people didn t quite know how to react at these moments, he seemed kind of like a hapless, gosh, how did i get here? how did i get a million dollar check to the inaugural and i just get a t-shirt. all i got was this subpoenaed to appear at the hearing. his t-shirt was i just want to get out of here without being convicted of perjury. the day started off with the democrats drooling over this idea that they thought sondland said quid pro quo, that was the headline this morning. then it turned out, mike turner said it best, no one on this planet told you that president trump tied foreign aid to investigations. and sondland said, correct. that is the end of it. the investigation should end now, laura. laura: failed presidential candidate eric swalwell is crying because he was not on stage tonight, threw out a rather wet hypothetical about presumptions. finally, one final
library book return, but for eric swalwell to be doing this, he is having trouble with talking points, it s no doubt, but obviously, his stories don t work. the problem is when you get to this point and you listen to eric swalwell talk about this, he just starts throwing out names. extortion, bribery, it s like he s leading to his old law school book. this looks cute, let s talk about this. there s a big problem. when you re trying to accuse somebody and take down a president, you better come with something more than you know how to pronounce words in a law book. and they don t have it. when they bring these menaces and they are finding out that there is no quid pro quo. the president said, mr. zelensky needs to do what s right, i don t want anything. this is a day in which you saw their hopes and dreams of what they thought was that first 30 minutes now deflated into nothing. laura: i m going to ask about the whistle-blower in a moment but to the point you just made, democrats think
the democrats original case was there was a this for that quid pro quo. a request for information on burisma and investigations in exchange for aid. we now know that is not true. the aid arrived and there are no investigations. then it morphed into, well, it will be a white house meeting for aid. now we find out the white house meeting was offered without conditions and no meeting happened. that morphed into, well, we need a statement from zelensky in exchange for aid. no statement was given, the aid arrived. this case is nonsensical and by the way, now an attempted quid pro quo and the only on the record statement we have about a quid pro quo is the president of the united states and, i want to be crystal clear, no quid pro quo. this is really open and shut. laura: at one point, ambassador sondland seemed to kind of cast down its own reliability as a witness. watch. i ve had hundreds of meetings and calls with individuals. but i m not a notetaker or a
choice for e.u. ambassador. staffing is really important. i don t know, maybe he is the nicest guy ever, he seems like he can t remember a lot of things and acts on a lot of other people s presumptions. kind of an odd thing. what he did remember, no quid pro quo. laura: he did say quid pro quo at one point and that was twisted by adam schiff to mean a political benefit, but he also said today that everyone, meaning top administration officials were in the loop on this kind of quid pro quo for the investigation. here is what he actually said. this email was sent to secretary pompeo, secretary perry, chief of staff mulvaney, a lot of senior officials. a lot of senior officials. everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. laura: i think pretty much all those officials, maybe not mulvaney, but everyone else has denied that.
trying to retrofit impeachment into a set of facts that don t bear it out. they had to keep doubling down with the emotion, and whether it s talking about the biography of one of the witnesses, they have to focus on that or they have to focus on, well, ambassador sondland is a friend of trump s and he still saying these things. but when it gets to the substance, they always, always falter. even schiff was called out by saying that whistle-blower s name has to remain secret. statutorily. it does not. only for the inspector general himself. the interesting thing is, if you have the facts, you have the facts. if you have the law, you argue the law. if you don t have either of those can be stand on the table and yell. they are standing on the table and yelling because i could tell you in high school i could make every jump shot, every girl on the cheerleading court thought it was the great but when the reality come in, it doesn t come