But, shazam, last week, you come forward with supposedly this new information . There is nothing different in there than what we had on the transcript. Maybe thats the reason their star witness, their first witness didnt bring it up. But they had to have something. So you are their closing witness because you overheard the president talking to Ambassador Sondland. Sir, if i can answer. I see four seconds left on the clock. Mr. Holmes, you may take as long as you need. Thank you, sir. I believe that ambassador taylor did already know when i briefed him when i returned from vacation on the 6th. It was not news to him that the president was pressing for a Bide Investigation. Thats not what i asked. I asked why he didnt share with us. Mr. Jordan, please do not interrupt the witness any further. Mr. Holmes your time expired yours has not. You may answer the question. Its exactly my point. I briefed the call in detail deputy chief commission. Come back, referred to the call and everyone is nodding, of course thats whats going on. Of course the president is
pressing for a Bide Investigation before he do these things ukrainians want. There is nodding agreement. So, did i go through every single word in the call . No, because everyone by that point agreed. It was obvious what the president was pressing for. And ambassador taylor, as you have just outlined, had all those other intersections. He didnt share it with us. Mr. Jordan, please do not interrupt. But, sir, My Vivid Recollection Of Arch event i was involved with was a touch stone experience that, to me, validated. And. Mr. Jordan, please do not interrupt. Believed. And ambassador taylor was not in that call. So all the sudden last week have you got to come tell us. Mr. Jordan. [gavel] allow the witness to finish the question. I will end with this. He was involved in a number of other interactions that brought him to the same conclusion. Its quite possible. He doesnt share. Mr. Jordan. [gavel] mr. Jordan you may not like the witnesss answer. There wasnt an answer. It was a filibuster. Mr. Jordan we will hear the witnesss answer. Have you concluded mr. Holmes. Vicious sir. Thank you. Mr. Hymes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, dr. Hill, mr. Holmes, thank you for your testimony. Dr. Hill, you made a fairly dramatic comment in your statement to which the Ranching Member took some exception. Im more interested in the ukraine piece of this. But you said some you on this committee appear to believe that russia in its Security Services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that somehow for some reason ukraine did. Im really much more interested in the ukraine piece of this. But i do want to defend you briefly. I dont know what my colleagues believe, but i do have a pretty good sense of what the effects are of creating ambiguity, of lacking clarity and conviction around the russian attack on the election of 2016. In response to your comment, the Ranking Member offered up a report, which varies in material respects from the report that was created by
the 17 agencies of the intelligence community. A day does not go by in which Ranking Member nunes does not speak of the russia hoax. And this is an area in which context is pretty important. Dr. Hill, let me read you a comment by another senior official. Why did Democratic National committee turn down the dhs offer to protect against hacks . Its all a big dem hoax, all caps. Why did the dnc refuse to turn over its server to the fbi . Its all a big dem scam. Dr. Hill, do you know who said those things . I dont. Thats the president of the United States, donald j. Trump. So you might be. I might have missed that. You didnt miss much. Tell me if you agree or disagree. Ambiguity, a failure to name and shame the russians for the attack in 2016, that is not in the service of our National Security, is it. Its not, no. Its not. So, lets turn to ukraine. Dr. Hill, have you seen you characterized the idea that ukraine interfered in the election as a fictional narrative. Have you seen any evidence at all that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . Well, i brought with me exhibits that i was pointed to, in fact, by our colleagues during the deposition i gave on october 14th. And actually im quite grateful that they pointed me in this direction. I was presented during my deposition with two articles or at least two pieces of information. One was an oped that the Ukrainian Ambassador charlie wrote in 2016 in the hill. So this is during the president ial campaign when President Trump was then the nominee for the Republican Party. And this is ambassador charlie, he was then still the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States being
critical of President Trump, who was then the nominee for the Republican Party for making comments about ukraine, crimea, and russia. May i interrupt you there . Let me be very specific about what those comments were. The president , when he was a candidate, said, quote the people of crimea, from what i have heard, would rather be with russia than where they were. So, ambassador charlie is responding to that in that article, correct . Thats correct. He just uses this as a peg. Because, to be honest, the whole article is actually about ukraine. And this is classic, standard for anyone who wants to write an oped. I have written plenty of them myself. You pick a peg by something that you or somebody else might have said and then you proceed to say what you want to say. This is what ambassador charlie does as he talks about ukraines position visavis russia and russian aggression against ukraine. Let me just read because its worth people hearing what this severe attack on Candidate Trump, who is suggested that the crimeaens would rather be with russia. Ambassador charlie writes even if trumps comments are only speculative and do not really reflect a future policy they call for appeasement of an aggressor and support the violation of a sovereign countrys territorial integrity and anothers breach of international law. Deduh, duh, thats the attack on Candidate Trump. Does that sound like Election Interference to you. I would say its probably not the most viable thing to do for an ambassador because you never know who is going to win. I think that the second piece that was presented to me at great length and i want to thank mr. Cuss o. Castor for making me go back and read it again. When you asked me the questions about it i did remember the fees. Kenneth vogel is very well known as as you pointed out extremely good journalist. I remembered reading this back in January Of 2017 but it had been a long time between then and october. And you gave me a copy and i went back and read it again. Because i think it actually is extraordinarily important. It gets to this issue here. Mr. Vogel points out that the ukrainian government, again, you know, they wouldnt have done very well at the picking up the issue i pointed out at the beginning of today. They bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning the elections. And so, you know, they were trying to with the Clinton Campaign. Its quite northwest here. He relates, you know, to some extent individuals and some ukrainian officials like mr. Vok cough the Interior Minister and other people named here and named at various points and talks about how they were trying to collect information Ranking Member nunes said on mr. Mowrst and on other people as well. However, i do want to point out that the crux of the article here by mr. Vogel is he said there was little evidence of a topdown effort by u. K. He makes the distinction between the russian effort
that was directed by russian president putin and involved the countrys military and foreign intelligence services. Now, i dont think that those two things are exactly the same. I also mentioned in my deposition of october 14th, that in fact, many officials from many countries, including ukraine, bet on the wrong horse. They believed that secretary clinton, former senator clinton, former first lady clinton was going to win. Many said some pretty disparaging things and hurtful things about President Trump and i cant blame him for feeling aggrieved about them. When we were setting up visits. I remember i have a portfolio of 50 plus countries plus nato and the european union, we thought it prudent to collect as much as possible about comments that people might have said about the president during the campaign when he was either one of the candidates to be the nominee for the Republican Party or when he was actually the candidate
running against Hillary Clinton and im sorry to say there is an awful lot i probably shouldnt name them here because it will have consequences and awful lot of senior officials in many governments including our allied governments said some pretty hurtful things about the president. I would also personally take offense at some of the things that were said if i were the president. Now, the difference here, however, is that that hasnt had any major impact on his feelings towards those countries. Not that i have seen. But i also heard the president say, and he said it in public, so im not revealing any kind of Executive Privilege here that ukraine tried to take me down. Well, i have seen some ill advised iranian officials, ambassador charlie has been removed as being the ambassador from here made some pretty, you know, unpleasant statements or some ill advised oped. But i could list a whole host of ambassadors from allied countries who tweeted out who had Public Comments about the president as well. And it did not effect Security Assistance, having meetings with them. If it would, there would have been a lot of people he Wouldnt Have Met with. Thank you, dr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, i seek unanimous consent to add to the record a Politico Article of december 1st, 2016 entitled russia accuses ukraine of sabotaging trump. It outlines russian senior officials making allegations that there was ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. Without objection, mr. Conway. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield to mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, gentlemen, for yielding. I want to pick up where my colleague across the aisle, Congressman Hymes left off earlier purchasefully, dr. Hill, he was not dochedding you. He was defending himself and democrats. I want to make sure record is clear. Ranking member nunes is correct. He correctly noted in his opening republicans, not democrats on this committee, were the first ones. The first ones to raise the
issue of russian interference in the 2016 elections. The disagreement wasnt about russian meddling. The disagreement was about whether or not President Trump conspired with russia. A false allegation peddled by the democrats generally and specifically by some democrats on this committee. With that mr. Holmes, i want to turn to you and the part of the conversation, your testimony where you said you heard President Trump say is he going to do the investigation and Ambassador Sondland said hes going to do it, he will do anything you ask him to. Is that right . Yes, sir. What did President Trump say next . He said what about sweden . He said what . Im sorry, i need to look back where we are in the middle of the conversation here. Where are we in the testimony . Then he turned to the sweden conversation. What did President Trump say next . He said good. What about sweden . Good, what about sweden . Good, what about sweden . Why isnt that in your statement . Sir, its not a word for word every single word of the conversation. But its the most important part of the conversation. Well, then they turned to sweden. They turned to the other topic. Respectfully, mr. Holmes, this Impeachment Inquiry is based on a call the day before where President Trump, as part of a bribery scheme, is part of an extortion scheme, as part of a quid pro quo, according to the democrats demanded investigations in exchange for either military aid or white house meeting and the next day you were witness to President Trump receiving word that the bribery scheme
was successful. The extortion scheme was successful. And his response was good, what about sweden . Yes, sir. The ukraine portion of that conversation was extremely brief. What was the first thing the president said on the call . You had a clear recollection of this conversation. Yes, sir. Mr. Ratcliffe, please allow mr. Holmes to answer. Yes, sir. Greeted the president. How . He said, hello, mr. President , im in kiev, and the president said are you in ukraine . Do you think he said i think you are in ukraine . He said, what . He said are you in ukraine . What did you hear President Trump say about asap rocky . I did not hear President Trumps side of the conversation asap rocky. You have said how did we
go from the conversation was very loud and his voice was recognizable to, as you say here to when the conversation shifted i could only hear Ambassador Sondlands side of the conversation. Yes, sir. As i have testified. The initial part of the call, Ambassador Sondland sort of when the president came on the call, he sort of wined and held the phone away from his ear for the initial portion of the call. And then at some point in the call he stopped doing that and i dont know why, i dont know if he turned the volume down. I dont know if the president spoke more quietly or got use to the volume. I dont know what changed. What did change . This is important, it was memorable. I dont know, sir. Ambassador sondland stopped moving the phone away from his ear. Thats what it was . Yes. Okay. How did the Conversation End . I only heard ambassador
sondlands. He said he was giving the president advice on how to do with his asap rocky situation. They should have released him on your word and can you tell the kardashians you tried. You to be clear when President Trump received word that president zelensky had agree to the investigations, he said good. What about sweden . Yes. When exactly did Gordon Sondland ask president zelensky about the investigations . Im sorry, sir . When did he ask about the investigations . When did Gordon Sondland ask zelensky about the investigation . Yeah. You are asking in which meeting did he raise the investigations . Well, raised the day before on a call and then the next day Gordon Sondland said the answer to that was he is going to do the investigation. When did he ask about the investigation . My assumption is he did it in a closed door meeting with yermak. The time of the gentleman has expired. I appreciate that. I want to make sure the record is clear yesterday the topic of conversations did not come up on that day. The time of the gentleman has inspired. Ms. Seoul you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank both of our witnesses for being here today. I would like to turn our discussion to the campaign to remove career yovanovitch. Both of you witnessed what i would call a Smear Campaign. I wanted to know your thoughts, dr. Hill, what was your view of ambassador yovanovitchs experience and quality of her work in the ukraine and do you consider it to be a Smear Campaign . I have the highest regard for ambassador yovanovitch both in terms of her integrity and the high standards of work that she was carrying out as ambassador in ukraine and
across her whole career. I do believe there was a Smear Campaign. And i just want to say, again, for the record, i think it was unnecessary. If it was a decision to have a political ambassador put in place in ukraine, that would be perfectly acceptable. Its exactly the right of the president to be able to do it. I just did not see why it was necessary to malign ambassador yovanovitch to such an extent. Mr. Holmes, would you agree with that . And can you talk about the character and integrity and performance of professor i mean ambassador yovanovitch both in ukraine . Yes, maam. She was extremely professional, respected in ukraine by ukrainians. I think also by visiting american senior officials, including members of this committee and of congress who paid a visit. She is extremely dedicated, hardworking. Did you see it as a Smear Campaign as well . I did, yes. And what was the affect that it had on the morale of
other professionals that you worked with in the ukraine . It was a very confusing time, as i have said before. The president has the right to remove an ambassador for any or no reason at all. It was not clear to us why this was happening or why People Werent Standing up for her. I would like to now turn, dr. Hill, to your boss, your boss was ambassador bolton, right . Thats correct, yes. And did your boss, ambassador bolton, tell you that giuliani was, quote a hand grenade. He did, yes. What do you think he meant by his characterization of giuliani as a hand grenade . What he meant by this was pretty clear to me in the context of all of the statements that mr. Giuliani was making publicly. The investigations that he was promoting, the story line he was promoting, a narrative he was promoting was going to backfire. I think it has backfired. Was that narrative also
inclusive of falsehoods about ambassador yovanovitch . At the particular juncture that ambassador bolton made that comment, absolutely, because that was in the context of my discussions with him about what was happening to ambassador yovanovitch. I was particularly struck by your testimony, dr. Hill, about receiving hateful calls and being accused of being a source mole in the white house. Are you a never trumper or have you been true to your profession and remained nonpartisan . I honestly dont know what the definition of a never trumper is. I think many of my colleagues are feeling the same way. This is a puzzling term to be applied to career or nonpartisan officials. And i chose to come in to the administration. I could easily have said no when i was approached. Yes. You didnt sign up to have hateful calls and the like . I guess unfortunately where we are today in america, thats coming with the territory. They are continuing
honestly. We are constantly having to block twitter post of my name and address on the internet. We have been doing this over the last couple of days. As i said in my deposition, this could happen to any Single Person in this room be it members of the press, be it Members Of Congress and be it the staff. I think we have to find ways of combating this. And, again, this gets back subtly to adversaries can also exploit. Exactly. I think you would agree with me that this shouldnt become the new normal, it would you agree . Should not. I also think that this kind of behavior, instead of keeping you down, would make you undeterred. Rumor determined to continue to do your work and to do it professionally. I am. I think all my colleagues are as well. As you said, we cant let this stand. I dont think anyone here wants to let this stand. I actually dont believe this is an apartisan issue. I dont think anyones to come under personal attacks. I unfortunately thinks this has become the new norm and we are being led by the very top of the food chain,
which is our president , which is unfortunate. Im especially disheartened by his treatment of women and i think that the fact of the matter is there is a long line of strong, talented women who have been smeared and victimized by this president and we can either choose to ignore it or do something about it. And, frankly, i think that whether you voted for him or whether you supported him or not, that doing so is wrong. You could simply just remove someone. You dont have to smear them. Thank you. I yield back my time. Mr. Turner . I just want to echo that sentiment and certainly lament the attacks that have been levied against our colleague Elise Stefanik on this panel which have been vile and hateful. For those of you keeping score at home, the effort to accuse our president of coercion, extortion, or bribery, with these witnesses as we now come to the closing session of this, basically break down as follows we have kent and
ambassador taylor who spoke of hearsay. Their hearsay of these matters that they said that they had heard were all statements that they had heard from others who have also testified in front of us. So there is no one thats missing. There is no one out there. Kent and taylor basically said they heard it from morrison and sondland, morrison heard it he heard it from sondland. Sondland testified yesterday he heard it from no one on the planet. Vindman, and morrison both have direct testimony of the phone call with the president of the United States. Beyond that, they only had contact with sondland and again, sondland indicated he had no contacted with no one on the planet. Volker testified that he did have direct contact both with the ukrainians and with the president of the United States will and indicated that the president of the United States did not condition either a phone call, a meeting, or aid upon ukraine on the taking investigations and also testified that the ukrainians did not believe that either. We also have the direct
statements from the president of ukraine and the Foreign Minister that they did not feel any pressure to undertake investigations and we also have the evidence that were all very much aware of which is they did not undertake any investigations. We also have yovanovitch and dr. Hill, yovanovitch, obviously left before the time period. Dr. Hill, we appreciate your being with us today and mr. Holmes. Dr. Hill, have you provided me probably the greatest piece of evidence thats before us to illustrate the problem with hearsay. So, you said, based on questions and statements, i have heard. Some of you on this committee, that would be us, appear to believe that russia and its Security Services did not conduct a campaign against our country. And perhaps somehow for some reason it was ukraine. So this is the was held up by devin nunes is a report on russian active measures that was voted on by all of us. It begins with this sentence. In 2015 russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at
the u. S. President ial election. Every one little small like, you know, effort on your part, dr. Hill, and you would have knownwhat you just said was not true. What you had heard. But you felt the need to put it in your 8page statement before you went on to tell us a bunch of other things that you heard about other people no matter how convinced you were of also which were not necessarily true. One of which was that you said that Ambassador Sondland met with giuliani. Actually, Ambassador Sondland testified here that he had not, as ambassador, met with giuliani. He briefly met him in his lifetime by shaking his hand and giuliani issued a statement that they had never met, either. This is the problem with no matter how convinced we are, dr. Hill, no matter how much we believe we know that what we have heard is true, it is still just what we have heard. But so far, in this hearing, these series of hearings, the only thing that we have is volker saying i spoke to the president and i have spoke to the ukrainians, neither of which believe that aid was conditioned. Neither of which believed that the president was requiring it. And Ambassador Sondland which said no one on the planet told him that that was the case. Thats the sole evidence. Now, i have got to tell you, one thing thats interesting is Ambassador Sondland did say its his belief that a meeting with the president was conditioned upon investigations. Ambassador volker, ohio think is a man of very significant integrity said that was not the case. Now, even if Ambassador Sondland is correct, that somebody, and dr. Hill, you testified and, again, its hearsay, you dont know, that Supposedly Mulvaney told him that because he didnt testify to that lets say somebody besides the president told him that, you guys want to be the laughing stock of history to impeach a president of the United States because he didnt take a meeting . Oh, please, dear god. Please undertake that. Now, mr. Holmes, i got to tell you. You. Is there a question for dr. Hill . [laughter]
mr. Holmes, in your testimony, you said that sondland said he loves your ass and also said he will do anything you want. Mr. Holmes that information had nothing to do with the Subject Matter, the Subject Matter of any of these hearings. It was antidotal, it was extraneous. Your statements your interest are protecting ukraine are very dubious when you embarrass president zelensky by making those statements. He didnt have to make. Who cares that Ambassador Sondland said that . You know you didnt embarrass Ambassador Sondland. You embarrassed zelensky because you know he got asked that country in his own statement. And hearing that statement as true. The time of the gentleman is inspired. Mr. Carson you are recognized. Does he get to answer. Thank you both for your service. Dr. Hill, i would like to talk a little more indepth about Chief Of Staff mic mulvaneys role in the event under investigation. You testified, maam, that mr. Mulvaney and Ambassador Sondland were both involved
with a letter President Trump sent to the ukrainian president On May 29th Congratulating him on his inauguration. Do you recall that maam . I did, yes. And towards the end of that letter, President Trump closed with, quote i would like to invite you to meet me at the white house in washington, d. C. As soon as we can find a mutually convenient time, end quote. Dr. Hill, was this congratulatory letter drafted through the normal procedures at the nsc uses to send letters to foreign heads of state. The first part of it was except the last paragraph. You also testified that Ambassador Sondland told you that he had dictated that line to the president and that mr. Mulvaney he told mr. Mulvaney to add that to the letter. Is that correct, maam. Thats correct. You said that you were nervous about that. Why were you nervous, dr. Hill . Because at this juncture, it had become quite apparent that the president wasnt
very keen on having anything with mr. Zelensky for all the reasons that we have been trying to lay out today. And we were raise the expectation of an invitation coming shortly. Dr. Hill, you also testified, maam, that Ambassador Sondland was frequently meeting with mr. Mulvaney. Mr. Giulianis campaign of lies ultimately led to ambassador yovanovitch being recalled from her post in april 2019. Have you also testified, maam, that her removal was pretty dispritting and a Turning Point for you. Can you explain to us why, maam . Well, again, as we have all made clear ambassador yovanovitch and recal as you saw in her deposition is a person of great integrity. She is one of our finest Career Foreign Service officers. And being a decision to remove her, to replace her with a political appointee,
again, that was perfectly within the rights of the president. Sometimes its highly viable, in fact, to emphasize to a country just exactly how close the relationship islikely to be, to have an appointee who is close to the president , if its an important relationship. But what was disparaging was all of the accusations that were being fired as the ambassador yovanovitch, leading her to be treated, including by members of the president s family. We all firmly believe that mr. Giuliani and others, including the people who were recently indicted, the ukrainian american gentleman had for some reason decided that ambassador yovanovitch was some kind of personal problem for them. And that they had then decided to engage in just the kinds of things we have been discussing about and frankly she was an easy target as a woman. And im very sorry to hear about whats happened to congressman stefanik. This illustrates point and the problem that we are dealing with here today. Certainly. I was also struck by your testimony that you were also the target of false accusations during your time in the Trump Administration. You testified, maam, about receiving hateful calls and being accused of being, quote, a mole in the white house. You testified about Death Threats and calls at your home; is that right. Thats correct. That was in 2017. Well, im sorry have you had to go through all of this, maam. You dont strike me as a woman who is easily deterred. You are not easily deterred, are you, dr. Hill. Im not, no. Thank you both for your service. I yield back, chairman. Thank you, sir. I will thank the gentleman for yielding. Just another fact check and, again, my caution to both of you that representations about what prior witnesses said or what you have even said may not be consistent with the facts. This was from Ambassador Sondlands Opening Statemen Statement i dont recall the specifics of our conversation, but i believe the issue of investigations was probably a part of the
that agenda or meeting. Now recognize dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you both for being here. You know, in 1998 i voluntarily joined the United States army reserve because i saw our country under attack time and time again. Bill clinton was the president. I didnt voted for bill clinton. But he was my commanderinchief. It didnt matter that i didnt vote for him. Im grateful to live in a country that gets to legitimately elect our leaders. And i have been to places where people dont get to. And its not pretty. And i respect our system and i accept the results that are determined by the American People. I deployed to iraq 20052006 as an army surgeon with soldiers from many background. Most important thing was we were all americans. That was first and foremost. In our mission we treated our troops, we treated the enemy winning over the
hearts and minds of people that never knew us. Because of their dictator saddam hussein. Who told them that we were responsible for all their problems and that was his narrative. Speaking of narratives, dr. Hill, im sorry, i have to say this. You said based on statements have you heard that some on this committee believe russia did not conduct a campaign against our country is false. Thats mr. Schiffs narrative. Thats where you have heard it. We did a whole report on it. And we agree that russia has done this since the soviet union. And they have actually gotten better at it. Thats a problem. But at the same time, certain ukrainians did work against Candidate Trump. Some with the dnc. And if thats debunked, why isnt mr. Schiff has denied dnc operative Alexandra Chalupa from testifying and coming forward and debunk it. I ask america was it good for the country for the dnc and the Clinton Campaign to pay Christopher Steele to
dig up fake dirt with other Foreign Service sources on their political rival . Was it good for america to claim having evidence of the president colluding with russians when he did not . Costing the Tax Payrolls Millions . And being debunked by special counsel. I would say the false narrative got caught. Was it good for the country for americans and foreigners alike to attempt to entrap members of the United States president ial campaign, specifically the Trump Campaign . Sadly, i have come to believe through all of this that some in power do think its good. They think its okay. And now were here in an impeachment proceeding, certainly a right that congress has and apparently even with very partisan rules. But im curious, this Impeachment Inquiry was announced by the speaker before the whistleblower complaint was even out. Im curious why the lawyer for the whistleblower announced that the coup to
impeach the president that he announced that right after trump won. Thats pretty damning. I know it hurts after losing an election, especially as americans. We usually get over it. And i imagine it would hurt even more if you were promised a position in the next administration and lost. And your hopes and your dreams are dashed. You know, i have seen hatred for political reasons, specifically on june 14th, 2017 at a ball field in virginia. And i have seen hatred and more. And i know that hatred blinds people. I have been in war and i have studied war. And coups create division. And its time for this phase of the publicly announced and proclaimed democrat coup to end. Thank you for your service. Thanks for being here. And i yield back. Could i actually Say Something because we have had three. Doctor, i was going to ask you if you would like to respond. I yielded back. The gentleman will suspend. Dr. Hill, you may respond. So i think that what dr. Wenstrup said was very powerful about the importance of overcoming hatred and certainly partisan division. And its unfortunate that Congressman Turner and ratcliffe have both left as well. Because i think all of us who came here under legal obligation also thought we had a moral obligation to do so. We came as fact witnesses. Whewhen i was referring to questions that i had heard it was in the context of the deposition that i gave on october 14th. Because i was very worried about the term in which some of the questions were taken. And i understand that the point is being raised about individuals as you just said
dr. Wenstrup and that these articles lay out taking different positions in our elections. I dont believe there should be any interference of any kind in our election. I think it was unfair for people to already call the election and to make attacks on Candidate Trump and on President Trump. And i know that this has put a huge cloud over this presidency and also over our whole democratic system. Thats actually why, as a nonpartisan person, and as an expert on russia, as an expert on Vladimir Putin and on the russian Security Services i wanted to come in to serve the country to try to see if i could help. I heard President Trump say that he wanted to improve the relations with russia. I believe we have to. We cant be in this unending confrontation with russia. We have to find a way to stabilize that relationship and to professionalize that relationship as well as to stop them from doing what they did in 2016, again in 2020. This is really the crux of
the issue. That i and others are trying to put across and i think that you have put across very eloquently. The other matter is related to this inquiry. We are here just to provide what we know and what we have heard. I understand that for many members this may be hearsay. I have talked about things i heard with my own ears. I understand that Ambassador Sondland has said a lot of things. I have told you what he told me and what others told me. A lot of other people have said things to me, again, as well and also to mr. Holmes. And we have relayed to you what we heard, what we saw, and what we did. And to be of some help to all of you in really making a very momentous decision here. We are not the people who make that decision. And i do, again, want to underscore what you said here, dr. Wenstrup, it was very eloquent and very moving about your service and trying to bring it all together again as americans we need to be together again in 2020 so the American People can make a choice
about the future and about making their vote in a president ial election without any fear that this is being interfered in by and from any quarter whatsoever. So i just want to thank you for making what i think was also a very elegant and eloquent and heartfelt defense. Thank you, dr. Hill. Ms. Sphere . Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Hill and dr. Holmes, thank you both for being fact witnesses. We are here as fact finders. And we appreciate i want to verify this story. I understand when you were 11 years old there was a school boy that set your big tails on fire. And you were taking a test. You turned around and with your hands snuffed out the fire and then proceeded to finish your test. Is that a true story . It is a true story. I was a bit surprised to see that pop up today. Its one of the stories i occasionally tell. Very unfortunate consequences afterwards. My mother gave me bowel hair cut. [laughter] i looked like richard the third. I think it underscores the fact that you speak truth. That you are steely, and i truly respect that let me move to your testimony in your deposition. You had indicated you were deeply troubled by ambassador yovanovitchs the attacks on her. And you underscored today that all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. And certainly in the case of ambassador yovanovitch, she could havhecould have just askeo come home that didnt happen. In fact, there was a systematic Character Assassination that went on. It went on from 2018, if im not mistaken. But you say and the most
obvious explanation at this point it has to be said, seemed to be Business Dealings of individuals who wanted to improve their investment positions inside of ukraine itself. You were then asked who do you understand was responsible for her removal . And you said i understand this to be the result of the campaign that mr. Giuliani had set in motion in conjunction with people who were Writing Articles and you know, publications that i was have expected better of. And also, you know, just the constant drum beat of these accusations that he was making on the television. So, Rudy Giuliani was playing Fast And Furious in ukraine, it would appear; is that correct . Thats correct. And he had no official tasking within the administration; is that correct . Not that i had been told of. That he frequently met with ukrainian officials to request they open an
investigation. So i was led to understand, yes. You testified that mr. Giulianis involvement was, quote a massive complication in terms of our engagement with ukraine. Thats correct. Would you like to explain that . Well, i think i already let that out in earlier part of response to some of the questions. We were actually conducting which, you know, a lot of the American People seem to be a rather boring, standard bilateral policy toward ukraine, pushing them on issues of Energy Sector and more boldly we were concerned obviously about corruption in ukraine. We were trialing t trial tryingp ukraine regain sovereignty after attacks by russia. How did mr. Giulianis involvement affect. We basically worked out over the course of two years in conjunction close conjunction with the embassy in kiev an agency agreed
action plan. These are things that in fact Colonel Vindman and others were working on. Moving forward on the various issues that were on the list of items. Clearly Rudy Giuliani and other people didnt care at all about this. Ambassador sondland wasnt particularly interested in it either. Its quite boring. It wouldnt make for good copy in the press. And its kind of thing that everybody in a routine moves forward on. Mr. Holmes, you talked about the extraordinary power that russia tries to assert against ukraine. So, since president zelensky never got his white house meeting, doesnt that make ukraine look weak and doesnt that benefit russia . Absolutely. All right. So promoting putins false claim of ukraine intervention into the u. S. Election also benefits russia, doesnt it. It does. So, when President Trump meets privately with
Vladimir Putin at the g20 summit, who does that benefit . It . Doesnt help ukraine. It doesnt help ukraine. And by President Trump calling ukraine corrupt, and not north korea, for instance, does that accrue to russians benefit . Again it doesnt help ukraine. All right. I thank you and, mr. Chairman, i will yield the rest of my time to you. You are yielding me three seconds. Not even i can make use of three seconds. Mr. Stuart . Thank you. Dr. Hill and mr. Holmes thank you for being here. I actually have no questions for you that havent already been asked or make any points that havent already been made. I guess i will just conclude by something i have said before this impeach a pa Lieimpalooza Doorfinally comes. These two and a half years of absurd accusations against the president of russian collusion. We have gone from quid pro quo to bribery to extortion
seven weeks of hearings, 16 secret closed door sessions. 12 public hearings now of which you are the last. Hundreds of hours of testimony. And i really think that for those who hate the president , they havent changed their minds. But there is a lot of americans who look at us and think is that it, really . You are going to impeach and remove a president for this . Now, like i said, if you dont like the president , you have already come to that conclusion. Many people wanted this three years ago. But for a lot of americans, they really look at that and they can see this. No evidence, zero evidence of any bribery. Zosh evidence of extortion. Zero evidence, firsthand of any quid pro quo. And, yet, impeachment is almost inevitable why . Because the leadership of this committee is incredible and di dishonest. I know we hear crocodile
tears heart broken because they finally have to impeach this president. We know thats absurd. They are not heart broken there is no prayerful tears over this. They are giddy over. This there is not a person in the country who doesnt know that everyone knows what they are going to do next. They are going to impeach the president and send it onto the senate. But that is the good news. Thats good news. You know, we have all been to a concert. You got the warmup band and then you have got the main act. What we have seen here is the warmup band. This is kind of like the sioux city crooners. A band no one has ever heard of. The warm up band is over and now we are going to go in The Main Event and thats in the u. S. Senate. In the u. S. Senate there wont be any secret testimony there going to be dishonest leadership for a chairman who refuses to let us ask appropriate questions or to deny a defense. Where in the world, where in the country do you have a trial where the prosecution presents their case and the defense isnt able to . So we will finally be able
to get to the truth. So im talking now to my colleagues in the senate. These are some of the witnesses that you need to call and these are some of the questions that you need to ask. First, you have to hear from the whistleblower. Now, they can choose to do that in closed session if they want. To say i leave that up to them. You cant initiate an impeachment of the president of the United States and not have to answer some questions. Who did he get his information from . Did he have the classification and clearances to get that information . Whats his relationship with Vice President biden . Who has he shared that information with, including some members of the committee here . I think our own chairman needs to be called. What interactions did he or his staff have with the whistleblower . Did they help to coordinate or in any way facilitate the complaint . Did they coordinate and facilitate counsel . What about hunter biden . How did he get his job . What did he do to earn his salary . Here is the key to this. Look, if he goes there and makes money, knock yourself out. I dont care. But i want to know did he have officials or conversations with Government Officials and was Government Policy changed at a particularly high level because of some of those . Devin archer, former board member from burisma, alexandria chalupa former dnc official who admitted she provided antitrump information to the dnc and Hillary Clinton. Nellie ohr from fusion gps who helped to create the Ridiculous Steele dossier. I would like to remind us what i said yesterday, the American People expect a lot in politics. They understand the tussle, the fight, the debate. But they also expect basic fairness. And these proceedings have been anything but fair. The senate has an opportunity to fix that. I am confident they will and i look forward to them completing the job that we could have done here. And with that i will yield back. Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you both for being here. Dr. Hill, when we last left july 10th, i believe ambassador bolton said to you, you go and Tell Eisenberg that i am not part of whatever drug Deal Sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this and you go tell him what you heard and what i have said. Is that correct, right . Thats correct, yes. John eisenberg is the chief lawyer for the National Security council, correct . He is, yes. You went to see him. I did go to see him. What did you say to him that day. I basically gave him the same summary that i have given to you on the 10th of july. Of what took place . Of what took place, correct. Including some of the details that i shared with you as well the sequencing and what transpired as i was walking in. Now, did you have one or two meetings with him about that . Did not have a great deal of time on the 10th. And i gave him the quick summary. And we agreed that we would
meet again on the 11th, on july 11th, the next day. And i also wanted to bring in with me my colleague wells griffith. Our Senior Director for energy who had been sitting with me on the sofa for the first portion of the meeting. And i also suggested that he speak to Colonel Vindman separately as well because Colonel Vindman was in the war room when i arrived and had been engaged in some discussion before i got there as i got into the room, they were clearly in the course sorry with the microphone, clearly in the course of conversation, and i thought it was important for John Eisenberg to hear from Colonel Vindman himself or his recollections of the meeting were. Did you raise the concerns that ambassador bolton had raised to you to mr. Eisenberg . I certainly did. The first thing i related to him was exactly and precisely what ambassador bolton had asked me to. In the course of those two meetings, what was mr. Eisenbergs response . Mr. Eisenberg took it all very seriously. He said, for example, that Colonel Vindman should feel free he said this to me free to go and bring any concerns to him about these meetings. Similarly myself and any others if there was any subsequent followup in terms of these issues being raised again with any of the parties in the future. He didnt say anything in response about how he took that meeting or how he would describe it or if he raise any concerns about what you told him that took place . No, he did not. He listened very carefully to all of the information that we imparted. Now, back to that july 10th meeting, the second meeting thats in the ward room, is that correct . Thats correct. Who is in that meeting besides yourself, the two ukrainians . Mr. Did you know lueck, mr. Yermak, mr. Yermaks aide, ambassador volker and Ambassador Sondland and a couple of people were from the state department. I wondered for a while if one of secretarys perrys
group had been there, too. I honestly cannot remember. Ambassador volker was there during that entire time. He was there he didnt actually speak very much during that meeting. And i heard his deposition and i read his deposition where he didnt really recall that encounter. Again, he didnt really speak. Ambassador sondland was doing most of the speaking. And i think you described it as you came in Ambassador Sondland was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief Of Staff mulvaney for a meeting with the ukrainians. If they were Going Forward with the investigations. While this was taking place and afterwards, how were the ukrainians reacting to what was being said . Well, at the time, mr. Yermak was quite impassive, he had an aide with him. His aide was sitting next to him in the original meeting with ambassador bolton and was from time to time actually on this Side Whispering to him. So i wasnt sure myself because i had not met mr. Yermak before about how
good his english was. I wasnt sure if perhaps mr. Holmes might be able to reflect on that as to whether he was, you know, having points of clarification from the aid. We understood what was happening. Yeah. So i wasnt entirely sure if he was following all of the back and forth. Mr. Did you know luecdanylyuk we alarm. He was more alarmed there was this back and forth between Ambassador Sondland and Colonel Vindman than with me about this meeting. Clearly wanted to have this meeting and here are officials arguing about the meetings in front of him that was obviously very uncomfortable for him. Did you have any followup to that, sir . Just add that danylyuk speaks perfect english yermak can get by in meetings but often does ask for clarifications. Given the time i would yield back. Miss stefanik . Before i turn to our witnesses, i just wanted to say to my democratic colleagues not a single republican member of this committee has said that russia did not meddle in the
2016 elections. As the Ranking Member stating, we published a report focused on russian active measures in 2016. With Policy Recommendations as to how we strengthen our Cyber Resiliency and Election Security to counter russia. I, myself, have worked with members of this very committee on this issue but also on the House Armed Services committee. So, to have our democratic colleague say these untruthful statements just wreaks of political desperation in their continued obsession to manipulate Mainstream Media coverage. But the good news is the American People understand that this has been a partisan process from the start. The democratic coordination with the whistleblower, the incessant and asounding leaks. The unprecedented closed door process, close to the majority of members closed to the press, closed to the people. Starting this inquiry without taking a vote, and then when finally forced to take a vote, the vote was with birp bypass bipartisan opp. Thank you both for your
service. Thank you, dr. Hill, for your comments on the personal attacks. I wanted to ask you each factbased questions. Dr. Hill, you testified that you handed over your duties on the nsc to Tim Morrison On July 15th and that you physically left the white house on july 19th, correct . That is correct, yes. So that means that by the time there was the July 25th Call with President Trump and president zelensky, you were no longer on the nsc . , correct . Actually, i was still technically on the payroll of the nsc until the end of august. August 30th of 2019. But i was not physically in the building and i have handed over my duties to mr. Morrison. And you were not on the call . Irs not on the call, that is absolutely correct. And its also correct that you did not participate in the preparation of Talking Points or the specific coordination of setting up the call . Not for that call, but let me just say for the record that there had been a long anticipated and eventually there would be a call. So there was a call package that was prepared in advance. I just cannot say how much
of that call package that had perhaps been prepared since, for example, the inauguration of president zelensky was then used as the basic material for that call. So i did take part in the preparation of that standard call package, but i did not take part in any preparation for the specific call on july 25th. And the first time you actually read the transcript of the call was when it was released to the public . Thats correct. Mr. Holmes, i wanted to turn to you. Good to see you again. Thank you for mentioning the bipartisan delegation that i led on behalf of the House Armed Services committee with my friend representative Anthony Brown from maryland. We did have an exceptionally informative visit where we highlighted the bipartisan congressional support for ukraine, in particular the importance of countering russian aggression. And we discussed in the briefings at the embassy the importance of defensive lethal aid in the form of joint Chief Of Staff lins which i think you both stated today is an important Strategic Deterrent to
russia. I just want to highlight on the record, i know this has been asked, the javelins were provided by the Trump Administration and not the obama administration. Correct . Thats correct. And i would just say i think we discussed the importance of all our Security Assistance to ukraine not just javelins. Absolutely all of our Security Assistance which i strongly support. Again, thank you for being a host on that. Dr. Hill, turning back to you. There has been discussion about the process of scheduling the meeting between president zelensky and President Trump. And you testified that there was hesitancy to schedule this meeting until after the ukrainian parliamentary elections; is that correct . That is correct, yes. Thats because there was speculation in all analytical circles both in ukraine and outside the ukraine that zelensky might not be able to get the majority that he needed to form a cabinet. Correct . That is correct. And you also testified that another aspect of the nscs hesitancy to schedule this meeting was based on broader concerns related to zelenskys ability to implement anticorruption reforms. And this was in specific
relation to Ukrainian Oligarchs who basically were the owner of the tv company that mr. Zelenskys program had been a part of; is that correct . That is correct. You know, just distilling this down to the key facts, i wanted to ask both of you three key questions. The fact of the matter is ukraine ultimately did receive the aid, correct, mr. Holmes . Ultimately. Yes. And dr. Hill . Correct, ultimately. And there was no investigation into the bidens, correct, mr. Holmes . They did not open a new investigation into the bidens. Correct. And dr. Hill . Correct. And there was, in fact, a meeting between President Trump and president zelensky ultimately at the u. N. ; is that correct . The president invited zelensky to the oval office at a date undetermined that has not yet happened. The meeting at the u. N. President trump and president zelensky met at the u. N. . They did but not in the oval office. But they did have a meeting at the u. N. They did, maam. And dr. Hill. They did. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Swalwell . Dr. Hill, yesterday, i think a lot of americans were scratching their heads as Ambassador Sondland testified that on september 9 he calls the president of the United States and just says broadly, what do you want from ukraine . And the president says theres no quid pro quo. Theres no quid pro quo. Like being pulled over for speeding and being asked do you know how fast you are going and saying i didnt rob the bank. I didnt rob the bank. But your testimony today is that on july 10 of this year, you told one of the president s lawyers that you had concerns that a white house meeting was linked to investigations; is that right . Thats correct. Based on what Ambassador Sondland said in the ward room. And so as early as july 10, the president s lawyers had knowledge that there was at least concern by a president ial employee about a linkage; is that
right . Thats correct. Dr. Hill, just like you, we are trying to account for all the president s men. You had that same concern when you saw mr. Sondlands emails and you saw people who were outside the channels that you had been working on. So i want to walk you through something you told us earlier. You said that you have evidence that as recently as this year President Trump believed someone named cash was the ukraine director; is that right . Its not really evidence. Look, i want to be very clear about this. I was asked a question about this in my deposition. Did i not raise it and to be honest i was surprised i was asked the question. But you heard that name cash; is that right . I did but, again, it was in passing and i explained the circumstances in which this came up. But i was asked a question in the course of my deposition about it. And the only person at the time who worked at the national cuter council was cash patel. Only person i could think of. Cash patel prior to
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.