I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the facets of this conversation always is that, I believe, the Republican whip adopts premises that are not supported by the evidence. Ambassador Sondland, a contributor of $100,000, maybe more, to the Trump campaign in 2016, appointed by President Donald Trump and sent to represent the United States abroad, testified that, in fact, he heard and believed that there was a relationship between releasing the $391 million and having a visit at the White House to confirm the United States' continuing support for Ukraine, our ally and friend, assaulted by Russia, which, of course, Putin is pursuing. Ambassador Sondland made it very clear that those were the conditions for that money being released. This was not hearsay. This is not Democrats. This is somebody who was a substantial supporter. Apparently, the whip believes that if you are a supporter of somebody else, you must have a bias. So apparently, Ambassador Sondland either had a bias for or maybe he had a bias against because his testimony is firsthand, not hearsay, and, in fact, his testimony is there was a relationship between that. Now, what I said, Madam Speaker, is not what the Republican whip attributed to me.…
Share
More from Steny Hoyer
Senate Republicans’ vote in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to hold him in contempt of Congress is nothing short of a witch-hunt instigated by President Trump and whose purpose is to achieve Republicans’ goal of…
Madam Administrator, with all due respect, I've asked you two direct questions, you have not answered either one of them.
“It has been an honor to help lead this fight in Congress, including working to discharge the Ukraine Support Act from committee and partnering with former Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, and others to pass it through the House in…
That is a grave mistake and absolutely the wrong approach and a dangerous signal at a time when we ought to show unwavering support for Ukraine's defense of its homeland.





