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
part of the ukrainians and therefore everything ended up finding the end. however, mr. kent, as you know, the house intelligence, foreign affairs, and oversight committees began this current investigation leading to the proceedings today on sub number nine. on september 9. it was only two days after this particular set of committees began their investigations that the trump administration eventually released the military aid, correct? that is the timeline, yes. ambassador taylor, between the time of your october deposition and now, did anyone from the trump administration contact you about your appearance before the committee today? no, sir. how about you, mr. kent? no, sir. investor taylor, i would like to turn toward that for my account you used 13 times in your opening statement and that word is concerned. you were concerned that aid was being conditioned on political
investigations, isn t that right? yes, sir. you were concerned that irregular channels of diplomacy were being used in our foreign policy in the ukraine, right? yes, sir. investor taylor, can you rule out the possibility that these regular channels of diplomacy are being used in other countries where we conduct foreign policy? i can t i ve not heard of any other separate channels that has this kind of influence. that is, the giuliani kind of guidance. but you can t rule it out. no, sir. how about you, mr. kent? i have no basis to make a determination. you don t believe the july 25 call was perfect, do you?
aide was linked to something and he admitted he didn t even know why he was presuming that. this is good for the president because the transcripts that were released today show exactly what the president has been saying all along. if you look at the timeline, and he presumed that they were being tied to the ukraine making a statement about any corrupti corruption. on september 1st in warsaw, he told ukrainian officials what he was thinking and then told tim morrison about it. when he talked to investor taylor about it eight days lat later, he called president trump to ask what was really going on. that was his first conversation with the president about it. in that call the president told him there is no quid pro quo. so the white house is saying that while sloan lund may have thought he knew what was going
what you call it? outside influencers setting american foreign policy with ukraine. and taylor said there was an informal channel, as well as a formal channel. well guess what? the president doesn t work for the state department or the nsc, they work for him. and he sets foreign policy. these guys are upset because the president had different views on foreign policy laura: bingo. the deep state who have been screwing up our foreign policy for decades. a policy dispute does not equal impeachable offense, that s the bottom line. laura: robert, how many people call themselves china experts over the last 30 years? was good of our policy toward china, or didn t see it coming down the tracks? how many experts screwed up middle east policy, or recommended that we do certain things that ended up triggering a wave of migration across europe, unlike anything we ve ever seen before? how many experts get it wrong? about as many former federal prosecutors who all of a sudden are exper