Hes one of the more influential officials in the ukraine, correct . Yes. I believe hes one of the few that stands with lutsenko and the zelensky administration. Yes, thats correct. Look k back at hing back a , hindsight, who was doing what . He was out to get him. He said some nasty things. Sometimes that happens on social media. And are you asking me whether it is appropriate, probably not. But i would say that minister ivankoff has been as well as others both in lutsenko and
zelensky administration have been a good partner to the United States as i think i told you before. Hes a practical man and looking for partners and getting the job done. I am shocked that social media would be the sight of negative comments. You certainly can understand that the president aware of the ministers statement and aware of what mr. Lutsenko was up to and these other elements that we have discussed, there are forms of reasonable bases to wonder why there are influential elements to the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. Again, i cant speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would say that those elements
that you recited dont seem to be the ukrainian kind of planned or plot of the Ukrainian Government to work against President Trump or anyone else. I mean they are isolated incidents and we all know, public life can be people are critical and that does not mean that some one is or a government is undermining either a campaign or interfering an election and i would remind again that our own u. S. Intelligence community has conclusively determined that those interfered in the election were in russia. You turn our attention to ambassador volker, hes been a friend and colleague of yours
for many year, is that correct . Yes, thats true. You testified hes a man of honor . I believe that to be true and a brilliant diplomat . Yes. You have no reason to think he would be under taking any initiative that was countered u. S. Interests . I think that he tried to do what he thought was right. Turning our attention to the Trump Administration policy of aid package to ukraine, you testified that during your tenyear ambassador, american policies got stronger for ukraine, is that accurate . With the provision of javelins to the ukrainian millty
t military. That was positive. Why was that important . Obviously there were tank busters and if the war of russia accelerated in some way and tanks coming over the horizon, javelins are a serious weapon to deal with it. The important issue is the symbolism of it that the United States is providing javelins to ukraine. That makes ukraines adversaries think twice. Javelins to ukraine was blocked during the previous administration. Is that correct . They made a determination. I was not apart of those discussions. Obviously they have not yet made a determination whether to produce javelins. Did you understand i think that most agencies
wanted to provide javelins to ukraine. In the new administration under President Trump, the ability for ukraine weapon raised significant advantage or significant step forward . We thought it was important. Has it played out that way . Well, it has. It is a symbol of our strong support for ukraine. This year there were questions as to whether or not our Security System is going to go through that kind of undermines that strong message of support. Ukraine has the ability to acquire javelins, correct . Are you talking about Purchasing Javelins . Yes, we do. It was paused for 55 days but
it ultimately went through, correct . As my understanding. Okay. You testified that you were proud of the efforts that the United States during your tenure to supply this type of aid to ukraine. Are you still happy with the decisions . Are you talking about the javelins . And just the whole package. Yes. Do you think it is efficient and we are giving ukraine enough money . Thats a hard question because one can always use additional funding. With that said, i think that the
congress has been generous in voting for Security Systems and other form of systems to ukraine. Is my time coming to an end . Thank you, i recognize myself to for five minutes. Ambassador yovanovitch, i want to follow up some of the questions from my colleagues. Some of the earlier questions seemed to suggest that your testimony here is irrelevant to the issue at hands, why are you here . Is this some small matter that should have been referred to h. R. . I want to bring our attention to someone who thought you were very important to this whole plot scheme. Thats the president of the United States. There was only one ambassador who was discussed in the July 25th Call and that was you, ambassador yovanovitch. I want to refer back to how you were brought up in that
conversation. At one point during the conversation, the president brings up this prosecutor who was very good and it was shut down and it was really unfair and you indicated earlier that it was reckons to mr. Lutsenko, the prosecutor, is that right . I believe thats the case but i dont know. So immediately after the president brings up this corrupt for foreign prosecutor, sorry, brought up only one ambassador in the call. He brought up this ambassador and praises and he treated unfairly, he encourages Rudy Giuliani to speak with him, the guy that was unfair with you, correct . Yes. He didnt bring you up. He says i want you to talk to Rudy Giuliani, the guy who smeared you and he brings you up. He thought you were relevant to this. Whats more telling immediately after he brings you up and says that you, the woman was bad news. He says there is a lot to talk ability bidens son. Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General was great. After praising this prosecutor, he attacks you and then he goes right to biden. That would indicate to you, would it ambassador that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at odds with and is desire to see this investigation of biden going forward, did it not . Again, you are absolutely
right that is the thought progression. My colleagues also asked in pushing you out of the way, ultimately Ambassador Taylor got a point. Is he the kind of person that would further Rudy Giulianis aims. I think we can agree that Ambassador Taylor is a remarkable public servant. Absolutely. What if the president can put someone else in place that was not a Career Diplomat . What if he can put in place say a substantial donor to his inaugural. What if he could put in place with someone with no diplomatic experience at all or a portfolio that does not include ukraine, may that person be willing to work with Rudy Giuliani and pursue an investigation . Yeah, maybe. Thats exactly what happened, did it . Yes. My colleagues also say well, the Security System went through ultimately so if they sought to condition or bribe ukraine to do these investigations with all the systems, they ultimately paid the money. Are you aware that the Security System was not released until after a whistleblowers complaint made its way to the white house . Yes, i am aware of that. Are you aware it was not released until congress announced of doing the investigation . Yes, i am aware of that. And finally i want to ask you of the call record that my colleagues read, curious about this. Just for people watching at home so theyre not confused, there are two calls here. There is the congrats call and the problematic call in july. One of the reasons we are here is what happened between april and july. But, there was a readout put out by the white house at the time the april Congratutory Call was made. Now that in fact does not appear anywhere in that call. I want to ask you ambassador, why would the white house put out an inaccurate reading . Why would the white house represent that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about corruption in that call or the one in july . I cant answer that question and i dont have the visibility
into that. I thank you. I yield out for five minutes to rec niesz t recognize the ranking member. I just remind the gentlemen there were three calls. There were three calls to President Trump and the one you reit rated r reiterated a couple weeks ago. First of all, i am not against political ambassador. I want to clear that up. Now can i yield to mr. Stefanik . I need your permission. Thank you, before i was interrupted, i want to thank you for your 30 years of service to moscow to london and to kiev, i want to thank you for hosting the numerous delegations, i lead one of those in ukraine. The mifirst is the role of the president when it comes to appointing our ambassadors and long standing corruption in ukraine and the third is aid to ukraine. Earlier this week as you know we heard from george kent and i know mr. Kent is a colleague and friend who you deeply respect, in his testimony, he stated all ambassadors serve the pleasure of the president. You would agree with that statement, kr econnecorrect . Yes. He elaborated and went onto emphasize, this is not a question, everybody understands that. You agree with that . Yes. Although i understand, everyone understands that i serve at the pleasure of the president , is that correct . Yes. Just so there is no public confusion, you are still an employee of the State Department, correct . Yes. You said you personally asked whether it would be possible to be a fellow at Georgetown University and that was arranged for me and i am grateful. Thats where you are posted today. Georgetown students are lucky to have you and lucky to have you. I want to thank you for your tremendous service. Shifting gears into corruption in ukraine, you described quote, we have long understood the long effort must form an essential part of our policies in ukraine, why is this important to us is that still your testimony . Yes. At a critical time in 2014 after the elections, you testified that the ukrainian people had made clear in that election that they were done with corruption. Correct . Yes. And you also testified that the ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up architecture of a special Investigative Office that would be about all the crimes of
corruption, correct . Yes. You are aware that the first case that the u. S. u. K. And ukrainian investigators worked on was not against the owner of burisma. Yes. That was during tr Obama Administration. Yes. And your testimony, you said today that the investigation was never formally closed because it is frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook, right . Yes. The ukrainian investigation. Yes, although because we did not see the ukrainians moving forward, we no longer partner with them on that case or in that way. Lets take a first step. A step back, the first time you personally became aware of burisma, was that actually when you are being prepared by the Obama State Department for your senate hearings. This is in a form of practice, question as and answers. You testified with the Obama State Department, it was not generally about burisma in corruption, it was specifically about hunter biden and burisma, is that correct . Yes, it is. From your testimony, is quote, the way the question was phrased in this model q a was what can you tell us about hunter biden being named of the board of burisma. For millions of americans watching, president Obamas State Department was concerned of Conflict Och Interests that they raised themselves while prepping the ambassador nominee before her confirmation. Our colleagues and chair of the committee cried foul when we dare asking that question. Lastly in my 20 seconds left, i want to get it on record. In terms of defensive lethal aid, that was not provided by president obama. It was provided by President Trump . Yes. Thats correct. I yield back five seconds. Ambassador, thank you for your system today. Those of us who sitting up here are supposed to be passionate and measured, i am angry. I have been angry since i have learned about your summary and unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent and faithful service. I am angry a womans family fled communism who served this country for 33 years, literally under fire in places like kiev. I am angry that a woman like you not just dismissed but humiliated and attacked by the president of the United States. I am not just angry for you, i am angry for every single Foreign Service officers and every Military Officer who right now may believe a lifetime of
service and sacrifice in excellence may be ignored by the president of the United States or worst yet attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss. Now in the president s defense and it is emerging from my republican colleagues today that this is all okay. Because as the president memorably put it in his tweet this morning. As it is the u. S. President s absolute right to appoint an ambassador. I think that how and why we exercise our powers and rights matter. Ambassador, when you are ambassador, do you have the right to ask the Intelligence Committee or the cia in an embassy of what operations theyre doing . We talk about these things collaboratively. There are some things that in sort, yes. You have the right to ask Intelligence Committee in your embassy. Why may you do that . Sometimes operations may have political consequences. Right. The performance of your duties, the interests of the United States gives you the right to ask for sensitive question of your Intelligent Community in our embassy. What was instead working through the issues that you just described, you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a russian agent for 10,000. Would that be an appropriate exercise for your right . No. It would not. What would happen to you if you did that . Well, i cant begin to imagine . I would imagine i would be
pulled out of post. Right. This is not about ambassadors. A plr had a right to pull you over. As the Police Officer pulls over his exwife because hes angry. I cast a bunch of votes. If i kcast those votes because somebody bribed me, thats a severe use of my power. Would you agree . Yes. The question is why after such a performance, that the president decides for you to be removed. If you had remained ambassador to ukraine, would you have recommended to the president of the United States that he asks the new ukrainians president to
investigate and i am quoting from the transcript here. Proud strike or the server . No, i would repeat once again, the u. S. Intelligence community concluded it was the russians. Ambassador, if you have remained as ambassador and not dismissed, would you supported a threemonth delay in congressionally mandated military aid to ukraine . No. Ambassadors , would you have recommended to the president that hes asking a new president of ukraine to quote, find out about bidens son . I have no more questions. A letter from speaker pelosi. We also expect that for the whistleblower to speak directly to the house and intelligence. I look forward to you oiling that statements to the speaker. Ambassador, thank you very much for a long service to our country and behalf of our nation. What was going on around the phone call . I like the folks more of what has happened since then to you and your career and whats going. There is a process that you go through and pick what you do next. Can you give us a quick statement of what happened when you came back here and whats your next assignment would be in state . When i came back, it was out of cycle, there was nothing set up. Again, i am grateful that deputy
secretary sullivan asked me what i would like to do next, i recalled that there was the fellowship at georgetown and asked about whether there is something could be arranged . Was that your only choice . I am not sure. Georgetown is further ground for State Department recruitment, they benefited from your experience and inspirati s inspirations. Thank you. You are a fellow there, you teach classes. How many classes do you teach . This semester, i was supposed to teach two. I am still teaching one on National Security and the other one was on ukraine and i asked whether i could you know defer that. How many students in your class . I think 14. Any other responsibilities at
state . Well, i will tell you that all of this kept me very busy. Okay. I get that. But, no daytoday things that you are responsible for . Other than not qualifying for overseas and anything, is your conversations being affected by recalled by where you were . Are you worried of the way you are treated by your fellow employees and state . Do they shun you at the Lunch Counter or treat you badly as a result of how you were treated by the president. I received an out pouring support. The folks that you respect the most still respects you and holding you in high regard and affections . I do. George kent was in here, he made some statements about you, all of us would like to be a
recipient of something that worthy and inl you are as well. Any reason on earth that you would think of george kent