President , correct . Its appropriate for the Justice Department and the Prosecutor General to cooperate and to exchange information, yes. But to the extent that the president has concerns and to the extent that the Attorney General is having u. S. Attorney durham look into it, isnt it entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for president zelensky and say that you should be in touch with our official channels . Mr. Castor, i dont know the precise appropriateness of these kind of relations. Now, were you involved, either of you involved with the preparation for the 7 25 call . I was not. I was not. And how do you account for that . I mean, you were the two of the key officials with responsibility for ukrainian policy. If the president of the United States is going to have a call with the leader of the ukraine, why wouldnt
you ordinarily be involved with preparation . Sir, we work for the Department Of State in an embassy overseas and in preparation for a president ial phone call that responsibility lies within the staff of the National Security council. Normally, if there is enough sufficient time, National Security staff can solicit information, usually from the state department, and we can draw on the embassy. But thats only Background Information and my understanding, having never ever worked at the Security Council is National Security staff write a memo to the president and none of us see that outside of the National Security staff. Okay. So the sergeant or the u. S. Ambassador to the country wouldnt be on the call with the foreign leader. Thats correct. Would not. And did Colonel Vindman or anyone at the National SecurityCouncil Staff reach out to you, mr. Kent, in preparation for the call . I was given notification the day before on july 24th and to the extent i had any role, it was to reach out to
the ambassador, give them a heads up and ask them to ensure that the secured Communications Link in the office of the president of the ukraine was functional so the call could be patched through from the white house situation room. Did you provide any substantive advice to Colonel Vindman about the call and what ought to be the official position . I was not asked and i did not provide. Okay. Same with you, ambassador . The same. And the call was scheduled, you know, you testified earlier that the call was on againoff again. And after the July 10th Meeting with ambassador bolton, the consensus was the call was not going to happen; is that correct . I would not say that was the consensus. The States Department position was that a call between the two president s would be useful and once zelenskys party won the first ever absolute majority in parliamentary elections on july 21st, the idea of a congratulatory call made
perfect sense from our perspective. Okay. And the call was scheduled and did you get a readout, Ambassador Taylor, initially from the call . I didnt, mr. Castor. I read the we all read the statement that the ukrainians put out. I got a readout several days later from mr. Morrison National Security council. Okay. And how about you, mr. Kent . I, likewise, First Saw The Ukrainian statement and i believe the next day, july 26th, which would have been a friday, i did get a partial readout from Lieutenant Colonel vinman, yes. You said the Ukrainian Readout was cryptic. Is that because its initially written in ukrainian and translated to the u. S. . No. Its as a general rule, both United States and other countries, including ukraine, will put out very
short summaries that kind of hit the highlights of the discussion. But without going into detail. Okay. And you mentioned it was cryptic. Why did you think it was cryptic . Knowing now having read the transcript, and looking back at their summary. Umhuh. As i recall, I Dont Recall the exact words, but they said that there were issues to be pursued in order to improve relations between the two countries or Something Like that. That seems pretty ordinary. It seems pretty ordinary. You were with president zelensky the very next day. We were. We had a meeting with him the very next day. And did president zelensky raise any concerns about his views of the call . He said right. So, Ambassador Volker,
ambassador sondland were in his office. And we asked him, i think, how was the call he . Said the call was fine. I was happy with the call. Okay. And did you get any additional readout subsequently . Like when did you first learn that the call contained things that concerned you . Was that not until September 25th . Mr. Morrison, as i say, briefed me several days later, before the end of july, and i think this is where i said in my testimony that he said it could have gone better. And he said that the call mentioned mr. Giuliani. He also said that the call mentioned the former ambassador. Both of those were concerning. Giuliani was first raised on the call by president zelensky, correct . I dont recall. Okay. It could have been. I have it here if you would like. Yeah, its on page 3. The first mention of s on page 3. From president and president zelensky says i will personally tell you one of my assistants spoke with mr. Giuliani just recently and were hoping very much that mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine and we will meet once he comes to ukraine. Did that surprise you . Again, i didnt have the transcript at the time. All i heard was that giuliani was mentioned. Mr. Morrison said that giuliani was mentioned in the call. But the way zelensky states it here, it sounds like he is very much looking forward to speaking with americas mayor. Thats what i found out when i read the transcript on the 25th Of September or so. Okay. Now, mr. Kent, Corruption In Ukraine is endemic, correct . Thats correct. And it effects the courts, the prosecutors, and there have historically been problems with all the prosecutors in ukraine, correct . I would say up until the new set of prosecutors appointed by president zelensky in the last two months, correct. Okay. So the u. S. Government, the consensus at the state department and the National Security council and the white house is that zelensky is the real deal. Rereformer. He is genuinely interested in rooting out corruption, prosecuting the bad guys. Correct . I would say we are cautiously optimistic and we will work wherever there is the political will to do the right thing and put forward genuine reform. And at the heart of the corruption is this oligarc oligarchical system, correct . Where the oligarchs take control often by virtual theft of, you know, for
example, the right to Certain Energy licenses. Correct . That is one element. Yes, sir. And the Company Burisma, its leader, he has a little bit of a storied history of corruption, doesnt he . Mr. La krzyzewski was minister of energy in 20102012. He used his authority to award gas an act of corruption in my view, yes. Certainly selfdeal . Certainly selfdealing and selfenriching. And how did the Ukrainian Government ultimately pursue that . In the spring of 2014 the Ukrainian Government, the new government after revolution of dignity returned to partners, particularly the u. S. And the u. K. To try to recover tens of billions of dollars of Stolen Assets. The first case that we tried to recover that money came
from mr. La krzyzewski, Serious Crimes Office in the ukraine had opened up an investigation. They opened up with us and ukrainian authorities developed more information. The 23 million was frozen until until somebody in the general Prosecutors Office of ukraine shut the case, issued a letter to his lawyer and that money pentagon poof. Essentially pay to bribe to make the case go away. That is our strong assumption, yes, sir. Okay. At any point in time, is anyone in the Ukrainian Government tried to reinvestigate that . Or did those crimes go unpunished and was he free to go . Mr. La krzyzewski spent time, as far as i understand, in moscow and monaco after he fled ukraine. We continued to raise as a Point Of Order that because u. S. Taxpayer dollars had been used to try to recover frozen assets that we have a fiduciary responsibility and we have continued to press ukrainian officials to for why d corrupt prosecutors had closed a case and we have
till now, not gotten a satisfactory answer. So to summarize, we thought the la cress ski had stolen money and prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case and those were our concerns. Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted . I think since u. S. Taxpayer dollars were wasted, i would love to see the ukrainian Prosecutor Generals Office find hot corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe and how much it was paid. And thats what i said to the Deputy Prosecutor General on february 3rd, 2015. But in addition to prosecuting the person that took the bribe, shouldnt the organization or individual that sponsored the bribes be prosecuted . I would agree that the ukrainian Law Authority should uphold the rule of law and hold people account for breaking ukrainian law. So, this Company Burisma involved in lots of criminal activity, correct . I do not know that. Over the years, its been involved in a number of questionable dealings, correct . I would say that its the largest private gas producer in the country and its Business Reputation is mixed. So, to the extent a new regime is coming in under president zelensky, it certainly would be fair for the new prosecutor, a genuine prosecutor, to reexamine old crimes that hadnt sufficiently been brought to justice, right . I believe that the new Prosecutor General made a statement to that and that they would be reviewing past cases. But keep in mind this is a country where those that commit crimes generally never get held to account. So there is a lot to review. Okay. Now, this the bribe was paid in what year . To the best of my knowledge, the case against la krzyzewski, the former minister was shut down december 2014. Okay. And right around that time,
burisma starts adding people to its board; is that correct . My understanding is that, yes, la krzyzewski invited a series of new individuals to join the board in 2014. Do you know what his strategy was in adding officials to his board. I have never met mr. La chef ski. Who are some of the folks that he added to the board. The most prominent person he added to the board was the former president of poland. Anyone else. There were a number of others including some americans and the most prominent one in this context is hunter biden. So hunter biden is added to the board of burisma. Now, do you think that creates a problem a problem that burisma may be adding people to its board for Protection Purposes . Sir, i work for the government. I dont work in the corporate sector and so i believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons. Not only not only build business plans. Was hunter biden a Corporate Governance expert. I have no idea what hunter biden studied at university or what his cv says. Iis He The Jeffrey of ukraine . I have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was and what he may have done on the board of burisma. So you dont know whether he has any Business Experience in ukraine prior to joining burismas board . I have heard nothing about prior experience, no. Do you know if he speaks ukrainian . I do not. Do you know if he possesses any other element, other than the fact that he is the son of, at the time, the sitting Vice President . I do not. Ambassador taylor, do you know whether hunter biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad is a former Vice President . I dont. Or at the time was the Vice President . I have no knowledge of hunter biden. But you would agree it raises questions, right . Right . He was getting paid, i think, 50,000 a month to sit on a board . Do you know if he relocated to ukraine . Im sorry, mr. Say
again . Do you know if hunter biden relocated to ukraine . No knowledge. Do you know mr. Kent . Again, no knowledge. Okay. So, he is getting paid 50,000 a month but we dont know whether he had any experience, he had any spoke the language or whether he moved to ukraine, correct . Correct. Now, at this time, Vice President biden was taking a specific interest in ukraine, wasnt he . He was. Could you tell us about that . I believe while he was Vice President he made a total of six visits to ukraine. One may have been during the old regime and that would make five visits after the revolution of dignity which started february of 2014. Okay. And you were the dcm, the Deputy Chief Of Mission at the time, correct . Starting in 2015, yes. Okay. And did Vice President biden come when you were post . He did no. I came back for ukrainian Language Training so i missed several visitors. Now, you have seen Vice President bidens he has
sort of given a speech is he a little folksy about how he went into ukraine and he told the ukrainians that if they dont fire the prosecutor they are going to lose their 1 billion in loan guarantees. Have you seen that correct . I have. I think it was a speech at the counsel of Foreign Relations in 2014. Right. You have also said he has been to ukraine 13 times. Do you know if thats accurate . Tij, when he was Vice President he made six visits. And did the state department ever express any concerns to the Vice President s office that the Vice President s role at the time, engaging on ukraine, presented any issues . No, the Vice President s role was critically important. It was top cover to help us pursue our policy agenda. Okay. But, given Hunter Bidens role on. [buzzer] thats Board Of Directors at some point you testified in your deposition that you expressed some concern to the Vice President s office; is that correct . That is correct. What did they do about
that concern that you expressed . I have no idea. I routerred my concern to the office of the Vice President. Okay. And that was the end of it . Nobody sir, you would have to ask people who work in the office of Vice President during 2015. But after you expressed concern of a perceived conflict of interest, at the least, the Vice President s engagement in ukraine didnt decrease, did it . Correct. Because the Vice President was promoting u. S. Policy objectives in ukraine. And Hunter Bidens role on the board of burisma didnt cease, did it . To the best of my knowledge was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest. Now, Ambassador Taylor, i want to turn to the discussion of the irregular channel, you described. And in fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, its not as
outlandish as it could be. Is that correct . Its not as outlandish as it could be. Yeah, agree. Okay, we have Ambassador Volker who is a former Senate Confirmed ambassador to nato, a Longtime State Department diplomat and have you known Ambassador Volker for years, correct . Thats correct. A man of unquestioned integrity, correct . Thats correct. And somebody with Incredible Knowledge of the region . With very goodtes. Yes, im sure thats right. And the best interest of ukraine . His First Priority is clearly the United States. Okay. And to the extent that ukraine has an implication for that, yes. Okay. Ukraine as well. The second member of the irregular channel is ambassador sondland who is senateconfirmed, ambassador to the eu. So his involvement here while you know, not necessarily part of his official duties as the
ambassador to the eu, certainly is not outlandish for him to be interested and engaged pursuant to the president or secretary pompeos direction. Correct . Its a little unusual for the u. S. Ambassador to the eu to play a role in Ukraine Policy. Okay. And, you know, it might be irregular but its certainly not outlandislandish . And then Secretary Perry is the third member of the irregular channel. Certainly a, you know, senateconfirmed official, somebody with deep experience in energy markets. And he was pursuing some, you know, Liquified Natural Gas projects in ukraine . Thats correct, mr. Castor. So his involvement, Secretary Perrys involvement is perfectly acceptable . It is. Okay. Now, this irregular channel as it developed, when did you determine that it became
problematic . I mean, in your Opening Statement you identified yourself appropriately as the leader of the regular channel. At least a participant. Here is another leader of the regular channel. So when did you first develop concerns that the irregular channel was being problematic . So i arrived in kiev by Late September. By Late September a couple of phone calls with you afox news live kiev in june, right . June, sorry. June 17th . Mid june. June 17th, thank you. And so by the end of june, i had begun to hear references to investigations. Umhuh. As something that would have to happen prior to the meeting that President Trump had offered to president
zelensky. That began to raise questions for me. Okay. Now, yo you have known Ambassador Volker and you certainly have a reason to know ambassador sondland. What did you do at this point or did you ever try to arrest control of the irregular channel . I didnt try to rest control of the regular channel do that. At the time. Why not though if you were concerned. Because, mr. Castor, at the time, as no, secretary kent testified, both channels, both of those both channels were interested in having a meeting between president zelensky and President Trump. So, we are there is no reason to kind of rest control if we were going in the same directions. But at some point, you
did all the concerns. Your Opening Statement is here. You are the impeachment witness number one and you are number two, mr. Kent. You know, Fort Case Impeaching the president of the United States because of the concerns you have testified about the irregular channel, correct . I was concerned when the regular channel appeared to be going against the overall the irregular channel was going against the overall direction of and purpose of the regular channel. As i understand the record, however, when you arrived in ukraine, you had the support of the secretary and the secretarys top advisor counselor, correct . That is correct. They assured you if you had any concerns you would be able to contact them and they would have your back . That is correct. And you knew going in that the Rudy Giuliani element presented some complexities, correct . I was concerned about
Rudy Giulianis statements and involvement in the Ukraine Policy, yes. Okay. So, when it genuinely became, you know, a concern for you, what did you do to either engage sondland and volker, perry and giuliani by the way, have you ever met giuliani during these times relevant . Not during the times relevant. He visited, mr. Giuliani visited ukraine one time when i was there. I think in 2007 or 2008. Thats the only time i have met him. Okay. So you have never had any communications with Rudy Giuliani of you who these irregular channel business. Thats correct. Thats correct. And anyway, getting back to my question, did you try to engage break buel or the secretary, you know, during this time period . I know you said had you, i believe, an august 21st or
22nd Telephone Call with breck buel . You had a july 10th Telephone Call with breck buel and then you sent a first person cable to the secretary On August 29th . Thats correct. Is that sort of the universe universe of initiatives took inside the state department your concerns regular channel. I also raised my concerns with deputy secretary george kent in particular early on when i think i may have mentioned this phone call that was odd in that it did not include the normal staf staff, indeed ambassador sondlands staff. And that struck me as unusual. I consulted with mr. Kent mr. Kent of this and also i had a conversation with mr. Bret bull. That was a june 28th
call, i believe . Thats correct. And in your Opening Statement you expressed some concerns about what ambassador sondland had said. Once zelensky got on the phone it proceeded in a very regular channel way, correct . Thats correct. The June 28th Call didnt ultimately as it played out present any problems for you . The call poor president zelensky did not. The preparation for that call. The preparation included maybe 15 minutes of just the just irregular in that it didnt have the staff. It was also in that precall in that 15 minutes before president zelensky got on the phone where ambassador Volker Bamentsz volker told
the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation with in toronto in three or four days where he would outline for president zelensky the important components of the phone call that we were trying to establish. Okay. And you didnt have any issue with that, did you . The only issue i had with that, mr. Castor, was there was reference to investigations ii would have to check my notes on that. Raised issues for me that i didnt understand what Ambassador Volker had in mind that he was specifically going to raise with mr. Zelensky. That was a little bit of a concern. Okay. The president has expressed his, you know, interest in certain investigations. Certainly relating to the 2016 election and relating to this corrupt burisma outfit. So, that wasnt inconsistent with the president s message, right . Im not sure, mr. Castor, can i ask you to repeat the question . The president s concerns about the 2016 election and the need to get to the bottom of it and the president s concerns as it ultimately related to the burisma company, i mean, if Ambassador Volker is raising that with zelensky, thats consistent with the direction of the president , correct . The president s interest or i would say mr. Giulianis interest thats what was very clear at the time. Right. Mr. Giulianis interest in pursuing these investigations was of concern. But by the time do you know how many times volker met with giuliani . I dont. How many would you guess . Was he talking to him all the time or meeting with him all the time . Mr. Castor, i dont know. Okay. From his at his deposition he told us just once. And, you know, he texted back and forth with the mayor. Had a call or two. But, it wasnt a pervasive engagement for Ambassador Volker. Were you aware of that . I was not aware. I was aware of one breakfast, i think. Thats the only one that i was aware of. Mr. Kent, before my time expires, i want to circle back to the company of burisma. And you testified at your deposition that there was an instance where usaid had engaged with burisma and possibly sponsoring a program and you took issue with that and recommended usaid to pull back from that could you tell us about that . So i became aware in the summer, i believe of 2016 that as a part of what i
recall was a clean Energy Awareness campaign that part of the usaid worked on Governance Energy sponsored some kind of a contest young ukrainians to come up with a theme there was a prize. I believe it may have been a camera. They had cosponsored with publicprivate sponsorship being a buzz word having a cosponsorship with burisma. Given the past history of our interest in recovering Stolen Assets from la krzyzewski, it was my view that it was inappropriate for the embassy to be cosponsoring a contest with burisma. I raised that with the Mission Director at the embassy. She agreed. And the Usaid Mission kept the contest but dropped the public youprivate partnership sponsorship. The time of the gentleman has expired. I will now move to fiveminute member rounds. I recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Kent, i want to follow up on my colleagues questions regarding burisma. You testified about a time when an oligarch named la krzyzewski, i think it was was selfdealing awarding himself contracts when was that, to my knowledge, he was minister of ecology 2010 to 2012. At the time licenses to have exploration of gas were awarded by subdivision of the ministry of ecology. So this corrupt selfdealing then was approximately seven years, at least seven years before the events that bring us here today, the phone call on the 25th and the events around it . Correct. His time as minister was 2010 to 2012. Hunter biden joined the
board of burisma in 2014. And you have read the call transcript. Have you not . I have. And i have it in front of me but i havent read it for about a month. Is there any mention of the discussion with President Trump and president Zelensky Oligarch La Krzyzewski who seven years earlier had been selfdealing. To my knowledge, no. Is there a discussion of Awarding Contracts to oneself or the corrupt acts in the 2012 to 2014 time frame. To the best of my knowledge, no. The president brings up crowdstrike, the server, and bidens; is that right . I see that here, yes. There was no discussion on that call of setting up an Anti Corruption court or looking into corruption among oligarchs or companies in general. The president s comments were focused on two things, 2016 and the bidens. Am i right . I believe so, yes. Now, you testified in your Opening Statement i do not believe the United States should ask her countries to engage in selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power. Because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country. The selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions of opponents against those in power, are you referring to the bidens there . Im referring as a general principle about the promotion of the rule of law. But that would apply to the president of the United States seeking an investigation of his political opponent. Would it not. It could be interpetraeused that way, yes, sir. And i take it in your discussions Ambassador Taylor with ambassador sondland or others whether a was communicated to you that the president wanted investigation into the 2016 and the bidens not
selfdealing but 2016 and the bidens. Was that your understanding . That was my understanding. And, in fact, when you said your staff overheard this call between ambassador sondland and the president , in that call, the president brings up investigation. Does he not . He did. And, immediately after the president gets off the phone with sondland, sondland is asked by your staff what does the president think about ukraine . And his answer is he is just interested in the bidens. Am i right . He said he was more interested in the bidens. More interested in the bidens. No discussion of la chess ski or chalupa or things that happened seven years ago . He was interested in the bidens . Yes, sir. Now, i think you also testified that. Pump wanted zelensky in a public box; is that right . Yes, sir. By public box public statements investigations of the bidens were not enough . He had to go on tv. He had to go public in some way because the president wanted him in that box. Is that your understanding . Mr. Chairman i dont know what he had in mind or ambassador sondland had in mind who was the one who mentioned that to me. Thats the implication. The implication needed to be public as opposed to being a privacprivate assurance. I think you said in that same call you asked ambassador sondland to push back on President Trumps demand. , is that right . Thats correct, sir. So you understood from your conversation with sondland this was the president s demand. Not sondlands the
president s demand. And you wanted the president tsondlandto push back. Ambassador sondland was clearly able to have conversations with the president and i thought that the pressure on another president , on president zelensky was not a good idea from either president standpoint. So i suggest i suggested in that phone call to with ambassador sondland that he, since he regularly or frequently had conversation with the president , could make that point. I think the way you express yourself you wanted someone to push back on President Trumps demand, right . Yes, sir. So it was your understanding from talking to sondland, this is what the president wanted him to do and you wanted sondland to push back. I asked ambassador sondland to push back, thats correct. In fact, even after the aid was ultimately released. Even after the white house
learns of the whistleblower complaint and congressional released. Even after those events you were still worried that zelensky was going to feel it necessary to go on cnn and announce these investigations, were you not . I was still worried that he might do that. So, yes, i thought that would be a bad idea and so when there was some indication that there might still be a plan for the cnn interview in new york, which was upcoming, at the United NationsGeneral Assembly meeting. I was worried i wanted to be sure that this didnt happen so i addressed it with the zelensky staff. And i think you said earlier that danylyuk, the National Security advisor then for zelensky, was concerned Zelensky Didnt Want to be used as some tool in american politics. Is that right . Thats correct, sir. So Zelensky Didnt Want to go on tv and announce political investigations that he thought would myer him in u. S. Politics, right . He knew that he and his advisors knew that its a bad idea to interject, to
interfere in other nations elections, yes, sir. But, nonetheless, it appeared until the aid was lifted, the hold was lifted, that he felt compelled to do it . He was making plans his staff was making plans to have him make some kind of announcement, i dont know what it would have been, on cnn in public. Even though he didnt want to be mired in u. S. Politics. Even though he knew it was a bad idea to interfere in other peoples elections. Mr. Nunes, you are recognized for seven minutes and 10 seconds. I thank the gentleman for that. Ambassador taylor, you said in your deposition that the first time you heard about this issue with Rudy Giuliani and im paraphrasing but you read in the new york times. Is that correct . I do remember that first i do remember noticing about mr. Giuliani being involved in this in that article, yes, sir. I think one of the mothers of all Conspiracy Theories is that somehow the president of the United States would want a country that he doesnt ivan like, he doesnt want to give foreign aid to, to have the ukrainians start an investigation into bidens. With that i would yield to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ambassador taylor thank you for being hire. Aid is held up on july 18th, is that right . Thats when i first heard about it. And then its released to Ambassador Taylor on september 11th. We know that from your deposition in those 55 days that aid is delayed you met with president zelensky three times. The first one was july 26th, the day after the famous call between President Trump and president zelensky. Zelensky meets with you Ambassador Volker and ambassador sondland and again according to your deposition and your testimony, there was no linkage of Security Assistance dollars to investigating burisma or the bbidens. Second meeting august 27th. Again in time frame. Second meeting august 22nd. President zelensky meets you and ambassador bolton and others and then there is no linkage of Security Assistance dollars to an investigation of the bidens. And of course the third meeting is september 5th. President zelensky meets with you and Senators Johnson and murphy and once again, there is no linkage of Security Assistance dollars no an investigation of burisma or the bidens. Three meetings with the president of ukraine, the new president and no linkage. Thats accurate . Mr. Jordan, certainly accurate on the first two. First two meetings because, to my knowledge the ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until, until the 29th of august. Politico article. Politico article. The third meeting that you mentioned with the senators Senators Murphy and senator johnson, there was discussion of the security
assistance. No linkage . There was not there was not discussion of linkage. Three meetings, face to face, with president zelensky, no linkage. Yet, in your deposition, you said this and you said it again the first hour of the majority. My clear understanding was Security Assistance money would not come until president zelensky committed to pursue the investigation. My clear understanding was they werent going to get the money until president zelensky committed to pursue the investigations. Now with all due respect, mr. Ambassador, your clear understanding was obviously wrong. Because it didnt happen. President zelensky didnt announce he was going to investigate burisma or the bidens. He didnt do a press conference. And say im going to investigate the bidens, we are going to investigate burisma. He didnt tweet about it. And you just told the Ranking Member he didnt do the cnn interview and announce he is going to investigate burisma or the bidens. So three facetoface meetings. It doesnt come up. No linkage whatsoever. President zelensky doesnt announce it before the aid is released on the 11th. And, yet, you said you have a clear understanding that those two things were going to happen. The money was going to get released but not until there was an investigation and that, in fact, didnt happen. So what im wondering is, where did you get this clear understanding . As i testified, mr. Jordan, this came from ambassador sondland. Can you hold one second, ambassador, im going to bring you a piece of paper from ambassador sondlands statement. Very good. And you can take a look at this. Go ahead though, i will let you finish. Shall i read this. No, no. I just want you to have it because im going to read it . Very good. I want you to go ahead and finish. This ambassador you got this from ambassador sondland . That is correct. That ambassador sondland also said he talked to president zelensky and mr. Yermak and told them that although this was not a
quid pro quo, if president zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate that was one point. It was also the case. Mr. Morrison talked to you, right . No. Ambassador sondland also told me that he recognized that it was a mistake to have told the ukrainians that only the meeting with the president and in the oval office was held up on the in order to get these investigations. No, it was not just the meeting. It was also the Security Assistance. That is everything. So those two those two discussions. I understand. Okay. All right. Again, just to recap. You had three meetings with president zelensky, no linkage in those three meetings came up. Ambassador linkage didnt announce he was going to do any investigation to the bidens or burisma before the aid was released. President zelensky, excuse
me. And then what you have in front of you is an addendum that mr. Sondland made to his testimony that we got a couple weeks ago. Says declaration of ambassador gond sondland. I do hereby swear and affirm as follows. I wanted you to look at Bullet Point Number Two second sentence. Ambassador taylor recalls that mr. Morrison told that i told mr. Morrison that i conveyed in conversation to from yermak september 19th, 2019 in qu x no Vice President s Visit To Warsaw and a meeting with zelensky. This is his clarification. Let me read it one more time. Ambassador taylor tolls Ambassador Taylor that i told morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. Yermak Vice President s Visit To Warsaw and a meeting with president zelensky. We got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding. Which, i mean, even though you had three opportunities with president zelensky, for him to tell you, you know what . We are going to do these investigations to you had get the aid. Didnt tell you three
different times. Never makes an announcement. Never tweets about it. Never does an cnn interview. Ambassador, you werent on the call, were you . You didnt listen in on President Trump and president zelenskys call. Did i not. You didnt talk with Chief Of Staff mulvaney. Thats correct. Never met with the president. Thats correct. You had three meetings with zelensky and came up. And two of those never heard about as far as i know. And president zelensky never made an announcement . This is what i cant believe and you are their star witness. You are their first witness. You are the guy. You are the guy, based on, this based on, i mean, i have seen Church Prayer chains that are easier to understand than. This Ambassador Taylor recalls that mr. Morrison told now, again, i hereby swear and affirm from Gordon Sondland. Ambassador taylor recalls that mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that i told mr. Morrison that i conveyed this message to mr. Germ on september 20th. This all happens by the way in warsaw where Vice President. The gentlemans time is expired. Guess what they didnt talk about any linkage, either. [gavel] time of the gentleman has inspired. Ambassador taylor would you like to response. I have two responses, thank you. Glad to take those questions. Let me just say that i dont consider myself a star witness for anything. They do. No i dont. They do. Im responding to your question. Please dont interrupt the witness. I think i was clear about im not here to take one side or the other or to advocate any particular outcomes. Let me restate that second thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that i talk to. We got that. We got that. And, i think this clarification from ambassador sondland was because he said he didnt remember this in his first deposition. He wanted to kind of clarify. But i think mr. , mr. Jordan, the way i read, this he remembers it the same way i do. Yeah, and its real clear, right . Its very clear to me. Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Taylor. Mr. Heinz, you are recognized for five minutes. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. One of the things i find startling about these proceedings faired with very serious allegations of misconduct. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not engage or defend that conduct. Rather they spin theories about black ledgers and Steele Dossiers and the startling revelation that ukrainians might have been upset when a president ial candidate suggested that perhaps he would let the russians keep crimea or, of course, we get the attacks so epitomized by mr. Nunes Opening Statement when he attacked democrats, he attacked the media and most disgustingly attacked the extraordinary Men And Women Of The State Department and the fbi. When a defense does emerge, it look as little like this. Ukraine is a corrupt country and the president was just acting in a long line, a long tradition of actually
trying to address Corruption In Ukraine. Mr. Kent, youve worked on anticorruption and rule of law for much of your 27year career; is that correct . I specialized in anticorruption and rule of law issues since 2012, correct. So like most of us up here, i dont have a good sense of what a real anticorruption effort that we must engage in all over the world all the time what that looks like. So let me ask you to just take a minute and just characterize for us what a real initiative, what a real program of anticorruption might look like. If we are doing a systemic holistic program, you need institutions with integrity. That starts with investigators. It goes to prosecutors. It goes to courts and eventually it goes to the corrections system. In countries like ukraine, we generally start with Law Enforcement and thats what we did in 201415 with the new patrol police. There also is oftentimes needed a specialized
anticorruption agency in ukraine that was called the National Anticorruption bureau. There was a different body that reviewed Asset Declarations for unusual wealth called National Anticorruption prevention council. And eventually we got to helping them establish a special anticorruption prosecutor and eventually a high court on anticorruption. And that was to try to create investigators, prosecutors and courts with integrity that couldnt be bought and would be focused on high level corruption. So what im hearing there, mr. Kent, is a very comprehensive effort. So, let me read to you President Trumps own words to the ukrainian president in a july 25th phone call. And i quote there is a lot of talk about bidens son that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me. Mr. Kent, when you hear those words, do you hear the president participating in a
or requesting a thoughtful and welldal celebrated anticorruption program. I do not. And mr. Kent and mr. Taylor. The defenders made a big deal that the encouraged the u. K. Ens to remove a corrupt prosecutor 2016 mr. Shokin. In fact, senator rand paul on sunday said and i quote him they are impeaching the president , President Trump for exactly the same thing that joe biden did. Is that correct . Is what the president what the president did in his phone call and what joe biden did in terms of mr. Shokin, are those exactly the same things . And, if not, how are they different . I do not think they are the same things. What former Vice President biden requested of former president of ukraine poroshenko was the removal of a corrupt Prosecutor GeneralViktor Shokin who
had undermined a program of assistance that we had spent, again, u. S. Taxpayer money to try to build an independent Investigator Unit to go after corrupt prosecutors. And there was a case called the diamond prosecutor case in which shokin destroyed the entire ecosystem that we were trying to help create, the investigators, the judges who issued the warrants, the Law Enforcement that had warrants to do the wiretapping, everybody, to protect his former driver who he had made a prosecutor. Thats what joe biden was asking remove the corrupt prosecutor. So joe biden was participating in an open effort established whole of government effort to address Corruption In Ukraine . That is correct. Great. So, mr. Kent, as you look at this whole mess, Rudy Giuliani, President Trump, in your opinion, of government effort to end corruption in so, yes, sir. I dont. I dont think President Trump was trying to end Corruption In Ukraine. I think he was trying to aim
Corruption In Ukraine at Vice President biden and at the 2020 election. And i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Conaway is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield my time for the gentleman from texas mr. Ratcliff. I thank the gentleman and i thank you both for being here. Its obvious from your testimony today that you both care a great deal about u. S. Ukraine relations. Its also very clear that you are optimistic about president zelensky first acts in congress immunity long source of corruption. I know you have had a number of personal dealings with him. Has he given you any reason to question his honesty or his integrity . No, sir. In your prior deposition, i asked you and i will read it directly. If nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a Military Hold at the time of the trumpzelensky call that as a matter of law and as a matter of fact there can be no quid pro quo based on military aid and, to your
knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold. And your answer was that is correct. Is that still your testimony . Mr. Ratcliffe, at some point in september. Im talking about on july 25th. O, july 25th, sorry. Yes. Thats correct. Thats correct. They did not know this. All right. As it turns out president zelensky agreed with you. On october 10th, president zelensky held a Press Marathon with over 300 reporters where he said repeatedly and consistently over hours and hours that he was not aware of a Military Hold during the july 25th call. In fact, in his official Press Release from the Ukrainian Government available on his website that i will be introducing into the record, he said our Phone Conversation bear no, sir relations to arms. They blocked the provision of Military Assistance prior to our telePhone Conversation, but the issue had not been discussed during our conversation. I mean, i didnt even know. There was no quid pro quo involving military aid during that call. President zelensky went on to confirm a number of things, there was no pressure no conditions no threats on military aid there were no conditions or pressure to investigate burisma. Or the 2016 election. That there was no blackmail. That there was no corruption of any kind during the july 25th call. Again, from his official Press Release. Therefore, there was no blackmail because it was not the subject of our conversation with the president of the United States. There were no conditions on the investigation either because of arms or the situation around burisma company. He told reuters there was no blackmail. He told the l. A. Times there was no pressure or blackmail from the united
states. He told japans key oat toe news i was never pressured and no conditions being imposed. He told abc news and the bbc im against corruption. This is not corruption this is not corruption. This was just a call. The ukrainian president stood in front of The World Press repeatedly, consistently over and over again interview after interview said he had no knowledge of military aid being withheld, meaning no quid pro quo, no pressure, no demands, no threats, no blackmail, nothing corrupt. And unlike the first 45 minutes that we heard from the democrats today, thats not secondhand information. Its not hearsay. Its not what someone overheard ambassador sondland say. That was his direct testimony. Ambassador taylor, do you have any evidence to assert that president zelensky was lying to The World Press when he said those things . Yes or no . Mr. Ratcliffe, if i can respond. My time is short, yes or no. I have no reason to doubt what the president said in
his. Okay. Very good. So, in this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach president s for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the Impeachable Offense in that call . Are either of you here today to assert there was an Impeachable Offense in that call . Shout it out. Anyone . Mr. Ratcliffe, if i can just respond. Let me just reiterate that im not here. I have one minute left. Let me just. I know have you one minute. I have 30 seconds. You asked me a question. The witness asked the question. Let me withdraw the question. Thats your. Let me ask you this question. The gentleman will suspend. Ambassador taylor would you like it answer the question . Suspend the time please, i withdrew the question. The gentleman whether l. Suspend. We will suspend the clock. Suspend the clock and one minute, please. Ambassador taylor, would you like to respond to the question . Mr. Ratcliffe, i would just like to say that im not here to do anything are having to do with the decide
about impeachment. That is not what either of us are here to do. This is your job. Thank you. Restore time to the clock to one minute . No. But you may continue 22 seconds. Fine. Mr. Ambassador, i think everyone knows that House Democrats have made up their mind to impeach one president. The question that we have just learned is whether or not they are prepared to impeach two. Because to be clear, if House Democrats impeach President Trump for quid pro quo involving military aid they have to call president zelensky a liar. If they impeach him for abusing his power or pressuring or making threats or demands, they have to call president zelensky a liar to do it. If they impeach President Trump for blackmail or extortion or making threats or demands, they have to call President Trump a liar to do it. I yield back. The chair recognizes representative seoul. I yield a few minutes to
my esteem chairman. Thank you, Ambassador Taylor, i dont know if you have had a chance to read some of the transcripts that have been released. Found out the aid was being withheld before it became Public Knowledge . Mr. Chairman, i have read that. I think there is still some question about when they may have heard. And ultimately, they did find out when the political story came out, to your knowledge. But others have said even sooner. But they did find out, right, ambassador . They did, mr. Chairman. And at the time they found out, they knew what President Trump wanted from them, that he wanted these investigations, correct . Ambassador sondland informed president zelenskys staff, that is mr. Yermak of what was required, yes. So, ukraine finds out
about the hold. You are not able to give hem a reason for the hold. No one is able to give them a reason for the hold. They know the president wants these investigations. And then they are told in warsaw by ambassador sondland essentially you are not getting the aid unless you do these investigations. Correct . Thats correct. Sir, you have been asked how can there be conditioning if the ukrainians didnt know but ukrainians were told by ambassador sondland, were they not. They were. They didnt know, as near as i could tell, ukrainians did not know about the hold on the phone call on july 25th. Thats true. They were told, as you said, mr. Chairman, on the 1st of september. And, in fact, while they may not have known during the time of the call, they would find out. And when they did find out, they would know what the president wanted, correct . Thats correct. Representative sewell . So, mr. Kent, i would like to refer you to the discussion of the may 23rd
meeting in the oval office when the president met with those who had gone to the ukraine for the inauguration. You briefly testified that you helped propose names for individuals to go to thatinaugu. Was ambassador sondland who was ambassador to the european union, one of the names that you submitted . No, it was not. But he ultimately attended that inauguration. Is that not right . That is correct. And do you know how he ended up as a part of that official delegation . I do not know for sure but my understanding is once the list left the nsc staff it went to review through the part of the white house that determines president ial delegations. You also testified that upon returning ambassador sondland used his, quote connections with mulvaney, end quote, to order in order to secure this meeting in the oval office. Is that correct . That is my understanding, yes. It seems that this Oval Office Meeting was a pivotal Turning Point in the ukraine
policy. Coming out of that meeting, who was given responsibility to your recollection, who was given responsibility for the Ukraine Policy . I never saw any document that changed the nature of policy determination. The u. S. Government under the Trump Administration there is the National Security president ial. Didnt you also say. Please. I have a little time. Did you say in your testimony that you felt that that you testified that secretary pierre, ambassador soneld and Ambassador Volker, quote felt that they had a mandate to take the lead, end quote, on Ukraine Policy. Did you not . That was an accurate statement. Their feeling doesnt mean that they actually got delegate gaited responsibility. Have you ever heard of the term three amigos. I referenced that after watching Gordon Sondland say that on ukrainian tv on july 26th. What do you come to mean by three amigos . My ambassador of ambassador sondlands use of that term was that the three