>> Woodruff: GOOD MORNING.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM TWO KEY WITNESSES: WILLIAM TAYLOR, THE ACTING AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

AND GEORGE KENT, A DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE.

AT THE HEART OF THE INVESTIGATION: DID PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATE HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND JEOPARDIZE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY BY PRESSURING UKRAINE BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY, NAMELY TO UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

OUR LISA DESJARDINS IS AT THE CAPITOL, SHE WILL BE IN THE ROOM.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

NICK SCHIFRIN IS HERE AT THE TABLE WITH ME, ALONG WITH MIKA OYANG, A TOP STAFFER FOR DEMOCRATS ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FROM 2007 TO 2010.

SHE IS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AT THE THIRD WAY, A WASHINGTON THINK TANK.

AND MICHAEL ALLEN SERVED AS STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE COLLEGE COMMITTEE UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP FROM 2011 TO 2013.

SHE'S NOW A MANAGING DIRECTOR AT THE ADVISORY FIRM BEACON GLOBAL STRATEGIES.

AND WE WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THE TABLE, AND YOU, YAMICHE, AT THE WHITE HOUSE, AND, LISA, YOU AT THE CAPITOL.

LISA, I'M GOING TO COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE SCENE THERE.

THIS IS THE DAY WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR, FOR DAYS.

THERE HAVE BEEN CLOSED HEARINGS.

TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THESE WITNESSES IN PUBLIC.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, I JUST CAME FROM THE COMMITTEE ROOM.

TWO THINGS THAT STRUCK ME UNUSUAL, JUDY.

I CAN'T REMEMBER SEEING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARRIVE SO EARLY AND SO MANY OF THEM FOR A HEARING.

THESE ARE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE BUT WILL SIT IN THE AUDIENCE AND VIEW THE TESTIMONY.

IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS REACHING TOWARD A DOZEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GETTING AN HOUR EARLY TO GET TO THE SEATS.

ALSO, JUDY, THE LINE FROM THE PUBLIC SHOWS YOU THE CHANGE FROM THE MUELLER TESTIMONY.

THE LINE FROM THE MUELLER TESTIMONY WAS LARGELY CAPITOL HILL INTERNS INTERESTED IN THE MOMENT.

THIS LINE IS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND VOTERS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY, MOST OF THEM HERE, ANYWAY, IN WASHINGTON, BUT YOU SEE A VERY DIFFERENT CROWD TAKING THIS SOMEWHAT MORE SERIOUSLY FROM OUTSIDE THE CAPITOL TODAY.

>> Woodruff: AND LISA, THE LINEUP FOR THE MEMBERS, WHAT'S DIFFERENT THAN USUAL, THERE'S A DIFFERENT PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENT FOR HOW THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE HEARING THIS TESTIMONY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS THE SMALLEST OF THE PERMANENT, HIGH-RANKING COMMITTEES.

IT HAS 22 MEMBERS, BUT HOLDING THIS HEARING IN THE LARGEST COMMITTEE ROOM ON THE HOUSE SIDE WHICH IS FOR THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE.

SO THEY HAVE REARRANGED THEIR DIAS BECAUSE THEY HAVE FEWER MEMBERS, TO GIVE MORE ROOM, ALSO TO GIVE MORE ROOM FOR WITNESSES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS WHO WILL BE BEHIND THEM.

YOU MAY NOTICE THAT SENSE OF SPACE WHEN YOU WATCH THIS HEARING.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE ALCINDOR WATCHING ALL THIS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

YAMICHE, HOW MUCH ATTENTION IS THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF PAYING TODAY?

>> THE WHITE HOUSE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE TREATING THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PUBLIC HEARING MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THAT HAVE PAST HEARINGS.

WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS REALLY HAVE THE PRESIDENT MONITOR IT A BIT BUT ALSO SEND OUT A STATEMENT WHEN THE HEARING IS OVER.

INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS SAID TO BE WATCHING IT VERY CLOSELY, EVEN AS HE HAS THE PRESIDENT OF TURKEY VISITING THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY.

I'M ALSO TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE WILL SET UP A RAPID RESPONSE TEAM.

WE USUALLY SEE THAT WHEN THERE IS A POLITICAL DEBATE OR TOWN HALL, BUT THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE USING THE STAFF ON THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND OFFICE AS WELL AS THE WHITE HOUSE CONSUL'S OFFICE AND THE PRESS AND COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE TO SEND OUT E-MAILS IN REALTIME, SO WE'LL HAVE THE PRESIDENT WATCHING THIS BUT ALSO WATCHING HOW THE WHITE HOUSE IS DEFENDING HIM IN REALTIME.

THEY WILL BE ON TV AND SOCIAL MEDIA.

THEY WILL BE TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG, THAT THE PROCESS IS UNFAIR, AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE ANGRY ABOUT THE FACT PRESIDENT TRUMP WON IN 2016.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE, HOW MUCH COORDINATION, AND I SHOULD SAY, WHILE I'M TALKING TO YOU, WE ARE SEEING B BILL TAYLOR AND GEORGE KENT COME TO THE TABLE.

THAT'S ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO HIS LEFT, DAVID NUNES THE RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER, AND ON EITHER SIDE OF THEM THE ATTORNEYS WHO WILL BE PLAYING A LARGE ROLE THIS AFTERNOON THIS AFTERNOON IN ASKING QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES.

WHILE WE WATCH, AND I KNOW THIS WILL BE GAVELED TO ORDER ANY MOMENT, SO WE ARE PREPARED TO GO TO THAT AS SOON AS IT STARS.

NICK SCHIFRIN, REMIND US AGAIN, BILL TAYLOR, THE ACTING AMBASSADOR, GEORGE KENT, STATE DEPARTMENT, WHAT DO THEY BRING TO THIS INVESTIGATION?

>> WHAT DEMOCRATS HOPE THEY BRING IS A FIRSTHAND REALTIME LOOK AT HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY TOWARD URAINE SHIFTED, WHAT BILL TAYLOR WILL CALL AN IRREGULAR POLICY LED BY RUDY GIULIANI.

BILL TAYLOR WE SEE THERE TOP DIPLOMAT AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE, HE WAS GEORGE BUSH'S AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE 2006 TO 2009, SERVED BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS.

HE WILL TALK ABOUT AN IRREGULAR POLICY LED BY RUDY GIULIANI THAT WENT AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, AND THAT WAS THE PRESIDENT AND RUDY GIULIANI ASKING FOR UKRAINE TO CONDUCT TWO INVESTIGATIONS, ONE INTO 2016 AND WHETHER IT SOMEHOW INTERVENED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP OR THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP, AND THEN, TWO, INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN'S SON, WHO WAS PART OF AN ENERGY COMPANY IN UKRAINE.

>> Woodruff: ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

>> -- IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS SO THE COMMITTEE AT ANYTIME THERE'S A QUORUM PRESENT.

HERE'S HOW THE COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED.

LY MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND RANKING MEMBER NUNES WILL HAVE ON OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT THEN TO QUESTIONS.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HERE.

IN TURN WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S HEARING.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN.

IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT DISRUPTION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> GENTLEMAN WILL STATE THE INQUIRY.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS OUR FIRST HEARING UNDER THESE NEW SET OF RULES, HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 GIVES YOU THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW YOURSELF AND THE RANKING MEMBER PERIODS OF EXTENDED QUESTIONS OF UP TO 45 MINUTES EACH BEFORE OTHER MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS.

IF POSSIBLE, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT BEFORE WE GET STARTED.

HAVE YOU MADE A DECISION, YET, AS TO HOW MANY 45-MINUTE ROUNDS YOU WILL ALLOW YOURSELF AND THE RANKING MEMBER?

>> I HAVE NOT, AS WITH WE INFORMED THE MINORITY YESTERDAY, WE WILL SEE HOW THE FIRST PERIOD GOES AND HOW MUCH MATERIAL WE ARE ABLE TO GET THROUGH.

AT THAT POINT, THE CHAIR WILL ANNOUNCE A PERIOD IF THERE IS A PERIOD OF SECOND ROUND WHICH MAY BE UP TO 45 MINUTES OR WILL GO STRAIGHT TO 5 MINUTE QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS.

FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AND YOUR INTEREST.

IN TURN, WE EXPECT AND WILL INSIST ON DECORUM IN THE COMMITTEE.

AS CHAIRMAN, I'LL TAKE ON NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND ENSURE THE COMMITTEE IS RUNNING IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

WITH THAT I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF THE GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD J. TRUMP THE 45 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN 2014, RUSSIA INVADED THE UNITED STATES' ALLY, UKRAINE, TO EMBRACE THAT NATION'S IN THE WEST.

IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS, 14,000 UKRAINIANS DIED AS THEY BATTLED SUPERIOR RUSSIAN FORCES.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE ON THE PLATFORM OF ENDING CONFLICT AND TACKLING CORRUPTION.

HE WAS A NEWCOMER TO POLITICS AND IMMEDIATELY SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE'S MOST POWERFUL PATRON, THE UNITED STATES.

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ARE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO EXPLOIT THAT ALLY'S VULNERABILITY AND INVITE UKRAINE'S INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTS SUCH AS A WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE ON UKRAINE'S WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST WITH TWO POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HELP HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, AND IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DID EITHER, WHETHER SUCH AN ABUSE OF HIS POWER IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

THE MATTER IS AS SIMPLE AND AS TERRIBLE AS THAT.

OUR ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS WILL AFFECT NOT ONLY THE FUTURE OF THIS PRESIDENCY BUT THE FUTURE OF THE PRESIDENCY ITSELF AND WHAT KIND OF CONDUCT OR MISCONDUCT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY COME TO EXPECT FROM THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

THERE ARE FEW ACTIONS AS CONSEQUENTIAL AS IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT.

WHILE THE FOUNDERS DID NOT INTEND IMPEACHMENT BE EMPLOYED FOR MERE DIFFERENCES OVER POLICY, THEY ALSO MADE IMPEACHMENT A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS THAT CONGRESS MUST UTILIZE AS NECESSARY.

THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT INQUIRY ARE NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTED.

BEGINNING IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI PRESSED UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA, THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST NATIONAL GAS PRODUCER, AND THE BIDENS, SINCE VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN WAS SEEN AS A STRONG POTENTIAL CHALLENGER TO TRUMP.

GIULIANI ALSO PROMOTED A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THAT IT WAS UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, THAT HACKED THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION.

THE NATION'S INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT IT WAS RUSSIA, NOT UKRAINE, THAT INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION.

BUT GIULIANI BELIEVED THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY REFERRED TO AS CrowdStrike, SHORTHAND FOR THE COMPANY THAT DISCOVERED THE RUSSIAN HACK, WOULD AID HIS CLIENT'S REELECTION.

GIULIANI ALSO CONDUCTED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

ON APRIL 29, A SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TOLD HER THAT ALTHOUGH SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN HER.

WITH THE SIDELINING OF YOVANOVITCH, THE STAGE WAS SET FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGULAR CHANNEL IN WHICH GIULIANI AND OTHERS INCLUDING LATER GORDON SONDLAND AN INFLUENTIAL DONOR TO THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION NOW SERVING AS AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION COULD ADVANCE THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS.

YOVANOVITCH'S REPLACEMENT IN KIEV AND BILL TAYLOR IS A YALE GRADUATE AND VETERAN.

IN THE SUMMER 2019, HE PUSHED BACK INFORMING DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT AND OTHERS ABOUT A PLAN TO CONDITION U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND FUNDING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF POLITICAL FAVORS BY THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, FAVORS INTENDED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR SECURITY AND OUR ELECTIONS.

SEVERAL KEY EVENTS IN THE SCHEME TOOK PLACE IN THE MONTH OF JULY.

ON JULY 10, AMBASSADOR SONDE SONDLAND INFORMED A GROUP OF OFFICIALS AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT, ACCORDING TO YOU, CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY A WHITE HOUSE DESPERATELY SOUGHT WOULD ONLY HELP IF UKRAINE TOOK AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ENERGY SECTOR UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN BURISMA AND SPECIFICALLY THE BIDENS.

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING AND SAID HE WOULD NOT BE "PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS."

A WEEK LATER ON JULY 18, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT BUDGET, THE WHITE HOUSE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES FEDERAL SPENDING, ANNOUNCED ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE THAT MULVANEY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE RESIDENT WAS FREEZING NEARLY $400 MILLION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS IN WHICH THE ENTIRETY OF THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTED.

ONE WEEK AFTER THAT, DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

DURING THAT CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD SAY IT WAS NOT RECIPROCAL.

AN ANTI-TANK WEAPON A MEMBER OF CONGRESS THE MOST IMPORTANT DETERRENCE OF FURTHER RUSSIAN MILITARY ACTION.

TRUMP'S IMMEDIATE RESPONSE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.

TRUMP THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 2016 CrowdStrike CONSPIRACY THEORY AND EVEN MORE OMINOUSLY LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.

NEITHER OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS IN THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST, AND NEITHER WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PREPARATORY MATERIAL FOR THE CALL.

BOTH, HOWEVER, WERE IN DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTEREST, AND ANY INTEREST OF HIS 2020 REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE BECAUSE SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAD BEEN PRESSING UKRAINE FOR WEEKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.

AFTER THE CALL, MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REPORT IT TO THE NATNATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S P LAWYER.

THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD THEN TAKE THE EXTRAORDINARY STEP OF MOVING THE CALL RECORD TO A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SERVER, EASE CONCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR THE MOST SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE MATTERS.

IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR LEARNED NEW FACTS ABOUT A SCHEME EVEN SONDLAND WOULD DESCRIBE AS BECOMING MORE INSIDIOUS.

TAYLOR TEXTED SONDLAND, "ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS?"

AS SUMMER TURNED TO FALL, IT KEPT GETTING MORE INSIDIOUS, MR. SONDLAND TESTIFIED.

MANY TAILOR, WHO TOOK NOTES OF HIS CONVERSATION, SAID THE AMBASSADOR TOLD HIM IN A SEPTEMBER 1st PHONE CALL THAT EVERYTHING WAS DEPENDENT ON THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAND MR. ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN, SONDLAND SAID LATER.

WHEN A BUSINESSMAN IS ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO OWES HIM SOMETHING, THE BUSINESSMAN ASKS THAT PERSON TO PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK.

IN THIS ONE DECLARATION AFTER TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY, SONDLAND WOULD ADMIT TO TELLING UKRAINIANS AT A SEPTEM SEPTEMBER 1st MEETING IN WARSAW, "THE RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY NOT OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE PROVIDED THE PUBLIC ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR MANY WEEKS."

THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF CONFIRMED TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO COARSE UKRAINE BY WITHHOLDING AID.

WHEN MICK MULVANEY WAS ASKED PUBLICLY ABOUT IT, HIS ANSWER WAS BREATHTAKING.

"WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY," HE SAID.

"I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY, THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ."

THE VIDEO OF THAT CONFESSION IS PLAYING FOR ALL TO SEE.

SOME HAVE ARGUED IN THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE THAT THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED, AND THAT IS TRUE, BUT ONLY AFTER CONGRESS BEGAN AN INVESTIGATION, ONLY AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS LEARNED OF A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, AND ONLY AFTER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BEGAN ASKING UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT QUID PRO QUOS.

A SCHEME TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTS OR TAXPAYER FUNDING TO OBTAIN A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT DOES NOT BECOME LESS ODIOUS BECAUSE IT IS DISCOVERED BEFORE IT IS FULLY CONSUMMATED.

IN FACT, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAVE BEEN DELAYED SO LONG, IT WOULD TAKE ANOTHER ACT OF CONGRESS TO ENSURE THAT IT COULD STILL GO OUT.

AND THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING THAT ZELENSKY DESPERATELY SOUGHT, IT STILL HASN'T HAPPENED.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THESE EVENTS IN THE LAST SEVERAL=)ñ WEEKS, THERE ARE STILL MISSING PIECES.

THE PRESIDENT HAS INSTRUCTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES TOfá IGNORE CONGRESSIOL SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS.

HE HAS INSTRUCTED OTHERS TO DEFY SUBPOENAS AND TO REFUSE TO APPEAR AND SUGGESTED THOSE WHO DO TO BE TREATED AS TRAITORS AND SPIES.

THIS CONGRESS WOULD ASK TO CONSIDER WHETHER TRUMP'S ACTS CONSTITUTED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

IF THE PRESIDENT CAN REFUSE ALL OVERSIGHT, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN OUR TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WILL BE IRREVOCABLY ALTERED.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED.

AND THE PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER IN THIS ADMINISTRATION OR ANY OTHER WILL BE EXPONENTIALLY INCREASED.

THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY WILL SHOW, BOTH AS TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND AS TO HIS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THE ISSUE THAT WE CONFRONT IS THE ONE POSED BY THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, WHEN HE CHALLENGED AMERICANS TO "GET OVER IT."

IF WE FIND THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABUSED HIS POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, OR IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, COERCE, EXTORT OR BRIBE AN ALLY INTO CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS TO AID ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND DO SO BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS OR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF NEEDED MILITARY AID, MUST WE SIMPLY GET OVER IT?

IS THIS WHAT AMERICANS SHOULD NOW EXPECT FROM THEIR PRESIDENT?

IF THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT, WHAT IS?

DOES THE OATH OF OFFICE ITSELF REQUIRING THAT OUR LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED, THAT OUR PRESIDENT DEFEND A CONSTITUTION THAT BALANCES THE POWERS OF ITS BRANCHES, SEGMENT AMBITION AGAINST AMBITION SO WE BECOME NO MONARCHY, STILL HAVE MEANING?

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE MUST ASK AND ANSWER.

WITHOUT RANCOR, IF WE CAN, WITHOUT DELAY REGARDLESS, AND WITHOUT PARTY FAVOR, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE IF WE ARERUE TO OUR RESPONSIBILITIES.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WAS ASKED WHAT KIND OF A COUNTRY AMERICA WAS TO BECOME.

A REPUBLIC, HE ANSWERED, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.

THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD J. TRUMP IS CAN WE KEEP IT.

I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR MY REMARKS HE MAY WISH TO MAKE.

>> THANKS, GENTLEMEN.

IN A JULY OPEN HEARING OF THIS COMMITTEE FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE MUELLER REPORT, THE DEMOCRATS ENGAGED IN A LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT.

THAT HEARING WAS THE PIVOTAL FINALE OF A THREE-YEAR-LONG OPERATION BY THE DEMOCRATS, THE CORRUPT MEDIA AND PARTISAN BUREAUCRATS TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTION.

AFTER THE SPECTACULAR IMPLOSION OF THEIR RUSSIA HOAX ON JULY 24, IN WHICH AT A SPENT YEARS DENOUNCING ANY REPUBLICAN WHO EVER SHOOK HANDS WITH A RUSSIAN, ON JULY 25th, THEY TURNED ON A DIME AND NOW CLAIMED THE REAL MALFEASANCE IS REPUBLICANS' DEALINGS WITH UKRAINE.

IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, WE'RE ASKED TO SIMPLY FORGET ABOUT DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE FALSELY CLAIMING THEY HAD MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUSSIANS.

WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THEM READING FABRICATIONS OF TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION FROM THE STEELE DOSSIER INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

WE SHOULD ALSO FORGET ABOUT THEM TRYING TO OBTAIN NUDE PICTURES OF TRUMP FROM RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS WHO PRETENDED TO BE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THEM LEAKING A FALSE STORY TO CNN WHILE HE WAS STILL TESTIFYING TO OUR COMMITTEE, CLAIMING THAT DONALD TRUMP, JR. WAS COLLUDING WITH WikiLeaks, AND FORGET ABOUT COUNTLESS OTHER DECEPTIONS, LARGE AND SMALL, THAT MAKE THEM THE LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH WITH THE CREDIBILITY TO HURL MORE PREPOSTEROUS ACCUSATIONS AT THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

AND, YET, NOW, HERE WE ARE.

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO THEY CAN THESE PEOPLE AT FACE VALUE, WHEN THEY TROT OUT A NEW BATCH OF ALLEGATIONS, BUT ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE DEMOCRATS' SCORCHED EARTH WAR AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE ALL THE TYPICAL SIGNS THAT THIS IS A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED MEDIA SMEAR CAMPAIGN.

FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER VOWING PUBLICLY THAT IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING IMPEACHMENT FORWARD WITHOUT THE BACKING OF A SINGLE REPUBLICAN.

THE WITNESSES DEEMED SUITABLE FOR TELEVISION BY THE DEMOCRATS WERE PUT THROUGH A CLOSED-DOOR AUDITION PROCESS AND A CULT-LIKE ATMOSPHERE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL WHERE DEMOCRATS CONDUCTED SECRET DEPOSITIONS, RELEASED A FLOOD OF MISLEADING AND ONE-SIDED LEAKS, AND, LATER, SELECTIVELY RELEASED TRANSCRIPTS IN A HIGHLY-STAGED MANNER.

VIOLATING THEIR OWN GUIDELINES, DEMOCRATS REPEATEDLY REDACTED FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS THE NAME OF ALEXANDER CHALUPA, A CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WHO WORKED ARE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO COLLECT DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WHICH SHE PROVIDED TO THE D.N.C.

AND THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

THE DEMOCRAT REJECTED MOST OF THE REPUBLICANS' WITNESS REQUESTS, RESULTING IN A HORRIFICALLY ONE-SIDED PROCESS WHERE THE CURABLE WITNESSES ARE DENIED A PLATFORM IF THEIR TESTIMONY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS' ABSURD ACCUSATIONS.

NOTABLY, THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FOR INQUIRING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S ACTIVITIES.

IF THEY REFUSE OUR REQUEST TO HEAR FROM BIDEN HIMSELF.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE A BIAS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP AN HIS ATTORNEY TOUTED A COUP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND CALLED FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT JUST WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION.

AT A PRIOR HEARING, DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE READ OUT A PURELY FICTITIOUS RENDITION OF THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THEY CLEARLY FOUND THE REAL CONVERSATION TO BE INSUFFICIENT FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT NARRATIVE, SO THEY JUST MADE UP A NEW ONE.

AND MOST EGREGIOUSLY, THE STAFF OF THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAD DIRECT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER BEFORE HIS OR HER COMPLAINT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

REPUBLICANS CAN'T GET A FULL ACCOUNT OF THESE CONTACTS BECAUSE DEMOCRATS BROKE THEIR PROMISE TO HAVE THE WHISTLEBLOWER TESTIFY TO THIS COMMITTEE.

DEMOCRAT MEMBERS HID THESE CONTACTS FROM REPUBLICANS AND THEN LIED ABOUT THEM TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

I'VE NOTED BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A LONG HABIT OF ACCUSING REPUBLICANS OF OFFENSES THEY THEMSELVES ARE COMMITTING.

LET'S RECALL, FOR YEARS THEY ACCUSED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING ARE RUSSIA WHEN THEY THEMSELVES WERE COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA BY FUNDING AND SPREADING THE STEELE DOSSIER WHICH RELIED ON RUSSIAN SOURCES.

AND NOW THEY ACCUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP OF MALFEASANCE IN UKRAINE WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE CULPABLE.

THE DEMOCRATS COOPERATED IN UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING AND DEFEND HUNTER BIDEN'S LAVISHLY PAID POSITION WITH A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY, ALL THE WHILE HIS FATHER SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT.

DESPITE THIS HYPOCRISY, THE DEMOCRATS ARE ADVANCING THEIR IMPEACHMENT SHAM.

BUT WE SHOULD NOT HOLD ANY HEARINGS AT ALL UNTIL WE GET ANSWERS TO THREE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS ARE DETERMINED TO AVOID ASKING.

FIRST, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT TO HAVE THE DEMOCRATS' PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND WHO ELSE DID THE WHISTLEBLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH?

SECOND, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

AND THIRD, WHY DID BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

THESE QUESTIONS WILL REMAIN OUTSTANDING BECAUSE REPUBLICANS WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES THAT KNOW THESE ANSWERS.

WHAT WE WILL WITNESS TODAY IS A TELEVISED THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE STAGED BY THE DEMOCRATS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU HERE.

I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU FOR PASSING THE DEMOCRATS STAR CHAMBER AUDITIONS HELD FOR THE LAST WEEKS IN THE BASEMENT TO HAVE THE CAPITOL.

IT SEEMS YOU AGREED WITTING OR UNWITTINGLY TO PARTICIPATE IN A DRAMA.

BUT THE MAIN PERFORMANCE, THE RUSSIA HOAX, HAS ENDED, AND YOU HAVE BEEN CAST IN THE LOW-RENT, UKRAINIAN SEQUEL.

I'LL SON CLUED BY NOTING THE IMMENSE DAMAGE A POLITICIZED DEMOCRACY HAS DONE TO AMERICA'S FAITH IN GOVERNMENT.

THOUGH EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES ARE CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING PATROLSIES SET BY OUR PRESIDENT WHO IS I ELECTED AND RESPONSIBLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ELEMENTS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE HAVE DECIDED THEY, NOT THE PRESIDENT, ARE REALLY IN CHARGE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'LL LEARN IN THESE HEARINGS.

AFTER EXPRESSING SKEPTICISM OF FOREIGN AID AND CONCERN ABOUT FOREIGN CORRUPTION ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, PRESIDENT TRUMP OUTRAGED THE BUREAUCRACY BY ACTING ACCIDENTCALLY ABOUT FOREIGN AID AND EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT FOREIGN CORRUPTION.

OFFICIALS ALARMED AT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS WAS TYPICALLY BASED ON SECOND-HAND, THIRD-HAND AND EVEN FOURTH-HAND RUMORS AND INNUENDO.

THEY BELIEVED IT WAS AN OUTRAGE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE AN AMBASSADOR, EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN OR REMOVE DIPLOMATS FOR ANY REASON AT ANYTIME.

OFFICIALS SHOW THE SURPRISING LACK OF INTEREST IN THE INDICATIONS OF UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING THAT DEEPLY CONCERN THE PRESIDENT, AT WHOSE PLEASURE THEY SERVE.

DESPITE ALL THEIR DISSATISFACTION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UKRAINE POLICY, THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THE SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO UKRAINE.

UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH PROVIDED BLANKETS AS DEFENSE AGAINST INVADING RUSSIANS.

BY UNDERMINING THE PRESIDENT, WHO THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING, THE ELEMENTS OF THE F.B.I., THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND NOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE LOST THE CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEIR VOTE SHOULD COUNT FOR SOMETHING.

IT WILL TAKE YEARS IF NOT DECADES TO RESTORE FAVORITE IN THESE INSTITUTIONS.

THIS SPECTACLE IS DOING GREAT DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY.

IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND SEARCH OF A CRIME.

I YIELD BACK.

>> TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR WITH RESPECT AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT BOTH APPEARING UNDER SUBPOENA.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAS SERVED OUR COUNTRY FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY.

ATTENDED U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT, GRADUATING THE TOP 1% OF HIS CLASS BEFORE SERVING AS AN INFANTRY OFFICER IN THE U.S. ARMY FOR SIX YEARS INCLUDING WITH THE 10 101st AIRBORNE DIVISION DURING THE VIETNAM WAR.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR LED A RIFLE PLATOON IN VIETNAM AND AWARDED THE BRONZE STAR MEDAL AND THE AIR MEDAL FOR VALOR.

FOLLOWING MILITARY SERVINGS, HE WORKED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AS A STAFFER IN THE U.S. SENATE, AS AN ADVISOR, AS WELLS TO U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO NATE O.

IN THE 1990s, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COORDINATED U.S. ASSISTANCE TO EASTERN URINE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION AND LATER SERVED IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND WORKED ON THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS.

IN 2006, PRESIDENT BUSH NOMINATED HIM AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, WHERE HE SERVED UNTIL 2009, AND THEN WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA TO BE SPECIAL COORDINATOR FOR MIDDLE EAST TRANSITIONS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS SERVING AS THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT TO THE NONPARTISAN INSTITUTE OF PEACE WHEN, IN JUNE 2019, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO ASKED HIM TO RETURN TO LEAD THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV AS CHARGEÉ D'AFFAIRES.

MR. GEORGE KENT CURRENTLY SERVICE AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS OVERSEEING POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE AND OTHER COUNTRIES.

HE HAS SERVED TWICE IN UKRAINE FROM 2004 TO 2007.

HE WAS THE DEPUTY POLITICAL COUNSELOR INCLUDING DURING THE ORANGE REVOLUTION.

AND FROM 2015 TO 2018, SERVED AS DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION IN KIEV.

SINCE JOINING THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 1992, MR.

KEPT SERVED IN POLAND, UZBEKISTAN AND THAILAND.

HE ALSO SERVED AS SENIOR CORRUPTION COORDINATOR AND OVERSAW PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN THE RULE OF LAW.

ALL WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL.

ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.

CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF REPRISAL OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT FISSLE FOR TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.

IF YOU WOULD BOTH RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES, I HAVE A PARLIAMENT INQUIRY.

>> GENTLELADY WILL STATE THE PARLIAMENT INQUIRY.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN CAN WE ANTS FATE A RESPONSE TO OUR NOVEMBER 9 LETTER REQUESTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES TO BE CALLED?

>> THE GENTLEWOMAN SHOULD BE AWARE THREE OF THE WITNESSES THE MINORITY REQUESTED ARE SCHEDULED NEXT WEEK.

>> THOSE ARE YOUR WITNESS, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL SIX WITNESSES.

>> THE GENTLEWOMAN MAY REQUIRE ABOUT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OR MAKE A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES FOLLOWING WITNESS TESTIMONY.

>> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER UNDER 660 STATE THE ORDER.

>> WILL YOU BE PROHIBITING WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING MEMBERS' QUESTIONS AS YOU HAVE IN THE CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITIONS?

>> AS THE GENTLEWOMAN SHOULD KNOW IF SHE WAS PRESENT FOR THE -- >> WHICH I WASSISH, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> FOR SOME OF THEM, YES.

CORRECT.

THE ONLY TIMES I PREVENTEDT WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS ALONG WITH OUR COUNSEL WAS WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THAT MEMBERS WERE SEEKING TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

WE WILL DO EVERYTHING NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY AND I'M DISTURBED TO HEAR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO HAVE, IN THE PAST, VOICED STRONG SUPPORT FOR WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS SEEK TO UNDERMINE THOSE PROTECTIONS BY OUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, ONLY ONE MEMBER AND THEIR STAFF ON THIS COMMITTEE HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

>> GENTWOMAN WILL SUSPEND.

YOU ASKED PARLIAMENT INQUIRY OR POINT OF ORDER AND I AM RESPONDING.

WE WILL NOT PERMIT THE OUTING OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND QUESTIONS ALONG THOSE LINES, COUNSEL WILL INFORM THEIR CLIENTS NOT TO RESPOND TO.

IF NECESSARY, I WILL INTERVEEB.

OTHERWISE, I WANT MEMBERS TO FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY LIKE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> 'THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

I'M RESPONDING TO THE GENTLEWOMAN'S POINT OF ORDER.

OTHERWISE, MEMBERS WILL HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY LIKE.

MR. CONWAY YOU SEEK RECOGNITION FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

>> TO MAKE A MOTION WE SUBPOENA THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR A CLOSED-DOOR SECRET DEPOSITION SO THE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY ASKED THE WHISTLEBLOWER BY YOUR AND OUR SIDE MAY BE ASKED AND I WOULD PREFER RATHER THAN IT BE YOUR SINGLE DECISION THAT THE IMHITY SPEAK TO THE ISSUE RATHER THAN JUST THE CHAIRMAN.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

IT WON'T BE MY SINGLE DECISION, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SUBPOENA ANY WITNESS, BUT, AFTER THE WITNESSES HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.

>> MOTION WILL BE IN ORDER.

THAT MOTION WILL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL AFTER THE WITNESS -- >> DO YOU.

WHAT ARE THAT PURPOSE DO YOU SEEK RECOGNITION?

>> DO YOU ANTICIPATE WHEN WE MIGHT VOTE ON THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN FRONT OF US, SOMETHING YOU, THE 435 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, YOU ARE THE ONLY MEMBER WHO KNOWS WHO THAT INDIVIDUAL IS AND YOUR STAFF IS THE ONLY STAFF OF ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO HAS HAD A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL, WE WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

WHEN MIGHT THAT HAPPEN IN THIS PROCEEDING TODAY.

>> FIRST, THE GENTLEMAN KNOWS THAT'S A FALSE STATEMENT.

I DO NOT KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND I'M DETERMINED TO MAKE SURE THAT IDENTITY IS PROTECTED.

AS I SAID MR. CONAWAY, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUBPOENA ANY WITNESS AT COMPEL A VOTE.

AND WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE THE WITNESSES.

AND BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO JUST EMPHASIZE THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM.

WITHOUT OBJECTION YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD, AND WITH THAT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT, YOU RECOGNIZED FOR OUR OPENING STATEMENT.

AMSTERDAM TAYLOR YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER FOR OUR OPENING STATEMENT.

>> GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS GEORGE KENT, AND I AM THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE CAUCUSES.

I HAVE SERVED PROUDLY AS A NONPARTISAN CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR MORE THAN 27 YEARS UNDER FIVE PRESIDENTS, THREE REPUBLICAN AND TWO DEMOCRAT.

AS I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING COMMENTS LAST MONTH IN THE CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION, I REPRESENT THE THIRD GENERATION OF MY FAMILY TO HAVE CHOSEN A CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND SWORN THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT ALL U.S. PUBLIC SERVANTS DO IN DEFENSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

INDEED, THERE HAS BEEN A GEORGE KENT SWORN TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION CONTINUOUSLY FOR NEARLY 60 YEARS, EVER SINCE MY FATHER REPORTED TO ANNAL PLIES FOR HIS PLE OH B SUMMER.

AFTER GRADUATING FIRST IN HIS NAVAL CLASS, MY FATHER SERVED A FULL HON RAIL 30 YEARS INCLUDING AS A CAPTAIN OF A NUCLEAR BALLISTIC NUCLEAR SUBMARINE DURING THE HEIGHT TO HAVE THE COLD WAR.

FIVE GREAT UNCLES SERVED HONORABLY IN THE NAVY AND THE ARMY IN WORLD WAR II, IN PARTICULAR TOM TAGGART WAS STATIONED IN THE PHILIPPINES AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL HAIR BOSH, YOU ARE IS SURVIVED THE BATON DEATH MARCH AND THREE AND A HALF YEARS IN A JAPANESE CAMP UNBROKEN.

HE UPHELD THE RULE OF LAW UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1965.

TODAY, I APPEAR BEFORE YOU ONCE AGAIN UNDER SUBPOENA AS A FACT WITNESS READY TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EVENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS EXAMINED IN THIS INQUIRY, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND RECOLLECTION, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS PLACED ON ME BY THE LAW AND THIS PROCESS.

I WILL BEGIN WITH SOME OPENING COMMENTS ON A KEY PRINCIPLES AT THE HEART OF WHAT BRINGS ME BEFORE YOU TODAY, TO WIT: PRINCIPLED PUBLIC SERVICE IN PURSUIT OF OUR ENDURING NATIONAL INTERESTS IN THE PLACE OF UKRAINE NATIONAL AND SECURITY INTERESTS.

FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, WE HAVE FOCUSED OUR UNITED EFFORTS ACROSS THE ATLANTIC TO SUPPORT UKRAINE IN ITS FIGHT FOR THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM AND THE REBIRTH OF A COUNTRY FREE FROM RUSSIAN DOMINION AND THE WARPED LEGACY OF SOVIET INSTITUTIONS AND POST-SOVIET BEHAVIOR.

AS I STATED IN MY CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION LAST MONTH, YOU DON'T STEP INTO THE PUBLIC ARENA OF INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY IN ACTIVE PURSUIT OF PRINCIPLED U.S.

INTERESTS WITHOUT EXPECTING VIGOROUS PUSHBACK, INCLUDING PERSONAL ATTACKS.

SUCH ATTACKS CAME FROM THE RUSSIANS, THEIR PROXIES AND CORRUPT UKRAINIANS.

THAT TELLS ME OUR EFFORTS WERE HITTING THEIR MARK.

IT WAS UNEXPECTED AND MOST UNFORTUNATE, HOWEVER, TO WATCH SOME AMERICANS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ALLIED THEMSELVES WITH CORRUPT UKRAINIANS IN PURSUIT OF PRIVATE AGENDAS, LAUNCH ATTACKS ON DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS ADVANCING U.S.

INTERESTS IN UKRAINE.

IN MY OPINION, THOSE ATTACKS UNDERMINED U.S. AND UKRAINIAN NATIONAL INTERESTS AND DAMAGED OUR CRITICAL BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP.

THE UNITED STATES HAS VERY CLEAR NATIONAL INTERESTS AT STAKE IN UKRAINE.

UKRAINE'S SUCCESS IS VERY MUCH IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THE WAY WE HAVE DEFINED OUR NATIONAL INTEREST BROADLY IN EUROPE FOR THE PAST 75 YEARS.

AFTER WORLD WAR II, U.S.

LEADERSHIP FURTHERED OUR SIGHTED POLICIES LIKE THE MARSHALL PLAN IN A CREATION OF A RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER, PROTECTED BY THE COLLECTIVE SECURITY PROVIDED BY N.A.T.O., WESTERN EUROPE RECOVERED AND THRIVED.

AFTER THE CARNAGE OF WORLD WAR II, K NOTWITHSTANDING THE SHADOW OF THE IRON CURTAIN.

EUROPE'S SECURITY AND PROSPERITY CONTRIBUTED TO OUR SECURITY AND PROSPERITY.

SUPPORT OF UKRAINE'S SUCCESS ALSO FIT SQUARELY INTO OUR STRATEGY FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE FINS THE FALL TO HAVE THE WALL 30 YEARS AGO -- SINCE THE FALL OF THE WALL 30 YEARS AGO THIS PAST WEEK.

A EUROPE TRULY FULL AND WHOLE AND AT PEACE, OUR STRATEGIC GAIN FOR THE ENTIRETY OF MY FOREIGN SERVICE CAREER IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT A UKRAINE FULL, WHOLE, FREE AND AT PEACE, INCLUDING CRIMEA AND TERRITORIES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY RUSSIA, REPRESENTED BY THE RED IN THE MAP.

LOOKING FORWARD, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY MAKES CLEAR THE GLOBAL STRATEGIC CHALLENGE NOW BEFORE US.

GREAT POWER COMPETITION WITH RIVALS SUCH AS RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE NEED TO COMPETE FOR POSITIVE INFLUENCE WITHOUT TAKING COUNTRIES FOR GRANTED.

IN THAT SENSE, UKRAINE HAS BEEN ON THE FRONT LINES NOT JUST OF RUSSIA'S CONVENTIONAL WAR IN EASTERN EUROPE SINCE 2014 AND IT'S BROADER CAMPAIGN OF MALIGN INFLUENCE, BUT OF THE GREATER GEOPOLITICAL CHALLENGES NOW FACING THE UNITED STATES.

UKRAINE'S POPULAR REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014 FORCED A CORRUPT RUNGS LEADERSHIP TO FLEE TO MOSCOW.

AFTER THAT RUSSI INVADED UKRAINE, OCCUPYING 7% OF ITS TERRITORY, ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE SIZE OF TEXAS IN THE UNITED STATES.

AT THAT TIME, UKRAINE'S STATE INSTITUTIONS WERE ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE.

UKRAINIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ANSWERED THE CHALLENGE.

THEY FORMED VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS OF CITIZENS INCLUDING TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS AND MEDICS.

THEY CROWD SOURCED FUNDINGS FOR THEIR OWN WEAPONS, BODY ARMOR AND SUPPLIES.

THEY WERE THE 21st CENTURY UKRAINIAN EQUIVALENT OF OUR OWN MINUTE MEN OF 1776, BUYING TIME FOR A REGULAR ARMY TO RECONSTITUTE.

SINCE THEN, MORE THAN 13,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED ON UKRAINIAN SOIL DEFENDING THEIR TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND SOVEREIGNTY FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

AMERICA'S SUPPORT IN UKRAINE'S OWN DE FACTO WAR OF INDEPENDENCE HAS BEEN CRITICAL IN THIS REGARD.

BY ANALOGY, THE AMERICAN COLONIES MAY NOT HAVE PREVAILED AGAINST THE BRITISH WITHOUT HELP OF THE TRANSATLANTIC FRIENDS IN 1776.

IN AN ECHO OF LAFAYETTE'S ORGANIZED ASSISTANCE TO GEORGE E WASHINGTON'S ARMY, CONGRESS HAS APPOINTED $1.5 BILLION IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS IN DESPERATELY NEEDED ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

THIS INCREASES UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

ULTIMATELY UKRAINE IS ON THE PATH TO BECOME A FULL SECURITY PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN N.A.T.O.

SIMILAR TO TRAINING COLONIALS AT VALLEY FORGE, U.S. AND NAVEL TRa DWOOPPED TRAINEES NEAR THE POLISH BORDER AND ELSE WHERE AND HELPED WRITE HISTORY FOR THE NEXT YEARNINGS.

IN SUPPORT OF RESISTANCE TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, WE HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THE WAY OF RUSSIAN WAR IN THE 1st CENTURY GAINING INSIGHTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR OWN SECURITY.

IN 2019, UKRAINIAN CITIZENS PASSED THE POLITICAL SOURCE TO A NEW GENERATION, ONE THAT CAME OF AGE NOT IN THE FINAL YEARS OF THE SOVIET UNION BUT IN AN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE.

PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS SWEPT OUT MUCH OF UKRAINE'S PREVIOUS GOVERNING ELITE AND SEATED 41-YEAR-OLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, A CABINET WITH AN AVERAGE AGE OF 39, AND A PARLIAMENT WITH THE AVERAGE AGE OF 41.

AT THE HEART OF THAT CHANGE MANDATE, FIVE YEARS AFTER UKRAINE'S REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY, IS A THIRST FOR JUSTICE BECAUSE THERE CAN NOT BE DIGNITY WITHOUT JUSTICE.

WITHOUT A REFORMED JUDICIAL SECTOR THAT DELIVERS JUSTICE WITH INTEGRITY FOR ALL, UKRAINIAN SOCIETY WILL REMAIN UNSETTLED, FOREIGN INVESTORS INCLUDING AMERICAN INVESTORS WILL NOT BRING THE GREAT OPINION INVESTMENT NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT UKRAINE'S LONG-TERM PROSPERITY IS SECURED.

THIS IS WHY THE PRINCIPLED PROMOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY IS SO NECESSARY TO OUR STRATEGY FOR A SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE.

IT IS ALSO TRUE FOR OTHER FORMER CAPTIVE NATIONS STILL RECOVERING FROM THE ASHES OF SOVIET AND COMMUNIST MISRULE.

IT IS WHY ACTING INCONSISTENTLY WITH THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF THE RULE OF LAW COMES AT GREAT PERIL.

I AM GRATEFUL TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND STAFFERS INCLUDING MANY OF YOU SITTING HERE TODAY WHO HAVE TRAVELED TO UKRAINE OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND APPROPRIATED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ASSISTANCE IN SUPPORT OF OUR PRIMARY POLICY GOALS.

THOSE FUNDS INCREASE UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN THE DEFENSE ENERGY CYBER AND INFORMATION SEARS, AND EMPOWER INSTITUTIONS IN CIVIL5j SYSTEMIC REFORMS AND TACKLE CORRUPTION.

I BELIEVE ALL OF US CAN BE PROUD OF OUR EFFORTS IN UKRAINE OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, EVEN THOUGH MUCH REMAINS TO BE DONE.

BY ALL OF US, I MEAN THOSE OF US IN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES, IN BOTH PARTIES, THE INTERAGENCY COMMUNITY, WORKING OUT OF OUR EMBASSY IN KIEV, UKRAINIANS IN GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, CIVIL SOCIETY, AND OUR TRANSATLANTIC ALLIES AND PARTNERS.

WE CANNOT ALLOW OUR RESOLVE TO WAIVER AND TOO MUCH IS AT STAKE.

NOT JUST FOR UKRAINE AND FUTURE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY, BUT FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES BROADLY DEFINED.

MY PRIOR DEPOSITION COVERED A LOT OF GROUND OVER 10 YEARS.

HERE ARE MAIN 10 TEAMS.

I OUTLINED MY EXPERIENCE WITH LONGSTANDING U.S. INTEREST IN SUPPORTING ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.

THIS WORK GAVE ME A FRONT ROW SEAT TO PROBLEMATIC ACTIVITIES BY SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTORS GENERAL IN UKRAINE.

FOR MANY OF THE ISSUES THIS COMMITTEE IS INVESTIGATING, MY KNOWLEDGE IS SOMETIMES FIRST HAND, SOMETIMES COMES FROM OTHERS INVOLVED IN SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS AND MEETINGS.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN HOW ANYONE LEARNS AND CARRIES OUT HIS OR HER JOB RESPONSIBILITIES.

I HAVE BEEN AND REMAIN WILLING TO SHARE MY FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEE AND WILL MAKE CLEAR WHEN THOSE ARE BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR FROM INFORMATION GLEANED FROM OTHERS.

U.S. EFFORTS TO COUNTERCORRUPTION IN UKRAINE FOCUS ON BUILDING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ON UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO GO AFTER CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE AND JUDGE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES USING APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS.

THAT IS TO CREATE AND FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW.

THAT MEANS THAT IF THERE ARE CRIMINAL NEXUS FOR ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES, U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD PURSUE THE CASE.

IF WE THINK THERE HAS BEEN A CRIMINAL ACT OVERSEAS THAT VIOLATES U.S. LAW, WE HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS THAT.

IT COULD BE THROUGH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND FBI OR THROUGH TREATY MECHANISMS.

AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE I DO NOT BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ASK OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE IN SELECTIVE POLITICALLY ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATIONS OR PROSECUTIONS AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THOSE IN POWER BECAUSE SUCH SELECTIVE ACTIONS UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW REGARDLESS OF THE COUNTRY.

THE PER VASESIVE AND LONGSTANDING PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE INCLUDED EXPOSURE TO BURISMA.

THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SINCE 2014 WAS BURISMA'S OWNER, WHOSE FROZEN ASSETS ABROAD WE ATTEMPTED TO ROFSH ON UKRAINE'S BEHALF.

IN EARLY 2015 I RAISED QUESTIONS WITH THE DEPUTY PROSECUTOR GENERAL ABOUT WHY THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN TERMINATED BASED ON OUR BELIEF THAT PROSECUTORS HAD HELPED BRIBES TO CLOSE THE CASE.

LATER, I BECAME AWARE THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

AFTER THAT IN A BRIEFING CALL WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT IN FEBRUARY OF 2015, I RAISED MY CONCERNS THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S STATUS AS A BOARD MEMBER WOULD CREATE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

LET ME BE CLEAR.

I DID NOT WITNESS ANY EFFORT BY ANY U.S. OFFICIAL TO SHIELD BURISMA FROM SCRUTINY.

IN FACT, I AND OTHER U.S. OFFICIALS ADVOCATED REINSTITUTING A SCUTTLED INVESTIGATION THE BURISMA FOUNDER AS WELL AS HOLDING THE CORRUPT PROSECUTORS WHO CLOSED THE CASE TO ACCOUNT.

OVER THE COURSE OF 2018 AND 2019 I BECAME AWARE OF AN EFFORT BY RUDY GIULIANI AND OTHERS INCLUDING HIS ASSOCIATES LEV PARNAS AND IGOR FRUMAN TO RUN A CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND OTHER OFFICIALS AT THE SETTLE.

EMBASSY IN KIEV.

THE CHIEF AGITATORS ON THE UKRAINIAN SIDE WERE SOME OF THE FORMER I HAD ENCOUNTERED.

THEY WERE NOW PEDDLING FALSE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO EXTRACT REVENGE AGAINST THOSE WHO HAD EXPOSED THEIR MISCONDUCT INCLUDING U.S. DIPLOMATS, UKRAINIAN ANTICORRUPTION OFFICIALS AND REFORM MINDED CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS IN UKRAINE.

DURING THE LATE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2019, I BECAME ALARMED AS THOSE EFFORTS BORE FRUIT.

THEY LED TO THE OUSTER OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND HAMPERED U.S. EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH RAPPORT WITH THE NEW ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION IN UKRAINE.

IN MID-AUGUST IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO GIN UP POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOW INFECTING U.S.

ENGAGEMENT WITH OOUK JANE, LEVERAGING ZELENSKY'S DESIRE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

THERE ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN CONDITIONALITY PLACED ON SOVEREIGN GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE, ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS AS WELL AS MEETING LARGER STABILITY GOALS AND SOCIAL SAFETY NETS.

THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND DOES THE SAME THING.

CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WORK TOGETHER TO PUT CONDITIONALITY ON SOME SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.

REGARDING MY TESTIMONY TODAY, I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS THAT WILL INVOLVE ISSUES, CONVERSATIONS AND DOCUMENTS SPANNING A NUMBER OF YEARS.

I MAY BE LIMITED BY THREE CONSIDERATIONS.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT COLLECTEDED ALL MATERIALS THAT MAY CONTAIN FACTS RELATIVE TO MY TESTIMONY.

I HAVE NO SUCH MATERIALS WITH ME TODAY.

I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER AS ACCURATELY, COMPLETELY AND TRUTHFULLY AS I CAN TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

SECOND, AS COMMITTEE KNOWS FROM DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS QUESTIONS MAY BE ASKED ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

WE HAVE ASKED THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR GUIDANCE ABOUT CLASSIFICATION CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF MY DEPOSITION, AND STATE DEPARTMENT HAS DECLINED TO PROVIDE ANY.

SO IF I'M ASKED A QUESTION TODAY THAT I BELIEVE MAY IMPLICATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, I WILL RESPECTFULLY DECLINE TO ANSWER IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM.

THIRD, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOCUSING ON THE IDENTITY OF PEOPLE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

THESE QUESTIONS WERE REDACTED FROM MY DEPOSITION'S TRANSCRIPT.

IF SUCH A QUESTION ARISES TODAY, I WILL FOLLOW MY COUNSEL'S ADVICE AND DECLINE TO ANSWER.

I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE MY OPENING REMARKS WITH AN OBSERVATION ABOUT SOME OF MY FELLOW PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO HAVE COME UNDER PERSONAL ATTACKS.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, COLONEL VINDMAN AND DR. HILL, ONE OF WHOM WILL APPEAR IN THE DOING DAYS.

THEY WERE BORN ABROAD BEFORE FAMILIES OR THEY THEMSELVES CHOSE TO IMMIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES.

THEY ALL MADE THE PROFESSIONAL CHOICE TO SERVE THE UNITED STATES AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS, HELPING SHAPE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA IN PARTICULAR AND WE AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ARE THE BETTER FOR IT.

IN THIS SENSE, THEY ARE THE 21st CENTURY HEIRS OF NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY WHO ALSO WERE BORN ABROAD, MY FORMER PROFESSORS BRZEZINSKI AND FELLOW IMMIGRANT HENRY KISSINGER.

LIKE THEM, THE YOVANOVITCH AND VINDMAN'S FLED NAZI AND COMMUNIST OPPRESSION TO CONTRIBUTE TO A STRONGER, MORE SECURE AMERICA.

THAT HONORABLE TRADITION OF TRANSATLANTIC TIES GOES BACK TO THE VERY FOUNDING OF OUR REPUBLIC.

OUR 18th CENTURY INDEPENDENCE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHOUT THE CHOICE OF EUROPEAN OFFICERS, THE FRENCH-BORN LAFAYETTE, THE GERMAN BORN VON STEUBEN AND OTHERS TO COME TO THE NEW WORLD AND FIGHT FOR OUR CAUSE OF FREEDOM AND THE BIRTH OF A NEW COUNTRY FREE FROM IMPERIAL DOMINION.

IT IS MY PRIVILEGE TO SIT NEXT TO FORMER BOSS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TODAY AND IT IS MY HONOR TO SERVE WITH ALL OF THESE PATRIOTIC AMERICANS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M APPEARING TODAY AT THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST TO PROVIDE MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE EVENTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE AT THE OUTSET THAT WHILE I AM AWARE THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED MY TESTIMONY AS PART OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS I AM NOT HERE TO TAKE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OR TO ADVOCATE FOR ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOME OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

MY SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE FACTS AS I KNOW THEM ABOUT THE INCIDENTS IN QUESTION AS WELL AS MY VIEWS ABOUT THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE TO THE UNITED STATES.

BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY AND AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS STARTING AS A CADET AT WEST POINT AS YOU MENTIONED, MR. CHAIRMAN, AN INFANTRY OFFICER FOR SIX YEARS INCLUDING WITH THE 101st AIRBORNE IN VIETNAM, SETTLE OF ENERGY, THEN AS MEMBER OF A SENATE STAFF, THEN AT NATO, THEN WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT HERE AND ABROAD, IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, JERUSALEM AND UKRAINE.

I RETIRED FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN 2009 TO JOIN THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE.

I AM NEITHER A CAREER MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE FOR OF THE CIVIL SERVICE.

I AM NON-PARTISAN AND HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO MY POSITIONS BY EVERY PRESIDENT FROM PRESIDENT REAGAN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

LET ME SUMMARIZE: UKRAINE IS A STRATEGIC PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES, IMPORTANT FOR THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY AS WELL AS EUROPE.

UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINE IN THE CONFLICT WITH THE NEWLY AGGRESSIVE RUSSIA.

SECOND, EVEN AS WE SIT HERE TODAY THE RUSSIANS ARE ATTACKING UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

I SAW THIS ON THE FRONT LINE LAST WEEK.

THE DAY I WAS THERE A UKRAINIAN OLDIER KILLED, FOUR WOUNDED.

THIRD, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WE PROVIDE IS CRUCIAL TO UKRAINE'S DEFENSE AND TO THE PROTECTION OF THE SOLDIERS I MET ON THE FRONT LINE LAST WEEK.

IT DEMONSTRATES TO UKRAINIANS AND RUSSIANS THAT WE ARE UKRAINE'S RELIABLE STRATEGIC PARTNER.

IT IS CLEARLY IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

FINALLY, AS THE COMMITTEE IS AWARE, I WROTE THAT WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN EXCHANGE FOR HELP WITH A DOMESTIC POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE CRAZY.

I BELIEVE THAT THEN AND I BELIEVE IT NOW.

LET ME TELL YOU WHY.

ON MAY 28 OF THIS YEAR I MET WITH SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO WHO ASKED ME TO REJOIN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND RETURN TO KIEV TO LEAD OUR EMBASSY IN UKRAINE.

IT WAS AND IS A CRITICAL TIME FOR U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONS.

I THE HERVED AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE FROM 2006-2009.

HAVING BEEN NOMINATED BY GEORGE W BUSH AND INTERVENING 10 YEARS STAYED ENGAGED WITH UKRAINE.

ACROSS RESPONSIBILITY IN PUBLIC SERVICE UKRAINE IS THE HIGHLIGHT.

SO CORRECT POMPEO ASK OFFER TO RETURN AS CHIEF OF MISSION WAS COMPELLING.

SINCE I LEFT UKRAINE IN 2009, THE COUNTRY CONTINUED TO TURN TOWARD THE WEST.

BUT IN 2013 VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS SO THREATENED BY THE PROSPECT OF UKRAINE JOINING THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT HE TRIED TO BRIBE THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, TRIGGERED MASS PROTEST IN THE WINTER OF 2013 THAT DROVE THAT PRESIDENT TO FLEE TO RUSSIA IN FEBRUARY 2014 BUT NOT BEFORE HIS FORCES KILLED 100 UKRAINIAN PROTESTERS IN CENTRAL KIEV.

DAYS LATER MR. PUTIN INVADED CRIMEA, HOLDING A SHAM REFERENDUM AT THE POINT OF RUSSIAN ARMY RIFLES.

THE RUSSIANS ABSURDLY CLAIM THAT 97% VOTED TO JOIN RUSSIA.

IN EARLY APRIL PUTIN SENT HIS ARMY AND SECURITY FORCES IN TO SOUTHEASTERN UKRAINE TO GENERATE ILLEGAL ARMED FORMATIONS AND PUPPET GOVERNMENTS IN WHAT WE KNOW.

TO SEE THIS ON THE MAP, IN THE RIGHT HAND PORTION IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE COUNTRY.

14,000 UKRAINIANS DIED IN THE WAR THERE AND MORE DIE EACH WEEK.

IN JULY 2014 THESE RUSSIAN-LED DOORSES IN DOMBAS SHOT DOWN A CIVILIAN AIRLINER EN ROUTE TO MALAYSIA KILLING ALL ON BOARD.

WE IMPOSED ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND KICKED THE RUSSIANS OUT OF THE G-8:BEGINNING IN 2014 WE AND NATO BEGAN TO PROVIDE MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE'S ARMED FORCES IN THE FORM OF TRAINING ADVICE, MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND WEAPONS.

IT IS THIS SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY.

THE PRO RUSSIAN PRESIDENT WHO WAS RUN OUT OF KIEV IN 2014 HAD LEFT THE RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES DETERIORATE TO THE POINT OF RUIN.

IN RESPONSE TO THE RUSSIAN INVASION, THE NEW UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES WITH AMAZING OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FROM REG UKRAINIAN PEOPLE REBUILT THE ARMY, NEARLY FROM SCRATCH, SPENDING MORE THAN 5% OF UKRAINIAN GDP ON DEFENSE SINCE THE WAR STARTED.

THE WHOLE UKRAINIAN NATION FIERCELY RESPONDED TO THE RUSSIAN ATTACK, THE NATION UNITED LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

A RAG TAG ARMY DEVELOPED IN TO A STRONG FIGHTING FORCE AND THE UNITED STATES PLAYED A VITAL ROLE.

SINCE 2014 YOU AND CONGRESS HAVE PROVIDED OVER $1.6 BILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROVIDES SMALL UNIT TRAINING AT ARMY BASE IN THE EASTE EE EERN -- WESTER PORTION OF THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING NAVY SHIPS AND FINALLY WEAPONS.

THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATES OUR COMMITMENT TO RESIST AGGRESSION AND DEFEND FREEDOM.

DURING THE 2014-2016 PERIOD I WAS SERVING OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT AND JOINED TWO OTHER FORMER AMBASSADORS TO UKRAINE IN URGING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES TO PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

I ALSO SUPPORTED MUCH STRONGER SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA.

I WAS PLEASED WHEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILES AND ENACTED STRONGER SANCTIONS.

ALL TO SAY I CARED ABOUT UKRAINE'S FUTURE AND THE IMPORTANT U.S.

INTERESTS THERE.

SO WHEN SECRETARY POMPEO ASKED ME TO GO BACK TO KIEV I WANTED TO SAY YES BUT IT WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION.

THE FORMER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS BEEN TREATED POORLY.

CAUGHT IN A WEB OF POLITICAL MACHINATIONS IN KIEV AND WASHINGTON.

I FEARED THAT THOSE PROBLEMS WERE STILL PRESENT, CONSULTED BOTH MY WIFE AND THE RESPECTED FORMER SENIOR REPUBLICAN OFFICIAL WHO HAS BEEN A MENTOR, I WILL TELL YOU, THAT MY WIFE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS STRONGLY OPPOSED THE IDEA.

THE MENTOR COUNSELLED IF YOUR COUNTRY ASKS YOU TO DO SOMETHING, YOU DO IT IF YOU CAN BE EFFECTIVE.

I COULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IF THE U.S. POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, STRONG DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT ALONG WITH ROBUST SECURITY, ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WERE TO CONTINUE.

IF I HAD THE BACKING OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY, AND I WORRIED ABOUT WHAT I HAD HEARD CONCERNING THE ROLE OF RUDY GIULIANI, WHO HAD MADE SEVERAL CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS ABOUT UKRAINE AND U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE COUNTRY.

DURING MY MEETING WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ON MAY 28 I MADE CLEAR TO HIM AND THE OTHERS PRESENT THAT IF U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE CHANGED HE WOULD NOT WANT ME POSTED THERE AND I COULD NOT STAY.

HE ASSURED ME THAT THE POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WOULD CONTINUE AND THAT HE WOULD SUPPORT ME IN DEFENDING THAT POLICY.

WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING I AGREED TO GO BACK TO KIEV BECAUSE I WAS APPOINTED ABOUT I THE SECRETARY BUT NOT RECONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.

MY OFFICIAL POSITION OF CHARGE D'AFFAIRES INTERIM, ACTING AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

I RETURNED TO KIEV JUNE 17, CARRYING THE ORIGINAL COPY OF A LETTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED THE DAY AFTER I MET WITH THE SECRETARY.

IN THAT LETTER PRESIDENT TRUMP CONGRATULATED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON HIS ELECTION VICTORY AND INVITED HIM TO A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

ONCE I ARRIVED IN KIEV I DISCOVERED A WEIRD COMBINATION OF ENCOURAGING, CONFUSING AND ULTIMATELY ALARMING CIRCUMSTANCES.

FIRST THE ENCOURAGING.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS REFORMING UKRAINE IN A HURRY.

HE APPOINTED REFORMIST MINISTERS, SUPPORTED LONG-STALLED ANTICORRUPTION LEGISLATION.

HE TOOK QUICK EXECUTIVE ACTION INCLUDING OPENING UKRAINE'S HIGH ANTICORRUPTION COURT WITH A NEW PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY STEMMING FROM SNAP ELECTIONS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CHANGED THE UKRAINE CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM DEPUTIES, THE SOURCE OF RAW CORRUPTION FOR TWO DECADES.

THE EXCITEMENT IN KIEV WAS PALPABLE, THIS TIME COULD BE DIFFERENT, A NEW UKRAINE BREAKING FROM CORRUPT POST-SOVIET PAST.

AND YET I FOUND A CONFUSING AND UNUSUAL ARRANGEMENT FOR MAKING U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE.

THERE APPEARED TO BE TWO CHANNELS OF U.S. POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION, ONE REGULAR AND ONE HIGHLY IRREGULAR.

AS THE ACTING AMBASSADOR I HAD AUTHORITY OVER THE REGULAR, FORMAL DIPLOMATIC PROCESSES, INCLUDING THE BULK OF THE U.S. EFFORT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIAN INVASION, TO HELP IT DEFEAT CORRUPTION.

MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT AND OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WERE MY MAIN POINTS OF CONTACT IN WASHINGTON IN THIS REGULAR CHANNEL.

THIS CHANNEL IS FORMERLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FORMULATING, OVERSEEING IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE.

A POLICY THAT IS CONSIST SENTLY ENJOYED STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BOTH IN CONGRESS AND IN ALL ADMINISTRATIONS SINCE UKRAINE'S INDEPENDENCE FROM RUSSIA IN 1991.

AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, I ENCOUNTERED AN IRREGULAR INFORMAL CHANNEL OF U.S. POLICY MAKING WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE.

UNACCOUNTABLE TO CONGRESS, A CHANNEL THAT INCLUDED THEN SPECIAL ENVOY KURT VOLKER, U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION GORDON SONDLAND, SECRETARY OF ENERGY RICK PERRY, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND AS I SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED, MR. GIULIANI.

I WAS CLEARLY IN THE REGULAR CHANNEL BUT I WAS ALSO IN THE IRREGULAR ONE TO THE EXTENT THAT AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND INCLUDED ME IN CERTAIN CONVERSATIONS.

ALTHOUGH THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL WAS WELL CONNECTED IN WASHINGTON, IT OPERATED MOSTLY OUTSIDE OF OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT CHANNELS.

THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL BEGAN WHEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, SECRETARY PERRY AND SENATOR RON JOHNSON BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd UPON THEIR RETURN FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.

THE DELEGATION WAS AS ENTHUSIASTIC AS I WOULD SOON BECOME ABOUT THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND URGED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MEET WITH HIM EARLY ON, TO CEMENT THE U.S.-UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP.

BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND STOOD FROM THE PARTICIPANTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT SHARE THEIR ENTHUSIASM FOR A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHEN I ARRIVED IN KIEV THE REACTION OF BOTH THE REGULAR AND IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF FOREIGN POLICY APPEARED TO SERVE THE SAME GOAL: A STRONG U.S.-UKRAINE PARTNERSHIP.

BUT IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME BY AUGUST THAT THE CHANNELS HAD DIVERGED IN THEIR OBJECTIVES AS THIS OCCURRED I BECAME INCREASINGLY CONCERNED.

IN LATE JUNE BOTH CHANNELS WERE TRYING TO FACILITATE A VISIT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PROMISED IN HIS CONGRATULATORY LETTER OF MAY 19.

UKRAINIANS WERE CLEARLY EAGER FOR THE MEETING TO HAPPEN, ON MAY 29.

DURING MY SUBSEQUENT COMMUNES INDICATIONS WITH AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND THEY RELAYED THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO HEAR FROM ZELENSKY BEFORE SCHEDULING THE MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT THIS MEANT.

ON JUNE 27 AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ME PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WAY OF INVESTIGATIONS.

I SENSE ED SOMETHING ODD WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ME JUNE 28 THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO INCLUDE MOST OF THE REGULAR INTERAGENCY PARTICIPANTS IN A CALL PLANNED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LATER THAT DAY.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SECRETARY PERRY AND I WERE ON THIS CALL, DIALING IN FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

HOWEVER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE NO ONE WAS TRANSCRIBING OR MONITORING AS THEY ADDED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE CALL.

ALSO BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JOINED THE CALL AMBASSADOR VOLKER SEPARATELY TOLD THE U.S.

PARTICIPANTS THAT HE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, PLANNED TO BE EXPLICIT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING IN TORONTO ON JULY 2.

IN THAT MEETING AMBASSADOR VOLKER PLANNED TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD DO TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANT BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID HE WOULD RELAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO SEE RULE OF LAW, TRANSPARENCY BUT ALSO SPECIFICALLY COOPERATION ON INVESTIGATIONS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS.

ONCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JOINED THE CALL, THE CONVERSATION WAS FOCUSED ON ENERGY POLICY AND THE WAR IN DOMBAS.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ALSO SAID HE LOOKED FORWARD TO THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT, PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFERED IN HIS MAY 29 LETTER.

BY MID-JULY IT WAS BECOMING CLEAR TO ME THE MEETING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND ALLEGED UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S.

ELECTIONS.

IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT THIS CONDITION WAS DRIVEN BY THE IRREGULAR POLICY CHANNEL I HAD COME TO UNDERSTAND WAS GUIDED BY MR. GIULIANI.

IN A REGULAR NCS SECURE VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL JULY 18 I HEARD A STAFF PERSON FROM OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SAY THERE WAS A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BUT COULD NOT SAY WHY.

FOR THE END OF AN OTHERWISE NORMAL MEETING A VOICE ON THE CALL, THE PERSON WAS OFFSCREEN, SAID THAT SHE WAS FROM OMB AND BOSS INSTRUCTED HER NOT TO APPROVE ANY ADDITIONAL SPENDING ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE 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 OMB STAFF PERSON SAID WAS THAT THE DIRECTIVE HAD COME FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO OMB.

IN AN INSTANT I REALIZED THAT ONE OF THE KEY PILLARS OF OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS THREATENED, THE REGULAR POLICY CHANNEL WAS RUNNING CONTRARY TO GOALS OF LONGSTANDING U.S. POLICY.

THERE FOLLOWED A SERIES OF NCS MEETINGS STARTING AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND QUICKLY REACHING THE LEVEL OF CABINET SECRETARIES.

AT EVERY MEETING THE UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE SHOULD BE RESUMED, THE HOLD LIFTED.

AT ONE POINT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT WAS ASKED TO PERFORM AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ASSISTANCE.

WITHIN A DAY THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CAME BACK WITH THE DETERMINATION THAT THE ASSISTANCE WAS EFFECTIVE AND SHOULD BE RESUMED.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE AND STATE, THE CIA DIRECTOR AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SOUGHT A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT TO CONVINCE HIM TO RELEASE THE HOLD BUT SUCH A MEETING WAS HARD TO SCHEDULE AND THE HOLD LASTED WELL IN TO SEPTEMBER.

ON JULY 9 IN A PHONE CALL WITH THEN SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS FIONA HILL, DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AT THE NSC TRIED TO ASSURE ME THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF CHANGE IN U.S. POLICY AND UKRAINE OMB ANNOUNCEMENT NOTWITHSTANDING.

THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE CAME FROM CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY WHO MAINTAINED A SKEPTICAL VIEW OF UKRAINE.

IN THE SAME JULY 19 PHONE CALL THEY GAVE ME AN ACCOUNT OF JULY 10 MEETING UKRAINIAN AMERICAN OFFICIALS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

THEY TOLD ME THAT PARTWAY THROUGH THE MEETING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD CONNECTED INVESTIGATIONS WITH AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHICH SO IRRITATED THEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON THAT HE ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING TELLING DR. HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC POLITICS AND DIRECTED DR. HILL TO BRIEF THE LAWYERS.

DR. HILL SAID THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON REFERRED TO THIS DEAL AS, THIS IS A DRUG DEAL, AFTER THE JULY 10 MEETING.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON OPPOSED A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP OUT OF CONCERN THAT IT WOULD BE A DISASTER.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE UKRAINIANS AND MEETINGS WERE CONFUSED.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND REGULAR UKRAINE CHANNEL WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SECURITY, ENERGY, REFORM.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATIONS.

ALSO DURING OUR JULY 19 CALL DR. HILL INFORMED ME THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER MET WITH MR. GIULIANI TO DISCUSS UKRAINE, THIS CAUGHT ME BY SURPRISE.

THE NEXT DAY I ASKED AMBASSADOR VOLKER ABOUT THAT MEETING BUT RECEIVED NO RESPONSE.

I BEGAN TO SENSE THAT THESE TWO SEPARATE DECISION MAKING CHANNELS, THE REGULAR AND THE IRREGULAR, WERE SEPARATE AND AT ODDS.

LATER THAT DAY I RECEIVED TEXT MESSAGES ON A THREE-WAY WHAT'S APP TEXT CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND, RECORD OF WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD TAKE PLACE SOON.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT IS FOR ZELENSKY TO SAY THAT HE WILL HELP INVESTIGATION, ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC PERSONNEL ISSUES IF THERE ARE ANY.

ON THE NEXT DAY JULY 20th, I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHILE HE WAS ON A TRAIN FROM PARIS TO LONDON.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ME THAT HE HAD RECOMMENDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE USE THE PRAISE I WILL LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED WITH REGARD TO INVESTIGATIONS WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ALSO ON JULY 20 I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH ALEXANDER, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO EMPHASIZED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT WANT TO BE USED AS AN INSTRUMENT IN A U.S.

REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THE NEXT DAY I CONTACTED VOLKER AND SONDLAND ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONCERN.

ON JULY 25 PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THE LONG AWAITED PHONE CONVERSATION.

EVEN THOUGH I WAS ACTING AMBASSADOR AND WAS SCHEDULED TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER THE FOLLOWING DAY I RECEIVED NO READ OUT OF THE CALL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

UKRAINIAN CROFT ISSUED A SHORT CRYPTIC SUMMARY.

DURING A PREVIOUSLY PLANNED JULY 26 MEETING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TOLD AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND ME THAT HE WAS HAPPY WITH THE CALL, BUT DID NOT ELABORATE.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THEN ASKED ABOUT THE FACE-TO-FACE MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE AS PROMISED IN THE MAY 29 LETTER FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE COULD GIVE HIM NO FIRM ANSWER.

AFTER OUR MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I TRAVELLED TO THE FRONT LINE IN NORTHERN DOMBAD TO RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE COMMANDER OF FORCES, ARRIVING FOR THE BRIEFING IN MILITARY HEADQUARTER IT IS COMMANDER THANKED US FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

BUT I WAS AWARE THAT THIS ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD, WHICH MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I COULD SEE THE ARMED AND HOSTILE RUSSIAN-LED FORCES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DAMAGED BRIDGE ACROSS THE LINE OF CONTACT.

RUSSIAN-LED FORCES CONTINUE TO KILL UKRAINIANS IN THE WAR ONE OR TWO A WEEK.

MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY DIE WITHOUT U.S. ASSISTANCE.

ALTHOUGH I SPENT THE MORNING OF JULY 26 WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THE FIRST SUMMARY OF THE JULY 25th TRUMP-ZELENSKY CALL I HEARD FROM ANYBODY INSIDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS DURING A PHONE CALL I HAD WITH TIM MORRISON, DR. HILL'S RECENT REPLACEMENT AT THE NSC ON JULY 28.

MR. MORRISON TOLD ME THE CALL COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SUGGESTED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR HIS STAFF MEET WITH MR. GIULIANI AND ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR.

I DID NOT SEE ANY OFFICIAL READ OUT OF THE CALL UNTIL IT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED SEPTEMBER 25th.

BY AUGUST I WAS BECOMING MORE CONCERNED.

AUGUST 16 YOU EXCHANGED TECH MESSAGES WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN WHICH I LAND YERMAK, SENIOR ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED THE UNITED STATES SUBMIT AN OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION IN TO BURISMA'S ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF UKRAINIAN LAW.

IF THAT IS WHAT THE UNITED STATES DESIRED.

A FORMAL U.S. REQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF THEIR OWN LAW STRUCK ME AS IMPROPER AND I RECOMMENDED TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER THAT WE STAY CLEAR.

TO FIND OUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, I GAVE HIM THE NAME OF A DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL WHOM I THOUGHT WOULD BE THE PROPER POINT OF CONTACT FOR SEEKING A U.S. REQUEST FOR A FOREIGN INVESTIGATION.

BY MID-AUGUST BECAUSE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN HELD FOR OVER A MONTH FOR NO REASON I COULD DISCERN I WAS BEGINNING TO FEAR THAT THE LONGSTANDING U.S. POLICY OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS SHIFTING.

I CALLED STATE DEPARTMENT COUNSELOR TO DISCUSS THIS ON AUGUST 21st, HE SAID HE WAS NOT AWARE OF A CHANGE IN POLICY BUT WOULD CHECK ON THE STATUS OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

MY CONCERNENED DEEPENED.

I ASKED IF THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE TO WHICH MR. MORRISON SAID IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

HE ALSO TOLD ME DURING THE CALL THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE AT ALL.

THAT WAS EXTREMELY TROUBLING TO ME AS I HAD TOLD SECRETARY POMPEO IN MAY IF THE POLICY OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WERE TO CHANGE I WOULD HAVE TO RESIGN BASED ON MY CALL WITH MR. MORRISON I WAS PREPARING TO DO SO.

JUST DAYS LATER ON AUGUST 27 AMBASSADOR BOLTON ARRIVED IN KIEV AND MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

DURING THEIR MEETING SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT DISCUSSED.

AS FAR AS I KNEW THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE HOLD UNTIL AUGUST 29.

I ON THE OTHER HAND WAS ALL TOO AWARE OF AND STILL TROUBLED BY THE HOLD.

NEAR THE END OF BOLTON'S VISIT I ASKED TO MEET HIM PRIVATELY DURING WHICH I EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT WITHHOLDING MILITARY EXPERIENCE TO UKRAINE WHILE THEY WERE DEFENDING AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON RECOMMENDED I SEND A FIRST PERSON CABLE TO SECRETARY POMPEO DIRECTLY RELAYING MY CONCERNS.

I WROTE AND TRANSMITTED SUCH A CABLE ON AUGUST 29, DESCRIBING THE FOLLY I SAW IN WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AT A TIME WHEN HOSTILITIES WERE STILL ACTIVE IN THE EAST AND WHEN RUSSIA WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

THE RUSSIANS AS I SAID AT MY DEPOSITION WAS WOULD LOVE TO SEE HUMILIATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THE HAND OF THE AMERICANS.

I TOLD THE SECRETARY THAT I COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT DEFEND SUCH A POLICY.

ALTHOUGH I RECEIVED NO SPECIFIC RESPONSE I HEARD THAT SOON THEREAFTER THE SECRETARY CARRIED THE CABLE WITH HIM TO A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOCUSSED ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE.

THE SAME DAY THAT I SENT MY CABLE TO THE SECRETARY, MR. YERMAK CONTACTED ME VERY CONCERNED ASKING ABOUT THE WITHHELD SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE HOLD THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAD PLACED ON ASSISTANCE HAD JUST BEEN MADE PUBLIC THAT DAY IN A POLITICAL STORY.

AT THAT POINT I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I COULD GIVE HIM NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT WAS WITHHELD.

IT HAD STILL NOT OCCURRED TO ME THAT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE COULD BE RELATED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT, HOWEVER, WOULD CHANGE.

ON SEPTEMBER 1 JUST THREE DAYS AFTER MY CABLE TO SECRETARY POMPEO, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MET VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AT A BILATERAL MEETING IN WARSAW.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PLANNED TO TRAVEL BUT CANCELED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE DORIAN.

HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING I CONTACTED, TO LET HIM KNOW THAT THE DELAY OF U.S. ASSISTANCE WAS AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION THAT IF THE WHITE HOUSE DID NOT LIFT THE HOLD PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 30, FUND WOULD EXPIRE AND UKRAINIAN WOULD RECEIVE NOTHING.

I WAS HOPING AT THE BIS LATERAL MEETING OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD LIFT THE HOLD BUT THIS WAS NOT TO BE.

ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 1 I RECEIVED A READ OUT OF THE PENCE-ZELENSKY MEETING OVER THE PHONE WITH MR. MORRISON DURING WHICH HE TOLD ME PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OPENED THE MEETING BY IMMEDIATELY ASKING VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE COOPERATION.

VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT RESPOND BUT SAID THAT HE WOULD TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT NIGHT.

THE VICE PRESIDENT DID SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE EUROPEANS TO DO MORE TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AND THAT HE WANTED THE UKRAINIANS TO DO MORE TO FIGHT CORRUPTION.

DURING THE SAME PHONE CALL WITH MR. MORRISON, HE DESCRIBED A CONVERSATION AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD WITH MR. YERMAK IN WARSAW.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD MR. YERMAK THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE MONEY WOULD NOT COME UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO PURSUE THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION.

I WAS ALARMED BY WHAT MR. MORRISON TOLD ME ABOUT THE SONDLAND-YERMAK CONVERSATION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED AT HIS DEPOSITION THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PROPOSED IT MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL TO COMMIT TO PURSUE INVESTIGATION AS OPPOSED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

BUT THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, NOT JUST THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS.

VERY CONCERNED ON THAT SAME DAY, SEPTEMBER 1, I SENT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND A TEXT MESSAGE ASKING IF WE ARE NOW SAYING THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED ASKING ME TO CALL HIM, WHICH I DID.

DURING THAT PHONE CALL AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOLD HIM THAT HE WANTS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STATE PUBLICLY THAT UKRAINE WILL INVESTIGATE BURISMA AND ALLEGED UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE NOW RECOGNIZED THAT HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE BY EARLIER TELLING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT ONLY A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS DEPENDENT ON A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

IN FACT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, EVERYTHING WAS DEPENDENT ON SUCH AN ANNOUNCEMENT INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX BY MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ORDERING SUCH INVESTIGATIONS.

THE SAME SEPTEMBER 1 CALL I TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD HAVE MORE RESPECT FOR ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE AND THAT WHAT HE DESCRIBED WAS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF EITHER PRESIDENT TRUMP OR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AT THAT POINT I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO PUSH BACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PLEDGED TO TRY.

I SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL RATHER THAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS, POTENTIALLY IN COORDINATION WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S PROBE IN TO THE INVESTIGATION OF INTERN FIERCE -INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS: EXPRESSED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONCERN ABOUT THE POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

IN PARTICULAR, MR. MORRISON RELAYED TO ME THAT THE INABILITY OF ANY U.S. OFFICIALS TO RESPOND TO THE UKRAINIANS EXPLICIT QUESTIONS ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS TROUBLING THEM.

I WAS EXPERIENCING THE SAME TENSION IN MY DEALINGS WITH THE UKRAINIANS INCLUDING A MEETING I HAD HAD WITH THE DEFENSE MINISTER THAT DAY.

ON SEPTEMBER 5 I ACCOMPANIED SENATORS JOHN SON AND MURPHY DURING THEIR VISIT TO KIEV.

THE FIRST QUESTION WAS ABOUT WITHHELD SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

MY RECOLLECTION OF THE MEETING IS THAT BOTH SENATORS STRESSED THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN WASHINGTON WAS UKRAINE'S MOST STRATEGIC ASSET AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BY GETTING DRAWN IN TO U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS.

I HAD BEEN MAKING AND CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS POINT TO ALL OF MY OFFICIAL UKRAINIAN CONTACTS.

BUT THE ODD PUSH TO MAKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PUBLICLY COMMIT TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION SHOWED HOW OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDERCUT BY THE IRREGULAR EFFORTS LED BY MR. GIULIANI.

TWO DAYS LATER, SEPTEMBER 7, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. MORRISON IN WHICH HE DESCRIBED A PHONE CONVERSATION EARLIER THAT DAY BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

MR. MORRISON SAID THAT HE HAD A SINKING FEELING AFTER LEARNING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

ACCORDING TO MR. MORRISON PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID INSIST THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GO TO A MICROPHONE AND SAY HE IS OPENING INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN AND 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD WANT TO DO THIS HIMSELF.

MR. MORRISON SAID HE TOLD AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND THE NSC LAWYERS OF THIS PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THE FOLLOWING DAY ON SEPTEMBER 8 AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I SPOKE ON THE PHONE, HE CONFIRMED HE HAD TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AS I HAD SUGGESTED A WEEK EARLIER BUT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ADAMANT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF HAD TO CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID IT WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO.

I BELIEVED THIS WAS THE SAME CONVERSATION BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT MR. MORRISON HAD DESCRIBED TO ME ON SEPTEMBER 7.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. YERMAK AND HAD TOLD THEM THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS P IN PUBLIC, WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE.

I UNDERSTOOD A STALEMATE TO MEAN UKRAINE WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT THIS CONVERSATION CONCLUDED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREEING TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT IN AN INTERVIEW ON CNN.

SHORTLY AFTER THAT CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND I EXPRESSED MY STRONG RESERVATIONS IN A TEXT MESSAGE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATING THAT MY NIGHTMARE IS THAT THEY, THE UKRAINES, GIVE THE INTERVIEW AND DON'T GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

RUSSIANS LOVE IT AND I QUIT AND I WAS SERIOUS.

THE NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 9, I SAID TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER THE MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS AND RUSSIANS WE SEND WITH DECISION ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS SEE.

WITH THE HOLD WE HAVE ALREADY SHAKEN THEIR FAITH IN US.

I ALSO SAID I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED ABOUT FIVE HOURS LATER THAT I WAS INCORRECT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENTIONS, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR, NO QUID PRO QUOS OF ANY KIND.

DURING OUR MEETING, DURING THE CALL SEPTEMBER 8 AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESS MAN, BUSINESS MAN IS ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO OWES HIM SOMETHING, THE BUSINESS MAN ASKS THAT PERSON TO PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK.

AMBASSADOR USED THE SAME LANGUAGE SEVERAL DAYS LATER WHILE WE WERE AT THE STRATEGY CONFERENCE.

I ARGUED TO BOTH THAT THE EXPLANATION MADE NO SENSE.

UKRAINIANS DID NOT OWE PRESIDENT TRUMP ANYTHING AND HOLDING UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR DOMESTIC POLITICAL GAIN WAS CRAZY, AS I HAD SAID IN MY TEXT MESSAGE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER ON SEPTEMBER 9.

FINALLY, ON SEPTEMBER 11 I LEARNED THAT THE HOLD HAD BEEN LIFTED SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD BE PROVIDED.

I WAS NOT TOLD THE REASON WHY THE HOLD HAD BEEN LIFTED.

THE NEXT DAY I PERSONALLY CONVEYED THE NEWS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND A THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AND I AGAIN REMINDED MR. YERMAK OF THE HIGH STRATEGIC VALUE OF BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN OTHER COUNTRY'S ELECTIONS.

MY FEAR AT THE TIME THAT WAS SINCE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TOLD ME PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD ALREYING A GR HE HAD -- ALREADY AGREED TO DO AN INTERVIEW, HE WOULD HAVE PLAYED IN DOMESTIC U.S.

POLITICS.

I SOUGHT TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT PLANNING TO GIVE SUCH AN INTERVIEW TO THE MEDIA, WHILE HE INITIALLY CONFIRMED THAT ON SEPTEMBER 12 I NOTICED DURING A MEETING ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 13 AT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S OFFICE THAT MR. YERMAK LOOKED UNCOMFORTABLE.

I ASKED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CNN INTERVIEW WHICH HE DID.

ON SEPTEMBER 25th, AT THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION IN NEW YORK CITY PRESIDENT TRUMP MET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FACE-TO-FACE.

HE ALSO RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25 CALL.

UNITED STATES GAVE UKRAINIANS VIRTUALLY NO NOTICE OF THE RELEASE AND THEY WERE LIVID.

THOUGH THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD SEEN THE DETAILS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IN WHICH HE MENTIONED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, I HAD COME TO UNDERSTAND WELL BEFORE THEN THAT INVESTIGATIONS WAS A TERM AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND USED TO MEAN MATTERS RELATED TO THE 2016 ELECTION AND TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.

LAST FRIDAY A MEMBER OF MY STAFF TOLD ME OF EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 26.

WHILE AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I VISITED THE FRONT, MEMBER OF MY STAFF ACCOMPANIED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET WITH MR. YERMAK.

FOLLOWING THAT MEETING IN THE PRESENCE OF MY STAFF AT A RESTAURANT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TOLD HIM OF HIS MEETINGS IN KIEV.

A MEMBER OF MY STAFF COULD HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE ASKING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP THE UKRAINIANS WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD.

FOLLOWING THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE MEMBER OF MY STAFF ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT ABOUT UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CARES MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN WHICH GIULIANI WAS PRESSING FOR.

AT THE TIME I GAVE MY DEPOSITION ON OCTOBER 22nd, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS INFORMATION.

I'M INCLUDED IT HERE FOR COMPLETENESS AS THE COMMITTEE KNOWS, I REPORTED THIS INFORMATION THROUGH COUNSEL TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S LEGAL ADVISOR AS WELL AS TO COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COMMITTEE IS FOLLOWING UP ON THIS MATTER.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS RATHER A LENGTHY RECITATION OF THE EVENTS OF THE PAST FEW MONTHS, TOLD FROM MY VANTAGE POINT IN KIEV BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTERS YOUR COMMITTEE IS INVESTIGATING.

AND I HOPE THAT THIS CHRONOLOGY WILL PROVIDE SOME FRAMEWORK FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.

AS I MENTIONED IN MY OCTOBER 22nd DEPOSITION, THE INFORMATION IN QUOTES IN MY TESTIMONY ARE BASED ON MY BEST RECOLLECTION AS WELL AS A REVIEW OF MY PERSONAL NOTES.

LET ME RETURN TO THE POINTS I MADE AT THE OUTSET.

UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN EUROPE BY LAND MASS, UKRAINE IS A YOUNG DEMOCRACY, STRUGGLING TO TO EUROPE AND ALIE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

IT HAS BEEN VIOLENTLY ATTACKED BY RUSSIA CAN I CONTINUES ITS, IF WE BELIEVE IN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS ON WHICH OUR SECURITY AND SECURITY OF OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES DEPENDS, IF WE BELIEVE THAT NATIONS GET TO DECIDE ON THEIR OWN ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND SECURITY ALLIANCES, WE MUST SUPPORT UKRAINE IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST ITS BULLYING NEIGHBOR.

RUSSIAN AGGRESSION CANNOT STAND.

REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS OVER THREE DECADES HAVE BEEN GENEROUS WITH ASSISTANCE FUNDING BOTH CIVILIAN AND MILITARY, AND POLITICAL SUPPORT.

WITH OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN MAJORITIES, CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED HARSH SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR INVITING AND OCCUPYING UKRAINE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. ARE TWO UKRAINE STORIES TODAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE FIRST IS THE ONE WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS MORNING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT FOR THE PAST TWO WEEKS.

IT'S A RANCOROUS STORY ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWERS, MR. GIULIANI, SIDE CHANNELS, QUID PRO QUOS, CORRUPTION AND INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS.

IN THIS STORY UKRAINE IS MERELY AN OBJECT.

BUT THERE'S ANOTHER STORY, A POSITIVE, BIPARTISAN ONE.

IN THIS SECOND STORY UKRAINE IS THE SUBJECT.

THIS ONE IS ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE, IN A YOUNG NATION, STRUGGLING TO BREAK FREE OF ITS PAST, HOPEFUL THAT THEIR NEW GOVERNMENT WILL FINALLY USHER IN A NEW UKRAINE, PROUD OF ITS INDEPENDENCE FROM RUSSIA, EAGER TO JOIN WESTERN INSTITUTIONS AND ENJOY A MORE SECURE AND PROSPEROUS LIFE.

THIS STORY DESCRIBES A NATION DEVELOPING AN INCLUSIVE DEMOCRATIC NATIONALISM NOT UNLIKE WHAT WE IN AMERICA IN OUR BEST MOMENTS FEEL ABOUT OUR DIVERSE COUNTRY, LESS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT LANGUAGE WE SPEAK, WHAT RELIGION, IF ANY, WE PRACTICE, WHERE OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS CAME FROM, MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING A NEW COUNTRY.

AND I'M NOW LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> I THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF AND MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS.

MR. TAYLOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY FOLLOWING UP ON SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE DISCLOSED TODAY AND DISCLOSED EARLIER TO BOTH MAJORITY AND MINORITY BUT IT IS SOME NEW INFORMATION FOR THE COMMITTEE.

YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT ONE OF YOUR STAFF WAS PRESIDENT WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON THE DAY AFTER THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> AND AS YOUR STAFF RELATED THE EVENT TO YOU, YOUR STAFF MEMBER COULD OVERHEAR MR. SONDLAND ON THE PHONE, OVERHEAR THE PRESIDENT ON THE PHONE WITH MR. SONDLAND.

THAT IS RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO THE PRESIDENT MUST HAVE BEEN SPEAKING LOUD NOW THE PHONE.

THIS WAS A CELL PHONE?

>> IT WAS A CELL PHONE.

>> THE PRESIDENT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOUR STAFF MEMBER TO BE ABLE TO OVERHEAR THIS?

>> IT WAS.

>> AND WHAT YOUR STAFF MEMBER COULD OVERHEAR WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT, QUOTE, THE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT IS RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I THINK YOU TESTIFIED ALSO THAT YOU HAD COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE TERM INVESTIGATIONS WAS A TERM THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AS WELL AS VOLKER USED TO MEAN MATTERS RELATED TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.

THAT IS CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YOUR STAFF MEMBER OVERHEARS THE PRESIDENT ASKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS, MEANING BURISMA AND THE BIDENS IN 2016.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> HE DID.

>> AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT AFTER THE CALL WHEN YOUR STAFF ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT OF UKRAINE, HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CARES MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN, THAT IS RIGHT?

>> AND BURISMA, YES, SIR.

>> AND I TAKE IT THE IMPORT OF THAT IS HE CARES MORE ABOUT THAT THAN HE DOES ABOUT UKRAINE.

>> YES, SIR.

>> DURING YOUR TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU ALSO SAID THAT MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY DIE WITHOUT U.S. ASSISTANCE.

WHY IS THAT?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE TAKES MANY FORMS.

ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THAT ASSISTANCE IS COUNTER BATTERY RADAR, ANOTHER COMPONENT ARE SNIPER WEAPONS.

THESE WEAPONS AND THIS ASSISTANCE ALLOWS THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER FURTHER INCURSIONS BY THE RUSSIANS AGAINST UKRAINIAN TERRITORY.

IF THAT FURTHER INCURSION, FURTHER AGGRESSION WERE TO TAKE PLACE MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD DIE.

SO IT IS A DETERRENT EFFECT THAT THESE WEAPONS PROVIDE.

IT'S ALSO THE ABILITY, IT GIVES THE UKRAINIANS THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF A LITTLE MORE STRENGTH WHEN THEY NEGOTIATE AN END TO THE WAR IN DOMBAS, NEGOTIATING WITH THE RUSSIANS.

THIS ALSO IS A WAY THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UKRAINIANS WHO WOULD DIE.

>> I TAKE IT IF THE PROVISION OF U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE WOULD SAVE UKRAINIAN LIVES, THAT ANY DELAY IN THAT ASSISTANCE MAY ALSO COST UKRAINIAN LIVES.

THAT IS TRUE?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, OF COURSE IT'S HARD TO DRAW MY DIRECT LINES BETWEEN ANY PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND ANY PARTICULAR DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

BUT IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT ASSISTANCE ENABLED UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES TO BE EFFECTIVE AND DETER AND TO BE ABLE TO TAKE COUNTERMEASURES TO THE ATTACKS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD.

>> I THINK YOU SAID THAT UKRAINIAN SOLDER LOST THEIR LIFE WHILE YOU WERE VISITING DOMBAS.

>> WE KEEP VERY CAREFUL TRACK OF THE CASUALTIES AND I NOTICED ON THE NEXT DAY THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT THAT ONE WAS KILLED, FOUR SOLDIERS WOUNDED ON THAT DAY.

>> INDEED, UKRAINIANS LOSE THEIR LIVES EVERY WEEK.

>> EVERY WEEK.

>> I THINK YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT RUSSIAN WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

WHY IS THAT SIGNIFICANT?

>> THIS IS SIGNIFICANT, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE UKRAINIANS, IN PARTICULAR UNDER THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION, ARE EAGER TO END THIS WAR AND THEY ARE EAGER TO END IT IN A WAY THAT THE RUSSIANS LEAVE THEIR TERRITORY.

THESE NEGOTIATIONS, LIKE ALL NEGOTIATIONS, ARE DIFFICULT.

UKRAINIANS WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH OR AT LEAST MORE STRENGTH THAN THEY NOW HAVE.

PART OF THAT STRENGTH, PART OF THE ABILITY OF THE UKRAINIANS TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST THE RUSSIANS WITH THE RUSSIANS FOR AN END TO THE WAR IN DOMBAS DEPENDS ON UNITED STATES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.

IF WE WITHDRAW OR SUSPEND OR THREATEN TO WITHDRAW OUR SECURITY ASSISTANCE, THAT'S A MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS BUT IT'S AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR QUESTION INDICATES, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO THE RUSSIANS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR ANY SIGN OF WEAKNESS OR ANY SIGN THAT WE ARE WITHDRAWING OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

>> SO WHEN UKRAINIANS LEARNED OF SUSPENSION OF THE MILITARY AID, EITHER PRIVATELY OR WHEN OTHERS LEARNED PUBLICLY, THE RUSSIANS WOULD BE LEARNING ALSO AND THEY WOULD TAKE THAT AS A LACK OF ROBUST U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

THAT IS RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

>> THAT WOULD WEAKEN UKRAINE IN NEGOTIATING A END TO THE WAR IN >> IT WOULD.

>> PEOPLE WATCHING I'M SURE ARE INTERESTED IN HOW MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AFFECTS UKRAINE.

BUT EVEN MORE SO INTERESTED IN HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY?

NOW, I THINK YOU SAID THAT IF WE BELIEVE IN A PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS WHERE COUNTRIES GET TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN ECONOMIC POLITICAL AND SECURITY ALLIANCES, WE HAVE TO SUPPORT UKRAINE IN ITS FIGHT, THAT THE KIND OF AGGRESSION WE SEE BY RUSSIA CAN'T STAND.

HOW IS IT IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY THAT WE PROVIDE FOR A ROBUST DEFENSE OF UKRAINE SOVEREIGNTY?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AS MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT DESCRIBED, WE HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY, A NATIONAL DEFENSE POLICY THAT IDENTIFIES RUSSIA AND CHINA AS ADVERSARIES.

THE RUSSIANS ARE VIOLATING ALL OF THE RULES, TREATIES, UNDERSTANDINGS THAT THEY COMMITTED TO THAT ACTUALLY KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE FOR NEARLY 70 YEARS.

UNTIL THEY INVADED UKRAINE IN 2014, THEY HAD ABIDED BY SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS, OF INVIALABILITY OF BORDERS.

THAT RULE OF LAW, THAT ORDER THAT KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE AND ALLOWED FOR PROSPERITY AS WELL AS PEACE IN EUROPE, WAS VIOLATED BY THE RUSSIANS AND IF WE DON'T PUSH BACK ON THAT, ON THOSE VIOLATIONS, THEN THAT WILL CONTINUE.

AND THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, AFFECTS US, IT AFFECTS THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL GROW UP IN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN.

THIS AFFECTS THE KIND OF WORLD THAT WE WANT TO SEE ABROAD.

SO THAT AFFECTS OUR NATIONAL 3 INTEREST VERY DIRECTLY.

UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINE OF THAT CONFLICT.

>> I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR DECADES OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY AND I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MR. GOLDMAN FOR QUESTIONING.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ON THE HEELS OF YOUR DISCUSSING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE I WANT TO GO TO THE END OF THE TIME LINE WHERE YOU LEARNED THAT THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

IN PARTICULAR ON SEPTEMBER 9 OF THIS YEAR, YOU TEXTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER AND THE TEXT MESSAGE SHOULD BE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU.

IF YOU COULD READ WHAT YOU W WROTE.

>> AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

>> WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT IT WAS CRAZY?

>> MR. GOLDMAN, I MEANT THAT THE -- BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE HAD JUST DESCRIBED AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT, THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS SO IMPORTANT FOR UKRAINE AS WELL AS OUR OWN NATIONAL INTEREST, TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, MADE NO SENSE.

IT WAS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ALL OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO.

IT WAS ILLOGICAL.

IT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED A.

IT WAS CRAZEDY.

>> WHEN YOU SAY ALL OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ---ING WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WE?

>> I MEAN THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS TRYING TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AS A FRONT LINE STATE AGAINST RUSSIAN ATTACK.

AND AGAIN, THE WHOLE NOTION OF A RULES BASED ORDER WAS BEING THREATENED BY THE RUSSIANS IN UKRAINE.

SO OUR SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.

IT WAS NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES.

IT WAS ALL OF OUR ALLIES.

>> WHEN YOU REFERENCE HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN THIS TEXT MESSAGE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN?

>> I MEANT THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS WAS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY MR. GIULIANI IN PUBLIC FOR MONTHS AS A WAY TO GET INFORMATION ON THE TWO BIDENS.

>> AND THOSE, THAT INVESTIGATION AT THE VERY LEAST WAS MENTIONED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT IS RIGHT?

>> AS WE NOW KNOW, YES, ON SEPTEMBER 25th, THAT TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IN YOUR DECADES OF MILITARY SERVICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES AROUND THE WORLD, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF FOREIGN AID CONDITIONED ON THE PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> NO, MR. GOLDMAN, I HAVE NOT.

>> MR. KENT, THAT VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING FROM UKRAINE.

WHAT ELSE WAS CONTINGENT ON UKRAINE INITIATING THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> WELL, AS WE HAVE TALKED EARLIER TODAY, THE POSSIBILITY OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS BEING HELD CONTINGENT TO AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

>> HOW IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A WHITE HOUSE MEETING?

>> NEW LEADERS, PARTICULARLY COUNTRIES THAT ARE TRYING TO HAVE GOOD FOOTING IN INTERNATIONAL ARENA, SEE A MEETING WITH THE U.S. PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AS THE ULTIMATE SIGN OF ENDORSEMENT AND SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES.

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A RELATIVELY NEW PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, HE WAS ELECTED ON APRIL 21st AND HIS GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED AFTER PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN JULY.

>> WOULD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BOOST HIS LEGITIMACY AS A THAT PRESIDENT IN UKRAINE?

>> IT WOULD PRIMARILY BOOST HIS LEVERAGE TO NEGOTIATE WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN ABOUT THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF 7% OF UKRAINIAN TERRITORY.

>> MR. KENT, IS PRESSURING UKRAINE TO CONDUCT WHAT I BELIEVE YOU HAVE CALLED POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS A PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF UKRAINE AND AROUND THE WORLD?

>> IT IS NOT.

>> IS IT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> IN MY OPINION, IT IS NOT.

>> WHY NOT?

>> BECAUSE OUR POLICIES, PARTICULARLY IN PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW, ARE DESIGNED TO HELP COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY IN EASTERN EUROPE, COMMUNIST SYSTEM THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OFFICE USED TO SUPPRESS AND PERSECUTE CITIZENS, NOT PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW.

IN HELPING COUNTRIES REACH ASPIRATIONS OF JOINING THE NATIONS AND LIVE LIVES OF DIGNITY HELPING THEM HAVE THE RULE OF LAW WITH STRONG INSTITUTIONS IS THE PURPOSE OF OUR POLICY.

>> SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A PURPOSE OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY TO ENCOURAGE FOREIGN NATIONS TO REFRAIN FROM CONDUCTING POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

AND IN FACT AS A MATTER OF POLICY, NOT OF PROGRAMMING, WE OFTENTIMES RAISE OUR CONCERNS USUALLY IN PRIVATE WITH COUNTRIES THAT WE FEEL ARE ENGAGED IN SELECTIVE POLITICAL PROSECUTION AND PERSECUTION OF THEIR OPPONENTS.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, NOW THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT YOU ULTIMATELY DID UNDERSTAND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FROM UKRAINE UNTIL THEY ANNOUNCED THESE INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, LET'S GO BACK A LITTLE BIT IN TIME TO WHEN YOU FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THIS CONDITIONALITY.

ON SEPTEMBER 1, SO A LITTLE MORE THAN A WEEK BEFORE THAT TEXT WE JUST READ, YOU SENT ANOTHER TEXT TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER, WHICH SHOULD BE ALSO ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU.

IF YOU COULD READ WHAT YOU WROTE TO THEM.

>> ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS?

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED, CALL ME.

WHAT INFORMATION HAD YOU LEARNED THAT PROMPTED YOU TO WRITE THIS TEXT MESSAGE?

>> I HAD LEARNED THAT IN WARSAW, AFTER THE MEETING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD HAD MEETINGS THERE.

AND HAD DESCRIBED TO MR. YERMAK, THE ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO HELD PENDING ANNOUNCEMENT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN PUBLIC OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

BEFORE THAT I HAD ONLY UNDERSTOOD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED AND AT THIS TIME, AFTER I HEARD OF THIS CONVERSATION, IT STRUCK ME, CLEAR TO ME THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALSO BEING HELD.

>> YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY YOU WERE ALARMED TO LEARN THIS.

WHY WERE YOU ALARMED?

>> IT'S ONE THING TO TRY TO LEVERAGE A MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

IT'S ANOTHER THING, I THOUGHT, TO LEVERAGE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO A COUNTRY AT WAR DEPENDENT ON BOTH THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE DEMONSTRATION OF SUPPORT.

IT WAS MUCH MORE ALARMING.

THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS ONE THING, SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS MUCH MORE ALARMING.

>> NOW, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU OUTLINED A VERY DETAILED TIME LINE AND IN FACT WE HAVE A WRITTEN COPY HERE AND YOU INCLUDED SOME PHRASES AND WORD IN QUOTATIONS.

DID YOU TAKE NOTES OF THIS CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 1 WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

>> I DID.

>> DID YOU TAKE NOTES RELATED TO MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS IF NOT ALL OF THEM THAT YOU RECITED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT?

>> ALL OF THEM, MR. GOLDMAN.

>> AND WHAT ARE THOSE QUOTATIONS THAT YOU INCLUDE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT REFLECT?

>> THEY REFLECT MY NOTES ON THE EXACT WORDS THAT I HEARD ON THAT CALL.

SO IT WAS, IF I PUT THOSE IN QUOTES, THAT MEANT THAT THOSE ARE THE WORD USED ON THAT PHONE CALL OR IN THAT CONVERSATION.

>> DID YOU REVIEW THOSE NOTES BEFORE YOU DRAFTED YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND CAME HERE TO TESTIFY?

>> I DID.

>> IS THAT HOW FOR EXAMPLE YOU REMEMBER THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ON A TRAIN FROM PARIS TO LONDON DURING A CALL IN JULY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU ARE AWARE, I PRESUME, THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROVIDED THOSE NOTES TO THE COMMITTEE.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I AM AWARE.

>> SO WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF REVIEWING THEM TO ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS.

>> CORRECT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MAY BE COMING SOONER OR LATER.

>> WE WOULD WELCOME THAT.

YOU ALSO TESTIFIED EARLIER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, OR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DELEGATED SOME MATTERS OVERSEEING UKRAINE POLICY TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO IS A BIG INAUGURAL SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, EVEN THOUGH UKRAINE IS NOT IN HIS DOMAIN OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

THAT IS RIGHT?

>> SEVERAL MEMBERS BE, SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING, IN THE OVAL OFFICE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, WITH THE DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TOLD ME OF THAT CONVERSATION AND IT WAS AT THAT MEETING AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED THE PARTICIPANTS TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI ON UKRAINE POLICY.

>> DID YOU COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION IN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> I DID.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED OR RATHER IN THAT TEXT MESSAGE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS TO CALL HIM AFTER YOU WROTE THAT.

DID YOU IN FACT CALL HIM?

>> I DID.

>> AND WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU?

>> HE SAID THAT I HAD, I WAS WRONG ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT, THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

>> BUT DID HE SAY ANYTHING AFTER THAT?

DID HE DESCRIBE TO YOU, I BELIEVE YOU SAID I'LL' FRESH YOUR MEMORY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> HE MENTIONED SOMETHING IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SAID THAT HE SAID THAT EVERYTHING, I BELIEVE, YOU HAD THAT IN QUOTES, WAS ACTUALLY CONTINGENT ON THE INITIATION OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

WHAT DID HE MEAN BY EVERYTHING?

>> MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT HE MEANT BY "EVERYTHING" WAS THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> I BELIEVE YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HE SAID HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE IN RELAYING A MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS.

WHAT THAT WAS MISTAKE?

>> THE MISTAKE HE TOLD ME WAS EARLIER HE HAD TOLD PRESUMABLY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. YERMAK, THAT WHAT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS THE PURSUIT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND HE SAID HE RECOGNIZED THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

IT WAS NOT JUST THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT WAS DEPENDENT ON THE INVESTIGATIONS.

HE SAID IT WAS NOW EVERYTHING.

IT INCLUDED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> SO IT WAS NOT JUST THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, IT WAS ALSO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND SO EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SAYING REPEATEDLY THAT THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAYED TO YOU THAT THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WERE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WERE CONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> NOW, YOU REFERENCE A TELEVISION INTERVIEW AND A DESIRE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PUT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX, WHICH YOU ALSO HAVE IN QUOTES.

WAS THAT IN YOUR NOTES?

>> IT WAS IN MY NOTES.

>> AND WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN, TO PUT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX?

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, THROUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WAS ASKING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO VERY PUBLICLY COMMIT TO THESE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DO THIS IN PRIVATE, THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE A VERY PUBLIC STATEMENT.

>> AND DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT NEEDED TO BE IN PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO A PRIVATE CONFIRMATION?

>> NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON THAT.

>> NOW, DURING THIS TIME PERIOD IN EARLY SEPTEMBER DID YOU COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT FROM YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE UKRAINIANS OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS, THAT UKRAINE FELT PRESSURE TO INITIATE THESE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONALITY OF THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

>> MR. GOLDMAN, HERE'S WHAT I KNOW: I GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS, OTHER OFFICIALS GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS AS WELL, FROM UKRAINIANS ASKING ABOUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

SO WHAT I KNOW IS THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE UKRAINIANS.

THEY HAD BEGUN TO HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT GOING TO COME UNTIL THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PURSUED.

WHAT I HEARD FROM THE DEFENSE MINISTER, WHAT THE SENATORS, WHAT SENATOR JOHNSON AND SENATOR MURPHY HEARD IN THEIR CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WAS THE CLEAR CONCERN, THE URGENT CONCERN THAT UKRAINIANS HAD ABOUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> NOW, YOU ALSO DESCRIBED A CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND A WEEK LATER ON SEPTEMBER 8th.

AND IN THAT CONVERSATION IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU DESCRIBED HOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND USED THE TERM STALEMATE.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT A STALEMATE TO BE?

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE.

HE BEGAN THAT, AGAIN BY REPEATING THIS IS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, BUT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE AND WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IN THAT MEETING, THE MEETING OF STALEMATE WAS SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT CODE.

>> SO EVEN THOUGH HE SAID THE WORDS THERE WERE NO QUID PRO QUO, HE THEN WENT ON TO SAY BUT, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WILL NOT COME UNLESS THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE DONE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT BY STALEMATE.

>> YOU ALSO DESCRIBED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT A DISCUSSION YOU HAD ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING A BUSINESS MAN WHO WANTED TO HAVE PEOPLE PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEA MEAN?

>> THIS WAS AN EXPLANATION THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GAVE ME ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S THOUGHT PROCESS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS A BUSINESSMAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN.

HE WAS EXPLAINING TO ME THE RELATIONSHIP, THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A BUSINESSMAN WOULD HAVE WHEN HE'S ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK.

BY THAT HE CLEARLY MEANT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS THINKING ABOUT OR HAD IN FRONT OF HIM THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

IT WAS SIMILAR TO WRITING A CHECK TO SOMEONE WHO YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEND.

HE USED THAT ANALOGY VERY CLEARLY TO INDICATE THAT THIS WOULD BE, THIS WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING.

IF THAT PERSON OWED HIM SOMETHING BEFORE YOU SIGN THE CHECK, HE WANTED TO GET THAT, GET WHATEVER HE WAS OWED PAID BACK TO HIM.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER USED VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE ABOUT A WEEK LATER WHICH INDICATES TO ME THAT THEY HAD THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL.

>> DID UKRAINE OWE ANYTHING TO THE UNITED STATES?

>> MR. GOLDMAN, THEY DIDN'T.

THEY OWED APPRECIATION FOR THE SUPPORT AND THEY WERE GETTING SUPPORT AND THEY APPRECIATED THAT.

BUT THERE WAS NOT, THERE WAS NOT, THERE WAS NOTHING OWED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THAT.

>> BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE UPSHOT OF THIS COMMENT, MADE BY BOTH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TO BE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVED THAT UKRAINE OWED HIM SOMETHING PERSONALLY, IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> HARD TO UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE WAS A FEELING BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE, AND THIS CAME OUT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, I'M SORRY, THIS CAME OUT IN THE DISCUSSION WITH THE INAUGURAL DELEGATION WHEN THEY CAME BACK TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd, THAT HE HAD A FEELING OF HAVING BEEN WRONGED BY THE UKRAINIANS.

AND SO THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HE THOUGHT THEY OWED HIM TO FIX THAT WRONG.

>> RIGHT.

BUT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT BECAUSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION IS THAT WHAT HE OWED HIM WERE THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANTED.

>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO FIX THE WRONG, EXACTLY.

>> AND THOSE INVESTIGATIONS IN TO THE 2016 ELECTION AND BIDEN AND BURISMA.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOW, DURING THIS EARLY PERIOD IN SEPTEMBER, WE HAVE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU CONTINUALLY HEARD THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS REPEATEDLY SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> HE STILL SAYS THAT REPEATEDLY TODAY.

BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, WHETHER IT'S A QUID PRO QUO, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, ABUSE OF POWER, OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, THE FACT OF THE MATTER AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT, IS THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WERE NOT GOING TO BE PROVIDED UNLESS UKRAINE INITIATED THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT DONALD TRUMP'S REELECT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE FACT TO BE?

>> MR. GOLDMAN, WHAT I CAN DO HERE FOR YOU TODAY, IS TO TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD FROM PEOPLE.

IN THIS CASE IT WAS WHAT I HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

HE DESCRIBED CONDITIONS FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN THOSE TERMS.

THAT IS, THAT WAS DEPENDENT UPON, CONDITIONED ON PURSUING THESE HEARD THAT FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HIMSELF, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU ALSO HEARD A SIMILAR STORY FROM MR. MOSTSON AS -- MORRISON AS WELL.

>> WHO ALSO ALSO TALKED WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT UKRAINIANS.

>> WHAT MR. MORRISON ACCOUNTED WAS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. SONDLAND RECOUNTED TO YOU, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT UKRAINIANS MAY SAY NOW, NOW THAT EVERYTHING IS OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND WE'RE HERE IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THAT THEY FELT NO PRESSURE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT WAS YOUR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, WAS IT NOT, THAT IN EARLY SEPTEMBER WHEN THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN WAS STILL SECRET, THAT THE UKRAINIANS BELIEVED THAT THEY NEEDED TO ANNOUNCE THESE PUBLIC INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> MR. GOLDMAN, I KNOW THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AND I KNOW THAT THEY WERE PREPARED OR PREPARING TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT IS WITH A CNN INTERVIEW, THAT THAT WAS BEING PLANNED.

THOSE ARE THE TWO PIECES THAT I KNOW.

>> THAT CNN INTERVIEW WAS TO ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT, RIGHT?

>> THAT WAS THE IMPLICATION.

THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE IMPLICATION.

>> WE HAVE BEEN FOCUS A LOT ON THE SEPTEMBER TIME FRAME.

I WANT TO GO BACK TWO MONTHS TO JULY, BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL.

AND 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 EARLY JULY ATTEMPTS TO WORK OUT A WAY TO GET THAT MEETING INCLUDED A PHONE CALL.

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 10 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 THAT HE USED THIS TERM DRUG DEAL?

>> MR. GOLDMAN, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD IN MIND.

>> WAS THAT IN REFERENCE TO A DISCUSSION IN THAT MEETING RELATED TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED AND IN CONNECTION TO THE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> THE CONTEXT OF THAT COMMENT WAS THE DISCUSSION THAT MR. BOLTON'S UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, HAD HAD WITH MR. BOLTON AND THAT CONVERSATION WAS VERY >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN THE MEETING WHERE BOLTON WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH HIS COUNTERPART RAISED THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS WAS IMPORTANT TO COME BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> AND THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS WERE IN?

>> UKRANIAN OFFICIALS WERE IN THAT MEETING, YES.

>> IN MID-JULY DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH UKRANIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>> LET ME SHOW YOU A TEXT MESSAGE THAT YOU WROTE ON JULY 21st WHERE YOU WROTE IT AGAIN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER.

IF YOU COULD JUST READ WHEN YOU WROTE HERE ON JULY 21st.

>> ONE THING PERTINENT I TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY WAS SASHA'S POINT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY, NOT MERELY AS AN INSTRUMENT TO DOMESTIC RE-ELECTION POLITICS.

>> AND YOU SAID THAT'S AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S COUNTER PART.

>> WAS.

>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND IT TO MEAN THAT ZELENSKY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT BEING AN INSTRUMENT IN DOMESTIC WASHINGTON RE-ELECTION POLITICS.

>> HE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PURSUANT TO MR. GIULIANI'S REQUEST TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT B BURISMA, AND THE BIDENS AND WAS AWARE THAT WAS A PROBLEM.

>> AND WOULD YOU AGREE BECAUSE WHETHER ZELENSKY WAS WORRIED ABOUT THIS, THEY WOULD PURSUE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> HE INDICATED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD IT, AND DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THESE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES.

>> NOW, I'M GOING TO MOVE AHEAD NOW TO JULY 25th WHICH IS WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THE PHONE CALL, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THE PHONE CALL, I WANT TO SHOW BOTH OF YOU A TEXT MESSAGE, FEERGT OF YOU IS ON THE NEXT MESSAGE.

IT IS BETWEEN THE AMBASSADOR AND A TOP AIDE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

I WILL READ IT.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAYS GOOD LUNCH.

THANKS.

HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE.

ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES PRESIDENT TRUMP SLASH GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 WE WILL NAIL DOWN VISIT TO WASHINGTON.

GOOD LUCK.

AND THIS WAS A -- LESS THAN A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

NOW, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER WITH YOU IN UKRAINE AT THIS TIME?

>> HE WAS.

>> DID YOU KNOW HE WAS PREPPING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS THIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THIS WAY?

>> NOT IN THIS WAY, MR. GOLDMAN, BUT I KNEW AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS PREPPING UKRANIANS FOR THE PHONE CALL EARLIER ON.

THAT IS IN AT A MEETING IN TORONTO ON JULY 2nd, MR. -- AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND HAD INDICATED IN A PHONE CALL THAT HE AT THAT TIME WAS GOING TO TALK TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THROUGH THE STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO GET TO THE PHONE CALL.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD ALREADY BEEN FROZEN, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AT LEAST BY JULY 18th.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, BEFORE THIS JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD FROZEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT UKRAINE NEEDED, AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE INITIATING THIS INVESTIGATION, AND THAT HAD BEEN RELAYED ON THE UKRANIANS?

IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATE OF PLAY.

I, AT THAT POINT, HAD NO INDICATION THAT ANY DISCUSSION OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEING SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION HAD TAKEN PLACE.

>> BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> LET'S MOVE AHEAD TO THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS.

AM I CORRECT THAT NEITHER OF YOU WERE ON THIS CALL, IS THAT RIGHT, MR. KENT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND YOU WERE NEITHER AS WELL?

SO YOU BOTH READ IT AFTER IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER?

>> YES.

>> I WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME READING THE TRANSCRIPT AS WE'VE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO DO AND PARTICULARLY NOTE FOUR EXCERPTS OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

ONE THAT RELATES TO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

ANOTHER THAT DISCUSSES A FAVOR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

A THIRD WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKS THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

AND THEN A FINAL ONE WHERE THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT DIRECTLY LINKS THE DESIRED WHITE HOUSE VISIT TO THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

LET'S LOOK AT THE FIRST EXCERPT WHICH IS NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CALL WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DISCUSSES THE MILITARY AID THAT THE U.S.

PROVIDES TO UKRAINE.

HE SAID I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE.

WE'RE WILLING TO COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEP.

SPECIFICALLY, WE'RE ALMOST READY TO BUY MORE JAVELINS FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES.

NOW, AT THE TIME OF THIS PHONE CALL, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT, YOU BOTH KNEW THE AID HAD BEEN FROZEN, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFY THAD PRESIDENT TRUMP OBVIOUSLY ALSO KNEW THAT THE AID HAD BEEN FROZEN AS WELL, SINCE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD.

THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD ON THAT CONFERENCE CALL, YES.

>> TO EITHER OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE THE UKRANIANS WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BUT RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN SAYS, AND WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT EXCERPT.

I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT, AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS SITUATION WITH UKRAINE, CROWDSTRIKE.

I GUESS ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.

AT THE END, HE SAYS, WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT YOU CAN DO IT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

>> MR. KENT, YOU'VE TESTIFIED A LITTLE BIT HOW IMPORTANT THIS WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT A NEW UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO INTERPRET A REQUEST FOR A FAVOR FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> I CANNOT INTERPRET THE MIND OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OTHER THAN TO SAY IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT THEY WERE LOPEING TO GET OUT OF THIS MEETING WAS A DATE, AND A CONFIRMATION THAT HE COULD COME TO WASHINGTON.

>> OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN'T PUT YOURSELF IN THE MIND.

BUT IF THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES FOR ALL THINGS, INCLUDING MILITARY ASSISTANCE IS REQUESTED TO DO A FAVOR, HOW DO YOU THINK THE UKRANIANS WOULD EXCERPT THAT?

>> IF YOU CALL FURTHER INTO THE CALL RECORD AS PART OF THIS, AND WE DON'T HAVE IT ON SCREEN, BUT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AFTER IT WAS RELEASEED ON SEPTEMBER 25th.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WENT INTO HAVING WHATEVER YOUR PROBLEMS WERE, THAT WAS THE OLD TEAM.

I'VE GOT A NEW TEAM, AND WE WILL DO WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE AND BE TRANSPARENT AND HONEST ABOUT IT.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS.

BUT HE WAS TRYING TO BE IN HIS OWN WORDS IN RESPONSE, BE RESPONSIVE TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT IN AN HONEST MANNER.

>> WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT CAxá*UD STRIKE AND THE SERVER, WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE REFERENCE TO?

>> I HADN'T HEARD OF CROWDSTRIKE UNTIL I READ THIS TRICHT.

>> DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHAT IT RELATES TO?

>> I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE STORY THAT THERE'S A SERVER WITH MISSING E-MAILS.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE OWNERS OF CROWDSTRIKE IS A RUSSIAN AMERICAN.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UKRANIAN CONNECTION TO THE COMPANY.

>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS ALL PART OF A LARGER ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> YES, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE'S NO FACTUAL BASIS.

>> IN FACT, WHO DID INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS AT THE HEART OF THE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION CYCLE.

>> MOVE TO THE THIRD EXCERPT I MENTIONED RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND IT SAYS, THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON.

THIS PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKING, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.

IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE.

AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL, PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS THE FRONT-RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR THE 2020 ELECTION.

>> ARE YOU CLEAR ABOUT THE OPENING OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS RELATED TO PRESIDENT BIDEN?

>> I AM.

>> IS THERE FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THOSE ALLEGATIONS?

>> NONE WHATSOEVER.

>> WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED IN UKRAINE DID HE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. POLICY?

>> HE DID.

>> LET'S GO TO THE LAST EXCERPTS.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SPEAKING AND SAYS I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON, D.C. ON THE OTHER HAND, I WANT TO ASSURE YOU WE WILL BE SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION.

NOW, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED HIS MUCH DESIRED WASHINGTON SAID ON THE OTHER HAND, UKRAINE WILL BE SERIOUS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION.

IS THIS THE SAME LINK BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD TEXTED TO ANDRIY YERMAK.

>> >> THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT THANKED PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE ASSISTANCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD FROZEN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED HE WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO HIM A FAVOR BY INVESTIGATING THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BIDENS, AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS HE'LL PURSUE THE INVESTIGATIONS RIGHT AFTER HE MENTIONED THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR OF WHAT WE JUST READ?

>> YES.

AND MR. KENT, IS THAT YOURS?

>> YES.

>> I FIELD BACK.

>> WOULD YOU GENTLEMEN LIKE A BRIEF RECESS.

>> THAT'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND THEN RESUME WITH QUESTIONING.

>> THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TAKING A BREAK AFTER A LITTLE MORE THAN TWO HOURS, MAYBE TWO AND A HALF HOURS OF TESTIMONY, OPENING STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF HERE OVERSEEING PBS NEWSHOUR.

LIVE COVERAGE OF THESE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARINGS.

I'M HERE IN THE STUDIO WITH GUESTS.

MR. IAN WITH NICK SCHIFRIN.

AT THE WHITE HOUSE, YAMICHE ALCINDOR.

I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU FIRST, NICK.

A LOT OF THIS TIME WAS SPENT WITH HIS OPENING STATEMENTS BY GEORGE KENT WHO IS AN ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND BY WILLIAM TAYLOR WHO'S THE ACTING AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

SO SOME ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS AND SAYING WHAT HAVE WE HEARD THAT'S NEW.

THEY'VE ALREADY TESTIFYED IN PRIVATE.

WE SAW THE TRANSCRIPTS.

WHAT'S DIFFERENT TODAY?

>> WE DID SEE ONE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, AND TWO BIG POINTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY HEARD.

THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, THE NEW POINT COMES FROM BILL TAYLOR'S ADDITION TO WHAT HE SAID IN HIS DEPOSITION.

LARGELY THAT OPENING STATEMENT WAS THE SAME WITH ONE EXCEPTION THAT HE TALKS ABOUT HOW HIS STAFF HAD HEARD GORDON SONDLAND, THE AMBASSADOR TALKING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE DESCRIBING THAT SONDLAND, TALKING TO TRUMP, BELIEVES THAT THE PRESIDENT CARED MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION IN THE 2016, AND HUNTER BIDEN THAN UKRAINE.

CARING MORE ABOUT HIS POLITICAL GAIN FROM THOSE INVESTIGATIONS THAT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO UKRAINE AND TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.

THAT WAS A BIG POINT.

THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT IS FURTHERED THAT POINT WHICH IS THAT GORDON SONDLAND HAD A DIRECT LINE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND KNOWS A LOT ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKING FOR, AND A LOT MORE, I SHOULD SAY, THAT GORDON SONDLAND REVEALED IN DEPOSITION.

>> TWO WHO SERVED ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

TO YOU FIRST, ARE YOU HEARING REINFORCEMENT FROM SECRETARY KENT OF THE BASICALLY THE STORY LINE THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN PUTTING OUT?

>> YES.

I THINK BOTH OF THESE WITNESSES ARE VERY CLEAR.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THEY WANTED TO GET ACROSS TO PEOPLE.

ONE WAS THAT THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING FOR WAS FUNDAMENTALLY CONTRARY TO AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY WITH UKRAINE.

THAT THE AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY WAS TO SUPPORT UKRAINE IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST RUSSIA TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW, AND BY ASKING FOR A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION INTO HIS RIVAL, THE PRESIDENT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINING THAT.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF CORRUPTION THEY WERE TRYING TO COMBAT IN THE UKRAINE ITSELF.

THE OTHER THING IS THESE ARE DIRECTIONS COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT OR THAT'S THEIR UNDERSTANDING.

>> AND THERE ARE SEVERAL REFERENCES TO > OVERHEARING REFERENCES.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYING HIS ASSOCIATE HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE ON A CELL PHONE CALL.

BUT THAT WAS AS CLOSE AS IT GOT.

>> WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN ADD UP TO ANYTHING CLOSE TO IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS SIMPLY THE PRESIDENT LOOKING AFTER THE SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, MAKING SURE THAT UKRAINE IS DOING EVERYTHING IT CAN TO SWEEP AWAY CORRUPTION.

ARE WE HEARING THAT THE REPUBLICANS, ANYTHING THAT THE REPUBLICANS CAN SEIZE ON AND SAY THIS BOLSTERS OUR CASE?

>> NOT YET.

I THINK YOU'LL GET A LITTLE MORE OF THIS ONCE THE EXTRAORDINARY QUESTIONING BEGINS BY THE REPUBLICAN COUNCIL.

>> SO FAR, RANKING MEMBER, NUNES ESSENTIALLY TORCHING THE ENTIRE PROCESS, USING INCREDIBLY VIVID LANGUAGE ABOUT A CULT-LIKE SECRET CHAMBER IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL DESIGNED TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK HE'S TRYING TO PAINT A VIVID PICTURE THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS HOPELESSLY PARTISAN DUE TO HIS BEHAVIOR DURING THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION.

I THINK THEY KNOW THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DO ULTIMATELY, IS COME ACROSS AS A NON-PARTISAN FIGURE AND PS HAVE THE NARRATIVE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE FUNDAMENTALLY DESEEDED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS BY WITHHOLDING AID FROM UKRAINE.

I THINK NUNES IS TRYING TO ATTACK THE FOUNDATIONS OF WHERE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF NEEDS TO GO.

>> AND OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING MORE OF THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THIS IN JUST A MOMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING ONCE THEY COME BACK FROM THIS BREAK FROM THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, CHAIRMAN NUNES AND THE ATTORNEY WORKING WITH CONGRESSMAN JIM JORDAN WHO IS PUT ON THE COMMITTEE FOR THE DURATION.

LISA DESIARDINS, I'VE INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU'VE SEEN WHILE THE TESTIMONY IS TAKING PLAGUES?

>> OFTEN, YOU SEE A PARTISAN DIVIDE BETWEEN WHICH MEMBERS ARE PAYING ATTENTION, AND OFTEN WHEN ONE SIDE FEELS ATTACKED THEY DON'T PAY ATTENTION.

THIS IS DIFFERENT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM TAYLOR.

I SAW ALL OF THE MEMBERS CLOSELY FOLLOWING PAGE BY PAGE, EVERY WORD HE SAYS, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS TESTIMONY THEY HEARD BEFORE.

WE'RE LISTENING TO EVERY WORD.

IT'S CLEAR THAT REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO DECIDE WHEN THEY SHOULD INTERRUPT.

HOW MUCH THEY SHOULD TRY AND MAKE IT AN ISSUE TODAY ITSELF.

WE'LL SEE MORE OF THAT.

FOR NOW THEY'VE DECIDED TO LET THE TESTIMONY PROCEED.

IT'S A SERIOUS FEELING IN THE ROOM FROM BOTH SIDES.

>> AND LISA, ONE OTHER THING.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF REPUBLICAN PUSH BACK IN THE BEGINNING HOW MUCH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, THE DEMCAL CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE CONTROLS THE PROCEDURES AND WITNESSES AND WHO CAN BE CALLED AND WHAT TO RELEASE AND SO FORTH.

HOW MUCH CONTROL DOES CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAVE?

HOW MUCH OF WHAT HE'S DOING HAS ANY PRECEDENT IN THE WAY CONGRESS OPERATED BEFORE?

>> UNDER THE RULES THAT THE HOUSE PASSED, AND PASSED ONLY BY DEMOCRATS.

THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS A GREAT DEAL OF CONTROL OVER THIS PART OF IT.

HE CAN AGREE TO CALL ANY WITNESSES THAT THE REPUBLICANS WANT.

HE CAN ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS OR HE CAN BLOCK THOSE WITNESSES OR SUBPOENAS.

REPUBLICANS HAVE ONE END ROUTE.

IF THE MAJORITY VOTES TO OVERRULE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF REPUBLICANS CAN GET SUBPOENAS OR WITNESSES, BUT CLEARLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SINCE HE'S THE ONE WHO HAS SAY OVER WHAT REPUBLICAN REQUESTS GO THROUGH AT THIS POINT.

IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT PRECEDENT, BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY PHASE 1 OF A 2 PHASE IMPEACHMENT.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS EXPECTED TO TAKE THIS UP NEXT.

AND IT WILL MIRROR DURING WATERGATE AND THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A COMMITTEE LIKE THIS THAT WE'VE HAD.

IT'S UNPRECEDENTED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS BUT HARD TO COMPARE WHAT THAT MEANS.

>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.

HAVING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AS PART OF THE PROCESS MAKES THIS INVESTIGATION AND INQUIRY DIFFERENT.

WATCHING ALL THIS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR, WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?

>> THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN REACTING TO THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARINGS AND SAYING THIS IS ALL A SHAM.

THIS PROCESS IS UNFAIR, AND THE DEMOCRATS JUST WANT TO UNDO THE 2016 ELECTRIC.

NOW WHITE HOUSE PRS SECRETARY, STEPHANIE GRISHAM PUT OUT A STATEMENT SAYING PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WORKING AND NOT WATCHING THE HEARINGS.

AT THE MOMENT SHE SAID THAT.

THE PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING, SAYING THE WHISTLEBLOWER SHOULD BE TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS TODAY, AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S UNFAIR FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER NOT TO HAVE BEEN FORCED TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS.

I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE LAWYER FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THAT PERSON TELLS ME THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS AT SOME POINT WANTED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN WRITING FROM REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, BUT IS WORRIED ABOUT MAINTAINING ANONYMITY AND DOESN'T WANT TO COME BEFORE CONGRESS IF THERE'S NOT A WAY TO MAINTAIN THAT.

THE WHITE HOUSE REACHED OUT BEFORE THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARING TO 120 HOUSE LAWMAKERS AS WELL AS 42 SENATORS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT AND TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AS HAVING DONE NOTHING WRONG.

YOU HAVE A WHITE HOUSE WATCHING CLOSELY, AND STATING THE PRESIDENT IS TOO BUSY WITH THE PRESIDENT OF TURKEY TODAY WHICH HE'S HOSTING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

HE'S MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ERDOGAN.

BUT YAMICHE ALCINDOR TO COME BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE CHECKING IN WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND CONGRESS, HOW MUCH COORDINATION DO WE KNOW THERE IS BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE REPUBLICANS INVOLVED.

>> WELL, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING HE WANTS REPUBLICANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

IT HASN'T BEEN CLEAR WHETHER HE HAD A PARTICULAR OPINION ON HOW THEY WERE DEFENDING.

HE JUST WANTED THEM TO BE OUT THERE TALKING SAYING HE DID NOTHING WRONG.

YOU SAW A NUMBER OF RESPONSES SAYING THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD SECOND HAND INFORMATION TO REALLY ATTACKING THE PROCESS.

NOW WE HAVE A RAPID RESPONSE TEAM SAYING THE PRESIDENT IS VICTIM OF A PARTISAN ATTACK.

BUT IT'S UNCLEAR IF THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A STRATEGIC WAY TO TELL 120 REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE, HERE'S WHAT WE WANT YOU TO SAY.

JUST SAYING DEFEND THE PRESIDENT.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE AS WE WERE LISTENING TO WILLIAM TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY, THE TOP U.S.

DIPLOMAT TO UKRAINE SAYS THE PRESIDENT WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED.

HE SAYS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LEARNED FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS THAT HE WANTED UKRAINE TO CARRY OUT THAN ACTUAL ISSUES IN UKRAINE.

THAT'S IMPORTANT.

WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IS WILLIAM TAYLOR THROUGH THE QUESTIONING DRAWING A DIRECT LINE BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THIS ISSUE IN UKRAINE, AND WHAT DEMOCRATS WOULD SAY WAS A BRIBEING OF UKRAINE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT.

THEY HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO THAT NEW INFORMATION YET.

IT'S ALMOST POSITIVE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WILL BE RESPONDING TO THAT SPECIFIC POINT AS WE GO FORWARD.

>> WE'LL BE COMING BACK TO YAMICHE THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

BACK HERE TO THE TABLE.

NICK SCHIFRIN, STEP BACK FOR A MINUTE.

HOW MUCH STRONGER IS THE CASE pOF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP AT THIS POINT AFTER WE HEARD IN PERSON FROM THE ACTING AMBASSADOR AND FROM ONE OF THE KEY FIGURES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO BELIEVE THAT HEARING THESE ARGUMENTS IN PUBLIC WILL CONVINCE MORE PEOPLE, BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WATCHING THAN READ THE 3 AND 400 PAGE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU AND I AND THE WHOLE TEAM HAD TO SIFT THROUGH AND DO HIGHLIGHTS.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY HAVE OR WILL HIT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SOME OF THE MAIN TALKING POINTS THAT BILL TAYLOR HIT.

THERE WAS AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL TO CONGRESS IN TAYLOR'S WORDS, AND THAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT CHANNEL WAS WITHHOLDING SECURITY, A SIFTANCE SO THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD ACHIEVE GAIN.

THAT WILL BE THE REAL TEST.

WHETHER THE PUBLIC BELIEVES THAT, AND WHAT WE'LL HEAR FROM DEVIN NUNES IS THAT THERE'S AN ATTACK ON THE DEMOCRATS, AND ATTACK ON THE PROCESS.

THERE WAS ALSO AN ATTACK ON THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES.

DEVIN NUNES TALKED ABOUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVING LOST THE CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AND TALKED ABOUT A POLITICIZED BUREAUCRACY THAT'S DONE IMMENSE DAMAGE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE REPUBLICANS CRITICIZING THE PEOPLE WHO DEMOCRATS SAY ARE NON-PARTISAN.

>> SPEAK ABOUT THAT.

AS SOMEONE WHO WORKED ON THE COMMITTEE.

WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE ADMINISTRATION IS THAT PEOPLE W WORKED AS PART OF THE CORPS, IS THAT THE STATEMENT PUT OUT WAS THAT THERE IS ANONYMOUS BUREAUCRATS WHO ARE NOT ELECTED, IMPLYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONNECTION TO LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY.

OR IN SOME WAIVE ARE NOT TIED TO THE UNITED STATES AS ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE.

>> THIS IS ACTUAL LEGAL A NEW LINE WE HAVEN'T HEARD BEFORE.

>> THE POLITICAL BUREAUCRATS WE PUT FAITH IN THE JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING AND EXPERTISE OF THOSE PEOPLE OVER DECADES BECAUSE THEY SERVE THE AMERICAN INTEREST YAUBD PARTY INTE BEYOND PARTY SB.

>> AND PICKING UP ON THAT, MICHAEL ALLEN, WE REMEMBER PRESIDENT TRUMP RECENTLY DESCRIBED THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO FIRST CAME FORWARD WITH CONCERN ABOUT THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS BEING A NEVER TRUMPER.

PUTTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN A POLITICAL CATEGORY RATHER THAN SOMEONE WHO IS AN UNELECTED MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

I THINK THE PRESIDENT FIRMLY BELIEVES THAT BUREAUCRACIES ARE OUT TO GET HIM.

I THINK THAT'S AN ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE WAY -- ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S STANDPOINT WHICH I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM HIS STANDPOINT, HE'S BEEN UNDER A MEASURE OF ATTACK FROM ANONYMOUS PEOPLE, MAYBE WITHIN HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION.

ALSO WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT FBI AGENTS FRP TEXTING TO EACH OTHER, I THINK THAT GIVES HIM THE IMPRESSION -- MAYBE THE FALSE IMPRESSION -- THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIS AGENDA AND WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO DERAIL IT.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH AND UNDERSTAND, EVEN THOUGH I WISH THIS WAS NOT A DOOR HE WAS PUSHING ON.

>> IN FACT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE INTELLIGENCE HEARING, AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS ARE NOT BACK YET IN THEIR CHAIRS.

BUT AS WE CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION WHILE WAITING FOR THEM TO RETURN.

NICK SCHIFRIN, IN FACT, THAT PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS DID OCCUR THE DAY AFTER THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WRAPPED UP, SAYING THEY DID NOT FIND THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED MATERIALLY IN RUSSIA'S EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION.

SO THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO CONNECT THE TWO SAYING DEMOCRATS DIDN'T SUCCEED WITH MUELLER SO THEY TURNED AROUND THE VERY NEXT DAY AND SEIZING ON WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT SAID IN HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

>> THERE'S A POLITICAL POINT AND A STRATEGIC POINT.

THE PRESIDENT POINT IS THAT REPUBLICANS SAY, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS WANTED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, AND THIS IS JUST THE LATEST VERSION.

SO THEY FAILED WITH MUELLER, AND NOW THIS IS IT.

>> TO MICHAEL'S POINT, THE PRESIDENT HAS SOME CONCERN ACCORDING TO NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS I TALKED TO NOT ONLY ABOUT LEAKS, BUT ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA CALLED THE BLOG, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLS IT THE SWAMP.

THERE ARE INTERESTS THAT BELIEVE THE UKRAINE SHOULD GET DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, AND THAT U.S. MILITARY TROOPS SHOULD STAY IN SYRIA, AND A TRADITIONAL EXPANSIVE PRESENCE AROUND THE WORLD.

HE FEELS FRUSTRATED BY THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM PUSHING BACK ON THAT.

SOME OF THE CORE, JUDY, OF THE POLICY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT UKRAINE, IS LOST IN THE POLITICS, WHICH IS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS THE ONE, AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS THE ONE THAT DIDN'T SEND THE LETHAL ANTI-TANK MISSILES TO UKRAINE WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID CHOOSE TO DO THAT.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT, CIA, AND PENTAGON ALL BEHIND SENDING THOSE LETHAL ARMS TO UKRAINE.

THAT IS WHAT THIS COLLECTION, STATE DEPARTMENT AND PENTAGON OFFICIALS AND DEMCALTS ARE HIGHLIGHTING WANTED TO HAPPEN, AND WHY THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS STOPPING THOSE SPECIFIC WEAPONS.

>> BUT REPUBLICANS MAKING THE POINT AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T DO THIS, IT WAS AT LEAST IN THE PIPELINE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

IT'S POLICY, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A HOLDUP WE'RE HERE TO TALK B.

>> LET'S GO BACK AND HEAR A PART OF AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY, AND THEN TALK ABOUT IT.

HERE IT IS.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TOLD HIM ABOUT THE MEETINGS.

A MEMBER OF MY STAFF COULD HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE PHONE ASKING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

MR. SONDLAND TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE UKRANIANS WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD.

RECALL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, A BE M OF MY STAFF ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT ABOUT UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP CARES MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN SERVED ON THE STAFF OF THE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SHARED?

>> IT'S INTERESTING, MOST OF THE WITNESSES WE'RE HEARING FROM, THEY'RE NOT IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THEY'RE HAVING PRESIDENT'S INTENT EXPRESSED TO THEM THROUGH INTERMEDIARYS.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE PRESIDENT SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO SOMEONE.

SO IT'S NOT JUST THE INTERMEDIARYS MAKING THIS UP.

THIS IS DIRECT COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS INTENT.

>> WE SEE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF COMING BACK INTO THE ROOM, NOT YET SITTING DOWN.

MICHAEL ALLEN, WEIGH IN ON THAT.

>> I THINK MIEKE IS ON TO SOMETHING.

WE'RE HEARING FROM CAREER FOREIGN OFFICERS WHO ARE TESTIFYING TO WE FELT LIKE THIS IS CONDITIONED.

THE REPUBLICANS ABOUT TO COME OUT SAYING THIS IS HEARSAY.

YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY TALK TO THE PRESIDENT.

AND THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE A POSITION TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM THEM SAYING HERE'S SONDLAND AND VOLKER WHO WERE ACTUALLY IN TOUCH WITH THE PRESIDENT, AND MAYBE TIM MORRISON DOWN THE LINE, AND THEY'LL TESTIFY TO THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT.

>> THESE ARE WITNESSES WHO IT HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED WILL BE APPEARING BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK.

WE'VE LINED UP WITNESSES FOR TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

THIS FRIDAY, WE'LL BE HEARING FROM THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

I THINK LISA DESIARDINS.

THE COMMITTEE IS COMING BACK INTO SESSION.

NOW IT'S T THE TURN OF THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS TO DOOT QUESTIONING.

>> THIS IS BE DRAMATIC PORTION OF TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS CONSIDER THEM FRIENDLY TO THEM.

THE QUESTIONER IS KNOWN FOR TOUGH QUESTIONING.

HE'S GOING TO MAKE THE POINT, DO THESE WITNESSES DIRECTLY CONNECT THE PRESIDENT TO A QUID QUO PRO.

HE'S GOING TO TRY AND SAY NO, YOU DO NOT.

THIS IS ALL HEARSAY ON YOUR PART.

AND THEN IT'S HIGHLY UNUSUAL HE WORKS FOR THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

THAT COMMITTEE HAS JIM JORDAN.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT MR. JORDAN IS A CHIEF STRATEGIST EVEN THOUGH HE'S NOT ON THE COMMITTEE UNTIL NOW.

THERE YOU GO.

>> WE'RE LOOKING AT DEVIN NUNES WHO IS THE RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PICKING IT UP.

>> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITEE FOR 45 MINUTES.

>> THE CALL SUMMARY FOR WHICH THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THEIR NEFARIOUS DEPICTION OF IT.

IT SHOWS A PLEASANT EXCHANGE BETWEEN TWO LEADERS WHO DISCUSS MUTUAL COOPERATION OVER A RANGE OF ISSUES.

DEMOCRATS CLAIM THIS CALL DEMONSTRATES EXTORTION, BRIBERY AND A MOST OF CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

YET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF INSISTS THERE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER WHATEVER ABOUT THE CONVERSATION.

THE ROUTINE NATURE OF THE CALL EXPLAINS WHY THE COMMITTEE IN THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING DEMOCRATS RECITED A FICTITIOUS VERSION OF THE CALL INSTEAD OF READING THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT.

THE DEMOCRATS DEPICTED THE PRESIDENT SAYING "I WANT YOU TO MAKE UP DIRT ON MY POLITICAL OPPONENT, UNDERSTAND?

ON THIS AND ON THAT" THE TRANSCRIPT DID NOT SHOW PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THAT.

THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IS MAKE UP DIRT ON ANYONE.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO INVENT A NARRATIVE.

IF THE FACTS DO NOT EXIST, THEY'LL JUST MAKE IT UP.

NOT ONLY DOES PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DENY THE DEMOCRATS CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CALL, BUT AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED TO THIS COMMITTEE, THE UKRANIANS DID NOT EVEN KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE CALL THAT A TEMPORARY DELAY WAS PUT ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THEM.

AND AS THE AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED, THESE HOLDS APPEAR FROM TIME TO TIME.

BOTH HE AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER WERE CONFIDENCE THAT THE DELAY WOULD BE LIFTED.

IN FACT, MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO SEE UKRAINE WAS AFFORDED JAVELIN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS.

THIS WAS A VERY STRONG MESSAGE THAT AMERICANS ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE MORE THAN BLANKETS.

THIS WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S APPROACH.

NOTE THIS IMPORTANT FACT.

THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE PROVIDEED TO UKRAINE WITHOUT THE UKRANIANS HAVING DONE ANYTHING OF THE THINGS THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY BEING BLACKMAILED TO DO.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED A TERRIBLE CRIME THAT NEVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED, AND WHICH THE SUPPOSED VICTIMS DENIES EVER HAPPENED.

I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE HEART OF THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT DRIVE.

THEY SAY PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MANUFACTURE DIRT AGAINST HIS POLITICAL RIVALS.usQ AFTER ALL, IF THERE WERE ACTUALLY INDICATIONS OF UKRAINE ELECTION MEDDLING AND FOREIGN ELECTION MEDDLING IS A DIRE THREAT, THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD REASON FOR WANTING TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED.

SINCE THE MEDDLING WAS AIMED AGAINST HIS CAMPAIGN, HE HAD GOOD REASON FOR SENDING HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO MAKE INQUIRIES ABOUT IT.

WHAT'S STRANGE IS THAT SOME OF THE WITNESSES AT THESE HEARINGS AND PREVIOUS DEPOSITIONS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED ALARM ABOUT THESE INQUIRIES WERE REMARKABLY UNINFORMED AND WHY THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE BEEN CONCERNED BY THEM.

FOR EXAMPLE, I NOTED PREVIOUSLY A FARMER STAFF FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ADMITTED TO POLITICO THAT SHE WORKED WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO DIG UP DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WHICH SHE PASSED ON TO THE DNC AND THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

SHE REVEALED THAT UKRAINIAN EMBASSY OFFICIALS THEMSELVES WERE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH REPORTERS TO TRADE INFORMATION AND LEADS ABOUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

AMBASSADOR KENT, YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO BE TOO CONCERNED ABOUT IT THE LAST ROUND OF QUESTIONING, SO I'LL JUST SKIP YOU SINCE THAT WASN'T A CONCERN.

BUT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFIED TO THIS COMMITTEE THA BETWEEN UKRANIAN EMBASSY OFFICIALS AND KHUL UPA TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN YOUR LAST DEPOSITION.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I HADN'T KNOWN BEFORE.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

>> THE POLITCO ARTICLE SUPPORTS THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN, QUOTING ANDREI AUTOMACKO SAYING IT WAS CLEAR THEY WERE SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON'S CANDIDACY FROM ORGANIZING MEETINGS WITH THE KLINTSON TEAM TO PUBLICLY SUPPORTING HER TO CRITICIZING TRUMP.

I THINK THEY SIMPLY DIDN'T MEET WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HILLARY WOULD WIN.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THAT STATEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND YOU ALSO WERE UNAWARE OF VALERIE CHALAY WROTE AN OPED IN THE HILL DURING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CRITICIZING PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> YOU SAID YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT AN UKRANIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN ADMITTED PART OF HIS MOTIVATION TO SPREAD INFORMATION ABOUT THE BLACK LEDGE ERK EA DISPUTED DOCUMENT BY A FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL WAS TO UNDERMINE THE TRUMP CANDIDACY.

IS THAT STILL CORRECT?

>> THAT IS STILL CORRECT.

>> FUSION GPS CONTRACTOR TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS THAT CHERENKO WAS DIRTIED UP THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INCLUDING THE STEELE DOSSIER ON DEHALF OF THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

YOU WERE UNAWARE HE SERVED AS A SOURCE FOR THAT PROJECT.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS THIS STILL CORRECT?

>> IT IS, SIR.

>> YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T KNOW UKRANIAN INTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER MOCKED AND DISPARAGED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER.

TH>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IN TESTIMONY YOU SAID YOU WERE NEVER BRIEFED ON THESE REPORTS AND STATEMENTS THAT YOU DID NOT DO DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE TAKING YOUR POST TO DISCOVER THAT PRESIDENT AND MAYOR GIULIANI'S CONCERNS MAY HAVE BEEN -- WHAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN, AND YOU DIDN'T DISCUSS THEM WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

IS THAT STILL CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR: >> IN ONE COUNTRY TO INTERFERE IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF ANOTHER.

THAT'S DISAPPOINTING.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY?

>> IT IS.

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.

I LOOKED INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SEVERAL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED.

IN 2016, CANDIDATE TRUMP HAD MADE A STATEMENT SAYING THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT HE WOULD ALLOW CRIMEA TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA.

HE EXPRESSED THE SENTIMENT OR OPINION THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT CRIMEA WANTED TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU MR. NUNES IS THAT THOSE -- THAT SENTIMENT IS AMAZINGLY INFLAMM INFLAMMATORY TOL ALL UKRANIANS.

>> SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, ARE YOU AWARE DURING THE 2012 ELECTION WHEN AT THE TIME PRESIDENT OBAMA LEANED OVER ON A HOT MIC TO THE THEN RUSSIAN PRESIDENT AND SAID HE'D HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION?

IS THAT INFLAMMATORY TO THE UKRANIANS ALSO?

>> I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT SOME GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OPPOSED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S APPROACH TO UKRAINE, BUT MANY HAD NO IDEA WHAT CONCERNED HIM.

IN THIS CASE, IT WAS NUMEROUS INDICATIONS OF UKRANIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION TO OPPOSE HIS CAMPAIGN AND SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON.

ONCE YOU KNOW THAT IT'S EASY TO UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS DISRUPTION AND TO DISCOVER EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

WITH THAT I'LL TURN TO MR. CASTOR.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. KENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE UKRANIAN ROLE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

HE GENUINELY BELIEVED THEY WERE WORKING AGAINST HIM, RIGHT?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT OR CANDIDATE TRUMP WAS THINKING ABOUT THE UKRANIANS.

>> DIDN'T HE IN AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON MAY 23rd AFTER THE ZELENSKY INAUGURATION DIDN'T HE LAMENT THE UKRANIANS WERE OUT TO GET HIM.

>> I HEARD THAT HIS RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT MR. ZELENSKY VISIT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE OVAL OFFICE WAS NOT WELL RECEIVED, AND THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT UKRANIANS, YES.

>> FROM THE PRESIDENT'S PERSPECTIVE, IF THE UKRANIAN AMBASSADOR OF THE UNITED STATES, AN INFLUENTIAL IPMAT IS PENNING AN OPED, CERTAINLY WITH THE OKAY OF PRESIDENT PARACHENKO, THE DNC CONSULTANTS ARE CONFERRING WITH UKRANIAN OFFICIALS AT THE EMBASSY, FORMER PRIME MINISTER IS SAYING THINGS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

INTERIOR MINISTER WHO HAS SPANNED BOTH REALMS IS ALSO SAYING SOME VERY UNKIND THINGS ARE SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE PRESIDENT -- YOU CERTAINLY CAN APPRECIATE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS VERY CONCERNED THAT SOME ELEMENTS OF THE UKRANIAN ESTABLISHMENT WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF HIM, AND DID NOT SUPPORT HIM, AND WERE OUT TO GET HIM.

>> I'LL ALLOW THE QUESTION, BUT -- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY, ARE YOU INTERRUPTING?

>> I WANT DOCK YOU THE TIME.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, AMBASSADOR, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO VERIFY THE THINGS THAT COUNSEL ASKED YOU, THAT'S FINE.

OTHERWISE QUESTIONS FROM THE MAJORITY OR THE MINORITY THAT MAY ASSUME FACTS IN IN EVIDENCE BEFORE, YOU SHOULD BE CAUTIONED ABOUT THAT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE TIME IS WITH MINORITY COUNSEL.

>> CHAIRMAN, I SAT HERE THROUGH THE FIRST 45 MINUTES AND LITERALLY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO ALMOST THE FOUNDATION TO ALMOST EVERY QUESTION THAT MR. GOLDMAN ASKED REGARDING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, LEADING.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 DOES NOT SAY WE ARE UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.

IF IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT I SHOULD BE ASSERTING OBJECTIONS TO RULES OF EVIDENCE, LET ME KNOW NOW, BECAUSE THIS HEARING IS GOING TO CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY.

>> AS I SAID, I WILL ALLOW THE QUESTION.

>> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN HAS A DIFFERENT QUESTION ABOUT THE RULES.

WHAT ARE THE RULE THAT IS GOVERN THIS?

>> MEMBER SEEKS RECOGNITION.

>> I'M ASKING TO YIELD TO THE QUESTION I JUST ASKED YOU.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE TO YOU SEEK RECOGNITION?

>> TO ASK A QUO.

>> I'VE ANSWERED IT?

>> YOU HAVEN'T SWFRED IF I SHOULD BE ASSERTING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE OR LEADING OBJECTIONS TO QUEPS FROM QUESTIONS POSED THIS POINT FORWARD.

>> MR. RATCLIFF.

I'M NOT ACCOUNTING TO THE QUE OBJECTING TO THE QUESTION, BUT SOME THINGS NOT IN EVIDENCE ARE CORRECT.

THIS IS -- I HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

WE WILL RESUME THE QUESTION AND RESUME THE CLOCK.

>> SO YOU CERTAINLY CAN APPRECIATE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS?

>> MR. CASTOR, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS.

IN MY DEPOSITION, I RECALL YOU HANDED ME THE POLITICAL ARTICLE WHICH LISTED AT LEAST THREE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED EARLIER, AND YOU YOU RECOGNIZE, AND I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER THAT I -- IT'S THE FIRST I HEARD OF THOSE AND WAS SURPRISED BY THOSE.

I DON'T KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REACTION TO THOSE.

>> IN THE INFORMATION PUBLISHED FORMER UKRANIAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT ABOUT THE MANIFORT BLACK LEDGERS IN AUGUST OF 2016 -- THE VERY DAY THAT WAS PUBLISHED, MR. MANIFORT RESIGNED ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN, CORRECT?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> BUT CERTAINLY THAT GIVES RISE TO SOME CONCERN THAT THERE ARE ELEMENTS TO THE UKRANIAN ESTABLISHMENT OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S A VERY REASONABLE BELIEF OF HIS, CORRECT?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> IN THE RUNUP TO THE 2016 ELECTION, THERE'S MANY FACTS THAT REMAIN UNRESOLVED, AGREED?

>> WHAT'S THE QUESTION.

>> THERE ARE MANY FACTS RELATED TO THE 2016 RUNUP TO THE ELECTION THAT REMAIN UNRESOLVED?

>> WELL -- >> ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IN MAY OF 2019 ASKED JOHN DURHAM TO BROADLY EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT'S COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN.

THAT EFFORT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, AND HAS TURNED INTO A CRIMINAL PROBE, AND U.S. ATTORNEY DURHAM IS CASTING A WIDE NET, AND IS FOLLOWING THE FACTS WHERE THEY MAY LEAD.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> I'M AWARE THAT THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION.

THAT'S AS MUCH AS I'M AWARE.

>> TO THE EXTENT INFORMATION RESIDES IN UKRAINE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE UKRANIANS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT AND COOPERATE WITH THE UNITED STATES THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION, CORRECT?

>> CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN?

I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU -- THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S PROBE THAT UKRAINE SHOULD COOPERATE WITH THE UNITED STATES, AND TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE IMPROPER THINGS, AND THE UKRANIANS OUGHT TO INVESTIGATE THAT THEMSELVES.

>> THE UKRANIAN AMERICAN RELATIONS ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE.

THE UKRANIAN THE CERTAINLY >> BE RESPONSIVE TO REQUESTIES.

>> SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT RAISES THIS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND URGES THERE BE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALLY, THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO RAISE A QUESTION WITH THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT, CORRECT?

>> IT'S APPROPRIATE TO COOPERATE AND EXCHANGE INFORMATION, YES.

>> TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS HAVING U.S. ATTORNEY DURHAM LOOK INTO THIS, ISN'T IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FLAG THIS FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> I DON'T KNOW THE PRECISE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS KIND OF RELATIONS.

>> WERE ANY OF YOU INVOLVED WITH PREPARATION FOR THE 7/25 CALL?

>> I WAS NOT.

>> HOW DUE ACCOUNT FOR THAT.

YOU WERE TWO OF THE KEY OFFICIALS WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UKRANIAN POLICY.

IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO HAVE A CALL WITH THE LEADER OF THE UKRAINE, WHY WOULDN'T YOU BE INVOLVED?

>> WE WORKED IF ARE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN AN EMBASSY OVERSEAS WHERE THAT RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE STAFF THE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

NORMALLY, NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF CAN LIST THE INFORMATION, USUALLY FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THAT'S ONLY BACKGROUND INFORMATION, AND MY UNDERSTAND THINK HAVING NEVER WORKED AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IS THAT STAFF WRITE A MEMO TO THE PRESIDENT, AND NONE OF US DO THAT OUTSIDE OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF.

>> SO THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE COUNTRY WOULDN'T ORDINARILY BE ON THE CALL WITH A FOREIGN LEADER?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WOULD NOT.

>> AND DID COLONEL VINDMAN OR ANYONE REACH OUT TO YOU, MR. STAFF IN PREPARATION FOR THE CALL.

>> I WAS GIVEN NOTIFICATION ON JULY 25th, AND TO THE EXTENT I HAD A ROLE TO REACH OUT TO THE EMBASSY TO GIVE THEM A HEADS UP AND BE SURE SECURE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE OFFICE OF UKRAINE WAS FUNCTIONAL SO THE CALL COULD BE PATCHED THROUGH FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ROOM.

>> DID YOU PROVIDE ANY SUBSTANTIVE ADVICE TO COLONEL VINDMAN ABOUT THE CALL AND WHAT AUGHT TO BE THE OFFICIAL POSITION.

>> I WAS NOT ASKED AND DID NOT PROVIDE.

>> SAI.

TO YOU AMBASSADOR?

>> THE SAME.

>> AND THE CALL WAS SCHEDULED -- YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT THE CALL WAS ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN.

AFTER THE JULY 10th MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT THE CALL WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I WOULD NOT SAY THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION WAS THAT A CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS WOULD BE USE xá*FL, AND ONCE ZELENSKY'S PARTY WON THE FIRST ABSOLUTE MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS THE IDEA OF A CONGRATULATORY CALL MADE SENSE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.

>> AND THE CALL WAS SCHEDULED.

DID YOU GET A READ OUT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR INITIALLY FROM THE CALL?

>> I DIDN'T.

I READ THE -- WE ALL READ THE STATEMENT THAT THE UKRANIANS PUT OUT.

I GOT A READ OUT SEVERAL DAYS LATER FROM MR. MORRISON, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

>> AND HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. KENT?

>> I LIKEWISE FIRST SAW THE UKRANIAN STATEMENT, AND I BELIEVE THE NEXT DAY JULY 26, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A FRIDAY I DID GET A PARTIAL READ OUT FROM LT.

COLONEL VINLD MAN.

VINDMAN.

>> YOU SAID IT WAS CRYPTIC, IS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS INITIALLY WRITTEN IN UKRANIAN AND TRANSLATE THE TO THE U.S. >> NO, AS A GENERAL RULE, THE UNITED STATES AND THE UKRAINE WILL PUT OUT VERY SHORT SUMMARIES THAT HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DISCUSSION, BUT WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL.

>> AND YOU MENTIONED IT WAS CRYPTIC.

WHY DID YOU THINK IT WAS CRYPTIC?

>> KNOWING NOW -- HAVING READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND LOOKING BACK AT THEIR SUMMARY, AS I RECALL, I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT WORDS, BUT THEY SAID THAT THERE WERE ISSUES TO BE PURSUED IN ORDER TO IMPROVE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES OR SOMETHING >> THAT SEEMS PRETTY ORDINARY.

>> IT SEEMS ORDINARY.

>> AND YOU WERE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE NEXT DAY?

>> WE WERE THE VERY NEXT DAY.

>> AND DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT HIS VIEWS OF THE CALL?

>> HE SAID -- SO I, MR. VOLKER, MR. SONDLAND WERE IN HIS OFFICE, AND WE ASKED HIM, I THINK, HOW WAS THE CALL?

HE SAID THE CALL WAS FINE.

I WAS HAPPY WITH THE CALL.

>> OKAY.

AND DID YOU GET ADDITIONAL READ OUTS SUBSEQUENTLY?

WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT THE CALL CONTAINED THINGS THAT CONCERNED YOU?

WAS IT NOT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25th?

>> MR. MORRISON, AS I SAY, BRIEFED ME SEVERAL DAYS LATER, BEFORE THE END OF JULY.

I THINK WHAT I SAID IN TESTIMONY IS THAT IT COULD HAVE GONE BETTER.

HE SAID THAT THE CALL MENTIONED MR. GIULIANI.

HE ALSO SAID THAT THE CALL MENTIONED THE FORMER AMBASSADOR.

BOTH OF THOSE WERE A CONCERN.

>> GIULIANI WAS FIRST RAISED ON THE CALL BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

COULD HAVE BEEN.

I HAVE HAD HERE IF YOU'D LIKE.

>> ON PAGE 3.

THE FIRST MENTION OF GIULIANI IS FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON PAGE 3, AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS, I WILL PERSONALLY TELL YOU ONE OF MY ASSISTANTS SPOKE WITH MR. GIULIANI RECENTLY AND WE HOPE MR. GIULIANI WILL TRAVEL TO THE UKRAINE AND WE WILL MEET WHEN HE COMES TO UKRAINE.

DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU?

>> I DIDN'T HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT AT THE TIME.

ALL THE I HEARD WAS THAT GIULIANI WAS MENTIONED.

MR. MORRISON SAID GIULIANI WAS MENTIONED IN THE CALL.

>> BUT THE WAY ZELENSKY STATES IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S LOOKING FORWARD TO SPEAKING WITH AMERICA'S MAYOR.

>> THAT'S WHAT YOU FOUND OUT WHEN I READ THE TRANSCRIPT ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER OR SO.

÷└> NOW, MR. KENT, CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND IT AFFECTS THE COURTS, THE PROSECUTORS AND HISTORICALLY THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH ALL THE PROSECUTORS IN UKRAINE, CORRECT?

>> I WOULD SAY UP UNTIL THE NEW SET OF PROSECUTORS APOINTED BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT?

>> SO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS THAT ZELENSKY'S THE REAL DEAL.

A REAL REFORMER, AND GENUINELY INTERESTED IN ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, PROSECUTING THE BAD GUYS, CORRECT?

>> I WOULD SAY WE ARE CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC, AND WE WILL WORK WHEREVER THERE IS THE PRESIDENT WILL TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND PUT FORWARD GENUINE REFORM.

>> AND THE HEART OF THE CORRUPTION IS THIS SYSTEM WHERE THE ALGART TAKE CONTROL BY VIRTUAL THEFT OF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE RIGHT TO CERTAIN ENERGY LICENSES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S ONE ELEMENT, YES.

AND BURISMA HAS A STORY OF CORRUPTION, DOESN'T HE.

>> MR. DORCHESSKEY WAS MINISTER OF ENERGY UNDER THE PRO-RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND HE OOZES REGULATORORY AUTHORITY TO AWARD GAS EXPLORATION TO COMPANIES HE CONTROLLED.

THAT'S CORRUPTION, YES.

>> CERTAINLY SELF-DEALING.

>> AND SELF-ENRICHING.

>> AND HOW DID THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY PURSUE THAT?

>> IN THE SPRING OF 2014, THE NEW REVOLUTION TURNED TO PARTNERS, PARTICULARLY THE U.S. AND THE U.K. TO TRY TO RECOVER TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF STOLEN ASSETS.

THE FIRST CASE CAME FROM, AND THE CRIME OFFICE IN xá*U. K. OPENED UP AN INVESTIGATION, AND THE UKRANIAN DEVELOPED MORE INFORMATION.

AND 23 MILLION DOLLARS WAS FROZEN UNTIL SOMEONE IN THE PROSECUTORS OFFICE IN UKRAINE SHUT THE CASE, AND THE MONEY WENT POOF.

>> ESSENTIALLY PAID A BRIBE TO MAKE THE CASE GO AWAY?

>> THAT'S A STRONG ASSUMPTION, YES.

>> AT ANY POINT IN TIME DID ANYONE IN THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT TRY TO REINVESTIGATE THAT, OR DID THE CRIMES GO UNPUNISHED AND FREE TO GO?

>> MR. OLCHESSKEY FLED THE UKRAINE AND WILL CONTINUEED TO RAISE AS A POINT OF ORDER BECAUSE U.S.

TAXPAYER DOLLARS WERE USED TO RECOVER STOLEN ASSETS WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, AND CONTINUEED TO PRESS UKRANIAN OFFICIALS TO ANSWER FOR WHY ALLEGED CORRUPT PROSECUTORS HAD CLOSED A CASE AND WE HAVE UNTIL NOW NOT GOTTEN A SATISFACTORY ANSWER.

TO SUMMARIZE, WE THOUGHT IT WAS STOLEN MONEY, WE THOUGHT A PROSECUTOR TOOK A BRIBE TO SHUT THE CASE.

THOSE WERE THE CONCERNS IN THE CASE.

>> ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THAT MATTER BEING FULLY INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED?

>> I THINK SINCE TAC PAIR DOLLARS AREEST WAED I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE OFFICE FIND WHO THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR WAS WHO TOOK THE BRIBE AND HOW MUCH WAS PAID.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID TO THE DEPUTY PROSECUTOR GENERAL ON FEBRUARY 23rd, 2015.

>> IN ADDITION TO PROSECUTING THE PERSON THAT TOOK THE BRIBE, SHOULDN'T THE ORGANIZATION OR INDIVIDUAL THAT SPONSORED THE BRIBES BE PROSECUTED?

>> I WOULD AGREE THAT THE UKRANIAN LAW AUTHORITY SHOULD UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AND HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNT FOR BREAKING UKRANIAN LAW.

>> SO THIS COMPANY, BURISMA IS INVOLVED IN LOTS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, CORRECT?

>> I DO NOT KNOW THAT.

>> OVER THE YEARS IT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN QUESTIONABLE DEALINGS, CORRECT?

>> I WOULD SAY IT'S THE LARGEST PRIVATE GAS PRODUCER IN THE COUNTRY AND ITS BUSINESS REPUTATION IS MIXED.

TO THE EXTENT A FEW -- A GENUINE PROSECUTOR COULD RE-EXAMINE OLD CRIME THAT IS HAVEN'T SUFFICIENTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO JUSTICE, RIGHT?

>> I BELIEVE THE NEW PROSECUTOR MADE A STATEMENT TO THAT, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE REVIEWING PAST CASES.

KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT THOSE WHO COMMIT CRIMES GENERALLY NEVER GET HELD TO ACCOUNT.

THERE'S A LOT TO REVIEW.

>> THE BRIBE WAS PAID IN ONE YEAR?

>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CASE GAECHX THE FORMER MINISTER WAS SHUT DOWN DECEMBER 2014.

AND AROUND THAT TIME.

BURISMA ADDS OFFICIALS TO THE BOARD, CORRECT?

>> THE UNDERSTANDING IS QUESTION, LECHESSKEY BROUGHT NEW VERDICTS TO THE BOARD.

>> DO YOU KNOW THE STRATEGY IS ADDING OFFICIALS TO THE BOARD?

>> I NEVER MET HIM.

>> AND WHO ARE SOME OF THE FOLKS HEEDED TO THE BOARD?

>> THE MOST PROM NENLT PERSON HE ADDED TO THE BOARD WAS THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF POLAND.

>> AND ANYONE ELSE.

>> THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OTHERS INCLUDING SOME AMERICANS.

THE MOST PROMINENT WAS HUNTER BIDEN.

>> SO HUNTER BIDEN IS ADDED TO THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

DO YOU THINK THAT CREATES A PROBLEM THAT BURISMA MAY BE ADDING PEOPLE TO ITS BOARD FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES?

>> >> SIR, I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT, NOT IN THE CORPORATE SECTOR.

I BELIEVE THAT COMPANIES BUILD THEIR BOARDS WITH A VARIETY OF REASONS, NOT ONLY TO PROMOTE THEIR BUSINESS PLANS.

>> WAS HUNTER BIDEN A CORPORATE GOVERNMENT EXPERT?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HUNTER BIDEN STUDOED IN UNIVRSITY.

>> IS HE THE JEFFREY SONENFIELD OF THE UKRAINE?

>> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF HIS BACKGROUND OR WHAT HE DID ON THE BOARD.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS BUSINESS EXPERIENCE IN THE UKRAINE PRIOR TO JOINING BURISMA BOARD?

>> I'VE HEARD NOTHING OF PRIOR EXPERIENCE.

>> DO YOU KNOW IF HE SPEAKS UKRANIAN?

>> I DO NOT.

>> DO YOU KNOW IF HE POSSESSES ANY ELEMENT, OTHER THAN BEING THE SON OF AT THE TIME SITTING VICE PRESIDENT?

>> I DO NOT.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, DO YOU KNOW IF HUNTER BIDEN OFFERS ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE FACT HIS DAD IS FORMER PREER VICE PRESIDENT.

>> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE.

>> YOU WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS RIGHT?

HE WAS GETTING PAID $50,000 A MONTH TO SIT ON THE BOARD?

>> DO YOU KNOW IF HE RELOCATED.

>> SAY AGAIN.

>> DO YOU KNOW IF HUNTER BIDEN RELOCATED TO UKRAINE?

>> NO KNOWLEDGE.

>> MR. KENT?

>> NO KNOWLEDGE.

>> HE'S GETTING PAID $50,000 A MONTH, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD ANY EXPERIENCE, HE HAD ANY -- SPOKE THE LANGUAGE, OR WHETHER HE MOVEED TO UKRAINE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AT THIS TIME, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS TAKING A SPECIFIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE, WASN'T HE?

>> HE WAS.

>> COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?

>> HE MADE A TOTAL OF SIX VISITS TO UKRAINE, ONE DURING THE OLD PRESIDENT.

>> AND THEN THE REVOLUTION STARTED IN FEBRUARY 2014.

>> AND YOU WERE THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION AT THE TIME?

>> STARTING 2015.

>> DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN COME WHEN YOU WERE AT POST?

>> HE DID NOT.

I CAME BACK FRR UKRANIAN LANGUAGE TRAINING AND MISSED -- >> YOU'VE SEEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, HIS -- HE'S SORT OF GIVEN A SPEECH -- YOU KNOW FOLKSY ABOUT HOW HE WENT TO UKRAINE, AND TOLD THE UKRANIANS, IF THEY DON'T FIRE , YOU'VE SEEN CORRECT.

>> THAT WAS IN JANUARY 2018.

>> HE ALSO SAID THESE BEEN IN THE UKRAINE 13 TIMES.

DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S ACCURATE.

>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE WHEN HE WAS VIBE.

>> DID THE STATE DEN EVER EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO THE VICE PRESIDENT'S THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE AT THE TIME ENGAGING ON UKRAINE, PRESENTED ANY ISSUES?

>> THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE WAS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

IT WAS TOP COVERED TO HELP US PURSUE OUR POLICY AGENDA.

>> OKAY.

BUT GIVEN HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE IN BUSINESS OF DIRECTORS AT SOME POINT YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN TO THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> WHAT DID THEY DO ABOUT THAT CONCERN YOU EXPRESSED.

>> I HAVE NO IDEA.

I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO THE OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT.

>> THAT WAS NOBODY -- >> SIR, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT DURING 2015.

>> AFTER YOU EXPRESSED A CONCERN, A PERPROSPECT OF INTEREST AT LEAST, VICE PRESIDENT'S ENGAGE MANY IN UKRAINE DID NOT DECREASE, DID IT?

>> THE VIDEO TAPE WAS PROMOTING U.S. POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES IN UKRAINE.

>> HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA DIDN'T CEASE, DID IT.

>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE IT DIDN'T AND MY CONCERN WAS THAT THERE WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I WANT TO TURN TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL YOU DESCRIBED.

IN FAIRNESS, THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY, IT'S NOT AS OUTLANDISH AS, IT COULD BE, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> IT'S AS OUT LANDISH AS IT COULD BE.

>> WE HAVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER WHO IS A FORMER SENATE CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO, LONG TIME DEPARTMENT DIPLOMAT AND YOU'VE KNOWN AMBASSADOR VOLKER FOR YEARS, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MAN OF UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> SOMEBODY WITH INCREDIBLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGION.

>> VERY GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGION.

>> AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> I'M SURE THAT RIGHT.

>> AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF UKRAINE.

>> HIS FIRST PRIORITY IS CLEARLY THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE EXTENT THAT UKRAINE HAS AN IMPLICATION FOR THAT, YES.

>> THE SECOND MEMBER OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO IS AMBASSADORO THE EU.

HIS INVOLVEMENT HERE WHILE NOT NECESSARILY PART OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AS AMBASSADOR TO THE EU IS CERTAINLY NOT OUTLANDISH FOR HIM TO BE INTERESTED AND ENGAGED PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENT OR SECOND POMPEO'S DIRECTION, CORRECT.

>> IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL FOR THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EU PLAY A ROLE IN UKRAINE POLICY.

>> OKAY.

IT MIGHT BE IRREGULAR BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT OUTLANDISH.

SECOND PER PEER PERRY IS THE SED MEMBER OF THE CHANNEL, CONFURNLD OFFICIAL, SOMEBODY WITH DEEP EXPERIENCE IN ENERGY MARKETS AND HE WAS PURSUING SOME LIQUEFIED PROCESS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SECRETARY PERRY'S INVOLVEMENT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

>> IT IS.

>> NOW THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL AS IT DEVELOPED, WHEN DID YOU DETERMINE THAT IT BECAME PROBLEMATIC?

I MEAN YOUR STATEMENT IDENTIFIED YOURSELF APPROPRIATELY AS THE LEADER OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL.

>> AT LEAST A PARTICIPANT.

THERE'S ANOTHER LEADER.

>> WHEN DID YOU FIRST DEVELOP CONCERNS THAT THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL WAS BEING PROBLEMATIC?

>> WELL I ARRIVED AND GAVE, IN MID SEPTEMBER.

BY LATE SEPTEMBER, A COUPLE OF PHONE CALLS WITH -- >> YOU ARRIVED IN JUNE.

>> MID JUNE 17, YES.

SO BY THE END OF JUNE, I HAD BEGUN TO HEAR REFERENCES THROUGH INVESTIGATIONS AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO THE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS OFFERED TO.

AND THAT BEGAN TO RAISE QUESTIONS FOR ME.

>> I THINK YOU'VE KNOWN AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND YOU CERTAINLY HAVE A REASON TO KNOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

WHAT DID YOU DO AT THIS POINT OR DID YOU EVER TRY TO W WREST CONTROL OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL.

>> I DIDN'T WRITE TO WREST CONTROL OF REGULAR CHANNELS THAT DO THAT, AT THE TIME -- >> WHY NOT THOUGH IF YOU HAD CONCERN.

>> BECAUSE, AT THE TIME AS WAS TESTIFIED, BOTH CHANNELS WERE INTERESTED IN HAVING A MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THERE'S REASON TO WREST CONTROL IF WE'RE GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

>> AT SOME POINT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU'RE THE IMPEACHMENT WITNESS NUMBER ONE.

FOR THE CASE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT IRREGULAR CHANNEL, CORRECT.

>> I WAS CONCERNED WHEN THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL APPEARD TO GO GOING AGAINST THE OVERALL, THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL GOING AGAINST THE OVERALL DIRECTION OF AND PURPOSE OF THE REGULAR CHANNELS.

>> AS I UNDERSTAND THE RECORD, HOWEVER, YOU, WHEN YOU ARRIVED IN UKRAINE, YOU HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE SECRETARY AND THE SECRETARY'S TOP ADVISOR, THE CHANCELLOR.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THEY ASSURED YOU IF YOU HAD ANY CONCERNS, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTACT THEM AND THEY WOULD HAVE YOUR BACK.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> YOU KNEW GOING IN THAT THE RUDY GIULIANI ELEMENT PRESENTED SOME COMPLEXITIES, CORRECT.

>> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT JUDY -- RUDY GIULIANI 'S STATEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE UKRAINE POLICY, YES.

>> WHEN IT GENUINELY BECAME A CONCERN FOR YOU, WHAT DID YOU DO EITHER ENGAGE SONDLAND AND VOAL CUR AND PERRY.

BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU EVER MET RUDY GIULIANI DURING THESE TIMES RELEVANT.

>> NOT DURING THESE RELEVANT.

I VITED HIM WHEN HE WAS THERE IN 2007 OR 8.

THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I MET HIM.

>> YOU NEVER HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI AS PART OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL BUSINESS MATTERS.

>> CORRECT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ANYWAY, GETTING BACK TO MY QUESTION, DID YOU TRY TO ENGAGE THE SECRETARY DURING THIS TIME PERIOD?

I KNOW YOU SAID YOU HAD AN AUGUST OR MAY 1 TELEPHONE YOU HAD A JULY 10TH PHONE CALL.

THE FIRST PERSON TABLE ON AUGUST 29TH?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IS THAT THE UNIVERSE OF INITIATIVES YOU TOOK INSIDE THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO MEASURE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE REGULAR CHANNEL.

>> I ALSO RAISED MY CONCERNS WITH DEPUTY SECRETARY GEORGE KENT.

IN PARTICULAR, EARLY ON WHEN I THINK I MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS PHONE CALL THAT WAS ODD IN THAT IT NOT INCLUDE THE NORMAL STAFF INDEED THE STAFF AND THAT STRUCK AS USUAL.

I CONSULTED WITH MR.

KEPT AND AT HIS SUGGESTION MADE A NOTE OF THIS AND ALSO HAD I THINK AT THAT POINT I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. BRENTFIELD.

>> THAT WAS THE JUNE 28 CALL I BELIEVE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ONCE YOU GOT ON THE PHONE IT PROCEEDED IN A VERY REGULAR CHANNEL WAY, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

>> THE JUNE 28 CALL DIDN'T ULTIMATELY AS IT PLAYED OUT PRESENT ANY PROBLEMS WITH YOU.

>> THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT SLN SKI DID NOT.

THE PREPARATION FOR THAT CALL, THE PREPARATION INCLUDED MAYBE 15 MINUTES OF JUST THE AMERICANS THAT WOULD STAY ON THE CALL.

AGAIN, THAT WAS A LITTLE IRREGULAR IN THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE THE STAFF.

IT WAS ALSO IN THAT CALL, IN THAT 15 MINUTES BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GOT ON THE PHONE, VOLKER TOLD THE REST OF THE PARTICIPANTS THAT HE WAS PLANNING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TORONTO IN THREE DAYS, FOUR DAYS WHERE HE WOULD OUTLINE FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE PHONE CALLS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH.

>> OKAY.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT, DID YOU?

>> THE ONLY ISSUE I HAD WITH THAT MR. CASPER WAS THERE WAS KERCHES TO INVESTIGATIONS IF I BELIEVE I HAVE TO CHECK MY NOTES ON THAT BUT THERE'S RAISED ISSUES FOR ME THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD IN MIND THAT HE WAS SPECIFICALLY GOING TO RAISE WITH MR. ZELENSKY.

THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN.

>> THE PRESIDENT 'S EXPRESSED HIS INTEREST IN CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS, CERTAINLY RELATING TO THE 2016 ELECTION AND RELATING TO THIS CORRUPT BURISMA OUTFIT.

THAT WAS THE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, RIGHT?

>> I'M NOT SURE.

CAN I ASK YOU TO REPEAT THE QUESTION?

>> THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION NEEDING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS IS IT ULTIMATELY RELATED TO THE BURISMA COMPANY.

I MEAN, IF AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS RAISING THAT WITH ZELENSKY TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT.

>> THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST OR I WOULD SAY MR. GIULIANI'S INTEREST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS VERY CLEAR AT THE TIME.

MR. J GIULIANI'S INTEREST IN PURSUING THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS OF CONCERN.

BUT -- >> DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES VOLKER MET WITH JE GIULIANI.

>> I DON'T.

>> WAS HE METING WITH HIM ALL THE TIME.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> IN HIS DEPOSITION HE TOLD US JUST ONCE.

HE TEXTED BACK AND FORTHWITH THE MAYOR, HAD A CALL OR TWO BUT IT WASN'T A PERVASIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT.

>> I WASMENT AWARE.

I WAS AWARE OF ONE DIRECT FAST.

> --BREAKFAST.

>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THERE WAS AN INSTANCE WHERE YOU ASKED AID HAD ENGAGED WITH BURISMA AND POSSIBLY SPONSORING A PROGRAM AND YOU RECOMMENDED THE USAID TO PULL BACK FROM THAT.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT.

>> I BECAME AWARE IN THE SUMMER OF 2016 AS PART OF I RECALL WAS A CLEAN ENERGY AWARENESS CAMPAIGN THE PART OF THE US AID THE COMMISSION THAT WORKS ON ECONOMICS AND GOVERNMENTS HAD SPONSORED SOME SORT OF CONTEST FOR YOUNG UKRAINIANS AND THERE WAS A PRIZE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN A CAMERA.

THEY CO-SPONSORED WITH PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THE BUZZ WORD HAVING A CO-SPONSORSHIP WITH BURISMA.

GIVEN THE PAST HISTORY OF OUR INTEREST IN RECOVERING, IT WAS MY VIEW IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE EMBASSY TO BE SPONSORING A CONTEST WITH BURISMA.

I RAISED THAT WITH THE MISSION DIRECTOR AT THE EMBASSY.

HE AGREED AND THE USAID MISSION KEPT THE CONTEST BUT DROPPED THE PUBLIC PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP.

>> TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.

I WILL NOW MOVE TO FIVE MINUTE MEMBER ROUNDS.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF.

MR.

KEPT KENT I WANTED TO FOLLOP WITH MY COLLEAGUE'S QUESTIONS REGARDING BURISMA.

YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A TIME WHEN AN OLIGARCH NAMED CHESKY WAS SELF AWARDING HIMSELF A CONTRACT.

WHEN WAS THAT?

>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE HE WAS MINISTER OF ENERGY, SORRY MINISTER OF ECOLOGY UNDER THE PRESIDENT FROM 2010 TO 2012.

AT THE TIME LICENSES TO HAVE SUBSTRATE AWE EXPIRATION OF GAS WERE AWARDED BY THE MINISTRY OF ECOLOGY.

>> THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS BEFORE THE EVENTS COULD BRING US TODAY THE PHONE CALL.

>> CORRECT.

HIS TIME AS MINISTER WAS 2010 TO 2012, HUNTER BIDEN JOINED THE BOARD OF BURISMA IN 2014.

>> YOU READ THE COLLEAGUE'S TRANSCRIPT HAVE YOU NOT.

>> I HAVE.

I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME BUT I HAVEN'T READ IT FOR A MONTH.

>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF THIS OLIGARCH WHO SEVEN YEARS EARLIER HAD BEEN SELF DEALING.

>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.

>> IS THERE A DISCUSSION OF AWARDING CONTRACTS TO ONE'S SELF OR THE CORRUPT ACTS IN THE 2012-2014 TIME FRAME.

>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE NO.

>> THIS IS ABOUT HOW TO STRIKE THE SERVER AND THE BIENS, AM I RIGHT.

>> I SEE THAT HERE YES.

>> THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ON THAT CALL SETTING UP AN ANTI-CORRUPT COURT OR INTO CORRUPTION AMONG OLIGARCHS OR COMPANIES IN GENERAL.

THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS ARE FOCUSED ON TWO THINGS, 2016 AND THE BIDENS, AM I RIGHT.

>> I BELIEVE SO YES.

>> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT I DO NOT BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ASK OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE IN SELECTIVE POLITICALLY ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATIONS PROSECUTIONS AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THOSE IN POWER.

SUCH SELECTIVE ACTIONS UNDERMIND THE RULE OF LAW REGARDLESS OF THE COUNTRY.

SELECTIVE POLITICALLY ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATIONS OR PROSECUTIONS AGAINST OPPONENTS PRESIDENT'S POWERS TO THE BIDENS THERE.

>> I'M REFERRING AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE ABOUT THE PROMOTION OF THE RULE OF LAW.

>> THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SEEKING INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT COULD IT NOT.

>> IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT WAY, YES, SIR.

>> AND I TAKE IT IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OR OTHERS, WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO YOU WAS THE PRESIDENT WANT INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 AND THE BIDENS AMOUNTED TO OLIGARCH'S NAMES OF CHESKY AND TO 16 DEALINGS WITH THE BIDENS, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> IN FACT WHEN YOU SAID YOUR STAFF OVERHEARD THIS CALL BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT, IN THAT CALL, THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP INVESTIGATION, DOES HE NOT.

>> HE DID.

>> IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PRESIDENT GETS OFF THE PHONE RIGHT NOW WITH SONDLAND, SOMEONE IS ASKED BY YOUR STAFF WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT THINK ABOUT UKRAINE AND HIS ANSWER IS HE'S INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS, AM I RIGHT.

>> SAID HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS.

>> MORE INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS.

NO DISCUSSION OF LACHESKY OR THINGS THAT HAPPENED SEVEN YEARS AGO, HE WAS INTERESTED IN THE BIDENS.

>> CORRECT.

>> NOW I THINK YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT WANT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX IS THAT RIGHT.

>> YES, SIR.

>> BY PUBLIC BOX DOES THAT MEAN THAT PRIVATE STATEMENTS OR PRIVATE PROMISES TO DO INVESTIGATIONS OF 2016 OF THE BIDENS WERE NOT ENOUGH HE HAD TO GO ON TV, HE HAD TO GO PUBLIC IN SOME WAY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WANT HIM IN THAT BOX, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE HAD IN MIND AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD IN MIND WHO WAS THE ONE TO MENTION THAT TO ME.

THAT'S THE IMPLICATION.

THE IMPLICATION WAS IT NEEDED TO BE PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO BEING A PRIVATE OCCURRENCE.

I THINK YOU SAID?

THAT SAME -- I THINK YOU SAID IN THAT SAME CALL YOU ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO PUSH BACK ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

>> SO YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR CONVERSATION WITH SONDLAND, THIS WAS THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND NOT SAWNLDLAND'S DEMAND THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND AND YOU WANT SONDLAND TO PUSH BACK, AM I RIGHT?

>> WHAT I WANT, SO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CLEARLY ABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

AND I THOUGHT THAT THE PRESSURE ON ANOTHER PRESIDENT ON PRESIDENT SLEEP SKI WAS NOT A GOOD -- ZELENSKY WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA FROM EITHER PRESENT'S STANDPOINT.

I SUGGESTED IN THAT PHONE CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT HE, SINCE HE REGULAR OR FREQUENTLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT COULD MAKE THAT POINT.

>> I THINK THE WAY YOU EXPRESS YOURSELF YOU WANTED SONDLAND TO PUSH BACK ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND IS THAT RIGHT.

>> SURE.

>> THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANT HIM TO DO AND YOU WANTED SONDLAND TO PUSH BACK.

>> I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO PUSH BACK, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND IN FACT, EVEN AFTER THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED, EVEN AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNED OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE INVESTIGATION WAS RELEASED, EVEN AFTER THOSE EVENT YOU WERE STILL WORRIED ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO FEEL IT NECESSARY TO GO ON CNN AND ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS WORRIED HE MIGHT DO THAT.

SO YES I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA AND SO WHEN THERE WAS SOME CASE THAT THERE MIGHT -- INDICATION THERE STILL MIGHT BE A PLAN IN AN INTERVIEW IN NEW YORK WHICH IS UPCOMING AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETINGS, I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN SO I ADDRESSED IT WITH THE ZELENSKY.

>> I THINK YOU SAID EARLIER THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR THEN FOR ZELENSKY WAS CONCERNED ZELENSKY DIDN'T WANT TO BE USED AS SOME TOOL IN AMERICAN POLITICS IS THAT RIGHT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO ZELENSKY DIDN'T WANT TO GO ON TV AND ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS HE -- >> HE AND HIS ADVISERS KNEW IT WAS A BAD IDEA TO INTERJECT, INTERFERE IN OTHER NATIONS ELECTIONS, YES, SIR.

>> BUT NONETHELESS, IT APPEARED UNTIL THE AID WAS LIFTED, THE HOLD WAS LIFTED THAT HE FELT COMPELLED TO DO IT.

>> HE WAS MAKING PLANS.

HIS STAFF WAS MAKING PLANS TO HAVE HIM MAKE SOME KIND OF ANNOUNCEMENT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON CNN IN PUBLIC.

>>N'T THOUGH HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE MARRED IN U.S.

POLITICS.

>> EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW IT WAS A BAD IDEA TO INTERFERE IN OTHER PEOPLE'S ELECTIONS.

>> MR. NUNEZ YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 7 MINUTES AND TEN SECONDS.

>> THANKS THE GENTLEMAN FOR THAT.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU SAID IN DEPOSITION THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS ISSUE WAS RUDY GIULIANI AND EMPIRE PHRASING BUT YOU READ IT IN -- I'M PARAPHRASING BUT YOU SAID YOU READ IT IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES."

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT.

>> I DO REMEMBER NOTICING ABOUT MR. GIULIANI BEING INVOLVED IN THIS, IN THAT ARTICLE, YES, SIR.

>> I THINK ONE OF THE MOTHERS OF ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES IS THAT SOMEHOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD WANT A COUNTRY THAT HE DOES NOT EVEN LIKE, HE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE FOREIGN AID TO, TO HAVE UKRAINIANS START AN INVESTIGATION INTO BIDENS.

I YIELD TO MR. JORDAN.

>> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

AID'S HELD UP ON JULY 18 IS THAT RIGHT.

>> THAT'S WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT.

>> THEN IT'S RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11.

WE KNOW THAT FROM YOUR DEPOSITION IN THOSE 55 DAYS THAT AID IS DELAYED, YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THREE.

TIMES.

THE FIRST ONE WAS BETWEEN THE FAMES CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

BETWEEN YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY THERE WAS NO LINK TO THE DOLLARS INVESTIGATING BURISMA OR THE BIDENS.

THE MEETING ON AUGUST 27, AGAIN IN THIS 55 TIME FRAME SECOND MEETING IS AUGUST 27, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MEETS YOU AND AMBASSADOR BOLDEN AND OTHERS AGAIN THERE'S NO LINKAGE OF SECURITY DOLLARS TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

THE THIRD MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 5, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MEETS WITH YOU AND SENATORS JOHNSON AND MURPHY AND ONCE AGAIN THERE IS NO LINKAGE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF BURISMAER OR THE BIDENS.

THREE MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF YOW CRANE, THE NEW PRESIDENT AND NO LINKAGE.

THAT'S ACCURATE?

>> MR. JARRODEN'S CERTAINLY ACCURATE -- JORDAN'S SCHARYT ACCURATE ON THE FIRST TWO MEETINGS BECAUSE TO MY KNOWLEDGE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE HOLD ON ASSISTANCE UNTIL, UNTIL THE 29TH OF AUGUST.

>> A POLITICAL ARTICLE.

>> POLITICAL ARTICLE.

THE THIRD MEETING THAT YOU MENTION WITH THE SENATORS, SENATORS MURPHY AND SENATOR JOHNSON, THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BUT -- >> THE LINKAGE.

>> THERE WAS NOT, THERE WAS NOT DISCUSSION OF LINKAGE.

>> THREE MEETINGS FACE TO FACE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, NO LINKAGE.

YET IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THIS AND YOU SAID IT AGAIN THE FIRST HOUR OF THE MAJORITY.

MY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WAS SECURITY ASSISTANCE MONEY WOULD NOT COME UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION.

MY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WAS THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THE MONEY UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTED TO PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION.

NOW WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AMBASSADOR YOUR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WAS OBVIOUSLY WRONG BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN'T ANNOUNCE HE WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA OR THE BIDENS.

HE DIDN'T DO A PRESS CONFERENCE AND SAY I'M GOING TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS, WE'RE GOING TO VEST BURISMA.

HE DIDN'T TWEET ABOUT IT AND YOU JUST TOLD THE RANKING MEMBER HE DIDN'T DO THE CNN INTERVIEW AND ANNOUNCE HE'S GOING TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA OR THE BIDENS.

SO THREE FACE TO FACE MEETINGS, IT DOESN'T COME UP, NO LINKAGE WHATSOEVER.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DOESN'T ANNOUNCE IT BEFORE THE AID IS RELEASED ON THE 11TH.

AND YET YOU SAID YOU HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE TWO THINGS WERE GOING TO HATCH.

THE MONEY WAS GOING TO GET RELEASED BUT NOT UNTIL THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION AND THAT IN FACT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

SO WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, WHERE DID YOU GET THIS CLEAR UNDERSTANDING?

>> AS I TESTIFIED, MR. JORDAN, THIS CAME FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

>> CAN YOU HOLD ONE SECOND, AMBASSADOR.

I'M GOING TO BRING YOU A PIECE OF PAPER FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S STATEMENT AND YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

GO AHEAD THOUGH, I WANT TO LET YOU FINISH.

>> UAL SHALL I READ THIS.

>> I WANT YOU TO GO AHEAD AND FINISH.

pYOU SAID YOU GOT THIS FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID HE TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. UVMENTD RMACK AND TOLD THEM THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO.

IF PRESIDENT SLN SKI DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE.

THAT WAS ONE POINT.

IT WAS ALSO THE CASE -- >> MR. MORRISON TALKED TO YOU, RIGHT.

>> AMBASSADOR SAWPP SONDLAND ALD ME HE RECOGNIZED IT WAS A MISTAKE WHAT HE TOLD THE UKRAINIANS.

THE MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE WAS HELD UP IN ORDER TO GET THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

IT WAS NOT JUST THE MEETING, IT WAS ALSO THE SECURITY.

THAT IS EVERYTHING.

>> IN STHES THREE MEETINGS SLEEP SLEEP -- PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WE HAVE AN ADDENDUM MR. SAWPPEDLAND MADE THROUGH HIS TESTIMONY WE GOT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

HIS INVESTIGATION OF AMBASSADOR GOAGORDON SONDLAND I DO HEREBY TESTIFY AS FOLLOWS.

AM BATTLE DUR TAYLOR RECALLS THAT MR. MORRISON TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR I TOLD MR. MORRISON I CONVEYED THIS MESSAGE TO MR. YAR ABOUT THE VISIT IN WARSAW AND MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THIS IS THE CLARIFICATION.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECALLS MR. MORRISON TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR I TOLD MR. MORRISON I CONVEYED THIS MESSAGE IN CONNECTION WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT'S VISIT TO WARSAW WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE HAVING A CONVERSATION IN ONE SENTENCE AND THIS IS WHERE YOU TOLD THIS IS WHERE YOU GOT YOUR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.

I MEAN EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD THREE OPPORTUNITIES WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO TELL HIM WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS INVESTIGATION TO GET THE AID.

NEVER MAKES AN ANNOUNCEMENT NEVER TWEETS ABOUT IT, NEVER DOES THE CNN INTERVIEW.

AMBASSADOR YOU WEREN'T ON THE CALL.

YOU DIDN'T LISTEN IN ON PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S CALL.

>> I DID NOT.

>> YOU NEVER TALKED WITH CHIEF OF STAFF MULL VEINY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NEVER MET THE PRESIDENT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU HAD A MEETING WITH ZELENSKY COY.

>> THEY NEVER HEARD ABOUT IT AS FAR AS I KNOW.

THERE WAS NO REASON -- >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

THIS IS WHAT I CAN'T BELIEVE ASK YOU'RE THEIR STAR WITNESS.

YOU'RE THEIR FIRST WITNESS.

YOU'RE THE GUY BASED ON THIS, BASED ON, I MEAN I'VE SEEN CHURCH PRAYER CHANGES THAT ARE EASIER.

HE ROMS THAT MR. MORRISON -- I HEREBY SWEAR AND AWE FIRM.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECALLS THAT I CALLED TO MR. MORRISON ON SEPTEMBER -- THIS ALL HAPPENS BY THE WAY, THIS ALL HAPPENS BY THE WAY WARSAW WHERE VICE PRESIDENT PENSE MEETS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND GUESS WHAT, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANY LINKAGE EITHER.

>> TIME HAS EXPIRED.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND.

>> THE ONLY RESPONSE, I HAVE TWO RESPONSES.

LET ME JUST SAY THAT I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF A STAR WITNESS FOR ANYTHING.

>> THEY DO.

>> I DON'T.

I'M RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

I THINK I WAS CLEAR ABOUT I'M NOT HERE TO TAKE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OR TO ADVOCATE ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOMES.

LET ME JUST RESTATE THAT.

SECOND THING IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONLY COMING FROM PEOPLE THAT I TALK TO.

>> WE GOT THAT.

>> WE GOT THAT.

AND I THINK THIS CLARIFICATION FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS BECAUSE HE SAID HE DIDN'T REMEMBER THIS IN HIS FIRST DEPOSITION.

HE WANTED TO KIND OF CL CLARIFY.

BUT I THINK MR. JORDAN THE WAY I READ IT HE REMEMBERS IT THE SAME WAY I DO.

>> AND IT'S REAL CLEAR, RIGHT.

>> IT'S VERY CLEAR.

>> THANK YOU AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

YOU'RE ON FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> GENTLEMEN THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.

ONE OF THE THINGS I FIND STARTLING ABOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS IS FACES HAVE I SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.

MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE DON'T ENGAGE OR DEFEND THAT CONDUCT, RATHER THEY SPIN SERIES ABOUT BLACK LEDGERS AND STEAL DOSSIERS AND THE STARTLING REVELATION THAT UKRAINIANS MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPSET WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS HE WOULD LET THE RUSSIANS KEEP CRIMEA OR OF COURSE WE GET THE ATTACK SO EPITOMIZED BY MR. NUNEZ'S OPENING STATEMENT WHEN HE ATTACKED DEMOCRATS AND ATTACK THE MEDIA AND MOST DISGUSTINGLY ATTACKED THE EXTRAORDINARY MEN AND WOMEN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF .

UKRAINE IS A CORRUPT COUNTRY AND THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST ACTING IN A LONG LINE TRYING TOO ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

MR. KENT YOU WORKED ON CORRUPTION AND RULE OF LAW FOR MUCH OF YOUR 27 YEAR CAREER IS THAT CORRECT.

>> I SPECIALIZED IN ANTI-RUPTION AND RULE OF LAW ISSUES SINCE 2012, CORRECT.

>> SO LIKE MOST OF US UP HERE, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT A REAL ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT THAT WE MUST ENGAGE IN ALL OVER THE WORLD ALL THE TIME WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

LET ME ASK YOU TO JUST TAKE A MINUTE AND JUST CHARACTERIZE FOR US WHAT A REAL INITIATIVE, WHAT A REAL PROGRAM OF ANTI-CORRUPTION MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

>> IF WE'RE DOING A SYSTEMIC HOLISTIC PROGRAM, YOU NEED INSTITUTIONS WITH INTEGRITY.

THAT STARTS WITH INVESTIGATORS, IT GOES TO PROSECUTORS, IT GOES TO COURTS AND EVENTUALLY TO THE CORRECTION SYSTEM.

IN COUNTRIES LIKE UKRAINE WE GENERALLY START WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN 2014, 15 WITH THE NEW PATROL POLICE.

THERE ALSO IS OFTEN TIMES NEEDED A SPECIALIZED ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENCY IN UKRAINE THAT WAS CALLED THE NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU OR NABU.

THERE WAS A DIFFERENT BODY THAT REVIEWS ASSET DECLARATIONS FOR UNUSUAL WEALTH CALLED NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION PREVENTION COUNCIL AND EVENTUALLY WE GOT TO HELPING THEM ESTABLISH A SPECIAL ANTI-CORRUPTION PROSECUTOR AND EVENTUALLY A HIGH COURT ANTI-CORRUPTION.

THAT WAS TO TRY TO CREATE INVESTIGATORS, PROSECUTORS AND COURTS WITH INTEGRITY THAT COULDN'T BE BOUGHT AND WOULD BE FOCUSED ON HIGH LEVEL CORRUPTION.

>> SO WHAT I'M HEARING THERE MR. KENT IS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT.

LET ME READ YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN WORDS TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN A JULY 25 PHONE CALL AND I QUOTE THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTS TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WAS BRAGGING ABOUT THE PROSECUTION.

IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.

WHEN YOU HERE THOSE WORDS DO YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT REQUESTING A THOUGHTFUL ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM.

>> I DO NOT.

>> AND MR. KENT AND MR. TAYLOR, THE DEFENDERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR HAVE MADE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THE FACT THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ENCOURAGED THE UKRAINIANS TO REMOVE A CORRUPT FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR 2016, MR. SHOKIN.

SENATOR RAND PAUL SAID THEY'RE IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT JOE BIDEN DID.

IS THAT CORRECT?

IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT, WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN HIS PHONE CALL AND WHAT JOE BIDEN DID IN TERMS OF MR. SHOKIN ARE THOSE EXACTLY THE SAME THING AND IF NOT HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT.

>> I DO NOT THINK THEY ARE THE SAME THINGS.

WHAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN REQUESTED OF FORMER PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WAS THE REMOVAL OF A CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL VICTOR SHOKIN WHO UNDERMINDED A PROGRAM OF ASSISTANCE WE HAD SPENT AGAIN U.S.

TAXPAYER MONEY TO TRY TO BUILD AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS UNIT TO GO AFTER CORRUPT PROSECUTORS AND THERE WAS A CASE CALLED THE DIAMOND PROSECUTOR CASE IN WHICH SHOKIN DESTROYED THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM WE'RE TRYING TO HELP CREATE.

THE INVESTIGATORS, THE JUDGES WHO ISSUED THE WARRANTS, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT HAD WARRANTS TO DO THE WIRETAPPING EVERYBODY TO PROTECT THIS FORMER DRIVER WHO HE MADE A PROSECUTOR.

THAT'S WHAT JOE BIDEN WAS ASKING REMOVE THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR.

>> SO JOE BIDEN WAS PARTICIPATING IN AN OPEN EFFORT ESTABLISHED WHOLE GOVERNMENT EFFORT TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE JIERNL THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO MR. KENT AS YOU LOOK AT THIS WHOLE MESS, RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP, IN YOUR OPINION WAS THIS A COMPREHENSIVE AND HOLE GOVERNMENT EFFORT TO END CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

>> REFERRING TO THE REQUEST IN JULY, EXACTLY.

I WOULD NOT SAY SO, THOSE.

>> I DON'T.

I DON'T THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO END CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE I THINK HE WAS TRYING TO AIM CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND AT THE TO 20 ELECTION.

I YI -- 2020 ELECTION.

I GIVE BACK MY TIME.

>> I YIELD MY TIME.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND I THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

IT'S OBVIOUS FROM YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT YOU BOTH CARE A GREAT DEAL ABOUT U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONS.

IT'S ALSO VERY CLEAR THAT YOU'RE AUNT MISTICK ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR YOU RELATED ONE OF HIS FIRST ACTS IN OFFICE WAS TO REMOVE IMMUNITY FROM DEPUTIES THAT WAS A LONG SOURCE OF CORRUPTION.

YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF PERSONAL DEALINGS WITH HIM.

HAS HE GIVEN YOU ANY REASON TO QUESTION HIS HONESTY OR INTEGRITY.

>> THOSE.

>> IN YOUR PRIOR DEPOSITION, I ASKED YOU AND I'LL READ IT DIRECTLY.

IF NOBODY IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IS AWARE OF A MILLITY HOLD AT THE TIME THE AS A MATTER OF LAW OR FACT THERE COULD BE NO QUID PRO QUO BASED ON MILITARY AID AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE NOBODY IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS AWARE OF THE HOLD AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THAT IS CORRECT.

IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY?

>> AT SOME POINT IN SEPTEMBER -- >> I'M TALKING ABOUT JULY 25.

>> JULY 25, I'M SORRY.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

THEY DID NOT KNOW THIS.

>> AS IT TURNS OUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED WITH YOU.

ON OCTOBER 10TH, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HELD A PRESS MARATHON WITH OVER 300 REPORTERS WHERE HE SAID REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENCY OVER HOURS AND HOURS THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF A MILITARY HOLD DURING THE JULY 25TH CALL.

IN FACT IN HIS OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE FROM THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AVAILABLE ON HIS WEBSITE THAT I'LL BE INTRODUCING INTO THE RECORD, HE SAID OUR PHONE CONVERSATION BEARS NO RELATIONS TO ARMS.

THEY BLOCK THE PROVISION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BUT THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN DISCUSSED DURING OUR CONVERSATION.

I MEAN, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW.

SO, NOW, IN ADDITION TO CONFIRMING THAT BECAUSE HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO INVOLVING MILITARY AID DURING THAT CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WENT ON TO CONFIRM A NUMBER OF THINGS.

THAT THERE IS NO PRESSURE THAT THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS, THAT THERE WERE NO THREATS ON MILITARY AID.

THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS OR PRESSURE TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA OR THE 2016 ELECTION.

THAT THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL THAT THERE WAS NO CORRUPTION OF ANY KIND DURING THE JULY 25 CALL.

AGAIN, FROM HIS OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE.

THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF OUR CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS ON THE INVESTIGATION EITHER BECAUSE OF ARMS OR THE SITUATION AROUND BURISMA COMPANY.

HE TOLD REUTERS THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL.

HE TOLD THE L. AN ANA.

TIMES THS NO PRESSURE OR BLACKMAIL.

HE FOLD KYOTO I WAS NEVER PRESSURED AND NO CONDITIONS BEING IMPOSED.

HE TOLD ABC NEWS AND BBC I'M AGAINST CORRUPTION.

THIS IS NOT CORRUPTION.

IT WAS JUST A CALL.

UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SHOULD IN FRONT OF A WORLD PRESS AND REPEATEDLY CONSISTENTLY OVER AND OVER AGAIN INTERVIEW AFTER INTERVIEW THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF MILITARY AID BEING WITHHELD MEANING NO QUID PRO QUO 2340E PRESSURE NO DEMANDS -- NO PRESSURE, NO DEMANDS, NO THREAT NO BLACKMAIL NOTHING CUP.

UNLIKE -- CORRUPT.

UNLIKE THE FIRST 45 MINUTES WE HEARD FROM THE DEMOCRATS IT'S NOT SECONDHAND INFORMATION OR HEARSAY OR NOTHING OVERHEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY THAT WAS HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO ASSERT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS LYING TO THE WORLD PRESS WHEN HE SAID THOUGH THINGS?

YES OR NO.

>> IF I CAN RESPOND.

>> MY TIME IS SHORT.

YES OR NO.

>> I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IN HIS -- >> OKAY, VERY GOOD.

SO IN THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING TODAY WHERE WE IEACHMENT PRESIDENTS FOR TREASON OR BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES, WHERE IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IN THAT CALL?

ARE EITHER OF YOU HERE TODAY ASSERT THERE WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE IN THAT CALL?

SHOUT IT OUT.

ANYONE?

>> I WOULD REITERATE -- >> I ONLY HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT.

I WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.

>> I'M NOT HERE TO TAKE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, THAT'S YOUR -- >> LET ME ASK YOU -- >> THE GENERAL WILL SUSPENDS.

AMBASSADOR STARL, TAYLOR, WOULU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>> I WITHDREW THE QUESTION.

>> SUSPEND.

WE WILL SUSPEND THE CLOCK.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I'M NOT HERE TO DO ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH DECIDE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT EITHER OF US IS HERE TO DO.

>> RESTORE TIME TO THE CLOCK FOR ONE MINUTE.

>> NO.

BUT YOU MAY CONTINUE AT 22 SECONDS.

>> FINE.

MR.

AMBASSADOR, I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE UP THEIR MINDS TO IMPEACH ONE PRESIDENT.

THE QUESTION THAT WE'VE JUST LEARNED IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PREPARED TO IMPEACH TOO BECAUSE TO BE CLEAR IF HOUSE DEMOCRATSAL PEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP OR QUID PRO QUO THEY HAVE TO CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A LIAR.

IF THEY ARE PRESSURING OR MAKING DEMANDS THEY HAVE TO CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A LIAR TO DO IT.

IF THEY IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR BLACKMAIL OR EXTORTION OR MAKING THREATS OR DEMANDS THEY HAVE TO CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP A LIAR TO DO IT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> CHAIR RECOGNIZES REPRESENTATIVE SEWEL.

>> I -- >> HAVE YOU READ SOME OF THE TRACK SCRIPTS.

ARE YOU AWARE OTHER WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINE IN FACT FOUND OUT THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

>> I'VE READ THAT.

I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHEN THEY MAY HAVE HEARD.

ULTIMATELY THEY DID FIND OUT WHEN THE POLITICAL STORY CAME OUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE BUT I SAID EVEN SOONER BUT THEY DID FIND OUT, RIGHT AMBASSADOR?

>> THEY DID.

>> AT THE TIME THEY FOUND OUT, THEY KNEW WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT FROM THEM THAT HE WANT THESE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT?

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORMED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STAFF THAT IS MR. URMACK OF WHAT WAS REQUIRED, YES.

>> SHOYU CR SOW, UKRAINE FINDS T THE HOLD.

YOU DON'T GIVE THEM A REASON FOR THE HOLD.

THE PRESIDENT WANTS THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND THEY'RE TOLD IN WARSAW BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE AID UNLESS YOU DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU'VE BEEN ASKED HOW COULD THERE BE CONDITIONING IF THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW BUT UKRAINIANS WEREN'T TOLD AM BASES DUR SONDLAND.

>> THEY WERE.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW AS WELL AS I COULD TELL UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE PHONE CALL ON JULY 25TH, THAT'S TRUE.

BUT THEY WERE TOLD AS YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN ON THE FIRST OF SEPTEMBER.

>> IN FACT, WHILE THEY MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN DURING THE TIME OF THE CALL, THEY WOULD FIND OUT.

WHEN THEY DID FIND OUT, THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANT, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SEWEL.

>> MR. KENT I WOULD LIKE TO REFER YOU TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE MAY 23RD MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHEN THE PRESIDENT MET WITH THOSE WHO HAD GONE TO THE UKRAINE IF THE INAUGURATION.

YOU BRIEFLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU HELPED PROPOSED NAME FOR INDIVIDUALS TO GO TO THAT INAUGURATION.

WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO WAS AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION ONE OF THE NAMES YOU SUBMITTED?

>> NO, IT WAS NOT.

>> BUT YOU MOTHER MOTHERLY AWE -- ULTIMATELY ATTENDED THAT INAUGURATION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DO YOU KNOW HOW HE ENDED UP AS PART OF THAT OFFICIAL DELEGATION.

>> I DO NOT FOR SURE BUT MY UNDERSTANDING ONCE HE LEFT THE NSE STAFF HE WENT REVIEW THROUGH PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DETERMINES PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION.

>> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT UPON RETURNING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND USED HIS, QUOTE, CONNECTIONS WITH M MULVANEY IN ORDER TO SECE THIS MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> IT SEEMS THIS OVAL OFFICE MEETING WAS A PIVOTAL TURNING POINT IN THE UKRAINE POLICY COMING OUT OF THAT MEETING WHO WAS GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR RECOLLECTION WHO WAS GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UKRAINE POLICY.

>> I NEVER SAW ANY NATURE.

THERE'S A NATIONAL SECURITY -- >> DIDN'T YOU A ALSO SAY -- YOU DID SAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU FELT THAT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT SOMETHING PERRY, AMBASSADOR SAWSAWNLDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOR FELT THEY HAD A MANDATE TO TAKE THE LEAD ON WROTE UKRAINE POLICY DID YOU NOT.

>> THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

THEIR FEELING DOES NOT MEAN THEY ACTUALLY GOT DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY.

>> HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE TERM THREE AMIGOS.

>> I REFERENCED THAT AFTER GOUGHING GO -- WATCHING GORDON SUBSONDLAND.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE THREE PEOPLE DURING THE SUMMER GORDON SONDLAND AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SECRETARY PERRY.

>> WHEN DID YOU COME TO LEARN ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE AND WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER HIS ROLE TO HAVE BEEN.

>> I FIRST HEARD ABOUT FORMER MAYOR GIULIANI'S INTEREST IN UKRAINE IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.

THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PHASE THAN WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE SUMMERTIME.

>> WAS IT NORMAL TO HAVE A PERSON WHO IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN FOREIGN DE PLOASM SEE.

>> I -- DIPLOMACY.

>> I DID NOT FIND HIS PARTICULAR ENGAGEMENT NORMAL, NO.

>> NOW AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THERE ARE TWO CHANNELS, A REGULAR AND IRREGULAR.

WHAT DID YOU SEE AS RUDY GIULIANI'S ROLE IN THE UKRAINE POLICY.

>> I CAME TO SEE THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD A LARGE INFLUENCE ON THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL.

>> WAS THAT NORMAL?

IS THAT NORMAL TO HAVE A PRIVATE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN DE MOMENT SEE.

>> IT IS NOT NORMAL.

IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO ASK FOR PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE OPINIONS TO HELP FORM THE POLICIES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

IT IS UNUSUAL TO HAVE A PERSON PUT INPUT INTO THE CHANNEL THAT GOES CONTRARY TO U.S. POLICY.

>> THANK YOU.

YIELD BACK.

>> MR. TURNER YOU RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF APPRECIATION FOR YOUR PROFESSION.

YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE DIRECT CONTACT WITH DECISION MAKERS, TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT A LOT OF AUTHORITY TO AFFECT U.S. POLICY BILATERAL ENGAGEMENTS OR MULTILATERAL ENGAGEMENT.

YOU'RE TRYING TO SHEPHERD ISSUES WITH OUR ALLIES.

ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS TESTIFIED IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> I HAVE NOT.

>> SO NOT ONLY NO CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABOUT UKRAINE YOU'VE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO YOU BOTH KNOW THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DON'T YOU?

I MEAN THE MAN THAT NEITHER ONE OF YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH, YOU'RE THE FIRST UP WITNESSES.

I FIND THAT A LITTLE AMAZING THAT THE FIRST UP WOULD BE TWO PEOPLE WHO NEVER HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

NOW KURT VOLKER DID HAVE CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE.

MR.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR YOU SAID HE'S HIGHEST INTEGRAL FEE.

I KNOW MR. TAYLOR.

HE SERVED AND IS THE HIGHEST PROFESSIONAL ETHICS MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON ABOUT EUROPE.

HE'S A TRUTH FULL MAN.

WOULD YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR pINTEGRITY >> I BELIEVE KURT VOLKER HAS SERVED THE U.S. A PUBLIC SERVANT VERY WELL.

>> DO YOU HAVE EITHER THAT MR. VOLKER COMMITTED PERJURY OR LIED IN HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS COMMITTEE.

DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT KURT VOLKER PERJURED HUBBLE SELF OR LIED TO THIS -- HIM SELF OR LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE.

ANY EVIDENCE.

>> I HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

>> MR. KENT.

>> I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S DEPOSITION WAS OVER 400 PAGES AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

>> YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT HE LIED OR PERJURED HIMSELF.

>> I HAVE NO TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT, YES, SIR.

>> WE'RE NOT IN A COURT AND IF WE WERE THE 6TH AMENDMENT WOULD APPLY AND SO WOULD RULES ON HERE SAY.

MOST OF YOUR TESTIMONY WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE WHATSOEVER BUT I UNDERSTAND IN YOUR PROFESSION YOU DEAL IN WORDS OF UNDERSTANDING, WORDS OF BELIEFS AND FEELINGS BECAUSE IN YOUR PROFESSION THAT'S WHAT YOU WORK WITH TO TRY TO PULL TOGETHER POLICY AND TO GO IN AND OUT OF MEETINGS TO TRY TO FORMULATE OPINIONS THAT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE'S DECISION-MAKING.

AMBASSADOR TAILOR, HAVE YOU EVER PREPARED FOR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OR PRIME MINISTER OF A COUNTRY OR TOLD WITHIN THING BEFORE YOU WENT INTO THE MEETING WHAT IT WOULD BE ABRUT AND THE MEETING WOULD BE ABOUT ANOTHER THING OR YOU GET IN THERE AND BELIEFS AND OPINIONS OF THE PRIME MINISTER WERE OTHER THAN YOU BELIEVED.

>> YOU'RE ASKING IF I EVER LEARNED SOMETHING NEW -- >> HAVE YOU EVER WALKED IN WITH A BELIEF THAT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE COUNTRY THAT YOU WERE SERVING IN AND TO FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE WRONG?

>> I LEARNED SOMETHING IN EVERY MEETING, MR. TURNER, BUT -- >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THE REASON WHY THE 6TH AMENDMENT DOESN'T ALLOW HEARSAY IT'S UNRELIABLE BECAUSE FREQUENTLY IT'S UNTRUTHFUL IT IS NOT FACTUAL IT MIGHT BE BELIEFS OR UNDERSTANDINGS.

AMBASSADOR YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT YOU HEARD.

ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT THE THINGS THAT YOU HEARD WERE NOT TRUE, THAT SOME OF THE BELIEFS AND UNDERSTANDINGS THAT YOU HAD ARE NOT CONTRACT THAT IN FACT YOU'RE MISTAKEN ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU TESTIFIED TODAY AND A FACTUAL BASIS VERSUS A PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT.

>> MR. TURNER, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW.

I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU ANYTHING I DON'T KNOW.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU EVERYTHING I DO KNOW.

>> YOU LEARNED IT FROM OTHERS -- SINCE YOU LEARNED IT THERE OTHERS YOU COULD BE WRONG, CORRECT.

>> I AM TELLING YOU WHAT I HEARD THEM TELL ME.

>> THEY COULD BE WRONG OR THEY COULD BE MISTAKEN OR THEY COULD HAVE HEARD IT INCORRECTLY, RIGHT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

>> PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES.

>> RIGHT.

SO YOU COULD BE WRONG.

I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.

>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THE GENTLEMAN ASKS IF YOU COULD BE WRONG.

WERE YOU WRONG WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO COMMIT TO AN INVESTIGATION OF BIDENS BEFORE THE AID GOT RELEASED AND THE AID GOT RELEASED AND HE DIDN'T COMMIT TO AN INVESTIGATION.

>> I WAS NOT WRONG ABOUT WHAT I TOLD YOU WHICH IS WHAT I HEARD.

THAT'S ALL I SAID.

I'VE TOLD YOU WHAT I HEARD.

>> THAT'S THE POINT.

WHAT YOU HEARD DID NOT HAPPEN.

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

YOU HAD THREE MEETINGS WITH THE GUY.

HE COULD HAVE TOLD YOU HE DIDN'T ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE AID HAPPENED.

IT'S NOT JUST COULD IT HAVE BEEN WRONG, THE FACT IS IT WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

THE WHOLE POINT WAS YOU HAD A CLEAR N THAT AID WILL NOT GET RELEASED UNLESS THERE'S A COMMITMENT, NOT MAYBE, NOT I THINK THE AID MIGHT HAPPEN MY HUNT IS GOING TO GET RELEASED.

YOU USED CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AND COMMITMENT AND THOSE TWO THINGS DIDN'T HAPPEN SO YOU HAD TO BE WRONG.

>> MR. JORDAN, THE OTHER THING THAT WENT ON WHEN THAT ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD IS WE SHOOK THE CONFIDENCE OF A CLOSE PARTNER IN OUR RELIABILITY AND THAT -- >> THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS PROCEEDING'S ABOUT.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS WHOLE THING STARTED ON.

>> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

DO YOU WANT TO FINISH YOUR ANSWER.

>> NO, THAT'S GOOD.

>> I RECOGNIZE MR. CARSON FOR FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON EARLIER QUESTIONS ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STATEMENTS AFTER THIS CAME TO LIGHT WHEN HE WAS ASKED WERE YOU PRESSURED, HOW DID THE PHONE CALL GO, ETCETERA.

UKRAINIANS, MR. KENT ARE PRETTY SOPHISTICATED ABOUT U.S. POLICY ARE THEY NOT.

>> PERHAPS.

>> YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONTRADICTED PRESIDENT TRUMENT AND SAID OF COURSE I FELT TRSH, THEY WERE HOLDING UP 400 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE, WE HAVE PEOPLE DYING EVERY DAY.

IF HE WERE TO CONTRADICT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY THEY WERE SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO KNOW THEY WOULD PAY A VERY HEAVY PRICE WITH THIS PRESIDENT.

>> THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT.

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT RETRIBUTION FROM DONALD TRUMP IF HE CONTRADICTED HIM PUBLICLY BUT HE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT DOMESTICALLY DOESN'T HE, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS VERY SENSITIVE TO THE VIEWS OF THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WHO INDEED ARE ATTENTIVE TO UKRAINE AND U.S.

POLITICS, YES.

>> SO IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WERE TO SAY I HAD TO CAPITULATE AND AGREE TO THESE INVESTIGATIONS I WAS READY TO GO ON CNN UNTIL THE AID GOT RESTORED, HURTFUL TO HIM BACK HOME, WOULD IT NOT?

>> HE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE SEEN TO BE DEFERRING TO ANY FOREIGN LEADER.

HE IS VERY CONFIDENT IN HIS OWN ABILITIES AND HE KNOWS THAT UKRAINIAN PEOPLE EXPECT HIM TO BE CLEAR AND DEFEND UKRAINIAN INTERESTS.

>> MR. CARSON.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

MY COLLEAGUES TOUCHED BRIEFLY ON THE CAMPAIGN TO REMOVE CAREER DIPLOMAT AMBASSADOR YVONNE E YOVANOVITCH WHICH BASICALLY UNFOLDED IN THE MEDIA.

WHERE DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS MISINFORMATION CHAIN WAS COMING FROM AND WHO WAS SELFLY PERPETUATING THIS.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING THE THEN PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF UKRAINE NOW XYURI MET RUDY GIULIANI IN NEW YORK IN PRIVATE, THEY HAD A SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY AND THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK, HE GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO JOHN SOLOMON IN EARLY MARCH AND THE CAMPAIGN WAS LAUNCHED ON MARCH 20TH.

>> A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO A REPORTER OF THE UNITED STATES AND MADE CLAIMS THAT THE AMBASSADOR PROVIDED OFFICIALS WITH A, QUOTE, DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST.

SIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE?

>> I HAVE EVER REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS NOT TRUE.

>> WHAT WAS THE RENDATION OF THE MAN WHO MADE THESE -- REPUTATION OF THE MAN WHO MADE THESE AL TBAITIONZ.

>> HE WAS A POLITICIAN OF LONGSTANDING.

HE HAD BEEN MINISTER OF INTERIOR AFTER THE ORANGE REVOLUTION.

U.S. EMBASSY HAD GOOD RELATIONS WITH HIM FOR YEARS.

HE WAS IMPRISONED BY THE PRESIDENT CAME OUT AND WAS ELECTED LEADER OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARTY AND THEN BECAME PROSECUTOR GENERAL IN THE SPRING OF 2016.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVIHCH.

>> SHE WAS AWARE AS EVERY OFFICIAL IN UKRAINE TO HELP THEM OVERCOME THE LEGGITY OF CORRUPTION WHICH THEY MADE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT STEPS IN 2014.

>> BEFORE ALL OF THIS HAPPEN, YOU AND YOUR SUPERIORS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASKED THE AMBASSADOR TO EXTEND HER TIME IN THE UKRAINE, CORRECT, SIR.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> DID YOU SUPPORT HER EXTENSION.

>> I ASKED HER TO EXTEND UNTIL THE END OF THIS YEAR TO GET THROUGH THE ELECTION CYCLE IN UKRAINE AND UNDERSECRETARY HAIL IN MARCH ASKED HER TO STAY UNTIL 2020.

>> THEY DUZ LIKED HER EFFORTS TO HELP UKRAINE WITHOUT CORRUPTION IS THAT CORRECT.

>> I MENTIONED IN MY TESTIMONY YOU CAN'T PROMOTE PRINCIPLES TO ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTION WITHOUT PISSING OFF CORRUPT PEOPLE.

>> FAIR ENOUGH.

NOW, SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE HELPED GIULIANI SMEAR HER, DID THEY NOT.

>> THEY DID.

>> ULTIMATELY THAT SMEAR CAMPAIGN PUSHED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO REMOVE HER, CORRECT,.

>> I CANNOT JUDGE THAT.

RUDY GIULIANI'S CAMPAIGN WAS UBIQUITOUS IN 2019 ON FOX NEWS ON THE INTERNET AND TWITTER SPHERE.

>> IN ALL OF YOUR COMBINED DECADES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, HAVE YOU EVER BEFORE SEEN AN INSTANCE WHERE AN AMBASSADOR WAS FORCED OUT BY THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWING A SMEAR CAMPAIGN OF MISINFORMATION ORCHESTRATED BY THE PRESIDENT'S ALLIES.

>> I HAVE NOT.

>> NOR I. MR. CHAIRMAN I YIELD BACK.

>> DOCTOR.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. TAYLOR THIS IS EASIEST BECAUSE I'M GOING TO USE YOUR WORDS FROM YOUR PREVIOUS DEPOSITION AS WE GO FORWARD.

IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SPOKE OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNITED STATES AND HOW MUCH YOU SUPPORT THAT.

IN 2014, YOU AND I'M QUOTING THIS, URGED OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS IN ORDER TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

DID THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS.

>> THOSE.

>> THEY PROVIDED MRE'S AND BLANKETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU ALSO SAID PROBLEM OBJECTION BECAUSE IT YOIRKS PRESIDENT OBAMA BECAUSE IT MIGHT PROVOKE AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT SINCE RUSSIA HAD ALREADY PROVOKED AND THEY HAVE INVADED UKRAINE.

IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

>> IT'S A SHAME HE DIDN'T TAKE THE ADVICE OF COMBAT VETERAN LIKE YOU, SIR, SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT DETERRENCE PROVIDES BECAUSE A LOT OF YOW CRANIAN LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF HE HAD -- YEW VEINIAN LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF HE HAD TAKEN YOUR ADVICE.

YOU'RE HAPPY WITH TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION ASSISTANCE AND IT PROVIDED BOTH LETHAL AND FINANCIAL AID, DID IT NOT.

>> IT DID, SIR.

>> AND YOU ALSO TATED THAT IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROOMPLET, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

>> SO NOW WE'RE PROVIDING WHICH KILL RUSSIAN TANKS.

MRE'S AND BLANKETS DO NOT DO THAT.

TODAY YOU SAID I WAS BEGINNING TO FEAR THE LONG U.S.

STANDING POLICY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS SHIFT.

I HAVE TROUBLE WITH LONGSTANDING BASED ON WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE IT WASN'T JUST LONGSTANDING STRONG SUPPORT, IT SEEMS TO ME THE STRONG SUPPORT CAME WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION.

WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, SIR?

UNLESS YOU CONSIDER MRE'S AND BLANKETS LONG SUPPORT BUT I WOULDN'T CALL IT LONGSTANDING.

>> THE LONGSTANDING I'M REFERRING TO THERE IS THE LONGSTANDING POLITICAL SUPPORT, ECONOMIC SUPPORT AND INCREASING MILITARY SUPPORT.

>> CERTAINLY THAT STRONG SUPPORT CAME FROM CONGRESS BUT DIDN'T COME FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION AS COMPARED TO WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DECIDED TO DO.

THE STRONG SUPPORT CAME WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION NOT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

MAYBE NOW WE UNDERSTAND WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA MEANT WHEN HE TOLD RUSSIAN PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV THAT HE WOULD HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY AFTER HIS ELECTION.

MAYBE THAT FLEXIBILITY WAS TO DENY LETHAL AID TO THE UKRAINE ALLOWING RUSSIA TO MARCH RIGHT IN AND KILL UKRAINIANS.

AGAIN IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU URGE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE IN ORDER TO DETER FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

NOW THEY HAVE THAT UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION, DON'T THEY, MR.

AMBASSADOR.

>> THEY HAVE THE J JAVELINS, YE, SIR.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. RATHER CLIFF.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

NO PRESSURE NO DEMANDS NO CONDITIONS, NOTHING CORRUPT.

NOTHING.

NOTHING ON THE CALL.

WHEETLE WHAT WE HEARD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAY AND BECAUSE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY REPEATEDLY SENTLY BEEN DENIED BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU HEARD THE DEFENSE NOW FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

HE HAS TO LIE BECAUSE THE THREAT, THE DEMAND, THE BLACKMAIL, THE EXTORTION THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE ALLEGING, IF HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

HE HE COULDN'T POSSIBLY RISK MILITARY AID.

HE WOULD HAVE TO DO ANYTHING HE COULD TO SECURE IT.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, THE HOLE IN THAT ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHAT DID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ACTUALLY DO TO GET THE AID.

THE ANSWER IS NOTHING.

HE DID NOTHING.

HE DIDN'T OPEN ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

HE DIDN'T CALL ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR.

HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING OF THE THINGS THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAY HE WAS FORCEED AND COERCED AND THREATENED TO DO.

HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE TO.

YIELD BACK.

>> FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TRUE HEROIC EFFORTS, BOTH TODAY AND ALSO THROUGHOUT YOUR CAREERS.

I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU, MR. KENT.

IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE IN MID-AUGUST, IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO GIN UP AN INVESTIGATION AND INVESTIGATION WITH UKRAINE LEVERAGEING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DESIRE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

MR. KENT, DID YOU ACTUALLY WRITE A MEMO DOCUMENTING YOUR CONCERNS THERE WAS AN EFFORT UNDERWAY TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION TO BENEFIT MR. TRUMP?

>> YES, I WROTE A MEMO TO AUGUST 16th.

>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, DO WE?

>> I SUBMITTED IT TO THE ESTIMATE DEPARTMENT.

>> AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ONE PIECE OF PAPER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT RELATIVE TO THIS INVESTIGATION.

BOTH OF YOU HAVE MADE COMPELLING CASES OF THE IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE, TO EUROPE, TO THE 70 YEARS OF PEACE, TO BENEFIT IT HAS TO THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY, AND OUR GOAL TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS.

MEANWHILE, RUSSIA IS VIOLENTLY ATTACKING PEOPLE IN UKRAINE IN THE DUNNBOSS AREA.

DOES WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID WEAKEN UKRAINE?

>> WELL, I THINK IT SENLDS THE WRONG SIGNAL, AND IT DID FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

AGAIN, THE ASSISTANCE FROM FY 19 WAS RELEASED, AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF HEADING TOWARDS UKRAINE.

>> DOES IT EMBOLDEN RUSSIA WHEN THERE WAS NO AID BEING SENT TO THE UKRAINE?

>> I THINK THE SIGNAL THAT THERE'S CONTROVERSY WITH THE U.S. SUPPORT TO UKRAINE SIGNALS VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT HE CAN LEVERAGE THAT AS HE NEGOTIATES WITH UKRAINE AND OTHER COUNTRIES.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR ZELENSKY WOULD BOOST HIS ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE FOR A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT WITH RUSSIA AND VLADIMIR PUTIN IN GENERAL.

>> U.S. SUPPORT FOR MR. ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IN HIS NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIANS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

IT WILL ENABLE HIM TO GET A BETTER AGREEMENT WITH THAT SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES, BOTH FROM THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND POLITICAL ASSISTANCE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE.

>> BUT HE HASN'T YET HAD THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING, HAS HE?

>> HE HAS NOT.

>> I THINK IT'S IRONIC THAT A SOVIET UNION BORN INDICTED HAD A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER PARTICIPATING IN A NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN EVENTS FOR THE PRESIDENT AND CONTRIBUTING $325,000 TO THE PRESIDENT'S PAC.

SO MAYBE IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU GIVE MONEY TO THE PRESIDENT'S PACT IN ORDER TO GET THAT MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, IS IT TRUE THAT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL NOW HAS OPENED AN INVESTIGATION IN UKRAINE?

>> THE NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS APPOINTED IS INDEED INVESTIGATING CRIMES IN GENERAL.

IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?

>> YES.

>> HE IS IN OFFICE AND IS INVESTIGATING CORRUPT ACTIVITIES.

>> HAS HE SPEC FINEED WHAT INVESTIGATIONS HE'S UNDERTAKEN?

>> NO.

>> HE HAS NOT?

ALL RIGHT.

I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME IS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

MY COLLEAGUES, A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES REFERENCED THE CONVERSATION, THE HOT MIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT MEDVEV.

THAT WAS IN 2012, SUGGESTING THAT HE WAS GOING TO GO EASY OVER THE INVASION OF UKRAINE, BUT THAT TOOK PLACE TWO YEARS AFTER THAT CONVERSATION.

IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE OBAMA WAS TALKING ABOUT GOING FORWARD WITH A RUSSIAN INVASION THAT HADN'T HAPPENED YET?

>> IT WAS A RHETORICAL YES.

>> I WILL YIELD NOW TO MR. STEWART.

I'M SORRY.

MR. STEWART.

>> THANK YOU.

TO THE WITNESSES, THANK YOU.

TIME IS PRECIOUS, SO I'M GOING TO GO VERY QUICKLY.

WELCOME TO YOU FOUR OF THE ONGOING IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I'M SORRY YOU'VE BEEN DRAGGED INTO THIS.

THE THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S ATTORNEY HAS STARTED A COUP STARTED AND IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW.

>> AFTER LISTENING FOR FOUR HOURS AND 21 MINUTES.

AFTER ALL THE SECRET HEARINGS, AND AFTER ALL THE LEAKS AND WITNESSES SUCH AS YOURSELF GIVING OPINIONS IT COMES DOWN TO THIS.

ONE THING IT COMES DOWN TO.

THIS IS THE TRANSCRIPT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS RELEASED OF THIS PHONE CALL.

THERE IS ONE SENTENCE, ONE PHONE CALL.

THAT IS WHAT T THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IS ABOUT.

IT IF THE CASE IS SO WEAK YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU HAVE TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT, YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIED TO AGAIN AND AGAIN.

WE HEARD FROM QUID QUO PRO.

PEOPLE REALIZED IT WAS MEANINGFUL.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT EXTORTION AND BRIBERY AND COVER-UP AND OBSTRUCTION, WHICH THERE IS ZERO OE EVIDENCE OF THAT.

>> WE HEARD A CHARACTERIZATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PHONE CALL THAT WAS SO INACCURATE IT WAS DESCRIBED AS A PARODY.

NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

IT COMES DOWN TO THIS.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT AND OPINION, BUT ALL YOU CAN DO IS GIVE YOUR OPINION OF THIS.

THIS ONE PHONE CALL.

LET ME ASK YOU GENTLEMEN, BOTH OF YOU TESTIFIED CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC, WHICH WE AGREE ON THAT.

SIMPLE QUESTION.

PROBLEM IS, THERE'S A PROBLEM AND THEY'RE TAKING STEPS TO ADDRESS IT.

>> WE SAID ENDEMIC, AND IT'S IN THE COURTS, AND OLIGARCHS AND EVERYWHERE.

I THINK WE CAN ALSO AGREE THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD WHERE WE SEE CORRUPTION, BUT DOZENS AND DOZENS OF NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CORRUPTION.

WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> THERE'S CORRUPTION IN EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING OURS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> AND SOME ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THAN OTHERS.

IN THESE CORRUPT NATIONS OF WHICH THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS, HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE, ANY TIME WHERE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOWS UP AND DEMANLDS THAT A SPECIFIC PROSECUTOR BE FIRED AND GIVE THEM A SIX HOUR TIME LIMIT TO DO THAT?

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT HAPPENING ANY OTHER PLACE?

>> >> I GUESS THE ANSWER IS NO.

>> I JUST THINK IT'S INTERESTING OUT OF HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT OFFICIALS AND DOZENS OF CORRUPT NATIONS THAT HAPPENED ONE TIME, AND IT HAPPENED WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE SON WAS BEING PAID BY THE ORGANIZATION THAT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION.

ONE OTHER THING VERY QUICKLY.

IF SOMEONE IS A CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL OFFICE, EVEN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD THEY BE IMMUNE FROM INVESTIGATION?

>> NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, SIR.

>> I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE WITH THAT.

SOME PRESUME THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WERE CANDIDATES THAT THEY ARE IMMUNE FROM QUESTIONS OR ANY INVESTIGATION.

I THINK IT'S ABSURD.

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKES IF THOSE OF US IN PUBLIC OFFICE FIND OURSELVES UP FOR RE-ELECTION AS A CDIDATE, I THINK WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD, NOT IMMUNITY FROM QUESTIONS.

I YIELD MY TIME.

I'M QUOTES FROM 2019.

THE LANGUAGE IS SPECIFIC.

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS UNDER ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE HAS TO BE CERTIFIED.

WHAT HAS TO BE CERTIFIED?

FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCREASING CORRUPTION.

ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE, AND IT WOULD BE DISCUSSED WITHHOLDING SOME OF THIS AID THAT'S ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY LAW, THAT IT BE WITHHELD IF THEY CAN'T CERTIFY THAT CORRUPTION HAS BEEN ELIMINATED OR IS BEING ADDRESSED?

>> THE CERTIFICATION IN THAT CASE IS DONE BY THE INTERIOR OF DEFENSE ON THE ADVICE OF STAFF AND INNER AGENCY COMMUNICATE.

WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT CONDITIONALITY, AND THEY CERTIFIED THAT HAD BEEN MET.

>> SO WE AGREE WE SHOULD WITHHOLD FUNDS IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION NOT ADDRESSED.

I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO MR. JORDAN.

>> 18 SECONDS, YOU GOING TO LET THAT GO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IN THAT CASE I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. QUIGLEY, THAT CERTIFICATION TOOK PLACE IN MAY, IS THAT CORRECT MR. KENT.

>> I WOULD REFER TO MY COLLEAGUE, COOPER WHO WOULD TESTIFY -- >> IT HAD NOT BEEN DONE BY MAY BECAUSE WHAT I WAS VISITING IN MAY, I ASKED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF CONDITIONALITY.

BUT THEY DID MEET IT?

>> YES, SIR.

IN THE JULY TIME FRAME.

>> SO IT'S CURIOUS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEARSAY EVIDENCE, AND IT'S EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THEY HAVE DIRECT OR HEARSAY GIVEN TO THE OBSTRUCTION.

YOU WERE ASKED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO APPEAR FOR YOUR DEPOSITIONS.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE BOTH RECEIVED -- I BELIEVE I RECEIVED INITIALLY A LETTER DIRECTING ME NOT TO APPEAR, AND ONCE THE COMMITTEE ISSUED A SUBPOENA, I WAS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO APPEAR.

AND I'M HERE TODAY UNDER SUBPOENA.

>> AMBASSADOR, WERE YOU ALSO ASKED NOT TO BE PART OF THIS DEPOSITION?

>> MR. QUIGLEY, I WAS TOLD BY T DEPARTMENT DON'T APPEAR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THAT WAS IN THE LETTER TO ME.

AND WHEN I GOT THE SUBPOENA AS MR. KENT SAID, THAT WAS DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND A LEGAL SUBPOENA.

I'M HERE FOR THAT REASON.

>> WE WERE NOT ABLE TO HEAR TESTIMONY BY CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, AND JOHN BOLTON, AND MORE THAN A DOZEN WITNESSES.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HEARSAY, YOU HAVE A LOT MORE DIRECT TESTIMONY, AND DIRECT EVIDENCE IF YOU WEREN'T BLOCKING THAT ABILITY.

YOU HAVE A LOT MORE DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS THAT YOU REFERRED TO WITH MY COLLEAGUES QUESTION THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN TURNED OVER BY STATE OR ANY OTHER AGENCY.

IS THAT CORRECT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE GENTLEMEN, >> WE'RE BOTH UNDER SUBPOENA.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMMENT WHY OTHERS HAVEN'T TURNED UP.

>> IS ANY DOCUMENT YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE COMMITTEE?

>> NO.

>> MR. KENT, FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL AND FOLLOWING TWO WEEKS IN AUGUST, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN EFFORTS FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TALKED ABOUT IN THE JULY 25th CALL?

>> I WAS NOT.

AND I WOULDN'T PARTICIPATE IN AN ARRANGEMENT TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN SUCH EFFORTS?

>> NO.

>> I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU AN MR. VOLKER.

YOU WERE INVOLVED.

I'LL READ IT.

THE FIRST TEXT AUGUST 10th.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH, AND USE THAT TO GET DATA, AND GO FORWARD WITH IT.

>> AND THEN MR. YERMAK RESPONDS WHEN WE HAVE A DATE WE'LL OUTLINE A VISION FOR THE U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP INCLUDING OTHER THINGS, BURISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING IN THE INVESTIGATION.

>> ANDRIY YERMAK SAYS ONCE WE HAVE A DATE WE'LL ANNOUNCE THE DATE IN ELECTION MEDDLING.

>> MR. KENT, ARE THESE THE SAME TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INITIATE IN THE 25th CALL?

>> THOSE APPEARS TO BE THE SAME ISSUES MENTIONED IN THE CALL AS WELL AS THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN LED BY RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

>> AS THE DAY TO DAY POINT OFFICER WERE YOU AWARE OF THE EFFORT OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ISSUE A STATEMENT TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WHILE THEY WERE HAPPENING?

>> WHEN THE EXCHANGE HAPPENED I WAS NOT.

>> WHEN DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THEM?

>> AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REFERENCED EARLIER IN TESTIMONY IN ANSWERING, HE HEARD ON AUGUST 16th.

HE THEN CALLED ME AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION, AND AT THAT POINT, I MEMORIZED MY CONCERNS.

>> AS A POINT PERSON ON THE GROUND IN UKRAINE WERE YOU AWARE OF THE UKRAINE ISSUING THIS STATEMENT IN EARLY AUGUST?

>> NOT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT, NO, SIR.

>> SO THE ENTIRE STATEMENT ABOUT THE PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED WAS DONE IN WHAT YOU DESCRIBE AS AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL INVOLVING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER, AND THE TASK TO TAKE ON UKRANIAN POLICY WITH THE PRESIDENT, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, MR. KENT?

>> THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> AMBASSADOR?

>> THE SAME.

>> AND JUST TO CLOSE THE HEARSAY, I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE REMINDED COUNTLESS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN QUIBLGTED ON HEARSAY, BECAUSE THE COURT HAS ROUTINELY ALLOWED AND CREATED NEEDED EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY.

HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT AS WE HAVE LEARNED IN PAINFUL INSTANCES AND CERTAINLY VALID IN THIS >> NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLY TO THIS TESTIMONY.

IT'S NOT THE TIME FOR COLLOQUY.

REPRESENTATIVE YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS VIEWING TODAY THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT FACTS ARE THE FOLLOWING.

NUMBER ONE, UKRAINE RECEIVED THE AID.

THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN.

MR. KENT AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU BOTH SPOKE ELOQUENTLY AND PASSIONATELY ABOUT THE NEED TO SUPPORT UKRAINE IS COUNTER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, PARTICULARLY DURING THIS CRITICAL TIME.

I AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT ASSESSMENT.

ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS INDEED PROVIDEED SUBSTANTIALLY TO UKRAINE IN THE FOEFRM OF DEFENSIVE AID?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THAT'S MORE SO THAN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, IS THAT CORRECT?

LETHAL AID?

>> YES.

>> AND IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, MR. ZELENSKY TELLS TRUMP THEY'RE READY TO BUY MORE JAVELINS.

THIS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE FOR FIGHTING RUSSIAN ARMORED TANKS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THOSE WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO UKRAINE UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

THE JAVELINS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE?

>> THEY WERE NOT.

>> SHIFTING GEARS TO CORRUPTION, ONE OF THE THEMES HEAR'VE HERE TODAY IS THAT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR THE PRESIDENT AS WE PROVIDE TAXPAYER FUNDED AID TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, MR. KENT, YOU WOULD CHARACTERIZE UKRAINE HAS LONG STANDING CORRUPTION ISSUES, CORRECT?

>> I DID.

>> AND IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED "I WOULD SAY THAT CORRUPTION IS PART OF THE REASON WHY UKRANIANS CAME OUT TO THE STREET IN BOTH 2004 WHEN SOMEBODY TRIED TO STEAL THE ELECTION, AND AGAIN IN 2014, BECAUSE OF A CORRUPT PRO-RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ALCOHOL EVENTUALLY COLLAPSED.

THE UKRANIAN DECIDED IT WAS ENOUGH."

IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

>> IT IS SO.

>> AND YOU LEARNED ABOUT BURISMA WHEN YOU WERE THE SENIOR ANTI-CORRUPTION COORDINATOR, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

DETAILS IN KIEV WITH THE COMMISSION.

>> AND YOU OF THE TESTIFIED THAT THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION IN BURISMA WAS IN THE U.S. INTEREST BECAUSE QUOTE FROM YOUR DEPOSITION.

WE MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT IN 2014 TO TRY TO RECOVER TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUT OF THE COUNTRY, CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS THOSE IN THE OWNER OF BURISMA WHO WE BELIEVED HAD STOLEN THE MONEY.

>> SO THE FIRST CASE -- THIS WAS THE FIRST CASE THAT THE U.S., THE U.K. AND UKRAINE INVESTIGATORS WORKED ON WAS AGAINST THE OWNER OF BURISMA.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THAT IS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

>> CORRECT.

>> SO FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS VIEWING, THE FIRST INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE OWNER OF BURISMA WAS UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU SAID WE SPENT A HALF BILLION DOLLARS OF STATE DEPARTMENT MONEY IN THE INVESTIGATION TO BUILD CAPACITY AND TRACK DOWN STOLEN ASSETS.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

IT WAS LAUNCHED IN MAY 2014 BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U.S. AND U.K.

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE KORLD BANK.

>> IN FACT, BY 2016 YOU WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT CUMGZ QUESTIONS RELATEED TO BURISMA, WHEN THERE WAS AN EFFORT BY BURISMA TO SPONSE PORAN ESSAY CONTEST YOU ASKED THEM TO STOP IT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED IT WAS BECAUSE BURISMA HAD A POOR REPUTATION IN THE BUSINESS, AND YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO CO-SPONSOR SOMETHING WITH A COMPANY THAT HAD A BAD REPUTATION, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU WERE ALSO AWARE AND TESTIFIED TODAY THAT HUNTER BIDEN SERVED ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA?

>> CORRECT.

AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND BROADLY, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- YOU TESTIFY IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT WHEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT EVALUATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO LOOK AT LEVEL OF OF CORRUPTION IN COUNTRY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THIS IS YOUR QUOTE.

ISSUES OF CORRUPTION HAVE BEEN HIGH LEVEL DIALOGUE BETWEEN U.S.

LEADERS, AND UKRANIAN LEADERS REGARDLESS OF WHO ARE THE LEADERS AND THAT'S A NORMAL ISSUE OF DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION AT THE HIGHEST LEST, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I WOULD YIELD 30 SECONDS.

I WOULD YIELD BACK >> THANK YOU.

>> BOTH OF YOU HAVE TESTIFIED THAT YOU ARE NOT DIRECT WITNESSES WHO HAVE SPOKEN WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, HOWEVER YOU'RE WITNESSS TO A SHAKE DOWN SCHEME THAT OTHERLESS PARTICIPATED IN OR SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HOWEVER, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND MICK MULVANEY SPOKE DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND UNLIKE YOU THEY REFUSED TO BE A PART OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

NONETHELESS, WE DO KNOW HOW ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY FEELS ABOUT AID, BECAUSE ON UKTA 17 AT A PRESS O LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID.YOU ED I'LL READ IT FOR YOU.

THE RESPONSE TO A QUESTION.

BUT TO BE CLEAR WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS A QUID QUO PRO.

FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENSA WELL.

IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, MR. MULVANEY SAID, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN MTION.

INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.

PRIOR TO THIS ADMINISTRATION IS THIS SOMETHING WE WOULD DO ALL THE TIME?

>> NO, SIR.

>> WHY NOT?

>> WE CONDITION ASSISTANCE ON ISSUES THAT WILL IMPROVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY, SERVE OUR WELLMONEY IS WELL SPENT OR POLI DECISION LZ OR AUTHORITY CONGRESS HAS GIVEN US TO MAKE SURE THE MON SEWELL SPENT OR THAT RECEIVING COUNTRY TAKES THE ACTIONS IN OUR NATION INTEREST.

>> YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR TEXT MESSAGE EXCHANGES THAT ENGAGING IN A SCHEME LIKE THIS IS QUOTE CRAZY.

CAN WE ALSO AGREE THAT IT'S JUST WRONG?

>> YES.

>> WHY IS IT WRONG?

>> AGAIN, OUR HOLDING UP OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WOULD GO TO A COUNTRY THAT IS FIGHTING AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA FOR NO GOOD POLICY REASON -- NO GOOD SUBSTANTIVE OR NATIONAL SECURITY REASON IS WRONG.

>> MR. MULVANEY IN THE SAME NEWS CONFERENCE SAID, QUOTE, IF YOU READ THE NEWS REPORTS AND YOU BELIEVE THEM, WHAT McKINLEY SAID YESTERDAY -- WELL, McKINLEY SAID HE WAS UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THAT.

AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.

GET OVER IT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, SHOULD WE GET OVER IT?

>> IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE MEANING ATTEMPTS TO GET INFORMATION THAT IS SOLELY USEFUL FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, IF THAT'S WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT, WE SHOULD NOT GET USE >> FINALLY, MR. MULVANEY SAID I WAS INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS IN WHICH THE MONEY WAS HELD UP TEMPORARILY.

THREE REASONS.

THE CORRUPTION OF THE COUNTRY, WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTRIES ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE SUPPORT OF UKRAINE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE COOPERATING IN AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION WITH OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THAT'S COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE.

MR. KENT, WERE YOU AWARE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE JEFF COOPERATION REQUEST MADE TO THE UKRANIANS?

>> I AM NOT AWARE THERE WAS ANY FORMAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REQUEST IN THAT MATTER, NO.

>> WAS MR. MULVANEY'S STATEMENT FALSE?

>> I THINK YOU'D REFER THAT QUESTION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

I DON'T HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY WERE WORKING ON.

>> AN HOUR BEFORE THE TWO OF YOU SAT DOWN TODAY, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT THIS HEARING AND PUT IN ALL CAPS.

NEVER TRUMPERS.

MR. KENT, ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER?

>> I'M A CAREER NON-PROFESSIONAL WHO SERVES WHATEVER PRESIDENT IS DULY ELECTED AND CARRIES OUT THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF THAT PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

I'VE DONE THAT FOR 27 YEARS FOR THREE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND TWO DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS.

>> MR. TAYLOR ARE YOU A NO SIR.

>> YOU SAID THERE WERE TWO UKRANIAN STORIES.

THE FIRST IS THE ONE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS MORNING.

IT'S A STORY ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWERS.

MR. GIULIANI, SIDE CHANNELS.

QUID QUO PROS, CORRUPTION AND INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS.

END OF STORY, UKRAINE IS MERELY AN OBJECT.

IS THIS STORY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> I'M HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW.

I'M HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT I HEARD, AND WHAT I SAID.

IN THAT REGARD.

>> WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO INVOLVES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESS WAS ON THE TELEPHONE CALL ON THE 25th OF JULY, YES, SIR.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

GENTLEMEN, I APPRECIATE YOUR DECADES OF SERVICE AS THE FABLEED FOREIGN OFFICE, AND AMBASSADOR CROCKER SAID BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE ON THE COUND, DIPLOMATS THAT PREVENT US THE NEED TO HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN THE MILITARY, AND AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN NATIONAL SECURITY.

THANK YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES.

MR. TAYLOR, MY FIRST QUESTIONS ARE TO YOU.

THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ON YEARS PRIOR TO YOUR TIME IN THE UKRAINE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE YOU CAN ANSWER THEM.

DID THE UKRANIANS GET AID IN FY 17?

>> ANY AID?

>> YES, SIR, THEY D. >> AND THEY GOT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS WELL?

>> IF I SAID THAT WAS AROUND $270 MILLION.

WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE?

>> ABOUT RIGHT.

>> DID THEY GET AID IN FY 18?

>> YES, SIR.

>> INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

>> INCLUDING SECURITY.

>> AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE JAVELINS AND THE ANTI-TANK MISSILES THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO PURCHASE IN PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS.

HAD THEY GOTTEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN FY 19?

>> YES.

>> PRIOR TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY.

>> PREVIOUS IN FY 18, BUT NO.

>> ONCE THE MONEY IS IS OBLIGATED TO REACH THE COUNTRY.

THERE WERE TWO SHIPS THAT JUST ARRIVED IN THE PORT OF ODESSA WITH MONEY.

MY POINT IS THAT WE'VE BEEN SUPPORTING THE UKRANIANS UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO HELP THEM KICK OUT THE RUSSIANS WHO INVADED THEIR COUNTRY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU TESTIFIED THAT UKRANIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF POTENTIAL U.S. ASSISTANCE BEING WITHHELD UNTIL AUGUST 29th.

IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, SIR.

>> WOULD YOU FIND IT SURPRISING IF AN UKRANIAN OFFICIAL KNEW ABOUT THAT SOONER AND DID NOT CONTACT YOU?

>> I CAN ANSWER THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER AUGUST 29th THAT I GOT CALLS FROM SEVERAL THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS.

>> MR. KENT, HAD YOU HAD ANY UKRANIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTING YOU CONCERNED ABOUT -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME AN UKRANIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTING YOU CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL WITHHOLDING OF U.S. AID?

>> IT WAS AFTER THE ARTICLE CAME THAT THAT FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER.

>> SO AFTER THE AUGUST 29th CONVERSATION.

THAT'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI AND WHO HE WAS AND THE MEETING.

DO WE KNOW OR HAVE AN IDEA OF THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS HE WAS MEETING WITH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS?

>> I DON'T, SIR.

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY UKRANIAN OFFICIALS CALL YOU AFTER A MEETING WITH RUDY GIULIANI CONCERNED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CONTEXT OF THAT CONVERSATION?

>> YES.

MR. YERMAK HAD EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT INTERACTIONS WITH MR. GIULIANI >> AND THAT MEETING WAS IN LATE AUGUST, CORRECT?

>> THERE WERE MEETINGS AND THERE WERE, I THINK, ALSO PHONE CALLS.

>> AND YOU TALKED YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THAT IS CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> HAVE WE SEEN THE ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT THAT WE WANTED THE UKRANIANS TO MAKE?

>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT BEING NEGOTIATED WHEN GORDON SONDLAND AND ANDRIY YERMAK?

>> YES.

>> THAT WAS WASN'T AN ANTI-CORRUPTION STATEMENT.

>> WHAT WAS THE STATEMENT?

>> IF YOU GO TO THE BACK AND FORTH SHARED BY CURT VOLKER, THEY SHARED A DRAFT WITH RUDY GIULIANI, AND RUDY GIULIANI SAID IT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTABLE IF IT DIDN'T MENTION BIDEN BURISMA.

>> BUT THAT WAS NEVER ISSUED BY THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO STATEMENT WAS ISSUED, CORRECT.

>> AND HAVE U.S.

BUSINESSES EVER CONTACTED Y'ALL CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE?

>> YES.

>> AS OF THIS YEAR, EVEN?

>> YES.

>> BECAUSE THE CONCERN IS NOT JUST HOW UKRANIAN BUSINESSES RUN BY OLIGARCHS IS OPERATED, IT'S ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS DEALING WITH AMERICAN BUSINESSES TRYING TO OPERATE IN UKRAINE.

IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> AMERICAN BUSINESSES ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN PARTICULAR, YES, SIR.

>> I YIELD BACK TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

MR. CASTRO >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

LISTENING TO ALL THE THE EVIDENCE THAT EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD AND READ IN THE INVESTIGATION, IS SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMITTED EXTORTION OR BRIBERY OF A FOREIGN OFFICIAL OR ATTEMPTED EXPORTION AND BRIBERY OF A FOREIGN OFFICIAL.

>> WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT ZELENSKY ON THE PHONE ON JUL 25th.

HE WAS TALKING TO A DESPERATE MAN, WASN'T HE?

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS DESPERATE TO PROTECT HIS COUNTRY AND MAKE SURE HE HAD FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FROM THE UNITED STATES, IIS THAT RIGHT?

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS VERY INTERESTED IN U.S. SUPPORT, BOTH ASSISTANCE AND POLITICAL SUPPORT.

>> WHAT WOULD CENTER HAPPENED IF THE AID HAD GOTTEN CUT OFF?

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S CAREER, AND UKRAINE.

>> IF THE ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN CUT OFF, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WEAKER IN HIS NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS.

HE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WEAKER ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

>> THE RUSSIANS MAY HAVE TAKEN IT AS AN INVITATION TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST UKRAINE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THE RUSSIANS ALWAYS LOOK FOR VULNERABILITIES.

AND THEY KNOW THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS SUPPORTED UKRAINE.

IF THE RUSSIANS DETERMINED OR SUSPECT THAT THAT SUPPORT IS LESSENED OR NOT THERE, THEY WILL LIKELY TAKE ADVANTAGE.

>> THEY COULD HAVE POUNCEED?

>> TAKEN ADVANTAGE.

>> SO HE ASKED A DESPERATE MAN FOR A FAVOR.

BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY IT SOUNDS BEGRUDGINGLY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MAY HAVE AGREED TO DO THAT FAVOR AND INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND BURISMA, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DOES SAY IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT HE WILL PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION.

>> SO WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR A FAVOR TO HELP HIS POLITICAL CAREER, AND IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AGREED TO THAT FAVOR.

DO WE KNOW WHY IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

DO WE KNOW WHY THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT TO CNN ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION.

>> MR. CASTRO, AS WE'VE DETERMINED AND DISCUSSED HERE ON SEPTEMBER 11th JUST BEFORE ANY CNN DISCUSSION OR INTERVIEW, THE HOLD WAS RELEASED.

THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS RELEASEED.

>> SO THE HOLD WAS RELEASED.

IS IT POSSIBLE THALT WHITE HOUSE RELEASED THE HOLD BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT A WHISTLEBLOWER HAD BASICALLY TURNED THIS IN?

>> I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE?

>> I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE.

>> SO WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO THE OTHER SIDE CLAIMED OR DEFENDED THE PRESIDENT SAYING THAT THE AID WENT THROUGH, THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY INVESTIGATION.

BUT THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO GET THOSE THINGS DONE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS AN INITIAL AGREEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO ACTUALLY DO THOSE THINGS.

SO AMBASSADORS, IS ATTEMPT THE MURDER A CRIME?

IS ATTEMPTED MURDER A CRIME?

>> ATTEMPTED MURDER IS A CRIME?

>> IS ATTEMPTED ROBBERY A CRIME?

>> NEITHER OF US IS A LAWYER >> I THINK ANYBODY COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

>> I'LL GO ON A LIMB AND SAY YES, LTS.

>> IS ATTEMPT THE EXTORTION AND BRIBERY A CRIME?

>> I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

>> IN THE MINUTE THAT I HAVE OF THE WELL, I WANT YOU TO SPEAK TO THE NATION ABOUT WHAT'S AT STAKE, AMBASSADOR KENT.

YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU WARNED ABOUT SELECTIVE PROSECUTION AND A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOING AFTER SPECIFIC AMERICANS ABROAD.

IF THIS CONGRESS CLEARS PRESIDENT TRUMP, DOES IT MEAN HE CAN GO ASK ANOTHER FOREIGN COUNTRY IS INVESTIGATE ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, A GOVERNOR, A SENATOR OR ANY PRIVATE AMERICAN CITIZEN DOING BUSINESS OVERSEAS?

I DO, AND IT'S TRUE.THAT?ND OR >> THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY HAS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE HOUSE DEMOCRATS.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHO I KNOW IS A FRIEND OF YOURS, IN ALLEGING ABUSE OF POWER, AND NATIONALLY TELEVISED INTERVIEW, A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID IT'S AN ABUSE OF POWER TO REMOVE AN AMBASSADOR FOR POLITICAL REASONS BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

END QUOTE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE, IS IT?

>> THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE AMBASSADORS SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE.

>> SO WE SHOULDN'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

>> I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

YOU ARE TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU.

>> WHEN DOES AMBASSADOR I YOVANOVITCH GET RECALLED FROM UKRAINE?

>> I BELIEVE A MESSAGE WAS SENT ON OR ABOUT APRIL 25th.

>> CERTAINLY BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL IN QUESTION HERE, CORRECT?

>> WITHOUT A DOUBT.

>> SHE HAD NO REMAINING RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE POLICY FOR THAT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS IN BETWEEN, I TAKE IT?

>> SHE IS NOW -- SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A TEACHING SLOT AT GOERGETOWN WHERE HER RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG OTHERS WERE TO TEACH A CLASS ON UKRAINE.

>> OKAY.

SO IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO REMOVE HER AS WE HAD A MONTH BEFORE THE CALL, AND SHE WASN'T IN THE UKRAINE OR HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITIES ON JULY 25th, SDUEF AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING HER AS A WITNESS ON FRIDAY?

>> I'M HERE AS A FACT WITNESS UNDER SUBPOENA.

THAT'S A QUESTION YOU COULD DIRECT TOWARDS DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT ON JULY 25th, BOTH PARTICIPANTS IN THE CALL, BOTH PRESIDENTS EXPRESSLY STATED THERE WAS NO PRESSURE, NO DEMAND, CONDITIONS WLAxá*K MBLACKMAIL AND CORRUPTION.

AND I ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE QUID QUO PRO EVEN BEING POSSIBLE.

I THINK WE'VE AGREED IT WASN'T POSSIBLE.

A QUID QUO PRO INVOLVING MILITARY AID ON JULY 25th, GIVEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, CORRECT?

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MY KNOWLEDGE DID NOT HAVE ANY IDEA THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY WITHIN DAYS OF THAT CALL WHEN NO QUID QUO PRO WAS POSSIBLE, EYE PERSON WHO LATER BECAME A WHISTLEBLOWER WALKED INTO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S STAFF TO DISCUSS WHAT PRESIDENT SCHIFF SPOKE TO, AND SAID WERE THE OUTLINES OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S ACCUSATIONS?

>> WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

>> THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW OR HAVE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THAT PERSON WOULD WALK INTO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S OFLS?

>> I DO NOT.

>> EARLIER CHAIRMAN SCHIFF MADE REFERENCE TO A COLLOQUY.

A COLLOQUY IS FOR LEGISLATORS TO CLARIFY IMPORTANT ISSUES TO THE PUBLIC.

SO WITHOUT IT JEOPARDIZING THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN ANY WAY IN AN EFFORT TO FIND OUT, CHAIRMAN, WHAT YOU KNEW, AND WHEN YOU KNEW IT ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, I'D LIKE YOU TO ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY WITH ME.

>> DIRECT YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE WITNESSES.

>> I'LL TAKE THAT YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN A COLLOQUY?

>> TAKE IT 95 WAY YOU LIKE IT, BUT APPROPRIATELY YOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO WITNESSES.

>> I GUESS MY QUESTIONS TO THE WITNESSES IS, THEN, WHEN ARE HOUSE REPUBLICANS GOING TO FIND OUT WHAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS ALREADY KNOW?

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO FIND OUT THE DETAILS DWN CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER?

WHAT THEY MET ABOUT, AND WHEN THEY MET?

, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY MET?

THE DISCUSSIONS HAD?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.

>> POINT OF ORDER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, A GENTLEMAN IS QUESTIONING THE CHAIR WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE RUELTS OF THE HOUSE OR COMMITTEE.

THE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE A WHISTLEBLOWER IS PRACTICAL TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND QUOTE THE CHAIRMAN.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO FIND OUT THE IDENTIT JUST THE DATE WHEN IT HAPPENED.

>> MR. RATCLIFF RESUME QUESTIONS OF WITNESS.

I RECOMMEND WE MOVE O.

>> ARE WE EVER GOING TO FIND OUT THE DETAILS?

>> NOT IN THIS -- >> POINT OF ORDER.

>> I GUESS WE WON'T REDIRECT QUESTIONING.

I SUGGEST YOU USE YOUR TIME?

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. HECHT?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> MR. KENT, SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE REAL REASON THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN WAS TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTIONS IN UKRAINE.

I'VE READ THE MEMORANDUM OF THE CALL TWO OR THREE TIMES.

I DON'T REMEMBER AIL SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE THE PRESIDENT USED THE WORD CORRUPTION NOR THE WORD CORRUPT.

I KNOW AN ANSWER TO THE CHAIRMAN'S OPENING QUESTION YOU INDICATED YOU WENT BACK A MONTH LATER, DO RECALL THE PRESIDENT IN THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EVER UTTERING THE WORD CORRUPTION?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

BUT IT'S A MATTER OF RECORD.

>> AND AS A MATTER OF RECORD HE DID FIND TIME TO MENTION THIS POLITICAL RIVAL IN 2020.

YOU ALSO ANSWERED IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION BY MR. HINES THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION FOR DECADES.

I THANK YOU FOR THAT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

ON OCTOBER 15th.

YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT LONG STANDING U.S. POLICY MEANT TO COMBAT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE.

CHAMPIONED BY PEOPLE SUCH AS MARIA YOVANOVITCH.

>> MR. KENT IS IT NOT TRUE RATHER FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN GENERAL BY THE UKRAINE, WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY DID WAS RECALL AND REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FROM HER POST IN UKRAINE?

>> I WOULD SAY, FIRST OF ALL, AS I REPEATED BEFORE, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO RECALL AMBASSADORS.

IT REMAINS A MATTER OF POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARDS UKRAINE TO HELP THEM OVERCOME A LEGACY OF CORRUPTION AND CREATING NEW INSTITUTIONS.

MUCH OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY WHICH INVOLVES AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL WAS A REQUEST THAT WOULD HAVE UNDERMINED THE RULE OF LAW, AND A LONG STANDING POLICY GOAL IN UKRAINE AS IN OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE POSTSOVIET SPACE.

>> THOSE POLICIES WERE INDEED CHAMPIONED BY AMBASSADOR I YOVANOVITCH.

YOU ALSO TESTIFIED ON OCTOBER 15th IN THE DEPOSITION ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL REFORMS FOR THE UKRAINE TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, AND TO TRANSFORM THE COUNTRY.

YOU CITED THE IMPORTANCE OF REFORMING CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS, NOTEABLY THE SECURITY SERVICE IN THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE >> WAS INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS PART OF THAT LIST OF REFORMS.

WAS IT ON YOUR LIST OR INDEED ANY LIST?

>> NO, THERE WEREN'T?

>> IMPACT, HISTORICALLY, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT A PROBLEM IN THE UKRAINE HAS BEEN MISUSE OF PROSECUTORS, PRECISELY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL OPPNENTS?

THAT'S A LEGACY I DARE SUGGEST FROM THE SOVIET ERA, WHEN YOU STATED IN YOUR TESTIMONY, PROSECUTORS LIKE THE KGB WERE, AND I QUOTE YOU NOW, INSTRUMENTS OF OPPRESSION?

>> I SAID THAT, AND I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE.

>> SO FINALLY, MR. KENT, FOR AS LONG AS I REMEMBER, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN PREDICATED ON ADVANCING PRINCIPLE INTERESTS IN DEMOCRATIC VALUES, NOTEABLY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRETION, RELIGION, FREE AND FAIR OPEN ELECTIONS, AND THE R RULE OF LAW.

MR. KENT, WOULD AMERICAN LEADERS ASK FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO INVESTIGATE THEIR POTENTIAL RIVALS, DOESN'T MAT THAT MAKE IT HARDER ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES?

>> I BELIEVE IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES OVERSEAS TO CARRY OUT THOSE POLICY GOALS, YES.

>> HOW IS THAT, SIR?

>> THERE'S AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY, THAT DIPLOMATS ON THE GROUND ARE SAYING ONE THING, AND THEY HEAR OTHER U.S.

LEADERS SAYING SOMETHING ELSE.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, SIR?

>> I WOULD.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD HOW IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO YOUR JOB, SIR?

>> OUR CREDIBILITY IS BASED ON A RESPECT FOR THE UNITED STATES, AND IF WE DAMAGE THAT RESPECT IT HURTS OUR CREDIBILITY AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO OUR JOBS.

>> ANYONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENED WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

ANYONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS CAN SEE THAT WHAT HAPPENED WAS UNETHICAL.

ANYONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS CAN SEE -- ANYONE LOOKING AT THE FACTS CAN SEE THAT WHAT WENT ON WAS JUST PLAIN WRONG.

I FIELD BACK.

>> MR. JORDAN?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

55 DAYS.

55 DAYS BETWEEN JULY 18th, AND SEPTEMBER 11th THAT THERE WAS A DELAY ON SENDING HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UKRAINE.

NOT TALKING ANY COUNTRY.

WE'RE TALKING UKRAINE.

ONE OF THE THREE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET.

IT WAS TESTIFIED CORRUPTION IS NOT JUST PREVALENT IN UKRAINE.

IT'S THE SYSTEM.

SO OUR PRESIDENT SAID TIME OUT.

TIME OUT.

LET'S CHECK OUT THE NEW GUY AND SEE IF ZELENSKY IS THE NEW GUY.

HE'S ELECTED IN APRIL, AND HIS PARTY TOOK POWER IN JULY.

LET'S SEE IF HE'S LEGITIMATE.

KEEP IN MIND, IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

IN 2018, PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY DONE MORE FOR UKRAINE THAN OBAMA DID.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO DOESN'T LIKE FOREIGN AID AND WANTED EUROPEAN COUNTRYS TO DO MORE, AND NEW UKRAINE WAS CORRUPT, DID MORE BECAUSE HE GAVE THEM TANK BUSTING JAVELINS TO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS.

OBAMA GAVE THEM BLANKETS AND TRUMP GAVE THEM MISSILES.

WHEN IT CAME TIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID LET'S SEE IF HE'S LEGIT.

SO FOR 55 DAYS WE CHECKED HIM OUT.

THE PRESIDENT HAD FIVE INTERACTIONS WITH SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THAT TIME FRAME.

ONE WAS THE PHONE CALL, THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THERE WERE FOURLG FOUR OTHER FACE TO FACE MEETINGS WITH OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS.

GUESS WHAT?

NOT ONE OF THOSE INTERACTIONS -- NOT ONE WERE SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS LINKED TO BURISMA OR BIDEN.

GUESS WHAT ELSE HAPPENED?

>> U.S.

SENATORS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE ALL BECAME CONVINCEED THAT ZELENSKY WAS, IN FACT, WORTH THE RISK.

HE WAS, IN FACT, LEGIT, AND A REAL CHANGE.

AND GUESS WHAT?

THEY TOLD THE PRESIDENT HE'S A REFORMER.

RELEASE THE MONEY.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID.

NOW OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE WITNESSS LIKE WE'VE HAD TODAY THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL PARADE IN HERE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY SO AND SO SAID SUCH IN SUCH, AND THEREFORE WE'VE GOT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

ACTUALLY WE CAN GET MORE SPECIFIC.

WE COVERED THIS.

SAY SOMETHING LIKE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID IN HIS DEPOSITION.

WHERE HE SAID AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECALLS THAT I TOLD MR. MORRISON THAT I CONVEYED THIS MESSAGE TO MR. YERMAK IN CONNECTION WITH A VISIT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND IF YOU FOLLOW THAT, THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR.

BUT NO MATTER HOW MANY WITNESSES THEY BRING IN, FOUR FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE.

THE CALL SHOWS NO LINK TWNL DOLLARS AND LINKS TO INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA OR BIDEN.

AND BOTH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY SAID THERE WAS NO LINKAGE, PRESSURE OR PUSHING.

UKRANIANS, DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE AIDE WAS WITHHOLD AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE CALL.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, UKRANIANS DIDN'T TAKE ACTION RELATIVE TO THE INVESTIGATION TO GET THE MONEY RELEASED.

THERE'S ONE WITNESS THEY WON'T BRING IN FRONT OF US OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT'S THE GUY WHO STARTED IT ALL.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

NOPE.

435 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ONLY ONE GETS TO KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IT'RE IS.

ONLY ONE GETS TO TALK TO THAT PERSON.

ONLY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF KNOWS WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS.

WE DON'T.

WE'LL NEVER GET THE CHANCE TO SEE THE WHISTLEBLOWER RAISE HIS RIGHT-HAND AND SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH.

POPULAR IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T GET THE CHANCE.

THE ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER WHO HAD NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, AND WORKED WITH PRESIDENT BIDEN.

WE'LL NEVER GET A CHANCE TO QUESTION THE INDIVIDUAL.

DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT ON ALL OF THAT.

11 1/2 MONTHS BEFORE AN ELECTION.

WILL NOT GET TO CHECK HIS CREDIBILITY, MOTIVATIONS AND BIAS.

THIS IS A SAD DAY.

THIS IS A SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY.

YOU THINK WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT OUR NATION THROUGH FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS.

IT STARTED JULY OF 2016 WHEN THEY HAD TWO CITIZENS WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, AND WHEN THAT DIDN'T WORK, HERE WE ARE, BASEED ON THIS.

BAILSED ON THIS.

THIS IS -- THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH ALL THIS.

THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS IS UNFAIR.

AND THEY SEE THROUGH THE WHOLE DARN SHAM.

WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. WELSH?

>> THANK YOU.

I SAY TO COLLEAGUES, I'D BE GLAD TO HAVE THE PERSON WHO STARTED IT ALL COME IN AND TESTIFY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WELCOME TO TAKE A SEAT RIGHT THERE.

çLAUGHTERÑ YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT A DISPUTE ABOUT THE ENORMOUS POWER THE PRESIDENT HAS.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IN THIS CASE IT WAS AN ABUSE OF THAT POWER.

THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE AN AMBASSADOR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.

THE PRESIDENT IS CHANGE HIS POLICY AS HE DID WHEN HE OPENED THE DOOR FOR TURKEY TO GO IN AND INVADE KURDISTAN DESPITE OPPOSITION FROM MANY OF HIS SENIOR ADVISERS.

THE PRESIDENT CAN CHANGE POSITIONS AND OUR POSITION ON UKRAINE.

BUT IS THERE A LIMIT?

THERE IS.

OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

AND THAT LIMIT IS ONE CANNOT, EVEN AS PRESIDENT USE THE PUBLIC TRUST OF HIGH OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

THE LAW PROHIBITS ANY ONE OF US HERE FROM SEEKING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN OUR CAMPAIGNS.

THE QUESTION FOR US IS WHETHER THE USE OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ADVANCING HIS POLITICAL INTEREST IN THE 2020 CAMPAIGN.

AND BY THE WAY, MY COLLEAGUES -- IF THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO ATTACK JOE BIDE SXEN HIS SON, HE'S FREE TO DO IT.

BUT HE'S NOT FREE TO CHANGE OUR FOREIGN POLICY UNLESS HE GETS HIS WAY THROUGH A SYSTEM IN THAT CAMPAIGN.

THAT'S A LINE HE CAN'T CROSS.

NOW, YOU ALL HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT OUR CONTINUOUS FOREIGN POLICY WAS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, JUST VERY QUICKLY, DESCRIBE WHY US WITHHOLDING AID INTERFERED WITH ACHIEVING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS.

>> MR. WELCH, ONE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS IS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN EUROPE.

THERE IS ONE MAJOR CONFLICT IN EUROPE.

IT'S A FIGHTING WAR.

OUR NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS IN SUPPORT OF UKRAINE, AND SUPPORT OF BROADER STRATEGIC APPROACH TO EUROPE IS TO FACILITATE THAT NEGOTIATION.

IT'S TO TRY AND SUPPORT UKRAINE WHEN IT NEGOTIATES WITH THE RUSSIANS.

>> NOW I WANT TO GO BACK.

IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT, MR. KENT, YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR PROVIDEED -- WE HAVE 70 YEARS OF PEACE AFTER THE WAR IN WHICH WE LOST OVER 400,000 AMERICAN LIVES.

AND THAT WAS IN JEOPARDY, AS YOU DESCRIBED IT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

THAT THREATENED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US UP HERE AND THE CONSTITUENTS WE REPRESENT.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

>> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.

>> THREE DATES.

I ONLY HAVE A LITTLE TIME.

JULY 24, 25, AND JULY 26.

JULY 24th, DIRECTOR MUELLER TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS INVESTIGATION.

HE ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION.

HE EXPRESSED THE FEAR THAT THAT WOULD BE THE NEW NORMAL.

ON JULY 25th, ACCORDING TO THE READ OUT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN HE ASKED THE UKRANIANS TO INVESTIGATE UKRANIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION THAT HAD BEEN REPUDIATEED.

AND THEN JULY 26, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PERSON WHO REPORTED TO YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAYING HE WANTED INVESTIGATIONS AGAIN IN UKRAINE.

SO THIS IS THE QUESTION.

THE NEW NORMAL THAT DIRECTOR MUELLER FEARS.

IS THERE A FEW NORMAL THAT YOU FEAR, THAT ANY PRESIDENT CAN USE CONGRESSIONAL APPROVED FOREIGN AID SAZ A LEVER TO GET PERSONAL ADVANTAGE IN SOMETHING THAT IS IN HIS INTEREST IF NOT THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

>> THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE, MR. WELCH.

>> I FIELD BACK.

>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

YOU'VE MISCHARACTERIZED -- >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTER THE CALL INTO THE RECORD.

5 MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WHAT YEAR CAN YOU GRADUATE FROM WEST POINT?

>> 1969, SIR.

>> THE HEIGHT OF THE VIETNAM WAR, WAS IT, SIR?

>> THE HEIGHT WAS ABOUT THAT TIME.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR CLASS RANK AT WESTPOINT?

>> NUMBER 5.

>> HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE IN YOUR CLASS?

>> 800.

>>800, AND YOU FRP NUMBER 5?

>> YES, SIR.

SO WHEN YOU'RE IN THE TOP ONE PERCENT OF YOUR CLASS, YOU PROBABLY GET YOUR PICK OF ASSIGNMENTS BUT YOU PICKED THE INFANTRY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> YOU WERE A RIFLE COMPANY COMMANDER.

>> YES.

>> WHERE?

>> IN VIETNAM.

DID SEE COMBAT IN VIETNAM, SIR?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU SEASON COMENIDATIONS?

>> COMBAT INFANTRY'S BADGE, WHICH IS MY HIGHEST.

THERE WAS A BRONZE STAR.

THERE WAS AN AIR MEDAL.

>> THAT'S FOR VALOR, ISN'T IT, SIR?

>> IT IS.

>> TALK ABOUT JULY 26.

FIVE YEARS LATER.

YOU GO TO THE FRONT.

YOU GO WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I BELIEVE, AND YOU'RE ON THE BRIDGE, AND LOOKING AT THE FRONT LINE OF THE RUSSIAN SOLDIERS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU RECALL?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND YOU SAID THE COMMANDER THERE, THE UKRANIAN COMMANDER THANKED YOU FOR THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAW KNEW WAS WITHHELD AT THAT MOMENT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL, SIR?

>> BADLY.

>> WHY?

>> BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT COMMANDER COUNTED ON US.

IT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT COMMANDER HAD CONFIDENCE IN US.

IT WAS CLEAR THAT THAT COMMANDER WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE CAPABILITIES THAT HE WAS GIVEN BY THAT ASSISTANCE, AND ALSO THE REASSURANCE THAT WE WERE GIVING.

>> YOU DON'T STRIKE ME AS A QUITTER.

BUT MENTIONED IT IN YOUR STATEMENT.

BEFORE I ASK YOU ABOUT THAT, LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT A COUPLE DAYS LATER ON JULY, EXCUSE ME, ONE MONTH LATER, AUGUST 28.

YOU FIND YOURSELF IN UKRAINE WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MR. BOLTON.

>> YES.

>> YOU CONVEY CONCERNS, YOU TESTIFIED TO THIS PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU?

>> HE SAYS THAT HE SHARES MY CONCERN AND HE ADVISES ME TO EXPRESS THAT IN A VERY SPECIAL WAY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

>> HE'S THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, WORKS DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT BUT TELLS YOU THAT YOU SHOULD BRING IT UP WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

>> YES, SIR.

>> HAVE YOU EVER SENT A CABLE LIKE THAT?

HOW MANY TIMES IN YOUR CAREER OF 40, 50 YEARS HAVE YOU SENT A CABLE DIRECTLY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

>> ONCE.

>> THIS TIME.

>> YES, SIR.

>> IN 50 YEARS.

>> RIFLE COMPANY COMMANDERS DON'T SEND CABLES BUT YES, SIR.

>> THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR THAT CAN TELL THE PRESIDENT AND SHARES YOUR CONCERN SAYS A YOU, THE AMBASSADOR, SERVING UKRAINE SHOULD CABLE THE SECRETARY OF STATE DIRECTLY AND YOU DO SO, DON'T YOU?

>> YES.

>> WHAT DID THE CABLE SAY, SIR?

>> IT'S CLASSIFIED CABLE.

>> WITHOUT GOING IN TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

>> WITHOUT GOING IN TO CLASSIFIED, IT SAYS SECURITY ASSISTANCE, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY, SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME AS IN PREVIOUS, IS VERY IMPORTANT.

UKRAINE, I ALSO MAKE THE POINT, THAT WE HAVE ALSO TALKED ABOUT TODAY, UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

AND WE SHOULD SUPPORT IT.

NOT TO PROVIDE THAT WOULD BE FOLLY.

>> DID YOU GET AN ANSWER TO YOUR CABLE?

>> NOT DIRECTLY, NO, SIR.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO IT?

>> SECRETARY KENT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO IT.

>> I WAS ON VACATION WHEN HIS CABLE CAME IN, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT MADE IT TO ITS INTEND RECIPIENT SECRETARY POMPEO.

>> SECRETARY POMPEO WAS ON THE CALL, HE WASN'T IN THE DARK.

WHAT DID HE DO WITH IT?

>> I CAN'T SAY WHAT HAPPENED ONCE THE MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT IN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.

>> ONE OTHER QUESTION.

ON SEPTEMBER 1 YOU RECALL MEETING BETWEEN THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, MR. ZELENSKY, IN WHICH RIGHT OFF THE BAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE RAISES SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT ACCORDING TO YOUR TELLING SAYS I'LL TALK TO THE PRESIDENT TONIGHT ABOUT, THAT I'LL MAKE A CALL.

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT MADE THAT CALL?

>> I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT IF ANYTHING THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS?

WHAT MORE CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IN THIS?

DO YOU KNOW IF HE EVER RAISED THIS ISSUE WITH ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION?

WHETHER HE EVER PUSHED FOR RELEASE OF THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

>> I CAN'T, SIR.

>> I BELIEVE TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, VICE PRESIDENT WAS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE ASSISTANCE.

>> THANK YOU.

YIELD BACK, MR.

CHAIR.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> MS. DEMINGS.

>> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT CONSENT REQUEST.

>> STATE YOUR REQUEST.

>> TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD THE POLITICAL ARTICLE ON.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT WILL BE ENTERED IN TO THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DEMINGS.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.

MR. KENT, YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT TO REMOVE AN AMBASSADOR BECAUSE THE AMBASSADORS SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, MA'AM.

>> DOES THAT REMOVAL USUALLY COME WITH A SMEAR CAMPAIGN OF THAT AMBASSADOR BY THE PRESIDENT?

>> I THIS I THE RIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AS CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE IS SEPARATE FROM WHATEVER HAPPENS OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF U.S. GOVERNMENT PROCESSES.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO DISCREDIT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, WHAT SHE WAS NOT WILLING TO DO OR TO DO?

WHY THAT WAS IMPORTANT?

>> I GUESS IT PROBABLY DEPENDS ON THE MOTIVATION OF OTHER PEOPLE AND I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.

>> THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION HAS UNCOVERED A WEB OF SHADOW DIPLOMACY, ENGAGED IN AND EXECUTED BY SEVERAL STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, RUDY GIULIANI AND ULTIMATELY DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE HAVE HEARD SEVERAL WAYS OF DESCRIBING THE SHADY, SHADOW OPERATION, SHADOW DIPLOMACY, ROGUE, BACKCHANNEL.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR YOU DESCRIBED WHAT YOU ENCOUNTERED AS THE TOP DIPLOMAT ON THE GROUND AND UKRAINE, I QUOTE, HIGHLY IRREGULAR, INFORMAL CHANNEL OF U.S. POLICY MAKING.

YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE CHANNEL INCLUDED AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SECRETARY PERRY, AS YOU LATER LEARNED THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, RUDY GIULIANI.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> BOTH OF YOU HAVE EXPLAINED THAT YOU GREW SERIOUSLY CONCERNED WHEN YOU REALIZED THAT THE INTEREST OF THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL DIVERGED FROM OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AND INTEREST.

WAS MR. GIULIANI PROMOTING U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS OR POLICY IN UKRAINE, AMBASSADOR?

>> I DON'T THINK SO, MA'AM.

>> MR. KENT?

>> NO, HE WAS NOT.

>> WHAT INTERESTS DO YOU BELIEVE HE WAS PROMOTING, MR. KENT?

>> I BELIEVE HE WAS LOOKING TO DIG UP POLITICAL DIRT AGAINST A POTENTIAL RIVAL IN THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

WHAT INTEREST DO YOU BELIEVE HE WAS PROMOTING?

>> I AGREE WITH MR. KENT.

>> THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ROLE IS TO PROMOTE U.S. POLICIES OVERSEAS, NOT TO HELP THE CURRENT PRESIDENT WIN REELECTION.

THAT IS CORRECT, MR. KENT?

>> ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO THE HATCH ACT, ACTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO PROMOTE POLICY AND NOT INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICS.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

>> I AGREE.

>> WHAT IS THE RISK OF RUNNING A SEPARATE CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY THAT IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF NORMAL CHANNELS AND DOES NOT FURTHER U.S. POLICY GOALS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

>> IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO ONE BUT NOT THE OTHER.

THAT IS, IF IT'S COMPLETELY AGAINST U.S. POLICY GOALS, THEN THAT'S A MISTAKE.

THEN IT'S NOT HELPFUL.

WHAT YOU CAN GO, YOU CAN GET ADVICE AND EVEN HAVE CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL CHANNELS.

BUT THEN THEY NEED TO BE PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND APPROACHING THOSE GOALS.

>> MR. KENT?

>> AGREE.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, YOU HAD DESCRIBED IN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ONE INSTANCE SHORTLY AFTER YOU ARRIVED IN UKRAINE IN WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ASKED STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS NOT TO LISTEN TO A JULY 28 CALL HE PLANNED TO HOLD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

DID YOU FIND THAT UNUSUAL?

>> I DID.

>> WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MAKING THAT REQUEST?

YOU FOUND IT UNUSUAL.

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE IMPACT WAS?

>> I'M NOT SURE THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT.

>> THERE WAS A RECORDING OR TRANSCRIPTION?

>> THERE WAS NOT THAT.

WAS THE IMPACT.

IT WAS NOT RECORDED.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT'S WHY THE REQUEST WAS MADE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE NORMAL STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES FROM THE OPERATION CENTER WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE TRANSCRIBING AND TAKING NOTES?

>> THAT IS THE NORM.

BUT IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO NOT HAVE IT RECORDED.

>> SO YOU KNOW THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS HOLDING YOUR NOTES AND REFUSES TO PROVIDE THEM TO CONGRESS DESPITE A DULY AUTHORIZED SUBPOENA.

WE KNOW THAT IN SOME INSTANCES YOUR NOTES MAY BE THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY RECORD OF WHAT HAPPENED.

YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT, CORRECT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> MR. KENT, YOU ARE AWARE THAT YOUR NOTES HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER TO CONGRESS.

>> I HAVE TURNED ALL RECORDS THAT I HAD IN MY POSSESSION TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE WHATEVER WE DO IS CONSIDERED A FEDERAL RECORD, NOT A PERSONAL RECORD.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> AT THE REQUEST.

>> STATE YOUR REQUEST.

>> I HAVE A NEW YORK TIMINGS OP-ED STATING WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE IN UKRAINE, WHICH INCLUDES WILLIAM TAYLOR.

>> THAT WILL BE ADMITTED IN TO THE RECORD.

MR. KRISHNAMOORTHI.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I WOULD LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH COUPLE POINTS RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE.

ONE IS A CLAIM THAT THE JULY 25th CALL SUMMARY SHOWS NO EVIDENCE OF PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

THEY ARGUE THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT FEEL ANY PRESSURE AT ANY TIME TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS.

IN FACT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AT YOUR DEPOSITION IN OCTOBER YOU STATED THAT DUE TO THE HOLD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED ON AID TO THE UKRAINE, THE UKRAINIANS BECAME QUOTEUNQUOTE, DESPERATE.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> IN AUGUST THEY DID NOT KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, BUT AT THE END OF AUGUST THE ARTICLE CAME OUT.

IN SEPTEMBER THE MINISTER OF DEFENSE, FOR EXAMPLE, CAME TO ME, I WOULD USE THE WORD DESPERATE, TO FIGURE OUT WHY THE ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD.

HE THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS IF HE WENT TO WASHINGTON TO TALK TO YOU TO, TALK TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT, HE WOULD WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND OUT AND REASSURE, PROVIDE WHATEVER ANSWER WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT ASSISTANCE RELEASED.

>> IN FACT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE SUGGEST THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PERSONALLY DID NOT FEEL ANY PRESSURE AT ANY TIME.

AND YET LATER ON IN SEPTEMBER HE FINALLY RELENT IN A CONVERSATION WITH GORDON SONDLAND ACCORDING TO YOUR DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE AGREED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON CNN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> HE HAD PLANNED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON CNN, YES, SIR.

>> MY COLLEAGUES ALSO SAY THAT THE HOLD ON U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS LIFTED ON SEPTEMBER 11 WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATIONS HAPPENING ON THE PART OF THE UKRAINIANS AND THEREFORE, EVERYTHING ENDED UP FINE IN THE END.

HOWEVER, MR. KENT, AS YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES BEGAN THIS CURRENT INVESTIGATION LEADING TO THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY ON SEPTEMBER 9th.

IN FACT, IT WAS ONLY TWO DAYS AFTER THIS PARTICULAR SET OF COMMITTEES BEGAN THEIR INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EVENTUALLY RELEASED THE MILITARY AID, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS A TIME LINE, YES.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, BETWEEN THE TIME OF YOUR OCTOBER DEPOSITION AND NOW, DID ANYONE FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONTACT YOU ABOUT YOUR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY?

>> NO, SIR.

>> HOW ABOUT, MR. KENT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO A WORD THAT BY MY COUNT YOU USED 13 TIMES IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND THAT WORD IS CONCERN.

YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT AID WAS BEING CONDITIONED ON POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY WERE BEING USED IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY IN THE UKRAINE, RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, CAN YOU RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY ARE BEING USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE WE CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY?

>> I CAN'T -- I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY OTHER SEPARATE CHANNEL THAT HAS THIS KIND OF INFLUENCE.

THAT IS, THE GIULIANI KIND OF GUIDANCE.

>> BUT YOU CAN'T RULE IT OUT, RIGHT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> HOW ABOUT YOU, MR. KENT?

YOU CAN'T RULE IT OUT EITHER, RIGHT?

>> I HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION.

>> YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE JULY 25 CALL WAS PERFECT, DO YOU?

>> I THINK SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE CALL GAVE CAUSE FOR CONCERN.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

>> I AGREE.

>> AND WHAT WAS THE CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR YOU?

>> THERE WAS PART OF -- THE DISCUSSION OF THE PREVIOUS AMBASSADOR WAS A CAUSE FOR CONCERN.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, I WANT TO DRAW ON YOUR EXPERIENCE FINALLY AS A WEST POINT CADET AND INFANTRY COMMANDER IN VIETNAM.

IN A BATTLEFIELD SITUATION IS A COMMANDER OFFICER ALLOWED TO HOLD UP ACTION PLACING HIS TROOPS AT RISK UNTIL SOMEONE PROVIDES HIM A PERSONAL BENEFIT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> IS THAT BECAUSE OF COMMANDING OFFICERS DID THAT THEY WOULD BE DeTRADING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE, BETRAYING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR NATION AND MEN AND WOMEN UNDERSTAND THEIR COMMAND.

>> YES, SIR.

>> IF THAT HAPPENED AND WERE FOUND OUT COULD THAT PERSON BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> COULD THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT TRIGGER A COURT MARTIAL?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE GENTLEMAN.

>> FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT, ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER IN TO THE RECORD MR. MULVANEY'S STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID THERE ABSOLUTELY NO QUID PRO QUO FROM OCTOBER 27.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

MR. NUNES, ANY CLOSING COMMENTS.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I RECOGNIZED MR. NUNES FOR HIS COMMENTS.

MS. CONAWAY, WE WILL GET YOUR MOTION AFTER MR. NUNES BRIEF CLOSING REMARKS AND MINE, MY INTENTION TO EXCUSE THE WITNESSES.

WE'LL HAVE A VERY BRIEF RECESS, MEMBERS SHOULD NOT GO FAR.

WE WILL RESUME AND TAKE UP MR. CONAWAY'S MOTION.

MR. NUNES.

>> THANK YOU.

I'LL BE BRIEF.

I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER, WE SHOULD STOP HOLDING THESE HEARINGS UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWER TO THREE IMPORTANT TOPICS.

THE FIRST BEING THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHO DID THE WHISTLEBLOWER COORDINATE WITH?

SECOND, THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

AND THIRD, WHY DID BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM IN HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY GOVERNMENT ACTIONS, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

ARE YOU NOT ALLOWING THOSE WITNESSES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, WHICH I THINK IS A PROBLEM.

SO WE'LL EXPECT HOPEFULLY YOU WILL ALLOW US TO BRING IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THE FOLKS THAT HE SPOKE TO, AND ALSO NUMEROUS DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES WHO WORKED WITH UKRAINE TO MEDDLE IN THE ELECTION.

WITH THAT I'LL YIELD BACK.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

I WANT TO THANK WITNESSES FOR THEIR TESTIMONY TODAY, FOR YOUR DECADE OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY.

I THINK YOU EXEMPLIFY SO MANY COURAGEOUS MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE IN THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS, SERVE IN THE MILITARY, REPRESENT US SO WELL AROUND THE WORLD.

I APPRECIATE HOW YOU ENDEAVOR TO STAY OUT OF THE FRAY TO RELATE WHAT YOU HEARD, WHAT YOU SAW, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY.

THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE.

YOU WERE BOTH COMPELLED TO APPEAR AND WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT YOU ANSWERED THE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS THAT YOU RECEIVED.

THE STORY THAT YOU HAVE SHARED WITH US TODAY AND YOUR EXPERIENCES I THINK IS A VERY DEEPLY TROUBLING ONE.

IT IS THE STORY OF A DEDICATED AMBASSADOR, SOMEONE WHO SERVED WITH GREAT DISTINCTION, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF A VICIOUS SMEAR CAMPAIGN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

IT IS THE STORY OF ONCE THIS AMBASSADOR WAS PUSHED OUT OF THE WAY, CREATION OF AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL, WHICH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR YOU DESCRIBED WENT FROM THE PRESIDENT THROUGH MICK MULVANEY, THROUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO RUDY GIULIANI.

THAT OVER TIME BECAME APPARENT, WAS NOT SERVING THE U.S. INTEREST, BUT RUNNING DEEPLY CONTRARY TO THE U.S. INTEREST, WAS IN FACT CONDITIONING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE DESPERATELY SOUGHT TO ESTABLISHMENTS AS THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE AND TO DEMONSTRATE TO FRIEND AND FOE ALIKE THAT HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH IS THE MOST POWERFUL PATRON, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND CONDITIONED $400 MILLION OF BIPARTISAN TAXPAYER FUNDED MILITARY SUPPORT FOR A NATION AT WAR ON THE FRONT LINES OF RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM.

A SUSPENSION OF WHICH WAS NOT IN THE U.S. INTEREST, NOT IN UKRAINE'S INTEREST, NOT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST AND NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

YOU HAVE DESCRIBED A SITUATION IN WHICH THOSE IN THE SERVICE OF THE PRESIDENT MADE IT CLEAR TO THE UKRAINIANS THEY NEED TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS OR THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THAT MEETING AND THEY SURE WEREN'T GOING TO GET THAT MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

NOW, I WOULD POINT OUT AND THIS MAY NOT HAVE COME TO YOUR ATTENTION BUT CERTAINLY CAME TO OUR ATTENTION, ON SEPTEMBER 9th INSPECTOR GENERAL INFORMED OUR COMMITTEE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS WITHHOLDING A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.

BY THAT POINT ON SEPTEMBER 9th THAT COMPLAINT HAD MADE ITS WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

ON SEPTEMBER 9th WHEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL INFORMED CONGRESS THAT THAT COMPLAINT CAN BE WITHHELD, THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO LEARNED THAT CONGRESS NOW INEVITABLY WOULD LEARN ABOUT THE COMPLAINT.

IT WAS LESS THAN 48 HOURS LATER THAT THE MILITARY AID WOULD BE RELEASED.

OVER THE WEEKS TO COME OR OVER THE DAYS TO COME, RATHER, WE WILL HEAR FROM OTHER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS ABOUT OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS TO CONDUCT INTERFERENCE ON THE ELECTION, TO CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND MILITARY AID FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF POLITICAL FAVORS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

WE WILL HEAR FROM OTHER WITNESSES.

I APPRECIATE MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDE OF THE AISLE WHO I THINK PARTICIPATED TODAY IN A SERIOUS WAY AND IN A CIVIL WAY.

THIS IS AS IT SHOULD BE.

THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS TO THE COUNTRY.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU AND OTHERS PROVIDE WHETHER WE'RE PREPARED TO ACCEPT IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE A PRESIDENT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL OR POLITICAL BENEFIT CAN CONDITION MILITARY AID, DIPLOMATIC MEETINGS OR ANY OTHER PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL ACT IN ORDER TO GET HELP IN THEIR REELECTION.

WHETHER WE WILL NEED TO ACCEPT IN THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT THE IDEA THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN INVITE A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERN EVENT IN OUR AFFAIRS.

THESE ARE THE DECISIONS WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE WHEN WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN, JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING BECAUSE I CAN'T LET IT GO UNANSWERED, SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES MADE THE STATEMENT REREPEATEDLY I HAVE MET WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

IT WAS FALSE THE FIRST TIME THEY SAID IT, IT WAS FALSE THE SECOND THROUGH 40th TIME AND THE LAST TIME THEY SAY IT.

WITH THAT, THIS CONCLUDE THIS PORTION OF THE HEARING.

I WANT TO THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

I ASK EVERYONE TO REMAIN IN THEIR SEATS.

THE WITNESSES ARE EXCUSED.

PLEASE ALLOW THEM TO LEAVE THE COMMITTEE ROOM.

WE WILL ONCE THEY LEAVE THE COMMITTEE ROOM TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AND THEN WE WILL RESUME TO TAKE UP MR. CONAWAY'S MOTION.

ONCE AGAIN, I THANK YOU.

>> WITH THAT, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF WRAPS UP THIS FIRST DAY OF TESTIMONY FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, WILLIAM TAYLOR, ACTING AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL GEORGE KENT.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF IN THE PBS NEWSHOUR STUDIO IN WASHINGTON ALONG WITH THREE COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE BEEN WITH US ALL DAY LONG, N NICK, LISA, MIEKE.

IN A MOMENT, WE'LL GO TO LISA.

NICK, AS WE CONSIDER WHAT WE HEARD TODAY FROM ALL OF THESE, AS THE QUESTIONS CAME ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER FROM THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, DO WE KNOW MORE AT THIS HOUR, THE AFTERNOON OF NOVEMBER 13th, WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS HOLDING UP MILITARY AID AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN RETURN FOR POLITICAL FAVORS FROM UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT?

>> WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC ASPECT.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO ARGUE AND WE HAVE MORE INSIGHT IN TO WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO ARGUE.

THEN SOME FACTS WE HAVE ONLY SEEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS THAT ARE NOW IN THE OPEN.

SO JUST TO SPLIT THOSE IN TO TWO.

SIX MAJOR POINTS.

THREE FROM THE DEMOCRATS.

ONE, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THAT IS NEW.

A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE SO-CALLED IRREGULAR CHANNEL, TRYING TO WITHHOLD AID TO GET UKRAINE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT DIRECT CONNECT IS VIA AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THIS INCIDENT WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS MORNING HE WAS OVERHEARD TALKING ON THE CELL PHONE ON HIS CELL PHONE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND STAFFER IN UKRAINE ASKING HIM WHAT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP THINK?

HE CARES MORE ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAN UKRAINE ITSELF.

THAT WAS NEW.

TWO, WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW IT WAS CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IRREGULAR CHANNEL AS BILL TAYLOR TESTIFIED, WITHHOLDING OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR DOMESTIC POLITICAL REASONS WELL.

SAW THAT IN PUBLIC.

THEY MADE DIRECT CRITICISM OF A PRESIDENT THEY SERVE, THESE TWO DIPLOMATS, THAT WAS VERY STRIKING, CALLING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY WRONG AND SAYING IT WAS AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY.

>> QUICKLY ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, A FEW MAJOR POINTS.

UKRAINE NEVER PUBLICLY SAID THAT IT FELT PRESSURED TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND NEVER DID THOSE INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE GETTING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND GETTING THAT MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

AND HUNTER BIDEN OF COURSE COMING UP AGAIN, A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING ON WHAT IS A NOTORIOUSLY CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER, THE VICE PRESIDENT, WAS LEADING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POLICY ON UKRAINE.

>> SOME PIECES OF INFORMATION EMERGING ON EACH SIDE, IF YOU WILL, OF THIS DEBATE.

MIEKE, SOMEONE WHO WORKED ON THE STAFF, DID EACH SIDE COME AWAY WITH A STRONGER CASE?

IS THAT ONE WAY TO LOOK AT THIS?

>> I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT MORE OUT IN TERMS OF THE WAY THAT THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL WAS UNDERMINING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

THEY WERE VERY CLEAR ABOUT HOW IT UNDERMINDED RULE OF LAW AND ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS THAT THE U.S. IS TRYING TO PURSUE IN UKRAINE.

THEY DID NOT DO AS MUCH ON EXPLAINING WHY THAT IRREGULAR CHANNEL'S OBJECTIVES WERE IN THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL POLITICAL INTEREST, WHICH HAS BEEN ONE OF THE THINGS THEY REALLY EMPHASIZED IN THE PAST.

WITH THE REPUBLICANS, ONE OF THE BIG ARGUMENTS THAT YOU HEARD THEM TALK ABOUT TODAY WAS THE DEAL WAS NOT COMPLETED.

THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER CAME FORWARD AND MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE WAS BEING PUSHED SO AGGRESSIVELY BY THE AMERICANS, BY GIULIANI TO GIVE.

BUT THEY DID NOT GET IN TO THIS QUESTION OF WHY IT EXACTLY WAS THE DEAL WASN'T COMPLETED.

WE KNOW IN FACT PART OF THAT WAS THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THE MILITARY AID WAS, BECAME PUBLICLY KNOWN AND THE PRESIDENT CAME UNDERSTAND TREMENDOUS POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM HIS OWN REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO RELEASE THE AID THAT.

INTERVENING EVENT WASN'T DISCUSSED.

IN ARGUING THAT THE DEAL WAS NOT COMPLETED, THEY HAVE SORT OF CONCEDED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEAL HAD IT GONE THROUGH WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG AND CORRUPT.

>> Woodruff: AND AGAIN, COMING BACK TO THE DATES OF ALL THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WAS ON SEPTEMBER 9th, AS WE JUST HEARD AT THE END FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, APPEARS THAT'S WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNED ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND IT WAS TWO DAYS LATER THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WENT AHEAD.

>> I SHOULD MENTION QUICKLY THEY DID NOT FOCUS ON THE OTHER THING THAT WAS AT STAKE IN THIS EXCHANGE WHICH IT WAS WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

THERE WAS VERY LITTLE TALK OF THAT IN THIS CONVERSATION.

>> Woodruff: IN THAT CONVERSATION.

MICHAEL ALLEN, ALSO FORMER STAFF HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHAT DID YOU HEAR TODAY THAT STRENGTHENED THE CASE ON EITHER SIDE?

>> WELL, I THOUGHT THE REPUBLICANS GOT OFF TO A VERY SLOW START.

I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHERE THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL WAS GOING WITH THE 45-MINUTE ALLOTMENT.

I THOUGHT THINK BY THE END, MAY BE DESCRIBING IT CHARITABLY, I THINK HE WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS TREMENDOUS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE PROSECUTOR AND AS NICK CALLED IT, THE NOTORIOUSLY CORRUPT OIL COMPANY BURISMA.

AND THEN THERE WERE ECHOES OF, AND THEREFORE IT MIGHT BE LEGITIMATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION ABOUT BIDEN'S LINK TO THAT COMPANY THEREOF.

BUT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THEY MADE IT VERY STARKLY.

I THINK THE EFFORT THAT THEY TRIED TO MAKE THE MOST, WHICH IS WHAT MIEKE MENTIONED, WAS THAT ARE WE REALLY GOING TO IMPEACH OVER AN ITEM FOR AID THAT WAS NOT WITH HEALTH.

IT WAS MERELY PAUSED, WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD A VERY TOUGH POLICY, VIS-A-VIS UKRAINE AS TO OPPOSE RUSSIA.

AND JUST IN GENERAL I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE OF YOU KNOW WHAT?

MAYBE IT'S INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPERFECT CALL BUT IS THIS A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR?

AND SO THAT'S WHY AT THE END OF THE DAY AND WE HAVE MANY HEARINGS TO GO, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE MOVED THE NEEDLE TODAY ON WHY THIS WAS A, YOU KNOW, IMPAIRED NATIONAL SECURITY AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMPEACHABLE.

>> LISA HAS BEEN WATCHING ALL THIS FROM THE CAPITOL.

I BELIEVE LISA IS IN POSITION.

AM I RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> Woodruff: THERE YOU ARE.

LISA, IF HUFF A CHANCE, GIVE US A SENSE, IF YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE, GIVE US A SENSE OF REACTIONS YOU'RE PICKING UP IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM AND OUTSIDE.

>> I THINK IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM YOU DEFINITELY SAW KIND OF PEOPLE GET WORN DOWN BY THE SENSE OF TIME, HOW LONG EVERYTHING WAS GOING.

I THINK THAT REPUBLICANS THEMSELVES WERE TRYING TO FEEL OUT WHERE THEY COULD HAVE MORE SUCCESS AND LESS.

YOU SAW A FEW MEMBERS BREAK THROUGH HAVING SOME BIGGER, AND I THINK YOU ALSO SAW A LARGE REACTION WHEN MEMBERS SORT OF WENT ON THE ATTACK OF THE WITNESSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN REPRESENTATIVE RATCLIFFE WENT AFTER AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TRIED TO SAY YOU KNOW YOU CAN MAKE MISTAKES, THEY WERE TALKING OVER EACH OTHER.

I SAW SOME KIND OF LOOKS OF REGRET ON OTHER REPUBLICAN FACES AS THAT WAS HAPPENING.

THEY WERE WORRIED HOW THAT WOULD BOUNCE.

I RAN OUT OF THE HEARING.

I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO ANY MEMBERS YET WHO WERE INSIDE.

SO I THINK WE'LL GET MORE REACTION SOON.

>> Woodruff: WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU FOR THAT, LISA, FOR THE NEWSHOUR A LITTLE LATER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

TO LISA, WHO HAS BEEN THERE ALL DAY LONG, IN THE HEARING ROOM.

TO MICHAEL ALLEN TO, MIEKE.

I'M TOLD WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO TALK.

I WAS UNDER THE WRONG IMPRESSION.

LET'S GO BACK.

THERE IS A LOT TO TALK ABOUT.

NICK, I'M COMING BACK TO WHAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS SAYING AT THE END ABOUT WHAT IS THE, WHAT'S THE MEASURE OF DECIDING WHAT WAS CONDITIONALITY?

WAS IT CONDITIONALITY WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS REFERRING TO BURISMA, THIS COMPANY THAT HUNTER BIDEN FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S SON WAS ON, WHEN HE WAS REFERRING TO 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE?

DOES THAT, DID THAT AMOUNT TO CONDITIONALITY OR NOT?

>> RIGHT.

SO I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND WHETHER YOU'RE JUDGING ON IT THE DELIVERABLE.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS.

THE PRESIDENT POINTS OUT THAT OR THE PRESIDENT ARGUES ON THAT CALL THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE SAYS WE WANT TO BUY MORE JACKSONVILLE -- JAVELINS.

HE MENTIONED CROWDSTRIKE BEING INVOLVED AND HUNTER BIDEN.

THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT HE TALKS ABOUT.

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS DO NOT REPEAT THAT CONSPIRACY THEORY, AT LEAST NOT VERY MUCH.

THEY POINT OUT THAT UKRAINE WAS CORRUPT AND IS CORRUPT AND THEREFORE THE PRESIDENT IS RIGHT TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS, THAT SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WERE CRITICAL OF CANDIDATE TRUMP IN 2016 AND THEREFORE THE PRESIDENT IS RIGHT TO BE SKEPTICAL.

AND SO THERE IS A DIVISION THERE.

IT IS SUBSTANTIVE AND THE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE THINGS THAT THEY CAN BETTER PROVE, FRANKLY, THAN THINGS LIKE CROWDSTRIKE WHICH ARE SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS BEING CRITICAL OF CANDIDATE TRUMP AND TRYING TO SAY AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, THE DELIVERABLE, THE AID FLOWED AND THE MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID HAPPEN WITHOUT UKRAINE ANNOUNCING THOSE INVESTIGATIONS OR UKRAINE PUBLICLY SAYING THAT THEY FELT THE PRESSURE.

THE DEMOCRATS WOULD SAY THAT IS UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PRIVATELY WERE TELLING U.S. OFFICIALS HEY, WE'RE FEELING PRESSURE.

>> Woodruff: FEELING PRESSURE.

I KEEP COMING BACK TO THAT.

WHENEVER ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN, OTHER DEMOCRATS, A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WHEN THEY ASKED EITHER SECRETARY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT OR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT WHAT THEY KNEW ABOUT HOW UKRAINIANS WISH FEELING, EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, MR. ZELENSKY SAYING I FELT NO PRESSURE, THE MEETING WENT WELL.

THEY'RE TRYING TO DRILL DOWN TO UNDERSTAND, BUT WHAT WERE THE UKRAINIANS REALLY FEELING?

>> WE HEAR TESTIMONY THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BEING DRAGGED IN TO DOMESTIC POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEY KNEW THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

THEY KNEW THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE STUCK ON ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER OF A PARTISAN DIVIDE AND BY ASKING UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGATE BOTH BURISMA, WHICH WOULD HAVE LED TO INVESTIGATION OF HUNTER BIDEN, SON OF THE PRESIDENT'S MOST FEARED RIVAL, AND THE 2016 ELECTIONS, UKRAINE'S PUNITIVE INVOLVEMENT IN THAT, THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE BEING DRAGGED IN TO THAT.

UKRAINE WAS COMFORTABLE TALKING ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS OF CORRUPTION GENERALLY BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED AS A REFORMER AGAINST CORRUPTION.

AMERICANS KEPT INSISTING ON THESE TWO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH THEY FELT WAS NOT PART OF THE ANTICORRUPTION EFFORT.

>> Woodruff: UPPLE THE TIME WHEN THE MONEY, UP UNTIL THE TIME WHEN THE MONEY, THE AID, MICHAEL ALLEN, WAS RELEASED, THAT WAS BELIEVED BY THE UKRAINIANS THAT THAT WAS A CONDITION.

THAT IS RIGHT?

>> IT WAS.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE DEMOCRATS ARE ON THEIR STRONGEST GROUND.

THEY, I THINK, ARE VERY CLEARLY USING THE STRATEGY OF BRINGING UP AS MANY WITNESSES AS THEY CAN WHO CAN TESTIFY TO AS WE SAY, YOU KNOW, THE LATIN PHRASE, QUID PRO QUO, THAT THERE WAS CONDITIONALITY FOR AID TO FLOW.

YOU BEGAN TO HEAR IT TODAY, WHY THE REPUBLICANS TRIED TO DEBUNK IT WITH WHY DO YOU KNOW?

IT'S HEARSAY.

NEXT WEEK THEY'RE COMING IN WITH ADDITIONAL FOUR, FIVE WITNESSES, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE LIKE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK IT WILL HAVE TO BE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS CONDITIONALITY AND THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE ON FIRMER GROUND IN TRYING TO PROVE THEIR CASE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THEY WILL STILL HAVE OTHER HURDLES TO GET OVER BUT THAT'S THE FIRST.

>> Woodruff: THE QUESTION OF HEARSAY BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WENT IN TO TODAY'S HEARING SAYING LOOK, YOU MAY SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK WAS THE CASE BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, BUT YOU DIDN'T TALK, YOU NEVER TALKED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF.

IN FACT BOTH OF THESE GENTLEMEN WITNESSES TODAY HAVE NEVER MET PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY'RE PUTTING AS MUCH DISTANCE AS THEY CAN, THE REPUBLICANS ARE.

>> RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY ADMITTED THAT THEY NOT ONLY DIDN'T TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT UKRAINE, THEY HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE WERE DEBATING THIS EARLIER WHILE WE WERE WATCHING ABOUT THE USE OF THE WORD HEARSAY AND WE DIDN'T HEAR REPUBLICANS USE HEARSAY UNTIL ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH.

IT'S A VERY LARGE POINT FOR THEM BECAUSE WHAT THEY WILL SAY IS THAT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WELL, THEY DIDN'T SAY WITH ALL DUE RESPECT BUT BASICALLY WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, GEORGE KENT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT REALLY WANTED.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY GIULIANI WANTED.

AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES LEADS FOREIGN POLICY.

THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE HIS AMBASSADORS AND THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO PURSUE THE POLICY THAT HE WANTS.

WHERE IT GETS A LOT MESSIER IS THE IRREGULAR AND REGULAR.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICY, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEES IN KIEV WERE PURSUING A POLICY THAT WAS SHARED SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND AGAIN CORRUPTION INVESTIGATIONS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP, RUDY GIULIANI, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WERE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, SAY NO SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNLESS YOU INVESTIGATE WHAT WE WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE, WHICH IS BIDEN, BURISMA AND 2016.

>> Woodruff: MIEKE AT THE END, ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WAS POINTING OUT IN THAT JULY 25th, NOW INFAMOUS OR FAMOUS PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE WORD CORRUPTION DIDN'T APPEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP I BELIEVE IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY DID NOT SAY THAT WORD AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE RECORDING OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> RIGHT.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO REMEMBER, THOUGH, THIS IS A RECORD OF THE CALL WHICH WE THINK MAY BE INCOMPLETE.

IT'S NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT INSISTS IT IS.

PART OF THE CHALLENGE REPUBLICANS HAVE WHEN THEY FOCUS ON THE KIND OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND UKRAINE THAT MIGHT IMPLICATE AMERICAN INTEREST, THOSE ARE NOT THINGS MENTIONED ON THE CALL.

THE PRESIDENT IS MENTIONING DIFFERENT THINGS, WHICH HAVE BEEN LARGELY DEBUNKED BY EVERYONE.

THIS CROWDSTRIKE CONNECTION TO THEDON'S DNC, BURISMA, THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT, NOT THINGS FACTUALLY FOUND.

>> THOUGH HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD.

>> HUNTER BIDEN IS ON THE BOARD.

BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT HUNTER BIDEN HAS DONE ANYTHING TO BREAK AMERICAN LAW IN HIS PARTICIPATION IN BURISMA.

AND TRADITIONALLY THE U.S. HAS NOT ASKED FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO INVESTIGATE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

WE RESERVE THAT FOR AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

>> Woodruff: DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH PRECEDENCE THERE IS FOR CHILDREN OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF PRESIDENT'S, VICE PRESIDENT'S, SERVING ON THE BOARDS OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS?

>> WELL, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS MAY BE A DIFFERENT MATTER.

THIS WAS TOTALLY INADVISABLE BUT I THINK WE DO REALIZE HERE IN WASHINGTON THAT THERE ARE BOARD SEATS AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT ARE SORT OF DEDICATED TO PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND WASHINGTON, WHO CAN MAYBE GIVE YOU THE RIGHT ADVICE ON WHO TO HIRE TO GET OUT OF PARTICULAR TROUBLE.

THAT'S MY INITIAL REACTION TO HUNTER BIDEN AGREEING TO BE ON THIS.

CLEARLY IT WAS A TERRIBLE IDEA WHEN YOUR FATHER IT WAS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT'S REALLY COME HOME TO ROOST.

>> LISA, YOU'RE GOOD AT READING BODY LANGUAGE.

WHAT DID YOU SEE AS THIS HEARING PROGRESSED DURING THE DAY?

>> WELL, AS I SAID, YOU CAN SEE TOWARD THE END MORE LAWMAKERS SLUMPING, OBVIOUSLY A FEELING OF TIREDNESS.

I THINK WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME WATCHING THIS WAS HOW EACH SIDE WAS PROSECUTING THEIR CASE AND IN SOME CASES YOU COULD TELL FROM THE BODY LANGUAGE THAT IT WAS ALMOST LIKE A COURTROOM DEMEANOR.

I THINK WHAZ YOU GOT FROM THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL, WHO WAS TRYING TO SORT OF DO SOMETHING FOR A JUDGE, VERSUS SOME DEMOCRATS WHO WOULD BE MORE ANIMATED, MORE OFTEN PERHAPS ERIC SWALWELL, CONVEYING SOMETHING FOR AN AUDIENCE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, GET TO THE POINT OF BUT WAS THIS WRONG?

VERSUS TRYING TO DISSEMINATE LEGAL POINTS AND YES, NO QUESTIONS, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR AMERICANS TO FOLLOW.

SO I THINK THERE WERE SORT OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT AUDIENCES THAT DIFFERENT LAWMAKERS WERE APPEALING TO.

OF COURSE MANY OF THE REPUBLICANS IT WAS AN AUDIENCE OF ONE, IT WAS CLEAR WHENEVER SOMEONE WAS SPEAKING UP, WHENEVER THEY HAD THAT OOMPH, GOING ON THE ATTACK, THESE WERE LAWMAKERS LIKE MR. RATCLIFFE, LIKE REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN WHO KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WATCHING, SOMEONE THEY WANT TO IMPRESS, THEY WANT TO BE SEEN AS FIGHTING FOR AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THEIR BODY LANGUAGE.

MOST INTERESTING BODY LANGUAGE WAS OF THE WITNESSES.

THESE ARE TWO MEN, IT STRUCK ME, COULD YOU TELL LOOKING AT THEM, WHOSE JOB IS TO TRY AND RESOLVE CONFLICT LARGELY THROUGH WORDS AND THROUGH BEING LIKED.

AND IT'S UNUSUAL TO SEE WITNESSES IN SUCH AN INTENSE HEARING WHO ARE SO COOPERATIVE.

AND WHO DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE I DON'T RECALL EVERY OTHER WORD.

THESE WERE WITNESSES THAT WERE TRYING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, THESE ARE WITNESSES WHO ADMIRE EACH OTHER WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TALKED ABOUT HIS MILITARY SERVICE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I SAW GEORGE KENT LOOKING AT HIM FROM THE SIDE WITH SUCH ADMIRATION.

TWO MEN WHO ADMIRE EACH OTHER AND YOU DID GET THE SENSE THEY WERE HERE OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.

THEY WERE SUBPOENAED, BUT YOU FELT A SENSE OF DUTY WATCHING THEM.

I THINK ONE OTHER BIG LESSON OF TODAY, JUDY.

A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS FOR CONGRESS IS NEVER FIVE MINUTES LONG, AS WE KNOW.

>> Woodruff: YOU THINK?

JUST QUICKLY, LISA TO, BUTTON THIS UP, THE COMMITTEE CONTINUED IN SESSION AFTER WE, OUR CAMERAS WENT AWAY.

ARE THEY DISCUSSING THE CALLING OF A WHISTLEBLOWER?

IS THAT STILL UNDERSTAND DISCUSSION?

>> YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT I ASKED AS I WALKED OUT.

AND THE STAFFER SAID IT WASN'T CLEAR TO THEM YET.

A PROMINENT STAFFER.

TO ME, THIS IS ANOTHER INDICATION OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN REPORTING ALL ALONG, THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS BEEN IN CHARGE OF THIS WHOLE PROCEEDING AND IN SOME CASES HE'S BEEN MAKING DECISIONS SORT OFFED A IT'S HAPPENING.

SO THERE'S A VERY SMALL GROUP THAT REALLY KNEW WHAT WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN THERE.

I'M NOT SURE.

THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT IT DOES INVOLVE THE WHISTLEBLOWER BUT I DID NOT CONFIRM THAT.

>> Woodruff: I'M ASKING BECAUSE I THINK WE WERE LISTENING AND HEARD HIM SAY I WANT TO HEAR CONGRESSMAN'S CONAWAY'S QUESTION AND WE KNOW THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY AND UNTIL NOW CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> Woodruff: ALL RIGHT.

LISA AT THE CAPITOL, WATCHING ALL THIS.

WE'LL LET YOU GO AND GET READY FOR THE NEWSHOUR AT 6:00 EASTERN AND WHEREVER PEOPLE WATCH IT AROUND THE COUNTRY.

I WANT TO THANK THE THREE OF YOU FOR BEING WITH ME TODAY.

WE'LL SEE YOU FRIDAY WHEN MARIE YOVANOVITCH, THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WILL BE THE SOLE WITNESS BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

SO WE DON'T EXPECT AS LONG A DAY OF QUESTIONS, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW.

IT IS THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

MICHAEL ALLEN, THANK YOU, FORMER STAFF MEMBER FOR THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

MIEKE, THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU FOR JOINING US.

AND SITTING IN WITH NICK AND ME.

NICK, YOU HAVE TO GO GET READY.. >> Woodruff: AS DO I.

BUT I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU.

THANK YOU TO OUR VIEWERS FOR STAYING WITH US DURING THE DAY AS WE REALLY HAVE BEEN WITNESSING AN EXTRAORDINARY SET OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, THESE LIVE COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIINQUIRY.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

JOIN US FOR PULL AND -JOIN US FOR FULL COVERAGE ON THE NEWSHOUR.