Influential individuals in ukraine, correct . Correct. I think is one of the few that fan both the Poroshenko Administration and the zelensky administration. Yes, thats correct. Looking back on his comments in hindsight, do you see how that might create a perception that a very influential ukrainian was advocating against then candidate trump . That he was doing what, im sorry . He was out to get him. He said some real nasty things. Well, sometimes that happens on social media. [laughter] are you asking you whether its appropriate . Probably not. But i would say that minister avakov, as well as others, both in president poroshenkos administration as well is in the
lutsenko administration, has been a good partner to the United States. As i think i told you before, he is a very practical man. Looking for partners in getting the job done. Im shocked about social media would be the site of negative comments. You certainly can understand that the president , aware of minister avakovs statements, aware of what mr. Lushenko was up to, aware of what ambassador chaly was up to, and these other elements to discuss, there is basis to wonder whether there are influential evidence of the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. Again, i cant speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would just say that those elements that you have recited dont seem to me to be the
ukrainian kind of a plan or the plot of Ukrainian Government to work against President Trump or anyone else. They are isolated incidents. We all know. Im coming to find out myself that public life people are critical. That does not mean that someone is come for a government is, underlining either a campaign or interfering in elections. I would just remind, again, that our own u. S. Intelligence community has conclusively determined that those who interfered in the election were in russia. To turn our attention to ambassador volker, hes been a friend and colleague of yours
for many years. Correct . Thats true. I believe you testified he is a man of honor. I believe that to be true. And a brilliant diplomat . Yes. You have no reason to believe he would be undertaking any initiatives counter to u. S. Interests . I think that he try to do what he felt was right. Turning our attention to the trump administrations policy of the aid package to ukraine, youve testified that during your tenure as ambassador, americas policy actually got stronger. Is that accurate . With the position of javelins to the ukrainian military, yes. Those are the positive. I was that important . Well, two things. They are obviously tank busters. So if the war with russia all of a sudden accelerated in some way, and tanks come over there horizon, javelins are a very serious weapon to deal with that. Thats number one. Really, the more important issue is the symbolism of it. That the United States is providing javelins to ukraine. That makes ukraines adversaries think twice. And the provision of javelins to ukraine was blocked during the previous demonstration. Is that correct . I think they made a determination. I was not a part of those discussions, but obviously they had not yet made a determination about whether to provide javelins. What do you have any understanding of what the interagency consensus was with regard to javelins during the Previous Administration . I think most in the interagency wanted to provide
javelins to ukraine. In the new administration, under President Trump, the ability to afford ukraine this weaponry is a significant advantage, a significant step forward . We thought it was important. Has it played out that way . Well, it has speak of the provision of javelins . Is a symbol of our strong support for ukraine. This year, there are questions as to whether or not our Security Assistance is going to go through. That kind of undermines that strong message of support. Ukraine still has the ability to acquire the javelins, though, correct . Are you now talking about Purchasing Javelins . The Ukrainian Government . Yes, they do. Thats my understanding. Speak of security assister
the security it ultimate we went through, correct . Thats my understanding. You testified during her deposition that you were proud of the efforts of the United States during your tenure to supply this type of aid to ukraine. Are you still happy with that decision . Are you talking about the javelins . The javelins and also the whole aid package. Do you think it sufficient . Do you think we are giving ukraine enough money . Thats a hard question. One can always use additional funding. That said, i think that the congress has been very generous
in voting for Security Assistance and other forms of assistance for ukraine. My time is coming to an end, mr. Chairman . I think the gentlemen. We will now go to fiveminute rounds. I recognize himself 5 minutes. Ambassador yovanovitch, i want to follow up on some of the questions from my colleagues. Some of the early questions seem to suggest that your testimony here was completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. Why are you even here . Isnt this just some small matter that should have been referred to hr . So i wanted to bring my attention to someone who thought you were very important to this whole plot or scheme. Thats the president of the United States. There was only one abbasid are discussed by the president in the july 25th call, and those you, ambassador yovanovitch. I want to refer back to how you were brought up in the conversation. At one point during the conversation, the president brings up this prosecutor who was very good. And it was shut down, and thats really unfair. I think you indicated earlier that was a likely reference to mr. Lutsenko. Is that right . I believe that is the case, but i dont know. Immediately after the president brings up this corrupt former prosecutor , the only one my sophistry to me, the only American Abbasid brought up in the call when he brings up that he was being treated very unfairly, he then encourages zelensky to speak with giuliani, the guy who orchestrated the Smear Campaign against you, correct . Yes. He then brings you up. So he praises the corrupt prosecutor, he says, i want you
to talk to giuliani. The guy who smeared you. And then he brings up. He obviously thought you were relevant to this. What is even more telling is, immediately after he brings you up and says you, the woman was bad news, he says there is a lot to talk about 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. Immediately after praising this corrupt prosecutor, he attacks you and then goes right to bid biden. That would indicate to you, wouldnt it, ambassador, that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at odds with and his desire to see this investigation of bite and go forward would it not again, you are absolutely right that that is the fought
progression. My colleagues also asked, and pushing you out of the way, ultimately Ambassador Taylor got appointed. As ambassador the taylor the kind of person that would further giulianis aims . I think we can all agree that Ambassador Taylor is a remarkable public servant. Absolutely. But what if the president could put someone else in place that wasnt a Career Diplomat . What if he could put in place, say, a substantial donor to his inaugural . What if he could put in place someone with no diplomatic experience at all . What if you put in place someone whose portfolio doesnt even include ukraine . Might that person be willing to work with three giuliani in pursuit of these investigations yeah, maybe. Thats exactly what happened, wasnt it . Yes. And my colleagues also say, well, the Security Assistance ultimately went through. So if they sought to condition or bribe ukraine into doing these investigations by withholding Security Assistance, they ultimately paid the money. Are you aware, ambassador, though the Security Assistance was not released until after a whistleblower complaint made its way to the white house . Yes, i am aware of that. Are you aware that it was not released until congress announced it was during an investigation . Yes, im aware of that. Finally, i want to ask you about the call record that my colleague read at the outset. Im curious about this. Just for people watching at home, so theyre not confused, there are two coat calls here. There is the perfunctory Congratulatory Call after
zelensky is inaugurated, which my Ranking Member read this morning, and there is of course the very problematic call in july. One of the reasons we are here is what happened between april and july. But there was a readout put out by the white house at the time the april Congratulatory Call was made. On the white house readout said that the president discussed with zelensky helping ukraine root out corruption. That fact doesnt appear anywhere in that call. I want to ask you, ambassador, why would the white house put out an inaccurate reading . While at the white house represent that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about corruption, in that call or, in fact, the one in july . I cant answer that question. I dont have visibility into that. I think you i yield now for 5 minutes now to
recognize the Ranking Member. Just remind the gentleman, theres actually three calls. There are the two calls with President Trump, and the one you reiterated in our last hearing a couple weeks ago. Ambassador, i just want to clarify something before i yield. Are you against a political appointed ambassadors . Is in the president s prerogative to appoint whoever he wants in any country . First of all, i am not against political i just wanted to clear that up. Now, can i yield to ms. Stefanik . Do i need your permission . You may yield. Before i wanted before i was interrupted, i wanted to applaud your career. I also wanted to thank you for hosting the numerous bipartisan delegations. I led one of those delegations in ukraine. I will focus on three key themes. The first is the role of the
president when it comes to importing atomic appointing our investors. The seconds longstanding corruption ukraine, and the third is eight ukraine. We heard from george kent. I know that mr. Kent is a colleague, a friend, and someone you deeply respect. In his testimony he stated all ambassadors serve the pleasure of the president. He would agree with that statement, correct . Yes. In fact, he elaborated and went on to emphasize that this is with a question. He would agree with that . I would agree. In your deposition you stated, although i understand, everyone understands, that i serve at the pleasure of the president read is that correct . Yes. Just so there is no public confusion, youre still an employee of the State Department, correct . Yes. In the deposition you said he personally asked whether it was possible to be a fellow at georgetown university, that was arranged for me, and im very grateful. That is where your posted,
correct . Correct. We are glad to have you in service and i want to thank you for your public service. Shifting to corruption in ukraine, in your powerful deposition you described, we have long understood that strong anticorruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in ukraine, and now there is a window of opportunity to do th that. Wise is important to us . Put simply, anticorruption efforts served ukraines interest, but that serves hours, as well. Is that still your testimony . Yes. Particularly at the critical time in 2014 at the ukrainian elections, you testified that the ukrainian people had married clear that they were done with corruption. Correct . Yes. You also testified that the ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special Investigator Office that would be all about the crimes of corruption. Correct . Correct. I know this is before you
arrived in ukraine, but you are aware that the first case the u. S. , u. K. , and ukraine investigators worked on was in fact against the owner of burisma . Yes. And i was during the Obama Administration. Yes. And you said today, the investigation was never formally closed, because it is frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook. Yes, the ukrainian investigation. As i understand it. Because we didnt see the ukrainians moving forward on that, we know longer partner with them on that case or in that way. Lets take a step back. The first time he personally became aware of burisma was when you are being prepared for your Senate Confirmation hearing. And this was in the form of practiced questions and answers. This is your deposition. And you testified that, in this particular practice key mandate with the Obama State Departments
, it wasnt just generally about burisma and corruption. It was specifically about hunter biden and burisma. Is that correct . Yes, it is. And the exact quote from your testimony, ambassador, is the way the question was phrased in this model q a was, what can you tell us about hunter biden being named to the board of burisma . For the millions of americans watching, president obamas own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Bidens role at 11 that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before confirmation. And yet, our democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cried foul when we dare ask that same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about. But we will continue asking that. Lastly, in my 20 seconds left, i want to get it on record in terms of this defensive lethal aid that you are an advocate for, that was not provided by president obama. It was provided by President Trump. Thats correct. I yield back five seconds. And esther, thank you for your testimony today. Those of us who sit up here are supposed to be dispassionate and judicial and measured to, but i am angry. And ive been angry since i learned about your summary and unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent and faithful service to this country. Im angry that he woman whose family fled communism and nazism has served his country for 33 years, it not in paris or in rome, but literally under fire in places like mogadishu and kyiv. Im angry that a woman like you would be not just dismissed but humiliated and attacked by the president of the United States. And im not just angry for you. Im angry for every single Foreign Service officer, for everything a military officer, for every Intelligence Officer who, right now, might believe that a lifetime of service and
sacrifice and excellence might be ignored by the president of the United States, or worse yet, attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss. Its the president s defense, and its emerging from my republican colleagues today, that this is all okay. Because, as the president so memorably put it in his tweet this morning, it is a u. S. President s absolute right to appoint ambassadors. Im a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right. Because that doesnt feel to me like the system of government we have here. I think about how and why we exercise our powers and rights matters. Ambassador, when you are an ambassador or somewhere, do you have the right to ask the Intelligence Community, the cia in an embassy, what operations they are doing . We talk about these things
collaboratively. There are some things in short, yes. So you have the right to ask the Intelligence Community and the embassy what they are doing. Why might you do that . Because sometimes operations have political consequences. Right. So the performance of your duties, in the interest of the United States, gives you the right to ask a very sensitive questions that our Intelligence Community your embassy. But what if, instead of working through the issues that you just described, you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a russian agent for 10,000 . Without be an appropriate exercise of your right to . No, it would not. It would not. And what would happen to you if you did that . I cant even begin to imagine, but i would imagine that i would be pulled out of post. Right. This is not about ambassadors. The Police Officer has a right to pull you over. But if the Police Officer pulls over his exwife because hes angry, thats probably not the right. I have a right today, to cuss a bunch of votes. If i cast the vote not of interest of my constituents because somebody bribed me, that is a severe abuse of my power. Wouldnt you agree . Yes. So i guess the question is, why, after an Exemplary Performance as ambassador to ukraine, did the president decide that you should be removed . Because i think we just agreed that if that was not done in the National Interest thats a problem. Ambassador, if you had remained invested to ukraine, would you have recommended to the president of the United States that he asked the new ukrainian president to investigate and im quoting from the transcript
here crowd strike or the server . No, i would repeat once again that the u. S. Intelligence community has concluded that it was the russians. Ambassador, if you had remained as ambassador and not been summarily dismissed, would you have supported a 3month delay in congressionallymandated military aid to ukraine . No. Ambassador, if you had remained as ambassador of ukraine, would you have recommended to the president that he asked a new president of ukraine to find out about bidens son . Now abnormal questions. I yield back the balance of my time mr. Conaway . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to enter into the record a letter from Speaker Pelosi davids october 23rd. The relevant part reads, we also list dominic expect he will establish a path for the whistleblower to speak directly to the house and Senate Intelligence communities as by law. Without objection. Ambassador, i want to thank you so very much for a long service, exemplary service, to our country and on the behalf of our nation. About what was going on around the phone call, i would like to focus more on what has happened since then to you and your career and whats going on. When you got the word, any time we ambassador changes post, theres a process you go through to pick what you do next. That happened in this instance. Can you give us a quick statement as to what happened when you came back here, what your next assignment would be . When i came back, obviously, it was sort of out of cycle. There was nothing set up. Again, am grateful that deputy
secretary sullivan asked me what i would like to do next. I recall that there was the fellowship at georgetown, and asked whether that might be something that could be arranged. Was that your only choice . Im not sure. We didnt really discuss other options. Decode my sense is that georgetown is Fertile Ground for State Department recruitment. Future fledgling officers. They now benefit from your experience and your inspiration, to inspire them to spend their professional life in service to our nation. Thank you. You are a fellow there, you teach classes. How many classes do you teach . This semester i was supposed to teach too. I am still teaching one on National Security. Everyone is on ukraine, and asked whether i could do for a Question Mark it didnt seem appropriate. How many students in your class come approximately . I think 14, 15. Any responsibility other than a fellowship at georgetown . Well, i will tell you that all of this has kept me very busy. We go okay, i get that. But no necessarily daytoday things he would be responsible for . Other than not qualifying for overseas stipends and other things, is your compensation affected by being recalled the way you were . No, it was not. Worried about the way you might be treated by the fellow employees of state, any have they held you in less high regard than they use to as a result of this . Do they shun you at the lunch counter . To the tree badly as a result of the way you were treated by the president . Ive actually received an outpouring of support for my colleagues. Of the folks they respect the most still respect you and appeared to hold even high regard and high affection . They do. George kent was in here couple days ago. He made some exemplary statements about you. Really glowing. All of us, i think, would like to be the recipient of something
that really. I believe you are, as well. Any reason on earth that you can think of that george cant would be saying that because of some reason other than the fact that he believes it in his heart of hearts . Like what . Like somebody paid them to do it. [laughs] no, absolutely not. So you and i agree that he was sincere and not bragging on you so im glad your colleagues i would have expected nothing different from your colleagues at state to continue to treat you with the high regard that youve earned over all these years of great service. I hope that whatever you decide to do after the georgetown fellowship that you are successful there as you have been in the first 33 years. With that, i yield the balance of my time to mr. Jordan. I have unanimous consent request about an article. What street journal, september 29th, 2019, being included in the record. Without objection. I have unanimous and do not consent request that whistleblower agrees to testify, will be appearing very soon, adam schiff says. Without objection. Shift concerns donna confirms without objection. I have unanimous consent request, Intelligence Panel i have unanimous consent request, an article entitled whistleblower reportedly agrees to testify before house intelligence committee, reported by schiff. Huffington post, september 29th, 2019. Without objection. I have unanimous consent request, panel will hear from whistleblower, arkansas mccrig
mccright, september 2019. The time of the gentleman has inspired i now recognize thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, in your prior testimony you spoke so movingly about your family background. You say that your parents fled communist and regimes, and that they valued freedom and democracy offered in america. Having experienced totalitarian regimes. To that have any effect on your desire to enter into the United StatesForeign Service . Yes, it did. Did you always know that you wanted to be in the Foreign Service . I look at your background and it is perfectly suited for what you are doing. I know that you have studied at the Russian Language Institute in russia to learn russian. Do you also have an mf from the National DefenseUniversity National war college . Yes. I even noticed that you earned your Undergraduate Degree in history and russian studies in college. Coincidentally, that was also my college. And you definitely are doing service by what you do every day. I really want to know how it felt to have your reputation sullied. Not for state and nation, but for personal gain. We spoke about how your service is not just your own personal service. It affects your family. Today we have seen you as this former ambassador, this 33year veteran of the Foreign Service. But i want to know about you personally, and how this has affected you personally, and your family. Its been a difficult time. I mean, im a private person. I dont want to put all that out there. But its been a very, very difficult time, because the president does have the right to have his own or her own ambassador in every country in the world. But as the president have the right to malign peoples character . It may not be against any law, but i would think would be be against decorum and decency. I mean, there is a question as to why the kinbecause all tho do is say he wants a different ambassador. In my line of work, and perhaps in your line of work, as well, ill be out of his reputation. So this has been a very painful. Has it affected your family . I dont want to get into that, but thank you for asking. Because i do care. I also want to know how you think it affected your fellow colleagues in the foreign
service. My republican colleagues have said that, since he received such adulation from, and embracing, from your own fellow colleagues, that what occurred, the incident that occurred with the president and his cronies, maligning reputation, has not had a Chilling Effect on the ability and the morale within the Foreign Service . Can you speak to that . Yeah, i think it has had exactly that. A Chilling Effect. Not only in the embassy, but throughout the State Department. Because people dont know whether their efforts to pursue our stated policy are going to be supported. And that is a dangerous place to be. For the record, my republican
colleagues will probably trying to paint you as a never trumper. Are you a never trumper . No. As a Foreign Service officer you vowed to support the United States with out regard to his office. Is that you . Yes. And you observe not just for democratic president s, but also republican president s. For republican president s. You do in the Foreign Service under reagan, is that right . Thats true. Why do you think its important that Foreign Service officers are nonpartisan . Can talk about why its important for you to do your job and your fill in for Service Officers to do your job, they are nonpartisan . Because our work is essentially nonpartisan. A republican senator who worked with President Truman coined a phrase that politics should stop
at the waters edge. I think thats right. While obviously the competition of ideas in a democracy, with different parties, different individuals, its hugely important. But at the end of the day, when we are dealing with other countries, he needs to be about what is right for the United States. Those are our National Security interests. Whether an individual works for the cia or the military or the State Department, weve got to be nonpartisan and thinking about what is right for the United States. On behalf of our grateful nation, i want to say thank you for your service. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Turner . Ambassador, i want to say i have a great deal of respect for you do. I have served on the Armed Services committee, the Intelligence Community, i know the complexity of what you do. I know you have little access directly to decisionmakers. Little resources. But you have still a great deal of its possibility. It is a complex task, and they want to take it from just the
concept of onedimensional ukraine being corrupt, to the other issues you had to deal with as the ukraine ambassador. You had to do with more than just our bilateral relationship with ukraine. For example, obviously, i know you know these. But these were under portfolio. He had to deal with the issue of the osce budapest agreement, and the denuclearization of ukraine and the issues of its territorial integrity of the signatories, correct . Could you run that by me again . The osce, the organization for security and cooperation for europe, and the budapest agreement under which ukraine give up its Nuclear Weapons and believed they had its territorial integrity guaranteed by the United States and russia. He would have had that in your portfolio . Its an issue that you had to deal with ukrainians on . Of the ukrainians would ask about our policy and whether it was in keeping with the budapest agreement. Excellent. Nato, ukraine is an aspiring you nato country. And theres the bucharest summit, where the u. S. And nato
allies made a statement that they would get member should pay that would have been under portfolio. Certainly come aspirations to nato membership would be. And the u. S. Supports ukraine joining the e. U. , and they have a great deal of interest and desire for joining the e. U. Correct . Yes. And they just had a summit in ukraine in july, where they talked about the associated agreement on economic integration between ukraine and the e. U. And they also had a discussion about the illegal Annexation Of Crimea and the blocking by russia of the ukrainian sailors that came out of the as of c and were captured. Those have all been issues that would have been in your portfolio and were consistent with the e. U. Issue. Correct . We work closely with our e. U. Partners. You had to work with france, u. K. , and germany, all of which had different ideas of this. Investors to the ukraine, france, germany. Correct . Yeah. Did you say they all have different ideas about these issues . Some of them, yes. Mostly there is a consensus. You have to work with an ngos, nongovernmental organizations, niche about human aid, trafficking, and even hiv aids. Right . Yes. Speak out you spoke at several ngos while youre ambassador to ukraine . Yes. The u. S. Ambassador to the e. U. , they would have under their portfolio aspiring nations to the e. U. With a not . Yes. E. U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland would have had ukraine in his portfolio because there an aspiring nation, correct . You agree its within his portfolio . You would agree its in his portfolio, would you not . Yes . I would agree yes, thank you. Im sorry, can she finish her answer please . Speak of the denim and suspens. Have a great deal of speak of. You may finish around dont like
your answer, ambassador. Not on my time. Youre done. The investor will be recognized. I would say that all e. U. Ambassadors deal with other countries, including aspiring countries, but its unusual to name the u. S. Ambassador to the e. U. To be responsible for all aspects of ukraine. I will take your additional answer. It is still in his portfolio, which was my question. You knew of ambassador holbrook, probably. I did. Hes a man of great integrity, one of our most successful ambassadors. You knew him probably by his reputation. Hes a great man of great reputation, right . Yes. Madame ambassador, would it surprise you if in 2004 john kerry had a member of his campaign, a Foreign Policy advisor who traveled to ukraine in july, and both ukrainian officials and the u. S. Ambassador, but that surprise you . A member of john kerrys
campaign team for president of the United States, in 2004, traveled to ukraine and met with the u. S. Ambassador in july. Go not necessarily what was the timing . If a member of john kerrys campaign traveled to ukraine, would you have taken that meeting . I guess it would depend on what the purpose of the meeting was. The goat that meeting actually occurred, and it was with john holbrook. John holbrook was a private citizen, travel to ukraine, met with u. S. Investors, both ukrainian officials. He was also there about hiv aids, which was something the Clinton Foundation was working on. So we have an official of the John Kerry Campaign in 2004, as a private citizen, meeting with our ambassador in ukraine. The time of the gentleman has expired. It probably wasnt unusual for giuliani either. The time of the gentleman is expired. Mr. Carson, your recognize. Madame ambassador, returning
to the topic of corruption, we heard evidence that you were successful at promoting efforts to address corruption. On wednesday, in testifying about her very sterling career as a champion of anticorruption efforts in ukraine, Deputy Assistant secretary george kent said, you can to promote principle action without pissing off corrupt people. It seems your efforts as ambassador, to essentially reform the powerful Prosecutor Generals Office in ukraine, did exactly that. What concerned you by the Prosecutor Generals Office when you are the ambassador in ukraine . What concerned us was that there didnt seem to be any progress in the three overall objectives that mr. Lutsenko had laid out. Most importantly for the ukrainian people, but also the international community. The first thing was reforming the Prosecutor Generals Office. It is a tremendously powerful office, where they had authority
not only to conduct investigations on fbilike functions, but also to do the actual prosecution. A very, very wide powers, which is part of that soviet legacy. There just wasnt a lot of progress in that. There wasnt a lot of progress in handling personnel issues. And how the structure should be organized, who should have the important jobs. Because some of the people in those jobs werent known were considered to be corrupt themselves. Secondly, the issue that was tremendously important to the ukrainian people of bringing justice to the over 100 people who died on the my done during the revolution of dignity 2014 prenobody has been held accountable for that. That is kind of an open wound for ukrainian people. Thirdly, ukraine needs all the money that it has. There is a belief that former president yanukovych and those around him made off with over 40 billion. Thats a lot in the u. S. , its a huge amount of money in ukraine. Again, nobody has none of that money has really been i think maybe 1 billion was repatriated, but the rest of it is still missing. Madame ambassador, was the head of that office correct . We believe so. And you got the sense, did you not, that he was a Driving Force behind some of the attacks against you . I did. Which ultimately led to removal, correct . Yes. But it wasnt just him. His allegations were picked up and spread by mr. Giuliani and donald trump jr. , were they not . Yes. So, let me get this straight
you are effective at Fighting Corruption in the ukraine, fighting that corruption was important to the National Security of the United States, and you were punished for that, ultimately being removed from your post by the president of the United States. So come in your opinion, madame ambassador, why is it important to have a nonpartisan career in the Foreign Services . I think its important to have a nonpartisan career in the Foreign Service office. Service, i should say. Because what we do is inherently nonpartisan. It is about our National Security interest. Its not about what is good for a particular party at a particular time. It has to be about the greater interest of our security. Frankly, what is an increasingly dangerous world. Could you briefly describe for us what brought u. S. Policies you have sought to advance in your 33 years of
service, and specifically in postsoviet states like ukraine . Thats a broad question. Certainly in my time in russia, armenia, kyrgyzstan, all of these countries are very different, as is ukraine. I think that establishing positive constructive relations to the extent that we can with those countries is really important. And that there are three basic areas. One is security, the second is economic, and the third is political. Working all the sub issues your colleague mentioned many of then ukraine, as well. Thank you for your service. I yield to the chairman. Dr. When struck . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for being here. I want to start by saying i
appreciate your years of service, and enduring years of moving around the world to dangerous places. Hearing from you today, i realize that we share some of the same feelings and experiences. As an army reserve surgeon, i received a call on the Monday Afternoon In March of 2005 that told me i was being deployed to iraq, and i had to be out the door in the next two to three days. I had patients scheduled for months. I had the surgery scheduled. I understand that shocking feeling that can come with abrupt change like that. I was processing it a few days later. I was told my orders would say, youre going for 18 months but it might be a little shorter than that. I served in 2005, children six. One of the bloodiest times of the war. This is where i have another personal relationship with what you were talking about. I saw a nation in the rock of people that craved a noncorrupt government. Sadly, today, even though it helped to remove saddam hussein, they still have Corruption Concerns in iraq. I can relate to what you said a few moments ago, that it feels like an open wound when it hasnt been resolved. But you might imagine, without Military Experience and background, it took an Interest Military Strategy and capabilities of the thoughts of those with boots on the ground like you and mr. Volker and mr. Taylor. In your deposition, on page 144, you are quoted as saying in terms of lethal assistance, we all felt it was very significant that this Administration Made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. Just real quick, who in general makes up we all . The team i mentioned . Just one sec. What line is that . I have to move on. You said we all felt it was very significant that this Administration Made the decision to provide lethal weapons to
ukraine. I assume that is those that have boots on the ground. And this administration, i assume you meant the trump administration. Yes. In your deposition, also on page 144, he spoke about the generosity of congress. He mentioned it today, increasing aid to ukraine. Part of your deposition after that statement that i quoted before, you asked if you advocated for that. He responded yes. When you were asked if you advocated to that prior to the new administration in 2016, you responded, well, yeah. On page 148 the question was, were you satisfied the administration was doing what was necessary to support ukraine . You said, in what respect . And they said, in, you know, helping them deter russian aggression, helping them with foreign aid and foreign assistance. And he said, yeah. I agree that Legal Assistance was very significant, as you said. I think you for that, i
think mr. Volker and mr. Taylor the acting Ambassador Taylor was here wednesday. He testified about the president s decision to withhold legal aid. He said the president felt it might provoke russia. And mr. Taylor contested than that russia has already been provoked and they have invaded the ukraine. President obama had the right to make his own Foreign Policy and make his own decisions as president of the United States, correct . Yeah. Theres an interagency process, and congress he has a right as president. I respect the interagency process. Im getting to that, actually. But he has a right to make his own Foreign Policy and his own decision as president of the United States, as do all president s, correct . Yes. So we have one president , obama, who denied leaf laid altogether in spite of the ambassadors and other boots on the ground
recommending making the recommendation, such as you did. We have another president , trump, who vented those who would receive the aid and provided it consistent with your intraagency recommendations, and that of your colleagues. Let me just ask, from a military standpoint, without javelins, would you agree that russians have much greater Military Offensive Options and flexibility in their effort to attack the ukraine . Without the ukraine having javelins . Yes, they had another option. Although the tank war is no longer the war that is being fought in ukraine. But im just saying is another option. Theres a reason for that, because the javelin is there. I think that changes it. I want to make that point, that the president has the right to
have their own Foreign Policy and to make their own decisions. With that, i yield back. If i could just supplement one of my answers . Of course. I want to thank you for your service, as well. What i would like to say is, while i obviously dont dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason, what i do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation also. I wasnt asking about that, but thank you very much, maam. Representative speier . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, ambassador, so very much. You are confirmed by a voice vote, werent you . Yes. Unanimous, republicans and democrats, correct . No dispute. He said 2018 the Smear Campaign began. In her testimony earlier today. The Secretary Pompeo at any time come to your aid . Well, my understanding from phil rieger and Deputy Secretary Sullivan is that this these rumors about me, for lack of a better word, the Smear Campaign which was behind closed doors at that point, that they were in the blue discussions between the president and secretary that they did keep me in place for as long as he could. Thats what i was told. It appears back in 2018 the president was already making noises that he wanted you out of there. It appears that as early as april 2018 mr. Parnas was at a fundraiser for the president , and recommended that he be removed. Subsequently, in may of 2018, was pictured at a white house dinner with the president. And then later in may, made a contribution of over 25,000, illegally, to the president s reelection campaign. Are you aware of that . Im aware of the press about those things. Does that help you understand a little bit more about why this Smear Campaign was underway . Yes. I mean you made some very riveting comments in your statement this morning that i just want to repeat, because i think we should have you expand on it. He said, ive always understood that i served at the pleasure of the president. I still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine u. S. Interests in this way. Individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated u. S. Policy against corruption, that is
going to do our mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. Now, as i listen to you make that statement, i was thinking of all the other persons in the Foreign Service who now have to be concerned that its not good enough to follow the stated u. S. Foreign policy. But also to be aware that maybe the president a back channel of interest that he is promoting that is diametrically opposed to our stated Foreign Policy. Can you expand on that please . I think its important that whoever is representing the president , and ambassador, speaks with the full authority of the president and our Foreign Policy establishment. If there are others who are also
helping with the responsibilities in that country, for example ambassador volker with his mission to bring peace to the donbass, that its not about personal gain or commercial gain or anything else. That is about our National Security. In this case, the {flush tres amigos appeared to be more interested in an investigation then to promoting an anticorruption effort in ukraine. Is that correct . That appears to be the case. You were told at one point in 2019, february, earlier this year, he spoke to minister in ukraine who warned that when it came to Rudy Giuliani you needed to watch your back. What did you understand him to
mean . I didnt exactly know, but the rumor was out there at that time. In fact, i think this minister also shared that information with me, that the mayor was looking all night working to have me removed. Let me conclude that you have endured and orchestrated character assassination. That it was hatched over a year and a half ago, and it is laced with enormous Campaign Contributions to the president s reelection campaign. And you deserve more from the American People, and you deserve more from congress in supporting you. I yield i have unanimous consent, mr. Chairman. You are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and ambassador, thank you for being with us today. While, as i said last a couple
of days ago to the witnesses, welcome to impeachment proceedings. Im sorry that you have gotten drug into this. For three years we have heard this outrageous and accusations of russian collusion. That our complete nonsense. No basis at all despite promises from members of the committee that they had secret that would prove this collusion, and we know that it was nonsense. But in year four, we move on to your crane and culminating yesterday when the speaker announced that the president would indeed be impeached and removed from office for bribery. And with that statement, i would now feel compelled to ask you. Madam, ambassador, as you sit before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes . No. Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all . No. Thank you, thank you for answering that directly. The American People know that this is nonsense. They know that this is unfair. And i have a prediction regarding this. I think that public support for impeachment is actually going to be less when these hearings are over than it is when the hearings began. Because finally the American People are going to be able to see the evidence. And they will be able to make their own determination regarding that. Now i want to ask you very quickly, and i would like to see this again. You have been asked as he recognized that the president any president has the ability to ask his ambassadors to serve at will. Im curious, do you think that is the right policy . Yeah, i probably think it is. I do as well. It may be imperfect. There may be times where it is not used perfectly, but i agree with you. I do not think we should change that. I will read some previous statements including one of your own as well as others with the appropriateness of investigating and appropriateness in the ukraine. The fact that there are investigations in the ukraine well as the russian in any other country is not a surprise. From yourself, the previous testimony, was that the general understanding that there is no company that suffered from allegations of corruption . Your answer was yes. From ambassador sondland, i see that there is a potentially corrupt company. Would you agree then that it is appropriate to investigate corruption . I think it is appropriate if it is part of our national
strategy, what i would say is that we have a process for doing it. It is called the mutual assistance treaty, we have one with the ukraine, and it goes from our Department Of Justice to the Ministry Of Justice in the country of interest. The usual task. I appreciate that. Regardless of the process, it is important to investigate potential corruption, and especially, look, we are about to give some of these countries hundreds of millions of dollars, the u. S. Taxpayer said here is a dollar amount, go ahead and give it to this other country. But please only do it if you know it is not going to be used for corrupt purposes or against our National Interest. And i will conclude with this, mr. Jordan, i will save them some time. We mentioned earlier that the Vice President when he went to the ukraine and called for the specific firing of a specific prosecutor that he was, as they
say, completing official u. S. Policy. But the interceding is this, the Vice President had exactly two countries over his responsibility at that time. China and the ukraine. And he bragged and has been very proud of his influence in the Previous Administration. He said again and again that the Obama Administration listed him. So it does not surprise me that they would be for filling a policy that this Vice President certainly help to formulate. Mr. Jordan, i leave you. Inside for us, thank you for the clarification. I have unanimous consent, chairman, it does not involve you this time. It is three articles, the New York Times article, 2004 campaign the time of the gentleman has expired. I may recognize you later. A gentlemans time has expired. Organization