Earlier Wednesday, Trump lashed out anew at the inquiry as Gordon Sondland, the most significant witness, acknowledged during his testimony that there was a “quid pro quo” in the Ukraine controversy.
In questioning, Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, was pressed about his knowledge of allegations that Trump sought to leverage U.S. military aid to Ukraine and a White House visit by Zelensky in exchange for investigations of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, among others.
●Sondland: ‘Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.’
●Trump said his Ukraine call was ‘perfect.’ Impeachment witnesses testified otherwise.
●Judge intends to rule by Monday on a House subpoena to former White House counsel Donald McGahn.
What’s next in the inquiry | Who’s involved in the impeachment inquiry | Key documents related to the inquiry | Sondland’s opening statement
Sondland has baggage issues
Sondland made his flight back to Brussels Wednesday night, but it wasn’t without a minor snafu.
A passenger on Sondland’s flight told CNN that the ambassador, who had just endured a six-hour grilling, put his bag in the wrong overhead bin.
“My whole day has been like this,” Sondland quipped.
Colby Itkowitz
Schiff says Trump demonstrates corruption ‘in word and deed’
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) concluded Wednesday’s second hearing by reflecting on claims that Trump was focused on fighting corruption in Ukraine when he placed a hold on military aid.
In fact, Schiff argued, Trump “demonstrates — in word and deed — corruption.”
Schiff gave several examples — Trump’s removal of former ambassador ro Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who had fought corruption in the country; his praise of former Ukrainian prosecutors general Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin, who Schiff described as corrupt; the alleged quid pro quo involving military aid and Trump’s pressure on Zelensky during their July 25 call; and the call between Sondland and Trump in which Trump inquired about the status of investigations.
In each case, Schiff said, “That is not anti-corruption. That is corruption.”
“When [countries around the world] see a president of the United States who is not devoted to the rule of law ... they are forced to ask themselves: what does America stand for anymore?” he said.
Elise Viebeck
A little laughter at the end of a long and momentous day
A moment of levity marked the end of perhaps the most momentous day to date of the impeachment hearings. In his closing statement, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) railed that the day’s proceedings were a con game and an “impeachment inquisition.”
“An inquisition victim had more rights than the Democrats are giving the president,” Nunes acidly added. “After all, inquisition victims had the right to learn their accuser’s name.” And with that coda, he yielded to Schiff or what he called the chairman’s “story-time hour.”
“I thank the gentleman for his remarks,” replied a poker-faced Schiff, drawing laughter from the gallery.
Cooper says $35 million in aid would have remained unspent if not for congressional intervention
Cooper said the Pentagon was able to only “obligate” 88 percent of military aid appropriated to Ukraine before the end of the fiscal year, leaving $35 million left over that would have remained unspent if not for a provision in the latest stopgap spending bill.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked about the figure and the role of the continuing resolution in ensuring the entire pool of appropriated funds went to Ukraine.
“But for literally an act of Congress, you couldn’t have spent all the money,” Maloney said.
“If we had not received the provision in the continuing resolution, we would have obligated 88 percent but not the full amount,” Cooper said.
The House passed the spending bill on Tuesday, and the Senate is expected to approve it on Thursday.
Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said this week that the Pentagon recently alerted lawmakers that $35.2 million of the $250 million in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds that had been held up by the White House remained unspent.
“Nearly half of the unspent funds are intended for lethal material to assist Ukrainian security forces battling Russian-back separatists,” a memo from Durbin’s office stated.
Hale says ouster of Yovanovitch was wrong
Hale, the third-ranking official in the State Department, delivered a striking defense of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, saying it was wrong for her to have been removed from her post by the Trump administration.
Hale’s testimony could be interpreted an implicit criticism of his boss, Secretary of State of Mike Pompeo, who did not issue a statement in support of Yovanovitch and did not prevent her removal from the post.
Trump had said in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky that Yovanovitch was “going to go through some things,” which Yovanovitch has testified she took as threatening. Pompeo was among those who listened to the call.
“I believe she should have been able to stay at the post and continue to do the outstanding work,” Hale testified about Yovanovitch. Asked by Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.) whether “what happened to her was wrong,” Hale responded, “That’s right.”
Yovanovitch has said that she asked Hale for help defending her from a smear campaign that questioned whether she was loyal to Trump, but no statement from the State Department was issued defending her.
As a result, Hale’s testimony on the subject Wednesday was much anticipated. Hale had previously said that he had advocated in favor of defending Yovanovitch, but that the State Department did not do so.
White House pushes back against idea Ukrainians knew of aid hold in July
The White House responded swiftly after Cooper testified that the Ukrainians asked about the status of the military aid as early as July 25, challenging the timeline of when Ukraine found out about the delay.
“This is just an assumption based on Ukraine bringing up the aid. Simply discussing the aid in no way means they knew it was being withheld,” the White House said in talking points that it circulated by email.
The White House said that Zelensky and several impeachment witnesses had made “abundantly clear” that Ukraine didn’t know about the hold in July.
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) used the talking points in questioning Cooper, saying that just because her staff received questions about the assistance did not mean the Ukrainians knew about the hold.
“You cannot say one way or another whether the inquiries in these emails were about the hold — is that fair?” he asked Cooper.
“I cannot say for certain,” Cooper said. She stated that it was the “recollection of [her] staff” that the Ukrainians likely knew about the hold before it was reported in Politico but told Ratcliffe, “I don’t have a certain data point to offer you.”
“It’s not unusual is it, Ms. Cooper, for foreign countries to inquire about foreign aid that they’re expecting from the U.S.? Is it?” Ratcliffe asked.
“Sir, in my experience with the Ukrainians, they typically would call about specific things, not just generally checking in on their assistance package,” Cooper said.
Republicans use hearing to hammer Obama administration on weaponry for Ukraine
A number of Republican lawmakers used their question time to praise the Trump administration for sending Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine and to criticize the Obama administration for its decision not to do so.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said current aid to Ukraine included Javelins, “which the Obama administration denied.”
“Is that correct?” he asked Cooper.
“It is true that the Trump administration approved the release of defensive lethal assistance to include Javelins, whereas the previous administration did not support that policy,” Cooper said.
Wenstrup called the weapons “a benefit to all of us.”
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) raised the same issue.
“And [under] which administration were those Javelins made available to Ukraine?” she asked Cooper.
“This administration — the Trump administration,” Cooper said.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) pushed back during his five minutes, stating that the Obama administration trained five Ukrainian military battalions and provided equipment such as armored Humvees, tactical drones and night vision goggles.
Cooper says she ‘strenuously’ argued for release of Ukraine funds
Cooper was asked by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) whether she was told why the freeze was put on security aid to Ukraine. Cooper said she didn’t know why the funds were frozen after they had been cleared for release through normal channels.
Cooper agreed with Speier that the funds were needed immediately because Ukraine was at war with Russia.
“I and my [Department of Defense] colleagues advocated strenuously for the release of these funds because of their national security importance,” Cooper said.
State Department disputes Sondland’s claim on emails
A State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss Sondland’s complaint, noted that the ambassador continues to retain access to his documentary records and email account because he’s still employed by the department.
Sondland, who by his own admission is “not a note taker,” blamed the omissions and memory lapses he had during a closed-door deposition last month on the fact that he couldn’t review his communications — and still has not been provided records of at least one pivotal phone call with Trump.
Schiff cites significance of Cooper’s testimony
Schiff cited the importance of the new timeline provided by Cooper.
“You are the first to indicate that [knowledge about the hold on security aid] may go back as early as the date of the president’s call with President Zelensky,” Schiff told Cooper.
Other witnesses so far have testified that they believed Ukrainian officials did not know that the security aid had been held up until later.
Hale says it would be unusual to withhold military aid for investigation
Hale, who was called by Republicans to testify, said he believed it would be unusual to withhold military aid to pressure a country to investigate a political opponent.
“That would be inconsistent with the conduct of our foreign policy in general,” Hale said in response to a question from Schiff. “It’s certainly not what I would do.”
Cooper testifies that Ukrainians asked about status of security assistance July 25, same day as presidential call
Cooper testified that her staffers informed her of a series of communications that indicate Ukrainian officials inquired on the day of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky about the status of congressionally approved security aid to Kyiv.
Cooper testified that just hours after Trump and Zelensky spoke on July 25, her staff heard through the State Department that the Ukrainian Embassy and the House Foreign Affairs Committee knew “to an extent” that the funds controlled through the State Department’s foreign military financing accounts had been frozen and were asking questions.
“On July 25, a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine Embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance,” she said.
Cooper said she was not aware of those communications when she gave her deposition last month in the impeachment inquiry. She added that she only became aware after her deposition that the Office of Management and Budget had blocked the State Department from sending out its security assistance funds to Ukraine on July 3, as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council Ukraine expert, and Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Vice President Pence, testified Tuesday.
The new timeline Cooper laid out threatens one of the GOP’s main defenses of Trump — that the Ukranians were not aware of the hold on security aid at the time of the call between the heads of state, and that they found nothing alarming in the presidents’ discussion.
Meadows says he’s open to Pompeo or Perry testifying, but doesn’t think it’s likely
As calls emerged for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to testify before Congress, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said he would be open to the idea.
“Would I be in favor of a Secretary Pompeo or a [former Energy] Secretary [Rick] Perry coming to testify? Certainly.” he told reporters late Wednesday afternoon.
However, “I don’t see that happening,” he said.
Meadows said he does not support acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney appearing for testimony.
“When you get to the chief of staff, I would not, just because it’s a chilling effect on any president,” he said.” So whether it’s President Barack Obama or whether it’s any other president, their chief of staff and their White House counsel is off limits, I think, just from the nature of those positions and the proximity to the president.”
Throughout the impeachment inquiry, Meadows has criticized the Democrats’ handling of the hearings and the witnesses they’ve called to testify.
Hale, Cooper appearing under subpoena
Cooper and Hale are appearing under subpoena, according to an official working on the impeachment inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss matters not publicly announced.
Most of the officials who have testified have done so under subpoena, given the Trump administration’s efforts to block them from appearing.
Schiff, Nunes deliver opening statements
Schiff and Nunes delivered brief opening statements as the second round of the hearing began.
Nunes argued that the impeachment inquiry should be brought to a close and that Democrats should “move on.”
“What exactly are the Democrats impeaching the president for?” he asked. “None of us here really know, because the accusations change by the hour.”
Schiff, meanwhile, praised the records of Hale and Cooper, noting that “between them, they have several decades of national security experience, serving both Republican and Democratic presidents.”
Like the other witnesses who have testified, “their only priority has been the security of the United States of America,” he said.
Second round of testimony begins
Schiff has gaveled open the second round of today’s hearing, featuring testimony by Hale and Cooper, and is delivering an opening statement.
Trump says of Sondland testimony, ‘Not only did we win today; it’s over’
Speaking to reporters during his factory tour in Austin, Trump described Sondland’s testimony as “fantastic” and said it proves he “did absolutely nothing wrong.”
“They have to end it now. There was no quid pro quo. ... Not only did we win today; it’s over,” Trump said.
He also pulled out a paper that resembled the one he used earlier on the South Lawn of the White House.
“‘I want nothing.’ And then I repeated it. ‘I want nothing,’” Trump said, referring to Sondland’s description of the president’s remarks during their phone call on Sept. 9.
The White House also issued a statement Wednesday night claiming that Sondland’s testimony “completely exonerates” Trump.
“Though much of today’s testimony by Ambassador Sondland was related to his presumptions and beliefs, rather than hard facts, he testified to the fact that President Trump never told him that a White House meeting or the aid to Ukraine was tied to receiving a public statement from President Zelensky,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said.
Who is David Holmes and why does his public testimony matter?
On Thursday, diplomat David Holmes will testify publicly in the impeachment inquiry, a late addition by House Democrats after he privately testified about a phone call between Trump and Sondland on “investigations” in Ukraine.
Read more here.
Trump campaign says Sondland testimony fizzled
Trump’s presidential campaign declared victory after Sondland’s testimony, claiming that his testimony failed to be the “bombshell” Democrats had been hoping for.
“Over and over we’ve heard from Democrats and the media that the next hearing, the next witness, the next testimony would be the bombshell they’ve been promising, only to have it fizzle out like all the rest. It has happened yet again,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.
McEnany pointed to Sondland’s testimony that Trump “directly told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine” and that no one “ever told him that Ukraine aid was tied to investigations.”
Republicans say Trump was ‘as clear as could be’ that there was no quid pro quo
In an exchange with reporters after the hearing, House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee argued that according to Sondland’s testimony, Trump was “as clear as could be” that there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine.
The military aid to Ukraine, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said, was “released because so many senior government officials met with President Zelensky and determined this new guy … he’s a real reformer.”
The release of the aid was unrelated to the fact that Congress had begun investigating the whistleblower’s complaint, Jordan maintained.
He also said “there were only 14 days that the Ukrainians knew the aid was held up” — a statement that appears to be at odds with the claim by the GOP and the White House that the Ukrainians were unaware that aid was being held up.
Stefanik argued that Sondland’s testimony changed little.
Democrats “have yet to point to a shred of evidence when it comes to impeachable offenses,” she said.
Schiff gavels Sondland’s testimony to a close
Schiff has gaveled Wednesday’s first round of testimony to a close.
Two additional witnesses — Cooper and Hale — are expected to appear around 5 p.m.
Sondland spoke to Trump as Congress learned of whistleblower
Sondland said under questioning from Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) that he could not rule out the possibility that Trump emphatically told him there was “no quid pro quo” during a Sept. 9 phone call because Trump knew Congress was launching a probe into Ukraine issues, based on learning that a whistleblower had filed a complaint.
Sondland had testified earlier that both the White House and State Department told him they “cannot locate” a record of that phone call, which Sondland made to Trump before answering William B. Taylor Jr., the top diplomat in Ukraine, who had expressed concerns that nearly $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine was being withheld until Zelensky promised to conduct investigations.
Sondland said that he was told by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that a promised White House meeting was being withheld until Zelensky publicly committed to conduct probes of 2016 election interference and the energy company Burisma, which paid former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden to sit on its board for five years.
Sondland testified that he deduced that military aid to Ukraine was being withheld as leverage to secure the same promise to investigate. Though Trump and Giuliani did not tell him that directly, no one dissuaded him from that presumption either, he said.
State Department says Sondland never told Pompeo he believed Trump was linking Ukraine aid to investigations
State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus issued a statement disputing parts of Sondland’s testimony.
“Gordon Sondland never told Secretary Pompeo that he believed the President was linking aid to investigations of political opponents,” Ortagus said. “Any suggestion to the contrary is flat out false.”
‘I remember the first girl I kissed,’ Sondland says
During a line of questioning about why Sondland remembered certain details of conversations with Trump and not others, Sondland quipped, “I remember the first girl I kissed.”
“I remembered that conversation because as I said, it was a pretty intense short conversation,” Sondland said, referring to a conversation with Trump where he asked the president what he wanted from Ukraine, and the president, according to Sondland, said, “Nothing.”
But when asked for details about the phone call he had with Trump on July 26, he said he doesn’t “remember the specifics.”
“I think the president may have brought up, you know, how did it go with Zelensky, or is he going to do the investigations, which we’d been talking about for weeks,” Sondland said.
Sondland says it is wrong for a president to press a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent
Sondland said at least four times that it is wrong for a president to pressure a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent, remarks that cut directly at Trump’s effort to pressure Zelensky into investigating the Bidens.
Toward the end of Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) proposed a hypothetical scenario in which a mayor and a governor withheld funding for law enforcement unless they investigated a political opponent.
“Would that be wrong?” Welch said.
“Of course,” Sondland said.
“And would that same rule apply to the president of the United States?” Welch said.
“Yes,” Sondland said.
Three other Democrats elicited the same answer.
“Do you believe, sir, that it is ever appropriate to invite, press, bribe, or coerce foreign interference in our elections?” Rep. Denny Heck (Wash.) asked.
“No,” Sondland said.
“You agree that a president should not be allowed to ask for the investigation of a political rival?” Rep. Joaquin Castro (Tex.) asked.
“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,” Sondland said.
“Would you agree that it is wrong for the president of the United States to ask the leader of a foreign government to investigate the president of the United States’ political opponent?”Swalwell asked.
“Yes,” Sondland said.
New York lawmaker hits Sondland over his changing story
One of the angrier exchanges in the hearing came when a lawmaker tried to get Sondland to state in simple terms one of the obvious implications of his testimony about the president.
“Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?”Maloney asked, his voice rising.
“I assume President Trump,” said Sondland, prompting an exasperated Maloney to reply: “There we have it!”
Sondland quickly pushed back, saying, “Mr. Maloney, excuse me. I have been very forthright, and I really resent what you’re trying to do.”
Maloney pounced, noting that Sondland altered his first account of events and updated his testimony.
“Didn’t work so well the first time did it?” asked Maloney. “Now we’re here a third time. … All due respect, sir, we appreciate your candor, but let’s be really clear what it took to get it out of you.”
Trump arrives in Austin
Trump arrived in Austin around 3 p.m., while lawmakers were still in the middle of grilling Sondland.
The president took no questions from reporters as he got off the plane.
His motorcade is heading toward Apple’s Mac Pro manufacturing plant in Northwest Austin, where he is expected to take a factory tour and meet with Apple chief executive Tim Cook before heading back to Washington later Wednesday.
Sondland spent $1 million for a ‘VVIP’ ticket to Trump’s inauguration
Swalwell tried to nail down the nature of Sondland’s relationship with Trump, confirming the ambassador spent $1 million on Trump’s inauguration.
Swalwell began by telling Sondland that Trump had just downplayed their relationship, claiming not to know Sondland well and not to have spoken to him much.
“Is that true?” Swalwell asked.
Sondland wouldn’t characterize the depth of his relationship with Trump, saying only: “We are not close friends, no. We have a professional, cordial working relationship.”
Then Swalwell asked, “And you donated a million dollars to his inaugural committee, is that right?”
Sondland said he had bought a “VVIP ticket to the inauguration.”
Speier refers to Trump’s ‘five Pinocchios’
Speier began her questioning by chastising her Republican colleagues for their efforts to disclose the identity of the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment inquiry.
Speier read from an article in The Washington Post fact checking “Schiff’s claim that the whistleblower has a ‘statutory right’ to anonymity.” She read from it that while there are no court rulings on who has the right to anonymity, “nonetheless a best practice is to avoid disclosure of the Ukraine whistleblower’s identity given the concerns about retaliation.”
Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.) interjected that the article she was reading from ultimately gave “Three Pinocchios,” a reference to the truth meter used by The Washington Post’s fact-checkers.
“The president of the United States has five Pinocchios on a daily basis, so let’s not go there,” Speier shot back. The audience broke into applause.
Sondland asked about threats to him and his business since impeachment began
The ambassador testified that he and his wife have received “countless” emails of a threatening or bullying nature since his role in the Ukraine matter was revealed.
“Have you, your family or your business received any threats or reprisals or attempts to harm you in any way?” asked Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.).
“Many,” Sondland replied.
Conaway decried Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) for calling for a boycott of Sondland’s hotel business.
Demonstrations outside Sondland’s businesses “are going on as we speak,” Sondland testified.
“That’s a shame,” said Conaway, who criticized Blumenauer for using “congressional influence to try to bully and threaten.”
‘They got caught,’ Schiff says of pressure campaign in rebuttal to Republicans
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) challenged Republicans who have downplayed the idea of a quid pro quo because Ukraine ultimately received its military aid.
Schiff said that those exerting pressure on Ukraine “got caught” and that is why the aid was released.
Schiff interrupted Sondland’s questioning by committee members to respond to a handful of GOP talking points.
“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 didn’t say, ‘Ambassador Sondland, I’m telling you, I’m not going to give the aid unless they do this,’ that there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid,” Schiff said.
“They also seem to say that, ‘Well, they [Ukraine] got the money. The money may have been conditioned, but they got the money.’ ”
“Yes, they got caught,” Schiff said sharply. “They got caught.”
The chairman asked if Sondland was aware that the hold on aid was lifted after Congress announced an investigation.
“I am now,” Sondland said.
Sondland admits he had no direct conversation backing quid pro quo claim
In an exchange likely to please Trump and his allies, Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio) sought to expose “dead ends” in Sondland’s testimony by illustrating that Sondland had merely inferred a quid pro quo with Ukraine.
Jumping off earlier testimony in which Volker said he did not have a direct conversation with Trump about a link between military aid and investigations, Turner asked Sondland if he’d had any such conversation with Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.
“I don’t believe I testified that Mr. Giuliani told me that aid was tied,” Sondland replied.
“See, this is part of the problem, Ambassador Sondland,” Turner snapped. “I’ve listened to you today, as have a lot of people, and not only are your answers somewhat circular, frequently you’ve contradicted yourself in your own answer.”
Turner continued to try to pin Sondland down on how he ended up “presuming” that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine.
“Not just the president — Giuliani didn’t tell you, Mulvaney didn’t tell you, Secretary Pompeo didn’t tell you, nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations, is that correct?” Turner asked.
After hemming and hawing, Sondland said, “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,” Turner said.
“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland said.
“Which is nothing,” Turner said.
Putin pleased election interference accusations have shifted to Ukraine
At an economic forum in Moscow on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed pleasure that talk of interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has shifted away from Russia and to Ukraine during these impeachment hearings.
“Thank God,” he said, speaking to an audience at the “Russia Calling!” investment event. “No one is accusing us of interfering in the United States elections anymore. Now they’re accusing Ukraine. We’ll let them deal with that themselves.”
During the public hearings, some Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have repeatedly pursued a line of questioning referencing a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the last presidential election on behalf of the Democrats, something Trump asked Zelensky to investigate in their now infamous phone conversation on July 25.
Putin added that he believes Russia has “many common interests” with the United States and has always treated it with respect.
New email reveals that Pompeo knew about push for Ukraine to open investigations
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was aware in August, weeks before a whistleblower complaint was made public, of efforts to press Ukraine’s president to announce investigations favorable to Trump, according to emails provided to the House Intelligence Committee.
In an Aug. 22 email, Pompeo is informed by Sondland that Ukraine’s president should be able to “move forward publicly and with confidence on . . . issues of importance” to Trump and the United States.
Sondland testified on Wednesday that the “issues” he was referring to included politically charged investigations into Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and Burisma, a company that employed Hunter Biden.
By that point, $391 million in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been held up for more than a month.
Sondland added that he hoped the public statement from Zelensky would “break the logjam” on the aid.
Pompeo responded with a simple “Yes.”
The two then exchanged messages about lining up a brief meeting between Trump and Zelensky at a World War II commemoration in Warsaw, where Zelensky could speak with Trump directly.
The emails contrast sharply with Pompeo’s protestations of ignorance in the first days after a whistleblower complaint revealed the pressure campaign on the Ukrainians.
In late September, ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked Pompeo about the whistleblower complaint and Trump’s controversial July 25 call with Zelensky in which he asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son.
“So, you just gave me a report about a [intelligence community] whistleblower complaint, none of which I’ve seen,” Pompeo said.
A week later he acknowledged that he had listened in to the July 25 call.
Pompeo, at a news conference in Brussels, was asked about Sondland’s testimony and whether he would recuse himself from decisions on handing over subpoenaed State Department documents to the House Intelligence Committee.
“I didn’t see the testimony. I’m not going to recuse myself from this. I know precisely what American policy was with respect to Ukraine,” Pompeo said. “I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished. There were remarkable outcomes for the Ukrainian people.”
Sondland dodges question about whether he thinks Trump doesn’t give a ‘fig’ about Ukraine
Sondland dodged a question from Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) about whether Trump doesn’t give a “fig” about Ukraine except for “big stuff” that benefits him, as Sondland purportedly told a State Department aide during a visit to Kyiv over the summer.
Himes read from a deposition transcript for Holmes, the aide who recounted a conversation with Sondland on July 26 to investigators last week and is scheduled to testify publicly on Thursday.
“[Holmes’s] statement, ‘Ambassador Sondland agreed that the president did not give a fig’ — not the word used — ‘about Ukraine’ — is that a statement you might make? Do you believe that the president doesn’t give a fig about Ukraine?” Himes asked.
“I think that’s too strong,” Sondland said. “The president was down on Ukraine for the reasons mentioned.”
Himes returned to the question a moment later.
“I’m asking you what you believe right now — that the president doesn’t give a fig about Ukraine and in fact, cares about the big stuff that benefits the president. Do you believe that now?” Himes asked.
“I really can’t opine. ... I don’t understand your question. I want to answer your question. I just don’t understand,” Sondland said as Himes’s time ran out.
Jordan attacks the quid, the pro and the quo
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), one of the president’s fiercest defenders on impeachment, sought to undercut Sondland’s claims that there was a quid pro quo involving a White House meeting conditioned on a Ukraine statement about investigating the Bidens.
Seeking to undercut witness accounts that the president pressed Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation in exchange for a Trump meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Jordan angrily asked: “When did it happen?”
“When did what happen?” asked Sondland.
“An announcement,” Jordan replied.
Sondland, grinning, acknowledged that there had been no such announcement, and no White House meeting, which was Jordan’s point — whatever the president’s goals may have been, they were not realized.
“I mean, I’ve never seen anything like this,” Jordan said.
Energy Department says Sondland misrepresented Perry’s remarks
The Energy Department pushed back against Sondland’s testimony, arguing that the ambassador misrepresented Perry’s remarks.
“Ambassador Sondland’s testimony today misrepresented both Secretary Perry’s interaction with [Trump personal lawyer] Rudy Giuliani and direction the Secretary received from President Trump,” Department of Energy spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said in a statement, adding that Perry “spoke to Rudy Giuliani only once at the president’s request.”
“No one else was on that call,” Hynes said. “At no point before, during or after that phone call did the words ‘Biden’ or ‘Burisma’ ever come up in the presence of Secretary Perry.”
Burisma is the Ukrainian energy company that employed Hunter Biden.
Pompeo says he won’t recuse himself from decision on State Department documents
Speaking to reporters in Brussels as he attends a NATO ministerial meeting, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday that he won’t recuse himself from any decision related to impeachment investigators’ request for State Department documents.
Pompeo also said he did not see Sondland’s testimony.
“I’m not going to recuse myself from this,” Pompeo said. “I know precisely what American policy was with respect to Ukraine. I was working on it, and I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished.”
‘I want no quid pro quo,’ Trump wrote in his notes
The written notes Trump carried as he spoke to reporters Wednesday included the phrases “I want nothing” and “I want no quid pro quo,” referring to the saga at issue in the impeachment inquiry.
Photographers captured images of Trump’s notepad as he carried it outside the White House before boarding Marine One. The notes were written in Trump’s distinctive script and quickly began to make the rounds online.
President #Trump handwriting notes are seen as he speaks reporters on the White House South Lawn before boarding Marine One to depart for Texas this morning. @washingtonpost #ImpeachmentHearing #GordonSondland #WhiteHouse #PresidentTrump pic.twitter.com/jFhckhUoF8
— Salwan Georges (@salwangeorges) November 20, 2019
The notes stated:
“I WANT NOTHING
I WANT NOTHING
I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.
TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
THIS IS THE FINAL WORD FROM THE PRES OF THE U.S.”
GOP investigator presses Sondland on decision to omit ‘exculpatory’ Trump phone call from statement
A Republican lawyer pressed Sondland on his choice not to mention a particular phone call with Trump during his opening statement.
Sondland testified during his deposition that he spoke with Trump on or around Sept. 9 and asked him: ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’
“He was in a very bad mood,” Sondland said during the closed-door interview, according to a transcript. “It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.”
“Was that vignette in your opener today?” Stephen R. Castor, the GOP investigator, asked Sondland on Wednesday.
“I don’t think so,” Sondland said.
“How come?” Castor said, calling the anecdote “memorable,” “striking” and “exculpatory.”
Sondland said he was “happy to discuss it” and assumed that if lawmakers had questions about the episode, they would ask.
“But you only had a couple conversations with the president,” Castor said.
“It was not purposeful, trust me,” Sondland said of the omission.
Sondland says he never met Giuliani associates Fruman, Parnas
Sondland told lawmakers that he never met with Igor Fruman or Lev Parnas, two indicted associates of Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani.
“A lot of new names I’ve learned,” Sondland said, referring to Soviet emigres Fruman and Parnas. Asked if he ever met with the pair, Sondland said “no.”
Fruman and Parnas hired Giuliani and then helped him with investigative work on Trump’s behalf, Giuliani has said.
They pleaded not guilty last month to charges they violated campaign finance law and conspired to use foreign money to buy political influence.
After a GOP lawyer asked if Sondland was aware Giuliani had business interests in Ukraine, Sondland said: “Now I understand he did — I didn’t know that at the time.”
In fact, Giuliani has said that since 2017, he has had no clients in Ukraine.
Following that exchange, Giuliani took to Twitter to ask the lawyer to apologize.
“Republican lawyer doesn’t do his own research and preparation, and is instead picking up Democrat lies, shame. Allow me to inform him: I have NO financial interests in Ukraine, NONE!” Giuliani tweeted.
White House maintains that ‘no quid pro quo ever occurred’
With the Sondland hearing in its fourth hour, the White House issued a statement echoing Trump’s defense of himself on the South Lawn.
“Ambassador Sondland’s testimony made clear that in one of the few brief phone calls he had with President Trump, the president clearly stated that he ‘wanted nothing’ from Ukraine and repeated ‘no quid pro quo over and over again,’” Grisham said.
She maintained that “no quid pro quo ever occurred. ... Democrats keep chasing ghosts.”
Trump, meanwhile, sent several tweets and retweets as he was traveling on Air Force One on his way to Texas. One of his tweets was of a video shared by Senate Republicans’ official account.
“Aid was released. Ukraine never investigated the Bidens. Witnesses say President Trump never wanted a quid pro quo,” the video states. It includes footage from Sondland’s Wednesday morning testimony, in which the ambassador said Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo.
Sondland resists Democrats’ attempts to pin him down on Trump
Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman several times attempted to reconcile testimony from State Department officials who describe Sondland saying he was acting at Trump’s behest with Sondland’s own account, in which he says Trump never made a direct linkage between Ukraine aid and investigations.
“That was the problem, Mr. Goldman,” Sondland said at one point. “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.”
But Sondland also refused to directly contradict the testimony of Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. and former National Security Council senior adviser Tim Morrison, who said that Trump wanted Zelensky to personally make a public statement about the investigations.
Schiff took over questioning from Goldman and sought to get an answer: “What they related was, although President Trump claimed to you there was no quid pro quo, he also made it clear to you in that call that President Zelensky had to, quote, ‘clear things up and do it in public.’ You have a reason to dispute that?”
Sondland said he didn’t “have any reason to dispute” that, but “what I’m trying to be very clear about was President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement,” he said, referring to previous testimony describing a Sept. 9 conversation where Trump told him he wanted “no quid pro quo.”
“Did you also get from President Trump, as reflected by Ambassador Taylor, that he said he was adamant that President Zelensky had to, quote, ‘clear things up and do it in public’?”
“That part I can agree to, yes,” Sondland said.
FBI seeking to interview whistleblower
The FBI is seeking an interview with a CIA analyst who brought the initial complaint that triggered an impeachment inquiry, according to three people familiar with the matter.
The bureau’s Washington Field Office first contacted one of the whistleblower’s attorneys last month, and the FBI and the legal team have traded messages since, said one of the individuals, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
No date for an interview has been set, and it is not clear if one ever will be, the people said.
The FBI is interested in the “substance” of the whistleblower’s complaint, which centered on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky and concerns that Trump was seeking to pressure Zelensky into opening investigations that would aid Trump’s 2020 reelection.
If so, that might mean the FBI is undertaking a similar course of inquiry as the House impeachment investigators. The bureau does not appear to be pursuing a leak investigation, said one person.
The development, first reported by Yahoo News, opens a potential new front in the debate over whether Trump’s conduct constitutes an impeachable offense. The Justice Department in September confirmed that it saw insufficient evidence to open a criminal investigation into Trump for campaign finance violations. At the time, spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said “no further action was warranted.”
Legal experts said that it is possible that the bureau could be examining other criminal behavior, such as bribery, though it is highly unlikely that charges would be brought while Trump is in office. Or it is possible that the bureau is interested in speaking to the whistleblower, whose identity Trump and GOP allies are seeking to unmask, in relation to other investigations, such as one involving Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
“I do not believe that DOJ’s declination decision should or could preclude the FBI from investigating further,” said Chuck Rosenberg, a former federal prosecutor and senior FBI official. “If the FBI has information about potential crimes, they have an obligation to look further.”
Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid, the whistleblower’s attorneys, declined to comment. The FBI declined to comment.
Giuliani responds to Sondland, casts blame on Volker
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, responded to Sondland’s testimony Wednesday by distancing himself from Sondland and seeking to blame former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, who testified Tuesday.
“I came into this at Volker’s request,” Giuliani said in a tweet. “Sondland is speculating based on VERY little contact. I never met him and had very few calls with him, mostly with Volker.”
In his testimony Wednesday morning, Sondland emphasized that the directive for the alleged quid pro quo came through Giuliani.
In his tweets responding to Sondland, Giuliani also claimed that Trump agreed on July 24 to a meeting with Zelensky “without requiring an investigation, any discussion of military aid or any condition whatsoever.”
It was not immediately clear whether Giuliani was referring to Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, which took place on July 25. On that call, Trump told Zelensky, “I would like you to do us a favor, though,” according to the rough transcript released by the White House.
Sondland says he was too busy juggling ‘stuff’ to remember all of the details of his Trump conversations
Sondland defended his spotty memory of events surrounding Ukraine by saying that he was not a person who took notes of his conversations and that he forgot certain things until his memory was jogged by other witness accounts.
On Wednesday, he expanded on that explanation, saying he was juggling so many things that he doesn’t remember all of his interactions, even when it comes to those with presidents.
“It’s situational things that sort of trigger memory,” said Sondland, noting that his job entailed dealing with the European Union, its member nations, Ukraine and other matters.
“There’s a lot of stuff to juggle… I’m dealing with the White House leadership, there’s a lot of stuff to juggle,” Sondland said. When it comes to a phone call with Trump or other presidents, that may be a once-in-a-lifetime event for some, he said, but not for him.
“I’m doing that all day long, and I’m not saying that in a way of being braggadocio or anything like that,” Sondland said. “All of these calls, meetings with very important people tend to sort of blend together.”
Sondland says no one complained to him about the ‘irregular’ Ukraine talks
Sondland defended his role in Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of a political rival by saying that none of the other witnesses who testified in the impeachment probe ever raised concerns with him at the time about what they were doing.
The hotelier-turned ambassador expressed frustration that so many other impeachment witnesses described their overpowering concerns about what he and others were doing.
“Everyone’s hair was on fire, but no one decided to talk to us,” Sondland complained during Republican questioning before the committee.
“No one said back off of Ukraine, this is dangerous, you’re doing something that’s untoward, there was a bad phone call on July 25, there’s talk about a drug cocktail or something, no one ever said that to me, by phone, by text, or email,” he said. “I don’t remember someone ever sounding any alarm bell.”
The “drug cocktail” was an apparent reference to witness testimony that then-national security adviser John Bolton had said he didn’t want to be involved in any “drug deal” involving Ukraine.
Republicans try to separate Giuliani from Trump
In his initial questions Wednesday, Republican counsel Stephen R. Castor pressed Sondland on the extent to which he received directions from Trump versus Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney — an apparent effort to establish that Sondland only assumed that any quid pro quo came from Trump.
“You testified that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president, correct?” Castor asked.
“That’s our understanding, yes,” Sondland said.
“But how did you know that? Who told you?” Castor snapped.
“Well, when the president says, ‘Talk to my personal attorney,’ and then Mr. Giuliani, as his personal attorney, makes certain requests or demands, we assume it’s coming from the president,” Sondland said.
Castor then pressed Sondland on a May 23 White House meeting at which Sondland testified that Trump told him and others involved with Ukraine to “talk to Rudy.”
Castor suggested that comment “wasn’t an order or direction” from Trump.
Sondland said, “The conclusion of the three of us was that if we did not talk to Rudy nothing would move forward on Ukraine,” referring to former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Trump claims Sondland’s original testimony exonerates him
Trump left the White House nearly an hour after he was originally scheduled to depart for a trip to Texas.
He took no questions from reporters but recited parts of Sondland’s original deposition, in which the ambassador testified that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo and that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
“That means it’s all over,” Trump told reporters.
The president added of Sondland: “This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy, though.”
Trump was animated as he reenacted his conversation with Sondland, at one point pausing to address reporters before reading from Sondland’s testimony.
“Ready? Do you have the cameras rolling?” he asked.
He also pushed back against Sondland’s claim that he was in a “bad mood” during the phone call.
“I’m always in a good mood. I don’t know what that is,” Trump said.
‘I’m a proud part of the three amigos,’ Sondland says
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) used the first 10 minutes of Republican questioning time to promote his favored narrative: Trump was justified in seeking investigations in Ukraine because of the nation’s alleged role in working against him in 2016.
Democrats, Nunes said, “just can’t get over that the president would send his personal attorney over there to try to get to the bottom of that.”
Asking a brief question of Sondland that elicited no new testimony, Nunes instead used his time as a jumping off point to discuss Ukraine’s actions in 2016 and Hunter Biden.
At another point, he asked Sondland to respond to memorable bits of testimony from other witnesses.
“Were you aware of any ‘drug deal?’ ” Nunes asked, referring to a comment from Bolton, relayed to the House by his deputy.
“I don’t know about any drug deal,” Sondland said.
“And you know you’re part of the ‘three amigos,’ ” Nunes said, referring to the sobriquet Sondland allegedly used to refer to himself, Volker and Perry.
“I’m a proud part of the three amigos,” Sondland said.
Nunes’s expression following Sondland testimony draws notice
The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee gave an unhappy expression following Sondland’s first two hours of testimony — and social media took notice.
The look from Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.) as he turned off his microphone was caught clearly on CNN and began to circulate among Trump critics on Twitter, who took it as a sign of defeat from the GOP after a particularly bruising round of testimony.
Oh my god. Nunes’ face moments ago. pic.twitter.com/Mku0P491cE
— John Aravosis🇺🇸 (@aravosis) November 20, 2019
Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), a Trump critic who left the Republican Party over the summer, tweeted to similar effect.
Is there a mercy rule for congressional hearings?
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 20, 2019
Pence disputes Sondland testimony
Vice President Pence disputed Wednesday that he was told by Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland in September in Warsaw that he was concerned that aid to Ukraine was linked to politically motivated investigations the president wanted
In a statement from his chief of staff Marc Short, the vice president said, “This alleged discussion recalled by Ambassador Sondland never happened.”
Short also said: “The Vice President never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the Bidens, Burisma, or the conditional release of financial aid to Ukraine based upon potential investigations.”
Burisma is the Ukrainian energy company on whose board Hunter Biden sat while his father was vice president.
In his testimony Wednesday, Sondland said Pence nodded when he raised the concerns with him and seemed to understand what he was talking about.
Pence was in Warsaw for a meeting with Zelensky.
11:20 AM: Schiff says Sondland’s testimony shows knowledge of Ukraine scheme was ‘pervasive’
In a brief exchange with reporters during a break in the hearing, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sondland’s testimony showed for the first time that knowledge of the efforts to pressure Ukraine “was pervasive” within the Trump administration.
He added that the testimony proved the existence of a quid pro quo and “goes right to the heart of the condition of bribery as well as other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
As Schiff was speaking, the White House fired back at him in a tweet — an instance of the White House using its official Twitter account to make a political attack, something that was rare before the Trump era.
“Shifty Schiff thinks he hasn’t gotten enough camera time. So during a brief break, he’s doing a press conference. New hoax. Same swamp,” the White House said.
By: Karoun Demirjian
White House says Sondland’s testimony ‘made clear that President Trump never discussed a quid pro quo’
The White House distributed talking points Wednesday morning defending the president and arguing that Sondland’s testimony “made clear that President Trump never discussed a quid pro quo.”
“Sondland stated that he ‘understood’ there were conditions for a White House meeting based on comments from Giuliani, but never said anything about hearing that from the president,” the talking points state.
They also refer to Sondland’s closed-door testimony, parts of which Sondland contradicted Wednesday. “The only thing the president told Sondland was that he didn’t want a quid pro quo,” the talking points say.
Sondland testified the link between military aid and investigations was obvious, even if Trump didn’t expressly state it
Before the break, Sondland testified that he never heard directly from Trump that the military aid to Ukraine was being withheld until Zelensky committed to the investigations, but he concluded that they were connected because “two plus two equals four.”
“President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings,” Sondland said to Daniel S. Goldman, the Democratic counsel.
Sondland said the “only thing” he heard directly from Trump personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was that the investigations sought by Trump were conditioned on a White House meeting.
“The aid was my own personal guess, based again on your analogy, two plus two equals four,” Sondland said.
Sondland claimed that it was “abundantly clear to everyone that there was a link” between the aid and the investigations, but his testimony leaves the GOP and Trump’s defenders some wiggle room to argue that Sondland misunderstood Trump’s intentions.
Sondland frequently corrected Goldman to stress that the aid and White House meeting were contingent on “the announcement of these investigations,” indicating that Trump did not actually care if the investigations went forward.
Sondland also indicated that Vice President knew about the investigations by the time he was meeting with Zelensky in Warsaw on Sept. 1, even if he did not expressly discuss them.
A break before Republican questioning of Sondland
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff has called a short break.
When the hearing resumes, questions will be posed to Sondland by Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the top Republican on the panel, and Republican counsel Stephen R. Castor.
Sondland focuses blame on Giuliani in early testimony
Sondland declined to say that Trump himself stated the terms of the alleged quid pro quo, emphasizing in early testimony that the directive came through the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Sondland said he and others understood Giuliani to be acting on Trump’s behalf.
Under questioning from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), Sondland said the White House meeting sought by Zelensky was conditioned on investigations into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that employed Hunter Biden, and alleged interference in the 2016 election.
“Donald Trump wanted these two investigations that would help his reelection campaign, correct?” Schiff asked.
“I can’t characterize why he wanted them. All I can tell you is this is what we heard from Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland said. “When the president says, talk to my personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, we followed his direction.”
Later, Schiff suggested that Trump and Giuliani had directly endorsed the quid pro quo, and Sondland took exception.
“So that official act of that meeting was being conditioned on the performance of these things [investigations] the president wanted as expressed both directly and through his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, correct?” Schiff said.
“As expressed through Rudy Giuliani, correct,” Sondland said.
Sondland says colorful comment about Zelensky ‘sounds like something I would say’
In testimony that was both lighthearted and loaded with implications for the president, Sondland confirmed the basic thrust of a phone call between himself and Trump on the day after the president spoke with Zelensky.
Sondland said he now recalled the conversation because the two had also discussed the case of A$AP Rocky, an American rapper who was arrested in Sweden earlier this year, prompting Trump to personally intervene to seek his release.
Sondland was eating lunch with staff at a Kyiv restaurant when he called the president, and the two discussed the likelihood that Zelensky would announce an investigation into Ukraine energy firm Burisma, where Biden’s son had served on the board.
A State Department official has said that Sondland told Trump on the call that Zelensky “loves your ass” and would do what he wanted.
Sondland said he couldn’t remember the specific language, but “it sounds like something I would say. That’s how President Trump and I communicate — a lot of four-letter words, in this case three-letter words.”
The comment sparked laughter in the hearing room, but the account may be a key piece of firsthand evidence of the president’s words and deeds surrounding his demands for an investigation of a political rival.
Sondland said he always understood the demand to be a public announcement for an investigation, but drew a key distinction — that he did not recall mentioning the Bidens specifically.
“I recall Burisma, not Biden,” said Sondland, drawing a distinction that the president himself did not make in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky — a day before Trump’s call with Sondland.
Sondland suggests Trump administration is keeping data from their own people
Sondland testified that the State Department blocked him from accessing phone records, emails and other documents he needed to prepare for his testimony, and that he is still being blocked from accessing others.
His accusation suggests that the Trump administration hasn’t just been keeping information relevant to the impeachment probe away from Congress, but from its own employees.
“Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, and what was said,” noted Sondland, who has now twice updated the substance of his testimony since claiming he did “not recall” several details during his October deposition.
Sondland, who said he is “not a note taker,” appears to have obtained some materials since that initial closed-door hearing. In particular, he produced emails revealing that several high-ranking officials — including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s chief of staff — knew that Zelensky was being pressured to commit to investigations days before his July 25 call with Trump.
“Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland testified.
The emails, and Sondland’s testimony that Trump administration officials kept him from accessing them, fuel Democrats’ suspicions that the White House has been engaging in a coverup of their actions. The White House has refused to send senior officials to Congress to testify, even under subpoena.
Castro says Sondland’s testimony is ‘nail in the coffin of Donald Trump’
Speaking to reporters in Atlanta, Julián Castro, a Democratic candidate for president, described Sondland’s testimony as devastating for Trump.
“What you heard this morning in Ambassador Sondland’s testimony is the nail in the coffin of Donald Trump,” Castro said. “People know now that we have a president who has violated his oath of office, who has abused his power, who has tried to get other countries to do his political dirty work, bribed them to do so with military aid he was withholding.”
Castro added that he is glad the impeachment hearings are taking place so that the American people can see that Trump “has failed to live up to any standard of decency, professionalism or lawfulness that we expect in a president.”
Sondland implicates Trump, Pence and Pompeo in ‘quid pro quo’
Sondland in his opening statement Wednesday implicated Trump, Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in what he labeled an outright “quid pro quo” in Ukraine, linking the scheme to the president and his Cabinet in a way not seen before in the impeachment inquiry.
“We followed the president’s orders,” Sondland said.
He later explained that requests conveyed by Trump personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani “were a quid pro quo.”
“Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president … and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,” Sondland said.
Sondland testified that “everyone was in the loop” on the bid to leverage a head-of-state meeting over investigations that would benefit the president, including Pence, Pompeo and other State Department leaders, as well as acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Sondland said he told Pence on Sept. 1 before a meeting with Zelensky that “I had concerns that the delay in [military] aid [to Ukraine] had become tied to the issue of investigations.” Pence said he would speak to Trump about it, Sondland said.
Sondland also shared new emails showing that he kept Pompeo apprised of his efforts and testified that Pompeo was instructing at least one fellow diplomat to “speak with Rudy” as late as Sept. 24 about the Ukraine scheme.
“I mentioned at the outset that, throughout these events, we kept State Department leadership and others apprised of what we were doing,” Sondland said. “State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing.”
Pelosi highlights Sondland’s testimony in a tweet
As Wednesday’s hearing got underway, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a tweet from her political Twitter account in which she quoted from Sondland’s testimony.
“The bribery scheme ‘was no secret.’ -Ambassador Sondland,” Pelosi said in the tweet, which included ominous-looking photos of Sondland, Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Earlier Monday, Trump had taken aim at Pelosi in a tweet of his own, arguing that she “will go down as the least productive Speaker of the House in history.”
Sondland is appearing under subpoena
Sondland is testifying under subpoena, according to an official working on the impeachment inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss matters not publicly announced.
Most witnesses who have appeared have done so under subpoena, given directions by the White House and State Department not to appear.
Leshchenko writes column asserting Republicans ‘keep lying’ about him in impeachment proceedings
Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian journalist and former member of parliament, fired back to multiple references to him during impeachment hearings in a column for the Kyiv Post Tuesday night.
“I want to dispel the fog of conspiracy around my name, which has dragged out the impeachment process in the U.S.,” Leshchenko wrote.
The thrust of some GOP questioning mentioning Leshchenko is that by helping publicize the secret payments to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort that led to Manafort’s firing from the Trump campaign and eventual prosecution, Leshchenko essentially interfered in a U.S. election on behalf of Democrats.
In a column titled, “Republicans keep lying about me at impeachment hearings,” Leshchenko wrote that he indeed published the first portion of the “black ledger,” which recorded under-the-table cash payments from the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
But those 22 pages that Leshchenko initially received didn’t mention Manafort, so “the conspiracy theory … is falling apart, as I was not the original source of information about Manafort’s shady payments in Ukraine,” Leshchenko said in his column.
Leshchenko also addressed claims that he was a source for the “Steele dossier” alleging links between Trump and Russia. Leshchenko denied that, saying that he’s never met anyone involved with Fusion GPS, the company that prepared the dossier.
Nunes blasts Democrats for ‘far-fetched’ accusations
Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, blasted Democrats in his opening statement for what he called “fake outrage” and “far-fetched” accusations against Trump.
Nunes accused Democrats of pedaling a “debunked conspiracy theory” on Ukraine in accusing Trump of a quid pro quo. In fact, more than a dozen current and former Trump administration officials who have served both Republican and Democratic presidents have testified under oath about the shadow pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political adversaries.
“Story time last night and story time first thing this morning,” Nunes said, later adding: “No conspiracy theory is too outlandish for the Democrats.”
The charge is noteworthy, however, given that Nunes’s own GOP colleagues have been uncomfortable with conspiracy theories he has pushed for years, including that Ukraine interfered in the U.S. election in 2016. Multiple impeachment witnesses have also called the notion false.
‘Knowledge of this scheme was far and wide,’ Schiff says
House Intelligence Committee Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) chided the State Department for refusing to hand over a single document related to the impeachment investigation, arguing that new emails shared by Sondland on Wednesday morning show that State Secretary Mike Pompeo and Vice President Pence were in the know on a quid pro quo.
“As Ambassador Sondland’s opening statement today will make clear, those documents will bear directly on this investigation and this impeachment inquiry,” Schiff said. “The knowledge of this scheme was far and wide. … We can see why Secretary Pompeo and President Trump has made such a concerted and across the board effort to obstruct this investigation and this impeachment inquiry.”
Schiff was referring to new emails cited in Sondland’s opening statement, where the ambassador is shown to be keeping Pompeo apprised of his demands on the Ukrainians.
“Everyone was in the loop,” he intends to say, according to a copy of his opening statement. Schiff also said Trump and White House officials are stonewalling Congress “at their own peril,” noting that articles of impeachment could include a charge on obstruction of Congress.
Notably, Schiff did not chide Sondland for changing testimony he gave under oath behind closed doors several weeks ago. Sondland told impeachment investigators he was not aware of military aid being held up for the Biden investigations but later amended his statement to say he was the one who delivered such an ultimatum to Ukraine.
Schiff gavels the hearing open
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) has gaveled open the hearing and is delivering an opening statement.
White House pressed unsuccessfully to learn about Sondland’s testimony
White House lawyers pressed in recent days to learn from Sondland’s legal team what the ambassador would tell Congress about the president and claims of a “quid pro quo” in his much anticipated testimony today.
Sondland’s lawyers declined however to provide the White House with an early peek into the account that this key impeachment witness would give lawmakers about his interactions with the president.
Sondland’s testimony has been the subject of great speculation because of several other administration witnesses coming forward with accounts that directly contradict Sondland’s earlier claim that he knew of no pressure from Trump for Ukraine to investigate his Democratic opponent as a condition of releasing aid to Ukraine.
Witnesses have put Sondland at the center of conversations with Trump, including a July 26 call in which an aide overheard Trump telling Sondland he wanted an investigation of Biden and Sondland assuring him the Ukrainians would do what he wanted.
The White House efforts to learn what Sondland would say were described as cordial, but Sondland attorney Robert Luskin declined to provide descriptions of his client’s upcoming testimony, keeping a professional distance from the White House, according to a person familiar with the attempt, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private conversations.
Luskin declined to comment. The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment. Trump and his top advisers have seen Sondland as a “wild card,” according to one administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.
Sondland acknowledges there was a ‘quid pro quo’
Sondland planned to testify Wednesday more bluntly than he had before that Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani sought to condition an important White House invitation for Ukraine’s new president to demands that his country publicly launch investigations that could damage Trump’s Democratic political opponents.
“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland planned to say, according to prepared remarks. “With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, also planned to tell the House Intelligence Committee that while he never knew for sure if the White House had frozen nearly $400 million in security assistance as part of the pressure campaign against Ukraine, he operated as if that was the case.
“In the absence of any credible explanation for the hold, I came to the conclusion that the aid, like the White House visit, was jeopardized,” Sondland said. “My belief was that if Ukraine did something to demonstrate a serious intention” to launch the investigations Trump wanted, “then the hold on military aid would be lifted.”
Read more here.
Sondland arrives in advance of testimony
Sondland has arrived at the Longworth House Office Building ahead of his scheduled 9 a.m. appearance before the House Intelligence Committee.
Trump attacks Pelosi ahead of latest open hearing
Trump attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ahead of the latest open hearing in the impeachment inquiry.
“Nancy Pelosi will go down as the least productive Speaker of the House in history,” Trump wrote in a tweet in which he also asserted that Pelosi is “dominated” by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other members of “the Squad,” a group of four minority liberal congresswomen, and “the Radical Left.”
Trump also suggested that the Democratic focus on impeachment has imperiled a new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.
“Mexico and Canada, after waiting for 6 months to be approved, are ready to flee — and who can blame them? Too bad!” Trump wrote.
Pelosi recently said that House plans to take up the trade legislation “imminently.”
Trump not likely to testify, Bondi says
Trump is not likely to offer testimony in the Democratic-led probe, according to Pam Bondi, the former Florida state attorney general who was recently hired to work on impeachment-related messaging and other issues.
Her comments came two days after Trump said that he would “strongly consider” testifying in writing at the suggestion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
“I know why he wants to testify,” Bondi said during an appearance on “CBS This Morning,” where she argued Trump had done nothing wrong regarding Ukraine.
But, she added: “Do I think it’s likely he’s going to testify? Probably not.”
She derided the impeachment inquiry as a “one-sided court.”
“No, the president should not testify,” Bondi said. “No human being should have to come in and prove their innocence.”
Trump lashes out a Democratic-led inquiry in morning tweets
Trump lashed anew at the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, characterizing it as part of a long-running “hoax” and claiming Democrats are attempting a “takedown” of the Republican Party.
Trump offered his commentary amid a fresh batch of tweets and retweets about the inquiry.
“The three year Hoax continues!” he wrote in one, implying that the probe of the Ukraine controversy was an extension of the investigation into possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
“This is just an attempted takedown of the Republican Party by the Do Nothing Democrats,” Trump said in another tweet. “It will never work. #2020”
Trump planning to head to Texas on day trip
As impeachment testimony continues on Capitol Hill, Trump is planning to leave Washington Wednesday morning for Austin, where he is scheduled to tour Apple’s Mac Pro manufacturing plant and meet with Apple chief executive Tim Cook.
Among those expected to join Trump are his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner, both senior White House advisers.
Trump is scheduled to depart at 10:45 a.m. When he leaves the White House, he frequently stops to field questions from reporters — including many recent ones about impeachment — before boarding Marine One. Trump is scheduled to return to the White House shortly before 8 p.m.
Sondland, Cooper, Hale slated to testify
The House Intelligence Committee plans to hear from three witnesses Wednesday, including Sondland, who could tie Trump most directly to the effort to persuade Ukraine to launch investigations that might benefit him politically.
Sondland, a Trump donor who was rewarded with the job of U.S. ambassador to the European Union, was one of three political appointees chosen by Trump to drive his unofficial Ukraine policy.
Other witnesses have testified that Sondland spoke directly with Trump about conditioning U.S. military aid to Ukraine on an announcement by Zelensky about the investigations Trump sought.
Sondland was one of the first witnesses to testify behind closed-doors in the impeachment inquiry. After other State Department and White House officials pointed to Sondland as having communicated the alleged quid pro quo to Ukrainians, he issued a clarification to his testimony saying he subsequently recalled what he told the Ukrainians.
Sondland is scheduled to appear before the committee starting at 9 a.m.
Two additional witnesses are scheduled to appear in the afternoon: Laura Cooper, the special assistant secretary of defense for Russia and Ukraine, and David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs. Their testimony is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. but could be delayed depending on how long Sondland’s appearance lasts.
Cooper learned over the course of several days in the summer that U.S. military aid to the Ukraine had been put on hold for reasons that she and other officials found legally questionable.
Hale, the third-highest-ranking official at the State Department, may be able to shed more light on the dismissal of Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. She was forced from her post by Trump in May after an onslaught of online and conservative attacks questioning her loyalty.
Republicans defend Trump as concerned with Ukrainian corruption, but aides tell a different story
Some of Trump’s allies have argued that his motivation for holding up almost $400 million in aid to Ukraine was his deep-seated concern about corruption — and that he needed to test the new Ukrainian administration’s dedication to rooting it out.
In persistent questioning during the House hearings, Republican lawmakers and their staff lawyer have pressed witnesses to agree that Ukraine has long had a corruption problem and to portray Trump’s desire to have Kyiv investigate his political rivals as fitting within that broader worry.
“Corruption is not just prevalent in Ukraine. It’s the system. Our president said time out, time out, let’s check out this new guy,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said last week, referring to Zelensky.
But while there is widespread agreement that Ukraine has long struggled with corruption, recent congressional testimony, along with interviews with officials who worked closely with the president, raise questions about how much Trump cared about corruption broadly in Ukraine as opposed to investigations that stood to benefit him politically.
Read more here.
Trump shares positive reviews of Tuesday’s proceedings
In a spate of tweets and retweets Tuesday that stretched nearly until midnight, Trump offered his assessment of the day’s lengthy congressional testimony, calling it “a great day for Republicans,” and shared those of several allies.
That included a video featuring seven Republican members of the Tennessee congressional delegation in which they called the impeachment inquiry a “sham,” a “charade” and a distraction from working on legislation on trade, prescription drug prices and other issues.
“Thank you Tennessee,” Trump wrote.