He has been questioned by both republicans and democrats of course what makes his testimony particularly interesting is his relationship to President Trump he has been known he was a trump lets call a point that he is very well known as a trump ally and a trump supporter and he has been questioned on that and that in some ways makes his testimony quite difficult to dismiss that republicans have picked up on contradictions in some of his remarks and revisions to his testimony of course he made an early test mean and then issued a statement to a man and then or is that there have been contradictions and inconsistencies in some of solomons remarks compared to what weve heard from other senior figures so thats what weve seen republicans seize on his credibility or perhaps the lack of it in what he is saying now but of course hearing is continuing. To do their patriotic duty and do what you have done sir indeed. Why doesnt that same standard applied to the president of the United States i wish i could answer you suspect you cant because there is no good answer but i do appreciate your willingness to come here today with that are you back mr chairman thank you congressman mr jordan mr chairman asking it was consent in and of the record a statement from chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Objection we havent seen all these statements but to presume they are accurate and no objection thank you bastard President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid that right i dont know if thats a fair characterization i think hes careful hes expressed concerns about for i go in certain countries ok fair enough and he knew ukraine was corrupt is that right he believed ukraine was corrupt yeah anyone in europe to do more definitely want to europe to more and the president had a belief that Ukrainian Government officials some senior Ukrainian Government official support his opponent 2016 wont go into the details but i think of the one member of parliament who said the majority of ukrainian politicians want Hillary Clinton to win so he had that belief as well and obviously he understood but what was happening weve got a brand new guy in ukraine this alinsky guy wins right right his party takes over and President Trump wants to see with all these other things that are of concern to him we want to see if this you guys actually as i like to say the real deal a real reformer and actually going to deal with the corruption problem so it gets held up for 55 days gets held up on june 18th just gives me july 18th and then is released on september 11th but it seems to me more important in the 55 day pause is the 14 days when ukraine realized aid was held up on the 29th weve now had you testified that the 2 witnesses yesterday testified that the politico article so a gets held up on august scuse me ukraine learns aid is held on august 29th and then of course released on. Released on september 11th in those 14 days there are 3 important meetings with senior government officials and president s olinsky as the august 29th meeting between Bester Bolton and president linsky theres the meeting september 1st that youre a part of Vice President pence meets with president s lenski and then theres a meeting on september 5th where u. S. Senators murphy and johnson meet with president s lenski none of those meetings none of those meanings did any linkage to Security Systems dollars in an announcement or start of any investigation ever come up none of them but it seems to me the one thats the most important is probably the one weve talked least about and thats the september 5th meeting because thats actually a meeting where there is no one well its much more congressional focused than white house focus this is the meeting where senators murphy senators murphy and johnson bipartisan meet with president alinsky and whats interesting is what both senators in the last 2 days of given his letters recounting what happened in that meeting senator murphy said i broached the topic of pressure on zelinsky from Rudy Giuliani and the president s other ima series to launch investigation to trumps political rival murphy brought it out he brought you got 2 senators who both strong supporters of money on ukraine these guys are all for it and senator murphy the democrat even brings up the issue everyones been talking about it seems to me if ever there was going to be a time where the president of ukraine says guys you dont know what im dealing with im getting pressure from the president and states he wants me to do this i got to make it and it seems of ever there was a time that the president ukraine the new guy who now knows the aide has been on on hold if ever there was a time to bring it up that would have been the time to guess what. At no time senator johnson tells us at no time during this meeting or on any other meeting on this trip was there any mention by zelinsky or any other ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for military aid not even senator johnson says not even after murphy warned them about getting involved in the election so murphy gave this big deal on giuliani and nothing not yes of murphy also said i do not dispute any of senator johnsons factual factual representations regarding the meeting if ever it was going to happen september 5th was the day that with no one from the white house there on a basketball not Vice President no one there but even then it didnt happen and we got all kinds of other meetings when it did happen and of course as you testified earlier there was never an announcement you said there were 3 quid pro quos but there werent because there was never an announcement i mean this is as clear as it gets that these guys want to keep stern it up based on no direct evidence whatsoever and the best direct evidence we have is actually what the president told you i want nothing there is no quid pro quo i once lenski to do exactly what he campaigned on and when that became clear to us guess what they got the money they got the money God Bless America it all worked out right this is crazy what were going through because the facts are so darn clear youll back this welsh thank you mr chairman in bastion or im impressed with your career and very successful in business im impressed with your commitment to Public Service and i was very impressed with your forthright statement so thank you for that. You said it was the highest honor for you to have this opportunity to have this appointment the Service Ambassador to the e. U. Correct correct and you quickly became very involved in the ukraine policy and that policy has been described by you and others was really very clear to help ukraine fight internal corruption and resist external aggression correct correct and this congress i think with the support of everybody up here republicans and democrats and in fact with a significant amount of republican leadership. Authorized the release of military aid right right and you and others who were working with you believed it was very important to the new government president s olinsky to have that white house meeting to show our support and send a signal to russia correct thats correct and from hearing you and from hearing our other witnesses embassador you have one of which embassador volcker and bassett or taylor there was a concerted team effort on your part to get that meeting and really set a date correct well there was always a concerted effort on my part to get the meeting that was my that was my singular narrow focus was to get the meeting right and that was shared by all of the colleagues i just mentioned correct yes and incredibly urgent. Ambassador taylor described going to the front where ukrainians were dying at the donbass 14000. 00 had died and it was an existential issue for them that they get the aid and you were well aware that in shared im sure bassett or taylors concerned. Is that correct i did right and your forthright testimony you had tick youve been youve testified and its really with the benefit of hindsight because you couldnt piece it all together you know giuliani knew in real time what you were trying to figure out as you went along you said a fair statement i think so when you testified that you acted on the orders of the president that was you acting on his orders correct correct and you said quite explicitly there was a quid pro quo relating to the meeting and the. D. N. C. Is exactly right no meeting no meeting and unless there is an investigation right thats what we were told by mr giuliani in mr giuliani you absolute no meeting unless there was an announcement of an investigation ok thank you and. I asked by the way did the efforts of mr giuliani authorized by the president impede the efforts that you and others were making to try to advance what you thought was that ukraine policy not initially we were just working alternately well ultimately Nothing Happened right in giuliani was the one who was absolutely insist on the meeting correct giuliani was insistent on the investigation a geisha right now i asked this of ambassador taylor in Vassar Volker if if the mayor of portland said to the police chief im not going to authorize your budget unless you agree to do an investigation into my political opponent would that be wrong of course and likewise if it were the governor of the state of oregon doing the same thing correct correct and would that same rule apply to the president of the United States. To investigate a political opponent thats correct yes all right so thats the question here the president in his phone call he asked president selenski who desperately needed the release of that aide who desperately needed the white house meeting to do an investigation and it was focused on the bidens and 100 biden embarrassment in crowd strike when you dont have to answer that the president words speak for themselves do you feel as a person who went into Public Service to serve who had a team of people to share your desire to help ukraine do you feel in any way betrayed by the double dealing of the president it says a real question i dont want to characterize i dont you dont have to characterize him im just you know we all if we get a chance to do something useful we like to do it and theres no better joy than when you do it with other people and this to me answer question this way i would have preferred that and im sure everyone would have preferred that the president simply met with mr selenski right away our assessment of mr selenski 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 2 of them got together we thought the chemistry would take over and good things would happen between the u. S. And ukraine relationship thats why we were pushing for a quick unconditional meeting so its unfortunate that he was going to only not meet without that commitment on the investigation thank you ambassador thank you mr maloney mr master lets pick up right there. You wouldve preferred if they just had the meeting with the president of ukraine without these conditions which you say yes. But there were these conditions and it involved an investigation when you well remember the 1st was the initial invitation that the president sent to president putin had no conditions but that didnt last very long did it and then there were conditions this is not controversial at this point i dont believe there were conditions that present on investigations right right and you thought they were in the 2016 election correct we now know of course the prius my means by this right today we do and we can probably from today until the end of time set aside any confusion that when somebody is asking for an investigation of. Over the summer what they really meant was bidens right with 2020 hindsight yes right with hindsight and of course on the day after the president s famous call youre having lunch with david holmes weve covered this and he overhears your conversation and i said i know you said you have no reason to dispute what mr holmes said and i think you said you would have any reason to believe it to to think you didnt speak about investigations with the president president raised investigations with you right on the 26th correct and we now know of course that was about the bidens embarrassment 2016 right i mean i know you didnt know that at the time that your testimony but we now know that it meant to me mr holmes says you said bidens right after that but i know you dont recall that right thats correct you dispute it i did ok but you dont recall up but we know that thats what the president and right and you do you do confirm that he want to talk about investigations with you all now with the complete picture and what he said 24 hours before yesterday in sense and you said its wrong to investigate political opponents weve agreed on that today havent we said yes and yet of course thats what we know the president was asking for let me ask yourself. Who would have benefited from an investigation of the president s political opponents i dont want to characterize who would have been who would not of i know you dont want to serve thats my question would you answer for me restate your question who would benefit from an investigation of the president s political opponent well presumably that the person who asked for the investigation was that if the president asked for the investigation it would be well its not a hypothetical is it sir we just went around this track did we the president asked you about investigations he was talking about the bidens when he when he asked you about the biden investigation who was he seeking to benefit he did not ask me about the biden investigation he asked about investigations times mr we just went through this when he asked about investigations which we all agree now means the bidens we just did this about 30 seconds ago we were right its Pretty Simple question is and i guess i guess im having trouble why cant you say when he asked about investigations i assumed he meant i know what you a symphony but who would benefit from an investigation of the bugs there are 2 different questions im just asking you one who would benefit from an investigation of the buds President Trump would bear we have it. Thank you unheard of it did it. But let me ask you some mr baloney all the answer is me ive been very forthright and i really resent what youre trying to verify if youve been very forthright this is your 3rd try to do so sir. It works so well the 1st time did it we had a little declaration coming after remember that and now were here a 3rd time and we got a doozy of a statement from you this morning theres a whole bunch of stuff you dont recall so all due respect sir we appreciate your candor but lets be really clear on what it took to get it out to you. So my question is when the president s putting pressure. On the ukrainians with holding a meeting to get this investigation that you and i agree would benefit him politically what kind of print what kind of position is that put the ukrainians insert a terrible position terrible position why why does it put them in a terrible position why well obviously theyre not. Receiving ultimately what they thought was coming to them and theyre put in a. In a position that jeopardizes their security position to jeopardize the security and theyre being asked to do an investigation to help their security essentially that would benefit the president politically and i would you might say theyre being asked to give him a personal benefit in exchange for an official act its not a fair summary in your hypothetical thats cannot hypothetical sir this is real life where they are asked to give him a personal benefit by exchange for an official act sir i am not going to go around in circles with you please be clear about what youre asking me my times expired. Thanks for your parent demings. Good afternoon ambassador its good to see you again thank you. Do you have any knowledge of a possible meeting on our round may 7th involving then president he led selenski and several of its a to discuss how to handle pressure from President Trump and mr giuliani about investigating the bidens i dont recall such a meeting you dont recall such a meeting you dont recall hearing anything about such again if you dont have firsthand knowledge that well if i dont have if i dont have record schedules i dont right now i dont recall anything about such me. And bassett in the maze a meeting among the ukrainians is needed among the ukrainians involving then president a leg selenski so this would have been early on and is president with several aides to discuss how to handle pressure from President Trump and mr giuliani about investigating the bite and i dont i dont recall such you dont remember that ambassador in the may i believe it was the may 23rd meeting you talked about how the president. Categorized ukraine what he thought about ukraine i believe that meeting was on may 23rd did you ever hear the president the linsky relay any concerns about you about how he fell about how the United States viewed him whether he was being taken seriously or any concerns about being used as a tool for political reasons well i saw that in an email from ambassador taylor we obviously tried to. Relate to president selenski the Glass Half Full version of how the United States felt about ukraine not the glass half empty version which is were here for you we support you and were trying very hard to get you the meeting with President Trump so after hearing that from embassador taylor you relayed you tried to reassure president s alinsky that america was truly on their side is that i think weve been trying to assure president selenski throughout his entire his entire term as a president and master i know you said you dont quite remember exactly when you came to the realization that a resume i actually meant by that and back on may 6th when asked about a news report about the role of former Vice President son on barisan President Trump told fox news that it was and i quote a major scandal major problem on may 9t