relates the content of a conversation he had with the president, and he was asked about it. it s the only one he relates. any sudden he was asked whether or not there was a quid pro quo. i do not frame the question to the president that way is a link. i did not frame it that way. i opened the question what do you want? mr. sondland and his testimony asking this question to the president of the united states. and this is what he posts from the president of the united states. he said i want nothing. i don t want to give them anything. i don t want anything from them. i want zelensky to do the right thing. that s what he, handicap repeating, no quid pro quo over and over again. do you have any reason to believe that mr. sondland is not telling the truth with his conversation with the president the president of the united states? no, congressman. do either of you have any information or evidence that anyone who has testified in this committee in the secret dudgeon testimony is or the
about the june 28th conference call that you had with investor sondland, ambassador taylor, i m not sure if deputy kent was on the line and secretary perry before he looped in president zelensky, am i right about the participants? was secretary perry not on it? i m pretty sure that deputy assistant deputy kent was not on it. i don t remember whether secretary perry was on it. and i don t remember whether i stayed on for a president zelensky joining the call or not. there were two separate calls. are there any staff members are no takers on the call? i don t believe so. why? we were having a call among ourselves to talk about what were the messages we felt we needed to convey. at that point we have had other testimony from people who did take notes that there was a discussion about the investigations or what you needed to do, what president zelensky needed to do in order to get the white house meeting,
with, you are not part of an irregular channel, aren t you the official channel? that is correct. explain how you are the official channel? i was appointed by the secretary of state. a secretary tillerson in july 2017 to be the u.s. special representative for the ukraine negotiations. that is different from executive secretary of state or different from ambassador in ukraine. that role is particularly focused on the diplomatic activity surrounding the efforts to reverse russia s engagement of ukraine. it is a minced agreement, implementation. it is the normative process with france and germany. it is support from nato. it is support for sanctions from european union, it is the osc and the monetary missions. it is the efforts of individual allies like poland, like the u.k. like canada that are supporting ukraine. it is work at a senior level in the inner agency was secretary i m going to cut you off there. ambassador volker, you are also
raised concerns about this, correct? that s correct. after i reported it i m sorry. could you say that again? i apologize. erase concerns about this, correct? what happened? i stated it was inappropriate and had nothing to do with the national security policy. did you also raise concern with that date with white house lawyers? i didn t. what did you tell them? reported the content of the conversation with investor sondland and at that point i wasn t aware that dr. hill had a conversation so i related what i experienced to the attorney, the legal counsel. as we are now aware,
hold on security assistance. is that your recollection of the conversation as well? not exactly. how does yours differ? i recall talking about the statement we discussed earlier, the one that was the subject of these exchanges between mr. yermak and myself. myself and ambassador sondland and rudy giuliani, and then back to yermak. this was an effort that we were doing that it could be helpful in getting a reset of the thinking of the president and the negative view of ukraine that he had. and if we did that, i thought that there would also be helpful in unblocking whatever hold their was on security assistance. that if there is this negative perception about ukraine getting the stuff on track would be helpful. so that is a different interpretation, but you don t doubt that what she testified is inaccurate, do you? i believe that she accurately reflected what she understood from the conversation. you testified a little bit