prerequisite of investigations before any white house call or meeting. you further testified, again, mr. giuliani s demand that president zelensky make a public statement about investigations. i knew that the topic of investigations was important to president trump. you testified later, i know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes. we all understood these prerequisites for the white house call and white house meeting reflected president trump s desires and requirements.
willingness to come here today. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you, congressman. mr. jordan. thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to enter into record a statement from chief of staff mick mulvaney. without objection. we haven t seen all the statements but presume they are accurate and no objection. thank you. ambassador, president trump s not a big fan of foreign aid, is that right? i don t know if that s a fair characterization. i think he s careful. express concerns about foreign aid going to certain countries. fair enough. and he knew ukraine was corrupt, is that right? he believed ukraine was corrupt. yeah and he wanted europe to do more? definitely. definitely wanted europe to do more. and the president had a belief that ukrainian government officials, some senior ukrainian government officials, supported his opponent in 2016. won t go into all the details but i think of the one member of parliament who said the majority of ukrainian p
meant was bidens. right? with 20/20 hindsight, yes. right. with hindsight. and of course, on the day after the president s famous call, you re having lunch with david holmes. we ve covered this. and he overhears your conversation. and i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr. holmes said. and i think you said you wouldn t have any reason to believe to to think he didn t speak about investigations with the president. the president raised investigations with you, right? correct. on the 26th? correct. and we now know of course that was about the bidens and burisma and 2016, right? i mean, i know you didn t know that at the time. that s your testimony. i understood it meant to mean burisma. mr. holmes said you said bidens right after that but you don t recall that, right? that s correct. do you dispute it? i do. okay but you don t recall it but we know that s what the president meant, right? and you do confirm that he wanted to talk about investigat
went into public service to serve, who had a team of people that shared your desire to help ukraine, do you feel in any way betrayed by the double dealing of the president? it s a real question. i don t want to characterize. you don t have to characterize him. i m just you know, we all if you get a chance to do something useful, we like to do it. and there s no better joy than when you re doing it with other people. mr. welch, let me answer your question this way. i would have preferred and i m sure everyone would have preferred that the president simply met with mr. zelensky right away. our assessment of mr. zelensky was that he and the president would get on famously. he was smart. he was funny. he was charming. he was the kind of person the president would like. and once the two of them got together, we thought the chemistry would take over and good things would happen between the u.s. and ukraine relationship. that s why we were pushing for a
have not opined whether the president should be impeached or not be impeached or the impeachable offense of bribery or other crimes have been committed. that is for us to decide. in consultation with our constituents and our conscience. that is for us to decide. and much as my colleagues have said otherwise, this is not an easy decision for any of us. and much as my colleagues may say otherwise, this is not something we relish. for over a year, i resisted this whole idea of going down the road to impeachment. but it was made necessary and not by the whistle-blower but by the actions of the president. i m continually struck how my colleagues would suggest that because the president got caught, we should ignore the fact that he was conditioning official acts in order to get