did by obligation you mean simply your legal obligation or did you mean something bigger? >> well both my legal obligation and my moral obligation. >> your mobil moral obligation. i want to actually present an alternative theory. your family came here escaping the the holocaust via uruguay, and your parents moved lucy and, later, you here, where, frankly, you have been an american success story through dent of hard work and innovation, good idea, a knack to hire the right people and some luck, you've built a considerable successful business, one that i know for a fact would make your parents proud. they came here because they knew that it was here that they could have freedom that they had not enjoyed, security that they had

not enjoyed, and opportunity that they had not enjoyed, and no doubt, on some level, you're grateful and it's created a since of pain you. is that fair to say? >> very fair. why then, sir, with your courage to come before us does that same standard not apply to mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, mr. pompeo, mr. bolton, mr. volt, mr. giuliani, why wouldn't those same sentiments be within their hearts to do their patriotic duty and do what you have done, sirteed, whdoesne standard apply to the president of the united states? >> i wish i could answer. suspect you can't because there is no good answer. but i do appreciate your willingness to come here today. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman.

mr. jordan. thank you, i ask yiewp unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from chief of staff mick mulvaney. >> we haven't seen all the statements but i presume they're accurate and no objection. >> ambassador, president trump is not a big fan of foreign aid, is that right? >> i don't know if that's a fair characterization. i think he's careful. >> he' expressed concerns about foreign aid going to kern certan countries. >> yes. he believed ukraine was corrupt. >> yes. and wanted europe to do more. definitely. and the president had a belief that ukrainian government officials, some senior ukrainian government officials supported his opponent in 2016. won't go into all the details, but i think of the one member of parliament who said that the majority of ukrainian politicians want hillary clinton to win, so he had that belief as well and obviously he understood what was happening. we've got a brand-new guy in ukraine, this zelensky guy wins, right? >> right. and his party takes over and

president trump wants to see, with all these other things that are of concern to him, he wants to see if this new guy is actually, as i like to say, the real reformer and going to deal with the corruption problem and it gets held up for 5 55 days, gets held up on july 18, released on september 11. but it seems to me, more important than the 55-day pause is the 14 days, when ukraine realized aid was held up on the 29th. we've now had you testify to that, the two witnesses yesterday testified to that, the political article. so a gets held up on august -- excuse me -- ukraine learns aid is withheld on august 29 and then, of course, released on september 11. in those 14 days, there are three important petings with senior government initials and president zelensky. there is the august 29 meeting between ambassador bolton and president zelensky, there's the meeting september 1 you're a part of, vice president pence

meets with president zelensky, and then there's a meeting on september 5 where u.s. senators murphy and johnson meet with president zelensky. none of those meetings did any linkage to security systems dollars and an announcement or start of any investigation ever come up. none of them. but it seems to me the one that's most important is probably the one we've talked least about and that's the september 5th meeting, because that's actually a meeting where there is no one -- well, it's much more congressional focus than white house focus. this is the meeting where senators murphy, senators murphy and johnson, bipartisan, meet with president zelensky. and what's interesting is what both senators in the last two days give us letters recounted what happened in that meeting. senator murphy said i broached the topic of pressure by the president on rudy giuliani and

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

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

zelensky to do exactly what he campaigned on. and when that became clear to us, guess what? they got the money, they got the money. god bless america, it all worked out, right? this is crazy what we're going through because the facts are so darn clear. i yield back. >> mr. welch. thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, i'm impressed with your career, been very successful in business. i'm impressed with your commitment to public service, and i was very impressed with your forthright statement, so thank you for that. you said it was the highest honor for you to have this opportunity to have this appointment to serve as ambassador to the e.u., correct? >> correct. and you quickly became very involved in the ukraine policy. in that policy has been described by you and others was really very clear, help ukraine fight internal corruption and

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

correct? >> yes. all right. and incredibly urgent, ambassador taylor described going to the front where ukrainians were dying, 14,000 had died, and it was an existential issue for them that they get the aid, and you were well aware of that and shared, i'm sure, ambassador taylor's concern. is that correct? >> i did. and your forthright testimony, you've testified -- and it's really with the benefit of hindsight because you couldn't piece it all together. giuliani knew in realtime what you were trying to figure out as you went along. is that a fair statement? >> i think so. one you testified that you acted on the orders of the president. that was you acting on his orders, correct? >> correct. and you said, quite explicitly, there was a quid pro quo relating to the -- >> relating to the meeting and

the burisma d.n.c. -- >> that's exactly right. no meeting unless there's an investigation, right? >> that's what we were told by from giuliani. >> all right, and mr. giuliani, you -- >> wait. no meeting unless there was an announcement of investigation. >> okay. thank you. and i asked -- by the way, did the efforts of mr. giuliani authorized by the president impede the efforts that you and others were making to try toed a vans what you thought was that ukraine policy? >> not initially. we were just working toward -- >> ultimately? well, ultimately, nothing happened. >> right. and giuliani was the one who was absolutely insistent on the meeting, correct? >> giuliani was insistent on the -- >> on the investigation. -- on the investigation, right. >> now, i ask this of ambassador taylor or ambassador volcker -- if the mayor of portland said to the police chief, i'm not going to authorize your budget unless

you agree to do an investigation into my political opponent, would that be wrong? >> of course. and, likewise, if it were the governor of the state of oregon doing the same thing, correct? >> correct. and would that same rule apply to the president of the united states? >> to investigate a political opponent? >> that's correct. yes. all right. so that's the question here. the president, in his phone call, he asked president zelensky, who desperately needed the release of that aid, who desperately needed the white house meeting, to do an investigation and it was focused on the bidens and hunter biden and burisma and crowdstrike. you don't have to answer that. the president's words speak for themselves. do you feel, as person who went into public service to serve, who had a team of people that

shared your desire to help ukraine, do you feel in any way betrayed by the devil dealing of the president? this is a real question. >> i don't want to characterize -- >> you don't have to characterize him. i'm just -- you know, we all, if we get a chance to do something useful, we like to do it, and there's no better joy than when you're doing it with other people. >> mr. welch, let me answer your question this way, i would have preferred and i'm sure everyone would have referred that the president simply met with mr. zelensky right away. our assessment of mr. zelensky was that he and the president would get on famously. he was smart, he was funny, he was charming, he was the kind of person the president would like and, once the two of them got together, we thought the chemistry would take over and good things would happen between the u.s. and ukraine relationship, that's why we were pushing for a quick, unconditional meeting. >> it's unfortunate he was unwilling to meet without the commitment on the investigation.

thank you, agh. you would have preferred, if they just had the meeting with the president of ukraine, without these conditions, is that what you're saying? >> yes. conditions, and it involved an investigation, right? >> well, remember, the initial invitation that the president sent to president zelensky had no conditions. >> but that didn't last very long, did it? and then there were conditions -- this is not controversial at this point -- there were conditions the president wanted investigationsy. >> e. and you thought burisma and 2016 elections. >> yes. we now know burisma means bidens now right. >> we do. can probably today till the end of time set atiedside any confusion that when somebody's asking for an investigation of burisma over the summer what they meant was bidens. >> with 2020 hindsight, yes.

and on the day after the president's famous call, you're having lunch with david homes, and he overhears your conversation, and i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr. holmes said, and i think you said you wouldn't have any reason to think he didn't speak about investigations with the president. the president raised investigations with you, right? >> correct. on the 26th? correct. and we now know, of course, that was about the bidens and burisma and 2016, right? i mean, i know you didn't know that at the time. that's your testimony, but we understand that, right. >> i know it to mean burisma. >> reporter: mr. holmes said bidens but you don't recall that. >> no. you dispute it. i do. but you don't recall it. but we know that's with the president and you do confirm he wanted to talk about investigations with you. >> now with the complete picture what he said 24 hours before, yes, makes sense. >> i understand. and you said it's wrong to investigate political opponents, we've agreed on that today, haven't we, siridt was askng for

let mek yo something, who would have benefited from an investigation of the president's political opponents? >> i don't want to characterize who would have and who would not have. >> i know you don't want to, sir. would you answer my question? >> restate your question. who would benefit from an investigation of the president's political opponent? >> well, presumably the person who asked for the investigation. >> who's that? if the president asked for the investigation it would be he. >> it's not a hypothetical, sir. we just went around this track. the president asked you about investigations, he was talking about the bidens. when he asked about the investigation, who was he seeking to benefit? >> he did not ask me about the biden investigation. he asked me -- >> circumstances we just went through this. when he asked you about investigations which we all agree means the bidens -- we

just did this 30 seconds ago -- it's a pretty simple question, isn't it? i guess i'm having trouble why you can't just say -- >> when he asked about investigations, i assumed he meant -- >> i know what you assumed but who would benefit from an biden? >> they're two different questions. >> i'm just asking you one. who would benefit from an investigation of the bidens? >> i assume president trump would benefit. >> there we have it! see? ( applause ) le didn't hurt a bit, did it? didn't hurt a bit. but let me ask you something -- >> mr. maloney, excuse me, i have been very forthright and i really resent what you're trying to -- >> fair enough, you have been very forthright, this is your fourth try to do so. didn't work the first time. we had a declaration coming after, thin a third time and a dues duesy of a statement this morning. so with all due respect, we appreciate your candor, but let's be clear on what it took to get it out of you.

so my question is, when the president's putting pressure on the ukrainians withholding a meeting to get this investigation that you and i agree would benefit him politically, what kind of position does that put the ukrainians in, sir? >> a terrible position. terrible position. why? >> why does it put them in a terrible position? >> why? ell, obviously, they're not receiving, ultimately, what they thought was coming to them, and they are put in a -- in a position that jeopardizes their security. >> a position that jeopardizes their security and they're being asked to do an investigation to help their security, essentially, that would benefit the president politically? in other words, you might say they're being asked to give him a personal benefit in exchange for an official act. is that a fair summary? >> in your hypothetical, that's

correct. >> it's not a hypothetical, sir. this is real life.re ty asked ta personal benefit in exchange for an official act? >> sir, i am not going to go around in circles with you. please be clear about what you're asking me. >> my time's expired, sir. thank you for your appearance. >> ms. demmings. good afternoon, ambassador. it's good to see you again. >> thank you. do you have any knowledge of a possible meeting on or around may 7th involving then president-elect zelensky and several of his aides to discuss how to handle pressure from president trump and mr. giuliani about investigating the bidens? >> i don't recall such a meeting. >> you don't recall such a meeting? you don't recall hearing anything about such a meeting. >> again. if you don't have firsthand

knowledge. >> if i don't have record schedules, right now i don't recall anything about such a meeting. >> ambassador, in the -- is this a meeting among the ukrainians? >> it's a meeting among the ukrainians involving then president-elect zelensky, so this would have been early on in his presidency with several aids to dupsz how to handle -- discuss how to handle pressure from president trump and mr. giuliani about investigating the bidens. >> yeah, i don't recall such a meeting. >> you don't remember that. ambassador, in i believe it was the may 23rd meeting, you talked about how the president categorized ukraine, what he thought about ukraine. i believe that meeting was on may 23rd. did you ever hear president zelensky relay any concerns about you about how he felt, about how the united states viewed him, whether he was being taken seriously or any concerns about being used as a tool for

political reasons? >> well, i saw that in an email from ambassador taylor. we obviously tried to relate to president zelensky the glass half full version of how the united states felt about ukraine, not the glass half empty version, which is we're here for you, we support you and we're trying very hard to get you the meeting with president trump. >> so after hearing that from ambassador taylor, you relayed -- you tried to reassure president zelensky that america was truly on their side? >> i think we have been trying to assure president zelensky throughout his entire term as a president. >> ambassador, i know you said you don't quite remember exactly when you came to the realization that burisma actually meant bidens. but back on may 6, when asked about a news report about the role of former vice president's son on burisma, president trump told fox news that it was, and i

quote, a major scandal, major problem. on may 9th, the "new yorkto trao ukraine and "shortly to meet with president zelensky to urge him to pursue the 2016 election and the involvement of hunter biden in burisma." are you saying that you do not -- did not realize at that time, we're talking about on may 9th of this year, that mr. giuliani wanted to urge president zelensky to pursue the 2016 election and the involvement of hunter biden of burisma? >> i do not, but i did not then. and i believe you said earlier you do not or did not may attention at all to the numerous news reports of the person you were directed by the president to work with while he was on television over and over and over again, talking about hunter biden, and burisma.

>> no, i did not. on september 9th, in a text from ambassador taylor, he said something to the effect of are we now saying that aid is tied to investigations? and i believe you texted back, call me. then you had a conversation with president trump, and president trump said something to the effect that there is no quid pro quo. do you know what prompted him to say that? you asked him, what do you want? and he goes directly to, theredd to going directly to the list of things that he wanted. what prompted him to use that term? >> i have no clue. did you discuss your conversation -- or your text from ambassador taylor with president trump before he made that statement? >> i did not. i asked a very open-ended question, what do you want from ukraine. >> and you remember that directly, although there are several other conversations that you cannot recall because you don't have your notes or your documents or your e-mails or

other information, but you remember that call specifically, exactly what the president said to you in response to your question about what do you want. why is that? >> i remember the first girl i kissed. >> you dissed - -- you dissed -i won't say that, anyway. >> i remember that conversation because as i said it was a pretty intense short conversation. >> and tell me again about the conversation you had at the restaurant that was overheard by mr. holmes because that was a conversation with the president. tell me about that conversation with the president. what was said on the phone? >> again, i don't remember the specifics. i'm being guided by what mr. holmes secretary o testifie. i said i didn't dispute the basic subject of the conversation. as i said, we were talking primarily about asap rocky, that was a completed unrelated matter and i think the president might

have brought up how to go with zelensky, was he going to do the investigation which we had been talking about for weeks and then, as i said, i dispute the -- is it mr. holmes' characterization of what i said afterwards. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. christopher. good afternoon, mr. ambassador. i'm going to pick up on the september 9 conversation in which the. allegedly said i want nothing, i don't want a quid pro quo. i presume that, on this september 9th conversation, the president did not mention that that was the same day that we launched a congressional investigation into whether there was a quid pro quo. did he say that to you? >> again, i know all of that noe didn't have a time to talk about things like that. >> i presume he didn't mention the whistleblower complaint that also alleged there was a quid pro quo that day? >> he did not. so you can't rule out the possibility that the reason that he started talking that way on

that day was because to have the congressional investigation? >> i can't rule that out. you know, the inauguration of president zelensky was on may 20th, correct? >> correct. as you stated, you attended this inauguration with senator johnson, secretary perry, lieutenant colonel vindman and others, right? >> correct. but vice president pence was supposed to originally attend that, correct? >> i believe so. we learn from jennifer williams, a witness who testified, that it was at the president's direction on may 13th that the vice president not attend. she said that, according to the vice president's chief of staff, the president determined that the vice president would not go. do you know why the vice president did not attend the inauguration? >> no clue. i want to point to a "new york times" article from last week that says that lev parnas' attorney, you've heard of this gentleman, lev parnas, an associate of rudy giuliani -- >> only what i've read very

recently. >> he was recently indicted? yeah. mr. parnas told a representative of the incoming government, the zelensky government, that it had to announce an investigation into trump's political rival joseph r. biden and his son, or else vice president mike pence would not attend the swearing in of the new president and the united states would freeze aid. did the vice president not attend possibly because this investigation had not yet been initiated by the zelensky government? >> i have no idea. you can't rule it out, right? again, i have no idea. you have no basis for ruling it out, however, correct? >> all i know is that the leader of the delegation was secretary perry, who invited me along. >> interestingly, ambassador sondland, since you came forward in these proceedings, others in the administration have tried to distance themselves from you. you know, on october 14th, rudy giuliani told "the washington post" that sondland,

quote, seemed to be in charge, close quote, of the effort to get ukrainian officials to accomplish -- or to publicly announcef i had been in charge,i would have asked president trump to have the meeting without preconditions and the meeting would have occurred a long time ago. >> that's exactly right. the president was the one who wanted these investigations, as we learn later on in reading the july 25 call transcript, isn't that right? >> the president through mr. giuliani as conveyed through mr. giuliani wanted the investigations. >> mr. tim morrison came in yesterday and in his deposition testimony as well as questioned disparaged you, too, called you the "gordon problem." >> that's what my wife calls me. ( laughter ) maybe they're talking. should i be worried? >> may be. ( laughter ) you know, on october 8th of

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

is that correct? >> that's correct. e presumption military aid was conditioned on investigations was based on mulvaney's statement we saw on the video. isn't that right? >> well, i didn't have the benefit at that time of mulvaney's statement. >> but you would stand on the presumption you had based on the information you have now, right. >> right. own september one when you told an dry yermic about your presumption about military aid conditioned on investigations, you then told mr. morrison what you told yermic and morrison did not dispute your presumption? >> i don't recall him disputing it. i think i we want right to him and repeat the conversation. >> when you told vice president your concerns he didn't dispute that as well? >> he didn't respond, he just listened. >> and when you told secretary pompeo, that wasn't disputed as

well? >> i don't recall. that concludes the questioning. do you have any closing remarks? >> just briefly, ambassador, i know you want to get on a plane, so i want to thank you for your indulgence today. once again, the american people have seen another failure of their preposterous conspiracy theory, which that's if their conspiracy theory doesn't change between now and our next hearing, which is in a few hours from now or another hour or so, and it keeps changing every day. the claim ambassador -- they claim, ambassador, that you're accused of having an irregular channel, drug deals now supposedly, you're one amigo, nobody on this side of the aisle claimed you were one amigo. >> i lost my amigos? not from us, not from us. no bribes given to -- that you made any bribes to the ukrainian people or to the