Yes, i believe so. Okay. And this is just investigation, generally making a public to of openness generally. Right . I think by august 11th, mr. Castor, i think we were talking about 2016 and burisma. The investigation generally was really early in the but do we know that Secretary Pompeo knows that . I think so. Why . Only because i think councilor breakable was briefed on all of these things. By who, by you . I think ambassador volker, by myself. Does not he testified to. I didnt know he testified. Ambassador volker. Oh, okay. He didnt testified that he briefed mr. Brechbuhl. This email to the secretary, he is talking about the statement
which by the way, you said that the statement didnt go anywhere. Ambassador volker said it wasnt a good idea. Mr. Yermak said it wasnt a good idea. The secretary, it relates to a generic openness subject. Right . Yeah, i think the secretary that was on the july 25th call. Which obviously i was not on and i didnt know about. But you use this email to suggest that everyone was in the loop. Security sector assistance was tied to some sort of act by The Ukrainians. No, i dont think i said that he assistance was involved here. I think what was everyone in the loop about, then . The secretary was in the loop that we had negotiated a statement. I am fairly comfortable that the secretary knows where the statement was at that point. In other words, the 2016 and
burisma. We saw a pass that along to him and kept him informed. So we can agree that at this point in time the secretary wasnt in the loop. That there was a conditionality on the sector Security Assistance. All on a second are you asking about july 19th, exhibit four . I was asking about your email to the secretary on august 11th. Oh, okay. Well, on july 19th, which the secretary was on, i talked about fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone, and the secretary was on that. Okay. He testified at your deposition that on july 19th, in this continuum we talked about, at that point in the continuum it was just a generic investigation. It wasnt anything involving again, im not trying to put words in any one i think it went from the original generic, from may 23rd when we left the oval office, we are talking about corruption and oligarchs. Until mr. Giuliani started to become involved. And then it transitioned into burisma you hadnt even talked to giuliani by that time. This is july 19th. With all due respect, allow them to finish sorry, use the mic . Allow them to finish the answer. Of course, i apologize. We were communicating with mr. Giuliani through Secretary Perry and ambassador volker. I Wasnt Talking to mr. Giuliani directly until after august first. As of july 19th, werent we still on the generic part . I dont know. I believe by then we were talking about burisma and 2016. To be candid. But not biden . Not biden, no. Turning to your email of august 11th . Yeah, got it. Im sorry, we just do without. August the 22nd. The 22nd . Yeah, thats page 23 of your opener. Yeah, i got it. This is where you are requesting a poll life aside for the president. This is when the president was going to go. Before the hurricane. Bump set off the schedule. I would ask zelensky to look him in the eye and tell them that once the new justice folks are in place, zelensky should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to the president in the United States. Hopefully that will break the logjam. At this point in time, the
issues of importance to the president of the United States were what . The two investigations. Okay. But nothing to do with Vice President biden, right . Again, i didnt make the connection there. I want to disprove it briefly to the president s concerns about foreign assistance. Undersecretary hale, who will be with us later today, testified that during this relevant time frame there was a real focus to reexamine all federalaid programs. Are you aware of that interest of the president . I am generally aware of the president s skepticism toward foreign aid, and conditioning foreign aid on certain things. I am generally aware of that, yes. And ambassador hale testified in his testimony in public almost 80based concept that each Assistance Program in each country that receives the assistance be evaluated. The program ensures that we avoid nationbuilding and dont provide assistance to countries who are lost to us in terms of policy, whether its because of corruption or another reason. Is that something you were aware about the time . Generally, yes. And youre certainly where the president was concerned about the european allies . The contributions to the region . Exactly why i was involved. Okay. As we get down toSeptember 11th, right before you are advocating that the pause be lifted, correct . I personally dont think the positive ever been put in place. As we get down to septembe September 11th and you are talking with Senator Johnson and so forth, you dont know with certainty that the genuine reason the president was implementing the pause wasnt because of his concerns about the allies or his concerns about foreign assistance generally, or that he wasnt just trying to hold the aid as long as he could to see what he could what type of information he could get about those two subjects. Fair enough. Okay. I am really trying to finish up before so i can yield some time back. Do you have Anything Else . I have nothing else. Thank you, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Lets take a 30minute recess to allow Ambassador Sondland to get a bite to eat. Id think the members of the committee would like to get a bite to eat. Well resume with the member rounds of questioning a 5 minutes. If we could allow the witnesses to have the opportunity to leave the room first . Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Sondland had intended to fly back to brussels to resume his duties at the end of the day. It would be a great convenience to us if we could have a shorter break now and resume with the members questions and try to wrap up in time that he might be able to make his flight. I appreciate that, counsel. We all have a busy schedule these days. The member around in question should take slightly less than two hours. I think you should be good, depending on the time of your flight. We will endeavor to make the break as short as possible. If you would like to excuse yourself from the room before the rest of the crowd. Bret ambassador Gordon Sondland, his testimony up on capitol hill as chairman adam schiffs is there in the break. I am bret baier in washington, watching this testimony continue. As expected, the g. O. P. Questioning this very line about Ambassador Sondland, where he said President Trump never told him directly that he conditioned the foreign aid to ukraine on the burisma and 2016 elections. Numerous times hammering back on that very line. At times, the g. O. P. Counsel, steve castor, questioning Gordon Sondlands memory. Saying he has no records, no notes, no recollection, calling that a trifecta of unreliability. But the ambassador saying one of the reasons he doesnt is because the State Department and the white house is not giving them access to all of his notes and call records. This all centers around President Trump, what he did or didnt say to his aides and advisors. While this was happening, President Trump, on his way to austin, texas, for a visit to apple out there, stopped by reporters with what he doesnt usually have a written note pad on comments about this very thing. On the south lawn of the white house, lets listen in. President trump im going to go very quickly, just a quick comment on what is going on in terms of testimony with Ambassador Sondland. I just noticed one thing, and i
would say that means its all over. What do you want from ukraine . He asks me. Screaming. What do you want from ukraine . I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories. This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me. It just happened. I turned off the television. What do you want from ukraine . I keep hearing all these different ideas. What do you want, what do you want . It was a very short and abrupt conversation that he had with me. They said, he is not in a good mood. Im always in a good mood, i dont know what that is. He just said, no hes talking about my response. So hes going, what do you want, what do you want . I hear all these theories, what do you want . And now, heres my response that he just gave. Ready . You have the cameras rolling . I want nothing. Thats what i want from ukraine. Thats what i said. I want nothing. I said it twice. So he goes he asked me the question, what do you want . I keep hearing all these things, what do you want . He finally gets me. I dont know him very well, i have not spoken to him much. This is not a man i know well. Seems like a nice guy, though. But i dont know him well. He was with other candidates. He actually supported other candidates, not me. Came in late. But heres my response. If you werent fake news, he would cover it properly. I say to the ambassador in response, i want nothing, i want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell zelensky, president zelensky, to do the right thing. So heres my answer. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell zelensky to do the right thing. Then he says, this is the final word from the president of the United States. I want nothing. Thank you, folks, have a good time. Bret President Trump not taking any questions there, saying he wants nothing from ukraine. Have a Cast Of Thousands here covering all of this. Bill hemmer, sandra smith, martha maccallum, Chris Wallace, ken starr, john roberts, juan williams, Andy Mccarthy, and dana perino. Bill, your thoughts . Bret, think of that. I go back to when Daniel Goldman said the following. You knew there was no meeting at the white house unless zelensky announced investigations into the bidens . And the answer was, i know that now. 60 minutes prior to that, steve castor, attorney for the republicans, saying, any preconditions mentioned by the president cannot no. What do you want from ukraine . I dont want anything, i wanted to do the right thing. Referring to zelensky. During that testimony, bret, there was the comment he offered about expresident pens when he went to poland on the 1st of september. I want to bring this to your attention now. The Vice President s office put out a statement in real time during this hearing. I will share part of that with you. Fullscreen number 9a, put on screen here in a moment. Three different sentences. The Vice President never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the bidens, burisma, or the conditions and release of Financial Aid to ukraine based on potential investigations. Ambassador Gordon Sondland was never alone with Vice President pence on the September 1st Trip to poland. This alleged discussion regarded dominic recalled by sondland never happen. Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President pence never raised hunter biden, former Vice President joe biden, crowd strike, burisma, or investigations in any conversation with ukrainians or
president zelensky before, during, or after the September 1st meeting in poland. Just let that soak in, as i bring ken starr in for some analysis. Sarah, you said prior to the hearing beginning yet again you described this as one of those bombshell days. You said adam schiff believes bribery has been committed, and then you asked the question, the only question remaining is whether or not the Impeachment Vote will be bipartisan. How do you draw that conclusion today, can Dominic Ken This is based on what we heard this morning. The Opening Statement was incredibly powerful. However, now we see the other side, and one of the most effective things today, i believe, was the president just quoting what he did. That finally came out. Namely, i dont want anything, just tell president zelensky to do the right thing. That is the one on one withAmbassador Sondland himself. We learned today that he chose not to put that in his Opening Statement. I thought mr. Castor really pressed him on that. Well, why not . Why wouldnt you put that conversation into your Opening Statement . So i think there has been, shall i say, some questions raised about why the ambassador would not have been more complete and his Opening Statement. Obviously the Opening Statement wasnt very long, very detailed. Why didnt include that . Everything i think we now have been reminded of is the communication that the president had with Senator Johnson of wisconsin. Senator johnson was apparently satisfied that and this is late august that there was no conditionality. Finally, i think the morning was
helped tremendously by what devin nunes did, which was to say, lets take a step back and lets look at the context. Ukraine, specifically, all the times in which the ukrainian officials, during the 2016 president ial campaign, assailed the knife and candidate trump. That tells you something about the ukraine. The prior regime. And the disapprobation that that wouldnt naturally cause the president. Also, we were reminded of the context that the president was not only concerned about foreign aid and the use of Taxpayer Dollars and so forth, but also about this failure, the profound failure, as he saw it, of the European Countries to come alongside and do their fair share. The familiar refrain. All of that came out, which i think was extremely helpful in
ameliorating the effect of Ambassador Sondlands now very surprisingly incomplete Opening Statement. The issue to me is i do hope this will come out during the individual questioning dash why did you leave out of the Opening Statement, because we were all screaming with the open statements, we are getting 323 pages, why did you leave out the most salient president ial comment to you directly . And he had no good answer. It would have taken an hour and a half . No, it wouldnt. That would have taken about three sentences. Why do you believe that was the case . I have wanted to come out. I am stunned that that comment would not have come out in the Opening Statement. Why . Are you trying to be fair . Are you trying to be complete . If so, there is no excuse, as i
see it, for this ambassador, appointed by this president , to leave out something it is such a material omission, as we would say at the sec, that there can be liability for total incomplete statement. To be honest, it is a shocking omission. He was a question from castor. Were you aware the president was concerned about a giveaway . He said, i am aware, especially with European Countries. I will bring Andy Mccarthy in on this. July 25th, when the president was talking with zelensky, andy, he said we spent a lot of effort and a lot of time, much more than European Countries. Germany does almost nothing, all they do is talk. Its something you should really ask them about. Given Gordon Sondlands position there, as an investor to the european union, he would think it would be foremost on his mind. Now, to Andy Mccarthy. Legally, how do you see the last three hours play out . Well, to respond to canons point , what i expect the democrats would say is that the omission was made because the conversation is not actually very helpful to the president. What i think they will say about that is that when he said no quid pro quo, i just want him to do the right thing, and then sondland went on to say, the president said there is no quid pro quo, but if you dont do what you want we are at a stalemate, highlighting that would give the democrats the opportunity again and again and again to marshal all the evidence that, while the president said no quid pro quo, there was very powerful reason to believe that there was a quid pro quo. And perhaps sondland didnt think that would be particularly helpful. I imagine that may have been if you thought about it at all, what is the strategic approach o
it was. I think this would develop today, even though it is not all that apparent yet, that there is a flaw in adam schiffs theory of this idea that if you can make out an offense under the federal Bribery Statute two, as opposed to what the framers had in mind when they put bribery in the constitution, you have an impeachable offense. In the flaw is that what came out today is that there is bribery, and then theres bribery. What sondland said was he knew that one of