Just want to share a few observations after the testimony today. I say we can all see when incredible Public Servant and we are so fortunate to have dedicate professionals she serving around the world and she served in some of most dangerous places. She has done so always with great distinction and great courage on fire sometimes quite literally. To thegrateful to her and other witnesses who have testified as well should the country when means to be a Public Servant. What it means to be a Career Foreign Service officer. We are enormous and proud of them. She had to endure yet another attack today even as she was testifying at to the president of the United States is just appalling. But as we have observed appalling in this administration is not surprising. Nonetheless, she endured the attack and went on and were grateful for that. But it is quite clear that from her testimony as well as others, that Rudy Giuliani in the present felt it was necessary to get her out of the way. That notwithstanding with the president and others were told about her dedication to the country her commitment to fighting corruption, if anything her commitment to fighting corruption was part of the reason why she was pushed out. Pushing her out made it possible to put in the three amigos to conduct ukraine policy. If there were any doubt about why she was pushed out, i say the call record eliminates that doubt. It is apparent from the call record that the president associated his bias in favor of this corrupt prosecutor single, lusenko, with need to push out the yeah bondage with the quote move forward with the investigation to see the political rival. That the u. S. Ambassador would be so shamelessly smeared and cast aside to further this corrupt effort just adds further insult to the injury done to the country turn national security. Thank you. Is the expectation that fiona hills public testimony will be the last that your committee will hear . As youve seen we combined witnesses and time to time on different panels. Depending on how long we say the testimony then with anyone may go, would also try to accommodate schedules but mostly the witnesses have accommodate s accommodate us. Has the whether final testimony, i am not prepared to say. As we have endeavored, we are moving expeditiously. On the issue of witness discrimination, there have been talks more obstruction of justice or abuse of power . Rep schiff i would say the president s attack on a witness view is not something we in isolation. This is part of a pattern. Toattern that goes back praising Paul Manafort for not cooperating, condemning Michael Cohen because he was cooperating with authorities, attacking other witnesses who come forward, suggesting we ought to treat those like the whistleblower who exposed wrongdoing, as we treat traders and as we treat traitors spies. This is part of a pattern to intimidate witnesses. It is also part of the pattern to abstract investigation. Was also part of a pattern to obstruct justice. Need to view the action today as part of a broader and committing pattern of conduct. [indiscernible] second hearing, third witness. Third witness who has no firsthand knowledge of the subject that is supposed to be the focus of this inquiry. Third witness who never spoke with mo vania, third witness with rick molina, third witness who was not on the call. Third witness who was not even in the room during the relevant timeframe. I say this every time. Four facts that will never change. We got the call transcript. There was no conditionality or linkage. Have the two individuals on the call who both said there was no pressure, no linkage. We know the ukrainians did not even know that aid was withheld. President zelensky never took any action to get the aid. Released those facts will never change. This is day two of an abject failure. Adam schiff is making up the rules as he goes. He did not let the republicans put forward and unanimous consent. He did not let us control our own time. I was interrupted about six times. This is more of the ridiculous abuse of power we are seeing from adam schiff. Are most important facts i came across today, ambassador udo buddy bench that came across ay, ambassador jovanovich the president has a right to pick who his or her ambassadors are. Department was so concerned about conflicts of interest with hunter biden sitting on the board it was the first instance where ambassador jovanovich first heard the word. We are going to continue asking role onnter bidens behalf of the millions of americans who want to know. On the whistleblower, it is important to know that adam schiff and i listed all of the instances ada. Adam schiff was initially intent on hearing from the whistleblower. Real quick things. I thought we were in the public stage of this impeachment inquiry. In just a few minutes, we are going back into the bunker in the basement of the basement of the capital for another deposition the American People will not get busy. Will not get to see. What they have not seen you or four transcript that have not been deposed. We would like to use parts of the testimony from mr. Morrison as an example in the open hearings, but we are prohibited from doing that. A great question for you all to he is. Schiff is when going to release those transcripts. Did and that complete undercut what you were trying to do today . Rep. Stefanik we are here today to talk about impeachment offenses. Let me answer your questions. These hearings are not about tweets. They are about impeachment of the president of the United States. You can disagree or dislike the tweet, we are here to talk about impeachment. Rises to the level of impeachable offenses. This is wishful and political thinking by the democrats. This is not the first or last tweet they are going to complain about. Would you consider it intimidating . Was stefanik the witness able to answer questions. We were muzzled by adam schiff. Do you agree with the tweet . Rep. Stefanik i said i disagree with the tone of the tweet, but when we are talking about impeachment, we are about impeachable offenses. As we know, the democrats want to continue making this a political food fight. This is a very serious matter when we are talking about impeachment. This is not about tweets. Would you agree with the president [indiscernible] rep. Stefanik i agree with the ambassadors testimony where she thinks it is good policy the president can determine who serves as their ambassador. I agree with the president s ability to pick and choose who the ambassadors are. [indiscernible] rep jordan the president can have whom he wants. A new administration in ukraine that did not have the same confidence in this ambassador. Is it appropriate with all of the Foreign Service diplomats we have to put someone in with the new regime in ukraine that can work on the president s behalf and the American People . It appropriate to have why is that ok . Rep jordan the president can have whom he desires doing diplomatic work for the country. There has been all this talk about the irregular channel. Etiquette is important folks in the irregular channel were Senate Confirmed ambassador sunderland and Senate Confirmed ambassador. You have the ambassador perry. President s are allowed to have whom they want doing the work of the country. She testified it was a smear campaign. Do you believe her. Do you believe her . Thes it appropriate for president to be attacking a witness while she is testifying . Excuse me. I do not know that it was an attack on a witness. It was a characterization of her resume. When you look at this, you guys want him to go in with no attorneys, no witnesses, no twitter or anything. At some point, you have to say, what is it going to be a fair process . Today was not a fair process. It is not going to be a fair process in the bunker. It was not a fair process and they bustled the gentlewoman from new york over and over. It is not fair. You think it is a fair the second sentence of that tweet. Adam schiff never brought this up. The second sentence goes back to the july 25th call transcript. Resident to President Trump he is concerned that ambassador jovanovich is a bad ambassador and that president zelensky believes the ambassador had a loyalty to president poroshenko. Adam schiff, when posing the question to ambassador jovanovich, never mentioned that. When he was the acting director of when he had the acting director of intelligence, he made up a fictitious call transcript because the wheel one does not the real one does not have the bribery he wants to allege. Instead, he created a parody version of the tweet. A partial rendition where he left that up. He asked ambassador jovanovich to respond. It would have been more responsible to let ambassador jovanovich read the entire tweet, digest it, and respond. If you want to talk about what President Trump said to ambassador zelensky, he loves to withhold key facts. He withholds information purity he outright information. He outright lies. He cherry picks tweets. It was the entire approach to it. The fact that they never asked ambassador jovanovich about what president zelensky said about her. That is how he rolls with all of this. Why is President Trump putting out information . Adam schiff only once the American Public to have 3 of the information and connect dots. Adami am not on the House Intelligence Committee. By the way, we have an we have asked ambassador jovanovich. Anyone can go back and read her deposition. We spent a are nine hours we spent eight or nine hours. Schiff is only going to tell the American Public 3 . [indiscernible] aboutthe impeachment withholding aid . That is really what i thought it was about. We heard from somebody who was in the interagency today who recommended we give ukraine lethal aid. We heard her say that, and in the previous administration. Congress approved it. This is about providing the aid or not. The previous administration, against the interagency, against congress, denied ukraine. Lethal a denied ukraine lethal aid. What about the previous president who denied the interagency and congress . Way you guysany can characterize this as a good day . This is an abject failure for adam schiff. [indiscernible] there was more reaction from members of congress on the sunday news programs. Here is a look at some with members of the House Intelligence Committee and House Speaker nancy pelosi. Callingyou join me in on the state department to produce the mountain of evidence, notes, calendar entries, our committee has subpoenaed them. When you join me in calling on the state department to produce the evidence . You bet i do not think there is going to be anything that implicates the president. If you will join with me in calling to hear from the witness from the whistleblower. How can you impeach the president of the United States and never hear from the person who started the process . We know he was deeply involved. How can you say we do not need to hear from him . Let me respond to that. Thank you for calling on me to produce the evidence. I hope you will tweet that out so the white house gets the message there is a bipartisan call to stop resisting our subpoena. We have heard from the whistleblower. That is the whistleblower speaking. The wall the congress the wall that the Congress Passed protects the anonymity. Excuse me the president threatened the whistleblower, said, he is a spy and a trade or and a traitor and should be subject to the death penalty. That is why we are protecting his identity. You said we have heard from the whistleblower. Maybe some of you guys have. The rest of us have not. Since when in any Court Proceeding do you have the witnesses, heres a statement, we are never going to hear from him again . Chairmanship says he heard the complaint september 9. Military aid was released days r . Ter you . Of course. The whistle was blown. It was blowing long before we heard about it. Do not forget, between all of that came the Inspector General. Inspector general appointed by President Trump. The Inspector General said that this was of urgent concern. That is what