Instruments of oppression. I said that and believe its true. So finally, mr. Kent, for as long as i can remember. Policy predicated on principled interest in Democratic Values notely freedom of speech, pre and fair and other elections in the rule of law. Mr. Kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesnt that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those Democratic Values . I believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic
representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. How is that, sir . Well, theres an issue of credibility. They hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u. S. Leaders saying something else. Ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir. I would. Is there anything youd like to add how it mike mate it more difficult for you to do your job, sir . Our credibility is based on a respect for the United States, and if we damage that respect, then it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. Anyone looking at the facts can see what happened was an abuse of power. Anyone looking at the facts can see that what happened was unethical. Anyone looking at the facts can see, anyone, looking at the facts, can see that what went on
was just plain wrong. I yield back, mr. Chirp airman. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 55 days, since july 18th and September 11th A delay sending hardearned tax dollars of the American People to ukraine. Not any country. Ukraine. Young said one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. Witness friday ef it had in her Deposition Corruption is not just prevalent in ukraine. Its the system. So our president said timeout. Timeout. Check out this new guy. Lets see if zelensky is the real deal. This new guy got elected in april, party took power in july, lets see if hes legitimate. Keep in mind, this is already been discussed in 2018. President trump already had done more for ukraine than obama did. Thats right. President trump who doesnt like
foreign aid wanted European Countries to do more, new how corrupt was and gave them more than obama because he gave them javelins, tank busting. Trump gave missiles but when it came time to check out the new guy President Trump said see if hes legit so for 55 days we economiced him out. President zelensky had five interactions with officials in that time frame. One, of course, phone call. July 25th phone call before President Trump and president zelensky. There were four other facetoface meetings with other senior u. S. Official. Guess what . Not one of those interactions, not one, were Security Assistance dollars linked to investigating barisma or biden. Guess what did happen in those 55 days . The u. S. Senators, and ambassador bolton, Vice President pence, all became
convinced that zelensky was, in fact, worth the risk. He was, in fact, legit and the real deal and a real change. And guess what . They told the president. Hes a reformer. Release the money. And thats exactly what President Trump did. The next few weeks were going to have more witnesses like today that the Democrats Will Parade in here and all going to say this. So and so said such and such to so and so and, therefore we got to impeach the president. Actually, we can get nor speck. Covered it a little bit ago. Ambassador sondland said in his deposition, he said ambassador taylor recalls mr. Morrison told taylor i told morrison i conveyed this to mr. Yermak and meeting with president zelensky and if you can follow that thats the democrats plan and why they want to impeach the president. What were hear over the next couple weeks. Thats what were going to hear. No matter what they do, no
matter how many witnesses they bring if here four facts will not change, have not change will never change. The calls shows no linkagethe bidens. President trump and Press Zelensky both said no linkage, no pressure, no pushing. Ukrainians didnt even know the aid was withheld at the time of the phone call and most importantly, pointed out, ukrainians didnt take specific action relative to the investigation to get the money released. Now, there is one witness, one witness that they wont bring in front of us, they wont bring in front of the American People and thats the guy who started it all. The whistleblower. Nope. 43 435 members of congress. One person gets to know who that is. One person has a staff to talk to that person. The rest of us dont. Only chairman schiff knows the whistleblower. We dont. We will never get the chance, the chance to see the
whistleblower raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth. More importantly the American People wont get that chance. This anonymous socalled whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge biased against the president , worked with joe biden the reason were sitting here today will never get a chance to question that individual. Trying to impeach the president based and all that, all that . 11. 5 months before an election. Checking out his credibility, motivation, bias, said this last week. This is a sad day. This is a sad day for this country. You think about what the democrats have put our nation through for the last three years. Started july of 2016 when he spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign and all that unfolded with the Mueller Investigation after that. When that didnt work, here we are, based on this. Based on this. The American People see through all this. They understand the facts, support the president. They understand this process is unfair. And they see through the whole darn sham. With that i yield back. Mr. Welch. Thank you. Id say to my colleagues, id glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President trump is welcome to take a seat right there. You know, the question here is not a dispute about the enormous power that a president has. The question is whether in this case it was an abuse of that power. A president can fire and ambassador, for any reason whatsoever. The president can change his policies as he did when he opened the door for turk toy go in and invade kyrgyzstan and as
opposed to many senior advisers. A president can change his position and our position on ukraine. But is there a limit . There is. Because our constitution says no one is above the law. And that limit is that one cannot even as president use the public trust of high office for personal gain. The law prohibits any one of us here on the dias from seeking foreign assistance in our campaigns. The question for us is whether the use of power by the president was for the benefit of advancing his political interests in the 2020 campaign, and by the way, my colleagues, if the president wants to attack joe biden and his son hes free to do it. All fair and square in campaign. Hes not just free to change our Foreign Policy unless he gets his way to assist them in that campaign. Thats a line he cant cross. Now, you all have been very clear about what our continuous Foreign Policy was. And ambassador taylor, just very quickly describe why us Withholding Aid interfered with achieves our National Security goals. Mr. Welch, one of our National Security goals is to resolve conflicts in europe. There is one major conflict in europe. Its a fighting war. Our National Security goals in support of ukraine, in support of a broader strategic approach to europe is to facilitate that
negotiation, is to try to support ukraine when it negotiates with the russians. I want to go back, because in historical context, mr. Kent, you and in, ambassador taylor, you provided, we had seven years of peace after the war in which we lost over 400,000 american lives. And that took care and was in jeopardy as you described in ambassador taylor and threatened each and every one of us up here and the constituents we represent. Is that a fair statement . Thats a fair statement. I want to do three dates, too. Only a little tile. July 24, july 25 and july 26th. July 24th Director Mueller testified about his investigation and he established beyond doubt it was the russians who interfered in our election. And he expressed the fear that
that would be the new normal. On july 25th according to the readout of the president s campaign, he asked the ukrainians to investigate ukrainians interference in our election that had been repudiated. And then july 26th, as i understand it, this person who reported to you heard the president saying he wanted investigations again in ukraine. So this is the question. The new normal that Director Mueller feared, is there a new normal that you fear that a president , any president , can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that in in his his interests but not the publics interest . That should not be the case, mr. Welch. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous kent to enter into the record the transcript from the July 25th Call between President Trump and president zelensky. You yourself, mr. Chairman, mischaracterized the consulted in the the gentleman will suspend. The gentleman will suspend by unanimous kent be happy to enter the call record into the record. Rogd ro recognized for five minutes. Thank you. What year did you graduate from west point . 1969, height of the vietnam war . Height was about that time. What was your class rank at west point . Number five. How many people were in your class. 800. 800 cadets you were number 5. Yes, sir. So when your top 1 of your class at west point you probably get your pick of assignments but you picked the infantry. I did, sers. A Rifle Company commander. Yes, sir. Where did you serve . In vietnam. See combat in vietnam . I did. Any accommodations for that service . I was awarded the combat infantrymans badge, which is my highest, im proudest of, there was a bronze star, there was an air medal with v. For valor . It is. Talk about july 26th. A lot of years later. You go to the front. Donbass, with ambassador volker i believe and on the bridge looking on the front line of the russian soldiers. What you recall . Yes, sir. And you said the commander there, the ukrainian commander thanked you for the American Military assistance that you knew was being withheld at that
moment . Thats correct. How did that make you feel, sir . Badly. Why . Because it was clear that that commander counted on us. It was clear that that commander had confidence in us. It was clear that that commander had what was appreciative of the compact capabilities he was given by that assistance and the reassurances we were supporting him. You dont strike me at a quicker but threatened to resign or mentioned it in your statement. Before i ask you about that, lets talk about a couple days later on july excuse me. One month later on august 28th. You find yourself in ukraine with the National Security advisers mr. Bolton. Right. Yes, sir convey kwerns about the withholding of military assistance. What does he say to you . That he shares my concern and he advises me to express that in a very special way to the Secretary Of State. Now, hes the National Security advisers works directly to the president but tells you, you should bring it up with the Secretary Of State. Yes, sir. Have you ever sent a cable like that . How many times in your career, 40, 50 years, have you sent a cable directly to the Secretary Of State . Once. This time . Yes, sir. In 50 years . Right we dont send cables but yes, sir. The National Security adviser who can tell it to the president himself and shares your concern says you, the ambassador, for ukraine, should cable the Secretary Of State directly and you do so. Dont you . Yes, sir. What did the cable say, sir . Its classified cable. Without going into classified information. Without going into it says, Security Assistance. This is what weve been talking about today. Security assistance to ukraine at this particular time as in previous times is very important. Ukraine i also made the point we also talked about here today. Ukraine is fortunate for our National Security and we should support. Not not to provide that would be folly. Did you get an answer to your cable . Not directly. No, sir. Do you know what happened to it . Secretary kent secretary kent, do you know what happened to it . Tells me that i was on vacation, on vacation when his cable came in but my understanding is it made to its recipient Secretary Pompeo. We know Secretary Pompeo was on the call a month earlier july 25th. Not like hes on the dark about any of this. What did he do with is . I honestly cant say for sure what happened with the cable once the message was brought in at the highest level. One other question, gentlemen. On September 1st you wall a meeting between the Vice President and the President Of Ukraine, mr. Zelensky, in which right off the bat the President Of Ukraine raises Security Assistance, and the Vice President according to your
testimony says ill talk to the president about that tonight. Im make a call. Do you know if the Vice President made that call . I dont know, sir. Do you know what, if anything, the Vice President had to do with any of this . Can you what more can you tell us about the Vice President s role in this . Do you know if he ever raised this issue with anyone in the administration pushed for release of that Security System . I cant, sir. I believe i to the best of my understanding the Vice President was an advocate for release of the assistance. Thank you. U yield back. Mr. Chairman. Unanimous consent request. General state his request. I consent to submit for the record the political article on Camila Cabello boosting the campaign authored by no objection. Entered into the record. And thank you mr. Chairman and to you both for being with us today. Mr. Kent, you said that a
president has the right to remove an ambassador, because the ambassador serves as the pressu pleasure of the president. Is that correct . Thats correct, maam. Does that usually come with a Smear Campaign of that ambassador by the president . I think the president has a decision to make the decision about the president s personal recommendation is separate from whatever happens outside the confines of u. S. Government processes. Do you have any idea why it was important to discredit ambassador yovanovitch . What she was not willing to do or to do . Why that was important . I guess it probably depends on the motivation of other people, and im not one of them. The committees investigation uncovered a Web Of Shadow Diplomacy engaged in and executed by several state Department Officials and the president s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and ultimately directed by President Trump. We have heard several ways of
describing this shady shadow operation, shad o shadow diplomacy. Ambassador, you described what you encountered as top diplomat on the ground in ukraine and i kwo quote, highly ig Rer Lal Channel of u. S. Policy making. You testified that the channel included ambassador volker, sondland, Secretary Perry and as you later learned the president s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Is that correct . Yes, maam. Both of you have explained that you grew seriously concerned when you realized that the interests of this irregular channel diverged from official u. S. Policy and interests. With mr. Giuliani promoting u. S. National interests or policy in ukraine, ambassador . I dont think so, maam. Mr. Kent . No, he was not. What interests do you believe he was promoting, mr. Kent . I believe he was looking to
dig up Political Dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. Ambassador taylor . What interest do you believe he was promoting . I agree with mr. Kent. The State Departments role is to promote u. S. Policies overseas. Not to help the current president win reelection. Is that correct, mr. Kent . All federal government enemployees are subject to the hatch act and about policies and not involved in partisan politics. Ambassador taylor . I agree. Whats the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy that is completely outside of normal channels and does not further u. S. Policy goals, ambassador taylor . Its possible to do one but not the other. That is, if its completely against u. S. Policy goals, then thats a mistake. Its not helpful. What you can, you can get advice and even have conversations
outside of the normal channels, but then they need to be part of u. S. Foreign policy, and approaching those goals. Mr. Kent . Agree. Ambassador taylor, you have described in your previous testimony one instance shortly after arriving in ukraine in which ambassador sondland asked state Department Officials no the to listen to a july 28th call he had planned to hold with president zelensky. Did you find that unusual . I did. What was the impact of ambassador Sondland Making that request . You found it unusual. What do you believe the impact was . Im not sure there was intermediate impact. Was there a recording or transcript . That was the impact. It was not recorded. Is that why the request was made, do you think, so there would not be normal state Department Employees from the Operation Center that would have
been there transcribing and taking notes . That is the norm, but it is also possible it is not unusual to not have it recorded. So you know that the State Department is holding your notes and refuses to provide them to congress, despite a duly authorized subpoena, and we know that in some instances your notes may be the Om Documentary Record of what happened. Do you, you are aware of that . Correct . Yes, maam. And mr. Kent, you are aware your notes have not been turned over to congress . I turned all records in my possession to the State Department, because whatever we do is considered a federal record not a personal record. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Chairman i at request . General stat is requested. I have a New York Times oped stating why President Trump should have done more investing in ukraine by a trio of ambassadors including william
taylor. Without objection that will be entered into the record. Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Walk you through a couple points raised by colleagues on the other side. One is they claim the July 25th Call summary shows no evidence of pressure on the ukrainian government. In fact, they argue the cnn live saturdayian ukrainians did not feel any pressure any time to deal with President Trumps requests for investigations. In fact, ambassador taylor at your deposition in october you stated that due to the hold that President Trump placed on aid to the ukraine, the ukrainians became quote unquote, desperate. Isnt that right . In august, they did not know as far as im aware, but at the end of august, the article came out in september. That minister of defense, for example, came to me. I would use the word desperate, to figure out why the assistance was being held. He thought that perhaps if he went through washington to talk to you, to talk to the secretary of defense, talk to the president , he would be able to find out and reassure, provide whatever answer was necessary, to have that assistance released. In fact, my colleagues on the other side suggest that president zelensky personally did not feel any pressure at any time and yet later on in september he finally relented in a conversation with Gordon Sondland according to your deposition in which he agreed to make a statement on cnn. Isnt that right . He had planned to make a statement on cnn. Yes, sir. My colleagues also say that the hold on u. S. Security assistance was listed on September 11th without any investigations happening on the part of the ukrainians, and, therefore, everything ended up
fine in the end . However, mr. Kent, as you know, the house intelligence Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees began this current investigation leading to proceedings today on September 9th. In fact, it was only two days after this particular set of committees began their investigations that the Trump Administration eventually released the military aid. Correct . That is the timeline, yes. Ambassador taylor, between the time of your October Deposition and now, did anyone from the Trump Administration contact you about your appearance before the committee today . No, sir. How about you, mr. Kent . No, sir. Ambassador taylor, i would like to turn to a word that by my count you used 13 times in your Opening Statement and that word is concern. You were concerned that aid was being conditioned on political
investigations, investigations. Isnt that right . Yes, sir. You were concerned that irregular channels of diplomacy were being used in our Foreign Policy in the ukraine. Right . Yes, sir. Ambassador taylor, can you rule out the possibility that these irregular channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct Foreign Policy . I cant ive not heard of any other of separate channels that has this kind of influence. That is, the giuliani kind of guidance. But you cant rule it out, right . No, sir. How about you mr. Kent . You cant rule it out either . I have no basis to make a determination. You dont believe the July 25th Call was perfect. Do you . I think some of the language
in the call gave cause for concern. Ambassador taylor . I agree. And what was the cause for concern for you . There was, part of the the discussion of the previous ambassador was a cause for concern. Ambassador taylor, i want to draw on your experience finally as a west point cadet and infantry commander in vietnam. In a battlefield situation, is a Commanding Officer allowed to hold up action placing his troops at risk until someone provides him a personal benefit . No, sir. Is that because if Commanding Officers did that they would be betraying their responsibility to the nation and the men and women under their command . Yes, sir. If that happened and were found out could that person be subject to discipline . Yes, sir. Could that type of Conduct Trigger a courtmartial . Yes, sir. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman for purposes thank you, chairman. Unanimous consent to enter into the record mr. Mulvaneys statement about lesolutely no qo quo. Without objection. Closing comments . Mr. Chairman. I recognize mr. Nunes for his comments. We will get your motion, after mr. Nunes brief Closing Remarks and mine. My intention to excuse the witnesses. Well have a very brief recess. Members should not go far. We will resume and take mr. C conaways motion. Mr. Nunes. Thank you. Ill be brief and reiterate what i said earlier that we really should stop holding these hearings until we get the answer to three important topics. The first being the full extent of the democrats prior coordination athe whistleblower, and who did the
whistleblower coordinate with. Second the full extent of ukraines Election Meddling against the trump campaign. And third, why did Barisma Hire Hunter Biden and what did he do for them . And in his position did it affect any u. S. Government actions under the obama administration. You are not allowing those witnesses to appear before the committee. Which i think is a problem. So we will expect hopefully you will allow us to bring in the whistleblower, the folks he spoke to and also numerous democratic operatives who worked with ukraine to meddle in the election. With that i yield back. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. For your decades of service to the country. I think you exemplify so many courageous men and women who
serve, and those who served in our military who represent the United States so well around the world. I appreciate how you endeavor to stay out of the fray, to relate what you heard, what you saw, without additional commentary. That is as it should be. You are both compelled to appear and we are grateful that you answered the Lawful Subpoenas that you received. The story you share in your experiences i think is a deeply troubling one. It is the story of a dedicated ambassador, someone who served with great distinction. Ambassador yovanovitch, who is the subject of a vicious Smear Campaign at the beginning of the year. It is the story of once this ambassador was pushed out of the
way, the creation of an irregular channel, which ambassador taylor you described went all the way from the president through Mick Mulvaney, through ambassador sondland, through ambassador volker, to Rudy Giuliani. That over time became apparent was not serving the u. S. Interests but running deeply contrary to the u. S. Interests. It was, in fact, conditioning a white house meeting that the president to ukraine desperately sought to establish himsel as new President Of Ukraine and demonstrate to foe and friend alike he had conditioning with the president of the United States of america and conditioned 400 million of tax funded Military Support for a nation at war. On the front lines of russian expansionism. A suspension of which was not in
the u. S. Interests not in ukraines interest not in our National Security interest ands in no way, shape or form. You described a situation in which those in the service of the president made it clear to ukrainians, they need to publically announce these investigations or they werent going to get that meeting and they sure werent going to get that military assistance. I would poent point out it came to our attention but maybe not yours, September 9th the Inspector General informed us the director of intelligence was withholding a whistleblower complaint in violation of the statute. By that point on September 9th, that complaint had made its way to the white house. On september 9ble when the Inspector General informed congress that that complaint had been withheld, white house also
learned congress would inevitably learn about the cl t complaint. Less than 48 hours later that the military aid would be released. Over the weeks to come or over the days to come, rather, we will hear from other dedicated public servants. Other aspects of this effort to invite foreign interference in our election to condition a white house meeting and military aid for the performance of political favors for the president s reelection campaign. We will hear from other witnesses. I appreciate members on both sides of the aisle who i think participated today in a serious way, and in a civil way. This is as it should be. There is no shortage of strong feelings about what this means to the country. At the end of the day were going to have to decide based on the evidence that you and others provide whether were prepared
to accept in the presence of the United States a situation where the president for their own personal or political benefit can condition military aid, diplomatic meet mooings or any other performance of an official act in order to get help in their reelection. Whether we will need to accept of this president or any future president the idea the president of the United States can invite a foreign country to intervene in our affairs. These are the decisions we will have to make when we have to decide whether this president should be impeached. But i want to thank you again. Just conclude by saying because i cant let it go unanswered, some of my colleagues made a statement repeatedly that ive met with the whistleblower that i know who the whistleblower is. It was false the first time they said it, false the second time and it will be false the last time they say it. With that, this concludes this portion of the hearing. I want to thank you gentlemen. I ask everyone to remain in
their seats. The witnesses are excused. Please allow them to leave the committee room. We will, once they leave the committee room, take a brief recess, and then we will resume to take up mr. Conaways motion. Once again i thank you, gentlemen. The first public impeachment hearing on a short break. Welcome to special coverage, im jake tapper in washington. The first two witnesses, bill taylor and george kent. Have now concluded. Top officials describing their knowledge of an alarming quid pro quo that everything a white house meeting and badly needed Security Systems to the ukraine, everything was conditioned on ukraine publically announcing investigations that would benefit President Trump politically including one into the bidens. Get our bick Picture Response from the panel. Jeffrey toobin, let me start with you. What was important . What do you think . The story of how this chapter
has unfolded has been largely known for some time, but there was one Important New Development today. Which was, ambassador taylor testified that one of his aides was present when ambassador sondland who was a key figure in all of this had a conversation with the president on july 26th, the day after his now infamous phone call with the President Of Ukraine, where he said, and this person who will testify next week, or friday, who will give a deposition on friday, said he overheard the president talking about investigations, and then sondland said to this group, the dinner table in kiev, that the president cares more about investigations of biden of the 2016 campaign than he does about anything else relating to ukraine. Thats important, because the
one criticism of these two witnesses which i think is very much legitimate, not really a criticism, a factual statement is that neither of them had direct contact with the president. Ever. Ever. Yeah. Thats a problem if youre going to impeach the president. We should point out to people with firsthand contact with the president the white house has prevented them Foreign Minister testifying including Mick Mulvaney. True enough. But sondland, emerging as an absolutely key witness who will testify in public next week. He did have contact with the president. One more disclosure of one more statement by the president that he didnt care about ukraine, except as a source of campaign dirt. Thats significant and the news of the day. David urban, your response of a lot of republicans talking about the aid went through, so none of this is, it matters, neither of you spoke with trump. The two witnesses, none of this
matters. Nunes, ranking republicans on the committee saying, we need to talk to the whistleblower. Thats the most important. What did you think . I think very important that ambassador taylor emphasized over and over again ukrainian hs no knowledge at the time of the call the aid was being withheld. Didnt know infer after the politico story was being withheld. This political fear. All about politics. This isnt a court of law. Its about politics. Today moved the need in anybodys opinion. Did anybody sitting at home in their living rooms, kitchens, whenever theyre watching have a different opinion than before . I think the answer is no. Unfortunately falling plat for democrats just as the mueller hearing. Wait for the next hearing. Hear from holmes. Today was going to be good but were hear from the gentleman that heard the call. Today wasnt good enough. Go to the next one. I think that if youre looking to remove a sitting president , you got to do way, way better
than this. One thing to point out. You accurately described bill taylors testimony. He didnt believe ukrainians knew about it until after disclosed publicly in late august. Two other witnesses that havent gotten that much attention, laura cooper, Deputy Assistant secretary of defense and catherine croft, woulds for the State Department both of them testified in depositions that the ukrainians knew earlier than that. Early on. Ambassador taylor said the Defense Minister said to him, only in september, called him and said, what going on . Right. You have to think the Defense Minister knew sooner he would have called taylor sooner. Just saying contradictory evidence. If thats what youre hanging it on you have a problem. What democrats are trying to do, you saw adam schiff do this, begin to tell the story. Tell a story of the timeline of exactly what transpired here. Why he led Opening Statement as
he did and Daniel Goldman did questions as he did, which was repeating information we are very familiar with. Those of us paying close attention to it. I thought they did interesting things to debunk other republican claims. One ask bill taylor whether in his experience 50 years as a Public Servient had he seen anything like that . Had he seen anything like this of a president of the United States holding assistance out for a personal gain . The answer is, no. That is something that debunks a big republican claim. We have several additional days of testimony. I dont know we know peoples minds havent been changed but this is the first day, and i think we have to see how it builds fromly pointing out, it everybodys personal opinion. Not i heard, i witnessed i saw, was a part of. Its my opinion. Its my opinion. Youre not go remove a president based on opinion. As you said, folks with firsthand knowledge are blocked out by this white house from appears. Mick mulvaney, john bolton. Because i thought bill taylors 20page statement he read in his narratorstyle, a beautiful voice, was the groundwork here and as you said, new information on here, in here about a phone call he overheard, just last friday. And i think sort of the Closing Argument you heard from nunes and the Closing Arguments you heard from schiff speak to the two different worlds republicans are in and democrats are in. Schiffs Closing Statement was essentially whether or not republicans and democrats and the country will accept whether a United States president can condition foreign aid on whether or not a foreign country is going to collect dirt on an opponent and that is the critical question youre a democrat you want to keep coming back to in these hearings and nunes is all over the map. Wondering where is the whistleblower . What about hunter biden and barisma and ukraine interfering
in the 20 16 election . Citing a conspiracy. Democrats keep hammering down the point what this president did on that phone call and throughout in i thought in taylors testimony, raid out what he saw essentially from midjane takes the post at mike pompeos hemmrecommendation up midseptember. All of the things that happened in terms of him coming to find out about these two different tracks of Foreign Policy. One regular and one highly irregular and unprecedented. He testified this is something he had never seen before. And questioning by demings, a former police chief from florida, democratic congresswoman, basically george kent and bill taylor agreed with the sentiment, what was Rudy Giuliani doing . Was he carrying out the interests of the United States . And george kent said, no, trying to dig up dirt on the bidens. Taylor agreed. Youre an impeachment attorney. Interesting specialty. Let me ask you. How did this go in terms of the case the democrats are clearly trying to build in favor of impeachment . Was it is a devastating day . Or was it mixed . What do you think . The first thing that strikes me in hearing the, the proceeding today is that the framers vested the house and the senate with authority over impeachment thinking that the members of congress would be more sophisticated than typical jurors. Doesnt matter what evidence is hearsay or anything else. Framers assumption, members of congress should be sophisticated enough to put the evidence together. Second thing that strikes me is a lot of what we didnt hear is really significant. Already pointed out. Probably cant be stressed enough. There are a lot of people not being allowed to testify. A lot of people that have been numerous subpoenas, that have been not complied with at direction of the president. Why does he not want those people to speak . It may well be that they can
inform us even more about the apparent strategy happening on the ground. As far as Rudy Giuliani is concerned, we also have to remember, and this relates to the impeachment process, whats he doing there . Hes not there on vacation. Hes there to carry out the president s order. Which is, find dirt or perhaps make dirt about the bidens. What is Rudy Giuliani doing there . Because he has tweeted even, just a couple days ago. Everythinging i was doing was for the benefit of my client. I was acting as a defense attorney. Also said the opposite to Laura Ingraham one time. Operating on orders from the State Department. He has given different answers as to whether he was doing this for the president as his client or on behalf of the u. S. For Foreign Policy. And other clients including the two gentlemen under indictment. Was he working for them as well . It is a he is, of course, yet another person who could provide
great deals of information to the committee, if he were to choose to testify. Bring in fareed zakaria. He is here on cnn, and fareed, today bill taylor described two channels of u. S. Policy making toward ukraine. One regular and one highly lly irregular. Latter, u. S. Ambassador to sondland, volker, perry and mulvaney and the president s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. You have covered International Politics for years. Obviously there are back channels in foreign relations, things are not always done through the ambassador. Does this remind you of anything youve ever heard of before . No. Its really quite unusual, and i think ambassador taylor was very clear and intelligent and articulate on that issue. He said the problem is not having a separate channel. And that was not his problem with it, though he found it
somewhere irregular. The problem was having a separate channel that is trying to achieve the president s personal political goals, not National Security. So when you get into back channels to do the opening to china, that was a back channel. But it was in support of a National Interest of the United States decided upon by the president , which was to try and have an operation with china. Here what you have is an irregular back channel appointed political appointees and some state Department Career officials, but what you are using it for, this is the key, you are using it for a personal political payoff. That is why all of the people around this chain have been so alarmed. It was State Department professionals, they know that the president is the boss. He has political advisors. Those people may come from from time to time. Thats not a problem. Theyve lived with that. What is a problem when the
president is trying to pursue his personal political efforts and use them out in Foreign Policy and the apparatus of american policy to do that. Fareed, you in your show are relevant, part of this whole story, because you were the cnn person set to interview president zelensky, the President Of Ukraine. Taylor testified, ambassador bill taylor said he did not want zelensky to do that interview where zelensky was supposed to announce these investigations he was going to do. Take a listen to this excerpt from the testimony today. I know that the ukrainians are very concerned about the Security Assistance, and i know that they were prepared, or preparing, to do, to make a public statement, that is with a cnn interview that that was being planned. Those are the two pieces that i know. And that cnn interview was to
announce these investigations as you understood it. Right . That was the implication. Certainly the implication. So fareed, and reminder, of course, to everybody watching in the United States that your show airs All Over The World including in ukraine. Theres a reason why cnn or cnni would be chosen for this. What did you know about this interview when you and your team where trying to negotiate a sitdown with the new President Of Ukraine who regardless of this Investigation Stuff and ukraine scandal was a legitimate story and compelling player in his own right . This is a great question. First let me be clear. Of course, we had no knowledge that the president , that president zelensky was going to announce this investigation into the bidens and into 2016 on the, during the interview. My guess is that the way they were thinking about it as politicians often do planning an interview, they were going to reveal certain things at a certain point. Presumably i would have asked a e question, what are you doing
ar rooting out corruption in ukraine . He would say, heres what im doing. Pretty much since once he got elected. Very interesting character. And you just heard of today in the front lines of the great struggle between the west and russia. And they had been encouraging and negotiating back and forth, things picked up around august and september. I went to kiev to meet with him. It seemed it was confirmed and then it fell apart right about the time just after the news of the whistleblower came out. So it is possible to conclude that they realized the story was now public and the aid had been released, they didnt need to do the interview. Im sorry to interrupt. Theyre doing the vote. A roll call in the house and inquiry and lets go back to that. Theyre doing a roll col and
voting on whether or not they will call the whistleblower in to testify. Lets listen. Mr. Herd . Mr. Ratcliff. Mr. Jordan . No. Is there any member wishing to vote or wishing to change his or her vote . The clerk shall report the vote. Mr. Chairman there are 13 ayes and nine noes. On the vote there were 13 ayes and nine knows, the motion is carried. We are adjourned. So i believe that was a motion from a House Republican George Conaway no, mike conaway who was trying to get i
believe the whistleblower to come before the committee. But the vote i think ill get to the vote in a second. But the democrats said we want to table this motion that would force the Intelligence Community whistleblower to come and testify before the committee and republicans voted no and democrats voted yes because the votes wanted to table this vote. So there were 13 ayes, democrats voting to table and nine noes and republicans voting because they wanted to vote and bring the whistleblower forward. That is just what happened and then we have adjourned for the rest of the day. Lets go back to what were talking about because something that was interesting i thought is the degree to which republicans are talking about the whistleblower and focusing on we need to bring the whistleblower forward because this is all i think the general argument from nunes, which is contradicted by many witnesses but the general argument is this is all just made up. And peter welch had the line of the day when he said, no,
this all started when with donald trump so we can bring him in to testify which was a light moment needed. I think the whistleblower has become the recent focus of republicans on the committee as theyre searching for a strategy in this situation. As we all know and youve been reporting on, there are countless people who have testified who are closer to this than the whistleblower who have confirmed the details. The whistleblower is irrelevant at this point. Because people have testified on the record from the National Security team, from the State Department to the specific details and theyll continue to do that in public over the next two weeks but this is the hook republicans have their teeth clenched into. And we were told by democrats and the actual whistleblower complaint that we saw that was unclassified that the whistleblower did have firsthand information and it was not just second and thirdhand information or hearsay. Do republicans not have a point they should be able to in private and protecting the
whistleblowers identity they could have submitted questions. They were given an opportunity from his attorneys and mark zaid and others to submit written questions. In any case, do they not have a point . If you were conducting a congressional investigation which does not have rules of evidence the way a trial does, more evidence is always better. So i cant blame the republicans for wanting to get more evidence. They have a very selective interest in what evidence they want. They dont care about john bolton, they dont care about Mick Mulvaney. They want this apparently midlevel figure who doesnt have a lot of information, but may have some. So it is not an illegitimate thing to get all of the information that is relevant. However, if they are using it simply to vilify him and to endanger his life as the person who started it, that is not a legitimate concern. And im not a mind reader. I cant tell what the true motivations are of the republicans. Whether it is a political motive to just demonize this guy or to get more evidence, thats a question that people can decide for themselves. And davidush lan, let me ask you, i thought there were two republicans that made arguments with the witnesses that basically were solid republican arguments but also bolstered the credibility of the witness. One was congresswoman stefanik that said that george kent raised objections, appearance of a Conflict Of Interest and impropriety with hunter biden being on the board and she got that on the record and then congressman win strop who got bill taylor to point out, isnt it great that trump is the one that got lethal military aid to the ukrainians and president obama never did. Meanwhile, other House Republicans and the white house and the gop are attacking these two witnesses. Look, i dont think you could attack the veracity of bill
taylor. Clearly combat veteran, and west point graduate and patriot and same with george kent. They are both doing what they think is their duty. But the problem is, it is their opinion. Theyre telling the opinion on the items not the facts. We want to hear from david holmes. Im surprised he wasnt the first witness called. You want to open big, this guy has alleged firsthand knowledge of the call. But yet the call between july 26th, the call occurs, we dont hear about the guy until last week. Why didnt he complain to somebody . I dont think it is fair to say they just testified about their feelings. They testified about what happened with the story of american aid to ukraine and why that was told to them. But they were key players in that story. But theyll stir they reacted to what was told to them by others. This is hey what i heard. No, but, jeffrey, they werent firsthand participants. They were reacting to what was told to them by others. And david what you are discounting that combined they have 80 years of experience in Public Service and much of that time is working on issues like ukraine and europe and they know when something smelled funny and they had notes of calls and conversations and that is hardly feelings. They are reporting out the details which is important part of the story. They never met the president or talked to the president about ukraine policy. It is hard to get into theyre saying i think the president wanted this or that. They never talked to him. So do you think the republicans should call john bolton and Mick Mulvaney because they had conversations with the president. Do you think that would change what were going to take a quick break. Ill take a break. And well bring in jim jordan House Republican from ohio and listen to what he had to say a sad episode for the
country but like we said in the floor today, facts will not change. The transcript speaks for itself. There was no conditionality or quid pro quo in the transcript. The two guys on the call have been very clear, no pressure, no pushing, no linkage to investigations in both president zelensky and President Trump have said and of course president Zelensky Didnt Pledge to do any investigations prior to the aid being released ant the kaerns didnt know the aid was on hold at the time of the call. The first two witnesses, neither one of them has talked to the president , talked to Chief Of Staff mulvaney or talked with mayor giuliani. And as i said with ambassador taylor, he had three meetings with president zelensky and all three meetings never once did this idea of linking Security Assistance dollars to an investigation ever come up. And of course we know what president zelensky said. No pledge, no promise, no starting of any investigations prior to the aid being released. So again, i think it is a sad chapter for the country but a good day for the facts and the president of the United States. I will turn it over to mrs. Stephanie. Thank you, mr. Jordan. This is adam schiffs first opportunity in front of the public and the hearings have been conducted in a Basement Bunker and this is an abject failure for the democrats and for adam schiff. Number one, he still refuses to hear from the whistleblower. Which started off this whole process. Number two, in less than 20 minutes adam schiff interrupted republicans questions so we want to make sure that all members are able to ask questions that includes republican members. This is a continuation of his conduct in closeddoor meetings and the key facts are as follows, one, ukraine got the aid. Two, there was no investigation into the bidens. Those facts speak for themselves and im proud of our members making sure those facts were clear for the american public
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.