Hes one of the more influential officials in the ukraine, correct . Yes. I believe hes one of the few that stands with lutsenko and the zelensky administration. Yes, thats correct. Look k back at hing back a , hindsight, who was doing what . He was out to get him. He said some nasty things. Sometimes that happens on social media. And are you asking me whether it is appropriate, probably not. But i would say that minister ivankoff has been as well as others both in lutsenko and
zelensky administration have been a good partner to the United States as i think i told you before. Hes a practical man and looking for partners and getting the job done. I am shocked that social media would be the sight of negative comments. You certainly can understand that the president aware of the ministers statement and aware of what mr. Lutsenko was up to and these other elements that we have discussed, there are forms of reasonable bases to wonder why there are influential elements to the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. Again, i cant speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would say that those elements
that you recited dont seem to be the ukrainian kind of planned or plot of the Ukrainian Government to work against President Trump or anyone else. I mean they are isolated incidents and we all know, public life can be people are critical and that does not mean that some one is or a government is undermining either a campaign or interfering an election and i would remind again that our own u. S. Intelligence community has conclusively determined that those interfered in the election were in russia. You turn our attention to ambassador volker, hes been a friend and colleague of yours
for many year, is that correct . Yes, thats true. You testified hes a man of honor . I believe that to be true and a brilliant diplomat . Yes. You have no reason to think he would be under taking any initiative that was countered u. S. Interests . I think that he tried to do what he thought was right. Turning our attention to the Trump Administration policy of aid package to ukraine, you testified that during your tenyear ambassador, american policies got stronger for ukraine, is that accurate . With the provision of javelins to the ukrainian millty
t military. That was positive. Why was that important . Obviously there were tank busters and if the war of russia accelerated in some way and tanks coming over the horizon, javelins are a serious weapon to deal with it. The important issue is the symbolism of it that the United States is providing javelins to ukraine. That makes ukraines adversaries think twice. Javelins to ukraine was blocked during the previous administration. Is that correct . They made a determination. I was not apart of those discussions. Obviously they have not yet made a determination whether to produce javelins. Did you understand i think that most agencies
wanted to provide javelins to ukraine. In the new administration under President Trump, the ability for ukraine weapon raised significant advantage or significant step forward . We thought it was important. Has it played out that way . Well, it has. It is a symbol of our strong support for ukraine. This year there were questions as to whether or not our Security System is going to go through that kind of undermines that strong message of support. Ukraine has the ability to acquire javelins, correct . Are you talking about Purchasing Javelins . Yes, we do. It was paused for 55 days but
it ultimately went through, correct . As my understanding. Okay. You testified that you were proud of the efforts that the United States during your tenure to supply this type of aid to ukraine. Are you still happy with the decisions . Are you talking about the javelins . And just the whole package. Yes. Do you think it is efficient and we are giving ukraine enough money . Thats a hard question because one can always use additional funding. With that said, i think that the
congress has been generous in voting for Security Systems and other form of systems to ukraine. Is my time coming to an end . Thank you, i recognize myself to for five minutes. Ambassador yovanovitch, i want to follow up some of the questions from my colleagues. Some of the earlier questions seemed to suggest that your testimony here is irrelevant to the issue at hands, why are you here . Is this some small matter that should have been referred to h. R. . I want to bring our attention to someone who thought you were very important to this whole plot scheme. Thats the president of the United States. There was only one ambassador who was discussed in the July 25th Call and that was you, ambassador yovanovitch. I want to refer back to how you were brought up in that
conversation. At one point during the conversation, the president brings up this prosecutor who was very good and it was shut down and it was really unfair and you indicated earlier that it was reckons to mr. Lutsenko, the prosecutor, is that right . I believe thats the case but i dont know. So immediately after the president brings up this corrupt for foreign prosecutor, sorry, brought up only one ambassador in the call. He brought up this ambassador and praises and he treated unfairly, he encourages Rudy Giuliani to speak with him, the guy that was unfair with you, correct . Yes. He didnt bring you up. He says i want you to talk to Rudy Giuliani, the guy who smeared you and he brings you up. He thought you were relevant to this. Whats more telling immediately after he brings you up and says that you, the woman was bad news. He says there is a lot to talk ability bidens son. Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General was great. After praising this prosecutor, he attacks you and then he goes right to biden. That would indicate to you, would it ambassador that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at odds with and is desire to see this investigation of biden going forward, did it not . Again, you are absolutely
right that is the thought progression. My colleagues also asked in pushing you out of the way, ultimately Ambassador Taylor got a point. Is he the kind of person that would further Rudy Giulianis aims. I think we can agree that Ambassador Taylor is a remarkable public servant. Absolutely. What if the president can put someone else in place that was not a Career Diplomat . What if he can put in place say a substantial donor to his inaugural. What if he could put in place with someone with no diplomatic experience at all or a portfolio that does not include ukraine, may that person be willing to work with Rudy Giuliani and pursue an investigation . Yeah, maybe. Thats exactly what happened, did it . Yes. My colleagues also say well, the Security System went through ultimately so if they sought to condition or bribe ukraine to do these investigations with all the systems, they ultimately paid the money. Are you aware that the Security System was not released until after a whistleblowers complaint made its way to the white house . Yes, i am aware of that. Are you aware it was not released until congress announced of doing the investigation . Yes, i am aware of that. And finally i want to ask you of the call record that my colleagues read, curious about this. Just for people watching at home so theyre not confused, there are two calls here. There is the congrats call and the problematic call in july. One of the reasons we are here is what happened between april and july. But, there was a readout put out by the white house at the time the april Congratutory Call was made. Now that in fact does not appear anywhere in that call. I want to ask you ambassador, why would the white house put out an inaccurate reading . Why would the white house represent that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about corruption in that call or the one in july . I cant answer that question and i dont have the visibility
into that. I thank you. I yield out for five minutes to rec niesz t recognize the ranking member. I just remind the gentlemen there were three calls. There were three calls to President Trump and the one you reit rated r reiterated a couple weeks ago. First of all, i am not against political ambassador. I want to clear that up. Now can i yield to mr. Stefanik . I need your permission. Thank you, before i was interrupted, i want to thank you for your 30 years of service to moscow to london and to kiev, i want to thank you for hosting the numerous delegations, i lead one of those in ukraine. The mifirst is the role of the president when it comes to appointing our ambassadors and long standing corruption in ukraine and the third is aid to ukraine. Earlier this week as you know we heard from george kent and i know mr. Kent is a colleague and friend who you deeply respect, in his testimony, he stated all ambassadors serve the pleasure of the president. You would agree with that statement, kr econnecorrect . Yes. He elaborated and went onto emphasize, this is not a question, everybody understands that. You agree with that . Yes. Although i understand, everyone understands that i serve at the pleasure of the president , is that correct . Yes. Just so there is no public confusion, you are still an employee of the State Department, correct . Yes. You said you personally asked whether it would be possible to be a fellow at Georgetown University and that was arranged for me and i am grateful. Thats where you are posted today. Georgetown students are lucky to have you and lucky to have you. I want to thank you for your tremendous service. Shifting gears into corruption in ukraine, you described quote, we have long understood the long effort must form an essential part of our policies in ukraine, why is this important to us is that still your testimony . Yes. At a critical time in 2014 after the elections, you testified that the ukrainian people had made clear in that election that they were done with corruption. Correct . Yes. And you also testified that the ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up architecture of a special Investigative Office that would be about all the crimes of
corruption, correct . Yes. You are aware that the first case that the u. S. u. K. And ukrainian investigators worked on was not against the owner of burisma. Yes. That was during tr Obama Administration. Yes. And your testimony, you said today that the investigation was never formally closed because it is frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook, right . Yes. The ukrainian investigation. Yes, although because we did not see the ukrainians moving forward, we no longer partner with them on that case or in that way. Lets take a first step. A step back, the first time you personally became aware of burisma, was that actually when you are being prepared by the Obama State Department for your senate hearings. This is in a form of practice, question as and answers. You testified with the Obama State Department, it was not generally about burisma in corruption, it was specifically about hunter biden and burisma, is that correct . Yes, it is. From your testimony, is quote, the way the question was phrased in this model q a was what can you tell us about hunter biden being named of the board of burisma. For millions of americans watching, president Obamas State Department was concerned of Conflict Och Interests that they raised themselves while prepping the ambassador nominee before her confirmation. Our colleagues and chair of the committee cried foul when we dare asking that question. Lastly in my 20 seconds left, i want to get it on record. In terms of defensive lethal aid, that was not provided by president obama. It was provided by President Trump . Yes. Thats correct. I yield back five seconds. Ambassador, thank you for your system today. Those of us who sitting up here are supposed to be passionate and measured, i am angry. I have been angry since i have learned about your summary and unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent and faithful service. I am angry a womans family fled communism who served this country for 33 years, literally under fire in places like kiev. I am angry that a woman like you not just dismissed but humiliated and attacked by the president of the United States. I am not just angry for you, i am angry for every single Foreign Service officers and every Military Officer who right now may believe a lifetime of
service and sacrifice in excellence may be ignored by the president of the United States or worst yet attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss. Now in the president s defense and it is emerging from my republican colleagues today that this is all okay. Because as the president memorably put it in his tweet this morning. As it is the u. S. President s absolute right to appoint an ambassador. I think that how and why we exercise our powers and rights matter. Ambassador, when you are ambassador, do you have the right to ask the Intelligence Committee or the cia in an embassy of what operations theyre doing . We talk about these things collaboratively. There are some things that in sort, yes. You have the right to ask Intelligence Committee in your embassy. Why may you do that . Sometimes operations may have political consequences. Right. The performance of your duties, the interests of the United States gives you the right to ask for sensitive question of your Intelligent Community in our embassy. What was instead working through the issues that you just described, you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a russian agent for 10,000. Would that be an appropriate exercise for your right . No. It would not. What would happen to you if you did that . Well, i cant begin to imagine . I would imagine i would be
pulled out of post. Right. This is not about ambassadors. A plr had a right to pull you over. As the Police Officer pulls over his exwife because hes angry. I cast a bunch of votes. If i kcast those votes because somebody bribed me, thats a severe use of my power. Would you agree . Yes. The question is why after such a performance, that the president decides for you to be removed. If you had remained ambassador to ukraine, would you have recommended to the president of the United States that he asks the new ukrainians president to
investigate and i am quoting from the transcript here. Proud strike or the server . No, i would repeat once again, the u. S. Intelligence community concluded it was the russians. Ambassador, if you have remained as ambassador and not dismissed, would you supported a threemonth delay in congressionally mandated military aid to ukraine . No. Ambassadors , would you have recommended to the president that hes asking a new president of ukraine to quote, find out about bidens son . I have no more questions. A letter from speaker pelosi. We also expect that for the whistleblower to speak directly to the house and intelligence. I look forward to you oiling that statements to the speaker. Ambassador, thank you very much for a long service to our country and behalf of our nation. What was going on around the phone call . I like the folks more of what has happened since then to you and your career and whats going. There is a process that you go through and pick what you do next. Can you give us a quick statement of what happened when you came back here and whats your next assignment would be in state . When i came back, it was out of cycle, there was nothing set up. Again, i am grateful that deputy
secretary sullivan asked me what i would like to do next, i recalled that there was the fellowship at georgetown and asked about whether there is something could be arranged . Was that your only choice . I am not sure. Georgetown is further ground for State Department recruitment, they benefited from your experience and inspirati s inspirations. Thank you. You are a fellow there, you teach classes. How many classes do you teach . This semester, i was supposed to teach two. I am still teaching one on National Security and the other one was on ukraine and i asked whether i could you know defer that. How many students in your class . I think 14. Any other responsibilities at
state . Well, i will tell you that all of this kept me very busy. Okay. I get that. But, no daytoday things that you are responsible for . Other than not qualifying for overseas and anything, is your conversations being affected by recalled by where you were . Are you worried of the way you are treated by your fellow employees and state . Do they shun you at the Lunch Counter or treat you badly as a result of how you were treated by the president. I received an out pouring support. The folks that you respect the most still respects you and holding you in high regard and affections . I do. George kent was in here, he made some statements about you, all of us would like to be a
recipient of something that worthy and inl you are as well. Any reason on earth that you would think of george kent would be saying that other than the facts that hes believing in his heart . Like what . Like somebody paid him to do it. So you and i agree that he was sincere bragging on you. Well, i am glad that your claiming nothing to be different from your colleague at state to continue to treat you of the high regards that you have earned and i hope whatever you decide to do after this fellowship that you are successful there as you have been in the first 33 years. With that, i yield back to mr. Jordan. An article entitled whistleblower is expected to
testify soon. Sno i have a Consent Request that an article entitled whistleblower reaches agreement to testify will appear here very soon. Without objection. I have unanimous Consent Request. Without objection. I have a Consent Request, Intelligence Panel has whistleblower, testimonies and Washington Post of 2019. Without objection. I have unanimous Consent Request of a whistleblower reportedly to testify before House Committee reported by shift. Without objection. The time of the gentleman has expired. I now recognize miss soul. You spoke to movingly about your familys background. You stated that your communists valued freedom and democracy and having experienced the totaltarian regime. Yes, it did. Did you always know that you wanted to be in the Foreign Service . I looked at your background and it is suited for what you are doing. I know you have stated at russian language and institute in russia to learn russians. Do you have an ms from the
national Defense University and national war of college . Yes. I noticed that you earned your undergraduate in history in russian studies in college and that was also my college. But, i really want to know how it felt to have your reputations solely not for a state or nation but for personal gain. You spoke about how your service is not just your own personal service, it affects your family. And today we have seen you as this former ambassador of this 33 years. Veterans of the Foreign Service, i want to know about you personally and how this affected you and your family . It has been a differeicult t. I am a private person, i dont want to put it out there. The president does have the right to have his own or her own ambassador. Does the president have the right to malign others character . I mean there is a question as to why this kind of campaign to get me out of ukraine happened. Because all the president has to do is say he wants a different ambassador. In my line of work and your line of work as well. All we have is our reputation. And so this has been a painful period. How has it affected your family . I really dont want to get
into that but thank you for asking. My republican colleagues have said that since received such embracing from your own fellow colleagues that what occurred with the president a, has that s a Chilling Effect on the ability or the moral within the Foreign Service, can you speak into that . I think that it has had exactly that. A Chilling Effect, not only an embassy in kiev but throughout the State Department. People dont know kind of whether their efforts to pursue our stated policies are going to be supportive. Thats a dangerous place to be. Now, for the record, my republican colleague will paint you a never trumper, are you a never trumper. As a Foreign Service officer, you took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States without regards of whos in office. Have you served in your 33 years not just democratic president s but also republican president s. Yes, four republican president s. In fact, you joined the Foreign Service under reagan, is that not right . Yes, it is true. Why do you think it is important that Foreign Service officers are non partisan. Can you talk to us about why it is important for you to do your job and fellow Service Officers to do your job that you are non partisan. Because our work is essentially nonpartisan. You know republican senator who partnered with President Truman coined a phrase that politics should stop at the waters edge and i think thats exactly right
because while obviously the competition of ideas and in a democracy with different parties and individuals is hugely important. But, at the end of the day when we are dealing with other countries, it needs to be about what is right for the United States. Those are our National Security interests and whether an individual works for the cia or the military or the State Department, we got to be non partisan and thinking about what is right for the United States. On behalf of a great nation, i want to say thank you for your service, i yield back for your time. Ambassador, i want to say i have Great Respect for what you do. I know the complexity of what you do. I know you have little access directly to the Decision Makers and little resources but you have a great deal of responsibility. It is a complex task and i want to take us from the concept of
one dimensional ukraine being corrupt to the other issues that you had to deal with as a ukraine ambassador. You had to deal with more than just our bilateral relationships with ukraine, like confirmation, i know you know these. These were on your portfolio. You had to deal with the issue of the budapest agreement and e denuclearization of ukraine. Could you run it by me again . Oac for europe and the budapest agreement under which ukraine gave up its weapons and believe they had their weapons guaranteed by russia, you would have had it in your portfolio . When ukrainians would ask about our policies and whether keeping of the budapest agreement. Kbleexcellent. The u. S. And the nato allies made a statement they would get membership. That would have been in your portfolio. Yes. It is also consistent with u. S. Policies that the u. S. Support ukraine joining the eu and they had a great deal of interests and desire for joining the eu. Yes. They just had a summit in Ukraine In July where they talked about between the ukraines and the eu and they had a discussion about the legal annexation of crimea. Those would have been in your portfolio and would have been consistent of the eu. Yes, we work closely with our eu partners. The ambassadors to the ukraine of france and germany. Yes. Did you say they all have
different ideas of these issues . Some of them. Mostly there is a consensus. You would have to work with ngos on issues that you have heard of legal aid and Human Trafficking and hiv, aids, right . Yes. You spoke to several ngos while you were ambassador of ukraine. Yes. The u. S. Ambassador to the eu, they would have under their portfolio in aspiring nation to the eu. Eu ambassador sondland would have ukraine in his portfolio because they are an inspiring nation and hes the ambassador to the eu, correct . You agree it was in his portfolio . You would agree it is in his portfolio, would you not . I would agree that let her finish her answer. Ambassador, you may answer your question. Ambassador, you are recognized. I would say all eu ambassadors deal with other countries including aspiring countries but it is unusual to name the u. S. Ambassador ambassador to the eu b. B. Responsible for all aspects of ukraine. I will take your answer. Still in his portfolio which was my question. You knew about ambassador holbrok, hes a man of great integrity. You know by his reputation, you would agree hes a man of great reputation, right . Yes. Would it surprise you if in 2004, john kerry had a member of his campaign who was a Foreign Policy advisor who traveled to the Ukraine In July and met with officials and u. S. Ambassador, did that surprise you . A member of john kelly
campaigns team in 2004 traveled to ukraine met with the u. S. Ambassador in july. Not necessarily. If a member of john kerrys campaign travels to ukraine, would you taken that meeting . I guess it would depend on the purpose of the meeting. That meeting occurred and it was with john holbrok, he met with ukrainian officials and he was there on hiv aids. We had the official campaign and hes a private citizen meaning of the ambassador the time of the gentleman is expired. It was not Unnuusual Nofor r giuliani. Thank you, chairman. Madame ambassador, returning of the topic of corruption, we heard evidence that you were successful to promoting efforts to address corruption. On wednesday testifying of your career, george kent said you cant promote it seems that your efforts as ambassador to essentially reform a powerful prosecutor General Office in ukraine exactly that. Madame ambassador, what concerns you when you were the ambassador of ukraine . What concerned us was that there didnt seem to be any progress of the three overall objectives that mr. Lutsenko had laid out. Most important for the ukrainian people but also the international community. The first thing was reforming the prosecutors General Office. It is tremendously powerful office where they had authorities not only to conduct investigations on fbilike function but also to do the actual prosecution. So very, very wide powers which was part of that soviet legacy. And, there just was not a lot of progress in that and there was not a lot of progress in handling personnel issues and how the structure should be organized and who should have the important jobs because some of the people in those jobs were known, were considered to be corrupt themselves. Secondly, the issue that was tremendously important to the ukrainian people bringing justin over the 100 people died. Nobody had been held accountable for r ththat. Thats an open wound for the
ukrainian people. Ukraine needs all the money that it had. There is a strong belief that former president yanakovich and those around him made 40 billion. Thats a lot in the u. S. And a huge amount of money in ukraine. Again, none of that money has been really maybe 1 billion was repatrioted. The rest of it was still missing. Was the head of office corrupt . We believe so. You got the sense that did you not, he was a Driving Force behind some of the attacks against you . I do. Which led to your removal, correct . Yes. But, it was not just him. His allegations were picked up and spread by Rudy Giuliani and donald trump jr. , were they not . Yes. Let me get this straight. Your effective at Fighting Corruption In Ukraine Zr fighting that corruption was important to the National Security of United States and you were punished for that ultimately being removed from your post by the president of the United States, so in your opinion madame ambassador, why is it important to a nonpartisan career in the Foreign Service . It is important to have a nonpartisan career Foreign Service office because what we do is inherently nonpattersrti. It is not what is good for a particular party. It has to be of the greater interest of our security which is an increasingly dangerous world. Could you describe for us
what u. S. Policy did you have sought to advance in your 33 years of service and in states like ukraine. Thats a broad question. I think that certainly in my time and russia and pakistan, all of these countries are different as in ukraine. I think that establishing positive constructive relations to the extend that we can with those countries is really important. Theyre three basic areas, one is security, economic and third is political. Working all the sub issues, your colleague mentioned many of them and you know we certainly did that in ukraine as well. Thank you ambassador. I appreciate your years of service and moving around the world to dangerous places. Hearing from you today i realize that we share some of the same feelings and experiences as an army reserve agent. I had to be out the door the next two or three days. I had patients scheduled and i had surgeries scheduled. I understand that shocking feeling that can come with some abrupt change like that. I was processing a few days later, i was told you are going for 18 months but it may be shorter than that. I served in 2005 and 200 6. This is where i was having a personal relationship of what you were talking about. Today even though it helped to remove hassudan hassan, i can relate to you when you said opening the open wound. In your deposition on page 144, your quote is say in terms of lethal dwiequipment, who in general makes up who all . Would that be the team that you mentioned . Just one second. What line is that . I have to move on. You said we all felt it was very significant that this
administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine, i assume it is those that have boots on the ground. This administration i assumed you meant the Trump Administration . Yes. In your deposition also on pa page 144, you spoke about the generosity of congress and you mentioned it today including aids aides to ukraine. Did you advocate for that. You responded yes. Did you advocate prior to 2015 and you responded yeah. Were you satisfy the administration was doing what was necessary to support ukraine, you said in what respect . And they said you know helping them deterring aggression and helping them with foreign aid and assistance and you said yeah. I thank you for that. I thank you mr. Volker and mr. Taylor. You know the acting Ambassador Taylor was here on wednesday, he testified about the president s decision to withhold lethal aid. He said the president felt it may provoke russia. Mr. Taylor contested russia have already been provoked and they have invaded ukraine. President obama had the right to make his own Foreign Policy and make his own decisions as president of the United States. There is an interagency process. He has the right as president. I respect the interagency process. He has the right to make his own policies and decisions as president of the United States as do all president s, correct . Yes. We have one president , obama who denied lethal aide all together in spite of ambassadors and boots on the ground
recommending, making that recommendations such as you did, we have another president , trump, who are vetted those whos going to receive the aid and provided it consistent with your intraagency recommendations and that of your colleagues. Let me just answer from a military standpoint. Without javelins, would you agree the russians had much greater Military Offensive Options and flexibility in their effort to attack ukraine without the ukraine having jaivelins. Yes, they have another option. The tank war is no longer to be fought in ukraine. The javelins are there, i think that changes this scenario. I want to make that point that
the president has the right to have his own Foreign Policy and make his own decisions and with that, i yeield back. If i can supplement my answer, i want like to thank you for your service as well. I dont dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason. But, what i do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation also . I was not asking about that but thank you very much maam. Thank you. Representative spear. Thank you ambassador so very much. You were confirmed boo i the senate on a voice vote, were you . Yes. Unanimous, republicans and democrats, correct . No dispute. You said in summer of 2018, the Smear Campaign began in your
testimony earlier today. T did pompeo any time come to your aid . My understanding, Deputy Sullivan is that this sort of the rumors about me of this Smear Campaign was behind closed doors that there were a number of discussions between the president and Secretary Pompeo and he did keep me in place for as long as he could. Thats what i was told. So what it appears back back 2018 the president was already making noises that he wanted you out of there. It appears that as early as April Of 2018 mr. Parnas was at a fundraiser for the president and recommended that you be removed, and then subsequently in may of 2018 was pictured at a
white house dinner with the president. And then later in may made a contribution of over 325,000 illegally to the president s reelection campaign. Are you aware of that . Im aware of the press about those things. Does that help you understand a little bit more why this Smear Campaign was underway . Yes. I mean all right. You made some very riveting comments in your statement this morning that i just want to repeat because i think we should have you expand on it. You said, ive always understood that i served at the pleasure of the president. I still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine u. S. Interests in this way. Individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote state u. S. Policy against corruption, that is to
do our mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. Now as i listened to you make that statement, i was thinking of all the other persons in the Foreign Service who have to be concerned that its not good enough to follow the stated u. S. Foreign policy but also to be aware that maybe the president has a back channel of interests that he is promoting that is diametrically opposed to our state Foreign Policy. Can you expand on that, please . Well, i think its important that whoever is representing the president and ambassador speaks with the full authority of the president in our Foreign Policy establishment, and if there are
others who are also helping with with the responsibilities in that country, for example ambassador kurt volker, with his Important Mission to bring peace, that we all speak with one voice. That its all about our Common Security interests and that its not about, you know, personal gain or commercial gain or anything else. That its about our National Security. But in this case, the tres amigos appeared to be more interested in getting an investigation into promoting an anticorruption effort in ukraine. Is that correct . That appears to be the case. You were told at one point in 2019, in february earlier this year, you spoke to a minister in ukraine who warned that when it came to Rudy Giuliani, you needed to, quote, watch your back. What did you understand him to mean . I didnt exactly know. But you know, the rumor was out there at that time. And in fact, i think this minister also shared that information with me that the mayor was working to have me removed. Let me just say to conclude that you have endured an orchestrated character assassination, that it was hatched over a year and a half ago, and that its laced with enormous Campaign Contributions to the president s reelection campaign. And you deserve more from the American People, and you deserve more from congress in supporting you. I yield back. I ask unanimous consent mr. Stewart, youre recognized. I have unanimous consent, mr. Chairman we can take that up later, mr. Chairman. Youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman and others, and ambassador, thank you for being with us today. Welcome, as i said last, a couple of days ago, to the witnesses, welcome to year four of the impeachment proceedings. Im sorry that you have gotten dragged into this. For three years weve heard these outrageous and, frankly, unbelievable accusations regarding russian collusion. Accusations that we now know are absolute nonsense. There was no basis at all despite promises from some members of this committee that they had secret proof that would prove this collusion. We know that it was nonsense. In year four we apparently move to ukraine and quid pro quo, culminating yesterday when the speaker announced that the president would indeed be impeached and removed from office for bribery. With that statement, i would now feel compelled to ask you, madam ambassador, as you sit here before us, simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any
bribes . No. Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all . No. Thank you. Thank you for answering that directly. The American People know this is nonsense. The American People know this is unfair. And i have a prediction regarding this. I think that public support for impeachment is actually going to be less when these hearings are over than it is when the hearings began because finally the American People are going to be able to see the evidence. And theyre going to be able to make their own determination regarding that. Now i want to ask you one thing very quickly, and youve been asked this again and again. My question is slightly different. Youve been asked as you recognize that the president , any president has the ability to ask his ambassadors to serve at will. Im curious, do you think thats the right policy . Yeah, i probably think it is. I do, as well. It may be imperfect. There may be times when its not used perfectly, but i agree with you. It is the right policy. I dont think that we should change that. Now id like to read from some previous statements including one of your own, as well as others, regarding the appropriateness of investigating corruption in the uk. From miss fiona hill, again, the fact that there are investigations into corruption in the Energy Sector in ukraine, as well as the russian and many other countries, is not a surprise. From yourself, your previous testimony, question, was it the general understanding that barisma was a company that suffered from allegation of corruption . Your answer was yes. From ambassador sondland, i just am generally aware that barismas considered a potentially corrupt company. Would you agree then that its appropriate to investigate corruption . I think its appropriate if
its if its part of our national strategy. What i would say is that we have a process for doing that. Its called the mutual Legal Assistance treaty and if goes to ukraine to the Ministry Of Justice in the country of interest. Thats the pattern i appreciate that. Regardless of the process, though, its appropriate for us to investigate potential corruption and especially, look, were about to give these, some of these countries, hundreds of millions of dollars that the u. S. Taxpayer said heres a dollar of mine, go ahead and give it to this other country. But please only do it if you know its not going to be used for corrupt purposes or against our national interest. And ill conclude with this because i promised my friend, mr. Jordan, i would save him a little bit of time. We mentioned earlier that the Vice President when he went to ukraine and called for the specific firing of a specific
prosecutor, he was as they say completing official u. S. Policy. But the interesting thing is this the Vice President had exactly two countries that were his responsibility at that time, china and the ukraine. And he has bragged and been very proud of his influence in the previous administration. He says again and again that the Obama Administration listened to him, so it doesnt surprise me that they would be fulfilling a policy that this Vice President certainly helped to formulate. Mr. Jordan, i leave you in cypress, im sorry thank you. Clarification. And i will yield for unanimous consent. I have unanimous consent, mr. Chairman, that doesnt involve you this time. Its three articles, the New York Times article, 2004 campaign, the adviser carry the time of the judge has expired holbrook to visit we will take i i may recognize you later. The gentlemans time has
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.