That was the only person i could think of. Prior to working for the yurt council worked for Ranking Member nunes, is that right . I only found that out after the fact. I wondered why i was being asked about him, so i looked it up. You cautioned us on dangers that members of this committee pedaling any Conspiracy Theories that could benefit russia, i want to ask if you heard the nameless parness who was questioning Rudy Giuliani about the Conspiracy Theories. Are you aware he was indicted october 10 for making foreign contributions to republicans in u. S. Elections . I am aware of the reports, yes. Are you aware of yesterdays daily beast story reporting the indicted Ukranian Parn as is working with nunes on his overseas investigations . I am not aware of that. I ask unanimous consent to put in the daily beast story from yesterday. First two paragraphs reading lev parnas, indicted associate, helped arrange calls. Nunes aid derek harvey participated in meetings which were arranged to help nunes investigative work. Mcmann didnt specify what the investigations entail. Without objection. Mr. Chairman, you have been falsely accused by proceedings by Ranking Member as being a quote, unquote fact witness. Now if this story is correct, the Ranking Member may have been he may be the fact witness if he is working with indicted individuals around our investigation. I want to go to what this is really all about. First your credibility, mr. Holmes, and can you tell us and confirm in 2014 you received the William Rif Kin Constructive Dissent Award from the Obama Administration state department . Yes, sir. That was for dissent you brought up against an administration policy, is that right . Thats right. Congratulations, and thank you for speaking up in the way you did. What were really here about is what youre working on in ukraine. I want you to take a look at the picture. Who do you see in the foreground of that photo . President zelensky. Thats a photograph in may, 2019, where newly elected president zelensky visited the Luhansk Region in ukraine, first visit to the frontlines as president. Can you just tell tax paying americans why it is so important our hard earned tax paying dollars helped president zelensky and the men standing beside him fight against russia
in this hot war . Absolutely, sir. President zelensky was elected in an overwhelming majority to defend ukranian interests. This is at a time when ukranians are defending their sovereignty, territorial integrity on Ukranian Soil from russian backed soldiers who are attacking them. They said 14,000 ukranian lives lost in this war so far as i mentioned a few this week already. And this is a hot war, not a frozen conflict. People are shooting each other and dying, being injured every single week. And despite the ongoing war, theyre still trying to pursue peace. President zelensky even now is trying to pursue a Summit Meeting with President Putin order to try to bring this war to conclusion so they can move on with all of the difficult things they need to do in terms of building the economy. I want to add one other thing if
i may. Mr. Turner suggested earlier that somehow embarrassed president zelensky. I have the deepest respect for president zelensky. This is a guy, jewish background from post Soviet Industrial Suburb in Southern Ukraine who made himself one of the most popular entertainers in the country, somehow got elected president , and he is not going to miss that opportunity. This is a ukranian patriot. This is a tough guy. Frankly, he withstood a lot of pressure for a very long time and didnt give that interview. I have the deepest respect for him, ukranian people also have the deepest respect for him, they have chosen him to deliver the full measure of promise of their revolution of dignity. I think it demands all our respect. Ask consent to enter the photograph depicted on the screen into the record. Without objection. Thank you, dr. Hill. Mr. Holmes, for your years of
service, appreciate you all being here today. Throughout this process i have said that i want to learn the facts so we can get to the truth. So why are we here . Because of two things that occurred during the president s july 25th phone call with ukranian president zelensky. Use of the phrase do us a favor though, in reference to the 2016 election, and mention of the word biden. I believe both statements were inappropriate, misguided Foreign Policy, and certainly not how the executive current or in the future should handle such a call. Over the course of the hearings the American People have learned about a series of events that in my view have undermined our National Security and undercut ukraine, key partner on the front lines against russian aggression. We heard of u. S. Officials carrying uncoordinating, confusing, conflicted messages that created doubt at a time
they knew the Reformist Administration had taken office, ready to fight corruption, work with us to advance u. S. Objectives. I disagree with this sort of bumbling Foreign Policy. Through the hearings, my colleagues have unwittingly undermined the ukranian government suggesting it is subservient to the United States, and without the United States they wouldnt be able to function. Ukranians are in a hot war with russia, holding their own. We could benefit from the experience of ukranians, not the other way around. While i thought the Intelligence Committee would actually be engaged in oversight of the intelligence and National Security communities, unfortunately we are not. We are here talking about one of the most serious constitutional duties, impeachment and removal of the president of the United States. Over the past weeks, we learned a few things. The officials on the July 25th Call have many different opinions on whether the call was
concerning or not, and just because Vice President biden is running for president does not mean corruption related to burisma, ukraines largest Natural Gas Company and americans ties to it are not concerning. Theres also a lot we dont know. We have not heard from Rudy Giuliani, or hunter biden. I would like to know more about both their activities, why they talked to whom and to whom. Despite promises from chairman schiff, we have not heard from the whistleblower. Something that can occur in closed setting without violating his or her anonymity. We need to understand motivations and level of coordination that happened prior to his or her submission of the complaint. Over the past few weeks and even today it has been reiterated in 2017, Trump Administration made the decision to provide lethal defensive to ukraine, ukraine is receiving all Security Assistance directed by congress. President zelensky has undertaken significant anticorruption efforts, including eliminating parliament
from prosecution, and again, you mentioned this, under president s zelenskys leadership, we have finally seen progress to whats ending the Russian Occupation of eastern ukraine. So where does this leave us . Impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear, and unambiguous, and it is not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I have not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion. I also reject the notion holding this view means supporting all of the Foreign Policy choices we have been hearing about the last few weeks. To paraphrase Tim Morrisons testimony this week, every day the conversation is focused on impeachment, not conflict, not illegal occupation of crimea, it is a day where we are not focused on shared National Security interests with kiev. I hope we wont let this
partisan process keep us from agreeing how a free and pr prosperous ukraine is important to the ukranian people, United States of america, and the rest of the world. Mr. Chairman, before i yield back my time, like to make a statement for the record that had this given been given proper notice by House Rule 11 of the business meeting to follow Last Nights Hearing and had mr. Conrads been recognized, i would have voted no on the first motion to table during the impromptu meeting, yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. I want to say because it Shouldnt Go Unmentioned that the characterization a few minutes ago by one of my republican colleagues of this proceeding is vile, irresponsible, dangerous. And i want to remind us why
were here because somebody in government, a whistleblower, felt it was important enough to get other people in governments attention that the president may have committed a wrong act. We have now heard and seen substantial evidence that the president in fact tried to trade a political favor for official government resources. The most damning words come from no one else but the president himself on that phone call with the ukranian president where he asks for a favor, he mentions investigations, he mentions the bidens and burisma. However, as mr. Holmes has testified, mr. Holmes also overheard the president speaking to his handpicked ambassador, ambassador sondland, about investigations. Mr. Holmes has also said that in the office everybody knew or many people knew at least that the president wanted investigation of the bidens. Rudy giuliani and Mick Mulvaney havent come before the committee, theyve spoken publicly on the investigations. Mick mulvaney, the president s Chief Of Staff, the person that usually works with the president most, day in, day out, went in front of the White House Press corp and basically admitted an investigation had something to do withholding up the aid. And admitted that this process was politicized. Rudy giuliani, the president s personal lawyer, also essentially admitted these investigations were at issue. He said that he thinks he did nothing wrong because he was working at the direction of the president. So we have seen substantial evidence, heard substantial evidence of wrongdoing by the president of the United States, and this congress will have to continue to take up this very important issue to the American People. My concern today is also i feel
as though the cancer of wrongdoing may have spread beyond the president and into others of the executive branch. I want to ask you a few questions about that. Before i do, i would like chairman to enter two articles into the record if i could. One of them headlined after boost from perry, backers got huge gas deal in ukraine. The other one titled the wall street journal, federal prosecutors probe giulianis links to Ukranian Energy projects. Mr. Holmes without objection. Thank you, chairman. You indicated that secretary perry when he was in ukraine had private meetings with ukranians. Before he had the private meetings, in a meeting with others, including yourself, i believe, he presented a list of american advisers for the Ukraine Energy sector. Do you know who was on the list . Sir, i didnt see the names on the list myself. Do you know if alex cram berg, Michael Blazer were on the list . I have since heard Michael Blazer is on the list. Before secretary perry did this, we heard in testimony before that ambassador sondland also had a private meeting with somebody. How unusual was it before these guys showed up for folks, diplomats so to speak, u. S. Government officials, to have private meetings where they insist that nobody else be in the room . Very rare, almost never. I want to ask you also about the precedent we set, both of you. I know youre here as fact witnesses, youre also Public Servants for this country. The precedent this congress would set, putting aside donald
trump for a second, if the Congress Allows a president of the United States now or later to ask a foreign government, head of state, to investigate a political rival, what precedent does that set for american diplomacy, safety of americans overseas, and for the future of our country . Thats a very bad precedent. Very bad precedent and going forward, if that were ever the case, i would raise objections. Thank you both. I yield back. Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, chair. Want to return the favor, recognize, yield to my colleague, congressman conaway. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dr. Hill, i dont think theres a lot of questions one of putins primary objectives in the United States is to foe meant unrest with the nation to cause us to have lost confidence in the elections, results of elections, those kinds of
things. Theres tension though in conducting our businesses the way we should, playing into putins hands. As an example, i disagree with what were doing here today, it is under our constitution, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe they function under that constitution. These hearings, this issue is divisive within the country and is continuing to push that way. I think that plays into putins hands inadvertently, nothing we can do about that, but there are certain things we can do as individuals that wouldnt play into his hands. One of them would be the loser in the 2016 election has for three years continued to argue that because she won the popular vote, she and her friends won the popular vote, somehow the election was inappropriate and that we shouldnt trust it, that the Electoral College victory which was resounding shouldnt be trusted. Does that help putin or play into the narrative he would like for us, that our elections are somehow rigged, shouldnt be
trusted . Yes, it does. So the rt, would you agree with me, rt is putins Propaganda Machine in the United States . I would agree with you, yes. Is it appropriate for the rt to be used to effect Public Policy on our nation, as an example, there have been a long series of advertisements or programs on rt going against fracking, saying it is bad, trying to effect Public Policy in the United States. Is that appropriate use, should americans be paying attention to that . In the terms that americans should be paying attention to rt and other outlets used to propagate this, absolutely. I wasnt sure what you meant about paying attention. Fracking is a controversial issue with the nation. If we did away with fracking, the United States is not in position to dominate Oil Production in the world, would play into strengthening putins hands. Thats correct. I would like to point out in
2011, in november, 2011, i sat next to Vladimir Putin at a conference where he made precisely that point, the first time he had done so to a group of american journalists and experts brought to something called the valdar discussion club. He started in 2011 making it clear he saw american fracking as a great threat to russian interests. We were all struck by how much he stressed this issue. And since 2011, since that particular juncture, putin made a big deal of this. Americans Pay Attention to rt and whatever propagandas sends out is in our interest. Mr. Holmes, in your role youre privileged to an awful lot of stuff, official things and things that are best kept between you and the official folks that you deal with. Is there an expectation among the principals you represent that you will exercise some discretion in what you share with others about what goes on . Yes, sir. In your deposition you made first off, we had a hard time pinning down the number of people you had this conversation with about the conversation that you overheard. Now, our ambassador had no expectation of privacy, shes blustering around, but couldnt figure out how many people you shared that information with. And i would argue that information is unflattering to the president , unflattering to the ambassador, and that your discretion is at odds here. Your testimony, your deposition said you shared that with folks you thought would find it interesting. I would argue everybody in the back row would find it interesting, but i dont know that thats necessarily the criteria. On a go forward basis, can you articulate in the future when youre privileged to certain circumstances that would be embarrassing to the principal, if it is official, you share with the ambassador, thats fine, but folks outside the embassy or within the embassy that dont have a need to know, you wouldnt regail them with
your recounting of those instances . I think it was Gordon Sondland that showed that no, excuse me. Excuse me, mr. Holmes. Let me clarify the question. Let me answer your question, sir. It is my question. Youre right. I get to clarify my question to get the answer. Hopeful i get it in a few seconds because of the interruption of the chairman. I was working hard not to irritate him again, i failed again. The question is of you, mr. Holmes, your discretion. Gord Gordon Sondland did not expect privacy. I got that. Youre going to be in rooms, you have been in rooms 17 years where people trust whatever went on in that room, you kept it to official channels, didnt share that information with other folks. Im asking you to argue on your own behalf that interesting is not some criteria you use when you share information from
meetings. Simple, straightforward question. Sir, i shared the information i needed to share with the right people who needed to know it. I did not share any information that people didnt need to know. But you did use the word interesting in deposition. Certainly was interesting, sir. I would hate to think that what i brought before this process, i shouldnt have done that. I have come here because you subpoenaed me to share what i know and i have done that. You were cut off talking about mr. Sondlands in discretion. Did you want to finish that . Mr. Chairman, thats patently unfair. Is it fair to interrupt the witnesses as you have done repeatedly . You interrupted my five minutes. Youre the only person, you have unlimited time and youve abused that power. The gentleman will cease. We allow them to answer even if you dont want to hear the
answer. Mr. Holmes, much has been made about use of regular and irregular foreign or diplomatic channels. My reading of history is american president s have on occasion used irregular channels, would you agree . Yes, sir. My understanding is generally speaking, however the irregular channels have been closely coordinated with regular ones or at least in furtherance of american Foreign Policy and National Security interests. Would you agree . Thats right. Do you believe mr. Giulianis efforts were closely coordinated with regular channels such as ambassador to the ukraine . No, they werent. Were they in furtherance of american Foreign Policy as you understood it . No, sir. Mr. Holmes, if left unchecked do you think that russia would either by means of force or other malign means sub june debate ukraine, if not ork pccu
it . Absolutely. It is said without ukraine, it is a country, with it, it is an empire. I feel like i have been treated to a gat ling gunfire of myth prop allegation. The big lie if you tell it often enough, keep repeating it, people will come to believe it. I think we have been subjected to some of that. Heres a sample. The president didnt solicit Campaign Assistance from ukraine in a clear violation of federal law. Yes, he did. The president didnt withhold vital Military Assistance in furtherance of objective to obtain that Campaign Assistance. Yes, he did. Rudy giuliani was acting just on his own, kind of as a rogue. No, he wasnt. That all of this is business as
usual. This happens all the time, stems from a principled interest. No, it isnt. And no, it wasnt. And that it is okay to attack patriotic diplomats in Public Service if they stand in your way, have the courage to speak up. And no, it isnt. Those are just some of the big lies. But heres the big truth. The president did it. He did it. We all just came from the floor. It is a majestic chamber. In front of the chamber, there are only two portraits. On the left looking forward, my favorite president , george washington. On the right, the Marquise Delafayette who came to this country to help us stand up our fledgling democracy. Heres another big truth. Without his help, we probably never would have gotten off the ground. And that assistance from many other countries who are helping us to create something that had never been created before. It was an audacious idea. The notion of a democracy of self governance, freedoms such as speech, press, religion, expression, assembly, and most of all it would be rooted in the premise of the rule of law. Not monarchs. Not military strong men. But the rule of law. Others helped us to get here. And we wouldnt be here without them. And i frankly feel like were almost in a little bit of a Pay It Forward moment. So when the president did it, he put at risk the security of
ukraine, a strategic ally, and nascent democracy with their masses yearning to breathe free. It was six years ago this day their government said were not signing a Memorandum Of Agreement with European Union, rose up, took to the streets because they wanted frankly what we have. And when the president did it, he put our own National Security at risk. What he did most importantly was put at risk that idea that makes us exceptional. I do believe that america is exceptional. We are a country rooted in something that nobody has ever tried before, rule of law. He put that at risk when he did what he did. The president did it. The only question that remains
is what will we do. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dr. Hill, during your deposition i asked you was Christopher Steeles dossier a rabbit hole. Do you remember the answer you gave . Yes, i thought it was a rabbit hole. And you also said a couple pages later in the deposition or crypt that i have of your deposition that you thought he got played. Is that fair . That is fair, yes. I was struck by a number of things you said in your statement, number of things right on target. One was page seven. You said President Putin and Russian Security services weaponize our own political opposition research. And thats exactly what happened in 2016. Exactly what happened. You called it, you knew it, you saw it. The dnc hired perkins couey, who hired persian gps, who hired
christopher steele, talked to russians, gave him dirt, National Enquirer garbage that he compiled in a dossier and our fbi used it. They used it as part of their investigation that they opened in july of 2016 when are they spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign. My guess is thats probably never happened in american history, and exactly what dr. Hill talked about is what happened in 2016. Exactly what she talked about. And for ten months, jim comey and his team did an investigation. After ten months they had nothing because we deposed mr. Comey and he told us, after ten months, we didnt have a thing. That didnt matter. That didnt matter. We got the mueller investigation. 32 million. 19 lawyers. 40 fbi agents, 500 search warrants, 2800 subpoenas. And they came back this spring,
what did they tell us . No collusion, no conspiracy, no coordination. But the guys on the other side dont care. They dont care. Theyre doing what dr. Hill said a number of important things in her statement, theyre doing exactly what dr. Hill talked about, the impact of a successful 2016 Russian Campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Torn apart. Ive never seen it this divided, it is not healthy for our culture, country, our nation, thats what these guys are doing. No conspiracy, no coordination, no collusion, but they dont care. Now this. This whole impeachment thing. As the witness said yesterday, witness said yesterday, without announcement from zelensky about an investigation, they werent going to get a call with the president , a meeting with the president , werent getting aid from the United States. But guess what, ukraine got the call, they got the meeting, and they got the money, and there was never an announcement of any type of investigation. But they dont care. Theyre going to move forward. Theres going to be some kind of report. I assume something to the Judiciary Committee, and the process will go forward, there will be a trial in the senate, based on some anonymous whistleblower that came forward with no firsthand knowledge, biased against the president , who worked with joe biden, now all this. Now all of this. Dr. Hill is right. She said it. We have to stop this. But theyre not going to, and theyre doing it 11 and a half months before the next election. I think the most telling thing is what Speaker Of The House said sunday. Speaker of the house said sunday, this is scary. Speaker of the house said sunday, National Sunday morning tv show, she said the president
is an imposter. A guy that 63 Million People voted for, won an Electoral College landslide, Speaker Of The House of representatives called the president of the United States an imposter. Sad. Sad what the country is going through. I wish it would stop. Unfortunately i dont think it is. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Welch. I want to use my time to speak directly to my colleagues and to the American People. Todays witnesses and the ones we have been privileged to have before the committee over the last two weeks provided an Invaluable Service to our country, not just in all your careers but in having the courage and patriotism to share your facts with the American People. And you do so at considerable risk to yourselves. But youve clearly stepped forward for the simple fact you believe it is your duty. All your testimony reaffirms a
very central fact. President trump conditioned our Foreign Policy and National Security on getting a valuable political benefit from ukraine. He wanted ukraines new president to create ethical questions about joe biden by publicly announcing investigations, and to pressure president zelensky to take action that would benefit his personal political interests, he withheld vital military aid to ukraine and refused to meet with president zelensky in the oval office. As we heard from mr. Holmes and dr. Hill today, that meeting was extraordinarily important to ukraine and extraordinarily important in sending a message to russia about our unyielding support. The witnesses have made it absolutely clear what the president did. And it is equally clear that President Trump has launched a coverup, and disinformation
campaign to hide this abuse of power from the American People. Thats why the administration refuses to provide documents to this committee. Thats why the white house has taken the unprecedented position that senior officials could ignore congressional subpoenas, and refuse to testify. Thats why acting Chief Of Staff mulvaney, Secretary Of State pompeo, and others, have not testified. Now the president and even some members of this committee are pretending this is normal. It is not. It must never be. No other president has betrayed his office like this by putting his own small political interest above our National Interest and our National Security. I asked some of our witnesses what would happen in any American City or town if the mayor stopped funding the Police Department until the chief of police launched an investigation into the nearest political r
rival, or governor or member of congress did that. The answer was clear. It would be wrong, illegal, and wouldnt be tolerated. Would violate the most basic trust we have in officials. If it happened with a military commander, courtmartial would follow. At a corporation, a ceo would be fired. We all know this conduct is wrong. The president continues to say it isnt. He says it is perfect and he would do it again tomorrow. The same rules apply to mayors, governors, members of congress, ceos, and everyone else in america. They apply to the president too. Whether youre republican or democrat, you like msnbc or fox, i think every american believes one of our nations founding principles, no person is above the law, not even the president. July 24th, mueller testified about systemic interference in
the election. This could become the new normal. The day after, july 25th, President Trump spoke to president zelensky and asked a favor. That favor was that ukraine interfere in our 2020 election. If we allow this to stand, to become the new normal, it will be the standard for all future president s. In good conscience, none of us can do that. This conduct corrupts our democracy, it corrupts how our country conducts Foreign Policy, it threatens our National Security and the security of all americans. And it is in my view a clear betrayal of the president s oath of office. I yield back. Mr. Maloney. Mr. Chairman, two quick housekeeping matters. Ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an abc news story from my friend,
mr. Stewart, entitled 70 of americans say trumps actions tied to ukraine were wrong, dated november 18th, 2019. Without objection. Also consent for a new yorker story entitled invention of the Conspiracy Theory on biden and ukraine, how a conservative Dark Money Group that targeted Hillary Clinton spread the discredited story that may lead to Donald Trumps impeachment, october 24, 2019. Without objection. Good afternoon, thank you for being here. Dr. Hill, first of all, i thought that was some Epic Man Splaining you were forced to endure by my colleague, mr. Turner. I want you to know some of us think it was inappropriate. I appreciate your forebearance. Let me ask something. I am fascinated by the meeting, two meetings on july 10th. You have the meeting in mr. Boltons office, sondland says this thing about
investigations, bolton end the meeting, follow on meeting in the ward room, and you get there a little late, vindman is talking to sondland, and theyre already going at it about sondlands desire to assert the meeting is going to happen if theres these investigations. Sum and substance Whats Going On . Thats right, yes. What i want to understand is this isnt a policy disagreement, right . No, thats correct. It is not a policy disagreement. And it is not purely procedural disagreement either, right . Yes. Excuse me. Im sorry, yes, thats not correct. Neither policy nor procedure thats bothering you or for that matter the National Security adviser, mr. Bolton, right . Correct. Not like he sent you down there to see how the meeting is going . Correct. In fact, he instructs you to go to the lawyer. Ever been instructed to report
something to the nsc lawyer before . That was the first time. That was the first time i had been instructed to go. Why did he send you to report this to the lawyer . Well, he clearly wanted to have himself on the record as not being part of what was basically an agreement to have a meeting in return for investigations. And he wanted to make sure that i and colonel vindman. Did you concur with this concern that mr. Bolton had . I did because july 10th is really the first time it crystallized for me that there was basically a different channel going on here. Foreign policy channel and a domestic policy channel. And were not in that channel. You described it as a
politicaler an political errand and National Security policy. Is it fair to say that you felt it was improper what was occurring by mr. Sondland in the ward room . It was improper and it was inappropriate and we said that in the time, in real time. And heres my point. If it was improper and you went so far as to report this to the lawyers, what was the nature of your disagreement with mr. Sondland who has come here and said he had no idea that burisma meant bidens until much, much later than july 10th. And of course, we know that he and ambassador volker had a blizzard of interactions with mr. Giuliani, they were amending statements, proposed Statements Comfortab for the ukranian president , it went on all summer. How is it you had this disagreement in front of the ukranians, sent them out in the hallway. At some point did he ask, im just talking about investigation of corruption generally, what are you getting so worried about . He didnt put it in that way. I think from listening to him in his depositions, what i read of what he deposed, he made it very clear that he was surprised that we had some kind of objection. You may remember, in his deposition, when he was here, he actually didnt remember the meeting in the same way. I thought you said it was obvious to you. Excuse me. It was obvious to me, correct. It was obvious burisma meant bidens. Yes, it was. You treated that as an easy thing to understand, mr. Morrison figured it out with a single google search. Is it credible to you that mr. Sondland was completely in the dark about this all summer . You had an argument about it. It is not credible to me that
he was oblivious. He did not say bidens, he said burisma. He said 2016. And i took it to mean the elections as well as burisma. I want to thank you both for your appearance here today. Yield back, mr. Chairman. Miss demings. Thank you dr. Hill and mr. Holmes for your service. No doubt were a better nation because of it. We all know by now, in july this year President Trump sent an order to Office Of Management And Budget that congressionally approved military aid to ukraine be put on hold. Both of you expressed that ukraine is the first line of defense against russian aggression and expansion into europe, that russias priority is to undermine the United States. Is that right, dr. Hill . Thats correct. Would you agree with that,
mr. Holmes . Yes. Dr. Hill, in your professional opinion is it in the National Security interest of the United States to support ukraine with the much talked about military aid . Yes. Mr. Holmes . Yes. Weve already said it several times today, youve already testified that ukraine is in war right now with russia. Isnt it true, mr. Holmes, even though the Security Assistance was eventually delivered to ukraine, the fact that it was delayed to a country thats actively in war signal to russia that perhaps the bond between ukraine and the United States was weakening . Absolutely, absolutely. And even the appearance that
the u. S. , ukraine bond is shaky could embolden Russia To Act in an even more aggressive way. Thats correct. You also testified that it was, and i quote, the unanimous view of the Ukraine Policy Community that the aid should be released because support in ukraine is in our National Security interest. Dr. Hill, why do you believe that the entire Ukraine Policy Community were unanimously in agreement . Well, weve had this experience before. I want you to indulge me a moment. In 2008, russia also attacked the country of georgia. I was the National Intelligence officer at that particular juncture, and we had warned in multiple documents to the highest levels of government that we believe there was a real risk of conflict between georgia
and russia. And in fact, we also believed at that point that russia might attack ukraine. This was in 2008 when georgia and ukraine sought membership action plan in nato, russia threatened them openly if they proceeded with the request for nato membership, there would be consequences. In the wake of the attack on georgia, President Putin made it clear to the president of georgia at the time, this was related to me at the highest levels of the georgian government, putin said to him your western allies, your western partners promised a great deal. They didnt deliver. I threatened, i delivered. We had made all kinds of promises to georgia and ukraine in that time frame and we didnt come through. So putin is always looking out to see if theres any hint that we will not follow through on
promises we made because he will always follow through on a threat, as indeed he ultimately did. He threatened ukraine in 2008, and it wasnt until 2014 when ukraine tried to conclude an Association Agreement with European Union that he struck. He had been threatening this the whole period since 2008. Thank you very much, dr. Hill. Mr. Holmes, was kind of message does it potentially send to other allies of the United States when will military holds for assistance imposed with no explanation. What kind of message does it send to allies in terms of the good faith and Good Relationship with the u. S. . Calls into question the extent to which they can coun d on us. Policies change, u. S. Interests dont, at least not for those true Public Servants who are committed and dedicated
to protecting our nation. Thank you both for being two of them. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for coming in, thank you for your service. Dr. Hill, you stated in your deposition you have been accused of being a mole for george soros and the white house, correct . Thats correct. You said in your deposition specifically a conspiracy was launched against you by convicted Felon Roger Stone on the show info wars led by alex jones, right . I dont think he was a convicted felon at the time he launched this, so i didnt use those exact words, but it was roger stone and Alex Stone On Info Wars in 2017. More recently before mr. Stone was endured his trial, they were at it again, reprising the same info wars video and adding
embellishments. Ill quote what they said about you. We here at info wars, roger stone speaking, first identified fiona hill, the Globalist Leftist george soros insider who infiltrated mcmasters staff. He said that may 31st, 2017. I presume youre not a Globalist Leftist soros insider . I think my family would be surprised to hear this, leftists so much, but the left in europe is different from the left here, lets put it that way. I agree. Interestingly, you stated in your deposition that a similar Conspiracy Theory had actually been launched against marie yovanovitch. Thats correct. And you said specifically when i saw this happening to ambassador yovanovitch, again i was furious because this is again just this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic
theory about george soros to target nonpartisan career officials. Isnt that what you said . I did say that, yes. Im sure you have been watching with concern whats happened to other nonpartisan career officials. We had Lieutenant Colonel vindman, american immigrant, questioned for his criticism of the president in a very unfair way, basically questioning his loyalty to the country. I believe that he is also of Ukranian Jewish descent. Would you say these different theories, Conspiracy Theories that have been targeting you spun in part by folks like mr. Stone as well as fueled by Rudy Giuliani and others, basically value payment a tinge of antisemitism . Some with george soros do. I want to point out in the early
1900s, Czarist Secret Police produced protocols of elders of zion, you can obtain it on the internet, buy it in book shops in russia and elsewhere. This is the longest running antisemitic trope in history. And the trope against george soros was also created for political purposes. This is the new protocols of elders of sizion. I intended to write about this before i came to the administration. You have been wrapped up in crack pot Conspiracy Theories. Let me turn to Rudy Giuliani. You became increasingly concerned about Rudy Giulianis increasing role in ukraine between january, march of 2019, correct . Thats correct. And i know you served in bush and Obama Administration. I presume george bushs personal lawyer and president obamas
personal lawyers were never directing or heavily influencing ukraine policy . Im not even sure i know who they were. So the answer is no. And the concern for having someone like Rudy Giuliani having such a Strong Influence on american Foreign Policy is that basically that policy may be operating not in the best interest of america but perhaps in the best interest of Rudy Giuliani or his clients or business associates, right . I think thats correct. And thats what i said in my deposition october 14th, frankly thats what i thought it was at the very beginning when i first heard mr. Giuliani making these statements. Some of the associates including indicted folks, igor fruman, lev parnas, is that correct . Thats correct. We have another in chicago indicted, mr. Fertash. He was indicted for federal bribery charges and othe. Thats correct. I know of him from my work, thats correct. The question were all asking, american Foreign Policy in ukraine is potentially run in their interests, not our own. It certainly appears it is being used, sub version of american Foreign Policy to push these peoples personal interests. Thank you so much. That concludes the member questioning. Well now go to closing statements. Mr. Nunes. Do you have Closing Remarks . Thank you. I have stressed in the hearings that the whistleblower complaint was a pretext for Donald Trumps political opponents to do what they have been trying to do since he was elected, oust the president from office. Brief time line will illustrate the range of extraordinary attacks his administration has faced. Im going to start in june of 2016 when donald trump was just a candidate. On behalf of the Democratic National committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, fusion
gps hires christ fear steel to write the steel dossiers, a collection of false allegations attributed to russian sources claiming that donald trump is a russian agent. Fast forward to january 6th of 2017. Fbi director James Comey Briefs President Elect trump on the steel dossier. The briefing is linked to cnn. And soon afterwards buzz feed publishes the dossiers. January 20th. On President Trumps inauguration today, the headline. January 30th, ten days later the whistleblowers current lawyer tweets hashtag coup has started, first of many steps, hashtag rebellion, Hashtag Impeachment will follow immediately. March 22nd. Democrats on this committee falsely declare on national tv that they have more than
circumstantial evidence that the Trump Campaign colluded with russia. July 12th. An article of impeachment is filed against President Trump and the House Of Representatives. November 15th, democrats file additional articles of impeachment against President Trump. As you see, this was just in President Trumps first year in office. He was subjected to a coordinated Smear Operation designed to falsely portray him as a russian agent. As well as attempts to impeach him. This all occurred before this now infamous call with president zelensky. In 2018, the attacks continued. Often from executive Branch Officials charged with implementing his policies. On february 2nd, 2018, Intelligence Committee republicans release a memo
revealing that the fbi used fabrications of the steel dossier to get a warrant to spy on the Trump Campaign associate. September 5th. The New York Times prints a column by an anonymous Trump Administration official who explains that he and other senior officials are, quote, working diligently from within to frustrate parts of trumps agenda, unquote. December 7th, james comey admits to congress the steel dossier was unverified before and after the fbi used it to get a warrant to spy on a Trump Campaign associate. The russia hoax continues to be the main focus attacks going into 2019. But when that entire operation collapsed, a new Impeachment Pretext had to be found. May 4th, 2019, on national
television a democratic congressman proclaims, quote, i am concerned that if we dont impeach this president he will get reelected, unquote. July 24th of this year. Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies to congress about his report which bedunked the Conspiracy Theory that the Trump Campaign associates conspired with russia to hack the 2016 election. July 25th, just the very next day a new antitrump operation begins as someone listens to the president s phone call with the ukrainian president zelensky. And leaks the contents to the socalled whistleblower. September 13th, democrats on this committee take the extraordinary step of issuing a Press Release related to the whistleblowers complaint. October 2nd, its revealed that
democratic staff on this committee had contact with the whistleblower before he submitted his complaint to the Inspector General contradicting democrat denials that such contact had occurred. October 31st, halloween, probably the most appropriate day. Democrats and the House Of Representatives vote to open an official impeachment inquiry against President Trump. What youve seen in this room over the past two weeks is a show trial. The planned result of three years of political operations and dirty tricks. Campaigns waged against this president. And like any good show trial, the verdict was decided before the trial ever began. After all, after denouncing the president for years as a russian agent and a threat to democracy, how could the democrats not
impeach him . If they dont have to if they dont move to overthrow him, would indicate that they dont really believe their own dire warnings about the threat he poses. The democrats only needed a pretext when their russian dossiers and investigations failed to do the job, they moved to plan b, the ukraine hoax. This spectacle with its secret depositions and midhearing Press Conferences is not meant to discover the facts. It was designed to produce a specific story line to be pushed forward by the democrats and their Support Errors in the media. Ladies and gentlemen, as we approach thanksgiving, Speaker Pelosi has just made clear just today usmca Free Trade Deal with canada and mexico will boost our economy wont be signed this year. So i hope mr. Schiff will clarify how much longer we will waste on this effort and what other vital legislation he is willing to sacrifice for this impeachment crusade. Will there be even more secret depositions accompanied by the usual flood of democratic leaks . Will we have more public hearings with democrat witnesses but not ours . Minority are in the dark about what this committee will be doing when we return. And so is america. James madison warned us about the danger posed by the tyranny of the majority to avoid that threat our founders created a constitutional republic. But is there a better example of the tyranny of majority than the way this Impeachment Process has been run in the House Of Representatives . A process that is grossly unfair can only stem from a cynical majority that is willing to
break longestablished precedence, trample on legitimate minority concerns and impose their absolute will on this body through sheer force of numbers. Exploiting the Intelligence Committee as a venue for impeachment has been one of the grossest abuses in a process filled with cynical manipulations, large and small. But this farce will soon move to the Judiciary Committee where impeachment rightfully belongs. I wish my republican colleagues well in fighting this travesty and defending the idea, which at one time received bipartisan support not long ago. But the American Peoples vote actually means something. Yield back. I thank the gentleman. First of all i want to thank you
both for your testimony. I want to thank you for your long years of service to the country. Youre not democratic witnesses or republican witnesses. You are nonpartisan witnesses and you have stuck to the facts. And that is as it should be. First i want to make a couple observations about the hearing today. And, dr. Hill, you were criticized several times by my colleagues for your opening statement. Im glad you didnt back down from it. You are much more diplomatic than i am i have to say. Anyone watching these proceedings, anyone reading the Deposition Transcripts would have the same impression that you evidently had from hearing my colleagues talk about the russia hoax, that the whole idea that russia had gotten involved in the 2016 election was a hoax put out by the democrats. And of course they are not alone in pushing out this idea. It is trumpeted by no one other than the president of the United States who almost on a daily basis at times would comment and
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.