Transcripts For CSPAN3 Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Impeachment Hearing With Laura Cooper... 20240713

Order. Good afternoon, everyone. This is the sixth in a series of public hearings the committee will be holing as part of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. There is a quorum present. We will proceed today in the same fashion as our other hearings. I will make an Opening Statement and the Ranking Member nunes will have the opportunity to make a statement and we will turn to our witnesses for their Opening Statements if they should choose to make one. For audience member, we welcome you and respect your interest in being here. In turn, we ask for your respect as we proceed with this hearing. As chairman, ill make any necessary or take any necessary appropriate steps to maintain order and ensure that the committee is run in accordance with house rules and House Resolution 660. With that, i now recognize myself to give an Opening Statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j. Trump, the 45th president of the United States. This afternoon the American People will hear from two witnesses who are both veteran National Security professionals, one at the department of state and the other at the Defense Department. David hale is the undersecretary of state for Political Affairs and the most Senior Foreign Service officer. Laura keeper serves as Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine, youeurasid is responsible for the soviet union and the bal dkans. They have served both republican and democratic president s and as we have heard from other dedicated Public Servants like former ambassador to ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch and former Deputy Assistant secretary george kent, ambassador bill taylor, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and hale was witness to the Smear Campaign against Marie Yovanovitch and the the efforts by some in the state department to help her. In late march yovanovitch reached out to hale telling him in an email that the tempo of social media any other criticisms of her were such shy could no longer function unless there was a strong statement of defense from the state department. She put out a full statement of defense and page and sadly to no avail. That silence continues to today. In late april we heard in riveting testimony last friday from ambassador yovanovitch. She was called to washington and informed she had lost the confidence of the president. He did not meet with her and his subordinates dealt with her, instead. With the departure of yovanovitch, heale watched thre, and they were led by Energy Secretary rick perry and it would be ambassador volker and sondland working with ambassador taylor who would be the ones doing the continual work here. In midsummer, trump ordered a suspension of military aid to ukraine. Despite the fact that the aid had been authorized and appropriated by congress and that the Defense Department in consultation with the state department had had certified ukraine met all of the necessary requirements to receive the aid including anticorruption reform. The aid was in the National Interests of the United States and critical to ukraines security, a country that had been invaded by russia. From her office in the pentagon, miss cooper oversaw a significant amount of Security Assistance flowing to the ukraine and was involved in efforts to understand and reverse the suspension of 400 million in u. S. Aid. Keeper, along with others learned about the freeze during a series of inner Agency Meetings in the last two weeks of july. At the first meeting on july 18th an omb representative relayed that, quote, the white house chief of staff has conveyed that the president has concerns about ukraine and ukraines Security Assistance, end quote and that a hold had been ordered by the president. No explanation was provided. All of the agencies responsible for ukraine policy supported Security Assistance and advocated for lifting of the hold. The only dissenting voice was the office of management and budget which was following the orders of President Trump and still no good explanation of the hold was provided. While the aid suspension had not been made public, word was getting out. Katherine kroft, special adviser for ukraine at a deposition received two separate calls in july or august from officials at the Ukrainian Embassy who, quote, approached me quietly and in confidence to ask me about an omb hold on ukraine Security Assistance. Kroft was, quote, very surprised at the effectiveness of my ukrainian counter parts trade craft. As if to say they found out very early on, much earlier than i expected them to. The ukrainians wanted answer, but kroft did not have a good response. But then in late August Cooper met with kurt volker with whom she had met many times in the past. During that meeting in which they were discussing the hold on Security Assistance, volker revealed that he was engaged in an effort to have the government to ukraine issue a statement that would, quote, commit to the prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference, end quote. Cooper understood that if volkers effort were successful the hold might be lifted. Unbeknownst to cooper, no such statement was forthcoming, but the aid was abruptly restored on september 11th, days after the three committees launched an investigation into the trumpukraine scheme. And with that, i now recognize the Ranking Member. Thank you. As we republicans have argued at these hearings, the American People are getting a skewed impression of these events. Thats because the democrats assume full authority to call witnesses and they promptly reject good new witnesses the republicans kwtd. Id like to take a few of the people whose testimony has been deemed unacceptable for the American People to hear. The whistleblower. The whistleblower is the key figure who started this entire impeachment charade by submitting a complaint against President Trump that relied on secondhand and thirdhand information and media reports. This began a bizarre series of events although the complaint had no intelligence component whatsoever. The Intelligence Community Inspector General accepted it and even changed the guidance on the complaint forms to eliminate the requirement for firsthand information. Then his office back dated the forms to make them appear as if they were published a month before. Democrats then took the extremely rare step of pushing a whistleblower complaint into the public using it as the centerpiece of their impeachment crusade. We later learned that democratic staff had prior coordination with the whistleblower and the democrats themselves his denied the on national television. Following that revelation, democrats did a dramatic about face. They suddenly dropped their insistence that the whistleblower testified and rejected our request to hear from him. Then hearing yesterday, the democrats cut off our questions and accused us of trying to out the whistleblower even though they claim they dont even know who he is. Alexander chalupa. Chalupa is a former operative who worked with officials from the Ukrainian Embassy in washington, d. C. , in order to smear the Trump Campaign in 2016. She met directly about these matters with thenukrainian ambassador chalet who himself wrote an article criticizing trump during the 2016 campaign. Chalupas activities is one of several indicators of election meddling in 2016 all of which were aimed at the Trump Campaign. Once you understand that ukrainian officials were cooperating directly with President Trumps political opponents to undermine his candidacy, its easy to understand why the president would want to know the whole truth about the operations and why he would be schedulel and hunter biden, its theyre sparing an exam asian on the board of a company, burr mace highlights the corruption problem in ukraine that concerns not only President Trump, but all of the witnesses weve interviewed so far. What did he do to earn his lavish salary and salary, and what light could he shed on corruption at this notorious company . But biden would make an inconvenient witness for the democrats, so they have blocked his testimony. At these hearings we have heard a lot of secondhand and third hand information and speculation about President Trumps intentions, but in the end, the only direct order we have heard from the president is his order to our last witness, ambassador sondland, that he wanted nothing from ukraine. That is consistent with the testimony provided by senator johnson who said that President Trump angrily denied accounts that a quid pro quo existed. Aside from rejecting our witnesses, democrats have tried other petty tricks to shake public opinion. Just this morning, they called a break in the hearing in order to press their absurd arguments tv cameras. Then for this hearing they canceled the multiple rounds of initial questioning they had earlier today with ambassador sondland, as they have with all the previous witnesses. Who they bizarrely consider us their star witnesses. When you look through the presumptions, assumptions, smoke and mirrors, you see the facts of this case are clear, President Trump was spectacle of foreign aid generally, and especially skeptical of aid to corrupt Companies Like ukraine. He wanted to discover the facts about ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election against his campaign. A brief hold on ukrainian aid was lifted without ukraine taking any steps, they were supposedly being bribed to do. President zelensky repeatedly said there was nothing improper about President Trumps call with him, and he did not even know about the hold on aid it. At the time he was supposedly being extorted with. So what are the democrats impeaching the president for . None of us really no. Because the accusations changed by the hour. Once again, this is impeachment, search of a crime, mister chairman i would urge you to bring this to a close, to adjourn this hearing and move on and get back to the work of the Intelligence Committee. That i yield back. I think the gentleman. Today we are joined by master david hill, and laura cooper, david hail serves as the undersecretary of state for Political Affairs, position hes held since 2018, he joined the Foreign Service in 1984 and holds the rank of career ambassador. Previously served as the ambassador to pakistan, to lebanon, special envoy for middle east peace, deputy special envoy ambassador to jordan. Ambassador hail also served as Deputy Assistant secretary of state an executive assistant to secretary of state paul bright, laura cooper is the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia at the department of defense. She is a career member of the Senior Executive service, miss cooper previously served as a principle director in the office, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, and Global Security affairs. Prior to joining the department of defense in 2001 most cooper was a policy planning officer at the state department in the office of coordinator of counterterrorism. Two final points before witnesses are sworn, first, witness depositions, as part as this inquiry, are unclassified in nature, all open hearings will also be caught at the unclassified level. Anything that may touch on classified information will be touch separately. Congress will not deal with any reprisal, attempt of reprisal, attempt to retaliate against any Government Official for testifying in front of congress including you or any of your colleagues. If you both would please rise and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing un. You swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative, thank you will please be seated. Microphone is sensitive so please speak directly into it, without objection your written statements will be made part of the record, without, ambassador hail, if you have an Opening Statement you are free to give that and immediately thereafter, must cooper you are recognized for your Opening Statement. Mister chairman, i dont have a prepared Opening Statement but i would like to comment, as you said ive been undersecretary since august of 2018, of Foreign Service officer for over 35 years, and ambassador three times serving both republican and democratic administrations proudly, and im here in response to your subpoena to answer the questions of the committee. Thank you undersecretary, miss cooper. Mister chairman, Ranking Member, members of this committee, i appeared today to provide facts that answer questions based on my experience as the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia. I would first like to describe my background as well as my role and Vantage Point relative to your inquiry. I bring to my daily work into this proceeding my sense of duty to u. S. National security, not to any political party. I have proudly served two democratic and two republican president s. I entered Government Service through the president s shawl management internship competition, joining the state department in 1999 to work on counterterrorism in europe and the former soviet union. Inspired by working with the u. S. Military Ana Department of defense rotational assignment, i decided to accept a Civil Service position in the policy organization of the office of the secretary of defense, in january 2001, where i have remained for the past 18 years. My strong sense of pride in serving my country and dedication to my pentagon colleagues were cemented in the moments after i felt the pentagon shake beneath me on september 11th, 2001. My office was scheduled to move into the section of the pentagon that was destroyed in the attack, but a construction delay meant that we were still on our old desks in the adjacent section on that devastating day. After we had wiped the block dust from our desks and try to get back to work, i found meaning by volunteering to work on afghanistan policy and we give my next four years to this mission. I later had the opportunity to move into the leadership ranks of my organization and have had the privilege to manage issues ranging from defense Strategic Planning to homeland offense and mission assurance. I accepted the position of principle director for russia, ukraine and eurasia in 2016, and was honored to be appointed formerly to the position of Deputy Assistant secretary of defense in 2018. In my current role i work to advance u. S. National security with a focus on deterring russian aggression and building strong partnerships with the frontline states of ukraine and georgia as well as ten other allies and partners from the balkans to the caucuses. Strengthening ukraines capacity to defend itself against russian aggressions essential to my teams mission. The United States and our allies provide ukraine with Security Assistance because it is in our National Security interest to deter russian aggression around the world. We also provide Security Assistance so that ukraine can negotiate a peace with russia from a position of strength. The human toll continues to climb in this ongoing war, with 14,000 ukrainian lives lost since rushes 2014 invasion. The sacrifices are in my mind as i lead the efforts to provide training and equipment, including defensive lethal assistance to the Ukrainian Armed forces. I have also supported a robust Ukrainian Ministry of Defense Program to fence reform to determine sustainability of u. S. Investments and the transformation of the Ukrainian Military from his soviet model to a nato inner operable force. The National Defense authorization act requires that we certify difference reform progress to release half of the Ukraine Security initiative funds, a provision we find very helpful. Based on recommendations from me and other key d. O. T. Advisers, the department of defense in court a nation with the department of state, certified in may 2019 that ukraine had quote, taken substantial actions to make defense Institutional Reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability, unquote, marketing obligation of the entire 250 million in u. S. Ai funds. This brings me to the topic of todays proceedings. I would like to recap my recollection of the timeline in which these arent events played out. Then testified about all of this at length of my deposition. In july, i became aware of a whole being placed and an obligation of the state departments Foreign Military financing or fm or do you these funds. The Inter Agency Meeting i heard that the president had directed office of management budget to hold the funds because of his concern about corruption in ukraine. Let me say at the outset that i have never discussed this or any other matter with the president. I never heard directly from him about this matter. At a senior level meeting, i attended an july 26 shared, by Security Council leadership and all inter Agency Meetings on this topic of which i was aware. The National Security expressed anonymous support as what the u. S. National security interests and there was also a discussion of how ukrainian Anti Corruption efforts were making progress d. O. T. Reiterated in our earlier certification stating that sufficient progress and finance reform including Anti Corruption had occurred to justify the usa i standing. I and others in the inter agency looked at the moderate that it was particularly urgent cause a takes time to make that money and i understanding was that the money was required by september 30th for the end of the fiscal year. And the ensuing weeks until the hold was released on september 11th, i pursued three tracks. First, starting on july 31st and the Inter Agency Meeting i made cleared to the inter Agency Leadership that my understanding that once d. O. D. Reaches the point at which it does not have sufficient time to obligate all of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, there is only two ways to discontinue obligation of the u. S. Ai. A president directed decision or a d. O. D. Directed programming action. Either of which would need to be notified to congress. I never heard that either was being pursued. Second, i was in the implementing committee to try to understand exactly when they would reach the point where they would be able to have the funds by the end of the fiscal year. I received a series of updates and hip so temper fifth update i and other senior defensive leaders were informed that over 100 million cannot be obligated by september 30th. Third, those advocating for the meeting of the cabinet mid level principles to explain why the assistance should go forward. Although i heard of attempts to discuss the issue with the president i never received details about any conversations other than a status update at the hold had not been lifted. After the decision to release the funds on september 11th of this year, my colleagues across the dod Security Assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to ultimately obligate about 66 of the funding by the end of the fiscal year. More than they originally estimated they would be able to. Do today provision in the continuing resolution, appropriating an amount equal to the an obligated funds from the fiscal year 2019. The ultimate will be to be part of the funds and critical out these funds are and deterring russia we appreciate this congressional action. That concludes my Opening Statement but before answering your questions there is one other matter i would like to address. I testified in a other committee on october 23rd 2019. At that time, i was asked questions about what i knew about when the Ukrainian Government may have learned about hold on Security Assistance funds. I answered those questions based on my knowledge at that time. Since my deposition they have again reviewed my calendar and the only meeting i recall the ukrainian official raising the issue with me it was on september 5th of the Independence Day celebration. I have however since learned some Additional Information about this subject to my staff. Prior to my deposition testimony i avoided discussing my testimony with members of my staff, or anyone other than my attorney to assure that my deposition testimony was based only on my personal knowledge. The deposition testimony was publicly released on november 11th 2019. Members of my staff read the testimony and ive come to me since none and provided Additional Information. Specifically, on the issue of ukraines knowledge of the hold where ukraine asked questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance, my staff showed me to unclassified emails that they received from the state department. One was received on july 25th at 2 31 pm. That email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs committee are asking about Security Assistance. The second email was received on july 25th at 4 25 pm. That email said, that the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent and so does the creating an embassy. I did not receive any of these emails and my staff does not inform me about them and i did not recall where their content was at the time. I do not have any Additional Information about precisely what the ukrainians may have said or their source of information about holds or any possible issues with flows or assistance or the Safe Department officials may have told them. My staff also advised in the last few days that the following additional facts that may be relevant to this inquiry. Again my, staff does not recall informing me and i do not recall being made aware of this. On july 3rd, at 4 23 pm. They received an email from the state department stating that they had heard that the cnn was being blocked by onb. This reporters to the state that was set by fmf i have no information further on this. On july 25th, the member of my staff went for the ukrainian contact asking what was going on with Ukraine Security systems. Because at that time, we did not know what the guidance was with the eu usai but the onb portion arrived but this staff member did not find out about it until later and i was informed that the staff member told ukrainian officials that we are moving forward on usai but recommended that the Ukraine Embassy check in with state regarding fmf. During august 6th of the ten the officer told the member of my staff that the official mice raid concerned about Security Assistance in an upcoming meeting. My understanding is that this issue was not raised. I have no further information on what concerns of security assistant ukraine might of had at that time. My staff recall thinking that ukrainians were aware of the hold during august but they cannot pinpoint any specific conversations where i came up. My staff told me they are aware of additional meetings with officials from the ukrainian of his embassy in august. They believe the question of the hold came up at some point. They told me they did not find any corresponding email or records of those meetings and consequently, neither they nor eye or precisely when or what additional discussions may have occurred with the ukrainians in the month of august. If i had more details on these matters i would offer them to the committee but this is the extent of information i have received since by deposition. Mister chairman i welcome your questions and will answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. For this hearing we will forego the first round of questions by Committee Counsel and receiving member questions with the five minute rule. I do want to respond to the comments of my Ranking Member however. That i think suggested that this was a surprise to minority the. We formed the minority last night after our hearing that we would because of the nature of testimony today we do not believe that a staff member was necessary. The message we got back from the minority was okay, got it thanks to the heads up. Minority was raising no objection about directly to rounds. I want to point out that the minority have representative and with their witnesses and that is not accurate. Mister hale appears today as a minority witness. Is that how you characterize yourself mr. But likewise two of the witnesses with ambassador volker as well as mr. Morrison were both minority requested witnesses. Mr. Volker testified that he didnt believe any of the allegations against joe biden and in retrospect he should have understood that the investigation into burisma wasnt investigation into biden. Which he acknowledged would be appropriate. Mr. Horses give testimony to conversations that he had with ambassador sondland about the conversation that heat related to the ukrainians about the Security Assistance being a result of the failure to secure the investigation. I understand why the minority does not want to carrot i characterize them as witnesses but the minority request those witnesses. I recognize myself for five minutes. I want to again begin asking you buy this cooper about what you just informed us and i understand the importance of what youre saying. As early as july 25th, the same day that President Trump spoke about president zelensky on the phone and asked for this favor. On the same day the president zelensky thanks to the United States for its military support and signal those ready to purchase more javelins. On that date, youve got the inquiries, your staff got inquiries from someone at the Ukrainian Embassy who was concerned about the status of the military assistance, is a correct . Sir, thats correct. I would say that specifically dq craning Embassy Staff axed asked whats going on with the Security Assistance. Did that come out to you that they were concerned something was in fact going on with it . Yes sir. You received your staff received more than one increase on that day . What was the nature of the other inquiry on july 25th . Sir, that was the one injury to my staff but the other points that i had raised were emails reflected the outreach to the state department. So the Ukrainian Embassy was contact in the state department to find out about its military assistance . inaudible yes sir. Was that similarly a concern about whats going on with our military aid . It was similarly a question about whats going on with Security Assistance. Your staff, one of the other departments staff also heard in august in the additional inquiries from the embassy about a potential old up in the military assistance . I want to be careful about how i phrases. My staff recall having had meetings with Ukrainian Embassy representatives during the month of august. They believe that the topic came up at some point during those meetings. But they dont recall the precise state or specifically what the nature of the discussions was. Your staff your staff at least cleaned that the Ukrainian Embassy was aware that there was some kind of a hold on the assistance. Sir, the way i would phrase it is that there were some kind of issue, yes. You are now miss cooper the third witness before a committee who assess a fight that the ukrainians found out about a problem or hole in the Security Assistance prior to becoming public. Your first to indicate that may go back as early as the date of the president s call to president zelensky. Let me move to a related issue. In august, you testified that your deposition with kurt booker who august 20th. The Security Assistance was still in place and testified that ambassador volker told you that if you could get zelensky to make a Public Statement. Quote, that would disavow any interference in the u. S. Election and commit to any in vigils that involved interference and might lift a hold on Security Assistance is, that correct . Sir, i believe that i testified that it was my inference that that was going to lift the hold on ukraine Security Assistance. That was youre in france because at the time you were talking about the Security Assistance . Thats correct. The first part of our conversation was about to hold on Security Assistance. It was during that portion of the conversation that he brought up the effort to get this Public Statement . It was chairing that conversation, im not sure i would say it was chairing that part of the conversation. What else did you discuss in the conversation . The only two topics that i recall are the urgency of lifting the hold on Security Assistance and then him relying this separate diplomatic effort that i previously had been unaware of. So you didnt have any discussion about any white house meeting . Sir, i dont recall specifically talking about the white house meeting, but i have had many conversations about the desire for the white house meeting, so it is likely that that was a part of the conversation. But the two things you do recall are that you talked about the hold on Security Assistance, and that he brought up this Public Statement that they wanted zelensky to get what he thought might be useful . That is correct sir. Mr. Nunez. Yield to mr. Ratcliffe. Thank the gentleman for yielding, ambassador, hill miss cooper thank you both for being here. It is opening Ranking Member nunes, referenced President Trumps general skepticism of providing aid in the amount of foreign aid being provided to Foreign Countries, which you agree with that characterization, ambassador hill . We have often heard at the state department that the president of the United States wants to make sure that foreign assistance is reviewed scrupulously to make sure it is truly in u. S. National interests, be evaluated continuously to meet certain criteria that the president has established. Since the election has it fair to say that President Trump has overhauled how foreign aid has been distributed . Yes the nfc launched a system review process, i think it was late august or Early September 2018. And trump, with his campaign and his administration has repeatedly sought to refrain American Foreign policy in economic terms as he described america first, policy, inconsistent with that well before there was a whistle blower having a pause on a the president had expressed concern for providing u. S. Foreign assistant, to that point is it fair to say that the president wants to make sure that american taxpayer money is being effectively and efficiently spent outside of the United States . Yes, that is the broad intent of the foreign assistance review among other goals. Has the president expressed that he expects our allies to give their fair share of foreign aid as evidenced by a point he raised during the july 25th phone call with president zelensky to that effect . The principle of greater burden sharing by allies and likeminded states is an important element of the review. Is it fair to say that the Trump Administration usa it is held from Foreign Countries for a number of factors . Correct. And you have testified in prior testimony that in his, it is normal to have delays on aid . I may have said it that way, but it is certainly an occurrence, it does occur. In the past year, ukraine was not the only country to have eight withheld from it, is that correct . Correct. In the past, year was aid with help from pakistan . Yes sir. Why was it withheld from pakistan . Because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the pakistani government towards certain proxy groups that were involved in conflicts with the United States. And in the past year was eighth also withheld from honduras . It was withheld from the three states in northern central america, yes. In the past year was eighth with help from lebanon . Yes sir. When it was first withheld from lebanon, were you given a reason why it was withheld . No. So, having no explanation for why aid is being withheld is not uncommon . I would say it is not the normal way that we function. But it does happen . It does happen. Is it true that when aid was being withheld from lebanon, that was at the same time it was being withheld from ukraine . Correct sir. And you have testified that the aid to lebanon still hasnt been released, is that right . That is correct. But the aid to the ukraine was released on september 11th, correct . I read that, yes. So it is fair to say that eight has been withheld from several countries across the globe for various reasons and in some cases for reasons that are still unknown, just in the past year . Correct sir. So the assertion has been made that President Trumps ukraine policy changed when there was a pause in the aid, the aid was withheld, is that an accurate statement . That was not the way i understood things to be happening at the time, we were not given an explanation. In terms of our policy, in terms of aid to ukraine, you have described it is very robust . Our eight to ukraine . Yes. Yes. As evidenced by President Trumps policy decision to provide legal defensive weapons, javelin missiles. It was very robust, yes. And that was a decision the President Trump made, that the prior administration, obama, had not done, lethal weapons had not been provided to ukraine in the Obama Administration, correct . I was not involved in Ukrainian Affairs during the Obama Administration so i dont feel competent to address that. And when a to ukraine was put on pause, i believe you have testified that there may have been a concern by secretary cant, and by ambassador taylor that it was contributing to a potentially negative effect on u. S. Ukraine relations, do you agree with that . While the state Department Position was to advocate for the continuation of that assistance as an important element, in fact a key element of our strategy to support the ukraine against russia. My time is expired i yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you mister chairman, thank you to our witnesses for testifying. Im delighted to follow mr. Ratcliffe because he just perfectly summarized the defense that my republican colleagues are mounting of this behavior, and the defense goes like this. The president is acting on some deep, historical concern, apparently invisible concern about corruption and that because he is so concerned about corruption in ukraine, he is holding up aid and being prudent and judicious. The first part of that is pretty easy to dispose of because President Trump wasnt worried about corruption in ukraine, in fact in the two conversations he had with the president of ukraine on april 21st and july 25th, not once does the president of the United States use the word or mention corruption to the president. The second part of that is a little bit more interesting, that he is just being prudent in holding up aid. That is not just wrong, it is illegal. Because miss cooper, and i want you to help us walk through this, since the impoundment control act of 1974, the president has not had the authority to on a whim or out of prudence or as my republican say because of a general skepticism of foreign aid to stop foreign aid. Miss cooper, under our constitution the congress not the president that control the power of the price, correct . Yes sir. And the Security Assistance that was authorized to ukraine was authorized and appropriated by the congress, correct . Yes sir. So congress is also concerned about corruption, and want to ensure that American Foreign assistance spent wisely and does not worsen corruption, so in congress authorized this money it builtin conditions just as mr. Active suggested. By law, ukraine wouldnt get all the money until it demonstrated that it had undertaken substantial corruption reforms. Miss cooper, under the law, the department of defense works with the state department and other agencies to establish Anti Corruption benchmarks and determine whether ukraine has sufficiently met those benchmarks, correct . That is correct, that provision pertains to the ukraine Security Assistance initiative. And that is a legally specified process, that is not the president in the oval office manifesting a general skepticism of foreign aid, right . So it is a congressionally mandated process, yes sir. Did that process take place for the d. O. T. Funding that was held up in july . Sir, the process that took place for the certification took place prior to the may certification to the u. S. Congress. So not only did it take place before, as required by law, but months before President Trump froze the money, the department of defense in consultation with state sent a letter to congress certifying, and you said this in your Opening Statement, the government of ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense Institutional Reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability enabled by u. S. Assistance. So by the time President Trump froze the aid, the department of defense had spent weeks, if not months, determining that the Ukrainian Government met every requirement in the law and made significant strides in combatting corruption, is that correct . That is correct, we made a determination in may. So this wasnt about corruption, the timeline prove set. And in fact, if there was any doubt about what was going on here, the chairman referred to your inference from the conversation with ambassador volker or that if the ukraine made a statement committing to the investigations the aid will be lifted, you covered that with the chairman, of course we have the press conference of october 17th when Mick Mulvaney let the cat fully out of the bag, he revealed that President Trump talked to him about and i quote him here, the corruption related to the dnc server and admitted that quote, thats why we held up the money. Any other explanation for the hold is a farce. In my remaining 30 seconds, just so that people understand what i referred to, in the 1970s Richard Nixon arbitrarily decided, i dont know its because he had a general skepticism of foreign aid, but Richard Nixon decided to hold up congressionally mandated aid, and as a result, congressman to work and past the impoundment control act of 1974, which prohibits the president from withholding congressionally appropriated funds without the approval of congress for any reason. Is that correct, miss cooper . Sir, i am not a lawyer but that approximates my understanding of the provision. I will go without approximates, thanks very much, i yield back. Mr. Conway. Thank, you as mr. Harvey said, it puts the facets on issues with respective certification, decertification is not corruption writ large throughout the entire country of ukraine, it was narrowly focused on Defense Institution reforms and combat capability, isnt that correct me is cooper . That is correct sir. First missed cooper thank you for being here this afternoon, my colleague read it when we read your statement but he left off the corrected emphasis. So certification in may, didnt really speak to the broader concept of corruption throughout the rest of ukraine but the president would be familiar with, or the rest of us . Sir, the may certification was specific to the defense secretary, Defense Industry and it did reference the importance of civilian control of the military which relates more broadly to i think all of us, none of us would argue that that fixes corruption throughout the rest of the country. Moscow or, maybe you can shed some light on the specific details, you talk about Security Assistance program, some would argue that because the pause, that people died in august because of the pause. Can you help us understand exactly what obligated, and whether things that were by to be delivered to ukraine, was ukraine out of ammunition . Or they out of javelins . Or they out of all this stuff or that because of this pause that they didnt get certainly the equipment that they needed in order to protect their folks during the month of august . Sir, we will deliver all of the im trying to get a timeline. There was no shortfall in equipment deliveries that were expected within that timeframe. Obligate means that you are putting the funding on contract okay that means and youre starting the process. Those contracts will be fulfilled Fourth Quarter perhaps, or whatever it was. Sir, i have to say i am a policy official, i am not a contracting expert, but my understanding is that we will be able to make up for lost time in the contracting process. Fantastic. You go through three or four steps as he went to because you disagreed with the hold being placed on the assistance and i certainly agree with that but did you get any criticism with the folks that you deal with because you are going against the direction to put a hold on that, did you get criticized at all for that . Absolutely not, my entire chain of command was supportive of advocating for removing the hold on the funds. And you werent restricted on the fullthroated advocating of behalf of getting this hold lifted where you . No sir, i faced no restrictions. Well thank you for that, i thought you might be more in touch with the actual specifics of the accounting process so i will defer you for the questions and again thank you for being tonight. I yield back. Thank you mister chairman, ambassador hail, when did you actually find out about the hold on ukrainian assistance, was a july 21st . Yes, in a deposition that i did, the closed hearing, i misspoke. I was confused, i confused june 21st which is when state first sent the scene up to the notification for clarence, it was only after bachelor 18, i think the 21st is when i heard that there was a potential hold. Thank you for that clarification. Did you attend the july 26 deputies meeting, Deputies Committee meeting that occurred . Yes i did. Was it your understanding that the president directed the whole . We were told in that meeting by the onb representative that they are objecting to proceed with the assistance because the president had so directed through the acting chief of staff. What was the state departments position regarding the whole . It advocated as i did in that meeting for proceeding with all of the assistance with our policies. You believed what you said in the release of the whole . He decided. Did anyone at the Agency Meeting at the end of july support the hole . Did anybody want to hold to remain and if so who . What agency . Feel the agency represented in the meeting that indicated that they supported the hold was onb. Miss cooper, did you understand that there was an overwhelming inner Agency Consensus to lift the hold and that onb what direction of the president was the only roadblock . Yes maam. How is the Security Assistance in the National Security interests of the United States . What is our interest . Explain that to our constituents of why we should care about the security hold thats on the Security Assistance . Yes maam. That specific assistance builds the capacity of the Ukrainian Armed forces and to understand that these are forces that are fighting to defend themselves against the russian aggression every day. Its an ongoing war. So they do need this equipment to support their ability to defend themselves. And i would say there is a larger issue here that relates to u. S. Policy on russia. It is very important to strengthen the philosophy of ukraine in order to deter russian aggression elsewhere around the world. Exactly. Were you ever able to get a reason why that hold was on . Did you get a reason . No maam. The only thing that i heard about it was again the second or third hand. Was that the president was concerned about corruption. But that was all i ever heard. Were you ever provided any Additional Information for the reason for the hold . No maam. I thank you and i yield the balance of my time to the chairman. I think the gentlewoman. My colleagues in the minority asked mr. Hale is a common to have hold on military aid and you said there are not unusual. Do you agree that it would be very unusual to have a hole in the military aid to measure in a foreign country to get them to investigate a political opponent . Yes. I would take it you would agree that that would be completely inappropriate . That would be inconsistent with the conduct of our full Foreign Policy in general. That wouldve been wrong with it . Certainly not what i wouldve done. Mr. Turner. It would be interesting if any witness sets a fighter that was the case. I yield my time to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Id like to go where the chairman started which was ambassador hale was one of our witnesses and theyre all your witnesses. You called 17 witnesses and subpoenaed 15 of them. They are all ear witnesses we didnt subpoena anyone or call anyone. You give us an opportunity to get a list you a couple of weeks ago we made suggestions on how you might allow us to have, we had three of those 17 on that list so that they could provide at least some semblance of context and framework for the entire thing. Once again, misleading the folks watching this hearing is not helpful. Thank you both for being here and youre service to our country. Ambassador, i read through yours, ambassador in pakistan, lebanon the, middle east and jordan, tunisia, bahrain, saudi arabia, youve been on the hotspots of the planet and thank you for those hardship assignments that we appreciate your service. Let me go first to today and mr. Sondland ambassador sondland excuse me said that he was denied access to some of his records and they said this, ambassador sondland like every employee how it before congress in this matter to take it all times that continues to retain full access of the state department documentary records and state Department Email account which has always been fully free to access and review at will. Thats an accurate statement from the state department, isnt it ambassador hale . I had not seen it before entering this hearing room but it sounds accurate yes. I appreciate that. Ambassador, you are aware of no connection between the cause and exchange for any kind of investigation is, that correct . Im sorry mr. Keyword here can you repeat the question . Youre not aware of any connection between the pause and aid in exchange in some kind of investigation being announced done by ukraine. You are not aware of secretary pompeo having any direct knowledge between the investigations and security aid is, that correct . Im not aware of that and would not speak about that. Not aware of any nefarious motive to hold aid to ukraine, is a . Correct correct sir. In fact, you testified what you knew it was a President Trump was one skeptical of foreign assistance generally and mr. Ratcliffe highlighted that and to, skeptical of the corruption environment and ukraine. Is that accurate . We had heard that and that was the general impression of the state department. There was actually released is that correct as well . I read that sir. Hand there was just a 55 day or less two months pause then the actual it is not right ambassador . Seem so thats correct. To your knowledge at the state department and investigation into the bidens and burisma and a 2016 election never happen by the ukrainians. Is that correct . I dont know that i have the ability to answer that question having taken this job in august of 2018. Oh, well, since youve taken the job how about that . To my knowledge that is correct. Thank you and i yield back. Mr. Carson. Thank you chairman. Mr. Cooper, ukraine is the first line of defense against russias aggression and expansion into europe. Numerous witnesses testified that ukraine is in fact to rush influence and control. In your deposition, sir, you testified that the biden Security Assistance is quote helping the ukraine and able to defend themselves and quote. What do you mean by that are . That the longstanding policy of helping ukraine with the resilience state would be able to defend itself. And the partner in ukraine tech and stand up. You testified at the time and this is the 2014 attack with the armed forces that were quote significantly less capable than it is today and quote. What would you say that Ukrainian Forces is win military in both ways . I did not start testifying an ambassador and hale miss cooper. Would you like to comment . I believe that was my deposition could you just repeat the question. During the time the Ukrainian Armed forces was significantly less capable and would you say that Ukrainian Forces were outmatched by the military in critical ways . Absolutely. Ive Ukrainian Forces now completely self sufficient in your mind . Essentially in their ability with russian aggression . They have a long way to go. Would you say that the Ukrainian Armed forces now are completely self sufficient or how much of an impact does the u. S. Need to have in terms of that deterrence of how critical the relationship is between both ukraine and the u. S. . Sir, the ukrainians are on the white path to be able to provide for their own security but they will still need the u. S. Allied support for quite some time. They need that support in the form of tangible assistance as well as political and diplomatic support. This question is to the both of you. Why was russias illegal annexation of crimea so significant in your mind . Russia violated the sovereignty of ukraines territory. Russia illegally annexed territory that began and was with ukraine. They denied ukraine access to its naval fleet at the time. To this stay, russia is building a capability on crimea designed to expand Russian Military power projections far beyond this region. In 2014, where their concerns and washington here in washington and at the capitol that russia might not stop at ukraine . I was not in my current position in 2014. But it is my understanding that there was significant fear about where russian aggression would stop. What about today . If the u. S. Were to withdraw its military support in ukraine. What would happen to that effect . That is my belief that if we were to withdraw our support it would embolden russia, it would also validate russias violation of international law. Which countries tense tends to benefit the most . With such a withdraw . Russia. Ambassador taylor testified of the importance of the rush actions upholding the system and it has underwritten since the end of World War Two and a critical aspect is ensuring that russia cannot change its borders by military force. That is why they are strong bipartisan support by providing ukraine Security Assistance. That is why it is so incredibly destructive of the president and of the United States to withhold this assistance as part of a scheme to pressure ukraine to investigating the Conspiracy Theory and attacked former Vice President biden. Mister chairman i yield back. Thank you mister chairman, thank you both for being here. As a reserved surgeon you of done proudly for two president s of myself. I want to go to mr. Cooper if i can on page three that president directed the office to hold funds because of its concerns about corruption in ukraine. Youre coming from the d. O. D. Side and certainly here any racked and it was important and i think that the army always does as i have seen, we dont want to deliver aid or assistance if its going to some corrupt or being delivered and some corrupt away and a Treatment Facility for the iraqis. We want to make sure you are not getting charged ten times as much and we are concerned about corruption in general and funds through the d. O. D. Is that correct . Yes sir. I think thats a normal thing to be concerned about. We do that any rack and especially if you are providing payment for something. But i want to go through a few things with you that they have testified to provide javelins to ukraine by the Trump Administration and its a strong u. S. Support to ukraine. Ambassador yovanovitch, and would provide legal weapons to ukraine. And will be stronger in the last three years. In terms of Legal Assistance they found it very significant when with this administration to provide legal levels to ukraine. Taylor said it was a substantial move in that this administration provided javelin anti tank weapons. Very Strong Political message to the americans are willing to provide more and ambassador volker testified the providing lethal defense arms to ukraine has been extremely helpful. Mr. Volker also stated, that is all fine but if we being attacked with artillerys and tanks, you need to be able to fight back. Secretary george kent stated that javelins are incredibly effective when its stopping arms and advance and the russians are scared of it. Special advisor said that the javelins help ukraine defend themselves and the decision to advise javelins to the russian interest. Do you dispute what these witnesses have testified he including ambassador yovanovitch at booker and others . Sir, i absolutely agree that the javelin system isnt and capability thats an important decision to support ukraine with this capability. Thank you. You already testified that youre proud of the Trump Administrations decision to arm ukraine with javelins. Correct . That is correct sir. One of the things on page 30 tonight in july 26 and you said that i was aware that the National Security committee expressed unanimous support for resuming the funding as in the u. S. National security interests, thats correct . He said that today . Thats correct sir. I guess i take a little question of resuming because we dont want to resume as is. Without be correct . Because as is would not have the javelin . Sir, im not sure im following. The Previous Administration, the avalons were not provided even though they could have been. President obama stopped the javelins. He could have delivered javelins. Sir, i think i should clarify what i mean with that statement. Presuming was just to the fact that onb would be a place to hold on the assistance so we were in and expecting. I wanted to resume the spending so that we could maintain this policy and maintain. Beto the policy but i guess what abase is is there a difference a ambassador i hale saw you nodding. The difference being as it resumed in this case, that included javelins that the Obama Administration denied. Correct . It is true that the Trump Administration has approved the release of defensive lethal assistance to include javelins where the Previous Administration did not support that policy. Mr. Hale, get a comment on that . I agree with that and i defer to miss cooper as the expert. More than blankets and memories have been helping the ukrainians with illegal defense of weapons and the Trump Administration has proved that its great to all of us. Miss spear. Thank you so much for being here this evening. There is this mystery surrounding the hold on the aid in july. But back in may miss cooper i believe you said that there was aid that was conditioned but new certified and made that the conditions had been met. That included progress on control reform and Defense Industry reform and enabled Government Procurement is, that correct . Yes maam, thats correct. When you find out in july that theyre concerned about corruption youre scratching your head right . Yes maam we did not hear that. If you know of any effort that was undertaken to assess the corruption in ukraine and june, july or august . Maam, as i said in my deposition, they only specific discussions that i am aware of related to that series of inter Agency Meetings and the pc sea, the committee and the deputy small group and in those meetings participants did discuss the degree to which corruption was a concern and the degree to which there was progress. My recollection of what the participants said in these meetings was that there was a very positive sense that progress was being made. You have these meetings, process is being made, nothing really changes from may until september. That would then trigger the release of the money except the whistleblower being come forward . Maam, i do not know what triggered the release of the defending. The fact that there was a reference made to money being withheld for other countries was made for some of our colleagues. In those situations in countries like pakistan, lebanon, and the multi year funding strings, correct . Those accounts fall outside of my purview so i cannot answer that question. I was told that that is indeed the case so there is not the immediate anxious or hit financially that would potentially occur. The difference as i see it in ukraine as compared to these other countries is that ukraine is engaged in a hot war with russia right now. It seems that withholding that money was irresponsible considering that they had made and taken steps to all the conditions that we had requested about congress that had appropriate the funds. Is that not the case . Maam, i am a d. O. D. Colleagues had made it strenuously of the release of these. Basically, the entire interest of the apartment of the feds if the department was consistently supportive and mystified to why they had been withheld and theyre trying to get an answer and youre getting the true responses saying it was the president because of corruption. Now, what we see is that president zelensky gets elected in april, the expectation is that Vice President pence is going to attend the inauguration in september and the president pulls the carpet from under him in terms of him going. He then perceives and june or july to withhold the funds. There is a concerted effort by the president of the United States to act in a matter that is not consistent with our interest and wanting to protect ukraine and help them deal with the russian aggression patterns at this border. Would you agree with that . Maam, i have advocated for the Security Assistance and high have advocated for a high level engagement with ukraine because i think both already the actual security interest. I yield back. Thank you chairman. s second assistance secretary thank you for being here. Youre both recognized as experts dedicated Public Servants and being the president of the United States is perhaps the most complicated endeavor in history of the world. No one can do it without people like you to provide that backbone that you do. Thank you for doing that. I dont mean to repeat the same question had nauseam, but i think we reached a point of nauseam sometime yesterday or sometime ago. It is repetitive here and forgive me for doing that. But i do have some questions based on some things you said previously. I want to for clarification theres a characterization about these emails where they claim withholding that had come from capitol here hill or Foreign Affairs committee. A true . Sir, are you referring to my Statement Today or something . I think this was previous questioning. Are you aware of such an email . Im sorry i dont have enough information to make an assessment. Is it from a particular page my deposition . No. Its reporting that weve heard that there was communications with someone on the Foreign Affairs committee on the hill. Is that not true . That there may have been communications with me . Emails. Sir, im not aware. Okay, thank you. For clarification as well. Someone may have asked the Ukrainian Embassy about withholding aid. The deer from them . Sir, i testified earlier that the communication from the Ukrainian Embassy was to my staff and my staff mentioned this to me after my deposition. The only specific communication that i recollect with the ukrainians about the specific issue was on september 5th at a reception of the Ukrainian Embassy. Was that just generally about forthcoming aid or specific regarding them being aware that the meeting was being withheld . Just to be clear. The september 5th conversation that i had was specific to the hold. There was an awareness of that and a question of concern. Okay, thank you. Miss cooper and to both of you under section of the house. At the end of the day, weve done this before and has come down to the transcript im holding out is a transcript of the phone call between president zelensky and President Trump. I would hope every american would take the opportunity to read it. Its only a few pages long and much more information beyond that is helpful to inform but it really comes down to those conversations and those few sentences. Mr. Hale, going quickly through the series of questions and this wont take long. Youve answered them generally at we agree they should know if they were part of aid. Is that fair to . Say yes or. You understand that President Trump is skeptical generally a foreign aid and some of the money we have given. That fire as well . I think so. Thats being fairly consistent that hes done that since before he was elected. Others in the process as a long history of corruption and that doesnt surprise anyone of us. Do you think it was right at the time that the word that use previously that it was prior to provide Security Assistance. I had met him in february and was impressed by him. What was understandable before the administration was the president in ukraine was coming to office and to understand better of the policy. I think thats key because weve had it referred to that the d. O. D. Had done a review. But this was a person that was elected and we do nothing about it. We did have a history of governments and ukraine and with President Trump himself and then come from a public background and information that seems prudent to address him to see if he was serious about ukraine. At some point im going to conclude that its going to involve the Security Assistance about some time that you had some others Vice President pence and bolton as well. As the burden sharing where it was completed and after it was released. Is that your understanding . I was never informed as to the assistance and would read about it. Posted happen and they are the reason why the aid was released. Mr. Quigley. Thank you both for being here and her service. You both been asked about this military assistance as it affects the ukrainian sovereignty and it is important because of the potential greater ambition by the russians. Im trying to put it in context to get your reaction from someone who had been there before an Renowned International policy expert. With zelensky and his quote seems to strike today throughout east. Russia could be an empire or a democracy, they cannot be both. Without ukraine, russia ceases to be an empire. But with ukraine and in subordinated russia automatically becomes the empire. Your thoughts on how this puts into context today please . Sir, i think thats a very powerful inaccurate quote. I would agree. You talk about emails that you are drawing to you or tension. They were sent to your staff, is that correct . The emails of that discuss this evening emails sent to my staff that is correct. First of all, its important to point this out. Its not something you are aware of but the larger issue that the Defense Department and state department had refused to comply with the newly subpoenaed to provide this committee with documents and precisely that the ukraines knew about it. This isnt something youre aware of but there was untold information out there being blocked that would draw Greater Light and help us understand. Is there anything else out there that you are aware of or the possibilities that are out there with d. O. D. Or the state department which can help a shed light on what ukrainians knew and when they knew it . Sir, i have shared with the committee all that i recollect but ive not done an exhaustive recollection. I cant speculate on what else might be available by going through all of the Defense Department records which is substantial. The state department are department of defense ask you for your information or did they coordinate with you to get information you had . Sir, i was told not to destroy anything and our i. T. Personnel have been collecting documents as to my understanding. That occurs without the individual having to they were collecting in passing it on to the state or d. O. D. Is that correct . Can you repeat that . Their department was collecting it but they werent passing it on to you are passing it on to the state department . Department of defense . This is what they reported to me. I have not seen the documents that had been collected. I only know those documents that i have produced or my staff has brought to my attention that i have received. So, no, i do not know what has happened with the documents that have been collected. Same question to you sir. I request and was granted access to documents that id originated or been sent to me that are relevant to the pertinent matters during that time period. I dont have any information about what else is going on in terms of other documents that i did not produce or did not receive. There was a move to gather them and i understood generally and indirectly that we gathered them in that was the extent to my knowledge. The day passed them on to you are possible on to the administration somehow . The only documents i received where those within the parameters i described. Which were the documents that i produced or that were sent to me in relevant to the matters were discussing today. Thank you and i yield back to the german. Mr. Panic. Thank you to our witnesses for your service today. Miss cooper i, want to start with you. You spoke eloquently about the threat of russia with it annexed crimea and how its a threat to ukraine and its a threat to europe in the United States vessels security challenge. I sit on the house arms service committee. We know that the most important support for ukraine in terms of legal defensive aid is in the forms of javelins, would you agree with that . Yes maam. Which administration which those javelins have been able to this ukraine . The Trump Administration. Not the Obama Administration . Thats correct. Both of you. Ive ever spoken with the president about ukraine aid . I have not. No maam. Undersecretary hale, you testified that there is no direct knowledge of any nefarious organization to withhold aid to ukraine, correct . Correct. To your knowledge you, testified that there is no Strings Attached to the aid. Thats page one 84 other deposition. No knowledge. You testified that you had no knowledge of ukraine aid being held for investigations, is that correct . Correct. During the hold of Security Assistance this until ambassador taylor sent you the cable. You had never even heard the word burisma or biden, correct . Well, in the context of what we discuss. You testified that on page 96. Ultimately, as we know, the aid was released to ukraine, correct . I said that. Lets talk about the context of this whole. You testified is not ukraine but there were in fact other countries whose Security Assistance was on hold. Quote, the aid package to limit on was also being held in the same fashion, correct . And foreign aid was held through nor been nor in tribal countries . Central america. You testified that when you serve as ambassador to pakistan, security assistant was also held for their failure to conform to our concerns regarding terrorists and other issues on the afghan, pakistan border . Correct. Basically, lets talk about the context of all these hold on aid. When we talk about paid, i think about that these are hardearned taxpayer dollars, would you agree with that . Absolutely. Is it correct that the Trump Administration has been conducting a foreign assistance review to reestablish norms that guide the assistance as we provide aid overseas . Thats correct. You testified that this review had been going on for quite awhile and the administration did not want to take the business as usual approach to foreign assistance. The feeling that it had received an assistance package, its something that continues forever. You continued, the program had to be evaluated that they were actually worthy beneficiaries that our program made sense. That we avoided nation building, strategy and provide assistance to countries that are lost in terms of our policy to our adversaries. Is that correct . Thats correct. You testified you warmly welcomed the assistant . Correct. Again, just to get this on record and for the millions of americans viewing new Security Assistance was released to ukraine . I already asked this but this is a really important point . Correct. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Swalwell. Miss cooper, your testimony today destroys two of the pillars of the president s defense and one justification for his conduct. The first pillar, no harm no foul. The ukrainians didnt know that the hold was in place so it didnt really hurt them. Second pillar. This president was a real champion of Anti Corruption. He cared about corruption in ukraine. I will go through the testimony today. Its your testimony now that after they came forward to you that you believe you have some evidence that the ukrainians first acquired about Security Assistance to someone in your office on july 25th is, our right . Thats correct. July 25 is also a day where President Trump officially who talked to president to lewinsky about the brightens that were brought up . I only know what has been reported publicly on this. That was reported, is that right . Thats correct. Second, this president as a champion of Anti Corruption, your testimony today is that on may 23rd, new certified that it was related to your duties the ukraine had met the corruption concerns for the aid to be released. Is all right . The Defense Department certified. After that date. Inexplicably, the president of the United States gets a hold on Security Assistance, that right . That was what i heard in july yes. This Anti Corruption president who cares so much about corruption in ukraine. Did he ever call you after to say miss cooper, whats going on with ukraine . No sir. Ambassador hale, deliver call you about an update on ukraine and corruption . Did he ever call your boss . I dont know. Miss cooper, did he ever call the many bosses that youve had at the department of defense . The acting secretaries . I dont know sir. Now to the justification. They is that the Obama Administration only provided blankets so ukrainians should be grateful even after being shaken down by the Trump Administration. But the truth is miss cooper, is that under the Obama Administration, the European Reassurance Initiative one, hundred and 75 Million Dollars were provided for u. S. Taxes to ukrainians, is that correct . Sir, i dont have that figure but the figure we typically use is to say we provide at 1. 6 Million Dollars today. But i dont have to break down in front of me. The Obama Administration also had five military battalions is, that correct . Again, i dont have the figures in front of me but the Training Program began in the Obama Administration and we did train forces. Under the Obama Administration founded ukrainian Security Assistance initiative provided the ukraines were armored tactical drones, night vision devices, armored vests and medical equipment. Is that correct . It all sounds like pieces of equipment that were provided in the Obama Administration to my recollection. Thats a lot more than blankets right . Yes sir. Ambassador hale, the aid that was withheld to lebanon and pakistan were for legitimate Foreign Policy objectives, is all right . I would say thats true. The assistance to pakistan i have not heard a explanation for the current hold on the lebanese program. You would agree that withholding aid to investigate a political opponent is not a Foreign Policy . Thats right. We can agree that even bernie made off made charitable contributions but it doesnt make him a good guy. Miss cooper, your testimony today demonstrates the power of coming forward and defying lawless orders of the president. Because you came forward to testify we learned this new information with destroys the defense of the republicans that have been put forward. Because ambassador taylor came forward, one of his employees learned this defense from the republicans that all we have as hearsay on this. Mr. Holmes said, actually, i heard the president of the United States tale about three sondland where are we with the investigations. Your courage has aided this investigation despite the president s continued obstruction. I yield back. Mr. Heard. Thank you chairman. Ambassador hale, your in essence the number three guy at the state department is, a correct . Correct. You represent 70,000 folks. I wouldnt represent them but im part of it, yes. Were you a part of a pretty fantastic workforce that would be able to serve alongside with the sharing your time together in pakistan. So thank them and i know there have been times where you get the pats on the back and react allayeds four foreign National Security but some of us do recognize that and appreciate that. Did anybody raise issues to you ambassador hale about investigations, the bidens or burisma . No sir. Thank you. Its cooper, you have great staff i dont think my staff wouldve met my 115 page deposition and given me feedback. Give them gold stars. Then your deposition, you confirmed my colleague from california that certified on the 23rd of may the ukraine aid for review of the department of Defense Industry and department of defense was passed corruption test is, that correct . Sir, i think the wording was more on all along the lines of progress has been made at progress has been babe but it didnt reference any kind of test per se. Did this change or was there a reevaluation of the president coming in . He was in office before that amazing day of how its going to continue some of those pieces. Was that taken into account in his review . Not prior to may 20 stirred. The review was basically done by the Previous Administration . Yes sir, although its important to know that with the review related to more specifically to the ministry of defense. Sure. But there were ultimately changes under the zelensky regime, that correct . Yes sir. There is a new minister of the fence. Can you explain i know fm f but can you explain the difference between fmf and usai funding and how the ukrainians get legal aid . Could you repeat the last part of that how the ukrainians get legal legal aid. Is it covered under one of those two brackets . There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide to the Ukrainian Armed forces. The first is the Foreign Military finance system which is a state Department Authority and countries around the world have his authority. That authority is used for some of the training and equipment. Theres also the ukraine Security Assistance mission is that is a d. O. D. And initiative and the d. O. D. Authority is a oneyear authority. And then third, theres opportunity for defense sales. That is something that were working with ukrainians on now so that they can purchase u. S. Equipment. But the javelin specifically was provided under fmf initially and now the ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelin. There wasnt a hold on purchasing equipment is, that correct . Not to my understanding no. Can i ask you a non impeachment inquiry question miss cooper . A nonwhite . A non impeachment inquiry question. Sir, my time is yours. How can we help the ukrainians defend again against russian Electronic Warfare. How can we defend them . What i can say in an open hearing is that there actually is some Electronic Warfare equipment that is included in the usai package. Theres a piece of capability downward already working to provide. I think the specific topic is more suitable for a closed door session. Thats a good copy. Thanks for both of your service and chairman i yield back. Mr. Castro. Thank you chairman and thank you all for your testimony today. I want to make an important distinction. A few my colleagues have rattled off countries where we actually held up aid. There is a big distinction between holding up aid for legitimate policy reason and holding up aid because its part of a shake down. It is in the service of the president who asked for a political favor of a country to investigate a political rival. I think thats important for us to know. I want to ask you, miss cooper, you said the money was cleared to go by d. O. D. On may 23rd, that right . Thats correct. It did not get released until september 11th . I should clarify, the second half of the Security Assistance initiative was notified to congress on may 23rd. And that there was a waiting period for congressional approval and after that point. In the mid june roughly it was available. Perhaps 90 days or 95 days. Yes, i dont have it in front of me but that sounds right. You both testified for the Security Assistance was not any National Security interests of the United States. The whole might embolden russia. We heard the same from numerous other witnesses that have come before us. This is not the only issue with the hold. We understand people within the government had significant concerns about the legality of the hold as a real leads to the control act. This because money had been authorized by congress and in law by President Trump. Miss cooper, at the july meetings were, there any discussions on whether it could be hold in a legal fashion . And the july 26 meeting my leadership raised the question of how the president s guidance would be implemented. And perhaps a reprogramming action would be the way to do this. More research would need to be done. But after that discussion, we had a normal discussion on the 1st of july. Let me ask you about the july 31st meeting. The conversation were colleagues was july 31st and the agency. Did you share the understanding of the legal mechanisms already available at that time . Yes sir. What were they . It was my understanding that there were two ways that we would be able to influence president ial guidance to stop locating the Security Assistance initiative. The first option would be for the president to do a recession. The second is a reprogramming action that the defense would do. Both of those would require congressional noticed . Yes sir. Its an extra step that they would take to congress. As far as you know, was there any way to send this out to congress . Sir, i did express that it required a notice to congress and that there was no such no it is to my knowledge or preparation of such notice to my knowledge. There was never any official decision or reprogramming . No sir not to my knowledge. Instead, what happen is onb had a solution involving a footnote to implement the whole. It came a time in august where the department of defense no longer supported these footnotes because of concerns or might not be sufficient time for d. O. D. To operate the funds before the end of the fiscal year. In violation of the control act. So, the spike control in mid august in ombs footnotes, they nevertheless continued for september 11th. Even after as an aside, this is even after the whistleblower had come forward. Is that right . Thats correct that the hold was released on september 11th, he has. I know i and many of us here share the d. O. D. s concern about the hold. But i want to thank you miss cooper to talk in pursuing the National Security interests of the United States and i yield back. Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you chairman. Miss cooper, based on emails that you mentioned in your opening and subsequent declaration by some of the democratic colleagues. That those emails were evidence that ukrainians or aware of the military hold on july 25th. There is new reporting out there that the pentagon official with ukrainians asked about Strong Security aid. It is being widely reported that ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25th. Thats not what i heard is, that correct . Sir, my exact words or that one email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and the Foreign Affairs committee are asking about Security Assistance. Not hold . The second email was the hill knows about the fmf situation and the embassy, those were the exact words. What do Security Assistance and fmf emails mean . I dont want to speculate on what it means. They dont necessarily mean whole, correct . Not necessarily. Isnt it true at the same time they put a hold on 15 state department and u. S. Idea counts including fm f . I dont know that specific detail. But you cant say one way another whether these emails were about the hole . Is that fair . I cant say for certain. You cant say one way or another that the ukrainians a about the hold before august 28th 2019 when it was reported in political, correct . Sir i, can tell you that if the recollection of my staff that they likely new but i do not have a certain data point to offer you. Its not unusual miss cooper for a foreign country to inquire about foreign aid that theyre expecting from the United States, is it . Sir, in my experience with the ukrainians, they typically would call about specific things and not just generally checking in on their assistance package. Are you where the president zelensky on october 10th in response to the question from one of the 300 reporters over the course of the afternoon, stated that he was not aware and had no knowledge of the Security Assistance during the time of the july 25th phone call with President Trump. I believe i saw that media reporting. I yield back. Mr. Hack. Thank you mister chairman and i thank you both for being here this evening. Ambassador hail, last week the country watched as President Trump attacked and intimidated your colleague and wanted to intimidate your colleague ambassador yovanovitch who is a witness to this proceeding and subsequently secretary pompeo declined to condemn the attack. Bluntly put, the secretaries pompeos silence is nothing less and a betrayal of the men and women that were using an oath to lead. Its a pretrial that has long term consequences and attracting and retaining workforce to their effectiveness into their overall strength. So, ambassador hail, do they have an opportunity with secretary pompeo did not do . Either in march of 2019 or the Smear Campaign which got kicked into high gear. And you sir rightfully pressed for strong statement in support of her. Or last week when the president and his son attacked her again. Im offering you the opportunity to reaffirm this committee and the millions of americans hopefully watching. That Marie Yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot. And that she served with grace and dignity even in the face of that orchestrated and im substantiated smear attack against her. Costed or hail. Im giving you the opportunity to demonstrate. Im giving you the opportunity to send a clear and resounding message to the men and women who served in dangerous, foreign post throughout the world that what happened to murray ivanovich was wrong. Ambassador hale . The floor is yours. I endorsed can tire entirely yovanovitch. Ive only met her when i took this job but immediately i understood shes an exceptional officer doing exceptional work at a critical embassy in kiev. I was very impressed by what she was doing there to the instant stan if she was willing to stay as a possibility because of the gap coming up. I believe in the institution and the state department that i have been for 35 years. All of us are committed to the National Security and where the best diplomats anywhere in the world. That support extends to all state officers who testified before this committee. If i have written a letter to the secretary on november 18th to the Ranking Member of the Relations Committee and response to a communication from him. A number of Department Employees testified before the house of representatives during the inquiry on ukraine. They have not faced any adverse action or testimony before congress on this matter. The department will not discipline any employee for appearing before congress in response to a subpoena. The department as proactively established the program and National Assistance and the legal fees incurred by carbon employees. Additional information but that is the message. Are you saying murray yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot . I endorse what you say exactly. She served with grace and dignity in this campaign . She did. And what happened to her was wrong . I believe she should continue to do expounding work. Thank you sir. Thank you for clarifying the record cause i wasnt sure where it was that she could go to set the record straight if it wasnt new sir and where she could go to get her good name and reputation back. If it wasnt you sir. Indeed, i want to encourage the strong as possible to stand your ground. Americas security and strengthen prosperity was predicated on those professionals from our Foreign Service corps and they need to know that the highest ranking professional diplomat and the entire state department have their back sir. Thank you for having ambassador yovanovitch is back this evening and mister chairman i yield back. Mr. Jordan. Thank you mister chairman. Miss cooper, why did the office of management budget behold on the funds . Sir, the only information that i received was from the office of management that they were operating in the direction of the president and they reported that they had concerns about corruption. You put that in your testimony. Doesnt have to budget to hold the funds because of his concerns about corruption in ukraine for legitimate reasons . You agree . That is the statement that the president reportedly made as reported to me by the office management. You said in your testimony that based on recommendations that the devisers of defense with the department of state certified in may of 2019 that ukraine would take the steps necessary and the release of the docks. Is that accurate . Thats correct sir. There was a small change in ukraine in the spring of 19, wasnt . There yes sir. Can you elaborate on what that change was. The government the president zelensky was elected to government. You had a brandnew guy coming in. In fact, he had just been sworn in the day you approved the dollars. Was it may 23rd . I think he was sworn in a couple of days before. But there is a change in circumstance that warrants at least a second look. That is exactly what played out for a short time. Less than two months, 55 days he our government evaluated the new situation, pretty radical change and you got a new government. In fact, the previous one we heard all kinds of things from the democrats about the prosecutor general and the regime and how bad he was. It took a while for that all to happen. New president sworn in, a few but where the duke august coated and takes them a while until september 5th that they get rid of this prosecutor and a few days later, the aid actually gets released. But the democrats got all kinds of other things they want to talk about and the way this played out seems to be as logical as you can do it. Particularly when you put it in the broader framework of where this president is on concern about foreign aid. His deep rooted concerns and the corruption issue in ukraine. The experience he had with highranking ukrainian officials criticizing him and supporting secretary clinton in 2016 election. All that together it shows why it played out the way it did. With that i will yield back mister chair. Mr. Welch. Thank you mister chairman. Secretary hale, i want to go back to your support and affirmation of ambassador ambassador yovanovitch. From what i understand, by the way thank you for our military and not leave snow soldier on the battlefield and in leadership positions and our Intelligence Committee and loyalty to each other and its reassuring that you represent that. You first as i understand it, got information about the first situation in march and in early march pompeo mentioned that sometime in the fall they relieved a letter from the congress about the ambassador, correct . That member of congress was . Sessions. Did you see there is any basin patience of disloyalty . Not to the secretary of state. You represented kiev and discussed the fact of extending yovanovitch to remain in her post, right . It was a personal idler mine. You valued who continue service and he mentioned to the ukrainian press that ambassador yovanovitch represented the president of the United States here and ukraine stand behind their statement. Trying to give her some public support, correct . Correct. Weeks later, the president of mr. Giuliani what was in least as a Smear Campaign to combat and alistair. What was your reaction to the news article in march where corrupt ukrainian prosecutor attacked the Prime Minister . We were concerned, we put out a statement that some of these allegations were and all right fabrication and we began to discuss what we would do to deal with this matter. The problems continued per ambassador yovanovitch. As i understand, she emailed on march 24th and indicated that the social media and other criticisms were such that she felt she could no longer function. Unless there was a strong statement of defense of her in the state department. Is that correct . Correct. This message from secretary pompeo who was aware of her situation, is that correct . I breathed him the next day. Hes the ultimate Authority Decade issued a statement of support, correct . Correct. He never did issue a statement, right . We did not issue a statement at the time. At the fact, you testified around the same time that the secretary did not render assistance to a long serving and highly respected ambassador. He made two phone calls to Rudy Giuliani. Is that right . Thats correct. Ive seen the record that he made those phone calls. One on march 28th and on march 29th. I saw the record of that yes. We dont know what he said to rudy, we have a pretty good idea about Rudy Giuliani said to him. Yet, murray ivanovich was gone and the state never came forward, right . Correct. When she was recalled and wanted to find out what happened, secretary pompeo would not meet with her . I was out of the country at the time i cant comment on that. Mr. Brechbuhl was there . I dont know this. It came from the news. It went from the secretary and i was in foreign travel at the time. It would be interesting if you can get secretary pompeo be here to tell us what his conversations were with Rudy Giuliani. The person who was fermented and discontent about the ambassador who was fighting corruption. I want to thank you and miss cooper for your service. Mr. Mulroney. Miss cooper, secretary hale. Matt scuber, thank you for working late on a wednesday. The last time we heard testimony republicans were nice enough to bring pizza and not skiff. Kidding aside, we detained you for about five hours that day so on behalf of the committee we appreciate your patience with this. Quick question. For you and i think one question for you secretary hale. Chris cooper, was d. O. D. Able to put all these Security System funds before the end of the fiscal year . No sir. How much were they not able to obligate . What was left on it . I believe the figure was 35 million. We were able to actually obligate 80 in total. You mentioned you were able because of legislation the Congress Passed to do that, exonerate . The remainder were in the process because of the provision in the continuing resolution. But for an act of congress, you couldnt have spent all the money . If we have not received the provision and the continuing resolution, we wouldve obligated 88 but not the full amount. Right, which of course would be a violation of law do not spend money that congress appropriated. Circle, not a lawyer but that is my understanding. Sure. Thank you. Secretary hale, where were you born . And arbor michigan. As youre family from ireland . No sir. Strike it. Another question. With respect to secretary yovanovitch. And he served as ambassador in three countries . Correct. Jordan lebanon and pakistan. While you were ambassador to those three countries, did anyone ask you to issue a support praising personally the president of United States . No. How though how would you have reviewed such request. It depends on the situation. So you went to someone and yet a problem and you said how can i get better and they say you should publish something personally praising the president and flattering him. With that strike you as unusual . Yes. If someone telling you to go big or go home, without change your mind . I dont quite understand. Thats ambassador yovanovitch was treated to ambassador sondland seeking advice. She declined to do so as she said it was to political. Is that consistent with the approach you might take . That sounds sensible, yes. Thank you i yield the rest of my time to the chairman. Its demings. Ambassador hail and thank you both for being with us and just a quick question before i get into some questions about ambassador sondland that we heard from today. I want to ask both of you have President Trump withheld Critical Military aid from ukraine because of highranking officials who supported the president s political opponent. Would you consider that an official acceptable appropriate action by the president of the United States, ambassador hale . Its not what i would advise. Miss cooper . No, that does not sound appropriate. Ambassador hale, you testified that you were aware of ambassador sondland who was involving himself in matters that i quote, went beyond the normal grit of the ambassador to the new European Union unquote. As you understood it, who authorized ambassador sondland to work on ukraine . I have no firsthand knowledge of that. I received a read up from the meeting that the president of the United States had from delegation on may 23rd. In which, the briefing i received indicated that the president wanted members of that delegation which included ambassador sondland to Carry Forward the policy discussed in that meeting. That occurred and the meeting of the oval office on may 23rd is where you heard that information from . A written readout yes. You testified and i quote, it is clear that the members of that delegation were empowered by the president and thats what you testified. You said and i quote, as a practical matter, it would be ambassador volker and ambassador sondland presumably working with taylor who would be the winds really doing the continual effort here. Did you understand that ambassador sondland had direct access to the president . In the few occasions where we try to have a complication conversations with ambassador sondland he wasnt in contact with the president. You received that information directly from ambassador sondland, that he had direct contact with the president . In previous occasions yes not related to this. Anything about ambassador sondland that struck u. S. Problematic . Based on what i knew at the time i was satisfied that this delegation was what the president wanted to have and continue to pursue these policies. I saw ambassador sondland who was a Foreign Service officer and had a distinction in Ukrainian Affairs and was part of that group. I had no gray concerns. What you knew at the time you are okay with but youre opinion did change about the appropriateness of this role . As i testified, i was unaware of these various activities to negotiations over investigations and preconditions related to that. I wasnt aware of it so i no reason to be making any judgment. You were nude the ambassador judgments between volker . You were reported in the media. Were any of those messages that were reported and personally witnessed. I was surprised by what i saw in the meeting. I want to make sure i understand your testimony ambassador hale, you believe he was empowered by the president and what you found out from the may 23rd meeting to ukraine. Policy and you said, nothing really struck you as problematic because of the time differences, is that correct . Based on what i knew, yes. You are the secretary for Political Affairs and testified that in that capacity you are responsible for the management of the United States with and i quote every country in the world that would be recognized for the management of our policies towards those countries as well as our relationship as they relate to longtime lateral organizations. Does that include u. S. Policy and relations with ukraine . It does. When we have a special envoy and it stretches to the secretary, related to a country or special on by will take the daytoday responsibilities. How about u. S. Policy and relations with the European Union . I am. But you are not aware fully of ambassador sondland and his activity on behalf of President Trump . Thats correct. Thank you mister chairman i yield back. Mr. Murphy. Good evening. Thank you so much for being here. Undersecretary hail, you and your colleagues testified that you gathered official records and the state department with the understanding that they would provide out of congress, right . I was not involved in the decisionmaking or have no responsibility and gathering that. Its understood that it was underway. I received the documents i described earlier. I see. In terms of the material reflected, do they include electronic files and emails . I can only speak to the documents that were made available to me. In paper documents as well . Paper documents. It would tape recordings potentially be among the files that are gathered . I really couldnt speculate on that. You cant rule out that possibility . I dont know if tape recordings so i cant really comment on that. Are you familiar from whom the documents have been collected with those custodians . I dont know that sir. You are aware that despite a duly authorized subpoena that had been served on the state department we have yet to receive the single impact . I understand that yes. Miss cooper, and the inter agency process, did anyone in any committee potentially bring up the lack of allied funding as a reason for why there should be military assistance to ukraine . I can only speak to the three meetings that i attended with the ds g. And peasy sea and i have no recollection at that they are coming up and i did provide information at my deposition about i was a completely separate query that i had in june from the secretary of defense his front office and one of the questions there just asked a question about the degree of which they were attributing to the Security Assistance to be very clear. But after the hold was put in place, you havent heard any concerns about a lack of allied funding as a reason for why they should be in place . In those meetings that i attended i did not hear or do not recall hearing that is the reason. What i heard was the president s views on corruption and further information. Same question to you undersecretary hale. Can you repeat the question . You didnt hear about the lack of funding as the reason for something been put in place in july 18th . I never heard of the hold. I assume neither of you heard any reason whatsoever for why the hold was in place except for the fact that onb put it in place for the president. Thats correct. One of my colleagues brought up the idea that the holds bit in place to assess whether president zelensky was illegitimate and that was not a reason that was off here. I never heard that as a reason. I heard a reason. Secretary hail, whats the importance of a world leader adding a meeting at the white house . Its case by case but particularly for a new leader its extremely important opportunity to demonstrate our relationship and the building up of that relationship on a leadership level and demonstrate common goals. What about in the case of president zelensky . How important was it for him to have a meeting at the white house with President Trump . I never talk to president zelensky about that myself and before he became president i met poroshenko four leading candidates. As an expert on these matters is it fair to say that a new world leader such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house with President Trump is extremely of formative for his image that he projects especially towards folks like russia . An Oval Office Meeting is incredibly valuable for anyone but the general principle and ukrainian president is what you just said to demonstrate that the bond between the United States and ukraine is strong and that there is continuity in our policies and will continue to Work Together on our policies and gathering russian aggression and ukraine. Thank you so much. I yield back. That concludes the questioning. Mr. Nunez to have any concluding remarks . I thank the gentleman. What have we learned from the democrats impeachment inquiry . They promised a country a fair hearing. What are they delivered . The impeachment version of three card monte. Notorious short card trick and in this case with President Trump and the American Public which stands no chance of winning. Democrats promised the whistleblowers testimony and they told us that they need to speak with the whistleblower. Then we learned, that the whistleblower was with the democratic staff before alerting the Intelligence Committee Inspector General. To hide their con, they provide their hands on the table and gaslight the country telling us the whistleblower is entitled to a statutory right of anonymity. They accuse of trying to outthe whistleblower knowing that theyre the only ones who know who he is. They say if the facts are against you argued the law and of the argue is against you argue the facts and if both are against you pound the table and we all like hill. It seems that these days there teaching assumes a fourth tactic. If the facts and a lawyer against you simply rig the game and hope your audience is too stupid to capture implicitly. This is not an impeachment inquiry, its an impeachment inquisition. With until the middle ages the inquisitor is to bring suit against any person who is even vaguely the subject of the lowest rumor. And the accused was denied any right to confront their accusers. And credibly, or maybe not so much by the democrats track record. The inquisition victim had more rights to democrats with the president after all, deep victims had a right to know that they would know the accusers name. Those of you at home, its time to change the channel and turn on the volume or hide the kids and put them the bed. I yield to mr. Schiff for story time our. I thank the gentleman as always for his remarks. laughs ill be brief this evening its been a long day. I said most of why the say earlier today. I did want to end this evening and first of all thank you both for your testimony and your service to the country we are very grateful that you answered a lawful process of a congressional subpoena. I wanted to share a few reflections on two words that i come up a lot in these earrings. And those words are corruption. And Anti Corruption. We are supposed to believe i imagine listening to colleagues that donald trump is a great anticorruption fighter. That is only concern about ukraine was that they would fight corruption. But lets look at that argument. Lets look at the president s words and look at his deeds. And passenger ivanovich was an Anti Corruption champion. No one has contradicted that that has come forward to testify here. She was a champion. And on the day that she is at a meeting acknowledging ukraine on another Anti Corruption champion. I woman that had acid thrown in her face and died a painful death after months. She has called back to washington because of a Vicious Campaign by the president s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani among others. She has recalled that is not Anti Corruption, that is corruption. One of the people responsible for this campaign in addition to giuliani and it is a long and sorted list of those who were involved is a man named lutsenko. Who is the majority own witness acknowledges has tape reputation as self serving and corrupt. What do we see about mr. Lutsenko and his predecessor mr. Shokin . What does the president have to say about one of these former prosecutors . He praises them. He says they were treated very unfairly, that is not Anti Corruption, that is corruption. When ambassador sondland testified today, that there was unquestionably a quid pro quo and everybody knew it, conditioning a white house meeting with ukraine that they desperately wanted to show their friend and foe like they had the support of the president of the United States when that was conditioned and that official act was conditioned on the face of value of the president and the political investigations. That was not Anti Corruption, that was corruption. When ambassador sondland testified today that he could put two and two together and so can we. That there was also a quid pro quo on military aid and it was not going to be released unless they did a Public Statement, if ukraine did a Public Statement on these investigations that the president wanted. Thats not Anti Corruption that is corruption. Lets look at the president s words what that infamous phone call on july 25th. Does he ask the president zelensky how is that reform coming . What are you doing to root out corruption . What about that new Anti Corruption court . Of course not are we willing to believe that this was his priority . No. What does he ask . I want you to do us a favor. Investigate this crazy 2016 server conspiracy that the servers with someone in ukraine. More ominously investigate the bidens, that is not Anti Corruption that is corruption. And the next day when hes on the phone with ambassador sondland about outdoor restaurant in kiev, what does he want to know about . Does he want to know how zelensky is going to fight corruption . Of course not, the only thing he brings up in that call is the investigation he wants into the bidens. That is not Anti Corruption that is corruption. Every now and then, there is a conversation that really says all you need to know. And sometimes it doesnt seem all that significant. But ill tell you, this one really struck me. There was a conversation that ambassador volker related in a system one. He was a conversation just this past september when he was talking to andre to the, top advisor to president zelensky and was advising him as indeed he should. You know, you may not want to go through with an investigation or prosecution of former president crescendo and engaging in political investigations is really not a good idea. But you know what your mocks as . Oh, you mean like you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons . There is a word for that true and i thought corruption or Anti Corruption its called hypocrisy and this is the problem here. We do have an Anti Corruption policy around the world and the great men and women in your department under secretary and hale under your department miss cooper carry that message around the world. That the United States is devoted to the rule of law. But when they see a president of the United States was not devoted to the rule of law was not devoted to Anti Corruption, but instead demonstrates a word indeed corruption. They are forced to ask themselves what does america stand for. Anymore. That concludes this evenings hearing. I will ask the witnesses to excuse themselves, members should remain and we have a business matter to take out. At the Ranking Members requested Congress Share the Ranking Members request the committees to pursue subpoenas we will see their quest this morning we will add it to the record now without objection. We will review to other requests for subpoenas not compelled deposition testimony by the whistleblower, by andrew biden. Three other subpoenas to compel certain parties to produce records. The whistleblower to produce documents, Communications Related to the whistleblowers complaint. Rosemontla, sonic of, the high to produce recommendations wade Hunter Bidens role in the burisma board in the Democratic National committee produce communications ukrainian officials and records relating to alexandria chalupa. I do not concur on these requests for subpoenas. We will not allow as i said before, this committee to be used either due out the whistleblower or for purposes of engaging in the same improper investigation that the president sought to coerce ukraine to commit. The committee will take them up now, beginning with the first request to compel testimony by the whistleblower. Is there a motion . Mister chairman, i moved it the gentleman moves. This has not been debated, mr. Chairman it is not a middle motion, all those in . Favorite point of order, mister chairman, point of order mister chairman. Point of order mister, chairman. There is, opposed to. No point of order mister, chairman point of order, mister chairman. The motion is not, debatable those opposed say. No point of order, mister chairman. And the pain at the, chair the motion is table. The point of, order mister chairman. A roll call vote is requested. The clerk should call the roll. Chairman schiff. I. Mr. Himes. I. Missile. I. Mr. Carson. I. Miss spear. I. Mr. Quickly. I. Mr. Swalwell. Aye. Mr. Castro. Aye. Mr. Walsh aye. Aye. Miss demings. Aye. Mr. Krishnamoorthi aye. Aye. Miss demings aye. Aye. Mr. Conway aye. The steward. Aye. You mister heard. Aye. Mr. Jordan. No. Mister chairman, there are 14 eyes and for no. As the motion it works is. Point of order, mister chairman. General status point of order. Mister, chairman was this business meeting notice properly with the rules of the house . House resolution 660 requires that if the minority makes a request for subpoenas that we will probably take up that request and that is what we are doing. Mister chairman, however, relevant says is there an issue to compel the testimony of hunter biden . Then we move to table, although survivor will say i. I. All those opposed say. No. No in the opinion of the, shares the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The gentleman request a roll call vote, please call the raw. Chairman schiff. Aye. Mr. Himes. Aye i. The. School. I. Mr. Carson. Im a. Sphere. I mr. Quickly. Mr. Swalwell. Aye. Will mr. Castro. Aye. Mr. Heck. Aye. I miss demings. Aye. Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye. Miss demings. Aye. Mr. Turner aye. Aye. I doctor one script. Mr. Stewart. Stefanik. Mr. Heard. Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Jordan. No. Mister chairman, there are 13 ayes and five knows. Motion to table is carried, the motion is now in the subpoena to compel documents in the whistleblower, is there a move to table . There is a move to table, all those in favor say i. I all those opposed to. No. Now in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will now move wants to compel documents. Miss chairman, would table. Dont move to table. All of those in favor will say i. I all those in favor all those opposed say no. No anything to the chair, the ayes have it. The ice have. It the motion is tabled. Last motion is on the motion to compel documents in the Democratic National committee. Is there a motion . Mister chairman. I want to table. Bottom of the table, all of this in favor will say i. I. All those opposed say no. No in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is tabled. Point of order, mister chairman. Adjourned. Point of order mister chairman. Point of order mister chairman. Another good hearing for the fact, the truth, to the president , ambassador hail talked about halep theyre doing a comprehensive review of foreign aid, and how it gets held up. Its very common practice, in fact, this year he said, on pakistan, of course, as we know, the ukraine, so, nothing unusual there, so i thought again, a much quicker hearing but i thought another good day, another good hearing to the truth and to the president. What do you think of lower coopers testimony about acknowledging behold may have been much earlier . The first thing she said it was that it was not a whole, just there was an inquiry about Security Assistance, so, look, youve got the Deputy Assistant secretary for ukraine, eurasia and russia, will actually know, you had a staffer for the Deputy Assistant secretary and department of defense for ukraine, eurasia and russia getting an email the top would ask a question about Security Assistance and we have ambassador volker and ambassador taylor and a bunch of other people who have all testified the cranes didnt know about a hold on the aid until august 29th, so, look, its just an email, its amazing how this comes up in the lastminute and it is just an email from some staffer so i know what people testify, do i know what she said in their. She will talk about Security Assistance related email. You believe that there was an actual email . No, im not saying, that but she said the email talked about assistant. It didnt talk about a hold on the aid. David hail also testified about his concerns were but the Smear Campaign of Rudy Giuliani out against Marie Yovanovitch. Are you concerned at all about Rudy Giuliani launching a Smear Campaign against murray ivanovich . I came back to the facts, you guys, were talking about impeachment proceeding, and impeachment inquiry into the president of the United States. This all started because of a phone call, and the whistleblower who said the phone call was so bad and it all of a sudden a president release of the column we see on the call but there is no conditionality there, there is no linkage, there did you guys on the call have said there was no, pressure no pushing, the language and of course the ukrainians did not know about the aid being held up at the top of the call and most importantly they did not, know investigations to get the aid released. That is the focus. The focus is, the democrats are trying to impeach the president of the United States 11 a half months before the next election based on some anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand, knowledge he is bicyclists the, president he worked for joe biden, or worked with joe biden, that is the issue here, not what is happening to the ambassador, thank you for her service, we appreciate that but that is not the issue, that is not the issue. She was not on the, call he did not interrupt the call. All these documents go to the state department, and those emails the d. O. D. , would you encourage the white house needs other agencies to turn over these documents, just a clear they are on all of this . We just asked for a subpoena for documents that we wanted and the chairman just. Did not even have debate on it. When the process gets fair, you can answer that question. Until we have any remotely fair process, that is up to the white house. That is ridiculous. You can see whats going on. He says these were all witnesses. You dont have any witnesses. Were not allowed to have witnesses. 17 people out of those brought in for deposition, 15 of them, he subpoenaed. We got to give a list, but we could have to go on the list we put three of the people he subpoenaed simply because we wanted some semblance of fairness, some framework to this whole thing. This idea that this is fair, so when it gets fair, maybe there will be an answer to that kind of question. Chief of staff mulvaney, all of them inaudible . Say that again . We want to hear from secretary, perry secretary pompeo, the chief of staff . That is their call. We have said that from the get go. Now, we would like a fair process, but were not going to get, one obviously, that is just not going to be the case, but again, even with all of adam schiffs witnesses, that has been an amazing couple of hearings for the truth for the president. I mean really, ambassador volker i thought did a tremendous job playing that out yesterday, i thought this morning it is ambassador sondland getting the right confirmation that there was never any type of quid pro quo, we presume there was but there was not because it never announced any type of investigation and they got the meeting, they got the call and they got the money, right . Nothing there and of course we have the definitive statement that the president gave to ambassador sondland when he asked, him what you want from ukraine . I want nothing, i want no quid pro, quo he wants to do what he campaigned on, and we were committee was the real deal and they got it, the money. We have heard a lot from ohio