hello. this is anderson cooper. this is cnn's special live coverage of the second day of public impeachment hearings. it has now led to accusations of witness intimidation against the president. we'll explain that in a moment. first, to the only witness speaking publicly today marie yovanovitch. she's also the sole person in the ukraine saga who asserts being an actual victim of corruption. remember. fighting corruption is the reason the president gives for investigating joe biden and her son hunter but the ambassador believes she lost her job for rooting out crooked players in ukraine. >> ukrainians who prefer to play by the old corrupt rules sought to remove me. what continues to amaze me is they found americans willing to

partner with them and working together they apparently succeeded in okay straighting the we move of a u.s. ambassador. how do our system fail like that. how could krun corrupt interests manipulate our government? how could the behavior we're trying to stop be allowed to prevail. >> rudy giuliani helped push a smear campaign against yovanovitch and accusing her of partisanship and bad behavior. the false stories led president trump to remove her in may despite a strong level by multiple high level officials in the state department to try to defend her h. >> in the face of the smear campaign did colleagues try to get a statement of support for you from secretary pompeo? >> yes. >> were they smell? >> no. >> did you come to learn that

they couldn't issue such a statement because they feared it would be undercut by the president? >> yes? >> in a remarkable moment under already extraordinary circumstances the president began tweeting attacks against yovanovitch as she was testifying. house intelligence chairman adam schiff asked yovanovitch to react. >> and now the president in real time is attacking you. what effect do you think that has on other witnesses coming forward and expose wrongdoing it. >> it's very intimidating? >> it's designed to intimidate, is it not? >> i mean, i can't speak to what the president is trying to do but i think the effect is to be intimidating. >> well, i want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously. >> i want to turn to our

attorney here, former assistant u.s. in sdny and laura coates, former assistant attorney. >> to me is this witness intimidation? >> to me it's textbook. he tweeted out a direct personal attack on this witness clearly related to her testimony while she was testifying. i've prosecuted witness tampering cases. i've tried witness tampering cases. to me this is right down the middle. the question who is going to prosecute it? not bill barr. there's a question whether you can prosecute a sitting president but the question is what is adam schiff going to do. he interrupted the proceedings to call out this tweet. >> it seems that the president has thought that this witness is particularly under his craw, somebody not even in service at the time when the now damaging phone call has gotten out. what is it that she's able to provide that allows him and wants him to go and directly attack her because this did not

begin on the july 25th phone call. it started long before that when they tried to oust her so the testimony is all the more important, that foundation. also remember, while there is an olc opinion that says this president, a sitting president could not be indicted for a crime, everybody who follows suit with this president who tries to either confirm or market or promote that tweet, that ideology about trying to in some way intimidate a witness, they are all fair game and should take notice that there's no olc opinion that says nobody -- that everybody is going to immune to you. >> there are supporters of the president who would say, look, why isn't okay for the president to express his frustration or express himself for what he's seeing on television? >> he's allowed to express his views. the problem is you have to look at his intent. when is he doing it, in the middle of her testimony and are the attacks substantive or are they personally directed at her, so it all comes down to the intent. how can you ignore the timing. it's while this is happening and he has a track record of doing

this, right? i mean, mueller called him out for doing this towards manafort, cohen, everyone else who might potentially testify, so it's not like this is his first time out of the gate. i think he has an established pattern here. >> gloria? >> i think in a funny way it makes her move believable and kribld as a witness because here the president is threatening her, smearing her in realtime while she's testifying about how she was threatened and smeared when she was ambassador, and for those who say, well, that never happened, just like at what's happening in realtime now, and would you have to say oh, yeah. i understand it, and i understand how this works. >> and her reaction to it. you saw her face when she heard the news. kind of plinkd and hblinked and shoulders slumped for a second as she tried to regain her composure. this is not somebody trying to be a partisan hack or somebody who loves being here. it was her reacting. imagine what it felt like for a career diplomat, the heist ranking female in the state

department i believe at the time in ukraine, especially to have this attack happen coming out of left field. >> scott? >> yeah. i don't think it was smart for the president to tweet at her today. i found her to be pretty compelling figure. she clearly loves her country. i mean, she may have policy differences with the president and that's fine and she admitted in her testimony. she understands these positions serve as the pleasure of the president, but to attack her today i think while she was testifying only served to elevate her concerns. i mean, her timeline doesn't match up with some of the events in question so a legitimate strategy on this would have been to ignore it and to say, well, in the past she said she knows she serves at the pleasure of the president. in the past she's praised the trump administration's decisions on the ukraine, specifically to provide lethal assistance and just leave it at that, but when you start attacking someone who is at the table who is already giving a fairly compelling statement, it elevates them and i suspect this is now going to spiral out for the rest of the day and make her testimony perhaps more northern than it

should have been to the overall question of the inquiry which in some case she doesn't really -- she doesn't have the correct timeline on. >> timle? >> i don't know the legal consequences of the president's tweet, but i'll tell you this. for open-mind pedestrian, fair-mined americans it proved the climate of intimidation that ambassador yovanovitch was explaining, and let me tell you, we've not seen a climate of intimidation of public servants like this since is the mccarthy period. if somebody can be taken down by a series of false accusations promoted by the president and his family, we are in a period -- it's like the '50s. >> not a false allegation, these are conspiracy theories which have become basis for u.s. foreign policy. >> that's what happened in the 1950s. my point -- dwight eisenhower didn't do it. thank god the president of the united states didn't do this in the '50s. he could have been tougher against mccarthy, but the point is that's what mccarthyism is

all about, innuendo, false accusations, conspiracy theories, to take down career professionals. that's what -- to take them down, to undermine the policy of the united states. >> i'm sorry. one other issue that made no sense about me about the attacks on her today. what else can you do to this person? you already run her out of her job. she's already been effectively maligned by her boss, the president of the united states. >> publicly. >> publicly. >> and to sort of continue -- there is no more -- there's nothing else you can do to this person. you can attack them publicly during their testimony and maybe you think you're continuing to hurt them. i don't know how you can hurt her anymore so from a strategic perspective, a strategic communications perspective, it makes no sense to me to do that. >> i want to quickly go to manu raju on capitol hill. i think he's getting reaction. >> adam schiff came out and made very clear that he views this as witness intimidation and takes it, quote, very, very seriously.

the first reaction that he had out of of this testimony this morning. did not weigh in about what she has said but weighed in on what the president has done and i tried to ask him directly whether or not he views this as be a impeachable offense. he would not comment on that. other democrats believe that it certainly could be an impeachmentable defense so that will be a debate for this connection going forward as the investigation proceeds. thereto are some republicans, too, who have taken some offense to what the president has said, including congresswoman stefanik who is a republic who cities on the house intelligence committee and she just told our colleague i disagree with the tweet. i think ambassador yovanovitch is a public servant like many others in the foreign service so that's a rare break from house republicans from this president, but we are hearing from other republicans weighing in on her testimony so far. a number of republicans i've talked to so far saying they disagree with her concerns, essentially saying the president is well within the rights to

remove her from the post. they are saying that the president didn't trust her. that's what mike conway, a republican who sits on the house intelligence committee told me and one republican who sits on one. three committees a part of these investigations, told me he was scent call of her sworn testimony that giuliani was mounting the smear campaign against her so you probably will see ultimately not surprisingly this reaction coming down along party lines, but at least one republican breaking with the president on this tweet this morning as democrats warning, anderson, that this is textbook witness intimidation. >> manu raju, thanks. >> i was just going to add to what tim was saying. you talked about this being like mccarthyism. it's almost worse in that mccarthy used horrible tactics but he had a very clear ideology, a policy goal which is to get rid of communism. here there's no policy goal. it is a political goal. it is the president of the united states trying to further his political future, full stop,

and that's the other thing that comes through here very, very clearly is that you have a president pushing actual conspiracy theories, a conspiracy theory that we now know his own homeland security adviser tom bossert said to him in private stop talking about this crowdstrike thing. this is the notion of a server being in ukraine. it is not true, and it is going to hurt you, and he -- he didn't care, and so all of this is to push a conspiracy which he decided that he was going to believe because it helped his political agenda and american foreign policy, democracy, took actual real corruption that marie yovanovitch described she was fighting in ukraine be damned. >> she says u.s. foreign policy was hijacked, a tough term. she was personally kneecapped. in her opening statement when she talked about the u.s. host

action in iran, the victims in benghazi, for a career diplomat she had really smart political skills to essentially look at the republicans and say you're going to come after me. i'm part of a larger family. i'm part of our history and part of the fiber of what we do as a country. this is choosing time for republicans. let's set aside the question is this impeachable for a minute. is the this the way to run a government? is this the way to treat your people? is this the way to handle things? and so that's the first choice republicans have to make. are they going to come out of this and say the president did nothing wrong? that's indefensible. again, it's a whole separate question. an impeachable offense, what should we be doing with this? let me leave that aside. can you not listen to these witnesses, especially her and come out and say the president did nothing wrong. if he wanted her recalled, he should have-related her. just recalled her, but to be partner with rudy giuliani in this smear campaign is reprehensible. to the other point about the timing of the tweet. she's in the committee. she's actually testifying, but the president also knows as he sends that tweet that number one mr. david holmes, the career

foreign service officer who overheard the call with gordon sondland is about to testify and mark zandi who knows about the decision to withhold aid works did if? when people raised their hands and said it might be ilthree do that, who said keep going forward with that? he's about to testify under subpoena and then in a couple of days gordon sondland himself. >> not just witness intimidation of marie yovanovitch, it's future witnesses. >> if you're one of these other witnesses and you're about to testify and it might not see the president's view -- >> someone like yovanovitch and all these other people who are testifying who are even lower level, if but get attacked by the president of the united states and you're a well-known person on television or something, you have some safety net or people behind you. they are not making a lot of money. they don't have security. they are completely vulnerable and you have the most powerful

person in the world personally coming after you. there's a lot of people out there, you know, who take that as a clarion call to go ahead and take action. >> one of the gifts of the united states government, democratic president and republican presidents, one of the gifts of the job is when you meet these people when had you travel the world. they are people who don't make a lot of money. who are away from their families and could teach and be lawyers and have consulting and lobbying jobs here in washington, d.c. they are all around the world. i never knew whether they were democrats or republicans. they are serving their country. >> it's a minor point but in the president's tweets he's saying look where she went, you know, everywhere she went terrible things happened. she was taking hardship posts. >> exactly. >> in somalia. >> she caused the problem. >> anybody who has been in somalia it's been run down for a long time. >> she's sent there because of her experience. >> it's as if she had destroyed

the government of somalia. > remember, we're talking about witness tampering and witness intimidation. it's as you point out, remember how this all began with a whistle-blower complaint. that and the idea that if you were to see and witness the something that was wrong, if you were to witness an abuse of power, if you were to witness something that was an unofficial back channel that subverted u.s. diplomatic policy in ukraine or anywhere else, look what happens to you. look what the next domino effect will be. this is not just about witnesses who are testifying tomorrow and next week. it's very much about the idea of that whole adage of see something, say something. that gets obliterated every single time the person who is the head of the executive branch of government whose job it is to enforce the law says no. >> got to get a quick break in. moments testimony from the ousted u.s. ambassador marie yovanovitch, it's going to continue. plus, we'll listen to describe how the president's attacks are having an impact on u.s. foreign policy. stay with us. can you heal dry skin in a day?

aveeno® with prebiotic triple oat complex balances skin's microbiome. so skin looks like this and you feel like this. aveeno® skin relief. get skin healthy™ here hold this. follow that spud. [ tires screech ] the big idaho potato truck is touring america telling folks about idaho potatoes. and i want it back. what is it with you and that truck?

cdc guidance recommends topical pain relievers first... like salonpas patch large. it's powerful, fda-approved to relieve moderate pain for up to 12 hours, yet non-addictive and gentle on the body.

salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. [airport pa]"all flights have been delayed." t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. on that. so you can post this... ...score this... ...be there like this... ...and share all of this... ...with that. so do this, on that, with us. now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free.

continuing coverage of a dramatic impeachment hearing, dramatic in ways perhaps many didn't expect during which the president is now accused of witness intimidation, but before the ousted ambassador's testimony the white house made a curious move involving the first transcript of the president's call with ukrainian president, the one that the president has been touting now for several days. want to go to pamela brown at the white house. explain what's gone on. >> there appears to be a key discrepancy between the initial readout of that have april call between the president trump and president trump zelensky and the transcript that the white house just released of the call back in april because in this initial summary of the call that the white house put out hours after it happened back in april, it says that it the two discussed corruption saying that the president expressed his commitment to work together with president-elect zelensky that strengthen democracy and increase prosperity and root out

corruption and nowhere in the three-page transcript is there any mention of corruption which is also notable because a big white house talking point was that president was so concerned about corruption and ukraine and that was one big reason why he withheld aid so that does raise the question of why that wasn't raised in this call and it appears that either the white house made up some details of this call in the initial readout by saying the two talked about corruption or that part was simply taken out of the transcript. we've asked the white house for an spranks on the discrepancy and we haven't heard back and another interesting part of call memo is the president making reference to a white house visit, inviting president zelensky to come to the white house once he's settled. as we know, anderson, that's not happened. that's been the center of him people inquiry along with the military aid in terms of a possible quid pro quo where this white house meeting was conditioned on the ukrainians

announcing publicly investigations into the democrats and to the bidens, but clearly the white house believed that releasing this transcript toyed would be exculpatory so that clearly representative nunes could read it during the hearing and appears to be an attempt to counter some of the controversial damaging information that came out from that are july call with zelensky, but it also raises questions of what changed in that time frame between april and july and july when the president brought up biden investigation and the democrat, the dnc investigation. what happened in that time frame to change the conversation so dramatically with president zelensky. we know that in that time frame the president's personal lawyer rudy giuliani was also accepting up his efforts to press ukraine publicly announcing the investigations of the president, so it certainly does raise some questions today, anderson? >> yeah. fascinating that the white house put out a statement that actually turns out not to be true, wow.

i feel like that has happened many times before. let's take a quick break. testimony will continue. pam crown, thanks. in one week... a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. making wrinkles look so last week. rapid wrinkle repair® pair with retinol oil for 2x the wrinkle fighting power. neutrogena® and my side super soft? with the sleep number 360 smart bed you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. so, can it help us fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. will it help me keep up with him? yup. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. don't miss the final days to save $1,000 on the new

sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. ends sunday. hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. what do we wburger...inner? i want a sugar cookie... wait... i want a bucket of chicken... i want... ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently.

studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™".

xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

what we saw today, it wasn't

enough that ambassador yovanovitch was smeared. it wasn't enough that she was attacked or recalled for no reason, at least no good reason, but what we saw today witness intimidation in realtime by the president of the united states. once again going after this dedicated and respected career public servant in an effort to not only chill her but to chill others who may come forward. we take this kind of witness intimidation and obstruction of inquiry very seriously. >> that's adam schiff earlier. we're going to have more of the testimony from marie yovanovitch in just a few minutes. jim jordan, gloria, is saying it's not witness intimidation why? >> because she wouldn't have known about the tweet in realtime had schiff not brought it up. >> that doesn't make sense. it's not just witness intimidation of her. it's also of any future witnesses coming forward. >> of course, of course.

>> and -- and that is assuming the case that adam schiff would make and the question that i have is going forward what will the president's attorneys tell him to do? will they lock him in a room without a television set and say you can not tweet anymore, and now what do republicans do that the president has publicly bullied and threatened this woman who by the way praised hits policy in ukraine, that he has done this to her? what tack do they take when it's very clear that he's a conspiracy theorist, he's a bully and president that's intimidating and threatening somebody in the state department, a 30-year career diplomat. what do they do now? >> i want to add to that. >> jim jordan said what he said because what else is he supposed to say. he's jim jordan and the guy that's supposed to be carrying the president's water. >> just from a legal standpoint, what is your argument to jim jordan? >> his point is nonsensical. of course she was going to find out about a tweet that went out

to 60 million people plus. the law covers any way you look regarding timing. there are two different statutes. one of them is witness tampering. that covers actions before or during witness testimony. the other is witness retaliation. that covers actions intended to intimidate a witness or retaliate after the fact so it doesn't really matter when she would have found out. >> like i said to you. your house wasn't robbed. you weren't there at the time that it happened. jim jordan, that's how you said nonsensical, how stupid his actual argument is that the idea -- if they hadn't told her about it she wouldn't have felt threatened. what happens afterwards? when the camera goes off on her she has to go back to live her life, the same people told by corrupt ukrainians to watch out and now she has to watch out because people who may be sink fans or minions of the president or crazed in some way also takes issue with her testimony. that also speaks to why adam schiff i think had to many core out and talk and we're talking. i don't think it was always the

best policy in realtime address it in the hallway, adam schiff, but the reason he had to is because he knows full well tomorrow there is a testimony from somebody and next week, there are people watching, figuring out, listen, do you have our back or is it just for the camera or the sake of the democracy? will i be protected? >> i just wanted to say to add to your point this isn't a game. two people are about to testify in closed door hearings and work for the u.s. government. the president of the united states is their boss. the can you imagine your boss tweeting in an intimidating way publicly. i mean, for most of us it wouldn't be done on twitter, but the fact is don't forget that the president of the united states is their boss, and he is now intimidating them publicly, and it's not just retired people. these are people who are working for us, are not political.

they don't play political games. maybe the president thinks everybody plays a political game but these are people who work for him because they work for us. that's the climate he's create, and i think we have to think of of it in those terms. it's very bad. >> i just want to add to the broader point and just kind of take us behind the scenes on what has been happening that hadn't happened for the three to four weeks before when this whole thing broke which is republicans on capitol hill have felt since the white house added a war room and added a person who is going -- who is in charge of that, that they finally have a clear message, a clear line communication and a clear message to keep, as you said, scott, the status quo and the reason why our friend scott looks like he just got punched in the gut with this tweet is because this tweet undermines it, and this -- this is a story of the presidency, that as much as their communicators try to, you know, hang on and device a strategy, it can get blown up in an instant with a presidential tweet and that's what happened.

>> and you saw an example that have. >> republican congresswoman attacked the chairman, not the witness the, attacked the chairman. this is part of saying us you're not giving us your rights. the republicans are trying to make it part sand and keep everybody in the tribe and after she said it was disappointing that the president did that. the president cannot afford to lose republicans but to dana's point he repeatedly, whether it's a policy issue, repeal and replace obamacare, the republican plan was great until it was mean. he does this all the time. they do get a strategy in place, whether you agree or not, has a strategy in place, the president blows it up. >> he's not going to lose these republicans. they have nowhere else to go. he used to say he could shoot someone on fifth avenue. >> as to this conversation, we're not done yet. we're not done yet. even if it's one or two or three, that would give nancy pelosi it's bipartisan, so there's a number of house retiring republicans. i think that's risky. >> and imagine if during

watergate, sorry our colleague john dean is not here, imagine if during watergate nixon had hate-tweeted john dean and -- and what would have occurred then. >> just quickly, got to go to break, the transcripts of the first call versus the transcript of the second call pamela brown was talking about how the white house description of the first call before they released the description was false saying the conversation was about anti-corruption. there's nothing about it, but there's other differences you pointed out. >> the no corruption here, hand this is relatively benign if you just read it not knowing anything else. remember the first time they released the transcript this is good for us. we'll put this the out. it's perfect. well, it's not perfect. >> that was the second one. >> and now that's the second up. the question is what does this up do? number up, no ellipses in this. ellipses in the second up and lieutenant colonel said to congress he thought some key points were left out. he thought key points were left out of the second call. there are none here so it's fair to say why is this one different than the last one?

>> if people read both of them. they just look different. it's amazing the level of detail in this one compared to the other one. >> the other thing here is the president does promise here president zelensky very desperate trying to accepted a mess am to vladimir putin. the president says i'll accepted you a high level. he did not commit to going himself. i'll send you a high level. the plan was for mike pence and the president pulled it back. what happened? what happened in between? and then the other thing is he dangles a white house meeting here right half these priceless word. what i owned miss universe, always had great people. ukraine always very well represented. when you are settled in and red i were like to invite you to the white house. will. >> where did that go? >> let's just ruminate on that during the break, description of what's happening at the state department pretty its turning. we'll talk about that ahead. there's a company that's talked to even more real people

than me: jd power. 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room. ( ♪ ) only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes.

they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®. for fast pain relief. have you ever worked with dr. francis? oh yeah, he's ok. just ok? guess who just got reinstated! well, not officially. nervous? yeah. yeah me too. don't worry about it, we'll figure it out. i'll see ya in there! just ok is not ok. at&t has america's best network, now with our best plans, at our best prices, starting at $35 a line for 4 lines. new from at&t. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i'm part of a community of problem solvers. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution...

to one that can take on a bigger challenge. we are solving problems that improve lives. to one that can take too many after-parties. new neutrogena® bright boost with dullness-fighting neoglucosamine. boosts cell turnover by 10 times for instantly brighter skin. bright boost neutrogena®. 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.

dana-farber cancer institute discovered the pd-l1 pathway. pd-l1. they changed how the world fights cancer. blocking the pd-l1 protein,

lets the immune system attack, attack, attack cancer. pd-l1 transformed, revolutionized, immunotherapy. pd-l1 saved my life. saved my life. saved my life. what we do here at dana-faber, changes lives everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. everywhere. did you have any understand why secretary pompeo was no longer able to protect you? >> no, it was just a statement made that he was no longer able to protect me. >> so just like that you had to

leave ukraine as soon as possible? >> yes. >> how did that make you feel? >> terrible honestly. >> i mean, after 33 years of service to our country it was terrible. it's not the way i wanted my career to end. >> not the way she wanted her career to end. i want to go to kylie atwood for a look at secretary of state mike pompeo's role in all of this. >> reporter: yes. so ambassador yovanovitch talks largely about the state department and how it is in a moment of crisis right now, how it's being hallowed out from within, and she talks about that broadly given the fact that she says the policy process is unraveling. there are folks that says the state department, high level officials and mid-level officials who are worried about an uncertain future so they are heading for the doors. she talked about that and then talked specifically about her personal experience, the human

toll that will this all-out attack on career level officials at the state department is having. she talks about moving 13 times as a state department official, being in hardship posts and when she saw those words from president trump on that phone call undermining her, she put her hand on her chest and talked about how difficult that really was, giving a little bit of emotion there, but the other part, anderson, is that she also speaks about strategic reality here, and it's not just about state department officials leaving and feeling undermined, but it's also about what this means for the future of the u.s. in foreign relations, and i want to read to you one thing that she said which is that which country's interests are served when the very corrupt behavior we have been criticizing is allowed to prevail. such conduct undermines the u.s., exposes our friends and widens the playing field for autocrats like president putin, so they are saying that this is

a very devastating moment for career state department officials, but it is also a very scary moment for the future of the u.s. and its role in the world generally speaking. anderson? >> we're obviously going to continue to follow this. we'll have more testimony from yovanovitch shortly l.thank you very much are. i want to go to congressman eric swalwell, democrat on the intelligence commit who joins me now. congressman swalwell, jim jordan is saying it's not witness intimidation for the president to be tweeting while the ambassador is testifying because she wouldn't have seen it while she was testifying. does that make sense? >> no, it does not. he is seeking to destroy her reputation for testifying against him, and anderson just to step back. he tried to intimidate her and smear her when she was in country as ambassador before she was removed. on that call with president zelensky on july 25 he smeared her and today as she sat so courageously and defied his orders not to come in, again, he

continued to do that, so we'll view that as witness intimidation not only to the ambassador but future witnesseses who would come in but also innocent people don't intimidate witnesses. this is what guilty people do and the president continues to act guilty. >> do you think part of the effort by the president was not just to against the ambassador but for any future witnesses just as a warning to them? >> this was a warning shot, and we've got more witnesses coming this afternoon and depositions hand next week in public hearings, but aroundon, i don't think it's going to shake them. he has tried already to tell them to not come forward and they continue to come forward and i think the dam in many ways has been breached by their kournl and honor so we're not going to let these witnesses be intimidated, and we will view this as potential obstruction of justice. >> you think this should be potentially added to articles of impeachment? >> it should be added because there's strong evidence of intimidation. this the witness, by the way,

she was an anti-corruption ambassador. if the president was truly interested in fighting corruption in ukraine he would have kept her there. he wasn't interested in fighting corruption. he was interested in weaponizing corruption. that's why he moved her out of the way to put in rudy giuliani. >> her testimony that oweceptionly the state department has sort about hollowed out from the inside, for the future that does not bode well. i mean, it may look -- from the outside it looks like it's still there. there's still a building and still people who work there, but if the people who have decades of experience like this ambassador are leaving or have left or have been kneecapped, what does that mean for american foreign policy in the future? >> yeah. ambassador yovanovitch, by talking about that allows us to think what this means to not just removing her but for our worldwide interests. we have ambassadors to carry out u.s. interests of free speech, free markets, freedom to dream, and if that is not being carried out because the the president has corrupt intent, that is not

only going to see rot and corruption in ukraine, it's going to happen worldwide, and this is bigger than just ambassador yovanovitch, but today this is about the president's corruption scheme in ukraine and person he moved out of the way to make it happen faster. >> when you hear the ambassador, it also becomes clear just how much u.s. policy seems under this president to be driven, at least in terms of ukraine, based on a conspiracy theory? >> yes. very alarming to hear that the president of the united states was using debunked conspiracy theories. on cnn a couple months ago. the former homeland security office tom bossert jake tapper that these conspiracy theories were not true. the president whether he believed them or not he needed them and others to be true because that's only way that he was able to clear the decks so that the ukrainians could

attempt to investigate his opponent. this is all about the president putting his interests above our interests and that's what is this hearing demonstrates today. >> congressman eric swalwell. >> my pleasure, anderson. thanks very much. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> breaking news on roger stop. i want to go to simone prokupecz on that. >> that's. this is ongoing as we speak. roger stone has been found guilty after a week and a half trial, a jury that's been deliberating now for close to nine hours. they are now returning their verdict. still ongoing, but so far roger stone has been found guilty of four, four different counts out of the seven. we're still getting word from inside the courtroom. found guilty of makings false statements. he's also been found guilty of obstruction. of course, this all having to do with his appearance before members of congress who were

investigating russian interference and specifically his contact with wikileaks but then more importantly, anderson, his contact with the trump campaign and donald trump himself, prosecutors putting on a case accusing roger stone. he's now been found guilty of having these communications with the trump campaign, senior level people inside the campaign as well as donald trump himself. prosecutors staying that he lied. the jury now here agreeing, finding him guilty on those counts saying that he lied to members of congress when he appeared before them essentially not telling the truth essentially about his contacts with wick peeks, people believed to be intermediaries but more importantly the trump campaign. this all stemming from the mueller investigation, of course, the jury finding roger stone guilty and also an important moment, many moments in this moment for prosecutors

because looming large over then tire trial was the president himself, donald trump. he came up many times in this case during the prosecution's case, during witness testimony. you had rick gates, former deputy chairman of the donald trump campaign who was cooperating with the government, steve and of course there was this emotional last statement from prosecutors in closing arguments where they were arguing that the truth and how much the truth mattered and that it was the job of this jury to find roger stone guilty because truth mattered. and even though the defense -- they tried to argue that, so what. so what that roger stone lied about some of this? in the end, prosecutors arguing truth mattered and that the jurors needed to find roger stone guilty, and that's what we have here, anderson. he's now been found guilty of lying to members of congress and obstruction. a very important part of the

mueller investigation and obviously an investigation that was going on by members of congress who were trying to figure out exactly the contact that the campaign had with russians, with wikileaks and what they knew and how they used this information, the wikileaks information, to their advantage, anderson. >> shimon prokupecz, we'll continue to check in with you for the other counts as the information is coming out of the courtroom. if only we had some former assistant u.s. attorneys here. oh, we do, from the southern district, helen l or attorney e. >> it means he knew about wikileaks. and we're seeing the same thing in the impeachment inquiry,

which he wanted foreign interference. >> the argument the republicans are trying to make, no, it was a coincidence the wikileaks came out. remember the last closing argument the prosecutors gave was, the truth still matters, okay? they were able to see that even a broken clock is right twice a day, the scenario roger stone did, and this was the same team that worked with the mueller probe who, as we all know, was interested in the welcome acceptance and why there was such an interest in foreign nations to interfere with the election. keep in mind, it interfered with the committee's ability to assess and evaluate data and evidence, call other witnesses, follow different evidentiary trails when roger stone refused to give information. this is a consequence of that activity. no one was ever indicted for the conspiracy crimes in the mueller probe, but it's equally

important to think about the consequences of roger stone's either inability to tell the truth or provide truthful information at a crucial time stymied other investigations. this is them saying, no, the truth does matter and coincidences don't just happen like this. >> this goes directly to the president who was then candidate trump. in this trial, rick gates, a former high-ranking official in the trump campaign who flipped, says -- talks about this july 2016 conversation, which is really important, that candidate trump had with roger stone. he hangs up the phone, and after the conversation, the prosecutor asked gates, you know, what did the president say? and he said, he indicated that more information would be coming. and they were talking about, of course, wikileaks. >> yeah, and we've been so focused, rightly so, on what we're seeing today with these dramatic impeachment hearings focused on the ukraine, things

the president did while in office. but remember, this is about allegations that have never gone away. know the mueller team, his report, could not prove collusion, but this is maybe one person removed collusion. that's what wikileaks is. wikileaks, according to our intelligence officials and so forth, it is an arm of the russian government, and you have a candidate on the phone in the call that gloria just described staying up to speed. now, is he actually talking to the wikileaks people? no. to the russians? no. but his associate is, and the associate, roger stone, who is now found guilty, clearly roger stone thought there was something wrong with it, because what he was just found guilty of was lying to congress to protect the president. >> also at a certain point, you start to add up, like, in your own life, how many people are you close to in your orbit who

have been convicted of something? manafort, flynn, papadopolous, stone. >> some of the people who don't have a direct connection with president trump, but michael cohen, paul manafort, flynn, p papadopolo papadopolous, roger stone. do i cooperate? one of the things about this president is everyone he touches becomes tainted. he manages to be a fly above it somehow, but everyone he touches, it's icharous. it's how close to the sun are you going to get? >> we're talking about dirty tricks here. let's connect a few dots. roger stone is a dirty trickster. acquiring dirt on hillary clinton was a dirty trick. roger stone made a career out of

dirty tricks. he started the nixon era, and he made a career of poisoning our democracy by playing dirty tricks. what we're talking about in this impeachment hearing is not roger stone anymore because he wasn't able to do this. the president went to somebody else. this whole business about acquiring a dossier on the bidens, it's another dirty trick. that's getting dirt on your opponent. and i think we should -- i think the public should keep in mind that it's the same behavior. in one case the president was a candidate, now he is president of the united states. but the goal was the same, getting dirt on his opponents. >> scott? >> back home, anderson, they would say when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. in this particular case, roger stone got what he deserved because you can't lie. let me look into the camera. kids at home, don't lie. if your hand is up, don't lie. if your hand is down, don't lie. to my four children, don't lie.

you can't obstruct congress. you have to just tell the truth. most of the time, the vast majority of the time, the truth will set you free. don't lie, and my advice to the president would be, don't pardon this joker. he has not done you any favors. you associate with these kinds of folks and they get you in trouble and it's what you get. >> that was important, too, in the idea of pardons. he's requesting that information because, as we both know, a defendant's break does not end the inquiry. we learned from manafort most recently and other people that whatever he does now is most telling to his fate. he's 68 years old, facing up to 70 years in prison for all the crimes he's facing. it probably won't be near that level. he's not a violent offender and first time offender. you're now facing time in a federal penitentiary. do you know more information? remember, the prosecutors still have to file a memorandum.

they'll say, what do you want to do? what do you want to have happen? he has the ability to be like a canary or something else. >> you know who is on the phone now? gordon sondland. he's already changed his testimony once and he's going to testify next week. his attorney should be saying, open the news, brother. tell the truth. >> i want to go quickly back to shimon prokupecz with more details. shimon? >> anderson, just to update everyone, he's been convicted on all counts. one of those counts is having to do with lying about his contacts with the trump campaign and donald trump. that was the sixth count. then the seventh count which he was convicted on was the intimidation of randy credico, who is an important witness for the prosecution. he eventually wound up cooperating with members of congress, and there are all these colorful and really o

outlandish crazy texts between randy credico and roger stone and roger trying to say things to get him not to cooperate, then making a reference to "the godfather 2." all of that came out in court. wha what's going on now is prosecutors actually were asking for the judge to detain roger stone. she, we're just being told, has decided she's going to let him sit out his awaiting sentence, she's going to allow him to remain free and that he's going to be sentenced on february 6th. but i also want to make a point of something, anderson, having sat through this trial now for about a week and a half, being around the prosecutors, being around the defense team. for the defense, obviously, yesterday they were not very optimistic. they were very concerned. this morning they came in with a little more optimism. but i can tell you for the prosecutors here, some of them, one of the main and probably significant prosecutors was someone from the mueller team.

and how important this was for them. on the day of the closing argument, members of the mueller team, former members, some who are no longer prosecutors now in private practice, came to watch the closing arguments. and you can tell from the emotion that came from one of those prosecutors at the end in a rebuttal, when he was talking about how truth matters and how testifying before congress, when you go there and you're supposed to tell the truth, that's an important part of our institutions. and i think given everything that's going on now, i think thfls this was a very big and significant win for prosecutors, more because they needed to protect our institutions, and they argued that to the jury. i think for members of congress, many people, sometimes -- we heard a lot during the mueller investigation, other investigations. people who go before congress, they don't necessarily take it seriously. so i think for prosecutors, it was an important point to make, that when you go before congress, you're expected to tell the truth, and having this

now, with everything that's going on, i think has a much larger significance than perhaps, you know, when they even brought this case given everything that's going on. and obviously donald trump. that was a very big figure over this trial, an important figure, because prosecutors from the beginning, the moment they got up and stood before this jury, they said that this was about donald trump. roger stone lied. he was motivated to lie because he wanted to protect donald trump. and then ultimately they argued at the end he lied because he wanted to protect donald trump from the mueller investigation. so a significant day here for prosecutors. and probably the other thing, it's probably the last time any part of the mueller investigation is going to be heard publicly, certainly in a court of law, anderson. >> fascinating morning. shimon prokupecz, thank you for letting me check in with you.

what do you make of the seven counts? >> the time sg remaing is remar here. we just had a conversation about president trump messing with evidence tampering. i think this is so significant this is coming from a jury because politics don't matter when it comes from a jury. this is 12 everyday men and women. that is the bulwark of democracy, and i think it's a powerful message. >> i'm sure the president has respect for the jury system. wait until he starts tweeting about the jurors. >> that's a crime, too. >> laura, are you surprised at all seven? >> if you're able to tick off the elements of one, it's not likely you'll be able to meet all of them, but seven counts is a very big message to send,

particularly given the climate shimon talked about. we're talking about text messages and emails and telephone calls. the presentation of evidence had to be really comprehensive, and i know that we're in a society now where we have kind of a law and order, everything is wrapped up from the crime committed to the jury conviction in 51 minutes flat. but the overwhelming amount and burden that you have to actually prove to meet every element, particularly when a jury has been aware of roger stone, a figure that's known to people, a figure that has been talked about in controversial settings as in somebody who will be a scapegoat, maybe even a pawn. and the association with the mueller probe in particular is what i find most fascinating. the fact that this is one of the public elements of the mueller probe and a jury still said, iain in spite of no conspiracy convictions or trials about that issue, still said what was uncovered and what was stonewalled as a part of it is so important. keep in mind, this is somebody

who broke expectations. first time, non-violent offender. think what manafort was facing. he didn't have anywhere near that, but the message was intact. >> can i speak about trump for a minute? his written answers to mueller, mueller asked him about his conversations, his multiple conversations with roger stone and the answers multiple times were, i don't recall the substance of those conversations. so you have to now go look back at those questions and the way he answered those questions and what roger stone is convicted of, and we'll see if this surfaces again post-presidency. >> i just want to stress that this is the same behavior. this is dirty tricks, these are dirty tricks, it's a climate of corruption, it's trying to acquire dirt on your opponents, it's part of american politics, but we shouldn't be proud of it. but it has a different meaning

and significance when it's done by a president when the president is in office. it's still bad when they're a candidate, but i don't think that president trump, if he did do what we're seeing emerge, as president understood that the games he played in '16 are going to get him into trouble as president, because it's a different set of rules. i just see there is a similarity between the climate around mr. stone and what he did for the then-candidate and what we're looking at with mr. giuliani and the president. >> if you look at that graphic we just put up as sort of the rogue gallery of people already convicted, is that the best? is that the be best campaign right there? it is kind of a rogues gallery of who you surround yourself with. >> it takes a toll. scott worked in the white house, i covered the clinton impeachment in the white house.

in the clinton days, staffers being called before grand juries, having to hire lawyers, they get some help with government representation, but if you want to be extra careful you hire private counsel. we look at the big names, these people close to the president spending time in prison for their crimes. but to tim's point, more just about the culture. there are nmore in the white house now, including mick mulvaney's universe who are relatively young people trying to do the right thing. they're republicans, they believe in government service, and now they have to hire attorneys. they're in this whole crux of, what do i do? i'm loyal to my president or i'm loyal to my boss, but to your point about the truth, wherever it ends up, you went into public service with these idealistic dreams. maybe they're democrats, maybe they'll be independents someday, and they're put in this spot.

>> shimon said it so well when he was wrapping up his report, we're seeing it today. you're seeing people who are going to go in for depositions, the same kind of deposition or same level of a potential for perjury that roger stone had who are going to be asked, especially the one witness, did you actually overhear the president of the united states call in for bribery to gordon sondland. that's happening today, so this is a -- >> you brought up gordon sondland. gordon sondland already testified in front of congress, and then when other people testified to facts that were counter to what he said, he suddenly comes back and his memory is magically restored, and he amends his testimony, which he's allowed to do and it was smart for him to do. he still didn't mention this second call that he said, you know, he wasn't sure if it was one or two calls. he apparently made no mention of

the call that has now been overheard and that we learn about through taylor. so whatever he is doing over this weekend, it really should involve, like, a file of facts and looking back at his calendar. >> is he going to go back to the '90s? sorry. i had to. >> you put that graphic up of all those seven people -- i think it was seven people -- who had all been kind of implicated or had taken the fall in activity. that all tells you that the president of the united states should be on notice that what took place prior to the 2016 election is not only being the subject of an investigation but can also lead to convictions. and it's one thing -- remember the campaign when they first started the trump campaign was all about the idea that they were new to this. they were not politically naive. they had no idea. maybe that benefit of the doubt can extend legally. probably not. but now that you're in 2020, remember what bill taylor's testimony was all about. he said this was his inclination

in august and september of this year. we're only in november. so this is actually realtime data that this is all happening. the ideas of the overtures of the quid pro quo we're hearing about was after roger stone was indicted. so to say now, i can't understand why this would be problematic behavior, but the ones trying to tell intent by context -- >> the day after mueller testifie testified. he's been und roger stone has been under gag order -- of course he'll say something, won't he? >> that gag order will stay in place at least until his sentencing. the judge says she does not want to immediately take him into custody, but she is worried about the possibility of him going out there and talking. remember, this case got off to

an extremely rocky start when roger stone violated his first instances of a gag order and psted what many perceived to be a pretty threatening photo of this judge. that continues to put stone in this really difficult position. anderson, you have watched him work over the years. this is someone who sort of relishes a political fight, relishes coming to his own defense, and that is not what we saw during this trial. i think he and his attorneys made the calculation that he would probably do more harm than good by taking the stand in his own defense. instead they played audio of him testifying before the house intelligence committee, and it seems like now, for at least a few more months, he won't be able to sort of share what he sees as his side of the story. but, you know, it's very clear in this verdict that the jury just was not buying what his lawyers were selling, this idea that it doesn't really matter if stone didn't tell the truth, and essentially thfis was just a process crime. they made it very clear they believe the truth does matter in these proceedings, and i think one thing you and the other folks on the panel are smart to

point out is this is just another person in the president's orbit who has now been convicted in court, and this is not someone the president has just gotten to know. this is someone who has been a close friend of president trump for decades, anderson. >> thank you very much. i want to reset the testimony that is set to continue on this second day of impeachment hearings. it's now led to acts of intimidation against the president. we'll explain that in a moment. first to the only witness speaking publicly today, marie yovanovitch. she is the sole person in the saga what exerts being a victim of corruption. yovanovitch testified she believers she was force reasonable doubt out as u.s. ambassador to ukraine because of her record on rooting out crooked players in ukraine. she said those, quote, willing americans included president trump's personal attorney rudy giuliani who helped push a smear

campaign against yovanovitch, accusing her of partisan and bad behavior that she denied under oath. the false stories against her ultimately led to president trump dismissing her in may despite multiple high-level officials in the state department trying to defend her. >> in the face of this smear campaign, did colleagues at the state department try to get a statement of support for you from secretary pompeo? >> yes. >> were they successful? >> no. >> did you come to learn that they couldn't issue such a statement because they feared it would be undercut by the president? >> yes. >> in a major moment under already extraordinary circumstances, the president began tweeting attacks against yovanovitch as she was testifying. house intelligence chairman adam schiff asked her to react. >> as we're sitting here testifying, the president is attacking you on twitter and i'd like to give you a chance to respond. i'll read part of one of his tweets. everywhere marie yovanovitch

went turned bad. she started off in somalia. how did that go? he goes on to say later in the tweet, it is a u.s. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors. first of all, ambassador yovanovitch, the senate has a chance to confirm or deny the ambassador, do they snnot? >> yes, advise and consent. >> would you like to acknowledge the president's contention that everywhere you went turned bad? >> i don't think i have such powers. not in mogadishu and somalia or other places. i actually think where i served over the years, i and others have demonstrably made things better for the u.s. as well as for the countries that i've served in. ukraine, for example, where there are huge challenges,

including, you know, on the issue that we're discussing today, of corruption. huge challenges. but they've made a lot of progress since 2014, including in the years that i was there. and i think in part -- the ukranian people get the most credit for that, but a part of that credit goes to the work of the united states and to me as the ambassador in ukraine. >> ambassador, you've shown the courage to come forward today and testify. notwithstanding the fact you were urged by the white house or state department not to, notwithstanding the fact that, s as you testified earlier, the president implicitly threatened you in that call record. and now the president in realtime is attacking you. what effect do you think that has on other witnesses'

willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing? >> well, it's very intimidating. >> it's designed to intimidate, is it not? >> i mean, i can't speak to what the president is trying to do, but i think the effect is to be intimidating. >> well, i want to let you know, ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously. >> that was testimony earlier today. there is going to be more testimony from marie yovanovitch. in terms of what to expect now just in the coming hours, republicans are going to have a chance to question her as well. how did they go about doing that? the president now has gone after her while she was testifying. they're saying it's witness intimidation. >> i think he's made their jobs incredibly more difficult.

i think what they're going to do is say, look, the president has every right to hire and to fire any ambassador he wants. she said that. she said that herself, i serve at the pleasure of the president. the question is, are they going to go after her in the way that the president did? and it seems to me, when you look at congresswoman stefanik and what she said, it seems to me they can't do that, they can't question her motives. she also said she supported the president and she intended to carry out his policies in ukraine. and, you know, i think that they're going to have a tough time, but i think they're going to try and stick, and maybe you would know more about this than i would, to what they've been saying before, which is she was not as important as she thinks she is, and that, you know, that the president can fire her whenever he wants. one thing that sticks out to me that was so stunning in her

testimony that the lawyer pointed out, goldman, was that she was holding an event in honor of an anti-corruption activist who was murdered in ukraine when she got that phone call from the state department saying, you had better come home now, because things are really looking bad for you. >> i just to want point out to our viewers, adam schiff is sitting back down, so it looks like testimony will be resuming soon. also hillary clinton tweeting, quote, witness and intimidation is a crime, no matter who does it. full stop. >> i was going to say to your point, the number three republican in the house, liz cheney, has said the president was wrong to do this. yovanovitch is clearly somebody who has been a public servant to the united states for decades and i don't think the president should have done that. the republicans may be only to hold the line on this. they didn't lose any votes to set up the inquiry. everyone is in lockstep and now they've created a situation where republicans --

>> now they're walking on eggshells. >> we'll hear them in moments say, it is the president's prerogative to have whatever ambassador he wants. but it is going to be a much more delicate dance for republicans to undermine her credibility with the tweets hanging over her head. >> liz cheney, an ambitious, smart, seasoned daughter of a former vice president. she gets it. the question is do the other republicans get it? some just like this spitball routine. if you're smart, you're not aware of why the president fired her. just keep it that and let it go. she was such a great witness. can they? we'll find out. >> liz cheney was someone who criticized vindman and his patriotism when he was testifying. she said, you can't do that. it would be interesting to see if former vice president dick cheney would say that.

>> it wasn't just marie yovanovitch who thought she was the victim of giuliani's machinations. it was bolton who said to fiona hill that rudy giuliani is a hand grenade that will blow everyone up. he hated the campaign against yovanovitch. he also had to keep in mind it wasn't just this career professional that was targeted, it was also the national security adviser. i hopewell he we will hear from this at some point. >> and the republicans don't like the president's behavior here, and they don't trust the hand grenade, if you will. rudy giuliani was doing this, he says, for the president, but at the time he was working for the undermined justice department, two of them, and they all believe he had a financial interest in this as well while he was, quote, unquote, defending his client, the president, he was trying to make money. are they going to side with rudy

giuliani and attack this ambassador? the smart money would tell you they should not, but we're about to find out. >> it is amazing when you hear from yovanovitch, whether the president likes her or not, she was actually attempting to fight corruption in ukraine. it was not as if she was saying ukraine is an uncorrupt country. so for this to be phrased as -- and sort of set up as an anticorruption drive by the president, there really is no evidence of this president's interest in fighting corruption in ukraine. >> and how rare -- sorry to interrupt, but how rare is a real bipartisan moment in washington? the money was approved with this huge bipartisan vote, democrats and republicans saying, stay in the fight, fight corruption, we have your back. there actually was a bipartisan strong, let's help these people, and even a lot of democrats thought obama was too soft. he wouldn't give them the lethal military aid. the democrats were happy on paper with the trump administration policy. on paper.

>> as nancy pelosi said yesterday, it all comes back to russia. the reason americans are so emphatic about having the ukranians back is because they're up against a wall with russia. >> and if president trump was upset about corruption, he would have mentioned it. >> which the ukranians claim he mntioned but he didn't. >> the witness this morning has paper copies of the slides that were used during the questioning. if that's true, does that mean that you and/or your team has been in coordination with him and/or her with respect to her testimony this morning? and if that's true, how does that comport with h res 660 that is purportedly with that resolution? >> the tbs wasn't working so they were given copies this morning. >> you said the screen in front of them was not working?

>> my understanding is the screen was not working in front of them, so they were given copies to read along since they can't see the screens that we can. mr. nunez, you're recognized for 45 minutes. >> first, mr. chair, i want to submit for the record senator grassley's letter to the department of justice dated july 27th, 2017. i read a portion of that into the record during my opening statement. >> without objection. >> ambassador, i congratulate you. you've been down in the secret deposition meeting rooms. you've graduated for your performance today. later this afternoon, i should note that -- for the public that we will be back down in the basement of the capitol doing more of these secret depositions. ambassador, i just have -- i don't really have very many questions for you. you admitted in your opening

statement that you don't have any firsthand knowledge of the issues that we're looking into. but i do want to talk a little bit about senator grassley very briefly. i assume that you know who senator grassley is? >> yes, sir, i do. >> do you believe that senator grassley is a serious and credibl credibl credible elected official? >> i have no reason to think otherwise. >> were you involved in the july or preparations for the call?l - >> no, i was not. >> were you involved in the pause in military aid to ukraine as president trump observed president zelensky's reaction to corrupted reforms? >> for the delay in -- >> the pause. >> the pause. no, i was not. >> were you involved in the proposed trump-zelensky meetings

in warsaw-poland on september 1st? >> no, if was not. >> did you ever talk to president trump in 2019? >> no, i have not. >> mick mulvaney? >> no, i have not. >> thank you, ambassador. i'm not exactly sure what the ambassador is doing here today. this is the house intelligence committee that's now turned into the house impeachment committee. this seems more appropriate for the subcommittee on human resources at the foreign affairs committee, committee. if there's issues with employment, it seems like that would be a more appropriate setting instead of an impeachment hearing where the ambassador is not a material fact witness to any of the accusations that are being hurled at the president for this impeachment inquiry. i have several questions i think

mr. castro wants to get to. i know ms. stefanik, you had questions for the ambassador? >> the gentlewoman will suspend. >> what is the interruption for this time? >> the gentlewoman will suspend. you are not recognized. >> i just recognized her. >> you are not allowed to yield time. >> a ranking member can yield time to a member of congress. >> that is not accurate. >> that is accurate. ambassador yovanovitch, i want to thank you for being here today -- >> the gentlewoman will suspend. you are not recognized. >> this is the fifth time you have interrupted newly elected members of congress. >> the gentlewoman will success pentd. >> mr. chair, we control the time. it's been customary in this committee that whoever controls the time can yield to whoever they wish. if we have members of congress that have a few questions, it seems appropriate that we be able to let ms. stefanik ask her

question. >> mr. nunes, you or your members are recognized. >> mr. castro, you're recognized. >> miss ambassador, welcome. thank you for your service. 33 years in an extraordinary career, it really has been a remarkable tenure for you at the state department. i'd also like to thank you for participating here today. this is a crazy environment. this hearing room as turned into a television studio. before today you spent -- on friday the 11th you were with us for early in the morning until, i believe, it was 8:00 at night. people missed trains back to new york and it was a complete -- very complete day, so thank you. you were serving a three-year assignment in the ukraine, is

that correct? >> yes. >> and it began in 2016 and was scheduled to end in 2019? >> yes, that's correct. >> nobody disputes that it's up to the president to decide who his envoys are to post around the world, correct? >> i stated that clearly in my statement. >> and you returned from ukraine on may 20th, 2019? >> that's correct. >> and your return coincided with inauguration of president zelensky? >> yes. >> and you remain employed by the state department? >> i do. >> and after you returned to washington, the deputy secretary, john sullivan, asked you what you wanted to do next? is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> and then you met with the

director general, ambassador perez? >> yes, that's correct. >> to identify a meaningful new assignment? >> yes. >> and you now serve at georgetown university as a fellow? >> that's true. >> and this is a rewarding position for you? >> i'm very grateful to be in that position after what happened. >> today is the second big hearing for the democrats' impeachment initiative. but we don't understand -- we do understand that you don't have a lot of facts and information relating to the part of this that we're investigating, and those are the events from may 20th up until september 11th, the release of the security assistance funds. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> so you were not part of the delegation to the inauguration

as of the day you returned? you were not part of an oval office meeting may 23rd, correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> and you were not part of the decision making relating to whether there would be a white house meeting with president zelensky? >> that's correct. >> and you were not a part of any decision making in the lead-up to the july 25th call? >> that's correct. >> and you first learned about the call on september 25th? is that correct? >> well, i heard about the call. as i indicated in the first deposition, i heard it from deputy assistant george kent. >> what did he tell you about the call? >> as it turns out, it wasn't correct. but what i recall is that he said that president trump had

asked president zelensky whether he could, you know, help him out, which i understood to be these investigations, and that president zelensky had said that h is putting in a new prosecutor general and that he doesn't control -- i mean, this is approximately what he said -- that that person is an independent individual. > and you learned about that before the call was made public? >> that's correct. >> likewise, you were not involved in any discussions surrounding the security sector assistance funds to ukraine, that they were paused for about 55 days, from july 18th to september 11th? >> no discussions. >> in your opening statement on page 9, you stated, although then and now, i've always understood that i served at the

pleasure of the president. i still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine u.s. interests in this way. individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated u.s. policy against corruption, that is, to do the mission, were able to successfully make a campaign against the sitting ambassador using unofficial backchannels. do you believe president trump was aiming to weaponize corruption in ukraine by removing you? >> i don't know that. >> okay. do you believe your removal was part of some scheme to make it easier for elements of the ukranian establishment do things counter to u.s. interests? >> i think that's certainly what the ukranian establishment hoped. i think that, in addition, there were americans, these two

individuals who were working with mayor giuliani, mr. parnas and mr. fruman, who have recently been indicted by the southern district of new york, who indicated that they wanted to change out the ambassador, and i think they must have had some reason for that. >> do you think they were seeking a different type of ambassador that would allow them to achieve some of their objectives? >> i don't know what other reason there would be. > okay. is ambassador taylor the type of person that would facilitate those objectives? >> no. >> so ambassador taylor is a man of high integrity? >> absolutely. >> and he's a good pick for the post? >> he is. i would note that he is the charge out there, as, of course, you understand. no ambassador or no candidate has yet been named to the position. >> but he certainly has had a decorated career serving his country. >> absolutely.

a man of the highest integrity. >> you testified about when you first learned that mayor giuliani and some of his associates were -- had a concerted campaign against you. when did that first come to your attention? >> we were picking up rumors from ukranians. i think, kind of, in the november-december 2018 time period. but then in january and february, and of course march, it became more obvious. >> at some point i believe you testified that minister ovokav alerted you to this campaign? >> yes. >> when was that?

>> he had a conversation with me in february of 2019. >> do you remember what he related to you? >> yes. he said that mr. leschenko was working with mayor giuliani through these two individuals, mr. parnas and mr. fruman, that they basically wanted to remove me from post. and that they were working on that. >> did you have any awareness at that point in time of precisely why they were seeking your ouster? >> you know, i didn't understand that at all, because i had never met mr. parnas and mr. fruman, and so it was unclear to me why they were interested in doing this. >> were you especially

influential implementing policies that stymied their interests in ukraine? were you odd va coadvocating fo environment or policies that would be adverse to them? >> i think just the fact that u.s. ambassadors, one of our most important function, is to facilitate u.s. business abroad, right? whether it's trade, whether it's commerce, that's one of the things that we do. but everything has to be aboveboard. we believe in a level playing ground and so forth, but we obviously advocate for u.s. business. these two individuals with hindsight and what we learned later, looking to open up a new energy company exporti ining liquefied natural gas to ukraine

never actually came to the embassy, which is unusual, because that would usually be a first stop. going to the chamber of commerce, going to the use embassy, get a lay of the land, see how we could provide assistance. >> was that source of frustration ever expressed to you, or did you just learn that separately? >> source of from us sflaustrat? on whose part? >> on fruman and parnas. >> i don't know that they were frustrated. frustrated by what? >> well, you mentioned that they hd business interests and i asked you whether they had been stymied on anything in particular that you had advocated for or you were a roadblock to them being successful, and i wondered if there was any connection. >> i've never met them. when i heard those names for the first time, which was in february of 2019, i asked my team. the econ in the service sections

are usually the ones that would meet with servicemen and women, and nobody had heard of them. so all i can conclude is that it was the general u.s. policies that we were implementing that might have been of concern to them. >> at any point did you ever try to reach out to the prosecutor general, mr. leschenko, and find out why he was participating in this concerted campaign? >> no. >> why didn't you do that? >> i didn't feel there was any purpose to it. >> why not? >> he is -- he clearly had, i would say, animus for doing this, and he was working with americans. so i reached out to the american side, in this case, the state department to try and find out what was going on. >> when did you first realize

that your relationship with leschenko had reached an adversarial point? >> probably around that time, maybe a little bit earlier. >> and this is march? >> yeah. and what i would say, adversarial, that's a really strong word. we, at the u.s. embassy, are visiting key people from the state department and other agencies. we were pushing the ukranians, including mr. leschenko, to do what they said they were going to do, and mr. leschenko entered office, that he was going to clean up the pgo and make reforms, that he was going to bring justice to what they call the heavenly hundred, the people who died on the midon in 2014, the revolution of dignity, and he was going to prosecute cases to repatriate the approximately

$40 billion it's believed that others fled the country with. he didn't do any of that. we kept trying to encourage him to do the right thing. that's what the ukranian people wanted him to do, and we thought it was a good plan and that he should do it. >> then you mentioned you contacted the state department in late march? was that under secretary hale? >> contacted about what? >> about the concerns you had about the campaign against you. >> i contacted the state department much earlier than that. i mean, it was an ongoing sort of discussion which makes it sound very formal. we have many ways of going back and forth with washington, and so, you know, on phone calls or dbcs we would have this discussion. >> when did you realize -- >> if i could just amplify my answer. we had the discussion because we were concerned that ukranian

policymakers, ukranian leaders, were hearing that, you know, i was going to be leaving, that, you know, there was maybe someone else waiting in the wingsz, et cetera. and that undermined not only my position, but our u.s. position. the ukranians didn't know what to think. we need to be out there all the time firing on all cylinders to promote our national security interests. so it was a concern. >> when did you realize this concerted campaign against you was a real threat? a threat to your ability to do the job in kyiv? >> i would say that the -- you kow, when you go into a meeting with somebody and they ask, are you going to be leaving, that is concerning. so that probably -- i don't know

exactly when that started happening, but in that time frame. >> did you undertake any efforts to push back on this narrative, either inside the state department or publicly? >> well, certainly with the ukranians, i said, there is nothing to this. this is a distraction and we are focused on the job. our policy remains the same. and, yes, we had discussions in the state department about this. >> in hindsight, do you think you did enough inside the state department to alert them to this mounting campaign against you? >> i did what i could. >> and what was that? >> reached out to the european bureau. i think you've also heard that dr. fiona hill was aware of this as well, so the nsc, and they had other discussions with more senior people. >> okay.

did you get any feedback from your chain of command? did you engage ambassador reeker under secretary hale? >> yes. >> did you develop sort of a game plan to push back against these allegations? >> so there are different time frames here that we're talking about. so fast-forwarding to march, i did -- when under secretary hale asked whether i would consider extending. i did raise, because i wasn't sure that he was aware of it, i wanted to make sure that he knew that mayor giuliani had been out there saying things about me, untrue things, and i wanted him to be aware of that. and he said he understood. he still was hoping that i could extend for another year. so that was early march and then fast-forward to late march. the discussions about this issue continued, but obviously once it

became a public political story here in the united states, the t tenor of everything changed because i think the state department felt that it wasn't manageable anymore and that the more prudent thing would be for me to come back in july. >> do you think there is anything you could have done differently to get ahead of the story and lobby the secretary and his counselor that there was a campaign against you, you didn't believe the accusations lodged were true? >> sure. but what i subsequently learned from deputy sullivan, the secretary of state had been well aware of this since the summer of 2018. >> the corruption is endemic in the country of ukraine, right?

>> i would say corruption is a serious issue everywhere in the soef soviet union. it's a post-soviet legacy and we talk a lot about it in ukraine because there is obviously an opportunity to do something, to help ukranians tackle the issue. they want to tackle the issue in other countries like russia. you can't even talk about it. so i think it's a post-soviet legacy and it's important to deal with it. >> and you testified ramping corruption has long permeated ukraine's economic systems. >> and it's your belief that it should be the u.s. foreign policy to help ukraine curb its corruption problem? >> yes, because it's good for the ukranians, but it's also in our interest. >> and anti-corruption efforts, you mentioned, serve a national security purpose? >> i believe that to be true. >> are oligarchs a big part of the problem in ukraine?

>> probably. because so much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very, very few six or seven individuals, and they also have political power and control the media. >> and a lot of their power has been acquired through what we here in the u.s. would say improper ways? >> yes, i think that's a fair comment. >> the head of burisma, mr. solchevsky, are you familiar with him? >> i don't know him but i know who you're talking about. >> george kent testified that he was investigated for stealing millions and millions of dollars, some of which had been supplied by the u.s., great britain. subject to an investigation, trying to get the money back,

that was a big part of mr. kent's initiative when he was there. that a bribe was paid to the prosecutors and ziochevsky was let off the hook. did you hear about this? >> i heard about this. this was before my arrival, and i would just say my understanding, and please correct me if i'm wrong, is that the u.s. money that you're referring to was the money that we use to fund an fbi team that was embedded with the prosecutor general's office to go after -- not to go after, but to do the investigation of burisma and ziochevsky. >> mr. kent testified this bribe was paid, the prosecution went

away, and essentially nothing has been further done with regards to burisma. during your tenure in ukraine, has there ever been any focus on reexamining allegations, whether it's at burisma or other powerful interests, like ziochevsky, reexamining it? >> that on the part of the ukrainian government? >> yes. trying to lean on the prosecutor general trying to clean up the oligarchy system? >> i think, yes, there have been some efforts. as i mentioned earlier in my testimony, the u.s. was welcoming of mr. leschenko's nomination to the prosecutor general, because we were hoping he would clean that up. that, in fact, is not what

happened. and because -- you know, it's kind of hard to explain to a u.s. audience, but in ukraine, and in the former soviet union more broadly, including russia, the justice system, whether it's cops on the beat, whether it's investigators, whether it is prosecutors, whether it is judges are used as a tool of the political system to be used against your political adversaries. and so i think that, going back to your question about burisma and ziochevsky, my understanding, as i told you earlier in the previous deposition, this did not loom large when i arrived. i arrived in 2016, august 2016. but over time, my understanding was that the case was basically sort of on a pause, that it

wasn't an active case, but it also was not fully closed. and that is a way, as i mentioned before, for those in power to keep a little hook into burisma and mr. ziochevsky. >> and right around the time the bribe was paid, burisma took an effort to spruce up their board and they added, i believe, the president of poland and some other luminaries. are you familiar with that? >> i don't exactly know what the timing of all this was, but yes, to the elements. >> and one of the folks they added to the board was vice president's son hunter biden. was he a genius with the oligarch systems and cleaning that up, or was he just added to the board because he's the vice president's son? was that ever, you know, a concern, or at least the

perception of that concern addressed? >> as i said, i arrived in august of 2016, several months before the elections and several months before president trump took office. and it was not a focus of what i was doing in that six-month period. >> was the issue ever raised at all? >> you know, not -- > you were still on the board, i think, at the time. >> my understanding from newspaper accounts is that he just recently left, in 2019. i never met him, never talked to him. i'm sorry, what was your question? >> he was still on the board when you arrived at post and was just wondering if at least the perception problem was brought to your attention as the ambassador. >> we -- i was aware of it,

because as i told you in the prior deposition, in my perception of the conversations with ukraine, there was a question about that and a select answer. so i was aware of it, yes. >> okay. in your deposition, you acknowledged that the president has longstanding concerns about corruption in ukraine. is that true? >> that's what he says. >> there was a meeting with poraschenko in 2018, and i believe you said he expressed his concerns then. >> he said a friend told him ukraine was the most corrupt country in the world. >> several witnesses have testified that the president has

concerns that there are certainments of the ukranian establishment in 2016 were out to get him. is that something you were aware of at any point in time? >> i was certainly aware of it. it was not brought to my attention during the two and a half years that i served under president trump as our ambassador to ukraine. we've gone through some of these elements and maybe they loom larger now, but was there discussion at the embassy that there was indication of ukranians trying to advocate against then-candidate trump? >> actually, there weren't. we didn't really see it that way. >> were you aware of -- i know mr. nunes mentioned this

earlier, that alexandra chalupa indicated she was trying to work with the u.s. embassy in d.c. to try to share nfrinformation and leads, that sort of thing? >> i saw the article. i didn't have any further information about that. >> did you see the article at the time, or did you only -- did that only come to your attention subsequently? >> etsit's been brought to my attention subsequently. i think i did see something about that as well. >> you were the ambassador. did you aim to get to the bottom of that? if true, if the reporting is true, if what ms. chalupa told him was accurate, that would be concerning, correct? >> well, i was the ambassador in

ukraine starting in august of 2016. and what you're describing, if true, as you said, what you're describing took place in the united states. so if there were concerns about what ms. chalupa was doing, i think that would have been handled here. >> and do you know ms. chalupa? >> i don't believe so. >> have you ever met her? >> i don't think so. if she worked for the ukranian embassy, it's possible i met her in a large group or something, but i don't believe i know her. >> are you aware of the role investigative journalist mr. leschenko played in publicizing the manafort blackledger ledger? >> yes. >> he publicized some things in a pretty graphic way in 2016 and it coincided with mr. manafort

leaving the trump campaign. was there anything about that issue when it was occurring that concerned you? >> well, i certainly noticed it because i was, you know, a week or so away from arriving in ukraine. i think that from a ukranian perspective, i realized we are looking at this from an american perspective. from a ukranian perspective, i think that what mr. leschenko and others who were looking into the black ledger were most concerned about was actually not mr. manafort but former president yomanokovich and what money they stole and whatnot. it's a different perspective with what country you're in. >> but from the president's perspective, looking at these facts, there is certainly reason to conclude that there are

elements of the ukranian establishment that are concerning at this point in time, correct? >> just speaking about mr. leschenko, he is an investigative journalist, as you said, and he got access to the black ledger and he published it, as i think journalists would do, and again, i'm not sure that that -- i don't have any information to suggest that that was targeting president trump. >> but the way events unfolded, mr. manafort subsequently left the campaign, and it certainly did begin a period of interest in manafort's ties to russia and so forth. >> again, i think that may have been the effect here in the united states.

obviously it was of interest to journalists and others here that mr. manafort was the political adviser head of a campaign here, so we all know there have been court cases and so forth where mr. manafort was found guilty of certain actions. but at the end of the day, president trump won the elections. >> with mr. leschenko's reporting, there has been a question whether all the information that he published was authentic, correct? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> some have questioned whether the information mr. leschenko published was all correct or whether it was doctored. >> i wasn't aware of that. >> you know ambassador jolly, during the august time frame, he wrote an op-ed on the hill taking issue with then-candidate trump. were you aware of that when it

occurred? >> yes. >> did you ever any communications with the ambassador to express concerns? >> no. >> and how frequently did you communicate with the ambassador? obviously you're in different posts in different countries, but -- >> didn't actually see him or talk to him that often. >> you weren't in frequent communication? >> no. >> can you see how writing an op-ed, even given the substance -- we've discussed the substance of it that there are many sensitivities, but can you see just how the simple fact of writing an op-ed, ukranian ambassador to the u.s. might create a perception that there are elements of the ukranian establishment that were advocating against then-candidate trump? >> my recollection of that op-ed was that he was taking a -- he was critical of a policy position that president trump had with regard to crimea and weath whether crimea was a part of

ukraine or a part of russia. that's a tremendously sensitive issue in ukraine, and my recollection is that that is what the ambassador was writing about. >> do you know whether anyone in ukraine was trying to make contact with the trump camp to talk about their concerns before lodging an op-ed? >> i don't know. >> during the same time period in the run-up to the election, the minister ovokav had said some especially candid things about candidate trump on some social media platforms. are you aware of that? >> yes, as a result of the previous deposition. >> but during the relevant time period when it was happening, you weren't aware of that? >> you know, i don't recall it. >> he's one of the more

influential officials in the ukraine, correct? >> yes. >> i believe he's one of the few that span both the poraschenko administration and the zelensky administration? >> yes, that's correct. >> looking back on his comments in hindsight, do you see how that might create a perception that a very influential ukranian was, you know, advocating against then-candidate trump? >> that he was doing what? i'm sorry? >> that he was out to get him. he said some real nasty things. >> sometimes that happens in social media. are you asking me whether it's appropriate? probably not. but i would say that minister ovokav has been, as well as others both in president

poraschenko's administration as well as zelensky's administration has been a partner to the united states. he's a very practical man and looking for partners to get the job done. >> i am shocked that social media would be the site of negative comments. you certainly can understand that the president was aware of minister ovokav's statements, was aware of what mr. leschenko was up to to certainly form the basis of elements of the ukra e ukranian establishment that were out to get the president. >> again, i can't speak for what president trump thought or what others thought. i would just say that those elements that you've recited don't seem to me to be the

ukranian kind of a plan or a plot of the ukranian government to work against president trump or anyone else. i mean, they're isolated incidents. we all know, i'm coming to find out myself, that public life can be -- people are critical. that does not mean that someone is or a government is undermining either a campaign or interfering in elections. i would just remind again that our own u.s. intelligence committee has conclusively determined that those who interfered in the election were in russia. >> i would turn our attention to ambassador volker. he's been a friend and colleague of yours for many years, is that correct? >> yes, that's true.

>> i believe you testified that he's a man of honor? >> i believe that to be true. >> and a brilliant diplomat? >> yes. >> and you have no reason to think he would be undertaking any initiative that was counter to u.s. interests? >> i think that he tried to do what he thought was right. >> turning our attention to the trump administration's policy of aid, the aid package to ukraine, you've testified that during your tenure as ambassador, america's policy actually got stronger toward ukraine. is that accurate? >> with the provision of javelins to the ukranian military, yes. that was really positive. >> why was that important? >> well, two things.

they are obviously tank busters, and so if the war with russia all of a sudden accelerated in some way and tanks come over the horizon, javelins are a very serious weapon to deal with that. that's number one. but really, the more important issue is the symbolism of it, that the united states is providing javelins to ukraine. that makes ukraine's adversaries think twice. >> and the provision of javelins to ukraine was blocked during the previous administration, is that correct? >> i think they made a determinati determination -- i was not part of those discussions, but obviously they made a determination not to provide javelins. >> do you evhave any idea what e consensus was about javelins during the previous

administration? >> i think most of the interagency wanted to provide javelins to ukraine. >> so in this administration of president trump, the providing of javelins to ukraine was a step forward? >> we thought it was important. >> has it played out that way? >> well, it has. it's a symbol of our strong support for ukraine. but when then this year there are questions as to whether or not our security assistance is going to go through, that kind of undermines that strong message of support. >> the -- ukraine still has the ability to acquire the javelins, though, correct? >> are you now talking about purchasing javelins, the ukranian government? >> yeah. they do. >> when the security assistance

did go through, it was paused for 55 days, but it ultimately went through, correct? >> that's my understanding. >> you testified during your deposition that you were proud of the efforts of the united states during your tenure to, you know, supply this type of aid to ukraine. do you still -- are you still happy with the decisions? >> are you talking about the javelin? >> the javelin and also just the whole aid package. >> yes. >> do you think it's sufficient? do you think we're giving ukraine enough money? >> that's a hard question, because one can always use additional funding. that said, i think that the

congress has been very generous in voting for security assistance and other forms of assistance for ukraine. >> my time is coming to an end plrks chairmend, mr. chairman. >> i now recognize myself for five minutes. i want to follow up on some questions from my colleagues. some of the early questions seem to suggest that your testimony here was completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. why are you even here? isn't this some small matter that should have been referred to hr? so i want to bring our attention to someone who thought you were actually very important to this whole plot or scheme, and that is the president of the united states. there was only one ambassador, i believe, who is discussed by the president in the july 25th call, and that was you, ambassador yovanovitch, and i want to refer back to how you were brought up in that conversation. at one point during the

conversation, the president brings up this prosecutor who was very good, and it was shut down and that's really unfair. and i think you indicated earlier that was a likely reference to mr. leschenko, the prosecutor, correct? immediately after the president brings up this corrupt prosecutor that he praises and says he was treated very unfairly, he then encourages zelensky is speak with giuliani, the guy who orchestrated the smear campaign against you, correct? >> yes. >> and many he thhe then brings. so he praises the corrupt prosecutor.

he says, i want you to talk to giuliani, the guy who smeared you, and then he brings you up. he obviously thought you were relevant to this, but what is even more telling is immediately after he brings you up and says that you, the woman, was bad news, he says, there is a lot to talk about about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. immediately after praising this corrupt prosecutor, he attacks you. and then he goes right to biden. that would indicate to you, wouldn't it, ambassador, that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at odds with and his desire to see this investigation of biden go forward, would it not? >> again, you're absolutely right, that that is the thought

progression. >> my colleagues also asked in pushing you out of the way, ultimately ambassador taylor got his way. you were asked if ambassador taylor was the kind of man who would further giuliani's claims. i think we came to the conclusion that taylor is a man of integrity. >> absolutely. >> but what if he could put in place a substantial donor to his inaugural? what if he could put in place someone with no diplomatic experience at all? what if he could put in place someone's portfolio does not even include ukraine. would that person be able to work with rudy giuliani in pursuit of these investigations? >> yeah, maybe. >> that's exactly what happened, wasn't it?

>> yes. >> my colleagues also say, well, the security assistance ultimately went through, so if they sought to condition or bribe ukraine into doing these investigations by withholding security assistance, they ultimately paid the money. are you aware, ambassador, that the security assistance was not released until after a whistleblower complaint made its way to the white house? >> yes, i'm aware of that. >> are you aware that it was not released until congress announced it was doing an investigation? >> yes, i'm aware of that. >> and finally, i want to ask you about the call record that my colleague read at the outset. i'm curious about this. and just for people watching at home so they're not confused, there are two calls here. there is theperfun cto ry call

after yovanovitch was hired, and then there is the call in july. i wonder what happened between april and july ma. but there is a readout from the white house between the time the con gr congratulatory call was made, and then he says, president zelensky was helping root out corruption. that didn't appear anywhere in that call. so i want to ask you, ambassador, why would the white house put out an inaccurate reading? why would the white house represent that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about that in that call or the one in july? >> i can't answer that question. i don't have visibility into that. >> i thank you.

i yield five minutes now to recognize the ranking member. >> i just remind the gentleman there is actually three calls. there is two calls with president trump and the one you reiterated in our last hearing a couple weeks ago. ambassador, i just want to clarify something before i yield. are you against appointing ambassadors? isn't it the president's prerogative to appoint anyone he wants in any country? >> first of all, i am not against political ambassadors. >> i just wanted to clear that up. now can i yield to ms. stefanik? do i need permission? >> you may yield. >> i wanted to thank you for your 33 years of public assistance to mogadishu to ukraine to kyiv. i led one of those delegations in ukraine. my question will focus on three

key schemes. the first is our president when it comes to appointing ambassadors, the second is the longstanding corruption in ukraine and the third is aid to ukraine. earlier this week, as you know, we heard from george kent, and i know mr. kent is a colleague, a friend and someone you deeply respect. in his testimony he stated all ambassadors served the pleasure of the president. you would agree with that statement, correct? >> yes. >> and, in fact, he elaborated and went on to emphasize, this i without question. everybody understands that. you would agree with that? >> i would agree with that. >> and in your own deposition under oath, you stated, quote, although i understand, everyone understands that i serve at the pleasure of the president. is that correct? >> yes. >> and just so there is no public confusion, you are still an employee of the state department, correct? >> yes. >> and in the deposition, you say that you personally asked whether it would be possible to be a fellow at georgetown university, and that was arranged for me, and i'm very grateful. that's where you're posted today, correct?

>> yes. >> georgetown students are lucky to have you, we are lucky to have you in foreign service, and i again want to thank you for your tremendous public service. shifting gears to corruption in ukraine. in your powerful deposition, you described, quote, we have long understood that strong anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in ukraine and now there is a window of opportunity to do that. and so why is this important, and why is this important to us? put simply, anti-corruption efforts serve ukraine's interest but they also serve hours as well. is that still your testimony? >> yes. >> and particularly at the critical time in 2014 after the ukranian elections, you testified that the ukranian people had made clear in that very election that they were done with corruption. correct? >> yes. >> and you also testified that the ukranians thought it would be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special investigative office that would be all about the crimes of corruption, correct? >> yes. >> i know this was before you

arrived in ukraine, but you are aware that the first case that the u.s., u.k. and ukraine investigators worked on was, in fact, against the owner of burisma? >> yes. >> and that was during the obama administration? >> yes. >> and in your testimony -- and you said today the investigation was never formally closed because, quote, it's frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook, right? that's your quote. >> yeah, the ukranian investigation was never closed. although we didn't see the ukranians move forward on that, we no longer partner with them on that case in that way. >> let's take a step back. the first time you personally became aware of burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the obama state department for your senate confirmation hearings. thfls this was in the form of practice questions and answers. this was your deposition. and you testified that in this particular practice q & a with the obama state department, it

wasn't just generally about burisma and corruption, it was speckly about hunter biden and burisma, is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> and the exact quote from your testimony, ambassador, is, quote, the way the question was phrased in this model q & a was, what can you tell us about hunter biden's, you know, being named to the board of burisma? so for the millions of americans watching, president obama's own state department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from hunter biden's role at burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation. and yet our democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry fowl when we dare ask that question the obama administration was so concerned about, but we will keep asking it. in my 20 seconds left, i want to get on record in defense of the aid in which you were an advocate for, that was not

provided by president obama, that was provided by president trump. >> that's correct. >> i yield back my 20 seconds. ambassador, thank you for your testimony today. those of us who sit up here are supposed to be dispassionate and judicial and measured, but i'm angry. and i've been angry since i learned about your summary and unexplained dismissal after a lifetime of excellent and faithful service to this country. i'm angry that a woman whose family fled communism and naziism who served this country beautifully for 33 years, not in paris or in rome, but literally under fire in places like mogadishu and kyiv. i'm angry that a woman like you would be not just dismissed but humiliated and attacked by the president of the united states. and i'm not just angry for you, i'm angry for every single foreign service officer, for every single military officer, for every intelligence officer who right now might believe that a lifetime of service and

sacrifice and excellence might be ignored by the president of the united states, or worse yet, attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss. now, it's the president's defense, and it's emerging from my republican colleagues today, that this is all okay. because as the president so mem rae -- memorably put it in his tweet today, it is a u.s. president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors. i'm a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right, because that doesn't feel to me like the system of government we have here. i think that how and why we exercise our powers and rights matters. ambassador, when you're ambassador somewhere, do you have the right to ask the intelligence committee, the cia in an embassy what operatons they're doing? >> we talk about these things

collaborative collaboratively. there are some things -- in short, yes. sdp >> so you have the right to ask the intelligence community in your embassy what they're doing. why might you do that? >> because sometimes operations have political consequences. >> right. so the performance of your duties in the interests of the united states gives you the right to ask very sensitive questions of our intelligence community in your embassy. but what if instead of working through the issues that you just described you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a russian agent for $10,000. would that be an appropriate exercise of your right? >> no, it would not. >> it would not. and what would happen to you if you did that? >> i can't even begin to imagine, but i imagine i would be pulled out of post.

>> this is not about ambassadors, right? a police officer has the right to pull you over, but if the police officer pulls over his ex-wife because he's angry, that's probably not right. today i cast a bunch of votes. but if i cast those votes not in the interests of any constituents but because somebody bribed me, that is a severe abuse of my power. wouldn't you agree? >> yes. >> so i guess the question is, why, after an exemplary performance as ambassador to ukraine, did the president decide that you should be removed? because i think we just agreed that if that was not done in the national interest, that's a problem. ambassador, if you had remained ambassador to ukraine, would you have recommended to the president of the united states that he asked the new ukranian president to investigate -- and

i'm quoting from the transcript here -- crowd strike or the server? >> no. i would repeat once again that the u.s. intelligence community has concluded that it was the russians who interfered -- >> so, ambassador, if you had remained as ambassador and not been summarily dismissed, would you have supported a three-month delay in congressionally mandated military aid to ukraine? >> no. >> ambassador, if you had remained as ambassador of ukraine, would you have recommended to the president that he ask a new president of ukraine to, quote, find out about biden's son? >> no. >> i have no more questions. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like consent to enter into the record the dear

colleague letter from nancy pelosi on september 23rd. we also suspect he will ask the senate and committee leaders by law -- >> no objection. >> thank you. i look forward to you honenteri that statement from the speaker. ambassador, i for one want to thank you very much for a long service, exemplary service to our country and on behalf of our nation. sdp >> thank you. >> with what was going on around the phone call, i'd like to focus on what has happened since then with you and your career and what's been going on. when you got the word -- any time an ambassador changes their post, there is a process you go through to pick what you do next. that happened in this instance. can you give a quick statement of what happened when you came back here as to what your next assignment would be with the state? >> when i came back, obviously it was sort of out of cycle. there was nothing set up. and again, i am grateful that deputy secretary sullivan asked

me what i would like to do next. i recall that there was the fellowship at georgetown and asked whether that might be something that could be arranged. >> was that your only choice? >> i'm not sure. we didn't really discuss other options. >> my understanding is georgetown is fertile ground for recruitment future fledgling for officers, so they now benefit from your experience and your inspiration to inspire them to spend their professional life in service to our nation. sdp >> thank you. >> how many classes do you teach? sdp >> this semester i was supposed to teach two. i'm still teaching one on national security. the other one was on ukraine, and i asked if i could defer doing that because i didn't think it was appropriate. >> how many students in your clas class, approximately? >> i think 13, 14.

>> do you do anything else other than your fellowship to georgetown? >> i will tell you that all of this has kept me very busy. >> i get that, but not necessarily day-to-day things you would be responsible for? >> no. >> other than overseas stipends and other things, has your compensation been affected by where you are? >> no, it has not. >> i'm worried about how you were treated by your fellow employees of the state. do they hold you in less high regard than they used to as a result of this? do they shun you at the lunch counter? do they treat you badly as a result of the way you were treated by the president? >> i've actually sooefreceived outpouring of support from my colleagues. >> so the folks you respect the most still hold you in high regard and affection? >> they do. >> george kent was in here a couple days ago. he made some exemplary statements about you, really glowing. all of us, i think, would like

to be the recipient of something that worthy, and i believe you are as well. any reason on earth that you can think of that george kent would be saying that because of some reason other than the fact that he believes that in his heart of hearts? >> like what? >> well, i mean, like somebody paid him to do it. >> no. absolutely not. >> so you and i agree that you think he was sincere in that bragging on you and that's all post the episode of much discussion this morning. well, i'm glad that your colleagues would ha colleagues treat you with high regard with this many years of service, and i hope that whatever you decide to do after your georgetown fellowship that you're as successful with that as you were the first 33 years. with that i yield my time. >> i object that the whistleblower is expected to testify soon. "wall street journal" be

included in the record. >> no objection. >> i also have a request that the title "whistleblower will appear real soon, representative adam schiff says." >> without objection. >> i have an article of consent request, "consent of whistleblower to testify before house intelligence committee," cnn, 2019. >> without objection. >> and "the panel has agreed to hear whistleblower testimony," "washington post," november 15, 2019. sdp >> without objection. >> and the house agreed to testify, says adam schiff. >> no objection. >> i have a unanimous consent request. an article called "schiff col: l

will hear from whistleblower." >> no objection. the panel now recognizes miss sewell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in your prior deposition you spoke very movingly about your family. you said your parents fled nazi regimes and they valued what they got in america, escaping regimes. did that have any effect on your entering foreign service? >> yes, it did. >> did you always you know you wanted to be in foreign service? i look at your background and it is very suited to what you're doing. i noted you studied at the prescensky institute to learn russian? >> yes. >> do you also have an m.s. from

the national university national war college? >> yes. >> i even noticed that you earned your undergraduate degree in history and russian studies in college, and coincidentally, that was also my college. you definitely are doing prin princeton and the nature service by what you're doing every day. but i wanted to ask what it was like to have your reputation sullied, not for state and nation but for personal gain. you spoke about how your service is not just your own personal service, it affects your family. and today weaver seen you as this former ambassador of this 33-year veteran of the foreign service, but i want to know about you personally and how this has affected you personally and your family. >> it's been a difficult time. i mean, i'm a private person.

i don't want to put all that out there, but it's been a very, very difficult time because the president does have the right to have his own or her own ambassador in every country in the world. >> but does the president have the right to actually malign people's character? i mean, it may not be against any law, but i would think it would be dense decorum and decency. sdp >> there is a question to see why the campaign to get me out of ukraine happened. all the president has to do is say he wants a different ambassador. in my line of work, perhaps in your line of work as well, all we have is our reputation. so this has been a very painful period. >> how has it affected your family? >> i really don't want to get into that. thank you for asking. >> because i do care. i also want to know how you think it affected your fellow

colleagues in the foreign service. my republican colleagues have said that since you received such adulation and embracing from your own fellow colleagues that what occurred, the incident that occurred with the president and his cronies, you know, maligning your reputation, has that had a chilling effect on the ability and the morale within the foreign service? can you speak to that? >> yeah. i think it has had exactly that, a chilling effect. not only in embassy kyiv but throughout the state department. because people don't know, kind of, whether their efforts to pursue our stated policy are going to be supported. and that is a dangerous place to be. >> now, for the record, my

republican colleagues will probably try to paint you as a never trumper. are you a never trumper? >> no. >> as a foreign service officer, you took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states without regard for who is in office. is that correct? >> yes, that's true. >> have you also served, in your 33 years, for not just democratic presidents but also republican presidents. >> four republican presidents. >> four republican presidents. in fact, you joined the foreign service under reagan, is that not right? >> yes, that's true. >> why is it that foreign service officers are not partisan? can you explain how you're able to do your job that your not partisan? >> our work is essentially nonpartisan. senator van den bergh, a republican senator who actually partnered with president truman coined a phrase that politics

should stop atwat the water's e, and i think that's exactly right. while the compilation of ideas and the democracy with different parties and different individuals is hugely important, but at the end of the day, when we are dealing with other countries, it needs to be about what is right for the united states. those are our national security interests. and whether an individual works for the cia or the military or the state department, we've got to be nonpartisan and thinking about what is right for the united states. >> well, on behalf of a grateful nation, i want to say thank you for your service, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> mr. turner. >> ambassador, i want to say i have a great deal of respect for what you do. i served with the nato assembly and i know the complexity of what you do. i know you have little access directly to decision makers, little resources, but you still have a great deal of responsibility. it's a complex task, and i want

to take us just from the concept of one-dimensional ukraine being corrupt to the other issues you had to deal with as ukraine ambassador. you had to deal with more than just our bilateral relationship with ukraine. for example, and i'd like confirmation -- obviously, i know you know these, but these were on your portfolio. you had to deal with the issue of the osce budapest agreement and the denuclearization of ukraine and the issues of its territorial integrity of the signators, correct? >> could you run that by me again? >> the osce and the budapest agreement under which ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and believed it had territorial integrity by the united states and russia, you would have had that in your portfolio. it was an issue you had to deal with ukranians on? >> yes, whether it was in keeping with our budapest agreement. >> nato was an aspiri-- ukraine

nato country. >> yes. >> and it's also consistent with u.s. policy that the u.s. supports ukraine joining the eu and they had an immense desire to join the eu, correct? >> yes. >> they just had a summit in july where they talked about the social agreement of integration where they talked about the ukraines and the eu, and they also had a discussion about the annexation of crimea and the blocking of sailors by russia that were captured. those were all issues that would have been in your portfolio and that were consistent with what the eu's wishes are, correct? >> yes. we worked closely with our eu partners. >> in addition you had to work with france and germany, all of which you had different ideas to those? the ambassadors to ukraine, france, germany and others, correct?

>> yes. did you say they all had different ideas and issues? >> some of them, yes. >> but mostly there is a consensus. >> you had to work with ngo, non-governmental organizations, human trafficking, building democratic institutions and even hiv and aids, right? >> yes. >> and you spoke to ngos while you were ambassador to ukraine? >> yes. >> now, the u.s. ambassador to the eu, they would have under their portfolio aspiring nations to the eu, would they not? >> yeah. >> so eu ambassador sondland, then, would have had ukraine in his portfolio because they're an aspiring nation and he's our ambassador to the eu, correct? >> i think he testified that one of his first discussions was -- >> you gagree it was within his portfolio, correct? >> please let her answer the question. >> you would agree it was in his portfolio, correct? >> i would agree that -- >> mr. --

>> ms. yovanovitch has not finished her answer. you may finish your answer. the ambassador will be recognized. >> i would say that all eu ambassadors deal with other countries, including aspiring countries, but it is unusual to name the u.s. ambassador to the eu to be responsible for all aspects of ukraine. >> i'll take your initial answer. it's still in his portfolio, which was my question. you knew ambassador holbrook, probably? he's a man of great integrity, one of our most successful ambassadors. you would agree he was a man of great reputation, right? >> yes. >> yes. madam ambassador, would it surprise you if that in 2004, john carrey had a member of his campaign who was a foreign supervisor who traveled to ukraine in july and met with officials in ukraine.

would that surprise you? a member of the campaign team in 2004 traveled to ukraine and met with a u.s. ambassador in july. >> not necessarily. what was the context? >> if a member of john kerry's campaign traveled to ukraine, would you have taken that meeting? >> i guess it would depend on what the purpose of the meeting was. >> well, that meeting actually occurred, and it was with john holbrook. john holbrook was a private citizen, traveled to ukraine, met with u.s. ambassadors, met with ukranian officials. he was also there about hiv/aids which was something the clinton foundation was working on. so we have an official of the john kerry campaign as a private citizen meeting with our ambassador in ukraine. is that unusual? >> the time with the gentleman has expired. >> we meet with president's officials all the time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. you are recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chair. we heard that you were successful at items of promoting corruption. george kent said, quote, you can't promote anti-corruption without pissing off people, end the question. it seems that your action in ukraine did exactly that. madam ambassador, what concerned you about the prosecutor general's office when you were ambassador in ukraine? >> what concerned us was that there didn't seem to be any progress in the three overall objectives that mr. leschenko had laid out, most importantly for the ukranian people but also the international community. so the first thing was reforming the prosecutor general's office. it's a tremendously powerful

office where they had authority not only to conduct investigations to an fbi-like function but also to do the actual prosecution. so very, very wide powers, which is part of that soviet legacy. and there just wasn't a lot of progress in that. there wasn't a lot of progress in handling personnel issues and how the structure should be organized and who should have the important jobs becaus some of the people in those jobs were known -- were considered to be corrupt themselves. secondly, the issue that was tremendously important to the ukranian people of bringing justice to the over 100 people who died over revolutionary dignity in 2014. that is an open wound for the

ukranian people. thirdly, ukraine needs all the money that it has. and there is a strong belief that former president yanokovich and those around him made off with $40 billion. that's a lot in the u.s. it's a huge amount of money in ukraine. and so, again, nobody has -- none of that money has really been -- i think maybe $1 billion was repatriated, but the rest of it is still missing. >> madam ambassador, was the head of that office corrupt? >> we believe so. >> you got the sense, did you not, that he was a driving force behind some of the attacks against you. >> i did. >> which ultimately led to your removal, correct? >> yes. >> but it wasn't just him. his allegations were picked up and spread by mr. giuliani and donald trump jr., were they not? >> yes. >> so let me get this straight.

you were effective at fighting corruption in ukraine. fighting that corruption was important to the national security of the united states, and you were punished for that, ultimately being removed from your post by the president of the united states. so in your opinion, madam ambassador, why is it important to have a nonpartisan career in the foreign services? >> i think it's important to have a nonpartisan career foreign service office -- or service, i should say, because what we do is inherently nonpartisan. it is about our national security interest. it's not about what is good for a particular party at a particular time. it has to be about the greater interests of our security, and frankly, what is an increasingly dangerous world. >> could you briefly describe for us what brought u.s. policies you saw to advance in

your 33 years of service, and specifically in post-soviet states like ukraine? >> that's a broad question, but i think that certainly in my time in russia, armenia, kyrgyzstan, all of these countries are very different as is ukraine. but i think that establishing positive, constructive relations to the extent that we can with those countries is really important. there are three basic areas. one is security, the second is economic and the third is political. so working all the sub-issues, your colleague mentioned many of them. you know, we certainly did that in ukraine as well. >> thank you for your sfrervice. i yield to the chairman. >> dr. wenstrup? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

thank you, ambassador, for being here. i'd just like to say i appreciate your service and moving around the world to dangerous places. hearing you today, i realize we share some of the same feelings and experiencesme. as an army reserve surgeon, i received a call and told that i had to deploy in the next few days. i had surgeries scheduled, so i understand that shocking feeling that can come with some abrupt change like that. i was processing it a few days later and i was told my orders would say, you're going for 18 months but it may be a little shoert th shorter than that. but i served in iraq from 2005 to 2006, one of the bloodiest times of the war, and this is where i had a personal relationship with what you were talking about. i saw an iraq that claimed a non-corrupt government.

and sadly today, even though it helped remove saddam hussain, they still have corruption concerns in iraq, and i can relate to what you said a few moments ago that it feels like an open wound when it hasn't been resolved. but you might imagine with that military experience and background, i take an interest in military strategy and capability and the thoughts of those with boots on the ground like you and mr. volker and mr. taylor. in your deposition on page 144, you're quoted as saying, in terms of lethal assistance, we all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decisions to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. just real quick, who makes up "you all"? would that be the team i mentioned? >> just one sec. what line is that? >> i have to move on. you said, we all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to

ukraine. i assume that is those that have boots on the ground. and then this administration, i assume that you meant the trump administration. >> yes. >> in your deposition also on page 144, you spoke about the generosity of congress. you mentioned it today, increasing aid to ukraine. and part of your deposition, after that statement i quoted before, you were asked, did you advocate for that? you said yes. and you were asked, did you advocate for that in 2016? you answered yeah. you were asked, were you satisfied the administration was doing what was necessary to support ukraine? you said, in what respect? you know, helping them with russian aggression, helping them with foreign lethal assistance, and you said yeah. i agree that lethal assistance was very significant, as you

said. i thank you for that, and i thank mr. volker and i thank mr. taylor. acting ambassador taylor was here wednesday. he testified about the president's decision to withhold lethal aid, and he said the president felt it might provoke russia. and mr. taylor contested then that russia has already been provoked and they have invaded the ukraine. you know, president obama had the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decisions as president of the united states, correct? >> yeah. i mean, there is an interagency process and obviously congress has a role as well. >> he has a right as president as well. i respect the interagency, i'll get to that, actually. he has the right to make decisions as president of the united states, as all presidents, correct? >> yes. >> we had president obama who denied lethal aid altogether

despite ambassadors and boots on the ground recommended making that recommendation, such as you did. we had another president, trump, who vetted those who were going to receive the aid and provided it consistent with your int intra-agency recommendations and that of your colleagues. let me just ask from a military standpoint, without javelins, would you agree the russians had much greater military offensive options and flexibility in their effort to attack the ukraine? without the ukraine having javelins. >> yeah. i mean, they had another option, although the tank war is no longer the war that is being fought in ukraine. >> but i'm just saying with the javelin. >> it's another option. >> and there's a reason for that. because the javelins are there, so i think it changes the scenario. i just wanted to make that

point, that the president has the right to have their own foreign policy and make their own decisions. with that i yield back. >> if i could just supplement one of my answers? >> of course. >> i want to thank you for your service as well. but what i'd like to say is while i obviously don't dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason, but what i do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation also? >> i wasn't asking about that, but thank you very much, ma'am. >> representative speier? >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, ambassador, so very much. you were confirmed by the senate on a voice vote, weren't you? >> yes. >> unanimous, republicans and democrats, correct? >> yes. >> no dispute. you said that in the summer of 2018, the smear campaign began

in your testimony earlier today. did secretary pompeo at any time come to your aid? >> well, my understanding from assistant secretary phil reeker and deputy secretary sullivan is that sort of the rumors about me, for lack of a better word, the smear campaign there were a number of discussions between the president and secretary pompeo and he actually did, did keep me in place for as long as he could. that's what i was told. >> it appears that back in 2018 the president was already making noises that he wanted you out of there. it appears that as early as april of 2018, mr. parnas was at a fund-raiser for the president, and recommended that you be removed, and then subsequently in may of 2018 was pictured at a white house dinner with the president, and then later in may

made a contribution of over $325,000, illegally, to the president's re-election campaign. are you aware of that? >> i'm aware of the precedent of those things. >> does that help you understand a little bit more why this smear campaign was under way? >> yes. i mean -- >> all right. you made some very riveting comments in your statement this morning that i just want to repeat, because i think we should have you expand on it. you said, i've always understood that i served at the pleasure of the president. i still find it difficult to comprehend that foreign and private interests were able to undermine u.s. interests in this way. individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated u.s. policy against corruption, that is to do our mission, were able to

successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. now, as i listen to you make that statement, i was thinking of all the other persons in the foreign service, who now have to be concerned that it's not good enough to follow the stated u.s. foreign policy, but also to be aware that maybe the president has a back channel of interests that he is promoting that is diametrically opposed to our stated foreign policy. can you expand on that, please? >> well, i think that it's important that whoever is representing the president, an ambassador, speaks with the full authority of the president and our foreign policy establishment, and if there are others who are also helping

with, with the responsibilities in that country, for volker with his nation we all speak with one voice, that it's all about our common security interests and not about, you know, personal gain or commercial gain or anything else nap it's about our national security. >> but in this case, the tres amigos appeared to be more interested in getting an investigation than into promoting an anti-corruption effort in ukraine. is that correct? >> that appears to be the case. >> you were told at one point in 2019, in february earlier this year, you spoke to a minister in ukraine who warned when it came to rudy giuliani you needed to "watch your back." what did you understand him to

mean? >> i -- i didn't exactly know, but, you know, the rumor was out there at that time and in fact i think this minister also shared that information with me that the mayor was working to have me removed. >> let me just say to conclude that you have endured an orchestrated character assassination, that it was hatched over a year and a half ago, and that it's laced with enormous campaign contributions to the president's re-election campaign, and you deserve more from the american people and you deserve more from congress's in supporting you. i yield back. >> consent -- unanimous consent, mr. chairman. >> take that up later. mr. stewart, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you for being

here today. welcome as i said a couple days ago to the witnesses welcome to year four of the impeachment proceedings, so you have gotten drug into this. for three years heard outrageous and unbelievable accusations regarding russian collusion. we know now are absolute nonsense. there's wa no basis at all despite promises from some members of this committee they had secret proof that would prove this collusion and we know it was nonsense but now in year four we apparently move on to ukraine and quid pro quo culminating yesterday when the speaker announced that the president would indeed be impeached and removed from office for bribery. and with that statement i would now feel compelled to ask you. madam ambassador, as you sit here before us, simply and directly, do you have inny -- any information regarding the president of the united states

accepting any bribes? >> no. >> do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the united states has been involved with at all? >> no. >> thank you. thank you for answering that directly. the american people know this is nonsense. the american people know this is unfair, and i have a prediction regarding this. i think that public support for impeachment is actually going to be less when these hearings are over than it is when the hearings began, because finally the american people will be able to see the evidence, and they're going to be able to make their own determination regarding that. now, i want to ask you one thing quickly and you have been asked this again and again. my question is slightly different. you've been asked that the president has the ability to ask his ambassadors to serve at will. i'm curious. do you think that's the right policy? >> yeah. i probably think is. >> i do as well.

it may be imperfect. there may be times when it's not used perfectly, but i agree with you. it is the right policy. i don't think that we should change that. now, i'd like to read from some previous statements including one of your own as well as others regarding the appropriateness of investigating corruption in the uk. from ms. fiona hill. the fact there are investigations into the energy sector in ukraine as well as in russia and many other countries is not a surprise. from yourself, your previous testimony. question, was it the general understanding that barisma was asuffering from allegations's corruption. your answer was, yes. from ambassador sondland, i am, i just am generally aware that barisma is considered a potentially corrupt company. would you agree, then, that it's appropriate to investigate corruption? >> i think it's appropriate if it's -- if it's part of our

national strategy. what i would say is that we have a process for doing that. it's called a mutual legal assistant treaty. we have one with ukraine and generally it goes from our department of justice to the ministry of justice in the country of interest. that's the usual -- >> i appreciate that. regardless of the process, though, it's appropriate for us to investigation potential corruption and especially, look, we are bound to give some of these countries hundreds of millions of dollars, that the u.s. taxpayers said here's a dollar's mine. go ahead and give it to this other country, but, please, only do it if you know it's not going to be used for corrupt purposes or against our national interest. and i'll conclude with this because i promised my friend mr. jordan i would save him a little time. we mentioned earlier that the vice president when he was, went to the ukraine and called for the specific firing of a specific prosecutor that he was,

as they say, completing official u.s. policy, but the interesting thing is this -- the vice president had exactly two countries that were his responsibility at that time. china and the ukraine. and he has bragged and been very proud of his influence in the previous administration. he said again and again that the obama administration listened to him so it doesn't surprise me that they would be fulfilling a policy that this vice president certainly helped formulate. mr. jordan. i leave you -- i'm sorry. thank you. clarification, i yield for unanimous consent. >> unanimous consent, mr. chairman that doesn't involve you. three articles in "new york times" article carry foreign policy crew as a clintonian -- >> gentlemen's time expired. >> and -- >> recognize later. >> gentleman's expired. >> organization.

i'd like to have that. >> quickly you're recognized. you're recognized. >> thank you. madam ambassador, it's like a hallmark movie you ended up at georgetown. this is all okay! but it wasn't your preference seven, eight months ago. correct? >> no, it was not. >> it wasn't your preference to be the victim of a smear campaign. was it? >> no. >> wasn't your preference to be defamed by the president of the united states including today, was it? >> no. >> it wasn't your preference to be ousted at seemingly the pinnacle of your career. was it? >> no. >> you wanted to finish your extended tour. correct? >> i did. >> what did want to do after that? did you know? >>