"DEADLINE: WHITE HOUSE" WITH NICOLLE WALLACE BEGINS RIGHT
NOW.
NOW. >> HI, EVERYONE, IT’S 4:00 IN
NEW YORK.
NEW YORK. WE BEGIN WITH BREAKING
IMPEACHMENT NEWS AND A DO-OVER
FROM SONDLAND.
FROM SONDLAND. HE’S BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT SCANDAL SINCE HIS
TEXT MESSAGES WITH AMBASSADOR
BILL TAYLOR SHOWED HIM MOVING A
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER
MILITARY AID WAS TIED TO THOSE
POLITICALLY DAMAGING
POLITICALLY DAMAGING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS
FROM TEXT TO A PHONE LINE.
SONDLAND ALSO A KEY PLAYER IN
PRESSURING THE UKRAINIANS TO
OPEN THE INVESTIGATIONS DONALD
TRUMP SOUGHT AS A CONDITION FOR
A MEETING WITH TRUMP.
BUT BEFORE TODAY, SONDLAND HAD
NOT TESTIFIED TO HIS ROLE IN OR
EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE
BELIEVED MILITARY AID FOR
UKRAINE WAS ALSO TIED TO THE
UKRAINIANS COMMITMENT TO THE
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS.
SONDLAND TODAY AMENDING HIS
ORIGINAL TESTIMONY TO INCLUDE
THIS DRAMATIC ADMISSION THAT
MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE WAS
TIED TO A PUBLIC COMMITMENT FROM
THE UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGATE
TRUMP’S POLITICAL RIVAL.
FROM THE "NEW YORK TIMES" WHICH
WAS FIRST TO REPORT ON
SONDLAND’S REVERSE SAL, THE
DISCLOSURE FROM GORDON SONDLAND
CONFIRMED HIS INVOLVEMENT IN
ESSENTIALLY LAYING OUT A QUID
PRO QUO TO UKRAINE THAT HE HAD
PREVIOUSLY NOT ACKNOWLEDGED.
"THE TIMES" ADS, MR. SONDLAND
PROVIDED A MORE ROBUST
DESCRIPTION OF HIS OWN ROLE IN
ALERTING THE UKRAINIANS THAT
THEY NEEDED TO GO ALONG WITH
REQUESTS BEING DEMANDED BY RUDY
GIULIANI.
GIULIANI. BY EARLY SEPTEMBER, HE SAID HE
BECAME CONVINCED THAT MILITARY
AID WERE COMMISSIONED ON UKRAINE
COMMITTING TO THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS.
INVESTIGATIONS. SONDLAND WAS IN A BOX.
ONE LAWMAKER ACCUSING HIM OF
PERJURY.
PERJURY. BOTH TAYLOR AND MORRISON HAVE
RECOUNTED CONVERSATIONS IN WHICH
IT WAS COMMUNICATED THAT
MILITARY AID WAS CONDITIONED ON
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. SONDLAND NOW SAYING THAT THEIR
TESTIMONY REFRESHED HIS MEMORY.
IN TODAY’S UPDATED TESTIMONY,
SONDLAND WRITES, QUOTE, I NOW DO
RECALL A CONVERSATION ON
SEPTEMBER 1st, 2019, IN WARSAW
WITH AN UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL.
THIS BRIEF CONVERSATIONS
FOLLOWED THE LARGER MEETING
INVOLVING PENCE AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IN WHICH ZELENSKY HAD
RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE
SUSPENSION OF U.S. AID TO
UKRAINE DIRECTLY WITH VICE
PRESIDENT PENCE.
PRESIDENT PENCE. AFTER THAT LARGE MEETING, I NOW
RECALL SPEAKING INDIVIDUALLY
WITH HIM WHERE I SAID THAT
RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD
LIKELY NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE
PUBLIC CORRUPTION STATEMENT THAT
WE HAD DISCUSSED FOR MANY WEEKS.
WE HAVE WHITE HOUSE REPORTER,
ASHLEY PARKER, PLUS FORMER
SENIOR FBI OFFICIAL, CHUCK
ROSENBERG, WITH US AT THE TABLE,
MSNBC NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST
AND FORMER MANAGING EDITOR FOR
"TIME" MAGAZINE.
"TIME" MAGAZINE. YOU BROKE THIS NEWS OF
SONDLAND’S PLANNED REVERSAL.
TAKE US INSIDE THE STRATEGY.
IS HE TRYING TO AVOID ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE
PERJURED HIMSELF OR HAD HE
FORGOTTEN THESE DETAILED
INTERACTIONS WITH THE
UKRAINIANS?
UKRAINIANS? >> THE EXPLANATION FROM
SONDLAND’S SIDE IS BASICALLY
THAT AFTER ALL OF THESE
WITNESSES WENT IN, HE HAD A MUCH
BETTER MEMORY OF WHAT OCCURRED.
>> THREE WEEKS AGO, RIGHT?
SEPTEMBER 1st?
SEPTEMBER 1st? >> CORRECT.
>> CORRECT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT
THAT CAME OUT EARLIER TODAY WITH
THAT NEW TESTIMONY, YOU CAN SEE
SONDLAND SAYING THAT HE DID NOT
BELIEVE THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THE
MILITARY AID WAS TIED TO THE
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. OBVIOUSLY SAYING SOMETHING VERY
DIFFERENT TODAY AND LEADING MANY
DEMOCRATS INTO AN INTERESTING
POSITION.
POSITION. I THINK THEY LIKE THE FACT THAT
SONDLAND HAS SAID THIS BECAUSE
HE IS SEEN AS A TRUMP ALLY, HE’S
SEEN AS SOMEONE WHO WAS CLOSE TO
THE PRESIDENT AND THAT SORT OF
ENHANCES THEIR ARGUMENT THAT
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
AT THE SAME TIME, IT UNDERMINES
HIS CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS
BECAUSE YOU HAVE HIM NOW IN TWO
DIFFERENT INSTANCES SAYING
DIFFERENT THINGS.
DIFFERENT THINGS. AND THAT CAN OBVIOUSLY BE
EXPLOITED IF HE’S CALLED AT A
PUBLIC HEARING TO LAY OUT FOR
THE COUNTRY WHAT HE KNOWS.
>> THE POLITICS OF THIS ASIDE,
IS THERE A SINGLE WITNESS NOW
THAT WE KNOW OF THAT’S TESTIFIED
TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN BOTH THE
MEETING AND THE MILITARY AID
BEING TIED TO COMMITMENT
PUBLICLY TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA
AND THE BIDENS?
>> NO.
>> NO. NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
WE HAVEN’T SEEN EVERY TRANSCRIPT
YET AND THERE ARE STILL OTHER
WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
SPOKEN TO.
SPOKEN TO. BUT THIS DOES PUT SONDLAND IN
LINE WITH A LOT OF THE CAREER
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND
THESE LONG-TIME NATIONAL
SECURITY OFFICIALS THAT WERE
WORKING ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT, THIS
PUTS HIM IN LINE WITH THEM AND
SORT OF THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT HAD GONE ON.
NOW, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR
SONDLAND GOING FORWARD?
THAT’S A DECISION THAT DEMOCRATS
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE.
IS HE A GOOD ENOUGH WITNESS TO
PUT UP THERE GIVEN THESE
CONTRADICTIONS IN WHAT HE SAID.
>> IT REMINDS ME IN MIKE’S
ANALYSIS IS SIMILAR TO THE
ANALYSIS THAT A LOT OF US HEARD
ABOUT MICHAEL COHEN WHO HAD COME
BEFORE CONGRESS IN A DRAMATIC
WAY BUT THERE WERE
INCONSISTENCIES.
INCONSISTENCIES. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
ASIDE, SONDLAND WAS THE FIGURE
IN THE ENTIRE AID FOR DIRT
SCANDAL WHO THE WHITE HOUSE HAD
PINNED THEIR HOPES ON IN TERMS
OF PROVIDING SOME SORT OF
EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY.
EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THAT HAS
FALLEN APART WITH TODAY’S
AMENDED TESTIMONY.
AMENDED TESTIMONY. >> BUT EVEN WITH HIS FIRST
TESTIMONY.
TESTIMONY. REMEMBER, HE WENT UP IN A NUMBER
OF PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE
WERE EXCITED AS YOU SAID FOR HIM
COMING TO TESTIFY BECAUSE NAYTHE
THOUGHT, FINALLY, YOU HAVE AN
ALLY OF THE PRESIDENT WHO SAID
IN A TEXT MESSAGE THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO AND WHO WILL BE A
POSITIVE WITNESS FOR THE WHITE
HOUSE AND THAT ENDED UP NOT TO
BE THE CASE IN THAT MOMENT.
WHAT WE’RE SEEING TODAY IS SORT
OF ANOTHER DIG UNDERMINING A
WITNESS THEY HAD HOPED WOULD BE
EXCULPATORY NOW PROVIDING MORE
DAMNING INFORMATION ON THIS
DEAL.
DEAL. >> CHECK, CAN YOU JUMP IN ON
BOTH MIKE AND ASHLEY’S REPORTING
THAT THIS IS A WITNESS THAT
WHILE HE CONFIRMS THE FACT
PATTERN, AND I DON’T THINK ANY
OF US ARE AWARE OF ANY TESTIMONY
THAT SUGGESTS ANYTHING ATTORNEY
CONDITIONING MILITARY AID AND A
MEETING WITH DONALD TRUMP, TAKE
US THROUGH HOW A WITNESS’S
CREDIBILITY MIGHT BE IMPACTED BY
AMENDING THEIR TESTIMONY AND
JUST THE POWER OF THE FACT
PATTERNS THAT HAS EMERGED TODAY.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. IT’S NOT A GOOD THING, NICOLLE.
THERE’S VERSION ONE, VERSION
TWO.
TWO. WHO KNOWS WITH MR. SONDLAND
WHETHER THERE’S A VERSION THREE,
FOUR AND FIVE.
BANK ROBBERS, DRUG DEALERS, TELL
YOU ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS THEY
THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT AND THEY
TEND TO OMIT THE ONES THAT THEY
DON’T THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT.
AND THAT UNDERMINES THEIR
CREDIBILITY, WHEN THEY GET ON
THE STAND.
THE STAND. THE THING WE ASK WITNESSES TO
DO, AND IT’S A REALLY, REALLY
HARD THING FOR SOME OF THEM TO
DO IT, IS TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE
WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH AND THOSE ARE THREE
DIFFERENT THINGS.
DIFFERENT THINGS. THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH
ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
>> THAT’S INTERESTING.
>> AND WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE
GOTTEN FROM SONDLAND THIS TIME
IS MORE OF THE WHOLE TRUTH, BUT
I’M NOT CONVINCED HE GOT ALL OF
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND IT MAKES HIM
RIPE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
>> DO YOU THINK SONDLAND WENT IN
THERE THINKING THAT TAYLOR
WASN’T GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH?
DO YOU THINK THERE WAS A SIGNAL
SENT THAT -- WHAT MAKES SOMEONE
GO IN -- IF YOU READ THE
AMENDMENT, IT’S A STUNNING NEW
ANECDOTE AND IT’S FROM 4 1/2
WEEKS AGO.
WEEKS AGO. >> AND IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE THE
TYPE OF THING THAT YOU WOULD
FORGET, THAT YOU WOULD NEED
MR. TAYLOR OR MR. MORRISON TO
REMIND YOU OF.
IT’S THE CENTRAL FACT, NICOLLE.
AGAIN, PERHAPS ANALOGIZING TO
BANK ROBBERS AND DRUG DEALERS,
THEY ONLY TELL YOU WHAT THEY
THINK THEY NEED TO TELL YOU TO
GET OUT OF TROUBLE AT THE
MOMENT.
MOMENT. AS THEIR STORIES CHANGE, THEY
BECOME LESS AND LESS VALUABLE.
AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS,
MICHAEL COHEN, PAUL MANAFORT IS
ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WE SEE THIS
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN
FEDERAL COURT -- OR I SHOULD SAY
IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS.
IT DOESN’T SURPRISE ME THAT WE
WOULD SEE IT HERE TOO.
>> IT’S INTERESTING, JOHN, THE
PICTURE IN SOME WAYS BECOMES
CLEARER, YOU HAVE THIS TESTIMONY
THAT SINKS UP WITH THE TESTIMONY
PROVIDED BY BILL TAYLOR AND
MORRISON WHICH WOULD SEEM TO
ME -- I’M NOT A LAWYER, BUT IT
WOULD SEEM LIKE CYA TESTIMONY,
YOU KNOW THEIR SWORN TESTIMONY
FROM WITNESSES THAT INVOLVES
YOU.
YOU. YOU MAKE SURE YOUR ACCOUNT
MATCHES THEIRS.
MATCHES THEIRS. THEIR STORIES HAVE TO MATCH UP
WHEN THEY GET CALLED BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL.
PRINCIPAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, QUESTIONS
ABOUT HIS CREDIBILITY NOW?
>> YEAH, AGAIN, I DON’T
REALLY -- I DON’T THINK THIS IS
AS BIG OF A CONFLICT AS IT SEEMS
ON THE FRONT SIDE.
YOU THINK ABOUT WHERE YOU’RE
HEADED NOW.
HEADED NOW. WE’RE HEADED IN FROM THE PERIOD
OF PRIVATE FACT GATHERING TO
PUBLIC PERSUASION.
PUBLIC PERSUASION. DEMOCRATS ARE LOOKING AT THE
SITUATION.
SITUATION. IT LOOKED LIKE PUBLIC OPINION
WAS MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. THE CHALLENGE THAT NANCY PELOSI
AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO
TRY TO MOVE PUBLIC OPINION
FURTHER IS A SERIOUS ONE.
THEY KNOW WHAT THE STORY IS
HERE.
HERE. THEY KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH OF THE
STORY IS HERE.
THERE’S NO DOUBT THAT SONDLAND
HAS DAMAGED HIS CREDIBILITY AS A
WITNESS BUT HE WAS NEVER GOING
TO BE THEIR REAL WITNESS EITHER.
BILL TAYLOR IS GOING TO BE THEIR
WITNESS, COLONEL VINDMAN, MAYBE
JOHN BOLTON.
JOHN BOLTON. THIS GUY HAS DONE THEM THE FAVOR
OF REMOVING THE ONE PIECE OF
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY, AND
THEY CAN SAY, EVEN THE
PRESIDENT’S BOUGHT AND PAID FOR
AMBASSADOR PICK, EVEN THAT GUY
HAS COME AROUND TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE OBVIOUS TRUTH OF THE MATTER,
PLUS YOU GET THE PLEASURE OF
LOOKING AT DONALD TRUMP’S TWEET
FROM OCTOBER 22nd, THE
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
HAS TESTIFIED, HE SAID THERE WAS
NO QUID PRO QUO, HE SAID THE
PRESIDENT HAD TOLD HIM THAT.
THAT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES A COUPLE WEEKS
AGO.
AGO. THAT IS NOW INOPERATIVE TOO.
THE BENEFITS OF HAVING
SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY LINE UP TO
GETTING HIM OFF THE SIDE OF
BEING THE ONE CONTRADICTORY, THE
OUTLIAR IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT --
HE’S NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD
WITNESS.
WITNESS. BUT THIS GUY WAS NEVER GOING TO
BE THE WITNESS YOU WANTED TO
MAKE YOUR CASE, ANYWAY, IN
PUBLIC.
PUBLIC. >> JUST TO PULL THE MICHAEL
COHEN TESTIMONY, THE ORIGINAL
TESTIMONY, THAT TRANSCRIPT WAS
RELEASED TODAY.
RELEASED TODAY. THAT WAS THE OCCASION FOR THE
UPDATE.
UPDATE. AND FROM THE ORIGINAL TESTIMONY,
SONDLAND IS CLEARLY ANOTHER
ALARMED WITNESS TO I THINK WHAT
BILL TAYLOR DESCRIBED AS AN
IRREGULAR POLICY CHANNEL.
HE TESTIFIED HE WAS ASKED WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU TO
DISCUSS WITH RUDY GIULIANI
CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE, DID YOU
KNOW AT THAT POINT WHAT HE WAS
REFERRING TO?
REFERRING TO? HE DIDN’T EVEN.
HE WASN’T EVEN SPECIFIC ABOUT
WHAT HE WANTED US TO TALK TO
GIULIANI ABOUT.
GIULIANI ABOUT. HE JUST KEPT SAYING, TALK TO
RUDY.
RUDY. WHEN HE SAID THAT, DID YOU KNOW
WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?
I DIDN’T, OTHER THAN HE SAID,
UKRAINE IS A PROBLEM.
HE WENT ON TO SAY, IT WAS
GETTING MORE INSIDIOUS AS THE
TIMELINE WENT ON, THEIT WAS AN
UNCONDITIONAL INVITATION TO THE
WHITE HOUSE AND THE NEXT PART
WAS SOME KIND OF OF A COMMITMENT
TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION AND
THEN TALKING ABOUT BURISMA IN
THE 2016 ELECTION AND THEN AT
THE END OF THE CON, THEN THE AID
RELEASED AND THIS WHOLE THING
BLEW UP, ASHLEY?
>> WE TALKED A BIT EARLIER ABOUT
SONDLAND BEING IN A BOX OVER
PERJURY, BUT WHAT YOU SAW IN
THIS TESTIMONY RELEASED TODAY
AND WHAT HAD LEAKED OUT ABOUT IT
A BIT EARLIER, HE WAS IN A BOX
IN ANOTHER WAY AS WELL.
SONDLAND WAS A WEALTHY HOTEL
OWNER, HE WAS DESPERATE TO
PLEASE THE PRESIDENT.
HE WAS EXCITED AND EAGER TO HAVE
THIS JOB THAT HE HAD WORKED FOR
YEARS TOWARDS, BY BEING A
REPUBLICAN DONOR, AND THEN THE
PRESIDENT WAS BASICALLY ASKING
HIM TO DO A SERIES OF THINGS
THAT HE FELT INCREASING
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH.
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH. AND SO HE WAS ALWAYS FACED WITH
THIS CHOICE, DO I TRY TO PLEASE
MY BENEFACTOR OR THE THING THAT
I THINK IS RIGHT.
MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, HE TRIED TO
PLEASE THE PRESIDENT, BUT THAT
IS WHY YOU HEAR THOSE HINTS OF
ALARM AND CONCERN THROUGHOUT THE
TRANSCRIPT.
TRANSCRIPT. >> RICK, WE TRAVEL SO FAR FROM
NORMAL.
NORMAL. BUT IT IS NORMAL FOR THE
DIPLOMATIC CORPS TO BE MADE OF
POLITICAL PATRONS AND THEY
TYPICALLY MELD -- I WON’T SAY
SEAMLESSLY, BUT MORE SEAMLESSLY
THAN THIS, WHERE SONDLAND DIDN’T
EXACTLY DO THAT, THERE’S SOME
SYNCING UP.
SYNCING UP. >> YES, SONDLAND IS A COMPLETE
AM
AM AMATEUR.
AMATEUR. THE OTHER THING I KEEP THINKING
ABOUT WITH THIS IS THAT AT THE
STATE DEPARTMENT, HE’S
ACCOMPANIED BY FOREIGN SERVICE
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, THEY
TAKE NOTES ON EVERY SINGLE TINY
THING THAT HAPPENS AND THEN THEY
SEND A MEMO ABOUT IT AND SOMEONE
TAKES NOTES ON THE MEMO AND THEN
THEY SEND IT THERE.
IT’S ALL CONFIRMED EVERY WHICH
WAY.
WAY. ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE
MARKED.
MARKED. THE OTHER DETAIL THAT KEEPS
COMING BACK TO HAUNT ME AND IT’S
KIND OF HUMOROUS IS THIS -- I
THINK THIS IS HOW -- ONE OF THE
REASONS THEY GOT DINGED.
THIS IS SONDLAND REFRESHED
MEMORY, HIS MEMORY WAS REFRESHED
WITH THE FACT HE COULD BE
CHARGED WITH PERJURY, HE SAID I
RECALL SOME QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER THE STATEMENT WOULD COME
FROM THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL
RATHER THAN FROM PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY DIRECTLY.
ZELENSKY DIRECTLY. REMEMBER, THEY WANTED UKRAINIANS
TO ISSUE A STATEMENT, A PUBLIC
STATEMENT, THAT THEY WERE
INVESTIGATING BURISMA.
INVESTIGATING BURISMA. THAT CAME FROM TRUMP.
THAT’S THE CLASSIC TRUMP THING,
NOT ONLY DO I DEFEAT YOU, I RUB
YOUR NOSE IN IT AND THAT’S WHERE
THE UKRAINIANS BALKED.
I’LL DO THIS DEAL, BUT I’M NOT
GOING TO DO IT IN PUBLIC AND
OPEN IT UP.
THAT’S WHAT STARTED THE TRIGGER
FOR IT TO COME BACK.
>> AND YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES
DID SOME OF THAT REPORTING ABOUT
A MONTH AGO, ABOUT HOW THIS
STATEMENT WAS -- THERE WAS A LOT
OF EFFORT WENT IN ON THE PART OF
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND OTHERS
TO TRY TO GET THE UKRAINIANS TO
DO EXACTLY WHAT RICK JUST
DESCRIBED, ISSUE THIS STATEMENT
WHERE THEY PUBLICLY COMMIT TO
THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
THESE INVESTIGATIONS. HOW DOES THAT EFFORT AND WHAT
WE’RE LEARNING ABOUT IT PLAY
INTO SORT OF SONDLAND’S
DISCLOSURES IN THE AMENDED
TESTIMONY TODAY?
TESTIMONY TODAY? >> WELL, THE CHARITABLE VIEW OF
WHAT SONDLAND WAS TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH WAS BASICALLY TO
CONDUCT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
AROUND TRUMP AND GIULIANI.
HE BASICALLY SAW THEM AS
IMPEDIMENTS TO WHAT NEEDED TO BE
DONE BETWEEN THESE TWO COUNTRIES
AND BASICALLY IF THEY COULD
SATISFY GIULIANI AND GET HIM TO
LAYOFF, THEN THEY COULD GO BACK
TO ESTABLISHING NORMAL RELATIONS
AND THAT WOULD BE THE BEST THING
FOR THE COUNTRY.
THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYER WERE
STANDING IN THE WAY.
BUT IT WAS ALL ABOUT PACIFYING
GIULIANI.
GIULIANI. THESE PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT
GIULIANI HAD POISONED THE
PRESIDENT’S BRAIN AND GIVEN HIM
ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT IDEAS
ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN
UKRAINE AND BASICALLY TO GET
THAT TO STOP AND TO GET THE
PRESIDENT TO LAYOFF, THEY HAD TO
TRY AND GET THE UKRAINIANS TO
PUT OUT THE STATEMENT.
>> THERE IS SOMETHING
SYMPATHETIC IN THAT DEPICTION OF
TRYING TO WORK AROUND A
PRESIDENT WHOSE MIND HAS BEEN
POISONED AGAINST THE UKRAINIANS,
BUT I BELIEVE THAT’S WHAT THEY
BELIEVED, AND TRYING TO DO THE
RIGHT THING, TRYING TO GET THE
MILITARY AID TO THE UKRAINIANS
BY ANY MEANS.
WHEN YOU READ THROUGH, THEY’RE
TRYING TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH
CONGRESS AND ON THE PAGE YOU
READ BIZARRE.
READ BIZARRE. IS THAT -- DOES THAT PAINT A
MORE TEXTURED PICTURE OF THE
SCANDAL.
SCANDAL. >> YES, BUT YOU’RE A MUCH, MUCH
NICER PERSON THAN ME, NICOLLE.
>> BUT I’M NOT.
>> YOU ARE, YOU ARE.
BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT
ABOUT IT BEING SOMEWHAT
SYMPATHETIC, IT’S ALSO SOMEWHAT
PATHETIC BECAUSE IT ISN’T
BINARY.
BINARY. YOU CAN LEAVE, YOU CAN QUIT, YOU
CAN SAY I CAN’T OPERATE IN THIS
ENVIRONMENT.
ENVIRONMENT. I’M NOT SAYING THAT’S WHAT HE
SHOULD HAVE DONE.
BUT IT’S NOT LIKE HE HAS TO TRY
AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.
IF HE’S BEING ASKED TO DO THINGS
THAT HE THINKS ARE UNETHICAL OR
ILLEGAL OR JUST YUCKY, WHICH
MIGHT BE THE TECHNICAL WORD
HERE, HE CAN WALK AWAY FROM IT
AND HE DIDN’T.
HE TRIED TO APIECE THE PRESIDENT
AND THAT’S ON HIM.
IT’S ALSO PART ON THE PRESIDENT,
OF COURSE, BUT THAT’S ON
SONDLAND.
SONDLAND. >> IT’S ON SONDLAND AND I’M NOT
AS -- I’M MORE MEAN THAN YOU,
CHUCK.
CHUCK. WE COULD HAVE THIS FIGHT EVERY
DAY.
DAY. ASHLEY, I WANT TO ASK YOU NOT
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS SAYING,
BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN ALL
GUESS, SOMEONE IS A LIAR, BLAH,
BLAH, BLAH BUT IF THERE’S ANY
EFFORT AT ANY LEVEL TO
UNDERSTAND THE FACT PATTERN OR
IF THE ENTIRE STRATEGY RESTS ON
SORT OF INDICTING THE PROCESS
AND IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY AND
CHARACTER OF THE WITNESSES?
>> YOU DO SEE REPUBLICANS ON
CAPITOL HILL I THINK ARE THE
MOST FASCINATING GROUP TO WATCH
BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO, A,
UNDERSTAND THE FACT PATTERN, AND
B, RESPOND TO IT.
AND YOU SEE THEM GRAPPLING WITH
THAT IN THESE EXCERPTS AND IN
THEIR PUBLIC SHIFTING TESTIMONY.
YOU HAVE THEM GOING FROM, IF YOU
LOOK BACK JUST A FEW WEEKS TO
SAYING, THERE’S ABSOLUTELY NO
QUID PRO QUO TO NOW, WHEN THEY
DO UNDERSTAND THE FACT PATTERN,
SOME OF THEM ARE SAYING, OKAY,
SURE.
SURE. SO THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO AND
THAT’S CERTAINLY NOT A DEAL, BUT
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE HIGH