I worked with Giuliani on the Ukraine matter as an express direction of the president is that right that's correct you also go on to say that we did not want to work with Giuliani simply put we played the hand that we were dealt What did you mean by that and more importantly what did you think would happen if you did not play that hand I think what you're asking me is. Well you asked it well what would happen if we didn't. It was very fragile with Ukraine at the time there was no new ambassador the old ambassador had left there was a new president we thought it was very very important to shore up the relationship in fact you actually said you go on to say we all understood that if we refused to work with Mr Giuliani we would lose an important opportunity to see met relationships with the United States in Ukraine so you've so quote We follow the president's orders as you see it as a directive. I saw it as the only pathway to moving forward on Ukraine so you would say that the efforts that Mr Giuliani was undertaking became a part of the formal u.k. Ukraine u.s. Policy I cannot upon that all I can tell you is the president wanted us to communicate with Mr Giuliani would you went on to say that in your opening steps of money that the suggestion that you engage in some quote irregular a rogue diplomacy is absolutely Fos So if if in fact what Giuliani was doing was Ok and proper which is actually what you said initially you all thought that what he was doing was not improper right we did not think it was improper and when I referred to the fact that I was not engaging in Rogue diplomacy by definition rogue diplomacy would of have met I would not have involved the leadership of the State Department in the White House so you're saying that everyone in the chain of command knew about Giuliani's efforts to try to get the investigations and into the reason why and to. And you know and so I'm just trying to figure out what you thought you were actually opining to look the president directed us to work with Mr Giuliani and the leadership of the State Department were and were knowledgeable as was the n.s.c. That we were working with Mr Giuliani It was interesting is that embassador Taylor testified that he knew nothing about it and clearly he would be in the chain of information if he was the ambassador to Ukraine at the end of the days or all with all due respect you're the ambassador to the European Union why would he not know about it I don't know he was the one who said that there was both a regular and irregular channel you should have known about it. So although we don't want you said that you did not want to work with Mr Giuliani you in fact did work with him that's correct and do you think that the. The essence of what he was trying to achieve was accomplished. I don't know what he was trying to achieve you clearly had to have known Sir if you think that this was actually going down the center line is what you said it was clearly important that we that we work with Mr Giuliani to get what the president asked for because it was a directive in order surely you must know whether or not mission was accomplished Well I know what Mr Giuliani communicated to us and he was that was totally fine Did you really think that it was Ok for an answer your question or you asked what would Mr Giuliani was trying to achieve you know I asked whether you thought that it was right for Mr Giuliani to want to accomplish the efforts that he was involved in which was to get. Get them to investigate Barisan and the 2016 election as you said all I can testify to is what I know that Mr Giuliani either told me directly or told him Bassett or Volcker and others that was relayed to me thank you you know back Mr Turner investor son and I want to walk through some of the portions of your testimony because sometimes you seem to make direct connections and sometimes they seem to be dead ends I kind of want to clear up one of the dead ends and one of the direct connections yesterday Ambassador Volcker who I consider to be very talented and a man of integrity and I believe you think he's a man of integrity correct I do he testified that the president and states did not talk either a meeting with the president a phone call or any aid to investigations of breeze about 2016 or the Bidens there but the president did not do that and you testified that the president did not tell you that he tied the my that correct. I did testify to that although when Ambassador Volcker and I were working on the statement and negotiating with the Ukrainians it was clear to him Basser Volcker that a meeting would not happen without the 2016 that was very clear to a vast interval and how do you know that what did he say to you because he says that was not clear to him in fact he says that's not the case he was working on that he knows that that's what the president wanted but he didn't have it as this was a requirement Oh I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony it was absolutely a requirement or we would have just had the meeting and been done with it what about the 8 he says that they weren't tied that the aide was not tied and I didn't say they were they were conclusively tied either I said I was presuming it Ok so the present ever told you they were tight so York's testimony his testimony is consistent in the president not tied. To investigations That's correct he also testified that he spoke to Giuliani and that Giuliani did not relate that the that he was talking on behalf of the president or on the president's behalf 8 and then in fact Giuliani never said to him that it was tied to investigations and I think the question I have for you is did you ever have a conversation which really only did it not involve Volcker because your testimony is a lot of we as in us it is so did you do you have a separate conference separate phone call were Giuliani told you at the aide was tied because Volcker says if he was on all your phone calls Volcker says that never happened. You know I did have a few conversations I don't recall how many because I don't have the records with Mr Giuliani directly when Mr Volcker wasn't available and I don't believe any city or you say I don't believe I testified that Mr Giuliani told me that AIG was tied. I think see this is part of the problem investors and I just want to walk you through this is you've said to us everyone was in the loop and everyone no no hold a 2nd or so I've listened to you today as a lot of people and not only are Ensor somewhat circular frequently you've you've contradicted yourself in your own answer now the the text messages and e-mails that you put up there Kurt Volker walked us through it he has a completely different understanding of what you were saying than what you're saying you were saying so I'm a little confused as to how everyone's in the loop because there are there are if Giuliani didn't give you an express statement then it can't be that you believe this from Giuliani let me tell you right now he is Donald Trump your friend no we're not friends we're going to like the president Yes Ok well you know after you testified German Shifrin out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president and say it's because of your testimony and if you pull up c.n.n. Today right now there banner says someone ties Trump to withholding aid is that your testimony today Mr Blitzer Master Simon that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation because I don't think you're saying that I've said repeatedly. Congressman I was presuming I also said that President Trump the No one clearly not just the President Giuliani didn't tell you more when he didn't tell you nobody Pompei I didn't tell you nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations is that correct I think I already testified to the question is it correct no one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation because if you're exergy us in the chairman's wrong and the headline on c.n.n. Is wrong no one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations yes or no yes so you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations other than my own presumption which is nothing I mean that's what I never said Sir you know what hearsay evidence is Ambassador hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me you know what made up testimony is made up testimony is when I just presume it I mean you're just assuming all of these things and then you're giving them the end evidence that they're running out of doing press conferences and c.n.n. Headline is saying you're saying the president state should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations and you don't know that correct I never said the president had state should be impeached No but you did you have left people with the confusing impression that you were giving testimony that you did not you do not have any evidence that the president lied States was tied to withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations or your back. This Carson thank you Chairman ambassador. Really want to better understand Mr Giuliani's role in carrying out the president's demand for investigation so on May the 23rd sir during a meeting in the Oval Office to discuss the future of u.s. Korean relations a President Trump told you and others to quote talk to Rudy do I have that right sir correct Mr Ambassador did you listen to the president and talk to Rudy's or did I talk to Mr Yes And what did you understand the Mr Giuliani's relationship with President Trump I understood he was the president's personal lawyer. What did you believe to be Mr Giuliani what do you believe Mr Jalali was doing in Ukraine for President Trump so I don't know embassador Saarland. In August of this year u.n. Ambassador Volcker spoke with Mr Giuliani about a dress statement to be issued by the president delivered to keep during those discussions it was Mr Giuliani who suggested in fact insisted that the statement include specific language about the recent corrects are correct. And he insisted that the statement include the mention of the 26th elections. And Mr Volcker transmitted this message to a top Ukrainian official writes are. Correct. Mr Ambassador and this statement was part of the deliverable that President Trump wanted correct sir correct to your knowledge sir was pushing the Ukrainians to investigate the recent 2016 of the Bidens part of some official State Department policies or. I never testified that we were pushing anyone to investigate the Bidens I said to respond. You were involved in Ukrainian policy right sir. I told you what my role was which was quite limited and focused Was it your understanding Mr Ambassador that Ukraine policy should involve investigations into Americans or debunk conspiracy theories about the 26 team elections or what I testified to was that in order to get President Selenski a White House visit Mr Giuliani conveyed the notion that President Trump want these . Announcements to happen of course it was not it was a part of the president's political agenda and it was done to benefit the president personally and politically. Were you following the president's orders Mr Ambassador I was following the president's direction to speak with Mr Giuliani. Thank you sir as he turned to you but. I think that John feeling just want to point out a couple things ambassador in response to my colleagues my colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words and vaster song and I am Bing Ukrainian president that there's no evidence of bribery if he didn't say investor son lend I'm telling you I'm not going to give the aid unless they do this that there's no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid. But nonetheless Ambassador you've given us a lot of evidence of precisely that conditionality of both the White House meeting and the military assistance you've told us about her Have you not that you e-mailed the secretary of state and said that if these investigations were announced the new justice person was put in place that the Ukrainians would be paired to give the president what he wants and that would break the logjam you testified in showed us documents about this have you not a bastard I have and in your written statement you say that the log jam your firm to includes the logjam on security assistance correct correct as my presumption Yes And we also have seen and you testified that you have also seen Ambassador rather acting chief of staff Mulvaney himself acknowledge that the military aid was withheld in part over the investigation into 2016 that you've talked about you referenced that as well correct. Now they also seem to say that well they got the money the money may have been condition but they got the money yes they got caught they got caught now they still don't have a White House meeting they made no statement they got no meaning the way the statement and the destination is was the condition to get the meeting they did make the statement they got no meeting. But they got caught you're aware arguing baster that 2 days before the aid was lifted this inexplicable aid was lifted Congress announced it was investigating this team you're aware of that aren't you bastard I am now yes doctor wants to. Thank you Mr Chairman it's John I'd like to address something you claim that you made this morning claiming that Republicans deny Russian attempts to influence our elections that is false and you know it in this committee the Intel Committee not the impeachment committee but in this committee time and time again we all agree that Russia has tried to influence American elections as far back as the Soviet Union so I wish you would quit stop it we quit making that comment yesterday we established with Mr Volcker something quite obvious more than one country can try to influence our elections Mr Schiff we didn't agree with your Russian collusion narrative your d.n.c. Clinton campaign coup attempt that occurred in conjunction with members of the f.b.i. And d.o.j. And foreign sources something that you have conveniently ignored as chairman of the Intelligence Committee as you became the chairman of the impeachment committee but in this process today I'm interested in facts I'm not a prosecutor or defense attorney I'm not an attorney like Mr Turner investor son when you honestly have used the words presumed presumption presuming some form of the verb to presume repeatedly today and today you said that was the problem Mr Goldman no one ever told me the aid was tied to anything I was presuming it was you see in mathematics fact 2 plus 2 does equal 4. But in reality 2 presumptions plus 2 presumptions does not equal even one fact and the fact is the president did tell you and bass or son no quid pro quo that's a fact. And another fact no quid pro quo occurred this time unlike the organised gun examiner. You have to go since the internet to record a Washington Post article from today that headline shifts claim that the whistleblower has a statutory rights and him if he received 3 Nokia. Meaning that we all know me the terp or taste of that would be that 2 interpretations the one that my colleagues on the other side would argue as are trying to protect the whistleblower an equally valid incredible. Interpretation is that there is something to hide and that this unlevel playing field that's been created by the chairman's it systems that there is a statutory right to anonymity maintains that unlevel playing field in the advantages that gives them now would serve it also announces or at every hearing that he will not tolerate and I agree with him any witness intimidation any threats or any issues of trying to bully a witness events are solid Have you your family or your business is received any threats or reprisals or attempts to harm you in any way many could you give us our sample or 2 we have countless e-mails apparently to my wife are our property is there to be picketed and boycotted Well Stylistics more that one. Our own colleague Congressman Earl Blumenauer from Oregon has in fact call for a boycott of your hotel chains or your hotels and. In Oregon I'm assuming he believes that that will harm you to the point that you will then be bullied into doing whatever he wants done out of a colleague and I know that using the word bully and Earl Blumenauer in the same sentence is a bit over the top but never has he intended to harm you and your businesses that would you would surmise that's my understanding and that to boycott his call for a boycott gave rise to demonstrations in front of your hotels that made your customers have to weave a. In and out of the demonstrators to try to actually get in the hotels as I understand they're going on as we speak well the words are better put by a couple of other orgone and this is Talk of blue but I was irresponsible to have to hurt a home grown business that supports hundreds of jobs in our local economy is just shameful and ought to be an outrage to all orgone it's some felony McDermott and there's a lady named Ellen Carmichael who happily works for you said we are saddened to have our Congressman Earl Blumenauer call for a boycott that would put the livelihoods of thousands of his constituents in peril the attack on our employees on board and I couldn't agree more Mr Ambassador Mr Blue and our should not be using the vast influence is that we as members of Congress has to bully you and your businesses into harm the hundreds or thousands of employees that they are out there operating your business by trying to take business away from you to force you into doing something that that they want to do which actually testified you actually done that but that's a shame for that and I'm hopeful that my colleagues on the other side of that will join me and say Mr Blewitt our You really shouldn't be using your congressional influence to try to bully I threaten a witness before these proceedings that is just wrong and I look forward to my colleagues response and your back thank you Congressman Mr. I was somewhat humored by you our request that Mr Bloom in our not bully. To get something done when we're talking about is the president bullying to get something he wants done but having said that. I'd like to clarify one point about the whistleblower protection from the article that Mr Conway just provided the law reads. Expressly restricts the inspector general's office from disclosing whistleblowers identities It says quote The inspector general shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken unquote that appears to be the lone statutory restriction on disclosing a whistle blower's identity applicable only to the inspector general's office we found no court rulings on whether whistleblowers have a right to anonymity under the i.c. W.p.a. Or related statutes Latics said it is nonetheless a best practice to avoid disclosure of the Ukraine whistleblowers identity given the concerns about retaliation Khaled said we've stepped into bizarro land when senior policymakers are trying to yank a CIA employee into the public spotlight in retaliation for making a whistleblower blowing complaint especially when they are credible threats to that employee's personal safety and I don't know why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle you'll be you know I'm I'm afraid I only have 3 minutes and I have some other issues but thank you in the article does go through that it also says 3 Pinocchio's in spite of the compound Mr. The present United States has pipe Nokia's on a daily basis so let's not go there. Thank you thank . You Vassar son learned in your deposition. You lamented quote I was truly disappointed that the State Department prevented me at the last minute from testifying earlier on October 8th 200-1000 but your issuance of a subpoena has supported my appearance here today and I'm pleased to provide the following testimony so it is clear that the White House the State Department did not want you to testify at that deposition is that correct that's correct and since then you have on numerous occasions during your opening statement today indicated that you have not been able to access documents in the State Department is that correct so you have been hampered in your ability to provide testimony to this committee is that correct I've been hampered to provide completely accurate testimony without the benefit of those documents in terms of your conversations with the present the United States what percentage of your conversations were about Ukraine as compared to your other duties I don't recall well you've only had 6 conversations or 7 conversations with the president you said so about Ukraine I think so you've had many other conversation yeah about unrelated completely unrelated matters so how many conversations with the president ited States have you had again I don't want to give you a number because it's going to be wrong if I don't have the records is that less than 20 it's probably in that range right. Would you say that delay in military aid and the lack of a meeting in the White House works to the benefit of Russia repeat the question again please would you say that the delayed delayed and military aid to Ukraine and the reluctance to have a White House meeting has a benefit to Russia. I think it could be looked that way yes looked at that way right I'm going to just speak very briefly about code. When the when Michael Cohen was before the Oversight Committee he was asked you suggest the president sometimes communicates is wishes to him directly for example you say quote Mr Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress that's not how he operates it would be different he said. Nice he doesn't give you questions he doesn't give you orders he speaks in code and I understand the code because I've been around him for a decade so do you think that the president was speaking in code when he would talk about wanting investigations I don't I can't characterize how the president was speaking every conversation I've had with the president has been fairly direct and straightforward All right. Mr Stuart Sherman I have a unanimous consent request. Mr your question do we respond strong baster Saddam is killing comments for the House Intelligence Committee attributable to the Dio's secretary. Press Secretary Ambassador songlines testimony today misrepresented both Secretary Kerry's interaction and with Rudy Giuliani and direction the secretary received from President Trump as previously stated Secretary Perry spoke to Rudy Giuliani only once at the president's request no one else was on that call at no point before during or after the phone call did the words Biden or Bridgeman ever come up in the presence of the Secretary Perry. Again I say be entered into the record without objection although I would note that they've also refused to come and testify under oath the American people expect a lot of things out of politics arguments protests we certainly see that clash of principles and ideas I think sometimes eventually they actually would like to see some compromise but I think something they expect above everything else a fundamental they expect there is a sense of fairness about it and I want to read part of a text I received from someone that I have tremendous respect for just a few hours ago she wrote crafting a story to hurt another human being can never be right the means of destroying and hurting another individual just does not justify the end politics does not give anyone a free pass to destroy other people now you can say a lot about the treatment of President Trump over the last 2 years but I think one thing you cannot argue is that it has been fair there were those calling for his impeachment literally before he was inaugurated for 2 and a half years we were told every single day he has betrayed our country he is a Russian asset he has committed treason accusations that we know now are not true and for which we never have any evidence to support that he was accused of obstruction and now here we are actually impeaching the president over well 1st quid pro quo until we found out that didn't hold very well with focus groups and then was bribery until virtually every witness before us was asked a question said they had no evidence of bribery and now it's extortion I mean again the American people expect some sense of fairness and Nancy Pelosi goes before she has seen a shred of evidence and she announces the president has betrayed his oath of office he has betrayed the American people he did potato national security without seeing any evidence again the American people say well what is fair about that. So the. Question before us now is again extortion that's the that's the latest version of the charges against the president I'm not an attorney extortion sounds pretty scary to serious I had to look it up what it means it means obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones Mr Ambassador I'm going to read you a couple quotes from presidents Alinsky and then ask you a question 1st from Ukrainian press release Donald Trump is convinced that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve the image of Ukraine complete investigation of corruption which inhibited the interaction with Ukraine and the USA Does that sound like prisons Alinsky is being bribed or extorted and that comment. As I testified previously I'm not a lawyer either and I don't want to characterize Well Ok any legal terms that we do that's fine I think most people would read that and say That doesn't sound like he's under severe pressure he makes it very clear in his own words in Ukrainian president Zelinsky told reporters during a joint press conference with Donald Trump that he was not pressured by the u.s. President again I was not pressured to use another side time there was no blackmail I would ask you Do you think he felt like he was being extorted by the president based on these comments I really think that's for the committee and the Congress to well you know what is this your master it's really for the American people I agree and the American people aren't stupid and the American people can hear that and they can say I don't think he was under duress I don't think he was being extorted I don't think there was an exchange of a bride and I would conclude with this last observation it is common. For an r.b.i. Tional policy to withhold aid for various reasons you know that's true as an ambassador is that not true that's true it's frequent isn't it that we will withhold aid for various reasons it's correct it is a policy I mean for example President Bush did it he suspended military aid to 35 countries over their lack of support for an international criminal court I'll bet that helped his political standing back home but I don't remember anyone suggesting we should impeach him for it President Trump did it last year with Afghanistan over corruption we did it with Pakistan over much the same thing and no one suggested that we impeach them for this is a common occurrence in international relations it is hardly an impeachable offense . Some of the Germans expired Mr quickly I think Mr Chairman thank you sir for being here today you know there are things we can agree with our colleagues on things we can disagree I can agree that with my colleague that we should turn over all the the documents should be turned over to Mr Ambassador I think you agree that would have helped your testimony help you understood that the State Department the White House hasn't turned over a single document White House wanted this the president's April phone conversation but millions more out there so on that we can agree on others we can disagree as to particular as it relates to the whistleblower. It it distresses me because I begin to wonder about the motivations in the final analysis the way I look at this is if we were investigating an arson you all would. Indict the person who pulled the fire alarm. That person's job is done and we've seen the smoke and we've seen the fire. Whatever the whistleblower did it doesn't change the president's actions it doesn't change the president's own words which are in our testimony our in our our body of evidence it doesn't change Mr Moore veiny zone words it doesn't change the body of evidence here all it does is put this person at risk back to the documents and what you know and clearly Mr Ambassador even seem to have your memory jogged by documents let's talk about May 23rd and see if this one helps you Senator Johnson in referencing the May 23rd meeting in his letter sir says. I have no recollection the press and say president saying that during the meeting it is entirely possible he did because I do not work for the president if made the comment simply did not register with me he also says I also remember signing on staying behind to talk to the president as the rest of the delegation left the Oval Office sir do you recall this later conversation and what you do in the President discuss I do and what was that just are again recapping what it was sort of a free for all conversation and I wanted to tie down exactly what what we agreed to do and what we didn't in in that subsequent he reinforced talk to Rudy and to Rudy you guys didn't work on going to any more detail about what that meant you know you said talk to Rudy it was a very short conversation in the 2nd part you said there was something besides just talk to Rudy Yeah the you know reconfirm that the 3 of us would be working on the Ukraine file you know and so on. Back to Rudy in this seemingly contradictory passage of messages here. You now recall the prerequisite mentioned in the July 10th meeting right that when you were having this discussion the 1st meeting in John Bolton's office or you referenced that there was a condition Iraq I believe someone else testified that I raise that and I didn't dispute that testimony that I said. It's my understanding that in order to get this visit there needs to be in announcement about I don't know if I said investigations or said specifically respond and sure put it in your opening you mention at the very same time. Apparently there was a meeting with Rudy Giuliani and the message you get with RISP underscored very concerned about what Lute single told them that according to our g. Rudy Giuliani the z. Poultice meeting will not happen which is not a condition that's just not going to happen you know just any of the difference here I think what you're what you're saying is. This meeting I was talking about in my opening statement was apparently a meeting that Rudy Giuliani was having at the same time at the same time in Ukraine right unbeknownst to us right but he's saying something different he's saying it's not going to happen there's no notice in here that it's conditioned in any way well that was an ambassador Volcker's point this was really an exchange with with a master tailor ambassador Volcker Vasser Volcker is saying Don't let other people speak for the u.s. Government that was his point but if Rudy is following the directions and it's and he's saying what he's saying here and you're also following directions right and you're saying it's condition who's divin you the instructions to say what you're saying that's why we thought it was problematic to work with Mr Giuliani exactly but who did you work with to say the things that you said that you have conversations with the chief of staff with Secretary Pompei o to say what you are saying. You didn't just say this not in are you talking about in the July 10th meeting that's correct Oh yeah with with Ambassador Volcker because at that point Ambassador Volcker was the one in touch with Mr Giuliani not me but you had no direct conversations with Mr Mulvaney about this or Secretary Pompei o to make this condition statement only the Texan e-mails that I've already. Reviewed Thank you no time is up. This the phone thank you Ambassador someone for your service and I also want to thank you for your recognition in your opening statement of your hard working staff at the u.s. Mission to the e.u. Mr Solomon you testified that you never received any direct confirmation or specific information as to why there was a hold on that's correct and in fact you testified quote President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the investigations and quote that's correct you said quote never heard those words from the president correct correct instead you testified that in your September 9th call with President Trump the president said quote no quid pro quo I want nothing I want nothing I want President Selenski to do the right thing do what he ran on and quote is that correct that's correct and the fact is the aid was given to Ukraine without any announcement of new investigations That's correct and President Trump did in fact meet with President Selenski in September at the United Nations correct you did and there was no announcement of the investigations before this meeting correct and there was no announcement of investigations after this meeting that's right and you've been very clear when chairmanship has asked you broadly about investigations you've corrected that to say specifically your understanding of investigations our investigation into the 2016 elections and investigations into Prisma Is that correct that's correct and are you aware that during the Obama administration the u.s. Partnered with the u.k. U.k. In Ukraine on an investigation into the owner of Brit's as part of Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts I became aware of it today during the hearing other witnesses have testified but yes and in fact the Obama administration State Department was concerned about the potential appearance of conflict of interest with Hunter Biden serving on the board of Burris. Because they raised this as they were preparing ambassador Yavanna bitch for her Senate confirmation Are you aware of that I'm not aware of it she testified when I asked her that question both in the open hearing and the close deposition and I've asked most of our witnesses this and every witness I've asked has said yes and I want to ask you this today do you believe that Hunter Biden having a position on the board of Bris Milah has the potential appearance of a conflict of interest I don't want to characterize 100 Biden service on the board one way or another I just don't know enough so you disagree with every other witness that has answered yes there is a potential appearance of a conflict of interest where you asked if there was a conflict or an appearance of potential My quote was the potential appearance of a conflict of interest I didn't hear the word appearance will clearly it's an appearance of a conflict correct clearly it is an appearance of conflict of interest again this is something that every witness has answered yes to or agreed with it could have a potential appearance and yet we are not allowed to call Hunter Biden to answer questions in front of this committee thank you again for your truthful testimony today and I yield back thank you so this will be faster song when you were told by the president and others to not show up you showed up I think that says a lot about you and I think history will look kindly on you doing that but there are consequences to that and just a couple hours ago President Trump was asked about you and he said I don't know him well I have not spoken to him much this is not a man I know well is that true. It really depends on what you mean by know well we are not close friends no we have a professional cordial working relationship and in that working relationship he knows who you are yes and he has spoken to you often what's often well you said at least 20 times Ok if that's often then it's often and. You donated a $1000000.00 to his inaugural committee is that right I bought a the the IP ticket to the United Nations that's a lot of money isn't it it's a lot of money. And after that the president makes you Ambassador to the European Union eventually the ambassador to Ukraine is removed and as you just told us in your deposition you become a central figure as it relates to Ukraine that's a pretty big responsibility right well I don't know that I said I was a central figure I was one of several people who were tasked to work on the Ukraine file and would you ever in that big responsibility take any actions that were not authorized by President Trump Well by President Trump or the leadership in the State Department were you ever hauled in to the leadership of the State Department for any actions you were taking you had taken around your work on Ukraine now as to Rudy Giuliani on May 23rd the president told you talked to Rudy you talked to him a couple times you as you told us in September talk to the president a couple times to the president ever say to you stop talking to Rudy No that ever say don't any longer talk to Rudy no on Ukraine you said that you were playing the hand you were dealt President Trump was the dealer was any President Trump was what the dealer. In your metaphor you were playing the hand you were dealt the dealer is President Trump is that right. Characterize your question by saying we followed the direction of the president because that was the only pathway to working with Ukraine on page 4 of your testimony and you said given what we know given what we knew at the time what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong and you would agree now Ambassador knowing what you know now what you did not know what the time there are some things around Ukraine that were wrong I agree. So let's take out. Any leveraging of security assistance over the Ukrainians in a White House visit would you agree that it is wrong for the president of the United States to ask the leader of a foreign government to investigate the president of the United States political opponent Yes Would you agree that in addition to making that request for an investigation leveraging a visit at the White House that a foreign government leader desperately needs is also wrong leveraging in what respect a meeting at the White House if someone really needs a meeting at the White House to show their legitimacy to their people that leverage in that meeting and asking for an investigation would be wrong well to be candid Congressman every meeting at the White House has conditions placed on it I've never worked on a meeting at the White House that doesn't have a host of conditions of place but if one of those conditions is to investigate a political opponent you would agree that would be wrong the political opponent Yes but making announcements or investigations per say no and if you asked a foreign government leader to investigate your political opponent leverage the White House meeting and leveraged security assistance in this hypothetical you would agree all 3 of those are wrong in the hypothetical Yes I would agree now you before becoming an ambassador worked as a businessman and I presume you worked on a lot of deals is that right correct involving millions of dollars correct you work for a guy now who wrote a book called art of the deal is that right I do and State Department employees have told us that they don't want to make legal definitions around what occurred with the White House meeting being leveraged against the investigations but you plainly call it a quid pro quo is that right I did and finally. One final hypothetical if someone walks through those 2 doors wearing rain boots a raincoat and holding an umbrella with raindrops falling off of them. Do you have to see outside that it's raining so I presume or conclude that it might be raining outside I understand your hypothetical and you're back thank you. Sir. Thank you Mr Ambassador good to see you. My colleague from California basically imply that you've been supportive of President Trump's campaign is that correct I'm having a very hard time hearing you sir. My colleague from California in the case that you are supportive of the president's campaign is that correct I actually donated to the inaugural committee in order to secure tickets so let me ask this question Did jus participate in or overhear any conversations about the potential information collected by Ukraine on the bar on the Bidens collected by Ukrainians on the Bidens would be used for political gain Did I personally hear that no you participate in the conversation when this was being discussed not that I recall in your statement on page 5 you said Mr Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelinsky And you also recount in your conversation with President Trump where he says I want nothing no quid pro quo how do you reconcile these 2 statements are hard to reconcile I. We were working along Mr Giuliani's direction for a period of time. We still didn't have a White House meeting aid was now held up. There were lots of reasons being given by various people as to why those weren't moving forward and I finally got exasperated by receiving. Embassador Taylor's latest text and I just picked up the phone I got through the president I said What do you want shore Are you aware of any specific conversations Mayor Giuliani had with the president between your May 23rd conversation and September 11th 2019. I don't recall if if marriage Giuliani when I was directly talking to him either through a conference call or on the on a direct call whether he quoted from the president or said I just talked to the president most of the communications as I said went through Ambassador Volcker initially so I don't want to upon on what may or may not have been said. On page 11 I used your testimony you said Mr Giuliani had been communicating with Ukrainians without our knowledge in the sume in your believe in your you Mr Volcker and Ambassador Taylor which Ukrainians was Rudy Giuliani communicating with well I was specifically referring to this text that I received from Ambassador Volcker where. Mr Giuliani was apparently telling the Ukrainians something that frustrated ambassador so who specifically we know that the old prosecutor and do you think Mr Lew Sinko has any. Grabbing within this Alinsky regime I don't know he was the old attorney general and and ultimately got fired in August when the new when these group came in Ok so we know Rudy Giuliani has met with Mr your mock on the fringes of meetings and I think it was Spain do you know any other Ukrainian official within this Alinsky regime that Mayor Giuliani was meeting with I don't know what who Mr Giuliani was meeting with had jus had any conversations with Ukrainian officials within this ill in ski regime that came to you and said Hey I just got off the phone with Giuliani what the hell is he talking about I don't recall would that be normal. You know you're in or in all your interactions with ambassadors and heads of states and governments if there is some element of the u.s. Government they that they have spoken to isn't it usually is that they come in talk to the ambassador try to clarify what that statement was is that is that a true characterization of how elements of diplomacy were I think that's a reasonable possibility things things work all kinds of different ways these days when you met with President Hu Inskeep after the July 25th phone calls you madam on July 26th did the investigations were Joe Biden come up in that meeting I don't recall Joe Biden coming up was there any frustration expressed by the phone call that happened the day before now as I testified everyone said it was a good call is in your opinion your interactions with presidents Alinsky is he a straight shooter is he a liar or is. He impressed me greatly and that's why I wanted to get he and President Trump together as soon as possible and so when he makes express statements you've just tend to believe them you know with my limited interaction with him he seems very honorable Thank you Mr Ambassador I hope you make it your plane Thank you Mr I yield back was Castro thank you Chairman Good afternoon investor welcome others close to President Trump have made it clear that investigations were in fact part of the conditions for u.s. Assistance to Ukraine including Rudy Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney the acting chief of staff so Messer silent at a press conference on October 17th Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney discussed his belief that it's entirely appropriate to politicize u.s. Foreign policy Ambassador how often did you speak or meet with Mr motivating. Again based on my lack of records I'm going by a bad memory just based on your memory I only think I had one formal meeting with Mr Mulvaney and it had nothing to do with Ukraine it had to do with a completely unrelated matter so did you have a chance to talk with this money about your efforts in the Ukraine I think most of our communication were through the stream of the e-mails which others were on generally and I may have seen him at the White House casually and said hello and you know kept in touch but we didn't have back and forth Well let me ask you this Was it your sense of Mr Mehlman he had a direct line to President Truong he must have as acting chief of staff is that right of course let us look at what Mr Olmert moment he said during his October 17th press conference. That was those of the Drago that was those were the driving factors that he also mentioned to me about that corruption related to the d.n.c. Server absolutely no question about that but that's it that's why we held up the money now there was a report. For us to get across was for the reason that he was on it with all of these you crazy the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that if that is absolutely appropriate. He said. He said that President Trump in that clip had an interest in the investigations that he. Apparently yes he's the chief of staff he's somebody that sees the president has conversation with the president every single day when do you expect that this right is a quid pro quo. I would expect he has a direct line to the president and master sun and when did you 1st learn from Mr Murray that the investigations were holding up the security assistance if it anytime I don't know that I heard it from Mr Maule of any. Ok and. M.s. Or silent. I know that you're not a career foreign service officer is it your understanding that the u.s. Government condition security assistance on an investigation into a political rival all the time I've already testified I didn't think that would be proper All right well let us also see what Mr Modi any had to say about that at the same press conference. That was those are the driving factors that he also mentioned to me in past that corruption related to the d.n.c. Server absolutely no question about that but that's it that's why we held up the money now there was a report says Oh. I'll just go and read it for you can with assume it. Or read it he says and I have news for everybody get over it there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. Knowing what you know now about what was intended with Ukraine do you agree with Mr Milvain that there's just going to be political influence in foreign policy or that we should all just get over it and allow a president now or later to investigate a political rival and ask a foreign government to do that you resisted any I think there's a big difference between political influence and investigating a rival because politics enters into everything relating to foreign policy so you disagree that the present you agree that the president should not be allowed to ask for the investigation of a political rival in the context of what was going on in Ukraine I believe that the president should not investigate a political rival in return for a quid pro quo and part of the way that you figured out that all of this stuff that was going on that you were part of something that was basically wrong is because in the July 25th phone call the president himself. He didn't tell you we don't know if he told Rudy Giuliani or not because Rudy Giuliani won't come in here he said directly to the press to the president of Ukraine that he wanted the Bidens investigated wasn't that your reading of the call 1st of all I don't believe that I was a part of something that was wrong because based on what I knew I thought we were operating well within the center lane of proper u.s. Diplomacy or your back as director of. Chairman thank you I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement issued this morning from the office of the vice president by Chief of Staff my short that objection investor silent I'll be brief. In anticipation of. Mr Holmes this testimony tomorrow about this July 26th phone call that he. Overheard at a cafe in Kiev that you have with President Trump he overheard that even though the call was not on speaker phone correct I don't believe so and it was an open air cafe it was outdoors. One of the points that my Democratic colleagues keep making is that David Holmes is a prior testimony which apparently confirmed tomorrow is that President Trump said that he. Doesn't give a blank about Ukraine you heard that earlier that that was not on the phone call I don't think he testified I was on the phone call I think he was testifying that I summarized the phone call and I don't recall saying that you have no recollection of that I don't you know. Even if it was true there's nothing wrong with that to have an opinion about. He can have whatever opinion he wants about Ukraine it's all part of the narrative that President Trump is a bad guy that he isn't care about the Ukrainians but it seems to me Ambassador Simon that. Nothing says you care more about the Ukrainians than sending Javelin anti-tank missiles you agree with me. I agree that sending Javelin anti-tank missiles is something the Ukraine wanted and needed certainly those work a lot better is stopping Russian tanks than the blankets that were sent by the Obama administration your point is taken aback Thank you. Track Thank you Mr Chairman and Ambassador thank you for your stamina sir a few quick fairly easy questions if you would agree would you not serve that foreign interference in our elections is or can be a threat or democracy under certain conditions yes you agree there are conditions under which their interference is not a threat I'm sorry did you say foreign interference Yes always sorry indeed you also agree that identifying and preventing that interference should be a priority of the federal government it should be one of its priorities in when you are assisting President Trump in his effort to obtain those investigations did you at all realize that those investigations could in fact impact the 2020 election now do you believe sir that it is appropriate ever appropriate to invite press bribe or or coerce foreign interference in our elections no. Thank you I want to refer to something that you said in your opening statement. As I previously testified had I known of all of Mr Giuliani's dealings or of his associations with individuals now under criminal indictment I would not have acquiesced to his participation it's hard to read that without believing that you thought that what he was doing was either wrong or that he was not reputable fair well with 2020 hindsight that's fast you have testified here today that you also came to believe that the request for investigations into Bris Milah was in fact a request to investigate the Bidens both former vice president and Hunter and indeed the transcript of the July 25th this is 90.7 k p f k f m in the Los Angeles on today that even the ranking member said we could clear all this up if we could have 100 Biden in I have a simple question what Ukrainian law did 100 Biden violate I'm not aware. What evidence is there that he may have violated any Craney in law I'm not aware that's because there is none sir finally. Also from your opening statement you said as you know I have already provided 10 hours of deposition testimony I did so despite directives from the White House and the State Department that I refused to appear as many others have done I agreed to testify because I respect the gravity of the moment and I believe I have an obligation to account fully for my role in these events. Did by obligation you mean simply your legal obligation or did you mean something bigger. Well both my legal obligation and my moral obligation your moral obligation I actually want to present an alternative theory. Your family came here escaping the hole a costly a year ago way. When your parents moved. Lucy. And later you here. Where frankly you've been an American success story through dent of hard work and innovation good idea a knack to hire the right people and some lock you've built a considerable successful business one that I know for a fact would make your parents proud. They came here because they knew that it was here that they could have freedom that they had not enjoyed security that they had not enjoyed an opportunity that they had not enjoyed and no doubt on some level you're grateful and screed to sense of patriotism in you is that fair to say very fair why then serve with your courage to come before us is that same standard not applied to Mr moving me Mr Duffy Mr Pompei Oh Mr Bolton Mr vote Mr Giuliani why shouldn't those same sentiments beat within their hearts to do their patriotic duty and do what you have done sir indeed why doesn't that same standard applied to the president of the United States I wish I could answer. You suspect you can't because there is no good answer but I do appreciate your willingness to come here today with that I yield back Mr Chairman thank you Congressman Mr Jordan Mr Chairman acid in his consent enter into the record a statement from Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but objection we haven't seen all these statements but to presume they are accurate and no objection thank you and asked her present tribes not a big fan of foreign aid that right. I don't know if that's a fair characterization I think he's careful he's expressed concerns about for I go in certain countries Ok fair enough and he knew Ukraine was corrupt is that right he believed Ukraine was corrupt Yeah and you want to Europe to do more definitely want to Europe to more and the president had a belief that Ukrainian government officials some senior Ukrainian government official support his opponent 2016 won't go into the detail.