TONIGHT, REPORTS THAT THE

CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY OF OUR TOP

DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE, SOME OF THE

PEOPLE IN THE HEARING ROOM.

DEMOCRATS SAY THAT TESTIMONY

REPRESENT THE MOST MAY HAVE

HEARD.

>> THIS IS MY MOST DISTURBING

DAY IN CONGRESS SO FAR.

>> USEFUL INFORMATION THAT CAN

BE USED TO CORROBORATE THAT WE

HAVE HEARD IT FROM THE

PRESIDENT'S OWN CONFESSION, A

CONFESSION COSIGNED BY

MICK MULVANEY.

>> Martha: HERE IS WHAT

TROUBLED THEM, THE TESTIMONY

THAT HE WAS TOLD EVERYTHING

DEPENDED ON IT UKRAINE

ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATION INTO

THE BIDENS AND THE 2016

ELECTION.

ANY CLAIM THAT THERE WERE "WEIRD

AND ALARMING SECONDARY

DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS INVOLVING

RICK PERRY AND RUDY GIULIANI."

JOHN RADCLIFFE SITS ON THAT

HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HE

WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONERS IN

THE ROOM AND HE JOINS ME NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THIS

TESTIMONY, THERE ARE THINGS THAT

ARE EYEBROW RAISING,

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID INSIST THAT

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GO TO A

MICROPHONE AND SAY HE'S OPENING

INVESTIGATION OF BIDEN AND THAT

ZELENSKY WOULD WANT TO DO IT

HIMSELF.

IF THERE ARE COUPLE WAYS TO LOOK

AT IT, HOW DO YOU LOOK AT IT?

>> I READ THE TESTIMONY AND HIS

OPENING STATEMENT AND THERE WERE

THINGS THAT PROVIDED GREATER

DETAIL THAN WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE

FROM SOME OTHER CAREER

DIPLOMATS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS WAS

ABOUT QUID PRO QUO AND WHETHER

OR NOT THE UKRAINIANS WERE AWARE

THAT MILITARY AID WAS BEING

WITHHELD AND ON THAT MOST

IMPORTANT ISSUE, NEITHER THIS

WITNESS NOR ANY OTHER WITNESS

HAS PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT

THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, ANY

EVIDENCE THAT THE UKRAINIANS

WERE AWARE THAT MILITARY AID WAS

BEING WITHHELD ON JULY 25TH.

UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY BRING IN A

WITNESS WHO IS WILLING TO SAY

THAT THERE WAS KNOWLEDGE BY

SOMEONE THAT SPEAKS UKRAINIAN TO

THAT FACT, A QUID PRO QUO IS

LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

>> Martha: YOU HEARD THE

DEMOCRATS WALK OUT, OBVIOUSLY

THEY HAD A VERY DIFFERENT TAKE

ON IT, THEY FELT THEY HAVE THAT

QUID PRO QUO.

MY QUESTION IS POLITICALLY WHAT

HAPPENS?

IT FEELS AS THOUGH THERE WAS A

BIG PUSH TO GET THIS DONE VERY

QUICKLY, NANCY PELOSI KEPT

SAYING SHE WANTED TO MOVE

FORWARD QUICKLY.

IS THAT YOUR TAKE ON IT?

>> IT CHANGES EVERY DAY.

WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY

HAVEN'T MADE UP THEIR MIND.

THIS IS ADAM SCHIFF CHANGING THE

RULES LITERALLY DAY-TO-DAY BASED

ON WHAT'S HAPPENING.

WE DON'T KNOW WITNESSES THAT ARE

BEING CALLED AND WHAT THEY ARE

GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON.

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY HEAR.

THIS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

THIS IS US FINDING OUT WHEN WE

WALK IN THE DOOR WITH THE RULES

OF THE DAY ARE GOING TO BE FOR

THAT PARTICULAR WITNESS.

IT'S UNFAIR FOR ALL OF US WHO

ARE TRYING TO OUR CONSTITUENTS

AND

IND

IN THIS PROCESS, THAT'S WHY IT

SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN THE OPEN,

NOT A SECRET GRAND JURY WERE

ADAM SCHIFF WHO IS IN

ADAM SCHIFF WHO IS AN

ADAM SCHIFF WHO IS A MATERIAL

WITNESS GETS TO MAKE UP THE

RULES AS THEY GO, IT'S

UNFORTUNATE.

>> Martha: YOU WOULD LIKE TO

TALK TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, TELL

US WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.

>> WHY DON'T WE KNOW WHEN THE

PERSON WHO ULTIMATELY BECAME A

WHISTLE-BLOWER FIRST WENT TO

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF -- DID THEY TALK

ABOUT UKRAINE, TALK ABOUT

MILITARY AID, WHERE THEY

REFERRED TO A LAWYER?

>> Martha: THEY SAY THEY WERE,

THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T TALK TO

ADAM SCHIFF PERSONALLY AND THEY

WERE REFERRED TO A

WHISTLE-BLOWER?

>> WHO SAYS THAT?

>> Martha: SCHIFF'S OFFICE

SAID THAT.

>> THEY ALSO SAID THEY HAD NO

CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER

INITIALLY.

THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET THAT

TESTIMONY ACCURATELY IS UNDER

OATH FROM EITHER MEMBERS OF HIS

STAFF OR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND

HE WON'T BRING THOSE WITNESSES

FORWARD.

HE KEEPS TROTTING AND CAREER

AMBASSADORS WHO ARE ALARMED AT

DONALD TRUMP'S UNCONVENTIONAL

APPROACH TO FOREIGN POLICY.

WHO'S SURPRISED AT THAT?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I FOUND HIM

TO BE VERY FORTHRIGHT, STRONG

OPINIONS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP'S

APPROACH TO FOREIGN POLICY, BUT

AGAIN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

REPORTING THAT HE PROVIDED

EVIDENCE OF A QUID PRO QUO

INVOLVING MILITARY AID IS FALSE.

I QUESTION HIM DIRECTLY ON THAT

AND UNDER ADAM SCHIFF'S RULES, I

CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT HE SAID BUT

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT HE DIDN'T

SAY AND NEITHER HE NOR ANY OTHER

WITNESS HAS PROVIDED TESTIMONY

THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE AWARE

THAT MILITARY AID WAS BEING

WITHHELD.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A QUID PRO QUO

WITH NO QUO.

>> Martha: THEY SAID THEY

DIDN'T FEEL PRESSURED AND WHEN

YOU ADD TO THAT THAT THEY DIDN'T

KNOW THE MILITARY AID HAD A

PAUSE ON IT, IT MAKES IT

DIFFICULT TO JUDGE THEIR

BEHAVIOR AFTER THAT AS BEING

SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE PUSHED

OR THREATENED INTO DOING.

>> IF THIS WERE A COURT CASE,

THE LAWYERS FOR A DEFENSE WOULD

BE MOVING FOR A DIRECTED

VERDICT.

IF THEY WOULD SAY THIS CASE

ISN'T ALLOWED TO GO TO THE JURY

BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION IS

MISSING AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF

THEIR CASE.

THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO UNTIL

SOMEONE FROM UKRAINE SAYS WE

KNEW THAT MILITARY AID WAS BEING

WITHHELD DURING THAT JULY 25TH

CALL AND THAT TESTIMONY HASN'T

COME AND IS NOT COMING.

THIS IS ANOTHER IN THE LATEST OF

FRAME JOBS OF THE PRESIDENT.

IF THEY TRIED TO FRAME HIM FOR

BEING A RUSSIAN AGENT AND

FAILED, THEY TRY TO FRAME HIM

FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, USING A

LEGAL STANDARD THAT HAD NEVER

BEEN APPLIED TO ANYONE ELSE AND

FAILED AND NOW THEY ARE TRYING

TO FRAME HIM FOR A QUID PRO QUO

INVOLVING MILITARY AID WHERE NO

UKRAINIAN WAS AWARE THAT

MILITARY AID WAS BEING WITHHELD.

>> Martha: I FIND IT VERY

INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE IS

MOVEMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT

THAT'S MEANINGFUL AT THIS POINT

WE DON'T KNOW.

IT'S INTERESTING SWING STATE

POLLS, I WONDER IF THE PROCESS

IS STARTING TO HURT THEIR CASE