there's three things that i think are clear about gordon sondland., he fudged his testimony over and over again. i'm being charitable. two, every time he fudged it, he was in donald trump's favor. it softened it for donald trump. and, three, even with that softened version, he still provided damaging testimony against donald trump. >> so what does it mean for the other people overhearing the phone call and the date not matching up? what does that mean for the other person to say -- >> well, you have to make a credibility assessment. >> that's a different call. >> well, the question is, is there two different calls or is he really just fudging it on one? it doesn't seem like that september 9th call ever happened. it seems like what sondland did was sort of fudge the date and fudge the content just a bit. >> thank you, gentlemen. i appreciate it. >>> a new biography is shedding light on melania trump's life as first lady including the story behind her hospital stay, her relationship with ivanka trump, why the president requested a lock for his bedroom

the other question is whether or not gordon sondland is actually confused about this call.ee the additional quid pro quo call is not exactly exonerating the president, what happened to the extent the president did say the words, no quid pro quo, he then went on to describe and request a precise quid pro quo. that really does undercut any semblance of a defense here whatsoever. >> go ahead, jeffrey. >> what's wrong with these people? why don't they take notes when they talk to the president of the united states? is that a lot to ask? gordon sondland, this hotel guy is like wandering around the country -- around the world, and having conversations and he can't remember and he doesn't remember what the president said, maybe he's mixing up phone calls. who are these people? >> remember, he said i'm not a note taker, i don't take a lot of notes. he said that before the committee. >> maybe he should have. it's the incompetence and ridiculousness of appointing this clown in the first place is extraordinary. sorry, i don't take notes when the president is telling me what to do. wha

>> after the whistle-blower came forward, aid was released, and president trump according to gordon sondland said no quid pro quo, no quid pro quo, i don't want anything from zelensky, after it was raised in public whether it was a quid pro quo. >> yes. >> and sondland was asked, this is not as noticed, he was asked did you believe president trump. let's roll that sound. >> 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 trying to convey what he said on the phone. >> seems like it would be a simple answer if you believe that president trump meant it. >> well, it should, maybe he should have answered it directly. we have sondland's testimony. what we saw in the judiciary committee, you have to take all of sondland, not little pieces. and the only direct evidence of men's ray a, intent, was on the phone call. that's the problem the democrats have. they promised impeachment by christmas. that's why we're having this conversation now. what they should have done in the objection of congress article, they shou

and i have to say, in this case, with gordon sondland, it's going to be easier to do than with lieutenant, with bill taylor, with marie yovanovitch, because of sondland's providence. the fact that he basically paid for play to get this job with that $1 million donation. tomorrow, we have got a highly credible witness. fiona hill, a russia expert. she's going to be extremely hard to shake and i suspect her written testimony is going to be invaluable in filling in any blanks that gordon sondland might not yet have refreshed himself about. >> there was a question before, willie. and no members have had a seat yet. obviously, they are reading this as we are. >> what do they do now? i mean, what do they do now? >> this is incredible. >> this is going to be really interesting. >> they can't trash -- they can, of course, trash this man, but this guy was in the tank for donald trump from day one, gave him $1 million. got awarded this ambassadorship. and sondland and giuliani went all over europe, and the republicans had ophoped, i'm su, that he was going to plead the fifth. but as claire told us

, we all remember be gordon, gordon sondland, wandering his way to an escalator with this guy who speaks english as a second language, and gordon says, maybe i said something to him about this. i mean, that was the whole deal for them. then i mean you talk about embarrassing, the same day that they introduced their articles of impeachment, that we knew they were going to introduce one way or another the moment they took the majority, comes out that yermak denies the whole thing. show me the ukrainian that was pressured. show me the ukrainian that knew that any of this was tied to any conditionality. there's no conditionality in the call and so it's quite easy to answer miss jayapal and the gentle lady from washington's question. very easy. in this case there is no conditionality. you can't prove it, you have no evidence and even the ukrainians, even yourth purport victims are coming out in the press saying, their theory of the case is wrong, their fundamental premise has been rejected. yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> yield back. >> yield back to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i

that's something that gordon sondland testified was a "quik quik." -o -o -- a "quid pro quo" and security investigations tied to those as well. the vice president after a meeting -- a meeting between vice president pence in warsaw gordon sondland had a meeting pulled him aside saying the security assistance was likely tied to investigations. pence denied they had any knowledge of a quid pro quo and that even they discussed a quid pro quo or any security assistance tied to investigations in a conversation with sondland in that warsaw meeting. nevertheless, democrats say this effort by the president tied in everybody in the administration and also saying in this report, brianna, this goes beyond the effort, to oust the ukrainian ambassador marie yovanovitch. they're saying this scheme the president was involved in part of an effort removing this ambassador to further the president's political interests and putting his personal attorney rudy giuliani in charge of u.s. and ukraine policy and laying out a detailed account in their view of what they see as

it looked like this ♪ >> jimmy: yeah, it was - ♪ can we - [ laughter ] can we see a photo of gordon sondland is. yeah [ light laughter ] some of you may recognize him from his famous line in "the princess bride" when he said, "inconceivable." [ laughter ] the bombshell from today's hearing happened when ambassador sondland clearly stated there was a quid pro quo. >> was there a quid pro quo? with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting? the answer is yes. [ audience oohs >> jimmy: the quid pro quo is really bad news for trump. mostly because now he has to learn latin words. [ laughter ] "i barely know english expecto patronum." [ laughter ] [ cheers and applause that's not latin that's not - don't tell him don't tell him right after that, mike pence was on the phone like, "can you send someone to move all my stuff in to the oval office? thank you. [ light laughter ] but later in the hearing, sondland was questioned about mike pence's role in all of this >> now, you mentioned that you also had a conversation with vice president pence what did you say to the vice p

gordon sondland testifie that he told vice president pence about his concerns abouthe quid pro quo.sondland testified, "i mentioned to vice president pencere behe meetings with the ukrainians that i had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of inveigations." so not only did gordon sondland verify that mike pence knewbout the quid pro quo, he also has refused to cooperath ongress by refusing to hand over documents that have been subpoenae so the two artles that are being presented for the president's impeachment also raise problems with the vice president's conduct, do they not? >> they do. and there's something more, and thats jennifer williams, who is on detail to the vice president's offi, national security career person, supplemented her testimony with a classified submission. that submission goes to what the vice president knew or any role the vice president may have had. we have asked the vice president to declassify it. this information.to classify it is not a basis to classify information to eentially hide it because it is incriminating or embarrassing.

that was gordon sondland, he testified and gave conjecture and opinion but when he testified what he knew on the facts, trump wanted nothing, no quid pro quo, matt gaetz demonstrated this impeachment charade is baseless, feckless, witness list, and it is a scam. take a look. >> to all of the witnesses, if you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the report, please raise your hand. and let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact and that continues on the tradition that we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an impeachable offense. never met with the president, fiona hill never referenced anything regarding military aid. mr. hale was unaware of any nefarious activity. colonel vin vindman denied that bribery was invoked, mr. morrison said there was nothing wrong on the call. the only direct evidence came from gordon sondland who spoke to the president of united states and the president said i want nothing. no quid pro quo. >> sean: let the record reflect case closed, checkmate. i yelled back the remaining time i have rated no

gordon sondland made the call. sondland told the president the leader of ukraine, quote, loves your ass. this means that foreign surveillance could have picked up any calls between the president and his attorney, rudy giuliani, whose call logs were subpoenaed by congress. speaking of giuliani, his current whereabouts are something of a mystery after a surprise tour of eastern european capitals where the president's attorney met with former ukrainian officials trying to dig up dirt on the bidens. all he would tell cnn is he's no longer in ukraine. the trip caught a lot of people off guard including apparently senior officials at the white house according to a new report in "the daily beast." er erin, you're reporting that giuliani's trip has startled some sen senior administration officials. what have you learned? >> we started looking at this story a couple of days ago, and we started pinging people in the trump administration, senior officials in both the state department and the national security council. what we

testified under oath fiona hill, colonel vindman, gordon sondland. john bolton thought that mick mulvaney, gordon sondland and rudy were somehow involved in a drug deal. how does susan collins, lisa murkowski and any other vulnerable republican say i don't think he was relevant? how does mitch mcconnell hold that caucus together, hearing from the person described as multiple witnesses as describing trump's conduct as a drug deal, as a hand grenade has already been had. >> right. i've named the 12 people. >> name them again. i like hearing them. >> three retiring, n.c. roberts and alexander, romney and murkowski. richard burr, last term, run the most bipartisan investigation in the entire congress and has seen all the evidence and knows the ukraine thing is a load. then you get into the re-elect basket. that's six of them. i'm not including mcconnell. all of them are going to have a tough time. people who are retiring want to say that the senate held a fair trial and people in the re-election pressure want to say that the senate needs to hold a fair t

, but he said in hi testimony gordon sondland said he thought h president was asking him to go to pressureo get annd investation into joe biden in exchange for the military aid. also republicans were going after dy giuliani and trying to scapegoat him in some ways. they are saying the is evidence that the president's personal attorney was not acting in line tith wh president wanted him to do, but over the weekend president trump said he was ware of rudy giuliani being in ukraine and he was collecting information that mighp him. the president also said rudy giuliani might be coming out with some sort of reporthat might be filed to congress or the attorney general. trying to in somys to throw people under the bus or scapegoathem as democrats would say, both republicans are coming up short on that end. >> woodruff: lisa, bk to you. where do things go from here after today's long hearing? >> buckle up, judy. it's going to move very quickly. chairman nadler said over the weekend that he does think they could have articles of impeachment ready for the d committee scuss this week. so that means p

so if he wants -- if he wants this testimony to be believed of gordon sondland, then doesn't all of gordonand's testimony suddenly get believed? >> so -- so absolutely. gordon sondland, to remind your viewers, also said there was a quid pro quo, as it related to the meeting in the white house. but i thought the wording of this is really important. so the president, in his six-page letter, never said something that he has repeatedly said in other context. which is that there was no quid pro quo. and there, the question is, why is that not in a letter that went to congress? and i think the answer to that is it is a crime. it is a federal crime to submit a written document, knowingly, that contains a false statement to congress. and instead of simply -- the -- the president saying there was no quid pro quo. he, instead, says i'm not going to directly say that. i'm just going to tell you that there was another witness who said that's what i said. so that is literally true without him actually committing the crime of saying there was no quid pro quo. >> doesn't that mean he's got a pretty good

with gordon sondland we heard it a bazillion times. nobody has come forth with evidence of quid pro quo. based on hearsay, i don't see why we can impeach a president. advisingson miller, the trump campaign in 2016 and now with the podcast available where? guest: itunes war room impeachment. caller: good morning. i am looking forward to reading john bolton's book to seeing what -- to see what information he comes forward with. i call on the independent line not because i don't know what is going on. wasot because i don't know -- what is going on. withparties are served self-serving, corrupt criminals and it is disgusting. both camps are filled with criminals. is a proven adulterer, a proven liar, a proven criminal, a man of very low character who should be impeached. this trump boot licking is sickening. .t is disgusting i'm at a loss for words. host: this is from the fact checker for the washington post in their annual year-end roundup of the biggest pen opiod's, more than half of the lies are from os,mp -- the biggest pinocchi more th

diplomats did not want to work with rudy giuliani, with eu ambassador gordon sondland once saying, quotevery time rudy gets involved, he goes and gets effs everything up." [ laughter ] it's true. i mean, for example, here's what new york city looked like before rudy was mayor [ laughter ] during last night's debate senator amy klobuchar touted her fundraising ability and claimed she set an all-time senate record by bringing in $17,000 from ex-boyfriends [ light laughter ] so either she has one or two wealthy exes, or she freaky. [ laughter ] former vice president joe biden's campaign sent out a fundraising email yesterday asking supporters to evaluate his debate performance six hours before the debate actually took place. said biden, "damn, and with the election next week!" [ laughter ] senator cory booker last night attacked former vice president joe biden for coming out against marijuana legalization, and said biden's position was so ridiculous, quote, "i thought you might have been high when you said it. [ laughter ] really i mean, it's hard to accuse someone else of being high when y

. >> gordon sondland says there was a quid pro quo. the answerer is yes. and how about bill taylor's testimony to the intel committee? adam schiff asks, so if they don't do this, they're not going to get that was your understanding? taylor, yes, sir. schiff, are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that? taylor, "i am." bill taylor says it was his clear understanding that aid with would not come until ukraine's president committed to an investigation. which is the definition, literally, a quid pro quo. tim morrison says the same thing. >> what can did ambassador sondland it tell you that he told mr. yermac? >> that the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make an investigation for the aid to be litted. >> was there any doubt at all that president was demanding ukraine announce investigations? lieutenant colonel vindman says, not at all. question. was there any doubt in your mind as to what the president or president was asking for, our president was asking for as deliverable? vinden, "there was no doubt." fiona hill, backs h

gordon sondland is not an obama holdover. he was the president's choice. he arrived as a major multiple millionaire donor. you have the president's voice from various people, including that official who was in a restaurant talking to gordon sondland talk to the president d where the president said are they going to investigate them? in a way it's not exactly the e same. this time we do have the president's voice as we did nots in the case of the mueller investigation. >> mike, another dramatic reading tonight in his own voice. he slanderred them bypassing along a rumor in his own way. do you reckon those texts and similar material of that ilk is going to come up tomorrow when the ig goes before senate judish? >> i'm sure they'll be asked about the question of political bias, text messages that fbi agents sent both pro-clinton and pro-trump.-c were they impacted? did they have any impact on the investigation?an there is no evidence of political buy as in what the fbi did. and that's really important that that has been central complaint of the president when

ambassador gordon sondland, which included an added promise to investigate burisma and the 2016 elections. the statement was never delivered publicly. this is all unfolding during the president's london visit. tonight trump and other leaders joined the queen at a reception at buckingham palaces. but earlier in the day and in traditional form, the president-plenty to say about what was going on back home. >> i think it's very unpatriotic of the democrats to put on a performance where they do that. i think it's a bad thing for our country. impeachment wasn't to be used that way. all you have to do is lead to transcripts. they-legal scholars looking at the transcripts the other day and they said these are absolutely perfect. trump is right when he uses the words. those calls we made, two were perfect calls. >> there's talk among law makers of censuring you instead of impeachment. >> unacceptable. kwb did nothing wrong. >> why won't you permit the acting chief of staff to testify? >> i would but these are unfair hearings. i want them to testify but i want them to testify in the senate where t

but we don't have that one last link other than a bit of gordon sondland's testimony that shows that the president was rendering the aid conditional on zelensky announcing an investigation into burisma and into the election. giuliani is the master mind of this operation. he is the ops guy. he's running around the bureaucracies. the call logs show he's all over the place. he's talking to pompeo and bolton. and he's talking to the office of management and butting. he's talking to them at a very sensitive moment because he's really turning the screws on ukrainians at a moment. he's just met with zelensky's right-hand guy, andre yermak in madrid. they have a draft statement they're trying to get out that has what they call the deliverables. so if giuliani is turning the screws by also checking in with the omb to make sure that everything is on track with the withholding of aid, then we're seeing suggestive evidence of linkage. >> i highly recommend everyone watching tonight seek out this article our guest has written because it is a fascinating ride. franklin foer, thank you very much. >

the only direct evidence came from gordon sondland who spoke to the president of the united states, thei want nothing. no quid pro quo. you know what? if wire attaching a political opponent is impeachable offense i look forward to having inspector general because maybe it's a different president we should be impeaching. >> president's time has expired. trish: pretty compelling stuff from congressman matt gaetz he makes the point about all this conjecture and hearsay and people interpreting certain things and people believing the president wanted something, it came down to the cold hard facts, gordon sondland saying, no the president said he didn't want anything in return. there was no quid pro quo. why are we moving forward with impeachment? i guess they can't help themselves. next, the liberal media hitting a new low, embarrassingly gushing over hillary clinton's latest interview with howard stern. >> let's just, wow, wow. i can watch that over and over again. if hillary clinton did that to your point, in 2016, we could be having a whole different discussion right now. >> oh, my goodne

you know what is interesting is they made their whole case built on gordon sondland. hen toefed that he presumed th hearing aid was connected to an investigation. henn asked the president direct, he said i want nothing, i want zelensky to do what he ran on. they know this is also a problematic experience, look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the intelligence committee, who is absent today, started his own hearing by making up the factual call. he could not even read the strans script. he had to make it up because if he didn'tt make it up it didn' sound asup bad. he said let's make up some dirt, the transcript, the chairman, mislead the american people as an attorney, as a chairman, as a member of congress that score to be honest with the american people and uphold the constitution. that was a massive malpractice that i have never seen. they don't care about what was in the transcript, they don't care about what happened, and they don't care that the aide was released. they're looking at the facts to mark it fit their narrative. what else happened? you k

gordon sondland said they been crystal clear no quit pro quote and they don't do evidence from the left but everything they told us about extreme nature to be rushed, he has such a danger to national security is nonsense. so they ran a rationale they want to slow down. again, a little bit of disconnect with the message. >> absolutely right. and it shows the disarray. i think nancy pelosi is normally strategic, but she's getting pressure from the left. they are in disarray right now. and it actually is undermining the very nature of what they think they are going to do in the future in the 2020 election. so it really has consequences electorally, it has consequences constitutionally e and, of course, the institution itself. she has misread this thing terribly. i don't know who is advising her right now, but she ought to fire them and get somebody else. >> dan: good point. congressman scalise, congressman biggs, you are fighting a good fight. >> merry christmas, dan. >> dan: and americans turnedn out the circuit on capitol hill. the mainstream media has been totally consumed. in fact, at

. >> gordon sondland says there was a quid pro quo. the answer is yes. and how about bill taylor's testimony to the intel committee? adam schiff asks, so if they don't do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding? taylor: yes, sir. schiff: are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that? taylor: i am. bill taylor says it was his clear understanding that aid would not come until ukraine's president committed to an investigation, which is the definition literally of a quid pro quo. tim morrison says the same thing. >> what did ambassador sondland tell you that he told mr. yermak? >> that the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. >> so was there any doubt? any doubt at all that the president was demanding ukraine announce investigations? lieutenant colonel alexander vindman says none at all. question: was there any doubt in your mind as to what the president or our president was asking for as a deliverable? vindman: the

that's what i said to gordon sondland. it was after the whistle-blower complaint had come out. this whole thing underscores the extent to which republicans are unwilling to engage on the merits a enthe facts. better to boycott it and claim to be victims than engage. >> is sondland in danger of having misled the committee? this phone call he claims to have with the president, whether it happened here. >> he was in danger in his first deposition which is why he had to file an addendum and correct it kbagain. but democrats treated him with kid gloves because they needed his testimony. i think now he's in serious jeopardy. that he may have made this call up. to say the president i want nothing, i want nothing. that is the kind of thing we may see in the intel report. that we may have an opinion on things like that. >> tell us more about that. from the time bill taylor expressed concern about the quid pro quo and when gordon sondland got back to him. >> there are real questions about whether that call happened. he was specific. it happened in between those two tects. one after midni

in other words, as gordon sondland put it, everyone was in the loop, and then they go through chapterso if i were in the white house, secondly, the question is not so much whether it was inappropriate and it may be inappropriate and not impeach believe and senators, if this goes to the senate and i think it will, they'll have to ask themselves not whether it was appropriate, but whether it was an acceptable way for a president po, well, if this president would get away, from doing anything corrupt if he or she thought there would be nothing to pay for it. >> vice president pence is mentioned multiple times to reports for failing to provide notes to investigators and senior u.s. officials including the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of energy were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the president. those words, talking about the vice president and everybody else close to the president, knowledgeable of or active participants in. >> it's a shame that people are exhaus

we don't even need to go to david holmes saying he overheard the president saying gordon sondland said doesn't give a you know what about ukraine. we have the president himself saying what he wanted from ukraine. it wasn't about corruption. it was about this. >> what exactly did you hope zelensky would do with the bidens after the phone call? >> i would think if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. they should investigate the bidens. >> the president said it himself, dana. and yet, nunes and jordan have come out with a report saying the facts aren't the facts. >> black is white, up is down. i mean, it's -- it's where we are, unfortunately, and this is why, you know, we have such a tribal situation here in washington. and across the country. but they feed on each other. it's tribal in large part because you have reports like this which as you just played so well and showed so well, it just doesn't match with the reality that's in front of our face. that the president himself said. so, you know, they took it, this r

there is much more evidence of that from other witnesses, including armrest gordon sondland who spoke to president trump about it and armrest william taylor. there is clear evidence that president zelensky and officials felt tremendous pressure to publicly announce an investigation into joe biden and his son. gordon sondland testified repeatedly to putting that pressure on president zelensky and president zelensky's staff himself for president trump's personal benefit. number three, there is very clear evidence that president zelensky and ukrainian officials knew that there was a hold on the military aid at the time president zelensky was on the phone with president trump. number four, president zelensky planned to announce an investigation of joe biden in an interview on cnn which was canceled only after the military aid was released and the military aid was released only after president trump got caught. we want to go straight o our important guest tonight for more on the breaking news about articles of impeachment that the house of representatives could be revealing articles of imp

he told that to not only gordon sondland. he told that to the president o rudy's a good man.respected man. you should work with rudy on this. so the idea that rudy's free-lancing is completely implausible to me. he has been the president's agent. one of the three amigos on this project. and he's over there up to no good on behalf of donald trump. >> all right. up next, one of putin's favorite talking points. it was ukraine that hacked the election. how many americans actually believe it? election how many americans actually believe it ♪ applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99. there are things we would change about work. and there are things we wouldn't. ♪ when work is worth it. work is worth it. work can be closer to home... pay more... make us proud. careerbuilder. work can work. find your work at careerbuilder.com wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you c

surveilled by russian intelligence in ukraine -- in ukraine where donald trump, rudy giuliani, gordon sondland and others have having conversations now. and the russians actually leaked that conversation during the obama administration as a way of driving a wedge between the united states and europe. i mean, they have substantial intelligence capabilities in ukraine, and it is a former soviet state that they pay extremely close attention to. so i just really don't think we're talking about theoretical risks here. >> glenn kirschner, i think the line that stood out to me the most was that it is possible that adversaries including russia have better information on what giuliani and trump and others were talking about than our own investigators. in other words, you can't even subpoena this information. the text of those phone calls don't exist if you weren't otherwise spying or tapping the phone call. >> ali, you hit the nail right on the head. as a federal prosecutor for 30 years, trust me i acquired a lot of information about bad guys' cellphones but i had to do it legally. so if i wanted somet

ambassador gordon sondland depends on which of his three testimonies you're reading. in all three direct messages from the white house was no quid pro quo. 16 other officials opted to testify in this investigation. moment, alexander vindman, kurt volker, fiona hill and the list goes on, all testifying to hearsay, opinion or speculation. but there are facts, no matter how the democrats try to spin it, there are four facts that will never change -- there was no pressure on the call, no conditionality of aid in the transcript, the ukrainians were not aware that the aid had been withheld. regrettably my democratic colleagues have proven time and time again that they aren't concerned about the facts. tonight the majority takes a step down a path that achieves a goal they have long sought, the removal of president trump from office but at what cost, at what price? certainly the rejection and destruction of bipartisanship on this committee, the abandonment of the rules that have served this committee for two prior impeachments but it's come at a greater cost. the very fabric

he pointed to text messages between kurt volker, gordon sondland, and rudy giuliani as perhaps the mostncriminating evidence that came out of the house investigation and, you know, chuck schumer's letter came out today three days after schiff, you know, said as much. >> all right. >> i think they can get both documents and witnesses. remember, they have to take a vote on every one of these things. mitch mcconnell does have, as he puts it, the ball control that he has on a normal day in the senate. i covered the clinton impeachment. every time a question of the rules comes up, the senate has to vote on it. and they are claiming that there was no agreement to have witnesses before the clinton trial. there was an agreement to have witnesses. it was just a question of how many and whether they would testify on videotape or in person. so this is doable to get both documents and witnesses if democrats hold firm and frame it right. >> all right, chris lu, thank you for spending some time with us. >>> when we come back, us versus them. it's familiar language from the president. now he and his c

the now infamous no quid pro quo call reportedly had between president trump and eu ambassador gordon sondlandcrux of the administration's impeachment inquiry defense may be unraveling. during sond land's second congressional testimony he recounted aspects of the september 9th phone call. however, no other witness testimony or documents have emerged that corroborate his description of a call that day. the "washington post" points out that trump himself in describing the conversation has referred only to the ambassador's account of the call, which based on sondland's activities would have occurred before dawn in washington, d.c. according to an administration official, the white house has not located the record in its switchboard logs of a call between trump and sondland on september 9th. and according to documents reviewed by the "new york times" at the same time rudy giuliani was trying to dig up dirt on the bidens, he was privately pursuing hundreds of thousands of dollars in business from ukrainian government officials. giuliani has reportedly said he has no business in ukraine and none of

. >> what about testimony from the president's personal lawyer rudy giuliani who gordon sondland said was in the loop on everything, should he testify? >> more information is better than less in every aspect of an inquiry and the adversarial process is important to test what's true and not. my objection to what the congress has done is it's impeded that process by vetoing republican witnesses and by interfering with the due process rights of the president in what's a quasi judicial proceeding. >> "the new york times" said the president knew about the whistle-blower complaint in august before he released the military aid in september. that means when trump spoke to gordon sondland in september he was well aware of what was going on when he said there was no quid pro quo. he would have to have been aware of that complaint. what's your response to that? >> the implication is this is an admission of guilt because the president found out about the whistle-blower complaint and released that aid. that's not what happened. several weeks went by before the aid was released. remember, under our

gordon sondland and writes this - "are we now saying that security assistance and white house meetingsditioned on investigations?" sondland says, "call me. >> seth: oh, man, anytime you text someone and they write back, "call me," it is not good. [ laughter ] it's like if you texted your fiance, "can't wait to get married tonight." and they just wrote back, "call me," you'd better find out -- [ laughter ] if that honeymoon suite is refundable so naturally, the democrats want to interview sondland as part of the impeachment inquiry. but trump is simultaneously blocking sondland from testifying while also claiming that he would love to let sondland testify >> on twitter, the president insisted he would love to send ambassador sondland to testify but unfortunately, he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court >> seth: i'm sorry you're calling them a kangaroo court? you're the one who literally puffs out your chest like you're defending your territory [ laughter ] fundamentally, what trump's behavior proves once again is that all those years of empty republican rhetor

gordon sondland, not some never trumper but a million dollar donor to the president's inauguration, what doesn't trump ask sondland? the day after this call. what doesn't trump ask? what does the president want to know? did he ask about ukraine's efforts to battle corruption? of course not. did he ask how the war with russia was going? not a chance. on the phone, his voice loud enough, president trump asked sondland, is he's going to do the investigation? the answer was clear. he ensured trump that the ukrainian president was going to do it and that he would do anything you asked him to. if that wasn't telling enough, my colleagues, in a conversation that followed, an american diplomat dining with sondland asked if it was true that president trump didn't give a blank about ukraine, sondland agreed, saying the president cared only about big stuff.

the attorney for gordon sondland said his testimony speaks for itself. his testimony is he was doing all of this because he was having multiple phone calls with the president and the president made clear what he wanted. >> i wantle to get to barbara mcquade on this question of law and prosecution and what a trial looks like. i want you to tell me how the defense, if you want to call it that, reflects a weak defense. the hearing highlighted the difficulty they have of defending trump under cross examination steve castor denied the meaning of the words that the president spoke to president zelensky. he denied the meeting when he was asking him to, quote, look into joe biden. the president and zelensky look into joe biden. here'sen how this poor counsel castor had to defend himself. >> president trump was asking ukrainian president zelensky to have the ukrainian officials look into vice president joe biden, correct? is that correct, yes or no? >> i don't think the record supports that. >> it doesn't say, can you look into it? president trump is not asking h

we've had gordon sondland testify.as at the direction of the president and what the president told zelensky to do and what the president told all of the white house officials to do was to work with rudy. this isn't a rudy story. this is a trump story. >> this is not about his lawyer, his personal lawyer. this is about donald trump himself. >> who is still running a dirt campaign in ukraine fthrough rudy. >> you have to think that rudy must be walking around with pardon papers in his jacket pocket. >> clearly. >> he is so neck-deep in illegal behavior. and as you were saying this is on the verge, on the cusp, of the president getting impeached by the house. you have rudy giuliani in ukraine getting fresh information on how to interfere in our elections at the direction of the president. and i think, like you were saying, at some point it's not about rudy giuliani anymore. at some point it is about donald trump and how do you hold him accountable? you have to go through this impeachment inquiry. republicans need to step

voices on fox news talking about realizing where the operation was being directed when she saw gordon sondland testify that he was directed by the president to work with rudy giuliani. how do you keep the witness testimony that takes us out of -- with all due respect, what appears to be a pretty brokenness partisanship back on capitol hill, how do you put it back to the witnesses? >> when you listen to the witness and the witness at the top of the list, most helpful, is president trump's own words, and then his chief of staff mick mulvaney saying that the president told him to withhold the aid unless the ukrainians investigated the 2016 election, there's not much in dispute that rudy giuliani sought to smear and clear an anti-corruption ambassador, the president withheld the aid. he conditioned a white house meeting on the aid as ambassador sondland said. everyone who had any sense of integrity and doing the right thing like lieutenant colonel vindman was bothered by what the president was doing and has to matter and elevate those individuals over the conduct of the president and i'm sure most

gordon sondland, ambassador to the european union, he is mentioned 600 times in the schiff report.e was there star witness. what did he say? "did president trump ever tell you about any preconditions for anything?" his answer? "no." "any preconditions for the aid to be released?" "no." under of the testified, no. abuse of power. let's talk about that article of impeachment, madam speaker. professorhington law admitted under oath he voted against donald trump spoke to this claim of abuse of power. >> we are listening to members of the house of representatives. steve scalise: what is happening against president trump a political vendetta saying that there is no crime. that democrats fear trump will be reelected. we think we are nearing the end which precedes the vote against the u.s. president. ♪ you are watching "al jazeera" a quick look at other news stories from around the world. lebanon's former prime minister has announced he does not want to be to new government. he resigned in october after weeks of antigovernment demonstrations. on monday the president planned to hold confron

and i said ambassador sondland, gordon, i think this is all going to blow up and here we are. >> reporterbut the first to testify that marked one of the most memorable moments so far. a long-time diplomat known for fighting corruption that was suddenly recalled by the president afterf a month's long smear campaign led by his personal attorney, rudy jewel yany. >> how could our system fail like this? which country's interests are ser served when the very corrupt behavior we've been criticizing has been allowed to prevail? >> reporter: and this remarkable response in real time from the president on twitter. now president trump did not tweet about carlen or any of the witnesses during their testimony but first lady tweeted invoking the president's youngest son. carlen argued trump was wrong when he said artsical two gives him power to do anything he wants. he says the constitution says there can be no titles off nobilities. so while he can name his son barren, he can't make his son barren. pamela carlen you should be beashamed of your public pandering and crewsing a child to do it. carlen ap