show how the president and his deputies used their power to subvert u.s. foreign policy in favor of a political agenda. the evidence against the president continues to mount. that effort is described in the testimonies of a current and former member of the president s national security council. lieutenant colonel alexander vinman and alexandra hall. sundland said it was contingent on the political dirt trump was seeking. as a prerequisite to getting face time with trump at the white house, the ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the bidens. according to vinman and fiona hill, that came from mick mulvaney, the same official who froze military aid to ukraine on orders from the president. vinman said by august it became evident that the freeze on
the new way stores are trying to attract your business this christmas, and what s expected to be a record year. and developing this morning, newly released transcripts from two key witnesses in the impeachment inquiry are giving us new insights. fiona hill, the former top russia adviser on president trump s national security council and lieutenant colonel alexander vindman, top ukraine expert, pointing the finger at trump s chaff, mick mulvaney. testifying sondland had had a conversation with mr. mulvaney, and this is what was required to get the meeting. in order to get the white house meeting, they had to deliver an investigation. fiona hill also tchestified sayg mr. sund land, quote, agreed there was an agreement with the chief of staff that they would have a white house meeting or, you know, a presidential meeting if the ukrainians started up
proves that there was a lot of incoherrence from the administration on what they wanted to do. here is one common thing. not one person has talked to president trump about whether or not he wanted a quid pro quo. taylor is saying he assumed there was quid pro quo based on what sundland said, the e.u. ambassador. now his memory is refreshed i presume there was and volker, said there was no connection between meetings and investigating biden. martha: it is interesting because sondland said he did pick up the phone and speak with the president at one point and he said the president told me that there was no quid pro quo and that he wanted zelensky to do what he ran on. that s a telling statement. you ve got a statement from the president to sundland saying
the 2016 election that he believed would be beneficial to his reelection campaign. martha: once again, just like during the russia probe, adam schiff before this process has really actually begun, public hearings aren t until next week, he already knows what the answer is. that statement is full of crap. bill taylor. what does he base his belief that there was a quid pro quo on? what is the factual basis? a conversation with sundland. why did sundland change his testimony? was there a connection between sundland and democratic operatives on the committee? did he talk to schiff? did he talk to staffers? when someone remembers something they didn t know before it makes me incredibly suspicious. why did sondland change his mind? what prompted him to change his mind about maybe there was a quid pro quo when i said there
service officer, who suddenly finds herself in the middle of this on slaught with her reputation being publicly shattered and she can t figure out why, and she goes to ambassador sundland and says, what should i do about this, i m trying to figure out how can i fight back? how can i handle this? and his answer to her was. you know, you need to go big or go home. go big or go home. tweet support. you support the president. and that all these are lies and everything else. his response to her was to tweet. shocking. i just read the new york times piece. that s what they re that s how they re rolling. i want to move on. we read this section off the fop. she s this career diplomat, the point you just made, apolitical,