ambassador sondland s role. he was being involved as a foreign errand. those two things just diverged. and nick mulvaney was to arrange an office meeting between president trump and the ukranian president. he said he had an agreement with chief of staff mulvaney in return for investigations this meeting would get scheduled. she recalled how john bolton then the national security advisor told her to report it. the specific instruction was i had go to the lawyers for john eisenberg. i was senior counsel for the national security counsel. he said you tell eisenburg ambassador told me i am not part of what they are cooking up. there were sharp words. i refuse to be part of a narrative the ukrainian
enough, he realized he wouldn t be able to push that further. ambassador volker didn t say anything at this particular juncture and said he had another meeting and they all left. i went back up and relayed this to ambassador bolton which is when he gave me the very specific instruction that we ve already been through to go and talk to mr. eisenburg in the nsc counsel office. mr. nunez. eight minutes. as soon as i don t cut off a witness in the middle of their answer. you may proceed. sorry, that was a long answer. mr. jordan. mr. holmes, why didn t your boss talk about it? what is that, sir? why didn t your boss bring up the call you overheard. you re the closing witness, yet their first witness, ambassador taylor, didn t even bring it up. when we deposed you, you said this was extremely distinctive
impeachment process. gordon sondland will be testifying on wednesday. how should lawmakers handle this testimony? you ve been there in congress during an impeachment hearing. well, we held our hearings of witnesses behind closed doors. but on the judiciary committee, senate watergate committee has public hearings, but sondland is a delicate case. he has personally talked to the president. he i think has tried in the past to protect the president action tried to walk a fine line good perjury and telling the truth. but he knows that he is in danger if he doesn t tell the truth because the problem with this case is that there are too many witnesses. too many people who know what is going on. john bolton knows what is going on. he had conversations with the president. but he is not showing up. eisenburg knows what is going on, he deep sixed some of the that july 25th tape, transcript.
while the transcript was largely accurate, was not fully complete and did not reference president zelensky s discussion about the company that employed hunter biden. he made clear his concerns to the president s top attorney that this call was properblemat and they said he shouldn t talk about it. where on the time line did this occur? did it happen eisenburg caused the transcript to be put in this to secret computer system? full-time line is a bit murky but from what understand he was involved in that effort to put that transcript in a safe of sorts to ensure it would not leak out in any way. he s now under scrutiny on capitol hill. lawmakers in the impeachment
they asked colonel vindman to stay quite about the ukraine phone call which president trump called perfect. i didn t go do law school but i got in. this sounds like a consciousness of guilt. why else would you ask him to be quiet about a phone call unless you thought there was something wrong with it? just want to compliment you on your decision not to go to law school. thank you. it s more than consciousness of guilt to me. it sounds like obstruction. vindman said i m concerned. they wills h he tells him to be quiet. that s obstruction. hiding the evidence. that s obstruction. i would suggest he consider taking fifth after they get through the immunity and executive privilege dfefenses. eisenburg is on the subpoena list. he s received subpoena to testify next week. i wonder if he will be the