Mr. Chairman id like to begin by following up on something that you have disclosed today and disclosed early yr to both majority, minority. But it is some new information for the committee. You said in your testimony that one of your staff was present with ambassador sondland on the day after the july 25th phone call, is that right . Thats correct, mr. Chairman. And as your staff related the event to you, your staff member could overhear mr. Sondland and the phone over hear the president on the phone . Thats correct. So the president must have been speaking loud enough on the phone. This was a cell phone . It was a cell phone. The president must have been speaking loud enough for your staff member to be able to over hear this . It was. And what your staff member could over hear was President Trump asking ambassador sondland about, quote, the investigations, is that right . Thats correct. I think you testified also that you had come to understand that the term, investigations, was a ter
Shared their recollection of overhearing this call. For g this call. For the most part, i have no reason to doubt their accounts. Its true that the president speaks loudly at times, and its also true i think we primarily discussed a ap rocky. Its true that the president likes to use color of language. Anyone who has met with him for any reasonable amount of time knows this. While i cannot remember the precise details, again, the white house has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call, and the july 26th call did not strike me as significant at the time. Actually actually, i would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly given what we were hearing from mr. Giuliani about the president s concerns. However, i have no recollection of discussing Vice President biden or his son on that call or after the call ended. I know that members of this committee frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was the
Systems for ukraine until further notice i and others sat in astonishment ukrainians were fighting russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of u. S. Support all that the o. M. B. Staff person said was that the directive had come from the president to the chief of staff to o. M. B. Yeah as you say kimberly some pretty damning testimony there from 2 people who are career officials career diplomats and while were waiting for this recess to end the hearings to take up we are going to that the republicans are going to get their opportunity to essentially crossexamine a both of these 2 witnesses and presumably thats something that the the white house is going to be very eagerly awaiting. Yeah because particularly given the fact that republicans up to now have argued that this is not been a fair process that this is not been objective in any way that up until now until these public hearings this has been held in secret they argue and we saw this at the
The september time frame, but i want to go back two months, to july, before the july 25th call. You testified, ambassador taylor, in your Opening Statement that it was in the middle of july when you understood that the white house meeting was first a condition on these investigations. Is that accurate . Yes. We were preparing and i agreed that the white house meeting was going to be an important step in u. S. ukrainian relations. So, in june and in early july, attempts to work out a way to get that meeting included a phone call. And so there were several conversations about how to have this phone call that eventually happened on july 25th. And you described in your Opening Statement a july 10th white house meeting with a number of officials where ambassador bolton used the term that something was a drug deal. What did you understand him to mean in hearing that he said used this term, drug deal . I dont know. I dont know what ambassador bolton had in mind. Was that in reference to a dis
Support and they appreciated nd president zelensky. How would you expect a new ukrainian president to interpret to President Trump on that. A request for a favor from the but you understood the upshot of this comment made by both ambassador sondland and president of the United States . I cannot interpret the mind ambassador volker to be that President Trump believed that of president zelensky other than ukraine owed him something to say that it was very clear what they were hoping to get out personally. Is that accurate . Of this meeting was a date and a its hard to understand, but confirmation that he could come to washington. There was a feeling by president obviously you cant put yourself in the mind, but if the urainian president for a country thats so dependent on trump that he and this came the United States for all out in the transcript. Things, including military im sorry. This came out in the discussion assistance, is requested to do a with the inaugural delegation favor, how