As exmilitary, im appalled that one of my guys has to stay at one of his failing hotels or my Vice President has to travel hundreds of miles were going to leave this conversation to return to the Senate Foreign relations policy. Live coverage on cspan3. It is a consular issue. You were confirming the Washington Post reporting that you met with mr. Giuliani in 2017 when he was representing ree reeza. Did you believe it was appropriate for mr. Giuliani to press for intervention in an ongoing trial to free an iranian sanction to avoid testimony that would implicate powerful figures in turkey . What action did you take in response . It was a meeting at the request of judge mukasey. There was no action taken after either meeting. Can you confirm you only met with mr. Rlg twigiuliani twice . Correct. Again, it was a meeting at the request of judge mukasey. And i know judge mukasey. He was attorney general of doj in the bush administration. I served at the justice department. Ive known him for a number of years. And he requested the meeting. So, that is the nature of the meeting. I want to make that clear. You said two meetings. Yeah. Im saying judge mukasey came by twice. With giuliani, within the same about the same subject as reported by the Washington Post . Well, i dont have the post article. I dont know im stating the basis of it. You confirmed. Well, no, what i said was it was involving a sconsular issue. But you confirmed the meeting. I have confirmed i met at the request of judge mukasey twice to discuss he requested the meeting to discuss the consular issue. And the consular issue concerned reza zarrab . Do you not confirm i havent read the article. I cant confirm Inspector General and internal state Department Emails show you have been working to retaliate against state Department Employees whom you do not believe are sufficiently loyal to President Trump. There are reports you wrote yourself an email with a list of individuals who you consider insufficiently loyal or home you listed as troublemakers or turncoats. Furthermore, you have reportedly received communication from private citizens such as knute gingrich and others in the Republican Party to discuss firing or reassigning career officials. Who was urging you to take action against Career State Department officials and what actions did you take in response . First of all, i cant comment on an ig investigation. Look forward to that report coming out. I think what youre quoting from is something that was leaked, so i dont have anything on something that was leaked. We will wait for the report to come out. Its not proper for me to comment on it. I will say as director of policy planning and in my current role as director of the iran action group, i have worked very closely and very well with all members of the career civil service, the foreign service, political appointees, all manner of schedule appointments in the federal government and very proud of the work that we have done together. Senator rubio . Thank you for being here. Let me start off by saying im a supporter of the administrations policy towards iran. I also am i believe youre very knowledge about the topic and i think youre doing a very good job. But i think you have a very tough job. And so, obviously, im not expecting you to be able to do that job and opine on everything im about to say. I do need to challenge the notion that our decision that led to the turkish incursion and attack in Northern Syria do not hurt our iranian strategy. I want to start by saying that clearly iran is carrying out a counterPressure Campaign that allows them to directly or undercover of surrogates attack in the region with enough deniability to avoid condemnation. Its a capacity they have built, partially, with the funds generated by the disastrous iran deal. And i believe that. And i think the evidence is clear that the threshold they think they can get away with on some of these attacks is greatly influenced by their perception that the administration is looking to get out of the middle east, not reengage in some conflict. I do not believe, although i understand the difficulty of the job you have, i do not believe its credible to argue that the decision with regards to turkey doesnt fortify that iranian perception. I also think its difficult to ignore the implications that that decision has on our partners in the region and their views on our security assurances, whether its israel, jordan, uae, saudi arabia, frankly, even beyond the middle east. Its not credible to argue that other countries dont view that decision and see themselves there one day potentially in a moment of conflict and crisis. So i dont expect you can opine to it. Those are my views. I feel strongly about it. I suspect many others do as well. If anything i said you disagree with, id welcome comment, if not i have a question. Happy to take your question. The Security Council resolution that implemented the nuclear deal and revised the embargo on sales of conventional weapons to iran, set to expire no later than october 2020, on things like largecaliber artillery systems and ban foreign assistance to irans Ballistic Missile program and manufacturing and sunset in 23. In september of 2019 an opinion piece in the wall street journal, by a lawyer who served as president bushs assistant sect of state for international security, he made the argument that u. S. Should trigger the 2021 and mechanisms there for snapping back sanctions against iran and the arms embargo and missile ban. The snapback would then go into effect unless the ooun Security Council adopts a resolution to the contrary, which would be subject to u. S. Veto. Its one thing thats important to note in his oped is he wrote, a quote, some might argue because the u. S. Withdrew from jcp its no longer a participate. Resolution 2231 sdwinz jcopa participation to include u. S. Without any qualifications. Do you agree with his opinion that the u. S. Could trigger the snapback whether or not the u. S. Is observing the nonlegally binding deal . It is ultimately a question for l. I think we need to have the lawyers from the nsc and state Legal Department and other agencies with equities take a look at this question. The broad procedure to force snapback is a member of the deal would go to the u. N. Security council, the president of the council would table a resolution that was introduced by the member and then the member that introduced it would then veto his own resolution. And then that would end the Iran Nuclear Deal. I think the question you raised is who has standing to initiate that sequence of events that leads to the end of the Iran Nuclear Deal and the full snapback of all the u. N. Sanctions. And that is since youve asked, and ive talked to other staff on the Senate Foreign relations committee, i know this is a question, a live question that you would like to have answered. And i will take it back and work with the interagency to come up with an answer. In july of this year i raised a problem of chinese individuals and entities that were helping Iranian Regime export oil in violation of the secondary sanctions. I was very pleased to see later that month that the secretary of state announced the imposition of sanctions against the chinese firm and its ceo for knowingly purchasing or acquiring oil from iran contrary to sanctions. Without getting ahead of ourselves, or alerting people theyre in the crosshairs, are there other such actors for us to go after . Is there more to do in this space in regards to empty stis, chinese or otherwise . Yes. Well, thank you for raising what weve done to enforce our sanctions, especially our oil sanctions. That is the chief source of irans export revenue. We have now sanctioned Chinese Company back in july and then in midseptember we sanctioned six chinese entities that were importing Iranian Crude Oil. They did all the oil waivers, there are none. Those ended after the sixmonth period after we left the deal. So we have said we will sanction any sanctionable activity. We also sanctioned five executives, chinese executives in these firms. We have talked to china several times, ive met with the chinese to talk about this. China is largely irans largest importer. And so its important that its largest importer not import crude oil. The argument i made to the chinese is that, you know, you you, like many nations, would like to see Greater Peace and stability in the middle east. And for as long as iran is able to sell its oil, they are going to use that oil to fund their proxy operations around the middle east. And that has that undermines security and undermines sovereignty and stability. Thats the message weve been taking to them. We hope iran that china decides it will no longer import Iranian Crude Oil is not an exotic grade. We have a wellsupplied oil market. There has been no interruption of chinas energy needs during this period. And so theres no need for them to be importing Iranian Crude Oil. Thank you. Senator murphy. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Hook, the reason that senator udall is asking you questions about Rudy Giulianis requests on behalf of reza zarrab is twofold. Were very concerned that there is a shadow policy operation that exists being represented by the president s personal lawyer, a political interest. We know that because we have transcripts of phone calls in which the president tells foreign leaders not to call your boss, secretary pompeo, if they want to deal with the United States, but to call Rudy Giuliani. But were also concerned about this particular case because it seems as if it is evidence that the president s personal lawyer, his shadow secretary of state, is working to undermine american sanctions against iran, the very sanctions you testified to us that are crippling their economy. And so let me ask let me ask senator udalls question a different way. Have you spoken to Rudy Giuliani about u. S. Sanctions policy towards his client, reza zchlts arrab . This meeting was a couple of years ago. I was in listening mode. As i said, judge mukasey asked for the meeting. And listened to what they had to say. There was no action taken. But you did have a meeting with Rudy Giuliani specific to his representation of a client who is seeking to get out of u. S. Sanctions . I had a meeting with judge mukasey, who was the lead and judge mukasey raised a consular issue with me and no action taken. There are three people familiar of a meeting between President Trump and secretary tillerson, who were working for at the time, perhaps his closest adviser, in which President Trump asked for secretary tillersons help to work to drop the case against zarrab. Are you familiar with this meeting or the request that was made . I was not familiar with the meeting. Mr. Chairman, i think its important to set the broader record straight here with respect to some of the things mr. Hook said about our policy, visavis iran and its connection to the recent developments in syria. I appreciate you do have a tough job to do and i dont imagine you would have given counsel to the president to abandon our kurdish partners in syria. But it is simply not credible to say we didnt have a counteriran element to our syria strategy. In fact, multiple individuals testified to that before this committee and would still testify to that before the committee. It is not credible to say abandoning the kurds doesnt change the efficacy of our iran strategy. Iran absolutely benefits unequivocally from a new alignment inside syria in which the kurds are forced to align themselves with bashar al assad. And it is also not credible, just doesnt pass the straight face test to try to convince us that europe is helping us with a maximum Pressure Campaign on iran and to the extent i have a question on these topics, ill give you one to try to clarify the record. I know you have this list of actions that europe has taken, but lets be honest, europe is attempting to work around our sanctions. Europe is trying to create financial vehicles so that their businesses can continue to trade with iran. Theyre talking about a new line of credit to proper up the iranian economy. They still have diplomatic relations. And it just doesnt pass the laugh test to suggest that the europeans are working with us. I just want to put this question back to you again. Are you really trying to convince us that the europeans are assisting in our maximum Pressure Campaign when we know that they are actively engaged in trying to help their businesses work around u. S. Sanctions . You said europe is working around our sanctions. And i think maybe just to be a little more precise. Europe is European Companies is what were talking about. European companies have made a clear choice to choose the United States market over the iranian market. The eu does more trade with kazakhstan than iran. Its not even in the top 30 of trading partners. And so we have seen nothing but full compliance by European Companies on our sanctions regime. European governments are frustrated that iran has lost some of the benefits under the Iran Nuclear Deal with our departure. That is a secondary consequence. Theres more daylight between European Companies and european governments than there is between the u. S. You were sending us a list of actions that European Companies are taken. I think its a strange you have had success in convincing other nations, especially those in europe to rejoin the Pressure Campaign. The Pressure Campaign is unilateral. Its not as effective as it could be if you were successful. Our unilateral sanctions have been much more effective than the multilateral sanctions that were in place prior to the deal. Indisputable on that. There is our Pressure Campaign and then there is europe working to confront and address iranian threats to peace and security. Sometimes those overlap and sometimes they separate. When i look at this list of european actions, it is dozens of actions everything from these statements austria, belgium, france and germany exposed an iranian plot and they arrested several iranian operatives. Netherlands expem pelled two diplomats in connection with an assassination. Serbia revoked veesz safree travel for i welcome you reading this. Europe has done a lot in the time we have left the deal to try to raise the cost of iranian progression. They have not joined our maximum Pressure Campaign but they have adopted our position that we need a new deal. Boris johnson said the Iran Nuclear Deal is a bad deal with many, many i would just say, the proof is in the pudding. Iran is not at the negotiating table. You have a year left on their term. If you had evidence of all these actions were bringing this em to the table, we might be in a different conversation but theres absolutely no evidence that this has gotten us to a point where you can aeffect the way a settlement. Were not going to get the agreement you have sought with the time you have left and without european partners. I know im way over my time. Thank you, chairman. Im not complaining about the time because i think this is an important discussion to have and im sitting here listening and im hoping were not talking past each other. Starting with the europeans, we all meet with the europeans. We know what their view is on this. Of course. Theyre despondent over the fact we walked away from the jcpoa. As mr. Hook pointed out, they have certainly done some things to help us move the ball forward. They have also done some things to help us get around things by establishing other credit and what have you. But, again, i think the debate should be, and apparently we have at least some disagreement on that, that the sanctions that have been put in place, indeed, are causing great difficulty within iran. And has it gotten to the table yet . No. Have they given any indications theyre coming to the table . No. But does that neen okay. Where do you suggest we go . Do we just say, okay, well go back to the jcpoa or beg them to come to the table . I dont understand that. And believe me, im not trying to wrankle anybody. I think we need to pull the wagon together as far as iran is concerned. I hope were not talking past each other on this. My point is to the extent theres evidence crippling the economy thats supposed to be leverage to get them to the table to negotiate a deal better than the jcpoa. I think we can agree you cant negotiate better than the jcpoa but you cant get them to the table, in part, because they see europe as a life line. They see their ability to work around our sanctions through lines of credit and Innovative Financial vehicles from europe. And i just dont think i just dont think we should let the administration get away with telling us europe is our partner in trying to get iran to the negotiating table. They are not. They are trying to work around the sanctions the Trump Administration has enacted. That is one of the primary reasons why this strategy has not worked for three years and is not going to work as a vehicle to try to get the iranians back to the table before the end of trumps term. I think theres a fair opinion of yours. I would disagree with it but the point of sitting it out until trumps term is over may be good but they have a tough year ahead of them. They have 14 months ahead of them of some pretty dark times, if you accept whats happening internally with iran, particularly with the depression with their currency and that sort of thing. Thats a fair opinion you have. We just have a fair disagreement on that opinion. With that, we have to vote a couple of times. Well do that and come back ands as were anxious to hear from senator markey and senator cruz, who are our last questioners. If we could have a short break while we go vote, well all come back. Fair enough . Committee will be at ease. As you heard the Senate Foreigns Relation Committee take a break as senators head over to the chamber to vote on judicial nominations. Only a couple votes remain. You can see those sallies as they come in on our companion network, cspan2. When those votes are over, we do expect this hearing to resume. We will continue with our coverage. We should let you know that at the white house today, President Trump is meeting with the italian president , sergio mattarella. They plan to hold a joint News Conference in the east room. Its expected to start shortly. We hope to bring you live coverage of that here on cspan3. In the meantime, some more of todays washington journal. He had been aincident positived by obama to lead on ukraine. And, you know, i just dont see any conceivable way that he could kind of go rogue for call for the removal of ukraine official without the wider administration raising eyebrows about that. I think you make a really good point that he was working closely with obama on this and on behalf of obama. This was not a bidenonly initiative. James in washington, d. C. , independent. Good morning. Good morning. Finally got through. Yeah, im independent now, but i just wanted to clarify, i voted blue until i mean, i voted blue in 2016 but now im registered independent. And mostly because it just feels like, you know, the way we talk about how she lost as if she was supposed to win. The Mainstream Media seems to favor democrats and i dont really trust it that much anymore. My question, though, is just, does anyone feel as if, you know, it was really like they put trump out here to upset liberals and i feel like republicans took the bait, like this is the guy that triggers them the most. Its kind of upsetting to me when they say it was russia that influenced the election, you know, it was pretty clear democrats influenced the primary pretty heavily. If we act as if other countries cant interfere in our elections, wouldnt that mean we would have to change some of our Foreign Policy strategies because we tend to be heavyhanded in other democraci democracies. That was my question. Thanks. Well take that. Thanks. The question around the 2016 election, i think the reason it is brought up three years later is the idea that a foreign power intervened. Historic adversary of the United States put their finger to tip the scale. I think its more the foreign interference. The fact were still trying to get to the bottom of that. There are still Unanswered Questions as to what happened in 2016. Just two weeks ago the Senate Intelligence committee put out their report as to what happened. Its still very much under investigation. I think thats why its still the topic of conversation for a lot of people. At least here in washington. Also the fears it could happen again in the next elections. We had the midterms, you know, passed off without any interference last year, but, you know, in u. S. Intelligence agencies are looking ahead to 2020, whats going to go on there. I think thats why its not perceived specifically because of hillary clinton. One request that has been made by the ukraine president , mr. Zelensky, to the white house through his lines of communications, but he also mentions it at the u. N. General assembly recently with the president sitting right there, is that white house visit. Why does he want a white house visit . What has the administration been saying about him visiting the white house . A white house visit for the president of ukraine would be hugely symbolic. It would be a huge demonstration of u. S. Support and u. S. Support as ukraine deals with a war with russia and russianbacked proxies in the east. Zelensky was elected in april of this year. Hes a political novice. His predecessor was a foreign minister and quite comfortable on the world stage. I think zelensky to a certain degree feels he may need to prove himself on the world stage and a white house visit would be the way to do that. Will he get a white house visit . Has it been said hell get one soon . The ukraines announced that a couple months ago. No date has been set. After everything thats gone on, it will be interesting to see what happens. What are you watching for next . Who approached who. Giuliani says he was approached with this information. Im interested in who approached them, what was their agenda. Who were they paid by, where did the money come from . Did giuliani begin this on his own or did someone approach him and what were they after . I think thats hugely interesting. That is a potential avenue for foreign intervention be in u. S. Politics. Thats my question right