Base of the Republican Party and to me. So i believe that he was at with very few defections. That may change, but right now i least affected by those and believed those and believed they were think thats a correct negative . Assessment by the white house, believed that they were that theyve got the senate tied negative and was conveying them up in a way that will protect to the president. So was it problematic that he the president from actually being removed from office. Believed they were negative i think the two variables, views . Yes, the whole thing was ned, would, in my guess, drawing problematic. Ambassador taylor testified on my past sort of in republican that on july 2nd, you told politics, would be public ukrainians that they needed to, quote, cooperate on opinion, should you see attacks investigations, end quote. Youre now saying that you dont on colonel vindman inching this recall saying those words; is from 51 support to 53, 54, 55. That correct . I dont believe i said th
Yes. Now, ambassador taylor also testified that and mr. Morrison both of them testified that you told them that President Trump said there was no quid pro quo which you also included in the text message that you referred. But then you went on and they had slight variations as to what you told them, but then you said that to ambassador taylor that president zelenskiy himself not the Prosecutor General needed to clear things up in public or there would be a stalemate. And mr. Morrison recounted something similar. You dont have any reason to doubt that both of their very similar recollections of the conversations they had with you, do you, ambassador sondland . Let me break that down, mr. Goldman. The text as i said about the no quid pro quo was my effort to respond to ambassador taylors
concerns to go to President Trump apparently ambassador taylor had access to Secretary Pompeo. He did not have access to President Trump so i made the phone call. I said what do you want . President trump
Among those questions, what it could mean for 2020. Could some in the president s party be rethinking whether they want to stick with mr. Trump amid the impeachment fight. Well break down all the im kagss of last nights elections results. A significant new twist in the Impeachment Inquiry. Eu Ambassador Gordon Sondland changing his story now, backing up the testimony of several other key witnesses regarding aid to ukraine and the commitment to investigate the 2016 election and the bidens. But why was he allowed to change his testimony . Were going to dig into that in just a moment. Lets go right to the implications of tuesdays elections. For that i want to bring in msnbc National Political correspondent Steve Kornacki. Hes at the big board. Nbc news road war i dont Vaughn Hillyard joins us from louisville, kentucky. Vaughn, its a state that President Trump won by about 30 points in 2016. Here we are just three years later. Looks like there will be a Deck Kr Democrat in the governors me
That a businessman would have knowledge is limited in any when he is about to sign a transaction. But if you go after his integrity, right, if you go check. And by that he clearly meant after his public service, if you go after his military record, that President Trump was youre done. Thinking about or had in front but chuck, isnt there a high stakes problem with that, for of him the possibility of providing Security Assistance to trump and the republicans to say, because then the next question is, okay, who does know ukraine. It was similar to writing a check to someone who youre what trump said . Bolton and trump. About to send. He used that analogy very and they dont want those folks to come before congress. I absolutely agree. Im saying if there is a path to clearly to indicate that this try and point out that he has limited knowledge, thats the would be this would require path and its a narrow one. Something. If that person owed him does it ultimately work . No, it doesnt. Right.
Card witness. Has already revised his initial testimony in the president s dealings with ukraine. Sondland has arrived and will be before the committee in a moment. Late yesterday we had a hearing that lasted deep into the night. Well see how far we go today. Welcome back to continuing coverage on the fox news channel. Im bill hemmer. Good morning, bill. Im sandra smith. Lawmakers are expected to double down on a phone call with the president. Team fox coverage back with us now. Chris wallace, bret baier, Martha Maccallum and bret baier. Well be with you guys throughout the entire day. Ken, we have an oping statement from Gordon Sondland. There are a lot of skipped areas in 23 pages. Opening statement will last at
least 10 minutes. From what youve been able to glean off of this, in a quick speed read what do you see as critical for sondland . Right. It looks as if there may be a bombshell or two in this. Thats what were looking for. Lets see what he says. He could revise this up to the