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, t