after the call, ambassador sondland told mr. holmes that president trump did not give a lien bleep about ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the president himself like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. to repeat, and this is very important, ambassador sondland spoke to president trump before the july 25th call with president zelensky and relayed to ukrainian officials president trump's requirement of political investigations in exchange for a white house meeting. during that call, president trump asked for the favor of these two political investigations immediately after the ukrainian president brought up u.s. military support for ukraine which president trump had recently suspended or put on hold. and at the end of the call president zelensky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that president trump requested and the white house meeting that president zelensky desperately wanted. and then the following day, ambassador sondland confirmed to president trump on

after the call, ambassador sondland told mr. holmes that president trump did not give a lien bleep about ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the president himself like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. to repeat, and this is very important, ambassador sondland spoke to president trump before the july 25th call with president zelensky and relayed to ukrainian officials president trump's requirement of political investigations in exchange for a white house meeting. during that call, president trump asked for the favor of these two political investigations immediately after the ukrainian president brought up u.s. military support for ukraine which president trump had recently suspended or put on hold. and at the end of the call president zelensky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that president trump requested and the white house meeting that president zelensky desperately wanted. and then the following day, ambassador sondland confirmed to president trump on

after the call, ambassador sondland told mr. holmes that president trump did not give a bleep about ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the president himself, like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. to repeat, and this is very important, ambassador sondland spoke to president trump before the july 25th call with president zelensky and relaid to ukrainian officials president trump's requirement of political investigations in exchange for a white house meeting. and during that call, president trump asked for the favor of these two political investigations immediately after the ukrainian president brought up u.s. military support for ukraine which president trump had recently suspended or put on hold. and at the end of the call, president zelensky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that president trump requested and the white house meeting that president zelensky desperately wanted. then the following day, ambassador sondland confirmed to president trump on the

ambassador sondland asked the president, what do you want from ukraine? president trump responded, i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. i want zelensky to do the right thing. in addition, senior ukranian government officials denied any awareness of a linkage to u.s. security assistance and investigations. these denials are persuasive, because if there was, in fact, an orchestrated scheme to pressure ukraine by withholding security assistance, one would think the pause on security assistance would have been clearly communicated to the ukranians. foreign minister prystaiko said sondland never linked security assistance to investigations. prystaiko said, i have never seen a direct relationship to investigations and security assistance. although there is some testimony that ukranian officials from the embassy in washington made informal inquiries to the state department and the defense department about these issues with security assistance in july and august. the evidence does not show that the president and advisers in kyiv were aware of the pause until i

on july 19th ambassador sondland emailed mr. mulvaney, secretary perry, secretary pompeo, and others after speaking with president zelensky. the subject was, i talked to zelensky just now. ambassador sondland wrote, he is prepared to receive potus' call, potus, president of the united states. heth would greill turn every st unquote. mulvaney responded to the email noting that conversation a date would soon be scheduled the white house telephone call. the evidence also unam by analogously shows the ukrainiann understood this quid pro quo and had serious reservations because president zelensky won the election onle an anti-corruptio platform. inti fact, a few days before th july 25th call, ambassador william cataylor, the acting u. ambassador to.s ukraine and the former permanent ambassador to ukraine texted ambassador sondland and kurt volker or rather he stated in his testimony on july i 20th i had phone conversation with mr. danyliuk during which he conveyed to me that president zelensky did not want toen be ud as a pawn in a u

but we asked ambassador sondland. he said he did a tv interview on the 26th of july where he said president's given me a lot of assignments and the president assigned me ukraine, so forth. but then when we asked him in a deposition, he conceded he was in fact spinning. the president never assigned him to ukraine. he was exaggerating. >> i think at the public hearings, you pointed out that in contrast to other witnesses, ambassador sondland isn't a note taker. he, in fact, he said, i do not recall dozens of times in his deposition. >> i'd say it this way. ambassador taylor walked us through his standard operating procedure for taking notes. he told us about having a notebook on his desk. a notebook in his coat pocket of the suit and brought it with us and he showed us. so consequently when ambassador these contemporaneous notes. ambassador sondland, on the other hand, was very clear that, on the first hand, he did not have access to state department records. while he said that at the public hearing, simultaneously, the

and sondland confessed to everything on the spot >> after the call ended, ambassador sondland remarkedthe president was in a bad mood, as ambassador sondland stated was often the case early in the morning [ light laughter ] i then took the opportunity to ask ambassador sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on ukraine in particular, i asked ambassador sondland if it was true that the president did not give a expletive about ukraine ambassador sondland agreed that the president did not give an expletive about ukraine. >> seth: hey man, you don't got to bleep yourself. you can just say it. we're way past bleeping. a porn star went on tv and talked about the president's [ bleep ] and people are dropping f-bombs on c-span we are -- we are through the looking glass, baby. [ laughter and applause but then holmes continued and said that sondland made it clear to him that all trump cared about was investigating his political rival joe biden. >> ambassador sondland agreed the president did not give an expletive about ukraine. i asked "why not?" and ambassador sondland state

as ambassador sondland said even if you credit ambassador sondland's version of the testimony, which is contradicted by other witnesses who took contemporaneous notes and were more crede bable thible than so recollect had to amend his testimony, he said no quid proquo out of the blue without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair now recognized the ranking member for his first round of questions. pursuant to house resolution 660, the ranking member or his counsel have 45 minutes to question the witnesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's become very evidence why this hear iing is here and why e crazyness of this hearing, but please put back up the last slide. i have no idea what number it is. not as good. 53. did we cut it off after we got to it? okay, while we're doing this. the most amazing statement came out. we're proofing the tweet that said that democrats were concerned about impeachment. there's nothing the democrats have not been concerned about. for two and a half years. since august, since november 2016 b, the pres

did mister sondland convey that? >> mister sondland conveyed that the release of the aid was conditioned on the now public announcement of the investigation. >> can we put up slide 26? >> if i may respond. >> if we could put up the actual affidavit ambassador sondland, donald trump's ambassador to the european union for 2 under penalty of perjury and to read the highlight in front of you i now recall speaking - i said to the ukrainian aid the resumption of us aid would not occur until ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement we have been discussing for many weeks. is that correct? >> he said that at a meeting on september 1st in warsaw. >> the statement they have been talking about, slide 27. >> you recall the draft statement the ukrainians were going to have president zalinsky give, was that to get a white house meeting and satisfied donald trump and have the aid released? >> ambassador sondland testified to that and ambassador volcker testified. >> a statement where he did not make any reference to joe

and sondland -- sondland's been cut loose and he's behaving as any racial person would do in the circumstance. he's not going to continue to commit perjury. that's what he's saying today. he will fess up to the orchestrated role that he was part of at the behest of president trump to get a quid pro quo. >> wow. >> that's exactly what we're getting bang to rights today. >> page five we learn that the white house also suspend security aid to ukraine. i was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid as the ukrainians needed those funds to fight against russian agreti aggression. willie. >> he does have new information about the phone call at the restaurant in kiev. he says the following about that. i spoke by phone with mr. trump. the call lasted five minutes. i remember i was at a restaurant in kiev. i have no reason to doubt this conversation included the subject of investigations. he goes on to say, other witnesses have recently shared their recollection of overhearing this call for the most part i have no reason to doubt their accounts. talking about david holmes who said he overheard the pr

ambassador sondland and mr. volker both testified that on may 23rd, 2019, president trump told him to, quote, talk to rudy about ukraine. is that direct evidence? >> yes, technically. well not technically. but yes. >> thank you. >> and then we have the memorandum of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky, is that direct evidence? >> yes. that is. >> so there is direct evidence that president trump asked president zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both president zelensky and u.s. officials to talk to his personal attorney about those -- those investigations, correct? >> yes. and if i could just jump here, on july 25th call because the four facts that we keep hearing about are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. one of them happens to be there is no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25th call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also want to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, spesly washington and

ambassador sondland and mr. volker both testified that on may 23rd, 2019, president trump told him to, quote, talk to rudy aboutlk ukraine. is that direct evidence? >> yes, technically. well, not technically but yes. >> thank you. and then we have the memorandum of the 20 -- july 25th call between president 2 trump and president zelensky. is that direct evidence?um >> yes, that is. >> so there is direct evidence that president trump asked president zelensky to look into these investigations. and directed both president zelensky and u.s.en officials t talk to his personal attorney about those investigations. correct? >> yes, and if i could just jump in here on the july 25th call because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are -- three of them are completely wrong. so one of them happens to be that there's no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25th call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the united

>> ambassador sondland. >> ambassador sondland.i think you said earlier his name was mentioned, i don't f , know, quhwhat did you say? >> more than -- >> their star witness, fir hearing in the intelligence committee, relied on sondland. not the whistle-blower. not the more than half a dozen people who informed the whistle-blower. they relied on ambassador sondland. why did they pick sondland, mr. ambassador? >> the best they got. >> that's the best they got. the guy who had to file an addone ha doaddone addendum to his testimony. said two weeks ago in the same chair you're sitting in, mr. casto, he said this, "unless president zelensky announces an investigation into burisma and the bidens, there'd be no call with president trump, no assistance security money going to ukraine." mr. castor, was there an announcement by president zelensky about investigating the bidens or burisma? >> no. >> no announcement? >> no. >> did president zelensky get a call from president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get a meeting with president

ambassador sondland's testimony about this meeting however scattered. then his closed-door deposition, he testified that no national security staff members ever once expressed concerns to him that he was acting improperly. and he denied that he raised investigations during this meeting. but when he came here to testify in public, he acknowledged for the first time that he raised investigations but he denied that the meeting ended abruptly. he maintained that dr. hill never raise concerns to him and that any discussion of investigations did not mention anything specific such as biden or 2016. let me lastly address the allegation that president trump directed vice president pence not to attend president zelensky's inauguration is another way of pressuring ukraine to investigate former vice president biden. jennifer williams, a senior advisor in the office of the vice president testified that a colleague, chief of staff assistant told her the chief of staff assistant that president trump had directed vice president pence not to attend the inauguration. how

yermack talks with sondland. sondland talks with morrison. morrison talks with tay alrealo somehow we get the democrats thinking there was a quid pro quo and we need to impeach the president. yermack talks with sondland, sondland talks with morrison, morrison talks with taylor. guess what, two days ago the guy who started it, yermack, said it didn't happen. but that's their guy. mr. sondland had to file the addendum to his testimony, had to write this sentence to clarify. i think this is amazing. this is the clarification. ambassador taylor recalls from mr. morrison tells mr. taylor that i told mr. sondland -- yermack is the key here and it didn't happen. he just told us that. "time" magazine just reported it the same day that mr. gates pointed out that you filed articles of impeachment. holy cow, this is what it comes down to. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman, i have unanimous consent. >> move to strike the last word. >> for what purpose? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. >> the gent

i will play something from david speaking to them bassler sondland -- ambassador sondland. ukraineust come to the and met with president zelensky. he went to a restaurant with mr. holmes and he called president trump on his cell phone and mr. holmes could hear the call and then he spoke to mr. sondland. let's see what happened the day after that call. mr. holmes: i heard ambassador sondland greet the president. i heard president trump clarified that ambassador sondland was in ukraine. ambassador sondland said yes and went on to state that president zelensky "loves your ass." i heard president trump asked so he is going to do the investigation. ambassador sondland replied that he would do it adding that president zelensky would do anything you ask him to. burke: that is sworn testimony by david holmes who heard it from the president himself. the most experienced people in government who donald trump himself appointed in their position, they knew what was going on. let's look at a text message from ambassador taylor around the time on september 9. he says as i set on the phon

ambassador sondland and mr. volker both testified that in 2019, president trump told him to "talk to rudy about ukraine." is that direct evidence? speak yes, technically. well, not technically. but yes. >> and we have the memorandum of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelinski. is that direct evidence? >> yes, that is. we know that president trump as president zelensky to look into the investigations and for u.s. officials to talk to his personal attorney about the investigations, correct? >> yes. if i could jump in here, on the july 25th call because these four facts we keep hearing about that are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. one of them happens to be that there is no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25th call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i want to thank you for your invitation. and on the other hand i want to ensure that we will be very serious about the case and work on the investigation. that's the quid pro quo that presiden

hill talks about raising concerns of sondland and sondland in his deposition didn't share the same view. >> there's a lot of instances of that, where ambassador sondland recalls one thing, and other witnesses recall another, is that correct? >> sondland is a witness, is a -- >> and he's a bit of an enigma. let's say it that way. >> he was pretty certain in his deposition that the security assistance wasn't linked to anything. and then he submitted a -- an addendum. >> i call that the press ilsenten ilsentence. >> even in that addendum or supplement or whatever it's called, you know, talk to him and her and -- anyway, sondland ends with, i presumed. there wasn't really any firsthand information. >> we don't have a lot of firsthand information here, is that correct? >> on certain facts we don't. >> we have firsthand information on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office. although all conflicting on the july 10th meeting. there are -- you know, episodes, i think, during the course of this investigation that we haven't been able to at least get everyone's account. but the investigation hasn

ambassador sondland and mr. volker both testified that on may 23, 2019 president trump told him to, quote, talk to rudy about ukraine. is that direct evidence? >> yes, technically. well, not technically, but yes. >> thank you. >> then we have the memoranda of the july 25 call between president trump and president zelensky. is that direct evidence? >> yes, that is. >> so there is direct evidence that president trump asked president zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both president zelensky and u.s. officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations, correct? >> yes, and if i could just jump in here, on the july 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. one of them happens to be that there's no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25 call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, specifically washing

sondland convey that, according to mr. sondland's testimony? >> mr. sondland conveyed that the release of the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations. >> if we could put up slide 26 -- >> he presumed that, he said. >> we'll put up the slide. president trump's ambassador to the european union that he swore to under penalties of perjury. and he says, if we read the highlighted, which is also in front of you, i now recall speaking individualy to mr. ye plrks aq -- the presumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the anti-corruption statement we've been discussing for many weeks. is that correct, sir? >> yes, he said that in a meeting on september 1st with mr. yermak in warsaw. >> let me put up a slide that we put together, slide 27. do you recall, sir, that in the draft statement that the ukranians were going to have president zelensky give so they could dai-- was that statement their minds so they could get a white house meeting and satisfy president trump with the aid released? >> yes, ambassador so

she confronted ambassador sondland. ambassador sondland's testimony about the meeting is scattered. in his closed door deposition he testified that no national security staff member ever once expressednc concerns to him tha he was acting improperly and he denied that he raised investigations during this meeting. but when he came here to testify in public, he acknowledged for the first time that he raised investigations, but he denied that the meeting ended abruptly. he maintained that dr. hill neverth raised concerns to him d that any discussion of investigations did not mention anything specific such as biden or 2016. let me lastly address the allegation that president trump directed vice president pence not to attend president zelensky's inauguration as another way of pressuring ukraine to investigate former vice presidentga biden. jennifer williams, a senior advisor in the officeio of the vice president, testified that a colleague -- she said it was the chief of staff's assistant -- told her, the chief of staff's assistant, that president trump hadsi directed vice president pence

>> ambassador sondland. he said an 11 times more than the lieutenant colonel who was on the call and that first star witness of the intelligence committee they relied on ambassador sondland. >> as because the best they got. >> he had to file the clarification who sat in the same chair and instead of less president zelensky announces the bidens and burisma there be no call in a meeting for security assistance money going to ukraine that is what ambassador sondland said was there an announcement by president zelensky about the bidens over burisma?bout the >> no. >>. >> and also from the united states. and then that's it they built the case around. >> they built that around a lot of hearsay is called hearsay surprisingly enough with ambassador sondland you built a case around hearsay and this is an example around ambassador sondland because he filed the addendum and this in bullet point number two, and his clarification mister morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mister, morrison on a septembet with the

they relied on ambassador sondland. why'd they pick sondland, mr. castor? >> it's probably the best they got. >> because that's the best they got? the guy who had to file an addendum to his testimony? the guy that had to file the clarification? the guy who said two weeks ago sitting in the same chair you're sitting in, mr. castor, in his 23-page opening statement he said this. unless president zelensky announces an investigationhe in burisma and the bidens, there will be no call with president trump. there will be no meeting with president trump. there would be no security assistance money going toum ukraine. that's whatoi ambassador sondla said. mr. castor, was there an announcement by president zelensky about investigating the bidens or burisma? >> no. >> no announcement? >> no. >> did president zelensky get a call from presidentnt trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get a meeting with president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get the money from the united states? >> yes. >> they got the call on july 25th. they got the money on september 11t

after the call, ambassador sondland told mr. holmes that president trump did not give a bleep about ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the president himself like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. to repeat, and this is very important, ambassador sondland spoke to president trump before the july 25th call with president zelensky and relayed to ukrainian officials president trump's requirement of political investigations in exchange for a white house meeting. and during that call, president trump asked for the favor of these two political investigations immediately after the ukrainian president brought up u.s. military support for ukraine which president trump had recently suspended or put on hold. at the end of the call, president zelensky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that president trump requested and the white house meeting that prid zelensky desperately wanted. then the following day, ambassador sondland confirmed to president trump on the telephon

sondland. and at that meeting on july 19th, volcker counseled against the per spspective julian area taking. >> what they're talking about, let me ask you, mr. goldman, this tweet, is that referring to a personal political issue of president trump or official u.s. policy? >> that's a personal political issue. if you don't mind, i'll just take a moment to respond to mr. castor. on that july 19th meeting between volcker and rudy giuliani, ambassador volcker told mr. giuliani that the allegations about joe biden were completely bogus and wrong and mr. giuliani actually told according to ambassador volcker's testimony, mr. giuliani said he knew that and yet for the next two months, he continued to push for that same investigation at the direction of president trump. who had also directed president zelensky to contact mr. giuliani. so that july 19th meeting he brought up is quite important to this investigation. >> and sir, you already explained that on may 23rd when the official folks who went to t

sondland remembered it. their best witness -- they talk about the three professors, three of the most respected professors in america, all of who came in here and said this is the most impeachable president, this abuse of power is one of the most serious offenses you canst imagine. it's the constitution. it's the law of the land. and if you abuse your power, that's the most impeachable crime you can be charged with. they forget their witness, mr. turley said what the president did was wrong. he didn't come in and give a clean bill of health to the president. he said you need some more information, you need some more proof. but you can't nme get the proof because the president won't allow his men to testify. one of them is writing a book, one of them is still in an interim job, the other is running for senator. that can't do it. the proof is there. this is the most abusive act we can a imagine, trying to influee our elections with foreign interference. that takes power away from the american people, and that

after the call, ambassador sondland told mr. holmes that president trump did not give a bleep about ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the president himself. like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. to repeat, and this is very important, ambassador sondland spoke to president trump before the july 25th call with president zelensky and replayed to ukrainian officials president trump's requirement of political investigations in exchange for a white house meeting. during that call, president trump asked for the favor of these two political investigations immediately after the ukrainian president brought up u.s. military support for ukraine which president trump recently suspended or put on hold. at the end of the call, president >> ed: en s -- the following da, ambassador sondland confirmed to president trump on the telephone in person that the ukrainians would indeed initiate the investigations discussed on the call, which were the only -- which was the only thing about ukraine that preside

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

sondland's name shows up 611 times. in fairness, it's going to be double counted because, you know, if it's in a sentence and then a footnote that's two but in relative comparison to the other witnesses, sondland is relied on big time. >> yes. and i think dr. hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and -- >> the record is mixed on this front. dr. hill talks about raising concerns with sondland and in sondland's deposition, he didn't share the same view. >> there's a lot of instances of that, where ambassador sondland recalls one thing and other witnesses recall another, is that correct? >> sondland is a witness, he's a bit of an enigma, let's just say it that way. he was -- you know he was pretty certain in his deposition that the security wasn't linked to anything. then he submitted a -- he submitted an addendum. >> i call that the pretzel sentence. >> yes. even in that addendum or supplement or whatever it's called, you know, it's up to him and her and, anyway, sondland ends with, i pres

hill talks about raising concerns with sondland and sondland in his deposition at least doesn't, you know, he shares the same view. >> and there's a lot of instances of that where ambassador sondland recalls one thing and other witnesses recall another. >> sondland is a witness, is a -- he's a bit of an enigma, say that's way. he was, you know, pretty certain inas his deposition that the security assistance wasn't linked to anything and then he submitted an addendum sentence. >> i call that the pretzel sentence. >> even in that addendum or supplement or whatever it's called, you know, it's -- talk tokn him and her and anyway, sondland ends with, you know, i presumed. >> right. >> wasn't really any firsthand information. >> right. we don't have a lot of firsthand information here, is that correct?is >> on certain facts we don't. we have firsthand information on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office, a lot of firsthand information, although all conflicting on the july 10th meeting. there are episodes i think during the course of this investigation that we haven't been ableig to at le

after the call, ambassador sondland told mr. holmes that president trump did not give a [bleep] about ukraine and only cares about the big stuff that benefits the president himself. like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. to repeat, this is very important. ambassador sondland spoke to president trump before the july 25th call with president zelensky and relayed to ukrainian officials president trump's requirement of political investigations in exchange for a white house meeting. during that call, president trump asked for the favor of these two political investigations immediately after the ukrainian president brought up u.s. military support for ukraine which president trump had recently suspended or put on hold. at the end of the call, president zelensky made a point of acknowledging the link between the investigations that president trump requested and the white house meeting that president zelensky desperately wanted. then the following day ambassador sondland confirmed to president trump on the telephone

as ambassador sondland said, even if you credit ambassador sondland's version of the testimony, which has been contradicted by other witnesses who took notes and were more credible than mr. sondland who had to amend his testimony, he said even in that comment, no quid pro quo out of the blue without any question about whether or not there was a quid pro quo. rep. nadler: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the ranking members for his first round of questions. the ranking member or his counsel have 45 minutes to question the witnesses. has become evident why this hearing is here while the craziness of this year and, especially not having adam schiff, please put up the last slide. 53. did we cut it off after this? this, it is doing the most amazing thing that came tweet that saying a he thought it democrats were concerned about impeachment -- there is nothing the democrats have not been concerned about for two and a half years since november 2016, the president is saying nothing new in that tweet . he has known of they have been impeachment. that is why we are going t

teaneck sondland as a witness, he's a bit of an enigma lets les just say itt that way. he was pretty certain in his deposition that the security assistance wasn't linked to anything and then he submitted in addendum. >> i call for a pretzel sometimes. even in the addendum or the supplement or whatever it's called, it's up to him and her and, anyway sondland ends with i presume, so it wasn't really any firsthand information. >> we don't have enough first-hand information here. >> on certain facts we don't. we have information on the ma may 23 meeting in first-hand information although all conflicting. on the july 10 meeting, there are episodes i think during the course of this investigation that we haven't been able to at least get everyone's account, but the investigation hasn't been able to reveal first-hand information relating to the presidentac other than the call transfer. >> and i think we've already talked about this, the ambassador would presume things, assume things, and form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as first-hand

sondland. to the chairman's own ruling a few minutes ago, i'm done asking questions and not asking you to elaborate because i'm not asking more questions. you wons answer theng question who toldr the committee to che the numbers, won't say if it's you or mr. schiff so we're done andif going to miss calllan. as mr. berke said you will have plenty of time with counsel. >> does the gentleman yield his time to missnt callen? >> yes. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> if i may. >> certainly. >> i have a number of things i think i neednu to clear up. if i may. >> yes, certainly. >> you have to bear with me because i have a number of them here. first of all on the call, tim morrison, general kellogg have a different view of the call than lieutenant colonel vindman and jennifer williams. going to the point that the call is ambiguous, so that's the first thing. timrs morrison testified that h went to the national security counsel lawyers foron a very different reason. he did not say he went to the nsc

sondland, right? that is a "yes." >> yes. >> much of the democrats report is based on the sondland testimony, is that correct? how many times did mr. sondland mentioned in the intel committee's report? >> data search and the name sondland shows up 611 times. >> just to refresh your mind, sondland himself told the world that basically nobody else on the planet told him that donald trump was trying to tie aid to investigations. in fact, he also said everything he'd been testifying to you with simply his presumptions, is that right? >> that is correct. when you consider what of presumption is, it is not direct or circumstantial, in fact does not allow speculation? is not reliable. so can you name any democrat witness who has asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those 17 and that we heard from? >> we had some direct evidence on certain things and direct evidence of a may 23rd meeting and sondland gave some direct evidence. a lot of what we have attained has been circumstantial. >> how about with

>> sondland testified that all he heard mr. giuliani sore anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigations. >> and so did the committee find that without that public statement there could be no white house meeting? >> yes. >> so i was struck by how clear the evidence seems to be on this point and i would like to play another example. >> was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously, with regard to the requests white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. everyone was in the loop. >> mr. goldman, did the investigative committee find that mr. giuliani played a role in the white house visit being conditioned on investigations? >> the evidence showed that mr. giuliani not only played a role but that he was essentially the president's agent. he was acting on behalf of the president expressing the president's wishes, desires -- >> so what evidence did the committee find that corroborated the, quote, everyone was in the loop. >> well, ambassador sondland produced for his publi

they relied on sondland, not the whistle blower. not the half a dozen people who -- why did they pick sondland? >> that's the best they got. >> that's the best they got, the guy who had to follow an addendum to his testimony? the guy who said. he said, unless president zelensky announces an investigation into berisma and the bidens there would be no meeting with president trump, there would be no security assistance money going to ukraine. that's what he said. was there an announcement about this? >> no. >> did president zelensky get a call from president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get a meeting from president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get the money? >> yes. >> is that right? >> yes. >> the guy who said that wasn't going to happen is the guy they built their case around? >> yes. >> is that right, mr. sound land? >> right. >> they built their case around a lot of hearsay, didn't they? the best example of the hair say, surprisingly enough is ambassador sondland. they built their case around this ambassador

giuliani and sondland and volker. ambassador sondland testified everyone was in the loop including mr. mulvaney, secretary pompeo, secretary perry and the topop advisors. on july 19 ambassador sondland e-mail mr. mulvaney, secretary. , secretary pompeo and others after speaking with president zelensky. the subject was i talked to zielinski just now. in ambassador sondland row, he has prepared to receive the president of the united states call. we will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone. both secretary. in chief of staff mulvaney responded to the e-mail noting inat given that conversation a gate would be scheduled on a white house telephone call. they also under biggest no-show's that ukrainians understood the quid pro quo and has serious reservations particular because president zelensky had won the election on a anticorruption platform. in fact a few days before the july 25 call ambassador william taylor, the acting u.s. ambassador to ukraine in the former am

sondland mentioned in the report? >> like ied said, i did a searc just a control plus plf. >> sondland himself told the world that basically nobody elss on the planet told him that donald trump wasla trying to ti aid to investigations. in fact he also said everything that he had been testifying to is simply his presumption. is that sright? >> that is correct. >> and so when we consider what a presumption is, it's not direct, it's not circumstantial, it's not even hearsay. in fact, we typically when we try the case we consider is speculation. is that right? >> doul courts allow speculatio in? >> llno. >> why not? >> because it's not reliable. >> it's inherently unreliable. so, can you name any democrat witness who asserted that he or she had direct evidence of those 17 that we heard from? >> we had some direct evidence on certain thingse and we had some direct evidence on the may 23idrd meeting. and sondland gave some direct evidence. but a lot of what we have obtained has been circumstantial. >> how about with regard

you have trump talking to sondland and then sondland calls morrison. the president said, he wants no quid pro quo, but he wants president zelensky to go to the microphone and announce investigations. and we have the same thing and he once again says, i talk to the president, the president wants zelensky to go in front of the microphone and say what's happening. then he tells taylor, i talked to zelensky, and zelensky told me he'll do it, he'll go in front of a cnn interview and announce what he said he would. >> you're really looking at it through the eyes of a lawyer and parsing all of this information. and so what you describe in your piece is a phone call -- even if the president says no quid pro quo, he's describing a quid pro quo. i'm not saying that, but what i'm saying is -- >> you can't commit a crime and say, by the way, it's not a crime. what he described was a quid pro quo. sondland is calling it preconditions. we have morrison saying it was requirements. morrison was so alarmed by what he heard from sondland, he goes to the nse lawyers, fir

sondland, ambassador sondland is your star witness? really? you are basing an impeachment on ambassador sondland's testimony? his first statement, his first deposition he said 325 times i don't remember, i don't know, i'm not sure. 325 times. you don't think when this gets over to the senate that he will be impeached on all the things he didn't remember? then -- then his testimony impeached. not his office. i see the smirk. then what does he do? he reads and listens to what ambassador taylor says that he knows and what ambassador yovanovitch says that he knows and what all these people say he knows and his memory is refreshed. yield back. >> gentleman yields back. for what purpose does mr. ratcliffe seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized. >> i want to respond to my good friend congressman cicilline's comments. when he said that president trump's demand can't be explained by corruption because the word corruption is never uttered anywhere in the transcript. the problem with that is that the democrats have

, they relied on ambassador sondland, why did they pick sondland? >> probably the best they've go got. >> the guy that had to file an addendum to his testimony, the guy that had to file the clarification, the guy who said two weeks ago sitting in the same chair you're sitting in in his 23 opening statement, he said unless president zelensky announces an investigation to burisma in the bidens, they will be no call, no meeting, no security assistance money going to ukraine, that's what ambassador sondland said. was there an announcement by president zelensky about investigating the bidens or burisma? no announcement. looking to get a call from president trump. a meeting with president trump? did president zelensky get the money from the united states? they got the call on july 25th, they got the money on september 11th, they got that meeting on september 25th, is that right? but that's the guy they built their case around. is that right? one other thing they built their case around, a lot of hearsay. and that is ambassador sondland, built a case aroun

sondland. you'll see that a lot today. he testified that he presumed the aid was connected to an investigation but he said nobody ever told him that. when sondland even asked the president directly he said, what do you want? the president said i want nothing. i want zelensky to do what he ran on. ukraine did nothing and got the aid anyway. this is also a problematic experience. look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the intelligence committee who, by the way, is absent today. guess he can't back up his own report, but he started his own hearing by making up the factual call, when he made it up, he started the fairy tale we're having today. if you can't even put the transcript in the right -- just read it. chairman schiff couldn't even read the transcript. he had to make it up because if he didn't make it up it didn't sound as bad. it didn't sound as bad. he said, let's make up some dirt. that's not what was said. the transcript, the chairman misled the american people as an attorne

sondland. let's see what happened on july 26th, the day after that call. >> i heard ambassador sondland greet the president and explained he was calling from kreef o kyiv ambassador sondland said he was in ukraine and said that president zelensky loves your ass. i then heard president ask so he will do the investigation? ambassador sondland replied that he would do it, and i hadding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. >> that is sworn testimony by david holmes who heard it from the president himself. and it was clear to even the most experience the people this government who donald trump himself a pointed in their positions, they knew what was going on. let's look at a text message from ambassador taylor around this time on september 9, he said as i said on the phone, i think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. again, that is president trump putting his own political and personal interests over the nation's interests. to hold a

he pointed out if you the sondland. you have to take the full sondland. the only person -- when he spoke to the president the only direct evidence about what the president said no quid pro quo. i want nothing. i want zelensky to do the right thing. sondland and the president. >> september 9. >> no record of the call. and the only other call people knew about. >> come on. is sondland a credible witness? >> he's got pockets of credibility. he forgot -- >> credible when he says something you like. >> there's a critical point here. there's a account. sondland telling other people he's -- >> not from the september 9 call. thank you for making that point. i'll take the ball back. not september 9. he didn't explain it that way. taylor and volker said that they thought the call was crazy. and they thought what came out of it was unusual and dangerous. this september 9 call of which there's no record of. and this state department you would think seeing how it is to what you said 100% right, it's the only piece of testimony that gives the president any clearance on

rita has been weeding in sondland, california. waiting in sondland, california.

sondland. you're going to see that a lot today. he testified he presumed the aid was conduct connected to an investigation but nobody ever told him that. sondland even asked the president directly, he said what do you want. the president said nothing. i want zelensky to do what he ran on, ukraine did nothing and got the aid anyway. how this is also a problematic experience look over the past three weeks when the chairman of the intelligence committee, who by the way is absent today, guess he can't back up his own report, but he started his own hearing by making up the factual call when he made it up, he started the fairytale we're having today. if you can't even put the transcript in the right context, just read it. chairman schiff couldn't even read the transcript. he had to make it up because if he didn't make it up it didn't sound as bad. he said listen, let's make up some dirt. that's not what was said. the transcript, the chairman misled the american people as an attorney, as a chairman, a

sondland testified to that. step tseven, the president conditions military aid, raising alarm and that's where seven and eight start to fold into the reactionol and the coverup. why is this important, why am i going through the steps? because one phone call, no matter how bad, does not a presidency make. you could come up with a scenario where a president said ridiculously bad things on a phone call, took it back, apologized, dealt with it. i don't know that i president gets impeached over one phone call. what they're saying in this report is the phone call that we heard about that's been discussed so much, that was but one little piece of a wide ranging, organized alleged conspiracy with rudy giuliani calling the shots, controlling the llmoney, all that and that' the seven steps you see here. >> why are they seizing -- why are democrats seizing on this ukraine phone call, the withholding of aid, what's happening with the g president' interaction with ukraine in a wayth that they didn't seize on thedn mueller re