relating to the white house meeting correct. yes and this is only. this is just investigations generally making a public statement of openness generally right well i think by august 11th mr castro i think we were talking about 2016 number response investigations generally was really early in the ok but do we know that secretary bomb peo knows that i think so i think i well only because i think ambassador i'm sorry counselor brecht will was briefed ok on all of these things and i who got you. by i believe embassador volcker i myself areas know what he testified to i mean did you did you embassador counsel brecht will testify i didn't know he attests you know ambassador volcker oh ok he didn't testify that he be briefed as directly will i mean this e-mail to the secretary is talking about this

statement which by the way i mean you said curtain i negotiated a statement and the statement never went didn't go anywhere mr ambassador volcker said it wasn't a good idea mr jamar said it wasn't a good idea. and what you're reading the secretary here is just to you know it relates to a generic openness subject right yeah but i think the secretary though was on the july 25th call which obviously i wasn't on i didn't know about it but you use this e-mail to suggest that everyone was in the loop that execute the sector assistance was tied to some sort of act by the ukrainians no no i don't think i said that i don't think i said that this assistance was in involved here i think i was what was everyone in the loop about that well the secretary was in the loop that we had negotiated a statement. i'm fairly comfortable that the secretary knows that where the

statement was at that point in other words the 2016 and. and that. lisa pass that along to your room and kept him informed ok so we can agree that at this point i'm the secretary wasn't in a loop that there was a conditionality on the security sector assistance of guns are you asking about july 19th exhibit 4 i was asking about your e-mail to the secretary on august 11th oh ok there's well on on july 19th. which the secretary was on i talked about fully transparent investigation and turned over every stone and the secretary was on that ok so you testified to your deposition that on july 19th in this continuum you talked about that point in the continuum it was just

a generic investigation wasn't anything involving i think it went again with i'm not trying to put words in any way i think it went from the original generic from you know may 23rd when we left the oval office we're talking about corruption and oligarchs until mr giuliani started to become involved and then it then a transition into the recent you haven't even talked to giuliani about that time this is july 19th. sorry is the mike. will you allow me to finish his answer of course i apologize. we were communicating with mr giuliani through secretary perry and through ambassador volcker i wasn't talking to mr giuliani directly ok until after august 1st but as of july 19th weren't we still on the generic part of the and i don't know i believe we were i believe by then we were talking about to respond 2016 to be it to be candid but but

not biden no no not by ok now and then turning to your e-mail of august 11th yeah i got it i'm sorry we just just go august 22nd 22nd that's page 23 of your your opener yeah i got it. and this is where. you were requesting a poll aside for the president this is when the president was he was still going to go going to go was before the hurricane. right from that office he had i would ask selenski to look him in the eye and tell him that once ukraine's new justice spokes are in place. selenski should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president and the united states hopefully that will break the logjam and at this point in time the issues of importance to the

president of the united states were what the it 2 investigations ok. but but not nothing to do with with with vice president biden right now again i didn't make the connection. i just pivoted briefly to the president's concerns about foreign assistance. under secretary hale who be with us later today testified that. during this relevant time frame. there was a real focus to reexamine all federal aid programs are you aware that

interest of the president i'm generally aware of the president's skepticism toward foreign aid and you know conditioning foreign aid on certain things i'm generally aware of that yes and ambassador hale testified in his testimony in public. almost a 0 based concept that each assistance program in each country that receives the program be evaluated the program made sense that we avoid nation building and that we not provide assistance to countries that are lost to us in terms of policy whether it's because. corruption or you know another reason. is that something you are aware of it it's time generally yes ok and you're certainly aware that the president was concerned about the european allies the contributions to the region exactly why was involved ok so

you know as we get down to september 11th right before the a year you're advocating that the pause be left and correct me i didn't think that but i personally didn't think the pa should have ever been put in ok but as we get down to september 11th and you're talking with senator johnson and so forth you don't know a certainty that the genuine reason the president was implementing the pause wasn't because it is his concerns about the allies or his concerns about foreign assistance generally or that he wasn't just trying to hold the aid as long as he could to see what he could. you know what type of information you could get about those 2 subjects fair enough ok. i'm really trying to finish up before my time so i can yield some time back if anything else.

thank you. you know back. back back to the balance of our time. let's take a 30 minute recess to allow. investors on good bye to like the members of committee might like to get a bite to eat and then we will resume with the member rounds of questioning 5 minutes if we could allow the witnesses to have that jury leave the room 1st. mr chairman. and it's after song when it intended to fly back to brussels to resume his duties at the end of the day and so. it would be a great convenience for us if we could have a shorter break now and resume with the members questions and try and wrap up in time that he might be able to make his fight appreciate that counsel we are all have a busy schedule these days memoranda question should take i think slightly less than

2 hours so i think you should be good depending on the time of your flight but we will endeavor to make the break as sure as possible. if you like to excuse yourself in the room before the rest of the crowd. the impeachment inquiry into president donald trump is now in a brief recess after a very long and productive morning the ambassador to the u.k. or insaan has just left the room and when it resumes we will bring you back to that hearing obviously this is only the 4th time that there has been an impeachment inquiry into a u.s. president as such this is a very significant day and even having said that this is a potentially deeply consequential day because of the testimony we have heard from the ambassador to the e.u. chord song and a few weeks ago he gave a 10 hour deposition behind closed doors on

a lot of what he said today actually you could say amplified you can say contradicted that the bottom line ambassador gordon somberness testified that there was a quid pro quo we've heard that term very often basically he said that the ukraine ukraine pardon me was not going to get any assistance from the u.s. and less the president of ukraine the new president selenski went to the microphone and made an announcement that there was going to be an investigation into the company borís men and as such that meant the former vice president joe biden and this son hunter if you will we get back to the questioning and just a moment 1st let us play you a little clip of the ambassador explaining why he chose to come forward and testify even though the white house did not want him to this is not my 1st time cooperating with this committee as you know i've already provided 10 hours of deposition

testimony and i did so despite directives from the white house and the state department that i refused to appear as many others have done i agreed to testify because i respect the gravity of the moment and i believe i have an obligation to account fully for my role in these events. the master went on to say that it was difficult for him to account as fully as he wanted to because he didn't actually have documents that he had requested because the state department would not release them as you can see we have both our correspondents covering this we have can really help that live at the white house look at the can really and just a moment forces go to hydrogen castro is a capitol hill it has been a monumental day there on the hill heidi. that's right and there is so much to get through so gordon's on the ambassador to the e.u. just testified that in his understanding that there were actually 2 things at stake 2 of these quid pro quos the 1st one he said was explicit came from the president's

personal attorney who was empowered on by the president trump himself rudy giuliani saying that the president of ukraine would not be awarded a visit to the white house unless you crane issued a public statement saying you would investigate trump's political rivals there is no question in the way that stalin phrased his testimony there that this in fact was an explicit demand made toward ukraine on behalf of the president's interest so moving past that someone also said that he presumed that there was more at stake here he said that giuliani's demands of ukraine became more insidious with time and that then chile and realize that there was also $400000000.00 worth of u.s. security aid to ukraine that was being withheld and would not be released as he

told ukrainian officials himself would not be released until ukraine made that statement that painted joe biden in a bad light now saddam was questioned many times by republicans and democrats on exactly how he made that connection and his testimony was consistent turned out he said no he didn't. here the president directly say that these things were condition together but he quote he said that it was abundantly clear unquote to everyone that these 2 things were linked and that is why he himself stated this to ukrainian officials in early september saying that this for us and as you can see we just lost our signal there to both of our correspondents who are covering what has happened and what has happened on the hill this morning so what we're going to do is we're going to play a little bit of what the ambassador said this is what heidi was talking about

a bastard to the e.u. has been giving lengthy testimony this morning saying that he acted at the direction of the president when he made it clear to new crane that there would not be any aid released and unless there was an investigation into the by sea actually said that it took him some time to make that connection that the aid was being held up because selenski the new president of ukraine at the behest of president trump was supposed to make a public announcement about an investigation into the buy ins basically that is the quid pro quo he's talking about political favors for the u.s. president in exchange for $400000000.18 crain who is in a current war with russia so right now let's play a little bit of the ambassador's testimony was there a quid pro quo as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting the answer is yes mr giuliani conveyed to

secretary perry ambassador volcker and others that president trump wanted a public statement from president selenski committing to investigations of barry sma and the 2016 election mr giuliani expressed those requests directly to the ukrainians and mr giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. we all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the right white house meeting reflected president trump's desires and requirements and as you saw in that testimony there are a lot of names that the ambassador mentioned and you can see right there we have castro back so heidi that another key part of the testimony from the ambassador is he said at one point everybody was in the loop and that this was at the direction of the president and just a moment ago he listed names when he's talking about everybody's talking about

secular state might pompei or secretary of energy. rick perry or volker john bolton national security former national security adviser the point being that he has broaden this out beyond just the president. that's right he's not giving anyone cover here michel besides arguably himself but what republicans are really zoning in on is exactly how the president himself is implicated on that matter sumlin was clear saying that he did not hear from the president anything that ties the quid pro quo security aid with the investigations and in fact the president had it straight out said that there was no quid pro quo ok heidi you stay there we're going to go to the white house and our white house correspondent kimberly health kit is covering all this from from that vantage point and there have been been some big developments at the white house since last we spoke them really. yeah it seems

the president was watching this very intently richelle in fact he appeared on the south lawn of the white house with a reporter's notebook it seemed he had taken notes written in like a sharpie pen of what he wanted to say to reporters and he wanted to underscore what the white house press secretary also said in a very public statement essentially making the argument that there was some positive development out of the song in testimony in fact that he had testified that there had been multiple phone calls between the 2 but that the president had clearly stated that he wanted nothing the aid flowed and there were no political investigations lives the president seeming very upbeat about all of this in fact saying in the words of it of donald trump it's all over take a listen to what he had to say. the cameras rolling i want nothing. that's what i want from you great that's when it i want nothing. i said it twice.

so he goes. he asked me the question what do you want i keep hearing all these things what do you want he finally gets me i don't know him very well i have not spoken to him much this is not a man i know well seems like a nice guy zone but i don't know him well he was with other candidates he actually supported. not me famous like. but he is not a response now if you were fake do you cover it properly. i'd say the assessor's response i want nothing i want nothing i want no quid pro quo no president zuma. to do the right thing so is my answer i want nothing i want nothing. i want no good broken home. to do the right thing when he says this is the final word from the president of the united states i want

nothing thank you for that. so what the president is really trying to highlight in all of this is that it one point it seems that there were some contradictions in gordon silence testimony essentially that well he testified there was a quid pro quo bit no one tied it directly to the investigations in other words it wasn't coming directly from the president saw england presume to all of this so this is what the white house is trying to highlight that he never heard these words directly from the president he just kind of made these personal assumptions and as a result was was acting on what he believed to be the president's direction but never actually hearing directly from the president of the united states all right kimberly wrap up there from the white house we'll get right back to you just shortly kimberly me to bring someone else into the into the conversation now to christopher lewis a senior fellow at the miller center at the university of virginia who joins us live from washington d.c. . as i've been saying throughout the day or evening this is obviously

a rare occasion there's only been 4 impeachment inquiries ever and having said as such this what this particular day seems to have a lot of gravity seems to be very significant this witness specifically said i did what i did at the direction of the president and then paints a picture of other people in the administration that knew that this was happening can you put this in some sort of context for me. this is devastating you know i spent 20 years in government including doing investigations on capitol hill i don't remember a nother testimony that was as clear and as convincing as this one and you saw that i mean you saw every word defense that the house republicans have made just evaporate the minute that ambassador sunland start talking this was after all a witness who had firsthand knowledge who of a put quid pro quo who is getting direct information from the president and it was

not about corruption generally it was about investigating vice president biden and it's one of the reasons why you don't really see at this point people trying to refute his testimony they're trying to refute his credibility now see the president say hadn't really know this guy by all accounts investor someone talk to the president at least 6 or 7 times that we know of and probably a lot more so this is a significant development let me ask you something one thing that they republicans have been trying to say is that the aide was eventually released the statement that president trump wanted president selenski to make about an investigation into the buy ins that never actually happened basically they're saying well maybe all these things from a sketch that they never actually happened does it matter that they say things didn't that that that it didn't actually take place you know let's understand this i mean we we know from the testimony that presidents alinsky was ready to make the statement he was ready to go on c.n.n.

and announce an investigation of the bidens we know that from his aides that they had agreed to that as well the only reason why this whole scheme didn't go through was because the whistleblower filed a complaint that became public the white house i guess got cold feet in the lead decided to let the. decide to let the aide go just because any legal scheme doesn't carry forward doesn't mean it was an illegal in the 1st place. ok chris 1st so what do you anticipate when we come back from this brief recess when the republicans actually take that back and we both sides will have a moment to to have their 5 minutes of questions what do you anticipate this afternoon after such a significant morning well i suspect that democrats will. allow the testimony just to stand on its own i think it's incredibly powerful his opening statement in the 1st round of questions i think republicans will try to refute his

credibility i think they'll try to say look you never actually heard the president himself say this although we actually now know from other accounts of the president did in fact say that and that i think they will try to minimize the significance of this will keep trying to go back to the fact that at one point gordon scorns online did say that there was no quid pro quo they will try to focus on in consistencies but just go back and read that $24.00 page opening statement by investors on what he could not be more clear about what directions he was given who at what he was supposed to do and how he continued to keep everyone in the loop and that's one of the important things he's now implicated the vice president secretary of state secretary of energy and white house chief of staff as well and it's 4 to understand if the president wants to refute all this he can do that he can have all of these advisers come forward and testify and so far he's been unwilling to do that in a baster someone also said look i have all these e-mails all these documents that

are sitting at the state department that they won't turn over so if the president wants to come clean and allow all the information out there that might be one way to refute this but so far he hasn't been inclined to do that and chairmanship actually started off the hearing this morning by pointing to the fact that all of the documents that he and the committee have requested not a single one has been turned over christopher lou thank you so much for your expertise we appreciate it thank you. now ambassador sahlin said that he always felt the u.s. diplomats could do a better job with ukrainian diplomacy than the president's personal attorney rudy giuliani let's us and have to support this reform or we asked the white house for 2 things 1st a working phone call between presidents trump and selenski and 2nd a working oval office visit in our view both were vital to cementing the u.s. ukraine relationship demonstrating support for ukraine in the face of russian aggression and advancing broader u.s.

foreign policy interests unfortunately president trump was skeptical he expressed concerns that the ukrainian government was not serious about reform and he even mentioned that ukraine tried to take him down in the last election in response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views president trump directed us to quote talk with rudi we understood that talk with rudi meant talk with mr rudy giuliani the president's personal lawyer let me say again we weren't happy with the president's directive to talk with rudy we did not want to involve mr giuliani i believed then as i do now that the men and women of the state department not the president's personal lawyer should take responsibility for ukraine matters. the president's personal lawyer rudy giuliani

that name has come up consistently during every single testimony our white house correspondent kimberly how could have been listening as well so kimberly the ambassador was very clear that at some point he was directed to deal with ukraine policy through the president's personal attorney rudy giuliani. can really these 2 the president and rudy giuliani go way back to new york to still people little bit more about their connection about their relationship. well he's the president's personal lawyer and he often many people will argue does the dirty work of the president whether it was during the probe into whether or not there was collusion between the 26 presidential campaign of donald trump and russia as robert muller the special counsel was probing and looking at that or whether 'd it is the situation the impeachment inquiry that the president finds now or even the work on ukraine it seems very much that he has been kind of the president's go to guy if

you will and this is what we've heard not just from the ambassador to the european union but from other diplomats who have testified not only yesterday but also last week as well and this sort of underscores a recurring theme that under donald trump there seem to be 2 tracks of diplomacy there was the traditional track where we saw career diplomats bureaucrats and then there was the unconventional track that was headed up by the president's personal attorney rudolph giuliani so this is something that has been testified to repeatedly but i should point out as there is sort of this rapid response from the trump campaign from the president's war room if you will they are really trying to seize upon this too particularly when gordon songun testified that he was acting at the express direction of the president following the president's orders what that meant was that he didn't hear this information directly from the president but

instead that expressed direction was to work with rudolph giuliani someone they didn't really want to work with so that is sort of the fine point that the trump rapid response is trying to get out there whether or not it will take hold is another matter but it's clear that what we are seeing here once again is this unusual track of diplomacy under the administration of donald trump and having said that kimberly yes it seems that the republicans are trying to put some distance between president trump and those like exact words that i gave this exact. border even if that were the case even if that were the case would there not still be legitimate constitutional questions about what people in his administration were doing or about the fact that the president did put his his constitutional duties to deal with foreign policy in the hands of a private citizen. yeah there are real questions about that but i think you speak to sort of the larger point that we haven't had

a lot of opportunity discuss and that is that this goes much broader with this testimony not just the president of the united states but also the u.s. 3 secretary of state and the vice president because gordon saw in the ambassador was very clear that throughout all of these negotiations and dealings with ukraine he says he kept the white house and for him he kept the vice president's office informed and the state department for reasons everyone was in the loop it was no secret and we need to bring up that the vice president's office has directly responded to these allegations the chief of staff mark short sent out a statement to reporters in it he says that this alleged discussion between gordon seidlin and the vice president where a son testified that in fact he had told the vice president in warsaw that he was concerned about the delay in aid to ukraine being tied to investigations the vice president's chief of staff saying that the president vice president never spoke with silent about investigating the bidens barista or the conditional release of

financial aid to ukraine based upon potential investigation so we have now kind of 2 different sides of the coin one hand saying yes this was the case the other saying no it wasn't it comes down now to whether or not the american public whether or not the congress men and women inside that hearing room who they are going to believe. can really stay close closer and play a little bit more what the ambassador have to say and also bring up heidi jocasta into the conversation to the ambassador clarified in a testimony and kimberly just alluded to this that the president never directly told him there was a quid pro quo quid pro quo pardon me for the 8 years that moment president trump never told me directly. that the aid was conditioned on the meetings the only thing we got directly from giuliani was that the aris month and 2016

elections were conditioned on the white house meeting the aide was my own personal . you know guess based again on your analogy 2 plus 2 equals 4 ok castro is outside of the chambers for all of this is happening needs an impeachment inquiry and just to remind our viewers they're in and a recess right now they're not missing anything as soon as the ambassador comes back we'll bring them back into this conversation so heidi the ambassador was pushed on this many times and he said no he never directly got you know this plus that but he made a lot of assumptions along the way a lot of his testimony lines up with what other witnesses have been saying the other 4 days that i know that you've been listening to that as well. that's right and those other witnesses have brought up cordons name time and time again sort of as the trigger person that spoke after getting directions from rudy giuliani but who spoke directly with ukraine to make this demand happen and what someone's

testimony today boils down to is he's saying i'm no dummy i put these 2 things together yes it was a presumption but he said that it was abundantly clear to everyone not just to him but also apparently to the department of state as well as the vice president's office that the that there was a linkage between the security aid to ukraine and the statement that trump wanted from ukraine that it was investigating joe biden but the question really is how compelling of a story is that to the american public that is so deeply divided that since the campaign of president trump has been interpreted in facts in 2 different ways you were set up for this in a sense even the president's own spokespeople saying that now there exists such a phrase as alternative facts well what are the 2 sets of facts are looking at after this morning's testimony on one hand from the democrats' perspective someone

has built a very compelling case that it was abundantly clear that the aid and that the investigations against bided were related and that is why he communicated that to ukrainian officials and that is why he said that the president of ukraine himself understood it was at stake was the money that ukraine was counting on to help it defend itself against russia but then we have the other compelling narrative that republicans are trying to highlight for their base who are watching this and that is as you mention someone makes it clear that he did not hear directly from the president it's. himself at any time that these 2 things were linked in fact he testified that he never talked about the security aide in general even with the president and the president himself you heard him also speaking with reporters highlighting the conversations he had with stalin in which he explicitly said there

was no quid pro quo the context of this as well that we've heard from testimony previous personal attorney talking about a man named michael cohen who is now serving time in federal prison who in an unrelated case had said that trump likes to communicate in code that throughout his business dealings in manhattan developing co tells and other properties he wouldn't ask cohen to do something explosive leave but it was hinted at and it was understood clearly by cohen so there's a question of whether or not this type this style of communication was made clear to gordon stalin and giuliani as well another point another note that trump was trying to downplay his relationship with ambassador sahlin just now saying that he hardly knows the man well there's also some evidence that they may have been closer than the president lets on we know saleh was a republican donor who gave $1000000.00 to trump's inauguration prior to being

awarded in the sense with the ambassadorship to the european union and he had bragged to others who have testified in the southeastern inquiry that he had very close communications with the president that he could call him in the middle of the night and in fact did so and today he also testified about another conversation that happened the day after trump asked the president of ukraine for these investigations into biden and which sunland was speaking. using very poor language with the president of the united states saying how much the president of ukraine wanted to please trump and that trump really just didn't care at all. about ukraine and someone said well that's how we communicate where we're close like that in a sense so a lot of contradictory information emerging from today's testimony and from the way that it's speed interpreted and it's really difficult to tell exactly how this is

going to fall upon the ears of the american public and how it will be accepted by the republicans in the senate who ultimately will be deciding the president's face and i think you make a good point that it's worth reminding our viewers about that the ambassador ambassador song and testified that president trump basically did not care about what was happening in ukraine what is happening in ukraine as that they are at war with russia and people are dying every day that is why the u.s. congress approved $400000000.00 in aid to be given to ukraine the aid that was held up for a time but eventually released now the ambassador actually testified for about 10 hours in a closed door deposition a while ago before this public one that you're saying there are some discrepancies in what he said in that deposition and what you saw on t.v. this morning well he has a a bit of what he says is the next one nation for that so let's listen they have also refused to share these materials with this committee these documents are not

classified and in fairness and in fairness should have been made available in the absence of these materials my memory admittedly has not been perfect and i have no doubt that a more fair open and orderly process of allowing me to read the state department records and other materials would have made this process far more transparent i don't intend to repeat my prior opening statement or attempt to summarize 10 hours of previous deposition testimony. so the ambassador admitting there heidi that there are lots of memory he also said at one point that he doesn't take good notes that that's fair i think that anybody could you know for certain periods of time perhaps not remember everything to a tee but heidi he did say in that deposition before that there was no quid pro quo

and now he is a quid pro quo many times today that's a big change. exactly and that is what makes his testimony so problematic and promising for both sides of this richelle in fact during his the 1st time that he told a story as you said he said there was no quid pro quo then after other witnesses came in who really implicated song linda himself in telling the ukrainians that that aid was being withheld because that statement on the bidens was not forthcoming then some land of his own initiative came back to capitol hill to refresh that testimony in a sense to reverse it because on that key point he later said that yes he now recalls that yes there was this linkage between the aid and the statements on biden and oh yes 3 he recalls that he was actually the person who delivered that message to the ukrainians that's what side as for what we saw this morning.

it appears as saleh is sticking to that that 2nd. that 2nd explanation he gave that he does still presume believe that there is that a linkage but then he's threading the needle they're saying as a cob yet he did believe this fact it appears everybody believe this but he did not have that he conversation with trump you never heard trump himself say that this aid was conditioned on the investigations ok heidi thank you very much just to let people see what we're saying the ambassador has returned to the room we expect the questioning to be again and any moment if i can get a quick question of kimberly what is the the president's demeanor been today i mean one of our analysts described this testimony today as devastating. yeah but the president sees a loophole and it's clear if he spoke in front of reporters we've this president throughout these proceedings going back to the very 1st day of public hearings said

he wasn't watching yesterday he acknowledged he was watching today he had had written notes on our reporters no pads to piers that he is getting more and more involved more and more engaged this is not a guy that typically takes no so was striking everybody who was standing there including our white house producer chris sheridan web service that and found it striking so his demeanor seems to be somewhat upbeat which is astounding given the fact that much of this testimony from his ambassador to the european union has not been particularly helpful and i'm really donald trump we know is a fighter in case of difficult odds fights back the right that's a great wrath up there kimberly let's get back to the to the hearing is happening right now for sure with the office of management and budget. is today reviewing his transcript and opportunity we give all the witnesses before their transcript is released to make sure that it's accurate and correct. as his deposition was only

taken on saturday this was the soonest we could arrange that we did inform the minority yesterday that if they wish to use any of the questioning from mr sandys deposition they could do so and we would happily take whatever excerpts they needed even prior to the with the 7 the chance to go through it they chose not to take advantage of that opportunity but i would make this far more significant point which is it's not the top official at the office of management budget responsible for releasing for assistance those individuals are named fought and duffy. and both of those political appointees have been subpoenaed to testify and both of those political appointees have refused in fact. as the deposition will make clear when the transcript is released at a certain point. mr sandy was taken out of at least one significant part of the process but that transcript of may be made available as soon as he finishes the

review and we can redact any personal information from it. i want to ask is the few questions and are our staff because expanded around have had time to get through much of what i want to ask you a vaster but with respect to the statement. you're going back and i mean by you and others investor volcker and others were going back and forth with the ukrainians to figure out what statement they would have to make to get the meeting correct correct and they understood they were going to have to make this statement publicly in order to get the meeting correct. similarly you testified that pretty much everyone could put $2.00 and $2.00 together and make 4 and understood that the military assistance was also conditioned on the public announcement of these 2 investigations correct that was my presumption you put 2 and 2 together you got 4 all right yes

now you're capable of putting 2 and 2 together and so the ukrainians they could put 2 and 2 together as well they understood there was a hold on security assistance is testimony that they understood that in july or august but it was without a doubt understood when it was made public. in the newspaper they understood that the security assistance was being held up right. i don't know when they understood it but presumably they did well certainly once it was public they understood the security assistance was withheld right once it was public i assume so yes and indeed that was one of the issues that was brought up in that meeting between selenski and pence and more so i think as i said testified previously chairman. i think selenski if i recall asked the question more open ended like when do we get our money well ok. so they understood they didn't have the money yet it had been approved by congress there was

a whole lot it you couldn't give them any explanation i couldn't write that's right i asked you couldn't tell them why it was being withheld right i could not. and if they couldn't put $2.00 and $2.00 together you put $2.00 and $2.00 together for them because you told them in warsaw they were going to need to make that public statement likely to get that aid released as i said i presume that might have to be done in order to get them released as we've had a lot of a lot of argumentation here well the ukrainians didn't know the aid was withheld but the koreans found out and then it was made abundantly clear if they hadn't put $2.00 and $2.00 together themselves if they want to that a they're going to have to make these statements correct. mr newness. illness reckless. investor sananda i'm going to try and quickly moved to summarise all of your direct communications with president trump as it relates to this

inquiry and of course you can correct me if i get it wrong i'm on may 23rd you had a group meeting that included which called a vanilla request about ending corruption involving ukrainian oligarchy act on july 25th you called president trump to say you were on your weight ukraine but nothing of substance occurred on that call correct. on july 26th you had a 5 minute call or restaurant that you didn't originally remember because it according to your statements morning quote did not strike me as significant at the time and quote but once refresh recalled that the primary purpose was a rapper named asap rocky correct correct and on september 9th and most importantly reading from your deposition you called president trump to ask him what do you want from ukraine he responded i want nothing i want no quid pro quo i want selenski to do the right thing i want him to do what he ran on and what he ran on was fighting

corruption correct and then lastly on october 2nd in a random in person meeting that you had an event for the finnish president you ran into president trump and advised him that you'd been called to testify before congress and he said to you good go tell the truth that's correct all right and that is the entirety of your recollection of your direct communication with president trump about these matters i may have had another call or meeting or 2 i again i wish mr radcliffe had the record i understand but that's what you recall what i recall so about me if there's anything sinister and if arius in any of this of an ill request about corruption a call to sam i'm away to ukraine a 5 minute call you didn't remember is significant but the primary purpose was to discuss a rap or a call that you made where the president said i want nothing i want no quid pro quo i want you to do the right thing i want him to do what he ran on and him telling you to go tell congress the truth anything sinister or nefarious about any of that

. not the way you present ok and that is the truth as you've presented it correct why that's important ambassador someone is because none of that is hearsay none of that is speculation none of that is opinion that is direct evidence and ultimately that is what if this proceeds to the senate they're going to care about unlike this proceeding which has been based on largely speculation and presumption and opinion this is direct testimony and direct evidence and to that point none of that included evidence about the bidens and none of that included evidence about military assistance because president trump never mentioned either of those to you correct that's correct. so going back to the july 26th call because it's going to be a spectacle tomorrow you didn't remember it because it didn't strike you as significant at the time is it fair to say that if the president and states was asking you to do or say something improper or unlawful 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 remember that is significant when you i was not a part and i would have remembered i understand that and i agree with you. let's turn to quid 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 simon cording 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 and the excuse me the 2016 election and in return for the white house meeting. so you shared that before to that point to be clear again on the part of it that

relates to military assistance though you don't have any direct evidence from president trump about that part of it that that that's your 2 plus 2 part of the equation right the presumption correct correct right and you understand also that others disagree yesterday we heard from mr morris and ambassador volcker they testified that they didn't see a quid pro quo do you understand that i understand that that's what they say they're reasonable people could look at all of this and come to different conclusions correct correct i yield back the times you mr chairman investor thank you for testifying investor a couple things i jumped out of me in your testimony in your opening statement you say mr giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 26000 election d.n.c. server and mr giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states and we knew that these investigations were important to the president that

last sentence is interesting no conditionality no modifiers mr giuliani was expressing the desires of the present united states. giuliani communicates in colorful and memorable terms what did mr giuliani say to you that caused you to say that he is expressing the desires of the president states. mr himes when that was originally communicated that was before i was in touch with mr giuliani directly so this all came through mr volcker and others so mr volcker told you that he was expressing the desires of the present united states. and subsequently when you saw the july the transcript of the july 25th conversation with president selenski you put it all together and you know this is the desire of the present united states after i saw the july 25th rewrite ok. other thing that is interesting here. you are your theme in your testimony today is that everybody knew and. signed off

which is a little different from what we've heard right we've heard this from others saying that your effort out there was a regular it was shadow foreign policy. characterized as a drug deal and by the way i was not a democratic characterization despite what mr newness was that of course was the national security adviser united states characterizing it as a drug deal what confuses me is that you have said in testified it's in here that the secretary of state was not only aware but that he applauded you good work keep banging away the secretary of state if this had been a regular drug deal or a shadow foreign policy he would have been the one to put and end to it and yet he did not write the secretary of state i think was taking into account the totality of what i've been working on you know globally and saying you're doing a great job including this right ok so he was aware of what you were doing and you're doing a great job includes this yes so in some sense he was validating it rather than saying this was a regular shadow or we never thought it was irregular we thought it was in the in

the center lane and why do you think the secretary of state thought that why did he think why did he think that this was a worthwhile thing to do when so many senior people including the national security adviser thought it was a drug deal i don't know you'd have to ask him ok to your knowledge did he have communications with the president about this i have no knowledge of his communications with the president ok. let me take you to the july 26th call that we've talked a little bit about you basically haven't disputed mr holmes characterization of that report although perhaps the mention of biden you don't recall that. i'm actually pretty confident we'll get a transcript of that call a conversation in public between a high profile ambassador and the president united states will be the top target not for one but for many foreign intelligence services because it's pretty sensitive stuff to this inquiry and pretty sensitive stuff because this information could be used to embarrass the president or or for leverage public officials. my

guess is we're going to see a transcript our people are pretty good and if other people have it we're going to see this transcript until then. all we've got is your recollection and the testimony of the other people there so i'm curious about your frame of mind this statement. the ambassador ambassador sunland agreed that the president did not give a fig not the word used about ukraine is that a statement you might make do you believe that the president doesn't give a fig about ukraine. are you. referring to the color you're referring to my conversation so mr holmes recounts ambassador sunland agreed that the president did not give a fig about ukraine you create figures not the word used there and i'm asking you whether it's plausible that he might have heard that because i'm asking you whether you believe that the president does not give

a fig about ukraine i don't i think that's too strong i think that based on the may 23rd meeting. the president was down on ukraine for the reasons mentioned and would need a lot of convincing and that's why we're pushing so hard for the meeting between the president president selenski because we thought once the 2 of them would meet his impression of ukraine his stock of about ukraine would go up and what about this line and ambassador sunland replied that he meant quote unquote big stuff that benefits the president that's what you meant by big stuff so again we don't have the transcript i suspect we will but it's not something you might say do you believe that the president really considers big stuff to be that which benefits him i don't recall saying benefits him no i understand i'm asking what you were called i'm asking whether it's plausible that you might have said that because you believe i'm asking you what you believe right now that the president doesn't give a fig about ukraine and in fact cares about the big stuff that benefits the

president do you believe that now i really can't i really can't a pine wait i'm not asking for your opinion i'm asking for your beliefs you. don't understand your question i want to answer your question i just don't understand let me try one more one more time ok do you believe what is alleged that you said on this phone call that the president cares primarily about stuff the big stuff that benefits the president not a belief resident said that on his on the phone call and i think the president said that to me on the phone call i was talking time of the just a proxy. you mentioned investigations i don't know i don't. i don't know why your time of the time mr conway and we sure you know 6 minutes to mr jordan i think the gentleman for yielding ambassador when did it happen when did what happen the announcement when the president's lewinsky announce that the

investigation was going to happen on page 14 you said this was there a quid pro quo today's open your opening statement as i testified previously with regard to a quote requested white house call white house meeting the answer is yes that they need to be a public statement from president selenski when the chairman ask you about the security assistance dollars you said there needed to be a public announcement from zelinsky so i'm asking you simple question when did that happen never did never did they got the call july 25th they got the meeting on the white house but in new york on september 25th they got the money on september 11th when the meeting happen again ever do you know who was in the meeting which meeting are you referring the meeting that never happened who was in it. you know how people you know how do once they are you know how zelinsky announced it did he tweeted did he do a press statement did he do a press conference you know how that happened i mean you got all 3 of them wrong

they get the call they get the meeting they get the money it's not $2.00 plus 2 it's 0 for 3 i've never seen anything like this and you told mr caster that the president never told you that the announcement had to happen to get anything in fact he didn't just not tell you that he explicitly said the opposite gentleman from texas just read it you said to the president of the united states what do you want from ukraine the president i want nothing i want no quid pro quo i one zelinsky to do the right thing i want to do what he ran on what do you run on mr ambassador stalin. transparency and dealing with corruption right that's right mr castro raise another important point why did you put that statement in your opening statement i think you said you couldn't fit it in as i write so you

might be here for it's 46 minutes when it was if i wasn't purposeful trust me wasn't purposeful you know couldn't fit in a 23 page opener the most important statement about the subject matter at hand the president unites in a direct conversation with you about the issue at hand and the president says let me read it one more time what you want from ukraine mr president i want nothing i want no quid pro quo i want this new guy brand new guy in politics his party just took over i once linsky to do the right thing i want him to run on and do what he ran on which is deal with corruption and you can't find time to fit that in a 23 page opening statement what a quid pro quo as i do this for that right looks to me like ukraine got that 3 times a week there was no this there was we did we didn't do anything or me they didn't

have to do anything i never seen anything like that and this is this is when the call came out you'll remember this when the call came out everyone said we're going to quid pro quo there's going to be it that that was what was in the call and of course course that didn't happen didn't happen remember what they what the complaint said remember what the memo said of the whistleblower this call was frightening this call was scary all those things now that materialized none of that materialized you know back. to school the school thank you mr chairman i'd like to dig a little deeper on this quid pro quo. did you not say in your opening statement and in previous testimony and closed door hearing that you thought there was a pretty quick pro i thought the quid pro quo was the white house visit in

return for the 2016 d.n.c. server and charisma investigation so when i heard when you heard barisan you did not see that as code for by the by and i did not when did you even know that was that or use as your testimony that you only realize that barisan may include in the bidens when the readout came out in september 25th you know my testimony wasn't specific as to the date because i really don't recall the date it was very late in the game though september i don't recall the date so if i told you that the legal definition of bribery was an event of offering giving soliciting or receiving any item of value as a means of info.