scheduled. was he specific about the investigations he was referring to? the investigations into bris ma. investigations into the bidens in 2016. i m aware of accounts of the meeting from hill and vindman, their recollections simply don t square with my own. or with those of ambassador volker or secretary perry. i recall mentioning the prerequisite of investigations before any white house call or meeting. i do not recall any yelling or screaming or abrupt termination. the meeting was over. when ambassador sondland made a general comment about investigations. all of us thought it was inappropriate. the conversation didn t continue. and meeting concluded. later on in the i may have been engaged in a side conversation or left the complex because i do not recall further discussion regarding investigations. you also reported this
well one conversation. the september 9th conversation. right. specifically where sondland said what do you want me to do. and president trump wrote down what he said if we want to show the photograph, president trump, i want nothing, i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing. that is the final word from president trump on the matter. now we should point out that that was september 9th, supposedly, that he said that. at least according to sondland and what do we know about what was going on on september 9th? that the whistle-blower s complaint had reached the white house. it had reached congress. not only did the president discover that quid pro quos were inappropriate, he also released the money. again a republican talking point. september 11th, two days later. that period. but this idea that there is no harm to ukrainians and this is no big deal because they released the money any way and
being the greatest, there is no greater obstructor of congressional investigations than donald trump. your republican colleagues after the hearing came out, congressman jordan and congresswoman stefanik and talked about how on the september 9th phone call between president trump and president zelensky when asked what he wanted from ukraine and he said nothing. i want nothing. no quid pro quo. what is your response to that? the white house and republicans say that is exculpatory. he said no quid pro quo and then he went on to say exactly what was a quid pro quo. and detailed what he wanted. we also have to remember the president s own words on the white house call record. that is quid pro quo. so they can say whatever they want. and i heard through the grapevine they thought this was a draw. football coaches, when they lose a game by 50 points, don t say we got our ass kicked, they talk
meant was bidens. right? with 20/20 hindsight, yes. right. with hindsight. and of course, on the day after the president s famous call, you re having lunch with david holmes. we ve covered this. and he overhears your conversation. and i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr. holmes said. and i think you said you wouldn t have any reason to believe to to think he didn t speak about investigations with the president. the president raised investigations with you, right? correct. on the 26th? correct. and we now know of course that was about the bidens and burisma and 2016, right? i mean, i know you didn t know that at the time. that s your testimony. i understood it meant to mean burisma. mr. holmes said you said bidens right after that but you don t recall that, right? that s correct. do you dispute it? i do. okay but you don t recall it but we know that s what the president meant, right? and you do confirm that he wanted to talk about investigat
or irregular channel of diplomacy is quote/unquote absolutely false. isn t that right? that s correct. the presumption that military aid was conditioned on investigations was based on mulvaney s statement that we saw on the video, isn t that right? well, i didn t have the benefit at that time of mulvaney s statement. but you would stand by the presumption that you had based on what you know now, right? correct. and on september 1, when you told andriy yermak your presumption, which you ve told us about military aid being conditioned on the investigations, you then told mr. morrison what you told yermak. and morrison did not try to dispute your presumption, correct? i don t recall him disputing it. i think i went right over to him and and just repeated the conversation. and when you told vice president pence your concerns, he did not dispute that, as well? he didn t respond. he just listened.