will certainly be responsive to 'd requests so in the present on the call transcript the july 25th raises this with president's lansky a he urges that there be a connection between. the ukrainian government and the justice department officially i mean that's the appropriate way to raise an issue with the ukrainian president correct it's appropriate for the justice department and the prosecutor general to cooperate and exchange information but to the extent the president has concerns and to the extent the attorney general is is having here's a tourney to look into that isn't it entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for president's lenski and say you should be in touch with our official channels. i don't know the precise. appropriateness of these kind of violations now were you involved either of you involved with the preparation for the 725 call i was not i was not and how do you account for that when

you're the you are the 2 of the key officials with responsibility for ukrainian policy. i mean if the president of states is going to have a call with the leader of ukraine why what why wouldn't you ordinarily be involved with preparation sir we work for the department of state in an embassy overseas and in preparation for a presidential phone call that responsibility lies with and staff of the national security council normally if there is enough sufficient time national security staff can solicit information usually from the state department we can draw in the embassy but that's only background information and my understanding having never worked at the national security council is that national security staff write a memo to the president and none of us see that outside of the national security staff ok so the the the charge a or the the u.s. ambassador to the country wouldn't ordinarily be on a call with a foreign leader. that's correct would not. and did colonel the men or anyone of

the national security council staff reach out to you mr kent in preparation for the call. was given notification the day before on july 24th and to the extent i had any role it was to reach out to the embassy give them the heads up and ask them to ensure that this secure communications link in the office the president of ukraine was functional so the call could be patched through from the white house situation room that you're providing any substantive advice to colonel than men about about the call and what ought to be the the official position i was not asked and i did not provide ok same with you about that or the same and the call was scheduled you know you testified earlier that the call was on again off again and after the july 10th meeting with ambassador bolton the consensus was the call was not going to happen is that correct i would not say that

was a consensus the state department's position was that a call between the 2 presidents would be useful and once party won the 1st ever absolute majority in parliamentary elections on july 21st the idea of a congratulatory call made eminent sense from our perspective ok and the call was scheduled. and did you get a readout ambassador taylor initially from the call. i didn't discuss or. read the we all read the statement that the ukrainians put out. i got a readout several days later from mr morris and national security council ok and are you mr kent. i likewise 1st saw the ukrainian statement and i believe the next day july 26th which would have been a friday i did get a partial readout from lieutenant colonel than me yes i'm a messenger use of it do you train to read i was cryptic is that just because it's

initially written in ukrainian and translated to the us. no it's as a general rule both united states and other countries including ukraine will put out very short summaries that kind of hit the highlights of the discussion but without going into detail ok and you mentioned it was cryptic why did you think it was cryptic. knowing now what you know having read the transcript and looking back at their summary as i recall i don't recall the exact words but if they'd said that there were. issues to be pursued in order to improve relations between the 2 countries or something like that it seems pretty ordinary it seems very ordinary your president alinsky very next day we were we had a meeting with him the very next day and to present to one ski raise any concerns

about his views of the call he said. so right so. that's a vulgar bustle and we're in his office and we asked him i think how the call he said call was fine i was happy with the call ok and digital era dish no readout subsequently a call like when did you 1st learn that the. the call contained things that concerned you. was it not until september 25th. mr. morrison the say brief me several days 'd later. before the end of july and he i think is where i said in my testimony that he said it could have gone better and he said it meant that the call mention mr giuliani

he also said that the call mention the former ambassador the both of those were concerning giuliani was 1st raised on a call by president's lenski correct i don't recall if it could have been well i have i have it here if you'd like it's on page. 30 of age 3 the 1st mention giuliani is from presidents alinsky it's on page 3. and president selenski says i will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with mr giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that mr giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine and we will meet once he comes to ukraine if it surprise you again i didn't have the transcript of the time all i heard was that the giuliani was mentioned by mr morris and said that july was mentioned in the in the call but the ways alinsky states it here it sounds like he is very much looking forward to

speaking with america's mayor. that's what i found out when i read the transcript on the 25th of september so ok now. mr kent corruption in ukraine's endemic correct that's correct and it affects. the courts the prosecutors and there are historically been problems with. all the prosecutors in ukraine correct. i would say up until the new set of prosecutors appointed by president selenski in the last 2 months correct ok and so the the u.s. government the consensus opens the state department and the national security council and the white house is that so once he's the real deal he's a real reformer he's genuinely interested in rooting out corruption prosecuting the bad guys correct i would say we are cautiously optimistic and we will work wherever there is the political will to do the right thing in of but forward to genuine

reform and at the heart of the corruption is this oligarchy are like garko system corrects where where the oligarchy take control by a virtual faffed of. you know for example the right to certain energy licenses correct that is one element yes or and the company. its leader so cesky he has a little bit of a storied history of corruption doesn't it mr he was minister of energy from 201-2012 under the pro russian government and he used his regulatory authority to award gas exploration licenses to companies that he himself controlled that would be considered an act of corruption in my view yes certainly self dealing certainly self dealing and self enriching and how did the ukrainian government ultimately pursue that. in the spring of 2014 the ukrainian government the new government

after the revolution the dignity turned to partners particularly the u.s. and the u.k. to try to recover tens of billions of dollars of stolen assets the 1st case that we tried to recover that money came from mr ski serious crimes office in the u.k. it already opened up an investigation they worked with us and the ukrainian authorities developed more information the 23000000 dollars was frozen until somebody in the general prosecutor's office of ukraine shut the case issued a letter to his lawyer and that money went poof essentially paid a bribe to make the case go away that is our strong assumption yes or ok now at any point time is as any anyone in the ukrainian government tried to reinvestigate that or did that did those crimes just go unpunished and was he free to go. mr he spent time as far as i understand in moscow in monaco after he fled ukraine we continued to raise as a point of order that because u.s.

taxpayer dollars had been used to try to recover frozen assets that we have a few do serious sponsibility and we continued to press ukrainian officials to answer for why alleged corrupt prosecutors had closed a case. and we have till now not gotten a satisfactory answer so to summarize we thought the muckle is look just good stolen money we thought a prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case and those were our main concerns and are you in favor of that matter being. fully investigated and prosecuted i think since u.s. taxpayer dollars are wasted i would love to see the ukrainian prosecutor general's office find who with the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe and how much i was paid and that's what i said to the deputy prosecutor general on february 3rd 2015 but in addition to prosecuting the person that took the bribes shouldn't be organization or individual that sponsored the bribes be prosecuted i would agree

that the ukrainian law for authority should uphold the rule of law and hold people count for breaking ukrainian law so is this company volved lots of lots of criminal activity correct i do not know that but it over the years it's been involved in in a number of questionable bionics for ect i would say that it's the largest private gas producer in the country and its business reputation is mixed. so to the extent that a new regime is coming in under president selenski it certainly would be fair for the new prosecutor a genuine prosecutor to reexamine old crimes that hadn't sufficiently been brought to justice right i believe that the new prosecutor general roussillon made a statement to that and that they would be reviewing past cases but keep in mind this is a country where those that commit crimes generally never get held to account so

there's a lot to review ok now this. the bribe was paid and what you're the best of my knowledge the case against the former minister was shut down december 24th team ok and right around that time barisan is starts adding officials to its board is that correct. there standing is yes that ski invited a series of new individuals to join the board in 2014 and you know what his strategy was in adding officials to his board i have never met mr ok and who are some of the folks he added to the board the most prominent person he had to the board was the former president of poland alexander question of ski and anyone else there were a number of others including some americans and the most prominent one in this context is 100 biden ok so 100 biden's added to the board abridgement how do you think that creates a problem that there is my maybe adding people to it for for protection purposes.

sir i work for the government i don't work in the corporate sector and so i believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons not only to promote their business plans was was 100 biden a corporate governance expert i have no idea what 100 biden studied at university or what his c.v. says my guess is he the jeffrey sonnenfeld of the ukraine i have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was and what he may have done on the border and so you don't know whether he has any business experience in ukraine prior to joining brazil's board i've heard nothing about prior experience now and you know if he speaks ukrainian i do not you know if he possesses any other element other than the fact that he is the son of at the time the sitting vice president i do not ok and besser taylor do you know whether 100 biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad's a former vice president. don't want the time was the vice president i have no

knowledge of. but you would agree raises questions right he was getting bait i think $50000.00 a month to to sit on the board do you know if he really took you to dicker ukraine so mr doesn't say again you know a 100 biden relocated to the ukraine no knowledge you know mr cat. again no knowledge ok so he is getting paid $50000.00 a month but we don't know whether he had any experience he had any. he spoke the language or whether he moved to ukraine correct correct now at this time vice president biden was taking a specific interest in ukraine wasn't he was and could you tell us about that i believe while he was vice president he made a total of 6 visits to ukraine 1 may have been during the old regime you had a covert shin that would make 5 visits after the revolution of dignity which started february 24th ok and you were the d.c.m. the deputy chief of mission at this time at the time starting in 2015 yes and vice

president biden come when you were when you were posts he did not i came back for ukrainian language training and so i missed several visits now you've seen vice president biden. is he sort of given a. speech he's. a little folksy about how he went into ukraine and he told the ukrainians that if they don't fire the prosecutor they're going to lose their $1000000000.00 in loan guarantees you've seen that correct i have i think it was a speech at the council of foreign relations in january 20th right and you also said that he's been there you know ukraine 13 times do you know if that's accurate the best of my knowledge when he was vice president he made 6 visits and did the state department ever express any concerns to the vice president's office the vice president's role at the time in gauging on ukraine presented any issues no the vice president's role was critically important it was top cover to help us pursue

our policy agenda ok but. given 100 biden's role and persons board of directors at some point you testified your deposition that you expressed some concern to the vice president's office is that correct that is correct and what did they do about that concern that you expressed i have no idea i reported my concern to the office of the vice president ok and that was the end of it nobody. you would have to ask people who work in the office the vice president during 2015 but after you expressed that concern of a perceived conflict of interest at least. the vice president's engagement in ukraine didn't decrease did it grech because the vice president was promoting u.s. policy objectives in ukraine and 100 biden's role on the board of barisan i didn't see the state it to the best of my knowledge it didn't and my concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest now ambassador taylor i want to turn to the

discussion of the irregular channel you describe in in fairness this is this your regular channel of diplomacy. it's not as outlandish as it could be is that correct it's not as outlandish as it could be. ok we have ambassador volcker who's a former senate confirmed bassett or nato a long time state department diplomat and you've known ambassador volcker for years correct that's correct a man of unquestioned integrity correct that's correct and somebody with incredible knowledge of the region with very good knowledge of the region and the best interests of the united states i'm sure that's right and the best interests of ukraine. it's 1st priority is clearly the united states ok and to the extent that ukraine has an implication. for that yes ok great as well and the 2nd

member of the regular channel is ambassador silent who is senate confirmed basser to the e.u. . so hit his involvement here while. you know not necessarily part of his official duties as the ambassador to the e.u. is certainly is not outlandish for him to be interested in engaged pursuant to the president or secretary pompous direction correct it's a little unusual for 'd the us ambassador to the e.u. to play a role in ukraine policy ok and you know my dear regular but it's certainly not outlandish and then secretary perry is the 3rd member of the irregular channel. certainly a. you know senate confirmed official somebody with deep experience in energy markets and he was pursuing some you know liquefied national natural gas

projects in ukraine that's correct risk us and so his involvement secretary perry's involvements perfectly acceptable it is ok now this this is your regular channel as it developed when did you determine that it became problematic and in your opening statement and then if i'd yourself appropriately is the the the leader of the regular channel at least a participant though there's another leader of the of the regular channel so when did you 1st of all have concerns that the irregular channel was was being problematic so i arrived in and gave in mid september by late september a couple of phone calls. with. here i think even june right june started as of this writing june 17th admitted use of to thank you. and so by the

end of june. i had begun to hear references to investigations. as is something that would have to happen prior to the meeting that the president trumpet offered to as influenced ok and that began to raise questions for me ok now you've known about it or volcker and you've certainly have a reason the no ambassadors on what did you do at this point or did you ever try to wrest control of the irregular channel i didn't try to wrest control of the irregular channel a do that at the time when i vote were not why not though if you had if you had just concern because it's got to at the time as as. better to know the reasons are very canned. yes but both channels both of those

both channels were interested in having a meeting between president dillon skin president trump so we're there's no reason to kind of wrest control if we're going in the same direction but at some point you you develop concerns i mean your opening statement is is here i mean you're the impeachment witness number one and your number 2 mr kent you know for the for the case impeaching the president united states because of the concerns you've testified about the irregular channel correct i was concerned when the irregular channel appeared to be going against the overall. the irregular general going against the overall 'd direction of and purpose of the regular channels and as i understand the record however you when you arrived in ukraine you had the support of the secretary and the secretary's top advisor casler alric brecht you are correct that is correct and they they are sure that if you had any concerns you

would be able to contact them and they would have your back that was done is correct and you knew going in that the regional ianni element presented some complexities correct i was concerned about rudy giuliani's. statements and involvement in the ukraine polls yes ok so when it genuinely became you know a concern for you what did you do to either engage sunline invoker and perry giuliani by the way have you ever met rudy giuliani in these during these times relevant not during the times relevant he visited mr giuliani visited ukraine one time when i was there i think in 2007 or 8 ok that's the only time i've met him ok so you've never had any any communications with rudy giuliani as part of these irregular channel business that's correct that's correct ok.

and anyway getting back to mike my question did you try to engage a brick buel or the secretary i mean you know during his time here i know you said that you you had i believe in august 21st or 22nd telephone call with bret buel you have a july 10th telephone call with direct people and then you sent a 1st person table to the secretary on august 29th. that's correct is that is that sort of the universe of initiatives you took inside the state department to raise your concerns about the irregular channel i also raised my concerned with deposition secretary george kent. in particular early on when there i think i may have mentioned this phone call that that was in that it did not include the normal staff indeed professor sol and staff. and that struck me

is unusual i consulted with with mr kent. and at his suggestion made a note of this and also had i think at that point i had a conversation with mr breckon the there was a june 28th call i was correct and your opening statement you expressed some concerns about what vassar sonnet said but then once and once he got on the phone it proceeded very very regular channel way correct that's correct ok so the june 28th called least in and of itself didn't ultimately as it played out present any problems for you the call with president alinsky did not the preparation for that call the preparation included maybe 15 minutes of just the united yes the americans that would stay on the call and that big again that was a little irregular in that it didn't have the staff was also in that and that pre

call and that 15 minutes before president zelinsky got on the phone where abouts or volcker. told the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation with presidents alinsky 'd in toronto in 3 days or days. where he would. outline for present linsky the the 'd important components of the phone call that we were trying to establish ok and you didn't have any issue with that. the only issue i had with that mr custer was. there was reference. to investigations in i believe that's evolved to check my notes on that but that there was over raised issues for me that i didn't understand what about the revoke i had in mind that he was

specifically going to raise with mrs alinsky but that was a little bit of a concern ok. and the president's express is you know interest in certain investigations is certainly relating to the 26000 election and relating to even this corrupt. outfit so that was inconsistent with the president's message right. i'm not sure i'm sketchy maybe i can ask you to repeat the question the the president's concerns about the 26000 election and need to get to the bottom of it and the the president's concerns is that ultimately related to the the barisan a company i mean if embassador volcker is raising that with. celyn ski that that's consistent with the direction of the president correct the the president's interest or i would say mr giuliani's interest because that's what

we were that's what was very clear at the time mr giuliani's interest in pursuing these investigations. was of what was of concern but. by the way do you know how many times volcker met with giuliani i don't how many would you guess is it was he talking to him all the time or meeting with him all the time scales or i don't know ok from his did you notice deposition he told us what just wants and you know he texted back and forth with. with the mayor and had a call or 2 but it was in a perv a sort of engagement for investor volcker are you aware of that i was not aware i was aware of one breakfast i think that that's still a lot of world and mr kent before my time expires i want to circle back to. the company embarrassment and you testified to your deposition that there was an instance where u.s. and id had engaged with terrorism and possibly sponsoring

a program and you took issue with that and recommended usa id to pull back from that could you tell us about that so i became aware in the summer i believe 2016 that is a part of what i think recall was a clean energy awareness campaign part of the usa the mission that worked on economics and governance including energy had sponsored a some sort of contest for young ukrainians to come up with a theme and there was a prize i believe it may have been a camera and they'd co-sponsor it in with public private partnership being a buzz word. having a co-sponsorship with tourism a. given the past history of our interest in recovering stolen assets from zillah cesky it was my view that it was inappropriate for the embassy to be co-sponsoring a contest with brás ma i raised that with the mission director at the embassy she

agreed and the usa the mission. kept the contest but dropped the public private partnership sponsorship. the time of the german is expired i will now move to 5 minute member rounds i recognize myself for 5 minutes mr kent i want to follow up on my colleague's questions regarding. you testified about a time when. in all agog names the cesky i think it was was self dealing or to himself contracts when was that the best of my knowledge he was a minister of energy sorry minister of ecology under president jenna covert from 2010 to 2012 and at the time licenses to have substrata exploration of gas were awarded by a subdivision of the ministry of ecology so this corrupt self dealing and was

actually 70 years at least 7 years before the events that bring us here today the phone call on the 25th and surround it correct his time as minister was 201-220-1205 adding a join the board of 2014 and you heard the call transcript have you not i haven't i have it in front of me but i haven't read it for about a month is there any mention in the discussion. with president trump of presence lewinsky of this all the guards alleged. to 7 years earlier had been self dealing to the best of my knowledge no. is there a discussion of awarding contracts to oneself or the corrupt acts in the 20122014 timeframe the best of my knowledge no no the present brings up is crowd strike the server and the bidens am i right that

here yes it was no discussion on that call of setting up an anti corruption court or looking into corruption among all of dark sort companies in general. the president's comments were focused on 2 things 2016 and the biden's i'm right i believe so yes and you testified in your opening statement i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions against the potency of those in power because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country the selective politically associated best occasions or prosecutions against opponents of those in power referring to the bidens there i'm referring is a general principle about the production of the rule of law but that would apply to the president i'd state seeking investigation of his political opponent would it not it could be interpreted that way yes sir and i take it in your discussions

a bastard taylor with investors on land. or others what was communicated to you was that the president want to investigate into 2016 in the bidens into an oligarchy names of the cesky yourself dealing a 2016 in the bidens was your understanding that was monday and in fact when you said your staff overheard this call between ambassadors online and the president in that call the president brings up investigation is he not you did and immediately after the president gets off the phone with sonam and saw online is asked by your staff what does the president think about ukraine and his answer is he's just interested in the biden some are right he said he was more interested in the buy more interested in the bidens no discussion of the cesky or

chill loop or things that happened 7 years ago he was interested in the bidens sir now i think you also testified that. a master someone told you that president trump wanted zelinsky in a public box is that right sir and by public box did that mean that private statements private promises to do this investigation of 2016 of the bidens were not enough he had to go on t.v. you had to go public in some way because the president wanted him in that box is that your understanding. mr and i don't know exactly what he had in mind and i'm not sure what about your son lynne had in mind who was 'd the one who mentioned that to me that's the implication the implication was that needed to be public as opposed to being a private assurance. and i think you said in that same call you asked him baster some lint to push back on president trump's

demand is that right that's correct sir so you understood from your conversation was on land this was the president's demand that some of them and the president's demand and you wanted someone to push back to my right. what i wanted to do so besser saw him and was able was clearly able to have conversations with the president. and i thought that the pressure on another president on presidents alinsky was not a good idea from either president standpoint so i'd suggest i suggested in that phone call to with a better simon that he since he regular and frequently had conversation with president could make that point well and i think the way you express yourself as you wanted some of the pushback on president trumps demand right sir so as you understand from talking to someone this is what the president one hand wanted him

to do and you wanted solid pushback i ass besought him to push back that's correct and in fact even after. the aide was ultimately released even after the white house learns of the whistleblower complaint and the congressional best asian aid is released even after those events you were still worried that selenski was going to feel it necessary to go on c.n.n. announces investigations were not michelle and i was still worried that he might do that. so yes i was i thought that would be a bad idea and so when there was some indication that there might still be a plan for the c.n.n. interview in new york which was upcoming at the united nations general assembly meeting i was worried i wanted to be sure that that didn't happen so i addressed it with the with the alinsky style and i think you said earlier that danley uk the national screen advisor then for selenski was concerned selenski didn't want to be

used as some tool in american politics is that right the scripts are. so selenski didn't want to go on t.v. and outs political investigations that he thought would mire him in u.s. politics right he knew that he and his advisors knew that it's a bad idea to interject to interfere in other other nations election judge or but nonetheless it appeared until the aid was lifted the hold was lifted that he felt compelled to do it he was making plans his staff was making plans to have him make some kind of announcement i don't know what it would have been on c.n.n. in public even though he didn't want to be mired in u.s. politics even though he knew it was a bad idea to interfere in other people's elections mr nunez you are recognized for 7 minutes and 10 seconds. thank the gentleman for that. bastard taylor. you said your deposition that the 1st time you heard about this issue with

rudy giuliani and i'm paraphrasing but you read it in the new york times is that correct i do remember that 1st i do remember noticing about mr giuliani being involved in this and that and that article yes or. i think one of the mothers of all conspiracy theories is that somehow the president the united states would want a country that he doesn't even like he doesn't want to get foreign aid to to have the ukrainians start an investigation into biden's without a yield to mr jordan thank the gentleman for yielding a better tailor thank you for being here aides held up on july 18th is that right that's when i 1st heard about a minute's notice released ambassador taylor on september 11th and we know that from your deposition in those 55 days that aid is delayed you met with presidents alinsky 3 times the 1st one was july 26th the day after the famous call now between president trump and presence lends presence lenski miss with you

a master volcker an ambassador saw online and again according to your deposition your testimony there was no linkage of security systems dollars to investigating barisan or the biden's 2nd meanings august 27th given this $55.00 day timeframe 2nd meetings august 27th presents lewinsky meets with you and ambassador bolton and others and again there is no linkage of dollars security system dollars to an investigation of the bites then of course the 3rd meeting is september 5th president once he meets with you and senators johnston and murphy and once again there is no linkage of security assistance dollars to an investigation of barisan or the biding its 3 meetings with the president of ukraine the new president and no linkage that's accurate. restored and certainly accurate on the 1st 2 1st 2 meetings because to my knowledge. the ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until until 29th of

august so the politico article for gore called the 3rd the 3rd meeting that you mention with the 'd senators and if it were things that are just and there was a scotchman of the security substance but the linkage with the there was not there was not discussion of linkage free meetings face to face with presidents linsky no linkage yet in your deposition you said this and you said it again the 1st hour of the majority my clear understanding was security assistance money would not come until president's alinsky committed to pursue the investigation my clear understanding was they were going to get the money until president's lizzie committed to pursue the investigations and with all due respect to basser you're clear understanding was obviously wrong because it didn't happen presence lewinsky did announce he was going to investigate or is more the bidens it into

a press conference and say i'm going to investigate the bidens we're going to vest a gate bridge is not it in tweet about it and you just told the ranking member he didn't do the c. an interview and announce he's going to investigate or the bidens so 3 face to face meetings it doesn't come up no linkage whatsoever present list he doesn't announce it before the aide is released on the 11th. and yet you said you have a clear understanding that those 2 things were going to happen the money was going to get released but not until there was an investigation and that in fact didn't happen so what i'm wondering is where to get this clear understanding. as i testified mr jordan this came from a besar someone can you hold one second message on one of i'm going to bring you a piece of paper from ambassador solomon statement we're going to you can take a look at this go ahead though i want to finish so short until i read this or not and you guys we have

a kilometer read it very good very good but i want you to go and finish he said a bastard you got this from vassar sama that is correct that. russia song and also said that he talked of prisons alinsky amnesty your mock and it told them that although this was not a quid pro quo if the president alinsky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate that was that that was one point. it was also the case mr morrison talked to right no one has a better song and also told me that he recognized that it was a mistake to have told the ukrainians that only the meeting with the president in the in the oval office was held up on the in order to get these investigations no it was not just the beating it was also the security systems everything was so those 2 those 2 discussions are all right so again just to just to recap you had 3

meetings with president clinton he no linkage in those 3 meetings came up. vassar's alinsky didn't announce that he was going to do an investigation of the binds or barisan is before they release he didn't do a tweet didn't do it in one scene and in a way that presents lecky scuse me. and then what you have in front of you is an addendum that mr solomon made to his testimony that we got a couple weeks ago says declaration of a master gordon sunline gordon stalin do hereby swear and affirm as follows i want to look at point number 2 bullet point number 2 2nd sentence vassar taylor recalls that mr morrison told investor taylor that i told mr morris and i conveyed this message to mr yarmuk on september 1st 21000 in connection with vice president pence's visit to warsaw and a meeting with president selenski this is clarification i mean when we're talking about her tale recalls mr morrison told investor taylor that i told mr morrison that i conveyed this message to mr yarmuk on september 1st 21000 in connection with vice president his visit to warsaw and a meeting with president selenski we've got 6 people having 4 conversations in one

sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding which i mean even though you had 3 opportunities with presidents alinsky for him to tell you you know what we're going to do these investigations you get the aid didn't tell you 3 different times never makes an announcement never tweets about it never does a see an interview besser you were on the call were you president you did listen in present from presidencies call you never talk with step one of any i never did i'm never met the president through meetings again was alinsky didn't come up and 2 of those that never heard about as far as i know and president of the region for president has never made an announcement this is this is what i can't believe in your their star witness you're their 1st witness this is your high you're the guy based on this based on i mean i've seen i've seen church prayer change that are easier to understand than this ambassador taylor recalls and mr morrison told never again this is i hereby swear in a firm from gordon sala master teller recalls that mr morrison told

a master tailor that i told mr morse and i conveyed this message mr yarmuk on september 1st when this all happens by the way. this all happens by the way in warsaw jones' vice president pence meets with president guess what taylor a didn't talk about any linkage either i'm the germans expired. would you like to respond the only response to responses was german thank you it was mr jordan glad to think of questions let me just say that i don't consider myself a star witness for anything they do you know i don't i but i'm just responding to a response to your question just don't interact with us as i think i was clear about i'm not here to take one side or the other or to advocate any particular outcomes limited to restate that it's a good thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that i've talked we've got we got that ad and i think this clarification

from missed from bester solomon. was because he said he didn't remember this in the end his 1st deposition so he wanted to kind of clarify but i think mr jordan had read i way i read this he remembers it the same way i do yeah and it's real clear right it's a very clear thing you think about it taylor. mr i'm sure going to 5 minutes gentlemen thank you for your testimony today one of the things i find startling about these proceedings is that faced with very serious allegations of presidential misconduct my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't engage or defend that conduct rather they spin theories about black ledgers and steel dossiers in the startling revelation that ukrainians might have been upset when a presidential candidate suggested that perhaps he would let. the russians keep crimea or of course we get the attacks so a pit in my eyes to buy mr nunez's open statement opening statement when he attacked democrats he attacked the media and most disgustingly attacked the

extraordinary men and women of the state department the f.b.i. when a defense does emerge it looks a little like this ukraine is a corrupt country and the president was just acting in a long line a long tradition of actually trying to address corruption in ukraine mr kent you've worked on anti-corruption and rule of law for much of your 27 year career is that correct have specialized in any corruption or rule of law issues since 2012 crew like like most of us up here i don't have a good sense of what a real anti-corruption effort that we must engage in all over the world all the time what that looks like so let me ask you to just take a minute and just characterize for us what a real initiative what a real program event i corruption might look like. if we're doing a systemic holistic program you need in institutions with integrity that starts with investigators it goes to prosecutors it goes to courts and eventually it goes

to the corrections system in countries like ukraine we generally start with law enforcement and that's what we did in 201415 with the new patrol police there also is oftentimes needed a specialized anti corruption agency and ukraine that was called the national and corruption bureau or nabu there was a different body that reviewed asset declarations for unusual wealth called national. and corruption prevention council and eventually we got to helping them establish a special anti corruption prosecutor and eventually a high court on any corruption and that was to cry to create investigators prosecutors and courts with integrity that couldn't be bought and would be focused on high level corruption so what i'm hearing there mr kent is a very very comprehensive effort so let me read you president trump's own words to the ukrainian president in the jill july 25th phone call and i quote there's a lot of talk about biden's son that biden stop the prosecution and

a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it it sounds horrible to me but you can't when you hear those words do you hear the president participating in a requesting a thoughtful and well calibrated anti-corruption program i do not and mr kent and mr taylor. the defenders of the president's behavior have made a big deal out of the fact that vice president biden encouraged the ukrainians to remove a corrupt former ukrainian prosecutor 2016 mr show can in fact senator rand paul on sunday said and i quote him there impeaching the president president trump for exactly the same thing that joe biden did. is that correct is what the president. what the president did in his phone call and what joe biden did in terms of mr show can you are those exactly the same things and if not how are they different i do

not think they are the same things what former vice president biden requested of former president of ukraine portion go was the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general victor show can who had undermined a program of assistance that we had spent again u.s. taxpayer money to try to build an independent investigator unit to go after corrupt prosecutors and there was a case called the diamond prosecutor case and which show can destroyed the entire eco system that we're trying to help create the investigators the judges who issued the warrants the law enforcement that had warrants to do the wiretapping everybody to protect his former driver who he'd made a prosecutor that's what joe biden was asking remove the corrupt prosecutor so joe joe biden was partizan painting in an open effort to stylish whole government effort to address corruption in ukraine that is correct great so you can as you

look at this whole mess rudy giuliani president trump in your opinion was this a comprehensive in whole of government effort to end corruption in ukraine furring to the requests in july actually i would not say so no sir i don't i don't think president trump was trying to end corruption in ukraine i think he was trying to aim corruption in ukraine vice president biden and at the 2020 election and i yield back the balance of my time. conaway is recognized for 5 minutes they were share with you about time to the job of texas mr reckless thank i think gentleman and i thank you both for being here it's obvious from your testimony today that you both care a great deal about us ukraine relations it's also very clear that you're optimistic about president's olinsky. ambassador taylor you related one of his 1st acts in office was to remove immunity from deputies which had long been a source of corruption i know you had a number of personal dealings with him has he given you any reason to question his

honesty or his integrity most or in your prior deposition i asked you and i'll read it directly if nobody in the ukrainian government is aware of the military hold at the time of the trump zelinsky call them as a matter of law and as a matter of fact there can be no quid pro quo based on military aid and to your knowledge nobody in the ukrainian government was aware of the hold your answer was that is correct is that still your testimony. destructive. some point in september i'm talking about it on july 24th judge with a start yes that's correct that's correct they did not know them all right and as it turns out president zelinsky agreed with you on october 10th president selenski held a press marathon with over 300 reporters where he said repeatedly and consistently over hours and hours that he was not aware of a military hold during the july 25th call in fact in his official press release

from the ukrainian government available on his website that i'll be introducing into the record he said our phone conversation bears no relation to arms they blocked the provision of military assistance prior to our telephone conversation but the issue has not been discussed during our conversation i mean i didn't even know so now in addition to confirming * that because he had no knowledge of it there was no quid pro quo involving military aid during that call presenters and he went on to confirm a number of things that there was no pressure that there were no conditions that there were no threats on military aid there were no conditions or pressure to investigate. or the 2016 election that there was no blackmail that there was no corruption of any kind during the july 25th caught again from his official press release. therefore there was no blackmail because it was not the subject of our

conversation with the president of the united states there were no conditions on the investigation either because of arms or the situation around the recent company he told reuters there was no blackmail he told the l a times there was no pressure or blackmail from the united states he told japan's kyoto news i was never pressured and there were no conditions being imposed he told a.b.c. news and the b.b.c. i'm against corruption this is not corruption it was just a call the ukrainian president stood in front of the world press and repeatedly consistently over and over again interview after interview said he had no knowledge of military aid being withheld meaning no quid pro quo no pressure no demands no threats no blackmail nothing corrupt and i'm like the 1st 45 minutes that we heard from the democrats today that's not secondhand information it's not hearsay it's

not what someone overheard ambassador someone say that was his direct testimony ambassador taylor do you have any evidence to assert the president's alinsky was lying to the world press when he said those things yes or no the threat with if i can read by time is short your thoughts you know i have no reason to doubt what the president said and his ok very good so in this impeachment hearing today where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes where is the impeachable offense in that call are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call shouted out anyone. komisarek live given his response let me just reiterate that i'm not wanted unless i know him but i know you only got a minute left i've got 30 so i've got a lot of imus yes i would not question the one i was robert question let me just and i'm not here to tell you why should i know that your last interview let me

answer this the don't ask you don't know i will suspend when the time master taylor would you like to answer the question suspend the time please i would do the question general will suspend we will suspend the clock suspend the clock and the cone minute plaster taylor would you like to respond to the question this directive i would just like to say that i'm not here to do anything having to do with the come to decide about impeachment that is not what either of us are here this is this is your job we recycle we're short time to the clock one minute no but you may continue 22 seconds. fine mr ambassador. i think everyone knows that house democrats have made up their mind to impeach one president the question that we've just learned is whether or not they're prepared to impeach too because to be clear if house democrats impeach president trump for a quid pro quo involving military aid they have to call president's alinsky a liar if they have preached him for abusing his power pressuring or making threats

or demands they have to call president zelinsky a liar to do it if they imprint impeach president trump for blackmail or extortion or making threats or demand they have to call president trump a liar to do it you'll back. the chair recognizes represent of school i yield a few minutes to my esteemed chairman thank you investor taylor and if you had a chance to read that some the transcripts haven't been released are you aware that other witnesses have testified that ukraine in fact found out the aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge. i've read that. i think there's still some question about when they may have heard. and ultimately they did find out when the political story came out to your knowledge but others have said even sooner but they did find out write a master the instrument and at the time they found out they knew what president

trump wanted from them that he wanted these investigations correct and thus are some learned and informed presidents alinsky his staff that is mr your mock of what was required yes so ukraine finds out about the hold your not able to give them a reason for the hold no one is able to give them a reason for the hold they know the president wants these investigations and then they're told in warsaw by investors on land essentially you're not getting the aid unless you do these investigations correct that's correct so you know you've been asked how could there be conditioning if the ukrainians didn't know but you created so we're told by ambassador simon were they not they were they were they didn't know as near as i can tell the ukraine is did not know about the hold on the phone call on july 25th that's true but they were told as you said the german on the 1st

of september and in fact while they may not have known during the time of the call they would find out and when they did find out they would know what the president wanted correct that's correct. represent a school so mr kent i'd like to refer you to the discussion of the may 23rd meeting in the oval office when the president met with those who had gone to the ukraine for the inauguration you briefly testified that you helped propose names for individuals to go to that inauguration was ambassador someone who is ambassador to the european union one of the names that you submitted. no it was not but he ultimately attended that in operation is that not right that is correct and do you know how he ended up as a part of that official delegation. i do not know for sure but my understanding is once the list left the n.s.c. staff it went through are view through the part of the white house that determines

presidential delegations you also testified that upon returning ambassador someone used his quote connections with more veiny in quote to order in order to secure this meeting in the oval office is that correct that is my understanding yes it seems that this oval office meeting was a pivotal turning point in the ukraine policy coming out of that meeting who was given responsibility to your record last let recollection who was given responsibility for the ukraine policy. i never saw any document that change the nature of policy determination in the u.s. government under the trump administration there's a national security presidential known didn't you also say just please have a little time do you did say in your testimony that you felt that that. that you testified that that secretary perry ambassador sunderland and ambassador volcker quote felt that they had a mandate to take the lead in quote on ukraine policy did you not that was an

accurate statement their feeling doesn't mean that they actually got delegated responsibility have you ever heard the term 3 amigos reference that after watching gordon someone say that on ukrainian t.v. on july 26th and what do you have come to mean for my 3 understanding of a best response use of that term is that the 3 people that were in charge of ukraine policy during the summer were he gordon sunland investor volcker and secretary perry what did you come to when did you come to learn about mr giuliani's role and what do you consider his role to have been i 1st heard about former mayor giuliani's interest in ukraine in january of this year that was a different phase than what happened during the summertime was it normal to have a person who is a private citizen and take an active role in foreign diplomacy i did not find his.