'll find out. >> they started at 1:00 today. they're taking a break for dinner. they're going at least another three hours. we'll watch it. then the democrats will two more days to make their case before the white house lawyers make their case over three days as well. thanks very much for joining us. erin burnett "out front" picks up our coverage. good evening. i'm erin burnett and welcome our special coverage of president trump's impeachment trial. a monumental day as the house impeachment managers begin to lay out their case against president donald j. trump. that trial is going to resume any minute. i want to go straight to phil mattingly on capitol hill. phil, you just came from inside the chamber. what did you see? >> reporter: i think the most interesting element here is the idea that senators m of them, are kind of hearing key points for the first time.

we all assume because we've been paying attention to this inquiry that everybody knows what's going on. i think what's most striking as the house managers in speech after speech have gone through a sober methodical presentation is watching the senators react. it's been a long day. senators are tired. they're stretching their legs. there's no question about it. in particular when you see the use of video, specific testimony, specific moments you heard, specific quotes from president trump himself, that's when the chamber comes to life. that's when you see everybody's heads shift to the televisions as you recognize while they may have been aware of what was going on, they're seeing it as an effect. >> thank you very much, phil. a significant statement to say. there are some soft talking points some of the senators may have heard that are being factually disproven today. i want to go to mazie hirono, sits on the judiciary committee.

i know you're going to be going back into that room in just a few moments. have you spoken to any republican colleagues that seem to be indicating i'm learning something here today? i've gotten something new? >> as i listen to the testimony, i sit there wondering what the republicans are hearing because i don't see how you can listen to this chronology of events and what the president did and not think that this is more than inappropriate. these are impeachable actions by the president to lean on a -- the president of another country to investigate a u.s. citizen using taxpayer money as a bribe. this is not usual stuff. i don't see how anybody can listen to this kind of narration and the presentation as been really effective and not think oh, this is not okay. so, i'm wondering what they're hearing. i have not talked with them about it because the way i look

at it, erin, is there are certain kinds of issues they just need to make up their minds and figure out how they're going to see themselves doing the right thing. >> so, you're purposely not talking to them at this point. >> no. you know what? last night when they voted down every effort on our part to call witnesses and documents show me a lot about where their heads are at. so, they may be wringing their hands, but they're going right down the line with mitch mcconnell's program which is to protect this lying president. so, there you have it. >> well, republican senator john cornyn today said -- he had a different take. he said it's getting repetitive which the house managers are doing on purpose. they want people to hear the same thing again and again in some esenses. i just want to give you the quote and give you a chance to respond. he said senators are struggling to see why we're having to sit here hearing the same arguments over and over and over and over again. but you think it's been effective even though he's

obviously trying to diminish it. >> he's calling it repetitive because they don't want to hear it. they really -- i think it's painful for them to keep hearing how the president shook down the president of another country and abused his power and is engaged in obstruction of congress. i think they just don't want to face it. but, you know what? this is forcing them to face it. and if they turn off their ears, whatever it is, then i am really sad for our country. but, you know, for him to say this is repetitive, even as last night, by the way note that they voted at every turn to turn away any new evidence or any new documents. so, when he says what's new? hey, they made sure that there's nothing you new. but what's already there is damning enough of what the president did. >> i do know you need to go back into the room. >> yes. >> before you go, there's various reports from the press that are in there that some of the chairs are empty, people are in the back talking or eating.

is everyone in that room paying attention? it's understandable people may want to get up and getting sm to drink or something like that. but do you feel that people are taking this with the sincerity and the seriousness that it deserves? >> i certainly am. and i'm taking notes. and i would think that -- i do think that most of my colleagues are doing that. but i also think that for the republicans to hear what the president did is probably a very painful experience for them. it's not painful for me or for us because we know what the president did. we've been trying to focus the country and everyone else including my republican colleagues on what he did. but obviously last night -- and they were impervious to any calls for a fair trial and not just a fast trial to protect the lying president. >> all right. thank you very much senator hirono. i appreciate your time. i know you need to head back into that room. this is going to begin any moment. let me go to my panel. laura, you heard senator hirono's take and senator cornyn

with a different take. how did the house managers do throughout the day as you heard, how did they do? >> you know, every prosecutor doing a case has to know that repetition is persuasive. you want to hammer some things home. at some point you have to ease off to make sure it's processed or that you are not losing your audience and having them feel the way that cornyn did. ultimately they all did a great presentation in terms of compartmentalizing their role, why each person was the person to bring the case forward, demings talked about the drug deal as a parallel, crow was talking about his role as a a former military to hammer that point home. but they've got to be questioning and worrying about how effective they can be if they keep being so repetitive. >> david. >> it's a question of who they're trying to influence and whether the people they're trying to influence with able to be influenced at all.

i was struck by adam schiff's presentation but particularly to the end of it. i think it behooves all of us to step back and acknowledge na removal of a president of the united states by impeachment has never been done. we're a deeply divided country. there are consequences to that. and we ought not to take it lightly. on the other hand, on the other hand, there are consequences to not acknowledging that this kind of behavior is wrong. and i think the republicans in the senate having followed trump down this rabbit hole are now in a position where they aren't free to say, look, what he did was wrong. and i think that sets a precedent that's very dangerous for our democracy as well. >> i mean, it's an incredible moment, scott. and one of the issues today is how many people in that room are hearing some things for the first time. yes, it's being hammered again and again. but it wasn't in front of their chamber in december, and maybe they weren't listening to everything. maybe they were only listening

to some talking points. that's one of the jobs of the house managers is to take away the talking points. one is aid was released and there wasn't investigation so it's fine. that's an gop talking point. adam schiff took it down today. here he is. >> on september 11, the president finally released the hold on aid to ukraine. just like with the implementation of the hold, he provided no reason for the release. but the reason is quite simple. the president got caught. in late august, president trump learned about a whistleblower complaint. on september 9, three house committees announced investigation into president trump's ukraine misconduct and that of his proxy, rudy giuliani. >> he went through the dates. he lays it out. the aid was released after the president learned he was being investigated for withholding the aid, totally different than withhold the aid with nothing. do you think there are republicans in that room hope to

hearing that or anything else? >> i think that there are republicans in that room who have varying degrees of discomfort with what happened. i'm sure don't think it's a big deal. some are moderately alarmed. and some think it was galactically bad judgment. i think more are thinking that. in this process, there's two choices. acquit the president or throw him out of office. i think where republicans are coming up short, are we really going to throw a president out of office over this. i tell you what i'm hearing out of republicans. schumer keeping the senate in all night after complaining about midnight mitch did not go well with republicans. nadler accusing of cover up rankled republicans. and schiff saying we have to throw out the president because he's going to steal the next election which republicans do not believe in and that argument does not hold water with them. at the same time he's laying out those facts, they've also said

things that the goal is to influence republicans. >> there's facts and there's hearts and minds. >> you are laying out a case in good faith. and when you say you're engaged in a cover up and the president is stealing elections, that doesn't sound like good faith to a republican. >> how did you read the room today? >> i think it is as david said who you're trying to speak to. i think they know there's only a group of four, five, six, maybe seven republicans that they can move on. this isn't necessarily right now about the removal of the president. it's about whether we'll get to the bottom of this and get witnesses. >> it's about the witnesses and documents. >> that's the very narrow thing. the much broader -- speaking of the public. this in a large part is about trying to define this presidency as we go forward. there will be an election unless the president's removed, there will be election anyway. i think have to say watching that i thought adam schiff's opening was brilliant. it was riveting.

when it was over, i couldn't believe he had been speaking for two hours. i thought he had been speaking for 30 minutes. and i think he did a lot of very important things there. and to laura's point, you're right about repeating the same thing over and over and again but they were clever about doing it in vignettes and stories. there was the mari yovanovitch story, the dr. hill story, the call. there were all these things. so, basically schiff laid out a very broad story. but then each of them came in and told us specific story. by the way, i thought the use of donald trump on video was really compelling because about every 20 minutes you remember he's at the center of this conspiracy. he's the guy who was directing it. and it came out of his mouth. >> probably only thing he would agree with of what you just said was that his video was very compelling. i think he would go along with that. >> yes. >> scott, you know, on this issue of people being offended, republicans being ochded at the suggestion that the president

might cheat, why isn't that a legitimate concern? if donald trump gets away with this and is acquitted and he perceives this as exoneration, why wouldn't it be inducement to do the same kind of thing in the future? >> republicans see it this way, that there was this allegation that the only way trump won the '16 election was by stealing it with the help of russia. and they believe that this presidency for two whole years was held under that cloud only then in the mueller report it didn't pan out. now you hear democrats going back to that same well saying well, you know, we have to throw him out because he's already trying to steal the next one. and republicans say you lied about him stealing the last one. why should we believe you about this forward-looking stealing the next one. that's how it would hit republican ears. they don't believe this talking point of he's trying to rig the election. i don't know a republican that sees it that way. and i don't think that democratic talking point as resonated with a single republican. obviously in the house they

didn't attract any republican votes. i don't know why that would be more effective. >> i was going to say the notion of the election is the comment motif that you have essentially he's trying to take the election from us. when trump used the media to say they are trying to take and undermine the vote of so many people. today adam schiff put that on its head. when cipollone said yesterday if the president of the united states, he can do it to any one of you. today adam schiff said not any american can do what this president has done, to be above the law, to thumb their nose at subpoenas, to use foreign governments. he turned it on its head saying this is a stealing of the election. it's more so saying in a perspective way, if somebody is already known to have looked at foreign governments and tried to interfere with the elections, what some point you have to believe the person they've shown themselves to be. as a congress, are you going to

simply say you know what? keep going? we have no party here. separation of parties means nothing. or do you say in urgent matter i've got to arrest this right now. >> let me bring in phil mattingly because as this conversation is going down, there are no senators that will see it as you're saying it. they're not listening. they may be there. they're not listening. but the impeachment managers are specifically trying to target some of those other senators that scott mentioned, right, the four or five, maybe six or seven, but the very specific group that they think actually will listen and may move. >> reporter: that's exactly right. i think if you listen closely to the varying presentations that you heard from the managers today, they were speaking to the entire senate. they understand that's the jury. obviously they were speaking to the american public. they understand that matters. there were specific calls that were directed at those four to six senators that may be willing to eventually vote with democrats to subpoena witnesses and documents. you heard adam schiff multiple

times reference how the case could have more detail if somebody like john bolton, the former national security adviser was subpoenaed saying explicitly you have the power to do that. i was watching people like susan collins, lisa murkowski. a lot of senators were getting up moving around. those two in particular did not move. cory gardner had notebooks filled with notes as well. they understand they're targeting their message to a core group of republicans they hope to bring their way. i want to jump off what scott said earlier. what happened last night with the house judiciary chairman really rubbed republicans the wrong way. >> when he accused them of a cover up. >> reporter: exactly. that went over very, very po poorly. and i think what you saw the manager dos today is tailor their message to the senators they hope to bring to their side

on the idea that if you want a fuller case, you need to subpoena these witnesses. it's not all 53 republicans. this is for four to six. this is a numbers game and they need at least four. >> that's crucial. interesting what you're saying about susan collins, lisa murkowski, cory gardner, how closely they're paying attention. everyone stay with me. we're waiting for the senate to come back, go back into session any minute. house managers are going to resume making their case against the president of the united states. we'll be right back. stay with us. e usaa insurance fr members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein, lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy.

pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere.

can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it's the final days to save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 36-months. ends saturday. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

tonight senators are filing back into the room after their break. mitch mcconnell is there, susan collins, lisa murkowski, others are filing in. i want to go to jeff zeleny i've on capitol hill. what have they told you? >> reporter: i was just speaking with senator chris coons from delaware. he says he and other democrats are learning from some of the managers' presentations here. he said in particular it was the testimony from jennifer williams, the national security adviser to the vice president who had that dramatic testimony a couple months ago during the house proceedings. he said something was going on in the senate that day. he said even a lot of republican senators were paying attention to the video that were showing on capitol hill and talking to other senators as they were

leaving their dinner break tonight. it's clear they are refreshed after a bit of a break. but they're also not really showing their cards, particularly mitt romney. he is pivotal here. he is not commented at all throughout the duration of this. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> we're getting back in. >> just so senators have an idea, we expect to go two to two and a half hours. i'll make a presentation. representati representative lofgren will make a presentation. as an encouraging voice told me, keep it up, but don't keep it up too long. i'm going to turn to the part of the chronology that picks up after the july 25th call and walk through the increasingly explicit pressure campaign waged on ukraine in order to get

president trump's deliverable, the investigations meant to tarnish his opponent and help his e re-election. remember by tend of july, ukraine was aware of president trump's request for investigation to help his political efforts and had come to know that president trump put a freeze on security assistance. so, this is by the end of july. they also clearly understood that president trump was withholding an oval office meeting until those investigations were announced. both were very critical to ukraine as a sign of u.s. support and as a matter of their national security. and their national security, of course, implicates our national security. in the weeks after the july 25th call, president trump's hand-picked representatives escalated their efforts to get the public announcement of the investigations from ukraine. so, let's go through this step

by step because the three weeks following the july 25th call tell so much about this pressure scheme. let's start with july 26. on july 26, so this is the day after the call, ambassador volker sends a text message to giuliani. and that text message says, hi, mr. mayor. you may have heard the president had a great call with ukrainian president yesterday, exactly the right messages as we discussed. please send dates when you will be in madrid. i'm seeing yermak tomorrow morning. he will come to you in madrid. thanks for your help. kurt. so, here we are the day after that call. as my colleague demonstrates, this same day, so july 26, the date of that second infamous call between president trump this time and gordon sondland

that you heard the diplomat david holmes describe. so, that's the same day, july 26 we're talking about right now where there's this text message. in the july 25th call, the president wants to connect rudy giuliani with the president of ukraine and his people. so, this is a follow up where ambassador volker is saying to giuliani it was a great call with the ukraine president, exactly the right messages as we discussed. and we know of course those messages were the need to do this political investigation. please send dates when you'll be in madrid. i'm seeingier mac tomorrow morning. he will come to you in madrid. here's ambassador volker, one of the three amigos, following up and arranging this meeting between giuliani and the ukrainians. giuliani replied setting a meeting in europe with

zelensky's top aide the next week. quote, i will arrive on august 1 and until 5, he wrote. remember on july 22nd, so a few days before this and before the call, ambassador volker had connected giuliani originally with yermak, and they agreed to meet. so, this is a follow up. you have that arrangement being made by volker and giuliani before the call. then you have the call. now you have the follow up to arrange the meeting in madrid. so, they do meet in madrid. this is august 2nd. andre yermak, zelensky's top aide, meets with giuliani who they know represent the president's top interest. both giuliani and yermak walk away from this meeting clearly understanding that a white house meeting is linked to zelensky's announcement of the investigations. in separate conversations with giuliani and yermak after this meeting, volker said he learned

that giuliani wanted the e ukrainians to issue a meeting. yermak told him that the meeting with giuliani was very good and added that the ukrainians asked for a white house meeting during the week of september 16. yermak presses volker on the white house meeting date saying that he was waiting for confirmation, maybe you know the date. this is a recurrent theme that we've seen through the text messages and other documents. that is the recurrent request for this meeting, the pressing for this meeting by the ukrainians because it was so important to them. giuliani's objective was clear to ambassadors volker and sondland who took over communications with yermak. here's ambassador sondland. >> i first communicated with mr. giuliani in early august, several months later. mr. giuliani emphasized that the president wanted a public

statement from president zelensky committing ukraine to look into the corruption issues. mr. giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election including the dnc server and burisma as two topics of importance to the president. >> giuliani exerted significant influence in this process. in fact when in august 4th yermak inquiried against about the presidential meeting, ambassador volker turned not to the national security counsel staff or to the state department to arrange it and follow up, he turns to giuliani again. volker told yermak he would speak with giuliani later that day and would call the ukrainian president's aide afterward. volker text giuliani to ask about the meeting and set up the call he mentioned to yermak. giuliani replies that the meeting with yermak was excellent and that he would call later. phone records obtained show a 16

minute call on august 5th between ambassador volker and giuliani. ambassador volker then texts yermak, hi, had a good long talk with rudy, call any time, kurt. separately volker told ambassador sondland, giuliani was happy with that meeting, and it looks like things are turning around, a reference to volker's hope that satisfying giuliani would break down president trump's reservations concerning ukraine. but things had not turned around by the end of that first week of august, by august 7th. the aid was still on hold, and there had been no movement on setting a date for the white house meeting. ambassador volker then reaches out to giuliani to try to get things moving. ambassador volker texts giuliani to recommend that he report to the boss, meaning president trump, about his meeting with yermak in madrid. specifically he wrote -- this is volker writing to giuliani.

hi rudy, hope you mad ii ee good if you can think about how unusual this is. this is the president's personal lawyer who's on this personal mission on behalf of his client to get these investigations in ukraine. the president of ukraine can't get in the door of the oval office. and who are they going to? are they going to the security counsel? no. are they going to the state department? no. they tried all that. they're going to the president's personal lawyer. does that sound like a official

policy to try to fight corruption? why would you go outside of the normal channel to do that? you wouldn't. no, you would go to your personal attorney who's on a personal mission that he admits is not foreign policy when your objective has nothing to do with policy, when your objective is a corrupt one. what does that mean to have a corrupt objective? well, it means an elicit one. it means an impermissible one. it means one that furthers your own interests at the cost of the national interest. the willingness to break the law like the impoundment control act by withholding aid is indicative of that corrupt purpose, the lengths the president would go not to furtherance of u.s. policy but against u.s. policy. not even a difference on policy

at all. then their pursuit of personal interests, the pursuit of an illegal effort to get foreign interference is the embodiment of the corrupt intent. so, here we are august 7th. and volker is saying rudy, if you're coming to d.c., let's get together. it would be good if you can talk to the boss because we can't get a meeting either way. around that time, ambassador volker received a text message from yermak who asked him hi kurt, how are you? do you have some news about the white house pemeeting date? volker responds not yet. i texted rudy earlier to make sure he weighs in following your meeting. gordon, meaning sondland, should be speaking with the president on friday. we are pressing this.

so, there is gordon sondland pressing this. this is the man you heard from already, gordon sondland, the man who says there was absolutely a quid pro quo. you've asked about a quid pro quo. there was a quid pro quo about this white house meeting. this is what they're talking about right here. gordon will be speaking with the president on friday. we are pressing this. ambassador volker's contact with giuliani spur ared a flurry of communications. patterns of calls from august 8 strongly suggest giuliani calling the white house to speak to a senior white house official, left a message, then had a four-minute call with an official later that night. we don't know from the call records who that white house official was but recall that giuliani publicly stated when he spoke to the white house he usually spoke to president trump, his client. also on august 8, yermak texts volker that he had some news.

ambassador volker replies he can talk then and ambassador volker updates giuliani in a next the next day. volker says to giuliani in the text hi mr. mayor, had a good chat with yermak last night. he was pleased with your phone call. mentioned -- refers to president zelensky here -- making a statement. can we all get on the phone to make sure i advise -- here he's referring to president zelensky -- correctly as to what he should be saying. want to make sure we get this done right. so, here, august 9th, there's an effort by volker to make sure to get this statement right about the investigations because if they can't get the statement rig right, he ain't gonna get in the door of the oval office. it also makes clear who is exactly in charge of this, and that's rudy giuliani. ambassador volker is checking

with rudy giuliani about what he should advise president zelensky. and we know that giuliani is taking his orders from president trump. text messages and call records obtained by the committee show that ambassador volker and giuliani connected by phone twice around noon on august 9th for several minutes each. phone calls with giuliani and ambassador volker created a three way chat using whatsapp that included himself, ambassador sondland, and yermak. this is volker chatting with sondland and yermak. it's a three-way chat. volker says, hi, andre, meaning yermak, we have all consulted here including rudy. could you do a call later today or tomorrow, your afternoon time. sondland says i have a call scheduled at 3:00 p.m. eastern for the three of us. ops will call. call records obtained show that

august 9, ambassador sondland twice connected with phone records associated with the white house, once in the early afternoon for about eight minutes and one in the late afternoon for about two minutes. we know that ambassador sondland had direct contact with president trump. they thought they had a break through. finally a break through. minutes after this call which was with tim moorrison. they discussed the agreement they believed they reached. and starts with sondland in this text message. morrison ready to get dates as soon as yermak confirms. volker says excellent, how did you sway him? not sure i did, says sondland. i think potus really wants the deliverable. well, we know that what deliverable is. it's the political investigations. volker says but does he know that? and sondland says yep, clearly lots of convos, mean

conversations, going on. volker says okay, that's good. it's coming from two separate sources. ambassador sondland told the committees that the deliverable required by president trump was a press statement from president zelensky committing to do the investigations into the bidens and the allegation of the ukraine election interference that president trump mentioned on july 25th. but tim morrison testified that he didn't know anything about the deliverable. he was just involved in trying to schedule the white house meeting which everyone wanted to schedule as a sign of support for president zelensky and our ally ukraine. but trump's agents wouldn't just accept ukraine's word for it. ambassador sondland then recommended to ambassador volker that yermak share a draft of the press statement to ensure that the statement would comport with the president's expectations.

so, here on august 9th -- so, we're still less than two weeks after the july 25th call. i guess we're about two weeks. sondland says in this message, to avoid misunderstandings, might be helpful to ask andre for a draft statement, parentheses embargoed, so that we can see exactly what they propose to cover. even though ze, refers to zelensky, does a live presser, they can still summarize in a brief statement. thoughts? and volker says agree. at his deposition, ambassador sondland said he suggested reviewing a written summary of the statement because he was concerned that president zelensky would say whatever he would say on live television and it still wouldn't be good enough for rudy/the president, unquote. yermak in turn was concerned that the announcement would still not result in the coveted white house meeting.

on august 10th, yermak texted volker attempting to schedule a white house meeting before the ukrainian president made announcement of investigation into burisma and the election. we can see what's going on here. the president and his agent, giuliani, they want this public statement of the investigations before they'll give a date. and the ukrainians want a date before they have to commit to making public they're going to do the investigations. so, you have this stand off where each is trying to get the deliverable first. but there's no debate about what the deliverable is on either side. there's no debate about the quid pro quo here. you give me this, i'll give you that. you give me the white house meeting, i'll give you the public announcement of the investigation into your political rival. no, no, no. you give me the announcement of the investigation into my rival and then i'll give you the meeting. the only debate here is about what comes first. so, august 10th, yermak texts

volker. i think it's possible to make this declaration to mention all these things which we discussed yesterday, but it would be logic to do after we receive a confirmation of date. we inform about date of visit, about expectations, and guarantees for future visit. let's discuss it. ambassador volker responded that he agreed but that first they would have to iron out a statement and use that to get a date after which president zelensky would give the statement. the two decided to have a call the next day and to include ambassador sondland. yermak texts ambassador volker excellent, once we have a date we will call for a press briefing announcing up coming visit and announcing vision for the reboot among other things burisma and election meddling in the investigations. yermak was also in direct contact with ambassador sondland

regarding this revised approach. he sent ambassador sondland the same text message. ambassador sondland kept the leadership of the state department in the loop. on august 10th, he told ambassador volker he reported to t orric brechbuhl, counselor of the state who spoke with pompeo. so, ulrich is in the loop. sondland and volker continued to pursue the statement from zelensky on the investigations. the next day, ambassador sondland emails brechbuhl and lisa kenna, the state department's executive secretary, about efforts to secure a public statement and a big presser from president zelensky. sondland hoped it might, quote, make the boss happy enough to authorize an investigation -- an invitation. after first being evasive on the

topic, secretary pompeo has subsequently acknowledged that he listened in on the july 25th call. now, since he was on the call, pompeo must have understood what would make the boss, that is the president, happy enough to schedule a white house meeting. again, everyone was in the loop. on august 11th, ambassador volker sent giuliani a text message. this is volker to giuliani. hi, rudy. we have heard back from andre again. they are writing the statement now and will send it to us. can you talk for five minutes before noon today? and giuliani says, yes, just call. that's august 11th. on the next day, august 12th, yermak sent ambassador volker an initial version of the draft statement by text. notably, this statement from the

ukrainians doesn't explicitly mention burisma, biden, or 2016. election investigations that the president has been seeking. so you can see what's going on here here. there's a game of chicken. you go first. no, we'll go first. you give us the date, we'll give you the statement. no, you give us the statement, we'll give you the date. now realizing they've got to give the statement first, ukraine tries to give them a generic statement that doesn't really go into specifics about these investigations. and why? you can imagine why. ukrainians don't want to have to go out in public and say they're going to do these investigations because they're not stupid. because they understood this would pull them right into u.s. presidential politics. because it was intended to. which isn't in ukraine's interest. it's not in our interest either, and ukraine understood that. they resisted. first they resisted having to do the public statement. then they wanted to make sure to

get the deliverable. when they had to make the statement, they didn't want to have to be specific for one thing, for another thing. this was what zelensky campaigned on. he was going to fight corruption. he was going to end political investigations. so, he didn't want to be specific. so, he sends this statement that doesn't have the specific references. and ambassador volker explained during his testimony that was not what giuliani was requesting and it would not satisfy giuliani or donald trump. now, presumably, if the president was interested in corruption, that statement would have been enough. but all he was interested in was an investigation or announcement of an investigation into his rival and this debunked theory about 2016. now, the conversation that volker referred to in his earlier testimony took place on the morning of august 13th when

giuliani made clear that the specific investigations related to burisma, code for bidens, and the 2016 election had to be included in order to get the white house meeting. so, the americans sent back to ukrainian top aide a revised draft that includes now the two investigations, and you've seen the side by side. this was then the essence of the quid pro quo regarding the meeting, and this direction came from president trump. here is how ambassador sondland put it. >> mr. giuliani's request were a quid pro quo for araranging a white house visit for president zelensky. mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, dnc server, and burisma.

mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. >> now, according to witness testimony, as you might imagine, ukrainian officials were very uncomfortable with the draft that volker and giuliani were negotiating. they understood the deliverable was the statement that president trump wanted. but yielding to president trump's demands would in essence force president zelensky to break his promise to root out corruption because politically motivated invest galgss are a hallmark of the kind of corruption that ukraine has been plagued with in the past. mr. yermak tried to get some confirmation that the requested investigations were legitimate. in response to the draft statement, yermak asks volker, quote, whether any requests had

been made by the u.s. to investigate election interfeeshs in 2016. in other words, whether any requests had been made through formal channels as you would expect if it were a legitimate request. ambassador volker tried to find a satisfactory answer. on august 15th, volkers assistant asked george kent whether there was precedent for such investigations. in his deposition, kent testified that if you're asking me have we ever gone to the ukrainians and asked them to investigate or prosecute individuals for political reasons, the answer is i hope we haven't and we shouldn't because that goes against everything we are trying to promote in the post-soviet states for the last 28 years, which is the pro motion of the rule of law.

the next day, now on august 16th, in a conversation with ambassador bill taylor, the u.s. ambassador in kyiv and ambassador taylor stepped in when ambassador yovanovitch was pushed out, taylor, quote, amplified the same theme, and told kent that, quote, yermak was very uncomfortable with the idea of investigations and suggested it should be done officially and put in writing. as a result, it became clear to kent in mid-august that ukraine was being pressured to conduct politically motivated invest gases. kent told ambassador taylor that's wrong and we shouldn't be doing it as a matter of u.s. policy. ambassador volker claimed that he stopped pursuing the statement from the ukrainians around this time because of the concerns raised by zelensky's

aide. at his deposition and despite all of his efforts to secure a statement announcing these very specific political investigations desired by the president, ambassador volker testified that he agreed with yermak's concerns and advised him that making those specific references was not a good idea because making those statements might look like it would play into our domestic politics. without specific references to the politically damaging investigations that trump demanded, the agreement just wouldn't work. ukraine did not release the statement and in turn the white house meeting was not scheduled. as it turns out, ambassador sondland and volker did not achieve the break through after all. now, let's go into what finally breaks the law in general because that involves the

military aid. with efforts to trade a white house meeting for a press statement announcing the investigations temporarily scuttled, sondland and volker go back to the drawing board. on august 19th, ambassador sondland told volker that he drove the larger issue home with yermak, president zelensky's top aide, particularly that this was bigger than the white house meeting and was about the relationship per se. the relationship per se. not just about the meeting anymore. it's about everything. it's about everything. by this time in late august, the hold on security assistance had been in place for more than a month and there was still no credible explanation offered by the white house despite sondland repeatedly asking. there were no interagency meeting and the defense department withdrew assurances

it could comply with the law, which indeed it couldn't. every agency in the administration opposed the hold as the government accountability office confirmed dod and omb officials had been right that the president's withholding of the aid was an unlawful act. but president trump was not budging. at the same time, despite the persistent efforts of numerous people, president trump refused to schedule the coveted white house visit for president zelensky until the investigations were announced that would benefit his m campai. here is what ambassador sondland said about its hold on funds and its link to politically motivated in ukraine. >> in the absence for explanation for the suspension of aid, i came to believe that the resumption of aid would not occur until there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations

of the 2016 elections and burisma as mr. giuliani had demanded. from the embassy in kyiv, david holmes reached the same conclusion, a conclusion as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4. >> mr. holmes, you have testified that by late august you had a clear impression that the security assistance hold was somehow connected to the investigations that president trump wanted. how did you conclude -- how did you reach that clear conclusion? >> sir, we've been hearing about the investigation since march, months before. and we've been -- president zelensky had received a letter from the president saying he'd be pleased to meet him following his inauguration in may.

and we hadn't been able to get that meeting. the security hold came up with no explanation. i would be surprised if any of the ukrainians -- you said earlier discussed earlier sophisticated people, when they received no explanation for why that hold was in place, they would have drawn that conclusion. >> because the investigations were still being pursued. >> k correct. >> the hold was still remaining without explanation. >> correct. >> so, this to you was the only logical conclusion that you could reach. >> correct. >> sort of like 2 plus 2 equals 4. >> exactly. >> sondland explained the predicament he believed he faced with a hold on ukraine. >> as my other state department colleagues have testified, this security aid was critical to ukraine's defense and should not have been delayed. i expressed this view to many

during this period but my goal was to do what was necessary to get the aid released, to break the log jam. i believed that the public statement we had been discussing for weeks was essential to advancing that goal. you know, i really regret that the ukrainians were placed the in that predicament, but i do not regret doing what i could to break the log jam and to solve the problem. >> on august 22nd, sondland tried to break that log jam regarding the meeting. ambassador sondland described those efforts in his public testimony. let's listen to him again. >> in preparation for meeting, i asked secretary pompeo whether a face to face conversation between trump and zelensky would

help to break the log jam. this was when president trump was still intending to travel to warsaw. i wrote this is my email to secretary pompeo. should we block time in warsaw for a short pull aside for potus to meet zelensky? i would ask zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once ukraine's new justice folks are in place in mid-september, that zelensky, he, zelensky, should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to potus and the u.s. hopefully that will help break the log jam. the secretary replied yes.

>> sondland also explained that both he and secretary pompeo understood the issues of importance to the president were the two sham two sham investiga president wanted to help his re-election efforts. and that reference to the log jam meant both the security assistance and the white house meeting. at the end of august, national security adviser john bolton arrived in ukraine for an official visit. david holmes took notes in ambassador holmes meetings about the message to the ukrainians. >> shortly thereafter, on august 37th, ambassador bolton visits ukraine and brought welcome news that president trump had agreed to meet pretty zelensky on september 1st in warsaw. ambassador bolton further indicated that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted prior to the warsaw meeting, where it would hang on whether president zelensky was

able to favorably impress president trump. >> let's think about that for a minute. unless you have something further to say. let's think about that for a minute. bolton further indicated that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted prior to the warsaw meeting, where it would hang on whether president zelensky was able to favorably impress president trump. what do you think would favorably impress president trump? what were the only two thing that president trump asked of president zelensky? what were the two things that rudy guiliani was asking of president zelensky and his top aids? what would favorably impress donald trump? would donald trump be favorably impressed if zelensky were to tell him about this new investigation in the rata or how the investigations with the

russians were going or how they're bringing about defense reform? did any of those things come up in any of these text messages, any of these e-mails, any of these phone calls, any of these conversations? of course fought. of course not. there was only one thing that was going to favorably impress president trump in warsaw and that is if zelensky told him to his face i'm going to do these political investigations. i don't want to do 'em. you know i don't want to do 'em. i resist doing 'em. but i'm at war with russia and i can't wait anymore. i can't wait anymore. i'm sure that would have impressed donald trump. but the meeting between the two presidents never happened in warsaw. president trump cancelled the trip at the last moment. before bolton left kiev, ambassador taylor asked for a private meeting. ambassador taylor explained that he was extremely concerned about

the hold on security assistance. he described the meeting to us during his testimony. near the end, of ambassador's bolton's visit, i asked to meet with him privately, during which i expressed to him my serious concern about the withhold of military assistance to ukraine, while the ukrainians were defending their country from russian aggression. ambassador bolton say i send a first cable to secretary pompeo directly relaying my concerns. >> now, in the state department, sending a first person cable is an extraordinary step. state department cables are ordinarily written in the third person as ambassador taylor testified at his deposition sending a first person cable gets attention because there are not many first person cables that come in, in fact, in his decades of service in the diplomatic core, he had never written a single one until now.

taylor sent that cable on august 29th. would you like me to read that to you right now? i would like to read it to you right now. except, i don't have it. because the state department wouldn't provide it. but if you'd like me to read it to you, we can do something about that. we can insist on getting that from the state department. if you'd like to know what john bolton had in mind when he thought that zelensky could favorably impress the president in warsaw, we can find that out, too, just for the asking. and they had a document called a subpoena. so taylor sends that cable august 29th. the state department did not provide that cable to us in response to the subpoena. but witnesses who reviewed it describe it as a powerful message that describe the folley. the folley, of withholding military aid from ukraine at a time when it was facing incursion from russian sources in eastern ukraine.

>> that cable also sought to assist u.s. assistance from ukraine was vital to u.s. national security as well. now, why don't they want us to see that cable? why don't they want us to see that cable? maybe they don't want you to see that cable, because that cable from a vietnam veteran describes just how essential that military assistance would not just to ukraine, maybe they don't you to see that cable because it describes just how important that military assistance is to us. to us. the president's counsel sell would love to you believe this is just about ukraine. you don't need to care about ukraine. who cares about ukraine? how many people can find ukraine on the map? why should we care about ukraine? but we should care about ukraine. they're an ally of ours. if