Was the white house visit in return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. When you heard burisma, you did not see that as code for biden, the bidens . I did not. When did you even know that . Is it your testimony that you only realized that burisma included the bidens when the readout came out . No, i really dont recall the date. It was very late in the game, though. September . I dont recall the date. So if i told you that the Legal Definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value as a 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 . Im not a lawyer and im not going to characterize what
something was or wasnt 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 at Express Direction of the president , is that right . That
Return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. When you heard burisma, you didnt see it as code for biden, the bidens . I did not. When did you know that. Your testimony saying that burisma included the bidens when the readout came out. My testimony wasnt specific with regards to the date. September . I dont 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 im not going to characterize what
something was or wasnt 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 t
laura: presuming, thinking, believing, feeling. we are going to impeach a president on someone s opinion in the absence of cold, hard fact? there were a lot of opinions and beliefs of today but zero evidence. my belief was, i believe that was to be the case. i was presuming that it was. i think. my personal presumption. that was my belief. my personal belief. my personal belief, as you put it, two plus two equals four. laura: he s good at math, too. two plus two equals four? that right. riveting, explosive! and how persuasive. congressman brad wenstrup, although not a lawyer, had fun with that. a mathematic fact, two plus two dozen fact equal four. but in reality, two presumptions plus two presumptions does not
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
ambassador sondland, you honestly have used the words presumed, presumption, presuming, some form of the verb to presume repeatedly today. and said you said that was the problem, no one ever told me the aid was tied to anything. i was presuming it was. you see, in mathematic fact, two plus two does equal four. but two presumptions plus two presumptions does not equal even one fact. and the fact is, the president did tell you, ambassador sondland, no quid pro quo. that s a fact. and another fact, no quid pro quo occurred. this time i would like to yield to mr. conway. i would like to consent to enter into the record a washington post article from