Yes, i believe so. Okay. And this is just investigation, generally making a public to of openness generally. Right . I think by august 11th, mr. Castor, i think we were talking about 2016 and burisma. The investigation generally was really early in the but do we know that Secretary Pompeo knows that . I think so. Why . Only because i think councilor breakable was briefed on all of these things. By who, by you . I think ambassador volker, by myself. Does not he testified to. I didnt know he testified. Ambassador volker. Oh, okay. He didnt testified that he briefed mr. Brechbuhl. This email to the secretary, he is talking about the statement
which by the way, you said that the statement didnt go anywhere. Ambassador volker said it wasnt a good idea. Mr. Yermak said it wasnt a good idea. The secretary, it relates to a generic openness subject. Right . Yeah, i think the secretary that was on the july 25th call. Which obviously i was not on and i didnt know about. But you use this email to
Phoebe with ambassador taylor, was he assesssatisfied that thie was now behindti him . I dont really know, because when i responded, get ahold of the secretary, and he said i agree. I never knew i whether he reach out to the secretaryhe or not. That was sort of the end at one point in the text you said lets get on the phone, you said youre an individual that doesnt like to walk through these issues on texts when you can talk about it on the 1 telephone, correct . I say that to everybody when something becomes more substantive than a few lines of text, i say, lets talk. Did you say that to ambassador taylor . I dont recall. I dont recall whether we spoke after that or whether he called the secretary. Basically, mr. Castor, wanted to get the notion across that ive gone as far as i can go with this, you need to youre the ambassador, you need to pick up the ball and run with it at this point. Okay. Just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you abou
Now behind him . I dont really know. He responded when i said get ahold of the secretary, he said i agree and i never knew whether he reached out to the secretary or not. That was sort of the end of that. At one point in your text you said lets get on the phone and you said you are an individual that doesnt like to walk through these issues on texts when you can talk about it on the telephone, correct . I say talk it on the telephone correct . I say that to everybody when something becomes more substantive and that then a few lines of text. The speaker did you talk with ambassador taylor . I dont recall whether we spoke after that or he called the secretary. Basically mr. Castor wanted to get the notion across that i had gone as far as i can go with this. You are the ambassador and you need to pick up the ball and run with it at this point. Okay. Just getting back to the regular channel, did anyone else expressed concerns to you about this socalled irregular
channel . Im not or how som
september 11th, right before you are advocating that the pause be lifted, correct? i personally don t think the positive ever been put in place. as we get down to septembe september 11th and you are talking with senator johnson and so forth, you don t know with certainty that the genuine reason the president was implementing the pause wasn t because of his concerns about the allies or his concerns about foreign assistance generally, or that he wasn t just trying to hold the aid as long as he could to see what he could what type of information he could get about those two subjects. fair enough. okay. i am really trying to finish up before so i can yield some time back. do you have anything else? i have nothing else.
ambassador sondland himself. we learned today that he chose not to put that in his opening statement. i thought mr. castor really pressed him on that. well, why not? why wouldn t you put that conversation into your opening statement? so i think there has been, shall i say, some questions raised about why the ambassador would not have been more complete and his opening statement. obviously the opening statement wasn t very long, very detailed. why didn t include that? everything i think we now have been reminded of is the communication that the president had with senator johnson of wisconsin. senator johnson was apparently satisfied that and this is late august that there was no conditionality. finally, i think the morning was