What weve been discussing w today, which involved in a regular channel, was a request that went against u. S. Policy that have have undermined the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine, as in other countries in the postsoviet space. Those policies which were indeed championed by ambassador yovanovitch. You also testified on october 15th in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country. And you t cited the importance reforming certain institutions, notably was investigating President Trumps political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list of yours or indeed was it on any list . No, they werent. In fact, historically, is it not true that a major problem in the ukraine has been its misuse
of prosecutors, precisely to conduct investigation of political opponents. Thats a legacy i dare suggest from the soviet era when, as you stated in your testimony, prosecutors like the kgb were
Anybody else. Im going to read from the transcript here. Why didnt you go to your direct report, mr. Morrison, your response, because mr. Eisenberg had told me to take my concerns to him. And then i asked you, did mr. Eisenberg tell you not to report, to go around mr. Morrison . And you said, actually, he did say that, i shouldnt talk to any other people. Is that right . Yes, but theres a whole theres a period of time in there between when i spoke to him and when he circled back around. It wasnt that long a period of time, but it was enough time for me to enough time for you to go to talk to someone who you wont tell us who it is, right . Ive been instructed not to, representative jordan. Heres what im getting. The lawyer told you not talk to any other people, and you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talk to your brother, you talk to the lawyers, you talk to scare keec kent and talk to the one guy schiff wont let us tell you who it is. Representative jordan, i did my
Discussing today which involved an irregular channel which is her request that went against u. S. Policy that would undermine the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine as in other countries in the postsoviet space. Policies that were indeed championed by ambassador yovanovitch. You also testified in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country and you cited the importance of reforming certain institutions, notably security service. Was investigating President Trumps political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list of yours and was it on any list . No, they werent. In fact, historically is it not true than a major problem in the ukraine is bennetts misuse
of prosecutors, precisely to conduct an investigation of political opponents. Thats a legacy i dare suggest from the soviet era which as you said in your testimony prosecutors like the kgb were and i quote you now instrument
I wanted to confirm a Point Of Order is the rules of decorum. I dont believe the gentleman from florida meant to violate them and i give him the benefit of the doubt. More than once he referred to a new york lawyer. If he could explain what he meant i withdraw my Point Of Order. Thats not a recognizable Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order regarding the schedule. There is no Point Of Order regarding the schedule. In this case, there is. Will you answer my question . The gentleman will suspend. There is no recognizable Point Of Order regarding the future schedule. Will you recognize that . No. Mrs. Mcbath is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on one part of President Trumps conduct. I asked our constitutional scholars about last week. The Investigative Committees found evidence President Trump
intimidated, threatened and tampered with prospective and actual witnesses in the Impeachment Inquiry, correct . Yes. It is a federal crime to intimidate or seek to i
Disregard house rules. For what purposes . Just completelyusrules on not i wanted to confirm point addressing the Minority Hearing today. If i hear t that one more time, of order is the rules of ill address that when were decorum. I dont believe the gentleman marking up impeachment articles. What is the use of a minority from florida meant to violate him andnt i want to give him to hearing day if youre going have benefit of o doubt. To hear evidence of the markup than once he referred if you get the confirmation of to a new york lawyer. If hek is prepared to explain what he meant, i will withdraw the master bedroomrkup yourself. My Point Of Order. Even the most heated development does not know show any way that that is not a recognizable Point Of Order. Mr. Chairman, Point Of Order can be theyre. If you destroy the institutional regarding the schedule. There is no Point Of Order integrity, which again, the staff have talked about today, regarding the schedule. Well, onf this case there