Influential individuals in ukraine, correct . Correct. I think is one of the few that fan both the Poroshenko Administration and the zelensky administration. Yes, thats correct. Looking back on his comments in hindsight, do you see how that might create a perception that a very influential ukrainian was advocating against then candidate trump . That he was doing what, im sorry . He was out to get him. He said some real nasty things. Well, sometimes that happens on social media. [laughter] are you asking you whether its appropriate . Probably not. But i would say that minister avakov, as well as others, both in president poroshenkos administration as well is in the
lutsenko administration, has been a good partner to the United States. As i think i told you before, he is a very practical man. Looking for partners in getting the job done. Im shocked about social media would be the site of negative comments. You certainly can understand that the president , aware of minister avakovs statements, aware of what mr. Lushenko was up to, aware of what ambassador chaly was up to, and these other elements to discuss, there is basis to wonder whether there are influential evidence of the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. Again, i cant speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would just say that those elements that you have recited dont seem to me to be the
ukrainian kind of a plan or the plot of Ukrainian Government to work against President Trump or anyone else. They are isolated incidents. We all know. Im coming to find out myself that public life people are critical. That does not mean that someone is come for a government is, underlining either a campaign or interfering in elections. I would just remind, again, that our own u. S. Intelligence community has conclusively determined that those who interfered in the election were in russia. To turn our attention to ambassador volker, hes been a friend and colleague of yours
for many years. Correct . Thats true. I believe you testified he is a man of honor. I believe that to be true. And a brilliant diplomat . Yes. You have no reason to believe he would be undertaking any initiatives counter to u. S. Interests . I think that he try to do what he felt was right. Turning our attention to the trump administrations policy of the aid package to ukraine, youve testified that during your tenure as ambassador, americas policy actually got stronger. Is that accurate . With the position of javelins to the ukrainian military, yes. Those are the positive. I was that important . Well, two things. They are obviously tank busters. So if the war with russia all of a sudden accelerated in some way, and tanks come over there horizon, javelins are a very serious weapon to deal with that. Thats number one. Really, the more important issue is the symbolism of it. That the United States is providing javelins to ukraine. That makes ukraines adversaries think twice. And the provision of javelins to ukraine was blocked during the previous demonstration. Is that correct . I think they made a determination. I was not a part of those discussions, but obviously they had not yet made a determination about whether to provide javelins. What do you have any understanding of what the interagency consensus was with regard to javelins during the Previous Administration . I think most in the interagency wanted to provide
javelins to ukraine. In the new administration, under President Trump, the ability to afford ukraine this weaponry is a significant advantage, a significant step forward . We thought it was important. Has it played out that way . Well, it has speak of the provision of javelins . Is a symbol of our strong support for ukraine. This year, there are questions as to whether or not our Security Assistance is going to go through. That kind of undermines that strong message of support. Ukraine still has the ability to acquire the javelins, though, correct . Are you now talking about Purchasing Javelins . The Ukrainian Government . Yes, they do. Thats my understanding. Speak of security assister the security it ultimate we went through, correct . Thats my understanding. You testified during her deposition that you were proud of the efforts of the United States during your tenure to supply this type of aid to ukraine. Are you still happy with that decision . Are you talking about the javelins . The javelins and also the whole aid package. Do you think it sufficient . Do you think we are giving ukraine enough money . Thats a hard question. One can always use additional funding. That said, i think that the congress has been very generous
in voting for Security Assistance and other forms of assistance for ukraine. My time is coming to an end, mr. Chairman . I think the gentlemen. We will now go to fiveminute rounds. I recognize himself 5 minutes. Ambassador yovanovitch, i want to follow up on some of the questions from my colleagues. Some of the early questions seem to suggest that your testimony here was completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. Why are you even here . Isnt this just some small matter that should have been referred to hr . So i wanted to bring my attention to someone who thought you were very important to this whole plot or scheme. Thats the president of the United States. There was only one abbasid are discussed by the president in the july 25th call, and those you, ambassador yovanovitch. I want to refer back to how you were brought up in the conversation. At one point during the conversation, the president brings up this prosecutor who was very good. And it was shut down, and thats really unfair. I think you indicated earlier that was a likely reference to mr. Lutsenko. Is that right . I believe that is the case, but i dont know. Immediately after the president brings up this corrupt former prosecutor , the only one my sophistry to me, the only American Abbasid brought up in the call when he brings up that he was being treated very unfairly, he then encourages zelensky to speak with giuliani, the guy who orchestrated the Smear Campaign against you, correct . Yes. He then brings you up. So he praises the corrupt prosecutor, he says, i want you
to talk to giuliani. The guy who smeared you. And then he brings up. He obviously thought you were relevant to this. What is even more telling is, immediately after he brings you up and says you, the woman was bad news, he says there is a lot to talk about about bidens son. That biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Immediately after praising this corrupt prosecutor, he attacks you and then goes right to bid biden. That would indicate to you, wouldnt it, ambassador, that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at odds with and his desire to see this investigation of bite and go forward would it not again, you are absolutely right that that is the fought
progression. My colleagues also asked, and pushing you out of the way, ultimately Ambassador Taylor got appointed. As ambassador the taylor the kind of person that would further giulianis aims . I think we can all agree that Ambassador Taylor is a remarkable public servant. Absolutely. But what if the president could put someone else in place that wasnt a Career Diplomat . What if he could put in place, say, a substantial donor to his inaugural . What if he could put in place someone with no diplomatic experience at all . What if you put in place someone whose portfolio doesnt even include ukraine . Might that person be willing to work with three giuliani in pursuit of these investigations yeah, maybe. Thats exactly what happened, wasnt it . Yes. And my colleagues also say, well, the Security Assistance ultimately went through. So if they sought to condition or bribe ukraine into doing these investigations by withholding Security Assistance, they ultimately paid the money. Are you aware, ambassador, though the Security Assistance was not released until after a whistleblower complaint made its way to the white house . Yes, i am aware of that. Are you aware that it was not released until congress announced it was during an investigation . Yes, im aware of that. Finally, i want to ask you about the call record that my colleague read at the outset. Im curious about this. Just for people watching at home, so theyre not confused, there are two coat calls here. There is the perfunctory Congratulatory Call after
zelensky is inaugurated, which my Ranking Member read this morning, and there is of course the very problematic call in july. One of the reasons we are here is what happened between april and july. But there was a readout put out by the white house at the time the april Congratulatory Call was made. On the white house readout said that the president discussed with zelensky helping ukraine root out corruption. That fact doesnt appear anywhere in that call. I want to ask you, ambassador, why would the white house put out an inaccurate reading . While at the white house represent that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about corruption, in that call or, in fact, the one in july . I cant answer that question. I dont have visibility into that. I think you i yield now for 5 minutes now to
recognize the Ranking Member. Just remind the gentleman, theres actually three calls. There are the two calls with President Trump, and the one you reiterated in our last hearing a couple weeks ago. Ambassador, i just want to clarify something before i yield. Are you against a political appointed ambassadors . Is in the president s prerogative to appoint whoever he wants in any country . First of all, i am not against political i just wanted to clear that up. Now, can i yield to ms. Stefanik . Do i need your permission . You may yield. Before i wanted before i was interrupted, i wanted to applaud your career. I also wanted to thank you for hosting the numerous bipartisan delegations. I led one of those delegations in ukraine. I will focus on three key themes. The first is the role of the
president when it comes to importing atomic appointing our investors. The seconds longstanding corruption ukraine, and the third is eight ukraine. We heard from george kent. I know that mr. Kent is a colleague, a friend, and someone you deeply respect. In his testimony he stated all ambassadors serve the pleasure of the president. He would agree with that statement, correct . Yes. In fact, he elaborated and went on to emphasize that this is with a question. He would agree with that . I would agree. In your deposition you stated, although i understand, everyone understands, that i serve at the pleasure of the president read is that correct . Yes. Just so there is no public confusion, youre still an employee of the State Department, correct . Yes. In the deposition you said he personally asked whether it was possible to be a fellow at georgetown university, that was arranged for me, and im very grateful. That is where your posted,
correct . Correct. We are glad to have you in service and i want to thank you for your public service. Shifting to corruption in ukraine, in your powerful deposition you described, we have long understood that strong anticorruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in ukraine, and now there is a window of opportunity to do th that. Wise is important to us . Put simply, anticorruption efforts served ukraines interest, but that serves hours, as well. Is that still your testimony . Yes. Particularly at the critical time in 2014 at the ukrainian elections, you testified that the ukrainian people had married clear that they were done with corruption. Correct . Yes. You also testified that the ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special Investigator Office that would be all about the crimes of corruption. Correct . Correct. I know this is before you
arrived in ukraine, but you are aware that the first case the u. S. , u. K. , and ukraine investigators worked on was in fact against the owner of burisma . Yes. And i was during the Obama Administration. Yes. And you said today, the investigation was never formally closed, because it is frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook. Yes, the ukrainian investigation. As i understand it. Because we didnt see the ukrainians moving forward on that, we know longer partner with them on that case or in that way. Lets take a step back. The first time he personally became aware of burisma was when you are being prepared for your Senate Confirmation hearing. And this was in the form of practiced questions and answers. This is your deposition. And you testified that, in this particular practice key mandate with the Obama State Departments
, it wasnt just generally about burisma and corruption. It was specifically about hunter biden and burisma. Is that correct . Yes, it is. And the exact quote from your testimony, ambassador, is the way the question was phrased in this model q a was, what can you tell us about hunter biden being named to the board of burisma . For the millions of americans watching, president obamas own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Bidens role at 11 that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before confirmation. And yet, our democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cried foul when we dare ask that same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about. But we will continue asking that. Lastly, in my 20 seconds left, i want to get it on record in terms of this defensive lethal aid that you are an advocate for, that was not provided by president obama. It was provided by President Trump. Thats correct. I yield back five seconds. And esther, thank you for your testimony today. Those of us who sit up here are supposed to be dispassionate and judicial and measured to, but i am angry. And ive been angry since i learned about your summary and unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent and faithful service to this country. Im angry that he woman whose family fled communism and nazism has served his country for 33 years, it not in paris or in rome, but literally under fire in places like mogadishu and kyiv. Im angry that a woman like you would be not just dismissed but humiliated and attacked by the president of the United States. And im not just angry for you. Im angry for every single Foreign Service officer, for everything a military officer, for every Intelligence Officer who, right now, might believe that a lifetime of service and
sacrifice and excellence might be ignored by the president of the United States, or worse yet, attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss. Its the president s defense, and its emerging from my republican colleagues today, that this is all okay. Because, as the president so memorably put it in his tweet this morning, it is a u. S. President s absolute right to appoint ambassadors. Im a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right. Because that doesnt feel to me like the system of government we have here. I think about how and why we exercise our powers and rights matters. Ambassador, when you are an ambassador or somewhere, do you have the right to ask the Intelligence Community, the cia in an embassy, what operations they are doing . We talk about these things
collaboratively. There are some things in short, yes. So you have the right to ask the Intelligence Community and the embassy what they are doing. Why might you do that . Because sometimes operations have political consequences. Right. So the performance of your duties, in the interest of the United States, gives you the right to ask a very sensitive questions that our Intelligence Community your embassy. But what if, instead of working through the issues that you just described, you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a russian agent for 10,000 . Without be an appropriate exercise of your right to . No, it would not. It would not. And what would happen to you if you did that . I cant even begin to imagine, but i would imagine that i would be pulled out of post. Right. This is not about ambassadors. The Police Officer has a right to pull you over. But if the Police Officer pulls over his exwife because hes angry, thats probably not the right. I have a right today, to cuss a bunch of votes. If i cast the vote not of interest of my constituents because somebody bribed me, that is a severe abuse of my power. Wouldnt you agree . Yes. So i guess the question is, why, after an Exemplary Performance as ambassador to ukraine, did the president decide that you should be removed . Because i think we just agreed that if that was not done in the National Interest thats a problem. Ambassador, if you had remained invested to ukrai