that was in charge of ukraine policy... this is bbc news, we will continue with the first public day of the impeachment enquiry. we are currently hearing from two serving diplomats, liam taylor and george kent. —— william taylor. serving diplomats, liam taylor and george kent. -- william taylor. in january of this year, that was a different phase than what happened during the summertime. was it normal to have someone who is a private citizen taking an active role in foreign diplomacy?” citizen taking an active role in foreign diplomacy? i did not find

his particular engagement normal, no. mr taylor, you testify there are two channels, irregular and regular. what did you see as rudy giuliani's role in ukraine policy?” what did you see as rudy giuliani's role in ukraine policy? i came to see that mr giuliani had a large influence on the irregular channel. is that normal, to have a private citizen of the united states, take an active role in diplomacy?m citizen of the united states, take an active role in diplomacy? it is not normal. it is not unusual to ask for people outside the government to give opinions to help form the policies of the us government. it is unusual to have a person put input into the channel that goes contrary to us policy. thank you. mr turner, five minutes? thank you

for your service, i have a great deal of appreciation for your profession, and very little direct contact with decision—makers and a tremendous amount of responsibility and not a lot of authority on to effect of us policy bilateral engagements or multilateral engagements or multilateral engagements you are trying to shepherd through issues with or without our allies. mr taylor, you testified that you have not had any contact with the president of the united states, is that correct? correct. and mr kent?” united states, is that correct? correct. and mr kent? i have not. you have not had any contact with the president of the united states, let alone about ukraine? that is correct. you both know this impeachment enquiry is about the president of the united states? the man neither a few have had contact with, you are the first up witnesses? i find it with, you are the first up witnesses? ifind it amazing with, you are the first up witnesses? i find it amazing that the first up would be just make people who have never had any

contact with the president himself? now, kurt volker did have contact. mr ambassador taylor, you said he is a man of the highest integrity. he served as the ambassador and the director of the mccain institute, the highest professional. he is a truthful man. mr kent, would you agree that he is of the highest integrity? i believe kurt volker has served the us as a public servant very well. do have evidence that kurt volker committed perjury? or lied in his testimony? do either of you have any evidence that kurt volker perjured himself or light to this committee in his testimony —— make or lied? i have no evidence. i believe ambassador volker's

statement was over 400 pages. but you do not have any evidence? i have no basis. we are not in court, gentlemen. if we were, six would apply. but i understand in your profession, you did in words of understanding, words of beliefs and feelings because in your profession, thatis feelings because in your profession, that is what you work with, to pull together policy and go in and out of meetings to try to formulate opinions that would affect other peoples decision—making. ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting with the president or prime minister of a country, and were told one thing before you went into the meeting as to what it would be about, and the meeting is about something else. or you get in and the beliefs of the prime minister or president were other than you believe? you are asking if i ever learned something new? have you ever walked in with the belief that you thought about the country you are serving in and find out that

they we re serving in and find out that they were wrong? i have learned something in every meeting, mr turner... the reason why the sixth amendment does not allow hearsay is because it is unreliable and frequently it is untruthful, not factual. they may be beliefs or understandings. you testified about a number of things you heard. isn't it possible the things you heard were not true? that some of the beliefs and understandings you had not accurate and you are mistaken about some of the things you testified today on a factual basis? as a professional assessment, first? i am here to tell you what i know, not i don't know. but since you learned it from others... that is exactly why i am here. but since you learned it from others, you could be wrong, correct? lam others, you could be wrong, correct? i am telling you what i heard them tell me. and they could be wrong, or they could be mistaken? or heard it incorrectly, right, ambassador

taylor? people make mistakes. right, so taylor? people make mistakes. right, so you could be wrong. thank you for yielding. ambassador taylor, where you've wrong when you said you had a clear understanding that resident zelinsky had to commit to an investigation before the aid was released? i was not wrong about what i told you, which is what i heard. that is all i have said. i've told you what i heard. that is the point, what you heard did not happen. you had three meetings with the guy, he could have told you, he did not announce he would do an investigation. it isn'tjust could have been wrong, it was wrong because it did not happen. you had a clear understanding that aid would not be released unless there is a commitment, not may be not, i think it might happen... used clear

understanding and commitment and those two things did not happen. you had to be wrong. the other thing that happened is we shook the confidence of a close partner in our reliability. that is not what this proceeding is about. that is not what this started on. the time for the gentleman has expired. i now recognise mr carson for five minutes. i yield to the chairman. let me follow—up on some of the earlier questions about president zele ns ky‘s earlier questions about president zelensky‘s statements after the scandal came to light. when he was asked, where you pressured, how did the phone call go? ukrainians, mr kent, are pretty sophisticated about us politics, are

they not? perhaps. you would agree that if president zele ns ky you would agree that if president zelensky contradicted resident trump and said, of course i felt pressure, they were holding up 400 million in military assistance, we have people dying everyday, if he were to contradict president trump directly, they would be sophisticated enough to know that they may pay a very heavy price. that is a fair assessment. and president zelensky did not only have to worry about retribution from president trump, but also how he is perceived domestically? president zelensky is very sensitive to the views of the ukrainian people who, indeed, are very attentive ukrainian— us politics. so if president zelensky we re politics. so if president zelensky were to say, i had to capitulate and agree to these investigations, i was ready to go on cnn until the aid

got restored. that would obviously be hurtful to him back home, would it not? he cannot afford to be seen to be... deferring to any foreign leader. he is very confident in his own abilities, and he knows that the ukrainian people expect him to be clear, and defend ukrainian interests. mr carson. thank you, chairman. my colleague briefly touched on the career to remove diplomat yvonne of h. that you were" —— diplomat yovanovitch. where was this campaign coming from? to my understanding, the then prosecutor general of ukraine,

now x, met rudy giuliani on a private visit in january, they had a second meeting in february. and, through the good offices of the former mayor of new york, they gave an interview to the hill in early march and the campaign was launched on march the 20th.. corrupt ukrainian policymaker gave a interview to a reporter in the us and made claims the ambassador provided officials with a quote, do not prosecute, list. do you have any reason to believe it is true?” not prosecute, list. do you have any reason to believe it is true? i have every reason to believe it is not true. what was the reputation of the man who made these allegations? he was a politician of long—standing, and the usmc had good relations with him for years. he was imprisoned

and then was elected majority leader. he became the prosecutor general in the spring of 2016. what was your experience with ambassador yovanovitch, where she working hard to combat corruption in ukraine? she was dedicated as is every government official in ukraine to help ukrainians overcome the legacy of corruption. they've made a number of important steps since 2014. you and your superiors at the state department asked the ambassador to extend her time in the ukraine, correct? did you support her extension? i asked her to extend this year to get through the election cycle in ukraine and then she was asked to stay until 2020. some would have liked her efforts to support ukraine? as i mentioned, you cannot promote any principled corruption without upsetting corrupt

people. some of those people helped giuliani smear her, did they not? they did. ultimately the campaign pushed president trump to remove her, is that right? i cannotjudge that but i can say that giuliani's smearcampaign that but i can say that giuliani's smear campaign was that but i can say that giuliani's smear campaign was ubiquitous in the spring of 2019 on fox news and on the internet. ambassador taylor and mr kent, in your combined decades at the state department, have you ever, before, seen an incident where an ambassador was forced out by the president, following a smear campaign of misinformation orchestrated by the president's allies. i have not. all have either. —— or have i thank you, mr chairman. this should be easy. i am going to use a lot of your words from the previous deposition as we go forward. you spoke of support for

ukraine and its relationship to the united states in how much you support that. in 2014, you, and i'm quoting this, urged obama administration to provide defensive weapons. did the obama administration provide lethal weapons. no, they provided mris and blankets. and you say president obama's objection was because it could provoke. russia had already provoked and they have in the ukraine, is that correct? that is correct. it's a shame they did not ta ke correct. it's a shame they did not take the advice of a combat veteran like you, someone who understands what the deterrence provide because a lot of ukrainian lives could have been saved. if they had taken your advice. in your deposition you said you were happy with the

administrations assistance and provided lethal and financial aid, did you not? i did, sir. and you said it was a substantial improvement? that is correct. now, we are providing them with killing russian tanks. today, you said you we re russian tanks. today, you said you were beginning to fear that the long—standing us policy of strong support for ukraine was shifting. i have trouble with long—standing, based on what we talked about. it was not really long—standing and strong support, it seems to me that the strong support came with this administration, would you agree? u nless administration, would you agree? unless you consider mra goal and bla nkets unless you consider mra goal and blankets strong support, i would not call it long—standing —— mres. blankets strong support, i would not call it long-standing -- mres. what lam call it long-standing -- mres. what i am referring to is the long—standing political support, economic support and increasing military support. certainly, that strong support came

from congress. compared to what this administration has decided to do. the strong support came with this administration, not the obama administration, not the obama administration and may be now we understand what president obama meant when he told russian president medvedev that he had more flexibility after his election. maybe that flexibility was to deny lethal aid to the ukraine? allowing russia to march in and kill ukrainians? again, in your deposition you are urged the obama administration officials to provide lethal weapons to ukraine in order to deter further russian aggression. now, they have that under this administration, don't they? they have the javelins, yes sir.” administration, don't they? they have the javelins, yes sir. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr ratcliffe. no pressure, no demands, nothing corrupt, nothing. nothing on the call.

that is what we heard president zelensky say, and the charges against president trump have repeatedly and consistently been denied, you have heard the defence now, from chairmanship, he is lying because he has to. he has to lie, because the threat, the demands, the distortion that house democrats are alleging, if he didn't do that, he couldn't possibly risk military aid. he would have to do anything he had to secure it. the problem with that, at the hole in that argument, if you have to ask yourself, what did president zelensky actually do to get the aid? the answer is nothing. he did nothing he didn't open any investigations, he didn't call bill

barr, he didn't do any of the things that democrats say, that he was being forced, coerced to do. he didn't do anything, because he didn't do anything, because he didn't have to. thank you, mr chairman, thank you both for your true, heroic efforts, both tonight, today, and also throughout your career is. i would like to start with you, mr kent. in your testimony, you said that you had, in mid—august, it was clear to me that mr giuliani's attempts to gin up investigations were affecting ukraine, leveraging president zele ns ky‘s ukraine, leveraging president zelensky‘s desire for a white house meeting. did you actually write a memo documenting your concern is that there was an effort under way

to pressure ukraine to open an investigation to benefit president trump? yes, i wrote a file on august 15. we don't have access to that, do we? we have not received one piece of paperfrom we? we have not received one piece of paper from the state department relative to this investigation. both of you have made compelling cases of the importance of ukraine to europe, to the 70 years of peace, the benefit that it has to the united statesnational security, and the goal of maintaining the sovereignty of independent nations. meanwhile, russia was violently attacking people in ukraine. so, withholding military aid, does that we can ukraine? well, i think it sends a wrong signal, and it did for a short

period of time. the assistance from fy 19 was released and was in the process of heading towards ukraine. does it embolden russia when there was no aid being sent towards ukraine? i think the signal that there is controversy in question of there is controversy in question of the us support to ukraine, that it affects negotiation with ukraine and other countries. a white house meeting with zelensky would boost his ability to negotiate for a peaceful settlement with putin. is that true? it is certainly true that us support for president zelensky, with his negotiation with russians would enable him to get a better

agreement with support from the united states, with military and political assistance. he has not yet had that white house meeting, has he? he has not. it is ironic that lev parnas, who has now been indicted, had been in the white house for a number of campaign events for the president, and contributed to the president's pack. is it contributed to the president's pack. isita contributed to the president's pack. is it a requirement that you give money to the president is packed in order to get that meeting at the white house? is it true that the prosecutor general now has opened an investigation in ukraine? the new prosecutor general, the president

zelensky has appointed, is indeed investigating crimes in general. is that your question? yes. he is in office, and he is investigating criminal activity. has you specified what investigations he has undertaken? no. i did he ought to mr schiff. in the hot mic conversation with president obama and medvedev, that was in 2012. that was the invasion of ukraine. that took place two years after that conversation. but there any reason to believe that obama was referring to go easy on invasion from russia, or that hadn't happened jet? i have no knowledge of what was in... it was a more or

less rhetorical question. i will yield to mr stuart... rhetorical question. i will yield to mrstuart... mr rhetorical question. i will yield to mr stuart... mr stuart. to the witnesses, thank you. time is precious, so i will go quickly. welcome to year four of the ongoing impeachment of president trump. sorry that you have been dragged into this. i think the sign behind me shows this very well, but after listening to what has been going on for now four hours and 21 minutes, after a ll for now four hours and 21 minutes, after all of the secret hearings, after all of the secret hearings, after a ll after all of the secret hearings, after all of the secret hearings, after all of the secret hearings, after all of the leaks, after hearing witnesses such as yourselves, it really comes down to this. one thing it comes down to, this. one thing it comes down to, this is the transcript that the president has released of the phone call. there is one sentence, one phone call, that is what this entire impeachment proceedings based on. i got to tell you, if your impeachment case are so weak that you

have to lie and exaggerate about it to convince the american people that they need to remove this president, then you have got a problem. the american people have been lied to again and again on this. we first heard a lot about quid pro quo, and then many people realise that was meaningless, so then we were talking about extortion, bribery, corruption, for which there is zero evidence. we heard a characterisation of the president's phone call that was so inaccurate it had to be described as a parody, and none of those things mattered. none of it matters, it comes down to this. we appreciate your insight, your opinion, but you can do is give your opinion, but you can do is give your opinion, but you can do is give your opinion of this. this one phone call. let me ask you, gentlemen, but of you have said today that corruption in ukraine is endemic. would you agree? simple question. it's a problem, and they are

taking steps to address it. earlier in the hearing, both of you used the word endemic or agree to it. it's in the courts, oligarchs, everyone. we can also agree that it is not the only place in the world where we experience corruption. dozens and dozens experience corruption. dozens and d oze ns of experience corruption. dozens and dozens of nations around the world are steeped in corruption. would you agree? i would say there is corruption in every country, including ours. thank you. some we are more concerned about than others. in these corrupt nations, there are hundreds of corrupt government officials. can you give me an example, any time, where the vice president of the united states shows up and demands that a specific prosecutor be fired and gives them a six hour time limit to do that? are you aware of that ever happening anywhere else? i guess the answer is no. ijust think

it is interesting that out of hundreds of corrupt individuals, dozens of nations, that happened one time, and it happened with the individual whose son was being paid by the organisation that was under investigation. one other thing, very quickly, if someone was a candidate for political office, even for president of the united states, should they be immune from an investigation? no one is above the law, sir. thank you, i agree with that. some of the individuals we we re with that. some of the individuals we were talking about candidates, and think they were immune from investigation. i think it's absurd. those of us in public office, those of us who find ourselves up for the election, are all the time, as a country, we have a higher standard, not in immunity, from these questions. availability of funds, i'm quoting from

the nda in 2019, it has to be certified. what has to be certified? for the has to be certified. what has to be certified ? for the purposes has to be certified. what has to be certified? for the purposes of decreasing corruption. are you surprised that there would be questions about corruption in ukraine, and it would be discussed with holding some of this aid that is actually required by law? that it be withheld if they can't certify that corruption has been eliminated is being addressed? the certification in that case is done by the secretary of defence upon the advice of his staff in consultation with the interagency community. we are supportive of that conditionality, and the secretary of defence had already certified that that conditionality had been met. so we agreed that if there are questions about corruption that have not been addressed, i will yield my time. i will yield

back. not been addressed, i will yield my time. iwill yield back. so, that certification took place in may, is that correct? i do not believe it was certified in may, i will defer to my colleague. it was an earlier time? i was asked to meet the specific conditionality. i think it may have been in the july timeframe. so, it is interesting and curious that we are talking about hearsay evidence. it is extraordinary to me that they got as much information as they did. you gentlemen were both asked by the state department not to appear for your depositions. is that correct? we both received, i believe, i received a letter directing me not to appear here, and once the committees issued a subpoena, i was under legal

obligation to appear here. i'm here today under subpoena. ambassador, will you also asked not to be part of the deposition? i was told by the state department, don't appear under these circumstances. that was in the letter to me, and when i got the subpoena, exactly as mr kent said, that was different circumstances, andi that was different circumstances, and i obeyed the legal subpoena. absolutely. but we are not able to hear testimony from chief of staff mulvaney, john eisenberg, john bolton, more than a dozen witnesses. if you have a problem with hearsay, you would have more direct testimony if you want blocking that ability. you have more documents, with my colleagues questions, that have not yet been turned over by state or any other agency, is that correct to your knowledge? we are both here

under subpoena. your knowledge? we are both here undersubpoena. i your knowledge? we are both here under subpoena. i don't think either of us will comment on why others have not shown up. have any of the documents that have been turned over, to your knowledge, been turned over, to your knowledge, been turned over to the committee? no. mr kent, we re over to the committee? no. mr kent, were you over to the committee? no. mr kent, were you involved in any efforts to arrange for president zelensky to make a statement announcing that two investigations, that mr trump had talked about, the july 25 corps?” was not, and i had never been part of arrangements to make them.” was not, and i had never been part of arrangements to make them. i want to show you a text of the exchange. this one is between ambassador volker and this one is between ambassador volkerand andre... this one is between ambassador volker and andre... you are involved in it, sol volker and andre... you are involved in it, so i read it. ambassador volker, i agree with your approach.

at five 42, he responds, once we have a date, we will have a briefing, a reboot of us, ukraine relationship, including burisma meddling in the election arrangements. then we were all announce investigations into burisma meddling. is this what resident trump asked you to initiate in the july 25 meeting? it appears to be the same issues. mr kent, as the day—to—day state department in washington, where you aware of this effort to persuade president zelensky to issue a statement in order to get a white house meeting while they were happening? when this exchange happened on august the 10th, i was not. wendy to learn about it? as ambassador taylor referenced earlier, answering that he heard on

august the 16th, he then called me and we had a conversation. at that point, i memorialised my concerns. ambassador taylor, is the point person on the ground in ukraine, where you aware of this effort to get ukraine to issue this written statement in early august? not the written statement, no sir. the entire discussion about a public statement, that president trump wanted, was done in an irregular channel involving ambassador sunman and volker. isn't that correct, mr kent? that would be my understanding. the same. and to close prime on hearsay, think the american public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed, exceptions to hearsay. hearsay can be much better evidence than

direct, in this instance. none of this would apply to this testimony. for the millions of americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following. number one, ukraine received the aid. number two, there was in fact no investigation into biden. mr kent and ambassador taylor, you both spoke eloquently and passionately about the need to support ukraine to counter russian aggression, particularly during this critical time. i agree in that assessment. isn't it the case the trump administration has indeed provided substantial aid to ukraine in the form of defensively collating, correct? correct. and that's more than the obama administration? defensively filleted? yes.

administration? defensively filleted ? yes. and administration? defensively filleted? yes. and in the transcript of the presidents july 25 filleted? yes. and in the transcript of the presidentsjuly 25 call with president zelensky, president zele ns ky president zelensky, president zelensky tells trump they are ready to buy more javelins. this is the most effective weapon for fighting insurgents russian armoured tanks, is that correct? correct. and they we re is that correct? correct. and they were not made available to ukraine under the obama administration? the javelins were not made available? they were not. correct. shifting gears to corruption, one of the themes here today is that of rooting out corruption which is an important tool for the president as we provide taxpayer funded tool for the president as we provide taxpayerfunded aid tool for the president as we provide taxpayer funded aid to foreign countries. mr kent, you would characterise ukraine as having long—standing corruption issues, correct? i did. and you testified, quote, i would say that corruption is part of the reason why ukrainians came up to the streets in 2004, when somebody tried to steal the election, and 2014, because of a corrupt kleptocratic pro—russian

government which eventually collapsed. ukraine decided enough was enough. great. and you learned about burisma when you with the senior anti—corruption coordinator. correct. and you testified that the issue of corruption in burisma was in the us interest because, quite, this is from your deposition, we made a commitment to the ukrainian government in 2014 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of stolen dollars of stolen assets out of the country, correct? that is stolen assets that were in the name of the owner, we believed that he had stolen the money. this was the first case that the us, uk and ukrainian investigator worked on was against the owner of burisma. correct. and this was during the

obama administration? correct. for the millions of americans viewing, the millions of americans viewing, the first investigation into burisma was under obama's administration? correct. and you spent billions of dollars of money to build pasty and track down stolen assets, is that correct? correct, it was launched in may, 2014, by the attorney general of the us and uk, in conjunction with the world bank. and by 2016 you we re with the world bank. and by 2016 you were so concerned about corruption questions relating to burisma that when there was an effort by burisma to sponsor an essay contest with usa id, you asked usa id to stop it? that is correct. and you testified it was because burisma had a poor reputation in the business and you did not think it was appropriate for the us government to be co—sponsoring something with a company that had a bad reputation? correct. you are also aware

comedy testified today that senator biden served on the board of burisma. correct. and you are concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest? correct. and this is very important, you testify in deposition that when they evaluate foreign assistance, it is appropriate for them to look at levels of corruption in countries. correct. and you also testified, this is your quote, that issues of corruption have then part of high—level dialogue between us leaders and ukrainian leaders regardless of who is the us leader and who is the ukrainian leader. that is a normal issue of diplomatic discussion at the highest level.“ that correct? correct. iwill yield 30 seconds but yield back after that. both of you have testified that you are not direct witnesses who have spoken with president trump. however, you are witnesses to a

shakedown scheme that others participated in, who spoke with president trump. however, ambassador bolton and mick mulvaney both spoke directly to president trump and unlike you they refused to honour their request for them to be part of these proceedings but we do know how acting chief of staff mick mulvaney feels about aid because, on october the 17th at a press conference, he discussed assistance for ukraine. i would like you to listen to what he said, ambassador taylor. iwill would like you to listen to what he said, ambassador taylor. i will read it for you. it is in response to a question but, to be clear, what you just described as a quid pro quo, that funny will not flow unless money into the democratic servant happens as well. in response to that question, mr moore vainly said, mr taylor, we do that all the time with foreign policy —— mick mulvaney

said. i question the president investigation into his political opponent. prior to the administration, is this something we would do all the time? no, sir. why? we condition assistance on issues that will improve our foreign policy, but serve our foreign policy, but serve our foreign policy, ensure that taxpayers money is well spent. and those conditions are eithercoming is well spent. and those conditions are either coming from the, sore from policy decisions, stemming from authority that congress has given us to make sure that taxpayer money is well spent. or, that the receiving country takes the actions in our national interest. you described in your text message exchanges that engaging ina your text message exchanges that engaging in a scheme like this is, quite, crazy. can we also agree that it is just wrong?

quite, crazy. can we also agree that it isjust wrong? yes. why? again, our holding up of security systems that would go to a country that is fighting aggression from russia for no good policy reason, no good national security reason, is wrong. mick mulvaney, in the same news conference, said if you read the news reports and believe them, what mckinley said yesterday, while mckinley said yesterday, while mckinley said yesterday that he was really u pset mckinley said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence on foreign policy, that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. and i have news for everybody. get over it! there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. ambassador taylor, should we get over it? if we are talking about political

influence, meaning attempts to get information thatis meaning attempts to get information that is solely useful for political campaigns, if that is what we are talking about, we should not use that. and finally, he said, again i was involved in the process by which the money was held up temporarily, 0k? the money was held up temporarily, ok? three issues. the corruption of the country, whether or not the countries were participating in the support of ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating on an ongoing investigation with the department ofjustice. that is com pletely department ofjustice. that is completely the judgment. where you are aware of any formal department ofjustice request are aware of any formal department of justice request made are aware of any formal department ofjustice request made to the ukrainians? i am not aware that there was any formal department of justice request in this matter, no. was mick mulvaney‘s statement false? i think you would prefer that question again to the department of justice, i do not have full knowledge on what they may have been working on. about one hour before the two of you sat down and testified today, the president

tweeted multiple times about this hearing and put in all caps, never trumper. are you a no trumper?” carry out the foreign policies of the president in the us and i've done that for 27 years for three republican presidents and two democrat presidents. are you, ambassador taylor? no, sir. and you said there were two ukrainian stories today. the first was the one we we re stories today. the first was the one we were discussing this morning, that you have been hearing the last two weeks. it is a story about whistle—blowers. rudy giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption, interference in elections. in this story, ukraine is merely an object. is it also true that in this story, it is about the president of the united states? mr sondland, i'm here

to tell you what i know, and i'm here to tell you what i heard. and, what i said. in that regard, i cannot answer that question. you have testified to also involves the president of the united states, is that correct? the president of the united states was on the telephone call on the 25th ofjuly. thank you. i yield back. thank you, chairman. i appreciate your decade of service as the fabled foreign office service. we have palms and wingtips on the ground, meaning diplomats, which prevents us from having the need to have boots on the ground. it's an important role in our national security, thank you and your colleagues. mr taylor, my first questions are to you. these are questions that one years prior to your time are questions that one years prior to yourtime in are questions that one years prior to your time in the ukraine, but i'm pretty sure you can answer them, did the ukrainians

get aid in fy 17? any aid? yes, they did. and they got security assistance too? they did. ifi security assistance too? they did. if i said that number was psycho, in military assistance, around 270 million, would that be accurate? —— was approximately, in military assistance, around 270 million? did they get it including security assistance? we talked about the javelins and anti—tank missiles that they were not able to purchase under previous administrations. had they got security assistance in fy 19? yes, sir. prior to the 400,000 million also that we were discussing the other day? they got some previous year, fy 18, assistance. do you know? it takes a while when money is or mike weir

obligated to reach the country. two ships arrived in the port of edessa. my point is, we have been supporting the ukrainians under this administration, in order to help them kick out the russians who invaded their country? yes, sir. under a percent. ambassador taylor, you testify that ukrainian officials did not become aware of this until august the 29th. is that accurate? that is my understanding. would you find it surprising if they ukrainian officials knew about that sooner and did not contact you? i can answer that. it was only after august the 29th, when the political argument, i got called from several of the ukrainian officials. mr kent, had you had any ukrainian official

contacting you concerned about when the first time was a ukrainian official contacted you concerned about potential withholding of us aid? after the article in the political came out, in the first intense week of september. got you, so after the august the 29th conversation. there is a lot of talk about rudy giuliani, and who he was and wasn't meeting. do we know or have an idea about the ukrainian officials he was meeting with over the last couple of yea rs ? meeting with over the last couple of years? i don't. have you had any ukrainian officials call you after a meeting with rudy giuliani, concerned about the nature of the context of that conversation? yes. andriy yermak has expressed concerns. i believe that was

sometime in late august. there are meetings and also phone calls. you will have talked many times that you are concerned about corruption. is that correct? sir. is there any information about what we wanted the ukrainians to make? yell or are you referring to the statement that was being negotiated? that was not an anti—corruption being negotiated? that was not an anti—corru ption statement. i being negotiated? that was not an anti—corruption statement. i think, if you go back to the back—and—forth that were shared by kurt volker, they shared a draft with rudy giuliani, and rudy giuliani said it would not be acceptable if it did not mention biden, burisma and 2016. but that statement was never agree to buy ukrainian officials?

correct. have us ministers ever contacted you are concerned about corruption in ukraine? as of this year, even? yes, sir. the concern is notjust about ukrainian businesses run by oligarchs, it is also concerned about how the ukrainian government is trying to deal with american businesses in ukraine? yes, sir. mr castro. thank you for your testimony and your service. listen to everything i have heard and read in this investigation, it seems to me that the president of the united states either committed extortion and bribery of a foreign official, or attempted extortion and bribery of a foreign official. when president trump got president zelensky on the phone, he was talking to a desperate

man, wasn't he? president zelensky was desperate to protect his country and make sure that he had assistance from the united states. president zelensky is very interested in us support, both assistance and political support. what would have happened if the aid had been cut off? what would have happened to president zelensky‘s career and the ukraine? if the assistance had been cut off, he would have been much weaker in his negotiations with russian they met russia, he would have been weaker on the battlefield. will the russians took it as an invitation to take action against ukraine, is that right? the russians always ta ke ukraine, is that right? the russians always take it as an invitation, and they know that the usa supports ukraine. if the russians suspect

that that support is lessened or not there, they will likely take advantage. they could have pounced? they could have taken advantage. so, if he was asking a desperate man for a favour. it sounds like, begrudgingly, president zelensky may have actually agreed to do that favour and investigate the bidens and burisma, is that right? president zelensky does say in the transcript that he will pursue investigations. so, we knew president trump asked for a favour, and it appears the president of ukraine agreed. to be why it didn't happen? do we know why there is no announcement in front of cnn, or to cnn, about the investigation? mr castro, as we have determined, as we have discussed here, on september

11, just before any cnn discussion or interview, the hold was released, the hold on security systems was released. so, the hold was released. is it possible that the white house released that whole because they knew a whistle—blower had basically turned the same? i don't know. to think that possible? i'm not in a position tojudge. think that possible? i'm not in a position to judge. so we have a president who is saying that the aid went through, that there was never any investigation, but the president attempted to get those things done, and it looks like there was an initial agreement by the president of the ukraine to actually do those things. so, ambassadors, is attempted murder a crime? is attempted murder a crime? is

attempted murder a crime? is attempted murder a crime? attempted murder isa attempted murder a crime? attempted murder is a crime! is attempted robbery a crime? neither of us as a lawyer... i will go out on a limb and say yes, it is. is attempted extortion and bribery a crime?” don't know, sir. in the minute that i have left, i want to speak to the nation about what is at stake. you said in your opening statements, you warned about selective prosecutions, and the president of the united states going after specific americans abroad. if this congress clears resident trump, does it mean that he can go ask another foreign country to investigate another presidential candidate, a governor, a senator, or any private american citizens doing business overseas? if

there is no consequence for a president who does that, then it means there is a green light, doesn't it, for any president to ask any country to go prosecute or investigate an american citizen for political and personal gain for the president. doesn't it? thank you for the question, first of all, i'm not an ambassador. i will repeat, on principle, regardless of the country, whether it is ukraine, us orany country, whether it is ukraine, us or any other country, the facts of law, criminal investigations should be performed by justice law, criminal investigations should be performed byjustice departments, and it's not for us to be involved in thejudicial systems and it's not for us to be involved in the judicial systems of other countries. mr kent, in your prior deposition, on page 159, you were

asked about the authority to release the ambassador for any reason, and your response was, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, and that is, without question, everybody understands that. during the same?” question, everybody understands that. during the same? i do, and it is true. the president clearly has that constitutional authority. he does. in the context of this impeachment enquiry, specifically addressing ambassador yovanovitch, who is a friend of yours, a member of this committee said, well, it is an abuse of power to remove an ambassadorfor an abuse of power to remove an ambassador for political reasons because they don't like what they are doing. that is not true, is it? igo are doing. that is not true, is it? i go back to what i said. the president has the right to have ambassadors serve at his pleasure. so, you agree with me that you

should not impeach a president for exercising his constitutional authority? i am here as a factual witness. wended ambassador yovanovitch get record from ukraine? i believe the message was sent in about april 24. certainly before the investigation. she had no further impact on investigations into ukraine after that period ? impact on investigations into ukraine after that period? she was transferred to a teaching slot at georgetown, where her responsibilities, among others, were to teach a class on ukraine. so, if president trump had the constitutional authority to remove her, as he did months before the call, and she wasn't in the ukraine or had any responsibilities before july 25, to have an explanation why democrats are calling her

as a witness on friday? i am here is a fa ct witness on friday? i am here is a fact witness under subpoena, and thatis fact witness under subpoena, and that is a question you could perhaps direct social democratic colleagues. ambassador taylor, we have established that onjuly ambassador taylor, we have established that on july 25, ambassador taylor, we have established that onjuly 25, both participants on the call, both presidents, have expressly stated there was no pressure, known to man, no blackmail, no corruption. i ask you again specifically about the quid pro quo even being possible, andi quid pro quo even being possible, and i think we have agreed that it wasn't possible, a quid pro quo involving military aid onjuly 25, given president zelensky lack of knowledge. to my knowledge, president zelensky and had no knowledge that the aid was on hold. so, if no quid pro quo was even

possible, how a person who later become a whistle—blower, walked into chairman schiff‘s of the sensor the outlines of the whistle—blower‘s accusations... we will leave this life coverage of the impeachment, but you can continue watching on bbc parliament. now to the weather. blue skies offered some respite from many areas, but it wasn't for all. down towards southern england and wales, the skies clouded over. a band of rain has been moving in, and you can see it quite clearly here on the satellite image, is connected to an area of low pressure which has been moving in from the atlantic.

some fairly gusty winds for the south—west of england. as we head through this evening, we are already seeing some through this evening, we are already seeing some snow over through this evening, we are already seeing some snow over the high ground of south wales, and over dartmoor. this band of rain gradually working a little further north and west words as the night goes on. to the north of that, lengthy clear skies, still some showers feeding on, and across parts of eastern scotland, some signs of ice on thursday morning. temperatures dropping below freezing. shouldn't be is called the further south you come. that rain still with us first thing on thursday morning, stretching down to size west england and east anglia. heavy, persistent and slow—moving, places like bristol and gloucestershire could see a fair amount of rainfall, and the risk as it could move into areas that have seen it could move into areas that have seen recent flooding. to the south of that, some sharp showers, to the north of it, some brightness, but a brisk north—easterly wind which will make it feel cold. showers, too, and it will be chilly, with

temperatures below average for the time of year. mid single figures are best. as we head through to thursday evening, our band of ranger starts to work its way a little further northwards, and as it does so, it will lose its momentum and began to fragment. through friday, it may still produce some snow over higher ground, before gradually working down towards the south west, and that area of low pressure, we will see further rain at times, becoming more persistent and heavy across east anglia and the south—east through the day. another cold day. low pressure remains in charge as we head into the weekend. while there will be some joy places at times, it will be cold and quite greasy.

this is bbc news, i'm rebecca jones. the headlines at 8 o'clock: labour pledges to outspend the tories with extra cash for the nhs, promising an additional £6 billion a year in england by 2024. labour will end austerity to bring waiting lists down, stabilise our accident and emergency services, and deliver the quality cancer care patients deserve. as the army arrives in south yorkshire, the prime minister meets people who've lost everything in the floods but faces questions during the

visit. residents in the worst affected areas are expected to be out of their homes for up to three weeks. more rain is forecast for tonight and tomorrow in large parts of the country. since the government came in in 2010, there's been a huge amount allocated to flood defences, but it's plain we're going to have to do more. a historic task: democrats say they aim to prove donald trump's actions warrant impeachment as the first public hearings get underway in washington. severe flooding in venice leaves much of the italian city under water. the mayor says climate change is to blame. join me and chris mason in half an hour's time for tonight's episode of