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 didnt commit to an investigation . I was not wrong about what i told you, which is what i heard. Thats all i said. Ive told you what i heard. And thats the point. What you heard did not happen. It didnt happen. You had three meetings with the guy, he could have told you, he didnt 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 thats not what this proceeding is about. Thats not what this whole thing started on. The time of the gentleman expired. Ambassador taylor, did you want to finish your answer . No, thats 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 zelenskys 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 . Thats 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 hes perceived domestically, doesnt 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 wriy 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 longstanding. 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 cr 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 GiulianisSummer 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, im 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 im 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 obamas objection was because it might provoke the russians and you testify in your deposition that the Obama Administration diabednt have a good argument since russia already provoked and invaded ukraine, correct . Thats correct, sir. It is a shame you didnt 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 Administrations 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 . Thats correct, sir. So now were 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 longstanding based on what we just talked about, because it wasnt really longstanding 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 wouldnt call it longstanding. The longstanding that im referring to there, dr. Wenst p dr. Wenstrup, is the longstanding political support, economic support, and increasing military support. Certainly that strong support came from congress. But it didnt 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. Dont 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. Thats 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. Hes 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 didnt do that, he couldnt 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 didnt open any investigatio investigations. He didnt call attorney general bill barr. He didnt do any of the things that House Democrats say that he was being forced and coerced and threatened to do. He didnt do anything because he didnt have to. I yield back. Miss spyeier, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you. I would like to start with you, mr. Kent. In your testimony you said that you had in midaugust it became clear to me that giulianis efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting u. S. Engagement with ukraine, leveraging president zelenskys 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, maam, i wrote a memo to the fail on august 16th. We dont 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 StatesNational 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 fy19 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 sovietborn 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 hes 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 invasii invasion of ukraine. Do you have any reason to believe president obama was referring to going to easy on russia for an invasion that hadnt 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 im sorry mr. Stewart, yes. Thank you, to the witnesses, thank you, time is precious, so im going to go very, very quickly. Welcome, i think, to year four of the ongoing impeachment of President Trump. Im sorry youve been drug into this. I think the sign behind me says it very well. By the whistleblowers 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 , youve 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 lets go for the fences, lets talk about extortion, lets talk about bribery, coverup, 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, isnt it it is a problem and theyre 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 thats 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 were 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 sixhour 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 were 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 reelection 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 ill yield my time. Availability of funds, im 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 cant 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. Im going to yield the rest of my time to mr. Jordan. 18 seconds . Youre 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 laure a to raise a issue of conditionality. It is interesting and curious that were 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 dont 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 im here for that reason. Absolutely. Were 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 werent blocking that ability. You have a lot more documents, documents that you referred to with my colleagues questions that have not yet been turned over by state or any other agency, is that correct to your knowledge, gentlemen . Were both here under subpoena. I dont 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, yfirst text from august 10th. Lets 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, well call for a press deifing announcing upcoming visit and outlying vision for relationship mamong 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 effo 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 , isnt 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, youre 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 isnt 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 longstanding 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 anticorruption 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. Thats correct. This was during the Obama Administration . Thats correct. So for the millions of americans viewing, the first investigation against the owner of burisma was under president obamas 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 . Thats 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. Thats correct. And you testified that it was because, quote, burisma had a poor reputation in the business and that you didnt think it was a appropriate for the u. S. Government to be cosponsoring something with a company that had a bad reputation. Correct 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. Thats 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. Thats 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 . Thats 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. Ill 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 taxpayers 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 were talking about political influence meaning attempts to get information that is solely useful for political campaigns, if thats what were hes 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. Thats 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. Mulvaneys statement false . I think you refer that to that question to the department of justice suince dont have ful 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 carries out the foreign policies of that president and the United States and ive done that for 27 years for three republican president s and two democrat president s. 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, im here to tell you what i know, and im here to tell you what i heard, and what i said. And in that regard, i cant 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 im pretty sure you can answer them. Did the ukrainians get military get aid in fy17 . 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 fy18 . Yes, sir. Including Security Assistance . Including Security Assistance. We talked about the javelija, antitank missiles they were not able to purchase in Previous Administrations. Have they gotten Security Assistance in fy19. Yes, sir. Prior to the 400,000 million or so that were discussing or have been discussing a lot here today . They got some previous probably fy18 assistance, but, george, you may know it takes a while once moned 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 . Thats 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 wasnt meeting. Do we know or have an idea of the ukrainian officials that he was meeting with over the last couple of years . I dont, 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 you cranukr correct . Yes, sir. Have we seen what this anticorruption statement we want the ukrainians 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 anticorruption 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 didnt 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 ive 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. Wasnt 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 zelenskys 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 leikely 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 didnt 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 dont so the hold was released, is it possible that the white house released that hold because they knew that a whistleblower had basically turned this in . I dont know, sir. Do you think thats possible . Im 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 ill go out on a limb and say, yes, it is. Is attempted extortion and bribery a crime . I dont know, sir. In the minute that i have left, i want you to speak to the nation about whats 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 president ial candidate, a member of congress, a governor, a senator, or any private american citizen doing business overseas . If theres no consequence for a president who does that, then it means theres a green light, doesnt 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. Doesnt it . Thank you for the question. First of all, im not an ambassador. Im sorry. And i will repeat, i think on principal, regardless of the country, whether its ukraine, the u. S. Or any country, the facts of law, criminits not th 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 its true. The president very clearly has that constitutional authority, correct . He does. Okay. Well, most everybody apparently understands that. But that doesnt 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 its an abuse of power to remove an ambassador because you dont like what theyre doing, end quote. Thats not true . The president has the right to have ambassadors serve at his pleasure. Okay. So you agree with me that we shouldnt impeach a president for exercising his constitutional authority. Im 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 thats 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 wasnt 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 . Im here as a fact witness under subpoena and thats a question you could perhaps direct toward your democratic colleagues. Ambassador taylor, weve established that on july 25th, both participants in the call, both president s, 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 weve agreed that it wasnt possible, a quid pro quo involving military aid on july 25th given president zelenskys 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 whistleblower walked into chairman schiffs staff to discuss what chairman schiffs spokesman said were the, quote, outlines of the whistleblowers accusations . Im sorry. Whats 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 whistleblower in any way, in an effort to find out, chairman, what you knew and when you knew it about the whistleblower, i would like you to engage in a colloquy with you. My colleague will address his questions to the witnesses. Ill 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 whistleblower . 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 whistleblower is contrary to the law and practice of this committee and i would like to also quote im 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 ill 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 Trumps Pressure Campaign on the ukraine was to root out corruption in ukraine. Ive got back and read the memorandum of call two or three times, actually, and i dont recall a single instance where the president ever used the word corruption nor the word corrupt. I know in answer to the chairmans 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 dont recall. But it would be a matter of record now. And he didnt, but he did manage to find time to mention his political rival in 2020. You also answered in response to the question that youve 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 longstanding 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 weve been discussing today which involved it went against u. S. Policy that would have undermined the rule of law and our longstanding 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 generals office. Was investigating President Trumps political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list of yours, sir, or was it on any list . No, they werent. 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, thats 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 its 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, doesnt 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, theres 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. N 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, its the system. So our president said timeout. Timeout. Lets check out this new guy. Lets see if zelensky is the real deal. Lets see if hes legitimate. Keep in mind, this has already been discussed. In 2018 President Trump had done more for ukraine than obama did. Thats right. President trump who doesnt 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 lets just see if hes 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 , hes a reformer, release the money. And thats exactly what President Trump did. Over the next few weeks, were going to have more witnesses like weve had today that the democrats will parade in here and theyre all going to say this, soandso said such and such to soandso and we got to impeach the president. We covered this a little bit ago, theyll 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, thats the democrats plan and why they want to impeach the president. Thats what were 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 didnt know the aid was withheld at the time of the phone call and most importantly, they didnt take any specific action relative to investigations to get the money released. Theres one witness, one witness that they wont bring in front of us, they wont bring in front of the American People, and thats the guy who started it all, the whistleblower. 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 whistleblower raise his right hand, swear to tell the truth and nothing well never get that chance. More importantly, the American People wont get that chance. This anonymous socalled whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge whos biassed against the president who worked with joe biden who is the reason were sitting here today, well 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 president ial campaign and all that unfolded with the Mueller Investigation after that and when that didnt 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, hes free to do it. All fair and square in campaigns. Hes not free to change our Foreign Policy unless he gets his way to a system in that campaign. Thats the line he cant 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, its 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 . Thats 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 youre 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 infantrys badge, which is im proudest off. There was the bronze star, air medal. Thats for valor, isnt it sir . It is. Lets talk about july 26th. A lot of years later. You go to the front, and youre on the bridge, and youre 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 . Thats 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. Lets 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. Hes 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, dont you . Yes, sir. What did the cable say, sir . Its a classified cable. Without going into classified information. It says, Security Assistance, its what weve been talking about today, Security Assistance to ukraine at this particular time, as in is very important. Ukraine, i also make the point that weve 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 cant 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 ill talk to the president tonight about that, ill make a call. Do you know if the Vice President made that call . I dont 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 cant, 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 committees 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 maam. 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 dont think so, maam. 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 departments role is to promote u. S. Policies overseas, not to help the current president when reelection, 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 . Its possible to do one, but not the other. If its completely against u. S. Policy goals, then thats a mistake. Then its 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 . Im not sure there was an immediate impact. Was there a recording or transcription it was not recorded. Do you think thats 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 . Thats 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, maam. 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 oped 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 Trumps 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, isnt that right . In august they did not know, as far as im 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, isnt 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, isnt 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 cant ive not heard of any other separate channel that has this kind of influence, that is the giuliani kind of guidance. But you cant rule it out, right . No, sir. How about you, mr. Kent, you cant rule it out, right . I have no basis to make a determination. You dont 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 courtmartial . Yes, sir. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman what purpose unanimous consent to enter into the record mr. Mulvaneys statement where he said theres no quid pro quo. Without objection. Youre recognized mr. Chairman . I recognize mr. Nunes for his comments. We will get your motion. After mr. Nunes closing remarks, its my intention to excuse the witnesses. Well 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 abscenswers to three important topics, who did the whistleblower coordinate with, second the full extent of ukraines 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 well expect hopefully you will allow us to bring in the whistleblower, 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 taxpayerfunded 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 ukraines interest, not in our National Security interest in no way, shape, or form. Youve 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 werent going to get that meeting and they sure werent 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 whistleblower 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 reelection 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. Theres no shortage of strong feelings about what this means to the country. At the end of the day were going to have to decide based on the evidence that you and others provide whether were 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 reelection. 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 cant let it go unanswered, several of my colleagues made the statement that i met with the whistleblower, 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. Conways motion and [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] mr. Schiff the committee is in a brief recess subject to the call of the chair. When we resume shortly, well take up mr. Conways motion. Conways motion. Shortly well take up mr. Conways motion. I dont think the blackledger has credibility, if credibility, if thats [indiscernible] im going to go vote next. Before we have any more hearings, i think it would be very helpful to have all the depositions out there. [indiscernible] i dont comment on conversations that may or may not have with the president. Im sorry. I just dont. Its a good policy that ive stuck with. You think this was a good day for it was a good day for the president. When you have the democrats two star witnesses, and like around the room and more people are yawning than they are applauding, its not a good day for the democrats. Theyre going to lead with their strongest two witnesses in ambassador tailor and kent and their taylorer and kent, their two strongest witnesses, yet most of this is hearsay, he said, she said, and i presume. When you use those qualifiers, the testimony becomes less compelling. Did you expect more of a turnout from members of the congress in audience today . Well, i had at one point today i had at least 15 Freedom Caucus guys here. Hats all i can help corral. Most [indiscernible] thats all i can help corral. Did they strike you as zphreble theyre credible Public Servants. Their testimony is not credible because its not based on firstbased knowledge. When they havent talked to President Trump, it becomes very difficult to say that youre going to get anything new or illuminating that has not already been reported. So youre going ask the president to have firsthand witnesses cooperate in the investigation then . I think there are a few irsthand witnesses that have cooperated and theres hopefully a few others that will. I dont know that the president s going to Pay Attention to what this member from North Carolina may or may not say. [indiscernible] listen, jim did a great job. That doesnt surprise me. May not say. [inaudible question ] jim did a great job. Ive served with jim now for four terms. And his ability to articulate what is clear is i certainly would like to hear the trump familys view on that very interesting question. But its 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 theres more coming out. Im always hesitant to say that someone was being dishonest. But his testimony has been amended. It is now in order to take up mr. Conways motion to subpoena the whistleblower. Mr. Chairman . I move to table the motion. All those in favor of tabling mr. Schiff the motion is tabled. 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 youre afraid of hearing from the whistleblower point of whistleblower. Mr. Conaway, the motion to table is not debatable. Wasnt 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. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] come join us right here. Were going outside for the press meeting. Come join us r. Were going right outside for the press. Thats really the challenge. Norms are essential to the continuation of our democracy. Did the next one, the one being motioned to [indiscernible] he was one of the three amigos. Any his testimony already made it very clear that [indiscernible] in his testimony he made it very clear there was a linkage. The president wanted the investigation. Who do you make of this continued call to hear from the whistleblower . Well, you know, desperate times call for desperate measures. I think thats the thing thats calling for the whistleblower. The whistleblower doesnt know anything other than what he heard from other reliable sources. Call for the whistleblower. The whistleblower doesnt know anything other than what he heard from other reliable sources and he reported it. And then the Inspector General did its investigation and found it to be credible, and all the evidence weve had from firsthand sources and secondhand sources has confirmed what the whistleblower has reported. So attacking going after the whistleblower is number one in attacking the protection rights that a whistleblower has. Its number one. Number two, its a diversion. And the obsession with the whistleblowers motive . This is not about motives here. This is about did the president withhold aid for the benefit of his personal campaign . Theres an irony here. July 24, 25 and 26th, 24th, director mueller testified there may be a new normal peter, do you want me to help with this press conference youre holding here . Id be happy to give you a bipartisan look at this. Everything that i said with a nod and you get mulvaneys quote you get meadows quote. July 24th, director mueller refuting the notion of ukrainian involvement in saying there was russian involvement. He feared its the new normal. The day after, july 25th, the president requests foreign involvement, proving that muellers fear about a new normal is right. The day after he reported the president seeking it, thats what happened. And then july 26th, you got that second phone call to sondland where the president s demanding to know whats up with the investigations, did they agree . Its a very simple question. Thank you for your time. Yeah, thanks. Congressman, i wanted to ask you theyre not here to offer conclusions. Theyre here to tell us what they know. Theyre very careful that way. But what we heard is that the focus that the president had was on investigations. Right. In that call that taylor with new information from taylor confirmed that. Literally the day of the 25th call with president zelensky you have the president calling one of his three amigos wanting to know whats up with the investigations, so, you know, its like in plain sight