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 the hand that we were dealt. What you mean by that and more broadly what did you think would happen if you did not play that hand . I think what youre asking me is, well, you asked it. What would happen if we didnt. It was very fragile with ukraine at the time. There was no new ambassador. The old ambassador had left. There is a new president. We thought it was very, very important to shore up the relationship. In fact you actually said, you go on to say will understood that if we refused to work with
mr. Giuliani, would lose an important opportunity to cement relationships with the United States and ukraine. So we followed the president s orders. Did you see it as a directive . I saw it as the only pathway to moving forward on ukraine. You would say that the efforts mr. Giuliani was undertaking became part of the formal ukraine policy. I cant opine on that. All i could tell he was the president wanted us to communicate with mr. Giuliani. You went on to say in your opening testimony that the suggestion that you engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false. In fact what giuliani was saying was okay improper, which is what you said. Initially you thought what he was doing was not improper. Right . We do not think it was improper and when i refer to the fact that i was not engaging rome diplomacy, by Definition Rogue Diplomacy wouldve meant i
would not have involved the leadership of the State Department and the white house. So you are saying everyone in the chain of command knew about giulianis efforts to try to get the investigations into burisma and im trying to figure out what you thought you were actually opining to. The president directed us to work with mr. Giuliani and the leadership of the State Department were knowledgeable, as was the nsc, that we are working with mr. Giuliani. Whats interesting is that ambassador taylor testified he knew nothing about it and clearly he would be in the chain of information if he was ambassador to ukraine. At the end of the day, with all due respect, you are the ambassador to the european union. Why would he not know about it . He was one who said there was irregular and irregular channel. He shouldve known about it. Although you said you did not want to work with mr. Giuliani,
you did work with him. Thats correct. Do you think the essence of what he was trying to achieve was accomplished . I dont know what he was trying to achieve. You clearly wouldve had to of known, sir. If you thought this was going down the center lane, as you said, it was clearly important that we work with mr. Giuliani to get what the president asked for because it was a directive and an order. Surely you must know whether or not the mission was accomplished. Well, i know what mr. Giuliani communicated to us. And you thought it was fine . Did you really think it was okay. Can i answer your question. You asked what mr. Giuliani was trying to achieve. No, i asked whether you thought it was right for mr. Giuliani to want to accomplish the efforts he was involved in which was to get them to investigate burisma and the 2016 election, as he said. All i can testify to is what i know mr. Giuliani either told me directly or told Ambassador Volker and others as it was related to me. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Turner. Ambassador sondland, i want to walk through some of the portions of your testimony because sometimes you seem to make direct connections and sometimes they seem to be dead ends. I kind of want to clear up what are the dead ends and what are they direct connections. Yesterday, Ambassador Volker, who i consider to be very talented and a man of integrity and i believe you think hes a man of integrity, correct . He testified that the president of the United States did not tie either a meeting with the president , phone call, or any aide to investigations of burisma, 2016, or the bidens. The president did not do that. You testified that the president did not tell you that he tied
them either. I did testified that, although in Ambassador Volker and i were working on the statement and negotiating with the ukrainians, it was clear to Ambassador Volker that a meeting would not happen without the burisma in 2016. That was very clear to Ambassador Volker. How do you know that . What did he say . He says its not clear. He was working on it. He knows thats with the president wanted but he didnt have it as a requirement. I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony. It was absolutely a requirement or wouldve had the meeting and been done with it. What about the aid . He is saying that the aide was not tied. I didnt say they were conclusively tied. I said i was presuming it. The president was not tying aid to investigations. He also testified he spoke to
giuliani and giuliani did not relate that he was tying on behalf of the president or on the president s behalf aide and then giuliani never said to him that aide was tied to investigations. The question i have for you is, did you ever have a conversation with giuliani that did not involve volker . Your testimony is a lot of we and so do you and giuliani have a separate phone call where giuliani told you that the aid was tied. Volker said that never happened. I did have a few conversations. I dont recall how many because i dont have the records, with mr. Giuliani directly when mr. Volker wasnt available. Did giuliani say what were you going to say . I dont believe i testified that mr. Giuliani told me that aid was tied. Oh, this is part of the problem, ambassador sondland. I want to walk you through it. You have sent to us everyone was in the loop. Hold on a second. I listen to you today, as have a lot of people, not only are your answer somewhat circular. Equally youve contradicted yourself in your own answer. The Text Messages and emails you put up there, kurt volker walked us through and he had a complete different understanding of what you were saying than what you are saying you were saying. Im confused as to how everyone is in the loop because if giuliani didnt give you any express statement, then it cant be that you believe this from giuliani. His donald trump your friend . No, we are not friends. Do you like the president . Yes. After you testified, chairman schiff gave a Press Conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up cnn today, right now their banner says sondland ties trumped withholding aid. Is that your testimony today . That you have evidence that donald trump tied the investigation to the aid because i dont think youre saying that. I have said repeatedly congressman, i was presuming. I also said President Trump not just the president. Giuliani didnt tell you. Mulvaney didnt tell you. Pompeo didnt tell you. Nobody else on the planet told you that donald trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct. I think i already testified. Answer the question. No one on the planet told you that donald trump was tying this aid to the investigations. If your answer is yes, and the term is wrong in the headline on cnn is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no. Yes. So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine. In exchange for these investigations. Other than my own presumption. Which is nothing. Do you know what Hearsay Evidence is . Its when i testify when someone else told me. Do you know what made up testimony is . Made up testimony is when you presume it. You are assuming these things and giving the evidence and they are running out doing Press Conferences and cnns headline is saying that you are saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations and you dont know that. Correct . I never said the president of the United States should be impeached. Youve left people with a confusing impression you were giving testimony that you did not. You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding it from ukraine in exchange for investigations. I yield back. Mr. Carson. Thank you, chairman. Ambassador sondland, i want to better understand mr. Giulianis role in carrying out the demand for investigations. On may 23, in the oval office,President Trump told you and others to talk to rudy. Do i have that right, sir . Correct. Mr. Ambassador, did you listen to the president and talk to rudy, sir . Did i talk to rudy . Yes. What did you understand to be mr. Giulianis relationship with President Trump. And understood he was the president s personal lawyer. What did you believe to what did you believe mr. Giuliani was doing in ukraine for President Trump . Stick i dont know. Ambassador sondland, in august of this year, you and Ambassador Volker spoke to mr. Giuliani about a Draft Statement to be issued by president zelensky. Mr. Giuliani suggested, insisted that the statement include specific language about burisma. Correct . Correct. And he insisted the statement include the mention of the 2016
elections. And mr. Volker transmitted this message to a top ukrainian official, right . Correct. Mr. Ambassador, this statement was part of the deliverable President Trump wanted. Correct. To your knowledge, sir, was pushing the ukrainians to investigate burisma 2016, part of state Department Official policy . Stick i never testified we are pushing anyone investigate the n or less. I said burisma. You are involved in ukrainian policy. I told you what my role was which was quite limited in focus. Was it your understanding that ukraine policy should involve investigations into americans or debunked Conspiracy Theories about the 2016 elections . What i testified was that in order to get president zelensky a white house visit, mr. Giuliani conveyed the notion that President Trump wanted
these announcements to happen. Of course it was not. It was part of the president s political agenda. It was done to benefit the president personally and politically. Were you following the president s orders, mr. Ambassador . I was following the president s direction to speak with mr. Giuliani. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, i yelled back. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out a couple things. My colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words ambassador sondland, i am bribing the ukrainian president , that there is no evidence of bribery. If he didnt say ambassador sondland, i am telling you im not going to give the aid unless they do this, that theres no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid. And youve given us a lot of evidence of precisely that conditionality of both the white house meeting and military assistance. Youve 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 youve 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
you have talked about. He referenced that as well, correct . Correct. They also seem to say well, they got the money. It may have been conditioned but they got the money. Yes, they got caught. They made no statement, they got no meeting. The statement on the investigations was the condition to get the meeting. They didnt make a statement that they got no meeting. But they got caught. You are aware that two days before the aide was lifted, this inexplicable aid was lifted, congress announced it was investigating this scheme. You are aware of that, arent you . I am aware of that now. Dr. Wenstrup. Mr. Chairman, i would like to address the claim you made this morning claiming that
republicans deny russian attempts to influence our elections. Thats false and you know it and this committee, the intel committee, not the impeachment committee, but that in this committee, time and time again, we agree that russia has tried to influence american elections as far back as the soviet union. I wish you would quit making that comment. Yesterday we established with mr. Volker something quite obvious. More than one country can try to influence our elections. We didnt agree with your russian collusion narrative. Dnc, Clinton Campaign coup attempt that occurred in conjunction with members of the fbi and doj and foreign sources. Something that you have conveniently ignored as chairman of the intelligence committee, as he became the chairman of the impeachment committee. But in this process today, im interested in facts, im not prosecutor or defense attorney. Im not an attorney like mr. Turner. Ambassador sondland, you have used the words presume, presumption, presuming, some form of the verb to presume repeatedly and today you said that was the problem, mr. Goldman. No one ever told me the aide was tied to anything. I was presuming it was. A mathematic fact, two plus two does equal four but in reality, two Presumptions Plus Two presumptions does not equal even one fact. Fact is the president did tell you, ambassador sondland, no quid pro quo. Thats a fact. Another fact, no quid pro quo occurred. This time i would like to yield to mr. Conway. Entering into the record a Washington Post article from today. Schiffs claim that the whistleblower has a statutory
right interpretation that is, to interpretations. Trying to protect the whistleblower. Equally valid and credible interpretation is there is something to hide. The unlevel Playing Field its been created by the chairmans assistance has a statutory right to anonymity may take that unlevel Playing Field and the advantages it gives them. The chairman also announced that every hearing that he will not tolerate, and i read with him, any witness intimidation, threats, issues trying to bully witness. Have you, your family, your businesses received any threats or reprisals or attempts to harm you in any way . Can you give us an example. Countless emails apparently to my wife. Our properties are being picketed and boycotted. Lets explore that one. Our own colleague, congressman from oregon, has called for a boycott of your hotels in oregon. Im assuming he believes it will harm you to the point that you will be bullied into doing whatever he wants done. My colleagues and i know, using the word bullying, he intended to harm you and your business. Is that what you surmise question mexico thats my understanding. His call for boycott gave rise to demonstrations in front of your hotels that major customers have to weave in and out of demonstrators. As i understand it, they are going on as we speak. The words are better part by a couple other oregonians. Congressman, responsible attempt to hurt a business that supports hundreds of jobs is shameful and ought to be an outrage to all
oregonians. A lady who works for you said we are saddened to have our Congressman Calling for boycott that would put his constituents in peril. The attack is unwarranted. I couldnt agree more. Mr. Blumenauer shouldnt be using influence to bully you and your businesses. Trying to take business away from you, to force you into doing something they wanted you to do. Its a shame. Im hopeful my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in saying mr. Blumenauer, you really shouldnt be using your congressional influence to try to bully and threaten a witness before these proceedings. Its wrong. I look forward to my College Response in i yield back. I was somewhat humored by your request that mr. Blumenauer
not bully, get something done, one what we are talking about is the president bullying to get something what he wanted. I would like to clarify one point about the Whistleblower Protection from the article mr. Connelly just provided. The law reads expressly restricts the Inspector Generals Office from disclosing