These events. By obligation, you mean your legal obligation or did you mean something bigger . Both my legal obligation and my moral obligation. Your moral obligation. I actually want to present an alternative theory. Your family came here escaping the holocaust via uruguay. Your parents moved, lucy and later you, here. Youve done that american Success Story through dint of hard work and innovation, good idea, a knack for hiring the right people and some look, youve built up considerable, successful business, one that i know for a fact would make your parents proud. They came here because they knew that it was here that they could
have freedom that they had not enjoyed, security that they had not enjoyed, and opportunity that they had not enjoyed. No doubt on some level, youre grateful and its created a sense of patriotism in you. Is that fair to say . Very fair. Why, sir, with your courage to come before us, does that same standard not apply to mr. Mulvaney, mr. Duffy, mr. Pompeo, mr.
Yes. Now, ambassador taylor also testified that and mr. Morrison both of them testified that you told them that President Trump said there was no quid pro quo which you also included in the text message that you referred. But then you went on and they had slight variations as to what you told them, but then you said that to ambassador taylor that president zelenskiy himself not the Prosecutor General needed to clear things up in public or there would be a stalemate. And mr. Morrison recounted something similar. You dont have any reason to doubt that both of their very similar recollections of the conversations they had with you, do you, ambassador sondland . Let me break that down, mr. Goldman. The text as i said about the no quid pro quo was my effort to respond to ambassador taylors
concerns to go to President Trump apparently ambassador taylor had access to Secretary Pompeo. He did not have access to President Trump so i made the phone call. I said what do you want . President trump
That a businessman would have knowledge is limited in any when he is about to sign a transaction. But if you go after his integrity, right, if you go check. And by that he clearly meant after his public service, if you go after his military record, that President Trump was youre done. Thinking about or had in front but chuck, isnt there a high stakes problem with that, for of him the possibility of providing Security Assistance to trump and the republicans to say, because then the next question is, okay, who does know ukraine. It was similar to writing a check to someone who youre what trump said . Bolton and trump. About to send. He used that analogy very and they dont want those folks to come before congress. I absolutely agree. Im saying if there is a path to clearly to indicate that this try and point out that he has limited knowledge, thats the would be this would require path and its a narrow one. Something. If that person owed him does it ultimately work . No, it doesnt. Right.
Card witness. Has already revised his initial testimony in the president s dealings with ukraine. Sondland has arrived and will be before the committee in a moment. Late yesterday we had a hearing that lasted deep into the night. Well see how far we go today. Welcome back to continuing coverage on the fox news channel. Im bill hemmer. Good morning, bill. Im sandra smith. Lawmakers are expected to double down on a phone call with the president. Team fox coverage back with us now. Chris wallace, bret baier, Martha Maccallum and bret baier. Well be with you guys throughout the entire day. Ken, we have an oping statement from Gordon Sondland. There are a lot of skipped areas in 23 pages. Opening statement will last at
least 10 minutes. From what youve been able to glean off of this, in a quick speed read what do you see as critical for sondland . Right. It looks as if there may be a bombshell or two in this. Thats what were looking for. Lets see what he says. He could revise this up to the
Everything is on the up and up, if this was a peft call, you would want even to go and tell your story and the fact they havent done so to me is incredibly telling. Mark, garrett, who i hope is getting a chance to read through these 17 pages of the summary, the preface to the report. Ive asked you this before. Listen, if theres no wrong doing and perry or mulvaney wanted to fund the president , republicans, you got your shot to call some people. Over to katy tur. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Were following Breaking News at this hour. The Intelligence Committee has just released its report on the impeachment inquiry. House democrats say in no Uncertain Terms the president personally solicit Election Interference from a foreign governmecountry, quote, the evi overwhelming and so, too, is the evidence of his obstruction of congress. Joining me now is garrett and
jake. Also with us, former intel staffer, mika. Everybody, welcome. Garrett, you were just talking with stephanie and al