sondland responded, call me. as everyone knows when someone says call me, it says stop putting this in writing. sondland confirmed today lor that the military aid was conditioned on announcement of investigations and that president trump wanted president zelensky in a quote, public box. here is how taylor who took contemporaneous notes of the conversation explained that call. >> during that phone call, ambassador sondland told me that president trump had told him that he wants president zelensky to state publically that ukraine will investigate burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling ukrainian officials that only a white house meeting with president zelensky was dependant on public announcement of the investigations. in fact, ambassador sondland said everything was dependant on the announcement. he said he wanted president zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about orderi

ambassador sondland told mr. yermak that the security assistance money would not come until president zelensky committed to pursue the burisma investigation. i was alarmed by what mr. morrison told me about the sondland-yermak conversation. >> ambassador taylor then explained why he was so alarmed by this term, let's hear that as well. >> you said previously that you were alarmed to learn this, why were you alarmed? >> it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house. it's another thing i thought to leverage security assistance. security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support. it was much more alarming that the white house meeting was one thing, security assistance was much more alarming. >> upon learning from mr. morrisson that the military aid may be conditioned upon ukraine publicly announcing these 22 investigation, ambassador taylor sent an urgent text message to ambassador sondland asking, are we now saying that security assis

president trump talks to ambassador sondland. sondland talks to ambassador volker. volker talks to president zelensky's aide yermak and then the july 25 call occurs. when ambassador sondland testified he agreed with this sequence indicating it certainly made sense. here's what sondland had to say. >> the sequence certainly makes sense, right? he talked to president trump and you told kurt volker to call you and kurt volker sent a message to andriy yermak to prepare president zelensky and that president trump had a phonecall where president zelensky spoke similar to what was in a text message and you would agree that the message that is expressed here is that president zelensky needs to convince trump that he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a visit to washington washington d.c.. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> indeed on the july 25 call in president trump asked for a favor president zelensky was ready with the magic words. he said, i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, specifically washington

but we also know what president trump told sondland because sondland related that message to president zelensky. during the same september 8 conversation with taylor, sondland described his conversation with president zelensky. here is ambassador taylor's account of it. >> ambassador sondland also said he had talked to president zelensky and mr. yermak and had told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if president zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. i understood a stalemate to mean ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. ambassador sondland said this conversation concluded with president zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on cnn. so not only did ambassador sondland relate this conversation to mr. morrison and mr. taylor. not only ambassador taylor and mr. morrison talk about it, but sondland says he relayed this conversation to zelensky himself. everyone was now in the loop on the military aid being withheld for the political investigations. taylor continued recalling the startling analogy

ambassador sondland added that mr. giuliani followed the direction of the president and we followed the president's orders. however, as ambassador taylor testified, ambassador bolton was not interested in having, did not want to have the call because he thought it was going to be a disaster. he thought that there could be some talk of investigations or even worse than that. he thought what was ambassador -- i ask you today, senators, what was ambassador bolton so afraid that president trump would say to the newly elect elected ukrainian president. what was the national security adviser so afraid that president trump would say to president zelensky. this is another topic we'd like to ask ambassador bolton about. if and when he appears before this body. body. >>> mr. chief justice, distinguished members of the senate, i thank you once again for your indulgence and for your courtesy as we all undertake our solemn constitutional responsibilities during this senate trial. george washington once observed in his farewell addr

and sondland said, yep. clearly lots of con vos, meaning conversations, going on and volker said okay that is good. it is coming from two separate sources. ambassador sondland told committee that the deliverable was a press statement from president zelensky committing to do the investigation into the bidens and the allegation of ukraine election interference that president trump mentioned on july 25th. but tim morrison testified that he didn't know anything about the deliverable. he was just involved in trying to schedule the white house meeting. which everyone wants to schedule as a sign of support for president zelensky and our ally ukraine. but trump's agents wouldn't just accept ukraine's word for it. ambassador sondland then recommended to ambassador colver that yermak share a draft of the press statement to ensure that the statement would comport with the president's expectations. so here on august 9th, so we're still less than two weeks after the july 25th call, we're about to -- i guess we're about t

hill were about ambassador sondland. i think 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, ambassador volker 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

ambassador sondland stated that the president only cares about

sondland there is no quid pro quo. now, why would he do that? that's not something that comes up in normal conversation, right? hello, mr. president. how are you today? no quid pro quo. that's the kind of thing that comes up in a conversation if you're trying to put your alibi out there. if you heard about a whistle-blower complaint, if you've seen allegations, if you know congress is starting to sniff around, no quid pro quo. but -- and i know this is astonishing, so much of the last few years has been a combination of shock and yet no surprise -- and even while the president is saying no quid pro quo, what does he say? zielinski must publicly announce the political investigations and he should want to do it. no quid pro quo except this quid pro quo. sondland relayed the message to president zelensky, informing that without the announcement of the political investigations, they would be at a stalemate. sondland made clear this reference to a stalemate meant the release of the security assistance. president zelensky, a

we also know what president trump told sondland because sondland relayed that message to president zelensky. during the same set to rate conversation with taylor samba described his conversation with president zelensky. here is ambassador taylor's account of this. >> ambassador sondland also said he talked to president zelensky and mr. yermak and told them although this was not a quid pro quo if president zelensky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate. i understood a stalemate to mean that ukraine would not see the much-needed military assistance that ambassador sondland said this conversation concluded with president zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on "cnn". not only did he relate ambassador sondland the conversation and not only did mr. taylor marsh and talk about it but samba and relayed this conversation to zelensky himself. everyone was now in the loop on the military aid being withheld for the political investigations. taylor continued recalling the startling analogy ambassador sondland use to describe president trump's approach to u

so, president trump talks to ambassador sondland. sondland talks to ambassador volker. volker talks to president zelensky's aide yermak. and then the july 25th call occurs. when ambassador sondland testified, he agreed with this sequence indicating it certainly makes sense. here is what sondland had to say. >> but the sequence certainly makes sense, right? >> yeah, it does. >> you talk to president trump, told kurt volker to call you, left a message for kurt volker, kurt volker sent this text message to andrey yar mac to prepare president zelensky, and president trump had a phone call where president zelensky spoke very similar to what was in this text message, right? >> right. >> and you would agree the message that was expressed here is that president zelensky needs to convince trump that he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a visit to washington, d.c. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> indeed, on july 25th call when president trump asked for a favor, president zelensky was ready with the magic words. he said, i also wanted to thank you

sondland replied, he is going to do it. adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to. after the phone call, holmes took opportunity to ask ambassador sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on ukraine. according to holmes -- >> in particular i asked ambassador sondland if it was true that the president did not give an expletive about ukraine. ambassador sondland agreed that the president did not give an expletive about ukraine. i asked why not? ambassador sondland stated that the president only cares about big stuff. i noted, there was big stuff going on in ukraine like a war with russia. and ambassador sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. the conversation then moved on to othertopics. >> those three days in july the 24th, the 25th and the 26th, reveal a lot about president trump's effort to solicit help from a foreign country in assisting his own re-election. on the 24th, special counsel mueller

sondland responded call me. as everyone knows when someone says call me it means stop putting this in writing. during their subsequent phone call sondland confirmed the military aid was conditioned on investigations and donald trump wanted president zelinsky in a public box. there were contemporaneous notes of the conversation to explain that call. >> during that phone call, ambassador sondland told me he wanted ambassador -- he wanted zelinsky to say he would investigate burisma on alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondland told me he now recognized he made a mistake by earlier telling ukrainian officials but only a white house meeting with president zelinsky was involved. ambassador sondland said everything was dependent on the announcement including security assistance. he said donald trump wanted president zelinsky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations. >> donald trump wanted zelinsky in a public box. a private commitment wasn't enough b

president trump talks to ambassador sondland. sondland talks to ambassador volker. volker talks to president zelensky's aide yermak and then the july 25 call occurs. when ambassador sondland testified he agreed with this sequence indicating it certainly made sense. here's what sondland had to say. >> the sequence certainly makes sense, right? he talked to president trump and you told kurt volker to call you and kurt volker sent a message to andriy yermak to prepare president zelensky and that president trump had a phonecall where president zelensky spoke similar to what was in a text message and you would agree that the message that is expressed here is that president zelensky needs to convince trump that he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a visit to washington washington d.c.. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> indeed on the july 25 call in president trump asked for a favor president zelensky was ready with the magic words. he said, i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, specifically washington

sondland responded, call me. and as everyone knows, when someone says call me, it says, stop putting this in writing. during their subsequent phone call, sondland confirmed to taylor that the military aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations and that president trump wanted president zelensky in a, quote, public box. here is how taylor, who took contemporaneous notes of the conversation, explained that call. >> during that phone call, ambassador sondland told me that president trump had told hum that he wants president zelensky to state publicly that ukraine will investigate burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling ukrainian officials that only a white house meeting with president zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations. in fact, ambassador sondland said, everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. he said th

sondland tells david holmes he's going to do it. of course, that's the only thing the president asked about in that call. sondland says he's going to do it, adding that zelenski will do anything you ask him to do, including apparently be his pawn. now, although sondland didn't remember the details of this conversation, he did not dispute david holmes recollection of the effect ambassador sondland had interesting take on it, which you should hear. actually, actually i would even more surprised if president trump had not mentioned investigation, thickly given what we were hearing from mr. giuliani about the president's concerns. >> that's pretty telling. that in this cause the day after he's had this had to stay call, they finally got the call arranged between these two presidents, and ambassador sondland, a major supporter of the president, says i would've been more surprised if he didn't bring it up. the president doesn't bring up the war with russia. doesn't bring up anything else. he just bringse this up, and sondland confirms yea

so, there is gordon sondland pressing this. this is the man you heard from already, gordon sondland, the man who says there was absolutely a quid pro quo. you've asked about a quid pro quo. there was a quid pro quo about this white house meeting. this is what they're talking about right here. gordon will be speaking with the president on friday. we are pressing this. ambassador volker's contact with giuliani spur ared a flurry of communications. patterns of calls from august 8 strongly suggest giuliani calling the white house to speak to a senior white house official, left a message, then had a four-minute call with an official later that night. we don't know from the call records who that white house official was but recall that giuliani publicly stated when he spoke to the white house he usually spoke to president trump, his client. also on august 8, yermak texts volker that he had some news. ambassador volker replies he can talk then and ambassador volker updates giuliani in a next the next day. volker says to giuliani in th

we also know what president trump told sondland because sondland relayed that message to president zelensky. during the same set to rate conversation with taylor samba described his conversation with president zelensky. here is ambassador taylor's account of this. >> ambassador sondland also said he talked to president zelensky and mr. yermak and told them although this was not a quid pro quo if president zelensky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate. i understood a stalemate to mean that ukraine would not see the much-needed military assistance that ambassador sondland said this conversation concluded with president zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on "cnn". not only did he relate ambassador sondland the conversation and not only did mr. taylor marsh and talk about it but samba and relayed this conversation to zelensky himself. everyone was now in the loop on the military aid being withheld for the political investigations. taylor continued recalling the startling analogy ambassador sondland use to describe president trump's approach to u

holmes followed up with ambassador sondland. >> after the call ended ambassador sondland remarked that the president was in a bad mood as he stated was often the case early in the morning. i then took the opportunity to ask ambassador sondland for his candid impression of the president's use on ukraine. in particular i asked 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. i asked why not? ambassador storella stated the president only cares about big stuff. i noted it was big stuff going on in ukraine, like a war with russia. ambassador sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefited the president like the biden investigation that mr. giuliani was pushing. the conversation then moved on to other topics. >> during the o july 25 call, president trump asked for the favor of these two phony medical investigations immediately after the ukrainian president brought up the fence assistance for ukraine.e. the following day ambassador sondland confirmed to president trump the u

that's what sondland told volker. in response volker texted most important is for zelensky to say that he will help with the investigations. that same day ambassador sondland e-mailed top administration officials, including acting chief of staff mulvaney, secretary pompeo and secretary perry to summarize his conversation with zelensky. in that email ambassador sondland said, zelensky is, quote, prepared to receive potus's call. will assure him, meaning potus, that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. both acting chief of staff mulvaney and secretary perry responded to the email noting that the head of state call would be scheduled. secretary perry wrote, mick just confirmed the call being set up for tomorrow by nsc, the national security council. and mulvaney responded, i asked nsc to set it up for tomorrow. neither mulvaney nor secretary perry took issue with the fact that sondland coached zelensky to yield to president trump's pressure campaign. but instead they took st

ambassador sondland. how did he characterize the shakedown scheme, the geopolitical shakedown at the heart of these allegations? ambassador sondland, quid pro quo. ambassador taylor, crazy. dr. fiona hill, a domestic political errand. lieutenant colonel vindman, improper. john bolton, a drug deal. the highest of high crimes against the constitution. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> mr. chief justice? >> the senator from utah. >> i have a question to send to the desk. >> thank you. the question from senator romney is for both parties, and i believe the house manager will go first. good guess. do you have any evidence that anyone was directed by president trump to tell the ukrainians that security assistance was being held up on the condition of an investigation into the bidens? >> senator, the evidence that's currently in the record, there are two people who had direct conversations with the president about the conditioning of aid on the performance of the investigations. the first was gordon sondland, who on

ambassador gordon sondland, the u.s. ambassador to the european union, testified that there was a quid pro quo. ambassador son ladland is not a so-called never trumper. mr. sondland gave $1 million to president trump's inauguration. he testified that everybody was in the loop and that it was no secret what was going on. in fact, as early as may of 2019, ambassador sondland made clear that he was coordinating on ukraine matters with mr. mulvaney. here is what david holmes, an official at the u.s. embassy in ukraine, had to say on that matter. >> well, ambassador sondland's mandate as the accredited ambassador to the european union, did not cover individual member states, let alone nonmember countries like ukraine. he made clear that he had direct and frequent access to president trump and chief of staff mick mulvaney and portrayed himself as the conduit to the president and mr. mulvaney for this group. >> after the u.s. delegation returned from the inauguration of the new ukrainian president in april, they were able to se

ambassador sondland's call with president trump on septemberor already heard about. on september 8th and 9th ambassador taylor exchanged what's app messages with ambassador sondland and volker describing his, quote, nightmare scenario, that, quote, they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. as he then goes on to say, quote, the russians love it and aid became public the white house took two actions in early september. first, the white house and the justice department ensured that the acting dni continued to withhold the whistle blower complaint from congress in clear violation of the law and second the white house attempted to create a cover story for the president's withholding of the assistance. approximately two months after president trump had ordered the freeze. mark sandy received an email from his boss michael duffey that for the first time gave a reason for the hold. sandy testified that in early september he received an email from duffey, quote, that attributed the hold to the president's concern about other countries not contributing mor

he made that statement after ambassador sondland specifically said he had a deal with mister mulvaney to schedule the white house visit for president zelensky if ukraine announced to phony investigations involving the biden 2016 election interference in the investigations sought by president donald john trump. doctor hill's testimony describing this drug deal he had with mulvaney. >> one weekend ambassador sondland was supposed to say we have a deal here. there will be a meeting i agree with chief of staff mulvaney there will be a meeting if ukraine will announce the investigation into 2016. by this point hearing from mister giuliani over and over again of all the issues that he was asserting by this point it was clear burisma was the issue i could see why the colonel was alarmed and said we cannot be involved in this. >> the referenced agreement between ambassador sondland and nick mulvaney, was so upsetting that doctor hill reported it to the national security council legal advisors. here is a testimony of doctor hill explaining the particular concerns. >> he was making a very stron

the answer was sondland. ambassador sondland came to that perception prior to speaking to the president and without a montage about presumptions and assumptions and guessing and speculating and belief. we also remember the montage which ambassador sondland was asked did anyone on the planet tell you that the aid was linked to the investigations? his answer was no. in the house record before us there is no evidence the president told anyone to tell the ukrainians that the aid was linked. in fact the article -- thank you. mister chief justice. >> the senator from oregon. >> mister chief justice, i sent a question to the desk for senator carper and myself. >> thank you. >> the question is for the house managers from senators merkley and carper and schatz. alan dershowitz said the president cannot be impeached for soliciting for interference in his reelection campaign if he thinks it is in the public interest. the president's counsel stated the president cannot be prosecuted for committing a crime. the president

., o- kerrr, gordon sondland. i'll tell you all about it in tonight's live edition of "don and the giant impeach." ( cheers and applause ) >> get me out of here! ( roaring ) >> stephen: that's an angry peach. sondland dropped the biggest bombshell in his opening statement. >> i know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: was there a "quid pro quo?" the answer is yes. >> stephen: yes! he said it on national television! i'm satisfied. i yield the balance of my time to conan jack da's. ( cheers and appoh oh! mmm. now, sondland made it clear, this whole ukrainian scheme, none of this was his idea. >> we all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the white house meeting reflected president trump's desi anquirements, at the expressres direction of the president of the united states. we followed the president's orders. >> stephen: historically speaking, there is no defense more heroic than, "we were just following orders." ( lau

president zelensky informed sondland he would agree to do a cnn interview and sondland understood he would use the occasion to mention these items meeting the two investigations at the heart of the scheme. the candidate zelensky who was swept into office on a landslide victory on the promise of fighting corruption would be forced to undertake just the same kind of corrupt act he'd been elected to clean up. upon learning this, ambassador taylor called sondland to register his deep concern, telling him that it was crazy. taylor later texted sondland to reinforce the point, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy towithhold security assistance for help with a political campaign . as i said on thephone . clearly they had discussed it . as i said on the phone. he later testified about the message and the events leading up to it . taylor said that the security assistance, the security system was so important for the ukraine as well as our own nationalinterest , to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. it was counterproductiv

ambassador sondland added that mr. giuliani followed the direction of the president and we followed the president's orders. however, as ambassador taylor testified, ambassador bolton was not interested in having, did not want to have the call because he thought it was going to be a disaster. he thought that there could be some talk of investigations. or even worse than that. he thought, what was ambassador -- i ask you today, senators, what was ambassador bolton so afraid that president trump would say to the newly-elected ukrainian president? what was the national security advisor so afraid that president trump would say? to president zelensky. this is another topic we'd like to ask ambassador bolton about. if and when he appears before this body. >>> mr. chief justice, distinguished members of the senate, i thank you, once again, for your indulgence and for your courtesy as we all undertake our solemn constitutional responsibilities during this senate trial. george washington once observed in his farewell address to

ambassador sondland added that mr. giuliani followed the direction of the president and we followed the president's orders. however as ambassador taylor testified ambassador bolton was not interested in having did not want to have a call because he thought it was going to be a disaster. he thought that there could be some talk of investigations or even worse than that. he thought, i ask you today senators what was ambassador bolton so afraid that's president trump would say to the newly-elected ukrainian president? what was the national security adviser so afraid of that president trump would say to president zelensky? this is another topic we would like to add -- ask ambassador bolton about. if and when he appeared before this body. >> mr. chief justice members of the senate thank you once again for your indulgence and for your courtesy as we all undertake our solemn constitutional responsibility during the senate trial. george washington once observed in his farewell address to the nation that the constitution is sac

department and officials and employees not limited to michael pompeo, ambassador volker and ambassador sondland and two, rudolph giuliani-- and h, curtailment or recall of former united states ambassador to ukraine marie marcia yovanovitch to the united states, and taken in response. and two, the sergeant at arms is authorized to utilize services of a deputy sergeant at armaments or any employee of the senate subpoena authorized to be issued to by this section. section. >> the amendment is arguable by the party by two hours. mr. schiff are you a proponent or an opponent-- thank you. >> and mr. cipollone? all right. mr. schiff and you have time for rebuttal. >> chief justice roberts, senators, counsel for the white house, i am val deming from the state of florida. the house manager strongly supports the amendment to issue subpoena for documents to the state department. as we explain, the first article of impeachment charges the president with using the power of his office to solicit and pressure ukraine to announce investigations that everyone in this chamber knows to be-- the president didn't c

giuliani and ambassadors volcker and sondland -- volker and sondland had tried, president trump made this clear himself. he ec plained to ambassador bolton that he wants zelensky in a public box; that is, president trump would only be satisfied if zelensky made a public announcement of the investigations which he subsequently agreed to do on cnn. here's ambassador taylor's testimony on this. >> and so even though president trump was saying repeatedly that there is, there is no quid pro quo, ambassador sondland relayed to you that the facts of the matter were that the white house meeting expect security assistance were conditioned on the announcement of these investigations, is that your understanding? >> that's my understanding. >> now, you reference a television interview and a desire for president trump to put zelensky in a public box, which you also have in quotes. was that in your notes? >> it was in my notes. >> and what did you understand that to mean, to put zelensky in a public box? >> i understood that to mean that president trump, through ambassador sunday, was asking -- so

colonels and men, ambassador sondland, for example, that remains to be seen. but yes, they are going after the credibility of adam schiff are good reason. he has a credibility problem when it comes to his history with the white house. he talked about the russia probe and send there was evidence hiding in plain sight, they would just need to see the mueller report. a lot of what he said today about the president hiding something, we just need witnesses to prove that he has done something wrong. a guilty instead of innocent attitude. he keeps calling for witnesses. but when it says go both ways. republicans want to hear from hunter biden. they want to hear from adam schiff and they also want to hear from the whistle-blower. be careful what you wish for when it comes to that side. >> martha: we've been talking about john bolton, and he is really the premier witness. when you raise this question of whether or not there is going to be a witness, adam schiff spoke a little while ago saying, don't you want to know why bolton called it a drug deal? don't you want to k

i heard him announce i'd along gordon sondland holding for the president. it appeared he was being transferred through switchboards and assistants and i noticed his demeanor changed and i understood that he had been connected to president trump. while ambassador sondland's phone was not on speaker phone, i could hear the president's voice through the earpiece of the phone. the president's voice was loud and recognizable. ambassador sondland held the phone away presumably because of the loud volume. i heard ambassador sondland greet the president and explain he was calling from kiev. i heard president trump said that the ambassador was in ukraine. he said ukraine. he went on to state that president zelensky loves your ass." i heard president trump ask so is he going to do the investigation? ambassador sondland said he's going to do it adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. >> after the call ambassador sondland confirmed to holmes that the investigations were the president's sole interest with ukraine because -- and in is very impo

sondland tells david holmes he's going to do it. of course, that's the only thing the president asked about in the call. sondland says he going to do it adding zelensky will do anything you ask them to do including apparently be his pawn. now, although sondland didn't remember the details of this conversation he did not dispute holmes recollection of it. ambassador sondland had an interesting take on it which you should hear. >> actually, i would have been more surprised if president trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from mister giuliani about the president's concerns . >>that's pretty telling . that in this call the day after he's had this head of state call, they finally got the call arranged between these two presidents , and ambassador sondland, this major supporter of the president says i would have been more surprised if he didn't bring it up. the president doesn't bringup the war with russia. doesn't bring up anything else . he just brings this up and sondland confirms yes, frankl

consistent with the agreement that sondland explained he'd reached with mr. mulvaney to condition a meeting on the investigations. but if there's any uncertainty, if there's any lingering questions about what this means, let's just question mick mulvaney under oath. mulvaney also matters because we have heard several questions from this distinguished body of senators wanting to understand when or why or how the president ordered the hold. as the head of the office of management and budget, mr. mulvaney has unique insights into all of these questions. your questions. remember that e-mail exchange between mr.hi deputy, rob blair, on june 27th, when mulvaney asked blair about whether they could implement the hold, and blair responded, that it could be done, but that congress would become unhinged. i wasn't just congress. it was the independent government accountability office, that determined that the president's hold violated the law. if the president's counsel is going to argue without evidence that he withheld the aid as part of u.s. foreign policy, seems to

president zelensky informed sondland he would agree to do a cnn interview and sondland understood he would use the occasion to mention these items meeting the two investigations at the heart of the scheme. the candidate zelensky who was swept into office on a landslide victory on the promise of fighting corruption would be forced to undertake just the same kind of corrupt act he'd been elected to clean up. upon learning this, ambassador taylor called sondland to register his deep concern, telling him that it was crazy. taylor later texted sondland to reinforce the point, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy towithhold security assistance for help with a political campaign . as i said on thephone . clearly they had discussed it . as i said on the phone. he later testified about the message and the events leading up to it . taylor said that the security assistance, the security system was so important for the ukraine as well as our own nationalinterest , to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. it was counterproductiv

ambassador sondland is not a so-called never trumper. he gave $1 million to donald trump's inauguration. he testified that everybody was in the loop and that it was no secret what was going on. in fact as early as may of 2019 ambassador sondland made clear he was coordinating on ukraine matters with mister mulvaney. here's what david holmes, an official at the us embassy in ukraine, has to say on that matter. >> ambassador sondland's matter did not cover individual member states little nonmember countries light ukraine. he made clear he had direct infrequent access to donald trump and mick mulvaney and portrayed himself as conduit to the conduit between donald trump and mister mulvaney. >> after the us delegation returned from inauguration of the new ukrainian president in april they were able to secure an oval office meeting with donald trump to brief him on their trip in part because of ambassador sondland's connections to mick mulvaney. in a june 18th, 2019, meeting, sondland informed doctor fiona hill that he was in charge of ukraine

ambassador sondland added that mr. giuliani followed the direction of the president and we followed the president's orders. however as ambassador taylor testified ambassador bolton was not interested in having did not want to have a call because he thought it was going to be a disaster. he thought that there could be some talk of investigations or even worse than that. he thought, i ask you today senators what was ambassador bolton so afraid that's president trump would say to the newly-elected ukrainian president? what was the national security adviser so afraid of that president trump would say to president zelensky? this is another topic we would like to add -- ask ambassador bolton about. if and when he appeared before this body. >> mr. chief justice members of the senate thank you once again for your indulgence and for your courtesy as we all undertake our solemn constitutional responsibility during the senate trial. george washington once observed in his farewell address to the nation that the constitution is sac

i heard president trump then clarify that ambassador sondland was in ukraine ambassador sondland replied, yes, he was in ukraine and went on to state that president zelensky loves your ass. >> seth: that's right trump's henchman actually told him, "zelensky loves your ass." i mean, it's classic bad guy talk that's something "the wolf of wall street" would stay after snortingai stripper's butt. "woo, daddy loves your ass." [ cheers and applause now trump has denied ever taking the call from sondland despite that fact that we now have multiple witnesses confirming it although it's clear from his denial that trump was, as always, lying. >> there was one moment where ambassador bill taylor recounted a conversation that an aide of his overheard, in which the aide says he overheard you say to sondland "how are things going with proceeding with the investigations?" is that correct? and can you fill in some more -- >> i know nothing about that first time i've heard it >> do you recall a conversation with sondland? >> i don't recall, no. not at all >> seth: yeah but you do any time trump says he

sondland spoke to the president. neither taylor nor morrison ever spoke to the president about the matter. how did ambassador sondland come to believe that there was any connection between security assistance and investigations? again, the house managers didn't tell you. why not? in his public testimony ambassador sondland used variations of the words assume, presume, guess, speculate and belief over 30 times. here are some examples. >> that was my presumption, my personal presumption, that was my belief. >> that was my presumption, yeah. >> as i said i presume that might have to be down get the aid released. >> it was a presumption. >> i've been very clear when i was presuming and i was presuming on the aid. >> it would be pure, you know, guesswork on my part, speculation. i don't know. >> that was the problem, mr. goldman. no one told me dreirectly that e aid was tied to anything. i was presuming it was. >> didn't show you any of this testimony. not once during their 21-hour presentation. 21 hours. more than 21 hou

why wouldn't he charge sondland? why would he be proud to tell the congressman i'm holding it up because i'm working corruption? because of course it wasn't tru true. there is no evidence of that. and what's more, the white house admitted by the president held up the money his chief of staff explains precisely why during october 17. the press conference let's see again what he had to say. >>. >> those were the driving factors he also mentioned to me the corruption related to the dnc server. absolutely no question about that. >> but the demand for the investigation was part of the reason. >> look back in 2016 was part of that because in corruption with that nation. >> mulvaney didn't just admit the president withheld the aid for pressure on ukraine, he also said we should just get over it. >> there is a quid pro quo funding may not flow. or the democratic server? >> we do that all the time withwi foreign policy. >> what did they say yesterday? he was really upset with the political expletive war policy that's one of t

after he abruptly ended the julh meeting immediately ambassador sondland told the ukrainians that the meeting could be scheduled in exchange of investigations and in speaking with doctor hill reporting concerns of the national security council john eisenberg and then ambassador bolton advised ambassador taylor to send a first-person cable to secretary pompeo to relay concerns about the holes of the military aid ambassador bolton also advised doctor hill's successor as a top official on the national security council on two different occasions to report what he heard to the national security council lawyers sounding so suspicious on september 1st ambassador bolton directed to report to the national security council to ambassador sondland to a senior ukrainian official to help them move the aid to announce he was opening the burisma investigation and then to report to the lawyers another conversation with ambassador sondland. he had conveyed the administration would not release the military aid unless president zelensky announced what was demanded by president trump investigation of one

are cooking up. >> what did you understand that to me that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up quick. >> i took that to mean everything. >> did you speak to the lawyer quick. >> it certainly did. >> those events are reason enough to testify. he can explain the conduct to characterize the ukraine as a drug dealer why he directed his subordinates to legal counsel hal ambassador sondland and mulvaney to do president trumps political bidding only ambassador sondland can tell us what he was thinking that is why the president that's why some members of this body fear his testimony ambassador bolton's involvement was not limited to a few isolated events. witness at key moments in the ukraine scheme especially july august and september last year. like to walk you through those events these members that this is not the entire universe of issues to which ambassador bolton could testify and to show what he such an important witness and why he is desperate to block his testimony we know from the attorney there may be other meetings and conversations that have not yet come to our attention but on

ambassador sondland tells holmes, he's going to do it. of course, that is the only thing president asked about. ambassador sondland said he is going to do it adding that president zelensky will do anything you ask him to do. including apparently be his pa pawn. now, although ambassador sondland didn't remember the details of this conversation, he did not dispute holmes' recollection of it. in fact, ambassador sondland had an interesting take on it which you should hear. >> actually, actually, i would have been more surprised if president trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from mr. giuliani about the president's concerns. >> that is pretty telling. that in this call, the day after the head of state call, they finally got the call arranged between these two presidents. an ambassador sondland is a major supporter of the president says, i had been more surprised if he didn't bring it up. the president doesn't bring up the war with russia. he doesn't bring up anything else. he just brings this up. a

did blare know about the sondland mulvaney deal? did he know that they were leveraging an official white house visit for the president to get ukraine to investigate his political rival? the white house was unable to write any reason for the hold. throughout this period, officials across the executive branch started asking questions. questions about the freeze on the military aid. around july 17 or 18, duffy e-mailed blare. he asked about the reason for the freeze. but he got no explanation. instead, blare insisted quote, we need to let the hold take place. and they could quote revisit the issue with the president later. and the house we heard testimony from multiple officials including ambassador taylor who was until very recently our top diplomat in ukraine, our number one. we also heard from several other officials. that from the department of defense, the staff, and omb, but no one, no one heard any credible evidence, any credible explanation for the freeze at the time. no one. nada. senators, think about it. not even our top u.s

sondland said this: >> was there a "quid pro quo?" the answer is yes. ( cheers and applause ) >> jon: wow. he said yes. it was clearly yes. yes. >> stephen: well, you can understand trump's confusion. there are at least 19 women who say he can't hear the difference between yes and no. ( audience reacts ) ( piano riff ) ( applause ) now, after his visit, trump proudly tweeted, "today i opened a major apple manufacturing plant in texas." wow, that would be quite an accomplishment, if that plant hadn't been operating since 2013. ( laughter ) >> jon: oh, man. >> stephen: no surprise, though. no surprise. >> jon: that's 44. that's 44. >> stephen: it's right up there, it's right there in trump's reelection slogan, "promises made, promises kept-- by obama, six yes ( cheers and applause ) we've got a great show for you tonight. senator kamala harris is here. but when we come back, new zealand week continues, when peter jackson and i premiere my new "lord of the rings" trilogy. don't miss this. ( cheers and applause ) ( band playing ) ♪ limu

counsel referred to ambassador sondland and sondland saying, there was no quid pro quo. at the time the president said no quid pro quo, he became aware of the whistleblower complaint. presumably by mr. cipollone. and so the president knew that this was going to come to light on the advice apparently of mr. cipollone or maybe others, the director of national intelligence for the first time in history withheld a whistleblower complaint from congress, its intended recipient. nonetheless, the white house was aware of that complaint. we launched our own investigations. yes, they got caught. in the midst of being caught, what did they say? it is called a false exculpatory. for those at home, that is a way of saying, it is a false, phony alibi. no quid pro quo. he wasn't even asked the question was there a quid pro quo. he just blurted it out. that's the defense that the president denies it? what's more interesting, he didn't tell but the other half of that conversation where the president said no quid pro quo. emno quid pro quo but zelensky needs to go to the mic and she want

ambassador gordon sondland. the u.s. ambassador to the u urn -- testified that there was a quid pro quo. ambassador sondland is not a so-called never trumper. mr. sondland $1 million to president trump's inauguration. he testified that everybody was in the loop. and that it was no what was going on. in fact, as early as may of 2019, ambassador sondland made clear he was. >> here is what david holmes, an official at the u.s. embassy on ukraine had to say about that matter. >> ambassador sondland's mandate did not cover individual member states, let alone nonmember countries like ukraine. he made clear he had direct and present aspect to the president and portrayed him to the conduit. this. >> after you urnt they were able to secure an oval office meeting with president trump, to brief him on their trip, in part because of ambassador sondland' connections then during a june 18, 2019 meeting, ambassador sondland informed national security counsel did that he was in charge of ukraine. and that who had in ukraine. here is dr.

did blair know about the sondland/mulvaney deal? did he know that they were leveraging an official white house visit for the president to get ukraine to investigate his political rival? the white house was unable to provide any reason for the hold. throughout this period, officials across the executive branch started asking questions, questions about the freeze on the military aid. >>> around july 17 or 18, duffy emailed blair. he asked about the reason for the freeze, but he got no explanation. instead, blair insisted, quote, we need to let the hold take place, and they could, quote, revisit the issue with the president later. >>> in the house, we heard testimony from multiple officials, including ambassador taylor who was, until very recently, our top diplomat in ukraine, our numero uno. we also heard from several other officials from the department of defense, the nsc staff, omb, but no one -- no one heard any credible evidence, any credible explanation for the freeze at the time. no one. nada. >>> senators, think about it. not e

as ambassador sondland testified, everyone was in the loop. mr. majority leader, based on your statement that we should break at around 6:30, i ask your indulgence, this may be a natural breaking point in connection with my presentation. thank you. >> mr. majority leader? consent we have a break for 30 minutes. >> without objection, so ordered. >> without objection, so ordered, and there you have it. that rarity in the senate trial, someone not using all their time and going to break early because, as hakeem jeffries, the house manager put it, he had made his points and they were very close to this natural pause that had been scheduled, the dinner break, a new tradition there. we have our panel of experts including chris matthews and chris hayes here on set. we're about to get into all of it. we want to do something a little bit special right now because something we have heard directly from you, those of you writing in and online is, wow, a lot of this stuff is flying at us. some of it is repetitive. some looks repetitive but has a legal constitu