Mr. Chairman id like to begin by following up on something that you have disclosed today and disclosed early yr to both majority, minority. But it is some new information for the committee. You said in your testimony that one of your staff was present with ambassador sondland on the day after the july 25th phone call, is that right . Thats correct, mr. Chairman. And as your staff related the event to you, your staff member could overhear mr. Sondland and the phone over hear the president on the phone . Thats correct. So the president must have been speaking loud enough on the phone. This was a cell phone . It was a cell phone. The president must have been speaking loud enough for your staff member to be able to over hear this . It was. And what your staff member could over hear was President Trump asking ambassador sondland about, quote, the investigations, is that right . Thats correct. I think you testified also that you had come to understand that the term, investigations, was a term that ambassador sondland as well as volker used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections and to the investigations of burisma and the bide ends, is that correct . That is correct, mr. Chairman. Your staff member hears the president asking about the investigations, meaning burisma and the bide ends in 2016, and ambassador sondland told President Trump that the ukrainians were ready to move forward . He did. And i think you said that after the call, when your staff asked ambassador sondland what President Trump thought of ukraine, his response was that President Trump cares more about the investigations of biden, is that right . And burisma, yes, sir. And i take it the i am port of that is he cares more about that than he does about ukraine . Yes, sir. During your testimony ambassador taylor, you said more ukrainians would undoubtedly die without u. S. Assistance. Why is that . The Security Assistance that we provide takes many forms. One of the components of that assistance is counterbattery radar. Another component are sniper weapons. These weapons and this assistance allows the Ukrainian Military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. If that further incursion, further aggression, were to take place, more ukrainians would die. So it is a deterrent effect that these weapons provide. Its also the ability it gives the ukrainians the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate an end to the war in dom bas, negotiating with the russians. This also is a way that would reduce the number of ukrainians who would die. I take it if the provision of u. S. Military assistance would save ukrainian lives, any delay might cost you lives, is that true . Of course its hard to draw any direct lines between any particular element of Security Assistance and any particular death on the battlefield. But it is certainly true that that assistance had enabled Ukrainian Armed forces to be effective and deter and to be able to take countermeasures to the attacks that the russians had and i think you said that ukrainian soldier lost their life while you were visiting . We keep very careful track of the casualties, and i noticed on the next day, the information that we got that one was killed, four soldiers wounded on that day. And indeed ukrainians lose their lives every week . Every week. I think you also testified that russian was watching closely to gauge the level of american support for ukrainegia government. Why is this significant . This is significant because the ukrainians in particular under this new administration are eager to end this war. And they are eager to end it in a way that the russians leave their territory. These negotiations, like all negotiations, are difficult. Ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from a position of strength or at least more strength than they now have. Part of that strength, part of the ability of the ukrainians to negotiate against the russians with the russians for an end to the war depends on United States and other international support. If we withdraw or suspend or threaten to withdraw, our Security Assistance, thats a message to the ukrainians, but its at least as important as your question indicates, mr. Chairman, to the russians, who are looking for any sign of weakness or any sign that we are withdrawing our support for ukraine. So when the ukrainians learned of the suspension of the military aid either privately or when others learned publicly, the russians would be learning also, and they would take that as a lack of robust u. S. Support for ukraine, is that right . Thats correct. And that would weaken ukraine in negotiating an end to the war in don bas . It would. People watching im sure are interested in how military assistance and diplomatic support for ukraine afekds ukraine. But even more so interested in how does this affect our National Security . Now, i think you said that if we believe in a principle sovereignty of nations where countries get to determine their own economic, political and security alliances, we have to support ukraine and its fight, that the kind of aggression we see by russian cant stand. How is it important to american National Security that we provide for a robust defense of ukraines sovereignty . Mr. Chairman, as my colleague, Deputy Assistant secretary george kent described, we have a National Security policy, a National Defense policy, that identifies russia and china as adsaries. The russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings, that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. Until they invaded ukraine in 2014, they had abided by sovereignty of nations, of invooibi inviability of borders, that order that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in europe, was violated by the russians, and if we dont push back on that, on those violations, then that will continue. And that, mr. Chairman, affect us, it affects the world we live in, that our children and grand children will grow up in. This a the chair now recognizes the Ranking Member and minority counsel for 40 minutes. Thank you. The call summary for which the democrats want to impeach President Trump is dramatically different from their nefarious depiction of it. What it actually shows is a Pleasant Exchange between two leaders who discuss mutual cooperation over a range of issues. The democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery and a host of other monstrous crimes being committed against president zelensky. Yet president zelensky himself insists there was nothing improper whatsoever about the conversation. Indeed the routine nature of the call helps to explain why in this committees last public hearing, democrats recited a fictitious version of the call instead of reading the actual transcript. The democrats depicted the president saying, quote, i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand . Lots of it. On this and on that, unquote. The transcript did not show President Trump saying anything remotely like that. The president did not ask ukraine to make up dirt on anyone. But the democrats are not trying to discover facts. Theyre trying to invent a narrative. And the facts they need do not exist, then theyll just make it up. Not only does president zelensky deny the democrats characterization of the call, but as ambassador taylor testified to this committee, the ukrainians did not even know at the time of the call that a temporary delay was put on the Security Assistance for them. Furthermore, as the ambassador testified, these holds occur from time to time. Both he and ambassador volker were confident the delay would be lifted. In fact, military aid to ukraine has actually substantially improved since President Trump took office. Ambassador taylor testified that President Trump was the first president to see that ukraine was afforded javelin antitank weapons. This was a very strong message that americans are willing to provide more than blankets. This was the obama administrations approach. Note this important fact, the Security Assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians ukrainians having done any of the things they were shoefdly blackmailed to do. So were supposed to believe President Trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred and which the supposed victim denies ever happened. Id like to briefly speak to the core mistruth at the core of the democrats impeachment drive. They claim the president tried to yet the ukrainians to, quote, manufacture dirt against his political rivals. This is supported by precisely zero evidence. Once again, the democrats simply made it up. But lets consider the broader question about why President Trump may have wanted answers to questions about ukraine meddling in 2016. The democrats downplay, ignore, outright deny the many indications that ukrainians actually did meddle in the election. A shocking aboutface for people who for three years argued that foreign election meddling was an intolerable climb that threatened the heart of our democracy. While the brazen suddenness of this uturn is jarring, this denial is a necessary part of their argument. After all, if there actually were indications of ukraine election meddling and if foreign election meddling is a dire threat, then President Trump would have a perfectly good reason for wanting to find out what happened. And since the meddling was aimed against his campaign, hed have good reason for sending his personal attorney to make inquiries about it. Whats strange is some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions, who express alarm about these inquiries, were remarkably uninformed about these indications of ukrainian election meddling and why the president may have been concerned. By them. For example, i noted previously, Alexander Chalupa admitted to politico she worked with officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in washington, d. C. , to dig up dirt on the Trump Campaign, which she passed onto the dnc and the Hillary Clinton campaign. She revealed ukrainian officials themselves were also working directly with reporters to trade information and leads about the Trump Campaign. Ambassador kent, you didnt seem to be too concerned about it in the last round of questioning, so ill just skip you because we know that wasnt a concern. But, ambassador taylor, you testified to this committee that you only recently became aware of reports of this cooperation between Ukrainian Embassy officials and chalupa to undermine the Trump Campaign. From your last deposition. Is that correct . Mr. Nunes, it is correct i had not known about this before. Im just going over your last deposition, ambassador. Yes. The politico article cites three ukrainian officials sustaining the Ukraine Embassy supported the Hillary Clinton campaign. It lists ardemenyko, it is clear they were supporting Hillary Clintons candidacy they did everything from publicly the team to criticizing trump. I think they simply didnt meet with the Trump Campaign because they thought hillary would win, unquote. Ambassador taylor you testified you were unfamiliar with that statement. Is that correct . Thats correct. You also said you were unaware that then Ukraine Ambassador to the u. S. , valerie cha lay, wrote an oped in the hill during the president ial campaign criticizing thencandidate trump, is that correct . That is correct. You said you did not know sergei leschenko, the black ledger, was to undermine the trump candidacy. This was in your deposition. Is that still correct . That is still correct, sir. Thank you, mr. Taylor. Fusion gps corrector nellie orr testified to congress that lesee. Henko was a source for fusion gpss operation to dirty up the Trump Campaign including the compilation of the steele dossier on behalf of the dnc and the clinton campaign. You testified you were unaware that leschenko served as a source for that. Is this still correct . It is. You said you did not know Ukrainian Internal Affairs minister avokov mocked and disparaged thencandidate trump on facebook and twitter. Is that still correct . That is correct. Ambassador taylor, in your testimony to this committee you said you were never briefed on these reports and statements, that you did not do Due Diligence before taking your post to discover that president the president s and mayor giulianis concerns may have been and that you what they may have been and you did not discuss them with ambassador yovanovitch. Is that still correct . Yes, sir. Furthermore, you said it upset you to hear about the many indications of ukrainian election meddling. Precise words and i will read them back to you, based on this political article which again surprises me and disappointments me, because i believe it is a mistake for any diplomatic official in one country to intersphere in the political life of another. That is disappointing, end quote. Ambassador taylor, is that still your testimony . Mr. Nunes, it is. Subsequent to that, i looked into the circumstances for several of the things that you just mentioned. In 2016, candidate trump had made a statement saying that it was possible that he would allow crimea to go back to russia. He expressed the sentiment or the opinion that it is possible that crimea wanted to go back to russia. What i can tell you, mr. Nunes, is that those, that sentiment is amazingly inflammatory to all ukrainians. So i think that i can understand that. Are you aware during the, i believe it is the 2012 election when at the time president obama leaned over on a hot mic to then russian president and said that hed have to wait until after the election, and was that inflammatory to the ukrainians, also . I dont know, sir. I just want to be clear that some government officials oppose President Trumps position to ukraine, but they had no idea what concerned him. In this case, it is numerous indicationings of the ukrainian interference in the 2016 election to oppose his campaign and support Hillary Clinton, and once you know that, it is ease host and just some of the five ours of testimony on the impeachment inquiry, the first ublic hearing held in the impeachment inquiry into donald trump. We will be taking your phone calls if you want to let us know if you saw thet, impeachment hearing today, earlier today. For democrats the number to call 2027488920. 2027488921. S, and for independents and others, 2027488922. Also let you know that we are showing the hearing in its entirety over on cspan2. Hat will be at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. That will be when we heard from acting u. S. Ambassador to ukraine, william taylor, and we also heard from george kent, who s the Deputy Assistant secretary of state. And then looking ahead to hearing withof the public testimony from marie former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine. Thats expected to start at 9 00 eastern. Well have that live on cspan2 as well as three days of hearings next week that have scheduled for tuesday, wednesday, and thursday. Yououre away from your tv, can join us online at cspan. Org, and you can listen go as well to the krooem radio app cspan radio app. Tonight, we ler severville, s it tennessee, dan . Hello, dan. You are on the air. Ahead. Caller yes. Am concerned about the United States that i was raised in where the congress of the united didnt waste the taxpayers money. Is the most pathetic embarrassment in the history of states to try to impeach a president i dont youre democrat, whatever. Theyre just its all about elections of 2020, and they have they probably dont even have a whistleblower. Schiff thats the whistleblower. End ofst like to see the this farce thing going on. To sue the ht Emocratic Party for wasting americans tax money, is all theyre doing. Call, dan. S to your jim calling on the democrats line. Go ahead. Caller hi. I saw this today. Its ridiculous. Know, im to tell you the ruth, i wont be a democrat no more. Im voting for donald trump anymore. My party cant even get their straight. I wish, you know, hillary would time, on, but at the same the way she went about it, the way her team and the way right now, im going to promote the republicans. m going to be a republican now. Same thing. I am going to promote it with my family, my friends, my work, everything. I am so disappointed in this the dEmocratic Party. Just curious caller i have been a democrat for the last 15 years. I voted for obama. Voted i tell you, i wanted hillary to win. At this time, i cant. I cant. The hearing see today . Hat did you like what the rrps said . Republicans said . What did you not like what the democrats said . Caller when you had the closed meetings, so when you had the closed meetings, you know, unfair. All the truth will come out. Just have both parties there. Have the truth come out. Thing with the news media. If you are going to have fox, youre going to have cnn, you going to have come, once you like sean you, one hannity or whoever you want on them me show and let battle it out with the facts and everything, then the truth will come out. It is is fake all news,