President zelensky decided that they were not going to issue thatt statement that Rudy Giuliani wanted to include burisma in the 2016 elections, there was no white house meeting. It soon became clear to them that the Security Assistance was also at risk. And that took on a renewed importance for them. Well, following the 25th call, the t july 25th call, ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. Giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky. Wasnt that right . Yes. And the report said they worked closely and there were also phone calls with the white house around the same time that they werear working closely. Do you know what that statement was supposed tou say according to mr. Giuliani and the u. S. Officials . Well, the key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equalled theic Biden Investigatn in the 2016 ukraine
interference. But was there concern about doi
going on today. so president zelensky is meeting with putinin today. and because of president trump s actions, zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with thea leader of the nation that invaded his country. if our military assistance had been providedy as congress ordered it and the white house meeting, president zelensky would be meeting with putin from a position of strength. if you want the support what we have to realize is that the message this sends to our allies and to our standing in the world. if you want the support of the united states beg y prepared t help with president trump s election. president trump s abuse ofpr por has injured our nation. thank the chairman. the 299-page democratic majority report mentions the intelligence community inspector general michael atkinson on pages 140 and 143. mr. goldman, you were present for the october 4, 2019
interference. but was there concern about doing the investigations or what? were they justns supposed to ma a statement about it? what? ambassador sondland very clearly testified that all he ever heard mr. giuliani or anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigations. and so did the committee find that without that public statement that there would be no white house meeting? yes. so i was struck by how cle the evidence seems to be on this point. and i d like to play another example.li was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard tofi the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. everyone was in the loop. did he find that his role-played a role in the white house? the evidence showed that
complete and accurate. it shows no quid pro quo, no conditionality. that s number one. number two, there was no pressure. both zelensky and trump have said thatsk repeatedly. president zelensky said that at theky united nations on septemb 25th. he said it in subsequent news articles oneq october 6th and october 10th and december 1st. number three the ukrainians and zelensky did not know about the pause in aid at the very least at the time of the call. and number four, no investigations were announced. the aid was released. and the white house, you know, afforded a meeting. president trump met with zelensky in new york. do you findne it amazing tha the majority is one of their key prongs of this whole thing is that they re making the elected leader of the ukraine out to be a liar? um. because he s done it on many, many b occasions since then. undoubtedly they believe him noe to beub truthful. doesn t that strike you as a little strange, especially in
just a control plus plf. sondland himself told the world that basically nobody elss on the planet told him that donald trump wasla trying to ti aid to investigations. in fact he also said everything that he had been testifying to is simply his presumption. is that sright? that is correct. and so when we consider what a presumption is, it s not direct, it s not circumstantial, it s not even hearsay. in fact, we typically when we try the case we consider is speculation. is that right? doul courts allow speculatio in? llno. why not? because it s not reliable. it s inherently unreliable. so, can you name any democrat witness who asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those 17 that we heard from? we had some direct evidence on certain thingse and we had some direct evidence on the may 23idrd meeting. and sondland gave some direct evidence. but a lot of what we have obtained has been circumstantial. how about with regard to personal knowledge of the quid