Thank you, dr. Hill, mr. Holmes for your years of service to this country. And i appreciate yall being here today. Throughout this process i have said that i want to learn the facts so we can get to the truth. So why are we here . Because of two things that occurred during the president s july 25th phone call with ukrainian president zelensky. The use of the phrase, do us a favor, though, in reference to the 2016 president ial election and the mention of the word biden. I believe both statements were inappropriate, misguided Foreign Policy. And its certainly not how the executive current or in the future should handle such a call. Over the course of the hearings, the American People have learned about a series of events that in my view have undermined our National Security and undercut ukraine, a key partner on the front lines against russian aggression. We have heard of u. S. Officials carrying uncoordinated confusing and conflicting messages creating doubt and uncertainty in kyiv at a time when a new Reformist Administration has just taken office and was ready to fight corruption and work with us to advance other u. S. Object he was. I disagree with this sort of bunkling Foreign Policy. But through the hearings many of my colleagues have unwittingly undermined the ukraineening government by suggesting its subservient to the United States and without the United States they wouldnt be able to function. The ukrainians as you stated mr. Holmes is in a hot war with russia and they are holding their own. We could benefit from the experience of the ukrainians, not the other way around. While i thought the Intelligence Committee would actually be engaged in oversight of the intelligence and National Security communities, unfortunately we are not. We are here talking about one of the most serious constitutional duties we have as members of congress, the impeachment and removal of a president of the United States. Over the past weeks, we have learned a few things. The officials on the july 25th call have many different opinions on whether the cull was concerning or not and just because Vice President biden is running for president does not mean that corruption related to burisma, ukraines largest Natural Gas Companies a and american ties to it are not kerpg. There is a lot we do dont know. We have not heard from Rudy Giuliani. Havent heard from hunter biden. Id like to know more about both activities. Why they talked to who and to whom. Despite promising from chairman schiff we have not heard from the whistleblower. Something that can occur in a closed setting without violating his or her anonymity. We need to understand the motivations and level of coordination that happened prior to his or her submission of the complaint. Over the past few weeks and even today its been reited in 2017 about. The Trump Administration maid the decision to provide lethal aid to ukraine after the obama refused. President zelensky has yun tande significant anticorruption efforts including eliminating the parliamentary immunity from prosecution. And again, mr. Holmes, you mechanicsed today, under president zelenskys leadership we have finally seen progress this fall towards ending the Russian Occupation of eastern ukraine. So where does this leave us . An Impeachable Offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous. And its not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I have not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion. I also reject the notion that holding this view means supporting all the Foreign Policy choices we have been hearing about over the last few weeks. To paraphrase Tim Morrisons testimony this week every day the National Conversation is focused on impeachment not the illegal occupation of crimea not the need for reforms in ukraine government and economy. Its a day where we are not focused on shared National Security interest with kyiv. I hope we went let the partisan process keep us from agreeing on how a free and prospersous ukraine is important to the security of the ukrainian people, the United States of america, and the rest of the world. Mr. Chairman, before i yield back my time id like to make a statement for the record that has this committee been given proper notice as required by house rule 11 claus 23 g at a business meeting was follow ha had the conway point of order been properly recognized i would have retire voted no on the committees first notion to table last night during the imprompt ewe meeting and i yield back the balance of pie my time. Thank you mr. Kmarm. Thank you both for year testimony today. I want to say because it shouldnt go unmentioned that the characterization just a few minutes ago which one of my republican colleagues of the proceeding, i think is vile, irresponsible, and dangerous. And i want to i want to remind us why we are here. Because somebody in government, a whistleblower felt it was important enough to get other people in governments attention that the president may have committed a wrong act. We have now heard and seen substantial evidence that the president in fact tried to trade a political favor for official government resources. The most damning words come from no one else but the president himself. On that phone call with the ukrainian president. Where he asked for a favor, mentions investigations, mentions the bidens and burisma. However, as mr. Hoechls has testified, mr. Holmes also overheard the president speaking to his handpicked ambassador, ambassador sondland about investigations. Mr. Hoechls has also said that in the office everybody knew or many people knew at least that there was an the president wanted an investigation of the bidens. In addition, although Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani have not come before this committee, Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani have spoken publicly on the issue of investigations. Mick mulvaney, the president s chief of staff, the person who usually works with the president the most, day in and day out, went in front of the White House Press corps and basically gheited an investigation had something to do withholding up the aid and that this admitted the process was politicized. Rudy giuliani, the president s personal lawyer, also essentially admitted that these investigations were at issue. He said that he thinks he did nothing wrong because he was working at the direction of the president. So we have seen substantial evidence and heard substantial evidence of wrong doing by the president of the United States. And this congress will have to continue to take up this very important issue to the American People. My concern today is also i feel as though the cancer of wrong doing may have spread beyond the president and into others of the executive branch. And i want to ask you a few questions about that. Before i do id like chairman to enter two articles into the record if i could. One of them is headlined after boost from perry backers got huge gas deal in ukraine. The other one is titled wall street journal federal prosecutorers probe julie links to Ukrainian Energy projects. Mr. Holmes. Without without objection. Thank you, chairman. You indicated secretary perry when in yourng had private meetings with ukrainians. Before he had the private meetings, in a meeting with others, including yourself, i believe, he had presented a list of american advisers for the Ukraine Energy sector. Do you know who was on that list . Sir, i didnt see the names on the list myself. Do you know if Alex Cranberg were on the list and michael blaiser. I have heard michael blazer was on the list. Would to be correct secretary perry we also heard before ambassador sondland had a private meeting with somebody. How unusual was it before these guys showed up for folks, diplomats so to speak, or u. S. Government officials, to have private meetings where they insist that nobody else be in the room . Very rare, almost never. Okay. And i want to ask you also, about the precedent we set. I know youre here as fact witnesses but also Public Servants for the country. The precedent in congress would set putting aside donald trump for a second, if the Congress Allows a president of the United States now or later to ask a foreign government, head of state to investigate a political rival, what precedent does that set for american diplomacy, for the safety of americans overseas and for the future of our country . Thats a very bad precedent. Very bad precedent and Going Forward if that were ever the case i would raise objections. Thank you both. I yield back, chair. Mr. Ratcliffe. I want to yield to my colleague congressman conway. Dr. Hill i dont think there is a lot of questions that one of putins primary object he was in the United States is to fomt unrest in our nation, cause us to have lose confidence in elections and the results of the elections those kind of things. There is tension, though in conducting our business the way we should. And you know playing into putins hand. As an example, while i disagree with what were doing here today its under our constitution and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe they are functioning under that constitution. These hearings in issue has been very advicive within our country. And is continuing to push that way. I think it plays into putin he is a hands inadvertently maybe nothing we can do about that. But there are certain things we can do as individuals that wouldnt play into his hands. One of them would be that the looser in the 2016 election has for three years continued to argue that because she won the popular vote as she and her friends she won the popular vote that somehow the election was inappropriate and that we shouldnt trust it, that the Electoral College victory which was resounding shouldnt be trusted. Does that help putin or play into the narrative that he would like for us to, that our elections are swhou rigged and shouldnt be trusted in. Yes, it does. So the r. T. , putins would you agree with me r. T. Is putins Propaganda Machine in the United States. I would agree with you, yes. Is it appropriate for the t. R. T. To be used to affect Public Policy in our nation, for example, a long series of advertisements or programs on r. T. Going against fracturing saying its bad and trying to affect Public Policy in the United States . And see appropriate use should americans be paying attention to that . In the tense that americans should be paying attention to r. T. And other outlets used to prototyping this information absolutely. I wasnt sure what you meant. Fraking is a controversial issue in our nation if we did away with fraks the United States wouldnt be in a position today to dominate Oil Production in the world and play into strengthenings ut put putins hands. Thats correct id like to point out in november 2011 i sat next to Vladimir Putin at a conference in which he made precise that point. It was the first time he had done so. To a group of american journalists and experts who were brought to something called the discussion club. He started in 2011 making it clear he saw american fraking as a great threat to russian interests. We were all struck by how much he stressed this issue. And its since 2011 and since that particular juncture that putin made a of this. They said americans paying attention to r. T. And misguided by whatever propaganda he is going is not in hour nations best interests. Mr. Holmes, in your role, you are privileged a awful lot of stuff. Official things. And things that are best kept between you and the official folks that you deal with. Is there an expect appendix among the principles that you represent that you will exercise discretion in what you share with others about what goes on . Yes, sir. In your public in your testimony your deposition you maid first off we had a hard time pinning down the number of people you had the conversation with about the conversation that you yefr heard. Now, our ambassador had no expectation of privacy. He is blustering around what he has done. But we couldnt figure out how many people you actually shared that information with. And i would argue that the information is unflattering to the president , unflattering to the ambassador. And that that your discretion is to at odds here. I mean, your testimony, your deposition said you shared that with folks who you thought would find it interesting. Well id argue everybody on the back row would find it interesting. But i dont know that necessarily the criteria. On a go forward basis can you articulate in the future when you are privileged to certain circumstances that that would be embarrassing to the principal that if its official you shared with the ambassador thats fine. But folks outside the embassy or even within the embassy that dont have a need to know that you wouldnt regail them with your recounting the instances. I think it was Gordon Sondland showing indiscretion by having the conversation thats the person second thing. Excuse me, mr. Holmes. Please let. Let me clarify the question. Mr. Holmes. Excuse me. Let him answer your question, sir. Its my question. Youre right and i get to clarify nigh question to get the answer and im hopeful i get a few more seconds because of the interruption from the chairman his patience is growing thin. I was working hard not to err at this time tate him again i failed again. The question of up mr. Holmes where, your discretion. Gordon sondland did not expect the privacy i got that. But youre going to be in rooms for youve been in rooms 17 years aware where people trust whatever went on in the room and left that you kept to official channels didnt share the information with other folks. Im asking you to to argue for your on your behalf, that interesting is not some sort of cite yan onthat you would use when you share information from meetings simple straightforward question. Sir, i shared the information i need to share with the right people who needed to know it. I did not share any information with people that didnt need to know. But you did use the word interesting mr. Conway. It certainly was interesting. And i would hate to think that what i brought before this this process i shouldnt have done that. I have come here because you have subpoenaed me to share what i know and ive done that. Mr. Holmes you were cut off talking about mr. Sondlands discretion. Did you want to finish that answer. I think mr. Chairman that is patently unfair. As you have been through the entire investigation. Mr. Cant way to. Youre certainly willing to interrupt me and to my interrupt my five minutes only on the person with unlimited time absolutely unlimited time you have abused that power and kipting to do that. Mr. Conway the gentlemen will cease. We allow those witnesses answering the question if you dont want to hear the answer. That does that reply to you as well. Yes. Much use has been made about the irregular or Foreign Service channels. My reading of history is that american president s have on occasion used irregular channels would you generally agree. Yes, sir. And my reading of history is that generally speaking however the irregular channels have either been closely coordinated with the regular ones or at least in furtherance of american Foreign Policy and our National Security interests. Would you agree . Thats right, zblier and do you believe, sir that mr. Giulianis efforts were closely coordinated with the regular channels such as the ambassador to the ukraine . No, they werent. And were they in furtherance of american Foreign Policy as you understood it. No, sir. Mr. Holmes, if left unchecked do you think that russia would either by means of force or other malign means subjugate ukraine taept to rendter a client state if not occupy it. Absolutely. Its been said that without Ukraine Russia is just a country but with it its an empire. I feel like ive been treated to a gatling gun fire of myth propagation. Reminds me of the expression about the big lie if you repeat the big lie often enough people will believe it. I think weve been subjected to some of that. Here is a sample, the president didnt solicit Campaign Assistance from ukraine in a clear violation of federal law. Yes, he did. The president didnt withhold vital military assistance in furtherance of a subjective to obtain that Campaign Assistance. Yes, he did. Rudy giuliani was acting just on his own, kind of as a rogue. No, he wasnt. That all in is business as usual. This happens all the time and stems from a principled interest. No, it isnt. And no it wasnt. And thats okay to attack patriotic diplomats in Public Service if they stand in your way and have the courage to speak up. And no, it isnt. Those are just some of the big lies. But here is the big truth. The president did it. He did it. We all just came from the floor. And its a majestic chamber. In the front of the chamber there are only two portraits. On the left looking forward is my favorite president , george washington. And on the right is the marquis dela fayett. And without his help we wouldnt have gotten off the ground and that assistance from many other countries who are helping us create something that had never been created before. It was an audacious idea, the notion of of a democracy of seven governance. Freemds such as press, religion, expression. And assembly. And most of us rooted in the premise of the rule of law, not monarchs, not military strongmen, but the rule of law. Others helped us get here. And we wouldnt be here without them. And i frankly feel like were almost in a little bit of a pay it forward moment. So when the president did it he put at risk the security of ukraine, a strategic ally and a nascent democracy with their masses yearning to breathe free. Who six years ago this day when they said they are not signing the memorandum of agreement with European Union rose up and took to the streets, because they wanted frankly what we have. And when the president did it he put our own National Security at risk. But what he did most importantly was put at risk that idea that makes us exceptional, because i do believe america is truly exceptional. We are a country rooted in something that nobody has ever tried before, rule of law. He put that at risk when he did what he did. The president did it. And the only question that remains is, what will we do . I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dr. Hill, during during your deposition i asked you was Christopher Steeles dossier a rabbit hole. Do you remember do you remember the answer you gave to that question. Yes i thought it was a rabbit hole. And you also said a couple pages later in the deposition or in the transcript that i have here of your deposition that you thought he got played. Is that fair . That is fair, yes. I was struck by a number of things you said in your statement. A number of things i thought were on target. One on page 7. You said this, president putin at Russian Security services weaponize our own political opposition research. And that is exactly what happened in 2016. Exactly what happened. You called it. You knew it. You saw it. The dnc hired perkins kuy, who hired fusion gps who hired Christopher Steele who talked to russians who gave him a burcham of dirt, national eninquire err garbage that he compiled in a dossier and youre fbi used it. They used it as part of their investigation that they opened in july of 2016 where any spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign. My guess is thats probably never happened in american history. And exactly what dr. Hill talked about is what happened in 2016. Exactly what she talked about. And for ten months jim comey and his team did an investigation. And after ten months they had nothing. Because we deposed mr. Comey. And he told us after ten months we didnt have a thing. But that didnt matter. That didnt matter. We got the mueller investigation. 32 million, 19 lawyers. 40 fbi agents. 500 search warrants, 2,800 subpoenas and they came back this spring and what did they tell news no collusion, no conspiracy, no coordination. But the guys on the other side dont care. They dont care. Theyre doing what dr. Hill said a number of important things in her opening statement. Theyre doing exactly what dr. Hill talked about. The impact of a successful 2016 Russian Campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Torn apart. Ive never seen it this divided. And its not healthy, not healthy for our culture, country ob our nation np thats what these guys are doing. No conspiracy, no coordination, no collusion, but they dont care. Now this. This whole impeachment thing as the witness said yesterday, the witness said yesterday, without an announcement from zelensky about an investigation they werent getting a call with the president , werent getting a meeting with the president and werent getting aid from the United States. But guess what. Ukraine they got the call, any got the meeting. And they got the money. And there was never an announcement of any type of investigation. This is but timothy dont care. Theyre moving forward. There is going to be some kind of report. Theyll theyre going to send something to the Judiciary Committee and the process is Going Forward and there will be a tril in the senate all based on some aanonymous whistleblower who came forward with no firsthand knowledge, whose biased against the president , who worked with joe biden. Now all of this. Now all of this. This is dr. Hill isright. She said it. We got to stop this. But theyre not going to. And theyre doing it all 11 and a half months before the next election. I think the most telling thing is what the speaker of the house said sunday. Speak speaker of the house said sunday. This is scary. Speaker of the house said sunday, National Sunday morning tv show. She said the president is an imposter. The guy that 63 million voted for who won the Electoral College landslide. The speaker of the house called the president of the United States an imposter. Its sad what the country is going threw. I wish it would stop process but unfortunately i dont think it is. I yield back. Mr. Welch. I want to use my time to speak trektly to my colleagues and to the American People. Todays witnesses and the ones we have been privileged before the committee over the last two weeks have provided an Invaluable Service to our country. Not just in all your careers but in having the courage and the patriotism to share your facts with the American People. And you do so at considerable risk to yourselves. But youve clearly stepped forward for the simple fact you believe its your duty. In all your testimony reaffirms a central fact. President trump conditioned our Foreign Policy and National Security on getting a valuable political benefit from ukraine. He wanted ukraines new president to create ethical questions about joe biden by publicly announcing investigations. And to pressure president zelensky to take that action that would benefit his personal political interests he withheld vital military aid to ukraine and refused to meet with president zelensky in the oval office. And as we heard from mr. Holmes and dr. Hill today, that meeting was extraordinarily important to ukraine and extraordinarily important in sending a message to russia about our our unyielding support. The witnesses have made it absolutely clear what the president did. And its equally clear that President Trump has launched a coverup and Disinformation Campaign to hide this abuse of power from the American People. Thats why the administration refuses to provide documents to this committee. And its why the white house has taken the unprecedented position that senior officials could ignore congressional subpoenas and refused to testify. Thats why acting chief of staff mulvaney, secretary of state pompeo and others have not testified. Now the president and even some members of the committee are pretending this is normal. It is not. It must never be. No other president has betrayed his office like this by putting his own small political interest above our National Interests and our National Security. You know, i asked some of our witnesses, what would happen in any American City or town if the mayor stopped funding the Police Department until the chief of police launched a investigation into the political rival and members of congress did that. The answer was clear. It would be wrong eyeball illegal and not tolerated. It would violate the public trust in Public Officials if it mapped happened with a military officials a Court Martial would fired. A ceo would be fired. We know its wrong but the president continues to say it isnt. He says its perfect and he would do it again tomorrow. The same rules apply to mayors, governs, members of congress, ceos and everyone else in america. They reply to the president too. Whether you are republican or democrat, you like msnbc or fox, i think every american believes in one of our nations founding principles. No person is before the law, not even the president. July 24th director mueller testified about russian state sponsored systematic interference in our 2016 election. He expressed apprehension this could be the new normal. The day after on july 25th, President Trump spoke to president zelensky and asked a favor. That favor was that ukraine interfere in our 2020 election. If we allow this to stand, to become the new normal, it will be the standard for all future president s. In good conscience none of us can do that. It corrupts our democracy, corrupts how our country conducts Foreign Policy. Threatens our National Security and the security of all americans. And it is in my view a clear betrail of the president s oath of office. I yield back. Mr. Maloney. Two quick housekeeping matters. Ask unanimous consent to entered into the record. The abc news story sbiemgtsed 70 of americans say trumps actions tide to ukraine were wrong dated november 19th 2019. Without objection. And a new yorker story entitled the invention of the Conspiracy Theory on biden and ukraine how a conservative Dark Money Group that targeted Hillary Clinton in 2016 spread the discredited story that may lead to Donald Trumps impeachment jane meyer october, 2019. Without objection. Goorn. Thank you for being here. Dr. Hill, first of all i thought that was some epic man explaining you were forced to endure by my colleague fl turner. I want you to know some of it think it was inappropriate. I appreciate your forbearens. Let me ask something. Im fast nature by the meeting two meetings on july 10th. You have the meeting in mr. Boltons office. Sondland says this thing about investigations. Bolton ends the meeting. Photo. Follow on meeting in the ward room. Assert that the meeting is going to happen if there is these investigations. Is that what is going on . Thats right, yes. What i want to understand is you disagree, right . Thats correct. Excuse me . Im sorry, yes. You or for that matter the National Security adviser mr. Bolton, right . Yes. Thats not why he sent you down there to see how the meetings go. Correct. I self instructed a couple times. That is the first time i was instructed to go. And why did he send you to report this to the lawyer . Well, he clearly wanted to have himself on the record as not being part of what was basically an agreement to have a meeting in return for investigations. And i wanted to make sure that i and colonel vindman were also not part of this as well. Remember, there was a not getting involved in domestic politics. I understand. Did you conquer with this concern that mr. Bolton had . I did. Because july 10th is really the first time that it crystallized for me that the worlds basically a different channel going on here. And i think policy channel and a domestic policy channel. And you felt it was improper what was occurring by mr. Sondland in the war room . It was improper and inappropriate. We sthaed in real time. And heres my point. If it was improper and you went so far as to report to the lawyers, what was the nature of the disagreement with mr. Sondland who said he had no idea that burisma meant bidens until much, much later . And he and ambassador volker had a blizzard of interactions with mr. Giuliani. They were amending statements. And qulet, how it is you have this disagreement in front of the ukrainians and send them out into the hallway at some point did he ask you, know, im just talking abo talking about. He made it clear we have an objection. You had an argument about it. Didnt he say he was oblivious it is not credible to me he was oblivious. He didnt say bidens. He said burisma and he said 2016 as well as burisma. I want to thank you for your appearance here today. Thank you. Thank you so much, dr. Hill and mr. Holmes for your service. I have no doubt after today that were a better nation because of it. We all know by now that in july of this year President Trump sent an order to the office of management and budget that congressionally approved military aid to ukraine be put on hold. Both of you have expressed that ukraine is the front the first line of defense against russian aggression and expansion into europe. That russias priority is to undermine the United States. Is that right, dr. Hill . Thats correct. Would you agree with that, mr. Holmes . Yes, dr. Hill in, your professional opinion, is it in the National Security interest of the United States to support ukraine with the much talked about military aid . Yes. Mr. Hole snmes . Yes. Already said it several times today and you already testified that ukraine is in war. Right now. With russia. Isnt it true, mr. Holmes, that even though the Security Assistance was eventually delivered to ukraine had, the fact that it was delayed to a country that is actively in war signalled to russia that perhaps the bond between ukraine and the United States was weakening . Absolutely. And it could act in a more aggressive way. Thats correct. You also testified that was a unanimous view of the ukraine policy community that the aid should be released because supporting ukraine is in our National Security interest. Dr. Hill, why do you believe that the entire ukraine policy community were unanimously in agreement . Well, we had this experience before and i just want you to indulge me for a moment. In 2008, russia also attacked the country of georgia. I was the National Intelligence officer at that particular juncture and we warned to the highest level of government that we believe there was a real risk of conflict between ukraine sorry, georgia and russia. And, in fact, we also believed at that point that russia might attack ukraine. This was in 2008 when both georgia and ukraine sought membership action plan in nato. And russia threatened them openly and proceeded with requests for nato membership that there would be consequences. In the wake of the attack on georgia, president putin made it clear that this was related to me at the highest levels of the georgia january governme georgian government said to putin that your west allies promised a great deal. They didnt deliver. I threatened, i delivered. We had made all kinds of promises to georgia and ukraine in that time frame and we didnt come through. He threatened ukraine in 200 and it wasnt until 2014 when ukraine tried to conclude an Association Agreement with the European Union he struck. He was threatening this for the whole period since 2008. Thank you so much, dr. Hill. What message does it send to other members of the United States when military holds for assistance or imposed with no absolutely explanation . What message does it send to our allies in terms of the good faith and Good Relationship with the u. S. . Thank you both for being two of those who protect our nation. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for coming in. Thank you for your service. Dr. Hill had, you stated in you deposition that you have been accused of being a mole for george suros in the white house, correct . You said in your deposition that a conspiracy was launched against you by roger stone on info wars. He wasnt a convicted felon the time this was launched. I didnt use those words. It was roger stone in 2017. Just more recently, before mr. Stone was at trial, they were at it again. And they said ill quote what they said about you. We here at info wars first identified fiona hill, the globalist leftist george suros insider that infill straighted mcmasters staff. He said that on may 31st, 2017. I presume youre not a leftist jornl suros. I think my colleagues would be surprised to hear about this. The left in europe is a bit different than left here. I agree. Interestingly, you stated in your deposition that a similar Conspiracy Theory had actually been launched against Marie Yovanovitch. Thats correct. And you said specifically when i saw this happening to ambassador yovanovitch, again, i was furious because this is again just this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic Conspiracy Theory. I did say that. There are other partisan career officials. We had Lieutenant Colonel alex there is criticism of the president. Would you say that and he spun in part. Thats what they do. It is the 1900s. That actually can you still obtain on the internet and you can buy it sometimes in book shops in russia and elsewhere. This is the longest running antisemitic troeb antisemit antisemitic trobe we have in hist rich. It was also kreb krocreated for purposes. It was intended to write sbhg this before i was actually invited to come into the administration because its an absolute outrage. Im sorry youve been wrapped up in these crack pot conspiracy theories. Let me turn to Rudy Giuliani. You became increasingly concerned about Rudy Giulianis increasing role in ukraine between january and march of 2019, correct . Thats correct. And i know you serve in the bush and the obama administrations. I presume that george bushs personal lawyer and president obamas personal lawyers were never, you know, directing or heavily influencing ukraine policy. The. Im not even sure i know who they were. So the answer is no. And the concern for having someone like Rudy Giuliani, having such a Strong Influence on american policy is basically, that policy may be operated no the in best interest of america but perhaps in the best interest of Rudy Giuliani or his clients or business associates, right . I think thats correct. I said in my deposition that frankly thats what i thought it was at the very beginning when i first herd m first heard mr. Giuliani making the negotiations. We have an interesting character in chicago who is now been indicted. His name is mr. Fertash. Hes been indicted for federal bribery charges and other associate of giuliani, sfligt. I do know him, correct. I know of him from my work, thats correct. And qut he that were all asking is whether american Foreign Policy in ukraine is potentially being run in their interests and not our own. It certainly is pears its being used, that this is a subversion of american Foreign Policy to push these peoples he personal interests. Thank you so much. That concludes the member questioning. Well now go to closing statements. Mr. Nunes, do you have any Closing Remarks . Thank you. I stress in these hearings that the whistleblower complaint was a pretext for Donald Trumps political opponents to do what theyve been trying to do since he was elected, oust the president from office. The brief time line will illustrate the wide range of extraordinary attacks as the administration faced. Im going to start in june of 2016 when donald trump was just a candidate. On behalf of the Democratic National committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, gps hires Christopher Steel to write the steel dossiers, false allegations attributed to russians sources saying that donald trump is a russian agent. Fast forward to january 6, 2017. Fbi director james comey briefs president elect trump on the steel dossier. It is leaked to cnn and soon afterwards buzz feed publishes the dossier. January 20th, President Trumps inauguration day, the Washington Post runs a story head lined, the campaign to impeach donald trump has begun. January 30th, ten days later, whistleblowers current lawyer tweets, krfrmecouphouse starte. March 22nd, democrats on this committee falsely declare on national tv that they have more than circumstantial evidence that the Trump Campaign colluded with russia. July 12th, an article of impeachment is filed against President Trump and the house of representatives. November 15th, democrats file additional articles of impeachment against President Trump. As you see, this was just in President Trumps first year in office. He was subject to a coordinated spear operation designed to falsely portray him as a russian agent and attempts to impeach him. This all occurred before his now infamous call with president zelenskyy. In 2018, the attacks continued. Often from executive Branch Officials charged with implementing the policies. Rendz release a memo saying that fbi used fabrications and steel dossier to get a warrant to spy on a Trump Campaign associate. September 5th, New York Times prints a column by an anonymous Trump Administration official who explains that he and other senior officials are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of trumps agenda. December 7 it, james comey admits to congress the steel dossier was unverified before and after the fbi used it to get a warrant to speak on Trump Campaign associate. The russia hoax continues to be the main focus of attacks going into 2019. Bhut that entire operation collapsed, a new impeachment pretext had to be found. May 4, 2019, on national television, a democratic congressman proclaims im concerned if we dont impeach this president , hell get reelected. July 24 of this year, special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies to congress about his report which debunct the Conspiracy Theory that Trump Campaign associates conspired with russia to hack the 2016 election. July 25, just the very next day, a new antitrump operation begins as someone listens to the president s phone call with ukrainian president zelenskyy. And leaks the contents to the socalled whistleblower. September 13th, democrats on this committee take the extraordinary step of issuing a press release related to the whistle bh whist whist whistle blow blowers complaint. It is revealed that democratic staff on this committee had contact with the whistleblower before he submitted his complaint to the inspector general. Contradicting democrat denials that such contact had occurred. October 31st, halloween, probably the most appropriate day, democrats in the house of representatives vote to open an official impeachment inquiry against President Trump. What youve sneen this room over the past two weeks is a show trial. The plan result of three years of political operations and dirty tricks. Campaigns waged against this president. Like any good show trial, the verdict was decided before the trial ever began. After all, after denouncing the president for years as a russian agent and a threat to democracy, how could the democrats not impeach him . If they dont have to if they dont move to overthrow him, it would indicate they dont really believe their own dire warnings about the threat he poses. The democrats only need aid pretext when the russian dossiers and investigations failed to do the job, they move to plan two, the ukraine hoax. This spectacle with the secret depositions and mid hearing press conferences is not meant to discover the facts, it was designed to produce a specific story line to be pushed forward by the democrats and the supporters in the media. Ladies and gentlemen, as we approach thanksgiving, Speaker Pelosi has just made clear just today u. S. Mca with a deal with canada and mexico will boost our economy wont be silent this year. So i hope mr. Schiff will clarify how much longer well waste on this effort and what other vital legislation hes willing to sacrifice for this impeachment per se. Will there be even more secret depositions accompanied by the flood of democratic leaks . Will we have more public hearings with democrat witnesses but not ours . My minority are in the dark about what this committee will be doing when we return so is america. James madison warned us about the danger posed by the tyranny of the majority. To avoid that threat, our founders created a constitutional republic. But is there a better example of the tyranny of majority than the way this impeachment process has been run in the house of representatives . The process that is grossly unfair can only stem from a cynical majority that is willing to break long established precedence, tramples on minority concerns and impose their absolute will on this body through shear force of numbers. Exploiting the Intelligence Committee as a venue for impeachment has been one of the grossest abuses in the process filled with cynical manipulations, large and small. But this farce will soon move to the Judiciary Committee where impeachment rightfully belongs. I wish my republican colleagues well in fighting this travesty and defending the idea. This which at one time received bipartisan support not long ago. The American Peoples vote actually means something. I yield back. I want to thank the gentleman. I want to thank you for your testimony. I want to thank you for your long years of service to the country. Youre not democratic witnesses or republican witnesses, youre nonpartisan witnesses and you have stuck to the facts and that is as it should be. First i want to make a couple observations about the hearing today. And dr. Hill, you were criticized several times by my colleagues for your opening statement. Im glad did you want back down from it. Youre much more diplomatic than i am, i have to say. Anyone watching the proceedings, anyone reading the deposition transcripts would have the same impression that you evidently had had from hearing my colleagues talk about the russia hoax. That the whole idea that russia had gotten involved in the 2016 election was a hoax. Put out by the democrats. And, of course, theyre not alone in pushing out this idea that is trumpeted by no one other than the president of the United States who almost on a daily basis at times would comment and tweet and propagate the idea that russias interference in our election was a hoax. And, of course, we all remember that debacle in helsinki when the president stood next to putin and questioned his own intelligence agencies. I wish i had heard just some of the righteous indignation we heard in the committee today when the president questioned that fundamental conclusion of our intelligence agencies but, of course, they were silent when the president said that t theyll show indignation today but they will cower when they hear the president questioning the very conclusions that our Intelligence Community has reached. My colleagues sought to use you drshgs hill, to besmer much the character of colonel vindman. I thought this was very interesting. Certainly wasnt unexpected. It is very interesting for this reason. They didnt really question anything colonel vindman said. What he said is what you said. He was in that july 10th meeting. He heard the same quid pro quo. The same comments by sondland if you want this meeting, ukrainians, we have an agreement about this, you got to announce youre going to do the investigations. They heard the same quid pro quo that did you. So why are they smearing him . Mr. Holmes, you testified just as vindman said, colonel vindman said that he warned zelenskyy about getting involved in u. S. Politics. You dont question that. They didnt take issue with that. So why smear this purple heart recipient just like the smear of ambassador yovanovitch. Its gratuitous. I calls the president on an insecure line in a country known for Russian Telecommunications and eavesdropping, that is moran indiscretion. That is a security risk. But why attack you, mr. Holmes . They didnt question anything you said. They didnt question what conversation you overheard ambassador sondland indeed didnt question what you said. He acknowledged that the one thing the president wanted to know the day after that conversation was is he going to do the investigations . They dont question that. So why attack you . They didnt question your testimony when you said and i you this you asked ambassador sondland, does President Trump give a blank about ukraine . He said, he doesnt give a blank about ukraine. He only cares about the big stuff. He cares about the big stuff that matters to him. His personal interests like the biden investigation that giuliani wants. I mean one question posed by your testimony, mr. Holmes is what do we care about . Do we care about the big stuff like the constitution, like an oath of office or do we only care now about party . What do we care about . What do we know about the depositions, the secret depositions. People watching at home may not know in the secret depositions, which apparently no one else is allowed to hear, no members are allowed to participate. Just secret, apparently. Sound like its just me and the witness. Only over 100 members of congress are able to participate in those secret depositions. And the minority is just so unable to participate. They got the same time they got in these open hearings. So what have we learned through the depositions and testimony . So much of this is undisputed. We learned that a dedicated Public Servant named Marie Yovanovitch known for fighting corruption, why do we expect throughout the diplomatic core was ruthlessly smeared by Rudy Giuliani, by the president s own son, by their friends on fox prime time and a whole host of other characters. Her reputation was sullied so they could get her out of the way which they did. And youre right. It was gratuitous. The president could have gotten rid of her any time he wanted. But thats not enough for this president. No. He has to smear and destroy those that get in his way. And someone fighting corruption in ukraine is getting in his way. So shes gone. Shes gone. And this makes way almost immediately thereafter, she leaves the three amigos come in. The three amowiigos, two of who didnt make the connection that burisma means biden. But in all the companies in all the world that Rudy Giuliani just happened to be fld this one . Thats absurd. The interest, of course, was in an investigation of Donald Trumps rival. The one that he apparently feared the most. And they were willing to do whatever was necessary to get ukraine to do that dirty work, to do that political investigation. And so it began. Were not going to set up a phone call until you make certain commitments. That was ambassador sondlands testimony. The first quid pro quo is just getting on the phone with President Trump. Then there was the quid pro quo involving the white house meeting. And witness after witness and no none of my colleagues can attest to this talked about just how important that meeting was to the president of ukraine and why theyre at war with russia. And the most important ally is the United States and the most important person in the United States for that relationship is the president of the United States. And if president zelenskyy can show he has a Good Relationship with the president of the United States, it means to his people that this new president has the support of their most important patron and it means to the russians that we have their back. This president , this new president who is negotiating with the far superior power that has invaded his country is going into negotiation with putin over how to resolve this conflict whether he has good leverage or lousy leverage depends on whether the russians think he has a relationship with the president. And the president wouldnt give him that. Not without getting something in return. An official act for something of clear value and something very important. The big stuff as sondland explained you to, mr. Holmes. To help his campaign. Now we also heard abundant testimony about the other quid pro quo. The withholding of Security Assistance which no one can explain. There is no debate among my colleagues. Everyone in the nsc and the state department, defense department, everyone supported this. Everyone. All the reviews that needed to be done to make sure that ukraine was meeting its anticorruption standards had been done and they had found to meet the criteria. The aid should have been released but withheld and no one could understand or get a clear explanation for why until it game clear to everyone its all about the investigations. Its all about the leverage. If there is any doubt about it, the man closest to the president who meets with him every day Mick Mulvaney erased all doubt. Youre darn right. Yes. We talked about the 2016 election investigation. Thats the way we roll. Yeah, theres going to be politics and just get over it. Well, if we care about the big stuff, we xcant just get over it. Now my colleagues have had a lot of defenses to all this evidence which piled up day after day after day. It was clear that the Security System was being withheld. P was clear to all of the americans and it was clear to ukrainians. You testified the ukrainians felt pressure. They still fear fooel frupressu. The next defense is its all hearsay. Its all hearsay. Now, i guess my colleagues are not lawyers. Lawyers out there understand just how yong wrong they are about what hearsay is. But lets just discuss this in terms that all people can understand. The impression they would have you take its all hearsay is because we in this committee were not in that board room with you. We were not in that meeting with dr. Bolton. Were not in the room. Its all hearsay. After all, youre relaying what you heard and saying it. So it must be hearsay and therefore, you dont really have to think about it, do we. You dont have to understand that you have direct evidence that this meeting is withheld because he wants the investigations. We cant accept that. The if that were true, can you never present any evidence in court unless the jury was also in the room. That is absurd. They dont accept all the Text Messages aquid pro quos and thats crazy and my Worst Nightmare is the russians get in, they dont accept the documents. The few document thats we have from the state department that werent produced by the way by the state department. Sondland communicates directly with the secretary of state about this investigative interest of the president and they dont accept the documents either. I guess the documents are also hearsay. Now might be a little more convincing if it they were joining us in demanding that the documents were produced. But, of course, theyre not. The documents are like that one saw on the screen. They implicate others including secretary pompeo. Of course donald trump and pompeo dont want us to see the documents. But parentally its all hearsay. Even when you actually hear the president , thats hearsay. We cant rely on people saying what the president said. Apparently we can only rely on what the president says and there we shouldnt even rely on that either. We should imagine he said something about fighting corruption. Instead of what actually said is i want you to do us a favor though. I want you to look into this 2016 crown strike Conspiracy Theory and i want you to look into the bidens. I guess were not going to rely on that because that is hearsay. Well, thats absurd. That would be like saying you cant rely on the testimony of the burglars during watergate was its only hearsay or you cant consider the fact that they tried to break in because they got caught. Thats absurd. But the other defense besides it failed, the scheme failed, they got caught, the other defense is the president denies it. I guess thats case closed. He says spontaneously, not as if he was asked this way, no quid pro quo. What do you want from craig . No quid pro quo. This is the im not a crook defense. You say it. I guess thats the end of it. The only thing we can say is that its not so much the situation is different in terms of mixons conduct and trumps conduct. Were seeing here is far more serious than a third rate burglary of the democratic headquarters. What were talking about here is withholding of recognition and that white house meeting and the withholding of military aid to an ally at war. This is beyond anything nixon did. That is the difference between that congress and this one. So were asking where is howard baker . Where is howard baker . Where are the people who are willing to go beyond their party to look to their duty . I was struck by kircolonel vindmans testimony because he said he acted out of duty. What is our duty here . Thats what we need to be asking, not using metaphors about balls and strikes and our team and your team. I heard my colleagues use the metaphors. What is our duty . We are the independencible nation. We still r people look to us from all over the world. Journalists from their jail cells in turkey, victims of mass killing in the philippines, people who gathered in square wanting a representative government, people in china who are in ukraine that want a better future. They look to us. Theyre not going to look to the russians. Theyre not going to look to the chinese. They cant look to europe with all their problems. They still look to us and increasingly they dont recognize what they see. Because what they see is americans saying dont engage in political prosecutions. What they say back is, oh, you mean like the bidens and the clintons that you want us to investigate . Think see. They dont recognize. And that is a terrible tragedy for us but its a greater tragedy for the rest of the world. I think when the founders provided the mechanism for impeachment they were worried about what might has been if someone unethical took the office in the land and use the it for personal gain and not because of deep care about the big things that should matter. Like our National Security and our defense and allies and what the country stands for. I think thats why they put that remedy in the constitution. And i think we need to consult our conscience and our constituents and decide whether that remedy is appropriate here. Whether that remedy is necessary here and as you know, notwithstanding, my colleagues said i resist going down this path for a long time. But i will tell you why i could resist no more. And it came down to this. It came down to actually came down to timing. It came down to the fact that the day after bob mueller testified, the day after bob mueller testified that donald trump invited russian interference, russia, if youre listening, come get hillarys emails and later that day they tried to hack her server. The day after he testified that not only did trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help in the campaign. They made full use of it. They lied about it. They obstructed the investigation into it. And all this in his testimony and his report, the day after that donald trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another u. S. Election. That says to me this president believes he is above the law. Beyond accountability. And in my view there is nothing nor dangerous than an unethical president that believes their above the law. And i would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the word of my great colleague, we are better than that