yes as a result of the deposition the previous deposition but but the during the relevant time period when it was happening you are aware of the you know i don't recall an ok he he's one of the more influential officials in the ukraine correct yes. i believe he's one of the few that spanned both the porsche inco administration and his landscape ministration yes that's correct you look looking back on his comments in hindsight did you see how that might create a perception that a very influential ukrainian was was you know i did katie against and candid. that he was doing what moms are just advocating he was use out to get him i mean he was he was he said some real nasty things well you know sometimes that happens in social media and i you know are you asking me whether it's appropriate probably not but i would say that minister of aka has

been. as well as others both in president bush and as administration as well as in others lenski administration has been a good partner to the united states as i think i told you before he's a very practical man and looking for partners and getting the job done i'm shocked that social media would be the site of negative comments on. the. you certainly can understand that. the president aware of minister of archives you know statements aware of what mr le shankar was up to with ambassador charlie was our view. and these other elements that we've discussed that there certainly forms a reasonable basis to wonder whether there are influential. you know elements of the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. i you know again

i mean i can't speak for what president trump thought or what others thought i would just say that those elements that you've are cited don't seem to me to be the ukrainian you know kind of a plan or a plot of the ukrainian government to work against. president trump or or or anyone else i mean they're isolated incidents we all know i'm coming to find out myself that public life can be you know people are critical and. that does not mean that someone is or a government is undermining. either a campaign or interfering in elections and i would just remind again that our own u.s. intelligence community has conclusively determined that the those who interfered in the election or in russia.

you. would turn our attention to ambassador volcker he's he's been a friend and colleague of yours for many years correct yes that's true and i believe you testified he's a man of honor i believe that to be true and a brilliant diplomat yes and you have no reason to think that he would be undertaking any initiative that was counter to u.s. interests i think that he tried to do what he thought was right. the. turning our attention to the trumpet ministrations policy of aid the aid package to ukraine. you've testified that during your tenure as ambassador

america's policy actually got stronger crane is that accurate with the provision of javelins to the ukrainian military yes that was that was really positive and why was that important well 2 things they are obviously tank busters and so if the war with russia all of a sudden accelerated in some way and tanks come over the horizon javelins are a very serious weapon to deal with that that's number one but really the more important issue is the symbolic the symbolism of it that the united states is providing javelins to ukraine that makes ukraine's adversaries think twice and either provision of javelins to ukraine was was. blocked during the previous administration is that correct i think they made a determination. i was not a part of those discussions but obviously they had not yet made a determination about whether to provide javelins b.

do you have any understanding of what the interagency consensus was with regard to javelins during the previous administration. i think that most of the interagency you wanted to provide javelins to ukraine. and so in the new administration under you know president trump the ability to afford ukraine this weaponry is significant advantage significant step forward we thought it was important and has it played out that way. well. it has a vision of the devil and it's a symbol of our strong support for ukraine. but when then you know this year there are questions as to whether or not our security assistance is going to go through that kind of undermines that that strong message of support the. ukraine still has the ability to acquire the javelins there are act are you now

talking about purchasing javelins from berkeley craning government. yes they do and it is my understanding that the security sectors are still did go through it was positive for 55 days july 18th this ever 11th but it ultimately went through correct and are standing ok. you testified during your deposition that you were you were proud of the efforts of the united states during your tenure to. you know supply this this type of aid through to ukraine do you still are you still happy with with the decisions are you talking of the jam on the javelin and also just the the whole aid package yes you do think it sufficient do you think we're given ukraine enough money.

that's a hard question because one can always use additional funding and that's that i think that that the congress has been very generous in voting for security assistance and other forms of assistance for ukraine. timeless i mean you and mr chairman thank you gentlemen will not go to number 5 in rounds i recognize myself for 5 minutes best of on a chilling effect on some of the questions from my colleagues. some of the early questions seemed to suggest that your testimony here was completely irrelevant to the issues at hand why are you going here isn't this just some small matter that should have been referred to h.r. . so i want to. bring our attention to someone who thought you were actually very important to this whole plot or scheme. and that is the president and states it was

only one of baster i believe who is discussed by the president in the july 25th call and that was you about out of it and i want to refer back to how you were brought up in that conversation at one point during the conversation the president brings up this. prosecutor who was very good and it was shut down and that's really unfair and i think you indicated earlier that it was a likely reference to mr lew sankoh the current prosecutor is that right i believe that is the case but i don't know so immediately after the president brings up this corrupt former prosecutor. only want to sort my staff credibility what american ambassador brought up in the call. immediately after the president brings up this corrupt prosecutor that he praises and says he was treated very unfairly he then encourages alinsky to speak with giuliani the guy who orchestrated the smear campaign against you correct it's and he.

even brings you up so he praises the corrupt prosecutor he says i want you to talk to giuliani the guy who smeared you and then he brings you up he obviously thought you were relevant to this but what is even more telling is immediately after he brings you up and says that you the woman was bad news he says there's a lot i allot to talk about about biden's son that biden stopped 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 immediately after praising this corrupt prosecutor it's actually you and then it goes right to biden. that would indicate to you wouldn't ambassador that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at

odds with and his desire to see this investigation of biden go forward did not again you're absolutely right that that is the thought progression. my colleagues also asked in pushing you out of the way. ultimately and master taylor got appointed as the bastard taylor the kind of person that would further giuliani's and eaves i think we can all agree that investor taylor is a remarkable public servant absolutely. but what if the president could put someone else in place that wasn't a career diplomat what if he could put in place say a substantial donor to his inaugural what if you put in place someone with no diplomatic experience at all but if you put in place someone who's portfolio doesn't even include ukraine might that person be willing to work with rudy

giuliani in pursuit of these investigations yeah maybe. that's exactly what happened wasn't yes. and my colleagues also say well the security assistance ultimately went through. so if they sought to condition or bribe ukraine into doing these investigations with all these scare assistance they'll timidly paid the money. are you aware of aster that the security assistance was not released until after a whistleblower complaint made its way to white house yes and where of that or are you aware that it was not released until congress announced it was doing an investigation some more of that. and finally i want to ask you about the call record that my colleague read at the

outset i'm curious about this and just for people watching at home so they're not confuse their 2 callers here there's the perfunctory congratulatory call after zelinsky is inaugurated which my ranking member read this morning and then there's of course the very problematic call in july and when the reasons we are here is what happened between april and july. but there was a readout put out by the white house at the time the april congratulatory call was made and the white house readout said that the president discussed was olinsky helping ukraine root out corruption now that in fact doesn't appear anywhere in that call so i want to ask you ambassador why would the white house put out an inaccurate reading why would the white house represent that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about corruption in that call or in

fact in the one in july i can't answer that question i don't have visibility into that i think you. i yelled out of 5 minutes now to recognize the ranking member. i just remind the gentleman there's actually 3 calls there's the 2 calls of president trump and the one that you reiterated in our last hearing a couple weeks ago about that i just want to clarify something for you are you against political appointed ambassador is it not the president's put parag have to appoint whoever he wants in any country 1st of all i am not against political ambassador as one of their i just wanted to clear that up now can i yield to mr phonic. i need your permission you mailed thank you ambassador before i was interrupted i wanted to thank you for your 30 years of public service from mogadishu to ottawa to moscow to london to kiev i also want to thank you for

hosting the numerous bipartisan delegations i led one of those delegations in ukraine my questions today will focus on 3 key themes the 1st is the role of the president when it comes to appointing our ambassadors the 2nd is longstanding corruption in ukraine and the 3rd is aid to ukraine earlier this week as you know we heard from george kent and i know that mr kent is a colleague a friend and someone who you deeply respect in his testimony he stated all ambassadors serve the pleasure of the president you would agree with that statement correct and in fact he elaborated and went on to emphasize that this is without question everybody understands that you would agree with that i would agree and in your own deposition under oath you stated quote although i understand everyone understands that i serve at the pleasure of the president is that correct yes and just so there's no public confusion you are still an employee of the state department correct. yes and in the deposition you say that you personally asked

whether it would be possible to be a fellow at georgetown university and that was arranged for me and i'm very grateful that's where you are posted today correct georgetown students are lucky to have you we are lucky to have you in foreign service and i again want to thank you for your tremendous public service shifting gears to corruption in ukraine in your powerful deposition you describe quote we have a long understood that strong anti corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in ukraine and now there is a window of opportunity to do that and so why is this important and why is this important to us put simply anti-corruption efforts serve ukraine's interests but they also serve ours as well is that still your testimony yes and particularly at the critical time in 2014 after the ukrainian elections you testified that the ukrainian people had made clear in that very election that they were done with corruption correctness and you also testified that the ukrainians thought it would

be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special investigative office that would be all about the crimes of corruption correct yes and i know this was before you arrived in ukraine but you are aware that the 1st case that the u.s. u.k. and ukraine investigators worked on was in fact against the owner of barista. yes and that was during the obama administration. and in your testimony you and you said today the investigation was never formally closed because it's frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook right if you're the ukrainian investigation was never partnered with the u.s. in the u.s. i understand it yet although because we didn't see the ukrainians moving forward on that we no longer partner with them on that case or in that way but let's take a very see that a step back the 1st time you personally became aware was actually when you were being prepared by the obama state department for your senate confirmation hearings

and this was in the form of practice questions and answers this was your deposition and you testified that in this particular practice q. and a with the obama state department it wasn't just generally about and corruption it was specifically about hunter biden and barista is that correct yes it is and the exact quote from your testimony ambassador is quote the way the question was phrased in this model q. and a was what can you tell us about hunter biden's you know being named to the board of barista so for the millions of americans watching president obama's own state department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from hunter biden's role of prisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation and yet our democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask that same question that the obama state department was so concerned about but we will continue asking it

and lastly in my 20 seconds left i just want to get it on record in terms of defensive lethal aid which you are an advocate for that was not provided by president obama it was provided by president trump that's correct i yield back 5 seconds i'm sure if you most. ambassador thank you for your testimony today those of us who set up here are supposed to be dispassionate and judicial and measured but i'm angry and i've been angry since i learned about your summary an unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent faithful service to this country i'm angry that a woman whose family fled communism in naziism to serve this country beautifully for 33 years and in paris or in rome but literally under fire in places like mogadishu and kieve i'm angry that a woman like you would be not just dismissed but humiliated and attacked by the president of the united states and i'm not just angry for you i'm angry for every

single foreign service officer for every single military officer for every intelligence officer who right now might believe that a lifetime of service and sacrifice an excellent might be ignored by the president of the united states or worse yet attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss now it's the president's defense and it's emerging from my republican colleagues today that this is all ok because the president so memorably put it in his tweet this morning it is a u.s. president absolute right to appoint ambassadors i'm a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right because that doesn't feel to me like the system of government we have here i think that how and why we exercise our powers and rights matters ambassador when you're

a master somewhere do you have the right to ask the intelligence community the cia in an embassy what operations they're doing we talk about these things collaboratively there's some things that. in short yes so you have the right to ask the intelligence community in your embassy what they're doing right why might you do that. because sometimes operations have. political consequences right so the performance of your duty uses in the interests of the united states gives you the right to ask very sensitive questions of our intelligence community in your embassy but what if instead of working through the issues that you just described you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a russian agent for $10000.00 would that be an appropriate exercise of your right.

it would not and what would happen to you if you did that. i can't even begin to imagine that a i would imagine that i would be pulled out of post right and this is this is not about ambassadors right a police officer has the right to pull you over if the police officer pulls over his ex-wife because he's angry that's probably not right i have the right in fact today i cast a bunch of vote but if i cast those votes not in the interest of my constituents but because somebody bribed me that is a severe abuse of my power wouldn't you agree yes. so i guess the question is why after an exemplary performance as ambassador to ukraine the president decided that you should be removed because i think we just agreed that if that was not done in the national interest that's a problem ambassador if you had remained embassador to ukraine

would you have recommended to the president of the united states that he asked the new ukrainian president to investigate and i'm quoting from the transcript here crowd strike or the server. now i would repeat once again that the u.s. intelligence community has concluded that it was the russians ok and you're so in basser if you had remained as in bad a bastard or not been summarily dismissed would you have supported a 3 month delay in congressionally mandated military aid to ukraine. ambassador if you could remained as embassador of ukraine would you have recommended to the president that he ask a new president of ukraine to quote find out about biden's son now. i've no more questions i yield back the balance of my time.

just kind of what they were sharing sure i should have scott said to enter the record dear colleague letter from speaker pelosi dated september 23rd relevant part reads we expect we also expect that he will establish a path for the whistleblower to speak directly to the house and senate intelligence committees as required by law objection thank you i look forward to you honoring that statement from the speaker 30 with ambassador ambassador i for one want to thank you so very much for a long service exemplary service for up to our country and on behalf of our nation has been said about what was going on around the phone call i'd like to focus more on what's happened since then to you and your career and and and it was going on so when you got the word. ambassador changed post there's a process you go through to pick what you do next and that happened this is this could you give us a quick statement as to how what happened when you when you came back here as to

what your next assignment would be if it stayed. so when i came back obviously it was sort of i decide call there was nothing set up and again i am grateful that deputy secretary sullivan asked me what i would like to do next i recall that there was the fellowship at georgetown and asked whether that might be something that could be arranged so that your only choice. i'm not sure and we didn't really discuss that there are last s's georgetown is fertile ground for state department recruitment of future fledgling or service officers and so they now benefit from your experience and your inspiration to aspire them to have spend their professional life in service to our nation your fellow there you teach classes how many classes you teach. well this master i was supposed to teach to i am still teaching one on national security the other one was on ukraine and i asked whether i could you know the 1st one that nobody could tell me students from your class.

there are i think 1414 than any other responsibilities of state other than the fellowship at georgetown well i will tell you that all of this has kept me very busy ok i get that but button but don't necessarily day to day things should you be resentful other than the impact other than not qualifying for overseas stipends and other things that your compensation affected by being recalled the way you are now has now ok. and worried about the way you might be treated by your fellow employees of state. any. a negative appeared they told you unless i regard than they used to as a result of this do they shun you at the lunch counter that he did they treat you badly as a part as a result of the way you were treated by by the president i've actually received an outpouring of support ok mike how the folks who you respect the most still respect

you and appear to hold you and i regard enough action. ok george can't was it your couple days ago he mason exemplary statements about you really blowing all of us i think would like to be the recipient of something that worthy and i believe you are as well anything any reason on earth that you can think of the george can't would be saying that because of some reason other than the fact that he believes that in his heart of hearts. i mean like somebody paid him to do it. now after you know you not agree that we think he was sincere in that and that bragging on you that's all post recall episode that that it was very much a discussion this morning. well i'm glad that your colleagues i would have expected nothing any different from your colleagues estate to to continue to treat you with the high regard that you've earned over all these years of great service and i hope that whatever you decide to do after the georgia fellowship that if you're successful there as you've been in the 1st 33 years with that you know the balance of my time to short i have

a unanimous consent request that an article entitled whistleblowers expected to testify soon house intelligence chairman shifts as wall street journal september 29th 21000 being put in the record without objection i have a unanimous consent request that an article entitled whistleblower reaches agreement to testify will appear very soon representative adam schiff says usa today september 29th 21 team that objection i've unanimous consent request article entitled just confirms tentative agreement for whistleblower to testify before a house intelligence committee c.n.n. september 29th 1000 objection i mean animists consent request intelligence panel has deal to whistleblowers testimony says shift washington post september 29th 21. that objection i have unanimous consent request an article entitled whistleblower reportedly agrees to testify before a house intelligence committee reported by schiff huffington post september 29th 21

team. objection i have read emma's consent request article titled shift at all will hear from whistleblower arkansas democratic has said it's over 20 right but i'd say that objection the time the jonas expired now recognizes misool. thank you mr chairman ambassador in your prior testimony you spoke so movingly about your family background you stated that your parents fled communist and nazi regimes and that they valued freedom and democracy offered in america having experienced a tallit tearing and regimes did that have any effect on your desire to enter into the united states foreign service yes it is. did you always know that you wanted to be in the foreign service and look at your background and it is perfectly suited for what you're doing i note that you have studied at the push push and state

russian language institute in russia to learn russian that you have a do you also have an m.s. from the national defense university national war college yes. i even i even noticed that you earned it. your undergraduate degree in history and russian studies in college and coincidently that was also my college. but i wanted to and you were you definitely are doing princeton in the nation's service by what you do every day but i really want to know how it felt to have your reputation sullied. not for state and nation for personal gain. you spoke about how your service is not just your own personal service it affects your family and today we've seen you as this former ambassador of this 33

year veteran of the foreign service but i want to know about you personally and how this is affected you personally and your family. it's been a difficult time i mean i am a private person and i want to put all that out there but it's been a very very difficult time because. the president does have the right to have his own or her own ambassador in every country in the world but doesn't but as a president have the right to actually malign people's character i mean i may not be against any law but i would think that it would be against decorum and decency i mean there's a question as to why the kind of campaigning to get me out of ukraine happened because all the president has to do is say he wants a different ambassador and in my line of work perhaps in your line of work as well all we have is our reputation and so this has been a very painful period how has it affected your family. i really

don't want to get into that but thank you for asking because i do care i also want to know how you think it affected your fellow colleagues in the foreign service my republican colleagues have said that since you receive such adelaide in from an embracing from your own fellow colleagues that what occurred the incident that occurred with the president and his cronies you know maligning your reputation how has that had a chilling effect on the ability in the more out within the foreign service can you speak to that. i think that i think that it has had exactly that a chilling effect not only in embassy kieve but throughout the state department because people don't know. kind of. whether their efforts to pursue our stated policy are going to be

supported and that is a. that is a dangerous place to be now for the record my republican colleagues will probably try to paint you as a never trump are your never trump are now as a foreign service officer you took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states without regard for who is in office is that correct yes you have you also served in your 33 years for not just democratic presidents but also republican presidents for republican presidents for republican presidents in fact you joined the foreign service under reagan is that not right yes that's true now why do you think it's really important that foreign service officers are nonpartisan and you talk to us about why it's important for you to do your job and your fellow foreign sort of service officers or do your job that you're nonpartizan . because our work is essentially nonpartisan and. you know

senator vandenberg a republican senator who actually partnered with president truman coined a phrase that politics should stop at the water's edge and i think that's exactly right because while obviously the competition of ideas in a democracy with different parties different individuals is hugely important but at the end of the day when we are dealing with other countries it needs to be what is right for the united states but those are our national security interests and whether an individual works for the cia or the military or the state department we've got to be nonpartisan and thinking about what is right for the united states well on behalf of a grateful nation i want to say thank you for your service i yield back the amount of my time as turner ambassador i want to say i have a great deal of respect for what you do i serve on the armed services committee the intelligence committee i've worked with the nato probably better assembly including

being its president and i know the complexity of what you do i know you have little access directly to decision makers little resources but you have still a great deal of responsibility. it's a complex task and i want to take it from just the concept of one dimensional ukraina being corrupt to the other issues that you had to deal with as the ukraine investor you had to deal with more than just our bilateral relationship with ukraine for example and i'd like confirmation that i mean obviously i know you know these but these were on your portfolio you had to deal with the issue of the o.s.c. budapest agreement and the denuclearization of ukraine and the issues of its territorial integrity of the signatories correct. could you remember when the oas see the organized organization for security cooperation for europe and the budapest agreement under which ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and believed they had its territorial integrity guaranteed by the united states and russia and you would have had that in your portfolio well that was an issue you would have to deal with

ukrainians on yeah when the cranes would ask about our policy and whether it was in keeping with a bit of past agreement excellent nato ukraine is an aspiring nato country and of course you have the bucharest summit where the u.s. and the nato allies made a statement that they would get membership that would happen on your portfolio they would be discussing with yeah just settling aspirations to nato membership will run and it's also consistent with u.s. policy that the u.s. supports ukraine joining the e.u. and they have a great deal of interest and and desire for joining the e.u. direct yes and they just had a a summit and ukraine in july where they talked about the associated agreement on economic integration between the ukraine's and the e.u. and they also had a discussion about the illegal an accession of crimea and the blocking by russia of the ukrainian sailors that came out of the as of c. and that were were captured those would have all been issues that would have been in your portfolio and that were consistent with what the use issues are correct yes

we work closely with our e.u. partners in addition to ukraine you'd have to work with france and u.k. and germany all of which you have different ideas. the ambassadors to the ukraine of france germany in fact did you say they all have different ideas about these issues some of them yes. but mostly there's a consensus you have to work with n.g.o.s non-government organizations on issues that we heard about legal age human trafficking building democratic institutions even hiv aids right yes you've spoken at several n.g.o.s while you were the ambassador to france yes now the u.s. ambassador to the e.u. they would have under their portfolio aspiring nations to the would they not. ok so e.u. embassador sandlin then would have had ukraine in his portfolio because they're an inspiring nation and he's our us ambassador to the correct i think he testified that one of his 1st to you agree that it has been his portfolio correct. you would agree that it's in his portfolio would you not yes i would agree yes that now i

want to go the next i'm sorry collision insurance or holbrooke a gentleman who is going to have an re deal of it generalises recommends for now she's on it should not mr azure you may finish your answer investor not on my time you're done now right master. the best will be recognized i would say that all. deal with other countries including aspiring countries but the it is unusual to name the us ambassador to the e.u. to be responsible for all aspects of the print. but i'll take your additional answered still in his portfolio which was my question. you knew of ambassador holbrooke probably i did he's a man of great integrity one of our most successful ambassadors you know in prague but his reputation you would agree that he was a man of great reputation right. yes yes. better investor would it surprise you if in 2004 john kerry had a member of his campaign who was

a foreign policy advisor who traveled to the ukraine in july and met with ukrainian officials and the u.s. ambassador that surprise you and member of john kerry's campaign team for president i'd say it's in 2004 traveled to ukraine met with the u.s. ambassador in july working sara i know you've taken that meeting if a member of john kerry's campaign traveled to the ukraine would you have taken that meeting i guess it would depend on what the purpose of the meeting was well that meeting actually occurred and it was with john holbrooke john holbrooke was a private citizen traveled to ukraine met with the u.s. ambassadors met with ukrainian officials he was also there on about hiv aids which was in addition something the clinton foundation was working on so we have a a official of the john kerry campaign it doesn't for as a private citizen meeting with our ambassador a new time of the genesis fire unusual we meet with president officials often times

probably wasn't unusual for julian going to time has expired as carson you recognized thank you chairman thank you madam ambassador madam ambassador returning to the topic of corruption we heard evidence that you were successful at promoting efforts to address corruption on wednesday in testifying about your very sterling career as a champion of anti-corruption efforts in ukraine deputy assistant secretary george can said quote you can't promote principled anti corruption action without pissing off corrupt people in quote it seems that your efforts as ambassador to centrally reform the powerful prosecutor general's office in ukraine did exactly that and ambassador what concerned you about the prosecutor general's office when you were the ambassador in ukraine. what concerned us was that there didn't seem to be any progress in the 3 overall objectives that mr levy sankoh had laid out most

importantly for the ukrainian people but also the international community so the 1st thing was reforming the prosecutor general's office it's a tremendously powerful office where they had authority not only to conduct investigations on f.b.i. like function but also to do the actual prosecution so very very wide powers which is part of that soviet legacy and there just wasn't a lot of progress and that there wasn't a lot of progress in. handling personnel issues and how the structure should be organized and who should have the important jobs because some of the people in those jobs or were. known to were considered to be corrupt themselves. secondly the issue that was tremendously important to the ukrainian people of bringing justice to the over 100 people who

died on the mind on during the revolution of dignity in 2014 nobody has been held accountable for that and that is you know kind of an open wound for the ukrainian people and thirdly ukraine. needs all the money that it has and it is there is a strong belief that former president yana kovac and those around him made off with over 40000000000 dollars 40000000000 dollars that's a lot in the u.s. it's a huge amount of money in ukraine and. again nobody has none of that money has really been i think i think maybe 1000000000 dollars was repatriated but the rest of it is still missing but a master was the head of that office corrupt. we believe so and you got the sense did you know that he was a driving force behind some of the attacks against you. which ultimately led to

your removal correct yes but it wasn't just him his allegations were picked up and spread by mr giuliani and donald trump jr were they not yes so let me get this straight you were effective at fighting corruption in the ukraine fighting that corruption was important to the national security of united states and you were punished for that ultimately being removed from your post by the president of the united states so in your opinion madam ambassador why is it important to have a nonpartisan career in the foreign services i think it's important to have a nonpartisan. career foreign service office big or service i should say because. what we do in is inherently nonpartisan is about our national security interests it's not about what is good for a particular party at

a particular time it has to be about the greater interests of our security in frankly what is an increasingly dangerous world and could you briefly describe for us what broad u.s. policies you have sought to advance in your 33 years of service and specifically in poll soviet states like ukraine. well that's a broad question but i think that certainly in my time in russia armenia kyrgyzstan all of these countries are very different as is ukraine and but i think that establishing positive constructive relations to the extent that we can with with with those countries is is really important and that you know i mean there are 3 basic areas one is security the 2nd is economic and 3rd is political and so working all the same issues your colleague mentioned many of them. you know we certainly do that in ukraine as well thank you for your service are you to the

chairman thanks. thank you mr chairman. besser thank you very much for being here and i just want to start by saying i appreciate your years of service and during years of moving around the world to dangerous places and hearing from you today i realize that we share some of the same feelings and experiences as army reserve surgeon i received a call on a monday afternoon in march of 2005 that told me i was being deployed to iraq and i had to be out the door in the next 2 to 3 days i had patients scheduled for months ahead surgeries scheduled and had to go so i understand that shocking feeling can come with some abrupt change like that and i was of processing a few days later and i was told my orders would say you're going for 18 months but it may be a little shorter than that but i served a year in iraq 200520061 of the bloodiest times of the war and this where i have

another personal relationship with what you were talking about i saw a nation in iraq of people they craved a non corrupt government and sadly today even though it helped to remove saddam hussein they still have corruption concerns in iraq and i can relate to what you said just a few moments ago that it feels like an open wound when it hasn't been resolved but you might imagine with that military experience and background i take an interest in military strategy and capabilities and the thoughts of those with boots on the ground like you and mr volcker and mr taylor in your deposition on page on 44 you're quoted as saying in terms of lethal assistance we all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine just real quickly who in general makes up we all the team i mentioned just one thing. well one is that well

i have to move on i'll assume you said we all felt it was very significant that this is ministration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine i assume that is those that have boots on the ground and then this administration i assume you meant to trumpet ministration. in your deposition also on page 244 you spoke about the generosity of congress you mentioned it today increasing aid to ukraine and part of your deposition after that statement that i quoted before us to do advocate for that you responded yes i said then they were asked to do advocate for that prior to the new administration 2016 and you responded well yeah on page 148 you were the question was you were were you satisfied that the administration was doing what was necessary to support ukraine you said in what respect they said and you know helping them deter russian aggression helping them

with foreign aid and foreign assistance and you said yeah and i agree that that lethal assistance was very significant as you said and i thank you for that and i thank mr volcker and i think mr taylor you know. the you know acting ambassador taylor was here wednesday he testified about the president's decision to withhold lethal aid and he said the president felt that it might provoke russia and mr taylor contested then that russia has already been provoked and they have invaded the ukraine you know president obama had the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decisions as present the united states correct yeah i mean there's an interagency process not just the congress but he has well he has the right as president i respect the interagency process i'm getting to that actually but he has the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decisions as present the united states as do all presidents correct.

yes so we have one president obama who denied lethal aid altogether and spider passers and other boots on the ground recommending making that recommendation such as you did we have another president from who vetted those that were going to receive the aid and provided it consistent with your interest agency recommendations and that of your colleagues let me just ask you a military standpoint without javelins. would you would you agree the russians had much greater military often sort of options and flexibility in their effort to attack the ukraine with without the ukraine having jab. yeah i mean they had another option although the tank war has is no longer the war that is

being fought in ukraine but i'm just saying with the job it's another option there's a reason for that because the javelins are there and so i think that changes there but i just wanted to make the point that the president has a right to have their own foreign policy and to make their own decisions and with that i yield back you know if i could just supplement one of my answers course so i want to thank you for your service as well but what i'd like to say is why i obviously don't dispute that the president has the right to. to withdraw an ambassador at at any time for any reason but what i do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation also i wasn't asking about that but thank you very much more representative spear and mr chairman thank you ambassador so very much you were confirmed by the senate on a voice vote were you yes so unanimous republicans and democrats crags no dispute.

you said that in the summer of 2018 the smear campaign began in your testimony earlier today to secretary pompei oh at any time come to your aid well my understanding from assistant secretary phil reeker and deputy secretary sullivan is that you know this sort of. rumors about me if for lack of a better word the smear campaign which was behind closed doors at that point that there were a number of discussions between the president and secretary pumpin and that he actually did. did keep me in place for as long as he could that's what i was told so it appears that back in 2018 the president was already making noises that he wanted you out of there it appears that as early as april of 2018 mr parnassus

was a fundraiser for the president and recommended that you be removed and then subsequently in may of 2018 was pictured at a white house dinner with the president and then later in may made a contribution of over $325000.00 illegally to the president's reelection campaign are you aware of that i'm aware of. the press about those things does that help you understand a little bit more of why this campaign was under way. yes i mean. you have made some very riveting comments in your statement the set this morning that i just want to repeat because i think we should have you expand on it you said i've 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 undermine u.s. interests in this way individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated u.s. policy against corruption that is to do our mission were able to successfully conduct a campaign of dissent from ation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels now as i listen to you make that statement i was thinking of all the other persons in the foreign service who now have to be concerned that it's not good enough to follow the stated u.s. foreign policy but also to be aware that maybe the president has a back channel of interests that he is promoting that is diametrically opposed to our stated foreign policy can you expand on that please well i think that. it's important that. whoever is representing the president and

ambassador speaks with the full authority of the president our foreign policy establishment and if there are others who are also helping with. with the responsibilities in that country for example ambassador curve volker with his important mission to bring peace to the dom bus. that we all speak with one voice that it's all about our common security interests and that it's not about. you know personal gain or commercial gain or anything else that it's about our national security but in this case the trace amigos appeared to be more interested in getting an investigation than and to promoting an anti corruption effort in ukraine is that correct that appears to be the case.

we were told at one point and 2019 in february earlier this year you spoke to a minister in ukraine who warned that when it came to rudy giuliani you needed to quote watch your back what did you understand him to mean. i didn't exactly know but you know the rumor was out there at that time and in fact i think that's minister also shared that information with me that the mayor was working to have me removed let me just say i'm to conclude that you have endured an orchestrated character assassination that it was hatched over a year and a half ago and that it's laced with enormous campaign contributions to the president's reelection campaign and you deserve more from the american people and you deserve more from congress it's already in you i yield back as used to disconcert mr you're a humanist i mean a misconception sherman you take that up later mr you're recognized.

thank you mr chairman and others and ambassador thank you for being with us here to day welcome as i said last couple days go to the witnesses welcome to year 4 of the impeachment proceedings i'm sorry that you've gotten drugged into this for 30 years we've heard these outrageous and frankly unbelievable accusations regarding russian collusion. accusations that we now are nor absolute nonsense there was no basis at all despite promises from some members of this committee that they had secret proof that would prove this clues in and grand we know that it was nonsense but now in year 4 we apparently move on to ukraine in quid pro quo all culminating yesterday when the speaker announced that the president would indeed be impeached and removed for office for bribery and with that statement i would now feel compelled to ask you madam ambassador as you sitter before us very simply and

directly you have any information regarding the president united states accepting any bribes now you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the united states has been involved with at all. now thank you thank you for answering that drycleaning american people know this is nonsense the american people know this is unfair and i have a prediction regarding this i think that public support for impeachment is actually going to be less when these hearings are over than it is when the hearings began because finally the american people are going to be able to see the evidence and they're going to be able to make their own determination regarding that now i want to ask you one thing very quickly and you've been asked to sing again and again but my question is slightly different you can ask as you recognize that the president any president has the ability to ask his ambassadors to serve at will i'm curious

do you think that's the right policy. yeah i probably think it s. i do as well it may be imperfect there may be times when it's not used perfectly but i agree with you it is the right policy i don't think that we should change that now i'd like to read from some previous statements including one of your own as well as others regarding the appropriateness of investigating corruption in the u.k. for miss fiona hill so again the fact that there are investigations into corruption in the energy sector in ukraine as well as russian many other countries is not a surprise from yourself your previous testimony question was that the general understanding that there is no is a company that suffered from allegations of corruption your answer was yes from ambassador sandland i am i just am generally aware that bridge was considered a potentially corrupt company would you agree then that it's

appropriate to investigate corruption. i think it's appropriate if it's. if it's part of our national strategy what i would say is that we have. a process for doing that it's called the mutually goal assistance treaty we have one with ukraine and generally it goes from the from our department of justice to the ministry of justice and the country adventurists ok and it's the usual pattern i appreciate that regardless of the process it's appropriate for us to investigate it potential corruption especially look we're we're about to give these some of these countries hundreds of millions of dollars that the u.s. taxpayer said here's a dollar of mine go ahead and give it to this other country but please only do it if you know it's not going to be used for corrupt purposes or against our national interest and i'll conclude with this because i promised my friend mr jordan i would

save him a little bit of time we had mentioned earlier the vice president when he was going to be ukraine and called for the specific firing of a specific prosecutor so he was as they say the completing official u.s. policy but the interesting thing is this the vice president had exactly 2 countries that were his responsibility that time china and the ukraine and he has bragged and been very proud of his influence in the previous administration he says again and again that the obama administration listen to him so it doesn't surprise me that they would be fulfilling a policy that this vice president certainly helped to formulate this sir jordan i believe you. cyphers. in cyprus i'm sorry cyprus thank you clarification i know you 2 for united have even missed consent mr and that doesn't involve you this time. it's 3 articles of new

york times article 2004 campaign the advisers kerry foreign policy crew as a clintonian i'm of the gentleman has expired you have post-hole broke 2 older kids god 2000 i won that i'll be recognized later and brought beats with when you come and time has expired organization i'd like to have that it was quickly recognized and. squarely recognized thank you madam ambassador it's like a hallmark movie you ended up at georgetown this is all ok. but it wasn't your preference 78 months ago correct now was not wasn't your preference to be the victim of a smear campaign was it now wasn't your preference to be defamed by the present a united states including today was it now. wasn't your preference to be ousted at.