notification was named. later, if the president's counsel starts listing other times that aid has been held, ask yourself three questions: one, had congress already cleared the money to be released? two, was there a significant geopolitical development in that country? and, three, did the gao determine that the hold was illegal in part because congress was not notified. here the money had been cleared. there was nothing new or important in ukraine to disrupt the aid, just that a true anticorruption reformer was elected. the hold was illegal. from freedom of information releases and press reports, we know about just a few of the many documents being hidden from you about how the hold began. given president trump's obstruction with the facts that have come to light through

freedom of information act lawsuits and news reporting, you may assume the documents that are being withheld would probably incriminate the president. otherwise, why wouldn't he have provided them? if he had a legitimate executive privilege claim he could follow the rules and make each claim. instead he just said no, no to everything. by mid-july, the president had put a hold on all the money. jennifer williams, special adviser to vice president pence for europe learned about the hold on july 3. she said it came out of the blue and had previously been discussed by omb or the national security council. the hold was never discussed with any policy experts in any of the relevant agencies. that's remarkable. president trump ordered a hold on congressionally appropriated funds without the benefit of any

interagency deliberation, consultation or advise. the evidence shows the president's hold was an impulsive decision unrelated to any american policy. on july 12th, robert blaire e-mailed duffy at omb saying the president is directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine. this is according to sandy, the career officer at omb who got a copy of the e-mail. now, we don't have a copy of the e-mail because of the president's obstruction. but here is what we do know from mr. sandy's description of the e-mail as well as testimony from other witnesses. the hold was not part of a larger review of foreign aid. we do know it was not the result of a policy debate about what was best for america since it came out of the blue. we now know why it was done, to turn the screws on ukraine to

provide political help for the president. the hold was immediately suspect simply because of its timing. duffy later asked blaire about the reasons for the hold. he gave no explanation. instead he said, quote, we need to let the hold take place and then revisit the issue with the president. blair either didn't know the reason or wouldn't share the reason because it was corrupt. it would be nice to know what blair knew and what duffy knew. we could ask them the question if you authorize a subpoena. now, we had hoped, as we said, that the senate would authorize subpoenas before our arguments were made. we thought it would have been helpful. but we know that you will have another opportunity to call

witnesses to require documents and we hope that your decision will be informed by the arguments we're making to you over these days and that you will, in fact, get the full story. well, we do know actually the reason why the president did what he did. we know the president held the money. it wasn't because of any policy reason to benefit america or any concern about corruption in ukraine or any desire for more burden sharing from other countries. it was because the president was upset that ukraine was not announcing the investigations that he wanted, because he wanted to ramp up the pressure to force them to do it. from the very beginning, it was clear the hold was not in america's national interest. those within the u.s. government responsible for ukraine security

and for shaping and implementing u.s. foreign policy were caught off guard by the president's decision. support for the aid and against the hold was unanimous, forceful and unwavering. the president can call ukraine policy experts, unelected bureaucrats all he wants, but those are officers charged with implementing his official policy developed by the president himself which was also a product of congressional action. anyway, it wasn't just the career officers. president trump's own politically appointed senior officials, his cabinet members also opposed the hold. why? because it was against our national interest. but the president wasn't persuaded by arguments about national interest. why? because the hold had nothing to do with the national interest. it had to do with the interest

of just one person, donald j. trump. the demand for ukraine to announce these investigations was not a policy decision, but a personal decision by the president to benefit his own personal interests. at an nsc meeting, president trump directed a hold on ukraine security assistance. ambassador taylor testified that he and others on the call sat in astonishment when they learned about the hold. he immediately realized what one of the key pillars of our strong support for ukraine was threatened. david holmes, political counselor, said he was shocked and thought the hold was extremely significant because it undermined what he understood to be long-standing u.s. policy in

ukraine. and catherine kroft testified that the announcement blew up the meeting. deputy assistant secretary of state george kent said there was great confusion among the rest of us because we didn't understand why that had happened. he explained since there wit war national interest, it just surprised all of us. the policy consensus at this and later meetings was clear. with the exception of omb, which was following the direction of the president, everyone supported lifting the hold. all the way up to number two officials at the agencies, the political appointees of president trump. there was unanimous agreement that the hold was ill-advised and the aid should be released. tim morrison national security adviser to john bolton understood that the most senior

appointed officials were all supportive of the continued dispersement of the aid. on august 15th at the president's golf club in bed minister, new jersey, members of the president's cabinet all represented to ambassador bolton that they were prepared to tell the president they endorsed the swift release and disbursement of the funding. the president ignored his adviser's recommendation to lift the hold. he provided no credibility explanation for it, not from the day the hold was made until the day it was lifted. witness after witness including hail, vindman, kroft, holmes, cooper, sandy testified they weren't given any reason for the hold while it was in place. kroft said the only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the president. mr. holmes confirmed the order

had come from the president without further explanation. kent testified, too, i don't recall any coherent explanation. ambassador sondland agreed. i was never given an explanation. dr. hill explained, no, there was no reason given. even senator mcconnell said, i was not given an explanation for the hold. even as omb was implementing the hold, officers in omb were saying it should be lifted. mr. sandy testified that his team drafted a memo on august 7th to omb acting director russ vogt that recommended lifting the hold because, one, the assistance was consistent with national security to support a stable, peaceful europe. two, the aid counters russian aggression. three, there was bipartisan

support for the program. michael duffy, the senior political appointee approved the memorandum. he agreed with its policy recommendations, and it wasn't just omb. senior advisers in the administration tried over and over again to convince president trump to lift the hold over the summer. some time prior to august 16th, ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump about the aid. but the president didn't budge. then, at the end of august, when the hold on the aid became public, ambassador taylor expressed to multiple officials his concerns about withholding the aid from ukraine at a time when it was fighting russia. ambassador taylor stressed the importance of the hold, not just as a message to ukraine, but importantly to russia as well. withholding the aid on vital

military assistance while ukraine was in the midst of a hot war with russia sent a message to russia about u.s. support of ukraine. ambassador taylor felt so strongly about the harm withholding the security existence that for the first time ever in this decades of service at the state department, he sent a first person cable with his concerns to secretary mike pompeo. in the cable, he described directly the following that taylor saw in withholding the aid. here is his testimony. >> have you ever sent a cable like that? how many times in your career, 40, 50 careers have you sent a cable to the secretary of the state? >> once. >> in 50 years? >> yes, sir. >> ambassador taylor never received an answer to the cable, but he was told that secretary

mike pompeo carried it with him to the white house meeting about security assistance to ukraine. it seemed this meeting about the aid may have occurred on august 30th. there is press reports where they discussed the hold with president trump. keep this in mind, this was two days after the hold was publically reported and after the president was briefed on the whistleblower complaint. yet, even then, president trump refused to release the aid. on august 30th, michael duffy sent an e-mail to the dod comptroller. it said clear direction from potus to continue the hold. president trump has refused to produce this or any other e-mail

to congress. when the administration was forced to produce it in a freedom of information case in response to a court order, this critical passage was actually blacked out. what's the reason for blacking out this direction from the president about an issue so simple to this case? no reason has been given to us. so you should ask yourself this. what is the president hiding? the president finally released the hold on september 11th. but, again, there was no credible reason given for the release. mark sandy received that he could not recall another instance for a significant amount of assistance was being held up and he didn't have a rational for as long as i didn't have a rational on this case. on the day it was released omb still didn't know why president trump ordered the hold. on september 11th, the day the president finally released the

aid, the dod reportedly sent an e-mail to duffy asking, what happened? michael duffy answered not clear exactly, but president made the decision to go. we'll fill you in when i get details. so let's take a step back for a minute. why was no reason given to anyone for the president deciding to hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in military asis taps to our allies? because there was no supportable reason for withholding the aid. no one agreed with it. according to the 17 witnesses, president trump insisted on holding the aid and provided no reason, despite unanimous support for lifting the hold throughout his administration, including his hand picked top advisers. it also wasn't consistent with top american policy.

the aid had the clear support of career officers and political appointees in president trump's administration as important for national security. there was no national security or foreign policy reason provided. no one could think of un. dod already certified to congress, as the law required, that ukraine had met the anticorruption conditions for the aid and it planned to begin implementing the expenditures. so why did the president do this? i think we know why. the president ordered the hold for an improper purpose, to pressure ukraine to announce investigations that would personally benefit president trump. and that brings us to a key point. it wasn't just that the president ordered a hold on the aid without any explanation against the unanimous advice of

his advisers and even after weeks as his administration, both career and political appointees continued to try to get him to release the hold. what the president was trying to hide was worse. what the president did was not just wrong, it was illegal. in ordering the hold, president trump not only took a position contrary to his senior advisers, he countered to congressional intent and adverse to national security interests and he also violated the law. now, this issue was not a surprise. from the start of the hold in july, compliance with the impoundment control act was a significant concern for omb and dod officials. mark sandy raised concerns with his supervisor michael duffy that it might violate the act. laura cooper from dod described

the discussion at a july 26th meeting with number two officials at all of the relevant agencies about the hold stating, quote, immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion. she further testified that there was no legal mechanism to use to implement the hold after congress had been notified after the release of the funding. at a july 31st meeting with more junior officials, laura cooper put all aten dees on notice, including represents of the white house that because, quote, there were only two legally available options and we do not have direction to pursue either, close quote, dod would have to start spending the funds on or about august 6th. in other words, the president had a choice. he could release the aid or he could break the law.

he chose to break the law. he was so determined to turn up the pressure on ukraine that he kept the hold for no legitimate purpose and without any congressional notification for long enough to violate the law. the concerns from omb and dod were ultimately acted. as has been mentioned just last week, the nonpartisan government accountability office found that president trump broke the law by implementing the hold and in failing to notify congress about it. because of the president's hold, dod was ultimately unable to spend all the $250 million in security assistance before the end of the fiscal year as congress, as we ended. now, as gao explained, the constitution grants the president no unilateral authority to withhold funds from

obligation. and they further explained faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities that congress has enacted into law. omb held funds for a policy reason which is not permitted under the impound control act, end quote. bottom line, president trump froze the aid to increase the pressure on ukraine to announce the investigations he wanted. he violated the law. he violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws will faithfully executed. but the president didn't just violate the impound control act while pressuring ukraine to announce the investigations he wanted. he was dishonest about it. this is really telling because he's still not telling the truth about it even now. the budget documents that

implemented the hold, until september 11th, asserted that it was being imposed to, quote, allow for a process to determine the best use of such funds. but that wasn't true. there was no ongoing interagency process after july 31st after it became clear that the entire interagency, including cabinet officers agreed the aid should be released. the truth is there simply was no debate or review in the inner agency regarding the best use of such funds. so the reason given by the president was not only illegal, it was false, too. the dishonesty in the budget documents weren't the only steps that the president's men at omb took to cover up his misconduct and enable his scheme. omb went so far as to remove the authority to approve the budget

documents from mark sandy, a career officer and gave it to michael duffy, a political appointee without experience in managing these documents. that change was unusual. it occurred less than two weeks after sandy raised concerns that the hold violated the law. sandy was not aware of any prior instance when a political appointee assumed this kind of funding approval authority. duffy's explanation that he simply wanted to learn more about the accounts, that doesn't make sense to sandy, really. this odd change in responsibility was just another way to keep the president's illegal hold within a tight knit unit of loyal soldiers within the omb. michael duff fi y denied the president's subpoena. the house did not assert any privileges or immunities when it

directed duffy to defy congress's subpoena. it wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. they told him not to appear, and they had no reason why. if mr. duffy knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, i'll bet he would not have been blocked from testifying. the fact that he was blocked might lead you to infer that his testimony would be damaging to the president and would be consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses that the hold was solely used to ratchet up pressure on ukraine. but the warnings from dod weren't just about how the hold was illegal. there were also practical consequences. by august 12th, the department of defense told omb it could no longer guarantee it would be able to spend all $250 million that congress had directed before the end of the fiscal

year. not longer -- not long after this august 12th e-mail, dod determined that time had run out. ms. cooper testified that dod estimated as much as $100 million of aid might go unspent even if the hold was immediately lifted. as a result, dod refused to certify that it would be able to spend the funds by september 30th. on august 20th, omb issued the first of six budget documents and removed the language providing legal cover for the hold. from that point on, the white house knew that dod would not be able to spend all the funds, which was what the law required before september 30th. and, yet, even though he knew the hold would violate the impoundment control act, president trump continued the

hold for another 23 days without telling us, without telling the congress. this had the exact outcome that dod feared. after the president lifted the hold on the evening of september 11th, dod had only 18 days to spend the remaining $223 million, which is about 89% of the total. dod scrambled and they spent all but approximately $35 million, about 14% of the appropriated funds were left. that $35 million would have expired and would have been forever lost to ukraine had congress not stepped in to pass a law to roll the money over to the next year. but even as of today, more than $18 million of that money has not yet been spent. why? you'll have to ask dod. they haven't given us a reason. okay. all of this shows clearly that

president trump knowingly, willfully violated the law when he withheld aid from ukraine. but just to be clear, the articles of impeachment do not charge donald trump with violating the impoundment control act. we're not arguing that. but understanding this violation of the law is important to understand the broader scheme of his abuse of power. it shows the great lengths the president was willing to go to in order to pressure ukraine to do his political dirty work. the security assistance wasn't something the law allowed him to give or take at his discretion. now, he was legally obliged to release the money, but he simply didn't care. why? he was so determined to get the announcement from ukraine to smear his election opponent that holding the aid to force ukraine

to do that was the most important thing. he didn't care if he was breaking the law. you know, i have been sitting here on the senate floor and honestly i never wanted to be here under these circumstances. but i have been looking at novis order seclorum. it said a new order of the ages is born. that's what the founders thought they were doing. keeping that new order, the democracy where the power is in the hands of the people not in the hands of an unaccountable executive is what we in the congress, the house and the senate are charged to do. senator blunt and i are in charge of the joint committee on printing, and every year, we print a new copy of the

constitution. and this year in the back we printed a quote. at the constitution -- at the conclusion of the constitutional convention, benjamin franklin was asked, what have you brought? and he answered, a republic, if you can keep it. that's the challenge that all of us face and that you senators face. i turn now to mr. crowe, who will outline information about the president's intentions. mr. chief justice, members of the senate, counsel for the president, just bear with us a little while longer. i promise we are almost there. you have heard a lot the last

few days about what happened. how do we know that the president ordered the hold to pressure ukraine to announce investigations that would help his personal political campaign? in other words, how do we know why it happened? we know it because to this day there is no other explanation. we know it because senior administration officials including the president's own senior political appointees have confirmed it. and we know it because the president's own chief of staff said it at a national press conference. and we know it because the president himself directed it. here are the facts. one, the president asked president zelensky for a favor on july 25th. and we all know what that favor

was. two, multiple u.s. officials with fact-based knowledge of the process have confirmed it. three, president trump lifted the hold only after his scheme was exposed. four, there were no other legitimate explanations for the release of the hold. it was not based on a legitimate review of the foreign aid. it was not based on concerns of corruption in ukraine. it was not because president trump wanted countries to pay more. there are no facts that show that the president cared about any of those things. five, as we know, white house chief of staff mick mulvaney admitted at a press conference that the bogus 2016 election interference allegations were, quote, why we held up the money.

eventually the truth comes out. there was no legitimate policy reason for holding the aid, so the truth came out. as ambassador somdland said, the president was a businessman who saw congressionally approved taxpayer funded military aid for ukraine, our partner at war, as just another business deal to be made. military aid in exchange for fabricated dirt on his political opponent. this for that, a quid pro quo. let's start with the president's own words to president zelensky on the july 25th call. with the hold on his mind and on president zelensky's mind, too, we know that, president trump linked military aid to his request for a favor.

at the very beginning of the call, president zelensky said, quote, i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically, we are almost ready to buy more javelins from the united states or defense purposes. the, quote, great support in the area of defense included of course the $391 million in military aid. because, remember, just a month before, dod publically announced its intent to provide $250 million of that aid. president zelensky was showing gratitude to the president for aid that dod had just announced would be on its way. but the president had put a hold just a few weeks before. immediately after president zelensky brought up the u.s. military support and said that ukraine was almost ready to buy

more javelin anti-tank missiles, president trump pivoted to what he wanted in return. he turned from the quid to the quo. president trump immediately responded. he said, quote, i would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. and what was that favor? well, we all know by now, don't we, it wasn't to fight corruption. it wasn't to help the united states or our national interests. it was the two specific political investigations that he wanted you kri eed ukraine to a. president trump's quick pivot from the critical military aid he knew that ukraine desperately needed to the investigations that would benefit him personally speaks volumes. by bringing up the

investigations immediately after president zelensky raised the issue of military support, he linked the two issues. and u.s. officials listening to the call also made that connection. here is what jennifer williams, vice president pence's aid, testified: >> but i was struck by something else you said in your deposition. you said it shed some light on possibly other motivations behind a security assistance told. what did you mean by that? >> mr. chairman, i was asked during the closed door testimony how i felt about the call, and in reflecting on what i was thinking in that moment, it was the first time i had heard internally the president reference particular investigations that previously i had only heard about through mr. giuliani's press interviews in press reporting. so in that moment it was not clear whether there was a direct

connection or linkage between the ongoing hold on security assistance and what the president may be asking president zelensky to undertake. so it was noteworthy in that regard. i didn't have enough information to draw any firm conclusions. >> but it raised a question in your mind as to whether the two were related. >> it was the first i had heard of any requests of ukraine, which were that specific in nature. so it was noteworthy to me in that regard. >> in fact, the hold was normally implemented by omb the very day of the call. just hours after the call between president trump and president zelensky, duffy sent an e-mail to senior dod officials instructing them to put a hold on the security aid. he said he underscored, quote, given the sensitive nature of

the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction. in other words, don't tell anybody about it. if the president ordered the hold for a legitimate policy reason, why did he want to hide it from the rest of the administration? president trump has obstructed congress's ability to get those answers. we would like to ask duffy why they wanted to keep it quiet. there is more evidence, of course, a lot more. in fact, there is so much evidence that according to witnesses, the fact that the security assistance was conditioned on investigations became as clear as two plus two equals four. everyone knew it. indeed, with no explanation, ongoing efforts by the

president's top advisers into announcing the investigations by holding up the white house meeting, it became crystal clear, as confirmed by multiple witnesses, that the only reason for the hold was to put additional pressure on ukraine. david holmes, the senior official at the u.s. embassy in kiev explained. >> 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 that? how did you make -- reach that clear conclusion? >> sir, we had been hearing about the investigation since march, months before, and we had been -- president zelensky had received a congratulatory letter from the president saying he'd be pleased to meet him following

his inauguration in may. and we had to get that meeting. and then the security hold came up with no explanation. and i'd be surprised if any of the ukraines said -- you said we 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? >> correct. >> and the hold was still remaining without investigation. >> correct. >> so this to you was the only logical conclusion that you could reach? >> correct. >> sort of like two plus two equals four? >> exactly. >> and ambassador sondland said the same thing. >> is this kind of a two plus two equals four conclusion that you reached? >> pretty much. >> it is the only logical conclusion to you that, given all of these factors, that the aid was also a part of this quid

pro quo? >> yep. >> ambassador sondland didn't reach that based only on common sense. it was confirmed by secretary mike pompeo and vice president pence, too. so let's begin with what secretary pmike pompeo knew. in front of you is an e-mail. at the end of august, before president trump canceled his trip to warsaw to meet with president zelensky, sondland sent an e-mail where he suggested a pull aside at the proposed meeting in warsaw. three minutes later, secretary mike pompeo replied yes. that's it. ambassador sondland explained the e-mail in his testimony. >> later in august, you told secretary mike pompeo that

president zelensky could be prepared to tell president trump that they would be able to announce matters of interest to the president which could break the log jam. when you say matters of interest to the president, you mean the investigations that president trump wanted; is that right? >> correct. >> and that involved 2016 and burisma or the bidens. >> 2016 and burisma. >> when you are talking here about breaking the log jam, you are talking about the log jam over the security assistance, correct? ? i was talking log jam because nothing was moving. >> but that included security assistance, correct? >> correct. >> this was not the first time you had discussed these investigations with secretary mike pompeo, was it? >> no. >> he was aware of the connections that you were making between the investigations about the white house meeting and the security assistance? >> yes. >> so let's break that down for

a minute. a meeting between two presidents is a big deal. a pull-aside is a big deal. these are highly choreographed events. secretary mike pompeo didn't ask any questions or show surprise or confusion in response to the e-mail. instead, he immediately endorsed the idea. this shows that secretary mike pompeo, who also listened to the july 25th call as well, understood that the security assistance was conditioned on the investigations. by this time, everyone knew what was happening, a simple yes by secretary mike pompeo was enough. secretary mike pompeo wasn't the only senior official who knew. vice president pence knew as well. sondland raised the issue to vice president pence during a meeting to prepare for the warsaw trip. at some point late in the meeting, sondland said it appears everything is stalled

until this statement gets made. what sondland was referring to, of course, was the military aid in the white house meeting. ambassador sondland testified about vice president pence's reaction. >> now i want to go back to that conversation you had with vice president pence right before that meeting in warsaw. and you indicated that you said to him that you were concerned ta the delay was tied to the investigations; is that right? >> i don't know exactly what i said to him. this was a briefing attended by many people and i was invited at the very last minute. i wasn't scheduled to be there. but i think i spoke up at some point late in the meeting and said, it looks like everything is being held up until these statements get made, and that's my, you know, personal belief. >> and vice president pence just nodded his head? >> again, i don't recall any exchange where he asked me any

questions. i think it was sort of a duly noted. >> well, he didn't say, gordon, what are you talking about? >> no, he did not. >> he didn't say, what investigations? >> he did not. >> like secretary mike pompeo, vice president pence wasn't surprised. nor did he ask what sondland meant because they all knew. this meeting also confirmed sondland's understanding that the president had indeed conditioned the military aid on the public announcement of the investigations. this was a comment since conclusion confirmed by the secretary of state and vice president. with that confirmation in mind, sondland pulled aside the top aid to president zelensky immediately after the pence/zelensky meeting. now recall he was the one that resisted the statement about the public investigations in august. ambassador sondland described what he told him in that short

meeting. >> based on my previous communication with secretary mike pompeo, i felt comfortable sharing my concerns with him. it was a very, very brief pull-aside conversation that happened within a few seconds. i told him that i believed 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. >> you see, this just wasn't an internal scheme among the president's top advisers. president trump through his agents communicated the quid pro quo clearly to ukraine. ambassador sondland told president zelensky's top aid that ukraine would not get the military aid unless it announced the investigations. this, my senate colleagues, is the very definition of a quid pro quo. but other witnesses know it,

too. morrisson watched the conversation and then received an immediately read-out from sondland after that meeting. morrison urgently reported the interaction to ambassador bolton on a secure phone call. and of course bolton told him to go tell the nsc lawyers. morrison did as he was instructed. he also told ambassador taylor. ambassador taylor then confronted sondland. taylor texted, quote, are we now saying that security assistance in white house meetings are conditioned on investigations? sondland responded, call me. as everyone knows when someone says call me, it says stop putting this in writing. sondland confirmed today lor that the military aid was conditioned on announcement of investigations and that president trump wanted president

zelensky in a quote, public box. here is how taylor who took contemporaneous notes of the conversation explained that call. >> during that phone call, ambassador sondland told me that president trump had told him that he wants president zelensky to state publically that ukraine will investigate burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling ukrainian officials that only a white house meeting with president zelensky was dependant on public announcement of the investigations. in fact, ambassador sondland said everything was dependant on the announcement. he said he wanted president zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.

>> president trump wanted president zelensky in a public box. a private commitment wasn't enough for president trump because he needed the political benefit. and he could only get the political benefit if it was public. and we all know how this works with president trump. how he weaponizes investigations for political purposes. and think about that for a second. that's actually the exact opposite of how law enforcement investigations are conducted if they're legitimate. law enforcement doesn't announce to the world they're investigating before actually doing it. that would tip off your targets. it would lead to witness intimidation, destruction of evidence. but the president didn't actively want a legitimate investigation. he only wanted the announcement. at the end of that conversation

on september 1st, taylor asked sondland to speak to the president to see if he could change his mind, and that's exactly what sondland did. on september 7th they spoke. we know the call was on september 7th for four reasons. morrison testified he had a conversation with sondland about his discussion with the president. second, morrison told taylor about this conversation on september 7th. third, sondland and taylor had a conversation on september 8th about the conversation that sondland had had the day before. and finally, sondland texted taylor and volker that he had conversations with potuz and z, meaning president trump and president zelensky. so we know that the conversations must have happened before the morning of september 8th when that text was sent. for his part, sondland, who

doesn't take notes, also recalled that on that call he simply asked president trump an open ended question about what he wanted from ukraine. and president trump immediately responded i want no quid pro quo. let's top here for a second because the president has latched on to this statement that he said that. and because he said it, it must be true, right? but wait just a minute. remember what's happening here at the same time. the president had just learned about the whistleblower complaint in "the washington post" editorial linking the aid to the investigations just two days before. the fact that the president immediately blurted out speaks volumes. now, i'm a parent and there is a

lot of parents in this room, and i think many of you could probably relate to, you know, the situation where you are in a room and you hear a large crash in the next room and you walk in and your kid is sitting there and the first thing that happens is i didn't do it. but there is more. sondland did acknowledge that president trump said he wanted zelensky to, quote, clear things up. you will no doubt hear a lot from the president's counsel that sondland testified no one in the world told him there was a quid pro quo, including president trump. and of course that's right because people engaging in misconduct don't usually admit it. but we know exactly what the president told sondland. we know it from the testimony of tim morrison and ambassador taylor. we know it because sondland

testified there was a quid pro quo was confirmed by his conversation with president trump and we know it because sondland relayed the exact message to president zelensky right after he spoke to now keep in mind that sondland does not take notes. he could have, seeing his documents prior to testifying, he would have remembered more. but morrison and taylor took extensive notes at the time, and testified based on those notes. and sondland -- and this is important -- sondland said he did not dispute any of the accounts of morrison and taylor. so let's look at what morrison and taylor said about that september 7 phone call. here is tim morrison's understanding of the trump/sondland call. >> now, a few days later on september 7th, you spoke again to ambassador sondland who told

you that he had just gotten off the phone with president trump, is 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, um, 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 the statement related to the biden and 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. >> and here is the consistent recollection of how ambassador taylor described his understanding of the call. first, here is what we heard from mr. morrison.

>> according to mr. morrison, president trump told ambassador sondland he was not asking for a quid pro quo. but president trump did insist that president zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of biden and 2016 election interference. and that president zelensky should want to do this himself. >> and here is ambassador taylor explaining what sondland himself told taylor about what took place on that sondland/trump call a day later. >> he confirmed that he had talked to president trump, as i had suggested a week earlier, but that president trump was adamant that president zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public. president trump said it was not a quid pro quo. >> like sondland, both taylor and morrison recalled that

president trump said that he did not want a quid pro quo, but they both testified that president trump followed that statement immediately by describing perfectly in exchange of this for that. or in other words, a quid pro quo. prior to his call with the president, sondland had reached the concollision that the aid was being held until the public announcement of the investigations. that conclusion was confirmed by secretary pompeo and vice-president pence. then sondland relayed to the ukrainians. and after this phone call with president trump, that conclusion was confirmed. >> so 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 -- >> that's not what i'm asking, ambassador sondland. i'm saying you still believed that the security assistance was conditioned on the investigation after you spoke to president trump? yes or no? >> from a time frame standpoint, yes. >> how else do we know that president trump confirmed to sondland that the aid was conditioned on the announcement? sondland relayed the message to president zelensky right after his conversation with president trump. here is ambassador taylor's recollection of what sondland told zelensky based on his notes. >> ambassador sondland also said that he had talked to president zelensky and mr. yermach, and told them, although this was not a quid pro quo, if president zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate.

i understood stalemate to mean ukraine would not receive the much needed military assistance. >> ambassador sondland confirmed that taylor's memory of this call was accurate. there would be a stalemate without the investigations. here's his testimony. >> and then you also told ambassador taylor in that same conversation that if president zelensky -- rather, you told president zelensky and andre yermach, that although this was not a quid pro quo as the president had very clearly told you, it was, however, required for president zelensky to clear things up in public or there would be a stalemate. you don't have any reason to dispute ambassador taylor's recollection of that conversation you had with president zelensky, do you?

>> no. >> and you understood the stalemate reference to aid, is that correct? >> at that point, yes. >> a stalemate. nothing would happen with the aid unless president zelensky publicly announced the investigations. the president had received -- had not received his quid so there would be no quo. but don't take my word for it. here's a recap of how we knew what happened during the call. first, sondland testified about the conversation. second, morrison received a read-out from sondland immediately after the call and testified based on his notes. third, taylor testified based on his own notes. and fourth, sondland agreed that president trump had confirmed a quid pro quo and sondland actually relayed the message to the president of ukraine and told ambassador taylor about it.

president zelensky got the message. he succumbed to the pressure. at the end of the conversation between sondland and president zelensky, president zelensky explained that he had finally relented. his country needed the military aid desperately. their people were dying on the front line all of the time. they were taking casualties every day. he agreed to make the statement. >> ambassador sondland said that this conversation concluded with president zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on cnn. >> president zelensky had resisted making the announcement of the corrupt investigations for months. he resisted when giuliani and other agents of the president made it known that president trump required it. he resisted when president trump himself asked directly on july

25th. he resisted when the white house meeting he so desperately desired was conditioned on that announcement. and he resisted as vital military aid was on hold. but the money is 10% of his entire defense budget. russia occupied the eastern part of his country. he could resist no more. ambassador taylor was worried that even if the ukrainian leader did as president trump wanted, president trump might continue to hold the military aid. ambassador taylor texted his concerns to ambassadors volker and sondland stating, quote, the nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. the russians love it, and i quit. in other words, the nightmare is that they make the announcement, but president trump doesn't release the aid. this would be perfect for the

russians. russian propaganda would be adopted by the united states, and the u.s. would be withdrawing its support for ukraine. on september 9, ambassador taylor reiterated his concerns about the president's quid pro quo in another series of text messages with ambassadors volker and sondland. ambassador taylor said, quote, the message to the ukrainians and russians we send with the decision on security assistance is key. with the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. thus my nightmare scenario. and then later he texted again saying, quote, counting on you to be right about this interview, gordon. ambassador sondland responded, quote, bill, 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 ambassador taylor replied, quote, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. here it is. once again, in clear text message between three u.s. officials, it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. think about that. if there was no quid pro quo, then why did everybody know about it? well, ambassador taylor told us why, too. here's his testimony. >> as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. >> what did you mean when you said you thought it was crazy? >> mr. coleman, i