mr mori i give 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. did by obligation you mean simply your legal obligation to do something we've been listening here for brevity only tells me from boulder and. has told house investigators that trump essentially conditioned a meeting at the white house with ukraine's new president saddam is a landscape on selenski willingness to launch public investigations into trump's political rivals including former vice president joe biden so he was asked quite explicitly about whether there was a quid pro quo and so on lynn said well very clearly that is yes

he has been questioned by both republicans and democrats of course what makes his testimony particularly interesting is his relationship to president trump he has been known he was a trump let's call a point that he is very well known as a trump ally and a trump supporter and he has been questioned on that and that in some ways makes his testimony quite difficult to dismiss that republicans have picked up on contradictions in some of his remarks and revisions to his testimony of course he made an early test mean and then issued a statement to a man and then or is that there have been contradictions and inconsistencies in some of solomon's remarks compared to what we've heard from other senior figures so that's what we've seen republicans seize on his credibility or perhaps the lack of it in what he is saying now but of course hearing is continuing. to do their patriotic duty and do what you have done sir indeed. why doesn't that same standard

applied to the president of the united states i wish i could answer you suspect you can't because there is no good answer but i do appreciate your willingness to come here today with that are you back mr chairman thank you congressman mr jordan mr chairman asking it was consent in and of the record a statement from chief of staff mick mulvaney. objection we haven't seen all these statements but to presume they are accurate and no objection thank you bastard president trump is not a big fan of foreign aid that right i don't know if that's a fair characterization i think he's careful he's expressed concerns about for i go in certain countries ok fair enough and he knew ukraine was corrupt is that right he believed ukraine was corrupt yeah anyone in europe to do more definitely want to europe to more and the president had a belief that ukrainian government officials some senior ukrainian government official support his opponent 2016 won't go into the details but i think of the one

member of parliament who said the majority of ukrainian politicians want hillary clinton to win so he had that belief as well and obviously he understood but what was happening we've got a brand new guy in ukraine this alinsky guy wins right right his party takes over and president trump wants to see with all these other things that are of concern to him we want to see if this you guys actually as i like to say the real deal a real reformer and actually going to deal with the corruption problem so it gets held up for 55 days gets held up on june 18th just gives me july 18th and then is released on september 11th but it seems to me more important in the 55 day pause is the 14 days when ukraine realized aid was held up on the 29th we've now had you testified that the 2 witnesses yesterday testified that the politico article so a gets held up on august scuse me ukraine learns aid is held on august 29th and

then of course released on. released on september 11th in those 14 days there are 3 important meetings with senior government officials and presidents olinsky as the august 29th meeting between bester bolton and president linsky there's the meeting september 1st that you're a part of vice president pence meets with presidents lenski and then there's a meeting on september 5th where u.s. senators murphy and johnson meet with presidents lenski none of those meetings none of those meanings did any linkage to security systems dollars in an announcement or start of any investigation ever come up none of them but it seems to me the one that's the most important is probably the one we've talked least about and that's the september 5th meeting because that's actually a meeting where there is no one well it's much more congressional focused than white house focus this is the meeting where senators murphy senators murphy and johnson bipartisan meet with president alinsky and what's

interesting is what both senators in the last 2 days of given his letters recounting what happened in that meeting senator murphy said i broached the topic of pressure on zelinsky from rudy giuliani and the president's other ima series to launch investigation to trump's political rival murphy brought it out he brought you got 2 senators who both strong supporters of money on ukraine these guys are all for it and senator murphy the democrat even brings up the issue everyone's been talking about it seems to me if ever there was going to be a time where the president of ukraine says guys you don't know what i'm dealing with i'm getting pressure from the president and states he wants me to do this i got to make it and it seems of ever there was a time that the president ukraine the new guy who now knows the aide has been on on hold if ever there was a time to bring it up that would have been the time to guess what. at no

time senator johnson tells us at no time during this meeting or on any other meeting on this trip was there any mention by zelinsky or any other ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for military aid not even senator johnson says not even after murphy warned them about getting involved in the election so murphy gave this big deal on giuliani and nothing not yes of murphy also said i do not dispute any of senator johnson's factual factual representations regarding the meeting if ever it was going to happen september 5th was the day that with no one from the white house there on a basketball not vice president no one there but even then it didn't happen and we got all kinds of other meetings when it did happen and of course as you testified earlier there was never an announcement you said there were 3 quid pro quos but there weren't because there was never an announcement i mean this is as clear as it

gets that these guys want to keep stern it up based on no direct evidence whatsoever and the best direct evidence we have is actually what the president told you i want nothing there is no quid pro quo i once lenski to do exactly what he campaigned on and when that became clear to us guess what they got the money they got the money god bless america it all worked out right this is crazy what we're going through because the facts are so darn clear you'll back this welsh thank you mr chairman in bastion or i'm impressed with your career and very successful in business i'm impressed with your commitment to public service and i was very impressed with your forthright statement so thank you for that. you said it was the highest honor for you to have this opportunity to have this appointment

the service ambassador to the e.u. correct correct and you quickly became very involved in the ukraine policy and that policy has been described by you and others was really very clear to help ukraine fight internal corruption and resist external aggression correct correct and this congress i think with the support of everybody up here republicans and democrats and in fact with a significant amount of republican leadership. authorized the release of military aid right right and you and others who were working with you believed it was very important to the new government presidents olinsky to have that white house meeting to show our support and send a signal to russia correct that's correct and from hearing you and from hearing our other witnesses embassador you have one of which embassador volcker and bassett or taylor there was

a concerted team effort on your part to get that meeting and really set a date correct well there was always a concerted effort on my part to get the meeting that was my that was my singular narrow focus was to get the meeting right and that was shared by all of the colleagues i just mentioned correct yes and incredibly urgent. ambassador taylor described going to the front where ukrainians were dying at the donbass $14000.00 had died and it was an existential issue for them that they get the aid and you were well aware that in shared i'm sure bassett or taylor's concerned. is that correct i did right and your forthright testimony you had tick you've been you've testified and it's really with the benefit of hindsight because you couldn't piece it all together you know giuliani knew in real time what you were trying to figure out as you went along you said

a fair statement i think so when you testified that you acted on the orders of the president that was you acting on his orders correct correct and you said quite explicitly there was a quid pro quo relating to the meeting and the. d.n.c. is exactly right no meeting no meeting and unless there is an investigation right that's what we were told by mr giuliani in mr giuliani you absolute no meeting unless there was an announcement of an investigation ok thank you and. i asked by the way did the efforts of mr giuliani authorized by the president impede the efforts that you and others were making to try to advance what you thought was that ukraine policy not initially we were just working alternately well ultimately nothing happened right in giuliani was the one who was absolutely insist on the meeting correct giuliani was insistent on the investigation

a geisha right now i asked this of ambassador taylor in vassar volker if if the mayor of portland said to the police chief i'm not going to authorize your budget unless you agree to do an investigation into my political opponent would that be wrong of course and likewise if it were the governor of the state of oregon doing the same thing correct correct and would that same rule apply to the president of the united states. to investigate a political opponent that's correct yes all right so that's the question here the president in his phone call he asked president selenski who desperately needed the release of that aide who desperately needed the white house meeting to do an investigation and it was focused on the biden's and 100 biden embarrassment in

crowd strike when you don't have to answer that the president words speak for themselves do you feel as a person who went into public service to serve who had a team of people to share your desire to help ukraine do you feel in any way betrayed by the double dealing of the president it says a real question i don't want to characterize i don't you don't have to characterize him i'm just you know we all if we get a chance to do something useful we like to do it and there's no better joy than when you do it with other people and this to me answer question this way i would have preferred that and i'm sure everyone would have preferred that the president simply met with mr selenski right away our assessment of mr selenski was that he and the president would get on famously he was smart he was funny he was charming

he was the kind of person the president would like and once the 2 of them got together we thought the chemistry would take over and good things would happen between the u.s. and ukraine relationship that's why we were pushing for a quick unconditional meeting so it's unfortunate that he was going to only not meet without that commitment on the investigation thank you ambassador thank you mr maloney mr master let's pick up right there. you would've preferred if they just had the meeting with the president of ukraine without these conditions which you say yes. but there were these conditions and it involved an investigation when you well remember the 1st was the initial invitation that the president sent to president putin had no conditions but that didn't last very long did it and then there were conditions this is not controversial at this point i don't believe there were conditions that present on investigations right right and you thought they were in the 2016 election correct we now know of course the prius my means by this

right today we do and we can probably from today until the end of time set aside any confusion that when somebody is asking for an investigation of. over the summer what they really meant was biden's right with 2020 hindsight yes right with hindsight and of course on the day after the president's famous call you're having lunch with david holmes we've covered this and he overhears your conversation and i said i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr holmes said and i think you said you would have any reason to believe it to to think you didn't speak about investigations with the president president raised investigations with you right on the 26th correct and we now know of course that was about the biden's embarrassment 2016 right i mean i know you didn't know that at the time that your testimony but we now know that it meant to me mr holmes says you said biden's right after that but i know you don't recall that right that's correct you dispute it i did ok but you don't recall up but we know that that's what the president and right and you do

you do confirm that he want to talk about investigations with you all now with the complete picture and what he said 24 hours before yesterday in sense and you said it's wrong to investigate political opponents we've agreed on that today haven't we said yes and yet of course that's what we know the president was asking for let me ask yourself. who would have benefited from an investigation of the president's political opponents i don't want to characterize who would have been who would not of i know you don't want to serve that's my question would you answer for me restate your question who would benefit from an investigation of the president's political opponent well presumably that the person who asked for the investigation was that if the president asked for the investigation it would be well it's not a hypothetical is it sir we just went around this track did we the president asked you about investigations he was talking about the biden's when he when he asked you

about the biden investigation who was he seeking to benefit he did not ask me about the biden investigation he asked about investigations times mr we just went through this when he asked about investigations which we all agree now means the bidens we just did this about 30 seconds ago we were right it's pretty simple question is and i guess i guess i'm having trouble why can't you say when he asked about investigations i assumed he meant i know what you a symphony but who would benefit from an investigation of the bugs there are 2 different questions i'm just asking you one who would benefit from an investigation of the buds president trump would bear we have it. thank you unheard of it did it. but let me ask you some mr baloney all the answer is me i've been very forthright and i really resent what you're trying to verify if you've been very forthright this is your 3rd try to

do so sir. it works so well the 1st time did it we had a little declaration coming after remember that and now we're here a 3rd time and we got a doozy of a statement from you this morning there's a whole bunch of stuff you don't recall so all due respect sir we appreciate your candor but let's be really clear on what it took to get it out to you. so my question is when the president's putting pressure. on the ukrainians with holding a meeting to get this investigation that you and i agree would benefit him politically what kind of print what kind of position is that put the ukrainians insert a terrible position terrible position why why does it put them in a terrible position why well obviously they're not. receiving ultimately what they thought was coming to them and they're put in a. in a position that jeopardizes their security position to jeopardize the security and

they're being asked to do an investigation to help their security essentially that would benefit the president politically and i would you might say they're being asked to give him a personal benefit in exchange for an official act it's not a fair summary in your hypothetical that's cannot hypothetical sir this is real life where they are asked to give him a personal benefit by exchange for an official act sir i am not going to go around in circles with you please be clear about what you're asking me my time's expired. thanks for your parent deming's. good afternoon ambassador it's good to see you again thank you. do you have any knowledge of a possible meeting on our round may 7th involving then president he led selenski and several of its a to discuss how to handle pressure from president trump and mr

giuliani about investigating the bidens i don't recall such a meeting you don't recall such a meeting you don't recall hearing anything about such again if you don't have firsthand knowledge that well if i don't have if i don't have record schedules i don't right now i don't recall anything about such me. and bassett in the maze a meeting among the ukrainians is needed among the ukrainians involving then president a leg selenski so this would have been early on and is president with several aides to discuss how to handle pressure from president trump and mr giuliani about investigating the bite and i don't i don't recall such you don't remember that ambassador in the may i believe it was the may 23rd meeting you talked about how the president. categorized ukraine what he thought about ukraine i believe that

meeting was on may 23rd did you ever hear the president the linsky relay any concerns about you about how he fell about how the united states viewed him whether he was being taken seriously or any concerns about being used as a tool for political reasons well i saw that in an e-mail from ambassador taylor we obviously tried to. relate to president selenski the glass half full version of how the united states felt about ukraine not the glass half empty version which is we're here for you we support you and we're trying very hard to get you the meeting with president trump so after hearing that from embassador taylor you relayed you tried to reassure presidents alinsky that america was truly on their side is that i think we've been trying to assure president selenski throughout his entire his entire term as a president and master i know you said you don't quite remember exactly when you

came to the realization that a resume i actually meant by that and back on may 6th when asked about a news report about the role of former vice president son on barisan president trump told fox news that it was and i quote a major scandal major problem on may 9th the new york times reported that rudy giuliani. planned to travel to ukraine and quote shortly to meet with president zelinsky to urge him to pursue the 2016 election and the involvement of honor biden and unquote are you saying that you do not did not realize at that time we're talking about on may 9th of this year that mr giuliani wanted to urge president zelinsky to pursue the 2016 election and the involvement of hunter biden. i do not but i did not then you did not know that even i believe you said earlier

that you did not pay any attention or much attention at all to any of the numerous news reports of the person you were directed by the president to work with. when he was on television over and over and over again talking about honor biden and barisan no i did not. on september 9th. in a text from ambassador taylor he said something to the effect or are we now saying that aid is tied to investigations and i believe you text back call me then you had a conversation with president trump. and president trump said something to the event that there is no quid pro quo do you know what prompted him to say that you asked him what do you want and he goes directly to there is no quid pro quo as opposed to going directly to the list of things that he wanted what prompted him to use that term no clue did you discuss your conversation your text from ambassador

taylor with president before you made that statement i did not i asked a very open ended question what do you want from me and you remember that directly although there are several other conversations that you cannot recall because you don't have your notes or your documents or your e-mails or other information but you remember that calls was difficult exactly what the president said to you in response to your question about what do you want why is that i remember the 1st girl i kissed i mean i remember well i won't say that. i remember that conversation because as i said it was a pretty intense short conversation and tell me again about the conversation you had at the restaurant that was overheard by mr holmes because that was a conversation with the president tell me about that conversation with the president what was said on the phone again i don't remember the specifics i'm i'm being guided by what mr holmes testified to i said i didn't dispute the basic you

know subject of the conversation as i said we were talking primarily about asap rocky. that was a completely unrelated matter and i think the president may have brought up you know how to go with selenski or when is he going to do the investigations which we've been talking about for for weeks and then as i said i dispute the mr is it mr holmes characterization of what i said afterward and ken bastards cheraw you to krishnamurthy. good afternoon ambassador i'm going to pick up on that september 9th conversation which the president allegedly said i want nothing i don't want to quote quid pro quo. i presume that on this september 9th conversation the president did not mention that that was the same day that we launched a congressional investigation into whether there was

a quid pro quo did he say that again i know all of that today but he did not we didn't have a time to talk about things like and i presume he also didn't mention the whistleblower complaint that also allege that there was a quid pro quo that day he did ok so you can't rule out the possibility that the reason why he started talking that way on that day is because the congressional investigation i can't rule that out you know the inauguration of print president lansky was on may 20th correct correct as you stated you attended this inauguration with senator johnson secretary perry lieutenant colonel vin minh and others right correct but vice president pence was supposed to originally attend that correct i believe so we learned from jennifer williams a witness who testified that it was at the president's direction on may 13th that the vice president not attend she said quote that according to the vice president's chief of staff the president determined that the vice president would not go. do

you know why the vice president did not attend the inauguration no clue i want to point to a new york times article from last week that says that lead parness is attorney you've heard of this gentleman lev parness an associate of rudy giuliani who's only what i've read very recently is recently indicted mr parness told representative of of the incoming government there's a lansky government that it had to announce an investigation into trump's political rival joseph r. biden and his son or else vice president mike pence would not attend the swearing in of the new president and the united states would freeze aid. did the vice president not attend possibly because this investigation had not yet been shared by these lines government i have no idea you can't rule it out right i guess i have no idea you have no basis for ruling it out however correct all i know is that the leader of the delegation was secretary perry who invited me along interesting lee

ambassador silence since you came forward in these proceedings others in the administration have tried to distance themselves from you you know on october 14th rudy giuliani told the washington post that sign one quote seemed to be in charge close quote of the effort to get ukrainian officials to publish or to publicly announce investigations of course that's false correct if i had been in charge i won a vast president trump to have the meeting without preconditions and the meeting would have occurred long time ago that's exactly right the president is the one that wanted these investigations as we learned later on in in reading the july 25th call transcript is that right. the president through mr giuliani is conveyed through mr giuliani wanted the investigation mr tim morrison came in yesterday and his deposition testimony as well as yesterday disappears due to he called you quote

unquote the gordon problem that's what my wife calls me. maybe they're talking he. should i be worried behavior be. you know on october 8th. of this year the president twee tweeted that you are a really good man and a great american and of course on november 8th one month later he said let me just tell you i hardly know the gentleman easy come easy go. you know what i'm concerned about. you were part of the 3 amigos but what i'm really concerned about ambassador sandlin is that the president and the good folks over here my republican colleagues are now casting you as the one in me go the one lonely amigo they're going to throw under the bus but the truth is

that as you said in your opening statement the suggestion that you were engaged in some rogue diplomacy or irregular channel of diplomacy is important quote absolutely false isn't that right that's correct the presumption that military aid was conditioned on investigations was based on mulvaney statement that we saw on the video is that right. well i didn't have the benefit at that time of mulvaney state but you would stand by the presumption that you had based on what you know now right correct and on september 1 when you told andre your mock your presumption which you told us about military aid being can conditioned on the investigations. you don't told mr morrison what you told your mike in morrison did not try to dispute your presumption correct i don't recall him disputing it i think

i went right over to him and just repeated the conversation and when you told vice president pence your concerns he did not dispute that is well he didn't respond he just listened time when you told secretary john today oh that wasn't disputed as well i don't recall. thank you that concludes the member questioning mr innes do you have any closing remarks. just briefly ambassador i know you won't get on a plane so want to thank you for your indulgence today. once again the american people have seen another failure of their posterous conspiracy theory which that's their conspiracy theory doesn't change between now and our next hearing which is in a few hours from now or another hour or so and it keeps changing every day the claim and bassett are that you had an irregular you were accused of having it in their regular channel. drug deals now supposedly you're one amigo nobody on this

side of the aisle and that you were one of the go i lost my amigos. not from us from us. no bribes given to. that you made any bribes to the ukrainian people. or to the ukrainian president. your coconspirator coconspirator kurt volker i find it remarkable and troubling how the democrats and their collaborators in the press have been able to vilify bassett or volcker who was supposed to work on these matters in ukraine like you and bassett are it was a very regular channel and no amount of storytelling by the left and the democrats on this diocese will change that was the regular channel testimony received today was far from compelling conclusive and provide 0 evidence of any of the

crimes that have been alleged in fact ambassador solomon testified that he presumed the temporary person pozen military aid was conditioned on ukraine carrying out the investigations the democrats are desperate to portray as nefarious the democrats have as their custom seized on this presumption as proof they can use it against the president however ambassador sunland testified in his deposition that when he asked president trump what do you want from ukraine president trump replied i want nothing there is no quid pro quo let me repeat president trump said i want nothing there is no quid pro quo this comes on the hills of the testimony by ambassador volcker that he saw no evidence of bribery extortion quid pro quo or treasonous actions we didn't get to ask him about obstruction of justice is that we didn't know that was on the table until today. like the president's call with

president selenski democrats want the american people to believe as one democrat on this committee put it that hearsay is much better than direct evidence and i think it's reckless from texas laid out the direct evidence that we have from your testimony today nothing we have heard establishes a claim that the president acted improperly in his dealings with ukraine and certainly nothing has been presented to support anything near impeachment in the meantime mr chair we continue to have no answers to the questions that only you know starting with who is the whistleblower who gave birth to this hoax and what was the nature of this cordon nation with the democrats on this committee 2nd what is the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against the truck campaign in 2016 and finally why did brees mohajir hunter biden what did he do for

them and did his position impact any u.s. government actions under the obama administration they're hearing in the books and no answers to basic 3 material actual questions that we need answers you'll back and thank you ambassador for being thank you i think the ranking member for his remarks. a silent thank you your testimony today this is a seminal moment in our investigation and the evidence you have brought forward is deeply significant and troubling it's been a long hearing and i know americans are watching throughout the country may not have had the opportunity to watch all of it so i'm going to go through a few of the highlights and i'm not going to try to paraphrase what you said i'm going to refer to your opening statement we all understood that if we refused to work with mr giuliani we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the united states and ukraine so we followed the president's orders.

mr giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelinsky mr giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election d.n.c. server and bryza mr giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states and we knew that these investigations were important to the president later you testified i tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended but i never received a clear answer in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid i later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations of the 26000

election and barisan as mr giuliani had demanded i shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aide with senator ron johnson and i also shared my concern with the ukrainians so much for the ukrainians didn't know you can't have a quid pro quo unless the ukrainians know and you have testified today ambassador the ukrainians knew you further testified mr giuliani emphasized that the president wanted a public statement from presidents alinsky committing ukraine to look into corruption issues mr giuliani specifically mention the 2016 election including the d.n.c. server and barisan as to topics of importance to the president in reference to the

july 10th meeting at the white house which you attended with ambassador bolton and others and ukrainian delegation you said i recall mentioning the prerequisite of investigations before any white house call or meeting. you further testified again mr giuliani has demanded president selenski make a public statement about investigations i knew that the topic of investigations was important to president trump testified later i know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues or in the form of a simple question was there a quid pro quo as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting meeting the answer is yes

we all understood these prerequisites for the white house call and white house meeting reflected president trump's desires and requirements later on the subject of security aide you testified in the absence of any credible explanation for the hold i came to the conclusion that the aid like the white house visit was jeopardized in preparation for the september 1 meeting in warsaw i asked secretary pompei o whether a face to face conversation between trump was a linsky could help break the logjam and this is from an e-mail that the state department refuses to provide to us but you have provided to us investor it reads should we block time in warsaw for a short pull a cipher potest to meet selenski i would ask linsky to look him in the eye as the president and tell him that once ukraine's new justice folks are in place in mid

september that z. should be able to move forward publicly with confidence on those issues of importance to poetess and to the united states hopefully that will break the logjam and secretary pompei was reply yes not what issues i'm importance to the posts not what are you talking about investors on linde. because secretary palm pail was on the july 25th phone call he knew what issues were important to post this and there were 2 of them the investigation into 2016 and the d.n.c. server and the investigation into the bidens by the end of august you testified my belief was that if you crane did something to demonstrate a serious intention to fight corruption specifically addressing bryza and the 26000 server then the hold on military aid would be lifted i

mentioned to vice president pants before the meetings with ukrainians that i had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations and as you testified he gave you no response no what are you talking about ambassador how could that be ambassador how do we clear this up and bassett are you merely nodded his head or took it in and of course the record of that 25th call between president trump and zelinsky was in the vice president's reading book earlier and you testified my goal at the time was to do what was necessary to get the aid released to break the log jam i believe that the public statement we've been discussing for weeks was essential to advancing that goal now my colleague seemed to believe and let me add to about this call you have with

the president you have confirmed today in addition to claiming there was nope quid pro quo the president was adamant that president selenski had to quote clear things up and do it in public that's what you have confirmed that is what you also told him bassett or taylor so he would deny there was a quid pro quo but he was adamant that selenski had to quote clear things up and do it in public now. i've said a lot of things about president trump over the years i have very strong feelings about prison term but you're neither here nor there but i will say this on the president's behalf i do not believe that the president would allow himself to be led by the nose by rudy giuliani or ambassador saul and or anybody else i think the president was the one who decided whether a meeting would happen whether aid would be lifted not anyone who worked for him

and so the answer to the question who was refusing the meeting was the linsky that you believe should take place in the best revokable you should take place in every billet i believe should take place in question was when who was the one standing in the way of that meeting it was the one refusing to take that meeting there's only one answer to that question and it's donald j. trump 45th president of the united states so who is holding up the military assistance was it you a master silent no it wasn't wasn't a bass revoke or no was an ambassador taylor no was it deputy secretary can't know was it secretary of state pompei o now who had the decision to release the aide it was one person donald j. trump president of the united states now my colleague seemed to think unless the president says the magic words i hereby bribe the ukrainians that there's no

evidence of bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors but let's look to the best evidence of what's in the president's head what's his intent what's the reason behind the hold on the meeting and on the aide let's look at what the president has to say let's look at what's undisputed about what the president has to say and you know how we know what the president has to say not because what you have represented or others have represented but because we have a record of his conversation and with who the one who really matters. with the other president zelinsky and this is what he says he says rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy this is after he says he wants a favor and he goes into crowd strike and 2016 he says rudy very much knows what's happening and is a very capable guy if you could speak to him that would be great the former

ambassador from united states the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with a new crane were bad news so i just want to let you know that the other thing there's a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general that would be great if i had one about bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it it sounds horrible to me so what's in the president's mind when he has placed this otherwise inexplicable hold on the aide when he refuses to take the meeting what's on his mind biden he makes that abundantly clear i understand best you said you didn't make the connection between barisan and biden i will people judge the credibility of that answer but there's no mistaking what donald trump's interest was there's no mistaking about what donald trump meant when he had that call with you on an

unsecure phone as you're sitting there an outdoor terrace in ukraine when the president said investigation he meant biden he made that abundantly clear to the president of ukraine the day before the question is not what the president meant the question is not whether he was responsible for holding up the aid he was the question is not whether everybody knew what apparently they did the question is why are we prepared to do about it is there any accountability. or are we forced to conclude that this is just now the world that we live in when a president eyed states can withhold vital military aid from an ally at war with the russians an ally fighting our fight to defend our country against russian aggression are we prepared to say in the words of mick mulvaney get over it or get used to it we're not prepared to say that

we're not prepared to say that i appreciate ambassador volker a bastard son and i appreciate the fact that you have not opined on when the president should be impeached or not be impeached or whether the crime of bribery or the impeachable offense of bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors has been committed that is for us to decide in consultation with our constituents and our conscience and is for us to decide and much as my colleagues have said otherwise this is not an easy decision for any of us and much as my colleagues may say otherwise this is not something we relish for over a year i resisted this whole idea of going down the road to impeachment but it was made necessary and not by the whistle blower but by the actions of the president and continuous struck my colleagues would suggest that because the president got

caught we should ignore the fact that he was conditioning official acts in order to get political favors in order to get an investigation against his rival getting caught is no defense to a violation of the constitution or to a violation of his oath of office and it certainly doesn't give us a reason to ignore our own oath of office we are adjourned. thank. you right so we've been listening. to the song and providing what has been the most explosive testimony so far in the impeachment hearings just hearing from the chairman of the intelligence committee adam schiff we described this testimony as what he said was a he said it was

a seminal moment in the house investigation and he said that the evidence today was deeply troubling and we know that shift has been particularly adept not just his questioning in his questioning throughout these hearings but also in his summaries and the purpose behind this is to really draw attention the attention of the american public can highlight key moments in these proceedings and perhaps really seeking to highlight the most damning moments of these hearings for the american public but gordon solomon was essentially confirming that president. a drive to pressure the president of ukraine to investigate trump's political rivals this bolsters the democrat's case for impeachment for abuse of power the president using his office his position to aid his reelection campaign of course president has denied any wrongdoing in this but also said that it didn't stop there

that also implicated really very senior officials within the administration including secretary of state peo and the vice president mike pence on and saying that these figures were well aware of what was happening he said everyone was in the loop and it was all carried out at the express direction of the president but republican lawmakers responded to all of this by suggesting sandlin is an on reliable witness and that there are discrepancies and contradictions in what we have heard from him a follow. everything is castro she joins us live from capitol hill i really saw him and could not have been clearer heidi. and seen the ministration officials were acting on the ages of the president and coordinating with with trump's attorney to pressure ukraine what could this all mean for the president. well he was careful in not directly tying the president's orders to the actions that

ambassador solomon and others actually took but what he did say is that the president told rudy giuliani what to do that's his private attorney and that then giuliani communicated that to some land and the other u.s. ambassadors who were carrying out the u.s. policy in ukraine which apparently was to ask for or to demand investigations into joe biden trumps political adversary and probable or possible opponent in the upcoming reelection campaign for president and what stalin said was that although he didn't hear directly from the president that security aid to ukraine was conditioned on the delivery of a public statement from ukraine announcing the investigations are divided that he did presume that that was the case in fact stalin said that it was everyone's understanding that that was the case even the ukrainians however he did not say

that those words directly came out of the president's mouth which is a line of defense that republicans have zeroed in on but there was another dramatic moment that just unfolded we saw under questioning from democratic representative sean patrick maloney someone said that he admitted that who would benefit from such an investigation into bided and some of answered well that would be president trump and we sell a round of applause coming. from this otherwise very dry hearing room and that may be the headline that steals the day mary because ultimately it is out of this long many hours and days of public hearings into this impeachment inquiry what is the what are the pieces that will stick with the public which is the narrative that the american public will follow and it is moments like that show stealers and that

closing statement we just saw from adam schiff the chairman the democratic chairman of these proceedings that may very likely be the winners at least of the narrative or in this hearing the actual merits of the case to impeach the president though that's still a little bit more murky again because stalin didn't directly tie the president to this suppose it could procure quid pro quo that was conditioning u.s. security aid on the investigations into joe biden. a lot about president reaction to this because we know that. is a trump loyalist he was a trombone at this is essentially chomps man but of course now present trump has been trying to distance himself from his own. yeah and more a further evidence that the president is paying more attention to these proceedings that he's letting on he previously claimed to be too busy to watch but today even as was still answering questions trump spoke with reporters he had

a notepad apparently watching what someone was saying and taking notes and then downplaying to reporters his relationship with solomon saying he barely knew him as you mentioned some wind was one of the president's primary defenders at the beginning of all this is a republican donor prior to becoming ambassador to the view to the e.u. he gave $1000000.00 to tribes and dog aeration campaign many say that's what bought him the m. back. that her ship and in fact when this inquiry was still in the closed door phase a someone had said something very different to investigators he at that time had claimed that he knew nothing about a link between security aid and the bided investigations from ukraine but that after other witnesses came forward claimed otherwise and in fact testify that it was saul and himself who communicated to ukrainian officials that they needed to do

these investigations in order to get their money then someone reversed course and he actually amended his previous testimony so there was a big question leading up into his hearing today exactly which version of those events he was going to stick with and we got our answer he was adamant he stuck to his what he called his presumption that indeed that aid and the investigations were a link and that held up under questioning both from democrats as well as from republicans thank you very much with all that i chose from capitol hill heidi joe castro joining me now is casey bug resident senior fellow for the governance project of austria institute joins me live now from washington so in his testimony today. that there was a quid pro quo with ukraine and he suggests that this was explicitly ordered by the president through his conduit of a man he relied upon mainly relied upon in this matter rudy giuliani how damaging

is this for the president. it's incredibly explosive particularly the opening statement that we heard was seems like 7 days ago but it was a matter of hours ago where a massacre someone demanded his testimony that he gave behind closed doors and and pretty much gave everything repub democrats were hoping that he would in pretty good soundbite fashion things like he was working at the express direction of the president the united states he even said that we were after everyone's been asking the simple question was this a quid pro quo and he said with a resigning yes so the facts are there the ambassador that was involved in a lot of these meetings that we've been hearing about with a lot of these different players he was in the room a lot of these times he was facilitating these requests and he was pretty clear that the aide was conditioned he called to his presumption but he made pretty clear the linkage from president trump to maybe through rudy giuliani but ultimately that

made it to the ukrainians that they had to play ball with the investigation of brás bidens and even 2016 to get what they want how damning is it that he says everyone was in the loop from pump a 0 to pence to mulvaney they were all aware of this pressure campaign. right this was a huge row revelation and think the net was cast a little bit broader than even the democrats on the panel were even hoping for he named names and they were big players from ambassador bolton to pompei o 2 more veiny to vice president pence who who's kind of been on the outskirts of this too of course president trump and regionally and so every name was it was mentioned today it directly involved and he said over and over again that everyone was in the loop that's the sound bite that you're going to hear over and over because the investor says that this came from the highest levels and people or working at the express direction of the president united states indeed historic

testimony that we have heard today from washington thank you very much casey baguettes appreciate it as you've been hearing there explosive and damning testimony from the u.s. ambassador to the golden sun and that has dealt a serious blow to president trying today and really if house intelligence committee chairman adam shifts comments or need to go by this is pretty much assured the case for impeachment of course president tom has denied any wrongdoing he's kind this is all part of a witch hunt against him but really that is contradicted by the remarks that we've heard from it's on them today which suggests that trump did do it he did give that quid pro quo that were conditions on or an important meeting at the white house crain's new president. and for military assistance to ukraine in return for ukraine agreeing to launch investigations into president trump's political rivals colluding joe biden going to bring you much more on this very shortly i will be back with the news in a couple of minutes. how

we got temperatures set to soar across southeast and possible straight here over the next a day or so this area clouds making its way through the bybee so temperatures in adelaide always they often in getting up to 42 degrees celsius and that very hot weather will search into victoria northern parts of victoria concerned about the

bushfires now as we go on through the next day thursday temperatures here at around 39 degrees and not quite as warm for say the $29.00 here will see temperatures around $28.00 for brace been $23.00 that the path is lossy dry across much of a strike if the truth be not any showers we do get across the southwest down towards the southeast where we have the major bush concerns and his house he will be somewhat hit and miss just notice how it cools off as we go on into friday so that's not a bad thing 20 celsius for melbourne at that stage it will be a similar temperature into new zealand over the next they'll say slushy dry hippa some pieces a cloud just rolling through it might just catch the odd shabbat to sodomize positron thinking up here thursday going on into friday the temperature is pretty bad crush us gets up to 21 degrees us respectable 70 and famine high meanwhile across japan it's lost a fine and dry but temperatures falling away inside the friday.

this is al-jazeera. hello i'm maryanne demasi or watching the news ally from london coming up 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. and highly anticipated testimony of the u.s. ambassador to the e.u. repeats his claims of a quid pro quo between the president and ukraine presidents are the headlines.