knowing what you know now what was intended with ukraine, do you agree with mr. mulvaney that there is just going to be political influence in foreign policy or that we should all just get over it and allow a president now or later to investigate a political rival and ask a foreign government to do that? i think there s a big difference between political influence and investigating arrival. politics enters into everything related to foreign policy. but you disagreed that you agree that the president should not be allowed to ask for the investigation of a political rival. in the context of what was going on in ukraine, i believe that the president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo. part of the way that you figured out that all of the stuff that was going on, that you are part of something it was basically wrong, is because in the july 25 phone call, the president himself he didn t
following directions, right, and you re saying it s a condition, who s giving you the instructions to say what you re saying? that s why we thought it was problematic to work with mr. giuliani. exactly. who did you work with to say the things you said? did you have conversations with the chief of staff, secretary pompeo to say what you re saying? are you talking about in the july 10 meeting? yes, with ambassador volker because of that point, ambassador volker was the one in touch with mr. giuliani, not me. you had no direct conversations with mr. mulvaney about this or secretary pompeo to make this condition statement? only the text and emails i have already reviewed. thank you. my time is up. ms. stefanik. thank you, and mr. sondland, for your service and your recognition in your opening statement of your hardworking
whistle-blower. it distresses me because i begin to wonder about the motivations. the final analysis, the way i look at this is if we were investigating an arson, you all would indict the person who pulled the fire alarm. that person s job is done, and we ve seen the smoke and we ve seen the fire. whatever the whistle-blower did doesn t change the president s actions, doesn t change the president s own words which are in our testimony or in our body of evidence. it doesn t change mr. mulvaney s own words. it doesn t change the body of evidence here. all it does is put this person at risk. back to the documents and what you know, including mr. ambassador, you seem to have your memory jogged by documents.
and you ve given us a lot of evidence of precisely that conditionality of both the white house meeting and military assistance. you ve told us, have you not, that you emailed the secretary of state and said that if these investigations were announced, the new justice person was put in place, that the ukrainians would be prepared to give the president what he wants and that would break the logjam. you testified and showed us documents about this, have you not? i have. in your written statement, you say that the logjam you are referring to includes the logjam on security assistance. that is my presumption. we also have seen and you testified and you ve also seen, ambassador, or rather acting chief of staff mulvaney himself acknowledged that the military aid was withheld in part over the investigation into 2016 that
it was completely unrelated. did you have a chance to talk to mr. mulvaney about your efforts in ukraine? most of our communication was through the stream of emails which others were on generally. i may have seen him at the white house casually and said hello and kept in touch but we didn t have a back and forth. was it your sense that mr. mulvaney had a direct line to president trump? he must have, as acting chief of staff. of course. let s look at what mr. mulvaney said during his october 17 press conference. those were the driving factors. also mentioned to me corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely. no question. that s it. that s why we held up the money. reporter: demand into investigation of the democrats