and towards this ukraine plot confession. mr. sondland, famously, we ll hear from him tomorrow, and today, mr. volker. we were discussing this before he began with a member of the intelligence committee who was in a tight-lipped way citing news accounts. now you have the news, which is that volker and sondland are moving closer to whatever you want to call it, a ukraine plot, a conditioning government action on getting reelection help, which is a no-no, or what we have reported as a potential impeachable offense, a bribery plot. they were joined briefly at the lectern by mick mulvaney in public, who is still fighting testifying. what we were discussing with the member of congress has now become, as they say, on the fwres congressional record, on record, actually there was a link. he s not denying that, he s just saying he didn t know it.
people from taking part in this. i m sorry, anderson. was that to me? there was an issue with my yeah, that was to you. i m sorry. the ambassador who testified today was a break in the wall was your question? yeah, the fact that she came forward even though pompeo had said that they wouldn t be cooperating. yeah. it s noticeable, i think, that you are seeing the beginning of a number of people who are willing not just to speak out publicly or at least to speak out privately through news accounts and have their views be known, but also as you note, go meet with members on the hill. we have seen some people in the administration in previous investigations like hope hicks go and give some very limited testimony with lawyers from the administration with her. this feels different, and the statements you saw today on the hill and what we anticipate we might hear from ambassador sondland next week i think gets us into dangerous territory potentially for the white house. yeah, da
statement of the ambassador. certainly for a career foreign service officer to come forward, though under a subpoena and testify, that certainly is a break in the wall that the white house hoped to set up to stop people from taking part in this. i m sorry, was that to me? yeah. that was to you. i m sorry. the ambassador who testified today was a break in the wall was your question? yeah. the fact that she came forward even though pompeo had said that they wouldn t be cooperating. yeah. it s noticeable, i think, that you are seeing the beginning of a number of people who are willing not just to speak out publically or at least to speak out privately through news accounts and have their views be known but as you note, go meet with members on the hill. we have seen some people in the administration in previous investigations like hope hicks go and give some very limited
calls with other world leaders, putin, mbs, were hidden. i mean he s proven credible as the i.g. said. look, i think the substance of the phone call that the president had with the ukrainian leader, it was inappropriate. it was certain ill advised, but that call in and of itself in my view and many others, it is not an impeachable act. and that certainly will be debated and can be discussed as we get further information. when we have a whistle-blower report that is it is something that is credible based on the nature of the report, how it was laid out, the way it was written, using legal counsel to avoid any kind of legal scrutiny. but we still have a lot of hearsay evidence, secondhand information, and news that is based on news accounts. that would never be admissible in a court of law, and it should not be the cornerstone of an impeachment inquiry. however, that being said, when
proven right on at three counts. the president strong armed the ukraine s president. the record of the call was moved to a high security server, and calls with other world leaders, putin, mbs, were hidden. i mean he s proven credible as the i.g. said. look, i think the substance of the phone call that the president had with the ukrainian leader, it was inappropriate. it was certain ill advised, but that call in and of itself in my view and many others, it is not an impeachable act. and that certainly will be debated and can be discussed as we get further information. when we have a whistle-blower report that is it is something that is credible based on the nature of the report, how it was laid out, the way it was written, using legal counsel to avoid any kind of legal scrutiny. but we still have a lot of hearsay evidence, secondhand information, and news that is based on news accounts. that would never be admissible in a court of law, and it should not be the cornerstone of an impe