The transcript had been out for two months. Maybe the ambassador thought there is nothing new here. But, shazam, last week you come forward with supposed this new information and nothing different in there than what we had on the transcript. Maybe thats the reason their star witness, first witness didnt bring it up. Youre their closing witness because you overheard the president overtalking to Ambassador Sondland. I see four seconds left on the clock. You may take as long as you need. Thank you, sir. I believe that Ambassador Taylor already knew when i briefed him when i returned from vacation on the 6th. It was not news for him that the president was pressing for a Biden Investigation. I asked why he didnt share with us. Please do not interrupt the witness any further. You may answer the question. Its exactly my point. I briefed the call and when we
come back and i referred to the call and everyone is nodding. Of course, thats whats going on. Of course the president is pressing for a Biden Investigation before hell do these things the ukrainians want. There is nodding agreement. 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. Ambassador taylor, as you just outlined please do not interrupt. But, sir, My Vivid Recollection of an event i was involved with was a Touchtone Experience that to me validated and mr. Jordan, please what we believed. Ambassador taylor was not in that call. All of a sudden last week. Mr. Jordan, allow the witness to answer the question. Ill finish with this. Thank you. He was involved in a number of other interactions as youve outlined that brought him to the same conclusion. It is quite possible that mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan, you may not like the witness answer there wasnt an answer. Mr. Jordan, we will hear the witness answer. Have you concluded mr. Holmes . I have. Dr. Hill, mr. Holmes, thank you for your testimony. Dr. Hill, you made a fairly dramatic comment in your Opening Statement to which the Ranking Member took some exception. Im more interested in the ukraine piece of this, but you said some of you on this committee believe that rusha and Security Services did not conduct and perhaps somehow for some reason ukraine did. Im interested in the ukraine piece of this. I do want 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 and lacking clearty a tt tt tty and around the attack 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 nunez 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 arer all a big dem hoax all caps. Why did the dnc refuse to turn over its server to the fbi . 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 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. Lets turn to ukraine. Dr. Hill, have you seen you characterize the idea that ukraine interfered in the election as a fictional narrative. Do you see that ukraine interfered with the 2016 election . I brought two exhibits by our colleagues during the deposition i gave on october 14th and im grateful they pointed me in this direction. I was presented 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. This is during the president ial campaign when President Trump was then the nominee for the Republican Party. And this is ambassador charlie who was then, you know, 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, crimia and russia. May i interrupt you there . Let me be very specific about wha what those comments were. The president when he was a candidate said the people from crimia would rather be with russia than where they were. Ambassador charlie is responding to that in that article, is that correct . That is correct. To be honest, the whole article is about ukraine and this is classic, for anyone that wants to write an oped you pick something that you or somebody else might have said and you proceed to say what you want to say. This is what ambassador charlie does. He talks about ukraines position. Let me just read. Its worth people hearing what this severe attack on candidate
trump who suggested that the crimeens would rather be with russia. Ambassador charlie writes, even if trumps comments are only speculative ask does not reflect a future foreign policy, they call for appeasement of an aggressive and support sovereign countrys territorial integrity and anothers breach of international law. Thats the attack on Candidate Trump. Does that sound like Election Interference to you . Well, i would say its probably not the most advisable thing to do for ambassador because you never know who is going to win and the second piece that and go back and read it, again. When you asked me the questions about it, i did remember the piece and very well known and as you pointed out, extremely good journalist. And i remembered reading this back in the day 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. Its important it gets to this issue here. Mr. Volker points out that the ukrainian government, again, they wouldnt have done very well picking up the issue i pointed out at the beginning of today. They had bet on the wrong horse. They had bet on Hillary Clinton winning the election. And, so, you know, they were trying with the clinton campaign, quite evident here. And he relates, you know, to some extent individuals and some ukrainian officials, like the Interior Minister and a number of other people he names here and named at various points and talked about how they were trying to collect information as Ranking Member nunez said on mr. Manafort and on other people, as well. I do want to point out the crux of the article here by mr. Volker is that there was little evidence of a top down effort by
ukraine. He makes a distinction between the russian effort that was personally 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 believe that secretary clinton, former senator clinton, former first lady clinton, was going to win. Many said some pretty disbarr when we were setting up visits. I have a portfolio of 50 plus countries plus 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 or
to be the nominee for the Republican Party or when he was the Candidate Running against Hillary Clinton. Perhaps i shouldnt name them here because it will have consequences. Senior officials including our ally government said some hurtful things about the president and i would also personally take offense at some of the things that were said if i was the president. Now, the difference here, however, is that hasnt had any major impact on his feelings towards those countries. And i heard the president say at least in public, so, im not revealing any Executive Privilege here that ukraine tried to take me down. I have seen some illadvised ukrainian officials and ambassador Charlie Being removed from ambassador from here and statements about opeds. I can name a whole list of
ambassadors from allied countries who tweeted out who had Public Comments about the president , as well. It did not affect Security Assistance having meetings with them. There would have been a lot of people he Wouldnt Have Met with. Thank you, dr. Hill. I seek unanimous consent to add to the record a political record entitled, it outlines russian senior officials making allegations that there was ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. That objection. Mr. Conway. Thank you. Thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to pick up where my colleague across the aisle, Congressman Hines left off earlier. Respectfully dr. Hill he was not defending you but defending himself and democrats. I want to make sure the record is very clear. Ranking member nunez was correct. He correctly noted in his opening that republicans, not
democrats on this committee, were the first ones, the first ones to raise the issue of russian interference in the 2016 election. 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, 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. Hell do anything you ask him to. Is that right . Yes, sir. What did President Trump say next . He said what . Im sorry. I need to look back where we are in the middle of the
conversation. Where are we in the testimony . What did President Trump say next . 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 in the conversation. But its the most important part of the conversation. Respectfully, mr. Holmes. This Impeachment Inquiry is based on the call the day before where President Trump as part of a Bribery Scheme, as part of an extortion scheme and 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, 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 . Clear recollection of this conversation. Sondland greeted the president. How . He said, hello, mr. President. Im in kiev and the president said, are you in ukraine . You think he said, are you in ukraine . What . He said ukraine. What did you hear President Trump say about. How did we go from the conversation was very loud and his voice was recognizable to, as you say here, when the conversation shifted, i could only hear Ambassador Sondlands side of the conversation. As i testify, Ambassador Sondland with the president came on the call he sort of winced 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. I dont know if he turned the volume down or if the president spoke quietly. I dont know if i got used to the volume. I dont know what changed. This is important. It was memorable. 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 side of the
conversation, sir. At the end of the conversation he said this, he was giving the president advice on how to deal with the rocky situation and they should have released him on your word. So, to be clear. When President Trump received word that president zelensky had agreed 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 investigations . Yeah. Youre asking in which meeting did he raise the investigations . Raised the day before on the call and the next day Gordon Sondland said who is going to do the investigation. When did he ask about the
investigation . Time of the gentleman is expired. I appreciate that. But yesterday Ambassador Sondland testified that the topic of conversations did not expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank both of our witnesses for being here today. Id like to turn our discussion to the campaign to remove Career Diplomat ambassador yuvanovitch and witnessed a Smear Campaign. I want to know your thoughts, dr. Hill. What was your view of ambassador yuvanovi i yuvanovitch work and do you consider it a Smear Campaign . The integrity and high standards of work she was carrying out in ukraine because of her whole campaign. I if there 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 that. I just did not see why it was necessary to Malign Yovanovitch to such an extent. Can you talk about the character, integrity and performance of ambassador yovanovitch in ukraine . Yes, maam. She was extremely professional, respected by ukrainians and also by visiting american senior officials including members of this committee and congress who came to visit. She is extremely dedicated, hard working. Did you see it as a Smear Campaign, as well . I did, yes. And what was the effect that it had on the morale of other professionals that you worked with in the ukraine . It was a very confusing time as i said before the president has the right to remove an ambassador and it was not clear why this was happening or why People Werent Standing up for her. I would like to turn dr. Hill to your boss. Your boss was ambassador bolton, right . Thats correct, yes. Did your boss, ambassador bolton tell you that giuliani was, quote, a hand grenade. 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 the statements that giuliani was making publicly about the investigation was that he was promoting the story line he was promoting and narrative. He was promoting was going to
back fire. I think it has backfired. Was that narrative also inclusive of falsehoods about ambassador yovanovitch. At that juncture, absolutely, that was in the context of my discussions of what was happening to ambassador yovanovitch. I was particularly struck by your testimony, dr. Hill, receiving hateful calls and being a source mole in the white house. Are you a never trumper or have you been true to your profession and remain nonpartisan . I honestly dont know what the definition of a never trumper is and many of my colleagues feeling the same way. A puzzling term not to be applied to career or nonparty officials and i chose to come into the administration. I could have easily said no when i was approached yes, but 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. Theyre continuing, honestly. Were having to block twitter posts of my name and address and on the internet weve been doing this over the last couple of days. And as i said in my deposition, this could happen to any single pe person in this room be it members of congress and the staff. We have to find ways of combatting this and this gets back sadly to things it could also exploit. I think you should agree with me, that this should not become the new normal. It should not. I also think this kind of behavior instead of keeping you down would make you undeterred. Are you more determined to continue to do your work and do it professionally . I am. And i think all my colleagues are, as well. I dont think anyone here wants to let this. I dont believe this is a partisan issue. I dont think anybody wants to come under personal attack. I, unfortunately, think this become a new norm and being led by the top of the food chain, which is our president , which is unfortunate. Im especially disheartened by his treatment of women and i think 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 that you supported him or not, that doing so is wrong. You can simply just remove someone. You dont have to smear them. Thank you. I yield back my time. Mr. Turner. I want to echo that sentiment and the attacks levied against our colleague 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
closing session of this. Basically break down as follows. We have Ambassador Taylor who spoke of hearsay. Hearsay of these matters that they said they had heard were all statements that they heard from others who have also testified in front of us. So, theres no one that is missing. No one out there. Kent and taylor basically said they heard it from morrison and sondland. Morrison indicated he heard it from sondland and sondland testified he heard it from no one on the planet. 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 contact with no one on the planet. Volker testified that he did have direct contact both with the ukrainians and the United States and indicated that the president of the United States did not condition either a phone call, a meeting or aid upon ukraine under 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 were all very much aware of which is that they did not undertake any investigations. We also have yovanovitch and dr. Hill. Yovanovitch left before the time period and we appreciate you being with us, dr. Hill and holmes. 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 what was held up. This was the 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 campaign aimed at the president ial u. S. Election. Every one of the little small effort on your part, dr. Hill. And you would have known that what you just said was not true. What you had heard. But you felt the need to put it in your eightpage statement before you went on to tell us a bunch of other things you heard about other people no matter how convinced you were also not necessarily true. One of which was that Ambassador Sondland met with giuliani. Ambassador sondland testified here that he not as ambassador met with giuliani. Briefly met him in his lifetime and giuliani said they had not met either. No matter how convinced we are, dr. Hill. No matter how much we believe what we heard is true, it is still just what we heard. So far in this hearing and this series of hearings, the only thing that we have is volker saying i spoke to the president
and i spoke to the ukrainians and neither of which believe that aid was conditioned. Neither of which believed that the president was requiring it. And Ambassador Sondland said no one on the planet told him that that was the case. That is the sole evidence. Now, i have to tell you, the one thing that is interesting is Ambassador Sondland did say it is his belief that a meeting with the president was conditioned upon the investigations. Ambassador volker, who 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 it is hearsay, you dont know that Supposedly Mulvaney told him that. He didnt testify to that. Lets say somebody beside 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 . Mr. Holmes, in your testimony you said that sondland said hole hell do anything you want. That information had nothing what to do with these hearings and it was anecdotal and extraneous and your interests are protecting ukraine are very dubious when you embarrass president zelensky by making those statements. Who cares that Ambassador Sondland said that. You didnt embarrass Ambassador Sondland you, embarrassed zelensky. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, both, for your service. Dr. Hill, i would like to talk a little bit more in depth about Chief Of Staff mick mulvaney
role under investigation. You testify that they were both involved with a letter President Trump sent to the ukrainian president On May 29th Congratulating him on the 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 in the washington, d. C. As soon as we can find a time, end quote. Was this congradlatory letter drafted through the procedures that they nsc sends letter . The fist part was except the last paragraph. You also testified that Ambassador Sondland 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 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 a meeting with mr. Zelensky for all the reasons we are trying to lay out today. You 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. Her removal was pretty despa despairaging. Can you explain this to us . As we all made clear ambassador yovanovitch a person of great integrity. One of our Career Foreign Service officers and with it
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 advisable, in fact, to emphasize to a country just exactly how close the relationship is likely to be to have an appointee who is close to the president if its an important relationship. All of the accusations that were being fired at ambassador Yovano Yovanovitch leading to her being tweeted 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 american gentleman had for some reason decided that ambassador yovanovitch was some kind of personal problem for them and then they decided to engage in just the kind of things that were discussing about and she was frankly an easy target as a woman. I think this just illustrates the point and the problem that were 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, mamerabout being accused as a mole in the white house. You testified about Death Threats at your home. That was in august 2017. Im sorry you had to go through all of this, maam. You are not easily deterred, are you, dr. Hill . I am not. Thank you, both, for your service. Thank the gentleman for yielding. 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 Statement. After the zelensky meeting with also met with zelenskys senior
aide. I dont remember the specifics of our conversation but the issue of investigations was probably a part of that agenda or meeting. Now recognize. Thank you, both, for being here. In 1998 i voluntarily joined the United States reserve because i saw our country under attack again and again. Bill clinton was the president. I didnt vote for bill clinton, but he was my commander in chief and it didnt matter that i didnt vote for him. Im grateful to live in a country that gets to legitimately elect our leaders. Ive been to places where people dont get to and its not pretty. I accept our systems and the results that are determined by the American People. I deployed to iraq 2005, 2006 as an army surgeon from many backgrounds. We were all americans. That was first and foremost. We treated our troops, we treated the enemy winning over the hearts and minds of people who never knew us because of our dictator, saddam hussein. Speaking of narratives. Dr. Hill, based on statements you heard that some in this committee believe that russia did not conduct a campaign against our country is false. Thats mr. Schiffs narrative. Thats where you heard it. We did a whole report on it. We agree that russia has done this since the soviet union and they have gotten better at it. Thats a problem. At the same time certain ukrainians did work against Candidate Trump. Some with the dnc. If that is debunked, i ask
america, was it good for the dnc and campaign to pay Cristful Steele to Dig Up Fake Dirt on their rival . Was it good for america to claim having evidence of the president colluding with russians when he did not costing the taxpayers millions and being debunked by special counsel. Id say the false narrative got caught. Was it good for the country, for americans and foreigners alike to attempt to entrap members and specifically the Trump Campaign . Sadly, ive come to believe through all this that some in power think it is good. They think its okay and now were here in impeachment procedures, and even with very partisan rules. But im curious. This Impeachment Inquiry was announced by the speaker before the Whistle Blower Complaint was even out. Im curious why the lawyer for
the whistleblower announced that the coup to impeach the president was, that he announced that right after trump won. Thats pretty damming. 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 the position in the next administration and lost. And your hopes and your dreams are dashed. You know, ive seen hatred for political reasons. Specifically on june 14th, 2017 at a ball field in virginia. And ive seen hatred in war. And i know that hatred blinds people. Ive been in war. And ive studied war. And coups create division. 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 had three i was going to ask you if youd like to respond there. Let me ask a question. Dr. Hill, you may respond. No, i think that what dr. Wenstrup said was very powerful about the power of overcoming hatred and partisan division. Turner and ratcliffe have both left, as well. Because all of us who came here under legal obligation also felt we had a moral obligation to do so. We came as fact witnesses. When 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 turn in which some of the questions were taking. I understand that the point is being raised about individuals,
as you have just said, dr. Wenstrup taking definite positions in our elections. I dont believe that it 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 a tax or so 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 and an expert on Vladimir Putin and on the russian Security Services, i wanted to come in to serve the country 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 our relationship and to professionalize our relationship. As well as 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 and i think you have put across very elegantly. Related to this inquiry, were here just to provide what we know and what weve heard. I understand that for many members, this may be hearsay. I talked about things i heard with my own ears. I understand that Ambassador Sondland has said a lot of things. I told you what he told me and what others told me. A lot of other people said things to me, as well, and also to mr. Holmes. Were here to relate 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. Winstrup. Very eloquent and very moving about your service and try to
bring us altogether again as americans and we need to be together in 2020 so the American People can make a choice about the future and about make their vote in a president ial election without any fear that this is being interfered. So, i just want to thank you for making what i think was also a very eloquent and heartfelt defense. Thank you, dr. Hill. Mrs. Speier. Thank you, both, for being fact witnesses. We are here as fact finders and we appreciate very much your presentations. Dr. Hill, i want to verify this story. I understand that when you were 11 years old, there was a school boy who set your pigtails on fire and you were taking a test. Y and 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. One of the stories i occasionally tell because some unfortunate consequences afterwards. My mother gave me a bowl hair cut. So, for the School Photograph later that week i look like richard iii. I think it underscores the fact that you speak truth. That you are steely. And that i truly respect that. Let me move to your testimony and your deposition. You had indicated you were deeply troubled by ambassador yovanovitchs attacks on her and you underscored that all ambassadors serve and certainly in the case of ambassador yovanovitch could have asked her to 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, seem to be Business Dealings of Business Dealings who wanted to improve their investment positions inside of ukraine itself. You were then asked, who do you understand was responsible for her removal . I thunderstand this to be the response of the campaign that giuliani set in motion in conjunction with people writing articles and publications that i expected better of. 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. But he frequently met with ukrainian officials to request that they open an investigation . As i 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 laid that out in the earlier part of response to some of the questions. We were actually conducting which, you know, for a lot of the American People might seem rather boring, bilateral policy towards ukraine pushing them on issues on the Energy Sector and more broadly we were concerned about corruption in ukraine. We were trying to help ukraine regain sovereignty after the attacks by russia. How did mr. Giulianis involvement affecti you . We basically worked over the course of two years in
conjunction with the embassy in kiev and an action plan. This are things that they were basically moving forward on the various issues that were on the list of items. Rudy giuliani and other people didnt care at all about this. Ambassador sondland wasnt particularly interested in it either. It is quite boring. Wouldnt make for good copy in the press and the kind of thing that everybody in the routine would move forward on. Mr. Holmes, you talked about the extraordinary power that russia tries to assert against ukraine. 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 that g20 summit, who does that benefit . Well, it doesnt help ukraine. It doesnt help ukraine. By President Trump calling Ukraine Corrupt and not north korea, for instance, does that for russias benefit. It doesnt help ukraine. Mr. Chairman, ill yield the rest of my time to you. Youre yielding me three seconds. I can make use of three seconds. Mr. Stewart. Thank you. Dr. Hill, mr. Holmes, thank you for being here. I actually have no questions for you that havent already been asked or made any points that havent already been made. And i guess ill just conclude by something ive said before. This impeach palooza finally comes to an end. A year of resistance of absurd,
and weve 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 a lot of americans who look at this and think, is that it, really . Youre going to impeach and remove a president for this . Now, like i said, if you dont like the president , youve 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. Zero evidence of extortion. Zero evidence firsthand of any quid pro quo. And, yet, impeachment is almost inevitable. And why . Because the leadership of this committee has been unfair and dishonest. And i know we hear these Crocodile Tears from some of the
colleagues who are heart broken because they have to finally impeach this president and we know that is absurd. There is no heart broken and there is no prayerful tears over this. Theyre giddy over this. Not a person in the country who doesnt know that. Everyone knows what theyre going to do next. Theyre going to impeach the president and send it on to the senate. But that is the good news. Thats good news. You know, weve all been to a concert. Youve got the warmup band and then the main act. What weve seen here is the warmup band. This is a band that no one has ever heard of. But the warmup band is over and now well go on to the main event and thats in the u. S. Senate. And in the u. S. Senate, there wont be any secret testimony. There wont be dishonest leadership for a chairman to refuse to let us ask appropriate questions. Or deny a defense or where in the world or where do you have a
prosecution that presents their case and the defense isnt able to . So, well 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 you need to ask. First, you have to hear from the whistleblower. Now, they can choose to do that in close session, if they want to. 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 the clearances to get that information . What is 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 the council . What about hunter biden . How did he get his job . What did he do to earn his salary . Heres the key to this. 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. Former board member and alexandria former dnc official who admitted she provided informati information who helped to create the Ridiculous Steele dossier. Id 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 kfconfident they will pep d
i look forward to them completing the job that we could have done here. With that, i will yield back. Mr. Quigley. Thank you for being here. Dr. Hill when we last left july 10th, i believe ambassador bolton said to you, you go and Tell Eisenberg that im not part of whatever drug deal theyre cooking up and you tell them what i heard and what i said. Thats correct, is that right . Thats correct, sir. Yes. The chief lawyer for the National Security counsel, correct . Correct. You did go to see him . I did go to see him. What did you say to him that day . I have given to him the same summary i have given to you on the 10th of july. Of what took place. Including some of the details i share would you and the sequencing and what transpired as i was walking in. Did you have one or two meetings with him about that . He 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. I wanted to bring with me our Senior Director for energy who was sitting with me on the sofa or for the first portion of the meeting and i also suggested that he speak to Colonel Vindman separately, as well, because he was in the room when i arrived and had been engaged in some discussion before i got there because as i got in the room they were clearly in the course of conversation. And i thought it was important for John Eisenberg to hear from Colonel Vindman what his recollections of the meeting were. Did you raise the concern that ambassador bolton raised to you to mr. Eisenberg . The first thing i related was what ambassador bolton asked me to. In the course of those two
meetings, what was mr. Eisenbergs response. He took it very serious. He said Colonel Vindman, he said this to me, bring any concerns to him about these meetings. Similarly, myself and others if there is any follow up to these issues being raised with any of the parties in the future. He didnt say anything in response to how he took that meeting or how he would describe it or did he raise any concerns about what you told him that took place . No, he did not. He listened very carefully to all the information that we imparted. Now, back to that july 10th meeting, the back to the july 1 second meeting in the war room. Is that correct . Correct. Who is there besides yourself, two ukranians . Mr. Yermak, mr. Yermaks aid,
ambassador volker and ambassador sundays. I wonder if someone from secretary perrys group had been there too but i honestly cant remember. Ambassador volker was there . He was there but didnt speak very much during that meeting, and i heard his deposition, read his deposition where he didnt really recall that encounter. Again, he didnt really speak, Ambassador Sondland was doing most of the speaking. 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 ukranians if they were Going Forward with the investigations. While this was taking place and afterwards, how were the ukranians reacting to what was being said . Well, at the time mr. Yermak was quite impasse i have. He had an aid with him, his aid was next to him in the original meeting of ambassador bolton, was from time to time actually on this Side Whispering to him. I wasnt sure myself. I had not met mr. Yarmuth before, what his english was. I thought mr. Holmes he understood what was happening . Yes. I wasnt entirely sure he was following the back and forth. He looked alarmed. He was more alarmed the fact there was back and forth between Ambassador Sondland and he wanted to have this meeting, here are u. S. Officials arguing about the meeting in front of him. That was obviously very uncomfortable for him. Did you have any followup to that, sir . I just had he speaks perfect english, yermak often can get by in meeting but will ask for clarification. Given time, i will yield back. Before i turn to witnesses, i want to say to my democratic
colleagues not a single republican member of this committee has said russia didnt meddle in the 2016 election. We published a report focused on russian active measures in 2016. We have Policy Recommendations how we strengthen cyber resiliency, 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 colleagues say untruthful statements just reeks of political desperation in their continued obsession to manipulate Mainstream Media coverage. Good news is the American People understand this has been a partisan process from the start. The democratic coordination with the whistleblower, the incessant leaks, unprecedented closed door process, closed to majority of members, closed to the press, closed to the people. Starting this inquiry without taking a vote. And when finally forced to take a vote, the vote was with bipartisan opposition. With four minutes left, i am turning to the two witnesses. Thank you both for yourselves. Thank you, dr. Hill, for comments on the personal attacks. I wanted to ask you each fact based questions. Dr. Hill, you testified that you handed over your duties on the nsc to tim morrison july 15th, physically left the white house on july 19th, correct . That is correct, yes. That means 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 nsc until end of august, august 30th of 2019, but i was not physically in the building and i handed over my duties to mr. Morrison. And you were not on the call. I was not on the call, that is absolutely correct. And it is correct you did not participate in preparation of Talking Points or 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 eventually
there would be a call, there was a call package prepared in advance. I just cannot say how much of that call package had perhaps been prepared since, for example, the inauguration of president zelensky was then used as basic material for the 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 is 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 i led with my friend, representative Anthony Brown from maryland. We do have an exceptionally informative visit where we highlighted the bipartisan congressional support for ukraine, in particular, importance of countering russian aggression. And we discussed in the briefings at the embassy the importance of defensive lethal aid in the form of javelins
which as you stated today is an important Strategic Deterrent to russia. I want to highlight on the record, this has been asked, javelins were provided by the Trump Administration and not the obama administration. Correct . Thats correct. I would just say we discussed importance of all Security Assistance to ukraine. Thats right. Thank you for being the host on that. Dr. Hill, back to you, theres discussion about process of scheduling the meeting between president zelensky and President Trump. And you testified that there was hesitancy to schedule the meeting until after the Ukranian Parliament elections, is that correct . Thats correct. Thats because there was speculation in all analytical circles in ukraine and outside the ukraine that zelensky might not be able to get the majority he needed to form a cabinet, correct . That is correct. And you also testified another aspect of the nsc hesitancy to schedule the meeting was based on broader
concerns related to zelenskys ability to have anticorruption reforms, in relation to Ukranian Oligarchs that basically were owner of the tv company mr. Zelenskys program had been part of, is that correct . That is correct. Just distilling it 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 . Yes, ultimately. There was no investigation into the bidens, correct, mr. Holmes . We did not open a new investigation on the bidens. Correct. Dr. Hill . Correct. 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, not at the oval office. They did have a meeting at the u. N. Yes. 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, being asked do you know how fast youre going and saying i didnt rob the bank. I didnt rob the bank. Your testimony today on july 10 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. As early as july 10th, the
president s lawyers had knowledge there was 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 of the president s men. You had that same concern when you saw mr. Sondlands emails and saw people outside the channels that you had been working on. 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 believes someone named cash was the ukraine director, is that right . It is not really evidence. Look, i want to be very clear about this. I was asked a question about this in my deposition. I did not raise it. And to be honest, i was surprised i was asked the question. 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. The only person that worked at the time was cash patel
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.