> mr. kent? >> i believe ambassador volker's deposition was over 400 pages, and i don't have it in front of me, so i can't -- >> but you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself? >> i have no basis to say that, no. >> amendment 6 would apply, and most of your two testimonies would not be admissible whatsoever. but i understand in your profession you deal in words of understanding, words of belief and feelings, because in your profession that's what you work with to try to pull together policy and to go in and out of meetings try to formulate opinions that affect other people's decision making. ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting with a president or prime minister of a country? or were you told one thing before you went into the meeting as to what it would be about and the meeting would be about another thing? or you get in there and the beliefs or opinions of the president or prime minister were other than you believed? >> mr. turner, you're asking if i ever learned a

mr. taylor, any evidence? >>an i have no evidence. >> mr. kent? >> i believe ambassador volker's deposition was over 400 pages and i don't have it in front of me. >> you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself? >> i don't, no, sir. >> if we were in the court the sixth amendment would apply and most of your two testimonies would not be admissible whatsoever. but i understand you deal in words of understanding, words of beliefs and feelings because in your inprofession, that's what u work with t to try to pull together policy and to go in and out of meetings to try to formulatein opinions that affec otherha people's decisionmaking. ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting with the the president or prime minister of a country? or you were told one thing what the meeting would be about or the meeting be about a different thing. or you get in there and the belief of the president or prime minister were other than you believed? >> you're asking if i ever learned something new in a meeting? >> have you walked in with a belief tha

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

>> i do not. >> and mr. kent and mr. taylor, the defenders of the president's behavior have made a big deal out of the fact that vice president biden encouraged the ukrainians to remove a corrupt former ukrainian prosecutor, 2016, mr. showkun. rand paul said, they're impeaching president trump for exactly the same thing that joe biden did. is that correct? is what the president did in his phone call and what joe biden did in terms of mr. showkun, were those exactly the same things and how are they different? >> i do not think they are the same things. what former vice president bind requested of the former president of ukraine poroshenko was the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general who had undermined a program of assistance that we had spent, again, u.s. taxpayer money to try to build an independent investigator unit to go after corrupt prosecutors. there was a case called the diamond prosecutor case in which showkin destroyed the entire ecosystem we were trying to help create, the investigators, the judges who issued

is that correct, mr. kent? >> all federal government enemployees are subject to the hatch act and about policies and not involved in partisan politics. >> ambassador taylor? >> i agree. >> what's the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy that is completely outside of normal channels and does not further u.s. policy goals, ambassador taylor? >> it's possible to do one but not the other. that is, if it's completely against u.s. policy goals, then that's a mistake. it's not helpful. what you can, you can get advice and even have conversations outside of the normal channels, but then they need to be part of u.s. foreign policy, and approaching those goals. >> mr. kent? >> agree. >> ambassador taylor, you have described in your previous testimony one instance shortly after arriving in ukraine in which ambassador sondland asked state department officials no the to listen to a july 28th call he had planned to hold with president zelensky. did you find that unusual? >> i did. >> what was the impact of ambassa

co >> how about you, mr. kent? >> no, sir. >> ambassador taylor, i would like to turn to a word that, by my account, you used 13 times in your opening statement. and that word is concern. you were concerned that aid was being conditioned on political investigations -- investigations -- isn't that right? >> yes, atsir. >> you wereri concerned that irregular channels of diplomacy were being used in our foreign policy in the ukraine, right? >> yes, sir. >> ambassador taylor, can you rule outas the possibility that these irregular channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct foreign policy? >> i can't -- i've not heard of any other separate channel that has this kind of influence. that is, the giuliani kind of guidance. >> but you can't rule it out, right? >> no, sir. >> and how about you, mr. kent? you can'tou rule it out either, right? >> i have no basis to make a determination. >> you don't believe the july 25th call was perfect, did you? do you? >> i think some of the language in the cal

how about you, mr. kent? >> i likewise first saw the ukrainian statements, and i believed that from colonel vindman. >> you said that the ukrainian ukrainian -- was it because it was translated in the u.s? >> as a general rule, the united states and other countries will put out very short summaries without going into detail. >> okay. you mentioned it was cryptic -- >> did that seem ordinary? >> we did. we discussed it the next day. >> did president zelensky raise any concerns about the call? >> so, right. so i and mr. volker and mr. sondland were in the office and he said that the call was fine. i was happy with the call. >> did you get any additionalreadouts subsequently about thecall? when did you first learnthat the call contained things thatconcerned you? was that not not until september25th? >> mr. morrison, as isaid briefed me several dayslater before the end of julyand that is where i said in my testimony that he said it could havegone better he saidit, that the call mentioned mr.giuliani. he also said

>> i do not. >> and mr. kent and mr. taylor, the defenders of the president's behavior have made a big deal out of the fact that the vice president biden encouraged the ukrainians to remove a corrupt former prosecutor, and 2016, mr. shokin, and rand paul said that they are impeaching the president trump for exactly the same thing that joe biden did. is that correct? is what the president, is what the president did in the phone call and joe biden did in terms of mr. shokin, is that the same things or if not, how are they different? >> i do not think they are the same things. what former vice president biden requested of the president of ukraine poroshenko is the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general viktor shokin who had undermined a system of criminal investigation that we built with american money to build corruption cases. there was a diamond prosecutor case in which shokin destroyed the entire ecosystem that we were trying to create, the investigators, the judges who issued the warrants, and the everybody including

mr kent some people have suggested that the real reason the president trumps pressure campaign. on the ukraine was to root out corruption in ukraine. i've gone back and read the memorandum of call 2 or 3 times actually and i don't recall a single instance where the president ever used the word corruption nor the word corrupt i know in answer to the chairman's opening questions you knew catered you'd gone back and read it about a month ago do you recall the president in that july 25th phone call with president selenski every uttering the word corrupt or corruption i don't recall but it would be a matter of record now that it's been released and as a matter of record he didn't but he did manage to find time to mention his potential political rival in 2020 you also answered in response to the question from mr himes that you've been working on the issue of corruption literally for decades a thank you for that on behalf of the american people and indeed on october 15th you testified about a longstanding u.s. policy meant to combat corruption in the ukraine championed by people such a

. >> mr. kent? >> no, he was not. >> what interest do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next level cycle. >> ambassador taylor? what interest do you believe he was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> both witnesses questioned of val decki idemmings of florida. i've been showing back and forth here with the democrats. the republicans got their shot today. they handed off their questioning to their republican counsel, and what should have been sort of their best moment didn't work right. and, again, with these super serious witnesses, right, 30 years experience, 50 years experience, these clear rock-ribbed witnesses, right, who know about american national interest, who know about american national security and who can explain it in plain terms, because they have been living it for decades in a totally nonpartisan context, i mean, those are the witnesses and the republicans brought out their counsel at the start of the hearing to question them, to go at them and it was like -- what no

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

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

i got a read-out from mr. morrison national security council. >> how about you mr. kent? >> i like wise first saw the ukrainians' statements and the next day july 26th which was a friday, i did get a partial read out from colonel vindman. >> is that because it is initially written in ukraine and translated in tuu.s.? >> no, as a general rule, the united states and other countries including ukraine will put out short summaries that hit the highlights of the discussion but without going into details. >> you mentioned there were scriptic. looking back at their summary as i renault, i don't recall the exact words but they said that there were issues to be pursued to improve relations between the two countries. >> it seems ordinary. >> you heard from president zelensky the next day? >> we had a meeting with him the next day. >> did president zelensky raise any concerns of his view of the call? >> he said, volker, ambassador sondland were in his office and we asked him on the policy. he said the call was fine. i was happy with the call. >> did you get any additional read-out su

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

>> yes. >> and mr. kent, is that yours? >> yes. >> i yield back. >> the majority time has expired. >> bret: we will take a 60 second break here. we'll be back to questioning in just a minute. >> bret: welcome back to washington and the impeachment inquiry. alongside my colleague martha mccallum in new york. we have you covered all day long they are now on a five-minute break. martha, after the testimony from the majority side. now we are waiting for the minority questioning to begin after they come back from the break. >> martha: it is very interesting to watch william taylor tell his story here. one of the definitions that he clarifies is that it's his understanding that whenever the word "investigations" was used in these dialogues between president zelensky and all the people who were involved in ukraine policy, that that word or term "investigations" pointed directly to their promise to look into 2016 election meddling, that the administration believed ukraine was involved. in and also that it would mean looking into hu

now, am i correct that neither of you were on this call, is that right, mr. kent? >> that is correct. >> that is correct. >> so you both read it after it was released publicly at the end of september? >> yes. >> yes. >> i want to spend just a little time reading the transcript as we've been encouraged to do. i want to particularly note four excerpts of the transcript, one that relates to the security assistance we've been talking about, another that discusses a favor that president trump asked of president zelensky, a third where president trump asks the ukrainian president to investigate his political opponent, former vice president biden, and then a final one where the ukrainian president directly links the desired white house visit to the political investigations that president trump wanted. so let's look at the first excerpt which is near the beginning of the call when president zelensky discusses the military aid that the u.s. provides to ukraine. he says, i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we are ready to continue to

kent and your testimony . that. you had in mid august it became clear to me that giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now in fact in u.s. engagement with ukraine leveraging president zilinskas desire for a white house meeting. mr kant did you actually write a memo documenting your concerns that there was an effort underway to pressure ukraine to open it and investigation to benefit president trump yes ma'am i wrote a memo to the file on august 16th but we don't have access to that memo doing i submitted it to the state department subject to the september 27th subpoena and we have not received one. piece of paper from the state department relative to this investigation both of you have made compelling cases of the importance of ukraine to europe to the 70 years of peace the benefit that it has to the united states' national security and our goal to continue to support sovereignty of nations meanwhile russia is violently attacked tacking people in ukraine in the done boss area s

>> mr. turner, i have no evidence. >> mr. kent? >> i believe ambassador volker's deposition was over 400 pages, and i don't have it in front of me, so i can't -- >> but you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself. >> i have no basis to make that judgment, no, sir. >> again, congressman, acknowledging that the white house has blocked witnesses who could speak to that. to this point, democrats don't have that eyewitness testimony as it were. how much does that weaken your case? >> i don't think it does. i mean first of all, we start with the evidence that was supplied by the white house itself with the summary of the call notes that he had with the president of ukraine. that's the basis, i think, for much of what we are now examining. but, you know, let's be clear. if republicans are seriously doubting whether or not the policies in a coordinated fashion that were being carried out by multiple sources inside and outside the white house were not at the direction of the president, they're describing a president that's differe

mr. kent? >> no, he was not. >> what interests do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt on a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor, what interests do you believe he was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> that's val demings of florida being sharp and getting sharper answers there. rudy giuliani is up to no good. >> i think the key thing we heard today is we have a bipartisan foreign policy associated with ukraine that was being undermined by rudy giuliani and the others. but this was actually the declared trump foreign policy. >> how come ukraine president never admitted he was being pressured? because the minute he was being pressured he would have lost the whole game, right? these are stupid things these arguments. >> the republicans problem is they have about seven defenses and they really can't get to the core defense because trump won't let them which is we know he did it, we know he liked it, we know he's not sorry, but it's not impeachable. that's where they want to go, but they ca

is that right, mr. kent? >> that's correct. >> and you were neither as well? >> that's correct. >> so you both read it after it was released publicly at the end of september? >> yes. >> yes. >> i want to spend just a little time reading the transcript as we've been encouraged to do. and i want to particularly note four excerpts of the transcript. one that relates to the security assistance we've been talking about. another that discusses a favor that president trump asks of president zelensky. a third where president trump asks the ukrainian president to investigate his political opponent, former vice president biden. and then a final one where the ukrainian president directly links the desired white house visit to the political investigations that president trump wanted. so let's look at the first excerpt, which is near the beginning of the call, when president zelensky discusses the military aid that the u.s. provides ukraine, he says, i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we are ready to continue to cooperate for the

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

ambassador tapeler and mr. kent, i'd like to welcome you here. i'd like to congratulate you for passing the democrats' star of chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the capitol. it seems you agreed willing or unwittingly to participate in a drama. the main performance, the russia hoax, has ended. and you've been cast in the low rent ukrainian sequel. i'll conclude by noting the immense damage of politicized bureaucracy has done to americans' faith in us. elements of the civil service has decided that they, not the president, are really in charge. thus as we'll learn in these hearings after expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about corruption on the campaign trail, president trump acted skeptically about foreign aid and expressing concerns about foreign corruption. officials alarm that the president's actions was typically based on secondhand, third hand and even fourth hand rumors and innuendo. they believed it was an outrage for the president to fire an ambassador, even though the president has full authority

and 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 bolton's office. talked about this morning, if you caught the coverage, but there was testimony that at some point ambassador 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 for a second too, if i may. but on the july 10th meeting, this was a meeting that we had arranged between alex dem ill you can, head of the national defense council and adviser bolton, attending the meeting was also secretary perry, ambassador sondland, myself and i believe fiona hill and andre yermak. it was a counterpart visit. i thought that this would be the best opportunities -- the first high-level meeting that we're having in washington with a senior u.s. official, ambassador bolton, after president zelensky's inauguration. i thought it would be a great opp

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

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

. >> what interest do you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor, what interests do you believe he was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> reporter: eager to defend the president, republicans repeatedly noted that taylor and kent never spoke to the president directly, that they were relying on second-hand information. >> you weren't on the call, were you? you didn't listen into the call? >> i did not. >> you never talked with ctaff ? >> i never did. >> you didn't meet the president? >> that is correct. >> you had meetings -- >> two of those they never heard about as far as i know. there was no reason for it to come up. president zelenskiy never made the sr wiu'elve u' theirir witnessorter: republd on the end result, that the white house did release the hold on that military aid, saying it shows trump did nothing wrong. >> security assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians having done any of the things t

kent did believe that joe biden, it wasn't involved in quid pro quo. the other component is mr. camp warned the previous administration some four years ago about hunter biden saying this doesn't look good and it was potentially some damaging proprieties that come out of that. they ignore that at the time and now they see that coming back really full circle. >> shannon: on issue with the biden's, there has been talk of trying to subpoena them, the g.o.p. doing that before foreign testimony. here are a number of headlines talking about that point same at nbc news.com, there is no evidence for trump-biden campaign accusations. the intercepts as a republican conspiracy theory about up biden in ukraine's scandal has gone mainstream but it's not true. and the idea is it with be able to subpoena the two of them. the efforts not likely to bear fruit as democrats have rejected the idea of outing the anonymous figure citing safety concerns and they have veto power over any g.o.p. subpoena request. so whether it's the whistle-blower or the bidens, democrats make the final call over who get

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

. >> what interest you believe he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor, what interests do you believe he was promoting? >> i agree with mr. kent. >> reporter: the republicans raised doubts at every turn. >> you didn't listen on president trump's call and president zelensky's call? >> i did not. >> you never talked with chief of staff mulvaney. >> i never did. >> you didn't meet the president. >> that is correct. >> president zelensky never made an announcement. this is what i can't believe. and you're their star witness. you're they're their first witness. >> let me just say that i don't consider myself a star witness for anything. >> they do. >> i don't. >> reporter: one republican called this "a low rent ukrainian sequel" to the russia probe. insisting there's not even any proof of a crime. >> the security assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackma

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

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

. >> mr. kent, are you a never trumper? >> i'm a career professional who serves whatever president is duly elected and carries out the foreign policies of the president of the united states and i have done that for 27 years, 43 republican presidents and two democrat presidents. >> ambassador taylor, are you a never trumper? >> no, sir. >> martha: congressman, thank you for being here tonight. long day for everybody. what were you trying to achieve in that moment exactly? >> i want to the american people to see that these were two patriots who came before congress just by the telling them not to to share what they saw as far as wrongdoing. i thought ambassador taylor said it best, which was that the shakedown scheme by the president was just wrong. but that they don't have dogs in the fight. they are career public servants. they have served all over the world. ambassador taylor signed up after being forth in his class at west point to go to vietnam, and they just wanted to do the right thing. they share that with the mega pe

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

. >> , you mr. kent? >> likewise first saw the ukrainian statements and i believe the next day july 26 which would've been a friday i got a partial readout from the lieutenant colonel you. >> you said the readout was perfect is out because it was written ukrainian and translated to the u.s.? >> no, as a general rule both united states and other countries will put out short summaries that hit the highlights of the discussion but without going into detail. >> you mentioned was cryptic. >> why did you think it was cryptic? >> knowing now i had to read the transcript and looking back at their summary as i recall, i don't recall the exact words but they said there were issues to be pursued in order to improve relations with the two countries. >> that seems pretty ordinary. >> you were with president zelensky the next day? >> yes we had the meeting the next day. >> and did president zelensky raise any concerns about his view of the call? >> he said -- me mr. volker were in his office and we asked him how the ca

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

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

. >> i agree with mr. kent. >> reporter: taylor also mentioned another call he had himself with mr. sondland ornb t -- on the first of september. >> he told me president trump told him that he wants president zelensky to state publicly that ukrain will investigate in the 2016 election and that he wanted the president in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such a investigation. >> both men saying how unsettled they were. >> it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in a white house it's another thing, i thought, to leverage security assistance. >> as a general principal i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective, politically associative investigations or pr prosecutions. >> reporter: the gop united in their defense that the president never actually demanded investigations. jim jordan who was added to the sole purpose of questionings the impeachment witnesses driving home a sechbercentral talking p. >> you're their first witness you're the guy -- based on this. i mean i've seen church prayer chains easier to understand t

>>tc ambassador taylor, and mr. kent, i'd like to welcome you here. i'd like to graduate you for passing the star chamber admissions held for the last weeks in the basement of the capitol. it seems you agreed wittingly or unwittingly to participate in a drama. but the i main performance, a russia hoax, has ended. and you've been cast in the low rent ukrainian sequel. >> not talking to any country. we're talking ukraine. ernst and young said one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet and our president said time-out, time-out, let's check out this new guy, let's see if zelensky is the real deal. president trump said let's just seede if he's legit. so for 55 days, he checked him out. >> in this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach president force treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call? are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? shout it out. anyone? >> so gop lawmakers also argued that the evidence provided in witness testimony largely amounts to

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

ambassador taylor and mr. kent, i like to welcome you here. i'd like to congratulate you for passing the democrats' star chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the capitol. it seems you agreed, witting or unwittingly, to participate in a drama. but the main performance, the russia hoax, has ended. and you've been cast in the low-rent ukrainian sequel. i'll conclude by noting the immense damage the politicized bureaucracy has done to american's faith in government. though executive branch employees are charged with implementing the policies set by our president, who is elected and responsible to the american people, elements of the civil service have decided they, not the president, are really in charge. thus, as we'll learn in these hearings, after expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about foreign corruption on the campaign trail, president trump outraged the bureaucracy by acting skeptically about foreign aid and expressing concerns about foreign corruption. officials' alarm at the president's action was typ