>>> THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. THIS IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING AS PART OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS AT ANY TIME THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT. HERE IS HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL PROVIDE FOR THE HEARING. I'LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND RANKING MEMBER NUNES WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT. FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AND WE RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HERE. IN TURN WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S HEARING. >> MR. MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> IT'S THE INTENTION OF THE -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN. MAY I MAKE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY? HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 GIVES YOU THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW YOURSELF AND THE RANKING MEMBER PERIODS OF EXTENDED QUESTIONS OF UP TO 45 MINUTES EACH BEFORE OTHER MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS. IF POSSIBLE, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT BEFORE WE GET STARTED. HAVE YOU MADE THE DECISION YET AS TO HOW MANY 45 MINUTE ROUNDS YOU WILL ALLOW YOURSELF AND THE RANKING MEMBER? >> I HAVE NOT -- AS WE INFORMED THE MINORITY YESTERDAY, WE'LL SEE HOW THE FIRST PERIOD GOES AND HOW MUCH WE'RE ABLE TO GET THROUGH. AT THAT POINT THE CHAIR WILL ANNOUNCE IF THERE'S A PERIOD OF A SECOND ROUND OR WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO 45 MINUTES FOR MEMBERS. AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AND YOUR INTEREST. IN TERMS, WE EXPECT AND WILL INSIST ON DECORUM IN THE COMMITTEE. AS CHAIRMAN, I'LL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND ENSURE THE MEETING IS RAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES. IN 2014, RUSSIA INVADED THE UNITED STATES' ALLY, UKRAINE. TO REVERSE THAT NATION'S EMBRACE OF THE WEST, AND TO FULFILL VLADMIR PUTIN'S DESIRE TO REBUILD A RUSSIAN EMPIRE. IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS, 14,000 UKRAINIANS DIED AS THEY BATTLED SUPERIOR RUSSIAN FORCES. EARLIER THIS YEAR, VLADMIR ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. HE WAS A NEWCOMER TO POLITICS. AND IMMEDIATELY SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE'S MOST POWERFUL PATRON, THE UNITED STATES. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ARE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO EXPLOIT THAT ALLY'S VULNERABILITY AND INVITE UKRAINE'S INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTS SUCH AS A WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE ON UKRAINE'S WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST WITH TWO POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HELP HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN. AND IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DID EITHER, WHETHER SUCH AN ABUSE OF HIS POWER IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. THE MATTER IS AS SIMPLE AND AS TERRIBLE AS THAT. OUR ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS WILL AFFECT NOT ONLY THE FUTURE OF THIS PRESIDENCY, BUT THE FUTURE OF THE PRESIDENCY ITSELF. AND WHAT KIND OF CONDUCT OR MISCONDUCT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY COME TO EXPECT FROM THEIR COMMANDER IN CHIEF. THERE ARE FEW ACTIONS AS CONSEQUENTIAL AS THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT. THE FOUNDERS DID NOT INATTEND THAT IMPEACHMENT BE USED FOR DIFFERENCES OVER POLICY. THEY MADE IMPEACHMENT A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS CONGRESS MUST UTILIZE AS NECESSARY. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT INQUIRY ARE NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTED. BEGINNING IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, RUDY GUILIANI, PRESSED UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES TO INVESTIGATE THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST NATURAL GAS PRODUCER AND THE BIDENS. SINCE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS SEEN AS A STRONG CHALLENGER TO TRUMP. IT WAS UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA THAT HACKED THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION. THE NATION'S INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES HAVE STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY IT WAS RUSSIA, NOT UKRAINE THAT INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION. CROWD STRIKE, SHORTHAND FOR THE COMPANY THAT DISCOVERED THE RUSSIAN HACK WOULD AID HIS CLIENT'S REELECTION. GUILIANI CONDUCTED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE. ON APRIL 29TH, A SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TOLD HER THAT ALTHOUGH SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN HER. WITH THE SIDELINING OF HER, THE STAGE WAS SET FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL IN WHICH GUILIANI AND SONDLAND, NOW SERVING AS AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, COULD ADVANCE THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS. HER REPLACEMENT IN KIEV, AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR. HE PUSHED BACK INFORMING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT AND OTHERS ABOUT A PLAN TO CONDITION U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTION AND FUNDING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF POLITICAL FAVORS BY THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. FAVORS INTENDED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR SECURITY AND ELECTIONS. SEVERAL KEY EVENTS IN THE SCHEME TOOK PLACE IN THE MONTH OF JULY. ON JULY 10TH, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORMED A GROUP OF U.S. AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT ACCORDING TO MICK MULVANEY, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING SOUGHT BY THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD HAPPEN OVER IF UKRAINE UNDERTOOK AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ENERGY SECTOR WHICH WAS UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN SPECIFICALLY THE BIDENS. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON ENDED THE MEETING AND SAID AFTERWARDS HE WOULD NOT BE, QUOTE, PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS. END QUOTE. A WEEK LATER, ON JULY 18TH, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, THE WHITE HOUSE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES FEDERAL SPENDING ANNOUNCED ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE THAT MULVANEY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WAS FREEZING NEARLY $400 MILLION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS, IN WHICH THE ENTIRETY OF THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTED. ONE WEEK AFTER THAT, DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25TH PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HE HAD COMPLAINED THE U.S. RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAD NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL. LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP FOR THE SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE AND SAYS THAT UKRAINE IS READY TO PURCHASE MORE JAVELINS. TRUMP'S IMMEDIATE RESPONSE? I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH. TRUMP THEN REQUESTED THAT ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 2016 CROWD STRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY AND EVEN MORE OMINOUSLY LOOK INTO THE BIDENS. NEITHER OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS IN THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST. AND NEITHER WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PREPARATORY MATERIAL FOR THE CALL. BOTH, HOWEVER, WERE IN DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTEREST. AND ANY INTEREST OF HIS 2020 REELECTION CAMPAIGN. THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE BECAUSE SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAD BEEN PRESSING UKRAINE FOR WEEKS BEFORE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BIDENS. AFTER THE CALL, MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REPORT IT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S TOP LAWYER. THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD THEN TAKE THE EXTRAORDINARY STEP OF MOVING THE CALL RECORD TO A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SERVER, EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR THE MOST SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE MATTERS. IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR LEARNED NEW FACTS ABOUT A SCHEME THAT EVEN SONDLAND WOULD DESCRIBE AS BECOMING MORE INSIDIOUS. TAYLOR TEXTED SONDLAND, QUOTE, ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS? AS SUMMER TURNED TO FALL, IT KEPT GETTING MORE INSIDIOUS, MR. SONDLAND TESTIFIED. MR. TAYLOR, WHO TOOK NOTES OF HIS CONVERSATIONS SAID THE AMBASSADOR TOLD HIM IN A SEPTEMBER 1ST PHONE CALL THAT EVERYTHING WAS DEPENDENT ON THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS, INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE. PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED MR. ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN, SONDLAND SAID LATER. WHEN A BUSINESSMAN IS ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO OWES HIM SOMETHING THE BUSINESSMAN ASKS THAT PERSON TO PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK. IN A SWORN DECLARATION AFTER TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY, SONDLAND WOULD ADMIT TO TELLING UKRAINIANS AT A MEETING IN WARSAW, THE RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY NOT OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE PROVIDED THE PUBLIC ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT THAT WE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING FOR MANY WEEKS. THE PRESIDENT 'S CHIEF OF STAFF CONFIRMED TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO COERCE UKRAINE BY WITHHOLDING AID. WHEN MICK MULVANEY WAS ASKED PUBLICLY ABOUT IT HIS ANSWER WAS BREATHTAKING. WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY, HE SAID. I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT. THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY. THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE VIDEO OF THAT CONFESSION IS PLAIN FOR ALL TO SEE. SOME HAVE ARGUED IN THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED AND THAT IS TRUE. BUT ONLY AFTER CONGRESS BEGAN AN INVESTIGATION. ONLY AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS LEARNED OF A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT AND ONLY AFTER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BEGAN ASKING UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT QUID QUO PROS. A SCHEME TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTS OR TAXPAYER FUNDING TO OBTAIN A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT DOES NOT BECOME LESS ODIOUS BECAUSE IT'S DISCOVERED BEFORE IT'S FULLY CONSUMMATED. IN FACT, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN DELAYED SO LONG, IT WOULD TAKE ANOTHER ACT OF CONGRESS TO INSURE THAT IT COULD STILL GO OUT. THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING THAT ZELENSKY SOUGHT, IT STILL HASN'T HAPPENED. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THESE EVENTS IN THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, THERE ARE STILL MISSING PIECES. THE PRESIDENT HAS INSTRUCTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES TO IGNORE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS. HE'S INSTRUCTED WITNESSES TO DEFY SUBPOENAS AND REFUSE TO APPEAR. HE HAS SUGGESTED THOSE WHO DO EXPOSE WRONGDOING SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE TRAITORS AND SPIES. THESE ACTIONS WILL FORCE CONGRESS TO CONSIDER, AS IT DID WITH PRESIDENT NIXON, WHETHER TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES OF CONGRESS CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. IF THE PRESIDENT CAN REFUSE ALL OVERSIGHT, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN OUR TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WILL BE IRREVOCABLE ALTERED. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. AND THE PROSPECTS WERE FURTHER CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER IN THIS ADMINISTRATION OR ANY OTHER WILL BE EXPONENTIALLY INCREASED. THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY WILL SHOW, BOTH AS TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND AS TO HIS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THE ISSUE THAT WE CONFRONT IS THE ONE POSED BY THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF WHEN HE CHALLENGED AMERICANS TO GET OVER IT. IF WE FIND THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABUSED HIS POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, OR IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, COERCE, EXTORT OR BRIBE AN ALLY AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID, MUST WE SIMPLY GET OVER IT? IS THIS WHAT AMERICANS SHOULD NOW EXPECT FROM THEIR PRESIDENT? IF THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT, WHAT IS? DOES THE OATH OF OFFICE ITSELF REQUIRING THAT OUR LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED, THAT OUR PRESIDENT DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION THAT BALANCES THE POWERS OF ITS BRANCHES, SETTING AMBITION AGAINST AMBITION STILL HAVE MEANING? THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE MUST ASK AND ANSWER. WITHOUT RANCOR IF WE CAN, WITHOUT DELAY REGARDLESS, AND WITHOUT PARTY FAVOR AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE IF WE'RE TRUE TO OUR RESPONSIBILITIES. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WAS ASKED WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY AMERICA WAS TO BECOME. A REPUBLIC HE ANSWERED IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD J. TRUMP IS, CAN WE KEEP IT. I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE MAPE WISH TO MAKE. >> THANK YOU. IN A JULY OPEN HEARING OF THIS COMMITTEE FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE MUELLER REPORT, THE DEMOCRATS ENGAGED IN A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT. THAT HEARING WAS THE PIVOTAL FINALE OF A THREE-YEAR LONG OPERATION BY THE DEMOCRATS, THE CORRUPT MEDIA, AND PARTISAN BUREAUCRATS TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTION. AFTER THE SPECTACULAR IMPLOSION OF THEIR RUSSIA HOAX ON JULY 24TH, IN WHICH THEY SPENT YEARS DENOUNCING ANY REPUBLICAN WHO EVER SHOOK HANDS WITH A RUSSIAN, ON JULY 25TH, THEY TURNED ON A DIME AND NOW CLAIM THE REAL MALFEASANCE IS REPUBLICANS' DEALINGS WITH UKRAINE. IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, WE'RE ASKED TO SIMPLY FORGET ABOUT DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE FALSELY CLAIMING THEY HAD MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUSSIANS. WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THEM READING FABRICATIONS OF TRUMP/RUSSIA COLLUSION FROM THE STEELE DOSSIER INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THEM TRYING TO OBTAIN NUDE PICTURES OF TRUMP FROM RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS WHO PRETENDED TO BE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THEM LEAKING A FALSE STORY TO CNN WHILE HE WAS TESTIFYING TO OUR COMMITTEE, CLAIMING DONALD TRUMP JR. WAS COLLUDING WITH WIKILEAKS. THEY'RE THE LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH WITH CREDIBILITY TO HURL MORE ACCUSATIONS AT THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS. AND YET NOW, HERE WE ARE. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THESE PEOPLE AT FACE VALUE WHEN THEY TROT OUT A NEW BATCH OF ALLEGATIONS, BUT ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE DEMOCRATS' SCORCHED EARTH WAR AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE ALL THE TYPICAL SIGNS THAT THIS IS A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED MEDIA SMEAR CAMPAIGN. FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER VOWING PUBLICLY THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING IMPEACHMENT FORWARD WITHOUT THE BACKING OF A SINGLE REPUBLICAN. THE WITNESSES DEEMED SUITABLE FOR TELEVISION BY THE DEMOCRATS WERE PUT THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR AUDITION PROCESS IN A CULT-LIKE ATMOSPHERE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL WHERE DEMOCRATS CONDUCTED SECRET DEPOSITIONS, RELEASED A FLOOD OF MISLEADING AND ONE SIDED LEAKS, AND LATER SELECTIVELY RELEASED TRANSCRIPTS IN A HIGHLY STAGED MANNER. VIOLATING THEIR OWN GUIDELINES, DEMOCRATS REDACTED FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS THE NAME OF A CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WHO WORKED WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO COLLECT DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WHICH HE PROVIDED TO THE DNC AND THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. THE DEMOCRATS REJECTED MOST OF THE REPUBLICANS' WITNESS REQUESTS, RESULTING IN A HORRIFICALLY ONE-SIDED PROCESS WHERE THE CRUCIAL WITNESSES ARE DENIED A PLATFORM IF THEIR TESTIMONY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS' ABSURD ACCUSATIONS. NOTABLY, THEY'RE TRYING TO IMP IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT BIDEN'S ACTIVITIES. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE A BIAS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ATTORNEY TOUTED A COUP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND CALLED FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT JUST WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION. AT A PRIOR HEARING, DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE READ OUT A PURELY FICTITIOUS RENDITION OF THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THEY FOUND THE REAL CONVERSATION TO BE INSUFFICIENT FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE. SO THEY JUST MADE UP A NEW ONE. MOST EGREGIOUSLY, THE STAFF OF THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAD DIRECT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BEFORE HIS OR HER COMPLAINT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. REPUBLICANS CAN'T GET A FULL ACCOUNT OF THESE CONTACTS BECAUSE DEMOCRATS BROKE THEIR PROMISE TO HAVE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TESTIFY TO THIS COMMITTEE. DEMOCRAT MEMBERS HID THESE CONTACTS FROM REPUBLICANS AND THEN LIED ABOUT THEM TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. I'VE NOTED BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A LONG HABIT OF ACCUSING REPUBLICANS OF OFFENSES THEY THEMSELVES ARE COMMITTING. LET'S RECALL FOR YEARS THEY ACCUSED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA WHEN THEY THEMSELVES WERE COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA BY FUND THE STEELE DOSSIER. NOW THEY ACCUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP OF MALFEASANCE IN UKRAINE WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE CULPABLE. THE DEMOCRATS COOPERATED IN UKRAINIAN ELECTIONS. ALL WHILE HIS FATHER SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT. DESPITE THIS HYPOCRISY, THE DEMOCRATS ARE ADVANCING THEIR IMPEACHMENT SHAM, BUT WE SHOULD NOT HOLD ANY HEARINGS AT ALL UNTIL WE GET ANSWERS TO THREE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS ARE DETERMINED TO AVOID ASKING. FIRST, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS' PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER? AND WHO ELSE DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH? SECOND, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? THIRD, WHY DID BARISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM? DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION? THESE QUESTIONS REMAIN OUTSTANDING WAS REPUBLICANS WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES THAT KNOW THESE ANSWERS. WHAT WE'LL WITNESS TODAY IS A TELEVISED THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE, STAGED BY THE DEMOCRATS. AMBASSADOR TAPELER AND MR. KENT, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU HERE. I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU FOR PASSING THE DEMOCRATS' STAR OF CHAMBER AUDITIONS HELD FOR THE LAST WEEKS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL. IT SEEMS YOU AGREED WILLING OR UNWITTINGLY TO PARTICIPATE IN A DRAMA. THE MAIN PERFORMANCE, THE RUSSIA HOAX, HAS ENDED. AND YOU'VE BEEN CAST IN THE LOW RENT UKRAINIAN SEQUEL. I'LL CONCLUDE BY NOTING THE IMMENSE DAMAGE OF POLITICIZED BUREAUCRACY HAS DONE TO AMERICANS' FAITH IN US. ELEMENTS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE HAS DECIDED THAT THEY, NOT THE PRESIDENT, ARE REALLY IN CHARGE. THUS AS WE'LL LEARN IN THESE HEARINGS AFTER EXPRESSING SKEPTICISM OF FOREIGN AID AND CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED SKEPTICALLY ABOUT FOREIGN AID AND EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT FOREIGN CORRUPTION. OFFICIALS ALARM THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS WAS TYPICALLY BASED ON SECONDHAND, THIRD HAND AND EVEN FOURTH HAND RUMORS AND INNUENDO. THEY BELIEVED IT WAS AN OUTRAGE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE AN AMBASSADOR, EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN OR REMOVE DIPLOMATS FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME. OFFICIALS SHOWED THE SURPRISING LACK OF INTEREST IN THE INDICATIONS OF UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING THAT DEEPLY CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT AT WHOSE PLEASURE THEY SERVE. DESPITE ALL THEIR DISSATISFACTION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UKRAINE POLICY, THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THE SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH PROVIDED BLANKETS AS DEFENSE AGAINST INVADING RUSSIANS. BY UNDERMINING THE PRESIDENT WHO THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING, THE ELEMENTS OF THE FBI, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND NOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE LOST THE CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEIR VOTE SHOULD COUNT FOR SOMETHING. IT WILL TAKE YEARS IF NOT DECADES TO RESTORE FAITH IN THESE INSTITUTIONS. THIS SPECTACLE IS DOING GREAT DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY. IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN SEARCH OF A CRIME. THAT I YIELD BACK. >> TODAY WE'RE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAS SERVED OUR COUNTRY FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY. HE ATTENDED THE U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT, GRADUATING IN THE TOP 1% OF HIS CLASS BEFORE SERVING AS AN INFANTRY OFFICER IN THE U.S. ARMY FOR SIX YEARS, INCLUDING WITH 101st AIRBORNE DIVISION DURING THE VIETNAM WAR. HE LED A RIFLE PLATOON IN VIETNAM AND WAS AWARDED THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL AND THE AIR MEDAL FOR VALOR. HE WORKED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AS A STAFFER IN THE U.S. SENATE, AS AN ADVISOR AS WELL AS TO U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO. IN THE 1990s, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COORDINATED U.S. ASSISTANCE TO EASTERN EUROPE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION AND LATER SERVED IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND WORKED ON THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS. IN 2006, PRESIDENT BUSH NOMINATED HIM AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WHERE HE SERVED UNTIL 2009, AND THEN WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA TO BE SPECIAL COORDINATOR FOR MIDDLE EAST TRANSITIONS. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS SERVING AS THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NONPARTISAN INSTITUTE FOR PEACE WHEN IN JUNE 2019, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO ASKED HIM TO RETURN TO LEAD THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV. MR. GEORGE KENT, CURRENTLY SERVES AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, OVERSEEING POLICE TOWARDS UKRAINE. HE'S SERVED TWICE IN UKRAINE. HE WAS THE DEPUTY POLITICAL COUNSELOR. FROM 2015 TO 2018, HE SERVED AS DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION IN KIEV. SINCE JOINING THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 1992 HE HAS SERVED IN POLAND, UZBEKISTAN AND THAILAND. HE ALSO SERVED AS THE SENIOR ANTI-CORRUPTION COORDINATOR AND OVERSAW PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN THE RULE OF LAW. ALL WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF REPRISAL OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FOR TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. IF YOU WOULD BOTH RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I'LL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUE, SO HELP YOU GOD? LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, AND PLEASE BE SEATED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN CAN WE ANTICIPATE A RESPONSE TO OUR NOVEMBER 9TH LETTER REQUESTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES TO BE CALLED? >> THE GENTLE WOMAN SHOULD BE AWARE THREE OF THE WITNESSES ARE SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK -- >> THOSE WERE YOUR WITNESSES, WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL SIX WITNESSES? >> YOU MAY INQUIRE ABOUT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OR MAKE A REQUEST FOLLOWING THE WITNESS TESTIMONY. >> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. MR. CHAIRMAN, WILL YOU BE PROHIBITING WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING MEMBERS' QUESTIONS AS YOU HAVE IN THE CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITIONS? >> AS THE GENTLE WOMAN SHOULD KNOW, SHE WAS PRESENT -- >> WHICH I WAS, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> FOR SOME OF THEM, YES -- >> CORRECT. >> THE ONLY TIMES I PREVENTED WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS, ALONG WITH OUR COUNSEL, WAS WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THAT MEMBERS WERE SEEKING TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. WE'LL DO EVERYTHING NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S IDENTITY, AND I'M DISTURBED TO HEAR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO HAVE IN THE PAST VOICED STRONG SUPPORT FOR WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTIONS SEEK TO UNDERMINE THOSE PROTECTIONS BY OUTING THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, ONLY ONE MEMBER AND THEIR STAFF ON THIS COMMITTEE HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> SUSPEND. YOU ASKED A PARLIAMENARY INQUIRY AND I'M RESPONDING. WE'LL NOT PERMIT THE OUTING OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND QUESTIONS ALONG THOSE LINES, COUNSEL WILL INFORM THEIR CLIENTS NOT TO RESPOND TO. IF NECESSARY, I WILL INTERVENE. OTHERWISE, I WANT MEMBERS TO FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY LIKE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION -- >> I'M SORRY -- THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- I'M RESPONDING TO THE GENTLE WOMAN'S POINT OF ORDER. DO YOU SEEK RECOGNITION FOR WHAT PURPOSE? >> TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACTUALLY SUBPOENA THE WHISTLE-BLOWER FOR A CLOSED DOOR SECRET DEPOSITION SO THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY ASKED OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BY OUR SIDE AND YOUR SIDE MAY ASK. I WOULD PREFER THAT RATHER THAN IT BE YOUR SINGLE DECISION, THAT THE COMMITTEE SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE RATHER THAN JUST THE CHAIRMAN. I MOVE THAT WE -- >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN -- >> SUBPOENA THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> IT WON'T BE MY SINGLE DECISION. WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SUBPOENA ANY WITNESS, BUT AFTER THE WITNESSES HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY -- >> MOTION WILL BE IN ORDER. THAT MOTION WILL BE SUSPENDED -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, DO YOU ANTICIPATE WHEN WE WOULD -- >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES MR. JORDAN -- >> DO YOU ANTICIPATE WHEN WE MIGHT VOTE ON THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IN FRONT OF US, SOMETHING YOU, THE 435 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, YOU'RE THE ONLY MEMBER WHO KNOWS WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL IS AND YOUR STAFF IS THE ONLY STAFF OF ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO HAS HAD A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL. WE'D LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. WHEN MIGHT THAT HAPPEN IN THIS PROCEEDING TODAY? >> AS THE GENTLEMAN KNOWS, THAT'S A FALSE STATEMENT. I DO NOT KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND I'M DETERMINED TO MAKE SURE THAT IDENTITY IS PROTECTED. BUT AS I SAID TO MR. CONWAY, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE WITNESSES TESTIFY TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUBPOENA ANY WITNESS AND COMPEL A VOTE. WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE THE WITNESSES -- BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO JUST EMPHASIZE THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE. PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM. WITHOUT OBJECTION YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. AND WITH THAT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS GEORGE KENT, AND I AM THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE CAUCUSES. I HAVE SERVED PROUDLY AS A NON-PARTISAN CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR MORE THAN 27 YEARS UNDER FIVE PRESIDENTS, THREE REPUBLICAN, AND TWO DEMOCRAT. AS I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING COMMENTS LAST MONTH IN THE CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION, I REPRESENT THE THIRD GENERATION OF MY FAMILY TO HAVE CHOSEN A CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND SWORN THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT ALL U.S. PUBLIC SERVANTS DO IN DEFENSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION. THERE HAS BEEN A GEORGE KENT SWORN TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION CONTINUOUSLY FOR NEARLY 60 YEARS AFTER MY FATHER GRADUATED FIRST IN HIS NAVAL ACADEMY LAST IN 1965. THE YEAR BEST KNOWN FOR HIS FRIEND'S HEISMAN AWARD WINNER. FIVE GREAT UNCLES SERVED HONORABLY IN THE NAVY AND THE ARMY IN WORLD WAR II. IN PARTICULAR, TOM TAGGART WAS STATIONED IN THE PHILIPPINES AT THE TIME OF PEARL HARBOR. HE SURVIVED THREE AND A HALF YEARS IN A JAPANESE WAR CAMP UNBROKEN. HE RETURNED AS AN AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE UPHOLDING THE LAW UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1965. I APPEAR BEFORE YOU ONCE AGAIN UNDER SUBPOENA AS A FACT WITNESS, READY TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EVENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS EXAMINED IN THIS INQUIRY. TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND RECOLLECTION, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS PLACED ON ME BY THE LAW IN THIS PROCESS. I WILL BEGIN WITH OPENING COMMENTS ON KEY PRINCIPLES AT THE HEART OF WHAT BRINGS ME BEFORE YOU TODAY. TO WIT, PRINCIPLED PUBLIC SERVICE IN PURSUIT OF OUR ENDURING NATIONAL INTERESTS AND THE PLACE OF UKRAINE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS WE'VE FOCUSED ON EFFORTS ACROSS THE ATLANTIC TO SUPPORT UKRAINE IN ITS FIGHT FOR THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM. THE REBIRTH OF A COUNTRY FREE FROM RUSSIAN DOMINION AND THE LEGACY OF SOVIET INSTITUTIONS AND POST SOVIET BEHAVIOR. AS I STATED IN MY CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION LAST MONTH, YOU DON'T STEP INTO THE PUBLIC ARENA OF INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY IN ACT OF PURSUIT OF PRINCIPLED U.S. INTERESTS WITHOUT EXPECTING VIGOROUS PUSHBACK. INCLUDING PERSONAL ATTACKS. SUCH ATTACKS CAME FROM THE RUSSIANS, THEIR PROXIES AND CORRUPT UKRAINIANS. THAT TELLS ME OUR EFFORTS WERE HITTING THEIR MARK. IT WAS UNEXPECTED AND MOST UNFORTUNATE, HOWEVER, TO WATCH SOME AMERICANS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ALIGNED THEMSELVES WITH CORRUPT UKRAINIANS IN PURSUIT OF PRIVATE AGENDAS LAUNCH ATTACKS ON DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS ADVANCING U.S. INTEREST IN UKRAINE. IN MY OPINION, THOSE ATTACKS UNDERMINED U.S. AND UKRAINIAN NATIONAL INTERESTS AND DAMAGED OUR CRITICAL BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP. THE UNITED STATES HAS VERY CLEAR NATIONAL INTEREST AT STAKE IN UKRAINE. UKRAINE'S SUCCESS IS VERY MUCH IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST. IN THE WAY WE HAVE DEFINED OUR NATIONAL INTEREST BROADLY IN EUROPE FOR THE PAST 75 YEARS. AFTER WORLD WAR II, U.S. LEADERSHIP FURTHERED OUR POLICIES LIKE THE MARSHAL PLAN IN CREATION OF A RULES BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER. PROTECTED BY THE SECURITY PROVIDED BY NATO, WESTERN EUROPE THRIVED. AFTER THE CARNAGE OF WORLD WAR II, NOT WITHSTANDING THE IRON CURTAIN. SUPPORT OF UKRAINE'S SUCCESS ALSO FITS SQUARELY INTO OUR STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE SINCE THE FALL OF THE WALL 30 YEARS AGO THIS PAST WEEK. A EUROPE TRULY WHOLE, FREE AND AT PEACE, OUR STRATEGIC GAIN FOR THE ENTIRETY OF MY CAREER IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT A UKRAINE, WHOLE, FREE AND AT PEACE, INCLUDING CRIMEA, TERRITORIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY RUSSIA. REPRESENTED BY THE RED ON THE MAP. LOOKING FORWARD, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY MAKES CLEAR THE GLOBAL STRATEGIC CHALLENGE NOW BEFORE US. GREAT POWER COMPETITION WITH RIVALS SUCH AS RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE NEED TO COMPETE FOR POSITIVE INFLUENCE. WITHOUT TAKING COUNTRIES FOR GRANTED. IN THAT SENSE, UKRAINE HAS BEEN ON THE FRONT LINES, NOT JUST OF RUSSIA'S CONVENTIONAL WAR IN EASTERN EUROPE SINCE 2013 AND ITS BROADER CAMPAIGN OF INFLUENCE, BUT THE GREATER GEO POLITICAL INFLUENCES NOW FACING THE UNITED STATES. UKRAINE'S POPULAR REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014 FORCED A CORRUPT PRO RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP TO FLEE TO MOSCOW. AFTER THAT, RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE, OCCUPYING 7% OF ITS TERRITORY, ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE SIZE OF TEXAS IN THE UNITED STATES. AT THAT TIME, UKRAINE'S STATE INSTITUTIONS WERE ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE. UKRAINIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ANSWERED THE CHALLENGE. THEY FORMED VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS OF CITIZENS, INCLUDING TECHNOLOGY OFFICIALS AND MEDICS. THEY CROWDSOURCED THEIR BODY WEAPONS AND SUPPLIES. THEY WERE THE EQUIVALENT OF OUR MINUTEMEN OF 1776. BUYING TIME FOR A REGULAR ARMY. SINCE THEN, MORE THAN 13,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED ON UKRAINIAN SOIL DEFENDING THEIR SOVEREIGNTY FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. AMERICA'S SUPPORT IN UKRAINE'S OWN DE FACTO WAR OF INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN CRITICAL IN THIS REGARD. BY ANALOGY, THE AMERICAN COLONIES MAY NOT HAVE PREVAILED AGAINST THE BRITISH AFTER HELP FROM FRIENDS IN 1776. CONGRESS HAS GENEROUSLY APPROPRIATED OVER $1.5 BILLION OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS IN TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. THESE FUNDS INCREASE UKRAINE'S STRENGTH AND ABILITY TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. UKRAINE IS ON A PATH TO BECOME A FULL SECURITY PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN NATO. U.S. AND NATO ALLY TRAINERS DEVELOP THE SKILLS OF UKRAINIANS. THEY HELP REWRITE MILITARY EDUCATION FOR UKRAINE'S NEXT GENERATION. IN SUPPORTING UKRAINE'S BRAVE RESISTANCE TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, WE HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THE RUSSIAN WAY OF WAR IN THE 21st CENTURY. GAINING PRICELESS INSIGHTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR OWN SECURITY. THIS YEAR IN 2019, UKRAINIAN CITIZENS PASSED THE POLITICAL TORCH TO A NEW GENERATION. ONE THAT CAME OF AGE NOT IN THE FINAL YEARS OF THE SOVIET UNION, BUT IN AN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE. PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS SWEPT OUT MUCH OF UKRAINE'S PREVIOUS GOVERNING ELITE AND CEDED 41-YEAR-OLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, A CABINET WITH AN AVERAGE AGE OF 39 AND A PARLIAMENT WITH THE AVERAGE AGE OF 41. AT THE HEART OF THAT CHANGE MANDATE FIVE YEARS AFTER UKRAINE'S REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IS A THIRST FOR JUSTICE BECAUSE THERE CANNOT BE DIGNITY WITHOUT JUSTICE. WITHOUT A REFORMED JUDICIAL SECTOR THAT DELIVERS JUSTICE WITH INTEGRITY FOR ALL, UKRAINIAN SOCIETY WILL REMAIN UNSETTLED. FOREIGN INVESTORS, INCLUDING AMERICAN INVESTORS WILL NOT BRING THE GREAT INVESTMENT NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT UKRAINE'S LONG-TERM PROSPERITY IS SECURED. THIS IS WHY THE PRINCIPLED PROMOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY IS SO NECESSARY TO OUR STRATEGY FOR A SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE. IT'S ALSO TRUE FOR OTHER NATIONS STILL RECOVERING FROM THE ASHES OF SOVIET AND COMMUNIST MISRULE. IT'S WHY ACTING INCONSISTENTLY WITH THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF THE RULE OF LAW COMES AT GREAT PERIL. I'M GRATEFUL TO ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND STAFFERS, INCLUDING MANY OF YOU SITTING HERE TODAY WHO HAVE TRAVELLED TO UKRAINE OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND APPROPRIATED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ASSISTANCE IN SUPPORT OF OUR PRIMARY POLICY GOALS. THOSE FUNDS INCREASE UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN THE DEFENSE ENERGY CYBER AND INFORMATION SPHERE AND THEY EMPOWER STATE INSTITUTIONS IN CIVIL SOCIETY TO UNDERTAKE SYSTEMIC REFORMS AND TACKLE CORRUPTION. I BELIEVE ALL OF US CAN BE PROUD OF OUR EFFORTS IN UKRAINE OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, EVEN THOUGH MUCH REMAINS TO BE DONE. BY ALL OF US, I MEAN THOSE OF US IN THE LEGISLATIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES, IN BOTH PARTIES, THE INTERAGENCY COMMUNITY WORKING OUT OF OUR EMBASSY IN KIEV WITH UKRAINIANS IN GOVERNMENT, THE MILITARY AND CIVIL SOCIETY, AND OUR TRANSATLANTIC ALLIES AND PARTNERS. WE CANNOT ALLOW OUR RESOLVE TO WAIVER, SINCE TOO MUCH IS AT STAKE. NOT JUST FOR UKRAINE AND THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY, BUT FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES BROADLY DEFINED. MY PRIOR DEPOSITION COVERED A LOT OF GROUND OVER TEN HOURS. HERE ARE THE MAIN TEN THEMES FROM MY TESTIMONY. I OUTLINED MY EXPERIENCE WITH LONG-STANDING U.S. INTEREST IN SUPPORTING ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE. THIS WORK GAVE ME A FRONT ROW SEAT TO PROBLEMATIC ACTIVITIES BY SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTOR'S GENERAL INQUIRY. FOR MANY OF THE ISSUES THIS COMMITTEE IS INVESTIGATING, MY KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IS SOMETIMES FIRST-HAND, AND SOMETIMES COMES FROM OTHERS INVOLVED IN SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS AND MEETINGS. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN HOW ANYONE LEARNS AND CARRIES OUT HIS OR HER JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. I HAVE BEEN AND REMAIN WILLING TO SHARE MY FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEE AND WILL MAKE CLEAR WHEN THOSE ARE BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, OR FROM INFORMATION GLEANED FROM OTHERS. U.S. EFFORTS TO COUNTER CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE FOCUS ON BUILDING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY SO THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO GO AFTER CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE AND JUDGE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES USING APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS. THAT IS, TO CREATE AND FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW. THAT MEANS THAT IF THERE ARE CRIMINAL NEXUSES FOR ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES, U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD PURSUE THE CASE. IF WE THINK THERE'S BEEN A CRIMINAL ACT OVERSEAS THAT VIOLATES U.S. LAW, WE HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS THAT. IT COULD BE THROUGH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI AGENTS ASSIGNED OVERSEAS, OR THROUGH TREATY MECHANISMS. AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ASK OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE IN SELECTIVE POLITICALLY ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATIONS OR PROSECUTIONS AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THOSE IN POWER BECAUSE SUCH SELECTIVE ACTIONS UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW REGARDLESS OF THE COUNTRY. THE PERVASIVE AND LONG-STANDING PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE INCLUDED EXPOSURE TO A SITUATION INVOLVING BARISMA. THE CONCERN OF THE UNITED STATES WAS THE OWNER, WHOSE FROZEN ASSETS ABROAD WE HAD ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER ON UKRAINE'S BEHALF. IN EARLY 2015, I RAISED QUESTIONS WITH THE DEPUTY PROSECUTOR GENERAL ABOUT WHY THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN TERMINATED. BASED ON OUR BELIEF THAT PROSECUTORS HAD ACCEPTED BRIBES TO CLOSE THE CASE. LATER, I BECAME AWARE THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD, SOON AFTER THAT IN A BRIEFING CALL WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT IN FEBRUARY OF 2015, I RAISED MY CONCERN THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S STATUS AS A BOARD MEMBER WOULD CREATE THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. LET ME BE CLEAR, HOWEVER, I DID NOT WITNESS ANY EFFORT BY ANY U.S. OFFICIAL TO SHIELD THEM FROM SCRUTINY. WE CONSISTENTLY ADVOCATED REINSTITUTING A SCUTTLE INVESTIGATION OF BARISMA'S FOUNDER, AS WELL AS THE PROSECUTORS WHO CLOSED THE CASE TO ACCOUNT. OVER THE COURSE OF 2018 AND 2019 I BECAME AWARE OF AN EFFORT BY RUDY GUILIANI AND OTHERS, INCLUDING HIS ASSOCIATES TO RUN A CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR THE AMBASSADOR AND OTHER OFFICIALS AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV. THE CHIEF AGITATORS ON THE UKRAINIAN SIDE OF THIS EFFORT WERE SOME OF THE AIM CORRUPT PROSECUTORS I HAD ENCOUNTERED. THEY WERE PEDALLING FALSE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO EXTRACT REVENGE AGAINST THOSE WHO THEIR. DURING THE LATE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2019, I BECAME ALARMED AS THOSE EFFORTS BORE FRUIT. THEY LED TO THE OUSTER OF THE AMBASSADOR AND HAMPERED U.S. EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH RAPPORT WITH THE NEW ADMINISTRATION IN UKRAINE. IN MID AUGUST, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT GUILIANI'S EFFORTS TO GIN UP POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS WERE AFFECTING U.S.'S RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE. THERE HAVE BEEN CONDITIONALITY PLACED ON OUR SOVEREIGN LOAN GUARANTEES ON UKRAINE. THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND DOES THE SAME THING. CONGRESS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WORK TOGETHER TO PUT CONDITIONALITY ON SOME ASSISTANCE IN THE UKRAINE ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE. REGARDING MY TESTIMONY TODAY I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS THAT WILL INVOLVE ISSUES, CONVERSATIONS AND DOCUMENTS THAT SPAN A NUMBER OF YEARS. I MAY BE LIMITED BY THREE CONSIDERATIONS. FIRST, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS COLLECTED ALL MATERIALS IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 27th SUBPOENA THAT MAY CONTAIN FACTS RELEVANT TO MY TESTIMONY. I HAVE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS WITH ME TODAY. I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER AS ACCURATELY, COMPLETELY AND TRUTHFULLY AS I CAN TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. SECOND, AS THIS COMMITTEE KNOWS FROM DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, THROUGHOUT THIS PROSSETS THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS THAT QUESTIONS MAY BE ASKED ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. WE HAVE ASKED THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR GUIDANCE ABOUT CLASSIFICATION CONCERNS RELATE THE TO THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF MY DEPOSITION AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS DECLINED TO PROVIDE ANY. IF I'M ASKED A QUESTION TODAY THAT I BELIEVE MAY IMMICATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, I WILL RESPECTFULLY DECLINE. THIRD, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOCUSING ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. IF SUCH A QUESTION ARISES TODAY I WILL FOLLOW MY COUNSEL'S ADVICE AND DECLINE TO ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE MY REMARKS WITH AN OBSERVATION ABOUT SOME OF MY FELLOW PUBLIC SERVICEANTS WHO HAVE COME UNDER ATTACKS. AMBASSADOR YOEFB ANL VETCH, LIEU TAENT VINDMAN AND DR. HILL, AT LEAST ONE YOU HAVE WHOM IS GOING TO APPEAR. THEY WERE BORN ABROAD BEFORE THEIR FAMILIES OR THEY THEMSELVES PERSONALLY CHOSE TO IMGRABT TO THE UNITED STATES. THEY ALL MADE THE PROFESSIONAL CHOICE TO SERVE THE UNITED STATES AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS, HELPING SHAPE OR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA IN PARTICULAR AND WE AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ARE THE BETTER FOR IT. IN THIS SENSE THEY ARE THE 21st CENTURY HEIRES. THE YOVANOVITCH'S FLED OPPRESSION TO CONTRIBUTE TO A STRONGER, MORE SECURE AMERICA. THAT HONORABLE TRADITION OF TRANSATLANTIC TIES GOES BACK TO THE FOUNDING OF OUR REPUBLIC. OUR 18th CENTURY INDEPENDENCE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHOUT THE CHOICE OF EUROPEAN OFFICERS, THE FRENCH, THE GERMAN AND THE POLES, TO COME TO THE NEW WORLD AND FIGHT FOR OUR CAUSE OF FREEDOM AND THE BIRTH OF A NEW COUNTRY FREE FROM IMPERIAL DOE MINION. IT IS MY PRIV LOECHL TO SIT NEXT TO MY FORMER BOSS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TODAY AND MY HONOR TO SAVE WITH ALL OF THESE PATRIOTIC AMERICANS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M APPEARING TODAY AT THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST TO PROVIDE MY PERSPECTIVE OF THE EVENTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AT THE OUTSET THAT WHILE I AM AWARE THE COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED MY TESTIMONY AS PART OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, I AM NOT HERE TO TAKE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OR TO ADVOCATE FOR ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOME OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. MY SOUL PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE FACTS AS I KNOW THEM ABOUT THE INCIDENTS IN QUESTION AS WELL AS MY VIEWS ABOUT THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE TO THE UNITED STATES. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, IT HAS BEEN A PREV LINL FOR ME TO SERVE FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, STARTING AT A CADET AT WEST POINT, IT IS AN ICHB FANTRY OFFICER FOR SIX YEARS INCLUDING WITH THE 101st DIVISION IN VIETNAM AND AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THEN AS A SENATE STAFF THEN NATO THEN WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT HERE AND ABROAD, IN AFGHANISTAN, YAURK, JERUSALEM AND UKRAINE. I RETIRED IN 2009. I'M NEITHER A CAREER MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE. I'M NONPARTISAN AND HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY EVERY PRESIDENT FROM PRESIDENT REAGAN TO TRUMP. LET ME SUMMARIZE MY MAIN POINTS. FIRST, UKRAINE IS A STRATEGIC PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES, IMPORTANT FOR THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY AS WELL AS EUROPE. UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONTLINE IN THE CONFLICT WITH A NEWLY AGGRESSIVE RUSSIA. SECOND, EVEN AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, THE RUSSIANS ARE ATTACKING UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. I SAW THIS ON THE FRONTLINE LAST WEEK. THE DAY I WAS THERE, A UKRAINIAN SOLDIER WAS KILLED AND FOUR WERE WOUNDED. THIRD, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WE PROVIDE IS CRUCIAL TO UKRAINE'S DEFENSE AND TO THE PROTECTION OF THE SOLDIERS I MET ON THE FRONTLINE LAST WEEK. IT DEMONSTRATES TO UKRAINIANS AND RUSSIANS THAT WE ARE UKRAINE'S RELIABLE STRATEGIC PARTNER. IT IS CLEARLY IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. AND FINALLY AS THE COMMITTEE IS AWARE, I WROTE THAT WITHHOLDING ASSISTANCE IN EXCHANGE FOR HELP FOR THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE CRAZY. I BELIEVED THAT THEN AND I BELIEVE IT NOW. LET ME TELL YOU WHY. I MET WITH SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO WHO ASKED ME TO REJOIN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND RETURN TO KIEV TO LEAD OUR EMBASSY IN UKRAINE. IT WAS AND IS A CRITCATCAL TIME FOR U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONS. I HAD SERVED FROM 2006 TO 2009. HAVING BEEN NOMINATED BY GEORGE W. BUSH AND IN THE INTERVENING TEN YEARS HAD STAYED ENGAGED WITH UKRAINE. RA CROSS THE RESPONSIBILITIES I'VE HAD, UKRAINE IS THE HIGHLIGHT. AND SO SECRETARY POMPEO'S OFFER WAS COMPELLING. SINCE I LEFT UKRAINE IN 2009, THE COUNTRY HAD CONTINUED TO TURN TOWARD THE WEST. BUT IN 2013, VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS SO THREATENED BY THE PROSPECT OF UKRAINE JOINING THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT HE TRIED TO BRIBE THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. THIS TRIGGERED MASS PROTESTERS IN THE WINTER OF 2013 THAT DROVE THAT PRESIDENT TO FLEE TO RUSSIA IN FEBRUARY 2014, BUT NOT BEFORE HIS FORCES KILLED 100 UKRAINIAN PROTESTERS IN CENTRAL KIEV. DAYS LATER, MR. PUTIN INNOVATE VAIDED CRIMEA HOLDING A SHAM REF REN DUCHL AT THE POINT OF RUSSIAN HARMU ARMY RIFLES. THE RUSSIANS ABSURDLY CLAIMED THAT 97% VOTED TO JOIN RUSSIA. HE SENT FORCES TO GENERATE ILLEGAL ARMED FORMATIONS AND PUPPET GOVERNMENTS IN WHAT WE KNOW AS DONBAS. YOU CAN SEE THIS ON THE MAP IN THE RIGHT-HAND PORTION, EASTERN PORTION. COUNTRY. 14,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED IN THE WAR IN DOMDAS, AND MORE DIE EACH WEEK. IN JEWEL 2014, THESE RUSSIAN-LED FORCES SHOT DOWN A CIVILIAN AIRLINERS EN ROUTE FROM AMSTERDAM TO MALAYSIA KILLING ALL ON BOARD. WE IMPOSE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND KICKED THE RUSSIANS OUT OF THE G-8. BEGINNING IN 2014, WE AND NATO BEGAN TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE'S ARMED FORCES IN THE FORM OF TRAINING, ADVICE, MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND WEAPONS. IT IS THIS SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY. THE PRO-RUSSIAN PRESIDENT WHO WAS RUN OUT HAD LET THE RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES DETERIORATE TO THE POINT OF RUIN. IN RESPONSE TO THE INVASION, THE NEW AUTHORITIES WITH AN AMAZING OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT REBLT THE ARMY, NEARLY FROM SCRATCH, SPENDING MORE THAN 5% OF UKRAINIAN GDP ON DEFENSE SINCE THE WAR STAIRTED. THE WHOLE NATION FIERCELY RESPONDED TO THE RUSSIAN ATTACK. THE NATION UNITED LIKE NEVER BEFORE. A RAGTAG ARMY DEVELOPED INTO A STRONG FIGHTING FORCE, AND THE UNITED STATES PLAYED A VITAL ROLE. SINCE 2014, YOU IN CONGRESS HAVE PROVIDED OVER $1.6 BILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROVIDES SMALL UNIT TRAINING AT AN ARMY BASE IN THE WESTERN OF THE COUNTRY. IT PROVIDES AM BLARCHS, NIGHT VISION, COUNTERBATTERY RADAR, NAVY SHIPS AND WEAPONS. THE SECURITY SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATES OUR COMMITMENT TO RESIST AGGRESSION AND DEFEND FREEDOM. DURING THE 2014 TO 2016 PERIOD, I WAS SERVING OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT AND JOINED TWO OTHERS IN URGING THE OBAMA OWE FIGSS TO PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE IN ORDER TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. I ALSO SUPPORTED MUCH STRONGER SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA. I WAS PLEASED WHEN THE PRESIDENT TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED JAFBLIN ANTITANK MISSILES AND ENACTED STRONGER SANCTIONS. ALL TO SAY, I CARED ABOUT UKRAINE'S FUTURE AND THE IMPORTANT U.S. INTERESTS THERE. SO WHEN SECRETARY POMPEO ASKED ME TO GO BACK, I WANTED TO SAY YES, BUT IT WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION. THE FORMER AMBASSADOR HAS BEEN TREATED POORLY CAUGHT IN A WEB BOTH IN KIEV AND IN WASHINGTON. I FEARED THAT THOSE PROBLEMS WERE STILL PRESENT. I CONSULTED BOTH MY WIFE AND THE RESPECTED FORMER SENIOR REPUBLICAN OFFICIAL WHO HAS BEEN A MENTOR. I WILL TELL YOU THAT MY WIFE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS STRONGLY OPPOSES THE IDEA. THE MENTOR COUNSELED, IF YOUR COUNTRY ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING, ANOTHER DO IT IF YOU CAN BE EFFECTIVE. I COULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IF THE U.S. POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE ALONG WITH ROBUST SECURITY, ERK NONG AROUND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WERE TO CONTINUE. AND IF I HAD THE BACKING TO IMPLOEMT THAT POLICY. I WORRIED ABOUT WHAT I HAD HEARD ABOUT RUDY YULIAN WHO HAD BEEN SEVERAL CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS ABOUT UKRAINE AND U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE COUNTRY. SO DURING MY MEETING WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ON MAY 28th, I MADE CLEAR TO HIM AND THE OTHERS PRESENT THAT IF U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE CHANGED, HE WOULD NOT WANT ME POSTED THERE AND I COULD NOT STAY. HE ASSURED ME THAT THE POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT 4 UKRAINE WOULD CONTINUE AND THAT HE WOULD SUPPORT ME IN DEFENDING THAT POLICY. WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, I AGREED TO GO BACK TO KIEV BECAUSE I WAS APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY BUT NOT RECONFIRMED MY OFFICIAL POSITION WAS IN EFFECT THE ACTING AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE. I RETURNED TO KIEV ON JUNE 17th CARRYING AN ORIGINAL LETTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED. IN THAT, HE CONGRATULATED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND INVITED HIM TO A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE. ONCE I ARRIVED IN KIEV, I DISCOVERED A WEIRD COMBINATION OF ENCOURAGING, CONFUSING AND ULTIMATELY ALARMING CIRCUMSTANCES. FIRST THE ENCOURAGING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS REFORMING UKRAINE IN A HURRY. HE APPOINTED REFORMIST MINSTERS AND SUPPORTED LONG STALLED ANTICORRUPTION LEGISLATION. HE TOOK QUICK EXECUTIVE ACTION INCLUDING OPENING UKRAINE'S MI ANTISKRUPGS COURT WITH A NEW PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY STEMMING FROM SNAP ELECTIONS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CHANGED THE UKRAINIAN CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE IMMUNITY, THE SOURCE OF RAW CORRUPTION FOR TWO DECADES. THE EXCITEMENT IN KEY EV WAS PAL PAVL. A NEW UKRAINE FINALLY BREAKING FROM IT'S CORRUPT POST-SOVIET PAST. AND YET I FOUND CONFUSION POLICY MAKING. THERE APPEARED TO BE TWO CHANNELS, ONE REGULAR AND ONE HIGHLY IRREGULAR. AS THE ACTING AMBASSADOR I HAD POWER OVER THE REGULAR ONES INCLUDING THE SUPPORT AGAINST RUSSIAN INVASION AND TO HELP IT DEFEAT CORRUPTION. MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY IS SISNT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT AND OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL WERE MY MAIN POINTS OF CONTACT IN THIS REGULAR CHANNEL. THIS CHANNEL IS FORMERLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FORMULATING AND OVERSEEING THE IMPLECHLTATION OF U.S. POLICY WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE, A POLICY THAT HAS CONSISTENTLY ENJOYED STRONG BUY PART SARN SUPPORT SINCE 1991. AT THE SAME TIME HOWEVER, I ENCOUNTERED AN IRREGULAR INFOLLOW CHANNEL OF U.S. POLICY MAKING UNACCOUNTABLE TO CONGRESS, A CHANNEL THAT INCLUDED THEN SPECIAL ENJOY KURT VOLKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLOND, RICK PERRY, MICK MULVANEY AND AS I SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED, MR. GIULIANI. I WAS CLEARLY IN THE REGULAR CHANNEL, BUT I WAS ALSO IN THE IRREGULAR ONE TO THE EXPENT THAT AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND INCLUDED ME IN CERTAIN CONVERSATIONS. ALTHOUGH THIS WAS WELL-CONNECTED IN WASHINGTON, IT OPERATED MOSTLY OUTSIDE OF OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT CHANNELS. THE REGULAR CHANNEL BEGAN WHEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AMBASSADOR SONDLOND, PERRY AND RON JOHNSON BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd UPON THEIR RETURN. THE DELEGATION WAS AS ENTHUSIASTIC AS I WOULD SOON BECOME ABOUT THE KNEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND URGE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MEET WITH HIM EARLY ON TO CEMENT THE U.S./UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP. BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE PARTICIPANTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT SHARE THEIR ENTHUSIASM FOR A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELLENCY. WHEN I ARRIVED IN KEY EV, THE ACTIONS OF BOTH OF REGULAR AND IRREGULAR CHANNELED APPEARED TO SERVE THE SAME GOAL. A STRONG U.S./UKRAINE PARTNERSHIP. BUT IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME BY AUGUST THAT THE CHANNELS HAD DIVERGED IN THEIR OBJECTIVES. AS THIS OCCURRED I BECAME INCREASINGLY CONCERNED. IN LATE JUNE, BOTH CHANNELS WERE TRYING TO FACILITATE A VISIT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PROMISED IN HIS CONGRATULATORY LETTER OF MAY 29th. THE UKRAINIANS WERE CLEARLY EAGER FOR THE MEETING. BUT DURING MY SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATIONS, THEY RELAYED TO ME THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO HEAR FROM ZELENSKY BEFORE SCHEDULING THE MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE. IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT THIS MEANT. ON JUNE 27th, AMBASSADOR SOND LONLD TOLL ME ON THE PHONE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WAY OF INVESTIGATIONS. I SENSED SOMETHING ODD WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ME HE DID NOT WISH TO INCLUDE MOST IN A CALL PLANNED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LATER THAT DAY. AMBASSADOR SONLAND, VOCE, SECRETARY PERRY AND I WERE ON THIS CALL DIALING IN FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. HOWEVER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE NO ONE WAS TRANSCRIBING OR MONITORING AS THEY ADDED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE CALL. ALSO BEFORE THE PRESIDENT JOINED THE CALL, AMBASSADOR JOKER SEPARATELY TOLD THE U.S. PARTICIPANTS THAT HE AND VOLKER BLAND TO BE EXPLICIT ON A MEETING. IN THAT MEETING AMBASSADOR VOLKER PLANNED TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD DO TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING. I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANT, BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID HE WOULD RELAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO SEE RULE OF LAW TRANSPARENCY, BUT ALSO SPECIFICALLY COOPERATION ON INVESTIGATIONS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS. ONCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JOINED THE CALL, THE CONVERSATION WAS FOCUSED ON ENERGY POLICY AND THE WAR IN DOMBAS. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ALSO SAID HE LOOKED FORWARD TO THE VISIT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD OFFERED IN HIS MAY 29th LETTER. BY MID-JULY IT WAS BECOMING CLEAR THAT THE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON THE MEETINGS IN BURISMA AND ALLEGED INTERFERENCE. IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT THIS CONDITION WAS DRIVEN BY THE IRREGULAR POLICY CHANNEL I HAD COME TO UNDERSTAND WAS GUIDED BY MR. GIULIANI. IN A REGULAR VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL I HEARD A STAFF PERSON FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SAY THERE WAS A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BUT COULD NOT SAY WHY. TOWARD THE END OF AN OTHERWISE NORMAL MEETING, A VOICE ON THE CALL, THE PERSON WAS OFF SCREEN, SAID THAT SHE WAS FROM OMB AND HER BOSS HAD INSTRUCTED HER NOT TO APPROVE ANY ADDITIONAL SPENDING ON SECURITY SYSTEMS FOR UKRAINE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. I AND OTHERS SAT IN ASTONISHMENT. UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING RUSSIANS AND COUNTED ON NOT ONLY THE TRAINING AND WEAPONS BUT ALSO THE ASSURANCE OF U.S. SUPPORT. ALL THAT THE OMB STAFF PERSON SAID WAS THAT THE DIRECTIVE HAD COME FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO OMB. IN AN INSTANT I REALIZED THAT ONE OF THE KEY PILLARS OF OUR STRONG SUPPORT WAS THREATENED. THE REGULAR CHANNEL WAS RUNNING CONTRARY TO THE GOALS OF LONGSTANDING U.S. POLICY. THERE FOLLOWED A SERIES OF INNER AGENCY MEETINGS STARTING AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND QUICKLY REACHING THE LEVEL OF CABINET SECRETARIES. AT EVERY MEETING THE UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE SHOULD BE RESUMED. AT ONE POINT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT WAS TO ASKED TO PERFORM AN ANALYSIS. WILMING A DAY, THEY SAID IT WAS EFFECTIVE AND SHOULD BE RESUMED. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE SKTSZ OF DEFENSE AND STATE, THE CIA DIRECTOR AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SOUGHT A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT TO CONVINCE HIM TO RELEASE THE HOLD, BUT SUCH A MEETING WAS HARD TO SCHEDULE AND THE HOLD LASTED WELL INTO SEPTEMBER. ON JULY 9th, IN A PHONE CALL WITH THEN SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS FIONA HILL AND KOL NECHL VINDMAN TRIED TO ASSURE ME THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY OFFICIAL CHANGES, OMB'S ANNOUNCEMENT NOT WITH STANDING. THEY DID CONFIRM THAT THE HOLD CAME FROM CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY WHO MAINTAINED A SKEPTICAL VIEW OF UKRAINE. IN THE SAME PHONE CALL THEY GAVE ME AN ACCOUNT OF A JULY 10th MEETING WITH UKRAINIAN OWE FIRMS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY TOLD ME PARTWAY THROUGH THE MEETING AMG BASSDOR SONLAND HAD CONNECTED INVESTIGATIONS WITH AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHICH SO IRRITATED THEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTEDON THAT HE ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING TELLING DR. HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTHING DO DO WITH THE POLITICS. HE ALSO DIRECTED THEM TO BRIEF THE LAWYERS. HE SAID AMBASSADOR BOLTON REFERRED TO THIS AS, THIS IS A DRUG DEAL, AFTER THE JULY 10th MEETING. AMBASSADOR BOLTON OPPOSED A CALL TREN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP OUT OF CONCERN IT WOULD BE A DISASTER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE UKRAINIANS IN THE MEETINGS WERE CONFUSED. AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND THE REGULAR POLICY DECISION MAKING CHANNEL WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SECURITY, ENERGY AND REFORM. AMBASSADOR SONLAND, PARTICIPANT IN THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS. ALSO DURING OUR JULY 19th CALL, DR. HILL INFORMED ME THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD MET WITH GIULIANI TO DISCUSS UKRAINE. THIS CAUGHT ME BY SURPRISE. NEXT DAY I ASKED AMBASSADOR VOLKER ABOUT THAT MEETING BUT RECEIVED NO RESPONSE. I BEGAN TO SENSE THIS THESE TWO SEPARATE DECISION MAKING CHANNELS, REGULAR AND IRREGULAR, WERE ACCEPTAT AND AT ODDS. LATER THAT DAY I RECEIVED TEXT MESSAGES ON A THREE-WAY WHATSAPP, A RECORD OF WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER. MR. SONDLAND SAID A MEETING BETWEEN TRUMP AND ZELLEN SKY WOULD TAKE PLACE SOON. HE SAID THAT WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT WAS TO ZELENSKY SAY HE WILL HELP INVESTIGATION AND ADDRESS ANY PERSONNEL ISSUES IF THERE ARE ANY. ON THE NEXT DAY, I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHILE HE WAS ON A TRAIN FROM PARIS TO LONDON. HE TOLD ME HE HAD RECOMMEND TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE USE THE PHRASE, I WILL LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED, WITH REGARD TO INVESTIGATIONS WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. ALSO ON JULY 20th, I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH ALEXDER DONE LUKE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER WHO EMPHASIZED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT WANT TO BE USED AS AN INSTRUMENT IN A U.S. RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THE NEXT DAY I TEXTED BOTH AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S CONCERN. ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THE LONG-AWAITED PHONE COVERAGE EVEN THOUGH I WAS ACTING AMBASSADOR AND WAS SCHEDULED TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND VOLKER THE FOLLOWING DAY, I RECEIVED NO READOUT OF THE CALL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ISSUED A SHORT CRYPTIC SUMMARY. DURING A PREVIOUSLY PLANNED JULY 26th MEETIN -- SAID HE WAS HAPPY WITH THE CALL. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THEN ASKED ABOUT THE FACE TO FACE MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE AS PROMISED IN THE MAY 29th LETTER FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE COULD GIVE HIM NO FIRM ANSWER. AFTER OUR MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I TRAVELED TO THE FRONT LINE IN DOM BAS TO DROVE A BRIEFING ON THE LINE OF CONTACT. ARRIVING FOR THE BRIEFING IN THE MILITARY HEADQUARTERS THE COMMANDER THANKED US FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. BUT I WAS AWARE THAT THIS ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD WHICH MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE. AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I COULD SEE THE ARMED AND HOSTILE RUSSIAN-LED FORCES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAMAGED BRIDGE ACROSS THE LINE OF CONTACT. RUSSIAN-LED FORCES CONTINUE TO KILL UKRAINIANS IN THE WAR ONE OR TWO A WEEK. MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD UNDOOUTT DOUBTEDLY DIE WITHOUT ASSISTANCE. ALTHOUGH I SPENT THE MORNING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND OTHERS, THE FIRST SUMMARY OF THE JULY 25th TRUMP/ZELENSKY CALL THAT I HEARD INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT WAS DURING A PHONE CALL I HAD WITH TIM MORRISON, DR. HILL'S RECENT REPLACEMENT ON JULY 28ING. HE TOLD ME THE CALL COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SUGGESTED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR HIS STAFF MEET WITH MR. GIULIANI AND ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR. I DID NOT SEE ANY OFFICIAL READOUT OF THE CALL UNTIL IT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 25th. BUT AUGUST I WAS BECOMING MORE CONCERNED. ON AUGUST 16th I EXCHANGED TEXT MESSAGES WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN WAY I LEARNED A SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD ASKED THAT THE UNITED STATES SUBMIT AN OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA'S ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF UKRAINIAN LAW. IF THAT IS WHAT THE UNITED STATES DESIRED. A FORMAL U.S. REQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF THEIR OWN LAW STRUCK ME AS IMPROPER. AND I RECOMMEND TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER THAT WE STAY CLEAR. TO FIND OUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, I GAVE HIM THE NAME OF A DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL WHOM I THOUGHT WOULD BE THE PROPER POINT OF CONTACT FOR SEEKING A U.S. REQUEST FOR A FOREIGN INVESTIGATION. BY MITT-AUGUST, BECAUSE THE SECURITY SYSTEMS HAD BEEN HELD FOR OVER A MONTH FOR NO REASON THAT I COULD DISCERN, I WAS BEGINNING TO HEAR FAT LONGSTANDING U.S. POLICY OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS SHIFTING. I CALLED STATE DEPARTMENT COUNSELOR URIC BRECK DULL TO DISCUSS THIS ON AUGUST 21st. HE SAID HE WAS NOT AWARE OF A CHANGE IN POLICY BUT WOULD CHECK ON THE STATUS. MY CONCERN DEEPENED THE NEXT DAY ON AUGUST 22nd DURING A PHONE CALL WITH MR. MORRISON. I ASKED HIM IF THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN POLICY, TO WHICH HE RESPONDED, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN. HE ALSO TOLD ME DURING THIS CALL THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE AT ALL. THAT WAS EXTREMELY TROUBLING TO ME AS I HAD TOLD SECRETARY POMPEO IN MAY IF THE POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WERE TO CHANGE I WOULD HAVE TO RESIGN. BASED ON MY CALL WITH MR. MORRISON, I WAS PREPARING TO DO SO. JUST LAYS LATER ON AUGUST 27th, AMBASSADOR BOLTON ARRIVED IN KIEV AND MET WITH ZELENSKY. SECURITY WAS NOT DISCUSSED. AS FAR AS I KNEW THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE HOLD UNTIL AUGUST 29th. I WAS ALL TOO AWARE OF AND STILL TROULKD BY THE HOLD. NEAR THE END OF BOLTON'S VISIT I ASKED TO MEET WITH HIM PRIVATESLY DURING WHICH I DISCUSSED MY SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT WITHHOLDING MILITARY OTHER ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WHILE THEY WERE DEFENDING AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. AMBASSADOR SUGGESTED I SEND A MEMO DIRECTLY RELAYING MY CONCERNS. I WROTE AND TRANSMITTED SUCH A CABLE DESCRIBING THE FOLLY I SAW IN WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AT A TIME WHEN HOSTILITIES WERE STILL ACTIVE AND RUSSIA WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. THE RUSSIANS, AS I SAID AT MY DEPOSITION, WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE HUMILIATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THE HANDS OF THE AMERICANS. I TOLL THE SECRETARY THAT I COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT DEFEND SUCH A POLICY. ALTHOUGH I RECEIVED NO SPECIFIC RESPONSE, I HEARD THAT SOON THEREAFTER THE SECRETARY CARRIED THE CABLE WITH HIM TO A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOCUSED ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE. THE SAME DAY THAT I SENT MY CABLE TO THE SECRETARY, MR. YOU'RE MAK CONTACTED ME VERY CONCERNED ASKING ABOUT THE ASSISTANCE APPROXIMATELY THE HOMED HAD JUST BEEN MADE PUBLIC THAT DAY IN A "POLITICO" STORY. AT THAT POINT I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I COULD GIVE HIM NO EXPLANATION. IT HAD STILL NOT OCCURRED TO ME THAT THE HOLD COULD BE RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS. THAT HOWEVER WOULD CHANGE. ON SEPTEMBER 1st, JUST THREE DAYS AFTER MY NOTE TO POMPEO, ZELENSKY MET VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PLANNED TO TRAVEL TO WARSAW BUT AT THE LAST MINUTE HAD CANCELED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DORIAN. JUST HOURS BEFORE, I CONTACTED MR. DONE LUKE TO LET HIM KNOW THAT THE DELAY OF U.S. ASSISTANCE WAS AN ALL-OR-NOTHING PROPOSITION IN THE SINCE THAT IF THE WHITE HOUSE DID NOT LIFT THE HOLD PRIOR TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, SEPTEMBER 30th, THE FUNDS WOULD EXPIRE AND UKRAINE WOULD RECEIVE NOTHING. I WAS HOPEFUL THAT AT THE BILATERAL MEETING OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD LIFT THE HOLD, BUT THIS WAS NOT TO BE. ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 1st, I RECEIVED A READOUT OF THE PENCE/ZELENSKY MEETING OVER THE PHONE DURING WHICH HE TOLD ME PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD OPENED THE MEETING BY IMMEDIATELY ASKING VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE SECURITY COOPERATION. THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT RESPOND SUBSTANTIVELY BUT SAID HE WOULD TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT NIGHT. THE VICE PRESIDENT DID SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO DO MORE TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AND THAT HE WANTED THE UKRAINIANS TO DO MORE TO FIGHT CORRUPTION. DURING THE SAME PHONE CALL WITH MR. MORRISON, HE DESCRIBED A CONVERSATION AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD WITH MR. YOU'REMAK. HE TOLD HIM THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE MONEY WOULD NOT COME UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO PURSUE THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION. I WAS ALARMED BY WHAT MR. MORRISON TOLD ME ABOUT THE SONDLAND YURMAK CONVERSATION. I WAS THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FRO POSED IT MIGHT BE SUCH FOR THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL TO COMMIT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OPPOSED TO ZELENSKY. BUT THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE NOT JUST THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS. VERY CONCERNED ON THAT SAME DAY, SEPTEMBER 1st, I SENT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND A TEXT MESSAGE ASKING IF WE ARE NOW SAYING THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED ASKING ME TO CALL HIM, WHICH I DID. DURING THAT PHONE CALL AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOLD HIM THAT HE WANTS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STATE PUBLICLY THAT UKRAINE WILL INVESTIGATE BURISMA AND ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE NOW RECOGNIZED THAT WILL I HAD MADE A MISTAKE BY EARLIER TELLING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT ONLY A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS DEPENDENT ON A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. IN FACT, AMBASSADOR SONLAND SAID, EVERYTHING WAS DEPENDENT ON SUCH AN ANNOUNCEMENT INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE. HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX, BY MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ORDERING SUCH INVESTIGATIONS. IN THE SAME SEPTEMBER 1st CALL, I TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD HAVE MORE RESPECT FOR ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE AND THAT WHAT HE DESCRIBED WAS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF EITHER PRESIDENT TRUMP OR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AT THAT POINT, I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO PUSH BACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PLEDGED TO TRY. I SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL RATHER THAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS, POTENTIALLY IN ORDERNATION WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S PROBE INTO THE INVESTIGATION IN THE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. THE NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 2nd, MR. MORRISON INFORMED ME TO SAY DONNY LUKE CAME TO WARSAW. HE EXPREBSED THE CONCERN THAT THE POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE. IN PARTICULAR, MR. MORRISON RELAYED TO ME THAT THE INABILITY OF ANY U.S. OFFICIALS TO RESPOND TO THE UKRAINIAN'S EXPLICIT QUESTIONS ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS TROUBLING THEM. I WAS EXPERIENCING THE SAME TENSION IN MY DEALINGS WITH THE UKRAINIANS INCLUDING A MEETING I HAD HAD WITH THE DEFENSE MINISTER THAT DAY. ON SEPTEMBER 5th, I ACCOMPANIED SENATORS JOHNSON AND MURPHY DURING THEIR VISIT TO KIEV. WHEN WE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIS FIRST QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE WITHHELD SECURITY ASSISTANCE. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT BOTH SENATORS STRESSED THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN WASHINGTON WAS UKRAINE'S MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC ASSET AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BY GETTING DRAWN INTO U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS. I HAD BEEN MAKING AND CONTINUED TO MAKE THIS POINT TO ALL OF MY OFFICIAL UKRAINIAN CONTACTS. BUT THE ODD PUSH TO MAKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PUBLICLY COMMIT TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION SHOWED HOW THE OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDERCUT BY THE IRREGULAR EFFORTS LED BY MR. GIULIANI. TWO DAYS LATER, SEPTEMBER 7th, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. MORRISON IN WHICH HE DESCRIBED A PHONE CALL BETWEEN SONLAND AND TRUMP. HE SAID HE HAD A SIENKING FEELING AFTER LEEE LEARNING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION FROM AMBASSADOR SONLAND. TRUMP TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO. PRESIDENT TRUMP DID INSIST THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GO TO A MICROPHONE AND SAY HE IS OPENING INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN AND 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD WANT TO DO THIS HIMSELF. MR. MORRISON SAID THAT HE TOLD AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND THE NSF LAWYERS OF THIS PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. THE FOLLOWING DAY ON SEPTEMBER 8th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I SPOKE ON THE PHONE. HE CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS I ASUGGESTED A WEEK EARLIER, BUT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ADAMANT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF HAD TO CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC. PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID IT WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO. I BELIEVE THIS WAS THE SAME CONVERSATION BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT MR. MORRISON HAD DESCRIBED TO ME ON SEPTEMBER 7th. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. YURMAK AND TOLD THEM THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC, WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE. I UNDERSTOOD A STALE MIGHT TO MEAN THAT UKRAINE WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE ASSISTANCE. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THIS CONVERSATION CONCLUDED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREEING TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT IN AN INTERVIEW ON CNN. SHORTLY AFTER THAT CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND I EXPREBSED MY STRONG RESERVATIONS TO AMBASSADOR SANDLAND STATING THAT MY NIGHTMARE IS THAT THEY, THE UKRAINIANS, GIVE THE INTERVIEW AND DON'T GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT, AND I QUIT. AND I WAS SERIOUS. THE NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 9th, I SAID TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER THAT THE MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS AND THE RUSSIANS WE SEND WITH THE DECISION IS KEY. WITH THE HOLD WE HAVE ALREADY SHAKEN THEIR FAITH IN US. I SAID IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED THAT I WAS INCORRECT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENTIONS. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR, NO QUID PRO QUOS OF ANY KIND-DURING OUR MEETING -- DURING OUR CALL ON SEPTEMBER 8th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESS MAN. WHEN A BUSINESS MAN IS ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO OWES HIM SOMETHING, THE BUSINESSMAN ASKS THAT PERSON TO PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK. AMBASSADOR VOLKER USED THE SAME LANGUAGE. I ARGUED TO BOTH THAT THE EXPLANATION MADE NO SENSE. UKRAINIANS DID NOT OWE PRESIDENT TRUMP ANYTHING. AND HOLDING UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR POLITICAL GAIN WAS CRAZY, AS I HAD SAID IN MY TEXT MESSAGES TO SONDLAND AND SOAKER ON SEPTEMBER 9th. FINELY ON SEPTEMBER 11th, I LEARNED THAT THE HOLD HAD BEEN LIFTED AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD BE PROVIDED. I WAS NOT TOLD THE REASON WHY. THE NEXT DAY I PERSONALLY CONVEYED THE NEWS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AND AGAIN REMINDED MR. YARMAK OF THE HIGH STRATEGIC VALUE OF BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN OTHER COUNTRY'S ELECTIONS. MY FEAR WAS THAT SONLAND TOLD ME -- PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE PLAYED INTO DOMESTIC U.S. POLITICS. I SOUGHT TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT PLANNING TO GIVE SUCH AN INTERVIEW, WHILE MR. DONNY LUKE INITIALLY CONFIRMED THAT, I NOTICED DURING A MEETING ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 13th THAT PRESIDENT ZELLENCY'S OFFICE THAT MR. YURMAK LOOKED UNCOMFORTABLE TO THE QUESTION. I LOOKED TO MAKE SURE THERE WOULD BE NO KRRN KRN INTERVIEW. WHICH HE DID. ON SEPTEMBER 25th AT THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLYING, PRESIDENT TRUMP MET ZELENSKY. HE RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT. THE UKRAINIANS HAD NO ITEMS AND THEY WERE LIVID. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD SEEN THE DETAILS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PHONE CALL WITH ZELLEN SKY IN WHICH HE MENTIONED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, I HAD COME TO UNDERSTAND WELL BEFORE THEN THAT INVESTIGATION WAS A TERM AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND USED TO MEAN MATTERS RELATED TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS. LAST FRIDAY, A MEMBER OF MY STAFF TOLD ME OF EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 26th. WHILE AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I VISITED THE FRONT, A MEMBER OF MY STAFF ACCOMPANIED AAMBASSADOR SONLAND, SONLAND MET WITH MR. YURMAK. FOLLOWING THAT MEETING IN THE PRESENCE OF MY STAFF, AM BASSDOR SONDLAND CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TOLD HIM OF HIS MEETINGS IN KIEV. THE MEMBER OF MY STAFF COULD HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE ASKING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS. MR. SONDLAND TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP THE UKRAINIANS WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD. FOLLOWING THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE MEMBER OF MY STAFF ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT ABOUT UKRAINE. MR. SONDLAND RESPONDED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CARES MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN, WHICH GIULIANI WAS PRESSING FOR. AT THE TIME, I GAVE MY DEPOSITION ON OCTOBER 22nd, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS INFORMATION. I'M INCLUDING IT HERE FOR COMPLETENESS. ADDS THE COMMITTEE KNOWS I REPORTED THIS INFORMATION THROUGH COUNSEL TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S LEGAL ADVISER AS WELL AS TO COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COMMITTEE IS FOLLOWING UP ON THIS MATTER. MR. CHAIRMAN, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS RATHER A LENGTHY RECITATION OF THE EVENTS OF THE PAST FEW MONTHS TOLD FROM MY VANTAGE POINT IN KIEV. BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTERS YOUR COMMITTEE IS INVESTIGATING, AND I HOPE THAT THIS CHRONOLOGY WILL PROVIDE SOME FRAMEWORK FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. AS I MENTIONED IN MY OCTOBER 22nd DEPOSITION, THE INFORMATION IN QUOTES IN MY TESTIMONY ARE BASED ON MY BEST RECOLLECTION AS WELL AS A REVIEW OF MY PERSONAL NOTES. LET ME RETURN TO THE POINTS I MADE AT THE OUTSET. UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN EUROPE BY LAND MASS, UKRAINE IS A YOUNG DEMOCRACY STRUGGLING TO JOIN EUROPE AND ALLY ITSELF WITH THE UNITED STATES. IT HAS BEEN VIOLENTLY ATTACKED BY RUSSIA, WHICH CONTINUES ITS ARMED AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE TO THIS DAY. IF WE BELIEVE IN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS ON WHICH OUR SECURITY AND THE SECURITY OF OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES DEPENDS, IF WE BELIEVE THAT NATIONS GET TO DECIDE ON THEIR OWN ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND SECURITY ALLIANCES, WE MUST SUPPORT UKRAINE IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST ITS BULLYING NEIGHBOR. RUSSIAN AGGRESSION CANNOT STAND. REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATICALLY ADMINISTRATIONS OVER THREE DECADES HAVE BEEN GENEROUS WITH ASSISTANCE FUNDING CIVILIAN AND MILITARY AND POLITICAL SUPPORT. WITH OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN MA MORTS CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED HARSH SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR INVAITDING AND OCCUPYING UKRAINE. MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE TWO UKRAINE STORIES TODAY. THE FIRST IS THE ONE WE ARE DISCUSSING THIS MORNING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT FOR THE PAST TWO WEEKS. IT'S A RANCOROUS STORY ABOUT WHISTLE-BLOWERS, MR. GIULIANI, SIDE CHANNELS, QUID PRO QUOS, INTDPEERNS IN ELECTION. IN THIS STORY UKRAINE IS MERELY AN OBJECT. BUT IN THIS SECOND STORY, UKRAINE IS THE SUBJECT. THIS ONE IS ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE IN A YOUNG NATION STRUGGLING TO BREAK FREE OF ITS PAST, HOPEFUL THAT THEIR NEW GOVERNMENT WILL FINALLY USHER IN A KNEW UKRAINE PROUD OF ITS INZPENSP DPENS FROM RUSSIA, EAGER TO JOIPT JOIN WESTERN INSTITUTIONS. THIS STORY DESCRIBES A NATION WITH DEMOCRATIC NATIONALISM NOT UNLIKE WHAT WE IN AMERICA IN OUR BEST MOMENTS FEEL ABOUT OUR DIVERSE COUNTRY. LESS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT LANGUAGE WE SPEAK, WHAT RELIGION IF ANY WE PRACTICE, WHERE OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS CAME FROM, MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING A NEW COUNTRY. AND I'M NOW LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS. >> I THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND RECOGNIZE MYSELF AND MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY FOLLOWING UP ON SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE DISCLOSED TODAY AND DISCLOSED EARLY YR TO BOTH MAJORITY, MINORITY. BUT IT IS SOME NEW INFORMATION FOR THE COMMITTEE. YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT ONE OF YOUR STAFF WAS PRESENT WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON THE DAY AFTER THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> AND AS YOUR STAFF RELATED THE EVENT TO YOU, YOUR STAFF MEMBER COULD OVERHEAR MR. SONDLAND AND THE PHONE -- OVER HEAR THE PRESIDENT ON THE PHONE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO THE PRESIDENT MUST HAVE BEEN SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH ON THE PHONE. THIS WAS A CELL PHONE? >> IT WAS A CELL PHONE. >> THE PRESIDENT MUST HAVE BEEN SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOUR STAFF MEMBER TO BE ABLE TO OVER HEAR THIS? >> IT WAS. >> AND WHAT YOUR STAFF MEMBER COULD OVER HEAR WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT, QUOTE, THE INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I THINK YOU TESTIFIED ALSO THAT YOU HAD COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE TERM, INVESTIGATIONS, WAS A TERM THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AS WELL AS VOLKER USED TO MEAN MATTERS RELATED TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND THE BIDE ENDS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YOUR STAFF MEMBER HEARS THE PRESIDENT ASKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS, MEANING BURISMA AND THE BIDE ENDS IN 2016, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD? >> HE DID. >> AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT AFTER THE CALL, WHEN YOUR STAFF ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT OF UKRAINE, HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CARES MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN, IS THAT RIGHT? >> AND BURISMA, YES, SIR. >> AND I TAKE IT THE I AM PORT OF THAT IS HE CARES MORE ABOUT THAT THAN HE DOES ABOUT UKRAINE? >> YES, SIR. >> DURING YOUR TESTIMONY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU SAID MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY DIE WITHOUT U.S. ASSISTANCE. WHY IS THAT? >> THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE TAKES MANY FORMS. ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THAT ASSISTANCE IS COUNTERBATTERY RADAR. ANOTHER COMPONENT ARE SNIPER WEAPONS. THESE WEAPONS AND THIS ASSISTANCE ALLOWS THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER FURTHER INCURSIONS BY THE RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN TERRITORY. IF THAT FURTHER INCURSION, FURTHER AGGRESSION, WERE TO TAKE PLACE, MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD DIE. SO IT IS A DETERRENT EFFECT THAT THESE WEAPONS PROVIDE. IT'S ALSO THE ABILITY -- IT GIVES THE UKRAINIANS THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF A LITTLE MORE STRENGTH WHEN THEY NEGOTIATE AN END TO THE WAR IN DOM BAS, NEGOTIATING WITH THE RUSSIANS. THIS ALSO IS A WAY THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UKRAINIANS WHO WOULD DIE. >> I TAKE IT IF THE PROVISION OF U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE WOULD SAVE UKRAINIAN LIVES, ANY DELAY MIGHT COST YOU LIVES, IS THAT TRUE? >> OF COURSE IT'S HARD TO DRAW ANY DIRECT LINES BETWEEN ANY PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND ANY PARTICULAR DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THAT ASSISTANCE HAD ENABLED UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES TO BE EFFECTIVE AND DETER AND TO BE ABLE TO TAKE COUNTERMEASURES TO THE ATTACKS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD -- >> AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT UKRAINIAN SOLDIER LOST THEIR LIFE WHILE YOU WERE VISITING? >> WE KEEP VERY CAREFUL TRACK OF THE CASUALTIES, AND I NOTICED ON THE NEXT DAY, THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT THAT ONE WAS KILLED, FOUR SOLDIERS WOUNDED ON THAT DAY. >> AND INDEED UKRAINIANS LOSE THEIR LIVES EVERY WEEK? >> EVERY WEEK. >> I THINK YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT RUSSIAN WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? >> THIS IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE UKRAINIANS IN PARTICULAR UNDER THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION ARE EAGER TO END THIS WAR. AND THEY ARE EAGER TO END IT IN A WAY THAT THE RUSSIANS LEAVE THEIR TERRITORY. THESE NEGOTIATIONS, LIKE ALL NEGOTIATIONS, ARE DIFFICULT. UKRAINIANS WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH OR AT LEAST MORE STRENGTH THAN THEY NOW HAVE. PART OF THAT STRENGTH, PART OF THE ABILITY OF THE UKRAINIANS TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST THE RUSSIANS WITH THE RUSSIANS FOR AN END TO THE WAR DEPENDS ON UNITED STATES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT. IF WE WITHDRAW OR SUSPEND OR THREATEN TO WITHDRAW, OUR SECURITY ASSISTANCE, THAT'S A MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS, BUT IT'S AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR QUESTION INDICATES, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO THE RUSSIANS, WHO ARE LOOKING FOR ANY SIGN OF WEAKNESS OR ANY SIGN THAT WE ARE WITHDRAWING OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE. >> SO WHEN THE UKRAINIANS LEARNED OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE MILITARY AID EITHER PRIVATELY OR WHEN OTHERS LEARNED PUBLICLY, THE RUSSIANS WOULD BE LEARNING ALSO, AND THEY WOULD TAKE THAT AS A LACK OF ROBUST U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THAT WOULD WEAKEN UKRAINE IN NEGOTIATING AN END TO THE WAR IN DON BAS? >> IT WOULD. >> PEOPLE WATCHING I'M SURE ARE INTERESTED IN HOW MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AFEKDS UKRAINE. BUT EVEN MORE SO INTERESTED IN HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY? NOW, I THINK YOU SAID THAT IF WE BELIEVE IN A PRINCIPLE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS WHERE COUNTRIES GET TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND SECURITY ALLIANCES, WE HAVE TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AND ITS FIGHT, THAT THE KIND OF AGGRESSION WE SEE BY RUSSIAN CAN'T STAND. HOW IS IT IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY THAT WE PROVIDE FOR A ROBUST DEFENSE OF UKRAINE'S SOVEREIGNTY? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, AS MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT DESCRIBED, WE HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY, A NATIONAL DEFENSE POLICY, THAT IDENTIFIES RUSSIA AND CHINA AS ADSARIES. THE RUSSIANS ARE VIOLATING ALL OF THE RULES, TREATIES, UNDERSTANDINGS, THAT THEY COMMITTED TO THAT ACTUALLY KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE FOR NEARLY 70 YEARS. UNTIL THEY INVADED UKRAINE IN 2014, THEY HAD ABIDED BY SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS, OF INVIABILITY OF BORDERS, THAT ORDER THAT KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE AND ALLOWED FOR PROSPERITY AS WELL AS PEACE IN EUROPE, WAS VIOLATED BY THE RUSSIANS, AND IF WE DON'T PUSH BACK ON THAT, ON THOSE VIOLATIONS, THEN THAT WILL CONTINUE. AND THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, AFFECT US, IT AFFECTS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN, THAT OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN WILL GROW UP IN. THIS AFFECTS THE KIND OF WORLD WE WAND TO SEE. THAT AFFECTS OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS VERY DIRECTLY. UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONTLINE OF THAT CONFLICT. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR DECADES OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY AND I'LL NOW RECOGNIZE MR. GOLDMAN FOR QUESTIONING. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ON THE HEELS OF YOUR DISCUSSING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, I WANT TO GO TO THE END OF THE TIMELINE WHERE YOU LEARNED THAT THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. AND IN PARTICULAR ON SEPTEMBER 9th OF THIS YEAR, YOU TEXTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER, AND THE TEXT MESSAGE SHOULD BE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU. IF YOU COULD READ WHAT YOU WROTE. >> AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. >> WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS CRAZY? >> MR. GOLDMAN, I MEANT THAT THE IMPORTANCE -- BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE HAD JUST DESCRIBED AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT, THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS SO IMPORTANT FOR UKRAINE AS WELL AS OUR OWN NATIONAL INTERESTS, TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, MADE NO SENSE. IT WAS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ALL OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO. IT WAS ILLOGICAL. IT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. IT WAS CRAZY. >> WHEN YOU SAY ALL OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WE? >> I MEAN THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS TRYING TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AS A FRONTLINE STATE AGAINST RUSSIAN ATTACK. AND AGAIN, THE WHOLE NOTION OF A RULES-BASED ORDER WAS BEING THREATENED BY THE RUSSIANS IN UKRAINE. SO OUR SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. IT WAS NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES. IT WAS ALL OF OUR ALLIES. >> WHEN YOU REFERENCED HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN THIS TEXT MESSAGE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN? >> I MEANT THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS WAS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY MR. GIULIANI IN PUBLIC FOR MONTHS AS A WAY TO GET INFORMATION ON THE TWO BIDENS. >> AND THOSE -- THAT INVESTIGATION AT THE VERY LEAST WAS MENTIONED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> AS WE NOW KNOW, YES, I -- YES, ON SEPTEMBER 25th, THAT TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN YOUR DECADES OF MILITARY SERVICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF FOREVER AID CONDITIONED ON THE PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> NO, MR. GOLDMAN, I HAVE NOT. >> MR. KENT, THAT VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING FROM UKRAINE. WHAT ELSE WAS CONTINGENT ON UKRAINE INITIATING THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >> WELL, AS WE'VE TALKED EARLIER TODAY, THE POSSIBILITY OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS BEING HELD CONTINGENT TO AN ANNOUNCEMENT. >> HOW IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >> NEW LEADERS, PARTICULARLY COUNTRIES THAT ARE TRYING TO -- HAVE GOOD FOOTING IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA, SEE A MEETING WITH THE U.S. PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AS THE ULTIMATE SIGN OF ENDORSEMENT AND SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES. >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ARELATIVELY NEW PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. HE WAS ELECTED ON APRIL 21st, AND HIS GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED AFTER PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN JULY. >> WOULD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BOOST HIS LEGIT MAECY IN UKRAINE? >> IT WOULD PRIMARILY BOOST HIS LEVERAGE TO NEGOTIATE WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN OF THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF 7% OF UKRAINIAN TERRITORY. >> MR. KENT, IS PRESSURING UKRAINE TO CONDUCT POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, A PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW IN UKRAINE AND AROUND THE WORLD? >> IT IS NOT. >> IT IS IN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES? >> IN MY OPINION, IT IS NOT. >> WHY NOT? >> BECAUSE OUR POLICIES, PARTICULARLY IN PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW, ARE ZIEBD TO HELP COUNTRIES, AND IN EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL EUROPE, THAT IS OVERCOMING THE LEGACY OF COMMUNISM. IN THAT, THE PROSECUTOR OFFICE WAS USED TO SUPPRESS AND PERSECUTE CITIZENS, NOT PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW. IN HELPING THESE COUNTRIES REACH THEIR OWN ASPIRATIONS TO JOIN THE WESTERN COMMUNITY OF NATIONS AND LIVE LIVES OF DIGNITY, HELPING THEM HAVE THE RULE OF LAW IS THE PURPOSE OF OUR POLICY. >> SO IN O WORDS, IT IS A PURPOSE OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY TO ENCOURAGE FOREIGN NATIONS TO REFRAIN FROM CONDUCTING POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. AND IN FACT AS A MATTER OF POLICY, NOT PROGRAMMING, WE OFTENTIMES RAISED OUR CONCERNS, USUALLY IN PRIVATE, WITH COUNTRIES THAT WE FEEL ARE ENGAGED IN SELECTIVE POLITICAL PROSECUTION AND PERSECUTION OF THEIR OPPONENTS. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU ULTIMATELY DID UNDERSTAND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FROM UKRAINE UNTIL THEY ANNOUNCED THESE INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN, LET'S GO BACK A LITTLE BIT IN TIME TO WHEN YOU FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THIS CONDITIONALITY. AND ON SEPTEMBER 1st, SO A LITTLE MORE THAN A WEEK BEFORE THAT TEXT WE JUST READ, YOU SENT ANOTHER TEXT TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER WHICH SHOULD BE ALSO BE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU. AND IF YOU COULD READ WHAT YOU WROTE TO THEM. >> ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS? >> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED, CALL ME. >> HE DID. >> WHAT INFORMATION HAD YOU LEARNED THAT PROMPTED YOU TO WRITE THIS TEXT MESSAGE? >> I HAD LEARNED THAT IN WARSAW, AFTER THE MEETING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD HAD MEETINGS THERE. AND HAD DESCRIBED TO MR. YURMAK, THE ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO HELD PENDING ANNOUNCEMENT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN PUBLIC OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS. BEFORE THAT, I HAD ONLY UNDERSTOOD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED. AND AT THIS TIME, AFTER I HEARD OF THIS CONVERSATION, IT STRUCK ME -- CLEAR TO ME THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO BEING WITHHELD. >> IT'S ONE THING TO TRY TO LEVERAGE A MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE. IT'S ANOTHER THING, I THOUGHT, TO LEVERAGE SECURITY ASSISTANCE -- SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO A COUNTRY AT WAR, DEPENDENT ON BOTH THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE DEMONSTRATION OF SUPPORT. IT WAS MUCH MORE ALARMING. THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS ONE THING, SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS MUCH MORE ALARMING. >> NOW, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU OUTLINED A VERY DETAILED TIMELINE. IN FACT, WE HAVE A WRITTEN COPY HERE. AND YOU INCLUDED SOME PHRASES AND WORDS IN QUOTATIONS. DID YOU TAKE NOTES OF THIS CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 1st WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >> I DID. >> DID YOU TAKE NOTES TO MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS IF NOT ALL OF THEM YOU CITED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT? >> ALL OF THEM. >> WHAT ARE THOSE QUOTATIONS YOU INCLUDE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT REFLECT? >> THEY REFLECT MY NOTES ON THE EXACT WORDS THAT I HEARD ON THAT CALL. SO, IT WAS -- IF I PUT THOSE IN QUOTES, THAT MEANT THOSE ARE THE WORDS USED ON THAT PHONE CALL OR IN THAT CONVERSATION. >> DID YOU REVIEW THOSE NOTES BEFORE YOU DRAFTED YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND CAME HERE TO TESTIFY? >> I DID. >> IS THAT HOW YOU REMEMBER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ON A TRAIN FROM PARIS TO LONDON DURING A CALL IN JULY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU ARE AWARE, I PRESUME, THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROVIDED THOSE NOTES TO THE COMMITTEE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I AM AWARE. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF REVIEWING THEM TO ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS. >> CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THEY MAY BE COMING SOONER OR LATER. >> WELL, WE WOULD WELCOME THAT. >> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED EARLIER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND -- OR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DELEGATED SOME MATTERS OVERSEEING UKRAINE POLICY TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO WAS A BIG INAUGURAL SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, EVEN THOUGH UKRAINE IS NOT IN HIS DOMAIN OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, IS THAT RIGHT? >> SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, WITH THE DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TOLD ME OF THAT CONVERSATION AND IT WAS AT THAT MEETING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED THE PARTICIPANTS TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI ON UKRAINE POLICY. >> DID YOU COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP? 1. >> I DID. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED -- RATHER, IN THAT TEXT MESSAGE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU TO CALL HIM. DID YOU, IN FACT, CALL HIM? >> I DID. >> WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU? >> HE SAID THAT I HAD -- I WAS WRONG ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT. THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. >> BUT DID HE SAY ANYTHING AFTER THAT? DID HE DESCRIBE TO YOU -- I BELIEVE I'LL REFRESH YOUR MEMORY. >> THANK YOU. >> IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SAID THAT HE SAID EVERYTHING, AND YOU HAD THAT IN QUOTES, WAS ACTUALLY CONTINGENT ON THE INITIATION OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS. WHAT DID HE MEAN BY EVERYTHING? >> MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT HE MEANT BY EVERYTHING WAS THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING. >> AND I BELIEVE YOU ALSO TESTIFIED HE SAID HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE IN RELAYING A MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS. WHAT WAS THAT MISTAKE? >> THE MISTAKE HE TOLD ME WAS EARLIER HE HAD TOLD, PRESUMABLY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT WHAT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS THE PURSUIT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS. AND HE SAID HE RECOGNIZED THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE. IT WAS NOT JUST THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT WAS DEPENDENT ON THE INVESTIGATIONS. HE SAID IT WAS NOW EVERYTHING. IT INCLUDED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >> SO, IT WAS NOT JUST THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, IT WAS ALSO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE? >> YES, SIR. >> EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SAYING REPEATEDLY THAT THERE IS -- THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAID TO YOU THAT THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WERE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WERE CONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> NOW, YOU REFERENCE A TELEVISION INTERVIEW AND A DESIRE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PUT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX, WHICH YOU ALSO HAVE IN QUOTES. WAS THAT IN YOUR NOTES? >> IT WAS IN MY NOTES. >> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN, TO PUT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX? >> I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ASKING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO VERY PUBLICLY COMMIT TO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DO THIS IN PRIVATE, THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE A VERY PUBLIC STATEMENT. >> AND DID YOU UNDERSTOOD WHY IT NEEDED TO BE IN PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO A PRIVATE CONFIRMATION? >> I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON THAT. >> NOW, DURING THIS TIME PERIOD IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, DID YOU COME TO UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE UKRAINIANS OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT UKRAINE FELT PRESSURE TO INITIATE THESE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONALITY OF THE -- THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE? >> MR. GOLDMAN, HERE'S WHAT I KNOW. I GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS, OTHER OFFICIALS GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS AS WELL, FROM THE UKRAINIANS ASKING ABOUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. SO WHAT I KNOW IS THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE UKRAINIANS. THEY HAD GUN TO HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT GOING TO COME YOU IN THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PURSUED. WHAT I HEARD FROM THE DEFENSE MINISTER, WHAT SENATOR JOHNSON AND SENATOR MURTY HEARD IN THEIR CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WAS THE CLEAR CONCERN, THE URGENT CONCERN, THAT THE UKRAINIANS HAD ABOUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >> YOU ALSO DESCRIBED A CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND A WEEK LATER ON SEPTEMBER 8th. AND IN THAT CONVERSATION IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU DESCRIBED HOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND USED THE TERM STALEMATE. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT A STALEMATE TO BE? >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC, WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE. HE BEGAN THAT AGAIN BY REPEATING, THIS IS WANT A QUID PRO QUO, BUT IF THE PRESIDENT -- IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC, WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE. AND WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FOR -- IN THAT MEETING, THE MEANING OF STALEMATE WAS, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT COME. >> SO, EVEN THOUGH HE SAID THE WORDS THERE WERE NO QUID PRO QUO, HE THEN WENT ON TO SAY, BUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WILL NOT COME UNLESS THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE DONE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT BY STALEMATE. >> YOU ALSO DESCRIBED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT A DISCUSSION YOU HAD ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING A BUSINESSMAN WHO WANTED TO HAVE PEOPLE PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN? >> THIS WAS AN EXPLANATION THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GAVE ME ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S THOUGHT PROCESS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS A BUSINESSMAN. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S A BUSINESSMAN. HE WAS EXPLAINING TO ME THE -- THE RELATIONSHIP, THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A BUSINESSMAN WOULD HAVE WHEN HE'S ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK. AND BY THAT, HE CLEARLY MEANT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS THINKING ABOUT OR HAD IN FRONT OF HIM THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. IT WAS SIMILAR TO WRITING A CHECK TO SOMEONE YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEND. HE USED -- HE USED THAT ANALOGY VERY CLEARLY TO INDICATE THAT THIS WOULD BE -- THIS WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING. IF THAT PERSON OWED HIM SOMETHING, BEFORE HE SIGNED THE CHECK, HE WANTED TO GET THAT -- GET WHATEVER HE WAS OWED PAID BACK TO HIM. AMBASSADOR VOLKER USED VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE ABOUT A WEEK LATER, WHICH INDICATES TO ME THAT THEY HAD THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL. >> DID UKRAINE OWE ANYTHING TO THE UNITED STATES? >> MR. GOLDMAN, THEY DIDN'T. THEY OWED APPRECIATION FOR THE SUPPORT, AND THEY WERE GETTING SUPPORT AND THEY APPRECIATED THAT. BUT THERE WAS NOT -- THERE WAS NOT -- THERE WAS NOTHING OWED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THAT. >> BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE UPSHOT OF THIS COMMENT MADE BY BOTH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVED UKRAINE OWED HIM SOMETHING PERSONALLY, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE WAS A FEELING ON -- BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE -- AND THIS CAME OUT IN THE TRANSCRIPT -- I'M SORRY. THIS CAME OUT IN THE DISCUSSION WITH THE INAUGURAL DELEGATION WHEN THEY CAME BACK TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd THAT HE HAD A FEELING OF HAVING BEEN WRONGED BY THE UKRAINIANS. AND SO THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HE THOUGHT THEY OWED HIM TO FIX THAT WRONG. >> RIGHT. BUT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT BECAUSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION, IS THAT WHAT HE OWED HIM WERE THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANTED. >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO FIX THE WRONG, EXACTLY. >> AND THOSE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND BIDEN AND BURISMA? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DURING THIS EARLY PERIOD IN SEPTEMBER, WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU CONTINUALLY HEARD THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS REPEATEDLY SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND HE STILL SAYS THAT REPEATEDLY TODAY. BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, WHETHER IT'S A QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, ABUSE OF POWER OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, THE FACT OF THE MATTER, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT, IS THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WERE NOT GOING TO BE PROVIDED UNLESS UKRAINE INITIATED THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT DONALD TRUMP'S RE-ELECTIONS. IS THAT WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE FACTS TO BE? >> MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT I CAN DO HERE FOR YOU TODAY IS TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD FROM PEOPLE. IN THIS CASE IT WAS WHAT I HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. HE DESCRIBED CONDITIONS FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN THOSE TERMS. THAT IS -- THEY WERE DEPENDENT UPON, CONDITIONED UPON PURSUING THESE INVESTIGATIONS. >> AND HEARD THAT FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HIMSELF, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU ALSO HEARD A SIMILAR STORY FROM MR. MORRISON, IS THAT RIGHT? >> WHO ALSO TALKED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD HAD IN WARSAW WITH UKRAINIANENS. >> WHAT MR. MORRISON RECOUNTED TO YOU WAS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. SONDLAND RECOUNTED TO YOU, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT UKRAINIANS MAY SAY NOW, NOW THAT EVERYTHING IS OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND WE'RE HERE IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THAT THEY FELT NO PRESSURE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT WAS YOUR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, WAS IT NOT, THAT IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, WHEN THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN WAS STILL SECRET, THAT THE UKRAINIANS BELIEVED THEY NEEDED TO ANNOUNCE THESE PUBLIC INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I KNOW THAT. THE UKRAINIANS WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. AND I KNOW THAT THEY WERE PREPARED OR PREPARING TO DO -- TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT, THAT IS WITH A CNN INTERVIEW. THAT THAT WAS BEING PLANNED. THOSE ARE THE TWO PIECES I KNOW. >> AND THAT CNN INTERVIEW WAS TO ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT, RIGHT? >> THAT WAS THE IMPLICATION. THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE IMPLICATION. >> WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED A LOT ON THE SEPTEMBER TIME FRAME, BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TWO MONTHS, TO JULY, BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL. YOU TESTIFIED, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF JULY WHEN YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS FIRST A CONDITION ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> YES. WE WERE PREPARING -- AND I AGREED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT STEP IN U.S./UKRAINIAN RELATIONS. SO, IN JUNE AND IN EARLY JULY, ATTEMPTS TO WORK OUT A WAY TO GET THAT MEETING INCLUDED A PHONE CALL. AND SO THERE WERE SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO HAVE THIS PHONE CALL THAT EVENTUALLY HAPPENED ON JULY 25th. >> AND YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT A JULY 10th WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH A NUMBER OF OFFICIALS WHERE AMBASSADOR BOLTON USED THE TERM THAT SOMETHING WAS A DRUG DEAL. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN IN HEARING THAT HE SAID -- USED THIS TERM, DRUG DEAL? >> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD IN MIND. >> WAS THAT IN REFERENCE TO A DISCUSSION IN THAT MEETING RELATED TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED AND IN CONNECTION TO THE INVESTIGATIONS? >> THE CONTEXT OF THAT COMMENT WAS THAT MR. BOLTON'S COUNTERPART, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, HAD HAD WITH MR. BOLTON. AND THAT CONVERSATION WAS VERY SUBSTANTIVE UP UNTIL THE POINT WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS RAISED, AND MR. -- AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INTERVENED TO TALK ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS. IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON CEASED THE MEETING, CLOSED THE MEETING, FINISHED THE MEETING AND TOLD HIS STAFF TO REPORT THIS MEETING TO THE LAWYERS AND HE ALSO LATER, THEN, INDICATED TO FIONA HILL, WHO WAS ALSO A PARTICIPANT ON NSC STAFF, THAT HE, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DIDN'T WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DRUG DEAL. SO, IT WAS -- THE IMPLICATION WAS, IT WAS THE DOMESTIC POLITICS THAT WAS BEING COOKED UP. >> AND DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY THIS IN FRONT OF THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN THE MEETING WHERE AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS HAVING THE CONVERSATION WITH HIS COUNTERPART, RAISED THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS BEING IMPORTANT TO COME BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT HAD JUST BEEN RAISED. >> AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WERE THERE? >> AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WERE THERE, YES, SIR. >> AROUND THIS SAME TIME, MID-JULY, DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >> I DON'T RECALL. >> LET ME SHOW YOU A TEXT MESSAGE YOU WROTE ON JULY 21st WHERE YOU WROTE IT AGAIN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER. IF YOU COULD JUST READ WHAT YOU WROTE HERE ON JULY 21st. >> GORDON, ONE THING KURT AND I TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY WAS SASHA DANYLIUK'S POINT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY NOT MERELY AS AN INSTRUMENT TO WASHINGTON DOMESTIC, RE-ELECTION POLITICS. >> SASHA DANYLIUK? >> WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN ZELENSKY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT BEING INVOLVED IN WASHINGTON DOMESTIC RE-ELECTION POLITICS. >> MR. DANYLIUK UNDERSTOOD THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PURSUANT TO MR. GIULIANI'S REQUEST TO DEVELOP INFORMATION, TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA AND THE BIDENS. THIS WAS VERY WELL KNOWN IN PUBLIC -- MR. GIULIANI HAD MADE THIS CLEAR IN SEVERAL INSTANCES IN THE BEGINNING -- IN THE SPRINGTIME, AND MR. DANYLIUK WAS AWARE THAT THAT WAS A PROBLEM. >> AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS WORRIED ABOUT THIS, THEY UNDERSTOOD AT LEAST THAT THERE WAS SOME PRESSURE FOR THEM TO PURSUE THESE INVESTIGATIONS? IS THAT FAIR? >> MR. DANYLIUK INDICATED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD IT, THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THESE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES. >> NOW, I'M GOING TO MOVE AHEAD NOW TO JULY 25th, WHICH IS WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THE PHONE CALL. BEFORE WE GET TO THE PHONE CALL I WANT TO SHOW YOU A TEXT MESSAGE, NEITHER OF YOU IS ON THIS PHONE CALL. I WILL READ IT BECAUSE NEITHER OF YOU IS ON IT. AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAYS, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS. HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE. ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE/GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON. GOOD LUCK. SEE YOU TOMORROW, KURT. AND THIS WAS A HALF HOUR -- LESS THAN A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL ACTUALLY OCCURRED. NOW, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WAS AMBASSADOR VOLKER WITH YOU IN UKRAINE AT THIS TIME? >> HE WAS. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS PREPPING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR THIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THIS WAY? >> NOT IN THIS WAY, MR. GOLDMAN, BUT I KNEW AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS PREPPING UKRAINIANS FOR THE PHONE CALL EARLIER ON, THAT IS, IN -- AT A MEETING IN TORONTO ON JULY 2nd, AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HAD INDICATED IN A PHONE CALL THAT HE AT THAT TIME WAS GOING TO TALK MR. ZELENSKY -- PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THROUGH THE STEPS THAT NEEDED TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO GET TO THE PHONE CALL. >> UNDERSTOOD. AND YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD ALREADY BEEN FROZEN, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AT LEAST BY JULY 18th, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO THAT WAS JUST A WEEK EARLIER THAN THIS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, BEFORE THIS JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD FROZEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT UKRAINE NEEDED AND THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE INITIATING THIS INVESTIGATION AND THAT HAD BEEN RELAID TO THE UKRAINIANS. IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATE OF PLAY AT THIS TIME? >> THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATE OF PLAY. I AT THAT POINT HAD NO INDICATION THAT ANY DISCUSSION OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEING SUBJECT TO CONDITIONED -- CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS HAD TAKEN PLACE. >> RIGHT. BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS? >> CORRECT. >> LET'S MOVE AHEAD TO THIS JULY 25th CALL. AND -- BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS. AM I CORRECT THAT NEITHER OF YOU WERE ON THIS CALL, IS THAT RIGHT, MR. KENT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU WERE NEITHER AS WELL? SO YOU BOTH READ IT AFTER IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER? >> YES. >> YES. >> I WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME READING THE TRANSCRIPT, AS WE'VE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO DO. AND I WANT TO PARTICULARLY NOTE FOUR EXCERPTS OF THE TRANSCRIPTS. ONE THAT RELATES TO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, ANOTHER THAT DISCUSSES A FAVOR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, A THIRD WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKS THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND THEN A FINAL ONE WHERE THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT DIRECTLY LINKS THE DESIRED WHITE HOUSE VISIT TO THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED. SO, LET'S LOOK AT THE FIRST EXCERPT WHICH IS NEAR THE FRONT OF THE CALL WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DISCUSSES THE MILITARY AID THE U.S. PROVIDES TO UKRAINE. HE SAYS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE. WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEPS. SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE READY TO BUY MORE JAVELINS FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES. NOW, AT THE TIME OF THIS PHONE CALL, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT, YOU BOTH KNEW THAT THE AID HAD BEEN FROZEN, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OBVIOUSLY ALSO KNEW THAT THE AID HAD BEEN FROZEN AS WELL SINCE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD. THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD ON THAT CONFERENCE CALL, YES. >> BUT TO NEITHER OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE UKRAINIANS WERE WANT AWARE OF THAT AT THAT POINT? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN SAYS, AND WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT EXCERPT, I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE. I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH HE SAYS, WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO IT, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. NOW, MR. KENT, YOU'VE TESTIFIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THIS WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT A NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO INTERPRET A REQUEST FOR A FAVOR FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> I CANNOT INTERPRET THE MIND OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OTHER THAN TO SAY IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT THEY WERE HOPING TO GET OUT OF THIS MEETING WAS A DATE AND A CONFIRMATION THAT HE COULD COME TO WASHINGTON. >> OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN'T PUT YOURSELF IN THE MIND, BUT IF THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT FOR A COUNTRY THAT'S THAT'S SO DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES FOR ALL THINGS, INCLUDING MILITARY ASSISTANCE, IS REQUESTED TO DO A FAVOR, HOW DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS WOULD INTERPRET THAT? >> WELL, IF YOU GO FURTHER INTO THE CALL RECORD AS PART OF THIS, AND WE DON'T HAVE IT ON SCREEN, BUT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION READING IT AFTER IT WAS RELEASED SEPTEMBER 25th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WENT INTO HAVING WHATEVER YOUR PROBLEMS WERE, THAT WAS THE OLD TEAM, I'VE GOT A NEW TEAM AND WE WILL DO WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE AND BE TRANSPARENT AND HONEST ABOUT IT. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS, BUT HE WAS TRYING TO BE, IN HIS OWN WORDS IN RESPONSE, BE RESPONSIVE TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IN A TRANSPARENT AND HONEST MANNER. >> NOW, WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THIS CROWDSTRIKE AND SERVER, WHAT DO YOU WANTED THIS TO BE REFERENCE TO? >> TO BE HONEST, I HAD NOT HEARD OF CROWDSTRIKE UNTIL I READ THIS TRANSCRIPT ON SEPTEMBER 25th. >> DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHAT IT RELATES TO? >> I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE STORY THAT THERE'S A SERVER WITH MISSING EMAILS. I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE OF THE OWNERS OF CROWDSTRIKE IS A RUSSIAN/AMERICAN. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UKRAINIAN CONNECTION TO THE COMPANY. >> ARE YOU AWARE THIS IS ALL PART OF A LARGER ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> YES, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO FACTUAL BASIS, NO. >> IN FACT, WHO DID INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> I THINK IT'S AMPLY CLEAR THAT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS AT THE HEART OF THE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION CYCLE. >> LET'S MOVE TO THE THIRD EXCERPT THAT I MENTIONED RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. AND IT SAYS, THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON. THIS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKING. THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT. SO, WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT. BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE. NOW, AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS THE FRONT-RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN THE 2020 ELECTION. AND, MR. KENT, ARE YOU FAMILIAR AS YOU INDICATE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, ABOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN? >> I AM. >> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THOSE ALLEGATIONS? >> NONE WHATSOEVER. >> WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED IN UKRAINE, DID HE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >> HE DID. >> NOW, LET'S GO TO, THEN, THE LAST EXCERPTS THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, WHICH IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPEAKING. HE SAYS, I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON, D.C. ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO WANT TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WE WILL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION. NOW, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONS HIS MUCH-DESIRED WASHINGTON VISIT, HE SAYS, ON THE OTHER HAND, AND THEN SAYS UKRAINE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION. IS THIS THE SAME LINK BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD TEXTED TO ANDRE YERMAK A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THIS CONVERSATION? >> THAT'S MY ASSUMPTION. >> JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE JUST READ READ IN THIS JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS, THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT THANKED PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD JUST FROZEN, TO WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED THAT HE WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO HIM A FAVOR, THOUGH, BY INVESTIGATING THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION AND THE BIDENS. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS HE'LL PURSUE THESE INVESTIGATIONS RIGHT AFTER HE MENTIONS THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, OF WHAT WE JUST READ? >> YES. >> AND, MR. KENT, IS THAT YOURS? >> YES. >> I YIELD BACK. >> THE MAJORITY TIME HAS EXPIRED. WOULD YOU GENTLEMEN LIKE A BRIEF RECESS? LET'S TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS AND THEN RESUME WITH MAJORITY QUESTIONING. >> I CAN SAY IT'S HEARSAY BECAUSE THAT'S THE TESTIMONY I JUST CAME OUT FROM. THEY SAID, I BELIEVE, I THOUGHT I HEARD. THIS IS WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO ME. ALL -- >> MORRISON -- >> YOU WERE ASKING THE QUESTION. I WAS GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY, ALL RIGHT. SO, IN DOING THAT, WHEN THEY ASK THE QUESTION, EVERY TIME THAT IT GETS CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT IS VERY CLEAR, THERE IS NO CONDITIONALITY AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THE -- WHY THE AID WAS HELD. SO, I THINK THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THAT AND THAT'S WHAT WE CONTINUE TO HEAR. >> HE SAID VERY CLEARLY, GORDON SONDLAND MADE THIS CLEAR TO HIM AFTER HE SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT WANTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE AID. >> SORRY TO JUMP -- WELL, WE ALSO KNOW FROM GORDON SONDLAND, WHO NOW HAS SWORN TESTIMONY THAT SAYS HE HAS NO IDEA, YOU COVERED IT, HAS NO IDEA WHY THE AID WAS EVER HELD UP. SO ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT ANYBODY HAS OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN, HE IS ON THE RECORD TO SAY HE DOES NOT KNOW WHY THE AID WAS HELD UP. SO, IF HE DOESN'T KNOW IT, AND HE'S CONVEYING THAT TO SOMEONE ELSE, HE'S CONVEYING SOMETHING THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW. SO, WHEN WE START TO LOOK AT THIS, IT ALL STARTS TO FALL APART. WHEN YOU START TRACKING IT BACK TO WHO ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT WHEN, THE AID WAS HELD UP FOR TWO REASONS. I CAN TELL YOU. ONE IS THE PRESIDENT HAS A DEEP-ROOTED CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION. THAT IS SHARED WITH THE TWO WITNESSES IN THERE TODAY. THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CORRUPTION THAT UKRAINE HAS NOT ONLY HAD, BUT EVEN CONTINUES TO STRUGGLE WITH TODAY. THE SECOND PART ABOUT THAT, AND YOU'VE HEARD IT A MILLION TIMES FROM THIS PRESIDENT, ISN'T IT IMPORTANT, ISN'T IT CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE FRENCH, THE GERMANS, THE UK, THAT THEY PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. WHY IS IT THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER THAT HAS TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND YET UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION, NOT ONLY WERE JAVELINS GIVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME, AID WAS GIVEN TO UKRAINE IN SPITE OF ALL THAT. >> IS IT POSSIBLE SONDLAND DOESN'T RECALL THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT? TWO WITNESSES SAID HE DID RELAY THIS INFORMATION FROM THE PRESIDENT. IS IT BELIEVABLE THAT GORDON SONDLAND DOESN'T -- >> WHAT TWO WITNESSES? >> MORRISON -- >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS THE ONE WHO SAID THAT, SO LET'S BE SPECIFIC. >> MORRISON -- >> MORRISON TESTIFIED THE OTHER DAY, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED HIS TRANSCRIPT. I THINK IT WOULD BE HIGHLY APPROPRIATE FOR MR. MORRISON'S TRANSCRIPT TO BE RELAID. WHEN YOU SEE THAT, NOT ONLY WILL HE CONVEY SOME OF THE THINGS BEING TALKED ABOUT TODAY BUT HE'LL ALSO CONVEY THE FACT THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT MADE IT VERY CLEAR, THERE WAS NO CONDITION WHATSOEVER AS IT RELATES TO THE AID, AND THE AID WAS RELEASED SHORTLY AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MADE A PERSONAL -- IN-PERSON VISIT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, POLAND. YEAH, GO AHEAD. >> A STAFFER OVERHEARD GORDON SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT WHERE THE PRESIDENT MENTIONED THE INVESTIGATIONS. ARE YOU CONCERNED SONDLAND HIMSELF DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE TESTIFIED TO THAT? >> AM I CONCERNED -- >> THAT GORDON SONDLAND -- IT SEEMS SONDLAND DID NOT TESTIFY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS ABOUT THAT PHONE CALL. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I SAT IN HIS ENTIRE INTERVIEW, HE DIDN'T TESTIFY TO IT ORIGINALLY. YOU KNOW, IT'S AMAZING -- [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> HE PREPARED FOR HOURS TO COME UP HERE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, VOILA, HE GETS THIS MIRACULOUS ENTER CONVENTION FROM ONE OF HIS STAFFERS THAT REMINDS HIM. DOES IT CONCERN ME? I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN WE START TO LOOK AT THE FACTS, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR IMPRESSION OF WHAT TRUTH IS. JUST LIKE ALL OF YOU AS REPORTERS HAVE YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT TRUTH IS. THE ULTIMATE JUDGE WILL BE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND I THINK MOST OF THEM WILL SEE WHAT I'M SEEING IN THAT ROOM. IT'S REPORTERS AND PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE YAWNING BECAUSE THIS IS ALL ABOUT A POLICY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND A FEW PEOPLE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. >> DO YOU THINK THIS NEW -- >> YOU SAID -- >> DO YOU THINK THE INFORMATION -- >> I THINK THIS NEW INFORMATION IS -- I MEAN, I'M NOT HERE TO QUESTION ANYBODY'S MOTIVES. WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHEN IT BECOMES SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH HAND AND RELAID ABOUT THE FACTS, WE KNOW HOW WRONG IT CAN GET. YOU'RE A JOURNALIST. WHAT'S THE KEY? YOU ALWAYS LOOK FOR YOUR SOURCES. YOU LOOK FOR TWO PEOPLE TO CONFIRM IT. AT THIS POINT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT FROM A JOURNALISTIC STANDARD, LET ALONE AN IMPEACHMENT STANDARD THAT SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN YOURP JOURNALISTIC STANDARD. >> SONDLAND BACKED UP WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS -- >> WHAT DID HE BACK UP? I WAS IN THERE FOR SEVEN HOURS. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU WEREN'T IN THERE, LEIGH ANN. I WAS IN THERE. WHAT DID HE BACK UP? >> HE SAID EVERYTHING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED, AS FAR AS HE KNEW, WAS ACCURATE. HE TOOK ISSUE WITH ONE SMALL DETAIL -- >> BUT HE WASN'T IN THERE FOR THE TESTIMONY. WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE OPENING STATEMENT THAT WAS LEAKED BY A DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES TO A FEW OF YOU SO YOU COULD REPORT OUT THAT. HE WASN'T THERE. HE WASN'T PRIVY TO IT. HE HASN'T READ THE DEPOSITION. AS YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU MAKE THESE BROAD-SWEEPING STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOT BASED ON REALITY OR FACTS BEING IN THE ROOF. >> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS IMPLYING OR DRAWING OUT QUESTIONS THAT UKRAINE LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN LOST FOR WITHHOLDING AID. YOUR REACTION TO THAT? >> ONE, HE DOESN'T PROPERLY SHOW THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS. IF WE KNOW HOW THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS WORKS FOR FOREIGN AID, THIS DELAY WAS ACTUALLY A DELAY FOR FUTURE ASSISTANCE THAT ULTIMATELY DID NOT HAPPEN. THERE WERE NO LIVES AT RISK. IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT LIVES BEING LOST, WHEN RUSSIA INVADED, IT WAS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. THERE WAS NO DEFENSIVE WEAPONS. ACTUALLY, THE AID HAS INCREASED. IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT SAVING LIVES AND YOU WANT TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE MORE FOR UKRAINE THAN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE PREVIOUSLY. >> HE SAYS -- [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> DO I CONTEST WHAT? >> TAYLOR SAID ASSISTANCE WAS HELD UP AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT? >> I CONTEST THAT -- NO, I DON'T CONTEST IT WAS HELD UP AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT. I THINK OTHER PEOPLE -- WHAT I DO CONTEST IS THE REASON WHY IT WAS HELD UP. THE PRESIDENT NOT ONLY HELD UP AID HERE. HE HELD UP AID TO LEBANON THAT STILL REMAINS ON HOLD. HE HELD UP AID TO OTHER PLACES. WE HAVE MULTIPLE WITNESSES THAT SAY THAT PART OF THIS PRESIDENT'S RESET WITH REGARDS TO FOREIGN POLICY IS NOT TO JUST SEND FOREIGN DOLLARS -- HOLD ON, LET ME FINISH. TO NOT SEND FOREIGN AID TO OTHER COUNTRIES WITHOUT THERE BEING SOME CONDITION APPLIES TO IT. THAT CONDITION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INVESTIGATIONS. IT HAS TO BE A GOOD STEWARD OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLAR. >> HELD IT UP TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. THAT'S THE IMPLICATION. >> THAT'S THE IMPLICATION. THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR SIX WEEKS. I CAN TELL YOU THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY POMPEO, THOSE IN THE KNOW, THE CONDITION THAT WAS PLACED ON THIS WAS PLACED ON TWO THINGS. ONE IS, EUROPE DOING THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TERMS OF UKRAINE ASSISTANCE AND A CORRUPTION SCHEME THAT HAS LONG BEEN A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM IN UKRAINE HAD TO COME TO AN END BEFORE WE SENT IT. >> CONGRESSMAN, WERE THE -- >> AND REVEALED WHAT HE KNOWS EXACTLY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. IF EVERYTHING IS FINE, HE'S THE PERSON WHO'S BEEN -- PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THAT -- >> LISTEN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN ON OVERSIGHT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS ANYBODY THAT WHAT I LOVE TO DO IS GET FROM A DIRECT SOURCE. AT THE SAME TIME, HAVING THE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA COME AND TESTIFY ON ANYTHING NEVER HAPPENED, NEVER WILL HAPPEN. WHETHER IT'S THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT, YOU CAN'T GO INTO THAT INNER CIRCLE. IT PUTS A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES' ABILITY TO DO HIS JOB. >> FOR THE CASE YOU ARE MAKING TO BE TRUE -- >> THE CASE I'M MAKING IS TRUE. >> FOR THE CASE YOU'RE MAKING TO BE TRUE, EVERY SINGLE WITNESS WHO HAS TESTIFIED MORE THAN A DOZEN OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO BE EITHER LYING OR MISTAKEN. >> THAT'S NOT CORRECT. YOUR CHARACTERIZATION IS SO INHERENTLY WRONG AND BIASED. >> THEY ALL SAID THEY BELIEVED THE BIDENS WERE THE FOCUS -- >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, HOW MANY HOURS HAVE YOU BEEN IN -- SITTING IN THESE DEPOSITIONS? I HAVEN'T -- >> I READ -- >> YOU HAVE NOT READ ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS. I BEG TO DIFFER BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALL BEEN RELEASED. THERE'S NO WAY YOU'VE READ THEM ALL. I CAN TELL YOU, YOUR PREMISE IS NOT RIGHT. I'VE BEEN IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS AND I CAN TELL YOU, THERE'S CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION. THIS PRESIDENT HAD NOT PUT ANY CONDITION ON THE AID. CERTAINLY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT EP, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHY ARE WE ALL HERE 11 MONTHS FROM AN ELECTION? WHY NOT LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE? ALL OF A SUDDEN WHAT HAPPENED IS THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION DIDN'T WORK, THE RUSSIA COLLUSION DIDN'T WORK. NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE UKRAINIAN 2.0. I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS. IT IS PARTISAN AND IT IS POLITICAL AND HAS NO BASIS IN THE -- >> AND YOU THINK THESE WITNESSES ARE A PART OF THAT? >> CONGRESSMAN, JUST CONTINUING WITH THE QUID PRO QUO, IS IT OKAY FOR ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT NOW TO ASK A FOREIGN LEADER FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT? >> YOU GOT TO UNDERSTAND THE BACKDROP OF WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. IS IT OKAY IF I RUN FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT THAT I AM SOMEHOW IMMUNE TO ANY INVESTIGATION? THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD SAY, JUST BECAUSE YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT YOU SHOULD BE IMMUNE. THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS THIS, THE BACKDROP OF THIS COMES FROM A 2016 CONNECTION TO UKRAINE. THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING ACCUSED THAT HE COORDINATED OR THAT THE RUSSIANS HELPED HIM AND YET THERE WAS EQUAL EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINE TOOK PART IN SOME OF THE DISINFORMATION THAT WAS APPLIED TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS. I SAY THAT. A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, THAT'S A CONSPIRACY THEORY, THAT THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. LET ME JUST TELL YOU, THIS FACT REMAINS. EITHER NELLIE ORR LIED TO CONGRESS WHERE SHE TALKED ABOUT A UKRAINIAN CONNECTION OR THERE WAS ONE. THERE'S NO IN BETWEEN. >> WHAT ABOUT GEORGE KENT TESTIFYING JUST NOW SAYING THERE WAS NO AMERICAN OFFICIAL THAT TRIED TO INTERFERE IN ANY SORT OF INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA? >> WELL, THAT HE IS UNAWARE OF. HIS TESTIMONY IS AT DIRECT ODDS WITH NELLIE ORR WHO GAVE TESTIMONY. I WAS IN THERE. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPTS. NELLIE ORR SAID, INDEED, IT'S A PERSON BY THE NAME OF SERGEI LESCHENKO. BUT WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLD AID? YOU COVER THE PRESIDENT. IS HE NOT A DIRECT INDIVIDUAL WHO SPEAKS DIRECTLY ABOUT WHAT'S ON HIS MIND? HE DOESN'T -- >> HOLD ON. DOES HE NOT SPEAK HIS MIND? IN FACT, YOU GUYS CRITICIZE HIM FOR SPEAKING HIS MIND AND YET A PHONE CALL HAPPENS ON JULY 25th, NO MENTION OF AID IN THAT PHONE CALL AT ALL. IT'S NOT THE PRESIDENT'S STYLE. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH -- >> THE PRESIDENT DISPATCHED RUDY GIULIANI -- >> I HAVE TO GO BACK NOW. >> WAS IT OKAY FOR HIM TO DO THAT. >> LISTEN, THE PRESIDENT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME WAS LOOKING AT A DEFENSE FROM THE 2016 ELECTION CHARGES. THAT'S WHY RUDY GIULIANI GOT INVOLVED. >> BUT HE TOLD -- >> HOLD ON. LET ME -- LET ME FINISH, MANU. AND SO AS WE START TO LOOK AT THAT, THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF WHY RUDY GIULIANI WAS INVOLVED WAS AS A DEFENSES OF THIS PRESIDENT DEFENSE FALSE ACCUSATION. WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT BEYOND THAT IN THE WITHHOLD BIDEN/BURISMA, I THINK THAT'S A FOOTNOTE, A SIDE NOTE WE ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOW. WHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT THE FACT THERE ARE SOME MERITS TO THE FACT THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD AND THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AT WORST CASE SCENARIO SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM INTERFERING WITH SOME OF THOSE DECISIONS IN FEBRUARY 2016. LAST QUESTION. >> ONE LAST QUESTION. ABOUT THIS CALL. THE FACT THAT SONDLAND ALLEGEDLY SAID WHEN ASKED ABOUT UKRAINE POLICY, THE PRESIDENT CARES MORE ABOUT THE BIDENS. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? >> I THINK THAT WHAT THAT SAYS IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAS AN OPINION. YOU'LL GET TO HEAR FROM HIM IN A FEW DAYS AND YOU'LL FIND HE HAS LOTS OF OPINIONS. SOME OF THOSE ARE BASED ON FACT. SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S BASED ON FACT, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S NOT MERITS HERE. THANK YOU, GUYS. I HAVE TO RUN. I HAVE TO RUN. YEAH, I GOT TO RUN. >>> THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE RANKING MEMBER AND MINORITY COUNSEL FOR 40 MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. THE CALL SUMMARY FOR WHICH THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THEIR NEFARIOUS DEPICTION OF IT. WHAT IT ACTUALLY SHOWS IS A PLEASANT EXCHANGE BETWEEN TWO LEADERS WHO DISCUSS MUTUAL COOPERATION OVER A RANGE OF ISSUES. THE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THIS CALL DEMONSTRATES EXTORTION, BRIBERY AND A HOST OF OTHER MONSTROUS CRIMES BEING COMMITTED AGAINST PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. YET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF INSISTS THERE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CONVERSATION. INDEED THE ROUTINE NATURE OF THE CALL HELPS TO EXPLAIN WHY IN THIS COMMITTEE'S LAST PUBLIC HEARING, DEMOCRATS RECITED A FICTITIOUS VERSION OF THE CALL INSTEAD OF READING THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT. THE DEMOCRATS DEPICTED THE PRESIDENT SAYING, QUOTE, I WANT YOU TO MAKE UP DIRT ON MY POLITICAL OPPONENT, UNDERSTAND? LOTS OF IT. ON THIS AND ON THAT, UNQUOTE. THE TRANSCRIPT DID NOT SHOW PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ASK UKRAINE TO MAKE UP DIRT ON ANYONE. BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT TRYING TO DISCOVER FACTS. THEY'RE TRYING TO INVENT A NARRATIVE. AND THE FACTS THEY NEED DO NOT EXIST, THEN THEY'LL JUST MAKE IT UP. NOT ONLY DOES PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DENY THE DEMOCRATS' CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CALL, BUT AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED TO THIS COMMITTEE, THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT EVEN KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE CALL THAT A TEMPORARY DELAY WAS PUT ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THEM. FURTHERMORE, AS THE AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED, THESE HOLDS OCCUR FROM TIME TO TIME. BOTH HE AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER WERE CONFIDENT THE DELAY WOULD BE LIFTED. IN FACT, MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE HAS ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO SEE THAT UKRAINE WAS AFFORDED JAVELIN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS. THIS WAS A VERY STRONG MESSAGE THAT AMERICANS ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE MORE THAN BLANKETS. THIS WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S APPROACH. NOTE THIS IMPORTANT FACT, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PROVIDED TO UKRAINE WITHOUT THE UKRAINIANS HAVING DONE ANY OF THE THINGS THEY WERE SHOEFDLY BLACKMAILED TO DO. SO WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED A TERRIBLE CRIME THAT NEVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED AND WHICH THE SUPPOSED VICTIM DENIES EVER HAPPENED. I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY SPEAK TO THE CORE MISTRUTH AT THE CORE OF THE DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT DRIVE. THEY CLAIM THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO YET THE UKRAINIANS TO, QUOTE, MANUFACTURE DIRT AGAINST HIS POLITICAL RIVALS. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY PRECISELY ZERO EVIDENCE. ONCE AGAIN, THE DEMOCRATS SIMPLY MADE IT UP. BUT LET'S CONSIDER THE BROADER QUESTION ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY HAVE WANTED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT UKRAINE MEDDLING IN 2016. THE DEMOCRATS DOWNPLAY, IGNORE, OUTRIGHT DENY THE MANY INDICATIONS THAT UKRAINIANS ACTUALLY DID MEDDLE IN THE ELECTION. A SHOCKING ABOUT-FACE FOR PEOPLE WHO FOR THREE YEARS ARGUED THAT FOREIGN ELECTION MEDDLING WAS AN INTOLERABLE CLIMB THAT THREATENED THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY. WHILE THE BRAZEN SUDDENNESS OF THIS U-TURN IS JARRING, THIS DENIAL IS A NECESSARY PART OF THEIR ARGUMENT. AFTER ALL, IF THERE ACTUALLY WERE INDICATIONS OF UKRAINE ELECTION MEDDLING AND IF FOREIGN ELECTION MEDDLING IS A DIRE THREAT, THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD REASON FOR WANTING TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED. AND SINCE THE MEDDLING WAS AIMED AGAINST HIS CAMPAIGN, HE'D HAVE GOOD REASON FOR SENDING HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO MAKE INQUIRIES ABOUT IT. WHAT'S STRANGE IS SOME OF THE WITNESSES AT THESE HEARINGS AND PREVIOUS DEPOSITIONS, WHO EXPRESS ALARM ABOUT THESE INQUIRIES, WERE REMARKABLY UNINFORMED ABOUT THESE INDICATIONS OF UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING AND WHY THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE BEEN CONCERNED. BY THEM. FOR EXAMPLE, I NOTED PREVIOUSLY, ALEXANDER CHALUPA ADMITTED TO POLITICO SHE WORKED WITH OFFICIALS AT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., TO DIG UP DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WHICH SHE PASSED ONTO THE DNC AND THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. SHE REVEALED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THEMSELVES WERE ALSO WORKING DIRECTLY WITH REPORTERS TO TRADE INFORMATION AND LEADS ABOUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. AMBASSADOR KENT, YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO BE TOO CONCERNED ABOUT IT IN THE LAST ROUND OF QUESTIONING, SO I'LL JUST SKIP YOU BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WASN'T A CONCERN. BUT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFIED TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU ONLY RECENTLY BECAME AWARE OF REPORTS OF THIS COOPERATION BETWEEN UKRAINIAN EMBASSY OFFICIALS AND CHALUPA TO UNDERMINE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. FROM YOUR LAST DEPOSITION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> MR. NUNES, IT IS CORRECT I HAD NOT KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE. >> I'M JUST GOING OVER YOUR LAST DEPOSITION, AMBASSADOR. >> YES. >> THE POLITICO ARTICLE CITES THREE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SUSTAINING THE UKRAINE EMBASSY SUPPORTED THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. IT LISTS ARDEMENYKO, IT IS CLEAR THEY WERE SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON'S CANDIDACY THEY DID EVERYTHING FROM PUBLICLY THE TEAM TO CRITICIING TRUMP. I THINK THEY SIMPLY DIDN'T MEET WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HILLARY WOULD WIN, UNQUOTE. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THAT STATEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU ALSO SAID YOU WERE UNAWARE THAT THEN UKRAINE AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S., VALERIE CHA LAY, WROTE AN OP-ED IN "THE HILL" DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CRITICIZING THEN-CANDIDATE TRUMP, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU SAID YOU DID NOT KNOW SERGEI LESCHENKO, THE BLACK LEDGER, WAS TO UNDERMINE THE TRUMP CANDIDACY. THIS WAS IN YOUR DEPOSITION. IS THAT STILL CORRECT? >> THAT IS STILL CORRECT, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MR. TAYLOR. FUSION GPS CORRECTOR NELLIE ORR TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS THAT LESEE. HENKO WAS A SOURCE FOR FUSION GPS'S OPERATION TO DIRTY UP THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INCLUDING THE COMPILATION OF THE STEELE DOSSIER ON BEHALF OF THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE UNAWARE THAT LESCHENKO SERVED AS A SOURCE FOR THAT. IS THIS STILL CORRECT? >> IT IS. >> YOU SAID YOU DID NOT KNOW UKRAINIAN INTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER AVOKOV MOCKED AND DISPARAGED THEN-CANDIDATE TRUMP ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER. IS THAT STILL CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS COMMITTEE YOU SAID YOU WERE NEVER BRIEFED ON THESE REPORTS AND STATEMENTS, THAT YOU DID NOT DO DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE TAKING YOUR POST TO DISCOVER THAT PRESIDENT -- THE PRESIDENT'S AND MAYOR GIULIANI'S CONCERNS MAY HAVE BEEN AND THAT YOU -- WHAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN AND YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THEM WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. IS THAT STILL CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> FURTHERMORE, YOU SAID IT UPSET YOU TO HEAR ABOUT THE MANY INDICATIONS OF UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING. PRECISE WORDS AND I WILL READ THEM BACK TO YOU, BASED ON THIS POLITICAL ARTICLE WHICH AGAIN SURPRISES ME AND DISAPPOINTMENTS ME, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS A MISTAKE FOR ANY DIPLOMATIC OFFICIAL IN ONE COUNTRY TO INTERSPHERE IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF ANOTHER. THAT IS DISAPPOINTING, END QUOTE. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY? >> MR. NUNES, IT IS. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, I LOOKED INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SEVERAL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. IN 2016, CANDIDATE TRUMP HAD MADE A STATEMENT SAYING THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT HE WOULD ALLOW CRIMEA TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA. HE EXPRESSED THE SENTIMENT OR THE OPINION THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT CRIMEA WANTED TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, MR. NUNES, IS THAT THOSE, THAT SENTIMENT IS AMAZINGLY INFLAMMATORY TO ALL UKRAINIANS. SO -- >> I THINK THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. ARE YOU AWARE DURING THE, I BELIEVE IT IS THE 2012 ELECTION WHEN AT THE TIME PRESIDENT OBAMA LEANED OVER ON A HOT MIC TO THEN RUSSIAN PRESIDENT AND SAID THAT HE'D HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, AND WAS THAT INFLAMMATORY TO THE UKRAINIANS, ALSO? >> I DON'T KNOW, SIR. >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT SOME GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OPPOSE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POSITION TO UKRAINE, BUT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT CONCERNED HIM. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NUMEROUS INDICATIONINGS OF THE UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION TO OPPOSE HIS CAMPAIGN AND SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON, AND ONCE YOU KNOW THAT, IT IS EASE EASEY TO KNOW WHY HE WANTED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE CORRUPTION, AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 2016 ELECTION. AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN TO MR. CASTOR. >> REFERRING TO 2016 CAMPAIGN, YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WAS GENUINELY BELIEVING THEY WERE WORKING AGAINST HIM, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> MR. CASTER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT OR CANDIDATE TRUMP WAS THINKING ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS. >> BUT DIDN'T HE IN THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING IN MAY 23rd, IN THE ZELENSKY INAUGURATION, AND DIDN'T HE LAMENT THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE OUT TO GET HIM? >> I HEARD THAT HIS RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT MR. ZELENSKY VISIT MR. TRUMP, PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE OVAL OFFICE WAS NOT WELL RECEIVED AND THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINIANS, YES. >> BUT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S PERSPECTIVE, IF THE AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, AND ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL DIPLOMATS IS PENNING AN OP-ED AND CERTAINLY WITH THE OKAY OF PRESIDENT POROSHENKO, THIS DNC CONSULTANTS ARE CONFERRING WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AT THE EMBASSY, AND FORMER PRIME MINISTER AND THE AMBASSADOR HAD ALSO BEEN IN THE ZELENSKY REALM WAS SAYING VERY UNKIND THINGS ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS VERY CONCERNED THAT SOME ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF HIM, DID NOT SUPPORT HIM AND WERE OUT TO GET HIM? >> I WILL ALLOW THE QUESTION, BUT ARE YOU -- >> YOU ARE SERIOUSLY INTERRUPTING OUR TIME HERE? >> I WON'T DOCK THE TIME, BUT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR, AMBASSADOR, IF YOU CAN VERIFY THE THINGS THAT THE COUNSEL HAS IDENTIFIED IN THE PREREQUISITES, BUT FOR THE MAJORITY OR THE MINORITY WITHOUT FACTS BEFORE YOU, YOU SHOULD BE CAUTIONED ABOUT THAT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER. >> THE TIME IS WITH MINORITY COUNSEL. >> MR. RADCLIFFE. >> CHAIRMAN, I SAT HERE THROUGH THE FIRST 45 MINUTES AND LITERALLY HAD AN OBJECTION TO ALMOST THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY QUESTION THAT MR. GOLDMAN ASKED REGARDING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE LEADING, BUT HOW RESOLUTION 660 DOES NOT SAY THAT WE ARE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, AND IF ITIS YOUR POSITION THAT I NEED TO BE INSERTING OBJECTIONS THAT VIOLATE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, LET ME KNOW NOW, BECAUSE THIS HEARING IS GOING TO CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY. >> AS I SAID, MR. RADCLIFFE, I WILL ALLOW THE QUESTION. >> I THINK THAT THE GENTLEMAN HAS A DIFFERENT QUESTION ABOUT THE RULES. SO WHAT ARE THE RULES GOING TO BE THAT GOVERN THIS? >> DOES THE RANKING MEMBER SEEK RECOGNITION? >> I AM YIELDING TO THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED YOU. >> FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK RECOGNITION? >> TO ANSWER MR. RAT CLIFF'S QUESTION. >> EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE NOT SAID THAT I NEED TO BE ASSERTING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE OR LEADING OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS THAT ARE POSED FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. THAT IS MY QUESTION. >> MR. RADCLIFFE, I WILL SAY ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT OBJECTING TO THE QUESTION, BUT I AM INSTRUCTING THE WITNESS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT QUESTIONS FROM THE MAJORITY OR THE MINORITY OF FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE ARE CORRECT. THIS IS, AND I HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION AND WE WILL RESUME THE QUESTIONING AND THE CLOCK. MR. CASTOR. >> SO YOU COULD APPRECIATE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS? >> MR. CASTOR, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS. AND IN MY DEPOSITION, I RECALL YOU HANDED ME THE POLITICO ARTICLE WHICH LISTED AT LEAST THREE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED EARLIER, AND I, YOU HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER THAT I, THE FIRST I HAVE HEARD OF THOSE, AND I WAS SURPRISED BY THOSE. I DON'T KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REACTION TO THOSE. >> IN THE INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY THE FORMER UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER AND THEN A MEMBER OF THE PARLIAMENT ABOUT THE BLACK LEDGERS IN AUGUST 16th, AND ON THE VERY DAY THAT WAS PUBLISHED MR. MANAFORT RESIGNED FROM THE CAMPAIGN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW, MR. CASTOR. >> BUT CERTAINLY THAT IS GIVING RISE TO SOME ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT WERE OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT, AND THAT IS A REASONABLE BELIEF OF HIS, CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> THE RUN-UP TO THE 2016 ELECTION, THERE'S MANY FACTS THAT REMAIN UNRESOLVED, AGREED? >> I AM SORRY. THE QUESTION? >> THE FACTS THAT GO INTO THE RUN-UP OF THE 2016 ELECTION REMAIN UNRESOLVED? >> IN THE FURTHER -- >> WELL, ATTORNEY BARR ASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT TO LOOK AT QUESTIONS BROADER OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN, AND INITIALLY, IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW HAS TURNED INTO A CRIMINAL PROBE, AND THE U.S. ATTORNEY DURHAM IS CASTING A WIDE NET, AND HE IS FOLLOWING THE FACTS WHERE THEY MAY LEAD. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> I AM AWARE THAT THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION. THAT IS AS MUCH AS I AM AWARE. >> SO TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY INFORMATION TA RESIDES IN YU KRARNGS IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE UKRAINIANS TO THE GET TO BOTTOM OF THAT AND FOR THE UKRAINIANS TO SHARE INFORMATION THROUGH THE OFFICIAL CHANNELS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> MR. CASTOR, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD RESTATE THE QUESTION. >> TO THE EXTENT THAT THE UKRAINIAN HAS THE RUNUP TO U.S. ATTORNEY DURHAM'S PROBE, UKRAINE SHOULD COOPERATE WITH THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE EXTENT, ARE THE UKRAINIANS DO EVERYTHING THAT THE UKRAINIANS SHOULD DO TO INVESTIGATE THAT, CORRECT? >> MR. CASTOR, THE UKRAINIAN/AMERICAN RELATIONS ARE SUPPORTIVE. THE UKRAINIANS WILL CERTAINLY BE RESPONSIVE TO REQUESTS. >> SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALL FROM JULY 25th, URGES THIS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND ENCOURAGES THE COOPERATION WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THAT IS CORRECT? >> IT IS FOR THEM TO COOPERATE, YES. >> AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS HAVING THE U.S. ATTORNEY DURHAM TO LOOK INTO THAT, ISN'T IT ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FLAG THIS FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD BE IN TOUCH WITH OUR OFFICIAL CHANNELS? >> MR. CASTOR, I DON'T KNOW THE PRECISE APPROPRIATENESS OF THESE KINDS OF RELATIONS. >> NOW, WERE YOU INVOLVED OR EITHER OF YOU INVOLVED WITH THE PREPARATION FOR THE 7/25 CALL? >> I WAS NOT. >> I WAS NOT. >> HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THAT? I MEAN, YOU ARE THE TWO OF THE KEY OFFICIALS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR UKRAINIAN POLICY. I MEAN, IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO HAVE A CALL OF THE LEADER OF THE UKRAINE, WHY, WHY WOULDN'T YOU ORDINARILY BE INVOLVED WITH THE PREPARATION? >> SIR, WE WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN THE EMBASSY OVERSEAS AND IN PREPARATION FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALL, THE THAT RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITHIN THE STAFF OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND NORMALLY IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME, THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF CAN SOLICIT INFORMATION FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND WE CAN DRAW ON THE EMBASSY, BUT IT IS ONLY BACKGROUND INFORMATION, AND MY UNDERSTANDING HAVING NEVER WORKED AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IS THAT THE STAFF WRITE A MEMO TO THE PRESIDENT, AND NONE OF US SEE THAT OUTSIDE OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF. >> OKAY. SO THE SARJE WOULD NOT BE ON THE CALL TO THE AMBASSADOR THE UKRAINE? >> NO, THEY WOULD NOT. >> AND DID ANYBODY FROM THE STAFF REACH OUT TO YOU IN PREPARATION TO THE CALL? >> I WAS GIVEN NOTIFICATION THE DAY BEFORE ON JULY 24th, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I HAD ANY ROLE THAT WAS TO REACH OUT TO EMBASSY AND GIVE THEM A HEAD'S UP, AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE BECAUSE SECURE LINK IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE SO THAT IT COULD BE PATCHED THROUGH TO THE SITUATION ROOM OF THE WHITE HOUSE. >> DID YOU PROVIDE ANY SUBSTANTIVE ADVICE TO MR. VINDMAN ABOUT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CALL? >> I DID NOT ADVICE. >> MR. TAYLOR? >> NO. >> AND SO DID YOU FEEL THAT THE CALL WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? >> I WAS TOLD THAT THE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS WOULD BE USEFUL AND WHEN MR. ZELENSKY WON THE FIRST EVER PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON JULY 21st, THE IDEA OF A CONGRATULATORY CALL FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE MADE SENSE. >> AND SO DID YOU GET A READOUT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR INITIALLY FROM THE CALL? >> I DIDN'T, MR. CASTOR. I READ, AND WE ALL READ THE STATEMENT THAT THE UKRAIIANS PUT OUT, AND I GOT A READOUT FROM MR. MORRISON, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. >> ALL RIGHT. HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. KENT? >> I LIKEWISE FIRST SAW THE UKRAINIAN STATEMENTS, AND I BELIEVED THAT FROM COLONEL VINDMAN. >> YOU SAID THAT THE UKRAINIAN -- >> AS A GENERAL RULE, THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES WILL PUT OUT VERY SHORT SUMMARIES WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL. >> OKAY. YOU MENTIONED IT WAS I -- >> DID THAT SEEM ORDINARY? >> WE DID. WE DISCUSSED IT THE NEXT DAY. >> DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL? >> SO, RIGHT. SO I AND MR. VOLKER AND MR. SONDLAND WERE IN THE OFFICE AND HE SAID THAT THE CALL WAS FINE. I WAS HAPPY WITH THE CALL. >> DID YOU GET ANY ADDITIONAL READOUTS SUBSEQUENTLY ABOUT THE CALL? WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT THE CALL CONTAINED THINGS THAT CONCERNED YOU? WAS THAT NOT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25th? >> MR. MORRISON, AS I SAID BRIEFED ME SEVERAL DAYS LATER BEFORE THE END OF JULY AND THAT IS WHERE I SAID IN MY TESTIMONY THAT HE SAID IT COULD HAVE GONE BETTER. HE SAID IT, THAT THE CALL MENTIONED MR. GIULIANI. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE CALL MENTIONED THE FORMER AMBASSADOR. BOTH OF THOSE WERE CONCERNING. >> GIULIANI WAS FIRST RAISE ON THE CALL BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT? >> I DON'T RECALL. IT COULD HAVE BEEN. I HAVE IT HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE IT, SIR. >> YEAH, IT IS ON PAGE 3. >> VERY GOOD. >> THE FIRST MENTION OF GIULIANI IS FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON PAGE 3, AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS THAT I WILL PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT ONE OF MY ASSISTANTS SPOKE WITH MR. GIULIANI AND WE ARE HOPING THAT MR. GIULIANI WILL BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE AND WE WILL MEET ONCE HE COMES TO UKRAINE. DID THAT SURPRISE YOU? >> AGAIN, I DID NOT HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT AT THE TIME, AND ALL I HEARD WAS THAT GIULIANI WAS MENTIONED AND MR. MORRISON SAID THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS MENTIONED IN THE PHONE CALL. >> BUT THE WAY IT IS HERE, MR. ZELENSKY IS LOOKING LIKE HE IS LOOKING FORWARD TO SPEAKING TO AMERICA'S MAYOR. >> THAT IS WHAT I FOUND OUT WHEN I READ THE TRANSCRIPT ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER OR SO. >> OKAY. SO, MR. KENT, CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND IT AFFECTS THE COURTS, THE PROSECUTORS AND HISTORICALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH ALL OF THE PROSECUTORS IN UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> I WOULD SAY UP UNTIL THE NEW SET OF PROSECUTORS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS, CORRECT. >> AND SO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE CONSENSUS OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS THAT HE IS THE REAL DEAL, A REAL REFORMER, AND GENUINELY INTERESTED IN ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, AND PROSECUTING THE BAD GUYS, CORRECT? >> I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC, AND WE WILL WORK WHEREVER THERE IS THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND PUT FORWARD GENUINE REFORM. >> AND AT THE HEART OF THE CORRUPTION IS THIS OLIGARCHAL SYSTEM WHERE THE OLIGARCHS TAKE CONTROL OFTEN BY A VIRTUAL THEFT OF FOR EXAMPLE THE RIGHT TO CERTAIN ENERGY LICENSES, CORRECT? >> THAT IS ONE ELEMENT, YES, SIR. >> AND THE COMPANY B BURISMA, A THE PRESIDENT HAS A STORIED HISTORY. >> YES, HE WAS THERE FROM 2010 TO 2012 AND HE USED THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO AWARD GAS EXPLORATION LICENSES TO COMPANIES THAT HE, HIMSELF, CONTROLLED AND THAT IS CONSIDERED AN ACT OF CORRUPTION IN MY VIEW, YES. >> AND CERTAINLY SELF-DEALING. >> SELF-DEALING AND SELF-ENRICHING. >> AND HOW DID THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT PURSUE THAT? >> IN THE SPRING OF 2014, THE NEW GOVERNMENT AFTER THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY TURNED TO PARTNERS PARTICULARLY IN THE U.S. AND THE U.K. TO TRY TO RECOVER TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF STOLEN ASSETS, AND THE FIRST CASE THAT WE TRIED TO RECOVER THAT MONEY CAME FROM MR. ZLOCHEVSKY AND THE OFFICE HAD ALREADY OPENED UP A CASE UKRAINE AND THEY OPENED UP MORE INVESTIGATIONS WITH US, AND THE $23 MILLION WAS FROZEN UNTIL SOMEBODY IN THE GENERAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN UKRAINE SHUT THE CASE, AND ISSUED A LETTER TO THE LAWYER, AND THAT MONEY WENT POOF. >> PAID A BRIBE TO MAKE THE CASE GO AWAY? >> THAT IS THE STRONG ASSUMPTION, YES, SIR. >> AT ANY TIME IS ANYONE IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO REINVESTIGATE THAT, OR DID THOSE CRIMES GO UNPUNISH AND HE WAS FREE TO GO? >> MR. ZLOCHEVSKY SPENT TIME AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IN MOSCOW AND MONACO AFTER HE FLED UKRAINE AND WE CONTINUE TO RAISE A POINT OF ORDER, BECAUSE U.S. TAXPAYER DOLLARS HAD BEEN TRIED TO RECOVER FROZEN ASSETS WE HAD A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESS THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO ANSWER FOR WHY ALLEGED CORRUPT PROSECUTORS HAD CLOSED A CASE, AND WE HAVE UNTIL NOW NOT GOTTEN A SATISFACTORY ANSWER, AND SO TO SUMMARIZE, WE THOUGHT THAT MYCOLA ZLOCHEVSKY HAD STOLEN MONEY, AND TAKEN BRIBES. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT CASE BEING FULLY PROSECUTED? >> I THINK THAT SINCE THE U.S. TAX DOLLARS WERE WASTED, I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT WHO THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR WAS WHO TOOK THE BRIBE AND HOW IT WAS PAID AND THAT IS WHAT I SAID ON JULY 23rd, 2015. >> BUT IN ADDITION TO PROSECUTING THE PERSON TAKING THE BRIBE, SHOULDN'T THE ORGANIZATION OR THE PERSON WHO SPONSORED THE BRIBES BE PROSECUTED? >> I WOULD AGREE THAT THE UKRAINIAN LAW AUTHORITIES SHOULD UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AND HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR BREAKING UKRAINIAN LAW. >> SO THIS COMPANY BURISMA IS INVOLVED IN LOTS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, RIGHT? >> I DO NOT KNOW THAT. >> BUT IT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF QUESTIONABLE DEALINGS? >> WELL, IT IS THE LARGEST GAS COMPANY PRODUCER AND THE CREDIBILITY IS MIXED. >> SO TO THE EXTENT THAT A NEW REGIME IS COMING IN UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IT WOULD BE FAIR FOR THE NEW PROSECUTOR AND A GENUINE PROSECUTOR TO RE-EXAMINE OLD CRIMES THAT HAD NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY BROUGHT TO JUSTICE, RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE THAT THE NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL MADE A STATEMENT TO THAT END THAT THEY WOULD BE REVIEWING THE PAST CASES, BUT KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT THOSE WHO COMMIT CRIMES ARE NOT HELD TO ACCOUNT, AND THERE A LOT TO REVIEW. >> AND SO NOW, THE BRIBE WAS PAID IN WHAT YEAR? >> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CASE AGAINST THE ZLOCHEVSKY, THE FORMER MINISTER WAS SHUTDOWN DECEMBER, 2014. >> AROUND THAT TIME, BURISMA STARTS TO ADD INDIVIDUALS TO THE BOARD? >> YES, ZLOCHEVSKY INVITED A SERIES OF INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN THE BOARD IN 2014. >> DO YOU KNOW THE STRATEGY OF WHAT IT WAS TO ADDING THE MEMBERS IN THE BOARD? >> I HAVE NEVER MET MR. ZLOCHEVSKY. >> WHO ARE THE FOLKS THAT HE ADDED TO THE BOARD? >> THE MOST PROMINENT WAS THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> A NUMBER OF OTHERS, INCLUDING SOME AMERICANS AROUND AND THE MOST PROMINENT IN THIS CONTEXT IS HUNTER BIDEN. >> OKAY. SO HUNTER BIDEN IS ADDED TO THE BOARD OF BURISMA, AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IS CREATING A PROBLEM THAT BURISMA MAY BE ADDING PEOPLE TO THE BOARD FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES? >> SIR, I WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE CORPORATE SECTOR, AND SOY BELIEVE THAT THE COMPANIES BUILD THEIR BOARDS WITH A VARIETY OF REASONS, AND NOT ONLY TO PROMOTE THEIR BUSINESS PLANS. >> WAS HUNTER BIDEN A CORPORATE GOVERNANCE EXPERT? >> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HUNTER BIDEN STUDIED OR WHAT THE CV SAYS. >> IS HE THE JEREMY SONNEN FELD OF UKRAINE? >> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXPERIENCE IS. >> YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD PRIOR EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO JOINING THE BOARD? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> DO YOU KNOW IF HE SPEAKS UKRAINIAN? >> I DO NOT KNOW. >> DO YOU KNOW IF HE POSSESSES ANY OTHER ELEMENT OTHER THAN BEING THE SON OF THE TIME OF THE SITTING VICE PRESIDENT? >> I DO NOT. >> AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, DO YOU KNOW IF HUNTER BIDEN ADDS ANYTHING OTHER THAN FACT THAT HIS DAD IS THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OR AT THE TIME THE VICE PRESIDENT. >> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF HUNTER BIDEN. >> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE IT RAISES QUESTIONS, RIGHT? HE WAS GETTING PAID I THINK $50,000 A MONTH TO SIT ON THE BOARD? DO YOU KNOW IF HE RELOCATED TO UKRAINE? >> SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN. >> DO YOU KNOW IF HUNTER BIDEN RELOCATED TO UKRAINE? >> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. >> MR. KENT? >> NO KNOWLEDGE. >> SO HE WAS GETTING PAID $50,000 A MONTH, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE HAD ANY EXPERIENCE, AND HE HAD ANY SPOKE THE LANGUAGE OR MOVED TO UKRAINE, CORRECT. >> CORRECT. >> AND NOW AT THIS TIME, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS TAKING A SPECIFIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE, WASN'T HE? >> HE WAS. >> COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? >> I BELIEVE THAT WHILE HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT, HE MADE A TOTAL OF SIX VISITS TO UKRAINE. ONE MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE OLD REGIME, AND THAT WOULD MAKE FIVE VISITS AFTER THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY THAT STARTED FEBRUARY OF 2014. >> YOU WERE THE DCN, THE DEPUTY CHIEF AT THAT TIME? >> STARTING 2015, YES. >> AND DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN COME WHEN YOU WERE AT POST? >> NO, HE DID NOT. I CAME BACK FOR UKRAINIAN MISSION TRAINING. >> AND YOU HAVE SEEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS SORT OF GIVEN A SPEECH AND A LITTLE FOLKSY ABOUT HOW HE WENT TO UKRAINE AND TOLD THEM IF THEY DON'T FIRE THE PROSECUTOR, THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE THEIR $1 BILLION IN GUARANTEES, RIGHT? >> YES, I BELIEVE THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE FOREIGN COUNCIL OF RELATIONS IN 2014. >> AND HE SAID THAT HE HAS BEEN TO UKRAINE 13 TIMES, AND DO YOU KNOW IF THAT IS ACCURATE? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE AS VICE PRESIDENT HE MADE SIX VISITS. >> AND DID THE STATE DEPARTMENT EVER EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE AT THE TIME ENGAGING ON UKRAINE PRESENTED ANY ISSUES? >> NO, THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE WAS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. IT WAS TOP COVER TO HELP US TO PURSUE OUR POLICY AGENDA. >> OKAY. BUT GIVEN HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE IN BURISMA'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS YOU TESTIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION THAT YOU EXPRESSED CONCERN AT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE? >> YES. >> WHAT DID THEY DO ABOUT THAT CONCERN? >> I DON'T KNOW. I REPORTED MY CONCERN TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. >> THAT IS THE END OF IT? >> SIR, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT DURING 2015. >> BUT AFTER YOU EXPRESSED THAT CONCERN OF A PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AT THE LEAST, THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ENGAGEMENT IN UKRAINE DIDN'T DECREASE, DID IT? >> CORRECT. BECAUSE THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS PROMOTING U.S. POLICY OBJECTIVES IN UKRAINE. >> AND HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA DIDN'T CEASE, DID IT? >> NO. AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I WANTED TO TURN TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT YOU DESCRIBED. AND IN FAIRNESS, THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY, IT IS NOT AS OUTLANDISH AS IT COULD BE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT IS NOT AS OUTLANDISH AS IT COULD BE, I AGREE. >> SO WE HAVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER WHO IS A FORMER SENATE-CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND LONG TIME STATE DIPLOMAT AND YOU HAVE KNOWN AMBASSADOR VOLKER FOR A LONG TIME? >> YES. >> MAN OF UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY. >> CORRECT. >> AND SOMEONE WITH INCREDIBLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGION. >> VERY GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGION. >> AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES? >> I AM SURE THAT IS RIGHT. >> AND THE BEST INTEREST OF UKRAINE? >> HIS PRIORITY IS CLEARLY THE UNITED STATES. >> OKAY. >> AND TO THE EXTENT THAT UKRAINE HAS AN IMPLICATION FOR THAT, YES. UKRAINE AS WELL. >> AND THE SECOND MEMBER OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO IS SENATE-CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO THE EU. SO HIS INVOLVEMENT HERE WHILE, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THE OFFICIAL DUTIES AS THE AM AMBASSADOR IS NOT OUTLANDISH OF SECRETARY POMPEO'S DIRECTION? >> IT IS LITTLE UNUSUAL FOR THE AMBASSADOR OF THE EU TO PLAY A ROLE IN UKRAINE POLICY. >> OKAY. AND YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE IRREGULAR, BUT IT IS NOT OUTLANDISH? AND SECRETARY PERRY IS THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, AND CERTAINLY A, YOU KNOW, SENATE-CONFIRMED OFFICIAL, AND SOMEBODY WITH DEEP EXPERIENCE IN ENERGY MARKETS AND HE WAS PURSUING SOME LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECTS IN UKRAINE. >> THAT IS CORRECT, MR. CASTOR. >> AND SO SECRETARY PERRY'S INVOLVEMENT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE? >> IT IS. >> NOW, THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL AS IT DEVELOPED. WHEN DID YOU DETERMINE THAT IT BECAME PROBLEMATIC? I MEAN, YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT IDENTIFIED YOURSELF AS APPROPRIATELY THE LEADER OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL. >> AT LEAST A PARTICIPANT. THERE IS ANOTHER LEADER OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL. >> SO WHEN DID YOU FIRST DEVELOP CONCERNS THAT THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL WAS BEING PROBLEMATIC? >> WELL, I ARRIVED AND CAME IN MID-SEPTEMBER, AND BY LATE SEPTEMBER, A COUPLE OF PHONE CALLS WITH -- >> YOU ARRIVED IN JUNE, RIGHT? >> JUNE. >> JUNE 17th. >> MID-JUNE. JUNE 17th, YES. AND SO BY THE END OF JUNE, I HAD BEGUN TO HEAR REFERENCES TO INVESTIGATIONS AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO THE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD OFFERED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND THAT BEGAN TO RAISE QUESTIONS FOR ME. >> OKAY. NOW, YOU KNEW AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AND YOU HAVE A REASON TO KNOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND WHAT DID YOU DO AT THIS POINT OR DID YOU EVER TRY TO WREST CONTROL OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL? >> I DID NOT TRY TO WREST CONTROL OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNELT THAT -- >> WELL, WHY NOT IF YOU HAD CONCERNS? >> BECAUSE MR. CASTOR, AT THE TIME AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT KENT SAID THAT BOTH CHANNELS WERE HAVING MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND THERE IS NO REASON TO WREST CONTROL IF WE ARE GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. >> BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU DEVELOPED CONCERNS, AND YOUR OPENING STATEMENT IS HERE, AND YOU ARE THE IMPEACHMENT WITNESS NUMBER ONE AND YOU, MR. KENT, FOR THE CASE OF IMPEACHING THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, CORRECT? >> I WAS CONCERNED WHEN THE IR REGULAR CHANNEL APPEARED TO BE GOING AGAINST, THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL WAS GOING AGAINST THE OVERALL DIRECTION AND PURPOSE OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL. >> AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE RECORD HOWEVER, YOU, WHEN YOU ARRIVED IN UKRAINE, YOU HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE SECRETARY AND THE SECRETARY'S TOP ADVISER BRECHBUHL? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND THEY ASSURED YOU THAT IF YOU HAD ANY CONCERNS YOU COULD CONTACT THEM AND THEY WOULD HAVE YOUR BACK. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND YOU KNEW THAT THE RUDY GIULIANI GOING IN REPRESENTED COMPLEXITIES, CORRECT? >> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI'S STATEMENTS AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE UKRAINE POLICY, YES. >> OKAY. SO WHEN IT GENUINELY BECAME, YOU KNOW, A CONCERN FOR YOU, WHAT DID YOU DO TO EITHER ENGAGE SONDLAND AND VOLKER AND PERRY, GIULIANI, AND BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU EVER MET RUDY GIULIANI IN THESE TIMES RELEVANT? >> NOT IN THE TIMES RELEVANT, BUT MR. GIULIANI VISITED UKRAINE ONE TIME WHEN I WAS THERE, AND THAT WAS IN 2007 OR 2008, AND THAT IS THE ONLY TIME I HAVE MET HIM. >> SO YOU HAVE NEVER HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI AS PART OF THESE IRREGULAR CHANNEL BUSINESS MEETINGS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND SO ANYWAY, GETTING BACK TO MY QUESTION, DID YOU TRY TO ENGAGE BRECHBUHL OR THE SECRETARY DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD IN AUGUST 21st OR THE 22nd TELEPHONE CALL WITH BRECHBUHL, AND A JULY 10th, WITH BRECHBUHL, AND THEN YOU SENT A PERSONAL CABLE TO THE EK IS TEAR ON AUGUST 29th. IS THAT THE UNIVERSE OF THE INITIATIVES THAT YOU TOOK INSIDE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO RAISE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL? >> I ALSO RAISED MY CONCERNS WITH THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT, AND IN PARTICULAR EARLY ON WHEN THERE, I MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS PHONE CALL THAT WAS ODD IN THAT IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE NORMAL STAFF, AND INDEED MR. SONDLAND'S STAFF, AND THAT STRUCK ME AS UNUSUAL. I CONSULTED WITH MR. KENT, AND AT HIS SUGGESTION MADE A NOTE OF THIS AND ALSO, I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. BRECHBUHL. >> THAT IS THE JUNE 28th CALL I BELIEVE? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD SAID, AND THEN ONCE ZELENSKY GOT ON THE PHONE, IT PROCEEDED IN A REGULAR CHANNEL WAY, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO THE JUNE 28th CALL AT LEAST IN AND OF ITSELF DIDN'T ULTIMATELY AS IT PLAYED OUT DIDN'T PRESENT ANY PROBLEMS FOR YOU? >> THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT. THE PREPARATION FOR THAT CALL, THE PREPARATION INCLUDED MAYBE 15 MINUTES OF JUST THE AMERICANS THAT WOULD STAY ON THE CALL AND THAT, AGAIN, THAT WAS IRREGULAR IN THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE STAFF, AND ALSO IN THAT PRECALL, IN THAT 15 MINUTES BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GOT ON THE PHONE WHERE AMBASSADOR VOLKER TOLD THE REST OF THE PARTICIPANTS THAT HE WAS PLANNING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TORONTO IN THREE DAYS, FOUR DAYS WHERE HE WOULD OUTLINE FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE PHONE CALL THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH. >> OKAY. AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT, DID YOU? >> THE ONLY ISSUE I HAD WITH THAT, MR. CASTOR, WAS THAT THERE WAS REFERENCE TO INVESTIGATIONS IN I BELIEVE, AND I WILL HAVE TO CHECK MY NOTES ON THAT, BUT THERE WAS RAISED ISSUES OR I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD IN MIND THAT HE WAS GOING TO SPECIFICALLY RAISE WITH MR. ZELZELENSKY, AND THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN. >> THE PRESIDENT HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS CERTAINLY RELATING TO THE 2016 ELECTION, AND RELATING TO THIS CORRUPT BURISMA OUTFIT, AND SO THAT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, RIGHT? >> I AM NOT SURE, MR. CASTOR. MAY I ASK YOU TO REPEAT THE QUESTION. >> THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION, AND THAT HE NEEDED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, AND THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS AS IT ULTIMATELY RELATED TO THE BURISMA COMPANY, AND IF AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS RAISING THAT WITH ZELENSKY, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT? >> THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST, OR I WOULD SAY MR. GIULIANI'S INTEREST, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WAS VERY CLEAR AT THE TIME. >> RIGHT. >> MR. GIULIANI'S INTEREST IN PURSUING THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS OF CONCERN. >> BY THE WAY, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES VOLKER MET WITH GIULIANI? >> I DON'T. >> HOW MANY WOULD YOU GUESS, MEETING WITH HIM ALL OF THE TIME? >> MR. CASTOR, I DON'T KNOW. >> AND FOR ME, YOU KNOW, AT THE DEPOSITION HE TOLD US JUST ONCE. YOU KNOW, HE TEXTED BACK AND FORTH WITH THE MAYOR AND HAD A CALL OR TWO, BUT IT WASN'T A PERVASIVE ENGAGEMENT FOR AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> I WAS NOT AWARE. I WAS AWARE OF ONE BREAKFAST, I THINK, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I WAS AWARE OF. >> AND BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES, MR. KENT, I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE COMPANY OF BURISMA, AND YOU TESTIFIED AT THE DEPOSITION THAT THERE WAS A INSTANCE WHEN USAID HAD ENGAGED WITH BURISMA IN POSSIBLY SPONSORING A PROGRAM, AND YOU TOOK ISSUE WITH THAT AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE USAID PULL BACK, AND CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? >> IN THE SUMMER OF 2016, I WAS PART OF WHAT WAS A CLEAN ENERGY AWARENESS CAMPAIGN, AND PART OF THE USAID MISSION THAT WORKED ON THE ECONOMICS AND GOVERNANCE ON ENERGY SPONSORED SOME TYPE OF CONTEST FOR THE YOUNG UKRAINIANS TO COME UP WITH A THEME, AND THERE WAS A PRIZE AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A CAMERA. THEY HAD CO-SPONSORED WITH THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP BEING A BUZZWORD HAVING A CO-SPONSORSHIP WITH BURISMA, AND GIVEN THE PAST HISTORY OF OUR INTERESTS IN RECOVERING STOLEN ASSETS FROM ZLOCHEVSKY, IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO CO-SPONSOR AN EVENT WITH THEM, AND I RAISED IT, AND SHE AGREED AND THE USAID KEPT THE CONTEST, BUT DROPPED THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP SPONSORSHIP. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. I WILL NOW MOVE TO FIVE-MEMBER ROUNDS AND I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE COLLEAGUE'S QUESTION REGARDING BURISMA, AND YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A TIME WHEN AN OLIGARCH NAMED ZLOCHEVSKY WAS SELF-DEALING AND SELF-AWARDING HIMSELF CONTRACTS AND WHEN WAS THAT? >> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, HE WAS MINISTER OF ENERGY, AND SORRY, MINISTER OF ECOLOGY UNDER PRESIDENT YANKOVICH, AND AT THIS TIME, THE GAS AWARDS WERE ADMINISTERED BY THE MINISTER OF ECOLOGY. >> SO THE SELF-DEALING WAS APPROXIMATELY SEVEN YEARS PRIOR TO THE EVENTS THAT BRING US HERE TODAY ON THE PHONE CALL OF THE 25th AND THE EVENTS AROUND IT? >> CORRECT. HIS TIME AS MINISTER WAS 2010 TO 2012. HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE BOARD OF BURISMA IN 2014. >> YOU HAVE READ THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, HAVE YOU NOT? >> I HAVE AND I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I HAVE NOT READ IT FOR ABOUT A MONTH. >> IS THERE ANY MENTION IN A DISCUSSION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF THIS OLIGARCH ZLOCHEVSKY WHO HAD BEEN SELF-DEALING? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION OF AWARDING CONTRACTS TO ONE SELF OR THE CORRUPT ACTS IN THE 2012 TO 2014 TIME FRAME? >> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. >> BUT THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP CROWD STRIKE, AND THE SERVER AND THE BIDENS, AM I RIGHT? >> I SEE THAT HERE, YES. >> IT WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THAT CALL OF SETTING UP AN ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT OR LOOKING INTO CORRUPTION AMONG OLIGARCHS OR COMPANIES IN GENERAL? THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS WERE FOCUSED ON TWO THING, 2016 AND THE BIDENS, AM I RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ASK OTHER COUNTRIES TO BE INVOLVED IN SELECTIVELY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF PROSECUTION OF OPPONENTS OF THOSE IN POWER, AND SUCH SELECTIVE ACTION UNDERMINES THE RULE OF THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY, AND SO THE SOLICITATION TORSION PROSECUTIONINGS OF THE OPPONENTS OF THOSE IN POWER, AND ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE BIDENS IN THERE? >> I AM REFERRING IN GENERAL FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW. >> BUT IT WOULD APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SEEKING AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT WOULD IT NOT? >> IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT WAY, YES, SIR. >> AND I TAKE IT IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OR OTHERS, WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO YOU WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 AND THE BIDENS AND NOT AN OLIGARCH NAMED ZLOCHEVSKY, BUT INTO THE BIDENS? >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> SO IN FACT WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOUR STAFF OVERHEARD THIS CALL BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT. IN THAT CALL THAT PRESIDENT BRINGS UP INVESTIGATIONS DOES HE NOT? >> HE DID. >> AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PRESIDENT GETS OFF OF THE PHONE WITH SONDLAND, AND SONDLAND IS ASKED BY YOUR STAFF WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT THINKING ABOUT UKRAINE AND THE ANSWER IS, HE IS JUST INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS, AM I RIGHT? >> HE SAID THAT HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS. >> MORE INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS AND NO DISCUSSION OF ZLOCHEVSKY OR CHALUPA OR THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED SEVEN YEARS AGO, AND HE WAS INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS? >> YES, SIR. >> SO NOW I THINK THAT YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT MR. SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> BY PUBLIC BOX, DID THAT MEAN THAT PRIVATE STATEMENTS OR PRIVATE PROMISES TO DO THIS INVESTIGATION IN THE BIDENS WAS NOT ENOUGH AND HE HAD TO GO ON THE TV AND PUBLIC IN SOME WAY, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANTED HIM IN THAT BOX. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE HAD IN MIND, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD IN MIND WHO IS THE ONE WHO MENTIONED IT TO ME. THAT IS THE IMPLICATION. THE IMPLICATION IS THAT IT NEEDED TO BE PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO BEING A PRIVATE ASSURANCE. >> I THINK THAT YOU SAID IN THAT SAME CALL THAT YOU ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO PUSHBACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. >> SO YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SONDLAND, THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND AND NOT SONDLAND'S DEMAND, BUT THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND AND YOU WANTED SONDLAND TO PUSHBACK, RIGHT? >> WHAT I WANTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CLEARLY ABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE PRESSURE ON ANOTHER PRESIDENT WAS NOT GOOD FROM EITHER PRESIDENT'S STANDPOINT, AND SOY SUGGESTED IN THAT PHONE CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT HE, SINCE HE FREQUENTLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT COULD MAKE THAT POINT. >> AND SO I THINK THAT THE WAY YOU EXPRESSED YOURSELF IS THAT YOU WANTED SONDLAND TO PUSHBACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND. >> YES, SIR. >> SO YOUR UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING TO SONDLAND IS THAT THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED YOU TO DO AND YOU ASKED HIM TO PUSHBACK. >> THAT IS CORRECT, I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO PUSHBACK. >> SO EVEN AFTER THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED A AND THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNS OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION AND IT IS RELEASED EVEN AFTER THOSE EVENTS, YOU WERE STILL WORRIED THAT ZELENSKY WOULD FEEL IT NECESSARY TO GO ON CNN AND ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, WERE YOU NOT? >> I WAS WORRIED, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT HE WOULD DO THAT. SO YES, I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA. SO WHEN THERE WAS SOME INDICATION THAT THERE MIGHT STILL BE A PLAN FOR THE CNN INTERVIEW IN NEW YORK, WHICH WAS UPCOMING AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING, I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN AND SO I ADDRESSED IT WITH THE ZELENSKY STAFF. >> AND YOU SAID EARLIER THAT DANYLIUK WAS CONCERNED THAT ZELENSKY DID WANT TO BE USED AS A TOOL IN AMERICAN POLITICS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND SO ZELENSKY DID NOT WANT TO GO ON TV TO ANNOUNCE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE THOUGHT WOULD MIRE HIM IN THE AMERICAN POLITICS, RIGHT? >> HE AND THE ADVISERS KNEW IT WAS A BAD IDEA TO INTERJECT, AND INTERFERE IN OTHER NATION'S ELECTION, YES, SIR. >> BUT NONETHELESS, IT APPEARED UNTIL THE AID WAS LIFTED OR HOLD WAS LIFTED HE FELT COMPELLED TO DO IT? >> HE WAS MAKING PLAN, AND HIS STAFF WAS MAKING PLANS FOR HIM TO MAKE SOME KIND OF ANNOUNCEMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON CNN IN PUBLIC. >> AND EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT WANT TO BE MIRED IN THE U.S. POLITICS? >> HE KNEW IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA TO INTERFERE IN OTHER PEOPLE'S ELECTIONS. >> MR. NUNES, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 7:10. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR THAT. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU SAID IN THE DEPOSITION THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS ISSUE IS RUDY GIULIANI, AND I'M PARAPHRASING, BUT YOU READ IT IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES," IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DO REMEMBER THAT FIRST, I REMEMBER NOTICING ABOUT MR. GIULIANI BEING INVOLVED IN THIS IN THAT ARTICLE, YES, SIR. >> I THINK THAT ONE OF THE MOTHERS OF ALL CONSPIRACY THEORYS IS THAT SOMEHOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD WANT A COUNTRY THAT HE DOESN'T EVEN LIKE AND HE DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE THE FOREIGN AID TO, TO HAVE THE UKRAINIANS START AN INVESTIGATION INTO BIDENS. WITH THAT, I YIELD TO MR. JORDAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. THANK YOU AMBASSADOR TAYLOR FOR BEING HERE. THE AID WAS HELD UP UNTIL JULY 18th, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THEN IT IS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, AND WE KNOW THAT FROM YOUR DEPOSITION, AND IN THAT 65 DAYS THAT THE AID IS DELAYED YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THREE TIMES. THE FIRST WAS JULY 26th, THE FAMOUS CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND HE THEN TALKED TO YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER, AND THERE WAS NO LINKAGE OF ASSISTANCE DOLLARS TO INVESTIGATING BURISMA OR THE BIDENS, AND AGAIN IN THIS 65-DAY TIME FRAME, AND THE SECOND MEETING HE MEETS WITH YOU AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND OTHERS AND THERE IS NO LINKAGE OF THE DOLLARS TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. AND THEN OF COURSE, THE THIRD MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 5th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MEETS WITH YOU AND SENATORS JOHNSON AND MURPHY AND AGAIN, NO LINKAGE OF THE DOLLARS TO BURISMA OR THE BIDENS AND THREE MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND NO LINKAGE, AND IS THAT ACCURATE? >> MR. JORDAN, CERTAINLY ACCURATE ON THE FIRST TWO MEETINGS, BECAUSE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE HOLD ON ASSISTANCE UNTIL, UNTIL THE 29th OF AUGUST. >> BECAUSE OF THE POLITICO ARTICLE. >> THE POLITICO ARTICLE. >> AND THE THIRD MEETING THAT YOU MENTIONED WAS THE SENATORS MURRAY AND JOHNSON, AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, BUT -- >> NO LINKAGE. >> THERE WAS NOT DISCUSSION OF LINKAGE. >> AND SO THREE MEETINGS AND FACE-TO-FACE WITH THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND NO LINKAGE, AND YET IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THIS, AND YOU SAID IT AGAIN IN THE FIRST HOUR OF THE MAJORITY, MY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT COME UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION. MY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GET THE MONEY UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO PURSUE THE INVESTIGATIONS. NOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AMBASSADOR, YOUR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WAS OBVIOUSLY WRONG, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT ANNOUNCE THAT HE WAS GOING TO INVES GATE BURISMA OR THE BIDENS AND HE DID NOT HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE TO SAY WE WILL INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS OR BURISMA, AND HE DID NOT TWEET ABOUT IT, AND YOU JUST TOLD THE RANKING MEMBER THAT YOU DIDN'T DO THE CN NSHGTS INTERVIEW AND ANNOUNCE THAT HE WOULD INVESTIGATE BURBURISMA OR THE BUYDENS AND SO IT IS NOT BROUGHT UP UNTIL THE AID WAS SENT ON THE 11th, AND YET YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. AND THAT MONEY WOULD BE RELEASED UNTIL THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO I WONDER, WHERE DID YOU GET THIS CLEAR UNDERSTANDING? >> AS I TESTIFIED, MR. JORDAN, THIS CAME FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. >> HOLD UP, AMBASSADOR, BECAUSE I WANT TO BRING YOU A PIECE OF PAPER FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S STATEMENT, AND GO AHEAD THOUGH, I WANTED TO LET YOU FINISH. >> MR. JORDAN, SHOULD I READ THIS? >> NO, I WANTED YOU TO HAVE IT, BECAUSE I AM GOING TO READ IT. >> VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD. >> AND YOU SAID THAT YOU GOT THIS FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >> THAT IS CORRECT. MR. SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT HE TALKED TO MR. ZELENSKY, AND MR. YELLMAK AND EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, AND IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINS UP IN PUBLIC, WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE AND THAT IS ONE POINT. >> AND MR. MORRISON TALKED TO YOU, CORRECT? >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE TO HAVE TOLD THE UKRAINIANS THAT ONLY THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE WAS HELD UP ON THE IN ORDER TO GET THE INVESTIGATIONS. NO, IT WAS NOT JUST THE MEETING, BUT IT WAS THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND EVERYTHING. IT IS THOSE TWO DISCUSSIONS. >> I UNDERSTAND. AND JUST TO RECAP. YOU HAD THREE MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND NO LINKAGE IN THOSE THREE MEETINGS CAME UP. AND AMBASSADOR ZELENSKY DID NOT ANNOUNCE THAT HE WAS DOING ANY INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS OR THE BURISMA AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, EXCUSE ME, AND SO THEN WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS AN ADDENDUM THAT MR. SONDLAND MADE TO HIS TESTIMONY THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO THAT SAYS THAT I, FOR GORDON SONDLAND, DO AFFIRM AND SOLEMNLY SWEAR, AND THE SECOND SENTENCE, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS THAT HE TOLD MR. MORRISON THAT I CONVEYED THE MESSAGE TO MR. YARMACK IN CONNECTION TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S MEETING TO WARSAW, AND THIS IS THE CLARIFICATION. LET ME READ IT AGAIN. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS THAT HE RECALLS THAT I TOLD MR. MORRISON THAT I CONVINCED MR. YARMACK IN CONNECTION WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S MEETING TO WARSAW, AND SO WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE HAVING FOUR CONVERSATIONS IN ONE SENTENCE AND YOU ARE TELLING ME THIS IS WHERE YOU GOT THE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD THREE OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR HIM TO TELL YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE WILL DO THE INVESTIGATIONS AND GET THE AID. HE DID NOT TELL YOU THREE TIMES AND HE NEVER MAKES AN ANNOUNCEMENT OR TWEETS ABOUT IT AND NEVER DOES AN CNN INTERVIEW, AND AMBASSADOR, YOU WERE NOT IN ON THE CALL AND LISTEN IN ON PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY'S CALL? >> NO. >> YOU DIDN'T TALK TO CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY. >> NO. >> AND YOU HAD NOT HEARD OF THAT AND IT DIDN'T COME UP. >> NO REASON FOR IT TO COME UP. >> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. >> NO. >> THIS IS THE STAR WITNESS AND THE FIRST WITNESS. AND YOU ARE THE GUY BASED ON THIS AND I MEAN, I HAVE SEEN CHURCH PRAYER CHAINS THAT ARE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAN THIS, AND HE SAYS THAT AMBASSADOR MORRISON TOLD YOU AND I HEREBY SWEAR AND AFFIRM FROM GORDON SONDLAND THAT HE RECALLS THAT I TOLD MR. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT I CONI HAVED A THIS MESSAGE TO -- AND THIS IS ALL HAPPENING BY THE WAY, THIS IS ALL HAPPENING BY THE WAY IN WARSAW WHERE THE VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND GUESS WHAT THEY DID NOT TALK ABOUT ANY LINKAGE EITHER. >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >> YES. AND I AM GLAD TO TAKE THOSE QUESTIONS, MR. JORDAN. >> I WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF A STAR WITNESS FOR ANYTHING. >> THEY DO. >> I DON'T. I AM JUST RESPONDING TO -- I AM RESPONDING TO YOUR -- >> PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT THE WITNESS. >> I WAS CLEAR ABOUT THAT I AM NOT HERE TO TAKE ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER OR TO ADVOCATE ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOME, AND LET MANY RESTATE THAT. AND THE MAIN THING IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONLY COMING FROM PEOPLE THAT I TALKED TO. >> WE GOT THAT. >> WE GOT THAT. AND THIS CLARIFICATION FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS BECAUSE HE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T REMEMBER THIS. AND IN HIS FIRST DEPOSITION, AND SO HE WANTED TO KIND OF CLARIFY, BUT I THINK THAT, MR. JORDAN, THE WAY I READ THIS, HE REMEMBERS IT THE SAME WAY I DO. >> AND YEAH, IT IS REAL CLEAR, RIGHT? >> IT IS VERY CLEAR. >> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. >> MAY I ASK FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR THE TESTIMONY TODAY, AND ONE THANK IS STARTLING ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IS THAT FACED WITH SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE DO NOT ENGAGE OR DEFEND THAT CONDUCT, AND RATHER THEY SPIN THEORIES OF THE BLACK LEDGERS AND STEELE DOSSIERS AND STARTLING REVELATIONS THAT THE UKRAINIANS MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPSET WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS HE WOULD LET THE RUSSIANS KEEP CRIMEA OR OF COURSE, THE ATTACKS THAT ARE SO EPITOMIZED BY MR. NUNES' OPENING STATEMENT WHEN HE ATTACKED THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA AND MOST DISGUSTINGLY ATTACKED THE EXTRAORDINARY MEN AND WOMEN OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI. AND WHEN A DEFENSE DOES EMERGE, IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE THIS. UKRAINE IS A CORRUPT COUNTRY, AND THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST ACTING IN A LONG LINE, A LONG TRADITION OF ACTUALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. MR. KENT, YOU HAVE WORKED ON THE ANTI-CORRUPTION, AND THE RULE OF LAW FOR MUCH OF YOUR 27-YEAR CAREER, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HAVE SPECIALIZED IN ANTI-CORRUPTION AND RULE OF LAW ISSUES SINCE 2012, CORRECT. >> AND SO, LIKE, MOST OF US UP HERE, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT A REAL ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT THAT WE MUST ENGAGE IN ALL OVER THE WORLD ALL OF TIME, AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SO LET ME ASK YOU HAVE TO TAKE A MINUTE AND CHARACTERIZE FOR US WHAT A REAL INITIATIVE AND REAL PROGRAM OF ANTI-CORRUPTION MIGHT LOOK LIKE. >> IF WE ARE DOING A SYSTEMIC, WHOLISTIC PROGRAM, YOU NEED INSTITUTIONS WITH INTEGRITY AND THAT IS GOING TO START WITH INVESTIGATORS AND THEN GOES THE PROSECUTORS AND THEN TO COURTS AND THEN TO THE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM. IN COUNTRIES LIKE UKRAINE WE GENERALLY START WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WHICH IS WHAT WE DID IN 2014, '15 WITH THE NEW PATROL POLICE AND OFTENTIMES THERE IS ALSO NEEDED AN ANTI-CORRUPTION LEAGUE, AND THAT IS CALLED THE ANTI-CORRUPTION LEAGUE OR NABU, AND THERE IS A BODY TO INVESTIGATE UNUSUAL WEALTH, AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COUNCIL, AND THEN WE ESTABLISHED AN TIE CORRUPTION PROSECUTOR AND A HIGH COURT ON ANTI-CORRUPTION WHICH IS TO PROCURE PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGAORS WITH COURTS THAT COULD NOT BE BOUGHT AND FOCUSED ON THE HIGH LEVEL CORRUPTION. >> SO THAT IS, MR. KENT, A COME -- COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT, AND LET ME READ YOU THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS. THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, AND THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, AND WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT. BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTIONB AND IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE, IS THE PRESIDENT REQUESTING A WELL THOUGHTFUL CALIBRATED ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM? >> I DO NOT. >> AND MR. KENT AND MR. TAYLOR, THE DEFENDERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR HAVE MADE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THE FACT THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ENCOURAGED THE UKRAINIANS TO REMOVE A CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTOR, AND 2016, MR. SHOKIN, AND RAND PAUL SAID THAT THEY ARE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT JOE BIDEN DID. IS THAT CORRECT? IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT, IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN THE PHONE CALL AND JOE BIDEN DID IN TERMS OF MR. SHOKIN, IS THAT THE SAME THINGS OR IF NOT, HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT? >> I DO NOT THINK THEY ARE THE SAME THINGS. WHAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN REQUESTED OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE POROSHENKO IS THE REMOVAL OF A CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL VIKTOR SHOKIN WHO HAD UNDERMINED A SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT WE BUILT WITH AMERICAN MONEY TO BUILD CORRUPTION CASES. THERE WAS A DIAMOND PROSECUTOR CASE IN WHICH SHOKIN DESTROYED THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE, THE INVESTIGATORS, THE JUDGES WHO ISSUED THE WARRANTS, AND THE EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE FORMER DRIVER HE HAD MADE A PROSECUTOR, AND THAT IS WHAT JOE BIDEN WAS SAYING TO REMOVE THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR. >> SO JOE BIDEN WAS INVOLVED IN A WHOLE EFFORT TO STOP CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO MR. KENT, AS YOU ARE LOOKING AT THIS MESS, RUDY GIULIANI, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND WAS IN A COMPREHENSIVE AND WHOLE EFFORT TO END CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE? >> REFERRING TO THE REQUESTS IN JULY? >> EXACTLY. >> I WOULD NOT SAY SO, NO, SIR. >> I DON'T. I DON'T THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO END CORRUPTION, BUT AIM IT AT PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE 2020 ELECTION, AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. CONAWAY IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> I YIELD MY TIME TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR. RAT CLIFF. >> I THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU BOTH CARE ABOUT U.S./UKRAINE RELATIONS AND IT IS CLEAR YOU'RE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU RELATED ONE OF HIS FIRST ACTS IN OFFICE WAS TO REMOVE IMMUNITY FROM DEPUTIES WHICH HAD LONG BEEN A SOURCE OF CORRUPTION. I KNOW YOU HAD A NUMBER OF PERSONAL DEALINGS WITH HIM. HAS HE GIVEN YOU ANY REASON TO QUESTION HIS HONESTY OR INTEGRITY? >> NO, SIR. >> IN YOUR PRIOR DEPOSITION, I ASKED YOU AND I'LL READ IT DIRECTLY, IF NOBODY IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IS AWARE OF A MILITARY HOLD AT THE TIME OF THE TRUMP ZELENSKY CALL, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND MATTER OF FACT THERE CAN BE NO QUID PRO QUO BASED ON MILITARY AID, AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE NOBODY IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS WARE OF THE HOLD. YOUR ANSWER WAS, THAT IS CORRECT. IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY? >> MR. RATCLIFFE, AT SOME POINT IN SEPTEMBER -- >> I'M TALKING ABOUT ON JULY 25th. >> JULY 25th, SORRY, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS. >> AS IT TURNS OUT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED WITH YOU. ON OCTOBER 10th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HELD A PRESS MARATHON WITH OVER 300 REPORTERS, WHERE HE SAID REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY OVER HOURS AND HOURS THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF A MILITARY HOLD DURING THE JULY 25th CALL. IN FACT, IN HIS OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE FROM THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AVAILABLE ON HIS WEBSITE THAT I'LL BE INTRODUCING INTO THE RECORD, HE SAID OUR PHONE CONVERSATION BEARS NO RELATIONS TO ARMS. THEY BLOCKED THE PROVISION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, BUT THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN DISCUSSED DURING OUR CONVERSATION, I MEAN I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. SO NOW IN ADDITION TO CONFIRMING THAT BECAUSE HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO INVOLVING MILITARY AID DURING THAT CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WENT ON TO CONFIRM A NUMBER OF THINGS, THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE, THAT THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS, THAT THERE WERE NO THREATS ON MILITARY AID, THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS OR PRESSURE TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA, THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL, NO CORRUPTION OF ANY KIND DURING THE JULY 25th CALL. AGAIN, FROM HIS OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF OUR CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS ON THE INVESTIGATION EITHER BECAUSE OF ARMS OR THE SITUATION AROUND BURISMA COMPANY. HE TOLD REUTER, THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL. HE TOLD "THE L.A. TIMES" THERE WAS NO PRESSURE OR BLACKMAIL FROM THE UNITED STATES. HE TOLD KYOTO NEWS I WAS NEVER PRESSURED AND THERE WAS NO CONDITIONS BEING IMPOSED. HE TOLD ABC NEWS AND THE BBC, I'M AGAINST CORRUPTION. THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION. IT WAS JUST A CALL. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT STOOD IN FRONT OF THE WORLD PRESS AND REPEATEDLY, CONSISTENTLY, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, INTERVIEW AFTER INTERVIEW, SAID HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF MILITARY AID BEING WITHHELD, MEANING NO QUID PRO QUO, NO PRESSURE, NO DEMANDS, NO THREATS, NO BLACKMAIL, NOTHING CORRUPT, AND UNLIKE FIRST 45 MINUTES THAT WE HEARD FROM THE DEMOCRATS TODAY, THAT'S NOT SECONDHAND INFORMATION, IT IS NOT HEAR SAY, WHAT SOMEBODY OVERHEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY, THAT'S HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS LYING TO THE WORLD PRESS WHEN HE SAID THOSE THINGS? YES OR NO? >> MR. RATCLIFFE, IF I CAN RESPOND -- >> MY TIME IS SHORT, YES OR NO. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IN HIS -- >> OKAY, VERY GOOD. SO IN THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING TODAY, WHERE WE IMPEACH PRESIDENTS FOR TREASON OR BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES, WHERE IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IN THAT CALL? ARE EITHER OF YOU HERE TODAY TO ASSERT THERE WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IN THAT CALL? SHOUT IT OUT. ANYONE? >> MR. RATCLIFFE, IF I CAN JUST RESPOND, LET ME JUST REITERATE, I'M NOT HERE -- >> ONE MINUTE LEFT. >> I KNOW YOU ONLY HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT. I HAVE 30 -- >> YOU ASKED THE WITNESS A QUESTION. >> I WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. AMBASSADOR, LET ME ANSWER THIS -- LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. >> THE GENTLEMEN WILL SUSPEND. >> AMBASSADOR, TAYLOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? >> I WITHDREW THE QUESTION. >> THE GENERAL WILL SUSPEND. WE WILL SUSPEND THE CLOCK. >> SUSPEND THE CLOCK AT ONE MINUTE PLEASE. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I'M NOT HERE TO DO ANYTHING, HAVING TO DO WITH -- TO DECIDE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. THAT'S NOT WHAT EITHER OF US ARE HERE TO DO. THIS IS YOUR JOB. >> RESTORE TIME TO THE CLOCK ONE MINUTE. >> NO, BUT YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH 22 SECONDS. >> FINE. MR. AMBASSADOR, I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE UP THEIR MIND TO IMPEACH ONE PRESIDENT. THE QUESTION WE JUST LEARNED IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE PREPARED TO IMPEACH TWO, BECAUSE TO BE CLEAR, IF HOUSE DEMOCRATS IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR QUID PRO QUO INVOLVING MILITARY AID, THEY HAVE TO CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A LIAR. IF THEY IMPEACH HIM FOR ABUSING HIS POWER OR PRESSURING OR MAKING THREAT OZ OR DEMANDS, THEY HAVE TO CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A LIAR TO DO IT. IF THEY IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR BLACKMAIL, OR EXTORTION OR MAKING THREATS OR DEMANDS, THEY HAVE TO CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP A LIAR TO DO IT. I YIELD BACK. >> CHAIRMAN RECOGNIZES REPRESENTATIVE SEWELL. >> I YIELD TO MY ESTEEMED CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ SOME OF THE TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED. ARE YOU AWARE THAT OTHER WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINE IN FACT FOUND OUT THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I READ THAT, I THINK THERE IS STILL SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHEN THEY MAY HAVE HEARD. >> AND ULTIMATELY THEY DID FIND OUT WHEN THE POLITICAL STORY CAME OUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, BUT OTHERS HAVE SAID EVEN SOONER, BUT THEY DID FIND OUT, RIGHT, AMBASSADOR? >> THEY DID, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> AND AT THE TIME THEY FOUND OUT, THEY KNEW WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED FROM THEM THAT HE WANTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORMED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STAFF THAT IS MR. YERMAK OF WHAT WAS REQUIRED, YES. >> SO UKRAINE FINDS OUT ABOUT THE HOLD. YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO GIVE THEM A REASON FOR THE HOLD, NO ONE IS ABLE TO GIVE THEM A REASON FOR THE HOLD, THEY KNOW THE PRESIDENT WANTS THESE INVESTIGATIONS, AND THEN THEY'RE TOLD IN WARSAW BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE AID UNLESS YOU DO THE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO YOU'VE BEEN ASKED HOW COULD THERE BE CONDITIONING IF THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW, BUT UKRAINIANS WERE TOLD BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WERE THEY NOT? >> THEY WERE. THEY WERE. THEY DIDN'T KNOW, AS NEAR AS I CAN TELL, THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE PHONE CALL, ON JULY 25th. THAT'S TRUE. BUT THEY WERE TOLD AS YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, ON THE 1st OF SEPTEMBER. >> AND IN FACT, WHILE THEY MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN DURING THE TIME OF THE CALL, THEY WOULD FIND OUT. AND WHEN THEY DID FIND OUT, THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> REPRESENTATIVE SEWELL? >> SO MR. KENT, I WOULD LIKE TO REFER YOU TO THE DISCUSSION OF MAY 23rd MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE. WHEN THE PRESIDENT MET WITH THOSE WHO HAD GONE TO THE UKRAINE FOR THE INAUGURATION. YOU BRIEFLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU HELPED PROPOSE NAMES FOR INDIVIDUALS TO GO TO THAT INAUGURATION. WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO WAS AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION ONE OF THE NAMES THAT YOU SUBMITTED? >> NO, IT WAS NOT. >> BUT HE ULTIMATELY ATTENDED THAT INAUGURATION, IS THAT NOT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND DO YOU KNOW HOW HE ENDED UP AS A PART OF THAT OFFICIAL DELEGATION? >> I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONCE THE LIST LEFT THE NSC STAFF, IT WENT THROUGH A REVIEW THROUGH THE PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DETERMINES PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATIONS. >> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT UPON RETURNING, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND USED HIS, QUOTE, CONNECTIONS WITH MULVANEY, END QUOTE, TO ORDER TO SECURE THIS MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. >> IT SEEMS THIS OVAL OFFICE MEETING WAS A PIVOTAL TURNING POINT IN THE UKRAINE POLICY. COMING OUT OF THAT MEETING, WHO WAS GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR RECOLLECTION? WHO WAS GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UKRAINE POLICY? >> I NEVER SAW ANY DOCUMENT THAT CHANGED THE NATURE OF POLICY DETERMINATION IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THERE IS THE NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL -- >> DIDN'T YOU ALSO SAY -- >> PLEASE. >> I HAVE A LITTLE TIME. YOU DID SAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU FELT THAT THAT -- YOU TESTIFIED THAT SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, QUOTE, FELT THEY HAD A MANDATE TO TAKE THE LEAD, END QUOTE, ON UKRAINE POLICY. DID YOU NOT? >> THAT WAS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. THEIR FEELING DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ACTUALLY GOT DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY. >> HAVE YOU HEARD THE TERM THREE AMIGOS? >> ON JULY 26th. >> WHAT DO YOU COME TO MEAN BY THREE AMIGOS? >> MY UNDERSTANDING OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S USE OF THAT TERM, THE THREE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY DURING THE SUMMER WERE HE, GORDON SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SECRETARY PERRY. >> AND WHAT DID YOU COME TO -- WHEN DID YOU COME TO LEARN ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE AND WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER HIS ROLE TO HAVE BEEN? >> I FIRST HEARD ABOUT FORMER MAYOR GIULIANI'S INTEREST IN UKRAINE IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PHASE THAN WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE SUMMERTIME. >> WAS IT NORMAL TO HAVE A PERSON WHO IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN FOREIGN DIPLOMACY? >> I DID NOT FIND HIS PARTICULAR ENGAGEMENT NORMAL, NO. >> NOW, MR. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THERE ARE TWO CHANNELS, A REGULAR AND IRREGULAR. WHAT DID YOU SEE AS RUDY GIULIANI'S ROLE IN UKRAINE POLICY? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I CAME TO SEE THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD A LARGE INFLUENCE ON THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL. >> AND WAS THAT NORMAL? IS THAT NORMAL TO HAVE A PRIVATE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN DIPLOMACY? >> IT IS NOT NORMAL. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO ASK FOR PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE OPINIONS TO HELP FORM THE POLICIES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. IT IS UNUSUAL TO HAVE A PERSON PUT INPUT INTO THE CHANNEL THAT GOES CONTRARY TO U.S. POLICY. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. TURNER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. MR. KENT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF APPRECIATION FOR YOUR PROFESSION, YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE DIRECT CONTACT WITH DECISIONMAKERS, TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY. AND NOT A LOT OF AUTHORITY TO AFFECT U.S. POLICY, BILATERAL ENGAGEMENTS, YOU'RE TRYING TO SHEPHERD THROUGH ISSUES WITH OUR ALLIES. ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. >> MR. KENT, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> I HAVE NOT. >> SO NOT ONLY NO CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABOUT UKRAINE, YOU'VE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. SO YOU BOTH KNOW THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DON'T YOU? I MEAN, THE MAN THAT NEITHER ONE OF YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH, YOU'RE THE FIRST UP WITNESSES. I JUST FIND THAT A LITTLE AMAZING THAT THE FIRST UP WOULD BE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. NOW, KURT VOLKER DID HAVE CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONTACT WITH PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE. MR. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU SAID HE'S A MAN OF HIGHEST INTEGRITY. I KNOW KURT VOLKER AND I KNOW HE SERVED AS NATO AMBASSADOR, THE HIGHEST PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, ONE OF THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE ABOUT EUROPE, ABSOLUTELY A TRUTHFUL MAN. MR. KENT, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE'S OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY? >> I BELIEVE KURT VOLKER HAS SERVED THE U.S. AS A PUBLIC SERVANT VERY WELL. >> DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT MR. VOLKER COMMITTED PERJURY OR LIED IN HIS TESTIMONY TO THIS COMMITTEE? DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT KURT VOLKER PERJURED HIMSELF OR LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE IN HIS TESTIMONY? AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ANY EVIDENCE? >> MR. TURNER, I HAVE NO EVIDENCE. >> MR. KENT? >> I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S DEPOSITION WAS OVER 400 PAGES AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, SO I CAN'T -- >> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT HE LIED OR PERJURED -- >> I HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT, NO SIR. >> WE'RE NOT IN A COURT. IF WE WERE, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WOULD APPLY AND SO WOULD RULES ON HEARSAY AND OPINION. MOST OF YOUR TWO TESTIMONIES WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE WHATSOEVER. I UNDERSTAND IN YOUR PROFESSION YOU DEAL IN WORDS OF UNDERSTANDING, WORDS OF BELIEFS AND FEELINGS, BECAUSE IN YOUR PROFESSION THAT'S WHAT YOU WORK WITH TO TRY TO PULL TOGETHER POLICY AND TO GO IN AND OUT OF MEETINGS TO TRY TO FORMULATE OPINIONS THAT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE'S DECISION-MAKING. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, HAVE YOU EVER PREPARED FOR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OR PRIME MINISTER OF A COUNTRY OR WERE YOU TOLD ONE THING BEFORE YOU WENT INTO THE MEETING AS TO WHAT IT WAS TO BE ABOUT AND THE MEETING BE ABOUT ANOTHER THING OR GET IN THERE AND THE BELIEFS OR OPINIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE PRIME MINISTER WERE OTHER THAN YOU BELIEVED? >> YOU'RE ASKING IF I EVER LEARNED SOMETHING NEW IN A -- >> HAVE YOU EVER WALKED IN WITH A BELIEF YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE COUNTRY THAT YOU WERE SERVING IN AND FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE WRONG? >> I LEARNED SOMETHING IN EVERY MEETING, MR. TURNER, BUT I, YOU KNOW -- >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THE REASON WHY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT DOESN'T ALLOW HEARSAY, IT IS UNRELIABLE. IT IS UNRELIABLE BECAUSE FREQUENTLY IT IS UNTRUTHFUL, IT IS NOT FACTUAL. YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS YOU HEARD. ISN'T IT TRUE -- POSSIBLE THAT THE THINGS YOU HEARD WERE NOT TRUE? THAT SOME OF THE BELIEFS AND UNDERSTANDINGS THAT YOU HAD ARE NOT ACCURATE, THAT IN FACT YOU'RE MISTAKEN ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU TESTIFIED TODAY AND ON A FACTUAL BASIS VERSUS A PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT? >> MR. TURNER, I AM HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW. I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU ANYTHING I DON'T KNOW. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU EVERYTHING I DO KNOW. >> SINCE YOU LEARNED IT FROM OTHERS -- >> THAT'S EXACTLY -- THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I'M HERE. >> SINCE YOU LEARNED IT FROM OTHERS, YOU COULD BE WRONG, CORRECT? >> I AM TELLING YOU I HEARD THEM TELL ME. >> AND THEY COULD BE WRONG OR THEY COULD BE MISTAKEN OR THEY COULD HAVE HEARD IT INCORRECTLY, RIGHT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. >> RIGHT, SO YOU COULD BE WRONG. I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO -- >> THANK YOU, I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. MR. TAYLOR, THE GENTLEMAN ASKED IF YOU COULD BE WRONG. WERE YOU WRONG WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO COMMIT TO AN INVESTIGATION OF BIDENS BEFORE THE AID GOT RELEASED AND THE AID GOT RELEASED AND YOU DIDN'T COMMIT TO AN INVESTIGATION? >> I WAS NOT WRONG ABOUT WHAT I TOLD YOU, WHICH IS WHAT I HEARD. THAT'S ALL I SAID. I'VE TOLD YOU WHAT I HEARD. >> AND THAT'S THE POINT. WHAT YOU HEARD DID NOT HAPPEN. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. YOU HAD THREE MEETINGS WITH THE GUY, HE COULD HAVE TOLD YOU, HE DIDN'T ANNOUNCE HE WAS GOING TO DO AN INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE AID HAPPENED. IT IS NOT JUST COULD IT HAVE BEEN WRONG, THE FACT IS IT WAS WRONG. BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THE WHOLE POINT WAS YOU HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT AID WILL NOT GET RELEASED UNLESS THERE IS A COMMITMENT, NOT MAYBE, NOT I THINK THE AID MIGHT HAPPEN, IT IS MY HUNCH IT IS GOING TO GET RELEASED, YOU USED CLEAR LANGUAGE, CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AND COMMITMENT AND THOSE TWO THINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO YOU HAD TO BE WRONG. >> MR. JORDAN, THE OTHER THING THAT WENT ON WHEN THAT ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD IS WE SHOOK THE CONFIDENCE OF A CLOSE PARTNER IN OUR RELIABILITY. AND THAT -- >> THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS PROCEEDING IS ABOUT. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS WHOLE THING STARTED ON. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN EXPIRED. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, DID YOU WANT TO FINISH YOUR ANSWER? >> NO, THAT'S GOOD, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> I RECOGNIZE MR. CARSON FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE EARLIER QUESTIONS ABOUT AMBASSADOR -- SORRY, ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STATEMENTS AFTER THIS SCANDAL CAME TO LIGHT, WHEN HE WAS ASKED WERE YOU PRESSURED, HOW THE PHONE CALL GOES, ET CETERA. UKRAINIANS, MR. KENT, ARE PRETTY SOPHISTICATED ABOUT U.S. POLITICS, ARE THEY NOT? >> PERHAPS. >> YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONTRADICTED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SAID OF COURSE I FELT PRESSURED, THEY WERE HOLDING UP 400 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE, WE HAVE PEOPLE DYING EVERY DAY, IF HE WERE TO CONTRADICT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY, THEY WOULD BE SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO KNOW THEY MAY PAY A VERY HEAVY PRICE WITH HIS PRESIDENT, WERE THEY NOT? >> THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT. >> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NOT ONLY HAD TO WORRY ABOUT RETRIBUTION FROM DONALD TRUMP SHOULD HE CONTRADICT DONALD TRUMP PUBLICLY, HE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT HOW HE'S PERCEIVED DOMESTICALLY, DOESN'T HE, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS VERY SENSITIVE TO THE VIEWS OF UKRAINIAN PEOPLE, WHO INDEED ARE VERY ATTENTIVE TO UKRAINIAN/U.S. POLITICS, YES. >> SO IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WERE TO SAY I HAD TO CAPITULATE AND AGREE TO THE INVESTIGATIONS, I WAS READY TO GO ON CNN UNTIL THE AID GOT RESTORED, THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE HURTFUL TO HIM BACK HOME, WOULD IT NOT? >> HE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE SEEN TO BE DEFERRING TO ANY FOREIGN LEADER. HE IS VERY CONFIDENT IN HIS OWN ABILITIES AND HE KNOWS THAT UKRAINIAN PEOPLE EXPECT HIM TO BE CLEAR AND DEFEND UKRAINIAN INTERESTS. >> MR. CARSON? >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. MY COLLEAGUE TOUCHED BRIEFLY ON THE CAMPAIGN TO REMOVE CAREER DIPLOMAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. MR. KENT, YOU STATED IN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THE, QUOTE, CAMPAIGN OF SLANDER AGAINST THE AMBASSADOR IN REAL TIME, WHICH BASICALLY UNFOLDED IN THE MEDIA. WHERE DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN WAS COMING FROM AND WHO WAS ESSENTIALLY PERPETUATING IT? >> TO MY UNDERSTANDING THE THEN PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF UKRAINE, NOW EX, YURI YETSENKO MET RUDE Y GIULIANI IN JANUARY, A SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY AND THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK, HE GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO JOHN SOLOMON, THEN OF THE HILL, IN EARLY MARCH, AND THE CAMPAIGN WAS LAUNCHED ON MARCH 20th. >> A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO A REPORTER IN THE UNITED STATES AND MADE CLAIMS THAT THE AMBASSADOR PROVIDED OFFICIALS WITH A, QUOTE, DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST. SIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE? >> I HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS NOT TRUE. >> WHAT WAS THE REPUTATION OF THE MAN WHO MADE THESE ALLEGATIONS, SIR? >> YURI WAS A POLITICIAN OF LONG-STANDING. HE HAD BEEN MINISTER OF INTERIOR AFTER THE ORANGE REVOLUTION, THE U.S. EMBASSY HAD GOOD RELATIONS WITH HIM FOR YEARS, HE WAS IMPRISONED BY PRESIDENT YANUKOVYCH, CAME OUT, ELECTED MAJORITY LEADER OF POROSHENKO, THE PRESIDENT'S PARTY AND BECAME PROSECUTOR GENERAL IN THE SPRING OF 2016. >> WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH? WAS SHE WORKING HARD TO COMBAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, SIR? >> SHE WAS DEDICATED AS IS EVERY U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IN UKRAINE TO HELP UKRAINIANS OVERCOME THE LEGACY OF CORRUPTION, WHICH THEY HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT STEPS SINCE 2014. >> SO IN FACT BEFORE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, YOU AND YOUR SUPERIORS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASKED THE AMBASSADOR TO EXTEND HER TIME IN THE UKRAINE, CORRECT, SIR? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DID YOU SUPPORT HER EXTENSION? >> I ASKED HER TO EXTEND UNTIL THE END OF THIS YEAR, TO GET THROUGH THE ELECTION CYCLE IN UKRAINE AND UNDERSECRETARY HILL IN MARCH ASKED HER TO STAY UNTIL 2020. >> SOME IN UKRAINE PROBABLY DISLIKED HER EFFORTS TO HELP END UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION, CORRECT? SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE HELPED GIULIANI SMEAR HER. DID THEY NOT? >> THEY DID. >> SO ULTIMATELY THAT SMEAR CAMPAIGN PUSHED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO REMOVE HER, CORRECT, SIR? >> I CANNOT JUDGE THAT. WHAT I CAN SAY IS RUDY GIULIANI'S SUMMER CAMPAIGN WAS UBIQUITOUS ON FOX NEWS AND ON THE INTERNET AND TWITTER SPHERE. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT, IN ALL OF YOUR COMBINED DECADES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, HAVE YOU EVER BEFORE SEEN AN INSTANCE WHERE AN AMBASSADOR WAS FORCED OUT BY THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWING A SMEAR CAMPAIGN OF MISINFORMATION ORCHESTRATED BY THE PRESIDENT'S ALLYS? >> I HAVE NOT. >> NOR I. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> DR. WENSTRUP. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. TAYLOR, THIS SHOULD BE EASY, I'M GOING TO USE A LOT OF YOUR WORDS FROM THE PREVIOUS DEPOSITION AS WE GO FORWARD. IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SPOKE OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNITED STATES AND HOW MUCH YOU SUPPORT THAT. IN 2014, YOU AND I'M QUOTING THIS, URGED OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS IN ORDER TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. DID THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS? >> NO, SIR. >> THEY PROVIDED MREs AND BLANKETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU SAID PRESIDENT OBAMA'S OBJECTION WAS BECAUSE IT MIGHT PROVOKE THE RUSSIANS AND YOU TESTIFY IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT SINCE RUSSIA ALREADY PROVOKED AND INVADED UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. >> IT IS A SHAME YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE ADVICE OF A COMBAT VETERAN LIKE YOU, SIR, SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT DETERRENCE PROVIDES. BECAUSE A LOT OF UKRAINIAN LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF HE HAD TAKEN YOUR ADVICE. AND YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU SAID AND I QUOTE, HAPPY, YOU WERE HAPPY WITH TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S ASSISTANCE. AND IT PROVIDED BOTH LETHAL AND FINANCIAL AID, DID IT NOT? >> IT DID, SIR. >> AND YOU ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. >> SO NOW WE'RE PROVIDING -- WHICH KILL RUSSIAN TANKS, MREs AND BLANKETS DO NOT DO THAT. TODAY, YOU SAID I WAS BEGINNING TO FEAR THE LONG STANDING U.S. POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS SHIFTING. I HAVE LITTLE TROUBLE WITH LONG-STANDING BASED ON WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE IT WASN'T REALLY LONG-STANDING STRONG SUPPORT. IT SEEMS TO ME THE STRONG SUPPORT CAME WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, SIR? UNLESS YOU CONSIDER MREs AND BLANKETS STRONG SUPPORT, I WOULDN'T CALL IT LONG-STANDING. >> THE LONG-STANDING THAT I'M REFERRING TO THERE, DR. WENSTRUP, IS THE LONG-STANDING POLITICAL SUPPORT, ECONOMIC SUPPORT, AND INCREASING MILITARY SUPPORT. >> CERTAINLY THAT STRONG SUPPORT CAME FROM CONGRESS. BUT IT DIDN'T COME FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION AS COMPARED TO WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DECIDED TO DO. THE STRONG SUPPORT CAME WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION, NOT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. AND MAYBE NOW WE UNDERSTAND WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA MEANT WHEN HE TOLD RUSSIAN PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV HE WOULD HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY AFTER HIS ELECTION. MAYBE THAT FLEXIBILITY WAS TO DENY LETHAL AID TO THE UKRAINE, ALLOWING RUSSIA TO MARCH RIGHT IN AND KILL UKRAINIANS. AGAIN, IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU URGED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE IN ORDER TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. AND NOW THEY HAVE THAT UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION. DON'T THEY, MR. AMBASSADOR? >> THEY HAVE THE JAVELINS, YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. RATCLIFFE. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. SO, NO PRESSURE, NO DEMANDS, NO CONDITIONS, NOTHING CORRUPT, NO -- NOTHING. NOTHING ON THE CALL. THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAY. AND BECAUSE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY, REPEATEDLY, CONSISTENTLY BEEN DENIED BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU HEARD THE DEFENSE NOW PERFECT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. HE'S LYING BECAUSE HE HAS TO. HE HAS TO LIE. BECAUSE THE THREATS, THE DEMANDS, THE BLACKMAIL, THE EXTORTION, THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE ALLEGING, IF HE DIDN'T DO THAT, HE COULDN'T POSSIBLY RISK MILITARY AID. HE WOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING HE HAD TO SECURE IT. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, THE HOLE IN THAT ARGUMENT IS YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHAT DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ACTUALLY DO TO GET THE AID? THE ANSWER IS NOTHING. HE DID NOTHING. HE DIDN'T OPEN ANY INVESTIGATIONS. HE DIDN'T CALL ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR. HE DIDN'T DO ANY OF THE THINGS THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAY THAT HE WAS BEING FORCED AND COERCED AND THREATENED TO DO. HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. I YIELD BACK. >> MISS SPEIER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH YOU, MR. KENT. IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD IN MID-AUGUST IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO GIN UP POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOW INFECTING U.S. ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE, LEVERAGING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DESIRE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETMEETING. MR. KENT, DID YOU WRITE A MEMO DOCUMENTING YOUR CONCERNS THERE WAS AN EFFORT UNDER WAY TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> YES, MA'AM, I WROTE A MEMO TO THE FAIL ON AUGUST 16th. >> WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT MEMO, DO WE? >> I SUBMITTED IT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO THE SEPTEMBER 27th SUBPOENA. >> WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE PIECE OF PAPER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT RELATIVE TO THIS INVESTIGATION. BOTH OF YOU HAVE MADE COMPELLING CASES OF THE IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE TO EUROPE, TO THE 70 YEARS OF PEACE, THE BENEFIT THAT IT HAS TO THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY, AND OF OUR GOAL TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS. MEANWHILE, RUSSIA IS VIOLENTLY ATTACKED -- ATTACKING PEOPLE IN UKRAINE IN THE DONBASS AREA. WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID, DOES THAT WEAKEN UKRAINE? >> WELL, I THINK IT SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL AND IT DID FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THE ASSISTANCE FROM FY-'19 WAS RELEASED AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF HEADING TOWARDS UKRAINE. >> DOES IT EMBOLDEN RUSSIA WHEN THERE WAS NO AID BEING SENT TO UKRAINE? >> I THINK THE SIGNAL THAT THERE IS CONTROVERSY AND QUESTION ABOUT THE U.S. SUPPORT OF UKRAINE SENDS THE SIGNAL TO VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT HE CAN LEVERAGE THAT AS HE SEEKS TO NEGOTIATE WITH NOT ONLY UKRAINE, BUT OTHER COUNTRIES. >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR ZELENSKY WOULD BOOST HIS ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE FOR A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND RUSSIA IN GENERAL. IS THAT TRUE? >> CERTAINLY TRUE THAT U.S. SUPPORT FOR MR. ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IN HIS NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIANS, IS VERY IMPORTANT AND WILL ENABLE HIM TO GET A BETTER AGREEMENT WITH THAT SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES, BOTH FROM THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, BUT ALSO FROM THE POLITICAL ASSISTANCE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE. >> BUT HE HAS NOT YET HAD THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING, HAS HE? >> HE HAS NOT. >> I THINK IT IS IRONIC THAT SOVIET-BORN LEV PARNAS, NOW INDICTED, HAD A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER PARTICIPATING IN A NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN EVENTS FOR THE PRESIDENT AND CONTRIBUTING $325,000 TO THE PRESIDENT'S PAC. SO MAYBE IT IS ACTUALLY THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU GIVE MONEY TO THE PRESIDENT'S PAC IN ORDER TO GET THAT MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IS IT TRUE THAT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL NOW HAS OPENED AN INVESTIGATION IN UKRAINE? >> THE NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS APPOINTED IS INDEED INVESTIGATING CRIMES IN GENERAL. IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? >> YES. >> HE IS IN OFFICE AND IS INVESTIGATING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. >> HAS HE SPECIFIED WHAT INVESTIGATIONS HE'S UNDERTAKEN? >> NO. >> HE HAS NOT. ALL RIGHT. I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. >> JUST A QUICK QUESTION, MY COLLEAGUES, COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES REFERENCED THE CONVERSATION, THE HOT MIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT MEDVEDMEDVE. THAT WAS IN 2012. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION HE WOULD GO EASY ON RUSH OVER THE INVASION OF UKRAINE. DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS REFERRING TO GOING TO EASY ON RUSSIA FOR AN INVASION THAT HADN'T HAPPENED YET, DO YOU? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS IN -- >> MORE OR LESS A RHETORICAL QUESTION. I WILL YIELD NOW TO MR. STEWART, OR I'M SORRY -- MR. STEWART, YES. >> THANK YOU, TO THE WITNESSES, THANK YOU, TIME IS PRECIOUS, SO I'M GOING TO GO VERY, VERY QUICKLY. WELCOME, I THINK, TO YEAR FOUR OF THE ONGOING IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. I'M SORRY YOU'VE BEEN DRUG INTO THIS. I THINK THE SIGN BEHIND ME SAYS IT VERY WELL. BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWERS ATTORNEY, THE COUP HAS STARTED AND IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW. AFTER LISTENING FOR WHAT IS GO ON NOW FOUR HOURS AND 21 MINUTES, AFTER ALL OF THE SECRET HEARINGS, AFTER ALL OF THE LEAKS, AFTER HEARING WITNESSES SUCH AS YOURSELVES GIVE YOUR OPINIONS, IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THIS. ONE THING, ONE THING THAT COMES DOWN TO, THIS IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT RELEASED OF THIS PHONE CALL, THERE IS ONE SENTENCE, ONE PHONE CALL, THAT IS WHAT THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IS BASED UPON. IF YOUR IMPEACHMENT CASE IS SO WEAK THAT YOU HAVE TO LIE AND EXAGGERATE ABOUT IT, TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THEY NEED TO REMOVE THIS PRESIDENT, YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIED TO AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THIS. WE FIRST HEARD A LOT ABOUT QUID PRO QUO. AND THEN MANY PEOPLE REALIZED THAT WAS MEANINGLESS. THEY SAID LET'S GO FOR THE FENCES, LET'S TALK ABOUT EXTORTION, LET'S TALK ABOUT BRIBERY, COVER-UP, AND OBSTRUCTION, FOR WHICH THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THAT. WE HEARD A CHARACTERIZATION OF PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL SO OUTRAGEOUSLY INACCURATE, IT HAD TO BE DESCRIBED AS A PARODY. AND NONE OF THOSE THINGS MATTER. NONE OF IT MATTERS, IT COMES DOWN TO THIS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT, WE APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION, BUT ALL YOU CAN DO IS GIVE YOUR OPINION OF THIS. THIS ONE PHONE CALL. LET ME ASK YOU, GENTLEMEN, BOTH OF YOU SAID HERE TODAY, YOU TESTIFIED, CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC. WOULD WE AGREE ON THAT? SIMPLE QUESTION. PROBLEM IS, ISN'T IT -- >> IT IS A PROBLEM AND THEY'RE TAKING STEPS TO ADDRESS IT. >> EARLIER IN THE HEARING BOTH OF YOU SAID USED THE WORD ENDEMIC OR AGREED TO IT, IT IS IN THE COURTS, OLIGARCHS, PROSECUTORS, EVERYWHERE. AND I THINK WE CAN ALSO AGREE THAT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD WHERE WE EXPERIENCE AND SEE CORRUPTION. THERE IS DOZENS AND DOZENS OF NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD STEEPED IN CORRUPTION, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS CORRUPTION IN EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING OURS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. AND SOME WE'RE CLEARLY MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THAN OTHERS. OF THESE CORRUPT NATIONS, PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS, HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, ANYTIME, WHERE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOWS UP AND DEMANDS THAT A SPECIFIC PROSECUTOR BE FIRED AND GIVES THEM A SIX-HOUR TIME LIMIT TO DO THAT? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT EVER HAPPENING ANY OTHER PLACE? I GUESS THE ANSWER IS NO. I JUST THINK IT IS INTERESTING THAT OUT OF HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS, DOZENS OF CORRUPT NATIONS, THAT HAPPENED ONE TIME. AND IT HAPPENED WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE SON WAS BEING PAID BY THE ORGANIZATION THAT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION. ONE OTHER THING, VERY QUICKLY, IF SOMEONE WAS A CANDIDATE FOR A POLITICAL OFFICE, EVEN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SHOULD THEY BE IMMUNE FROM INVESTIGATION? >> NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, SIR. >> THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK WE ALL WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. SOME PRESUME THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WERE CANDIDATES, THEY ARE IMMUNE FOR MANY QUESTIONS AND OR ANY INVESTIGATION. I THINK IT IS ABSURD. THOSE OF US IN PUBLIC OFFICE, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE -- FIND OURSELVES UP FOR RE-ELECTION OR ALL THE TIME AS A CANDIDATE, I THINK WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD, NOT IMMUNITY FROM ASKING THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS, THE LAST THING I'LL YIELD MY TIME. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS, I'M QUOTING FROM THE NDAA IN 2019, THE LANGUAGE IS SPECIFIC. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS UNDER ASSISTANCE UKRAINE HAS TO BE CERTIFIED. WHAT HAS TO BE CERTIFIED? QUOTE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECREASING CORRUPTION. ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND IT WOULD BE DISCUSSED WITHHOLDING SOME OF THIS AID THAT IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY LAW THAT IT BE WITHHELD IF THEY CAN'T CERTIFY THAT CORRUPTION HAS BEEN ELIMINATED OR IS BEING ADDRESSED? >> THE CERTIFICATION IN THAT CASE IS DONE BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE UPON ADVICE OF HIS STAFF IN CONSULTATION WITH THE INTERAGENCY COMMUNITY. WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT CONDITIONALITY AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT CONDITIONALITY HAD BEEN MET. >> SO WE AGREE THAT WE SHOULD WITHHOLD FUNDS IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. I'M GOING TO YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO MR. JORDAN. 18 SECONDS? YOU'RE GOING TO LET THAT GO. THANK YOU, IN THAT CASE, I YIELD BACK. THANK YOU. >> MR. QUIGLEY. >> SO THAT CERTIFICATION, THAT TOOK PLACE IN MAY, IS THAT CORRECT, MR. KENT? >> I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WAS CERTIFIED BY MAY. I WOULD DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUE GLORIA COOPER WHO TESTIFIED -- >> IT WAS -- >> IT HAD NOT BEEN DONE BY MAY. WHEN I WAS VISITING IN MAY, I WAS ASKED BY LAURA TO RAISE AN ISSUE OF CONDITIONALITY. >> IT IS INTERESTING AND CURIOUS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEARSAY EVIDENCE, EXTRAORDINARY TO ME THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THEY HAVE, DIRECT OR HEARSAY, GIVEN THE OBSTRUCTION. YOU GENTLEMEN WERE BOTH ASKED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT, NOT TO APPEAR FOR YOUR DEPOSITIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE BOTH RECEIVED -- I BELIEVE I RECEIVED INITIALLY A LETTER DIRECTING ME NOT TO APPEAR. AND ONCE THE COMMITTEES ISSUED A SUBPOENA, I WAS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO APPEAR AND I AM HERE TODAY UNDER SUBPOENA. >> AMBASSADOR, WERE YOU ALSO ASKED NOT TO BE PART OF THE DEPOSITION? >> I WAS TOLD BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT DON'T APPEAR UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WAS IN THE LETTER TO ME, AND WHEN I GOT THE SUBPOENA EXACTLY AS MR. KENT SAID, THAT WAS DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, AND OBEYED THE LEGAL SUBPOENA, SO I'M HERE FOR THAT REASON. >> ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE NOW ABLE TO HEAR TESTIMONY BY CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, MORE THAN A DOZEN WITNESSES. I SUSPECT IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HEARSAY YOU HAVE A LOT MORE DIRECT TESTIMONY AND DIRECT EVIDENCE IF YOU WEREN'T BLOCKING THAT ABILITY. YOU HAVE A LOT MORE DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS THAT YOU REFERRED TO WITH MY COLLEAGUE'S QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN TURNED OVER BY STATE OR ANY OTHER AGENCY, IS THAT CORRECT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, GENTLEMEN? >> WE'RE BOTH HERE UNDER SUBPOENA. I DON'T THINK EITHER OF US IS GOING TO COMMENT WHY OTHERS HAVE NOT SHOWED UP HAS ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU TURNED OVER TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE COMMITTEE? >> NO. >> MR. KENT, FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL AND THROUGH THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF AUGUST, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY EFFORTS TO ARRANGE FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MAKE A STATEMENT ANNOUNCING THAT TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TALKED ABOUT IN THE JULY 25th CALL? >> I WAS NOT AND I WOULD NEVER HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AN ARRANGEMENT TO HAVE THEM ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY SUCH EFFORTS? >> NO, SIR. >> I WANT TO SHOW YOU A TEXT OF THE EXCHANGE, BETWEEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND ANDRIY YERMAK, BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL, FIRST TEXT FROM AUGUST 10th. LET'S IRON OUT THE STATEMENT, HE USED THAT TO GET DATE AND PRESIDENT CAN GO FORWARD WITH IT. MR. YERMAK RESPONDS, ONCE WE HAVE A DATE, WE'LL CALL FOR A PRESS DEIFING ANNOUNCING UPCOMING VISIT AND OUTLYING VISION FOR RELATIONSHIP AMONG OTHER THINGS BURISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING INVESTIGATIONS. HE SAYS ONCE WE HAVE DATE THEY WILL ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS AND BURISMA ELECTION MEDDLES. MR. KENT, ARE THESE THE SAME AS THE JULY 25th MEETING, 25th CALL. >> THOSE APPEAR TO BE THE SAME ISSUES MENTIONED IN THE CALL AS WELL AS THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN THAT STARTED IN MARCH LED BY RUDY GIULIANI. >> MR. KENT, AS THE DAY TO DAY STATE DEPARTMENT POINT PERSON IN WASHINGTON, ON UKRAINE POLICY, WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS EFFORT TO PERSUADE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ISSUE A STATEMENT IN ORDER TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WHILE THEY WERE HAPPENING? >> WHEN THIS EXCHANGE HAPPENED ON AUGUST 10th, I WAS NOT. >> WHEN DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THEM? >> AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REFERENCED EARLIER IN THE TESTIMONY IN ORAL ANSWERING HE HEARD ON AUGUST 16th HE THEN CALLED ME AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION. AT THAT POINT, I MEMORIALIZED MY CONCERNS IN THE NOTE TO THE FILE. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AS THE POINT PERSON ON THE GROUND IN UKRAINE, WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS EFFORT? >> NOT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT, NO, SIR. >> SO THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION ABOUT A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT THE TWO INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED WAS DONE IN WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED AS AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL INVOLVING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER. AND THEY TASKED TO TAKE ON UKRAINE POLICY BY THE PRESIDENT, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? MR. KENT? >> THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING. >> AMBASSADOR? >> SAME. >> AND IF -- I GUESS TO CLOSE, PRIMER ON HEARSAY, I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE REMINDED THAT COUNTLESS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONVICTED ON HEARSAY. BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVE ROUTINELY ALLOWED AND CREATED NEEDED EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY. HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT AS WE HAVE LEARNED IN PAINFUL INSTANCES AND IT CERTAINLY IS VALID IN THIS INSTANCE. >> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD, NO OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS WOULD APPLY TO THIS TESTIMONY. >> NOT THE TIME FOR COLLOQUY. MR. -- SORRY, REPRESENTATIVE STEFANIK, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU. FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS VIEWING TODAY, THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT FACTS ARE THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER ONE, UKRAINE RECEIVED THE AID. NUMBER TWO, THERE WAS IN FACT NO INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN. MR. KENT AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU BOTH SPOKE ELOQUENTLY AND PASSIONATELY ABOUT THE NEED TO SUPPORT UKRAINE TO COUNTERRUSSIAN AGGRESSION, PARTICULARLY DURING THIS VERY CRITICAL TIME. I AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT ASSESSMENT. AND ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS INDEED PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL AID TO UKRAINE IN THE FORM OF DEFENSIVE LEGAL AID, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND THAT IS MORE SO THAN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TELLS TRUMP THEY ARE READY TO BUY MORE JAVELINS. THIS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WEAPON FOR FIGHTING INSURGENT ARMOR RUSSIAN TANKS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND THOSE JAVELINS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU CRANE UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE JAVELINS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE -- >> THEY WERE NOT. >> CORRECT. SHIFTING GEARS TO CORRUPTION. ONE OF THE THEMES HERE TODAY IS THAT OF ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR THE PRESIDENT AS WE PROVIDE TAXPAYER FUNDED AID TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. MR. KENT, YOU WOULD CHARACTERIZE UKRAINE AS HAVING LONG-STANDING CORRUPTION ISSUES, CORRECT? >> I DID. >> AND IN FACT YOU TESTIFIED, QUOTE, I WOULD SAY THAT CORRUPTION IS PART OF THE REASON WHY UKRAINIANS CAME OUT TO THE STREETS IN 2004 WHEN SOMEBODY TRIED TO STEAL THE ELECTION AND AGAIN IN 2014 BECAUSE OF A CORRUPT KLEPTOCRATIC PRO RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WHICH EVENTUALLY COLLAPSED. THE UKRAINIANS DECIDED ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WAS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? >> IT REMAINS SO. >> YOU TESTIFIED YOU FIRST CAME TO LEARN ABOUT BURISMA IN 2015 WHEN YOU WERE THE SENIOR ANTI-CORRUPTION COORDINATOR, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. DETAILED TO THE EMBASSY IN KYIV. >> YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION IN BURISMA WAS IN THE U.S. INTEREST BECAUSE, QUOTE, THIS IS FROM YOUR DEPOSITION, WE HAD MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IN 2014 TO TRY TO RECOVER AN ESTIMATED TENS OF BILLIONS OF STOLEN DOLLARS OF STOLEN ASSETS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS A STOLEN ASSETS THAT WERE IN THE NAME OF THE OWNER WHO WAS THE ONE WHO WE BELIEVE TO HAVE STOLEN THE MONEY. >> SURE. SO THE FIRST CASE, THIS WAS THE FIRST CASE THAT THE U.S., THE UK AND UKRAINE INVESTIGATORS WORKED ON WAS AGAINST THE OWNER OF BURISMA. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THIS WAS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS VIEWING, THE FIRST INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE OWNER OF BURISMA WAS UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION. >> CORRECT. >> YOU TESTIFIED ALSO, QUOTE, WE SPENT ROUGHLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OF STATE DEPARTMENT MONEY IN SUPPORT OF THE FBI AND THIS INVESTIGATION TO BUILD CAPACITY AND TRACK DOWN STOLEN ASSETS, END QUOTE, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS LAUNCHED IN MAY 2014 BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U.S. AND UK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORLD BANK. >> AND IN FACT, BY THE 2016, YOU WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION QUESTIONS RELATED TO BURISMA THAT WHEN THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO SPONSOR AN ESSAY CONTEST WITH THE USAID, YOU ASKED USAID TO STOP IT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS BECAUSE, QUOTE, BURISMA HAD A POOR REPUTATION IN THE BUSINESS AND THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A APPROPRIATE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO BE CO-SPONSORING SOMETHING WITH A COMPANY THAT HAD A BAD REPUTATION. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU WERE ALSO AWARE AND YOU TESTIFIED TODAY THAT HUNTER BIDEN SERVED ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA. >> CORRECT. >> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND BROADLY, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT WHEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT EVALUATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO LOOK AT LEVELS OF CORRUPTION IN COUNTRIES. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND LASTLY, YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT, THIS IS YOUR QUOTE, ISSUES OF CORRUPTION HAVE BEEN PART OF HIGH LEVEL DIALOGUE BETWEEN U.S. LEADERS AND UKRAINIAN LEADERS REGARDLESS OF WHO IS THE U.S. LEADER AND WHO IS THE UKRAINIAN LEADER AND THAT IS A NORMAL ISSUE OF DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, END QUOTE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I WILL YIELD 30 SECONDS. YOU KNOW WHAT, I WILL YIELD BACK AFTER THAT. THANK YOU. >> MR. SWALWELL? >> BOTH OF YOU HAVE TESTIFIED THAT YOU ARE NOT DIRECT WITNESSES WHO HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE PRESIDENT, HOWEVER YOU ARE WITNESSES TO A SHAKEDOWN SCHEME THAT OTHERS PARTICIPATED IN WHO SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. HOWEVER, AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY BOTH SPOKE DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UNLIKE YOU, THEY HAVE REFUSED TO HONOR OUR REQUEST FOR THEM TO BE PART OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. NONETHELESS, WE DO KNOW HOW ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY FEELS ABOUT AID BECAUSE ON OCTOBER 17 AT A PRESS CONFERENCE HE DISCUSSED THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID. I'LL READ IT FOR YOU. IT IS IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION, BUT TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS A QUID PRO QUO. IT IS MONEY WILL NOT FLOW UNTIL AN INVESTIGATION HAPPENS AS WELL, IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION, MR. MULVANEY SAID, MR. TAYLOR, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY, MY QUESTION, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ON INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, PRIOR TO THIS ADMINISTRATION, IS THIS SOMETHING WE WOULD DO ALL THE TIME? >> NO, SIR. >> WHY NOT? >> WE CONDITION ASSISTANCE ON ISSUES THAT WILL IMPROVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY, SERVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY, USE -- ENSURE TAXPAYERS' MONEY IS WELL SPENT, THOSE ARE THE -- AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE EITHER COMING FROM THE CONGRESS OR FROM POLICY DECISIONS STEMMING FROM AUTHORITY CONGRESS HAS GIVEN US TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY IS WELL SPENT OR THAT THE RECEIVING COMPANY -- COUNTRY TAKES THE ACTIONS IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE IN YOUR TEXT MESSAGE EXCHANGES THAT ENGAGING IN A SCHEME LIKE THIS IS, QUOTE, CRAZY, CAN WE ALSO AGREE THAT IT IS JUST WRONG? >> YES. >> WHY IS IT WRONG? >> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WOULD GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO GOOD POLICY REASON, NO GOOD SUBSTANTIVE REASON, NO GOOD -- NATIONAL SECURITY REASON, IS WRONG. >> MR. MULVANEY, IN THE SAME NEWS CONFERENCE, SAID, QUOTE, IF YOU READ THE NEWS REPORTS AND YOU BELIEVE THEM, WHAT McKINLEY SAID YESTERDAY, WELL, McKINLEY SAID YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS REALLY UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS. AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY. GET OVER IT. THERE IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, SHOULD WE GET OVER IT? >> IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE MEANING ATTEMPTS TO GET INFORMATION THAT IS SOLELY USEFUL FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE -- HE'S TALKING ABOUT, WE SHOULD NOT GET USED TO THAT. >> FINALLY MR. MULVANEY SAID, I WAS INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS BY WHICH MONEY WAS HELD UP TEMPORARILY, OKAY. THREE ISSUES FOR THAT. THE CORRUPTION OF THE COUNTRY, WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTRIES PARTICIPATING IN THE SUPPORT OF UKRAINE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE COOPERATING IN AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION WITH OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THAT'S COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE. MR. KENT, WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY FORMAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COOPERATION REQUEST MADE TO THE UKRAINIANS? >> I AM NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS ANY FORMAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REQUEST IN THIS MATTER, NO. >> WAS MR. MULVANEY'S STATEMENT FALSE? >> I THINK YOU REFER THAT TO -- THAT QUESTION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SINCE DON'T HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHATEVER THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. >> JUST AN HOUR BEFORE THE TWO OF YOU SAT DOWN TO TESTIFY TODAY, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT THIS HEARING AND HE PUT IN ALL CAPS NEVER TRUMPERS. MR. KENT, ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER? >> I AM A CAREER NONPROFESSIONAL WHO SERVES WHATEVER PRESIDENT IS DUALLY ELECTED AND CARIES OUT THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF THAT PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED STATES AND I'VE DONE THAT FOR 27 YEARS FOR THREE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND TWO DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER? >> NO, SIR. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU SAID IN YOUR STATEMENT ON PAGE 19, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE TWO UKRAINIAN STORIES TODAY. THE FIRST IS THE ONE WE ARE DISCUSSING THIS MORNING, AND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING FOR THE PAST TWO WEEKS. IT IS A RANCOROUS STORY ABOUT WHISTLE BLOWERS. MR. GIULIANI, SIDE CHANNELS, QUID PRO QUOS, CORRUPTION, AND INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS. END OF STORY, UKRAINE IS MERELY AN OBJECT. IS IT ALSO TRUE THAT IN THIS STORY IT IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> MR. SWALWELL, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW, AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD, AND WHAT I SAID. AND IN THAT REGARD, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO ALSO INVOLVES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ON THE TELEPHONE CALL ON THE 25th OF JULY, YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. >> MR. HURD? >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. GENTLEMEN, I APPRECIATE YOUR DECADE OF SERVICE AS THE FABLED FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER AND OFFICER RYAN CROCKER SAYS BECAUSE WE HAVE BOMBS AND WING TIPS ON THE GROUND, MEANING DIPLOMATS, THAT PREVENTS US FROM HAVING BOOTS ON THE GROUND, YOU ARE IMPORTANT IN YOUR ROLE OF NATIONAL SECURITY. THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ON YEARS PRIOR TO YOUR TIME IN THE UKRAINE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE YOU CAN ANSWER THEM. DID THE UKRAINIANS GET MILITARY -- GET AID IN FY-'17? >> DID THEY GET ANY AID? YES, SIR, THEY DID. >> AND THEY GOT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS WELL. >> THEY DID. >> AND IF I SAID THAT NUMBER WAS CIRCA -- MILITARY ASSISTANCE AROUND $270 MILLION, WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? >> CLOSE. >> ABOUT RIGHT? DID THEY GET AID IN FY-'18? >> YES, SIR. >> INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE? >> INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THE JJAVELIN, ANTI-TANK MISSILES THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO PURCHASE IN PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS. HAVE THEY GOTTEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN FY-'19. >> YES, SIR. >> PRIOR TO THE 400,000 -- MILLION OR SO THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING OR HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING A LOT HERE TODAY? >> THEY GOT SOME PREVIOUS -- PROBABLY FY-'18 ASSISTANCE, BUT, GEORGE, YOU MAY KNOW -- >> IT TAKES A WHILE ONCE D TO R COUNTRY. THERE WERE TWO SHIPS THAT ARRIVED IN THE PORT OF ODESSA WITH PRIOR YEAR MONEY. LAG OF A YEAR. >> MY POINT IS WE HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING THE UKRAINIANS UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION TO -- IN ORDER TO HELP THEM KICK OUT THE RUSSIANS WHO INVADED THEIR COUNTRY. >> YES, SIR. >> 100%. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, EARLIER YOU TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF POTENTIAL U.S. ASSISTANCE BEING WITHHELD UNTIL AUGUST 29th. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. HURD. >> WOULD YOU FIND IT SURPRISING IF A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL KNEW ABOUT THAT SOONER AND DID NOT CONTACT YOU? >> I CAN ANSWER THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER AUGUST 29th WHEN THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT THAT I GOT CALLED FROM THE -- FROM SEVERAL OF THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. >> GOOD COPY. MR. KENT, HAD YOU TO HAD ANY UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTING YOU CONCERNED ABOUT -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTED YOU CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL WITHHOLDING OF U.S. AID? >> IT WAS AFTER THE ARTICLE AND POLITICAL CAME OUT IN THAT FIRST INTENSE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER. >> SO AFTER THAT AUGUST 29th CONVERSATION. THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI AND WHO HE WAS AND WASN'T MEETING. DO WE KNOW OR HAVE AN IDEA OF THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT HE WAS MEETING WITH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS? >> I DON'T, SIR. >> HAVE YOU HAD ANY UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS CALL YOU AFTER A MEETING WITH RUDY GIULIANI CONCERNED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CONTEXT OF THAT CONVERSATION? >> YES. MR. YERMAK EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT HIS INTERACTIONS WITH MR. GIULIANI. >> AND I BELIEVE THAT MEETING WAS SOMEWHERE IN LATE AUGUST, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT WAS -- THERE WERE MEETINGS AND THERE WERE I THINK ALSO PHONE CALLS. >> AND YOU ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> HAVE WE SEEN WHAT THIS ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT WE WANT THE UKRAIIANS TO MAKE? >> ARE YOU REFERRINGING TO THE STATEMENT THAT WAS BEING NEGOTIATED BETWEEN KURT VOLKER, GORDON SONDLAND AND ANDRIY YERMAK? >> YES. >> THAT WAS NOT AN ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT. >> WHAT WAS IT? >> IF YOU GO BACK AND FORTH, THEY SHARED A DRAFT WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND RUDY GIULIANI SAID IT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE IF IT DIDN'T MENTION BIDEN AND BURISMA IN 2016. >> THAT WAS NEVER AGREED TO OR ISSUED BY THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> NO STATEMENT OF THAT SORT WAS ISSUED, CORRECT. >> AND HAVE U.S. BUSINESSES EVER CONTACTED YOU ALL CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION WITHIN UKRAINE? >> YES, SIR. AS OF THIS YEAR EVEN? >> YES, SIR. >> BECAUSE THE CONCERN IS NOT JUST HOW UKRAINIAN BUSINESSES RUN BY OLIGARCHS ARE BEING OPERATED, IT IS ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IS DEALING WITH AMERICAN BUSINESSES TRYING TO OPERATE IN UKRAINE, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> AMERICAN BUSINESSES ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN PARTICULAR. YES, SIR. >> I YIELD BACK MY TIME. I DO NOT HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN, MR. CASTRO. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY AND YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. LISTENING TO ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD AND READ IN THIS INVESTIGATION, IT SEEMS TO ME THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EITHER COMMITTED EXTORTION AND BRIBERY OF A FOREIGN OFFICIAL OR ATTEMPTED EXTORTION AND BRIBERY OF A FOREIGN OFFICIAL. WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PHONE ON JULY 25th, HE WAS TALKING TO A DESPERATE MAN. WASN'T HE? PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS DESPERATE TO PROTECT HIS COUNTRY AND MAKE SURE HE HAD FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FROM THE UNITED STATES. IS THAT RIGHT? >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS VERY INTERESTED IN U.S. SUPPORT, BOTH ASSISTANCE AND POLITICAL SUPPORT. >> WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE AID HAD GOTTEN CUT OFF, AMBASSADOR? WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S CAREER AND WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO UKRAINE? >> THE ASSISTANCE, IF THE ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN CUT OFF, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WEAKER IN HIS NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WEAKER ON THE BATTLEFIELD. >> THE RUSSIANS MAY HAVE TAKEN IT AS AN INVITATION TO ACTUALLY TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST UKRAINE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE RUSSIANS ALWAYS LOOK FOR VULNERABILITIES. AND THEY KNOW THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS SUPPORTED UKRAINE. IF THEY -- IF THE RUSSIANS DETERMINE OR SUSPECT THAT THAT SUPPORT IS LESSENED OR NOT THERE, THEY WILL LIKELY TAKE ADVANTAGE. >> THEY COULD HAVE POUNCED. >> THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE. >> HE HAD A DESPERATE MAN ON THE PHONE AND ASKED A DESPERATE MAN FOR A FAVOR. AND BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY, IT SOUNDS LIKE BEGRUDGINGLY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MAY HAVE ACTUALLY AGREED TO DO THAT FAVOR AND INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND BURISMA, IS THAT RIGHT? >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DOES SAY IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT HE WILL PURSUE THE INVESTIGATIONS. >> SO WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR A FAVOR TO HELP HIS POLITICAL CAREER AND IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AGREED TO THAT FAVOR. DO WE KNOW WHY IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN? DO WE KNOW WHY THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT IN FRONT OF CNN OR TO CNN ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION? >> MR. CASTRO, AS WE HAVE DETERMINED, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE, ON SEPTEMBER 11th, JUST BEFORE ANY CNN DISCUSSION OR INTERVIEW, THE HOLD WAS RELEASED. THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY SYSTEMS WAS RELEASED. >> BUT WE DON'T -- SO THE HOLD WAS RELEASED, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED THAT HOLD BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT A WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD BASICALLY TURNED THIS IN? >> I DON'T KNOW, SIR. >> DO YOU THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE? >> I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE. >> SO WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO THE OTHER SIDE CLAIMED OR HAS DEFENDED THE PRESIDENT SAYING THAT THE AID WENT THROUGH, THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY INVESTIGATION. BUT THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO GET THOSE THINGS DONE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS AN INITIAL AGREEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO DO THOSE DO THOSE THINGS. SO, AMBASSADORS, IS ATTEMPTED MURDER A CRIME? IS ATTEMPTED MURDER A CRIME? >> ATTEMPTED MURDER IS A CRIME. >> IS ATTEMPTED ROBBERY A CRIME? >> NEITHER OF US IS A LAWYER -- >> I THINK ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM COULD -- >> I'LL GO OUT ON A LIMB AND SAY, YES, IT IS. >> IS ATTEMPTED EXTORTION AND BRIBERY A CRIME? >> I DON'T KNOW, SIR. >> IN THE MINUTE THAT I HAVE LEFT, I WANT YOU TO SPEAK TO THE NATION ABOUT WHAT'S AT STAKE, AMBASSADOR KENT. YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU WARNED ABOUT SELECTIVE PROSECUTIONS AND A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOING AFTER SPECIFIC AMERICANS ABROAD. IF THIS CONGRESS CLEARS PRESIDENT TRUMP, DOES IT MEAN THAT HE CAN GO ASK ANOTHER FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, A GOVERNOR, A SENATOR, OR ANY PRIVATE AMERICAN CITIZEN DOING BUSINESS OVERSEAS? IF THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO DOES THAT, THEN IT MEANS THERE'S A GREEN LIGHT, DOESN'T IT, FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO ASK ANY COUNTRY TO GO PROSECUTE OR INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR A POLITICAL AND PERSONAL GAIN OF THAT PRESIDENT. DOESN'T IT? >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT AN AMBASSADOR. >> I'M SORRY. >> AND I WILL REPEAT, I THINK ON PRINCIPAL, REGARDLESS OF THE COUNTRY, WHETHER IT'S UKRAINE, THE U.S. OR ANY COUNTRY, THE FACTS OF LAW, IT'S NOT THE ROLE OF POLITICIANS TO BE INVOLVED IN DIRECTING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY OR OTHER COUNTRIES. >> I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN. >> MR. RATCLIFFE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. KENT, IN YOUR PRIOR DEPOSITION ON PAGE 159 YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO RELEASE AN AMBASSADOR FOR ANY REASON. AND YOUR RESPONSE WAS, QUOTE, ALL AMBASSADORS SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THAT IS WITHOUT QUESTION. EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT, END QUOTE. DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT. >> I DO AND IT'S TRUE. >> THE PRESIDENT VERY CLEARLY HAS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, CORRECT? >> HE DOES. >> OKAY. WELL, MOST EVERYBODY APPARENTLY UNDERSTANDS THAT. BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE HOUSE DEMOCRATS. IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, WHO I KNOW IS A FRIEND OF YOURS, IN ALLEGING AN ABUSE OF POWER IN A NATIONALLY TELEVISED INTERVIEW, A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID IT'S AN ABUSE OF POWER TO REMOVE AN AMBASSADOR BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY'RE DOING, END QUOTE. THAT'S NOT TRUE? >> THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE AMBASSADORS SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE. >> OKAY. SO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT WE SHOULDN'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. >> I'M HERE AS A FACT WITNESS. YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS IS TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU. >> WHEN DID AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH GET RECALLED FROM UKRAINE? >> I BELIEVE A MESSAGE WAS SENT ON OR ABOUT APRIL 24th. >> WELL BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL THAT'S IN QUESTION HERE, CORRECT? >> WITHOUT A DOUBT. >> SHE HAD NO REMAINING RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE POLICY FOR THAT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS IN BETWEEN, I TAKE IT? >> SHE IS NOW A -- SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A TEACHING SLOT AT GEORGETOWN WHERE HER RESPONSIBILITIES WERE TO TEACH A CLASS ON UKRAINE. >> IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE HER AS HE DID MONTHS BEFORE THE CALL AND SHE WASN'T IN THE UKRAINE OR HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITIES ON JULY 25th, DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING HER AS A WITNESS ON FRIDAY? >> I'M HERE AS A FACT WITNESS UNDER SUBPOENA AND THAT'S A QUESTION YOU COULD PERHAPS DIRECT TOWARD YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT ON JULY 25th, BOTH PARTICIPANTS IN THE CALL, BOTH PRESIDENTS, EXPRESSLY HAVE STATED THERE WAS NO PRESSURE, NO DEMAND, NO CONDITIONS, NO BLACKMAIL, NO CORRUPTION. AND I ASK YOU AGAIN SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO EVEN BEING POSSIBLE AND I THINK WE'VE AGREED THAT IT WASN'T POSSIBLE, A QUID PRO QUO INVOLVING MILITARY AID ON JULY 25th GIVEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, CORRECT? >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DID NOT HAVE ANY IDEA THAT THE SECURITY SYSTEM WAS ON HOLD. >> DO YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY WITHIN DAYS OF THAT PHONE CALL WHEN NO QUID PRO QUO WAS EVEN POSSIBLE A PERSON WHO LATER BECAME A WHISTLE-BLOWER WALKED INTO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF TO DISCUSS WHAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S SPOKESMAN SAID WERE THE, QUOTE, OUTLINES OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S ACCUSATIONS? >> I'M SORRY. WHAT'S THE QUESTION, SIR? >> DO YOU KNOW OR HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THAT PERSON WOULD WALK IN A -- >> I DO NOT. I DO NOT. >> OKAY. EARLIER CHAIRMAN SCHIFF MADE REFERENCE TO A COLLOQUY. WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IN ANY WAY, IN AN EFFORT TO FIND OUT, CHAIRMAN, WHAT YOU KNEW AND WHEN YOU KNEW IT ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY WITH YOU. >> MY COLLEAGUE WILL ADDRESS HIS QUESTIONS TO THE WITNESSES. >> I'LL TAKE THAT AS A NO? >> APPROPRIATELY YOUR QUESTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO WITNESSES. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THE WITNESS THEN IS, WHEN ARE HOUSE REPUBLICANS GOING TO FOUND OUT WHAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS ALREADY KNOW? WHEN ARE WE GOING TO FIND OUT THE DETAILS OF THE CONTACT BETWEEN CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER? WHAT THEY MET ABOUT, WHEN THEY MET, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY MET, THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE HEAD? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER. THE GENTLEMAN IS QUESTIONING THE CHAIR WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OR THE COMMITTEE. THE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF THIS COMMITTEE AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO QUOTE -- >> I'M NOT TRYING TO FIND OUT THE IDENTITY. I WANT TO FIND OUT THE DATE THAT THIS HAPPENED. >> MR. RATCLIFFE HAS RESUMED QUESTIONS, SO I RECOMMEND WE MOVE ON. >> PRETTY SIMPLE QUESTION, ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND OUT THE DETAILS -- NOT ANYTHING CLASSIFIED -- >> I'LL RESERVE MY POINT OF ORDER. >> MR. RATCLIFFE, YOUR TIME IS DWINDLING, I SUGGEST YOU USE IT. >> I YIELD BACK. >> MR. HECK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. KENT, SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE REAL REASON THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN ON THE UKRAINE WAS TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. I'VE GOT BACK AND READ THE MEMORANDUM OF CALL TWO OR THREE TIMES, ACTUALLY, AND I DON'T RECALL A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE THE PRESIDENT EVER USED THE WORD CORRUPTION NOR THE WORD CORRUPT. I KNOW IN ANSWER TO THE CHAIRMAN'S OPENING QUESTIONS, YOU INDICATED YOU HAD GONE BACK AND READ IT ABOUT A MONTH AGO. DO YOU RECALL THE PRESIDENT IN THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EVER UTTERING THE WORD CORRUPT OR CORRUPTION? >> I DON'T RECALL. BUT IT WOULD BE A MATTER OF RECORD NOW. >> AND HE DIDN'T, BUT HE DID MANAGE TO FIND TIME TO MENTION HIS POLITICAL RIVAL IN 2020. YOU ALSO ANSWERED IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION LITERALLY FOR DECADES. THANK YOU FOR THAT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND INDEED ON OCTOBER 15th YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT LONG-STANDING U.S. POLICY MEANT TO COMBAT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE CHAMPIONED BY PEOPLE SUCH AS FORMER AMBASSADOR MARIA YOVANOVITCH. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT RATHER THAN FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN GENERAL IN UKRAINE THAT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY DID WAS RECALL AND REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FROM HER POST IN UKRAINE? >> I WOULD SAY, FIRST OF ALL, AS I REPEATED BEFORE, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO RECALL AMBASSADORS. IT REMAINS A MATTER OF POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARDS UKRAINE TO HELP THEM OVERCOME A LEGACY OF CORRUPTION AND MUCH OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY WHICH INVOLVED IT WENT AGAINST U.S. POLICY THAT WOULD HAVE UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW AND OUR LONG-STANDING POLICY GOALS IN UKRAINE AS IN OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE POST SOVIET SPACE. >> THOSE POLICIES WHICH WERE CHAMPIONED BY AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. YOU ALSO TESTIFIED ON OCTOBER 15th IN THE DEPOSITION ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL REFORMS NECESSARY FOR UKRAINE TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND TO TRANSFORM THE COUNTRY AND YOU CITED THE IMPORTANCE OF CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS IN THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE. WAS INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS A PART OF THOSE NECESSARY REFORMS? WAS IT ON THAT LIST OF YOURS, SIR, OR WAS IT ON ANY LIST? >> NO, THEY WEREN'T. >> IN FACT, HISTORICALLY, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT A MAJOR PROBLEM IN THE UKRAINE HAS BEEN ITS MISUSE OF PROSECUTORS, PRE SICILY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS, THAT'S A LEGACY, I DARE SUGGEST FROM THE SOVIET ERA, WHERE YOU STATED IN YOUR TESTIMONY, PROSECUTORS LIKE THE KBG INSTRUMENTS OF OPPRESSION. IS THAT -- >> I SAID THAT, AND I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE. >> SO FINALLY, MR. KENT, FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN PREDICATED ON ADVANCING PRINCIPLED INTEREST IN DEMOCRATIC VALUES, NOTABLY, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, RELIGION AND THE RULE OF LAW. MR. KENT, WHEN AMERICAN LEADERS ASK FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO INVESTIGATE THEIR POTENTIAL RIVALS, DOESN'T THAT MAKE IT HARDER FOR US TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THOSE DEMOCRATIC VALUES? >> I BELIEVE IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR OUR DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES OVERSEAS TO CARRY OUT THOSE POLICY GOALS, YES. >> HOW IS THAT, SIR? >> WELL, THERE'S AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY, THEY HEAR DIPLOMATS SAYING ONE THING AND U.S. LEADERS SAYING SOMETHING ELSE. >> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, SIR? >> I WOULD. >> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD ABOUT HOW IT MIGHT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO DO YOUR JOB, SIR? >> OUR CREDIBILITY IS BASED ON A RESPECT FOR THE UNITED STATES AND IF WE DAMAGE THAT RESPECT, THEN IT HURTS OUR CREDIBILITY AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO OUR JOBS. >> ANYONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENED WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER. ANYONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS CAN SEE THAT WHAT HAPPENED WAS UNETHICAL. ANY ONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS CAN SEE, ANYONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS, CAN SEE THAT WHAT WENT ON WAS JUST PLAIN WRONG. I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. JORDAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 55 DAYS, 55 DAYS BETWEEN JULY 18th AND SEPTEMBER 11TH THERE WAS A DELAY ON SENDING TAX DOLLARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UKRAINE. ONE OF THE THREE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET, OUR WITNESS ON FRIDAY TESTIFIED IN HER DEPOSITION, CORRUPTION IS NOT JUST PREVALENT IN UKRAINE, IT'S THE SYSTEM. SO OUR PRESIDENT SAID TIME-OUT. TIME-OUT. LET'S CHECK OUT THIS NEW GUY. LET'S SEE IF ZELENSKY IS THE REAL DEAL. LET'S SEE IF HE'S LEGITIMATE. KEEP IN MIND, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. IN 2018 PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DONE MORE FOR UKRAINE THAN OBAMA DID. THAT'S RIGHT. PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO DOESN'T LIKE FOREIGN AID, WHO WANTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO DO MORE, WHO KNEW HOW CORRUPT UKRAINE WAS DID MORE THAN OBAMA BECAUSE HE GAVE THEM JAVELINS TO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS. OUR WITNESSES HAVE SAID THIS, OTHERS HAVE SAID THIS, WHEN IT CAME TIME TO CHECK OUT THIS NEW GUY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID LET'S JUST SEE IF HE'S LEGIT. FOR 55 DAYS, WE CHECKED HIM OUT. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD FIVE INTERACTIONS WITH SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS IN THAT TIME FRAME. ONE WAS THE PHONE CALL, THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AND THERE WERE FOUR OTHER FACE TO FACE MEETINGS WITH OTHER SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS AND GUESS WHAT, NOT ONE OF THOSE INTERACTIONS, NOT ONE, WERE SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS LINKED TO INVESTIGATING BURR RESIST MA OR BIDEN. BUT GUESS WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE 55 DAYS? U.S. SENATORS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE ALL BECAME CONVINCED THAT ZELENSKY WAS IN FACT WORTH THE RISK. HE WAS IN FACT LEGIT AND A REAL CHANGE AND GUESS WHAT, THEY TOLD THE PRESIDENT, HE'S A REFORMER, RELEASE THE MONEY. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID. OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE WITNESSES LIKE WE'VE HAD TODAY THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL PARADE IN HERE AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO SAY THIS, SO-AND-SO SAID SUCH AND SUCH TO SO-AND-SO AND WE GOT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. WE COVERED THIS A LITTLE BIT AGO, THEY'LL SAY SOMETHING LIKE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, IN HIS DEPOSITION, WHERE HE SAID AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECALLS THAT MR. MORRISON TOLD MR. TAYLOR THAT I CONVEYED THIS MESSAGE TO MR. YERMAK AND A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IF YOU CAN FOLLOW THAT, THAT'S THE DEMOCRATS PLAN AND WHY THEY WANT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. BUT NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, HOW MANY WITNESSES THEY BRING, THE FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED, THE CALL SHOWS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN DOLLARS AND INTO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS OR BURISMA. THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW THE AID WAS WITHHELD AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE CALL AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANY SPECIFIC ACTION RELATIVE TO INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE MONEY RELEASED. THERE'S ONE WITNESS, ONE WITNESS THAT THEY WON'T BRING IN FRONT OF US, THEY WON'T BRING IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THAT'S THE GUY WHO STARTED IT ALL, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. NO. 435 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ONLY ONE GETS TO KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS. ONLY ONE MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAS THE STAFF WHO GETS TO TALK TO THAT PERSON. WE WILL NEVER GET THE CHANCE, WE WILL NEVER GET THE CHANCE TO SEE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND, SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING -- WE'LL NEVER GET THAT CHANCE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T GET THAT CHANCE. THIS ANONYMOUS SO-CALLED WHISTLE-BLOWER WITH NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE WHO'S BIASSED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHO WORKED WITH JOE BIDEN WHO IS THE REASON WE'RE SITTING HERE TODAY, WE'LL NEVER GET A CHANCE TO QUESTION THAT INDIVIDUAL. DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BASED ON ALL THAT, ALL THAT? 11 1/2 MONTHS BEFORE AN ELECTION. WILL NOT GET TO CHECK OUT HIS CREDIBILITIES, MOTIVATIONS, BIASES. THIS IS A SAD DAY. THIS IS A SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY. YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT OUR NATION THROUGH FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, STARTED JULY OF 2016 WHEN THEY SPIED ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND ALL THAT UNFOLDED WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AFTER THAT AND WHEN THAT DIDN'T WORK, HERE WE ARE BASED ON THIS. BASED ON THIS. THIS IS A -- THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH ALL THIS. THEY UNDERSTAND THE FACTS SUPPORT THIS PRESIDENT, THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS IS UNFAIR AND THEY SEE THROUGH THE WHOLE DARN SHAM. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> MR. WELCH. >> THANK YOU. I SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, I WOULD BE GLAD TO HAVE THE PERSON WHO STARTED IT ALL COME IN AND TESTIFY. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WELCOME TO TAKE A SEAT RIGHT THERE. THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT A DISPUTE ABOUT THE ENORMOUS POWER THAT A PRESIDENT HAS. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF THAT POWER. THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE AN AMBASSADOR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. THE PRESIDENT CAN CHANGE HIS POLICY AS HE DID WHEN HE OPENED THE DOOR FOR TURKEY TO GO IN AND INVADE, DESPITE OPPOSITION FROM MANY OF HIS SENIOR ADVISES. A PRESIDENT COULD CHANGE HIS POSITION ON UKRAINE. BUT IS THERE A LIMIT? THERE IS. BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. AND THAT LIMIT IS THAT ONE CANNOT EVEN AS PRESIDENT USE THE PUBLIC TRUST OF HIGH OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN. THE LAW PROHIBITS ANY ONE OF US HERE ON THE DAIS FROM SEEKING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN OUR CAMPAIGNS. THE QUESTION FOR US IS WHETHER THE USE OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ADVANCING HIS POLITICAL INTEREST IN THE 2020 CAMPAIGN. BY THE WAY, TO MY COLLEAGUES, IF THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO ATTACK JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON, HE'S FREE TO DO IT. ALL FAIR AND SQUARE IN CAMPAIGNS. HE'S NOT FREE TO CHANGE OUR FOREIGN POLICY UNLESS HE GETS HIS WAY TO A SYSTEM IN THAT CAMPAIGN. THAT'S THE LINE HE CAN'T CROSS. NOW, YOU ALL HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT OUR CONTINUOUS FOREIGN POLICY WAS. AND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, JUST VERY QUICKLY DESCRIBE WHY US WITH HOLDING AID INTERFERE WITH US ACHIEVING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS. >> ONE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS IS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN EUROPE. THERE IS ONE MAJOR CONFLICT IN EUROPE, IT'S A FIGHTING WAR, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS IN SUPPORT OF UKRAINE, IN SUPPORT OF A BROADER STRATEGIC APPROACH TO EUROPE, IS TO FACILITATE THAT NEGOTIATION, TRY TO SUPPORT UKRAINE WHEN IT NEGOTIATES WITH THE RUSSIANS. >> AND I WANT TO GO BACK. IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT THAT YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR PROVIDED, WE HAD 70 YEARS OF PEACE AFTER THE WAR IN WHICH WE LOST OVER 400,000 AMERICAN LIVES. AND THAT TOOK CARE AND THAT WAS IN JEOPARDY, AS YOU DESCRIBED IT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AND THAT THREATENED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US UP HERE AND THE CONSTITUENTS WE REPRESENT. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? >> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. >> I WANT TO DO THREE DATES TOO. I ONLY HAVE A LITTLE TIME. JULY 24, JULY 25, AND JULY 26. JULY 24th, DIRECTOR MUELLER TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS INVESTIGATION AND HE ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION. AND HE EXPRESSED A FEAR THAT WOULD BE THE NEW NORMAL. ON JULY 25th, ACCORDING TO THE READOUT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN, HE ASKED THE UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGATE UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION THAT HAS BEEN REPUDIATED AND THEN ON JULY 26, THIS PERSON WHO REPORTED TO YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAYING HE WANTED INVESTIGATIONS AGAIN IN UKRAINE. SO THIS IS THE QUESTION. THE NEW NORMAL THAT DIRECTOR MUELLER FEARED, IS THERE A NEW NORMAL THAT YOU FEAR THAT A PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, CAN USE CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED FOREIGN AID AS A LEVER TO GET PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN SOMETHING THAT IS IN HIS INTEREST BUT NOT THE PUBLIC INTEREST? >> THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE, MR. WELCH. >> I YIELD BACK. >> I ASK CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE CALL. YOU HAVE MISCHARACTERIZED THE CALL IN FACT IN THE FIRST OPEN HEAR -- >> THE GENTLEWOMAN WILL SUSPEND. BY CONSENT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTER THE CALL INTO THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WHAT YEAR DID YOU GRADUATE FROM WEST POINT? >> 1969, SIR. >> IT WAS THE HEIGHT OF THE VIETNAM WAR? >> THE HEIGHT WAS ABOUT THAT TIME. >> WHAT WAS YOUR CLASS RANK IN WEST POINT? >> I WAS NUMBER FIVE. >> HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE IN YOUR CLASS. >> 800. >> 800 CADETS. YOU WERE NUMBER FIVE? >> YES, SIR. >> WHEN YOU'RE TOP 1% OF YOUR CLASS AT WEST POINT, YOU PROBABLY GET YOUR PICK OF ASSIGNMENTS BUT YOU PICKED THE INFANTRY. >> I DID. >> WHERE DID YOU SERVE? >> IN VIETNAM. >> DID YOU SEE COMBAT IN VIETNAM? >> I DID. >> DID YOU EARN ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THAT SERVICE? >> I WAS AWARDED THE COMBAT INFANTRY'S BADGE, WHICH IS I'M PROUDEST OFF. THERE WAS THE BRONZE STAR, AIR MEDAL. >> THAT'S FOR VALOR, ISN'T IT SIR? >> IT IS. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT JULY 26th. A LOT OF YEARS LATER. YOU GO TO THE FRONT, AND YOU'RE ON THE BRIDGE, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FRONT LINE, IS THAT WHAT YOU RECALL? >> YES, SIR. >> AND YOU SAID THE COMMANDER THERE THANKED YOU FOR THE AMERICAN MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT YOU KNEW WAS BEING WITHHELD AT THAT MOMENT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL, SIR? >> BADLY. >> WHY? >> BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT COMMANDER COUNTED ON US, THAT COMMANDER HAD CONFIDENCE IN US, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT COMMANDER WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE CAPABILITIES THAT HE WAS GIVEN BY THAT ASSISTANCE, BUT ALSO THE REASSURANCE THAT WE WERE SUPPORTING HIM. >> YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU THREATENED TO RESIGN. BEFORE I ASK YOU ABOUT THAT. LET'S TALK ABOUT A COUPLE DAYS LATER ON JULY -- EXCUSE ME, ONE MONTH LATER, AUGUST 28th. YOU FIND YOURSELF IN UKRAINE WITH MR. BOLTON, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU CONVEYED TO HIM YOUR CONCERNS. YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY. WHAT DOES HE SAY TO YOU? >> HE SAYS THAT HE SHARES MY CONCERN AND HE ADVISES ME TO EXPRESS THAT IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. >> HE'S THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, BUT HE TELLS YOU THAT YOU SHOULD BRING IT UP WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE. >> YES, SIR. >> HAVE YOU EVER SENT A CABLE LIKE THAT, HOW MANY TIMES IN YOUR CAREER, HAVE YOU SENT A CABLE DIRECTLY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. >> ONCE. >> THIS TIME? >> YES, SIR. >> IN 50 YEARS. THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO CAN TELL IT TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND WHO SHARES YOUR CONCERN SAYS YOU, THE AMBASSADOR SERVING IN UKRAINE, SHOULD CABLE THE SECRETARY OF STATE DIRECTLY AND YOU DO SO, DON'T YOU? >> YES, SIR. >> WHAT DID THE CABLE SAY, SIR? >> IT'S A CLASSIFIED CABLE. >> WITHOUT GOING INTO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. >> IT SAYS, SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY, SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, AS IN -- IS VERY IMPORTANT. UKRAINE, I ALSO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY, UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT FOR YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND WE SHOULD SUPPORT IT. NOT TO PROVIDE THAT WOULD BE FOLLY. >> DID YOU GET AN ANSWER TO YOUR CABLE? >> NOT DIRECTLY. NO, SIR. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? >> SECRETARY KENT TELLS ME -- >> I WAS ON VACATION, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT MADE IT TO ITS RECIPIENT, SECRETARY POMPEO. >> WE KNOW SECRETARY POMPEO WAS ON THE CALL A MONTH EARLIER ON JULY 25th. WHAT DID HE DO WITH IT? >> I HONESTLY CAN'T SAY FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE CABLE ONCE THE MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT IN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION, GENTLEMEN, ON SEPTEMBER 1st, YOU RECALL A MEETING BETWEEN THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, MR. ZELENSKY, IN WHICH RIGHT OFF THE BAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE RAISES SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, ACCORDING TO YOUR TELLING, SAYS I'LL TALK TO THE PRESIDENT TONIGHT ABOUT THAT, I'LL MAKE A CALL. DO YOU KNOW IF THE VICE PRESIDENT MADE THAT CALL? >> I DON'T KNOW, SIR. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT IF ANYTHING THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS? WHAT MORE CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IN THIS? DO YOU KNOW IF HE RAISED THIS ISSUE WITH ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION, WHETHER HE PUSHED FOR THE RELEASE OF THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE? >> I CAN'T, SIR. >> I BELIEVE I -- TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ASSISTANCE. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CHAIRMAN? I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD THE "POLITICO" AUTHOR -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. THAT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. REPRESENTATIVE DEMINGS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. MR. KENT, YOU SAID THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE AN AMBASSADOR BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DOES THAT REMOVAL COME WITH A SMEAR CAMPAIGN OF THAT AMBASSADOR BY THE PRESIDENT? >> I THINK THE RIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT TO MAKE A DECISION AS CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE IS SEPARATE FROM WHATEVER HAPPENS OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF U.S. GOVERNMENT PROCESSES. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO DISCREDIT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, WHAT SHE WAS NOT WILLING TO DO OR TO DO, WHY THAT WAS IMPORTANT? >> I GUESS IT PROBABLY DEPENDS ON THE MOTIVATION OF OTHER PEOPLE AND I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. >> THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION HAS THE UNCOVERED A WEB OF SHADOW DIPLOMACY EXECUTED BY SEVERAL STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI AND DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE HAVE HEARD SEVERAL WAYS OF DESCRIBING THIS SHADY SHADOW OPERATION, SHADOW DIPLOMACY, ROGUE BACK CHANNEL. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED WHAT YOU ENCOUNTERED AS THE TOP DIPLOMAT ON THE GROUND IN UKRAINE AS A -- AND I QUOTE, HIGHLY IRREGULAR, INFORMAL CHANNEL OF U.S. POLICYMAKING. YOU TESTIFY THAT IT INCLUDED SECRETARY PERRY, SONDLAND, AND THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES MA'AM. >> BOTH OF YOU HAVE EXPLAINED THAT YOU GREW CONCERNED WHEN YOU REALIZED THAT THIS CHANNEL DIVERGED FROM OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY. WAS MR. GIULIANI PROMOTING U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS OR POLICY IN UKRAINE, AMBASSADOR? >> I DON'T THINK SO, MA'AM. >> MR. KENT? >> NO, HE WAS NOT. >> WHAT INTEREST DO YOU BELIEVE HE WAS PROMOTING, MR. KENT? >> I BELIEVE HE WAS LOOKING TO DIG UP POLITICAL DIRT AGAINST A POLITICAL RIVAL. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? WHAT INTEREST DO YOU BELIEVE HE WAS PROMOTING? >> I AGREE WITH MR. KENT. >> THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ROLE IS TO PROMOTE U.S. POLICIES OVERSEAS, NOT TO HELP THE CURRENT PRESIDENT WHEN RE-ELECTION, IS THAT CORRECT, MR. KENT? >> ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO THE HATCH ACT AND OUR ACTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROMOTING POLICY. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> I AGREE. >> WHAT IS THE RISK OF RUNNING A SEPARATE CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY THAT IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF NORMAL CHANNELS AND DOES NOT FURTHER U.S. POLICY GOALS, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO ONE, BUT NOT THE OTHER. IF IT'S COMPLETELY AGAINST U.S. POLICY GOALS, THEN THAT'S A MISTAKE. THEN IT'S NOT HELPFUL. YOU CAN GET ADVICE AND EVEN HAVE CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL CHANNELS, BUT THEN THEY NEED TO BE PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND APPROACHING THOSE GOALS. >> MR. KENT? >> I AGREE. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY SHORTLY AFTER YOU ARRIVED IN UKRAINE IN WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ASKED STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS NOT TO LISTEN TO A JULY 28th CALL HE HAD PLANNED TO HOLD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. DID YOU FIND THAT UNUSUAL? >> I DID. >> WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MAKING THAT REQUEST? YOU FOUND IT UNUSUAL. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE IMPACT WAS? >> I'M NOT SURE THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT. >> WAS THERE A RECORDING OR TRANSCRIPTION -- >> IT WAS NOT RECORDED. >> DO YOU THINK THAT'S WHY THE REQUEST WAS MADE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE NORMAL STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES FROM THE OPERATION CENTER WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE TRANSCRIBING AND TAKING NOTES? >> THAT'S THE NORM, BUT IT IS ALSO NOT UNUSUAL TO NOT HAVE IT RECORDED. >> SO YOU KNOW THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS HOLDING YOUR NOTES AND REFUSES TO PROVIDE THEM TO CONGRESS DESPITE A DUALLY AUTHORIZED SUBPOENA AND YOUR NOTES MAY BE THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY RECORD OF WHAT HAPPENED, YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT YOUR NOTES HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER TO CONGRESS. >> I HAVE TURNED OVER ALL RECORDS I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION BECAUSE WHATEVER WE DO IS CONSIDERED A FEDERAL RECORD, NOT A PERSONAL RECORD. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. >> I WAS A "NEW YORK TIMES" OP-ED STATING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN. I WOULD LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH A COUPLE OF POINTS RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE. THEY CLAIM THAT THE JULY 25th CALL SUMMARY SHOWS NO EVIDENCE OF PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. IN FACT, THEY ARGUE THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT FEEL ANY PRESSURE AT ANY TIME TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS. IN FACT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AT YOUR DEPOSITION IN OCTOBER, YOU STATED THAT DUE TO THE HOLD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED ON AID TO THE UKRAINE, THE UKRAINIANS BECAME QUOTE, UNQUOTE DESPERATE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> IN AUGUST THEY DID NOT KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE. BUT AT THE END OF AUGUST, THE ARTICLE CAME OUT IN SEPTEMBER, THE MINISTER OF DEFENSE, FOR EXAMPLE, CAME TO ME, I WOULD USE THE WORD DESPERATE TO FIGURE OUT WHY THE ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD. HE THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS IF HE WENT TO WASHINGTON TO TALK TO YOU, TO TALK TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND OUT AND REASSURE, PROVIDE WHATEVER ANSWER WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT ASSISTANCE RELEASED. >> IN FACT, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE SUGGEST THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PERSONALLY DID NOT FEEL ANY PRESSURE AT ANY TIME AND YET LATER ON IN SEPTEMBER HE FINALLY RELENTED IN A CONVERSATION WITH GORDON SONDLAND, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEPOSITION, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON CNN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> HE HAD PLANNED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON CNN, YES, SIR. >> MY COLLEAGUES ALSO SAY THAT THE HOLD ON U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS LIVED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATIONS HAPPENING ON THE PART OF THE UKRAINIANS AND THEREFORE EVERYTHING ENDED UP FINE IN THE END. HOWEVER, MR. KENT, AS YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES BEGAN THIS CURRENT INVESTIGATION LEADING TO THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY ON SEPTEMBER 9th. IN FACT, IT WAS ONLY TWO DAYS AFTER THIS PARTICULAR SET OF COMMITTEES BEGAN THEIR INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EVENTUALLY RELEASED THE MILITARY AID, CORRECT? >> THAT IS A TIMELINE, YES. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, BETWEEN THE TIME OF YOUR OCTOBER DEPOSITION AND NOW, DID ANYONE FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONTACT YOU ABOUT YOUR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY? >> NO, SIR. >> HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. KENT? >> NO, SIR. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO A WORD THAT BY MY ACCOUNT YOU USED 13 TIMES IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND THAT WORD IS CONCERN. YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT AID WAS BEING CONDITIONED ON POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY WERE BEING USED IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY IN THE UKRAINE, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, CAN YOU RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THESE IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY ARE BEING USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE WE CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY? >> I CAN'T -- I'VE NOT HEARD OF ANY OTHER SEPARATE CHANNEL THAT HAS THIS KIND OF INFLUENCE, THAT IS THE GIULIANI KIND OF GUIDANCE. >> BUT YOU CAN'T RULE IT OUT, RIGHT? >> NO, SIR. >> HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. KENT, YOU CAN'T RULE IT OUT, RIGHT? >> I HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. >> YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE JULY 25th CALL WAS PERFECT, DO YOU? >> I THINK SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE CALL GAVE CAUSE FOR CONCERN. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> I AGREE. >> AND WHAT WAS THE CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR YOU? >> THERE WAS -- PART OF THE -- THE DISCUSSION OF THE PREVIOUS AMBASSADOR WAS A CAUSE FOR CONCERN. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I WANT TO DRAW ON YOUR EXPERIENCE FINALLY AS A WEST POINT CADET AND AS AN INFANTRY COMMANDER. IN A BATTLEFIELD SITUATION, IS AN OFFICER ALLOWED TO HOLD UP ACTION PLACING HIS TROOPS AT RISK UNTIL SOMEONE PROVIDING A PERSONAL BENEFIT. >> NO, SIR. >> IS THAT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BETRAYING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE NATION? >> YES, SIR. >> AND IF THAT HAPPENED AND WERE FOUND OUT, COULD THAT PERSON BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE? >> YES, SIR. >> COULD THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT TRIGGER A COURT-MARTIAL? >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> WHAT PURPOSE -- >> UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD MR. MULVANEY'S STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> I RECOGNIZE MR. NUNES FOR HIS COMMENTS. WE WILL GET YOUR MOTION. AFTER MR. NUNES' CLOSING REMARKS, IT'S MY INTENTION TO EXCUSE THE WITNESSES. WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF RECESS. WE WILL RESUME AND TAKE UP THE MOTION. >> THANK YOU. THIS WILL BE BRIEF. I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER AND THAT IS WE SHOULD STOP HOLDING THESE HEARINGS UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWERS TO THREE IMPORTANT TOPICS, WHO DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE WITH, SECOND THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THIRD, WHY DID BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THOSE WITNESSES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WHICH I THINK IS A PROBLEM. SO WE'LL EXPECT HOPEFULLY YOU WILL ALLOW US TO BRING IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, THE FOLKS THAT HE SPOKE TO, AND ALSO NUMEROUS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WHO WORKED WITH UKRAINE TO MEDDLE IN THE ELECTION. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES FOR THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY, FOR YOUR DECADES OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY. I THINK YOU EXEMPLIFY SO MANY COURAGEOUS MEN AND WOMEN WHO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES SO WELL AROUND THE WORLD. I APPRECIATE HOW YOU ENDEAVORED TO STAY OUT OF THE FRAY, TO RELATE WHAT YOU HEARD, WHAT YOU SAW, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY. THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE. YOU ARE BOTH COMPELLED TO APPEAR AND WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT YOU ANSWERED THE SUBPOENAS THAT YOU RECEIVED. THE STORY THAT YOU HAVE SHARED WITH US TODAY, AND YOUR EXPERIENCES, I THINK IS A VERY DEEPLY TROUBLING ONE. IT IS THE STORY OF A DEDICATED AMBASSADOR, SOMEONE WHO SERVED WITH GREAT DISTINCTION, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. IT IS THE STORY OF ONCE THIS AMBASSADOR WAS PUSHED OUT OF THE WAY, THE CREATION OF AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL WHICH YOU DESCRIBED WENT ALL THE WAY FROM THE PRESIDENT THROUGH MICK MULVANEY, THROUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TO RUDY GIULIANI, THAT OVER TIME BECAME APPARENT WAS NOT SERVING THE U.S. INTEREST BUT RUNNING DEEPLY CONTRARY TO THE U.S. INTERESTS WAS IN FACT CONDITIONING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT THE PRESIDENT TO UKRAINE SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH HIMSELF AS THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND TO DEMONSTRATE TO FRIEND AND FOE ALIKE THAT HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOST POWERFUL PATRON, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND CONDITIONED $400 MILLION OF BIPARTISAN TAXPAYER-FUNDED MILITARY SUPPORT FOR A NATION AT WAR, ON THE FRONT LINES OF RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM. A SUSPENSION OF WHICH WAS NOT IN THE U.S. INTEREST, NOT IN UKRAINE'S INTEREST, NOT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. YOU'VE DESCRIBED A SITUATION IN WHICH THOSE IN THE SERVICE OF THE PRESIDENT MADE IT CLEAR TO UKRAINIANS THEY NEED TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS OR THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THAT MEETING AND THEY SURE WEREN'T GOING TO GET THAT MILITARY ASSISTANCE. I WOULD POINT OUT AND THIS MAY NOT HAVE COME TO YOUR ATTENTION, BUT IT CERTAINLY CAME TO OUR ATTENTION, ON SEPTEMBER 9th, INSPECTOR GENERAL INFORMED OUR COMMITTEE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS WITH HOLDING A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE. BY THAT POINT ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THAT COMPLAINT HAD MADE ITS WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE. ON SEPTEMBER 9th WHEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL INFORMED CONGRESS THAT THAT COMPLAINT HAS BEEN WITHHELD, THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO LEARNED THAT CONGRESS NOW WOULD LEARN ABOUT THE COMPLAINT. IT WAS LESS THAN 48 HOURS LATER THAT THE MILITARY AID WOULD BE RELEASED. OVER THE WEEKS TO COME OR OVER THE DAYS TO COME, RATHER, WE WILL HEAR FROM OTHER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS ABOUT OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS EFFORT TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ON OUR ELECTION, TO CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND MILITARY AID FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF POLITICAL FAVORS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. WE WILL HEAR FROM OTHER WITNESSES. I APPRECIATE MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WHO I THINK PARTICIPATED TODAY IN A SERIOUS WAY AND IN A CIVIL WAY. THIS IS AS IT SHOULD BE. THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS TO THE COUNTRY. AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU AND OTHERS PROVIDE WHETHER WE'RE PREPARED TO ACCEPT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE UNITED STATES A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL OR POLITICAL BENEFIT CAN CONDITION MILITARY AID, DIPLOMATIC MEETINGS OR ANY OTHER PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT IN ORDER TO GET HELP IN THEIR RE-ELECTION. WHETHER WE WILL NEED TO ACCEPT IN THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT THE IDEA IN A THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN INVITE A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERFERE IN OUR AFFAIRS. THESE ARE THE DECISIONS WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE WHEN WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN, JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING BECAUSE I CAN'T LET IT GO UNANSWERED, SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES MADE THE STATEMENT THAT I MET WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, IT WAS FALSE THE FIRST TIME THEY SAID IT, IT WAS FALSE THE SECOND THROUGH 40th TIME THEY SAID IT, IT WILL BE FALSE THE LAST TIME THEY SAY IT. WITH THAT, THIS CONCLUDES THIS PORTION OF THE HEARING. I WANT TO THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I ASK EVERYONE TO REMAIN IN THEIR SEATS. THE WITNESSES ARE EXCUSED. PLEASE ALLOW THEM TO LEAVE THE COMMITTEE ROOM. ONCE THEY LEAVE THE COMMITTEE ROOM, WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AND THEN WE WILL RESUME TO TAKE UP MR. CONWAY'S MOTION AND ONCE AGAIN, I THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. THE COMMITTEE IS IN A BRIEF RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR WHEN WE RESUME SHORTLY WE'LL TAKE UP MR. CONWAY'S MOTION. >> I DON'T THINK THAT THE BLACK LEDGER -- I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE ALL THE DEPOSITIONS OUT -- >> HAVE YOU BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE PRESIDENT TODAY AT ALL? >> I DON'T COMMENT ON CONVERSATIONS I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT. I'M SORRY. I JUST DON'T. IT'S A GOOD POLICY -- >> YOU THINK THIS WAS A GOOD DAY -- >> IT WAS A GOOD DAY FOR THE PRESIDENT. WHEN YOU HAVE THE DEMOCRATS, TWO STAR WITNESSES, AND I LOOK AROUND THE ROOM AND MORE PEOPLE ARE YAWNING THAN THEY ARE APPLAUDING, IT'S THE NOT A GOOD DAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS. THEY'RE GOING TO LEAD WITH THEIR STRONGEST TWO WITNESSES AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND AMBASSADOR KENT WERE THEIR STRONGEST WITNESSES. AND YET, MOST OF THIS WAS ABOUT HEARSAY, HE SAID, SHE SAID, AND I PRESUME AND WHEN YOU USE THOSE QUALIFIERS, THE TESTIMONY BECOMES LESS COMPELLING. >> DID YOU EXPECT MORE OF A TURNOUT FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS -- >> WELL, I HAD -- AT ONE POINT TODAY I HAD AT LEAST 15 -- THAT'S ALL I CAN HELP CORRAL. >> DID THEY STRIKE YOU AS CREDIBLE WITNESSES? >> THEY'RE CREDIBLE PUBLIC SERVANTS, THEIR TESTIMONY IS NOT CREDIBLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT BASED ON FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. WHEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION, HAVE EITHER OF YOU TALKED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE ANSWER IS NO, IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ANYTHING NEW THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN REPORTED. >> SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT -- >> I THINK THERE ARE A FEW FIRSTHAND WITNESSES THAT HAVE COOPERATED AND THERE'S HOPEFULLY A FEW OTHERS THAT WILL. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THIS MEMBER FROM NORTH CAROLINA MAY OR MAY NOT SAY. >> [INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> JIM DID A GREAT JOB. I'VE SERVED WITH JIM NOW FOR FOUR TERMS. AND HIS ABILITY TO ARTICULATE WHAT IS CLEAR IS -- >> I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE TRUMP FAMILY'S VIEW ON THAT VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. BUT IT'S NOT RELEVANT OF COURSE TO THE QUESTIONS AT HAND WHICH -- I THINK THAT MIGHT BE AN UNCOMFORTABLE MOMENT FOR ERIC, DONALD, IVANKA AND COMPANY. >> DO YOU THINK SONDLAND WAS HONEST IN HIS DEPOSITION? >> OBVIOUSLY, HE AMENDED HIS TESTIMONY AND THERE'S MORE COMING OUT. I'M ALWAYS HESITANT TO SAY THAT SOMEONE WAS BEING DISHONEST. BUT HIS TESTIMONY HAS BEEN AMENDED. >> IT IS NOW IN ORDER TO TAKE UP MR. CONWAY'S MOTION TO SUBPOENA THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> I MOVE TO TABLE THE MOTION. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING THE MOTION SAY AYE? >> AYE. >> THE MOTION IS TABLED -- >> THE GENTLEMAN REQUESTS A RECORDED VOTE. >> THIS COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED EARLIER WE COULD NOT -- I ASSUMED THAT THE WAIT WAS TO ALLOW US TO HAVE THE DEBATE. I KNOW YOU'RE AFRAID OF HEARING FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER -- >> POINT OF WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> MR. CONAWAY, THE MOTION TO TABLE IS NOT DEBATABLE. WASN'T DEBATING. JUST ARGUING. >> CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. >> MR. SCHIFF. >> AYE. >> MR. HIMES. >> MS. SEWELL. >> AYE. >> MS. SPEIER. >> AYE. >> MR. HECK. >> AYE. >> MR. WELCH. >> AYE. >> MR. MALONEY. >> AYE. >> MS. STEMMINGS. >> MR. KRISHNAMOORTHI. >> AYE. >> MR. RANKING MEMBER NUNES. >> NO. >> MR. TURNER. >> NO. >> DR. WIN STRUP. >> NO. >> MISS STEPANEK. >> NO. >> MR. HERD -- >> MR. RADCLIFFE -- MR. JORDAN. >> NO. >> IS THERE ANY MEMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR WISHING TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE? THE CLERK SHALL REPORT THE VOTE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE 13 AYES AND 9 NOs. >> ON THIS VOTE THERE WERE 13 AYES AND 9 NOs. THE MOTION TO TABLE IS CARRIED. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
