>> 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 it matters to us, we should care about the fact that in 1994

when we asked them to give up their nuclear weapons they had inherited from the soviet union and they didn't want to give them up. we were worried about proliferation. we said, hey, if you different them up, which you don't want to do because are you worried the russians pamight invade, if you give them up, we will help ensure your territorial integrity. we paid thmade that commitment. i hope we care about that i hope we care about that. because they did give them up. you know what, just what they feared took place, the russians moved across their border and they remain an occupying party in ukraine. that's the word of america we gave. and we're breaking that word. why? for help with a political campaign. ambassador taylor was exactly like, that's crazy. it's worse than crazy.

it's repulsive. it's repugnant. it breaks our word. and to do it in the name of these corrupt investigations is also contrary to, to everything we espouse around the world. i used to be a part of a commission in the house on democracy assistance, where we would meet with parliamenttarians and i know my senate colleagues do much the same thing and we would engage our politicians to engage in constitutional law. i don't know how we mike that argument now. i don't know how we look these democracies in the face, fellow parliamentarians i wouldn't make that argument now. now, testimony indicated that

secretary pompeo eventually carried that cable into the white house. but there's no evidence that those national security concerns, that they don't want you to see, were able to outweigh the president's personal interests in getting help in his foreign election campaign. there is no evidence at all. now we get to august 28th. split do was the first public report president trump implemented a hold on nearly 4 million of u.s. military assistance to ukraine that had been appropriated by congress. now that the worst kept secret was public, ukrainian officials immediately expressed their alarm and concern to their american counterparts, as witnesses explain the ukrainians had two serious concerns, one, of course, was the aid, itself, which was vital to our ability to fight off russia, but, in addition, they were worried about the symbolism of the hold,

that it signaled to russia and vladimir putin that the occupation was wavering in its support for ukraine, witnesses testified that this was a division that russia could and would exploit to drive further wedge between the united states and ukraine to its advantage. the second concern was why, likely why ukrainian officials had wanted the hold to remain a secret in the first place. because it would add to the negative impact to ukraine if the hold, itself, became public. it's bad enough that the president of the united states put a hold on their aid. it was going to be far worse fit became public as, indeed, it did. andre yermak, the same zelensky aid sent ambassador voelker to the politico story and texted, need to talk to you. and expressed concerns to ambassador voelker that the ukrainian government was being singled out and penalized for

some reason. well, what do we think that reason was? why were they being singled out? why was that country being singled out? that was the one country that this president could lever for help against an opponent he'd feared. that's why ukraine was being singled out. on august 29th, yermak also contacted ambassador taylor. yermak said the you cranes were concerned about the military assistance. he said he and other ukrainian officials would be able to travel to washington to explain to u.s. officials the importance of this assistance, ambassador taylor who was on the ground in ukraine explained the ukrainian viewpoint and, frankly, their desperation. >> in september, the newsroom defense, for example, came to me, i would use the word desperate to figure out why the assistance was being held. he thought that perhaps if he

went to washington to talk to you, to talk to secretary of defense, to talk to the president, he would be able to find out and reassure, provide whatever answer was necessary to have that assistance released. >> without any official explanation for the hold, american officials could provide little reassurance to their ukrainian counterparts. it has been publicly reported that president trump, secretary esper and secretary pompeo met in late august and they all implored the president to release the aid. but president trump continued to refuse to release the aid. as of august 30th, the president was clearly directing omb to continue to hold on security assistance. in documents reviewed by just security, but withheld from the congress by omb on the president's instructions, omb official michael duffy e-mailed dod controller elaine mckufker

there is quote clear information from potus to continue to hold. here we are, august 30th, a month after that july 25th call, aid still being withheld, ukrainians still holding on, still not willing to capitulate, not willing to violate zelensky's hold campaign pledge about not engaging in corrupt investigations. >> that same day, august 30th, republican senator ron johnson spoke with ambassador sondland to express his concern about president trump's decision to withhold military assistance to ukraine. senator johnson described that call in an interview with the "wall street journal." according to his, josh johnson, ambassador sondland told him if you crane would quote get to the bottom of 2016, if president trump has that confidence, then

he'll release the military spending. senator johnson added, at that suggestion, i winced. my reaction was, oh god. i don't want to see those two things combined. the next day, august 31st, senator johnson spoke by phone with president trump, regarding the decision to withhold aid to ukraine. according to "wall street journal," president trump denied the quid pro quo that senator johnson learned out from ambassador sondland. at the same time, however, president trump refused to authorize senator johnson to tell ukrainian officials on an upcoming trip to kiev that the aid would be forthcoming. the message that ambassador sondland communicated to senator johnson mirrored that used by president trump during the july 25th call with president zelensky in which president trump twice asked the ukrainian leader to get to the bottom of it. including in connection to an investigation into the debunked

conspiracy theory of ukrainian interference into the 2016 election. it also mirrored the language of the text message that ambassador voelker sent to president zelensky's aide just before the july 25th call, indeed, despite the president's self-serving denials, the message was clear. president trump wanted the investigations and he would withhold not one but two acts vested in him by the power of his office in order to get them. now september. september 1st f. the president was supposed to go to warsaw as we know. but he doesn't go to warsaw. mike pence goes to warsaw. jennifer williams, special adviser to the vice president for europe and russia learned of the change in the president's travel plans on august 29th. the vice president's national security adviser asked at the request of vice president pence for an update on the status of the security assistance that

just had been publicly revealed in politico and would be a political issue during a bilateral meeting between president zelensky in warsaw. the delegation arrives in warsaw, gathers in a hotel room to brief vice president pence, before he met with the ukrainian president. national security adviser bolton led the meeting. as williams described it, advisers in the room quote agreed on the need to get a final statement on security assistance as soon as possible so it could be implemented before the end of the year. but vice president pence did not have authority from the president to release the aide. ambassador sondland also attended that briefing. at the end of it, he expressed concern directly to vice president pence about the security assistance being held until the ukrainians announced the very same politically motivated investigations at the heart of this scheme.

>> you mentioned that you also had a conversation with vice president pence before his meeting with president zelensky in warsaw. and that you raised the concern you had as well that the security aziz tans was being withheld because of the president's desire to get commitment from zelensky to pursue these political investigations. what did you say to the vice president? >> i was in a briefing with several people and i just spoke up and i said, it appears that everything is solved until this statement gets made. something that words to that effect and that's what i believe to be the case based on, you know, the work the three of us had been doing, voelker, perry and mile. the vice president nodded like you know he heard what i said and that was pretty much it, as i recall. >> everyone was in the loop. >> ambassador sondland testified

that vice president pence was neither surprised nor displaced by the description of this quid pro quo. at the beginning of the bilateral meeting between president zelensky and vice president pence, as expected, the first question from president zelensky related to the status of the security assistance. vice president's aide, jennifer williams, testified, president zelensky explained that just equally with the financial and physical value of the assistance that it was a symbolic nature of that assistance that really was a show of u.s. support for ukraine and for ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. later that day, vice president pence spoke about a meeting with zelensky, but the hold on security assistance remained in place well after president pence, vice president pence returned from warsaw. and after the meeting, the warsaw meeting with vice

president pence, ambassador sondland quickly pulled aside andre yermak, zelensky's top aide and informed him that the aide would not be forthcoming until ukraine publicly announced the two investigations that president trump wanted. so here we are, after the meeting, right after the meeting. they're still in warsaw. and zelensky pulls aside his ukrainian counterpart yermak and explains the aid is not coming until the investigations are announced. >> based on my previous communications with secretary pompeo, i felt comfortable sharing my concerns with mr. yermak. it was a very, very brief pull-aside conversation that happened within a few seconds. i told mr. yermak that i believe that the resumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we

had been discussing for many weeks. >> let's let that sink in for a minute, too. you've heard my colleagues at the other table say ukrainians felt no pressure. there is no evidence they felt any pressure. of course, we've already had testimony about how they did feel pressure and they didn't want to be drawn into this political campaign. you saw over and over on these text messages, e-mails, no, you go first. you announce. no, you go first. we're supposed to believe they felt no pressure. and there it is, it breaks out in the open. the military aid is being withheld and there is a connection between the holding of the military aid and these investigations and the first thing they're asking about, they send a copy of the article, what's happening with this aid, they're ready to come plead for the aid. they go to warsaw. they meet with the vice president. it's the first question is the aid. and what happens after that

meeting? now, that's a big meeting, by the way, with the vice president, the ukrainian dell gachlths it's not mike in front of all those people the vice president is just going to bring it up. and so sondland goes up to him right after that on the side lines of that meeting and he says, basically, you ain't getting the money until you do the investigation. and we're to believe they felt no pressure. folks, they're at war. they're at war and they're being told, you're not getting $400 million in aid you need unless you do what the president wants and what the president wants are these two investigations. if you don't believe that's pressure, that's $400 million worth of pressure. i got a bridge i want to sell you. it's hard for us to put ourselves in the ukrainian's position. i mean imagine the eastern third of our country were occupied by an enemy force and we're

beholden to another country for military aid and they're saying you're not going to get it until do you what we want. do you think we'd feel pressured? i think we'd feel pressured. that's exactly the situation ukrainians were in now. you hard my other counsel say before, well, but they say they don't feel pressure. like they're going to admit they were being shaken down by the president of the united states. you think they feel pressure now? you should see what kind of pressure they feel if they admitted that. jim morrisson, the nc that witnessed the conversation between sondland and yermak from across the room and immediately thereafter received a summary from ambassador sondland. he reported the substance of that conversation to his boss ambassador bolton. he told morrison to consult with

the lawyers. go talk to the lawyers. you know, if you keep getting told you got to go talk to the lawyers, there's a problem. if things are perfect, you don't get told go talk to the lawyers, time and time again. morrison confirmed that he did talk to the lawyers, in part, to ensure there was a record of what ambassador sondland was doing. >> that record exists within the white house. would you like me to read you that record? i'd be happy to read you that record. it's there for your asking. of course, the president has refused to provide that record. precisely why did ambassador bolton tell the lawyers to talk to the lawyers? would you like ambassador bolton to tell you why he said that? he'd be happy to tell you why he said that. he's there for your asking. what did bolton know about the freeze in aid prior to this

meeting in warsaw? what did he mean? that if he can press zelensky, it's going to depend on whether he can press zelensky, would you like to know what that meant? i'd like to know what he meant by that. i think we'd know what he meant by that. tim morrison also conveyed the substance of the slpd sondland-yermak pull-aside to taylor. this is now morrison told by bolton go talk to the lawyers and he talks to also ambassador taylor our ambassador in ukrain ukraine. >> on the evening of september 1st, i received a readout over the phone during which he told me president zelensky opened immediately asking vice president about the security koormgs. the couldn'operation. the vice president said he would

talk to the president that night. he said he wanted the europeans to do more to support the ukraine and ukrainians to do more to fight corruption. during the same phone call with mr. morrison, he described the conversation ambassador sondland had with mr. yermak in warsaw. ambassador sondland told mr. yermak that the security assistance money would not come until president zelensky committed to pursue the burisma investigation. i was alarmed by what mr. morrison told me about the sondland-yermak conversation. >> ambassador taylor then explained why he was so alarmed by this term, let's hear that as well. >> you said previously that you were alarmed to learn this, why were you alarmed? >> it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house.

it's another thing i thought to leverage security assistance. security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support. it was much more alarming that the white house meeting was one thing, security assistance was much more alarming. >> upon learning from mr. morrisson that the military aid may be conditioned upon ukraine publicly announcing these 22 investigation, ambassador taylor sent an urgent text message to ambassador sondland asking, are we now saying that security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? and response by ambassador sondland, call me. you know what that means, right? you get a text message that's putting it in black and white. are we saying, security

assistance in the white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? call me. in other words, don't put this in writing. call me. ambassador taylor did, in fact, call sondland, informed by notes he took at the time of the call. he summarized that conversation as follows. >> during that phone call, ambassador sondland told me that president trump had told him that he wants president zelensky to state publicly that ukraine will investigate burisma, and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondland also told 93 he now recognized that he had made a mistake, earlier telling ukrainian officials only a white house meeting with president zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations, in fact, ambassador sondland said everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance, he said

that president trump wanted president zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations. >> ambassador taylor testified that his contemporaneous notes of the call reflect that sondland used the phrase public box to describe president trump's desire to ensure that the initiation of his desired investigations was announced publicly. a private commitment was not good enough. the state department has ambassador taylor's extensive notes and, of course, we would like to show them to you. to corroborate his testimony. but pursuant to the president's instructions, the state department will not turn them over. you might recall from the tape yesterday, ambassador taylor said, they'll be shortly coming, i am told. well, somebody countermanneded that instruction. who do we think that was? but you should see them. if you have any questions about what sondland told ambassador

taylor, if the president's counsel tries to create any confusion about what sondland told taylor about his conversation with the president, and look sondland had one recollection in his deposition. another recollection in the first hearing and another recollection in the declaration, you want to know exactly what happened in that conversation when it was fresh if sondland's mind and he told taylor about it and taylor wrote it in its notes, will you want taylor's notes. in any courtroom in america, holding a fair trial, you would want to see contemporaneous notes. this senate should be no different. demand those notes. demand to see the truth. we're not afraid of those notes. we haven't seen them. we haven't seen them. maybe those notes say something completely different. maybe those notes say no quid pro quo. maybe those notes say it's a

perfect call. i'd like to see them. i'm willing to trust ambassador taylor's testimony and his recollection. i'd like to see them, i'd like to show them to you. they're yours for the asking. on september 25ing, "the washington post" editorial board reported concerns that president trump was withholding military assistance for ukraine at a white house meeting in order to force president zelensky to announce investigations of vice president biden and reported ukrainian interference in the u.s. election. the post-editorial board wrote, we reliable are told the president has a second and more ven venal, agenda. he is forcing president zelensky by launching an investigation into the leading candidate joe biden. mr. trump is not soliciting ukraine's help with this presidential campaign. he is using u.s. military aid,

the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it. so that's september 25th. president on notice scheme discovered. september 5th. september 7th, the evidence shows president trump has a call with ambassador sondland. where the president made the corrupt argument for military aid in the white house meeting even nor explicit. on september 7 jt, ambassador sondland spoke to president trump on the telephone. after that conversation, ambassador sondland called tim morrison to update him on that conversation. unlike sondland, who testified that he never took notes, morrison took notes of the conversation. and recalled it during his public testimony. let's listen. >> now, a few days later on september 7th, you spoke again to ambassador sondland, who told you that he had just gone off the phone with president trump.

isn't that right? >> that sounds correct, yes. >> what did ambassador sondland tell you that president trump said to him? >> if i recall this conversation correctly, this was where ambassador sondland related that there was no quid pro quo but president zelensky had to make the statement and that he had to want to do it. >> and by that point, did you understand that the statement related to the bidens into the 2016 investigations? >> i think i did, yes. >> and that that was essentially a condition for the security assistance to be released? >> i understood that's what ambassador sondland believed. >> after speaking with president trump? >> that's what he represented. >> you should bear in mind when mr. morrisson said that's what he represented. we asked mr. morrison about the president's calls with ambassador sondland. he testified that every time he

checked to see if ambassador sondland, in fact, talked with the president that he said he did, that, yes, in fact, he talked with the president. every time he checked, he was able to confirm it. now, let's let this sink in for a minute. according to mr. morrison's testimony, former republican staff on the armed services committee, he speaks with sondland on september 7th. and sondland says he's just gone off the phone with trump so this is contemporaneous, just got off the phone. the call is fresh in everybody's mind and what was said in morrison says, ambassador sondland related there was no quid pro quo but president zelensky had to make the statement and he had to want to do it. no quid pro quo, but it's a quid pro quo.

now, there are note that show this. there is a written record of this. there is a written record of what president trump told ambassador sondland right after that call. would you like to see that written record? it's called, mr. morrison's notes. it's right there for the asking. these fine words over here want to persuade you that call didn't happen or it wasn't said, all he said was no quid pro quo. he never said, but you have to go to the mic and you have to want to do it. well, there is a good way to find out what happened on that call because it's in writing. is there any question why they're withholding this from congress? is there any question about that ah, they didn't claim, well, mr. morrison didn't claim absolute immunity and

mr. sondland didn't claim absolute immunity. no executive privilege over these notes. the notes have been described. the conversation has already been released. there is no even plausible arguable invented even excuse for withholding these notes, wouldn't you like to see them? i tell you in any courtroom in america, you'd get to see them. this should be no different. it wouldn't be any different in a fair trial, anywhere in america. morrison again informed ambassador bolton of this september 7th conversation and guess what ambassador bolton said, i think you can probablying in out by now. go dot-com to the lawyers. go talk to the lawyers. and yet again for the third time, morrison went to talk to the lawyers about this conversation with ambassador

sondla sondland. morrison also called ambassador taylor to inform him about the conversation and we lad the testimony from ambassador taylor about their conversation, which is also based on his contemporaneous noechlts let's look at the conversation now between mr. morrison and ambassador taylor. >> according to mr. morrison, president trump told ambassador sondland he was not asking for a quid pro quo. if president trump did insist that president zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of biden in 2016 election interference. and that president zelensky should want to do this, himself. >> socokay. so here we have two witnesses taking contemporaneous notes, both reflecting the same

conversation. a conversation between sondland and the president in which the president says no quid pro quo but quid pro quo. there are documents that prove this. documents that prove this that are yours for the asking. the following day, september 8th, sondland texted taylor and voelker to bring them up to speed with conversations with president trump and subsequently president zelensky, whom he spoke to after president trump. guys, multiple conversations with z, meaning slrksz potus, let's talk. sondland spoke to taylor. but not voelker shortly after this text. according to ambassador taylor who testified again on his real time notes. let's hear what what he said. >> the following day, september 8th, ambassador sondland and i spoke on the phone. help confirmed he talked to president trump as i suggested a week earlier. but president trump was adamant that president zelensky,

himself, had to clear things up and do it in public. president trump said it was into the a quid pro quo. >> it's all very consistent here what the president said no quid pro quo, but zelensky must announce the investigations publicly. that's what he was telling sondland. no quid pro quo except for the quid pro quo. the president's attorneys rely on the first half of that sentence and would like you to frth the second half ever happened. we don't have to leave our common sense at the door. we don't have to rely on an incomplete description of that call. we have instead the detailed notes of mr. morrison and ambassador taylor. but we also know what president trump told sondland because sondland relayed that message to president zelensky during the same september 8 conversation with taylor, sondland described this conversation with president zelensky.

here's ambassador taylor's account of it. >> ambassador sondland also said that he had talked to president zelensky and mr. yermak and had told them that although this was not a quid pro quo, if presint zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. i understood a stalemate would mean ukraine would not get the much needed military assistance, sondland said this concluded with president zelensky agreeing to make a public statement on an interview on cnn. >> so not only did he relate, ambassador sondland, relate this conversation to mr. morrison, to mr. taylor. not only mr. taylor, mr. morrison talk about it, but sondland confirms he's relayed this conversation to sz, himself. >> everyone was now in the loop on the military aid being

withheld for the political investigations. taylor continued recalling the startling analogy ambassador sondland used to describe president trump's approach to ukraine. >> during our meeting, during our call on september 8th, ambassador sondland tried to explain to me that president trump is a businessman. a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. voelker used the same language several days later while we were together at the alta strategy conference. i argued to both the explanation made no sense. the ukrainians did not owe president trump anything. >> ambassador taylor testified at the end of the sondland-zelensky conversation, president zelensky said le had relent re-- he had relented and to do a

cnn announcement. so it was a break through after all. the promised meeting wasn't enough. he withheld security assistance, broke the log jam, zelensky was going to go on cnn and announce the investigations. taylor though, remained concerned, even if the ukrainian leader did as president trump required, president trump might continue to withhold the vital u.s. security assistance in any event. master taylor texted his concerns to ambassador voelker and sondland stating, the nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance, the russians love it and i quit. and that's quite telling, too. what's ambassador taylor worried about? he's worried ukrainians are finally going to agree to do it? they're going to make the announce mtd and they're still going to get stiffed on the aid.

at his deposition, ambassador taylor elaborated, the nightmare scenario, the nightmare is a scenario where president zelensky goes out in public, makes an announcement he will investigate burisma and the interference in the 2016 election, maybe among other things, he might put that in some series of investigations. but the nightmare was he would mention those two take all the heat from that, get himself in big trouble in this country, maneing ukraine, or this country, meaning the united states and probably in this country as well meaning both i guess and the security assistance would not be released. that was the nightmare. if it were to happen, taylor testified he would quit. early in the morning, in europe on september 9th, which was 12:47 a.m. in washington, d.c., ambassador taylor replicated his concerns about the president's quid pro quo for security assistance, in another series of text messages with ambassadors

voelker and sondland, so here are the september 9th text messages, taylor texts to sondland, the message to the ukrainians, (the cease and russians, we stand with the security assistance is key. with a hold we have already shaken their faith in us. thus my nightmare scenario. and taylor goes on and says, counting on you to be right about this interview, gordon, meaning, if they do it, you darn well better come through with the military aid. and sondland says, i never said i was right. i said we are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. let's hope it works. and taylor said, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. ambassador taylor testified about what he meant. he said to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political

campaign made no sense. it was counterproductive to all of what we have been trying to done. it was ill logical. it could not be explained. it was crazy. in response to ambassador taylor's text message, sondland replies, as of 5:00 a.m. in washington. so, the message from taylor goes out at 12:47 a.m. the message back from sondland comes at 5:00 a.m. so it looks like it may be five hours later. so taylor has texted at 12:47 a.m. as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy for helping a political campaign. there he is again putting it in writing, for crying out loud. hadn't sondland said to call him about this stuff sflp and so, five hours later, you get this really interesting message from sondland. bill, i believe you're incorrect about president trump's

intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind, the president is trying to evaluate whether to truly adopt a transparency in reforms president zelensky promised during his campaign. i suggest we stop the back and forth by text. in other words, can you please stop putting this in wrichlg congress may read this one day. if you still have concerns, i recommend you give liss ka sa ken na or s a call to discuss them directly. thanks. now, as you can see, ambassador sondland's subsequent testimony revealed this text and other deny yams of a quid pro quo were intentionally false and simply designed to provide a written record of a false explanation that could later be used to conceal wrong-doing. the text message says there were no quid pro quos of any kind. but you see in this testimony, he swore under oath. he was crystal clear when he said there was a quid pro quo

for the white house meeting and he subsequently testified there was a quid pro quo for the security assistance as well. as confirmed by president trump's direction to him on september 7th. sondland's recollection of this conversation with president trump as i mentioned has evolved over time, initially in his deposition, he testified that the conversation with the president occurred between taylor's texts of september 9th at 12:47 washington time. his response was 35:00 a.m. he recalled very little at that time other than his belief his text pressure released president trump's response. by the way this is why you do depositions in closed session. subsequently, after the opening statements of the testimony of ambassador taylor and mr. morrison were released, which described an overlapping and painful detail, sondland's conversation with president trump on september 7th,

ambassador sondland committed and addendum to his deposition testimony, which in relevant part said this. finally as of this writing i cannot specifically recall if i had one or two phone calls with president trump in the september 6th to 9 time frame. despite repeated requests to the white house and the state department, i have not been granted access to all of the phone records. and i would like to review those phone records along with other notes and documents that may exist to determine if i can provide a more complete testimony to asis congress. however, all though i have no specific recollection of phone calls during this period with mr. taylor, ambassador taylor or mr. morrison, i have no reason to question the substance of their recollections about my september 1 conversation with mr. yermak. s during his public testimony, ambassador sondland reported to remember more of his conversation with president trump. although he still couldn't or maintained he couldn't remember

if it was on september 7th or september 9th. and according to his testimony, president trump did not specifically say there was a quid pro quo, but when sondland simply asked the president what he wanted from ukraine, president trump immediately brought up a quid pro quo, according to sondland, president trump said i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo, i want zelensky to do the right thing. i said what does that mean? he said, i want him to do what he ran on. in his subsequent testimony, ambassador sondland explained that president trump's efforts to what he ran on was a nod to rooting out corruption. here, however, corruption like burisma has become code for the investigations that president trump has sought. so you've got ambassador sondland's emerging recollection. what were written notes taken at the time. >> that he does not contest.

written notes of ambassador taylor and mr. morrison, notes, which i believe will reflect quite clearly the understanding of dirt for dollars, that was confirmed by this telephone call with president trump. >> well, you weren't dissuaded then, right? because you still thought the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations after speaking to president trump? >> by september 8th, i was absolutely convinced it was. >> and president trump did not dissuade you of that in the conversation that you acknowledge you had with him? >> i don't ever recall, because that would have changed my entire calculus, if president trump had told me directly i'm not -- >> no i'm not asking about that i'm saying you still believed the security assistance was conditioned on the investigation after you spoke to president trump, yes or no? >> from a time frame standpoint, yes. >> okay so here we have sondland

saying that whatever his recollection may be about that ul call, he was clear what the president wanted and he was clear it was a quid pro quo, that is consistent, obviously, with what mr. morrison has had to say and ambassador taylor. in other words, he didn't believe president trump's deny ai i denial of a quid pro quo, neither should you. it was confirmed by his own chief of staff october 17th at a press briefing, mick mulvaney said they withheld aid as pressure to ukraine to investigate the conspiracy theory that ukraine had interfered in the 2016 election. >> and that was, those are the driving factors. did he also mention to me in the past that the corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely no question about

that but that's it. that's why we held up the money. >> when pressed he had just convinced from the very quid pro quo that president trump had been denying, mulvaney doubled down. let's listen to that. >> let's be clear, you what described a quid pro quo. >> it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democrat's server happened as well? >> we do that all the time with foreign policy. >> this evidence demonstrates that president trump withheld the security assistance in the white house meeting with president zelensky until ukraine made a public statement announcing the two investigations targeted to help his political re-election efforts. but as you will learn next, he got caught. and the coverup ensueed.n

. >> chief justice and senators, thank you for your patience. this is a lot of information. but you have a very important obligation and that is ultimately to decide whether the president committed impeachable offenses. and in order to make that judgment, you have to have all of the facts. and so wear going through this chronology. we're close to being done. but it's important to know that while all of this material was going on, these deals were being made, there were other forces at work. even before the president's u.s. assistance to ukraine became public on august 28th, members

of both houses of congress began to express concern. on august 9th, the democratic leadership with the house and senate appropriations committee wrote to the omb in the white house warning that a hold on assistance might constitute an illegal embattlement of fund. they urged the trump administration to follow the law and obviously fwat the fuobliga funding. when the news of the frozen aid broke on august 28th, congressional scrutiny of president trump's decision increased. on september 3rd, a group of senators, both republicans and democrats, including senator jeanne shaheen, senator rob portman, senator dick durbin, senator ron johnson, senator richard blumenthal sent a letter to acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney expressing and i quote deep concerns that

the administration is considering not obligating the ukraine security initiative funds for 2019. two days later, as has been mentioned, on september 5th, a washington post editorial expressed concern that president trump was withholding military assistance to ukraine in order to pressure president zelensky to announce these investigations. that was the first public report linking the frozen security aid to the investigations that mr. guiliani had been publicly pressing for and that president trump, as we've heard, had privately urged president zelensky to conduct on the july 25th call. >> that same day, senators murphy and johnson met with president zelensky in kiev. ambassador taylor went with them. and he testified, mr. taylor

testified, that president zelensky's quote first question to the senators was about withheld security assistance. ambassador taylor testified that both senators quote stressed that bipartisan support sfoor i for ukraine and washington was ukraine's most important asset and president zelensky should not jeopardize that pi partisan 40 by getting dawn into u.s. politicles. now senior johnson and senator murphy later submitted letters, where they explained that they sought to reassure president zelensky that there was bipartisan support in congress for providing ukraine with military assistance and they would continue to urge president trump to lift the hold. here is with they said in that letter. >> senator murphy said, senator

johnson and i assured sz that congress wanted to continue this funding and would press and senator johnson in the letter said i explained that i had tried to persuade the president to authorize me to announce the hold was released, but that i was unsuccessful. now, as news of the president's hold on military assistance to ukraine became public at the end of august, congress, the press, the public, started to pay more attention to president trump's activities with ukraine. this risked exposing the scheme that you've heard so much about today. by now, the white house had learned that the inspector general of the intelligence community had found that a whistle-blower complaint related to the same ukraine matter was, quote, credible and, quote, an

urgent concern and was therefore, that they were therefore required to send that complaint to congress. on september 9th, three house investigating committees sent a letter to white house counsel pat cipollone stating that president trump and giuliani, quote, appeared to have acted outside legitimate law enforcement and diplomatic channels to coerce the ukrainian government into pursuing two politically motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity. the letter also said this. if the president is trying to pressure ukraine into choosing between defending itself from a russian aggression without u.s. assistance or leveraging its judicial system to serve the ends of the trump campaign, this would represent a staggering abuse of power.

a boone to moscow and a betrayal of the public trust. the chairs requested that the white house preserve all relevant records and produce them by september 16th. this included the transcript or actually the call record of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky. now, based on witness testimony, it looks like the white house counsel's office circulated the committee's document request around the white house. tim morrison, a senior director at the national security council, remembered seeing a copy of this letter. he also recalled that the three committees' ukraine investigation was discussed at a meeting of senior level nsc staff soon after it was publicly announced. lieutenant colonel vindman recalled discussions among the nsc staff members at the investigation.

here is the quote. might have the effect of releasing the hold on ukraine military assistance because it would be, quote, potentially politically challenging for the administration to justify that hold to congress. later that same day on september 9th, the inspector general informed the house and senate intelligence committees he'd determine that the whistle-blower complaint that had been submitted on august 12th appeared to be credible, met the definition of urgent concern under the statute. and yet, he reported, that for the first time ever, the acting director of national intelligence was withholding this whistle-blower complaint from congress. that violated the law, which required him to send it in seven days. the acting director later testified that his office nirly withheld the complaint based on the advice from the white house

and an unprecedented intervention by the department of justice. now, according to public reporting and testimony from the acting dni at a hearing before the house intelligence committee on september 26th, the white house had been aware the whistle-blower complaint for weeks prior to the i.g. september 9th letter to the intelligence committees. acting dni mcguire testified that. >> reporter: when he received the whistle-blower complaint from the inspector general, his office contacted the white house counsel's office for guidance. consistent with acting dni mcguire's testimony, the "new york times" has reported that in. >> reporter: late august, the president's current defense counsel, mr. cipollone, and nsc lawyer john eisenberg personally briefed president trump about the complaint's existence and told the president they believed the complaint could be withheld from congress on executive

privilege grounds. now on september 10th the next day, ambassador bolton resigned from his position as national security adviser. on that same day, september 10th, chairman schiff of the house intelligence committee wrote a letter to the acting director demanding that he provide the complaint as the law required. the next day on september 11th, president trump lifted the hold on the security assistance to ukraine. now, numerous witnesses have testified that they weren't aware of any reason why the hold was lifted. just as there was no explanation for the hold being implemented. there was no additional review, no additional european contribution, nothing to justify the president's change in position, except he got caught. just as there was no official explanation for why the hold on ukrainian assistance was

implemented, numerous witnesses testified that they were not provided with any reason for why the hold was lifted on september 11th. for example, jennifer williams, who was the special adviser to vice president pence, testified that she was never given a reason for that decision. neither was lieutenant colonel vindman. here's what he told us during the hearing. >> are you also aware, however, that the security assistance hold was not lifted for another ten days after this meeting? >> that's correct. >> and am i correct that you didn't learn the reason why the hold was lifted? >> that's correct. >> colonel vindman, you didn't learn a reason why the hold was lifted either. is that right? >> correct. >> colonel vindman, are you aware that the committee's launch into the investigation on september 9th, two days before the hold was lifted? >> i am aware, and i was aware.

>> ambassador taylor, the person in charge at the u.s. embassy in kiev who communicated the decision to the ukrainians also never got an explanation. here's what he said. >> are you also aware, however, that the security assistance hold was not lifted for another ten days after this -- >> finally, on september 11th, i learned that the hold had been lifted and security assistance would be provided. i was not told the reason why the hold had been lifted. >> mark sandy, the career officer at omb, testified he only learned of a possible rationale for the hold in early september after the acting dni had informed the white house about the whistle-blower complaint. now, sandy testified that sometime in early september, he received an email from his boss,

michael duffey, approximate two months after the hold had been placed, the email, quote, attributed the hold to the president's concern about other countries not contributing more to ukraine and requested, quote, information about what additional countries were contributing to ukraine. this was a different explanation than omb had provided at the july 26th interagency meeting. that reference concerns about corruption. lieutenant colonel testified that none of the facts on the ground about ukrainian efforts to combat corruption or other countries' contribution to ukraine had changed before president trump lifted the hold. according to a press report, after congress began investigating president trump's scheme, the white house counsel's office opened an internal investigation relating to the july 25th call.

the following slides provide excerpts from a report in "the washington post." as part of that internal investigation, white house lawyers reportedly gathered and reviewed hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the hold on military assistance for ukraine that had been ordered by the president. these documents reportedly include, quote, early august email exchanges between acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds after the president had already ordered a hold in mid-july on the nearly $400 million in security assistance. "the washington post" article also reported that -- and this is a quote -- emails show omb director fought and omb staffers arguing and withholding the aid

was legal while officials at the national security council and state department protested. omb lawyers said that it was legal to withhold the aid as long as they deemed it a temporary hold. you should be able to see these documents. but the white house has withheld them from congress. so the house can't verify the news report, but you could. you could do that if you could see these documents. you should subpoena them. and there is no reason not to see all the relevant documents. now, the lengthy delay created by president trump's hold prevented the department of defense from spending all congressionally appropriated funds by the end of the fiscal year, as we have mentioned before. that meant the funds were going to expire on september 30th because, as we know, unused funds do not roll over to the