would not have involved the leadership of the state department and the white house. so you are saying everyone in the chain of command knew about giuliani s efforts to try to get the investigations into burisma and i m trying to figure out what you thought you were actually opining to. the president directed us to work with mr. giuliani and the leadership of the state department were knowledgeable, as was the nsc, that we are working with mr. giuliani. what s interesting is that ambassador taylor testified he knew nothing about it and clearly he would be in the chain of information if he was ambassador to ukraine. at the end of the day, with all due respect, you are the ambassador to the european union. why would he not know about it? he was one who said there was irregular and irregular channel. he should ve known about it. although you said you did not want to work with mr. giuliani,
you did work with him. that s correct. do you think the essence of what he was trying to achieve was accomplished? i don t know what he was trying to achieve. you clearly would ve had to of known, sir. if you thought this was going down the center lane, as you said, it was clearly important that we work with mr. giuliani to get what the president asked for because it was a directive and an order. surely you must know whether or not the mission was accomplished. well, i know what mr. giuliani communicated to us. and you thought it was fine? did you really think it was okay. can i answer your question. you asked what mr. giuliani was trying to achieve. no, i asked whether you thought it was right for mr. giuliani to want to accomplish the efforts he was involved in which was to get them to investigate burisma and the 2016 election, as he said.
direct and straightforward. all right, i yield back. mr. stewart. i have unanimous consent request. state your request. d.o.e. responds to investors homes comments before the house intelligence committee attribute to press secretary, ambassador sondland s testimony to misrepresented secretary perry s interaction with rudy giuliani and direction the secretary received from president trump. secretary perry spoke to rudy giuliani only once at the president s request. no one else s was on that call. at no point before, during, or after the phone call to the words biden or burisma come up in the presence of secretary perry. i asked for therapy entered into the record. without objection although i would know they have also refused to come and testify under oath. the american people expect a
his term was up or he was being let go. he was the petitionoroshenko prosecutor. he wanted to wait until his person was in place. so once that new prosecutor was in place, z, president zelensky, should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to potus. what did you mean by those issues of importance to potus ? again, the 2016 election and burisma investigation. were you aware that secretary pompeo had listened in to the july 25neth phone call? i was not. if he had, do you believe he would fully understand what the issues of importance related to ukraine would be? i can t characterize his state of mind. he listened in on the phone call and concluded what he concluded. but now that you ve read the phone call, it s quite clear what the issues of importance to potus are? yes.
official to tell him he believed what could help them move the aid is if the ukrainian prosecutor general would go to the mic and announce that he was opening the burisma investigation. sondland told taylor that he had made a mistake by telling ukrainians that oval office meeting was dependent upon a public announcement of investigations. in fact, everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. but even the announcement by the prosecutor general would not satisfy the president. the president said that although this was not a quid pro quo, if things were not made public, president zelensky must personally that he would open the investigations.