Base of the Republican Party and to me. So i believe that he was at with very few defections. That may change, but right now i least affected by those and believed those and believed they were think thats a correct negative . Assessment by the white house, believed that they were that theyve got the senate tied negative and was conveying them up in a way that will protect to the president. So was it problematic that he the president from actually being removed from office. Believed they were negative i think the two variables, views . Yes, the whole thing was ned, would, in my guess, drawing problematic. Ambassador taylor testified on my past sort of in republican that on july 2nd, you told politics, would be public ukrainians that they needed to, quote, cooperate on opinion, should you see attacks investigations, end quote. Youre now saying that you dont on colonel vindman inching this recall saying those words; is from 51 support to 53, 54, 55. That correct . I dont believe i said th
but there are big national ambassador volker sent you a security implications tied to this. just imagine the counterfactual text message. here, imagine is donald trump you sent a text message to had done what he did, and we knew that, the white house giuliani, and i think it s on released this transcript, we knew he was essentially trying the screen now. to sell our foreign policy for and you said mr. mayor could we his own political benefit, and democrats did nothing. that would be a green light. that would signal that this is okay, this is fine to do, go forward, do this with china, do meet for lunch or coffee, i this with any country as you see think i have the opportunity to fit. the witnesses, tim morrison, former senior official from the nsc staff who worked for john get what you need. that is an accurate text bolton, seated alongside message. what did you mean by what you ambassador kurt volker, who was need? the people now representing an ambassador in ukraine, zelensky
president z convinces trump he representative turner and bothers me. will investigate, quote, get to you were the special envoy to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for yeah y ukraine, and in that role you said in your opening statement you are the administration s visit to washington. that s what you expected from the call, right? most public figure in calling yeah, i expected that out russia s responsibility in president zelensky would be convincing in his, uh, the war, is that right? that is correct. statements and comments with and in that capacity you president trump, that he was strongly advocated for lifting the sale on ban of lethal arms exactly that, that he would investigate, get to the bottom of things that had happened in to ukraine, is that correct? 2016 and that if he was strong that is correct. and president trump did that, didn t he? that is correct. but in spite of that in conveying who he is as a person and doing that, that pr
on fighting corruption domestically that is helpful in ukrainian colleague, andriy order to convince president trump ultimately that this is yermak, as well as from a u.s. person, i don t now remember with all due respect, whether it was my staffer or someone from the embassy, and the readout was that it was a ambassador volker, we heard from two witnesses this morning that good phone call, that it was a those investigations were not official u.s. policy. ambassador volker, i don t know congratulatory phone call for the president s win in the if you understand what you were parliamentary election, that getting yourself into. but sitting here today i trust president zelensky did reiterate you understand that pressuring ukraine to involve itself in his commitment to fighting corruption and advancing reform u.s. domestic policy is just in the ukraine, and that president renewed his invitation simply wrong. i yield back the allowance of my for president zelensky to come to the white ho
think understand you should have seen otherwise. but nonetheless, if it was appropriate, why are you saying today that all of us thought it was inappropriate? because it was not the place or the time to bring up that. this was a meeting between the national security adviser and the chairman of the national security and defense council, first high level meeting we re having between ukraine and the united states after president zelensky s election. is part of the reason it was inappropriate also that it was brought up in the context of trying to get the white house meeting? umm, possibly, although i don t recall that being i know this was, umm, the counsel s question, i don t remember the exact context of when that came up. i viewed the meeting as essentially having ended. i think you said in your updated testimony that you do think it s inappropriate and objectionable to seek to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival,