ambassador sondland wanted to go toat lunch and i told ambassado sondland i would be i happy to join him and the two staffers for lunch if he wanted to brief me on his meeting with mr. yermak or discuss other issues. ambassador sondland said i should join. the four went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. i sat across from ambassador sondland andt the two stafferso our sides. at first the lunch was largely social. ambassador sondland selected a bottle of wine he shared among the four of us, and we discussed topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business. during the lunch, ambassador sondland said he was going to call president trump to give him an update. ambassador sondland placed a call onam his mobile phone and heard him announce himself several times along the lines of gordon sondland,g holding for e president. it appeared that he was being transferred through several layers ofer switchboards and assistants and i noticed ambassador sondland's demeanor changed and i understood he had been connected to president trump. while ambassador essondland's pho

all the other testimony has a sondland core to it, and a ko sondland connection. >> reporter: there is no question. e-i was struck by how many times and going back through the testimony, vindman said, bolton cut the meeting short when sondland started to speak about the requirement that ukraine deliver specific investigations to secure that meeting with president trump. it was the republican witnesses as well, tim morrison formerly with the nsc. morrison, he said, 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. he was pressed again. what did you say to the senior adviser zelensky? the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make that statement of investigation. >> ambassador sondland has taken his seat. let's enter the room. following the normal course of action here. chairman schiff will gavel it in. opening statements from the chairman and congressman nunes as well, the ranking republican on the committee. of course, it will be followed by those 45 minutes of questi

, my colleague texted me regarding that call that, quote, sondland and zelensky interview -- sondland said the zelensky interview is supposed to be today or monday, and they plan to announce an certain investigation on hold would progress. sondland's aid did not know if this was decided or if he was advocating for it. apaurparently he he's been discussing this with yermak. on 13th, ambassador taylor and i ran into mr. yermak. ambassador taylor stressed the importance of staying out of u.s. politics and said he hoped no interview was planned. mr. yermak did not answer, but shrugged in resignation as if to indicate that he had no choice. in short, everybody thought there was going to be an interview and that the ukrainians believed they had to do it. the interview ultimately did not occur. on september 21st, ambassador taylor and i collaborated on input he sent to mr. morrison to brief president trump ahead of a september 25th meeting, that had been scheduled with president zelensky in new york on the margins of the u.n. general assembly. transcript of the july 25th call was released th

sondland was more explicit.kraine's needed to conduct investigations if they were to get a meeting at all. bolton reported this to nfc official john eisenberg, you tell eisenberg i am not part of whatever drug deal's homeland and mulvaney -- deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up. col.ill did so, as did lt. vindman. on july 18, the day before dr. hill left her post at nfc, holmes participated in a secure interagency videoconference on ukraine. towards the end of the meeting, a representative from the office of management and budget announced aid for ukraine was being held up. the order had come from the by mickt and conveyed mulvaney without explanation. holmes was shocked. he thought the suspension of aid was significant, undermining what he stood to be long-standing u.s. national security goals in ukraine. one week later on july 25, president trump spoke with president zelensky by phone. when president zelensky product u.s. military support and noted ukraine would like to buy more antitank missiles from the

sondland answering, "no." abc's mary bruce leads us off tonight from the hill. >> reporter: today on capitol hill, a true washington blockbuster. >> do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> reporter: gordon sondland, president trump's hand-picked point person in ukraine, defying the president, telling the nation there was a quid pro quo, on order from the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, acting at the direction of the president. >> we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. we followed the president's orders. >> reporter: sondland said the ukrainian president would only get a coveted meeting at the white house if he agreed to announce an investigation into the president's political rivals. >> i know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously, with regard to the requested white hous

told trump, and september 8th, sondland tells taylor what trump told sondland. nowhere is there a holmes tells taylor what the president of the united states told sondland. >> may i answer that question. >> i'll give you a chance in a second, but 13 conversations, 13 conversations from their star witness, you're their closing witness, and he can't remember a call from a guy he works with every single day. why? >> yes, sir. so immediately when i went back to the embassy after this lunch on the 26th, i told my direct supervisor, the deputy chief admission. i would have told ambassador taylor immediately except he was on the front lines that afternoon. i then went on as i testified my vacation on saturday, came back the following monday, and on tuesday, i was back in the ambassador's office where i referred to the call. in that week plus that i was away, it was my assumption that the deputy chief admission would have informed other people about the call as well. so my recollection is when i did refer to the call in that meeting that ambassador taylor nodded knowing

now gordon sondland, i hardly know him. that's not the impression sondland had.hat's not the impression people around sondland had either. so let's see how it plays out in the hearing room today. kaitlan collins, thank you very much. >>> still ahead, a democrat set to question sondland. what are the questions on his mind? next. charmin ultra soft! it's softer than ever. charmin ultra soft is softer than ever, so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird! enjoy the go with charmin. i must admit. i had a few good tricks to help hide my bladder leak pad. like the old "tunic tug". you know it, right? but i don't have to, with always discreet. i couldn't believe the difference. it's less bulky. and it really protects. watch this. the super absorbent core turns liquid and odor to gel, and locks it away. so i have nothing to hide. always discreet. for bladder leaks. even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with i

and sondland saying it wasn't a case of rogue diplomacy. rather, he said, quote, everyone was in the loop it was no secret peter alexander has details. >> reporter: tonight bombshell testimony from gordon sondland, the trump donor turned diplomat turning against the president's key line of defense in the impeachment inquiry. that there was no quid pro quo involving ukraine. sondland, the ambassador to the european union, saying there was. >> 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. >> reporter: sondland emphasizing that it was widely known >> eone was in the loop it was no secret again, everyone was in the loop >> reporter: it started, sondland says, when the president re rick perry, and former special envoy curt al roker volker, the so-called three amigos, to work with rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney, on ukraine >> secretary perry, ambassador volker and i worked with mr. rudy giuliani on ukraine matters at the expres

gordon sondland, the u.s.e in big trouble with the president of the united states and his aides, but also in big trouble potentially legally, as well. jim acosta at the white house, thanks very much. >> we will continue our special coverage of all of the breaking news right now with erin burnett "out front." >>> "out front" next, breaking news. the state department aide testifying behind closed doors about ukraine launching investigations and said he cared about big stuff like the biden investigation. plus the former ukrainian ambassador testifies about fake smears against her and the president tweeting another smear at her. was it witness intimidation? and roger stone, guilty. the message his verdict is sending to a key impeachment witness about to testify. let's go out front. >>> and good evening. i'm erin burnett. out front tonight, the breaking news. damning new evidence that ties trump to the investigations into joe biden.

sondland said he was calling from kyiv. he told the president that president zelensky loves your ass. holmes then heard president trump say, so he's going to do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied, he's going to do it, adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him. after the call ended, holmes took the opportunity to ask sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on ukraine. it was at this point that sondland revealed that the president -- that president trump doesn't give a expletive about ukraine. the president only cares about big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. a month later, national security adviser bolton traveled to kyiv. between meetings with ukrainian government officials, bolton expressed to ambassador bill taylor his frustration about mr. giuliani's influence with the president. bolton made clear, however, there was nothing he could do about it. bolton further stated that the hold on security assistance would

. >> that was some of ambassador sondland testifying. david axelrod, i mean, nobody really knew what gordon sondland was going to say last night this time. beth republicans and democrats are kind of trying to paint -- the president is trying to paint gordon sondland as absolving him. did zblee look, he has been a key character since this story has evolved. everyone pointed to him as someone deeply involved in this -- in caper. and he acknowledged that. but what he added was what gloria said wab, was he it it at the direction of the president, he was instructed to take direction from rudy giuliani, the president's lawyers, and raises the question, was the president using giuliani as a kind of cutout in this thing so he could have plausible deniability. one of the things i have to get this off my chest. one of the things that stuck with me was he said it wasn't -- they didn't actually have to do the investigation. they had to publicly announce the investigation. and it just underscored the motivation, which was the president wanted to dirt

sondland. is that right? >> that's correct. >> so the president must have been speaking loud enough on the phone, it was a cell phony take it? >> it was a cell phone. >> the cepresident must have be speaking loud enough for your staff member to aefr hear this? >> it was. >> what your staff member could overhear was president trump asks ambassador sondland about, quote, the investigations, is that right? >> that's correct. >> i think you testified, also, that you had come to understand that the term investigations was a term that ambassador sondland as well as volker used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections and to the investigations of burrisma and the bidens. is that correct? >> that's correct, mr. chairman. >> your staff member hears the president asking about the investigations, and ambassador sondland told president trump that the ukrainians were ready to move forward. >> he did. >> i think you said after the call when your staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought of ukraine,

we are joined by ambassador gordon sondland. sondland is the u.s. representative to the european union with the rank of ambassador. for joining the state department, ambassador sondland was the founder and ceo of providence hotels, a national owner and operator of full-service hotels. service,his government ambassador sondland was engaged in charitable and rises. two final points. witness depositions, as part of this inquiry, were in unclassified -- were unclassified in nature, and all open hearings will also be held at the unclassified level. any information that may touch on information will be addressed separately. second, congress will not tolerate any reprisal or threat of reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any u.s. government official testified before congress, including you or any of your colleagues. if you would please rise and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god? the witnessrd show ha

that is ambassador sondland. as we wait for this highly anticipated house intelligence committee hearing to begin on capitol hill, we are also getting a first look at the testimony and his prepared remarks. here it is. it is 23 pages long. that is considered a whopper by the standards so far that we have had today. in it he does admit a quid pro quo. he said, as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes. the existence of a quid pro quo is a key component of the democrats's case. sondland, referring to the potential investigation into the bidens, also describes the role of the president's personal attorney rudy giuliani. he writes, mr. giuliani's requests was expressing the desires of the president of the united states and we knew that those investigations were important to the president. juligiuliani is currently being investigated by the justice department and does not work for the united states government. we have a team of correspondents. fi

sondland says this. he says they were working at the express direction, i'm reading from his opening statement. working at the express direction of the president of the united states. we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. we played the hand that we were dealt. beyond that, lester and savannah. sondland will tell this committee according to his opening statement that giuliani's demands of the ukrainians, this is a quote, arranging a white house visit. mr. giuliani demanded that they make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 and burisma. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states and we knew the investigations were important to the president. this testimony clearly is compelling, it is apparently damaging to president trump's case. but his appearance here today sondland's appearance here today is a jump ball in this push and pull, this contest between democrats and republicans to control the narrative of the overall impeachment inquiry. what will

what sondland was saying that was the aide had been basically -- not the aide but sondland is basically saying that pompeo knew about the statement that they were trying to get the ukrainians to put out. he knew about another effort they were trying to do with the ukrainian president. but sort of as much as possible today you saw mike pence putting out a statement that pushed back on what sondland said about him. and that was sort of how the administration was trying to undermine this testimony, which, as you were pointing out earlier, does rope in a lot of people in ways that we didn't have before. >> i wonder your take on sort of the sweep of what the regular channel included, the regular channel was the trump-directed rudy contaminated, if you will, pompeo green-lighting and vice president pence at least aware of a pressure campaign in ukraine. >> yeah. sondland making the argument today that why would he be the irregular channel when he was talking to the white house chief of staff, the secretary of state, the top folks at the national security council. he is saying, look, if people

ambassador sondland said i should join. the four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an oortw staffers sat off to our sides. at first the lunch was largely social. ambassador sondland selected a bottle of wine that we shared and we discussed topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business. during the lunch, ambassador sondland said that he was going to call trump to give an update. ambassador sondland placed a call on his mobile phone and i heard him announce himself several times along the lines of gordan sondland holding for the president. it appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switch boards and assistance and i noticed ambassador sondland's demeanor changed and i understood that he [000:54:11;47

, my colleague texted me regarding that call that, quote, sondland and zelensky interview -- sondland said the zelensky interview is supposed to be today or monday, and they plan to announce an certain investigation on hold would progress. sondland's aid did not know if this was decided or if he was advocating for it. apaurparently he he's been discussing this with yermak. on 13th, ambassador taylor and i ran into mr. yermak. ambassador taylor stressed the importance of staying out of u.s. politics and said he hoped no interview was planned. mr. yermak did not answer, but shrugged in resignation as if to indicate that he had no choice. in short, everybody thought there was going to be an interview and that the ukrainians believed they had to do it. the interview ultimately did not occur. on september 21st, ambassador taylor and i collaborated on input he sent to mr. morrison to brief president trump ahead of a september 25th meeting, that had been scheduled with president zelensky in new york on the margins of the u.n. general assembly. transcript of the july 25th call was released th

sondland says was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes. and that's a quote from gordon sondland you'll hear from his mouth in a few minutes. he also looks to separate himself from all of this. my personal view, which i shared repeatedly with others is that the white house meeting and security assistance should have preceded without preconditions of any kind. we were handed this rudy giuliani mess and we tried to make the best of it. >> it's possible, joe, that it's more recent than that. when he first amended his testimony, he was still trying to admit what he had to admit but not tell the full story. it's only subsequent to that, it's become clear that forces around trump were trying to make him the scapegoat, of the two potential scapegoats, rudy giuliani and him, he was the easier target. giuliani has too much on trump. as we sit here now, when the scandal first started to break, one of the remarkable things we noted were people lik

gordon sondland, there's a reason why he was using sondland.not a career diplomat and not part of the professional foreign service, and he knew that if he went through those people as we've seen, they would object to what he was doing. so he went through sondland instead because sondland was not a diplomat in truth, he is a political donor who was kissed into this position by the president and he was running a political errand for the president and now they're paying a price for it, and you've got to believe that tonight at the white house they are banging their heads against the wall about how sondland handled all of this because he's kind of blown their cover. >> i mean, because jim then it continues. holmes testifies i asked ambassador sondland, so this is after sondland hangs up with president trump and then they talk about the call at the table. holmes says i asked ambassador sondland if it was true that the president did not give a blank about the ukraine. sondland said the president did not give a blank about the ukraine. and the preside

sondland implicates president. ambassador says he was following trump's orders in pressuring ukraine. you see the picture there. this was actually very good story telling in terms of the photo editing and headline editing. so sondland implicates the president is the big headline. and the picture is sondland getting legal advice, his lawyer talking to him from behind his hand. and then you see that is actually in support of the sort of secondary front page story there below the main headline which is, he saved himself, not trump. sticking with the president was risky so sondland broke away. and there's him talking to his lawyer, right, about the strategy for saving himself. well-done l.a. times. l.a. times front page today. here was "the wall street journal" today five column page one headline, envoy says trump directed effort. sondland cites quid pro quo between ukraine probes meaning ukraine investigations and a meeting with the president. here's the st. louis post dispatch from st. louis, missouri. banner headlin

ambassador to the echt u gordon sondland. the other witness others talked so much about for his part in helping put pressure on ukraine. reading the excerpts we see what he told house committees. reading one exchange in which ambassador sondland was asked how rudy giuliani was viewed. the president's personal attorney "accused of conducting a shadow foreign policy, a parallel foreign policy in ukraine. according to the transcript, what sondland says. again, people usually smiled when they heard rudy's name, because he was always swirling around somewhere. question, yeah, but, i mean, he was causing serious issues in the u.s. relationship with ukraine. did you raise those concerns with sondland? listen, state department was fully aware of the issues and little they could do about it if the president decided he wanted his lawyer involved. question, does that include secretary pompeo and his counselor? sondland, my speculation, is, yes, they hit a brick wall when it came to getting rid of mr. giuliani. go to cnn senior congressi

what was in sondland's head.hat sondland knows a lot more because he's watched and read testimony, does he think that what happened was wrong? does he think that what the president did was wrong or right? and what are the challenges here is we still haven't seen a white house narrative. still haven't seen a republican narrative about what they say is going on. i think that may have to change pretty soon. >> jeffrey, his lawyer is well regarded here in washington with a lot of experience in dealing with these kinds of matters and i'm sure he's giving him some very strong advice. good advice in general is to tell the truth. that's just sort of my experience. >> when testifying under oath. >> so naive. >> but, you know, we're talking a lot appropriately about sondland bup let's remember that there are other witnesses with even more knowledge than sondland. john bolton, mick mulvaney, secretary pompeo, all of whom have had conversations with the president on these subjects, and they refused to testify about it. now a

sondland testified. mr. taylor, who took notes of his conversations said the ambassador told him in a september 1st phone call that everything was dependent on the public announcement of investigations, including security assistance. president trump wanted mr. zelensky in a public box. president trump is a businessman, sondland said later. when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him sylomething the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. in a sworn declaration after taylor's testimony, sondland would admit to telling ukrainiansukrainia ukrainians at a meeting in warsaw, the resumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. the president 's chief of staff confirmed trump's efforts to coerce ukraine by withholding aid. when mick mulvaney was asked publicly about it his answer was breathtaking. we do that all the time with foreign policy, he said. i have news for e

beyond that, they only had contact with sondland and again sondland indicated he had contact with no one on the planet. volker testified he had direct contact with the ukrainians and president of the united states and indicated the president of the occupation did not condition a phone call meeting or aid on ukraine undertaking investigations and testified the ukrainians did not believe that either. we also have the direct statements from the president of ukraine and the foreign minister they did not undertake investigations and we also have the evidence that we're all very much aware of, which is they did not undertakeations. we also have yovanovitch and dr. hill and yovanovitch obviously left before the time period. dr. hill, we appreciate you being with us today. dr. hill, you have provided me probably the greatest piece of evidence that's before us to illustrate the problem with hearsay. so, you said based on questions and statements, i have heard some of you on this committee, believe that russia and its security service did not conduct a campaign against our country. and perhaps

sondland talked to imhad. sondland was his guy.'s what they're looking for. >> what did the president say to you? what did the president tell you to do? and i'm not talking about just the july 26 phone call. i'm not talking, you know, about the phone calls to september. i'm talking about over your complete tenure here as ambassador to the european union. what did the president tell you to do? >> and in these private meetings and private phone calls. we know their private meetings began as early as may when the group of representatives met with president trump after the election and the inauguration of president zelensky. and sondland stayed been. what did the president talk to you about then? what did he talk to you about on that phone call that many other people heard on july 26th? and more importantly, i think, when did you know that the president was tying the withholding of aid and the withholding of a meeting to these investigations of both the bidens and burisma and the 2016 election. >> gordon sondland has changed his testim

sondland to take notes. i had not expected to join that meeting and was a flight of stairs behind ambassador stopbd as he met mr. yermak. when i reached the office, ambassador sondland had already gone into the meeting. i explained to the assistant i was supposed to join the meeting as the embassy's remit. but she told me they had insisted the meeting be one on one with no note taker. i waited in a anti room long with a member of the u.s. embassy kiev staff. when the meeting sended we accompanied ambassador sondland out of the administration building. ambassador sondland said he wanted to go to lunch. i told ambassador sondland that i would be happy to join him and the two staffers if he wanted to brief me out on his mechanics with mr. yermak and other issues and ambassador sondland said i should join. the four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terra terrace. i sat direct threu across from ambassador sondland. the two staffers off to our sights. the lunch was largely social. he selected

when august 9th served ambassador sondland and you had this exchange, ambassador sondland says morrison, ready to get dates as soon as umack concerns. you reply excellent. how did you sway him? ambassador sondland says not sure i did. i think potus really wants deliverable. the deliverable here was a public announcement that ukraine was going to conduct investigations into burisma and allege 2016 election interference by ukraine, is that correct, sir? >> thank you. i understood the deliverable to be the statement that we had been talking about. >> on august 13th, you and ambassador sondland discussed a draft statement from ukraine with mr. giuliani. sir, why did you discuss the draft statement with mr. giuliani? >> because the idea of the statement had come up from the meeting, and remember mr. yermak asked me to connect him, and i did, and they had a meeting and they both called me afterwards. mr. giuliani thought he said ukraine had a statement about fighting corruption and mr. yermak would say burr mace in 2016. mr. yermak provided me a draft statement, and i wanted to be assured tha

son sondland made to his testimony. igor don so-- gordon sondland d hereby affirm. i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak in connection with vice president pence's -- ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak in connection with vice president's meeting in warsaw. we've got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you told me this is where you got your clear understanding. even though you had three opportunities with president zelensky for him to tell you you know what we're going to do these investigations to get the aid. never makes an announcement, mr. does a cnn interview. you weren't on the call, were you? >> i did not. >> you never talked with chief of staff mulvaney. >> i never did. >> you didn't meet the president. >> that is correct. >> two of those they had never heard about as far as i know. there was no reason for it to come up. >> president zelensky never made an announcement. this is what i can't believe. you're their star witness. they're their first witnes

giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, saying that sondland is speculating. that he never met him, and that there was no quid pro quo lester >> peter alexander at the white house. thanks meantime, nbc news has learned that the fbi wants to interview the whistle-blower who first called attention to that phone call by the president. pete williams is following this pete, what do we know about this >> reporter: well, according to people familiar with this, lester, the fbi has not interviewed the whistle-blower, but tried to arrange with his lawyers. law enforcement officials say some investigators at the fbi were concerned that the justice department so quickly concluded in september that president trump's phone call with the ukrainian president did not amount to a crime because there was no apparent violation of campaign finance laws these officials say some at the fbi believed a more thorough investigation should have been conducted into the circumstances of that call, and they wanted to talk to the whistle-blower for that reason. but it's apparent from the peo

sondland on the phone, overhear the president on the phone with mr. sondland, is that right? >> that's correct. >> so the president must have been speaking loud enough on the phone, this was a cell phone i take it? >> it was a cell phone. >> the president must have been speaking loud enough for your staff member to be able to overhear this? >> it was. >> and what your staff member could overhear was president trump asking ambassador sondland about quote the investigations. is that right? >> that's correct. >> i think you testified also that you had come to understand that the term "investigations" was a term that ambassador sondland as well as volker used to mean matters relating to the 2016 elections and to the investigations of burisma and the bidens. is that correct? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> so your staff overhears the president asking about the investigations, meaning burisma and the bidens in 2016. and ambassador sondland told president trump that the ukrainians were ready to move forward? >> he did. >> and i think you said that after the call when your staff

>> the thing that holmes testifies to that sondland denies, when sondland got off the phone and explainedsident wanted, he ways basically -- he specified, he only cares about the big stuff. the big stuff is burisma and the bidens. and sondland denies that happened. we'll get the other side of the story. and we don't know what else might come out. several of the witnesses have come to the table with new information we have not had previously. it's always a possibility that in the interim period between the depositions and now, they could have learned new information or recalled things or got more information from their staff that could be relevant. >> and that struck you. laura cooper, when she testified last night, she had a statement, and i learned this since my deposition. >> on july 25th, the you yukrai knew about the aid being held up. and she testified to that because people in her office saying, i'm getting calls from the ukrainian embassy. that's july 25th. one of the things that the republicans hung their hat on, if the ukrainians didn't know there was a quid pro quo, there was no

sondland.:47, after midnight. five hours later, sondland says, bill, i think you're incorrect. >> this one seems so scripted. this one seems as though they just went to the script department. >> exactly. what he did, he called donald trump in that time between 12:47 and 5:00 a.m. and sondland has testified he said trump said, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo. i want him to i do. talk about a relationship that cn be interpreted either way, republicans said, there i is. democrats will say, yeah, but i wanted to do the right thing, which is essentally code for quid pro quo. look. sondland has real credibility problems. he had to go back and amend his testimony. he had to say, i now recall speaking individually with mr. yermak where i said that resumption of usaid would not occur until ukraine -- he suddenly recalls, oh, guess what? there was a quid pro quo. i proposed it. >> we haven't got on the the july 26th phone call. >> this is going to be key. this is the phone call we just learned abo

president trump clarified that ambassador sondland was in ukraine. ambassador sondland replied yes. president zelensky quote loves your ass. i then heard president trump ask so he'll do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied that he's going to do it. adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. >> essentially what was at stake were two thing ts. the military aide ukraine desperately wanted by a white house meeting to show russia they had the support of the united states behind them. >> after the call ended ambassador sondland remarked that the president was in a bad mood. ambassador sondland stated was often the case in the morning. i then took the opportunity to ask sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on ukraine. in particular i asked sondland if it was true that the president did not give a expletive about ukraine. sondland agreed that the president did not give an expletive about ukraine. i asked why not? ambassador sondland stated he only cares about big stuff. i noted tlfts big stuff going on in ukraine. like a war with russ

what took place immediately after ambassador sondland, that, of course, is gordon sondland and ambassador to the eu right after he hung up with president trump. >> and i think you said that after the call when your staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought of ukraine, his response was that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden, is that right? >> and burisma, yes, sir. >> um, and i -- i take it the import of that is that he cares more about that than he does about ukraine? >> yes, sir. >> trump today was asked about this new revelation, right, about this phone call and what he told ambassador gordon sondland. here's what president trump said. >> i know you've spent time glued to the tv today, but there was one moment when ambassador bill taylor recanted a conversation that an aide of his, and it was the day after the phone call with zelensky on july the 26th in which the aide says that he overheard you say to sondland how are things going with the proceeding with the investigations? sondland repeated back to you according to this aide, that ukraine

ambassador gordon sondland. he faces the impeachment probe after famously revising his testimony to ultimately be more incriminating against his boss, president trump. well, tonight i have a special report that we've been working on with everything you need to know about the man who might be the most pivotal witness in these whole hearings. that's coming up tonight. also new developments on how impeachment investigators are going after trump for allegedly lying under oath. but our top story now on this eve of the next round of impeachment hearings is how congress is so quickly grinding forward in the impeachment probe. consider where congress is just tonight, balanced between those three witnesses who spoke last week -- you probably caught some of their testimony. it was also caught by over 13 million americans. and then look at the witnesses this week starting tomorrow. eight of them. now in a typical congressional schedule, these kind of investigative hearings could easily take over a month. and let's be clear

hill were about ambassador sondland. she might have coined it "the gordon problem. >> seth: that's what they called it "the gordon problem" that sounds like an indie movie about a single guy in his 40s starring ben stiller [ laughter ] so today sondland had the chance to respond against sondland, a key middleman between trump and ukraine. and he wrote down what was happening with several infamous text messages. and he started out his testimony by stating clearly and unequivocally that everything they did, they did at the direction of the president himself. >> secretary perry, ssadorolker and i worked with mr. rudy giuliani on ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the united states. we followed the president's orders we worked with mr. giuliani, because the president directed us to do so. >> seth: he literally said over and over, "the president told us to do this." but i believe it, because no one would work with rudy giuliani unless they were ordered to. [ laughter ] working with rudy is like when

>> ambassador sondland has some explaining to do. in his deposition he didn't recall a lot of details, he didn't give specifics. we now know from every other witness, that sondland really was the point person. he was the person that was giving out the instruction. he was part of three amigos we have from david holmes'. the sondland picking up the phone in a restaurant in kiev and getting the president of the united states on the phone and getting instructions from him, which is remarkable from a security perspective. but the fact that anyone can get the president on the cell phone is remarkable as well. so sondland is going to be important. let's not forget tuesday we'll hear from colonel vindman. on thursday we're going to get fiona hill testifying as well. that's an important one because fiona hill was in the meetings that sondland had with ukrainian officials where she left it. actually, john bolton cut short the meeting, told fiona hill to report those conversations to the national security council lawyers, and then fiona hill fo

sondland testified. mr. taylor, who took notes of his conversations, said ambassador told him in a september 1st phone call that everything was dependent on the public announcement of investigations, including security assistance. president trump wanted mr. zelensky in a public box. president trump is a businessman, sondland said later. when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. in a sworn declaration after taylor's testimony, sondland would admit to telling ukranians at a september 1st meeting in warsaw, quote, the presumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the anti-corruption statement we ever been discussing for many weeks. the president's chief of staff confirmed trump's efforts to coerce ukraine by withholding aid. when mick mulvaney was asked publicly about it, his answer was breathtaking. we do that all the time with foreign policy, he said. i have news for everybody. get

gordon sondland suddenl

sondland calls the president to give him an update. now, this is from page 6 of holmes' opening statement and i quote here. while ambassador sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, i could hear the president's voice through the earpiece of the phone. the president's voice was very loud and recognizable. and ambassador sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time presumably because of the loud volume. okay, that was from page 6. the president's loud recognizable voice easily heard from sondland's phone in the middle of a restaurant terrace. but just listen to what comes next here, okay? he goes onto say, i heard ambassador sondland greet the president and explain he was calling from kiev. i heard president trump then clarify ambassador sondland was in ukraine. ambassador sondland replied, yes, he was in ukraine and went onto state that president zelensky loves your ass, his words not mine. he goes on, i then heard president trump ask so he's going to do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied that he's going t

ambassador sondland said i should join. the four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on a terrace. i sat directly across from him. at first the lunch was largely social. ambassador sondland selected a bottle of wine. we discussed topics such a marketing strategies for his hotel business. during the lunch, ambassador sondland said he was going to call president trump to give an update. he placed a call on his mobile phone. i heard him announce himself several times along the lines of gordon sondland holding for the president. it appeared he was being transferred through several layers of switch boards. i then noticed his demeanor changed and understood he had been connected to president trump. while ambassador sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, i could hear the president's voice through the earpiece of phone. the president's voice was loud and recognizable and ambassador sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time presumably because of the loud volume. i heard ambassador sondland greet the pre

sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. does that sound like someone the president hardly knows? >> let me just tell you, i hardly know the gentleman. >> well, you apparently knew him well enough to take a call from him and ask him about the investigations you wanted from ukraine. holmes' statement continuing -- i then took the opportunity to ask ambassador sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on ukraine. in particular i asked if it was true that the president did not give a s, or-ish about ukraine. ambassador sondland agreed that the president did not give as ish about ukraine, and i asked why not, and ambassador sonde lend said that the president only cares about big stuff. i noted that there was big stuff going on in ukraine, and he meant big stuff that benefited the president. the conversation moved on to other topics. >> that couldn't be more clear. the president only cares about big stuff that benefits him. ambassador sondland had already assured president that president zelensky would do anythi

but obviously, gordon sondland is blowing that up. and the mere fact that gordon sonland called president trump up after this was already out in the public, and saying, and trump said, there was no quid pro quo, that's not dispositive. that's just someone claiming i'm innocent like any criminal defendant. that's not the same thing. so this is very compelling stuff. but look for the defense to switch to quid pro quo, but so what. >> the daily beast putting out that sondland scorched trumpland during yesterday's hearing. how is this new information going to impact the inquiry going forward, especially concerning the reporting from the "washington post," basically saying the senate republicans have not been moved by it? >> sure, yes, i mean certainly stepping back, i think democrats felt that yesterday couldn't really have gone much better than it possibly did. after weeks of no quid pro quo. you have a person at the center of all of this, saying, yes, in fact, quid pro quo. they got the made for tv moment that i think they felt the inqu

ambassador sondland pledged to try. i suggested the possibility that ukrainian prosecutor general rather than president zelensky would make a statement about the investigations, potentially in ordernation with attorney general barr's probe into the investigation in the interference in the 2016 elections. the next day, september 2nd, mr. morrison informed me to say donny luke came to warsaw. he exprebsed the concern that the possible loss of u.s. support for ukraine. in particular, mr. morrison relayed to me that the inability of any u.s. officials to respond to the ukrainian's explicit questions about security assistance was troubling them. i was experiencing the same tension in my dealings with the ukrainians including a meeting i had had with the defense minister that day. on september 5th, i accompanied senators johnson and murphy during their vifsit to kiev. when we met with president zelensky his first question was about the withheld security assistance. my recollection is that both senators stressed that bipartisa

now sondland does not keep notes.th people who keep notes and one of them tim morrison, he remembered that conversation that sondland and the president had as told to him by sondland very different just a few -- i guess it was yesterday. let's listen in. >> what did ambassador sondland tell you that president trump said to him? >> if i recall this conversation correctly, this was where ambassador sondland related that there was no quid pro quo, but president zelensky had to make the statement and that he to want to do it. >> he had to make the statement. >> so there was no quid pro quo but there was a quid pro quo. i'm going to use that term because i know people are not watching me very closely because the whistle-blower complaint is up with congress but he has to make the statement. and that is a very key point for mr. morrison as you build the fact case. >> before we break, last word from you, john dean, how important was today. >> it was very important. and i think quigley made an important point on the comparison

sondland testified. mr. taylor who took notes of his conversation said, the ambassador told him on a september 1st phone call that everything was dependent on the public announcement of investigations, including security assistance. president trump wanted mr. zelensky in a public box. president trump is a businessman, sondland said later. when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. in a sworn declaration after his testimony, sondland would admit to telling ukrainians aftt a september 1st meeting in warsaw, quote, the assumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement we had been discussing for many weeks. the president's chief of staff confirmed president trump's efforts by withholding aid. when mick mulvaney was asked publicly about it, his answer was breathtaking. we do that all the time with foreign policy, he said. i have news for everybody. get of

and that is what happened to sondland. it may very well happen to others. and by the way, when are we going to get the actual words? the president's words are hid neb -- hidden in a secret server not in ukraine or russia or the white house, let's have that. we had the nixon tapes and lets get the words and the redactions in the transcript. >> the rough transcript released by the white house. >> right. >> some republicans have started to acknowledge that the president's conduct toward ukraine was inappropriate but they insist it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of impeachment. impeachment removal from office in light of what we learned today, how do you respond to that defense of the president? >> read the constitution. read the constitution. the clause on impeachment. it said bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. the president was engaged in a bribe. he was offering money in exchange for dirt in a political campaign. now it also happens to be illegal to accept help, financial and otherwise, from a foreign government. so that is a crime also.

taylor's aid over hearing sondland tason sondland talking to president trump. what does that say how interested trump was? >> it blows out of the whatter the attempted defense republicans have been erecting to suggest this wasn't trump's doing. this is sondland, mulvaney, someone is responsible for blackmailing ukrain. no, this is someone who heard someone talking directly to the president of the united states and the president of the united states trying to get the president of ukrain to smear his political rivals. i think the other significant element of the testimony beyond the new revelation is to listen to these guys and to watch their body language, how they conduct themselves and they are utterly convincing. as civil servants who are dead ka -- dedicated to our country. they attempt to smear reputations. they actually look a lot more credible than president trump's defenders, folks like jim jordan and devin nun es. and the facts are highly damming for the president. >> i thought it was interesting to watch the witnesses laugh at their line of questioning