What weve been discussing w today, which involved in a regular channel, was a request that went against u. S. Policy that have have undermined the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine, as in other countries in the postsoviet space. Those policies which were indeed championed by ambassador yovanovitch. You also testified on october 15th in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country. And you t cited the importance reforming certain institutions, notably was investigating President Trumps political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list of yours or indeed was it on any list . No, they werent. In fact, historically, is it not true that a major problem in the ukraine has been its misuse
of prosecutors, precisely to conduct investigation of political opponents. Thats a legacy i dare suggest from the soviet era when, as you stated in your testimony, prosecutors like the kgb were, and i quote you now, instruments of oppression. Is that correct, sir . I said that and i believe its true. So finally, mr. Kent, for as long as i can remember, u. S. Foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interest and democraticpr values. Notably, freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, free, fair, and open elections. And the rule of law. Mr. Kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesnt that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those Democratic Values . I believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. How is that, sir . Thos well, theres an issue o credibility. They hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u. S. Leaders saying something else. Ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir . I would. Sir, anything youd like to add about how it might make it more difficult forht you to do your job, sir . Re our credibility is based on a respectse for the United States and if we damage that respect, then itda hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. Anyone looking at the facts can see t what happened was an abuse of power. Anyone looking at the facts can see that what happened was unethical. Anyone looking at the facts can see, anyone looking at the facts
can see, that what went on was just plain wrong. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Ac jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 55 days. 55 days between july 18th and September 11th that there was a delay on sending hardearned tax dollars of the American People to ukraine. Not talking any country. Were talking ukraine. Ernst and young said one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. Our witness on friday, she testified in her deposition, corruption is not just prevalent in ukraine, its the system. So our president said, timeout. Timeout. Lets check out this new guy. Lets see if zelenskys The Real Deal. This Newre Guy Who got elected april, whose party took power in july, lets seewe if hes legitimate. Now, keep in mind, as has already been discussed, in 2018, President Trump had already done
more for ukraine than obama did. Thats right. President trump, who doesnt likees foreign aid, who wanted European Countries to do more, who knew how corrupt ukraine was, did more than obama because he gave em javelins. Tank busting javelins to fight the russians. Our witnesses have said this. Others have said this. Obama gave em blankets. Trump gave em missiles. But when it came time to check out this new guy, President Trump said lets just see if hes legit. So for 55 days, we checked him out. President ck zelensky had five interactions with senior u. S. Officials in that timeframe. One was of course the phone call. Ci the july 25th phone call between President Trump and president zelensky. And there were four other facetoface meetings with other senior u. S. Officials. And guess what . Not one of those interactions, notac one, were Security Assistanceri dollars linked to investigating burisma or biden. But guess what did happen in those 55 days . U. S. Senators, ambassador
bolton, Vice President pence all becamede convinced that zelensk was, in fact, worth the risk. He was, in fact, legit and The Real Deal and a real change. And guess what . They told the president hes a reformer. Release the money. Th and thats exactly what President Trump did. Over the next few weeks, were going to have more witnesses likeg weve had today that the Democrats Will Parade in here and theyre all going to say this. So ande so said such and such so and so and, therefore, we got to impeach the president. Actually, we can get more specific. We covered this a little bit ago. Theyll Say Something like, ambassador sondland said in his deposition where he said Ambassador Taylor recalls that mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that i told mr. Morrison that ito conveyed this message september 1st, 2019, in connection with Vice President pences visit to warsaw and a meeting with president zelensky. If you can follow that,re that the f Democrats Plan and why th
want to impeach the president. Thats what we are going to hear the next couple of weeks. But no matter what they do, no matter how many witnesses they bring in here, four facts will not change. Have notou changed. Will never change. Ha the callha shows no linkage between dollars and the investigation into burisma or the bidens. President trump and president zelensky have both said on the call there was no linkage. There was no pressure. There was no pushing. Ukrainians didnt even know the aidn was withheld at the time theth phone call and most importantly, as has been pointed out, ukrainians didnt take any specific action relative to investigations to get the money released. Now, there is one witness. One witness that they wont bring in front of us. They wont bring in front of the American People. And thats the guy who started it all. The whistleblower. Nope. 435 members of congress. Only one gets to know who that personto is. Congress has r of the staff thatof gets to talk t that person. The rest of us dont. Only chairman schiff knows who the whistleblower is. We dont. We will never getwh the chance seeth the whistleblower raise s right hand, swearai to tell the truth and nothing but well never get thatno chance. More importantly, the American People wont get that chance. This anonymous socalled whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who isno biased again the president who worked with joe biden who was the reason weren all sitting here today, well never get a chance to question that individual. Democrats are trying to impeach the president based on all that. All that . 11 1 2 months before an election. Will not get to check out his credibility, his motivations, his bias. I said this last week but this is this is a sad day. This is a sad day for this country. You think about what Thefo Democrats Have Putu our nation through for the last three years. Started july of 2016 when they spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign and all that unfolded with the Mueller Investigation after that. And when that didnt work, here we are. On based on this. Based on this. This is a the American People see through all this. They understand the facts support the president. Theyor understand this process unfair. And they see through the whole darn sham. With that, i yield back. Ou mr. Welch. Thank you. I say to my colleague, id be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President trump is welcome to take a seat right there. Tr [ laughter ] you know, the question here, its not a dispute about the enormous power that a president has. The question is whether, in this case, there was an abuse of that power. Es a president can fire an ambassador for any reason whatsoever. A president can change his policy, as he did when he opened the door for turkey to go in and
invade kurdistan despite opposition from many of his senior advisors. A president could change his position and our position on ukraine. But is there a limit . There is. Because our constitution says no one is above the law. And that limit is that one cannot, even as president , use the public trust of high office for personal gain. Th the law prohibits any one of us hereof from seeking foreign assistance in our campaigns. The question for us is whether the use of power by the president was for the benefit of advancing his political interest in thead 2020 campaign. And by the way, my colleagues, if the president wants to attack
joe biden and his son, hes free to do it. All fair and square in campaigns. Hes just not free to change our Foreign Policy unless he gets his way to a system in that campaign. Thats a line you cant cross. Now, you all have been very clear about what our continuous Foreign Policy was. And Ambassador Taylor, just very quickly, describe why us Withholding Aid interfered with achieving our National Security goals. Mr. Welch, one of our National Security goals is to resolve conflicts in europe. There is one major conflict in europe. Its afl fighting war. Our National Security goals in support ofec ukraine, in suppor of a broader strategic approach
to europe, is to facilitate that negotiation. Is to try to support ukraine when it negotiates with the russians. And i want to go back because in the historical context, mr. Kent, you and Ambassador Taylor provided, we had 70 years a piece after the war in which we lost over 400,000 american lives. And that took care and that was inoo jeopardy, as you described it,y, Ambassador Taylor. And that threatened each and every one of us up here and the constituents we represent. Is that a fair statement . Thats a fair statement. I want to do threeha dates, too. I only have ae little time but july 24, july 25, and july 26. July 24th, Director Mueller testified about his investigation and he he established beyond doubt that it was the russians who interfered
in our election. Is and he expressed a fear that that would be the new normal. On july 25th, according to the readout of the president she campaign, he asked the ukrainians to investigate ukrainian interference in our election that had been reputiated. And then in july 26th, as i understand it, this person who reported to you heard the president saying he wanted investigations again in ukraine. So this is the question. The new normal that Director Mueller feared. Is there a new normal that you fear that a president , any president , can use congressionallyapproved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that is in his interest but not the Public Interest . Ng that should not be the case, mr. Welch. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript from the July 25th Call between President Trump and president zelensky. You yourself, mr. Chairman, have mischaracterized the call. In theky first open hearing, yo had Ir Gentlewoman will suspend. By unanimous consent, be happy to enter the call record into the record. Thank you. Mr. Mueller, youre recognized for five mntds. Thank coyou, gentlemen. Thank you for being here today. Ambassador taylor, what year did you graduate from west point . 1969, sir. Height of the vietnam war, wasnt it, sir . The height was about that time. What wasat your class rank a west point . I was number five. How many people were in your class . In 800. 800 cadets, you were number five. Yes, sir. So when youre top 1 of your class at west1 point, you probably get your pick of
assignments. But you picked the infantry. I did, sir. Yes, sir. You were a Rifle Company commander. Sir. Whered you serve . In vietnam. Did you see combat in vietnam, sir . I did. Did you earn any accommodations for that service . I wasy awarded the combat infantrymans badge, which is my my highest im proudest of. There was a bronze star. There was an air medal. Thats for valor, isnt it, sir . Sn it is. Lets talk about july 26th. Lot of years later. You go to the front with ambassador volker i believe and youre on the bridge and youre looking over on the front line at the russian soldiers, is that what you recalled . Yes, sir. And you said the commander there, Theth Ukrainian Commande thanked you for the American Military assistance that you
knew was being withheld at that moment. Thats correct. Howd that make you feel, sir . Y badly. Why . Because it was clear that that commander counted on us. It was clear that that commander had confidence in us. It was clear that that commander had was appreciative of the capabilities that he was given by that assistance but also the reassurance that we were supporting him. You dont strike me asre a quitter, ambassador. But you threatened to resign or you mentioned it in your statement. Before i ask you about that, lets just talk about a couple days later on july excuse me, one monthex later on august 28th. You find yourself in ukraine with the National Security advisor mr. Atbolton, right . Yes, sir. And you convey to him your concerns. Youve testified to this previously about the withholding of militaryhe assistance. What does he say to you . He says that he shares my concern and he advises me to
express that in a very special way to the Secretary Of State. Now, heshe the National Security advisor, works directly with the president but he tells you that you should bring it up with theho Secretary Of State. Yes, sir. Have you ever sent a cable like that . How many times in your career of 4050 years have you sent a cable directly to the Secretary Of State . Once. Ye this time . Yes, sir. In 50 years . Rifle company dont send cables but yes, sir. So the National Security advisor who can tell it to the president himself and who shares your concern says you, the ambassador servingu, in ukraine should cable the Secretary Of State directly and you do so, dont you . Yes, sir. Whatd the cable say, sir . Its classified cable. Without going into classified information. Without going into classified, itut says Security Assistance. Its what weve been talking about today. Security assistance to ukraine at this particular time, as in previous times, is very important. Ukraine, i also make the point
that weve also talked about here today, ukraine is important for our National Security. And we should support it. Not notan not to provide that would be folly. Did you get an answer to your cable . Notyo directly. No, sir. Do you know what happened to it . Secretary kent. Secretary kent, do you know what happened to it . Tells me that i was on vacation when his cable came in but my understanding is it made it to its recipient, intended recipient pompeo. And we know pompeo was on the call on july 25th. Its not liken hes in the dar about any of this. Whatd he do with it . I honestly cant say for sure what happened with the cable once the message was brought in at the highest level. Pe one other question, gentlemen. On september 1st, you recall a meeting between theep Vice President and the president of ukraine, mr. Zelensky, in which right off the off the bat the president of ukraine raisesSecurity Assistance and the Vice President according to your telling says ill talk to the president about that tonight. Ill make a call. Do you know whether the Vice President made that call . I dont know, sir. Do you know what, if anything, the Vice President had to do with, any of this . What more can you tell us about the Vice President s role in this . Do you r know if he ever raised this issue with anyone in the administration . Whether he ever pushed for the release of that Security Assistance . I cant sir. I believe i to the best of my understanding, the Vice President was an advocate for the release of the assistance. Thankof you. Yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to commit for the record the politico article that will be a entered in th record. Thank you. Representative demings. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman, and thank you to both of you for being with us today. Mr. Kent, you said that a president has the right to remove an ambassador because the ambassador at the pleasure of the president , is that correct . That