significant to you? yes. and if that call was part of a bribery or extortion scheme, that you were part of, as democrats have a ledge, you would remember that a 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 a 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 excuse me, the 2016 election and burisma in return for the white house meeting, that s correct. you ve shared that before. to that point, to be clear again, on the part of it that
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
he was adamant that president zelensky had to, quote, clear things up and do it in public? that part i can agree to, yes. time is now with the minority for 20 minutes i m sorry, 33 minutes. 33 minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, you ve been in business for a long time. i have. so if you want to get to the bottom of something, somebody that s running a department or one of your buildings or something, who do you go to? the boss. the manager of whatever company, right? correct. so if you want to get to the bottom of foreign aid, probably go to the people that are in charge of foreign aid here in this town, wouldn t you? because you re not in charge of foreign aid. i m not in charge of foreign aid. and you ve had to testify that you ve prepared foreign aid was this or that, and you re
congressman ratcliffe cross-examined them, they could not say anything the president did that was impeachable. sean: david limbaugh, we will lean on your legal experience. i would think that the federal rules regarding hearsay and the constitution, the right and the ability although gregg makes a great point. gregg jarrett, andy mccathy and many people. this is not a real whistleblower according to the statute, they tell me. have you got to imagine the chief justifiable of the u.s. supreme court would follow these rules regarding hearsay and the right to confront and accuser, wouldn t you? well, the senate will control the procedure and the chief justice, of course, will follow and they will certainly set up the federal rules of civil procedure. but there is not just problems with hearsay and lack of firsthand knowledge. these witnesses. and the secrecy that this has been conducted and the fact that there has been no due process. another thing people are forgetting is that the main
cross-examined them, they could not say anything the president did that waspr impeachable. sean: david limbaugh, we will lean on your legal experience. i would think that the federal rules regarding hearsay and the constitution, the right and the ability, although gregg makes a great point. gregg jarrett, andy mccathy, and many people. this is not a real whistleblower according to the statute, they tell me. you ve got to imagine the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court would follow these rules regarding hearsay and the right to confront and accuser, wouldn t you? well, the senate will control the procedure and the chief justice, of course, will follow and they will certainly set up the federal rules of civil procedure. but there is not just problems with hearsay and lack of firsthand knowledge. these witnesses. and the secrecy that this has been conducted and the fact that there has been no due process. another thing people are forgetting is that the main thing they are going on