help with a political campaign. but before responding to that text, sondland first spoke by phone to trump, who told him he, quote, didn t want a quid pro quo or anything from ukraine. sondland then passed trump s assurances along to taylor in their text exchange saying the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind, as the washington post now reports sondland plans to tell lawmakers he has no knowledge of whether the president was telling him the truth at that moment. trump has been citing that text message from sondland as part of his defense. the text message that i saw from ambassador sondland, who is highly respected, was there s no quid pro quo. he said that. he said, by the way, it s almost sounded loo ik in general he said, by the way, there s no quid pro quo and there isn t. of course when it comes to
coming up. there were two text messages between bill taylor, a diplomat working on ukraine and bill sonland. bill taylor says as i said on the phone, i think it s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. five hours later gordon sonland responds bill, i believe you are incorrect about president trump s intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind. the president is trying to evaluate if ukraine is going to adopt the transparency and reforms that president zielinski promised during his campaign. i suggest we stop the back and forth by text. again, this is five hours later. suddenly it sounded lawyerly, much different than the tone the rest of the text and now we re learning that gordon sonland is saying he spoke with the president and the president dictated that text to him. this is all kind of stacking up against the president. isn t it, eli? yeah, especially if sonland
provide facts. and the decision as to whether it s criminal or corrupt will belong to ultimately congress in this instance or perhaps a jury if in the criminal case involving parnas and fruman. so it really isn t for him to say what is or is not corruption. his job is describe the facts. but as i ve seen them, if the deliverable, if you will, here was being given in exchange for a political benefit for president trump as opposed to a benefit for the united states as a country, then it would be a corrupt quid pro quo. hans, trump s defenders. they have been pointing to sondland s text message that i read a little earlier but i want to read it again because it is oh so important to this conversation in which this text message reads i believe you are incorrect about president trump s intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind. talk through more of what we know of this conversation and exactly what went on between the president and sondland in that
we send with the decision on security assistance is key. with the hold, we have already shaken their faith in the u.s. later that same day, texted this. i think it s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. hours later, i believe five hours later, sondland replied this. i believe you are incorrect about president trump s intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind. nbc has reported that sondland spoke to trump on a call right before sending that last response. almost one week ago, sondland was supposed to sit for a joint deposition but was directed at the very last minute by, guess who? the white house. i want to bring in barbara mcquade, former attorney in michigan. she is now a professor at the university of michigan law school and msnbc contributor. garrett, unlike yovanovitch here, sondland seems to be
the president has been crystal clear. no quid quos of any kind. now according to the washington post, sondland will testify it was the president who spoke with him on the phone and told him directly there was no quid pro quos, but get this, sondland will say if he doesn t know if the president uwas telling the n fact, sondland, according to a person familiar with his thinking, told the washington post it was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt one, so that will certainly be interesting if that s the rationale that sondland gives to house democrats on thursday. yeah, potentially explosive testimony by sondland on thursday. we also know that there has been requests by house democrats made to ambassador bill taylor, who could also have a lot to say. that has not yet been scheduled. jeregjere diamond, thanks very . so if you re like any of us, it s understandable that you ve got a lot of questions about the impeachment battle like what s next for the president and congressional democra