My ambassador of assistance as well . They did. And if i said that number ambassador sondlands use of was circa in the military that term was that the three assistance around 270 million. Would that probably be people three people in accurate . Close. Charge of the ukrainian about right . Yeah. Did they get aid in policy. He ambassador volker and secretary perry. What did you come when did you come to learn about fy18 . Yes, sir. Including security mr. Giulianis role and what do you consider his role to assistance . Have been . Including Security Assistance. We have already talked about the javelins, the antitank missiles that they i heard about former mayor were not able to purchase in Previous Administrations. Giulianis interest in ukraine in january of this have they gotten Security Assistance in fy19 . Year. That was a different phase yes, sir. Prior to the 400 million than what happened during the summertime. Was it normal to have a or so that were discussing person who is a private citizen take an active role or been discussing a lot here today . In foreign diplomacy . They got some previous did i not find his some probably fy18 particular engagement normal, no. Now, Ambassador Taylor, assistance but, george, you may know. You testified that there its takes a while once were two channels, a regular money is obligated to and irregular. Actually reach the country what did you sees a rudy there were two island class ships that just arrived in giulianis role in ukraine the port of adesis a and that was prior year money there is a lag of a year. Policy . My point is that we have congresswoman, i came to been supporting the
see that mr. Giuliani had a ukrainians under this large influence on the irregular channel. And was that normal is administration in order to help them kick out the russians who invaded their that normal to have a private citizen of the country . Yes, sir. 100 percent. United states take an active Ambassador Taylor, you role in diplomacy . Earlier testified that it is not normal. Ukrainian officials did not it is not unusual to ask for become aware of potential u. S. Assistance being people outside the government to give opinions withheld until august 29th. To help form the policies of is that accurate . Thats my understanding, the u. S. Government. Mr. Hurd. It is unusual to have a would you find it surprising if a ukrainian official knew about that person input into the sooner and did not contact channel that goes contrary to u. S. Policy. Thank you. You . I yield back. I can answer that it was mr. Turner, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Only after august 29th. That i got calls from mr. Kent, Ambassador Taylor, thank you for your service. I have a great deal of several of the ukrainian appreciation for your profession. You have very little direct contact with decisionmakers, initials. Mr. Kent, had you any a tremendous amount of anybody contacting you concerning when was the responsibility and not a lot first time ukrainian of authority to effect u. S. Official contacted you concerned about potential policy bilateral engagements withholding of u. S. Aid . It was after the article or multilateral engagements. Mr. Politico came out in you are try trying to that first week in september. Gotcha, so after that shepard through issues with allies. Ambassador taylor you testified in your prior testimony that you have not august 29th conversation. Had any contact with the president of the United States; is that correct . Thats correct, sir. There is a lot of talk mr. Taylor, mr. Kent have you had any contact with the about Rudy Giuliani and who president of the united was was and wasnt meeting. States. I have not. Do we know or have an idea so not only no of the ukrainian officials conversations with the president of the united that he was meeting with states about ukraine. Over the last couple of you have not had any contact with the president of the United States . Correct . Thats correct. Okay. Years . I dont, sir. So, you both know that this have you had any Impeachment Inquiry is about ukrainian officials call you the president of the United States, dont you . After a meeting with rudy i mean, the man that neither giuliani concerned about the of you have had any contact nature or the context of with, you are the firstup that conversation . Witnesses. I just find that a little yes. Amazing that the first up would be two people who have mr. Yermak has expressed never had any contact with concern about his the president himself. Interactions with mr. Giuliani. Now, kurt volker did have and i believe that contact with the president meeting was somewhere in and contact with the president on ukraine. Late august; is that correct . It was there were meetings and there were, i mr. Ambassador taylor, you said he is a man of highest think, also phone calls. Integrity. I know kurt volker and i know he served as the nato ambassador. He served the director mccain institute. He is the highest and yall have talked
many times that yall are professional ethics. One of the most still concerned about knowledgeable people about corruption in the ukraine; europe. Is that correct . Is he absolutely a truthful sir. Have we seen whatever man. Mr. Kent, would you agree this anticorruption with Ambassador Taylor that statement we wanted the he is of the highest urngenukrainians to make . Integrity . I believe kurt volker has served the u. S. S. As a Public Servant very well. Do either of you have any are you referring to the evidence that mr. Volker statement that was being committed perjury or lied to negotiated between kurt volker, Gordon Sondland and this committee in his testimony to this committee . Andriy yermak . Yes. Do either of you have any that was not anticorruption statement, evidence that kurt volker sir. What was the statement . I think if you go back to purged himself or lied to this committee in his the back and forth of testimony . Ambassador taylor . Any evidence . Whats app. Shared by kurt mr. Turner, i have no volker they shared a draft evidence. With Rudy Giuliani and rudy mr. Kent . Giuliani said it would not be acceptable if it didnt i believe ambassador mention biden, burisma and volkers deposition was over 400 pages and i dont have 2016. But that statement was it in front of me so i never agreed to or never cant but you have no evidence issued by the ukrainian that he lied or perjured officials . Is that correct . No statement of that sort himself. I have no Judgmen Basis to me was issued, correct. And have u. S. Businesses that judgment. Were not in court if we ever contacted yall were sixth amendment would concerned about corruption apply and hearsay and within the ukraine . Yes, sir. Opinion. Most of your testimony would as in as of this year, not be admissible whatsoever. I understand in your profession you deal in words even . Yes, sir. Of understanding, words of because the concern is
not just how ukrainian beliefs and feelings because business is run by oligarchs in your profession thats what you work with to try to are being operated its also pull together policy and to concerns about how the go in and out of meetings to Ukrainian Government is dealing with american try to formulate opinions businesses trying to operate in the ukraine. That affect other peoples is that accurate . American businesses are very concerned about the decisionmaking. Ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting judicial system in particular. Yes, sir. With a president or prime i yield back the time i minister of a country or do not have, mr. Chairman. Where you were told one thank the gentleman. Thing before you went into the meeting as to what it mr. Castro . Thank you, chairman. Would be about and the thank you, gentlemen for your testimony today and for meeting would be another your service to our country. Thing and you get in there or the beliefs of the listening to all of the opinions of the Prime Minister were other than you evidence, everything i have heard and read in this believed . Investigation, it seems to mr. Turner, you are me that the president of the United States either asking if i ever learned of committed extortion and something new . Have you ever walked in bribery of a foreign with a belief that he official or attempted thought about the country that you were serving in and extortion and bribery of a find out that they were foreign official. Wrong . I learn something in when President Trump got president zelensky on the every meeting, mr. Turner. Phone on july 25th, he was but i, you know. And Ambassador Taylor, talking to a desperate man, the reason why the sixth wasnt he . Amendment doesnt allow hearsay is because its unreliable. President zelensky was its unreliable because desperate to protect his frequently its not truth. Country and make sure he had its not factual. It might be beliefs or foreign assistance from the United States. Is that right . Understandings. President zelensky is mr. Ambassador, you testified about a number of very interested in u. S. Things that you have heard. Isnt it possible that the things that you heard were not true . Support both assistance and that some of the beliefs and political support, yes, sir. Understandings that you had what would have happened are not accurate that, in if the aid would have gotten fact, you are mistaken about cut off, ambassador. Some of the things that you what would have happened to testified today and a president zelenskys career and what would have happened factual basis vs. A to the ukraine . The assistance, if the professional assessment . Mr. Turner, im here to assistance had been cut off, tell you what i know. Im not going to tell you he would have been much anything i dont know. Im going it tell you everything that i do know. Since you learned it from weaker in his negotiations others. Thats exactly. With the russians. You could be wrong, he would have been much weaker on the battlefield. Mr. Taylor . Since you learned it from the russians may have others, you could be wrong, taken it as an invitation to correct . I am telling you what i heard them tell me. Actually take military and they could be wrong action against ukraine. Or they could be mistaken or is that right . The russians always look they could have heard it for vulnerabilities. Incorrectly, right, and they know that the Ambassador Taylor . People make mistakes. United states has supported right. So you could be wrong. I yield the rest of my time ukraine. If the russians determined to. Thank you thank the or suspect that that support gentleman for yielding. Is lessened or not there, Ambassador Taylor, the gentleman asked if you could be wrong, were you wrong they will likely take advantage. When you said you had a they could have pounced. They could have taken clear understanding that advantage. So he had a desperate man on the phone and he asked a president zelensky had to desperate man for a favor. And based on your testimony, released and the aid got it sounds like begrudgingly, released and he didnt president zelensky may have commit to an investigation . Actually agreed to do that i was not wrong about favor and investigate the what i told you which is bidens and burisma. What i heard. Is that right . Thats all i have said. I have told you what i heard. President zelensky does and thats the point. What you heard did not say in the transcript that happen. He will pursue the it didnt happen. Investigations. You had three meetings with so we know that president the guy. He could have told you. Trump asked for a favor to he didnt announce he was going to do an investigation help his political career, before the aid happened. Its not just could it have and it appears as though been wrong. The fact is it was wrong. That the president of ukraine agreed to that favor. Because it didnt happen. Do we know why it didnt the whole point was you had a clear understanding that actually happen . Aid will not get released do we know why there was no unless there is a announcement in front of cnn or to cnn about an commitment. Not maybe, not i think the aid might happen. Its my hunch is going to investigation . Get released. Mr. Castro, as we have you used clear language. Clear understanding and commitment and those two determined, as we have things didnt happen. Discussed here, on so you had to be wrong. Mr. Jordan, the other september 11th, just before thing that went on when that any cnn discussion or assistance was on hold, is we shook the confidence of a interview, the hold was released, the hold on the close partner in our Security Assistance was
released. So, the hold was release reliability. And that. Thats not what this proceeding is about, ambassador. The time of the gentleman released, is it possible has inspired. That the white house released that hold because the time of the gentleman they knew that a has inspired. Whistleblower had basically Ambassador Taylor, did you turned this in . I dont know, sir. Want to finish your answer. No, thats good, you think thats mr. Chairman. I now recognize possible . Mr. Carson for five minutes. Im not in a position to thank you, chairman, i judge. So we have a president yield to the chairman. I thank the gentleman for who The Other Side has claimed or has defended the questions about president saying that the ambassador sorry about aid went through, that there president zelenskys was never any investigation. Statements after this scandal came to light when he was asked, you know, were but the president attempted to get those things done and you pressured . How the phone call go, et it looks like there was an cetera. Initial agreement by the president of ukraine to ukrainians, mr. Kent, are actually do those things. Pretty specific about u. S. Politics, are they not . Perhaps. You would agree that if president zelensky so, ambassadors, is Attempted Murder a crime . Contradicted President Trump and said of course i felt is Attempted Murder a crime . Pressured. They were holding up Attempted Murder is a 400 million in military assistance. Crime. Is attempted robbery a we have people dying every crime . Day. If he were to contradict neither of us is a President Trump directly, lawyer. But. I think anybody in this they would be sophisticated room could answer that question. Enough to know they may pay i think thats right. I will go out on a limb and
a very heavy price with this say yes, it is. President. Were they not . Is attempt the extortion thats a fair assessment. And bribery a crime . And president zelensky i dont know, sir. Not only had to worry about retribution from donald in the minute that i have trump should he contradict donald trump he also has to left, i want you to speak to worry about how he is the nation about whats at perceived domestically, doesnt he, ambassador stake, ambassador kent. Taylor . You said in your opening president zelensky is very sensitive to the views statement you warned about selective prosecutions and a of the ukrainian people who, president of the united indeed, are very attentive states going after specific to ukrainianu. S. Politics, americans abroad. Yes. So if president zelensky were to say i had to capitulate and agree to if this congress clears these investigations. President trump, does it mean that he can go ask i was ready to go on cnn another foreign country to investigate another until the aid got restored, president ial candidate . A member of congress, a that would obviously be governor, a senator, or any hurtful to him back home, would it not . Private American Citizen doing Business Overseas . He cannot afford to be if there is no consequence seen to be deferring to any for a president who does that, that it means there is a green light, doesnt it, foreign leader. For any president to ask any he is very confident in his country to go prosecute or
own abilities and he knows investigate an American Citizen for political and that ukrainian people expect personal gain of that him to be clear and defend president . Doesnt it . Thank you for the the ukrainian interests. Question. First of all, im not an mr. Carson. Ambassador. Thank you, chairman. Im sorry. I will repeat i think on my colleague briefly on the principle regardless of the campaign to remove career country whether its ukraine, the u. S. , or any diplomat yovanovitch. Mr. Kent, you stated in country, the facts of law, previous testimony that you were aware of the, quote, criminal nexus should drive campaign of slander against investigations by law the ambassador in realtime, enforcement officials. It is not the role of which basically unfolded in the media. Politicians to be involved where do you understand this in directing the judicial Misinformation Campaign was systems of their own country coming from and who was or other countries. Essentially perpetuating it . I yield back, chairman. To my understanding, the mr. Ratcliffe . Then Prosecutor General of thank you, chair. Mr. Kent, in your prior ukraine now met rudy deposition, on page 159, you giuliani in new york on a were asked about the private visit in january. They had a second meeting in president s authority to release an ambassador for february. And through the good offices any reason. Of the former mayor of new and your response was, quote all ambassadors york, cinco gave an serve at the pleasure of the interview to john solomon president. And that is without question. Then of the hill in early everybody understands tha, end
march. And the campaign was quote. Launched on march 20th. Do you remember saying that . I do and its true. A corrupt ukrainian the president very prosecutor gave an interview clearly has that Constitutional Authority, to a reporter in the united correct . He does. States and made claims that okay. Well, most everybody apparently understands that. The ambassador provided officials with a, quote, do but it doesnt include house not prosecute list. Democrats. In the context of this sir, do you have any reason Impeachment Inquiry, to believe this is true . Specifically addressing i have every reason to ambassador yovanovitch, who believe it is not true. I know is a friend of yours. What was the reputation of the man who made these in alleging an abuse of allegations, sir . Power in the nationally a politician of televised interview, a member of this committee said, quote its an abuse longunderstanding, he had been minister of interior of power to remove an after the orange revolution, ambassador for political reasons because you dont u. S. Embassy had good like what theyre doing, period, end quote. Reputation with him for years. He was imprisoned by the thats not true, is it . President , came out, was again, i go back to what elected Majority Leader of i said, the president has poroshenko the then the right to have president s party and then ambassadors serve at his became Prosecutor General in pleasure. Okay. The spring of 2016. So you agree with me that we what was your experience Shouldnt Beach is a with ambassador yovanovitch, president for exercising his was she working hard to con Constitutional Authority. Bat corruption in ukraine, im here as a fact witness to answer your sir . She was dedicated, as is questions. Your constitutional obligation is to consider every u. S. Government the evidence before you. Official in ukraine, to help so, when did ambassador
ukrainians overcome the legacy of corruption. Yovanovitch get recalled which they actually have made a number of important from ukraine . Steps since 2014. I believe a message was so, in fact, before all of this happened, you and sent on or about april 24th. Your superiors at the state okay. Certainly well before the department asked the ambassador to extend her July 25th Call thats in question here, correct . Time in the ukraine. Without a doubt. Correct, sir . And she had no remaining that is correct. Did you support her extension . Responsibilities with i asked her to extend respect to ukraine policy until the end of this year for that three or four to get through the election months in between, i take it . She is now a she was cycle in ukraine and then under Secretary Hill in transferred to a teaching march asked her to stay until 2020. Now, some in ukraine slot at georgetown where her probably disliked her responsibilities, among others, were to teach a efforts to help ukraine root class on ukraine. Okay. Out corruption; is that so if President Trump had correct. As i mentioned in your testimony you cant promote the Constitutional Authority to remove her, as he did Principled Anticorruption Action without piszin businessif months before the call and she wasnt in the ukraine or have any responsibilities on corrupt people. July 25th, do you have an fair enough. Explanation for why now some of those People Democrats are calling her as helped giuliani smear her, a witness on friday . Did they not. They did. Ultimately that smear im here as a Fact Campaign pushed President Trump to remove her. Witness under subpoena and thats a question you could, correct, sir . I cannot judge that what i can say is that rudy perhaps, direct towards your democratic colleagues. Giulianis Smear Campaign
was ubiquitous on 2019 on fox news and the internet Ambassador Taylor. Weve estan and twitter spear. Ambassador taylor and mr. Kent in all your time at the State Department have you ever before seen an july 25th, both participant or instance where an ambassador was forced out by the less in the call have expressly stated there was no pressure, no president following a Smear Campaign of misinformation demand, no conditions, no orchestrated by the president s allies. Blackmail, no corruption. I have not. Nor i. I ask you again specifically mr. Chairman, i yield back. About the quid pro quo even being possible. I think weve agreed that it dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Wasnt possible, quid pro quo mr. Chairman, this should be easy, im going to use a lot of your words from the involving military aid, given previous deposition as we go forward. President zelenskys knowledge. In your deposition, you spoke of support for ukraine to my knowledge, president zelensky didnt have any idea the Security Systems and its rip to the united was on hold. States and how much you support that in 2014 you and days within that phone call im quoting this, urged the when no. Quot Obama Administration to provide lethal defensive weapons in order to deter further russian aggression. Did the Obama Administration provide lethal weapons . No, sir. They provided mres and walking into Chairman Schiff is
blankets and things like that. In your deposition you also said President Obamas objection was because it office, talking about outlines of the whistleblowers might provoke the russians. Accusations. And, in fact, you testified in your deposition that the what is the question . Obama administration didnt do you know why that person have a good argument since russia had already provoked would walk into Chairman Schiffs office . I do not. And they have invaded earlier Chairman Schiff made ukraine. Is that correct . Thats correct, sir. Its a shame you didnt reference to a colloquy. Take the advice of combat for legislators to clarify an veteran like you, sir. Important issue to the public. Someone who understands what deterrence provides. Without jeopardizing the because a lot of ukrainian whistleblower in any way in an effort to find out chairman, lives could have been saved if he had taken your advice. What you knew and when you knew in your deposition, you said it about the whistleblower, i and i quote happy, you were happy with trump would like you to engage in a administrations assistance. And it provided both lethal colloquy with me. My colleague will address his questions to the witness. And financial aid. Did it not . It did, sir. I will take that as a no, and you also stated that it was a substantial youre not interested in the colloquy. You can take it anyway you improvement is that correct . Thats correct, sir. Like it but a properly your so now we are providing question should be directed to witnesses. My question, to the witness javelins which kill russian tanks, mres and blankets do not do that today you
said i was beginning to fear then is when our House Republicans going to find out that the longstanding u. S. Policy of strong support for what House Democrats already know . Ukraine was shifting i when are we going to find out the details of the contact between Chairman Schiff and the have a little trouble with longstanding based on what we just talked about. It wasnt really whistleblower . What they met about, when they longstanding strong support met, the number of times they it. Seems to me the strong support came with this met, the discussions that were administration. Had. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Would you agree with that sir . Point of order. Unless you consider mres and blankets strong support. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is questioning the chair which is i wouldnt call it longstanding. The longstanding that im not permitted under the resolution applicable to the referring to there, hearing or the rules of the dr. Wenstrup, is the long house or committee. The efforts to undermine lawful standing political support, economic support, and whistleblowing undermines the increasing military support. Well, certainly that committee. Im not trying to find out strong support came from congress. But it didnt come from the the identity. I am trying to find out the date Previous Administration as compared to what this it happened. Of both gentlemen could administration has decided to do. Suspend. The strong support came with mr. Radcliffe is resuming questioning of the witness. This administration, not the i recommend we move on. Obama administration. Pretty simple question, are and maybe now we understand we going to be able to find out what President Obama meant when he told russian the details . President medvedev that he not anything classified. Would have more flexibility after his election. I guess he hasnt resumed his questioning of the witness. Maybe that flexibility was to deny lethal aid to the ukraine, allowing russia to march right in and kill mr. Ratcliffe, your time is ukrainians. Dwindling. I will yield back. Again, in your deposition, you urged the Obama Administration officials to thank you, mr. Chairman. Provide lethal defensive weapons to ukraine in order mr. Kent, some people have to deter further russian suggested the real reason aggression. And now they have that under President Trumps Pressure Campaign on the ukraine was to this administration. Dont they, mr. Ambassador . They have the javelins, root out corruption in ukraine. Yes, sir. Thank you. And i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. Ratcliffe. I have gone back and read the i thank the gentleman for yielding. Memorandum of calls two or three so, no pressure, no demands, times actually. I dont recall a single instance no conditions. Where the president ever use the nothing corrupt. No nothing. Nothing on the call. Thats what we heard word corruption, nor the word president zelensky say and corrupt. I know in answer to the because House Democrats chairmans opening questions, charges against President Trump have been publicly, you had indicated youd gone back and read it and you recall repeatedly consistently been the president and that july 25 denied by president zelensky, you heard the phone call with president zelensky ever uttering defense now from chairman the word corrupt or corruption . I dont recall but it would schiff. Be a matter of record now that he is lying because he has to. He has to lie. Its been released. But he did manage to find because the threat, the time to mention his potential demand, the blackmail, the extortion that house political rival in 2020. Democrats are alleging, if you answered in response to the he didnt do that, he question that you had been working on the issue of couldnt possibly risk corruption literally for decades. I think on behalf of the military aid. He would have to do anything American People and indeed on he had to secure it. The problem with that, the whole ihole in that argument isu october 15, you testified about longstanding u. S. Policy meant have to ask yourself what to combat corruption. Did president zelensky actually do to get the aid . The answer is nothing. Championed by people such as he did nothing. Former ambassador maria he didnt open any jovanovich. Mr. Kent, is it not true that investigations. He didnt call attorney rather than fighting corruption general bill barr. He didnt do any of the in general in ukraine, that what things that House DemocratsPresident Trump actually did was say that he was being forced unceremoniously recall and and coerced and threatened remove ambassadorfrom her post. To do. He didnt do anything because he didnt have to. I would say first of all as i i yield back. Repeated before, the president has the right to recall ms. You are recognized ambassadors. It remains a matter of policy of the United States toward ukraine
for five minutes. Thank you chair. To help them overcome a legacy thank you both for your true of corruption in creating new heroic efforts both today institutions. And also throughout your much of what weve been careers. I would like to start with discussing today which involved you, mr. Kent. An irregular channel which is in your testimony, you said her request that went against u. S. Policy that would undermine the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in that you had in mid august it became clear to me that ukraine as in other countries in giulianis efforts to gin up the postsoviet space. Policies that were indeed politically motivated championed by ambassador investigations were now infecting u. S. S. Engagement yovanovitch. With ukraine. You also testified in the leveraging president zelenskys desire for a deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to white house meeting. Fight corruption and to did you actually write a transform the country and you memo documenting your cited the importance of concerns that there was reforming certain institutions, pressure underway to pressure ukraine to open notably security service. Investigation to benefit President Trump . Yes, maam, i wrote a memo to the file on was investigating President Trumps political august 16th. We dont have access to that file do we. Opponents a part of those i presented it to the necessary reforms . State Department Pursuant to was it on that list of yours and the September 27th subpoena. We have not received one was it on any list . Piece of paper from the no, they werent. State department relative to
in fact, historically is it this investigation. Both of you have made not true than a major problem in the ukraine is compelling cases of the importance of ukraine to europe, to the 70 years of peace, the benefit that it has to the United States national security. And our goal to continue to support sovereignty of nations. Meanwhile, russia is violently attacking people in ukraine in the donbass area. So withholding military aid. Does that weaken ukraine . Well, i think it sends the wrong signal and it did for a short period of time. Again, the assistance from the fy19 was released and is in the process of heading towards ukraine. Does it embolden russia when there was no aid being sent to ukraine . I think the signal that
theres controversy and question about the u. S. Support of ukraine sends the signal to Vladimir Putin that he can leverage that as he seeks to negotiate with not only ukraine but other countries. Thank you. Ambassador taylor, i think you mentioned that a white house meeting for zelensky would boost his ability to negotiate for a peaceful settlement with Vladimir Putin and russia in general. Is that true . Ms. Speier, its certainly true that u. S. Support for mr. Zelensky, president zelensky in his negotiations with russians is very important and will enable him to get a better agreement with that support from the United States. Both from the military assistance but also from the political assistance that we can provide. But he has not yet had that white house meeting. Has he . He has not. I think its ironic that soviet Born Tsarnaev who has now been indicted had a
meeting with the president in the white house after participating in a number of Campaign Events for the president and contributing 325,000 to the president s pac. So maybe its actually requirement that you give money to the president s pac in order to get that meeting at the white house. Ambassador taylor, is it true that the Prosecutor General now has opened an investigation in ukraine . Ms. Speier, the new Prosecutor General that president zelensky has appointed, is indeed investigating crimes in general. Is that your question . Yes. He is in office and is has he specified what investigations he has undertaken . No. He has not . All right. I yield the rest of my time to Chairman Schiff. Just a quick question. My colleagues a couple of my colleagues referenced the conversation, the hot mic conversation between President Obama and president medvedev. That was in 2012. Theres a suggestion that he was saying he was going to go easy on russia over the invasion of ukraine. But that took place two years after that conversation. You had every reason to believe that President Obama was referring to going easy on russia for an invasion that hannity happened yet, do you. Mr. Chairman, i have no knowledge of what was in. It was more or less a rhetorical question. [laughter] i will yield now to mr. Mr. Stuart im sorry. Mr. Stuart. Yep. Thank you. To the witnesses thank you. Time is precious. So im going to go very, very quickly. Welcome, i think, to year four of the ongoing
impeachment of President Trump. Im sorry that you have been dragged into this. I think the sign behind me says it very well by the whistleblowers attorney the coup has started an impeachment will follow. After listening to what is going on now 4 hours and 21 minutes, after all of the secret hearings. After all of the leaks. After hearing witnesses such as yourselves give your opinions, it really comes down to this. One thing. One thing it comes down to. This is a transcript that the president has released of this phone call. There is one sentence, one phone call. That is what this entire impeachment proceeding is based upon. And i have got to tell you. If your impeachment case is so weak that you have to lie and exaggerate about it to convince the American People that they need to remove this president , then you have got a problem. And the American People have been lied to again and again on this. We first heard a lot about quid pro quo. And then many people realized that was meaningless. They said lets go for the lets talk about
extortion and talk about bribery and cover up and obstruction for which there is zero evidence of any of that we heard characterization of the president s phone call so outrage julsly inaccurate it had to be described as a parody. None of those things matter. It comes down to this. We appreciate your insight. We appreciate your opinion. But all you can do is give your opinion of this. This one phone call. Let me ask you, gentlemen, both of you have said here today, you have testified, corruption in ukraine is endemic. Would we agree on that . Simple question. Problem is. Isnt it . Its a problem and they are taking steps to address it. Okay. Earlier in the hearing both of you said used the word endemic or agreed to it. Its in the courts, oligarchs, prosecutors, everywhere. I think we can also agree that thats not the only place in the world where we experience and see corruption. There is dozens and dozens of nations around the world that is steeped in
corruption. Would you agree with that . I would say that there is corruption in every country. Including ours. Okay. Thank you. And some were clearly more concerned about than others. In these corrupt nations of which there are probably hundreds of corrupt individuals, hundreds of corrupt government officials, can you give me an example any time where the Vice President of the United States shows up and demands that a specific prosecutor be fired and gives them a six hour time limit to do that . Are you aware of that happenings any other place . I guess the answer is no. And i just think its interesting that out of hundreds of corrupt individuals, dozens of corrupt nations that happened one time. And it happened with the individuals who son was being paid by the organization that was under investigation. One other thing very quickly. If someone was a candidate for a political office, even
for president of the United States, should they be immune from investigation . No one is above the law, sir. Thank you. I agree with that i think we all would agree with that and yet some presume because some of the individuals we are talking about here were candidates that theyre immune from any questions or any investigation. I think its absurd, For Heavens Sake those of us in public office, those of us who have find ourselves up for reelection all the time as a candidate. Think think we have a higher standard, not immunity from asking these types of questions. The last thing and then im going to yield my time. Availability of funds. Im quoting from the ndaa in 2019. The languages wage is specific. Availability of funds under assistance to ukraine, it has to be and what has to be certified . Quote for the purposeseasing. Are you surprised that there would be questions about that it would be discussed
withholding some of this aid thats actually required by law that it be withheld if they cant certify that corruption has been eliminated or is being addressed . Certification in that case is done by the secretary of defense upon advice of his staff in consultation with the inner agency community. We were fully supportive of that cnt. Conditionality the secretary of defense had been certified that issue had been met. We agree withhold funds if there are questions about corruption that have not been addressed. Im going to yield the rest of my time to mr. Jordan. 18 seconds. You are going to let that go . Thank you. In that cases, i would yield back. Thank you. Just quickly, so that certification that took place in may. Is that correct, mr. Kent . I dont believe it was certified by may. I would defer to my colleague, gloria cooper, who has testified. It was an earlier time. It had not been done by may because when i was visiting in may i was asked by laura to raise a specific
issue that would meet the conditionality. The dod did meet, say they met the certification. Yes, sir. I think it may have within in the july time frame. Thank you. So. Its interesting and curious that were talking about hearsay evidence, that is extraordinary to me that the committee has been able to get as much information that they had, direct or hearsay, given the obstruction. You gentlemen were both asked by the State Department not to appear for your depositions. Is that correct . . We both received i received initially a Letter Directing me not to appear. And once the committees issued a subpoena, i was under legal obligation to appear and i am here today under subpoena. Ambassador, were you also asked not to be part of the deposition . Mr. Quigley, i was told by the State Department dont appear under these circumstances, that was in the letter to me. And when i got the subpoena
exactly as mr. Kent said, that was different circumstances, and i obeyed a locally subpoena so, yes, sir, im here for that reason. Absolutely. But we were not able to hear testimony by Chief Of Staff mulvaney, john eisenberg, michael ellis, john bolton, more than a dozen witnesses. So i suspect if you have a problem with hearsay, you would have a lot more direct testimony and direct evidence if you werent blocking that ability. You would have a lot more documents. Documents that you referred to with my colleagues questions that have not yet been turned over by state or any other agency; is that correct, to your knowledge, gentlemen . Were both here under subpoena. I dont think either of us is going to comment why others have not shown up. But has any of the documents that you turned over, to your knowledge, been turned over to the committee . No. Mr. Kent, following the July 25th Call and to the first two weeks of august, were you involved in any efforts to arrange for
president zelensky to make a statement announcing the two investigations that the president , President Trump had talked about in the July 25th Call . I was not and i would never participate in an arrangement to have them announce investigations. Ambassador taylor, were you involved in any such efforts . No, sir. I want to show you a text of the exchange. This one is between ambassador volker and andriy yermak. The same zelensky texted before the July 25th Call. You were involved so i will read it. First text august 10th. Ambassador volker texted i agree with your approach. Lets iron out the statement and use that to get date and then pres can go forward with it. Then once we have a date, we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for reboot of u. S. Ukraine relationship including other things burisma and Election Meddling in investigations. Andre very much says once we have a date they will announce the investigations and burisma election
meddling. Mr. Kent, are these the same two investigations President Trump asked ukrainian president to initiate in the july 25th meeting, 25th call . Those appear to be the same issues that were mentioned in the call as well as the Media Campaign that started in march led by Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Kent, as the daytoday state Department Point person in washington on ukraine policy, were you aware of this effort to persuade president zelensky to issue a statement in order to get a white house meeting while they were happening . When this exchange happened on august 10th, was i not. When did you learn about them . As Ambassador Taylor referenced earlier in his testimony in oral answering he heard on august 16th he then called me and we had a conversation and at that point i memorialized my concerns in a note to the file. Ambassador taylor, as the point person on the ground in ukraine, were you aware of this effort to get ukraine to issue this Written Statement in early august . Not the Written Statement, no, sir. So the entire discussion about a public statement
about the two investigations President Trump wanted was done in what you have described as irregular channel involving ambassador sondland and volker. And a task to take on ukraine policy by the president , is tha isnt that correct, mr. Kent . That would be my understanding. Ambassador . The same. And if, i guess, to close, primer on hearsay, i think the American Public needs reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct have we have learned in painful instances and certainly valid in this instance. Gentlemen yield because none of those exceptions would apply to this testimony. This is not the time for colloquy. Mr. Im sorry, representative stefanik, you are recognized. Thank you. For the millions of
americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following number one, ukraine received the aid. Number two, there was, in fact, no investigation into biden. Mr. Kent and Ambassador Taylor, you both spoke eloquently and passionately about the need to support ukraine to counter russian aggression. Particularly during this very critical time. I agree with you in that assessment. And isnt it the case that the Trump Administration has indeed provided substantial aid to ukraine in the form of defensive lethal aid, correct . That is correct. That is more so than the Obama Administration, correct . The Trump Administration. With respect to lethal aid . Yes. And in the transcript of the president s July 25th Call with president zelensky, president zelensky tells trump they are ready to buy more javelins. This, indeed, the most effective weapon for fighting russian armor tanks; is that correct . That is correct. Those javelins were not made available to ukraine
under the Obama Administration . , the javelins were not made available. They were not. Correct. Shifting gears to corruptio corruption. One of the themes here today is rooting out corruption which is an important part president provide taxpayer funded aid to foreign countries. Mr. Kent, you would characterize ukraine as having longstanding corruption issues, correct . I did. In fact, you testified, quote i would say that corruption is part of the reason why ukrainians came out to the streets in both 2004 when somebody tried to steal the election and again in 2014 because of a corrupt prorussian government which eventually collapsed. The ukrainians decided enough was enough. Was that your testimony. It remains so. And you testified that you first came to learn about burisma in 2015 when you were the senior anticorruption coordinator. Correct . Correct. Detailed to the embassy in kiev as the acting deputy
chief admission. And you testified that the issue of corruption in burisma was in the u. S. Interest because, quote and this is from your deposition, we had made a commitment to the Ukrainian Government in 2014 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of dollars Stolen Assets out of the country. Is that correct . That is a Stolen Assets that were In The Name Of the owner burisma krzyzewski, he was the one we believed had stolen the money. Sure. So the first case, this was the first case that the u. S. S. , u. K. , and ukraine investigators worked on was against the owner of burisma. Thats correct. That was during the Obama Administration. Thats correct. So for the millions of americans viewing, the first investigation against the owner of burisma was under president Obamas Administration . Thats correct. You testified, also, quote we spent roughly half a Million Dollars of State Department money in support of the fbi and this investigation to build capacity and track down
Stolen Assets, end quote. Is that correct . Thats correct. It was launched in may 2014 by the Attorney General of the u. S. And u. K. In conjunction with the world bank. And, in fact, by 2016, you were so concerned about corruption questions related to burisma, that when there was an effort by burisma to sponsor an Essay Contest with usaid you asked usaid to stop it . Thats correct. And you testified that it was because, quote burisma had a poor reputation in the business. And that you didnt think it was appropriate for the u. S. Government to be cosponsoring something with a company that had a bad reputation. Correct. You are also aware and you testified today that hunter biden served on the board of burisma. Correct. And you also testified that you were, indeed, concerned about the appearance of Conflict Of Interest . Thats correct. And broadly, this is very important, you testified in your deposition that when the State Department evaluates foreign
assistance, it is appropriate for them to look at levels of corruption in countries. Thats correct. And lastly, you also testified that and this is your quote issues of corruption have been part of high level dialogue between u. S. Leaders and ukrainian leaders regardless of who is the u. S. Leader and who is the ukrainian leader and that is a normal issue of diplomatic discussion at the highest level, end quote. Is that correct . Thats correct. I will yield 30 seconds. You know what, i will yield back after that. Thank you. Mr. Swalwell . Both of have you testified that you are not direct witnesses to have spoken with President Trump; however, you are witnesses to a Shakedown Scheme that others participated in who spoke with President Trump; however, ambassador bolton and mic mulvaney both spoke directly to President Trump and unlike you, they have refused to honor our request for them to be a part of these proceedings. Nonetheless, we do know how
acting Chief Of Staff mic mulvaney feels about aid because, on october 17, at a press conference, he discussed the hold on Security Assistance for ukraine. Ambassador taylor, i would like you to listen to what he said. I will read it for you. Its in response to a question but to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is money will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happens as well. In response to that question, mr. Mulvaney said mr. Taylor, we do that all the time with foreign policy. My question, Ambassador Taylor, the president conditioning Security Assistance on an investigation into his political opponent prior to this administration, is this something we would do all the time . No, sir. Why not . We condition assistance on issues that will improve
our foreign policy, serving our foreign policy, use ensure that taxpayers money is wellspent and those conditions are either coming from the congress or from policy decisions, stemming from Authority Congress has given to make sure that the taxpayers money is wellspent or that the receiving Company Country takes the actions in our national interest. And you described in your text message exchanges that engaging in a scheme like this is, quote crazy. Can we also agree that its just wrong . Yes. Why is it wrong . Again, our holding up of Security Assistance that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from
russia to no for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason, no Good National security reason is wrong. Mr. Mulvaney in the same News Conference said, quote if you read the news reports and you believe them, what mckinley said yesterday, mckinley said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence and foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And i have news for everybody. Get over it. Theres going to be political influence in foreign policy. Ambassador taylor, should we get over it . If we are talking about political influence meaning attempts to get information that solely useful for political campaigns, if thats what were he is talking about, we should not get used to that. Finally mr. Mulvaney said, again, i was involved
with the process which the known was held up temporarily. Okay . Three issues for that. The corruption of the country. Whether or not the countries are participating in the support of ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in an Ongoing Investigation with our Department Of Justice. Thats completely legitimate. Mr. Kent, were you aware of any formal Department Of Justice cooperation request made to the ukrainians . I am not aware that there was any formal Department Of Justice request in this matter, no. Was mr. Mulvaneys statement false . I think you would refer that question again to the Department Of Justice since i dont have full knowledge of whatever they may be working on. Just about an hour before the two of you sat down to testify today the president tweeted multiple times about this hearing and he put in all caps never trumpers. Mr. Kent, are you a never trumper . I am a Career Nononprofessional serves whatever president carries out the foreign policies of that president and the United States. I have done that for 27
years for three republican president s and two democrat president s. Ambassador taylor raw never trumper. No, sir. Mr. Ambassador, finally you said in your statement mr. Chairman there are two ukrainian stories today. The first is the one we are discussing this morning and that you have been hearing for for the past two weeks. Its a rancorous story about whistleblowers. Mr. Giuliani, side channels. Quid pro quos, corruption, and interference in elections. End in the story ukraine is merely an object. Is it true that in this story its about the president of the United States . Mr. Swalwell, im here to tell you what i know. And im here to tell you what i heard. And what i said. And in that regard, i cant answer that question. But what you have testified to also involves the president of the United States; is that correct . The president of the United States was on the