Transcripts For CSPAN2 Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Diplomats Bill Taylor George Kent 20240713

And 15 minutes long. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] this committee will come to rnder. Good morning, everyone. This is the first of a series of public hearings the committee will be holding as part of the impeachment inquiry, without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess at the committee of any time there is a quorum present. Here is how the committee will proceed for the hearing. I will make an Opening Statement in the Ranking Member will have opportunity to make a statement. We will go to witness statements and then to questions. For audience members, we welcome you and we respect your interest in being here. In turn we ask for your respect as we proceed with todays hearing. It is the intention to proceed without disruption. Man making a polymer entry inquiry. This is our first hearing under the new set of rules, House Resolution 660 gives you the discretion to allow yourself in the Ranking Member periods of extended questions of up to 45 minutes each before other members are allowed to ask questions and if possible we would like to know the rules of engagement before we get started. Have you made a decision as to how many 45 minute rounds you will allow yourself in the Ranking Member . I am not as we informed the minority yesterday we will see how the first one goes. At that point the chair willl announce the. And if there is a period of the second round which may be 45 minutes or straight to fiveminute questions by member. For audience members, we welcome you and your interest in a term we expect we will insist on the quorum and the committee and as chairman of take on appropriate steps to maintain order and ensure the committee is run in accordance with House Resolution 660. I now recommend myself to give an Opening Statement in the impeachment inquiry into Donald J Trump the 45th president of the United States. In 2014, russia invaded the United States ally ukraine. To reverse the nations embrace of the west and to fulfill Vladimir Putins desire to build a russian empire. In the following years, 14000 ukrainians died as a battle superior russian forces. Earlier this year bottom is zelensky was elected president of ukraine on a platform of ending the conflict and tackling corruption. He was a newcomer to politics and sought to establish a relationship with ukraines most powerful patron, the United States. The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry of whether the president sought to exploit the vulnerability and bring ukraines into our election and the condition of the official acts such as the white house meeting or u. S. Military assistance on ukraines willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his Reelection Campaign. And if President Trump did either, whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency. The matter is as simple and as terrible as that. Our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency but the future of the presidencyy o its. And what kind of conduct or misconduct of the American People may come to expect to the commanderinchief. There are few actions as consequential of the impeachment of a president. In the founders did not intend that impeachment be employed differences over policy and they also made impeachment a constitutional process that the Congress Must utilize as necessary. The facts in the present inquiry oue notti fiercely contested, beginning in january of the issue the personal attorney Rudy Giuliani with pressed authorities to investigate the gas producer in the bidens since Vice President joe biden was seen as a strong potential challenger to trump. Giuliani also promoted a debunked conspiracy that it was not russia hacked the 2016 u. S. Election. The nations Intelligence Agency is stated unequivocally that it was russia notth ukraine. But giuliani believed this Conspiracy Theory referred to shorthand for the company that does coverediscovered the hack. He also conducted a Smear Campaign against the u. S. In boston or to ukraine Marie Yovanovitch bone april 29 the senior state official told her that although she did nothing wrong, President Trump have lost confidence in her. With the sidelining of Marie Yovanovitch the stage was established of a regular channel in which giuliani and others including ordinance online donor to the president s inauguration in a basilar to European Union to advance a president personal and political interest. It is a west point graduate and a vietnam veteran. As he began to better understand the scheme of the summer of 2019 he pushed back informing jeff beatty assistant kent and i plan to condition u. S. Government actions andng funding on the performance of political favors by the Ukrainian Government him favors intended for President Trump would undermined our security in our elections. Several key events in the scheme took place in the month of july, on july 10 ambassador and formed a group of ukrainian officials meeting at the white house and according to the chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, the white house was sought by the ukrainian President Trump would happen only if ukraine took an investigation into the Energy Sector which was understood to mean for his mom and specifically the bidens. The National Security advisor into the meeting and said he not be part of whatever drug deal they are cooking up on this. A week later on july 18, the office of management and Budget Agency that oversees federal spending announced on the videoconference that mulvaney on the direction of the president was freezing 400 million in authorized and appropriated by congress in which the entirety of the u. S. National security establishment supported. One week after that donald trump would have an infamous july 25 phone call with ukrainian president zelensky. During that callnf trump complan u. S. Relationship not been reciprocal, later zelensky thanks trump for his support in the area of defense and says ukraine is ready to purchase more javelins, and antitank weapon among the most deterrent of further Russian Military action. Trumps immediate response, i would like you to do a favor. Trump then requested that zelensky investigate the discredited 2016 crowd strike and sprucing theory and even more ominously look into the bidens. Neither of these investigations was in the u. S. National interest. And neither was part of the official material for the call. Both however, were in donalder trumps personal interest in the interest of the 2020 Reelection Campaign in the ukrainian president about those in advance because they have been pressing ukraine for weeks about investigations into the 2016 election in the bidens. After the call multiple individuals were concerned to reported to the National Security council top lawyer, the white house would then take the extruder step of moving the call record to a highly classified server exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters. In the weeks that follow, ambassador taylor learn new facts about a scheme that he would describe as becoming more insidious. He texted him saying are we nothing Security Assistance and white house meeting our condition on investigations . Summer turned to fall, it kept getting more insidious. In particular he took notes of his conversations and said ambassador told him at a september 1 phone call that everythingid was dependent on te public announcement of investigations including Security Assistance. President trump wanted him president zelensky. President trump is a businessman someone said later when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something the businessman asked that person to pay up before signing the check. In the sworn declaration after his testimony he would admit to telling ukrainians at a meeting in warsaw, the assumption of usaid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public intake corruption statement that we have been discussing for many weeks. The president staff confirmed trumps efforts by withholding piaid when Mick Mulvaney was asd publicly about his answer was breathtaking. We do that all the time with foreignpolicy. I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence and Foreign Policy. That is going to happen. The video of that confession is plain for all to see. Some have argued in the president s defense that the aide was released and that is true. But only after congress began an investigation and only after the president s lawyers learned of a whistleblower complaint and only after members of congress began asking uncomfortable questions about quid pro quo. I scheme to condition official acts or taxpayer funding to obtain a personal political benefit does not become less odious because it is discovered before its fully consummated. In fact, the Security Assistance has been delayeded so long it would take another act of congress to ensure that it could still go out. In the Oval Office Meeting that zelensky desperately sought, it still has not happened. Although we have learned a great deal about these events in the last several weeks, there are still missing pieces. The president has instructed the state department and other agencies to ignore congressional subpoenas for documents. Ha these witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he suggested that those to expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies. These actions will force congress to consider as it did with president nixon, whether trumps obstruction of duties of congress for impeachment. If the president can sibley refuse all oversight, particular in the context of an impeachment proceeding, the balance of power between the two branches of government will be a revocably altered. That is not what the founders intended. And the prospects for further corruption and abuse of power in this ministry should or any other will be exponentially increased. This is what we believe the testimony will show, both for the president s conduct and as to his obstruction of congress. The issue thaton we confront is the one posed by the president acting to the staff, when he challenged americans to get over it. If we find that the president of the United States abused his power and invited foreign interference into election or if he sought to condition, core hearse or bribe an ally into conducting investigations into aid the campaign and did so withholding official acts, the white house meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid, must we simply get over it. Is this what americans should now expect from their president. If this is not impeachable conduct, what is. Does the oath of office itself requiring that our laws be faithfully executed that they defend the constitution the balance the powers of the branches setting a mission against ambition so weth becomeo monarchy and still have meaning. These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless. And without party favor andel without prejudice if we are true to a responsible lease. Benjamin franklin was asked what kind of country america was to become. A republic he answered if you can keep it. The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J Trump is, can we keep it . And i recognize Ranking Member nunez for any remarks you like to make. Thank you gentlemen. In a july open hearing of this Committee Following publication of the Mueller Report the democrats engaged in the last ditch effort to convince iraqi people that President Trump is a russian agent. That hearing was the finale of a three year long operation by the democrats, the corrupt media and partisan bureaucrats to overturn the result of the 2016ra electi. After the spectacular inclusion of the russia hoax on july 24 in which they spent years denouncing any republican, whoever shook hands with the russian. On july 25, they turned on a dime and now claim the republicans dealings with ukraine. In the wink of an on, we are asked to simply forget about democrats on this committee, falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between President Trump and russians. We should forget about them reading fabrications of trump russia collusion from the steel dossier into the congressional record. We should also forget about them trying to obtainn nude pictures of trump from russian pranksters who pretended to be ukrainian officials. We should forget about them leaking a false story to cnn while he was still testifying to our committee claiming that donald trump junior was colluding with wikiea leaks. And lets forget about other deceptions large and small that make them the last people on earth with the credibility to hurl more preposterous accusations of their political opponents. And yet now, here we are, were supposed to take these people at face value when they trot out a new batch of. Allegations but anyone familiar with the democrats scorched earth were against President Trump would not be surprised to see all the typical signs that this is a carefully orchestrated media Smear Campaign. For example, after vowing publicly that s impeachmentl requires bipartisan support democrats are pushing impeachment forward without the backing of a single republic. The witnesses deemed suitable for television by the democrats were put through a closed door addition process in a cultlike atmosphere in the basement of the capital were democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and w onesided leaks and later selectively released transcripts and a highly stage manner. Violating their own guidelines, democrats repeatedly redacted from the transcript the name of alexander true lupa, at contractor for the National Committee who worked with ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump Campaign which she provided to the dnc and the Hillary Clinton campaign. The democrats rejected most of the republicans witnesses request resulting horrifically onesided process or the crucial witnesses are denied a platform that their testimony does notid support the democrats absurd accusations. Notably, they are trying to impeach the president for inquiry about Hunter Bidens activities. If they refuse our request to hear from biden himself. The whistleblower was acknowledged to have a biased against President Trump and his attorney had a coup against president and called for his impeachment just weeks after the election. At a prior hearing, democrats on this committee wrote out a fictitious rendition of the phone call with president zelensky. They clearly found the real conversation to be insufficient for the impeachment narrative so they just made up a new one. And most egregiously, the staff of the democrats on this committee had direct discussions with the whistleblower before his or her complaint was submitted to the inspectorus general. Republicans cannot get a full account of these contacts because democrats broke their promise to have the was the boy testify to this committee. Democrat members had these contacts from republicans and lied about them to the American People on nationalhe television. I have noted before, the democrats have a long habit of recusing republicans of offenses they themselves are committing. Lets recall, four years they accused the Trump Campaign of colluding with russia when they were colluding with russia by funding and spreading the steel dossier which relied on russian sources. And now they accuse President Trump of now seasons in ukraine when they themselves are culpable. The democrats cooperated in the ukrainian election meddling and they defend hunter biden securing of the paid position with the corrupt ukrainian company. All while his father served as Vice President. Despite this hypocrisy, the democrats are advancing their impeachment sham but we should not hold any hearings at all until we get answers to three crucial questions the democrats are determined to avoid asking. First, what is the full extent of the democrats prior coronation with thesk whistleblower and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort with. Second, what is the full extente of ukraines election meddling against the Trump Campaign. And third, why did they hire hunter biden and what did he do for them and did his position affect any u. S. Government action under the Obama Administration. These questions will remain outstanding because republicans were denied the right to call witnesses that know thesequ answers. What we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance, staged by the democrats, ambassador taylor mre youu here and i would like to congratulate you for passing the democrats Start Chamber addition held for the last week in the basement of the capital. It seems you agreed waiting or unwittingly to participate in a drama. But the main performance, the russia hoax has ended and you have been cast in the low rent ukrainian sequel. Ill conclude by noting the immense damage and politicized darkness he has done to American Space in government, the executive branch employees are charged with implementing the policy set by her president who is elected and responsible to the American People, elements of the Civil Service have decided that they, not the president are really in nt charge. Thats what will learn in these hearings. After expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about foreign corruption, President Trump outrage the bureaucracy by acting skeptically with foreign aid and expressing concern about foreign corruption. Officials alarm that the president s actions were based on secondhand, thirdhand and even fourth hand rumors and innuendo. They believe it was an outrage for the president to fire in the rossiter even though the president has full authority to retain or remove diplomats for any reason at any time. Officials show the lack of interest in the indication of ukrainian election meddling that is deeply concerning the president at whose pleasure they serve. Despite all their dissatisfaction with President Trump ukraine policy, the president approves the supply weapons to ukraine. Unlike the previous ministration which provided blankets as defense against invading martians. By undermining the president who they are supposed to be serving, the elements of the fbi in the departmente of justice and now the state department. They have lost the confidence of millions of americans who believe that their vote should count foro something. It will take years if not decades to restore faith in these institutions. This spectacle is doing great damage to our country. It is nothing more thans impeachment process in churc sef a crime. I yield back. Today we are joined by Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant secretary of state Georg George Kent who are appearing under subpoena. He served our country for over half a century. He attended u. S. Military academy at west point, graduating in the top 1 of his class. Before serving as an infantry officer in the u. S. Army for six years including with 101st Airborne Division in the vietnam war. Ambassador taylor le led a rifle platoon and the star metal of the air medal for valor. Following his military service he worked at the department of energy as a staffer in the u. S. Senate, as an s s advisor as weo the u. S. Ambassador to nato. In the 1990s, ambassador taylor coordinated u. S. Assistance to Eastern Europe and the former soviet union and served in afghanistan, iraq and worked on the middle east peace process. In 2006, president bush nominated him as ambassador to ukraine where he served until 2009 and then was appointed by president barack obama to be special core nader for middle east transitions. Ambassador taylor was serving as executive Vice President as aio nonpartisan for peace when in june 2019 secretary of state mike pompeo asked him to return to lead the u. S. Embassy. Mr. George kent, currently served as Deputy Assistant secretary in the department of States Bureau of European Affairs. Overseeing policy toward ast uke and other countries. He has served twice in ukraine from 2004 to 2007, he is a deputy political counsel in the orange revolution. And for 2015 to 2018, he served as deputy chief. Since joining the Foreign Service in 1992, he has served in poland, zach tylan. In the corruption core nader and oversaw programs to strengthen the rule of law. All witness depositions as part of this inquiry or unclassified in nature and all open hearings will also be at the unclassified level. Any information thatt touches on classified information will be addressed separately. Congress will not tolerate any reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any u. S. Government official testified before congress including you or any of your colleagues. If you would both rise and raise your right hands, 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 and nothing but the truth so help you god. The answer in the affirmative, thinking please be seated. Mr. Chairman before we hear from the witnesses i have a parliamentary inquiry. When can we anticipate a response to our november 9 letter requesting certain individual witnesses to be called . The gentlewoman should be aware that three of the witnesses the minority has requested or scheduled for next week. Those are your witnesses what about the additional six witnesses . The gentleman may inquire about the additional witnesses or make a request following the witness testimony. Mr. Chairman ivo point of order under 660. Will you bees prohibiting witnesses from answering members questions as you have in the closeddoor deposition . As a gentlewoman should know she wasg present which i was. The only time the witness from answering questions along with her counsel was when it was apparent that memberses were seeking out the whistleblower. We will do everything necessary to protect the whistleblowers identity and ime disturbed to hear members of the committee who have in the past voiced strong support for whistleblower protection and seek to undermine those protections by adding the whistleblower. Only one number and the staff has direct knowledge of thehe whistleblower. Apollo mentoring inquiry and im responding for a point of order. Im responding. We will not permit the outing of the whistleblower and questions along those lines, counsel will inform the clients not to respond if necessary i will intervene otherwise i want members to feel free to ask any questions they would like the and one is organized. Otherwise members will have every opportunity to ask any questions they would like. Would you seek recognition. To make a motion that we subpoena the whistleblower for closeddoor secret depositions of the question that should be appropriately asked by the whistleblower fireside in your side may be asked and i would prefer rather than your single decision that the committee speak to the issue rather than just thean chairman. It wont be my single decision. We will entertain a motion to subpoena any witness but after the witnesses us have had an opportunity to testify. The motion will be in order and will be suspended until after the witnesses anticipate when we will vote on that. Just to ask a cliff in question, do anticipate when we might vote on the ability to have the whistleblower in front something you, the 435 members of congress, you are the only member who knows who the individual is in your staff is only staff of any member of congress theyve had a chance to talk to the individual and would like the opportunity, when might that happen in this proceeding today. Thats a false statement, i did not know the identity of the whistleblower and i want to make sure that identity is protected. As i said to mr. Conaway, you will have an opportunity after the witnesses testify to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote. With that, ie now recognize the witnesses and before i do, i want to just emphasize the microphones are sensitive so please speak directly into them without objection your written statements will be made part of the record and with that uppity assistant secretary kent, you are recognized for your Opening Statement, ambassador taylor your mechanized immediately thereafter for your Opening Statement. Good morning. My name is george kent and impe the Deputy Assistant secretary of state for Eastern Europe and the caucuses. I have served probably as a nonpartisan career of Foreign Service officer for more than 27 years under five president , three republican and to democrat. As i mentioned in my opening comments last month in the closeddoor deposition, i represent the Third Generation of my family who have chosen a career of Public Service and sworn the oath of office that all u. S. Public servants do in defense of ourmi constitution. Indeed, there has been a george kent sworn to defend the constitution continuously for nearly 60 years, ever since my father reported to annapolis to plead summer. After graduating first in his Academy Class in 1965, they are best known for his heisman winning lastminute winner, he served a full honorable 30 years including as a captain of a Nuclear Submarine during the height of the cold war. Five great uncles served honorably in the navy and army in world war ii. In particular, tom taggart was stationed in the philippines on the attack at pearl harbor. He survived the brutal Bataan Death March and three and half years of japanese prisoner of war camp unbroken. He returned to service as an air force judge advocate upholding the rule of law until his death in 1965. Today, i appear before you once again, under subpoena as a fact witness ready to answer all of your questions about the events and developments examined in this inquiry. To the best of my ability and recollection, subject to the limits placed on me by the law in this process. I will begin with opening comments on a key principle at the heart of what brings me for you today. The principal Public Service in pursuit of our Enduring National Interest in the place of Ukraine International and security interest. For the past five years, we have focused our united efforts across the atlantic to support ukraine in its fight of the cause of freedom. In the rebirth of a country, free from russian dominion and the work legacy of soviet institutions and postsoviet behavior. As i stated in my closeddoor deposition last month, you do not step into the public arena of International Diplomacy and active pursuit of principal u. S. Interest without expecting vigorous pushback. Including personal attacks. Such attacks came from the russians, theirui proxies, and corrupt ukrainians. That tells me our efforts for hitting the mark. It was unexpected and most unfortunate however, to watch some americans including those who have corrupt ukrainians and private agendas want to attack on dedicated Public Servant in the u. S. Interest in ukraine. In my opinion, those attacks undermine u. S. And ukrainian National Interest in damaged our critical bilateral relationship. The United States has very clear interest stake in ukraine. Ukraine success is very much interNational Interest in the way we have defined our National Interest broadly in europe the past 75 v years. After world war ii, u. S. Leadership furthered farsighted policies like the f marshall pln and the creation of rulesbased international order. Protected by the collective security provided by nato, western europe recovered and thrived, after world war ii, notwithstanding the shadow of curtain. The prosperity contributed to our security and prosperity, support of ukraine success also fit squarely into our strategy for central and Eastern Europe to the fall of the wall 30 years ago this past week. The europe truly hold free and appease our strategic game for the entirety of my Foreign Service career is not possible without a ukraine hole, free and that piece f including crimea, territories currently occupied byby russia. Represented by the red in the mouth. Looking forward, the Trump Administration National Security strategy makes clear that global strategic talent now before us, Great Power Competition with rivals such as russia and china and the need to compete for positive influence without taking countries forsi granted. In that sense, ukraine has been on the front lines, not just ofi russians conventional war in Eastern Europe since 2014 and the Broader Campaign of aligned implant but as a greater geopolitical challenge facing the United States. Ukraines popular revolution of dignity in 2014 forster corrupt prorussian leadership to flee to moscow. After that, russia invaded ukraine, occupying 7 of its territory equivalent to the size of texas of the United States. At that time, ukraine state institution was on the verge of collapse. Ukrainian Civil Society entered the challenge, they foreign volunteer battalions of citizens of Technology Professionals and they crowd source funding for their own weapons, body armor and supplies. They were the 21st century ukrainian equivalent of her own men of 1776. Buying time for regular army to reconstitute. Since then, more than 13000 ukrainians have died on ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity andre sovereignty from russian aggression. America support and ukraines own war of independence has been critical in this regard by analogy, the working colonies may not d have prevailed against the british material without the help of 1776. In an echo of the organized assistance to George Washingtons armyi and jo john l jones navy, they were procreated over 1. 5 billion over the past five years and desperately needed train and equip Security Assistance to ukraine. These funds increase the strength and ability to fight russian aggression. Ultimately ukraine is on a path to become a full Security Partner of the United States within nato. St similarpa to the colonial of valley forge, u. S. And nato ally trainers develop the skills of ukrainian units in the polish border and elsewhere. They help rewrite military education for ukraines next generation as they did for americas first. In supporting ukraines brief resistance to russian aggression, we have a front row seat for the russian way of war in the 21st century with priceless insight that contribute to her ownwn securit. This year end 2019, ukrainian citizens passed the political torch to a new generation, one that came of age not on the final years of the soviet union but in a independent ukraine. President ial and parliamentary elections swept out the government elite and exceeded 41yearold president zelensky, a cabinet with an average age of 39 and a parliament with the average age of 41. At the heart of that change mandate, five years after ukraines evolution ofehand digy is the first for justice because there cannot be dignity without justice. Without a reformed judicial sector that delivers justice with integrity for all, Ukrainian Society will remain unsettled. Foreign investors including american investors will not bring the great investment needed to ensure ukraines longterm prosperity is insecure. This is why the principal promotion of the rule of lawat d institutional integrity is so necessary for strategy for successful ukraine. It iss also true for other formr captive nations recovery from soviet and communist. It is acting inconsistently with the core principle of the rule of law with great apparel. I am grateful for for all the members including many of you standing here today who have traveled to ukraine for the past five years in a procreated billions of dollars of assistance in support of our primary policy goals. Those funds increased ukraine ability to fight russian aggression in the Defense Energy cyber and information and they also empower state institutions and Civil Society to undertake systemic reforms and tackle hocorruption. I believe all of us can be proud of her efforts in ukraine over the past five years even though much remains to be done. And by all of us, those of us in the legislative and executive branches and both parties, the Interagency Community working out of our embassy and with ukrainians in government, the military and Civil Society in a transatlantic allied and partners. We cannot allow to waiver since two much is at stake, for the National Interest of the United States broadly defined. My prior deposition covered a lot of ground over ten hours. Here of the main ten themes for my testimony. I outline my experience with longstanding u. S. Interest in anticorruption efforts in ukraine. This work give me a front row seat to problematic activities by prosecutors in ukraine. For many of these issues the committee is investigating my knowledge and understanding is sometimes firsthand and sometimes others in specific conversations and meetings. This is no different than how anyone learns and carries out his or her job responsible lease. I have been and remain willing to share my observations with the committee and will make clear when those are based on personal knowledge or information from others. U. S. Efforts to counter corruption in ukraine focus on building Institutional Capacity so the Ukrainian Government has ability to go after corruption and effectively investigate, prosecute and judge alleged criminal activities using appropriate institutional mechanisms. That is to create and follow the world of law. That means, if there is criminal activity in the United States, u. S. Law enforcement should pursue the case. If we think there has been a criminal act overseas that violates u. S. Law with institutional mechanisms to address that. It could be through the Justice Department and fbi agents assigned overseas or treating mechanisms such as the mutual Legal Assistance treaty as a general principle, i do not believe the United States should ask other countries to engage in selective politically associated investigation or prosecution. Against opponents of those two such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country. A pervasive and standing problem in ukraine include exposure to a situation in the energy company. 2014, rary concern sincese the frozenn Assets Abroad we hae uncovered on ukraines behalf. I raise questions with prosecutor general of why the investigation had been terminated based on our belief that prosecutors had accepted bribes to close the case. Later, i became aware that hunter biden was on the board and soon after that in ain Briefing Call with the National Security staff with the office of Vice President and for break 2015 i raise my concern that the status as a board member creates a perception of a conflict of interest. And to be clear, i have not witnessed any effort byio any u. Official to obscure. They have consistently advocated reinstituting an investigation as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors to close the case to account. Over the course of 2018 and 2019, i became increasingly aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani andhe others including them to run a campaign to smear the ambassador and other officials at the u. S. Embassy. The chief arbitrators were some of the same corrupt former prosecutors i had encountered and particularly, they were now peddling false information in order to extract revenge against those who would expose their misconduct including u. S. Diplomats, ukrainian anticorruption officials and Civil Society groups in t ukrai. During the late spring and summer of 2019 i became alarmed as those were fruit, they led to ambassador and tempered u. S. Efforts with the new zelensky in ukraine. In mid august, it became clear thatat genealogies effort were affecting the u. S. Engagementlen ukraine leveraging the desire for a whil white house meeting. There arent always have been conditionality placed on her summer and long for ukraine. It includes anticorruption reforms instability goals and social safety net. And the Monetary Fund is the essame thing. Congress and the executive branch Work Together to put conditionality on some Security Assistance in the ukraine Security Assistance initiative. Regarding my testimony today, i will do my best to answer questions. Questions that will involve issues, conversations and issues of number of years. First the state department has collected all materials in response to the subpoena that may contain facts relevant to my testimony. Im no such documents or materials with me today. I will do my best to answer as accurately, completely and truthfully as ill can the best f my recollection. Second as this committee knows, throughout this process there has been concerned that questions may be asked about classified information. We have asked the state department for guidance and concerns related to the public release of my deposition in the state department has declined to provide. If im asked the question today that i believe may implicate classified information i will respectfully decline to answer in the public forum. Third, there may be questions focusing on the identity of the intelligence committee. These were be ducted from the transcript. If such a question arises today i will follow my counsel advice and declined to answer. I would like to conclude my opening remarks with an observation about some of my fellow Public Servant who have come under personal attacks, ambassador, Lieutenant Colonel and doctor, at least one who appeared before the body in the coming days. They were born abroad before their families or they themselves personally chose to ssmigrate to the United States. They all made the professional choice to serve the United States as Public Officials helping shape our National Security policy towards russia in particular and we interNational Security are the better. In this sense, the 21st century errors of the National Security policy who were born abroad. Myns former professor and his former they fled nazi in a commonest depression to contribute to a stronger more secure america. Honorable tradition of transatlantic, goes back to the very founding of our republic. Our 18th century independence would not have been secured without the choice of european officers, the french, the german born in the polls to come to the new world and fight for our cause of freedom and the birth of a new country freed from imperial dominion. It is my privilege to sit next to my former boss and it is my honor to serve with all of these patriotic americans. Thank you. Thank you ambassador taylor. Mr. Chairman, i am appearing today at the committees request to provide my perspective on the events that are the subject of the committees inquiry. I want to emphasize offset that while im aware that the committee has requested my testimony as part of impeachment proceedings, i am not here to take one side or the otherwh oro advocate any particular outcome of these proceedings. My sole purpose is to provide facts as i know them about the incidentnt in question as well s my views about the strategic importance of ukraine to the United States. The way of background has been a privilege to serve the country and the American People for more than 50 years, starting as a cadet as you have mentioned, an infantry officer for six years including with 101st Airborne Division in vietnam and the department of energy and as a member of the senate staff and nato and the state department here and abroad in afghanistan, iraq, jerusalem and ukraine. I retired from the state department 2009 to join the institute of speech. Neither a career member of the Foreign Service or the Civil Service, i am nonpartisan and not been appointed to my positions by every president from president reagan to President Trump. Let me summarize my main points. First, ukraine is a Strategic Partner of the United States. Important for the security of our country. As well as europe. Ukraine is on the front line in the conflict with the newly aggressive your russia. Second, even as we say here today, the russians are attacking ukrainian soldiers in their own country. And have been for the last four years. I saw this on the frontline last week, the day i was there the ukrainian soldier was killed and four were wounded. Third, the Security Assistance we provide is crucial to ukraines defense and to the protection of the soldiers that i met on the frontline last week. It demonstrates to ukrainians and russians that we are reliable Strategic Partner and it is clearly interNational Interest to deter further russian aggression. And finally, as a committee is aware, i wrote that withholding Security Assistance in exchangei for health of the Political Campaign in the United States would be crazy. I believe that then and i believe in now. Let me tell you why. On may 28 of this year end that was secretary of state mike pompeo who asked me too rejoin the state department and return to lead our embassy in ukraine. It was and is a critical time for the u. S. Ukraine relations. I served as ambassador to ukraine from 2006 to 2009. Having been nominated by george w. Bush in the intervening ten yearsn i stayed engaged with ukraine. Across the responsibilities i have had in Public Service, ukraine is the highlight. Secretary pompeos offer to return of chief omission is compelling. Since i left ukraine in 2009, the country had continued to turn toward the west but in 2013 Vladimir Putin was so threatened by the prospect of ukraine joining the European Union, he tried to bribe theof ukraine president and trick in mass protest in 2013 the drove the president to flee to russia in february of 2014 but not before his forces killed 100 ukrainian protesters. Days later mr. Putin invaded crimea holding the sheet and referendum at the russian army rifles, the russians absurdly of claim 97 voted to join russia in early april he sent his Army Security forces into southeastern ukraine to generate armed formations of public governments and what we know. Ait you can see this on the map. In the righthand portion in the eastern portion of the country. 14000 ukraines have died in the war and more died eachi week. In july 2014, these Russian Land Forces shut down an airliner en route from amsterdam to malaysia killing all 298 people on board. We, the europeans and most of the west impose economic stations and kicked them out of the g8. Beginning in 2014, we and nato began to provide military assistance to Ukraines Armed forces in the form of. Training advice, military equipment and weapons. It is this Security Assistance that is not the part of a controversy that we are discussing today. The progression president who is running out in 2014 had led the armed forces to deteriorate to the point of ruling. In response to the russian invasion the ukrainian authorities did amazing outpouring of support from regular ukrainian people rebuilt the army, starting from scratch, more than 5 of the gdp on defense since the war started. The whole ukrainian nation responded to the russiane attac, the nation united like never before. The Army Developed into a strong fighting force in the United States played the final world. In 2014, you and congress provided over 1. 6 billion in military assistance to ukraine. The Security Assistance provide small unit training at an army base. In the western of the country. It provides ambulances, night vision devices, counter battery radar, navy ships and finally weapons. The Security System demonstrates our commitment to resist aggression and defend freedom. During the 21422016. I was serving us in government and join two other formerr ambassadors to ukraine urging the Obama Administration at the state department, Defense Department and other agencies to provide lethal weapons to ukraine in order to deter further russian aggression. I also supported stronger sanctions on russia. I was pleased when the triplen. Ministration provided antitank missiles in an active stronger sanctions. All to say, i cared about ukraines feature in the important u. S. Interest there. So when secretary pompeo asked me too go back i wanted to say yes but it was not an easy decision. The former ambassador has been treated poorly. With political imagination in kyiv and washington. I feared that those problems were still present consulted both my wife and the respected former senior republican official who has been a mentor, i will tell you that my wife and no terms strongly opposed the idea. The mentor counsel if your country asked you to do something, you do it if you can be effective. I can be effective only if the u. S. Policy, a strong support for ukraine, strong diplomatic support with robust security, economic and Technical Assistance were to continue. If i had the backing of the secretary of state to implement the policy then i worried about what i heard concerning the role of Rudy Giuliani who had made several controversial statement about ukraine and u. S. Policy toward theia country. During my meeting was secretary pompeo on may 28 i made clear to him and the others present that if u. S. Policy for ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there and i could not stay. He assured me that the policy is strong support for ukraine would continue and he would support me in defending a policy. Without understanding i agreed to go back. Because i was appointed by the secretary but not reconfirmed by the senate, my official present interposition in effect i was acting abbasid or to ukraine. I returned on june 17 carried the original copy of the letter the President Trump signed the day after he met with the secretary. In the letter President Trump congratulated zelensky on his election victory and invited him to a meeting in the oval office. Once i arrived i discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances. First the encouraging president zelensky was reforming ukraine in a hurry. He appointed ministers and supported long stalled anticorruption legislation, he took quick executive action including the High Anticorruption Court with a new parliamentary majority stemming from stop elections, he change the constitution to remove absolute immunity. The source of raw corruption for two decades. The excitement was palpable. This time could be different, a new ukraine working from its corrupt soviet past. And yet, i found it confusing and unusual arrangement for making u. S. Policy toward ukraine. There appear to be two channels of u. S. Policymaking and implementation, one regular and one highlyicpp irregular. As the acting ambassador i had authority over the regular, formal process including the bulk of the u. S. Effort to support ukraine against russian invasion to help defeat corruption. My colleague deputy secretary of state george kent and her colleagues at the National Security council were my main points of contact in washington and the regular channel. This channel is formally responsible for formulating and overseeing the implementation of u. S. Foreign policy with respect to ukraine. A policy that is consistently enjoyed strong bipartisan support bothhngu. In congress se ukraines independence from russia in 1991. At the same time, however, i encountered an irregular and former channel of u. S. Policymaking with respect to ukraine. Unaccountable to congress. Ol included special envoy kurt volker, u. S. Ambassador gordon solman, rick perry, white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and as i subsequently learned mr. Giuliani. H. Also in the irregular one to the expent that ambassadors volker and sondland included me in certain conversations. Although this was wellconnected in washington, it operated mostly outside of official state department channels. The regular channel began when ambassador volker, ambassador sondlond, perry and ron johnson briefed President Trump on may 23rd upon their return. The delegation was as enthusiastic as i would soon become about the knew ukrainian president and urge President Trump to meet with him early on to cement the u. S. ukraine relationship. But from what i understood from the participants, President Trump did not share their enthusiasm for a meeting with president zellency. When i arrived in key ev, the appear to serve the same goal. The strong u. S. Ukraine partnership. It became clear to me by august the channels diverged and has this occurred i became increasingly concerned. In late june will both channels tried to facilitate by meeting with President Trump which he promised in his congratulatory letter on may 29. They were clearly eager for the meeting to happen. During my subsequent communications with the ambassadors, dave related to me that the president wanted to hear before scheduling the meeting in the oval office. It wasnt clear to me what this meant. June 27, during a phone conversation he needed to make clear to President Trump that he wasnt standing in the way of the investigations. He didnt wish to include most of the interagency participants in the call and planned later that day. The ambassador, secretary perry and i were on the call dialing in from different locations. However, he said he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added him to the call. Also, before h she told the u. S. Participants that he and bulger planned to be an on a oneonone in toronto on july 2. On that meeting he planned to make clear what president zelensky meant that wanted to give to the bottom of things. Once president zelensky joined the call, the conversation was focused on energy policy. President zelensky also said he looked forward to the white house visit and President Trump offered it in his may 29 letter. By mid july it had become clear that the meeting president zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of an alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 u. S. Elections and it was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel i had come to understand was guided by mr. Giuliani. Pand a regular secure Video Conference call july 18, i heard a staff person from the office of management and budget say there was a hole on the Security Assistance to ukraine but couldnt see why. For the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call that person was offscreen said she was from omb and her boss instructed her not to improve any additional spending until further notice. I and others sat in astonishment. The ukrainians were fighting a russians had counted on not only the weapons but also the assurance of the u. S. Support. All the staff person said as the directive had come from the president to the chief of staff to omb. In an instant i realized one of the key pillars of the strong was threatened. A regular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of longstanding u. S. Policy. To follow the series of these interagency meetings starting at the staff level and quickly reaching the level of the secretariesa at every meeting e unanimous conclusion was that the Security System should be presumed. At one point, the department was asked to perform an analysis of the effectiveness and within a day they came back with a determination that the assistance was effective. My understanding was the secretary of defense and state, the cia director and National Security adviser sought a joint meeting to convince him to release but such a meeting was hard to schedule and it lasted into september. On july 9, and a phone call with the then senior director for european and russian and director of European Affairs at the nsc they tried to assure me that they were not aware of any official change in u. S. Policy towards ukraine. Ombs announcement notwithstanding. They did confirm that the hold came from the chief of staff Nick Mulvaney who maintained a skeptical view of ukraine. The same july 19 phone call gave me an account of the july 10 meeting with ukrainian american officials at the white house. They told me part way through, they connected investigations witwithin Oval Office Meeting wh president zelensky. Ecits so irritated that the National Security adviser john bolton that he abruptl but he ae teeting, telling doctor hill that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics. He also directed doctor hill to brief the lawyers. He said ambassador bolton referred to this as a drug deal after the july 10 meeting. Ambassador bolton opposed the call between president zelensky and President Trump out of concern that it would be a disaster. Needless to say the ukrainians in the meeting were confused. The policy decisionmaking channels wanted to talk about security, energy and reform. Aambassador soloman participated in the irregular channel wanted to talk about the connection between the white house meeting and the ukrainian investigations. Also during the july 19 call, doctor hill informed me that ambassador volker had met with mr. Giuliani and discussed ukraine which caught me by surprise. The regular and irregular were separate and at odds. Later that day i receive Text Messages on a three way text conversation on the record of which was provided by the ambassador volker and said that a call between President Trump, president zelensky would take place soon and what was most important was for zelensky to say that he would help the investigations and address the specific personnel issues if there are any. On the next day, july 20, i had a phone conversation with ambassador soloman on a train from paris to london and he told me he had recommended he used the phrase i will leave no stone unturned with regards to investigations when he spoke with President Trump. Also on july 20 i had a phone conversation with the National Security advisor that emphasized president zelensky did not want to be used as an instrument in a u. S. Re election campaign. The next day about the concern. July 25, President Trump and president zelensky had the long awaited phone conversation even though i was the acting ambassador scheduled to meet the followingg day they received no readout of the call. The Ukrainian Government issued a short cryptic summary. During a previously planned ju july 26 meeting, president zelensky told the ambassador and me he was happy with the call but didnt elaborate. He then asked about the facetoface meeting in the oval office as promised on may 29 letter for President Trump. We could give no firm answer. After the meeting with president zelensky, the ambassador and i traveled to the frontline the commander thanked us for the Security Assistance but i was aware that this was on hold which made me uncomfortable. The bridge across the line of contact the forces continue to kill ukrainians one or two a week and more undoubtedly die without the u. S. Assistance. Although i spend the morning of july 26 with president zelensky and other officials, the first summary of the july 25 from zelensky called that i heard from any of the inside of the u. S. Government was during a phone call that i had with tim morrison the recent replacement on july 28. He told me that the call could have been better and President Trump suggested they meet with mr. Giuliani and the attorney general william barr. I didnt see a readout of the call until it was publicly released on september 25. I was becoming more concerned in august 16 exchange Text Messages with the ambassador which i learned the Senior Advisor to president zelensky asked that the United States submit an official request for an investigation into the alleged violations of ukrainian law. If that is what the United States decided that you delete the request to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper and iio recommended to the ambassador that we stay clear to find out the legal aspect of the question however i give the name of a attorneysistant general who i thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking the u. S. Request for the foreign investigation. By midaugust the Security Assistance had been held for over a month with no reason i couldnt discern i was beginning to fear the longstanding u. S. Policy of support for ukraine was shifting. I called at the state department to discuss this on august 21. He said he was not aware of a change in policy but would check on the status of the Security Assistance. My concerned deep into the next day during a phone conversation with mr. Morris and. It remains to be seen they dont provide any assistance at all. That a was troubling to me as i told secretary pompeo in may the policy of strong supporter to ischange the ambassador arrived and met with the president and the Security Assistance was not discussed as far as i knew they were not aware of the whole until august 29. Near the end of the visit, i asked to meet with him privately during which i expressed to him my serious concern about the withholding of assistance to ukraine while they were defending the country from russian aggression. Ambassador bolton recommended the first person capable is sent directly relating my concerns i described the folly i saw in withholding aid when they were still active in the east end when russia was watching closely to gauge the level of american support with the Ukrainian Government. Sithe russians as i said in my deposition would love to see the humiliation with president zelensky at the hands of the americans. I told the secretary that i could not and would not defend such a policy. Although i received no specific response, i heard that soon thereafter, the secretary kerry did with him tit with him to a d on Security Assistance for ukraine. The same day that i send, they contacted me very concerned asking about the withhold of the Security Assistance, the hold the white house placed it just been made public that they. At that point i was embarrassed i coulbut could give no explanan for why it was withheld. That however would change. September 1, 3 days after, president zelensky met Vice President mike pence at a bilateral meeting in warsaw. President trump plans to travel and had to cancel because of hurricane gloria in. Hours before i contacted to let them know that the delay of the u. S. Assistance was an all or nothing proposition in the sense that if the white house to not prior to the end of the fiscal year. I received a readout during which he told me they wanted the europeans to do more to support ukraine and that he wanted them to do more to fight corruption. During the same phone call he described a conversation that they had in warsaw. The Security Assistance money kent, until president zelensky committed to pursue the investigation. I was alarmed by what he told me about the conversation and i understand mr. Morrison testified at his deposition that ambassador soloman said it might be sufficient for the prosecutor general to commit to pursue the investigations as opposed to president zelensky. But this was the first time that i had heard the Security Assistance, not just the white house meeting was conditioned on the investigations. Very concerned on the same day i send ambassador soloman a text message asking if we are now saying the Security Assistance and white house meeting or conditioned on the investigations. They asked me to respond which i did and during that phone call, he told me that President Trump told him he wants president zelensky to state publiclys that ukraine will investigate the alleged interference in the 2,016th election. Ambassador soloman also told me that he now recognized he had made a mistake. By earlier telling ukrainian officials that only a white house meeting was dependent on the public announcement of the investigations. In fact, the ambassador said everything was dependent on such an announcement including Security Assistance. He is a President Trump wanted to president zelensky in a public box making a statement about ordering such investigations. The same september 1 called i told the ambassador should have more respect for another head of state and what he described wasnt in the interest of either President Trump for president zelensky and at that point i asked ambassador soloman to push back on demand. Ambassador soloman pledged to try and i suggested the possibility that the ukrainian prosecutor general rather than president zelensky would make a statement about the investigations into potentially in coordination with the attorney general. He next day, september 2, she called to inform me that they asked him to come to the hotel in warsaw. To express the concern about the possible loss of u. S. Support for ukraine. In particular, he related to me the inability of any officials to respond to the explicit questions about Security Assistance wasat troubling them. I was experiencing this including a meeting i had with the defense minister. He was about the withheld Security Assistance. My recollection of the meeting is that both stressed bipartisan support for ukraine in washington was the most important Strategic Asset and president zelensky should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into the u. S. Domestic politics. I had been making and continue to make this point to all of my contacts but the push to make president zelensky publicly commit to investigations into the alleged interference in the 2,016th election shows how the official Foreign Policy of the United States was undercut by the efforts led by mr. Giuliani. Two days later september 7 i had a conversation which he described a phone conversation earlier today between the ambassador soloman and trump and he said he had a sinking feeling after learning about the conversation from ambassador soloman. According to mr. Morris and President Trump told him he was not asking for a quid pro quo. President trump did insist president zelensky go to a microphone and say his opening investigations of biotin in the 2016 interference and president zelensky should want to do this himself. He said he told ambassador bolton and the lawyers of the phone call. The following day september 8 they spoke on the phone they talked with President Trump but he was adamant president zelensky himself had to clear things up and give it in public. President trump said it wasnt a quid pro quo. I believe this was the same conversation between the ambassador that mr. Morrison described to me on september 7. Ambassador soloman also said he talked to president zelensky and told them that although it isnt a quid pro quo they didnt clear things up on an interview on cnn. Shortly after the fall of ambassador soloman i expressed my reservations and a text message my nightmare is that they get the interview and dont get the Security Assistance. The russians loved it. I quit and i was serious. The next day i said to ambassador soloman and volcker to the message to the ukrainian and the russians we send with a decision on security i is key. With the whole we have already shaken their faith in us. I also said i think its crazy to withhold Security Assistance or help with the political icampaign. Ambassador soloman responded about five hours later that i was imperfect about president it trumps intention. He had been Crystal Clear though quid pro quo of any kind. During our call on september 8, he tried to explain to me President Trump is a businessman and hes about to sign a check to someone that knows him something. A businessmathe businessmen askn to pay up before signing the check. Mr. Voelker used the same language several days later when we were together at the european strategy conference it makes no sense. Made no sense. The ukrainians didnt owe him anything. And holding up Security Assistance for the domestic political gain was crazy as i had said in my text message to ambassador soloman and volcker on september 9. Finally, september 11 i learned that the whole thing had been lifted into the Security Assistance would be provided. I wasnt told why it had ended. The next day i personally conveyed them the news and again reminded them of the highest Strategic Value of the bipartisan support for ukraine and the importance of not getting involved in other countries elections. I feared the time since he told me president zelensky already agreed to a cnn interview an dod he would make a statement regarding investigations that would have played into the u. S. Politics. I sought to confirm that president zelensky wasnt planning to get such an interview to the media. While they confirmed that september 12 they noticed during the meeting on the morning of september 13 is that in zelenskys office that they looked uncomfortable in s respoe to the question. H again, i asked them to confirm that would be no cnn interview, which he did. Oseptember 25, at the Un General Assembly session in new york city, President Trump is president zelensky facetoface and also released the transcript of the july 25 call. The United States gave the ukrainians virtually no notice of the release and theyem were livid to get although this was the firsthe time i had seen the details of President Trumps july 25 call with president zelensky in which he mentioned Vice President joe biden, i had come to understand welll before then that the investigations were the term ambassadors and volcker and solomon used to mean to the 2016ted elections and to investigations over the bidens. Last friday, a member of my staff told me events that occurred on july 26. While thee ambassador and i visited the front, is a member of my staff accompanied, ambassador solomon back and following that meeting in the presence of my staff and at a restaurant ambassador solomon in called President Trump and told him of his meetings. The memberor of my staff could hear him on the phone asking ambassador solomon about the stations. Ambassador solomon told him the ukrainians were ready to move forward. Following the call with President Trump, a member of my staff asked ambassador solomon what he thought about ukraine. He responded President Trump cares more about the investigations of joe biden which giuliani was pressing for. Of the time i gave my deposition on october 22 and i was not aware of this information. Im including it for completeness. Ive concluded this through counsel to the state Department Legal adviser as well as to counsel for both the majority and minority of this committee. Its my understanding of the that the committee is following up on this matter. Mr. Chairman, i recognize that this is rather late fee of the last few months told from line Vantage Point but they also recognize the importance of the matter your committee is investigating and i hope that this chronology will providede a framework for your questions. As i mentioned in my october 22 deposition of information endquotes in my testimony are based on a bestvi recollection s well as a review of my personal. Let me return to the points made at the outset. Ukraine is important to the security of the United States the largest country in europe by landmass, it is a young democracy struggling to join europe and allying itself with the United States. Its been violently attacked by russia which continues its armed aggression against ukraine to this day. If we believent in the principle of the sovereignty of nations on which our security and the security of our friends and allies if we believe that the nations get to decide on their own economic political and security alliances, we must support ukraine and its fight against this bullying neighbor. Russian aggression cannot stand. Republican and democratic administrations over three decades have been generous with assistance funding both civilian and military and political support. With overwhelming bipartisan majorities, congress has imposed harsh sanctions on russia for invading and occupying ukraine. Mr. Chairman, there are two ukraine stories today. First is the one we are discussing this morning that you havepy been hearing its about whistleblowers, mr. Giuliani, quid pro quos and interference in elections. In this story, ukraine is an object. But theres another story struggling to break free of its past, proud of its independence from russia, eager story describes the nationalism not unlike what we feel less concerned about the language we speak into practice, where our parents and grandparents came from, more concerned about the newhe country. And im now looking forward to your questions. Thank you for the testimony and i recognize myself and majority counsel for questions. I would like to begin by following up on some and you have discussed today and this goes to both majority minority, but it is new information for the committee. You said in your testimony that one of your staff was present when ambassador solomon on the day after the july 25 socalled; is that right . Thats correct. As your staff related events to you, your staff member could overhear mr. Solomon on the phone, a the president was on the phone with mr. Solomon is that right . Thats correct. She must have been speaking loud enough, this was a cell phone i take it . It was. It was. Speaking loud enough for your staff and are to be able to overhear this. It was. With your staff member could overhear what is President Trump asking about, quote, the investigation is that correct . Thats correct. You testified also if you had come to understand that the term investigations was a term ambassadors solomon as well as volker used to relate to matters to the investigations. Is that correct . That is correct. So they hear them asking about the investigation into this as meaning the bidens in 2016 and they were told they were ready to move forward. I think you said after the call when your staff asked ambassador lllomon what he thought of ukraine, his response was President Trump cares more about the investigations of biotin is that right . Investigations of joe biden then ukraine. More ukrainians would die without assistance. The Security Assistance that we provide takes many forms. One of p the components of the assistance is counter battery radar. Another component ore sniper weapons. These weapons and this assistance allows the Ukrainian Military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. If that further incursions of aggression were to take place, more ukrainians would die so it is a deterrent effect that these weapons provide. Its also the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate the end. This also is a way that would reduce the number of ukrainians who would die. Any delay in that assistance may also cost lives is that true . Its hard to draw any direct line between any particular element of the Security Assistance and any particular death on the battlefield but it is certainly true that the assistance and the armed forces to the effective antiterror to take countermeasures they lost their life while you were visiting. We keep track of the casualties. They lose their lives every week. Every week. You also testified russia was watching closely to gauge the level of support. This is significant because under this new administration they are eager to end this war in a way that the russians leave their territory. These negotiations are difficult. Ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from a position of strength or more strength than they now have. Part of that strength, part of the ability to negotiate against the russians depends on United States and other international support. If we withdraw or suspend or threatened to withdraw their looking for any sign of weakness or any sign we are withdrawing our support for ukraines when they learn of the suspension of the military aid either privately or publicly, the russians would be and they would take that as a lack of robust support for ukraine. Im sure they are interested in how the military assistance and diplomatic support for ukraine affects ukraine. If we say we believe the principal sovereignty of nations where countries get to determine their own economic and political alliances we have to support ukraine and its fight. That kind of aggression that we see can stand. How is it important to the american National Security that we provide for a robust of ukraines sovereignty backs kimiko as my colleague described. The National Defense policy that identifies russia and china as adversaries. They are violating all of the rules, treaties understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe. Im totally invaded ukraine in 2014, they had abided by sovereignty of nations. Violated by the russians and if we dont push back en on those violations, that will continue, and that, mr. Chairman, affects us and the world we live in and that our children will grow up in. This affects the kind of world we want to see. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador on the heels of discussing the importance of the Security Assistance to ukraine in particular on september 9 of this year, you texted the ambassadors and the message should be on the screen in front of you. If you could read what you wro wrote. As i sat on the phone, i think its crazy to withhold security is for help with a Political Campaign. What did you mean when you said it was crazy . I meant because of the importance of Security Assistance that we just described a conversation with the chairman, because that was so important. It made no sense it was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical, it couldnt be explained. It was crazy. When you say what we were trying to do, what do you mean by we . They were trying to support them as a frontline states against russian attack. The rulesbased order was being threatened and ukraine so it was designed to support ukraine. When youou reference help with e Political Campaign in this text message, what do you mean . I meant the investigation of burisma and the bidens was as a way to get information on the two bidens. Since that investigation at the very least was mentioned by President Trump into july 25 phone call with president zelensky. As we now know, yes. In the decades of military service and Diplomatic Service representing the United States around the world, had you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the political interest of the president of the United States . No, i had not. That vital to what terry assistance that was not the only thing President Trump was withholding from ukraine, what else was contingent on initiating these investigations . As we talked earlier today, the possibility of a white house meetinga was being held contingent to an announcement. How important to president zelensky was a white house meeting . New leaders particularly countries that have good fitting in the National Arena he was a really new president isnt that right . He was elected on may 21 in his government was formed after parliamentary elections in july. What the white house meeting boost the legitimacy of the new president in ukraine . It would boost the leverage to negotiate with Vladimir Putin about the occupation of the 7 ukrainian territory. Is pressuring ukraine to conduct a part of the Foreign Policy to promote the rule of law in ukraine and around the world . It is not. Particularly promoting the rule of law designed to help countries and the Eastern Europe and Central Europe that is overcoming the legacy of communism to join the western community of nations and live lives with dignity, helping them have the rule of law with strong institutions is the purpose of the policy. So, in other words, it is a purpose ofel the Foreign Policyo encourage the foreign nations to refrain from conducting political investigations is that right . As a matter of policy we raised concerns in private with countries that we feel are engaged in selective political prosecution and persecution of their opponents in the white house meeting from ukraine until they announce these investigations to benefit the Reelection Campaign, lets go back a little bit in time to when you first learned about this conditionality. And on september 1, so a little more than a week before the text that we just read, you send another text that should also be on the screen in front of you. If you could read what you wrote them. Are we now saying the white house meeting is conditioned on investigations what did you learn that prompted you to write this text message . I learned about him or saw after the meeting Vice President mike pence had with zelensky, ambassador sondland have meetings there and described to the assistant to president zelensky that the Security Assistance was also held it had been understood from the ambassador of the the white house meeting was conditioned it was clear to me Security Assistance was also being held. You said you were alarmed to learn this. Why were youo alarmed . Its one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house and its another thing i thought to leverage Security Assistance to a country at war dependent on the security ouassistance and the demonstratn of support. It was much more alarming. The white house was one thing of Security Assistance was much more. Ambassador, in your Opening Statement, you outlined a very detailed timeline in fact we have a written copy and you include some phrases and words and quotations. Did you take notes of the conversation on september 1 with the ambassador sondland . I did. Did you take notes related to the conversation but you recited in your Opening Statement . What did you include in your Opening Statement reflect . They reflect my notes on the notes that i heard onin the call the words used on that phone call and in that conversation. Did you review those before the Opening Statement is that how you remember about the ambassador was on a train from paris to london during a call in july . Thats correct. And you were aware i presume that the state department hasnt provided those notes to the committee, is that right . So we dont have the benefit of reviewing them to ask these questions. I understand they may be coming sooner or later. We would welcome that. You testified earlier double gated some matters overseeing ukrainian policy to ambassador sondland who is an inaugural supporter of President Trump even though ukraine is not in his domain of the European Union isis that right . Several participants in the meeting in the oval office with President Trump with the delegation to the inauguration told me of that conversation and it was at that meeting as i understand it from several participants he asked the participants to work with mr. Giuliani on the policy. Ar did you come to understand he had a direct line of communication into President Trump . I did. And you testified that access to call him after you wrote that. Did you in fact call him . And what did he say to you . He said i was wrong about the intent that there was no quid pro quo. Did he say anything after that . Did he describe to you you mentioned something in your Opening Statement you said that he used that that wa said that t on the initiation of these investigations. What did he mean by everything . What he meant was the Security Assistance and white house meeting. You also said he made a mistake relaying a message. What h was the mistake . Earlier he told him that what was necessary for the white house meeting was th the pursuif these investigations and that was a mistake. It wasnt just the white house meeting that was dependent on the investigations. He said it was now everything including the Security Assistance. So not just the white house meeting with Security Assistance. Even though President Trump was saying repeatedly that there is no quid pro quo, the ambassador relayed to you the white house getting into Security Assistance was conditioned on the announcement of the investigations to put him in a public box which you also have endquotes, was that in your notes . I understood that to mean to do this in private but this Public Statement. Held that it needs to be in public as opposed to the private confirmation box box no further information on dthat. To investigate these because of the conditionality in the white house meeting of Security Assistance we asked about the Security Assistance so what i know the Security Assistance wasnt going to come until the investigations were pursued. What i heard from the defense minister, but the senators heard in their conversation was the urgent concern that the nvrainians have about the Security Assistance. Later on september 8 in that conversation and the Opening Statement, you described how ambassador sondland used the term stalemate. What did you understand the concern about the stalemate to be . We would be at a stalemate. He began that again by repeating this isnt a quid pro quo. If you didnt clear things up and publicly would be at a stalemate and what i understood for the fading into the meeting of the stalemate was Security Assistance was. Com. You then went on to say but the Security Assistance will not come unless they are done is that what you are saying ask President Trump being a businessman before signing the check, what did you understand that to mean . This means the relationship, the understanding when hes about to sign a check. By that he clearly meant President Trump was thinking about or have in frontch of him the possibility of providing Security Assistance to ukraine it was similar to writing a check to someone you are about to send. About a week later, they had had that conversation as well. Did they owe anything to the United States . They didnt. They owed appreciation for the support. President trump believed that ukraine owed him something personally. Is that accurate . Hard to understand, but there was a feeling by President Trump that this came up in the transcript on may 23 he had a feeling of having been wronged by the ukrainians. This was something that they owed him to. What he was talking about as you understood it in the context of the conversation is that what he owed to him was these investigationsec. That would have been too thick the wrong. In the 2,016th election investigation on joe biden and burisma. We talked a little bit about the fact that you continually heard the president was repeatedly saying. Regardless of what you call it, if it is a quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, abuse of power at the office of the presidency, the fact of the matter as you understood it is Security Assistance in the white house meeting were not going to be provided unless ukraine he gated the two investigations that would benefit Donald Trumps reelection. Is that what you understood the facts to be . This is what i heard from the ambassador, he described. You heard that from ambassador sondland himself,g correct . You also heard a similar story from mr. Morrison who also talked to the ambassador about the conversations that he had n,had in warsaw. He recounted his something similar to what mr. Sondland recounted, right . Was a right . I know that ukrainians were very concerned about the Security Assistance. And i know they were prepared or preparing to make a Public Statement that is with the cnn interview and that was being planned, those are the two pieces that i i know. That cnn interview was to announce investigations as you understood it. That was the implication. We have been focused on the september timeframe but i want to go back two months to july before the july 25 call. When you testify ambassador taylor in your Opening Statement that it was in the middle of july when you understood that the white house meeting was first a condition on these investigations. Is that accurate . Yes, we were preparing and i agreed that the white house meeting was going to be an important step in u. S. Ukrainian relations. So in june annn early july attempts to work out a way to get the meeting included a phone call. So there were several conversations about how to have the phone call that eventually happened on july 25. You described in your Opening Statement a july 10 whiteo house meeting with a number of officials where ambassador usedt the term that something was a drug deal, what did you understand him to mean in hearing that he used the term drug deal. I dont know. I dont know what ambassador bolton had in mind. Was on reference to a discussion in the meeting related to the white house meeting that president zelensky wanted in connection to the investigations . The context of the comment was the discussion of mr. Boltons ukrainian counterpart that had with mr. Bolton and that conversation was very substantive up until the point where the white house meeting was raised and ambassador sondland intervene to talk about the investigations. It was at that point that investor bolton sees the meeting, close the meeting, finished the meeting and told his staff to report this meeting to the lawyers and he also later thanee indicated to jonas hill o is also a participant that ambassador bolton did not want to be o associated with the drug deal. So the implication was the domestic politics that was being cooked out. Did ambassador sondland say this in front of ukrainian officials to your understanding . Ambassador sondland, in the meeting where ambassador bolton was having a conversation with his counterpart, raised the issue ofad investigations being important to come before the white house meetings that had just been raised. And ukrainian officials ukrainian officials were in the meeting. Around the same time in mid july did you have any discussions with ukrainian officials about the investigations . I dont recall. Let me show you a text message that you wrote on july 21 where you wrote it again to ambassador sondland and volker. If you could just read what you wrote here on july 21. Gordon, one thing kurt and i talk about yesterday was his point that president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not nearly as washington domestic reelection politics. And i think you just said its ambassador boltons counterpart. The National Security advis advisor, he was but no longer. But was at the time. What did you understand it to mean that zelensky had concerns about being an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics. Henn understood that these investigations were pursuant to mr. Giulianisny request to develop information find information about prisma and the bidens and this was very well known in the public and giuliani made this point clear in several instances in the beginning in the spring time and he was aware that that was a problem. Would you agree that president zelensky is worried about this that they understood there wasau pressure to pursue these investigations is thatth fair . He indicated that president zelensky understood that he did not want to get involved in these type of activities. Im going to move ahead to july 25 which is when President Trump and president zelensky have the phone call. But before we get to the phone call, i want to show both of you a text message, neither of you is on the text message. Its between volker and a top aide to president zelensky. I will read it because neither of you is on it volker says good lunch, thanks. Heard from white house, assuming president zelinski commits his President Trump get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 we will nail down the visit to washington good luck. See you tomorrow. This was a halfhour before the call actually occurred. Ambassador taylor, was volker with you in ukraine at this time . He was. Did you know he is prepping zelinski for this phone call with President Trump in this way . Not in this way but i knew ambassador volker was prepping ukrainians for the phone call earlier on, they had a meeting in toronto on july 2 and ambassador volker had a conversation with president zelensky and had indicated in a phone call that he at the time was going to talk to mr. Zelinski through the steps that need to be taken in order to get to the phone call. Understood. And you testified earlier that the Security Assistance had already been frozen to. Your knowledge at least by july 18. Is that right . That is correct. That was a week earlier than this. So we are clear, before this july 25 call, president s trump had frozen the Security Assistance that ukraine needed in the white house meeting was conditioned on ukraine initiating its investigation and that was init related to the ukrainians. Is that accurate. That is accurate. At that point i had no indication that anyny discussion of the Security Assistance being subject to conditions on an investigation had taken place. But you understood that the white house meeting. Thats correct. Lets move ahead to july 25 call between the president am i correct that neither of you were on this call is that right . That is correct so you both read it after it was released publicly at the end of september . Yes. I want to spend a little time reading the transcript as we been encouraged to do. Want to particularly note for experts of the transcript. One that relates to the Security Assistance we been talking abot and another discusses a favor that President Trump ask of president zelensky, a third word President Trump asked ukrainian president to investigate his political opponent former Vice President biden and then a final one with ukrainian president directly links the desired white house visit to the political investigation that President Trump wanted. Lets look at the first experts when president zelensky i would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes. Now at the time of this phone call, you both knew that the aide had been frozen. Is that right . Correct. S and ambassador taylor you testified that President Trump obviously also knew that the aide had been frozen as well since he was responsible for doing that is that correct . That is what i had been told and thats what we heard on that conference call. But to neither of your knowledge, ukrainians were not aware of that at that point. Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. Right after president zelensky thanks President Trump for his great support in the areaea of defense, president trp then says, i want you to do us a favor because their country has been through a lot in ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find outot what happened with the whole situation with ukraine. They say crowd strike, i guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server you say ukraine hasnt and then at the end of the paragraph he says, whatever you can do, it is very important you do it if itst possible. Now you have testified a little bit of how important the white house meeting was to president zelensky. How would you expect a new ukrainian president to interpret a request for a favor from the president of the United States . I cannot interpret the mine of president zelensky. Other than to say it was very clear that what they were hoping to get out of this meeting was a date and a confirmation that he could come to washington. Obviously you cannot put yourself in the mind but if the ukrainian president for countries so dependent on the United States for all things including militaryt assistances requested to do a favor, how do you think ukrainians would interpret that . If you go further into the call record as part of this and we do not have it on screen but to the best of my recollection reading after was released on september 25, president zelensky went in to having whatever your problems were, that was the old team, i have the new team and we will do whatever is appropriate and be transparent and honest about it. I dont remember the exact words but he was trying to be in his own words bexa responsive to conductds the business of Ukrainian Government in a transparent and honest manner. When he talks about the crowd strike in the server, what you understand this to be in reference too . To be honest ive not heard of crowd strike until the transcript on september 25. To understand what it relates to . I understand has to i do with the story that theres a server with missing emails, i also understand that one of the owners of crowd strike in a russianamerican im not aware of any new canyon connection to the company. Are you aware this is a part of a larger allegation that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . Yes that is my understanding. To your knowledge is any basis to support the allegation that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . To my knowledge there is no factual basis. No. Who did a fear . I think example clear that russia interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle. Lets move to the third read related to biden. It says the other thing, theres a lot of talk aboutn bidens so, this is President Trump speaking, that biden stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you could do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it sounds horrible. At the time of this call Vice President biden was aec front runner for the democratic nomination in the 2020 election, are you familiar as you indicated in your Opening Statement about the allegations rebated to biden . I am. To your knowledge is there any basis to support those allegations . None whatsoever. When biden acted in ukraine, did he act in accordance with official u. S. Policy questioning. He did. Now lets go to thee last oe that i wanted to highlight which is president zelensky speaking and he says i also want to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States specifically washington, d. C. On the other hand, i also want to ensure you we will be very serious about the case and we will work on the investigation. Ambassador taylor, right after president zelensky mentioned much desired washington visit, he says on the other hand and says ukraine will be very serious about the investigation. Is this the same link between the white house visit in the investigation that ambassador volker texted a few minutes before this conversation . That is my assumption. Just to summarize what we just read in the july 25 call between the president , the ukrainian president thanked President Trump for Security Assistance that trump had frozen and he responded that he wanted zelensky to do him a favor by investigating the 2016 u. S. Election in the bidens. President zelensky says he will pursue the investigation right after he mentions the white house visit. Is that your understanding of what we just read . Yes. Is that yours . Yes. I yield back. The majority of the time has expired. Would you general an enter gen like a brief recess . Lets take a five minute recess and then wil we will res. [no audio] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the committee will come back to order the turnover recognizes the american member for 45 minutes. Thinking. The call summary for which they want to impeach President Trump is different from their depiction of it. What it actually shows is a Pleasant Exchange between two leaders to discuss neutral cooperation over a range of issues. The democratic planestw is calld extortion, bribery and other monstrous crimes can be committed against zelensky. Yet he himself insisted there was nothing improper whatsoever about the conversation. This is a routine nature of the call helps to explain why this committees last public hearing, democrats recited a fictitious version of the call instead of reading the actual transcript. The democrats depicted the president saying, i want you to make up dirt, political opponent. Understand. Lots of it. On this and ona that. The transcript did not show President Trump saying anything remotely like that. The president did not ask ukraine to make up dirt on anyone. The democrats are not trained to discover facts, theyre trying to invent aak narrative in the fact that they do not exist they will make it up. Not only does president zelensky deny the democrats characterization of the call but as ambassador taylor testified to this committee, the ukrainians did not know at the time of the call at delay was put on the Security Assistance for them. Furthermore as ambassador testified, these will occur from time toth time both he and volkr were confident that the delay would be lifted. In fact military aid to ukraine has actually substantially improved since President Trump took office. Ambassador taylor testified that President Trump was the first president to see that ukraine was afforded this was a strong message and americans are willing to provide for them blankets, this was the Obama Administrationon approach. Note this import fact, the Security System was provided to ukraine without ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackmailed to do. So were supposed to believe that President Trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred in which the victim denies evertt happened. I would like to briefly speak about the heart of the democrats impeachment, they claim the president tried to get ukrainians to manufacture dirt against the political rivals. This is precisely 0 evidence. Once again the democrats simply made up but lets consider the broader question about why President Trump may have wanted answers to questions about ukraine meddling in 2016. The democrats downplay and deny that indications that ukrainians did meddle in the election and shocking phase for people who for three years argued that foreign election meddling was an intolerable crime that threaten the heart of our democracy. While they said this is jarring, this denial is unnecessary for the argument after all, if they are actually indications of ukraine meddling in a foreign election meddling is a direr threat then President Trump would have and perfectly good reason to want to find out whati happened. And since the meddling was aimed against his campaign, you have good reason for sending his personal attorney to make inquiries about it. What is strange is that some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions who express alarm about these inquiries were remarkably uninformed about these indications of the ukrainian meddling and why the president may have been concerned by them. For example i noted previously, alexander a former staffer for the National Committee admitted to politico that she worked with officials of the Ukrainian Embassy in washington, d. C. To dig up dirt on the Trump Campaign which she passed on to the dnc and Hillary Clinton campaign. She revealed that Ukrainian Embassy officials themselves were also working directly with reporters to trade information and leads about the trumpp campaign. Ambassador kent you did not seem too concerned about it in the last round of questioning so all skip you because we know that was not a concern but ambassadot taylor, you testified to this committee that you only recently became aware of reports between ukrainian officials and toluca to understan undermined the trup campaign. Is that correct . It is correct that i had not known about this before. That is exactly right. The politico article sites that the Ukrainian Embassy supported the Hillary Clinton campaign, it quotes ukrainian holly terry insane, it was clear they were supporting Hillary Clintons candidacy, they did everything from organizing meetings with the clintonme team to publicly supporting her to criticizing trump. I think they simply di did not t with the Trump Campaign because they thought hillary would win. Ambassador taylor you testified you were unfamiliar with that statement. Is the uncracked . That is correct. You said Ukrainian Ambassador to the u. S. Road and off ed in the hill during the 2016 president ial campaign criticizing trump. That is correct. You said you did not know that the ukrainian pulling. I had admitted that part of his motivation and spreading information about the black ledger and disputed document to reveal corruption by former Trump Campaign official was to undermine the trumps candidacy. In your deposition is that still correct . That is still correct. Future gps contractor testified to congress that he was a source for gps operation to dirty up the Trip Campaign including the compilation of the steel dossier on behalf of the dnc and the clinton campaign. You testified you were unaware that he served as a source for that project. Is this still correct . It is served. You said you did not know that ukrainians internal affair minister mocked and disparaged candidate trump on facebook and twitter. Is that still correct . That is correct. In your testimony you said you were never briefed on these reports and statements and that you did not do Due Diligence before taking your post to discover the president giulianis concerns may have been and what they may have been and you did not discuss them with ambassador. Is that still correct . Yes, sir. Furthermore you said upset you to hear about the many indications of the ukrainian election meddling. Your precise words were, based on this political article which again surprises me, disappoints me because its a mistake for any diplomat or Government Official in one country to interfere in the political life of another. That isis disappointing. Ambassador taylor is also your testimony . It is, subsequent to that, i looked into the circumstances for several of the things you just mentioned and in 2016, candidate trump had made a statement saying it was possible that he would allow crimea to go back to russia, he expressed the sentiment or the opinion that it was possible that crimea wanted to go back to russia and what i tell you is that that sentiment is amazingly inflammatory to all of ukrainians so i can understand that, are you aware during the 2012 election when at the time president obama leaned over on a hot mike to the russian president and said hed have to wait until after the election, was that inflammatory to the ukrainians also . I dont know sir. I just want to be clear, some Government Officials oppose President Trumps approach to ukraine but many had no idea what concerned him. In this case it was numerous indications of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election to oppose his campaign and support Hillary Clinton. Once you know that it is easy to understand the president s desire to get to the bottom of this corruption and discover exactly what happened in the 2016 election. With that i will turn to mr. Castro. Ambassador taylor and mr. Kent, president nt trumps concern about ukraines role in the 2016 election, you believe he genuinely believed they were working against him right . I dont know what president or candidate trump was thinking about the ukrainian. Didnt he and his meeting in may 23 in the zelensky and gratian, and that he admit the ukrainians route to get him . I heard that his response to the suggestion that mr. Zelensky visited mr. Trump in the oval office was not well received and he had concerns about ukrainians. Yes. From the president s perspective if the ambassador of ukrainian of the United States most influential diplomats is handing it off the with okay of the president , the dnc consultants are conferring with ukrainian officials at the embassy, former Prime Minister is saying things on social media and to a span the zelensky round is also saying very unkind things on social media about the president , you certainly can appreciate that President Trump was very concerned that some elements of the ukrainian establishment were not in favor of him, did not support him and out to get him. All allow theot question but. Are used fiercely interrupting her time. I wont talk this in the time but i want to a be clear if youe able to verify the things that the council has asked you in the prerequisite that is fine. Otherwise in questions from the majority or minority the facts before you because in about. Point of order. The time is with the minority counsel. Chairman, i sat here to the first 45 minutes and literally hadrm no objection to almost the foundation of every question that mr. Goldman asked regarding facts not in evidence leading by House Resolution 660 does not say were under the federal rules of evidence, interposition that i should be observing objections to questions that violate the federal rules of evidence, let me know now because this hearing is going to change significantly. As i said all allow the k question. I think the gentleman has a different question about the rules. What are the rules that are going to governn t this . Does Ranking Member seek recognition question. Im yielding you to the question i just asked. For the purpose to seek recognition. It. Have answered respectful mr. Sherman, you have not answered my question whether or not i should be asserting assume facts not in evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. That is my question. Mr. Ratcliffe, im not objecting the question but im instructing then. Witness that they should not presume the question from the majority or the minority that may represent tcts not in evidence are correct. I have answered your question, will resume the questioning and the clock. So you can appreciate President Trumps concerns. I dont know the exact nature of President Trumps concerns, in my deposition i recall you handed me the politico article which listed at least three of the elements that you described earlier. And you recognized and ive confirmed with the rankings minorityty member that thats te first i heard of those and surprise. I dont know President Trumps reaction to the. Andnd Information Published e former ukrainian investigative journalist and a member of the parliament of the black ledgers in august of 2016, the very day that was published mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign, correct . I dont know. But certainly that gives rise to concern that theres elements that were out to get the president. Thats a very reasonable belief of his. Correct . I dont know. The runup to the 2016 election, there are many facts that remain unresolved greek . What is the question . Many facts of the 2016 election that remain unresolved. Attorney general barr in the may of 2019 had john durham that effort was initially administrative review has turned into a criminal probe and u. S. Attorney from is casting a white net and following the facts where they may lead. Are you aware of that . Im aware theres an investigation, thats as much as im aware. To the extent of the information trying to get to the bottoms for ukrainians to cooperate with the United States through official channels to share the information correct . Can you say that one again. Id appreciate if youd restate the question. To the extent they have facts of the 2016 election that are under the u. S. Attorney durhams probe ukraine should cooperate with the United States and the extent ukrainians doing improper things and they audit investigate about themselves. The ukrainian American Relations are very supportive, the ukrainians will certainly be responsive to request. With the president on the transcript of july 25 raises this with president zelensky and there be connection between the Ukrainian Government and the Justice Department officially. Thus the appropriate way to raise an issue with the president. It is appropriate for the Justice Department and the prosecutor general to cooperate and exchange information. To the extent the president has concerns in the attorney general is having durham look into this, isnt that entirely appropriate for the president to flag this and say you should be in touch with our official channels . I dont know the precise appropriateness of these kinds of relations. Were you involved in the preparation for the 725 call . I was not. Heady account for that . You the two key officials with responsibility for ukrainian policy, if the president of the United States is going to have a call with the leader of ukraine, why would you not ordinarily be involved with preparation . We work for the department of state and embassy overseas in preparation for phone calls that responsibility lies within staff of the National Security council. If there is enough sufficient time National Security staff can solicit information usually from the state department on the embassy but that is only Background Information in my understanding having never worked the council, National Security staff end of a c that outside the staff. The u. S. Ambassador to the country will not ordinarily be on the call with a foreign leader . That is correct. Did colonel or anyone at the National Security Council Reach out to you mr. Kent and preparation of the call . I was given notification the day before on july 24 and to the extent i had any role reach out to the embassy, give them the heads up and asked them to ensure the communication line of the office of the president of ukraine was functional so can be passed through to the white house situation room. Did you providein substantive advice to colonel goodman about the call and what ought to be the official position . I was not asked and i did not provide. Same with the investor . The same. The call was scheduled you testified earlier that the call was on again off again and after the july 10 meeting with ambassador the consensus was to call it was not going to happen is that correct . I would not say thats a consensus in the position between the two president s would be useful and once zelenskys party won the first ever majority in parliamentary elections on july 21 the idea of an congratulatory call made sene from our perspective. The call was scheduled and did you get a readout . Initially from the call . I did not. I i read the statements that ukrainians put out, i got a readout several days later from mr. Morrison of the National Security council. , you mr. Kent . Likewise first saw the ukrainian statements and i believe the next day july 26 which wouldve been a friday i got a partial readout from the Lieutenant Colonel you. You said the readout was perfect is out because it was written ukrainian and translated to the u. S. . No, as a general rule both United States and other countries will put out short summaries that hit the highlights of the discussion but without going into detail. You mentioned was cryptic. Why did you think it was cryptic . Knowing now i had to read the transcript and looking back at their summary as i recall, i dont recall the exact words but they said there were issues to be pursued in order to improve relations with the two countries. That seems pretty ordinary. You were with president zelensky the next day . Yes we had the meeting the next day. And did president zelensky raise any concerns about his view of the call . He said me mr. Volker were in his office and we asked him how the call was and he said fine, i was happy with the call. And dido you get any additional real . When did you first learn that the call contain things that concerns you . Was that not until september 25 . Mr. Morrison briefed me teseveral days later before the end of july and i think this is where i said in myte testimony, could have gone better and he said the call mentioned mr. Giuliani and he said the call also mentioned the former ambassador. Both of those were concerning. Giuliani was on the call by president zelensky correct . I do not recall. It could have w been. I have it here if you would like. Yes page three the first mention of giulianis president zelensky on page three and president zelensky says i will tell you my assistant spoke with him recently and were hoping that mr. Giuliani will travel to ukraine and we will meet once he comes ukraine commented that surprise you . I did not have the transcript at the time all i heard that giuliani was mentioned but they said july was mentioned in the call. The way that he states that it sounds like hes looking forward to speaking with americas mayor . That is what i found out when i read the transcript on the 25th of september. Correction in ukraines and dominic. That is correct. Andt, affects the courts, prosecutors and there has six torquhistorically been prosecut. Up until the new set of prosecutors appointed by president zelensky in the last two months. The u. S. Government consensus spoke with the state department and National Security council that zelensky is a real deal, heres a real informer and interestede in rooting out corruption, prosecuting the, bikers. I say were cautiously optimistic and we will work wherever theres a political will to do the right thing and genuine reform. The heart of corruption is a system correct where they take control often by virtual theft, for example the right to Certain Energy licenses correct . That is one element. The Company Burisma, its leader, has a store history of corruption doesnt he . He was minister of energy from 2010 2012 under the progression government and he used his authority to award Gas Exploration licenses to companies he himself controlled. That would be an act of corruption in my view. Certainly selfdealing. Selfdealing and self enriching. Counted the Ukrainian Government pursue that . In the spring of 2014 the Ukrainian Government after the revolution turns to partners, the u. S. In the uk to recover tens of billions of dollars of stolen assets. The first case that we tried to recover the money came from him. They worked with us and ukrainian authorities to develop more information but 23 million was frozen until somebody in the Prosecutor Office shut the case and sent a letter to theth lawyr in the money was gone. They paid a bribe to make the case go away. Anyone in the Ukrainian Government try toro reinvestigae that or did those crimes go unpunished and free to go. He spent time as far as i i understand in moscow after he fled ukraine and we continue to raise in the point of order that because taxpayer dollars have been used to recover. S frozen assets we have a responsibility and we continue to press ukrainian officials to answer to why corrupt prosecutors have closed the case and we have until now not got a satisfactory answer. We thought he had stolen money, we thought a prosecutor had to get around to shut the case and those were our main concern. Were you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted . Sent u. S. Taxpayer dollars were wasted i would love to see the office who were the corrupt prosecutor that took the bribe and how much it was paid. Thats what i said to the deputy in 2013. In addition to prosecuting the person that took the bribe, shown at the individual sponsored them be prosecuted . I would agree that the authority should uphold the rule of law and breaking the law. This Company Burisma is involved in lots of criminal activity correct . I do not know that. Over the years is been involved in a number of questionable dealings. Is the largest private gas producer in the country in the business reputation isf mixed. So to the extent a new regime is coming in under president zelensky, it would be fair for the new prosecutor, a genuine prosecutor to reexamine old crimes that have not been brought to justice. I believe the new prosecutor made a statement and they woulds be reviewing past cases. Keep in mind this is a countrywo that those commit crimes never get held to account. The bride was paid and what you . To the best of my knowledge the case against him wasr shut down 2014. Around that time burisma starts adding officials is that correct . The understanding is yes, he invited a series of new individuals to join the board in 2014. Do you know what his strategy was in adding officials . I had never met him. Who were the folks that he added to the board. The most prominent he added was a former president of poland. Anyone else . A number of others including americans and the most common one is hunter biden. He is added to the board of burisma and you think that creates a problem that burisma may be adding to its board for protection purposes . I work for the government not the corporate sector. I believe companies build their boards with a variety of reasons, not only to promote their business plans. Was hunter biden a corporate government in dexter . Im annoyed via what he studied. I have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was and what he may have done you dont know if he has business experience in ukraine prior to joining the board . Ive heard nothing about prior experience. To know if he speaks ukrainian. I do not. Do know if theres any other elements other than the fact he is the son at the time sitting Vice President . I do not. Do you know whether hunter biden offers anything than the fact that his dad is a former Vice President or was . Would you agree with these questions . He was getting paid 15000 a month to sit on the board. Do you know if you relocated to ukraine. No knowledge. Again no knowledge. So is getting pitting 50000 a month that we dont know whether he had experience, spoke the language or move to ukraine correct . Correct. Vice President Biden was taken interest in ukraine. And can you tell us about that. While he was Vice President he made six visits to ukraine one man been during the old regime Marie Yovanovitch which started february 2014. You were thee deputy chief of mission at the time . Starting in 2015. The Vice President biden co come . No i can back for Language Training and iid missed several. Youve seen biden has given us a speech in the little folk see how he went into ukraine and he was told by the ukrainians if they dont find the prosecutor they will lose 1 billion in loan guarantee. I think that was a council of Foreign Relations in 2018. You also said hes been there 13 times, do you know if that is accurate . To the best of my knowledge he did. Did the state department expressed concerns to the vicekn president s office that his role at the time engaging on ukraine presented in the issues . No the part role was critically important, top cover to helpd us pursue our policy agenda. Given Hunter Bidens role on the board of directors, you testify you expressed concern. And what did they do about that concern . I have no idea i reported my concern to the office of the Vice President. That was the end of it . You would have to ask people who work in the office of the Vice President during 2015. After you express the concere did it . Correct the Vice President was promoting u. S. Policy effective in ukraine. Hunter bidens role on the board of burisma did not seize did it . To the best of my knowledge it didid not. In my concern was the possibility of a perception of conflict of interest. I want to turn to the discussionan in fairness this irregular channel of the policy is not landers as it could be. Is that correct . Its not as outlandish as it could be. We have ambassador volker who has been there a long time, youve known him for years. Man of unquestioned integrity. That is y correct. Somebody with Incredible Knowledge of the region. Very good knowledge. In the best interest of the United States. In the best interest of ukraine. His First Priority is clearly the United States and to the extent that ukraine has an invocation. The secondmp number is Senate Confirmed, ambassador to the eu, his involvement well not necessarily part of his official duties as ambassador to the eu is not outlandish for him to be interested in engaged pursuant to the president or circuitry pompeo direction . It is a little unusual for the u. S. Ambassador to the eu to play a role in ukraine policy. It might be irregular but is not outlandish. And secretary perry is a third member of the channel. Certainly a Senate Confirmed official, somebody with deep experience in Energy Markets and pursuing liquefied national gas projects in ukraine. That is correct. His involvement is perfectly acceptable. It is. This irregular channel as it develops, when did you determine that it became problematic. In your Opening Statement you identified yourself appropriately as the leader of thef regular channel. At least a participant. Theres another legal channel. When did you first develop concerns that theer irregular channel was being problematic . I arrived in midseptember and by late september a couple of phone calls june 17. By the end of june i had begun to hear references to investigations as something that would have to happen prior to the meeting that President Trump had offered to president zelensky. That began to raise questions rfor me. Youve known ambassador broker and you certainly have a reason to know ambassador sondland. Did you ever try to wrest control of the irregular channel . I did not try to wrest control of the irregular chann channel. Why not. Because at the time, Deputy Assistant secretary kent testified, both channels, both of those channels were interested in having a meeting between president zelensky and President Trump. There is no reason to wrest control for going in the same direction. At some point your Opening Statement is here, youre the impeachment witnessc number one in your number two for the case impeaching the president of the United States because of the concern you testify about irregular channel. I was concerned when the irregular channel appeared to be going against the overall going against the overall direction and purpose of the irregular channel. The record, when you arrived in ukraine you supported secretary and secretary top advisor. They shored you that if you had any concern you would be able to contact them and they would have her back . That is correct. You knew going in the Rudy Giuliani element presented complexity. I was concerned about Rudy Giuliani statements and involvement in the ukraine policy. Okay, when it generally became a concern for you, what did you do to engage sondland and volker and perry and by the way have you met Rudy Giuliani . Not during the times relevant. Mr. Giuliani visited when i was thereev in 2007 or 2008. Thats only time i met him. You never had communications with Rudy Giuliani of part of the regular channel business. That is correct. Meetings . That is correct. And so anyway, getting back to my question, did you try to engage brechbuhl or the secretary during this time period, because i know that you said that you had in august 21st or the 22nd telephone call with brechbuhl, and a july 10th, with brechbuhl, and then you sent a personal cable to the ek is tear on august 29th. Is that the universe of the initiatives that you took inside of the state department to raise your concerns about the irregular channel . I also raised my concerns with the Deputy Assistant secretary george kent, and in particular early on when there, may have mentioned this phone it did not include the normal staff and that struck me as unusual with mr. Kent made a note of this. In your Opening Statement, you expressed some concern about what began as utter said and then it proceeded in a very regular way, correct . Thats correct. So, the june 28 call that and ultimately as it played out present any problems for you. The preparation for that call included maybe 15 minutes just of the americans that would stay on the call they told the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation with the president zelensky in toronto the important components of the phone call we were trying to establish. I will have to check my notes on that. It raised issues for me that i didnt understand what he had in mind but he was specifically going to raise a. Of relating to this corrupt charisma outfit consistent with the president s message. The president s concerns about the 2016 elections and the president s concerns is ultimately related to the company if the ambassador is raising that. The president s interest or i would say mr. Giulianis interest because that is what was very clear at the time. Mr. Giulianis interest in pursuing these investigations was of concern how many would you guess . I dont know. She texted back and forth with the mayor with a call or two. I want to circle back to the company and you testified there was an instance where the u. S. Aib had engaged with the possibly sponsoring a program and you took issue with that and recommended they pull back from that. Could you tell us about that . I became aware that as a part of what i recall wa as a clean Energy Awareness Campaign Part of the mission that worked on aconomics and governance including energy had sponsored someat sort of contest for young ukrainians to come up with a scheme and there was a prize they had cosponsored with Publicprivate Partnership being a buzzword having a cosponsorship. Given b that past history of yor interest and restoring stolen interests it was my view that it was inappropriate for the embassy to be cosponsoring a contest with burisma. I erased that with the Mission Director at the embassy andev se agreed. The mission kept the contest but dropped the Publicprivate Partnership. The time of the gentleman has expired and we will move to fiveminute rounds. I recognize myself for five minutes. I want to follow up on my colleagues questions regarding burisma. You testified about a time when he wahe was awarding himself contracts. When was the . He was the minister of ecology from 2010 to 2012 and at the time licenses to have this exploitation was awarded by the ministry. So, this selfdealing was then possibly seven years before the events that bring us here today got a phone call and of the events around it . 2010 to 2012 joining the board in 2014. And youve read the transcript, have you not . I have it in front of me that i havent read it for about a month. Is there any mentioning of the discussion with President Trump or president zelensky of this selfdealing . To the best of my knowledge, no. Is there a discussion of awarding contracts to ones self or the corrupt action in the time frame . To the best of my knowledge, no. What the president brings up ow crowd strike. I see that here, yes. There was discussion of setting up an Anticorruption Court or looking into corruption among the oligarchs or companies in general. The president s comments were focused on two things, 2016 and the bidens. I believe so. You testified i cannot believe the United States would ask others to engage in selective associations or prosecutions against those in poweric those in power referring to the center seeking the investigation of the political opponent could be interpreted that way. They wanted investigations ouinto 2016 under oligarch name. That is my understanding. And when you set your staff overheard this call between ambassador sondland and the president , and that call, the president brings up investigation. Does he not . He did. And immediately after the eresident gets off the phone with sondland, hes asked by your staff, what does the president think about ukraine, and the answer is he is disinterested in the bidens; am i right . He said he was more interested in the bidens. No discussion of virtual over things that happened seven years ago. He was interested in the bidens. I think that you also testified to the ambassador told you President Trump wanted to zelensky in a public box. Is that right . And by public box, did that mean private statements, promises to do the investigation as opposed to being a private assurance. And i think that you said in that same call you asked the ambassador to push back on President Trumps demand. Thats correct. You understood this was the president s demand that you wanted him to push back. Am ies right . I thought that the pressure on another president wasnt a good idea from either president standpoint, so i suggested in a phone call that since he frequently had conversations that he could make that point. I asked the ambassador to push back. Thats correct. And in fact, even after the aid was ultimately released after the white house learns the whistleblower complaint into the congressional investigation was released even after those events, you were still worried that zelensky was going to feel it necessary to go on cnn and announced the investigation. I was worried that he might do that. So, yes i thought that would be a bad idea. So when there was some indication that there might still be a plan for the cnn interview in new york, which was upcoming at the United Nations General Assembly meeting, i wanted to be sure that didnt happen so ig interested with the staff. I think you said earlier the National Security adviser was concerned he didnt want to be used as a tool in american politics. Is that right . Thats correct. Said he didnt want to go on and announced the political investigations he thought would my ear him in the u. S. Politics. He and his advisers knew that it was a bad idea to interject and interfereic in other nations elections. But nonetheless it appeared until it was lifted that he felt compelled to do it. He was making plans to have him make some kind of an announcement. I dont know what it would have been on cnn in public. Even though she didnt want u. S. Politics. He knew it was a bad idea to interfere in other peoples elections. You are recognized for seven minutes and ten seconds. I thank the gentleman for that. You said the first time you heard about this issue was Rudy Giuliani, and im paraphrasing but you read it in the New York Times is that correct . I do remember noticing about being involved in that article, yes, sir. I think one of the mothers of all conspiracy theories is somehow the president of the United States would want a country he didnt even like to have the ukrainians start an investigation into with that i will yield to mr. Jordan. Thank you for being here. It is held on july 18. Thats when i first heard about it. Then september 11. And we know that from that deposition i and those 55 days that its delayed you met with him three times. First july 26 day after the famous call between President Trump and president zelensky. He meets with you, ambassador voelker and ambassador sondland. According to the deposition of testimony, there was no Security Assistance dollars to investigating burisma or the bidens. Second meeting is august 27 in that timeframe the second president meets with you and ambassador bolton and others, and again there is no linkage of dollars, Security Assistance dollars to an investigation. And the third meeting is september 5. He meets with you and senators johnson and murphy and once again there is no link of the Security Assistance dollars through thes investigation. Three meetings with the president of ukraine, the new president and no linkage. Is that accurate . Certainly accurate on the first two meetings because to my knowledge, the ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until the 29th of august. The third meeting that you mentioned m there was discussion of the Security Assistance but there was not discussion of linkage. Safe to say no linkage, yet inured the position you said this and again the first majority my understanding is the money weapons, until he committed to pursue the investigation. My understanding is they were not going to get the money until he committed to pursueta the investigations. With all due respect your understanding was wrong because it didnt happen. He didnt announce he was going outo investigate. He didnt do a press conference and say im going to investigate them. You just told the Ranking Member you did it to the cnn interview and announced to investigate burisma or the bidens. No linkage whatsoever. He doesnt announce it before the aid is released on the 11th. And yet you said you have a clear understanding that those two things are going to happen but not until there is an investigation and in fact that it not happen. So, what i am wondering is where did you get this understanding . As i testified, this came from ambassador sondland. Im going to bring you a piece of paper from the statement and you can take a look at this. Go ahead though. I will let you finish. I want you to have it because im going to read if i want you to go ahead and finish. You got this from ambassador d. Sondland. That is correct. He told them although this was not a quidta pro quo if he didnt clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. Qhat was one point. It was also the case he recognized that it was a mistake to have told the ukrainians that only the meeting with the president in the oval office was held up in order to get these investigations. She didnt announce he was going to do an investigation before the name was released and then we have an addendum that he named to the testimony we got a couple of weeks ago. September 1, 2019 with the visit to warsaw and the meeting in the clarification he recalled i told mr. Morris and i conveyed the message september 1 in connection withe the visit to president zelensky. This is where you got your understanding. We are going to doev these investigations. Never make an announcement. The universal quest for the chief of staff mulvaney are not the president and it didnt come up. They never heard about it as far as i know. He never made an announcement . This is what i cant believe and you are there star with us. You are the guy based on this ive seen Church Prayer change easier to understand than this. I swear and affirm i conveyed this message september 1. This all happens by the way in warsaw when Vice President mike pence meets with president zelensky and guess what, they didnt talk about any linkage either. Ambassador taylor would you like to respond . I have two responses i dont consider myself a star witness for anything. Im just responding to your questions. Im not here to take one side or the other or advocate any particular outcomes. With the justice data. My understanding is only coming from people that i talk to. I think he remembers it the same way i t do. Could i ask for five minutes. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. One of the things i find startling about these proceedings is that faced with very serious allegations of the president ial misconduct, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle dont engage or defend the conduct. Rather, they spend theories about ledgers and steel dossiers and startling revelation that arainians might have been upset when a president ial candidate suggested perhaps you would like the russians keep crimea. Byby the Opening Statement whene attacked democrats, he attracted the media and the extraordinary men and women of the state department and the fbi. When the defense does emerge it looks like this. They were acting along the line of trying to addressss corruptin in ukraine. He worked on anticorruption and the rule of law for much of your 27 year career is that correct . I specialized the rule of law issues since 2012. I dont have a good sense of what the anticorruption effort we must engage in all over the world overtime without looks like. What we taklet me take a minuted characterizeat for us with a rel initiative or program of anticorruption might looker lik. If we are doing a systemic holistic program, you need institutions with integrity. That starts with investigators and goes to prosecutors. It goes to courts and eventually to theiy corruption system. You start with Law Enforcement and that is what we did in 2014 and 2015 with the police. That is also needed the Anticorruption Agency in ukraine that was called the National Anticorruption bureau. There was a different body that reviewed asset declarations for unusual wealth cold the anticorruption Prevention Council and eventually we got to help them establish a special corruption prosecutor and eventually high court on anticorruption and that was to try to create investigators, prosecutors and courts with integrity that couldnt be bought and would be focused on highlevel corruption. What i am hearing is a very competent of effort. Let me review president of trumps own words to the ukrainian president in the phone call and i quote theres a lot of talk about his son and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do as the attorney general would be great. He went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. If you can look into it it sounds horrible to me. When you hearag those words did you hear the president participating in or requesting the fossil program fax they made a big deal out of thee fact that he encouraged the ukrainians to remove a corrupt former prosecutor 2016 and he said they are impeaching the president for exactly the same thing that joe biden did. Is that correct, but the epresident did in his phone call and was joe biden did, are those idexactly the same things and if not, how are they different . I do not think they are the same thing. With the former Vice President s requested of the former president of ukraine was the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general who had undermined the program of assistance that we had spent u. S. Taxpayer money to try to build an independent investigator unit to go after corrupt a dictators and that is the case in which they destroyed the entire system we were trying to help create. The investigators and the judges that issued the warrants and the warrant for the wiretapping. Everybody to protect the former driver that helped a prosecutor. Joe biden was participating in an open effort to address corruption in ukraine. That is correct. As you look at this whole mess, Rudy Giuliani, president of trump in your opinion wa was tha concrete example of government efforts to end corruption in ukraine . I would not say so. You were optimistic about the nsesident zelensky. Ambassador taylor, youve related one of the first acts in office to remove immunity have you given any reason to question the honesty l or integrity . If nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a military holt at the time they called him and as a matter of law and as a matter of fact there can be no quid pro quo and to your knowledge and nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold with over 300 reporters whatpr you said repeatedly and consistently over hours and hours that he wasnt aware of a military holt during the july 25 call in fact in his official press release that i will be introducing into the Record Company said our conversation there is no relations to arms they block the provision of the military assistance prior to the telephone conversation, but the issue had been discussed during the conversation. I mean i didnt even know. So, because he had no knowledge of it, there was no quid pro quo during that call she went on to confirm a number of things, there was no pressure, there m were no conditions, there was no threat, of the military aid. There were no conditions were pressured to investigate. There was no blackmail or corruption of any kind during the july 25 call. Therefore there was no blackmail because it wasnt the subject of the conversation with the president of the United States. There were no conditions on the investigation either because of arms or the situation around companies. He told the la times there was no pressure or what theyll from the United States. He told them i was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed. He told abc news and the bbc i am against corruption. They stood in front of the world press and repeatedly, consistently over and over again interview after interview she had no knowledge of military aid being withheld, no quid pro quo, no demands or threats, no blackmail, nothing corrupt and unlike what we heard from the democrats today, that is not second hand information or hearsay. Do you have any evidence to assert that he was lighting to r the world press when he said those things . M my time is short, yes or no. I have no reason to doubt what the president said and okay. Very good. In this impeachment hearing today where is the Impeachable Offense in the call and are either of you here to assert there was an offense in the call backs [inaudible] would you like to answer the question . We will suspend the clock. Would you like to respond to the question . Restore the clock to one minute. You may continue with 22 seconds. Fine. Mr. Ambassador, i think everyone knows House Democrats have made up their mind to impeach one president. The question that we just learned is whether or not they are prepared to impeach because to be clear if House Democrats impeach President Trump for a quid pro quo, they have to call him a liar and if the impeach him for abusing his power or pressuring or making threatsy r demands they have to call him a lawyer to do it. If the impeach President Trump for blackmail or making threats or demands they have to call President Trump a liar to do it. I dont know if you have had a chance to read some of the transcripts that have been released. Are you aware other witnesses have testified that ukraine in fact found out that it was being withheld before it became Public Knowledge . I have read that and theres still a question about whether they may have heard. And ultimately they did find out when the political story came out but others have said even sooner they did find out, ambassador. The time they found out they knew that he wanted these investigations. Correct . Ukraine finds out about the hold. We are not able to give a reason for the hold. They know the president wants these investigations into than they are told bys ambassador sondland essentially you are not getting the aid unless you do these investigations are correct . Sod youve been asked how could there be conditioning if they didnt know they didnt know about the hold on the phone july 25, but they were told as you said on the first of september. When they did find out they would know what the president wanted. I would like to refer you to the discussion of may 23rd meetings in the oval office. When the president met with those that have gone to ukraine for the inauguration you briefly testified that you helped proposed names for individuals to go to that inauguration. He ultimately attended that inauguration,te is that not rig . That is correct. Do you know how he ended up as a part of that official delegation . My understanding is once they left the staff they went through a few through the white house hat determines the president ial publications. You also testified that upon returning, the ambassador sondland used his, quote, connections with mulvaney to order to secure the meeting in the oval office. That is my understanding. To your recollection who was given the response ability for the ukraine policy . I never saw any document that changed the nature of policy determination in the u. S. Government and under the Trump Administration you said in your testimony you felt to secretary perry, ambassador sondland felt that they had a mandate to take bthe lead on the ukraine policy. That is accurate. It doesnt mean that they got a delegate that responsibility. Have you ever heard the term three amigos . And what do you come to mean by this . My understanding is the use ofa the term i as the three peoe that were in charge of the policy during was not ambassador volkery and secretary perry. When did you come to learn about mr. Giulianis role and what do you consider the role to have been . I first heard about the former mayor giulianis interest in ukraine in january of this year. That was a different phase than what happened during the summertime. Was it normal to have a person that is a private citizen take an active role in the diplomacy . I didnt find the particular engagement normal, no. Mr. Ambassador, you testified two channels, regular and irregular. What did you see is Rudy Giulianis role in the ukraine policy . I came to see that he had a large influence on the irregular channel. And is that it normal to have a private citizen of the United States take an active role in diplomacy . It is not normal, it is not usual to ask people to give opinions to help form the policies of the u. S. Government. To have a person did and put into the channel that goes contrary to the policy. Mr. Turner, you are recognizeyou arerecognized for. Thank r you for your service. I havete a great deal of appreciation for your professi profession. Very little direct contact with decisionmakers and a tremendous amount of responsibility. And not ao lot of authority to effect policy bilateral engagement to shepherd through issues with our allies. One example of that is you testified in the testimony you havent had any contact with the president of the United States is that correct . Have you had any contact with the president of the United States . Youve not had any contact with the president of the United States. You both know that this inquiry is about the president of the United States. The man neither of you have had contact with. I find it amazing that the first up for the people that never had any contact with the president himself. He did have contact with the president and mr. Ambassador, you said that he is a man of highest integrity. He served as the nato ambassador and assistant director as the highest professionahas thehighed knowledgeable people about europe and a truthful man. Would you agree that he is of the highest integrity . He served as a Public Servant very well. T a i believe the ambassador is over 400 pagest . And i dont hae it in front of me. You have no evidence to make that judgment. If the amendment would apply and most of your testimonies would not be admissible whatsoever but i understand in your profession you deal with of understanding and belief in feelings because in your profession that is what you were quick to try to pull together policies and to go in and out of meetings to try to formulate opinions that affect other peoples decisionmaking. Ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting that the president or Prime Minister of the country or were you told one thing before you wented into the meeting and it would be about another thing once you get in there and the beliefs and opinions were other than you believed. You are asking if i ever learned something you logged in with a belief and then you find out that they were wrong. I learned something in every meeting. The reason why is it is unreliable. Some of the beliefs and understanding that you had are not accurate and you are mistaken about some of the things you testified today on the factual basis versus a professional assessment. I am here to tell you what i know. You learned from others you could be wrong. Im telling you what they told me. You said you had a clear understanding that the president to commit to an investigation before the aid got released and ti didnt commit to the investigation. What you heard did not happen. You had three meetings. He could have told you he didnt announce he was going to do an investigation. Its not just could it have been wrong. It was wrong. Those things didnt happen so you have to be wrong. The other thing that went on when the assistance was on hold as we shook the confidence of the close partner of the unreliability. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize mr. Carson for five minutes. Thank you. The statements when he was asked what he contradicted the president of trump and said of course i felt pressured, they were holding up 400 million in military assistance we have 400, people dying every day. They pay a very heavy price were they not . They are indeed very attentive to the ukrainian u. S. Politics. Until the aid got restored now obviously hurtful. Com is it not . He couldnt afford to be seen to be deterring to any leader. He knows that they expect him to be clear and defend the ukrainian interest. To remove the career diplomat ambassador u. Stated in previous testimony that you are aware of the campaign of slander against the ambassador in realtime the campaign was coming from and who was prepared to weigh in on fothem. To my understanding, the then prosecutor general of ukraine met Rudy Giuliani in new york in a private visit in january they had a second meeting in february the campaign was launched marc march 20 to have every reason to believe that isnt true. Who is the man who made these allegations . A politician of longstanding. He had been the minister of interior the u. S. Embassy had good relations for years. He was imprisoned and came out and was elected to the majority leader of the then president s party and became the prosecutor general in the spring of 2016. What was your experience with the ambassador she was dedicad as every u. S. Government official in ukraine it made a number of important steps since 2014. Before all of that happened, you and your superiors at the statee department asked the ambassador to spend time in the ukraine, correct . Did you support the extension . They asked her to stay until 2020. They disliked the efforts is that correct . As i mentioned in the testimony you cant approach the principled anticorruption action without kissing off corrupt people. Fair enough. Some of those people help, did they not . I cannot judge that. But i can say is in the spring on fox news and on the internet and twitter sphere. In the decades at the department, have you ever seen an instance where an ambassador was forced out by the s presidet following the campaign of misinformation orchestrated by the president s allies. Mr. Chairman, i will yield back. In 2014 you urged the Obama Administration in order to deter the further russian aggression. They provided blankets and things like that and in the deposition you also said the objection is because it might provoke the russians and in fact you testified the Obama Administration didnt have a good argumentti since they alrey provoked and invaded ukraine. Is that correct . Thats correct. Someone who understands what the deterrence provides because a lot of them could haveof been saved if he had taken your advice. In the your deposition you said they had assistance and provided both legal andha financial aid. You also stated that it was a substantial improvement. Now we are providing tanks and mr using blankets do not do that. You said its beginning to fear the longstanding u. S. Policy of strong support for ukraine was shifting. I have a little trouble with this based on what we just talked about because it wasnt reallyin longstanding strong support. It seems to me the support came with this administration. Would you agree . I wouldnt call this longstanding. The political support, economic support and increasing. That support came from congress but not from the previous administration. The strong support comes from this administration, not the Obama Administration. He had more flexibility after his election. Maybe that flexibility was to deny legal aid to allow them to rush in and kill t ukrainians. You urged the Obama Administration officials to provide defensive weapons to ukraine in orderth to deter the aggression and now they have that under this administration, dont they, mr. Ambassador . I would like to yield up the remainder of my time. Thank the gentleman for yielding. No pressure, demands, conditions, nothing corrupt. Because House Democrats charge against President Trump has been publicly repeatedly consistently denied by president zelensky, you heard the defense now from the chairman. Hes lying because he has to. The threat, the demand, the blackmail, extortion that they are t alleging. If he didnt do that, he couldnt possibly risk military aid. He would haveat to do anything e could to secure it. Problem with that, the hole in the argument is you have to ask your self what did he actually do to get the aid. The answer is nothing. He did nothing. She didnt open any investigations. He didnt call the attorney general bill barr, he didnt do any of the things that housese democrats say that he was being forced and threatened to do. He didnt do anything because he didnt have to. I will yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you both for your heroic efforts today and throughout your careers. In your testimony, you said it became clear that the efforts to gin up the politically motivated investigations were now infecting u. S. Engagement with ukraine leveraging the president s desire for the white house meeting. Did you actually write a memo documenting the concerns that there was an effort underway to pressure ukraine to open an investigation to benefit President Trump . We have not received one piece of paper from the stateve department relative to this investigationec. Both of you have made compelling cases of the importance of ukraine, to europe, to the 70 years of peace, the benefits that it has the United States National Security. And our goal to continue to support the sovereignty of nations. Meanwhile, russia is violently attacking people in ukraine does that weaken ukraine . I think it sends the wrong signal into data for a short period of time there was no aid being sent to ukraine. The signal that theres controversy and question about that u. S. Support of ukraine sends a signal to flood americas and as he t seeks to negotiate with ukraine and other countries. I think you mentioned that the white house meeting would boost his ability to negotiate for a peaceful settlement with Vladimir Putin and russia in general, is that true . Its certainly true that u. S. Support for mr. Zelensky in his negotiations with russia is very important both from the military and the political that we can provide. I think its ironic that they have been indicted and had a meeting with the president of the white house after participating in a numberet of Campaign Events may be its actually the requirement to give to the pact in order to get that meeting is it true that the prosecutor general now has opened an investigation in ukraine . The new prosecutor general of the president he president zelens appointed is indeed investigating crimes in general. Is that your question . Yes. Has he specified what investigations hes undertaken . No. At i will yield the rest of my time to the chairman. Just a quick question. Myst colleagues, a couple of my colleagues reference to the conversation between president c obama and president medvedev. That was in 2012 saying he was going to go easy on russia. They were referring to go easy i will yield now to mr. Stewart. Think you. Im going to go quickly. Im sorry that you have been dragged into this. I think the sign behind me says very well by the whistleblowers attorney started and in an impeachment will follow. After listening to what is going on for four hours and 21 minutes, after all the secret hearings, after all of the leaks in hearing witnesses such as your self gift your opinions, it comes down to this one thing. One thing it comes down to. The transcript of the president has a phone call. Theres one sentence, one phone call. That is what this entire impeachment proceeding is based upon. And ive got to tell you, if youre impeachment case is so weak that you have to lie and exaggerate about if to convince the American People they need to remove this president , then youve got a problem. Without the characterization of the phone call that was so outrageously and accurate had to be described as a parody and none of that matters an event matters, it comes down to this. We appreciate your insight in your opinion but all you can do is give your opinion of this, those wonderful call. Let me ask you gentlemen, you testified corruption in ukraine is endemic. We agree on that. A simple question, the problem is earlier in the hearing you said you did not agree to it, its in the courts its everywhere. And i think we can also agree, that is not the only place in the world where we see corruption. There is dozens and dozens of nations around the world seeking corruption. Would you agree with that . I would say theres corruption in every country including ours. Some were more concerned about than others. So in these corrupt nations in which there are probably hundreds of corrupt individuals, hundreds of corrupt officials. , can you give me an example any time when the Vice President of the United States shows up and demands that a specific prosecutor be fired and gives them a six hour time limit to do that. Are you aware that ever happening any other place . I guess the answer is no. I think out of hundreds of corrupt individuals, dozens of corrupt nations, that happened one time and it happened with thee individual whose son was being paid by the organization that was under investigation. One that was done very quickly. If someone was a candidate for Political Office even for president of the United States, should they be immune from investigation . No one is above the law. Thank you i agree with that and i think we would all agree with that. Some presume that some individuals they were talking about our candidates are immune from an investigation. I think its absurd and for heaven sakes both of us in public office, those who find ourselves up for reelection or all the time as a candidate have a higher standard, not immunity from asking these questions. The last thing and then ill yield myy time. I am quoting from the nda in 2019, the language is specific. Availability of funds under city of ukraine has to be certified, what has to be certified, for the purposes of decreasing corruption, are you surprised that there would be questions about corruption in ukraine and that it would be discussed with holding actually is required by law and theyve certified that its been eliminated or dressed . The certification in that case is done by the secretary of defense upon device of his staff with thef Agency Community and e were supportive of that in the secretory defense certified. We agree we should withhold funds if theres questions about corruption hasasit not been addressed. Im going to yield the rest of my time to mr. Jordan. 18 seconds youre going to let that go . In that case i will yield back. Quickly,a not certification that took place in may is that correct . I do not believe it was certified by me i would defer to my colleague mrs. Cooper. It had not been done byo may because when i was visiting in may i was asked by laura to re raise a specific issue. But dod need to say they met the certification. I think it may have been in the july timeframe. Thank you. It is curious were talking about hearsay evidence as extraordinary the committee has been able to get as much information or direct hearsay given thehe obstruction. You gentlemen were both asked by department not to appear for your deposition, is that correct . We both received i believe i received a letter directing me not to appear and once the committee issued a subpoena i was under legal obligation to appear and im here under subpoena. Ambassador were you also asked not to be part of the deposition . I was told by the state department dont appear under the circumstances, that was in the letter to me and when i got thees subpoena exactly as mr. Kt said, that was different circumstances and the legal subpoena. So yes here im here for that reason. Absolutely. We were not able to hear testimony of mulvaney, eisenberg, alice, john bolton, more than a dozen witnesses. If you have a problem with hearsay, you have a lot more direct testimony and evidence and blocking that ability. Youd have a lot more documents that refer to with the questions that have not yet been turned over by state or any other agency. Is that correct to your knowledge . We are both here under subpoena, i dont think other will, on what others have not showed up. Have any of the documents that you turned over to the committee . No. Mr. Kent following the july 25 call into the first two weeks of august were you involved in any effort to arrange for president zelensky to make a statement announcing to investigations that President Trump had talked about in the july 25 call . I i was not in whenever participate in arrangement of the investigation. Were you involved in efforts . No, sir. I want to show you in exchange, this is s between volr and andre. The same day zelensky texted before the july 25 call, the first texas august 10 volker text i agree, lets iron out the state and use that and we can go forward with it. At 542, once we have the date will call for a press briefing and outlying vision for the u. S. Ukraine relationship including among other things pres ma and other things. Once we have a date they will announce investigation and breeze ma, these are the same investigations President Trump asked the ukrainian president to initiate the july 25 meeting in the july 25 call. That would be the same issues mentioned in the call as well as a Media Campaign by Rudy Giuliani on ukraine policy, we aware of this effort to persuade president zelensky to issue a statement in order to get a white house meeting while they were happening . When this exchange happened i was not. When did you learn about them. As ambassador taylor referenced earlier in answering, he heard on august 16 and he called me and we had a conversation and at that point i memorialized my concerns. The point person on the ground in ukraine, we aware of the effort to get ukraine to issue the written statement in early august . Not the written statement. So the entire discussion about the two investigations President Trump that he wanted was described as a regular channel involving ambassador volker in a cast to take on ukraine policy by the president , isnt that correct . That would be my understanding. Ambassador. The same. To close on hearsay, i think the American Public needs reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed andth created, exceptions to hearsay, hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned and painful incidences and certainly valid in this instance. None would apply to this testimony. This is not the time you are recognized. Thank you. For the millions of americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following, number one ukraine received the eight, number two there was in fact no investigation into biden. Mr. Kent and ambassador taylor, you spoke eloquently and passionate about the need to support ukraine to counter russian aggression particularly during this could call time. I agree with you in thattng assessment. Isnt it the case that the triple ministration has provided substantially to ukraine in the form of defense of legal aid correct. That is correct. More so than the Obama Administration. Yes. In the transcript of the president s july 25 call with president zelensky, president zelensky tells trump the ready to buy more javelins, the most effective weapon for fighting in russian tanks is that correct. That is correct. Those javelins were not made available to ukraine under the obama ministration. They were not. Shifting gears to corruption. One of the themes here today is rooting out corruption which is an important tool for the president as we provide taxpayerfunded aid to foreign countries. Mr. Kent, you characterize ukraine as having longstanding corruption issues correct . I did. And you testified i would say corruption as part of the reason why ukrainians came out to the street in 2004 when somebody tried to steal the election and in 2014 because of a corrupt prorussian government that has collapsed. The ukrainians decided enough was enough. It remains so. And you testify you first came to learn abouted breeze burisma the senior corruption into a corner. Correct. Details as acting chief. You testify the corruption in burisma, this is from your deposition, we have made a commitment to the Ukrainian Government in 2014 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of stolen dollars of assets out of the country. Is that correct. That has stolen assets in the name of the owner burisma who we believe stole the money. So the first case, this was the first case that the u. S. , you cry in a ukraine investigats worked on against the owner of burisma. That is correct. This was during the Obama Administration. That is correct. For the millions of americans viewing, the first investigatio against the owner of burisma was obama. That is correct. You testify we spent roughly half a Million Dollars of state department money and support of the fbi in this investigation to build capacity and tracked down stolen assets. Is that correct. Correct it was launched in tomay 2014 the attorney generalf the u. S. In construction with the world bank. By 2016 you are so concerned about corruption questions related to burisma that when there was an effort by burisma to sponsor and essay contest, you asked them to stop it. That is correct. And you testify because burisma had a poor reputation in the business and you did not think it was appropriate for the u. S. Government to cosponsor something with the company that had a bad reputation. Correct. You are also aware that hunter biden served on the board of burisma. Correct. You testify you were concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest. That is correct. And broadly, this is important, you testify that when the state department evaluates foreign assistance, it is appropriate for them to look at levels of corruption and country. That is correct. You also testify, this is your quote, issues of corruption have been part of highlevel dialogue between u. S. Leaders and ukrainian leaders regardless of who is the usa leader in the ukrainian leader and thats a normal issue of diplomatic discussion at the highest level. That is correct. I will yield 30 seconds. I will yield back after that. Both of you have testified that you are not direct witnesses who have spoken with President Trump however, your witnesses to a shakedown scheme the othersse participated in and spoke with President Trump. However, ambassador bolton and Mick Mulvaney both spoke directly to President Trump and unlike you have refused to honor our request to be a part of the proceedings. Nonetheless we know how acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney feels because on october 17 at a press conference he discussed the on Security Assistance for the ukraine and unlike you to listen to what he said. I will read it for you. In response to a question but to be clear what you describe as a quid pro quo. Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happens as well. In response to the question mr. Mulvaney said, we do that all the time with foreignpolicy. My question, ambassador taylor, the president conditioning Security Assistance by investigation into the political opponent prior to this ministration, is this something we would do all the time. No, sir. Why not. We condition assistance on issues that will improve our Foreign Policy, serve our Foreign Policy, ensure that taxpayers money is well spent, those conditions are either coming from the congress or froi policy decisions and the Authority Congress has given us to make sure the taxpayer money is well spent or the receiving Company Country takes the actions in our National Interest. You described in your exchanges that engaging in ischemicic this is crazy can we agree initial strong. Yes. Why is it wrong. A gang, are holding up of Security Systems that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia for no good policy reason and no National Security reason is wrong. In the same News Conference mr. Mulvaney said if you read the news report and you believe them, what mckinley said yesterday, he said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence and Foreign Policy, that was one reason he was so upset about this. I have news for everybody, get over it. There is going to be political influence and Foreign Policy. Ambassador taylor, should we get over . If were talking about political influence meaning attempts to get the information that is solely useful for Political Campaigns, if thats what hes talking about, we should not get used to that. Finally he said, i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. Three issues for that, the corruption of the country, whether or not the country is participating in the support of ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in the Ongoing Investigation with the department of justice. That is legitimate. Were you aware of department of justice cooperation made to the ukrainian . Mat anma im not aware there is any formal request in this matter. Was mr. Mulvaney statement false . I think you can refer that o the department of justice because i dont have full knowledge of what they were working on. An hour before the two of you sat down, the president tweeted multiple times about this hearing and he put in all caps, never trumperd spring are you a never trumper . I am a career nonprofessional who serves whatever president is duly elected and carries out the foreignpolicy of the president in the United States and ive done that for 27 years for three republican president s a true democrat. Are you a never trumper . No, sir. Finally you said in your statement, there are two ukrainian stories today, theic d first were discussing this morning and you been hearing for the past two weeks, a story about whistleblowers. Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, and interference in elections. In the story ukraine is an object. Is it also true that in, the story its about the president of the United States . Im here to tell you what i know, and im here to tell you what i heard and what i said. In that regard, i cannot answer that question. What you testify to also involves the president of the United States is that correct . The president was on the telephone call on the 20th of july yes, sir. I yield back. Thank you chairman. I appreciate your service as a stable Foreign Service officer ryan crocker says because we have tips on the ground meaning diplomats that prevent us from having the need to have boots on the ground, you are an Important Role in our National Security and think you and your colleagues. My first question are to you, these are questions that are on years prior to your time in the ukraine but im pretty sure you can answer them. Did the ukrainians get military aid in fy 17 . Did they get any aid in fy 17. Yes, sir. And they got Security Assistance as well . They did. If i said that number and military assistance to under 70 million without the accurate . No. Did they get aid in fy 18 . Yes, sir. Including Security Assistance . Yes. They were not able to purchase and previous administrations. Have they gotten Security Assistance in fy 19 . Yes, sir. Prior to the 400 million that were discussing today. They got fy 18 assistance it takes a mile once money is obligated to reach a country, there was two ships that just arrived in the port of odessa with prioryear money. That is a longer beer. My point is we have been supporting the ukrainians under thisye ministration in order to help them kick out the russians who invaded their country. Yes, sir. 100 . You are testifying ukrainian officials did not become aware of potential u. S. Assistance being held until august 29. Is that accurate . That is my understanding. Would you find it surprising if ukrainian officials knew about that sooner and did not contact you . I can answer that it was only after august 29 when the political argument that i got called from several of the ukrainian officials. Had you had any ukrainian official contacting you h concerned when was the first time the ukrainian official contacted you concerned with withholding of the usa. It was after the article came out the first intense week ofa september. So after the august 29 conversation. There is a lot of talk about Rudy Giuliani and who he was and was not, do we know or have an idea of the ukraine officials he was meeting with over the last couple of years . I dont sir. Have you had any ukrainian officials call youth after meetg with Rudy Giuliani concerned about the nature of the context of the conversation . Yes he expressed concern about interactions with him. I believe that meeting was somewhere in late august . There were phone calls andec meetings. And you have talked many times that you are concerned about corruption in the ukraine, is that correct. Yes, sir. Have we seen this anticorruption statement for the ukrainians to make. Are you referring to the statement be negotiated between kurt volker solman . That was not an anticorruption statement. What was the statement. If you go back to what was shared with court volker, they shared a draft with Rudy Giuliani and Rudy Giuliani said it would not be acceptable if it didan not mention biden burisman 2016. But that was not released by the ukrainian official. No statement was issued. Have u. S. Businesses ever contacted you all concerned about corruption within the ukraine. Yes, sir. As of this year . Yes, sir suit. [crowd boos] the concern is not how ukrainiae businesses run are being operated, is also concerned about how the Ukrainian Government is dealing with american businesses trying to operate inop ukraine. American businesses are concerned about the judicial system in particular. I yield back my time. Mr. Castro. Thank you for your testimony today and for your service to our country. Listening to the evidence and everything i heard and read in this investigation, it seems the president of the United States committed extortion and bribery of a foreign official or attempted extortion and bribery of a foreign official. When President Trump got president zelensky on the phone on july 25 he was talking to a desperate man wasnt he president zelensky was desperate to protect his country and make sure he had foreign assistance from the United States ispren nt right. President zelensky is very interested in u. S. Support both assistance and political support. What would happen if the aide wouldve gotten cut off if hisbo career in th and ukraine . If assistance was cut off, e would have been much weaker in his negotiations with the russians, he would have been much weaker on the battlefield. The russians may have taken as an invitation to take military action against ukraine. The russians always look for vulnerability and they know that the United States has supported ukraine and if the russians determined or suspect that that support is lessened or not there, they will likely take advantage. They could have pounce. They couldve taken advantage. He had a desperate man on the phone and asked for a favor. Based on your testimony is sounds like president zelensky may haver. Agreed to do that favor. And investigate the bidens and burisma. Is that right . President zelensky says in therest transcript that he will pursue the investigations. We know President Trump asked for a favor to help his political career and it appears the president of the ukraine agreed to that favor, do we know why it did not happen . Do we know why about the investigation . As we have determined and discussed here, on september 11 just before any cnn discussion or interview, the hold was release the hold on the Security Systems was released. So the hold was released, is it possible the white house released the hold because they knew aea whistleblower had basically turned the sink . I do not know sir. You think thats possible . Im not in position to judge. We have a president who the other side has claimed or defended the president saying the aide went through, there is a never ending investigation but the president attempted to get those things done and it looks like there was an initial agreement to actually do those things. So ambassadors, is attempted murder crime . Is attempted murder crime . It is a crime. Is attempted robbery a crime . Neither of us are lawyers i think anybody can answer the question. All go out on a limb and say yesterdays. Is attempted extortion and bribery a crime . I dont know sir. In the minute that i have left i want you to speak to the nation about what is at stake ambassador kent, you said in your Opening Statement you warned about selective prosecutions that the president of the United States going after specific americans abroad, if this congress clears President Trump doesnt mean he can go ask another foreign country to investigate another president ial candidate, a member of congress, governor, senator or any private american citizens doing business overseas, if there is no consequence for a president whom does not it means there is a green light doesnt for any president to ask any country to go prosecute or investigate an american citizen for political and personal gain of that president t. Doesnt it . They stand for the question. Im notna an investor and i will repeat on principle regardless of the country whether ukraine, the u. S. Or any country, the facts of law, criminal should drive investigation by Law Enforcement officials and not the role of politicians to be involved in directing the judicial system of their own country or other countries. I yield back. Mr. Radcliffe. In your prior definition, on page 159, you are asked about the President Authority to release an ambassador forn any reason in your response was, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. That is without question. H. Understands that, end quote. Do you remember saying that. I do and its true. The president very clearly has that constitutional authority, correct . He does. Okay. Well, most everybody apparently understands that. But that doesnt include House Democrats. In the context of this impeachment inquiry, specifically addressing ambassador yovanovitch, who i know is a friend of yours, in alleging an abuse of power in a nationally televised interview, a member of this Committee Said its an abuse of power to remove an ambassador because you dont like what theyre doing, end quo served at his pleasure. You agree we shouldnt impeach aa president for exercising his constitutional authority. Toh answer your questions or constitutional obligation is considered evidence before you. So, when did the ambassador gets recalled from ukraine . Lacks i believe the message was sent on apri april 24. Before that call in question here. Without a doubt. She had no remaining responsibilities for the three or four months in between i take it. She is now she was transferred to a teaching spot at georgetown where her response abilities were to teach a class on ukraine. To remove her if she wasnt in thety ukraine or had any responsibilities on july 25, do you have an explanation for why democrats are calling her as a witness on friday . I am here as a fact witness and that is a question you can direct towards the colleagues. Ambassador taylor, weve established that on july 25 oath participants in the call expressly have stated there was no pressure, no blackmail, no corruption. And i ask you begin specifically about the quid pro quo even being possible and i think weve agreed that it wasnt possible involved in military aid given the lack of knowledge. To my knowledge he didnt have any idea that the Security Assistance was on hold. Do you know then why within days of phone calls when no quid pro quo even possible a person who later became a whistleblower walked into the staff to discuss with the spokesman said were the outlines of the whistleblowers accusations . Le im sorry, what is the question . Do you have an explanation for why that person would walk into the office i do not. Earlier chairmanship the chairma reference for a colloquy. Without jeopardizing the whistleblower in any way in an effort to find out what you knew and when you knew it i would like you to engage in a colloquy with me. Wmy colleague will address te questions to the witnesses. I will take that as a know you are not interested in a colloquy. You can take it any way you want but the questions should be directed to the witness. My question to the witness is when are they going to find out when House Democrats already know, when are we going to find out the details of the contract between chairman schiff and by whistleblower . When they met, what they meant about, the number of times they met, the discussions that were had researcher and come a point of order. A gentle man is questioning the chair which isnt permitted under the rules of the house or the committee. Efforts to undermine lawful whistleblowing is contrary to the law and practice of this committee and i would also like to quote, mr. Jermaine im trying to find out the dayf this happened. If the chairman could suspend. Resume questioning of the witnesses i would just recommend we move on. Are we ever going to be able to find out the details i guess he hasnt resumed his question. Your time is dwindling i suggest you use it. I will yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. Some people have suggested that the real reason President Trumps Pressure Campaign on ukraine was to root out corruption in ukraine. Ive gone back and read the memorandum of the call two or three times and i do not recall a single instance the president ever used the word corruption nor the word corrupt. I know an answer to the churning something questions you indicated you had gone back and read it about a month ago. Do you recall in that july 25 phone call ever uttering the word corrupt or corruption . It would be a matter of record. Hes found time to mention the political rival in 2020. You also answered in response to the question that youve been working on the issue of corruption literally for decades. Thank you for that on behalf of the American People. And indeed on october 15, you testified about longstanding u. S. Policy meant to combat corruption in ukraine. Championed by people such as the former m ambassador maria yovanovitch. But is it not true that rather than fighting corruption in general in ukraine, what President Trump actually did is unceremoniously recalled and removed ambassador yovanovitch from her post in ukraine . I would say first of all as i repeated before, they have the right to recall ambassadors. It remains a matter of policy of the United States towards ukraine to help them overcome the legacy of corruption in creating new institutions and much of what weve been discussing today which involves a request that went against u. S. Policy that would have undermined the rule of law in the policy goals in ukraine as in other countries in the postsoviet space. You also testified on october 15 in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary to fight corruption and to transform the country and you cited the importance of reforming certain institutions, notably the Security Service and the prosecutor generals office. Was investigating the political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list or on any list . Know they were not. In fact historically is it not true a major problem in ukraine has been its misuse of prosecutors, precisely to conduct investigations of political opponents and that is a legacy from the soviet era when as you stated in your testimony, prosecutors like the kgb were instruments of oppression. I said that and i believe it is true. So finally, for as long as i can remember, u. S. Foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interest in Democratic Values, notably freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, free, fair and open elections and the rule of law. Would american leaders ask for in governments to investigate the potential rivals doesnt that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those Democratic Values . I believe it makes it more difficult for the representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals. How is that . Theres an issue of credibility they hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and hear other u. S. Leaders saying something else. What you agree with that . Is there anything you would like to add about what might make ihow it mightmake it diffio your job . Our credibility is based on respect for the United States, and if we damage that respect it hurts our credibility and makes it difficult for us to do our jobs. Anyone looking at the fact to see it happen was an abuse of power. Anyone looking at the facts can see what happened was unethical. Anyone looking at the facts can see, anyone looking at the facts can see that what went on was just plain wrong. I yield back mr. Chairman. 55 days between july 18 and september 11 there was a delay on sending hardearned tax dollars of the American People to ukraine. We are talking ukraine, one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. Our witness on friday testified in the deposition corruption isnt just prevalent in ukraine, its the system. Our president said time out. Timtimeout. Lets check out this new guy. Lets see if zelensky is the new deal. He got elected, his party took power in july. Lets see if he is legitimate. Now keep in mind, this has already been discussed. In 2018, President Trump had already done more for ukraine than obama did. Thats right, president of trump who doesnt like foreign aid, who knew how corrupt ukraine was, did more than obama. Witnesses said obama gave a blanket and trump gave them missiles but when it came time to check out this new guy, president of trump said lets see if hes legit. So for 55 days, we checked him out. President zelensky had five interactions with senior u. S. Officials in that timeframe. One was of course the phone call. July 25 phone call between presidenPresident Trumpeted pret zelensky. And there were four other facetoface meetings with the u. S. Officials and guess what . Not one of those interactions, not one were Security Assistance dollars believed to linked to burisma was the bidens. They all becamein convinced that zelensky was in fact worth the risk, budget, the real deal in real change and guess what, they told the president he is a reformer. Release the money and that is exactly what President Trumpeted and over the next few weeks we are going to have more witnesses like weve had today. They will come in here and say so and so said such and such and therefore weve got to impeach the president. We can get more specific. We covered this a little bit ago. They will Say Something like ambassador taylor recalled that i told mr. Morris but i conveyed the message on september 1, 2019. If you can follow that that is the democrats plan on why they want to impeach the president and that is what we will hear over the next couple of weeks. For facts will never change it shows no link between dollars and investigation. President trumpeted president zelensky both said there was no linkage or pressure. They didnt even know the aid was withheld at the time of the phone call, and most importantly as its been pointed out, they didnt take any specific action witrelated to the investigationo get the money released. There is one witness they want to bring in front of us in front of the American People and that is the guy that started it all, the whistleblower. Only one person gets to know who that is, one member of congress has a staff that gets to talk to the person. Only the chairmanship goes with the whistleblower is. We will never get the chance to see the whistleblower raised his right hand and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Thisis anonymous socalled whistleblower who worked with joe biden and is the reason we are all sitting here today will never get the chance to question that individual. Democrats are trying to impeach the president based ontt all th. Of 11 and a half months before an election and we will not give to check out his credibility, motivation . This is a sad day for this country. You think about what theva democrats have put our nation through for the last three years. Started at july of 2016 when they spy on two american citizens associated with the campaign ended unfolds with the investigation under that when that didnt work here we are based on this. The American People see through this and understand the process is unfair. They see through the whole thing. With that i wont go back. I say to myh colleagues i would be glad to have the person who started it all testified. President of trump is welcome to take a seat right there. [laughter] you know, the question here is not a dispute about the enormous power that a president has. The question is whether in this casee there was an abuse of that power. The president can fire an ambassador for any reason whatsoever. The president can change his policy as he did when he opened the door for turkey to go in and invade kurdistan despite opposition from many of his senior advisers. The president could change his position and our position on ukraine. That ibut is there a limit . There is. Because our constitution says no one is above the law. In that limit, one cannot even as president used the public trust in high office forne personal gain. It prohibits anyone of us here from seeking foreign assistance in the campaign. The question for us is whether the use of power by the president was for the benefit of advancing his political interest in the campaign. And by the way, if they dont want us to attack hes free to do it all fair and square in campaigns. Hes just not free to change our Foreign Policy unless he gets his way to a system in that campaign. Gnnow, you all have been very clear about what our continuous Foreign Policy was. Ambassador taylor, very quickly describe why withholding aid interfered with achieving our National Security goals. One of our National Security goals is to resolve conflicts in europe. There is one major conflict in europe it is a fighting war. Our national c security goals in support of ukraine and a broad strategic approach to europe is to facilitate the negotiation, to try to support ukraine when it negotiates with the russians. I want to go back to the historical context. You and ambassador taylor provided we have 70 years of peace after the war in which we lost over 400,000 american lives and that took care and that was in jeopardy as youl described it and that each and every one of us appear and the constituents we represent. Is that a fairsc statement . Spinnaker that is a fair statement. July 24, july 24, july 25 and july 26. The 24th, director mueller testified about his investigation and he established beyond doubt that it was the russians who interfered in our elections and he expressed the fear it could that would be the new normal. Onon july 25, according to the readout of the president s campaign, he asked the ukrainians to investigate the ukrainian interference that had beenhe repudiated. Then july 26, as i understand it, thisas person who reported o you heard the president say he wants investigations again in ukraine. So this is the question. The new normal that the director mueller feared, is there a new normal that you fear that a president , any president can use congressionally approved foreign idaid as a lever to get personal advantage to something that is in his interest not in the Public Interest . Spinnaker that should not ben te case. I yield back. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record transcript for a call between President Trumpeted president zelensky. You your self mischaracterized it as fact in the first open hearing. The gentleman will suspend. The unanimous consent thank you for being here today. Ambassador taylor, what year did you graduate from west point . 1969. The heights was about the time. What was your class rank . Westpoint number five. How many people in your class . 800 cadets and you were number five. So in the top 1 of your class at west00 point, you probably gt your pick of assignments that you picked the infantry. Yes sir. Rifle company commander. Where did you serve . In vietnam. Combat vietnam . I did. Did you earn accommodations for that service . I was awarded combat infantry badge which was my highest im proudest of. There was a bronze star, there was an air medal thats fo thats for valor, isnt it . Whats good july 26. You go to the front with the ambassador and you were on the bridge and you are looking over on the frontline of the russian soldiers are stuffed with you recall . You said thank you for the assistance that you knew was being withheld in that moment. Thats correct. How did that make you feel . Badly. Was clear that commander had confidence in us and had the reassurance we were supporting him. You dont strike me as a quitter but you threaten to resign or mention that in your statement. You find yourself with the National Security adviser and ad come date your concern about the withholding of assistance. He said he shares my concern. He works directly with the president and you you should bring it up with the secretary of state. How many times in your career 40 or 50 years have you sent a cable directly to the secretary of state . Once. This time in 50 years. I. The National Security adviser who shares your concerns as you, the ambassador serving ukraine and you do so. If you without going into the classified information, it says Security Assistance us what we have been talking about today. Security assistance at this particular time is very important. Ukraine i also picked up and we talked about today, ukraine is important for our National Security and we should support it. Not to provide that would be folly. Spinnaker did you get an answer . Not directly. Do you know what happened to the . I was on vacation when it came in but my understanding is that it made it to the recipient. We know the secretary was on the call a month earlier on july 25. Its not like hes in the dark about any of this. What did he do with it . I cant say for sure what happened when it was brought in at the highest level. One of the questions, september 1 you recall a meeting between the Vice President and of ukraine, mr. Zelensky which write off the bat, the president of ukraine raises Security Assistance and according they say i will talk ne the president tonight about that. Do you know when he made that call . I dont know, sir. Do you know what if anything shhe had to do with any of thes . What more can you tell us about the role on this and do you know if he ever raised this issue with anyone in the administratioadministration or d further release of that Security Assistance box box i dont. I believe it to the best of my understanding he was an advocate for the release of the early assistance. I will yield back. I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to such it the political article on ukraine hosting. That will be entered in the record. Representative. Thank you so much mr. Chairman and thank you to both of you for being with us today. Mr. Kent, you said that a president has the right to remove an ambassador because the ambassador still has the pleasure. Is that correct . That is correct. Does that normally come with a smear campaig campaign of that ambassador by the president . It i think to make a decision about the personal representative is confirmed by the senate is separate from whatever happens outside of the confines of u. S. Government processes. Do you have any idea why it was important to discredit yovanovitch over what she was willing to do or not do, why that was important . It depends on thec motivation of other people, and i am not onell of them. The committees investigation has uncovered a web of diplomacy engaged in and executed by several state Department Officials and the president s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and also directed by President Trump. Weve heard several ways of describing this shady shadow operation diplomacy, rollback channels. Ambassador, youve described what you have encountered is the top diplomat on thed ground in ukraine, and i quote as highly irregular informal channel of u. S. Policymaking. You testified that it included secretary perry nsu later learned the president s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Is that correct . Both of you have explained you grew seriously concerned when you realized that the interest of this irregular channel diverged from official u. S. Policy and interests. Was mr. Giuliani promoting u. S. National interest or policyh in ukraine . I dont think so. No, he was not. What interest do you believe he was promoting . I believe he was looking to the day got political dirt on the next election cycle. What interest do you believe heal was promoting . I agree with mr. Kent. U to promote policies overseas but not to help the current president when ricci elected. Is that correct . All employees were subject to the act and actions were to promote policy and not be involved in partisan politics. Ambassador taylor. I agree. What is the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy that is completely outside of normal channels and doesnt further the u. S. Policy goals . Did impossible to do one of the other. If its against the goals, that is a mistake. Its not helpful. You can get advice and even have conversations outside of the normal channels, but then they need to be part of the Foreign Policy and approaching those goals. Agree. You described in your previous testimony after you arrived in ukraine at which the ambassador asked state Department Officials not to listen to a july 28 coffee had planned to hold with president zelensky. Did you find that unusual . I did. What was w the impact of makg that request . You found it unusual. What did you believe the impact was . Im not sure there was an immediate impact. Was very recording or transcript . That was the impact is that it wasnt recorded. Do you think that it was made so that there wouldnt be normal state Department Employees from the Operation Center would have been their transcribin there trd taking notes . That is the norm, but its also not unusual to not have it recorded. So you know that the state department is holding your notes and refuses to provide them to Congress Despite a duly authorized subpoena, and we know that in some instances your notes may be the only documentary record of what happened. You are a aware of the . Yes. And mr. Kent, you are aware your notes have nota been turned over to congress. I turned over all records i had in my position to the state department, because whatever we ddo as conservative federal records not a personal record. Thank you mr. Chairman i will yield back. [inaudible] i have a New York Times oped stating why president obama should have done more investing in ukraine by the trio of ambassadors that includes William Taylor without objection it will be some added to the record. Mr. Murphy. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Id like to walk you through a couple points raised by my colleagues on the other side. The light debate could july 25 call summary shows no evidence of pressure on the Ukrainian Government. In fact they argue they didnt feel any pressure at any time to comply with any of President Trumps request for investigations. In fact ambassador taylor at your deposition in october, you stated that due to the whole of President Trump placed on aid o ukraine, the ukrainians became, quote on quote, desperate. Isnt that right . In august they did and go, as far as im aware, but at the end of august the article came out in september. The minister of defense for example came to me i would use the word desperate to figure out why the assistance was being held. He figured if he went to washington to talk with you or the secretary of defense with the president , he would be able to find out and reassure, provide whatever answer was necessary to have the information released. My colleagues on the other side is just president zelensky personally didnt feel any pressure at any time and get later on in september he finally relented in a conversation in which he agreed to make a statement on cnn, isnt that right . He planned to make a statement on cnn, yes sir. My colleagues also say it was lifted without any investigations happening on the part of ukrainians and therefore everything ended up fine in the thd. However, mr. Kent, as you know, the house intelligence Foreign Affairs and oversight committees began the current investigation leading to the proceedings today on september 9. In fact, it was only two days after this particular set of committees began their investigations that the Trump Administration eventually released the military aid, correct . That is the timeline, yes. Ambassador taylor, between the time of your october deposition to now, did anyone from theta administration contat you about your appearance before p the committee to a . No sir. How about you, mr. Kent . No sir. Mr. Taylor, i would like to refer to the word of the used 13 times and that is concerned. You were concerned aid was being conditioned on the political investigation isnt that right . You were concerned irregular channels of diplomacy were being used in the Foreign Policy and the ukraine. Yes sir. Can you rule out the possibility that these irregular channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct foreignpolicy . Ive not heard of any other separate channel that has this kind of influence. That is the giuliani kind of guidance. But you cant rule it out. I have no basis to make that botermination. You dont believe the call was perfect, do you . I think some of the language gave called for concern. What was the cause for concern for you . The discussion of the previous ambassador was a cause for concern. I want to draw on your experience finally as a west point cadet and infantry commander in vietnam in a battlefield situation does the Commanding Officer allowed to hold up action placing his troops at risk until someone provides any personal benefit . No sir. Is that because if they did that they would be betraying the responsibility tops the nation d the men and women under their command . And ifh that happened and were found out, could that person be subject to discipline . For the conduc that conduct trit martial . Yes sir. Thank you. I will yield back. I have a unanimous consent to enter into the record of the statement where he said there is absolutely no quid pro quo. Without objection. You are recognized for any closing comments. After the brief Closing Remarks by inattention to excuse the witnesses and we will have a very brief recess. Members shouldnt go far we will resume and take toma the motion. Thank you mr. Sheriff. I will be brief. I want to reiterate what i said earlier and that is we really should stop holding these hearings until we get the answer to three important topics. The first being the full extent of the democrats prior coordination with the whistleblower and who did the whistleblower coordinate with. Second, the full extent of ukraines election meddling against the Trump Campaign, and third, why did burisma hire hunter biden and did this affect any u. S. Government actions under the Obama Administration. You are not allowing those witnesses to appear before the committee did which i think is a problem. So weit would expect hopefully e will allow us to bring in the whistleblower, the folks he spoke to come and also numerous democratic operatives who worked with ukraine to meddle in the election. With that i will yield back. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today for your decades of service to the country. I think you exemplify so many courageous men and women who serve in the military and represent the United States so well around the world. I appreciate how you endeavor to stay out of the fray to relay what you heard and what you saw without additional commentary. That is as it should be. You were both compelled to appear and we are grateful that youve answered subpoenas that tyou receive. The story that youve shared with us today and your experience i think is a very deeply troubling one. It is the story of a dedicated ambassador, someone who served with great distinction. Ambassador yovanovitch who was in a spear campaign at the beginning of the year. It is the story of once this ambassador was pushed out of the way, the creation of a regular channel, which ambassador taylor, you described went all the way from the president to hake full veiny, to ambassador sondland to ambassador bulger to really Rudy Giuliani. Over time that became apparent that wasnt serving the u. S. Interest that was running deeply contrast to the u. S. Interest and was in fact conditioning a white house meeting they sought to establish as the president of ukraine and demonstrate to friend and foe alike that he had a relationship with his most powerful patriot in the United States of america. And conditioned 400 million of bipartisan taxpayerfunded military support for a nation at war. On the front lines of russian expansionism. A suspension of which was not in the u. S. Interest, not ukraines interest, the National Security interest and in no way, shape or form. Youve described a situation in which those in the service made it clear to the ukrainians they eed to publicly announce the investigations or they were not going to get that meeting and they sure were not going to get that military assistance. I would point out into this may not have come to your attention but it certainly came to ours on september 9, the Inspector General informed or committee that the director of National Intelligence was withholding a whistleblower complaint in ncolation of the statute. By that point on september 9, ththat complaint had made its wy to the white house. Oion september 9 when the Inspector General informed congress that complaint had been withheld by the white house also Learned Congress now inevitably would learn about the complaint. It was less than 48 hours later that the military aid would be released. Over the days to come, we will hear from other dedicated Public Servants. Other aspects of this effort to invite foreign interference to condition a white house meeting and military aid for the performance of political favors forct the president week electin campaign we will hear from other witnesses. I appreciate members on both sides of the aisle who i think participated today in a serious way and in a civil way. This is as it should be. There is no shortage of strong feelings about what this means for the country. At the end of the day we have to decide based on the evidence you and others provide whether we are prepared to accept in the presence of the United States a situation where the president for their own personal or political benefit can condition military aid, diplomatic meetings or any other performance of an official act in order to get help in the reelection. Whether we need to accept in this or any other that the president of the United States would invite a foreign country to intervene ino our affairs these are the decisions we have to make when we decide whether the president should be impeached. But i want to thank you again and conclud concluded by sayinge i cannot let it go unanswered some of my colleagues made the statement repeatedly that i met with a whistleblower, i know the whistleblower is. It was false first time i set it and it will be the last time they say it. With that, this concludes this portion of the hearing and i want to, thank you and i ask everyone to remain in the. The. The witnesseson are excused. Please allow them to leave the committee room. Once they leave the committee room, take a brief recess and then we will resume to take up the motion and once again i thank you gentlemen. The committee is in a brief recess subject to the call of the chair. When we resume shortly we will take up mr. Conways motion. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] now to take up mr. Conways motion to subpoena the whistleblower. Thank you mr. Chairman. I move to table the motion. All those in favor of tabling the motion by the gentleman . All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyehabit [inaudible] appear to me that was not the case. I know you are afraid of hearing from the whistleblower the motion to table is not debatable that the clerk will call the roll. It [roll call] is there any member wishing to vote or wishing to change his or her vote . The clerk shall record the voteg mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and nine noes. The motion to table this. We are adjourned. Thacting director of u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and mark morgan acting commissioner of u. S. Customs and border protection. Committee members asked about the progress made in adjudicating immigration cases, current levels of migrants in Detention Centers and ways to assist Law Enforcement at the border. This is just under two hours. Story