had been frozen as well since he when he's about to sign a check. and by that, he clearly meant that president trump was was responsible for doing that, thinking about or had in front is that correct? >> that's what i had been told. of him the possibility of that's what we heard on that conference call, yes. providing security assistance to >> to neither of your knowledge, ukrainians were not aware of that at that point? ukraine. >> not to my knowledge. it was similar to writing a >> not to my knowledge. >> right after president zelensky thanks president trump check to someone who you're about to send. for his great support in the he used that analogy very area of defense, president trump clearly to indicate that this then says -- and we'll go to the next excerpt -- i want you to do would be -- this would require us a favor, though, because our something. if that person owed him country has been through a lot something, before he signed the and ukraine knows a lot about check, he wanted to get whatever it. i would like you to find out he was owed paid back to him. what happened with this whole situation with ukraine. ambassador volker used very they say crowd strike. i guess you have one of your similar language about a week later, which indicates to me wealthy people, the server they that they had that conversation say ukraine has it. then at the end of the paragraph as well. >> did ukraine owe anythig to he says, whatever you can do, the united states? it's very important that you do >> mr. goldman, they didn't. it if that's possible. they owed appreciation for the now, mr. kent, you've testified a little bit about how important support, and they were getting this white house meeting was to

support and they appreciated nd president zelensky. how would you expect a new ukrainian president to interpret to president trump on that. a request for a favor from the >> but you understood the upshot of this comment made by both ambassador sondland and president of the united states? >> i cannot interpret the mind ambassador volker to be that president trump believed that of president zelensky other than ukraine owed him something to say that it was very clear what they were hoping to get out personally. is that accurate? of this meeting was a date and a >> it's hard to understand, but confirmation that he could come to washington. there was a feeling by president >> obviously you can't put yourself in the mind, but if the urainian president for a country that's so dependent on trump that he -- and this came the united states for all out in the transcript. things, including military i'm sorry. this came out in the discussion assistance, is requested to do a with the inaugural delegation favor, how do you think the when they came back to have a ukrainians would interpret that? >> if you go further into the conversation with president trump on may 23rd that he had a call record as part of this -- and we don't have it on screen, feeling of having been wronged but to the best of my recollection reading it after it by the ukrainians. was released on september 25th, president zelensky went into and so this was something that he thought they owed him to fix having whatever your problems were, that was the old team,

i've got a new team and we will that wrong. >> right. but what he was talking about, do whatever is appropriate and as you understood it, because in be transparent and honest about the context of the conversation is that what he owed him were it. i don't remember the exact these investigations that he words, but he was trying to be, wanted. >> that would have been to fix in his own words and response, the wrong. exactly. >> and those investigations into be responsive to conduct the the 2016 election and biden and business of ukrainian government burisma. >> that is correct. >> now, during this early period in september, we've talked a in t little bit about the fact that in a transparent and honest manner. >> when he talks about this crowd strike and the server, you continually heard that the what do you understand this to be in reference to? president was repeatedly saying >> to be honest, i had not heard that there was no quid pro quo, is that right? >> that is correct. of crowd strike until i read >> he still says that repeatedly this transcript on september 9 today. regardless of what you call it, whether it's a quid pro quo, 25th. >> do you understand what it bribery, extortion, abuse of relates to? >> i understand it has to do power of the office of the with the story that there's a presidency, the fact of the certainer with missing e-mails. i also understand that one of the owners of crowd strike is a matter, as you understood it,isa that security assistance and the russian-american. i'm not aware of any ukrainian white house meeting were not going to be provided unless connection to the company. ukraine initiated these two >> now, are you aware this is investigations that would all part of a larger allegation benefit donald trump's

that ukraine interfered in the reelection. is that what you understood the facts to be? 2016 election? >> mr. goldman, what i can do >> yes. that is my understanding. here for you today is tell you >> to your knowledge, is there what i heard from people. any factual basis to support the in this case, it was what i allegation that ukraine heard from ambassador sondland. interfered in the 2016 election? >> to my knowledge, there is no he described the conditions for factual basis, no. >> in fact, who did interfere in the security assistance and the the 2016 election? white house meeting in those >> i think it's amply clear that russian interference was at the terms. heart of the interference in the that is dependent upon, conditioned upon pursuing these 2016 election cycle. investigations. >> let's move to the third >> you heard that from ambassador sondland himself, excerpt that i mentioned related correct? >> correct. to vice president biden. it says, the other thing, >> you alsoheard a similar there's a lot of talk about story from mr. morrison as well, is that right? biden's son. >> who also talked to ambassador this is president trump speaking. that biden stopped the sondland about the conversations prosecution and a lot of people that he had had in warsaw with want to find out about that. the ukrainians. so whatever you can do with the >> what mr. morrison recounted attorney general would be great. to you was substantially similar biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. to what mr. sondland recounted so if you can look into it, it to you, right? sounds horrible. >> yes. now, at the time of this call >> regardless of what ukrainians vice president biden was the may say now, now that everything front-runner for the democratic is out in the public and we're here in this public hearing, nomination in the 2020 election.

mr. kent, are you familiar, as that they felt no pressure from you indicate in your opening statement, about these president trump, it was your clear understanding, was it not, allegations related to vice president biden? >> i ukraine, did he act in that in early september when the pressure campaign was still accordance with official u.s. secret, that the ukrainians policy? >> he did. believed that they needed to >> now, let's go to then the announce these public investigations, is that right? last excerpt that i wanted to >> mr. goldman, i know that the highlight, which is president zelensky speaking. he says, i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit ukrainians were very concerned about the security assistance. the united states, specifically and i know that they were washington, d.c. prepared or preparing to make a on the other hand, i also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and public statement, that is with a we will work on the investigation. now, ambassador taylor, right cnn interview that was being planned. those are the two pieces that i after president zelensky know. >> and that cnn interview was to mentions his much desired washington visit, he says, on announce these investigations, the other hand, and then says as you understood it, right? that ukraine will be very >> that was the implication. serious about the investigation. is this the same link between that was certainly the implication. >> we've been focused a lot on the white house visit and the the september time frame, but i investigations that ambassador want to go back two months to volker had texted to andre

july before the july 25th all. yermak just a few minutes before this conversation? you testifid, ambassador >> that's my assumption. tylor, in your opening statement that it was in the >> now, just to summarize what middle of july when you we've just read in this july understood that the white house meeting was first a condition on 25th call between the presidents, the ukrainian president thanked president trump for security assistance these investigations, is that that president trump had just accurate? >> yes. we were preparing -- and i frozen, to which president trump responded that he wanted agreed that the white house president zelensky to do him a meeting was going to be an favor, though, by investigating important step in u.s./ukrainian the 2016 u.s. election and the relations. so in june and in early july, bidens. and president zelensky says that he will pursue these investigations right after he mentions the white house visit. attempts to work out a way to is that your understanding, get that meeting included a ambassador taylor, of what we phone call. so there were several just read? >> yes. >> mr. kent, is that yours? conversations about how to have this phone call that eventually >> yes. >> i yield back. happened on july 25th. >> the majority time has >> and you described in your expired. would you gentlemen like a brief opening statement a july 10th white house meeting with a number of officials where recess? >> yes. >> let's take a 5-minute recess. ambassador bolton used the term then we'll resume with minority that something was a "drug deal." what did you understand him to questioning. >> there as you just heard, mean in hearing that he used

taking a 5-minute recess. this term "drug deal"? very shortly it will be the >> mr. goldman, i don't know. republicans' turn to ask i don't know what ambassador questions and to be able to ask bolton had in mind. >> was that in reference to a questions for a 45-minute discussion in that meeting stretch of the same witnesses. related to the white house quick takes from our group here, meeting that president zelensky wanted and in connection to the john king. >> i think a very methodical investigatio presentation from the two investigations? >> the context of that comment diplomats and through the questioning of the lead counsel was the discussion that mr. for the democrats of the timeline and of what the democrats and the two diplomats say is a foreign policy turned corrupt, taken over by rudy danyluk who was mr. bolton's giuliani, taken over by the ukrainian counterpart had had president's ambassador to the european union in a way they with mr. bolton. found not only unusual, that conversation was very unorthodox and outside the substantive up until the point lines, but counter productive to where the white house meeting the u.s. national security was raised and ambassador interests and corrupt. that's the case they are making. sondland intervened to talk the american people watching this at home as it's happening, about the investigations. both political parties on twitter, in e-mails, in text it was at that point that messages trying to shape the conversation about this. ambassador bolton ceased the the republican argument is the president wanted to change the meeting, closed the meeting, foreign policy and the finished the meeting and told bureaucracy resisted.

i think the key point in the testimony here is what they're his staff to report this meeting trying to get to is the corrupt to the lawyers. part. can you make the case, take it and he also later then indicated across the line from the president doing something to fiona hill, who was also a unusual, head jarring, maybe obnoxious, but how do you make participant on nsc staff, that it corrupt and abuse? >> the thing to keep in mind he, ambassador bolton, didn't that people at home may not know about both witnesses, but want to be associated with this particularly bill taylor, is he drug deal. has worked for presidents in the implication was it was the both parties since ronald reagan. he is a career diplomat who made very, very clear in his domestic politics that was being testimony that he is lacki inlot cooked up. >> did ambassador sondland said for american foreign policy and this in front of the ukrainian the notion of propping up officials, to your democracies that need help from understanding? the u.s., particularly those who >> ambassador sondland in the are getting run over by russia. meeting where ambassador bolton was having the conversation with his counterpart raised the issue and that he was running ar ning with his hair on fire because he of investigations being thought the president of the important to come before the united states was undermining that for his own political white house meeting that had just been raised. purposes. that is by far the key take-away >> ukrainian officials were from somebody who is a very

credible witness. there? >> and ukrainian officials were >> to john's point of bringing in that meeting, yes, sir. >> around this same time in mid up what the republicans are saying, well, look, this was the july, did you have any president just interested in changing foreign policy. discussions with ukrainian officials about these this really wasn't a changing investigations? foreign policy. >> i don't recall. this was executing a private >> well, let me show you a text policy by the president that would benefit him. message that you wrote on july >> he kept calling it there was a regular policy and there was 21st where you wrote it again to an irregular policy which was run by rudy giuliani and the ambassador sondland and volker. president. a couple of things strike me if you could just read what you about ambassador taylor today. wrote here on july 21st. number one, we learned something >> gordon, one thing curt and i new, that ambassador sondland had a direct phone call with the talked about yesterday was sasha president, which we did not know about before, in which he told danyluk's point that president zelensky is sensitive about people sitting around a dinner ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in table who could actually hear washington domestic reelection the president bellowing into his cell phone that the president politics. >> and sasha danyluk is wanted to get this ambassador bolton's counterpart. investigations underway, and then he told people after he >> is the national security hung up that the president cares advisor -- he was. more about the investigations of no longer, but he was at the time. >> what did you understand it to biden than he did about anything

mean when zelensky had concerns else. that's number one. about being an instrument in number two, what i think was so washington dough memestic reele effective about both of these people was that they spoke about the existential threat to politics? >> mr. danyluk understood that ukraine from the russians and these investigations were how important this is for the national security of this pursuant to mr. giuliani's country and the entire world. request to develop information, and he said, if we don't push to find information about burisma and the bidens. back, that affects the kind of world in which we live. this was very well known in >> that phone call, this was a public. mr. giuliani had made this point bombshell. this was new information. clear in several instances in remember, the now notorious the beginning, in the springtime. and mr. danyluk was aware of allegedly perfect phone call between the president of the united states and the president that that was a problem. >> and would you agree that of ukraine is july 25th. because president zelensky is the next day, july 26th, worried about this, they understood at least that there ambassador sondland, the was some pressure for them to pursue these investigations, is ambassador to the european that fair? >> mr. danyluk indicated that union, which ukraine is not in, which is one of the mysteries president zelensky certainly understood it that he did not here, calls back to the white want to get involved in these house and speaks to the president.

it's like in a movie. type of activities. they're sitting there and other >> now, i'm going to move ahead people at the table are hearing now to july 25th, which was when the president's voice. president trump and president zelensky had the phone call. and they hear him say, what but before we get to the phone call, i want to show both of you about the investigations, showing as all this evidence a text message. shows that the only thing the neither of you is on this text president cared about ukraine -- message. it is between ambassador volker he didn't care if these people were dying. and andre yermak, a top aide to he didn't care about russian president zelensky. invasion. he wanted these investigations. i will read it. >> by the way, what kind of ambassador volker says, good lunch, thanks. heard from white house. secure devices is the president assuming president z convinces and ambassador sondland using in trump he will investigate/get to a restaurant where people can hear? the bottom of what happened in >> maybe like tick-tock or 2016. we will nail down date for visit something. >> maybe like your cell phone. to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow, kurt. >> there was a staffer for this was less than a half hour before the call actually occurred. taylor who was at this dinner. now, ambassador taylor, was ambassador volker with you in i am going to bet some money we ukraine at this time? hear from this staffer in the >> he was. rest of these hearings. >> did you know that he was prepping president zelensky for >> absolutely. >> and we should. this phone call with president trump in this way? i want to go back to what devin

nunes called this whole thing, a >> not in this way mr. goldman, low rent ukrainian sequel. but i knew that ambassador his whole intent today was to volker was prepping ukrainians frame the conversation and the for the phone call earlier on. testimony of these two credible men as being part of a last ditch effort to relitigate not only the election but the that is, at a meeting in toronto mueller probe as well. what you saw instead from these on july 2nd ambassador volker two individuals were not people who were fawning to try to become partisan. had a conversation with they weren't answering yes or no when yes or no was really the only response they should have president zelensky and had given in some instances. indicated in a phone call that he at that time was going to instead they were very clear to say here's what i heard, here's who i heard it from, giving you talk president zelensky through the steps that needed to be the flowchart and the sense of taken in order to get to the phone call. >> understood. and you testified earlier that information to negate any information that they are somehow here tryino a part the security assistance had already been frozen, to your of this sequel. knowledge, at least by july 18th, is that right? you're right abouting called. >> that is correct. >> so that was just a week earlier than this? finally what you saw july 25th >> that is correct. >> just so we're clear, was a trap. the ukrainians did not know the ambassador taylor, before this aid had already been held. july 25th call, president trump they did not know in that phone

had frozen the security call that they were being lured assistance that ukraine needed into a trap where they were not and that the white house meeting going to get any money and not was conditioned on ukraine any aid, taxpayer dollar aid by initiating this investigation and that had been relayed to the the way, unless they looked into ukrainians. is that an accurate state of burisma. that really is the crux of this play at this time? entire issue. >> that's an accurate state of >> let's keep in mind this is not just any hearing. play. i at that point had no this is an impeachment hearing. indication that any discussion this is the very first time in of the security assistance being u.s. history that we've seen a subject to, conditioned on the investigations had taken place. >> right. tell visu but you understood that the televised telling. white house meeting was -- >> that is correct. it didn't happen in the nixon >> let's move ahead to this july 25th call between the era. it didn't happen in the clinton era because they really didn't presidents. now, am i correct that neither have testimony from the witnesses who mattered. of you were on this call, is this is the very first time that right, mr. kent? we've seen this on television. >> that is correct. >> that is correct. the case is not being made by a >> so you both read it after it democratic prosecutor. was released publicly at the end it's being made by patriotic of september? >> yes. professionals who are piecing >> yes. together the story of an abuse >> i want to spend just a little time reading the transcript as of power. what i would be watching for at we've been encouraged to do. home is the extent to which

i want to particularly note four president trump used his enormous power as president not to help our security but to excerpts of the transcript, one benefit himself personally. as you watch this piece by piece that relates to the security this picture being built by the assistance we've been talking professionals, is that the about, another that discusses a picture you're seeing? favor that president trump asked if it is, it's impeachable. of president zelensky, a third >> not to fight the russians. where president trump asks the ukrainian president to >> our security as ambassador investigate his political taylor said, our security is in opponent, former vice president a world governed by rule of law biden, and then a final one where the ukrainian president where you do not violate the directly links the desired white sovereignty of your neighbors, house visit to the political that you respect international investigations that president trump wanted. so let's look at the first covenants. that world is undermined whenever we are not helping excerpt which is near the countries like the ukraine which beginning of the call when are front-line states. >> three things struck me. president zelensky discusses the number one, the stakes for military aid that the u.s. sondland next week. they were already high but now provides to ukraine. he says, i would also like to they're far higher because of what was said today. thank you for your great support his testimony may ultimately be in the area of defense. the thing that we remember the we are ready to continue to most because of what taylor cooperate for the next steps. said. number two, i'm not hearing any specifically we are almost ready concern from republicans that to buy more javelins from the united states for defense purposes. now, at the time of this phone this has been dpcompelling enou

call, ambassador taylor and mr. to motivate massive shifts in kent, you both knew that the aid had been frozen, public opinion. there was one moment where the democratic counsel was questioning taylor and he was looking for a simple yes and taylor said, well, here's what i can do for you. in that moment, i thought that was probably the correct hearing answer but it wasn't the correct tv answer if you're a democrat looking for a moment. >> it speaks well to taylor, though. it's very easy when you're being interviewed and you have an interviewer who's leading you to just go with what they want, but taylor didn't. >> one of the things you are certainly going to hear in the next 45 minutes from the republicans is that taylor never had a single conversation with president trump. that's important. >> and that's why i think this july 26th phone call where his aide overhears the president

speaking is so important. it's just irrefutable at this point that there was this effort throughout the bureaucracy to 20 thwart the normal approved policy, but the issue was the president's involvement. >> just one more thing i'm hearing from some republicans is that they feel like some of the foreign policy conversation is being lost trump versus obama. we heard a lot about lethal assistance this morning in some of the statements. for two years the obama administration would not provide lethal assistance to the ukrainians. the democrats are complaining about a very brief hold on assistance in this case but for two years our policy was to not provide lethal assistance to the ukrainians. >> does the reason matter, scott? doesn't the reason why you don't do it if it's a policy, if it's related to what you think is best for europe, that's one thing. but if it's just because the

president doesn't want the aid to go to people who won't give him dirt on the bidens, isn't there a difference in the rationale? >> i think the net result to the policy to republicans matters. they feel like this is another case where the obama train station gadministration got awa with terrible judgment. >> you don't mean net result as in all's well that ends well. >> i mean the obama administration wouldn't provide aid that the trump administration is now providing. >> there's no evidence -- that was because the president decided not to do it not for any corrupt reason. >> how do you know why? >> i would say that kent and taylor both helped their credibility to that point because taylor said he thought obama was too weak and he applauded the trump administration for going to the lethal said. kent said i don't think it's too wise that your son has business dealings here while you're the vice president of the united states in charge of ukraine

policy. i think they both helped their credibility by saying we're straight shooters, we call it like we see it. >> can i just add as we wait for a very different set of questioning from republicans, we are going to hear republicans over and over, particularly nunes and the counsel pull out the fact that neither taylor nor kent heard from the president, that it's hearsay. that is what they're preparing to do. it's what they did, we know from the transcripts of the depositions, the closed-door interviews. except the fact that we are going to hear from gordon all that to rest. going to put - >> potentially this new witness, the staffer who they'll challenge him saying are you sure you overheard a cell phone conversation. >> right, in a restaurant.

>> the challenge for the democrats is to turn to the republicans and say, if you are so sure, why won't you call up mick mulvaney, why won't you tell the president to send up john bolton, because the white house was unsuccessful in blocking kent and taylor, has been successful in keeping a half dozen people from speaking at all. >> sondland is the missing link here. he's the one if you want to draw a direct line between the president and holding up the aid and caring only about investigations, as he told these people at the dinner, sondland is the missing link. >> although who knows what sondland -- i mean, he gave one testimony. he then had to go back and revise once other people came forward and pointed out that his testimony was not accurate. >> if they attack sondland, let's play that out. say they attack sondland and say you have no credibility, then the democrats do exactly what john is suggesting which is there are some people who

actually had direct conversations with the president about ukraine aid. well, who would that be? that would be john bolton. >> there is no explicit requirement of there being this direct conversation that's provided. it is very, very helpful. it is extraordinarily compelling and perpersuasive. certainly what we're talking about here is about inference. even though we read it on paper and saw the transcript, the idea of this is not a quid pro quo, you hear it and watch the eyes of the person testifying. it's more of a ribbing of now i'm telling you i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you. when you see it played out that way, it's not really required to have it. however, you're right, it's important to have somebody to at least say it was the sbintentio of the president of the united states. >> you need a pattern of corruption. let's keep in mind that republicans and democrats on the house judiciary committee voted for articles of impeachment against richard nixon before the

smoking gun conversation came out. it's a pattern of corruption. you don't need direct evidence of the president ordering it. what you need to be sure is that the argument that the republicans who did not vote for impeachment made at that time was these people were all corrupt actors, they were not going what the president wanted them to. >> what you need is a political argument that will get you a majority of votes in the house. this is not a courtroom. >> they have that. they have enough democrats. nancy pelosi would not have let this go to the next step if she was not confident they would get to the finish line. the big challenge of these hearings is do you move any republicans? and if you move any republicans, how many republicans can you move in the house? then you take it to the senate. >> do you see any republicans? >> not this morning. look, i think one of the challenges for the democrats is can they hold the american people's attention long enough to get to sondland next week? because obviously he's the linchpin of this. we have second and third hand conversations today.

but when you get to sondland, he's actual maybe spoken directly to the president about these matters. so he's the only one i think would matter to a republican senator who can always fall back on, well, i don't know, it's hearsay. >> i love the idea that it is now 12:35 eastern. the hearing began at 10:00. apparently the american people's attention span is so short they're bored already and the issue is over. i mean, let's give this a little time. let's hear from some witnesses. let's see how these two witnesses hold up under cross examination. >> what i don't understand about the republican theory of this is hearsay, that's what they said about the whistleblower and turns out pretty much everything the whistleblower said has been verified by other people. i don't understand the continued focus on the whistleblower. if you're saying that this is all just hearsay, that nobody

saw the president give these orders, then you're implying that all of these people are running their own side government in like a kabal to screw over ukraine. >> most reasons don't believe that. most republicans in private conversations will tell you this is ugly, this is horrible. to varying degrees. some think it was horrible, some think it was rogue, some think it was terrible, some think it was reprehensible. a lot of republicans would like to get to the place to say this should not have happened, this went off the rails, it is wrong. it's not impeachable because they did get the money in the end. they didn't do the investigations in the end. let the american people settle this next november. but they can't go there because the president has told them not to. >> they only got the money in the end because the white house got wind that a complaint was being made. in fact, the times has reported that ukraine was going to capitulate and do these

investigations because they felt they had no other choice. >> so does the justice department give the white house a little wink wink and say guess what, there is a whistleblower investigation going on? okay, the money is released. by the way, if you're looking at a timeline, that is right around the time that john bolton is fired or leaves. >> we've got to take a quick break. more ahead and more testimony in just a moment. celebrating a successful business trip together is easy, if you're staying at holiday inn. wwithout it, i cannot write myl tremors wouldname.xtreme. i was diagnosed with parkinson's. i had to retire from law enforcement. it was devastating. one of my medications is three thousand dollars per month. prescription drugs do not work if you cannot afford them. for sixty years, aarp has been fighting for people like larry.

and we won't stop. join us in fighting for what's right.

it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house. it's another thing, i thought, to leverage security assistance, security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support. it was much more alarming, the

white house meeting was one thing, security assistance was much more alarming. >> that was testimony that occurred just a short time ago from ambassador taylor. we're going to be hearing more testimony in just a few moments. they took a short break. soon it will also go over to the republican side for 45 minutes of interrupted questioning by republicans. so that will be interesting to see. it does bear repeating and i think both taylor and the other witness made it very clear that, you know, this wasn't happening in a vacuum. this was happening in a country at war where lives were being lost every day or every week in this trench warfare that's going on in ukraine. so this holdup of aid, it's not just like pieces on a chess board. there is a human cost

potentially behind all of this. >> it's not a bloodless policy dispute. people have to keep that in mind. this is not an issue of an obama policy versus a trump policy. the trump policy was to help the ukrainians defend themselves. it's this irregular policy which comes out of the blue and undermines our national policy to help ukraine which is at issue here. >> two key things. ambassador kent brought it up in his opening statement that rudy giuliani was not just dealing with people in ukraine, he was dealing with known crooks and corrupt people in ukraine. i think that's a huge challenge for the democrats to bring that out, that rudy giuliani was working not just with ukraines but with known bad actors. the other point is the drug deal from john bolton. if you can get that on the record in a convincing way, it was bad, it was wrong. >> is dramatically different from their nefarious depiction of it.

what it actually shows is a pleasant exchange between two leaders who discussed mutual cooperation over a range of issues. the democrats claim this callex and a host of other monointrodumonstrous crimes being committed against zelensky. yet president zelensky insists there was nothing improper whatsoever about the conversation. the nature of the call helps to explain why in this committee's last public hearing democrats recited a fictitious version of the call instead of reading the actual transcript. the democrats depicted the president saying, quote, i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that, unquote. the transcript did not show president trump saying anything remotely like that.

the president did not ask ukraine to make up dirt on anyone, but the democrats are not trying to discover facts, they're trying to invent a narrative. and if the facts they need do not exist, then they'll just make it up. not only does president zelensky deny the democrats' characterization of the call. but as ambassador taylor testified to the committee, the ukrainians did not even know at the time of the call that a temporary delay was put on security assistance for them. furthermore, these holds occur from time to time. both he and ambassador volker we delay would be lifted. in fact,al improved since president trump took office. ambassador taylor testified that president trump was the first president to see that ukraine was afforded javelin anti-tank weapons.

this was a very strong message that americans are willing to provide more than blankets. this was the obama administration's approach. note this important fact. the security assistance was provided to ukraine without the ukrainians having done any of the things they were supposedly being blackmailed to do. so we're supposed to believe that president trump committed a terrible crime that never actually occurred and which the supposed victim denies ever happened. i'd like to briefly speak about the core mistruth at the heart of the democrats' impeachment drive. they claim the president tried to get the ukrainians to, quote, manufacture dirt against his political rivals. this is supported by precisely zero evidence. once again, the democrats simply made it up. let's consider the broader question about why president trump may have wanted answers to

questions about ukraine meddling in 2016. the democrats downplay, ignore, o outright deny the many accusations that the ukrainians did meddle in the election, a shocking about face for people who argued for three years that foreign election meddling was an intolerable crime that threatened the heart of our democracy, while the brazen suddenness of this u turn is jarring, this denies a necessary part of their argument after all, if there were indications of ukraine election meddling, then president trump would have a perfectly good reason for wanting to find out what happened. since the meddling was aimed against his campaign, he'd have good reason for sending his personal attorney to make inquiries about it. what's strange is that some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions who

express alarm about these inquiries were remarkably uninformed about these indications of ukrainian election meddling and why the president may have been concerned by them. for example, i noted previously former staffer for the democratic national committee admitted to politico that she worked with the ukrainian officials in washington state to dig up dirt on the trump campaign, which she passed onto the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign. she revealed that ukrainian officials were working with reporters to trade information and leads about the trump campaign. ambassador kent, you didn't seem to be too concerned about it in the last round of questionin in so i'll skip you. ambassador taylor, you testified to this committee you only

recently became aware of reports of this cooperation between ukrainian embassy officials and c chalupa to undermine the campaign. >> it is correct that i had not known about this before. exactly right. >> the politico article cited three named ukrainian officials asserting that the ukrainian officials supported the hillary clinton campaign. it quotes parliamentarian saying it was clear they were supporting hillary clinton's candidacy. they did everything from organizing meetings to publicly supporting her to criticizing trump. i think they simply didn't meet with the trump campaign because they thought hillary would win, unquote. ambassador taylor, you testified you were unfamiliar with that statement, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you also said you were unaware that then ukrainian ambassador to the u.s. wrote an

op-ed in the hill during the 2016 presidential campaign criticizing then-candidate trump. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you said you did not know that sergei leshenco admitted that part -- corruption by a former trump campaign official was to undermine the trump's candidacy? this was in your deposition. is that still correct? >> that is still correct, sir. >> thank you, mr. taylor. fusion gps contractor nellie ohr testified that leshenko was a source to dirty up the trump campaign including the compilation of the steel dossier on behalf of the dnc and the clinton campaign. you testified you were unaware

that leshenco served as a source for that project. is this still correct? >> it is, sir. >> you said you did not know that ukrainian internal affairs minister mocked and disparaged then-candidate trump on facebook and twitter. is that still correct? >> that is correct. >> ambassador taylor, in your testimony to this committee you said you were never briefed on these reports and statements, that you did not do due diligence before taking your post to discover that the president's and mayor giuliani's concerns may have been -- what they may have been and that you did not discuss them with ambassador yovanovitch. is that still correct? >> yes, sir. >> furthermore, you said it upset you to hear about the many indications of ukrainian election meddling. your precise words were -- i'm going to read them back to you -- based on this politico

article, which again surprises me, disappoints me because i think it's a mistake for any diplomat official in one country to interfere in the political life of another. that's disappointing, unquote. is that still your testimony? >> mr. nunes, it is. subsequent to that, i looked into the circumstances for several of the things that you just mentioned. in 2016 candidate trump had made a statement saying that it was possible that he would allow crimea to go back to russia. he that it was possible that crimea wanted to go back to

russia. what i is that that sentiment is amazingly inflammatory to all ukrainians. >> so i think -- so i can understand that. are you aware during the -- i believe it was the 2012 election when at the time president obama leaned over on a hot mic to the then russian president and said he'd have to wait until after the election. was that inflammatory to the ukrainians also? >> i don't know, sir. >> i just want to be clear that some government officials opposed president trump's approach to ukraine, but many had no idea what concerned him. in this case, it was numerous

indications of ukrainian interference in the 2016 election to oppose his campaign and support hillary clinton. once you know that, it's easy to understand the president's desire to get to the bottom of this corruption and to discover exactly what happened in the 2016 election. with that, i'll turn to mr. caster. >> ambassador taylor, mr. kent, president trump's concerns about ukraine's role in the 2016 election, you believe he genuinely believed they were working against him, right, ambassador taylor? >> mr. caster, i don't know what president trump or candidate trump was thinking about the ukrainians. >> didn't he in this oval office meeting on may 23rd after the zelensky inauguration, didn't he lament that the ukrainians were out to get him? >> i heard that his response to

the suggestion that mr. zelensky visit mr. trump, president trump in the oval office was not well-received and that he had concerns about ukrainians, yes. >> but from the president's perspective, if the ukrainian ambassador to the united states, one of the most influential diplomats is penning an op-ed, certainly with the okay of president poroshenko, the dnc consultants are conferring with ukrainian officials at the embassy. former prime minister is saying things on immediate. the interior minister who has spanned both the poroshenko and the zelensky realm is also saying some very unkind things on social media about the president. you certainly can appreciate

that president trump was very concerned that some elements of the ukrainian establishment were not in favor of him, did not support him and were out to get him. >> i'll allow the question, but are -- >> parliamentary inquiry, are you seriously interrupting our time here? >> i'll allow the question. i won't dock this from the time. i just want to be clear, ambassador, if you're able to verify the things that counsel has asked you in the prerequisite of the question, that's fine. otherwise in questions of the majority or the minority that assumes facts not in evidence before you, you should be cautioned about that. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> the time is with minority counsel. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> chairman, i sat here through the first 45 minutes and object

almost the foundation of every question that mr. goldman asked regarding facts not in evidence, leading. but house resolution 660 does not say that we are under the federal rules of evidence. if it is your position that i should be asserting objections to questions that violate the federal rules of evidence, let me know now because this hearing is going to change significantly. >> as i said, mr. ratcliffe, i'll allow the question. >> i think the gentleman has a different question about the rules. what are the rules that are going to govern this? >> does the ranking member seek recognition? >> i'm yielding to you for a question -- to the question i just asked you. >> for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> to answer mr. ratcliffe's question. >> i have answered it. resume your questioning. >> respectfully, mr. chairman, you haven't answered my question whether or not i should be asserting assumes facts not in

evidence or leading objections to questions that are posed from this point forward. that's my question. >> mr. ratcliffe, i'll say once again i'm not objectng to the question but i am instructing the witness that they should not presume questions from the majority or the minority that may represent facts not in evidence are correct. this is -- i have answered the question. we will resume the questioning and resume the clock. >> so you certainly can appreciate president trump's concer concerns? >> mr. castor, i don't know the exact nature of president trump's concerns. in my deposition, i recall you handed me the politico article, which listed at least three of the elements that you have described earlier. and you've recognized and i have

confirmed with the ranking minority member that that's the first i'd heard of those and was surprised by those. i don't know president trump's reaction to those. >> in the information published by leshenko about the manafort black ledgers in august of 2016, you mean the very day that was published mr. manafort resigned from the campaign, correct? >> i don't know, mr. castor. >> certainly that gives rise to some concern that there are elements of the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. that's a very reasonable belief of his, correct? >> i don't know. >> in the run-up to the 2016 election, there's many facts that remain unresolved, agreed? >> i'm sorry.

what's the question? >> there are many facts relating to the run-up of the 2016 election that remain unresolved. >> any further -- >> well attorney general barr in may of 2019 tasked the u.s. attorney for connecticut, john durham to broadly examine the government's collection of intelligence involving the president's campaign. that effort initially was an administrative review, has turned into a criminal probe. u.s. attorney durham is casting a wide net and is following the facts where they may lead. are you aware of that? >> i'm aware that there is an investigation. that's as much as i'm aware. >> so to the extent any information resides in ukraine, it's perfectly appropriate for the ukrainians to try to get to the bottom of that, for the ukrainians to cooperate with the united states through official channels to share that information, correct? >> can you say that again? i would appreciate if you'd restate the question. >> to the extent that ukrainian

has facts related to the run-up to the 2016 election that are under the u.s. attorney durham's probe, ukraine should cooperate with the united states and to the extent there aredog imprope ukrainians ought to investigate that themselves, correct? >> mr. castor, the ukraine/american relations are very supportive. the ukrainians will certainly be responsive to requests. >> when the president on the call transcript of july 25th raises this with president zelensky and he urges that there be a connection between the ukrainian government and the justice department officially, i mean, that's the appropriate way to raise an issue with the ukrainian president, correct? >> it's appropriate for the justice department and the prosecutor general to cooperate and to exchange information, yes. >> to the extent the president has concerns and to the extent the attorney general is having

u.s. attorney durham look into it, isn't it entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for president zelensky and say youn touch with our official channels? >> mr. castor, i don't know the precise appropriateness of these kinds of relations. >> now, were either of you involved with the preparation for the 7/25 call? >> i was not. >> i was not. >> how do you account for that? i mean, you were two of the key officials with responsibility for ukrainian policy. if the president of the united states is going to have a call with