the statement was at that point, in other words, the 2016 and burisma and that lisa passed that along to him and kept him informed. okay, so we can agree at this point in time the secretary wasn t in the loop that there was a conditionality on the security assistance? hold on a second. are you asking about july 19th, exhibit 4? i was asking about your email to the secretary on august 11th. oh, okay. there s well, on july 19th which the secretary was on, i talked about fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone. uh-huh. and the secretary was on that. okay. so you testified at your deposition on july 19th in this continuum you talked about at that point in the continuum it was just a generic
saturday this was the soonest we could arrange that, we did inform the minority yesterday that if they wish to use any of the questioning from mr. sandy s deposition, they could do so and we would happily take whatever excerpts they needed even prior to the witness having the chance to go through it. they chose not to take advantage of that opportunity. but i would make this far more significant point which is, he is not the top official at the office of management and budget responsible for releasing foreign assistance. those individuals are named vought and duffy and both of those political appointees have been subpoenaed to testify and both of those political appointees have refused. in fact, as the deposition will make clear when the transcript is released at a certain point, mr. sandy was taken out of at least one significant part of the process. but that transcript will be made available as soon as he finishes the review and we can redact any
for the extortion play, attempted extortion and directed by donald trump, pence knew about it he s testified to and mike pompeo didn t just know about it, he was kept updated regularly and he goes through who all of the aides to pompeo were and what s meant in every electronic communication and i imagine we ve only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of electronic communication. you ve made a point a few hours ago which was this is the way trump behaves generally. he doesn t say directly go and commit this crime. he works through intermediaries and see that here. i think the republicans talking point coming out is, well, the president never directly ordered sondland to do the quid pro quo. it was done through the intermediary. that s the way, unfortunately, organized crime and other criminals behave and so i think sondland s testimony is consistent with that overall pattern we ve seen from trump and other circumstances. mica mcfaul, our former u.s. ambassador to moscow is with
anything sinister or nefarious about anything of that. not the way you present it. that is the truth as you ve presented it, correct. correct. why that s important, ambassador sondland, is because none of that is hearsay. none of that is speculation. none of that is opinion. that is direct evidence and ultimately that is what if this proceeds to the senate they re going to care about unlike this proceeding which has been based on largely speculation and presumption and opinion, this is direct testimony and direct evidence and to that point none of that included evidence about the bidens and none that have included evidence about military assistance because president trump never mentioned either of those to you, correct? that s correct. all right. so going back to the july 26th call because it s going to be a spectacle tomorrow you didn t remember it because it didn t strike you as significant at the time. is it fair to say that if the president of the united states was aski
that would have been significant to you? yes. all right. and if that call was part of a bribery or extortion scheme that you were part of as democrats have alleged you d remember that as significant, wouldn t you. i was not a part and i would have remembered. i understand that. and i agree with you. let s turn to the quid pro quo because it s been reported in the papers that this was blockbuster testimony today about quid pro quo and new evidence. to be fair to you, ambassador sondland, according to your statement today as you say on page 14 as you testified previously this was your opinion that there was a quid pro quo, correct. the 2016 burisma and the excuse me, the 2016 election and burisma in return for the white house meeting, that s correct. right. so you ve shared that before. to that point to be clear again