volker was clear there was no connection. in his public testimony, ambassador volker reiterated there was no linkage. similarly, george kent at the state department said he did not associate aid to investigations, and he relayed how ambassador taylor told him that tim morrison and ambassador sondland also believed the two were not linked. ambassador sondland s testimony, as we have seen already, is a bit more scattered. in his deposition he said that he was never aware of preconditions on security assistance or that the security assistance was tied to investigations. ambassador sondland then later provided a written statement supplementing his deposition in which he explained for the first time that in the absence of any clear explanation, he presumed a link between security assistance and an anti-corruption statement were linked. ambassador sondland also testified in his written
ambassador volker was clear there was no connection. in his public testimony, he reiterated there was no linkage, similarly, george kent at the state department said he did not associate aid to investigations and he relate how ambassador taylor told him that tim morrison and ambassador sondland also believed that you were not linked. ambassador sondland s testimony as we have seen already is a bit more scattered. in his deposition, he said he was never aware of preconditions on security assistance or that the security assistance was tied to investigations. ambassador sondland and later provided a written statement supplementing his deposition in which he explains for the first time that in the absence of any clear explanation, he presumed a link between security assistance and anticorruption state were linked. ambassador sondland also attested in his written supplement that he likely voiced
ambassador sondland also attested in his written supplement that he likely voiced this concern to yermak, a close at vi advisor of president zelensky. mr.of yermak disputed ambassado sondland s account and said he doesn t remember any reference to the military aid. ambassador sondland reiterated that his testimony was based on a presumption, acknowledging to congressman turner that no one on the planet told him that security assistance to ukraine was conditioned on investigations. ambassador taylor is the other relevant actor here. he testified in his deposition that he had a clear understanding that ukraine would not receive the security assistance until president zelenskysi committed to the investigations. however,st in his public testimony, ambassador taylor acknowledged that his clear understanding came from ambassador sondland, who was
russia tomorrow. it will be provided to the senate judiciary committee. sessions is facing controversy for not revealing his two pre-election meetings with a russian ambassador during his confirmation hearings. he said he misunderstood the question when he denied any russia contracts during trump s campaign. democrats are calling for sessions to resign. president trump says sessions did not do anything wrong but could have spoken more accurately and, as we know, as of last thursday, he at least, sessions did, rescind himself from any involvement in investigations of russia s involvement with the u.s. election. so let s talk more about all of this with david rode, a cnn global affairs analyst and reuter s national security editor and paul butler, a former justice department prosecutor and now a georgetown law school professor. good to see you. paul, you first, what should sessions be saying in this written supplement. so, fred, when even president trump says that he could have
way. it was in no way some sort of coordinating effort. he had two of his aides, possibly three. they were undoubtedly taking notes. he undoubtedly went over this meeting with the people who prepared him to testify before our committee. i personally feel i was misled by liss responses. he should be brought back to testify again under oath and answer our questions. we re shut down because he avoided questioning by falsely denying the meeting. today, you are writing a letter to senator grassley and calling for that. you want senator sessions to be brought back so you can pose these questions directly. he has a different idea. he suggested last night on cable news he would like to submit a written supplement to the record giving this further clarification. why isn t that enough? not enough because we have questions that we would have asked had he not falsely denied that these meetings occurred.