these events." by obligation, you mean your legal obligation or did you mean something bigger? >> both my legal obligation and my moral obligation. >> your moral obligation. i actually want to present an alternative theory. your family came here escaping the holocaust via uruguay. your parents moved, lucy and later you, here. you've done that american success story through dint of hard work and innovation, good idea, a knack for hiring the right people and some look, you've built up considerable, successful business, one that i know for a fact would make your parents proud. they came here because they knew that it was here that they could

have freedom that they had not enjoyed, security that they had not enjoyed, and opportunity that they had not enjoyed. no doubt on some level, you're grateful and it's created a sense of patriotism in you. is that fair to say? >> very fair. >> why, sir, with your courage to come before us, does that same standard not apply to mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, mr. pompeo, mr. bolton, mr. giuliani. why shouldn't those same sentiments be within their hearts to do their patriotic duty and do what you have done, sir? indeed, why doesn't that same standard apply to the president of the united states? >> i wish i could answer. >> i suspect you can't because there is no good answer but i appreciate your willingness to

come here today. with that, i yelled back, mr. chairman. >> mr. jordan. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from mick mulvaney. >> we haven't seen all the statements but i presume they are accurate and no objections. >> ambassador, president trump is not a big fan of foreign aid. >> i don't know that's a fair characterization. i think he's careful. >> foreign aid going to certain countries. he knew ukraine was corrupt. >> he believed ukraine was corrupt. >> he wanted europe to do more. >> definitely. >> the president had a belief that ukrainian governmen governt officials supported his opponent in 2016. there was one member of parliament is that the majority of ukrainian politicians want hillary clinton to win. he had that belief as well. obviously he understood what was happening.

a brand-new guy in ukraine. zelensky wins. his party takes over and president trump wants to see, with all these other things that are of concern, he wants to see if this new guy is, as i like to sale, the real deal? a real reformer. aid gets held up for a 55. july 18 and released on september 11. it seems more important of the 55 day pause is the 14 days. ukraine realized aid was held up on the 29th. we've had you testify to that and the witnesses yesterday. aid gets held up -- ukraine learns aid is held on august 29 and then released on september 11. in those 14 days, there are three important meetings with senior government officials and president zelinsky.

august 29, ambassador bolton and president zelensky. september 1, vice president pence meets with president zelensky and septembes murphy and johnson meet with president zelensky. none of those meetings, none of those meetings did any linkage to security assistance dollars and an announcement or the start of any investigation ever come up. none of them. but he seems to be the one that's the most important is probably the one we have talked least about and that is the september 5 meeting. that is actually a meeting where there's -- it's much more congressional focused than white house focused. this is a meeting were senators murphy and johnson, bipartisan, meet with president zelensky. what's interesting is what both senators have given us letters recounting what happened.

"launch investigations into trumps political rival." murphy brought it up. two senators, strong supporters of money going to ukraine, they are all for it. senator murphy, the democrat, brings up the issue everyone's been talking about. it seems to me if ever there was going to be a time where the president of ukraine says you don't know what i'm dealing with, i'm getting pressure from the president of the united states. he wants me to do this. it seems if ever there was a time that the president of ukraine, the new guy, who now knows that the aid has been on hold, if ever there was a time to bring it up, that would have been the time. guess what. at no time, senator johnson tells us, at no time during this meeting or in any other meeting on this trip was there any mention by zelensky or any other

ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for military aid. not even, senator johnson says, not even after murphy warned them about getting involved in the election. so murphy gave this big deal on giuliani and nothing. nothing. guess what murphy also said? i do not dispute any of senator johnson's factual representations regarding the meeting. if ever it was going to happen, september 5 was the day. that -- no one from the white house there. not ambassador bolton, not the vice president. even then it didn't happen. as you testified earlier, there was never an announcement. he said there were three quid pro quo's but there weren't because there was never an announcement. this is as clear as it gets that these guys want to keep stirring it up based on no direct evidence ever in the best direct evidence we have is actually

what the president told you. i want nothing. there is no quid pro quo. i want zelensky to do exactly what he campaigned on and when that became clear, they got the money. god bless america. it all worked out. it's crazy what we are going through because the facts are so darn clear. i yield back. >> mr. welch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, i am impressed with your career. you've been very successful in business. i am impressed with your commitment to public service and i was very impressed with your forthright statements. thank you for that. you said it was the highest honor for you to have this opportunity to have this appointment to serve as ambassador to the e.u. correct? >> ? >> correct. >> you became involved in new can policy. that policy has been described by you and others, really very

clear. help ukraine fight internal corruption and resist external aggression. >> correct. >> this congress, i think with the support of everybody up here, republicans and democrats and a significant amount of republican leadership, authorized the release of military aid. >> right. >> you and others who were working, you believed it was very important to the new government, president zelensky, to have that white house meeting to show our support and send a signal to russia. >> that's correct. >> from hearing you and from hearing our other witnesses, ambassador yovanovitch, ambassador volker, ambassador taylor. there was a concerted team effort on your part to get that meeting and release the aid. >> there was always a concerted effort on my part to get the meeting. that was my singular, narrow

focus, to get the meeting. >> that was shared by the callings that i mentioned, correct? >> correct. >> incredibly urgent, ambassador taylor describes going to the front where ukrainians were dying in the don -- donbass. and you shared ambassador taylor's concern? >> i did. >> your forthright testimony, you testified, the benefit of hindsight because you couldn't piece it together. giuliani knew in real time what you were trying to figure out if you went along. is that a fair statement. >> i think so. >> you testified that you acted on the orders of the president. you acting on his orders. and you said quite explicitly there was a quid pro quo >>

relating to the meeting on the burisma. >> that's exactly right. no meeting and then less there's an investigation. >> that's what we were told by mr. giuliani. >no meeting unless there was an announcement of an investigation. >> thank you. did the efforts of mr. giuliani, authorized by the president, ap the efforts you and others were making to try to advance what you thought was ukraine policy? >> not initially. we were just working. >> ultimately. >> ultimately nothing happened. >> and giuliani was the one who was insistent on the meeting. >> giuliani was insistent on the investigation. >> i ask this of ambassador taylor -- ambassador volker. if the mayor of portland said to

the police chief, i'm not going to authorize your budget unless you agree to do an investigation into my political opponent, would that be wrong? >> of course. >> likewise if it were the governor of the state of oregon doing the same thing, correct? >> correct. >> with that same rule apply to the president of the united states? >> to investigate a political opponent. yes. >> that's the question here. the president and his phone call, he asked president president zelensky who desperately needed the release of that aid, desperately needed the white house meeting, to do an investigation focused on the bidens and hunter biden and burisma and crowd strike. you don't have to answer that. the president's words speak for themselves. do you feel, as a person went into public service to serve,

who had a team of people that shared your desire to help ukraine, do you feel in any way betrayed by the double-dealing of the president? it's a real question. >> i don't want to characterize. >> you don't have to characterize him. we all, if we get a chance to do something useful, we would like to do it and there's no better joy than when you're doing it with other people. >> i would've preferred and i'm sure everyone would have preferred that the president simply met with mr. zelensky right away. our assessment of mr. zelensky was that he and the president would get on famously. he was smart, funny, charming. he was the kind of person the president would like. once the two of them got together, we thought that chemistry would take over and good things would happen between the u.s. and ukraine relationship. that's why we were pushing for a quick, unconditional meeting.

>> so it was unfortunate that he was willing to meet without the commitment on the investigation. thank you, ambassador. >> mr. ambassador, let's pick up there. you would have preferred if they just have the meeting with the president of ukraine without these conditions. >> yes. >> but there were these conditions. it involved an investigation. >> the initial invitation that the president sent to president zelensky had no conditions. >> but that didn't last very long, did it? then there were conditions. it's not controversial, i don't believe. you thought the conditions were burisma and the 2016 elections. we now know that burisma means bidens. >> today we do. >> weekend, from today to the end of time, set aside any confusion that when somebody is asking for an investigation of burisma over the summer, what they really meant was bidens.

>> with 20/20 hindsight, yes. >> with hindsight. on the day after the president's famous call coming to having lunch with david holmes. we have covered this. he overhears your conversation and i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr. holmes said and i think you said you wouldn't have any reason to think he didn't speak about investigations. the president raised investigations with you on the 26th. >> correct. >> we know that it was about the bidens and the burisma and 2016. i know you didn't know that at the time, that's your testimony. mr. holmes said you said bidens after that but you don't recall it. do you dispute it? >> i do. >> but you don't recall it. you do confirm that he wanted to talk about investigations. >> with the complete picture, what he said 24 hours before, yes. >> you said it's wrong to investigate political opponents.

we have agreed on that today. >> he has. >> yet that's what we know the president was asking for. let me ask, who would have benefited from an investigation of the president's political opponent? >> i don't want to characterize who would have and who would not have. >> and we don't want to. that's my question. would you answer it? who would benefit from an investigation of the president's political opponent? >> well, presumably the person who asked for the investigation. >> who was that? >> if the president asked for the investigation, it would be he. >> it's not a hypothetical. the president asked you about investigations. he was talking about the bidens. when he asked you about the bidens investigation, who was he seeking to benefit? >> he didn't ask me about the biden investigation. >> sir, we just went through this.

when he asked you about investigations which we agree now means the bidens, we just did this 30 seconds ago. it's pretty simple, isn't it? i'm having trouble why you can't just say -- >> when he asked about investigations, i assumed he meant the company. >> who would benefit from an investigation of the bidens? >> there's two different questions. >> i'm asking one. >> i assumed president trump would benefit. >> there we have it! see? didn't hurt a bit, did it? didn't hurt a bit. let me ask you. >> mr. maloney, i've been very forthright and i resent what you're trying to do. >> fair enough. you've been very forthright. this is your third try to do so. it didn't work so well the first time. we had a declaration come in. now we are here a third time we have a doozy of a statement from you this morning. there's a bunch of stuff you don't recall.

there's trigger we appreciate your candor but let's be clear on what it took to get it out of you. when the president is putting pressure on the ukrainians withholding meeting to get this investigation that you and i agree would benefit him politically, what kind of position does that put the ukrainians in? >> a terrible position. >> why? >> why does it put them in a terrible position? well, obviously they are not receiving ultimately what they thought was coming to them. and they are put in a position that jeopardizes their security. >> a position that jeopardizes their security and they are being asked to do an investigation to help their security essentially that would benefit the president politically. you might say they're being asked to give him a personal

benefit in exchange for an official act. is that a fair summary? >> in your hypothetical, that's correct. >> it's not hypothetical, sir. it's real life. it where they asked to give him a personal benefit in exchange for an official act? >> sir, i'm not going to go around in circles. please be clear about what you're asking. >> my time has expired. >> ms. demings. >> good afternoon, ambassador. it's good to see you again. >> thank you. >> do you have any knowledge of a possible meeting on or around may 7 involving then president-elect zelensky and several of his aides to discuss how to handle pressure from president trump and mr. giuliani about investigating the bidens? >> i don't recall such a meeting. >> you don't recall such a meeting.

you don't recall hearing anything. you don't have firsthand knowledge. >> if i don't have records, schedules, right now i don't recall anything about such a meeting. >> ambassador. >> a meeting among the ukrainians? >> among the ukrainians involving then president-elect zelensky. this would have been early on in his presidency with several aides to discuss how to handle pressure from president trump and mr. giuliani about investigating the bidens. >> i don't recall. >> you don't remember. the may 23rd meeting, you talked about how the president categorized ukraine, when he thought about ukraine. i believe that meeting was on may 23. did you ever hear president president zelensky relay any concerns about you about how he felt about how the united states viewed him, whether he was being

taken seriously or concerns about being used as a tool for political reasons? >> i saw it in an email from ambassador taylor. we tried to relate a president zelensky the glass half-full version of how the united states felt about ukraine. not the glass half empty version which is where we are here for you. we support you, and we are trying very hard to get you the meeting with president trump. >> after hearing that from ambassador taylor, you try to reassure president zelensky that america was truly on their side. >> i think we've been trying to ensure president zelensky throughout his entire term as the president. >> ambassador, i know you said you don't quite remember exactly when you came to the realization that burisma actually meant bidens. on may 6, when asked about a news report about the role of

former vice president's son on burisma, president trump told fox news that it was "a major scandal, major problem." on may 9, "the new york times" reported that rudy giuliani plan to travel to ukraine and "shortly to meet with president zelensky to urge him to pursue the 2016 election and the involvement of hunter biden and burisma. are you saying you do not realize at that time, may 9 of this year, that mr. giuliani wanted to urge president zelensky to pursue the 2016 election and involvement of hunter biden of burisma. >> i do now but i did not been paid >> i believe you said earlier you didn't pay much attention to any of the numerous news reports of the person you directed by the president to work with when he was on

television over and over and over again talking about hunter biden and burisma. >> no, i did not. >> on september 9, in a text from ambassador taylor, he said something to the effect, are we now saying that aid is tied to investigations and i believe you texted back, call me. then you had a conversation with president trump. president trump said something to the effect that there is no quid pro quo. do you know what prompted him to say that? you asked him what do you want and he goes directly there is no quid pro quo as opposed to going directly to a list of things he wanted. what prompted him to use that term? >> i have no clue. >> did you discuss your text from ambassador taylor with president trump before he made that statement? >> i did not. i asked a very old open-ended question. >> your member that directly although there are several other

conversations you cannot recall because you don't have your notes or your documents for your emails or other information. but you remember that call specifically, exactly what the president said to you in response to your question. why is that? >> i remember the first girl i kissed. >> well, i won't say that. anyway. >> [laughs] i remembered that conversation because as i said, it was an intense short conversation. >> tell me about the conversation you had at the restaurant that was overheard by mr. holmes because that was a conversation with the president. tell me about that conversation with the president. what was set on the phone? >> i don't remember the specifics. i am being guided by what mr. holmes testified to. i said i didn't dispute the basic subject of the conversation. we were talking primarily about a$ap rocky. that was a completely unrelated

matter. i think the president may have brought up, how did it go with zelensky or is he going to do the investigations, which we have been talking about for weeks. as i said, i dispute mr. holmes' characterization of what i said afterwards. >> thank you, ambassador. >> mr. krishnamoorthi. >> good afternoon, ambassador. i'm going to pick up on the september 9 conversation which the president allegedly said i want nothing. i don't want to quid pro quo. i presume that on the september 9 conversation, the president did not mention that that was the same day that we launched a congressional investigation into whether there was a quid pro quo. did he say that? >> i know all that today but we didn't have time to talk about things like that. >> i presume he didn't mention the whistle-blower complaint also allege that there was a quid pro quo. >> he did not.

>> so you can't rule out the possibility of the reason why he started talking that way on my day is because of the congressional investigation. >> i can't rule it out. >> the inauguration of president zelensky was on may 20. >> correct. >> as you stated, you attended the inauguration with senator johnson, secretary perry, lieutenant colonel vindman, and others. >> correct. >> vice president pence was supposed to attend it. >> i believe so. >> we learned from jennifer williams, a witness who testified that it was at the president's direction on may 13, that the vice president not attend. she said "according to the vice president's chief of staff, the president determined that the vice president would not go." do you know why the vice president did not attend the inauguration? >> no clue. >> i want to point to a "new york times" article from last week that says that lev parnas' attorney, you've heard

of this attorney, lev parnas, an associate of rudy giuliani. >> only what i've read recently. >> recently indicted. mr. lev parnas told a representative of the incoming government, the zelensky government, that it had to announce an investigation into trump's political rival, joseph r biden, and his son or else vice president mike pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president and the united states would freeze aid. did the vice president not attend possibly because of this investigation, it had not been initiated. >> i have no idea. >> you can't rule it out, right? >> i have no idea. >> no basis for ruling it out? >> all i know is that the leader of the delegation was secretary perry who invited me along. >> interestingly, ambassador sondland, since you came forward in these proceedings, others in the administration of trying to distance themselves from you.

on october 14, rudy giuliani told "the washington post" that sondland "seemed to be in charge." of the effort to get ukrainian officials to publish -- or publicly announce investigatio investigations. of course that's false. >> if i'd been in charge, i would've asked president trump to have the meeting without preconditions and the meeting would have occurred a long time ago. >> that's exactly right. the president is the the one who wanted the investigations, as we learned later on. isn't that right? >> the president, through mr. giuliani, has conveyed through mr. giuliani, wanted the investigations. >> mr. tim morrison came in yesterday and in his deposition testimony as well as yesterday, disparaged you too. he called you quote-unquote the gordon problem. >> that's what my wife calls me. [laughter] maybe they are talking.

should i be worried? >> may be. you know, on october 8, of this year, the president tweeted that you are a really great man and a great american and on november 8th, a month later, he said let me just tell you, i hardly know the gentleman. >> easy come, easy go. >> what i'm concerned about... you are part of the three amigos. but what i'm really concerned about, ambassador sondland, is that the president and the good folks over here, my republican colleagues, are now casting you as the one amigo, the one lonely amigo they are going to throw under the bus. but the truth is that as you said in your opening statement, the suggestion that you were engaged in some rogue diplomacy or irregular channel of

diplomacy is quote-unquote absolutely false. isn't that right? >> that's correct. >> the presumption that military aid was conditioned on investigations was based on manes' statement that we saw the video. isn't that right? >> i didn't have the benefit of that time of mulvaney's statement. >> you would stand by the presumption based on what you know now. correct. >> on september 1, when you told andre your mock your presumption, what you told us about military aid -- andre your mock you told mr. morrison what he told yermak and mr. morrison did not try to dispute your presumption. >> i don't recall him disputing it. i think i went over to him and repeated the conversation. >> when you told vice president pence your concerns, he did not disputed. >> he didn't respond. he listened.

>> and when you're told secretary pompeo it wasn't disputed. >> i don't recall. >> that concludes the questioning. >> briefly, ambassador, i know you want to get on a plane so i want to thank you for your indulgence today. once again, the american people have seen another failure of their preposterous conspiracy theory which, the conspiracy theory doesn't change between now and our next hearing which is a few hours from now or another hour and it keeps changing every day. the claim that you had an irregular, you were accused of having an irregular channel, drug deals now supposedly you are one amigo. nobody on the side of the aisle -- >> i lost my amigos? >> not from us. no bribes given to, that you

made any bribes the ukrainian people. to the ukrainian president. your coconspirator kurt volker, i find it remarkable and troubling how the democrats and their collaborators in the press have been able to vilify ambassador volker. he was supposed to work on these matters in ukraine, like you, ambassador. it was a very irregular channel and no amount of storytelling by the left and the democrats on this dais will change it. testimony received today was far from compelling, conclusive, and provide zero evidence of the crimes that have been alleged. in fact, ambassador sondland testified he presumed the temporary pause in military aid was conditioned on ukraine carrying out the investigations the democrats are desperate to

portray as nefarious. the democrats have come as their custom, seized on this presumption as proof they can use it against the president. however, ambassador sondland testified in his deposition that when he asked president trump what do you want from ukraine, president trump replied "i want nothing. there is no quid pro quo." let me repeat, president trump said "i want nothing. there is no quid pro quo." this comes on the heels of the testimony by ambassador volker. he saw no evidence of bribery, extortion, quid pro quo, or treasonous actions. we didn't get to asking about obstruction of justice because we didn't know that was on the table until today. like the president's call with president zelensky, democrats want the american people to believe, as one democrat on this committee put it, that hearsay is much better than direct evidence.

i think mr. ratcliffe from texas laid out the direct evidence we have from your testimony today. nothing we have heard establishes a claim that the president acted improperly as dealings with ukraine and certainly nothing has been presented to support anything near impeachment. in the meantime, mr. chair, we continue to have no answers to the questions that only you know. starting with who is the whistle-blower who gave birth to this hoax and what was the nature of his coordination with the democrats on this committee. second, what's the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against the trump campaign in 2016. finally, why did burisma hire hunter biden. what if you do for them. did his position impact any u.s. government actions under the obama administration? another hearing in the books, no answers to basic three material

factual questions that we need answers to. i yield back, and thank you, ambassador, for being here. >> i thank the ranking member for his remarks. ambassador sondland, thank you for your testimony today. this is a seminal moment in our investigation. the evidence you have brought forward is deeply significant and troubling. it's been a long hearing, and i know americans watching throughout the country may not have the opportunity to watch all of it. i'm going to go through a few of the highlights and i'm not going to try to paraphrase what you said. i'm going to refer to your opening statement. "we all understood if we refuse to work with mr. giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the united states in ukraine so he followed the president's orders. mr. giuliani's request for a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for

president zelensky. mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election, dnc server, and burisma. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states and we knew that these investigations were important to the president. later, you testified, i tried diligently to ask why the aide was suspended but i never received a clear answer. in the absence of any credible explanation for this suspension of aid, i later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and burisma, as mr. giuliani had demanded. i shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with

senator ron johnson and i also shared my concern with the ukrainians. so much for the ukrainians didn't know. you can't have a quid pro quo unless the ukrainians know, and you've testified today, ambassador, the ukrainians knew. you further testified... "mr. giuliani emphasize that the president wanted a public statement from president zelensky committing ukraine to look into corruption issues. mr. giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election, including the dnc server and burisma as to topics of importance to the president. in reference to the july 10 meeting at the white house which you attended with an investor bolton and others and the ukrainian delegation, you said "i recall mentioning the

prerequisite of investigations before any white house call or meeting. "you further testified again, mr. giuliani's demand that president zelensky make a public statement about investigations, i knew that the topic of investigations was important to president trump. you testified later "i know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes." we understood these prerequisites for the white house call and white house meeting reflected president trump's desires and requirements."

later on the subject of security aid, you testified "in the absence of any credible expert nation for the hold, i came to the conclusion, like the aid like the white house visit, was jeopardized in preparation for the december 1 -- december 1 meeting in warsaw, i asked secretary pompeo whether a face-to-face conversation with trump and zelensky could help break the logjam." this is from an email but the state department refuses to provide to us but you have provided to us, ambassador. it reads "should we block time in warsaw for potus to meet zelensky. i would ask zelensky to look him in the eye, the president, and tell him that once ukrainians knew just as folks are in place in mid-september, that z should be able to move forward publicly with confidence on those issues of importance to potus and to the united states, hopefully

that will break the logjam." secretary pompeo's reply "yes." not "what issues of importance?" not "what are you talking about, ambassador sondland?" secretary pompeo was on the jul. he knew what issues were important to potus and there were two of them: an investigation into 2016 and the dnc server and the investigation into the bidens. by the end of august, you testified "my belief was that if ukraine did something to demonstrate a serious intention to fight corruption, addressing burisma in the 2016 server, the hold on military aid would be lifted. i mentioned to vice president pence before the meetings with ukrainians that i had concerns that the delay in the aide had become tied to the

issue of investigations." as you testified, he gave you know response, no "what are you talking about? how could that be? how do we clear it up?" he nodded his head or took it in. the record of that call between president trump and zelensky was in the vice president's reading book earlier. then you testified "my goal of the time was to do it was necessary to get the zelensky released to break the logjam. i believed that the public statement we have been discussing for weeks was essential to advancing that goal." now, my colleagues seem to believe and let me add about this call you had with the president, you have confirmed today. "in addition to claiming there was no quid pro quo, the president was adamant that president zelensky had to quote clear things up and do it in public."

that's what you have confirmed. that's what you also told ambassador taylor. so he would deny there was a quid pro quo but he was adamant that zelensky had to "clear things up and do it in public." now, i have said a lot of things about president trump over the years. i have very strong feelings about president trump which are neither here nor there. i will say this on the president's behalf, i do not believe that the president would allow himself to be led by the nose by rudy giuliani or ambassador sondland or anybody else. i think the president was the one who decided whether or meeting would happen, whether aid would be lifted, not anyone who worked for him. and so the answer to the question who was refusing the meeting with zelensky? you believed it should take

place in ambassador volker believed should take place, who was the one standing the way of the meeting? who was the one refusing to take the meeting? there's only one answer to that question and it is donald j. trump, 45th president of the united states. who was holding up the military assistance? wasn't you, ambassador sondland? was it ambassador volker, ambassador taylor, deputy secretary kent? no. was it secretary of state pompeo? no. who had the decision to release the aid, one person. donald j. trump, president of the united states. my colleagues seem to think unless the president says the magic words, i hereby bribed the ukrainians, but there's no evidence of bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. let's look to the best evidence of what's in the president's head. what's his intent? what's the reason behind the

hold, the meeting, the aid? let's look at what the president has to say. let's look at what's undisputed about what the president has to say. you know how we know what the president has to say? not because of what you have represented or others but because we have a record of his conversation and with who? the one who really matters. with the other president, zelensky. this is what he says. he says "rudy very much knows what's happening and he's a very capable guy." this was after he says he wants a favor and he goes into crowd strike in 2016. he says "rudy very much knows what's happening and is very capable guy. if you could speak to him, that would be great." the former ambassador from the united states, the woman was bad news. the people she was dealing with the ukraine were bad news, so i just want to let you know that. the other thing, there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that

biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general, that would be great. biden went about breaking that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it, it sounds horrible to me." what is in the president's mind when he has placed this otherwise inextricable hold on the aid when he refuses to take the meeting? what's on his mind? biden. he makes that abundantly clear. i understand, ambassador, he said you didn't make the connection between burisma and biden. i will have the american people judge the credibility of the answer but there's no mistaking what donald trump's interest was. there's no mistaking about what donald trump meant when he had that call with you on an unsecured phone as you were sitting there on an outdoor terrace in ukraine with the president said investigation, he meant biden. he made it abundantly clear to the president of ukraine the day

before. the question is not with the president meant. the question is not whether he was responsible for withholding of the aid. he was. the question is what are we prepared to do about it. is there any accountability or are we forced to conclude that this is just now the world that we live in, when a president of the united states can withhold vital military aid from an ally at war with the russians, an ally fighting our fight too to defend our country against russian aggression. are we prepared to say, in the words of mick mulvaney, get over it. or get used to it? we are not prepared to say that. we are not prepared to say that and i appreciate ambassador volker, ambassador sondland, i appreciate the fact that you have not opined on what the --

whether the president should be impeached or not or whether the crime of bribery or the impeachable offense of bribery has been committed. that is for us to decide in consultation with our constituents and our conscience. that's for us to decide. as much as my colleagues have set otherwise, this is not an easy decision for any of us. as much as my colleagues may say otherwise, this is not something we relish. for over a year, i resisted this whole idea of going down the road to impeachment. but it was made necessary, not by the whistle-blower. but by the actions of the president. i'm continually struck, colleagues would suggest that because the president got caught, we should ignore the fact that he was conditioning official acts in order to get political favors, in order to

get an investigation into his rival. getting caught is no defense, not to a violation of the constitution or to a violation of his oath of office, and it certainly doesn't give us a reason to ignore our own oath of office. we are adjourned. [applause] >> that wraps up ambassador gordon sondland's testimony. i am john roberts. we will take you back to the hill. testifying today there was a quid pro quo for you kane's president to get a meeting at the white house. he said he presumed u.s. military aid was linked to the country announcing investigations into claims of ukrainian interference of the 2016 election. and the ukrainian gas company burisma. let's get some reaction from the folks who've been with us all day. bret baier, chief political anchor and the anchor of

"special report." he's in washington, d.c. your takeaways. >> democrats insist president trump has a gordon problem. ambassador sondland came into this hearing being described as a wild card. he was more than that. you mentioned the quid pro quo. he starts off his opening statement. daniel goldman, democratic counsel says it was the only logical conclusion to you that given all the factors, that military aid was also part of the quid pro quo. sondland says yes. he was convinced by september 8 that was the case. >> sorry, we've got a break-in. jim jordan. >> takeaways from today. the first one is the statement that the president gave to ambassador sondland when ambassador sondland asked, what is the one from ukraine. the president, as clear as i could be -- nothing. i want zelensky to do what he campaigned on. as clear as could be. direct evidence from the central

figure of this whole inquiry. the president of the united states stating it is plainly and clearly as he could. second, i do think it's important to understand there were only 14 days that the ukrainians knew that the aid was held up. they learned on august 29, and the 14 day time frame, the 29th of august, there are three key interactions with senior government officials on the president of ukraine. the most important in my judgment was the last one, the bipartisan meeting from the legislative branch. if ever there was a time or zelensky would've brought up the idea that aid was somehow linked to him announcing him an investigation, that would've been the time because senator murphy brought it up himself. still, president zelensky never said in any way that there was aid. that the investigation was linked. that's the key take away. everything else is ambassador sondland surmising what someone

is thinking, someone is up to, the other things the democrats tried to stir up at the fact that since we have said have always been on the president side. they have not changed. we have got the transcript. no linkage whatsoever. the two guys on the call. president trump and president zelensky. saying there was no pressure, no pushing, no linkage. the ukrainians didn't know that the aid was frozen in time of the call. most are partly, as was pointed out today, by so many people including representative stefanik, the ukrainians took no action, no announcement to get the call, the meeting in new york, no announcement to get the aid released. those are the facts. >> is every day goes by, adam schiff and the democrats' wishful thinking for impeachment crumble. they get to point to a single shred of evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, of bribery. today, taking the witnesses own testimony, ambassador sondland testified that the president said directly to him there was no quid pro quo.

i want nothing. i want nothing. i want president zelensky to do what he ran on. clearly anticorruption. the facts remain ukraine received the aid. there was no investigation before the meeting, no investigation before the aid was released, no investigation before the call or after the call. the facts remain the same. despite adam schiff continuing his political wishful thinking. >> do you think it's a coincidence that the aid was released after congress began an investigation. after the white house learned about the whistle-blower complaint. is it a coincidence it happened days before it got released. >> it got released because so many senior government officials met with president zelensky and determined that this new kid in town, he is legit, he's a real reformer. remember what also happened, the same day the senators are meeting with president zelensky,

they pass -- they start the anticorruption court. they passed getting sovereign immunity. all those things are happening and they say remember, senator johnson, senator murphy, senator portman to talk to the president said we want the aid released before september 30. they want to say it's because they are starting an investigation. it happened because we all believe [reporter question] >> no. no, i am more concerned. i think it was 259 times in the ambassador's deposition where he said i don't recall. the most exculpatory piece of evidence was what representative

stefanik just talk about. and of course he left that out of his 23 page opening stateme statement. [reporter question] >> that's the white house's ca call. look, this process has been so unfair. what adam schiff has done, the fact that he told us last night, if we wanted to look at mr. sandy's deposition and bring some of that material forward, we found out about that last night at 10:00, our lawyer had notified. we would've liked his deposition available to use. we could do that. that is one of the many unfair things. you know it has been unfair throughout this entire process. you all know that. [reporter question] >> now, our witnesses or

morrison, and volker. you saw yesterday it was morrison and volker. that was a good day. volker is a special envoy and a definitive narrative. you saw good he did yesterday. they are all adam schiff about stress witnesses. we would like three -- you called to come in on our witness. we put them on our list. you will hear from him in about an hour. >> what witness they will not call as hunter biden. do you think there's a potential appearance of a conflict of interest with hunter biden sitting on the board of burisma? every witness who sat on the board has said yes. hunter biden is on our list as well as the whistleblower and adam schiff continues to run this partisan process. >> every witness has raised concern about rudy giuliani. don't you have any concerns about rudy giuliani -- counter to the national intere interest?

>> as we heard from the official witness, the president can choose who he wants and it comes to conducting his foreign policy. from the witnesses who are here today, they have yet to point to a shred of evidence when it comes to impeachable offenses. that is not accurate. [reporter question] >> as ambassador sondland testified today, his understandings of the investigations are to burisma. he said that he did not understand that meeting into biden. let's be clear, the one investigation and to burisma was done under the obama administration. the obama administration -- as we know, when she testified and said that she was prepared for that information before a confirmation hearing. when we talk about a confirmation hearing, the investigation into burisma was done during the obama administration. >> we will take one more.

[reporter question] >> and the president's own words. >> believes that it three times in the last 10 minutes. and the fact that president zelensky never announced any investigation. remember what mr. sondland said, to get a meeting, to get a call and the security assessments, there would be an announcement. they got it without the announcement. that is it right there. >> do you think it would help to testify to the public? >> that is their call. thank you, guys. thank you so much. >> we have 3 minutes back in this hour. your thoughts? >> just quickly, i was going to start with the democrats turning to the republicans. no one on this planet, not at donald trump, mick mulvaney, mike paul plano, no one told you that aid was tied to political investigations.

sondland said yes. zero evidence. this is what all of the republicans will hang on. president clinton lied under oath and his dna was on the blue dress. if there is not clear evidence that donald trump ordered the aid being withheld, it is really hard to see the g.o.p. senators are going to vote to convict as president. >> john: chris wallace is also there in washington. some quick thoughts from you. >> it is interesting, because the white house, president trump, very rare action by him. he didn't just take questions when he headed off to texas today. he read a statement that was basically what he said to sondland in the september 9th phone call. the republicans have put this out. what do you want from ukraine? i want nothing. they feel that that is very x couple story. that conversation took place on september 9th. at which point, the

whistleblower complaint had already gone up to the hill and the president and the white house knew that there was going to be an investigation. of course, at that point, was he talking to gordon sondland when he said i have no interest in a quid pro quo, or was he talking for the record? >> john: the story has been here patiently with all of us watching the show. >> i think the morning was very positive for democrats in terms of what they wanted to get out of gordon sondland. the afternoon was stronger for republicans. it comes down to one thing. it was the quid pro quo a political goal? was there a political element to that? when you break it down, gordon sondland was asked very quickly, do you have any indication that this was about the bidens? you can talk about whether that was a possible thing to believe, but he says he did not. he said, did mick mulvaney tell you it was linked to releasing that aid? he said i don't believe he did, which goes to mike turner's

point. there is no substantiated gordon's presumption. >> john: may be some final thoughts. >> however the american people taking this? are they paying attention? do they care? the president's approval rating is up 2%. they beat every possible opponent in that poll match up in 2020. being against impeachment is up 8% in wisconsin alone. >> we want to say goodbye to all of our fox stations across the country after a busy day. the next round of hearings will begin later on this afternoon, maybe even this evening with officials from the pentagon and the state department. complete coverage picks up with neil cavuto on the fox news channel on cable and satellite, and later, all of the day's news on this local fox station. i'm john roberts, fox news new york.

thanks for joining us. >> neil: what exactly is quid pro quo? you are looking live at capitol hill. about the question two more witnesses in the impeachment hearing. that could be put off by upwards of an hour. laura cooper and david hale, we will bring it to you live. it follows testimony earlier today by gordon sondland the ambassador to the european union who testified today that rudy giuliani did want a quid pro quo when it came to aid ukraine, but he also testified -- this is where it got confusing. the president said that he did not want a quid pro quo. which is it? we are on top of all of it now.