Himes: 'I don't think it blows a hole in the case' if Sondland testifies there was no quid pro quo

Himes: 'I don't think it blows a hole in the case' if Sondland testifies there was no quid pro quo
© Greg Nash

Rep. Jim HimesJames (Jim) Andres HimesHouse Republicans boycott public Intelligence panel hearing Democrats criticize Medal of Freedom for Limbaugh as 'slap in the face' Twitter users invoke Merrick Garland after McConnell, Graham comments on impeachment trial MORE (D-Conn.), a top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that Democrats’ case against President TrumpDonald John TrumpCensus Bureau spends millions on ad campaign to mitigate fears on excluded citizenship question Bloomberg campaign: Primary is two-way race with Sanders Democratic senator meets with Iranian foreign minister MORE would not necessarily collapse if Ambassador to the European Union Gordon SondlandGordon SondlandCongress looks to strengthen hand in State Department following impeachment Trump unleashed: President moves with a free hand post-impeachment Donald Trump: Unrepentant, on the attack and still playing the victim MORE testifies this week that there was no quid pro quo in the release of military aid to Ukraine.

“Doesn’t your case essentially depend on Sondland? If he doesn’t say that the president set this condition, this quid pro quo, doesn’t that blow a hole in your case?” Fox News’ Chris WallaceChristopher (Chris) WallaceConway: Reported sexist Bloomberg remarks 'far worse' than what Trump said on 'Access Hollywood' tape Candidates make electability arguments, talk Bloomberg as focus turns to more diverse states Buttigieg: Electability argument will sway voters of color because 'we dare not get this wrong' MORE asked Himes on “Fox News Sunday.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“I don’t think it blows a hole in the case… there is ample evidence that there was a corrupt deal being cooked up,” Himes responded, citing former National Security Advisor John BoltonJohn BoltonWe should listen to John Bolton The Hill's Morning Report - Sanders on the rise as Nevada debate looms Bolton decries White House 'censorship' in rare public remarks on his book MORE’s reported reference to the arrangement as a “drug deal.”

“We know what [Sondland] has already said in his revised testimony where he revised his recollection,” Himes added, also citing the closed-door deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander VindmanAlexander VindmanCongress looks to strengthen hand in State Department following impeachment Trump unleashed: President moves with a free hand post-impeachment Donald Trump: Unrepentant, on the attack and still playing the victim MORE, who is scheduled to deliver public testimony this week.

Moreover, Himes said, “The president, who frequently says ‘I’m the most transparent guy out there’ is not letting, is refusing to permit, other people like his chief of staff, to come testify… he is refusing to permit emails and phone calls and other documents that might actually shed some light on this to come forward.”

Wallace suggested to Himes that if House Democrats don’t have any witnesses “who can take us into the Oval Office, it seems to me that creates a big problem,” and asked if Sondland could be considered a credible witness after already revising his testimony.

“That’s a good question,” Himes responded, but said “it was not lost on Ambassador Sondland what happened to the president’s close associate Roger StoneRoger Jason StoneTrump says he has 'total confidence' in Barr Judge refuses to delay Stone sentencing In defense of William Barr MORE for lying to Congress [so] my guess is Ambassador Sondland is going to do his level best to tell the truth.”

Stone was convicted on seven counts, including witness tampering and making false statements, on Friday.