Mr. Holmes, you have testified that by late August, you had a clear impression that the security

assistance hold was somehow connected to the investigations that President Trump wanted.

How did you conclude that, how did you reach that clear conclusion?

Sir, we've been hearing about the investigation since March months before, and we've been,

President Zelensky had received a letter, congratulatory letter from the president

saying he'd be pleased to meet him following his inauguration in May.

And we hadn't been able to get that meeting.

And then the security hold came up with no explanation.

And I'd be surprised if any of the Ukrainians, you said earlier, we discussed earlier,

you know, sophisticated people, when they received no explanation for why that hold was in place

they wouldn't have drawn that conclusion because the investigations were still being pursued

correct and the hold was still remaining without explanation correct so this to you was the only

logical conclusion that you could reach?

Correct.

Sort of like 2 plus 2 equals 4?

Exactly.

Sondland explained the predicament he believed he faced with a hold on aid to Ukraine. As my other State Department colleagues have testified, this security aid was critical

to Ukraine's defense and should not have been delayed. I expressed this view to many during this

period, but my goal at the time was to do what was necessary to get the aid release, to break

the logjam. I believe that the public statement we had been discussing for weeks was essential

to advancing that goal. You know, I really regret that the Ukrainians were placed in that

predicament, but I do not regret doing what I could

...