return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. >> when you heard burisma, you didn't see it as code for biden, the bidens? >> i did not. >> when did you know that. your testimony saying that burisma included the biden's when the readout came out. >> my testimony wasn't specific with regards to the date. >> september? >> i don't recall the date. >> if i told you that the legal definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value and the means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty. do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo but it was bribery. >> not a lawyer and i'm not going to characterize what something was or wasn't legally. >> you also said in your opening statement that secretary perry and yourself, as well as ambassador volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter, and express direction of the president. is that right? you also go on to say that we did not want to work with giuliani, simply put we played the hand that we were dealt. what you mean by that and more broadly what did you think would happen if you did not play that hand? >> i think what you're asking me is, well, you asked it. what would happen if we didn't. it was very fragile with ukraine at the time. there was no new ambassador. the old ambassador had left. there is a new president. we thought it was very, very important to shore up the relationship. >> in fact you actually said, you go on to say will understood that if we refused to work with mr. giuliani, would lose an important opportunity to cement relationships with the united states and ukraine. so "we followed the president's orders." did you see it as a directive? >> i saw it as the only pathway to moving forward on ukraine. >> you would say that the efforts mr. giuliani was undertaking became part of the formal ukraine policy. >> i can't opine on that. all i could tell he was the president wanted us to communicate with mr. giuliani. >> you went on to say in your opening testimony that the suggestion that you engaged in some "irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false." in fact what giuliani was saying was okay improper, which is what you said. initially you thought what he was doing was not improper. right? >> we do not think it was improper and when i refer to the fact that i was not engaging rome diplomacy, by definition rogue diplomacy would've meant i would not have involved the leadership of the state department and the white house. >> so you are saying everyone in the chain of command knew about giuliani's efforts to try to get the investigations into burisma and -- i'm trying to figure out what you thought you were actually opining to. >> the president directed us to work with mr. giuliani and the leadership of the state department were knowledgeable, as was the nsc, that we are working with mr. giuliani. >> what's interesting is that ambassador taylor testified he knew nothing about it and clearly he would be in the chain of information if he was ambassador to ukraine. at the end of the day, with all due respect, you are the ambassador to the european union. why would he not know about it? he was one who said there was irregular and irregular channel. >> he should've known about it. >> although you said you did not want to work with mr. giuliani, you did work with him. >> that's correct. >> do you think the essence of what he was trying to achieve was accomplished? >> i don't know what he was trying to achieve. >> you clearly would've had to of known, sir. if you thought this was going down the center lane, as you said, it was clearly important that we work with mr. giuliani to get what the president asked for because it was a directive and an order. surely you must know whether or not the mission was accomplished. >> well, i know what mr. giuliani communicated to us. >> and you thought it was fine? did you really think it was okay. >> can i answer your question. you asked what mr. giuliani was trying to achieve. >> no, i asked whether you thought it was right for mr. giuliani to want to accomplish the efforts he was involved in which was to get them to investigate burisma and the 2016 election, as he said. >> all i can testify to is what i know mr. giuliani either told me directly or told ambassador volker and others as it was related to me. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. turner. >> ambassador sondland, i want to walk through some of the portions of your testimony because sometimes you seem to make direct connections and sometimes they seem to be dead ends. i kind of want to clear up what are the dead ends and what are they direct connections. yesterday, ambassador volker, who i consider to be very talented and a man of integrity and i believe you think he's a man of integrity, correct? >> he testified that the president of the united states did not tie either a meeting with the president, phone call, or any aide to investigations of burisma, 2016, or the bidens. the president did not do that. you testified that the president did not tell you that he tied them either. >> i did testified that, although in ambassador volker and i were working on the statement and negotiating with the ukrainians, it was clear to ambassador volker that a meeting would not happen without the burisma in 2016. that was very clear to ambassador volker. >> how do you know that? what did he say? he says it's not clear. he was working on it. he knows that's with the president wanted but he didn't have it as a requirement. >> i strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony. it was absolutely a requirement or would've had the meeting and been done with it. >> what about the aid? he is saying that the aide was not tied. >> i didn't say they were conclusively tied. i said i was presuming it. >> the president was not tying aid to investigations. he also testified he spoke to giuliani and giuliani did not relate that he was tying on behalf of the president or on the president's behalf aide and then giuliani never said to him that aide was tied to investigations. the question i have for you is, did you ever have a conversation with giuliani that did not involve volker? your testimony is a lot of "we" and so do you and giuliani have a separate phone call where giuliani told you that the aid was tied. volker said that never happened. >> i did have a few conversations. i don't recall how many because i don't have the records, with mr. giuliani directly when mr. volker wasn't available. >> did giuliani say -- what were you going to say? >> i don't believe i testified that mr. giuliani told me that aid was tied. >> oh, this is part of the problem, ambassador sondland. i want to walk you through it. you have sent to us everyone was in the loop. hold on a second. i listen to you today, as have a lot of people, not only are your answer somewhat circular. equally you've contradicted yourself in your own answer. the text messages and emails you put up there, kurt volker walked us through and he had a complete different understanding of what you were saying than what you are saying you were saying. i'm confused as to how everyone is in the loop because if giuliani didn't give you any express statement, then it can't be that you believe this from giuliani. his donald trump your friend? >> no, we are not friends. >> do you like the president? >> yes. >> after you testified, chairman schiff gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the united states because of your testimony and if you pull up cnn today, right now their banner says "sondland ties trumped withholding aid." is that your testimony today? that you have evidence that donald trump tied the investigation to the aid because i don't think you're saying that. >> i have said repeatedly congressman, i was presuming. i also said president trump -- >> not just the president. giuliani didn't tell you. mulvaney didn't tell you. pompeo didn't tell you. nobody else on the planet told you that donald trump was tying aid to these investigations. is that correct. >> i think i already testified. >> answer the question. no one on the planet told you that donald trump was tying this aid to the investigations. if your answer is yes, and the term is wrong in the headline on cnn is wrong. no one on this planet told you that president trump was tying aid to investigations. yes or no. >> yes. >> so you really have no testimony today that ties president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine. in exchange for these investigations. >> other than my own presumption. >> which is nothing. do you know what hearsay evidence is? it's when i testify when someone else told me. do you know what made up testimony is? made up testimony is when you presume it. you are assuming these things and giving the evidence and they are running out doing press conferences and cnn's headline is saying that you are saying the president of the united states should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations and you don't know that. correct? >> i never said the president of the united states should be impeached. >> you've left people with a confusing impression you were giving testimony that you did not. you do not have any evidence that the president of the united states was tied to withholding it from ukraine in exchange for investigations. i yield back. >> mr. carson. >> thank you, chairman. ambassador sondland, i want to better understand mr. giuliani's role in carrying out the demand for investigations. on may 23, in the oval office, president trump told you and others to "talk to rudy." do i have that right, sir? >> correct. >> mr. ambassador, did you listen to the president and talk to rudy, sir? >> did i talk to rudy? yes. >> what did you understand to be mr. giuliani's relationship with president trump. >> and understood he was the president's personal lawyer. >> what did you believe to -- what did you believe mr. giuliani was doing in ukraine for president trump? stick i don't know. >> ambassador sondland, in august of this year, you and ambassador volker spoke to mr. giuliani about a draft statement to be issued by president zelensky. mr. giuliani suggested, insisted that the statement include specific language about burisma. correct? >> correct. >> and he insisted the statement include the mention of the 2016 elections. and mr. volker transmitted this message to a top ukrainian official, right? >> correct. >> mr. ambassador, this statement was part of the deliverable president trump wanted. >> correct. >> to your knowledge, sir, was pushing the ukrainians to investigate burisma 2016, part of state department official policy? stick i never testified we are pushing anyone investigate the n or less. i said burisma. >> you are involved in ukrainian policy. >> i told you what my role was which was quite limited in focus. >> was it your understanding that ukraine policy should involve investigations into americans or debunked conspiracy theories about the 2016 elections? >> what i testified was that in order to get president zelensky a white house visit, mr. giuliani conveyed the notion that president trump wanted these announcements to happen. >> of course it was not. it was part of the president's political agenda. it was done to benefit the president personally and politically. were you following the president's orders, mr. ambassador? >> i was following the president's direction to speak with mr. giuliani. >> thank you, sir. mr. chairman, i yelled back. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to point out a couple things. my colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words "ambassador sondland, i am bribing the ukrainian president, that there is no evidence of bribery." if he didn't say "ambassador sondland, i am telling you i'm not going to give the aid unless they do this," that there's no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid. and you've given us a lot of evidence of precisely that conditionality of both the white house meeting and military assistance. you've told us, have you not, that you emailed the secretary of state and said that if these investigations were announced, the new justice person was put in place, that the ukrainians would be prepared to give the president what he wants and that would break the logjam. you testified and showed us documents about this, have you not? >> i have. >> in your written statement, you say that the logjam you are referring to includes the logjam on security assistance. >> that is my presumption. >> we also have seen and you testified and you've also seen, ambassador, or rather acting chief of staff mulvaney himself acknowledged that the military aid was withheld in part over the investigation into 2016 that you have talked about. he referenced that as well, correct? >> correct. >> they also seem to say well, they got the money. it may have been conditioned but they got the money. yes, they got caught. they made no statement, they got no meeting. the statement on the investigations was the condition to get the meeting. they didn't make a statement that they got no meeting. but they got caught. you are aware that two days before the aide was lifted, this inexplicable aid was lifted, congress announced it was investigating this scheme. you are aware of that, aren't you? >> i am aware of that now. >> dr. wenstrup. >> mr. chairman, i would like to address the claim you made this morning claiming that republicans deny russian attempts to influence our elections. that's false and you know it and this committee, the intel committee, not the impeachment committee, but that in this committee, time and time again, we agree that russia has tried to influence american elections as far back as the soviet union. i wish you would quit making that comment. yesterday we established with mr. volker something quite obvious. more than one country can try to influence our elections. we didn't agree with your russian collusion narrative. dnc, clinton campaign coup attempt that occurred in conjunction with members of the fbi and doj and foreign sources. something that you have conveniently ignored as chairman of the intelligence committee, as he became the chairman of the impeachment committee. but in this process today, i'm interested in facts, i'm not prosecutor or defense attorney. i'm not an attorney like mr. turner. ambassador sondland, you have used the words presume, presumption, presuming, some form of the verb to presume repeatedly and today you said that was the problem, mr. goldman. no one ever told me the aide was tied to anything. i was presuming it was. a mathematic fact, two plus two does equal four but in reality, two presumptions plus two presumptions does not equal even one fact. fact is the president did tell you, ambassador sondland, no quid pro quo. that's a fact. another fact, no quid pro quo occurred. this time i would like to yield to mr. conway. >> entering into the record a "washington post" article from today. "schiff's claim that the whistle-blower has a statutory right -- interpretation that is, to interpretations. trying to protect the whistle-blower. equally valid and credible interpretation is there is something to hide. the unlevel playing field it's been created by the chairman's assistance has a statutory right to anonymity may take that unlevel playing field and the advantages it gives them. the chairman also announced that every hearing that he will not tolerate, and i read with him, any witness intimidation, threats, issues trying to bully witness. have you, your family, your businesses received any threats or reprisals or attempts to harm you in any way? can you give us an example. >> countless emails apparently to my wife. our properties are being picketed and boycotted. >> let's explore that one. our own colleague, congressman from oregon, has called for a boycott of your hotels in oregon. i'm assuming he believes it will harm you to the point that you will be bullied into doing whatever he wants done. my colleagues and i know, using the word bullying, he intended to harm you and your business. is that what you surmise question mexico that's my understanding. >> his call for boycott gave rise to demonstrations in front of your hotels that major customers have to weave in and out of demonstrators. >> as i understand it, they are going on as we speak. >> the words are better part by a couple other oregonians. congressman, responsible attempt to hurt a business that supports hundreds of jobs is shameful and ought to be an outrage to all oregonians. a lady who works for you said we are saddened to have our congressman calling for boycott that would put his constituents in peril. the attack is unwarranted. i couldn't agree more. mr. blumenauer shouldn't be using influence to bully you and your businesses. trying to take business away from you, to force you into doing something they wanted you to do. it's a shame. i'm hopeful my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in saying mr. blumenauer, you really shouldn't be using your congressional influence to try to bully and threaten a witness before these proceedings. it's wrong. i look forward to my college response in i yield back. >> i was somewhat humored by your request that mr. blumenauer not bully, get something done, one what we are talking about is the president bullying to get something what he wanted. i would like to clarify one point about the whistle-blower protection from the article mr. connelly just provided. the law reads "expressly restricts the inspector general's office from disclosing whistle-blower's identity. it says "the inspector general shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee unless the inspector general determines that such a disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosures made to an official of the department of justice responsible for determining whether prosecution should be undertaken. that appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistle-blower's identity. applicable only to the inspector general's office. we have found no court rulings on whether whistle-blowers have a right anonymity under the icwpa. saying nonetheless it's a best practice to avoid disclosure of the ukraine whistle-blower's identity given the concern about retaliation. saying we have stepped into bizarre land when senior policymakers are trying to yank a cia employee into the public spotlight in retaliation for making a whistle-blower complaint especially when they are credible threats to that employee's personal safety. i don't know why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. >> do yield? >> i only have 3 minutes and i have other issues. >> three pinocchios. >> the president of the united states has five pinocchios on a daily basis so let's not go there. [laughter] ambassador sondland, in your deposition, you lamented "i was truly disappointed the state department prevented me at the last minute from testifying earlier on october 8th, 2019." the issuance of the subpoena has supported my appearance here today and i'm pleased to provide the following testimony." it's clear that the white house, the state department did not want you to testify. at that deposition. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> since then you have on numerous occasions during your opening statement today indicated that you have not been able to access documents in the state department. is that correct? you have been hampered in your ability to provide testimony to this committee. is that correct? >> i have been hampered to provide completely accurate testimony without the benefit of those documents. >> in terms of your conversations with the president of the united states, what percentage of your conversations were about ukraine as compared to your other duties? >> i don't recall. >> well, you've only had six conversations are seven conversations with the president, you said. >> about ukraine i think. >> so you've had many other conversations? >> yes, about completely unrelated matters. >> how many conversations with with the president of the united states have you had question mexico i don't want to give you a number because it's going to be wrong without the records. >> is a less than 20? >> it's probably in that range. >> would you say that the delay in military aid and lack of a meeting at the white house works to the benefit of russia? >> repeat the question please. >> would you say that the delay in military aid to ukraine and the reluctance to have a white house meeting has a benefit to russia? >> i think it could be looked that way, yes. looked at that way. >> i'm going to speak briefly about code. when michael cohen was before the oversight committee, he was asked, you suggest the president sometimes communicates his wishes indirectly. for example, you say "mr. trump did not directly tell me to lie to congress. that's not how he operates." it would be different, he said, he doesn't give you questions. he doesn't give you orders. he speaks in code and i understand the code because i've been around him for a decade. do you think that the president was speaking in code when he would talk about wanting investigations? >> i don't, i can't characterize how the president was speaking. every conversation i've had with the president has been fairly direct and straightforward. >> all right, i yield back. >> mr. stewart. >> i have unanimous consent request. >> state your request. >> d.o.e. responds to investors homes comments before the house intelligence committee attribute to press secretary, ambassador sondland's testimony to misrepresented secretary perry's interaction with rudy giuliani and direction the secretary received from president trump. secretary perry spoke to rudy giuliani only once at the president's request. no one else's was on that call. at no point before, during, or after the phone call to the words biden or burisma come up in the presence of secretary perry. i asked for therapy entered into the record. >> without objection although i would know they have also refused to come and testify under oath. >> the american people expect a lot out of politics. i think sometimes they would like to see compromise. i think something they expect above everything else, fundamental, they expect there's a sense of fairness about it. i want to read part of a text i received from someone that i have tremendous respect for. just a few hours ago, she wrote "crafting a story to hurt another human being can ever be right. the means of destroying and hurting another individual just does not justify the end and politics does not give anyone a free pass to destroy other people." you can say a lot about the treatment of president trump over the last few years but you cannot argue that it's been fair. there were those calling for his impeachment literally before he was inaugurated. for two and a half years, we were told every single day he has betrayed our country. he is a russian asset. he has committed treason. accusations that we know now are not true. and for which we never had any evidence to support it. he was accused of obstruction. and here we are actually impeaching the president over first, quid pro quo, until he found out that didn't hold very well with focus groups. and then bribery. until virtually every witness before us who has been asked a question said they had no evidence of bribery. now it is extortion. the american people expect some sense of fairness. so a nancy pelosi, before she has seen a shred of evidence, she announces the president has betrayed his oath of office. he's betrayed the american people. betrayed national security. without seeing any evidence. again, the american people say what is fair about that? so the question before us now is extortion. that's the latest version of the charges against the president and i'm not an attorney. extortion sounds pretty scary, kind of serious. i had to look up what it means. it means obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones. mr. ambassador, that me read you a couple quotes from president zelensky and then ask you a question. first, from the ukrainian press release "donald trump is convinced that the new ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve the image of ukraine, complete an investigation of corruption which inhibited the interaction between ukraine and the usa." does that sound like president zelensky is being bribed or extorted in that comment? >> as i testified previously, not a lawyer either and i don't want to characterize any legal terms. >> that's fine. i think most people would read that and say doesn't sound like it's under severe pressure. he makes it clear in his own words, ukrainian president lenski told reporters during a joint press conference with donald trump that he was not pressured by the u.s. president again. "i was not pressured." another time, there was no blackmail. i would ask, do you think he felt like he was being extorted by the president based on these comments? >> i really think that's for the committee and the congress. >> mr. ambassador, it's really for the american people. >> i agree. >> the american people aren't stupid. the american people can hear that and say i don't think he was under duress. i don't think he was being extorted. i don't think there was an exchange of a bribe. there was a -- i would conclude it's common for our national policy to withhold aid for various reasons. you know that's true. is that not true. >> that's true. >> it's frequent, isn't it? we withhold aid for various reasons. >> correct. >> president bush did it. suspended military aid to 35 countries over their lack of support for the international criminal court. i bet it helped his political standing back home. but i don't remember anyone suggesting we should impeach him for it. president trump did it last year with afghanistan over corruption. we did it with pakistan over much the same thing, no one suggested that we impeach them for it. this is a common occurrence in international relations. it's hardly an impeachable offense. >> the time for the gentleman has expired. mr. quigley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. there are things we can agree with our colleagues on, things we can disagree. i can agree with my colleague that we should turn over all the documents. mr. ambassador, i think you agree. the state department, white house hasn't turned over a single document. the white house wanted the president's april phone conversation. on that we can agree. on others we can disagree as to particular as it relates to the whistle-blower. it distresses me because i begin to wonder about the motivations. the final analysis, the way i look at this is if we were investigating an arson, you all would indict the person who pulled the fire alarm. that person's job is done, and we've seen the smoke and we've seen the fire. whatever the whistle-blower did doesn't change the president's actions, doesn't change the president's own words which are in our testimony or in our body of evidence. it doesn't change mr. mulvaney's own words. it doesn't change the body of evidence here. all it does is put this person at risk. back to the documents and what you know, including mr. ambassador, you seem to have your memory jogged by documents. let's talk about may 23 and see if this one helps you. senator johnston, and referencing the may 23 meeting in his letter, sir, says "i have no recollection of the president saying that during the meeting. it's entirely possible he did, because i do not work for the president, it didn't register with me." he also said "i also remember sondland staying behind to talk to the president as the rest of the delegation left the oval office." sir, do you recall this later conversation and what you and the president discussed? >> i do. >> what was it? >> it was sort of a free-for-all conversation and i wanted to tide out exactly what we agreed to do and what we didn't. >> subsequently reinforced, talk to rudy. >> talked to rudy. work on it. >> did he go into more detail about it -- about what it meant? >> no. it was a short conversation. to reconfirm that the three of us would be working on the ukraine file and so on. >> back to rudy in this seemingly contradictory message. you now recall the prerequisite mentioned in the july 10 meeting, right? you are having this discussion, the first meeting is john bolton's office. you reference if there was condition. >> i believe someone else testified that i raised that they didn't dispute the testimony that i said it's my understanding that in order to get this visit done, there needs to be an announcement done i don't know if i said investigations or specifically burisma. >> in your opening, you mentioned at the very same time that apparently there was a meeting with rudy giuliani and the message you got was underscored, very concerned about what lutsenko told them, that according to rg, rudy giuliani, the z-potus meeting will not happen. it's not condition. it's just not going to happen. your understanding of the difference. >> i think what you're saying is this meeting i was talking about in my opening statement was apparently a meeting rudy giuliani was having at the same time in ukraine. unbeknownst to us. >> but he is saying something different. he is saying it's not going to happen. there's no notice and hear that it's conditioned in any way. >> well, that was ambassador volker's point. this was an exchange with ambassador taylor and ambassador volker ambassador volker. ambassador volker is saying don't let other people speak for the u.s. government. that was his point. >> but if rudy is following the directions and he saying what he saying here, and you're also following directions, right, and you're saying it's a condition, who's giving you the instructions to say what you're saying? >> that's why we thought it was problematic to work with mr. giuliani. >> exactly. who did you work with to say the things you said? did you have conversations with the chief of staff, secretary pompeo to say what you're saying? >> are you talking about in the july 10 meeting? yes, with ambassador volker because of that point, ambassador volker was the one in touch with mr. giuliani, not me. >> you had no direct conversations with mr. mulvaney about this or secretary pompeo to make this condition statement? >> only the text and emails i have already reviewed. >> thank you. my time is up. >> ms. stefanik. >> thank you, and mr. sondland, for your service and your recognition in your opening statement of your hardworking staff at the u.s. mission to the e.u. you testified that you never received any direct confirmation or specific information as to why there was a hold on aid. >> that's correct. >> you testified "president trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the investigations." >> that's correct. >> you said "never heard those words from the president." correct? >> correct. >> and test you testified that in your september 9 call with president trump, the president said "no quid pro quo. i want nothing. i want nothing. i want president zelensky to do the right thing. do what he ran on." is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the fact is the aid was given to ukraine without any announcement of new investigations. >> that's correct. >> president trump did in fact meet with president zelensky in september at the united nations, correct? >> he did. >> no announcement of an investigation before this meeting. >> correct. >> i know announcement after the meeting. correct. >> you been clear when chairman schiff has asked you broadly about investigations, you have corrected that essay specifically your understanding of investigations are investigation into the 2016 elections and investigations into burisma. that's correct? >> correct. >> are you aware that during the obama administration, the u.s. partnered with the u.k. and ukraine on an investigation into the owner of burisma as part of ukraine's anticorruption efforts. >> i became aware of it today during the hearing. >> other witnesses have testified but yes. and in fact, the obama administration's state department was concerned about the potential appearance of conflict of interest with hunter biden serving as the board of -- on the board of burisma because they raised it as they were preparing ambassador yovanovitch for her senate confirmation. >> i'm not aware of it. >> she testified and when i asked her that question in the open hearing in the closed deposition. i've asked most of our witnesses this and every witness i've asked sids, and i want to ask you this today. do you believe that hunter biden, having a position on the border burisma, has the potential appearance of a conflict of interest? >> i don't want to characterize hunter biden service on the board one way or another. i just don't know enough. >> so you disagree with every other witness that he answered yes. there's a potential appearance of a conflict of interest. >> you asked if there was -- >> the potential appearance of a conflict of interest. >> clearly it's in appearance. >> this is something every witness has answered yes to our agreed it could have a potential appearance and yet we are not allowed to call hunter biden to answer questions in front of this committee. thank you again for your truthful testimony stay, and i yield back. >> mr. swalwell. >> you were told not to show up. you showed up. i think it says a lot about you and i think history will kindly upon you for doing that but there are consequent to of that and a couple hours ago, president trump was asked about you and he said "i don't know him well. i have not spoken to him much. this is not a man i know well." is that true? >> it really depends on what you mean by "know well." we are not close friends. we have a professional, cordial working relationship. >> and that working relationship, he knows who you are. >> yes. >> he has spoken to you often. >> what is often? >> you said at least 20 times. >> if that's often, then it's often. >> you donated a million dollars to his inaugural committee, is that right? >> i bought a the vip ticket. >> that's a lot of money. >> the president makes you ambassador to the european uni european union. the ambassador to ukraine is removed and as you told us in your deposition, you become a central figure as it relates to ukraine. pretty big responsibility, right? >> i don't know that i set i was a central figure. i was one of several people who were tasked to work on the ukraine file. >> would you ever come in that big responsibility, take any actions that were not authorized by president trump ? >> well, by president trump or the leadership of the state department. >> were you ever called into the leadership of the state to permit for any actions you've taken around your work on ukraine? >> no. >> as to rudy giuliani, on may 23, the president told you "talk to rudy." you talk to him a couple times. you told us in september, talked to the president a couple times. did the president ever say to you, stop talking to rudy? >> noel. >> did he ever say don't talk to rudy? >> no. >> on ukraine you said you were playing the hand you are dealt. president trump was a dealer, wasn't a question mark >> president trump was what? >> the dealer. in your metaphor, you are playing the hand you were dealt and the dealer is president trump. >> i will recharacterize your question to say we followed the direction of the president because that was the only pathway to working with ukraine. >> on page 4 of your testimony, you said "given what we know, given what we knew at the time, what we are asked to do did not appear to be wrong." and you would agree, ambassador, knowing what you know now, what you did not know at the time, there are some things around ukraine that were wrong. >> i agree. >> so let's take out any leveraging of security assistance over the ukrainians and a white house visit, would you agree that it's wrong for the president of the united states to ask the leader of a foreign government to investigate the president of the united states' political opponent? >> yes. >> would you agree that in addition to making that request for an investigation, leveraging a visit at the white house, that a foreign government leader desperately needs, is also wrong? >> leveraging in what respect? >> a meeting at the white house. if someone needs a meeting at the white house to show their legitimacy to their people, leveraging that meeting and asking for an investigation would be wrong. >> to be candid, congressman, every meeting at the white house has conditions placed on it. i've never worked on a meeting at the white house that doesn't have a host of conditions. >> but if one of those conditions was to invest data political opponent. >> up little -- a political opponent, yes. >> if you asked a foreign government leader to investigate your political opponent, leverage a white house meeting and leverage security assistance in this hypothetical, you would agree all three of those are wrong. >> in the hypothetical, yes. >> before becoming an ambassador, you are a businessman any work done deals, is that right? involving millions of dollars? >> correct. >> you work for a guy now who wrote a book called "art of the deal," is that right? >> i do. >> state department employees say they don't want to make legal definitions around what occurred with a white house meeting being leveraged against the investigations but you plainly call it a quid pro quo. is that right? >> i did. >> finally, one final hypothetical. if someone walks through those two doors wearing rain boots, a raincoat, and holding an umbrella with raindrops falling off of it, do you have to see outside that it's raining to presume or conclude that it might be raining outside? >> i understand your hypothetical. >> i yield back. >> mr. hurd. >> thank you. mr. ambassador, good to see you. >> good to see you. >> my calling from california basically imply that you've been supportive of president trump's campaign, is that correct? >> i'm having a very hard time hearing you. >> by colleague from california indicated you were supportive of the president's campaign, is that correct? >> actually donated to the inaugural committee in order to secure tickets. >> let me ask this question. did you participate in or overhear any conversations about the potential information collected by ukraine on the bidens, collected by ukrainians on the bidens, to be used for political gain? >> did i personally hear it? no. >> did you participate in any conversations when this was being discussed? >> not that i recall. >> in your statement, on page 5, you said mr. giuliani's request for a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky, and you also recount in your conversation with president trump where he says i want nothing, no quid pro quo. how do you reconcile these two statements? >> they are hard to reconcile. we were working along mr. giuliani's direction for a period of time. we still didn't have a white house meeting. aid was now held up. there were lots of reasons being given by various people as to why those weren't moving forward, and i finally got exasperated by receiving ambassador taylor's latest text and i just picked up the phone, i got through to the president and i said what do you want? >> sure. are you aware of any specific conversations mayor giuliani had with the president between your may 23 conversation and september 11, 2019? >> i don't recall if mayor giuliani, when i was directly talking to him, either through a conference call or on a direct call, whether he quoted from the president or said i just talked to the president. most of the communications that i said with your ambassador volker initially. i don't want to opine on what may or may not have been said. >> on page 11 of your testimony, he said mr. giuliani had been communicating with ukrainians without our knowledge. i'm assuming you believe you, mr. volker, and ambassador taylor. which ukrainians was rudy giuliani communicating with? >> i was specifically referring to this text that i received from ambassador volker where mr. giuliani was apparently telling the ukrainians something that frustrated ambassador volker. >> so who specifically? we know -- >> lieutenant company, the old prosecutor. >> do you think mr. lutsenko has any gravitas within the zelensky regime? >> i don't know. he was the old attorney general. >> ultimately got fired in august. >we know that mr. giuliani has met with yermak. do you know any other ukrainian official within the zelensky regime that mayor giuliani was meeting with? >> i don't know who mr. giuliani was meeting with. >> had you had any conversations with ukrainian officials within the zelensky regime that came to you and said hey, i just got off the phone with giuliani. what the hell is he talking about? >> i don't recall. >> would that be normal? in all your interactions with ambassadors and heads of states and governments, if there is some element of the u.s. government that they have spoken to, isn't it usually that they come in, talk to the ambassador, try to clarify the statement? is that a true characterization of high elements of diplomacy work. sticker that's a reasonable possibility. things work all kinds of different ways. >> when you met with president zelensky after the july 25 phone call. you met him on july 26, did the investigations for joe biden, but not meeting? >> i don't recall joe biden coming up. >> was their frustration expressed to you about the phone call that happened the day before? >> no, as i testified, everybody said it was a good call. >> in your opinion, your interactions with president zielinski, is he a straight shooter or is he a liar? >> he impressed me greatly and that's why wanted to get he and president trump together as soon as possible. >> when he makes express statements, you tend to believe them. >> with my limited interaction with him, he seemed honorable. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i yield back. >> mr. castro. >> good afternoon, ambassador. welcome. others close to president trump have made it clear that investigations were in fact part of a condition for u.s. assistance to ukraine, including ridge giuliani and mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. ambassador sondland, at a press conference on october 17, acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney discussed his belief that it's entirely appropriate to politicize u.s. foreign policy. ambassador, how often did you speak or meet with mr. mulvaney? >> again, based on my lack of records, i'm going by a bad memory. >> based on your memory. >> i think i had one formal meeting with mr. mulvaney and had nothing to do with ukraine. it was completely unrelated. >> did you have a chance to talk to mr. mulvaney about your efforts in ukraine? >> most of our communication was through the stream of emails which others were on generally. i may have seen him at the white house casually and said hello and kept in touch but we didn't have a back and forth. >> was it your sense that mr. mulvaney had a direct line to president trump? he must have, as acting chief of staff. >> of course. >> let's look at what mr. mulvaney said during his october 17 press conference. >> those were the driving factors. also mentioned to me corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely. no question. that's it. that's why we held up the money. >> reporter: demand into investigation of the democrats was part of the reason -- withholding funding to ukraine. >> looked back to what happened in 2016, certainly part of the things he was worried about in corruption with that nation and that's absolutely appropriate. >> he said, he said that president trump in that clip have an interest in the investigations. did he not? >> apparently, yes. >> he is the chief of staff. he sees the president and has conversations with the president every day. wouldn't you expect it? >> i would expect he has a direct line to the president. >> ambassador sondland, when did you first learn from mr. mulvaney that the investigations were holding up a security assistance? >> i don't know that i heard it from mr. mullaney. >> okay. ambassador sondland's, i know that you are not a career foreign service officer. is that your understanding the u.s. government conditions assistance into an investigation of a political rival all the time. >> i've already testified i didn't think it would be proper. >> let's see what mr. mulvaney had to say about that at the same press conference. >> those were the driving factors. did he also mentioned to me that the corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely, no question about that but that's it and that's why we held up the money. >> i will read it for you because -- i'll read it. >> i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence and foreign policy. knowing what you know now what was intended with ukraine, do you agree with mr. mulvaney that there is just going to be political influence in foreign policy or that we should all just get over it and allow a president now or later to investigate a political rival and ask a foreign government to do that? >> i think there's a big difference between political influence and investigating arrival. politics enters into everything related to foreign policy. >> but you disagreed that -- you agree that the president should not be allowed to ask for the investigation of a political rival. >> in the context of what was going on in ukraine, i believe that the president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo. >> part of the way that you figured out that all of the stuff that was going on, that you are part of something it was basically wrong, is because in the july 25 phone call, the president himself -- he didn't tell you. we don't know if you told rudy giuliani or not because rudy giuliani won't come in here. he said directly to the president of ukraine that he wanted the bidens investigated. was that your reading of the call? >> i don't believe i was part of something that was wrong because based on what i knew, i thought we were operating well within the center lane of proper u.s. diplomacy. >> i yield back. >> mr. rat cliff. >> thank you asking unanimous consent to enter in the record. ambassador sondland, i will be brief. in the anticipation of mr. mr. holmes' testimony tomorrow about the july phone call that he overheard at a cafe in kiev that you had with president trump, he overheard that even though call was not on speakerphone. >> i don't believe so. >> was it an open air cafe? >> it was outdoors. >> one of the points that my democratic colleagues keep making is that david holmes' prior testimony which he will apparently confirm tomorrow is that president trump said he doesn't give a blank about ukraine. you heard that earlier. >> that was not on the phone call. i don't think he testified that was on the phone call. i think he was testifying that i summarized the phone call. i don't recall saying that. >> you have no recollection of that. >> i don't. >> even if it was true, there's nothing wrong with that, to have an opinion. >> he can have whatever opinion he wants about ukraine. >> it's all part of the narrative that president trump is a bad guy and he doesn't care about the ukrainians but it seems to me nothing says you care more about the ukrainians then sending javelin antitank missiles. do you agree with me? >> i agree that sending javelin antitank missiles or something ukraine wanted and needed. >> does work a lot better at stopping russian tanks than the blankets that were sent by the obama administration. >> your point is taken. >> i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and ambassador, thank you for your stamina, sir. a few quick fairly easy questions. you would agree that foreign interference in our elections can be a threat to our democracy? >> under certain conditions, yes. >> there are conditions under which their interference is not a threat? >> did you say foreign interference? sorry. always. >> and identifying that interference should be a priority. >> it should be one of its priorities. speaking when you are assisting president trump in his efforts to obtain those investigation, did you realize those investigas could impact the 2020 election? >> no. >> do you believe it's appropriate ever appropriate to invite, press, bribe, or coerce foreign interference in our elections? >> no. >> thank you. i want to refer to something you cite in your opening statement. "as i previously testified, had i known of all of mr. giuliani's dealings or of his associations with individuals now under criminal indictment, i would not have acquiesced to his participation." it's hard to read that without believing that you thought that what he was doing was either wrong or that he was not reputable. fair? >> well. with 20/20 hindsight. >> you have testified today that you came to believe that the request for investigations into burisma was in fact a request to investigate the bidens. former vice president and hunter. the transcript of the july 25 call makes specific reference to that, including hunter biden and today even the ranking member said we could clear all of this up if we could have hunter biden in then i am a simple question. what ukrainian law did hunter biden violate? >> i'm not aware. >> what evidence is there that he may have violated any ukrainian law? >> i'm not aware. >> that's because there is none, sir. finally. also from your opening statement, you said "as you know, i've already provided ten hours of deposition testimony. i did so despite directives from the white house and state department that i refused to appear, as many others have done. i agreed to testify because i respect the gravity of the moment. i believe i have an obligation to account fully for my role in