Yes, i believe so. Okay. And this is just investigation, generally making a public to of openness generally. Right . I think by august 11th, mr. Castor, i think we were talking about 2016 and burisma. The investigation generally was really early in the but do we know that Secretary Pompeo knows that . I think so. Why . Only because i think councilor breakable was briefed on all of these things. By who, by you . I think ambassador volker, by myself. Does not he testified to. I didnt know he testified. Ambassador volker. Oh, okay. He didnt testified that he briefed mr. Brechbuhl. This email to the secretary, he is talking about the statement
which by the way, you said that the statement didnt go anywhere. Ambassador volker said it wasnt a good idea. Mr. Yermak said it wasnt a good idea. The secretary, it relates to a generic openness subject. Right . Yeah, i think the secretary that was on the july 25th call. Which obviously i was not on and i didnt know about. But you use this email to suggest that everyone was in the loop. Security sector assistance was tied to some sort of act by The Ukrainians. No, i dont think i said that he assistance was involved here. I think what was everyone in the loop about, then . The secretary was in the loop that we had negotiated a statement. I am fairly comfortable that the secretary knows where the statement was at that point. In other words, the 2016 and
burisma. We saw a pass that along to him and kept him informed. So we can agree that at this point in time the secretary wasnt in the loop. That there was a conditionality on the sector Security Assistance. All on a second are you asking about july 19th, exhibit four . I was asking about your email to the secretary on august 11th. Oh, okay. Well, on july 19th, which the secretary was on, i talked about fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone, and the secretary was on that. Okay. He testified at your deposition that on july 19th, in this continuum we talked about, at that point in the continuum it was just a generic investigation. It wasnt anything involving again, im not trying to put words in any one i think it went from the original generic, from may 23rd when we left the oval office, we are talking about corruption and oligarchs. Until mr. Giuliani started to become involved. And then it transitioned into burisma you hadnt even talked to giuliani by that time. This is july 19th. With all due respect, allow them to finish sorry, use the mic . Allow them to finish the answer. Of course, i apologize. We were communicating with mr. Giuliani through Secretary Perry and ambassador volker. I Wasnt Talking to mr. Giuliani directly until after august first. As of july 19th, werent we still on the generic part . I dont know. I believe by then we were talking about burisma and 2016. To be candid. But not biden . Not biden, no. Turning to your email of august 11th . Yeah, got it. Im sorry, we just do without. August the 22nd. The 22nd . Yeah, thats page 23 of your opener. Yeah, i got it. This is where you are requesting a poll life aside for the president. This is when the president was going to go. Before the hurricane. Bump set off the schedule. I would ask zelensky to look him in the eye and tell them that once the new justice folks are in place, zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president in the United States. Hopefully that will break the logjam. At this point in time, the
issues of importance to the president of the United States were what . The two investigations. Okay. But nothing to do with Vice President biden, right . Again, i didnt make the connection there. I want to disprove it briefly to the president s concerns about foreign assistance. Undersecretary hale, who will be with us later today, testified that during this relevant time frame there was a real focus to reexamine all federalaid programs. Are you aware of that interest of the president . I am generally aware of the president s skepticism toward foreign aid, and conditioning foreign aid on certain things. I am generally aware of that, yes. And ambassador hale testified in his testimony in public almost 80based concept that each Assistance Program in each country that receives the assistance be evaluated. The program ensures that we avoid nationbuilding and dont provide assistance to countries who are lost to us in terms of policy, whether its because of corruption or another reason. Is that something you were aware about the time . Generally, yes. And youre certainly where the president was concerned about the european allies . The contributions to the region . Exactly why i was involved. Okay. As we get down to
September 11th, right before you are advocating that the pause be lifted, correct . I personally dont think the positive ever been put in place. As we get down to septembe September 11th and you are talking with Senator Johnson and so forth, you dont know with certainty that the genuine reason the president was implementing the pause wasnt because of his concerns about the allies or his concerns about foreign assistance generally, or that he wasnt just trying to hold the aid as long as he could to see what he could what type of information he could get about those two subjects. Fair enough. Okay. I am really trying to finish up before so i can yield some time back. Do you have Anything Else . I have nothing else. Thank you, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Lets take a 30minute recess to allow Ambassador Sondland to get a bite to eat. Id think the members of the committee would like to get a bite to eat. Well resume with the member rounds of questioning a 5 minutes. If we could allow the witnesses to have the opportunity to leave the room first . Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Sondland had intended to fly back to brussels to resume his duties at the end of the day. It would be a great convenience to us if we could have a shorter break now and resume with the members questions and try to wrap up in time that he might be able to make his flight. I appreciate that, counsel. We all have a busy schedule these days. The member around in question should take slightly less than two hours. I think you should be good, depending on the time of your flight. We will endeavor to make the break as short as possible. If you would like to excuse yourself from the room before the rest of the crowd. Bret ambassador Gordon Sondland, his testimony up on capitol hill as chairman adam schiffs is there in the break. I am bret baier in washington, watching this testimony continue. As expected, the g. O. P. Questioning this very line about Ambassador Sondland, where he said President Trump never told him directly that he conditioned the foreign aid to ukraine on the burisma and 2016 elections. Numerous times hammering back on that very line. At times, the g. O. P. Counsel, steve castor, questioning Gordon Sondlands memory. Saying he has no records, no notes, no recollection, calling that a trifecta of unreliability. But the ambassador saying one of the reasons he doesnt is because the State Department and the white house is not giving them access to all of his notes and call records. This all centers around President Trump, what he did or didnt say to his aides and advisors. While this was happening, President Trump, on his way to austin, texas, for a visit to apple out there, stopped by reporters with what he doesnt usually have a written note pad on comments about this very thing. On the south lawn of the white house, lets listen in. President trump im going to go very quickly, just a quick comment on what is going on in terms of testimony with Ambassador Sondland. I just noticed one thing, and i
would say that means its all over. What do you want from ukraine . He asks me. Screaming. What do you want from ukraine . I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories. This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me. It just happened. I turned off the television. What do you want from ukraine . I keep hearing all these different ideas. What do you want, what do you want . It was a very short and abrupt conversation that he had with me. They said, he is not in a good mood. Im always in a good mood, i dont know what that is. He just said, no hes talking about my response. So hes going, what do you want, what do you want . I hear all these theories, what do you want . And now, heres my response that he just gave. Ready . You have the cameras rolling . I want nothing. Thats what i want from ukraine. Thats what i said. I want nothing. I said it twice. So he goes he asked me the question, what do you want . I keep hearing all these things, what do you want . He finally gets me. I dont know him very well, i have not spoken to him much. This is not a man i know well. Seems like a nice guy, though. But i dont know him well. He was with other candidates. He actually supported other candidates, not me. Came in late. But heres my response. If you werent fake news, he would cover it properly. I say to the ambassador in response, i want nothing, i want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell zelensky, president zelensky, to do the right thing. So heres my answer. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell zelensky to do the right thing. Then he says, this is the final word from the president of the United States. I want nothing. Thank you, folks, have a good time. Bret President Trump not taking any questions there, saying he wants nothing from ukraine. Have a Cast Of Thousands here covering all of this. Bill hemmer, sandra smith, martha maccallum, Chris Wallace, ken starr, john roberts, juan williams, Andy Mccarthy, and dana perino. Bill, your thoughts . Bret, think of that. I go back to when Daniel Goldman said the following. You knew there was no meeting at the white house unless zelensky announced investigations into the bidens . And the answer was, i know that now. 60 minutes prior to that, steve castor, attorney for the republicans, saying, any preconditions mentioned by the president cannot no. What do you want from ukraine . I dont want anything, i wanted to do the right thing. Referring to zelensky. During that testimony, bret, there was the comment he offered about expresident pens when he went to poland on the 1st of september. I want to bring this to your attention now. The Vice President s office put out a statement in real time during this hearing. I will share part of that with you. Fullscreen number 9a, put on screen here in a moment. Three different sentences. The Vice President never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the bidens, burisma, or the conditions and release of Financial Aid to ukraine based on potential investigations. Ambassador Gordon Sondland was never alone with Vice President pence on the September 1st Trip to poland. This alleged discussion regarded dominic recalled by sondland never happen. Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President pence never raised hunter biden, former Vice President joe biden, crowd strike, burisma, or investigations in any conversation with ukrainians or
president zelensky before, during, or after the September 1st meeting in poland. Just let that soak in, as i bring ken starr in for some analysis. Sarah, you said prior to the hearing beginning yet again you described this as one of those bombshell days. You said adam schiff believes bribery has been committed, and then you asked the question, the only question remaining is whether or not the Impeachment Vote will be bipartisan. How do you draw that conclusion today, can Dominic Ken This is based on what we heard this morning. The Opening Statement was incredibly powerful. However, now we see the other side, and one of the most effective things today, i believe, was the president just quoting what he did. That finally came out. Namely, i dont want anything, just tell president zelensky to do the right thing. That is the one on one with
Ambassador Sondland himself. We learned today that he chose not to put that in his Opening Statement. I thought mr. Castor really pressed him on that. Well, why not . Why wouldnt you put that conversation into your Opening Statement . So i think there has been, shall i say, some questions raised about why the ambassador would not have been more complete and his Opening Statement. Obviously the Opening Statement wasnt very long, very detailed. Why didnt include that . Everything i think we now have been reminded of is the communication that the president had with Senator Johnson of wisconsin. Senator johnson was apparently satisfied that and this is late august that there was no conditionality. Finally, i think the morning was
helped tremendously by what devin nunes did, which was to say, lets take a step back and lets look at the context. Ukraine, specifically, all the times in which the ukrainian officials, during the 2016 president ial campaign, assailed the knife and candidate trump. That tells you something about the ukraine. The prior regime. And the disapprobation that that wouldnt naturally cause the president. Also, we were reminded of the context that the president was not only concerned about foreign aid and the use of Taxpayer Dollars and so forth, but also about this failure, the profound failure, as he saw it, of the European Countries to come alongside and do their fair share. The familiar refrain. All of that came out, which i think was extremely helpful in
ameliorating the effect of Ambassador Sondlands now very surprisingly incomplete Opening Statement. The issue to me is i do hope this will come out during the individual questioning dash why did you leave out of the Opening Statement, because we were all screaming with the open statements, we are getting 323 pages, why did you leave out the most salient president ial comment to you directly . And he had no good answer. It would have taken an hour and a half . No, it wouldnt. That would have taken about three sentences. Why do you believe that was the case . I have wanted to come out. I am stunned that that comment would not have come out in the Opening Statement. Why . Are you trying to be fair . Are you trying to be complete . If so, there is no excuse, as i
see it, for this ambassador, appointed by this president , to leave out something it is such a material omission, as we would say at the sec, that there can be liability for total incomplete statement. To be honest, it is a shocking omission. He was a question from castor. Were you aware the president was concerned about a giveaway . He said, i am aware, especially with European Countries. I will bring Andy Mccarthy in on this. July 25th, when the president was talking with zelensky, andy, he said we spent a lot of effort and a lot of time, much more than European Countries. Germany does almost nothing, all they do is talk. Its something you should really ask them about. Given Gordon Sondlands position there, as an investor to the european union, he would think it would be foremost on his mind. Now, to Andy Mccarthy. Legally, how do you see the last three hours play out . Well, to respond to canons point , what i expect the democrats would say is that the omission was made because the conversation is not actually very helpful to the president. What i think they will say about that is that when he said no quid pro quo, i just want him to do the right thing, and then sondland went on to say, the president said there is no quid pro quo, but if you dont do what you want we are at a stalemate, highlighting that would give the democrats the opportunity again and again and again to marshal all the evidence that, while the president said no quid pro quo, there was very powerful reason to believe that there was a quid pro quo. And perhaps sondland didnt think that would be particularly helpful. I imagine that may have been if you thought about it at all, what is the strategic approach o
it was. I think this would develop today, even though it is not all that apparent yet, that there is a flaw in adam schiffs theory of this idea that if you can make out an offense under the federal Bribery Statute two, as opposed to what the framers had in mind when they put bribery in the constitution, you have an impeachable offense. In the flaw is that what came out today is that there is bribery, and then theres bribery. What sondland said was he knew that one of the official acts that was at stake, as of the president was holding back on were stalling on, was giving zelensky the visit to the white house. That when he says he knew about. The other one he said he had to deduce over time was whether the defense aid, the 400 million in
defense and that congress had authorized, whether that was going to be given to The Ukrainians were not if they didnt promise to have these investigations. Notice that for most of the Morning Schiff and the democrat council, goldman, are pushing very, very hard to show that the defense a. The reason i think they are doing that is they know as well as Everybody Knows that nobody is impeaching a president of the United States over denying a visit to the white house. Now, in point of fact, if you go by schiffs theory, denying the visit to the white house, the visit the white house, its an official act. According to schiffs theory, there would be enough to impeach the president because of the technical violation of the Bribery Statute. I think we all know a technical violation of the Bribery Statute is not going to do the trick. If hes wrong about that, that
is if making out a technical violation of the Bribery Statute is not enough to trigger impeachment, that begs the question what is enough . Ken starrs point is, how many republicans vote for democrats as of today can access what he was concluding. None of them vote with the democrats if im right, that what bribery means in the impeachment because it is a Power Purchasing the presidency so that the president conducts e United States in the interests of the foreign power instead of in the interest of the american people, which we dont have anything close to at this point. We will break to martha. Heard from the president of the president president , and in the middle of the all the skills or from his personal attorney cover to giuliani. We did. He was the focus of what we watch this morning in a big way. He treated a bit this morning, saying that he believed there was no quid pro quo. He also treated again, but he has since deleted that one. Which spoke out to the effect that volker had reached out to him, that he had only offered his opinion to these individuals, trying to soften his stance in terms of how forceful he was with these individuals. I also just think its important to include that the attorney Stephen Castro went on a lot of questioning that i thought was of interest. He said to Gordon Sondland, maybe mr. Giuliani acted irrespective of the president. And then he went on to say, he could have been acting on his own, he had Business Dealings of his own in the ukraine. I think watching the Republican Attorney put a little bit of distance, the possibility of distance, between the president and the actions of Rudy Giuliani, is something we have not seen presented as starkly as we just saw it in the
last half hour, sandra. Just wanted to make sure i got that in there, what he said exactly and that tweets since the original. During the july 24th conversation, the president agrees to meeting with zelensky without requiring an investigation, any discussion of military aid, where any condition whatsoever. Giuliani saying, this record shows definitively no quid pro quo, which is the same as no bribery. End of case. Capital letters. We want to get everybody in there. They are not coming back into the room just yet, but when we go Around The Horn there. Lets start with Chris Wallace in washington. If we have time, i want to play for our audience a very interesting well, it was a conversation the president had with zelensky in new york two months ago at the united natio United Nations. Why dont we go ahead and roll this out here . Because the way we see this now, the context just hang onto the final words. Both of these men are very well aware of the track record for
their corruption in ukraine. But it has not gone a lot of play. It was swallowed up, i think, by a lot of interviews that happen that week. Lot of speeches. The United Nations general assembly, here in new york, two months prior. Watch. Thank you very much. Its a great pleasure to me to be here. It is better to be on tv them by phone, i think. [laughter] mr. President , thank you very much. I know that youve never been in ukraine. Thats right. Your predecessor also how do you say it in english didnt find time. [laughter] can you give me word that you will come to our great country . Allow me to try. And i know a lot of people, i will say this, i know a lot of people from ukraine. Theyre great people. You invited me, but i think it im sorry, but i think you
forgot to tell me the date. [laughter] but i think i want to thank you especially, mr. President , to usa, to your government. Like i said, i know many people, many faces. We know each other. Thank you for your support. Especially now, when we have two really work in ukraine. With corruption. Two wars in ukraine, the first is corruption. That was after the mets there it was released on September 11th. The president not committing to any invitations. To Chris Wallace on where we are. Good afternoon. Well, i think ken starr and Andy Mccarthy are very good lawyers. Like any good lawyers, they can parse this, freeze this anyway they want. As a reporter, it seems to me we have to go to with the headline is today. The headline is that Gordon Sondland, one of the three amigos, perhaps the one who had the most direct contact with donald trump, says in his Opening Statement, was there a quid pro quo with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting . The answer is yes. He says President Trump wanted a Public Statement from president zelensky committing to investigations of burisma and the 2016 elections. We all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the white house meeting reflected President Trumps desires and requirements. So there seems to have been no doubt whatsoever among the people who were closest and i thought sondland made a very powerful argument that it wasnt
just the three amigos. It was Secretary Of State pompeo, it was Vice President pence. Of course, he denies that. Mick mulvaney, john bolton. That they were all on the same page and they all understood that the president wanted this announcement of these investigations before he was going to agree, at the very least, to a meeting. And then theres also the question of the military aid. He couldnt have been more clear about that. On the aide, he was very careful. As opposed to the white house meeting, he made it clear he thought that was the president s direct order. On the aid he said, that was my presumption, that was my assumption. That is what i believe. But he was specific and said the president never told him. Although he very much came to believe that and acted on it. But the president was also conditioning military aid to these investigations that were going to be announced. One other point that i have to say i find a little incredible, hard to believe, and that is the
statements weve gotten both from Gordon Sondland and from kurt volker yesterday. Two diplomats. And they both knew that the president and giuliani were demanding this investigation of burisma. That they Never Associated it with the bidens. If they didnt, they seem to have been the only people in the government who didnt. When you think about it, why would the president be asking for an investigation of one particular company . Of all the companies in ukraine . All you have to do first of all, Rudy Giuliani and other people who were on the Giuliani Team were going to a number of outlets and saying that burisma was the company and that it was a matter of corruption, that it was paying hunter biden. All you have to do is go to google and say burisma, and hunter biden would have shown up. The idea, we just thought he wanted to investigate this one particular company, but gee, we
never had any idea that any connection to joe biden. He prefaced that statement, too. He said, i was getting all sorts of mixed messages. He went straight to the source would call the president. Center, go ahead. I want to bring a dana perino. Juan williams also with us. Danna, Secretary Of State mike pompeo was mention of the top adam schiff. Said the knowledge of the scheme was far and wide and included, among others, Secretary Pompeo. The Secretary Of State was asked about this a short time ago. Ask if he should recuse himself. He said he had not seen or heard the testimony, but he said, im not going to recuse myself from this. I know precisely what american policy was with respect to ukraine. I was working on and im incredibly proud of what we have accomplished. So we have also seen response from Secretary Of State. Yes, hes in brussels, the press corps following him they are decided they would have to ask him about this. Its pretty interesting how the federal government im sorry, the Executive Branch, is trying to play this. Sondland says in the opening of his testimony, i have been blocked from being able to get to my notes. I cant talk to anybody there at the State Department. I cant even Access Materials that i would have that would help refresh my memory. Yous author of the hearing both republicans and democrats being very frustrated with the Gordon Sondland about his memory, that he didnt take notes and has not been a notetaker. He is back and forth on testimony. Thats not what you said two hours ago. That is memory just isnt there. With the Executive Branch has decided to do is pretty much install this investigation as much as possible. That means no paper, et cetera. However, they are responding in real time. You just heard it. The Vice President s office is responding immediately and saying, thats not true. The primitive energy sent out something saying its not true. That might be effective in the court of Public Opinion but it doesnt work necessarily in the hearing room. I do think the trump team will
continue to focus on the very important line from Gordon Sondland, which was that the president , trump said to him, i want nothing. The democrats are plowing old ground over and over again. I grew up on a ranch, and thats not good for the soil. Its not a good way to ensure that you are going to bear fruit later on. The democrats are focus on what is inferable, or what was interpreted. Maybe this, maybe that. In the court of Public Opinion and maybe thats what really matters here, that a majority people come down and say, obviously we know what they were thinking. But thats not actually what was said. If i were the white house i would definitely focus on that. Last thing i would say is the democrats trying to pull all these different threads together to make this beautiful tapestry, i just dont think they are quite there yet but they had a better day today than they have. Juan, your thoughts as you look on at the most anticipated witness so far hes public impeachment Inquiry Hearings . Sandra, i think it was a
strong performance Gordon Sondland. To pick up on what Chris Wallace was saying, its going to have tremendous impact in terms of Public Opinion. I dont think theres any question about the heart of his testimony in which he said, yes, there was a quid pro quo. And then you see that he is, in blunt terms, saying that everyone was in the loop. We are the rhetoric from President Trump, which is i had a direct conversation with this man and he has accurately recounted that there was no quid pro quo here. But strict conditions were put in place, and then you hear even from republican witnesses yesterday, tim morrison, kurt volker, that they back up this e kind of conditionality in place. Put there by President Trump. So we have a chorus behind sondland. I think that adds to the power of his testimony this morning. When you hear devin nunes, the lead republican on the committee, then go to questions
about the whistleblower, about burisma, about the bidens, why isnt that here . It seems to me that what comes to mind is, is that your best argument . You can try to undermine sondland, you can try to move away from the president being involved in this, but you are not speaking to the direct issue. The power of this day, that the democrats had been building up. The issue was, was sondland going to be the deliver for them . Yeah, he did. We await the next round of questioning on capitol hill as they are still in a brief break. The question about burisma john roberts ruining our conversation now is the president is en route to texas. Its been a question for years, about burisma. A company considered corrupt on the inside ukraine. A lot of people raised questions in this country about Hunter Bidens involvement going back to 2015. Those questions were circulating throughout washington, d. C. Where that goes, we will see. Sondland will come back. He wants to get out of town, clearly. He saw his attorney. They asked for a shorter break,
so he could return to his practice in brussels. We will see whether he gets that wish. But after sondland got laura cooper, david hale, under Secretary Of State for political affairs. If yesterday went long on the city will go along, as well. Said it will go awfully long. Cooper and hale will fill in a couple of blanks. The marquee witnesses Gordon Sondland, which is why so many people, including the president of the United States, are hanging on his every word. Theyve got his back up against the wall to some degree. He is the investor right now to the e. U. , but hes also a businessman. While he has stepped away from daytoday operations, is Providence Hotel group is the subject of a lot of protests. People are calling for boycotts. They are giving that hotel group terrible reviews on yelp. To some degree he is probably out there today trying to protect himself. Which is why he almost is trying to have it two ways. It seems to me. He is leaving the way he is saying there was a
quid pro quo, and particularly on this issue of whether ukraine would have to do something in order to get an Oval Office Meeting at a photo call with the president , he is at the same time saying, whoa, when it comes to the aid, i never heard from President Trump that there was any kind of quid pro quo. Even in that Telephone Call he was told repeatedly by the president that there is no quid pro quo. If you have time, can repay that last little back and forth between steve castor and sondland . When i ask of the openended question, as i testified previously, what do you want from ukraine came out his answer was, i want nothing, i will note quid pro quo. Tell zelensky t to to the right thing. Thats all he got from President Trump. Did you also get from President Trump, as reflected by dancer taylor, they said he was adamant that president zelensky had to clear things up and do it in
public . That part i can agree to, yes. Theres an awful lot of ambiguity as to what the president was asking for. What is the right thing . Or to tell them to clear things up . Was that i do aid to ukraine . The president insists no. I think what Ambassador Sondland you see someone engaged in Self Protection but leaving ambiguity there, so maybe someone like jim jordan can drive a truck through it. Thats an interesting point you make. What do you know about what ukraine knew about the old . He said, very vague, could have been politico, could have been Rudy Giuliani. It would be pure speculation. Sondland will make his way back into the room. I want to bring back in our legal minds. Can start first, than Andy Mccarthy. What should our viewers expect in this afternoons hearing . Ken first. Vigorous cross examination, the great engine for truth finding. In light of where we are at this hour, the record is muddy. The record is murky. To go to aunties ultimate
point on impeachment, one should not be talking about the impeachment of the president of the United States on a murky disputed record, subject to interpretation. That is not the basis. I would also just add that we are in contrast to both the Clinton Investigation and the nixon investigation in the arena of the president s conduct of Foreign Policy. The Foreign Policy of the United States. That is yet another reason to really take very close look at what the founding generation to be clear, he believes believe schiff has made up his mind to go forward with articles of impeachment . Oh, theres no question. Last nights opening excuse me, closing statement, we are moving forward with impeachment. From his perspective. We will see if he can carry 31 democrats. We will try to get Andy Mccarthy in here, as well. I certainly agree on that point, and i think the most
support document that we are working toward is the report that, under the rules, schiff is required to write the Judiciary Committee when this case gets transferred over to Jerrold Nadlers committee. Because i will be the road map to the impeachment he has in mind. We will come to order. Thank you, gentlemen. We will not proceed to the 5minute Member Questioning first i wanted to recognize myself for 5 minutes. First of all, i wanted to clarify something for the record with respect to the witness to testified, thats mr. Sandy. He is a Career Official with the office of management and budget. He is today reviewing the transcripts. The transcript is released to make sure its accurate and correct. Thats his deposition was only taken on saturday, this was the
soonest we could arrange that. We did inform the minority yesterday but if they wished to use any of the Questioning Form his deposition, they could do so and you could happily take an expert area they chose not to take advantage of that opportunity to make this a far more significant point, he is not the top official of the office of management and budget. Don not, response will for releasing foreign assistance. Those individuals are named vaught and duffy. Both of those appointees have been subpoenaed to testify, and both of those political appointees have refused. As the deposition will make clear when the transcript is release come at a certain point mr. Sandy was taken out of it at least once a giving a part of the process. But that transcript will be made available as soon as he finishes the review, and we can redact
any personal information from it. I want to ask a few questions, and weve got to much of what i wanted to ask you. With respect to the statement, you were going back and i mean you and others, ambassador volker and others were going back and forth with ukrainians to figure it would statement they would have to make to get the meeting. Correct . Christ. And they understood they would have to make this even publicly in order to get the meeting . Correct. Similarly you testify that pretty much everyone could put two and two together and make for, and understood that the Military Assistance was also conditioned o on the public announcement of these two investigations, correct . Speak of it was my perception. You put two and two together and you got four. Is that right . Yes. You are capable of putting two and two together. So are The Ukrainians. They can put two and two together as well. They understood there was a hold on Security Assistance. There was testimony that they understood that in july or august. It was without a doubt understood when it was made public in the newspaper. They understood the Security Assistance was being held up, right . I dont know when they understood it, but presumably they did. Well, certainly, once it was public they understood the Security Assistance was withheld, right . Once it was public i assume so, yes. And indeed that was one of the issues brought up in that meeting between volker and pence in warsaw . I think as i testified previously, chairman, zelensky, if i recall, ask the question more openended. Like, when did we get our money . [laughs] well, okay. So they understood they didnt have the money yet. It was approved by congress, there was a hold on it. You couldnt give any excavation, is that right . Thats right. The, you couldnt tell them i was being withheld. Right. If they Couldnt Put Two And two together, you did it for them. Because he told them they would have to make that Public Statement, likely to get that aid release. Is that right . I presumed that might have to be done in order to get the in release. Weve had a lot of argumentation here, well, The Ukrainians did know the aide was withheld. But they found out. It was made abundantly clear, if They Hadnt Put Two And two together themselves, that if they wanted that aid they would have to make the statements. Correct . Correct. Mr. Nunes. I yield to mr. Ratcliffe. Ambassador sondland, im going to try and quickly move to summarize all of your direct communications with President Trump as it relates to
this inquiry, and of course you can correct me if i get it wrong. On may 23rd, you had a Group Meeting that included what you called a Vanilla Request about Ending Corruption involving ukrainian oligarchs. Correct . Correct. On July 25th You called President Trump to say you were on your way to ukraine but nothing of substance occurred on the call. Correct . Correct. On july 26 you had a 5minute call at a restaurant that you didnt originally remember because, according to your statement this morning, it did not strike me as significant at the time. But once refreshed you recall the primary purpose was a rapper named asap rocky. Correct . Correct. Most are portly, reading from your deposition, you called President Trump to ask him what you want from ukraine. He responded, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo, i want zelensky to do the right thing, i want them to do what he ran on. And when he ran on was fighting
corruption. Correct . Correct. Lastly, on october 2nd in a random inperson meeting you had at an event for the finnish president , he ran into President Trump and advised him that you had been called to testify before congress. He said to you, good, go tell the truth. Thats correct. And that is the entirety of your recollection of your direct communications with President Trump about these matters. I may have had another call or meeting or two. Again, i wish, mr. Ratcliffe, that i have the record. I understand. But this is what you recall. Thats what i recall. Stop me if theres anything sinister or nefarious in any of this. If Vanilla Request about corruption, a call to see your on your way to ukraine, fiveminute call you didnt remember as significant, but the primary purpose was to discuss a rapper. I want nothing, i want no quid pro quo, i want zelensky to do the right thing, i want him to do what he ran on. And im telling you to go Tell Congress the truth. Anything sinister or nefarious
about anything . Not the way you presented. And thats the truth as you presented it, correct . Correct. Why thats important, Ambassador Sondland, is that none of that is hearsay. None of that speculation. None of that his opinion. That is direct evidence. Ultimately, that is what, if this proceeds to the senate, they are going to care about. Unlike this proceeding, which has been based largely on speculation and presumption and opinion. This is direct testimony and direct evidence. To that point, none of that included evidence about the bidens. None of that included evidence about Military Assistance, because President Trump never mentioned either of those to you, correct . Thats correct. Going back to the July 26th Call, because its going to be a spectacle tomorrow, you dont remember it because it didnt strike you as significant at the time. Is it fair to say that if the president of the United States was asking you to do or say anything improper or unlawful that it would have been
significant to you . Yes. And if that call was part of a bribery or extortion scheme, that you were part of, as democrats have a ledge, you would remember that a significant, wouldnt you . I was not a part and i would have remembered. I understand that, and i agree with you. Lets turn to the quid pro quo. Because its been reported in the papers that this was a Blockbuster Testimony today about quid pro quo, and new evidence. To be fair to you, Ambassador Sondland, according to your statement today, as you say on page 14, as you testified previously, this was your opinion that there was a quid pro quo. Correct . The 2016, burisma excuse me, the 2016 election and burisma in return for the white house meeting, thats correct. Youve shared that before. To that point, to be clear again, on the part of it that
relates to Military Assistance, you dont have any direct evidence from President Trump about that part of it. That is your two plus two part of the equation, right . The presumption . Correct . Correct. And you also understand that others disagree. Yesterday we heard from mr. Morrison, ambassador volker. They testified that they didnt see a quid pro quo. Do you understand that . I understand thats what they say. Reasonable people could look at all this and come to different conclusions. Correct . Correct. I yield back. Mr. Himes . Think, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, think of her testifying. A couple things jumped out at me in her testimony. In your Opening Statement, you said mr. Giuliani demanded you can make a public stable denouncing investigations into the 2016 election, dnc server, and burisma. Mr. Giuliani was excessive the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president. That last sentence is
interesting. No conditionality, no modifiers, mr. Giuliani was exposing the desires of the president of the United States. Mr. Giuliani communicates in colorful and memorable terms. What did mr. Giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he was expressing the desires of the president of the United States . Mr. Himes, when that was originally communicated, that was before i was in touch with mr. Giuliani directly. So this all came through mr. Volker and others. So, mr. Volker told you that he was expressing the desires of the president of the United States . Correct. Subsequently, when you saw the transcript of the July 25th Conversation with president zelensky, you put it all together. This is the desire of the president of the United States. After i saw the july 25th okay. Another thing that is interesting here, the theme of your testimony today is that everybody knew. And signed off. Which is a little different from
what weve heard. Weve heard from others saying that your effort out there was a regular, was a shadow Foreign Policy, characterized as a drug deal. By the way, that was not democratic characterization, despite what mr. Newman says. That was the National Security advisor of the United States are driving it is a drug deal. What confuses me is you have said, and its in here, that the Secretary Of State was not a liberty polity. Good work, keep banging away. If this had been irregular or a drug deal or shadow Foreign Policy, he would have been the one to put an end to it, and if he did not. Correct . Speak of the Secretary Of State, i think, was taking into account the totality of what ive been working on. Globally. Saying, youre doing a great job, including this. Okay. So he was aware of what youre doing, and youre doing a great job includes this. So in some sense he was validating it rather than say it was irregular or a shadow or a drug deal. And never thought it was irregular, we thought it was in
the center lane. And why do you think the Secretary Of State thought that . Why did he think why did he think this was they were the thing to do . When so many senior people, including the National Security advisor, thought it was a drug deal . I dont know, you would have to ask him. Okay. To your knowledge, did he have communications with the president about this . I have no knowledge of his communications with the president. Okay. Let me take each of the July 26th Call we talked a little bit about. You basically have an disputed mr. Holmes characterization of that report, although perhaps the mention of bite and you recall. Im confident we will get a of that call. The conversation in public between the highprofile investor and the president of the United States will be the top target, not for one, but from many foreign intelligence services. Because its pretty sensitive stuff to this inquiry come in pretty sensitive because this information could be used to embarrass the president or levee
public officials, my guess is we will see the transcript. Our people are pretty good. If other people have it, we will see the transcript. Until then, all weve got is your recollection. And the testimony of the other people there. Im curious about your frame of mind. This statement included that Ambassador Sondland did not give a fig not a word use of ukraine. Is that a statement you might make . Do you believe the president didnt give a fig about ukraine . Congressman, are you referring to the call or to my conversation . Mr. Holmes recounts and it will read it to you. Ambassador sound and agree that the did not give a fig about ukraine. Fig was not the word use. Im asking you whether you believed that the president did not give a fig about ukraine. I think thats too strong. I think based on the may 23rd meeting, the president was down on ukraine for the reasons mentioned. And would need a lot of convincing. Thats why we were pushing so hard for the meeting between the president and president zelensky. We thought once the two of them would meet that his impression of ukraine, his stock about ukraine, would go up. What about this line . Ambassador sondland implied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president. Thats what you meant by big stuff. So again, we dont have the transcript. I suspect we will. Is that something you might say . Do you believe the president really considers big stuff to be that which benefits him . I dont recall saying benefits him. Im not asking we recall, im asking whether its possible that you might have said that because you believe im asking you what you believe right now that the president doesnt give a fig about ukraine and in fact cares about the big stuff that benefit the
president. Do you believe that now . I really cant opine. Speak im not asking for your opinion. Im asking for your beliefs. Sticker let me try one more time. Do you believe what is alleged use that on this phone call that the president cares primarily about stuff, the big stuff that benefits the president. I dont think the president said that to me on the phone call. I was talking about asap rocky in the investigation. I dont know why mr. Conaway. I yield 6 minutes to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ambassador, when did it happen . Wondered what happened . When did president zelensky announce the investigation was going to happen. Today your Opening Statement. As ive testified previously with regards to a requested white house call, meeting, the answer is yes. They needed to be a Public Statement from president zelensky. When the chairman asked you about the Security Assistance dollars, he said they need to be a public announcement from mr. Zelensky. When did it happened . It never did. They got the call july 25. They got the meeting in new york on september 25th, got the money on september 11. When did the meeting happen . It never did. You dont know who was in the meeting. Which meeting . Then took of the meeting that never happened. Who was in it . Do you know how zelensky announced it . Tweet, press statement, press conference. Do you know how it happened . You got all three of them wrong. They get the call, they get the
meeting, they get the money. Its not two plus two. Its 0 for 3. Ive never seen anything like that and you told mr. Castor that the president never told you that the announcement had to happen to get anything. In fact he didnt just not tell you that. He exquisitely said the opposi opposite. The gentleman from texas just read it. You said to the president of the United States, what do you want from ukraine . The president i want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do when he ran on. What did he run on, Ambassador Sondland . Transparency. Dealing with corruption, right . Mr. Castor raised another important point. Why didnt you put that statement in your Opening Statement . I think you said couldnt fit it in. Is that right . Might be here for 46 minutes and set of 45 minutes. Wasnt purposeful. You couldnt fit it in a 22 page opener. The most important statement about the Subject Matter at hand. The president of the United States in a direct conversation with you about the issue at hand of the president said, what you want from ukraine, mr. President . I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want this new guy, brandnew guy in politics, his party just took over. I want zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to run on a do what he ran on witches deal with corruption. And you can find time to fit that in the 22 page Opening Statement. You know what a quid pro quo is . I do. This for that, right . Looks to me like ukraine got that three times and there was no this. We didnt do anything. They didnt have to do anything. Ive never seen anything like it. When the call came out, you remember when the call came out, everyone said we are going to quid pro quo. That was in the column of course, of course that didnt happen. That didnt happen. Remember with the complaint sa said . Remember what the memo said of the whistleblower. This call was frightening. This call was scary. None of them materialized. None of that materialized. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to dig a little deeper, this quid pro quo. Did you not saying your Opening Statement and in previous testimony and closeddoor hearing that you thought there was a quid pro quo. I thought they quid pro quo was the white house visit in
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.