was the white house visit in return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. when you heard burisma, you did not see that as code for biden, the bidens? i did not. when did you even know that? is it your testimony that you only realized that burisma included the bidens when the readout came out? no, i really don t recall the date. it was very late in the game, though. september? i don t recall the date. so if i told you that the legal definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty, do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo, but it was bribery? i m not a lawyer and i m not going to characterize what
something was or wasn t legally. you also said in your opening statement that secretary perry and yourself as well as ambassador volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter at express direction of the president,
return for the 2016 dnc server and burisma investigation. when you heard burisma, you didn t see it as code for biden, the bidens? i did not. when did you know that. your testimony saying that burisma included the biden s when the readout came out. my testimony wasn t specific with regards to the date. september? i don t recall the date. if i told you that the legal definition of bribery was an event of offering, giving, soliciting or receiving of any item of value and the means of influencing an action of an individual holding a public or legal duty. do you believe that not only was it quid pro quo but it was bribery. not a lawyer and i m not going to characterize what
something was or wasn t legally. you also said in your opening statement that secretary perry and yourself, as well as ambassador volker worked with giuliani on the ukraine matter, and express direction of the president. is that right? you also go on to say that we did not want to work with giuliani
With afghanistan over corruption. we did it with pakistan over much the same thing, no one suggested that we impeach them for it. this is a common occurrence in international relations. it s hardly an impeachable offense. the time for the gentleman has expired. mr. quigley. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. there are things we can agree with our colleagues on, things we can disagree. i can agree with my colleague that we should turn over all the documents. mr. ambassador, i think you agree. the state department, white house hasn t turned over a single document. the white house wanted the president s april phone conversation. on that we can agree. on others we can disagree as to particular as it relates to the
For it. president trump did it last year with afghanistan over corruption. we did it with pakistan. and no one suggested that we impeach them for it. this is a common occurrence in international relations. it is hardly an impeachable offense. time of the gentleman has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, sir, for being here today. there are things we can agree with our colleagues on, things we can disagree. i can agree that with my colleague that we should turn over all the documents should be turned over. mr. ambassador, i think you agree that it would have helped your testimony, helped you understood that the state department, the white house hasn t turned over a single document. the white house wanted the conversation. on that we can agree.