but, shazam, last week, you come forward with supposedly this new information? there is nothing different in there than what we had on the transcript. maybe that s the reason their star witness, their first witness didn t bring it up. but they had to have something. so you are their closing witness because you overheard the president talking to ambassador sondland. sir, if i can answer. i see four seconds left on the clock. mr. holmes, you may take as long as you need. thank you, sir. i believe that ambassador taylor did already know when i briefed him when i returned from vacation on the 6th. it was not news to him that the president was pressing for a bide investigation. that s not what i asked. i asked why he didn t share with us. mr. jordan, please do not interrupt the witness any further. mr. holmes your time expired yours has not. you may answer the question. it s exactly my point. i briefed the call in detail deputy chief commission. come back, referred to the call
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 that s the reason their star witness, first witness didn t bring it up. you re 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 didn t share with us. please do not interrupt the witness any further. you may answer the question. it s exactly my point. i briefed the call and when we
come back and i referred to the call and everyone is nodding. of course, that s what s going on. of course the presid
there wasn t an answer. it was a filibuster. mr. jordan we will hear the witness s answer. have you concluded mr. holmes. vicious sir. thank you. mr. hymes. thank you, mr. chairman, dr. hill, mr. holmes, thank you for your testimony. dr. hill, you made a fairly dramatic comment in your statement to which the ranching member took some exception. i m more interested in the ukraine piece of this. but you said some you on this committee appear to believe that russia in its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that somehow for some reason ukraine did. i m really much more interested in the ukraine piece of this. but i do want to defend you briefly. i don t know what my colleagues believe, but i do have a pretty good sense of what the effects are of creating ambiguity, of lacking clarity and conviction around the russian attack on the election of 2016. in response to your comment, the ranking member offered up a report, which varies in material respe
Experience that to me validated sir. mr. jordan, please do not interrupt. what we believed. and ambassador taylor was not in that call. all of a sudden last week, you have to come tell us, right? jordan, you will allow t witness to answer the question. he was involved in a number of oefrt interactions as you have outlined that brought him to the same conclusion. it is quite possible that that he doesn t share mr. jordan. mr. jordan, you may not like the witness s answer, but we there wasn t an answer. it was a filibuster. first of all, jim jordan accusing someone else of doing a filibuster, but michael, this was perhaps, i mean, like i said, jim jordan looked like he had just been run over by a mack truck. he s been backing his way into a box canyon for weeks now and his back finally hit the wall. this is as far as he could go and the facts are too
Mr. jordan, you may not like the witness answer there wasn t 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. i m 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. i m interested in the ukraine piece of this. i do want defend you briefly. i don t 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