>> mr. ratcliffe. i'm talking on july 25th. >> they did not know this. >> as it turns out, president zelensky agreed with you. on october 10th president zelensky held a press marathon with over 300 reporters that he said repeatedly and consistency that he was not aware of a military hold during the july 25thdu call. in fact, in his official press release from the ukrainian government available on his website that i'll be introducing into the recorddu he said our phone conversation bears no relations to arms. they blocked the provision of military assistance prior to our telephone conversation but the issue had notnv been discussed during our conversation. i meandu i didn't even know. so, now, in addition to confirming that because he had no knowledge of it, there was no quidth pro quo involving milita aid duringnv that call, preside zelensky went on to confirm a number of things. that there was no pressure and no conditions. and there were no threats on military naid. there were no conditions or pressu

>> mr. ratcliffe, if i can just respond. let me just reiterate that i'm not here. >> i have one minute left. let me just. >> i know have you one minute. i have 30 seconds. you asked me a question. >> the witness asked the question. >> let me withdraw the question. >> that's your. >> let me ask you this question. >> the gentleman will suspend. ambassador taylor would you like it answer the question? >> suspend the time please, i withdrew the question. >> the gentleman whether l. suspend. we will suspend the clock. >> suspend the clock and one minute, please. >> ambassador taylor, would you like to respond to the question? >> mr. ratcliffe, i would just like to say that i'm not here to do anything are having to do with the decide about impeachment. that is not what either of us are here to do. this is your job. >> thank you. >> restore time to the clock to one minute? >> no. but you may continue 22 seconds. >> fine. >> mr. ambassador, i think everyone knows that house democrats have made up their mind to impeach one president.

. >> mr. nunes? >> i yield to mr. ratcliffe. >> thanks to the gentleman for yielding. thanks to mr. hale and miss cooper for being here. president trump's general skepticism of providing aid in the amount of foreign aid being provided to foreign countries, would you agree with that characterization, ambassador hale? >> we've often heard at the state department that the president of the united states wants to make sure that foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulousually to make sure it's in u.s. national interest and it meets criteria. >> has president trump looked to overhaul how foreign aid is distributed? >> yes. the nsc launched a foreign assistance review process some time, i think it was, late august, early september 2018. >> throughout both his campaign and administration, president trump has repeatedly sought to reframe american foreign policy policy and what he described america first policy well before there was a whistle-blower talking about aid to ukraine, the president talked about providing u.s. foreign assistance. to that point, is it fair to say that the president has

ratcliff. >> thank you, chair. mr. kent, in your prior deposition, on page 159, you were asked about the president's authority to release an ambassador for any reason. and your response was, quote, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president and that is without question. everybody understands that. end quote. do you remember saying that? >> i do and it's true. >> president very clearly has that constitutional authority, correct? >> he does. >> okay. well, most everybody apparently understands that. butde doesn't include house democrats. in the context of this impeachment inquiry, specifically addressing ambassador yovanovitch, who i know is a friend ofba yours, in alleging an abuse of power in a nationally-televised interview, a member of this committee said, quote, it's an abuse of power to remove anse ambassador for political reasons because you they're doing. period. endt quote. that's not true, is it? >> again, i go back to what i said. the president has the right to have ambassadors serve at his pleasur

>> to answer mr. ratcliff's question? >> i have answered it. >> not respectfully, mr. chairman. you haven't answered my question whether or not i should be asserting assumes facts not in evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. that's my question. >> mr. ratcliffe i will say once again i'm not objecting to the question but i am instructing the witness they should not presume questions from the majority or the minority that may represent facts not in evidence are correct. this is -- i have answered the question. we will resume the questioning and resume the clock. so you certainly can appreciate president trump's concerns? mr. cast tore, i don't know the nature of president trump's concerns. if there my deposition i know you handed me the political article which listed three of the elements that you described earlier and you recognize and i have confirmed with the ranking minority member that i -- this is the first i had heard of those and was surprised by those. i don't know president trump's reaction to those. >> an in the information

>> to answer mr. ratcliffe's question. >> i have answered it. resume your questioning. >> respectfully, mr. chairman, you haven't answered my question whether or not i should be asserting assumes facts not in evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. that's my question. >> mr. ratcliffe, i'll say once again i'm not objectng to the question but i am instructing the witness that they should not presume questions from the majority or the minority that may represent facts not in evidence are correct. this is -- i have answered the question. we will resume the questioning and resume the clock. >> so you certainly can appreciate president trump's concer concerns? >> mr. castor, i don't know the exact nature of president trump's concerns. in my deposition, i recall you handed me the politico article, which listed at least three of the elements that you have described earlier. and you've recognized and i have confirmed with the ranking minority member that that's the first i'd heard of those and was surprised by

>> mr. ratcliffe, let mr. holmes answer. >> sondland greeted the president. >> how? >> he said i'm in. he said mr. holmes, mr. president, i'm if kiev. the president corrected and said are you in ukraine? flu is think he said i think you are in ukraine? he said what? >> he said are you in you kra in? >> what did you hear president trump say about asap rocky? >> i did not hear president trump's side of the conversation about asap rocky. >> you said, how did we go from, the conversation was very loud and his voice was recognizable to as you say here when the conversation shifted, i could only here ambassador sondland's side of th whe the president came on the call, he sort of winced and held the phone away from his ear. for the initial p i don't know if he turned the volume down or the president spoke more quietly or he got used to the volume, i don't know what change ed? what did clang? what's important. this was memorable. >> i don't know sir, body sondland moved the phone away from his ear. >> that's what it was? >> yes. >> okay. >> how'd the conversation end? >> i o

mr. chairman. >> mr. ratcliffe, and ms. williams, you testify tad what you noted as being unusual about the call that took place on july 25th, was that the president raised what appeared to be a domestic political issue, correct? >> correct. >> but raising an issue even one that you thought was unusual is different than making a demand, would you agree? >> yes. >> and as i read your deposition, it didn't sound like from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call as a demand for investigations, is that fair? >> i don't believe i am in a position to characterize it in terms other than the president did in a favor. >> you didn't hear it as demand? >> again, i refer back to the transcript itself. >> and lieutenant colonel vindman, you have testified and explained to us why in your mind it is a demand, and you have given us reasons, and the disparity of the power between the two presidents, and because you did feel that way, you also felt that you had a duty to report what you thought was improper. is that correc

ratcliffe? >> thank you, chair. mr. kent, in your prior deposition, on page 159, you were asked about the president's authority to release an ambassador for any reason. and your response was, quote: all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. and that is without question. everybody understands tha, end quote. do you remember saying that? >> i do and it's true. >> the president very clearly has that constitutional authority, correct? >> he does. >> okay. well, most everybody apparently understands that. but it doesn't include house democrats. in the context of this impeachment inquiry, specifically addressing ambassador yovanovitch, who i know is a friend of yours. in alleging an abuse of power in the nationally televised interview, a member of this committee said, quote: it's an abuse of power to remove an ambassador for political reasons because you don't like what they're doing, period, end quote. that's not true, is it? >> again, i go back to what i said, the president has the right to have ambassadors se

. >> mr. nunes. >> yield to mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you for yielding. ambassador hale, ms. cooper, thank you for being here. it is opening, ranking member's may 24 referenced president trump's general skepticism of providing aid and the amount of foreign aid being provided to foreign countries. would you agree with that characterization, ambassador hale? >> we have often heard at the state department that the president of the united states wants to make sure that foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure it's in u.s. national interests and that we evaluated continually. >> since his election, is it a fair to say president trump is looking to overall how foreign aid is distributed. >> yes, there was a process launched to review. >> throughout the campaign and the administration, president trump has repeatedly sought to reframe american foreign policy in economic terms and as he described, america first policy. consistent with that, well before there was a whistle-blower talking about a pause on aid to the ukraine, the president had expressed genuine concern ab

so, when congress authorized this money, it built and conditioned, just as mr. ratcliffe suggested. by law, ukraine wouldn't get all the money until it demonstrated it had undertaken substantial anti-corruption reforms. under the law the department of defense works with the state department and other agencies to establish anti-corruption benchmarks and determine whether ukraine has efficiently met those bench marks, correct? >> that's correct. that provision pertains to the ukraine security assistance initiative. >> that's a legally specified process. that's not the president in the oval office manifesting general skepticism of foreign aid, is that right? >> it is a congressionally mandated process, yes, sir. >> did that process take place for the dod funding held up in july? >> the process that took place for the certification took place prior to the may certification to the u.s. congress. >> so, right. not only did it take place before, as required by law, months before president trump froze the money, the department of testifies, in consultation with state, sent a letter to congr

ratcliffe. >> thank you, chair. mr. kent, in your prior deposition on page 159 you were asked about the president's authority to release an ambassador for any reason. and your response was, quote, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president and that is without question. everybody understands that, end quote. do you remember saying that. >> i do and it's true. >> the president very clearly has that constitutional authority, correct? >> he does. >> okay. well, most everybody apparently understands that. but that doesn't include house democrats. in the context of this impeachment inquiry, specifically addressing ambassador yovanovitch, who i know is a friend of yours, in alleging an abuse of power in a nationally televised interview, a member of this committee said it's an abuse of power to remove an ambassador because you don't like what they're doing, end quote. that's not true? >> the president has the right to have ambassadors serve at his pleasure. >> okay. so you agree with me that we shouldn't impeach a p

. >> mr. stewart. >> stefanik. >> mr. heard. mr. ratcliffe. mr. jordan. >> no. >> mister chairman, there are 13 ayes and five knows. >> motion to table is carried, the motion is now in the subpoena to compel documents in the whistleblower, is there a move to table? there is a move to table, all those in favor say i. >>. >> i all those opposed to. no >>. >> now in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. i will now move wants to compel documents. >> miss chairman, would table. >> don't move to table. all of those in favor will say i. >>. i >> all those in favor -- all those opposed say no. >>. >> no anything to the chair, the ayes have it. the ice have. it the motion is tabled. last motion is on the motion to compel documents in the democratic national committee. is there a motion? >> mister chairman. >> i want to table. >> bottom of the table, all of this in favor will say i. >> i. >> all those opposed say no. >>. no >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is tabled. >> point of order, mister chairman.

>> to answer mr. ratcliff's question. >> excuse me, mr. chairman, you have not said thati need to be asserting factsnot in evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. that is my question. >> mr. radcliffe, i willsay once again, i am not objecting to thequestion, but i am instructing the witness that they should notquestions from the majority or the minorityof facts not in evidence are correct. this is, and i have answered the question and we will resume thequestioning and the clock. mr.castor. >> so you could appreciate president trump's concerns? >> mr. castor, idon't know the exact nature of presidenttrump's concerns. and in my deposition, i recall you handedme the politico article which listed atleast three of the elements that you havedescribed earlier, and i, youhave recognized that i haveconfirmed with the ranking minoritymember that i, the first i haveheard of those, and i was surprised by those. idon't know president trump'sreaction to those. >> in the information published bythe former ukrai

again, i wish, mr. ratcliffe, that i have the record. >> i understand. but this is what you recall. >> that's what i recall. >> stop me if there's anything sinister or nefarious in any of this. if vanilla request about corruption, a call to see your on your way to ukraine, five-minute call you didn't remember as significant, but the primary purpose was to discuss a rapper. "i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo, i want zelensky to do the right thing, i want him to do what he ran on." and i'm telling you to go tell congress the truth. anything sinister or nefarious about anything? >> not the way you presented. >> and that's the truth as you presented it, correct? >> correct. >> why that's important, ambassador sondland, is that none of that is hearsay. none of that speculation. none of that his opinion. that is direct evidence. ultimately, that is what, if this proceeds to the senate, they are going to care about. unlike this proceeding, which has been based largely on speculation and presumption and opinion. this is direct testimony and direct evidence.

ratcliffe, please allow mr. holmes to answer. >> yes, sir. greeted the president. >> how? >> he said, hello, mr. president, i'm in kiev, and the president said are you in ukraine? >> do you think he said i think you are in ukraine? he said, what? >> he said are you in -- ukraine? >> what did you hear president trump say about asap rocky? >> i did not hear president trump's side of the conversation asap rocky. >> you have said how did we go from the conversation was very loud and his voice was recognizable to, as you say here to when the conversation shifted i could only hear ambassador sondland's side of the conversation. >> yes, sir. as i have testified. the initial part of the call, ambassador sondland sort of when the president came on the call, he sort of wined and held the phone away from his ear for the initial portion of the call. and then at some point in the call he stopped doing that and i don't know why, i don't know if he turned the volume down. i don't know if the president spoke more quietly or got use to the volume. i don't know what changed. >> what did cha

i yield back, chairman. >> mr. ratcliffe? >> thank you, chairman. miss williams. you testified that what you noted as being unusual about the call that took place on july 25th was that the president raised what appeared to be a domestic political issue. correct? >> correct. >> but raising an issue, even one that you thought was unusual, is different than making a demand, would you agree? >> yes. >> and as i read your deposition, it didn't sound like from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call as a demand for investigations, is that fair? >> i don't believe i'm in a position to characterize it further than the president did in terms of ask for a favor. >> you didn't hear a demand km. >> i would just refer back to the transcript itself. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, you you've testified and explained why to us in your mind it was a demand. and you've given us reason, the disparity of power between the two presidents. and because you did feel that way, you also felt that you had a duty to report what you thought was improper. is that correct? >>

>> mr. danyliuk understood that these investigations were pursuant to mr. giuliani's request to develop information, to find information about burisma and the bidens. this was very well known in public -- mr. giuliani had made this clear in several instances in the beginning -- in the springtime, and mr. danyliuk was aware that that was a problem. >> and would you agree that because president zelensky is worried about this, they understood at least that there was some pressure for them to pursue these investigations? is that fair? >> mr. danyliuk indicated that president zelensky certainly understood it, that he did not want to get involved in these type of activities. >> now, i'm going to move ahead now to july 25th, which is when president trump and president zelensky had the phone call. before we get to the phone call i want to show you a text message, neither of you is on this phone call. i will read it because neither of you is on it. ambassador volker says, good lunch, thanks. heard fr

. >> mr. herd? mr. ratcliff. mr. jordan? >> no. >> is there any member wishing to vote or wishing to change his or her vote? the clerk shall report the vote. >> mr. chairman there are 13 ayes and nine noes. >> on the vote there were 13 ayes and nine knows, the motion is carried. we are adjourned. >>> so i believe that was a motion from a house republican george conaway -- no, mike conaway who was trying to get i believe the whistle-blower to come before the committee. >> but the vote i think -- >> i'll get to the vote in a second. but the democrats said we want to table this motion that would force the intelligence community whistle-blower to come and testify before the committee and republicans voted no and democrats voted yes because the votes wanted to table this vote. so there were 13 ayes, democrats voting to table and nine noes and republicans voting because they wanted to vote and bring the whistle-blower forward. that is just what happened and then we have adjourned for the rest of the day. let's go back to what we'r

ratcliffe highlighted that, and to skeptical of the corruption environment in ukraine. is that accurate? >> we queued up the wrong soundbite, but the montage was no bribery. >> that clip is great because it points out the fact that democrats were unable to produce any evidence of any of the claims that they have been making. and that is why there is nothing to impeach. what is really going on is a political ploy by democrats to go after the president and they are disagreeing with the way he handled his foreign-policy. the president, the chief diplomat of the united states not members of congress, not adam schiff and that is not an impeachable defense. liz: nbc chuck todd agreed with mississippi republican senator roger wicker that ukrainians did meddle in the 2016 election despite what fiona hill is testifying. this is not about the dnc server and all of that, it's about ukrainians meddling. watch the. >> she is corrupt, russia tried to interfere in 2016, also ukrainians themselves try to interfere. >> the difference between the two, i understand there is individual ukr

. >> mr. turner? >> no. >> stewart? >> no. >> ms. stefanik? >> no. >> mr. hurd? >> mr. ratcliffe? mr. jordan? >> no. >> is there any member wishing to vote or wishing to change his or her vote? the clerk shall report the vote. >> mr. chairman, there are 13 eyes and nine nos. >> on this vote there were 13 ayes and nine nos. the motion to table is carried. we are adjourned. >> i would love an explanation of what the vote -- claire mccaskill has raised her hand. >> typically the majority will want to make an affirmative motion. and that is to table what is being requested by the minority. so the minority requested the subpoena for a closed-door deposition, and then one of the majority members made a motion to table that motion. so that's why it was an affirmative vote to table it. it's the same thing as beating it. it's just a fancy way of saying, no, you are not getting that. >> and ari melber remains with us. ari, why not hear from the whistle-blower and settle this matter if the whistle-blower's identity can be kept private in a closed-door session? >> i think that's the big if. a

>> mr. ratcliffe, if i can respond -- on >> my time is shshort. yes or no. >> i have no reason to doubt with the president said. >> very good. >> in this impeachment hearing today where we imimpeach prpresidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is i it impeachable offene and that call? are either of you here to assert there was an impeachable offense and that call? ? shout it out. anyone? >> i'm not here having to do anything to decide about impeachment. that is not what either of us are here to do. this is your job. amy: republicans also called on democrats to bring forth the whistleblower, whose internal complaint prompted the impeachment inquiry. here is republican congressman jim jordan who wasas made a temporary member of the intelligence committee ahehead f the heararing. >> tre is onee witness thahat they won''t brining in front o . they won't bring a friend of the american people. that is the e guy who s startedt all, the whistleblower. >> i say to my colleague, i would be glad to have the person presidentd d it all trumu

>> mr. ratcliffe -- ti >> m is short. yes or no? >> i have no reason to doubt what the president said in his -- >> ok. very good. judy: nick schifrin, as we are hearing, the republicans were pushing their own narrative today with the witnesses. nick:e w three major points. the first one we saw from the republican counsel about corruption. asdeveloping a they believe, about ukraine being very corrupt particularly corrupt.any being on their board was hunter bid. we talked about this, the son of vice president biden. at the v time president biden was leading ukraine policy hyr the obama administration and the question is,ould hunter be on the board when vice president biden was wking on that policy for the obama raadminion? as we heard current -- can't say , there could be a perception of conflict of interest. that is a point republicans made. the secondne is hearsay. we heard from jim jordan but neither witness called by the democrats today talked to the prneident not only about ukr but ever. nor did they really regularly talk to rudy

. >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent to put in the record the daily beast story let parness help rep devin nunes from yesterday. first two perhaps lev parnas represent devin nunes 2018 mcmahon. derek harvey participated in the meetings lawyers said which were arranged to help nunes' investigative work. mcmahon didn't specify what those investigations entailed. >> without objection. >> mr. chairman, you have been falsely accused throughout these proceedings by the ranking member as being a quote, unquote, fact witness. now, if this story is correct, the ranking member may have actually been projecting and, in fact, he may be the fact witness if he is working with indicted individuals around our investigation. but i want to go to what this is really all about. first, it's your credibility, mr. holmes, and can you tell us and confirm that in 2014 you received the william riff ken constructive award from the obama state department. >> was that for dissent that you beirut up against an adminis

. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you, chairman. gentlemen, i appreciate both of you being here today. i know it's been a long day for you. mr. morrison, i'm going to try to summarize some of what we've heard to shorten this. you were on the july 25th call. colonel vindman was on the july 25th call, correct? >> yes, congressman. >> and i will tell you he testified earlier today that he heard what he thought was a demand on that call that was improper and felt that he had a duty to report that. i think we've established already that he did not discuss or report any of that to you, correct? >> yes, congressman. >> but you did have a discussion with colonel vindman about other concerns that he had with the call, and i believe you said the fidelity of the translation and the fact that you both shared a discussion about not -- there not being a full throated embrace of the ukrainian reform agenda. is that fair? >> yes, congressman. >> okay. but with respect to his concern about something improper, specifically at no point did he come to you and say i heard something that i thought was impro

. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you, chair. want to return the favor, recognize, yield to my colleague, congressman conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. hill, i don't think there's a lot of questions one of putin's primary objectives in the united states is to foe meant unrest with the nation to cause us to have lost confidence in the elections, results of elections, those kinds of things. there's tension though in conducting our businesses the way we should, playing into putin's hands. as an example, i disagree with what we're doing here today, it is under our constitution, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe they function under that constitution. these hearings, this issue is divisive within the country and is continuing to push that way. i think that plays into putin's hands inadvertently, nothing we can do about that, but there are certain things we can do as individuals that wouldn't play into his hands. one of them would be the loser in the 2016 election has for three years continued to argue that bec

>> mr. ratcliffe, at some point in september -- >> i'm talking about on july 25th. >> ah. july 25th. sorry. yes, that's correct. that's correct. he did not know this. >> as it turns out president zelensky agreed with you. on october 10th, president zelensky held a press marathon with over 300 reporters where he said repeatedly and consistently over hours and hours that he was not aware of a military hold during the july 25th call. in fact, in his official press release from the ukrainian government available on his website that i'll be introducing into the record he said, our phone conversation bears no relations to arms. they blocked the provision of military assistance prior to our telephone conversation, but the issue has not been discussed during our conversation, i mean i didn't even know. so now in addition to confirming because he had no knowledge of it, there was no quid pro quo involving military aid during that call, president zelensky went on to confirm a number of things. that there was no pressure, there were no conditions, no threats, on military aid, there w

. >> mr. ratcliffe? >> thank you, chairman. gentlemen, i appreciate both of you being here today. i know it's been a long day for you. mr. morrison, i'm going try and summarize some of what we've heard to shorten this. you were on the july 25th call and colonel vindman was on the july 25th call, correct? >> yes, congressman. >> and i will tell you that he testified earlier today that he heard what he thought was a demand on the call that was improper and felt he had a duty to report that. i think we've established already that he did not discuss or report any of that. >> yes, congressman. >> but he did have a discussion with colonel vindman about other concerns with the call and the fidelity of the translation and the fact that you both shared a discussion about there not being a full-throated embrace of the ukrainian reform agenda. >> is that right. >> with respect to his concern over -- and at no point did he come to you and say i saw something or no bribe, no stefanik and anything that miss stefanik asked you. did you hear president trump make a demand of anything that would co

>> mr. ratcliffe, i would just like to say that i'm not here to do anything having to do with the -- a side about impeachment. that is not what either of us are here to do. this is your job. >> that is your job. bill taylor, the top u.s. diplomat in ukraine tells congressman ratcliffe. ratcliffe, who at one point had been nominated to be director of national intelligence, although that offer was withdrawn by president trump after it became clear that ratcliffe would have a very difficult time getting through the republican-controlled senate. and i think from that question, the witnesses were obviously not going to answer. we see potentially why. taylor and kent were at that hearing as fact witnesses to describe what they knew or what they don't know. by not answering the question, whether or not the conduct was impeachable, bill taylor and george kent were doing their jobs. but that was just one of the many distraction trump allies tried to throw out from the ranking republican on the intell

>> mr. ratcliffe-- >> my time is short. yes or no? >> i have no reason to doubt what the president said in his-- >> okay. very good. n >> woodruff: sk schifrin, as we're hearing, the republicans were very much pushing their own narrative today with these witnesses.ht >> rso we saw three major points, and let's just go from the beginning, that first one that we saw from the republican counsel first about corruption.e ping a case, they believe, about ukraine being very corrupt and that a particular company, burisma, being particularlyup co on burisma's word was hunter biden, we've talked about this,s right, t of vice president biden, at the time that vice president was leading ukraine poly for the administration, the obama administrati, and the question is why would hurnt be on the board when vie president biden was working on that policy for the obama administration and, as we heard kent say, my concern i there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. that's one major pont the republicans made today. the second one that we hear

i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr ratcliffe. no pressure, no demands, nothing corrupt, nothing. nothing on the call. that is what we heard president zelensky say, and the charges against president trump have repeatedly and consistently been denied, you have heard the defence now, from chairmanship, he is lying because he has to. he has to lie, because the threat, the demands, the distortion that house democrats are alleging, if he didn't do that, he couldn't possibly risk military aid. he would have to do anything he had to secure it. the problem with that, at the hole in that argument, if you have to ask yourself, what did president zelensky actually do to get the aid? the answer is nothing. he did nothing he didn't open any investigations, he didn't call bill barr, he didn't do any of the things that democrats say, that he was being forced, coerced to do. he didn't do anything, because he didn't do anything, because he didn't have to. thank you, mr chairman, thank you both for your true, heroic efforts, both tonight, today, an

. >> mr. ratcliffe? >> chairman. miss cooper, based on the e-mails that you mentioned in your opening and subsequent declarations by some of my democratic colleagues that those e-mails were evidence that the ukrainians were aware of a military hold on july 25th. there's now reporting out there saying that pentagon official reveals ukrainians asked about stalled security aid. it's being widely reported that ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25th. that's not what i heard from you, is that correct? >> sir, my exact words were that one e-mail said that the ukrainian embassy and the house foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance. >> assistness, not hold and the second e-mail was the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent and so does the ukrainian embassy. those are the exact words. >> and what do security assistance and fmf situations in those e-mails mean? >> i don't want to speculate on what it means. >> right. >> they don't necessarily mean hold, correct? >> not necessa

i think mr. ratcliffe from texas laid out the direct evidence we have from your testimony today. nothing we have heard establishes a claim that the president acted improperly as dealings with ukraine and certainly nothing has been presented to support anything near impeachment. in the meantime, mr. chair, we continue to have no answers to the questions that only you know. starting with who is the whistle-blower who gave birth to this hoax and what was the nature of his coordination with the democrats on this committee. second, what's the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against the trump campaign in 2016. finally, why did burisma hire hunter biden. what if you do for them. did his position impact any u.s. government actions under the obama administration? another hearing in the books, no answers to basic three material factual questions that we need answers to. i yield back, and thank you, ambassador, for being here. >> i thank the ranking member for his remarks. ambassador sondland, thank you for your testimony today. this is a seminal moment in our investigation. the

. >> mr. nunez. >> yield to mr. ratcliffe. >> thank the gentleman for yielding, ambassador, hill miss cooper thank you both for being here. it is opening ranking member nunes, referenced president trump's general skepticism of providing aid in the amount of foreign aid being provided to foreign countries, which you agree with that characterization, state department that the president of the united states wants to make sure that aid is reviewed scrupulously so that it is in the national interest. quick since his election is it fair to say that president trump has looked to overhaul how foreign aid is distribute it? >> yes. the nsc launched a foreign assistance review process sometime in late august or early september. >> and president trump has sought to reframe american foreign-policy in economic terms america first. well before the whistleblower the president expressed genuine concern about providing u.s. foreign assistance. is it fair to say to that point the president has wanted to ensure the american taxpayer wa

. >> mr. ratcliff. >> chairman, thank you. i ask unanimous consent to enter into record a statement issued this morning from the office of the vice president by chief of staff. >> without objection. >> ambassador sondland, i'll be brief. in anticipation of mr. holmes' testimony tomorrow about this july 26th phone call that -- that he overheard at a cafe in kyiv that you had with president trump. he overheard that even though the call was not on speaker phone, correct? >> i don't believe so. >> was it open erica fay? >> it was outdoors. >> one of the points my democrat democratic colleagues keep making is that president trump said that he doesn't give a blank about ukraine. you heard that earlier? >> that -- that was not on the phone call. i don't think he testified that was on the phone call. i think he was testifying that i summarized the phone call. and i don't recall saying that. >> and you have no recollection of that? >> i don't. >> yeah. even if it was true, there's nothing wrong with that to have an opinion about -- >>

and i think mr. ratcliff from texas laid out the direct evidence we have from your testimony today. nothing we have heard establishes a claim that the president acted improperly in his dealings with ukraine. and certainly, nothing has been presented to support anything near impeachment. in the meantime, mr. chair, we continue to have no answers to the questions that only you know. starting with who is the whistle-blower who gave birth to this hoax? and what was the nature of his coordination with the democrats on this committee? second, what is the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against the trump campaign in 2016? and finally, why did burisma hire hunter biden? what did he do for them? and did his position impact any u.s. government actions under the obama administration? another hearing in the books and no answers to basic three material, factual questions that we need answers to. yield back and thank you, ambassador, for being here. >> thank you. >> i thank the ranking member for his remarks. ambassador sondland, thank you for your testimony today. this is a seminal mo

. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> i want to yield to my colleague congressman conway. >> dr. hill i don't think there is a lot of questions that one of putin's primary object he was in the united states is to fomt unrest in our nation, cause us to have -- lose confidence in elections and the results of the elections those kind of things. there is tension, though in conducting our business the way we should. and you know playing into putin's hand. as an example, while i disagree with what we're doing here today it's under our constitution and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe they are functioning under that constitution. these hearings in issue has been very advicive within our country. and is continuing to push that way. i think it plays into putin he is a hands inadvertently maybe nothing we can do about that. but there are certain things we can do as individuals that wouldn't play into his hands. one of them would be that the looser in the 2016 election has for three years continued to argue that because she won the popular vote as she and her friends --

. >> i may have had another call or meeting or two, i again, i wish mr. ratcliffe, i had the record. >> this is what you recall. >> this is what i recall. >> so stop me if there's anything sinister or at the fairous. a call to say i'm on my way to ukraine. a five-minute call you said you didn't think wag significant but to discuss a rapper and a call where the president said i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo. i want zelensky to do the right thing, i want him to do what he ran on. and him telling you to go tell congress the truth. anything sinister or nefarious about anything of that. >> not the way you present it. >> that is the truth as you've presented it, correct. >> correct. >> why that's important, ambassador sondland, is because none of that is hearsay. none of that is speculation. none of that is opinion. that is direct evidence and ultimately that is what if this proceeds to the senate they're going to care about unlike this proceeding which has been based on largely speculation and presumption and opinion, this is direct testimony and direct

. >> mr. conway. >> i have i yelled my five minutes to mr. ratcliffe. >> speaker pelosi said that president trump committed the crime of bribery evidenced in the call with president zelensky. in concert with that multiple the democratic members of this committee gave tv appear radio interviews over the past week discussing how the president's conduct supported his impeachment for bribery all of which struck me as odd, because processor for the longest time this was all about quid pro quo, according to the whistle-blower complaint. bup after witness after witness began saying there was no quid pro quo or even that quid pro quo was not even possible we saw a shift from the democrats. they briefly started to refer to the president's conduct on the july 25th call as extortion and now it shifted to bribery. ms. williams to used the word unusual to describe the president's call last -- or on july 25th. lieutenant colonel vindman you used the word inappropriate and improper. i've word searched each of your transcripts. and the word bribry or bribe d

. >> mr. conaway. >> five minutes to mr. ratcliffe. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> speaker of house nancy pelosi said that president trump committed the impeachable offense of bribery as evidenced in his july 25th phone president zelensky. multiple democrat members of this committee gave tv and radio interviews over this past week discussing how the president's conduct supported his impeachment for committed bribery, which struck me as very odd, for the longest time this was about quid pro quo according to the whistle-blower complaint. but after witness after witness began saying there was no quid pro quo, it wasn't possible, we saw a shift from the democrats. briefly started to refer to the president's conduct on the july 25th call as extortion. now, it's shifted again. last week. to bribery. ms. williams, you used the word "unusual" to describe the president's call last -- on july 25th. lupit colonel vindman, you used the word inappropriate. i word searched each of your transcripts. the word bribery or bribe doe

. >> mr. conway. >> i give my five minutes to mr. ratcliff. >> in a press conference last thursday, speaker of the house nancy pelosi said that president trump committed the impeachable offense of bribery, evidenced in his july 25th call transcript with president zelensky. in concert with that, multiple democratic members of this committee gave tv and radio interviews over this past week discussing how the president's conduct supported his impeachment for committing bribery. all of which struck me as very odd because for the longest time this was all about quid pro quo, according to the whistle-blower complaint. but after witness after witness began saying there was no quid pro quo or even that quid pro quo was not even possible, we saw a shift from the democrats. they briefly started to refer to the president's conduct on the july 25th call as extortion and now it's shifted again last week to bribery. ms. williams, you used the word "unusual" to describe the president's call last -- on july 25th. lieutenant colonel vindman, you used

. >> mr. nunes. >> i yield to mr. ratcliffe. >> ambassador sondland, i am going to try to quickly move to summarize all of your communications with president trump as it relates to the inquiry, and of course, you can correct me if i get it wrong. on may 23rd, you had a group meeting that included a what you called the vanilla request about ending corruption involving ukrainian oligarchs, correct? >> correct. >> on july 25th, you called president trump to say that you were on the way to ukraine, but nothing of substance occurred in that call? >> correct. >> and on july 26th, you had a five-minute call at a restaurant that you did not originally remember, because according to statement this morning said did not strike me as significant at the time, but once refreshed, you recall that the primary person was a rapper called asap rocky. >> correct. >> and so reading from your deposition, you called president trump and asked, what do you want from ukraine and he responded, i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. i want zele

. >> mr. swalwell. >> mr. chairman a lot changed since the whistle-blower came forward. two things in particular. first most of what the whistle-blower has alleged has been corroborated by the witnesses that we have heard from. second, the president who my colleagues so shamelessly continue to defend continue to pressure, threaten and intimidate the whistle-blower. i'd like unanimous consent to put into the record a september 26th, 2019 article from "business insider." trump suggested the whistle-blower who filed a complaint against him is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death. >> without objection. >> how about september 26, 2019, "vanity fair." trump suggests executing the whistle-blower sources like "in the good old days." >> without objection. >> third, september 29th. whistle-blower's lawyer raises fear for client's safety. axi axios. the whistle-blower has a right to anonymity and will only answer questions now in writing. i wish my colleagues would join me protecting the whist

mr. chairman. >> mr. ratcliffe, and ms. williams, you testify tad what you noted as being unusual about the call that took place on july 25th, was that the president raised what appeared to be a domestic political issue, correct? >> correct. >> but raising an issue even one that you thought was unusual is different than making a demand, would you agree? >> yes. >> and as i read your deposition, it didn't sound like from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call as a demand for investigations, is that fair? >> i don't believe i am in a position to characterize it in terms other than the president did in a favor. >> you didn't hear it as demand? >> again, i refer back to the transcript itself. >> and lieutenant colonel vindman, you have testified and explained to us why in your mind it is a demand, and you have given us reasons, and the disparity of the power between the two presidents, and because you did feel that way, you also felt that you had a duty to report what you thought was improper. is that correc

i yield back. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you, chairman. ms. williams, you testified that what you noted as being unusual about the call that took place on july 25th was that the president raised what appeared to be a domestic political issue, correct? >> correct. >> but raising an issue of one you thought was unusual was different than making a demand. >> yes. >> as i read your deposition, it didn't sound like from your testimony that you heard what took place on that call as a demand for investigations, is that fair? >> i don't believe i'm in a position to characterize it further than the president did in terms of asking for a favor. >> but you didn't hear a demand? >> again, i would just refer back to the transcript itself. >> lieutenant colonel vindman, you've testified and explained to us why, in your mind, it was a demand, and you've given us reasons. disparate of pow disparity of power between the two presidents. because you did feel that way, you also felt you had a duty to report what you thought was improper. is that correct? >> that'