Was the white house visit in return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. When you heard burisma, you did not see that as code for biden, the bidens . I did not. When did you even know that . Is it your testimony that you only realized that burisma included the bidens when the readout came out . No, i really dont recall the date. It was very late in the game, though. September . I dont recall the date. So if i told you that the Legal Definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty, do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo, but it was bribery . Im not a lawyer and im not going to characterize what
something was or wasnt legally. You also said in your Opening Statement that Secretary Perry and yourself as well as Ambassador Volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter at Express Direction of the president , is that right . That
Return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. When you heard burisma, you didnt see it as code for biden, the bidens . I did not. When did you know that. Your testimony saying that burisma included the bidens when the readout came out. My testimony wasnt specific with regards to the date. September . I dont recall the date. If i told you that the Legal Definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value and the means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty. Do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo but it was bribery. Not a lawyer and im not going to characterize what
something was or wasnt legally. You also said in your Opening Statement that Secretary Perry and yourself, as well as Ambassador Volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter, and express direction of the president. Is that right . You also go on to say that we did not want to work with giuliani, simply put we played t
military aide to ukraine. mulvaney didn t testify. a dozen congressional officials administration officials were subpoenaed by congress. but congress did not go to court to pursue this. they essentially said we ll charge that as obstruction and move forward quickly. that is a decision they made. it s a political decision about wanting to move ahead as fast as possible with the impeachment process. with the election looming. it s interesting because they would have had a strong case in the court. and would that have given them more essentially political rational to try it get some republican members to join in on the impeachment? we ll never know the answer. it s a controversial decision they made. the flip side is bill clinton, nixon. even they participated on some level. had staff participate. turned over documents.
repeated misconduct and seize and control the power of impeachment. and thus to nullify a vital constitution safeguard vested in the house of representatives. this is the heart of the separation of power and the house speaker said she had to act. it s interesting because of course first of all president trump has chosen a interpretation of the prerogative. since the sec the democrats won the house a year ago. he refused to cooperate with all investigations including this impeachment inquiry. even though it s a constitutional function. what s controversial and we ll see how history regards it. democrats have made a choice to pursue this without pursuing litigation to enforce the subpoena. congress subpoenaed testimony from mulvaney for example. the chief of staff. who seemed to be directly implicated and right in the middle of president trumps order to with hold $400 million in
we know this phase of the impeachment proceedings do we end up hearing from these additional people who know down the road if we actually get to a trial. you know, perhaps you don t need the documents to incriminate mick mulvaney. he s perfectly capable of implicating himself as we saw. he doesn t have any friends this morning, either. mulvaney didn t do this on his own. i mean mulvaney has no known views about ukraine. he doesn t care about ukraine. i mean it all comes from the president. t there can be no other conclusion. the president s argument is that there is no drink link to him. i think people can deduce this came from the president, this wasn t something that mick mulvaney all of a sudden had an issue with ukraine over, the same with regards to a meeting with president zelensky in which sondland said, that in his opinion, was definitely a quid pro quo but there was no one who actually heard the president say, quid pro quo i will say, no direct link to the presiden