Expired. Id like to have that unanimous consent mr. Quigley, youre recognized, mr. Quigley, youre recognized. Thank you. Madam ambassador, its like a hallmark movie. You ended up at georgetown, this is all okay. [ laughter ] it wasnt your preference seven, eight months ago, correct . No, it was not. It wasnt your preference to be the victim of a cemetery campaign, was it . No. It wasnt your preference to be defamed by the president of the United States including today, was it . No. It wasnt your preference to be ousted at seemingly the pinnacle of your career, was it . No. You wanted to finish your extended tour, correct . I did. What did you want to do after that . Did you know . I wasnt sure. Theres nothing wrong with georgetown. Its a fine place, right . Its a wonderful place. But its your own choice at the end of the distinguished career after all that. Its not the end of a hallmark movie. Its the end of a really bad Reality Tv Show brought to you by someone who knows a lot about that. Why did you you previously testified that you sought advice from ambassador sondland at this time about what to do. Is that correct . I did. And why did you reach out to the ambassador . Because this was clearly so political and was not going to be, you know the State Department was not in a position shall we say to manage the
issue. It didnt appear to me. And so i asked ambassador sondland who said that he, you know, he was a political appointee, he said he was close to the president. And so he had just been in ukraine for a ship visit with some of his eu colleagues from brussels. And so i reached out to him for advice. When this was no longer a ukraine kind of an interview with mr. Lutsenko, it became american politicians and pundits, et cetera, were repeating those allegations, i asked him for advice. It meant a lot to you. This is an extraordinary time. The advice meant a lot, and what was what was his advice . He suggested that i needed to go big or go home, and he said
that the best thing to do would be to, you know, send out a tweet, praise the president , that sort of thing. And what was your reaction to that advice . Well, my reaction was that im sure he meant well, but it was not advice that i could really follow. It felt partisan. It felt political. And i that was not something that i thought was in keeping with my role as ambassador and a Foreign Service officer. Did he give you any specific suggestions on what to say about the president of the United States or just Say Something nice about him . Yeah, just to praise him. Thank you. I yield the balance to the chairman. I want to follow up on mr. Quigleys line of questioning and harken back to something you were asked earlierment you were
asked do you think you could have done more to push back against this Smear Campaign . And im not suggesting this is what the counsel was getting at but sometimes victims are asked arent you responsible for your own victimization. What would you say to people who say isnt it kind of your fault, ambassador, that you didnt fight your own smear harder . Well, i think that you know, ive been a Foreign Service officer for a long time. Just like the military, we have our own culture, we have our own kind of Chain Of Command so to speak, and i did everything that i could to to address these issues and ask the State Department to do what i felt was the right thing which was
support me when it was important to do so because it was also about supporting the policy. I i think it was for others to stand up for me. I quite agree. Representative . Thank you. Since the chairman has gavelled out all of my colleagues with their unanimous consent, i am going to read for the record many of the chairmans comments in september of the importance of hearing from the whistleblower. Again, ambassador, thank you for your patience. Thank you for your service. But since we havent been able to conduct ourselves in normal procedures, im just going to use the five minutes for this. September 29th, in the Wall Street Journal, quote, the whistleblower at the center of the Impeachment Investigation of President Trump will testify in the house very soon. There is a quote by the chairman. Usa today, september 29th, talking with abc news this week, schiff, the democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said the whistleblower would testify very soon, and the only thing standing in the way was getting Security Clearances for the attorneys representing the
whistleblower so they could attend the testimony. From vax, september 29th, rep schiff said sunday the whistleblower at the center of a growing scandal surrounding President Donald Trump will testify before the House Intelligence Committee very soon. On cnn, september 29th, schiff said sunday on abc, as well as nbcs Meet The Press that he expects the whistleblower to testify very soon. The washington post, september 29th, in an appearance on abc news this week, schiff echoed pelosis message. He also said he expected the Intelligence Committee to hear from the whistleblower very soon, pending a Security Clearance from Acting Director of national intelligence, joseph mcgwire. In the huffington post, schiff told abcs this week that he expects the whistleblower to appear before this committee very soon. In the new york post, quote, we get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower. In the washington times, quote, that whistleblowerer will be allowed to come in. These are all quotes from chairman adam schiff. In talking points memo, the question was posed actually, this was by george
stephanopoulos, have you reached an agreement yet with the whistleblower and his or her attorneys about coming before the committee and providing the information firsthand . Quote, yes, we have, schiff responded. And as d i mcgwire promised during the hearing, that whistleblower will be allowed to come in and come in without a minder from the Justice Department or the white house to tell the whistleblower what they can and cannot say. Well get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower. In daily coast, were ready to hear from the whistleblower as soon as that is done. And well keep obviously Riding Shotgun to make sure that the Acting Director doesnt delay in that clearance process. In cbc, well get the unfiltered testimony of the whistleblower. In marketwatch, House Intelligence Committee chairman adam schiff said sunday that an agreement has been reached under which the whistleblower will testify before the committee very soon. I can keep going, but again, the chairman refused to allow us to put these into the record with unanimous consent. So ive read those out. As we know, it is important to protect whistleblowers from
retaliation and from firing. And we want to make sure whistleblowers are able to come forward. But in this case, the fact that we are getting criticized by chairman adam schiff for statements that he himself made early on in this process shows the duplicity and just the abuse of power that we are continuing to see. With a minute 54 seconds left, ill yield to mr. Jordan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I would add that the chairman has promised well get to see the transcripts. But theres still four people we dee posed that we havent had the transcripts released. Therefore, the testimony they provided are not used in the open hearings. If its an open hearing, off the testimony from the deposition taken by committee should be available to be discussed for the American People to see. No, no, no, mr. Morris and mr. Hale, two other miss williams, two others and another one have not yet been released. So i hope the chairman releases that. One other point i would make in the last minute of the time, the democrats asserted that this whole thing with ambassador yovanovitch was part of some sinister scheme by the white house to get mr. Zelensky to do an to do an investigation. If were calling ambassador yovanovitch was part of some scheme by trump and pompeo and giuliani to get president zelensky to do an investigation, why would they replace her with the democrats first witness . Their star witness, bill taylor. I mean, that if thats not the plan, not the best plan ive ever seen put together. Their star witness, their first witness, mr. Taylor, was here wednesday. Thats what they were up to . I think id just it demonstrates that is not what went on here. Mr. Zelensky never undertook any
investigations. The reason the aid was leased as we discuss released as we discussed was because Vice President mike pence, ambassador bolton, senators talked with president zelensky, and they were convinced he was the real deal as the ambassador alluded to in her testimony. Thats why the money was released. With that, i yield back. Mr. Swalwell . Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since the whistleblower came forward. Two things in particular first, most of what the whistleblower has alleged has been corroborated by the witnesses that we have heard from. Second, the president , who my colleagues so shamelessly continue to defend, continued to pressure, threaten, and intimidate the whistleblower. So id like unanimous consent to put into the record a september 26th, 2019, article from business insider. Trump suggested the whistleblower who file td a complaint against him is
publishable of trees afternoon. Vanity fair, trumpings is the sources like, quote, in the good old days. Without objection. Third, september 29th. Whistleblowers lawyer raises fear for client safety. Without objection from axios. Mr. Chairman, the whistleblower has an absolute right to anonymity. The whistleblowers lawyer has said that he fears for his personal safety and will only answer questions now in writing. I wish my colleagues would join me in protecting the whistleblowers right to anonymity. Here, ms. Yovanovitch, we are here to talk about you and what you witnessed. You saw a lot as it related to mr. Giuliani. I want to read a quote to you from mr. Giuliani. But first ask you when you were in ukraine, you understood that Rudolph Giuliani was Donald Trumps personal lawyer. Is that right . Yes, thats right. Are you familiar with Rudy Giulianis quote in the New York Times describing himself as the lawyer saying, quote, he basically knows what im doing
comma, sure, as his lawyer. Were you familiar with that quote . It sounds familiar. And you have a lawyer with you today, ms. Yovanovitch. And you understand that lawyers act on their clients behalf, is that right . Yes. That it would be improper for a lawyer to go outside any directive that a client gives s. That right . Thats my understanding. Are you familiar with a New York Times story on may 9, 2019, where Rudolph Giuliani says that he intends to visit ukraine and says, were not meddling in an election, were meddling in an investigation. Are you familiar with that quote . Yes. Thats 11 days before you were removed as ambassador, is that right . Yes. He is talking publicly about designs on coming to ukraine. But what i think is interesting is that mr. Giuliani says were, as in we are. He doesnt say i am not meddling in an election, he doesnt say i am not meddling in an investigation, he says we, hes speaking for himself and his client. And i want to talk about that quote were not meddling in an election, were meddling in an investigation. Is it proper for you or anyone who acts on behalf of the United States government to meddle in an investigation . No, i dont believe so. Why not . Well, there are Law Enforcement channels, and things need to be handled properly and without any kind of political bias. Now, this anticorruption crusader, President Trump, who my colleagues have touted out as having such a great interest in anticorruption, in both the calls that have been refersed today, the august 21 call and the july 25 call, isnt it true that President Trump never mentions the word corruption . Yes, thats true. And as far as the foreign aid that my colleagues keep saying, well, he cant be guilty, he didnt complete the cheat, the aid went to the ukrainians, isnt it true that the only reasoned aid or the only time the aid went to the ukrainians was after the whistleblower complaint became public . Yes, it was after the whistleblower complaint became public. So you dont really get points when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar and someone says, hey, hes got his hand in the cookie jar, and then you take your hand out. Which is essentially what my republican colleagues and the president are trying to take credit for. Finally, i want to put up the disgusting tweet from the president today where he attacks your character. But i think i know who you are, ambassador. I think the country knows who you are. He smeared you when you were in ukraine. He smeared you on that phone call with president zelensky on july 25. He is smearing you right now as you are testifying. Ambassador yovanovitch, are the president s smears going to stop you from Fighting Corruption . Well, i will continue with my work. If your country asks you again to fight corruption, will you still do that despite the smears . Yes. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Hurd . Your excellency, 33 years move over here. 33 years, six senior Foreign Service performance awards, five state Department Superior Honor awards, the president ial distinguished service award, and the secretarys diplomacy in human rights award. Youre tough as nails, and youre smart as hell. Youre a great example of what
our ambassadors should be like. Youre an honor to your family. You are an honor to the Foreign Service. Are you an honor to this country, and i thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country. Thank you. Im nervous about what im getting ready to do. I want to do a fiveyear history of ukraine in about 45 seconds. And now im not sure, but professor, you can grade my paper, okay. Valentines day, 2014, the ukrainian people get fed up with the ukrainian president. Basically overthrow him. He goes on the run. This was the revolution of dignity. Who was the acting president during that time when yanukovych went out . I think it was churchnov churchinov. Excellent. In march of 2014, that is when we saw Little Green Men coming
into ukraine and ultimately the russians invade the ukraine, and not only annex, try to annex crimea, but also try to they invade the entire country in the eastern dombas, as well. Yes. Then there was an election and the ukrainian president was poroshenko. That was in june of 2014. Then you came to post in 2016 of august, is that correct . Two years later. January, 2017, trump was elected. And in December Of 2017 is when the javelins were approved, right. And we saw those javelins delivered in April Of 2018 to be put to first use. Then we had zelensky elected in 2019, april, correct. Uhhuh. Now the zelensky defeated the previous president , poroshenko. Yes. Theres no love lost between those two dudes, is there . I dont think so. Okay. Then in may of 2019, zelensky is
sworn in. Yes. So my questions we talk a lot about Rudy Giuliani. Do we know what officials within the Zelensky Regime he actually met with . I know two a gentleman named yermak, one of zelenskys senior advisers. And then we also know of the former Attorney General that weve already established here was corrupt, luschenko. And he served under zelensky up until april excuse me, august, is that correct . Thats right. And their parliament basically voted him out. Is that correct . Yes, thats right. So if Rudy Giuliani is trying to influence the Zelensky Regime, would a guy that worked under the previous regime, under poroshenko, be the right guy to
do it . So are you saying mr. Lusclenko did he have credibility within the current regime . I dont think so. He didnt. Do you know of any other ukrainians that mr. Giuliani was meeting with that was part of the Zelensky Regime . Just to remind, i would have already have left ukraine by that point, no, im not aware even with the administration to come, right. Zelensky won the election, there was a twomonth period of preparing to be installed as president. Even during that time, were you aware of any contact so there is one of The Oligarchs as weve heard about, one of The Oligarchs is named mr. Komumsky who pet with mr. Fruman and parnas to get a meeting with mr. Giuliani. Those were not people actually in government or became in the Zelensky Regime, is that correct . No. Okay. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman, and thank you, ambassador, for your 33 years of service to our nation. A big question here today is why you were pushed aside as ambassador. For example, americans know that an employer has a right to fire an employee, but they shouldnt do it for certain reasons. You shouldnt be fired because youre disabled, because youre a woman, because youre black, and for other reasons. And i think most americans agree that a president Shouldnt Fire an ambassador or recall an ambassador because the ambassadors standing in his way of doing a corrupt act. So i want to ask you, did the president ever tell you why he was recalling you . No. Did anybody at the white house ever tell you why you were being recalled . No. Did the president ever consult you about who the good guys and the bad guys were in the ukraine . No. Did Secretary Pompeo ever tell you why you were being recalled . No. And it appears in the testimony that weve heard, the Intelligence Committee so far, that there were a group of the president s men, perhaps secretary perry, Rudy Giuliani, ambassador sondland, who were in on this scheme to help the president get the bidens and barisma investigated. And i want to put aside premium for just a second and ask you in all of your years of service, have you ever come across a president , been asked by a president or known colleagues asked by an american president to help that president get an american investigated overseas . Im not aware of that. And if a president asked you to investigate a former Vice President for this purpose, what would you have said . I mean with what i know today, i would have said no. And would you have considered an unlawful act . I dont know that its unlawful per se, but i think, again, that there are channels for conducting proper investigations, and that that would have been the best way to handle Something Like this. But certainly it would be its bizarre for a president to ask that some american be investigated by another government. Its very unusual. And also you mentioned that
there is corruption in ukraine. Ukraine isnt the only country that confronts corruption. If the people in power in a country where corruption is rampant are being asked by a foreign leader whos got a lot of leverage over them to conduct an investigation, could that be dangerous because they could trump up charges against someone if they wanted . They could. And i also want to ask you, i spoke to ambassador kent. He made a comment yesterday about selective prosecutions and what it means going forward. What kind of precedent it sets. And you spoke about a dangerous presence dent for the State Department and for precedent for the State Department and for diplomats. I want you to help us consider the precedent going forward, if theres no consequences for President Trump or really any president who does this, what is the consequences for this country and for any american,
not just a former Vice President or president ial candidate or even somebody in politics, but a person in business who does business in saudi arabia or some other country, if a president is going to speak to another Head Of State or some foreign official and try to get that person investigated, what does that mean for the future of the country and for americans . Well, i think that investigations, prosecutions, judicial decisions properly should remain with investigators, prosecutors, and the courts. And i think that as i said before, i think senator vandenberg when he said politics needs to stop at the waters edge, i think he was right in that. I yield back to the chairman. Mr. Ratliffe . I thank the chairman. Ambassador yovanovitch, id like to join all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in thanking you for your service. Id like to ask you about your earlier testimony about your Senate Confirmation and Congresswoman Stefanik had asked you how the obamabiden State Department had prepared you to answer questions about barisma and hunter biden specifically. You recall that . Yes. Yes. She mentioned that you had been askedor been prepared for asked or been prepared for a question about Hunter Bidens role on the board of barisma, but i dont think you gave us the answer or answers that the obamabiden State Department prepared you to give in response to that question. Do you remember what those answers were . Yeah. It was something along the lines of i would refer you to the Vice President s office on that. So did they in the course of
that brief you about the amount of money that hunter biden was being paid by barisma . No, this wasnt part of a briefing. I had sort of big, old books with questions that might come up. In preparation for your confirmation. And they thought that Hunter Bidens role at barisma might be significant enough that it would come up during your confirmation. Is that correct . Apparently so. I mean, there were hundreds of questions. Well, hundreds of questions, but were there hundreds of companies . How Many Companies other than b barisma did the obamabiden State Department prepare you to give answers for . If there were others, which ones . I just dont recall. You dont recall that there were any other companies, is that correct . Im quite sure there probably were some companies, but i i mean, you know, this is a while ago. I dont recall. But you specifically recall
barisma . Yes. All right. Out of thousands of companies in the ukraine, the only one that you recall the obamabiden State Department preparing you to answer questions about was the one where the Vice President s son was on the board. Is that fair . Yes. You understood from Deputy Assistant secretary george kents testimony as its been related to you that he testified a few days ago, do you understand that that arrangement, Hunter Bidens role on the barisma board, caused him enough concern that as he testified in his statement that in february of 2015, i raised my concern that Hunter Bidens status as a board member could create the the Vice President s responsibilities over the ukraine over ukrainian policy as one of those factors. Do you recall that . Yes. Did you ever do you agree with that . Yeah. That it was a legitimate concern to raise. I think that it could raise the appearance of a Conflict Of Interest. And did you discuss that ever with mr. Kent . I dont believe so. Shortly before your confirmation in August Of 2016, Prosecutor General Shoken was fired by president poroshenko, correct . Yes. Shoken was the one who had opened the investigation into barisma, correct . I i think thats right. But im not actually sure. He was in charge at least at that point in time as the Prosecutor General. Uhhuh. Are you aware of the very public statements by the Vice President that that firing of the Prosecutor General occurred in march of 2016, six hours
after the Vice President told president poroshenko that he needed to fire the Prosecutor General or that he wouldnt receive 1 billion from the United States . Do you recall that . Yes. All right. And do you think that that raises a potential concern or Conflict Of Interest that the Vice President of the United States was ordering the firing of the prosecutor in charge of a company that has been identified as one that is substantially corrupt . I actually dont. I dont think that the view that mr. Sh shoken was not a general Fighting Corruption. I dont think that had anything to do with the barisma case. But the legitimate concern about Hunter Bidens role was legitimate, correct . I think it creates a concern that there could be an appearance of based on your testimony, ambassador, id like to renew my request, mr. Chairman, that
t has been requested the time of the gentleman has expired requested by the republicans be considered the time has expired. As legitimate rather than as a sham as the the gentleman will suspend referred to by the chairman your time has expired. Mr. Heck, youre recognized youre not recognized. Mr. Heck, you are. Ambassador, id like to thank you very much. Add my voice of gratitude for your years of service. Frankly, youre the best of this nation, and i cannot think of anybody else i would rather have representing us in a foreign capital than you. Thank you. My colleagues have gone to a great deal of effort to better understand the facts surrounding your removal. I think the facts are pretty clear. There was a Smear Campaign, and it was orchestrated by a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor, the president s attorney, the president s son, and even some of the president s allies at his favorite tv station. That campaign led to your
removal despite 33 years of outstanding service, progressive responsibility, and awards. And so i kind of sit here with a mix of emotions. On the one hand, theres some pride and gratitude for all your outstanding service. And on the other hand, im angry. Like my friend from connecticut. In fact, im very angry about how it is the most powerful person on the face of the earth would remove you from office after your stellar service, and somehow feel compelled to characterize you as bad news. And then to ominously threaten that youre going to go through some things. So i am angry, but im not surprised. After all, as was suggested earlier, he said the whistleblower may have committed treason, a crime punishable by death. Even though the whistleblower strictly adhered to the letter of the law as independently
attested to by both the trumpappointed Inspector General and the acting d i. After all, he even demeaned the memory of Senator Mccain after he lied in his grave at the Naval Academy grounds, despite a lifetime of Public Service and serving six years as a prison of war in tiny cell in hanoi, being beaten and tortured every day. And after all, he belittled the goldstar khan family whose son, captain khan, gave his last full measure of devotion out of love for this country. Let me tell you, as somebody whose older brother never saw his 35th birthday because of service in the vietnam war, those words are deeply offensive. Words matter, and the words leveled against you constitute bullying of the worst order. Your good character, your outstanding reputation have been
besmirched in a way that is droid of Common Decenc devoid of Common Decency. Heres my message to you there is nothing, ambassador yovanovitch, nothing he can say or do, not a thing that will in any way diminish the nature and quality of the service you have rendered to our great nation. Not a thing, and theres not a thing he can say or do that will diminish our gratitude to you for that service. I thank you again for it. Thank you. Thank you. So as to the larger point, i would like you to answer what does this mean to ukraine when the United States actually engages in the kind of behavior that we are attempting to discourage them from engaging in, namely a politically motivated prosecution. What does that mean to them in
their struggling efforts to become a robust democracy . Whats the impact in ukraine for this behavior . Well, i think ukraine, like many countries, looks to us for the power of our example. And i think that when we engage in questionable activities, that raises a question. And it it emboldens those who are corrupt, who dont want to see ukraine become, you know, a democra democracy, freemarket economy, a part of europe but want ukraine to stay in under russias thrall, and thats not in our National Interests interests. Thank you, ambassador yovanovitch. Thank you so very much. Thank you. I yield the balance of my time to the chair. I thank the gentleman. I understand that either witness or counsel would like to take a short break. Lets take a fiveminute recess. If members of the audience could please remain in their seats to allow the witness and counsel to leave ahead of us, we will resume in a few minutes. We are in recess. Weve been watching the Member Questioning Phase of the second day of public testimony. Todays witness, career diplomat Marie Yovanovitch. Chris, what there was so much drama this morning as donald trump took to twitter to smear this woman whose closed door deposition, the transcript that was released and her Opening Statement centered around the Smear Campaign orchestrated against her by Donald Trumps personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Just a onetwo whopper of drama, of impact, and almost
underscoring for people who may not have been paying attention to every twist and turn of the ukraine scandal, exactly what kind of threat Marie Yovanovitch represented to donald trump. She was an anticorruption crusader in the words of congressman eric swalwell. I think we saw that in realtime today. And its very hard to imagine the afternoon an impeachable crime in the morning. Im dead serious. If the chairman is nothing else, he is a very serious, sober guy. When he brought up that charge right after the president had done that tweet, basically attacking her whole career as causing trouble around the world in a way to perhaps chill him chill her, rather, i think the interesting thing this afternoon is i really believe in sort of the weak link in the chain, the weak link in the chain theory. Never Say Something thats the weakest thing youre going to say all day because that will be used against you. Ive watched that very careful testimony by the former ambassador. When she was asked about the
possible appearance of a Conflict Of Interest and the former president of the United States having a son working at 50 k a month for someone whos under the observation of the Attorney General of ukraine, instead of defending that which would have made her look partisan and i think would have made her credible, she said, yes, so i think they were hoping they could catch her as a partisan or never trumper. And in the very moment when by the way, waiting for this all day, the hunter biden thing. Theyve been waiting for that one. Well get more of that. Theyve been waiting for that all day. She said, yeah, you got me. Its appearance of a conflict, and its serious who doesnt think it is . By the way, is there anyone who doesnt think its an appearance of a Conflict Of Interest on this planet . I thought she was sharp not to give them the weak link. Their problem, they have a president who continues to commit crimes today. And at least in the assessment of the chairman of this committee, which means hes going to act on this, its going to be the headline tomorrow morning in all the major papers, top of the fold, right hand, the
major storys going to be trump accused of Witness Tampering yesterday. So i know if our cameras can zoom in, but the front page of the Wall Street Journal which is of the three national newspapers, one that donald trump seems to like the most to the degree that real news gets in front of him at all, i think this is the real news he prefers. The three headlines today, federal prosecutors probe Rudy Giulianis links to Ukrainian Energy projects. Roger stone, Donald Trumps longest serving political counselor, found guilty of lying to congress and Witness Tampering. And in the righthand corner the story Chris Matthews Talking About, donald trump attacks exenvoy yovanovitch as she testifies in the impeachment probe. This is todays live home page of the Wall Street Journal. You almost need a law degree to read the news about donald trump. Yeah. Youre right. You know, lets talk about another Appearance Issue then, you know, chris, youre quite right. Heres another Appearance Issue. Rudy giuliani, who we now know
is the subject of a federal criminal investigation, also remains the president s personal lawyer. Thats also rather remarkable. I cant imagine mr. Bush or mr. Obama or any president , any sane president , keeping somebody on as his personal representative whos under federal criminal investigation. There are a host of issues that arose today. But those headlines are each worthy of an hour of your show. Were were going to use our hour to dig in to all three of them. Im not good at math, but i dont think we have an hour issue. Claire mccaskill, the emotion from this morning as opposed to sort of evaporating in any dry questioning, it seemed to amp up what we saw when the members took over the questioning. You have republicans acting like theyre at their partys summer convention. You have Elise Stefanik using the time she keeps getting from other members times to just lay
into adam schiff over and over again, to take on the whistleblower, take on other procedural things, it would appear that theres some rumor that theres a primetime slot open at fox. Yeah. Thats what it felt like. But it also felt like this witness did so well this morning, and then for the president to do what he did, that these members knew that there was a little cleanup on aisle five they needed to do. So you saw republicans spending five minutes just complimenting the witness. And then they pivoted to this bogus claim about how if we could only learn the identity of the whistleblower this all would go away. Well, you know, weve all given the analogy over and over again, all of us that have been prosecutors, when someone calls the tip line and tells you theres going to be an Armed Robbery down the road, the police go investigate the Armed Robbery. And even if the guy doesnt get away with the money, they continue to investigate it. And nobody is focused on the
tipster. This report by the whistleblower, you always talk about brick upon brick upon brick of corroboration. We have built a house of corroboration around this whistleblowers complaint. The fact that theyre trying to go back to this lame thing, oh, why arent we seeing the whistleblower, just shows you what a weak position theyre in. Thats what tells me more than anything else theyre having a very bad day. You know, i spent my a lot of my career in campaigns where if you didnt have the facts, you didnt have the poll numbers, you didnt have substance, you sort of faked it. They dont even fake it well. I mean, sort of their desperation is showing. Its you know, its bleeding out in everything that they try to land on this impeccable witness. This lifelong, really an american hero. As someone was tweeting that in f there isnt a book or movie about her yet there should be. She is clearly not a partisan. And she clearly takes issue with the fact as chris was saying that anything she says or does
could be exploited by either side. But similarly, she will not take any guff from republicans who say didnt the president have the right to fire her, she said, sure, but why did he have to smear me while he was at it . That was an important clapback moment i think. What she was doing was undermining the premise of the question which was Nothing Happened here, this was just a president exercising his prerogative. If it was a president exercising his prerogative, as she testified earlier in the day, then why was she being removed less than two months after being asked to extend her service for another year . What prompted it . No answer, and on the eve of the inauguration of the new president which was the most exciting time in the sense that a pro democracy anticorruption
was going to serve in ukraine. Whats stark about coming back to the whistleblower is the complaint about the whistleblower when the complaint was first publicized that was it was based on hearsay. Their complaint about witnesses that the democrats are calling is based on theyre only testifying to hearsay. Now theyre complaining that a whistleblower who will come forward who will only be able to testify to hearsay is not being allowed to come testify. So there you are. Were looking no the republicans contradicting and undermining their messages, imagine that. Ambassador mcfall is back. Help me through something. How are we once again covering a story about career Public Servants with no on, fiscal responsibility for republicans or democrats trying to stand between donald trump and his proputin conduct . Well, it is a theme, and it does link earlier years long of discussion most certainly lie undermining the relationship with ukraine, you strengthen putin. And that, you know, that is part of the story here. I want to emphasize one other thing, though. I think its getting a bit lost because it happens, you know, were here for hours and hours and hours. I want to go back to the very beginning. The very beginning argument that was laid out by Chairman Schiff and in the early stages of testimony was that theres a reason why ambassador yovanovitch was removed. Thats because she was getting in the way of the drug deal. And i dont like to call it an alternative foreign policy. I like drug deal. John bolton, it was a side deal to advance his electoral interests. They wanted to open an investigation of hunter biden. Thats why giuliani was meeting with lutschenko. Weve been here six or seven
hours, ive lost track. Not once has any republican questioner challenged that basic argument. You know, here at stanford, if you have an argument and you want to refute it, you have to bring some evidence. A counter argument. And not once have they said, well, maybe that wasnt the reason. And on the contrary, because you said they sometimes contradict themselves, im struck by the fact that now we have several republicans Talking About how incredible and awesome ambassador yovanovitch is. I completely agree. But that only further begs the case why then was she removed, especially on inauguration day, one of the most important events in the history of the ukraine. Shes flying home to d. C. That suggests there was another reason, and they have not once offered an alternative explanation for her removal. All right. Let me bring it back to i think youre getting it, the root causes of the campaign against her, of her removal. And suggesting i believe youre suggesting that the root causes arent being addressed in a televised hearing before congress. Let me read some of the root
causes in Marie Yovanovitchs testimony. This is from her statement this morning. She said this many hours ago, ive lost county, too. She said, individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated u. S. Policy against corruption, that is to do the mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels as various witnesses have recounted. They shared baseless allegations are the president and convinced him to remove his ambassador. Despite the fact that the State Department fully understood that the allegations were false and the sources highly suspect. Youre right, we do a disservice by honoring sort of this this diplomacy speak of irregular channels. This was a conspiracy theory. The New York Times has described aides as saying Donald Trumps mind had been poisoned, and he used his personal aide to remove her because she stood in the way of what . Just explain for our viewers what she was blocking. Mr. Giuliani was meeting with the Prosecutor General to get him to open an investigation of hunter biden. Why did he want to do that . Because Vice President biden at the time was the leading opponent of President Trump for next election. Whether he was or not in the future, back then he was. Thats why hes talking to lutschenko. Theres no other question. The notion that they were concerned with corruption, the corrupt companies and individuals in ukraine, why are they focused on one american they dont even talk about the company, by the way. One american who serves on the board of directors. Obviously its because hes the son of the Vice President and a future possible president ial candidate next year. Ambassador yovanovitch wanted nothing of this. She thought this was wrong. She took on Prosecutor General lutschenko for this and many other things. They went to the president and said weve got to get rid of
this ambassador. And remember, you know, donald trump doesnt President Trump doesnt seem to know many of his ambassadors. Weve just learn a few weeks ago he barely knows ambassador sondland. This notion that somehow her performance in ukraine was wrong and that he was going to get into the weeds of that to underscore, incredibly unprecedented for somebody to be removed in midterm in their career midterm in their assignment, i mean. You know, lets be clear, this was to do with the drug deal. And i think we need to keep getting back to that and not getting too distracted in the smearing was bad, but it was for a reason. We need to keep asking why was yovanovitch removed. Its because she was trying to block this Alternative Thing to help the president be reelected. A perfect summary. Ambassador yovanovitch is back. Lets listen in. Well return to order. Mr. Jordan, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to
our country. Ambassador, should ambassadors ever try to influence Host Country Elections . No. I think you said in your Opening Statement, partisanship of this type is not compatible with the role of a career Foreign Service officer s. That right . Yeah. But thats exactly what happened in 2016. In August Of 2016 the very month you went to ukraine as our ambassador, the Ukrainian Ambassador here in the United States, ambassador chaley, wrote an oped in hill the hill, said, trumps comment sends wrong message. The very month youre there as our ambassador to ukraine, the ambassador writes the oped. It wasnt just that attack, as mr. Caster got into earlier. It wasnt just that attack on the president. We had former ukraine Prime Minister who criticized mr. Trump. We had mr. Evokav, i believe earlier you said he was the
individual who first alerted you to the efforts of mr. Giuliani. Mr. Evokav back during the same time in the months prior to the 2016 election called excuse me, called thenCandidate Trump all kind of names, called him a terrorist. And of course, we have mr. Lutscchenko, Member Of Parliament, a source for fusion gps and now somewhat fame out dossier that flowed from fusions work, he said this in the financial times, again, in August Of 2016 when you first arrive in ukraine, he said this, the majority of ukrainians, the majority of ukrainian ukrainian politicians are on Hilary Clintons side. So you had several highranking officials in the government, in the Ukrainian Government and president of ukraine criticize President Trump, then Candidate Trump, all in the sate summer and fall of 2016. What i want to know, ambassador, when this was all happening, did
you go talk to anyone in the Ukrainian Government about this . Did you go say to some of these officials, hey, you guys, you guys need to knock this off. This this perception that we got, the majority of ukrainian politicians on Hilary Clintons side. Thats not good. Did you have that conversation . No. Didnt talk to anyone in the did you talk to the practic president . No. Didnt alert anyone in the government . No. Well, one of the things weve heard so much over the last six weeks in depositions and, frankly, in the hearing on wednesday is how important bipartisan support is for ukraine. Democrats and republicans agree we want to help ukraine. In fact, democrats first witness, their star witness on wednesday, mr. Taylor said ukraines most Strategic Asset is this bipartisan support. You agree with that . I do. I learned that the hold had
been lifted the next day. Ambassador taylor said i conveyed this news to president zelensky and i reminded mr. Yarmok of the high Strategic Value and not getting involved in other countrys elections. So what im wondering is this is the day after the aids been lifted. Ambassador taylor made this statement to the Ukrainian Government. And he makes this after theres nothing been done by ukraine to influence our election. Because president zelensky didnt announce he was doing an investigation and the aid was lifted. But he felt he needed to say that. But in 2016, when we know that the majority of ukrainian politicians want clinton to win because it was said by a Member Of Parliament when the ambassador to United States from ukraine writes an oped criticizing then Candidate Trump. When he calls Candidate Trump all kinds of names, nobody goes and talks to and tells him to
knock it off. Did you have any conversations, ambassador, with Victoria Newland . Or Secretary Of State perry about what was going on in 2016 and this majority of ukrainian politicians being for candidate clinton and not and opposed to President Trump . No, i did not. No one did anything. No one did anything. Do you see why maybe, maybe the president was a little concerned about what went on in ukraine. And you couple that with the Corruption Level that we know exist in ukraine. You you add to that this idea that hes not a big fan of foreign aid. Why he might be a little concerned about sending the hardearned tax dollars of the American People to the ukraine . Im sorry, is there a question there . There was. Okay. Could you could you repeat it, please . Im asking
time for the gentlemans expired but id like you to repeat the question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im asking maybe we can kind of see why the president was a little concerned when you have the highest ranking officials in the government, the ambassador criticizing him. Parliamentary member criticizing him. When you have the guy who first told you about giuliani criticizing. All this going on and when you couple that with the concerns he has about corruption, the concerns he has about europe not doing enough, the concerns he has about reluctance of sending the hardearned tax dollars mr. Jordan, i have indulged you with extra time. But indulgence is wearing out. There is a question, right . Our indulgence wore out with you a long time ago, mr. Chairman. I tell you that. Im about to gavel you down so if you have a question, i suggest you im asking her, do you think theres maybe a reason that this was that that President Trumps concern was justified . You know, i cant speak for the president on this. But what i would say is youve listed a number of actions. I think from my point of view, that doesnt that Doesnt Create A Ukrainian Government strategy to interfere in our elections. I didnt say that. Mr. Jordan, please allow the ambassador to answer the question. So i would just say that, you know, u. S. Politicians will often criticize policies of foreign foreign counterparts. Even perhaps during their elections. You know, this this happens in politics and i think that it it doesnt necessarily constitute interference. Would you ever write an oped jordan, your times expired. Jordan. Jordan, your time has expired. Mr. Welch, youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I h id like everybody here, im extraordinarily grateful to you
for your career of Public Service and i feel very badly about what youve had to endure. Like your colleagues, you dont complain. Youre doing your job. I feel badly about the insults, the tweet this morning, the fact that you were smeared, not fired. But the question is, you know, not how you were treated. The question is why the president did what he did and whether what he did was a breach of trust. The question really is about whether the president of the United States, any president , has the authority to withhold congressionallyapproved aid, to condition a white house meeting on extracting from a foreign leader a willingness to assist him in his political campaign. Thats the question. And that brings us to you as part of this story because the question is why were you fired . From that position. I want to read a portion of the president s Call On July 25th with president zelensky. And this is the painful part when you first heard about it. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news. And the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news. So i just want to let you know that. The other thing, he goes right into this, theres a lot of talk about bidens son that biden stopped the prosecution. And a lot of the people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. You indicated in response to my colleague mr. Castros question that if you were asked to approach a foreign leader and condition american support on their being involved in our campaign, you would refuse to do that . Yes. Yes. And are youre aware now but i dont know if you were then but that july 25th phone call occurred the day after Director Mueller reported that the interference in our 2016 campaign was not from ukraine. It was active, concerted, energetic and by the russians, correct . Yes. Now, as ambassador, you had no knowledge of whatever it is President Trump ultimately seems to have wanted to get for
cooperation in this investigation, isnt that thats correct . Yes. Right. Now, youve been asked about whether a president has authority to replace an ambassador and you have agreed that thats the president s prerogative. Yes, thats true. But that assumes that the reasons are not related to the personal, private, political interest of the president at the expense of our national security. Right . Yes. And youve been the target of insults from the president. You join some very distinguished company, by the way. Senator mccain. General kelly. A man i admire. I think all of us do. General mattis. Were not here to talk about that. Unless the reason you get
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.