Phoebe with ambassador taylor, was he assesssatisfied that thie was now behindti him . I dont really know, because when i responded, get ahold of the secretary, and he said i agree. I never knew i whether he reach out to the secretaryhe or not. That was sort of the end at one point in the text you said lets get on the phone, you said youre an individual that doesnt like to walk through these issues on texts when you can talk about it on the 1 telephone, correct . I say that to everybody when something becomes more substantive than a few lines of text, i say, lets talk. Did you say that to ambassador taylor . I dont recall. I dont recall whether we spoke after that or whether he called the secretary. Basically, mr. Castor, wanted to get the notion across that ive gone as far as i can go with this, you need to youre the ambassador, you need to pick up the ball and run with it at this point. Okay. Just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you about this socalled irregular
channel . Im not sure how someone could characterize something as an irregular channel when youre talking to the president of the United States, the Secretary Of State, the National Security adviser, the Chief Of Staff of the white house, the secretary of energy. I dont know how thats irregular, if a bunch of folks that are not in that channel are aggrieved for some reason for not being included, i dont know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel and they to be the regular channel when its the leadership that makes the decisions. And so the concerns, you know, raised were never brought to were never brought to a head . Well, they were never raised. Okay. They were never raised. No one said, back off of ukraine, this is dangerous, youre doing something thats untoward, we have concerns, there was a bad phone call on
july 25th, theres talk about a Drug Cocktail or something. No one ever said that to me by phone, by text, by email. I dont remember anybody sounding any alarm bell because of course had someone mentioned it, i would have sat up and taken notice. Everyones hair was on fire but no one decided to talk to us. When you talk in your statement about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, i later came to believe, it was your speculation, it was your guess, that the resumption of security aid wouldntur occur until ther was a Public Statement from ukraine committing to investigations of 2016. I believe you said at this point you believed everyone, everyone knew this; is that correct . I think once that politico article broke, it started making
the rounds, that, you know, if you cant get a white house meeting without the statement, what makes you think youre going to get t a 400 million check . Again, that was my presumption. But you had no evidence to prove that, correct . Thats correct. You stated that you havent been able to access your records; is that correct . Not all of them, and there are lots of notes, records, readouts of calls, cant get to em. But youve also stated that you dont take notes, right . I dont take notes, but there are a lot of others out there. And you freely admit that you know, when asked in your deposition, we a put together a list of all the times you said you dont like, its like two pages long. Is that all . So, you know, on a lot of these questions, theres ambiguities, theres nuance, and we dont have notes, correct . Right. Its situational things that sort of trigger memory, especially when im dealing with the European Union, im dealing with the 28member countries, im dealing with other countries that are not in the European Union that are part of my mandate, im dealing with the white house leadership. Theres a lot of stuff to juggle. And as i said in my Opening Statement, a phone call from me with the president of the United States or the president of fill in the blank country, while people who get a call like that maybe once in ale lifetime, a cl like that might be very memorable, they might remember every single thing about it. Im doing that all day long. Anddo im not saying it in way being braggadocio or anything like that, but its part of my routine day. So all of these calls, these
meetings with very important peopleca tend to sort of blend together until i have someone that can show me what we discussed, what the subjectw w, then all of a suddenwa it comes back. Were trying to get to the facts here, were trying to find out what actually happened, whats the reliable. George kent wrote imnumerable memos to the file. Katherine croft testified she didnt believe george kents notesersh would be accurate. And so, you know, we have all this, you know, back and forth, but, you know, as we get to the end here, you dont have records. You dont have notes because you didnt take notes. You dont have a lot of recollections. This is like the trifecta of unreliability, isnt that true . Well, what im trying to do today is to use the limited
information i have to be as forthcoming as possible with you and the rest of the committee. And as these recollections have been refreshed by subsequent testimony, by some texts and emails that ive now had access to, i think ive filled in a lot of blanks. But a lot of it is speculation, a lot of it is your guess. And were talking about impeachment of the president of the United States. Pe so the evidencee here ought toe pretty darnht good. Ive been very clear as to when i wasy presuming. I was presuming on the aid. On the other prthings, mr. Cast, i did have some texts that i read from. So when it comes to those, ill rely on those texts because i dont have any reason to believe that those texts were, you know, falsely sent or that theres some subterfuge there. They are what they are, they say what they say. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The time of The Gentleman has expired. Well now move to a second staffled round of 30 minutes. Mr. Volker, i just have a few questions before i turn it back to mr. Goldman. You testified in response to my colleagues on the minority something along the lines of, a lot of people did not make the connection between burisma and biden. I think a lot of people have real difficulty understanding that. Tim morrison testified that i think it took him all of doing a Google Search to find out, oh, this is the significance of burisma, it involves the bidens. Are you saying during all this time up until the call, you never made the connection between burisma and the bidens, you just thought that the president and Rudy Giuliani were interested in this one particular Ukrainian Company . Again, my role, mr. Chairman, was just to get the meeting. I understand that. But my question is, are you saying for months and months, notwithstanding everything Rudy Giuliani was saying on tvnt and
all the discussions with Rudy Giuliani, that you never put burisma together with the bidens . I didnt. And i wasnt paying attention to what mr. Giuliani was saying on tv. We were talking to him directly. Let me ask you this. Ambassador volker testified yesterday to a similar epiphany, for lack of a better word. This is what he said. In hindsight, i now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption with the Ukrainian Company burisma as equivalent to investigating former president biden. I saw them as being different, the former being unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. I should have seen it differently and had i done so, i would have raised my own objections. Does that sumse up your views a well . It does. T now, i think you were asked the question with a bit of an correcting premise by my colleagues in the minority about fiona hill, referring to a drug deal between you and mr. Mulvaney. It was ambassador bolton who made the comment that he didnt want to be part of any drug deal that ambassador sondland and mulvaney were cooking up. No one thinks theyre talking about a literal drug deal here or a Drug Cocktail. The import of the ambassadors comments is quite clear, he believed this quid pro quo, as you described it, of investigations to get the not something he wantedme to be a part of. What i wanted to ask you about is, he makes reference in that drug dealef to a drug deal cook up by you and mulvaney. Its the reference to mulvaney that i want to ask you about. s youve testified that mulvaney was aware of this quid pro quo, of this condition that Thes Ukrainiansit had to meet, that , announcing these public investigations to get the white house meeting, is that right . Yeah, a lot of people were aware of eait. Including mr. Mulvaney . Correct. I and including the Secretary Of State . Correct. Now, have you seen the acting Chief Of Staffs Press Conference in which he acknowledged that the military aid was withheld in part because of a desire to get that 2016 investigation youve talked about . I dont think i saw it live. I saw it later, yeah. So you saw him acknowledge publicly what you have confirmed too, that mr. Mulvaney understood that two plus two equals usfour, is that right . I well, again, i didnt know that the aid was conclusively tied. Was presuming. To say yes condition c it was or no tenanit wasnt. And he said yes, it was. He said yes, it was. Mr. Goldman. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you again, mr. Sondland. We do appreciate your efforts to refresh your recollection from the documents. We share your frustration in not having the documents to help guide this investigation. Ou so we do appreciate those efforts. One of the documents that you provided to us goes back to the conversation you and the chairman were having about mr. Mulvaney. And you had been trying for some time before the july 25th call to set up that call, is that right . To set up the call between President Trump and president be zelensky, yes. Correct, yes. Yes. C and i want to show you an
email that you reference in your Opening Statement that is a july 19th email. And who is this from . It looks like is it from me . I dont know. Its from fryou, i believe. Thats from me to the group. Now, who is the group . Uh, people mentioned on the email. Blair, kennen, mccormack, pompeo, mulvaney. Who is robert blair . I believe hes a Deputy Chief Of Staff or an adviser to the Chief Of Staff. And youve already told us that lisa kena is the Executive Secretary for secretary pompeo. And who is mccormick . Chief of staff to secretary
perry. And we see Secretary Perry and secretary pompeo. Can you read what you wrote on july 19th to this group, please . Uh, he is prepared to receive potus call. Will assure him he intends to rune a fully transparent investigation, will turn over everyn, stone. He would greatly appreciate a callre prior to sunday so he ca put out some media about a friendly and productive call, no details, prior to ukraine election on tasunday. So sunday was the 21st which was the date of the parliamentary elections in ukraine,el is that right . Thats correct. When you say will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will, quote, turn over every stone, unquote, what do you mean there . Im referring to the y buris and the 2016 slash dnc server investigations. Later that evening, secretary
perry responds just to you and Brian Mccormick saying, mick just confirmed the call being set up tomorrow by nsc rp. And then a little later, mr. Mulvaney replies to all, saying, i asked nsc to set it up for tomorrow. Were these the only responses that you received to this email . I dont know. If i had them, i would show them. I dont know. Ho no oneth wrote back to you a said,an what are you talking abt in terms of these investigations and turning over every stone . No. There was a chain, and i dont know if its part of this email or a subsequent email, where i believe ambassador bolton pushed back and said he did not want a call to president zelensky made by President Trump until after the parliamentary elections. So that would explain why it was moved from the nexto day, july 20d th, to the 25th, is th right . Ha thats right. But ambassador bolton is not on this email, is he . I dont think he is, no. You were asked by mr. Castor if there were any other key witnesses who might be able to help with our investigation. And you mentioned Brian Mccormick, right, the Chief Of Staff for Secretary Perry . I did. You are aware that the committee subpoenaed him, are you e not . I wasnt aware of that. And that he refused to come testify . Are you also aware that mr. Mulvaney was subpoenaed by the committee and refused to come testify . I did read that in the newspaper, yes. Are you also aware that robert blair was subpoenaed and refused to come testify . I think im aware of that. And that Secretary Perry was asked to testify and refused . I am aware of that as well. Would you include them as well as secretary pompeo as key witnesses that would be able to providey some Additional Information on this inquiry . I think they would. Now, this was not the first time, as you indicated, that mr. Mulvaney heard about these investigations into burisma and the 2016 election, is that right . I dont know what mr. Mulvaney heard or didnt hear. I think theres been a huge amount of exaggeration over my contact with mr. Mulvaney. It was actually quiteul limited. Well, he certainly didnt indicate he certainly indicated a familiarity with what you were talking about in this july 19th email, is that right . Right, because i think mr. Mulvaney was in the May 23rd Briefingrd with President Trump. I dont remember, because there were people sitting behind us when we were sitting in front of President Trumps wdesk. Youve said you dont have a recollection of saying referencing mulvaney in the July 10th Meeting in ambassador boltons office, is that right . I dont recall. So when both fiona hill and
colonel vindman testified that in response to a question from ukrainian officials at that july 10 tth meeting about scheduling white house visit, that you said, well, i spoke with mr. Mulvaney and it will be scheduled after they announce these investigations, do you have any reasonio to Dispute Th Characterization . I dont have any reason to agree i or dispute. I just dont remember. So if they both remembered and both went to speak to the nsc Legal Adviser about it, you would trust that whatever they related to the nsc Legal Adviser i would trust what they related to the nsc Legal Adviser. Again, ive had very, very limited conversations with mr. Mulvaney. This email indicates that you spoke to president zelensky and werean relaying what he said to
very senior officials, is that right . Which i email again . Sorry, the july 19th email, where you say, the subject is, i talked to zelensky just now. Ed yes, i got it. Was there some sort of assurance that president zelensky needed to provide about what he would say to President Trump in order just to getsa th phone call . I think that part was verbal. And then there were a lot of communicationser going around bk and forth with the ukrainians. And thats when someone, and i dont remember who, came up with the ideame of a Draft Statement sodr there would be no misunderstanding about what in fact the ukrainians would say and would be willing to say that we could rely on and negotiate something on a piece of paper. So just to place you in time,
were going to get to that Draft Statement which was in august. This is july 19th, before the july 25th call. Do you remember whether there was abe need from any of the whe House Officials or other National Security officials for president zelensky to provide some assurance of what he would say to President Trump before a phone call, not the meeting, but a phone call was scheduled . There was initially apparently a condition. Butnt that condition was obviouy dropped, because the phone call took place and there was no such statement made. As the phone call took place, as you said, on the 25th of july. Of when you say there was no such statement that took place, what do you mean . The ukrainians never made their Public Statement prior to the phone callta on the 25th ju. But im not talking about a Public Statement. Im asking whether president zelensky needed to relay to you
or the other american officials that he would assure President Trump that he would do these investigations in a phone call. In my email, i obviously had just spoken with him, he he being zelensky, and he said he was prepared to receive the call, he would make those assurances to President Trump on that call, and then presumably that would then lead to the white house meeting. T and you had been discussin this phone call for several weeks now, is that right . Yes, i think with volker, with perry, with guiliani through volker and perry. And then right after you sent this email assuring the others that he will discuss the investigations and w