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
they passed to protect the whistle-blower and echoing the president who has argued for to unmask or expose the whistle-blower. when you hear advocacy for that for exposing the whistle-blower, you are hearing advocacy for a new and separate crime. whether the security rationales can be taken out in a way where this would be a classified setting and they wouldn t be exposed in any way, that s certainly possible. and at some point in the process it could be an interesting thing to do. but against a backdrop where some of the people who are subject to the investigation have been calling to expose the whistle-blower, i think that vote looks more like of a piece of that intimidation and not necessarily a fact-finding request by the minority. ari thanks, garrett haake is in the hallway having been in the room for much of today. garrett, the coverage has been interesting. i guess social media coverage has been focused on mr. kent as a bow tie and nalgene bottle