to investigate burisma, right? >> yes. >> so you had that association when you received his email asking you about investigations, correct? >> not necessarily. >> no? >> no. >> why not? >> because ambassador, among the discussions with dr. hill were about ambassador sondland, she might have coined it the gordon problem, and i decided to keep track of what ambassador sondland was doing. i didn't necessarily always act on things gordon suggested he believed were important. so he wanted to get a meeting. i understood what the president wanted to do to get a meeting, i was tracking we needed to schedule a meeting. >> you were not endorsing the notion of president zelensky sending a message about investigations, is that your testimony? >> that is my testimony. >> ambassador sondland, i want to jump ahead. after the aid was released, you went to the yes conference in ukraine, and are you aware that ambassador taylor who testified based on quite detailed notes indicated that earlier a few days before that, ambassador sond

and those, again, are investigations into16 burisma/the bide2016/burisma. the bidens did not come up. >> you would ultimately learn that burisma meant the bidens when you saw the call record? >> today i know exactly what it means. i didn't know at the time. >> and then on july 26th you confirm you did, indeed, have the conversation with president trump from a restaurant in kiev that david holmes testified about last week, is that right? >> correct. >> and you have no doubt -- no reason to doubt mr. holmes' recounting of your conversation with the president? >> the only part of mr. holmes' recounting that i take exception with is i do not recall mentioning the bidens. that did not enter my mind. it was burisma and 2016 elections. >> you have no reason to believe mr. holmes would make that up, if that's what he recalls you saying, you have no reason to question that, do you? >> i never recall saying biden. i never recall saying biden. >> but the rest of mr. holmes' recollection is consistent with your own? >> well, i can't testify as to what mr. holmes might

you said burisma? >> in order to for fight corruption, you need to see what ukrainian citizens are up to. >> what was the purpose of that? was it because the president, you knew -- well, that the president wanted those investigations to be done as a condition for them to have information in the white house. >> first off, we have to be clear what we are talking about in terms of investigations. we are not talking about vice president biden. >> burisma has nothing to do with -- you are saying -- >> i'm saying ukrainians within the company of burisma had acted in a corrupt way, that is a legitimate thing for ukraine to investigate. if they can make a statement about their intentions on fighting corruption domestically, that is helpful in order to convince president trump ultimately that this is -- >> with all due respect, ambassador volker, we heard from two witnesses this morning that those investigations were not official u.s. policy. ambassador volker, i don't know if you understand what you are gettin

kent, i want to follow up on my colleague's questions regarding burisma. you testified about a time when an oligarch named la krzyzewski, i think it was was self-dealing awarding himself contracts when was that, to my knowledge, he was minister of ecology 2010 to 2012. at the time licenses to have exploration of gas were awarded by subdivision of the ministry of ecology. >> so this corrupt self-dealing then was approximately seven years, at least seven years before the events that bring us here today, the phone call on the 25th and the events around it? >> correct. his time as minister was 2010 to 2012. hunter biden joined the board of burisma in 2014. >> and you have read the call transcript. have you not? >> i have. and i have it in front of me but i haven't read it for about a month. >> is there any mention of the discussion with president trump and president zelensky oligarch la krzyzewski who seven years earlier had been self-dealing. >> to my knowledge, no. >> is there a discussion of awarding contracts to oneself or the corrupt acts in the 2012 to 2

it was always burisma to me. i diplomat know the connection between burisma and biden. >> you never understood anyone was asking yoouk yoouks to investigate u.s. persons? >> ukrainians to investigate u.s. persons? >> no. >> okay. to be clear here, ultimately the aid was lifted on september 11th. there was never any announcement by the uk uks about any investigations they were going to do, correct? >> correct. >> the ukrainians never, to your knowledge, started any of these investigations, correct? >> not to my knowledge. >> and, consequently, these allegations that there was a quid pro quo that had to be enforced before the aid was released, that never came to frugs, right? >> i don't believe so. >> i want to step back a little bit and verify with you that the president had some genuinely deep-rooted concerns about corruption in ukraine, correct? >> that's what he expressed to us, yes. >> and you believed him, given his business dealings in the region? >> when we had the conversation, i did. >> and when you first

i think you had burisma on page 4? >> yeah. >> where president zelensky was talking about the company mentioned in the issue? >> i'm sorry, could you say that question again? >> i believe in your testimony you explained that you offered an edit that -- on page 4 of the trip that was ultimately published, you thought president zelensky mentioned the word burisma. >> i had it in my notes. i know that's what he said, yes. >> and that was on page 4, correct? >> correct. >> and ms. william, i believe after your deposition you went back and checked your notes and you had president zelensky using the term burisma as well, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> but that came up on a different part of the transcript than what colonel vindman was relating to, correct? >> yes. i believe so. >> yours came up on page 5 and it would have been in substitution for the word case. >> that's right, that's where i have it in my notes. >> colonel vindman, we've had some discussion earlier today and also at your deposition about whether the

it did not mention burisma or 2016 elections but was generic. ambassador sondland and i had a further conversation with mr. giuliani who said that in his view in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in ukraine the statement should include specific reference to burisma and 2016. again no mention of vice president biden in these conversations. ambassador sondland and i discussed these points and i edited the statement, drafted by mr. yermak, to include these points to see how it looked. i then discussed it further with mr. yermak. he said that for a number of reasons, including the fact that mr. lut sunko was still the prosecutor general they didn't want to mention burisma or 2016 and a greed and putting out a statement was shelved. these were the last conversations i had about this statement which were on or about august 17 to 18. my last contact with mr. giuliani according to my records was on august 13th until he tried to reach me on september 20th after the impeachment inquiry was launched. at this time, that is

and the ukrainian gas company burisma. let's get some reaction from the folks who've been with us all day. bret baier, chief political anchor and the anchor of "special report." he's in washington, d.c. your takeaways. >> democrats insist president trump has a gordon problem. ambassador sondland came into this hearing being described as a wild card. he was more than that. you mentioned the quid pro quo. he starts off his opening statement. daniel goldman, democratic counsel says it was the only logical conclusion to you that given all the factors, that military aid was also part of the quid pro quo. sondland says yes. he was convinced by september 8 that was the case. >> sorry, we've got a break-in. jim jordan. >> takeaways from today. the first one is the statement that the president gave to ambassador sondland when ambassador sondland asked, what is the one from ukraine. the president, as clear as i could be -- nothing. i want zelensky to do what he campaigned on. as clear as could be. direct evidence from the central fi

the issue of burisma, case is closed. >> letsenko was the man who closed the case against burisma. >> but then a strange thing happened. earlier this year, the new prosecutor did an about-face. stating that the burisma case and the bidens' involvement might be worth a second look. why the change of heart? when i interviewed letsenko he said he'd met multiple times with the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. were you in regular contact with him? >> no, no. it was -- there were irregular contacts. but yes, i have spoken with him. maybe ten times. >> ten times? >> maybe. >> always about this issue? >> this and other even political issues. >> why, having closed the burisma case, would letsenko want to reopen it? >> he was trying to save his position by constructing this conspiracy theory together with giuliani. >> he was looking for a way how to ensure that he will remain at his post. help giuliani with his conspiracy theories in exchange for, i don't know, some sort of guarantee that he will remain in his office. >> he saw the winds of power shifting, and he decides, i'll coope

it did not mention burisma or 2016 elections but was generic. ambassador sondland and i had a conversation with mr. giuliani who said in his view in order to be convincing that this government represented real change in ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to burisma and 2016. again, there was no mention of vice president biden in these conversations. ambassador sondland and i discussed the points and i ended the statement drafted by mr. yermoc to include the points to see how it looked. i then discussed it further with mr. yermoc. he said for a number of reasons including the fact that he was still officially the prosecutor general, that they did not want to mention burisma and 2016 and the idea of putting out a statement were shefld. these are the last conversations i had about this statement which were on or about august 17 to 18. my last contact with mr. giuliani according to my records is on august 13th until he tried to reach me on september 20th after the impeachment inquiry was launched. at this time that, is to say i

burisma, right? >> yes. >> so you had that association when you received his email asking you about investigations, correct? >> not necessarily. >> no? >> no. >> why not? >> because ambassador -- among the discussions i had with dr. hill were about ambassador sondland, i think she might have coined it "the gordon problem." and i decided to keep track of what ambassador sondland was doing. i didn't necessarily always acting on things gordon suggested he believed were important. so he wanted to get a meeting. i understood that the president wanted to do and had agreed to a meeting. so i was working -- i was tracking that we needed to schedule a meeting. >> you were not endorsing the notion of president zelensky sending a message about investigations, is that your testimony? >> that is my testimony. >> ambassador volker, i want to jump ahead. after the aid was released, you went to the yes conference, right, in ukraine? and are you aware of that ambassador taylor, who testified based on quite detailed n

and you thought burisma and 2016 elections. >> yes. we now know burisma means bidens now right. >> we do. can probably today till the end of time set atiedside any confusion that when somebody's asking for an investigation of burisma over the summer what they meant was bidens. >> with 2020 hindsight, yes. and on the day after the president's famous call, you're having lunch with david homes, and he overhears your conversation, and i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr. holmes said, and i think you said you wouldn't have any reason to think he didn't speak about investigations with the president. the president raised investigations with you, right? >> correct. on the 26th? correct. and we now know, of course, that was about the bidens and burisma and 2016, right? i mean, i know you didn't know that at the time. that's your testimony, but we understand that, right. >> i know it to mean burisma. >> reporter: mr. holmes said bidens but you don't recall that. >> no. you dispute it. i do. but you don't recall it. but we know

>> hunter biden. >> hunter biden is added to the board of burisma. do you think that creates a problem that burisma may be adding people to its board for protection purposes. >> sir, i work for the government. i don't work in the corporate sector. so i believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons not only to promote their business plans. >> was hunter biden a corporate governance expert? >> i have no idea what hunter biden studied at university or what his cv says. i have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was. >> you don't know whether he has any business experience in ukrainian prior to joining burisma's board? >> i've heard nothing about prior experience. >> do you know if he speaks ukrainian? >> i do not. >> do you know if he possesses any other element other than the fact that he is the son of at the time the sitting vice president? >> i do not. >> ambassador taylor, do you know whether hunter biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad's the former vice president? >> i don't. >> or at the time was

in other words, the 2016 and burisma. we saw a pass that along to him and kept him informed. >> so we can agree that at this point in time the secretary wasn't in the loop. that there was a conditionality on the sector security assistance. >> all on a second are you asking about july 19th, exhibit four? >> i was asking about your email to the secretary on august 11th. >> oh, okay. well, on july 19th, which the secretary was on, i talked about fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone, and the secretary was on that. >> okay. he testified at your deposition that on july 19th, in this continuum we talked about, at that point in the continuum it was just a generic investigation. it wasn't anything involving -- >> again, i'm not trying to put words in any one -- i think it went from the original generic, from may 23rd when we left the oval office, we are talking about corruption and oligarchs. until mr. giuliani started to become involved. and then it transitioned into burisma -- >> you hadn't even talked to gi

>> 2016 burisma. the bidens did not come up. >> but you would ultimately learn that burisma meant the bidens when you saw the call record, correct? >> of course. today, i know exactly what it means. i didn't know at the time. >> and then on july 26th, you confirm you did, indeed, have the conversation with president trump from a restaurant in kyiv that david holmes testified about last week, is that right? >> correct. >> and you have no doubt -- no reason to doubt mr. holmes' recounting of your conversation with the president? >> the only part of mr. holmes' recounting that i take exception with is i do not recall mentioning the bidens. that did not enter my mind. it was burisma in 2016 election. >> you have no reason to believe mr. holmes would make that up if that's what he recalls you saying, you have no reason to question that, do you? >> i don't recall saying biden. i never recall saying biden. >> but the rest of mr. holmes' recollection is consistent with your own? >> well, i can't testify as to

the burisma in 2016 piece was much earlier, ranking member. >> i'm glad you bring up burisma because this was another issue that the democrats don't want to go into. they refuse to call in hunter biden. hunter biden could get to the bottom of all of this. he could come in and talk about whether or not it was appropriate for him to receive over $50,000 a month while his dad was vice president and when they -- they actually were able to stop and get an investigator fired. they could call in hunter biden but they don't want to do it. but let's talk about burisma, ambassador. i know you're the ambassador of the eu. and i think some of the members later will get into whether or not it was appropriate for you to be in ukraine or not. i believe it was. i think you have a clear mandate, a mandate to do it. but you wouldn't be first ambassador to actually be interested in burisma. did you know that in september of 2015 then ambassador to ukraine geoffrey pyatt called for an investigation into zlochevsky, the president of burisma. this was the ambassador appointed by president obama in ukraine

castro, i think we were talking about 2016 and burisma. the investigations generally was really early in the -- >> do we know that secretary pompeo knows that. >> i think so. >> why? >> only because i think ambassador or i'm sorry, counselor brechbuhl was briefed. >> by who? by you? >> by ambassador volker, by myself -- >> that's not what he testified to. did you -- >> ambassador or counselor brechbuhl testified -- >> no, ambassador volker. >> oh, okay. >> he didn't testify that he briefed mr. brechbuhl. i mean, this email

>> yes, i am. >> turning our attention to the company of burisma. the cofounder of burisma, it's one of ukraine's largest natural gas producers, correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> and it's been b subject to numerous investigations over the years. >> i'm not aware, i guess i couldn't point to specific investigations, but there is a what i would call a, a pattern of questionable dealings and questions about corruption. >> he had served as minister of e kole ji during president yamakovich's tenure? >> yes. >> george kent testified about this that under the obama administration, the u.s. government encouraged ukraine to investigate whether he used his government position to grant himself or burisma exploration licenses? are you aware of that? >> i would defer to george kent. he's a fount of knowledge on ukraine. much deeper than p i have. if he, if he attested to that, then i take his word for it. >> and he testified that the u.s. along with the united kingdom was engaged in trying recoup u about 23 million in taxpayer dollars. >> yes. >> oka

>> yes. >> turning specifically to the company, burisma, the cofounder of burisma is one of ukraine's largest natural gas producers, correct. >> yes. >> and it has been subject to numerous investigations over the years? >> i am not aware of -- i guess i can point to a specific investigation, but there is what i would call a pattern of questionable dealings, and questions about corruption. >> the leader had served as a minister of ecology during president yanukovych's tenure? >> i came to learn that, correct. >> george can't testified a bit about this last week, that under the obama administration, the u.s. government encouraged the ukraine to investigate whether he used the government position to grant himself or burisma exploration licenses. are you aware of that? kent,ould for to george he is a font of knowledge on ukraine, much deeper knowledge than i have. that, then id to take his word for it. the u.s.tified that along with the u.k. were engaged in trying to recoup about $23 million in taxpayer dollars? >> i understand he testified to that, yes. >> mr. kent also testified that th

and afterwards it is clear to you the biden and burisma - - burisma 2016 elections discussed were designed to serve the president's political interest not the national interest. >> i don't recall that language for my testimony was that from october 3rd quick. >> i would like to phrase it and my words now. i don't think that raising 2016 elections over vice president biden what i consider a conspiracy theory circulated by the prosecutor general ukrainian are not things we should be pursuing as part of our national security strategy witht ukraine we should be supporting their democracy and reforms and its own fight against corruption domestically in the struggle against russia, defense capabilities. these are the heart of what we should be doing i don't think this serves the national interest. >> shortly after you heard the h call, you testified you alerted john eisenberg right away. >> and in your openingen statement you went out of concern for the pollen on - - potential political fallout as the call record became public not because you thought it was illegal. >>l rd correct. >> but you wo

>> the vice president was burisma did not seize, did it? >> to the best of my knowledge, it did not. concern there was a possibility of a perception of a conflict of interests. >> baas ambassador taylor. i want to turn to the discussion of the irregular channel and in fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, it is not o outlandiou outlandish as it could be, is that correct? >> yes, i agree with you. >> we have ambassador volker, a former senate confirm, nato and state department and diplomat. you have known him for >> somebody with good knowledge of the region. >> and the best interests of the united states and ukraine? >> yes, i am sure you are right. his first priority is clearly the united states. to the extent that ukraine has an implication for that, yes. >> okay. >> second member of the ambassador sondland who is senate confirmed, ambassador of the eu, so his involvement here while not necessarily part of his official dutieduties, it is certainly not outlandish for him to be interested or engaged or pursuant to secretary pompeo.

along with the united kingdom was prying to recoup money from burisma? >> i i understand he testified to that, yes. >> and mr. kent also testified that the investigation was moving along and then all of a sudden there was a bribe paid. and the investigation went away? did you hear him mention that? >> i heard him mention that. these are events that occurred before my time. so i frankly beyond what he said, i don't know much more. >> fair enough. >> right around the time the bribe was paid, the company sought to bolster their board. are you aware that they tapped some luminaries for their corporate board? >> certainly i learned that at some point, yes. >> including the president of poland, i believe? >> yes. >> and hunter biden? >> yes, i came to learn that as well. >> are you aware of any specific experience hunter biden has in the ukrainian corporate governance world? >> i don't know much about mr. hunter biden. >> and we talked a little bit about, at your deposition about whether mr. biden was qualified to serve on this board. and you know, i believe y

course that burisma means bidens, right? >> today, we do. >> and we can probably, from today until the end of time, set aside any confusion that when somebody's asking for an investigation of burisma over the summer, what they really meant was bidens. right? >> with 20/20 hindsight, yes. >> right. with hindsight. and of course, on the day after the president's famous call, you're having lunch with david holmes. we've covered this. and he overhears your conversation. and i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr. holmes said. and i think you said you wouldn't have any reason to believe -- to -- to think he didn't speak about investigations with the president. the president raised investigations with you, right? >> correct. >> on the 26th? >> correct. >> and we now know of course that was about the bidens and burisma and 2016, right? i mean, i know you didn't know that at the time. that's your testimony. >> i understood it meant to mean burisma. >> mr. holmes said you said bidens right after that but you don't reca

ambassador to ukraine public called for an investigation in burisma? >> i wasn't aware of it at time. >> within did you become aware of it them. >> after the impeachment inquiry began. >> did you know of antitrump efforts by various ukrainian government officials as well as alexandra lupe ya, a dnc consultant. >> i'm not aware of any of these interference efforts. >> are you aware of kent's kerns about hunter biden sitting on the board of burisma. >> the only thing i'm aware of pertains to his deposition. >> financial records show a ukrainian natural gas burisma routed more than $300 million. >> i'm not aware of this fact. >> until recently? >> i guess i didn't independently look into it. i'm not aware of what kind of payments mr. biden may have received. >> did you know that burisma's american legal representatives met with ukrainian officials just days after joe biden forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor. >> i'm not aware of these meetings. >> a month before the firing of shokin and they invoked the name of hunter biden as a reason to

return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. >> when you heard burisma, you didn't see it as code for biden, the bidens? >> i did not. >> when did you know that. your testimony saying that burisma included the biden's when the readout came out. >> my testimony wasn't specific with regards to the date. >> september? >> i don't recall the date. >> if i told you that the legal definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value and the means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty. do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo but it was bribery. >> not a lawyer and i'm not going to characterize what something was or wasn't legally. >> you also said in your opening statement that secretary perry and yourself, as well as ambassador volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter, and express direction of the president. is that right? you also go on to say that we did not want to work with giuliani, simply put we played the hand that we were dealt. what you mean by that and more broadly what

burisma, is one of ukraine's largest natural gas producers, correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> and it's been subject to numerous investigations over the years. >> i am not aware of -- i guess i couldn't point to a specific investigations, but there is a, what i would call a pattern of questionable dealings and questions about corruption. >> he had served as the minister of ecology during president yanukovych's tenure? >> i came to learn that is correct, yes. >> and are you aware -- and george kent testified a little bit about this last week, that under the obama administration, the u.s. government encouraged ukraine to investigate whether lochefski used his government position to grant himself or his business exploration licenses. are you aware of that? >> i would refer to george kent. he's a fount of knowledge on ukraine, much deeper knowledge than i have. and if he attested to that, i would take his word for it. >> and he testified that the u.s. along with the united kingdom was engaged in trying to recoup about $23 million in taxpayer dol

>> 2016, burisma. the bidens did not come up. >> but you would ultimately learn that burisma meant the bidens, correct? >> of course today i know exactly what it means. i didn't know at the time. >> and then on july 26th, you confirmed you did indeed have the conversation with president trump from a restaurant in kiev that david holmes testified about last week, is that right? >> correct. >> and you have no reason to doubt mr. holmes' recounting of your conversation with the president? >> the only part of mr. holmes' recounting that i take exception with is i do not recall mentioning the bidens. that did not enter my mind. it was burisma and 2016 elections. >> you have no reason to believe that mr. holmes would make that up, if that's what he recalls you saying? you have no reason to question that, do you? >> i do not recall saying biden. i never recall saying biden. >> but the rest of mr. holmes' recollection is consistent with your own? >> well, i can't testify as to what mr. holmes might or might no

>> yes, i am. >> turning our attention specifically to the company burisma, the co-founder of burisma is one of ukraine's largest natural gas producers, correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> it has been subject to numerous investigations over the years? >> i'm not aware -- i couldn't point to specific investigations but there is what i would call a pattern of questionable dealings and questions about corruption. >> he had served as the minister of ecology during one of the president's tenure. and the u.s. government administration encouraged ukraine to encouraged them if he granted himself or burisma exploration licenses, are you aware of that? >> i would defer to george kent. he is a fount of knowledge of ukraine. deeper knowledge than i have. if he had testified though that i would take his word for it. >> the united states along with the united kingdom was trying to recoup $23 million in taxpayer dollars from the burisma entity and its ceo. mr. kent also testified the investigation was moving along and then all of a sudden there was a bribe paid and the investigation went a

>> burisma, the 2016 election. >> burisma and 2016, yes. >> and at the time that you were engaged in coordinating for this statement, did you find it unusual that there was such an emphasis on a public statement from president zelensky to carry out the investigations that the president was seeking? >> i didn't find it that unusual. i think when you're dealing with a situation where i believe the president was highly skeptical about president zelensky being committed to really changing ukraine after his entirely negative view of the country, that he would want to hear something more from president zelensky to be convinced that, okay, i'll give this guy a chance. >> and he -- perhaps he also wanted a public statement because it would lock president zelensky in to do these investigations that he thought might benefit him? >> well, again, when we say "these investigations," what i understood us to be talking about was ukrainian corruption. >> well, what we're talking about is burisma and the 2016 election. >> correct. yes. >> we caning about these investigations, wasn't it clear that a p

burisma, you did not see that as code for biden, the bidens? >> i did not. >> when did you even know that? is it your testimony that you only realized that burisma included the bidens when the readout came out? >> no, i really don't recall the date. it was very late in the game, though. >> september? >> i don't recall the date. >> so if i told you that the legal definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty, do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo, but it was bribery? >> i'm not a lawyer and i'm not going to characterize what something was or wasn't legally. >> you also said in your opening statement that secretary perry and yourself as well as ambassador volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter at express direction of the president, is that right? >> that's correct. >> you go on to say that we did not want to work with giuliani, simply put, we played the hand that we were dealt. what did y

burisma. >> went to the best of your knowledge there certainly was no precondition discussed, right? >> no. no. again, the issue, the security assistance was one where i thought that this was really related to a general negative view about ukraine. there was nothing specific ever communicated to me about it or the reasons why it was held. and we certainly did not want to talk about it with the ukrainians. we wanted to fix it. >> okay. a couple of weeks later, the july 25th call happens, and you were headed to ukraine during that time period? >> yes, i was already on my way to ukraine two days prior to that. >> and he received readouts both from the u.s. side and the ukrainian side, can you tell us about that? >> yes, so i was not on the phone call. i had arrived in ukraine and i had had that lunch with mr. yermak's that we saw on the day of the phone call. i'd been pushing for the phone call, because i thought it was important to renew the personal connection between the two leaders and to con

it was always burisma to me. i didn't know about the connection between burisma and biden. >> to the best of your knowledge you never understood that anyone was asking ukrainians to investigate u.s. persons, credibility? >> ukrainians to investigate u.s. persons? >> correct. >> no, no. >> and just to sort to be clear here, ultimately the aid was lifted on september 11th. there was never any announcement by the ukrainians about any investigations they were going to do, correct in. >> correct. >> the ukrainians never to your knowledge started any of these investigations, correct in. >> not to my knowledge. >> and consequently, these allegations that there was a quid pro quo that had to be enforced before the aid was released that never came to fruition, right? >> i don't believe so. >> i want to step back a little bit. just verify with you that the president had some genuinely deep rooted concerns about corruption in the ukraine, correct? >> that's what he expressed to us, yes. >> you believed him given his busines

>> burisma, the 2016 election. >> burisma and 2016, yes. >> and at the time that you were engaged in coordinating for this statement, did you find it unusual that there was such an emphasis on a public statement from president zelensky to carry out the investigations that the president was seeking? >> i didn't find it that unusual. i think when you're dealing with a situation where i believe the president was highly skeptical about president zelensky being committed to really changing ukraine after his entirely negative view of the country, that he would want to hear something more from president zelensky to be convinced that, okay, i'll give this guy a chance. >> and he -- perhaps he also wanted a public statement because it would lock president zelensky in to do these investigations that he thought might benefit him? >> well, again, when we say "these investigations," what i understood us to be talking about was ukrainian corruption. >> well, what we're talking about is burisma and the 2016 election. >> correct. yes. >> we caning about these investigations, wasn't it clear that a p

they'll say we thought burisma, you know, our reporting shows us, we thought burisma was just another corrupt energy company, as you point out, they could have googled it, figured out the hunter biden connection. they were figuring out how to thread the needle as volker said it was a bigger problem than that, and they didn't realize it time. in hindsight, volker is saying i wish i would have realized it, i wouldn't have participated. >> they all wanted to get that security assistance to the ukranians, except the president of the united states didn't want to get the $400 million insecurity assistance to the ukranians. that was abundantly clear. >> and listen, republicans like to say this president was much more willing to back the ukranians and give them aid, much more willing to do that, than president obama. well, there's a little problem with that. in this instance, he wanted to hold up aid, $400 million in the middle -- >> he was willing to do it. >> at one point, the republicans tried to make, corruption is an issue in ukraine, the president was concerned about corruption. it says

>> i am. >> turning our attention to the company of burisma, the co-founder of burisma, one of ukraine's largest natural gas producers, correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> it's been subject to numerous investigations over the years. >> i'm not aware -- i guess i couldn't point to specific investigations but there is a what i would call a pattern of questionable dealings and questions about corruption. >> he had served as the minister of ecology during president yanukovych's tenure? >> i came to know that. >> george kent testified about this last week. under the obama administration, the u.s. government encouraged ukraine to investigate whether he used his government position to grant himself or burisma exploration licenses. are you aware of that? >> i would defer to george kent. he's a fountain of knowledge, deeper knowledge than i have. if he -- if he attested to that, i would take his word for it. >> he testified that the u.s. along with the united kingdom was en caged in trying to row coupe $23 million from them? >> i understand he testified to that, yes. >> mr. kent also te

and i recognized the connection between burisma and the bidens. it strains credulity to think that kurt volker didn't google this term. >> what did you make of his efforts, claire makes an interesting political point, this is a political process for the witnesses, also a legal process, they're all exposed on the potential crime of lying to congress. what did you make of his efforts to sand the edges off his political brand, he's been a long serving diplomat in republican circles, he went out of his way to show respect for joe biden. >> and for marie yovanovitch, he had kind words for her as well. he is trying to thread the needle, get by in this hearing without saying anything that's demonstrably untrue or anything that's wildly unbelievable, but while still sort of going down this center lane and trying to, as you said, shave off some of the rough edges. i think he did that by acknowledging there was this linka linkage. there were still some rough edges. >> you don't change your statement to help donald trump. you change your statement to help yo

burisma, you talked about it continue on. you came to understand that until maybe as late as septembe. correct? >> i don't know about the exact date, but it was pretty late. >> ambassador volker said the bidens never came up after his one breakfast meeting with mayor giuliani, where he testified that he tried to disabuse the mayor of anything relating to the bidens. >> and i think secretary perry publicly stated that he never heard by then, either, until the end. >> okay. so, when you testify here today that you have no recollection of mentioning the bidens to mr. mr. holmes, that's not just a recollection. that's based on your state of mind at that point in time, and your state of mind up to september 25th, correct? >> i wasn't into investigating the bidens. >> so it's very surprising to you that he would mention that, right? >> it was very surprising to me. >> i want to go back to a couple things in your statement. this july 26 meeting with president zelensky. earlier in the day from this lunch event we've been talking abou

burisma was a part of that corruption and hunter bidden was a part of burisma. then we ask the question is this ultimately a crime? and is this impeachable? to chris wallace now in washington on that. chris. >> well, i think that as bret mentioned i think what gordon sondland was trying to do here is protect himself more than he is to protect anybody else. to a certain degree took out the bus and ran over president trump, vice president pence, mike pompeo, john bolton, rudy giuliani, mick mulvaney. he imply indicates all of them. it pains to say this wasn't a rogue operation. i wasn't a freelancer. everybody knew. everybody was in the loop on this. i think one of the keys is going to be going to the specific points of contact between him and the president because there are a couple of points where he says it was abundantly clear. my personal presumption. my belief. and he is not saying directly that the president told him these things. and specifically he says the president never told me that there was any condition between aid as opposed to the white house meet

he called for an investigation into the owner of burisma, the president of burisma. are you familiar with that? >> yes. >> did you know about deputy assistant secretary of state kent's concerns about the potential conflict of interest with hunter biden sitting on the board of burisma? >> i would defer to george to k, who was involved at the time of those issues. >> as you know, the financial records show that this ukrainian natural gas company, burisma, rerouted more than $3 million to the american accounts of hunter biden? >> i've heard that. >> are you familiar with outcome must be dr. hill? >> only from newspaper reports. >> this is back to you, mr. holmes. do you know that burisma's legal representative met with ukrainian officials just days after the vice president forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor? >> no. >> did you know that burisma's american lawyers tried to secure a meeting with the new state prosecutor the same day the predecessor, viktor shokin's, firing was announced? >> no. >> did you know that the president called ukrainian president

process to investigate burisma, right? >> yes. you >> had that association when you received this email asking you about the investigations, correct? >> not necessarily. >> no? >> no. >> why not? >> because, ambassador -- among the discussions i had with dr. hill about ambassador sondland as you pointed was the gordon problem and i had to sided to keep track of what ambassador sondland was doing and didn't necessarily always act on the accordance that they had so he wanted to get a meeting, i understood that the president wanted to do and agreed to a meeting so i was tracking that we need to schedule a meeting. >> you are not endorsing the notion of president zelensky about this investigation? is that your testimony? >> that's my testimony. >> ambassador volker, i want to jump ahead -- after the aid was released you got to the s conference in ukraine? are you aware that ambassador taylor who testified based on quite detailed notes indicated that earlier, a few days before that ambassador sondland told him that president tr

vindman and miss williams took note of the word burisma by zelensky. a fact conspicuously left out of the call now locked away on an ultrasecure server. colonel vindman believed zelensky must have been prepped for the call to make the connection between biden and burisma, a fact other witnesses have now confirmed. in the weeks that followed the july 25th call, colonel vindman continued to push for a release of the military aid to ukraine and struggled to learn why it was being withheld. more disturbing, word of the hold reached ukrainian officials prior to it becoming public. by mid-august the deputy ambassador asked vindman why the united states was withholding the aid. vindman didn't have an answer. they needed to publicly commit to these two investigations if they hoped to get the aid. miss williams, we all saw the president's tweet about you on sunday afternoon. and the insults he hurled at ambassador yovanovitch last friday. you are here today, and the american people are grateful. colonel vindman, we have seen more attacks on your character and w

all of which referred to the 2016, and burisma. ms. kenna replied, gordon, i'll pass to the secretary. thank you. again, everyone was in the loop. >> so house intel committee adam schiff also pressed sondland on his claim that he didn't realize investigating burisma meant investigating the bidens. >> tim morrison testified that i think it took him all of doing a google search to find out, oh, this is the significance of burisma. it involves the bidens. are you saying during all this time, up until the call, you never made the connection between burisma and the bidens? you just thought that the president and rudy giuliani were interested in this one particular ukrainian company? >> again, my role, mr. chairman, was just to get the meeting. >> i understand that. but my question is, are you saying that for months and months, and notwithstanding everything rudy giuliani was saying on tv, and all of the discussions with rudy giuliani, that you never put burisma together with the bidens? >> i doesn't. i didn't. and i wasn't paying attention

it was always burisma to me. i diplomat know the connection between burisma and biden. >> you never understood anyone was asking yoouk yoouks to investigate u.s. persons? >> ukrainians to investigate u.s. persons? >> no. >> okay. to be clear here, ultimately the aid was lifted on september 11th. there was never any announcement by the uk uks about any investigations they were going to do, correct? >> correct. >> the ukrainians never, to your knowledge, started any of these investigations, correct? >> not to my knowledge. >> and, consequently, these allegations that there was a quid pro quo that had to be enforced before the aid was released, that never came to frugs, right? >> i don't believe so. >> i want to step back a little bit and verify with you that the president had some genuinely deep-rooted concerns about corruption in ukraine, correct? >> that's what he expressed to us, yes. >> and you believed him, given his business dealings in the region? >> when we had the conversation, i did. >> and when you first

my third question, why did burisma hire hunter biden? what did he do for them, and did his position affect any u.s. government actions under the obama administration. we have now heard testimony from the democrats' own witnesses that diplomats were concerned about a conflict of interest involving hunter biden. that's because he had secured a well paid position despite having no qualifications on the board of a corrupt ukrainian company while his father was vice president charged with overseeing ukrainian issues. after trying out several different accusations against president trump, the democrats have recently settled on bribery. according to widespread reports, they replaced their quid pro quo allegation because it wasn't polling well. if the democrats and the media are suddenly so deeply concerned about bribery, you would think they would take some interest in burisma paying hunter biden $83,000 a month. you'd think they would be interested in joe biden threatening to withhold u.s. loan guarantees unless the ukrainians fired a prosecut

>> yes, i am. >> turning our attention to the company of burisma. the cofounder of burisma, it's one of ukraine's largest natural gas producers, correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> and it's been b subject to numerous investigations over the years. >> i'm not aware, i guess i couldn't point to specific investigations, but there is a what i would call a, a pattern of questionable dealings and questions about corruption. >> he had served as minister of e kole ji during president yamakovich's tenure? >> yes. >> george kent testified about this that under the obama administration, the u.s. government encouraged ukraine to investigate whether he used his government position to grant himself or burisma exploration licenses? are you aware of that? >> i would defer to george kent. he's a fount of knowledge on ukraine. much deeper than p i have. if he, if he attested to that, then i take his word for it. >> and he testified that the u.s. along with the united kingdom was engaged in trying recoup u about 23 million in taxpayer dollars. >> yes. >> oka

something else that is important, the democrats and some in the media like to say that the burisma's issue is just totally debunked. even though burisma is a corrupt ukrainian company, run by a corrupt ukrainian oligarchic, hiring hunter biden like his own admission solely because of his last name, and because he's vice president son. at least 50,000 dollars a month, no ukraine experience or energy experience, his father is the person running the most conflicting person out in the obama administration to be running point in ukraine. this 30 money that hunter biden is getting from this 30 company run by this oligarchic is a legitimate issue that the president was concerned about. our country should be concerned about corruption, while there's a history of a company and an oligarchy going back years. the other thing that democrats like to say is it's totally debunk that ukraine interfered in the election. but if you pay attention to some of the specific back and forth you heard from jim jordan and evidence and the others there were ukrainians who sought to injected themselves into the

burisma holdings, they wanted favor from the obama state department. existed on so many levels. and if releasing transcripts is the new norm, republicans tonight need to begin demanding that the release of all transcripts of vice president biden with any ukrainian official in this period of time, as a matter of fact, do it for the whole time he was vice president. release all the transcripts of the t vice president and then biden and china and any other country paying his zero experience son a fortune, millions of dollars. no other americans getting that deal. and let's release, while we are at it, all transcripts of then president obama with vladimir putin and other russian leader after he had more flexibility after his reelections. while we are at it, let's release any and all transcripts of then president obama with any of the leaders with iran. and the discussions that led up to the stupidity and the idiocy of giving the mullahs in iran that chant death to america and israel, a billion and other cash and currency. why would you ever do that? republicans need to know. the med

it did not mention burisma or 2016 elections but was generic. ambassador sondland and i had a further conversation with mr. giuliani who said that in his view, in order to be convincing, that this government represented real change in ukraine, the statement should include specific reference to burisma and 2016. again, there was no mention of vice president biden in these conversations. ambassador sondland and i discussed these points and i edited the statement drafted by mr. yermak to include these points to see thousand how it l. i then discussed it further with mr. yermak. he said for a number of reasons including the fact that mr. lutsenko was still officially the prosecutor general, they did not want to mention burisma or 2016. i agreed and the idea of putting out a statement was shelved. these were the last conversations i had about this statement which were on or about august 17th, 18th. my last contact with mr. giuliani, according to my records, was on august 13th until he tried to reach me on september 20th after the impeachment inquiry

company that we have to look out for, no, burisma meant biden. and that's really where this is heading. because sondland has already admitted to the quid pro quo. he's admitted that burisma was something that was being investigated. if they drive home at this point that burisma unquestionably was biden, as fiona hill testified yesterday, then this case becomes a relatively strong case for impeachment. >> i keep going back to the point that the republicans had control of the house and the senate with president trump, they never once wanted to look into burisma, they never once wanted to look into joe biden or hunter biden, only when the political campaign of 2020 got under way that this suddenly this became a central focus of the republicans and their investigation. to that point, meredith, i wanted to get your thoughts on what the reaction has been to dr. fiona hill's testimony, regarding her scolding of republicans over this fiction nam a, fictional claim that ukraine interfered in the 2020 election. pretty much in the opening statement that she