26efth. 17 . Yes. What do you come to mean by yes, sir. They got. Security assistan, three e amigos. As well. They cudid. If i said that number was my understanding of ambassador sondlands use of around 270 million. That term thed three people in would that probably be accurate . Charge of ukraine policy during the summer was he, gordon sound about right . Sondland and ambassador volker did they get aid in fy 18 . And secretary perry. When did you come to learn yes, sir. Including security about mr. T giulianis role and assistance . Including security what do you consider his role to assistance. We already talked about the have been . Er i first heard about former javelins and antitank missiles mayor jewgiulianis interest in that they were not able to purchase in previous ukraine in january of this year. Administrations. Have they gotten Security Assistance in fy 19 . Yes, sir. Prior to the 400 million or that was a different phase than what happened during the so that were discussing a lot summertime. Is it normal to have ape pern who is private citizen take a hereot today . They got some previous, role in foreign diplomacy . Probably fy18 assistance. I did not find it formal, no. Ambassador taylor, you it takes a while once money is obligated to reach the testified two channels regular country. Two island class ships that just and irregular. What did you see as rudy arrived in the port of adesa and giulianis role in ukraine that was prior money. Policy . A lag of a year. Congresswoman, i came to see my point is that we have been supporting the ukrainians under that mr. Giuliani had a large this administration in order to influence on the irregular help them kick out the russians channel. And was that normal . Who invaded their country. Is that normal to have a private th yes, sir. Citizen of the United Statesha 100 . Ambassador taylor, earlier take an active role in you were testifying that diplomacy . It is not normal. Ukrainian officials did not become aware of policy u. S. It is not unusual to ask for assistance being withheld until people outside the government to give opinions. August 29th. To help form the policies of the is that accurate . That is my understanding. U. S. Government. Would you find it surprising it is unusual to have a person if a ukrainian official knew about that sooner and did not put input into the channel that goes contrary to u. S. Policy. Thank you. I yield back. Contact you . I can answer that it was only mr. Turner, you are after august 29th when the recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Political argument that i got calls from several of the ukrainian officials. Mr. Kent, ambas dasador taylor, mr. Kent, had you had any thank you for your service. You have very little direct ukrainian official contacting you concerned about when was contact with decisionmakers, a tremendous a amount of the first time a ukrainian responsibility and not a lot of authority. Official contacted you concerned about potential withholding of
u. S. Aid . It was after the article acae to affect multilateral enga engageme engagements. Youre trying to shepard through out in that first intense week issues with our allies. One example of that, ambassador of t september. After that august 29th taylor, is that you testified in conversation. Your prior testimony that you have p not had any contact with the president of the United States, is that correct . Thats correct, sir. Mr. Taylor, mr. Kent, have a lot of talk about rudy you had anyr. Contact with the president of the United States . I have not. Iso, not only no conversati giuliani and who he was and who with the president of the united he wasnt meeting. States about ukraine, but you do we have an idea of the ukrainian officials he was have not had any contact with meeting with over theof last the president of the united couple inyears . I dont, sir. States . Have you had any ukrainian that is correct. So, you both know this Impeachment Inquiry is about the officials call you after a meeting with Rudy Giuliani president of the United States, dont you . Concerned about the nature or the man neither one of you had the context of that contact with youre the first up witnesses. I just find that a little conversation . Yes. Amazing that the first up would mr. Yurmoc expressed concerns be two people who have never had any contact with the president himself. With his conversations with mr. Now, volker did have contact with the president and contact giuliani. With there president on ukraine. I believe that was in late mr. Ambassador taylor, you said august, is that correct . There were meetings and also phone calls. St he is a man of highest integr y integrity. I know he served as the nato
ambassad ambassador. He served as the director of the you talked that you are Mccain Institute highest professional ethics and one of theth most knowledgeable people concerned about Corruption In Ukraine, is that correct . About europe. Yes, sir. Have we seen whatever this a truthful man, mr. Kent, withed you agree that he is of the anticorruption statement we wanted the ukrainians to make . Highest integrity. I believe kurt volker has are you referring to the statementer that was being gord served the u. S. Very well. Do you have any evidence that sondland . Mr. Volker perjured himself or yes. That was not an anticorruption statement, sir . The statement . I think if you go back and lied to this committee in his forth that were shared by kurt volker they shared a draft with testimony . Mr. Taylor, any evidence . An i have no evidence. Rudy giuliani and Rudy Giuliani mr. Kent . I believe ambassador volkers saidru it Wouldnt Be Acceptabl deposition was over 400 pages if It Didnt Say Burisma in and i dont have it in front of me. 2019. That b statement was not issd you have no evidence that he by the ukrainian officials, is that correct . No, statement of that sort s lied or perjured himself . I dont, no, sir. Issued. Correct. And have u. S. Businesses ever if we were in the court the contacted you concerned about sixth amendment would apply and corruption within ncukraine . Yes, sir. Most of your two testimonies as of this year even . Would not be admissible whatsoever. Yes, sir. Because the concern is not but i understand you deal in words of understanding, words of just how ukrainian businesses beliefs and feelings because in your inprofession, thats what u run are being operated, its work with t to try to pull alsoat concerns about how the together policy and to go in and out of meetings to try to Ukrainian Government is dealing formulatein opinions that affec with American Businessesn Tryi to operate in ukraine, is that otherha peoples decisionmaking. Accurate . American businesses are very ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting with the concerned about the judicial system in particular, yes, sir. I yield back my time. The president or Prime Minister of a country . Or you were told one thing what mr. Castro. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today and for the meeting would be about or your service to our country. The meeting be about a different listening to all the evidence, thing. Or you get in there and the belief of the president or prime everything ive heard and read in this investigation, it seems minister were other than you to me that the president of the believed . Youre asking if i ever learned something new in a United States either committed extortion and bribery of a meeting . Have you walked in with a belief that you thoughte about foreign official or attempted the country you were serving in and find out that they were extortion and bribery of a foreign official. Wrong . When President Trump got i w learned something in eve president zelensky on the phone meeting, mr. Turner, but i, you on july 25th, he was talking to know ambassador taylor, the reason a desperate man, wasnt he . Why the sixth amendment doesnt president zelensky was desperate allow hearsay, it is unreliable to protect his country and make because it is not truthful. Sure he hadry foreign assistanc
it is beliefs or understandings. From the United States, is that right . Ambassador, you testified of a number of things president zelenskyvery that you heard. Isnt it possible that the things that you heardos were no true . That some of thed beliefs and understandings that you had are interested in support, yes. Not accurate . What would have happened if in fact, youre mistaken about the aid h got cut off . Some of the things you testified what would have happened to president zelenskys career and today and factual basis, versus a professional assessment. The ukraine . Ifd the assistance had been mr. Turner, i am here to tell you what i a know. I am not going to tell you cut off, he would have been much anything i know. I will tell you everything i do weaker in his negotiations with know. The russians. He would have been much weaker thats exactly why im here. On the battlefield. But since you learned it from the russians may have taken others, you could be wrong, correct . It as an invitation to actually i am telling you what i heard take Military Action against them tell me. And they could be wrong or ukraine. Is that right . They could bed mistaken or the the russians always look for could have heard it incorrectly, vulnerabilities and they know right, ambassador taylor . That the United States has people make mistakes. Supported ukraine. So, you could be wrong. If the russians determined or i yield the rest of my time. Suspect thank you, thank the that that support is gentleman for yielding. Lessened or t not there, they wl ambassador taylor, the gentleman likely take advantage. Asked if you were wrong and were they could have pounced. Ou wrong when you said you had they could have taken advantage. So he had a desperate man on the phone and he asked a president zelensky had to a desperate man for a favor. And based on your testimony, it commit to an investigation before the aid got released and the aid got released and didnt commit to an investigation . I was not wrong about what i sounds like begrudgely he did told you, which is what i heard. That favor to investigate the thats all i said. Bidens and burisma, is that i told you what i heard. And thats the point. What you heard did not happen. Right . President zelensky says in the transcript that he will pursue theri investigations. We know that President Trump it didnt happen. Asked for a favor to help his you had three meetings with the guy. He didnt tell you. Yo political career and it appears as though the president of the its not just could it have been Ukraine Esagreed to that favor. Wrong. The fact is, it was wrong. Do we know why it didnt actually happen . Because it didnt happen. The whole point was you had a do we know why there was no clear understanding that aid announcement in front of cnn or will not get released unless to cnn about an investigation . Theress is a commitment, not maybe, not maybe i think the aid might happen. Mr. Castro, as we have my unhunch is going to get released. You used clear understanding and determined, as weve discussed commitment and those two things here on september 11th, just didnt happen. You had to be wrong. Before any cnn discussion or mr. Jordan, the other thing that went on when that assistant was on hold is we shook the interview, the hold was released. The hold on the Security Systems confidence of a close partner in was e released. But we so the hold was our reliability. And that thats not what this released. Is it possible that the white proceedings is about. House released that hold because thats not what this whole thing started on. They knew that a whistleblower had had basically turned this the time of the general expired. Did you want to finish your in . Answer . Thats good, mr. Chairman. I dont know, sir. I now recognize mr. Carson do you think thats possible . Im not in a position to for five rminutes. Thank you, i yield to the r judge. So, we have a president it yielding. I just want to follow up on some of the questions about president zelenskys statements after this scandal came to light when he was asked, were you pressured, how the phone call go, et cet a looks like there was an initial agreement by the president of ukraine to actually do those cetera. Things. T by ambassadors, is att ukrainians, mr. Kent, are sophisticated aboutke u. S. Politics, are they not . Perhaps. So you would agree that if murder a crime . President zelensky contradicted is Attempted Murder a crime . President trump and said, of course, i felt pressure. They were holding up 400 million Attempted Murder is a crime. Is attempted robbery a crime . Neither of us is a lawyer. But i i thinkla anybody in this ro
could answerny that question. I think thats right. In militarily assistance. If he were to contradict ill go out onhi a limb and say directly, they may payy a very heavy price with this president , yes, it is. Is attempted extortion and bribery a crime . Were they not . That is a fair assessment. And president zelensky not i dont know, sir. Only had to worry about in the minute that i have left, i want you i to speak to e President Trump but worried nation about whats at stake, about how he is perceived domestically, right, ambassador ambassador kent. You said in your opening taylor . President zelensky is very statement, you warned about sensitive to the views of the selective prosecutions and a ukrainian people who, indeed, are very attentive to president of the United States going after specific americans abroad. Ukrainian u. S. Politics, yes. S, so, if president zelensky if this congress clears were tole say i had to capitula President Trump, does it mean and agree to these that he can go ask another investigations i was ready to go on cnn untilse the aid got foreign country to investigate another president ial candidate . Restored, that would, obviously, a member of congress . A governor . A senator . Be hurtful to him back home, or any private American Citizen would it not . Doing Business Overseas . He cannot afford to be seen, if theres no consequence for a president who does that, then it means theres a green light, to be deferring to any foreign doesnt it, for any president to
leader. He is very confident in his own ask any country to go prosecute or investigate an American Citizen for political and abilities and he knows that the personal gain of that president. Ukrainian people expect him to be clear and defend ukrainian doesnt it . Thank you for the question. Firstor of all, im not an interests. Mr. Carson. Thank you, chairman. In ambassador. Im sorry. My colleague touched briefly on i will repeat i think on the campaign to remove career principle, regardless of the country, whether its ukraine, diplomat ambassador. The u. S. , or any country, the you testified that you were facts of law criminal nexus aware of the campaign of slander should drive investigations by Lawsh Enforcement Officials Andt against the c ambassador in is not the role of politicians realtime whiche basically to be involved in directing the unfolded in the media. Where do you understand this judicial systems of their own country or other countries. Misinformation campaign was coming from and who was essentially perpetuating it . I yield back, chairman. Mr. Ratcliff. My understanding the then thank you, chair. Mr. Kent, in your prior Prosecutor General of ukraine, now ex, met Rudy Giuliani in new deposition, on page 159, you were asked about the president s york on a private visit in january. They had a second meeting in february. Authority to release an ambassador for any reason. And your response was, quote, and through the good offices of the former office of new york he all ambassadors serve at the
gave an interview to john pleasure of the president and that is without question. Solomon then of the hill in early march and the campaign was everybody understands that. End quote. Launched on march 20th. Do you remember saying that . I do and its true. A corrupt ukrainian president very clearly has that Constitutional Authority, correct . Prosecutor gave an interview to he does. Okay. A reporter in the United States well, most everybody apparently and made claims that the understands that. Ambassador provided officials butde doesnt include house with a, quote, do not prosecute democrats. In the context of this Impeachment Inquiry, list. Sir, do you have any reason to believe this is true . Specifically addressing ambassador yovanovitch, who i know is a friend ofba yours, in i do not believe it was true. Alleging an abuse of power in a what is the reputation of the man who made these allegations, sir . A politician of long nationallytelevised interview, standing. A member of this committee said, he had been minister of interior quote, its an abuse of power to and the u. S. Embassy had good remove anse ambassador for relations with him for years. Political reasons because you he was imprisoned by president theyre doing. Period. Endt quote. Thats not true, is it . Again, i go back to what i and came out and elected said. The president has the right to Majority Leader of the have ambassadors serve at his president s party and then pleasure. Okay. Became Prosecutor General in the so you agreeer with me that we spring of 2016. Shouldnt impeach a president f what was your experience wh forou exercising his Constitutional Authority. Im here as a fact witness to answer your questions. Your constitutional obligation
is to consider the evidence before you. So when did ambassador Yovanovitch Get recalled from ukraine . Yovanovitkch. Help ukrainians overcome i believe a message was sent corruption. Which they have made important steps since 2014. On or about april 24th. Before all of this happened, okay. Certainly, well before the July 25th Call t thats in question you and your superiors asked the here, correct . Without a doubt. Okay. And she had no remaining ambassador to extend her time, is that correct . Responsibilities with respect to that is correct. Did you support her ukrainere policy for that threer extension . I asked her to extend through four months in between i taket it . The end of this year to get she is now a she was through the Election Cycle in transferred to ahe to to ukraine and the secretary asked her to stay until 2020. Teaching slot at georgetown where her responsibilities, among others, were to teach a class onot ukraine. Some in ukraine probably as okay. So if President Trump had the disliked her efforts to root out Corruption In Ukraine, is that Constitutional Authority to correct some. Fair enough. Remove her as he did months before the call and she wasnt in the in the ukraine or have any responsibilities on july now, some of those people helped giuliani smear her. 25th, do you have an explanation for why democrats are calling did they not . Her as a witness on friday . They did. So, ultimately that Smear Campaigny pushed president tru im here as a fact witness to remove her, correct, sir . Under subpoena and thats a i cannot judge that. Question you could perhaps direct towards your democratic
colleagues. Ti what i can say is that rudy ambassador taylor, weve giulianis Smear Campaign was ubiquitous on the twittersphere. Established that on july 25th, in all your combined decades both participants in the call, at the State Department, have both president s, expressly have you ever before seen an instance where an ambassador was forced stated there was no pressure, no out by the president er followina demand, no conditions, no blackmail, no corruption. Smear campaign of misinformation and i ask you, again, orchestrated by the president s allies . Specifically about the quid pro i have not. Quo even being possible. Nor i. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. And i think weve agreed that it wasnt possible, a quid pro quo thank you, mr. Chairman. Involving military aid on July 25th Given president zelenskys lack of knowledge, correct . Mr. Taylor, this should be easy president zelensky, to my because ill use a lot of your knowledge, did notel have any ia words from the previous that the that the security deposition as we go forward. In your deposition, you spoke of support for ukraine and its assistance was on hold. So do you have an explanation relationship to the united for why within days of that states and how much you support phone call when no quid pro quo that. In 2014 you and im quoting was even possible, a person who this, urged Obama Administration later become a whistleblower to provide lethal defensive walked into Chairman Schiffs weapons in order to deter further russian aggression. Staff to discuss what chairman did the Obama Administration schiffs Spokesman Patrick said
provide lethal weapons . No, sir. They provided mres and where the quote outlines of the blankets and things like that. Whistleblowers accusations . In your deposition you also said President Obamas objection was im sorry, whats the question, sir . Because it might provoke the the question is do you know or have an explanation for why russians and, in fact, you that person would walk in a few testify in your deposition that days later . I do not. Obamade administration didnt he okay. A good argument since russia had already provoked and they have earlier, Chairman Schiff made reference to a colloquy and for the public, a colloquy is a way invaded ukraine, is that correct for legislators to clarify an sph. That is correct, sir. Important issue to the public. Its asha shame he didnt ta and so without jeopardizing the whistleblower in any way, in the advice of a Combat Veteran like thyou, sir. Effort to find out, chairman, because a lot of ukrainian lives could have been saved if he had taken your advice. What you knew and when you knew it about the whistleblower, id in your deposition, you said and like you to engage in a colloquy with me. I quote, happy or happy with the my colleague will address his Trump Administrations questions to the witnesses. Assistance. And it provided both lethal and ill take that as a no, financial aid, did it not . Youre not interested in a it did, sir. Colloquy . Ke and you also stated that it was a substantial improvement, you can take it any way you like it. Is that correct . Thats correct, sir. But appropriately, your question should be directed to witnesses. Now, were providing mres and well, i guess my question to the witnesses then is, when are
houses republicans going to fi blankets dont do that. Out what House Democrats already today you said i was beginning know . When are we going to find out to fear the longstanding policy the a details of the contact for ukraine was shifting. I have a little trouble with between Chairman Schiff and the long standing based on what we whistleblower . Just talked about because it what they met about, when they wasnt really long standing, met, the number of times they strong support. It seems to me the strong met, the discussions that were support came with this had. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Administration, would you agree that, sir . Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is questioning the chair which is not permitted under the resolution applicable to theer hearing or the rules of the unless you can call it long house or theor committee. Efforts to undermine lawful support the long standing i am whistlene blowing is more to th referring to there is the long contrary of law and practice of this committee. Standing political support, i would also like to quote mr. Chairman. Im not trying to find out economic support andpo increasi the ryidentity. I want to find out the date this military support. Certainly that strong support came from t congress. Happened. But didnt come from the if the chairman could Previous Administration compared suspend. Mr. Ratcliff has resumed to what this administration has questioning of the witness so i decided to do. Would just recommendg we move. The strong support came with chairman, Pretty Simple question. This administration, not the are we ever going to be ableha Obama Administration. Find out thego details in no and maybe now we understand what President Obama meant when he anything classified. Ill reserve my point of order. Told russian president medvedev i guess he hasnt resumed his
he would have more flexibility after his election. Maybe that flexibility was to question to the witness. Deny lethal aid to the ukraine, mr. Ratcliff, your time is dwindling. I suggest you use it. Allowing russia to march right i will eyield back. In and kill ukrainiaukrainians. Again, in your deposition, you. Urged the Obama Administration thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Oukent, some people have officials to provide lethal suggested that the real reason defensive weapons to ukraine in that president on trumps pressu order to deter further Russian Campaign on the ukraine was to aggression. And now they have that under this administration. Dont they . Root out Corruption In Ukraine. They have them, yes, sir. I would like to yield the ive gone back and read the remainder of my time to mr. Memorandum of call two or three timeswo actually and i dont ratcliffe. Recall ame single instance wher i thank the gentleman for yielding. So, no pressure. The president ever used the word no demands, no conditions. Nothing corrupt. Corruption, nor the word corrupt. Nothing. Nothing on the call. I know in answer to the thats what we heard president zelensky say. Chairmans opening questions, and because House Democrats charges against President Trump you had indicated you had gone have been publicly repeatedly back and read it about a month consistently been denied by ago. Do you recall the president in president zelensky, you heard that july 25th phone call with president zelensky ever uttering the defense now. The word corrupt or corruption . I dont recall but it would be a matter of aho recordru n
from Chairman Schiff. Its been released. Hes lying because he has to. And as a matter of record, he he has to lie because because didnt. But he did find time to mention his political rival in 2020. You also answered in response to the question from mr. Heinz that the threats and demands that youve been f working on the ise House Democrats are alleging. Of corruption literally for if he didnt do that, he decades. Couldnt possibly risk military i thank you for thatliy on beh of the American People. And indeed on october 15th, you aid. He would have to do anything he had to secure it. Testified about longstanding the problem with that, the hole u. S. Policy meant to combat corruption in the ukraine. In thatol argument is you have ask yourself, what did president championed by people such as former ambassador Marie Zelensky actually do to get the yovanovitch. Aid . The answer is nothing. He did nothing. He didnt open any but, mr. Kent, is it not true investigations. That ratherit than fighting he didnt call Attorney General bill barr. He didnt do any of the things corruption in general in ukraine that what President Trump actually did was unconus that House Democrats say that he was being forced and coerced and yovanovitch from her post in threatened to do. Ukraine . I would say first of all, as he didnt do anything because he i repeated before, president has the right b to recall ambassado. Didnt have to. I yield back. It remains a matter of policy of the United States towards
ukraine to help them overcome a recognized for five minutes. Ve thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you,mr both, for your tru legacy of corruption in creating new institutions and much of what weve been discussing w heroic efforts both today and today, which involved in a also throughout your careers. Regular channel, was a request i would like to start with you that went against u. S. Policy mr. Kent. In your testimony, you said that that have have undermined the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine, as in other countries you had in midaugust became in the postsoviet space. Those policies which were clear to me that giulianis indeed championed by ambassador efforts politically motivated yovanovitch. You also testified on october investigations were nowy 15th in the deposition about infecting u. S. Engagement with fundamental reforms necessary ukraine, leveraging president for ukraine to fight corruption zelenskys desire for a white and to transform the country. House meeting. Kent, did you actually write and you t cited the importance a memo documenting your concerns reforming certain institutions, that there was an effort under notably way a to pressure ukraine to op an investigation to benefit President Trump . Was investigating president yes, maam. I wrote a memo to the file on trumps political opponents a august 16tho. Dont have access to part of those necessary reforms . That t memo, do we . Was it on that list of yours or i submitted it to the State Department tsubject to the indeed was it on any list . September 27 subpoena. No, they werent. We haveem not received one piece of paper from the state in fact, historically, is it department relative to this investigation. Both of you have made compelling cases of the importance of ukraine. To europe, to the 70 years of peace, the benefit that it has to the United StatesNational Security. And our goal to continue to support sovereignty of nations. Meanwhile, russia is violently attacking people in Ukraine Donbass area. Does that weaken ukraine . I think it sends the wrong signal and it did for a short period of time. Again, the the assistance from the fy 19 was released and is in the process of heading towards ukraine. Does it embolden russia when there was no aid being sent to
ukraine . I think the signal that theres controversyra in questi about the u. S. Support of ukraine sends the signal to Vladimir Putin that he could leverage that as he seeks to negotiate with not only ukraine, but other countries. Thank you. Ambassador taylor, i think you mentioned that a white house meeting for zelensky would boost his ability to negotiate for a peaceful settlement with Vladimir Putin and russia in general. Is that true . Mr. Spier, certainly true that u. S. Support for mr. Zelensky in his negotiations with russians is very important. And will enable him to get a better agreement with that support from the United States. Bothhe from the military, and ao from the political assistance we can provide. He has not yet had that white houseye meeting, has he . He has not. I think its ironic that
sovietborn who has now been indicted had a meeting with the president in the White Houseen after participating in a number ofic Campaign Events for the president and contributing 325,000 to the president s pack. So, maybe its actually the requirement that you give money to the president s pack in order to get that meeting at the white house. Si ambassador taylor, is it true that the Prosecutor General now has opened an investigation in ukraine . Thein newin prosecutor gener that president zelensky has appointedne is indeed investigating crimes in general. Is that your question . Yes. But is he he is in office and is investigating criminal activity. Has he specified what
investigations he has undertaken . No. At he has not. All right. I yield the rest of my time to chairman tschiff. Just a quick question. Myic colleagues, a couple of my colleagues m referenced the conversation, the hoten Mic Conversation between President Obama and president medvev. There was a suggestion that he was going to go easy on russia over ukraine. That invasion took place two years after that conversation. You had every reason to believe that President Obama was going easy on russia for an investigation that didnt happen yet, do you . Have no it was more or less a rhetorical question. I will yield now to mr. Stewart, im sorry, mr. Stewart. Thank you. To the witnesses, thank you. Time is precious. Imme going to go very, very quickly. Welco welcome, i think, to year four of the ongoing impeachment of President Trump. I am sorry you are dragged into this. The sign says it very well. But after listening for what is going on now four hours and a 21 minutes after all the secret hearings and after all the leaks and after hearing witnesses such as yourselves give your opinions, it really comes down to this one thing. One thing it comes down to. This is the transcript the president has released of this phone call. There is one thsentence, one phe call that is what this entire impeachment proceeding is based upon. And i got to tell you, if your impeachment case is so weak that you have to lie and exaggerate about it to convince the American People that they need to remove this president , then youve got a problem. And the American People have been lied to again and again on this. We first heard a lot about quid pro quo. And then many people realized
that was meaningless, so they said lets talk about extortion and bribery and cover up and obstruction. For which there is zero evidence of any of that. We heard a characterization of the president s phone call that was so outrageously inaccurate it had to be described. None of those matter. It comes down to this. We appreciate your insight. We appreciate your opinion. But all you can do is give your opinion of this. This one phone call. Let me ask you, gentlemen, you testified Corruption In Ukraine is endemic. We agree on that. Simple question. Problem is its a problem and theyre taking steps to address it. Earlier in the hearing, both of you said used the word or agreed to it. Its in all courts and prosecutors and everywhere. And i think we can also agree that thats not the only place in the world where we experience and see corruption. Dozens and dozens of nations around the world that are steeped in corruption, would you agree with that . I would say there is corruption in every country, including ours. All right. Thank you. A some were more concerned about than others. In these corrupt nations in which there are probably Hundreds Of Corrupt individuals. Hundreds of corrupt government officials. Can you give me an example any time where the Vice President of the United States shows up and demands that a specific prosecutor be fired and gives them a sixhour time limit to do that . Are you aware of that ever happening in any other place . I guess the answer is no. Ha and i just think its interesting that out of Hundreds Of Corrupt individuals, dozens of corrupt i nations that happed one time. And it happened with the individual whose son was being paid by the organization that was under investigation. One other thing very quickly. If someone was a candidate for a political office, even for president of the United States, should they be immuned from investigation . U no one is above the law, sir. Thank you. I agree with that. I think we all would agree with that. Yet i a think some presume becae some of the individuals were talking about here were candidates they are immune from any questions or any investigation. I thinky or its absurd. For heaven sakes those of us in public office, those who find ourselves up for f reelection e all the time as a candidate. I think we have a higher standard, notgh immunity from asking these types of questions. The last thing and then im going tond yield my time. Availability of funds. Im quoting from 2019 the. Under assistance to ukraine, it has to be certified. And what has to be certif that
would be questions about Corruption In Ukraine and it could be discussed withholding some of this aid that is actually required by law that it be withheld if they cant certify that corruption has been eliminated or being addressed . That certification in that case is done by the secretary of defense upon advice of his staff and consultation with the interagency community. The secretary of defense had already certified that that conditionality had been met. Soit we agree that we should hold funds if there is questions Aboutho Corruptions That Have N been addressed. Ill yield the rest of my time tost mr. Jordan. 18 seconds. Are you going to let that go . In that case, i will yield back. Thank you. That certification that took place in may, is that correct, mr. Kent . I do not believe it was certified by may. I would go to my colleague laura
cooper. It had not been done by may because i was asked to raise a specific issue that would meet theue conditionality. They did meet the certification . I think itet may have been i the july time frame. Thank you. So, its interesting and curious that were talking about hearsay evidence. Its extraordinary to me that the committee has been able to get as much information they had as much direct or hearsay given the obstruction. You gentlemen were both asked by the State Department not to appear for your depositions, is that correct . We both received, i believe i received initially a Letter Directing me not to appear. And once the committees issued a subpoena, i was under legal obligation to appear and i am here todayo under subpoena. Ambassador, were you also asked not to be part of the deposition . So i was told by the State Department dont t appear under these circumstances. That was in the letter to me. And when i got the subpoena exactly as mr. Kent said, that was different circumstances. And a legal subpoena. Yes, sir, im here for that reason. Absolutely. We are not able to hear testimony by Chief Of Staff mulvaney, john bolton, more than a dozen witnesses. So, i suspect if you have a problem with y hearsay, youd he a lot more direct testimony and direct evidence if you Werent Blocking W that ability. Youd have a lot more documents, documents that you referred to with my colleagues questions that had not yet been turned over by state or any other agency. Is that correct to your knowledge, gentlemen . Were both here under subpoena. Were not going to comment on why others havent showed up. To your knowledge have been turned over to the committee . No. Mr. Ee kent, following the ju 25heth call and through the fir
two weeks of august, were you involved in any efforts to arrange for president i zelensk to make a statement nannouncing the July 25th Call . Ambassador taylor, were you involved in any such efforts . No, sir. I want to show you a text of the sexchange between volker. The first text is from august 10th. Ambassador volker said i agree with your approach. I agree. Well call for a Press Briefing and outline vision for the areboot of u. S. ukraine relationship including among other things burisma and Election Medaling in
investigations. Once we have a date, they will announce the investigations in election meddling. Mr. Kent, are these the two conversations that President Trump canned the ukrainian president in the July 25th Call . The same25 issues that were mentioned in the call as well as the Media Campaign started in march led by Rudy Giuliani. As the daytoday point person ony ukraine policy, wer you aware of this to issue a statement in order to get a white house meeting while they were happening . When this exchange happened on august 10th, i was not. When did you learn about them . As ambassador Taylor Referencedlo earlier in his testimony answering he heard on august 16th, he then called me and we hadth a conversation. At that point, i memorialized my concerns in a note to the file. Ambassador taylor, as the point person on the ground in ukraine. Were youou aware to get ukraineo
issue this statement in early august . Not the written statement, no, sir. The entire concern about the Twoab InvestigationPresident Trump wanted was done in what you have described as an irregular channel involving ambassador sondland and volker, isnt that correct, mr. Kent . That would be my understanding. Ambassador . Thede same. And i guess to close on meca needs reminded that countless people have been convicted on created ecause the courts have needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and its certainly valid in this instance. Will Gentleman Yield because none of those exceptions would apply to this testimony . Not the time for. For the americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following. Number one. Ukraine received the aid. Number two, there was, in fact, no investigation into biden. Mr. Kent and ambassador taylor, you both spoke eloquently and passionately about the need to support ukraine to counterrussian aggression, particularly during this very critical patime. I agree with you in that assessment. And isnt it the case that the Trump Administration has indeed provided substantial aid to ukraine in the form of defense of lethal aid, correct . That is correct. That is more so than the Obama Administration, correct . Correct. The defensive lethal aid . Enyes. In the transcript of the president s July 25th Call with president zelensky, he tells trump they are ready to buy more j javelins. This is the most effective weapon in fighting armor tanks,
is that correct . That is correct. They were not made available to the ukraine under the Obama Administration. They were not. Correct. Shifting gears to corruption. One of the themes here today is that of rooting out corruption, which is anf important tool fo the president as we provide taxpayer funded aid to foreign countries. Mr. Kent, you had characterized ukraine as having longstanding corruption issues, correct . I did. And, in fact, you testified, quote, i would say that corruption is part of the reason why ukrainians came out to the streetsto in both 2004 when somebody tried to steal the election and again in 2014 because of a corrupt pro russian government that eventually collapsed. Theal ukrainians decided enough was enough. Is that your testimony . It remains so. You testified that you first came to learn about burisma in 2015 when you were the senior anticorruption coordinate,
correct . Correct. The acting deputy chief admission. You testified Thaty The Iss of Corruption Infi Burisma was the u. S. Interest because, quote, thiser is from your deposition. We had made ayo commitment to t Ukrainian Government in 2014 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of stolen dollars of assets out of the country. Is that o correct . That is a stolen assets that were In The Name Of the owner of burisma. He was the one who we believed had stolen thesm money. Sure. So, the first case, this was the first case that the u. S. , the uk and ukraine investigators worked on was against the owner of burisma . That is correct. This was during the Obama Administration . Thats correct. So, forni the millions of americans viewing, the first investigation against the owner of burisma was under Obamas Administration . Mi thats correct. We spent money in support of the fbi and this investigation to build capacity and track down stolenan assets, end quote, is that etcorrect . That is correct. It was launched in may 2014 by the Attorney General of the u. S. And uk in conjunction with the world bank. In fact by 2016 you were so concerned about corruption questions related to burisma that when there was an effort to sponsor an essay you asked usad to stop it. Thats correct. You testified it was because burisma had a poor reputation in the business and you didnt think it was appropriate for the u. S. Government to be cosponsoring with a company that had a bad reputation, correct . You are also aware and you testified today that Hunter Biden Servedth on the board of burisma. Correct. And you also testified that you were, indeed concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest. That is correct. This is very important. You testified when they testify it is important to look at level of corruption in countries sph. Pt thats correct. Lastly, you also testified that, and this is your quote, issues of corruption have been part of o highlevel dialogue between u. S. Leaders and ukrainian leaders regardless of who is the u. S. Leader and who is the ukrainian leader and that is ani normal issue of Diplomat Discussion at the highest level unquote. Is thatgh correct . That isec correct. I will yield 30 seconds. I will yield back after that. Thank you. Yi both of you have testified that you are not direct witnesses who have spoken with President Trump, however, you are witnesses to a shake down scheme that others participated in who spoke with President Trump. However, ambassador bolton and Nick Mulvaney both spoke directly to President Trump and unlike you, they have refused to honor our request for them to be
a part of these proceedings. Nonetheless, we do know how acting Chief Of StaffMick Mulvaney feels about aid because on octoberid 17 at a press conference, hess discussed the hold on Security Assistance for Ukraine Andis ambassador taylori would like you to listen to what he said. Ill read it for you. In response to a question what you just sdibed is a quid pro quo. Funding will not flow in. In response to that question mr. Mulvaney said, mr. Taylor, we do that all the time with foreign policy. My question ambassador taylor, the president conditioning Security Assistance on an investigation into his political opponent prior to this administration is this something we would do all the time . No, sir. Why not . We conditioned assistance on
issues that will improve our foreign policy, serve our foreign policy, ensure that taxpayers money is well spent and those conditions are either coming from the congress or from Policy Decisions stemming from Authority Congress has given us to make sure that the taxpayers money is well spent or that the receiving country takes the actions in ourke national interest. And youat described in your texted message exchanges that n engaging in a scheme like this is, quote,me crazy. Can wequ also agree that its jt wrong . On yes. Why is it wrong . Again, our holding up of Security Assistance that will go to a country that is fighting
aggression from russia for no good policy reason, no good substantive reason and no National Security reason is wrong. Mr. Mulvaney in the same News Conference said, quote, if you read the news reports and you believe them. What mckinley said yesterday, well, mckinley said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence and foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. I have news for everybody. Get over it. Theres going to be political influence in foreign policy. Ambassador taylor, should we get over it . If were talking about political influence meaning attempts towe get Information Tt is solely useful for political campaigns, if thats what hes talking about. We should not get used to that. Us finally, mr. Mulvaney said again, i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily, okay. Three issues for that. The corruption of the country, whether or not the countries are participating in the support of ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in an Ongoing Investigation with our Department Of Justice. Thats completely legitimate. Mr. Kent, were you aware of any formal Department Of Justice cooperation request made to the ukrainians . I am not aware that there was any formal Department Of Justice request in this matter, no. Was mr. Mulvaneys statement false . Ine think youd refer that question to theef Department Of Justice since Irt Dont Have Fu Knowledge On what they may have been w working on. Just before you sat down to testify today the president tweeted multiple times about this hearing and he put in all caps, never trumpers. Mr. Kent, are you a never trumper . I amve a Career Nonprofessiol who serves whatever president is elected and carries out the
foreign policies of that president in the United States and iveat done that for 27 yea for three republican president s and two democrat president s. Deasdor taylor you said in your statement on page 19. Two ukrainian stories today. The first is the one were discussing this morning and you have been hearing for the past twohe weeks. A story about whistleblowers. Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption and interference inpt elections. In this story, ukraine is merely an object. Is it also true that in this story its about the president of the United States . Mr. Swalwell, im here to tell youlw what i know. And im here to tell you what i heard. And what i said. M and in that regard, i cant answer that question. But what youve testified to also involves the president of