george kent testified about these efforts. hunter biden reportedly received between 50,000 and $83,000 a month as compensation for his position on burisma's board. at the time that hunter biden joined the board, his father, the former vp, was the obama administration's point person for ukraine. biden has no specific corporate governance expertise, and we don't believe he speaks ukranian or russian. we don't believe he moved there. so he's getting this gigantic paycheck for what? the "washington post" wrote, at the time of biden's appointment to burisma's board, it looked nepotistic at best, and the "washington post" said, nefarious at worst. according to the "wall street journal," anti-corruption active il -- activists in ukraine also raised concerns, that the former vp received money from jejekevsky and that he would not be prosecuted. they noted hunter biden's role on the board and how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest. lieutenant colonel vindman testified that hunter biden did not appear qualified to serve on b

george kent testified about these efforts. hunter biden reportedly received between 50,000 and $83,000 a month as compensation for his position on burisma's board. at the time that hunter biden joined the board, his father, the former vp, was the obama administration's point person for ukraine. biden has no specific corporate governance expertise and we don't believe e he speaks ukrainian or russian. we don't believe he moved there. so he's getting this gigantic paycheck for what? the "washington post" wrote at the timee of biden's appointme to burisma's board that it looklook looked nepotism at best and nefarious at worst. according to the "wall street journal," anti-corruption activists in ukraine also raised concerns that the former vp's son received money and worried that would mean he would be protected and not prosecuted. witnesses in the impeachment inquiry noted hunter biden's role on the board and how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest. lieutenant colonel vindman testified that hunter biden did not appear

george kent testified about these efforts. hunter biden reportedly received between $50,000 and $83,000 a month. as compensation for his position on burisma's board. at the time that hunter biden joined the board, his father, the former vp, was the obama administration's point person. for ukraine. biden has no specific governance expertise and we don't believe he speaks ukrainian or russian. we don't believe he moved there. so he's getting this gigantic paycheck for what? the washington potion wrote at the time of biden's appointment to burisma's board that it look looked nepotismic at best. according to "the wall street journal," anti-corruption activists in ukraine also raised concerns that the former vp's son received money from zlochevsky. witnesses in the impeachment inquiry noted hunter biden's role on the board and how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest. lieutenant colonel vindman testified hunter biden appeared not qualified to serve on burisma's board. witnesses testified that hunter biden's role on the bo

in fact, george kent explained that in 2015, he raised a concern to the office of former vice president biden, that hunter biden's role on burisma's board presented a potential conflict of interest. however, hunter biden's role did not change and former vice president biden continued to lead u.s. policy in ukraine. on this record, there is a legitimate basis for president trump to have concern about hunter biden's role on burisma's board. the prospect that some senior ukrainian officials worked against president trump in the run-up to the 2,016 election draws an even more visceral reaction from most democrats. let me say very, very clearly that election interference is not binary. i am not saying that it was ukraine and not russia. i am saying that both countries can work to influence an election. a systemic coordinated russian interference effort does not mean that some ukrainian officials did not work to oppose president trump's candidacy. did not make statements against president trump. during the election. ambassador volker testified in his public hearing that it is possible for one

are there more fiona hills, george kents, and john boltons inside the government? or is there anybody else who believes the russian propaganda that comes out of trump's mouth? >> are there others into i.d.? i'm not quite following. >> is trump isolated or are there people like fiona hill and tom bossert who are still trying to pull him toward the u.s. intelligence agency's belief that it was indeed russia? or have they thrown up their hands? do you understand this to be active? >> i mean, look. so those people who have sought to convince trump that his view of this is without merit, that the evidence, all of the evidence points the other way. they still exist, but they are fewer in this administration, it seems with every passing year or if not every passing month. they just don't last very long. there is no russia adviser, top adviser on russia in the white house at the moment at all. the only senior adviser on ukraine, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, is presumably pretty marginalized after being publicly taunted and dismissed by the president. i mean, he is

it was george kent who said we were so worried about burisma our own embassy had to pull out of a public private. >> lindsey graham issued a stark warning to house democrats. >> wae're not going to turn the senate into a circus. i will tell schiff what you're doing is very dangerous for separation of power. adam schiff is doing a lot of danger to the country, and he needs to stop. mueller spent two years looking at trump. this whole ukrainian stuff is a joke. they got the money. they got the meeting with the president. they didn't investigate joe biden or hunter biden. there is no there there. >> and defense secretary mark esper declined to answer whether he was aware of any political consideration regarding the trump administration's hold of nearly 400 million in u.s. security aid to ukraine. >> you were the secretary of defense this past summer when a lot of these actions were going down with with regard to ukraine. did president trump ever explain to you, tell you why he was holding up u.s. military aid to ukraine, an ally that was and is in a current war with russia. >> i'm not going

george kent testified about these efforts. hunter biden reportedly received between $50,000 and $83,000 a month. as compensation for his position on burisma's board. at the time that hunter biden joined the board, his father, the former vp, was the obama administration's point person. for ukraine. biden has no specific governance expertise and we don't believe he speaks ukrainian or russian. we don't believe he moved there. so he's getting this gigantic paycheck for what? the washington potion wrote at the time of biden's appointment to burisma's board that it look looked nepotismic at best. according to "the wall street journal," anti-corruption activists in ukraine also raised concerns that the former vp's son received money from zlochevsky. witnesses in the impeachment inquiry noted hunter biden's role on the board and how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest. lieutenant colonel vindman testified hunter biden appeared not qualified to serve on burisma's board. witnesses testified that hunter biden's role on the bo

george kent testified about these efforts. hunter biden reportedly received between $50,083,000 a month. as compensation for his position on burisma's board. at the time the hunter biden joined the board his father, the former vp, was the obama administration point person for ukraine. biden has no specific court writ government expertise and we don't believe he speaks ukrainian or russian, we don't believe he moved there. so he's getting this gigantic paycheck for what? the washington post wrote at the time of his appointment to burisma's board it was nepotistic at best and the washington post said nefarious at worst. according to the wall street journal, anticorruption activist in ukraine also raised concerns that the former vp son received money and worried that that would mean that he would be protected and not prosecuted. witnesses and the impeachment inquiry noted hunter biden's role on the board. and how it presented at minimum a conflict of interest. lieutenant colonel vindman testified the hunter biden did not appear q

we talked a couple times about the reliability of george kent's notes. one of ambassador volker's assistants, kathryn croft, testified, a rather startling piece of testimony, she was asked whether the notes would be reliable, a typical question and everyone expected the answer to be yes, except she said, no, i don't think kent's notes would be reliable. i think that's important to put on the record there is evidence perhaps mr. kent felt some emotions about some of these issues and his notes, at least according to one state department official in fact might not be reliable. the cnn interview there's been discussing about, there was discussion about possibly doing a statement that was canned or discussion of a cnn interview, we did not really get to the bottom of that. that was this fact that was out there and ambassador taylor testified he was worried it would happen. we didn't really talk to anyone that could tell us precisely what was going to occur, you know, in the cnn interview, and whether president zelensky was actually going to do it. if you look

george can't testify that -- >> i'm not asking about george kent, i'm asking about this -- >> it's important -- >> it's not. either joe biden is a liar telling people to make them impressed or he actually did this. which is it? >> he did it pursuant to u.s. official policy. >> he did it by withholding actual dollars,. he's the only one using a billion dollars for the federal government. we're sitting here pretending a president right now wouldn't be concerned? he can destroy himself on the campaign trail but he can't get by this. it doesn't matter who brings it up, it doesn't matter who does it, because this is what happened. you can whitewash it all you want, you can go over it any way you want. he's either a liar or he did it, and he did it. i want to continue on. the question is a question you had earlier. you rely on how many -- approximately how many times do you rely on gordon sondland's testimony in your report? >> it's nearly a 300-page report. it would be impossible to count. >> would you be able to say 600 times or better? >> i would -- >> you have no idea or not? >> i have no idea

. >> and i want to talk about deputy assistant secretary george kent who served as a career foreign service office for more than 27 years under five different presidents, democrats and republicans alike. and he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president's conduct. mr. goldman, what were the events that led mr. kent to draft notes to his file? >> there were several. there was a conversation at the end of june where several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. there was one on august 16th, i recall, that he talked about. but you bring up a very important point. which is all of these state department witnesses in particular, and frankly almost all of the witnesses other than ambassador sondland, took unbelievable meticulous notes. i would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. and it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that is based on contemporaneous notes. >> do we have mr. kent's n

did he ask for something, hold something of value. >> i'm asking about not george kent. this -- >> it's important context. >> it's not. answer this question. did he or did he not. either joe biden's a liar telling a story to make people impressed or he did this. >> pursuant to u.s. official policy. >> so in withholding actual thing, holding this out there. so joe biden is the only one that's done a quid pro quo. the only one that's actually threatened a foreign government and yet we're sitting here pretending this is not happening? that a president of the united states now would not be concerned? look, you look at it this way. joe biden's a terrible candidate. he can destroy himself on the campaign trial but he can't get by this. it doesn't matter who brings it up, who does it because this is what happened. and you can whitewash it all you want. you can go over whatever you want, but he's either a liar or he did it and he did it. i want to continue on. question is a question that you had earlier. you rely on how many times do you rely on sondland's testimony? in your rep

. >> i want to talk about deputy assistant secretary george kent who served as a career foreign service officer for more than 27 years under five different presidents, democrats and republicans alike. he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president's conduct. mr. goldman, what were the events that led mr. kent to draft these notes to his file? >> there were several. there was a conversation at the end of june where several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. there was one on august 16th i recall that he talked about, but you bring up a very important point which is all of these state department witnesses in particular and frankly almost all of the witnesses other than ambassador sondland took unbelievable meticulous notes. i would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that's based on contemporaneous notes. >> so do we have mr. kent's notes

we talked about the reliability of george kent's notes. one of ambassador volcker's assistants, catherine croft, testified -- rather startling piece of testimony. she was asked whether kent's notes would be reliable. sort of a typical question, everyone expecting the answer to be yes. except she said no. i don't think kent's notes would be reliable. so, i think that's important to put on the record. that there is evidence that perhaps mr. kent felt some emotions about some of these issues and his notes, at least according to one state department official, might not in fact be reliable. the cnn interview that there's been discussion about, ok, there was discussion about possibly doing a statement which was canned. maybe there was discussion of a cnn interview, but -- we did not really get to the bottom of that. that was sort of this amorphous fact that was out there. am bats doer -- ambassador taylor testified he was worried it would happen. but we didn't talk to anyone that could tell us precisely what was going to occur in the cnn intervi

we talked a couple of times about the reliability of george kent's notes. one of ambassador volker's assistants, catherine croft testified and it was rather startlinging piece of testimony. shete was asked whether kent's notes would be reliable. sort of a typical question. everyone expecting the answer to be yes, except she said no, i don't think kent's notes would be reliable.ai so i think that's important to put onso the record that, you know, there is evidence that perhaps mr. kent felt some emotions about some of these issues and his notes, at least according to onees state department officialco might notn fact be reliable.ia the cnn interview that there has been discussion about, okay, there is discussion about possibly doing a statement which was canned. there was -- maybe there was a discussion of a cnn interview. but we did not really get to the bottom of that. that was sort of this amorphous fact that was out there. ambassador taylor testified that he was worried it would happen. but we didn'td -- we didn't really talk to anyone that -- that could

. >> and i want to talk about deputy assistant secretary george kent, who served as a career foreign service officer for more than 27 years under five different presidents. democrats and republicans alike. and he wrote or updated notes to file on four different occasions to record his grave contemporaneous concerns about the president's conduct. mr. goldman, what were the events that led mr. kent to draft these notes to his file? >> there were several. there was a conversation at the end of june. where several american officials had indicated to president zelensky that he needed to go forward with these investigations. there was one on august 16th, i recall, that he talked about. but you bring up a very important point. which is all of these state department witnesses in particular and, frankly, almost all the witnesses other than ambassador sondland, took unbelievabled, meticulous notes. i would have dreamed for a witness like that as a prosecutor. and it makes for a very clear and compelling record and clear and compelling evidence that's based on contemporaneous notes. >> so do we

dip plat george kent in a closed door testimony at the state department objected to a visa request from shokin due to his ineffectiveness in fighting corruption. yovanovitch later corroborated that. >> did giuliani overturn a decision in participation of you denying a visa? >> yes, that's what i was told. >> and that was based plon shokin's corruption? >> yes, i believe so. >>> rick gates who flipped on the president in the mueller investigation has been senten sentenced, the judge commending gates for, quote, important public service and preparing to share the truth under enormous political pressure. here's evan perez. >> reporter: a federal judge sentenced rick gates, the former deputy campaign chairman to 45 days in jail and three years' probation. he was a star witness in the mueller investigation. he led to the koob racing of paul manafort, his former bouse boss, and roger stone, a friend of the president. he spoke briefly in court saying he accepted full responsibility for his actions. judge amy berman jackson commended him for that. william barr said the russian investigation sho

so i just wanted to address that and we talked a couple times about the reliability of george kent's notes, one of ambassador volker's assistance catherine croft testified and it was rather startling piece of testimony. she was asked whether cans notes would be reliable, sort of a typical question, everyone expecting the answer to be yes, they said she said no, i don't think ken's notes would be reliable so i think that is important to put on the record that there is evidence, you know perhaps mr. kent felt some oceans about some of these issues and his nose according to one state department official light not in fact be reliable. the cnn interview that there has been discussion about, okay there is discussion about possibly doing a statement which was canned, maybe there is discussion of a cnn interview but we did not really get to the bottom of that, that was this is a more surface fact that was out there, ambassador taylor was worried it was going to happen but we didn't really talk to anyone that could tell us precisely what was going to occur with the cnn interview and whether p

. >> george kent, also really clear that white house meeting president zelensky wanted was paced on politically-motivated investigations. >> in midaugust it became clear that giuliani's efforts to jin up politically-motivated investigations were leveraging president ezelensky's desire to a white house meeting. >>> you know what else is pretty clear about quid pro quo? until he decided to deny what we all heard him say. he may thought be so popular with the president for saying this. >> did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely. but that's it and that's why we held up the money. >> hot you just describe sad quid pro quo. funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democrat server happened as well. >> we do that all the time with foreign policy. i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> i love that face when jonathan says do you know what you just described is a quid pro quo? he's going oh, it's a twofer. a quid pro quo and get over it. that's a whole lot of current and former officials

and in the open hearings that the house intelligence committee had when asked george kent, to bill taylor, to marie ivan vich, are you aware of any crimes, bribery, extortion, none of them had anything. case-by-case, the depositions that were taking place or the open hearings, throughout, the entire case is actually in dispute, but they're so invested in this narrative to try to take down the president that they won't see the forest for the trees. i'll give you one example. the president zelinsky says no demand, no pressure, no quid pro quo. the first version that adam schiff uses that meeting that took place in warsaw is not accurate. that's from the ukrainian side. we heard it from the u.s. officials and the ukrainian officials but pelosi, schiff, nadler, they keep saying the facts are uncontested. they're wrong. >> i think the most revealing comment came from nancy pelosi i believe last week. she said we didn't rush it through, we've been working on this for 2 1/2 years. that's revealing in itself. i want to move on to other topics because i think the impeachment talk in some regards i

that is according to testimony from one of mike pompeo's top officials, george kent. kent himself told house investigators this, knowing mr. shokin, a have full faith that it was a bun of hooey and he was looking to engage in a con game out of revenge because he lost his job. >> barrett burger, a former federal pros crecutor, former u attorney, also worked as assistant director for the fbi office for congressional affairs. and the assistant professor of politics. i have a full house, we have a lot to get into, greg, to you first, these claims by rudy giuliani, ais there any evidenc backing up what he is saying it. >> it would appear there is no such evidence. dr. fiona hill said all of this was a domestic political errand. he finds some ukrainian, any ukrainian, that will say something negative about the bidens, and two to try to make money off of this whole adventure there in ukraine, and the questions, of course, appear to be chiefly what exactly does the president know about this, and what extent is the president directing juianny, but he made it clear he is -- giu

. >> george kent also really clear that the white house meeting president zelensky wanted was dependent on politically motivated investigations. >> in mid-august it became clear to me that giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting u.s. engagement with ukraine. leveraging president zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. >> you know who else was pretty clear about a quid pro quo, at least until he tried to deny he said what we all heard him say? the ever popular mick mulvaney. he may not be so popular with the president for saying this. >> did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely. no question about that. but that's it. that's why we held up the money. >> to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well. >> we do -- we do that all the time with foreign policy. i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> i love that face when jonathan

i think the best evidence probably came from george kent who said that burisma was so corrupt that our embassy had to pull out of a public-private partnership to avoid any association with them. in fact, the obama administration was so concerned about hunter biden's association with burisma that when they were prepping ambassadors for senate confirmation, they had to spend special time on their. i would suggest that professor feldman's argument would be more credible if he wasn't so willing to reflectively support impeachment in every case of legitimate exercise of presidential power. >> martha: i just thought it was interesting. you know, i was sitting there watching most of the coverage today. and i saw very little in terms of an effort on the part of republicans to try to dismantle their arguments on substance. >> i made substantive arguments. i referenced in my five minutes the testimony of taylor of hale of vindman of hill and i pointed out where a lot of the undergirding of the argument that this had been an abuse was not based on firsthand knowledge. it was based on people's per

the open hearings that the house intelligence committee had when asked george kent, to bill taylor, to marie ivan vich, are you aware of any crimes, bribery, extortion, none of them had anything. case-by-case, the depositions that were taking place or the open hearings, throughout, the entire case is actually in dispute, but they're so invested in this narrative to try to take down the president that they won't see the forest for the trees.t i'll give you one example. the president zelinsky says no demand, no pressure, no quid pro quo. andre your mack said the first version that adam scschiff uses that meeting that took place in warsaw is not accurate. that's from the ukrainian side. we heard it from the u.s. officials and the ukrainian officials but pelosi, schiff, nadler, they keep saying the facts are uncontested. they're wrong. >> i think the most revealing comment came from nancy pelosi i believe last week. she said we didn't rush it through, we've been working on this for 2 1/2 years. that's revealing in itself. i want to move on to other topics because i think the impeachment ta

george kent, a career official at the state department fox news -- told house investigators that he raise concern about hunter biden on board of the gas company burisma he said in january, february 2015 -- he became aware that hunter biden on board of burisma holdings while his father joe biden was overseeing ukraine policy at vept and they sent him away, the vice president bereaving over passing of elder son they said so nobody brings it up with the vice president nonetheless the vice president intervenes. hey i have a theory that democrats like theories. they like to connect the dot you guy and journalism in legal analyst you pay attention too. maybe they put hunter biden on that bris ma board which is largest one of the largest in a corrupt country. even though he had no background for any of it. maybe they wanted to buy influence because obama administration would not give the government the military and observancive armorment necessary to defend themselves against russian. why don't they look into that? sounds like a perfectly logical point and president of the united states said you

kent. so it would really be useful if the foreign service if they were able to get the word out. in terms of the audience for the buck, i mean i hope for a general readership as i say it is more a book about the struggles with these people than it is about the details of the foreign policy. but i thought i would have a particular audience with people who were thinking about going into the foreign service because if you want to know you know, what it's like for the people that have some of the best jobs or at least the most challenging jobs, i think that the book is a pretty good account of it. as it ends with a great line from the college students that want to be where the action is, this is the job for you. >> crocker always made a lot of jokes about brussels and paris and how boring they were. people say i don't think western europe is important but of course western europe is important. you need to go there to make a connection, claim a connection to someplace interesting. [laughter] >>

a few of them were asked specifically like bill taylor and george kent, do you think what the president did was impeachable? they said that's not our decision to make. we are fact witnesses. we are laying out the case for what we saw transpire vis-a-vis ukraine. what's different now is that you are having experts that can answer that question, whether or not what they witnessed, what was described was impeachable. >> and to try to educate the public on just because this is a political process doesn't mean it's not grounded in something that as jeffrey is describing as very important which is a high crime or misdemeanor which is abuse of power that only resides within the power of the presidency that must be checked. and i think there's a debate among democrats now when they get to articles of impeachment, if it goes beyond ukraine. they're thinking about the public relations. there's a larger point to be made. nancy pelosi has made it to say, no president can stand up and say basically, i can do whatever i want. that is the check. whether that finds much resonance with the american peop

in a public hearing before the house intelligence committee, deputy secretary of state george kent testified that politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power undermine the rule of law. do you agree with that? do politically motivated investigations undermine the rule of law? >> i agree -- any politically motivated investigation undermines the rule of law. >> thank you very much. did you find any evidence that president obama or anyone else in the white house asked the united states government to investigate then candidate trump or his campaign? >> we certainly didn't see any evidence of that in the fbi's files or the department's files which was our mandate here and our authorized jurisdiction. >> you have a policy recommendation regarding the use of confidential human sources. i'd like to ask a few questions about it. your investigation found that the use of confidential human sources was consistent with existing rules. correct? >> correct. >> the use of confidential human sources here was not solely to gather first amendment information. >> cor

in a public hearing before the house intelligence committee, deputy secretary of state george kent testified that politically associated investigation through prosecutions against a points of those in power undermine the rule of law? do you agree with that? do politically motivated investigations undermine the rule of law? >> i agree. any politically motivated investigation undermines the rule of law. >> thank you have been much. did you find any evidence that president obama or anyone else in the white house asked the united states government to investigate then candidate trump or his campaign? >> we certainly didn't see any evidence that the fbi's files or the department's files which was our mandate here and authorized restriction. >> you have a policy information regarding the use of human sources. i'd like to ask you a few questions about it. your investigation found the use of confidential human sources was consistent with existing rules. correct? >> correct. >> the use of confidential human sources here was not solely to gather first amendment protected information? >> correct. and th

in 2015 george kent reported his concerns about hunter biden to the vice president's office. the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch was asked pesky questions on hunter biden and burisma that might arise in her senate confirmation process. nearly every single witness who testified at the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry agreedqu that hunter biden's burisma deal created at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest. yet the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairmanen schiff and now democrats on this committee are determined to sweep all of this under the rug, ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it. instead are rushed to impeach this president. you have the vice president, joe biden, in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy and his son, hunter biden, receiving $50,000 a month, even though he had no identifiable expertise in energy or in ukraine, yet the democrats wouldn't let us call witnesses or delve into this and it was interesting that joe biden got in an argument with a man that one of his events in iowa recently. cal

. >> obama's deputy assistant secretary of state george kent testified that he raised concerns directly to vice president biden's office about hunter biden's services on sondland burisma's board. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. castor, on the july 25th call we all saw the video earlier today. were joe biden bragged about he told ukraine, if the prosecutor is not fired, you aren't getting the money. mr. castor, is this the same prosecutor that looked into burisma? >> it is. >> in a similar scheme, obama's assistant attorney general said, and i quote, awarding prestigious employment opportunities to unqualified individuals in order to influence government officials is corruption. plain and simple. mr. castor, here's another key question. given that, one, burisma had the reputation of being a corrupt company, obama's own state department was concerned about hunter biden serving on burisma's board at the same time that vice president biden was acting as point person, and three, obama's assistant attorney general said in a similar scheme that the corruption, there is corruption plain and sim

kent, he's a deputy assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs, but you guys already knew that. [ light laughter ] some trivia about him is, if you squeeze his tummy, something fun happens. [ squishing noises ] [ laughter and applause there you go guys, there's your "impeachment trivia. hope that helps. trump actually watched the rest of the hearings while flying on air force one. i'm not saying trump is worried, but at one point during the flight he opened the door to get some air [ laughter ] >> steve: wall >> jimmy: meanwhile, impeachment hearings were happening, trump toured apple's manufacturing facility in texas with apple ceo tim cook. now previously, trump called apple ceo tim cook, tim apple. [ laughter ] but to his credit, trump didn't make the same mistake this time he called him tim computer [ laughter ] "tim computer, very nice to see you. i'm not sure trump's mind was in the right place at the apple facility at one point he started swallowing a bunch of pills until someone said, "sir, those are air pods." [ laughter ] oh, earlier tonight was the -- "i wo

back in 2015, george kent reported his concerns about hunter biden to the vice president's office, and the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yavonovitch, said she was coached by the obama administration on how to answer pesky questions related to hunter biden and burisma that might arise during her senate confirmation process. and nearly every single witness who testified at the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry agreed that hunter biden's burisma deal created, at the very least, an appearance of a conflict of interest. yet the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairman schiff and now democrats in this committee are determined to sweep all this under the rug, ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it. instead a rush to impeach this president. you've got the vice president, joe biden, in charge of overseeing our ukranian policy, and his son, hunter biden, receiving $50,000 a month, even though he had no identifiable expertise and energy or in ukraine, yet the democrats wouldn't let us call witnesses or delve into this. and it was interesting that joe biden got in

diplomat george kent in a closed-door testimony in the state department due to his ineffectiveness at fighting corruption. yovanovitch later corroborated that. >> did giuliani overturn a decision that you tried to deny shokin a visa? >> yes, that is whattis told. >> that denial was based on mr. shokin's corruption? >> yes, that's true. >> and you know, erin, some of the groups that are absolutely irate about the people that rudy giuliani are speaking to are groups who are fighting corruption inside ukraine. they say that the folks rudy is talking to are actually undermining their own efforts to fight corruption in ukraine and at the same time giving the u.s. which was the beacon of transparency for those countries a bad name as well, erin. >> thank you very much, fred, and really important to lay all of that out when giuliani comes and says he has something and now you understand the problem with that claim. >>> out front next, the democrat running against lindsay graham hopes to end the senator's grip on his seat. does he have a chance? well, he's my guest and we'll ask him. and an a

. >> george kent, the state department official testified, that he raised it to you. >> no, he didn't say -- >> to your staff. >> he didn't say me. >> i stand corrected. >> i never heard that once. >> to your staff. and your staff told him he has no bandwidth. >> my son is dying, i guess what he said that, my son was on his death bed, but that is not the reason why, they should have told me. >> that is joe biden speaking to npr's rachel martin. the new yorker reported in july that an obama administration official had warned biden, writing in quotes, in december 2015, as joe biden prepared to return to ukraine, his aides braced for renewed scrutiny of hunter's relationship with burisma, and the obama administration special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with biden, but did not go so far as to recommend that hunter leave the board. >>> let's switch gears here and get a check of the weather now with nbc meteorologist bill karins. hey, bill. >> good morning, once again. very active week of weather. one of the rollercoaster weeks where it will rain and possibly get cold and sno

americans like laura cooper, david hale, george kent, bill taylor, jennifer williams, marie yovanovitch, all of whom have served in nonpolitical positions for all or most of their careers, all of them who testified before congress under subpoena. these are just a few of the 2.1 million americans who make up the federal civil service and the foreign service. they work together here at home and abroad in every field of endeavor and on behalf of all of us. for example, budding entrepreneurs can call on the small business administration loan officers for help accessing capital and foreign service officers to help sell their inventions to the world. farmers know that the natural resources conservation service employees can help them keep their land productive for the long term, and foreign agricultural service diplomats help american farmers make a living feeding the world. yet, too many of our colleagues , including many on the other side of the aisle, have defamed public servants and now accuse those who testified in the house of attacking the president. that accusation has it exactly back

but remember it was george kent who testified against president donald trump who also first raised the caution and concern with the obama white house back in 2015. even he said i don't like the way this looks. this guy is someone who is against trump. someone with an impartial if not someone that is anti-trump character testimony in the impeachment. so hunter biden did do something wrong. he got rich using his last name. while also the obama-biden white house was changing policy in ukraine. >> martha: okay. richard, would it make sense, does it happen in any political world anymore for someone to come forward and say you know what? it was a mistake. it was a lapse of judgment. we should have not done it. we shouldn't have allowed him to do it. but there was nothing, no policy changes came forward because of it. why don't they just do that, instead of sayin saying there ws nothing wrong with it at all? >> i think what we saw in the hunter biden interview, he admitted himself listen, was this a lapse in character? absolutely, i did nothing wrong here. the point that charlie brought up, w

>> deputy assistant secretary george kent testified that there was an investigation into their head and they were trying to track down 23 million that he had taken out of the country working with the united kingdom, ukraine was working on tracking this money down and there was an investigation going on and a bribe was paid. when that bribe was paid, it allowed him to get off scot-free. right around that time is when burisma went about sprucing up their board, shall we say. >> yet with all that evidence, the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairman schiff and now the democrats here are determined to sweep the biden corruption under the rug might ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it and instead rush to impeach the president all to satisfy their radical left wing base, what a disservice to the country. you got vice president joe biden in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy and his son hunter biden receiving 50 grand a month with no identifiable expertise yet the democrats won't let us present witnesses on that, so let's do the next best thing since we can't bring

. >> i am not asking about george kent. answer this question. did he or did he not? is joe biden a liar telling a story to make people impressed or he actually did this, which is a? >> he did a pursuant to u.s. official policy. >> so he did it withholding actual knowledge, so joe biden is the only one that has done a quid pro quo, the only one who has used taxpayer dollars to threaten a foreign government. we are sitting here pretending this is not happening? we're sitting here pretending that a president of the united states now would not be concerned? is a at it this way, he can destroy himself on the campaign trail but he can't get by this. and it doesn't matter who brings it up, doesn't matter who does it because this is what happened. then you can fly wash it all you want, but that's what it is, either a liar or he did it and he did it. i want to continue on. question is a question that you had earlier. you rely on approximately how many times do you rely on gordon sondland's testimony? in your report? >> nearly a 300 page report. >> would you be amazed if it wa

we have cited in the record testimony like george kent who said there were deep, legitimate concerns, even ambassador yovanovitch, about having to expressly prepare for that. then they say well this aid has been when would. it's this bad presidential conduct. it ripens the fact that there was a very understandable reason for why the aid was released when it was, and it had nothing to do with the election or anything like that. it had to do with the fact that ukraine took substantive steps to ensure that our aid would be appropriately used for the cause that is now apparently the cause of the left, and that is defending the ukraine against russia. they say the president's next bad act is this great obstruction of congress. they have subjected president trump to more presidential harassment than at any other time in american history, attacking his family, not allowing his administration to continue to do its work on behalf of the people and, amazingly, despite all of this distraction, despite all of the obstruction of the president that the democrats have engaged in, jobs are rising. wa

in 2015, george kent reported his concerns about hunter biden to the vice president's office and the former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, sorry about that, said she was coached by the obama administration on how to answer pesky questions related to hunter biden and burisma. that might arise during her senate confirmation process. nearly every single witness to testified at the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry agreed that hunter biden's burisma deal created at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest. yet the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairman schiff and now democrats in this committee are determined to sweep all of this under the rug, ignore it. not let us call witnesses on it instead rush to impeach this president. you've got the vice president, joe biden in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy and his son hunter biden receiving $50,000 a month even though she had no identifiable expertise in energy or ukraine. the democrats wouldn't let us call witnesses or delve into this and it was interesting that joe biden got in an

we've seen ambassador yovanovitch, george kent, numerous other officials talk about the work the u.s. embassy in ukraine led by ambassador yovanovitch was doing to root out the corruption that was in you crane as part of u.s. policy and we have seen also over the recent month, how deeply embedded rudy giuliani was with many of those very corrupt officials, so i think we have to take a step back. not treat what rudy giuliani is peddling here. as fact and look at it in the way that i think it needs to be seen, which is that the personal lawyer of the president of the united states who helped extort this foreign country to try to get the president his personal political help for his campaign in which he's being impeached over right now, that whole scheme is ongoing. giuliani was in ukraine again in the last couple of weeks and he continues to go around pedding these lies and sounds like this is going to be part of the president's strategy during the upcoming impeachment trial. >> the president seems to be distances himself from rudy giuliani a little bit. not like he's really putting his

george kent testified that there was an investigation into berisma. and they were trying to track down 23 million that he had taken out of the country. and they were working with the united kingdom, they were working the united states, the united kingdom, ukraine was working on tracking this money down. and there was an investigation -- an active investigation going on. and a bribe was paid. that bribe was paid. it allowed him to get off scott free, right around that time is when berisma went about sprucing up their board shall we say. the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairman schiff, and now the democrats here are determined to sweep the biden corruption under the rug, ignore it, not let us call witnesses on it and rush to impeach the president to satisfy the radical left wing base. you have the vice president in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy, and his son hunter biden receiving 50 grand a month with no identifiable expertise in energy or ukraine, yet the democrats won't let us present witnesses on that. let's do the next

because we have put into the record, we have cited in the record the testimony of people like george kent who said that there were deep, legitimate concerns, even the testimony of ambassador yovanovitch about having to expressly prepare for that. then they say, well, the withholding of this aid is this bad presidential conduct. but the biggs amendment ripens the fact that there is a very understandable reason for why the aid was release when did it was. and it had nothing to do with the election or anything like that. it had to do with the fact that the ukraine took substantive steps to ensure that our aid would be appropriately used for the cause that is now apparently the cause for the left and that is defending the ukraine against russia. then they said, oh, well, the president's next bad act is this obstruction of congress. they have subjected president trump to more presidential harassment than at any other time in american history. attacking his family, not allowing his administration to continue to do its work on behalf of the people. and amazingly despite all this distraction

kent, a witness called by the democrats who came forward and said we were so worried about burisma that our own embassy had to pull out of a public/private partnership they were engaged in. but what is so dizzying, george, is the evolving standard for impeachment from democrats. through most of 2019 nancy pelosi said she opposed impeachment not because the mueller facts weren't strong enough in her view but because it wasn't bipartisan. she set the standard of bipartisanship for impeachment. the only thing that's changed now is that we're moving into an election year and she's willing to pursue a partisan impeachment and you look back to 1998, jerry nadler, our chairman, was saying it was ripping votes asunder to pursue a partisan impeachment and no impeachment would be legitimate if it was primarily supported by one party and opposed by another. this impeachment is exclusively supported by democrats in congress. it's not just democrats can't persuade people like me who support the president. they can't even persuade republicans like will herd who are critics tmo the goalpost and zoe lo

and, you know, deputy assistance secretary george kent testified that there was an investigation into burisma, into their head. and they were trying to track down 23 million that he had -- he had taken out of the country. they were working with the united kingdom. they were working -- the united states, united kingdom, ukraine was working on, tracking this money down. and there was an investigation, an active investigation, going on and a bribe was paid. and that bribe was paid. it allowed him to get off scott free. right around that time is when burisma went about sprucing up their board, shall we say. >> and -- and yet, with all that evidence, the democrats on the intelligence committee under chairman schiff, and now the democrats here, are determined to sweep the biden corruption under the rug. ignore it. not let us call witnesses on it. and instead, rush to impeach the president. all to satisfy, i would argue, the radical left-wing base. what a disservice to the country. imagine this. you've got the vice president, oe biden, in charge of overseeing our ukrainian policy. and his so

[buzzer] that and have george kent who worked for the state department and warned about burisma he had ned 2015. > lisa: plar yach ukrainian ambassador briefed confirmation hearing by the obama administration about hunter biden. all these businesses in ukraine what's the one she is briefed about hunter biden. secretary of state at the time his own stepson had removed himself from the same company with hunter biden over concerns about burisma and warned the state department about it. you have all these people warning about concerns about burisma being shady. pete: when you step back that is all true, all reasons why he should be compelled to talk. step back and think about the entire process. democrats say we want fairness is there a worse political argument you could make. oh, mitch mcconnell is going to be the most biased jury poll is the united states senate. everyone there is political. the entire impeachment process is by definition not a judicial process but a political process. so if you are running on we want fairness and we want unbiased jurors, there is not a single voter in t

lisa: george kent who said he specifically raised these concerns to biden's team and they were ignored. you had the former ukrainian ambassador marie yovanovitch said she was pressed specifically on burisma before the confirmation hearing. former secretary of state john kerry's own stepson who removed himself from hunter biden's company, because of burisma. pete: that is true. that we've known all of that. what changed ben between yesterday and today? no one is watching that, thinking he is a puncher and fighter on this. he is equivocating on his stanes. what changed? prominent senators talked about the fact they don't want witnesses. they want this quickly. the maybe it is easy out for him. they're not going to subpoena me anyway, i look like i would comply i but i actually never believed they would call me. ed: hypocritical for joe biden, just maybe, i will not cooperate, when we heard all the democrats, president and aids have to cooperate. it looked hypocritical. >>> 13-year-old girl killed outside after mall overnight. it happened in parking lot of dave and buster's in north carol

i think it was george kent who said, we try to teach the other countries not to engage politically and based prosecutions. not to have a situation where someone gets into office and decide to prosecute their opponents. we go after someone who is considered a political threat to the president and here we were, the most powerful country in the world who was depending on and we were imposing that scenario on them. >> i do know that despite suggestions to the contrary, the only real reference here to this argument and as it says the president would like to find out what happened with this whole situation and they say crowdstrike and one of your wealthy people and the server they say ukraine has it. unfortunately, it's unintelligent -- unintelligible to understand what he's talking about but is there is no point a suggestion that he is known more broadly about corruption. i want to focus if i can a few minutes on the role of rudy giuliani in office. he's well known to new yorkers. my note that ambassador taylor in his testimony said that he had suspicions before taking the job and said in p