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
president know and when did he know it. there is a reason that no one here has repeated those questions during these h hearin. we know what the president did. and we know when he knew it. mr. goldman, who sent rudy giuliani to ukraine to smear joe biden? president trump. who fired the anti-corruption ambassador in ukraine, marie yovanovitch? president trump. who told ambassador sondland and ambassador volker to work with rudy giuliani on ukraine? president trump. who told vice president pence to not go to president zelensky s inauguration? president trump. who ordered his own chief of staff mulvaney to withhold critical military assistance for ukraine? president trump. who refused to meet with president zelensky in the oval office? president trump. who ignored on july 25 his own national security council s
mr. giuliani not only played a role but that he was essentially the president s agent. he was acting on behalf of the president expressing the president s wishes, desires. so what evidence did the committee find that corroborated the quote everyone was in the loop? well, ambassador sondland producednd for his public testimony. i think it s very important in light of the testimony from mr. castor a minute ago with mr. buck as to how many times that mr. sondland did not remember in his deposition. because, we agree, it was egregious. but the advantage of doing closed depositions is that mr.io sondland could not match hisla testimony. as other witnesses came in, then hee realized that he had to actually admit to more and more stuff. so he did admit to an email that included secretary pompeo, mulvaney i do want tope make a point before my time goes out. we have to think about what is
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
interactions between that government s officials and ours. now, the sum total of the democrats case comes down to this. not one of their handpicked witnesses provided any firsthand knowledge of the president ordering a quid pro quo. and two witnesses, sondland by testimony, and senator johnson by letter, provided firsthand testimony that the president specifically ordered no quid pro quo. no testimony was provided that the ukrainian government believed that there was any quid pro quo. but there are ample public statements thate its officials did not believe there was such a linkage. in fact, the testimony their witnesses crumbled under questioning. and we the only evidence they offered was presumption, speculation, and whatio they d read in the new york times. it s upon this flimsy evidence that the democrats justify nullifying the 2016 presidential election.