Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
World
Maanvi Singh in San Francisco (now) and Tom McCarthy in New York (earlier)

Impeachment hearings: Pentagon official testifies that Ukraine asked about stalled military aid weeks before hold was known – as it happened

Political coverage continues in Thursday’s live blog:

Updated

Evening summary

We’re wrapping up the politics liveblog, after a long day of impeachment hearings.

Here’s a recap:

  • Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, tore down Donald Trump’s impeachment defense by affirming that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo.
  • Trump and his allies continue to insist that Sondland’s testimony somehow exonerates the president.
  • Pentagon official Laura Cooper revealed that the Ukrainian officials asked about aid the same day that Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rivals.
  • Her testimony took down yet another key point in the Republicans’ defense of Trump — that there was no quid pro quo because the Ukrainians weren’t aware that aid was being withheld.
  • David Hale, the third-highest-ranking official at the State Department, reiterated that it was “wrong” to dismiss Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was unexpectedly removed from her post in May.

We’ll have more analysis from today’s hearings tonight. In the meantime, follow The Guardian’s live coverage of the Democratic presidential debates here.

The hearings have concluded, but the committee is now reviewing Republican requests for subpoenas to compel the testimony and documents from Hunter Biden, the Democratic National Committee and the whistleblower.

All the motions were tabled. Schiff ignored repeated cries of “Point of order, Mr. Chairman” from the Republicans.

Updated

Impeachment hearings wrap up for the day

“This is not an impeachment inquiry, this is an impeachment inquisition,” said Devin Nunes on the Republican side.

He advised Americans to “hide the kids and return to bed”, before saying, “I yield to Mr. Schiff for storytime hour.”

Adam Schiff responded: “I thank the gentleman, as always, for his remarks.”

The hearing room laughed.

Schiff closed by accusing the president of hypocrisy. “We’re supposed to believe that Donald Trump is a great corruption fighter...let’s look at his words and deeds”, he said.

Updated

Meanwhile, EU ambassador Gordon Sondland is off to Brussels.

As he boarded his plane, he reportedly put his luggage into the wong overhead bin.

“My whole day has been like this”, a flight attendant overhead him say.

Hale testified that former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch “should have been able to stay in post and continue to do the outstanding work that she was doing”.

“We had an exceptional officer doing exceptional work”, he said.

Representative Eric Swalwell of California told Cooper that her testimony, “demonstrates the power of coming forward in defying lawless orders from the president”.

Her information “destroys two of the pillars of the president’s defense and one justification for his conduct”, he said. First that there couldn’t have been any quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn’t know aid was being withheld, and second that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.

Swalwell asked if Trump contacted Cooper or her staff to ask about corruption.

“No, sir”, she said.

Updated

It seems the White House is trying to defend Trump in real-time, even as Cooper’s testimony tears down the defense that no bribery occurred.

Ukrainians asked about stalled aid as early as July, Cooper testifies

Testimony from Laura Cooper, the Pentagon official who is currently testifying before lawmakers, undercuts an argument that Trump’s supporters have often made in defending the president.

Republicans have said that no bribery or quid pro quo could have occurred because the Ukrainians were unaware that aid was being withheld.

Cooper said he staff received an from the State Department on July 25 saying that the Ukrainian embassy and House foreign affairs committee were asking about the security assistance. Two hours later, Cooper said her staff got another email from the State Department regarding aid.

This was the same day as the infamous July 25 phone call, during which Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate his political opponents.

Cooper also said “a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance”.

Updated

Cooper also said that an Office of Management and Budget official told him that the aid was being withheld because “the president had so directed, though the acting chief of staff”.

She added that the “State Department advocated, as I did in a meeting, for proceeding with all of the assistance, consistent with our policies and interests in Ukraine”.

Updated

Hale said a hold on foreign aid wasn’t “normal” but said it does happen.

“It is certainly an occurrence. It does occur,” he said.

Asked again, “Would you agree though that it would be very unusual to place a hold of military aid in order to leverage a foreign country to get them to investigate a political opponent?”

Hale replied affirmatively. “It’s certainly not what I would do”, he said.

Updated

Cooper said that after her closed-door testimony, her staff brought two emails to her attention, both of which were received on the same day as the Trump-Ukraine call.

“One was received on July 25, at 2:31 pm. That email said that the Ukrainian embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee are asking about security assistance. The second email was received July 25th at 4:25 pm,” Cooper said.

Meanwhile...

Updated

Moments ago, Adam Schiff opened the second half of today’s impeachment proceedings by emphasizing that Cooper and Hale have worked under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

This afternoon, the American people will hear from two witnesses who are both veteran national security professionals, one at the Department of State and the other at the Defense Department. David Hale is the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the third-most senior official in the department and the most senior Foreign Service Officer. Laura Cooper serves Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia and is responsible for a broad range of countries in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans.

Between them, they have several decades of national security experience, serving both Republican and Democratic presidents and, as we have heard from other dedicated public servants like former Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, Ambassador Bill Taylor, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, and Jennifer Williams, their only priority has been the security of the United States of America.

David Hale did not deliver a prepared opening statement.

Laura Cooper did. The “human toll continues to climb in this ongoing war, with 14,000 Ukrainian lives lost since Russia’s 2014 invasion” she said. “These sacrifices are continually in my mind as I lead the efforts to provide vital training and equipment, including defensive lethal assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”

Cooper also emphasized her public service. “My strong sense of pride in serving my country and dedication to my Pentagon colleagues were cemented in the moments after I felt the Pentagon shake beneath me on September 11, 2001,” she said.

Updated

Who is David Hale?

David Hale
David Hale Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images

Hale, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, is the third-highest-ranking official at the State Department.

Hale may be able to share more information on why ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed. Yovanovitch, who testified publicly last week, said that she had asked Hale to defend her against attacks on her credibility.

According to Yovanovitch, Hale reassured her but never issued a statement of support.

In his closed-door testimony, Hale said ultimately decided not to issue a statement because he worried “it would only fuel negative reaction,” possibly from Trump.

Updated

Cooper and Hale's testimony has begun.

Adam Schiff is delivering his opening statement now. Follow along for live updates.

This hearing was scheduled for 2:30 pm ET but was delayed after Sondland’s hearing ran long.

Updated

Who is Laura Cooper?

Laura Cooper arrived this evening to testify before the House Intelligence Committee.
Laura Cooper arrived this evening to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. Photograph: Julio Cortez/AP

Cooper is the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia and the Western Balkans.

She was one of several Pentagon officials who warned the White House against withholding aid to Ukraine. Delaying Congressionally appropriated aid for an extended time could violate the Impoundment Control Act which prevents the executive branch from unilaterally deciding on such holds.

In a closed-door testimony, which was delayed after Republican storming the secure area where she was interviewed, Cooper said the White House began inquiring after the aid nearly a month before it was frozen.

Why does A$AP Rocky keep coming up in the impeachment hearings?

A$AP Rocky has come up in the impeachment hearings several times.
A$AP Rocky has come up in the impeachment hearings several times. Photograph: Swan Gallet/WWD/REX/Shutterstock

Gordon Sondland testified that during a July phone call with Trump, they “primarily discussed” rapper A$AP Rocky, who was awaiting trial in Sweden at the time on charges stemming from a street brawl.

US diplomat David Holmes testified in the impeachment inquiry that he overheard parts of that phone call. Sondland said Holmes jogged his memory of the call with Trump, which he took from a Kyiv restaurant.

Holmes said he overheard Sondland tell Trump that the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy “loves your ass” and Ukraine would go ahead with the investigation of the Bidens and the 2016 election that Trump wanted.

Sondland said the call was mainly about A$AP Rocky rather than the investigations or military aid to Ukraine.

In his closed-door testimony, Holmes did mention that he overheard Sondland tell Trump that the president should let Rocky “get sentenced, play the racism card, and give him a ticker-tape when he comes home”.

As we continue to process Gordon Sondland’s bombshell testimony saying that Trump was driving the effort to pressure Ukraine, the president’s press secretary has issued a statement titled “Ambassador Sondland Completely Exonerates President Trump of Any Wrongdoing.”

President Donald J. Trump said, “I want nothing. I want no Quid Pro Quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.” Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified to this in his deposition and repeatedly affirmed it today. That should be the only takeaway from today’s sham hearing, and it was stated under oath by the only person in these hearings who has ever spoken directly to President Trump.

Earlier, an angry Trump read off a handwritten script: “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”

Summary

As we await the next round of testimony, here’s a summary of where things stand:

  • Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, blew holes in Donald Trump’s impeachment defense with testimony describing efforts to engineer a quid pro quo with Ukraine.
  • “Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said. “It was no secret.”
  • Trump was driving the plot in person and through Rudy Giuliani, Sondland said: “We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.”
  • “We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity...” he said. “So we followed the President’s orders.”
  • Republicans highlighted Sondland’s testimony that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo.
  • But Sondland said: “Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is ‘yes’.”
  • Republicans also battered Sondland for concluding that military aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations, despite Trump’s never telling him that. But Sondland said the condition was not only clear to him but to others.
  • Sondland said Trump wanted an announcement of investigations more than investigations themselves.
  • Sondland said the failure of the state department to comply with a documents subpoena had damaged his ability to testify fully.
  • House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff declared it “a seminal moment in our investigation.”

Read further:

We’re advised that Cooper and Hale will begin testifying at approximately 5pm ET.

whooopsie

Here’s video of Schiff closing:

Everyone (on Twitter) is raving about this new Kamala Harris ad. Let’s have a gander:

It does have snap, doesn’t it?

The drama continues: Will Sondland make his flight to Brussels? His lawyer had asked Schiff to make the lunchbreak short so Sondland could return to post.

Elsewhere...

Updated

A former prosecutor summarizes:

Schiff adjourns and like yesterday, there’s applause in the room.

We’ll let you know as soon as we find out when round two starts.

Updated

Schiff: 'what are we prepared to do about it?

Schiff continues:

“There’s no mistaking what Donald Trump’s interest was. There’s no mistaking... when the president said investigation, he meant Biden. He made that abundantly clear to the president of Ukraine...”

The question is, what are we prepared to do about it? Is there any accountability? Or are we forced to conclude that this is just now the world we live in?

Schiff: Who drove plot? Only one answer – Donald J Trump

Schiff: “I have said a lot of things about president Trump over the years... I do not believe that the president would allow himself to be led by the nose... I think the president was the one who decided whether the meeting would happen, whether the aid would be lifted. Not anyone below him....

Who was the one refusing to take that meeting? There’s only one answer to that question, it was Donald J Trump, 45th president of the United States.

So who was holding up the military assistance? ... it was one person, Donald J Trump, president of the United States.

“My colleagues seem to think that unless the president says the words, ‘I hereby bribe the Ukrainians,’ then there’s no evidence of bribery,” Schiff continues.

Then he turns to the 25 July call summary and reads Trump’s words.

Schiff continues reading from Sondland:

I remember I was at a restaurant in Kiev, and I have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. Again, given Mr. Giuliani’s demand that President Zelensky make a public statement about investigations, I knew that the topic of investigations was important to President Trump.

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?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.

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. In preparation for the September 1 Warsaw meeting, I asked Secretary Pompeo whether a face-toface conversation between Trump with Zelensky could help break the logjam.

Specifically, on Thursday, August 22, I emailed Secretary Pompeo directly, copying Secretariat Kenna. I wrote: “Should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull-aside for Potus to meet Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place ([in] mid-Sept[ember), that Ze should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US. Hopefully, that will break the logjam.”

“Secretary Pompeo replied, “Yes,” Schiff notes. “Not ‘issues of importance to the Potus,’ not ‘what are you talking about?’”

Pompeo was on the 25 July call, so he “knew what issues were importance to Potus,” Schiff says.

Schiff: 'this is a seminal moment in our investigation'

“This is a seminal moment in our investigation,” Schiff says. The revelations were “significant and troubling,” Schiff says.

Then Schiff quotes these passages from Sondland’s opening statement:

We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President’s orders.

Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson. And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians.

“So much for the Ukrainians didn’t know,” Schiff says. “You testified today, ambassador, the Ukrainians knew.”

Updated

Closing remarks

Nunes is up first. “Once again the Democrats have seen the preposterous failure of their conspiracy theory,” he says.

Nunes notes that Democrats have said Sondland’s other two amigos – Rick Perry and Kurt Volker – have left him behind.

“I lost my amigos?” Sondland says.

“Not from us. Not from us,” says Nunes.

But the Republicans have attacked Sondland today as a faulty witness and challenged his judgment that he was part of a broadly vested effort to extract a quid for a quo in Ukraine.

Then Nunes, reliable as the sun, returns to the question of the identity of the whistleblower.

Sondland on 'the Gordon problem': 'that's what my wife calls me'

And a late-stage zinger from Sondland. Krishnamoorthi notes he had been referred to by NSC officials as “the Gordon problem.”

“That’s what my wife calls me,” Sondland said, to ready laughter. “Maybe they’re talking. Should I be worried?”

Here’s the last scheduled questioner, Democratic Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. Then we should have closing statements, and learn about this afternoon’s further schedule.

Democrat Sean Maloney is up. It’s another applause moment in the gallery. Maloney presses Sondland to admit that an investigation of Biden would help Trump. Sondland keeps trying to derail the question by pointing out that he has testified that while Trump brought up “investigations” he did not bring up the Bidens.

Maloney gets Sondland to admit an investigation of the Bidens would help Trump, and kind of makes fun of Sondland for taking so long to say so. Then Sondland makes a mistake, taking offense to any suggestion that he has been less than forthright.

Maloney levels him:

“Fair enough, you’ve been very forthright. This is your third try to do it,” Maloney says. Sondland testified, revised his original testimony, and now is testifying again.

“All due respect sir, we appreciate your candor, but let’s be really clear what it took to get it out of you,” says Maloney.

Here’s part of the exchange:

Q: Who would benefit from an investigation of the president’s political opponent?

Sondland says that’s a hypothetical.

“It’s not a hypothetical, is it sir?” Maloney says. “Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?” Maloney presses.

“I assume president Trump would benefit,” Sondland says.

“There we have it, see,” says Maloney, to applause and laughter. “Didn’t hurt a bit, did it?”

Then Sondland makes a mistake: “I have been very forthright,” he says.

Sondland:

“I would have preferred... that the president simply met with Mr Zelenskiy right away. Our assessment of Mr Zelenskiy was that he and the president would get on famously. He was smart, he was funny...”

But the meeting did not happen.

Who’s planning on following up their day of impeachment viewing with a night of debate excitement? Some politically pregnant clashes about probably impossible health care plans brewing, friend-of-the-blog Sabrina Siddiqui reports for the Wall Street Journal:

Note that we are now about a half hour beyond the scheduled start time of the second set of witnesses to appear today, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale and Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia.

The Sondland testimony, now six hours and counting, has overflowed all bounds of expectation.

Democrats are playing the Mulvaney news conference in which he said military aid was being held up to get “investigations” out of Ukraine and then told people to “get over it”.

Democrat Joaquin Castro asks if it’s appropriate for the president to ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival.

“The president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo,” Sondland said.

Sondland describes 'professional, cordial' relationship with Trump

Democrat Eric Swalwell asks Sondland about Trump’s statement today, “This is not a man I know well.”

Q: Is that true?

A: “It really depends on what you mean by know well. We are not close friends. We have a professional, cordial working relationship.”

Swalwell notes Sondland said he spoke with Trump about 20 times, then turns to Sondland’s status as a Trump megadonor.

Q: “You gave $1m to his inauguration, right?”

A: “I bought a VVIP ticket to the inauguration.”

Q: “That’s a lot of money, right?

A: “That’s a lot of money.”

Positive poll for Trump out of Wisconsin

There’s a quality poll out in the swing state of Wisconsin that looks – quite good – for Trump:

Trump won last time in part by unexpectedly sweeping the supposed “blue wall” states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Here’s video of the Pinochios moment:

Updated

A preponderance of testimony points to what Sondland today has testified, that “everyone was in the loop” on attempts to broker a deal with Ukraine that would produce an announcement of investigations including of Joe Biden.

Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

Republicans have all day been trying to walk on roller skates into gale-force winds on this, thumping the table over Sondland’s testimony that Trump never explicitly told him that aid was conditioned on investigations.

But as Sondland testified, “I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations,” on the 26 July call they shared, “particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the President’s concerns.”

Updated

Speier and Conaway are arguing about a Washington Post piece that undercuts Schiff’s assertion that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity.

The Post gave the assertion three Pinnochios! Conaway says.

Speier retorts: “The president of the United States has five Pinnochios on a daily basis so let’s not go there.”

The public audience laughs and claps. The president, such a liar, amirite

Sondland laments boycott on his hotels

Sondland is asked about reprisals from his testimony.

He says he and his family have been threatened, in the form of “countless emails to my wife. Our properties are being picketed and boycotted.”

Republican Mike Conaway then accuses Democrat Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who called for the Sondland boycott, of using his congressional power to “bully and threaten” Sondland.

Democrat Jackie Speier detects some irony in the Republican warning about bullying: “All we’re talking about is the president bullying to get something that he wants done.”

Not only did the president explicitly say there was no quid pro quo – he never said he was bribing the Ukrainians. See?!

Updated

Schiff draws chuckles:

“My colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, ‘I am bribing the Ukrainian president,’ that there’s no evidence of bribing,” Schiff says.

He also critiques the Republican argument that because Ukraine got the military aid there was never a condition on it.

“Yes,” says Schiff. “They got caught. They got caught.”

Sondland breaks with Volker

Sondland says he “strongly disagrees” with Kurt Volker, who testified yesterday that he, Volker, was not sure that the White House meeting was conditioned on an announcement of investigations:

I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony. It was absolutely a requirement, or we would have just had the meeting and been done with it.

Republican Mike Turner is after Sondland:

Q: “Is Donald Trump your friend?”

A: “No we’re not friends.”

Q: “Do you like the president?”

A: “Yes.”

Turner explains that media headlines are depicting his testimony as damning for Trump.

Turner challenges Sondland: you don’t have any evidence that aid was tied to the investigations, do you?

Sondland replies: “Other than my own presumption.”

Turner snaps: “Which is nothing!... you do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid in exchange for investigations.”

By all accounts Sondland was up to this neck in brokering the back-channel deal in Ukraine, so his account of what was being negotiated seems like not “nothing.”

Giuliani attacks Castor

Here Giuliani gives voice to what a lot of people are thinking (that sounds Trumpian doesn’t it?) – although apart from Giuliani it’s mostly critics of Trump who are saying it: Steve Castor, the lawyer for the Republicans, is not having the strongest day.

Giuliani tweets that Castor “doesn’t do his own research and preparation”:

Updated

Republican Jim Jordan gets his turn early. He’s off and running/yelling. His argument is that because there was never a deliverable – a White House meeting – that means was never an attempt to procure a deliverable, the so-called quid pro quo. As if it’s not possible that the attempted deal dissolved under light of the impeachment inquiry. He is making the argument at volume.

Updated

Sondland is asked whether he believes the president does not give a “fig” – Sondland is quoted elsewhere saying “shit” – about Ukraine:

“I think that’s too strong,” Sondland says. “The president was down on Ukraine for the reasons mentioned and would need a lot of convincing.”

Democrat Jim Himes now. He asks what Giuliani told Sondland to establish that he, Giuliani, was expressing the desires of Trump. Sondland says Volker told him that Giuliani spoke for Trump.

Of course Trump himself told Zelenskiy to coordinate on investigations of Joe Biden with Giuliani. And he told all the amigos in the Oval Office on 23 May to “talk to Rudy.”

We’re back. Republican John Ratcliffe is talking. He’s zeroing in on the bit of Sondland’s testimony in which he recounts a phone call in which Trump – after the whistleblower complaint had been filed – told Sondland he did not want a quid pro quo in Ukraine.

Updated

The Department of Energy has issued a statement saying Sondland “misrepresented” both secretary Rick Perry’s interaction with Rudy Giuliani and “direction the Secretary received from President Trump.” It continues:

“As previously stated, Secretary Perry spoke to Rudy Giuliani only once at the President’s request. 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.”

On a notepad with the header “Aboard Air Force One”, Trump appears to have been transcribing Sondland’s testimony:

When he was first asked about Trump’s 25 July call with Zelenskiy, which he was listening to, secretary of state Mike Pompeo feigned ignorance of the call.

Pompeo has just professed ignorance of testimony by Sondland, who read emails revealing that Pompeo was in the loop on the Ukraine plot:

They’re in recess for lunch.

Further video:

“I wasn’t into investigating the Bidens,” Sondland says. “It was very surprising to me” to discover that that’s what Trump was after, he says.

Castor, the Republican lawyer, seems to keep finding way for Sondland to make points that seem bad for Trump – and explode the Republican argument that the Bidens’ conduct in Ukraine warranted investigation.

Sondland tells Trump impeachment inquiry ‘there was a quid pro quo in Ukraine scandal’ – video

Nunes hands off to Castor, the Republican lawyer.

“I’ll try not to use all of this time as a courtesy to you,” Castor says. Very fine of him.

Video of a key moment:

Nunes is back. He restrains himself from complaining about the extra time block for himself and Schiff.

Nunes is teasing Sondland out on the point that he, Sondland, did not know for sure why the military aid was withheld.

Nunes blasts the Democrats for “their Watergate fantasies – I guess they fantasize about this at night.”

Updated

Reminder: there’s a Democratic presidential debate tonight. My colleague @joanegreve will be covering it live, tune in if you can!

Here’s a better picture of the president’s notes:

I want nothing.

I want nothing.

I want no quid pro quo.

Tell Zellinsky to do the right thing.

This is the final word from the Pres of the U.S.

The one independent in the House, a Republican before his party’s embrace of Trump drove him out:

Giuliani: 'I came into this at Volker's request'

Giuliani is defending himself on Twitter. He claims that Volker brought him in, as if he was not working, primarily and singularly, on Trump’s behalf.

In any case Volker testified that Giuliani asked him, Volker, to put him in touch with Zelenskiy’s aid.

Goldman: You’re now aware what the president wanted, the Biden investigation and a 2016 election investigation, is that right?

Sondland: That’s correct.

Goldman is walking Sondland through text messages and emails he has submitted demonstrating that secretary of state Mike Pompeo was looped in on the effort to engineer the quid pro quo.

A fish may rot from the head, but in this case, the Democrats are saying, the whole fish was rotten.

Trump's notes to self: 'I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo'

The notes Trump spoke from earlier outside the White House were visible to reporters. In Trump’s handwriting someone has written,

I want nothing.

I want nothing.

I want no quid pro quo.

That’s what he wrote?

Updated

The testimony is aligning. The official stance of the diplomats is, we thought that the drug deal we were negotiating was a dog deal, and when we learned it was about drugs we were shocked, appalled and we never would have agreed to that.

Schiff is nailing Sondland down on both Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pompeo knowing about the quid pro quo.

Schiff reminds the room that Mulvaney held a press conference saying aid was tied to investigations. Mulvaney later tried to walk that back.

Sondland saw a recording of the press conference. “He said yes it was” - the military aid was tied to investigations.

Schiff begins by pressing Sondland on his inability, for so long, to link Burisma and Biden. Giuliani was saying it on TV! Schiff says.

Sondland says he did not listen to what Giuliani was saying on TV because he was talking directly with Giuliani.

Schiff announces an extra 30-minute question period for the chairman, ranking member and lawyers.

Nunes won’t like that. And will Castor be able to fill it?

Castor finishes with an attack on Sondland, saying he didn’t take notes and testified that he did not recall a lot of things. Castor calls it a “trifecta” of unreliability.

Sondland says he has not had access to documents but he did have some texts which he read and his testimony was strengthened by others.

Sondland rejects 'irregular' channel: 'It's the leadership that makes the decisions'

Sondland has just bristled at the notion that he was in some kind of “irregular channel” of US-Ukraine policy.

If the president himself was in the channel, Sondland asks, how is that the irregular one?

I don’t see how, when you’re talking to the president of the United States, the secretary of state, the national security adviser, the chief of staff in the White House, the secretary of energy – if a bunch of folks who are not in that channel are aggrieved for not being included, I don’t know why they consider us to be the irregular channel and they the regular channel, when it’s the leadership that makes the decisions.

Concerns about the quid pro quo “were never raised,” Sondland says. “Everyone’s hair was on fire but no one decided to talk to us.”

Updated

Castor is repeating Nunes’ questions about Trump’s feelings about corruption in Ukraine.

45 minutes can seem awfully long:

Good point about the timing of the whistleblower complaint and the internal discussion of the quid pro quo going underground:

Sondland doesn’t remember when he figured out “Burisma” meant “Biden.”

“I can’t recall the exact date the light bulb went on. It could have been as late as when the transcript was out. It was always Burisma to me.”

The record of the 25 July call, in which Trump requests the investigation of Joe Biden, came out two months after the fact.

Sondland says “I was shocked” to learn that John Bolton/Fiona Hill thought he was engaged in a “drug deal” on Ukraine.

Shocked because from Sondland’s perspective, everybody knew what was up.

Updated

Weird scene, and hard to hear. When’s the last time we saw Trump speaking from notes?

Updated

Giuliani declares case closed. (He incorrectly refers to the 25 July call as happening a day earlier, and he totally mischaracterizes the contents of the call, in which Trump says US help for Ukraine has not been reciprocal and asks Zelenskiy for a “favor”.)

Trump on Sondland: 'seems like a nice guy'

When Trump wishes to distance himself from an associate implicated in a crime – or, in this case, implicating him in misconduct – Trump says he does not know or hardly knows that person, from Michael Cohen to Paul Manafort to Gordon Sondland.

Outside the White House just then, Trump does not know Sondland very well:

Castor on when Trump told Sondland there was “no quid pro quo”:

Q: You believed the president, correct?

A: You know what I’m not going to characterize whether I believed or didn’t believe.

Sondland reiterates that his ability to testify fully has been harmed by his (and the committee’s) lack of access to state department documents:

I just don’t have all the records. I wish I could get them. Then I could answer all your questions.

Castor, the Republican lawyer, asks Sondland if Trump ever told him personally that aid or a meeting were conditioned on an announcement of investigations.

Sondland: “Personally, no.”

Castor: So how did you know Giuliani spoke for Trump?

Sondland: “Well when the president says talk to my personal attorney and then Mr Giuliani says ‘as the president’s attorney,’ we assume it’s coming from the president.

Then Castor splits hairs between Trump saying “Go talk to Rudy” and “Talk to Rudy”. It wasn’t an order, correct? Castor says.

We understood we had to talk to Rudy to get anything done on Ukraine, Sondland said.

Vice-president Mike Pence’s office denies that the scene with Sondland in Warsaw happened. From Pence chief of staff Marc Short, per @maggieNYT:

Marc Short responds to Sondland: “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...” 1/

“Ambassador Gordon Sondland was never alone with Vice President Pence on the September 1 trip to Poland. This alleged discussion recalled by Ambassador Sondland never happened...” 2/

“Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President Pence never raised Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, Crowdstrike, Burisma, or investigations in any conversation with Ukrainians or President Zelensky before, during, or after the September 1 meeting”

Updated

Nunes: Are you one of the three amigos?

Sondland: I’m a proud part of the three amigos.

Nunes: And that’s the same thing that Amassador Volker said yesterday.

Volker, yesterday: I literally cringe when people say three amigos.

They’re back and Nunes begins.

He sets off asking Sondland the exact same questions he has asked every potentially hostile witness, about the 2016 Ukrainian election tampering conspiracy theory.

It’s as if it does not matter what the witnesses say. The Republicans, regardless, will go tilting at their windmills.

Is Giuliani going under the bus?

You’ll recall:

Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, has said he is confident the president will remain loyal to him as an impeachment inquiry unfolds in which the former New York mayor has become a central figure.

But Giuliani joked that he had good “insurance” in case Trump did turn on him, amid speculation Republicans will seek to frame him as a rogue actor.

In a telephone interview with the Guardian, in response to a question about whether he was nervous that Trump might “throw him under a bus” in the impeachment crisis, Giuliani said, with a slight laugh: “I’m not, but I do have very, very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid.”

Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, who was also on the call, then interjected: “He’s joking.”

Et tu, Drudge?

One of the crises of American public life is that we receive our news through such a fractured media lens, and so consumers of say the Guardian might come away with one perception of events whereas people who watch Fox News are seeing something totally diff...

Huh?

Further reaction:

So many significant lines from that cross-examination.

Giuliani retweeted this during Sondland’s testimony:

From a former federal prosecutor...

...and FBI special agent...

...and federal prosecutor...

...and Fox news:

In the room is the Guardian’s Julian Borger:

Will the Republicans focus on the fact that Sondland is saying he took direction from Trump via Giuliani – trying to prize Giuliani away from the president? Will the Republicans attack Giuliani?

Or will they attack Sondland, pointing out how much his testimony has changed since last month?

Or will they ignore everything we’ve heard this morning to rant about the whistleblower and Hunter Biden?

Goldman is done. Five minute recess before Nunes speaks.

What will the Republicans have to say to that?

Sondland on the demand that Zelenskiy himself make the announcement:

I do not recall who told me, whether it was Volker, whether it was Giuliani, whether it was president Trump, ‘it’s gotta be Zelenskiy.’

Sondland: condition on military aid 'abundantly clear to everyone'

Sondland: As of 8 September, “It was abundantly clear to everyone that there was a link [between military aid and an announcement of investigations], and we were discussing the chicken and egg issue of should the Ukrainians go out on a ledge and make the statement president Trump wants them to make” but risk not getting aid.

“I was absolutely convinced” of the link between aid and investigations, Sondland said, including after a call with the president.

President Trump did not dissuade you of that?

“I do not recall...”

Sondland put two and two together and figured out the military aid was conditioned on the investigations, he said:

“President Trump never told me directly that the military aid was conditioned on the investigations,” Sondland said, but Giuliani said “the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meetings.”

That contradicts Bill Taylor testimony about the nature of the quid pro quo, that Sondland told Taylor that Trump demanded investigations for aid.

But “I never heard from president Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of elections [sic],” Sondland says.

Sondland describes Pence reaction to aid conversation

When Sondland brought up investigations in a conversation in Warsaw with the vice-president, Mike Pence, and Ukrainians, Sondland says, Pence did no express suprise, shock or ignorance.

Goldman: “He didn’t say, Gordon what are you talking about?”

Sondland: “No”

Goldman: “He didn’t say, Gordon, what investigations?”

Sondland: “He did not.”

Updated

Sondland continuously clarifies that what Trump wanted through Giuliani was an announcement of investigations as distinct and separate from actual investigations.

The difference being that only one of those things can be used in a campaign video attacking Joe Biden.

Sondland recalls Zelenskiy asking in Warsaw “why don’t I have my check” or something like that.

Sondland figured that the military aid was also part of quid pro quo, he says.

Goldman: was this kind of a 2+2=4? You figured that the military aid was also part of quid pro quo?

Sondland: Yup.

Sondland says again that the announcement of investigations was more important than actual investigations:

The only thing I heard... was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing.. the way it was expressed to me was that the Ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through.

Goldman points out that a public announcement works well as a political tool.

Now, on Sondland’s access to Trump:

I had occasional access when he chose to take my calls.

Sondland says he is now aware that Trump wanted a Biden investigation.

Dan Goldman, the Democratic council, is cementing the Trump-Giuliani axis, no daylight here:

If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us that we needed to talk to Rudy.

Goldman: Giuliani spoke for the president? Correct?

That’s correct.

Sondland says he probably said Trump “doesn’t give a shit about Ukraine” but denies, per David Holmes’ (Kyiv restaurant) testimony, that he said Trump only cares about the “big stuff” ie whatever helps Trump:

I don’t think I would have said that. I would have honestly said that he’s not a big fan of Ukraine and he wants the investigations that we have been talking about for quite some time to move forward.

Updated

Sondland confirms he told Trump on phone call at a Kyiv restaurant that Zelenskiy “loves your ass, he’ll do whatever you want”.

Sondland’s reply gets a laugh from the audience:

That sounds like something I would say. That’s how Trump and I communicate. A lot of four-letter words. In this case three letters.

Updated

This inability to connect Burisma and Biden that is so hot right now among impeachment witnesses is truly difficult to credit:

Reactions

Here are some preliminary reactions to Sondland’s testimony:

Sondland: announcement of investigations more important that doing them

Sondland is detailing the quid pro quo:

He had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.

That implies that Trump was not interested in fighting corruption. He was interested in a TV moment he could batter Joe Biden with.

Sondland:

Through Mr Giuliani, we were led to believe that that’s what he wanted... when the president says talk to my personal lawyer, we followed his direction.

Schiff is literally using the language of the central charge and Sondland is confirming it, with a caveat involving Giuliani:

That official act was conditioned on what the president wanted “as expressed by Mr Giuliani,” Sondland said.

Reminder: Trump thinks Sondland is “a really good man and great American.”

Now Sondland is talking about a phone conversation in which Trump told him there was no quid pro quo. Earlier Sondland had said he took the president at his word. Now Sondland is saying he and everyone else knew there was a clear quid pro quo.

Sondland said after “frantic emails to me and to others about the security assistance” from ambassador Bill Taylor, Sondland called Trump and asked, “what do you want from Ukraine... what do you want?”

It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood. He said I want nothing, I want nothing, there’s no quid pro quo. Tell Zelenskiy to do the right thing.

Schiff is driving down on what the Mike Ps – Pompeo and Pence – knew and when they knew it.

Did Pompeo ever deny the connection between investigations and the White House meeting?

“Not that I recall.”

In a meeting with the vice-president in Warsaw, Sondland said he told Pence that he thought the military aid would not flow without the announcement of investigations.

Pence remained sphynxlike, in Sondland’s telling:

The vice president nodded like he heard what I said and that was pretty much it.

Updated

Schiff is asking Sondland to describe the “continuum of insidiousness” down which the US requests of Ukraine descended between May and September.

It went from a request to fight corruption to requests for an announcement of investigations of Burisma and 2016.

Sondland, like Volker, said he did not connect the “Burisma” investigation with “Biden” at the time. That’s hard to credit but also hard to disprove.

“Biden did not come up,” Sondland says. “Today I know exactly what it means. I didn’t know at the time.”

Sondland's historic, bombshell testimony

With each line of his testimony, Sondland has blown another hole in Donald Trump’s defenses. To describe the testimony as a bombshell is perhaps to underestimate its potential for damage to Trump. To attempt to describe the shock that it is Sondland delivering this message is to come up short for words.

Since the impeachment inquiry began, Trump has ranted that there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine, no conditions placed on a White House meeting, no strings on US military aid, only a desire to fight corruption in Ukraine and to pursue the truth about 2016. It is all a witch hunt, a hoax, Trump has said.

But every bit of it is true, and most every word from Trump’s mouth and his Twitter about it has been a lie, Sondland is testifying. There was a clear quid pro quo, repeatedly stated, and explicitly ordered by Trump through his designated agent, Rudy Giuliani.

Sondland is saying: he did it.

Sondland is also saying: we did it. He is quoting emails demonstrating that the plot, which secretary of state Mike Pompeo once pretended ignorance to, was well known inside the state department, National Security Council and budget office – and by vice president Mike Pence. “It was no secret,” Sondland said.

Now he begins a cross-examination period sure to generate moments that will go down in US political history.

Updated

Sondland: 'everyone was in the loop'

Now Sondland quotes from an email that the state department has refused to release.

Significant are the names CC’d – the secretary of state, secretary of energy, the acting chief of staff... all of whom have refused congressional subpoenas to testify or provide documents:

Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19 email that I sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack (Perry’s Chief of Staff), Ms. Kenna, Acting Chief of Staff and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney (White House), and Mr. Mulvaney’s Senior Advisor Robert Blair. A lot of senior officials.

Here is my exact quote from that email: “I Talked to Zelensky just now… He is prepared to receive Potus’ call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone’. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a ‘friendly and productive call’ (no details) prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney responded: “I asked NSC to set it up for tomorrow.”

Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19, days before the Presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to “run a fully transparent investigation” and “turn over every stone” were necessary in his call with President Trump.

Sondland: Trump desired and required quid pro quo with Ukraine

This testimony goes directly against Trump’s case to the extent that the only way to rebut it seems to be to attack Sondland, who definitely was not saying this stuff in his original testimony:

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?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians. Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us.

We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.

Sondland: 'Very odd, very odd' that he received no readout of 25 July call

Sondland:

Looking back, I find it very odd, very odd, that neither I, nor Ambassador Taylor, nor Ambassador Volker ever received a detailed read-out of that call with the Biden references.

Now, there are people who say they had concerns about that call. No one shared any concerns about the call with me at the time, when it would have been very helpful to know.

Is he implying, as Volker claimed yesterday, that when he was chasing the Burisma investigations he did not know it was a “Biden” investigation?

Updated

At the top of the hearing, Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, announced that Republicans were making a formal request to subpoena Hunter Biden and the whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry. The request, which to detractors of the Republican defense strategy looks like a transparent stunt, is most sure to be rejected by the Democratic majority.

Here’s the request:

The Republicans are in a parallel universe not only with Democrats but with the Republicans who are sitting right in front of them telling them that they carried out Trump’s orders to do exactly what Democrats have been accusing Trump of.

Sondland: 'They knew what we were doing and why'

Sondland’s testimony continues to break in wave after wave of stunning statements contradicting previous testimony by Morrison and others that he was somehow acting alone:

We kept the leadership of the State Department and the NSC informed of our activities. That included communications with Secretary of State Pompeo, his Counselor Ulrich Brechbuehl, and Executive Secretary Lisa Kenna within the State Department; and communications with Ambassador John Bolton, Dr. Fiona Hill, Mr. Timothy Morrison, and their staff at the NSC. They knew what we were doing and why

Sondland: Trump directed us to 'talk with Rudy'

Sondland was ordered by the president to take guidance from Giuliani, he testifies:

In response to our persistent efforts to change his views, President Trump directed us to “talk with Rudy.” We understood that “talk with Rudy” meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal lawyer.

Let me say again: We weren’t happy with the President’s directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believed then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the President’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters.

Nonetheless, based on the President’s direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the efforts to schedule the White House phone call and White House visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest -- or we could do as President Trump had directed and “talk with Rudy.” We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us.

Sondland: 'we followed the president's orders'

The context here is Sondland not wanting to work with Giuliani but doing so on orders.

Sondland in his opening statement is vague about what Trump told him on a 26 July phone call overheard at the restaurant in Kyiv by state department aide David Holmes.

Sondland does not say “Trump asked about investigations” but he does say he would have been surprised if Trump “had not mentioned investigations”:

While I cannot remember the precise details -- again, the White House has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call -- the July 26 call did not strike me as significant at the time. Actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the President’s 14 concerns. However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice President Biden or his son on that call or after the call ended.

Updated

Sondland to confirm he laid out quid pro quo at July White House meeting

Sondland begins reading his statement. He will confirm that he laid out a quid pro quo of investigations for a meeting at a July White House meeting:

I recall mentioning the pre-requisite of investigations before any White House call or meeting. But I do not recall any yelling or screaming as others have said.

Sondland will say that on the day the impeachment inquiry was announced, Pompeo was still directing Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker to talk with Giuliani:

Even as late as September 24, Secretary Pompeo was directing Kurt Volker to speak with Rudy Giuliani. In a WhatsApp 12 message, Kurt Volker told me in part: “Spoke w Rudy per guidance from S.” S means the Secretary of State.

Updated

Nunes: “Ambassador Sondland, you are here today to be smeared. But you’ll make it through it.”

Does Nunes think that Republicans will be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Sondland by the end of this?

Updated

Sondland: 'I followed the directions of the president'

Ranking member Devin Nunes is speaking, railing at the Democrats. Here’s more from Sondland’s opening statement:

Finally, at all times, I was acting in good faith. As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the President directed us to do so.

Schiff: Trump and Pompeo have been obstructing investigation 'at their own peril'

Schiff has been delivering his opening statement. He says that Trump and Pompeo have been obstructing the investigation by withholding documents.

Sondland will use the withholding of the documents as an excuse for contradictions in his testimony:

My lawyers and I have made multiple requests to the State Department and the White House for these materials. Yet, these materials were not provided to me. They have also refused to share these materials with this Committee. These documents are not classified and, in 4 fairness, should have been made available. In the absence of these materials, my memory has not been perfect. And I have no doubt that a more fair, open, and orderly process of allowing me to read the State Department records would have made this process more transparent.

Schiff says, “We can see why secretary Pompeo and President Trump have made such a concerted effort... to obstruct.

“They do so at their own peril”, he says, pointing out that one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was an obstruction count.

Sondland to describe quid pro quo desired by Trump: 'It was no secret'

Here’s a copy of Sondland’s opening statement.

Sondland will testify that Rudy Giuliani was pursuing a quid pro quo with Ukraine in accordance with what Donald Trump’s “desires”, and “we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

Sondman will say according to his statement:

As I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

Sondland plans to read from emails documenting that the leadership of key agencies and the White House “were all informed”:

These emails show that the leadership of State, NSC, and the White House were all informed about the Ukraine efforts from May 23, 2019, until the security aid was released on September 11, 2019. I will quote from some of those messages with you shortly.

But Sondland will also say he did not know why the military aid was suspended – apparently he will not testify that Trump or anyone else explained it to him:

I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.

“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland will say. “It was no secret.”

Sondland to point finger directly at Trump

‘Was there a quid pro quo?... The answer is yes’

More text is emerging from Sondland’s statement.

Sondland will reportedly point his finger directly at Trump:

Sondland to testify: 'everyone was in the loop' – report

Sondland “plans to show up for his televised hearing with reams of new text messages and emails he said prove the highest levels of the White House and the State Department were in on it,” NBC News reports from an apparent copy of the ambassador’s opening statement:

“They knew what we were doing and why,” Sondland plans to tell the House Intelligence Committee, according to his opening statement obtained by NBC News. “Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.

...

He says he knows House members have questioned about whether there “was there a quid pro quo” and adds that when to comes to the White House meeting sought by Ukraine’s leader, “The answer is yes.”

That sounds potentially devastating to the White House case. In any case it directly contradicts the extremely careful testimony of diplomats yesterday about who knew what when.

Sondland to say Giuliani 'was expressing the desires of the President' – report

With so many witnesses describing Sondland speaking with the president and pressuring Ukraine to announce investigations on multiple occasions, it might seem difficult for Sondland to deny his role in the alleged plot.

Sondland’s strategy: blame Rudy.

That’s according to a Daily Beast report apparently based on the opening statement Sondland is about to deliver. From the statement according to the Beast:

“Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States,” Sondland said. “We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President’s orders.”

Sondland will also say that Trump wanted what Giuliani was asking for, according to the Beast:

“Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” Sondland’s statement says. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

That does not sound much like Sondland trying very hard to protect the president. We’ll see what else he says.

The hearing is scheduled to begin in about 15 minutes, at which time the video player atop the blog here will be bringing you all the action.

Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff has garnered some attention for his big finish yesterday evening, in which he summarized the case against the president.

ICYMI:

Witnesses from defense and state departments to testify

Sondland is not the only witness scheduled to speak before the House intelligence committee today. He will be followed this afternoon by Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia; and David Hale, under secretary of state for political affairs.

Cooper is expected to testify about the suspension of US military aid to Ukraine. Hale was expected to describe the failure of the state department to support Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, which he previously described as “most likely” the decision of secretary of state Mike Pompeo.

Trump at center stage

Donald Trump’s own words will take centre stage at the impeachment inquiry on Wednesday when his ambassador to the European Union faces questions about a phone call with the US president in a Ukrainian restaurant.

Gordon Sondland is the witness who most alarms officials at the White House, according to US media reports, fuelling speculation that the ambassador could plead the fifth amendment to protect himself from self-incrimination.

Along with the diplomat Kurt Volker and the energy secretary, Rick Perry, Sondland – a wealthy hotelier who donated $1m to Trump’s inaugural committee – was one of the so-called “three amigos” the Trump administration used to bypass normal state department channels to Ukraine.

He has already changed his closed-door testimony to admit he told an aide to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that military aid would not be released until Kyiv announced an investigation into a gas company linked to the son of the former vice-president Joe Biden, a potential challenger to Trump in next year’s election.

But even the revised statement failed to report that Sondland called Trump from a restaurant in Kyiv on 26 July and discussed “investigations”. The president was speaking loudly and the call was overheard by David Holmes, a political counsellor at the US embassy in Ukraine, according to testimony released this week.

Read further:

We had better get this out of the way before the hearing starts.

Happy birthday, Joe Biden! The father of Ukrainian gas company Burisma’s most infamous former board member is celebrating the conclusion of his 77th trip around the sun today.

And many mooore.

'The Gordon problem'

Hello and welcome to our live coverage of day four of the impeachment hearings. Today, Americans will come together and have an hours-long, nationally televised chat about The Gordon Problem.

That’s how former National Security Council adviser Fiona Hill referred to Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union who played a key role in pressuring Ukrainians to announce investigations that could help Donald Trump win re-election in 2020, according to testimony.

Sondland, the hotelier who got his job after he gave $1m to make the Trump inauguration beautiful, is scheduled to begin testifying this morning at 9am, in a day that has the White House worried and the Democrats banking on a breakthrough.

Why is Sondland’s testimony a big deal? Because he could testify that Trump was directly orchestrating the Ukraine plot, which amounted to an attempt by Trump to use the power of the presidency to keep himself in the presidency, his critics say.

If that’s not impeachable, critics of the president’s conduct have asked, then what is?

Sondland spoke on the phone regularly with Trump, according to other witnesses and his own previous testimony. One witness overheard Trump ask Sondland on the phone, “So he’s going to do the investigation?” and heard Sondland reply, “He’s going to do it,” adding that President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will quote, “Do anything you ask him to.”

Other witnesses have described Sondland pressuring the Ukrainians in multiple scenes, including at a 10 July White House meeting; on 25 July in advance of the phone call in which Trump himself pressured the Ukrainians; and on 1 September during bilateral meetings in Warsaw.

One point of potential drama to look out for today: Sondland himself has changed his testimony, originally telling investigators that he took Trump at his word that there was no “quid pro quo” with Ukraine, but then admitting he had informed an adviser to Zelenskiy that no military aid was likely to flow without an announcement of investigations. Which Gordon will show up on Wednesday?

There are so many questions. Is it true that Trump demanded that Zelenskiy say “investigations”, “Biden” and Clinton”, as witnesses have testified? Is it true that military aid specifically was on the line, and did the Ukrainians understand that, as witnesses have testified? Is it true that Trump did not “give a shit about Ukraine”, as witnesses etc?

Thanks for joining us.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
The internet is convinced Jeffrey Epstein was just spotted alive in Florida and the viral footage is genuinely haunting
The internet is absolutely buzzing right now thanks to a viral video showing a man dubbed “Palm Beach Pete” cruising through South Florida, and people are convinced he’s none other than convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. This footage has really lit up social media, sparking immediate comparisons.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Not just boys: The overlooked story of ADHD in women and girls
When people think about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they often picture a hyperactive young boy running around a classroom, not the quiet girl daydreaming in the corner, the chatty student who can’t finish her work or the mother who is chronically late and constantly searching for her keys.
The Conversation
The Conversation
A new start after 60: I went on 75 first dates – and wrote a book of Kama Sutra-inspired poetry
Zack Rogow thought he was ready for love after the end of a long relationship – but not everyone agreed. How did he get over the rejections?
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
New social media study identifies the children ‘more likely to develop anxiety’
Experts from Imperial College London suggest the relationship between social media and mental health is ‘complex’
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscars 'Glow-Up' Stuns Fans — Ozempic or Plastic Surgery Rumours Explode
Leonardo DiCaprio's appearance at the 2026 Academy Awards in Los Angeles has sparked widespread discussion on social media, with fans reacting to his striking 'glow-up.'
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Record-setting Big Mac eater underwhelmed by McDonald’s new Big Arch burger
Donald Gorske has eaten nearly 36,000 Big Macs. His verdict on the new Big Arch? ‘I think the Big Mac is better’
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play