Transcripts For CSPAN3 Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Diplomats Bill Taylor George Kent 20240713

The september time frame, but i want to go back two months, to july, before the july 25th call. You testified, 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 and in early july, attempts to work out a way to get that meeting included a phone call. And so there were several conversations about how to have this phone call that eventually happened on july 25th. And you described in your Opening Statement a july 10th white house meeting with a number of officials where ambassador bolton used the term that something was a drug deal. What did you understand him to mean in hearing that he said used this term, drug deal . I dont know. I dont know what ambassador bolton had in mind. Was that in reference to a discussion in that meeting related to the white house meeting that president zelensky wanted and in connection to the investigations . The context of that comment was that mr. Boltons counterpart, National Security adviser, had had with mr. Bolton. And that conversation was very substantive up until the point where the white house meeting was raised, and mr. Ambassador sondland intervened to talk about the investigations. It was at that point that ambassador bolton ceased the meeting, closed the meeting, finished the meeting and told his staff to report this meeting to the lawyers and he also later, then, indicated to fiona hill, who was also a participant on nsc staff, that he, ambassador bolton, didnt want to be associated with this drug deal. So, it was the implication was, it was the domestic politics that was being cooked up. And did ambassador sondland say this in front of the ukrainian officials, to your understanding . Ambassador sondland in the meeting where ambassador bolton was having the conversation with his counterpart, raised the issue of investigations being important to come before the white house meeting that had just been raised. And ukrainian officials were there . And ukrainian officials were there, yes, sir. Around this same time, midjuly, did you have any discussions with ukrainian officials about these investigations . I dont recall. Let me show you a text message you wrote on july 21st where you wrote it again to ambassador sondland and volker. If you could just read what you wrote here on july 21st. Gordon, one thing kurt and i talked about yesterday was sasha danyliuks point that president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously not merely as an instrument to washington domestic, reelection politics. Sasha danyliuk . What did you mean when zelensky had concerns about being involved in washington domestic reelection politics. Mr. Danyliuk understood that these investigations were pursuant to mr. Giulianis request to develop information, to find information about burisma and the bidens. This was very well known in public mr. Giuliani had made this clear in several instances in the beginning in the springtime, and mr. Danyliuk was aware that that was a problem. And would you agree that because president zelensky is worried about this, they understood at least that there was some pressure for them to pursue these investigations . Is that fair . Mr. Danyliuk indicated that president zelensky certainly understood it, that he did not want to get involved in these type of activities. Now, im going to move ahead now to july 25th, which is when President Trump and president zelensky had the phone call. Before we get to the phone call i want to show you a text message, neither of you is on this phone call. I will read it because neither of you is on it. Ambassador volker says, good lunch, thanks. Heard from white house. Assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to washington. Good luck. See you tomorrow, kurt. And this was a half hour less than a half hour before the call actually occurred. Now, ambassador taylor, was ambassador volker with you in ukraine at this time . He was. Did you know that he was prepping president zelensky for this phone call with President Trump in this way . Not in this way, mr. Goldman, but i knew ambassador volker was prepping ukrainians for the phone call earlier on, that is, in at a meeting in toronto on july 2nd, ambassador volker had a conversation with president zelensky and had indicated in a phone call that he at that time was going to talk mr. Zelensky president zelensky through the steps that needed 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 18th, is that right . Thats correct. So that was just a week earlier than this . Thats correct. Just so were clear, ambassador taylor, before this july 25th call, President Trump had frozen the Security Assistance that ukraine needed and that the white house meeting was conditioned on ukraine initiating this investigation and that had been relaid to the ukrainians. Is that an accurate state of play at this time . Thats an accurate state of play. I at that point had no indication that any discussion of the Security Assistance being subject to conditioned conditioned on the investigations had taken place. Right. But you understood that the white house meeting was . Correct. Lets move ahead to this july 25th call. And between the president s. Am i correct that neither of you were on this call, is that right, mr. Kent . Thats correct. Thats correct. And you were neither as well . So you both read it after it was released publicly at the end of september . Yes. Yes. I want to spend a little time reading the transcript, as weve been encouraged to do. And i want to particularly note four excerpts of the transcripts. One that relates to the Security Assistance weve been talking about, another that discusses a favor that President Trump asked of president zelensky, a third where President Trump asks the ukrainian president to investigate his political opponent, former Vice President biden, and then a final one where the ukrainian president directly links the desired white house visit to the political investigations that President Trump wanted. So, lets look at the first excerpt which is near the front of the call where president zelensky discusses the military aid the u. S. Provides to ukraine. He says, 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 ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes. Now, at the time of this phone call, ambassador taylor and mr. Kent, you both knew that the aid had been frozen, is that right . Yes. Thats correct. Ambassador taylor, you testified that President Trump obviously also knew that the aid had been frozen as well since he was responsible for doing that, is that correct . Thats what i had been told. Thats what we heard on that conference call, yes. But to neither of your knowledge, the ukrainians were want 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 area of defense, President Trump then says, and well go to the next excerpt, i want you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. They say crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server they say ukraine has it. At the end of the paragraph he says, whatever you can do, its very important that you do it, if thats possible. Now, mr. Kent, youve testified a little bit about how important this 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 mind 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 cant put yourself in the mind, but if the ukrainian president for a country thats thats so dependent on the United States for all things, including military assistance, is requested to do a favor, how do you think the ukrainians would interpret that . Well, if you go further into the call record as part of this, and we dont have it on screen, but to the best of my recollection reading it after it was released september 25th, president zelensky went into having whatever your problems were, that was the old team, ive got a 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 in response, be responsive to conduct the business of Ukrainian Government in a transparent and honest manner. Now, when he talks about this crowdstrike and server, what do you wanted this to be reference to . To be honest, i had not heard of crowdstrike until i read this transcript on september 25th. Do you now understand what it relates to . I understand it has to do with the story that theres a server with missing emails. I also understood that one of the owners of crowdstrike is a russian american. Im not aware of any ukrainian connection to the company. Are you aware this is all part of a larger allegation that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . Yes, that is my understanding. To your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support the allegation that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . To my knowledge, theres no factual basis, no. In fact, who did interfere in the 2016 election . I think its amply clear that russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle. Lets move to the third excerpt that i mentioned related to Vice President biden. And it says, the other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens son. This is President Trump speaking. That biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So, whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible. Now, at the time of this call, Vice President biden was the frontrunner for the democratic nomination in the 2020 election. And, mr. Kent, are you familiar as you indicate in your Opening Statement, about these allegations related to Vice President biden . I am. And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support those allegations . None whatsoever. When Vice President biden acted in ukraine, did he act in accordance with official u. S. Policy . He did. Now, lets go to, then, the last excerpts that i wanted to highlight, which is president zelensky speaking. He says, i also wanted 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 that we will be very serious about the case and we will work on the investigation. Now, ambassador taylor, right after president zelensky mentions his muchdesired washington visit, he says, on the other hand, and then says ukraine will be very serious about the investigation. Is this the same link between the white house visit and the investigations that ambassador volker had texted to andre yermak a few minutes before this conversation . Thats my assumption. Just to summarize what we just read read in this july 25th call between the president s, the ukrainian president thanked President Trump for Security Assistance that President Trump had just frozen, to which President Trump responded that he wanted president zelensky to do him a favor, though, by investigating the 2016 u. S. Election and the bidens. President zelensky says hell pursue these investigations right after he mentions the white house visit. Is that your understanding, ambassador taylor, of what we just read . Yes. And, mr. Kent, is that yours . Yes. I yield back. The majority time has expired. Would you gentlemen like a brief recess . Lets take a fiveminute recess and then resume with majority questioning. I can say its hearsay because thats the testimony i just came out from. They said, i believe, i thought i heard. This is what was conveyed to me. All morrison you were asking the question. I was going to answer your question. You want me to answer your question . Okay, all right. So, in doing that, when they ask the question, every time that it gets close to the president of the United States, it is very clear, there is no conditionality as it relates to what the why the aid was held. So, i think that were consistent with that and thats what we continue to hear. He said very clearly, Gordon Sondland made this clear to him after he spoke to the president. The president wanted these investigations in connection with the aid. Sorry to jump well, we also know from Gordon Sondland, who now has sworn testimony that says he has no idea, you covered it, has no idea why the aid was ever held up. So any knowledge that anybody has of what ambassador sondland may or may not have known, he is on the record to say he does not know why the aid was held up. So, if he doesnt know it, and hes conveying that to someone else, hes conveying something that he doesnt know. So, when we start to look at this, it all starts to fall apart. When you start tracking it back to who actually knew what when, the aid was held up for two reasons. I can tell you. One is the president has a deeprooted concern about corruption. That is shared with the two witnesses in there today. They are concerned about the corruption that ukraine has not only had, but even continues to struggle with today. The second part about that, and youve heard it a million times from this president , isnt it important, isnt it critically important that the french, the germans, the uk, that they pay their fair share. Why is it the american taxpayer that has to spend millions of dollars, and yet under this administration, not only were javelins given for the first time, aid was given to ukraine in spite of all that. Is it possible sondland doesnt recall this conversation with the president . Two witnesses said he did relay this information from the president. Is it believable that Gordon Sondland doesnt what two witnesses . Morrison ambassador taylor is the one who said that, so lets be specific. Morrison morrison testified the other day, and to my knowledge they have not released his transcript. I think it would be highly appropriate for mr. Morrisons transcript to be relaid. When you see that, not only will he convey some of the things being talked about today but hell also convey the fact that the Vice President made it very clear, there was no condition whatsoever as it relates to the aid, and the aid was released shortly after the Vice President of the United States made a personal inperson visit with president zelensky in warsaw, poland. Yeah, go ahead. A staffer overheard Gordon Sondland and the president where the president mentioned the investigations. Are you concerned sondland himself does not seem to have testified to that . Am i concerned that Gordon Sondland it seems sondland did not testify behind closed doors about that phone call. Ambassador taylor, i sat in his entire interview, he didnt testify to it originally. You know, its amazing [ inaudible question ] he prepared for hours to come up here and all of a sudden, voila, he gets this miraculous enter convention from one of his staffers that reminds him. Does it concern me . I think what happens is when we start to look at the facts, everybody has their impression of what truth is. Just like all of you as reporters have your impression of what truth is. The ultimate judge will be the American People. And i think most of them will see what im seeing in that room. Its reporters and people in the audience who are yawning because this is all about a policy difference between the president of the United States and a few people at the state department. Do you think this new you said do you think the information i think this new information is i mean, im not here to question anybodys motives. What im saying is when it becomes second, third and fourth hand and relaid about the facts, we know how wrong it can get. Youre a journalist. Whats the key . You always look for your sources. You look for two people to confirm it. At this point we dont even have that from a journalistic standard, let alone an impeachment standard that should be higher than yourp journalistic standard. Sondland backed up what ambassador taylor is what did he back up . I was in there for seven hours. With all due respect, you werent in there, leigh ann. I was in there. What did he back up . He said everything ambassador taylor testified, as far as he knew, was accurate. He took issue with one small detail but he wasnt in there for the testimony. What hes talking about is the Opening Statement that was leaked by a democrat colleagues to a few of you so you could report out that. He wasnt there. He wasnt privy to it. He hasnt read the deposition. As you look at it, you make these broadsweeping statements that are not based on reality or facts being in the roof. Chairman schiff was implying or drawing out questions that ukraine lives could have been lost for withholding aid. Your reaction to that . One, he doesnt properly show the appropriations process. If we know how the appropriations process works for foreign aid, this delay was actually a delay for future assistance that ultimately did not happen. There were no lives at risk. If we want to look at lives being lost, when russia invaded, it was under the Obama Administration. There was no defensive weapons. Actually, the aid has increased. If we want to talk about saving lives and you want to compare and contrast two different administrations, the Trump Administration has done more for ukraine than the Obama Administration has done previously. He says [ inaudible question ] do i contest what . Taylor said assistance was held up at the direction of the president . I contest that no, i dont contest it was held up at the direction of the president. I think other people what i do contest is the reason why it was held up. The president not only held up aid here. He held up aid to lebanon that still remains on hold. He held up aid to other places. We have multiple witnesses that say that part of this president s reset with regards to Foreign Policy is not to just send foreign dollars hold on, let me finish. To not send foreign aid to other countries without there being some condition applies to it. That condition has nothing to do with investigations. It has to be a good steward of the american taxpayer dollar. Held it up to investigate the bidens. Thats the implication. Thats the implication. Thats what the democrats have been saying for six weeks. I can tell you the closer you get to the president , Vice President , secretary pompeo, those in the know, the condition that was placed on this was placed on two things. One is, europe doing their fair share in terms of ukraine assistance and a corruption scheme that has long been a systemic problem in ukraine had to come to an end before we sent it. Congressman, were the and revealed what he knows exactly about what happened here. If everything is fine, hes the person whos been people have been talking to that listen, youre talking about someone whos been on oversight for a number of years. You know as well as anybody that what i love to do is get from a direct source. At the same time, having the chief of staff for president obama come and testify on anything never happened, never will happen. Whether its this president or any future president , you cant go into that inner circle. It puts a Chilling Effect on the president of the United States ability to do his job. For the case you are making to be true the case im making is true. For the case youre making to be true, every single witness who has testified more than a dozen of them would have to be either lying or mistaken. Thats not correct. Your characterization is so inherently wrong and biased. They all said they believed the bidens were the focus let me ask you this for the American People, how many hours have you been in sitting in these depositions . I havent i read you have not read all the transcripts. I beg to differ because they havent all been released. Theres no way youve read them all. I can tell you, your premise is not right. Ive been in those depositions and i can tell you, theres contradictory information. This president had not put any condition on the aid. Certainly, when we talk about impeachment ep, why are we doing this . Why are we all here 11 months from an election . Why not let the American People decide . All of a sudden what happened is the Mueller Investigation didnt work, the russia collusion didnt work. Now theyre going to have ukrainian 2. 0. Im just telling you, i see it for what it is. It is partisan and it is political and has no basis in the and you think these witnesses are a part of that . Congressman, just continuing with the quid pro quo, is it okay for any future president now to ask a foreign leader for an investigation into their political opponent . You got to understand the backdrop of what this is all about. Is it okay if i run for president or Vice President that i am somehow immune to any investigation . The answer to that is no. I dont think any of us would say, just because you run for president you should be immune. The second part of that is this, the backdrop of this comes from a 2016 connection to ukraine. The president was being accused that he coordinated or that the russians helped him and yet there was equal evidence that ukraine took part in some of the disinformation that was applied to the 2016 elections. I say that. A lot of people say, thats a conspiracy theory, that thats not accurate. Let me just tell you, this fact remai remains. Either nellie orr lied to congress where she talked about a ukrainian connection or there was one. Theres no in between. What about george kent testifying just now saying there was no american official that tried to interfere in any sort of investigation into burisma . Well, that he is unaware of. His testimony is at direct odds with nellie orr who gave testimony. I was in there. You can look at the transcripts. Nellie orr said, indeed, its a person by the name of sergei leschenko. But why would the president withhold aid . You cover the president. Is he not a direct individual who speaks directly about whats on his mind . He doesnt hold on. Does he not speak his mind . In fact, you guys criticize him for speaking his mind and yet a phone call happens on july 25th, no mention of aid in that phone call at all. Its not the president s style. Its not consistent with the president dispatched Rudy Giuliani i have to go back now. Was it okay for him to do that. Listen, the president at that particular time was looking at a defense from the 2016 election charges. Thats why Rudy Giuliani got involved. But he told hold on. Let me let me finish, manu. And so as we start to look at that, the whole context of why Rudy Giuliani was involved was as a defenses of this president defense false accusation. What came out of that beyond that in the withhold biden burisma, i think thats a footnote, a side note we all want to talk about now. Why dont you talk about the fact there are some merits to the fact that hunter biden was on the board and that Vice President biden at worst Case Scenario should have recused himself from interfering with some of those decisions in february 2016. Last question. One last question. About this call. The fact that sondland allegedly said when asked about ukraine policy, the president cares more about the bidens. What does that tell you . I think that what that says is ambassador sondland has an opinion. Youll get to hear from him in a few days and youll find he has lots of opinions. Some of those are based on fact. Some of those are not. At the end of the day, when you look at whats based on fact, youll see theres not merits here. Thank you, guys. I have to run. I have to run. Yeah, i got to run. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member and minority counsel for 40 minutes. Thank you. The call summary for which the democrats want to impeach President Trump is dramatically different from their nefarious depiction of it. What it actually shows is a Pleasant Exchange between two leaders who discuss mutual cooperation over a range of issues. The democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery and a host of other monstrous crimes being committed against president zelensky. Yet president zelensky himself insists there was nothing improper whatsoever about the conversation. Indeed the routine nature of the call helps to explain why in 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, quote, i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand . Lots of it. On this and on that, unquote. The transcript did not show President Trump saying anything remotely like that. The president did not ask ukraine to make up dirt on anyone. But the democrats are not trying to discover facts. Theyre trying to invent a narrative. And the facts they need do not exist, then theyll just 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 even know at the time of the call that a temporary delay was put on the Security Assistance for them. Furthermore, as the ambassador testified, these holds occur from time to time. Both he and ambassador volker were confident 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 javelin antitank weapons. This was a very strong message that americans are willing to provide more than blankets. This was the Obama Administrations approach. Note this important fact, the Security Assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians ukrainians having done any of the things they were shoefdly blackmailed to do. So were supposed to believe President Trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred and which the supposed victim denies ever happened. Id like to briefly speak to the core mistruth at the core of the democrats impeachment drive. They claim the president tried to yet the ukrainians to, quote, manufacture dirt against his political rivals. This is supported by precisely zero evidence. Once again, the democrats simply made it 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, ignore, outright deny the many indications that ukrainians actually did meddle in the election. A shocking aboutface for people who for three years argued that foreign election meddling was an intolerable climb that threatened the heart of our democracy. While the brazen suddenness of this uturn is jarring, this denial is a necessary part of their argument. After all, if there actually were indications of ukraine election meddling and if foreign election meddling is a dire threat, then President Trump would have a perfectly good reason for wanting to find out what happened. And since the meddling was aimed against his campaign, hed have good reason for sending his personal attorney to make inquiries about it. Whats strange is some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions, who express alarm about these inquiries, were remarkably uninformed about these indications of ukrainian election meddling and why the president may have been concerned. By them. For example, i noted previously, Alexander Chalupa admitted to politico she worked with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in washington, d. C. , to dig up dirt on the Trump Campaign, which she passed onto the dnc and the Hillary Clinton campaign. She revealed ukrainian officials themselves were also working directly with reporters to trade information and leads about the Trump Campaign. Ambassador kent, you didnt seem to be too concerned about it in the last round of questioning, so ill just skip you because we know that wasnt a concern. But, ambassador taylor, you testified to this committee that you only recently became aware of reports of this cooperation between Ukrainian Embassy officials and chalupa to undermine the Trump Campaign. From your last deposition. Is that correct . Mr. Nunes, it is correct i had not known about this before. Im just going over your last deposition, ambassador. Yes. The politico article cites three ukrainian officials sustaining the Ukraine Embassy supported the Hillary Clinton campaign. It lists ardemenyko, it is clear they were supporting Hillary Clintons candidacy they did everything from publicly the team to criticizing trump. I think they simply didnt meet with the Trump Campaign because they thought hillary would win, unquote. Ambassador taylor you testified you were unfamiliar with that statement. Is that correct . Thats correct. You also said you were unaware that then Ukraine Ambassador to the u. S. , valerie cha lay, wrote an oped in the hill during the president ial campaign criticizing thencandidate trump, is that correct . That is correct. You said you did not know sergei leschenko, the black ledger, was to undermine the trump candidacy. This was in your deposition. Is that still correct . That is still correct, sir. Thank you, mr. Taylor. Fusion gps corrector nellie orr testified to congress that lesee. Henko was a source for fusion gpss operation to dirty up the Trump Campaign including the compilation of the steele dossier on behalf of the dnc and the clinton campaign. You testified you were unaware that leschenko served as a source for that. Is this still correct . It is. You said you did not know Ukrainian Internal Affairs minister avokov mocked and disparaged thencandidate trump on facebook and twitter. Is that still correct . That is correct. Ambassador taylor, in your testimony to this committee you said you were never briefed on these reports and statements, that you did not do Due Diligence before taking your post to discover that president the president s and mayor giulianis concerns may have been and that you what they may have been and you did not discuss them with ambassador yovanovitch. Is that still correct . Yes, sir. Furthermore, you said it upset you to hear about the many indications of ukrainian election meddling. Precise words and i will read them back to you, based on this political article which again surprises me and disappointments me, because i believe it is a mistake for any diplomatic official in one country to intersphere in the political life of another. That is disappointing, end quote. Ambassador taylor, is that still your testimony . Mr. Nunes, it is. Subsequent to that, i looked into the circumstances for several of the things that you just mentioned. In 2016, candidate trump had made a statement saying that it was possible that he would allow crimea to go back to russia. He expressed the sentiment or the opinion that it is possible that crimea wanted to go back to russia. What i can tell you, mr. Nunes, is that those, that sentiment is amazingly inflammatory to all ukrainians. So i think that i can understand that. Are you aware during the, i believe it is the 2012 election when at the time president obama leaned over on a hot mic to then russian president and said that hed have to wait until after the election, and was that inflammatory to the ukrainians, also . I dont know, sir. I just want to be clear that some government officials oppose President Trumps position to ukraine, but they had no idea what concerned him. In this case, it is numerous indicationings of the ukrainian interference in the 2016 election to oppose his campaign and support Hillary Clinton, and once you know that, it is ease is i to understaeasey to know why he wanted to get to the bottom of the corruption, and find out exactly what happened in the 2016 election. And with that, i will turn to mr. Castor. Referring to 2016 campaign, you believe that he was genuinely believing they were working against him, ambassador taylor . Mr. Caster, i dont know what president or candidate trump was thinking about the ukrainians. But didnt he in the Oval Office Meeting in may 23rd, in the zelensky inauguration, and didnt he lament that the ukrainians were out to get him . I heard that his response to the suggestion that mr. Zelensky visit mr. Trump, President Trump in the oval office was not well received and that he had concerns about ukrainians, yes. But from the president s perspective, if the ambassador of ukraine, and one of the most influential diplomats is penning an oped and certainly with the okay of president poroshenko, this dnc consultants are conferring with ukrainian officials at the embassy, and former Prime Minister and the ambassador had also been in the zelensky realm was saying very unkind things on social media about the president , and you can certainly 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 were out to get him . I will allow the question, but are you you are seriously interrupting our time here . I wont dock the time, but i wanted to be clear, ambassador, if you can verify the things that the counsel has identified in the prerequisites, but for the majority or the minority without facts before you, you should be cautioned about that. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The time is with minority counsel. Mr. Radcliffe. Chairman, i sat here through the first 45 minutes and literally had an objection to almost the foundation of every question that mr. Goldman asked regarding facts not in evidence leading, but how resolution 660 does not say that we are under the federal rules of evidence, and if it is your position that i need to be inserting objections that violate the rules of evidence, let me know now, because this hearing is going to change significantly. As i said, mr. Radcliffe, i will allow the question. I think that the gentleman has a different question about the rules. So what are the rules going to be that govern this . Does the Ranking Member seek recognition . I am yielding to the question that i asked you. For what purpose do you seek recognition . To answer mr. Rat cliffs question. Excuse me, mr. Chairman, you have not said that i need to be asserting facts not in evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. That is my question. Mr. Radcliffe, i will say once again, i am not objecting to the question, but i am instructing the witness that they should not questions from the majority or the minority of facts not in evidence are correct. This is, and i have answered the question and we will resume the questioning and the clock. Mr. Castor. So you could appreciate President Trumps concerns . Mr. Castor, i dont know the exact nature of President Trumps concerns. And in my deposition, i recall you handed me the politico article which listed at least three of the elements that you have described earlier, and i, you have recognized that i have confirmed with the ranking minority member that i, the first i have heard of those, and i was surprised by those. I dont know President Trumps reaction to those. In the Information Published by the former ukrainian Investigative Reporter and then a member of the parliament about the black ledgers in august 16th, and on the very day that was published mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign, isnt that correct . I dont know, mr. Castor. But certainly that is giving rise to some elements of the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president , and that is a reasonable belief of his, correct . I dont know. The runup to the 2016 election, theres many facts that remain unresolved, agreed . I am sorry. The question . The facts that go into the runup of the 2016 election remain unresolved . In the further well, attorney barr asked the attorney general of connecticut to look at questions broader of the president s campaign, and initially, it was an administrative review has turned into a criminal probe, and the u. S. Attorney durham is casting a wide net, and he is following the facts where they may lead. Are you aware of that . I am aware that there is an investigation. That is as much as i am aware. So to the extent that any information ta resides in yu krarngs it is important for the ukrainians to the get to bottom of that and for the ukrainians to share information through the official channels, is that correct . Mr. Castor, can you say that again . I would appreciate it if you would restate the question. To the extent that the ukrainian has the runup to u. S. Attorney durhams probe, ukraine should cooperate with the United States and to the extent, are the ukrainians do everything that the ukrainians should do to investigate that, correct . Mr. Castor, the ukrainian American Relations are supportive. The ukrainians will certainly be responsive to requests. So when the president on the call from july 25th, urges this to president zelensky, and encourages the cooperation with the ukrainian president and the United States justice department, that is correct . It is for them to cooperate, yes. And to the extent that the attorney general is having the u. S. Attorney durham to look into that, isnt it entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for president zelensky, and saying that you should be in touch with our official channels . Mr. Castor, i dont know the precise appropriateness of these kinds of relations. Now, were you involved or either of you involved with the preparation for the 7 25 call . I was not. I was not. How do you account for that . I mean, you are the two of the key officials with responsibility for ukrainian policy. I mean, if the president of the United States is going to have a call of the leader of the ukraine, why, why wouldnt you ordinarily be involved with the preparation . Sir, we work for the department of state in the embassy overseas and in preparation for the president ial phone call, the that responsibility lies within the staff of the National Security council and normally if there is sufficient time, the National Security staff can solicit information from the state department and we can draw on the embassy, but it is only background information, and my understanding having never worked at the National Security council is that the staff write a memo to the president , and none of us see that outside of the National Security staff. Okay. So the sarje would not be on the call to the ambassador the ukraine . No, they would not. And did anybody from the staff reach out to you in preparation to the call . I was given notification the day before on july 24th, and to the extent that i had any role that was to reach noout to embay and give them a heads up, and make sure that there because secure link in the president of the ukraine so that it could be patched through to the situation room of the white house. Did you provide any substantive advice to mr. Vindman about the official position of the call . I did not advice. Mr. Taylor . No. And so did you feel that the call was going to happen . I was told that the call between the two president s would be useful and when mr. Zelensky won the first ever parliamentary elections on july 21st, the idea of a congratulatory call from our perspective made sense. And so did you get a readout ambassador taylor initially from the call . I didnt, mr. Castor. I read, and we all read the statement that the ukrainians put out, and i got a readout from mr. Morrison, National Security council. All right. How about you, mr. Kent . I likewise first saw the ukrainian statements, and i believed that from colonel vindman. You said that the ukraini ukrainian as a general rule, the United States and other countries will put out very short summaries without going into detail. Okay. You mentioned it was i did that seem ordinary . We did. We discussed it the next day. Did president zelensky raise any concerns about the call . So, right. So i and mr. Volker and mr. Sondland were in the office and he said that the call was fine. I was happy with the call. Did you get any additional readouts subsequently about the call . When did you first learn that the call contained things that concerned you . Was that not until september 25th . Mr. Morrison, as i said briefed me several days later before the end of july and that is where i said in my testimony that he said it could have gone better. He said it, that the call mentioned mr. Giuliani. He also said that the call mentioned the former ambassador. Both of those were concerning. Giuliani was first raise on the call by president zelensky, correct . I dont recall. It could have been. I have it here, if you would like it, sir. Yeah, it is on page 3. Very good. The first mention of giuliani is from president zelensky on page 3, and president zelensky says that i will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with mr. Giuliani and we are hoping that mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine and we will meet once he comes to ukraine. Did that surprise you . Again, i did not have the transcript at the time, and all i heard was that giuliani was mentioned and mr. Morrison said that mr. Giuliani was mentioned in the phone call. But the way it is here, mr. Zelensky is looking like he is looking forward to speaking to americas mayor. That is what i found out when i read the transcript on the 25th of september or so. Okay. So, mr. Kent, corruption in ukraine is endemic, correct . Correct. And it affects the courts, the prosecutors and historically, there have been problems with all of the prosecutors in ukraine, correct . I would say up until the new set of prosecutors appointed by president zelensky in the past two months, correct. And so the u. S. Government, the consensus of the state department and the National Security council and the white house is that he is the real deal, a real reformer, and genuinely interested in rooting out corruption, and prosecuting the bad guys, correct . I would say that we are cautiously optimistic, and we will work wherever there is the political will to do the right thing, and put forward genuine reform. And at the heart of the corruption is this oligarchal system where the oligarchs take control often by a virtual theft of for example the right to Certain Energy licenses, correct . That is one element, yes, sir. And the company bur reec bur the president has a storied history. Yes, he was there from 2010 to 2012 and he used the Regulatory Authority to award Gas Exploration licenses to companies that he, himself, controlled and that is considered an act of corruption in my view, yes. And certainly selfdealing. Selfdealing and selfenriching. And how did the Ukrainian Government pursue that . In the spring of 2014, the new government after the revolution of dignity turned to partners particularly in the u. S. And the u. K. To try to recover tens of billions of dollars of stolen assets, and the first case that we tried to recover that money came from mr. Zlochevsky and the office had already opened up a case ukraine and they opened up more investigations with us, and the 23 million was frozen until somebody in the general Prosecutors Office in ukraine shut the case, and issued a letter to the lawyer, and that money went poof. Paid a bribe to make the case go away . That is the strong assumption, yes, sir. At any time is anyone in the Ukrainian Government trying to reinvestigate that, or did those crimes go unpunish and he was free to go . Mr. Zlochevsky spent time as far as i understand in moscow and monaco after he fled ukraine and we continue to raise a point of order, because u. S. Taxpayer dollars had been tried to recover frozen assets we had a fiduciary responsibility to press the ukrainian officials to answer for why alleged corrupt prosecutors had closed a case, and we have until now not gotten a satisfactory answer, and so to summarize, we thought that mycola sa chlzlochevsky had sto money, and taken bribes. Are you aware of that case being fully prosecuted . I think that since the u. S. Tax dollars were wasted, i would like to find out who the corrupt prosecutor was who took the bribe and how it was paid and that is what i said on july 23rd, 2015. But in addition to prosecuting the person taking the bribe, shouldnt the organization or the person who sponsored the bribes be prosecuted . I would agree that the ukrainian law authorities should uphold the rule of law and hold people accountable for breaking ukrainian law. So this Company Burisma is involved in lots of criminal activity, right . I do not know that. But it has been involved in a number of questionable dealings . Well, it is the largest gas Company Producer and the credibility is mixed. So to the extent that a new regime is coming in under president zelensky, it would be fair for the new prosecutor and a genuine prosecutor to reexamine old crimes that had not been sufficiently brought to justice, right . I believe that the new prosecutor general made a statement to that end that they would be reviewing the past cases, but keep in mind, this is a country that those who commit crimes are not held to account, and there a lot to review. And so now, the bribe was paid in what year . To the best of my knowledge, the case against the zlochevsky, the former minister was shutdown december, 2014. Around that time, burrisma starts to add individuals to the board . Yes, zlochevsky invited a series of individuals to join the board in 2014. Do you know the strategy of what it was to adding the members in the board . I have never met mr. Zlochevsky. Who are the folks that he added to the board . The most prominent was the president of poland. Anyone else . A number of others, including some americans around and the most prominent in this context is hunter biden. Okay. So hunter biden is added to the board of burisma, and do you believe that is creating a problem that burisma may be adding people to the board for protection purposes . Sir, i work for the federal government and not the corporate sector, and soy believe that the companies build their boards with a variety of reasons, and not only to promote their business plans. Was hunter biden a Corporate Governance expert . I have no idea what hunter biden studied or what the cv says. Is he the germaje jeremy son of ukraine . I have no idea what the experience is. You dont know if he had Prior Experience prior to joining the board . I dont know. Do you know if he speaks ukrainian . I do not know. Do you know if he possesses any other element other than being the son of the time of the sitting Vice President . I do not. And ambassador taylor, do you know if hunter biden adds anything other than fact that his dad is the former Vice President or at the time the Vice President. I have no knowledge of hunter biden. But you would agree it raises questions, right . He was getting paid i think 50,000 a month to sit on the board . Do you know if he relocated to ukraine . Sorry, say that again. Do you know if hunter biden relocated to ukraine . I have no knowledge. Mr. Kent . No knowledge. So he was getting paid 50,000 a month, but we dont know whether he had any experience, and he had any spoke the language or moved to ukraine, correct. Correct. And now at this time, Vice President biden was taking a specific interest in ukraine, wasnt he . He was. Could you tell us about that . I believe that while he was Vice President , he made a total of six visits to ukraine. One may have been in the old regime, and that would make five visits after the revolution of dignity that started february of 2014. You were the dcn, the deputy chief at that time . Starting 2015, yes. And did Vice President biden come when you were at post . No, he did not. I came back for Ukrainian Mission training. And you have seen Vice President biden has sort of given a speech and a little folksy about how he went to ukraine and told them if they dont fire the prosecutor, they are going to lose their 1 billion in guarantees, right . Yes, i believe that is in front of the Foreign Council of relations in 2014. And he said that he has been to ukraine 13 times, and do you know if that is accurate . To my knowledge as Vice President he made six visits. And did the state department ever express any concerns that the Vice President s role at the time engaging on ukraine presented any issues . No, the Vice President s role was critically important. It was top cover to help us to pursue our policy agenda. Okay. But given Hunter Bidens role in burismas board of directors you testified in the deposition that you expressed concern at the Vice President s office . Yes. What did they do about that concern . I dont know. I reported my concern to the office of the Vice President. That is the end of it . Sir, you would have to ask people who worked in the office of the Vice President during 2015. But after you expressed that concern of a perceived conflict of interest at the least, the Vice President s engagement in ukraine didnt decrease, did it . Correct. Because the Vice President was promoting u. S. Policy objectives in ukraine. And Hunter Bidens role on the board of burisma didnt cease, did it . No. And to my knowledge, there was a possibility of the perception of a conflict of interest. Ambassador taylor, i wanted to turn to the discussion of the irregular channel that you described. And in fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, it is not as outlandish as it could be, is that correct . It is not as outlandish as it could be, i agree. So we have ambassador volker who is a former senateconfirmed ambassador to nato and long time state diplomat and you have known ambassador volker for a long time . Yes. Man of unquestioned integrity. Correct. And someone with Incredible Knowledge of the region. Very good knowledge of the region. And the best interest of the United States . I am sure that is right. And the best interest of ukraine . His priority is clearly the United States. Okay. And to the extent that ukraine has an implication for that, yes. Ukraine as well. And the second member of the irregular channel is ambassador sondland who is senateconfirmed ambassador to the eu. So his involvement here while, you know, not necessarily part of the official duties as the am bas to ambassador is not outlandish of secretary pompeos direction . It is little unusual for the ambassador of the eu to play a role in ukraine policy. Okay. And you know, might be irregular, but it is not outlandish . And secretary perry is the third member of the irregular channel, and certainly a, you know, senateconfirmed official, and somebody with deep experience in Energy Markets and he was pursuing some liquefied natural gas projects in ukraine. That is correct, mr. Castor. And so secretary perrys involvement is perfectly acceptable . It is. Now, this irregular channel as it developed. When did you determine that it became problematic . I mean, you said in your Opening Statement identified yourself as appropriately the leader of the regular channel. At least a participant. There is another leader of the regular channel. So when did you first develop concerns that the irregular channel was being problematic . Well, i arrived and came in midseptember, and by late september, a couple of phone calls with you arrived in june, right . June. June 17th. Midjune. June 17th, yes. And so 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, and that began to raise questions for me. Okay. Now, you knew ambassador volker, and you have a reason to know ambassador sondland and what did you do at this point or did you ever try to wrest control of the irregular channel . I did not try to wrest control of the irregular channelt that well, why not if you had concerns . Because mr. Castor, at the time as Deputy Assistant kent said that both channels were having meetings with president zelensky and President Trump, and there is no reason to wrest control if we are going in the same direction. But at some point, you developed concerns, and your Opening Statement is here, and you are the impeachment witness number one and you, mr. Kent, for the case of impeaching the United States, because of the concerns that you have testified about the irregular channel, correct . I was concerned when the ir r regular channel appeared to be going against, the irregular channel was going against the overall direction and purpose of the regular channel. And as i understand the record however, you, when you arrived in ukraine, you had the support of the secretary and the secretarys top adviser brechbu brechbuhl . Yes, that is correct. And they assured you that if you had any concerns you could contact them and they would have your back. That is correct. And you knew that the Rudy Giuliani going in represented complexities, correct . I was concerned about Rudy Giulianis statements and involvement in the ukraine policy, yes. Okay. So when it genuinely became, you know, a concern for you, what did you do to either engage sondland and volker and perry, giuliani, and by the way, have you ever met Rudy Giuliani in these times relevant . Not in the times relevant, but mr. Giuliani visited ukraine one time when i was there, and that was in 2007 or 2008, and that is the only time i have met him. So you have never had any communications with Rudy Giuliani as part of these irregular channel business 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, i may have mentioned this phone call that was odd in that it did not include the normal staff, and indeed mr. Sondlands staff, and that struck me as unusual. I consulted with mr. Kent, and at his suggestion made a note of this and also, i believe at that point i had a conversation with mr. Brechbuhl. That is the june 28th call i believe . Yes, that is correct. In your Opening Statement, you expressed some concerns about what ambassador sondland had said, and then once zelensky got on the phone, it proceeded in a regular channel way, correct . That is correct. So the june 28th call at least in and of itself didnt ultimately as it played out didnt present any problems for you . The call with president zelensky did not. The preparation for that call, the preparation included maybe 15 minutes of just the americans that would stay on the call and that, again, that was irregular in that it did not have the staff, and also in that precall, in that 15 minutes before president zelensky got on the phone where ambassador volker told the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation with president zelensky in toronto in three days, four days where he would outline for president zelensky the important components of the phone call that we were trying to establish. Okay. And you didnt have any issue with that, did you . The only issue i had with that, mr. Castor, was that there was reference to investigations in i believe, and i will have to check my notes on that, but there was raised issues or i did not understand what ambassador volker had in mind that he was going to specifically raise with mr. Zelzelensky, and that is a little bit of a concern. The president has expressed interest in certain investigations certainly relating to the 2016 election, and relating to this corrupt burisma outfit, and so that is not inconsistent with the president s message, right . I am not sure, mr. Castor. May i ask you to repeat the question. The president s concerns about the 2016 election, and that he needed to get to the bottom of it, and the president s concerns as it ultimately related to the burisma company, and if ambassador volker is raising that with zelensky, it is consistent with the direction of the president , correct . The president s interest, or i would say mr. Giulianis interest, because that is what was very clear at the time. Right. Mr. Giulianis interest in pursuing the investigations was of concern. By the way, do you know how many times volker met with giuliani . I dont. How many would you guess, meeting with him all of the time . Mr. Castor, i dont know. And for me, you know, at the deposition he told us just once. You know, he texted back and forth with the mayor and had a call or two, but it wasnt a pervasive engagement for ambassador volker, and were you aware of that . I was not aware. I was aware of one breakfast, i think, but that is the only one that i was aware of. And before my time expires, mr. Kent, i want to circle back to the company of burisma, and you testified at the deposition that there was a instance when usaid had engaged with burisma in possibly sponsoring a program, and you took issue with that and recommended that the us usaid pull back, and can you tell us about that . In the summer of 2016, i was part of what was a clean Energy Awareness campaign, and part of the Usaid Mission that worked on the economics and governance on Energy Sponsored some type of contest for the young ukrainians to come up with a theme, and there was a prize and i believe it was a camera. They had cosponsored with the Public Private partnership being a buzzword having a cosponsorship with burisma, and given the past history of our interests in recovering stolen assets from zlochevsky, it was not appropriate to cosponsor an event with them, and i raised it, and she agreed and the usaid kept the contest, but dropped the Public Private partnership sponsorship. The time of the gentleman has expired. I will now move to fivemember rounds and i recognize myself for five minutes. I wanted to follow up on the colleagues question regarding burisma, and you testified about a time when an oligarch named zlochevsky was selfdealing and selfawarding himself contracts and when was that . To the best of my knowledge, he was minister of energy, and sorry, minister of ecology under president yankovich, and at this time, the gas awards were administered by the minister of ecology. So the selfdealing was approximately seven years prior to the events that bring us here today on the phone call of the 25th and the events around it . Correct. His time as minister was 2010 to 2012. Hunter biden joined the board of burisma in 2014. You have read the call transcript, have you not . I have and i have it in front of me, but i have not read it for about a month. Is there any mention in a discussion with President Trump and president zelensky of this oligarch zlochevsky who had been selfdealing . To my knowledge, no. Is there a discussion of awarding contracts to one self or the corrupt acts in the 2012 to 2014 time frame . To the best of my knowledge, no. But the president brings up crowd strike, and the server and the bidens, am i right . I see that here, yes. It was no discussion on that call of setting up an Anticorruption Court or looking into corruption among oligarchs or companies in general . The president s comments were focused on two thing, 2016 and the bidens, am i right . I believe so, yes. And you testified in your Opening Statement, and i do not believe that the United States should ask other countries to be involved in selectively political investigations of prosecution of opponents of those in power, and such selective action undermines the rule of the law of the country, and so the solicitation torsion prosecutionings of the opponents of those in power, and are you referring to the bidens in there . I am referring in general for the promotion of the rule of law. But it would apply to the president of the United States seeking an investigation of his political opponent would it not . It could be interpreted that way, yes, sir. And i take it in your discussions with ambassador taylor and with ambassador sondland or others, what was communicated to you was that the president wanted investigations into 2016 and the bidens and not an oligarch named zlochevsky, but into the bidens . That is my understanding. So in fact when you said that your staff overheard this call between ambassador sondland and the president. In that call that president brings up investigations does he not . He did. And immediately after the president gets off of the phone with sondland, and sondland is asked by your staff what is the president thinking about ukraine and the answer is, he is just interested in the bidens, am i right . He said that he was more interested in the bidens. More interested in the bidens and no discussion of zlochevsky or chalupa or the things that happened seven years ago, and he was interested in the bidens . Yes, sir. So now i think that you also testified that mr. Sondland told you that President Trump wanted zelensky in a public box. Is that right . Yes, sir. By public box, did that mean that private statements or private promises to do this investigation in the bidens was not enough and he had to go on the tv and public in some way, because the president wanted him in that box. Is that your understanding . Mr. Chairman, i dont know what he had in mind, and im not sure what ambassador sondland had in mind who is the one who mentioned it to me. That is the implication. The implication is that it needed to be public as opposed to being a private assurance. I think that you said in that same call that you asked ambassador sondland to pushback on President Trumps demand. Is that right . That is correct, sir. So you understood from the conversation with mr. Sondland, this is the president s demand and not sondlands demand, but the president s demand and you wanted sondland to pushback, right . What i wanted ambassador sondland was clearly able to have conversations with the president , and i thought that the pressure on another president was not good from either president s standpoint, and soy suggested in that phone call with ambassador sondland that he, since he frequently had conversations with the president could make that point. And so i think that the way you expressed yourself is that you wanted sondland to pushback on President Trumps demand. Yes, sir. So your understanding from talking to sondland is that this is what the president wanted you to do and you asked him to pushback. That is correct, i asked ambassador sondland to pushback. So even after the aid was ultimately released a and the white house learns of the whistleblower complaint and the congressional investigation and it is released even after those events, you were still worried that zelensky would feel it necessary to go on cnn and announce the investigations, were you not . I was worried, mr. Chairman, that he would do that. So yes, i thought that it 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 it did not happen and so i addressed it with the zelensky staff. And you said earlier that danyliuk was concerned that zelensky did want to be used as a tool in american politics. Is that right . That is correct. And so zelensky did not want to go on tv to announce political investigations that he thought would mire him in the american politics, right . He and the advisers knew it was a bad idea to interject, and interfere in other nations election, yes, sir. But nonetheless, it appeared until the aid was lifted or hold was lifted he felt compelled to do it . He was making plan, and his staff was making plans for him to make some kind of announcement, and i dont know what it would have been on cnn in public. And even though he did not want to be mired in the u. S. Politics . He knew it would be a bad idea to interfere in other peoples elections. Mr. Nunes, you are recognized for 7 10. I thank the gentleman for that. Ambassador taylor, you said in the deposition that the first time that you heard about this issue is Rudy Giuliani, and im paraphrasing, but you read it in the new york times, is that correct . I do remember that first, i remember noticing about mr. Giuliani being involved in this in that article, yes, sir. I think that one of the mothers of all conspiracy theorys is that somehow the president of the United States would want a country that he doesnt even like and he does not want to give the foreign aid to, to have the ukrainians start an investigation into bidens. With that, i yield to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Thank you ambassador taylor for being here. The aid was held up until july 18th, correct . Yes. And then it is released on september 11th, and we know that from your deposition, and in that 65 days that the aid is delayed you met with president zelensky three times. The first was july 26th, the famous call between President Trump and president zelensky, and he then talked to you and ambassador sondland and volker, and there was no linkage of assistance dollars to investigating burisma or the bidens, and again in this 65day time frame, and the second meeting he meets with you and president zelensky and ambassador bolton and others and there is no linkage of the dollars to the investigation of the bidens. And then of course, the third meeting is september 5th, president zelensky meets with you and senators johnson and murphy and again, no linkage of the dollars to burisma or the bidens and three meetings with the president of ukraine and no linkage, and is that accurate . Mr. Jordan, certainly accurate on the first two meetings, because to my knowledge, the ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until, until the 29th of august. Because of the politico article. The politico article. And the third meeting that you mentioned was the senators murray and johnson, and there was a discussion of the Security Assistance, but no linkage. There was not discussion of linkage. And so three meetings and facetoface with the president zelensky and no linkage, and yet in your deposition you said this, and you said it again in the first hour of the majority, my clear understanding was that Security Assistance would not come until president zelensky committed to pursue the investigation. My clear understanding was that they were not going to get the money until president zelensky committed to pursue the investigations. Now, with all due respect, ambassador, your clear understanding was obviously wrong, because it didnt happen. President zelensky did not announce that he was going to inves gate burisma or the bidens and he did not have a press conference to say we will investigate the bidens or burisma, and he did not tweet about it, and you just told the Ranking Member that you didnt do the cn nshgts interview and announce that he would investigate buri reeburisma or buydens and so it is not brought up until the aid was sent on the 11th, and yet you said that you had a clear understanding. And that money would be released until there was an investigation and that did not happen. So i wonder, where did you get this clear understanding . As i testified, mr. Jordan, this came from ambassador sondland. Hold up, ambassador, because i want to bring you a piece of paper from ambassador sondlands statement, and go ahead though, i wanted to let you finish. Mr. Jordan, should i read this . No, i wanted you to have it, because i am going to read it. Very good. Very good. And you said that you got this from ambassador sondland . That is correct. Mr. Sondland also said that he talked to mr. Zelensky, and mr. Yellmak and even though this is not a quid pro quo, and if president zelensky did not clear thing s up in public, we would e at a stalemate and that is one point. And mr. Morrison talked to you, correct . Ambassador sondland also told me that 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 on the in order to get the investigations. No, wit was shg, it was not ju, but it was the Security Assistance and everything. It is those two discussions. I understand. And just to recap. You had three meetings with the president zelensky and no linkage in those three meetings came up. And ambassador zelensky did not announce that he was doing any investigations of the bidens or the burisma and president zelensky, excuse me, and so then what you have in front of you is an addendum that mr. Sondland made to his testimony that we had a couple of weeks ago that says that i, for Gordon Sondland, do affirm and solemnly swear, and the second sentence, ambassador taylor says that he told mr. Morrison that i conveyed the message to mr. Yarmack in connection to Vice President pences meeting to warsaw, and this is the clarification. Let me read it again. Ambassador taylor says that he recalls that i told mr. Morrison that i convinced mr. Yarmack in connection with Vice President pences meeting to warsaw, and so we have six people having four conversations in one sentence and you are telling me this is where you got the clear understanding. Even though you had three opportunities with the president zelensky for him to tell you, you know what, we will do the investigations and get the aid. He did not tell you three times and he never makes an announcement or tweets about it and never does an cnn interview, and ambassador, you were not in on the call and listen in on President Trump and zelenskys call . No. You didnt talk to chief of staff mulvaney. No. And you had not heard of that and it didnt come up. No reason for it to come up. And president zelensky never made an announcement. No. This is the star witness and the first witness. And you are the guy based on this and i mean, i have seen Church Prayer chains that are easier to understand than this, and he says that ambassador morrison told you and i hereby swear and affirm from Gordon Sondland that he recalls that i told mr. Ambassador taylor that i coni haved a this message to and this is all happening by the way, this is all happening by the way in warsaw where the Vice President pence meeting with president zelensky and guess what they did not talk about any linkage either. Time of the gentleman has expired. Would you like to respond . Yes. And i am glad to take those questions, mr. Jordan. I would say that i dont consider myself a star witness for anything. They do. I dont. I am just responding to i am responding to your please dont interrupt the witness. I was clear about that i am not here to take one side or another or to advocate any particular outcome, and let many restate that. And the main thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that i talked to. We got that. We got that. And this clarification from ambassador sondland was because he said that he didnt remember this. And in his first deposition, and so he wanted to kind of clarify, but i think that, mr. Jordan, the way i read this, he remembers it the same way i do. And yeah, it is real clear, right . It is very clear. Thank you, ambassador taylor. May i ask for five minutes. And gentlemen, thank you for the testimony today, and one thank is startling about the proceedings is that faced with serious allegations of president ial misconduct, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not engage or defend that conduct, and rather they spin theories of the black ledgers and steele dossiers and startling revelations that the ukrainians might have been upset when a president ial candidate suggested that perhaps he would let the russians keep crimea or of course, the attacks that are so epitomized by mr. Nunes Opening Statement when he attacked the democrats and the media and most disgustingly attacked the extraordinary men and women of the state department and the fbi. And when a defense does emerge, it looks a little bit like this. Ukraine is a corrupt country, and the president was just acting in a long line, a long tradition of actually trying to address corruption in ukraine. Mr. Kent, you have worked on the anticorruption, and the rule of law for much of your 27year career, is that correct . I have specialized in anticorruption and rule of law issues since 2012, correct. And so, like, most of us up here, i dont have a good sense of what a real anticorruption effort that we must engage in all over the world all of time, and what that looks like. So let me ask you have to take a minute and characterize for us what a Real Initiative and real program of anticorruption might look like. If we are doing a systemic, wholistic program, you need institutions with integrity and that is going to start with investigators and then goes the prosecutors and then to courts and then to the corrections system. In countries like ukraine we generally start with Law Enforcement which is what we did in 2014, 15 with the new Patrol Police and oftentimes there is also needed an Anticorruption League, and that is called the Anticorruption League or nabu, and there is a body to investigate unusual wealth, and an tie corrupti anticorruption council, and then we established an tie corruption prosecutor and a high court on anticorruption which is to procure prosecutors and investigators with courts that could not be bought and focused on the high level corruption. So that is, mr. Kent, a come comprehensive effort, and let me read you the president s own words. There is a lot of talk about bidens son, and that he stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, and whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecutionb and if you can look into, because it sounds horrible to me. When you hear those, is the president requesting a well thoughtful calibrated Anticorruption Program . I do not. And mr. Kent and mr. Taylor, the defenders of the president s behavior have made a big deal out of the fact that the Vice President biden encouraged the ukrainians to remove a corrupt former prosecutor, and 2016, mr. Shokin, and rand paul said that they are impeaching the President Trump for exactly the same thing that joe biden did. Is that correct . Is what the president , is what the president did in the phone call and joe biden did in terms of mr. Shokin, is that the same things or if not, how are they different . I do not think they are the same things. What former Vice President biden requested of the president of ukraine poroshenko is the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general Viktor Shokin who had undermined a system of criminal investigation that we built with american money to build corruption cases. There was a diamond prosecutor case in which shokin destroyed the entire ecosystem that we were trying to create, the investigators, the judges who issued the warrants, and the everybody including the former driver he had made a prosecutor, and that is what joe biden was saying to remove the corrupt prosecutor. So joe biden was involved in a whole effort to stop corruption in ukraine. That is correct. So mr. Kent, as you are looking at this mess, Rudy Giuliani, and President Trump, and was in a comprehensive and whole effort to end corruption in ukraine . Referring to the requests in july . Exactly. I would not say so, no, sir. I dont. I dont think that President Trump was trying to end corruption, but aim it at President Biden and the 2020 election, and i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Conaway is recognized for five minutes. I yield my time to the gentleman from texas, mr. Rat cliff. I thank you both for being here. It is obvious that you both care about u. S. ukraine relations and it is clear youre optimistic about president zelensky. Ambassador taylor, you related one of his first acts in office was to remove immunity from deputies which had long been a source of corruption. I know you had a number of personal dealings with him. Has he given you any reason to question his honesty or integrity . No, sir. In your prior deposition, i asked you and ill read it directly, if nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a military hold at the time of the trump zelensky call, as a matter of law and matter of fact there can be no quid pro quo based on military aid, and to your knowledge nobody in the Ukrainian Government was ware of the hold. Your answer was, that is correct. Is that still your testimony . Mr. Ratcliffe, at some point in september im talking about on july 25th. July 25th, sorry, yes, thats correct. Thats correct. They did not know this. As it turns out, president zelensky agreed with you. On october 10th, president zelensky held a press marathon with over 300 reporters, where he said repeatedly and consistently over hours and hours that he was not aware of a military hold during the july 25th call. In fact, in his official press release from the Ukrainian Government available on his website that ill be introducing into the record, he said our phone conversation bears no relations to arms. They blocked the provision of military assistance prior to our telephone conversation, but the issue had not been discussed during our conversation, i mean i didnt even know. So now in addition to confirming that because he had no knowledge of it, there was no quid pro quo involving military aid during that call, president zelensky went on to confirm a number of things, that there was no pressure, that there were no conditions, that there were no threats on military aid, there were no conditions or pressure to investigate burisma, there was no blackmail, no corruption of any kind during the july 25th call. Again, from his official press release. Therefore there was no blackmail because it was not the subject of our conversation with the president of the United States. There were no conditions on the investigation either because of arms or the situation around burisma company. He told reuter, there was no blackmail. He told the l. A. Times there was no pressure or blackmail from the United States. He told kyoto news i was never pressured and there was no conditions being imposed. He told abc news and the bbc, im against corruption. This is not corruption. It was just a call. Ukrainian president stood in front of the world press and repeatedly, consistently, over and over again, interview after interview, said he had no knowledge of military aid being withheld, meaning no quid pro quo, no pressure, no demands, no threats, no blackmail, nothing corrupt, and unlike first 45 minutes that we heard from the democrats today, thats not secondhand information, it is not hear say, what somebody overheard ambassador sondland say, thats his direct testimony. Ambassador taylor, do you have any evidence to prove that president zelensky was lying to the world press when he said those things . Yes or no . Mr. Ratcliffe, if i can respond my time is short, yes or no. I have no reason to doubt what the president said in his okay, very good. So in this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach president s for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the Impeachable Offense in that call . Are either of you here today to assert there was an Impeachable Offense in that call . Shout it out. Anyone . Mr. Ratcliffe, if i can just respond, let me just reiterate, im not here one minute left. I know you only have one minute left. I have 30 you asked the witness a question. I withdraw the question. Ambassador, let me answer this let me ask you this question. The gentlemen will suspend. Ambassador, taylor, would you like to answer the question . I withdrew the question. The general will suspend. We will suspend the clock. Suspend the clock at one minute please. Ambassador taylor, would you like to respond to the question . I would like to say im not here to do anything, having to do with to decide about impeachment. Thats not what either of us are here to do. This is your job. Restore time to the clock one minute. No, but you can continue with 22 seconds. Fine. Mr. Ambassador, i think everyone knows that House Democrats have made up their mind to impeach one president. The question we just learned is whether or not theyre prepared to impeach two, because to be clear, if House Democrats impeach President Trump for quid pro quo involving military aid, they have to call president zelensky a liar. If they impeach him for abusing his power or pressuring or making threat oz or demands, they have to call president zelensky a liar to do it. If they impeach President Trump for blackmail, or extortion or making threats or demands, they have to call President Trump a liar to do it. I yield back. Chairman recognizes representative sewell. I yield to my esteemed chairman. Thank you. Ambassador taylor, i dont know if you had a chance to read some of the transcripts released. Are you aware that other witnesses have testified that ukraine in fact found out the aid was being withheld before it became Public Knowledge . Mr. Chairman, i read that, i think there is still some question about when they may have heard. And ultimately they did find out when the political story came out to your knowledge, but others have said even sooner, but they did find out, right, ambassador . They did, mr. Chairman. And at the time they found out, they knew what President Trump wanted from them that he wanted these investigations, correct . Ambassador sondland informed president zelenskys staff that is mr. Yermak of what was required, yes. So ukraine finds out about the hold. Youre not able to give them a reason for the hold, no one is able to give them a reason for the hold, they know the president wants these investigations, and then theyre told in warsaw by ambassador sondland essentially youre not getting the aid unless you do the investigations, correct . Thats correct. So youve been asked how could there be conditioning if the ukrainians didnt know, but ukrainians were told by ambassador sondland, were they not . They were. They were. They didnt know, as near as i can tell, the ukrainians did not know about the hold on the phone call, on july 25th. Thats true. But they were told as you said, mr. Chairman, on the 1st of september. And in fact, while they may not have known during the time of the call, they would find out. And when they did find out, they would know what the president wanted, correct . Thats correct. Representative sewell . So mr. Kent, i would like to refer you to the discussion of may 23rd meeting in the oval office. When the president met with those who had gone to the ukraine for the inauguration. You briefly testified that you helped propose names for individuals to go to that inauguration. Was ambassador sondland, who was ambassador to the European Union one of the names that you submitted . No, it was not. But he ultimately attended that inauguration, is that not right . That is correct. And do you know how he ended up as a part of that official delegation . I do not know for sure, but my understanding is once the list left the nsc staff, it went through a review through the part of the white house that determines president ial delegations. You also testified that upon returning, ambassador sondland used his, quote, connections with mulvaney, end quote, to order to secure this meeting in the oval office, is that correct . Thats my understanding, yes. It seems this Oval Office Meeting was a pivotal turning point in the ukraine policy. Coming out of that meeting, who was given responsibility to your recollection . Who was given responsibility for the ukraine policy . I never saw any document that changed the nature of policy determination in the u. S. Government under the Trump Administration there is the National Security president ial didnt you also say please. I have a little time. You did say in your testimony that you felt that that you testified that secretary perry, ambassador sondland and ambassador volker, quote, felt they had a mandate to take the lead, end quote, on ukraine policy. Did you not . That was an accurate statement. Their feeling doesnt mean that they actually got delegated potenti responsibility. Have you heard the term three amigos . On july 26th. What do you come to mean by three amigos . My understanding of ambassador sondlands use of that term, the three people that were in charge of ukraine policy during the summer were he, Gordon Sondland, ambassador volker and secretary perry. And what did you come to when did you come to learn about mr. Giulianis role and what do you consider his role to have been . I first heard about 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 who is a private citizen take an active role in foreign diplomacy . I did not find his particular engagement normal, no. Now, mr. Ambassador taylor, you testified that there are two channels, a regular and irregular. What did you see as Rudy Giulianis role in ukraine policy . Congresswoman, i came to see that mr. Giuliani had a large influence on the irregular channel. And was that normal . Is that normal to have a private citizen of the United States take an active role in diplomacy . It is not normal. It is not unusual to ask for people outside the government to give opinions to help form the policies of the u. S. Government. It is unusual to have a person put input into the channel that goes contrary to u. S. Policy. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Turner, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Mr. Kent, ambassador taylor, thank you for your service. I have a great deal of appreciation for your profession, you have very little direct contact with decisionmakers, tremendous amount of responsibility. And not a lot of authority to affect u. S. Policy, bilateral engagements, youre trying to shepherd through issues with our allies. One example of that, ambassador taylor, you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the president of the United States, is that correct . Thats correct, sir. Mr. Kent, have you had any contact with the president of the United States . I have not. So not only no conversation with the president of the United States about ukraine, youve not had any contact with the president of the United States, correct . Thats correct. Okay. So you both know this impeachment inquiry is about the president of the United States, dont you . I mean, the man that neither one of you had any contact with, youre the first up witnesses. I just find that a little amazing that the first up would be two people who have never had any contact with the president himself. Now, kurt volker did have contact with the president and contact with president on ukraine. Mr. Ambassador taylor, you said hes a man of highest integrity. I know kurt volker and i know he served as the nature ynato amba highest professional ethics, one of the most knowledgeable people about europe, absolutely a truthful man. Mr. Kent, would you agree with ambassador taylor that hes of the highest integrity . I believe kurt volker has served the u. S. As a Public Servant very well. Do either of you have any evidence that mr. Volker committed perjury or lied in his testimony to this committee . Do either of you have any evidence that kurt volker perjured himself or lied to this committee in his testimony . Ambassador taylor, any evidence . Mr. Turner, i have no evidence. Mr. Kent . I believe ambassador volkers deposition was over 400 pages and i dont have it in front of me, so i cant you have no evidence that he lied or perjured i have no basis to make that judgment, no sir. Were not in a court. If we were, the sixth amendment would apply and so would rules on hearsay and opinion. Most of your two testimonies would not be admissible whatsoever. I understand in your profession you deal in words of understanding, words of beliefs and feelings, because in your profession thats what you work with to try to pull together policy 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 with the president or Prime Minister of a country or were you told one thing before you went into the meeting as to what it was to be about and the meeting be about another thing or get in there and the beliefs or opinions of the president or the Prime Minister were other than you believed . Youre asking if i ever learned something new in a have you ever walked in with a belief you thought about the country that you were serving in and find out that they were wrong . I learned something in every meeting, mr. Turner, but i, you know ambassador taylor, the reason why the sixth amendment doesnt