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.
Obligation to account fully for my role in these events. Did by obligation, you mean simply your legal obligation . Or did you mean something bigger . Well, 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. And your parents moved lucy and later you here where, frankly, youve been an american success story. Through dent of hard work and innovation, good idea, and knack to hire the right people and some luck, youve built a 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. And no doubt, on some level, youre grateful and its created a sense of patriotism in you. Is that fair to say . Very fair. Why then, sir, with your courage to come be
portray as nefarious. the democrats have come as their custom, seized on this presumption as proof they can use it against the president. however, ambassador sondland testified in his deposition that when he asked president trump what do you want from ukraine, president trump replied i want nothing. there is no quid pro quo. let me repeat, president trump said i want nothing. there is no quid pro quo. this comes on the heels of the testimony by ambassador volker. he saw no evidence of bribery, extortion, quid pro quo, or treasonous actions. we didn t get to asking about obstruction of justice because we didn t know that was on the table until today. like the president s call with president zelensky, democrats want the american people to believe, as one democrat on this committee put it, that hearsay is much better than direct evidence.
that. the other thing, there s a lot of talk about biden s son. that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general, that would be great. biden went around blackiragging he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it, it sounds horrible to me. so what s in the president s mind when he has placed this otherwise inexplicable hold on the aid when he refuses to take the meeting? what s on his mind? biden. he makes that abundantly clear. i understand, ambassador, you said you didn t make the connection between burisma and biden. i will let the american people judge the credibility of that answer. but there s no mistaking what donald trump s interest was. there s no mistaking about what donald trump meant when he had that call with you on an unsecure phone as you re sitting there outdoor terrace in ukraine when the president said investigation, he meant biden. he made that abundantly clear to
sir, we just went through this. when he asked you about investigations, which we all agree now means the bidens. we just did this about 30 seconds ago. it it s a pretty simple question, isn t it? i guess i guess i m having trouble why you can t just say when he asked about investigations, i assumed he meant i know what you assumed. but who would benefit from an investigation of the bidens? they re two different questions. i m just asking you one. who would benefit from an investigation into the bidens? i assume president trump would benefit. there we have it. see? didn t hurt a bit, did it? didn t hurt a bit. but let me ask you something. mr. maloney, excuse me, i ve been very forthright and i really resent what you re trying to fair enough. you ve been very forthright. this is your third try to do so, sir. didn t work so well the first time, did it? we had a little declaration come in after. you remember that? and now, we re here a third time and we got a d