Kent during impeachment testimony: Burisma should be investigated

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," November 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GREG GUTFELD, HOST: Hey, I'm Greg Gutfeld with Katie Pavlich, Juan Williams, Jesse Watters, and she skis on sherbet, Dana Perino. “The Five.”

Prepare to get your minds blown with eye-popping testimony.


WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Mr. Goldman, what I can do here for you here today is tell you what I heard from people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 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?


GUTFELD: Congrats, Adam Schiff. You found something that made the Mueller hearing look sexy. A witness who witnesses nothing, hearsay based on hearsay. A bloated spectacle designed to turn a phone call into a crime. You know if only we could see this coming.


WHOOPI GOLDBERG, CO-HOST, ABC: There is such a thing called impeachment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That tweet is also enough to impeach the President of the United States.


REP. AL GREEN, D-TX: The call for the impeachment of the president.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump has done things for impeachment.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Impeachment is, quote, "a real possibility."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are going to go in there and we're going to impeach the (muted).

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because we begin impeachment proceedings now.


GUTFELD: I guess they got the same e-mail from Jeff Zucker. So, the guilty verdict comes first which brings us to this lame ass show trial all to gin up public fears about the next worst thing ever that never happens.

Because this is never about what Trump has done but what he could do. This whole thing is a crappy horror movie scripted by the Dems for the media with Schiff and his bunch playing the bug-eyed zombies.

Before a horror movie to be good we got to believe it's at least possible. And now we already know how it's going to end. Actually, this is worse than a horror film. It's pornography for Democrats. Remember their safe word?


WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: That sounds like a quid pro quo directed by the president.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is in fact a quid pro quo.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: To push for a quid pro quo.

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: There was in fact a quid pro quo.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The very clear, quid pro quo.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is a quid pro quo.


GUTFELD: No, you dope, that's called leverage and using it on behalf of your country is Trump's job especially when he couldn't trust anyone else to do it. Every day we heard people trying to stop him. So, what would you expect? And how could we have a president a candidate whose son is beholden to Ukraine and China. If Trump didn't investigate that, well then that's impeachable.

Trump broke no laws but he may bend the rules a bit because he has to since the media and the Democrats write the rulebook. Which is why this impeachment spectacle is just a repeat of the collusion spectacle.

A mysterious source triggers a massive investigation that then goes nowhere. We've seen it. We've done it. We paid for it. My advice? Skip it and show up next November and give these clowns a hearing they'll never forget.

I want to play this sot, it's Schiff talking about the whistleblower with Jim Jordan. It's quite entertaining, Katie?




REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Of the 435 members of Congress you are the only member who knows who the individual is and your staff is the only staff of any member of Congress who had the chance to talk with that individual. We would like that opportunity. When might that happen in this proceeding today?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: First as the gentleman knows, that's a false statement. I do not know the identity of the whistleblower and I'm determined to make sure that identity is protected.


GUTFELD: He doesn't know, Katie. He doesn't know.

PAVLICH: So, this is the second time he's changed his story.


PAVLICH: Knowing who this person is. So, he received this complaint on August 12th about what the whistleblower was alleging. His staff then took it, he didn't share it with his fellow committee members until the end of September which brought up a lot of questions about what he was doing with the whistleblower.

So, he's lying. He knows exactly who this person is. But let's take him at his word for once. And if he says that he doesn't know the person --


PERINO: You just he's lying.

PAVLICH: Well, he is. But I mean, this is why people need to think about. If we are going to listen to Adam Schiff and believe what he said is true, then his staff are the ones who have met this person, unelected staffers who are now running the show on impeachment based on a claim made that they are arguing should be used to take the President of United States out of office.

So, if Adam Schiff hasn't talked to this person and doesn't know them, hasn't met with them, hasn't vetted them to make sure they are legitimate and that their claims are legitimate, then the staff is doing it for him and so there should be a little more scrutiny about who's asking the --


JUAN WILLIAMS, HOST & POLITICAL ANALYST: Wait a second, what about the intel -- the director of national intelligence inspector general saying this is a legitimate issue, this whistleblower complaint should be forwarded even after the Justice Department --


WILLIAMS: I mean, so that's not -- you know, that's not the Democrats. I mean, that's a --



WILLIAMS: That's a Trump appointee.

PAVLICH: So why didn't Adam Schiff forward it to the rest of his committee members? Why did he held on to a month and a half before giving it to the rest of the committee?

WILLIAMS: What I'm saying to you is first of all, the whistleblower's complaint has been confirmed by everybody including the two people who were there today. To me --


GUTFELD: Hearsay.

PAVLICH: That's not -- yes.

WILLIAMS: No, it's not hearsay. By anyway, let me just say. I think that you are saying this was boring. I don't think it was boring.


WILLIAMS: I think, in fact, if this was so boring, why have we seen that tremendous movement in the polls over the last few months?

GUTFELD: We've got the media 94 percent --

WILLIAMS: No. no. No, it's not.

GUTFELD: -- anti-Trump. Can I get -- I want to get to Jesse.

WILLIAMS: No, let me finish the point.

GUTFELD: No, because you've been talking all day, Juan. I want to get --


WILLIAMS: I tell you --

GUTFELD: Jesse --

WILLIAMS: I think I look like you.

GUTFELD: Jesse and Katie -- Jesse and Katie haven't been talking about this topic. You've been on TV for six hours.

WILLIAMS: Is that right?


JESSE WATTERS, HOST: I'm going to look at it objectively, Greg, like I usually do.

GUTFELD: You are the sober analysis.

WATTERS: And put my analyst hat on. OK? No, I think the Democrats did the best they could do today but it wasn't good enough. It was not a persuasive hearing.


WATTERS: It was dense. Griping by no-name diplomats. I respect their service. They care a lot for the country. They want to fight off Russian aggression.

But to me, it looked like they were complaining about a turf war over policy and personnel, and were upset that Rudy was stepping on their toes. This was a hearsay reading. These guys have never met Donald Trump, they were not on the call and they have nothing to do with the aid package.

This had none of the intensity of the Kavanaugh hearing. Not even the intensity of the Mueller hearing where I remember, and you remember both of those hearings where people at work would stop everything and turn on the TV, and you could hear a pin drop.

This was not that. So, at the end of the day, I thought the Republican cross was strong, for the most part, and the Republican base will not crack, and the Republicans in the Senate will not vote to convict, and this whole charade -- this is the high-water mark right now. This will all fade as we go hearing after hearing after hearing.

GUTFELD: Juan, sorry. You can go ahead now. I just wanted to get him in.

WILLIAMS: No, I love wishful thinking. I think were those marching orders you are giving the Republican ranks --


WATTERS: No, that was my straight news analysis.

WILLIAMS: The straight. Well, I'm going to tell you the straight news is. There is no way it could have gone, Jesses, from 20 percent supporting impeachment to -- in the Fox or every other poll 50 percent --


WATTERS: OK, Juan, you are talking about polls. Let's just talk about the --


WILLIAMS: Well, I'm just telling you it's gone to the point where half of America thinks he should be impeached and removed. That's not just the Democrats.


GUTFELD: Ninety-four percent of the media.

WILLIAMS: I mean, you got to -- and the second thing to say is --


WATTERS: That's not true compared to what other polls say, Juan.

WILLIAMS: The second thing to say to pick up on your point.


WILLIAMS: I think these two witnesses came across as incredibly credible.


WILLIAMS: They look -- I mean, a West Point graduates, his whole family, career dedicated to serving the country.

WATTERS: I'm glad you mentioned that --

WILLIAMS: Even the bow tie. I know you appreciated the bow tie.

WATTERS: Because I would like to actually say some of the things that these gentlemen testified to under oath.

WILLIAMS: Go right --

WATTERS: OK? This is the Democrats' star witness, not a witness to anything, not really a star. But he testified, Taylor. Taylor met with Ukraine president the day after this perfect phone call. And the Ukraine president told him, the witness for the Democrats, that he had no complaints about the call, it was a great call, and there were no concerns.

Then Taylor, the Democrats' star witness, met three times after that with the Ukraine president and at no time did the Ukraine president or anybody bring up any linkage between the aid in the investigations. That never happened.


GUTFELD: Can I bring --

WATTERS: Also, Taylor testified that Ukraine didn't even know the aid was delayed so no quid pro quo. And just for a little cherry on top, Juan, Taylor, the Democrats' star witness, said that the Trump policy on Ukraine was much better than the Obama policy.

GUTFELD: All right. OK. Dana?

PERINO: I don't think you really have to get me in. I don't mind. It's OK. But if you want me to, what do you want me to talk about?

GUTFELD: Well, OK. Let's throw the -- I think we have sound of Taylor talking about overhearing something. That might be fun.


TAYLOR: Mr. Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kiev. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland about the investigations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president was speaking loud enough for your staff member to be able to overhear this?

TAYLOR: He was.


GUTFELD: So, this is like third person remove now, it's from a staff member that overheard it.

PERINO: So, people only seized on this because Taylor did not have this in his original deposition. A staffer of his said, sir, I need to tell you about this because I didn't tell you about it beforehand so much like Ambassador Sondland, he said I need to amend and make sure that I have everything because, no.

I mean, I don't think it's fair to say there are no name. I mean, but they didn't want to do this.


PERINO: They weren't the whistleblower. They weren't the one who --


GUTFELD: Right. It's a fair point.

PERINO: -- asked, they're not calling for impeachment.

GUTFELD: Yes. You're right.

PERINO: I think that when Ratcliffe -- Ratcliffe asked him, you know, do you, are you for impeachment? There was whoa, we didn't even want to be here in the first place. We had to hire lawyers, we had to come here, we're here as witnesses, we've given you our best information.

They were asked are you against Trump. The guys says, I'm not a nonpartisan guy. Taylor says, I am -- he says, no, sir, to the question are you never Trump.

So, I think that the Republicans did a pretty good job today on cross- examination. They were. I think sometimes the passion got a little bit like ahead of them, it was a little bit off-putting because they didn't actually need to do it that, you know, come on so heavy.

But their point about it being secondhand or thirdhand, that will change next week. Because unfortunately this is not only going to happen for one day. It's going to happen the next several days. And next Wednesday Ambassador Sondland, the expectations for him are going to be super high because he is somebody who is, and first, he has first-hand knowledge.

GUTFELD: I can hardly wait for that. All right. President Trump reacting to today's hearing and much more to come on the Dems' impeachment spectacle.


PERINO: A historic day today on Capitol Hill as public impeachment hearings begin. The first two witnesses facing off Republican lawmakers. The GOP claiming their testimony relies on hearsay evidence. And President Trump reacting just a short time just after their hearing. Watch.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Are you talking about the witch hunt, is that what you mean? Is that what you're talking about? I hear it's a joke. I haven't watched, I haven't watched for one minute because I've been with the president, which is much more important as far as I'm concerned.

This is a sham. It shouldn't be allowed. I want to find out who is the whistleblower and because the whistleblower gave a lot of very incorrect information including my call with the president of Ukraine which was a perfect call.


PERINO: Aside from that, there was also a back-and-forth about Hunter Biden today and whether there were concerns about his possible conflict of interest. Watch this.


GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS: I raise my concern that Hunter Biden status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest.

Let me be clear, however, I did not witness any effort by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ambassador Taylor, do you know whether Hunter Biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad is a former vice president?

TAYLOR: I don't.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or at the time was the vice president?

TAYLOR: I have no knowledge of Hunter Biden.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you would agree it raises questions, right? He was getting paid I think $50,000 a month to sit on the board?


PERINO: That exchange, Jesse, gets to this question of the Republicans asking for Hunter Biden to be one of the witnesses that is called, they don't know if it will get granted but they keep banging that drum.

WATTERS: Yes, that's never going to happen. But I do want to zero in on Kent, our bow tie friend. I thought it was a risk with the bow tie.

GUTFELD: Here we go.

WATTERS: But I think in the end, it worked for him. He said some great things --


GUTFELD: Breaking news.

WATTERS: -- that can help with the Republican point of view here. He testified under oath, Juan, that Burisma was corrupt to the core and he wanted it investigated. He said the owner of Burisma stole billions of dollars from Ukraine. All of their energy licenses paid off for prosecutor and then fled the country.

He said that he raised concerns to the Biden team about Hunter joining Burisma and got nothing from that. And then he said, Kent, the Democrats' star witness, said that there was nothing wrong with President Trump bringing up Burisma in the phone call with the Ukrainian president. That was totally normal.

And then he mentioned the treaty that I mention all the time on this show, that he had total legal authority to mention that.

PAVLICH: My gosh.

WATTERS: And at the end, he said that when asked about Joe Biden, do you think Joe Biden since he's running for president, should not be investigated. He said no one is above the law. And I think those are all great points for the Republicans.

WILLIAMS: Let me help you.

WATTERS: Yes. I don't need help, but go ahead.

WILLIAMS: I'm glad to help you. Because it's so important that everyone understand there's nothing wrong with the president if he is representing the United States saying it's in the national security interest of this country to go after corruption in the Ukraine.

But instead, what did the president say? Joe Biden, Burisma, not because he is interested in corruption, he's interested in Joe Biden.

GUTFELD: He could be the next president.

WILLIAMS: So, you can't use the leverage of U.S. national security -- it's not Trump's money.



WILLIAMS: This is not a business deal. This is the president representing us and saying I'm going to use American dollars to get dirt on my political opponents.

GUTFELD: He didn't say that.


GUTFELD: He didn't say he was getting dirt.

WATTERS: Katie, you want to take this one?

PAVLICH: Yes. OK. So, the reason why the corruption element is relevant here with Burisma is because Burisma is a corrupt company.


PAVLICH: And Hunter Biden was being paid by the company and then lobbyists surrounding the company and other companies in Ukraine were then going to the State Department and trying to leverage Hunter Biden's last name to get special favors. So that is why there's a corruption element when it comes to the president mentioning Burisma and having questions about what the roles were of everybody involved.

WILLIAMS: Katie, can you cite me one case, once case where the president, our president, has gone after corruption --


WILLIAMS: -- where it didn't involve getting dirt on a political opponent?

PAVLICH: Yes. He's gone after corruption in Central America.

WATTERS: Yes. In Mexico.


PAVLICH: In Mexico, he's gone after corruption in a number of cases.

WILLIAMS: Yes, right. Yes, yes. For the wall.

WATTERS: In Mexico, in China.

WILLIAMS: It's always for --


WATTERS: In China, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Yes, for his political purpose.

WATTERS: You wanted a country; I gave you two.

PAVLICH: Just one more note on that. You know, Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, was elected to try and combat this corruption. He's a new generation. And after the hearing, I thought what Adam Schiff said about him was very interesting.

So now they are going after the character and the credibility of the Ukrainian president because he keeps saying --


PERINO: I feel better, yes.

PAVLLICH: -- and the witnesses said today, that he's not lying when he says he wasn't pressured by the president. Now Adam Schiff is going out in front of the cameras and saying well, he is new, he doesn't know -- necessarily know what he's doing, the people have so much faith in him that he can do this, but maybe he was pressured by the president and couldn't push back.


PERINO: Well, the other -- the other thing that Bill Taylor said about Zelensky was that he was new and that he was really excited about him because he was actually going to start doing some of the things that the United States had been asking for on corruption.

GUTFELD: Yes, he didn't seem like somebody who was being, you know, extorted or he had no problems with what was going on. The fact is you can't turn off leverage when you are a boss. It's implied whether you say it or not.

Dana, when you ask your assistant for a sandwich, you don't say, can I have a sandwich or else? The or else is implied. Because you are a monster. You're a monster and if he gives you a sandwich, it's over.

WATTERS: She'll stop paying you.

GUTFELD: She'll stop --

PERINO: If you give me that dirt on Greg Gutfeld.

GUTFELD: Yes. But, no, the fact is, it's money. Like every leverage is there whether you like it or not. The thing about -- the one thing I like about this element of the impeachment process, this inquiry, the media is always trying to place it into two prisms. You know, either you've got to be for or against.

But the Biden thing destroys the whole thing because they didn't see that coming. Now you've got to be for the inquiry even if it destroys Biden. No more prism into ideas.

WILLIAMS: Greg, I didn't know you could make a story about this.


GUTFELD: Yes, maybe. Now you like that story.

WILLIAMS: Wait a minute, you just said the media. I don't get it. I give up.

PERINO: All right. All right.

WILLIAMS: Because the media has been doing it.

PERINO: And we're going to go to break. Stay with The Give. More impeachment hearing coverage is coming right up.


WILLIAMS: Welcome back. The first impeachment hearing kicking off today on Capitol Hill. Check out this exchange about President Trump possibly testifying.


JORDAN: Now there is one witness, one witness that they won't bring in front of us, they won't bring him in front of the American people. That's the guy who started it all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I say to my colleague, I'd be glad to have the person who has started it all to come in and testify. President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.


WILLIAMS: So, Greg, that was one moment of laughing. We don't have too many of those.

GUTFELD: We need more moments of levity in the world of politics. Unfortunately, the Democrats are trying to destroy the country. Creating a process out of nothing in order to cleave a nation so they don't have to run against Trump.

The fact is, I'm already over this story. There was nothing of interest to me today. I would like to take a bye for the rest of the show. Think about what I'm going to eat for dinner. Pork --

PAVLICH: We need levity, Greg.

WILLIAMS: Yes, I like levity. I like it. But Greg wants to tell everyone don't watch it, it's boring.

GUTFELD: It is. Everybody knows it.

WILLIAMS: But, Katie, so the president has been stopping people from testifying, withholding documents, is that, is that fair for the Democrats to bring that up?


PAVLICH: Well, do you know who else stop people from testifying?


PAVLICH: Adam Schiff. And if you want --


WILLIAMS: Who's that?

PAVLICH: The chairman of the intelligence committee.

WILLIAMS: You mean -- you mean Biden?

WATTERS: The whistleblower.

WILLIAMS: You mean the whistleblower?


WILLIAMS: And that's what -- yes.

PAVLICH: And others as well.


PAVLICH: So, you can't really complain about the White House not participating in this, if he's not going to allow Republicans to do the same on the other side of the aisle.

But I think if you want the president to testify, he already has. He released the phone call transcript. He's been willing to talk about it openly. He's talked about it multiple times. I'm sure --


WATTERS: He tweets about it every day.

PAVLICH: Yes, I'm sure they have more questions, but the transcript is out there, he keeps saying we read it, and I think that the American people can do just that.

WILLIAMS: All right. So, Jesse, I've got a bite for you. Here is Bill Taylor testifying about withholding national security aid.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interest of the President of the United States?

TAYLOR: No, Mr. Goldman, I have not.


WILLIAMS: So, Jesse, in this situation where you might say, well, yes, it's always the case that the president is trying to get something in exchange for foreign aid, but this is about his personal desire for political dirt. What do you think of that tone?

WATTERS: I think that is leaving out a big part of that, Juan.


WATTERS: Which is, he doesn't trust Ukraine because they colluded with the Democrats against him in 2016 and it's a country rife with corruption. And if you're not even going to go after the biggest energy company in the country tied to your political opponent's son for corruption after these investigations were spiked and you are supposed to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money just like that blindly without kicking the tires?

This is a new president, remember. He just got in. And Trump is just saying, hey, listen can we trust this guy? Who am I dealing with? He's asking some legit questions, and the aid got out under the deadline.

Now very important, the Democrats have lost the messaging more so they are trying to change the message. It's no longer quid pro quo. It's not about bribery.

Now if the Ukrainian president was bribed by President Trump, he didn't know he was being bribed.


WATTERS: He didn't say he was bribed, he actually said he wasn't bribed, and he didn't do the very thing that he was allegedly being bribed for, which is to start an investigation. So, again, this is just like Russia. This is a crime -- this is a process without a crime.

WILLIAMS: All right. So, Dana, I'm going to play another bite for you. This is Ambassador Taylor speaking on the impact of holding up assistance because the Democrats today try to make the case, this really mattered in terms of people losing lives, that Ukrainians were dying.


TAYLOR: Our holding up of security systems that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from Russia for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no good national security reason, is wrong.



PERINO: Well, I'm not -- I don't know exactly the question, because it seems similar to the one that you had just asked Jesse. So, if there were - - if there was evidence, right if there was video that there were Ukrainians who were under the -- under fire by Russians and they were not able to respond and protect themselves because America withheld aid and there was no explanation for withholding the aid, that might be different. I know his point and I do admire the fact that he said that he felt for them, that he believed in their desire to be independent that they are a nation that's brimming with hope. They are excited about their future. They want to be more aligned with the West. They like the idea of the economic opportunities that could come from that.

But I don't think that there is any of this evidence that they were not able to defend themselves. Now, they might have felt like they were under pressure, they might have been running out of stuff, whatever. But there is actually nothing that they've shown--

GUTFELD: And they've got better stuff. They've got way better stuff. This is what's amazing. I mean I think Taylor might have been mad that he doesn't like his boss interfering with what he's doing. But foreign relations were not compromised, they got better anti-tank missiles, the javelins, they did way better stuff that Obama was giving them, he was giving them as Nunes says, blankets compared to this.

PERINO: The aid did get out, but remember I do think it is important and it's - not important, I don't care. Maybe nobody cares. But the fact that the aid got out after the political article ran that everybody was like OK, now we better do this and get it done. That way I think that they were thinking OK, we'll do this, get the aid out, fine and we'll move on from this. And they didn't think it would be a PR problem. And now we actually have the third impeachment in the history of the United States. None of it was necessary.

WILLIAMS: Well, but he did move it to a classified server, somebody knew this.

GUTFELD: That's normal. That's absolutely normal.

WILLIAMS: No, what?

WATTERS: Because people leak.

WILLIAMS: No. I think they moved it there, because they knew this was explosive.

WATTERS: No. They started moving these out the leaks out.


PAVLICH: Lot of the calls.

WILLIAMS: I don't think so. But anyway, we have a disagreement on THE FIVE. Can you believe it? We've got more insight into the impeachment hearing. It's the news of the day. And we've got more for you.

GUTFELD: Make it stop.



WATTERS: Welcome back. The Democrats launching public hearings in their impeachment spectacle. Here's Congressman Jim Jordan slamming their star witness.


REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: Let me read it one more time. Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yarmouk on September 1st, 20 19 and connects with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.

We've got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding and you're their star witness. You're their first witness. You're the guy based on this. Based on, I mean I've seen church prayer change that are easier to understand than this.


WATTERS: All right, Juan, I think a lot of the frustration with some of the Republicans is that you know if you're going to have a legitimate impeachment inquiry, we know it's not the court of law, but it all seems to be secondhand to hearsay one guy even overheard a phone call that the President was having. You're going to impeach someone on that?

WILLIAMS: Well, as Dana pointed out, we got more witnesses to come and, in some ways,, you know the first hour today when you saw Bill Taylor up there in West Point and all the experience he's had. I just think if you are watched for an hour of this morning, if you walked by, you said, that's pretty impressive.

I will say this for Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan was put on the committee specifically for this purpose. And I think he did a good job, because I really couldn't understand this guy, Steve Castor who was the counsel for the Republicans. He looked like he was heading down rabbit's hole. Talk about boring. What is this guy doing?

When Jim Jordan got in there, he made the point that you just elucidated, which is well you guys you know exactly why do you think that this is evidence that deserves to be impeached. The problem of course is the President said it was a perfect call, if you could say well, yes, OK, so he made some small mistakes, but President said this is a perfect call. He sees nothing wrong and he'll do it again.

GUTFELD: But you know the thing, it's getting to a point now where it's a little irritating. I get it. The great resume, the experience is impressive. But don't you think that was the point to begin with because the experience, they really played that hard to be impressive because the testimony wasn't. And that leads me to ask why did they lead with your weak testimony, so you can say, there's going to be good stuff next week when people are really going to pay attention.

No, you lead with your best punch. They - that was their week. You start weak and you are going to have a strong finish. No one does that.

WATTERS: What do you think--

PERINO: I don't think that's - I don't know. I'm not advising the Democrats, but I think that often in courts of law there's not a court of law.

WATTERS: You build it.

PERINO: You build it up and you call that witness at the end. So, who is the person? I don't think that these are the star witnesses.


PERINO: I think they're the first witnesses, they're laying the groundwork. And then you bring in Ambassador Sondland, who already changed his testimony.


PERINO: That is your star witness.

WATTERS: Perhaps he would do that in a criminal trial where you're trying to establish evidence and kind of build a case. But in - I guess a TV trial about impeachment when it's all about political opinions, do you think they're saving better witnesses, or do you think they should lead with the most powerful punch.

PAVLICH: I think that if Adam Schiff wants people to pay attention to something like aid to Ukraine, he should have better witnesses and better testimony. At the beginning with the opening statements, they were very long and academic. And even if you agree with our policy in Ukraine, which is to give them arms and military assistance, if you're looking at that watching it as an American, it's like OK, and why am I supposed to be involved in all of this stuff going on.

Just one more thing though, when you look at the phone calls that are going on, it just reinforces this idea from the President that these people who work in the bureaucracy don't want to take the orders from their commander- in-chief and they want to all have opinions about what I am doing. And they want to discuss it. That's what we saw on display today rather than just doing the job that they are told to do because they work for the President. They all want to have an opinion.

PERINO: I can't remember what I was going to say, you said something about those witnesses. They weren't there to be the stars. Again, like they didn't raise their hand and volunteer to come and testify. They didn't raise it. They didn't call - they didn't blow any whistles. They're there because they were subpoenaed.

GUTFELD: Maybe they should have the whistleblower.

WATTERS: He can subpoena whoever he wants.


WATTERS: So, Adam Schiff is running the show and he produced this first day of impeachment. And the question is whether that knocked everyone's hair back and said, wow, we have a real high crime and misdemeanor. We have to tune in on Friday to hear more facts. But all we heard was opinions by career civil servants about a difference of opinion, about the policy process.

PAVLICH: I just want to bolster Dana's point though about these people who were, are working in government and they have to pay for attorneys. Adam Schiff puts these people's lives in a very difficult position in order to comply with the show that he is running. So that's something people--

PERINO: Also having to run your stuff through Giuliani was like a red flag. So like if you are the ambassador - you're not an ambassador - if you're Bill Taylor and you're like, OK, you've got to run this through Giuliani, like wait, what and you know that he's connected to the other two that they've got the problems with the other energy contracts. Like I would - if I were a career civil servant and I might be reluctant as well.


WILLIAMS: I just want to say--

GUTFELD: Trump doesn't like career civil servants. Haven't we established that?

WILLIAMS: So, you guys are going - you go after Democrat, you don't like Democrats, so why are they bringing the case. You don't like shifty Schiff, why is he up there? We don't like the - we don't like people in the State Department, the FBI--

GUTFELD: Now you're figuring it out, Juan.


GUTFELD: The whole point of the election, Juan was draining the swamp. We talked about this for three years.

WILLIAMS: In other words--

GUTFELD: We saw this coming.

WILLIAMS: People like Bill Taylor on all his credentials there to be ignored. And if--

GUTFELD: No, you're using his credentials because his testimony is weak.

WILLIAMS: No, it wasn't weak.

GUTFELD: Yes, it is.

WILLIAMS: I thought he was very honest. He didn't over stand.

GUTFELD: And it was weak.

WILLIAMS: No. Here it is.

WATTERS: All right. More of this impeachment stuff, when we return.


PAVLICH: Welcome back. We have more reaction and highlights from today's impeachment hearings. Check out this claim from one Democrat about evidence.


REP. MICHAEL QUIGLEY, D-ILL: So, it's interesting and curious that we're talking about hearsay evidence. I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay, hearsay can be much better evidence than direct.


PAVLICH: Jesse, your response to a lack of real evidence.

WATTERS: I mean it's just turning everything upside down to make a political point. But you know Quigley does what he does. That's his job up there to throw smoke. I want to go back to what we're just talking about this outside channel that everybody was complaining about. I mean part of the outside channel, you have Volker and Sondland, and Secretary Perry, three Senate approved people, highly respected people. The President doesn't trust the bureaucracy.

They've tried to undermine him. They did it before he was elected and after he was elected. So, he's just trying to create a different channel for diplomacy, it's his - commander-in-chief, he does what he wants, how he wants it to be upset with another channel of diplomacy and having that be a high crime just seems suspicious.

Also just looking at it from the average American's perspective. You know you're talking about sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Ukraine, a country that's not really on the minds of most Americans. You know a lot of people say we could use that money here. In America. And one of the things people dislike about spending is this foreign aid that we just throw out there.

Now, listen, I understand it's in America's national security to fight the Russians off in eastern Ukraine. I get that but to defend the border of Ukraine more ferociously than we defend our own border with Mexico is insanity for most Americans.

PAVLICH: I want to focus on the due process issue here though Juan, because Democrats have been accused of not having the same process rights for the President as previous presidents who have gone through an impeachment process have had. So, it is quite revealing when a Democrat says, well, hearsay should be fine to convict somebody. It's actually--

WILLIAMS: No. Well, I mean I think the argument against Quigley, Katie would be to say this is not a court of law. Courts of Law at times will allow hearsay and that's why he was making that point. The other point was made by Castro. Congressman Joaquin Castro who said, you know you might not have killed a person, but it was attempted murder. Guess what. That's a crime. You might not have robbed the house, but guess what, while you were breaking and trying to do it, that's a crime. I think that speaks to this point.


GUTFELD: I heard from a guy who heard from a guy that Quigley strangled a cat in the park last night. Yes. I didn't hear it myself, but I heard it from somebody else. To your point about like it is typical for a boss to assign a job to somebody else and especially when you don't trust the people around you, because they're openly talking about insurrections and coups on Twitter, even Taylor I think said it was pretty - it's pretty typical to have somebody help you out. So, I just think that's outsourcing thing you were talking about. It's not bad. It's a good thing.

PAVLICH: Dana, what about that outside what people are calling shadow diplomacy outside of the normal channels.

PERINO: Well, I think - I don't think that it matters as long as there's something - the Democrats are alleging that there was a crime that there was bribery that basically it's like if I call and leave you a voicemail that says, I want you to do this for me. And if you do it, I will give you some money, but you never hear the voicemail. You're never going to be in trouble. But I could still be in trouble because I left you the voicemail. That's what the Democrats are trying to allege.

I just don't - I don't think that the Democrats were able to sustain this over several days. But they're going to try. But public opinion is already completely baked in.


PERINO: If you actually look at the polls for the President, he's got the same approval rating now that he had in November of 2016. It's not improved. It's not decreased. It's just what it is. And on the - if you look at like how many people think he should be impeached or impeached and removed, it almost tracks exactly the popular vote.

So, I just don't know how much this is going to make a difference on anything. It's an interesting exercise to go through. I know that it's historic, but there are very few independents to sway.


WATTERS: Here's also where I think the argument is weak historically for Democrats is, Democrats delayed military aid to Ukraine for eight years. Democrats voted against giving military aid to Ukraine.

So, Trump delays military aid to Ukraine for five weeks after they delayed it for eight years and they want to impeach him for that. How insane is that. And that's when you realize how partisan it is like the Democrats care so much about the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Why do you give them blankets instead of lethal aid then?

WILLIAMS: But Jesse, based on his personal interest, not our national--

GUTFELD: They align with professional job.

WATTERS: You care so much about national security. Your party did nothing to lift a finger to help Ukraine to fight off the Russians. That's true. You gave him MREs and blankets, Trump came in and gave him hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons and now they've actually tried to fight these guys off.

PERINO: Can I mention one thing about hearsay. OK. If you just go back trip down memory lane to how the whole Benghazi thing started. The hearsay that the Obama administration used to go and arrest a guy for being a video maker because they heard that he made a video and that might have incited some violence and then basically they based an entire defense of the Obama administration off of hearsay.

PAVLICH: Yes, and then they made--

PERINO: That crumbled.

PAVLICH: And then they made a video with taxpayer money to send to the Islamic world to apologize. So, there you go. One More Thing is up next.


GUTFELD: Time now for One More Thing. I'm going to go first. All right, you've got to check out my latest podcast. It's the interview with Dennis Prager. We talk about his new movie No Safe Spaces that he did with Adam Carolla. Check it out. I just tweeted it, so you can find it. Now it's time for this. Greg's choose my style. The results.

So, as you know I put out a bunch of styles of how I dress because I don't like how I look. So, we had number one, number two, number three, number four which I hate number four, number five is my personal favorite. The overall winner was outfit four at 46 percent.

PAVLICH: Wow. Trump's approval rate.

GUTFELD: I don't like that. That's what I don't want to dress anymore. I'm not listening to you. I reject these results.

WILLIAMS: Are we going with the unicorn?

GUTFELD: Yes, unicorn.

WILLIAMS: We agree.

GUTFELD: I need it back, Juan.

WILLIAMS: OK. All right. Now, you're never getting it back, never. All right. So, Homer Simpson and I have something in common. We love donuts. Yes. And so, does Jason Gonzalez, the college student in Minnesota. He not only loves donuts; he's been reselling Krispy Kreme doughnuts. He drives 540 miles roundtrip from Minneapolis St. Paul to a Krispy Kreme store in Clive, Iowa. Once there he buys 100 boxes, then goes back to Minnesota and sells them because there are no Krispy Kreme stores in Minnesota.

So, when Krispy Kreme heard about this, they told him stop. Shut it down. We want to protect our product's quality. But now they've had a change of heart. They've called him an independent contractor. And here's the good news folks. Freight waves working with Daimler Chrysler is so taken by Gonzalez's entrepreneurial spirit that they've given them a brand-new delivery man yesterday at a press conference in Chicago. So, every sweet tooth in Minnesota, you can have a celebration with Krispy Kreme's tonight.

GUTFELD: Seems holier than thou. He should be arrested for what he's doing. Jesse.

WATTERS: All right. Some pigs like to sniff out truffles. Others, cocaine. Some Italian boars just wandering throughout the Tuscan countryside trampled over $20,000 of gear.

GUTFELD: Is that what they call gear.

WATTERS: And jackpot, yes, they'd like stuffed it away in waterproof jars and Italian police are just thanking these wild pigs for just doing their job for them.

PAVLICH: Boars on cocaine.

GUTFELD: A happy ending.

WATTERS: That's right. Also, Martha MacCallum, 7 PM with Walters.

GUTFELD: Awesome.

PERINO: All right. So, there was an Aeroflot passenger a reportedly had lost nearly 400,000 airline miles after playing a game of cat and mouse with the carrier. Here's what happened. Mikhail Galin got caught sneaking his fat cat onto a recent flight by duping officials with a thinner copycat body double. Mikhail's 22-pound cat Viktor was five pounds over the airline's limit and would have to travel in the luggage if Mikhail hadn't found a thinner cat to take his place during the weigh in.

However, after finishing the flight and snapping some celebrity pictures, Mikhail and Viktor got busted by Aeroflot after the airline reviewed security footage. As a result, the Russian airline terminated Mikhail's frequent flyer program and annulled his 400,000 miles.

GUTFELD: Wow. That's like when you give other people's urine to your parole officer.

WILLIAMS: But how do you find a cat at the airport?

WATTERS: Quigley knows.

GUTFELD: In a park. All right. Katie.

PAVLICH: All right, speaking of cats. This is a good reason why you shouldn't leave food in your car. Take a look at these cats crawling through the window of this car, having a party, crawling all over with their paws and leather seats. They have very sharp nails and Tasha Rice (ph) is visiting her parents in the countryside of South Carolina when she saw all these cats getting in the car running around, jumping off the console, having an insane time.

She says that the cats were probably attracted by the popcorn, chips, ranch and the ranch--

GUTFELD: I recognize one of those cats from the baseball game. Wasn't that one of the cats.

PERINO: Call Quigley.

WATTERS: No, that was a football game, Greg.

GUTFELD: Is that a football game? It's hard to tell.

WILLIAMS: With the black cat.

WATTERS: Different sport.

GUTFELD: Black cat, yes. Always about race, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Yes, well I think the Giants thought it was a bad kitten. What did Stevie Wonder say, superstitions?

PAVLICH: There is 8 million views of that video on TikTok.

WILLIAMS: The cats didn't damage the car.


PAVLICH: I don't think so.

PERINO: I would imagine.

GUTFELD: They're in there with their hair. That smell.


WATTERS: They didn't find any cocaine though.


GUTFELD: All right. Set your DVRs. Never miss an episode of “The Five.” "Special "Report" is up next with Bret Baier.

Hello, Bret.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.