security services themselves and expect them to raise serious concerns about rudy giuliani, the role he played, even about whether or not he was legal, his push to get ukraine to announce those investigations that could help the president politically. and when do we expect to hear from david holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the u.s. embassy in ukraine? we expect him to recount a conversation on july 26th at a restaurant in kiev in which gordon sondland, the ambassador to the european union, discussed with president trump investigations into the bidens that could, of course, help the president politically. something he asked the ukrainians to launch that could ultimately impact his re-election campaign. according to holmes account he heard this conversation and sondland later said that the president only cared about the investigation into the bidens. nothing else. not the war ukraine was mounting with russia. sondland had disputed part of that testimony but we ll hear
like many of the dedicated public servants who have testified in these providinge g proceedings my entire career has been for this country. i received degrees in international affairs from the university of st. andrews in scotland and princeton universities woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs. i joined the foreign service in 2002 through an apolitical mo merit-based process and i proudly served administrations of both parties and worked for their appointees both political and career. prior to my current post in kyiv, ukraine, i served in the political and economic sections at the u.s. embassy in moscow, russia. in washington, i served on the national security council staff as director for afghanistan and special assistant to the under secretary of state. my prior overseas assignments include new delhi, kabul, afghanistan, bogota, colombia
at the time, holmes came to understand that the sensitive issues were the investigations that president trump demanded on the july 25th call. following the meeting with zelensky, holmes accompanied sondland to a separate meeting with one of the ukrainian president s top advisers, andriy yermak. was holmes was not allowed in the meeting and waited 30 minutes while sondland and the ukrainian met alone without any note-takers to record what they said. after the meeting, sondland, holmes and two other state department staff went to lunch at a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. at some point during the meal, sondland pulled out his cell phone, placed a call to the white house and asked to be connected to the president. when trump came on the line, holmes could hear the president s voice clearly. holmes recalled that, quote, the president s voice was very loud and recognizable and ambassador sondland held the phone away
of management and budget announced the flow of nearly $400 million in security assistance for ukraine was being held up. the order had come from the president and had been conveyed to omb by acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney without further explanation. holmes, unaware of the hold prior to the call, was shocked. he thought the suspension of aid was extremely significant, undermining what he had understood to be longstanding u.s. national security goals in ukraine. one week later, on july 25th, president trump spoke with president zelensky by phone. when president zelensky brought up u.s. military support and noted ukraine would like to buy more javelin anti-tank missiles from the united states, trump responded by saying, i would like you to do us a favor, though. trump then requested that zelensky investigate the discredited conspiracy theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. even more ominously, trump asked
i now recognize ranking member nunes for any remarks he d like to make. thank you. throughout these bizarre hearings, the democrats have struggled to make the case that president trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with ukrainian president zelensky. the offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to extortion to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro q quo. it s clear why the democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. president trump had good reason to be worried of ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread corruption in that country. president zelensky, who didn t even know aid to ukraine had been paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the conversation. the aid was resumed without the