discussed on the july 25th call. this is consistent with the reported comments from ambassadors volker and taylor. after the zelensky meeting, i also met with zelensky's senior aide, andre your mack. i don't recall the specifics of our conversation but i believe the issue of the investigations was probably a part of that agenda or meeting. also, on july 26th, shortly after our kyiv meeting, i spoke by phone with president trump. the white house, which has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys confirms this. the call lasted five minutes. i remember i was at a restaurant in kyiv and i have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. again, given mr. giuliani's demand that president zelensky make a public statement about investigations, i knew that

investigations were important to president trump. we did not discuss any classified information. other witnesses have recently shared their recollection of overhearing this call. for the most part, i have no reason to doubt their accounts. it's true that the president speaks loudly at times and it's also true, i think we primarily discussed asap rocky. it's true that the president likes to use colorful language. anyone who has met with him at any reasonable amount of time knows this. while i cannot remember the precise details, again, the white house has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call and the july 26th call did not strike me as significant at the time. actually, actually, i would have been more surprised if president trump had not mentioned investigations. particularly, given what we were hearing from mr. giuliani about

the president's concerns. however, i have no recollection of discussing vice president biden or his son on that call or after the call ended. i know that members of this committee frequently frame 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 the white house meeting, the answer is yes. mr. giuliani conveyed to secretary perry, ambassador volker, and others that president trump wanted a public statement from president zelensky committing to investigations of burisma and the 2016 election. mr. giuliani expressed those requests directly to the ukrainians. and mr. giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. we all understood that these prerequisites for the white

house call and the white house meeting reflected president trump's desires and requirements. within my state department e-mail, there is a july 19th e-mail. this e-mail was sent. this e-mail was sent to secretary pompeo, secretary perry, ryan mccormick, who was secretary perry's chief of staff at the time. ms. kenna who is the executive secretariat for secretary pompeo. chief of staff mulvaney and mr. mulvaney's senior advisor rob blair. a lot of senior officials. a lot of senior officials. here is my exact quote from that e-mail. i talked to zelensky just now. he has prepared to receive potus's call.

will assure him that he intends to run a fully-transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. he would greatly appreciate a call prior to sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call, no details, prior to ukraine election on sunday. chief of staff mulvaney responded, i asked the nsc to set it up for tomorrow. everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. everyone was informed via e-mail on july 19th, days before the presidential call. as i communicated to the team, i told president zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully-transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with

president trump. on july 19th, in a whatsapp message between ambassador taylor, ambassador volker, and me, ambassador volker stated, had breakfast with rudy this morning. that's ambassador volker and rudy giuliani. teeing up call with yermak monday. that's senior advisor andriy yermak. must have helped. most important is for zelensky to see that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issue, if there are any. on august 10th, the next day, mr. yermak texted me. once we have a date, which is a date for the white house meeting, we will call for a press briefing announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the u.s.-ukraine relationship, including among other things, burisma and election meddling in

investigation. this is from mr. yermak to me. the following day, august 11th, and this is critical. i sent an e-mail to counselor and lisa kenna. lisa kenna was frequently used as the pathway to secretary pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his e-mails through her. she would print them out and put them in front of him. with the subject ukraine, i wrote, mike, referring to mike pompeo, kurt and i negotiated a statement from zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. the contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough, the boss being the president, to authorize an invitation. zelensky plans to have a big

pressor, press conference, on the openness subject, including specifics next week. all of which referred to the 2016 and the burisma. ms. kenna replied, gordon, i'll pass to the secretary. thank you. again, everyone was in the loop. curiously, and this was very interesting to me, on august 26th, shortly before his visit to kyiv, ambassador bolton's office requested mr. giuliani's contact information. from me. i send ambassador bolton the information directly. they requested mr. giuliani's contact information on august

26th. i was first informed that the white house was withholding security aid to ukraine during conversations with ambassador taylor on july 18th. 2019. however, as i testified before, i was never able to obtain a clear answer regarding the specific reason for the hold. whether it was bureaucratic in nature, which often happens. or reflected some other concern in the interagency process. i never participated in any of the subsequent dod or dos review meetings that others have described so i can't speak to what was discussed in those meetings. nonetheless, before the september 1st warsaw meeting, the ukrainians had become aware that security funds had yet to be dispersed. in the absence of any credible

explanation for the hold, i came to the conclusion that the aid, like the white house visit, was jeopardized. in preparation for the september 1 warsaw meeting, i asked secretary pompeo whether a face-to-face conversation between trump and zelensky would help to break the log jam. and this was when president trump was still intending to travel to warsaw. specifically, on august 22nd, i e-mailed secretary pompeo directly, copying secretary kenna. i wrote, this is my e-mail to secretary pompeo. should we block time in warsaw for a short pull aside for potus to meet zelensky? i would ask zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once ukraine's new justice folks

are in place in mid-september, that zelensky, he, zelensky, should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to potus and the u.s. hopefully, that will help break the log jam. the secretary replied, yes. i followed up the next day asking to get 10 to 15 minutes on the warsaw schedule for this. i said we'd like to know when it's locked so that i can tell zelensky and brief him. executive secretary kenna replied, i will try for sure. moreover, given my concerns about the security aid, i have no reason to dispute that portion of senator johnson's recent letter in which he recalls conversations he and i had on august 30th. by the end of august, my belief was that if ukraine did something to demonstrate a serious intention to fight

corruption and specifically addressing burisma and the 2016, then the hold on military aid would be lifted. there was a september 1st meeting with president zelensky in warsaw. unfortunately, president trump's attendance at the warsaw meeting was cancelled due to hurricane dorian. vice president pence attended instead. i mentioned to vice president pence before the meeting with the ukrainians that i had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigation. i recall mentioning that before the zelensky meeting. during the actual meeting, president zelensky raised the issue of security assistance directly with vice president pence. and the vice president said that he would speak to president trump about it. based on my previous communication with secretary pompeo, i felt comfortable sharing my concerns with mr. yermak.

it was a very, very brief pull aside conversation that happened within a few seconds. i told mr. yermak that i 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. as my other state department colleagues have testified, this security aid was critical to ukraine's defense and should not have been delayed. i expressed this view to many during this period but my goal at the time was to do what was necessary to get the aid released. to break the log jam. i believed that the public statement we had been discussing for weeks was essential to advancing that goal. you know, i really regret that the ukrainians were placed in that predicament. but i do not regret doing what i could to try to break the log jam and to solve the problem.

i mentioned at the outset that throughout these events, we kept state department leadership and others apprised of what we were doing. state department was fully supportive of our engagement in ukraine efforts and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing. to provide just two examples, on june 5th, the day after the u.s./eu mission hosted our independence day, we did it a month early, acting assistant secretary phil reeker sent an e-mail to me, to secretary perry, and to others forwarding some positive media coverage of president zelensky's attendance at our event. mr. reeker wrote, and i quote, this headline underscores the importance and timeliness of zelensky's visit to brussels and the critical -- and the critical -- perhaps historic role of the dinner and engagement gordon coordinated.

thank you for your participation and dedication to this effort. months later, on september 3rd, i sent secretary pompeo an e-mail to express my appreciation for his joining a series of meetings in brussels following the warsaw trip. i wrote, mike, thanks for slepping to europe. the chemistry seems promising. really appreciate it. secretary pompeo replied the next day on wednesday, september 4th, quote, all good. you're doing great work. keep banging away. state department leadership expressed total support for our efforts to engage the new ukrainian administration. look. i've never doubted the strategic value of strengthening our alliance with ukraine.

and at all times, at all times, our efforts were in good faith and fully transparent to those tasked with overseeing them. our efforts were reported and approved and not once do i recall encountering an objection. it remains an honor to serve the people of the united states as their united states ambassador to the european union. i look forward to answering the committee's questions. thank you. >> we will now proceed to first round of questions. there will be 45 minutes of questions conducted by the chairman and majority council followed by 45 minutes for the ranking member or minority council. following that, unless i specify additional time, we'll proceed under the five-minute rule and every member will have the chance to ask questions. i recognize myself, or majority counsel, for the first round of questions.

mr. sondland, there's a lot of new material in your opening statement for us to get through. but i want to start with a few top line questions before patching it over to mr. goldman. in your deposition, you testify that you found yourself on a continuum that became more insidious over time. can you describe what you mean by this continuum of insidiousness? >> well, mr. chairman, when we left the oval office, i believe on may 23rd, the request was very generic for an investigation of corruption in a very vanilla sense. and dealing with some of the oligarch problems in ukraine, which were long-standing problems. and then as time went on, more specific items got added to the menu. including the burisma and 2016

election meddling specifically, the dnc server specifically. and over this -- over this continuum, it became more and more difficult to secure the white house meeting because more conditions were being placed on the white house meeting. >> and then of course on july 25th, although you were not privy to the call, another condition was added. that being the investigation of the bidens. >> i was not privy to the call and i did not know the -- the condition of investigating the bidens was a condition. correct. >> you saw that on the call record, correct? >> it was not in any record i received. >> but when you did see. >> yes, i saw that in september, correct. >> so on this continuum, the beginning of the continuum begins on may 23rd when the president instructs you to talk to rudy? >> correct. >> and you understood as a direction by the president that you needed to satisfy the concerns that rudy giuliani would express to you about what the president wanted in ukraine? >> not to me. to the entire group.

volker, perry, and myself, correct. >> in your opening statement, you confirm that there was a quid pro quo between the white house meeting and the investigations into burisma and the 2016 election that giuliani was publicly promoting. is that right? >> correct. >> and, in fact, you say other senior officials in the state department and the chiefs of staffs office, including mick mulvaney, secretary pompeo were aware of this quid pro quo that in order to get the white house meeting, there were going to have to be these investigations the president wanted. >> correct. >> and those, again, are investigations into 2016 and burisma slash the bidens? >> 2016 burisma. the bidens did not come up. >> but you would ultimately learn that burisma meant the bidens when you saw the call record, correct? >> of course. today, i know exactly what it means.

i didn't know at the time. >> and then on july 26th, you confirm you did, indeed, have the conversation with president trump from a restaurant in kyiv that david holmes testified about last week, is that right? >> correct. >> and you have no doubt -- no reason to doubt mr. holmes' recounting of your conversation with the president? >> the only part of mr. holmes' recounting that i take exception with is i do not recall mentioning the bidens. that did not enter my mind. it was burisma in 2016 election. >> you have no reason to believe mr. holmes would make that up if that's what he recalls you saying, you have no reason to question that, do you? >> i don't recall saying biden. i never recall saying biden. >> but the rest of mr. holmes' recollection is consistent with your own? >> well, i can't testify as to what mr. holmes might or might not have heard through the phone. i don't know how he heard the conversation. >> are you familiar with his testimony? >> vaguely, yes.

>> and the only exception you take is to the mention of the name biden? >> correct. >> and i think you said in your testimony this morning that not only is it correct that the president brought up with you investigations on the phone the day after the july 25th call. but you would have been surprised had he not brought that up, is that right? >> right because we had been hearing about it from rudy and we presumed rudy was getting it from the president. so it seemed like a logical conclusion. >> holmes also testified you told him president trump doesn't care about ukraine. he only cares about big stuff that relates to him personally. i take it from your comment that you don't dispute that part of the conversation. >> well, he made that clear in the may 23rd meeting. that he was not particularly fond of ukraine and we had a lot of heavy lifting to do to get

him to engage. >> so you don't dispute that part of mr. holmes' recollection? >> no. >> in august, when you worked with rudy giuliani and a top ukrainian aide to draft a public statement for president zelensky to issue that includes the announcement of investigations into burisma, you understood that was required by president trump before he would grant the white house meeting to president zelensky? >> that's correct. >> and the ukrainians understood that, as well? >> i believe they did. >> and you informed secretary pompeo about that statement, as well? >> i did. >> later in august, you told secretary pompeo that president zelensky would be prepared to tell president trump that his new justice officials would be able to announce matters of interest of the president which could break the log jam. when you say matters of interest of 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. >> and when you're talking about here breaking the log jam, you're talking about the log jam over the security assistance, correct? >> i was talking log jam generically because nothing was moving. >> but that included the security assistance, did it not? >> correct. >> and based on the context of that e-mail, this was not the first time you had discussed these investigations with secretary pompeo, was it? >> no. >> he was aware of the connections thauf connections that you were making between the investigations and the white house meeting and the security assistance? >> yes. >> did he ever take issue with you and say, no, that connection is not there? or you're wrong? >> not that i recall. >> you mentioned that you also had a conversation with vice president pence before his meeting with president zelensky

in warsaw. and that you raised the concern you had as well that the securi security assistance was being withheld because of the president's desire to get a commitment from zelensky to pursue these investigations. what did you say to the president? >> i was in a briefing with several people and i just spoke up and i said it appears that everything is stalled until this statement gets made. something that words to that effect. and that's what i believed to be the case based on, you know, the work that the three of us had been doing. volker, perry, and myself. and the vice president nodded like, you know, he -- he heard what i said and that was pretty much it, as i recall. >> and you understood that the ukrainians were going to raise the security assistance with the vice president at this meeting? >> i didn't know what they were going to raise. but they -- they, in fact, did raise it, mr. chairman. >> well, it was public by that point that there was a hold on security assistance, correct?

>> yeah, but i didn't know what they were going to raise. i didn't get a prebrief from the ukrainians. >> you knew certainly they were concerned about the withhold on security assistance. >> thaerp concerned obviously. >> and you wanted to prepare the vice president for the meeting by letting him know what you thought was responsible for the hold on security assistance. >> that's fair. >> do you recall anything else the vice president said other than nodding his head when you made him aware of this fact? >> no, i don't have a readout of that meeting so i can't remember anything else. >> and it was immediately after this meeting that you went to speak with yermak and you told him similarly that in order to release the military assistance, they were going to have to publicly announce these investigations. >> yeah. mentions been made of that meeting and it really wasn't a meeting. what happened was everybody got up after the bilateral meeting between president zelensky and vice president pence and people do what they normally do. they get up. they mill around.

they shake hands. i don't know if i came over to yermak or he came over to me but he said what's going on here? i said i don't know. it might all be tied together now. you know, i have no idea. i was presuming that it was but it was a very short conversation. >> well, in that short conversation, as you would later relay to mr. morrison and ambassador taylor, you informed mr. yermak that they would need to announce these investigations in order to get the aid, did you not? >> well, mr. yermak was already working on those investigation -- or on the statement about the investigations. >> and you confirmed for him that he needed to get it done if they were going to get the military aid? >> i likely did. >> mr. morrison and ambassador taylor also relayed a conversation you had with the president following the warsaw meeting in which the president relayed to you that there was no quid pro quo. but nevertheless, unless zelensky went to the mic and

announced these investigations, there would be a stalemate over the aid, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and that was an accurate reflection of your discussion with the president? >> well, that e-mail was not artfully written. i am the first to admit. what i was trying to convey to ambassador taylor after his frantic e-mails to me and to others about the security assistance, which by the way, i agreed with him. i thought it was a very bad idea to hold that money. i finally called the president. i believe it was on the 9th of september. i can't find the records and they won't provide them to me. but i believe i just asked him an open-ended question, mr. chairman. what do you want from ukraine? i keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. what do you want? and it was a very short, abrupt conversation. he was not in a good mood. and he just said, i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing.

something to that effect. so i typed out a text to ambassador taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful but simply to relay i've gone as far as i can go. this is the final word that i heard from the president of the united states. if you're still concerned, you ambassador taylor, are still concerned, please get ahold of the secretary. maybe he can help. >> i'm not asking you about your text message. i'm asking about your conversations with mr. morrison and ambassador taylor after you spoke with the president. either in that call or in a different call. >> i'm confused, mr. chairman. which conversations with mr. morrison and mr. taylor? >> well, mr. morrison testified that you relayed a conversation you had with the president in which the president told you no quid pro quo. but president zelensky must go

to a microphone and announce these investigations and that he should want to. similarly, you told ambassador taylor that while the president said no quid pro quo, unless zelensky announced these investigations, they would be at a stalemate. presumably, a stalemate over the military assistance. do you have any reason to question those conversations that mr. morrison and ambassador taylor took notes about? >> well, i think it's tied to my text, mr. chairman. because in my text, i think i said something to the effect that he wants zelensky to do what he ran on, i believe his transparency, et cetera, et cetera. which was my clumsy way of saying he wanted -- he wanted these announcements to be made. >> again, ambassador, i'm not asking about your text message. i'm asking about what you relayed to ambassador taylor and mr. morrison about your conversation with the president. you have any reason to question their recollection of what you told them?

>> all i can say is that i expressed what i told or what the president told me in that text. and if i had relayed anything other than what was in that text, i don't recall. >> you don't recall? >> i don't recall. >> you have no reason to question ambassador taylor or mr. morrison of what they wrote in their notes about your conversation with them? >> could you kindly repeat what they wrote? >> i'll have mr. goldman go through that with you. >> that'd be great. >> but let me get to the bottom line here, ambassador sondland. okay? you testified that the white house meeting that president zelensky desperately wanted and that was very important to president zelensky, was it not? >> absolutely. >> you testified that that meeting was conditioned, was a quid pro quo, for what the president wanted these two investigations. isn't that right? >> correct. >> and everybody knew it?

>> correct. >> now, that white house meeting was going to be an official meeting between the two presidents, correct? >> presumably. >> it would be an oval office meeting hopefully? >> a working meeting. >> a working meeting. so an official act, correct? >> yeah. >> and in order to perform that official act, donald trump wanted these two investigations that would help his re-election campaign, correct? >> i can't characterize why he wanted them. all i can tell you is this is what we heard from mr. giuliani. >> but he had -- he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct? >> he had to announce the investigations. he didn't actually have to do them, as i understood it. >> okay. president zelensky had to announce the two investigations the president wanted. make a public announcement. correct? >> correct. >> and those were of great value to the president, he was quite insistent upon them? and his attorney was insistent upon them in.

>> i don't want to characterize whether they were value, not value. again, through mr. giuliani, we were led to believe that that's what he wanted. >> well, and you said that mr. giuliani was acting at the president's demand, correct? >> right. when the president says talk to my personal lawyer, mr. giuliani, we followed his direction. >> and so that official act of that meeting was being conditioned on the performance of these things the president wanted, as expressed both directly and through his lawyer rudy giuliani, correct? >> as expressed through rudy giuliani. correct. >> and you've also testified that your understanding, it became your clear understanding, that the military assistance was also being withheld pending zelensky announcing these investigations. correct? >> that was my presumption. my personal presumption based on the facts at the time. nothing was moving. >> and, in fact, you had a discussion, communication, with the secretary of state in which you said that log jam over aid

could be lifted if zelensky announced these investigations, right? >> i did not -- i don't recall saying the log jam over aid. i recall saying the log jam. >> that's -- that's what you meant, right, ambassador? >> i -- i meant that whatever was holding up the meeting, whatever was holding up our deal with ukraine, i was trying to break. again, i was presuming. >> well, here's what you said in your testimony a moment ago. okay? page 18. but my goal at the time was to do what was necessary to get the aid released to break the log jam. okay. that's still your testimony, right? >> yeah. >> so the military aid is also an official act, am i right? >> yes. >> this is not president trump's personal bank account he's writing a check from. this is $400 million of u.s. taxpayer money, is it not? >> absolutely. >> and there was a log jam in which the president would not

write that u.s. check, you believed, until ukraine announced these two investigations the president wanted. correct? >> that was my belief. >> mr. goldman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in your opening statement, ambassador sondland, you -- you detailed the benefits that you have gained from obtaining some additional documents over the past few weeks. is that right? >> in terms of refreshing my recollection. >> right, because reviewing these documents has helped you to remember the events that we're asking about, is that correct? >> correct. >> because you acknowledge, of course, that when you can place a document and a date and a context, it helps to jog your memory. >> that's correct. >> and so you would agree that for people unlike yourself who take notes that that is very helpful to their own recollection of events, right?

>> i -- i think you asked your question backwards. are you saying people that take notes, it's helpful to have those documents? or people that don't take notes, it's helpful to have those documents? >> you are not a note taker, right? >> not a note taker, never have been. >> but you would agree people who do take contemporaneous notes generally are more able to remember things than people who don't. >> some. yeah. >> and there are additional documents that you've been unable to obtain, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and i think you even said in your opening statement that the state department prevented you and your staff from trying to gather more documents? is that correct? >> certain documents, yes. >> which documents? >> documents i didn't have immediate access to. >> and who at the state department prevented you from doing that? >> you have to ask my counsel. he was dealing with them. >> but certainly, based on the additional memory that you have gained over the past few weeks from reading the testimony of othe others, based on their notes,

and reviewing your own documents, you have remembered a lot more than you did when you were deposed, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and one of the things that you now remember is the discussion that you had with the -- with president trump on july 26th in that restaurant in kyiv, right? >> yeah. what triggered my memory was someone's reference to asap rocky, which was i believe the primary purpose of the phone call. >> certainly. so that's one way memory works, isn't it? and you were sitting in a restaurant with david holmes in kyiv, right, having lunch? >> i think i took the whole team out to lunch after the meeting. yeah. >> and it was a meeting, one-on-one meeting you had with andriy yermak? >> again, trying to reconstruct a very busy day without the benefit. but if someone said i had a meeting and i went to the meeting, then i am not going to dispute that. >> and particularly, if that person took notes at that

meeting? >> correct. >> or sat outside the door when you didn't let them in? >> i have no control over who goes into a meeting in ukraine. that was the ukrainians that didn't let 'em in. >> and you had also met with president zelensky, among others, that day, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and you called president trump from your cell phone from the restaurant, is that right? >> that's right. >> and this was not a secure line, was it? >> no, it was an open line. >> did you worry that a foreign government may be listening to your phone call with the president of the united states? >> well, i have unclassified conversations all the time from landlines that are unsecured and cell phones. if the topic is not clarified a classified, and it's up to the president to decide what's classified and what's not classified, he was aware that it was an open line as well. >> and you don't recall the

specifics of holding your phone out far away from your ear, as mr. holmes testified, but you have no reason to question his recollection of that, do you? >> i mean, it seems a little strange i would hold my phone here. i probably had my phone close to my ear and he claims to have overheard part of the conversation and i'm not going to dispute what he did or didn't hear. >> well, he also testified that you confirmed to president trump that you were in ukraine at the time and that president zelensky quote, loves your ass, unquote. do you recall saying that? >> it sounds like something i would say. that's how president trump and i communicate. a lot of four-letter words. in this case, three letters. >> holmes then said that he heard president trump ask quote, is he, meaning zelensky, gonna do the investigation? to which you replied, he's gonna do it. and then you added that

president zelensky will do anything that you, meaning president trump, ask him to. do you recall that? >> i probably said something to that effect because i remember the meeting the president -- or president zelensky was very -- sew lis tous is not a good word. he was just very willing to work with the united states and was being very amicable. so putting it in trump speak by saying he loves your ass, he'll do whatever you want meant that he would really work with us on a whole host of issues. >> he was not only willing, he was very eager, right? >> that's fair. >> because ukraine depends on the united states as its most significant ally, isn't that correct? >> one of its most, absolutely. >> so just so we understand, you -- you were in kyiv the day after president trump spoke to

president zelensky on the phone. and you now know from reading the call record that in that phone call, he requested a favor for president zelensky to do investigations related to the bidens and the 2016 election, right? >> i do now know that, yes. >> and you met with president zelensky and his aides on the day after that phone call. and then you had a conversation with president trump from your cell phone from a restaurant terrace. and he asked you whether president zelensky will do the investigations. and you responded that he's gonna do them or it. and that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. is that an accurate recitation of what happened there? >> it could have been words to that effect. i don't remember my exact response. >> but you don't have any reason to dispute holmes' recollection, correct? >> i won't dispute it but again, i don't recall. >> after you hung up with the president, mr. holmes testified

about a conversation that you and he had where he says that you told mr. holmes that the president does not care about ukraine but the president used the more colorful language including a four-letter word you just referenced to. do you recall saying that to mr. holmes? >> again, i don't recall -- the president, when we met with him in the oval office was not a big fan. >> but he was a big fan of the investigation? >> apparently so. >> and, in fact, mr. holmes said that you -- that you said that president trump only cares about the quote big stuff that benefits himself. is that something that you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have -- i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we had

been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said because that's the fact. mr. holmes also remembers that you told him, giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing. do you recall that? >> i don't. i recall burisma, not biden. >> and -- but do you recall saying at least referring to an investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing? is that something that you likely would have said? >> i would've, yes. >> now, even if you don't recall specifically mentioning the biden investigation to david holmes, we know that it was certainly on president trump's mind because just a day before, in his call with president zelensky, he mentions specifically the biden investigation. and i want to show you that exhibit or that excerpt from the

call on july 25th. where president trump says, 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 would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. president zelensky then responds with a reference to the company that he's referring to and two witnesses yesterday said that when president zelensky actually said the company, he said burisma. so you would agree that regardless of whether you knew about the connection to the bidens, at the very least, that you now know that that's what president trump wanted at the time through the burisma investigation. >> i now know it all, of course. >> and at this time, you were aware of the president's desire,

along with rudy giuliani, to do these investigations, including the 2016 election interference investigation, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and you said president trump had directed you to talk you and the others to talk to rudy giuliani at the oval office on may 23rd, is that right? >> if we wanted to get anything done with ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to rudy. >> right. you understood that mr. giuliani spoke for the president. correct? >> that's correct. >> and, in fact, president trump also made that clear to president zelensky in that same july 26th phone call. he said mr. giuliani is a highly-respected man. he was the mayor of new york city. a great mayor and i would like him to call you. i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy.

and after this, president trump then mentions mr. giuliani twice more in that call. now, from mr. giuliani by this point, you understood that in order to get that white house meeting that you wanted president zelensky to have and that president zelensky desperately wanted to have, that ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations, is that right? >> well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it. >> right, because giuliani and president trump didn't actually care if they did them, right? >> i never heard, mr. goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. the only thing i heard from mr. giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form. and that form kept changing. >> announced publicly? >> announced publicly. >> and you of course recognized that there would be political benefits to a public announcement as opposed to a private confirmation, right? >> well, the way it was

expressed to me was that the ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through. so president trump, presumably, again, communicated through mr. giuliani. wanted the ukrainians on record publicly that they were going to do these investigations. that's the reason that was given to me. >> but you never heard anyone say that they really wanted them to do the investigations, just that they wanted to announce them? >> i didn't hear either way. i didn't hear either way. >> now, your july 26th call with the president was not the only time that you spoke to the president surrounding that ukraine trip, was it? >> i believe i spoke to him before his call. >> and that's -- so that would be on july 25th, the day before? >> yeah. i think i was flying to ukraine and i spoke with him, if i recall correctly, just before i got on the plane. >> so that's two private telephone calls with president trump in the span of two days, is that right? >> correct.

>> you had direct access then to president trump, correct? >> i had occasional access when he chose to take my calls. sometimes he would. sometimes he wouldn't. >> well, he certainly took your call twice as it related to ukraine on these two days, is that right? >> he did. >> now, the morning of july 25th, you texted ambassador volker, and we could bring up the next text exchange, at 7:54 a.m. and you said call asap. ambassador volker did not respond to you for another hour and a half and he said, hi, gordon, got your message. had a great lunch with yermak and then passed your message to him. he will see you tomorrow. think everything in place. volker, though, an hour before that and about a half an hour before the phone call, had texted andriy yermak, a top aide for president zelensky. and he wrote, good lunch, thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate, get

to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow. ambassador sondland, was this message that kurt volker passed to andriy yermak the message you left for kurt volker on that voicemail that he referenced? >> you know, i don't remember, mr. goldman. but it very well could have been. >> you don't have any reason to think it wasn't, right? >> again, i honestly, honestly don't remember. but seems logical to me. >> and if ambassador volker testified that he did get that message from you, you have no reason to doubt that. >> no. if he testified that he got that message from me, then i would concur with that. >> so is it fair to say that this message is what you received from president trump in that phone call that morning? >> again, if he testified to that, to refresh my own memory, then yes, likely i would have received that from president trump. >> but the sequence certainly makes sense, right? >> yeah, it does. >> you talked to president trump. you told kurt volker to call you. you left a message for kurt volker.

kurt volker sent this text message to andriy yermak to prepare president zelensky. and then president trump had a phone call where president zelensky spoke very similar to what was in this text message, right? >> right. >> and you would agree that the message in this -- that is expressed here is that president zelensky needs to convince trump that he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a visit to washington, d.c. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, i'm going to move ahead in time to the end of august and early september when you came to believe, i believe as you testified, that it wasn't just the white house meeting that was contingent on the announcement of these investigations that the president wanted. but security assistance as well. you testified that in the absence of any credible explanation for the hold on

security assistance, you came to the conclusion that like the white house visit, the aid was conditioned on the investigations that president trump wanted. is that what you said in your opening statement? >> it is. >> so let me break this down with you. by this time, you and many top officials knew that that coveted white house meeting for president zelensky was conditioned on these investigations, right? >> the announcement of the investigations. right. >> thank you. and that includes secretary pompeo, right? >> many, many people. >> secretary pompeo? >> yes. >> and acting chief of staff mulvaney. >> yes. >> and you testified that this was a quid pro quo, is that right? >> i did. >> and by this point at the end of august, you knew the aid had been held up for at least six weeks, is that correct? >> i believe i found out through ambassador taylor that the aid had been held up around july 18th is when i -- when i heard originally.

>> and even though you searched for reasons, you were never given a credible explanation, is that right? >> that's right. >> and no one you spoke to thought that the aid should be held to your knowledge, is that right? >> i never heard anyone advocate for holding the aid. >> and now, by this point at the end of august, it went public and the ukrainians knew about it, right? >> i believe there was some press reports, you know, presuming or, who knows? but i think at that point it became sort of common knowledge that everything might be tied together. >> and, in fact, president zelensky brought it up at that september 1st meeting with vice president pence that you were at, right? >> i don't know if he brought it up specifically. but asked where the aid was i think was more -- i think he sort of asked, again, very vague recollection because i don't have a readout of the bilateral meeting. but why don't i have my check essentially? >> and you -- you understood the ukrainians received no credible

explanation, is that right? >> i certainly didn't -- couldn't give them one. >> so is this kind of a two plus two equals four conclusion that you reached? >> pretty much. >> 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. >> now, i want to go back to that conversation that you had with vice president pence right before that meeting in warsaw. and you indicated that you said to him that you were concerned that the delay in the aid was tied to the issue of 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 or where he asked me any questions. i think he -- it was sort of a dually 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. >> now, after this meeting, you discussed this pull aside you had with mr. yermak where you relayed your belief that they needed to announce these investigations prior to the aid being released. is that right? >> i said i didn't know exactly why but this could be a reason. >> and obviously, you had been speaking with mr. yermak for quite a while about a public announcement of these investigations, right? >> we had all been working on -- toward that end, yes. >> so you indicated to him that in addition to the white house meeting, security aid was now

also involved in that. >> as i said, i said it could've been involved, yes. >> now, i'm going to show you another text exchange you had on september 1st where ambassador taylor says to you, are we now saying that security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigation? and you respond, call me. ambassador taylor recalls that he did call you and you did have a conversation. and in that conversation, you told ambassador taylor that the announcement of these investigations by president zelensky needed to be public. and that that announcement was conditioned on -- that announcement would ultimately release the -- the aid. do you recall that conversation with ambassador taylor? >> again, my conversation with ambassador taylor, my conversation with senator johnson were all my personal

belief just based on, as you put it, two plus two equals four. >> well, in his testimony, ambassador taylor says that you said president trump had told you that he wanted president zelensky to state publicly as of september 1st. do you have any reason to doubt ambassador taylor's testimony, which he said was based on his meticulous, contemporaneous notes? >> president trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. the only thing we got directly from giuliani was that the burisma in 2016 elections were conditioned on the white house meeting. the aid was my own personal, you know, guess based, again, on your analogy two plus two equals four. >> so you didn't talk to president trump when ambassador taylor says that that's what you told him? is that your testimony here? >> my testimony is i never heard from president trump that aid

was conditioned on announcement of election. >> so you never heard those specific words? >> correct. never heard those words. >> well, let's move ahead because you have another conversation in -- in a little bit later that both tim morrison and ambassador taylor recount. but in this september 1st conversation, ambassador taylor also says that -- testified, under oath, that you said that president trump wanted zelensky in a public box. do you recall using that expression? >> yeah. it goes back to my earlier comment that, again, coming from the giuliani source because we didn't discuss this specifically with president trump, that they wanted whatever commitments ukraine made to be made publicly so that they would be on the record and be held more accountable. whatever those commitments were. >> you also testified or ambassador taylor rather testified that you told him that

you had made a mistake in telling the ukrainians that only the white house meeting was conditioned on the announcement of the investigations and that, in fact, everything was, including the security assistance. do you remember saying that in. >> when i reference the mistake, i -- what i recall was that i thought that a statement made by the new ukrainian prosecutor that these investigations would be started up again or commence would be sufficient to satisfy mr. giuliani/president trump. as i recall, my mistake was someone came back through volker otherwise and said, no, it's not gonna do if the prosecutor makes these statements. the president wants to hear it from zelensky directly. that's the mistake i think i made. >> do you have any reason to question ambassador taylor's testimony based on his meticulous and careful, c contemporaneous notes? >> i'm not going to question or not question. i'm just telling you what i

believe i -- i was referring to. >> let me fast forward a week and show you another text exchange which may help refresh your recollection. on september 8th, you had a -- you sent a text to ambassador tailor a taylor and volker. can you read what you wrote there? so this is september 8th at 11:20 in the morning and ambassador taylor responds immediately. now is fine with me. and if we could go to the next exchange. ambassador taylor then 15 minutes later says gordon and i just spoke or 20 minutes later rather. i can brief you if you and gordon don't connect, speaking to ambassador volker. then ambassador taylor, an hour later, says the nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. the russians love it and i quit. you would agree that in this text message, after you had spoken -- that -- earlier, an hour earlier, with ambassador taylor, that he is linking the security assistance to this

interview, this public announcement by president zelensky, is that right? >> absolutely. >> and, in fact, ambassador taylor testified that you did have a conversation with him at that point. and he did -- and that you told him that just as your text message indicates, you did have a conversation with president trump prior to that text message. does that help to refresh your recollection that you, in fact, spoke to president trump at that time? >> again, i don't recall president trump ever talking to me about any security assistance ever. what this tells me, refreshing my memory, is that by the 8th of september, it was -- it was abundantly clear to everyone that there was a link and that we were discussing the chicken and egg issue of should the ukrainians go out on a ledge and make the statement that president trump wanted them to make and then they still don't

get their white house visit and their aid. that would be really bad for our credibility. i think that's what he was referring to. >> so you do acknowledge you spoke to president trump as you indicated in that text, right? >> if i said i did, i did. >> and that after that conversation, you were still under the impression that the aid was contingent on these public announcements. >> i did not get that from president trump. but i was under the impression that, absolutely, it was contingent. >> well, you weren't dissuaded then, right? because you still thought that 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 just saying you still believed that the security assistance was conditioned on the investigation after you spoke to president trump.

yes? or no? >> from a timeframe standpoint, yes. >> now, ambassador taylor also testified that -- and mr. morrison, both of them testified that you told them that president trump said there was no quid pro quo. which you also included in that text message that you referred. but then you went on and they had slight variations as to what you told them. but then you said that, to ambassador taylor, that president zelensky himself, not the prosecutor general, needed to clear things up in public or there would be a stalemate. and mr. morrison recounted something similar. you don't have any reason to doubt both of their very similar recollections of the conversations they had with you, do you, ambassador sondland? >> let me break that down, mr. goldman. the text, as i said, about the no quid pro quo was my effort to

respond to ambassador taylor's concerns. to go to president trump. apparently, ambassador taylor had access to secretary pompeo. he did not have access to president trump. so i made the phone call. i said, what do you want? president trump responded with what i put in the text. and then i strongly encouraged ambassador taylor to take it up with the secretary and he responded i agree when i said that. as far as the other part of your question relating to whether or not the prosecutor could make the statement or zelensky could make the statement, i don't recall who told me. whether it was volker, whether it was giuliani, or whether it was president trump. it's got to be zelensky, it can't be the prosecutor. but that's what i relayed. whoever i got that information from, i relayed that to, i believe, both mr. -- excuse me, ambassador taylor and mr. morrison. >> but as of september 9th, you understood, did you not, that president trump, either himself

or through his agents, required that president zelensky make a public announcement of the two investigations that president trump cared about in order to get both the white house meeting and to release the security assistance, is that correct? >> i believe -- i believe that is correct. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> that concludes our 45 minutes. i now recognize mr. nunes. okay. why don't we take a five or ten-minute break. >> thank you. >> well, gordon sondland, clearly the man of the hour there as we are halfway through the questioning. at least the 45-minute sessions. but he dropped a lot of bombshells. among the things you'll hear quoted. he worked with giuliani at the express direction of the president. he followed the president's orders. there was a quid pro quo for the white house meeting. i followed the direction of the president. any number of quotes, savannah, in which he is clearly, you know, had direct communications with the president. is now implicating the president

directly. >> well, most importantly, this is someone who was a trump supporter, donated to his inaugural and now is telling a dramatically different story than the one he told back in october when he was deposed behind closed doors. and he's now saying that, yes, there was a quid pro quo, as you mentioned. that this notion of a white house visit by president zelensky that was very important to the ukrainians was, in fact, conditioned on these investigations being done into the president's political opponents. and he went pretty far in saying there was a quid pro quo for the security aid as well. saying he came to believe that that security aid was being withheld for one reason and one reason only. waiting for announcement by the ukrainians that these investigations would be done. >> and significantly, he mentioned mike pompeo. basically said everybody was in the loop. everybody knew what was going on. the president wanted giuliani to kind of lead this effort and you would take your directions from him. >> chuck todd -- both watching

the testimony with us. how does this strike you, chuck? now, we've had a few days of testimony and this is in some ways the culmination of it because sondland has been mentioned in so much of the witness testimony at the very heart and the center of these matters. >> look. i mean, just the substance of the case, the democrats said that this was what happened and all of their witnesses continue to reinforce what happened. that there was a quid pro quo attached to the security assistance, the presidential meeting. and every witness they brought forward has only added to the case brick by brick. it's only done it. gordon sondland today. i think here's what you learn from him. he's basically saying, whoa, you don't get to call this a side channel. i didn't think it was a side channel. i was talking with the president of the united states. i was talking with the secretary of state. i was -- it is clear he's basically saying you don't get to throw this off on me and rudy as some sort of side drug deal. everybody in government knew this and i think that is what's so significant about this testimony is he basically says,

well, if you're -- if -- if this was a side deal, it was the most public side deal because everybody in government knew it. oh, by the way, go ask the secretary of state. >> it's also significant because in the early going as this came along, the president pointed to the text message from gordon sondland that said there's no quid pro quo. and now, this is the very person coming before congress and saying, well, yes, there was. >> savannah, that's why today was so explosive because this was supposed to be the guy who was to defend trump. and yesterday, volker was supposed to be the guy who was to defend trump. both people hand picked by trump. both circumstances in which they're coming forward today and saying, no, trump was in the loop in orchestrating in some ways. now, i think the delta here is that and what we'll hear about in the next 45 minutes is that sondland never said that trump directly ordered him to withhold the aid or to withhold the white house meeting. it was done through someone, a conduit, giuliani. i think that's where we'll hear the next block.

>> do you remember the michael cohen testimony? michael cohen had to -- well, he doesn't direct you to say anything. right? it's always an implication. and i remember that was -- that was actually something that helped the president's defense in that there was never -- it was an assumed order. >> but let's talk about -- >> that is something i think is going to -- the republicans are going to pounce on. >> let's talk about the phone call that occurred on the 26th. sondland is on the phone with the president. it's overheard. you know, president checking into the investigation. he's very careful on how he answers those questions in as much as, yes, the call occurred. if that's what they said. but he's not pinned down. >> yeah. as a lawyer, i see what's going on there. that is a highly-scripted set of answers. he's represented by a phenomenal defense lawyer, bob luskin and you can tell it was very careful but he doesn't ever explain what he is reported to have said after he hung up the call, which is the president doesn't care about small stuff.

he cares about big stuff like burisma. >> but he did go on to say the president said stuff like that before. >> i think some expletives like that before. but this was something i think was pretty striking in the carefulness. >> it was very lawyered because he said maybe i said those colorful words. maybe this or that came up. i know i didn't talk about bidens. i didn't say bidens. and why is that so important? >> because in october, he testified to the contrary. so, you know, between october -- >> perjury. >> exactly. in october in his deposition, he said i didn't actually discuss the stuff. and now, in the face of people saying, well, actually you did. >> this is the second time, by the way, second day in a row that there's a witness trying to separate burisma and biden. >> let's dip into adam schiff right now. >> from ambassador sondland is that the knowledge of this scheme, this conditioning of the white house meeting, of the security assistance to get the deliverable the president wanted, these two political investigations that he believed

would help his re-election campaign, was a basic quid pro quo. it was the conditioning of official acts for something of great value to the president, these political investigations. it goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery, as well as other potential high crimes or misdemeanors. but we also have heard for the first time that knowledge of this scheme was pervasive. the secretary of state was aware of it. the acting chief of staff mulvaney was aware of it. and of course, at the very top, donald trump through his personal lawyer and others was implementing it. and so this, i think, only goes to underscore just how significant the president's obstruction of this investigation has been. we now can see the veneer has been torn away just why secretary pompeo and president donald trump do not want any of

these documents provided to congress. because apparently they show, as ambassador sondland has ti testified, that the knowledge of this scheme to condition official acts, a white house meeting and $400 million in security assistance to an ally at war with russia was conditioned on political favors the president wanted for his re-election. so i think a very important moment in the history of this inquiry. >> adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee who is presiding over the hearings the last few days. chuck, you were just making a point about some of the testimony. >> well, it's this -- it's interesting two days in a row now, volker said the same thing that sondland is. they're trying to deny they didn't understand that burisma was code for biden. and it's interesting. volker went on and on yesterday. i didn't know. obviously, now i do. sondland did the same thing. neil, i asked you about that. you said -- you said are these witnesses listening to each other?

or -- or did they seem -- almost seems as if they talked because they're both agreeing. oh, we didn't know burisma and biden were synonymous. >> yeah. i mean, the testimony today is in a dynamic environment so sondland is following the testimony yesterday about volker listening and, you know, one of the things that happens is a future witness will tailor their testimony to a previous one. here, actually the word tailor is important because sondland and taylor had a text exchange on september, i think it was 9th in which ambassador taylor asked sondland, is this about a political campaign? i can't believe we're withholding aid for a political campaign to sondland. so sondland's explanation now, which is oh, i didn't understand that burisma was code for biden or something is a little too cute by half. >> isn't it reasonable to say that, you know, if you don't know it's for biden, you would want to know. 2016 e 2016's important. i get that. so what is burisma and why is the president using that as

something so critical to this white house meeting? >> obviously, this is the most uncurious ambassador. >> both volker and sondland would both have to be uncurious here. >> let's bring in richard engel right now. spent a lot of time in ukraine talking to some of the key players here. explain -- explain burisma to us as succinctly as you can and why biden's name might not be associated with that initially. >> i think it would be associated with that. anyone who knew that president trump wanted to look into burisma, there's only one reason why he would want to look into burisma. and it is because of the connection to hunter biden. so it is not plausible to think that sondland is meeting with rudy giuliani, who all day long was talking about biden and burisma and suddenly sondland doesn't know that there is a connection between the two. what -- what happened with burisma is burisma was a -- an

oil and gas company. it had a long corrupt history. it was associated with the previous regime before ukraine had its revolution. and so ukraine went through an important transition over the last several years. it was a russian country. it was a pro-russian satellite, if you will. and it was firmly in the kremlin's orbit. and then when they had the revolution in 2014, while all of us were in sochi watching the olympic games, suddenly there was a shift and the country became pro-american. and there was a massive change in the political culture there. so burisma wants to clean up its act. it wants to find a new patron so to speak. so this company, which had russian patronage and protection from pro-russian camp suddenly decide that it needs to change its board around. and that is when burisma starts to go around and look for protection and they brought hunter biden on. they paid him tens of thousands

of dollars a month because they thought, okay, now this is becoming a pro-american country. we better find some people who are politically connected and can provide cover to this company. and this is from reporting i've had with numerous sources about burisma and why it hired hunter biden to be on the board. no allegations that joe biden or hunter biden engaged in any illegal activity. but they were put on the board after this political transition in order to give burisma some cover, some political cover, which is a common practice throughout the world but particularly in russia and former soviet states. the company moves on. hunter biden eventually leaves. but to go back and -- and -- which is what the whole thing is that giuliani wanted to go back and look at burisma and look at this hunter biden connection. that -- that -- it seems implausible that sondland and others would not have known.

>> just to be the devil's advocate, could they have thought to themselves, hmm, maybe this is just one of a number of companies in ukraine that have had corruption problems? and that that was what the investigation was about? >> so that president trump just wanted to look into one particular privately held gas company in ukraine because he was particularly interested in fighting corruption. it's possible. but when you look at what giuliani was -- was focusing on, on how he was often talking about hunter biden. often talking about burisma. i think it was pretty clear to -- to anyone that that was -- was the focus. and by the way, when hunter biden first joined the board of burisma and this political translation was taking place after 2014, it was talked about in the united states. there are press conferences that were held in the u.s. in which people raised the question. are there concerns that the vice

president has that his son hunter was put on the board of a -- what's called a controversial company. >> i was going to say state department official george kent just last week raised questions about -- not that there was something that had actually happened with hunter biden but he questioned whether or not there was appearance of a conflict. >> sondland kept doing. he kept saying to announce an investigation. to publicly announce an investigation. he didn't say that the investigation itself was necessary. and he kept saying it was needed to be public. i think of all the things sondland's testified to, i think that's among -- among the most damaging. >> right. if you care about corruption, the last thick yng you do is foa public announcement of the investigation. law enforcement investigations are done in secret for good reason so that you can do this and have people not coordinate their stories and the like. and what taylor -- what sondland testified to -- he said this is only about the announcement. it didn't even matter whether

ukraine actually carried it out. >> but he did note in the past, ukrainians have said they're going to do something privately and didn't follow through. >> absolutely. i still think it's very telling what they asked for here at the end of the day was not so much the investigation. >> it was the headline. >> well, and back to richard's point about i asked the question devil's advocate. could this just be about an investigation into corruption? i mean, ukraine has a history of corruption. actually, marie yovanovitch was one of the anti-corruption cr crusaders. they say, oh look, look, he's talking about corruption in general. but again and again through the testimony, the only company ever named, ever singled out by name happens to be burisma, which has the hunter biden connection. >> absolutely. and there's another problem with it or two other problems with it, which is the president has been asked, hey, did you ever single out any other country, let alone company, for an anti-corruption investigation? and he hasn't been able to name

one. so we have to believe that this is the only time ever he's cared about it. and number two, he himself, his administration certified in may that ukraine had met the anti-corruption standards and that the aid could flow. so, you know, if he made a private determination later, it doesn't -- just the facts don't add up. >> a lot of his officials saying, hey, zelensky, the new sheriff in town. he's a good guy. he's committed to anti-krupg anti-corruption. so you have to ask yourself why then the aid is being withheld. >> and magically, it resumes two days after the whistle-blower report on september 11th. >> yeah. let's preview what we're about to see. republicans now will get 45 minutes to question him. observing what has just happened over the previous 45 minutes, how do you expect them to handle him? he's certainly not a never trumper. he's a trump donor. >> yeah. so i think the first thing i would do is really seize on this question, what were your interactions with trump? what did he say?

because there's a lot of implication in the statement that i thought trump was directing this and so on. but at the very end of the testimony in the direct examination, he basically said i just inferred this. i didn't know it. and i think the republicans are going to seize really hard on that delta between those two things. >> it's interesting because we heard devin nunes, the ranking member of the leading republican on this committee tell sondland you're going to get smeared today. so far, democratic questioning has not smeared him. adam schiff hasn't gone after him because right now this testimony is helping their side of the case. will republicans want to go after sondland for his shifting stories? there's no question he has changed his story repeatedly. >> well, he has and he has provided -- the question i have is do they go after sondland? or do they take sondland's offering? sondland has offered them somebody to throw on the -- on the -- on the roaster here. it's rudy. you know, i didn't want to work with rudy.

nobody wanted towo work with ru. the president told us we had to work with rudy. will the republican defenders of the president decide, well, we can't defend the president's actions here. rudy's the one that went off the reservation. >> he went rogue. >> rudy's the one that went rogue. rudy was feeding bad information. i remember a month ago when you saw rudy's role in this, you thought, well, he's preparing to become the starring role of the fall guy on this. let's see what republicans do. do they discredit sondland? that's a way to protect everybody here and rudy himself. or do they accept some of sondland's testimony and just make it rudy? >> does the president so far seem to continue to embrace rudy giuliani? i mean, he doesn't seem to have gone after him publicly so far with regards to this. >> rudy himself said he was happy he was asked about this. i assume the president's being very careful here. i think he continues to praise rudy. >> chuck, i would think it's a

pretty high-stakes game for the republicans to go and attack rudy because rudy's probably got receipts on the president. and if they start attacking him, they have to worry about what rudy's going to do. >> i know. the risk, though, of trying to discredit him is they make him look credible. >> gordon sondland taking his seat. let's see if we can get to peter alexander very quickly. what are you hearing from the white house? >> the president, he was supposed to depart here on the white house south lawn about 35 minutes ago. he has not yet been seen there. but be reminded the president in a public box of sorts in terms of his comments about gordon sondland. just a month ago, he said that he would love sondland to testify. said he was a really good man and a great american. lester. >> all right. peter alexander and we look inside that room and they're back at it. >> i now recognize ranking member nunes and minority counsel for 45 minutes of questions. >> i thank the gentleman. for those of you watching at home, that was not a bathroom break. that was actually a chance for

the democrats to go out and hold a press conference, ambassador, for all the supposed bombshells that were in your opening testimony. i want to get back to the facts of the matter here. and the thing that the democrats have been unwilling to accept is that their operatives got campaign dirt from ukrainians in the 2016 election. now, they know it. they know it's true. because we have financial records that show it. so they were, the democrats, were heavily involved working with ukrainians to dirty up the trump campaign in 2016. ambassador, i want to go through just a few of the incidents that we know. i know you may not know all about them. you may know about them now. but i want to walk through some of those examples of why the president may be very upset with ukraine and think that they're a

country that's out to get him, as i think both you've said that and ambassador volker have said that from that may 23rd meeting. the first question i have is were you aware of the anti-trump efforts by dnc operative alexander chalupa? >> i am not aware of it. >> so in 20 -- there was a 2017 article that also quotes ukrainian parliamentarian saying quote, it was clear that they were supporting, meaning ukraine, supporting hilary clinton's candidacy and they did everything from organizing meetings with the clinton team to publicly supporting her to criticizing trump. i think that they simply didn't meet with the trump campaign because they thought hilary would win.

you know that ukrainian official? >> i don't. >> were you aware then ambassador to the u.s. wrote an op-ed during the 2016 presidential campaign criticizing then-candidate trump? >> not aware. >> but you know that after the last few months? >> correct. >> probably one of the more disturbing ones is the ukraine internal affairs minister, ivakov, mocked and disparaged then candidate trump on facebook and twitter. were you aware that a ukrainian parliamentarian admitted that part of his motivation in spreading the information about the so-called black ledger, a disputed document purporting to reveal corruption by a former trump campaign official was to undermine the trump candidacy? >> i wasn't aware. >> so you may be familiar the black ledger was used in the 2016 election to dirty up a

campaign associate and later mueller didn't use that as evidence in his report on election meddling. so knowing all these facts from high-ranking ukrainian officials, ambassador, probably makes a little more sense now as to why the president may think that there's problems with ukraine and that ukraine was out to -- out to get him. is that correct? >> i understand your -- i understand your point, yes, chairman. >> because you said -- you said in your deposition, and i'm just going to make sure this was your -- just read it back to you. on page 279 for your legal team, quote, they are all corrupt. this is your -- this is what you said about your conversation with the president. so this is your words, not what the president told you. >> this is the may 23rd meeting? >> that's correct. they are all corrupt.

they are all terrible people and, you know, i don't want to spend any time with that. and he also said they tried to take me down. >> that's correct. >> they tried to take him down, i think any logical person that wants to do two plus two equals four games would say that that was in the 2016 election, wasn't it? >> i believe that's what he was referring to, yes. right. >> so during all this time, and remember in the spring, the democrats russia hoax witch hunt is still ongoing. they're still claiming that president trump is a russian agent. they're out to get -- they're out to get president trump at the time. his personal attorney is then interested in trying to figure out, hey, who are these ukrainians that are trying to get to my candidate? as those of us, the republicans on this committee, who are also trying to get to the bottom of who were the sources in the

steel dossier that the democrats have paid for? the house republicans wanted to know that all through the spring and even the summer of and even as of today, we'd still like to know. that's why we've subpoenaed the dnc operatives that they refuse to subpoena. we sent a letter this morning. i doubt we'll see those subpoenas. we want to know exactly, get to the bottom of exactly, who were these democratic operatives that were dirtying up the trump campaign in 2016? and they just can't get over that the -- that the president would send his personal attorney over there to try to get to the bottom of that. and, ambassador, you had very few dealings with rudy giuliani, a few text messages. >> a few text messages and a few phone calls. >> right. so the whistle-blower, trying to put together here with their timeline, they seem to have a timeline problem because the whistle-blower that only they know, who they won't subpoena, who clearly mr. vindman knows who they blocked testimony yesterday from -- would not

allow mr. vindman to answer our questions. that whistle-blower says on july 25th that there were all these promises being made. yet, the -- i forget what they call it -- the drawing deal that the three amigos were cooking up seems to be their latest. you're part of the three amigos in the drug deal, ambassador. were you aware of any drug deal on july 25th when the phone call actually occurred? >> i don't know about any drug deal. >> right. and did you know you're a part of the three amigos? >> i am. i'm a proud part of the three amigos. >> and that's the same thing ambassador volker said yesterday because by the time that the phone call that supposedly the whistle-blower claims was the reason, was the original quid pro quo, has now got down to we're now, a month later, where

you're involved and their quid pro quo has gotten down to -- down to the low level of, well, they want a statement. and you didn't even know about anything to do with, on july 25th, you knew nothing about military aid being withheld? >> i knew military aid was withheld beginning, i believe, on july 18th when ambassador taylor told both of us that that was the case. >> but on july -- you don't know about -- you were not on the july 25th call? >> i was not. >> where the aid doesn't come up at all? >> again, i just read the readout when everyone else did. >> everybody's testified that was on the july 25th call that there was no aid discussed on the july 25th call. so then you're in the process. you have no idea that this is tied to burisma or anybody else. you say you don't realize that until -- until the end of august. >> i didn't realize that aid was

tied. the burisma and 2016 piece was much earlier, ranking member. >> i'm glad you bring up burisma because this was another issue that the democrats don't want to go into. they refuse to call in hunter biden. hunter biden could get to the bottom of all of this. he could come in and talk about whether or not it was appropriate for him to receive over $50,000 a month while his dad was vice president. and when they -- they actually were able to stop and get a investigator fired. they could call in hunter biden but they don't want to do it. but let's -- let's talk about burisma, ambassador. i know you're the ambassador to the eu. i think some of the members later will get into whether or not it was appropriate for you to be in ukraine or not. i believe it was. i think you have a great mandate -- mandate to do it. but you wouldn't be the first ambassador to actually be interested in burisma.

did you know that in september 2015, then-ambassador to ukraine geoffrey pyatt publicly called for an investigation into the president of burisma? this was the ukrainian ambassador appointed by president obama in ukraine. >> i wasn't aware of that, no. >> you were not aware of it? >> no. >> you would not be the first one to be mentioning that investigations should be done on burisma because it happened during the obama administration. did you know that financial records show burisma routed more than $3 million to the american accounts tied to hunter biden? >> i did not know that. >> did you know that burisma's american lawyers tried to secure a meeting with the new state prosecutor the same day his predecessor, viktor shokin, who the vice president wanted fired, wasn't out? >> did not know that.

>> we're not going to get to the answer to many of these questions because the witnesses that need to come in and clarify exactly what the democrats were doing in 2016, we're not going to be able to visit with those witnesses. and so it's an inconvenient truth that the democrats don't want to admit their operative that were dirtying up the trump campaign, using ukrainian sources in 2016, and they do not want us to get to the bottom of it. they don't want you, ambassador, to get to the bottom of it. they don't want the president's personal attorney, even though he's under a special counsel investigation that they fed into the fbi that we've dealt with for over three years. they don't want to get to the bottom of that, ambassador. i think mr. castro has some questions. >> thank you, mr. nunes. good morning, ambassador. how are you? >> good morning. >> welcome back.

you were here on the 17th late into the night so thank you for your cooperation with the investigation. did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything? >> no. >> okay. so the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released? >> no. >> the president never told you about any preconditions for a white house meeting? >> personally? no. >> the -- you said you didn't have your records or your documents from the state department but if you did, there wouldn't be any document or record that ties president trump personally to any of this, correct? >> i don't want to speculate -- >> your documents or records. >> i don't recall anything like that. >> okay. good heavens. okay. you testified mr. giuliani's request for a quid pro quo for the white house meeting -- and you indicated that you believe that was -- he was -- president

trump's interest, right? >> my contact with mr. giuliani began, as i said, very late in the process. after august 1st when i was first introduced to him via text from ambassador volker. so we had already begun those discussions i believe with the ukrainians prior to august 1st. so everything was being funneled through others, including mr. volker. >> okay. but you testified that mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president, correct? >> that's our understanding, yeah. >> but how did you know that? who told you? >> well, when the president says, talk to my personal attorney and then mr. giuliani, as his personal attorney, makes certain requests or demands, we assume it's coming from the president. i don't -- i don't -- i'm not testifying that i heard the president tell mr. giuliani to tell us. so if that's your question. >> right. but in your deposition, you said -- the question was the may 23rd meeting when the president said go talk to -- go talk to rudy. you -- you responded he didn't

even say go talk. he said talk to rudy. you -- you subsequently said it was sort of like i don't want to talk about this. so it wasn't an order or a direction to go talk with mr. giuliani, correct? >> our conclusion and the conclusion of the three of us was that if we did not talk to rudy, nothing would move forward on ukraine. >> okay. and then that was may 23rd and then you never had any personal communications with giuliani until august, right? >> that's correct. >> and volker was handling, ambassador volker was -- >> volker, perry, and others. >> okay. ambassador volker testified. he's a professional diplomat, correct? >> yes, he is. >> and you said you had a great relationship with him? >> i do. yes. >> you said he was a very smart guy? >> yes. >> ambassador yovanovitch said he's a brilliant diplomat, in fact. do you agree with that? >> he's pretty -- pretty smart.

>> you stated he's one of those people i'd hand my wallet to. >> i would. >> so did you hear his testimony yesterday? >> i did not. >> okay because he didn't -- >> i was busy getting ready for you. >> -- he didn't -- he didn't have any evidence of any of these preconditions and he was the one most engaged with the ukrainians, wasn't he? >> yes. >> okay. i mean, you testified and this was his full-time job, although he was doing it for free. >> he was the special envoy. >> and you testified you came in and out of the events, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. all right. your deposition. we -- we -- we asked you about your communications with the president. and we asked you whether -- there were so many that it would be impossible to chronicle. and you said no, it wasn't that many. and we went down the path of building a list of communications you remember with the president, right? >> correct. >> we talked about may 23rd and the oval office?

>> yes. >> you mentioned on july 25th before you went to ukraine, you called the president. but there was no material information on the 25th call, correct? >> not that i recall. >> okay. then the last friday, mr. holmes came in and i guess his testimony refreshed your recollection? >> yeah. what refreshed my recollection was when he -- when he mentioned asap rocky. then all of a sudden it came back to me. >> and talking about the -- president zelensky loving -- >> well, the whole thing sort of came back to me after he mentioned asap rocky. >> and then the next time, you know, we tried to unpack this, the next time you talked with the president was on the telephone was september 9th according to your deposition, right? >> i may have even spoken to him on september 6th. but, again, i just don't have all the records. i wish i could get them. then i could answer your questions very easily. >> okay. but on september 9th, at least in your deposition, you were extremely clear.

you called the president. you said he was feeling cranky that day, right? >> he seemed very cranky to me. >> and you said in no uncertain terms and this is on the heels of the bill taylor text, right? >> right. >> and why don't you tell us what did the president say to you on september 9th that you remember? >> well, words to the effect -- i -- i decided to ask the president the question in an open-ended fashion because there were so many different scenarios floating around as to what was going on with ukraine. so rather than ask the president nine different questions, is it this, is it this, is it that? i just said, what do you want from ukraine? i may have even used a four-letter word. and he said i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. i just want zelensky to do the right thing. to do what he ran on or words to that effect. and that gave me the impetus to respond to ambassador taylor with the text that i sent, as i said to mr. goldman, it was not an artfully-written text.

i should've been more specific. put it in quotes. something like that. but basically, i wanted mr. taylor, ambassador taylor, to pick up the ball and take it from there. i -- i had gone as far as i could go. >> and you believe the president, correct? >> you know what? i'm not going to characterize whether i believed or didn't believe. i was just goitrying to convey t he said on the phone. >> okay and at that point in time, the aid was paused for 55 days. there was a news article in politico on august 28th. talking about it. so by that point in time, the president had been receiving calls from senators. he had been getting pressure to lift the aid, correct? >> that's what i understand, yes. >> i want to turn back to your opener on page five under -- when -- when you talk about in

the absence of any credible explanation for the 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. correct? >> correct. >> and you acknowledge that this is speculation, right? >> it was a presumption. >> okay. that you -- you -- it was a guess, in fact, i think you even said this morning? >> well, i -- i want to say that it -- it goes back to mr. goldman's point or chairman schiff's two plus two equalled four in my mind at that point. >> okay. but you didn't have any evidence of that, correct? >> other than the aid wasn't being released and we weren't getting anywhere with the ukrainians. >> okay. but did ambassador volker clue you in that that was the issue? i mean, this is a pretty high -- i mean, this is a pretty serious conclusion you've reached without precise evidence. >> well, i sent that e-mail to

secretary pompeo to set up a potential meeting between president trump and president zelensky in warsaw. and when i referred to the log jam, i referred to the log jam in a very inclusive way. everything was jammed up at that point. and secretary pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief president zelensky about making those -- those announcements. >> okay. we can -- we -- we can turn to that. and that was your e-mail dated what date? >> do you have the page there? >> well, your e-mail to secretary pompeo. was that august 11th? 16th? >> august 22nd.

>> okay so you're asking secretary pompeo whether we should block time. is there any discussion of specific investigations? is there any discussion of biden or burisma? or anything linking to aid in this -- in this e-mail that you sent to pompeo? >> no. this -- this was a proposed briefing that i was going to give president zelensky. and i was going to call president zelensky and ask him to say what is in this e-mail. and i was asking, essentially, president pompeo's permission to do that, which he said yes. >> but at that point in time, we're talking about investigations into -- into the origins of the 2016 election. we're not talking about anything to do with joe biden. >> joe biden did not come up. >> okay. stepping back a page to your -- your e-mail to the state department on august 11th, you e-mail secretary pompeo and you

say kurt and i negotiated a statement from zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. and the question i have here is, i mean, that statement never was issued. and, in fact, ambassador volker has testified that he didn't think it was a good idea and ultimately the ukrainians didn't think it was a good idea. and so the -- the statement never reached a finalized state. >> that's correct. >> but even if it had, it doesn't talk about bidens or burisma or anything insidious, correct? >> well, the statement, as i recall, would've mentioned the 2016 elections slash dnc server and burisma. it would not have mentioned the bidens. >> and have you heard ambassador volker how he talks about what might be an investigation into burisma? >> no. >> okay. i mean, he has said that if there were ukrainians engaged in

violations of ukrainian law, then the prosecutor general with the due administration ought to investigate that. did ambassador volker ever relay that to you? >> no. we just talked in generic terms about quote investigating burisma. >> okay. but it had nothing to do with vice president biden. >> i never heard vice president biden come up until very late in the game. >> when? >> i don't recall the exact date but when it all sort of came together. maybe after the transcript of the july 25th call. i don't know. i don't know the exact date when i made the connection. >> okay. >> apparently, a lot of people did not make the connection. >> okay. i want to turn to the -- the letter from senator johnson. he -- when he heard about some of these issues and the hold of the aid, he called the president. he called the president on august 31st. it's page six of his letter. senator johnson states or he writes, i asked him, the president, whether there was

some kind of arrangement where ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. without hesitation, president trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed. senator johnson quotes the president as saying, no, and he prefaced it with a different word. no way. i would never do that. who told you that? i have -- senator johnson says i have accurately characterized the president's reaction is adamant, vehement, and angry. senator johnson's telephone call with the president wasn't a public event. it was capturing a genuine, you know, moment with the president. and -- and he had, at this point in time on august 31st, he was adamant, vehement, and angry that there was no connections to -- to aid. there were no preconditions. >> i had my meeting with senator johnson where, again, i had made

the presumption that i had made to both mr. yermak and the e-mail i had sent to secretary pompeo. and we were sort of ruminating about what was going on and senator johnson, i believe, said i'm going to call president trump, you know, and find out. and then he obviously had that phone call. i wasn't involved in that phone call. >> okay. but you have no reason to disbelieve that wasn't the way it went down, right? >> no. no reason to disbelieve senator johnson. >> and now that you've had some time since your deposition and you submitted a -- an addendum relating to the warsaw get together with mr. yermak, as you sit here today, i mean, are we missing a lot of your communications with the president? >> i haven't had that many communications with the president. and, in fact, a bunch of the call records that i have had access to, just the short period of time on the call indicates i never got through. in other words, i was put on hold for one or two minutes and

the call never connected. so i really can't give you an accurate count of how many conversations. plus, mr. castor, i've had a lot of conversations with the president on matters that have nothing to do with ukraine. >> but you don't think we're missing any material conversations you had with the president? >> i -- i don't recall any material conversations today as i'm sitting here. >> or with rudy giuliani? >> yeah. my -- my memory about the conversations with rudy giuliani, whether they were direct, whether they were conference calls with ambassador volker or secretary perry, is really vague without seeing the -- you know, the call -- the call log. >> are there any other key fact witnesses that would help us, you know, get to the -- get to the bottom of whether there was any link -- any link to the aid? >> maybe brian mccormick, the

chief of staff who was involved and in ask ond out as well. >> okay. now, the aid was ultimately lifted on september 11th, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> okay. and senator johnson, in his letter on page six, quotes the president on august 31st. ron, i understand your position. we're reviewing it now and you'll probably like my final decision. so even on august 31st, and this is before any congressional investigation started, the president was signaling to senator johnson that he was going to lift the aid. >> sounds like it, yeah. >> okay. and most of the other witnesses we talk to, whether it's from the department of defense or omb or, you know, have told us that all along during this 55-day period, they genuinely believed the hold would be lifted. was that your feeling, too, at the time? >> i didn't know because every time i asked about the hold, i

was never given a straight answer as to why it had been put in place to begin with. >> now, what do you know about the ukrainians' knowledge of the hold? >> oh, that's very vague. i don't know if the "politico" article triggered it. i don't know if they were told by mr. giuliani it would be pure, you know, guess work on my part. speculation. i don't -- i don't know. >> okay. during your deposition, you -- you testified that you did not believe the ukrainians were aware of the hold until the "politico" article? >> yeah, again, i think i testified that i was not clear on the exact dates of when these things -- when the light went on. there were a lot of conversations going on with the ukrainians by a lot of people. so i don't know who communicated what to them. >> we have testimony from several witnesses that the president was concerned about foreign aid generally and so he

was -- he had an appetite to put holds on aid because he was trying to be a good steward of u.s. taxpayer dollars. do you agree with that? >> i'm aware that that's been his position on aid and other matters, yes. >> and are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our european allies? >> that i'm definitely aware of. >> and there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the president? >> yes, that's correct. >> and how do you know that wasn't the reason for the hold? >> i don't. >> but yet, you -- you speculate that there was, you know, a link to the -- this announcement. >> i presumed it. yes. >> okay. i want to turn quickly to the july 10th meeting. the -- the july 10th meeting in

ambassador bolton's office involving ambassador volker, mr. yermak, has been the subject of some controversy. ambassador volker yesterday testified that it wasn't until the end of the meeting, he said he was going through some real detailed -- some real detailed information about some of the plans he had. but it wasn't until the end of the meeting, ambassador volker recollects, that you mentioned something general about the investigations. what do you remember from that meeting? >> well, again, i'm not going to dispute ambassador volker's recollection. particularly, if he had notes. i -- i know that the desire to have the 2016 election dnc server and burisma were already being discussed by them. again, i had no direct contact with mr. giuliani on july 10th. but through ambassador volker.

and i probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. that seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. i don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. that would have been very memorable if someone had stormed out of a meeting based on something i said. >> okay. and nobody accused you at that point in time of being involved with some sort of drug deal? >> no. >> did dr. hill ever relate to you her concerns about you being involved in a drug deal? >> never. >> okay. so you were surprised when testimony emerged that she thought there was a -- a drug deal going on. >> i was shocked. >> okay. >> and, in fact, after the meeting, you went out, you took a picture, right? >> yeah. we -- ambassador bolton or his assistant indicated that he was out of time. that he needed -- he had another meeting to attend and we all walked out of the white house. everyone was smiling. everyone was happy.

and we took a picture on the lawn on a nice, sunny day. >> did you retire to the ward room? >> i think secretary perry asked to use the ward room to continue the conversation. and the real subject that was under debate, and it wasn't a angry debate. it was a debate. just should the call from president trump to president zelensky be made prior to the parliamentary elections in ukraine or after the parliamentary elections? and there was good reason for both. we felt, ambassador perry, ambassador volker, and i, thought it would help president zelensky to have president trump speak to him prior to the parliamentary elections because it would give president zelensky more credibility. and ultimately, he would do better with his people in the parliamentary election. others, i believe, pushed back and said, no, it's not appropriate to do it before. it should be done after. and ultimately, it was done after.

>> okay. there was no mention of vice president biden in the ward room? >> not that i heard, no. >> or any specific investigation? >> just the generic investigation. >> okay. when, again, did -- did the -- the vice president biden nexus come to your attention? >> very late. again, i don't -- i can't recall the exact date the light bulb went on. it could have been as late as once the transcript was out. but it was always burisma to me and i didn't know about the connection between burisma and biden. >> and to the best of your knowledge, you never understood that anyone was asking ukrainians to investigate u.s. persons, correct? >> ukrainians to investigate u.s. persons? >> right. >> no. >> okay. >> no. >> and just to sort of be clear

here, ultimately, the aid was lifted on september 11th. there was never any announcement by the ukrainians about any investigations they were going to do, correct? >> correct. >> the ukrainians never, to your knowledge, started any of these investigations, correct? >> not to my knowledge. >> and consequently, these allegations that there was a quid pro quo that had to be enforced before the aid is released, that never came to fruition, right? >> i don't believe so. >> i want to just step back a little bit and just verify with you that the president had some genuinely deep-rooted concerns about corruption in ukraine, correct?

>> that's what he expressed to us, yeah. >> okay. and you believed him, right, given his business dealings in the region? >> when we had the conversation, i did. >> and when you first started discussing the concerns the president had with corruption, burisma wasn't the only company that was mentioned, right? >> it was a generic, as i think i testified to chairman schiff, it was a generic corruption, oligarchs, just bad stuff going on in ukraine. >> okay. and -- but other companies came up, didn't they? >> i don't know if they were mentioned specifically. it might've been nafta gas because we were working on another issue with nafta gas so that might've been one of them. >> at one point in your deposition, i believe you said you had nafta gas comes up in every conversation. is that fair? >> probably.

>> you had -- i guess dr. hill at one point attributed to you the terminology that the president has given you a large remit. are you familiar with her assertion of that? >> i didn't understand what she was talking about. >> okay. but -- but you -- you have and we got into this a little bit in your deposition. you know, you said that the president gave you a special assignment with -- with regard to ukraine, correct? >> well, when the president appointed me to the -- as the u.s. ambassador to the european union, ukraine was part of my portfolio. what made my assignment larger than just being part of my portfolio were the unique circumstances where there was no current sitting ambassador in ukraine. and there was a new president in ukraine. and the discussions that we had, the three amigos, perry, volker,

and i, was that ukraine needed extraordinary, high-level support as it could get from the united states during this period, swhich we cleared with both ambassador bolton and with chief of staff mulvaney to continue working on it. so by extension, yes, if -- if the national security advisor and the chief of staff approve your remit, it really is coming from the president. >> okay. when we asked you that at the deposition, you said i was spinning a little bit. >> i was spinning about something else i think in the -- in the interview in kyiv. >> okay. and you further testified, so when i said the president gave me an assignment, it wasn't really the president. it was a secretary through the president. and -- and that -- that's where i received my direction, correct? >> correct. >> okay. did ambassador taylor ever bring any concerns to your attention about the so-called -- the

channel he dubbed irregular? >> no, in fact, the opposite. when he came to post, i think -- i know i called him or he called me. i think he spoke with secretary perry and ambassador volker separately. and in the course of the first few weeks, he was highly appreciative that a new ambassador coming to post like -- like himself -- was getting the kind of support he was getting from all three of us. having a cabinet member, a special envoy, and a fellow ambassador all helping to raise the profile of ukraine. he was highly appreciative and highly complimentary. >> and you maintained an open -- open line with him, correct? >> correct. i think there are a number of texts, some of which i have and some of which i don't, where he is reaching out constantly to me and to the others for advice and help. >> okay. we had -- i think tried to count them up. there's 215 or something text messages between you, volker,

and ambassador taylor. you know, during the -- the early august timeframe. does that -- does that make sense to you? >> yeah. i think -- i think taylor started in late june or early july was when he first took post. and i think we began communicating fairly shortly thereafter. >> okay. and he -- he never communicated any concerns to you during this timeframe that -- that he -- he had issues with what was going on? >> what do you mean by what was going on? >> this request for some sort of investigation? >> not in the early stages. you know, as his -- as -- as time went on, his e-mails began to be a little more pointed and frantic. and that's when we had very little visibility as to what was going on either. i think it had to do more with the aid and as to why the aid was suspended. >> right. and -- and ultimately, you put a period on that issue by having the september 9th communication

with the president, correct? >> that's correct. >> and when you shared that feedback with ambassador taylor, was -- was he satisfied that this issue was now behind him? >> i don't really know because he responded when i said, you know, get ahold of the secretary, he said, i agree. and i never knew whether he reached out to the secretary or not. that was sort of the end of that. >> at one point in your text, you said let's get on the let' right? you said you're an individual that doesn't like to walk through these issues through text when you can talk about it on the telephone, correct? >> i say that to everybody when something becomes more substantive than just a few lines of text. i say let's talk. >> and did you talk with ambassador taylor? >> i don't recall. i don't recall whether we spoke right after that, whether he called the secretary. i basically, mr. castor, wanted to get the notion across that i had gone as far as i can go with this. you need to pick up -- you're the ambassador. you need to pick up the ball and run with it at this point. >> okay. just getting back to the