president zelensky needed to show u.s. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to russian president vladimir putin that he had u.s. backing as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reform agenda at home. in other words, the white house visit would help zelensky's anti-corruption reforms. and that support remains critical as president zelensky meets today with president putin to try to resolve the conflict in the east. now, the day after this phone call, president trump sought to ensure that president zelensky got the message. on july 26th, u.s. officials met with president zelensky and other ukrainian officials in kiev. and president zelensky mentioned president trump had brought up some quote very sensitive issues. after that meeting, president zelensky had a private one on one meeting with yermak. during that sondland said they probably discussed the issue of investigations. after that at lunch with mr. holmes and two other state department officers, ambassador sondland pulled out his cell phone

although president zelensky ran a reform platform, president zelensky appointed the oligarch's lawyer as his chief of staff. both ambassador volker and senator ron johnson noted that this appointment raised concerns. these facts are important in assessing the president's state of mind in understanding whether president zelensky was truly committed to fighting corruption in ukraine. theti evidence shows that president trump invited president zelensky to meet at the white house on three separateho occasions, all witho any conditions. the first was on april 21st, the second was via letter on may 29th following an oval office meeting on may 23rd with the u.s. delegation to the inauguration. during this meeting president trump again expressed his skepticism about ukraine. ambassador volker recalled the president saying these are terrible people and a corrupt country. ambassador sondland similarly testified that ukraine in the president's view tried to take him down in the 2016 election. senator ron johnson confirmed this testimony in his submission to the impeachment inquiry. finally the t

president zelensky needed to show u.s. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to russian president vladimir putin that he had u.s. backing as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reform agenda at home. in other words, the white house visit would help zelensky's anti-corruption reforms. and that support remains critical as president zelensky meets today with president putin to try to resolve the conflict in the east. now, the day after this phone call, president trump sought to ensure that president zelensky got the message. on july 26th, u.s. officials met with president zelensky and other ukrainian officials in kiev. and president zelensky mentioned president trump had brought up some quote very sensitive issues. after that meeting, president zelensky had a private one on one meeting with yermak. during that sondland said they probably discussed the issue of investigations. after that at lunch with mr. holmes and two other state department officers, ambassador sondland pulled out his cell phone

one thing we talked about was sasha, a senior eta president zelensky, point to that president zelensky's sensitive about ukraine being taking seriously, not merely an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics. they not only felt the pressure, they got the message. they wouldn't get a white house meeting or military aid unless they furthered president trump's reelection efforts. that is a corrupt abuse of power. made isargument that is that trump never said quid pro quo. is onou are going to here the call with ambassador sondland after a washington post article came out on september 5 which we will look at, after a washington post article came out that exposed the ukrainian scheme, days after that, president trump was on a phone call to ambassador sondland and without prompting said there was no. -- quid pro quo. he is offering his defense. inn ambassador sondland sworn testimony did not buy it. because then ultimately president trump not only was not persuaded, he described what he wanted. he didn't want ukraine to conduct these investigations, he wanted them to announce inve

president zelensky needed to show u.s. support at the highest levelsat in order to demonstrat to russian president putin that he had u.s. backing as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reformit agendat home. in other words, the white house visit would help zelensky's anti-corruption reforms. and that support remains critical as r president zelensk meets today with president putin to try to resolve the conflict in the east. now the day after this phone call president trump sought to ensure thatto president zelensk got the message. on july 26th, u.s. officials met with president zelensky and other ukrainian officials in kiev and president zelensky mentioned that president trump had broughtio up some quote ver sensitive issues, unquote. after that meeting ambassador sondland had a private one-on-one meeting with president zelensky's top aide. during which ambassador sondlana said that they probably discussed tissue of investigations. at lunch right after that with mr. holmes and two other state department officer

after president zelensky paused -- i'm sorry, after president zelensky passed historic anti-corruption reforms, the pause on security analyst. she never took any action only. president trump alleged to have ork strafltd. the attle -- every ambassador interviewed in the impeachment inquiry acknowledged the president has an absolute right to call on ambassadors for any reason or no reason. it's apparent the president lost confidence in ambassador yavonovitch and it's not an abuse of power for him to recall her. beyond that, the trump administration replaced ambassador yavonovitch with ambassador bill taylor who became one of the first state department officials to voice concerns discussed during the course of our inquiry here. in fact, ambassador taylor made a prominent role in some of the hearings last month. if president trump truly sought to remove ambassador yavonovitch as part of a nefarious plan, he certainly would not have replaced her of someone of the likes of ambassador bill taylor. second, the three u.s. officials who comprised ambassador volker, sondland and secretary perry c

zelensky? >> no. >> did he mention looking into anything other than the two investigations that were politically help fful to him? the 2016 election vest fwags and the investigation of his political rival, former vice president joe biden? >> no, he did not. >> may i add something there? >> no, you can't. >> president trump did mention -- >> are you going to let him answer? >> no. >> yell. >> the time is the questioner's. you'll have the same rules. >> you'll be able to answer questions asked by minority counsel. >> come on, in fairness, president trump talks about very bad people. >> if i can finish. let me finish, sir. let me ask you this, sir. there were two lawyers mentioned on the call. we've heard testimony already. mr. trump said to president, president trump said to president zelensky he should speak to two people. his personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, and the attorney general barr. correct? >> yep. >> okay. immediately after this memorandum was released, isn't it the case that barr issued

zelensky's right handyman. ambassador volker texted him with president trump's direction. good lunch. thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z. convinces trump he will investigate and get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 we will nail down for a visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow, kurt. even before the phone call with president zelensky took place, president trump ukraine initiate the investigation in order for president zelensky to get the white house visit he desperately coveted. ambassador sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid pro quo.quo. >> frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is >> during this call with the ukrainian leader president trump didn't discuss matters important to the united states such as ukraine's efforts to root out corruption. instead president trump veered quickly into t

after president zelensky paused -- after president zelensky passed historic anticorruption reforms, the pause on security assistance was lifted and the presidents meant two weeks later. ukrainian government never took any action on investigations that issue in the impeachment inquiry. much has been made about a so-called shadow or a regular foreign policy apparatus that president trump has alleged above orchestrated as a mechanism to force ukraine to initiate investigations. in the allegation is president trump conspired to recall ambassador yovanovitch from ukraine so his agents could pursue a scheme to pressure ukraine to conduct these investigations. but there are logical flaws with these arguments. first, every ambassador interviewed acknowledged the president has an absolute right to recall ambassador is for any reason or no reason. is apparent president trump lost confidence in ambassador yovanovitch and it is simply not an abuse of power for him to recall her. beyond that, the trump administration replaced ambassador yovanovitch with ambassador bill taylor who became one of the f

following the meeting with president zelensky, ambassador sondland went over to president zelensky as top aide and pulled him aside to explain that the hold on security assistance was also now conditioned on the public announcement of the burisma biden and the 2016 election interference investigations. ambassador sondland explainedll prenin truth, ever, hous meeting andhe vit security assistance to ukraine was now conditioned on the public announcement. president trump wanted president zelensky in a public box. a private commitment was not good enough. nearly one week later on september 7th, the hold remained. president trump and ambassador sondland spoke on the phone. the president -- said there was no quid pro quo. this is very important. president zelensky would still be required to announce the investigations in order for the hold on security assistance to be lifted. he should want to do it. in effect, this is the equivalent of saying there is no quid pro quo, no this for that. but then demanding precisely that quidro pa immediately after this phone call, this was the precise mess

president zelensky needed to show u.s. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to russian president vladimir putin that he had u.s. backing as well as to advance his ambitious, anti-corruption reform agenda at home. in other words, the white house visit would help zelensky's anti-corruption reforms. and that support remains critical as president zelensky meets today with president putin to try to resolve the conflict in the east. now the day after this phone call president trump sought to ensure that president zelensky got the message. on july 26th, u.s. officials met with president zelensky and other ukrainian officials in kiev and president zelensky mentioned that president trump had brought up some quote, very sensitive issues, unquote. after that meeting, ambassador sondland had a private one-on-one meeting with andre yermak, president zelensky's top aide. during which ambassador sondland said they probably discussed the issue of investigations. at lunch right after that with mr. holmes and two other stat

zelensky and trump have said that repeat plitd president zelensky said that at united nations at september 25th. he said it in subsequent news article on october 6th, october 10th, and december 1st. number 3, the ukrainians and zplens did not know about the pause in aid, at the very least at the time of the call. and number four, no investigations were announced, the aid was released, and the white house, you know, afforded a meeting and president trump met with zelensky in new york. >> do you find it amazing that the majority is one of their key prongs of this whole thing is that they're making the elected leader of the ukraine out to be a liar? >> um. >> because if he says there's no pressure, he's done it on many, many occasions since then, then undoug dou undoubtedly they believe him not to be truthful, don't you find that striking? >> it's unfortunate. >> it's sad we're calling an elected leader who is working on corruption and other things like that, we're calling him a liar simply because they don't agree with the democrats theory of a partisan impeachment. with that, i yield back.

zelensky, president zelensky, and they are standing there and president trump is holding court and he says, oh, by the way, no pressure. and you saw president zelensky shaking his head as if his daughter was downstairs in the basement duct-taped. i mean, there is an imbalance of power in that relationship. it always has been. and there's no way that the nation of ukraine can stand up to the power of the united states of america. and president trump used that unequal bargaining position. he leveraged his power in that relationship not for the benefit of the united states of america but for his own benefit. he, again, held president zelensky over a barrel up there in new york, the same way he did on the telephone call on the 25th of july. and he told him, look, i know that you need those javelins, but i need you to do us a favor. and who was us by the way? was it the american people? or was it the trump campaign? and all of those corrupt officials that he aligns himself with half of whom are in jail or facing charges or facing sentencing. who was he talking about us? it wasn't the ameri

both president trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure. second, the call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation. three, ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the preside presidents spoke. and fourth, ukraine didn't open an investigation but still received the aid and a meeting n th president trump.d i want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it andth relies on so much of it. mr. castor, did the democrats' impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions? >> yes, it did. >> how many y times were you ab to find assertions based on hearsay? >> we -- we went through and -- and counted over 50 instances of key facts. >> can you give us some of the examples of the hearsay being relied on by the majority to make their case? >> you know, one of the -- a lot of the information, for example, that ambassador taylor was communicating. you know, he -- he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the various officials told him. but it was ab

both president trump and president zelensky says there's no pressure. plus there is no conditionality between aid and investigation. ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld, and ukraine did not open investigation but still received a meeting with president trump. i want to mr. castor, did the democrats' impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions? >> yes, it did. >> how many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay. >> we went through time over 50 instances. >> they had time to make their case? >> a lot of the details investor sondland was making , it was about one, two steps rd from the actual facts. that's the problem with hearsay, it's a whisper down the lane situation. some of the people doing the whispering have predisposed not like president trump, what they're whispering down the lane becomes even more distorted. >> did you also find instances where the democrats' report use whispers and speculation? >> this has become the big daddy of the hearing, sondland presuming the aide was tied to the investigation

zelensky and trump have said that repeat plitd president zelensky said that at united nations at september 25th. he said it in subsequent news article on october 6th, october 10th, and december 1st. number 3, the ukrainians and zplens did not know about the pause in aid, at the very least at the time of the call. and number four, no investigations were announced, the aid was released, and the white house, you know, afforded a meeting and president trump met with zelensky in new york. >> do you find it amazing that the majority is one of their key prongs of this whole thing is that they're making the elected leader of the ukraine out to be a liar? >> um. >> because if he says there's no pressure, he's done it on many, many occasions since then, then undoug dou undoubtedly they believe him not to be truthful, don't you find that striking? >> it's unfortunate. >> it's sad we're calling an elected leader who is working on corruption and other things like that, we're calling him a liar simply because they don't agree with the democrats theory of a partisan impeachment. with that, i yield back.

what do they think zelensky's statements are when zelensky says there is no pressure? that is, at a bare minimum, evidence. there is no evidence of a quid pro quo. there's no evidence of conditionality. and the reason you know they lack that evidentiary basis is because they have to keep changing their language. when their pollsters and pundits told them to call it broibry, that was the message of the week. did you see any bribery, were you part of any bribery? the answer was no. they have to keep evolving the claims because there is no factual predicate. my colleague from new orleans said this hearing would be informed by our understanding of regret. there would be this deep sense of regret. my friend is from a deep blue district, so he probably won't be the one regretting it the most. folks that will be regretting what they're doing are democrats in swing districts who probably aren't coming back. for the upcoming year, i tell them rent, don't buy here in washington, d.c. so today the only question we are left with, when we can conclude this hearing, is whether or no

although president zelensky ran under review form platform, president zelensky appointed his lawyer as his chief of staff. both ambassador volker and ron johnson noted the disappointment raise concerns. these facts are important in assessing the president's state of mind and understanding whether president zelensky was truly committed to fighting corruption in ukraine. the evidence shows that president trump invited president zelensky to meet at the white house on three separate occasions all without any conditions, the first is on april 21st, during the congratulatory phone call and the second was a letter on may 29 and this letter followed an oval office meeting on may 23 with the u.s. delegation to the inauguration and during the meeting president trump expressed his kep skepticism abt ukraine. ambassador volker recalled the presidency these are terrible people and a corrupt country. ambassador sondland testified that ukraine and the president's view try to take them down. in the 2016 election. senator ron johnson confirmed the testimony and the submission to the impeachment inquiry

i want zelensky to do the right thing. in addition, senior ukrainian officials denied any lijage between u.s. security assistance and investigations. these denials are persuasive because if there was, in fact, an orchestrated scheme to pressure ukraine one would think the pause on security assistance would have been clearly communicated to the ukrainians. foreign minister told the media in november following news of ambassador sondland's written supplemental testimony that sondland never linked security assistance to investigations. prystaiko says i have never seen a linkage. although there is some testimony that ukrainian officials from the embassy in washington made informal inquires to the state department and defense department about these issues with security assistance in july and august, the evidence does not show president zelensky or his senior advisers in kiev were aware of the pause until it was publicly reported by politico on august 28th. of subsequent news article explained the conflicting testimony that emba

zelensky. we heard it today. the challenge with that, though, as an excuse is the aid was only released after president trump got caught doing the scheme. on september 9th the committees of this house started their investigation and announced they were investigating his conduct with regard to ukraine. two days later is when he released the aid. he also -- there was a news article that we'll talk about in a moment by the "washington post" on september 5th exposing his scheme. it was only after that that he met with president zelensky not in the white house but in new york. another excuse offered. the president was motivated by general corruption concerns. and again the evidence shows that is not true that that's what caused him to withhold the aid. president zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform and a reform candidate. his own people told him again and again president zelensky is doing it the right way. they urged him to be supportive. on his call with president zelensky on july 25th president trump

zelensky has said that repeatedly. he spent eight hours in one press conference all day long talking about there was no pressure. yermak said there was no pressure. are they lying? no. but we know the whistle-blower was lying. we know that mr. schiff was lying. mr. schiff came out the day before and said eight times, the president put direct pressure on the ukrainians. oops. franz scripts released, not true. that would be the facts being contested. absolutely. we know that there was no conditionality. everybody said that. everybody that participated, everybody that listened. ukraine was unaware of the hold. so how can you leverage them? they were unaware of the hold, and there was never any investigation. but what happened? what triggered it? you have high ranking u.s. officials going to the ukraine, meeting with them, convinced the president. you have the president of the ukraine signing two pieces of legislation, reints stoougs the antikrupgs tribunal and removing the immunity from prosecution of the legislative in u

. >> did president zelensky get a meeting with president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get the money from the united states? >> yes. >> they got the call on july 25th. they got the money on september 11th. they got the meeting on september 25th. is that right? >> yes. >> but the guy who said none of that was going to happen is the guy they build their case around. is that right? mr. sondland. >> yep. >> let me go to one other thing they built their case around. they built their case around a lot of hearsay, didn't they? and the best example of the hearsay, surprisingly enough, is ambassador sondland. it's amazing. built their case around this ambassador and built their case around hearsay. and the best example ofnd both mr. sondland. because he filed his addendum where he says this. pointed this out s a couple wee ago. bullet point number two. in his clarification, he says ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak on a september 1st, 2019, in co

zelensky has said that pree repeatedly. he spent one press conference talking all day long about no pressure, there was no pressure. yermack said there was no pressure. are they lying? no. but we know the whistle-blower was lying. we know that mr. schiff was lying. mr. schiff came out the day before and said eight times the president put direct pressure on the ukrainians. oops, the transcript is released, not true. that would be the facts being contested, absolutely. we know there was no conditionality. everybody said there's no conditionality, everybody that participated, everybody that listened. ukraine was unaware of the hold so how can you leverage them if they were unaware of the hold and there was never any investigation. but what happened? what triggered it? you have high ranking officials going to the ukraine, meeting with them, convinced the president. you have the president of the ukraine signing two pieces of legislation, reinstituting the anti-corruption tribunal and removing immunity from prosecution of the leg

zelinski, president zelensky. they are standing there and president trump is holding court and he says by the way, no pressure. you saw president zelensky's shaking his head as if his daughter was downstairs in the basement duct taped. there is a imbalance of power in that relationship. there always has been. there is no way that the nation of ukraine can stand up to the power, to the power of the united states of america. president trump used that unequal arguing position, he leveraged his power in that relationship not for the benefit of the united states of america, but for his own benefit. he again held president zelensky over a barrel up there in new york. the same way he did on the telephone call on the 25th of july. he told them look, i know that you need those javelins but i need you to do me a favor, or do us a favor. who was also by the way? was it the american people or was it the trump campaign? all of those corrupt officials that he aligns himself with, half of whom are in jail or facing charges or fa

investigations and directed both president zelensky and u.s. officials to talk to his personal attorney about those -- those investigations, correct? >> yes. and if i could just jump here, on july 25th call because the four facts that we keep hearing about are not in dispute, three of them are completely wrong. one of them happens to be there is no quid pro quo mentioned in the july 25th call. there is absolutely a quid pro quo when president zelensky says i also want to thank you for your invitation to visit the united states, spesly washington and he said on the other hand i want to ensure that we'll be very serious about the case and we'll work on the investigation. that is the quid pro quo that president zelensky was informed of before the call. so that's wrong. it is also wrong that no ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call. even though that doesn't even matter. but then finally there was no white house meeting ever provided. so the third or fourth fact -- so i do think that that just needs to be clarified par

and he doesn't want to invite zelensky to the white house. and the president -- volker testifies to this definitively, the president essentially -- he doesn't order anybody to do anything. the president says talk to rudy. volker testified both at his deposition and at the public hearing, that he didn't take it as a direction. if you guys -- if you guys think this is important and you want to work it, just go talk to rudy. it's different than a direction, it's different than the president ordering a scheme. and it's very different than the president collecting up a bunch of agents to do something. he simply, according to ambassador volker said go talk to rudy. whether the ukrainians knew of the aid pause -- the aid was paused for 55 days. whether they knew about it or not has been -- laura cooper from dod and some state department witnesses testified about light queries they had received. there was an article in bloomberg. the zelensky administration said they never knew about the hold on the aid until the politico article. they said in the ar

zelensky. we heard it today. the challenge with that, though, as an excuse is the aid was only released after president trump got caught doing the scheme. on september 9th, the committees of this house started their investigation and announced they were investigating his conduct with regard to ukraine. two days later is when he released the aid. he also -- there also was a news article which we'll talk about in a moment by "the washington post" on september 5th exposing his scheme. it was only after that that he met with president zelensky, not in the white house but in new york. another excuse offered, the president was motivated by general corruption concerns. and again, the evidence shows that is not true that that's what caused him to withhold the aid. president zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform. he was a reform candidate. his own people told him again and again, president zelensky is doing it the right way. they urged him to be supportive. on his call with president zelensky on july 25th, p

zelensky has said that repeatedly. he spent eight hours in one press conference, all day long talking about no pressure, no pressure. yermak said there was no pressure. are theyd lying? no. we know the whistle-blower was lying.ow we know mr. schiff was lying. mr. schiff came out the day before and said eight times the president put direct pressure on the ukrainians. oops. the transcript is released. not true. that would be the facts being con tested, absolutely. we know there was no conditionalality, everybody said there was no conditionality. ukraine was unaware of the hold. how can you leverage them? they were unaware of the hold. it was never in the investigation. but what happened? what triggered it? you have highat ranking u.s. officials going to ukraine, meeting with him, convinced the president. you have the president of ukraine signing two pieces of legislation, reinstituting the anti corruption tribunal and alsoor removing immune any from prosecution of the legislative branch in ukraine. significant anti corru

. >> did president zelensky get a meeting from president trump? >> yes. >> did president zelensky get the money? >> yes. >> is that right? >> yes. >> the guy who said that wasn't going to happen is the guy they built their case around? >> yes. >> is that right, mr. sound land? >> right. >> they built their case around a lot of hearsay, didn't they? the best example of the hair say, surprisingly enough is ambassador sondland. they built their case around this ambassador and hearsay, the best example of both is ambassador sondland, we read this a couple weeks ago, we pointed this out a couple weeks ago. bullet point number two, in his clarification. ambassador taylor recalls. mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak. and a meeting with president zelensky. that's his clarification. amazing, six people before having four conversations in one sentence. i told mr. morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak in connection with vice president's visit to warsaw, that's the clarification

both president trump and president zelensky say there was no pressure. second, the call transcript shows no conditionality between aid and an investigation. three, ukrainians were not aware that aid was withheld when the president spoke. and fourth, ukraine didn't open an investigation but still received the aid and a meeting with president trump. i want to move on to the idea of hearsay and the fact that this report contains so much of it and relies on so much of it. mr. castor, did the democrats' impeachment report rely on hearsay to support their assertions? >> yes, it did. >> how many times were you able to find assertions based on hearsay? >> we went through and counted over 50 instances of key facts. >> can you give us some examples of the hearsay being relied on by the majority to make their case? >> a lot of the information for example that ambassador taylor was communicating, he very diligently recorded notes about what some of the various officials told him, but it was about -- it was one and two steps removed from the actual facts and that's t

as president zelensky's right-hand man. ambassador kurt volker texted him with president trump's direction. good lunch, thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he'll investigate get to the bottom ofve what happened i 2016, we'll nail down visit for -- we'll nail down for a visit to fwashington. goodsi luck. see you tomorrow. kurt. so evenmo before the phone call with president zelensky took place, president trump had directed that ukraine initiate the investigation into 2016, the debunked conspiracy theory that ukraine had interfered in the election in order for president zelensky to get the white house visit that heth desperately coveted. ambassador sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid t pro quo. >> frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simplete question. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously, with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. >> during this call with the ukrainian leader, president tr

this scheme as president zelensky's right hand man. ambassador volker texted mr. yermac with president trump's direction. good lunch. thanks. heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down visit for -- we will nail down for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow, kurt. so, even before the phone call with president zelensky took place, president trump had directed that ukraine initiate the investigation into 2016 the debunked conspiracy theory that ukraine had interfered in the election in order for president zelensky to get the white house visit that he desperately coveted. ambassador sondland was clear in his testimony about this quid pro quo. >> members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question, was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and the white house meeting, the answer is yes. during this call with the ukrainian lead

zelensky. president zelensky. and they're standing there and president trump is holding court and he says, oh, by the way, no pressure. and you saw president zelensky shaking his head as if his daughter was downstairs in the basement duct taped. i mean, there's an imbalance of power in that relationship. it always has been. and there's no way that the nation of ukraine can stand up to the power, to the power of the united states of america. and president trump used that unequal bargaining position, he leveraged his power in that relationship not for the benefit of the united states of america but for his own benefit. he, again, held president zelensky over a barrel up there in new york the same way he did on the telephone call on the 25th of july. and he told him, look, i know that you need those javelins, but i need you to do me a favor, or do us a favor, and who was "us," by the way? was it the american people or was it the trump campaign? and all of those corrupt officials that he aligns himself with, half of w

so president zelensky is meeting with putinin today. and because of president trump's actions, zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with thea leader of the nation that invaded his country. if our military assistance had been providedy as congress ordered it and the white house meeting, president zelensky would be meeting with putin from a position of strength. if you want the support -- what we have to realize is that the message this sends to our allies and to our standing in the world. if you want the support of the united states beg y prepared t help with president trump's election. president trump's abuse ofpr por has injured our nation. >> thank the chairman. the 299-page democratic majority report mentions the intelligence community inspector general michael atkinson on pages 140 and 143. mr. goldman, you were present for the october 4, 2019 transcribed interview of the inspector general michael atkinson, correct? >> yes. >> on pages 53 to 73 of that transcribed interview, the inspector general's testimony confirms the

president trump wanted president zelensky in a public box. a private commitment was not good enough. nearly one with week later on september 7 the hold remain. president trump and a massacre sondland spoke on the phone the president immediately told ambassador sondland there was no quid pro quo but, this is very important, president zelensky would still be required to announce investigation in order for the hold on security assistance to be lifted and he should want to do - that. in effect this is the equivalent of saying there is no quid pro quo before then demanding more from precisely the quid pro quo. and immediately after the phone call with president trump this was the precise message that ambassador sondland passed directly to president zelensky and according to ambassador taylor, ambassador sondland also said he had talked to president zelensky and told them that although this was not a quid pro quo if president zelensky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate. i understood a stalemate to mean ukraine would not re

did president zelensky get the money from the united states? they got the call on july 25th, they got the money on september 11th, they got that meeting on september 25th, is that right? but that's the guy they built their case around. is that right? one other thing they built their case around, a lot of hearsay. and that is ambassador sondland, built a case around this ambassador and built a case around hearsay and the best example of both is ambassador sondland because he filed his addendum where he said this, we have read this a couple of weeks ago. pointed this out a couple of weeks ago, bullet point number two in his clarification, he said ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison that i conveyed that message to yermak in connection with vice president pence's meeting in warsaw. that's his clarification. amazing, six people having four conversations in one sentence, ambassador taylor recalled that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i conveyed this message to mr. yermak in connection w

testified sondland that president zelensky had to announce the investigation. he did not actually have to do them. experienced former prosecutor. comment --, to announce an and then not do one? >> normally it is reversed. ismally you do not, while it not public. you run into problems of people matching of testimony and witnesses tailoring their testimony, which is part of the reason they are closed depositions. >> what does this evidence about the announcement tell you about why president trump would only care what president zelensky announcing the investigations but not conducting them? >> it said two things. about hise claims desire to root out corruption, even if you assume these investigations are for that purpose as he stated, it undermines that. he does not care if the investigations are done. i do nothing the evidence supports that it is corruption. if you assume that, it is still not -- the second is the public announcement. the private was not enough. that is an indication he wanted the full benefit from them. >> it looks to me like the announcement of

zelensky. third, ambassador bolton met with president zelensky on august 29th. fourth, vice president pence met with zelensky in september and senator johnson, senator murphy meeting with president zelensky. in none of those five meetings, none, did linking dollars, security assistance dollars to an investigation come up. never came up. you would think in the last two you would think in those last two after they knew on august 29th via the political article that they knew the aid was held you would think it would come up in those last two meetings but it didn't come up. four facts, five meetings have never changed. article 1 in this resolution ignores the truth, the facts and it ignores what happened and what has been laid out for the american people over the last three weeks. i hope this committee will come to its senses and adopt the amendment and strike article 1 from the resolution. with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> yield back. i recognize mr. cicilliney. >> i move to strike the last

he told president zelensky that us, deal with rudy giuliani. president trump's personal attorney, who knows, and this is a, quote very much knows what is going on. president trump could've gone through official channels what he, wanted if this investigation was obscene -- -- -- actually legitimate. he could've asked the department to initiate investigation into the bidens and burisma, but he did not do that. at the department of justice said that he did not do that. he never asked him to do an investigation or even talk to ukraine. instead, president trump asked his personal attorney because us was not about america. this was not about official policy. this was about what was right for our country. this was not about putting america first. every witness testified that as well. this was personal. it was all for president trump's personal political gain. this was to benefit trump's own reelection campaign, and that is why he at his personal attorney to, the sea abuses power, he abused the powers of the people interested to him. he abused the offi

gordon sondland testified repeatedly to putting that pressure on president zelensky and president zelensky's staff himself for president trump's personal benefit. number three, there is very clear evidence that president zelensky and ukrainian officials knew that there was a hold on the military aid at the time president zelensky was on the phone with president trump. number four, president zelensky planned to announce an investigation of joe biden in an interview on cnn which was canceled only after the military aid was released and the military aid was released only after president trump got caught. we want to go straight o our important guest tonight for more on the breaking news about articles of impeachment that the house of representatives could be revealing articles of impeachment tomorrow morning against pretty much. we're joined now two members of the house on the verge of casting a vote of impeachment on the president. democratic congressman mike quigley. congressman cicilline, what's going to happen tomorrow morning? >> lawrence, we finished the hearing today where we heard in det

zelensky. we heard it today. the challenge with that, though, as an excuse, is the aid was only released after president trump got caught doing the scheme. on september 9th, the committees of this house started their investigation and announced they were investigating his conduct with regard to ukraine. two days later was when he released the aid. there also was a news article which we'll talk about in a moment by "the washington post" on september 5th, exposing his scheme. and it was only after that that he met with president zelensky not in the white house but in new york. another excuse offered. the president was motivated by general corruption concerns. and again, the evidence shows that is not true that that's what caused him to with hold the aid. president zelensky, in fact, was elected on an anti-corruption platform. he was a reform candidate. his own people told him again and again president zelensky is a hope. he's doing it the right way. they urged him to be supportive. on his call with president zelens

officials and president zelensky himself to work with mr. giuliani. president trump ordered the critical military aid for ukraine be withheld. ukrainian officials were informed the aid would not be released unless president zelensky publicly announced an investigation, and president trump refused to release the aid until his pressure campaign on the ukraine was exposed. president trump refused to arrange a meeting with president zelensky, and president trump's agents advised ukrainian officials that the white house meeting would be scheduled only after president zelensky committed to the investigations. president trump ignored the anticorruption talking points prepared for his calls. president trump asked president zelensky directly to investigate president trump's chief political rival, and president trump stone waulled congress's investigation. you know, i don't know what more you can ask for here, we've got in additions from the president. we've got corroboration from people he's appointed. the only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand i

so president zelensky is meeting with putin today. and because of president trump's actions, zelensky is in a weakened position to negotiate with the leader of the nation that invaded his country. if our military assistance had been provided as congress ordered it, and the white house meeting, president zelensky would be meeting with putin from a position of strength. if you want the support -- what we have to realize is the message this sends to our allies and to our standing in the world, if you want the support of the united states, be prepared to help with president trump saez reelection. president trump sa's abuse of pr has injured our nation. >> gentle lady yields back -- >> thank the chairman. the 299 page report references the inspector general michael atkinson on pages 26, 33, 138, 140 and 143. mr. goldman, you were present for the october 4, 2019 transcribed interview of the inspector general michael atkinson, correct? >> yes, on pages 53 to 73 of the transcribed interview the inspector general's testimony confirms the follo

officials were informed the aid would not be released unless president zelensky publicly announced an investigation, and president trump refused to release the aid until his pressure campaign on the ukraine was exposed. president trump refused to arrange a meeting with president zelensky, and president trump's agents advised ukrainian officials that the white house meeting would be scheduled only after president zelensky committed to the investigations. president trump ignored the anti-corruption talking points prepared for his calls. president trump asked president zelensky directly to investigate president trump's chief political rival. and president trump stonewalled congress' investigation. you know, i don't know what more you can ask for here. we've got admissions from the president. we've got corroboration from people he's appointed. the only thing you can do is stick your head in the sand if you're not willing to see what happened here. and with that i would yield to my colleague from florida. is she here? okay, she's -- >> oh, thank you. a few seconds. i'll wait for the next y

zelensky, the repeated attacks. we're either claiming he is a liar or a puppet or he's a politician and actor so disregard him. wow, that's a lot of concern for the ukrainian people. taking on their very president they've just elected. when we understand and we look at this, this is how it gets to the problem. when you get to a certain point and you can't makeually add it up and you have law professors tell you the inference is okay, we've lowered the standard where anything can be brought in. the factual case that has been made over the almost three hours by the minority side has laid bare the case on abuse of power. there is none. you can make it call up, sell i the american people, but they're not buying it. they're not. it's going to get harder and harder for members to go to that well next week -- go to the ballot where they stick their card in and vote yes on abuse of power and actually have to go back and explain that. it's easy in this room. you got help from your colleagues. when you're back home trying to

he told president zelensky that us, deal with rudy giuliani. president trump's personal attorney, who knows, and this is a, quote very much knows what is going on. president trump could've gone through official channels what he, wanted if this investigation was obscene -- -- -- actually legitimate. he could've asked the department to initiate investigation into the bidens and burisma, but he did not do that. at the department of justice said that he did not do that. he never asked him to do an investigation or even talk to ukraine. instead, president trump asked his personal attorney because us was not about america. this was not about official policy. this was about what was right for our country. this was not about putting america first. every witness testified that as well. this was personal. it was all for president trump's personal political gain. this was to benefit trump's own reelection campaign, and that is why he at his personal attorney to, the sea abuses power, he abused the powers of the people interested to him. he abused the offi