>> Announcer: THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE POSSIBLE FOR THE CORPORATION BY PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND FROM CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

SPECIAL TO OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF DAY TWO IN THE SECOND WEEK OF PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

ALL WE HEARD SO FAR BUILDS UP TO THIS MOMENT.

THE FIRST WITNESS WITH DIRECT CONTACT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND A CRITICAL -- PRESIDENT TRUMP CRITICAL.

GORDON SONDLAND THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND DONOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TO REVISE HIS INITIAL CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY.

NOW MULTIPLE WITNESSES HAVE PUBLICLY DESCRIBED HOW HE HAD THE EAR OF THE PRESIDENT.

THE TODAY'S QUESTIONS, HOW WILL HE PLAY THE DEMANDS FOR POLITICAL DIRECTION AT THE OVAL OFFICE DOOR.

WILL HE USE THE LANGUAGE THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO HEAR, QUID PRO QUO AND HOW WILL HE IMPLICATE OTHERS INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI AND SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO.

THIS AFTERNOON WE'LL HEAR FROM LAURA COOPER THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WHITE HOUSE STOPPING CRITICAL MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND FROM DAVID HALE THE THIRD RANKING STATE OFFICIAL CONNECTING MIKE POMPEO TO RUDY GIULIANI USING CRITICAL CALL LOGS DURING THIS SPRING.

AT THE HEART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATE HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND JEOPARDIZE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY BY PRESSURING UKRAINE TO TAKE STEPS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY AND UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

AND WE HAVE A TOP STAFFER FOR THE DEMOCRATS ON THE HOUSE NATURAL GAS COMMITTEE 2007 TO 2010 AND VICE PRESIDENT OF A WASHINGTON THINK TANK AND MICHAEL ALLEN WHO SERVED FROM 2011 TO 2013 UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP AND NOW A MANAGING DIRECTOR AT THE ADVISORY FIRM, BEACON GLOBAL STRATEGIES.

HELLO.

IT'S THE SECOND DAY THIS WEEK.

ALTOGETHER THE FOURTH DAY OF TESTIMONY IN THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

THIS IS A LOOK AT THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHERE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL BE GATHERING.

WE DON'T HAVE THE PRIME WITNESS GO GOR GORDON SONDLAND.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT HE HAS SAID TO NOW AND WHAT HE'LL BE ASKED TO FOCUS ON TODAY.

>> THE KEY PART OF SONDLAND IS HE HAD CONSISTENT ACCESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

SO HERE'S WHAT WE'VE KNOWN ALREADY SO FAR.

SONDLAND LED AN EFFORT FOR UKRAINE TO GET SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED INTO 2016, INTO HUNTER BIDEN AND THE COMPANY WHERE HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD BURISMA.

ON JULY 10 HE TOLD UKRAINIANS AND CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY MORE DETAILS AND ON SEPTEMBER 1 HE HAD ANOTHER PULL-ASIDE WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SAYING THE MILITARY AID THE PRESIDENT HAD STOPPED WOULD NOT RESUME UNLESS THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE ENACT.

HE SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS PUSHING THIS AND THERE WAS A CALL WHEN SONDLAND WAS IN KIEV AND HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION AND GIULIANI TOLD HIM THE SAME THING THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT THIS AND DOESN'T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE.

THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY.

WHAT WILL GORDON SONDLAND SAY AND HOW FAR WILL HE GO ON HOW MUCH INFLUENCE GIULIANI HAD AND HOW DIRECT WAS THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING TO GIULIANI AND WHAT GIULIANI WAS SAYING TO SONDLAND AND WILL HE USE THE WORDS QUID PRO QUO AND IN WHAT CONTEXT AND CONFIRM THE JULY 25th CALL HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT WHERE THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY TELLS HIM I DON'T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE, I CARE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS AND LASTLY, HOW MUCH WILL HE TALK ABOUT SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO.

OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS HE HAD ACCESS TO AND OTHER DIPLOMATS HE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO.

HOW FAR WILL HE GO ON THAT.

>> SO MANY QUESTIONS AND THESE ANSWERS AND WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THE WITNESSES CAREFULLY.

IT'S FAIR TO SAY GORDON SONDLAND TODAY WE'LL BE WATCHING HIM CAREFULLY FOR ALL THE REASONS NICK MENTIONED BECAUSE HE CAN PUT THE INQUIRY AT THE DOOR STEP OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE DO SEE THE WITNESSES COMING IN.

THE WITNESS COMING IN AND WE BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL COME IN.

I WANT TO GO TO YOU QUICKLY LEE LISA.

>> THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW GORDON SONDLAND WOULD PLAY THIS.

BOTH SIDES HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CONFLICT IN THEIR TESTIMONY WITH OTHERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED AND I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING ELSE, THERE'S A LARGER CROWD THIS MORNING WAITING TO COME IN.

I SPOKE TO MANY PEOPLE STANDING IN LINE AND THEY SAID THEY'RE HERE BECAUSE OF GORDON SONDLAND AND WANT TO HEAR HOW HE EXPLAINS HIS ROLE AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING AND JUDY THERE'S A QUESTION AMONG THE CROWD, IS THIS A PERSON THAT WILL PLEAD THE FIFTH OUT OF FEAR OF PERJURY CHARGES BECAUSE OF HIS PAST TESTIMONIES.

WE HAVE NO INDICATION HE'S GOING TO DO THAT.

ALL INDICATION POINTS OTHERWISE THAT HE'LL PROVIDE TESTIMONY BUT IT SHOWS THE ISSUES OVER THE WITNESS IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION FOR GORDON SONDLAND AND THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TODAY.

>> AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION BECAUSE OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT WHO IF I MAY USE THE TERM TURN ON HIM, HE IN TURN HAS GONE AFTER THEM AND WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH OTHER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL WHO'S HAVE TESTIFIED.

THE CAMERAS ARE CLICKING AWAY.

WE'RE AWAITING TO SEE IF THEY'LL [GAVEL] THIS TO ORDER.

WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AND COME TO YOU LATER AND LET YOU RUN OVER TO THE HEARING ROOM.

AND ADAM SCHIFF IS ABOUT TO GAVEL THE COMMITTEE IN.

THIS LOOKS LIKE AT LEAST A MANY CAMERAS AS WE'VE SEEN BEFORE.

THIS IS THE RITUAL BEFORE EVERY ONE OF THE MEETING WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO RECORD THE OPENING MOMENTS AS THE HEARING GETS UNDERWAY.

QUICKLY TO YOU, WE ARE SECONDS AWAY FROM THIS BEGINNING.

GORDON SONDLAND IS NOT SOMEONE WHO HAD SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT FOR A LONG TIME BUT DID MAKE A BIG CONTRIBUTION AT THE TIME OF HIS INAUGURATION.

>> HE DONATED MORE THAN $1 MILLION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND SEEN AS AN ALLIE OF THE PRESIDENT BUT HE'S EXPECTED TO TESTIFY HE WAS WORKING AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PUSHING THE UKRAINIANS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE MILITARY AID FOR THE INVESTIGATION.

GORDON SONDLAND WILL HAVE EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT WILL BE WATCHING AND THE PRESIDENT THOUGH HE OFFERED TO QUESTIONS IN WRITTEN TESTIMONY WILL PROBABLY NOT DO THAT.

THAT'S THE WHITE HOUSE'S RESPONSE THIS MORNING.

>> MICHELLE, THIS IS AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND.

A BUSINESSMAN FROM WASHINGTON STATE WHO GOT INVOLVED IN AMERICAN POLITICS AND DIPLOMACY UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NAMED AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

>> THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER THIS IS THE FIFTH OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS AT ANY TIME.

THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT.

WE'LL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME FASHION AS OTHER HEARINGS.

I'LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND WE'LL TURN TO THE WITNESS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN TO QUESTIONS.

FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AN RESPECT YOUR TRIN BEING HERE AND IN TURN WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT.

IT'S INTENT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS.

I'LL MAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND MAKE SURE THE COMMITTEE IS RUN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF DONALD J. TRUMP THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE'LL HEAR FROM GORDON SONDLAND THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND WE'RE HEAR AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP SOUGHT TO CONDITION AID TO UKRAINE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN EXCHANGE FOR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS TRUMP BELIEVED WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THE FIRST ALLEGATION WAS OF A CONSPIRACY THEORY UKRAINE NOT RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 2016 ELECTION AND SECOND INVESTIGATION WAS INTO A POLITICAL RIVAL HE FEARED MOST JOE BIDEN.

TRUMP SOUGHT TO WEAKEN BIDEN AND REFUTE THE FACT HIS OWN ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN 2016 HAD BEEN HELPED BY RUSSIAN HACKING AND RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT PUTIN AND IT UNDERCUT ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.

TRUMP PUT HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES AND AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD SAY AFTER SPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP DIDN'T GIVE AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT THE UKRAINE AND CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATIONS RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS A SKILLED DEAL MAKER IN IN TRYING TO SATISFY A DIRECTIVE FROM THE PRESIDENT FOUND HIMSELF DEVIATING FROM THE NORM IN POLICY AND PROCESS.

IN FEBRUARY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TRAVELED TO UKRAINE ON HIS FIRST OFFICIAL TRIP AND WHILE UP IN KIEV HE FOUND MARIEIO -- AND HE SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO CONGRATULATED HIM AND SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO ATTENDING DE IN SKI'S INAUGURATION BUT PLEDGED TO SEND SOMEONE AT A HIGH LEVEL.

BETWEEN THE TIME OF THAT CALL AND THE INAUGURAL ON MAY 20, TRUMP'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS UKRAINE HARDENED.

ON MAY 13 THE PRESIDENT ORDERED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE NOT TO ATTEND ZELEZELENSKY.

AFTER RETURNING FROM THE INAUGURATION, MEMBERS OF THE U.S. DELEGATION BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE NEW INTERACTIONS WITH THE UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION AND URGED THE PRESIDENT TO MEET WITH ZELENSKY.

THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER WAS CLEAR HOWEVER, TALK WITH RUDY.

DURING THIS MEETING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FIRST BECAME AWARE OF WHAT GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT WERE INTERESTED IN.

IT WAS A CONTINUUM AS HE TESTIFIED STARTING AT THE MAY 23 MEETING AND ENDING UP AT THE END OF THE LINE WHEN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL CAME OUT.

IT WAS A CONTINUUM HE WOULD EXPLAIN THAT BECAME MORE INSIDIOUS OVER TIME.

THE THREE AMIGOS WERE DISAPPOINTED AND THEY SAID WE CAN ABANDON THE MEETING WITH ZELENSKY OR DO AS PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED AND TALK TO MR. GIULIANI TO ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS.

WE CHOSE THE LATTER PATH.

IN THE COMING WEEKS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GOT MORE CLEARLY INVOLVED IN UKRAINE POLICY MAKING STARTING WITH THE JUNE 4 MISSION TO THE E.U.

INDEPENDENCE DAY IN BRUSSELS ONE DAY EARLY.

SECRETARY PERRY AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT COUNSELOR MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO SONDLAND INVITED PERSONALLY.

ON JUNE 10, 2019 THEY ARRANGED A PHONE CALL WITH SECRETARY SONDLAND AND REVIEWED STRATEGY AND DECIDED PERRY, SONDLAND AND VOLKER WOULD DISCUSS TRUMP'S DESIRE FOR RUDY GIULIANI TO BE SOMEHOW INVOLVED.

AT THE END OF THE CALL ACCORDING TO SONDLAND WE ALL FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THE STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD.

TWO WEEKS LATER ON JUNE 27, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CALLED TAYLOR TO SAY QUOTE, ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP HE WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WAY OF INVESTIGATIONS.

ON JULY 10, AMBASSADOR SOPLAND AND OTHER OFFICIALS MET WITH U.S. AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING TOLD US AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INVOKED WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND THE MEETING WOULD HAPPEN ONLY IF UKRAINE UNDERTOOK CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS AND SONDLAND BROUGHT THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION DOWN AND WAS MORE EXPLICIT.

THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE THE INTERFERENCE TO GET A MEETING AT ALL.

FOLLOWING THE MEETING IN JULY, HE SAID HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF ANY DRUG DEAL THEY WERE COOKING UP.

SONDLAND AND OTHERS WERE PRESS FORG A MEETING BUT THEY SETTLED FOR A PHONE CALL.

ON JULY 21, TAYLOR TEXTED SONDLAND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY NOT ONLY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF WASHINGTON POLITICS.

SONDLAND REAPPLIED ABSOLUTELY -- R REPLIED WE NEED TO GET ZELENSKY AND TRUMP TO MEET AND ALL THIS CAN BE FIXED.

ON JULY 25, THE DAY OF THE TRUMP-ZELENSKY CALL, VOLKER HAD LUNCH IN KIEV AND LATER TEXTED TO SAY HE HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ASSUMING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONVINCES TRUMP HE'LL INVESTIGATE WE'LL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON.

GOOD LUCK.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE CALL WAS PLACED BUT NOT ON THE CALL.

DURING THAT NOW INFAMOUS PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY TRUMP RESPONDED AND REQUEST TO BUY MORE MISSILES BY SAYING I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH.

TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORY AND LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.

NONE HAD BEEN PART OF THE OFFICIAL PREPARATORY MATERIAL BUT WERE IN DONALD TRUMP'S INTEREST AND IN THE INTEREST OF HIS CAMPAIGN AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DEMANDING.

AROUND THIS TIME AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BECAME AWARE OF THE SUSPENSION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WHICH HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED ON THE SECURE INTERAGENCY VIDEO CONFERENCE TELLING US IT WAS ODD NOBODY INVOLVED IN MAKING OR IMPLEMENTING POLICY FOR AID TO UKRAINE KNEW WHY IT WAS ON HOLD AND AFTER TEXT MESSAGES AN CONFERENCE CALLS THE GIST OF WHENEVER CALL WAS GOING TO GO IN THE PRESS STATEMENT.

AUGUST 9 THEY SAID POTUS WANTS THE DELIVERABLE WHICH WAS A DELIVERABLE PUBLIC STATEMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO SEE OR HEAR BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING COULD HAPPEN.

ON SEPTEMBER 1, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PARTICIPATED IN VICE PRESIDENT'S BILATERAL MEETING IN WARSAW WHERE HE RAISED THE SUSPENDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND FOLLOWING THE MEETING HE APPROACHED A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL SAYING WHAT HE BELIEVED COULD HELP THEM MOVE THE AID IS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD GO TO THE MIC AND ANNOUNCE HE WAS OPENING THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION.

SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR HE MADE A MISTAKE BY TELLING UKRAINIANS AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WAS DEPENDENT ON A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS.

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

BUT EVEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD NOT SATISFY THE PRESIDENT.

ON SEPTEMBER 7, SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT AND TOLD TIM MORRISON AND BILL TAYLOR ABOUT THE CALL TELECAST.

THE PRESIDENT SAID THOUGH IT WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR IT UP IN PUBLIC WE'D BE AT A STALEMATE AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS TO PERSONALLY ANNOUNCE HE'D OPEN THE INVESTIGATIONS.

SONDLAND SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY BUSINESSMAN.

WHEN A BUSINESSMAN IS ABOUT TO SIGN A CHECK THE BUSINESSMAN HAS THAT PERSON TO PAY UP BEFORE SIGNING THE CHECK.

THE CHECK, REFERRED TO HERE, WAS THE U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND UKRAINE HAD TO PAY UP WITH INVESTIGATIONS.

AROUND SEPTEMBER VOLCKER AND SONDLAND LOOKED TO CLOSE UP THE DEEP AFTER THE TEXTS ON SEPTEMBER 9 IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

SIX DAYS LATER THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WAS MADE PUBLIC AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LEARN THE TRUTH HOW OUR PRESIDENT TRIED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A VULNERABLE ALLIE.

IT'S UP TO CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHAT RESPONSE IS APPROPRIATE.

IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER AND SOUGHT TO CONDITION, COERCE OR BRIBE AN ALLIE INTO HELP HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS OR WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR NEEDED MILITARY AID, IT WILL BE UP TO US TO DECIDE WHETHER THOSE ACT COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

FINALLY, I WANT TO SAY A WORD ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY POMPEO'S OBSTRUCTION OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A SINGLE DOCUMENT FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S OPENING STATEMENT TODAY WILL MAKE CLEAR, THOSE DOCUMENTS BEAR DIRECTLY ON THIS INVESTIGATION AND THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

I THINK WE KNOW NOW BASED ON A SAMPLE OF THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S STATEMENT, THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SCHEME WAS FAR AND WIDE AND INCLUDED AMONG OTHERS SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO AS WELL AS THE VICE PRESIDENT.

WE CAN SEE WHY SECRETARY POMPEO AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE MADE SUCH A CONCERTED AND ACROSS THE BOARD EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT THIS INVESTIGATION AND THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

I WILL JUST SAY THEY DO SO AT THEIR OWN PERIL.

I REMIND THE PRESIDENT ARTICLE 3 AFFECTED NIXON REFUSING TO BE SUBPOENAED TO CONGRESS.

I WILL >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WELCOME.

I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE.

NOT REALLY NOT GLAD YOU'RE HERE BUT WELCOME TO THE FIFTH DAY OF THIS CIRCUS.

AS I NOTED BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE SPENT THREE YEARS ACCUSING PRESIDENT TRUMP OF BEING A RUSSIAN AGENT.

AFTER A YEARLONG INVESTIGATION THERE WAS A REPORT DESCRIBING IN DETAIL HOW THE RUSSIANS MEDDLED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND MAKING SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION TO IMPROVE OUR ELECTION SECURITY.

DENOUNCING THE REPORT AS A WHITE WASH AND ACCUSING REPUBLICANS OF SUBVERTING THE INVESTIGATION, THE DEMOCRATS ISSUED THEIR OWN REPORT FOCUSSING ON THEIR NOW-DEBUNK CONSPIRACY THEORY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INCLUDED WITH RUSSIA TO HACK THE ELECTION.

NOTABLY, THE DEMOCRATS VOWED AT THE TIME TO PRESENT A FURTHER, QUOTE, COMPREHENSIVE REPORT, UNQUOTE AFTER THEY FINISHED THEIR INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP'S TREASONOUS COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA.

FOR SOME IN EXPLICABLE REASON AFTER THE IM -- IMPLOSION OF A HOAX AND THEY CULMINATE IN THIGHS IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND THEIR MANIA TO ATTACK THE PRESIDENT.

NO CONSPIRACY THEORY IS TOO OUTLANDISH FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN THEY FLOATED THE POSSIBILITY OF MALFEASANCE BY TRUMP AND THEN SUDDENLY DROPPED THE ISSUE AND MOVED ON TO THEIR NEXT ASININE THEORY.

A SAMPLING OF THEIR INSINUATIONS INCLUDE THESE.

TRUMP, IS A LONGTIME RUSSIAN AGENT AS IN THE DOSSIER.

THEY GIVE THEM DETAILS OF THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BASED ACTIVITIES ON THE STOLEN DOCUMENTS.

TRUMP RECEIVED NEFARIOUS MATERIALS FROM THE RUSSIANS THROUGH A TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE.

TRUMP LAUNDERED RUSSIAN MONEY THROUGH REALITY DEALS.

TRUMP WAS BLACK MAILED BY RUSSIA THROUGH HIS FINANCIAL EXPOSURE AT DEUTSCHE BANK.

TRUMP CHANGED THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE PLATFORM TO HURT UKRAINE AND BENEFIT RUSSIA.

THE RUSSIANS LAUNDERED MONEY THROUGH THE NRA FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

TRUMP'S SON-IN-LAW LIED ABOUT HIS RUSSIAN CONTACT WHILE OBTAINING HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE.

A LONG LIST OF CHARGES, ALL FALSE.

I CAN GO ON AND ON BUT I'LL SPARE YOU FROM THESE MOMENTS.

CLEARLY, THESE LUDICROUS ACCUSATIONS DON'T REFLECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS HONESTLY SEARCHING NOR TRUTH.

THEY'RE THE ACTIONS OF PARTISAN EXTREMIST WHO'S HIJACKED THE COMMITTEE AND TRANSFORMED IT INTO THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE AND TURNED IT INTO A BEACHHEAD FOR OUSTING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

YOU HAVE TO KEEP THAT HISTORY IN MIND AS YOU CONSIDER THE DEMOCRATS LATEST CATALOG OF SUPPOSED TRUMP OUTRAGES.

GRANTED, A FRIENDLY CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WOULDN'T SEEM TO RISE TO THE SAME LEVEL AS A RUSSIAN AGENT BUT IF THE DEMOCRATS WAITED LONGER THEIR IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS WOULD INTERVENE WITH THEIR OWN CANDIDATES' 2020 CAMPAIGNS.

YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM POINTS FOR CREATIVITY IN SELLING THIS ABSURDITY AS AN IMPEACHMENTABLE OFFENSE.

IT EXPLAINS WHY THEY'VE GATHERED ZERO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT HEARING.

THE VOTE WAS A BIPARTISAN VOTE AGAINST THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

SPEAKER PELOSI AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS BEHIND THE CRUSADE, ALL PROCLAIM IMPEACHMENT IS SO DAMAGING TO THE COUNTRY IT CAN ONLY PROCEED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

FOR THOSE DECLARATIONS SUDDENLY NO LONGER TRUE?

DID IMPEACHMENT BECOME LESS DIVISIVE?

OF COURSE NOT.

THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF DAMAGE THEY'RE INFLICTING ON THIS NATION BUT THEY PASSED THE POINT OF NO RETURN.

AFTER THREE YEARS OF PREPARATION WORK, MUCH SPEARHEADED BY THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE USING ALL THE TOOLS OF CONGRESS TO ACCUSE, INVESTIGATE, INDICT AND SMEAR THE PRESIDENT, THEY STOKED A FRENZY AMONGST THEIR MOST FANATICAL SUPPORTERS THEY CAN NO LONGER CONTROL.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND YOU ARE HERE TODAY TO BE SMEARED.

WE'LL MAKE IT THROUGH IT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY AND I AM SORRY YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS.

IN CLOSING DEMOCRATS ZEROED IN ON AN ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT COOKED UP IN COOPERATION WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS VERY COMMITTEE.

THEY LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THAT COOPERATION AND REFUSE TO LET US QUESTION THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH.

MEANWHILE THE DEMOCRATS LASH OUT AGAINST ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS OR CASTS DOUBT ON THIS SPECTACLE.

WHEN UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DENIES ANYTHING IMPROPER HAPPENED ON THE PHONE CALL THE DEMOCRATS SAY HE'S A LAY -- LIAR.

WHEN JOURNALISTS REPORT ON HUNTER BIDEN'S POSITION ON THE BOARD OF CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANIES THEY LABEL THEM CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.

WHEN THE DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET TRACTION FOR THEIR ALLEGATIONS OF QUID QUO PROTHEY MOVE THE GOALPOST AND ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF EXTORTION AND BRIBERY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEND US TO WASHINGTON TO SOLVE PROBLEMS NOT WAGE POLITICAL WARFARE AGAINST THE OTHER PARTY.

THIS IS NOT HELPING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND A LEGITIMATE USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND NOT IMPROVING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

OUR FIRST PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON SECURED A TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

IF MY DEMOCRATS COLLEAGUES WERE AROUND IN 1974 THEY PROBABLY WANT TO IMPEACH HIM TOO.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS MORNING WE TRANSMITTED TO YOU A LETTER EXERCISING OUR RIGHTS UNDER H-RES 60 AND WE DO THIS BECAUSE FAILED TO PROVIDE FAIRNESS AND WE NEED TO SPREE HUNTER BIDEN FOR CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITIONS AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM THE DNC, AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND IN THE INTEREST OF SOME BASIC LEVEL OF FAIRNESS WE EXPECT YOU TO CONCUR WITH THESE SUBPOENAS.

AND I'LL SUBMIT THAT LETTER FOR THE RECORD AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> I'LL THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

WE'RE JOINED THIS AFTERNOON BY AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND.

I'M SORRY, THIS MORNING.

IT WAS A LONG DAY YESTERDAY.

GORDON SONDLAND IS THE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR.

BEFORE JOINING THE STATE DEPARTMENT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS THE FOUNDER AND CEO OF PROVIDENCE HOTELS A NATIONAL OWNER AND OPERATOR OF FULL SERVICE HOTELS AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ED ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE EXERCISES.

WITNESS DEPOSITIONS WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL.

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

SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TESTIFYING BEFORE YOUR COLLEAGUES.

IF YOU'LL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I'LL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM 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 THE WITNESS HAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.

MICROPHONE IS SENSITIVE SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO IT.

WOULD OBJECTION YOUR STATEMENT WILL BE MADE INTO A WRITTEN RECORD.

YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU RANKING MEMBER NUNES.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AGAIN TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.

FIRST, LET ME OFFER MY THANKS TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE WHO HAVE COMMITTED THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIES TO SUPPORT THE FOREIGN POLICY WORK OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN PARTICULAR I WANT TO THANK MY STAFF TO THE MISSION OF THE EUROPE UNION.

YOUR HARD WORK OFTEN PERFORMED WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCLAIM OR RECOGNITION SERVE AS A SHINING EXAMPLE OF TRUE PUBLIC SERVICE AND I'M PERSONALLY GRATEFUL TO WORK BESIDE YOU EACH AND EVERY DAY.

IT IS MY HONOR TO SERVE AS THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

THE U.S. MISSION TO THE E.U.

IS THE DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBERS.

AMERICA'S LONGEST STANDING ALLIES IN ONE OF THE LARGEST ECONOMIC BLOCS IN THE WORLD.

EVERY DAY I WORK TO SUPPORT A STRONG UNITED AND PEACEFUL EUROPE.

STRENGTHENING OUR TIES WITH EUROPE SERVES BOTH AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN GOALS AS WE TOGETHER PROMOTE POLITICAL STABILITY AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AROUND THE WORLD.

I EXPECT THAT FEW AMERICANS HAVE HEARD MY NAME BEFORE THESE EVENTS SO BEFORE I BEGIN, MY SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY LET ME SHARE SOME OF MY PERSONAL BACKGROUND.

MY PARENTS FLED EUROPE DURING THE HOLOCAUST.

ESCAPING THE ATROCITIES OF THAT TIME, MY PARENTS LEFT GERMANY FOR URUGUAY AND THEN IN 1953 IMMIGRATED TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON WHERE I WAS BORN AND RAISED.

LIKE SO MANY IMMIGRANTS, MY FAMILY WAS EAGER FOR FREEDOM AND HUNGRY FOR OPPORTUNITY.

THEY RAISED MY SISTER AND ME TO BE HUMBLE, HARD WORKING AND PATRIOTIC.

AND I AM FOREVER GRATEFUL FOR THE SACRIFICES THEY MADE ON OUR BEHALF.

PUBLIC SERVICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IMPORTANT TO ME.

AS A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN, I'VE CONTRIBUTED TO INITIATIVES OF BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.

IN 2003 I SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE TRANSITION TEAM FOR OREGON DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR TED KULINGOWSKI WHO APPOINTED ME TO SERVE ON STATEWIDE BOARDS.

IN 2007 PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH APPOINTED ME TO THE COMMISSION ON WHITE HOUSE FELLOWS.

I WORKED WITH PRESIDENT BUSH ON CHARITABLE EVENT FOR HIS FOUNDATION'S MILITARY SERVICE INITIATIVE AND ALSO WORKED BRIEFLY WITH FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT'S NATIONWIDE ANTI-CANCER INITIATIVE AT A LOCAL NORTHWEST HOSPITAL.

AND OF COURSE, THE HIGHEST HONOR IN MY PUBLIC LIFE CAME WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED KNOW SERVE AS THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

THE SENATE CONFIRMED ME AS AN AMBASSADOR ON A BIPARTISAN VOICE VOTE AND I ASSUMED THE ROLE IN BRUSSELS JULY 9, 2018.

THOUGH TODAY IS MY FIRST PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE UKRAINE MATTERS, THIS IS NOT MY FIRST TIME COOPERATING WITH THIS COMMITTEE.

AS YOU KNOW, I'VE ALREADY PROVIDED 10 HOURS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND I DID SO DESPITE DIRECTIVES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT I REFUSED TO APPEAR AS MANY OTHERS HAVE DONE.

I AGREED TO TESTIFY BECAUSE I RESPECT THE GRAVITY OF THE MOMENT AND I BELIEVE I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ACCOUNT FULLY FOR MY ROLE IN THESE EVENTS.

I ALSO MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN CHALLENGING.

AND IN MANY RESPECTS LESS THAN FAVOR.

I HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE RECORDS, STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS AND MANY OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS.

I WAS TOLD I WOULD NOT WORK WITH MY E.U.

STAFF TO PUT TOGETHER THE RELEVANT FILES AND INFORMATION.

HAVING ACCESS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT MATERIALS WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO ME IN TRYING TO RECONSTRUCT WITH WHOM I SPOKE AND MET AND WHEN AND WHAT WAS SAID.

AS AMBASSADOR, I'VE HAD HUNDREDS OF MEETINGS AND CALLED -- CALLS WITH INDIVIDUALS BUT I'M NOT A NOTE TAKER OR MEMO WRITER.

NEVER HAVE BEEN.

MY JOB REQUIRES I SPEAK WITH HEADS OF STATE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, THE PRESIDENT ALMOST EACH AND EVERY DAY.

TALKING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS MAY BE MEMORABLE TO SOME PEOPLE BUT THIS IS MY JOB.

I DO IT ALL THE TIME.

MY LAWYERS AND I AHEAD MULTIPLE REQUEST TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND WHITE HOUSE FOR THESE MATERIALS YET THESE MATERIALS ARE NOT ED -- NOT PROVIDED TO ME AND HAVE REFUSED TO SAR THE MATERIALS WITH THE COMMITTEE.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AND IN FAIRNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AND IN ABSENCE OF THESE MY MEMORY HAS BEEN DIFFICULT AND A MORE ORDERLY PROCESS OF ALLOWING ME TO READ THE STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS AND OTHER MATERIALS WOULD HAVE MADE THIS PROCESS FAR MORE TRANSPARENT.

I DON'T INTEND TO REPEAT MY PRIOR STATEMENT OR SUMMARIZE 10 HOURS OF PREVIOUS TESTIMONY BUT SOME POINTS HAVE OBSCURED BY NOISE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS AND WEEKS AND WORRIED THE BIGGER PICTURE IS BEING IGNORED SO LET ME MAKE A FEW KEY POINTS.

FIRST, SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLCKER AND I WORKED WITH RUDY GIULIANI ON UKRAINE MATTERS AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE DID NOT WANT TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI.

SIMPLY PUT, WE WERE PLAYING THE HAND WE WERE DEALT.

WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT IF WE REFUSED TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI, WE WOULD LOSE A VERY IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO CEMENT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE SO WE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS.

SECOND, THOUGH WE DISAGREED WITH THE NEED TO INVOLVE MR. GIULIANI, AT THE TIME WE DID NOT BELIEVE HIS ROLE WAS IMPROPER.

AS A PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, IF I HAD KNOWN ALL OF MR. GIULIANI'S DEALINGS OR ASSOCIATIONS WITH INDIVIDUALS SOME OF WHOM ARE NOW UNDER CRIMINAL INDICTMENT, I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT HAVE ACQUIESCED TO HIS PARTICIPATION.

STILL, GIVEN WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME, WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO DID NOT APPEAR TO BE WRONG.

THIRD, LET ME SAY PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK WE WERE ENGAGING IN IMPROPER BEHAVIOR, WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THE RELEVANT DECISION MAKER AT NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND STATE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE IMPORTANT DETAILS OF OUR EFFORTS.

THE SUGGESTION THAT WE WERE ENGAGED IN SOME IRREGULAR OR ROGUE DIPLOMACY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

I HAVE NOW IDENTIFIED CERTAIN STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS AND MESSAGES THAT PROVIDE CONTEMPORANEOUS SUPPORT FOR MY VIEW.

THESE E-MAILS SHOW THE LEADERSHIP AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE HOUSE WERE ALL INFORMED ABOUT THE UKRAINE EFFORTS FROM MAY 23, 2019 UNTIL THE SECURITY AID WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019.

I WILL QUOTE FROM SOME OF THOSE MESSAGES WITH YOU SHORTLY.

FOURTH, AS A TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, MR. GIULIANI'S REQUEST A QUID PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND MR. GIULIANI DEMANDED UKRAINE MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION DNC SERVER AND BURISMA.

MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WE KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

FIFTH, IN JULY AND AUGUST OF 2019, WE LEARN THE WHITE HOUSE HAD ALSO SUSPENDED SECURITY AID TO UKRAINE.

I WAS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY SUSPENSION OF AID.

I WAS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY SUSPENSION OF AID AS THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED THOSE FUNDS TO FIGHT AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

I TRIED DILIGENTLY TO ASK WHERE THE AID WAS SUSPENDED BUT NEVER RECEIVED A CLEAR ANSWER.

STILL HAVEN'T TO THIS DAY.

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID, I LATER CAME TO BELIEVE THE RESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND BURISMA AS MR. GIULIANI DEMANDED.

I SHARED CONCERNS OF THE POTENTIAL QUID PRO QUO REGARDING THE SECURITY AID WITH SENATOR JOHNSON AND SHARED MY CONCERNS WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

FINALLY AT ALL TIME I WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

WE WORKED WITH MR. GIULIANI BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED US TO DO SO.

WE HAD NO DESIRE TO SET ANY CONDITIONS.

WE HAD NO DESIRE TO SET ANY CONDITIONS ON THE UKRAINIANS.

IN FACT MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW I SHARED WITH OTHERS IS THE WHITE HOUSE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE SHOULD HAVE PRECEDED WITHOUT PRE CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND.

WE WERE WORKING TO OVERCOME THE PROBLEMS GIVEN THE FACTS AS THEY EXISTED.

OUR ONLY INTEREST AND MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO ADVANCE LONGSTANDING U.S. POLICY AND SUPPORT UKRAINE'S FRAGILE DEMOCRACY.

LET ME PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT UKRAINE AND MY INVOLVEMENT.

FIRST, MY VERY FIRST DAYS AS AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U.

STARTING BACK IN JULY OF 2018, UKRAINE WAS FEATURED PROMINENTLY IN MY BROADER PORTFOLIO.

UKRAINE'S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARE CRITICAL TO THE LONG STANDING AND LONG LASTING STABILITY OF EUROPE.

MOREOVER, THE CONFLICT IN EASTERN UKRAINE AND CRIMEA REMAINS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SECURITY CRISES FOR EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES.

THE AGGRESSION AND RUSSIA DEPENDS ON A STRONG UKRAINE.

IN 2019, VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN AN HISTORIC ELECTION.

WITH THE EXPRESS SUPPORT OF SECRETARY POMPEO I ATTEND THE INAUGURATION MAY 20th AS PART OF THE U.S. DELEGATION LED BY ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY.

THE U.S. DELEGATION ALSO INCLUDED SENATOR JOHNSON, UKRAINE SPECIAL ENVOY VOLKER AND LIEUTENANT VINDMAN.

MY ATTENDANCE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION WAS NOT MY FIRST INVOLVEMENT WITH UKRAINE.

AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, FOUR DAYS AFTER ASSUMING MY POST AS AMBASSADOR IN JULY OF 2018, I RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL DELEGATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THEN-UKRAINE PRESIDENT PORSHENKO AND ARRANGE STAFF AND I'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS SINCE THEN IN BRUSSELS.

LATER IN FEBRUARY OF 2019 I WORKED WITH U.S.

AMBASSADOR M MARIE YOVANOVITCH AND THE REASON I BRING THESE MEETINGS UP IS TO EMPHASIZE UKRAINE HAS BEEN A PART OF MY PORTFOLIO SINCE THE FIRST DAYS AS U.S.

AMBASSADOR.

ANY CLAIM I SOMEHOW MUSCLED MY WAY INTO THE UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP IS SIMPLY FALSE.

THE DELEGATION DEVELOPED A POSITIVE VIEW OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

WE WERE IMPRESSED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S COMMITMENT TO REFORM AND WERE EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE MAKING THE CHANGES NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A GREATER WESTERN ECONOMIC INVESTMENT AND WE WERE EXCITED THAT UKRAINE MIGHT AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF LIP SERVICEY FINALLY GET SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING ITS OWN WELL-KNOWN CORRUPTION PROBLEMS.

WITH THAT ENTHUSIASM, WE RETURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE MAY 23 TO BRIEF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

Y WE ADVISE THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE AND THE VALUE OF STRENGTHENING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

TO SUPPORT THIS REFORM WE ASKED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR TWO THINGS.

FIRST, A WORKING PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND SECOND A WORKING OVAL OFFICE VISIT.

BOTH DEMONSTRATED SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN THE FACE OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND BROADER U.S. POLICY INTERESTS.

UNFORTUNATELY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SKEPTICAL.

HE EXPRESSED CONCERNS THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT REFORM AND EVEN MENTIONED UKRAINE TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN IN THE LAST ELECTION.

IN RESPONSE TO OUR PERSISTENT EFFORTS IN THAT MEETING TO CHANGE HIS VIEWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED US TO QUOTE, TALK WITH RUDY.

WE UNDERSTOOD TALK WITH RUDY MEANT TALK WITH GG, THE PRESIDENT'S -- RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

LET ME SAY AGAIN, WE WEREN'T HAPPY WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE TO TALK WITH RUDY.

WE DID NOT WANT TO INVOLVE MR. GIULIANI.

I BELIEVED THEN AS I DO NOW, THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERSONAL MATTERS.

NONETHELESS BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION WE COULD SCHEDULE THE VISIT BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY, WHICH WAS UNQUESTIONABLY IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OR WE COULD DO AS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DIRECTED AND TALKED WITH RUDY.

WE CHOSE THE LATTER COURSE.

NOT BECAUSE WE LIKED IT BUT IT WAS THE ONLY CONSTRUCTIVE PATH OPEN TO US.

OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I WERE IN COMMUNICATION WITH MR. GIULIANI.

SECRETARY PERRY VOLUNTEERED TO MAKE THE INITIAL CALLS WITH MR. GIULIANI GIVEN THEIR PRIOR RELATIONSHIP.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER MADE SEVERAL OF THE EARLY CALLS AND GENERALLY INFORMED US OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

I FIRST COMMUNICATED WITH MR. GIULIANI IN EARLY AUGUST, SEVERAL MONTHS LATER.

MR. GIULIANI EMPHASIZED THE PRESIDENT WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTING UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO THE CORRUPTION ISSUES.

MR. GIULIANI SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE 2016 ELECTION INCLUDING THE DNC SERVER AND BURISMA AS TWO TOPICS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT.

WE KEPT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NFC INFORMED OF OUR ACTIVITIES.

AND THAT INCLUDED COMMUNICATIONS WITH SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, HIS COUNSELOR ORRICK BRECKBULL AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DR. HILL, MR. MORRISON AND THEIR STAFF AT THE NSC.

THEY KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING AND WHY.

ON JULY 10, 2019 SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS MET WITH AMBASSADOR COLE -- VOLKER AND OTHERS.

DURING THAT MEETING WE ALL DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TWO ACTION ITEMS I IDENTIFIED EARLIER.

ONE, A WORKING PHONE CALL AND TWO A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE MEETING WAS A POSITIVE STEP TOWARDS OUR GOALS.

WHILE I'M NOW FAMILIAR WITH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE MEETING, THEIR RECOLLECTIONS DON'T SQUARE WITH MY OWN OR WITH THOSE OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER OR SECRETARY PERRY.

I RECALL MENTIONING THE PREREQUISITE OF INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE ANY WHITE HOUSE CALL OR MEETING BUT I DO NOT RECALL YELLING OR SCREAMING OR ABRUPT TERMINATIONS.

INSTEAD, AFTER THE MEETING, AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND OTHERS WALKED OUT AND TOOK PICTURES ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.

MORE IMPORTANT, THE RECOLLECTIONS OF PROTESTS DO NOT SQUARE WITH THE DOCUMENTARY RECORD OF OUR ACTION THE NSC IN THE DAYS AND WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED.

WE KEPT THE NSC APPRISED OF OUR EFFORTS INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY OUR EFFORTS TO SECURE A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE UKRAINIANS THAT WOULD SATISFY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 13th, THREE DAYS AFTER THE JULY 10th MEETING, I E-MAILED TIM MORRISON, HE HAD JUST TAKEN OVER DR. HILL'S POST AND THE EURASIAN DIRECTOR AND MET HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WROTE TO HIM WITH THESE WORDS, AND THE MEETING BETWEEN POTUS SHOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN THE UKRAINE.

SOLE PURPOSE IS FOR ZELENSKY TO GIVE POTUS ASSURANCES OF CORRUPTION ENDING AND NEW SHERIFF IN SOUND AND UNBUNDLING MOVING FORWARD AND, AND I EMPHASIZE, ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TRANS PARENTALLY.

GOAL IS FOR POTUS IS TO INVITE HIM TO OVAL.

VOLKER AND PERRY AND I STRONGLY RECOMMEND.

MORRISON ACKNOWLEDGED AND SAID THANK YOU AND SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT HE WAS TRACKING THESE ISSUES.

AND THERE WAS NO SEEK OF INVESTIGATIONS I'VE SEEN OTHER DOCUMENTS DETAILING MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS.

ON JULY 10, THE SAME DAY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SECRETARY PERRY AND A WERE MEETING WITH THE UKRAINE OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS STILL TALKING WITH UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR YURI LUTSENKO AND HE WROTE TO US AS FOLLOWS.

JUST HAD A MEETING WITH ANDRIY AND VIDDIN PRISTAKO AND HE SAID THE UKRAINIANS WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT LUTSENKO TOLD THEM ACCORDING TO RG, MEANING RUDY GIULIANI, THE ZELENSKY-POTUS MEETING WILL NOT HAPPEN.

VOLKER RESPONDED, GOOD GRIEF, LET THE REPRESENTATIVES SPEAK FOR THE U.S. LUTSENKO HAS HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST HERE.

TAYLOR CONFIRMED HE HAD COMMUNICATED THAT MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS AND HE ADDED, I BRIEFED OLRICK THIS AFTERNOON ON THAT REFERRING TO COUNSELOR BRECKBULL.

AGAIN, EVERYBODY'S IN THE LOOP.

THREE THINGS ARE CLEAR.

FIRST, WHILE THE UKRAINIANS WERE IN WASHINGTON AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND VOLKER AND I WERE SURPRISED.

AND SECOND MR. GIULIANI WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE REPORTEDLY CORRUPT PROSECUTOR LUTSENKO AND DISCUSSING WHETHER A ZELENSKY-TRUMP MEETING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE AND THIRD WITH THIS ALARMING NEWS, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR BRIEFED COUNSELOR BRECHBUHL AND EVEN AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER 24th OF THIS YEAR, SECRETARY POMPEO, WAS DIRECTING KURT VOLKER TO SPEAK WITH MR. GIULIANI.

IN A WHAT'S APP MESSAGE, KURT VOLKER TOLD ME IN PART, SPOKE WITH RUDY PER GUIDANCE FROM S. S. IS THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S OFFICIAL DESIGNATOR FOR THE SECRETARY.

SPOKE TO RUDY PER GUIDANCE FROM S. LOOK, WE TRIED OUR BEST TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

WHILE KEEPING THE STATE DEPARTMENT APPRISED.

PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY HAD THEIR CALL AND I WAS NOT ON THE CALL AND I DON'T THINK I WAS INVITED TO BE ON THE CALL.

IN FACT, I FIRST READ THE TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 25, THE DAY IT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED.

ALL I HAD HEARD AT THAT TIME WAS THE CALL HAD GONE WELL.

LOOK BACK I FIND IT ODD NOR I OR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR OR VOLKER RECEIVED A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE CALL.

PEOPLE SAY THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL BUT NO ONE SHARED ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL WITH ME AT THE TIME WHICH FRANKLY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO KNOW.

JULY 26, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND VOLKER AND I WERE IN KIEV TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE TIMING OF THAT TRIP IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY WAS ENTIRELY COINCIDENTAL.

THE MEETINGS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED WELL BEFORE THE DATE THE WHITE HOUSE FINALLY MIXED THE CALL.

DURING OUR KIEV MEETING, I DO NOT RECALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DISCUSSING THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

NOR DID HE DISCUSS ANY REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WHICH WE ALL LATER LEARNED WAS DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORTED COMMENTS FROM AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND TAYLOR.

OFF THE THE ZEL EN SKI MEETING I ALSO MET WITH THE ZELENSKY AIDE ANDRIY YERMAK AND I BELIEVE THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROBABLY A PART OF THAT AGENDA OR MEETING.

ALSO, ON JULY 26, SHORTLY AFTER OUR KIEV MEETINGS, I SPOKE BY PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH IS FINALLY SHARED CERTAIN CALL DATES AND TIME WITH MY ATTORNEYS CONFIRMS THIS.

THE CALL LASTED FIVE MINUTES.

I REMEMBER I WAS AT A RESTAURANT IN KIEV AND HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE CONVERSATION INCLUDE THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATIONS.

AGAIN, GIVEN MR. GIULIANI'S DEMAND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, I KNEW THAT INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE DID NOT DISCUSS ANY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

OTHER WITNESSES HAVE RECENTLY SHARED THEIR RECOLLECTION OF OVERHEARING THIS CALL.

FOR THE MOST PART I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR ACCOUNTS.

IT'S TRUE THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS LOUDLY AT TIMES AND IT'S ALSO TRUE I THINK WE PRIMARILY DISCUSSED ASAP OR ROCKY.

IT'S TRUE THE PRESIDENT LIKES TO USE COLORFUL LANGUAGE.

ANYONE THAT HAS MET WITH HIM A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME KNOWS THIS.

WHILE I CANNOT REMEMBER THE PRECISE DETAILS THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT ALLOWED ME TO SEE ANY READ OUTS OF THE CALL AND THE JULY 26 CALL DID NOT STRIKE ME AT SIGNIFICANT AT THE TIME.

ACTUALLY, I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SURPRISED IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS PARTICULARLY FROM WHAT WE HEARD OF MR. GIULIANI ABOUT THE CONCERNS AND I HAVE NO DISCUSSION FROM THAT CALL.

I KNOW MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND FREQUENTLY FRAME THE COMPLICATED ISSUES IN THE FORM OF A SIMPLE QUESTION.

WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO.

AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY TO THE WHITE HOUSE CALL AND MEETING THE ANSWER IS YES MR. GIULIANI CONVEYED TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED A3= PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTING TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

MR. GIULIANI EXPRESSED THEM TO THE UKRAINIANS AND DIRECTLY TO US.

WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THESE PREREQUISITES REFLECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESIRES AND REQUIREMENTS.

WITHIN MY STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS, THERE'S A JULY 19 E-MAIL.

THIS E-MAIL WAS SENT TO SECRETARY POMPEO, SECRETARY PERRY, RYAN McCORMICK SECRETARY PERRY'S CHIEF OF STAFF AT THE TIME, MS. KENNA THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR SECRETARY POMPEO.

CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY AND MR. MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISER ROB BLAIR.

A LOT OF SENIOR OFFICIALS.

HERE'S MY EXACT QUOTE FROM THAT E-MAIL.

I TALKED TO ZELENSKY JUST NOW.

HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS' CALL.

WE'LL ASSURE HIM HE INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE.

HE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE A CALL PRIOR TO SUNDAY SO THAT HE CAN PUT OUT SOME MEDIA ABOUT A FRIENDLY AND PRODUCTIVE CALL, NO DETAILS, PRIOR TO UKRAINE ELECTION ON SUNDAY.

CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY RESPONDED, I ASK THE NSC TO SET IT UP FOR TOMORROW.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

IT WAS NO SECRET.

EVERYONE WAS INFORMED VIA E-MAIL JULY 19th, DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL.

AS I COMMUNICATED TO THE TAEAM,I TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN ADVANCE AN INVESTIGATION AND A TURN OVER OF EVERY STONE WERE NECESSARY IN HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ON JULY 19 IN A WHAT'S APP MESSAGE BETWEEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, VOLKER AND ME, AMBASSADOR VOLKER STATED, HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY THIS MORNING.

THAT'S AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND RUDY GIULIANI.

TEEING UP CALL WITH YERMAK MONDAY.

MUST HAVE HELP AND MOST IMPORTANT FOR ZELENSKY TO SAY HE'LL ADDRESS THE SITUATION AND ADDRESS PERSONNEL ISSUES IF THERE ARE ANY.

ON AUGUST 10, THE NEXT DAY, MR. YERMAK TEXTED ME, ONCE WE HAVE A DATE, WHICH IS THE DATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, WE WILL CALL FOR A PRESS BRIEFING ANNOUNCING UPCOMING VISIT AND OUTLINING THE VISION AND MEDDLING WITH INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS IS FROM MR. YERMAK TO ME.

THE FOLLOWING DAY, AUGUST 11, AND THIS IS CRITICAL, I SENT AN E-MAIL TO COUNSELOR BRECHBUHL AND LISA KENNA.

SHE WAS USED AS THE PATHWAY AS SOMETIMES HE PREFERRED TO GET HIS E-MAILS THROUGH HER.

SHE WOULD PRINT THEM OUT AND PUT THEM IN FRONT OF HIM.

WITH THE SUBJECT UKRAINE, I WROTE, MIKE, REFERRING TO MIKE POMPEO, KURT AND I NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT FROM ZELENSKY BEING DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A DAY OR TWO.

THE CONTENTS WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH.

THE BOSS BEING THE PRESIDENT, TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

ZELENSKY PLANS TO HAVE A BIG PRESSER, PRESS CONFERENCE, ON THE OPENNESS SUBJECT INCLUDING SPECIFICS NEXT WEEK ALL OF WHICH REFER TO THE 2016 AND THE BURISMA.

MS. KENNA REPLIED, GORDON, I'LL PASS TO THE SECRETARY.

THANK YOU.

AGAIN, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

CURIOUSLY, AND THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING TO ME, ON AUGUST 26, SHORTLY BEFORE HIS VISIT TO KIEV, AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE REQUESTED MR. GIULIANI'S CONTACT INFORMATION FROM ME.

I SENT AMBASSADOR BOLTON THE INFORMATION IMMEDIATELY.

THEY REQUESTED MR. GIULIANI'S CONTACT INFORMATION ON AUGUST 26.

I WAS FIRST INFORMED THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WITH HOLDING SECURITY AID TO UKRAINE DURING CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ON JULY 18, 2019.

HOWEVER, AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, I WAS NEVER ABLE TO OBTAIN A CLEAR ANSWER REGARDING THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR THE HOLD WHETHER IT WAS BUREAUCRATIC IN NATURE WHICH HAPPENS OR REFLECTED ANOTHER CONCERN IN THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS.

I NEVER PARTICIPATED IN ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT DOD OR DOS REVIEW MEETINGS OTHER HAVE DESCRIBED SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THOSE MEETINGS.

NONETHELESS, BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 1, WARSAW MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS HAD BECOME AWARE SECURITY FUNDS HAD YET TO BE DISPERSED.

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE HOLD, I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AID, LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT, WAS JEOPARDIZED.

IN PREPARATION FOR THE SEPTEMBER 1 WARSAW MEETING, I ASKED SECRETARY POMPEO WHETHER A FACE TO FACE CONVERSATION BETWEEN TRUMP AND ZELENSKY WOULD HELP TO BREAK THE LOGJAM.

THIS IS WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL INTENDING TO TRAVEL TO WARSAW.

SPECIFICALLY ON AUGUST 22, I E-MAILED SECRETARY POMPEO DIRECTLY COPYING SECRETARY KENNA.

I WROTE, THIS IS MY E-MAIL TO SECRETARY POMPEO, SHOULD WE BLOCK TIME IN WARSAW FOR A SHORT PULL-ASIDE FOR POTUS TO MEET ZELENSKY?

I WOULD ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM THAT ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE IN MID SEPTEMBER THAT HE, ZELENSKY, SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD PUBLICLY AND WITH CONFIDENCE ON THOSE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO POTUS IN THE U.S. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL HELP BREAK THE LOGJAM.

THE SECRETARY REPLIED, YES.

I FOLLOWED UP THE NEXT DAY ASKING TO GET 10 TO 15 MINUTES ON THE WARSAW SCHEDULE FOR THIS.

pI SAID, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN IT'S LOCKED SO I CAN TELL ZELENSKY AND BRIEF HIM.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY KENNA REPLIED, I'LL TRY FOR SURE.

MOREOVER, GIVEN MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SECURITY AID, I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE THAT PORTION OF SENATOR JOHNSON'S RECENT LETTER WHERE HE RECALLS CONVERSATIONS HE AND A HAD.

IN AUGUST MY BELIEF WAS IF UKRAINE DID SOMETHING TO DEMONSTRATE INVESTIGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AND BURISMA THE HOLD ON MILITARY AID WOULD BE LIFTED.

THERE WAS A SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW.

UNFORTUNATELY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTENDANCE WAS CANCELED DUE TO HURRICANE DORIAN.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE ATTENDED INSTEAD AND AN ADDRESSED CONCERNS THE DELAY IN AID HAD BECOME TIED TO THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS.

I RECALL MENTIONING THAT BEFORE THE ZELENSKY MEETING.

DURING THE ACTUAL MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE ISSUE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE DIRECTLY WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID HE'D SPEAK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT IT.

BASED ON MY PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION WITH SECRETARY POMPEO I FELT COMFORTABLE SHARING MY CONCERNS WITH M MR. YERMAK.

IT WAS A BRIEF PULL-ASIDE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED WITHIN A FEW SECONDS.

I TOLD MR. YERMAK I BELIEVED THE RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE UKRAINE TOOK ACTION ON THE PUBLIC STAGE WE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING MANY WEEKS.

AS MANY OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT COLLEAGUES HAVE TESTIFIED IT WAS CRITICAL TO UKRAINE'S DEFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELAYED.

I EXPRESSED THIS VIEW TO MANY DURING THIS PERIOD BUT MY GOAL AT THE TIME WAS TO DO WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO GET THE AID RELEASED AND BREAK THE LOGJAM.

I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION WAS ESSENTIAL TO ADVANCING THAT GOAL.

I REALLY REGRET THE UKRAINIANS WERE PLACED IN THAT PREDICAMENT BUT I DO NOT REGRET DOING WHAT I COULD TO TRY TO BREAK THE LOGJAM AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

I MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET THROUGHOUT THESE EVENTS WE KEPT STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS APPRISED OF WHAT WE WERE DOING.

STATE DEPARTMENT WAS FULLY SUPPORTIVE AND AWARE THAT COMMITMENT TO INVESTIGATIONS WAS AMONG THE ISSUES WE WERE PURSUING.

TO PROVIDE JUST TWO EXAMPLES, JUNE 5, THE DAY AFTER THE U.S. E.U.

MISSION HOSTED OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY A MONTH EARLY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHIL RI RIEKER SENT AN E-MAIL TO ME AND SECRETARY PERRY AND OTHERS WITH POSITIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ATTENDANCE OF THE EVENT AND HE WROTE, THIS HEADLINE UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE AND TIMELINESS OF ZELENSKY'S VISIT TO BUSSELS AND THE CRITICAL PERHAPS HISTORIC ROLE OF THE DINNER AND ENGAGEMENT GORDON COORDINATED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND DEDICATION TO THIS EFFORT.

MONTHS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 3 I SEND SECRETARY POMPEO BE A -- AN E-MAIL FOR APPRECIATION FOR THE MEETING FOLLOWING THE WARSAW TRIP.

I WROTE, MIKE, THANKS FOR SCHLEPPING TO EUROPE.

I THINK IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT AND THE CHEMISTRY SEEMS PROMISING.

REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

SECRETARY POMPEO REPLIED THE NEXT DAY WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, QUOTE, ALL GOOD.

YOU'RE DOING GREAT WORK.

KEEP BANGING AWAY.

STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP EXPRESSED TOTAL SUPPORT FOR OUR EFFORTS TO ENGAGE THE NEW UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION.

I NEVER DOUBT THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF STRENGTHENING OUR ALLIANCE WITH UKRAINE AND AT ALL TIMES OUR EFFORTS WERE IN GOOD FAITH AND FULLY TRANSPARENT TO THOSE TASKED WITH OVERSEEING THEM.

OUR EFFORTS WERE REPORTED AND APPROVED AND NOT ONCE DO I RECALL ENCOUNTERING AN OBJECTION.

OBJECTION.

IT REMAINS AN HONOR TO SEVER THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES' AND THE AMBASSADOR OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

>> WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

THERE WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE RANK MEMBER.

WE WILL ALLOW EQUAL TIME FOR ADD DID I GETTAL QUESTIONS UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR MAJORITY COUNCIL FOR THE OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> MR. SONDLAND I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER A LOT OF MATERIAL.

IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU TESTIFIED YOU FOUND YOURSELF ON A CONTINUUM AND MORE CONTINUOUS OVERTIME.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHEN YOU MEAN BY THE CONTINUUM OF INSIDIOUS.

>> WHEN WE LEFT THE OVAL OFFICE I BELIEVE ON MAY 23 THE REQUEST WAS GENERIC FOR THE INVESTIGATION IN A VANILLA SENSE.

AS TIME WENT ON MORE SPECIFIC ITEMS GOT ADDED TO THE MENU, INCLUDING THE BURISMA AND OVER THE CONTINUUM IT BECAME MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO SECURE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> OF COURSE ON JULY 25th, YOU WEREN'T PRIVILEGED TO THE CALL.

THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

>> I WAS NOT PRIVILEGED TO THE CALL AND I DIDN'T KNOW THE CONDITION OF INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS OF THE CONDITION.

>> YOU SAW THAT ON THE CALL RECORD?

>> IT WAS NOT IN ANY RECORD I SAW.

>> BUT IN SEPTEMBER.

YES.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTINUUM THIS IS WITH RUDY.

YOU UNDERSTOOD YOU NEEDED TO SATISFY THE CONCERNED RUDOLPH GIULIANI EXPRESSED ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO THE UKRAINE.

>> NOT ME THE ENTIRE GROUP VOLKER AND OTHERS.

>> THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND THE ELECTION THEY WERE PROMOTING.

>> CORRECT.

YOU SAY OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND CHIEFS OF STAFF ARTIST INCLUDING MICK MULVANEY WE ARE AWARE OF THE QUID PRO QUO TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE THE INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED?

>> CORRECT.

THOSE AGAIN ARE INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 AND BURISMA.

>> BURISMA NOT THE BIDENS.

T YOU WOULD LATER LEARN -- >> CORRECT.

YOU HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT MR. HOLMES ACCOUNT OF I DON'T RECALL MENTIONING THE BIDEN'S.

THAT DIDN'T ENTER MY MIND.

JUST THE BURISMA.

>> YOU HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION WHAT MR. HOLMES IS SAYING.

>> I DON'T RECALL BIDEN.

THE REST OF MR. HOLMES RECOLLECTION IS CONSISTENT.

>> I CAN'T CONFIRM WHAT HE HEARD THROUGH THE PHONE.

>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HIS TESTIMONY?

>> VAGUELY.

THE ONLY EXCEPTION YOU TAKE IS THE NAME BIDEN.

>> CORRECT.

I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING THAT NOT ONLY IS IT CORRECT THAT THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE PHONE ON THE JULY 25th PHONE.

>> RIGHT, WE HAD BEEN HEARING ABOUT IT FROM RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND WE PRESUMED HE WAS GETTING IT FROM THE PRESIDENT.

IT SEEMED LIKE A LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

>> HOLMES ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU TOLD HIM PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES BE DOESN'T CARE ABT UKRAINE BUT BIG STUFF THAT EFFECTS HIM PERSONALLY.

DO YOU DISPUTE THAT CONVERSATION?

>> HE MADE IT CLEAR IN THE MAY 23 MEETING THAT HE WASN'T FOND OF UKRAINE.

>> YOU DON'T DISPUTE THAT PART OF MR. HOLMES' RECOLLECTION?

>> NO.

IN AUGUST WHEN YOU DRAFTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT TO CONCLUDE THE INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS REQUIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE HE WOULD GRANT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE UKRAINIANS KNEW THAT AS WELL?

>> I BELIEVE SO.

YOU TOLD SECTARY POMPEO ABOUT THAT AS WELL?

>> I DID.

LATER YOU TOLD SECTARY POMPEO HE WOULD BE PREPARED TO TELL HIM HIS NEW JUSTICE OFFICIALS WOULD ABLE TO ANNOUNCE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT YOU MEANT THE INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT WANTED?

>> CORRECT.

THAT INCLUDES 2016 AND BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE LOGJAM YOU TALK ABOUT THE LOGJAM OF THE SECURITY SYSTEMS.

>> I WAS TACKING ABOUT THE LOGJAM IN TERMS OF EVERYTHING BECAUSE NOTHING WAS MOVING.

>> THAT INCLUDED THE SYSTEMS.

CORRECT.

THIS WASN'T THE FIRST TIME YOU DISCUSSED HIS INVESTIGATION WITH SECTARY POMPEO.

>> NO.

HE WAS AWARE OF THE CONNECTIONS YOU WERE MAKING BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATION AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> YES.

DID HE TAKE ISSUE WITH YOU AND SAY NO THAT CONNECTION IS NOT THERE?

>> NOT THAT I RECALL.

YOU ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND YOU RAISED A CONCERN THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD TO GET A COMMITMENT TO PURSUE THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

WHAT DID YOU SAY TO THE VICE PRESIDENT?

>> I WAS IN A BRIEFING WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE AND I JUST SPOKE UP AND SAID IT APPEARS THAT EVERYTHING HAS STALLED UNTIL THE STATEMENT GETS MADE OR SOMETHING THAT WORKS TO THAT EFFECT.

I SAID THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH IT BY RECALL.

YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE UKRAINIANS WITH THE ASSISTANCE.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD RAISE THEY DID RAISE IT MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> IT WAS PUBLIC THERE WAS A HOLD ON THE SECURITY FUNDS.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD RAISE.

I DIDN'T GET A PREBRIEF.

>> THEY ARE CONKERN -- CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOLD.

>> YOU WANTED TO PREPARE THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR THE MEETING ABOUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> THAT'S FAIR.

DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID WHEN YOU MADE HIM AWARE.

>> NO, I DON'T HAVE A READ OUT-OF-THE MEETING.

I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING ELSE.

>> VICE PRESIDENT YOU TOLD HIM IN ORDER TO RELEASE MILITARY ASSISTANCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> IT REALLY WASN'T A MEETING.

EVERYONE GOT UP AFTER THE MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT.

PEOPLE GET UP, MILL AROUND, SHEA SHAKE HAND.

I'M NOT SURE IF I CAME OVER YOU YERMAK AND HE ASKED WHAT WAS GOING ON.

I SAID I DON'T KNOW.

IT WAS A SHORT CONVERSATION.

>> IN THAT SHORT CONVERSATION IT LATER RELATED TO MR. MORRISON AND TAYLOR THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE AID, DID THAT NOT.

>> MR. MR.

EARLIER WAS ALREADY WORKING ON THESE.

>> YOU TOLD HIM HE NEEDED TO GET IT DONE.

>> LIKELY.

MR. MORRISON AND TAYLOR ALSO SPOKE ABOUT A CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWING THE MEETING.

THE PRESIDENT RELATED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT NEVER THE LESS UNLESS ZELENSKY WENT TO THE MIKE AND ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION THERE WOULD BE A STALEMATE OF THE AID.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WELL, THAT E-MAIL WASN'T WRITTEN AND I'M THE FIRST TO ADMIT IT.

I WANTED TO TELL AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AFTER HIS FRANTIC E-MAIL ABOUT THE ASSISTANCE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD IDEA TO HOLD THE MONEY.

I FINALLY CALLED THE PRESIDENT AND BELIEVE IT WAS ON THE NINTH OF SEPTEMBER.

I BELIEVE I JUST ASKED HIM AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN.

WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE.

I KEEP HEARING ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT IDEAS.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

IT WAS A VERY SHORT CONVERSATION.

HE WASN'T IN A GOOD MOOD AND HE JUST SAID I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID.

TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

SO, I TYPED OUT A TEXT TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MY REASON FOR TELLING HIM THIS WAS NOT DESERVE FEND WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING, NOT TO FIGURE OUT IF THE PRESIDENT WAS TRUTHFUL OR UNTRUTHFUL BUT RELAY I GOT AS FAR AS I COULD GO.

THERE IS THE FINAL WORD I HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IF YOU ARE STILL CONCERNED PLEASE GET AHOLD OF THE SECTARY AND MAYBE HE CAN HELP.

>> I'M NOT ASKING YOU ABOUT YOUR TEXT MASSAGE.

I'M ASKING ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EITHER IN THAT CALL OR A DIFFERENT CALL.

>> I'M CONFUSED.

WHICH CONVERSATION WITH MR. MORRISON AND TAYLOR?

>> MR. MORRISON RELATED A CONVERSATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU NO QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MUST GO TO A MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS AND HE SHOULD WANT TO.

SIMILARLY YOU TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHILE THE PRESIDENT SAID NO QUID PRO QUO, UNLESS ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS THEY WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE OVER THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

DO YOU HAVE A REASON TO QUESTION THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY TOOK NOTES ABOUT?

>> I THINK IT'S TIED TO MY TEXT.

IN MY TEXT I SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU WANT ZELENSKY TO DO WHAT HE RAN ON WHICH IS TRANSPARENCY ETC, ETC.

HE WANTED THE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO BE MADE.

>> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE TEXT MASSAGES.

I'M ASKING ABOUT WHAT YOU RELAYED TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. MORRISON ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT I EXPRESSED WHAT I TOLD OR WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME IN THE TEXT.

IF I HAD RELAYED ANYTHING OTHER THAN IN THE TEXT I DON'T RECALL.

>> YOU DON'T RECALL?

I DON'T RECALL?

YOU HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION AMBASSADOR TAYLOR OR MR. MORRISON ABOUT THEIR NOTES?

>> CAN YOU KINDLY REPEAT WHAT THEY WROTE.

>> I'LL HAVE MR. GOLDMAN GO THROUGH THAT WITH YOU.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE.

YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> CORRECT.

YOU SAID THAT WAS A QUID PRO QUO FOR WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS.

>> CORRECT.

AND EVERYBODY KNEW IT.

CORRECT.

THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS GOING TO BE AN OFFICIAL MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, CORRECT?

>> PRESUMABLY.

IT WOULD BE AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING?

>> A WORKING MEETING.

N OFFICIAL ACT?

YES.

TO PREFORM THAT ACT DONALD TRUMP WANTED THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HELP HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, CORRECT.

>> I CAN'T CHARACTERIZE WHY HE WANTED THEM BUT THIS IS WHAT WE HEARD FROM MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

>> HERE HAD TO DO THOSE TWO INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THOSE OFFICIAL ACTS.

>> HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THEM BUT NOT DO IT.

>> OKAY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

THEY WERE INSISTENT UPON THEM?

>> I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE WHETHER THEY ARE VALUED OR NOT VALUED.

THROUGH MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI WE WERE LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HE WANTED.

>> YOU SAID MR. GI ULIAI WAS AT HIS DEMAND.

>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID TALK TO RUDOLPH GIULIANI THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

>> THAT ACT WAS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE THINGS HAPPEN AND EXPRESSED THROUGH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

>> YOUR UNDERSTANDING IF IT'S CLEAR THAT THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING WITHHELD.

>> CORRECT.

THAT WAS MY PRESUMPTION BASED ON THE FACTS THAT THE TIME.

IN FACT, YOU HAD A DISCUSSION WHICH YOU SAID THE LOGJAM OVER AID COULD BE LIFTED AS YOU ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> I DON'T RECALL SAYING THE LOGJAM OVER AID.

>> THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT.

I MEANT WHATEVER WAS HOLDING UP THE MEETING.

I WAS PRESUMING -- >> THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY.

>> I HAD TO DO WHATEVER NECESSARY TO GET THE AID RELEASED.

I HAD TO BREAK THE LOGJAM, THAT'S STILL YOUR TESTIMONY, RIGHT?

>> SO, THE MILITARY AID IS ALSO AN OFFICIAL ACT.

>> THERE IS 400 MILLION OF THE U.S.

TAXPAYER MONEY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THERE WAS A LOGJAM IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T WRITE THAT LAST CHECK.

YOU BELIEVED UNTIL UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

>> THAT WAS MY BELIEF.

NK YOU MANY CHAIRMAN.

IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU DETAILED THE BENEFIT THAT YOU HAVE GAINED FROM OBTAINING SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS.

>> IN TERMS OF REFRESHING MY RECOLLECTION.

>> REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS HAS HELPED YOU TO REMEMBER THE EVENTS WE ARE ASKING ABOUT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE OF COURSE YOU CAN INFLATE THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CONTEXT THAT HELPS JOG YOUR MEMORY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

FOR PEOPLE UNLIKE YOURSELF THAT TAKE NOTES THAT THAT IS VERY HELPFUL TO THEIR OWN RECOLLECTION OF EVENTS, RIGHT?

>> I THINK YOU ASKED YOUR QUESTION BACKWARDS.

ARE YOU SAYING PEOPLE WHO TAKE NOTES IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS OR DON'T TAKE NOTES.

>> YOU ARE NOT A NOTE TAKER.

NO, NEVER HAVE BEEN.

PEOPLE WHO DO TAKE NOTES ARE MORE ABLE TO REMEMBER THINGS THEN PEOPLE WHO DON'T?

>> SOME, YES.

THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS YOU ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN.

>> YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THE STATE DEPARTMENT PREVENTED YOU AND YOUR STAFF FROM TRYING TO GATHER MORE DOCUMENTS, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.

WHICH DOCUMENTS.

DOCUMENTS I DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO.

>> WHO PREVENTED YOU FOR DOING THAT.

>> CERTAINLY BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL MEMORY THAT YOU HAVE GAINED OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS FROM READING THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS BASED ON THEIR NOTES AND REVIEWING YOUR OWN DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE REMEMBERED A LOT MORE WHEN YOU WERE DEP DEPOSED.

>> CORRECT.

THE DISCUSSION YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 26th 26th.

>> YEAH, WHAT TRIGGERED MY MEMORY WAS SOMEONES REFERENCE TO ASAP ROCKY WHICH WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE PHONE CALL.

>> CERTAINLY, THAT'S WITHIN THAT'S HOW THE MEMORY WORKS.

>> YOU WENT TO LUNCH AFTERWARDS?

>> I TOOK THE TEAM TO LUNCH.

T WAS A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH ANDREW YERMAK.

>> I'M TRYING TO CONSTRUCT A BUSY DAY.

IF SOMEONE SAID I WENT TO A MEETING I WOULDN'T DISPUTE THAT.

>> ESPECIALLY IF THEY TOOK NOTES OR SAT OUTSIDE THE DOOR WHEN YOU DIDN'T LET THEM IN.

>> I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHO IS ALLOWED IN THE MEETING.

>> YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND OTHERS THAT DAY?

>> CORRECT.

YOU CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM YOUR CELL PHONE THAT DAY?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>>Reporter: THIS WAS NOT A SECURE LINE?

>> NO, OPEN LINE.

WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LISTENING?

>> WELL, I HAVE UNCLASSIFIED CONVERSATIONS ALL THE TIME FROM LAND LINES THAT ARE UNSECURED AND CELL PHONES.

IF THE TOPIC IS NOT CLASSIFIED AND IT'S UP TO THE PRESIDENT DESERVE SIDE WHAT'S CLASSIFIED AND NOT CLASSIFIED.

HE WAS AWARE IT WAS AN OPEN LINE AS WELL.

>> YOU DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS OF HOLDING YOUR PHONE FAR A WAY FROM YOUR EAR AS MR. HOLMES TESTIFIED BUT YOU HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION HIS RECOLLECTION.

>> IT SEEMS STRANGE.

HE CLAIMS TO HAVE OVERHEARD PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND I WOULDN'T DISPUTE WHAT HE DID OR DIDN'T HEAR.

>> HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU CONFIRMED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP YOU WERE IN UKRAINE AT THE TIME AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR ASS.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD SAY?

>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING I WOULD SAY.

THAT'S HOW THE PRESIDENT AND I COMMUNICATE A LOT OF FOUR LETTER WORDS.

IN THIS CASE A THREE LETTER WORD.

>> HE ASKED IS HE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION TO WHICH YOU REPLIED HE'S GOING TO DO IT AND YOU ADDED THAT HE WILL DO ANYTHING THAT YOU, MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP, ASKED HIM TO.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

>> I PROBABLY SAID SOMETHING TO THAT I THAT EFFECT.

I REMEMBER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS VERY SO LISTTIES IS NOT THE WORD BUT PREPARED TOLY.

BY SAYING HE LOVES YOUR ASS, HE WILL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT MEANS HE WILL WORK WITH US ON A LOT OF ISSUES.

>> NOT ONLY WILLING BUT EAGER.

>> THAT'S FAIR.

EY DEPEND ON THE UNITED STATES FOR ONE OF IT'S MOST ALLIES.

>> ONE OF IT'S MOST.

JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND YOU WERE THEREAFTER THE PRESIDENT SPOKE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PHONE AND YOU KNOW NOW FROM READING THE PHONE RECORD HE REQUESTED A FAVOR FOR PRESIDENT EASILY TO DO INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS AND THE 2016 I 2016 ELEC.

>> I DO NOW KNOW THAT.

YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT THE DAY AFTER THAT PHONE CALL AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM YOUR CELL PHONE AND HE ASKED YOU WHETHER PRESIDENT EASILY ZELENSKL DO THE INVESTIGATIONS AND YOU RESPONDED HE WILL DO IT AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO WHAT YOU ASK HIM TO DO.

>> IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.

I DON'T REMEMBER MY EXACT RESPONSE.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE REASON TO DISPUTE MR. HOLMES REELECTION.

>> I DON'T DISPUTE IT BUT I DON'T RECALL.

>> MR. HOLMES REFERENCED A CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WHERE YOU SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE UKRAINE.

>> I DON'T RECALL MY WORDS.

HE WASN'T A BIG FAN.

>> HE WAS A FAN OF THE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> APPARENTLY SO.

IN FACT, MR. HOLMES SAID, THAT YOU SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP ONLY CARES ABOUT THE QUOTE BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS HIMSELF.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE SAID AT THE TIME?

>> I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT I WOULD HAVE SAID HE'S NOT A BIG FAN OF THE UKRAINE AND WOULD LIKE THE INVESTIGATIONS TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID BECAUSE THAT WAS FACT.

>> MR. HOLMES ALSO REMEMBERS THAT YOU TOLD HIM GIVING HIM AN EXAMPLE OF THE BIG STUFF THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

>> I RECALL BURISMA NOT BIDEN.

>> DO YOU RECALL RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS PUSHING THAT?

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE SAID?

>> I WOULD HAVE, YES.

NOW, IF YOU DON'T RECALL MENTIONING THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION INTO HOLMES WE KNOW IT WAS ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MIND.

JUST THE DAY BEFORE IN HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE MENTIONED THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THAT EXCERPT FROM THE CALL ON JULY 2h WHERE PRESIDENT SAID THE OTHER THING.

THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

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

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING YOU COULD STOP THE PROSECUTION.

THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.

HE REFERENCED TO THE COMPANY HE'S REFERRING TWO AND TWO WITNESSES SAID YESTERDAY WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED THE COMPANY HE SAID BURISMA.

YOU WOULD AGREE WHETHER YOU KNOW ABOUT THE CONNECTION TO THE BIDENS YOU KNOW NOW THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED AT THE TIME THROUGH THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION.

>> I KNOW KNOW-IT-ALL.

THIS INCLUDES THE INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU SAID HE DIRECTED YOU TO TALK TO OTHERS AND OTHERS AT THE OVAL OFFICE ON MAY 23, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IF WE WANTED TO GET ANYTHING DONE WITH UKRAINE WE NEEDED TO TALK TO RUDY.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT RUDOLPH GIULIANI SPOKE FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND IN FACT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE THAT CLEAR TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE SAME JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

HE SAID, MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED MAN AND THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY.

HE'S A GREAT MAYOR AND I WOULD LIKE HIM TO CALL YOU.

I WOULD LIKE HIM TO CALL YOU ALONG WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

HE KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND CAPABLE GUY.

AFTER THIS PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI TWICE MORE IN THE CALL.

NOW, YOU UNDERSTOOD IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING YOU WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED TO HAVE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED TO HAVE UKRAINE WOULD HAVE TO INITIATE THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THEY WERE GOING TO DO IT.

I NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY THE INVESTIGATIONS HAD TO START OR BE COMPLETED.

THE ONLY THING I HEARD WAS THEY HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED IN SOME FORM.

>> ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY.

YOU KNEW THERE WOULD BE BENEFITS TO A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT VERIES PRIVATE CONFIRMATION.

>> IT WAS EXPRESSED TO ME THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD COMMIT PRIVATELY AND NERVE FATHER OR MOTHER LOW .

PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE UKRAINIANS ON RECORD PUBLICLY THEY WOULD DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT'S THE REASON THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME.

>> YOU NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY THEY REALLY WANTED THEM TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> I DIDN'T HEAR IT EITHER WAY.

>> YOUR JULY 26 CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT WASN'T YOUR ONLY CALL SURROUNDING THAT UKRAINE TRIP LITTLE.

>> I BELIEVE I SPOKE TO HIM BEFORE THE CALL.

>> THAT WOULD BE ON JULY 25th , THE DAY BEFORE?

>> I BELIEVE I WAS FLYING OUT AND CALLED HIM BEFORE I GOT ON THE PLANE.

>> THAT'S TWO PRIVATE PHONE CALLS WITHIN THE SPAN OF TWO DAYS.

>> CORRECT.

YOU HAD DIRECT ACCESS THEN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> I HAD OCCASIONAL ACCESS WHEN HE CHOSE TO TAKE MY CALLS.

SOMETIMES HE WOULD AND SOMETIMES HE WOULDN'T.

>> HE TOOK YOUR CALL TWICE AS IT RELATED TO THE UKRAINE THESE TWO DAYS?

>> YES.

ON THE MORNING YOU TEXTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER AT 7:54 A.M. YOU SAID CALL ASAP.

THE AMBASSADOR DIDN'T RESPOND FOR ANOTHER HOUR AND HALF.

HE SAID HI, HAD A GREAT LUNCH WITH YERMAK AND PASSED YOUR MASSAGE TO HIM.

HE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW.

I THINK EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE.

AN HOUR BEFORE THAT HE TEXTED ANDRE YERMAK.

HE WROTE GOOD LINE UP., THANKS.

I HOPE HE WILL INVESTIGATE AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.

WE WILL NAIL DOWN A DATE FOR A VISIT TO WASHINGTON.

AMBASSADOR, WAS THIS MASSAGE THAT KURT VOLKER THE MASSAGE YOU LEFT.

>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE REASON TO THINK IT WASN'T.

>> AGAIN, I HONESTLY, BE HONESTLY DON'T REMEMBER.

>> IF THE AMBASSADOR TESTIFIED HE DID GET THE MASSAGE HE HAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT.

>> IF HE TESTIFIED THAT I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT.

>> THIS IS WHAT YOU RECEIVED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT MORNING?

>> AGAIN, IF HE TESTIFIED TO THAT TO REFRESH MY OWN MEMORY, YES, I WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THAT PROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> THE SEQUENCE MAKE SENSE.

YES, IT DOES.

OU SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP TRUMP.

YOU TOLD VO LKER TO CALL YOU, HE SPOKE WITH YE RMAK AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD A PHONE CALL WHERE HE SPOKE SIMILAR TO THIS TEXT MASSAGE.

>> RIGHT.

THE MASSAGE EXPRESSED IS THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO CONVINCE TRUMP HE WILL DO THE INVESTIGATIONS TO NAIL DOWN THE DATE FOR A VISIT TO WASHINGTON D.C. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

I'LL MOVE AHEAD WHEN YOU CAME TO BELIEF IT WASN'T JUST THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING CONTINGENT ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE MEETINGS BUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS WELL.

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION YOU CAME TO THE CONCLUSION LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

>> IT IS.

MANY TOP OFFICIALS KNEW THAT COVETED WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS PENDING ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> THAT INCLUDES SECTARY POMPEO.

>> MANY PEOPLE.

SECTARY POMPEO?

YES.

MICK MULVANEY?

YES.

BY THE END OF AUGUST YOU KNEW THE AID HAD BEEN HELD UP FOR AT LEAST SIX WEEKS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I BELIEVE I FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS HELD UP IN JULY.

>> YOU SEARCHED FOR REASONS YOU WERE NEVER GIVEN A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

NO ONE YOU SPOKE TO THOUGHT THE AID SHOULD BE HELD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I NEVER HEARD ANYONE ADVOCATE FOR HOLDING THE AID.

>> BY THIS POINT IT WENT PUBLIC AND THE YOU UKRAINIAN KNEW ABOUT IT?

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE EVERYTHING MIGHT BE TIED TOGETHER.

>> IN FACT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BROUGHT IT UP.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF HE BROUGHT IT UP SPECIFICALLY BUT ASKED WHERE THE AID WAS.

HE SORT OF ASKED, AGAIN, VERY VAGUE RECOLLECTION.

I DON'T HAVE A READ OUT-OF-THE MEETING.

pWHY DON'T I HAVE MY CHECK ESSENTIALLY.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THE YOU CRAN -- UKRAINIANS RECEIVED NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.

>> I COULDN'T GIVE THEM ONE.

S THIS A TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR CONCLUSION YOU REACHED?

>> PRETTY MUCH.

IT'S THE ONLY CONCLUSION YOU REACHED?

>> YEP.

NOW, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE BEFORE THE MEETING IN WARSAW.

YOU INDICATED YOU SAID TO HIM THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED THE DELAY IN THE AID WAS TIED TO THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO HIM.

THIS WAS ATTENDED BY MANY PEOPLE.

I WAS INVITED AT THE LAST MINUTE.

I SPOKE UP AT SOME POINT LATE IN THE MEETING AND SAID IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING IS BEING HELD UP UNTIL THE STATEMENTS GET MADE AND THAT'S MY, YOU KNOW PERSONAL BELIEF.

>> VICE PRESIDENT NODDED HIS HEAD?

>> AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL ANY EXCHANGE OR HE ASKED QUESTIONS.

IT WAS A DUALLY NOTED.

>> HE DIDN'T SAY, GORDON, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.

>> NO, HE DID NOT.

HE DIDN'T SAY WHAT INVESTIGATION.

>> HE DID NOT.

NOW AFTER THIS MEETING YOU DISCUSSED THIS CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MR. YERMAK WHERE YOU SPOKE ABOUT ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS PRIOR TO THE AID BEING RELEASED, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> I SAID I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHY BUT THIS COULD BE A REASON.

>> YOU HAD BEEN SPEAKING WITH MR. YERMAK FOR A WHILE.

>> WE HAD ALL BEEN WORKING ON THAT.

>> YOU SAID SECURITY AID WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THAT.

>> AS I SAID, IT COULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, YES.

>> I'LL SHOW YOU ANOTHER TEXT EXCHANGE YOU HAD ON DECEMBER 1.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID TO YOU ARE WE NOW SAYING SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATION, YOU RESPONDED CALL ME.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECALLS HE DID CALL YOU AND YOU HAD A CONVERSATION.

IN THAT CONVERSATION YOU TOLD THE AMBASSADOR THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS BRING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO BE PUBLIC AND THAT THAT ANNOUNCEMENT WAS CONDITIONED ON -- THAT ANNOUNCEMENT WOULD ULTIMATELY RELEASE THE AID, DO YOU RECALL THAT CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

>> S AGAIN, MY CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND SENATOR JOHNSON WERE ALL MY PERSONAL BELIEF JUST BASED ON TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR.

>> IN HIS TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YOU SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOLD YOU HE WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STATE PUBLICLY AS OF SEPTEMBER 1.

DO YOU HAVE REASON TO DOUBT THE TESTIMONY THAT HE SAID WAS BASED ON HIS NOTES?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER TOLD ME DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE MEETING.

THE ONLY THING WE GOT DIRECTLY FROM RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS THAT THE BURISMA ELECTIONS WERE CONDITIONED ON THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

THE AID WAS MY OWN PERSONAL, YOU KNOW, GUESS BASED ON YOUR ANALOGY TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR.

>> YOU DIDN'T TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT'S WHAT YOU TOLD HIM.

>> MY TESTIMONY IS I NEVER HEARD THAT AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

>> YOU NEVER HAIRED THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS.

>> YOU HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION IN A LITTLE BIT LATER TO MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECOUNTS.

IN THE SEPTEMBER 1 CONVERSATION AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT YOU SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX.

DO YOU RECALL USING THAT EXPRESSION?

>> IT GOES BACK TO MY EARLIER COMMENT COMING FROM RUDOLPH GIULIANI SOURCE.

WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THIS SPECIFICALLY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THEY WANTED WHATEVER COMMITMENTS UKRAINE MADE.

>> YOU STATED YOU MADE A MISTAKE AND IN FACT EVERYTHING WAS, INCLUDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> WHEN I REFERENCED THE MISTAKE I RECALL THINKING A STATEMENT MADE BY THE NEW UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE STARTED UP AGAIN AND BE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AS I RECALL MY MISTAKE WAS SOMEONE CAME BACK THROUGH VOLKER AND SAID NO, IT WON'T DO IF THE PROSECUTOR MAKES THE STATEMENTS.

THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT FROM ZELENSKY DIRECTLY.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO QUESTION AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY BASED ON HIS NOTES.

>> I WOULDN'T QUESTION OR NOT QUESTION.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

CONCRETE ON SEPTEMBER 8tU SENT ANOTHER TEXT MASSAGE.

WHAT DID YOU WRITE THERE?

>> MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH ZELENSKY, LET'S TALK.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID NOW IS FINE WITH ME.

IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT EXCHANGE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID 20 MINUTES LATER I CAN BRIEF YOU IF YOU AND GORDON DON'T CONNECT SPEAKING TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

>> THEY SAID THE NIGHTMARE IS THEY GIVE THE INTERVIEW AND DON'T GIVE THE AID.

THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT AND I QUIT.

YOU WOULD AGREE AFTER WE SPOKE AN HOUR EARLIER WITH; AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HE'S LINKING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE INTERVIEW.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

IN FACT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED YOU DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM AT THAT POINT AND HE DID -- YOU TOLD HIM THAT JUST AS YOUR TEXT MASSAGE INDICATES YOU DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP PRIOR TO THAT TEXT MASSAGE.

DID YOU SPEAK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THAT TIME.

>> I DON'T RECALL PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER TALKING TO ME ABOUT ANY SECURITY ASSISTANCE, EVER.

WHAT THIS TELLS ME, REFRESHING MY MEMORY BY THE EIGHTH OF SEPTEMBER IT WAS CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT THERE WAS A LINK AND THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THE CHICKEN AND EGG ISSUE OF SHOULD THE UKRAINIANS GO OUT ON A LEDGE AND MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT WANTED THEM TO MAKE AND THEN THEY STILL DON'T GET THEIR WHITE HOUSE VISIT AND AID.

THAT WOULD BE REALLY BAD FOR CREDIBILITY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO.

>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOU SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AS YOU INDICATED IN THE TEXT.

>> IF I SAID I DID.

I DID.

>> YOU WERE STILL UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE AID WAS BASED ON THESE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS.

>> I DIDN'T GET THAT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT I BELIEVED THAT TO BE TRUE.

>> YOU STILL THOUGHT IT WAS CONDITIONED ON THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION AFTER SPEAKING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> BY SEPTEMBER 8th I WAS CONVINCED.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT?

>> I DON'T RECALL, THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED MY ENTIRE CALCULUS.

IF PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD -- >> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

YOU STILL BELIEVED IT WAS BASED ON THE INVESTIGATION AFTER YOU SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> FROM A TIMEFRAME STANDPOINT, YES.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED AND MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT YOU SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO WHICH YOU ALSO INCLUDED IN THE TEXT MASSAGE YOU REFERRED.

THEN YOU WENT ON AND HAD SLIGHT VARIATIONS YOU TOLD THEM.

THEN YOU SAID TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC OR THERE WOULD BE A STALEMATE AND MR. MORRISON ACCOUNTED SOMETHING SIMILAR.

YOU HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR VERISIMILAR REGULATIONS ON THE CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD WITH YOU DO YOU AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

>> LET ME BREAK THAT DOWN.

THE TEXT WAS MY EFFORT TO RESPOND TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CONCERNS ABOUT GOING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

APPARENTLY TAYLOR HAD ACCESS TO POMPEO AND NOT TRUMP.

I ASKED HIM WHAT HE WANTED AND I STRONGLY ENCOURAGED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO TAKE IT UP WITH THE SECTARY AND HE RESPONDED I AGREE.

AS FAR AS THE OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION RELATING TO IF THE PROSECUTOR COULD MAKE THE STATEMENT OR ZELENSKY MADE THE STATEMENT.

WHOEVER I GOT THE INFORMATION FROM I RELAYED THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. MORRISON.

>> AS OF SEPTEMBER 9 YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR THROUGH HIS AGENTS REQUIRED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MAKE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CARED ABOUT IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND RELEASE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.

>> THAT CONCLUDES OUR 45 MINUTES.

I RECOGNIZE MR. NUNES.

>> WHY NOT TAKE A FIVE OR TEN MINUTE BREAK.

>> THANK YOU.

WITH THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ADAM SCHIFF DECLARES A SHORT BREAK AFTER SOME PRETTY DRAMATIC OPENING STATEMENT BUT QUESTION AND ANSWER BACK AND FORTHWITH THE COUNCIL FOR THE DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE.

THIS IS DIRECTED AS IT MAN YOU SEE WALKING OUT-OF-THE ROOM RIGHT NOW.

HE'S THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

I'M HERE ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES NICK, WE HAVE BEEN HERE LISTENING VERY CLOSELY, ALL OF US TO HE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD HIM THERE WOULDN'T BE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE YOU THINK LESS INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNDERRATIONEN THAT POLITICALLY BENEFITTED THE PRESIDENT.

WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT MILITARY AID.

>> LOOKING AT THIS OVERALL YOU HAVE GORDON BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT A FEW THINGS ONE THREE TIMES HE USES THE WORDS QUID PRO QUO.

NUMBER TWO HE PAINTS THE PICTURE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD HIM TO WORK WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS WHICH HE CALLS INSIDIOUS.

THAT GETS US TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID OR DIDN'T WANT.

GORDON SONDLAND IS SPECIFIC THAT RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE YOU UKRAINIAS NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE 2016 AND IF THEY HACKED THE DNC.

NUMBER TWO BURISMA.

THE UKRAINIAN ENERGY COMPANY THAT'S CORRUPT AND THREE THE QUESTION OF THE BIDENS.

IF HE SAID THAT HE'S VERY SPECIFIC.

HE SAID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T TALK ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE EVER.

SONDLAND SAID BY SEPTEMBER IT WAS CLEAR THERE WAS A LINK.

WHERE DID SONDLAND GET THAT INFORMATION?

FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER, FROM OTHER PEOPLE, HE HASN'T ANSWERED THAT YET.

YAMICHE WE OVERHEARD SOMEONE ON A TELEPHONE, WE HEARD SOMEONE DESCRIBE THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT.

WHERE IT WASN'T AS CLEAR.

GORDON SONDLAND IS BRINGING IT CLOSER TO THE PRESIDENT BUT WE HAVE MORE TO TEASE OUT FROM WHAT HE KNOWS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

HE MADE IT CLEAR HE HAD THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION TO BE A SEASON OFFER A HEALTH THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

THERE ARE TWO THINGS ON THE TABLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

THEY SEE WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE AID BUT THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

THAT WAS TIED TO A QUID PRO QUO.

WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE AIDE CAME FROM.

THE MILITARY AIDE THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE AIDE.

SONDLAND PERSONALLY CONVEYED THAT IT WAS CONDITIONED ON DOING THE INVESTIGATION -- SORRY ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION.

>> THAT'S ANOTHER INTERESTING LINE THAT'S COME UP.

MICHAEL ALLEN, I WANT TO COME BACK TO WHAT CHAIRMAN SHIFT SAID IN HIS ANNOUNCEMENT HE SAID IT'S NOT JUST THE MILITARY AID BUT THE WHILE HOUSE MEETING THAT WAS AN ACTION, IT WAS AN OFFICIAL ACT BY THE GOVERNMENT.

IT SEEMS TO ME LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR SAYING IF THAT WAS BEING WITHHELD ON THE CONDITION OF A POLITICAL FAVOR THAT COULD BE A DEFENSE LAID AT THE PRESIDENT'S SEAT.

>> VERY MUCH SO.

THE MAJOR TAKEAWAY FOR TODAY IS ONE SONDLAND IS BRINGING NEW E-MAILS AND NEW INFORMATION TO THE TABLE TODAY.

HE STATING UNEQUIVOCALLY THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT AS YOU SAY.

AN OFFICIAL MEETING IN EXCHANGE FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS INTO INVESTIGATIONS.

SO, REALLY THIS IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS NEED.

THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WE ARE NOT ON A ALUMINUM LIMB HERE.

WE ARE ON A PATH THAT BRINGS US TO APPOINT AS YOU SAY THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTING CERTAIN ITEMS BE DEMANDED OF THE UKRAINIANS.

IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT.

>> LISA IS AVAILABLE TO THE CAMERA RIGHT NOW.

YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE HEARING ROOM.

YOU COULD HAVE HEARD A PIN DROP HAD YOU HEARD THE OPENING STATEMENT.

>>Reporter: I HAD THAT SAME THOUGHT IN THE ROOM.

MANY HAD THAT EXPERIENCE.

IN THE HEARING ROOM IT DOES DIFFERENT.

I SAW LAWMAKERS AND I ALSO SAW SONDLAND'S SUPPORT TEAM SITTING ON THE EDGE OF THEIR SEATS AS QUESTIONING WAS GOING ON.

AS I TWEETED OUT, THIS IS DIFFICULT TO UNPACK.

AS YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS SO MUCH NEWS IN HIS 19 PAGE OPENING STATEMENT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP UP WITH REALTIME.

THE IDEA OF WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO COMING FROM THE PRESIDENT IS AT THE CORE OF ALL OF THIS.

THERE WERE A FEW STANDOUT STATEMENTS WHEN MYSELF AND OTHERS WERE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER AND WE FELT IT WAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT.

AMONG THIS MULTIPLE TIMES THE AMBASSADOR SAID I WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND LINKED THE ORDER TO WORK WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

LATER ALONG THE SAME LININGS YOU HEARD COUNCIL GOLDMAN PRESSING ON THAT.

YOU UNDERSTOOD, IT WAS APPARENT TO YOU THAT RUDOLPH GIULIANI SPOKE FOR THE PRESIDENT.

SONDLAND SAID YES.

HE WAS CAREFUL AS I THINK YOU PROBABLY NOTED HE NEVER DIRECTLY HEARD ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO FROM THE PRESIDENT BUT ANOTHER IMPORTANT MOMENT WHEN THE PEOPLE LOOKED AT EACH OTHER WAS WHEN HE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE IDEA THAT HE STILL THOUGHT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO IN EFFECT AFTER HE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T USE THOSE WORDS SONDLAND SAID HE THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT LINES OF QUESTIONING ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS DEALING WITH SONDLAND AND WHAT MASSAGE HE WAS SENDING WHETHER HE USED SPECIFIC WORDS OF A QUID PRO QUO OR NOT.

>> NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

IT'S SO INTERESTING.

WE HAVE BEEN HEARING DEMOCRATS STAYING A WAY FROM THE TERM QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE IT WASN'T -- IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING DIFFICULT FOR THE PUBLIC TO PROVE BUT LANDED?

THE MIDDLE OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

YEM MICHE ARE YOU THERE?

WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM THROWING SOMEONE UNDER THE BUS.

SONDLAND HAS THROWN A NUMBER OF OFFICIALS AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF UNDER THE BUS.

HE IMPLICATED THEM IN THE KNOWLEDGE THERE WAS THIS EXPECTATION OF A QUID PRO QUO IN EXCHANGE FOR WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS AND MILITARY AIDE.

>> IT'S THE LADDER OF THROWING PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS.

IT STARTS WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

RIGHT AT THE TOP OF HIS OPENING REMARKS.

MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI'S REQUEST WERE A QUID PRO QUO.

IT GOES ON AND ON ABOUT HOW GIULIANI WAS DOING THIS.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE.

GORDON SPECIFICALLY SAYS ON SEPTEMBER 1 HE TOLD THE YOU CRANNANS HE NEEDED TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT INTO 2016 INTO BURISMA BEFORE AID COULD BE RESUMED.

HE DIDN'T SAY THAT BEFORE AND NO ONE ELSE SAID THAT BEFORE.

HE RELEASED DOCUMENTS SUGGESTING THAT HE AND POMPEO WERE VERY MUCH IN CONTACT.

NUMBER THREE VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.

HE SAID AGAIN BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 1st MEETING.

THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT INVESTIGATIONS NEEDED TO BE ANNOUNCED BEFORE UKRAINE COULD GET THE MILITARY AID.

HE'S A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS.

HE SAID PENCE SEEMED TO KNOW WHAT HE WAS SAYING.

ALL THREE OF THE PEOPLE IMPLICATED.

>> HE DID SAY IN THE MEETING WITH THE UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT HE DIDN'T BRING IT UP.

THERE WASN'T A SPECIFIC MENTION OF INVESTIGATIONS.

THERE WAS THE CONVERSATION.

YAMICHE IF YOU ARE THERE I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO YOU FIRST.

THERE IS A LOT TO UNPACK FROM THE TESTIMONY THIS MORNING.

IN PARTICULAR AS IT'S TIED TO THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT WHAT ARE THEY SAYING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> THE WHITE HOUSE SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS DIRECTING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND NOT TO HAVE A QUID PRO QUO.

THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT ISN'T TIED TO THE FACT THIS THIS AID WOULD BE TIED TO THE INVESTIGATION.

THERE WASN'T AN ACTUAL EXCHANGE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S MOUTH.

THAT'S WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS TESTIFYING TO HE SAID EVERYONE IS IN THE LOOP.

HE MEANT EVERY SINGLE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL THAT WAS A HIGH RANKING PERSON INVOLVED IN THE POLICY.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.

JOHN BOLTTON, SO MANY OFFICIALS AROUND THE PRESIDENT UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT WANTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN IN EXCHANGE FOR $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO THE UKRAINE.

IF HE'S LEAVING SPACE THERE I DIDN'T HEAR THAT DIRECTEDLY ESSENTIALLY THE PRESIDENT IS VERY MUCH TIED TO THIS.

THERE CHANGES THE GAME IN SOMEWAYS ESPECIALLY IN DEMOCRATS MINDS.

YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT ON THE PHONE WITH THE AMBASSADOR GIVING HIM THE IDEA THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BEING CONTINGENT ON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ANNOUNCING THAT HE'S GOING TO INVESTIGATION 2016 AND BURISMA.

IS THE WHITE HOUSE COMMENTING ON THAT PART OF THE SO-CALLED QUID PRO QUO?

>> WELL, THE PRESIDENT IS ABOUT TO WALK-ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND NO DOUBT ABOUT IT HE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT.

THAT WAS ON THE LIST OF QUESTIONS WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK.

HE MAINTAINED THERE WASN'T A QUID PRO QUO.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE IT CLEAR HE BELIEVES IF THEY OPENED AN INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN HE WOULD GET THE MEETING.

REPUBLICANS SAID LOOK, EVEN IF THAT WAS THE CASE AND THEY THOUGHT THAT REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE HAD A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

THEY DID EVENTUALLY MET AND RELEASED THE AID ON SEPTEMBER 1.

THERE IS THE IDEA SAYING EVEN IF IT WAS CONTINGENT THE INVESTIGATION DIDN'T HAPPEN.

THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND UKRAINE GOT ALL THEY WANTED.

>> WE ARE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND WILL COULDN'T TO MONITOR.

THE PRESIDENT IS ACT TO OUT.

WHAT ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE THE MONEY WAS EVENTUALLY RELEASED.

WHAT'S THE FUSS ABOUT?

THEY GOT THE MONEY.

THEYBORO EVENTUALLY THE PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> THERE ARE A FEW PROBLEMS WITH THE DEFENSE.

LEGALLY IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE DEAL IS COMPLETED BY THE TRADING OF THE ACT ON A CORRUPT ONE.

IT'S BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT.

YOU HAVE A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION ALREADY BEGINNING.

>> I'M READING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN RESPONSE TO ALL OF THIS UP UNTIL RECENTLY THEY DENIED THERE WAS ANY SORT OF QUID PRO QUO AND THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WITHHOLDING ANYTHING.

EVEN IF IT DID HAPPEN THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHIN IT'S RIGHT TO GRANT A MEETING TO WITHHOLD AID FOR WHATEVER REASON.

>> I THINK THEY ARE ON THE PHONE RIGHT NOW TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO APPROACH THE REST OF THIS AND CROSS EXAM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THEY WILL HAVE A FEW DIFFERENT POINTS.

THEY WILL ASK WHY HE CHANGED THE TESTIMONY AND SUGGEST HE DID IT TO SAVE HIS OWN SKIN WHAT IS ALSO INTERESTING IS SAYING I WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WORK WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

WILL THEY EVENTUALLY CUT LOSE MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND SAY HE WAS TOTALLY FREE LANSING.

LANCE -- FREE-LANCING.

HE WENT WAY OVER BOARD AND WE HAVE LEARNED THINGS WE DIDN'T KNOW THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.

HE'S UNDER INVESTIGATION ANYWAY.

SO, THIS HAS TO BE A BIG QUESTION.

>> IN FACT, MOST OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE HEARING ROOM, IT HAD TO DO WITH HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

WE WERE SITTING HERE TRYING TO RECOUNT HOW MANY DIRECT CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

RUDOLPH GIULIANI IS A KEY FIGURE.

>> HE SAID THERE IS CAPS PROGRAM A INSIDIOU.

WHEN THEY TOLD HIM TO WORK WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

THE PRESIDENT WANTED RUDOLPH GIULIANI IN CHARGE OF U.S. POLICY IN UKRAINE.

THE REST OF THE PEOPLE TRIED TO REACT TO THAT.

RESPOKE ABOUT VOLKER AND SONDLAND TRYING TO THREAD THE NEEDLE IS HOW VOLKER PUT IT.

IT WAS FIGHTING CORRUPTION OVERALL AND SUPPORTING UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY ON UKRAINE GOING AFTER BURISMA AND BIDEN IN 2016.

THAT'S WHAT SONDLAND IS SAYING.

HE ALSO HAD FIVE OR SIX CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS HE COMES BACK AND THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T CONDITION THE AID.

I HAVE THE IMPRESSION IT WAS CONDITIONED AND THE MAIN PERSON HE'S TALKING TO IS RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

>> ONE OF THE POINTS THAT GORDON KEEPS COMING BACK TO.

AGAIN, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM IS THE DIFFICULT HE HAD GETTING AHOLD OF ANY RECORDS OF HIS WORK.

HE STAID I'M NOT A NOTE TAKER.

I NEEDED THIS MATERIAL.

I WOULD HAVE RESPONDED SOONERSOO HAD I HAD THE RECORDS.

THIS REMINDS US THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND WHITE HOUSE SAID WE WON'T GIVE YOU ANY MATERIAL.

WE HEARD ADAM TALK ABOUT THAT AT BEGINNING OF THE HEARING AND THEY PROVIDED EVERY INDIVIDUAL THEY COULD.

>> I NOW RECOGNIZE NUNES FOR 45 MINUTES OF QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU FOR WATCHING AT HOME.

THAT WASN'T A BATHROOM BREAK BUT THE DEMOCRATS HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE FOR ALL OF THE SUPPOSED BOMB SHELLS THAT WERE IN YOUR OPENING TESTIMONY.

I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER HERE AND THE THING THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN UNWILLING TO ACCEPT IS THEIR OPPOSITIVES GOT CAMPAIGN DIRT FROM UKRAINIANS IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

THEY KNOW IT.

THEY KNOW IT'S TRUE.

WE HAVE FINANCIAL RECORDS THAT SHOW IT.

DEMOCRATS WERE HEAVILY INVOLVED AND WORKING WITH THE REPUBLICANS TO DIRTY UP THE CAMPAIGN.

AMBASSADOR, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH A FEW INCIDENTS WE KNOW.

YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM.

YOU MIGHT KNOW ABOUT THEM NOW.

I WOULD LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THE EXAMPLES OF WHY THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE UPSET WITH THE UKRAINE AND THINK THEY ARE A COUNTRY OUT TO GET HIM AS I THINK BOTH YOU AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID THAT FROM THE MAY 23 MEETING.

THE FIRST QUESTION I HAVE WERE YOU AWARE OF THE ANTI-TRUMP EFFORTS OF ALEXANDER?

>> I'M NOT AWARE.

N 20 -- WAS IT 2017 ARTICLE THAT ALSO QUOTES A UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER SAID THEY WERE DOING EVERYTHING TO SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON.

THEY DIDN'T MEET WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HILLARY CLINTON WOULD WIN.

DO YOU KNOW THAT OFFICIAL?

>> I DON'T.

WERE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS AN OP ED IN THE HILL DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN CRITICIZING THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP.

>> NOT AWARE.

YOU KNOW THAT NOW AFTER THE LAST FEW MONTHS?

>> CORRECT.

ONE OF THE MORE DISTURBING ONES THE UKRAINE INTERNAL AFFAIR MINISTER MOCKED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER.

WERE YOU AWARE THAT SPREADING INFORMATION ABOUT THE BLACK LEDGER WAS THE UNDERMINED THE TRUMP CANDIDACY.

>> I WASN'T AWARE.

YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR THE BLACK LEDGER WAS USED IN THE 2016 2016 ELECTION TO DIRTP AN ASSOCIATE AND MULLER USED THAT IN HIS REPORT ON RUSSIAN MEDDLING.

KNOWING ALL OF THESE FACTS FROM HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS THIS PROBABLY MAKES MORE SENSE WHY THE PRESIDENT MIGHT THINK THERE IS PROBLEMS WITH UKRAINE AND UKRAINE WAS OUT TO GET HIM.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, YES, CHAIRMAN.

>> YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION, I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE -- I'LL READ IT BACK TO YOU.

ON PAGE 279 FOR THE LEGAL TEAM.

THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT.

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

THESE ARE YOUR WORDS ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU.

>> THIS IS THE MAY 23 MEETING.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

EY ARE ALL CORRUPT AND THEY ARE ALTERABLE PEOPLE.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEND ANY TIME WITH THAT.

HE ALSO SAID THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

EY TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN, ANY LOGICAL PERSON THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR GAMES WOULD SAY THAT WAS IN THE 2016 ELECTION, WASN'T IT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO.

>> DURING ALL OF THIS TIME, REMEMBER, IN THE SPRING THE DEMOCRATS RUSSIA HOAX WITCH IS STILL ONGOING.

THEY CLAIMED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT AND OUT TO GET PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE TIME.

HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY IS THEN INTERESTED IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO WERE THESE UKRAINIANS TRYING TO GET TO MY CANDIDATE.

THOSE OF US, THE REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE WERE ALSO TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHO WERE THE SOURCES IN THE DOSSIER THEY PAID FOR.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO KNOW THAT DURING THE SPRING AND SUMMER.

AS OF TODAY WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO KNOW WHY WAS HE SEDONA HE SUBPOENAED.

WE WOULDN'T LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHO WERE THESE DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITIVES THAT WERE DIRTYING UP THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

THE PRESIDENT WOULD SEND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY OVER THERE TO TRY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT.

AMBASSADOR, YOU HAD FEW DEALINGS WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI OTHER THAN A FEW TEXT MASSAGES.

>> A FEW TEXT MASSAGES AND PHONE CALLS.

>> SO, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER WITH THEIR TIMELINE.

THERE IS A TIMELINE PROBLEM.

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THAT ONLY THEY KNOW WHO THEY WON'T SUBPOENA, WHO CLEARLY MR. VINDMAN KNOWS.

THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER SAYS ON JULY 25th THAT THERE WERE ALL OF THESE PROMISES BEING MADE.

YET, THE -- I FORGOT WHAT THEY CALLED IT.

THE DRUG DEAL THE THREE AMIGOS THEY WERE COOKING UP.

YOU ARE PART OF THE THREE AMIGOS.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY DRUG DEAL.

>> DID YOU KNOW YOU WERE PART OF THE THREE AMIGOS.

>> I AM, I'M A PROUD MEMBER.

THAT'S WHAT AMBASSADOR VOL LK L KE -- VOLKER.

THEY HAVE GOTTEN DOWN TO A MONTH LATER WHERE YOU ARE INVOLVED AND THE QUID PRO QUO IS DOWN TO THE LOW LEVEL OF WELL, THEY WANT A STATEMENT.

YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH JULY 25th 25th YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT MILITARY AID BEING WITHHELD.

>> I KNEW IT WAS WITHHELD BEGINNING ON JULY 18th WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOLD BOTH OF US THAT WAS THE CASE.

>> YOU WERE NOT ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

>> I WAS NOT.

THE AID DOESN'T COME UP AT ALL?

>> AGAIN, I JUST READ THE READ OUT WHEN EVERYONE ELSE DID.

>> EVERYONE TESTIFIED IT WAS ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA THIS IS TIED TO RESENT OR ANYBODY ELSE.

YOU SAID WAIT UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.

>> I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT AID WAS TIED.

THE BURISMA IN 2016 WAS MUCH EARLIER RANKING MEMBER.

>> I'M GLAD YOU BRING UP BURISMA.

THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE THE DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO GO INTO.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BRING IN HUNTER BIDEN.

HE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO RECEIVE $50,000 PER MONTH WHILE HIS DAD WAS VICE PRESIDENT.

THEY WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO STOP TO GET AN INVESTIGATOR FIRED.

THEY CAN CALL-IN HUNTER BIDEN.

LET'S TALK ABOUT BURISMA.

I KNOW YOU ARE THE AMBASSADOR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO BE IN THE UKRAINE.

THEY ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN BURISMA.

DID YOU KNOW IN SEPTEMBER OF 2016 THEN AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE JEFFREY CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT OF BURISMA.

THIS WAS THE YOU CRANNAN OB.

>> I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, NO.

>> YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF IT.

>> NO.

>> YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE TO BE MENTIONING THAT INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD BE DONE ON BURISMA BECAUSE IT HAPPENED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL RECORDS SHOW BURISMA ROUTED MORE THAN $3 MILLION TO THE AMERICAN ACCOUNTS TIED TO HUNTER BIDEN.

>> I DID NOT KNOW THAT.

>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA'S AMERICAN LAWYERS TRIED TO SECURE A MEETING WITH THE NEW STATE PROSECUTOR THE SAME DAY HIS PREDECESSOR VICTOR SHOKIN WHO THE VICE PRESIDENT WANT HIRED WAS ANNOUNCED.

>> I DID NOT KNOW THAT.

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO THE ANSWER TO MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE WITNESSES THAT NEED TO COME IN AND CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE DOING IN 2016, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VISIT WITH THOSE WITNESSES.

AND SO THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH THAT THE DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO ADMIT, THEIR OPERATIVES THAT WOULD DIRTY UP THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN USING UKRAINIAN SOURCES IN 2016 AND THEY DO NOT WANT US TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU, AMBASSADOR, TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

THEY DON'T WANT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY EVEN THOUGH HE'S UNDER A SPECIAL COUNCIL INVESTIGATION, THEY SAID INTO THE FBI THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH FOR OVER THREE YEARS.

THEY DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT AMBASSADOR.

I THINK MR. CASTOR HAS SOME QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU MR.

IN A NUNES, GOD MORNING, AMBASSADOR.

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> YOU'RE HERE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION INTO THE INVESTIGATION.

DID THE PRESIDENT EVER TELL YOU PERSONALLY ABOUT ANY PRE CONDITIONS FOR ANYTHING?

>> NO.

>> SO THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD YOU ABOUT ANY PRE CONDITIONS FOR THE AID TO BE RELEASED.

>> NO.

>> THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD YOU ABOUT ANY PRE CONDITIONS FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS.

>> PERSONALLY, NO.

>> YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T HAVE YOUR RECORDS OR YOUR DOCUMENTS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, BUT IF YOU DID, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY DOCUMENT OR RECORD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY TO ANY OF THIS.

>> I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE -- >> YOUR DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDS.

>> I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> IT HAPPENS, OKAY.

YOU TESTIFIED MR. GIULIANI'S REQUEST FOR A QUID PRO QUO FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS, HE WAS E VINCING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTEREST, CORRECT?

>> MY CONTACT WITH MR. GIULIANI BEGAN AS I SAID VERY LATE IN THE PROCESS AFTER AUGUST 1ST WHEN I WAS FIRST INTRODUCED TO HIM VIA TECT AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

SO WE HAD ALREADY BEGUN THOSE DISCUSSIONS I BELIEVE WITH THE UKRAINIANS PRIOR TO AUGUST 1ST SO EVERYTHING WAS BEING FUNNELED THROUGH OTHERS INCLUDING MR. VOLKER.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING, YES.

>> HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?

WHO TOLD YOU.

>> WELL WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS TALK TO MY PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND THEN MR. GIULIANI AS HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY MAKES CERTAIN REQUESTS OR DEMANDS, WE ASSUME IT'S COMING FROM THE PRESIDENT.

I DON'T, I'M NOT TESTIFYING THAT I HEARD THE PRESIDENT TELL MR. GIULIANI TO TELL US, SO IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION.

>> BUT IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID, THE QUESTION WAS AT THE MAY 23RD MEETING WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID GO TALK TO RUDY, YOU RESPONDED HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY GO TALK.

HE SAID TALK TO RUDY.

YOU SUBSEQUENTLY SAID IT WAS SORT OF LIKE I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

SO IT WASN'T AN ORDER OR DIRECTION TO GO TALK TO MR. GIULIANI, CORRECT.

>> OUR CONCLUSION AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE THREE OF US WAS THAT IF WE DID NOT TALK TO RUDY, NOTHING WOULD MOVE FORWARD ON UKRAINE.

>> OKAY.

THAT WAS MAY 23RD AND THEN YOU NEVER HAD ANY PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH GIULIANI UNTIL AUGUST, RIGHT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND VOLKER WAS HANDLING, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS HE THE PRIMARY -- >> VOLKER, PERRY AND OTHERS.

>> OKAY.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU TESTIFIED, HE'S A PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMAT, CORRECT?

>> YES, HE IS.

>> AND YOU SAID YOU HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM.

>> I DO, YES.

>> YOU SAID HE WAS A VERY SMART GUY.

>> YES.

>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SAID HE'S A BRILLIANT AMBASSADOR IN FACT.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT.

>> HE'S PRETTY SMART.

>> YOU STATED HE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE I WOULD HAND MY WALLET TO.

>> I WOULD.

>> AND SO DID YOU HEAR HIS TESTIMONY YESTERDAY.

>> I DID NOT.

>> OKAY.

BECAUSE -- >> I WAS BUSY GETTING READY FOR YOU.

>> HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS AND HE WAS THE ONE MOST ENGAGED WITH THE UKRAINIANS, WASN'T HE?

>> YES.

>> I MEAN YOU TESTIFIED THIS WAS HIS FULL TIME JOB, ALTHOUGH HE WAS DOING IT FOR FREE.

>> HE WAS THE SPECIAL ENVOY.

>> YOU TESTIFIED YOU CAME IN AND OUT OF THE EVENT, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

IN YOUR DEPOSITION, WE ASKED YOU ABOUT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WE ASKED YOU WHETHER THERE WERE SO MANY THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CHRONICLE AND YOU SAID NO, IT WASN'T THAT MANY AND WE WENT DOWN THE PATH OF BUILDING A LIST OF COMMUNICATIONS YOU REMEMBER WITH THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT MAY 23RD IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

>> YES.

>> YOU MENTIONED ON JULY 25TH BEFORE YOU WENT TO UKRAINE, YOU CALLED THE PRESIDENT BUT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THE 25TH CALL, CORRECT?

>> NOT THAT I RECALL.

>> THEN LAST FRIDAY, MR. HONGS CAME IN AND THAT REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION.

>> WHAT REFRESHED MY RECOLLECTION WAS WHEN HE MENTIONED ASAP ROCKY AND THEN IT CAME BACK TO ME.

>> ABOUT LOVING PRESIDENT AND SO FORTH.

>> THE WHOLE THING CAME BACK TO ME AFTER IT WAS MENTIONED ASAP ROCKY.

>> THE NEXT TIME YOU TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT WAS ON THE TELEPHONE WAS SEPTEMBER 9TH, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEPOSITION, RIGHT.

>> I MAY HAVE EVEN SPOKEN TO HIM ON SEPTEMBER 6TH BUT AGAIN I JUST DON'T HAVE ALL THE RECORDS.

I WISH I COULD GET THEM THEN I COULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS VERY EASILY.

>> OKAY.

BUT ON SEPTEMBER 9TH AT YOUR DEPOSITION YOU WERE EXTREMELY CLEAR.

YOU CALLED THE PRESIDENT AND YOU SAID HE WAS FEELING CRANKY THAT DAY, RIGHT.

>> HE SEEMED VERY CRANKY TO ME.

>> YOU SAID ON NO UNCERTAIN TEAMS AND THIS IS ON THE HEELS OF THE BILL TAYLOR TEXT.

>> RIGHT.

>> WHAT DID YOU PRESIDENT SAY TO YOU ON SEPTEMBER 9 THAT YOU REMEMBER.

>> WELL WORDS TO THE EFFECT I DECIDED TO ASK THE PRESIDENT THE QUESTION IN AN OPEN ENDED FASHION BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FLOATING AROUND AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH UKRAINE.

SO RATHER THAN ASK THE PRESIDENT NINE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, IS IT THIS, IS IT THAT, I JUST SAID WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE.

I MAY HAVE EVEN USED A FOUR-LETTER WORD.

AND HE SAID I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO, I JUST WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING, TO DO WHAT HE RAN UNDER OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.

THAT GAVE ME THE E IMPETUS TO RESPOND TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AS I SAID TO MR. GOLDMAN IT WAS NOT AN ARTFULLY WRITTEN TEXT, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC, PUT IT IN QUOTES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT BASICALLY, I WANT MR. TAYLOR, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO PICK UP THE BALL AND TAKE IT FROM THERE.

I HAD GONE AS FAR AS I COULD GO.

>> YOU BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT?

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M NOT GOING TO CHARACTERIZE WHETHER I PLEAD OR DIDN'T BELIEVE.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO CONVEY WHAT HE SAID ON THE PHONE.

>> AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE PAUSE FOR AID FOR 55 DAYS, THERE WAS A NEWS ARTICLE IN POLITICO ON AUGUST 28 TALKING ABOUT IT.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN RECEIVING CALLS FROM SENATORS.

HE HAD BEEN GETTING PRESSURE TO LIFT THE AID, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YES.

>> I WANT TO TURN BACK TO YOUR OPENER ON PAGE 5 UNDER, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID, I LATER CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS SPECULATION, RIGHT.

>> IT WAS A PRESUMPTION.

>> BUT IT WAS A GUESS, IN FACT I THINK YOU EVEN SAID THIS MORNING.

>> WELL, I WANT TO SAY THAT IT GOES BACK TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CHAIRMANSHIP TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR IN MY MIND AT THAT POINT.

>> BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, CORRECT.

>> OTHER THAN THE AID WASN'T BEING RELEASED AND WE WEREN'T GETTING ANYWHERE WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

>> ABOUT AMBASSADOR COAL VERT CLUE -- VOLKER CLUE YOU IN THIS WAS THE ISSUE.

THIS IS A HIGH, THIS IS A PRETTY SERIOUS CONCLUSION YOU'VE REACHED WITHOUT PRECISE EVIDENCE.

>> WELL, I SENT THAT E-MAIL TO SECRETARY POMPEO TO SET UP A POTENTIAL MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW AND WHEN I REFERRED TO THE LOG JAM, I REFERRED TO THE LOG JAM IN A VERY INCLUSIVE WAY.

EVERYTHING WAS JAMMED UP >> AUGUST 22ND.

>> OKAY.

SO YOU'RE ASKING SECRETARY POMPEO WHETHER WE SHOULD BLOCK TIME.

I MEAN, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF BIDEN OR BURISMA OR ANYTHING LINKING TO AID IN THIS E-MAIL THAT YOU SENT TO POMPEO.

>> NO.

THIS WAS A PROPOSED BRIEFING THAT I WAS GOING TO GIVE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND I WAS GOING TO CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND ASK HIM TO SAY WHAT IS IN THIS E-MAIL AND I WAS ASKING ESSENTIALLY PRESIDENT POMPEO'S PERMISSION TO DO THAT WHICH HE SAID YES.

>> BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE ORIGINS OF THE 2016 ELECTION.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH JOE BIDEN.

>> JOE BIDEN DID NOT COME UP.

>> OKAY.

STEPPING BACK A PAGE TO YOUR E-MAIL TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 11TH, YOU E-MAILED SECRETARY POMPEO AND YOU SAY KURT AND I NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT FROM ZELENSKY TO BE DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A DAY OR TWO.

THE QUESTION I HAVE HERE, I MEAN THAT STATEMENT NEVER WAS ISSUED AND IN FACT AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAS TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND ULTIMATELY THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA SO THE STATEMENT NEVER REACHED A FINALIZED STATE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BUT EVEN IF IT HAD, IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT BIDENS OR BURISMA OR ANYTHING INSIDIOUS, CORRECT.

>> WELL TH STATEMENT AS I RECALL WOULD HAVE MENTIONED THE 2016 ELECTION SLASH DNC SERVER AND BURISMA.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE MENTION THE BIDENS.

>> VERTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER HOW HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA.

>> NO.

>> I MEAN, HE HAS SAID THAT IF THERE WERE UKRAINIANS ENGAGED IN VIOLATIONS OF UKRAINIAN LAW, THEN THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION OUGHT TO INVESTIGATE THAT.

DID AMBASSADOR VOLKER EVER RELAY THAT TO YOU.

>> NO.

WE JUST TALKED IN GENERIC TERMS ABOUT, QUOTE, INVESTIGATING BURISMA.

>> IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

>> I NEVER HEARD VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN COME UP UNTIL VERY LATE IN THE GAME.

>> WHEN THIS.

>> I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE BUT WHEN IT ALL SORT OF CAME TOGETHER, MAYBE AFTER THE TRAN SCRIPT OF THE JULY 25TH CALL.

I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE WHEN I MADE THE CONNECTION.

>> OKAY.

>> A LOT OF PEOPLE DID NOT MAKE THE CONNECTION.

>> I WANT TO TURN TO THE LETTER FROM SENATOR JOHNSON.

WHEN HE HEARD ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES WITHHOLDING THE AID HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT, HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT ON AUGUST 31ST ON PAGE 6 OF HIS LETTER.

HE STATES OR WRITES I ASKED HIM THE PRESIDENT WHETHER THERE WAS SOME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WHERE UKRAINE WOULD TAKE SOME ACTION AND THE HOLD WOULD BE LIFTED.

WITHOUT HESITATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP IMMEDIATELY DENIED SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT EXISTED.

SENATOR JOHNSON QUOTES THE PRESIDENT SAYING NO.

AND HE PREFACED IT WITH A DIFFERENT WORD.

NO WAY.

I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

WHO TOLD YOU THAT.

I HAVE, SENATOR JOHNSON SAYS I HAVE ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZED THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION AS ADAMANT, VEHEMENT AND ANGRY.

THE CALL WAS NOT AN EVENT, IT WAS CAPTURING A GENUINE MOMENT WITH THE PRESIDENT.

HE HAD AT THIS POINT IN TIME ON AUGUST 31ST, HE WAS ADAMANT, VEHEMENT AND ANGRY THAT THERE WAS NO CONNECTIONS TO AID, THERE WERE NO PRE CONDITIONS.

>> I HAD MY MEETING WITH SENATOR JOHNSON WHERE AGAIN I HAD MADE THE PRESUMPTION THAT I HAD MADE TO BOTH MR. YERMAK AND THE E-MAIL I HAD SENT TO SECRETARY POMPEO AND WE WERE SORT OF RUMINATING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AND SENATOR JOHNSON I BELIEVE SAID I'M GOING TO CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP AND FIND OUT.

AND THEN HE OBVIOUSLY HAD THAT PHONE CALL.

I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THAT PHONE CALL.

>> OKAY.

YOU HAVE NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT WASN'T THE WAY IT WENT DOWN, RIGHT.

>> NO BELIEVE TO DISBELIEVE SENATOR JOHNSON.

>> NOW THAT YOU'VE HAD SOME TIME SINCE YOUR DEPOSITION AND YOU SUBMITTED AN ADDENDUM RELATING TO THE WARSAW GET TOGETHER WITH MR. JUR YERMAK, AS WE'RE SITTING HERE TODAY ARE YOU MISSING A LOT OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> I HADN'T HAD THAT MANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE BUNCH OF CALL RECORDS I HAD ACCESS TO, JUST THE SHORT PERIOD OF TIME ON THE CALL INDICATES I NEVER GOT THROUGH.

IN OTHER WORDS I WAS PUT ON HOLD FOR ONE OR TWO MINUTES AND THE CALL NEVER CONNECTED.

SO I REALLY CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE COUNT OF HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS PLUS MR. CASTOR, I'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTERS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH UKRAINE.

>> BUT YOU DON'T THINK WE'RE MISSING ANY MATERIAL CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> I DON'T RECALL ANY MATERIAL CONVERSATIONS TODAY AS I'M SITTING HERE.

>> OR WITH RUDY GIULIANI.

>> MY MEMORY ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI WHETHER THEY WERE DIRECT, WHETHER THEY WERE CONFERENCE CALLS WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER OR SECRETARY PERRY IS REALLY VAGUE WITHOUT SEEING THE CALL LOG.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER KEY FACT WITNESSES THAT WOULD HELP US GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHETHER THERE WAS ANY LINK TO THE AID.

>> MAYBE BRIAN MICK COURT MAC CHIEF OF STAFF OR SECRETARY PERRY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN AND OUT AS WELL.

>> NOW THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY LIFTED ON SEPTEMBER 11, CORRECT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND SENATOR JOHNSON IN HIS LETTER ON PAGE 6 QUOTES THE PRESIDENT ON AUGUST 31ST, RON, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.

WE'RE REVIEWING IT NOW AND YOU'LL PROBABLY LIKE MY FINAL DECISION.

SO EVEN ON AUGUST 31ST AND THIS IS BEFORE ANY CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION STARTED, THE PRESIDENT WAS SIGNALING TO SENATOR JOHNSON THAT HE WAS GOING TO LIFT THE AID.

>> SOUNDS LIKE IT, YES.

>> MOST OF THE OTHER WITNESSES YOU TALKED TO WHETHER IT'S FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR OMB OR HAVE TOLD US THAT ALL ALONG DURING THIS 55-DAY PERIOD THEY GENUINELY BELIEVE THE HOLD WOULD BE LIVED.

WAS THAT YOUR FEELING TOO AT THE TIME.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE EVERY TIME I ASKED ABOUT THE HOLD, I WAS NEVER GIVEN A STRAIGHT ANSWER AS TO WHY IT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO BEGIN WITH.

>> WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS KNOWLEDGE OF THE WHOLE.

>> THAT'S VERY VAGUE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE POLITICO ARTICLE TRIGGERED IT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE TOLD BY MR. GIULIANI.

IT WOULD BE PURE, YOU KNOW, GUESSWORK ON MY PART, SPECULATION.

I DON'T KNOW.

>> DURING YOUR DEPOSITION YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT BELIEVE THEINTERESTED IN BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES.

>> THAT I'M DEFINITELY AWARE OF.

>> THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT INFORMATION FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WASN'T THE REASON FOR THE HOLD.

>> I DON'T.

>> BUT YET YOU SPECULATE THAT THERE WAS A LINK TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

>> I PRESUMED IT, YES.

>> OKAY.

I WANT TO TURN QUICKLY TO THE JULY 10TH MEETING.

THE JULY 10TH MEET IN AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S OFFICE INVOLVING AMBASSADOR VOLKER DANYLYUK -- THERE'S BEEN SOME CONTROVERSIAL.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED IT WASN'T UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING THAT MR. DANYLYUK ABOUT THE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SOME OF THE PLANS HE HAD BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING AMBASSADOR VOLKER RECOLLECTS THAT YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING GENERAL ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM THAT MEETING?

>> AGAIN I'M NOT GOING TO DISPUTE AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S RECOLLECTION PARTICULARLY IF HE HAD NOTES.

I KNOW THAT THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE 2016 ELECTION DNC SERVER IN BURISMA WERE ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED BY THEM.

AGAIN I HAD NO DIRECT CONTACT WITH MR. GIULIANI ON JULY 10TH BUT THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I PROBABLY MENTIONED THAT THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD.

THAT SEEMED TO BE THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AT THE TIME.

I DON'T RECALL ANY ABRUPT ENDING OF THE MEETING ANYBODY STORMING OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY MEMO RULE SOMEBODY STORMED OUT OF THE MEETING BASED ON SOMETHING I SAID.

>> NOBODY ACCUSED YOU AT THAT TIME OF BEING INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF DRUG DEAL.

>> NO.

>> DID DR. HILL EVER RELATE TO YOU HER CONCERNS ABOUT YOU BEING INVOLVED IN DRUG DEAL.

>> NEVER.

>> YOU WERE SURPRISED WHEN TESTIMONY EMERGED THAT SHE THOUGHT THERE WAS A DRUG DEAL GOING ON.

>> I WAS SHOCKED.

>> IN FACT AFTER THE MEETING YOU WENT OUT AND TOOK A PICTURE, RIGHT.

>> YES.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON OR HIS ASSISTANT INDICATED HE WAS OUT OF TIME AND HE HAD ANOTHER MEETING TO ATTEND AND WE ALL WALKED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

EVERYONE WAS SMILING, EVERYONE WAS HAPPY AND WE TOOK A PICTURE ON THE LAWN ON A NICE SUNNY DAY.

>> DID YOU RETIRE TO THE WARD ROOM.

>> I THINK I THINK SECRETARY PERRY ASKED TO USE THE WARD ROOM TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION AND THE REAL SIJ THAT WAS UNDER DEBATE AND IT WASN'T AN ANGRY DEBATE IT WAS A DEBATE.

SHOULD THE CALL FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRESIDENT EXCELLENT KEY BE MADE PRIOR TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE OR AFTER THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.

THERE WAS GOOD REASON FOR BOTH.

WE FELT, AMBASSADOR PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD HELP PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAK TO HIM PRIOR TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION BECAUSE IT WOULD GIVE PRESIDENT EXCEL ZELENSKY MORE CREDIBILITY AND HE WOULD DO BETTER WITH HIS PEOPLE IN THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.

OTHERS I BELIEVE PUSHED BACK AND SAID NO IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO DO IT BEFORE IT SHOULD BE DONE AFTER AND ULTIMATELY IT WAS DONE AFTER.

>> THERE'S NO MENTION OF PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE WARD ROOM.

>> NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

>> ANY SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION.

>> US JUST THE ENERGY INVESTIGATION.

>> WHEN AGAIN DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN NEXUS COME TO YOUR ATTENTION.

>> VERY LATE.

AGAIN I CAN'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.

THE LIGHTBULB WENT ON.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN AS LATE AS ONCE THE TRAN SCRIPT WAS OUT BUT IT WAS ALWAYS BURISMA TO ME AND I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BURISMA AND BIDEN.

>> TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOU NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT ANYONE WAS ASKING UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGA KNOWLED.

>> AND CONSEQUENTLY THESE ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO THAT HAD TO BE ENFORCED BEFORE THE AID WAS RELEASED NEVER CAME TO FRUITION, RIGHT.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> I WANT TO STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND VERIFY WITH YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD SOME GENUINELY DEEP ROOTED CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S WHAT HE EXPRESSED TO US, YES.

>> YOU BELIEVED HIM, RIGHT, GIVEN HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS IN THE REGION.

>> WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATION, I DID.

>> WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED DISCUSSING THE CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH CORRUPTION, BURISMA WASN'T THE ONLY COMPANY THAT WAS MENTIONED, RIGHT?

>> IT WAS AS GENERIC, I THINK I TESTIFIED TO CHAICIAL SCHIFF, I- CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, IT WAS A CORRUPTION OLD BARG -- OLIGARCHD COMES IN UKRAINE.

>> THEY WERE MENTIONED.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF ARE THEY WERE MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE WERE ON AN ISSUE WITH MASTER GAS SO THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM.

>> AT ONE POINT IN YOUR DEPOSITION I BELIEVE YOU SAID MASTER GAS COMES UP IN EVERY CONVERSATION, IS THAT FAIR.

>> PROBABLY.

>> I GUESS DR. HILL AT ONE POINT ATTRIBUTED TO YOU THE TERMINOLOGY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD GIVEN YOU A LARGE REMAKE.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HER ASSERTION OF THAT.

>> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

>> BUT YOU HAVE AND WE GOT INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT GAVE YOU A SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE, CORRECT.

>> WELL, WHEN THE PRESIDENT APPOINTED ME TO THE, AS THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, UKRAINE WAS PART OF MY PORTFOLIO.

WHAT MADE MY ASSIGNMENT LARGER THAN JUST BEING PART OF MY PORTFOLIO WERE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS NO CURRENT SITTING AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE AND THERE WAS A NEW PRESIDENT IN UKRAINE.

AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THE THREE AMIGOS, PERRY VOLKER AND I WAS THAT UKRAINE NEEDED EXTRAORDINARY HIGH LEVEL SUPPORT IT COULD GET FROM THE UNITED STATES DURING THIS PERIOD WHICH WE CLEARED WITH BOTH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND WITH CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY TO CONTINUE WORKING ON IT.

BY EXTENSION, YES, IF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF APPROVE YOUR REMIT, IT REALLY IS COMING FROM THE PRESIDENT.

>> WHEN WE ASKED YOU THAT AT THE DEPOSITION YOU SAID I WAS SPINNING A LITTLE BIT.

>> I WAS SPINNING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, I THINK, IN THE INTERVIEW IN KYIV.

>> YOU FURTHER TESTIFIED WHEN I SAID THE PRESIDENT GAVE ME AN ASSIGNMENT, IT WASN'T THE PRESIDENT, IT WAS THE SECRETARY THROUGH THE PRESIDENT.

AND THAT'S WHERE I RECEIVED MY DIRECTION, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> DID AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EVER BRING ANY CONCERNS TO YOUR ATTENTION ABOUT THE SO-CALLED THE CHANNEL HE DUBBED IRREGULAR.

>> NO.

IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE.

WHEN HE CAME TO POST, I THINK, I ANYWAY I CALLED HIM OR HE CALLED ME.

I THINK HE SPOKE WITH SECRETARY PERRY AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER SEPARATELY.

AND IN THE COURSE OF THE FIRST FEW WEEKS, HE WAS HIGHLY APPRECIATIVE THAT A NEW AMBASSADOR COMING TO POST LIKE HIMSELF WAS GETTING THE KIND OF SUPPORT HE WAS GETTING FROM ALL THREE OF US.

HAVING A CABINET MEMBER, A SPECIAL ENVOY AND A FELLOW AMBASSADOR ALL HELPING TO RAISE THE PROFILE OF YEW BRAIN.

HE WAS HIGHLY -- UKRAINE.

HE WAS HIGHLY PRESSURIVE AND HIGHLY COMPLIMENTARY.

>> YOU RECEIVED AN OPEN LINE WITH HIM, CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TEXTS SOME OF WHICH I HAVE AND SOME OF WHICH I DON'T WHERE HE IS REACHING OUT CONSTANTLY TO ME AND THE OTHERS FOR ADVICE AND HELP.

>> WE TRIED TO COUNT THEM UP.

THERE'S 215 OR SOMETHING TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN YOU, VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DURING EARLIER AUGUST TIME FRAME.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU.

>> I THINK TAYLOR STARTED IN LATE JUNE OR EARLY JULY WAS WHEN HE FIRST TOOK POST AND I THINK WE BEGAN COMMUNICATING FAIRLY SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

>> AND HE NEVER COMMUNICATED ANY CONCERNS TO YOU DURING THIS TIME FRAME THAT HE HAD ISSUES WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WHAT WAS GOING ON?

>> HIS REQUEST FOR SOME SORT OF INVESTIGATION.

>> NOT IN THE EARLY STAGES.

YOU KNOW, AS TIME WENT ON, HIS E-MAILS BEGAN TO BE A LITTLE MORE POINTED AND FRANTIC AND THESE WHEN WE HAD VERY LITTLE VISIBILITY AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON EITHER.

I THINK IT HAD TO DO MORE WITH THE AID AND WHY AID WAS SUSPENDED.

>> ULTIMATELY YOU PUT A PERIOD ON THAT ISSUE BY HAVING THE SEPTEMBER 9TH COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHEN YOU SHARED THAT FEEDBACK WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WAS HE SATISFIED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOW BEHIND HIM.

>> I DON'T REALLY KNOW BECAUSE HE RESPONDED WHEN I SAID GET A HOLD OF THE SECRETARY AND HE SAID I AGREE AND I NEVER KNEW WHETHER HE REACHED OUT TO THE SECRETARY OR NOT THE THIS WAS SORT OF THE END OF THAT.

>> AT ONE POINT IN YOUR TEXT YOU SAID LET'S GET ON THE PHONE, RIGHT.

YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL THAT DOESN'T LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THESE ISSUES ON TEXTS WHEN YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT ON THE TELEPHONE, CORRECT.

>> I SAY THAT TO EVERYBODY WHEN SOMETHING BECOMES MORE SUBSTANTIVE THAN JUST A FEW LINES OF TEXT I SAY LET'S TALK.

>> DID YOU TALK WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> I DON'T RECALL.

I MEAN I DON'T RECALL WHETHER WE SPOKE RIGHT AFTER THAT, WHETHER HE CALLED THE SECRETARY.

I BASICALLY, MR. CASTOR WANT TO GET THE NOTION ACROSS I'VE GONE AS FAR AS I CAN GO WITH THIS.

YOU NEED TO PICK UP, YOU'RE THE AMBASSADOR YOU NEED TO PICK UP THE BALL AND RUN WITH IT AT THIS POINT.

>> OKAY.

JUST GETTING BACK TO THE REGULAR CHANNEL.

DID ANYONE ELSE EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT THIS SO-CALLED IRREGULAR CHANNEL.

>> I'M NOT SURE HOW SOMEONE COULD CHARACTERIZE SOMETHING AS AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SECRETARY OF STATE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE, THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S IRREGULAR.

IF A BUNCH OF FOCUSES THAT ARE NOT IN THAT CHANNEL ARE AWE -- AGGRIEVED.

WHY NOT WHETHER IT'S US THAT'S THE IRREGULAR OR THE LEADERSHIP WHO IS MAKING THE DECISION.

>> THE CONCERNS RAISED WERE NEVER BROUGHT TO A HEAD.

>> WELL THEY WERE NEVER RAISED.

THEY WERE NEVER RAISED.

NO ONE SAID BACK OFF OF UKRAINE, THIS IS DANGEROUS, YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S UNTOWARD.

WE HAVE CONCERNS.

THERE WAS A BAD PHONE CALL ON JULY 25TH.

THERE'S TALK ABOUT A DRUG COCKTAIL OR SOMETHING.

NO ONE EVER SAID THAT TO ME BY PHONE, BY TEXT, BY E-MAIL.

I DON'T REMEMBER ANYBODY SOUNDING ANY ALARM BELL.

BECAUSE OF COURSE HAD SOMEONE MENTIONED IT I WOULD HAVE SAT UP AND TAKEN NOTE OF IT.

EVERYONE'S HAIR WAS ON FIRE BUT NO ONE DECIDED TO TALK TO US.

>> WHEN YOU TALK IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID I LATER CAME TO BRIEF THROUGH SPECULATION AND SHEER GUESS THAT THE RESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF 2016.

I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT AT THIS POINT YOU BELIEVED EVERYONE, EVERYONE KNEW THIS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I THINK ONCE THAT POLITICO ARTICLE BROKE, IT STARTED MAKING THE ROUNDS THAT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITHOUT THE STATEMENT WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET A $400 MILLION CHECK.

AGAIN THAT WAS MY PRESUMPTION.

>> BUT YOU HAD NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT, CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU STATED THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS YOUR RECORDS IS THAT CORRECT.

>> NOT ALL OF THEM.

AND THERE ARE LOTS OF NOTES, RECORDS, READOUTS OF CALLS, CAN'T GET TO THEM.

>> BUT YOU'VE ALSO STATED THAT YOU DON'T TAKE NOTES, RIGHT.

>> I DON'T TAKE NOTES BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHERS OUT THERE.

>> AND YOU FREELY ADMIT THAT, AFTER YOUR DEPOSITION A LIST OF ALL THE TIMES YOU SAY YOU DON'T RECALL ARE LIKE TWO PAGES LONG.

>> IS THAT ALL?

>> ON A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS, THERE'S NUANCE, THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES, WE DON'T HAVE RECORDS OR NOTES OR RECOLLECTIONS, CORRECT?

>> RIGHT.

I MEAN IT'S SITUATIONAL THINGS THAT SORT OF TRIGGER MEMORY I SPESHESLY WHEN I'M DEALING WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION, I'M DEALING WITH THE 28 MEMBER COUNTRIES, I'M DEALING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION THAT ARE PART OF MY MANDATE, I'M DEALING WITH THE WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP.

THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF TO JUGGLE AND AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, A PHONE CALL FOR ME WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE PRESIDENT OF FILL IN THE BLANK COUNTRIES WHILE PEOPLE WHO GET A CALL LIKE THAT MAYBE ONCE IN A LIFETIME A CALL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE VERY MEMORABLE.

THEY MIGHT REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT IT.

I'M DOING THAT ALL DAY LONG AND I'M NOT SAYING IT IN A WAY OF BEING BRAGGIDOCIO BUT IT'S PART OF MY ROUTINE DAY.

PART OF THESE CALLS THESE MEETINGS WHERE VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE SORT OF TEND TO BLEND TOGETHER UNTIL I HAVE SOMEONE THAT CAN SHOW ME WHAT WE DISCUSSED, WHAT THE SUBJECT WAS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT COMES BACK.

>> WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE FACTS, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WHAT'S RELIABLE WHAT'S ACCURATE.

BILL TAYLOR TOOK NOTES AND HE HELD IT UP AND SAYS WHEN I'M NOT AT MY DESK AND AT MY PHONE I USE THIS NOTEBOOK.

WHEN I'M AT MY DESK I USE A NOTEBOOK.

THERE WERE NUMEROUS NOTES TO THE FILE.

KATHRYN CROFT TESTIFIED SHE DIDN'T BELIEVE GEORGE KENT'S NOTES WOULD BE ACCURATE.

SO WE HAVE ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH BUT AS WE GET TO THE END HERE, YOU DON'T HAVE RECORDS, YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR NOTES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAKE NOTES.

YOU DON'T A LOT OF RECOLLECTIONS.

I MEAN THIS IS LIKE THE TRIFECTA OF UNRELIABILITY, ISN'T THAT TRUE?

>> WELL, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO TODAY IS TO USE THE LIMITED INFORMATION I HAVE TO BE AS FORTHCOMING AS POSSIBLE WITH YOU AND THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE.

AND AS THESE RECOLLECTIONS HAVE BEEN REFRESHED BY SUBSEQUENT TESTIMONY, BY SOME TEXT AND E-MAILS THAT I'VE NOW HAD ACCESS TO, I THINK I FILLED IN A LOT OF BLANKS.

>> A LOT OF IT SPECULATION, A LOT OF IT IS YOUR GUESS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SO THE EVIDENCE HERE OUGHT TO BE PRETT DARN GOOD.

>> I'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR AS TO WHEN I WAS PRESUMING AND I WAS PRESUMING ON THE AID.

ON THE OTHER THING, MR. CASTOR I DID HAVE SOME TEXTS THAT I READ FROM.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE, I'LL RELY ON THOSE TEXTS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE TEXTS WERE YOU KNOW FALSELY SENT OR THAT THERE IS SOME SUBTERFUGE THERE, THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE, THEY SAY WHAT THEY SAY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO A SECOND STAFF-LEAD ROUND OF 30 MINUTES.

MR. VOLKER I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS BEFORE I TURN IT BACK TO MR. GOLDMAN.

YOU TESTIFIED IN RESPONSE TO MY COLLEAGUES MINORITY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF A LOT OF PEOPLE DID NOT MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BURISMA AND BIDEN.

A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE REAL DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THAT.

MORRISON TESTIFIED I THINK IT TOOK HIM ALL OF DOING A GOOGLE SEARCH TO FIND OUT OH, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANCE OF BURISMA THAT INVOLVES THE BIDENS.

ARE YOU SAYING DURING ALL THIS TIME UP UNTIL THE CALL YOU NEVER MADE THE CONNECTION WHEN BURISMA AND THE BIDENS, YOU JUST THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT AND RUDY GIULIANI WERE INTERESTED IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR UKRAINIAN COMPANY?

>> AGAIN, MY ROLE, MR. CHAIRMAN, WAS JUST TO GET THE MEETING.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT MY QUESTION IS ARE YOU SAYING THAT FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS NOTWITHSTANDING EVERYTHING RUDY GIULIANI WAS SAYING ON TV AND ALL THE DISCUSSIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI THAT YOU NEVER PUT BURISMA TOGETHER WITH THE BIDENS?

>> I DIDN'T AND I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT MR. GIULIANI WAS SAYING ON TV OR TALKING TO HIM DIRECTLY.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED YESTERDAY TO A SIMILAR EPIPHANY FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.

THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.

IN HINDSIGHT, I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATION POSSIBLY CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE UKRAINIAN COMPANY BURISMA AS EQUIVALENT TO INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

I SAW THEM VERY DIFFERENT AS VERY DIFFERENT, THE FORMER BEING APPROPRIATE AND UNREMARKABLE, THE LATTER BEING UNACCEPTABLE.

IN RETROSPECT I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION DIFFERENTLY AND HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS.

DOES THAT SUM UP YOUR VIEWS AS WELL?

>> IT DOES.

>> NOW, I THINK YOU ASKED THE QUESTION WITH A BIT OF INCORRECT PREMISE BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THE MINORITY THAT FIONA HILL SAYING THAT REFERRING TO A DRUG DEAL BETWEEN YOU AND MR. MULVANEY.

IT WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON WHO MADE THE COMMENT THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE PART OF ANY DRUG DEAL THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MULVANEY WERE COOKING UP.

NO ONE THINKS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A LITERAL DRUG DEAL HERE OR A DRUG COCKTAIL.

THE IMPORT I THINK OF THE BY'S COMMENTS IS QUITE CLEAR THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THIS BARGAIN, THIS QUID PRO QUO AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT OVER A MEETING OF THE INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE MEETING WAS NOT SOMETHING HE WANT TO BE A PART OF.

WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IS HE MAKES REFERENCE IN THAT DRUG DEAL TO A DRUG DEAL COOKED UP BY YOU AND MULVANEY.

IT'S THE REFERENCE TO MULVANEY THAT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT.

YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT MULVANEY WAS AWARE OF THIS QUID PRO QUO OF THIS CONDITION THAT THE UKRAINIANS HAD TO MEET, THAT IS ANNOUNCING THIS PUBLIC INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF IT.

>> INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND INCLUDING THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

>> CORRECT.

>> NOW, HAVE YOU SEEN THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF'S PRESS CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD IN PART BECAUSE OF A DESIRE TO GET THAT 2016 INVESTIGATION TALKED ABOUT?

>> I DON'T THINK I SAW IT LIVE.

I SAW IT LATER, YEAH.

>> YOU SAW HIM ACKNOWLEDGE PUBLICLY WHAT YOU HAVE CONFIRMED TOO THAT MR. MULVANEY UNDERSTOOD THAT TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> WELL AGAIN, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE AID WAS CONCLUSIVELY TIED.

I WAS PRESUMING.

HE WAS IN A POSITION TO SAY YES IT WAS OR NO IT WASN'T BECAUSE -- >> AND HE SAID YES IT WAS, DID HE NOT.

>> HE SAID YES IT WAS.

>> MR. GOLDMAN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU AGAIN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AND WE UNDERSTAND, WE SHARE YOUR FRUSTRATION IN NOT HAVING THE DOCUMENTS TO HELP GUIDE THIS INVESTIGATION.

SO WE DO APPRECIATE THOSE EFFORTS.

ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US GOES BACK TO THE CONVERSATION YOU AND THE CHAIRMAN WERE HAVING ABOUT MR. MULVANEY AND YOU HAD BEEN TRYING FOR SOMETIME BEFORE THE JULY 25TH CALL TO SET UP THAT CALL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> TO SET UP THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YES.

>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU AN E-MAIL THAT YOU REFERENCE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT IS A JULY 19TH E-MAIL.

WHO IS THIS FROM?

>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S FROM ME.

I DON'T KNOW.

>> IT'S FROM YOU, I BELIEVE.

>> THAT'S FROM ME TO THE GROUP.

>> NOW WHO IS THE GROUP?

>> PEOPLE MENTIONED ON THE E-MAIL, BLARE, KENNA, M MICK COT MAC, POMPEO.

>> WHO IS BLARE.

>> A CHIEF OF STAFF OR ADVISOR TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF.

>> YOU ALREADY TOLD US THAT LISA KENNA IS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR SECRETARY POMPEO.

WHO IS BRIAN MCCOMMAC.

HE WAS CHIEF OF STAFF FOR SECRETARY PERRY.

>> THEN WE SEE MR. MULVANEY SECRETARY PERRY AND SECRETARY POMPEO.

CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE ON JULY 19TH TO THIS GROUP, PLEASE?

>> HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE PO US CALL.

WILL ASSURE HIM THAT HE INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE.

HE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE A CALL PRIOR TO SUNDAY SO HE COULD PUT OUT SOME MEDIA ABOUT A FRIENDLY AND PRODUCTIVE CALL NO DETAILS PRIOR TO UKRAINE ELECTION ON SUNDAY.

>> THE SUNDAY WAS THE 21ST WHICH IS THE DATE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> WHEN YOU SAY WILL ASSURE HIM THAT HE INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL, QUOTE, TURN OVER EVERY STONE, UNQUOTE.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE?

>> I'M REFERRING TO THE BURISMA AND THE 2016 SLASH DNC SERVER INVESTIGATION.

>> LATER THAT EVENING, SECRETARY PERRY RESPONDS JUST TO YOU AND BRIAN MCCORMACK SAYING MICK SET UP THE CALL BEING REFERRED TO BY NSC OR P. A LITTLE LATER, MR. MULVANEY PLIES TO ALL SAYING I ASKED NSC TO SET IT UP FOR TOMORROW.

WERE THESE THE ONLY RESPONSES THAT YOU RECEIVED TO THIS E-MAIL.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

IF I HAVE THEM, I WOULD SHOW THEM.

I DON'T KNOW.

>> NO ONE WROTE BACK TO YOU AND SAID WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN TURNING OVER EVERY STONE.

>> NO.

THERE WAS A CHAIN AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PART OF THIS E-MAIL OR SUBSEQUENT E-MAIL WHERE I BELIEVED AMBASSADOR BOLTON PUSHED BACK AND SAID HE DID NOT WANT A CALL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP UNTIL AFTER THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION.

>> SO THAT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS MOVED FROM THE NEXT DAY JULY 20TH TO THE 25TH, RIGHT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> BUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS NOT ON THIS E-MAIL, IS HE.

>> I DON'T THINK HE IS, NO.

>> NOW YOU WERE ASKED BY MR. CASTOR IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER KEY WITNESSES WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP WITH OUR INVESTIGATION AND YOU MENTIONED BRIAN MCCORMACK CHIEF OF STAFF OF SECRETARY PERRY.

>> I DID.

>> YOU'RE AWARE THE COMMITTEE SUBPOENAED HIM.

>> I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT I HE REFUSED TO COME TO TESTIFY.

ARE YOU AWARE MR. MULVANEY WAS SUBPOENAED BY THE COMMITTEE AND REFUSED TO COME TESTIFY.

>> I DID READ THAT NEWSPAPERS.

>> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT ROBERT BLARE WAS SUBPOENAED AND REFUSED TO COME TESTIFY.

>> I'M AWARE OF THAT.

>> AND SECRETARY PERRY WAS ASKED TO COME TESTIFY AND REFUSED.

>> I AM AWARE OF THAT AS WELL.

>> SO WOULD YOU INCLUDE THEM AS WELL AS SECRETARY POMPEO AS KEY WITNESSES THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS INQUIRY.

>> I THINK THEY WOULD.

>> THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU INDICATED THAT MR. MULVANEY HEARD ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. MULVANEY HEARD OR DIDN'T HEAR.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN A HUGE AMOUNT OF EXAGGERATION OVER MY CONTACT WITH MR. MULVANEY.

IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE LIMITED.

>> HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T INDICATE, HE CERTAINLY INDICATED A FAMILIARITY WITH WHAT YOU WERE TALK BIG IN THIS JULY 19TH E-MAIL.

>> RIGHT.

BECAUSE I THINK MR. MULVANEY WAS IN THE MAY 23RD BRIEFING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I DON'T REMEMBER BECAUSE THERE WERE PEOPLE SITTING BEHIND US THAT WERE COMING AND GOING WHEN WE WERE SITTING IN FRONT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESK.

>> NOW YOU'VE SAID YOU DON'T HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF SAYING REFERENCING MULVANEY IN THE JULY 10TH MEETING AT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER.

>> SO WHEN BOTH FIONA HILL AND COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFY THAT IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AT THAT JULY 10TH MEETING ABOUT SCHEDULING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT THAT YOU SAID WELL, I SPOKE WITH MR. MULVANEY AND IT WILL BE SCHEDULED AFTER THEY ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS, DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE THAT CHARACTERIZATION?

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY AGREE OR DISPUTE IT, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER.

>> SO IF THEY BOTH REMEMBERED IT AND THEY BOTH THEN WENT AND SPOKE TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR ABOUT IT, YOU WOULD TRUST THAT WHATEVER THEY RELAYED TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR WOULD LIKELY BE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION.

>> I TRUST THEY WENT TO THE LEGAL ADVISOR.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I SAID IT AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH CONVERSATION.

AGAIN, I'VE HAD VERY VERY LIMITED CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MR. MULVANEY.

>> THIS E-MAIL INDICATES THAT YOU SPOKE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND WER REL RELAYING WHAT HE SAD TO VARIOUS OFFICIALS.

>> WHICH E-MAIL.

>> JULY 19TH E-MAIL WHERE YOU SAY THE SUBJECT IS I TALKED TO ZELENSKY JUST NOW.

>> YES, I GOT IT.

>> WAS THERE SOME SORT OF ASSURANCE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO PROVIDE ABOUT WHAT HE WOULD SAY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ORDER JUST TO GET THE PHONE CALL?

>> I THINK THAT PART WAS VERBAL AND THEN THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMUNICATIONS GOING AROUND BACK AND FORTHWITH THE UKRAINIANS AND THAT'S WHEN SOMEONE AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF A DRAFT STATEMENT SO THERE WOULD BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT IN FACT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD SAY AND WOULD BE WILLING TO SAY THAT WE COULD RELY ON AND NEGOTIATE SOMETHING ON A PIECE OF PAPER.

>> SO JUST TO PLACE YOU IN TIME WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT DRAFT STATEMENT WHICH WAS IN AUGUST.

THIS WAS JULY 19 BEFORE THE JULY 25TH CALL.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER THERE WAS A NEED FROM ANY OF THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS OR OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO PROVIDE SOME ASSURANCE OF WHAT HE WOULD SAY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE A PHONE CALL.

NOT THE MEETING BUT A PHONE CALL WAS SCHEDULED.

>> THERE WAS INITIALLY APPARENTLY A CONDITION BUT THAT CONDITION WAS OBVIOUSLY DROPPED BECAUSE THE PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AND THERE WAS NO SUCH STATEMENT MADE.

THE PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AS YOU SAID ON THE 25TH OF JULY.

>> WHEN YOU SAY THERE WAS NO SUCH STATEMENT THAT TOOK PLACE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN.

>> WELL THE UKRAINIANS NEVER MADE THEIR PUBLIC STATEMENT PRIOR TO THE PHONE CALL ON THE 25TH OF JULY.

>> RIGHT BUVMENT WE'RE NOT TALK BIG A PUBLIC STATEMENT.

WHAT I WAS ASKING IS WHETHER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO RELAY TO YOU OR THE OTHER AMERICAN OFFICIALS THAT HE WOULD ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WOULD DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN A PHONE CALL.

>> IN MY E-MAIL I OBVIOUSLY HAD JUST SPOKEN WITH HIM AND HE, HE BEING ZELENSKY AND HE SAID THAT HE WAS PRESENTED TO RECEIVE THE CALL AND HE WOULD MAKE THOSE ASSURANCES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THAT CALL AND THEN PRESUMABLY THAT WOULD THEN LEAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> AND YOU HAD BEEN DISCUSSING THIS PHONE CALL FOR QUITE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS NOW, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, I THINK WITH VOLKER, WITH PERRY, WITH GIULIANI THROUGH VOLKER AND PERRY.

>> AND THEN RIGHT AFTER YOU SENT THIS E-MAIL ASSURING THE OTHERS THAT HE WILL DISCUSS THE INVESTIGATIONS AND WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE, BURISMA AND 2016 ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS, MR. MULVANEY RESPONDED THAT HE ASKED TO SET UP THE CALL FOR THE NEXT DAY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

>> NOW LET'S GO TO THAT PRESS STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING IN AUGUST.

AND YOU TESTIFIED, I BELIEVE, THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT'S INTERESTS WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S WHAT WE ALL UNDERSTOOD.

>> WITH YOU ALL, WHO DO YOU MEAN YOU Y'ALL.

>> SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, MYSELF.

>> THERE ALL, YOU AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER WERE COORDINATING WITH ANDRIY YERMAK ZELENSKY'S AIDE ABOUT A PRESS STATEMENT.

I WANT TO PULL UP SOME OF THE TEXT EXCHANGES YOU WERE REFERRING TO WHICH AS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE HELPED TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> I THINK TAYLOR WAS INVOLVED IN THOSE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS AS WELL.

>> HE'S NOT ON ANY OF THESE TEXT MESSAGES SO PERHAPS HE WAS.

HE DOES NOT REMEMBER THAT.

BUT LET'S GO TO THE FIRST ONE.

ON AUGUST 9TH.

THERE'S AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND YOU WHERE YOU ARE DISCUSSING SETTING UP, WE'LL TRY TO BRING IT UP IN A SECOND BUT I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE FOR YOU.

YOU'RE DISCUSSING TRYING TO SET UP A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

HERE IT IS.

AND YOU SAY MORRISON READY TO GET DATES AS SOON AS YERMAK CONFIRMS.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAYS EXCELLENT HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM.

YOU SAID NOT SURE I DID.

I THINK POTUS REALLY WANTS THE DELIVERABLE.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN THERE?

>> THE COMMITMENT TO DO THE INVESTIGATION.

>> HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE DELIVERABLES.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE.

I MAY HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM OR I MAY HAVE HEARD IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

I DON'T RECALL.

AGAIN WITHOUT ALL THESE RECORDS.

>> GOING TO THE NEXT EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT 10 WHERE OR AUGUST 10TH, RATHER, THIS IS BETWEEN YOU AND ANDRIY YERMAK.

WHAT DID YOU SAY INITIALLY?

IN THIS EXCHANGE.

>> HELLO.

GOOD.

THAT'S YERMAK.

HOW WAS YOUR CONVERSATION.

>> MR. YERMAK RESPONDS HELLO GOOD.

MY PROPOSAL OF THE RECEIVE DATE AND THEN WE MAKE GENERAL STATEMENT WITH DISCUSSED THINGS.

ONCE WE HAVE A DATE WE'LL CALL FOR A PRESS BRIEFING ANNOUNCING UPCOMING VISIT AND OUTLINING VISION FOR THE REBOOT OF U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS BURISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING AND INVESTIGATION.

>> YOU RESPOND GOT IT.

THAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS STATEMENT HAD TO SAY TO SATISFY MR. GIULIANI, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> YES.

>> THEN ULTIMATELY TO SATISFY THE POTUS DELIVERABLE.

>> YES.

>> NOW THE NEXT DAY YOU WROTE AN E-MAIL TO BRECHBUHL AND LISA KENNA.

WHAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE E-MAIL.

>> UKRAINE.

>> CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE THERE.

>> MIKE, AND I'M REFERRING TO SECRETARY POMPEO.

KURT AND I NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT FROM ZELENSKY TO BE DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A DAY OR TWO.

THE CONTENTS WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

ZELENSKY PLANS TO HAVE A BIG PRESSER ON THE OPENNESS SUBJECT INCLUDING SPECIFICS NEXT WEEK.

>> IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SAID THAT THE SPECIFICS, WHAT DO THE SPECIFICS REPRESENT.

>> THE 2016 AND THE BURISMA.

>> WHEN YOU SAY THE BOSS, WHO DO YOU MEAN BY THAT.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> THE INVITATION IS WHAT?

>> TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> LISA KENNA RESPONDS GORDON I'LL PASS TO S AND S IS SECRETARY POMPEO.

>> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU, LISA.

NOW TWO DAYS LATER, YOU HAVE A TEXT EXCHANGE WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER AGAIN AND THIS IS AT THE END OF IT BUT THE EARLIER TEXT WHICH WE DON'T HAVE HERE YOU MAY RECALL INCLUDES THE PRESS STATEMENT, THE REVISED PRESS STATEMENT THAT INCLUDES BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION, DO YOU RECALL THAT.

>> YES.

IF I COULD SEE IT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT YES.

>> BUT YOU ULTIMATELY REMEMBERED THAT AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. GIULIANI, YOU DID PASS ALONG A STATEMENT TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT INCLUDED BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I THINK THERE WERE STATEMENTS BEING PASSED BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN VOLKER, UKRAINIANS AND OTHERS TO TRY AND NEGOTIATE ACCEPTABLE LANGUAGE.

>> ULTIMATELY THE STATEMENT WAS NOT ISSUED, WAS IT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING DID NOT.

>> STILL HADN'T OCCURRED JIERG STILL HADN'T OCCURRED.

BUT YOU STILL UNDERSTOOD AT THAT TIME DID YOU NOT, THAT IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION AND INSTRUCTION THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANT, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU NOW KNOW THE INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANT WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> I KNOW THAT NOW, YES.

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE AHEAD TO AUGUST 22ND, AND YOU WROTE AN E-MAIL TO SECRETARY POMPEO, DIRECTLY TO SECRETARY POMPEO CC'ING LISA KENNA THE SUBJECT IS ZELENSKY.

COULD YOU PLEASE READ WHAT YOU WROTE TO SECRETARY POMPEO.

>> MIKE, SHOULD WE BLOCK TIME IN WARSAW FOR A SHORT PULL-ASIDE FOR POTUS TO MEET ZELENSKY.

I WOULD ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE MID SEPTEMBER ZELENSKY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD PUBLICLY AND WITH CONFIDENCE ON THOSE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO POTUS AND TO THE U.S. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BREAK THE LOG JAM.

>> SECRETARY POMPEO RESPONDS TO YOU, THREE MINUTES LATER, YES.

NOW, I WANT TO UNPACK THIS A LITTLE BIT.

YOU SAID THAT IN THE MIDDLE, ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT.

>> THE NEW PROSECUTOR THAT WAS GOING TO BE WORKING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE OLD PROSECUTOR I BELIEVE HIS TERM WAS UP OR HE WAS BEING LET GO.

HE WAS THE POROSHENKO PROSECUTOR AND ZELENSKY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL HIS PERSON WAS IN PLACE.

>> ONCE THAT NEW PROSECUTOR WAS IN PLACE, THEN Z, PRESIDENT SLNT SCHEN SEE WHO HAD MOVE FORWARD AND WITH CONFIDENCES ON THOSE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO POTUS.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THOSE ISSUES IMPORTANT TO POTUS.

>> THE 2016 ELECTION AND BURISMA.

>> DID YOU KNOW SECRETARY POMPEO WAS LISTENING IN TO THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL.

>> I WAS NOT.

>> IF HE HAD DO YOU BELIEVE HE WOULD FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES TO POTUS RELATED TO UKRAINE WOULD BE.

>> I CAN'T CHARACTERIZE HIS STATE OF MIND.

HE LISTENED IN ON THE PHONE CALL AND HE CONCLUDED WHAT HE CONCLUDED.

>> BUT NOW YOU'VE READ THE PHONE CALL IT'S QUITE CLEAR WHAT THE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO POTUS ARE.

>> YES.

>> THE BIDEN AND 2016 ELECTION INVESTIGATION IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BREAK THE LOG JAM.

NOW BY THIS POINT, YOU WERE AWARE THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN ON HOLD FOR ABOUT FIVE WEEKS, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> I BECAME AWARE ON THE 18TH OF JULY.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF ACTIVITY WITHIN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND ELSEWHERE TO TRY TO GET THAT HOLD LIFTED, IS THAT RIGHT IF.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THE INTERAGENCY MEANING THE NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS WANT TO LIFT THE HOLD AND WANT THE AID TO GO TO UKRAINE.

>> CORRECT.

>> SO WHAT DID YOU MEAN HERE WHEN YOU SAID LOG JAM.

>> AS I SAID TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, I MEANT INCLUSIVELY ANYTHING THAT WAS HOLDING UP MOVING FORWARD ON THE MEETING AND UKRAINE/U.S.

RELATIONSHIP.

>> WHAT WAS HOLDING THAT UP.

>> AT THAT POINT IT WAS THE STATEMENT ABOUT BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> WHAT WAS BEING HELD UP.

>> THE AID WAS BEING HELD UP OBVIOUSLY.

>> FOUR DAYS LATER YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SENT RUDY GIULIANI CONTACT INFORMATION TO JOHN BOLTON IS THAT RIGHT.

>> I DID.

>> DID YOU KNOW WHY HE ASKED FOR THAT.

>> NO IDEA.

>> DID YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS GOING TO UKRAINE THE NEXT DAY?

>> I KNEW HE WAS ABOUT TO GO TO UKRAINE.

I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN HIS TRIP WAS BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF AN ODD REQUEST GIVEN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE CAN PRETTY MUCH GET ANYONE'S PHONE NUMBER THEY WANT.

>> NOW IN THIS E-MAIL TO SECRETARY PALM PAPER OWE, YOU REFERENCE -- POMPEO YOU REFERENCE THE TRIP TO WARSAW.

ULTIMATELY THE VICE PRESIDENT WENT ON THAT TRIP.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THAT IS THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, YOU SAID EARLIER TO THAT WHERE YOU SAID THAT WE REALLY NEED TO GET THESE INVESTIGATIONS FROM UKRAINE IN ORDER TO RELEASE THE AID IN THE PRE MEETING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND VICE PRESIDENT PENCE JUST NODDED.

>> HE HEARD WHAT I SAID.

>> AND DIDN'T RESPOND IN ANY WAY.

>> I DON'T RECALL ANY SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE.

>> BUT YOU NEVER SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED THE BIDENS OR BURISMA IN THAT MEETING, DID YOU?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER EVER MENTIONING THE BIDENS.

I MAY HAVE MENTIONED BURISMA.

>> IN THAT MEETING IT WAS WITH A GROUP, YOU WERE NOT ALONE WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU KNOW THAT AT THAT BILATERAL MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DID NOT MENTION THESE INVESTIGATIONS AT ALL, RIGHT?

>> I DON'T RECALL HIM MENTIONING THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS JUST SIMPLY IN A PRE MEETING WITH A GROUP OF AMERICANS BEFORE THE BILATERAL MEETING, YOU REFERENCE THE FACT THAT UKRAINE NEEDED TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO LIFT THE AID.

>> I THINK I RERVE REFERENCED, I DIDN'T THINK I SAID THEY HAD TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS I THINK WE HEARD FROM GIULIANI THAT WAS THE CASE.

>> THAT HELPED INFORM YOUR PRESUMPTION, CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> IT WASN'T REALLY A PRESUMPTION, YOU HEARD FROM MR. GIULIANI.

>> WELL I DIDN'T HEAR FROM MR. GIULIANI ABOUT THE AID.

I HEARD ABOUT THE BURISMA AND 2016.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD AT THAT MOMENT AS WE DISCUSSED TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR THAT THE AID WAS THERE AS WELL.

>> THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, MR. GOLDMAN.

NO ONE TOLD ME DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WAS TIED TO ANYTHING.

I WAS PRESUMING IT WAS.

>> WELL, I WANT TO GO AHEAD TO, I WANT TO GO BACK ON SEPTEMBER 1ST OR I'M GOING TO JUMP ACTUALLY AHEAD TO SEPTEMBER 7TH, OKAY.

WHEN WE DISCUSSED THOSE TEXT MESSAGES WHERE YOU SAID THERE WERE MULTIPLE C OMPLET NVO'S WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND POTUS.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

>> DO YOU HAVE THE E-MAIL BY ANY CHANCE.

>> WE'LL TRY TO PULL IT UP IN A SECOND.

YOU DON'T REMEMBER, I SHOWED IT TO YOU.

>> GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION.

>> YOU CONFIRMED THAT LIKELY MEANT AS YOU SAID IT DID THAT YOU SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> AGAIN, IF MY E-MAIL SAID I SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY, I DID.

>> YOU ARE RELYING PRETTY HEAVILY IN YOUR TESTIMONY ON THE TEXAS AND E-MAILS THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO REVIEW, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> CERTAINLY IF SOMEONE ELSE HAD CONTEMPORANEOUS TEXTS, E-MAILS OR NOTES, YOU WOULD PRESUME THAT WHAT THEY WERE SAYING WAS ACCURATE, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> WELL IF THEY HAD TEXT OR E-MAILS I WOULD.

IF THEY HAD NOTES, I DON'T KNOW.

SOME PEOPLE'S NOTES ARE GREAT, SOME PEOPLE'S AREN'T, I DON'T KNOW.

>> BUT CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE A HELPFUL REFRESHER TO ANYONE'S MEMORY.

>> INCLUDING MY OWN.

>> NOW YOU HAD A CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 7TH ACCORDING TO BOTH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TIM MORRISON WITH TIM MORRISON WHERE YOU TOLD MR. MORRISON THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU THAT HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO BUT THAT HE DID INSIST THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GO TO A MICROPHONE AND SAY THAT HE IS OPENING INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN AND 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD WANT TO DO THIS HIMSELF.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE BOTH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S AND MR. MORRISON'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION, DO YOU?

>> NO.

>> ON SANTA 8TH, YOU THEN HAD -- ON SEPTEMBER 8TH YOU THEN HAD A CONVERSATION DIRECTLY WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS SAME PHONE CALL WHERE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT YOU CONFIRMED THAT YOU SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AS HE HAD SUGGESTED EARLIER TO YOU AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ADAMANT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF, MEANING NOT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, HAD TO, QUOTE, CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC, UNQUOTE.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO THEN THAT BY TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY -- AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY BASED ON HIS NOTES -- >> I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR I GOT IT FROM GIULIANI.

THAT'S THE PART I'M NOT CLEAR ON.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S QUITE CLEAR THAT YOU SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP.

MR. MORRISON IS ALSO QUITE CLEAR THAT YOU SAID PRESIDENT TRM.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE THEIR VERY SPECIFIC RECOLLECTIONS, DO YOU?

>> NO.

IF THEY HAVE NOTES AND THEY RECALL THAT.

I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE IT.

I JUST PERSONALLY CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE I GOT IT FROM.

>> THEN YOU ALSO TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN THAT SAME CONVERSATION THAT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RAFT YOU TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND ANDRIY YERMAK THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO AS THE PRESIDENT HAD VERY CLEARLY TOLD YOU, IT WAS, HOWEVER, REQUIRED FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC OR THERE WOULD BE A STALEMATE.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S RECOLLECTION OF THAT CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DO YOU?

>> NO.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THE STALEMATE REFERENCED TO AID, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> AT THAT POINT, YES.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ALSO DESCRIBED A COMMENT THAT YOU MADE WHERE YOU WERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S VIEW OF THIS WAS.

AND YOU SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN.

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

DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> I DON'T RECALL IT SPECIFICALLY BUT I MAY HAVE.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER ALSO SAID THAT YOU DID.

SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE HERE, BY THE END OF THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, BEFORE THE AID HAD BEEN RELEASED, YOU HAD EXPRESSED TWICE TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE AID, THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS NEEDED TO BE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED ON CNN IN ORDER FR THE AID TO BE RELEASED.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED ON CNN.

THE UKRAINIANS SAID TO ME OR TO AMBASSADOR COAL VOLKER OR BOTH S THEY PLANNED TO DO AN INTERVIEW ANYWAY ON CNN AND THEY WOULD USE THAT OCCASION TO MENTION THESE ITEMS.

>> EVEN THOUGH AT SOME POINT YOU HAD CALCULATED TWO PLUS TWO TO EQUAL FOUR AND THEREFORE YOU BELIEVED THAT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT YOU HAD A PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT YOU RELAYED TO BOTH TIM MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHOSE ACCOUNTS OF THAT CONVERSATION YOU DO NOT DISPUTE, WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP CONFIRMED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS OR OTHERWISE THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATION OF THE STALEMATE WOULD BE THAT THE AID WOULD NOT BE RELEASED.

IS THAT CORRECT.

>> AGAIN THE IMPLICATION.

I DID NOT HEAR DIRECTLY FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE AID WOULD BE HELD UP UNTIL THE STAIN WAS MADE.

I DID NOT HEAR THOSE WORDS.

>> YOU AGREE WITH WHATEVER MR. MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED TO ABOUT THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> REMIND ME AGAIN.

I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK.

>> WELL, YOU JUST SAID YOUHAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE THEIR ACCOUNTS BASED ON THEIR DETAILED NOTES.

>> WERE THEY SAYING THAT I TOLD THEM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT THE AID WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE?

BECAUSE I SAID REPEATEDLY I DON'T RECALL PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER SAYING THAT TO ME.

>> OKAY.

WHAT THEY SAID, IF I COULD FINISH THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING, WAS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ADAMANT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF HAD TO CLEAR THINGS UP, QUOTE CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC, UNQUOTE.

SO WHAT THEY RELATED WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP CLAIMED TO YOU THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO HE ALSO MADE IT CLEAR TO YOU ON THAT CALL THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO QUOTE CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE TO CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC.

I'M TRYING TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER TOLD ME DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WAS TIED TO THAT STATEMENT.

>> BUT IN THAT SAME CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH HIM ABOUT THE AID, ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO, HE TOLD YOU THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO, QUOTE, CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC, CORRECT?

>> I DID NOT HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT THE AID.

I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM AS REFERENCED IN MY TEXT ABOUT QUID PRO QUO.

>> WELL THE QUID PRO QUO YOU WERE DISCUSSING WAS OVER THE AID, CORRECT?

>> NO.

PRESIDENT TROUBLE WHEN I ASKED HIM THE OPEN- PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHEN I ASKED HIM THE OPEN ENDED QUESTION AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE.

I WANT NOTHING I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THAT'S WHAT I GOT FROM PRESIDENT TROUBLE.

>> DID YOU ALSO GET FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AS REFLECTED BY BY TAYLOR THAT HE SAID HE WAS ADAMANT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO QUOTE CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC.

>> THAT PART I CAN AGREE TO, YES.

>> TIME OVER TO THE MINORITY FOR 20 MINUTES I'M SORRY, 33 MINUTES.

>> BY, YOU'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME.

>> I HAVE.

>> SO YOU WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF SOMETHING, SOMEBODY THAT'S RUNNING A DEPARTMENT OR ONE OF YOUR BUILDINGS OR SOMETHING, WHO DO YOU GO TO?

>> THE BOSS.

>> MANAGER OF WHATEVER COMPANY, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> IF YOU WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF FOREIGN AID, YOU PROBABLY GO TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN AID HERE IN THIS TOWN, WOULDN'T YOU?

YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF FOR AID.

>> I'M NOT IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN AID.

>> YOU'VE HAD TO TESTIFY THAT YOU PRESUMED FOREIGN AID WAS THIS OR THAT AND YOU'RE GUESSING THAT THIS WAS TIED TO FOREIGN AID.

THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN AID.

AND IN FACT, I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY FAIR TO YOU AT ALL OR TO US OR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED, THAT WE HAVE THAT PERSON HERE IN THE CAPITOL IN A C SECRET DEPOSITION IN A BASEMENT LAST SATURDAY.

THAT TESTIMONY MIGHT BE PRETTY IMPORTANT TO YOU BEFORE YOU WERE HERE TO TESTIFY IF YOU COULD HAVE READ THAT, YOUR LAWYERS COULD HAVE WENT THROUGH THAT BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE CLARIFIED SOME MORE THINGS FOR YOU ABOUT YOUR RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE FOREIGN AID.

SO WE'VE HEARD, EARLIER WE HEARD ABOUT THE, WE HAD THE CHAIR LOOKING AT THE CAMERA TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT WATERGATE WITH THEIR WATERGATE FANTASIES, I GUESS THEY F FANTASIZE ABOUT THIS AT NIGHT AND THEY TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GIVING YOU DOCUMENTS THEY THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE.

NOW THEY LAID OUT THEIR CLEAR WATERGATE ARGUMENT OR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

I HAVE TO REMIND THE GENTLEMAN, I KNOW WE'RE NOT IN A COURT OF LAW BECAUSE YOU WROTE THE RULES, THE CHAIR HERE DID BUT I WOULD THINK IT'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TO NOT GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND GIVE THE AMBASSADOR THE RIGHT TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MAN WHOSE IN CHARGE OF THE FOREIGN AID IN THIS TOWN.

NOW I COULD GET INTO WHAT HE SAID AND THE CHAIR COULD RELEASE WHAT HE SAID.

WE'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO CALL THAT WITNESS HERE TODAY.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT WE DO KNOW ARE FACTS AS BEST I THINK YOU AND I AND MOST PEOPLE KNOW.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT LIKE FOREIGN AID TO START WITH, IS THAT CORRECT, AMBASSADOR.

>> I'VE HEARD THAT, YES.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT WATCHING OVER THE EU, YOU HAVE 28 COUNTRIES, YOU HAVE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES THAT YOU WORK WITH.

ONE OF HIS BIGGEST COMPLAINTS IS THE LACK OF PARTICIPATION THAT THOSE COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAMS AROUND THE WORLD, ISN'T THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ESPECIALLY NATO, RIGHT.

>> YES.

>> THAT'S ONE OF YOU, WHEN YOU START, WHEN YOU GO DOWN THE LIST OF THE JOBS, WHEN YOU GET DIRECTIONS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, WHEN YOU FIRST BECAME AMBASSADOR, PROBABLY ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE THINGS, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS ON YOUR MOUTH BUT ON THE TOP OF THE LIST WAS MAKING SURE COUNTRIES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE ESPECIALLY WITH NATO.

>> YES.

WE HAVE A VERY CAPABLE AMBASSADOR TO NATO SO I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE HER LANE.

>> YOU WORK WITH THOSE COUNTRIES AND ONE OF THE ISSUES YOU BRING UP IN YOUR MEETINGS, CORRECT.

>> IT IS.

>> SO NOW I KNOW YOU WEREN'T ON THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL BUT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BRINGS UP IS GERMANY'S LACK OF PARTICIPATION, I THINK HE NAMED PRESIDENT OF GERMANY DIRECTLY.

THAT THEY ARE NOT PARTICIPATING IN HELPING OUT UKRAINE WHO IS ONE OF THERE ARE NEIGHBORS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU READ IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

>> I'VE HEARD THAT, YES.

>> SO, THE WHOLE IDEA IS THE PRESIDENT STARTS OUT HE DOESN'T LIKE FOREIGN AID AND DOESN'T THINK THE COUNTRIES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE THAT'S LOOKING OUT FOR THE TAXPAYER AND THERE'S MORE AND WE TALK BOARD OF DIRECTOR THIS IN YOUR TEN CISION.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT, ABOUT HOW WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT CONGRESS WRITES REQUIREMENTS INTO THE LAW THAT REQUIRES YOU AND ALL THE DIPLOMATS TO CARRY OUT THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE PRESIDENT CAN CERTIFY FOREIGN AID AND SEND FOREIGN AID THERE HAS TO BE CERTIFICATION THAT THERE'S NO CORRUPTION.

YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT NOW.

>> I AM NOW, YES.

>> SO BEING THAT YOU LEARNED ABOUT THAT IN YOUR DEPOSITION, NOW LOOKING BACK AT CLEARLY THE CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF HIGH LEVEL UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE AMBASSADOR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ATTACKED HIM DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

THE CONCERNS OF LEAKS THAT WERE LEAKED OR JUST MADE UP STORIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT WERE SPUN IN THE STEM DOSSIER THAT THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE OWN, THEY STAY FOR IT.

OTHER DNC OPERATIVES THAT WERE WORKING WITH THE UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR HERE IN WASHINGTON D.C. TO DIRTY UP YOUR BOSS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR FROM THOSE WITNESSES.

JUST LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PERSON WE DEPOSED ON SATURDAY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT THE REAL REASON THE PERSON WHO IS IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE THAT FOREIGN AID IS DELIVERED.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WITH THE FOREIGN AID.

WOULDN'T THAT HAVE MADE IT A HOT EASIER FOR YOU TO TESTIFY INSTEAD OF GUESSING AND DOING LITTLE FUNNY MATH PROBLEMS UP HERE TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR, GREAT FOR ALL THE VIEWERS TO HEAR THAT.

IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER IF YOU JUST KNEW EXACTLY WHY THE FOREIGN AID WASN'T GIVEN?

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO FEF IF I HAD A TOTALITY OF THE RECORD.

>> WOULD YOU TRUST THE PERSON WHOSE IN CHARGE OF CUTTING THE CHECK FOR FOREIGN AID THE TOP CAREER DIPLOMAT OR THE TOP CAREER OFFICIAL.

>> I WOULD HAVE NO REASON NOT TO.

>> AMBASSADOR, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL GET TO SPEAK AGAIN IF WE HAVE SOME MORE MAGICAL MINUTES BUT I'M DONE WITH QUESTIONS WITH YOU.

I KNOW THE REST OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

LET ME TURN TO, I KNOW MR. CASTOR HAS SOME MORE QUESTIONS.

>> HELLO AGAIN, AMBASSADOR.

>> HI.

>> TRY NOT TO USE ALL OF HIS TIME AS A COURTESY TO YOU.

I WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN YOUR OPENER IN YOUR DEPOSITION AND SOME OTHER WITNESSES.

IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, YOU PRESIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED US TO TALK WITH RUDY, CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> BUT THEN YOU AND I HAD A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SAID TALK TO RUDY.

I BELIEVE ASK CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU TOOK THAT TO MEAN IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE TYPE OF THINGS RUDY WAS THE PLACE TO GO.

>> RUDY WAS THE GUY.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T DIRECT YOU TO TALK TO RUDY, CORRECT.

>> IT WASN'T AN ORDER.

IT WAS, IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON THIS, THIS IS THE GUY YOU GOT TO TALK TO.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN HIS DEPOSITION SAID I DIDN'T TAKE IT AS AN INSTRUCTION BUT JUST AS A COMMENT, TALK TO RUDY.

HE KNOWS THESE THINGS AND YOU'VE GOT SOME BAD PEOPLE AROUND HIM, THAT'S REFERRING TO THE UKRAINIANS.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER HASN'T TESTIFIED THERE'S ANY SORT OF ORDER OR DIRECTION TALK TO RUDY.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE TESTIFIED.

IT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO ALL THREE OF US THAT IF WE WANTED TO MOVE THE RELATIONSHIP FORWARD PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN ENGAGING, HE WANT RUDY TO HANDLE IT AND AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, SECRETARY PERRY TOOK THE LEAD AND MADE THE INITIAL CONTACT WITH RUDY AND THAT'S WHEN WE BEGAN WORKING WITH HIM.

>> AS TO THE QUESTION WHETHER MR. J GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING TE DESIRES OF THE UNITED STATES SAID I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS COMING FROM MR. GIULIANI IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> ENNOT GOING TO DISPUTE WHAT I SAID IN MY DEPOSITION.

>> WE WENT THROUGH THE CONVERSATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND THERE'S NOT A LOT.

>> CORRECT.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN HIS DEPOSITION ON THE SAME QUESTION SAID I DID NOT HAVE THAT IMPRESSION.

I BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI WAS DOING HIS OWN COMMUNICATIONS.

YOU KNOW, GRANTED MR. GIULIANI HAD BUSINESS INTEREST IN UKRAINE, CORRECT.

>> NOW I UNDERSTAND HE DID.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME.

>> MESSRS.

PAR MASS AND IF YOU AREMAN -- PARNAS AND FURMAN.

>> THOSE ARE NAMES I HEARD.

>> YOU NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THOSE FOLKS.

>> NO.

>> IN YOUR SEPTEMBER 9 COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT DURING YOUR DEPOSITION THAT WAS A STRIKING MOMENT WHEN YOU WALKED US THROUGH YOUR TELEPHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.

>> BY THE WAY I STILL CANNOT FIND A RECORD OF THAT CALL BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE CANNOT LOCATE BUT I'M PRETTY SURE I HAD A CALL ON THAT DAY.

>> WHETHER IT WAS THE 9TH OR THE 8TH YOU HAD THIS CALL AND IT WAS EXTREMELY MEMORABLE, RIGHT.

>> IT WAS.

>> YOU'VE BEEN VERY HONEST AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GIVE YOU A HARD TIME ON ALL THE TIMES YOU RECALL, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SAY A LOT OF THE IMPORTANT EVENTS THAT HAPPENS THAT THE COMMITTEE'S ASKED YOU ABOUT AND YOU'VE HONESTLY SAID I DON'T RECALL.

BUT THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 9TH OR THE 8TH YOU RECALL IT VIVIDLY, RIGHT.

>> I RECALL IT VIVIDLY BECAUSE IT WAS KEYED BY THE SORT OF FRANTIC E-MAILS FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

I HAD AGAIN PRIOR TO THAT CALL HAD ALL KINDS OF THEORIES AS TO WHY THINGS WEREN'T MOVING, WHY THERE WAS NO WHITE HOUSE MEETING, WHY THERE WAS NO AID, WHY THERE WAS NO THIS, WHY THERE WAS NO THAT AND I WAS GETTING TIRED OF GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES, FRANKLY.

SO I MADE THE CALL AND I ASKED AS I SAID THE OPEN ENDED QUESTION, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE.

THAT'S WHEN I GOT THE ANSWER.

>> HE WAS UNEQUIVOCAL, NOTHING.

>> WHAT I SAID IN THE TEXT IS WHAT I HEARD.

>> I'M CURIOUS.

WOULD AT THAT TIME VIGNETTE IN -- WAS THAT VIGNETTE IN YOUR OPENING TODAY.

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> HOW COME, IT'S SO MEMORABLE, SO STRIKING.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

IT WAS IN MY PREVIOUS TESTIMONY AND I ASSUMED THAT IF PEOPLE HAD QUESTIONS THEY WOULD BRING IT UP.

>> I MEAN THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW A LOT OF WITNESSES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION HAVE DEALT WITH AMBIGUITIES IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND SOME HAVE RESOLVED THEM IN THE LEAST FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THIS IS AN EXCULPATORY FACT SHEDDING SOME LIGHT ON THE PRESIDENT ARE'S STATE OF MIND ABOUT THE SITUATION ABOUT -- >> I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT.

>> I'M WONDERING WHY YOU DIDN'T MITCH IT IN YOUR OPENER.

>> THERE WERE SO MANY THINGS I WANT TO INCLUDE IN MY OPENING AND MY OPENING WAS ALREADY 45 MINUTES OR SOMETHING.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN HOUR AND-A-HALF.

THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS I WOULD LIKED TO HAVE MENTIONED.

>> YOU ONLY HAD A COUPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

WE'RE TRYING TO EVALUATE WHETHER -- >> IT WAS NOT PURPOSEFUL, TRUST ME.

>> TALKING ABOUT STRIKING CONVERSATIONS, MR. HOLMES WHEN HE CAME HERE LAST FRIDAY IN THE BASEMENT, HE, I'LL TELL YOU, HE THOUGHT YOUR CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT WAS THE MOST MEMORABLE THING HE'S EVER EXPERIENCED.

HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS HAS HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> HE PROBABLY HASN'T HAD ANY.

>> BUT HE WAS ENERGIZED, ENTHUSIASTIC TELLING US ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION.

>> NOT ONLY DID I BUY HIM LUNCH BUT I ALSO PROVIDED ENTERTAINMENT.

HE CONFERRED WITH US HE REGALED ANYONE HE CAME ACROSS WITH THIS STORY.

I GUESS THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR THURSDAY.

BUT OTHER THAN THE COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAT HE WAS DEFINITELY MOVED BY THE COLOR.

BUT HE WAS UNEQUIVOCAL THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THE BIDENS IN THE POST CALL DISCUSSION.

HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THE PRESIDENT'S ONLY INTERESTED IN BIG THINGS AND MR. HONG SAID THERE ARE A LOT OF BIG THING GOING ON IN UKRAINE LIKE THERE ARE, THERE'S A WAR, UKRAINE IS UNDER ATTACK IN THE EAST BY RUSSIA.

AND HE PUTS WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH TO THE EFFECT OF NO, THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS LIKE RUDY IS PITCHING ABOUT THE BIDENS.

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS IS THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THE 7/25 CALL.

WHAT'S REPORTED BY MR. HONG AND YOU, YOU CONFILTERED IT, ISN'T ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN HAPPENED ON THE 7/25 CALL, AGREED.

>> WITH 2020 HINDSIGHT NOW WE HAD THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL THE BIDENS WERE CLEARLY MENTIONED ON THE CALL BUT I WAS THE MAKING THE CONNECTION WITH THE BIDENS.

>> WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST MENTIONING INVESTIGATIONS.

>> THAT'S ALL HE SAID ON THE PHONE WAS INVESTIGATIONS I THINK.

>> BUT YOU TOLD US TIME AND AGAIN THAT YOU NEVER REALIZE THE BIDENS WERE PART OF ANY OF THIS, THE BURISMA AND YOU TALKED ABOUT A CONTINUUM AND YOU NEVER CAME TO UNDERSTAND THAT UNTIL MAYBE AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER 25TH, CORRECT.

>> I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE BUT IT WAS PRETTY LATE.

>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID THE BIDENS NEVER CAME UP AFTER HIS ONE BREAKFAST MEETING WITH MAYOR GIULIANI WHERE HE TESTIFIED THAT HE TRIED TO DISABUSE THE MAYOR OF ANYTHING RELATING TO THE BIDENS.

A>> I THINK SECRETARY PERRY TESTIFIED HE NEFERRED HEARD OF THE BIDENS EAT.

>> WHEN YOU TESTIFY HERE TODAY THAT YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF MENTIONING THE BIDENS TO MR.

HOLDS HOLMES, THAT'S NOT JUA RECOLLECTION THAT'S BASED ON YOUR STATE OF MINE AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND YOUR STATE OF MIND UP TO SEPTEMBER 26, CORRECT.

>> I WASN'T INTERESTED IN INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS.

>> IT WAS PROMISING TO YOU THAT HE MENTIONED THAT, RIGHT.

>> IT WAS VERY SURPRISING TO ME.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO A COUPLE THINGS IN YOUR STATEMENT.

THE JULY 26 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

EARLIER IN THE DAY FROM HIS LUNCHTIME EVENT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

DURING THE COURSE OF THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

DID ANY OF THE PARTIES DISCUSS WHAT CAME UP ON THE TELEPHONE CALL.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN'T EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE CALL, RIGHT.

>> I MEAN ALL I HEARD ABOUT THAT CALL WAS THAT IT WAS A CALL, IT FRIENDLY EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY.

I WAS DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE THEN WE COULD MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE OF THE MEETING.

>> YOU CAN TELL US WITH CERTAINTY NOBODY TALKED ABOUT DEMANDS IN THAT MEETING, FULFILLING THE PRESIDENT'S DEMANDS.

>> I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY.

AGAIN THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, MR. CASTOR WHERE I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE SEEN THE NOTES FROM THE MEETING.

I DIDN'T TAKE ANY NOTES BUT I KNOW THERE WERE NOTES TAKEN BUT I DON'T REMEMBER ANY HEATED CONVERSATION IN THE MEETING.

I REMEMBER IT BEING A REALLY REALLY FRIENDLY GOOD MEETING AND THAT'S WHY I SAID WHAT I DID TO THE PRESIDENT THE NEXT DAY WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, ZELENSKY WILL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

HE'S VERY HAPPY.

>> YOU DON'T REMEMBER ANY DISCUSSION BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF LAMENTING HOW HE HAD TO NAVIGATE THIS DIFFICULT SITUATION, RIGHT?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I KNOW THAT WAS IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, SOMETHING ABOUT NAVIGATING SOMETHING.

>> IT WAS.

>> I DIDN'T REMEMBER ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> OKAY.

I WANT TO GET BACK TO YOUR -- >> IF WE HEARD FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER IF WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER YOU WOULDN'T BE UP HERE SPECULATING AS MUCH OR GUESSING BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE THE SOURCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED, WE HAVE THIS COMPLAINT AND WE COULD MATCH IT UP WITH YOUR TESTIMONY ALONG WITH PEOPLE ALONG WITH OMB THAT WOULD HAVE MADE IT EASY FOR YOU TO TESTIFY SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO REMEMBER ALL THIS STUFF AND CASE CONSPIRACY THEORIES AROUND WITH THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUED TO LAY OUT FOR THE LAST SIX WEEKS MOVING FROM QUID PRO QUO TO EXTORTION TO BRIBERY TO WHAT ARE WE AT TODAY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND NOT BACK TO QUID PRO QUO.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ALL THAT IF THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED.

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO COMPLETE ABOUT WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER ONLY HAD IN HIS OR HER COMPLAINT.

NOBODY SEEMS TO KNOW.

WE'RE BACK TO MR. CASTOR.

>> I WANT TO TURN TO YOUR A COUPLE TIMES IN YOUR OPENER YOU SAID EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP.

I JUST WANT TO, THESE TELEVISED PROCEEDINGS SOMETIMES TO LOSE TRACK OF THINGS AND EVERYONE WAS NOT IN THE LOOP WITH YOUR SPECULATION OR YOUR GUESS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID, I LATER CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR WITHOUT PUBLIC STATEMENTS FROM THE UKRAINE.

EVERYONE WASN'T IN THE LOOP WITH THAT, RIGHT?

>> WELL THE SECRETARY WAS BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I SENT MY E-MAILS.

>> BUT YOUR E-MAILS, LET'S LOOK AT YOUR E-MAILS.

THERE'S TWO E-MAILS THAT YOU SENT TO THE SECRETARY, RIGHT?

>> AUGUST 22ND.

>> AUGUST 11TH.

SO THE AUGUST 1T 1TH E-MAIL, I WENT THROUGH IT BEFORE AND SORRY TO GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.

YOU SAID THAT THE SECRETARY NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT FROM Z TO BE DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A DAY OR TWO.

THE CONTENTS WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

Z PLANS TO HAVE A BIG PRESSER ON THE OPENNESS SUBJECT NEXT WEEK.

A COUPLE THINGS HERE.

THIS IS ONLY RELATING TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, CORRECT?

>> YES, I BELIEVE SO.

>> AND THIS IS ONLY, THIS IS JUST INVESTIGATIONS GENERALLY MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF OWNNESS GENERALLY, RIGHT.

>> WELL, I THINK BY AUGUST 11TH, MR. CASTOR, I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 2016 AND BURISMA, INVESTIGATIONS GENERALLY WAS REALLY EARLY IN THE -- >> BUT DO WE KNOW THAT SECRETARY PALM PAPER OWE KNOWS THAT.

>> I THINK SO.

>> WHY.

>> ONLY BECAUSE I THINK AMBASSADOR, OR I'M SORRY COUNSELOR BREXIL WAS BRIEFED ON ALL THESE THINGS.

>> BY WHO, BY YOU.

>> BY I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND MYSELF.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT HE TESTIFIED TESTIFIED TO >> COUNSELOR BREKFORD TESTIFIED.

>> NO, AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

HE DIDN'T TESTIFY THAT HE BRIEFED.

THIS E-MAIL IN THE SECRETARY IS, BY THE WAY -- YOU SAID KURT AND I NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT, AND IT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE.

>> AND MR. YERMAK SAID IT WASN'T A GOOD IDEA.

WHAT YOU'RE WRITING TO THE SECRETARY HERE IS JUST RELATES TO GENERIC OPENNESS SUBJECT.

RIGHT?

>> YEAH.

I THINK THE SECRETARY, THOUGH, WAS ON THE JULY 25th CALL WHICH OBVIOUSLY I WASN'T ON.

I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT.

>> BUT YOU USED THIS E-MAIL TO SUGGEST EVERYONE WAS ON THE LINK, AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS TIEED TO AN ACT BY THE UKRANIANS.

>> I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT THE ASSISTANCE WAS INVOLVED.

>> WHAT WAS EVERYONE IN THE LOOP ABOUT, THEN?

>> THE SECRETARY WAS IN THE LOOP THAT WE HAD NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT.

I AM FAIRLY COMFORTABLE THAT THE SECRETARY KNOWS WHERE THE STATEMENT WAS AT THAT POINT, IN OTHER WORDS, THE 2016 AND THE BURISMA, AND THAT WE PASSED THAT ALONG TO HIM AND KEPT HIM INFORMED.

>> SO WE CAN AGREE THAT THE SECRETARY WASN'T IN THE LOOP, THAT THERE WAS A CONDITIONALITY ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

>> HOLD ON A SECOND.

ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT JULY 19th EXHIBIT 4?

>> I WAS ASKING ABOUT YOUR E-MAIL TO THE SECRETARY ON AUGUST 11th.

>> OH, OKAY.

WELL, ON JULY 19th, WHICH THE SECRETARY WAS ON, I TALKED ABOUT FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND TURN OVER EVERY STONE.

THE SECRETARY WAS ON THAT.

>> OKAY.

YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION ON JULY 19th IN THE CONTINUUM YOU TALKED ABOUT, AT THAT POINT IN THE CONTINUUM IT WAS JUST A GENERIC INVESTIGATION.

IT WASN'T ANYTHING INVOLVING -- >> AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS -- I THINK IT WENT FROM THE ORIGINAL GENERIC FROM MAY 23rd WHEN WE LEFT THE OVAL OFFICE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CORRUPTION AND OLIGARCHS UNTIL MR. GIULIANI STARTED TO BECOME INVOLVED.

THEN IT TRANSITIONED TO BURISMA.

>> YOU HADN'T EVEN TALKED TO GIULIANI BY THAT TIME.

THIS IS JULY 19th.

>> SORRY, USE THE MIC.

>> WILL YOU ALLOW HIM TO FINISH HIS ANSWER.

>> OF COURSE.

I APOLOGIZE.

>> WE WERE COMMUNICATING WITH MR. GIULIANI THROUGH SECRETARY PERRY AND THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

I WASN'T TALKING TO MR. GIULIANI DIRECTLY.

>> OKAY.

>> UNTIL AFTER AUGUST 1st.

>> BUT AS OF JULY 19th, WEREN'T WE STILL ON THE GENERIC PART?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I BELIEVE WE WERE -- I BELIEVE BY THEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BURISMA AND 2016, TO BE CANDID.

>> BUT NOT BIDEN?

>> NO, NOT BIDEN.

>> AND THEN TURNING TO MAIL OF AUGUST 11th.

>> YEAH, GOT IT.

>> I'M SORRY.

AUGUST THE 22nd.

>> 22nd?

>> YEAH, PAGE 23 OF YOUR OPENER.

>> YEAH, I GOT IT.

>> THIS IS WHERE YOU WERE REQUESTING SOMETHING FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> HE WAS STILL GOING TO GO.

>> THAT WAS BEFORE THE HURRICANE BUMPED THAT OFF THE SCHEDULE.

I WOULD ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM WHEN THE NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE, ZELENSKY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE TOWARD PUBLICLY AND WITH CONFIDENCE ON THOSE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED STATES.

HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BREAK THE LOG JAM.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WERE WHAT?

>> THAT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS.

>> OKAY.

BUT NOTHING TO DO WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, RIGHT?

>> AGAIN, I DIDN'T MAKE THE CONNECTION.

>> JUST PIVOT BRIEFLY TO PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

UNDER SECRETARY HALE WHO WILL BE WITH US LATER TODAY, TESTIFIED THAT DURING THIS RELEVANT TIME FRAME THERE WAS A REAL FOCUS TO REEXAMINE ALL FEDERAL AID PROGRAMS.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT?

>> I'M GENERALLY AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SKEPTICISM TOWARD FOREIGN AID AND CONDITIONING FOREIGN AID ON CERTAIN THINGS.

I'M GENERALLY AWARE OF THAT, YES.

>> AND AMBASSADOR HALE TESTIFIED IN HIS TESTIMONY ALMOST A ZERO BASE CONCEPT.

THAT EACH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND EACH COUNTRY THAT RECEIVES A PROGRAM BE EVALUATED.

IF THE PROGRAM MADE SENSE WE AVOID NATION BUILDING, AND NOT PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRY THAT ARE LOST TO US IN TERMS OF POLICY, WHETHER IT'S BECAUSE OF CORRUPTION OR ANOTHER REASON.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WERE AWARE OF AT THE TIME?

>> GENERALLY, YES.

>> AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE EUROPEAN ALLIES, THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE REGION?

>> EXACTLY WHY I WAS INVOLVED.

>> OKAY.

SO AS WE GET DOWN TO SEPTEMBER 11th, YOU'RE ADVOCATING THE PAUSE BE LIFTED, RIGHT?

>> I DIDN'T THINK THE PAUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE.

>> AS WE GET DOWN TO SEPTEMBER 11th, AND YOU'RE TALKING WITH SENATOR JOHNSON AND SO FORTH, YOU DON'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE GENUINE REASON THE PRESIDENT WAS IMPLEMENTING THE PAUSE WASN'T BECAUSE OF CONCERN ABOUT THE ALLIES ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE GENERALLY, OR THAT HE WASN'T JUST TRYING TO HOLD THE AID AS LONG AS HE COULD TO SEE WHAT -- WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION WE COULD GET ABOUT THOSE TWO SUBJECTS?

>> FAIR ENOUGH.

>> I'M REALLY TRYING TO FINISH UP, SO I CAN YIELD SOME TIME BACK.

>> I HAVE NOTHING ELSE.

>> THANK YOU.

YIELD BACK.

CHAIRMAN YIELDS BACK.

>> MORE TIME.

>> LET'S TAKE A 30 MINUTE RECESS TO ALLOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO GET A BITE TO EAT, AND THEN WE'LL RESUME WITH THE MEMBER ROUNDS OF QUESTIONING OF 5 MINUTES.

IF WE COULD ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THE ROOM FIRST.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INTENDED TO FLY BACK TO BRUSSELS TO RESUME HIS DUTIES AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND SO IT WOULD BE A GREAT CONVENIENCE TO US IF WE COULD HAVE A SHORTER BREAK NOW AND RESUME WITH THE MEMBERS QUESTIONS AND TRY TO WRAP UP IN TIME THAT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE HIS FLIGHT.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT COUNSEL.

WE ALL HAVE A BUSY SCHEDULE THESE DAYS.

THE MEMBER ROUND OF QUESTIONS SHOULD TAKE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

I THINK YOU SHOULD BE GOOD.

I'LL ENDEAVOR TO MAKE THE BREAK SHORT AS POSSIBLE.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO EXCUSE YOURSELF FROM THE ROOM BEFORE THE REST OF THE CROWD.

STAND IN RECESS.

>> CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CALLING A RECESS AFTER THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN IN SESSION FOR THE BETTER PART OF ABOUT FOUR HOURS LISTENING TO TESTIMONY FROM THE EUROPEAN U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, GORDON SON LAND WHO IS A KEY FIGURE IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUES, PBS NEWS HOUR COVERAGE OF THESE INTELLIGENCE -- PUBLIC INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS THAT ARE PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUE AT THE ENABLE.

NICK SCHIFRIN.

AND MIEKE OEYANG.

BOTH SERVED IN PAST ADMINISTRATIONS.

IT SEEMS TO ME SO MUCH OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING TODAY OF THE DEMOCRATS PUSHING GORDON SONDLAND AFTER A POWERFUL AND EYE OPENINGLY OPENING STATEMENT.

DEMOCRATS PUSHING HIM TO SEE JUST HOW CLOSE THEY CAN TIE THIS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND REPUBLICANS -- WE JUST HEARD SOME OF THAT FROM THE MINORITY COUNSEL, MR. CASTOR PUSHING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION SAYING HOW DO YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT THIS.

NICK, WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH.

JORDAN SONDLAND SAYING RUDY GIULIANI WAS THE CONDUIT TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE, AND RUDY GIULIANI WAS ASKING FOR A QUID QUO PRO FOR THE MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THIS IS WHERE WE GET TO THAT DISPUTE.

SONDLAND WAS ASKED DID THE PRESIDENT EVER TELL YOU ANY PRE-CONDITIONS ON ANYTHING, AND THE ANSWER WAS NO.

IT WAS MY PERSONAL PRESUMPTION THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE WOULD BE ONLY BE LIFTED IF THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE ANNOUNCED AGAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER TOLD ME DIRECTLY IT WAS CONDITIONED ON THE MEETING.

BUT SONDLAND UNDERSTOOD IT WAS FROM THE PRESIDENT.

MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HE SAID.

AND WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THESE PREREQUISITES FOR THE CALL AND THE MEETING AND LATER THE MILITARY AID REFLECTED PRESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.

SO THERE'S BACK AND FORTH.

REPUBLICANS ARE ON THOSE SPECIFIC STATEMENTS.

I DID NOT HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT.

SONDLAND SAYING AND SUGGESTING THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND YOU'RE UNRELIABLE, I THINK THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL ACCUSED HIM OF THE TRIFECTAR OF UNRIEBLT.

>> AND WE ALSO HEARD, MIEKE OEYANG, THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL, MR. CASTOR CHALLENGING THE WITNESS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SAYING WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT IT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT IN ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT WHEN YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT MEETING WITH THE UKRANIAN LEADER, HE SAID THERE'S NO QUID QUO PRO.

THERE'S NOTHING I'M LOOKING FOR FROM THE UKRANIANS.

SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS ONE CAN READ THE THREADS OF THIS RELATIONSHIP INTERLOCKING SET OF RELATIONSHIPS.

AND WE SEE EFFORTS, AGAIN, ON BOTH SIDES TO PORTRAY -- TO COME UP WITH A PORTRAYAL THAT SERVES THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY.

>> AND THE PRESIDENT CAME OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS HEARING AND CAME OUT ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN AND SAID TLOOFS NO QUID QUO PRO.

HE JUST WANTED ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THE CHALLENGE IS THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER IS HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE UKRANIANS, ARRANGED BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO SAY YOU HAVE TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER ABOUT THIS.

AND THAT INDIVIDUAL, WE KNOW FROM THE UKRANIAN SIDE OF THE CONVERSATION, IS SAYING THERE'S ALL THESE CONDITIONS.

AND SONDLAND HIMSELF, HE TESTIFIED TODAY, THAT HE ALSO CONVEYED THIS CONDITION DIRECTLY TO THE UKRANIANS, THAT THE AID WOULDN'T FLOW UNLESS INVESTIGATIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN.

>> SO HE WAS GETTING THE INFORMATION FROM SOMEWHERE.

THE QUESTION IS DID HE HEAR IT FROM THE MOUTH OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED.

>> RIGHT.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN, HOW ARE WE -- I'M SITTING HERE TRYING TO PUT MYSELF IN THE SHOES OF AMERICANS WHO ARE WATCHING, TRYING TO FOLLOW THIS.

IT GETS PRETTY CONFUSING.

>> IT REALLY DOES, BECAUSE, AS SOMEONE SAID EARLIER, THERE'S TWO ISSUES ON THE TABLE THAT MENT TRUMP MAY HAVE PUT A PRE-CONDITION ON.

AND THE FIRST ONE IS A WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

YOU HAVE GORDON SONDLAND CLEARLY TODAY SAYING ABSOLUTELY, WE ALL UNDERSTOOD ALL HEARD IT FROM GIULIANI THAT WE WOULD WANT GET A WHITE HOUSE VISIT WITHOUT INVESTIGATIONS COMING ON THE PART OF THE UKRANIANS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN IT COMES TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE, GORDON SONDLAND IS SAYING, I MEAN I UNDERSTOOD -- I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT FLOW TO THE UKRANIAN UNLESS THEY LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION, BUT I CAN'T SAY FOR IT AS CERTAINLY AS I CAN WITH REGARD TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

SO IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE, UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY SILTING DOWN AND PARLSING THROUGH THE STATEMENTS, AND VIEWERS AT HOME MAY HAVE JUST HEARD THIS ON THE RADIO OR SOMETHING, MAY NOT IMMEDIATELY GET THE DISTINCTIONS, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE PLAYERS TODAY ARE HAMMERING AT.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING TO TASK ANY AREA WHERE GORDON SONDLAND MAY HAVE SAID, WELL, THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE DIRECTION.

>> REALLY PRESSING HIM ON THAT.

>> AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR, THE PRESIDENT CAME OUT AND SPOKE ABOUT THIS OVER AN HOUR AGO.

>> HE D. WHAT HE SAID ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN IS THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS TOLD BY THE PRESIDENT THAT HE DIDN'T WANT A QUID QUO PRO.

HE HAD HANDWRITTEN NOTES WHERE HE READ SPECIFICALLY FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.

THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTLY TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN EXCHANGE FOR MILITARY AID THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION INTO JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN.

HE WAS TRYING TO PLACE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIMSELF AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

HE SAID I DIDN'T ACTUALLY TELL HIM TO DO IT.

>> LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT.

>> QUICK COMMENTS ON WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF TESTIMONY WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

I JUST NOTIFIED THAT ONE THING, AND I WOULD SAY THAT MEANS IT'S ALL OVER.

WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE?

HE ASKED ME.

WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE?

I KEEP HEARING ALL THESE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND THEORIES.

THIS IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPEAKING TO ME.

THIS TOPIC.

TO WHICH I TURNED OFF THE TELEVISION.

WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE, I KEEP HEARING ALL THESE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND THEORIES.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

IT WAS A VERY SHORT AND ABRUPT CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH ME.

THEY SAID HE WAS NOT IN A GOOD MOOD.

I'M ALWAYS IN A GOOD MOOD.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY IS.

HE JUST SAID -- NOW HE'S TALKING ABOUT MY RESPONSE.

SO HE'S GOING, WHAT DO YOU WANT?

I HEAR ALL THESE THEERPIES.

RIGHT?

>> NOW HERE'S MY RESPONSE.

READY?

YOU HAVE THE CAMERAS ROLLING.

I WANT NOTHING.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT FROM UKRAINE.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

I WANT NOTHING.

I SAID IT TWICE.

SO HE GOES -- HE ASKS ME WHAT DO YOU WANT?

I KEEP HEARING ALL THESE THINGS, WHAT DO YOU WANT?

>> I DON'T KNOW HIM VERY WELL.

I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HIM MUCH.

THIS IS NOT A MAN I KNOW WELL.

SEEMS LIKE A NICE GUY, THOUGH.

BUT I DON'T KNOW HIM WELL.

HE WAS WITH OTHER CANDIDATES.

HE ACTUALLY SUPPORTED OTHER CANDIDATES, NOT ME.

CAME IN LATE.

BUT HERE'S MY RESPONSE.

NOW IF YOU WEREN'T FAKE NEWS, YOU'D COVER IT PROPERLY.

I SAID TO THE AMBASSADOR IN RESPONSE.

I WANT NOTHING, I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID QUO PRO.

TELL ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

SO HERE'S MY ANSWER.

I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID QUO PRO.

TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THEN E SAYS, THIS IS THE FINAL WORD FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I WANT NOTHING.

>> SO YAMICHE, LISTENING TO THE PRESIDENT, WHAT NOTES WAS HE READING FROM THERE.

>> THE PRESIDENT WAS ESSENTIALLY QUOTING WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD LAWMAKERS DURING A DEPOSITION WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM WHEN HE CALLED HIM ABOUT WHAT HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING I DON'T REALLY KNOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT MUCH.

WE KNOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ON THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP MULTIPLE TIMES.

AND THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CAME IN LATE WHEN IT CAME TO BACKING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

BUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DONATED ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE OFFICE IS REACTING IN REAL-TIME TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

I WANT TO READ A STATEMENT FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

IT DEALS WITH SEPTEMBER 1st.

HE WENT TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND ASKED HIM SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS BEING PUSHED ON UKRAINE FOR ESSENTIALLY AN EXCHANGE FOR THIS MILITARY AID.

HERE'S WHAT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE IS SAYING.

THE VICE PRESIDENT -- THEY SAY THE VICE PRESIDENT NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH GORDON SONDLAND ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS, BURISMA OR CONDITIONAL RELEASE OF FINANCIAL AID TO UKRAINE BASEED ON POTENTIAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS ALLEGED DISCUSSION RECALLED BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND NEVER HAPPENED.

SO AGAIN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS SAYING ON SAEMENT 1st, I REMEMBER TELLING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MY CONCERNS WHEN IT CAME TO SAYING THESE INVESTIGATIONS TO MILITARY AID.

VICE PRESIDENT IS SAYING THAT DIDN'T CAN HAPPEN.

THAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF MARTIN SHORT.

AND THAT'S CONTRASTING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN REAL TIME.

>> CONTRASTING, CONTRADICTING, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT.

YAMICHE, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE HERE TO NICK AND MIEKE OEYANG AND MICHAEL.

YOU ARE GETTING TWO DIFFERENT PICTURES.

WHEN GORDON SONDLAND INITIALLY TESTIFIED AND READ HIS OPENING STATEMENT, AND STARTED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, IT APPEARED AS IF HE WAS SAYING HE NOT ONLY WAS WORKING WITH RUDY GIULIANI, HE WAS WORKING WITH RUDY GIULIANI WHO WAS GIVING DIRECTIONS AT THE BEHEST OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WE HAD THREE OR FOUR QUOTATIONS IN WHICH SONDLAND SAID CAME FROM THE PRESIDENT.

I THINK THIS IS ONE QUOTE.

"MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING THE DIRES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

QUTSDS SECOND QUOTE, "WE UNDERSTAND THE PREREQUISITES OF THE ENERGY COMPANY BURISMA FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING REFLECTED THE PRESIDENT'S REQUIREMENTS."

SO SONDLAND IS DEFINITELY SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME TO TALK TO GIULIANI.

GIULIANI IS TELLING ALL OF US THE NOTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS, AND IN RELATIONSHIP TO STATEMENTS MICHAEL BROUGHT UP THAT IS ALLOWING COUNSEL, FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO QUESTION THIS.

THAT IS SONDLAND SAID WHEN ASKED DID THE PRESIDENT EVER TELL YOU DIRECTLY -- DID HE EVER TALK TO YOU ABOUT PRE-CONDITIONS DID HE TELL YOU THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE MEETINGS?

AND SONDLAND SAID I DON'T REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR CONDITIONS TO ME.

HE'S JUST SAYING THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES IN THE AFTERNOON.

>> SO MIEKE OEYANG, ONCE AGAIN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WE USED THE TERM EARLIER, THROWING PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS.

HE'S NAMED THE SECRETARY OF STATE, HE'S NAMED THE VICE PRESIDENT, HE NAMED THE WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.

BUT WE'RE GETTING PUSH BACK EVEN FROM RUDY GIULIANI WHO PUT OUT A STATEMENT IN THE LAST FEW HOURS SAY HE DIDN'T EVER WORK CLOSELY WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SONDLAND IS HANGING A LOT OF RUDY GIULIANI.

>> AMONG THE THREE THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED, VOLKER, PERRY AND SONDLAND, THAT VOLKER WAS IN COMMUNICATION, AND SONDLAND WAS DOING COMMUNICATION WITH UKRANIANS, BASEED ON HIS TESTIMONY HERE.

IT'S POSSIBLE GIULIANI DID NOT KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT WHAT SONDLAND WAS DOING, AND HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT VOLKER WAS DOING, AND VOLKER WAS PASSING THE MESSAGES.

THE ARGUE THEY'RE MAKINGS IS THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION ABOUT BURISMA AND NOT THE PRESIDENT'S FEARED RIVAL, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

BUT THAT ARGUMENT ACTUALLY IS DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO SUSTAIN GIVEN A NUMBER OF FACTORS.

ONE THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID BIDEN, AND NUMBER TWO, WHEN RANKING MEMBER NUNES QUESTIONED SOMEONE ABOUT THE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ON BURISMA, SONDLAND SAID HE WAS UNAWARE OF THE CONCERNS.

HE SAID I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

AND ALSO, THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY GETTING CONDUCTED.

THEY ONLY CARED THAT THE UKRANIANS SAID THEY WOULD DO IT.

IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION, YOU WOULD WANT THE INVESTIGATION TO GO THROUGH AND WRONGDOERS PUNISHED.

OTHERWISE IT'S JUST THE OPTICS OF THE THINGS.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT THAT, MICHAEL ALLEN.

WE'RE THROWING AROUND TERMS.

PEOPLE THEY NOT KNOW THAT BURISMA IS A LARGE ENERGY COMPANY IN UKRAINE THAT IT HAD CORRUPTION ISSUES, AND ON WHOSE BOARD HUNTER BIDENAT WHILE HIS FATHER WAS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A LOT OF INTERCHANGEABLE REFERENCES TO BURISMA, TO THE BIDENS, TO THE 2016 ELECTION.

WHY DOES IT MATTER IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHICH ONES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

>> IT'S BACK TO THE FIRST QUESTION A FEW MINUTES AGO AND HOW THIS CAN ALL BE CONFUSING.

IT REMINDS ME FROM THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WHERE HE SAID IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD IS, IS.

>> AND HERE IT'S BURISMA.

OH, BIDEN.

WHY ELSE BUT FOR BIDEN.

AND TO OTHERS, OR AT LEAST THEY CLAIM IT MEANS HISTORIC CORRUPTION SURROUNDING AN OLIGARCH AND THE REST.

SO I THINK A LOT OF THESE TERMS ARE BEING THROWN AROUND.

I KIND OF THINK IT SPEAKS TO WHAT WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT, THE DIVIDE IN THE COUNTRY.

THE REPUBLICANS ARE MESSAGEING THE TRUMP VOTERS, THE DEMOCRATS ARE MESSAGEING THEIR VOTERS AND TRYING TO GET INDEPENDENTS AS WELL.

BUT THERE'S TWO DIVERGEENT MESSAGES.

>> AND MEANWHILE WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE FACTS.

NICK?

>> IT'S OBJECT ONLY A DIVIDE BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BUT A DIVIDE WITHIN GORDON SONDLAND AND WITHIN AMBASSADOR CURT CURT.

THEY BOTH SAY THEY ASSUMED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TIME WHEN THEY SAID BURISMA, THEY HEARD BURISMA IT WAS OVERALL CORRUPTION WITH UKRAINE.

BUT BOTH OF THEM HAVE NOW SAID TODAY I UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT WHEN WE SAID BURISMA IT MEANT BIDEN.

VOLKER SAID THE MAIN PERSON WHO BELIEVED WHEN HE SAID BURISMA, IT MEANT BIDEN WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE THE UNITED STATES.

>> IS IT CREDIBLE IN WASHINGTON, KNOWING THE POLITICAL MOMENT OF -- MEGAMOMENT WE'RE IN, THAT YOU WOULDN'T MAKE A CONNECTION BETWEEN BURISMA AND BIDEN?

>> BURISMA WAS NOTORIOUSLY CORRUPT IN 2014 WHEN THE AMERICANS AND THE BRITS TRIED TO HELP THE NEW UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT, THE FIRST COMPANY THAT THE BRITS INVESTIGATED WAS BURISMA.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF CORRUPTION, WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE, IF YOU WILL.

BUT OBVIOUSLY, THE PRESIDENT USED THE WORD BIDEN AND NOT BURISMA IN HIS PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY.

>> WE'VE BEEN IN THE HEARING ROOM THROUGHOUT THE MORNING.

LISA GIVE US A SENSE OF HOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS COMING ACROSS THERE.

WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WHAT HE SAID, AND HOW EACH SIDE IS TRYING TO HAVE HIM FOCUS ON ONE OR ANOTHER PART OF IT.

>> JUDY, WHEN I WALKED IN THE HEARING ROOM THIS MORNING, SOURCES FROM BOTH SIDES WERE NOT SURE WHO WOULD BENEFIT THE MOST FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.

SOME WEREN'T EVEN SURE HE WOULD TESTIFY.

NOW IT'S COMPLETELY CLEAR THAT DEMOCRATS FEEL LIKE THEY ARE BENEFITTING BY A LOT.

I'M GETTING SOMETHING FROM SOURCES ON BOTH SIDES.

REPUBLICANS POINT TO THE FACT THAT ADAM SCHIFF DID EXTEND TIME FOR SOME QUESTIONING, AND THAT'S EVIDENCE HE THINKS THE SOUND COMING FROM GORDON SONDLAND IS BENEFICIAL TO DEMOCRATS.

OTHER POINT, DEMOCRATS -- AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THEY ALSO QUESTIONED GORDON SONDLAND'S MEMORY.

THEY WERE RAISING THE IDEA OF HIM NOT BEING A NOTE TAKER AND QUESTIONING IF OTHER WITNESSES MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HE IS.

THEY'RE NOT BRINGING THAT UP ANYMORE.

THEY UNDERSTAND THAT HIS TESTIMONY IS NOW, AS YOUR GUESTS ARE SAYING, BRINGING IN VERY CLOSE TIES TO THE PRESIDENT, INCLUDING DIRECT TIES.

HE IS SAYING TO SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, AND ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY -- HE'S TESTIFYING THEY KNEW THERE WAS A QUID QUO PRO, A CONDITIONAL FOR UKRAINE TO GET AID OR A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

AND THIS IS WHY THE PRESIDENT KNEW AS WELL, BECAUSE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE RIGHT UNDER HIM KNEW.

HOW DEMOCRAT KS ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM IN THAT GORDON SONDLAND IS REMAINING TO TESTIFY THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF TESTIFIED NO QUID QUO PRO.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM WHICH IS THE WINDOW FOR KEEPING THE PRESIDENT HARMLESS IS NARROWING.

I THINK DEMOCRATS -- ONE DEMOCRAT TOLD ME SOMETHING THEY'RE CONSIDERING IS HOW THEY CAN GET ACROSS -- IS THE IDEA THAT THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS ONE THING AND OFTEN EITHER CHANGING WHAT HE SAYS OR DOES SOMETHING ELSE.

THEY WANT TO GET ACROSS THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS, NO QUID QUO PRO MAY NOT HAVE MUCH MEANING BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT SAYS THINGS, IN DEMOCRATS OPINIONS, AND THEN DOES SOMETHING ELSE.

THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR REPUBLICANS AS WELL.

AND WE'LL SEE THE NARRATIVE PLAY OUT OVER THE COMING DAYS.

>> LISA TO PICK UP AND FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IS THAT WEAKENING ANY OF THE PRESIDENT'S REPUBLICAN SUPPORT?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S TOO EARLY TO SAY.

I DO THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CHILL IN THE AIR FOR REPUBLICANS AFTER THIS TESTIMONY.

I NEED TO TALK MORE FRANKLY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR THINKING IS.

THERE'S OFTEN A PATTERN WITH REPUBLICANS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT, BUT NOT THE MOST PASSIONATELY WITH A WAIT OR DAY OR TWO TO FIRM UP, AND SEE HOW THINGS LAND.

SO I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THERE'S SOME CALCULATION AND SOME DISCUSSION OF HOW THEY HANDLE THIS BEFORE WE SEE A REALLY FULL FORCE DECISION.

AND I THINK IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, I THINK YOU CAN HEAR WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO NOTES, AND THAT TELLS YOU REPUBLICANS AT THE WHITE HOUSE IS BEING VERY CAREFUL, AND DON'T REALLY HAVE A GO TO GAME PLAN.

I THINK EVERYONE IS JUST KIND OF PUTTING THEIR FINGER IN THE WIND AND SEEING HOW THIS THING -- NOT ALL SURE HOW IT WILL HAND.

>> IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS.

LISA, WE WANT TO GIVE YOU THE TIME AND SPACE TO DO REPORTING.

WE KNOW YOU RUSHED TO BE IN A POSITION TO TALK TO US AS SOON AS THE HEARING WRAPPED UP.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU TIME TO DO THAT.

I WANT TO COME BACK RIGHT NOW TO THE TABLE.

WE'VE ALL BEEN FOLLOWING THIS VERY CLOSELY, AND COME BACK TO YOU, NICK, ON NOW THE WEB OR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DRAWN INTO THIS.

WE KNOW A GOOD DEAL OF THIS, BECAUSE THEY TESTIFIED.

BUT A NUMBER OF THEM HAVEN'T TESTIFIED.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE, FROM THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD -- AND ANOTHER INTERESTING NAME THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MENTIONED -- WAS JOHN BOLTON.

HE SUGGESTED THAT JOHN BOLTON WAS AWARE OF ALL THE DISCUSSIONS SARND WHAT THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO GET A MEETING, AND IN ORDER TO GET AID, AND YET BOLTON EXPRESSED ALARM, CONCERN, STOOD UP, ENDED A MEETING BY SOME ACCOUNTS.

BUT YOU HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

>> DIPLOMATS, OTHER THAN SONDLAND BASICALLY SAID THAT BOLTON REALIZED BEFORE THEY DID THAT IN BOLTON'S WORDS THIS WAS A DRUG DEAL.

SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH THE REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE BIDEN OR BURISMA, REGARDLESS OF THE WORD USED.

BOLTON REALIZED SOMETHING WAS WRONG AND TOLD ALL OF HIS STAFF MEMBERS, DON'T GET INVOLVED.

EVERY TIME, TELL THE LAWYERS.

SO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GAVE SOME KIND OF HINT AND SAID MAYBE BOLTON TALKED TO GIULIANI.

WE HAVE SECRETARY POMPEO AND PERRY THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND -- AND THE ENERGY SECRETARY AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF.

MAYBE YOU SHOULD TALK TO HIM.

SO THIS IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CLEARLY NOT INTERESTED IN PROTECTING ANYONE, PERHAPS OTHER THAN HIMSELF.

WE SHOULD SAY THAT SECRETARY POMPEO HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT THIS, ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY AGAIN, JUST TO REMIND PEOPLE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED TODAY THAT ON SEPTEMBER 1st, BEFORE SONDLAND TOLD THE UKRANIANS, YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE 2016 AND BURISMA BEFORE WE LIFT THE AID.

BEFORE THAT, HE GOT THE QUOTE, GREEN LIGHT FROM SECRETARY POMPEO.

THAT'S NEW.

SO SECRETARY POMPEO WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS.

>> TRAVELING IN EUROPE.

>> TRAVELING IN EUROPE AND BRUSSELS.

HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS BY A REPORTER, AND HIS REPLY WAS I WAS WORK RG, SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE NOT WORKING.

AND THEN SIMPLY DEFENDS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICY SAYING WE GOT THE DEFENSIVE WEAPONS UKRANIANS NEEDED.

I'M PROUD PRESIDENT TRUMP LED THE EFFORT TO GET THE UKRAINE POLICY RIGHT.

THAT'S NOT A RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS.

>> THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT POMPEO'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT, IN FACT, OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS.

OVERALL, THE PRESIDENT -- WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT YET -- BUT THE PRESIDENT FRUSTRATED OR WORSE THAT SECRETARY POMPEO ALLOWED SOME STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY.

WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS.

>> WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

BUT SENIOR OFFICIALS STILL SAY POMPEO HAS BEEN THE TRUMP WHISPERER.

HE'S THE PERSON THE PRESIDENT TRUSTS ON FOREIGN POLICY, AND HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING PUBLICLY TO ANGER PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AS WE'VE SEEN IN SOME OF HIS TESTIMONY, HE'S HAD TO ALLOW SOME OFS HAD OWN PEOPLE TO BE CRITICIZED IN PUBLIC.

>> I WILL ADD -- I HAPPENED TO BE IN TEXAS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, AND INTERVIEWED AMONG OTHERS, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, REX TILLERSON WHO PRECEDED SECRETARY POMPEO.

I ASKED HIM SPECIFICALLY NUMBER ONE, ABOUT THE IDEA OF ASKING THE UKRANIAN LEADER TO INVESTIGATE A PRESIDENT RIVAL, SHORT-HANDED IN EXCHANGE FOR A MEETING OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE SAID THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

IT'S WRONG, IT'S WRONG.

WHEN I ASKED HIM ABOUT AMBASSADOR MARIA YOVANOVITCH WHO WAS FIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WHO WAS NOT DEFENDED BY SECRETARY POMPEO, HE SAID, I WORKED WITH HEFR AND MET WITH HER.

SHE WAS THE UTMOST PROFESSIONAL, SUPERIOR PUBLIC SERVANT.

HE VERY MUCH CAME TO HER DEFENSE AND DIDN'T HAVE AN IDEA WHY HE WAS FIRED.

I BRING THAT UP TO SAY THESE ARE TWO SECRETARIES OF STATE UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH DIDN'T IDEAS OF ALL OF THIS.

MICHAEL AND MIEKE OEYANG, LET'S COME BACK TO WHAT KIND CORROBORATION WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

IN THE FIRST DAY WE WERE HEARING ABOUT STRINGS OF WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT OTHERS HEARD SAID ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

BUT WE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

HOW DO WE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS?

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO PROVE SOMETHING IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES?

>> I THINK ONE OF THE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS HERE IS WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED TO THE AID.

HOW DID IT GET -- HOW DID THE CONDITIONS GET LIFTED.

YOU HEARD RANKING MEMBER NUNES TALK ABOUT TESTIMONY FROM SATURDAY FROM AN OMB OFFICIAL WHO MAY BE ABLE TO SHED LIGHT ON THE CONDITIONS SET BY THE PRESIDENT.

WE'VE HEARD WITNESSES SAY IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION OR UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION TO PUT A HOLD ON THAT AID, ASK HOW THAT GOT TRANSLATED AND HOW THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED THAT TO OMB.

WE ALSO HAVE A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY WHO WENT BEFORE CAMERAS SAYING YEAH, WE PUT CONDITIONS ON THINGS.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

HE HAS, IN FACT, TRIED TO JUSTICEED THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND SAID IT WASN'T A PROBLEM.

>> AND THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO AN OFFICIAL, WE THINK IN THE OMB, IS THAT RIGHT, WHO IS GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER ON THE DECISION FOR FOREIGN AID.

WE DON'T KNOW YET.

>> I FOUND THAT MYSTERIOUS.

I WASN'T SURE WHERE HE WAS GOING.

I UNDERSTOOD MARK SANDY'S TESTIMONY TO BE VERY TECHNICAL ABOUT HOW MONEY IS DISPERSED.

ONE THING TO SORT OF THINK ABOUT IT WHERE WE'RE LEFT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF WE HAD A HE SAID SHE SAID AND A BIFURCATION WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

SOMETIMES WEET HAVE A HEARING LIKE THAT WITH A MID-LEVEL OFFICIAL LIKE AN AMBASSADOR, AND INEVITABLY, WHEN THAT PERSON DOESN'T ACTUALLY KNOW THE ANSWER TO, THEY KICK IT UPSTAIRS.

SO WE HAVE AT LEAST THREE INTERESTING THREADS THAT THE DEMOCRATS MAY WANT TO PURSUE.

ONE IS WHAT WAS SECRETARY POMPEO'S CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

REMEMBER BILL TAYLOR WROTE A CABLE BY ALL ACCOUNTS.

SECRETARY POMPEO PRINLTED IT OUT, TOOK IT TO THE OVAL OFFICE AND MADE THE CASE TO RELEASE THE AID.

>> APPARENTLY JOHN BOLTON, HIS LAWYER DANGLED OUT THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES -- OH, WELL, JOHN BOLTON KNOWS A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS.

WE KNOW AT LEAST ACCORDING TO MEDIA REPORTS HE'S HAD AT LEAST ONE.

AND OF COURSE, MULVANEY MIGHT BE THE ONE THAT'S THE QUARTERBACK OF THIS EFFORT.

IT GETS TO THAT DEMOCRATIC DLEM A.

THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO GET THIS DONE.

THEY WANTED TO GET THESE WITNESSES UP HERE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE JAMMING IN SO MANY BEFORE THE THANKSGIVING BREAK.

TO GET THE CABINET SECRETARIES BEING RESISTANT -- DO THEY WAIT LONGER SORE RIFLE SHOT THROUGH?

>> WHAT THEY'RE LIKELY TO HEAR -- THE WHITE HOUSE WE DON'T ASSUME IS GOING TO RELEASE ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS TO TALK WHETHER IT'S SECRETARY POMPEO OR SECRETARY PERRY.

WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE ENERGY SECRETARY.

RICK PERRY, NO INDICATION HE'S GOING TO TESTIFY OR MICK MULVANEY, THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF.

WHAT ABOUT JOHN BOLTON.

NICK SCHIFRIN BACK TO YOU ON THAT.

WHERE DOES THAT STAND?

A SUBPOENA HAS GONE OUT, AND HE'S CHALLENGING IT.

>> RIGHT.

HE'S CHALLENGING IT.

MICHAEL'S POINT, THE EARLIEST THAT JOHN BOLTON AND HIS ATTORNEY HAVE INDKAIFTED THAT THEY WOULD MAKE A DECISION IS, I THINK THE SECOND WEEK OF DECEMBER, IF I HAVE MY CALENDAR RIGHT.

AND SO DEMOCRATS OBVIOUSLY, WHAT MICHAEL SAID UHAVE THIS CHOICE THAT THEY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG.

RIGHT?

EVEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THE ACTING AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE STILL TODAY, 33 YEAR CAREER, ADMITS BOLTON UNDERSTOOD THAT HE DIDN'T.

SO BOLTON WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS AND UNDERSTOOD SOMETHING WAS WRONG ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING FOR, WHETHER BIDEN OR BURISMA OR 2016.

THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN WANTING TO TALK TO HIM, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE'S THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND IN A LOT OF THE MEETINGS AND WARNED ALL OF HIS STAFF ABOUT THIS DEAL.

BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY DECISION ABOUT HIM OR HIS DEPUTY, CHARLIE CUPERMAN UNTIL LET YAUNLD THE THANKSGIVING DEADLINE.

>> INTERESTING YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS THAT HE-AUTO IT'S ASSUMED HE UNDERSTOOD SOMETHING WAS WRONG.

HERE'S SOMEBODY WHAT HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON A LONG TIME AND IT WAS ASSUMED HE WOULD HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT'S TAKING PLACE.

I WAS ABOUT TO GO TO YAMICHE ALCINDOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE RECONVENING.

WE HEARD THE ATTORNEY FOR AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYING THE AMBASSADOR WANTS TO NEED ON AN AIRPLANE THIS AFTERNOON TO FLY BACK TO HIS POST IN BRUSSELS.

HE'S AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

LOOKS LIKE THE COMMITTEE IS IN PLACE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE AMBASSADOR IS IN PLACE.

PERHAPS THEY'LL COME BACK.

YAMICHE, I THINK I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU IN A MINUTE.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI WHO PUT OUT A STATEMENT TODAY ALSO PUSHING BACK AGAINST GORDON SONDLAND, AND I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT MORE WE MAY HEAR FROM RUDY GIULIANI.

>> WE SEE FRL RUDY GIULIANI WANTING TO DEFEND HIMSELF, AND WANTING TO DFRNLD THE PRESIDENT.

>> MEETING COME TO ORDER.

>> IT WAS HIS OPINION, AND I KNOW I HEAR ADAM SCHIFF GAVELING.

>> FIRST I WANTEDED TO RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD.

WITH RESPECT TO THE WITNESS WHO TESTIFYED ON SATURDAY, THAT'S THERE SANDY, HERE'S A CAREER OFFICIAL WITH THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

HE IS TODAY REVIEWING HIS TRANSCRIPT, AN OPPORTUNITY TO WE GIVE ALL THE WITNESSES BEFORE THEIR TRANSCRIPT IS RELEASED TO MAKE SURE IT'S ACCURATE AND CORRECT.

HIS DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN SATURDAY, THIS IS THE SOONEST WE COULD ARRANGE THAT.

WE DID INFORM THE MINORITY YESTERDAY IF THEY WISH TO USE ANY OF THE QUESTIONING ABOUT THE DEPOSITION THEY COULD DO SO, AND WE WOULD TAKE EXCERPTS OF WHAT THEY NEEDED PRIOR TO THE WITNESS HAVING A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH IT.

THEY CHOSE NOT TO.

I WOULD MAKE IT SIGNIFICANT POINT WHICH IS HE IS NOT THE TOP OFFICIAL AT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RESPONSIBLE FOR RELEASING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE NAMED VAUGHT AND DUFFY.

AND BOTH OF THOSE HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFIED AND BOTH HAVE REFUSED.

IN FACT, AS THE DEPOSITION WILL MAKE CLEAR WHEN THE TRANSCRIPT IS RELEASED.

AT A CERTAIN POINT, MR. SANDY WAS TAKEN OUT OF AT LEAST ONE SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE PROCESS.

THAT TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOON AS HE FINISHES THE REVIEW, AND WE CAN REDACT ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM IT.

I WANT TO ASK JUST A FEW QUESTIONS BECAUSE OUR STAFF HAD TIME TO GET THROUGH MUCH OF WHAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU, MR.

AMBASSADOR.

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATEMENT YOU'RE GOING BACK, AND I MEAN BY YOU AND OTHERS, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS -- WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE UKRANIANS TO FIGURE OUTER WHAT STATEMENT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE TO GET THE MEETING, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY HAD TO MAKE THE STATEMENT IN ORDER TO GET THE MEETING?

>> CORRECT.

>> SIMILARLY YOU TESTIFIED EVERYONE COULD PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THE MILITARY ASIPTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS, CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS MY PRESUMPTION.

>> YOU PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER AND YOU GOT FOUR, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> NOW, YOU'RE CAPABLE OF PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, AND SO ARE THE UKRANIANS.

THEY CAN PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER.

SAZ WELL THEY UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

THERE'S TESTIMONY THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT IN JULY OR AUGUST, BUT IT IS WITHOUT A DOUBT UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT WAS MADE PUBLIC IN THE NEWSPAPER.

THEY OOPD THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UP, RIGHT?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD IT, BUT PRESUMABLY THEY DID.

>> CERTAINLY WHEN IT WAS PUBLICLY UNDERSTOOD, IT WAS HELD, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP BETWEEN THE MEETING WITH PENCE IN WARSAW?

>> I THINK AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, CHAIRMAN, I THINK ZELENSKY, IF I RECALL ASKED THE QUESTION OPEN-ENDED LIKE WHEN DO WE GET OUR MONEY.

>> SO THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY YET, IT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS AND THERE WAS A HOLD, AND YOU COULDN'T GIVE THEM AN EXPLANATION.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> YOU COULDN'T TELL THEM WHY IT WAS WITHHELD, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> AND IF THEY COULDN'T PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, YOU COULD, BECAUSE YOU TOLD THEM IN WARSAW THEY WERE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE THAT PUBLIC STATEMENT, LIKELY TO GET THAT AID RELEASED?

>> I SAID I PRESUMED THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE DONE TO GET THE AID RELEASED.

>> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF ARGUMENTS HERE THAT THE UKRANIANS, DIDN'T KNOW THE AID WAS WITHHELD, BUT THE UKRANIANS FOUND OUT AND IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THEY HADN'T PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER THEMSELVES, IF THEY WANTED TO GET THE AID THEY HAD TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> MR. NUNES.

>> YIELD TO MR. RATCLIFF.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I'M GOING TO TRY TO QUICKLY MOVE TO SUMMARIZE ALL OF YOUR DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AS IT RELATES TO THIS INQUIRY, AND OF COURSE, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I GET IT WRONG.

ON MAY 23rd, YOU HAD A GROUP MEETING THAT INCLUDED WHAT YOU CALLED A VANILLA REQUEST ABOUT ENDING CORRUPTION INVOLVING UKRANIAN OLIGARCHS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

ON JULY 25th, YOU CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO SAY YOU WERE ON YOUR WAY TO THE UKRAINE, BUT NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE OCCURRED ON THAT CALL, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> ON JULY 26, YOU HAD A CALL SAT A RESTAURANT THAT YOU DIDN'T ORIGINALLY REMEMBER, BECAUSE ACCORD STOG STATEMENTS IT DIDN'T STRIKE ME SIG KABT AT THE TIME, BUT WHEN REFREESHED IT WAS A RAPPER NAMED ASAP ROCKY, CORRECT?

>> AND ON SEPTEMBER 9th, READING FROM YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU CALLED PRESIDENT TRUCHBL TO ASK HIM WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE, AND HE RESPONDED I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID QUO PRO, I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND WHAT HE RAN ON.

WHAT HE RAN ON WAS FIGHTING CORRUPTION, CORRECT?

>> CORECT.

>> AND THEN ON OCTOBER 22nd, YOU RAN INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ADVISED HIM THAT YOU'D BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, AND HE SAID TO YOU, GOOD, GO TELL THE TRUTH.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THAT IS THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR RECOLLECTION OF YOUR DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT THESE MATTERS?

>> I MAY HAVE HAD ANOTHER CALL OR MEETDING OR TWO.

AGAIN, I WISH I HAD THE RECORD.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU RECALL?

>> THIS IS WHAT I RECALL.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING SINISTER OR NEFARIOUS IN ANY OF THIS.

A CALL TO SAY I'M ON THE WAY TO UKRAINE.

YOU DIDN'T REMEMBER IT SIGNIFICANT.

BUT TO DISCUSS A RAPPER, A CALL THAW MADE WITH THE PRESIDENT SAYING I WANT NOTHING, I WANT NO QUID QUO PRO.

I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

I WANT HIM TO DO WHAT HE RAN ON, AND HIM TELLING YOU TO GO TELL CONGRESS THE TRUTH.

ANYTHING SINISTER AND NEFARIOUS ABOUT THAT?

>> NOT THE WAY YOU PRESENT IT.

>> AND THAT'S THE TRUTH AS YOU'VE PRESENTED IT, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THAT'S IMPORTANT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BECAUSE NONE OF THAT IS HEARSAY OR SPECULATION OR OPINION.

THAT'S DIRECT EVIDENCE.

AND ULTIMATELY, THAT'S WHAT -- IF THIS PROCEEDS TO THE SENATE THEY CARE ABOUT.

UNLIKE THIS PROCEEDING WHICH IS BASED LARGELY ON SPECULATION AND PRESUMPTION AND OPINION, THIS IS DIRECT TESTIMONY, AND DIRECT EVIDENCE.

TO THAT POINT, NONE OF THAT INCLUDED EVIDENCE ABOUT THE BIDENS, AND NONE OF THAT INCLUDED EVIDENCE ABOUT MILITARY ASSISTANCE, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER MENTIONED THOSE TO YOU, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> GOING BACK TO THE JULY 26th CALL, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A SPECTACLE TOMORROW.

YOU DIDN'T REMEMBER IT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T STRIKE YOU.

IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IF THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT TO YOU?

>> YES.

>> AND IF THAT CALL WALL PART OF A BRIBERY OR EXTORTION SCHEME THAW WERE PART OF AS DEMOCRATS ALLEGATION, YOU'D REMEMBER THAT AS SIGNIFICANT?

>> I WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED.

I WAS NOT A PART.

>> I UNDERSTAND AND I AGREE WU WITH YOU.

LET'S TURN TO THE QUID QUO PRO.

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN THE PAPERS THAT THIS WAS BLOCKBUSTER TESTIMONY TODAY ABOUT QUID QUO PRO AND NEW EVIDENCE.

TO BE FAIRP TO YOU, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT TODAY AS YOU STAY ON PAGE 14, AS YOU TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY THIS WAS YOUR OPINION THAT THERE WAS A QUID QUO PRO, CORRECT?

>> THE 2016 BURISMA AND -- EXCUSE ME, THE 2016 ELECTION AND BURISMA IN RETURN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> RIGHT.

SO YOU SHARED THAT BEFORE.

TO THAT POINT, TO BE AGAIN ON THE PART OF IT THAT RELATES TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE, YOU DON'T HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THAT PART OF IT.

THAT'S YOUR TWO PLUS TWO PART OF THE EQUATION, THE PRESUMPTION, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU UNDERSTAND ALSO THAMENT OTHERS DISAGREE.

YESTERDAY WE HEARD FROM MR. MORRISON, AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

THEY TESTIFIED THAT THEY DIDN'T SEE A QUID QUO PRO.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> REASONABLE PEOPLE COULD LOOK AT ALL OF THIS AND COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND AMBASSADOR.

THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING.

AMBASSADOR, A COUPLE OF THINGS JUMPED OUT AT ME IN TESTIMONY.

IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU SAID MR. GIULIANI DEMANDED THAT UKRAINE MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ANNOUNCING THE DNC SERVER AND BURISMA.

MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THE UNITED STATES, AND WE KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

THAT SENTENCE IS INTERESTING.

NO CONDITIONALITY OR MODIFYERS.

MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE GIULIANI COMMUNICATES IN COLORFUL TERMS.

WHAT DID MR. GIULIANI SAY TO YOU TO CAUSE YOU TO THINK HE WAS EXPRESSING DESIRES OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> MR. HIMES WHEN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY COMMUNICATED THAT WAS BEFORE I WAS IN TOUCH ABOUT MR. GIULIANI DIRECTLY.

THIS CAME THROUGH MR. VOLKER AND OTHERS.

>> SO MR. VOLKER TOLD YOU HE WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> CORRECT.

AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, AND YEAH, THIS IS A DESIRE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> AFTER I SAW THE JULY 25th.

>> OTHER THING INTERESTING HERE, ASSUMING YOUR TESTIMONY -- THE THEME OF YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT EVERYBODY KNEW AND SIGNED OFF.

WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD.

WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHERS SAYING YOUR EFFORT WAS IRREGULAR AND SHADOW FOREIGN POLICY, CHARACTERIZED AS A DRUG DEAL.

AND THAT WAS NOT A DEMOCRATIC -- THAT WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER OF THE UNITED STATES CHARACTERIZING IT AS A DRUG DEAL.

YOU HAVE SAID, THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT ONLY AWARE BUT THAT HE APPLAUDED YOU, GOOD WORK.

KEEP BANGING AWAY.

THE IS AC SECRETARY OF STATE IF WAS A DRUG DEAL OR SHADOW FOREIGN POLICY, HE WOULD HAVE PUT AN END TO IT, AND YET HE DID NOT, RIGHT?

>> HE WAS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTALITY OF WHAT I'D BE WORKING ON GLOBALLY AND SAYING YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB, INCLUDING THIS.

>> SO HE WAS AWARE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB INCLUDES THIS?

>> YES.

SO HE WAS VALIDATING IT INSTEAD OF SAYING IT WAS A DRUG DEALING OR IRREGULAR?

>> WE THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE FROM LANE.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK THE SECRETARY OF STATE THOUGHT THAT?

WHY DID HE THINK THIS WAS A WORTHY THING TO DO, WHEN SENIOR PEOPLE INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER THOUGHT IT WAS A DRUG DEAL?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

YOU'D HAVE TO ASK HIM.

>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID HE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS?

>> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> LET ME TAKE YOU TO THE JULY 26 CALL WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT.

YOU BASICALLY VBT DISPUTED FROM HOLMES CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT REPORT, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS THE MENTION OF BIDEN K YOU DON'T RECALL THAT.

I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE'LL GET A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL.

A CONVERSATION IN PUBLIC BETWEEN A HIGH PROFILE AMBASSADOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE THE TOP TARGET, NOT FOR ONE, BUT FOR MANY INTELLIGENCE SERVICES.

BECAUSE IT'S SENSITIVE TO THE INQUIRY AND THIS INFORMATION COULD BE USED TO EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT OR LEVERAGE PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

MY GUESS IS WE'RE GOING TO SEE A TRANSCRIPT.

OUR PEOPLE ARE GOOD.

IF OTHERS HAVE IT, WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS TRANSCRIPT.

UNTIL THEN, ALL WE'VE GOT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION, AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THERE.

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR FRAME OF MIND.

THIS STATEMENT -- THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AGREED THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT GIVE A FIG -- NOT THE WORD USED -- ABOUT UKRAINE.

IS THAT A STATEMENT YOU MIGHT MAKE.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GIVE A FIG ABOUT UKRAINE?

>> ARE YOU -- CONGRESSMAN, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE CALL OR REFERRING TO MY CONVERSATION?

>> MR. HOLMES RECOUNTS, AND I'LL READ IT TO YOU.

IMPASSE SONDLAND DID NOT GIVE A FIG ABOUT UKRAINE.

FIG WAS NOT THE WORD USED.

IS IT PLAUSIBLE HE HEARD THAT BECAUSE I'M ASKING WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT GIVE A FIG ABOUT UKRAINE?

>> I THINK THAT'S TOO STRONG.

I THINK THAT BASED ON THE MAY 23rd MEETING, THE PRESIDENT WAS DOWN ON UKRAINE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED, AND WOULD NEED A LOT OF CONVINCEING.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE PUSHING HARD FOR THE MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WE THOUGHT ONCE THEY WOULD MEET, HIS IMPRESSION OF UKRAINE, AND HIS STOCK ABOUT UKRAINE WOULD GO UP.

>> AND THE LINE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED THAT HE MEANT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT BY BIG STUFF.

WE DON'T HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU MIGHT SAY.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT REALLY CONSIDERS BIG STUFF TO BE THAT WHICH BENEFITS HIM?

>> I DON'T RECALL SAYING BENEFITS HIM.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I'M ASKING WHETHER IT'S PLAUSIBLE, YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT BECAUSE I'M ASKING WHAT YOU BELIEVE RIGHT NOW THAT THE PRESIDENT GIVE A FIG ABOUT UKRAINE, AND IN FACT, CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NOW?

>> I REALLY CAN'T OPINE.

>> I'M NOT ASKING FOR OPINION.

I'M ASKING FOR YOUR BELIEFS.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR COVERAGE.

I WANT TO ANSWER.

>> I'LL TRY ONE MORE TIME.

>> OKAY.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT'S ALLEGED THAT THE PRESIDENT CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF THAT BEN FILTS THE PRESIDENT.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT ON THE PHONE CALL.

>> I DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT SAID IS THAT TO ME ON THE PHONE CALL.

>> JUST ABOUT ROCKY, AND MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE -- >> TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.

MR. CONAWAY.

>> I YIELD 6 MINUTES TO MR. JORDAN.

>> THANK YOU.

AMBASSADOR, WHEN DID IT HAPPEN?

>> WHAT DID WHAT HAPPEN?

>> THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

WHEN DID MR. ZELENSKY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN.

IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, QUID PRO QUO.

AS I REQUESTED TO A WHITE HOUSE CALL THE ANSWER IS YES.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHEN THE CHAIRMAN ASKED YOU TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE, YOU SAID THERE NEED TO A PUBLIC ANNOUNCE.

WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?

>> NEVER DID.

>> NEVER DID.

THEY GOT THE CALL JULY 25th FRNLT IN NEW YORK ON SEPTEMBER 25th.

THEY GOT THE MONOSEPTEMBER 11th.

WHEN DID THE MEETING HAPPEN AGAIN?

>> NEVER DID.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S IN THE MEETING?

>> WHICH MEETING?

>> THE MEETING THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

WHO WAS IN IT?

YOU KNOW HOW ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED IT.

DID HE TWEET IT OR DO A PRESS STATEMENT OR A PRESS CONFERENCE?

DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED.

YOU GOT ALL THREE OF THEM WRONG.

THEY GET THE CALL, THEY GET THE MEETING, THEY GET THE MONEY.

IT'S NOT TWO PLUS TWO, IT'S 0 FOR 3.

I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND YOU TOLD MR. CASTOR THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD YOU THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT HAD TO HAPPEN TO GET ANYTHING.

IN FACT IN FACT HE EXPLICITLY SAID THE OPPOSITE.

THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS JUST READ IT.

YOU SAID TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE?

THE PRESIDENT "I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID QUO PRO.

I WANT ZELENSKY TO D DO THE RIGHT THING, WHAT HE >> WHAT DID HE RUN ON?

>> TRANSPARENCY.

>> AND DEALING WITH CORRUPTION, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> MR. CASTOR RAISED ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT.

WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT THAT STATEMENT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

I THINK YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T FIT IT IN, IS THAT RIGHT?

WE MIGHT BE HERE FOR 46 MINUTES INSTEAD OF 45 MINUTES.

>> IT WASN'T PURPOSEFUL, TRUST ME.

>> YOU COULDN'T FIT IT IN A 23 PAGE OPENER.

THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER AT HAND THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS AN IN A DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH YOU, AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM THE UKRAINE?

I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID QUO PRO, I WANT THIS BRAND NEW GUY IN POLITICS, HIS PARTY JUST TOOK OVER.

I WANT ZELENSKY TO DOOT RIGHT THING AND RUN ON AND DO WHAT HE RAN ON, DEAL WITH CORRUPTION.

AND YOU CAN'T FIND TIME TO FIT THAT IN A 23 BEIGE OPENING STATEMENT.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT A QUID QUO PRO IS?

>> I DO.

>> JUCHT FOR THAT, RIGHT?

LOOKS TO ME LIKE UKRAINE GOT THAT THREE TIMES.

THERE WAS NO THIS.

WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

EXCUSE ME, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE -- THIS IS -- WHEN THE CALL CAME OUT.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THE CALL CAME OUT, EVERYONE SAID WE'RE GOING TO QUID QUO PRO.

THERE'S GOING TO BE -- THAT WAS IN THE CALL.

OF COURSE, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE COMPLAINT SAID?

REMEMBER WHAT THE MEMO SAID OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER?

THIS CALL WAS FRIGHTENING, THIS CALL WAS SCARY, ALL OF THOSE THINGS?

NONE OF THAT MATERIALIZED.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MS. SEWELL?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I'D LIKE TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER IN THE QUID QUO PRO.

DID YOU NOT SAY IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, AND IN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY IN CLOSED DOOR HEARING THAT YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A QUID QUO PRO?

>> I THOUGHT THAT QUID QUO PRO WAS THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT IN RETURN FOR THE 2016 DNC SERVER AND BURISMA INVESTIGATION.

>> SO WHEN YOU HEARD BURISMA, YOU DID NOT SEE THAT AS CODE FOR THE BIDENS?

>> I DIDN'T.

>> WHEN DID YOU EVEN KNOW THAT?

IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU ONLY REALIZED THAT BURISMA INCLUDED THE BIDENS WHEN THE READ OUT CAME OUT IN SEPTEMBER 25th.

>> NO, MY TESTIMONY WASN'T SPECIFIC TO THE DATE.

IT WAS VERY LATE IN THE GAME, THOUGH.

>> SEPTEMBER?

>> I DON'T RECALL THE DATE.

>> SO IF I TOLD YOU THAT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF BRIBERY WAS AN EVENT OF OFFERING, GIVING, SOLICITING OR RECEIVING OF ANY ITEM OF VALUE AS A MEANS OF INFLUENCING AN ACTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL HOLDING A PUBLIC OR LEGAL DUTY, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NOT ONLY WAS IT QUID QUO PRO, BUT IT WAS BRIBERY?

>> I'M NOT A LAWYER, AND I'M NOT GOING TO CHARACTERIZE WHAT SOMETHING WAS OR WAS NOT LEGALLY.

>> YOU ALWAYS SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT SECRETARY PERRY AND YOURSELF AS WELL AS AMBASSADOR VOLKER WORKED WITH GIULIANI ON THE UKRAINE MATTER AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU ALSO GO ON TO SAY THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO WORK WITH GIULIANI.

SIMPLY PUT, WE PLAYED THE HAND THAT WE WERE DEALT.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT DID YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU DIDN'T PLAY THAT HAND?

>> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME IS -- L YOU ASKED IT.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DIDN'T?

>> IT WAS VERY FRAGILE WITH UKRAINE AT THE TIME.

THERE WAS NO NEW AMBASSADORS.

THE OLD AMBASSADOR HAD LEFT.

THERE WAS A NEW PRESIDENT.

WE THOUGHT IT WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO SHORE UP THE RELATIONSHIP.

>> IN FACT, YOU ACTUALLY SAID -- YOU GO ON TO SAY WE UNDERSTOOD IF WE REFUSEED TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI WE WOULD LOSE AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO CEMENT RELATIONSHIPS WITH WITH THES AND UKRAINE.

SO YOU "FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS."

DID YOU SEE IT AS A DIRECTIVE?

>> I SAW IT AS A PATHWAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH UKRAINE.

>> SO THE EFFORTS MR. GIULIANI WAS UNDERTAKING BECAME A PART OF THE FORMAL UKRAINE U.S. POLICY?

>> ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THE PRESIDENT WANTED US TO COMMUNICATE WITH MR. GIULIANI.

>> YOU WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE SUGGESTION THAW ENGAGE IN IRREGULAR OR ROGUE DIPLOMACY IS FALSE.

SO IF, IN FACT, WHAT GIULIANI WAS DOING WAS OKAY AND PROPER, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID -- INITIALLY YOU THOUGHT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS NOT IMPROPER, RIGHT?

>> WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPROPER.

WHEN I REFERRED TO THE FACT I WAUBT ENGAGEED IN ROGUE DIPLOMACY.

ROGUE DIPLOMACY WOULD HAVE MEANT I WOULDN'T HAVE INVOLVED THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE AND THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> SO YOU'RE SAYING EVERYONE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND KNEW ABOUT GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO GET THE INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA -- I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE ACTUALLY OPINEING TO.

>> THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED US TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI, AND THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT WERE KNOWLEDGEABLE AS WAS THE NSC THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH MR. GIULIANI.

>> INTERESTING WAS THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT, AND CLEARLY HE WOULD BE IN THE CHAIN OF INFORMATION IF HE WAS THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, SIR, YOU'RE THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPE UNION.

WHY WOULDN'T HE KNOW?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> HE SAID THERE WAS A REGULAR AND IRREGULAR CHANNEL.

>> HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN >> SO WE DON'T WANT -- YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI, BUT YOU DOES, IN FACT, WORK WITH HIM.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND DO YOU THINK THAT THE ESSENCE OF WHAT HE WANTED TO ACHIEVE WAS ACCOMPLISHED?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

>> IF YOU THINK THIS WAS GOING DOWN THE CENTER LANE, HE WAS CLEARLY IMPORTANT THAT WE WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI TO GET WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR, BECAUSE IT WAS A DIRECTIVE AND AN ORDER.

SURELY YOU MUST KNOW IF MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED?

>> I KNOW WHAT MR. GIULIANI COMMUNICATED TO US.

>> AND YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS TOTALLY FINE?

DID YOU REALLY THINK IT WAS OKAY.

>> I'LL ANSWER THE QUESTION.

YOU ASKED WHAT MR. GIULIANI WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

>> NO.

I ASKED WHETHER YOU THOUGHT IT WAS RIGHT FOR MR. GIULIANI TO WANT TO ACCOMPLISH THE EFFORTS THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN WHICH WAS TO GET -- GET THEM TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION, AS YOU SAID?

>> ALL I CAN TESTIFY TO IS WHAT I KNOW THAT MR. GIULIANI EITHER TOLD ME DIRECTLY OR TOLD AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS THAT WAS RELAYED TO ME.

>> THANK YOU.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. TURNER.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I WANT TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE PORTIONS OF YOUR TESTIMONY, BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU SEEM TO MAKE DIRECT CONNECTIONS, AND SOMETIMES THEY SEEM TO BE DEADENDS.

I WANT TO CLEAR UP ONE OF THE DEADENDS AND ONE OF THE DIRECT CONNECTIONS.

YESTERDAY AMBASSADOR VOLKER WHO CONSIDER TO BE VERY TALENTED AND A MAN OF INTEGRITY, AND I BELIEVE YOU THINK HE'S A MAN OF INTEGRITY?

>> I DO.

>> HE TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T TIE A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OR A PHONE CALL OR ANY AID TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA, 2016 OR THE BIDENS.

THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT DO THAT.

AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TELL YOU THAT HE TIED THEM EITHER, CORRECT?

>> I DID TFLT TO THAT, ALTHOUGH WHEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I WERE WORKING ON THE STATEMENT AND NEGOTIATING WITH THE UKRANIANS, IT WAS CLEAR TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER THAT A MEETING WOULD NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT THE BURISMA IN 2016.

THAT WAS CLEAR.

>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

HE SAID IT WASN'T CLEAR.

AND HE SAID HE WAS WORKING, AND HE KNOWS THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED, BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE IT AS THIS WAS A REQUIREMENT.

>> I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT PORTION OF HIS TESTIMONY.

IT WAS ABSOLUTELY A REQUIREMENT OR WE WOULD HAVE JUST HAD THE MEETING AND BEEN DONE WITH IT.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE AID.

HE SAYS THE AID WASN'T TIED?

>> I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE CONCLUSIVELY TIE.

I WAS PRESUMING IT.

>> SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS CONSISTENT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TIE AID TOL INVESTIGATION?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HE SPOKE TO GIULIANI AND THAT GIULIANI DID NOT RELATE THAT HE WAS TIEING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OR ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF, AID.

AND GIULIANI NEVER SAID THAT AID WAS TIEED TO INVESTIGATIONS.

THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS DID YOU EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION -- WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VOLKER?

A LOT OF TESTIMONY IS WEs AND USs.

DID YOU HAVE A SEPARATE PHONE CALL WHERE GIULIANI TOLD YOU THE AID WAS TIED.

IF VOLKER WAS ON THE PHONE CALLS -- VOLKER SAYS THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

>> I DID HAVE A FEW CONVERSATIONS.

I DON'T RECALL HOW MANY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE RECORD -- WITH MR. GIULIANI DIRECTLY WHEN MR. VOLKER WASN'T AVAILABLE.

>> AND DID GIULIANI -- GO AHEAD.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE I TESTIFIED THAT MR. GIULIANI TOLD ME THAT AID WAS TIED.

>> OH, SEE THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

I WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH THIS.

YOU SAID TO US, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

HOLD A SECOND.

I LISTENED TO YOU AS DID A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND NOT ONLY ARE YOUR ANSWERS SOMEWA CIRCULAR.

FSHLGTLY YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF IN YOUR OWN ANSWER.

NOW THE TEXT MESSAGES AND E-MAILS THAT YOU PUT UP THERE, CURT CURT IS THIRD HAND AND HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING THAN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING YOU WERE SAYING.

I'M CONFUSED AS TO HOW EVERYONE IS IN THE LOOP.

IF GIULIANI DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY EXPRESS STATEMENT, THEN IS CAN'T BE YOU BELIEVE THIS FROM GIULIANI.

LET ME TELL YOU RIGHT NOW.

IS DONALD TRUMP YOUR FRIEND?

>> NO, WE'RE NOT FRIENDS.

>> DO YOU LIKE THE PRESIDENT?

>> YES.

>> AFTER YOU TESTIFIED, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF RAN OUT AND GA STATEMENT.

AND IF YOU PULL UP CNN IS SAYS SONDLAND TIES PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLDING AID.

IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT DONALD TRUMP TIED THE INVESTIGATION TO THE AID?

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SAYING THAT.

>> I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY CONGRESSMAN, I WAS PRESUMING.

I ALSO SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> GIULIANI DIDN'T TELL YOU, MULVANEY DIDN'T TELL YOU.

POMPEO DIDN'T TELL YOU.

NOBODY ELSE ON THIS PLANET TOLD YOU THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS TYING AID TO THESE INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I THINK I ALREADY TESTIFIED.

>> SO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

IS IT CORRECT?

NO ONE ON THE PLANET TOLD YOU DONALD TRUMP WAS TYING THIS AID TO THE INVESTIGATION?

IF YOU'RE ANSWER IS YES, THEN THE CHAIRMAN IS WRONG, AND THE HEADLINE ON CNN IS WRONG.

NO ONE TOLD YOU THE PRESIDENT WAS TYING AID TOL THE INVESTIGATION, YES OR NO?

>> YES.

>> SO YOU REALLY HAVE NO TESTIMONY TODAY THAT TIES PRESIDENT TRUMP TO A SCHEME TO WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE IN EXCHANGE FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> OTHER THAN MY OWN PRESUMPTION.

>> WHICH IS NOTHING.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS AMBASSADOR.

WHEN I TESTIFY WHAT SOMEONE ELSE TOLD ME.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT MADE UP TESTIMONY IS?

IT'S WHEN I JUST PRESUME IT.

YOU'RE JUST ASSUMING ALL THESE THINGS AND THEN GIVING THEM THE EVIDENCE AND THEY'RE RUNNING OUT AND DOING CONFERENCES.

AND THE HEADLINE ON CNN SAYS THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE WAS TYING AID TO INVESTIGATIONS.

>> I NEVER SAID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

>> BUT YOU'VE HISTORY PEOPLE WITH A CONFUSING TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE GIVING TESTIMONY THAT YOU DID NOT.

YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS TIED TO WITHHOLDING AID FOR AN INVESTIGATION.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CARSON.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I REALLY WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND MR. GIULIANI ROLE IN CARRYING OUT THE PRESIDENT'S DEMANDS FOR INVESTIGATIONS.

ON MAY THE 23rd, SIR, DURING A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE TO DISCUSS THE UKRANIAN RELATIONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU TO TALK TO RUDY.

DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT, SIR?

>> CORRECT.

>> MR.

AMBASSADOR, DID YOU LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT AND TALK TO RUDY?

>> DID I TALK TO RUDY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND TO BE MR. GIULIANI'S RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> I UNDERSTAND HE WAS THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

>> WHAT DID YOU BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI'S -- WHAT DID YOU BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI WAS DOING IN UKRAINE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, SIR?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER SPOKE WITH MR. GIULIANI ABOUT A DRAFT STATEMENT TO THE ISSUE BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

DURING THE DISCUSSIONS IT WAS MR. GIULIANI WHO SUGGESTED, IN FACT, INSISTED THAT THE STATEMENT INCLUDES SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT BURISMA.

CORRECT, SIR?

>> CORRECT.

AND HE INSISTED THAT THE STATEMENT INCLUDE THE MENTION OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS?

AND MR. VOLKER TRANSMITTED THIS MESSAGE TO A TOP UKRANIAN OFFICIAL, RIGHT, SIR?

>> CORRECT.

>> MR.

AMBASSADOR, AND THIS STATEMENT WAS PART OF THE DELIVERABLE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS PUSHING THE UKRANIANS TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA, AND THE BIDENS PART OF A STATE DEPARTMENT POLICY, SIR?

>> I NEVER TESTIFY THAD WE WERE PUSHING ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

I SAID BURISMA.

>> YOU WERE INVOLVED IN UKRANIAN POLICY, RIGHT, SIR?

>> I TOLD YOU WHAT THEY ROLE WAS, WHICH WAS QUITE LIMITED IN FOCUS.

>> WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT UKRAINE POLICY SHOULD INVOLVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO AMERICANS OR DEBUNK CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION, SIR?

>> WHAT I TESTIFIED WAS THAT IN ORDER TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A WHITE HOUSE VISIT, MR. GIULIANI CONVEYED THE NOTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO HAPPEN.

>> OF COURSE, IT WAS NOT.

IT WAS PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL AGENDA.

IT WAS DONE TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY AND POLITICALLY.

WERE YOU FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS, MR.

AMBASSADOR?

>> I WAS FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION TO SPEAK WITH MR. GIULIANI.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.

I WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS, AMBASSADOR IN RESPONSE TO MY COLLEAGUES.

MY COLLEAGUES ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT UNLESS THE PRESIDENT SPOKE THE WORDS "AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I AM BRIBEING THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT," THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY.

IF HE DIDN'T SAY, "AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I'M TELLING YOU I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE THE AID UNLESS THEY DO THIS," THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF A QUID QUO PRO ON MILITARY AID.

AND AMBASSADOR, YOU'VE GIVEN US A LOT OF EVIDENCE OF PRECISELY THAT CONDITIONALITY OF BOTH THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

YOU TOLD US THAT YOU E-MAILED THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND SAID THAT IF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE ANNOUNCED, THE NEW JUSTICE PERSON WAS PUT IN PLACE, THAT THE UKRANIANS WOULD BE PREPAREED TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE WANTS.

THAT WOULD BREAK THE LOG JAM.

YOU SHOWED US DOCUMENTS ABOUT THIS, HAVEN'T YOU?

>> I V. >> IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT, YOU SAY THE LOG JAM REFERS TO THE LOG JAM ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT AS MY PRESUMPTION.

>> AND WE ALSO HAVE SEEN, AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE ALSO SEEN AMBASSADOR -- OR RATHER ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD IN PART OVER THE INVESTIGATION INTO 2016 THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT.

YOU REFERENCED THAT AS WELL, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THEY ALSO GO TO TO SAY, WELL, THEY GOT THE MONEY.

THE MONEY MET THE CONDITION.

THEY GOT THE MONEY.

YES.

THEY GOT CAUGHT.

THEY GOT CAUGHT.

NOW THEY STILL DON'T HAVE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

THEY MADE NO STATEMENT, THEY GOT NO MEETING.

THE STATEMENT ON THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS THE CONDITION TO GET THE MEETING.

THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE STATEMENT, THEY GOT NO MEETING.

BUT THEY GOT CAUGHT.

YOU'RE AWAxá*ER, AREN'T YOU, AMBASSADOR, THAT TWO DAYS BEFORE THE AID WAS LIFTED, THIS INEXAPPLICABLE AID WAS LIFTED, CONGRESS ANNOUNCED TFTION INVESTIGATING THIS SCHEME.

YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT, AREN'T YOU, AMBASSADOR?

>> I AM NOW, YEAH.

>> DR. WENSTRUP >> >> YOU CLAIM REPUBLICANS DENIED INFLUENCE FOR THE ELECTIONS.

THAT'S FALSE, AND YOU KNOW THAT.

THE INTEL COMMITTEE, BUT IN THIS COMMITTEE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WE ALSO AGREED THAT RUSSIA TRIED TO INFLUENCE AMERICAN ELECTIONS AS FAR BACK AS THE SOVIET UNION.

WE ESTABLISHED WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER SOMETHING OBVIOUS.

MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY CAN TRY TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS.

MR. SCHIFF, WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOUR RUSSIAN COLLUSION NARRATIVE OR THE COUP ATTEMPT.

AND THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE FBI, AND THE Dxá*F OFJ AND FOREIGN SOURCES, SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE CONVENIENTLY IGNORED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AS YOU BECAME THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE.

IN THIS PROCESS, I'M WANT A KNOW UPON AN BE ATTORNEY, LIKE MR. TURNER.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, YOU HONESTLY HAVE USED THE WORDS PRESUMED, PRESUMPTION, PRESUMING REPEATEDLY TODAY.

AND TODAY YOU SAID THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, MR. GOLDMAN, NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THE AID WAS TIED T ANYTHING.

I WAS PRESUMING IT WAS.

TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR.

BUT TWO PRESUMPTIONS PLUGS TWO PRESUMPTIONS DOESN'T EQUAL ONE FACT.

THE FACT IS THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, NO QUID QUO PRO.

THAT'S A FACT.

AND ANOTHER FACT, NO QUID QUO PRO OCCURRED.

AT THIS TIME I YIELD TO MR. CONAWAY.

OOxá*ITD LIKE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD, "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE, SCHIFF'S CLAIM THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO ANONYMITY RECEIVED THREE PINOCCHIOS.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT WOULD BE -- TWO INTERPRETATIONS.

ONE THE COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE IS PROTECTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER, EQUALLY VALID AND CREDIBLE INTERPRETATION IS THAT THERE'S SOMETHING TO HIDE.

AND THAT THIS UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD CREATED BY THE CHAIRMAN'S IPSIFTANCE THAT THERE'S A STATUTORY RIGHT TO ANONYMITY MAINTAINS ADVANTAGES THAT IT GIVES THEM.

THE CHAIRMAN ALSO ANNOUNCES EVERY HEARING THAT HE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY WITNESS INTIMIDATION, THREATS OR ISSUES OF TRYING TO BULLY A WITNESS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HAVE YOU, YOUR FAMILY OR BUSINESSES RECEIVED ANY THREATS OR REPRISALS OR ATTEMPTS TO HARM YOU IN ANY WAY?

>> MANY.

>> CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OR TWO?

>> WE HAVE COUNTLESS E-MAILS APPARENTLY TO MY WIFE, OUR PROPERTIES ARE BEING PICKETED AND BOYCOTTED.

>> LET'S EXPLORE THAT ONE.

>> OUR OLD COLLEAGUE, CONGRESSMAN FROM OREGON HAS, IN FACT, CALLED FOR A BOYCOTT OF YOUR HOTEL CHAIN OR YOUR HOTELS IN OREGON.

I'M ASSUMING HE BELIEVES THAT WILL HARM YOU TO THE POINT THAT YOU WILL THEN BE BULLIED INTO DOING WHATEVER HE WANTS DONE.

MY COLLEAGUES AND I KNOW IT'S OVER THE TOP, BUT HE INTENDED TO HARM YOU AND YOUR BUSINESS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU SURMISE?

> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> AND IT GAVE RISE TO DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE HOTELS AND CUSTOMERS HAD TO WEAVE IN AND OUT OF DEMONSTRATORS?

>> AS I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE GOING ON AS WE SPEAK.

>> THE WORDS ARE PUT BY OREGONIANS.

IT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO HURT A HOME GROWN BUSINESS THAT SUPPORTS HUNDREDS OF JOBS IS SHAMEFUL, AND OUT TO BEON OUGHT RAGE TO OREGONIANS.

AND A LADY NAMED ELLEN CARMICHAEL SAID WE'RE SADDENED TO HAVE OUR CONGRESSMAN CALL FOR A BOYCOTT THAT PUTS THE LIVELIHOODS OF THOUSANDS OF CONSTITUENTS IN PERIL.

AND I COULDN'T AGREE MORE, MR.

AMBASSADOR.

MR. BLOOMERHOWER SHOULDN'T BE USING HIS POWER TO BULLY YOU AND BUSINESSES TO HARM THE HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES THAT OPERATE IN YOUR BUSINESS BY TRYING TO TAKE BUSINESS AWAY FROM YOU TO FORCE YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED YOU TO DO, WHICH I CAN TESTIFY YOU'VE DONE THAT.

THAT'S A SHAME FOR THAT.

AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE SAY MR. BLOOMERHOWER YOU SHOULDN'T USE YOUR INFLUENCE TO BULLY AND THREATEN A WITNESS BEFORE THESE PROCEEDINGS.

IT'S WRONG.

I LOOK FORWARDS TO MY COLLEAGUE'S RESPONSE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> I WAS SOMEWHAT HUMORED BILE YOUR REQUEST THAT MR. BLOOMERHOWER NOT BULL TOW GET SOMETHING DONE WHEN ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE PREENT BULLYING TO GET SOMETHING DONE.

HAVING SAID THAT, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE POINT ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FROM THE ARTICLE THAT MR. CONAWAY JUST PROVIDEED.

THE THE LAW READS EXPRESSLY RESTRICTS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE FROM DISCLOSING WHISTLEBLOWER IDENTITY.

IT SAYS, "THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SHALL NOT DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF THE EMPLOYEE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE EMPLOYEE UNLESS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DETERMINES THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE IS UNAVOIDABLE DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION OR THE DISCLOSURE IS MADE TO AN OFFICIAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTION SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN."

THAT ASPEARS TO BE THE LONE STATUTORY RESTRICTION, APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.

WE FOUND NO COURT RULINGS ON WHETHER WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE ANONYMITY UNDER THE RELATED STATUTES.

FUL IT'S NONETHELESS THE BEST PRACTICE TO NEVER DISCLOSE THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENLTITY BECAUSE OF RETALIATION.

>> WE'VE STEPPED INTO BIZARREO LAND WHEN SENIOR POLICY MAKERS ARE TRYING TO YANK A CIA EMPLOYEE INTO THE PUBLIC SPOTLIGHT IN RETALIATION FOR MAKING A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE CREDIBLE THREATS TO THAT EMPLOY TEE'S PERSONAL SAFETY.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE YIELD.

>> DOES THE LADY YIELD?

>> I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES AND I HAVE OTHER ISSUES.

>> THE ARTICLE ALSO SAYS THREE PINOCCHIOS IN SPITE OF THAT.

>> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS FIVE PINOCCHIOS ON A DAILY BASIS.

LET'S NOT GO THERE.

[ APPLAUSE ] >> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU LAMENTED, "I WAS TRULY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT PREVENTED ME AT THE LAST MINUTE FROM TESTIFYING EARLIER ON OCTOBER 8, 2019," BUT YOUR ISSUANCE EVER THE SUBPOENA HAS SUPPORTED MY APPEARANCE HERE TODAY AND I'M PLEASEED TO PROVIDE THE TESTIMONY."

SO IT'S CLEAR THAT THE WHITE HOUSE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T WANT YOU TO TESTIFY AT THAT DEPOSITION, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND SINCE THEN, YOU HAVE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS DURING YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS DOCUMENTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

SO YOU HAVE BEEN HAMPERED IN YOUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY TO THIS COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I'VE BEEN HAMPERED TO PROVIDE COMPLETELY ACCURATE TESTIMONY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.

>> IN TERMS OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS WERE ABOUT UKRAINE AS COMPARED TO OTHER DUTIES?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>> WELL, YOU'VE ONLY HAD SIX CONVERSATIONS OR SEVEN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT, YOU SAID.

>> ABOUT UKRAINE, I THINK.

>> SO YOU'VE HAD MANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS?

>> ABOUT COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTERS.

>> HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE YOU HAD?

>> I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A NUMBER.

IT'S WRONG IF I DON'T HAVE THE RECORDS.

>> IS IT LESS THAN 20?

>> PROBABLY IN THAT RANGE.

>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT DELAY IN MILITARY AID AND THE LACK OF A MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE WORKS TO THE BENEFIT OF RUSSIA?

>> REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE DELAY OF MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND THE RELUCTANCE TO HAVE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING HAS A BENEFIT TO RUSSIA?

>> I THINK IT COULD BE LOOKED AT THAT WAY, YES.

>> I'M GOING TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT CODE.

WHEN MICHAEL COHEN WAS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE HE ASKED THE PRESIDENT SOMETIMES COMMUNICATES WISHES INDIRECTLY.

FOR EXAMPLE, MR. TRUMP DID NOT DIRECTLY TELL ME TO LIE TO CONGRESS.

THAT'S NOT HOW HE OPERATES.

IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, HE SAID.

HE DOESN'T GIVE YOU QUESTIONS.

HE DOESN'T GIVE YOU ORDERS.

HE SPEAKS IN IN CODE.

I UNDERSTAND THE CODE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN AROUND HIM A DECADE.

DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS SPEAKING IN CODE WHEN HE WOULD TALK ABOUT WANTING INVESTIGATIONS?

>> I DON'T -- I CAN'T CHARACTERIZE HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS SPEAKING.

EVERY CONVERSATION I'VE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN DIRECT AND STRAIGHT FORWARD.

>> ALL RIGHT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. STEWART.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSCENT REQUESTS.

>> SAY YOUR REQUESTS.

>> DOE RESPONDS TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S COMMENTS BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRESS SECRETARY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY TODAY MISREPRESENTED BOTH SECRETARY PERRY'S INTERACTION AND WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND THE DIRECTION SECRETARY RECEIVED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

SECRETARY PERRY SPOKE WITH GIULIANI ONLY ONCE AT THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST.

NO ONE ELSE WAS ON THAT CALL, BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE PHONE CALL DID THE WORDS BIDEN OR BURISMA COME UP WITH THE PRESENCE OF SECRETARY PERRY.

AGAIN, I ASK THAT BE ENTERED IN THE RECORD.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

I WOULD NOTE THEY'VE ALSO REFUSEED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

>> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT A LOT OF THINGS OUT POLITICS.

CLASH OF PRINCIPLES AND IDEAS.

SOMETIMES THEY EVENTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE COMPROMISE.

BUT I THINK SOMETHING THEY EXPECT ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE FUNDAMENTAL THEY EXPECT THERE'S A SENSE OF FAIRNESS ABOUT IT.

AND I WANT TO READ PART OF A TEXT I RECEIVED FROM SOMEONE I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR, JUST A FEW HOURS AGO.

SHE WROTE, CRAFTING A STORY TO HURT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING CAN NEVER BE RIGHT.

THE MEANS OF DESTROYING AND HURTING ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE END.

AND POLITICS DOESN'T GIVE ANYONE FREE PASS TO DESTROY OTHER PEOPLE.

NOW YOU CAN SAY A LOT ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

BUT I THINK ONE THING YOU CAN'T ARGUE IS THAT IT HAS BEEN FAIR.

THOSE WERE CALLING FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT BEFORE HE WAS INAUGURATED.

FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS, WE WERE TOLD EVERY SINGLE DAY HE BETRAYED THE COUNTRY.

HE'S A RUSSIAN ASSET.

HE'S COMMITTED TREASON.

ACCUSATIONS WE KNOW AREN'T TRUE AND NEVER HAD EVIDENCE TO SCHT THAT.

HE WAS ACCUSED OF OBSTRUCTION, AND NOW WE'RE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OVER FIRST, QUID QUO PRO UNTIL WE FOUND THAT DIDN'T POLL WELL.

AND THEN BRIBERY, AND EVENTUALLY EVERY WITNESS ASKED A QUESTION SAID THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY, AND NOW IT'S EXTORTION.

AGAIN, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT A SENSE OF FAIRNESS.

BEFORE NANCY PELOSI BEFORE SHE HAS A SHRED OF EVIDENCE SAID THE PRESIDENT BETRAYED OATH OF OFFICE AND PEOPLE AND NATIONAL SECURITY WITHOUT SEEING ANY EVIDENCE -- AGAIN, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAY WHAT IS FAIR ABOUT THAT?

SO THE QUESTION BEFORE US NOW IS EXTORTION.

THAT'S THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

EXTORTION SOUNDS PRETTY SCARY, I HAD TO LOOK IT UP.

IT MEANS OBTAINING MONEY OR PROPERTY BY THREAT TO A VICTIM'S PROPERTY OR LOVED ONES.

MR.

AMBASSADOR I'M GOING TO READ YOU QUOTES FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THEN ASK YOU A QUESTION.

FIRST FROM THE UKRANIAN PRESS RELEASE.

"DONALD TRUMP IS CONVINCEED THE NEW UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT WILL IMPROVE THE IMAGE OF THE NEW UKRAINE, COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION OF CORRUPTION, AND WHICH HINLDERED AID?

>> DOES THAT SOUND LIKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS BEING BRIBED OR EXTORTED IN THAT COMMENT?

>> I'M NOT A LAWYER EITHER.

I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE ANY LEGAL TERMS.

>> THAT'S FINE.

I THINK MOST PEOPLE GRAVY WITH THAT, AND SAY THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE SEVERE PRESSURE.

THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TOLD REPORTERS DURING A JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH DONALD TRUMP THAT HE WAS NOT ÷ U.S. PRESIDENT.

AGAIN, I WAS NOT PRESSURED.

ANOTHER TIME.

THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL.

I WOULD ASK YOU, YOU THINK HE FELT LIKE HE'S BEING EXTORTED BY THE PRESIDENT BASED ON THESE COMMENTS?

>> I THINK THAT'S FOR THE COMMITTEE AND THE CONGRESS TO -- >> YOU KNOW WHAT, MR.

AMBASSADOR, IT'S FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

>> I AGREE.

>> THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN HEAR THAT AND THEY CAN SAY, I DON'T THINK HE WAS UNDER DURESS.

I DON'T THINK HE WAS BEING EXTORTED.

I DON'T THINK THERES AN EXCHANGE OF A BRIBE.

I WOULD CONCLUDE WITH THIS LAST OBSERVATION.

IT IS COMMON FOR OUR NATIONAL POLICY TO WITHHOLD AID FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUE.

IS THAT NOT TRUE?

>> IT'S TRUE.

>> IT'S FREQUENT, WITH IT?

THAT WE WILL WITHHOLD AID FOR VARIOUS REASONS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> PRESIDENT BUSH DID IT.

HE SUSPENDED MILITARY AID TO 35 COUNTRIES OVER THEIR LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE CRIMINAL COURT.

I BET THAT HELPED HIS POLITICAL STANDING.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IT WITH AFGHANISTAN OVER CORRUPTION.

WE DID IT WITH PAKISTAN OVER MUCH THE SAME THING.

NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT WE IMPEACH THEM FOR IT.

THIS IS A COMMON OCCURRENCE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.

IT'S HARDLY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.

MR. QUIGLEY?

>> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

THERE'S THINGS THAT WE CAN AGREE ON, DISAGREE.

I CAN AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE THAT WE SHOULD TURN OVER ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE TURNED OVER.

MR.

AMBASSADOR, YOU AGREE WOULD HAVE HELPED YOUR TESTIMONY.

THE WHITE HOUSE HASN'T TURNED OVER A SINGLE DOCUMENT.

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS THEM.

THAT WE CAN AGREE.

OTHERS WE CAN DISAGREE AS TO PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

IT DISTRESSES ME BECAUSE I BEGIN TO WONDER ABOUT THE MOTIVATION.

THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS IS IF WE'RE INVESTIGATING AN ARSON, YOU ALL WOULD INDICT THE PERSON THAT PULLED THE FIRE ALARM.

THAT PERSON'S JOB IS DONE.

WE'VE SEEN THE SMOKE AND WE'VE SEEN THE FIRE.

WHATEVER THE WHISTLE-BLOWER DID DOESN'T CHANGE THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS, DOESN'T CHANGE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS, WHICH ARE IN OUR TESTIMONY, IN OUR BODY OF EVIDENCE.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE MR. MULVANEY'S WORDS, DOESN'T CHANGE THE BODY OF EVIDENCE HERE.

ALL IT DOES IS PUT THIS PERSON AT RISK.

BACK TO THE DOCUMENTS AND WHAT YOU KNOW.

MR.

AMBASSADOR, YOU SEEM TO HAVE YOUR MEMORY JOGGED BY DOCUMENTS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT MAY 23 AND SEE IF THIS HELPS YOU.

SENATOR JOHNSON IN REFERENCING THE MAY 23rd MEETING IN HIS LETTER, SIR, SAYS I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THE PRESIDENT SAYING THAT DURING THE MEETING.

IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE HE DID.

I DON'T WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THAT DIDN'T REGISTER WITH ME.

HE ALSO SAYS I REMEMBER SONDLAND STAYING BEHIND TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT AS THE REST OF THE DELEGATION LEFT THE OVAL OFFICE.

SIR, DO YOU RECALL THIS LATER CONVERSATION AND WHAT YOU AND THE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED?

>> I DO.

>> WHAT WAS THAT?

>> RECAPPING WHAT -- SORT OF A FREE-FOR-ALL CONVERSATION.

I WANTED TO TIE DOWN WHAT WE AGREED TO DO AND DIDN'T.

>> HE REINFORCED TALK TO RUDY AND -- >> TALK TO RUDY.

YOU WORK -- >> DID HE GO TO MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANT?

>> NO.

>> TALK TO RUDY.

>> IT WAS A SHORT CONVERSATION.

>> THE SECOND PART, HE SAID THERE WAS SOMETHING BESIDES TALK THE RUDY?

>> TO RECONFIRM THAT THE THREE OF US WOULD BE WORKING ON THE UKRAINE FILE.

>> YEAH.

>> AND SO ON.

>> BACK TO RUDY IN THIS SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY MESSAGE HERE.

YOU KNOW RECALL THE PREREQUISITE MENTIONED IN THE JULY 10th MEETING, RIGHT?

THAT WHEN YOU HAD THIS DISCUSSION, THE FIRST MEETING, JOHN BOLTON'S OFFICE, SIR, YOU REFERENCED THAT THERE WAS A CONDITION?

>> I BELIEVE SOMEONE ELSE TESTIFIED THAT I RAISED THAT AND I DIDN'T DISPUTE THAT TESTIMONY, THAT I SAID IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ORDER TO GET THIS VISIT DONE, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT -- I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID INVESTIGATIONS OR SAID SPECIFICALLY BURISMA AND -- >> SURE.

IN YOUR OPENING YOU MENTIONED AT THE VERY SAME TIME THAT APPARENTLY THERE WAS A MEETING WITH RUDY GULIANI AND THE MESSAGE YOU GOT WAS UNDERSCORED VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HE WAS TOLD.

ACCORDING TO R.G., RUDY GULIANI, THE Z POTUS MEETING WON'T HAPPEN, WHICH IS NOT CONDITIONED.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCE HERE?

>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THIS MEETING I WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS APPARENTLY A MEETING THAT RUDY GULIANI WAS HAVING -- >> AT THE SAME TIME.

>> AT THE SAME TIME IN UKRAINE UNBEKNOWNST TO US.

BUT HE SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

>> HE'S SAYING IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> THAT WAS AMBASSADOR VOLCKER'S POINT.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER IS SAYING DON'T LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

>> IF RUDY IS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS AND YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS, WHO IS GIVING YOU THE INSTRUCTIONS TO SAY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> THAT'S WHY WE THOUGHT IT WAS PROBLEMATIC TO WORK WITH THERE GULIANI.

>> EXACTLY.

WHAT DID YOU WORK WITH TO SAY THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID?

DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF, WITH SECRETARY POMPEO TO SAY WHAT YOU WERE SAYING?

YOU DIDN'T -- >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN THE JULY 10th MEET SOMETHING.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YES.

WITH AMBASSADOR VOLCKER.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER WAS THE ONE IN TOUCH WITH MR. GULIANI, NOT ME.

>> YOU HAD NO DIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. MULVANEY ABOUT THIS OR SECRETARY POMPEO TO MAKE THIS CONDITIONED STATEMENT?

>> ONLY THE TEXTS AND E-MAILS THAT'S ALREADY REVIEWED.

>> THANK YOU.

TIME IS UP.

>> MRS. STEFANIK.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECOGNITION IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT OF YOUR HARD WORKING STAFF AT THE U.S. MISSION TO THE E.U.

MR. SONDLAND, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU NEVER RECEIVED ANY DIRECT CONFIRMATION OR SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS TO WHY THERE WAS A HOLD ON AID.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED "PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER TOLD ME DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATION."

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU SAID "NEVER HEARD THOSE WORDS FROM THE CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> INSTEAD, YOU TESTIFIED THAT IN YOUR SEPTEMBER 9th CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT SAID "NO QUID PRO QUO.

I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

DO WHAT HE RAN ON."

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THE FACT IS, THE AID WAS GIVEN TO UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW INVESTIGATIONS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IN FACT MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN SEPTEMBER AT THE UNITED NATIONS, CORRECT?

>> HE DID.

>> THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE THIS MEETING?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND THERE WAS NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THIS MEETING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> YOU BEEN VERY CLEAR WHEN CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS ASKED YOU BROADLY ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

YOU'VE CORRECTED THAT TO SAY SPECIFICALLY YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF INVESTIGATIONS ARE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THE U.S. PARTNERED WITH THE U.K. AND UKRAINE ON AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE OWNER OF BURISMA AS PART OF UKRAINE'S ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT?

>> I BECAME AWARE OF IT TODAY DURING THE HEARING.

>> OTHER WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED BUT YES.

IN FACT, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STATE DEPARTMENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH HUNTER BIDEN SERVING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA BECAUSE THEY RAISED THIS AS THEY WERE PREPARING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FOR HER TESTIMONY.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> I AM NOT.

>> SHE TESTIFIED IN THE OPEN HEARING AND THE CLOSED DEPOSITION.

I ASKED MOST OF OUR WITNESSES THIS.

EVERY WITNESS I ASKED HAS SAID YES.

I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS TODAY.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HUNTER BIDEN, HAVING A POSITION ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA, HAS THE POTENTIAL APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

>> I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE HUNTER BIDEN'S SERVICE ON THE BOARD.

I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH.

>> SO YOU DISAGREE WITH EVERY OTHER WITNESS THAT HAS ANSWERED YES, THERE'S A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

>> YOU ASKED IF THERE'S -- >> MY QUOTE WAS THE POTENTIAL APPEARANCE -- >> I DIDN'T HEAR APPEARANCE.

IT'S CLEARLY AN APPEARANCE.

>> CLEARLY AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

EVERY WITNESS HAS AGREED TO THIS.

YET WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY AND I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. SWALWELL.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, YOU WERE TOLD BY THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS NOT TO SHOW UP.

YOU SHOWED UP.

THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU AND HISTORY WILL LOOK KINDLY ON YOU DOING THAT.

BUT THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THAT.

JUST A COUPLE HOURS AGO, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED ABOUT YOU.

HE SAID I DON'T KNOW HIM WELL.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO HIM MUCH.

THIS IS NOT A MAN I KNOW WELL.

IS THAT TRUE?

>> REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU KNOW BY "KNOW WELL."

WE'RE NOT CLOSE FRIENDS.

NO.

WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL CORDIAL WORKING RELATIONSHIP.

>> IN THAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP HE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE?

>> YES.

>> HE'S SPOKEN TO YOU OFTEN?

>> WHAT IS OFTEN?

>> YOU SAID AT LEAST 20 TIMES.

>> OKAY.

IF THAT'S OFTEN, IT'S OFTEN.

>> YOU DONATED A MILLION DOLLARS TO HIS INAUGURAL COMMITTEE?

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I BOUGHT A VVIP TICKET TO THE INAUGURATION.

>> THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY?

>> A LOT OF MONEY.

>> AND AFTER THAT THE PRESIDENT MAKES YOU AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, EVENTUALLY THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE IS REMOVED AND AS YOU JUST TOLD US IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU'RE A CENTRAL FIGURE AS IT RELATES TO UKRAINE.

A PRETTY BIG RESPONSIBILITY, RIGHT?

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT I SAID I WAS A CENTRAL FIGURE.

I WAS ONE OF SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WERE TASKED TO WORK ON THE UKRAINE FILE.

>> WOULD YOU EVER IN THAT BIG RESPONSIBILITY TAKE ANY ACTIONS THAT WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> WELL, BY PRESIDENT TRUMP OR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> WERE YOU EVER HAULED IN TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR ANY ACTIONS YOU HAD TAKEN AROUND YOUR WORK ON UKRAINE?

>> NO.

>> AS TO RUDY GULIANI ON MAY 23, THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU TALK TO RUDY.

YOU TALKED TO HIM A COUPLE TIMES.

YOU TOLD US IN SEPTEMBER TALK TO THE PRESIDENT A COUPLE TIMES.

DID THE PRESIDENT SAY TO YOU STOP TALKING TO RUDY?

>> NO.

>> DID HE EVER SAY DON'T ANY LONG TALK TO RUDY?

>> NO.

>> ON UKRAINE, YOU SAID YOU PLAYED THE HAND YOU WERE DEALT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS THE DEALER, WASN'T HE?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WHAT?

>> THE DEALER.

IN YOUR METAPHOR, YOU WERE PLAYING THE HAND YOU WERE DEALT.

THE DEALER IS PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I'LL RECHARACTERIZE YOUR QUESTION BY SAYING WE FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

THAT WAS THE ONLY PATHWAY TO WORKING WITH UKRAINE.

>> ON PAGE 4 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID GIVEN WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME, WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO DID NOT APPEAR TO BE WRONG.

YOU WOULD AGREE NOW, AMBASSADOR, KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU KNEW AT THE TIME, THERE ARE SOME THINGS AROUND UKRAINE THAT WERE WRONG.

>> I AGREE.

>> SO LET'S TAKE OUT ANY LEVERAGING OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE OVER THE UKRAINIANS AND A WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT'S WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HE TO ASK THE LEADER OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES POLITICAL OPPONENT?

>> YES.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IN ADDITION TO MAKING THAT REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, LEVERAGING A VISIT AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LEADER DESPERATELY NEEDS IS ALSO WRONG?

>> LEVERAGING IN WHAT RESPECT?

>> A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

IF SOMEONE NEEDS A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW THEIR LEGITIMACY TO THEIR PEOPLE, THAT LEVERAGING THAT MEETING AND ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION WOULD BE WRONG.

>> TO BE CANDID, CONGRESSMAN, EVERY MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS CONDITIONS PLACED ON IT.

I NEVER WORKED AT A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DOESN'T HAVE HOST OF CONDITIONS.

>> IF ONE OF THEM IS TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT, THAT WOULD BE WRONG.

>> A POLITICAL OPPONENT, YES.

MAKING A NOUNSMENTS OR INVESTIG INVESTIGATIONS PER SE, NO.

>> AND IF YOU LEVERAGED A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND LEVERAGED SECURITY ASSISTANCE, YOU AGREE THEY'RE WRONG?

>> IN THE HYPOTHETICAL, YES, I WOULD AGREE.

>> YOU BEFORE BECOMING AN AMBASSADOR WORKED AS A BUSINESS MAN AND YOU WORKED ON A LOT OF DEALS, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> INVOLVING MILLION OF DOLLARS?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU WORK FOR A GUY NOW THAT WROTE "ART OF THE DEAL."

>> I DO.

>> STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE TOLD US THEY DON'T WANT TO MAKE LEGAL DEFINITIONS AROUND WHAT OCCURRED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING BEING LEVERAGED AGAINST THE INVESTIGATION, BUT YOU PLAINLY CALL IT A QUID PRO QUO.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DID.

>> FINALLY, ONE FINAL HYPOTHETICAL.

IF SOMEONE WALKS THROUGH THOSE TWO DOORS WEARING RAIN BOOTS, A RAIN COAT AND HOLDING AN UMBRELLA WITH RAIN DROPS FALLING OFF OF THEM, YOU HAVE TO SEE OUTSIDE THAT IT'S RAINING TO PRESUME OR CONCLUDE THAT IT MIGHT BE RAINING OUTSIDE?

>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR HYPOTHETICAL.

>> I YIELD BACK.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. HURT.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

AMBASSADOR.

GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> MY COLLEAGUES IN CALIFORNIA BASICALLY IMPLY THAT YOU'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN -- >> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.

>> MY COLLEAGUES IN CALIFORNIA INDICATED THAT YOU WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I ACTUALLY DONATED TO THE INAUGURAL COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO SECURE TICKETS.

>> SO LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.

DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL INFORMATION COLLECTED BY UKRAINE ON THE BIDENS -- COLLECTED BY UKRAINIANS ON THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN?

>> DID I PERSONALLY HEAR THAT?

>> NO.

>> DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY CONVERSATIONS WHEN THIS WAS DISCUSSED?

>> NOT THAT I RECALL.

>> IN YOUR STATEMENT ON PAGE 5, YOU SAID MR. GULIANI'S REQUEST FOR A QUID PRO QUO FOR ARRANGE AGO WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

YOU ALSO RECOUNTED YOUR CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WHERE YOU SAID I WANT NOTHING, NO QUID PRO QUO.

HOW DO YOU RECKONCILE THESE TWO STATEMENTS?

>> THEY'RE HARD TO RECONCILE.

WE WERE WORKING ALONG MR. GULIANI'S DIRECTION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

WE STILL DIDN'T HAVE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

AID WAS NOW HELD UP.

THERE WERE LOTS OF REASONS BEING GIVEN BY VARIOUS PEOPLE AS TO WHY THOSE WEREN'T MOVING FORWARD.

I FINALLY GOT EXASPERATED BY RECEIVING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S LATEST TEXT AND I PICKED UP THE PHONE, I GOT THROUGH TO THE PRESIDENT AND I SAID WHAT DO YOU WANT.

>> SURE.

ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS, MAYOR GULIANI HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT BETWEEN YOUR MAY 23 CONVERSATION AND SEPTEMBER 11, 2019?

>> I DON'T RECALL IF MAYOR GULIANI, WHEN I WAS DIRECTLY TALKING TO HIM THROUGH A CONFERENCE CALL OR ON A DIRECT CALL, WHETHER HE QUOTED FROM THE PRESIDENT OR SAID I JUST TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT.

MOST OF THE COMMUNICATIONS AS I SAID WENT THROUGH AMBASSADOR VOLCKER INITIALLY.

I DON'T WANT TO OPINE ON WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SAID.

>> ON PAGE 11 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID MR. GULIANI HAD BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH UKRAINIANS WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.

I'M ASSUMING YOU, MR. VOLCKER AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

WHICH UKRAINIANS WAS RUDY GULIANI COMMUNICATING WITH?

>> I WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THIS TEXT THAT I RECEIVED FROM AMBASSADOR VOLCKER WHERE MR. GULIANI WAS APPARENTLY TELLING THE UKRAINIANS SOMETHING THAT FRUSTRATED AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

>> WHO SPECIFICALLY?

>> MR. LUTSENKO.

>> DO YOU THINK HE HAS ANY GRAVITAS WITHIN THE ZELENSKY REGIME?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

HE WAS THE OLD ATTORNEY GENERAL AND -- >> ULTIMATELY GOT FIRED IN AUGUST WHEN THE NEW GROUP CAME IN.

>> I THINK SO.

>> SO WE KNOW RUDY GULIANI HAS MET WITH MR. YURMAK.

DO YOU HAVE OF ANY OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT MAYOR GULIANI WAS MEETING WITH?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO HE WAS MEETING WITH.

>> HAD YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS IN THE ZELENSKY REGIME THAT CAME TO YOU AND SAID HEY, I JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH GULIANI, WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>> WOULD THAT BE NORMAL?

IN ALL YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH AMBASSADORS AND HEADS OF STATES AND GOVERNMENTS, IF THERE'S SOME ELEMENT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THAT THEY HAVE SPOKEN TO, ISN'T IT USUALLY THAT THEY COME IN, TALK TO THE AMBASSADOR, TRY TO CLARIFY THAT STATEMENT?

ISN'T THAT A TRUE CHARACTERIZATION OF HOW ELEMENTS OF DIPLOMACY WORK?

>> THAT'S REASONABLE.

THINGS WORK DIFFERENT KINDS OF WAYS THESE DAYS.

>> WHEN YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AFTER THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL, ON JULY 26, DID THE INVESTIGATIONS OF JOE BIDEN COME UP IN THAT MEET SOMETHING.

>> I DON'T RECALL JOE BIDEN COMING UP.

>> WAS THERE ANY FRUSTRATION EXPRESSED TO YOU BY THE PHONE CALL THAT HAPPENED THE DAY BEFORE?

>> NO.

EVERYONE SAID IT WAS A GOOD CALL.

>> IN YOUR OPINION, YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IS HE A STRAIGHT SHOOTER?

IS HE A LIAR?

>> HE IMPRESSED ME GREATLY.

THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GET HE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TOGETHER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

>> WHEN HE MAKES EXPRESSED STATEMENTS, YOU TEND TO BELIEVE THEM?

>> WITH MY LIMITED INTERACTION WITH HIM, HE SEEMS VERY HONORABLE.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

AMBASSADOR.

HOPE YOU MAKE YOUR PLANE BACK.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CASTRO.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, AMBASSADOR.

WELCOME.

OTHERS CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT INVESTIGATIONS WERE PART OF THE CONDITIONS FOR US ASSISTANCE WITH THE UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY DISCUSSED HIS BELIEF THAT ITS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE TO POLITICIZE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

AMBASSADOR, HOW OFTEN DID YOU SPEAK OR MEET WITH MR. MULVANEY?

>> AGAIN, BASED ON MY LACK OF RECORDS, I'M GOING BY A BAD MEMORY.

>> BASED ON YOUR MEMORY.

>> I ONLY THINK I HAD ONE FORMAL MEETING WITH MR. MULVANEY AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UKRAINE.

HAD TO DO WITH ANOTHER MATTER.

>> DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH MR. MR. MULVANEY AND YOUR EFFORTS IN THE UKRAINE?

>> MOST OF OUR COMMUNICATION WERE THE STREAM OF E-MAILS WHICH OTHERS WERE ON GENERALLY.

I MAY HAVE SEEN HIM CASUALLY AND KEPT IN TOUCH.

WE DIDN'T HAVE A BACK AND FORTH.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

WAS IT YOUR SENSE THAT MR. MULVANEY HAD A DIRECT LINE TO MR. TRUMP?

HE MUST HAVE AS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, RIGHT?

>> OF COURSE.

>> LET US LOOK AT WHAT MR. MR. MULVANEY SAID IN HIS OCTOBER 17th PRESS CONFERENCE.

>> THOSE ARE THE DRIVING FACTORS.

DID HES WILL MENTION TO ME IN THE PAST THE CORRUPTION RELATE TOED THE DNC SERVER?

NO QUESTION.

ABSOLUTELY ABOUT THAT.

BUT THAT'S IT.

THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

>> SO THE DEMAND FOR THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS WAS PART OF THE REASON THAT HE WITHHOLDING FUNDING TO THE UKRAINE?

>> THE LOOK BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 WAS PART OF THE THINGS THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION.

THAT IS APPROPRIATE.

>> HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THAT CLIP HAD AN INTEREST IN THE INVESTIGATIONS.

DID HE NOT?

>> APPARENTLY.

YES.

>> HE'S THE CHIEF OF STAFF.

HE'S SOMEBODY THAT SEES THE PRESIDENT, HAS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT EVERY DAY.

WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT THAT?

>> I WOULD EXPECT HE HAS A DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN FROM MR. MULVANEY THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE HOLDING UP THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AT ANY TIME?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HEARD IT FROM MR. MULVANEY.

>> OKAY.

AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT A CAREER SERVICE OFFICER.

IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON AN INVESTIGATION ON A RIVAL AT ANY TIME?

>> I TESTIFIED THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER.

>> LET'S SEE WHAT MR. MULVANEY HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT AT THE SAME PRESS CONFERENCE.

>> THAT WAS -- THOSE ARE THE DRIVING FACTORS.

DID HE ALSO MENTION TO ME IN THE PAST THE CORRUPTION RELATE TOED THE DNC SERVER?

ABSOLUTELY.

NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S IT.

THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

THERE WAS A REPORT -- >> I'LL READ IT FOR YOU.

I'LL READ IT.

HE SAID "I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.

GET OVER IT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY."

KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW, DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. MULVANEY THAT THERE'S POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY OR WE SHOULD ALL GET OVER IT AND ALLOW A PRESIDENT NOW OR LATER TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL AND ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT?

YOU AGREE WITH MR. MULVANEY?

>> THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND INVESTIGATING A RIVAL.

POLITICS ENTERS INTO EVERYTHING WITH FOREIGN POLICY.

>> SO YOU DISAGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT -- YOU AGREE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO IS ASK FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL RIVAL.

>> IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE UKRAINE, I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL IN RETURN FOR A QUID PRO QUO.

>> PART OF THE WAY YOU FIGURED OUT THIS STUFF WAS GOING ON, THAT YOU WERE PART OF SOMETHING THAT WAS BASICALLY WRONG IS BECAUSE OF THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF -- HE DIDN'T TELL YOU, WE DON'T KNOW IF HE TOLD RUDY GULIANI OR NOT BECAUSE RUDY GULIANI WON'T COME IN HERE.

HE SAID DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT HE WANTED THE BIDENS INVESTIGATED.

WASN'T THAT YOUR READING OF THE CALL?

>> FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I WAS A PART OF SOMETHING THAT WAS WRONG BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT I KNEW, I THOUGHT WE WERE OPERATING WELL WITHIN THE CENTER LANE OF PROPER U.S.

DIPLOMACY.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD A STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT BY CHIEF OF STAFF, MARK SHORE.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I'LL BE BRIEF.

IN ANTICIPATION OF MR. HOLMES TESTIMONY TOMORROW ABOUT THIS JULY 26th PHONE CALL THAT HE OVERHEARD AT A CAFE IN KIEV WITH.

TRUMP -- IT WASN'T ON A SPEAKER PHONE.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> IT WAS OPEN AIR?

>> IT WAS OUT DOORS.

>> ONE OF THE POINTS THAT MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES KEEP MAKING IS THAT DAVID HOLMES' PRIOR TESTIMONY, WHICH HE WILL CONFIRMED TESTIMONY, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT HE DOESN'T GIVE A BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE.

YOU HEARD THAT EARLIER.

>> THAT WAS NOT ON THE PHONE CALL.

I DON'T THINK HE TESTIFIED THAT WAS ON THE PHONE CALL.

I THINK HE WAS TESTIFYING THAT I SUMMARIZED THE PHONE CALL.

I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT.

>> YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT?

>> I DON'T.

>> YEAH.

EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, TO HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT -- >> HE CAN HAVE WHATEVER OPINION HE WANTS ABOUT UKRAINE.

>> IT'S PART OF THE NARRATIVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BAD GUY AND DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS.

SEEMS TO ME, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, NOTHING SAYS YOU CARE MORE ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS THAN SENDING JAVELIN ANTI-TANK MISSILES.

YOU AGREE WITH ME?

>> I AGREE THAT SENDING JAVELIN ANTI-TANK MISSILES THAT UKRAINE WANTED AND NEEDED.

>> THEY WORK BETTER STOPPING RUSSIAN TANKS THAT THE BLANKETS.

>> YOUR POINT IS TAKEN.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN.

AMBASSADOR, THANKS FOR YOUR STAMINA, SIR.

A FEW QUICK FAIRLY EASY QUESTIONS.

YOU'D AGREE, WOULD YOU NOT, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE CAN BE A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY?

>> UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, YES.

>> THERE'S CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INTERFERENCE -- >> I'M SORRY.

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE?

>> ALWAYS.

SORRY.

>> DO YOU ALSO AGREE THAT IDENTIFYING AND PREVENTING THAT INTERFERENCE SHOULD BE A PRIORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

>> SHOULD BE A PRIORITY.

>> WHEN YOU WERE ASSISTING PRESIDENT TRUMP TO OBTAIN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, DID YOU REALIZE THAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS COULD IMPACT THE 2020 ELECTION?

>> NO.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE, SIR, THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE, EVER APPROPRIATE TO INVITE, PRESS, BRIBE OR COOERS FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS?

>> NO.

>> I WANT TO REFER TO SOMETHING YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

"AS I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED HAD I KNOWN OF ALL OF MR. GULIANI'S TEALINGS OR THOSE UNDER CRIMINAL INDICTMENT, I WOULD HAVE NOT ACQUIESCED TO HIS PARTICIPATION."

HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU THOUGHT HE WAS DOING OR WRONG OR NOT REPUTABLE.

FAIR?

>> WELL, WITH 2020 HINDSIGHT, THAT IS FAIR.

>> YES.

>> YOU'VE TESTIFIED HERE TODAY THAT YOU ALSO CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS IN BURISMA WAS IN FACT A REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS BOTH FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND HUNTER.

INDEED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL MAKES REFERENCE TO THAT INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN AND TODAY EVEN THE RANKING MEMBER SAID WE COULD CLEAR THIS UP IF WE HAD HUNTER BIDEN.

I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION.

WHAT UKRAINIAN LAW DID HUNTER BIDEN VIOLATE?

>> I'M NOT AWARE.

>> WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT HE MAY HAVE VIOLATE ADD UKRAINIAN LAW?

>> I'M NOT AWARE.

>> BECAUSE THERE IS NONE, SIR.

FINALLY, ALSO FROM YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU SAID, AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED TEN HOURS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, I DID SO DESPITE DIRECTIVES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT TO REFUSE TO APPEAR AS MANY HAVE DONE.

I AGREE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE I RESPECT THE GRAVITY OF THE MOMENT.

I BELIEVE I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ACCOUNT FULLY FOR MY ROLE IN THESE EVENTS.

DID BY OBLIGATION YOU MEAN YOUR LEGAL OBLIGATION OR SOMETHING BIGGER?

>> BOTH MY LEGAL OBLIGATION AND MY MORAL OBLIGATION.

>> YOUR MORAL OBLIGATION.

I WANT TO PRESENT AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY.

YOUR FAMILY CAME HERE ESCAPING THE HOLOCAUST VIA URUGUAY.

YOUR PARENTS MOVED, LUCY AND LATER YOU HERE WHERE FRANKLY YOU'VE BEEN AN AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY.

THROUGH DENT OF HARD WORK, INNOVATION, GOOD IDEA, A KNACK TO HIRE THE RIGHT PEOPLE AND SOME LUCK, YOU BUILT A CONSIDER SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS.

ONE THAT WOULD MAKE YOUR PARENTS PROUD.

THEY CAME HERE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT IT WAS HERE THAT THEY COULD HAVE FREEDOM, THAT THEY HAD NOT ENJOYED, SECURITY THAT THEY HAD NOT ENJOYED ANT AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY HAD NOT ENJOYED.

NO DOUBT ON SOME LEVEL YOU'RE GREATFUL AND CREATED A SENSE OF PATRIOTISM IN YOU.

IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?

>> VERY FAIR.

>> WHY THEN, SIR, WITH YOUR COURAGE TO COME BEFORE US DOES THAT SAME STANDARD NOT APPLY TO MR. MULVANEY, MR. DUFFY, MR. POMPEO, MR. BOLTON, MR. BOLT, MR. GULIANI?

WHY SHOULDN'T THOSE SAME SENTIMENTS MEET WITHIN THEIR HEARTS TO DO THEIR PATRIOTIC DUTY AND DO WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, SIR?

INDEED, WHY DOESN'T THAT SAME STANDARD APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> I WISH I COULD ANSWER.

>> I SUSPECT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOOD ANSWER.

I DO APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO COME HERE TODAY.

WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN.

>> MR. JORDAN?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I ASK YOU TO END WITH A STATEMENT FROM MICK MULVANEY.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN THESE STATEMENTS.

PRESUME THEY'RE ACCURATE AND NO OBJECTION.

>> THANK YOU.

AMBASSADOR, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT A BIG FAN OF FOREIGN AID, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FAIR.

I THINK HE'S CAREFUL.

>> HE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT AID GOING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

>> YES.

>> HE KNEW UKRAINE WAS CORRUPT.

>> HE BELIEVED THAT.

>> HE WANTED EUROPE TO DO MORE?

>> DEFINITELY.

>> AND PRESIDENT HAD A BELIEF THAT UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, SOME SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SUPPORTED HIS OPPONENTS IN 2016.

A NUMBER OF PARLIAMENT SAID A MAJOR THINK OF POLITICIANS WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO WIN.

HE OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

HAVE A BRAND NEW GUY IN UKRAINE.

THIS ZELENSKY GUY WINS, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> HIS PARTY TAKES OVER AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS TO SEE WITH ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE CONCERNED TO HIM, HE WANTED TO SEE IF THIS NEW GUY IS ACTUALLY, AS I LIKE TO SAY, THE REAL DEAL, A REAL REFORMER AND DEAL WITH THE CORRUPTION PROBLEM.

SO AID GETS HELD UP FOR 55 DAYS ON JULY 18 AND RELEASED SEPTEMBER 11.

SEEMS TO ME MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE 55-DAY PAUSE, THE 14-DAY WHEN UKRAINE REALIZED AID WAS HELD UP ON THE 29th.

YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT AND TWO WITNESSES YESTERDAY TESTIFIED TO THAT, THE POLITCO ARTICLE.

SO AID GETS HELD UP -- EXCUSE ME.

UKRAINE LEARNS IT'S HELD UP AND RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11.

IN THOSE 14 DAYS, THERE'S THREE IMPORTANT MEETINGS WITH SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE AUGUST 29 MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE MEETING THAT YOU'RE A PART OF, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MEETS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5 WHERE U.S.

SENATORS MURPHY AND JOHNSON MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS DID ANY LINKAGE TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS, A START OF AN INVESTIGATION COME UP.

NONE OF THEM.

SEEMS TO BE THE ONE THAT IS THE MOS IMPORTANT IS THE SEPTEMBER 5 MEETING.

THAT IS ACTUALLY A MEETING WHERE THERE'S NO ONE -- WELL, IT'S MUCH MORE CONGRESSIONAL FOCUS THAN WHITE HOUSE FOCUSED.

THIS IS THE MEETING WHERE SENATORS MURPHY, SENATORS MURPHY AND JOHNSON, BIPARTISAN, MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHAT IS INTERESTING IS WHAT BOTH SENATORS HAVE GIVEN US LETTERS RECOUNTING WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT MEETING.

SENATOR MURPHY SAID I BROACHED THE POP TICK OF PRESSURE FROM RUDY GULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT'S EMISSARIES.

MURPHY BROUGHT IT UP.

YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATORS, STRONG SUPPORTERS OF MONEY GOING TO THE UKRAINE, THESE GUYS ARE FOR IT.

SENATOR MURPHY IS A DEMOCRAT, EVEN BRINGS UP THE ISSUE EVERYBODY HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

IT SEEMS TO ME IF EVER THERE WAS A TIME WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAYS GUY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DEALING WITH.

I'M GETTING PRESSURE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE WANTS ME TO DO THIS.

I HAVE TO MAKE -- SEEMS IF EVER THERE WAS A TIME THAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THE NEW GUY, NOW KNOWS THE AID HAS BEEN ON HOLD, IF EVER THERE WAS A TIME TO BRING IT UP, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TIME.

GUESS WHAT?

AT NO TIME SENATOR JOHNSON TELLS US THAT.

AT NO TIME DURING THIS MEETING OR ANY OTHER MEETING ON THIS TRIP WAS THERE ANY MENTION BY ZELENSKY OR ANY OTHER UKRAINIAN THAT THEY WERE FEELING PRESSURE TO DO ANYTHING IN RETURN FOR MILITARY AID.

NOT EVEN SENATOR JOHNSON SAYS, NOT EVEN AFTER MURPHY WARNED THEM ABOUT GETTING INVOLVED IN THE ELECTION.

SO MURPHY GAVE THIS BIG LONG RUDY GULIANI AND NOTHING.

GUESS WHAT MURPHY ALSO SAID?

I DO NOT DISPUTE ANY OF SENATOR JOHNSON'S FACTUAL REPRESE REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE MEETING.

IF IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, SEPTEMBER 5 WAS THE DAY.

NO ONE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE THERE.

NOT AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

NOT THE VICE PRESIDENT.

NOBODY THERE.

EVEN THEN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF MEETINGS IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AS YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER, THERE WAS NEVER AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

YOU SAID THERE WERE THREE QUID PRO QUOS BUT THERE WASN'T.

THERE WAS NEVER AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

THIS IS AS CLEAR AS IT GETS.

THESE GUYS WANT TO KEEP STIRRING IT UP BASED ON NO DIRECT EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

THE BEST DIRECT EVIDENCE WE HAVE IS ACTUALLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD YOU.

I WANT NOTHING, THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO.

I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO EXACTLY WHAT HE CAMPAIGNED ON.

WHEN THAT BECAME CLEAR TO US, GUESS WHAT?

THEY GOT THE MONEY.

THEY GOT THE MONEY.

GOT BLESS AMERICA.

IT WORKED OUT, RIGHT?

THIS IS CRAZY WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH.

BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE SO DARN CLEAR.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. WELCH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AMBASSADOR, I'M IMPRESSED WITH YOUR CAREER.

VERY SUCCESSFUL IN BUSINESS.

I'M IMPRESSED WITH YOUR COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE.

VERY IMPRESSED WITH YOUR FORTHRIGHT STATEMENTS.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

YOU SAID IT WAS THE HIGHEST HONOR FOR YOU TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY, TO HAVE THIS APPOINTMENT, THE SERVICE AMBASSADOR TO THE EU.

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU BECAME INVOLVED IN THE UKRAINE POLICY.

IN THAT POLICY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY YOU AND OTHERS, REALLY VERY CLEAR TO HELP UKRAINE FIGHT INTERNAL CORRUPTION AND RESIST EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THIS CONGRESS I THINK WITH THE SUPPORT OF EVERYBODY UP HERE, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS IN FACT WITH A SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT OF REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP AUTHORIZED THE RELEASE OF MILITARY AID, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> AND YOU AND OTHERS WHO WERE WORKING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO SHOW OUR SUPPORT AND SEND A SIGNAL TO RUSSIA, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND FROM HEARING YOU AND HEARING OUR OTHER WITNESSES, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND AMBASSADOR VOLCKER AND TAYLOR, THERE WAS A CONCERTED TEAM EFFORT ON YOUR PART TO GET THE MEETING AND RELEASE THAT AID, CORRECT?

>> WELL, THERE WAS ALWAYS A CONCERTED EFFORT ON MY PART TO GET THE MEETING.

THAT WAS MY SINGLE AND NARROW FOCUS, TO GET THE MEETING.

>> RIGHT.

THAT WAS SHARED BY ALL OF THE COLLEAGUES I JUST CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND INCREDIBLY URGENT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBED GOING TO THE FRONT WHERE UKRAINIANS WERE DYING AT THE DONBASS AND IT WAS AN ISSUE FOR THEM THAT THEY GET THE AID.

YOU WERE WELL AWARE OF THAT AND SHARED I'M SHORT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CONCERN.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I DID.

>> AND YOUR FORTHRIGHT TESTIMONY, YOU HAD A -- YOU TESTIFIED -- IT'S WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T PIECE IT TOGETHER.

GULIANI KNEW IN REAL TIME WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AS YOU WENT ALONG.

IS THAT FAIR?

>> I THINK SO.

>> ONE, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ACTED ON THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT.

THAT WAS YOU ACTING OUT HIS ORDERS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU SAID QUITE EXPLICITLY THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

>> RELATING TO THE MEETING AND THE BURISMA DNC -- >> THAT'S RIGHT.

NO MEETING UNLESS THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY MR. GULIANI.

>> AND -- >> WAIT.

NO MEETING UNLESS THERE'S AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION.

>> THANK YOU.

AND I ASKED -- BY THE WAY, DID THE EFFORTS OF MR. GULIANI AUTHORIZED BY PRESIDENT IMPEDE THE EFFORTS YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS UKRAINE POLICY?

>> NOT INITIALLY.

WE WERE JUST WORKING -- >> ULTIMATELY?

>> WELL, ULTIMATELY NOTHING HAPPENED.

>> RIGHT.

GULIANI WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY INSISTENT ON THE MEETING, CORRECT?

>> GULIANI WAS AN ASSISTANT -- >> ON THE INVESTIGATION.

>> THE INVESTIGATION.

RIGHT.

>> NOW, I ASKED THIS OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR OR AMBASSADOR VOLCKER.

IF THE MAYOR OF PORTLAND SAID TO THE POLICE CHIEF, I'M NOT GOING TO AUTHORIZE YOUR BUDGET UNLESS YOU AGREE TO DO AN INVESTIGATION INTO MY POLITICAL OPPONENT, WOULD THAT BE WRONG?

>> OF COURSE.

>> LIKE-WISE, IF IT WERE THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF OREGON DOING THE SAME THING, CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> WOULD THAT SAME RULE APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE QUESTION.

THE PRESIDENT HERE?

HIS PHONE CALL, HE ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO DESPERATELY NEEDED THE RELEASE OF THAT AID, WHO DESPERATELY NEEDED THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO DO AN INVESTIGATION.

IT WAS FOCUSED ON THE BIDENS AND HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.

THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

YOU FEEL AS A PERSON WHO WENT IN TO PUBLIC SERVICE TO SERVE WHO HAD A TEAM OF PEOPLE TO CHAIR YOUR DESIRE TO HELP UKRAINE DO YOU FEEL BETRAYED BY THE DOUBLE DEALING OF THE PRESIDENT?

A REAL QUESTION.

>> I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE -- >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHARACTERIZE HIM.

WE ALL GET A CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING USEFUL, WE'D LIKE TO DO IT.

THERE'S NO BETTER JOY THAN WHEN YOU DO IT WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

>> MR. WELCH, LET ME ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THIS WAY.

I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT -- I'M SURE EVERYONE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT THE PRESIDENT MET WITH MR. ZELENSKY RIGHT AWAY.

OUR ASSISTMENT OF MR. ZELENSKY THAT HE AND THE PRESIDENT WOULD GET ON FAMOUSLY.

HE'S SMART, FUNNY.

HE WAS CHARMING.

HE WAS THE KIND OF PERSON THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE AND ONCE THE TWO OF THEM GOT TOGETHER, WE THOUGHT THE CHEMISTRY WOULD TAKE OVER AND GOOD THINGS WOULD HAPPEN BETWEEN THE U.S. AND THE UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE PUSHING FOR A QUICK UNCONDITIONAL MEETING.

>> ITS UNFORTUNATE THAT HE MET WITHOUT THE COMMITMENT ON THE INVESTIGATION.

THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. MALONEY.

>> MR.

AMBASSADOR, LET'S PICK UP THERE.

YOU WOULD HAVE PREFERRED IF THEY JUST HAD THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WITHOUT THESE CONDITIONS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> YES.

>> BUT THERE WERE THESE CONDITIONS.

AND INVOLVED AN INVESTIGATION.

RIGHT?

>> REMEMBER, THE -- THE INITIAL INVITATION THAT THE PRESIDENT SENT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY -- >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> HAD NO CONDITIONS.

>> THAT DIDN'T LAST LONG.

AND THEN THERE WERE CONDITIONS.

THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL AT THIS POINT, I DON'T BELIEVE.

THERE WERE CONDITIONS.

THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE INVESTIGATIONS, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> CORRECT.

>> WE KNOW THAT BURISMA MEANS BIDENS, RIGHT?

>> TODAY WE DO.

>> AND WE CAN PROBABLY FROM TODAY AND UNTIL THE END OF TIME SET ASIDE ANY CONFUSION THAT WHEN SOMEBODY IS ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA OVER THE SUMMER WHAT THEY MEANT WAS BIDENS.

RIGHT?

>> WITH 2020 HINDSIGHT.

YES.

>> WITH HINDSIGHT.

OF COURSE, ON THE DAY AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S FAMOUS CALL, YOU'RE HAVING LUNCH WITH DAVID HOLMES.

WE COVERED THIS.

HE OVERHEARS YOUR CONVERSATION.

I KNOW YOU SAID YOU HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE WHAT MR. HOLMES SAID.

I THINK HE SAID YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO THINK HE DIDN'T SPEAK ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT RAISED INVESTIGATIONS WITH YOU, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> ON THE 26th.

>> CORRECT.

>> WE NOW KNOW OF COURSE THAT WAS ABOUT THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AND 2016, RIGHT?

I MEAN, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME.

THAT'S YOUR TESTIMONY.

MR. HOLMES SAID YOU SAID BIDENS AFTER THAT BUT YOU DON'T RECALL THAT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU DISPUTE IT?

>> I DO.

>> OKAY.

YOU DON'T RECALL IT.

WHY KNOW THAT THAT'S WITH THE PRESIDENT.

YOU DO CONFIRM THAT HE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WITH YOU.

>> NOW WITH THE COMPLETE PICTURE, WHAT HE SAID 24 HOURS BEFORE, YES.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

YOU SAID IT'S WRONG TO INVESTIGATE POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

WE'VE AGREED ON THAT, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND YET OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING FOR.

LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING.

WHO WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS?

>> I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE WHO WOULD HAVE AND WHO WOULD NOT HAVE.

>> I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO.

THAT'S MY QUESTION.

WOULD YOU ANSWER IT FOR ME?

>> RESTATE YOUR QUESTION.

>> WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL OPPONENT?

>> WELL, PRESUMABLY THE PERSON THAT ASKED FOR THE INVESTIGATION.

>> WHO IS THAT?

>> IF THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR THE INVESTIGATION, IT WOULD BE HE.

>> IT'S NOT A HYPOTHETICAL, IS IT, SIR?

WE JUST WENT AROUND THIS TRACK.

THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BIDENS.

WHEN HE ASKED YOU ABOUT THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION, WHO WAS HE SEEKING TO BENEFIT?

HE DID NOT ASK ME ABOUT THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION.

>> WHEN HE -- >> I'VE ANSWERED THAT 19 TIMES.

>> WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS.

>> WHEN HE ASKED ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WHICH WE AGREE WHICH MEANS THE BIDENS, WE JUST DID THIS 30 SECOND AGO, IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION, ISN'T IT?

I'M HAVING TROUBLE WHY YOU CAN'T JUST SAY -- >> WHEN HE ASKED ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, I ASSUMED HE MEANT -- >> I KNOW WHAT YOU ASSUMED.

WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS?

>> TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

>> I'M ASKING YOU ONE.

WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS?

>> I'D ASSUME PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD.

>> THERE WE HAVE IT.

SEE?

DIDN'T HURT A BIT, DID IT?

DIDN'T HURT A BIT.

LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING.

>> MR. MALONEY, I'VE BEEN VERY FORTHRIGHT.

I REALLY RESENT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

>> YOU'VE BEEN FORTHRIGHT.

DIDN'T WORK SO WELL THE FIRST TIME, DID IT?

WE HAD A DECLARATION COMING AFTER YOU.

NOW WE'RE HERE THE THIRD TIME AND WE GOT A DOOZY OF A STATEMENT.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR.

BUT LET'S BE CLEAR ON WHAT IT TOOK TO GET IT OUT OF YOU.

SO MY QUESTION IS, WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE UKRAINIANS, WITHHOLDING A MEETING, YOU GET THIS INVESTIGATION THAT YOU AND I AGREE WOULD BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY, WHAT KIND OF POSITION DOES THAT PUT THE UKRAINIANS IN, SIR?

>> A TERRIBLE POSITION.

>> WHY?

>> WHY DOES IT PUT THEM IN A TERRIBLE POSITION?

>> WHY?

>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT RECEIVING ULTIMATELY WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS COMING TO THEM.

AND THEY'RE PUT IN A POSITION THAT JEOPARDIZES THEIR SECURITY.

>> A POSITION THAT JEOPARDIZES THEIR SECURITY.

THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO DO AN INVESTIGATION TO HELP THEIR SECURITY ESSENTIALLY THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT POLITICALLY.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MIGHT SAY THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO GIVE THEM A PERSONAL BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT.

IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY?

>> IN YOUR HYPOTHETICAL -- >> IT'S NOT A HYPOTHETICAL.

THIS IS REAL LIFE.

WERE THEY ASKED TO GIVE HIM A PERSONAL BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT?

>> SIR, I AM NOT GOING TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLE WITH YOU.

PLEASE BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

>> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.

THANKS FOR YOUR APPEARANCE.

>> MRS. DEMINGS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AMBASSADOR.

GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF A POSSIBLE MEETING ON OR AROUND MAY 7 INVOLVING THEN PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY AND SEVERAL OF HIS AIDES TO DISCUSS HOW TO HANDLE PRESSURE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MR. GULIANI ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS?

>> I DON'T RECALL SUCH A MEETING.

>> YOU DON'T RECALL SUCH A MEETING.

YOU DON'T RECALL HEARING ANYTHING -- >> I DON'T -- >> YOU DON'T HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE?

>> IF I DON'T HAVE RECORDS, SCHEDULES, I DON'T -- RIGHT NOW I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING ABOUT SUCH A MEETING.

>> AMBASSADOR, IN THE -- >> IS THIS THE MEETING AMONG THE UKRAINIANS?

>> THE MEETING AMONG THE UKRAINIANS INVOLVING THEN PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY.

THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN EARLY ON IN HIS PRESIDENCY WITH SEVERAL AIDES TO DISCUSS HOW TO HANDLE PRESSURE FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MR. GULIANI ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS.

>> I DON'T RECALL SUCH -- >> YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

AMBASSADOR, IN THE MAY 23rd MEETING, YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT CATEGORIZED UKRAINE.

WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT UKRAINE.

I BELIEVE THAT MEETING WAS ON MAY 23.

DID YOU EVER HEAR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RELAY ANY CONCERNS ABOUT YOU, ABOUT HOW HE FELT ABOUT HOW THE UNITED STATES VIEWED HIM, WHETHER HE WAS BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR ANY CONCERNS ABOUT BEING USED AS A TOOL FOR POLITICAL REASONS?

>> WELL, I SAW THAT IN AN E-MAIL FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

WE OBVIOUSLY TRIED TO RELATE TO.

ZELENSKY THE GLASS HALF FULL VERSION OF HOW THE UNITED STATES FELT ABOUT UKRAINE, NOT THE GLASS HALF EMPTY VERSION WHICH IS WE'RE HERE FOR YOU, WE SUPPORT YOU AND TRY TO GET YOU THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> AFTER HEARING FROM THAT, YOU TRIED TO RE-ASSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT AMERICA WAS TRULY -- >> WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO ASSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THROUGHOUT HIS ENTIRE TERM AS THE PRESIDENT.

>> AMBASSADOR, I KNOW YOU SAID YOU DON'T QUITE REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN YOU CAME TO THE REALIZATION THAT BURISMA ACTUALLY MEANT BIDENS.

BACK ON MAY 6 WHEN ASKED ABOUT A NEWS REPORT ABOUT THE ROLE OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT ON BURISMA, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD FOX NEWS THAT IT WAS, AND I QUOTE "A MAJOR SCANDAL, A MAJOR PROBLEM."

ON MAY 9, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED THAT RUDY GULIANI PLANNED TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE AND "SHORTLY TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO URGE HIM TO PURSUE THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA."

ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT REALIZE AT THAT TIME, WE'RE TALKING MAY 9 OF THIS YEAR, THAT MR. GULIANI WANTED TO URGE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO PURSUE THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF HUNTER BIDEN OF BURISMA?

>> I DO NOW BUT I DID NOT KNOW THAT THEN.

>> I BELIEVE YOU SAID EARLIER THAT YOU DID NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION OR MUCH ATTENTION AT ALL TO ANY OF THE NUMEROUS NEWS REPORTS OF THE PERSON YOU WERE DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT TO WORK WITH WHEN HE WAS ON TELEVISION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN TALKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA.

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> ON SEPTEMBER 9 IN A TEXT FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, HE SAID ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT AID IS TIDE TO INVESTIGATIONS.

I BELIEVE YOU TEXTED BACK CALL ME.

YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT PROMPTED HIM TO SAY THAT?

YOU ASKED HIM WHAT DO YOU WANT.

HE GOES DIRECTLY TO THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO AS OPPOSED TO GOING TO THE LIST OF THINGS HE WANTED.

WHAT PROMPTED HIM TO USE THAT TERM?

>> I HAVE NO CLUE.

>> DID YOU DISCUSS YOUR TEXT FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE HE MADE THAT STATEMENT?

>> I DID NOT.

I ASKED A VERY OPEN-ENDED QUESTION.

WHAT DO YOU WANT -- >> YOU REMEMBER THAT DIRECTLY ALL THOSE THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU CANNOT RECALL BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR NOTES OR YOUR DOCUMENTS OR YOUR E-MAILS OR OTHER INFORMATION, BUT YOU REMEMBER THAT CALL SPECIFICALLY EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID TO YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT DO YOU WANT.

WHY IS THAT?

>> I REMEMBER THE FIRST GIRL I KISSED.

I REMEMBER -- >> I WON'T SAY THAT.

>> I REMEMBERED THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT WAS A SHORT CONVERSATION.

>> TELL ME ABOUT THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD AT THE RESTAURANT THAT WAS OVERHEARD BY MR. HOLMES BECAUSE THAT WAS A CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

TELL ME ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT WAS SAID ON THE PHONE?

>> AGAIN, I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS.

I'M BEING GUIDED BY WHAT MR. HOLMES TESTIFIED TO.

I SAID I DIDN'T DISPUTE THE BASIC SUBJECT OF THE CONVERSATION.

AS I SAID, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ASAP ROCKY.

THAT WAS A COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER.

I THINK THE PRESIDENT SAID HOW DID IT GO WITH ZELENSKY OR IS HE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR WEEKS.

THEN AS I SAID, I DISPUTE MR. -- IS IT MR. HOLMES CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT I SAID AFTERWARDS.

>> I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. MURPHY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AMBASSADOR.

I'M JUST GOING TO PICK UP ON THAT SEPTEMBER 9 CONVERSATION WHICH THE PRESIDENT ALLEGEDLY SAID I WANT NOTHING, I DON'T WANT A QUID PRO QUO.

I RESUME THAT ON THIS SEPTEMBER 9 CONVERSATION THE PRESIDENT DID NOT MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS THE SAME DAY THAT WE LAUNCHED A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION TO WHETHER THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

DID HE SAY THAT?

>> AGAIN, I KNOW THAT TODAY BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A TIME TO TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> I PRESUME HE DIDN'T MENTION THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S COMPLAINT THAT ALSO ALLEGED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO THAT DAY.

>> HE DID NOT.

>> SO YOU CAN'T RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE REASON WHY HE STARTED TALKING THAT WAY ON THAT DAY IS BECAUSE THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.

>> I CAN'T RULE THAT OUT.

>> YOU KNOW, THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ON MAY 20th, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AS YOU STATED, YOU ATTENDED TO INAUGURATION WITH SENATOR JOHNSON, SECRETARY PERRY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND OTHERS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WAS SUPPOSED TO ATTEND THAT, RIGHT?

>> I BELIEVE SO.

>> WE LEARNED FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS, A WITNESS THAT TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION ON MAY 13 THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT ATTEND.

SHE SAID THAT ACCORDING TO THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, THE PRESIDENT DETERMINED THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT GO.

DO YOU KNOW WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT ATTEND THE INAUGURATION?

>> NO CLUE.

>> I WANT TO POINT TO A "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE FROM LAST WEEK THAT SAYS THAT LEV PARNAS' ATTORNEY -- AN ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GULIANI.

>> ON WHAT I READ RECENTLY.

>> RECENTLY INDIETED.

>> HE TOLD A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INCOMING GOVERNMENT, THE ZELENSKY GOVERNMENT, THAT IT HAD TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE R. BIDEN AND HIS SON OR ELSE VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE WOULD NOT ATTEND THE SQUARING IN OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED STATES WOULD FREEZE AID.

DID HE NOT ATTEND BECAUSE THIS INVESTIGATION HAD NOT BEEN INITIATED BY THE ZELENSKY GOVERNMENT.

>> I HAVE NO IDEA.

>> YOU CAN'T RULE IT OUT.

>> I HAVE NO IDEA.

>> YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR RULING IT OUT, HOWEVER, CORRECT?

>> ALL I KNOW IS THAT THE LEADER OF THE DELEGATION, SECRETARY PERRY WHO INVITED ME ALONG.

>> INTERESTINGLY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SINCE YOU CAME FORWARD, OTHERS HAVE TRIED TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM YOU.

OCTOBER 14th, RUDY GULIANI TOLD "THE WASHINGTON POST" THAT SONDLAND "SEEMED TO BE IN CHARGE" OF THE EFFORT TO GET UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS.

OF COURSE, THAT'S FALSE, CORRECT?

>> IF I HAD BEEN IN CHARGE, I WOULD HAVE ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO HAVE THE MEETING WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS AND THE MEETING WOULD HAVE OCCURRED A LONG TIME AGO.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE THAT WANTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS AS WE LEARNED LATER ON AND READING THE JULY 25th CALL TRANSCRIPT.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> THE PRESIDENT THREW MR. GULIANI CONVEYED THROUGH MR. GULIANI WANTED THE INVESTIGATION.

>> MR. TIM MORRISON CAME IN YESTERDAY AND IN HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS YESTERDAY, DISPARAGED YOU, TOO.

HE CALLED YOU "THE GORDON PROBLEM."

>> THAT'S WHAT MY WIFE CALLS ME.

MAYBE THEY'RE TALKING.

SHOULD I BE WORRIED?

>> MAYBE.

YOU KNOW, ON OCTOBER 8 OF THIS YEAR, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED THAT YOU ARE A REALLY GOOD MAN AND A GREAT AMERICAN.

OF COURSE, ON NOVEMBER 8, ONE MONTH LATER, HE SAID LET ME JUST TELL YOU, I HARDLY KNOW THE GENTLEMAN.

>> EASY COME, EASY GO.

>> WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU WERE PART OF THE THREE AMIGOS.

BUT WHAT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOOD FOLKS OVER HERE, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, ARE NOWCASTING YOU AS THE ONE AMIGO.

THE ONE LONELY AMIGO THAT THEY'RE GOING TO THROW UNDER THE BUS.

THE TRUTH IS THAT AS YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, THE SUGGESTION THAT YOU WERE ENGAGED IN SOME ROGUE DIPLOMACY OR IRREGULAR CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THE PRESUMPTION THAT MILITARY AID WAS CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS WAS BASED ON MULVANEY'S STATEMENT THAT WE SAW ON THE VIDEO.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> WELL, I DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT AT THAT TIME OF MULVANEY'S STATEMENT.

>> BUT YOU WOULD STAND BY THE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU HAD BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW NOW, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> SEPTEMBER 1 WHEN YOU TOLD ANDRE YERMAK YOUR PRESUMPTION THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT MILITARY AID BEING CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS, YOU THEN TOLD MR. MORRISON WHAT YOU TOLD YERMAK AND MORRISON DIDN'T DISPUTE YOUR PRESUMPTION, CORRECT?

>> I DON'T RECALL HIM DISPUTING IT.

I WENT OVER TO HIM AND JUST REPEATED THE CONVERSATION.

>> WHEN YOU TOLD VICE PRESIDENT PENCE YOUR CONCERNS, HE DID NOT DISPUTE THAT AS WELL?

>> HE DIDN'T RESPONSE.

HE LOOKED AT ME.

>> WHEN YOU TOLD SECRETARY POMPEO THAT WASN'T DISPUTED AS WELL?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>> THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER QUESTIONING.

MR. NUNES, YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING REMARKS?

>> JUST BRIEFLY, AMBASSADOR, I KNOW YOU WANT TO GET ON A PLANE.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INDULGENCE TODAY.

ONCE AGAIN, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SEEN ANOTHER FAILURE OF THEIR PREPOSTEROUS CONSPIRACY THEORY, WHICH IT DOESN'T CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT HEARING, WHICH IS IN A FEW HOURS FROM NOW, ANOTHER HOUR OR SO, KEEPS CHANGING EVERY DAY.

THEY CLAIM THAT YOU HAD AN IRREGULAR -- THAT YOU USED AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL, DRUG DEALS NOW SUPPOSEDLY YOU'RE ONE AMIGO.

NOBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE CLAIMS -- >> I LOST MY AMIGOS?

>> NOT FROM US.

NOT FROM US.

NO BRIBES GIVEN TO -- THAT YOU MADE ANY BRIBES TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE OR TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

YOUR CO CONSPIRATOR, CURT VOLCKER, I FIND IT REMARKABLE AND TROUBLING HOW THE COLLABORATORS AND THE PRESS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO VILIFY AMBASSADOR VOLCKER.

HE WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK ON THESE MATTERS IN UKRAINE LIKE YOU, AMBASSADOR.

IT WAS A VERY REGULAR CHANNEL AND NO AMOUNT OF STORYTELLING BY THE LEFT AND THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS DIAS WILL CHANGE THAT.

IT WAS THE REGULAR CHANNEL.

THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED TODAY IS FAR FROM COMPELLING, CONCLUSIVE AND PROVIDES ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THE CRIMES THAT HAVE BAN LEDGED.

IN FACT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE PRESUMED THE TEMPORARY PAUSE IN MILITARY AID WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE CARRYING OUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THE DEMOCRATS ARE DESPERATE TO PORTRAY AS NEFARIOUS.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SEIZED ON THIS PRESUMPTION AS PROOF THAT THEY CAN USE IT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

HOWEVER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED IN HIS DEPOSITION THAT WHEN HE ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE?

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID I WANT NOTHING, THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO.

LET ME REPEAT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID I WANT NOTHING, THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO.

THIS COMES ON THE HEELS OF THE TESTIMONY BY AMBASSADOR VOLCKER, HE SAW NO EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION, QUID PRO QUO ON TREASONOUS ACTIONS.

WE DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS ON THE TABLE TILL TODAY.

LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DEMOCRATS WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BELIEVE AS ONE DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE PUT IT, THAT HEARSAY IS MUCH BETTER THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE.

I THINK MR. RATCLIFFE FROM TEXAS LAID OUT THE DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE FROM YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.

NOTHING WE HAVE HEARD ESTABLISHES A CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTED IMPROPERLY IN LIST DEALINGS WITH THE UKRAINE AND CERTAINLY NOTHING HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SUPPORT ANYTHING NEAR IMPEACHMENT.

IN THE MEAN TIME, MR.

CHAIR, WE CONTINUE TO HAVE NO ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ONLY YOU KNOW.

STARTING WITH WHO IS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO GAVE BIRTH TO THIS HOAX AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS COORDINATION WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE.

SECOND, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTEND OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2016 AND FINALLY, WHY DID BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN.

WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID HIS POSITION IMPACT ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

ANOTHER HEARING IN THE BOOKS, NO ANSWERS TO BASIC THREE MATERIAL FACTUAL QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS.

YIELD BACK.

THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER FOR HIS REMARKS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THANKS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.

THIS IS A SEMINOLE MOMENT IN OUR INVESTIGATION.

THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD IS DEEPLY SIGNIFICANT AND TROUBLING.

ITS BEEN A LONG HEARING.

I KNOW AMERICANS WATCHING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY MAY NOT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH ALL OF IT, SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH A FEW HIGHLIGHTS AND NOT TRY TO PARAPHRASE WHAT YOU SAID.

I'M GOING TO REFER YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT IF WE REFUSE TO WORK WITH MR. GULIANI, WE WOULD LOSE AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO CEMENT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE.

SO WE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS.

MR. GULIANI'S REQUESTS WERE A QUID PRO QUO FOR ARRANGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

MR. GULIANI DEMANDED UKRAINE MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTION DNC SERVER AND BURISMA.

MR. GULIANI WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WE KNEW THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

LATER YOU TESTIFIED I TRIED DILIGENTLY TO ASK WHY THE AID WAS SUSPENDED BUT DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER.

IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLANATION, I CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION OF SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTION AND BURISMA AS MR. GULIANI HAD DEMANDED.

I SHARED CONCERNS OF THE POTENTIAL QUID PRO QUO REGARDING THE SECURITY AID WITH SENATOR RON JOHNSON AND I ALSO SHARED MY CONCERN WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

SO MUCH FOR THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A QUID PRO QUO UNLESS UKRAINIANS KNOW AND YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TODAY, AMBASSADOR, THE UKRAINIANS KNEW.

YOU FURTHER TESTIFIED MR. GULIANI EMPHASIZED THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTING UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO CORRUPTION ISSUES.

MR. GULIANI SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE 2016 ELECTION INCLUDING THE DNC SERVER AND BURISMA AS TWO TOPICS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT.

IN REFERENCE TO THE JULY 10th MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT YOU ATTENDED WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND OTHERS, YOU SAID I RECALL MENTIONING THE PREREQUISITE OF INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE ANY WHITE HOUSE CALL OR MEETING.

YOU FURTHER TESTIFIED AGAIN, MR. GULIANI'S DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, I KNEW THE TOPIC OF INVESTIGATIONS WAS IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

YOU TESTIFIED LATER, I KNOW THAT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE FREQUENTLY FRAMED THESE COMPLICATED ISSUES IN THE FORM OF A SIMPLE QUESTION.

WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?

AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, WITH REGARD TO THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE CALL AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.

WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THESE PREREQUISITES REFLECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESIRES AND REQUIREMENTS.

LATER ON THE SUBJECT OF SECURITY AID, YOU TESTIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE HOLD, I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AID LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT WAS JEOPARDIZED IN PREPARATION FOR THE SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING IN WARSAW.

I ASKED SECRETARY POMPEO WHETHER A FACE-TO-FACE CONVERSATION BETWEEN TRUMP WITH ZELENSKY COULD HELP BREAK THE LOG JAM.

THIS IS FROM AN E-MAIL THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT REFUSES TO PROVIDE FOR US BUT YOU HAVE PROVIDED TO US, AMBASSADOR.

IT READS SHOULD WE BLOCK TIME IN WARSAW FOR POTUS TO MEET ZELENSKY?

I'D ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM IN THE EYE, THE PRESIDENT AND TELL HIM ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE MID SEPTEMBER THAT Z SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD PUBLICLY WITH CONFIDENCE ON THOSE ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO POTUS AND TO THE UNITED STATES.

HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BREAK THE LOG JAM.

SECRETARY POMPEO'S REPLY, YES.

NOT WHAT ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE POTUS, NOT WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT, AMBASSADORSONDLAND.

BECAUSE SECRETARY POMPEO WAS ON THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL.

HE KNEW WHAT ISSUES WERE IMPORTANT TO POTUS.

THE DNC SERVER AND THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

BY THE END OF AUGUST, YOU TESTIFIED MY BELIEF IS THAT IF YOU CRANE DID SOMETHING TO DEMONSTRATE A SERIOUS POTENTIAL TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, ADDRESSING BURISMA AND THE 2016 SERVER THEN THE HOLD ON MILITARY AID WOULD BE LIFTED.

I MENTIONED TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE BEFORE THE MEETINGS WITH UKRAINIANS THAT I HAD CONCERNS THAT THE DELAY IN AID HAD BECOME TIED TO THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS.

AS YOU TESTIFIED, HE GAVE YOU NO RESPONSE, NO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, AMBASSADOR, HOW COULD THAT BE, AMBASSADOR, HOW DO WE CLEAR THIS UP, AMBASSADOR?

HE NODDED HIS HEAD OR TOOK IT IN.

OF COURSE, THE RECORD OF THAT 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY WAS IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S READING BOOK EARLIER.

THEN YOU TESTIFIED MY GOAL AT THE TIME WAS TO DO WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO GET THE AID RELEASED, TO BREAK THE LOG JAM.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC STATEMENT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR WEEKS WAS ESSENTIAL TO ADVANCING THAT GOAL.

NOW, MY COLLEAGUES SEEM TO BELIEVE AND LET ME ADD ABOUT THIS CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT YOU HAVE CONFIRMED TODAY, IN ADDITION TO CLAIMING THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, THE PRESIDENT WAS ADAMANT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO "CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC."

THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE CONFIRMED, THAT'S WHAT YOU ALSO TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

SO HE WOULD DENY THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, BUT HE WAS ADAMANT THAT ZELENSKY HAD TO QUOTE CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC.

NOW, I HAVE SAID A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP OVER THE YEARS.

I HAVE VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

LY SAY THIS ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WOULD ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE LED BY THE NOSE OF RUDY GULIANI OR AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OR ANYBODY ELSE.

I THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS THE ONE THAT DECIDED WHETHER A MEETING WOULD HAPPEN, WHETHER AID WOULD BE LIFTED, NOT ANYONE THAT WORKED FOR HIM.

SO THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, WHO WAS REFUSING THE MEETING WITH ZELENSKY?

YOU BELIEVE SHOULD TAKE PLACE AND AMBASSADOR VOLCKER SHOULD TAKE PLACE AND EVERYBODY BELIEVED SHOULD TAKE PLACE?

THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN?

WHAT IS THE ONE STANDING IN THE WAY OF THAT MEET SOMETHING WHO WAS THE ONE REFUSING TO TAKE THAT MEETING?

THERE'S ONE ANSWER AND IT'S DONALD J. TRUMP, 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO WHO WAS HOLDING UP THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE?

WAS IT YOU AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

IT WASN'T.

WAS IT AMBASSADOR VOLCKER?

NO.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR?

NO.

DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT?

NO.

SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO?

NO.

WHO HAD THE DECISION TO RELEASE THE AID?

IT WAS ONE PERSON, DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NOW, MY COLLEAGUES SEEM TO THINK UNLESS THE PRESIDENT SAYS THE MAGIC WORDS THAT I HERE BY BRIBE UKRAINIANS THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OPEN BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES OF MISDEMEANORS.

LET'S LOOK TO THE BEST EVIDENCE OF WHAT IS IN THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD.

WHAT IS HIS INTENT.

WHAT IS THE REASON BEHIND THE HOLD ON THE MEETING AND ON THE AID.

LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TO SAY.

LET'S LOOK AT WHAT IS UNDISSPITED ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TO SAID.

YOU KNOW WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY?

NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU HAVE REPRESENTED OR OTHERS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A RECORD OF HIS CONVERSATION.

WITH WHO?

THE ONE THAT REALLY MATTERS?

WITH THE OTHER PRESIDENT, ZELENSKY.

THIS IS WHAT HE SAYS.

HE SAYS, RUDY VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING.

HE IS A VERY CAPABLE GUY.

THIS IS AFTER HE SAYS HE WANTS A FAVOR.

HE GOES INTO CROWD STRIKE IN 2016.

HE SAYS RUDY VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND IS A VERY CAPABLE GUY.

IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO HIM THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

THE FORMER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FROM THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THE WOMAN WAS BAD NEWS.

THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING WITH IN THE UKRAINE WERE BAD NEWS.

I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT.

THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON.

BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT WOULD BE BREAK.

BIDEN WENT ABOUT BRAGGING STOPPING THE PROSECUTION.

IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.

WHAT IS IN THE PRESIDENT'S MIND WHEN HE'S PLACED THIS OTHERWISE HOLD ON THE AID WHEN HE REFUSES TO TAKE THE MEETING?

WHAT IS ON HIS MIND?

BIDEN.

HE MAKES THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

YOU DIDN'T MAKE THE CONNECTION.

I'LL LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF THAT ANSWER.

THERE'S NO MISTAKING WHAT DONALD TRUMP'S INTEREST WAS.

THERE'S NO MISTAKING ABOUT WHAT DONALD TRUMP MEANT WHEN HE HAD THAT CALL WITH YOU ON AN UNSECURE PHONE AS YOU'RE SITTING THERE IN AN OUTDOOR TERRACE WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID AN INVESTIGATION, HE MEANT BIDEN.

HE MADE THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO THE PRESENCE OF UKRAINE BEFORE.

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT MEANT.

THE QUESTION IS HOLDING UP THE AID.

HE WAS.

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER EVERYBODY KNEW IT, APPARENTLY THEY DID.

THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE WE PREPARED TO DO ABOUT IT?

IS THERE ANYTHING ACCOUNTABILITY OR ARE WE FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS JUST NOW THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN, WHEN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN WITHHOLD VITAL MILITARY AID FROM AN ALLY AT WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS, AN ALLY FIGHTING OUR FIGHT, TOO, TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY AGAINST RUSSIAN CONGRAGGRESSION, ARE WE PREPAREO SAY IN THE WORDS OF NICK MUM VAINY, GET OVER IT, GET USED TO IT?

WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT.

PHYSICAL WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT AND I APPRECIATE AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT OPINED WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED OR NOT IMPEACHED OR THE CRIME OF BRIBERY OR IMPEACHABLE CRIME OF BRIBERY OR OTHER IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE HAVE BEEN THAT IS FOR US TO DECIDE.

AND MUCH AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID OTHERWISE, THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION FOR ANY OF US.

AND MUCH AS MY COLLEAGUES MAY SAY OTHERWISE, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE RELISH.

FOR OVER A YEAR I RESISTED THIS WHOLE IDEA OF GOING DOWN THE ROAD TO IMPEACHMENT.

BUT IT WAS MADE NECESSARY, AND NOT BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

BUT BY THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.

I'M CONTINUALLY STRUCK HOW MY COLLEAGUES COULD SUGGEST BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT WE SHOULD IGNORE THE FACT THAT HE WAS CONDITIONING OFFICIAL ACTS IN ORDER TO GET POLITICAL FAVORS, IN ORDER TO GET INVESTIGATION AGAINST HIS RIVAL.

GETTING CAUGHT IS NO DEFENSE.

NOT TO A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR TO A VIOLATION OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T GIVE US REASON TO IGNORE OUR OWN OATH OF OFFICE.

WE ARE ADJOURNED.

>> COMING BACK?

(APPLAUSE) >> AND WITH THAT VERY STRONG STATEMENT, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, ADAM SCHIFF WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY ON THIS COMMITTEE AND PRESUMABLY IN THE HOUSE, BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE HEARD POWERFUL TESTIMONY TODAY, THAT WHAT THEY ARE HEARING ADDS UP TO SOMETHING THAT MAY BE ACTIONABLE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE ARE STILL -- THEY ARE STILL BUILDING THE CASE.

BUT YOU HEARD HIM SAY, JUST NOW, THIS IS NOT EASY.

WE'VE COME THE THIS RELUCTANTLY.

BUT HE SAID, YOU HEARD HIM SAY, IT'S MADE IMPORTANT NOT BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER BUT BY THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

YOU ARE SEEING THE PBS COVERAGE OF THE HEARINGS, SECOND WEEK OF THE HEARINGS, I'M HERE IN OUR PBS STUDIOS WITH NICK SCHIFRIN, MIKA OYANG, BOTH OF THEM WORKED ON THE STAFF OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN RECENT YEARS.

IT SEEMS THE ME NICK, THE DAY STARTED WITH WHAT EVERYBODY BELIEVED TO BE A STRONG STATEMENT FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, NAMING A FIGURE, IMPORTANT FIGURE AFTER IMPORTANT FIGURE IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, SAYING THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THEM TO WORK WITH RUDY GIULIANI, NAMING VICE PRESIDENT, NAMING SECRETARIES OF STATE, NAMING A NUMBER OF OFFICIALS, AND THEN THE AFTERNOON WAS SPENT AS THE DAY WENT ON BY A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS TRYING TO POKE HOLES IN THAT.

WE'VE COME BACK AT THE END OF THE DAY AND WE HEARD JUST WHAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS SAYING, THIS IS IMPORTANT.

>> WHICH REALLY SHOWS HOW IMPORTANT DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THIS TESTIMONY WAS.

WITH FOUR REAL MAIN TAKE AWAYS.

GORDON SONDLAND BROUGHT THIS ISSUE TO THE DOORSTEP IF NOT INSIDE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE SAID WE WERE FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS AND SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD US TO DEAL WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND SAID SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE TALKED TO GIULIANI WE ASSUMED IT WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT LEADS TO POINT NUMBER 2.

HE USED THE WORDS QUID PRO QUO THREE TIMES AND SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT GIULIANI HAD A QUID PRO QUO, THAT UKRAINE HAD TO INVESTIGATE 2016 AND BURISMA BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD MEET WITH THE -- WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THEN THIS EXPANSION.

NOT ONLY TRUMP.

NOT ONLY ELIGIBLE.

SECRETARIES OF STATE POMPEO.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, SECRETARY OF ENERGY PERRY AND THE FOURTH POINT UKRAINIANS KNEW THEY HAD TO DELIVER THESE INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE THE AID WOULD BE RELEASED.

AS HE JOKED ABOUT IT, THE GORDON PROBLEM AS HIS WIFE THE PHRASE THAT SHE USES, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAD A GORDON PROBLEM.

SO THAT'S WHY AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU SAW THIS ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS USING HEARSAY.

WE SAW FROM REPRESENTATIVE TURNER NO ONE ON THE PLANET TOLD YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TYING AID TO INVESTIGATIONS.

HE GOT STLOOND ADMIT THAT.

JIM JORDAN SAID WAIT A MINUTE, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU NO QUID PRO QUO, RIGHT?

THAT'S RIGHT.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE JUDY IS THAT HIS PRESIDENT AS THE PRESIDENT WANTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS, BEFORE A MEETING AND BEFORE ADDD COULD BE RELEASED AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE NEANCH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S MESSAGE LEAVES.

>> IT IS THE ULTIMATE OR THE FINAL MESSAGE THAT'S LEFT.

MIKA OYANG, AGAIN WE STARTED OUT WITH WHAT SEEMED TO BE A STRONG STATEMENT, IT WAS A STRONG STATEMENT FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

BUT AS THE DAY WORE ON, THESE ATTEMPTS BY REPUBLICANS TO SAY THAT WAIT A MINUTE, THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT DIRECTLY DID HE?

HOW DID YOU KNOW THIS?

SO WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?

GOOD SO THE TWO REAL THINGS WE WE SEE HERE ONE IS, SOMEONE OVER THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION, OR OVER THE COURSE OF THESE ACTIVITIES REPEATEDLY IN CONTACT WITH THESE SENIOR OFFICIALS, WITH MUFL MUL, WITH AS HE'S CONVEYING THESE ACTIVITIES TO INDIVIDUALS IN REALTIME, NONE OF THEM ARE SAYING NO NO NO, YOU'RE MISUNDERSTANDING THE PRESIDENT'S INTENTION, YOU'VE GOT IT WRONG, THERE IS REALLY, REALLY NOT A QUID PRO QUO, WHY ARE YOU STILL PUTTING THESE CONDITIONS OUT THERE?

IT'S QUITE TRUE THAT THE CONTEMPORANEOUS ACTION IS THESE WERE BE RATIFIED BY OTHER PEOPLE.

THERE IS A LEGITIMATE CASE BEING MADE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDITIONING AID FOR SOMEHOW THEY SHOULD BE DEFINITELY LOOKING INTO BURISMA.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS CUTTING INTO THAT INTERPRETATION FOUND AT THE TIME, ONE WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF TALKED ABOUT THE BIDENS ON THE CALL ON THE 25th AND AS WE HEARD SOMEONE TESTIFY TODAY, THE PRESIDENT WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE APPEARANCE OF AN INVESTIGATION.

HE DIDN'T CARE IF THE INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY GOT DONE, WHICH WOULD YOU WORRY ABOUT IF THE ACTION WAS GOTTEN DONE BUT POLITICAL IMPORTANCE THAT SOMEBODY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> Woodruff: BUT IN THE END MICHAEL ALLEN, IT DOES MATTER HOW CLOSELY THESE ALLEGATIONS COULD BE TIED TO THE PRESIDENT.

BECAUSE IN THE END WILL IT BE ENOUGH IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYING I UNDERSTOOD THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS TELLING US WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED US TO HEAR, WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED US TO DO.

>> SO THAT ALONE, I DON'T THINK, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, SCHIFF AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE BUILDING THEIR CASE.

THEY HAVE TO GO STEP BY STEP.

RIGHT NOW I THINK WE ARE AT A MID LEVEL IN THE BUREAUCRACY, WHERE AN ACTIVE AMBASSADOR ACTING AT THE BEHEST OF RUDY GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS SAYING THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

AND SO THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT DAY.

I THINK THAT IS THE MAJOR TAKE AWAY, FROM THE TESTIMONY.

HOWEVER, IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP, KEN STARR SAID EARLIER TODAY, THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE LOST SUBSTANCE DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY.

PUBLIC UTILITY CLI HOWEVER IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT THERE'S PLENTY OF THINGS THAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE ABLE TO SAY TODAY.

LIKE YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY HEAR IT AND YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THIS IS HOW THINGS WENT DOWN.

SO IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE HIM, THERE'S ROOM TO GO.

BUT SCHIFF ASK BUILDING HIS CASE AND WE'VE GOT A WAYS TO GO.

>> Woodruff: BUT IT'S NOT AS IF THIS IS BE ALL AND END ALL, NICK SCHIFRIN.

HE'S CHAPTER AND VERSE.

HE BROUGHT HIS NOTES AS YOU ALL JUST SAID, HE WENT POINT BY POINT OF HIS EXPERIENCE.

>> Woodruff: IN THIS PROCESS, SAYING FROM THE BEGINNING WE THOUGHT UKRAINE DESERVED THIS MILITARY AID.

WE THOUGHT THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SHOULD HAVE A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

EN AND HE SAID I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS BEING HELD UP.

>> RIGHT.

AND THE PEOPLE WHO HE SUGGESTED MIGHT UNDERSTAND BETTER, RUDY GIULIANI, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFFS NICK MULVANEY, PERHAPS JOHN BOLTON NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AT THE TIME, THOSE ARE THE ONES THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO TALK TO BUT IT ISN'T CLEAR THEY'RE GOING TO TALK TO.

SO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT.

HE WAS THE ONLY PERSON WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR IN DEPOSITION OR IN OPEN HEARINGS WHO HAD REGULAR CONSISTENT ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT.

HE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT 20 TIMES INCLUDING FIVE OR SIX TIMES ABOUT UKRAINE SPECIFICALLY BUT AS WE'VE JUST POINTED OUT, THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD HIM SPECIFICALLY TO CONDITION A MEETING, TO CONDITION AID.

WHAT SONDLAND SAYS THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD THAT QUID PRO QUO FOR A MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THAT GORDON SONDLAND SEUMED THIS THERE WAS THE SAME QUID PRO QUO FOR MILITARY AID.

>> Woodruff: YOU DON'T HAVE THAT DIRECT STATEMENT AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS KEPT PUSHING BACK ON.

JUST BECAUSE THE BURGLAR DOESN'T COME UP AND ANNOUNCE WHATEVER HE'S TAKEN THAT YOU STILL DIDN'T HAVE A CRIME.

OR WHATEVER THAL 80 IS, YAMICHE AL CINDOR.

>> EVEN THOUGH TWO SPOKES VEFERL TIMES ABOUT THIS AID BEING HELD UP BY UKRAINE OR FOR UKRAINE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LISTED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DEMANDING A INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN AND SON HUNTER BIDEN, AS WELL AS MILITARY AID, $391 MILLION.

NOW IT'S REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDING IN REALTIME BUT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF AGENCIES ALSO RESPONDING.

THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE PUT OUT A STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT GORDON SONDLAND SAID ABOUT MEETING WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND HITS CONCERNS ABOUT THE AID BEING TIED AN INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN, THAT THAT MEETING NEVER HAPPENED THAT ESSENTIALLY AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND IS MISTAKEN.

THEN THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT SAYING, RICK PERRY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY HE ALSO WAS ESSENTIALLY MISIDENTIFIED OR WAS NOT CLEAR WHEN GORDON SONDLAND WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS ROLE.

THEN YOU HAVE RUDY GIULIANI PUTTING OUT A STATEMENT ESSENTIALLY, I WAS EXPRESSING MY OPINION, I WASN'T DEMANDING THAT ANY OFFICIAL DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD TIE THIS MILITARY AID TO RAN INVESTIGATION.

WHAT YOU HAVE IS OFFICIAL BY OFFICIAL BEING NAMED BY GORDON SONDLAND AND THOSE SAME OFFICIALS COMING OUT AND SAYING ONE, GORDON SONDLAND GOT IT WRONG AND GO THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO.

WE SAW THE PRESIDENT COME OUT TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.

HANDWRITTEN NOTES SAKE I TOLD GORDON SONDLAND I DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING.

HE SAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THE PRESIDENT ISN'T TAKING QUESTIONS ON THIS DAY.

THAT'S PRETTY RARE BY THE PRESIDENT, ON THESE NEWS DAYS, HE'S OFTEN WANTING TO TALK TO THE PRESS, WANTING TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

WE SEE HIM COMING OUT AND CAUTIOUSLY DEFEND HIMSELF.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE, WHY THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND WE'VE DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE OFFICE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF.

THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY, RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, ALL OF THESE OFFICES PUSHING BACK WHICH GIVES YOU SOME SENSE OF HOW CLOSELY THEY WERE PAYING ATTENTION OGORDON SONDLAND TODAY.

>> THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY PAYING VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO GORDON SONDLAND.

IN THE PAST WE'VE HEAR THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING PRESIDENT TRUMP IS VERY BUSY HE'S NOT WANTING.

IN THIS CASE, THE WHITE HOUSE WAS CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT WAS WATCHING GORDON SONDLAND.

AFTER A BREAK THE PRESIDENT CAME OUT TO TALK TO REPORTERS.

WE SAW THAT PRESIDENT WAS WATCHING AS THE NATION WATCHED GORDON SONDLAND TESTIFY, AS PART OF THESE IMEEVMENT HEARING.

WHAT'S STRIKING AS GORDON SONDLAND WAS SPEAKING BEFORE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON TV THE PRESIDENT WAS VERY, VERY SHORT IN HIS RESPONSE, HE WAS BASICALLY REPEATING WHAT HE SAID ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.

WHILE THERE ARE A LOT OF STATEMENTS BEING PUT OUT THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ASK DIRECT QUESTION.

EVEN SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO.

WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT THIS DURING A PRESS CONFERENCE, HE SAID I WASN'T WATCHING, I DON'T WANT TO AT ALL COMMENT ABOUT THIS.

HE DIDN'T SAY ACTUALLY GORDON SONDLAND HAS IT WRONG.

>> BACK TO OUR LISA DENDLE.

DES.

>> OUR PRODUCERS HERE, SENDING ME NOTES, THIS APPEARS TO BE ONGOING AS A MATTER OF FACT, GORDON IS RYE PETE WHACK HE IS SAYING IN THE HEARING, THEY BELIEVE FACTS ON THEIR SIDE.

THE THING THAT REPUBLICAN JORDAN IS HIGHLIGHTING, THEY BELIEVE THAT GORDON SONDLAND DREW ALL THESE CONCLUSIONS.

THEY KEEP TRYING TO DRAW OUT THIS CONCLUSION THAT SONDLAND PRESUMED, AS SONDLAND TESTIFIED, THAT THERE WAS A CONDITION FOR THE THINGS THAT UKRAINE WANTED AND THAT THAT CONDITION HAD TO BE THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT DESIRED.

BUT JIM JORDAN IS SAYING, THIS JUST LAYS BARE THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY ORDERED THIS OR THAT ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION ORDERED THIS.

I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

THE ARGUMENT FROM THEM AS YOU HEARD FROM SCHIFF AND OTHERS IS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS -- PUTS 2 PLUS 2 TOGETHER TO GET 4.

SONDLAND'S CONCLUSIONS MAY HAVE BEEN HIS CONCLUSIONS BUT THEY WERE BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND A LACK OF PROSPECT FROM THE PRESIDENT, IT'S AN INTERESTING MOMENT JUDY BECAUSE IN THE END REPUBLICANS SEEM TO BE FEELING A LITTLE BIT OF MOMENTUM, FOR THIS ARGUMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY WHEN YOU BOIL IT DOWN THEY'RE NOT SAYING IT LIKE THIS BUT THEIR ARGUMENT JUDY IS THIS WAS ALL JUST A BIG MISUNDERSTANDING.

GORDON SONDLAND WENT TOO FAR.

HE MADE SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG.

THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY WE'RE WRONG BUT DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

EVERYBODY ELSE WAS MISUNDERSTANDING, VOLKER THOUGHT ONE THING, SONDLAND THOUGHT ANOTHER.

THIS WAS ALL JUST A BIG MISTAKE.

DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING HOLD ON, THE ONLY REASON UKRAINIAN AID WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN IN THE END WAS CONGRESS HAD TO PASS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY PAST THE DEADLINE FOR THAT AID TO BE SENT OUT AND THE AID WAS GIVEN OUT AFTER CONGRESS WAS AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, AND PRESSURED THE WHITE HOUSE ON IT.

TO SO DEMOCRATS SAY WAIT A MINUTE, THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY HERE, MUCH MORE TO THIS WE SEE SOMETHING WRONG, WE ALSO GOT GORDON SONDLAND TO SAY WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS WRONG.

>> Woodruff: AND YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT, AND IT WAS ALSO INTERESTING THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AT THE END OF THE HEARING FELT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO SAY THAT DESPITE ALL THESE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN -- THESE BACK AND FORTHWITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALL AFTERNOON IN THE END, HE TICKED OFF WHAT HE THOUGHT WERE THE MOST SALIENT PARTS OF THE SONDLAND STATEMENT AND IN IN THE END HE SAID, LET'S LOOK AT WHO MADE THESE DECISIONS IN THE END.

WHO ELSE WOULD HAVE HELD UP AID FOR UKRAINE IN EXCHANGE FOR INVESTIGATING 2016, OR THE BIDENS, IN EXCHANGE FOR MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

SO IT'S -- THERE'S -- EACH SIDE IS STILL PUSHING ITS SIDE OF THE STORY.

SO LISA, WE KNOW YOU NEED TO DO SOME MORE REPORTING, WE ARE -- WE DO KNOW THAT LATER THIS AFTERNOON, THERE WILL BE TWO MORE WITNESSES COMING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.

THEY ARE DAVID HALE WHO IS THE THIRD RANKING STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO WE ARE TOLD DIRECTLY IS ABLE TO LINK SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO TO RUDY GIULIANI AND WE ALSO WILL HEAR FROM LAURA COOPER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEERVES ON THIS ISSUE OF WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID.

JUST QUICKLY BEFORE WE WRAP UP THIS PORTION OF OUR COVERAGE, NICK SCHIFRIN, SUMMING UP WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING SO FAR.

POWERFUL TESTIMONY, SOME REALLY JAW DROPPING STATEMENTS FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, BUT NOT THE FINAL WORD ON THIS.

>> NO, NOT THE FINAL WORD AND AS YOU AND LISA JUST DISCUSSED, SOME AMBIGUITY.

SONDLAND'S USE OF THE WORD QUID PRO QUO THREE TIMES IS SAYING WE BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS ORDERING THIS.

THESE ARE THE BIG HEADLINES.

THE REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THAT HIS USE OF THE WORD UNDERSTOOD, ASSUMED, PRESUMED, HE DID USE THOSE WORDS QUITE A BIT SPECIFICALLY, ABOUT THE AID, ABOUT WHETHER THAT 55-DAY PAUSE ON MILITARY AID WAS CONDITIONED SPECIFICALLY ON 2016 BURISMA AND BIDEN.

THOSE ARE THE WORDS THESE AMBIGUOUS WORDS THAT HE USED.

THIS IS WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SEIZE ON.

BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE POINTING OUT AND THE TESTIMONY ITSELF REALLY DOES SEG THAT THIS GETS TO THE DOOR OF THE PRESIDENT OR AT HE'S VERY CLOSE TO IT, VIA RUDY GIULIANI AND USES THE WORDS QUID PRO QUO MORE SPECIFICALLY THAN NEBRASKA HAS USED BEFORE.

>> Woodruff: MIKA, AS THE DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE AND CONGRESS CONSIDER WHETHER TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND NOT PURELY A LEGAL PROCESS, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS TIPT THAT WE ARE KEEPING IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD?

>> BECAUSE THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCESS, THERE IS NOT A ARTICULATED STANDARD OF PROOF LIKE YOU HAVE IN A CONTRACTUAL TRIAL.

IT IS WHATEVER CONGRESS DECIDES IT IS.

AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

ONCE THEY DECIDE THERE IS AN OFFENSE THEY WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE SENATE FOR A TRIAL.

IT IS CLEARLY SPEAKER PELOSI HAS THE VOTES TO PUT FORWARD CHARGES INCLUDING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, INCLUDING BRIBERY OR EXTORTION CHARGE HERE.

I THINK THAT CASE WAS MADE VERY CLEARLY TODAY WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, BUT THE QUESTION WHEN IT GETS TO THE SENATE IS WHAT LEVEL OF APPROACH DO THEY NEED AND I DON'T THINK WE KNOW THAT TODAY.

>> Woodruff: BY THE WAY, WE KNOW THAT EARLIER TODAY THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL MADE A STATEMENT, IT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE THERE WOULD NOT BE THE 67 VOTES NECESSARY TO CONVICT IN THE SENATE, IF THE HOUSE WERE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH A VOTE TO IMPEACH.

JUST FINALLY, MICHAEL ALLEN, IF YOU ARE SOMEONE -- IF YOU ARE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IF YOU ARE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RIGHT NOW AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PROCESS, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO DO TO MAKE THE CASE?

AND IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO DO TO UNDO THAT CASE?

>> WELL FIRST I'LL START WITH THE REPUBLICAN.

I THINK WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS TO GORDON SONDLAND, IN A PHONE CALL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BE QUITE ANNOYED OR IN A BAD MOOD.

AND HE SAYS TO SONDLAND, I DON'T WANT ANYTHING FROM THE UKRAINIANS.

TELL THEM TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

WE ALL NEED TO ANYTHING OUT AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE WEIGH THIS PIECE OF TESTIMONY?

HOW DO WE WAY THIS PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

DOES IT NEGATE OR OTHERWISE SPEAK TO THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND THAT HE NEVER INTENDED FOR THERE TOE A QUID PRO QUO OR DID IT HAPPEN SO LATE IN THE PROCESS THAT IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER BECAUSE THE 55 DAYS OF THE HOLD HAD ALREADY TRANSPIRED?

SO I THINK I NEED TO HEAR FROM SOME DEMOCRATS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

BUT AGAIN, AND I THINK I SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR EARLIER JUDY, I THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE GOT TO LOOK AT THEMSELVES AND SAY, DON'T WE NEED BOTHON, POMPEO, MULVANEY, GIULIANI, TO FULLY MAKE THE CASE?

I KNOW IT'S HARD TO DO.

I KNOW THERE ARE COURT CASES INVOLVED AND THE REST.

BUT IF THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, TO DEMAND AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, SHOULDN'T WE GET ALL THE FACTS AND WAIT FOR IT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO RUSH IT THROUGH BEFORE CHRISTMAS?

>> Woodruff: AND AT THIS POINT, ALL OF THOSE FIGURES ARE IN EFFECT ARE BEING TOLD THAT THEY CAN'T TESTIFY OR THEY'RE SAYING THEY DON'T WANT TO TESTIFY.

SO STILL, MANY, MANY CARDS LEFT TO BE PLAYED.

IF YOU WILL, DOORS LEFT TO SEE WHETHER THEY OPEN, OR REMAIN SHUT.

IN THIS PROCESS.

FOR NOW I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN WITH US ALL DAY LONG, NICK SCHIFRIN, MIKA OYANG, OUR INTREPID REPORTERS, LISA DESJARDINS, I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, WE ARE GOING TO STEP AWAY TO GET READY FOR TODAY'S NewsHOUR.

BUT LIVE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WILL CONTINUE.

JOIN US FOR FULL ANALYSIS ON THE NewsHOUR AT YOUR REGULAR TIME.

THANK YOU.

>> THE MORNING WE WILL HEAR FROM GORDON SONDLAND THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

WE ARE HERE TODAY AS PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SOUGHT TO CONDITION UKRAINIAN AID IN EXCHANGE FOR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS THAT TRUMP BELIEVED WOULD HELP HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THE FIRST INVESTIGATION WAS OF A DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

SECOND INVESTIGATION, THAT TRUMP DEMAND HE, WAS INTO A POLITICAL RIVAL THAT HE APPARENTLY FEARED MOST, JOE BIDEN.

TRUMP SOUGHT TO WEAKEN BIDEN AND TO SEE THAT HIS OWN ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN 2016 HAD BEEN HELPED BY RUSSIAN HACKING AND DUMPING OPERATION AND RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN DIRECTED BY VLADIMIR PUTIN THE HELP TRUMP.

TRUMP'S SCHEME UNDERMINED MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR A KEY ALLY, TRUMP PUT HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTEREST ABOVE THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES.

AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD LATER TELL CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER DAVID HOLMES IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP DID NOT GIF AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT OWNER UKRAINE.

HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS HIM LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS A SKILLED DEAL MAKER BUT IN TRYING TO SATISFY A DIRECTIVE FROM THE PRESIDENT FOUND HIMSELF INCREASE BEINGLY EMBROILED IN A PRESS FOR THE NEW CRIMEAN PRESIDENT THAT DEVIATED FROM THE NORM.

FIRST OFFICIAL TRIP TO THAT COUNTRY.

WHILE IN KIEV HE MET WITH THEN U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIA YOVANOVITCH AND FOUND HER TO BE AN EXCELLENT DIPLOMAT WITH A DEEP COMMAND OF UKRAINIAN DYNAMICS.

IN WHO CONGRATULATED HIM AND SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO ATTENDING ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION BUT PLENLD TO SEND SOMEONE AT A VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL.

BETWEEN THE TIME OF THAT CALL AND THE INAUGURAL ON MAY 20, TRUMP'S BE CONDITION HARD UNDERRED.

ORDERED NOT TO ATTEND ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION, OPTING TO BE DISPATCH THE THREE AMIGOS, RICK PERRY, SONDLAND AND VOLKER.

MEMBERS OF THE U.S. DELEGATION BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THEIR ENCOURAGING FIRST INTERACTION HE WITH THE NEW BE UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION.

THEY URGED THE PRESIDENT TO MEET WITH ZELENSKY, BUT THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION WAS DESIDEDLY HOSTILE.

THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER WAS CLEAR HOWEVER.

TALK WITH RUDY.

DURING THIS MEETING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FIRST BECAME AWARE OF WHAT GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT WERE REALLY INTERESTED IN.

THIS WHOLE THING WAS SORT OF A CONTINUUM, HE TESTIFIED, AT HIS DEPOSITION, STARTING AT MAY -- AT THE MAY 23rd MEETING, ENDING UP AT THE END OF THE LINE WHEN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL CAME OUT.

IT WAS A CONTINUUM HE WOULD EXPLAIN THAT BECAME MORE INSIDIOUS OVER TIME.

FTC THE 3 THREEMGHTS WERE DISAPPOINTED WITH TRUMP'S DIRECTIVE TO ENGAGE GIULIANI BUT BE SPED AHEAD.

WHICH THE GROUP DEEMED CRUCIAL FOR U.S. UKRAINIAN RELATIONS OR WE COULD DO AS PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED.

AND TALK TO MR. GIULIANI TO ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS.

WE HOSE THE LATTER PATH.

IN THE COMING WEEKS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GOT MORE CLEARLY INVOLVED IN UKRAINE POLICY MAKING STARTING WITH THE JUNE 4 U.S.

ADMISSION TO THE BRUSSELS EVENT ONE MONTH EARLY.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT COUNSELOR AND SONDLAND MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO SONDLAND HAD INVITED PERSONALLY ON THE MARGINS OF THE EVENT.

ON JUNE 10, 2019, SECRETARY PERRY ORGANIZED A CONFERENCE CALLED WITH SONDLAND THEN JOHN BOTBOTHON BOLTON AND DISCUSSED TRUMP'S DESIRE FOR RUDY GIULIANI TO BE SOMEHOW INVOLVED.

AT THE END OF THE CALL SONDLAND SAID WE ALL FELT VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD.

TWO WEEKS LATER INTOR SONDLAND CALLED TAYLOR SAYING, QUOTE, ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WAY OF INVESTIGATIONS.

ON JULY 10th AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND OTHER U.S. OFFICIALS MET WITH THE WHITE HOUSE WITH A GROUP OF U.S. AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING HAVE TOLD US THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ENACTED NICK MULVANEY AND SAID THAT THE MEETING WOULD ONLY OCCUR IF ZELENSKY UNDERTOOK CERTAINLY INVESTIGATIONS.

BOLTON IMMEDIATELY, WITNESSES, KOREAN NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE THO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND BURISMA IF THEY WANTED TO GET A MEETING AT ALL.

FOLLOWING THIS MEETING IN JULY WITH BOLTON SAID HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF ANY TYPE OF DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND PERRY ARE COOK UP ON THIS.

AS AFTERNOON INTERMEDIATE -- AN INTERMEDIATE STEP, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSE TIFER ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY NOT JUST AS AN INSTRUMENT OF WASHINGTON DOMESTIC POLITICS.

SONDLAND RESPONDED, ABSOLUTELY.

BUT WE NEED TO GET THE CONVERSATION STARTED AND THE RELATIONSHIP BUILT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRETEXT.

SO THAT ZELENSKY AND TRUMP COULD MEET AND ALL OF THIS WILL BE FIXED.

ON JULY 25th, THE DAY OF THE TRUMP-ZELENSKY CALL, VOLKER HAD LUNCH IN KIEV WITH A SENIOR AIDE TO UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND LATER ESH TEXTED THAT HE HAD HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING Z WOULD INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON, GOOD LUCK.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE CALL WAS PLACED BUT WAS NOT ON THE CALL.

DURING THAT NOW INFAMOUS CALL WAS ZELENSKY, TRUMP RESPONDED TO THE UKRAINIAN EXPRESSION, AND REQUESTED TO BUY MOREAFTER LINL ANTITANK MISSILES BY SAYING, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH.

TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORY AND EVEN MORE OMINOUSLY LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.

NEITHER HAD BEEN PART OF THE OFFICIAL PREPARATORY MATERIAL FOR THE CALL BUT THEY WERE IN DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE IN PART BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S EFFORTS TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF WHAT THE IF THE WAS DEMANDING.

RARND THIS TIME, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BECAME AWARE OF THE U.S.

SUSPENSION OF SECURITY AID FOR UKRAINE TELLING US IT WAS EXTREMELY OUGHT THAT NOBODY INVOLVED IN MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE KNEW WHY THE AID HAD BEEN PUT ON HOLD.

DURING AWG SONDLAND PARTICIPATED IN CONFERENCE CALLS, WITH L JUNL, WHERE IN AUGUST 9, TEXT MESSAGE WITH VOLKER SONDLAND STATED I THINK POTUS REALLY WANTS THE DELIVERABLE, WHICH ACCORDING TO SONDLAND WAS A DELIVERABLE PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO SEE OR HEAR BEFORE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING COULD HAPPEN.

ON SEPTEMBER 1 AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PARTICIPATED IN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S BILATERAL MEETING WITH ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, DURING WHICH ZELENSKY RAISED THE SUSPENDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, SONDLAND APPROACHED THE SENIOR BE SECURITY OFFICIAL TELLING HIM WHAT HE BELIEVED COULD HELP MOVE THE AID WAS IF THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD GO TO THE MIC AND ANNOUNCE HE WAS OPENING THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION.

SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE BY TEG THE UKRAINIANS THAT AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WAS DEPENDENT ON AN OPEN INVESTIGATION OF, IN FACT EVERYTHING WAS DEPENDENT ON SUCH AN ANNOUNCEMENT INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

BUT EVEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD NOT SATISFY THE PRESIDENT.

ON SEPTEMBER 7 SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT AND TOLD TIM MORRISON AND BILL TAYLOR ABOUT THE CALL SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT AM THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC WE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE.

MOREOVER ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MUST PERSONALLY, ANNOUNCE PERSONALLY THAT HE WOULD OPEN THE INVESTIGATIONS.

SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN.

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

THE CHECK REFERRED TO HERE WAS THE U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND UKRAINE HAD TO PAY UP WITH INVESTIGATIONS.

AROUND EARLY SEPTEMBER VOLKER AND SONDLAND SOUGHT TO CLOSE THE DEAL ON THE FACT THAT ZELENSKY WOULD BE ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS, SEPTEMBER 9, 2019, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE WITH HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

16 DAYS LATER, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL WAS MADE PUBLIC AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LEARNED THE TRUTH OF HOW OUR PRESIDENT TRIED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A VULNERABLE ALLY.

NOW IT IS UP TO CONGRESS AS THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHAT RESPONSE IS APPROPRIATE.

IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, COERCE, OR EXTORT AN ALLY INTO CREATING INVESTIGATIONS TO AID HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

A WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ARE OF OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID, IT IS UP TO US WHETHER THOSE ACTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

FINALLY, I WANT TO SAY A WORD ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY POMPEO'S WHY OBSTRUCTION OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A SINGLE DOCUMENT FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S OPENING STATEMENT TODAY WILL MAKE CLEAR, THOSE DOCUMENTS BEAR DIRECTLY ON THIS INVESTIGATION AND THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

I THINK WE KNOW NOW, BASED ON A SAMPLE OF THE DOCUMENTS TACHTD TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S STATEMENT, THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SCHEME WAS FAR AND WIDE AND INCLUDED AMONG OTHERS SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO AS WELL AS THE VICE PRESIDENT, WE CAN SEE WHY SECRETARY POMPEO AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE MADE SUCH A CONCERTED AND ACROSS-THE-BOARD EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT THIS INVESTIGATION AND THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

AND I WILL JUST SAY THIS, THEY DO SO AT THEIR OWN PERIL.

I REMIND THE PRESIDENT THAT ARTICLE 3 OF THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES DRAFTED AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON WAS HIS REFUSAL TO OBEY THE SUBPOENAS OF CONGRESS.

WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS WOE LIKE TO MAKE.

>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN AS WE LEARNED LAST NIGHT STORY TIME LAST NIGHT WE GET STORY TIME FIRST THING THIS MORNING.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WELCOME.

GLAD YOU'RE HERE.

I'M REALLY NOT GLAD YOU'RE HERE BUT WELCOME TO THE FIFTH DAY OF THIS CIRCUS.

AS I'VE NOTED BEFORE, THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE SPENT THREE YEARS ACCUSING PRESIDENT TRUMP OF BEING A RUSSIAN AGENT.

IN MARCH 2018, AFTER A YEAR LONG INVESTIGATION, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS ISSUED A 240 PAGE REPORT DESCRIBING IN DETAIL HOW THE RUSSIANS MEDDLED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS, AND MAKING SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE OUR ELECTION SECURITY.

DENOUNCING THE REPORT AS A WHITE WITH WASH AND ACCUSING REPUBLICANS OF SUBVERTING THE INVESTIGATION, THE DEMOCRATS ISSUED THEIR OWN REPORT.

FOCUSING ON THEIR NOW-DEBUNKED EXPIRPZ THEORY THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGNED COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS TO HACK THE ELECTION PROCESS.

TO A FURTHER, QUOTE COMPREHENSIVE REPORT, UNQUOTE AFTER THEY FINISHED THEIR INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP'S TREES ONOUS CONCLUSION IN RUSSIA.

AFTER THEIR RUSSIA HOAX THE DEMOCRATS FAILED TO ISSUE THAT COMPREHENSIVE REPORT.

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

THIS EPISODE SHOWS HOW THE DEMOCRATS HAVE EXPLOITTHE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES FOR THREE YEARS.

CULMINATING IN THESE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS, AND THEIR MANIA TO ATTACK THE PRESIDENT.

NO CONSPIRACY THEORY IS TOO OUTLANDISH FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN THEY FLOATED THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME FAR FETCHED MALFEASANCE BY TRUMP, DECLARED THE DIRE NEED TO INVESTIGATE IT AND SUDDENLY DROPPED THE ISSUE MOVING ON TO THEIR NEXT ASININE THEORY.

THE SECOND EXAMPLE INCLUDES THESE.

TRUMP IS A LONG TIME RUSSIAN AGENT AS DESCRIBED IN THE STEEL DOSSIER.

THE RUSSIANS GAVE TRUMP ADVANCE ACCESS TO E-MAILS STOLEN BY THE DNC AND THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BASED SOME OF ITS ACTIVITIES ON THE STOLEN DOCUMENTS.

TRUMP RECEIVED NEFARIOUS MATERIALS FROM THE RUSSIANS FROM A TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE.

TRUMP LAUNDERED RUSSIAN MONEY THROUGH REAL ESTATE DEALS.

TRUMP WAS BLACKMAILED BY RUSSIA THROUGH HIS FINANCIAL EXPOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANC.

TRUMP HAD A DIABOLICAL PLAN TO BUILD A TRUMP TOWER IN MOSCOW.

HURT UKRAINE AND BENEFIT RUSSIA.

THE RUSSIANS LAUNDERED MONEY THROUGH THE NRA FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

TRUMP'S SON-IN-LAW LIED ABOUT HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS WHILE OBTAININGLY SECURITY CLEARANCE.

LONG LIST OF CHARGES, ALL FAMS AND I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON.

BUT I'LL SPAISH YOU FOR THESE MOMENTS.

CLEARLY THESE LUDICROUS ACCUSATIONS DON'T REFLECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE HONESTLY SEARCHING FOR TRUTH.

THEY ARE THE ACTION HE OF PARTISAN EXTREMISTS WHO HIJACKED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, TRANSFORMED IT INTO THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE, ABANDONED ITS CORE OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS AND TURNED IT INTO A BEACH HEAD FOR OOUSTING AN ELECTED PRESIDENT OT OF OFFICE.

YOU HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE DEMOCRATS LATEST CATALOG OF SUPPOSED OUTRAGES.

GRANTED A FRIENDLILY CALL WATT UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WOULDN'T SEEM TO RISE TO THE SAME LEVEL AS BEING A RUSSIAN AGENT BUT THE DEMOCRATS WERE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

IF THEY WAITED ANY LONGER THEIR IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS WOULD RUN INTO THEIR OWN CANDIDATES 2020 CAMPAIGNS.

SO YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM POINTS FOR CREATIVITY IN SELLING THIS ABSURDITY AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

ALL OF THIS EXPLAINS WHY THE DEMOCRATS HAVE GATHERED ZERO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE.

IN FACT THE VOTE WE HELD WAS A BIPARTISAN VOTE AGAINST THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

SPEAKER PELOSI CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND CHAIRMAN NADLER THE KEY FIGURES BEHIND THIS IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE ALL CLAIM THAT IMPEACHMENT IS SO DAMAGE TO THE COUNTRY THAT IT CAN ONLY PROCEED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

ARE THOSE DECLARATIONS SUDDENLY NO LONGER TRUE?

DID IMPEACHMENT BECOME LESS DIVISIVE?

OF COURSE NOT.

THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH DAMAGE THEY ARE INFLICTING ON THIS NATION THAT THEY PASSED THE POINT OF NO RETURN.

AFTER THREE YEARS, OF PREPARATION WORK, MUCH OF IT SPEARHEADED BY THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE, USING ALL THE TOOLS OF CONGRESS TO ACCUSE, INVESTIGATE, INDICT AND SMEAR THE PRESIDENT, THEY STOKED A FRENZY FRENZY AMONGST THEIR MOST FANATICAL SUPPORTERS THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER CONTROL.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, YOU ARE HERE TODAY TO BE SMEARED.

THAT YOU'LL MAKE IT THROUGH IT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY AND I'M SORRY THAT YOU'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS.

IN CLOSING, THE DEMOCRACY HAVE ZEROED IN ON AN ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT WAS COOKED UP IN COOPERATION WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS VERY COMMITTEE.

THEY LIED TO THE AMERICAN BEAM THAT COOPERATION AND REFUSED TO LET US QUESTION THE WHISTLEBLOWER, TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH.

MEANWHILE, THE DEMOCRATS LASH OUT AGAINST ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS OR CASTS DOUBT ON THIS SPEBLGHT SPECTACLE.

WHEN UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DENIES ANYTHING IMPROPER HAPPENED ON THE PHONE CALL THE DEMOCRATS SAY HE'S A LIAR.

WHEN JOURNALISTS REPORT ON UKRAINE ELECTION MIDDLING AND HUNTER BIDEN'S DECEPTION, THE DEMOCRATS LABEL THEM CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET ANY TRACTIONS ON THEIR ALLEGATION HE OF QUID PRO QUO THEY MOVE THE GOAL POSTS AND EXCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY AND AT LAST RESORT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THE AMERICANS SENT US TO WASHINGTON TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.

NOT TO WAGE SCORCHED EARTH WARFARE GENETICS THE OTHER PARTY.

THIS IMPEACHMENT IS NOT HELPING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND DEFINITELY NOT IMPROVING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

FINALLY.

THE DEMOCRATS FAKE OUTRAGE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP USED HIS OWN CHANNEL TO COMMUNICATE WITH UKRAINE.

I REMIND MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT OUR FIRST PRESIDENT, GEORGE WASHINGTON, DIRECTED HIS OWN DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS TO SECURE A TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

THE MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WERE AROUND IN 1794, THEY'D PROBABLY AT &F &C1 &D0 &Q6 S37=5 N0 &K0A6 YOUR INTEGRITY, DEDICATION AND HARD WORK OFTEN PERFORMED WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCLAIM OR RECOGNITION, SERVE AS A SHINING EXAMPLE OF TRUE PUBLIC SERVICE.

AND I AM PERSONALLY GRATEFUL TO WORK BESIDE YOU EACH AND EVERY DAY.

IT IS MY HONOR TO SERVE AS THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

THE U.S. MISSION TO THE EU IS THE DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBERS.

MAIRG'S LONGEST STANDING ALLIES AND ONE OF THE LARGEST STANDING ECONOMIC BLOCKS IN THE WORLD.

EVERY DAY I WORK TO SUPPORT A STRONG UNITED AND PEACEFUL EUROPE.

STRENGTHENING OUR TIES WITH URINE SERVES BOTH AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN GOALS AS WE TOGETHER PROMOTE POLITICAL STABILITY AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AROUND THE WORLD.

I EXPECT THAT FEW AMERICANS HAVE HEARD MY NAME BEFORE THESE EVENTS SO BEFORE I GIVEN MY SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY PLEASE LET ME SHARE SOME OF MY PERSONAL BACKGROUND.

MY PARENTS FLED EUROPE DURING THE HOLOCAUST.

ESCAPING THE ATROCITIES OF THAT TIME, MY PARENTS LEFT GERMANY FOR URUGUAY AN THEN IN 1953 EMIGRATETO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, WHERE I WAS BORN AND RAISED.

LIKE SO MANY EMIGRANTS, MY FAMILY WAS EAGER FOR FREEDOM AND HUNGRY FOR OPPORTUNITY.

THEY RAISED MY SISTER AND I TO BE HUMBLE, HARDWORKING AND PATRIOTIC AND I AM FOREVER GRATEFUL FOR THE SACRIFICES THEY MADE ON OUR BEHALF.

PUBLIC SERVICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IMPORTANT TO ME.

AS A LIFELONG REPUBLICAN I'VE CONTRIBUTED TO NEVES OF BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.

IN 2003, I SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE TRANSITION TEAM FOR OREGON DEMOCRATIC GLOAFN 10 KULENGOWSKY.

ALSO APPOINTED ME TO SERVE ON VARIATION STATEWIDE BOARDS.

IN 2007, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH APPOINTED ME AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION FOR WHITE HOUSE FELLOWS, I WORKED WESTBOUND PRESIDENT BUSH FOR HIS MILITARY INITIATIVE AND I ALSO WORKED BRIEFLY WITH FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT'S NATIONWIDE ANTICANCER INITIATIVE AT A LOCAL NORTHWEST HOSPITAL.

AND OF COURSE THE HIGHEST HONOR IN MY PUBLIC LIFE CAME WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED ME TO SERVE AS THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

THE SENATE CONFIRMED ME AS AN AMBASSADOR ON A BIPARTISAN VOICE VOTE AND I ASSUMED THE ROLE IN BRUSSELS ON JULY 9th, WITH 2018.

ALTHOUGH TODAY IS MY FIRST PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE UKRAINE MATTERS, THIS IS NOT MY FIRST TIME COOPERATING WITH THIS COMMITTEE.

AS YOU KNOW, I'VE ALREADY PROVIDED TEN HOURS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY.

AND I DID SO DESPITE DIRECTIVES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THAT I REFUSE TO APPEAR, AS MANY OTHERS HAVE DONE.

I AGREED TO TESTIFY BECAUSE I RESPECT THE GRAVITY OF THE MOMENT AND I BELIEVE I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ACCOUNT FULLY FOR MY ROLE IN THESE EVENTS.

BUT I ALSO MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN CHALLENGING AND IN MANY RESPECTS LESS THAN FAIR.

I HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE RECORDS, STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS, AND MANY, MANY OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS.

AND I WAS TOLD I COULD NOT WORK WITH MY EU STAFF TO PULL TOGETHER THE RELEVANT FILES AND INFORMATION.

HAVING ACCESS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT MATERIALS WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO ME IN TRYING TO RECONSTRUCT WITH WHOM I SPOKE AND MET AND WHEN AND WHAT WAS SAID.

AS AMBASSADOR, I'VE HAD HUNDREDS OF MEETINGS AND CALLS WITH INDIVIDUALS.

BUT I'M NOT A NOTE-TAKER OR A MEMO-WRITER, NEVER HAVE BEEN.

MY JOB REQUIRES THAT I SPEAK WITH HEADS OF STATE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, THE PRESIDENT, ALMOST EACH AND EVERY DAY.

TALKING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS MIGHT BE MEMORABLE TO SOME PEOPLE.

GUT THIS IS MY JOB.

-- BUT THIS IS MY JOB.

I DO IT ALL THE TIME.

MY LAWYERS AND I HAVE MADE MULTIPLE REQUESTS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE, FOR THESE MATERIALS.

YET THESE MATERIALS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO ME.

AND THEY HAVE ALSO REFUSED TO SHARE THESE MATERIALS WITH THIS COMMITTEE.

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AND IN FAIRNESS, AND IN FAIRNESS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE.

IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE MATERIALS MY MEMORY ADMITLY HAS NOT BEEN PERFECT.

AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT A MORE FAIR, OPEN AND ORDERLY PROCESS OF ALLOWING ME TO READ THE STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS AND OTHER MATERIALS WOULD HAVE MADE THIS PROCESS FAR MORE TRANSPARENT.

I DON'T INTEND TO REPEAT MY PRIOR OPENING STATEMENT OR ATTEMPT TO SUMMARIZE TEN HOU OF PREVIOUS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY.

HOWEVER, A FEW CRITICAL POINTS HAVE BEEN OBSCURED BY NOISE OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS AND WEEKS.

AND I'M WORRIED THAT THE BIGGER PICTURE IS BEING IGNORED.

SO LET ME MAKE A FEW KEY POINTS.

FIRST, SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I WORKED WITH MR. RUDY JUNL ON UKRAINE MATTERS AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE DID NOT WANT TO WORK WITH MR. JUNL.

GIULIANI.

SIMPLY PUT WE WERE DOING WHAT WE WERE TOLD.

IF WE WERE TO FAIL TO WORK WITH MR. WE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS.

SECOND, ALTHOUGH WE DISAGREED WITH THE NEED TO INVOLVE MR. GIULIANI, AT THE TIME, WE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT HIS ROLE WAS IMPROPER.

AS I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, IF I HAD KNOWN OF ALL OF MR. GIULIANI'S DEALINGS OR HIS ASSOCIATIONS WITH INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF WHOM ARE NOW UNDER CRIMINAL INDICTMENT, I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT HAVE ACQUIESCED TO HIS PARTICIPATION.

STILL, GIVEN WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME, WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO, DID NOT APPEAR TO BE WRONG.

THIRD, LET ME SAY, PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK THAT WE WERE ENGAGING IN IMPROPER BEHAVIOR, WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THE RELEVANT DECISION-MAKERS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT, KNEW THE IMPORTANT DETAILS OF OUR EFFORTS.

THE SUGGESTION THAT WE WERE ENGAGED IN SOME IRREGULAR OR ROGUE DIPLOMACY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

I HAVE NOW IDENTIFIED CERTAIN STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS AND MESSAGES THAT PROVIDE CREANS CONTEMPORANEOUS SUPPORT FOR MY VIEW.

THESE E-MAILS SHOW THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THE WHITE HOUSE, WERE ALL INFORMED ABOUT THE UKRAINE EFFORTS FROM MAY 23rd, 2019, UNTIL THE SECURITY AID WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2019.

I WELL QUOTE FROM SOME OF THOSE MESSAGES WITH YOU SHORTLY.

FOURTH, AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, MR. GIULIANI'S REQUESTS WERE A QUID PRO QUO, FOR ARN ARRANGING A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

MR. GIULIANI DEMANDED THAT UKRAINE MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTION DNC SERVER AND BURISMA.

MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPRESSING THE DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT.

FIFTH, IN JULY AND AUGUST OF 2019, WE LEARNED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAD ALSO SUSPENDED SECURITY AID TO UKRAINE.

I WAS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY SUSPENSION OF AID.

I WAS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY SUSPENSION OF AID.

AS THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED THOSE FUNDS TO FIGHT AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

I TRIED DILIGENTLY TO ASK WHY THE AID WAS SUSPENDED BUT I NEVER RECEIVED A CLEAR ANSWER.

STILL HAVEN'T TO THIS DAY.

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID, I LATER CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESUMPTION OF THE SECURITY AID WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL THERE WAS A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTIONS, AND BURISMA, AS MR. GIULIANI HAD DEMAND HE.

I SHARED CONCERNS OF THE POTENTIAL QUID PRO QUO REGARDING THE SECURITY AID WITH SENATOR RONL JOHNSON AND I ALSO SHARED -- RON JOHNSON AND I ALSO SHARED MY CONCERNS WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

FINALLY, AT ALL TIMES I WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

I WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

AS A PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE, I FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT.

WE WORKED WITH MR. GIULIANI BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED US TO DO SO.

WE HAD NO DESIRE TO SET ANY CONDITIONS, WE HAD NO DIE TO SET ANY CONDITIONS ON THE UKRAINIANS.

INDEED MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW WHICH I SHARED REPEATEDLY WITH OTHERS WAS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE SHOULD HAVE PRECEDED WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS OF ANY KIND.

WE WERE WORKING TO OVERCOME THE PROBLEMS GIVEN THE FACTS AS THEY EXISTED.

OUR ONLY INTEREST AND MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO ADVANCE LONG STANDING U.S. POLICY AND TO SUPPORT UKRAINE'S FRAGILE DEMOCRACY.

NOW LET ME PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DAME SPECIFICALLY ABOUT UKRAINE AND MY INVOLVEMENT.

FIRST, MY VERY FIRST DAYS AS AMBASSADOR TO THE EU WHICH WAS STARTING BACK IN JULY OF 2018, UKRAINE HAS FEATURED PROMINENTLY IN MY BROADER PORTFOLIO.

UKRAINE'S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARE CRITICAL TO THE LONG STANDING AND LONG LASTING STABILITY OF EUROPE.

MOREOVER, THE CONFLICT IN EASTERN UKRAINE AND CRIMEA REMAINS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SECURITY CRISIS FOR EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES.

OUR EFFORTS TO COUNTERBALANCE AN AGGRESSIVE RUSSIA DEPEND ON SUBSTANTIAL PART ON A STRONG UKRAINE.

ON APRIL 21st, 2019, VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN AN HISTORIC ELECTION.

WITH THE EXPRESS SUPPORT OF SECRETARY POMPEO, I ATTENDED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION ON MAY 20th AS PART OF THE U.S. DELEGATION WHICH WAS LED BY ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY.

THE U.S. DELEGATION ALSO INCLUDED SENATOR JOHNSON, UKRAINE SPECIAL ENVOY VOLKER AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VOIMED OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

MY ATTENDANCE AT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION WAS NOT MY FIRST INVOLVEMENT WITH UKRAINE.

AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, JUST FOUR DAYS AFTER ASSUMING MY POST AS AMBASSADOR, IN JULY OF 2018, I RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL DELEGATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THEN UKRAINE PRESIDENT PETRO POROSHENKO.

THE MEETING TOOK PLACE IN BRUSSELS AND PREAND BY MY CAREER EU STAFF AND I'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS SINCE THEN IN BRUSSELS.

LATER IN FEBRUARY OF 2019, I WORKED WELL WITH U.S.

AMBASSADOR MARIA YOVANOVITCH IN MAKE MY FIRST OFFICIAL VISIT TO UKRAINE FOR A U.S. NAVY VISIT TO THE STRATEGIC BLACK SEA PORT OF ODESSA.

AND THE REASON I RAISE THESE PRIOR MEETINGS, THE MEETING IN BRUSSELS, MY MEETING TO ODESSA IS TO EMPHASIZE THAT UKRAINE HAS BEEN PART OF MY PORTFOLIO FROM MY VERY FIRST DAYS AS U.S.

AMBASSADOR.

ANY CLAIM THAT I SOMEHOW MUFFLED MY WAY MUSCLED MY WAY INTO THE DELEGATION IS SOMEHOW FALSE.

THE U.S. DELEGATION DEVELOPED A VERY POSITIVE VIEW OF THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT.

WE WERE IMPRESSED BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DESIRE TO DEVELOP A STRONGER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES.

WE ADMIRED HIS COMMITMENT TO REFORM, AND WE WERE EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE MAKING THE CHANGES NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A GREATER WESTERN ECONOMIC INVESTMENT.

AND WE WERE EXCITE THEY'D UKRAINE MIGHT AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF LIP SERVICE FINALISTLY GET SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING ITS OWN WELL-KNOWN CORRUPTION PROBLEMS.

WITH THAT ENTHUSIASM, WE RETURNED TO THE WHITE HOUSE ON MAY 23rd, TO BRIEF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE ADVISED THE PRESIDENT OF THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE AND THE VALUE OF STRENGTHENING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

TO SUPPORT THIS REFORMER WE ASKED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR TWO THINGS: FIRST, A WORKING PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AN ZELENSKY AND SECOND, A WORKING OVAL OFFICE VISIT.

IN OUR VIEW, BOTH WERE VITAL TO CEMENTING THE U.S.-UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP.

DEMONSTRATING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN THE FACE OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND ADVANCING BROADER U.S. FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS.

UNFORTUNATELY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SKEPTICAL.

HE EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT REFORM, AND HE EVEN MENTIONED THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN IN THE LAST ELECTION.

IN RESPONSE TO OUR PERSISTENT EFFORTS IN THAT MEETING TO CHANGE HIS VIEWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED US TO, QUOTE, TALK WITH RUDY.

WE UNDERSTOOD THAT "TALK WITH RUDY" MEANT TALK WITH MR. RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

LET ME SAY AGAIN, WE WEREN'T HAPPY WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE TO TALK WITH RUDY.

GOOD NOT WANT TO INVOLVE -- WE DID NOT WANT TO INVOLVE MR. GIULIANI.

WE BELIEVE THEN AND NOW THAT THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UKRAINIAN MATTERS.

NONETHELESS BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S ELECTION WE WERE FACED WITH THE CHOICE.

WEE COULD ABANDON THE EFFORTS TO SCHEDULE A WHITE HOUSE PHONE CALL AND A WHITE HOUSE VISIT BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY, WHICH WAS UNQUESTIONABLY IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY INTEREST, OR, WE COULD DO AS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DIRECTED, AND TALK WITH RUDY.

WE CHOSE THE LATTER COURSE NOT BECAUSE WE LIKED IT BUT BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY CONSTRUCTIVE PATH OPEN TO US.

OVER IF COURSE OF THE -- THE COURSE OF THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I WERE IN COMMUNICATION WITH MR. GIULIANI.

SECRETARY PERRY VOLUNTEERED TO MAKE THE CALMS WITH MR. GIULIANI GIVEN THEIR PRIOR RELATIONSHIP.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER MADE SEVERAL OF THE EARLY CALLS AND GENERALLY INFORMED US OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

I FIRST COMMUNICATED WITH MR. GIULIANI IN EARLY AUGUST.

SEVERAL MONTHS LATER.

MR. GIULIANI EMPHASIZED THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, COMMITTING UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO THE CRUCHTION ISSUES.

MR. GIULIANI SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE 2016 ELECTION INCLUDING THE DNC SERVER, AND BURISMA, AS TWO TOPICS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT.

WE KEPT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THENC INFORMED OF OUR ACTIVITIES.

AND THAT INCLUDED COMMUNICATIONS WITH SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, HIS COUNSELOR ULRICH BRECHTEL, HIS SAKE LISA KENNA AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, MR. MORRISON AND THEIR STAFF AT THE NSC.

THEY KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING AND WHY.

ON JULY 10th, 2019, SENIOR UKRAINIAN NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS MET WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DR. HILL, SECRETARY PERRY, MYSELF AND SEVERAL OTHERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. DURING THAT MEETING, WE ALL DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TWO ACTION ITEMS I IDENTIFIED EARLIER.

ONE, A WORKING PHONE CALL AROUND TWO, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING TWENS PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE JULY 10th MEETING WAS A POSITIVE STEP TOWARDS ACCOMPLISHING OUR SHARED GOALS.

WHILE I'M NOW AWARE OF ACCOUNTS OF THE MEETING FROM DR. HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THEIR ACCOUNTS SIMPLY DON'T SQUARE WITH MY OWN OR WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER OR SECRETARY PERRY.

I MENTIONED THE PREREQUISITE, BUT I DON'T RECALL ANY ABRUPT SCREAMING AS OTHERS HAVE SAID.

INSTEAD AFTER THE MEETING, AMBASSADOR BOLTON WALKED OUTSIDE WITH OUR GROUP AND WE ALL TOOK SOME GREAT PICTURES TOGETHER OUTSIDE ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.

MORE IMPORTANT, THOSE RECOLLECTIONS OF PROTEST DO NOT SQUARE WITH THE DOCUMENTARY RECORD OF OUR INTERACTION HE WITH THE NSC IN THE DAYS AND WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED.

WE KEPT THE NSC APPRISED OF OUR EFFORTS, INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY OUR EFFORTS TO SECURE A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE UKRAINIANS, THAT WOULD SATISFY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERNS.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 13th, AND THIS IS THREE DAYS AFTER THAT JULY 10th MEETING, I E-MAILED TIM MORRISON.

HE HAD JUST TAKEN OVER DR. HILL'S POST AS THE NSC EURASIA DIRECTOR AND I MET HIM THAT DAY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

I WROTE TO MR. MORRISON WITH THESE WORDS, THE CALL BETWEEN ZELENSKY AND POTUS, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SHOULD LAP BEFORE 7-21 WHICH IS THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE.

SOLE PURPOSE IS FOR ZELENSKY TO GIVE POTUS INS ASSURANCES OF NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN, CORRUPTION ENDING, UNBUNDLING MOVING FORWARD AND, AND I EMPHASIZE ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY.

GOAL IS FOR POTUS TO INVITE HIM TO L POSTAL.VOLKER, PERRY AND I STRONGLY RECOMMEND.

MR. MORRISON SPECIFICALLY ANSWERED THANK YOU AND SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT HE WAS TRACKING THESE ISSUES.

AGAIN, THIS WAS NO SECRET REGARDING MOVING FORWARD OR THE IMPORTANCE OF INVESTIGATIONS.

MOREOVER I'VE REVIEWED OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS SOME OF WHICH ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, DETAILING MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 10th THE VERY SAME DAY THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SECRETARY PERRY AND I WERE MEETING WITH THE UKRAINE OFFICIALS HAD WASHINGTON, WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS STILL TALKING WITH UKRAINIAN BE PROSECUTOR YOOR LUTSENKO.

IN WHAT'SAP MESSAGE WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I WROTE TO US AS FOLLOWS.

JUST HAD A MEETING WITH BE ANDRIY, AND VADIM.

UKRAINIANS WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT LUTSENKO TOLD THEM.

THAT ACCORDING TO RG MEANING RUDY GIULIANI, THE ZELENSKY-POTUS MEETING WILL NOT HAPPEN.

VOLKER RESPONDED, GOOD GRIEF, PLEASE TELL VADIM TO LET THE OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES SPEAK FOR U.S. LUTSENKO HAS HIS OWN SELF INTEREST HERE.

TAYLOR CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD COMMUNICATED THAT MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS AND HE ADDED, I BRIEFED ULRICH THIS AFTERNOON ON THIS.

REFERRING TO STATE DEPARTMENT COUNSELOR ULRICH BRECH RVETIONEL, AGAIN EVERYONE IS IN THE LOOP.

THREE THINGS ARE CRITICAL ABOUT THIS WHATSAPP EXCHANGE.

THREE, WHILE IN WASHINGTON AND THE WHITE HOUSE, MR. LUTSENKO WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE UKRAINIANS WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, VOLKER AND I WERE ALL SURPRISED ABOUT THIS.

SECOND, MR. GIULIANI WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE REPORTEDLY CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR LUTSENKO AND DISCUSSING WHETHER A ZELENSKY-TRUMP MEETING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE.

AGAIN WITH THIS ALARMING NEWS, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR BRIEFED CAN BRECHTEL, AND AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER 24th OF THIS YEAR, SECRETARY POMPEO WAS DIRECTING KURT VOLKER TO SPEAK WITH MR. GIULIANI.

IN A WHATSAPP MESSAGE, KURT VOLKER TOLD ME IN PART SPOKE WITH RUDY IN SPOKE WITH RUDY PER GUIDANCE FROM S. LOOK, WE TRIED OUR BEST TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

WHILE KEEPING THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NSC CLOSELY APPRISED OF THE CHALLENGES WE FACED.

ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY HAD THEIR OFFICIAL CALL.

I WAS NOT ON THE CALL.

AND I DON'T THINK I WAS INVITED TO BE ON THE CALL.

IN FACIALT I FIRST READ THE TRANSPORT OFTEN SEPTEMBER 25th, THE DAY IT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED.

ALL I HAD HEARD AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THE CALL HAD GONE WELL.

LOOK BACK I FIND IT VERY ODD, VERY ODD THAT NEITHER I NOR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR NOR AMBASSADOR VOLKER EVER RECEIVED A DETAILED READ-OUT OF THAT CALL WHICH BIDEN REFERENCES.

NOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALM.

BUT NO ONE SHARED ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL WITH ME AT THE TIME.

WHICH FRANKLY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO KNOW.

ON JULY 26th, AMBASSADOR DAME AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I WERE IN KIEV.

ENTIRELY ENTIRELY CONVINCE DENTAL.

THE KEY KIEV MEETINGS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED WELL BEFORE THE DATE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE FINALLY FIXED THE CALL.

DURING OUR KIEV MEETING I DO NOT RECALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DISCUSSING THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

NOR DID HE DISCUSS ANY REQUEST TO DISCUSS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WHICH WE ALL LEARNED WAS DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORTED COMMENTS FROM AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND TAYLOR.

AFTER THE DLENS MEETING I ALSO MET -- ZELENSKY MEETING I ALSO IMMEDIATE WITH YERMAK.

I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC LINE BUT I BELIEVE THE CONVERSATION WAS PART OF OUR AGENDA OR MEETING.

ALSO, ON JULY 26th, SHORTLY AFTER OUR KIEV MEETINGS, I SPOKE BY PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

FTC THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH HAS FINALLY FINALLY SHARED CERTAIN CALL DATES AND TIMES WITH MY DONORS CONFIRMS THIS.

THE CALL LASTED FIVE MINUTES.

I REMEMBER I WAS AT A RESTAURANT IN KIEV AND I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT THIS CONVERSATION INCLUDED THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATIONS.

AGAIN GIVEN MR. GIULIANI'S DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, I KNEW THAT INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE DID NOT DISCUSS ANY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

OTHER WITNESSES HAVE RECENTLY SHARED THEIR RECOLLECTION OF OVERHEARING THIS CALL.

FOR THE MOST PART I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT MAYOR ACCOUNTS.

IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS LOUDLY AT TIMES AND IT'S ALSO TRUE I THINK WE PRIMARILY DISCUSSED ASAP ROCKY.

IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT LIKES TO USE COLORFUL LANGUAGE.

ANYONE WHO HAS MET WITH HIM ANY REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME KNOWS THIS.

WHILE I CANNOT REMEMBER THE PRECISE DETAILS, AGAIN, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT ALLOWED ME TO SEE ANY READOUTS OF THAT CALL AND THE JULY 26th CALL DID NOT STRIKE ME AS SIGNIFICANTLY AT THE TIME.

ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SURPRISED IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NOT MENTIONED VISIONS PARTICULARLY WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM MR. GIULIANI ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS.

HOWEVER I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION DISCUSS BEING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR HIS SON ON THAT CALL OR AFTER THAT CALL ENDED.

I KNOW THAT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE FREBLTION FRAME THESE COMPLICATED ISSUES IN THE FORM OF A SIMPLE QUESTION.

WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?

AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY WITH REGARD TO THIS WHITE HOUSE CALL AND THE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THIS ANSWER IS YES.

MR. GIULIANI EXPRESSED TO BE AMBASSADOR PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED A COMMITMENT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BE STATEMENTS OF INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA AND CAN MR. GIULIANI ALSO EXPRESSED THOSE REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO US.

WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT THESE PREREQUISITES FOR THE WHITE HOUSE CALL AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING REFLECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESIRES AND REQUIREMENTS.

WITHIN MY STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS THERE IS A JULY 19th E-MAIL, THIS E-MAIL WAS SENT, THIS E-MAIL WAS SENT TO SECRETARY POMPEO, SECRETARY PERRY, BRIAN McCORMACK WHO IS SECRETARY PERRY'S CHIEF OF STAFF AT THE TIME, MISS KENNA WHO IS THE ACTING -- PARM WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR SECRETARY POMPEO, CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, AND MR. MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISOR ROB BLARE.

A LOT OF SENIOR OFFICIALS.

A LOT OF SENIOR OFFICIALS.

HERE IS MY EXACT QUOTE FROM THAT E-MAIL.

"I TALKED TO ZELENSKY JUST NOW.

HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVEPRIOR N PUT OUT SOME MEDIA ABOUT A FRIENDLY AND PRODUCTIVE CALL, NO DETAILS, PRIOR TO UKRAINE ELECTION ON SUNDAY.

CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY RESPONDED, I ASKED THE NFC TO SET IT UP FOR TOMORROW.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

IT WAS NO SECRET.

EVERYBODY WAS INFORMED VIA E-MAIL ON JULY 19TH, DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL.

AS I COMMUNICATED TO THE TEAM, I TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN ADVANCE THAT ASSURANCES TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION TURN OVER EVERY STONE WERE NECESSARY FOR THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ON JULY 19TH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MESSAGE BETWEEN BOYS TAYLOR, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND ME, AMBASSADOR VOLKER STATED HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY THIS MORNING.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND RUDY GIULIANI.

CALL WITH YERMAK MONDAY, THAT'S SENIOR ADVISOR ANDRIY YERMAK.

MUST HAVE HELPED.

MOST IMPORTANT IS FOR ZELENSKY TO SAY THAT HE WILL HELP INVESTIGATION AND ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC PERSONNEL ISSUE IF THERE ARE ANY.

ON AUGUST 10TH, THE NEXT DAY, MR. YERMAK, ONCE WE HAVE A DATE IS THE DATE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, WE WILL CALL FOR A PRESS BRIEFING ANNOUNCING UPCOME CANNING VISITS AND OUTLINING VISION FOR THE REBOOT OF THE U.S. UKRAINE RATIONSHIP, INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS BURISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS IS FROM MR. YERMAK TO ME.

THE FOLLOWING DAY AUGUST 11TH.

THIS IS CRITICAL.

I SENT AN E-MAIL TO COUNCILOR BREXIL LISA KENNA.

LISA KENNA WAS FREQUENTLY USED AS THE PATHWAY TO SOMETHING POMPEO SOMETIMES HE PREFERRED TO RECEIVE HIS E-MAIL THROUGH HER.

SHE WOULD PRINT THEM OUT AND PUT THEM IN FRONT OF HIM.

THE SUBJECT UKRAINE.

I WROTE MIKE, REFERRING TO MIKE POMPEO.

HURD AND I NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT FROM ZELENSKY TO BE DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A DAY OR TWO.

THE CONTENTS WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH, THE BOSS BEING THE PRESIDENT, TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

ZELENSKY PLANS TO HAVE A BIG PRESSER, PRESS CONFERENCE, ON THE OPENNESS SUBJECT INCLUDING SPECIFICS NEXT WEEK ALL OF WHICH REFERRED TO 2016 AND THE BURISMA.

LISA KENNA REPLIED, GORDON, I'LL PASS TO THE SECRETARY.

THANK YOU.

AGAIN, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

CURIOUSLY, AND THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING TO ME.

ON AUGUST 26, SHORTLY BEFORE HIS VISIT TO KYIV AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE REQUESTED MR. GIULIANI'S CONTACT INFORMATION FROM ME.

I SENT AMBASSADOR BOLTON THE INFORMATION DIRECTLY.

THE REQUESTED RUDY GIULIANI CONTACT INFORMATION AUGUST 26.

I WAS FIRST INFORMED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS WITHHOLDING SECURITY AID TO UKRAINE DURING CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ON JULY 18TH, 2019.

HOWEVER, AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, I WAS NEVER ABLE TO OBTAIN A CLEAR ANSWER REGARDING THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR THE HOLD, WHETHER IT WAS BUREAUCRATIC IN NATURE WHICH OFTEN HAPPENS, OR REFLECTED SOME OTHER CONCERN IN THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS.

I NEVER PARTICIPATED IN ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT DOD OR DOS REVIEW MEETING, THAT OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THAT MEETING.

NONETHELESS, BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST WARSAW MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS HAD BECOME AWARE THAT SECURITY FUNDS HAD YET TO BE DISBURSED.

THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE HOLD, I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AID, LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT WAS JEOPARDIZED.

IN PREPARATION FOR THE SEPTEMBER 1 WARSAW MEETING, I ASKED SECRETARY POMPEO, WHETHER A FACE TO FACE CONVERSATION BETWEEN TRUMP AND ZELENSKY WOULD HELP TO BREAK THE LUG.

THIS IS WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL INTENDING TO TRAVEL TO WARSAW.

SPECIFICALLY ON AUGUST 22ND, I E-MAILED SECRETARY POMPEO DIRECTLY COPYING SECRETARY KENNA.

I WROTE, THIS IS MY E-MAIL TO SECRETARY POMPEO.

SHOULD WE BLOCK TIME IN WARSAW FOR A SHORT POLITICIZE FOR POTUS TO MEET ZELENSKY.

I WOULD ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK HIM IN THE EYE AND TELL HIM THAT ONCE UKRAINE'S NEW JUSTICE FOLKS ARE IN PLACE IN MID SEPTEMBER, THAT ZELENSKY, E ZELENSKY SHOULD BE -- HE ZELENSKY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONFIDENCE FOR POTUS AND THE U.S. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL HELP BREAK THE LOG JAM.

THE SECRETARY REPLIED YES.

I FOLLOWED UP THE NEXT DAY ASKING TO GET 10 TO 15 MINUTES ON THE WARSAW SCHEDULE FOR THIS.

I SAID WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN IT'S LOCKED SO THAT I CAN TELL ZELENSKY AND BRIEF HIM.

SECRETARY KENNA REPLIED I WILL SURE FOR.

MOREOVER GIVEN MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SECURITY AID I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE THAT PORTION OF SENATOR JOHNSON'S RECENT LETTER IN WHICH HE RECALLS CONVERSATIONS HE AND I HAD ON OUR AUGUST 30TH.

BY THE END OF AUGUST, MY BELIEF WAS THAT IF UKRAINE DID SOMETHING TO DEMONSTRATE A SERIOUS INTENTION TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING BURISMA AND THE 2016, THEN THE HOLD ON MILITARY AID WOULD BE LIFTED.

THERE WAS A SEPTEMBER 1ST MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW.

UNFORTUNATELY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTENDANCE AT THE WARSAW MEETING WAS CANCELED DUE TO HURRICANE DOORIAN.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE ATTENDED INSTEAD.

I MENTIONED TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE BEFORE THE MEETING WITH THE UKRAINE IANS I HAD CURRENT THAT AID HAD BECOME TIED TO THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATION.

I RECALL MENTIONING THAT BEFORE THE ZELENSKY MEETING.

DURING THE ACTUAL MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE ISSUE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE DIRECTLY WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID THAT HE WOULD SPEAK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT IT.

BASED ON MY PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION WITH SECRETARY POMPEO, I FELT COMFORTABLE SHARING MY CONCERNS WITH MR. YERMAK.

IT WAS A VERY VERY BRIEF POLITICIZED CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED WITHIN A FEW SECONDS.

I TOLD MR. YERMAK THAT I BELIEVED THAT THE RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY NOT OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE TOOK SOME KIND OF ACTION ON THE PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT WE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING FOR MANY WEEKS.

AS MY OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT COLLEAGUES HAVE TESTIFIED, THIS SECURITY AID WAS CRITICAL TO UKRAINE'S DEFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELAYED.

I EXPRESS THIS VIEW TO MANY DURING THIS PERIOD BUT MY GOAL AT THE TIME WAS TO DO WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO GET THE AID RELEASED, TO BREAK THE LOG JAM.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC STATEMENT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR WEEKS WAS ESSENTIAL TO ADVANCING THAT GOAL.

YOU KNOW, I REALLY REGRET THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE PLACED IN THAT PREDICAMENT BUT I DO NOT REGRET DOING WHAT I COULD TO TRY TO BREAK THE LOG JAM AND TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

I MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET THAT BROUGHT THESE EVENTS WE KENT STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS APPRISED OF WHAT WE WERE DOING.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF OUR ENGAGEMENT IN UKRAINE EFFORTS AND WAS AWARE THAT A COMMITMENT TO INVESTIGATION WAS AMONG THE ISSUES WE WERE PURSUING.

TO PROVIDE JUST TWO EXAMPLES.

ON JUNE 5TH, THE DAY AFTER THE U.S. EU MISSION HOSTED OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY, WE DID IT A MONTH EARLY.

ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOIL REEFER ISN'T AN E-MAIL TO ME AND OTHERS SOME MEDIA COVERAGE OR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ATTENDANCE AT OUR EVENTS.

MR. RARY REEKER WROTE THIS UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE AND TIMELINESS OF ZELENSKY'S VISIT TO BRUSSELS AND THE CRYSTAL, CRITICAL PERHAPS HISTORIC ROLE OF THE DINNER AND ENGAGEMENT GORDON COORDINATED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND DEDICATION TO THIS EFFORT.

MONTHS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, I SPENT SECRETARY POMPEO AN E-MAIL TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR JOINING A SERIES OF MEETINGS IN BRUSSELS FOLLOWING THE WARSAW TRIP.

I WROTE, MIKE THANKS FOR SCHLEPPING TO EUROPE.

I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND THE CHEMISTRY SEEMS PROMISING, REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

SECRETARY POMPEO REPLIED THE NEXT DAY ON WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 4TH, QUOTE, ALL GOOD.

YOU'RE DOING GREAT WORK.

KEEP BANGING AWAY.

STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP EXPRESSED TOTAL SUPPORT FOR OUR EFFORTS TO ENGAGE THE USE UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION.

LOOK, I'VE NEVER DOUBTED STRATEGIC VALUE OF STRENGTHENING OUR ALLIANCE WITH UKRAINE.

AND TAWFLT AT ALL TIMES, AT ALLS OUR EFFORTS WERE IN GOOD FAITH AND CULLLY TRANSPARENT TO THOSE TASKED WITH OVERSEEING THEM.

OUR HE WAS WERE RECORDED AND APPROVED.

NOT ONCE DO I RECALL ENCOUNTERING AN OBJECTION.

REMAINS AN HONOR THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AS THEIR UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR E OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES RELATING TO UKRAINE AND MY ROLE OF THE EVENT UNDER INVESTIGATION.

I'VE DEDICATED MY ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

MORE THAN TWO DECADES IT HAS BEEN MY HONOR TO SERVE AS AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, AN OFFICER I SERVED TOURS INCLUDING SOUTH KOREA AND GERMANY AND DEPLOYED TO IRAQ FOR COMBAT OPERATIONS.

SINCE 2008 I'VE BEEN A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN POLITICAL AND MILITARY AFFAIRS FOR THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN UKRAINE AND MODEL COULD YOU RUSSIA.

IN WASHINGTON D.C.

I WAS THE POLITICAL MILITARY AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR RUSSIA, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINTS CHIEFS OF STAFF WHERE I DRAFTED THE ARMED FORCES GLOBAL CAMPAIGN PLAN TO COUNTER RUSSIANS AGGRESSION AND RUSSIAN MALIGN ION FLUENCE.

SINCE JULY 2018 I WAS ASKED TO SEVEN AS THE WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

AT THE NSC I'M THE PRINCIPAL ADVISOR, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR ON UKRAINE AND OTHER COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO.

MY ROLE AT THE NSC IS TO DEVELOP, COORDINATE AND IMPLEMENT PLANS AND POLICIES, MANAGE THE FULL RANGE OF DIPLOMATIC INFORMATIONAL MILITARY AND ECONOMIC NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES COUNTRY'S IN MY PORTFOLIO.

MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO COORDINATE POLICY WITH DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.

THE MEDIA HAS HEARD FROM MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE STREAK IMPORTANCE OF YEW -- STRATEGIC POSSESSOR OF UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

OUR COUNTRY IS SUPPORTING UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY PROMOTING PROSPERITY AND STRIKING A FREE AND DIRECT UKRAINE AS A COUNTER INTERRUPTION AGGRESSION HAS BEEN CONSISTENT BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVE ACROSS VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ELECTION IN 2019 CREATED AN UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE OUR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE.

IN THE SPRING OF 2019 I BECAME AWARE OF TWO DISRUPTIVE ACTORS PRIMARILY UKRAINE THEN PROSECUTOR YURI WILL LUTSENKO D RUDY GIULIANI THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY UNDERMINDING THE UNITED STATES UKRAINE POLICY THE.

THE NSC AND ITEMS PARTNERS INCLUDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT GREW INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT SUCH INFORMATION WAS HAVING ON OUR COUNTRY'S AWE BILL TO ACHIEVE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES.

ON APRIL 21ST, 2019, VOASTLED MERE ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED ON A UNIFORM ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON APRIL 21ST, 2019 TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS VICTORY.

I WAS A STAFF OFFICER WITH ALL MATERIALS AND ONE OF THE STAFF OFFICERS WHO LISTENED TO THE CALL.

THE CALL WAS POSITIVE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO WORK FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED AN INVITATION TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE.

MAY I ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF ZELENSKY LED BY SECRETARY PERRY.

FOLLOWING THE VISIT THE MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION PROVIDED PRESIDENT TRUMP A DEBRIEFING OFFERING A POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM.

AFTER THE DEBRIEFING PRESIDENT TRUMP STIENLD A CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED ANOTHER INVIATION TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE.

ON JULY 10, 2019 UKRAINE'S THEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR VISITED WASHINGTON D.C. FOR A MEETING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SONDLAND AND SECRETARY RICK MARRY ALSO ATTENDED THE MEETING.

I ATTENDED WITH DR. HILL.

HE FULLY ANTICIPATES UKRAINIANS WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STARTED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT UKRAINE DELIVER SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO SECURE THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, IT WAS A SHORT DEBRIEFING DURING WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE DELIVERING THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

I STATED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

DR. HILL ALSO ASSERTED COMMENTS WHEN PROPER.

FOLLOWING THE MEETING DR. HILL AND I AGREED TO REPORT THE INCIDENT TO NSC'S LEAD COUNSEL MR. JOHN EISENBERG.

ON JULY 21, 2019, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON A PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION IN A LAND SIDE VICTORY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TO CONGRATULATE HIM.

ON JULY 25TH, 2019 THE CALL OCCURRED.

I LISTENED IN ON THE CALL IN THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WHITE HOUSE COLLEAGUES.

I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL.

WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

I REPORTED MY CONNECTORS TO MR. AESENBERG.

IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO INVESTIGATION A U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

I WAS ALSO CLEAR IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION, IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PROCEEDED IN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE 2026 16 ELECTIONS THE BIDENS AND BURISMA IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY.

THIS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY RESULT IN UKRAINE LOSING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT UNDERMINDING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND RUSSIA'S IN THE REGION.

WHEN I REPORTED RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND JULY 25 RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.

I PROUDLY REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO OFFICIAL CHANNELS, THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY.

I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY ACTIONS.

WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS, MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY AND TO CARRY OUT MY DUTY.

IN EACH OF MY REPORTS TO MR. EISENBERG I IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO WORK TO FOLLOW OUR COUNTRIES' POLICY OBJECTIVES.

I FOCUSED ON WHAT I'VE DONE THROUGHOUT MY MILITARY CAREER PROMOTING AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.

I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE COURAGE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE APPEARED AND ARE SCHEDULED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.

I WANT TO STATE THAT THE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS IS REPREHENSIBLE.

IT IS NATURAL TO DISAWE GRA AND ENGAGE IN DEBATE.

THIS HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM OF OUR COUNTRY SINCE THE TIME OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.

BUT WE ARE BETTER THAN PERSONAL ATTACKS.

THE UNIFORM I WEAR TODAY IS THAT OF A UNITED STATES ARMY IS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

THE MEMBERS OF OUR ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE ARE MADE UP OF A PATCHWORK OF PEOPLE FROM CITIES, REGIONS, SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS COME TOGETHER UNDER A COMMON OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WE DO NOT SERVE ANY POLITICAL PARTY, WE SERVE THE NATION.

I AM HUMBLED TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY AS ONE OF MANY WHO SERVE IN THE MOST DISTINGUISHED AND ABLE MILITARY IN THE WORLD.

THE ARMY'S THE ONLY PROFESSION I'VE EVER KNOWN.

AS A YOUNG MAN I DECIDED I WANT TO SPEND MY LIFE TO SEVEN THIS NATION THAT GAVE MY FAMILY REFUGE FROM AUTHORITARIAN OPPRESSION.

FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO REPRESENT AND PROTECT THIS GREAT COUNTRY.

NEXT MONTH WILL BE 40 YEARS THAT MY FAMILY ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES.

WHEN MY FATHER WAS 47 YEARS OLD HE LEFT BEHIND HIS ENTIRE LIFE AND THE ONLY HOME HE HAD EVER KNOWN TO START OVER IN THE UNITED STATES SO HIS THREE SONS COULD HAVE A BETTER AND SAFER LIVES.

HIS KROORNLG DECISION INSPIRED A DEEP SENSE OF GRATITUDE IN MY BROTHERS AND MYSELF AND INSTILTED IN US A SENSE OF DUTY AND SERVICE.

ALL THREE OF US HAVE SERVED OR ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE MILITARY.

MY LITTLE BOY SITS BEHIND ME HERE TODAY.

OUR COLLECTIVE MILITARY SERVICE IS A SPECIAL PART OF OUR FAMILY'S HISTORY IN AMERICA.

I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT MY SIMPLE ACT OF APPEARING HERE TODAY JUST LIKE THE COURAGE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ALSO TRUTHFULLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD.

IN RUSSIA, MY ACT OF EXPRESSING CONCERN FOR THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN AN OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE SEVERE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL REPERCUSSIONS AND OFFERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT WOULD SURELY COST ME MY LIFE.

I'M GRATEFUL TO MY FATHER'S BRAVE ACT OF HOPE 0 YEARS AGO AND FOR -- 40 YEARS AGO AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND PUBLIC SERVANT WHERE I CAN LIVE FREE, FREE OF FEAR FOR MINE AND MY FAMILY'S SAFETY.

DAD, I'M SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITOL TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS IS PROOF YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION, COME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY.

DO NOT WORRY.

I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO START WITH THIS STATEMENT.

TO REBRUCE MYSELF TO THE COMMITTEE AND TO HIGHLIGHT PARTS OF MY BIOGRAPHY AND EXPERIENCE.

I COME BEFORE YOU AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAS DEVOTED THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE, 3 YEARS SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY THAT ALL OF US LOVE.

LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I ENTERED THE FOREIGN SERVICE UNDERSTANDING THAT MY JOB WAS TO IMPLEMENT THE FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OF THIS NATION AS DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS AND TO DO SO REGARDLESS OF WHICH PERSON OR PARTY T I HAD NO AGENDA OTHER THAN TO PURSUE OUR STATED FOREIGN POLICY RULES.

MY SERVICE IS AN EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE FOR ALL THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS GIVEN TO ME AND TO MY FAMILY.

MY LATE PARENTS DID NOT HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE TO COME OF AGE IN A FREE SOCIETY.

MY FATHER FLED THE SO YES, SIR BEFORE ULTIMATELY FINDING REFUGE IN THE UNITED STATES.

MY MOTHER'S FAMILY ESCAPED THE U.S. AFTER THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION AND SHE GREW UP STATELESS IN NAZI GERMANY BEFORE ALSO EVENTUALLY MAKING HER BAY TO THE UNITED STATES.

THEIR PERSONAL HISTORY, MY PERSONAL HISTORY GIVES ME BOTH DEEP GRATITUDE TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT EMPATHY FOR OTHERS LIKE THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE FREE.

I JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY SERVED THREE OTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AS WELL AS TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS.

IT WAS MY GREAT HONOR TO BE APPOINTED TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES, TWICE MY GEORGE W. BUSH AND ONCE BY BARACK OBAMA.

THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT DIPLOMATS LEAD A COMFORTABLE LIFE THROWING DINNER PARTIES AND LIVING IN FANCY HOMES.

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF MY REALITIES.

IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EASY.

I HAVE MOVED 13 TIMES AND SERVED IN SEVEN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, FIVE OF THEM HARDSHIP POSTS.

MY FIRST TOUR WAS MOGADISHU, SOMALIA AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS PLACE AS THAT COUNTRY'S CIVIL WAR KEPT GRINDING ON AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS WEAKENING.

THE MILITARY TOOK OVER POLICING FUNCTIONS IN A PARTICULARLY BROOBLGHTS WAY AND BASIC SERVICE DISAPPEARED.

SEVERAL YEARS LATER, AFTER THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED, I HELPED OPEN OUR EMBASSY IN PAKISTAN AS WE WERE ESTABLISHING RELATIONS WITH A NEW COUNTRY, OUR SMALL EMBASSY WAS ATTACKED BY A GUNMAN WHO SPRID THE EMBASSY BUILDING WITH GUNFIRE.

I LATER SERVED IN MOSCOW.

IN 1993, DURING THE ATTEMPTED COUP IN RUSSIA, I WAS CAUGHT IN CROSS FIRE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY FORCES.

IT TOOK US THREE TRIES.

YOU NEEDED A HELMET OR BODY ARM OR TO GET INTO A VEHICLE TO GO TO THE EMBASSY.

WE WENT BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR ASKED US TO COME AND WE WENT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR DUTY.

FROM AUGUST 2016 UNTIL MAY 2019, I SERVED AS THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

DURING MY TENURE IN UKRAINE I WENT TO THE FRONTLINE APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES DURING A HOT WAR.

TO SHOW THE AMERICAN FLAG, TO HEAR WHAT WAS GOING ON, SOMETIMES LITERALLY AS WE HEARD THE IMPACT OF ARTILLERY AND TO SEE HOW OUR ASSISTANCE DOLLARS WERE BEING PUT TO USE.

I WORKED TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY FULLY EMBRACED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE TO HELP UKRAINE BECOME A STABLE AND INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC STATE THAT THE MARKET ECONOMY INTEGRATED INTO EUROPE.

THE PURE DEMOCRATIC AND FREE UKRAINE SERVES NOT JUST THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL.

THAT'S WHY IT WAS OUR POLICY AND NEEDS TO BE OUR POLICY TO HELP THE UKRAINIANS ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVE.

THEY MATCH OUR OBJECTIVES.

THE U.S. IS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF OUR VALUE.

AND OUR VALUES HAVE MADE POSSIBLE THE NETWORK OF ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT BUTT TRESSES OUR ONLY STRENGTH.

UKRAINE WITH ENORMOUS AND LARGE POPULATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTNER FOR THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER ON THE SECURITY SIDE.

WE SEE THE POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE.

RUSSIA IS THE RISK.

THE HISTORY IS NOT WRITTEN YET BUT UKRAINE COULD MOVE OUT OF RUSSIA'S ORBIT AND NOW UKRAINE IS A BATTLEGROUND FOR GREAT POWER COMPETITION WITH A HOT WAR FOR THE CONTROL OF TERRITORY IN A HYBRID WAR THAT CONTROLS UKRAINE'S LEADERSHIP.

THE U.S. HAS PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT SECURITY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE ONSET OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN 2014.

AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRENGTHENED OUR POLICY BY APPROVING THE PROVISIONS TO UKRAINE OF ANTI--- SUPPORTING UKRAINE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

IT'S ALSO THE SMART THING TO DO.

IF RUSSIA PREVAILS AND UKRAINE FALLS TO RUSSIAN DOMINION, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE OTHER ATTEMPTS BY RUSSIA TO EXPAND ITS TERRITORY AND ITS INFLUENCE.

AS CRITICAL AS THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS, UKRAINE'S STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY HAS AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT CHALLENGE, BATTLING THE SOVIET LEGACY OF CORRUPTION WHICH HAS PERVADED UKRAINE'S GOVERNMENT.

CORRUPTION MAKES UKRAINE'S LEADERS EVER VULNERABLE TO RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHY THEY LAUNCH THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014 DEMANDING TO BE A PART OF EUROPE DEMANDING THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM, DEMANDING TO LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.

UKRAINIANS WANT THE LAW TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE WHETHER THE VALID IN QUESTION IS THE PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN.

IT WAS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS OF DIGNITY.

HERE AGAIN, THERE IS A COINCIDENCE OF INTEREST.

CORRUPT LEADERS ARE INHERENTLY LESS TRUSTWORTHY WHILE HONEST AND ACCOUNTABLE UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP MAKES A U.S. UKRAINIAN PARTNERSHIP MORE RELIABLE AND MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE UNITED STATES.

IN THIS STRATEGIC COUNTRY ORDERING FOUR NATO ALLIES AGREED TO AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH U.S. BBUSINESS CAN MORE EASILY TRADE INCREASE AND PROSPER.

TRUST IS A SECURITY ISSUE BECAUSE CORRUPT OFFICIALS ARE VULNERABLE TO MOSCOW.

IN SHORT IT IS IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS TO HELP UKRAINE TRANSFORM INTO A COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW GOVERNS AND CORRUPTION IS HELD IN CHECK.

IT WAS AND REMAINS A TOP U.S.

PRIORITY TO HELP UKRAINE FIGHT CORRUPTION AND SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE 2014 REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY.

UNFORTUNATELY, AS THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS HAVE UNDERLINED, NOT ALL UKRAINIANS EMBRACED OUR ANTI-CORRUPTION WORK.

PERHAPS IT WAS NOT SURPRISING THAT WHEN OUR ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS GOT IN THE WAY OF A DESIRE FOR PROFIT OR POWER, UKRAINIANS PREFER TO PLAY BY THE OLD CORRUPT RULES -- WHICH CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME IS THAT THEY FOUND AMERICANS WILLING TO PARTNER WITH THEM IN WORKING TOGETHER THEY APPARENTLY SUCCEEDED IN ORCHESTRATING THE REMOVAL OF A U.S.

AMBASSADOR.

HOW COULD OUR SYSTEM FAIL LIKE THIS.

HOW IS IT THAT FOREIGN CORRUPT INTERESTS CAN MANIPULATE OUR GOVERNMENT.

WHICH COUNTRIES' INTERESTS ARE SERVED WHEN THE VERY CORRUPT BEHAVIOR WE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZING IS ALLOWED TO PREVAIL.

SUCH CONDUCT UNDERMINDS THE U.S., EXPOSES OUR FRIENDS AND WIDENS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR AUTO CRATS LIKE PRESIDENT PUTIN.

OUR LEADERSHIP DEPENDS ON THE POWER OF OUR EXAMPLE AND THE CONSISTENCY OF OUR PURPOSE.

BOTH HAVE NOW BEEN OPENED QUESTIONS.

WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES I EXPECT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT STARTING WITH MY TIME LINE IN UKRAINE AND THE EVENTS THAT WHICH I DO AND DO NOT HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

I ARRIVED IN UKRAINE ON AUGUST 22ND, 1916 AND LEFT UKRAINE PERMANENTLY ON MAY 20TH, 2019.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EVENTS YOU ARE INVESTIGATING TO WHICH I CANNOT BRING ANY FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

THE EVENTS THAT PREDATED MY UKRAINE SERVICE INCLUDE THE RELEASE OF THE SO-CALLED BLACK LEDGER AND MR. MANAFORT'S SUBSEQUENT RESIGNATION FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN AND THE DEPARTURE FROM OFFICE OF FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL VICTOR SHOKIN.

SEVERAL OTHER EVENTS OCCURRED AFTER I RETURNED FROM UKRAINE.

THESE INCLUDE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25TH, 2019 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THAT PHONE CALL AND ANY DISCUSSION SURROUNDING THE DELAY OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN UKRAINE IN THE SUMMER OF 2019.

I SERVED DURING MY TENURE IN THE UKRAINE.

I WANT TO REITERATE FIRST THAT THE ALLEGATION DISSEMINATED THAT I DO NOT PROSECUTE IS A FAB RACE.

THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL WHO MADE THAT ALLEGATION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE LIST NEVER EXISTED.

I DID NOT TELL MR. LUTSENKO OR OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE.

INSTEAD, I ADVOCATED THE U.S.

POSITION THAT RULE OF LAW SHOULD PREVAIL.

IN UKRAINIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES DID STOP WIELDING THEIR POWER SELECTIVELY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AGAINST THEIR ADVERSARIES AND START DEALING WITH ALL CONSISTENTLY AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

ALSO UNTRUE ARE UNTRUTH ALLEGATIONS THAT I TOLD UNIDENTIFIED EMBASSY EMPLOYEES OR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERS SHOULD BE IGNORED BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON.

I DID NOT AND I WOULD NOT SAY SUCH A THING.

SUCH STATEMENTS WILL BE INCONSISTENT WITH MY TRAINING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER AND MY ROLE AS AN AMBASSADOR.

THE OBAMA STATION DID NOT ASK ME TO HELP WITH THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN OR HARM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

NOR WOULD I HAVE TAKEN ANY SUCH STEP THEY HAVE.

PARTISANSHIP OF THIS TAPE IS NOT COMBATABLE WITH THE ROLE OF A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.

I NEVER MET HUNTER BIDEN OR DID I HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM.

ALTHOUGH I HAVE MET FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF MY WORK IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE NEITHER HE NOR THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION NEVER RAISED THE ISSUE OF EITHER BURISMA OR HUNTER BIDEN WITH ME.

WITH RESPECT TO MAYOR GIULIANI.

I HAVE HAD ONLY MINIMUM CONTACT WITH HIM, A TOTAL OF THREE NUN RELATED TO THE EVENTS AT ISSUE.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MR. GIULIANI'S MOTIVE FOR ATTACKING ME NOR DO I HAVE AN OPINION ON THE ALLEGATIONS HE'S READ ABOUT ME.

CLEARLY NO ONE AT THE STATEMENT DEPARTMENT DOES BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT MR. GIULIANI SHOULD HAVE KNOWN HE WAS -- COMING AS THEY REPORTEDLY DID FROM INDIVIDUALS WITH QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES AND WITH REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL AMBITIONS WOULD BE STYMIED BY OUR ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY IN UKRAINE.

AFTER BEING ASKED BY THE UNDERSECRETARY STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN EARLY MARCH 2019 TO EXTEND MY TOUR UNTIL 2020, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME ENTERED A NEW PUBLIC PHASE IN THE UNITED STATES STATE DUPE OFFICIALS SUGGESTED AN EARLIER DEPARTURE AND WE AGREED UPON JULY 2019.

I WAS THEN ABRUPTLY TOLD WEEKS LATER IN LATE APRIL COME BACK TO WASHINGTON FROM UKRAINE ON THE NEXT PLANE.

AT THE TIME I DEPART, UKRAINE HAD JUST CONCLUDED GAME CHANGING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

IT WAS A SENSITIVE PERIOD WITH MUCH AT STAKE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CALLS FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTITIES YOU COULD MUSTER.

WHEN I RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE SULLIVAN TOLD ME THERE HAD BEEN A CONVERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME THAT THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WISHED ME TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE AND THAT IN FACT THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR MY REMOVAL SINCE THE PRIOR SUMMER.

AS MR. SULLIVAN RECENTLY RECOUNTED DURING HIS SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING NEITHER HE NEVER ANYONE ELSE EVER SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S CURRENT ABOUT ME OR DID ANYONE IN THE DEPARTMENT JUSTIFY MY EARLY DEPARTURE BY SUGGESTING I HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG.

I APPRECIATE THAT MR. SULLIVAN PUBLICLY AFFIRMED AT HIS HEARING THAT I HA SERVED CAPABLY AND ADMIRABLY.

ALTHOUGH THEN AND NOW, I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMIND U.S.

INTERESTS IN THIS WAY.

INDIVIDUALS WHO APPARENTLY FELT STYMIED BY OUR TEFORTS TO PROMOTE FADED U.S. POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION, THAT IS TO DO OUR MISSION WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL -- AS VARIOUS WITNESSES HAVE RECOUNTED THEY SHARED BASIS ALLEGATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONVINCED HIM TO REMOVE AS AMBASSADOR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE AND THE SOURCES HIGHLY SUSPECT.

THESE EVENTS SHOULD CONCERN EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM.

AMBASSADORS ARE THE SYMBOL OF THE UNITED STATES ABROAD.

THEY ARE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT.

THEY SHOULD ALWAYS ACT AND SPEAK WITH FULL AUTHORITY TO ADVOCATE FOR U.S. POLICY.

IF OUR CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE IS KNEE CAPPED, IT LIMITS OUR EFFECTIVENESS TO SAFEGUARD THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL LANDSCAPE IS MORE COMPLICATED AND MORE COMPETITIVE THAN IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE RESOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNIONIAN.

OUR POLICY HAS BEEN IN DISRAY AND SHADED INTERESTS THE WORLD OVER HAVE LEARNED WHAT LITTLE IT TAKES TO REMOVE AN AMBASSADOR WHO DOES NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.

AFTER THESE EVENTS WHAT FOREIGN OFFICIAL CORRUPT OR NOT COULD BE PLAIMED FOR WONDERING WHETHER THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR REPRESENTS THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW.

WHAT YOU AS AMBASSADOR COULD BE BLAMED FOR HARBORING THE FEAR THAT CAN'T COUNT ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT THEM AS THEY IMPLEMENT STATED U.S. POLICY AND PROTECT AND DEFEND U.S.

INTERESTS T I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE TAKING YOUR QUESTION.

AT THE CLOSED DEPOSITION I EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DIAGNOSE DATION OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND THE FAILURE OF STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP TO PUSH BACK AS FOREIGN AND CORRUPT INTERESTS APPARENTLY HIJACKED OUR UKRAINE POLICY.

I REMAINED DISAPPOINTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS HAVE DECLINED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ATTACKS AGAINST ME AND OTHERS ARE DANGEROUSLY WRONG.

THIS IS ABOUT FAR MORE THAN ME AND A COUPLE INDIVIDUALS.

AS FOREIGN SERVICE PROFESSIONALS ARE BEING DENIGRATED AND UNDER MINDS, THE INSTITUTION IS ALSO BAG DEGRADED.

THIS WILL SOON CAUSE REAL HARM IF IT HASN'T ALREADY.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS A TOOL OF FOREIGN POLICY OFTEN DOESN'T GET THE SAME KIND OF ATTENTION OR EVEN RESPECT AS THE MILITARY MIGHT AT THE PENTAGON BUT WE ARE AS THEY SAY THE POINTY END OF THE SPHERE.

IF WE LOSE OUR EDGE, THE U.S. WILL INEVITABLY HELP YOU USE OTHER TOOLS EVEN MORE THAN IT DOES TODAY.

THOSE OTHER TOOLS ARE BLUNTER, MORE EXPENSIVE AND NOT UNIVERSALLY RESPECTED.

MORE OVER ATTACK ARE LEADING TO A CRISES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS THE POLICY PROCESS IS VISIBLY UNRAVELING.

LEADERSHIP VACANCY IS GOING UNFILLED AND SENIOR AND MID LEVEL OFFICERS PONDER A UNCERTAIN FUTURE.

THE CRISES HAS MOVED FROM THE IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS TO IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTION ITSELF.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BEING HOLLOWED OUT FROM WITHIN AT A COMPETITIVE AND COMPLEX TIME ON THE WORLD STAGE.

THIS IS NOT A TIME TO UNDER CUT OUR DIPLOMATS.

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LEADERS TO STAND UP FOR THE INSTITUTION AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE THAT INSTITUTION STILL TODAY THE MOST EFFECTIVE DIPLOMATIC FORCE IN THE WORLD.

IN CONGRESS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REINVEST IN OUR DIPLOMACY.

THAT'S AN INVESTMENT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

IT'S AN INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE, IN OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE.

AS I CLOSE, LET ME BE CLEAR ON WHO WE ARE AND HOW WE SERVE THIS COUNTRY.

WE ARE PROFESSIONALS, WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO BY VOCATION AND TRAINING PURSUE THE POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF WHO HOLDS THAT OFFICE OR WHAT PARTY THEY AFFILIATE WITH.

WE HANDLE AMERICAN CITIZEN SERVICES, FACILITATE TRADE IN COMMERCE, WORK SECURITY ISSUES, REPRESENT THE U.S. AND REPORT TO AND ADVISE WASHINGTON AS A MENTION OF SOME OF OUR FUNCTIONS AND WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE EVERY DAY.

WE ARE PEOPLE WHO REPEATEDLY UPROOT OUR LIVES WHO RISK AND SOMETIMES GIVE OUR LIVES TO THIS COUNTRY.

WE ARE THE 52 AMERICANS WHO 40 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH BEGAN 444 DAYS OF DEPRIVATION, TORTURE AND CAPTIVITY IN TEHRAN.

WE ARE THE AMERICANS STATIONED IN OUR EMBASSIES IN CUBA AND CONFRIKS IN CHIE CHAW.

WE HAVE IN SOME DAYS DANGEROUSLY AND PERMANENTLY WERE INJURED AND ATTACKED FROM UNKNOWN FORCES SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND WE ARE -- >> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

THIS IS THE WELCOME THE MEMBERS.

SENIOR AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A BROAD RANGE OF COUNTRIES BETWEEN THEM THEY HAVE SEVERAL DECADES OF NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE SERVING BOTH REPUBLICAN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS AND AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM OTHER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS LIKE FORMER AMBASSADOR UKRAINE YOVANOVITCH FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT AMBASSADOR BILL FARRELL COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS THEIR ONLY PRIORITY HAS BEEN THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNDERSECRETARY IS WITNESS TO THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIA YOVANOVITCH AND THE EFFORTS BY SOME IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO HELP HER.

IN LATE MARCH, VIDEO VIRTUE REACHED OUT TO HALE FOR ASSISTANT TELLING HIM IN THE E-MAIL AT THE TEMPLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER CRITICISMS WERE SUCH THAT SHE FELT SHE COULD NO LONGER FUNCTION UNLESS THERE WAS A STRONG STATEMENT OF DEFENSE OF HER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

PUSH TOGETHER THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR DEFENSE AND PRAISE IN LATE APRIL WE HEARD THE RIFTING TESTIMONY LAST FRIDAY FROM THREE AMIGOS WERE NOMINALLY LED BY ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY IT WOULD BE AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PRESUMABLY WORKING WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WOULD BE THE ONES REALLY DOING THE CONTINUAL WORK HERE.

IN MID SUMMER TRUMP ORDERED SUSPENSION OF MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE DESPITE THE FACT THE AID HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND THAT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD CERTIFIED UKRAINE MET ALL THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS, RECEIVE THE AID INCLUDING ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORM.

THE AID WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CRITICAL TO UKRAINE'S SECURITY, THE COUNTRY THAT HAD BEEN INVADED BY RUSSIA.

FROM THE OFFICE IN THE PENTAGON MS. COOPER OVERSAW SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE FLOWING TO UKRAINE AND WAS INVOLVED IN EFFORTS TO UNDERSTAND AND REVERT THE SUSPENSION OF NEARLY 400 MILLION IN U.S. AID.

KOOMP ALONG WITH OTHERS LEARNED ABOUT THE FREEZE DURING A SERIES OF INNER AGENCY MEETINGS IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF JULY.

AT THE FIRST MEETING ON JULY 18TH AN OMB REPRESENTATIVE RELAYED THAT QUOTE THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF HAS CONVEYED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE AND UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNQUOTE AND THAT A HOLD HAD BEEN ORDERED BY THE PRESIDENT.

NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED.

ALL OF THE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE POLICY SUPPORTED SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND ADVOCATED FOR LIFTING OF THE HOLD.

THE ONLY DISSENTING VOICE WAS THE OFFICE ON OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WHICH WAS FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND STILL NO GOOD EXPLANATION OF THE HOLD WAS PROVIDED.

WHILE THE AID SUSPENSION HAD NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC WORD WAS GETTING OUT.

CATHARINE CROFT SPECIAL ADVISER FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS WERE CLOSE TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AT A DEPOSITION RECEIVED TWO SEPARATE CALLS IN JULY OR AUGUST FROM OFFICIALS AT THE UKRAINIAN EMBECAUSEY WHO QUOTE PREACHED ME QUIETLY AND IN CONFIDENCE TO ASK ME ABOUT AN OMB HOLD ON UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

CROFT WAS, QUOTE, VERY SURPRISED AT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MY UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT AS IF TO SAY THEY FOUND OUT VERY EARLY ON MUCH EARLIER THAN I EXPECTED THEM TO.

UKRAINE YOUNG WANTED ANSWERS THAT -- WANTED ANSWERS THAT THEY DID NOT GET A RESPONSE.

SHE MET WITH KIRK VOLKER WITH WHOM SHE MET TIMES IN THE PAST.

DURING THE MEETING THEY WERE DISCUSSING A HOLD VOLKER REVEALED HE WAS ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT TO UKRAINE ISSUE A STATEMENT THAT WOULD QUOTE COMMIT TO THE PROSECUTION OF ANY INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE UNQUOTE.

PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF VOLKER'S EFFORTS WERE SUCCESSFUL THE HOLE MIGHT BE LIFTED.

UNBEKNOWNST TO COOPER, NO SUCH STATEMENT WAS FORTHCOMING.

BUT THE AID WAS ABRUPTLY RESTORED ON SEPTEMBER 11, DAYS AFTER THE THREE COMMITTEES LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP UKRAINE SCHEME.

WITH THAT I'LL RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER.

>> THANK YOU.

AS WE REPUBLICANS HAVE ARGUED AT THESE HEARINGS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GETTING A SKEWED IMPRESSION OF THESE EVENTS.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ASSUME FULL AUTHORITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND THEY PROMPTLY REJECTED ANY NEW WITNESSES REPUBLICANS REQUESTED.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO DISCUSS A FEW OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN DEEMED UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HEAR.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS THE KEY FIGURE WHO STARTED THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT CHARADE BY SUBMITTING A COMPLAINT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT RELIED ON SECOND HAND AND THIRD HAND INFORMATION AND MEDIA REPORTS.

THIS BEGAN A BIZARRE SERIES OF EVENTS ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT HAD NO INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT WHATSOEVER.

THE INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY INSPECTOR GENERAL ACCEPTED IT AND EVEN CHANGED THE GUIDANCE ON THE COMPLAINT FORMS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR FIRST HAND INFORMATION.

THEN HIS OFFICE BACKDATED THE FORMS TO MAKE THEM APPEAR AS IF THEY WERE PUBLISHED A MONTH BEFORE.

DEMOCRATS THEN TOOK THE EXTREMELY RARE STEP OF PUSHING A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT INTO THE PUBLIC USING IT AS THE CENTER PIECE OF THEIR IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE.

WE LATER LEARNED THAT DEMOCRATIC STAFF HAD PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER OR THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES HAD DENIED IT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.

FOLLOWING THAT REVELATION, DEMOCRATS DID A DRAMATIC ABOUT FACE, SUDDENLY DROPPED THEIR INSISTENCE THAT THE WHISTLE PLORE TESTIFIED TO US AND REJECTED OUR REQUEST TO HEAR FROM HIM.

THEN IN THE HEARING YESTERDAY THE DEMOCRATS CUT OFF OUR QUESTIONS AND ACCUSED US TRYING TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

EVEN THOUGH THEY CLAIM THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO HE IS.

ALEXANDER CHALUPA WHO IS A FORMER OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WHO WORKED WITH OFFICIALS OF YEW CREPIAN -- UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON SMORD TO SMEAR THE CAMPAIGN OF 2016.

MET DIRECTLY ABOUT THESE MATTERS WITH THEN UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR CHALET WHO HIMSELF WROTE AN ARTICLE CRITICIZING TRUMP DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN.

HIS ACTIVITIES WERE ONE OF THE SEVERAL INDICATORS OF ELECTION UKRAINE MEDDLING IN 2016 ALL OF WHICH WERE AIMED AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WERE COOPERATING DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENTS TO UNDERMIND HIS POLITICAL CANDIDACY IT'S EASY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO LEARN THE FULL FRUIT ABOUT THESE OPERATIONS AND WHY HE WOULD BE SKEPTICAL OF UKRAINE.

HUNTER BIDEN, BIDEN IS ANOTHER WITNESS WHO THE DEMOCRATS ARE SPARING FROM CROSS EXAMINATION THE SECURING OF AN EXTREMELY WELL PAYING JOB ON THE BOARD OF A UKRAINIAN COMPANY BURISMA HIGHLIGHTS THE PRECISE CORRUPTION PROBLEM IN UKRAINE THAT CONCERNED NOT ONLY PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT ALL OF THE WITNESSES WE'VE INT INTERVIEWEDO FAR.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SUBMIT QUESTIONS ABOUT BIDEN'S ROLE AT BRIS MA AS CONSPIRACY THEORY YET THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HAVING EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMPANY.

IF WE COULD HEAR FROM BIDEN, WE COULD ASK HIM HOW HE GOT HIS POSITION, WHAT DID HE DO TO EARN HIS LAVISH SALARY AND WHAT LIFE COULD HE SHED ON CORRUPTION AT THIS NOTORIOUS COMPANY.

BIDEN WOULD MAKE AN INCONVENIENT WITNESS FOR THE DEMOCRATS SO THEY BLOCKED HIS TESTIMONY.

AT THESE HEARINGS, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF SECONDHAND, THIRD HAND INFORMATION AND SPECULATION ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENTIONS BUT IN THE END THE ONLY DIRECT ORDER WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT IS HIS ORDER TO OUR LAST WITNESS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT HE WANT NOTHING FROM UKRAINE.

THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED W BY SENATOR JOHNSON WHO SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP ANGRILY DENIED ACCOUNTS THAT A QUID PRO QUO EXISTED.

ASIDE FROM REJECTING OUR WITNESSES, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED OTHER PETTY TRICKS TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION.

JUST THIS MORNING THEY CALLED A BREAK IN THE HEARING IN ORDER TO PRESS THEIR ABSURD ARGUMENTS TO TV CAMERAS.

THEN FOR THIS HEARING, THEY CANCELED THE MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF INITIAL QUESTIONING THEY HAD EARLIER TODAY WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AS THEY HAD WITH ALL THE PREVIOUS WITNESSES.

DID DO THEY BESOLDERLY CONSIDER AS THEIR STAR -- BIZARREDLY CONSIDER AS THEIR STAR WITNESSES.

WITHOUT SMOKE AND MIRRORS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE CLEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SUBSEQUENT CULL ABOUT FOREIGN AID AND ESPECIALLY SUBSEQUENT CULL OF PROVIDING AID TO CENT COUNTRIES LIKE UKRAINE.

HE WANT TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION AGAINST HIS CAMPAIGN.

A BRIEF HOLD ON UKRAINIAN AID WAS LIFTED WITHOUT UKRAINE TAKING ANY STEPS THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY BEING BRIBED TO DO.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPEATED SAID THERE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH HIM AND HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE HOLD IN APRIL AT THE TIME HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY BEING EXTORTED WITH.

SO WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT FOR?

NONE OF US HERE REALLY KNOW BECAUSE THE ACCUSATIONS CHANGE BY THE HOUR.

ONCE AGAIN THIS IS IMPEACHMENT IN SEARCH OF A CRIME.

CHAIRMAN I WOULD URGE YOU TO BRING THIS TO A CLOSE, ADJOURN THIS HEARING AND MOVE ON AND GET BACK TO THE WORK OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR DAVID HALE AND MS. LAURA COOPER.

AMBASSADOR HALE SERVES UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC OF AFFAIRS A POSITION HE'S HELD SINCE AUGUST 30, 2018.

HE JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 198 AND HOLDS THE RANK OF CAREER AMBASSADOR.

HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS THE AMBASSADOR TO PAKISTAN, AMBASSADOR TO LEFT NON-SPECIAL ENVOY FOR MIDDLE EAST PIECE DEPUTY SPECIAL ENVOY AND AMBASSADOR TO JORDAN.

AMBASSADOR HALE ALSO SERVED AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO SECRETARY OF STATE ALL BRIGHT.

LAURA COOPER IS DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RUSSIA UKRAINE AND YOU'RE ASIA AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

SHE'S A CLEAR MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE SERVICE AND MS. COOPER PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS A PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR IN THE OFFICE OFFICE ASSISTANT CORRECT OF DEFENSE FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE AND GLOBAL SECURITY AFFAIRS.

PRIOR TO JOINING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN 2001 MS. COOPER WAS A POLICY PLANNING OFFICER IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN THE OFFICE OF KARYD NARRATOR OF COUNTERTERRORISM.

TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE OUR WITNESSES ARE SWORN.

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

ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY AND SECONDLY CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL THREAT OF REPRISAL OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE FOR ANY OFFICIAL TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS INCLUDING YOU AND ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.

WOULD YOU PLEASE 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 THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.

THE MICROPHONE IS SENSITIVE SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO IT.

WITHOUT OBJECTION YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

WITH THAT, AMBASSADOR HALE IF YOU HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, YOU'RE FREE TO GIVE THAT AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, MS. COOPER YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T HAVE A PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST COMMENT OF COURSE AS YOU SAID I'VE BEEN UNDERSECRETARY SINCE AUGUST OF 2018, A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR OVER 35 YEARS, AN AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES SERVING BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS PROUDLY AND I'M HERE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR SUBPOENA TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.

>> THANK YOU, UNDERSECRETARY.

MS. COOPER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER, MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.

I APPEAR HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE FACTS AND ANSWER QUESTIONS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AS THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RUSSIA, UKRAINE AND EURASIAN.

I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO DESCRIBE MY BACKGROUND AS WELL AS MY ROLE AND ADVANTAGE TUJ POINTS RELATIVE TO YOUR INQUIRY.

I BRING TO MY WORK MY SENSE TO DUTY U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY NOT TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY.

I HAVE PROUDLY SERVED TWO DEMOCRATIC AND TWO REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

I ENTERED GOVERNMENT SERVICE THROUGH THE PRESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INTERNSHIP COMPETITION JOINING THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN 1999 TO WORK ON COUNTERTERRORISM IN EUROPE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

INSPIRED BY WORKING WITH THE U.S. MILITARY ON A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ROTATIONAL ASSIGNMENT, I DECIDED TO ACCEPT A CIVIL SERVICE POSITION IN THE POLICY ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IN JANUARY 2001 WHERE I HAVE REMAINED FOR THE PAST 18 YEARS.

MY STRONG SENSE OF PRIDE IN SERVING MY COUNTRY AND DEDICATION TO MY PENTAGON COLLEAGUES WERE CEMENTED IN THE MOMENTS AFTER I FELT THE PENTAGON SHAKE BENEATH ME ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

MY OFFICE WAS SCHEDULED TO MOVE INTO THIS SECTION OF THE PENAL GUN THAT WAS DESTROYED IN THE ATTACK BUT A CONSTRUCTION DELAY MEANT WE WERE STILL AT OUR OLD DESKS IN THE ADJACENT SECTIONS ON THAT DEVASTATING DAY.

AFTER WE HAD WIPED THE BLACK DUST FROM OUR DESKS AND TRIED TO GET BACK TO WORK, I FOUND MEANING BY VOLUNTEER IS TO WORK ON AFGHANISTAN POLICY AND WOULD GIVE MY NEXT FOUR YEARS TO THIS MISSION.

I LATER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE INTO THE LEADERSHIP RANKS OF MY ORACLION AND HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO MANAGE ISSUES RANGING FROM DEFENSE STRATEGIC PLANNING TO HOMELAND DEFENSE AND MISSION ASSURANCE.

I ACCEPTED THE POSITION OF PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA, UKRAINE AND EURASAIA AND TO BE HONORED TO BE APPOINTED TO THE POSTION OF SECRETARY TO DEMONSTRATE SEE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IN 2018.

IN MY ROLE I WORKED TO ADVANCE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY WITH A FOCUS ON DETERRING RUSSIAN AGGRESSIONS AND BUILDING STRONG PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE FRONT LINE STATES OF UKRAINE AND GEORGIA AS WELL AS TEN OTHER ALLIES AND PART ENCOMPASSES FROM THE BALANCE CANS TO THE CAUCUSES.

STRENGTHENING UKRAINE'S CAPACITY TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IS SPHRAL TO MY TEAM'S -- CENTRAL TO MY TEAM'S MISSION.

THE UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES PROVIDE UKRAINE WITH SECURITY ASSISTANCE BECAUSE IT IS IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS TO DETER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AROUND THE WORLD.

WE ALSO PROVIDE SECURITY ASSISTANCE SO THAT UKRAINE CAN NEGOTIATOR A PEACE WITH RUSSIA FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH.

THE HUMAN TOLL CONTINUES TO CLIMB IN THIS ONGOING WAR.

WITH 14,000 UKRAINIAN LIVES LOST SINCE RUSSIA'S 2014 INVASION.

THESE SACRIFICES ARE CONTINUALLY IN MY MIND AS I LEAD DOD EFFORTS TO PROVIDE VITAL TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT INCLUDING DEFENSIVE LETHAL ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES.

I HAVE ALSO SUPPORTED A ROBUST UKRAINIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE PROGRAM OF DEFENSE REFORM TO ENSURE THE LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF U.S. INVESTMENTS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY FROM A SOVIET MODEL TO A NATO INTEROPERABLE FORCE.

THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO CERTIFY DEFENSE REFORM PROGRESS TO RELEASE HALF OF THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE OR USAI ON A PROVISION WE FIND VERY HELPFUL.

BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ME AND OTHER KEY DOD ADVISORS, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE CERTIFIED IN MAY 2019, THAT THAT UKRAINE HAD "TAKEN SUBSTANTIAL ACTIONS TO MAKE DEFENSE INSTITUTIONAL REFORM FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECREASING CORRUPTION, INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUSTAINING IMPROVEMENTS OF COMBAT CAPABILITY."

MERITING OBLIGATION OF THE ENTIRE 250 MILLION IN USAI FUND.

THIS BRINGS ME TO THE TOPIC OF TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

I WOULD LIKE TO RECAP MY RECOLLECTION OF THE TIMELINE IN WHICH THIS PLAYED OUT.

I TESTIFIED AT LENGTH OF THIS IN MY DEPOSITION.

IN JULY I BECAME AWARE OF A HOLD ON FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING, AND DOD'S USAI FUND.

IN A SERIES OF MEETINGS I HEARD THE PRESIDENT HAD DIRECTED THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO HOLD THE FUNDS BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

LET ME SAY AT THE OUTSET THAT I HAVE NEVER DISCUSSED THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER WITH THE PRESIDENT AND NEVER HEARD DIRECTLY FROM HIM ABOUT THIS MATTER.

AT A SENIOR LEVEL MEETING I ATTENDED ON JULY 26, CHAIRED BY NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP, AS ALL OTHER INNER AGENCY MEETINGS I WAS AWARE.

THEY EXPRESSED UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR RESUMEING THE FUNDING IN THE U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS.

AT THE JULY 26 MEETINGS THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF HOW THE UKRANIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS WERE MAKING PROGRESS.

DOD REITERATED WHAT HE HAD SAID EARLIER IN CONGRESS, MEANING THAT PROGRESS IN REFORM INCLUDING ANTI-CORRUPTION HAD OCCURRED TO JUSTIFY THE USAI SPENDING.

I AND OTHERS AT THE INTER AGENCY MEETING FELT THE MEETING WAS URGENT.

BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME TO OBLIGATE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE MONEY WAS LEGALLY OBLIGATED BY SEPTEMBER 30th AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

THE HOLD WAS RELEASED SEPTEMBER 11th.

I PURSUED THREE TRACKS.

FIRST, STARTING ON JULY TLORNst AT AN INTER AGENCY MEETING I MADE CLEAR TO LEADERSHIP THAT ONCE DOD REACHES THE POINT IT DOESN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO OBLIGATE ALL THE FUNDING BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR THERE WERE ONLY TWO WAYS TO DISCONTINUE OBLIGATION OF USAI.

A PRESIDENT DIRECTED DECISION OR A DOD REDIRECTING PROGRAMMING ACTION, EITHER OF WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE NOTIFIED TO CONGRESS.

I NEVER HEARD THAT EITHER WAS BEING PURSUED.

SECOND, I WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE DOD SECURITY ASSISTANCE IMPLEMENTING COMMUNICATE TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHEN THEY REACH THE POINT THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO OBLIGATE ALL THE FUNDS BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

I RECEIVED A SERIES OF UPDATES, AND IN A SEPTEMBER 5th UPDATE I AND OTHER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT LEADERS WERE INFORMED THAT OVER A HUNDRED MILLION COULD NOT BE OBLIGATED BY SEPTEMBER 30th.

THIRD, I WAS ADVOCATING FOR CABINET LEVELS WITH THE PRESIDENT TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSISTANCE SHOULD GO FORWARD.

I HEARD A DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESIDENT, BUT I NEVER RECEIVED DETAILS ABOUT ANY CONVERSATIONS OTHER THAN A STATUS UPDATE THAT THE HOLDS HAD NOT BEEN LIFTED.

AFTER THE DECISION TO RELEASE THE FUNDS ON SEPTEMBER 11th OF THIS YEAR, MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE DOD SECURITY ASSISTANCE ENTERPRISE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO BE ABLE TO ULTIMATELY OBLIGATE ABOUT 86% OF THE FUNDING BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

MORE THAN THEY HAD ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO.

DO AN A PROVISION, AN AMOUNT LEGAL TO THE UNOBLIGATED FUND, ATHEY WILL BE ABLE TO ROBIGATE ALL OF THE USAI FUND.

GIVEN HOW CRITICAL THESE FUNDS ARE FOR DETERING RUSSIA, I APPRECIATE THIS CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.

THAT CONCLUDES MY OPENING STATEMENT, BUT BEFORE ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS, THERE IS ONE OTHER MATTER I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS.

I TESTIFIED IN A DEPOSITION BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHER COMMITTEES ON OCTOBER 23rd, 2019.

AT THAT TIME I WAS ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT I KNEW ABOUT WHEN THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE LEARNED ABOUT ANY HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS.

I ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE AT THAT TIME.

SINCE MY DEPOSITION, I HAVE AGAIN REVIEWED MY CALENDAR, AND THE ONLY MEETING WHERE I RECALL AN UKRANIAN OFFICIAL RAISING THE ISSUE WITH ME IS ON SEPTEMBER 5th AT THE UKRANIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION.

I HAVE, HOWEVER, SINCE LEARNED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SUBJECT FROM MY STAFF.

PRIOR TO MY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, I AVOIDED DISCUSSING MY TESTIMONY WITH MEMBERS OF MY STAFF OR ANYONE OTHER THAN MY ATTORNEY TO ENSURE THAT MY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WAS BASED ONLY ON MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

MY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED ON NOF 11th, 2019.

MEMBERS OF MY STAFF READ THE TESTIMONY AND HAVE COME TO ME SINCE THEN AND PROVIDEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

SPECIFICALLY ON THE UKRANIAN KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLD WERE THE UKRANIANS ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FLOW OF ASSISTANCE?

MY STAFF SHOWED ME TWO E-MAILS THEY RECEIVED FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

ONE WAS RECEIVED ON JULY 25th AT 2:31 P.M. THAT E-MAIL SAID THAT THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY AND HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ARE ASKING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE SECOND E-MAIL WAS RECEIVED ON JULY 25th AT 4:25 P.M. THAT E-MAIL SAID THAT THE HILL KNOWS ABOUT THE SITUATION TO AN EXTENT, AND SO DOES THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY.

I DID NOT RECEIVE EITHER OF THESE E-MAILS, MY STAFF DID NOT RECALL INFORMING ME ABOUT THEM, ANDIVE DO NOT RECALL BEING MADE AWARE OF THEIR CONTENT AT THE TIME.

I DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT PRECISELY WHAT THE UKRANIANS MAY HAVE SAID OR THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION ON A HOLD OR THE FLOW OF ASSISTANCE OR WHAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MAY HAVE TOLD THEM.

MY STAFF ALSO ADVISED ME OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL FACTS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS INQUIRY.

AGAIN, MY STAFF DOES NOT RECALL INFORMING ME ABOUT THEM, AND I DO NOT RECALL BEING MADE AWARE OF THIS.

ON JULY 3rdçççççççççç RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT STATING THAT THEY HAD HEARD THAT THE CN IS CURRENTLY BLOCKED BY OMB.

THIS REFERS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION FOR UKRAINE SMS.

I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS.

ON JULY 25th, A MEMBER OF MY STAFF GOT A QUESTION FROM AN UKRAINE EMBASSY CONTACT ASKING WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AT THAT TIME, WE DIDN'T KNOW THE GUIDANCE ON USAI, AND THE NOTICE OF THE OMB APPORTIONATE ARRIVED THAT DAY, BUT STAFF DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT IT UNTIL LATER.

I WAS INFORMED THE STAFF MEMBER TOLD THE UKRANIAN OFFICIAL WE WERE MOVING FORWARD ON USAI, BUT RECOMMENDED THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY CHECK IN.

>> SOMETIME ON AUGUST 10, AN USAI OFFICER MEMBER TOLD A MEMBER OF MY STAFF THAT AN UKRANIAN OFFICIAL MIGHT RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN AN UPCOMING MEETING.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT IN FACT RAISED.

I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT CONCERNS ABOUT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN UKRAINE AT AT THAT TIME.

MY STAFF ASSISTANCE RECALLED A WITHHOLD ON ASSISTANCE IN AUGUST, BUT CAN'T PINPOINT CONVERSATIONS WHERE IT CAME UP.

MY STAFF TOLD ME THEY'RE AWARE OF ADDITIONAL MEETINGS WHERE THEY SAW OFFICIALS IN THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY IN AUGUST, AND THEY BELIEVE THE QUESTION OF THE HOLD CAME UP AT SOME POINT, BUT TOLD ME THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY CORRESPONDING E-MAIL OR RECORDS OF THOSE MEETINGS.

CONSEQUENTLY THEY NOR I KNOW ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS MAY HAVE OCCURRED WITH THE UKRANIANS DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST.

IF I HAD MORE DETAILS ON THESE MATTERS I WOULD OFFER THEM TO THE COMMITTEE, BUT THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I HAVE RECEIVED SINCE MY DEPOSITION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS.

I WILL ANSWER THEM TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

FOR THIS HEARING WE WILL FOREGO THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS BY COUNSEL AND PROCEED TO MEMBER QUESTIONS UNDER FIVE MINUTE RULES.

I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS OF MY RANKING MEMBER.

HOWEVER, I THINK THEY SUGGESTED THIS WAS A SURPRISE FOR THE MINORITY.

WE INFORMED THE MINORITY LAST NIGHT AFTER OUR HEARING THAT WE WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE TESTIMONY TODAY, WE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT A STAFF MEMBER AROUND WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND THE MESSAGE WE GOT BACK FROM THE MINORITY WAS OKAY, THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP.

SO THE MINORITY RAISED NO OBJECTION ABOUT GOING DIRECTLY TO MEMBER ROUNDS.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT MINORITY DECIDED WE HAVE NOT CALLED MINORITY WITNESSES.

THEY HAD NOT ACCURATE.

MR. HALE APPEARS TONIGHT AS A MINORITY WITNESS.

I KNOW THAT'S NOT HOW YOU CHARACTERIZE YOURSELF, BUT IT WAS QUESTIONED BY THE MINORITY, AND LIKEWISE TWO OF THE WITNESSES YESTERDAY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AS WELL AS MR. MORRISON WERE BOTH MINORITY REQUESTED WITNESSES.

NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN, AND IN RETROSPECT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA WAS REALLY AN INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN WHICH HE ACKNOWLEDGED WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.

AND MR. MORRISON GAVE TESTIMONY AS TO CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD RELAYED TO THE UKRANIANS WITH THE HOLD BEING A RESULT OF BEING ABLE TO SECURE THE INVESTIGATION.

I UNDERSTAND WHY THE MINORITY DOES NOT WANT TO CHARACTERIZE THEM AS MINORITY REQUESTED WITNESSES.

BUT NONETHELESS THEY WERE MINORITY REQUESTED WITNESSES.

I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I WANT TO BEGIN BY ASKING YOU, MS. COOPER, AND UNDERSTAND THE IMPORT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AS EARLY AS JULY 25th OF THE SAME DAY PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PHONE THE SAME DAY THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKED THE UNITED STATES FOR MILITARY SUPPORT AND SIGNALED IT WAS READY TO PURCHASE FOR JAVELINS ON THAT DATE, YOU GOT INQUIRIES, OR STAFF GOT INQUIRIES FROM SOMEBODY AT THE EMBASSY CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

I WOULD SAY THAT SPECIFICALLY THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY ASKED WHAT IS GOING ON WITH UKRANIAN SECURITY.

>> DOES THAT CONNOTE TO YOU SOMETHING WAS GOING ON WITH IT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> I GUESS YOUR STAFF RECEIVED MORE THAN ONE INQUIRY ON THAT DATE.

BUT THE NATURE OF THE OTHER INQUIRY ON JULY 25th.

>> THAT WAS THE INQUIRY TO MY STAFF, BUT THE OTHER POINTS THAT I RAISED WERE E-MAILS REFLECTING OUTREACH TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> SO THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY WAS CONTACTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO FIND OUT ABOUT ITS PORTION OF THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND WAS THAT SIMILARLY A CONCERN ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH OUR MILITARY AID?

>> IT WAS SIMILARLY A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> AND YOUR STAFF OR ONE OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENT STAFF ALSO HEARD IN AUGUST, ADDITIONAL INQUIRIES FROM THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY ABOUT HOLD UP IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE?

>> SIR, I WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW I PHRASE THIS.

MY STAFF RECALL HAVING HAD MEETINGS WITH UKRANIAN EMBASSY REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT THE TOPIC CAME UP AT SOME POINT DURING THOSE MEETINGS, BUT DON'T RECALL THE PRECISE DATE OR SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE NATURE OF THE DISCUSSION WAS.

>> BUT YOUR STAFF AT LEAST GLEANED FROM CONVERSATIONS THAT THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY WAS AWARE THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A HOLD ON THE ASSISTANCE?

>> THE WAY I WOULD PHRASE IT WAS THERE WAS SOME KIND OF AN ISSUE.

YES.

>> MS. COOPER, YOU ARE THE THIRD WITNESS FOR OUR COMMITTEE THAT THE UKRANIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT THE PROBLEM OR THE HOLD PRIOR TO IT BECOMING PUBLIC.

YOU'RE THE FIRST TO INDICATE THAT MAY GO BACK AT EARLY AS THE PRESIDENT'S CALL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

LET ME MOVE TO RELATED ISSUES.

IN AUGUST, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU MET WITH CURT CURT, I BELIEVE AUGUST 20th.

THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS STILL IN PLACE.

YOU TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER TOLD YOU IF HE COULD GET ZELENSKY TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT WOULD SOMEHOW DISAVOW INTERFERENCE IN U.S.

ELECTIONS AND THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE ELECTION'S INTERFERENCE.

IT MIGHT LIFT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> SIR, I BELIEVE THAT I TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS MY INFERENCE THAT THAT WOULD LIFT THE HOLD ON UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> AND THAT WAS YOUR INFERENCE BECAUSE AT THE TIME YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE FIRST PART OF OUR CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

>> AND IT WAS DURING THAT PORTION OF THE CONVERSATION THAT HE BROUGHT UP THE EFFORT TO GET THIS PUBLIC STATEMENT?

>> IT WAS DURING THAT CONVERSATION.

I'M NOT SURE I WOULD SAY IT'S DURING THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> WHAT ELSE DID YOU DISCUSS?

>> ONLY TWO TOPICS I RECALL ARE THE URGENCY OF LIFTING THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, AND THEN RELAYING THIS EFFORT TO -- DIPLOMATIC EFFORT I HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN UNAWARE OF.

>> YOU DIDN'T HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING?

>> I DON'T RECALL TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, BUT I'VE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE DESIRE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND IT WAS LIKELY THAT WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> BUT THE TWO THINGS YOU DO RECALL, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND HE BROUGHT UP A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT HE WANTED ZELENSKY TO GIVE, THAT HE THOUGHT MIGHT BE USEFUL?

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.

>> MR. NUNES?

YIELD TO MR. RATCLIFF.

>> AMBASSADOR HALE, AND MS. COOPER THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

IN THE OPENING REFERENCE, THE SKEPTICISM OF PRESIDENT TRUMP PROVIDEING AID, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION, AMBASSADOR HALE?

>> WE'VE OFTEN HEARD AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IS REVIEWED SCUPULOUSLY TO MAKE SURE IT'S TRULY IN THE NATIONAL ASSISTANCE, AND MEETING THE CRITERIA THAT THE PRESIDENT ESTABLISHED.

>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT HAS LOOKED TO OVERHAUL HOW FOREIGN AID IS DISTRIBUTED?

>> YES, THE NSC FOREIGN AID REVIEW PROCESS, SOMETIME I THINK LATE AUGUST, 2018, AND THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN THE ADMINISTRATION AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO REFRAME ECONOMIC POLICY IN TERM DESCRIBING THE AMERICA FIRST POLICY, AND CONSISTENT WITH THAT WELL BEFORE THERE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER TALKING ABOUT A PAUSE ON THE UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED GENUINE CONCERN ABOUT PROVIDEING U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

TO THAT POINT, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO ENSHURP AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONEY WAS USED EFFECTIVELY OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> >> YES, THAT IS THE BROAD