The fifth day of public impeachment hearings has come and gone, with another pair of key witnesses delivering damning evidence against Donald Trump. Meanwhile, the president spent his time lashing out against the proceedings on Twitter, writing: “Never in my wildest dreams thought my name would in any way be associated with the ugly word, Impeachment!”
Mr Trump has had a more controversial week than usual, as his EU ambassador, Gordon Sondland, implicated the president in a quid pro quo with Ukraine during his own impeachment hearings - along with vice president Mike Pence, secretary of state Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. “Was there a ‘quid pro quo’?" Mr Sondland said in his opening statement. "As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
The president's critics have said the proceedings are exposing impeachable offences, including ex-White House ethics lawyer Richard W Painter, who said it was effectively “game over” for his administration. Mr Trump has attempted to undermine the inquiry, insisting that he barely knew his ambassador and wanted “NOTHING” from Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev. As all that happened, the Democratic 2020 contenders took to the debate stage in Georgia to attack Mr Trump as "one of the most corrupt presidents" in US history.
During the Thursday testimony, Fiona Hill, a former White House adviser on Ukraine, and David Holmes, a top staffer at the US embassy in Ukraine, testified about the irregular channel of communication in which Mr Trump pushed for a domestic-ally oriented political investigation.
Ms Hill told investigators that she believed Republican arguments claiming that it was OK for Mr Trump to ask for an investigation into Ukraine's 2016 role played into Russian talking points, and that furtherance of that played into their hands.
Mr Homes, meanwhile, told investigators that he was on the phone call that allegedly occurred 26 July, just a day after Mr Trump's call with Mr Zelensky. He said that he could hear the president speaking, even though he was not on spearker phone.
Please allow a moment for our live blog to load
“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,” Sondland told Congress of the Ukraine scandal that has engulfed the presidency since late September.
"We did not want to work with Mr Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he explained.
Sondland said Giuliani emphasised to him in a subsequent conversation that Trump wanted a public statement from Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into corruption issues, including looking into potential interference in the 2016 election and Burisma, the gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served.
"Mr Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky," Sondland said. "Mr Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States and we knew that these investigations were important to the president."
Evidentally determined not to be made the fall guy for the administration's murky dealings with Kiev, Sondland underscored that officials across the government were aware of the unconventional dialogue. He said he updated secretary of state Mike Pompeo and the White House's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, telling them that Ukraine's leader would conduct a "fully transparent investigation" and "turn over every stone".
Sondland further told Pompeo that he and another diplomat, Kurt Volker, had negotiated a statement that Zelensky could deliver that "will hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorise an invitation" to the White House.
"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he said.
"A meeting, which is a nothing-burger?" Texas senator John Cornyn said of one of Trump's demands. "The president can meet with whoever he wants to meet with, for a good reason or no reason at all."
"None of this" has risen to level of meriting Trump's impeachment, said Indiana senator Mike Braun. "And I'm pretty certain that's what most of my cohorts in the Senate are thinking."
Even so, there is a guardedness among Republicans about the impact of revelations like Sondland's and what disclosures remain.
Polling has shown that while public opinion has shifted recently toward slightly backing Trump's impeachment, Democrats strongly support the effort while Republicans vehemently oppose it. Independents have been divided.
"The question is, is this information enough to disrupt the equilibrium or not?" David Winston, a pollster who works with congressional Republicans, said of Sondland's testimony. Winston said it "takes a lot" for people who have strong opinions on a subject to change them. Republicans acknowledged they would be watching for the results of fresh polls and focus groups and monitoring the attention the inquiry receives back home. But, for now, they said, there seems to be little shifting of people's views and a sense that Democrats' case against Trump is complicated and unwieldy for people to digest.
"Crickets," Texas congressman Michael Conaway, who is retiring, said of his constituents' reactions. "They're tired of it. They're weary of it. Stop."
Nebraska representative Don Bacon, a sophomore lawmaker who won his closely divided Omaha-based district by two percentage points last year, said even Sondland's appearance left him still thinking that Trump hadn't committed an impeachable offence."The key word is he said he presumed, hadn't heard it firsthand, it's the same old thing," Bacon said of Sondland's testimony. Bacon said impeachment is on voters' minds but leaves partisans on both sides entrenched in their views about Trump.
Florida congressman Francis Rooney, who announced he'd not seek re-election a day after saying he could consider impeachment, said he was left undecided and bemoaned the partisanship that he said leaves both sides so starkly divided on issues, including impeachment. "That's the saddest part of the whole deal, it's like Mars and Venus," he said.
North Carolina senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has been conducting its own, bipartisan probe of Trump and Ukraine, also said they he doesn't think Sondland's appearance was "a gamechanger". He said Democrats must show that "there was an act that was committed that rose to the level of removal from office. I'm just like the American people, I'm waiting to see it."
In Brussels, Pompeo dismissed Sondland's testimony but didn't comment on specifics.
Gordon Sondland was not the only official to take questions from the impeachment inquiry yesterday.
Senior Defence official Laura Cooper also testified on Wednesday and said that Ukrainian officials knew Trump's administration was withholding $391m (£302m) in military assistance in July, undercutting a key Republican defence of the president's actions.
Cooper said her staff received an email on 25 July from the State Department saying that Ukraine's embassy and the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee were asking about security assistance.
"On 25 July a member of my staff got a question from a Ukrainian embassy contact asking what was going on with US security assistance," Cooper told the House Intelligence Committee at the impeachment hearing.
That was of course the day of the fateful telephone call between Trump and Zelensky.
Cooper also said some of her staff had met with officials from the Ukrainian embassy during the week of 6 August and that they had raised the issue of the aid.
Senior State Department official David Hale was also giving evidence and used his platform to denounce the ousting of Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in May following a Giuliani-led smear campaign.

David Holmes told lawmakers in closed-door testimony that he heard Trump's voice on a 26 July phone call with Gordon Sondland in which the Republican president asked about Ukraine's willingness to carry out an unspecified investigation.

"So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Trump asked Sondland, referring to Zelensky, according to Holmes' previous testimony. "He's gonna do it," replied Sondland, according to Holmes.
Sondland added the Ukrainian president would do "anything you ask him to," Holmes said.
Holmes' account ties Trump directly to an effort to get Ukraine to launch an investigation, though his recounting of the overheard telephone call does not explicitly cite the Bidens. In his 15 November closed door testimony, Holmes said that after overhearing Sondland's phone conversation with Trump at an outdoor restaurant in Kiev, he asked the ambassador if it was true that the president did not care about Ukraine. In Holmes' telling, Sondland said that it was, and added that Trump only cares about "'big stuff' that benefits the president, like the 'Biden investigation' that Mr Giuliani was pushing."
Members of Congress will also question Fiona Hill, former senior director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump's National Security Council, who recounted in prior testimony a 10 July meeting in Washington that she attended with senior Ukrainian and US officials at which the investigations were discussed.

Sondland on Wednesday testified he could not remember the precise details of the call Holmes overheard, but said the president's mention of investigations did not strike him as significant at the time. "Actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations."
However, Sondland took issue with Holmes' recollection that he had talked to the diplomat about the Bidens, saying: "I do not recall mentioning the Bidens. That did not enter my mind. It was Burisma and 2016 elections."
Sondland has previously testified that he was aware at the time Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Burisma. But he said he realised only later that such an investigation would involve the Bidens, given Hunter Biden was on Burisma's board of directors.
A special agent with the bureau's Washington Field Office first contacted one of the whistleblower's attorneys last month and the FBI and the legal team have reportedly traded messages since.
The letter sent by David Pressman, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, the law firm run by David Boies, also highlighted inflammatory statements made on the network by others, including Donald Trump Jr, who has repeatedly attacked Lt Col Vindman, and Tucker Carlson.
“Colonel Vindman and his family have been forced to examine options, including potentially moving onto a military base, in order to ensure their physical security in the face of threats rooted in the falsehood that Fox News originated,” Pressman wrote in the letter.
Donald Trump has lashed out at the military on Twitter after officials said they were considering removing a US Navy Seal whose rank was restored by the president after he was accused of committing war crimes.








