You are recognized. Thank you. Madame ambassador, like a hallmark movie. You ended up at georgetown, this is all okay. [laughter] but it was not your preference seven or eight months ago, correct . No, it was not. It was not your preference to be a victim of a Smear Campaign, was it . No. It was not your preference to be defamed by the president of the United States including today, was it . No. It wasnt your preference to be ousted at seemingly the pinnacle of your career, was it . No. You wanted to finish your extended tour, correct . I did. What did you want to do after that . Did you know . I was not sure. There is nothing wrong with georgetown, it is a fine place, right . It is a wonderful place. But it is your only choice at the end of a distinguished career after all of that. It is not the end of a hallmark movie. It is the end of a really bad reality tv show. Brought to you by someone who knows a lot about that. [laughter] why did you, you previously testified that you sought a
like everybody here i am thank you for your service, like your colleagues you do not complain. you are doing your job. i feel badly about the insults, the tweet this morning, the fact that you were smeared, not fir fired. but the question as you know is not how you were treated, the question is why the president did what he did and whether what he did was a breach of trust. the question really is about whether the president of the united states, any president has the authority to withhold congressionally approved aid to condition a white house meeting on extracting from a foreign leader a willingness to assist him in his political campaign. that is the question.
listed a number of actions, i think from my point of view, that does not, that does not create a ukrainian government strategy to interfere in our election. please allow the ambassador to answer the question. i would just say that u.s. politicians will often set aside policies of foreign counterparts, even perhaps during their election. this happens in politics, and i think that it does not necessarily constitute interference. would you ever right an op-ed jordan, your time is expired. mr. welch, you are recognized. thank you, mr. chairman. i would like dul
send out a tweet. praise the president, that sort of thing. and what was your reaction to that advice? well, my reaction was that i m sure he meant well, but it was not advice that i could really follow. it felt, it felt partisan. it felt political. and that was not something that i thought was in keeping with my role as ambassador and a foreign service officer. did he give you any specific suggestions on what to say about the president of the united states, or just say something nice about them? just to praise him. thank you. i yield the balance to the chairman. i want to follow up on the line of question, and also hearken back to something you were asked by the minority counsel earlier. asked a couple of questions. do you think you could have done
parnas to get a meeting with rudy giuliani. but those are not people in the zelensky regime? no. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. castro. thank you chairman, think you ambassador for your 32 years of service to our nation. a big question here today is why you were pushed aside as ambassador, for example, americans know that an employer has a right to fire an employee, but they should not do it for certain reasons. you should not be fired because you are disabled, because you are a woman. , because you are black, and for other reasons. and most americans agree that a president should not recall in a basilar because ambassador standing in his way of doing a corrupt act. so i want to ask you, did the president ever tell you why he was recalling you? no. did anybody at the white house tell you why you were being recalled? no. did the president consult you