Transcripts For CSPAN Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Former Amb. Yovanovitch Testimony 20240713

Inquiry, without objection the chairman reserves the right to call recess. make an Opening Statement and representative nunes will make an Opening Statement and well turn to the witness for Opening Statement and then to questions. For audience members we welcome you and respect your interest in being here. In turn, we ask for your respect as we proceed with todays hearing. It is the intention of the committee to proceed without disruptions. As chairman ill take all necessary and appropriate steps to maintain order to ensure that the committee is run in accordance with house rules and House Resolution 660. With that i now recognize myself to give an Opening Statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j. Trump, the 45th president of the United States. In april, 2019 the United States ambassador to ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was in kiev when she was called by a Senior State Department official and told to get on the next plane back to washington. Upon her return to d. C. She was informed by her superiors that although she had done nothing wrong, she could no longer serve as ambassador to ukraine because she did not have the confidence of the president. It was a stunning turn of events for this highly regarded career diplomate who had done such remarkable job fighting corruption in ukraine, that a short time earlier she had been asked by the staTe Department to extend her tour. Ambassador yovanovitch has been in the Foreign Service for 33 years and served much of that time in the former soviet union. Her parents have fled stalin and later hitler before settling in the United States. She is an exemplary officer who is widely praised and respected by other colleagues. She is known as an anticorruption champion whose tour in kiev was viewed as very successful. Ambassador Michael Mckinley who served with her in the Foreign Service for several decades stated from the earliest days of her career in the Foreign Service, she was excellent, serious, committed. I certainly remember her being one of those people who seemed to be destined for greater things. Her successor is acting chief of mission in Ukraine Ambassador bill taylor described her as very frank. She was very direct. She made points very clearly and she was, indeed, tough on corruption and she named names and that sometimes is controversial output out there, but shes a strong person and made those charges. In her time in kiev, ambassador yovanovitch was tough on corruption. Too tough on corruption for some and her principled stance made her enemies. As george kent told this committee on wednesday, you cant promote principled anticorruption action without pissing off corrupt people. And ambassador yovanovitch did not just piss off corrupt ukrainians, like the corrupt former prosecutor general, but also, certain americans, like Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trumps personal attorney and two individuals now indicted who worked with him, igor fruman a and, others who would include the president s own son don, jr. Promoted a Smear Campaign against her based on false allegations. At the staTe Department there was an effort to push back to obtain a statement of support from secretary pompeo, but those efforts failed when it became clear that President Trump wanted her gone. Some have argued that a president has the ability to nominate or remove any ambassador he wants, that they serve at the pleasure of the president and that is true. The question before us is not whether donald trump could recall an American Ambassador with a stellar reputation for fighting corruption in ukraine, but why would he want to . Why did Rudy Giuliani want her gone and why did donald trump . And why would donald trump instruct a new team he put in place, the three amigos, gordon sondland, rick perry and kurt volker to work with the same man, Rudy Giuliani who played a central rule in the Smear Campaign against her . Rudy giuliani made no secret of his desire to get ukraine to open investigations into the bidens, as well as Conspiracy Theory in the 2016 election. As he said in one interview in may, 2019 were not meddling in an election, were meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do. More recently he told cnns chris cuomo, of course i did, when asked if he had pressed ukraine to investigate joe biden. And hes never been shy about who he is doing this work for. His client, the president. One powerful ally giuliani had in ukraine to promote these political investigations was the corrupt former prosecutor general. And one powerful adversary he had was a certain United States ambassador named Marie Yovanovitch. It is no coincidence that in the now infamous july 25th call with zelensky, donald trump brings up a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor and praises him against all evidence trump claims that this former prosecutor general was very good and he was shut down and thats really unfair. But the woman known for fighting corruption his own foreign ambassador, the woman ruthlessly smeared and driven from her post, the president does nothing, but disparage, or worse, threaten. Well, she is going to go through some things, the president declares. That tells you a lot about the president s priorities and intentions. Getting rid of ambassador yovanovitch helped set the stage for an irregular channel that could pursue the two investigations that mattered so much to the president , the 2016 Conspiracy Theory and most important, an investigation into the 2020 political opponent, he apparently feared most, joe biden. And the president s scheme might have worked, but for the fact that the man who would succeed ambassador yovanovitch, whom we heard from on wednesday, acting ambassador taylor, would eventually discover the effort to press ukraine into conducting these investigations and would push back. But for the fact, also, that someone blew the whistle. Ambassador yovanovitch was serving our nations interest in fighting corruption in ukraine, but she was considered an obstacle to the furtherance of the president s personal and political agenda, for that she was smeared and cast aside. The powers of the presidency are immense, but theyre not absolute and they cannot be used for corrupt purpose. The American People expect their president to use the authority they grant him in the service of the nation, not to destroy others to advance his personal or political interests. And i now recognize Ranking Member nunes for his remarks. I thank the gentleman. Its unfortunate that today and for most of next week we will continue engaging in the democrats day long tv spectacles instead of solving the problems we were all sent to washington to address. We now have a major trade agreement with canada and mexico ready for approval, a deal that would create jobs and boost our economy. Meanwhile, we have not yet approved funding for the government, which expires next week. Along with funding for our men and women in uniform. Instead, the democrats have convened us once again to advance their operation to topple a dually elected president , ill note that five, five democrats on this committee had already voted to impeach this president before the trumpzelensky phone call occurred. In fact, democrats have been vowing to oust President Trump since the day he was elected. So americans can rightly suspect that his phone call with president zelensky was used as an excuse for the democrats to fulfill their watergate fantasies. But im glad that on wednesday after the democrats staged six weeks of secret depositions in the basement of the capitol like some kind of strange cult, the American People finally got to see this farce for themselves. They saw us sit through hours of hearsay testimony of conversations of two diplomates never spoke to the president heard secondhand, third hand and fourth hand from other people. In other words, rumors. The problem of trying to overthrow a president based on this type of evidence is obvious. But thats what their whole case relies on. Beginning with secondhand and thirdhand information cited by the whistleblower. Thats why on wednesday the democrats were forced to make the absurd argument that hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence. And just when you thought the spectacle couldnt get more bizarre, Committee Republicans received a memo from the democrats threatening ethics referrals if we out the whistleblower. As the democrats are well aware, no republicans here know the whistleblowers identity because the whistleblower only met with democrats, not with republicans. Chairman schiffs claim not to know who it is, that he also vowed to block us from asking questions that could reveal his or her identity. Republicans on this committee are left wondering, how its even possible for the chairman to block questions about a person whose identity he claims not to know. The American People may be seeing these absurddyes for the first time, but republicans on this dias are used to them. Until they secretly met with the whistleblower being democrats showed little interest in the last three years in any topic aside from the ridiculous conspiracy theories that President Trump is a russian agent. When you find yourself on the phone, like the democrats did with russian pranksters offering you nude pictures of trump and afterward you order your staff to follow up and get the photos, as the democrats also did, then it might be time to ask yourself if youve gone out too far on a limb. Even as they were accusing republicans of colluding with russians, the democrats themselves were colluding with russians by funding the steele doesier by russian and ukrainian sources and turn a blind eye to ukrainians meddling in our operation because the democrats were cooperating with this operation. This was the subject of a july 20th, 2017 letter sent by senator grassley to then Deputy Attorney general rod rosenstein. The letter raised concerns about the activities of Alexander Cha lupa, a contractor for the Democrat National committee who worked with Ukrainian Embassy officials to spread dirt on the trump campaign. As senator grassley wrote, quote, chalupas actions appear to show she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, ukraine and on behalf of the dnc and the Clinton Campaign in an effort to influence not only the u. S. Voting population, but u. S. Government officials, unquote. After touting the steele doesier and defending the fbis russia investigation which are now being investigated by Inspector General horowitz and attorney general barr, democrats on this committee ignore ukrainian election meddling even though chalupa publicly admitted to the democrats scheme. Likewise, they are blind to the blaring signs of corruption surrounding Hunter Bidens wellpaid position on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian Company while his father served as vicepresident and point man for ukraine issues in the Obama Administration. Administration. But the democrats media hacks only cared about that issue briefly, when they were trying to stop joe biden from running against Hillary Clinton in 2015. As ive previously stated, these hearings should not be occurring at all until we get the answers to three crucial questions the democrats refuse to ask, first, what is the full extent of the democrats prior coordination with the whistleblower and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort with. Second, what is the full extent of ukraines election meddling against the trump campaign, and third, why did barisma hire hunter biden and did his position affect any actions under the Obama Administration. Ill note that House Democrats vowed they would not put the American People through a wrenching impeachment process without bipartisan support. And they have none. Add that to their ever growing list of broken promises and destructive deception. In closing, mr. Chair, the president of the United States released his transcript right before the hearing began, i think its important that i read this into the record so theres no confusion over this first phone call that occurred on april 21st with president elect zelensky and id like to read it. The president , id like to congratulate you on a Job Well Done and congratulations on a fantastic election. Zelensky good to hear from you. Thank you so very much, its nice to hear from you, and i appreciate you the congratulations. The president that was an incredible election. Zelensky again, thank you so very much, as you can see, we tried very hard to do our best. We had you as a great example. The president i think you will do a great job. I have many friends in ukraine who know you and like you. I have many friends from ukraine and frankly, expected you to win and its really an amazing thing that youve done. I guess in a way, i did something similar. Were making tremendous progress in the u. S. We have the most tremendous economy ever. I just wanted to congratulate you, i have no doubt you will be a fantastic president. Zelensky first of all, thank you so very much, again, for the congratulations. We in ukraine are an independent country, an independent ukraine. Were going to do everything for the people. You are, as i said, a great example, were hoping we can expand on our jobs as you did. You will also be a great example for many. Youre a great example for our new managers. Id also like to invite you, if possible, to the inauguration. I know how busy you are, but if its possible for you to come to the inauguration ceremony, that would be great, great for you to do to be with us on that day. The president thats very nice, ill look into that and give us a date at the very minimum well have a great representative or more from the United States will be with you on that great day. So we will have somebody at a minimum a very, very high level and will be with you, really an incredible day for an incredible achievement. Zelensky again, thank you, were looking forward to your visit, to the visit of a high level delegation, but theres no word that can describe our wonderful country, how nice, warm and friendly our people are. How tasty and delicious our food is and how wonderful ukraine is. Words cannot describe our country so it would be best for you to see it yourself. So if you can come, that would be great. So again, i invite you to come. The president well, i agree with you about your country and i look forward to it. When i owned Miss Universe they always had great people. Ukraine always well was always wellrepresented. When youre settled in and ready, id like to invite you to the white house. Well have a lot of things to talk about, but were with you all the way. Zelensky thank you for the invitation, we accept the invitation and look forward to the visit. Thank you again, the whole team and i are looking forward to the visit. Thank you for the congratulations and i think it would be still be great if you could come be with us on this important day the results are incredible. Theyre very impressive for us. So it would be absolutely fantastic if you could come on that day. The president very good. Well let you know very soon and we will see you very, very soon regardless. Congratulations and please say hello to the ukrainian people and your family, let them know i send my best records. Zelensky well, thank you. You have a safe flight and see you soon. The president take care of yourself and give a great speech today. You take care of yourself and ill see you soon. Zelensky thank you very much, its difficult for me, but i will practice english and i will meet in english. Thank you very much. The president laughing, oh thats beautiful to hear, thats very good. I could not do it in your language. Im very impressed. Thank you so much. Zelensky thank you so much. The president good day, good luck. I was able to read that into the record so now the American People know the very first call that President Trump had with president zelensky. And with that, i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. Gentle woman is recognized. I comment mr. Chairman i have a point of order state the point of order. Will the chairman continue to prohibit witnesses from answering republican questions as youve done in closed hearings and as you did. Suspend thats not proper. To our question. Thats not a proper point of order. Gentle woman will suspend. Mr. Chairman, i have a recognized gentleman is not recognized. I have a point of order. The gentleman is not organized. I have a point of order. The gentleman is not recognized. Gentleman, gentleman, is not recognized. Ranking member was allowed to exceed the Opening Statement and i was happy to allow him to do so. I do want to respond to the call record. First of all, im grateful that the president has released the call record. I would now ask the president to release the thousands of other records that he has instructed the staTe Department not to release, including ambassador taylors notes, including ambassador taylors cable, including george kents memo, including documents from the office of management and budget about why the military aid was withheld. Mr. Chairman, i want you to release the the gentleman is not recognized. The deposition, thats my point of order. The gentleman will suspend. We would ask the president to stop obstructing the impeachment inquiry. While were grateful he released a single document, he has nonetheless obstructed witnesses in their testimony and production of thousands and thousands of other records and finally, i would say this, mr. President , i hope youll explain to the country today why it was after this call and while the vicepresident was making plans to attend the inauguration, that you instructed the vicepresident not to attend zelenskys inauguration. Mr. Chairman i have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, i have a point of order. The gentle woman is not organized. So we know clearly youll interrupt us bought this hearing. The gentle woman has a point of order. And gentleman is not recognized. Today we are joined by ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, she was born in canada and parents fled the soviet union and the nazis, immigrated to connecticut and entered the u. S. Foreign service in 1986, served as u. S. Ambassador three times and been nominated by president s of both parties. George w. Bush nominated her to be ambassador to the republic where she served from 20052008. President obama nominated here to u. S. Ambassador to armenia, 2008 until 2011. And u. S. Ambassador to ukraine where she served from 2016 until she was recalled to washington by President Trump this may. Beyond these ambassadorial posts she has held numerous other positions at the staTe Department, including in the bureau of european and eurasian affairs. And dean at Foreign Service institute and taught National Security strategy at defense university. She also previously served at u. S. Embassies in kiev, ottawa, moscow, london and mogadishu. Ambassador yovanovitch received honors for her diplomatic work, president ial distinguished Service Award and diplomacy and human rights award. Two final points before our witness is sworn. First witness depositions as part of this were unclassified in nature and held at the unclassified level. Any information that may touch on classified information will be addressed separately. Second, congress will not tolerate any reprisal, threat of reprisal for testifying before congress including you and your colleagues. If you would rise and raise your right hand. Ill swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony youre about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth, so help you god . Let the record show the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. Without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record. With that, ambassador Marie Yovanovitch youre recognized for your Opening Statement. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member nunes, and other members of the committee. Ambassador youll need to speak very close to the microphone. Thank you for the opportunity to start with this statement, to reintroduce myself to the committee and to highlight parts of my biography and experience. I come before you as an american citizen who has devoted the majority of my life, 33 years, to service to the country that all of us love. Like my colleagues, i entered the Foreign Service understanding that my job was to implement the Foreign Policy interests of this nation as defined by the president and congress and to do so regardless of which person or party was in power. I had no agenda other than to pursue our stated Foreign Policy goals. My service is an expression of gratitude for all that this country has given to me and to my family. My late parents did not have the good fortune to come of age in a free society. My father fled the soviets before ultimately finding refuge in the United States. My mothers family escaped the u. S. S. R after the bolshevik revolution and grew up in nazi germany before eventually making her way to the United States. Their personal histories, my personal history gave me both deep gratitude towards the United States and great empathy for others, like the ukrainian people who want to be free. I joined the Foreign Service during the Reagan Administration and subsequently served three other republican president s as well as two democratic president s. It was my great honor to be appointed to serve as an ambassador three times, twice by george w. Bush, and once by barack obama. There is a perception that diplomates lead a comfortable life, throwing dinner parties in fancy homes. Let me tell you about some of my reality. It has not always been easy. I have moved 13 times and served in seven different countries, five of them hardship posts. My first tour was mogadishu somalia, an increasingly dangerous place as that countrys civil war kept grinding on and the government was weakening. The military took over policing functions in a particularly brutal way in basic services disappeared. Several years later after the soviet union collapse, i helped open our embassy in uzbekistan. As we were establishing relations with a new country, our small embassy was attacked by a gunman who sprayed the Embassy Building with gunfire. I later served in moscow. In 1993 during the attempted coup in russia, i was caught in crossfire between president ial and parliamentary forces. It took us three tries, me without a helmet or body armor, to get into a vehicle to go to the embassy. We went because the ambassador asked us to come and we went because it was our duty. From august, 2016 until may, 2019 i served as a u. S. Ambassador to ukraine. During my tenure in ukraine i went to the front line approximate 10 times, during a hot war, to show the american flag, to hear what was going on, sometimes literally as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put to use. I worked to advance u. S. Policy, fully embraced by democrats and republicans alike, to help ukraine become a stable and independent Democratic State with a market economy integrated into europe. A secure democratic and free ukraine serves not just the ukrainian people, but the American People as well. Thats why it was our policy, continues to be our policy to help the ukrainians achieve their objectives, they match our objectives. The u. S. Is the most powerful country in the history of the world, in large part because of our values, and our values have made possible the network of alliances and partnerships that butt resses our strengths. And a commercial and political partner for the United States, as well as a force multiplier on the Security Side. We see the potential in ukraine. Russia sees, by contrast sees the risk. The history is not written yet, but ukraine could move out of russias orbit and now ukraine is a Battle Ground for Great Power Competition with a hot war for a control of territory and hybrid war to control ukraines leadership. The u. S. Has provided Security Assistance since the onset of the war against russia in 2014 and the Trump Administration strengthened our policy by approving the provision to ukraine of antitank missiles, known as javelins. Supporting ukraine is the right thing to do. Its also the smart thing to do. If russia prevails and ukraine falls to russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts by russia to expand its territory and its influence. As critical as the war against russia is, ukraines struggling democracy has an equally important challenge, battling the soviet legacy of corruption which has pervaded ukraine yuss government. And makes it vulnerable to russia and the ukrainian people understand that. Thats why they demanded to be part of europe, demanded the system, demanding to live under the rule of law. Ukrainians wanted the law to apply equally to all people, whether the individual in question is the president or any other citizen. It was a question of fairness, of dignity here again there is a coincidence of interest. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy and an accountable ukrainian leadership makes it more valuable to the United States. A level Playing Field in strategically placed country creates an environment in which u. S. Business can more easily trade, invest, and profit. Corruption is also a security issue because corrupt officials are vulnerable to moscow. In short, it is in americas National Security interest to help ukraine transform into a country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check. It was and remains a top u. S. Priority to help ukraine fight corruption and significant progress has been made since the 2014 revolution of dignity. Unfortunately, as the past couple of months have underlined not all ukrainians embrace our anticorruption work, thus perhaps it was not pricing when our anticorruption efforts got in the way of a desire for profit or power, ukrainians who preferred to play by the old corrupt rules sought to remove me. What continues to amaze me is that they found americans willing to partner with them and working together, they apparently succeeded in orchestrating the removal of a u. S. Ambassador. How could our system fail like this . How is it that foreign corrupt interests could manipulate our government . Which countries interests are served when the very corrupt behavior weve been criticizing is allowed to prevail . Such conduct undermines the u. S. , exposes our friends and widens the Playing Field for autocrats like president putin. Our leadership depends on the power of our example and the consistency of our purpose. Both have now been opened to question. With that background in mind, id like to briefly address some of the factual issues i expect you may want to ask me about, starting with my timeline in ukraine and the events about which i do and do not have firsthand knowledge. I arrived in ukraine on august 22nd, 2016, and left ukraine permanently on may 20th, 2019. There are a number of events you are investigating to which i cannot bring any firsthand knowledge. The events that predated my Ukraine Service include, the release of the socalled black ledger and mr. Manaforts subsequent resignation from President Trumps campaign and the departure from office of former prosecutor general victor. And several other events occurred after i returned from the ukraine. These include President Trumps july 25th, 2019 call with president zelensky. The discussions surrounding that phone call and any discussions surrounding the delay of Security Assistance to ukraine in the summer of 2019 ch. Events during my tenure in ukraine. I want to reiterate first that the allegation that i disseminated a do not prosecute list was a fabrication. The former ukrainian prosecutor general who made that allegation has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell him or other ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute, instead i advocated the u. S. Position that rule of law should prevail. And ukrainian Law Enforcement, prosecutors and judges should stop wielding their power selectively as a political weapon against their adversaries and start dealing with all consistently and according to the law. Also untrue are unsourced allegations that i told unidentified embassy employees or ukrainians officials that President Trumps orders should be ignored because he was going to be impeached or for any other reason. I did not and i would not say such a thing. Such statements would be inconsistent with my training as a Foreign Service officer and my role as an ambassador. The Obama Administration did not ask me to help the Clinton Campaign or harm the trump campaign. Nor would i have taken any such steps if they had. Partisanship of this type is not compatible with the role of a career Foreign Service officer. I have never met hunter biden, nor have i had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although i have met former vicepresident biden several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the Previous Administration ever raised the issue of either barisma or hunter biden with me. With respect to mayor giuliani, ive had only minimal contact with him, a total of three, none related to the events at issue. I do not understand mr. Giulianis motives for attacking me, nor can i offer an opinion on whether he believed the allegations he spread about me. Clearly no one at the staTe Department what i can say is that mr. Giuliani should have known those claims were suspect coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial ambitions would be stymied by our anticorruption policy in the ukraine. After being asked by the undersecretary of state for Political Affairs in early march, 2019 to extend my tour until 2020, the Smear Campaign against me entered a new public phase in the United States. In the wake of the negative press, state Department Officials suggested an earlier departure and we agreed upon july, 2019. I was then abruptly told weeks later in late april to come back to washington from ukraine on the next plane. At the time i departed ukraine had just concluded gamechanging president ial elections. It was a sensitive period with much at stake for the United States. And called for all the experience and expertise we could muster. When i returned to the United States deputy secretary of state sullivan told me there had been a Concerted Campaign against me, that the president no longer wished me to serve as ambassador to ukraine, and that, in fact, the president had been pushing for my removal since the prior summer. As mr. Sullivan recently recounted during his Senate Confirmation hearing, neither he nor anyone else ever explained or sought to justify the president s concerns about me, nor did anyone in the department justify my early departure by suggesting i had done something wrong. I appreciate that mr. Sullivan publicly affirmed at his hearing that i had served capably and admirably. Although then and now i have always understood that i served at the pleasure of the president , i still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine u. S. Interests in this way. Individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated u. S. Policy against corruption, that is to do our mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. As various witnesses have recounted they shared baseless allegations with the president and convinced him to remove his ambassador, despite the fact that the staTe Department fully understood that the allegations were false and the sources highly suspect. These events should concern everyone in this room. Ambassadors are the symbol of the United States abroad. They are the personal representative of the president. They should always act and speak with full authority to advocate for u. S. Policies. If our chief representative is it limits our to safeguard our National Security of the United States. This is especially important now when the International Landscape is more complicated and more competitive than it has been since the dissolution of the soviet union. Our ukraine policy has been thrown into disarray and shady interests the world over have learned how little it takes to remove an American Ambassador who does not give them what they want. After these events, what foreign official, corrupt or not, could be blamed for wondering whether the u. S. Ambassador represents the president s views. And what u. S. Ambassador could be blamed that they harbor the fear that they couldnt count on the u. S. For stated policy and to protect and defend policy at the closed deposition i expressed grave concern about the degradation of the Foreign Service over the past few years and the failure of state Department Leadership to push back as foreign and corrupt interests apparently hijacked our ukraine policy. I remain disappointed that the departments leadership and others have declined to acknowledge that the attacks against me and others are dangerously wrong. This is about far, far more than me or a couple of individuals. As Foreign Service professionals are being den graded and undermined the institution is also be degraded. This will soon cause real harm, if it hasnt already. The staTe Department as a tool of Foreign Policy often doesnt get the same kind of attention or even respect as the military might of the pentagon, but we are, as they say, the pointy end of the spear. If we lose our edge, the u. S. Will inevitably have to use other tools, even more than it does today. And those other tools are blunter, more expensive, and not universally effective. Moreover, the attacks are leading to a crisis in the staTe Department, as the policy process is visibly unravelling. Leadership vacancies go unfilled and senior and mid level officers ponder an uncertain future. The crisis has moved from the impact on individuals to impact on the institution itself. The staTe Department is being hollowed out from within in a competitive and complex time on the world stage. This is not a time to undercut our diplomates. It is the responsibility of the departments leaders to stand up for the institution and the individuals who make that institution still today the most effective diplomatic force in the world. And congress has a responsibility to reinvest in our diplomacy. Thats an investment in our National Security. Its an investment in our future, in our childrens future. As i close, let me be clear on who we are and how we serve this country. We are professionals. We are Public Servants who by vocation and training pursue the policies of the president regardless of who holds that office or what party they affiliate with. We handle american citizen services, facilitate trade and commerce, work security issues, represent the u. S. And report to and advise washington, to mention just some of our functions. And we make a difference every day. We are people who repeatedly uproot our lives, who risk and sometimes give our lives for this country. We are the 52 americans who 40 years ago this month began 444 days of deprivation, torture and captivity in tehran. We are the dozens of americans stationed at our embassy in cuba and conflicts in china who mysteriously and dangerously and in some cases perhaps even permanently were injured and attacked from unknown sources several years ago and we are ambassador chris stevens, Shaun Patrick smith, ty woods and glenn doherty, people rightly called heroes for their ultimate sacrifice to this nations Foreign Policy interests in libya eight years ago. We honor these individuals. They represent each one of you here and every american. These courageous individuals were attacked because they stabilize america. What you need to know, what americans need to know is that while thankfully most of us answer the call to duty in far less dramatic ways, every Foreign Service officer runs the same risks and very often, so do our families. They serve, too, as individuals, as a community, we answer the call to duty to advance and protect the interests of the United States. We take our oath seriously, the same oath that each one of you takes, to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to bear truth faith and allegiance to the same. I count myself lucky to be a Foreign Service officer, fortunate to serve with the best america has to offer, blessed to serve the American People for the last 33 years. I thank you for your attention. I welcome your questions. Thank you, ambassador. We count ourselves lucky to have you serve the country as you have for decades. Well now move to the 45 minute rounds. I recognize myself and majority counsel for 45 minutes. Ambassador yovanovitch, thank you again for appearing today. All americans are deeply in your debt. Before i hand it over to mr. Goldman, our staff counsel, i want to ask you about a few of the pivotal events of interest to the country. First of all, was fighting corruption in ukraine a key element of u. S. Policy and one on which you placed the highest priority . Yes, it was. And can you explain why . It was important and it was actually stated in our policy and in our strategy, it was important because corruption was undermining the integrity of the governance system in ukraine, and as i noted in my statement, countries that have leaders that are honest and trustworthy make better partners for us. Countries where there is a level Playing Field for our u. S. Business makes it easier for our companies to do business there, to trade and to profit in those countries, and what had been happening since the soviet union, as this is very much a soviet legacy, is that corrupt interests were undermining not only the governan governance, but the economy of the ukraine. We see enormous potential in the ukraine and would like to have a more caple and trustworthy part that. I know this may be awkward, but is it fair to say you were known to have a reputation of anticorruption efforts in ukrai ukraine. Yes. I dont know if you had a chance to watch george kents testimony yesterday, but would you agree with his his rather frank assessment if you fight corruption youre going to piss off some people. Yes. In your effort to fight corruption did you anger some of the leaders in ukraine . Yes. Was one of those the prosecutor general . Yes, i believe so. Was another one of those corrupt people his predecessor, another corrupt prosecutor general named victor shoeken. Apparently so although ive never met him. At some point did you learn that they were in touch with Rudy Giuliani, President Trumps lawyer and representative . Yes. In fact, did giuliani try to overturn a decision that you participated in to deny shoken a visa. Yes, thats what i was told. And that was based on his corruption . Yes, thats true. And was it mr. Lutesenco [inaudible]. Thats my understanding. And was that intensified by the president s son, donald trump, jr. As well as certain hosts on fox . Yes, yes, that is the case. In the face of this Smear Campaign, did colleagues at the staTe Department try to get a statement of support for you from secretary pompeo . Yes. Were they successful . No. Did you come to learn they couldnt issue such a statement because they feared it would be undercut by the president . Yes. And then were you told though you had done nothing wrong you did not enjoy the confidence of the president and could no longer serve as ambassador . Yes, that is correct. And in fact, you flew home from kiev on the staple day as the inauguration of ukraines new president . Thats true. That inauguration was attended by three who have become known as the three amigos . Yes. And three days after that inauguration in a meeting with President Trump are you aware that the president designated these three amigos to coordinate ukraine policy with Rudy Giuliani . Since then i have become aware of that. This is the same Rudy Giuliani who orchestrated the Smear Campaign against you . Yes. And the same Rudy Giuliani who now during the july phone call into the bidens. Yes. Finally, ambassador in that july 25th phone call, the president praises one of these corrupt former ukrainian prosecutors and says they were treated very unfairly. They were treated unfairly. Not you, who was smeared and recalled, but one of them. What message does that send to your colleagues in the u. S. Embassy in kiev . Im just not sure what the basis for that kind of a statement would be. Certainly not from our reporting over here. Did you have concern though, or do you have concern today about what message the president s action sends to the people who are still in ukraine representing the United States when a wellrespected ambassador can be smeared out of her post with the participation and acquiescence of the president of the United States . Well, its been a big hit for morale at u. S. Embassy in kiev and more broadly in the staTe Department. Is it fair to say that other ambassadors and those of lesser ranks who serve the United States in embassies around the world might look at this and think if i take on corrupt people in these countries, that could happen to me . I think thats a fair statement, yes. Mr. Goldman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador yovanovitch, on april 24th of this year at approximately 10 00 p. M. You received a telephone call while you were at the embassy in kiev from the director general of the staTe Department and this was just three days after president zelenskys election and the call between President Trump and president zelensky that we just heard from Ranking Member nunes. At the time that this urgent call came in, what were you in the middle of doing . I was hosting an event in honor of an anticorruption activist, was an anticorruption activist in ukraine. We had given her the woman of courage award from ukraine and in fact, the worldwide woman of courage event at the worldwide woman of courage event in washington d. C. , secretary pompeo singled her out for her amazing work in ukraine to fight corrupt interests in the south of ukraine. She very tragically died because she was attacked acid and several months later died a very, very painful death. We thought it was important that justice be done for katya and others who fight corruption in ukraine because its not kind of a tabletop exercise there. Lives are in the balance. And so we wanted to bring attention to this. We held an event and gave her father, who, of course, is still mourning her, that award, the woman of courage event. And her woman of courage award stemmed from her anticorruption efforts in ukraine. Yes, that is true. Was it ever determined who threw the acid and killed her . There have been investigations, but while some of the lower ranking individuals that were involved in this have been arrested, those who ordered this have not yet been apprehended. I had to react to something. What did she think those about . She didnt know. She said she is going to try to find out more but she had wanted to give me a heads up. In fact, they think she may have been instructed to give me a heads up on that. I asked her what is the next step. She said she would try to find out more and to try to call me by midnight. What happened next . Around 1 00 in the morning, she called me again and she said that there were great concerns, concerns up the street, and she said i need to get, come home immediately, get on the next plane to the u. S. And asked her why, and she said she wasnt sure but there were concerns about my security. I asked her, my physical security . Sometimes washington knows more than we do about these things. She said no, she had not gotten that impression, that was a physical security issue that they were concerned about my security and i needed to come up right away. I argued. This is extremely irregular. And no reason given. But in the end, i did get on the next plane. You said there were concerns up the street. What did you understand that to mean . The white house. Did she explain in any more detail what she meant by concerns about your security . No. She didnt. I did specifically asked whether this had to do with the mayor giuliani is allegations against me and so forth but she said she didnt know them didnt even actually appeared to me that she seemed to be aware of that. No reason whats offered. Did she explain what the urgency was for you to come back on the next flight . The only thing thats pertinent to that is when she said their concerns about my security, but it was not further explained. Prior to this abrupt call back to washington, d. C. , had yemen offered an extension of your post by the staTe Department . Yes. Undersecretary, the undersecretary for Political Affairs have asked whether i would extend for another years departing in july 2020. When was about request made . In early march. So about a month and half before this call . Yes. Did anyone at the staTe Department ever express concerns about your Job Performance . No. After youve returned to washington a couple of days after that, you met with the deputy secretary of state. And in your deposition you said deputy secretary of state told you that you had done nothing wrong but that there was a Concerted Campaign against you. What did he mean by that . Im not exactly sure, but i took it to mean that the allegations that mayor giuliani and others were putting out there, that thats what it wa. And to us was involved in this Concerted Campaign against you . There were some members of the press and others in mayor giulianis circle. And who from ukraine . In ukraine i think, well, the prosecutor general and mr. Shokin, his predecessor certainly. And at this time he was the lead prosecutor general come is that right . Thats correct. And had president zelensky indicator whether or not he was going to keep them on after the election . He indicated he would not be keeping him on. Obligatory fight earlier that he had a reputation for being corrupt, is that right . Thats correct. During this conversation did the deputy secretary tell you about your future as ambassador to ukraine . Well, he told me i needed to leave. What did he say . He said that, those a lot of backandforth but ultimately he said the words that every for Service Officer understands, the president has lost confidence in you. That was a terrible thing to hear, and i said i guess i have to go then. But no real reason was offered as to why i i had to leave and what it was being done in such a manner. Did you have any indication the staTe Department had lost confidence in you . No. And were you provided any reason why the president lost confidence in you . No. Now, you testified in your deposition that you were told at some point that secretary pompeo had tried to protect you but that he was no longer able to do that. Were you aware of these efforts to protect you . No, i was not, until that meeting with deputy secretary sullivan. And did you understand who he was trying to protect you from . Well, my understanding was that the president had wanted me to leave, and there was some discussion about that over the prior months. Did you have any understand why secretary pompeo was no longer able to protect you . No. It was just a statement made that he was no longer able to protect me. So just like that you delete ukraine as soon as possible . Yes. How did that make you feel . Terrible, honestly. After 33 years of service to our country it was terrible. Its not the way i wanted my career to end. You also told the deputy secretary that this was a dangerous precedent. What did you mean by that . I was worried, i was worried about our policy but also personnel, that, and i asked him how come how are you going to explain this to people and the staTe Department, the press, e public, ukrainians . Because everybody is watching. And so if people see somebody who and, of course, it had been very public, frankly, the attacks on the by mayor giuliani and others, and mr. Lutsenko in ukraine. If people see that i who have been, you know, promoting our policies on anticorruption, if they can undermine me and get me hold out of ukraine, what does that mean for our policy . Do we still have the same policy . How are we going to formally put that forward, number one. Number two, when other countries, other actors and other countries see that private interests, foreign interests can come together and get a u. S. Ambassador removed, whats going to stop them from doing that in a future in other countries . Often the work we do we try to be diplomatic about it, but as Deputy Assistant secretary george kent said, sometimes we can get people really angry with us. Uncomfortable. And we are doing our job but sometimes people become very angry with us. And if they realize that they can just remove us, they are going to do that. How did the deputy secretary respond . He said those were good questions, and he would get back to me. Did he ever get back to you . He asked to see me the following day. What did he say to you then . Really the conversation was a more, and again im grateful for this, but really more to see how i was doing and what would i do next, kind of how could he help. But he didnt address that dangerous precedent that you flagged for him . No. You understood of course that the president of the United States could remove you and that you served at the pleasure of the president come is that right . Thats right. But in your 33 years as a Foreign Service officer, have you ever heard of a president of the United States recalling another ambassador without cause based on allegations that the staTe Department itself knew to be false . No. Now, you testified in your Opening Statement that you had left ukraine by the time of the july 25 call between President Trump and president zelensky. When was the first time that you saw the call record for this phone call . With it was released publicly at the end of september, i believe. And prior to reading that call record, were you aware that President Trump had specifically made reference to you in that call . No. What was your reaction to learning that . I was shocked, absolute shocked and devastated, frankly. What do you mean by devastated . I was shocked and devastated that i would was featured in a phone call between two hits of state in such a manner, where President Trump said that i was bad news to another world leader, that i would be going through something. So i was it was a terrible moment. A person islamic actually reading the transcript said that the color drained from a face. I think i even had a physical reaction. I think, even now, words fail me. Well, without upsetting you too much i would like to show you the excerpts from the call. And the first one where President Trump says the former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news, the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news. So i just to let you know. What was your reaction when you heard the president of the United States refer to you as bad news . I couldnt believe it. I mean i can, shocked, devastated that the president of the United States would talk about any ambassador like that to a foreign head of state, and it was me. I mean, i couldnt believe it. The next excerpt when the president references you was a short one, by the said, well, shes going to go through some things. What did you think when President Trump told president zelensky and you read that you u are going to go through some things . I did know what to think, but i was very concerned. What would you concerned about . Hes going to go through some things, didnt sound good. It sounded like a threat. Did you feel threatened . I did. How so . I didnt know exactly. Its not, you know, a very precise phrase, but i think, it didnt feel like i was i really dont know how to answer the question any further, except to say that kind of felt like a big threat as i wondered what that meant. It concerned me. Now, in the same call with the president as you just said threatens you to a foreign leader, he also praises the corrupt ukrainian prosecutor who led the false Smear Campaign against you. I want to show you another excerpt or two from the transcript of the call record rather where the president of the United States says, good, because i heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that truly unfair. A lot of people are talking about that. The way they shut your very good prosecutor down and election very that people involved. And he went on later to say, i heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Now, ambassador yovanovitch, after nearly three years in ukraine where you try to clean up the Prosecutor Generals Office, was it the u. S. Embassies view that the former prosecutor general was a very good and very fair prosecutor . No, it was not. In fact, he was rather corrupt, is that right . That was our belief. The Prosecutor Generals Office is a longrunning problem in ukraine, is that right . Yes. So how did you feel when youre President Trump speak so highly of the corrupt ukrainian prosecutor who helped to execute the Smear Campaign to have you removed . Well, it was disappointing. It was concerning. It wasnt certainly based on anything that the staTe Department would have reported or frankly anybody else and u. S. Government. There was an interagency consensus that while when mr. Lutsenko came into office we were very hopeful that he would actually do the things that he said he would set out to do, including reforming the Prosecutor Generals Office, but that did not materialize. So this will stop the uniform position of the official u. S. Policy makers, is that right . Right. Now, lets go back to the Smear Campaign that you referenced, and in march when you said it became public. And you prettily testified that you had learned that Rudy Giuliani, President Trumps lawyer and representative, who was also mentioned in that july 25 call, was in regular communication with the corrupt prosecutor general in late 2018 and early 2019. And at one point in your deposition you said that they, being giuliani and the corrupt foreign prosecutor general, had plans to quote, do things to me. What did you mean by that . I didnt, i didnt really know but thats what ive been told by ukrainian officials. Did you subsequently understand a little bit more what that meant . Now with the advantage of hindsight i think that meant removing me from my job in ukraine. Who did you understand to be working with mr. Giuliani as his associates in ukraine . Well, certainly mr. Finkel, mr. Shokin, i believe there were also ukrainian americans who have recently been indicted. Those are the two two mackoc indicted in new york . The district of new york. Now, at the end of march, this effort by giuliani and his associates resulted in a series of articles in the hill publication that were based on allegations in part from lutsenko, the corrupt prosecutor general. To. To summarize these allegations were among others three different categories. One category included the attacks against you, which are referenced in your Opening Statement including that you badmouth the president and that given the prosecutor general they do not prosecute list. There was another that included allegations of ukraine interference in the 2016 election, and then there was a third that related to allegations concerning burisma and the bidens. Is that accurate . Yes. Where these articles and allegations then promoted by others associate with the president in the United States . They seem to be promoted by those around mayor giuliani. Im going to show you a couple of exhibits including a tweet hereby President Trump himself on march 20, which was the first day that one of these articles was published. It appears to be a quote that says john solomon is the author of the articles, as russian collusion fades comp ukraine a plot up clinton emerges, at sean hannity at fox news or if i could go to another tweet four days later, this is the president s son, donald trump, jr. , who tweets we need more at richard grinnell, was ambassador to germany come is that right . Thats correct. And less of these jokers as ambassadors, and its a retweet of one of John Solomons articles or article referencing the allegations that says calls grow to remove obamas u. S. Ambassador to ukraine. Were you aware of these tweet at the time . Yes. What was your reaction to seeing this. Well, i was worried. What would you worried about . That this didnt seem, these attacks were, you know, being repeated by the president himself and his son. And were you aware whether they received attention on primetime television, on fox news as well . Yes. Was the allegation that you are badmouthing President Trump true . No. Was the allegation that you had created i do not prosecute list to give to the prosecutor general in ukraine true . No. In fact, didnt the corrupt prosecutor general general himr recanted those allegations . Yes. When these articles were First Published did the staTe Department issued a response . As you said, there was a series of articles, so after the first article, which was an interview with mr. Lutsenko and was only really about me and made allegations about me, the staTe Department came out the following day with a very strong statement saying that these allegations are fabrications. So the state didnt address the falsity of the allegations themselves . Yes. It didnt say anything about your job performed in any way . Honestly, i have looked at it in a very long time. I think is generally probably laudatory. I chemical. Did anyone in the staTe Department raise concerns with you or express any belief in these allegations . No. I mean, people thought it was ridiculous. After these false allegations were made against you come to jeff any discussions with anyone in leadership in the staTe Department about a potential statement of support from the Te Department or the secretary himself . Yes. After the tweets that you just showed us, i mean, it seemed to me that if the president s son is saying things like this, that it would be very hard continuing my position and have authority in ukraine, unless the staTe Department came out pretty strongly behind him. And so over the weekend, it was like march 22, there was a lot of discussion on email among a number of people about what could be done. I and the undersecretary for Political Affairs called me on sunday, and i said its really important that the secretary himself, out and be supportive. Because otherwise its hard for me to be the kind of representative you need here. And he said he would talk to the secretary, and that, thats my recollection of the call. That may not be exactly how it played out but that was my recollection. This is david hale, the undersecretary, Political Affairs, the number three person at the staTe Department . Yes. Did indicate he supported such a statement of support for you . I think he must because i dont think think he wouldve gone to the secretary if he didnt support it. I mean, you wouldnt bring a bad idea to the secretary of state. Your general understand is that you did have all support of the staTe Department, right . Yes. And, in fact, during her 33 year career as a Foreign Service officer did you ever hear of any serious concerns about your Job Performance . No. Was the statement of support ultimately issued for you . Know it was not. Did you learn why not . Yes. I was told that the was concerned on the seventh floor that if a statement of support was issued, whether by the staTe Department or by the secretary personally, that it could be undermined. How could it be undermined . That the president might issue a tweet contradicting that, something to that effect. So let me see if ive got this right. You were one of the most senior diplomats in the staTe Department. You have been there for 33 years. You have won numerous awards. You have been appointed as an ambassador three times by both republican and democratic president s, and the staTe Department would not issue a statement in support of you against false allegations because theyve concerned about a tweet from the president of United States . Thats my understanding. If i could follow up on the question. Seems like an appropriate time. Ambassador yovanovitch, as we sit or testify, the president is attacking you on twitter. Id like get a chance to respond. I will read part of one of his tweets. Everywhere marie jamaat of which went turn bad. She started off in somalia. How did that go . He goes on to say later in the tweet, u. S. President has a right to appoint ambassadors. First of all, ambassador yovanovitch, the senate as a chance to confirm or deny an ambassador, do they not . Yes, advice and consent. Would you like to respond to the president s attack that everywhere you went turn bad . Well i mean, i dont think i have such power, not in mogadishu, and some are other places. I think that where i served over the years, i and others have demonstrably made things better, you know, for the u. S. As well as for the countries that i served in. Ukraine, for example, where there are huge challenges, including on the issue were discussing today of corruption, huge challenges that theyve made a lot of progress since 2014, including in the years i was there. I think in part in ukraine, te people get the most credit for that, but a part of that credit goes to the work of the United States and to me as the ambassador in the, in ukraine. Ambassador, youve shown the courage to come for today to testify. Notwithstanding the fact you were urged by the white house or staTe Department not to. Notwithstanding the fact that as you testified earlier, the president implicitly threatened you in that call record. And now the president in realtime is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing . Well, its very intimidating. Designed to intimidate, is it not . I mean, i cant speak to what the president is trying to do, but i think the effect is to be intimidating. Well, i want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously. Mr. Goldman. Ambassador yovanovitch, you indicated that the same articles in march that included the Smear Campaign also included allegations related to ukraines interference in the 2016 election and the Burisma Biden connection, is that right . Yes. Some going to end my questioning where we were before, which was the july 25 call. And President Trump not only insults you and praises the corrupt prosecutor general but he also as you know by now references these two investigations. First, immediately after president zelensky thanks President Trump for his quote, great support in the area of defense, unquote, President Trump responds, i would like 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 crowd strike. I guess youre one other wealthy people. The server, they say ukraine has it. And then he goes on in the same paragraph to say, whatever you can do, its very important that you do it, if thats possible. Now, ambassador yovanovitch, from your experience as ambassador in ukraine for almost three years, and understand that president zelensky was not in politics before he ran for president and was a new president on this call, how would you expect president zelensky to interpret a request for a favor . The u. S. Relationship for ukraine is the single most important relationship, and so i think that president zelensky, any president , would do what they could to lean and on a favor. Im not saying thats a yes. I am saying they would try to lean in and see what they could do. Fair to say that if the president of ukraine that are so dependent on the train would do just about anything within his power to please the president of the United States, if he could . You know, if he could. I mean, im sure there are limits and i understand there were a lot of discussions in the ukraine government about all of this. But yeah, i mean, we are an important relationship on the Security Side and on the political side. And so the president of ukraine, one of the most important functions that individual has is to make sure that relationship with the u. S. Is rocksolid. Now, are you suddenly with these allegations of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election . Are you familiar there has been rumors out there about things like that, but there was nothing hard, at least nothing that i was aware. Theres nothing based in fact, to support these allegations . Yes. And, in fact, who was responsible for in a searing and meddling 2016 election . Well, the u. S. Intelligence community has concluded that it was russia. Ambassador yovanovitch, are you where in february of 2017, Vladimir Putin himself promoted this degree theory of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election . You know, maybe i knew that once and have forgotten, but im not familiar with it now. Well, let me show you a press statement that president putin made in a joint press conference with viktor orban of hungary on february 2 of 2017 where he says second, as we all know during the president ial campaign in the United States, the Ukrainian Government adopted a unilateral position in favor of one candidate. More than that, certain oligarchs, certainly with the approval of the political leadership, funded this candidate, or female candidate, to be more precise. Now, how did this theory of ukraine interference in the 2016 election be in Vladimir Putins interest . Well, i mean, president putin must have been aware that there were concerns in the u. S. About russian meddling in the 2016 elections, and what the potential was the russian meddling in the future. So, you know, classic for an Intelligence Officer to try to throw off the scent and create an alternative narrative. That may be picked up and get some credence. That whatever absolve his own wrongdoing . Yes. And we talks about an oligarch and he talks about the support of the Ukrainian Government, theres also a reference in the july 25 call to a wealthy ukrainian. Is it your understanding that what Vladimir Putin is saying here in this press statement in february 2017 is similar to what President Trump says on the jul6 election . May be. Now let me show you another exhibit from the call related to the bidens, which im sure youre familiar with. President trump says the other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens son, the biden son the prosecution 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 stop the prosecution. So if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Are you familiar with the allegation, these allegations related to Vice President biden . Yes. Do you know whether he ever went around bragging that he stop the prosecution of anyone . No. And, in fact, when Vice President biden acted to remove the former corrupt prosecutor in ukraine, did he do so as part of official United States policy . Official u. S. Policy. That was endorsed and was the policy of the number of other international stakeholders, of the countries, other monetary institutions and financial institutions. In fact, it be helped to remove a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor general who was not prosecuting enough corruption if he helped that would increase the chances that corrupt companies in ukraine would be investigated, isnt that right . One would think so. And that could include policemen, right . Yes. At the time of this call Vice President biden was a front runner for the democratic nomination for president , and President Trump potential next opponent in the election. Is it your understand that President Trumps requested Vice President biden investigated, was that part of official u. S. Policy as you knew it . Well, i should say that i had at the time of this phone call i had already departed ukraine too much prior. But you are familiar with, didnt change that much in two months, right . It certainly would not have been a policy in may when i left. And were these two investigations part of the anticorruption platform that you champion in ukraine for three years . No. These investigations, do they appear to you to be the benefit of the president personal and political interests rather than the national interest. Well, they certainly could. Just returning to the allegations in the hill publication in march that were promoted by mr. Giuliani, the president lawyer, where those two back allegations similar to the two allegations that the president wanted president zelensky to investigate . Yes. So ultimately the july 25 phone call with the ukrainian president , president of the United States endorsed the false allegations against you and the bidens, is that right . Yes. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will suspend. Votes are fairly imminent. Were going to take a brief recess. Ask anyone to remain mr. Chairman, to exit the room and we will resume mr. Chairman, either point of inquiry. The gentleman can seek recognition after we resume. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] state his inquiry. It appears counsel for the witnesses this morning has paper copies of the slides used during questioning. If thats true, does that mean you and your team has been in coordination with him and of her with respect to test with this morning . If thats true how does that comport with href 660 and the fairness that is purported a social with that . The gentleman, that tv for the witnesses wasnt working so theyre given copies this morning. It is now 45 minutes to Ranking Member nunes. The screen in front of them is not working . The screen was not working in front of them so they were given copies so they could read along since they cant see the screens that we can. Mr. Meadows, you are recognized for 45 45 minutes along with my Nordic Council. First, mr. Chair, i want to for the record senator grassley is letter to the department of justice dated july 20, 2017. I read a portion of that into the record during Opening Statement. Without objection. Ambassador, congratulate you. Youve been down in the secret deposition meeting rooms. You have graduated for your performance today. Later this afternoon i should note for the public we will be back down in the basement of the capital doing more of these secret depositions. Ambassador, i dont really have very many questions for you. You admitted in your Opening Statement that you dont have any firsthand knowledge of the issues that we are looking into but i do want to talk a little bit about senator grassley very briefly. I assume that you know who store grassley is. Yes, sir, i do. Do you believe senator grassley is a serious and credible elected official . I have no reason to think otherwise. We are involved in the july5 trumpzelensky phone call or preparations for the call . No, i was not. Were you involved in the deliberations about the possible military sales to great to ukraine . For the delay in for the pause. No, i was not. Were you involved in the proposed trumpzelensky later pence zelensky meetings in warsaw, poland, on september 1 . No, i was not. Did you ever talk to President Trump in 2019 . No, ive not. Mick mulvaney . No, i have not. Thank you, ambassador. Im not exactly sure what the ambassador is doing here today. This is the House Intelligence Committee that has now turned into the house impeachment committee. This seems more appropriate for the subcommittee on Human Resources at the Foreign Affairs committee, if theres issues with implement, disagree was with the administration it would seem like it would be more appropriate setting instead of at impeachment hearing where the ambassador is not a material fact witness to anything, any of the accusations that are being hurled at the president for this impeachment inquiry. I have several questions i think, mr. Castor wants to get to. I know ms. Stefanik him give a few quick question for the ambassador. Yield to you, ms. Stefanik. Thank you, mr. Nunes. Ambassador yovanovitch, the gentlewoman will suspend. What is the interruption for this time . It is our time. You are not recognized. Mr. Nunes, you are i just recognize under 660 youre not allowed deal time except to spin is the Ranking Member yield a time to another thats not accurate. That is accurate. Ambassador yovanovitch, i want to thank you for being here today. You are not recognized. This is the fifth time you have interrupted members of duly speedy congresswoman will suspend. We control the time, and customary of this committee where controls the time can yield to wherever they wish. If we have members of congress to ask a few questions, it seems appropriate that we be able to let ms. Stefanik ask your questions. Mr. Nunes, you or my Nordic Council are recognized. All right. Mr. Castor, you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Nunes. Ambassador, welcome. I want to thank you for your service, 33 years, and extraordinary career. It really has been a remarkable tenure for you at the staTe Department. I would like to thank you for participating here today. This is a crazy environment, this hearing room has turned into a Television Studio but before today you spent on friday the 11th you are with us for early in the morning until i believe it was it oclock at night. People missed trains back to new york and it was a complete, very complete day, so thank you. You were serving a threeyear assignment in the ukraine, is that correct . Yes. And to begin in the 2016 and was scheduled to end in 2019 . Yes, thats correct. And nobody disputes that except for the president to decide who his envoy are two posts around the world, correct . I stated that clearly in my statement. And you returned from the ukraine on may 20, 2019 . Thats correct. Your return coincided with the inauguration of president zelensky . Yes. And you remain employed by the staTe Department . I do. And after you returned to washington and deputy secretary John Sullivan asked you what you wanted to do next, is that correct . Yes, thats correct. Then you met with the director general, ambassador perez . Yes, thats correct. Did you identify a meaningful new assignment . Yes. And you now serve in Georgetown University as a fellow . Thats true. This this is a rewarding posn for you . Yes. Im very grateful to be in the position after what happened. Today is the second big hearing for the democrats impeachment initiative. We understand that you dont have a lot of facts and information relating to the part of this that we are investigating, and those of those event for may 20 up until september 11 released Security Assistance, is that correct . Yes, thats correct. So you were not part of the delegation to the inauguration, the day you return. You are not part of the Oval Office Meeting may 23, correct . Yes, thats correct. And you are not part of the decisionmaking relating to whether there would be a a whie has me with president zelensky . Thats correct. And you were not a part of any decisionmaking in the lead up to the july 25 call . Thats correct. And you first learned about the call on september 25, is that correct . Well, i heard about the call, as indicated in the first deposition, from Deputy Assistant secretary george kent. What did he tell you about the call . Well, as it turns out it wasnt correct, but what i recall is that he said that President Trump had asked president zelensky whether he could help him out, which i understood to be into investigations and that president zelensky had said that he is putting in a new prosecutor general and that he doesnt control it. I mean, this is approximately what he said. That person is an independent individual. You learned about that before the call was made public . Thats correct. Likewise you were not involved in any discussion surrounding the Security Sector assistance to ukraine . They were pause for about 55 dates of july 18, to september 11 . [inaudible] in your Opening Statement on page nine, you stated although then and now ive always understood that a stir at the pleasure of the president. I still find it difficult to comprehend that for a private entity were able to put them in use interest in. Individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stages policy against corruption, that is to do the mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. Do you believe that President Trump was aiming to weaponized corruption in ukraine by removing you . I dont know that. Do you believe your removal was some part of scheme to make it easier for elements of the ukrainian establishment to do things counter to u. S. Interests . I think thats certainly what the ukrainian establishment hoped. I think that in addition there were americans, these two individuals who are working with mayor giuliani, mr. Pardus and mr. Fruman who have recently been indicted by the Southern District of new york, who indicated that they wanted to change up the ambassador. Think they mustve at some reason for that. And to think they were seeking a different type of ambassador that would allow them to achieve some of their objectives . I dont know what other reason there would be. Okay. Is ambassador taylor the type of person who would facilitate those objectives . No. So basilar tip is a man of High Integrity . Absolutely. Hes a good pick for the post . He is. I would note that he is that charge a out there. So no masochist yet or no candidate has yet been named to the position. But he certainly has had a decorated career serving his country . Absolutely. A man with the highest integrit integrity. You testified about when you first learned that mayor giuliani and some of his associates had a Concerted Campaign against you, when did that first come to your attention . We were picking up rumors from ukrainians, i think, kind of in the novemberdecember timeframe within in january, february and, of course, march it became more obvious. At some point i believe you testified the minister others you to this campaign . Yes. When was that . He had a conversation with me in february of 2019. Okay. Do you remember when he related to you . Yes. He said that they were working with mayor giuliani through these two individuals, mr. Parnassus and mr. Fruman, that they basically wanted to remove me from post and that they were working on that. Did you have any awareness at that point in time of precisely why they were seeking your ouster . You know, i didnt, i didnt understand that at all because i had never met mr. Parnas and mrs unclear to me why, why there interested in doing this. Where you especially influential implementing policies that stymied their interests in ukraine . Or advocating for some sort of environment or policies that would be averse to them . I think that just the general idea that obviously u. S. Ambassadors, u. S. Embassies, one of our most important functions is to facilitate u. S. Business abroad, right, whether it is trade, whether it is commerce. Thats one of the things that we deal. But everything has to be above board. We believe in a level playing ground but we advocate for u. S. Business. These two individuals, with hindsight and what we learned later, looking to open up a new energy company, exporting liquefied natural gas to ukraine never actually came to the embassy which is unusual, because that would usually be a first stop going to the American Chamber of commerce, going to guess embassy, get the lay of the land, see how we can provide assistance. And was set source of frustration ever express to you or did you just learned that separately . Frustration, what do you mean . On whose part . On truman and parnas. I dont know that they were frustrated. Frustrated by what . Well, you mentioned that their business interests and as to whether they had been stymied by anything in particular that you would advocated for or you were a roadblock to them being successful. I wondered if theres any connection . I never met them. When i heard the same for the first time, which was in february of 2019, i asked my team, the econ and the commercial sectors are the ones who would usually meet with american businessman, and women, and nobody had heard of them. So all i conclude is that it was the general, general u. S. Policies that we were implementing, that mightve been of concern to the. At any point did you ever try to reach out to the prosecutor general, mr. Pachinko and find out why mr. Lutsenko, and find out why he was concerned in the skipping . No. Why . I didnt feel there was any purpose to it. Why not . He is, he clearly had i would say animus for doing this, and is working with americans. So i reached out to the american side in this case, the staTe Department, to try and find out what was going on. When did you first realize that your relationship with lutsenko had reached an adversarial point . Probably around that time, maybe a little bit earlier. And this is march . Yeah. And when i say adversarial, thats a really strong word. We of the u. S. Embassy are visiting key people from the staTe Department and other agencies. We were pushing the ukrainians including mr. Lutsenko to do what they said they were going to do, and mr. Lutsenko entered office, that is going to clean up the pgo and make reforms, that he was going to bring justice to what they call the people who died on the maidan in 2016 2014, the revolution of dignity. And he was going to prosecute cases to repatriate the approximately 40 billion its believed the former president yovanovitch and his cronies fled the country with. And he didnt do any of that. And we kept on trying to encourage him to do the right thing. Thats what ukraine if people want him to do, and we thought it was a good plan and that he should get. You to make you contacted the staTe Department in late march. Is that undersecretary hailed . So contacted about what . About the concerns you had about the campaigns against you. I contacted the staTe Department much earlier than that. It was an ongoing sort of discussion makes a sound very formal and we have many ways of going back and forth with washington, and so, you know, on phone calls, we would have the discussion. When did you realize this . If i could amplify my answer. We had the discussion because we were concerned that ukrainian policymakers, ukrainian leaders were hearing that i was going to be leaving, that there was maybe somebody else waiting in the wings, et cetera, and that undermined not only my position but our u. S. Position. Ukrainians didnt know what to think and we need to be out there all the time firing on all cylinders to promote our National Security interest. So it was a concern. And when did you realize this Concerted Campaign against you was a real threat . A threat in to your ability to do the job in tm . I would say that when you go into meeting with somebody and ask are you going to be leaving, that is concerning. That probably come i do know exactly when that started happening but in that timeframe. You undertake any efforts to push back on this narrative either inside the staTe Department or publicly . Certainly with the ukrainians, theres nothing to this, this is, you know, a distraction and we are focused on the job. Our policy remains the same. And yes, we had discussions in the staTe Department about this. In hindsight was there enough in the staTe Department to alert them to this mounting campaign against you . I did what i i could. And what was that . Reached out to the european bureau. I think youve also heard that doctor fiona hill was aware of this as well, so the nsc, and they had other discussions with more senior people. Okay. Did you get any feedback from your chain of command . Did you engage ambassador fraker, undersecretary hale . Yes, yes. Did you develop a game plan to push back against these allegations . So, i mean, there are different type timeframe to wee talking about. Fast forwarding to march, i did when undersecretary hale asked what i would consider extending, i did raise because i wasnt sure that he was aware of it. I wanted to make sure that he knew that mayor giuliani had been out there saying things about me, untrue things, and i wanted him to be aware of that. He said he understood. He still was hoping that i could extend for another year. So that was early march, and then fastforward to late march, and the discussions about this issue continued but obviously it became, once it became a public political store here in the United States, the tenor of everything changed because i think that the staTe Department felt that it wasnt manageable anymore, and that the more prudent thing would be for me to come back in july. Do you think theres anything you could have done differently to get ahead of this story and lobby the sector and his counsel that there was a Concerted Campaign against you that you didnt believe the allegations lodged were accurate and you needed their assistance . I think that, sure, maybe i couldve done that but i think they were unaware. As i subsequently learned from deputy secretary sullivan, the secretary of state had been well aware of this since the summer of 2018. The corruption endemic in the country of ukraine, right . I would say that corruption is a serious issue everywhere in the former soviet union. Its a postsoviet legacy, and we talk about it a lot in ukraine because theres actually an opportunity to do something, to actually help ukraine at tackle the issue. They want to tackle the issue. In other countries like russia you cant even talk about it. So i think its a postsoviet legacy and its important to deal with it. You testified rampant corruption has long permuted ukraines lyrical and economic assistance . Yes, thats a fair statement. Its your belief that should be the u. S. Foreign policy guilt ukraine curb its corruption problem . Yes, because its good for the cranes but its also in our interest. And anticorruption efforts you mentioned server National Security purpose. I i believe that to be true. Are oligarchs a big part of the problem in ukraine . Probably, because so much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very, very few, 67 individuals, and and they also have political power and control the media six or seven individuals. Their power has been acquired through what we here in the u. S. Would consider improperly, improper ways . Yeah, i think thats a fair comment. The head of burisma, are you familiar with and . Dont know him but i know who you are talking about. George kent testified a couple days ago that he was investigating for stealing millions and millions of dollars, some of which had been supplied by the u. S. , great britain, subject to an investigation, trying to get the money back. That was a big part of his initiative when he was there. At a bribe was paid to the prosecutors and he was let off the hook. This was in 2014. Is this something you are familiar with . I have heard about it. This was before my arrival and i would just say my understanding and please correct me if im wrong, is that the u. S. Money that you are referring to was the money that we used to fund an fbi team that was embedded with the Prosecutor Generals Office to go after not to go after but to do the investigation of burisma and zlochevsky. Mr. Kent testified this bribe was paid. The prosecution went away, and you know, essentially nothing has been further done with regards to burisma. During your tenure in ukraine, has there ever been any focus on reexamining allegations, whether its of burisma or other powerful interests like zlochevsky . Are you reexamine it . Is that on the part of the Ukrainian Government . Yes. Trying to lean on the various prosecutors general to clean up the oligarchical system . I i think yes, there have ben some efforts, and as i mentioned earlier in my testimony, the u. S. Was welcoming of the nomination to the position of prosecutor general because we were hoping he would clean that up. That, in fact, is not what happened. Because, its kind of hard to explain to a u. S. Audience, but in ukraine, and in the former soviet union more broadly, including in russia, justice, the justice system, whether its its cops on the beat, whether its investigators, whether it is prosecutors, whether it is judges, are used as a tool of the political system to be used against your political adversaries. And so i think that, going back to your question about burisma and zlochevsky. My understanding, this is as i told you earlier in the previous deposition, this did not loom large when i arrived. I arrived in 2016, august 2016, over time my extend it was about, that the case was basically sort of on a pause. That it wasnt an active case but also was not fully closed. And that is the way as i mentioned before, for those empowered to keep a little login to burisma and mr. Zlochevsky. Right about the time the bribe was paid, burisma undertook an effort to spruce up their board. Are you from a with that . I dont exactly know what the tonic of all this was. Okay. But yes, i mean come to the elements. One of the folks added to the board was hunter biden, which raises questions, is he a genius on the Corporate Governance front . Is he a genius with the ukrainian oligarchical systems and cleaned that up, or was he just added to the board because hes Vice President son . Was that ever a concern or at least the perception of that concern addressed . As i i said, i arrived in august of 2016, seven months before the elections and several months before President Trump took office. And it was not the focus of what i was doing in that six months. Okay. Was the issue of the race at all . You know, not you were still on the board i think at the time. My understanding from newspaper account is that he just recently left in 2019. I never met met him, never talked to him. And im sorry, what was your question . He was still on the board when you arrived at post and just wondering if at least a perception problem was brought to your attention as the ambassador . I was aware of it because as i told you before in the deposition, there had been in terms of the preparation for my Senate Confirmation hearing to ukraine, there was a question about that, and a select answer. So i was aware of it. Okay. In your deposition you acknowledged that the president has longstanding concerns about corruption in ukraine, is that true . Thats, thats what he says. Going back to, there was a meeting with president poroshenko in september 2017 in the oval office and avoid you testified that he expressed his concern then. Yeah, he said that a friend of his at told in ukraine was the most corrupt country in the world. Okay. Several witnesses have testified that the president has concern that there are certain elements of the Training Establishment that during 2016 were out to get him. Is that something you were aware of at any point in time . Well, im certainly aware of it now. Obviously theres been a lot of press attention on that. It was not, it was not brought to my attention during the two and half years that i served under President Trump as our ambassador to ukraine. We have gone through the deposition, some of these elements that, maybe they loom larger now, but in hindsight was there any discussion at the embassy that there are these indications of some ukrainians try to at least advocate against then candidate trump . Actually there were not. We didnt really see it that way. Were you aware of, i dont mr. Nunes mentioned this earlier, a consultant Alexander Toluca had reported at least according to her and according to politico was trying to work with the Ukrainian Embassy in d. C. To trade information, to share leads of that sort of thing . I saw the article. I didnt have any further information about that. Did you see the article at the time or did you only come did that only come to your attention subsequently . It has certainly been brought to my attention subsequently. I think i did see something to that effect at the time. You are the ambassador in country at this point. Did you aim to get to the bottom of that . If the reporting is true if what was told, is accurate, that would be concerning, correct . Well, i was ambassador in ukraine starting in august 2016, and what youre describing, if true as you said, what youre describing took place in the United States. So if there were concerns about what he was doing, i think that wouldve been handled here. Do you know her . I doubly so. Have you ever met her . I dont think so. She works with Ukraine Embassy its possible that i met her in a large group or something but a dont believe i know her. Are you aware of the role that investigative journalists played in publicizing the manafort black ledgers . Yes. And he publicized some information in a pretty grand way in august 2016 and almost immediately coincided with mr. Manafort leaving the trump campaign. Was there anything about that issue when it was occurring that concerns you . Well, i certainly noticed it because i was a week or so away from arriving in ukraine. I think that from a ukrainian perspective i realized we look at this from an american perspective. From the ukrainian perspective i think that what others would look into black ledgers were most concerned about was actually not mr. Manafort but former president john a covert and his Political Party and the amount of money that they allegedly stole and where it went and so forth. This is a different perspective event which country you are in. But you can understand the president at least from his perspective looking at these facts, certainly it is reason to conclude that are elements of the Training Establishment that are advocated against them at this point in time, correct . Well, just speaking about mrn investigative journalist as you said and he got access to the black ledger and he published, he published it as a fake journalist would do, and again im not sure i any information to suggest that was targeting President Trump. But the way the events unfolded and mr. Manafort was subsequently left the campaign and it certainly did begin a time of interest in manafort ties to russia and so forth. I think, again, i think that may have been the facts here in the United States, and obviously it was of interest to journalists and others here that mr. Manafort was former president yovanovitch political advisor and he was a political advisor had as a campaign here, and so we all know that thered been court cases and so forth where mr. Manafort was found guilty of certain actions. But at the end end of the day, President Trump won the election. With this reporting theres been a question of all the information that he published was authentic, correct . You repeat that . Theres been, some of question whether the information mr. Plushenko published was also correct or whether it was doctored. I wasnt aware of that. You know, during the august timeframe the ambassador wrote an oped in the hill taking issue within candidate trump. Were you aware that when it occurred . Yes. Did you have any communications with the ambassador to express concerns . No. How frequently did you communicate with the ambassador . I recently you are in different posts in different countries. Didnt actually see him or talk to them that often. So you are not infrequent communication . No. Can you see how writing an oped, given the substance come we have discussed the substance of the, that theres sensitive activities, but can you see just how the simple fact of writing an oped, the Ukrainian Ambassador to the u. S. , might create a perception that the are of ukrainian establishment that were advocating against then candidate trump . My recollection of that oped was that he was taking, he was critical of a policy position that President Trump had with regard to crimea and whether crimea was a part of ukraine or a part of russia. Thats a tremendously sensitive issue in ukraine. And my recollection is that is what the ambassador was writing about. Do you know whether the ambassador or anyone from the embassy try to make contact with the trump camp to talk about their concerns before launching an oped . I dont know. During the same timeframe of the run up to the election, the minister said some especially candid things about then candidate trump on some various social media platforms. Are you aware of that . Yes, as a result of the deposition, the previous deposition. What are in the relevant time period when it was happening you were not aware of that . You know, i dont recall it. Hes one of the more influential officials in the ukraine, correct . He is. I believe hes one of the few that spanned both the Poroshenko Administration of the zelensky administration. Yes, thats correct. Looking back on his comments in hindsight, do you see how that might create a perception that a very influential ukrainian was advocating against then candidate trump . That he was doing what . Probably not. I would say that minister has been, as well as others, the administration as well has been a good partner to the United States. I think you were told before, he has is a very practical man and looking for partners in getting the job done. The site of negative comments you certainly can understand it. The president aware of the statements, what he was up to, and these other elements that we have discussed. It certainly forms a reasonable basis on influential elements to the rate ukrainian establishment out to get the president. Again, i cannot speak for what they sought. Those elements that you have recited dont seem to me to be the ukrainian plan or plot to work against President Trump or anyone else. They are isolated incidents. We all know. People are critical. That does not mean that someone is, or a government is undermining under a campaign or interfering in an election. Our own u. S. Intelligence community has determined that those that interfered in the election where in russia. Turning our attention to the ambassador. He has been a friend and colleague for many years. Is that correct . He is a man of honor. I believe that to be true. And a brilliant diplomat. Yes. You have no reason to believe he would be undertaking any initiatives countered as u. S. Interests. I think that he tried to do what he thought was right. Turning our attention to the Trump Administrations policy of aid to ukraine, you have testified that during your tenure as ambassador, americas policy actually got stronger. To the ukrainian military, yes. That was really positive. Two things. The war with russia, all of a sudden accelerated in some way. Coming over the horizon. Javelins are very serious weapon to deal with that. That is number one. The United States is providing javelins to ukraine. That makes the adversaries think twice. Blocked during the Previous Administration. Is that correct . I think we made a determination. I was not a part of those discussions. Obviously, they had not made a determination on whether to provide that one. Wanting to provide to ukraine the new administration under President Trump, the ability to afford ukraine weaponry is a significant step forward. We thought that it was important. Well, it has. A symbol of our strong support for ukraine. This year, there are questions as to whether or systems will gh that kind of undermines that strong message of support. Ukraine still has the ability to acquire the javelin, is that correct . Are you now talking about purchasing. Yes. Yes, i do. It was paused for 55 days. July 18 july 18 to september 11. It ultimately went through, correct . My understanding. You are proud of the efforts of the United States during your tenure to supply this type of aid to ukraine. Are you still happy with the decisions . Are you talking about the javelin . The whole aid package do you think theyre giving Ukraine Ukraine enough money . That is a hard question. One can always use additional funding. I think the congress has been very generous. I recognize myself for five minutes. Follow up on some of the questions from my colleagues. Some of the earlier question seem to suggest that your testimony here was completely irrelevant. Isnt this just some small matter that shouldve been referred to hr . I wanted to bring the attention to someone that was very important. That is the president of the United States. Only one ambassador who was discussed in the july 25 call. At one point, the president brings up this prosecutor. It was shut down and its really unfair. I think you indicated earlier for the prosecutor, is that right. Immediately after it brings up a corrupt former prosecutor, only one, im sorry, only one American Ambassador brought to the call. Immediately after, bringing up, up this corrupt prosecutor that he praises, he then encourages to speak with giuliani. The guy who orchestrated this campaign against you. Correct. He then brings you up. He praises the corrupt prosecutor. I want you to talk to giuliani. The guy that smears you. He thought that you were relevant to this. Immediately after he brings you up and says the woman was bad news, he says, there is a lot to talk about about white and son. I then stopped prosecution. A lot of people want to find out about that. Praising this prosecutor. Making it right to biden. I would indicate to you, connecting this somehow with the prosecutor you are at odds with. Again, you are absolutely right. That is the thought progression. My colleagues also asked, in pushing you out of the way, ultimately, the ambassador got appointed. Is ambassador taylor the kind of person that would further the. A a remarkable public servant. Someone that was not a career diplomat. A substantial donor. Putting it to place with someone of no diplomatic experience at all. That person be willing to work with Rudy Giuliani in pursuit of the investigations. May be. That is exactly what happened, isnt it . My colleagues also say, the security assistant ultimately went through. If they sought to condition or bribe ukraine into doing these investigations, they ultimately paid money. Are you aware that the Security Systems were not released untilt made the way to the white house. Yes, i am aware of that. Are you aware was a not announce until congress was doing an investigation . Yes. I am aware aware of that finally, i want to ask you about the call record. I am curious about this. People watching at home so they are not confused. There is a congratulatory call. My Ranking Member read it this morning. A very problematic call in july. One of the reasons we are here is what happened between april and july. There was a read out put by the white house at the time the april congratulatory call was made. The white house readout said that the president discussed helping ukraine root out corruption. That in fact does not appear anywhere in that call. I want to ask you, ambassador, why would why would the white house put out an inaccurate reading. Presenting that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about corruption. I cannot answer that question thank you. Recognizing the Ranking Member. They are actually three calls. The two calls with President Trump in the one you reiterated in our last hearing a couple weeks ago. I just want to clarify before i yield. Not the president s prerogative to appoint whoever he wants in any country. First of all, i am not against political ambassador. I need your position. The 4 i was interrupted, i wanted to thank you for your 30 years of public service. To moscow to london. I also wanted to thank you for hosting the numerous bipartisan delegation i led one of those in ukraine. My question will focus on three key themes. The first is a role on the president when it comes to appointing our ambassadors. The second is longstanding corruption and the third is a two ukraine. We heard from george cant. I know that mr. Kent is a colleague of france and someone who you deeply respect. In his testimony he stated all ambassadors served the pleasure of the president. You would agree with that statement, correct. He elaborated and went on to emphasize that this is without question everybody understands that. In your own deposition under oath you stated that although i understand, everyone understands that i serve at the pleasure of the president. Is that correct . You are still an employee of the staTe Department. Correct . In the definition you would say you personally asked whether it would be possible to be a fellow at Georgetown University. That was arranged for me and im very grateful. That is where you are posted today. Correct . Georgetown students are lucky to have you. We are lucky to have you. I want to thank you for your terrific public service. In your powerful deposition you described we have long understood that strong anticorruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in ukraine. Now there is a window of opportunity to do that. Why is this important and why is this important to do to us. Serving ukraines interest but also ours as well. Is that still your testimony . At the critical time in 2014 after the ukraine election, you testified that the ukrainian people had made clear in that very election that they were done with corruption. You testified that the ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special Investigative Office that would be all about the crimes of corruption. Correct . I know this is before you arrived in ukraine, but you are aware that the first case that investigators worked on was in fact against the owner of verismo. Yes. And that was during the Obama Administration. Yes. You said today the investigation was never formally closed because keeping that company hanging on a hook. The ukrainian investigation. As i understand it. We did not see them moving forward on that. We no longer partner with them on that case. Lets take a first step. The first time you personally became aware was when you were being prepared by the obama staTe Department for your Senate Confirmation hearing. This was in the form of practice questions and answers. This is your deposition. In this particular practice q a with the department, it was not just generally, it was specifically about hunter biden and perez mott. Is that correct . The exact quote was the way the question was phrased was what can you tell us about hunter biden, you know, being named to the board. For the millions of americans watching, the staTe Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest that they rated themselves while prepping the wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation. Our democratic colleagues and the chairman at this committee cried foul when we dare ask that same question that the obama staTe Department was so concerned about. We will continue asking it. Lastly in my 20 seconds left, i just want to get it on record. It would not provide by president obama. It was provided by President Trump. I yield back five seconds. You are recognized. Ambassador, thank you for your testimony today. Supposed to be dispassionate and judicial and measured. I am angry. Ive been angry since i learned about your summary and unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent and faithful service to this country. Im angry that a woman to family led communism and nazism to serve this country beautifully for 33 years. Literally under fire. I am angry that a woman like you would not be just dismissed, but humiliated humiliated and attacked by the president of the United States. I am not just angry for you, im angry for every single Foreign Service officer. Every single Intelligence Officer who, right now, believe that a lifetime of service and sacrifice and excellence might be ignored by the president of the United States or worse yet. Attacked. Language that would embarrass a mob boss. It is the president s defense and it is emerging for my republicans colleagues today. But this this is all okay. As a president so put it in his tweet this morning, a u. S. President s absolute right to appoint ambassadors. I am a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right. That does not feel to me like the system of government that we have here. How and why we exercise our powers and rights matters. You have the right to ask the Intelligence Committee and an embassy. What operations they are doing. We talk about these collaboratively. In short, yes. You have the right to ask the Intelligence Committee what they are doing. Why might they they do that . Because sometimes operations have political consequences. The performance of your duties, in the interest of the United States gives the right to ask very sensitive questions of our Intelligence Community in your embassy. Instead of working through the issues that you just described, you went to dinner that night and handed over the information to a russian agent for 10,000. With that be an appropriate exercise of your right . No, it would not. I cannot even begin to imagine. I would imagine i would be pulled out of post. This is is not about ambassadors. A Police Officer has a right to pull you over. A Police Officer pulls over his exwife because hes angry, that probably is not right. If i cast those votes not in the interest of my constituents, but because somebody bribed me, that is a severe abuse of my power. When it you agree . Yes. Why, after an Exemplary Performance as ambassador to ukraine did the president decide that you should be removed. I think we disagreed if that was not done in the national interest, that is a problem. Ambassador, if you had remained ambassador to ukraine, would you have recommended to the president of the United States that he ask the new ukrainian president to investigate, and i am quoting from the transcript here, crowd strike or the server . I would repeat once again that the u. S. Intelligence community has concluded it was the russians. Ambassador, if you had remained as ambassador and not been dismissed, would you have supported a threemonth delay in congressionally mandated military aid to ukraine . No. If you had remained, would you have recommended to the president that he ask a new president of ukraine to find out about bidens son . I have no questions. I yield back. Entering into the record. Speaker pelosi dated September September 23. We also expect that he will establish a path to speak directly to the house and Senate Intelligence as required by law. Thank you. I look forward to you honoring that statement from the speaker. I want to thank you so very much for a long Exemplary Service to our country and on behalf of our nation. A lot was said about what was going on around the phone call. What is going on. When you got the word, any time and ambassador changes, there is a process that you go through on what you will do next. Can you give us a quick statement on what happened when you came back here as to what your next assignment would be . When i came back, obviously, it was out of cycle. There was nothing set up. Again, i am grateful that sullivan asked me what i would like to do next. The call that there was a fellowship at georgetown and asked whether that was something that could be arranged. Was that your only choice . Im not sure. Georgetown is Fertile Ground for staTe Department recruitment they now benefit from your experience and your inspiration. Having to spend their professional life in service to our nation. You teach classes. How many classes . This semester i was supposed to teach too. I am still teaching one on National Security. The other one was on ukraine and i asked whether i could. How many students in your class . Approximately. I think 14, 15. Any other responsibility other than fellowship at georgetown . Well, i will tell you that all of this has got me very busy okay. I get that. No daytoday things that you would be responsible for. Other than not qualifying for overseas stipends, has your compensation been affected . No. Im wondering about the way you may be treated by your fellow employees of state. Any negative, less high regard than they used to . Do they shun you at the lunch counter . Do they treat you badly as a result you are treated by the president . I have received an outpouring of support. Still respect you and appear to hold you in high regard. I do. He made some exemplary statements about you. All of us would like to be the recipient of something that worthy. Any reason on earth that you can think of that george cant would be because of other than the fact he believes it in his heart of hearts. Like what . No. Absolutely not. I am glad. I would have expected nothing any different to continue to treat you with the high regard that you have earned. Overall of these years of great service. Georgetown fellowship. As successful there as you have been in the first 33 years. Ive a unanimous consent request. An article entitled whistleblower expected to testify soon. Wall street street journal september 29, 2019 be put into the record. An article entitled whistleblower reaches agreement to testify will appear very soon usa today september 29, 2019. A unanimous consent request. Confirming tentative agreement. Cnn september 29, 2019. I have unanimous consent request. Whistleblowers testimony. Washington post 2019. Without objection. A request, an article entitled whistleblower agrees to testify before health Intelligence Committee committee reported by schiff. Without objection. Article entitled hearing from whistleblower. Arkansas democrat 2019. Without objection. The time of the gentleman has expired. I now recognize. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, and your prior testimony you spoke so movingly about your family background. You stated that your parents lead communists and nazi regimes and that they valued freedom and the markers he offered in america. Having experience to the regime. Did not have any effect on your desire to enter into the United States Foreign Service . Yes, it did. Did you always know you wanted to be in the Foreign Service . It is perfectly suited for what you are doing. I note note that you studied at the state Russian Language Institute in russia to learn russian. Do you also have an ms from the National Defense university, National War College . Yes. I even noticed that you earned, your undergraduate degree in history and russian studies, in college and coincidently, that was also my college, you definitely are doing the Nations Service by what you do every day. I really want to know how it felt to have your reputation, not for state and nation, but for personal gains. You spoke about how your services not just your own personal service. It affects your family. Today we have seen you as this former ambassador of this 33 year veteran of the Foreign Service. I want to know about you personally and how this has affected you personally and your family. It has been a difficult time. I am a private private person. I dont want to put all of that out there. Its been a very difficult time. The president does have the right to have his own, her own ambassador in every country in the world. Does the president actually have a light i may not be against any law, but i would would think it would be against decorum and decency. A question as to why the kind of campaign to get me out of ukraine happened. Because all the the president has to do is say he wants a different ambassador. In my line of work, perhaps your line of work as well, all we have is our reputation. This is been a is been a very painful. How has it affected your family . I really do not want to get into that, but thank you for asking. Because i do care. I also want to know how you think it affected your fellow colleagues in the Foreign Service. My republican colleagues have said that since you receive such adulation from your own fellow colleagues that what occurred, the incident that occurred with the president and his cronies, you know, has that had a Chilling Effect on the ability and the morale within the Foreign Service . Can you speak to that . I think that it has had exactly that. A Chilling Effect. Throughout throughout the department. Because people do not know, kind of whether their efforts to pursue the policy going to be supported. That is a dangerous place to be. For the record, my republican colleagues would probably try to paint you as a never trump her. An oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States without regard for who is in office. Is that correct . In your 33 years for republican president s. You joined the Foreign Service under ranking. Is that right . Really important that they are nonpartisan. Talk about why its important to do your job and your Service Officers to do your job that are nonpartisan. Our work is essentially nonpartisan. The republican senator who partnered with president truman coined a phrase that politics should stop at the waters edge. I think that that is exactly right. While the competition with different parties, different individuals individuals is hugely important, but at the end of the day, when we are dealing with other countries, it needs to be about what is right with the United States. Whether an individual works for the cia, the military or the staTe Department. Weve got a be nonpartisan. What is right for the United States. I want to say thank you for your service. I yield back my time. I worked with the president. I know you have little access directly to decisionmakers. You have a great deal of responsibility. It is a complex ask. Being corrupt to the other issues that you had to deal with you had to deal with more than just our bilateral relationship with ukraine. I know that you know these. These were on on your portfolio. Dealing with the budapest agreement and denuclearization of ukraine and the issues of integrity. Correct . The cooperation for europe. Giving up the Nuclear Weapons and believed they had territorial integrity guaranteed by russia. An issue you would have to deal with the ukrainians on. Yes. Asking about our policy. Excellent. Nato. The u. S. And the nato allies getting memberships. They would have been discussing with you. Aspirations to nato memberships. The u. S. Supports ukraine joining the uae and have a great deal of interest and desire for joining the eu. Correct . Yes. They just had a summit in july where they talked about the agreement on economic integration. They also had a discussion about illegal annexation of crimea and the blocking by russia of the sailors that came out of the sea and were captured. Those would have all been issued, but in but in your we look look closely with our partners. All of which have different ideas. The ambassadors to ukraine, france and germany. They all have different ideas the eu, they would they would have another portfolio inspiring nations to the eu. Would they not . Yes. Ukraine and his portfolio because they are an inspiring nation. Correct . I think you testified. You agree that its within his portfolio. Correct . You would agree. Would you not . Yes. I would agree thank you. A great deal. I would say that all ambassadors deal with other countries including aspiring countries. Unusual to name u. S. Ambassador to the eu to be responsible for all aspects of ukraine. I will take your answer. Its still in his portfolio which was my question. A man of great integrity. One of our our most successful ambassadors. You would agree hes a man of great reputation. Right . Yes. Would it surprise you if an would it surprise you if an 2004 john kerry had a member of his campaign who was a Foreign Policy advisor, traveling to ukraine in july and met with ukrainian officials and the Ukraine Ambassador. With that surprise you . A member of john kerrys campaign for president of the United States in 2004 travel to traveled to ukraine and met with the u. S. Ambassador in july. Not necessarily. Would you take that meeting . If a member of john kerrys campaign traveled to the ukraine, would you have taken that meeting . I guess it would depend on what the purpose of the meeting was. That meeting actually occurred. It was with john holbrook. John holbrook was a private citizen, traveled to ukraine, met with ukrainian officials. He was also there about hivaids which in addition was something the Clinton Foundation was working on. An official of the campaign in 2004, a private citizen meeting with our ambassador in ukraine. We meet with private individuals all the time. The time has expired. Mr. Carson, you are recognized. Thank you. Madalyn lassiter, returning ambassador, turning to the topic of corruption. We heard evidence that you are successful at promoting efforts of corruption. Testifying about your career as a champion in ukraine, Deputy Assistant secretary said you cannot promote principal anticorruption action without passing off corrupt people. It seems that your effort as ambassador to essentially reform the office in ukraine is exactly that. Ambassador, what concerned you about the Prosecutor Generals Office when you were the in ukraine . What concerned us was there did did not deceive be any any progress in the three overall project objectives to the people and the international community. The first thing was reform the Prosecutor Generals Office. It is a tremendously powerful office where they had authority not only to conduct investigations through an fbi function but do the actual prosecution, so very, very wide powers which is part of the soviet legacy, and there wasnt a lot of progress and there wasnt a lot of progress in andling personnel issues how the structure should be organized and who should have the important jobs, because some of the people in those jobs were were considered to be corrupt, themselves. Secondly, the issue that was important to the ukrainian people of bringing justice to the over 100 people who died during the revolution of dignity in 2014. Heldy has been accountable for that and that has been an open wound for the ukrainian people. Needs all thene money that it has, and there is a strong belief that former president the former president and those around him made off with over 40 billion. Thats a lot in the u. S. It is a huge amount of money in nobody o again, none of that money has i think you may be 1 billion was repatriated, but the rest is still missing. Senator was the head of that office corrupt . Ambassador yovanovitch we believe so. Senator you got the sense that he was a driving force against some of these attacks against you . Ambassador yovanovitch i do. Senator which ultimately led to your removal, correct . Ambassador yovanovitch yes. Senator it wasnt just him, allegations were spread by donald trump, jr. And Rudy Giuliani, correct . Ambassador yovanovitch yes. Senator let me get this straight. You are effective effective at fighting corruption in ukraine. Fighting that corruption was important to the National Security of the United States. You were punished for that. Ultimately being removed from your post by the president of the United States. So in your opinion, maddam ambassador, why is it important to have a nonpartisan career in the Foreign Services . Ambassador yovanovitch i think it is important to have a nonpartisan partisan service because what we do is inherently nonpartisan. It is about our National Security interest. It is not about what is good for a particular party at at a particular time. It has to be about the greater interest of our security. In frankly, what is an increasingly dangerous world. Could you briefly describe for us what brought u. S. Policies you have saw to advance in your 33 years of service and specifically in postsoviet states like ukraine . Ambassador yovanovitch that is a broad question, but certainly in my time in russia, armenia, all of these countries are very different, as is ukraine. I think that establishing positive constructive relations to the extent that we can with those countries is really important. There are three basic areas. One is security, one is economic, and one is political. Working all those issues, your colleague mentioned many of them, we certainly did that in ukraine as well. Senator thank you for your service. I yield to the chair. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you for being here. I just want to start by saying i appreciate your years of doing years of service and moving around the world, the dangerous places, hearing from you today i realize we share some of the same feelings and experiences. As an army reserve surgeon, i received a call in march of 2005 that told me i was being deployed to iraq and i had to be out the door in the next two to three days. Scheduled for months, surgery scheduled, so i understand that shocking feeling that can come with abrupt change like that and i was processing a few days later and i was told my orders would say you are going for 18 months, but it may be a little shorter than that. Iraq,ed a year in 20052006, one of the bloodiest years of the war and i have a personal relationship with what you were talking about. I saw people in a corrupt government. It helped remove saddam hussein, they still have corruption concerns in iraq and i can relate to what you said a few moments ago, that it feels like an unopened wound when it hasnt been resolved. You might imagine with that military service in background, i take interest in strategy and the thoughts with those of those with boots on the ground like you and mr. Taylor. In your deposition on page 144, you say in terms of legal assistance, we felt this lethal assistance, this Administration Made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. Who in general makes up we all . Is that the team i mentioned . Ambassador yovanovitch what line is that . Senator i have to move on. Ambassador yovanovitch you said we all felt that it was very significant that this Administration Made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. I assume you meant those with boots on the ground. This administration, i assume you meant the Trump Administration. Ambassador yovanovitch yes. Senator in your deposition, also on page 144, you spoke about the generosity of congress. You mentioned it today. Part of your deposition, after that statement that i quoted before, did you advocate for that . You responded you responded yes. Then you were asked, did you advocate for that prior to the administration of 2016 . You responded well, yeah. On page on page 148, the question was were you satisfied that the administration was doing what was necessary to support ukraine . You said in what respect. Helping them with foreign assistance, deterring russian aggression come you said yes. I agree. I thank you for that and i think mr. Volkcker, and mr. Taylor. The acting ambassador taylor was here wednesday. He testified about the president s decision to withhold lethal aid. He said the president felt it might provoke russia. Mr. Taylor said russia had already been provoked and hand had invaded ukraine. President obama had the right to make his own Foreign Policy and make his own decisions as president of the United States. Correct . Ambassador yovanovitch there is an interagency process but senator i respect the interagency process and im he has thethat, but right, as do all president s . Ambassador yovanovitch yes. Senator so we had one president , obama, who denied lethal aid whatsoever despite boots on the ground recommending, making the recommendation, such as you did, we have another president , trump, who vetted those who would receive the aid and provided, consistent with your interagency recommendations and that of your colleagues. Let me ask from a military agree the, would you russians had a much greater military offensive options and flexibility in their effort to attack ukraine, without the ukraine having ambassador yovanovitch yes, they had another option, although the tank war is no longer the war being fought in ukraine. There is a reason for that. The javelins are there. To make that point, that the president has the right to have their own Foreign Policy and to make their own decisions and i yield back. Ambassador yovanovitch if i could supplement one of my answers . I want to thank you for your but what i well would like to say, while i obviously dont dispute that the tosident has the right withdraw and a master at anytime any reason, but i do wonder why it was necessary to smear my reputation. Senator i was not asking about that, but thank thank you very much, maam. Thank you, mr. Chairman. He said that in summer of 2018, the Smear Campaign began. In your testimony earlier today. Did secretary pompeo at any time come to your aid . Ambassador yovanovitch well, my understanding from the secretary and deputy secretary sullivan is that, you know, this sort of rumor about me, for lack of a better word, the Smear Campaign that was behind closed doors at that point. That there were a number of discussions between the president and secretary pompeo. That he actually did keep me in place for as long as he could. Thats what i was told. Senator so it appears that back in 2018, the president was already making noises that he wanted you out of there. It appears as early as april april 2018 that there was a fundraiser for the president and recommended that you be removed. Subsequently in may of 2018 was pictured at a white house dinner over 325,000,ent. Illegally, to the president s reelection campaign. Are you aware of that . Ms. Yovanovitch i am aware. Rep. Speier does that help you whyrstand a little bit more the Smear Campaign was underway. . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Speier you made some riveting comments and your statement this morning that i want to repeat. You said i always understood that i served at the pleasure of the president. I still find it difficult to understand that foreign and private interests were able to undermine u. S. Interests in this way, individuals who apparently tot stymied by our efforts promote u. S. Policy against corruption, that is, do our mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. Listened to you make that statement, i was thinking of all the other persons in the Foreign Service who now have to be concerned that it is not good to follow the stated u. S. Foreign policy but also to be aware that maybe the president has a back channel that he is proposing that he is. Iametrically opposed ms. Yovanovitch well, i think it is important that whoever is representing the president , and ambassador, speaks with the full authority of the president and and if therement, are others who were also helping with the responsibilities in that country, for example, Ambassador Kurt Volker with that that we all speak with authority, and it is not about personal interest, not about commercial gain or personal gain or anything else, that it is about our National Security. Rep. Speier but in this case, s seemed to be more interested in getting a campaign than an anticorruption effort in ukraine, is that correct . Ms. Yovanovitch that appears to be the case. You were told at one point in 2019, february earlier this year, use of to a minister in ukraine that when it came to Rudy Giuliani, you eeded to, watch your back. What did you understand him to me and . Ms. Yovanovitch to me and . An . Know,vanovitch i did not but i was understanding that the mayor was working to have me removed. Rep. Speier you have endured an orchestrated character thatssinatio, it was has to year and a half ago and it is plagued with enormous Campaign Contributions to the president campaigns, and you deserve more from the American People and more from the congress in supporting you. Rep. Stuart i have unanimous consent. Rep. Schiff we will pick that up later, mr. Stuart. You are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and others. Thank you, ambassador, for being here today. Of the to year four impeachment proceedings. Im sorry you have gotten dragged into this. Frankly unbelievable accusations regarding russian collusion, accusations we know now are absolute nonsense, where there is no basis at all, does it promises from some members of this committee that they have secret proof that would prove this illusion. Four, wen year apparently move on to ukraine , will thero quo president bnd removed from office for bribery . Be removed from office for bribery . And now with that statement, i would like to ask you, do you have any information regarding the president of the united bribes . Ccepting any ms. Yovanovitch no. Have any information regarding criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all . Ms. Yovanovitch no. Thank you. Thank you for answering that directly. Know this ispeople nonsense to the American People know this is unfair, and i have a prediction regarding this. That public support for impeachment is going to be less than when this began, because finally the American People are going to be able to see the evidence, and they will be able to make their own determinations regarding that. I want to ask you one thing very quickly, and you have been asked this again and again, but my question is slightly different. Asked, does the president have any president , have the ability to ask his investors to serve that will . I am curious, do . You think that is the right policy . I. Yovanovitch yeah, probably think it is. Yeah, i do as well. It may be imperfect, there may be times where it is not used perfectly, but it is the right policy. I do not think we should change that. I mentioned from previous statements, including your own, regarding corruption in the corruption in ukraine as well as russia and other countries, is not as a privateer was at your general understanding that burisma was a company that suffered from corruption, and your answer was yes. Ondland,assador san i am just aware that burisma is a corrupt company. Do you think it is right to investigate corruption . Ms. Yovanovitch i think it is appropriate, if it is part of our national strategy. What i would say is that we have a process for doing that. It is called the mutual assistance treaty. We have one with ukraine. Generally it is from our ambassador department of justice. The usual path. And i appreciate that regardless of the process, though, it is appropriate to investigate potential corruption. We are about to give these countries hundreds of millions of dollars. Thisead and give it to the other country, but only if you know it will not be for corrupt practices or against our interests. Earlier whenned the Vice President went to ukraine and called the specific firing of a specific prosecutor, he was, as they say, completing official u. S. Policy, but the interesting thing is this the Vice President had exactly two countries that were his responsibility at that time china and ukraine, and he has braga been very proud of his influence in the Previous Administration. He has said again and again that the Obama Administration listened to him, so it does not surprise me that he would be filling a policy that his vice sident certainly helped mr. Jordan. Rep. Jordan in cyprus. I ask for unanimous consent. Consent, mr. Nimous chairman, that does not advise you. Rep. Schiff the time of the gentleman has expired. I may recognize you later. The gentlemans time has expired. I would like to have unanimous rep. Schiff you would be recognized. Thank you. Or, like thed hallmark movie, you ended up at georgetown. This is all ok. [laughter] but it was not your preference, 7, 8 months ago, correct . Ms. Yovanovitch no, it was not. It was not your preference to the target of a smear . Mpaign, was it ms. Yovanovitch no. It was not your preference to be ousted at seemingly the pinnacle of your career, was it . Ms. Yovanovitch no. You wanted to finish your career . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. What did you want to do after that . Ms. Yovanovitch i was not sure. There is nothing fine with georgetown. It is a fine place. Ms. Yovanovitch it is a wonderful place. But it is not the end of a hallmark movie. It is the end of a really bad reality tv show, brought to you by someone who knows a lot about that. [laughter] you previously testified that you sought advice from ambassador sondland at this time about what to do, is that correct . Ms. Yovanovitch i did. Thehy did you reach out to ambassador . Ms. Yovanovitch because this was clearly so political and was not going to be, you know, the staTe Department was not in the position, shall we say, to manage the issue, it did not appear to me, and so i asked ambassador sondland, who said was ae, you know, political appointee, he said he was close to the president , so he had just been in ukraine for a ship visit with some of his eu colleagues from brussels, so i reached out to him for advice, when this was no longer a you carin ukraine an interview wh lutsenko, kind of american politicians and pundits, etc. , were repeating those allegations, i asked him for advice. This is an extraordinary time. The advice meant a lot. What was his advice . Ms. Yovanovitch 12, he suggested that i needed to go big or go home, and he said that the best thing to do would be to, you know, send out a tweet, praise the president , that sort of thing. And what was your reaction to that advice . Ms. Yovanovitch well, my i am sureas that, um, he meant well, but it was not advise that i could really follow. Feltlt partisan, it political, and that was not something that i thought was in keeping with my role as ambassador and a Foreign Service officer. Did he give you any specific suggestions on what to say about the president of the United States, or just Say Something nice about him . Ms. Yovanovitch just praise him. Thank you. I yield my balance to the chairman. Rep. Schiff i want to harken back to something you were asked earlier. You were asked a couple of questions do you think you could have done more to push back against this Smear Campaign . I am not suggesting this is what the counsel was getting at, but sometimes victims are asked, arent you responsible for your own victimization . What would you say to people who kind of your fault, ambassador, that you did not fight your own smear harder . Ms. Yovanovitch well, i think that, you know, i have been a Foreign Service officer for a long time, and just like the military, we have our own culture, we have our own kind of chain of command, so to speak, and i did everything that i to, uh, um, you know, to address these issues and ask the staTe Department to do what i felt was the right thing, which was support me when it was important to do so, because it was also about supporting the policy. I think it was for others to stand up for me. Rep. Schiff i quite agree. Representative stifstefanik. Rep. Stefanik thank you. Since the chairman has gaveled out all of my colleagues today, im going to read to you the chairmans comments of the importance of hearing the whistleblower. Again, ambassador, thank you for the time, but i will use time for this. From the wall street journal, the whistleblower will testify on the house very soon, this is a quote by the chairman. 29, today, September Schiff said the whistleblower will testify very soon, and the only thing standing in the way is for the attorneys of the whistleblowers of they can attend the testimony. From fox, september 29, rep. Adam schiff, at the center of the growing scandal surrounding donald trump, says the whistleblower was testify very soon. Schiff said on abc as well as that meet the press the whistleblower will testify very soon. Schiff echoes the loseys pe losis message. Also said the was a blower will testify soon pending a security clearance. In the huffington post, schiff said he expects the whistleblower to appear very soon. We willew york post, get the testimony from the whistleblower. These are all quotes from chairman adam schiff. Points memo actually, this is by George Stephanopoulos have you reached an agreement with the whistleblower to provide information firsthand . Yes, we have, schiff responded, that whistleblower will be allowed to come in, without reminder from the white house what they can i cannot say. We will get the unfiltered testimony from the whistleblower. Hear from theto whistleblower when that is done, and we will keep riding shotgun to make sure the acting director does not delay. , we will get the testimony of the whistleblower. , therket watch whistleblower will testify before the committee very soon. I could keep going, but once chairman refuses to allow the whistleblower to justify, so i read those out, and it is important to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and firing, but the fact that we are getting criticized by chairman adam schiff for statements he made himself early on in this process shows the duplicity and just the abuse of power that we are continuing to see. With 1 54, i will yield to my colleague, mr. Jordan. Rep. Jordan i think the for yielding, and the chairman has promised we would get a transcript. Provided wey they are not able to use in these open hearings. It is an open hearing from all of the available testimony from depositions that has been taken by the committee should be available to be discussed for the American People to see, but hale, mr. Morrison, mr. Miss williams, and another one have not been released. I hope the chairman release of that. One other point i will make in the last minute of ms. Stuff on stefaniks time, this whole thing with some sinister scheme by the white house to get mr. Zelensky, president zelensky to do something. If this was a scheme by trump, pompeo, and giuliani to get zelensky to do an investigation, why would they replaced her with the democrats first witness, the star witness, bill taylor . If that is the plane, it is not the best plan i have ever seen put together. Their star witness, their first witness, mr. Taylor, is here wednesday, that is what they were up to . I think i can just demonstrated that is not what went on here. Mr. Zelensky never undertook any investigation, and the recently eight was released, as we discussed on wednesday, is because Vice President pence, vic ambassador bolton, decided zelensky was the real deal, as the lasseter alluded to in her testimony. And i yield back. Rep. Schiff mr. Swalwell. Swalwell mr. Chairman, a lot of things have changed. First, most of what the whistleblower alleged has been corroborated by the witnesses we have heard from. Second, the person my colleagues so shamelessly defends continued to threaten, pressure the whistleblower, so i would like to put into the record a september 20 6, 2019 article from dismiss insider, trump suggests the whistleblower is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death. Rep. Schiff without objection. Rep. Swalwell how about vanity fair, trump suggests executing the whistleblower, in the good old days. Rep. Schiff without objection. Mr. Chairman, the whistleblower has an absolute right for anonymity. The whistleblowers sec. Villalobos lawyer says he fears for his safety and will only answer questions in writing. We here, ms. Yovanovitch, are here to talk about you and what you witnessed, and you saw a lot as it related to mr. Giuliani, and i want to read a quote to you from mr. Giuliani buffers ask you, when you were thatraine, you understood Rudy Giuliani was Donald Trumps personal lawyer, is that right . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Swalwell are you familiar with Rudy Giulianis quote in the new york times, describing himself as a lawyer, he basically knows what i am doing, sure, as his lawyer. Were you familiar with that quote . Ms. Yovanovitch it sounds familiar. Rep. Swalwell and you have a lawyer with the today, ms. Yovanovitch. Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Swalwell and you understand the lawyers act on their clients behalf, is that right . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Swalwell that it would be improper for a lawyer to go outside of a directive that the client gives. Ms. Yovanovitch that is my understanding. Rep. Speier are you familiar with a story on may 9, 2019 where you Rudy Giuliani says he intends to visit ukraine and says we are not meddling in an election, we are meddling in an investigation. Are you familiar with that quote . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Swalwell that if 11 days before you were removed as ambassador. Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Swalwell he is talking about designs on coming to ukraine. But i what i think is interesting is mr. Giuliani says were, as an we are, he does not say i am not meddling in an investigation, he says we. He is speaking for himself and his client. And i want to talk about that quote, we are not meddling in an investigation, we are meddling in an investigation, is it proper to meddle in an investigation . Ms. Yovanovitch no, i dont believe so. Rep. Swalwell why not . Ms. Yovanovitch well, there are Law Enforcement channels, and things need to be handled properly and without any kind of political bias. Rep. Swalwell now, this anticorruption crusader, President Trump, who my colleagues have touted out as having such a great interest in anticorruption, and both calls that have been elected today, th is and it true that President Trump never mentions the word corruption . Ms. Yovanovitch yes, that is true. Rep. Swalwell well, he cannot be guilty. He did not complete the cheat. The aides wen went to the ukrainians. Isnt it true they only time the aid went to the ukrainians was after the whistleblower complaint became public . Ms. Yovanovitch yes, it was after the whistleblower complaint became public. Rep. Swalwell so you dont really get points when you get your hands caught in the cookie jar and someone says hey, he has that his hand in the cookie jar, and then you take your hand out, which is essentially what my republican colleagues and the president are trying to take credit for. Finally, i want to put up the disgusting tweet from the president today, where he attacks your character, but i think i know you are, ambassador. I think the country knows it you are. He smeared you when you were in ukraine. He smeared you on a phone call with president zielinski on july 25. He is smearing you right now when you are testifying. Ambassador johannes, are the president s smear ambassador ivanka of it, Party President yovanovitch, are the smears going to stop you . Ms. Yovanovitch i will continue with your work. Rep. Swalwell my work. Rep. Swalwell thank you. I yield back. Rep. Schiff murr. Hurd. [microphone feedback] rep. Hurd i will move over here. Years, six senior Service Awards, five staTe Department superior honor awards, president ial distinguished Service Award, and the secretary diplomacy and human rights award. You are tough as nails, and you are smart as hell, and you are a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. You are an honor to your family, you are an honor to the Foreign Service, you are an honor to this country, and i thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country. Ms. Yovanovitch thank you. Rep. Hurd i am nervous about what i am about to do. I want to do a fiveyear history of ukraine in about 4 45 seconds, and profess, you can grade my paper. Valentines day, ukrainians get fed up with president Viktor Yanukovych and basically overthrow him, he goes on the run, this is the revolution of dignity. Who was the acting president of yanukovychwhen unicod went off . Ms. Yovanovitch i think it was turchynov. Rep. Hurd thank you. Little green men come in and ultimately as the russians invade ukraine and not only try to annexed crimea, but they invade the entire country in eastern donbass as well. Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Hurd then there was an election with ukrainian president poroshenko. Then you came in to post in 2016 of august, is that correct . Ms. Yovanovitch years later. Rep. Hurd january 2016, trump is elected, and in december of 2017 is when the jobless were approved, right, and we saw those javelins delivered in april 2018 to be put to use. Then we had zelensky elected in 2019, april, correct . Defeated the previous president , poroshenko. Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Hurd there is no love lost between those two dudes, is there . Ms. Yovanovitch i dont think so. Rep. Hurd may of 2019, zelensky is sworn in. Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Hurd so my question, we talk a lot about Rudy Giuliani. Do we know what officials within the zelensky regime he actually met with . I know two. A gentleman named by your yurimac, who is one of zelensky , and then avisers general who we know is corrupt, lutsenko. Servants of august, and their parliament basically voted him out, is that correct . Ms. Yovanovitch yes, that is correct. Rep. Hurd so it Rudy Giuliani is trying to influence the zelensky regime with a guy that worked under the previous regime, under poroshenko, is he the guy to do it . Ms. Yovanovitch so are you saying mr. Lutsenko . Rep. Hurd yes. Did mr. Lutsenko have much credibility within the zelensky regime, the current regime . Ms. Yovanovitch i dont think so. Rep. Hurd do you know of any other ukrainians that mr. Giuliani was meeting with that was part of the zelensky regime . Well, just toh remind, i would have already left ukraine by then. Rep. Hurd even with the administration to come, right, zelensky won the election, there was a twomonth period of preparing to be installed as president , even during that time, were you aware of any ms. Yovanovitch i was so thee is an one of oligarchs, as we have heard umant, he met with mr. Fr and mr. Parnas. Rep. Hurd they were not in the zelensky regime, right . Ms. Yovanovitch no. Rep. Hurd thank you, mr. Chairman, and i yield back. Thank you for being here today. The big question is why you were pushed aside. For example, americans know that employers have the right to fire employees, but they should not do it for certain reasons. You should not be fired because you are disabled, because you are a woman, because youre most and i think americans agree that a president ial not recall an ambassador because the investor is standing in his way of doing a corrupt act. So i want to ask you to the president ever tell you why he was recalling you . Ms. Yovanovitch no. Did anyone at the white house ever tell you why you were being recalled . Ms. Yovanovitch no. Did the president ever consult your about who the bad guys and good guys were in ukraine . Ms. Yovanovitch no. Did secretary pompeo ever why you are being recalled . Ms. Yovanovitch no. In the testimony we have heard so far, that a group of the president s men, perhaps secretary perry, Rudy Giuliani, and ambassador sondland, were on this scheme to help the president get the bidens and burisma investigated. And i want to put aside President Trump for just a second and ask you, and all of your years of service, had you ever come across a president , been asked by a president , or known of colleagues who were asked by an american president to help that president get an american investigated overseas . Ms. Yovanovitch i am not aware of that. It is a president asked you to investigate a former Vice President for this purpose, what would you have said . Mean withch i what i know today, i would have said no. And would you have considered an unlawful act . Ms. Yovanovitch i dont know that it is unlawful, per se, but i think, again, that there are channels for conducting proper investigations, and that that would have been the best way to handle Something Like this. But certainly it is bizarre for a president to ask that some americans be investigated by another government. Ms. Yovanovitch it is very unusual. Also, you mentioned that there is corruption in ukraine. Ukraine is not the only country that conference corruption. A country where corruption is rampant are being asked by a foreign leader, who has got a lot of leverage over there, to conduct an investigation, could that be dangerous, because they could trump up charges against someone if they wanted . Ms. Yovanovitch they could. I also want to ask you, i spoke to ambassador kent. Made it, yesterday about selective prosecutions and what it means going forward, what kind of precedent it sets, and you spoke about a dangerous precedent for the staTe Department of the diplomats, but i want you to help us consider the president s going forward, if theres no consequences for President Trump or really any president who does this, what are the consequences for the country, and for any american, not just the former Vice President or president ial candidate or even somebody in politics, but a person and business who does business in saudi arabia or some other country, if a president is going to speak to another head of state or some for official and try to get that person investigated, what does that mean for the future of the country and for americans . Ms. Yovanovitch well, i think that, um, investigations, prosecutions, judicial decisions properly should remain with investigators, prosecutors, and the courts, and i think that, as i think senator annenberg, when he said politics need to stop at the waters edge, i think he was right in that. I yield back to the chairman. Rep. Schiff mr. Ratcliffe. an investor you have a lot of like to join both on both sidess of the aisle in thanking you for your service. I would like to ask you about your earlier testimony about confirmation, and tefanikswoman s andasked you about Burisma Hunter biden specifically, do you recall that . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Ratcliffe she mentioned you had been asked or prepared for a question about Hunter Bidens role on the board of believe you i dont gave us the answer or answers that the Obamabiden Administration gave you. Do you recall what those were . Ms. Yovanovitch it was something along the lines of i would do for you to the Vice President s office on that. Rep. Ratcliffe so did they, in the course of that, brief you about the amount of money that hunter biden was being paid by burisma . Ms. Yovanovitch no. This was not part of the briefing. I had big old books with questions that might come up. Rep. Ratcliffe right, in preparation for your confirmation, and a father Hunter Bidens role at burisma was significant enough that it might come up. Ms. Yovanovitch apparently so. There were hundreds of questions. Rep. Ratcliffe hundreds of questions, but were there hundreds of companies . How many companies, other than burisma, did the obamabiden staTe Department prepare you to give answers for . If so, if there were others, with once . Ms. Yovanovitch i just dont recall. Rep. Ratcliffe you dont recall that there were any other companies, is that correct . I am sure that there probably were other companies, but i dont recall. Rep. Ratcliffe but you specifically recall burisma . Ms. Yovanovitch right. Rep. Ratcliffe out of thousands of companies in the ukraine, the only one you recall the obamabiden staTe Department requiring you to answer questions about is the one where Hunter Bidens son was on the board, is that fair . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Ratcliffe you understood, from Deputy Assistant secretary george kens testimony, as has been related to you, you understand that arrangement, Hunter Bidens role caused himsma board, enough concern that as he testified in his statement, in february of 2015, i raised my concern that Hunter Bidens status as a board member could present a conflict of interest. Do you recall that . Ms. Yovanovitch no. Rep. Ratcliffe do you agree with that . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Ratcliffe that it was a legitimate concern to raise. Ms. Yovanovitch i think that it auld raise the appearance of conflict of interest. Rep. Ratcliffe did you discuss that with mr. Kent . Ms. Yovanovitch i dont believe so. Rep. Ratcliffe prosecutor general shulkin was fired by president poroshenko, correct . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Ratcliffe prosecutor ulkin is the one who opened the investigation into burisma is that correct . ,ms. Yovanovitch i think that is right, but i am not sure. Rep. Ratcliffe are you aware by the very Public Statement by the Vice President of that firing of the prosecutor general occurred in march of 2015, 6 hours after the Vice President told president or checo that he needed to fire the prosecutor general, or that he would not receive 1 billion by the United States, do you recall that . Ms. Yovanovitch yes. Rep. Ratcliffe and you think raises a potential conflict of interest of the Vice President of the United States of ardering the firing prosecutor general who was investigating something that was substantially corrupt . Ms. Yovanovitch i actually dont. The view that he was fighting corruption come i do not believe that have to do with the brief. Rep. Ratcliffe but the concern over Hunter Bidens role is legitimate, correct . Ms. Yovanovitch i think there is a concern about appearances. Rep. Ratcliffe i would like to renew my request, mr. Chairman, that Hunter Bidens testimony that has been requested rep. Schiff the time of the gentleman has expired. Rep. Ratcliffe requested by the republicans be considered legitimate rather than as a sham. I have unanimous consent request you are not recognized. Mr. Heck, you are. Ambassador, i would like to thank you very much, and frankly, you are the best of this nation, and i cannot think of anybody else i would rather have representing us in a foreign capital than you. My colleagues have gone to a great deal of effort to better understand the facts surrounding your removal. I think the facts are pretty clear. It was a Smear Campaign come orchestrated by a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor, the president s son, and even some of the president s allies that his favorite tv station. So that campaign led to your removal, despite 33 years of service come of, and awards, so i sit here with mixed emotions. On the one hand, there is pride and gratitude for all of your outstanding service, but on the other hand, i am angry, like my friend from connecticut. Angry aboutm very how it is that the most powerful person on the face of the earth would remove you from office after your Stellar Service and somehow feel compelled to characterize u. S. Bad news, and then to ominously threatened that you are going to go through some things, so i am angry, but i am not surprised. After all, as was suggested that thehe said whistleblower may have committed treason, punishable by death, even though the whistleblower follow the law by both the Inspector General and the acting dni. After all, he even the main the memory of senator mccain after he lied and his grave at the Naval Academy grounds, despite a lifetime of service and serving six years as a prisoner of war in hanoi, being beaten and tortured every day. And after all, he belittled the son,tar khan family, whose captain khan, gave his full measure of love and devotion for this country. And let me tell you, as someone whos older brother never saws birthday, 35th birthday, words matter. Your good character, your outstanding reputation have been a way that is devoid of common decency. But here is my message to you. Is nothing, ambassador yovanovitch, nothing he can say thing, that will in any way diminish the nature and quality of the service you have rendered to our great nation. Not a thing. And there is not a thing he can say or do that will diminish our for that to you service. And i thank you again for it. Ms. Yovanovitch thank you. Rep. Heck so as to the larger point, i would like you to answer, what does this mean to ukraine when the United States actually engages in the kind of behavior that we are attempting to discourage them from engaging end, namely a politicallymotivated prosecution . What does that mean to them and their efforts to become a robust democracy . What is the impact in ukraine for this behavior . Ms. Yovanovitch i think ukraine, like many countries, looks to us for our power of example, and i think that when m, engaged in questionable activity, that raises a and it emboldens those who were corrupt, who dont want to see ukraine become, you know, economyacy, free market part of europe, but want ukraine know,underyou , and that is not in our National Security interests. Rep. Heck thank you, ambassador yovanovitch. Thank you very much. Ms. Yovanovitch thank you. The schiff i understand council would like to take a short break. Lets take a fiveminute recess. Members of the audience would allow the witness to leave ahead of us, we will resume in a few minutes. We are at recess. [overlapping conversations] after the impeachment inquiry House Intelligence Committee chair representative adam schiff and several gop members, including representative jim jordan, spoke to reporters about the Ukrainian Ambassadors testimony. Rep. Schiff so i just wanted to share a few