testimony. and then this evening, you know, we have this pentagon official saying that the time line now of when the ukrainians knew about the holdup of aid has suddenly moved forward. that's important because, you know, the republicans have been saying that there couldn't be any wrong doing if the ukrainians were aware that the aid was held up. well suddenly this evening we discover that the time line has shifted. >> i mean first of all the argument you can't have a quid pro quo if the ukrainian didn't know, that's not really true but also the time line as you say shifted. in fact, we have that testimony -- let's listen in on that. >> so you really have no testimony today that ties president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in exchange for these investigations? >> other than my own presumption. >> which is nothing.

>> that was some of ambassador sondland testifying. david axelrod, i mean, nobody really knew what gordon sondland was going to say last night this time. beth republicans and democrats are kind of trying to paint -- the president is trying to paint gordon sondland as absolving him. did zblee look, he has been a key character since this story has evolved. everyone pointed to him as someone deeply involved in this -- in caper. and he acknowledged that. but what he added was what gloria said wab, was he it it at the direction of the president, he was instructed to take direction from rudy giuliani, the president's lawyers, and raises the question, was the president using giuliani as a kind of cutout in this thing so he could have plausible deniability. one of the things i have to get this off my chest. one of the things that stuck

with me was he said it wasn't -- they didn't actually have to do the investigation. they had to publicly announce the investigation. and it just underscored the motivation, which was the president wanted to dirty up a potential opponent who he thought was a particular challenge to him in the upcoming election. >> the idea that if you're interested in fighting corruption. >> you go after. >> you don't have to do it just say you are going to do it. >> you don't usually announce it. i'm not the lawyer. >> and there is no evidence -- the fact pattern just very bad for the president here. including the fact that he had these calls as adam schiff mentioned at the end. he had several calls with the president of ukraine. he never raised the issue of corruption as a problem for the country. the only reference to corruption was his interest in these two cases that affected him -- himself -- he himself politically. so, look, i think there is a

reason why you hear at the end devin nunes says you pound the table when you don't have the facts. he has been doing a lot of table pounding because the facts are stubborn. >> i think the testimony did a lot of damage to stock defenses. and the republicans cling to two defenses. one trying to disassemble everything. they say this is not a wall. >> okay but you build the case brick by brick and the magic words test the republicans adopted that unless the president himself is saying, i'm committing bribery here i go, broibry time, it's not broibry. of course that's not the way the real world works. we as the american public, congress, juries in trials are entitled to use common sense rb reason and logic and consider all the evidence together. maybe it's not as easy to do as having a smoking gun. but that's the way i think we ought to approach in entirety of

the fact. >> it does seem that's some of the argument that some of the witnesses made, which is like i didn't understand that burisma -- burisma is the bidens. and it wasn't until later i came to that realiztion. which, you know, for some -- ambassador sondland, granted, is not a career public official. but he is a capable person who has a computer trm nall. >> yeah, i mean, i think it's strains credibility to believe he didn't ask questions, look it up, there is no reason -- there is no reason why if it really was about corruption you would be talking about corruption in general. once you name a specific company, the idea he wouldn't have investigated that and wanted to understand -- he testified today he spent hours, countless calls, meetings conversations with the president working on this in an effort to get the money to ukraine and get the meeting. and he is deeply invested in it. in my view sondland has given what he has to give us because there are other witnesses who

would contradict him otherwise. you know, he sort of -- i always like to say he admits what he can't deny and deny what he can't admit. and gives us everything but that last piece on the bidens. because i think if he doesn't -- what he testified to today is essentially conspirac with all the senior members of the trump administration. and he is trying to say but i didn't foe exactly what i was doing. i didn't know that there was a political motive with the bidens. >> also, kirstin he casting himself, seemeds pleased to be there. definitely pleased to be there. this was sort of -- he wanted to g give his biography starting out and the importance of state boards that he has been assigned to by various governors in oregon where he owns hotels and donated a lot of money. but when he actually got to what he did, he cast himself as trying to break log jams. he was the one who he -- you know, he was against the policy

and he was just doing his best to serve the president but also, you know, do what he felt was right. and yet his testimony left a lot of dots. he seemed unable or unwilling to connect them. >> but, i mean, but if he was trying to stop it -- he is the one who explicitly said this was a quid pro quo. so he did understand what was going on. and i don't know -- you know, i don't know what a person like that does that in situation. there is the question how he got involved in it in the first place. this isn't even his area of expertise. that should be a red flag right away when you get pulled into something like that. i think that -- >> it's unclear to me exactly what his area of expertise is the diplomatic world. >> i think that's the point. injury that's why he was chosen is because he was somebody who could be pushed around and didn't understand the lay of the land. i think it's interesting that of all the people that testified who actually have a lot of

knowledge, none of them have said anything about the fact that the president is concerned about corruption. they haven't provided any evidence what so far to back up the central claim that the republicans are making. it's been undermined, you know, by, lieutenant colonel vindman who said he wrote anti-corruption talking points to use on the call and weren't used. so there is the very core arguments are being undermined yet the republicans focus on things like, well we revoked aid to another country. nobody is saying you can't revoke aid to countries. people are saying you can't revoke aid to basically get another country to do your dirty work. >> i want to play the sound where ambassador sondland talked about the quid pro quo. >> i know that members of in committee frequently framed the complicated issues in the former of a simple question. 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. >> scott, what did you make of sondland? >> i had a number of observations. number one i thought this morning we had a lawyer on one of the panels ross gasher who made the point it was a subtle move but they were separate -- sondland was the separating the meeting from the aid. and he told me the reason that that is is because i guess in the bribery laws to be an official act, a meeting doesn't qualify i guess it has to be something else. and so he thought that was notable thing that maybe sondland's lawyers told him to do. separate the meeting from the foreign aid. that's number one. number two, you know, i think sondland with his use of theward and reliancen oh the word prufrmgs he gave republicans enough to muddy the wertz and they leaned on that all day. all the talking point relied on that. he confirmed to me something we talked about on your show a

month and a half now. jowlny being in the middle of this is the single worst thing donald trump has going. it was bad judgment to put him in the middle of it. and obviously sondland wanted everyone to know this was rudy's show, not mine. a couple of things kim out. you heard the legal argument i'll give you political facts came out. two sprays came out there was a marquette poll from wisconsin showing support for impeachment dropped since october. donald trump leading all the democrats in wisconsin and the gallup poll 90% of republicans approve of the president 57% approve on the economy if you are a republican congressman or senator and trying to figure out did this move me today and then you see this here you he see where the people and the party is, you're having a hard time doing anything other than what you've been doing which is basically the political equivalent of two mules fighting over a turnip. >> i agree with that. i saw -- when i watched will

hurd testify an independent minded republican taking on the president, he is retiring a former intel person, and he -- it's chlorfrom his questions he is looking for a way to exkulp eight the president or at least find ground to stand on because he is voting no on impeachment. i think in has been -- the goal of the republicans is different than the goal of democrats. said it last night. democrats are trying to prove a case here. and republicans are trying to make this as partisan a fight as possible because they don't want people straying. i think to that degree, that sondland was a mixed bag today. i think that they were able to do it. he isn't the witness of theier. i mean he is not a very credible guy in many ways. so, you know, i think some strids were made in terms of putting those bricks down today. and you're right, you don't -- the witnesses don't come from, you know, the seminary. but. >> there was an interesting

exchange between congressman ma lonnie and sondland later on in the testimony, very tough, where sondland essentially at that point, again who seemed pleased with himself and happy to be there, the role that he has portrayed himself to be in of the truth teller. he was there. maloney really pushed back on him and we'll get that byte in a moment. maloney pushed back and said look, it took you three tries to get this -- to the dreg that you have it. let's play -- let's play that exchange. >> hold on, zbloir excuse me i've been very forthright and i resent what you're trying to do. >> fair enough you've been forthright this is your third try to do so, sir. didn't work so well the first time, did it? we had a little declaration come in after you remember. and now here a 13 third time and a doozy of a statement from you this morning there is a bunch of stuff you don't recall. all due respect we appreciate your candor but let's be clear

on what it took to get it out of you. >> i believe in sondland's mind it was hmm. >> informs a well to the real world moment for those of us trying cases as prosecutors. up to this point we have seen literally a parade of military heroes, diplomatic professionals, non-partsle people with unchallengeable credibility. today this is what real trials look like. the witnesses often cooperating witnesses in particular are compromised said things interest that rbt consistent, changed story overtime process. you see it evolved it's complicated situation for trial klauer lawyer. complicated for democrats because the democrats argument has to be believe him but not everything he says. >> i think what sondland was toing today was saving himself. he was effectively saying i'm not the fall guy for donald trump here. i'm just telling you how this unfolded. he is not a political guy. he is not worried about how anybody is voting on x or y.

he is saying i'm not taking the fall for donald trump and all the other people who knew everything i was doing. i'm defending my reputation. and he has a problem with his reputation, as you all point out. i think he walked away thinking, okay, i did that. now republicans -- democrats -- sorry. republicans have an issue here. because when they vote, do they come out and say, well, it was inappropriate but not impeachable. that will drive donald trump crazy. >> that's the clear path. >> but will he -- david just said will he allow him to do it. >> there is a simple way out of this. blame rudy. express whatever level of disgust you have to with process this. conclude that bad judgment does mean not mean you have to throw a president out and say we have the election and let the voters consider it's simple. >> what but isn't the republican position be that donald trump had nothing to do with this that this was completely julyny on his own? the phone call at a minimum would undermine that.

>> i think different republicans will come to different conclusions some said bad ymt. some will say rudy led him into a bad place. some blame various actors. i think it depends on the person. but they're winding up in the same spot which is if bad judgment were impeachable every administration would die a thousand deaths i'm letting american people decide and that's where they land. >> i'm playing sound from ambassador sondlandland where he named names of all the people aware of what was going on. he said this as gloria said earlier multiple times. let's play it. >> secretary pompeo, secretary pary, i mentioned vice president pence before the meetings with the ukrainians that i had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations. >> yeah a lot of people were aware of it. and. >> including -- including mr. mulvaney? >> correct. >> so one of the things that i thought it was extraordinary was not just that but also that he

said that there are records of these emails. there are text messages. and you know, i think -- >> and that he doesn't even have access to them. >> and was denied access to some of them. i think it's true the best defense is yeah we did it, but, you know, it's not such a big deal. but i think it gets harder and harder if the democrats are able to get access to the documents. >> one thing on the naming names by the way and to your point gloria about dropping all the people in. i believes since this happened today both pompeo and pence issued a denial of the claims that sondland made in his testimony. and so, you know, to the extent he was trying to make it seem like the gang was all in on it at least a couple of folks say we don't agree with that. which i think is noteworthy. you have members of the administration saying another member of the administration is not saying something accurate testimony. >> i loved it when twice he sort of proudly said that, you know not a note taker never have been, never will be. by the enof it i was like, you know, he is a good advertisement for actually taking notes.

like maybe -- maybe when you run your own company it's fine not to take notes. but maybe in a government job take notes. >> to kirstin's point he is also maybe a good guy to put in the middle only because he is not really sophisticated and going to go and act on -- by the way, about rudy. you -- i mean, i think danger for trump in making him him the fall guy bau he obviously knows a lot about the president and the president's operations. but he you say he shouldn't have been in the middle -- been in this from the first, who else are you recruiting for an assignment like this. >> i mean you're in the going -- there is a reason he wasn't using career really the regular order career diplomats to do in, because the president knew that wasn't going to fly. >> we got to take a quick break. we'll have more to talk about including reaction from congressman jauquin castro joining us to tell us what he

heard. and about the testimony he says -- that the president says exonerates him entirely. with advil, you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪

- [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot. till he signed up for unitedhealthcare medicare advantage. (bold music) now, it's like he has his own health entourage. he gets medicare's largest healthcare network, a free gym membership, vision, dental and more. there's so much to take advantage of. can't wait till i'm 65. a few more chairs, please. unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans, including the only plans with the aarp name. free dental care and eye exams, and free designer eyewear. go ahead, take advantage.

only roomba i7+ uses two multi-surface rubber brushes. ♪ and picks up more pet hair than other robot vacuums. and the filter captures 99% of dog and cat allergens. if it's not from irobot, it's not a roomba™. and everyone has dad's eyebrows! we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so apparently, we come from a long line of haberdashers, which is a fancy word for... they left everyone,

and everything so they could get here. and start this family. every family has a unique story. this holiday season, help your family discover theirs. stretching the pam nation this is a sequential day in the impeachment. one of the members implicating several members of the cabinet in a quid pro quo with which is what chief of staff mick number of mulvaney openly admitted to. get over it he said then. gordon sondland asked about it today. >> knowing what you know now about what was intended with ukraine, do you agree with mr. mulvaney that there is just going to be political influence in foreign policy or that we should all just get over it and allow a president now or later to investigate a political rival and ask a foreign government to

do that? >> do you agree with mr. mulvaney. >> there is a difference between political influence and investigating a rival. because politics enters into everything relating to foreign policy. >> so -- but you disagree that the president -- you agree that the president should not be allowed to ask for the investigation of a political rival? >> in the context of what was going on in ukraine, i believe that the president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo. >> joining us now the man mo asked the question. democratic congressman jauquin castro. congressman, what was the biggest take away for you from sondland's testimony today? >> ambassador sondland basically said that he was taking direction from the president through rudy giuliani, and that there was a quid pro quo. he also expanded the scope of people that have firsthand knowledge about in corruption. he talked about secretary pompeo, second perry, and others

who are part of the administration but so far refused to come forward and testify the which that ambassador sondland did today. >> a lot of people thought ambassador sondland was clearing up the issue of hearsay since he talked directly to the president. the fact of the matter is he never heard the president say that aid to ukraine was tide to investigations into bidens burisma or elections. he said talked to rudy who delivered the message to him. does that hurt the democrat's case because that's what the they've been focusing on. >> i know they've been saying that. remember the most damning words come from the president himself when he directly asked the ukrainian president for a favor that included investigating the bidens and burisma. regardless what he told ambassador sondland or anybody else, the president's own words are damning to him. >> earlier today you said that while testimony from secretary pompeo, mick mulvaney, other administration officials would

be helpful, it's not necessary before drafting articles of impeachment. rpt they exactly the people who you need to hear from in this? wouldn't they have the most firsthand knowledge, most direct knowledge? >> i think that it would certainly be helpful. it would certainly add to the context of our understanding. but i believe that we have significant evidence already as i mentioned that call transcript alone, those are the president's own words asking and basically trying to trade a political favor for u.s. government resources, holding up u.s. government resources. as we talked about in both hearings, that -- that was inappropriate when president trump tried it but also it's important because we cannot in the united states set a precedent where it's okay for a president, republican or democrat to say to a country dsh tosh a foreign leader look i'm not gifting you the mona congress appropriated unless you help me take out a political rival. that would have extremely dangerous consequences for ou country going forward. >> laura cooper, the department

secretary of defense for russia ukraine. she testified tonight that ukrainians knew there was an issue with the u.s. aid a as early as july 25ing, the same day as president trump's call with zelensky. the republicans have been arguing which doesn't actualy make sense that there can't be a quid pro quo if the ukrainians didn't know about it. if that time line that ms. cooper is talking about that would undercut that argument? >> yeah, that's right. she basically indicated that in july the ukrainians likely understood what was going on. and remember, these are sophisticated diplomats. they understand there must be a reason they're not getting the aid. and then, all the other testimony, including ambassador sondland's today, has suggested that there were conversations going on about investigation was both the american diplomats and the ukrainians. it's likely that they knew. but even if you put all that

aside and assume for a second argue endo that they didn't know, the president making that offer by amounts to bribe or extortion, that act whatever the ukrainians knew should be a crime. >> democrats abandoned trying to get testimony from john bolton. fiona hill reported to him directly at the white house. she is testifying tomorrow. how much do you expect her to be able to give you and give everybody a sense of how much bolton knew in her testimony? >> i hope that she can speak to that. and in fact she was one of the folks that actually had concerns when she heard what was going on. she had concerns about this pay for play basically shakedown. we're lacking forward to her testimony. >> congressman castro, i appreciate your time thank you. >> thank you. >> back now with the political and legal team. fiona hill's testimony, i mean, it is, again -- it's one step

removed -- it's not john bolton himself. but she can give some context to what bolton's reactions were i assume. >> she was number two loyal to bolton. she is his proxy tomorrow. i think that's what we'll hear hear her talk about. and she is the one who expressed concern and quoted john bolton directly as referring to what mulvaney and sondland were cooking up as a drug deal, saying he didn't want any part of it. and i think she can talk a little bit more about why bolton was so upset with ambassador sondland and maybe even with the president himself. i mean, in also underscores why we need to hear from john boltonen in all of in because he is so central to all of this. but he clearly wanted the aid to go to ukraine immediately. and he was upset. and he called what mulvaney and sondland were doing a drug deal. he -- and i think she heard it.

and she understood what bolton's concerns were all along. and she can talk about that tomorrow. >> elie. they say that sondland's testimony completely exonerates the president. >> they are relying on the line of questions did donald trump tell you this a brib, quid pro quo? that said, there are plenty of things in the direct conversation that is sondland had with trump, limited as he admitted that are important. first of all when he called him on july 26th, when they had the call from the restaurant, he -- sondland said donald trump talked about the investigations. that's significant. that shows you what was on donald trump's mind, what his priorities were. and when they had the later call in september between the texts when they had the break there and sondland called trump and sort of said what do we do? right, trump at that point said no quid pro quo. i just want him to do what he was elected to do. that's a weird response. >> there is a dput about what he said but the no quid pro quo is

weird. >> let me play sound of sondland saying that. >> yeah. >> did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? >> no. >> okay. so the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released? >> no. >> the president never told you about any preconditions for a white house meeting? >> personally, no. >> yeah -- well, the president himself made a big deal about this call in september when sondland called him to see, you know, about the aid and the president said no quid pro quos, no -- you know, i want nothing. i want nothing. >> all the republicans are saying that. >> but it happened just as the whistle-blower complaint landed on capitol hill. his cover was blown. >> the president's cover. >> the president's cover and it

was clare he was speaking for the record more than anything else at that moment so he could come back and say i told him no quid pro quo. first of all, who talks like that? >> so i think there is a real artifice about this. and it reflects someone who understood he was in deep water. >> can the republicans argue with a straight face, the president said no quid pro quo to sondland. >> i think the better argument for them is that sondland kept using the word presumption. i think you make persuasive arguments on that end of the table. but because sondland kept saying i made the presumptions about what i was supposed to be doing to me is where the republicans are more likely to hang their hat is that you have in guy not terribly experienced, not all that close to the president, came in late as the president said today. and then he shows up and starts to presume what he is supposed to do. got out over his skis that's a

more likely place together to go. >> how about the transcript. >> if the transcript didn't exist and if the phone call didn't happen then that might work. but the problem is there is a phone call where it's more than a presumption. and and then there is a transcript where he is saying it. i think i feel like the throwing the giuliani under the bus thing doesn't work. because when that happens it's usually -- dsh it's the president saying i didn't even know. like this was going on. people under me were doing things. i had no idea. but trump has his fingers all over this. >> and trump repeatedly said to people, to voger, sondland, talk to rudy. rudy knows. >> and he made -- and he said it to zelensky. if he hadn't done that then maybe he could say rudy was freelancing. how does he now say rudy was free landing. >> i remember also today sondland it was a fascinating part of the testimony where he argues with what bill taylor said that there was an irregular channel of diplomacy happening.

so what sondland is basically saying if i'm doing it and pompeo is doing it and bolton is doing it how is it it not u.s. policy? the fact that all these people -- sondland says at the direction of the president. whether it came directly from the president or through giuliani doesn't matter. >> i think sondland explanans is believable. he says based on the president's direction we were faced with a christ. we could abandon efforts in ukraine to arrange this phone call, or, you know, we -- we could do what rudy giuliani was telling us to do at the direction of the president. and he shall did shall did he was saying that was -- we were all agreed we wanted to get this aid to ukraine. wanted to set up the meeting. >> i kept going back to why is this guy in the midst of in sc ruchlt um why is he a we. >> >> i was waiting for all day for the democrat questioner to say why why were you picked. >> i can't believe they didn't

ask him that directly. >> we're going live to the white house for a report on the reaction there after he begs to differ the question is what does he see to make him say that if anything stay tuned.

as we said at the top of the broadcast president trump reacted to gordon sondland's testimony. as you see he cite add passage of it that he seems to believe lays the entire affair to rest .cnn's jim acosta joins with us that. he weighed in directly about

sondland. >> i think the white house is trying to surgerically extract the piece of testimony they see as the most beneficial. that's why you saw the president on the south lawn of the white house and in austin, texas, talking about the testimony where the eu ambassador talks about the phone call that he had with the president in september when the president said to him he doesn't want a quid pro quo. he doesn't want anything. and the president repeated that on the south line earlier. here is what he had to say. >> i say to the ambassador in response, i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky, president zelensky to do the right thing. here is my answer. i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing. then he says, this is the final word from the president of the united states. i want nothing. thank you, folks.

>> now one thing we should point out, anderson, getting to what the president was just saying that september conversation that he had with gordon sondland, that obviously happened after the july 25th phone call but also happened after the whistle-blower filed his complaint and also after concerns were raised in the administration a as for gordon sondland a future i asked kellyanne conway about this earlier when she was talking to reporters. i asked does the president have confidence in gordon sondland and she said cryptically, he is still on the job and i have no indication that he won't be. maybe he will choose not to be and maybe he won't have that post much longer. that's not exactly a vote of confidence. >> wow. i mean, it's fascinating, jim, when you think about it. volker is gone. morrison is gone. you know, yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer who knew ukraine and actually was fighting corruption, she is forced out. but, you know, rest safe america

gordon sondland is on a plane back to brussels to be the ambassador to the european union tonight. it's amazing. >> it's amazing. and we talked to sources close to the white house trump campaign up on capitol hill and all telling us that inside the white house, inside the campaign, even among some of the gop lawmakers involved in the hearing today, that they were blind-sided by what gordon sondland had to say, and that some were freaking out according to one of the sources we spoke with. and anderson, i think this goes to a very large point, and that is gordon sondland was essentially playing battleship with gop talking points today. he was hitting b 4, a 6 and blowing up things on-site. and the questioning moving forward is what fiona hill has to say tomorrow. they are prepared for her testimony to be difficult for the president and perhaps damaging to the president. but they are seeing this one coming. in terms of fiona hill. they didn't see this one coming today, anderson. >> jim, thanks very much. back with everyone.

it was fascinating the way gordon sondland, you know, sort of gleefully was relating to both sides. he seemed to sort of -- his testimony, the words he chose to use as scott pointed out, it allowed republicans to have a little good news and allowed democrats to have a little good news for them. >> he is a pleaser. i mean that's pretty clear. jim's point was reflected in nunes's opening statement. because it was a warm statement. welcoming him, congratulating him for coming forward. and so on. and then suddenly the temperature changed. he obviously -- someone hadn't given him the opening statement, which was available. and his whole -- everybody's's tenor and tone changed. one thing striking to me about sondland's testimony and gives you a sense of questions about him, was that he has selective memory loss. and generally they revolve around conversations with the

president. you know, i really can't remember exactly what -- but he had good recall for other meetings and discussions that were useful to him. and i think he was trying to sort of shift this over to giuliani so he coulded go back to brussels and say i didn't throw the president over. >> also notable, every one of his memory losses, every one of his inconsistencies and contradictions went ones direction in the softening the rebel for trump that's that can't be coincidence. >> it was as if written testimony so tough and laurd. >> you've gotten a copy of it. >> i did. >> put it on cnn. that was great. >> thank you. i don't know why devin nunes couldn't get. >> it was interesting. nunes -- you know. >> watch gloria borger. >> the written testimony is tough. and then today during the hearing it was softer. it was as if he was trying to please the president in some way

shape or form. and keep -- keep all those -- keep all the roads open into the white house you because he has to go back to his job. i don't think i don't know how long he lasts. >> he is not a perfect witness at all but he pointed directly at the president. he pointed at all the other members of the senior administration. gave the entire narrative from the beginning to the end. so it's not just about a call. it's about all the other meetings and texts. so to me he -- he might have said it softly. but his testimony -- >> was it because of what you said which is that other people will testify to it and he had to admit what he had to admit? >> i think the circle was closing on him. so he had -- i believe not been honest in his deposition. we just saw roger stone convicted for lying to congress. it's a serious thing. and so, you know, i think he came forward not necessarily because he wanted to but because, you know, once he sort of stepped into the arena, and then he was being put in this position by other witnesses. >> and tomorrow david holmes in

addition to fiona hill. david holmes, the foreign service who heard -- was at the table gordon so sondland, heard the phone call. gordon sondland talked about that didn't claim to have not much recollection about it but wouldn't contradict what david holmes testified to except saying gordon -- gordon sondland didn't really remember details but did remember he didn't say the word biden in the call -- in the conversation. >> yeah, i mean, i don't think that david holmes is probably trying to perjure himself. and so -- you know, the -- this is when you say you don't recall something you're not really putting yourself in much danger of perjury. when you do go on the record sand say something happened and it didn't happen you are putting yourself in danger. >> let's put some of the sound from that moment where he talks about the call. >> you determined to president trump ukraine at the time and that president zelensky quote

loves your ass, unquote. do you recall saying that. >> that sounds like something i would say. >> that's how president trump and i communicate, a lot of four-letter words. in this case three-letter. >> classic gordon. it's so gordon. >> so raven. >> at times i thought sondland was trying to portray a familiarity with the president like here. and in other times trying to portray -- at one point he said i didn't support the campaign. i came if -- all i was doing was buying nag aurl tickets and wound up in this job. >> a million dollars of inaugural tickets. at at moments i want familiar. at moments i just show up last ten minutes. first day actually. one thing i'm watching for on hill tomorrow. our own phil mattings pointed this out. sondland said he met with

mulvaney one time that he could recall. hill was recalling that in hill's previous testimony he said he saw sondland in the west wing a number of times. saying he bragged he had been in to see the president. and checking into it he had been up to see mulvaney. that happened a number of times. i'm curious if the democrat drill down on that or the republicans to make it seem like sondland was still don't have full control of the facts here. >> don't go anywhere up next a preview of the testimony tomorrow. and the problems that fiona hill may hold for the white house and david holmes. republican talking points. we'll be right back. hello. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. rewarded! going new places and tasting new flavors. rewarded! traveling lighter. rewarded. haha, boom! getting settled.

rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded!

- [narrator] forget about vacuuming for up to a month. shark iq robot deep-cleans and empties itself into a base you can empty once a month. and unlike standard robots that bounce around, it cleans row by row. if it's not a shark, it's just a robot.

want to play another moment from today's temperature when sondland talks about rudy giuliani. >> secretary of state perry, ambassador volker and i worked with mr. rudy giuliani on ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the united states. we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt. we all understood that if we refused to work with mr. giuliani, we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the united states and ukraine.

so we followed the president's orders. >> that kind of language startled some republicans today. there are two final witness thez week, peter hill, david holmes, offer perspectives from a different advantage point. fiona hill said her then-boss john bolton said things she didn't want to be part of. homes said he heard the president discuss the status of investigations. the political and legal team are back. i just found it so fascinating to watch sondland testifying. i'm not sure exactly why other than he just seemed so pleased to be there. >> this rudy giuliani piece is

so interesting. we call that in chicago fitting someone for concrete overshoes. when he said we followed the president's orders, what he was saying was we followed the president's orders to take direction from rudy. >> here's why it's going to be so hard. i agree with scott, they are going to blame rudy, he is going to become the scapegoat, concrete shoes. we have it in black and white. donald trump on the call to zelensky said rudy very much knows what's happening and rudy, on the other hand, has tweeted multiple times now everything i did i did in my personal, private capacity, representing the personal interests of donald trump. they're interlocked. >> what struck me as weird as sondland saying we knew we had to deal with rudy so for the policy of ukraine, we -- the "we" implies that gordon sondland had to be there, he had to be in the midst of it. you know, he's a foreign service officer, he's the ambassador. so that's what he had to do.

he was brought in by the president. i mean, he is on the same team as giuliani really in terms of loyalty to the president. >> and the career foreign service people clearly regarded him as the problem child. they were all on the same team in the sense that they wanted to get this aid to ukraine but fiona hill talks about sondland like she's rolling her eyes. they had to deal with him because he spoke to the president more than they did. >> volker said sondland had the direct channel to the president, which volker certainly didn't have. >> like i said before, i don't think the blaming the rudy thing works. yes, he was a problem but the president clearly was in agreement with him on what he was saying. rudy may have been feeding hip the ideas but ultimately the president accepted the ideas and he acted on them and he made a

phone call,you know, with the president of ukraine and tried to accomplish, i guess, things that he got from rudy and we don't even know for a fact he got it from rudy. >> we'll be right back. most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. (woman) but to businesses,

we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. ♪ too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. bleeding disorderste medlike hemophilia.s so victor can keep doing what's in his blood. at bayer, this is why we science.

it's tempting these days to call every moment of impeachment historic. today we saw testimony from gordon sondland who was at the very center of it all and there was drama befitting a hollywood thriller. really no one had any idea what he would say. at this point last night, nobody

knew. some were convinced he might take the fifth. he didn't. we heard him implicate the members, but he didn't. mime pompeo, his energy secretary rick perry, former national security adviser john bolton and vice president mike pence. sondland said he would come to realize the president was willing to hold back the aid and a vital show of support unless he got help from ukraine in announcing investigations into his political rival joe biden and a conspiracy theory that ukraine tried to undermine him in the 2016 election. he implicated rudy giuliani used to be known as america's mayor. that was a long time ago. he laid out a scheme that if it's all true, makes watergate look small and it's all part and parcel of proceedings that have only happened three other times since the country was founded. it's a long way of saying today was historic and tomorrow the testimony continues, so does our coverage of all of it right now with chris cuomo. i'll see you again live at 11

pl. chris? >> thank you. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time live." there w we have power players and people in power here to take it all on so let's get after it. today left a mark in this impeachment inquiry. why? well, gordon sondland, the president's own hand-picked ambassador, implicated him directly in the shakedown of ukraine. and, by the way, that wasn't the end of it. >> at the express direction of the president of the united states, so we followed the president's orders, i followed the directions of the president, was there a quid pro quo? the answer is yes. everyone was in