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 HimesPelosi faces tough choices on impeachment managers This week: Impeachment inquiry moves to Judiciary Committee Juan Williams: Trump has nothing left but smears MORE (D-Conn.), a top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that Democrats’ case against President TrumpDonald John TrumpRepublicans aim to avoid war with White House over impeachment strategy New York Times editorial board calls for Trump's impeachment Trump rips Michigan Rep. Dingell after Fox News appearance: 'Really pathetic!' MORE would not necessarily collapse if Ambassador to the European Union Gordon SondlandGordon SondlandConservative group hits White House with billboard ads: 'What is Trump hiding?' Democrat suggests Republicans took acting classes based on ability to 'suspend disbelief' Gaetz: We didn't impeach Obama even though 'a lot of constituents' think he abused his power 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) WallaceThe Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by AdvaMed — House panel delays impeachment vote until Friday Fox's Chris Wallace calls out Trump for the 'most sustained assault on freedom of the press' in US history Comey, Schiff to be interviewed by Fox's Chris Wallace 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 BoltonThe Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by AdvaMed — House panel delays impeachment vote until Friday Senate gears up for battle over witnesses in impeachment trial Conservative group hits White House with billboard ads: 'What is Trump hiding?' 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 VindmanWhite House limits number of officials allowed to listen to Trump calls with foreign leaders: report Impeachment sets up Ukrainian Americans for 2020 political role Director of National Intelligence Maguire should stand for the whistleblower 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 StoneDOJ backs ex-Trump campaign aide Richard Gates's probation request Schiff says investigators seeking to identify who Giuliani spoke to on unlisted '-1' number What if impeachment fails? 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.