Transcripts For CSPAN Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Impeachment Hearing With Laura Cooper ... 20240713

Affairs laura cooper. This was the Intelligence Committee six of the impeachment inquiry. The committee will come to order. Igood afternoon. This is the sixth in a series of public hearings. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. There is a quorum present. We will proceed in the same fashion. I will make another statement and mr. Nunez will have an opportunity to make a statement. We welcome you and respect your interest. As chairman, i will make any steps to maintain order and ensure the committee is run in accordance with house rules. I recognize myself to give an Opening Statement in the impeachment inquiry. David hale is the undersecretary for clinical affairs, the third most senior person in the department. Laura cooper is the secretary of isense for russia, ukraine, responsible for broad range of countries in the former soviet union. They have several decades of National Security experience. Dedicatedd from other their onlyants, priority has been the security the tempoted states of social media and criticisms of her, she felt she could no longer function. There is a strong statement of defense rum state department. Statement,t a full to no avail. That silence continues through today. Testimonynd riveting from the ambassador. She was recalled to washington. She had lost the confidence of the president. The secretary of state did not meet with her. Had three new people assume prominent roles. The three amigos were led by , itgy secretary rick perry would be the ones doing the continual work here. Trump ordered a suspension of military aid to ukraine. This is been authorized by congress and in consultation with the Defense Department, they met all the necessary requirements to receive aid, including reform. The aide was in the National Interest of the United States and critical to ukraines security, a country that had been invaded by russia. Security systems going to ukraine and tried to reverse this aid. She learned about the freeze during interagency meetings. On july 18, meeting the white house chief of staff has conveyed that the president has concerns about ukraine and the Security Assistance. A hold had been ordered by the president. All of the agencies responsible for ukraine policy supported Security Assistance and advocated for lifting. The only dissenting voice was the office of management and budget. Holdod explanation of the was provided. , thewas getting out special advisor to ukraine that shers testified had two separate calls in july or august from officials at the Ukrainian Embassy who approached me about annd asked omb hold on Ukraine Security assistance. She was very surprised at the effectiveness of my counterparts tradecraft. On, found out very early earlier than i expected them to. Did not have a good response. In late august, she met with kurt voelker. During that meeting, they were discussing the hold on assistance. He was engaged in effort to have the government issue a statement that would commit to the prosecution of any individuals in election interference. If efforts were successful, behold might be lifted. No such statement was forthcoming. Done. De was about to be with that, i rank it recognize the Ranking Member. As we argued at these hearings, the people are getting a skewed impression of these events. The democrats assume full authority to call witnesses and they rejected any new witnesses republicans requested. I would like to take a moment to discuss a few of the people who have been deemed unacceptable. The whistleblower. He is the key figure who started this charade by submitting a complaint against President Trump that relied on secondhand information and media reports. This began a series of events although there were no intelligence components. The Intelligence Committee Inspector General change the guidance on the complaint forms to eliminate the requirement for firsthand information. Democrats took the rare step of pushing a whistleblower complaint into the public. Using it as the centerpiece of their impeachment crusade. Staff hadearned that prior coordination with the whistleblower. Following that revelation, democrats did a dramatic aboutface and dropped their insistence that the whistleblower testify to us and rejected our request to hear from them. Democrats cut of our questions and accused us of trying to out the whistleblower. They claim they dont know who he is. Formerer salud but, operative of the Democratic National committee that worked in washington dc in order to smear the Truck Campaign in 2016. She met with the ukrainian ambassador. He wrote an article criticizing trump during the campaign. Indicatorsies were of ukrainian meddling election. All of which were aimed at the Truck Campaign. Thatyou understand officials were cooperating with president s political opponents itsdermine his candidacy, easy to understand why the president would want to learn the full truth about these operations and why he would be skeptical of ukraine. Hunter biden is another witness the democrats are sparing from cross examination. The securing of a wellpaying job on a Ukrainian Company highlights the corruption problem in ukraine that concern not only President Trump but all the witnesses we interviewed so far. The democrats have dismissed questions about his role as conspiracy theories. They are trying to impeach President Trump. Could hear from him, we can ask him how he got his position, what he did to earn his lavish salary, what light can he shut on corruption at this company. He would make an inconvenient witness for the democrats. At these hearings, we heard a lot of second and third hand information about his intentions. In the end, the only direct order weve heard from the president is his order to elect witness, that he wanted nothing from ukraine. Is consistent with the testimony provided by senator johnson who said President Trump denied accounts that a quid pro quo existed. The democrats of trying other tricks to shake public opinion. This morning, they called a break in the hearing to press their arguments to tv cameras. They canceled rounds of questioning they had earlier today with ambassador song one and previous witnesses. They considered that their star witness. When you look through the presumptions, you see the facts of the case. President trump was skeptical of foreign aid generally and especially to corrupt companies countries like ukraine. He wanted to know the facts about ukrainian meddling against his campaign. Aidief hold on ukrainian was lifted. The ukrainian president said there was nothing improper and he did not know about that aid. What exactly are the democrats impeaching the president for . None of us here really know. Theaccusations change by hour. This is impeachment in search of a crime. I would urge you to bring this to a close. Adjourned this hearing and move on and get back to the work theavid hale serves as undersecretary. He joined the Foreign Service in 1984 and holds the rank of career ambassador. He served as ambassador to pakistan and special envoy for middle east peace. Asassador hale served assistant secretary of state. Secretary ofis the defense for russia, ukraine at the department of defense. She is a career member of the executive service. She served as a principal defense for homeland and Global Security affairs. Prior to joining the department of defense, she was a policy planning officer at the state department. Witness depositions were unclassified in nature. Open hearings will be held at the unclassified level. Any information will be separate. Toleratewill not attempts to retaliate against any official for testifying before congress. If youd both please rise and raise your right hand. I will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth . Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. The microphone is sensitive. Please speak directly into it. Your written statements will be made part of the record. If you have an Opening Statement, you are free to give it. I dont have a prepared Opening Statement. I would like to comment. I have been undersecretary since 2018. Ive been a Foreign Service officer for 35 years. I am here in response to your subpoena to answer the questions of the committee. Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, i appeared today to provide facts and answer questions based on my experience as the secretary of defense for russia and ukraine. [no audio] i bring to my daily work my sense of duty to National Security, not to any political party. I have served to democratic and to republican president s. I entered Government Service through the intern competition, joining the state department in 1999 to work on counterterrorism in europe and the former soviet union. Inspired by working with the military on assignment, i decided to accept a Civil Service position in the policy organization of the office of secretary of defense in january, 2001. My strong sense of pride serving my country and dedication to my pentagon colleagues were cemented in the moment after i felt the pentagon shake on september 11. My office was scheduled to move into the part that was destroyed in the attack. Old desksill at her in the adjacent section on that day. Wiped are destined tried to get back to work, i found meeting by volunteering to work on the afghanistan policy and would give my next four years to this mission. Move the opportunity to into the leadership ranks of the organization. I had the privilege to manage issues ranging from defense planning to Homeland Defense and mission assurance. I accepted the position of principal director for russia in 2016. That innored to be 2018. I work two advance u. S. National security with a focus on deterring russian aggression and building strong partnerships with the frontline states of ukraine and georgia. Strengthening ukraine capacity to defend itself against russian aggression is central to our mission. The United States and our allies provide ukraine with Security Assistance because it is in our National Security interest to deter russian aggression around the world. We provide Security Assistance so ukraine can negotiate peace from a position of strength. In anman toll climbs ongoing war with 14,000 ukrainian lives lost since the 2014 invasion. Are continually in my mind. I have supported a robust Ukrainian Ministry of Defense Program to ensure the longterm andainability of defense the transformation of Ukrainian Military from a soviet model to a nato force. The department of defense is required to certify this progress. Based on recommendations from me and other key advisors, the department in coordination with the department of state takenied that ukraine had action to make defense reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, sustaining combat capability. This brings me to the topic of the proceedings. I would like to recap my recollection of the timeline in which these events laid out. Played out. [no audio] as at all other meetings on this topic of which i was aware, the community expressed unanimous support for resuming funding in u. S. National security interest. There was a discussion on how ukrainian anticorruption efforts were making progress. The ud reiterated what we said earlier. Dod reiterated what we said earlier. I and others at the interagency meeting felt the matter was urgent. It takes time to obligate that. [inaudible] i pursued three tracks. On july 31, ig made clear to the interagency leadership my understanding that a point wherees it does not have sufficient time to obligate funding by the end of the year, there were only two ways this could be continued. Orresident directed decision a directed reprogramming action. This would need to be notified to congress. I never heard that either was being pursued. I was in communication with the dod implementing community to understand when they would reach the point to obligate the funds. I received a series of updates. I and other leaders were informed that over 100 million could not be obligated by september 30. Advocating for a meeting with the president to explain why the assistance should go forward. I heard of attempts to discuss the issue with the president , i never received details about conversations. [no audio] my colleagues across the dod Security Assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to obligate 86 of the funding by the end of the year. More than they originally estimated they would be able to. Due to of provision in the continuing resolution appropriating the amount from operate will be able to all of the funds. Given how critical these funds are for Ukraine Security and deterring russia, i appreciate the congressional action. That concludes my Opening Statement. Questions,ering there is one other matter i would like to address. I testified in a deposition before this committee on october 23, 2019. At that time, i was asked questions about what i knew about when the Ukrainian Government may have learned about holds on security funds. I answered those questions based on my knowledge at that time. Since my deposition, i have reviewed my calendar and the only meeting where i recalled an official raising the issue with thes september 5 at ukrainian Independence Day celebration. I have learned Additional Information about this subject. I avoided discussing my testimony with members of my staff or anyone other than my attorney to ensure my testimony was based on my personal knowledge. My deposition testimony was publicly released. Numbers of my staff read the testimony and have come to me since then and provided Additional Information. Knowledge of the hold or asking questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance, my staff showed me to unclassified emails they received from the state department. One was received on july 25. That email said the Ukrainian Embassy and house one Affairs Committee are asking about Security Assistance. The second email was received on july 25 at 4 25. The hell knows about the situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian Embassy. I did not receive these emails. My staff did not inform me. I dont recall being made aware of the content at the time. I do not have any Additional Information about what the ukrainians may have said or may have been their source of information about a hold or issues with the flow of assistance. My staff advised me of the following facts that may be relevant to the inquiry. My staff does not recall informing me about this area i dont recall being made aware of this. 3, they received an email from the state department itsng they had heard being blocked by omb. This refers to the notification state would send. I have no further information on this. 25, a member of my staff got a question from a, and Embassy Contact about assistance. Time, we did not know with the guidance was on u. S. Ai. It arrived that date. The staff member did not find out about it until later. I was informed the staff member told officials we were moving recommended the embassy check in with state. Sometime during the week of august sixth, and Embassy Officer told my staff and official might raise concerns about Security Assistance. The issue was not raised. I have no other information. My staff recalled thinking ukrainians where aware of the holds. They cannot pinpoint any conversations where it came up. My staff is aware of additional meetings. The hold came up at some point. They nor i knew when or what discussions may have occurred with ukrainians in august. If i had more details on these matters, i would offer them to the committee. Of additionaltent information ive received since my deposition. I welcome your questions. I will answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We will forgo the first round questions i counsel and go to member questions under the fiveminute rule. I do want to respond to the comments of my Ranking Member. It suggested this was a surprise. We informed the minority last night after our hearing that we we did not think a staff member around was necessary. The message we got back was thanks for the heads up. Notice andy was on raised no objection about going directly to member rounds. We have notint out told any minority witnesses. That is not accurate. Mr. Hale appears tonight as a minority witness. How you characterize yourself, your testimony was requested by the mayor to. Two witnesses yesterday, ambassador voelker and mr. Morrison, were both minority requested witnesses. The ambassador testified that he did not believe any allegations against joe biden. He should have understood the investigation was really into biden. He acknowledged that would be inappropriate. Esther morrison gave testimony as to conversations he had with ambassador sondland about the conversations he had related to the Security Assistance hold being the result of failure to secure investigations. I understand why the minority does not want to characterize them as minority requested witnesses but they were. I recognize myself for five minutes. Yount to begin by asking about what you just informed us of to make sure i understand it. 25, the sameuly day President Trump spoke with president zelensky on the phone and asked for this favor, the same day president zelensky thanked the United States for its military support and signaled it was ready to purchase more javelins. Someoneinquiries from at the embassy who was concerned about the status of the military assistance . Is that correct . Laura cooper that is correct. The Ukrainian Embassy staff asked what is going on with the Security Assistance. Out to you that something was going on with it . Laura cooper yes sir. Your staff received more than one inquiry on that date . What was the nature of the other . Laura cooper that was the one inquiry to my staff. The other points i had raised were emails reflecting outreach to the state department. Embassy contact of the state department to find out about its military assistance . Laura cooper yes sir. Any concern about what was going on with military aid . Laura cooper it was a question about what is going on with Security Assistance. Your staff or Department Staff heard about additional inquiries from the embassy about a potential hold up in military assistance . Laura cooper i want to be careful about how i phrased this. My staff had meetings with Ukrainian Embassy representatives in august. They believe the topic came up at some point during those meetings. The profilesall date or specifically the nature of the discussion. Your staff gleaned from those conversations that the embassy was aware there was some kind of hold on the assistance . Laura cooper the way i would phrase it is there was some kind of an issue, yes. Witnessre the third before our committee who has testified that the ukrainians found out about the problem prior to it becoming public. Youre are the first to indicate that may go back as early as the date of the president s call. Let me move to a related issue. In august, you testified that you met with kurt volker. The hold on Security Assistance was still in place. The ambassador told you he could get president zelensky to make a Public Statement, that would disavow any interference elections and commit to the prosecution of individuals involved in interference, it might lift the hold on Security Assistance. Is that correct . That iooper i believe testified that it was my inference that would lift the hold on ukraine assistance. That was your inference because you were talking about the hold on Security Assistance . Laura cooper thats correct. The first part of her conversation was about the hold. Tohe brought up the effort get this Public Statement . Laura cooper it was during that conversation. Im not sure it was during that part of the conversation. What else to do discuss . Laura cooper the only two topics were the urgency of lifting the hold on security relaying this him separate diplomatic effort. Host you didnt have any question about a white house meeting . I dont recall specifically talking about the white house meeting. We have had many conversations about the desire for the white house meeting. Its likely that was part of the conversation. The two things you do recall our the hold on Security Assistance and he brought up this Public Statement that they , it mightensky to get be useful . Laura cooper that is correct, sir. Mr. Nunez. I yield to mr. Radcliffe. Thank you for yielding. Thank you both for being here. In his opening, the ranking the skepticismed of providing aid and the amount being provided. Would you agree with that characterization . We have heard at the state department that the president wants to make sure that foreign assistance is iniewed to make sure it is National Interest and we evaluated continuously that meets. Has he looked to overall how its stupid . David hale there was a review process in late august. Throughout his campaign, the president has sought to reframe american foreignpolicy in economic terms. Consistent with that, before there was a whistleblower, a present had expressed concern about providing foreign assistance. Is it fair to say the president has wanted to ensure taxpayer money was being effectively spent . David hale yes, that is the intent of foreign assistance review. He expects our allies to give their fair share of foreign aid as evidenced by a point he raised during the phone call with president zelensky. David hale the principle of likeminded states is an important element. Say u. S. Aid is withheld for a number of factors . David hale correct. Delayss normal to have on aid . I may have said it that way. It is certainly an occurrence. Ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld . David hale correct. Wasnt withheld from pakistan . Why . David hale because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the pakistani government toward certain proxy groups. Was aid withheld from hundreds . David hale it was withheld from the three states ins northern central america. Was a withheld from lebanon . David hale yes. Withheld from lebanon, or you given a reason . David hale no. Whyaving no explanation for it was held is not uncommon . David hale its not the normal way that we function. It does happen . David hale it does happen. That was the same time aid was being withheld from ukraine . David hale correct. The aid to lebanon still hasnt been released . David hale thats correct. The a to ukraine was released . David hale i read that. Its fair to say aid has been and for various reasons sometimes reasons that are unknown in the last year . David hale thats correct. The assertion has been made that President Trumps ukraine policy changed when there was a pause in the aid. Is that an accurate statement . David hale that was not the way i understood things to be happening at the time. We were not given an explanation. In terms of aid to ukraine, it was very robust . David hale yes. Host as evidenced by the policy decision to provide lethal defensive weapons, javelin missiles . David hale it was very robust. That was a decision the president made that the Prior Administration had not done . Lethal weapons is not been provided to ukraine western mark ukraine . David hale i was not involved. I dont feel confident to address that. I believe youve testified that there may have been concern by secretary cant and ambassador taylor that it was contributed to a negative effect on relations. The state Department Position was to advocate or the continuation of assistance as an important element for supporting ukrainian against russia. I yield back. You, mr. Chairman. I am delighted to follow mr. Radcliffe. He summarized the defense that my republicans are mounting. It goes like this. President is asking acting on a concern about corruption. Because he is so concerned about corruption in ukraine, he is holding up aid. The first part of that is easy to dispose of. He wasnt worried about corruption in ukraine. In the two conversations he had with the president of ukraine, not once does the president used the word or mention corruption to the president. The second part of that is more interesting. Prudent, thats not just wrong, its illegal. I want you to help us walk through this. Since the act of 1974, the president is not had the authority because of a general skepticism of foreign aid to stop warning. Its the congress that controls the power of the purse . Laura cooper yes sir. Assistance was authorized and appropriated to congress . Laura cooper yes sir. Congress is concerned about corruption. They want to assure that the money is spent wisely and does not worsen corruption. When congress authorized this money, it built in suggestions. Ukraine wouldnt get the money until it demonstrated in undertaken anticorruption reforms. Under the law, the department of defense works with the state department and other agencies to andblish benchmarks determine if ukraine has met those benchmarks . Laura cooper that is correct. That pertains to the ukrainian Security Assistance. Thats a legally specified process. Thats not the president in the oval office. Laura cooper it is a congressionally ended rosses. To that process take place for the funding that was held up . Process that the took place for the certification took place prior to the many certifications of congress. Not only did it take place law,e as required by months before President Trump froze the money. The dod sent a letter to congress, you said this in your Opening Statement, the government has taken substantial actions to make defense Institutional Reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption and increasing accountability. By the time President Trump froze the aid, the department of defense it spent weeks if not months determining that the Ukrainian Government met every requirement in the law and made significant strides in combating corruption. Is that correct . Laura cooper we made that determination in may. This was about corruption and the timeline proves it. If there was any doubt about what was going on, the chairman referred to your inference from the conversation with ambassador voelker. If ukraine made a statement, the aid would be lifted. We have the press conference of october 17, when Mick Mulvaney let the cat fully out of the bank and revealed the President Trump talk to him about the corruption related to the dnc server and admitted that thats why we held up the money. Any other explanation is a farce. Seconds, ining 30 the 1970s, Richard Nixon to hold upitrarily congressionally mandated aid. As a result, Congress Passed the act of 1974. It prohibits the president from withholding congressionally appropriated funds without the approval of congress for any reason. Is that correct . Laura cooper i am not a lawyer. That approximates my understanding of the provision of the impound. Thank you very much. Said, my feelvey colling failed to put certain issues on regard to certification. It was not corruption written large. Andas focused on defense combat capability. Laura cooper thats correct. Thank you for being here this afternoon. Off the emphasis. Certification in may didnt speak to the rotter concept of corruption throughout the rest of ukraine the president would be familiar with . Laura cooper the may certification was specific to the defense sector, the defense industry. It didnt reference the importance of civilian control of the military, which relates more broadly. Argue thatus would fixes corruption through the rest of the country. Maybe you can shed some light on the details. Somewhat argue that because of the pause, people died. Can you help us understand what obligated . Were there things about to be delivered to ukraine . Were they out of ammunition because of this . They didnt get certain lethal equipment . Laura cooper we will deliver that. Im trying to get a timeline. Laura cooper there was no shortfall in deliveries that were expected in that time rain. You are putting the funding on contract. You are starting the process. They would be fulfilled in the Fourth Quarter . I am a policy official. I am not a contracting expert. My understanding is we will be able to make up for lost time. You go through three or four steps because you disagreed with a hold being placed on the assistance. I agree with that. Did you get any criticism from the people you deal with because you were going against the omb direction . Laura cooper absolutely not. My chain of command was supportive of advocating for removing the hold on the funds. Of you were not restricted . Laura cooper i faced no restrictions. Thank you for that. I thought you might be more in touch with the specifics of the accounting process. Thank you for being here tonight. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Hill, when did you find out about the assistance . July 21 . David hale yes. Deposition, i misspoke. I confused june 21. After july 18, july 21 is when i heard about the potential hold. Did you attend the july 26 meeting that occurred . David hale i did. The president directed the hold . David hale we were told in that meeting that they were objecting to proceeding with the assistance because the president had so directed through the acting chief of staff. What was the position on the hold . The state department advocated for proceeding with all of the assistance, consistent with our interest in ukraine. You believed in the release of the hold . David hale i did. Did anyone at the meeting support hold . Did anybody want the hold to remain . David hale the only agency represented in the meeting that indicated they support the hold was omb. Did you understand similarly agencyere was an consensus to lift the hold and that omb at the direction of the president was the only roadblock . Laura cooper yes. How is the Security Assistance in the security interest of the United States . My constituents in alabama were wondering why we should care about the security hold. Specificper this assistance helped build the capacity of Ukrainian Armed forces. Its important to understand these forces are fighting to defend themselves against russian aggression every day. Its an ongoing war. They need this equipment to support their ability to defend themselves. I would say there is a larger issue that relates to u. S. Policy on russia. We believe its important to strengthen the capacity of ukraine in order to deter russian aggression elsewhere. You able to get a reason why the hold was on . No maam. Er the only thing i heard, this is secondhand, the president was concerned about corruption. That was all i ever heard. Provided anyver Additional Information about the reason for the hold . Laura cooper no maam. I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman. My colleagues in the minority asked mr. Hale isnt it common to have holds on military aid. Agree it would be unusual to place a hold on military aid in order to leverage a foreign country to get them to investigate a political opponent . David hale yes. You would agree that would be inappropriate . David hale it would be inconsistent with the conduct of our Foreign Policy in general. It would also be wrong western mark wrong . David hale it is not what i would do. I yield my time to mr. Jordan. I think the general and for yielding. I want to go with the chairman started. You said ambassador hale was one of our witnesses. They are all your witnesses. You called 17 witnesses. We did not get to subpoena anyone. You gave us an opportunity to get a list to you. We made suggestions on who you might allowed to have. We did not put three people on that list. Again, you are misleading the folks watching this hearing. Thats not helpful. Thank you for being here. Ambassador to pakistan, lebanon, jordan. Youve been to every hotspot on the planet. Thank you for those hardship assignments. We appreciate your service. Ambassadorirst to sondland who said he did not have access to his records. He state Department Said retained and continues to retain access to document terry records document terry documents. Thats inaccurate statement . Not seen iti had until shortly before entering the hearing room. It sounds accurate. You are aware of no connection between the pause in aid and any investigation . David hale i miss to keyword . You are not aware of a pause in aid and some kind of investigation being announced . David hale correct. Secretarynot aware of pompeo having knowledge of a pause . David hale he did not speak to me about that. Youre not aware of any nefarious reason . You testified that what you knew was that the president was skeptical of foreign assistance generally. Skeptical of the corruption environment in ukraine. David hale and the aide was eventually released to ukraine. Is that accurate . We had heard that and that was the general impression of the state department. There it was actually released is that correct as well . I read that sir. And there was just a 55 day or less two months pause then the actual it is not right ambassador . Thats correct. To your knowledge at the state department and investigation into the bidens and burisma and a 2016 election never happen by the ukrainians. Is that correct . I dont know that i have the ability to answer that question having taken this job in august of 2018. Oh, well, since youve taken the job how about that . To my knowledge that is correct. Thank you and i yield back. Mr. Carson. Thank you chairman. Mr. Cooper, ukraine is the first line of defense against russias aggression and expansion into europe. Numerous witnesses testified that ukraine is in fact to rush vulnerable to russian influence and control. In your deposition, sir, you testified that the biden Security Assistance is quote vital to helping the ukrainians be able to defend themselves. What do you mean by that are . That we have a longstanding policy of helping them be a resilient state to be able to defend itself. We want a secure partner that can stand up to russian intimidation and aggression. You testified at the time and this is the 2014 attack with the armed forces that were quote significantly less capable than it is today. Would you say that Ukrainian Forces were outmatched by russia in both ways . I did not so testified. Would you like to comment . I believe that was my deposition could you just repeat the question. During the time the Ukrainian Armed forces was significantly less capable than today. Would you say that the forces were outmatched by Russia Military in critical ways . Absolutely. Are they sufficient in your mind essentially to deter russian aggression . They have a long way to go. Would you say that the Ukrainian Armed forces now are completely selfsufficient or how much of an impact does the u. S. Need to have in terms of that deterrence of how critical the relationship is between both ukraine and the u. S. . Sir, the ukrainians are on the right path to be able to provide for their own security, but they will still need u. S. And allied support for quite some time. I need that support in the form of tangible assistance as well as political and diplomatic support. This question is to the both of you. Why was russias illegal annexation of crimea so significant in your mind . Madam cooper . Russia violated the sovereignty of ukraines territory. Russia illegally annexed territory that he longed with ukraine. They denied ukraine access to its naval fleet at the time. Building a russia is capability on crimea designed to expand Russian Military power projections far beyond this immediate region. In 2014, where their concerns here in washington and european capitals that russia might not stop at ukraine . I was not in my current position in 2014. But it is my understanding that there was significant fear about where russian aggression would stop. What about today . If the u. S. Were to withdraw its military support in ukraine. What would happen . Is my belief that if we were to withdraw, it would embolden russia, it would also validate russias violation of international law. Which country would stand to benefit the most with such a rock . A withdraw . Russia. Ambassador taylor testified of the importance of the rush actions upholding the system and it has underwritten since the end of World War Two and a critical aspect is ensuring that russia cannot change its borders by military force. That is why there is strong bipartisan support by providing Ukraine Security assistance. That is why it is so incredibly destructive of the president and of the United States to withhold this assistance as part of a scheme to pressure ukraine to investigating the Conspiracy Theory and attack former Vice President biden. I yield back. Thank you mister chairman, thank you both for being here. Surgeon i canrve proudly say that i have served as both if you have probably for two president s myself. I want to go to mr. Cooper if i can on page three that president directed the office to hold funds because of its concerns about corruption in ukraine. Youre coming from the d. O. D. Site here. And ied a year in iraq, think it is important and i think the army always does as i have seen, we dont want to deliver aid or assistance if its going to some corrupt or being delivered and some corrupt way, in other words if were building a facility for the iraqis, we want to make sure were not getting charged too much. We are concerned about corruption in general when we deliver funds through the dod. Is that correct . Yes sir. I think thats a normal thing to be concerned about. But i want to go through a few things with you because witnesses have testified that the actions to provide javelins to ukraine by the Trump Administration demonstrates administration and its a strong u. S. Support to ukraine. Ovanovitch said that it was vital to make this decision. Ambassador taylor said it was a in thatial improvement this administration provided javelin anti tank weapons. Very Strong Political message to the americans are willing to provide more and ambassador volker testified the providing lethal defense arms to ukraine has been extremely helpful. Hey all stated that she also stated that all that is fine, but if we being attacked with artillerys and tanks, you need to be able to fight back. Secretary george kent stated that javelins are incredibly effective when its stopping armed advance and the russians are scared of it. The special advisor stated that the javelins help ukraine defend themselves and the decision to provide them we believe is counter to russian interest. Do you dispute what these tonesses have testified ambassador yovanovitch and others . Sir, i absolutely agree that the system is an important decision to support ukraine with this capability. Thank you. You already testified that youre proud of the Trump Administrations decision to arm ukraine with javelins. Correct . That is correct sir. One of the things you said on page 30 tonight in july 26 and you said that i was aware that the National Security committee expressed unanimous support for resuming the funding as in the u. S. National security interests, thats correct . Thats correct sir. I guess i take a little question with resuming because we dont want to resume as is. Without be correct . Because as is would not have the javelin . Sir, im not sure im following. Previously they were not provided even though they could have been president obama stopped the javelins. He could have delivered javelins. Lets put it that way. Sir, i think i should clarify what i mean with that statement. Presuming was just to the fact that onb would be a place to hold on the assistance so we we were not spending. I wanted to resume the spending so that we could maintain this policy and maintain. Maintain the policy, but i guess what abase is is there a difference, being as it resumed in this case, that included javelins that the Obama Administration denied. Correct . Trumpis true that the administration has approved the release of defensive lethal assistance to include javelins where the Previous Administration did not support that policy. Mr. Hale, get a comment on that . That seems correct. I defer to miss cooper as the expert. I think we can conclude that more than blankets and memories have been helping the ukrainians and the lethal defense of weapons and the Trump Administration has proved that its great to all of us. Miss spear. Thank you so much for being here. There is this mystery surrounding the hold on the aid in july. But back in may miss cooper i believe you said that there was aid that was conditioned but new but you certified in may that the conditions had been met. That included progress on control reform and defense toustry reform and pass laws enable government to enable procurement. Is that correct. Yes maam, thats correct. When you find out in july that theyre concerned about corruption, youre scratching your head right . Yes maam we did not hear that. Do you know of any effort that was undertaken to assess the corruption in ukraine in june, july or august . Maam, as i said in my deposition, they only specific discussions that i am aware of related to that series of inter and in thosegs, meetings participants did discuss the degree to which corruption was a concern and the degree to which there was progress. My recollection of what the participants said in these meetings was that there was a very positive sense that progress was being made. You have these meetings, progress process is being made, nothing really changes from may until september. That would then trigger the release of the money except the whistleblower came forward . Maam, i do not know what triggered the release of the defending. The funding. The fact that there was a reference made to money being withheld for other countries was made by some of our colleagues. In those situations in countries like pakistan, lebanon, and the multi year funding strings, correct . Those accounts fall outside of my purview so i cannot answer that question. I was told that that is indeed the case so there is not the immediate anxious or hit financially that would potentially occur. The difference as i see it in ukraine as compared to these other countries is that ukraine is engaged in a hot war with russia right now. It seems that withholding that money was irresponsible considering that they had made and taken steps to all the conditions that we had requested and congress had appropriated the funds. Is that not the case . My colleaguesd had made a request for the release of these. Basically, the entire interest of the apartment of the feds if the department was consistently supportive and mystified to why they had been withheld and theyre trying to get an answer and youre getting obtuse responses saying it was the president because of corruption. Now what we see is that president zelensky gets elected in april. The expectation is that the vice theident is going to attend inauguration in september and then the president pulls the carpet out from under him in terms of him going. Proceeds to withhold the funds in june or july. Concerted effort by the president of the united matter thatt in a is not consistent with our interests, wanting to protect ukraine and help them deal with russian aggression at its border. Would you agree with that . Maam, i have advocated for the Security Assistance and for a high level engagement with ukraine because i think that is in the National Security interests. I yield back. Thank you for being here. Youre both recognized as experts dedicated Public Servants and even the president is perhaps the most complicated endeavor in the history of the world. No one can do it without people like you to provide that backbone. Thank you for doing that. I dont mean to repeat the same ad nauseam, but i think we reached a point of nauseam sometime yesterday or sometime ago. It is repetitive here and forgive me for doing that. Miss cooper i do have some questions based on some things you said previously. Clarification, there is a question about these emails where i think they claimed withholding the aid that had come from the capital or someone on the foreign Affairs Committee. True . Sir, are you referring to my Statement Today or something . I think this was previous questioning. Are you aware of such an email . Im sorry i dont have enough information to make an assessment. Is it from a particular page from my deposition . No. Its reporting that weve heard that there was communications with someone on the foreign Affairs Committee on the hill. Is that not true . That there may have been communications with me . Emails. Sir, im not aware. Ok, thank you. Ok, thank you. Four carefully occasioned for clarification as well, somebody may have asked you from the crane in embassy about withholding aid. Is that true . Sir, i testified earlier that the communication from the Ukrainian Embassy was to my staff and my staff mentioned this to me after my deposition. The only specific communication that i recollect with the ukrainians about the specific issue was on september 5th at a reception at that Ukrainian Embassy. Was that just generally about forthcoming aid or specific regarding them being aware that the aide was being withheld . Just to be clear, the september 5th conversation that i had was specific to the hold. There was an awareness of that and a question of concern. Ok, thank you. Miss cooper and to both of you under the secretary as well, at the end of the day, weve done this before and has come down to the transcript im holding out is a transcript of the phone call between president zelensky and President Trump. I would hope every american would take the opportunity to read it. Its only a few pages long and more information beyond that is may be helpful to inform, but it comes down to those conversations. Mr. Hale, going quickly through the series of questions and this wont take long. You agree that the United States should evaluate if they cant country is worthy of our aid . Yes sir. You understand that President Trump is skeptical generally a foreign aid and some of the money we have given. Is that fair . I think so. Thats being fairly consistent that hes done that since before he was elected. Others have testified that they have a long history of corruption and that doesnt surprise anyone of us. Right thatk it was the president with test president zelensky previous to providing this assistance . President zelensky was new. I had met him in february and was impressed by him. What was understandable before the administration was the president in ukraine was coming to office and to understand better better about the policy. I think thats key because weve had it referred to that the d. O. D. Had completed their review, this was a person that was elected and we do nothing about it. He came a little bit like President Trump himself, he did not come from a public back on that we would have much information on and it seems prudent to test him and see if he was serious about ukraine. I will conclude at some point, but i believe it was about labor day that the secretary was able to engage the Security Assistance, about the same time that you had some others, the Vice President as well as the burden sharing review was completed and then after that it was released. Is that your understanding . I was never informed as to assistance was released. I read about it. Andhose events did happen it seems like that was the reason why the aid was released. I yield back. Mr. Quigley. Thank you both for being here and for your service. You both been asked about this military assistance as it affects the ukrainian sovereignty and it is important because of the potential greater ambition by the russians. Im trying to put it in context to get your reaction from both of you, from someone who had been there before an renowned , International Policy expert. Seems to strike home today. He wrote, russia could either be an empire or a democracy, but it cannot be both. Without ukraine, russia ceases to be an empire. But with ukraine and in subordinated russia automatically becomes the empire. Your thoughts on how this puts this into contain into context today . Sir, i think thats a very powerful inaccurate quote. I would agree. Miss cooper, you talked about emails that were drawn to your attention. They were sent to your staff. Is that correct . The emails of that discuss this evening emails sent to my staff that is correct. First of all, its important to point this out. Its not something you are aware of but the larger issue that the Defense Department and state department had refused to comply with a duly issued subpoena to provide this committee with documents that would shed light on when the ukrainians knew about the hold. This isnt something youre aware of but there was untold information out there being blocked that would draw Greater Light and help us understand. Is there anything else out there that you are aware of or the possibilities that are out there with the dod or the state department which can help a shed light on what ukrainians knew and when they knew it . Sir, i have shared with the committee all that i recollect but ive not done an exhaustive investigation. I really cannot speculate on what else might be available by combing through all of the Defense Department records which is substantial. Did the state department or department at the vests ask for this Information Department ask you for this information or did they coordinate with you to get information you had . Sir, i was told not to destroy anything and our i. T. Personnel have been collecting documents, that is my understanding. That occurs without the individual having to they were collecting in passing it on to the state or dod . Can you repeat that . You set the department was collecting it, but they werent passing it on to you are passing it on to the state department . Department of defense . This is what they reported to me. I have not seen the documents that had been collected. I only know those documents that i have produced or my staff has brought to my attention that i have received. So, no, i do not know what has happened with the documents that have been collected. Same question to you sir. I was granted access to documents that i had either had originated or had been sent to me that relevant to the pertinent matters during that time period. I dont have any information about what else is going on in terms of other documents that i did not produce or did not receive. There was a move to gather them and i understood generally and indirectly that we gathered them in that was the extent to my knowledge. Did they pass them on to you theid they pass them on to administration somehow . The only documents i received where those within the parameters i described. Those were again the documents that either i produced or that were sent to me in relevant to the matters were discussing today. Thank you and i yield back to the chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for your service today. Miss cooper, i want to start with you. You spoke eloquently about the threat of russia with it annexed crimea and how its a threat to ukraine and its a threat to europe in the United States vessels security challenge. I sit on the house arms service committee. We know that the most important support for ukraine in terms of legal defensive aid is in the forms of javelins, would you agree with that . Yes maam. Which administration which those javelins have been able to this ukraine . The Trump Administration. Not the Obama Administration . Thats correct. Undersecretary hale, you testified that there is no direct knowledge of any nefarious organization to withhold aid to ukraine, correct . Correct. To your knowledge you testified that there is no Strings Attached to the aid. No knowledge. You testified that you had no knowledge of ukraine aid being held for investigations, is that correct . Correct. During the hold of Security Assistance this until ambassador taylor sent you the cable. You had never even heard the word burisma or biden, correct . Well, in the context of what we discuss. You testified that on page 96. Ultimately, as we know, the aid was released to ukraine, correct . Lets talk about the context of the hold. You testified is not ukraine but there were in fact other countries whose Security Assistance was on hold. Quote, the aid package to limit on was also being held in the same fashion, correct . And foreign aid was held through nor been nor in tribal countries . Central america. You testified that when you serve as ambassador to pakistan, security assistant was also held for their failure to conform to our concerns regarding terrorists and other issues on the afghan, pakistan border . Correct. Basically, lets talk about the context of this. When we talk about aid, i always think that these are hardearned taxpayer dollars, would you agree with that . Absolutely. Is it correct that the Trump Administration has been conducting a foreign assistance review to reestablish norms that guide the assistance as we provide aid overseas . Thats correct. You testified that this review had been going on for quite awhile and the administration did not want to take the business as usual approach to foreign assistance. The feeling that once a country receives an assistance package, its something that continues forever. You continued, the program had to be evaluated that they were actually worthy beneficiaries that they were worthy of our assistance and that our program made sense. That we avoided nation building, strategy and provide assistance to countries that are lost in terms of our policy to our adversaries. Is that correct . Thats correct. You testified you warmly welcomed this review. Correct. Again, just to get this on record and for the millions of americans Security Assistance , was released to ukraine . I already asked this but this is a really important point . Correct. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Swalwell. Miss cooper, your testimony today destroys two of the pillars of the president s defense and one justification for his conduct. The first pillar, no harm no foul. The ukrainians didnt know that the hold was in place so it didnt really hurt them. Second pillar. This president was a real champion of anti corruption. He cared about corruption in ukraine. I want to go through your new testimony today. Its your testimony now that after an employee came forward to you, you believe you have some evidence that the ukrainians first acquired about Security Assistance to someone in your office on july 25. Right . Thats correct. July 25 is also a day where President Trump officially who talked to president zelensky where the investigations about the bidens were brought up . I only know what has been reported publicly on this. That was reported, is that right . Thats correct. Second, this president as a champion of anti corruption, your testimony today is that on may 23 you certified that as far as it related to your duties ukraine had met the corruption concerns for the aid to be released. Is all right . The Defense Department certified. And after that date, inexplicably, the president of inexplicably the president puts a hold on Security Assistance, is that right . That is what i heard in july. This president that cares about rooting out corruption, did he call you after he put the hold essay what is to say what is going on in ukraine . No. Ambassador, did he call you . No. Did he call secretary pompeo . I do not know. Did he call them any you had at the department of defense, any acting secretaries . I do not know. As for the justification, the justification is that the Obama Administration only provided blankets so the ukrainians should be grateful, even after being shaken down. Underuth, ms. Cooper, is the Obama Administration and the ,uropean Reassurance Initiative 175 million were provided from taxpayer dollars to the ukrainians, is that right . I do not have that figure. We figure we use is to say provided 1. 6 billion today. They also trained battalions, is that correct . Yes, the Training Program began in the Obama Administration and we did train many forces. They founded Security Assistance, provided to the ukrainians, including humvees, drones, night vision devices, and a medical equipment, is that correct . They do sound like pieces of equipment that were provided to my recollection. You would agree that is a model that is a lot more than blankets, right . Yes. The aidsador hale, without the lebanon and pakistan, those were for legitimate Foreign Policy objectives, is that right . I would say that is true. The assistance to pakistan, i have not heard an explanation for the current hold on the liberties program. Lebanese program. You would agree that withholding aid is not a legitimate Foreign Policy objective . Current. Thatn agree that any even bernie made off make charitable contributions, but that does not make him a good guy. Miss cooper, your testimony today demonstrates the power of coming forward and defining while this testifying lawless orders by the president. We have learned this new information, which has destroyed the central defense of the republicans have put forward. Because of ambassador taylor, when employee learned this defense, all we had was hearsay evidence. Mr. Holmes said, i actually heard the president tell ambassador sondland, where are we with the investigations. Your courage has aided this investigation, despite the president s continued obstruction. I yield back. Ambassador hale, you are the number three guy at the state department, correct . Correct. Representing 70,000 folks. I am part of them. Yes. Were you are part of a fantastic workforce and you should be proud to serve alongside we have shared time together and pakistan, and so think them. I know they often times do not get the pats on the back for what they do for our National Security, but some of us recognize that and appreciate that. Issues to you,se ambassador, but investigations into the bidens . No, sire. Miss cooper, you have a great staff. I do not think my staff wouldve read a 115 page deposition and gave me feedback, so i give them gold stars. Deposition, and you confirmed with my colleague from california that she certified on the 23rd of may, the ukraine aid for the review of the department, further defense for their department of defense, they passed the corruption test, is that correct . I think the wording was more along the lines of progress has been made, sufficient progress has been made, it did not reference an anticorruption test. Was there a reevaluation with the new president coming in, because the new president was inaugurated two days after that date, did that have an impact on how he was going to continue as that those wit taken into account in the review . Not prior to may 23, no. The review was basically done on the previous, the efforts done by the Previous Administration . Yes, although it is important to note the review related most specifically to the ministry of defense. But there were changes under the new regime, correct . Yes, there is a new ministry of defense. Can you explain, i know that the Foreign Military financing the fundingxplain and also how the ukrainians get aid . Can you repeat the last part, how the ukrainians is aid covered under these buckets . There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian Armed forces, the first is the Foreign Military financing system, which is a state Department Authority and countries around the world have this authority, that authority is used for some of the training and equipment. There is also the Assistance Initiative, that is a dod authority. The dod authority is only a one year authority. And third, there is opportunity that isnse sales, something that we are working with the ukrainians on so they can purchase u. S. Equipment, but the javelin specifically was fmf, now theer ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelin. There was not a hold put on the purchasing of equipment . Not to my understanding, no. Can i ask a nonimpeachment inquiry question . A what . A nonimpeachment inquiry question . My time is years yours . What can we do to help the ukrainians against Electronic Warfare with the russians . Openat i can say in an hearing is there is actually Electronic Warfare detection equipment that is included in package, so there is a capability we are working to provide for them. I think that this topic is more suitable for a closeddoor session. That is a good copy. Thank you for your service to our country. I yield back. Thank you for your testimony. I want us to make in important distinction because some of my colleagues have rattled off countries where we have held up aid. There is a big distinction between holding up aid for a legitimate policy reason and holding up aid because it is part of a shakedown. Because it is in the service of a president who asked for a political favor of a country to investigate political rival. I think that is important for us to note. I want to ask, miss cooper, you said the money was cleared on may 23 by the dod, is that right . Correct. It was not released until september 11 . I should clarify that the second half of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative was notified to congress on a 23. And then there was a waiting time for congressional approval, and then after that point, mid june roughly it was available. 90 days or so, 95 days . I do not have a calendar in front of me but that sounds right. You both testified to hold onto gritty systems was not in the National Security interest of the u. S. And the whole might embolden russia. We have heard the same from numerous witnesses. This was not the only issue. We understand people within the u. S. Government had significant concerns about the legality of the hold as it relates to the control act. This is because the money was authorized by congress and signed into law by the president. ,s. Cooper, the july meetings where their discussions if the hold could be implemented in a legal fashion . In the july 26 meeting, my leadership raised the question of how the president s guidance could be implemented. Proffered perhaps a reprogramming action would be the way to do this. But more research would need to be done, so then after that discussion we had a normal discussion on the first of july a lower level discussion on the 31st of july. They see your conversations with colleagues at the dod at the july 31 interagency meeting, you shared understanding of the legal mechanisms available at that time . Yes. What were they . I expressed it was my understanding that there were two ways we would be able to implement the president ial obligating thep ukrainian Security Assistance initiative. At the first option would be for the president to do a rescission, the second is a reprogramming action that the department of defense would do. Both would require congressional notice. There would be an extra step to notify congress. Was there ever any notice sent out to congress as far as you know . I did express that i believed it would require notice to congress and that there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. As far as you know, there was no rescission or reprogramming of the money . Not to my knowledge. Instead, an alternative solution was devised involving footnotes to implement the hold. There was a time in august with the department of defense did not support the footnotes because of concerns there may not be sufficient time for the duty to operate the funds before the end of the fiscal year in violation of the control act. So, despite the concerns in august about the control act and ombs footnotes, the hold continued through september 11, this is even after the whistleblower had come forward, is that right . That is correct the hold was released on september 11, yes. I know that i and many of us share the concerns about the legality of the hold and i want to thank you for voicing their concerns to the white house and pursuing the National Security interests of the United States. I yield back. Mr. Turnbull. In your the emails opening and subsequent declaration by some of my democratic colleagues that those emails were evidence that the ukrainians were aware of the military hold on july 25, there is now reporting out there saying that the pentagon officials revealed ukrainians asked about stalled security aid. Widely reported that ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25. That is not what i heard from you, is that correct . That onect words were email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and the house foreign Affairs Committee are asking about Security Assistance. Assistance, not a hold. The second email was, the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent, and so does the Ukrainian Embassy, those are the exact words. What does that mean in these a most . In these a mouse . I do not to speculate. They do not mean hold, correct . Not necessarily. Isnt it true that around the same time that there was a hold on 15 state department and usaid accounts, including fmf . I do not know the details. You cannot say whether the inquiries in the emails were about the hold, is that fair . I cannot say for certain. You cannot say one way or another whether the ukrainians beforeout the hold august 20 8, 2019 when it was augustd in political 20, 2019 when it was reported in politico . I do not have a certain data point to offer you. It is not unusual, miss cooper, for Foreign Countries to inquire about foreign aid that they are expecting from the United States, is it . In my experience with they typically would call about specific things and not just generally checking in on their assistance package. Are you aware that the president of ukraine, on october 10, in response to questions from more than 300 reporters over the course of the afternoon, stated that he was not aware and had no knowledge of a hold on Security Assistance or during the time of the july 25 phone call with President Trump . I believe i saw that media reporting. I yield back. Heck. Thank you for being here. Last week thee, country watched as President Trump attacked and intimidated your colleague, he attempted to intimidate your colleague, ambassador jovanovich, who is a witness to this hearing. Subsequently, circuitry pompeo declined to condemn the attack. Bluntly put, i think that silence isompeos nothing less than a betrayal of the men and women that were using that he swore an oath to lead. And it is a betrayal that has longterm consequences to attracting and retaining workforce to their effectiveness and to their overall strength. I want to give, you an opportunity to now do what secretary pompeo did not do. Whenr in march of 2019, the Smear Campaign got kicked into high gear, and you rightfully pressed for a strong statement in support of her, or last week when the president and his son attacked her again. Im offering you the opportunity to reaffirm to this committee and the millions of americans who are hopefully watching, that marie is a dedicated and courageous patriot. And that she served with grace and dignity even in the face of that orchestrated and substantiated smeared attack against her. Ambassador . Im giving you the opportunity to demonstrate leadership. Im giving you the opportunity to send a clear and resounding message to the men and women who postsin dangerous foreign throughout the globe, that what happened to marie was wrong. Ambassador, the floor is years. Yours. Ofi endorse your description the ambassador. I only met her when i took this job, but immediately i understood that we had an exceptional officer doing exceptional work at a critical embassy in kiev. During my visits, i was impressed by what she was doing to the extent that i asked if she would be willing to stay, if that was a possibility. I support and believe in the institution and to the people of the state department and i am one of them, i have been for 35 years. All of us are committed to National Security to be are the best group of diplomats anywhere in the world. That extends to all state officers who testify before this committee. I would like to read a letter that the undersecretary road on november 18 two the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in response to a communication from him. A number of employees have testified before the house during the inquiry regarding ukraine, no employee has faced any adverse action by the department for testimony before congress on this matter. The department will not discipline any employee for appearing before congress in response to a subpoena. The department has proactively established a program to provide Financial Assistance and legal fees incurred by department employees. There is Additional Information, but that was the essence of the message. Therefore, are you saying that she is a dedicated and courageous patriot . I adores what you say exactly. That she served with grace and dignity . Yes. And what happened to her was wrong . I believe she shouldve been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work and what happened to her was wrong . That is right. Thank you for clarifying the record, because i was not sure where was she could go to set the record straight if it was not you, or where she could go to get her good name and reputation back, if it was not you. I want to encourage you in the strong is terms possible to stand your ground. Security and prosperity is predicated in no small part on the professionalism of our Foreign Services, and are they need to know that you, as the highestranking professional diplomat in the entire state department, have their backs. Thank you for having her back this evening. I yield back. Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Why did the office of management budget put a hold on the funds . Sir, the only information that i received was from the office of management that they were operating in the direction of the president and they reported that they had concerns about corruption. That is all i knew. You put that in your testimony. The president was Holding Funds about his concerns about corruption in ukraine, a legitimate reason, do you agree . That is the statement that made asident reportedly reported to me by the office of management and budget. You said based on recommendations from advisors at the department of defense, with the department of state, certified in may of 2019 that ukraine had taken steps necessary and you certified it the release of the dollars, is that accurate . That is correct. A small changes in ukraine in the spring of 2019, was that there . Yes. Can you elaborate on that change . Newhe government of, the president was elected. You have a brandnew guy coming in. He had just been, i believe, sworn in the day that you approved the dollars, may 23. I guess it was a couple days before. But there was a change in circumstances that would warrant, at least to me, would warrant a second look. And that is exactly what played time, less than two months. 55 days. Our government evaluated the new situation, the radical change from a new government. Wevet, the previous one, heard all kinds of things from the democrats about the prosecutor general in that regime and how bad he was. So it took a wall for that to happen. In,new president was sworn then two months later the new Congress Comes in, takes them some time, until september 5, to get rid of the prosecutor. And a few days later the eta actually gets released. The aid gets released. The democrats have other things to talk about. But the way this played out seems logical to me. And in particular, when you put it in the broader framework of where the president is on the concern about foreign aid, is deeprooted concern in the corruption issue in ukraine. Experience he had with highranking ukrainian officials criticizing him into supporting secretary clinton in the 2016 election commute put all that together and i think election, you put all that together and i think it shows why it played out the way it did. I yield back. Mr. Welch. Thank you. I want to go back to your support and affirmation of novitch. Or yova what i understand by the way, thank you for that. Our military leaves no soldier on the battlefield and i think that those in leadership positions in the state department and Intelligence Community have that bond of loyalty to each other and it is very reassuring that you represent that. It,first, as i understand got information about the first situation in march her situation in march. By early march, secretary pompeo mentioned sometime in the fall he received a letter from a former member of congress with completes about the ambassador, correct . That member of congress was . Congress member sessions. Did you see basis to the claims of disloyalty . I did not. Nor did the secretary of state. You discussed extending the ambassadors term, in fact, to remain at her post. It was a personal idea of mine, yes. Indication you valued her service. You also stated to the ukrainian press that the ambassador represents the president of the United States here and that america stands behind her statements, trying to give her public support, correct . Correct. Weeks later, the president and mr. Giuliani unleashed what can only be characterized as a her. Campaign to oust what was your reaction to the news articles in march and watch it corrupt prosecutor attacked of ambassador . We were concerned and we put out a statement that they were fabrications as they related to the do not prosecute list, and we began to discuss what we could do to deal with the matter. If the problems continued as the problems continued, she emailed you on march 24 and indicated that social media and other criticisms were such a she felt she could no longer function unless there was a strong statement of defense of her from the state department. Is that correct . Correct. Secretaryssage, pompeo was aware of her situation, is that correct . Yes, i briefed him the next day. He was the ultimate authority that could issue that support, correct . Correct. But you never did issue a statement he never did issue a stay mcmurray . We did not issue a statement. You testified around the same time that the secretary did not render assistance to a long serving and highly respected ambassador. He made two phone calls to Rudy Giuliani, is that right . That is correct. I saw a record that he made the phone calls. One on march 28 and one on march 29. I saw the record, yes. We do not know what he said to Rudy Giuliani, but we have a good idea what Rudy Giuliani said to him. Get rid of her. She was gone and at statement never came for the murray . Came forward, right . Correct. When she wanted to find out what happened, secretary pompeo would not meet with her . He was out of the country. I cannot comment on that. Next in line did not meet with her . I do not know. When a team when it came time to give her the news. I was on foreign travel at the time. It would be interesting if secretary pompeo could be her to tell us what his conversations were with Rudy Giuliani, the for amending the discontent about the ambassador it was fighting corruption. Thank you for your service. Ms. Cooper, secretary. On a you for working late wednesday. I think the last time we heard your testimony the republicans were going to have to bring pizza. All kidding aside. Forow that we detained you five hours that day. Thank you for your forbearance. We appreciate your patience. A question for you. And one question for secretary hagel. Was the dod able to put all these Security System funds before the end of the fiscal year . No. How much were they not able to obligate, what was left on obligated . I believe the figure was 35 million. We were able to obligate 88 total. You mentioned because of that Congress Passed the remainder. The remainder were in the process because of the provision in the continuing resolution. Because of congress he could not spend all the money. If we had not received we would have obligated 88 , but not the full amount. Right, which of course would be a violation of law, to not spend money that congress appropriated. I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding. Sure. Thank you. Secretary hale, where were you born . Ann arbor, michigan. Your family is from ireland . No, sir. Strike that. With respect to the secretary, you served as ambassador to three countries . Correct. Jordan, lebanon and pakistan. And while you were ambassador to those three countries, did anybody ask you to issue a support praising personally the president of the United States . No. How would you have viewed such a request . It would depend on the situation. So you went to somebody and you were having problems with their job and you said, how can i do better, and they said to publish something praising the president , something flattering to him, with that strike you as unusual . Yes. So being told go big or go home, with that change your mind . I do not understand. That is why the ambassador was treated to when she went to ambassador sondland seeking advice, and she declined to do so, she said it was too political. The second would be the approach you would take . That sounds sensible, yes. Thank you both for being here. Demings. Thankassador, ms. Cooper, you both for being with us. Get inton before i some questions about ambassador sondland, who we heard from today. I want to ask both of you, if President Trump with hallowed Critical Military aid from ukraine withheld could go military aid from ukraine because highranking military officials supported the president s political opponent, would you consider that an official acceptable appropriate action by the president of the United States . Ambassador hale . That is not what i would advise. That does not sound appropriate. Ambassador, you testified that you were aware that ambassador sondland was involving himself in matters, and i quote, went beyond the normal writ of an to the European Union. As you understood it, who authorized ambassador sondland to work on ukraine . I had no firsthand knowledge of that. From aved a readout meeting that the president of the United States had it with the delegation on may 23. In which, the briefing i received, indicated that the president wanted members of that delegation to carry forth that the policies discussed in that meeting. That incurred in a meeting in the oval office on may 23, that is where you heard it information from the readout . A readout, yes. You testified, it was clear the members of that delegation were empowered by the president. You also said, as a practical matter it would be ambassador volcker and ambassador sondland working with taylor, who would be the ones really doing the continual effort. Did you understand ambassador sondland had direct access to the president . Occasions i had conversations with ambassador sondland, he would let us know he was in direct contact with the president. Informationved the directly from him, that he had direct contact with the president . In previous occasions, not related to this particular matter. Anything about his role that struck you as problematic . Based on what i knew at the time, i was satisfied that this delegation was what the president wanted to have and continued to pursue the policies. And i saw the ambassador sondland, who was a professional, who had been a Foreign Service officer with distinction and estate in Ukrainian Affairs was part of that group, so no concerns. You were ok with his role at the time, but did your opinion change about his appropriateness of his role . As i testified, i was not aware of these various activities related to negotiations over investigations, preconditions related to that. I was not aware of it so i had no reason to be making any kind of judgment. You review to the Text Messages between ambassador sondland and volker . I have seen some of them. Rio surprised by anything in the messages about you heard reported or personally witnessed or observed . I was surprised by what i saw in the reports in the media. I want to make sure i understand your testimony. You believed ambassador sondland was empowered by the president , according to what you found out from them a 23 meeting, to work on ukrainian policy and you said, none of that struck you as problematic because of the time difference of what you newcomb is that correct of what you knew, is that correct . That is correct. You testified that you are the undersecretary of affairs and you are responsible for the management of the united state bilateral relations with every country in the world that we recognize for the management of our policies toward those countries, as well as our relationship or policies as they relate to multilateral organizations, that includes relations with ukraine . It does, but when we have a special envoy who reports to the secretary, related to a country or issue that special envoy will take the daytoday responsibilities. Would about u. S. Policy with European Union . Yes. Fully ofe not aware ambassador sondlands activities on behalf of President Trump . That is correct. I yield back. Mr. Murphy. Good evening. Thank you for being here. You andretary hale, your colleagues testified that you gathered official records at the state department with the understanding that they would be provided to congress, right . I was not involved in the decisionmaking. I have no responsibilities and gathering documents. I understood it was underway. I received the documents. Actually, in terms of the materials collected, do they include electronic files and emails . The can only speak to documents made available to me and it did include emails. And paper documents . And paper documents. With tape recordings be among the files gathered . I really could not speculate on that. You cannot rule out the possibility . I do not know about the tape recordings, i cannot comment on that. Are you familiar with from whom the documents have been collected, the individual custodians . I do not know that. Theou are aware despite subpoenas served on the state department to my we have yet to receive a single document, correct . I understand that, yes. Ms. Cooper, in the anyoneency process, did in any committee potentially bring up the lack of allied funding as a reason for why there should be a hold on military assistance to ukraine . The threenly speak to meetings that i attended with pcc, and ig, and have no recollection of the issue that that came up at that point. I did provide information in my deposition about what i thought was a completely separate query that i had received in mid june from the secretary of defenses front office and one of the questions asked a question about the degree to which allies were contributing to Ukraine Security assistance, to be very clear. But after the hold was put in place on july 18, you did not hear concerns about a lack of allied funding as a reason for why the holder should be in place . In those meetings i attended i did not hear that or i do not recall hearing that as a reason, the only reason i heard was the president s views on corruption. Same question to you undersecretary. Can you repeat the question . I assume you did not hear about the lack of allied funding as a reason for the hold being put in place . I never heard a reason for the hold. I assume neither of you heard any reason whatsoever for why the hold was in place except for the fact that it was put in place at the direction of the president . Correct. One of my colleagues brought up the idea that the hold was put in place to assess whether or not president zelensky was legitimate, i understand that was not the reason that was offered either. No, i never heard that. I heard no reason. Undersecretary, what is the importance of a world leader having a meeting at the white house . It is casebycase, but particularly for a new leader it is an extremely important opportunity to demonstrate the strength of our relationship or the building of that relationship adding a personal leadership level. To demonstrate common goals. What about in the case of president zelensky, how important was it for him to have this meeting at the white house with President Trump . I never spoke to him about it myself, i met president zelensky before he became president and i met with the other leading candidates, but as an expert on these matters, is it fair to say that a new World Leaders such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house with President Trump is extremely important for his image, especially for russia . It is valuable for any foreign leader, and for a ukrainian president it is what you said, it is to demonstrate that the bond between the u. S. And ukraine is strong and that there is continuity in our policies, and we will Work Together in our goals, including countering russian aggression and intimidation of ukraine. Thank you so much. I yield back. That concludes the member questioning. Do you have concluding remarks . What have we learned from democrats impeachment inquiry . They promised a hearing, what have they delivered . Ae impeachment version of card trick where the mark, in this case President Trump and the american public, stands no chance of winning. Democrats promised it whistleblower testimony and in fact they told us we need to speak with the whistleblower. And then we learned of the whistleblower coordinated with the democratic staff before alerting the Intelligence Community Inspector General. To hide it there con, they pounded the table and gaslight the country, telling us that the whistleblower is entitled to an imaginary right of anonymity. They accuse us of trying to out the whistleblower, knowing that they are the only ones who know who he is. They say if the facts are against you, if the law is against you can argue the facts. And if both are against a compound the table and yelled like hell. It seems that law school these days teaching students a fourth tactic, the fact and law against you, rigged the game and hope your audience is too stupid to catcher duplicity. This is not an impeachment inquiry, this is an impeachment inquisition. In the middle ages, the inquisitor was free to act on his own and bring suit against any person who was vaguely the subject of the lowest rumor. And if the accused was denied any right to confront their accusers. Incredibly, or maybe not so much given the democrats and their track record, the inquisition victim had more rights than they democrats are giving the president. After all, those victims had a right to know their accusers names. Is time tot home, it change the channel or hide the kids. Put them to bed. I yield to adam schiff for storytime our hour. Thank the gentleman, as always, for his remarks. I want to be brief. It has been a long day. I said most of what i wanted to say earlier. I wanted to end the evening by the evening by thanking you both for your testimony and your long service to the country, we are grateful that you answered a lawful process of a congressional subpoena. I wanted to share a few reflections on two words that have come up in these hearings. Corruption and anticorruption. Believe, iosed to imagine, that donald trump is a great anticorruption fighter. Aboutis only concern ukraine was that it would fight corruption. Lets look at that argument. Lets look at the president s words and deeds. Navich was anvo anticorruption champion. No one has contradicted that that has come forward to testify here. She was a champion. And on the day that she is at a meeting acknowledging in ukraine and other anticorruption champion, a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and died a sheful death after months, is called back to washington because of a Smear Campaign by the president s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, among others. She is recalled. That is not anticorruption, that is corruption. D one of the people responsible for this campaign, in addition to mr. Rudy giuliani, and it is a long list of those involved, is a man named lutsenko, someone who the minoritys own witness acknowledges has a poor reputation as corrupt and selfserving. And what do we see about him and in . Predecessor, mr. Shok what does the president have to say about these corrupt former prosecutors . He praises them. Veryys that they retreated unfairly. That is corruption. When ambassador sondland testified today that there was a quid pro quo and everybody knew it, conditioning a white house meeting that ukraine desperately wanted to show his friend and foe alike that it had the support of the president of the United States, when that was conditioned, an official act was conditioned on the receipt of value to the investigations, that was not anticorruption. That was corruption. And there was also a quid pro quo on the military aid, that that aid was not going to be released unless ukraine did a Public Statement of these investigations and that is not anticorruption, that is corruption. sts look at the president words in that phone call on july 25, does he ask president zelensky, what are you doing to root out corruption . What about the new Anticorruption Court . Of course not. Are we really to believe that that was his priority . No. What does he ask . I want you to do us a favor. 2016tigate this crazy conspiracy, that the server is in ukraine. And investigate the bidens. That is not anticorruption. That is corruption. Is one next day when he the phone to ambassador sondland in that restaurant in kiev, what does he want to know about . Does he want to know how president zelensky is going to fight corruption . Of course not, the only thing he brings up in that call is the investigation he wants into the bidens. That is not anticorruption, that is corruption. Then, there is a conversation that it says all you need to know. And sometimes it does not seem all that significant, but i will tell you that this one really struck me. It was a conversation that ambassador volker related in his testimony. It was a conversation just this past september, when he is talking to the top advisor to president zelensky, and he is advising him, as indeed he should, you know, you may not want to go through with an investigation or prosecution of former president poroshenko. Poroshenko. Engaging in political investigations is really not a good idea. And you know what he says . Oh, you mean like you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons . Well, there is a word for that. It is not corruption or anticorruption, it is hypocrisy. This is the problem here. We do have an anticorruption policy around the world and the great men and women in your department, secretary hale, and in your department, miss cooper, they carry that message around the world that the u. S. Is devoted to the rule of law. But when they see a president of the u. S. Who is not devoted to the rule of law and not devoted to anticorruption, but instead demonstrates in word and deed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves, what is america stand for any more . More . That concludes this evenings hearing. I will ask the witnesses to excuse themselves, members should remain. We have a business matter to take up. [background noise] i concur as chair and the Ranking Members requested that issue subpoenas resident to paragraph four. We will add it to the record now without objection. Two of the requested subpoenas require compulsory and to produce records. The whistleblower to produce documents and Communications Related to the whistleblower complaint. Rosemont to produce records related to Hunter Bidens role on the board and the Democratic National committee to produce records relating to alexandria chalupa. I do not concur in these requests for subpoenas, we will not allow this committee to be used to out the whistleblower or for purposes of engaging in the same improper investigation that the president sought to coerce ukraine to commit. Up committee will take them now beginning with the first testimony by the whistleblower, is there a motion . Mr. Chairman that is a nondebatable motion. All those in favor of tabling the motion . Say, aye. Although supposed to say no. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Ayes have it. It rollcall vote is requested. Call the roll. Chairmanship. Mr. Carson. Miss spear. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Castro. Mr. Heck. Mr. Welsh. Mr. Maloney. Mi demingsss. Ranking member newness. Mr. Conaway. Mr. Turner. Dr. Winthrop. Mr. Steward. Hurd. Mr. Radcliffe. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes, four nos. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Was this business meeting noticed properly within the rules of the house . The House Resolution requires that if the minority makes a request for subpoenas that we will promptly take up that request and that is what we are doing. However, mr. Chairman, rule 11 sees the testimony of hunter biden. Legitimate moves to the table. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it. Generalon is now the may request a roll call vote. Chairmanship. Mr. Heinz. Mr. Carson. Miss spear. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Mr. Castro. Mr. Heck. Mr. Welch. Mr. Maloney. Miss demings. Mr. Krishnamurthy. Ranking member nunes. Mr. Conaway. Mr. Turner. Dr. Winthrop. Mr. Steward. Nos. Are 14 ayes and five the motion now the subpoena for the whistleblower. All those in favor say aye. Although supposed to say no. The opinion of the jerk mother ayes the opinion of the chair is ayes have it. I moved to table. All those in favor will say aye, opposed, no. The opinion of the chair, ayes have it. The motion is tabled. The last motion is on the motion to cabell documents from the Democratic National committee. Is there a motion . I moved to table. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the motion is tabled. We are adjourned. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Point of order, mr. Chairman. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] washington journal is next. After that the House Republican chair talksmittee about campaign 2020 on newsmakers. Then we will show you hearings from the house Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry including the testimony with u. S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and former National Security Council Director for russia, fiona hill. On monday 2020 president ial candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick speak in manchester, New Hampshire. By the new England Council and the New Hampshire institute of politics. Live coverage begins at 8 30 a. M. Eastern on cspan two. The Hudson Institute holds a discussion on International Organizations and the relevance of multilateral institutions like the united nations, the wto and the world bank. Cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. This morning on washington journal a round table discussion on campaign 2020 and impeachment with Campaign Workshop founder joe fuld and republican pollster jim hobart