>> you said they were collecting it and they weren't passing it on to you. they were passing it on to the state department and the department of defense? >> sir, this is what they've reported to me. i have not seen the documents that have been collected. i only know those documents that i have produced or that my staff has brought to my attention that i have received. so no, i do not know what has happened with the documents that have been collected. >> same general question to you, sir? >> i requested and was granted access to documents that either originated or had been sent to me that were relevant to the pertinent matters of the investigation during a finite time period. i don't have really information about what else is going on in terms of other documents that i did not produce or i did not receive. >> there was a move to gather them and i understood that they have been gathered and the extent of my knowledge is not my

area of responsibility. >> yes, but did they pass them on to you or did they pass them on to the administration somehow? >> the only documents i received, sir, were within the parameters, and given the documents that either i produced or sent to me relevant to the matters we are discussing today. >> thank you. i yield back to the chairman. >> miss stefanik. >> thank you to both of our witnesses for their service today. ms. cooper, i want to start with you. you spoke eloquently of the threat of russia and how that's a threat not only to ukraine and the united states, and i sit on the house arms services committee. we know that the most important support for ukraine in terms of lethal defensive aid is in the form of javelins. would you agree with that? >> yes, ma'am. >> and which administration were those javelins made available to

ukraine? >> this administration. >> and not the obama administration? >> that is correct. >> have you spoken to the president about ukraine aid? >> no, i have not. >> no, ma'am. >> undersecretary hale, you testified that you had no direct knowledge of nefarious motivation to withhold aid to ukraine, correct? >> correct. >> and to your knowledge you testified that there were no strings attached to the aid, correct? that's page 184 of your deposition. >> i had no such knowledge. >> more specifically, you testified that you had no knowledge of ukraine aid being held up for investigations. >> is that correct? >> correct. >> during the temporary hold of security assistance and this is until ambassador taylor, and you have not heard the words burisma or biden, correct? >> in the context of which we're discussing. you testified to that on page 86

and aid was released to ukraine, correct? >> yes, i read that. let's talk about the context broadly of this hold and there were other countries whose security assistance was on hold, quote, the aid package to lebanon was also being held in the same fashion, correct? >> correct. foreign aid was held from tribal countries of south america, correct? >> central america. >> central america. and you also testified that when you served as ambassador to pakistan, security assistance was also held for their failure to conform to our concerns regarding terrorists and other issues on the afghan-pakistan border. >> correct. >> you know, basically, let's broadly talk about the context of all of these holds on aid. when we talk about aid i always think about, these are hard-earned taxpayer dollars. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. >> isn't it correct that this

administration, the trump administration has been conducting a foreign assistance review to re-establish norms that guide the assistance as we provide aid overseas? >> that's correct. >> you testified that this review had been going on for quite a while and the administration did not want to take a business as usual approach to personal assistance and once a country had received a certain assistance package it's something that continues forever and you continued. the program had to be evaluated that there were worthy ben pushries of our assistance, that our program makes sense and we avoid nation building and we provide assistance to countries that are lost in terms of our policy to our adversaries, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and you testified that you warmly welcomed this assistance review. >> correct. >> and again, just to get this on record and for the millions of americans, security assistance was, in fact, released to ukraine. i know i asked this, but this is

an important point. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. swalwell. >> ms. cooper, your testimony today destroys two of the pillars for the president's defense and one justification for his conduct. first pillar, no harm, no foul. the ukrainians didn't know that the hold was in place so didn't really hurt them. second pillar, this president was a real champion of anti-corruption, he cared about corruption in ukraine. so when i go through your new testimony today it's your testimony now that after an employee came forward to you, you believe you had some evidence that the ukrainians first inquired about security assistance to someone in your office on july 25 of this year, is that right? >> that's correct. >> july 25 is also the day that

president trump officially talked to president zelensky where investigations of the bidens were brought up, is that right? >> sir, i only know what has been reported publicly on this. and that was reported, is that right? >> that's correct. >> second, this president as a champion of anti-corruption, your testimony today is that on may 23, you certified that as far as it related to your duties, ukraine had met the corruption concerns for the aid to be released, is that right? >> sir, the defense department certified. >> and after that date, inexplicably, the president of the united states puts a hold on security assistance, is that right? >> that was what i heard in july, yes. >> now this anti-corruption president who cares so much about rooting out corruption in ukraine, did he ever call you after he put the hold to say ms. cooper, what's going on in ukraine?

>> no, sir. >> ambassador hale, did he ever call you to ask about an update on ukraine corruption? >> no, sir. >> to your knowledge, did he ever call your boss, secretary pompeo? >> i don't know. >> ms. cooper, did he ever call the many bosses that you've had at the department of defense? >> the acting secretaries? >> i don't know, sir. >> now as to the justification. the justification is that the obama administration only provided blankets so the ukrainians should be grateful even after being shaken down that the trump administration provided more, but the truth, ms. cooper is that under the obama administration and the european reassurance initiative, $175 million were provided from u.s. taxpayer dollars to the ukrainian, is that right? >> sir, i don't have that figure. the figure that we typically use is to say we've provided $1.6 billion to date, but i don't have the breakdown in front of me. >> and the obama administration

also trained five military battalions of the ukraine, is that correct? >> again. i don't have the figures in front of me, but y the training began in the obama administration and we did train many forcees. >> and under the obama administration founded ukrainian security assistance initiative provided to the ukrainians were armored humvees, tactical drones, night vision devices, armored vests and medical equipment, is that correct? >> those all sound like pieces of equipment that were provided in the obama administration to my recollection. >> you would agree that's a lot more than blankets, right? >> yes, sir. >> ambassador hale, the aid that was withheld to lebanon and pakistan, those were for legitimate foreign policy objectives, is that right? >> i would say that's true. the assistance to pakistan and i would not have a current hold on the lebanese program. >> and you would agree that

withholding aid to investigate a political opponent is not a legitimate foreign approximatpo objective, is that right? >> correct. >> even bernie madoff made charitable contributions and it doesn't make him a good guy. ms. cooper, your testimony today demonstrates the power of coming forward and defying lawless orders from the president. because you came forward and testified we learned this new information which destroys a central defense that the republicans have put forward. because ambassador taylor came forward, one of his employees learned this defense from the republicans that all we had was hearsay evidence, and mr. holmes said actually, i heard the president of the united states tell ambassador sondland where are we with the investigations? your courage has aided this

investigation despite the president's continued obstruction. i yield back. >> mr. herd? >> thank you, chairman. >> ambassador hale, you're, in essence, the number three guy at the state department, is that correct? >> correct. >> represent roughly 70,000 folks. >> >> i wouldn't say i represent them. i'm one of them, yes. >> were you part of a pretty fantastic workforce that i've been proud to be able to serve alongside. we shared time together in pakistan, and so thank them. i know they oftentimes don't get the pats on the back or the accolades what they do for the national security and there are some of us who do recognize that and appreciate that. did anybody raise issues to you, ambassador hale about investigations the bidens for

burisma? >> no, sir. thank you. >> ms. cooper, you have a great staff. i don't think my staff would have read my 115-page deposition and gave me feedback. so give them gold stars. . you said in your deposition and you confirmed with my colleague from california that you certified on 23, may, that the ukraine aid for their defense of industry ask the department of defense had passed the corruption test, is that correct? >> sir, i think the wording was more along the lines of progress has been made or sufficient progress has been made. it didn't -- it didn't reference any kind of anti-corruption test, per se. >> did this change or was there a re-evaluation with the new president coming in because president zelensky was inaugurated into office two days before that date.

did that have an impact on how he was going to continue some of those pieces. was that taken into account in this review? >> not prior to may 23rd, no, sir. so the review was basically done on the previous, the efforts done by the previous poroshenko administration? >> yes, sir. although it's important to note that the review related most specifically to the ministry of defense. >> sure. sure, but there were ultimately changes under the -- under the zelensky regime, is that correct? >> yes, sir. there's a new minister of defense. >> can you explain -- i know fmf, foreign military financing is the state department and can you explain the fmf and funding and also how the ukrainians get lethal aid. >> i'm sorry. could you repeat the last part of that how the ukrainians. >> also how do they get aid

under these two buckets? >> there are two separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the ukrainian armed forces. the first is the foreign military finance system which is a state department authority and countries around the world have this authority. that authority is used for some of the training and equipment. there's also the ukraine security assistance initiative and that's the dod authority and under the state authority, the state authority is only a one-year authority and third, there's opportunity for defense sales and that is something that we're working with the ukrainians on now so they can purchase ukrainians and the javelin specifically was provided under fmf initially and now the ukrainians are interested in the purchase of

javelin. >> and there wasn't a hold put on purchasing of the equipment. is that correct? >> not to my question, can i ask you a non-impeachment inquiry. >> a nonwhat? >> a non-impeachment inquiry question? >> sir, my time is yours. >> what can we be doing to help the ukrainians defend against russian electronic warfare? what more can we do to defend against russian electronic warfare? >> there is electronic warfare detection equipment who was included in the usa ipaqage, and there's a provide them. this specific topic is more suitable for a closed-door session. that's a good copy. thanks for your service to our country. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, chairman and thank you all for your testimony

today. i want us to make an important distinction because a few of the colleagues have rattled off where we've held up aid. there is a big distinction between holding up aid for a legitimate policy reason and holding up aid because it's part of a shakedown because it's in the service of a president who asked for a political favor of a country to go and investigate a political rival. i think that's important for us to note. i want to ask you, miss cooper, you said the money was cleared to go by the dod on may 23rd, is that right? >> that's correct. and it didn't get released until september 11th? >> yes. i should just clarify. the second half of the ukraine security assistance initiative was notified to congress, i believe it was may 23rd and then there was a waiting period for congressional approval and then after that point so in mid-june,

roughly it was available for -- >> so perhaps 90 days or so, 95 days, something like that. i don't have a calendar in front of me. >> that sounds right. >> you both testified that the hold of the security assistance was not in the hold of the united states and the hold might embolden russia. we've heard from numerous other witnesses that have come before us and this was not the only issue with the hold. we understand the people within the united states government had significant concerns about the legality of the hold as it relates to the control act. this is because the money had been authorized by congress and signed into law by president trump. miss coop e at the july meetings was there discussion about whether the hold could be implemented in a legal fashion? >> so in the july 26th meeting my leadership raised the question of how the president's guidance could be implemented

and proffered that perhaps a reprogramming action would be the way to do this, but that more research would need to be done, so then after that discussion we had a lower-level discussion at my level on the 31st of july -- >> let me ask you about that july 31st meeting. based on your conversations with colleagues at the dod at the july 31st inner agency meeting, did you share your understanding of the legal mechanisms that were available at that time? >> yes, sir. >> and what were they? >> i expressed that it was my understanding that there were two ways that we would be able to implement presidential guidance to stop obligating the ukrainian security assistance initiative and the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. the second is a reprogramming action that the department of defense would do. >> both of those would require congressional notice. >> there would be an extra step

that the president would have to take to notify congress. as far as you know, was there ever a note that was sent out to congress? >> there was no such notice, to my knowledge or preparation of such notice to my knowledge. >> there was never rescission or reprogramming of that money? >> no, sir. not to my knowledge. >> instead what happened was omd devised an alternative solution in providing footnotes to implement the hold and their payment time in august when the department of defense no longer had the footnotes because of concerns there might be sufficient time for dod to obligate the funds before the end of the fiscal year in violation of the act. despite the concerns about the koven troll act and hoshgs mb's footnote, the hold nevertheless, continued through september 11th

and even after now as an aside even after the whistle-blower had come forward. is that right? >> it was correct that the hold was released on september 11th, yes. >> i know i and many of us here share dod's concerns about the legality of the hold, and i want to thank you, ms. cooper, for voicing dod's concerns to the white house and pursuing the national security interests of the united states. i yield back. >> mr. ratcliffe? >> chairman. miss cooper, based on the e-mails that you mentioned in your opening and subsequent declarations by some of my democratic colleagues that those e-mails were evidence that the ukrainians were aware of a military hold on july 25th. there's now reporting out there saying that pentagon official reveals ukrainians asked about stalled security aid. it's being widely reported that

ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25th. that's not what i heard from you, is that correct? >> sir, my exact words were that one e-mail said that the ukrainian embassy and the house foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance. >> assistness, not hold and the second e-mail was the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent and so does the ukrainian embassy. those are the exact words. >> and what do security assistance and fmf situations in those e-mails mean? >> i don't want to speculate on what it means. >> right. >> they don't necessarily mean hold, correct? >> not necessarily. >> isn't it true that omb put a hold on the accounts including

fmf? >> i don't know that specific detail. but you can't say one way or another whether the inquiries in these e-mails were on hold. is that fair? >> i cannot say for certain, and you can't say one way or another whether the ukrainians knew about the hold before august 28, 2019, when it was reported in politico, correct? >> sir, i can just tell you that it's the recollection of my staff that they likely knew, but no, i do not have a certain data point to offer you. >> it's not unusual, is it, miss cooper for foreign countries to inquire about foreign aid that they're expecting from the united states, is it? >> sir, in my experience with the ukrainian, they typically would call about specific things and not just generally checking in on their assistance package. >> are you aware that president

zelensky on october 10th in response to questions from more than 300 reporters over the course of the afternoon stated that he was not aware and had no knowledge of a hold on security assistance during the time of the july 25th phone call with president trump. >> i believe i saw that media reporting. yes. >> i yield back. >> mr. heck? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you both for being here this evening. ambassador hale, last week the country watched as president trump attacked and intimidated your colleague. he attempted to intimidate your colleague and ambassador yovanovitch who was, of course, a witness to this proceeding and subsequently, secretary pompeo declined to condemn that attack. bluntly put, i think secretary

pompeo's silence is nothing less than a betrayal of the men and women that he swore to lead and it's a betrayal that has long-term consequences to attracting and retaining workforce to their morale and their effectiveness and to their overall strength. so ambassador hale, i want to give you an opportunity to now do what secretary pompeo did not do either in march of 2019 when the viciouser. >> campaign got kicked into strong gear when you were in strong support of her or last week when the president and his son attacked her again. i'm offering you the opportunity to reaffirm to this committee and the millions of americans hopefully who are watching that

marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot, and that she served with grace and dignity even in the face of that orchestrated and unsubstantiated smear attack against her. ambassador hale? i'm giving you the opportunity to demonstrate leadership. i'm giving you the opportunity to send a clear and resounding message to the men and women who serve in dangerous foreign posts throughout the globe that what happened to marie yovanovitch was wrong. ambassador hale, the floor is yours. >> thank you, congressman. excuse me. i can endorse entirely your description of ambassador yovanovitch. i only met her when i took this job, but immediately i understood that we had an exceptional officer doing exceptional work in a very

critical embassy in kiev and during my visits to kiev i was very impressed what she was doing there to the extent that i asked her if she'd be willing to stay if it was a possibility because we had a gap coming up. i support and believe in the institution and the people of the state department. i am one of them, and have been for 35 years. all of us are committed to america's national security and we are the best group of dip e diplomats anywhere in the world and that extends to all officers before this committee. if i may i'd like to read a letter that the undersecretary of management wrote on november 18 wrote to the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee in response to a communication from him. a number of department employees have testified before the house of representatives during its inquiry regarding ukraine. no employee has faced adverse action for testimony before congress on this matter. the department will not discipline any department employee for appearing before congress in response to a subpoena. the department has proactively established a program to provide

financial assistance with respect to private counsel legal fees employed by department employees and there's additional information. >> ambassador hale, therefore, marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot? >> i endorse what you say exactly. >> and that she served with grace and dignity in the face of the smear campaign? >> yes, she did. >> and that what happened it her was wrong? >> i believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continued to do the outstanding work. >> and what happened to her was wrong? >> that's right. >> thank you, sir. thank you for clarifying the record because i wasn't sure where it was that she could go to set the record straight if it wasn't you, sir and where she could go back to get her name and reputation back, and i want to encourage you in the strongest terms possible. stand your ground, america's security, strength and prosperity is predicate in no

small part on the provision of the services core and they need to know that you as the highest ranking professional diplomat in the entire state department have their back, sir. thank you for having ambassdor yovanovitch's back this evening and with that, mr. chair, i yield back. >> mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss cooper, the -- who -- why did the office of management and budget put a hold on the funds? >> sir, the only information that i received was from the office of management and budget that they were operating at the direction of the president and they reported that he had concerns about corruption. that is all that i knew. >> and you put that in your testimony. the president had directed the office of management and budget because of his concerns about corruption in ukraine. very legitimate reason. do you agree?

>> that is the statement that the president reportedly made as reported to me by the office of management and budget. >> you said in your testimony that based on recommendations from me and other key dod advisers the department of defense in coordination with the department that you certified the release of the dollars, is that accurate? >> that is correct, sir? >> but there was -- there was a small change in ukraine in the spring of 2019, wasn't there? >> yes, sir. >> and can you elaborate on what that change was? >> the government of -- well, president zelensky was elected to government. >> you got a brand-new guy coming in. in fact, he had just been, i believe, sworn in the day you approved the dollars. was it may 23rd? i think he was -- i guess it was a couple of days before, but

there was sort of a change in circumstances that it would seem to me that tmd warrant maybe a second look. and that's exactly what played out for a short time, less than two months and 55 days, our government evaluated the new situation, pretty radical change, you got a new government. in fact, the previous one, we've heard all kind of things from the democrats about the prosecutor general and the poroshenko regime and mr. lutsenko and how bad it was. so it took a while for that all to happen. new president's sworn in. two months later, the new conference comes in and it takes them a while and it's not about september 5th, and gist a few days late later, but it's

released and way this thing played out is, it eem seems to me as logical as you can do it, but if you put it on the broader framework, and his deep-rooted issue on the corruption in ukraine and the experience he had with high-ranking ukrainian officials criticizing him and supporting secretary clinton in the 2016 election. you put all of that together and i think it shows why it played out the way it did. with that, i would yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. welch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. undersecretary hale, i want to go back to your support and affirmation of ambassador yovanovitch. what i understand, and by the way, thank you for that. our military, no soldier on the battlefield and those who are in

leadership positions in the state department and our intelligence community have that bond of loyalty to each other and it's very reassuring that you represent that. you first, as i understand it, got information early in march and by early march secretary pompeo had mentioned that some time in the fall you received a letter from the former member of congress with complaints about the ambassador, correct? and that member of congress was -- >> congressman sessions. >> and did you see that there was any basis to the claims of disloyalty? >> no, i did not nor did the secretary of state. >> you rzed kiev avisited kiev discussed her remaining at her post. >> it was a personal idea. yes. >> an indication that you valued her continued service there. >> and you also stated to the

ukrainian press that the ambassador yovanovitch represents the president of the united states here and the ukraine in america stands behind their statements trying to give her public support, correct? >> correct. >> and yet weeks later the president and mr. giuliani unleashed what can only be characterized as an ugly smear campaign to oust her. what was your reaction to the news articles in late march with the corrupt ukrainian prosecutor attacked the ambassador. >> we put out a statement that some of the statements were an outright -- and we discussed what we could do to deal with this matter. >> right and the problems continued for ambassador yovanovitch, and as i understand it she e-mailed you on march 24th and indicated that the testimony p tempo of social media, she could no longer function unless there

was a strong defense of her from the state department. is that correct? >> correct. >> and this message, secretary pompeo was aware of her situation, is that correct? >> yes. i briefed him the next day. >> he's the only one that could issue that support, correct? >> correct. >> he never, ever did issue a statement, right? >> we did not issue a statement at that time. >> but in fact, you testified around the same time that the secretary did not render assistance to a long-serving and highly respected ambassador. he made two phone calls to rudy giuliani, is that right? >> that's correct. i've seen a record that he made the phone calls. >> one on march 28th and again the next day on march 29. >> i saw the record of that, yes. >> right. we don't know what he said to

rudy giuliani, but we have a pretty good idea of what rudy giuliani said to him. get rid of yovanovitch. she was gone and the statement never came forward, right? >> correct. >> and when she was recalled and wanted to find out what happened, secretary pompeo would not meet with her? >> i was out of the country at the time. i can't comment on that. >> and mr. brechbuhl who was next in line didn't meet with her? >> i don't know this. >> he came forward to give her the news? the deputy secretary, i believe, held the meeting. i was on foreign travel at the time. it would be interesting if secretary pompeo could be here to tell us what his conversations were with rudy giuliani, the person who was fomenting the discontent about an ambassador who was fighting corruption. i want to thank you and i want to thank miss cooper for her service. >> mr. maloney?

>> mr. cooper, thank you for working late. i think the last time we attempted to listen to your testimony, the republicans brought pizza down to the skiff, kidding aside, i know we detained you for about five hours that day so on behalf of the committee, thank you for your forbearance. we do appreciate your patience with us. i think one question for you, secretary hale. ms. cooper, was dod able to put all of the security system funds into contract before the end of the fiscal year? no, sir and how much were they not able to obligate? >> i believe the figure was 35 million and we were able to obligate $25 million total.

>> and the legislation the congress passed continued resolution to do that, is that right? >> so the remainder that we're in the process -- >> excuse me, the remainder. >> because of the provision in the continuing resolution. >> right. but for literally an act of congress you couldn't spend all of the money? >> if we had not received the provision in the continuing resolution, we would have obligated 88%, but not the full amount. >> right, which of course would be a violation of law to not spend money that congress appropriated. >> sir, i am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding. sure. thank you. secretary hale, where were you born? >> ann arbor, michigan. >> and is your family from ireland, am i right about that? >> no, sir. >> i'm sorry. strike it. another question, with respect

to secretary yovanovitch, you served as ambassador to, i believe, three countries? >> correct. >> jordan. >> lebanon and pakistan. >> lebanon. and while you were ambassador to those three country, did anyone ever ask you to issue a support praising personally the president of the united states? >> no. >> how would you have viewed such a request? >> depending on the situation, sir. >> say you went to someone and you were having a problem with your job and you said how can i do better and they said you should personally praise the president would that strike you as unusual? >> yes. >> if someone told you go big or go home, would that change your mind? >> i don't quite understand -- >> that's what ambassador yovanovitch was treated to when she went to ambassador sondland seeking advice and she declined to do so, and i believe she said

it would strike her as too political. is that consistent with the approach you might take? >> i think that sounds sensible. yes. >> i yield the remaining time to the chairman. thank you both for being here. >> miss demings. >> ambassador hale, ms. cooper, thank you both for being with us. just a quick question before i get into some questions about ambassador sondland who we heard from today. i want to ask both of you if president trump withheld critical military aid from ukraine because high-ranking officials supported the president's political opponent, would you consider that an official, acceptable, appropriate action by the president of the united states? ambassador hale? >> that's not what i would

advise. >> ms. cooper? >> no, that does not sound appropriate. >> ambassador hale, you testified that you were aware ambassador sondland was involving himself in matters that, and i quote, went beyond the normal writ of an ambassador to the european union, unquote. as you understood it, who authorized ambassador sondland to work on ukraine? >> i had no first-hand knowledge of that. i received a readout from a meeting that the president of the united states had with the delegation on may 23rd in which the briefing i received anyway, indicated that the president wanted the members of that delegation which included ambassador sondland to carry forth the policies that were discussed in the course of that meeting. >> so that occurred in a meeting in the oval office is when you

heard that information with the written readout of that, yes. >> you testified and i quote, it was clear that the members of that delegation were empowered by the president and it's what you testified and you also said, and i quote, as a practical matter it would be for ambassador volker and ambassador sondland presumably working with taylor doing the continual effort here. that director sondland had direct access with the president. >> on the few occasions, he would often let him know that he wasn't in direct contact and that's all i knew. you reached that information directly from ambassador sondland. >> in previous occasions, yes. not related to this particular matter. >> anything about ambassador sondland's role that struck you as problem attic. >> based on what i knew at the

time, i was satisfied that this delegation was what the president wanted to have, you know, continue to pursue these policies, and i saw that ambassador volker who was a professional had been a foreign service officer and ambassador of distinction and steeped in ukrainian affairs was part of that group. so i had no great concerns. >> so what you knew at the time you were okay with his role, but did your opinion change? about the appropriateness of his role? as i testified i was not aware of these various activities related to negotiations with investigations and re-conditions related to that. i just wasn't aware of it. so i had no reason to be any kind of judgment one way or the other. had you received the text messages between ambassador sondland and volker? >> i've seen some that were reported in the media. >> were you surprised by any of those messages that you heard recorded or personally witnessed

or observed? >> i was surprised by what i saw in those reports in the media. >> i wanted to ensure if i heard the testimony, ambassador hale and you believe it was, according to what you found out from the may 23rd meeting to vote on ukraine approximately see, and none of thaw struck you as problemattic. is that correct? >> yes. >> you are the undersecretary for political affairs and you testified that in that capacity you are responsible for the management of the united states bilateral relations with, and i quote, every country in the world that we recognize for the management of our policies towards those countries as well as our relationship with policies as they relate to multilateral organizations. does that include u.s. policy

and relations with ukraine? >> it does, but when we have a special envoy who reports directly to the secretary related to a country or an issue that special envoy will take the day to day responsibilities. >> >> how about u.s. policy and relations with the european union? >> yes, i am. >> but you were not aware fully of ambassador sondland's activities on behalf of president trump? >> that's correct. >> thank you. mr. chair, i yield back. >> mr. krishnamoorthi. >> good evening. thank you so much for being here. undersecretary hale, you and your colleagues testified that you've gathered official records at the state department with the understanding that they would be provided to congress, right? >> i was not involved in the decision making and i have no responsibilities related to gathering documents and i understood that it was under way and i certainly received the

documents that i described earlier. >> i see. >> in terms of the materials that were collected, do they include electronic files and e-mail, for instance? >> i can only speak to the documents available to me and it did include e-mails. >> and paper documents? >> and paper documents. >> would tape recordings potentially be among the files that are gathered? >> i really couldn't speculate on that. >> but you can't rule out that possibility? >> i don't -- i don't know if tape recordings, so i can't really comment on that. >> and are you familiar with from whom the documents have been collected like the individual custodians? >> i don't know that, sir. >> are you aware that despite a duly authorized congressional subpoena has been served on the state department we have yet to receive even a single document, correct? >> i understand that.

yes. >> miss coop e in the interagency process, did anyone in any committee potentially bring up the lack of allied funding as a reason for why there should be a hold on military assistance to ukraine? >> i can only speak to the three meetings that i attended, the pcc, and the dmg and pcc and i have no recollection of allied burden sharing coming up at that point. i did provide information in my deposition about what i thought was a completely separate query that i received in mid-june and one of the questions there just asked a question about the degree to which allies were contributing to ukraine's security assistance, just to be very clear. >> okay. but after the hold was put in

place on july 18th, you haven't heard any concerns about the lack of allied funding as a reason for why the hold should be in place. >> i did not hear that, and i don't recall hearing that. the only reason i heard was the president's views on corruption. >> got it. same question for you, secretary hale? >> can you repeat the question? >> you didn't hear about the lack of allied funding as a reason for the hold? >> no, i never heard a reason for the hold. >> i assume neither of you heard any reason whatsoever for why the hold was in place except for the fact that omb put it in place at the direction of the president, right? >> that's correct. >> and i assume one of my colleagues brought up the idea that the hold was put in place to assess whether or not president zelensky was legit. i assume that was not a reason that was offered either.

>> no, sir. i never heard that as a reason. >> i heard no reason. >> undersecretary heal, what is the importance of a world leader having a meeting at the white house? >> well, really, it's case by case, but particularly for a new leader it's an extremely important opportunity to demonstrate the strength of our relationship for building of that relationship on a personal level and leadership level to demonstrate common goals. >> how about president zelensky? how important it was to have a meeting at the white house with president trump? >> i never talked to president zelensky about that myself. i met him before he became president and i met with president poroshenko and the two leading candidates? >> but as an expert on these matters, is it fair to say that a new world leader such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house with president trump is extremely important for his image that he

projects especially toward folks like russia? >> well, an oval office meeting is incredibly dire for any leader to make that principle and for the ukrainian president it is important to demonstrate that they bond between the united states and ukraine is strong and that there's continuity in our policies and we will continue to work together on the policy goals with aggression and the ukraine. >> thank you so much. >> i yield back. >> that concludes the member questioning. mr. nunes, do you have any concluding remarks? >> i thank the gentleman. what have we learned from the democrats' impeachment inquiry? they promised the country a fair hearing. what have they delivered? the impeachment version of three-card monty, a notorious

short card, in this case, president trump and the public stands no chance of winning. dl democrats promise the whistle-blower's testimony and in fact they told us that we need to speak with the whistle-blower and then we learned that the whistle-blower coordinated with the democratic staff before alerting the intelligence community's inspector general. to hide their con, they found the table and gaslight the country telling us the whistle-blower's entitled to an imaginary statutory right of anonymity and they out the whistle-blower knowing that they're the only ones that know who he is. they say that if the facts are against you argue the law. if the law is against you, argue the facts and if both are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. it seems that teaching their students a fourth tactic. if the facts and the law are against you, simply rig the game and hope the audience is too

stupid to catch your loduplicit. it is an impeachment inquisition. the inquisitor was free to act on its own and bring suit against any person who was even vaguely the subject of the lowest rumor and the accused was denied any right to confront their accusers. incredibly or maybe not so much given the track record, an inquisition victim had more rights than what the democrats are giving the president. after all inquisition victims had the right to know their accuser's name. for those of you at home, it's time to change the channel, turn down i yield to mr. schiff for story time hour. >> i thank the gentleman as always for his remarks.

i want to -- i'll be brief this evening. it's been a long day. and i said most of what i wanted to say earlier in the day. but i did want to end this evening and first of all thank you both for your testimony and your long service to the country. we are grateful that you answered the lawful process of a congressional subpoena. i want to share a few reflections on two words that have come up a lot in the course of these hearings. and those words are corruption and anti-corruption. we are supposed to believe, i imagine, listening to my colleagues that donald trump is a great anti-corruption fighter, that his only concern about ukraine was that it would fight corruption. but let's look at that argument. let's look at the president's words and look -- let's look at

his deeds. ambassador yovanovitch was an anti-corruption champion. no one has contradicted that that has come forward to testify here. she was a champion. and on the day she is at a meeting acknowledging in ukraine another anti-corruption champion, a woman who had acid thrown in her face and died a painful death after months, she is called back to washington because of a vicious smear campaign by the apartment's lawyer, rudy giuliani, among others. she is recalled. that is not anti-corruption. that is corruption. and one of the people responsible for in smear campaign, in addition to mr. giuliani -- and it is a long and sore did list of those who were

involved -- is a man named lussenko someone the minority own witness acknowledges has a poor reputation as self-serving and corrupt. and what do we see about him and his predecessor mr. shokin. what does the president have to say about one of these corrupt former prosecutors. he praises them, he says they were treated very unfairly. that's not anti-corruption. that's corruption. and when ambassador sondland testified today that there was unquestionably a quid pro quo, and everybody knew it, conditioning a white house meeting that ukraine desperately wanted to show its friend and foe alike, it had the support of the president of the united

states, when that was conditioned, that official act was conditioned on the receipt of things of value to the president, political investigations, that was not anti-corruption. that was corruption. and when ambassador sondland testified today that he could put two and two together, and so can we, that there was also a quid pro quo on the military aid, that that aid was not going to be released unless they did a public statement -- ukraine did a public statement of these political investigations the president wanted. that's not anti-corruption. that is corruption. and let's look at the president's words on that phone cull -- the infamous phone call on july 2025th. does he ask president zelensky how the reform coming in the rata, what are you doing about corruption? what about the anti-corruption

court. >> of course not. of course not are we to believe that was his priority? what does he ask? i want you to do a favor. a favor. investigate this crazy 2016 server conspiracy that the server is somewhere in ukraine. and more ominously, investigate the bidens. that's not anti-corruption. that is corruption. and the next day when he is on the phone to ambassador sondland in the outdoor restaurant in kyiv, what does he want to know about? does he want to know how zelensky is going to fight corruption? of course not. the only thing he brings up in that call is the investigation he wants into the bidens. that's not anti-corruption. that is corruption. and every now and then there is a conversation that really says all you need to know. and sometimes it doesn't seem

all that significant. but i'll tell you this one really struck me. and it was a conversation that ambassador volker related in his testimony. and it was a conversation just this past september when he is talking to andrey yermak, top adviser to president zelensky, and advising him, as indeed he should, you know, you may not want to go through with an investigation or prosecution of former president porshenko. engaging in political investigations is not a good idea. and you know what yermak says, oh, you mean like you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons? well there is a word for that too. and it's not corruption or anti-corruption. it's called hypocrisy. and this is the problem here.

we do have an anti-corruption policy around the world. and the great men and women in your department undersecretary hale and your department ms. cooper, they carry that message around the world, that the united states is devoted to the rule of law. but when they see a president of the united states who is not devoted to the rule of law, not devoted to anti-corruption but instead demonstrate in word and deed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves what does america stand for anymore? that concludes this evening's hearing. i will ask the witnesses to excuse themselves. members should remain. we have a business matter to take up.

>> you've been listening to house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff at the end of a pivot alin-house impeachment inquiry and perhaps in the trump presidency. state department official david hale and laura cooper testimony wrapping up casting doubt on the key defense of the president. and the big one of the amp gordon sondland, the ambassador testifying that there was an effort to squeeze ukraine for help in dirtying up 2020 presidential rifle joe biden in exchange for meeting with the president, and he said he later came to believe hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen military aid. there was, he said, a quid pro quo. it was pursued at the

president's direction using rudy giuliani as point man with the complicity, acquiescence of some of the top cabinet officials, our political team has taken the opportunity to be who with us here. kirstin power as scott jenning bes. appreciate you being here with us. gloria what stood out today? it was a long and incredibly important day. >> it was. i mean, to summarize sondland, i think what i would say was his statement was, everyone was in the loop, twice he said it twice. >> and he name named of mo that everyone was. >> he named names and it was every name including the secretary of state, clearly the president of the united states, clearly rudy giuliani who directed everything, john bolton knew about it. i mean, you name it, everybody -- everybody knew what was going on. so that's sort of -- did i summarize the morning pretty well? it was a lot of hours of

testimony. and then this evening, you know, we have this pentagon official saying that the time line now of when the ukrainians knew about the holdup of aid has suddenly moved forward. that's important because, you know, the republicans have been saying that there couldn't be any wrong doing if the ukrainians were aware that the aid was held up. well suddenly this evening we discover that the time line has shifted. >> i mean first of all the argument you can't have a quid pro quo if the ukrainian didn't know, that's not really true but also the time line as you say shifted. in fact, we have that testimony -- let's listen in on that. >> so you really have no testimony today that ties president trump to a scheme to withhold aid from ukraine in exchange for these investigations? >> other than my own presumption. >> which is nothing.