>> i have no reason to think otherwise. >> we are involved in the july5 trump-zelensky phone call or preparations for the call? >> no, i was not. >> were you involved in the deliberations about the possible military sales to great -- to ukraine? >> for the delay in -- >> for the pause. >> no, i was not. >> were you involved in the proposed trump-zelensky later pence zelensky meetings in warsaw, poland, on september 1? >> no, i was not. >> did you ever talk to president trump in 2019? >> no, i've 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 has now turned into the house impeachment

committee. this seems more appropriate for the subcommittee on human resources at the foreign affairs committee, if there's issues with implement, disagree was with the administration it would seem like it would be more appropriate setting instead of at impeachment hearing where the ambassador is not a material fact witness to anything, any of the accusations that are being hurled at the president for this impeachment inquiry. i have several questions i think, mr. castor wants to get to. i know ms. stefanik him give a few quick question for the ambassador. yield to you, ms. stefanik. >> thank you, mr. nunes. ambassador yovanovitch, -- >> the gentlewoman will suspend. >> what is the interruption for this time? it is our time. >> you are not recognized. mr. nunes, you are -- >> i just recognize -- >> under 660 you're not allowed deal time except to spin is the

ranking member yield a time to another -- >> that's not accurate. >> that is accurate. ambassador yovanovitch, i want to thank you for being here today. >> you are not recognized. >> this is the fifth time you have interrupted members of duly speedy congresswoman will suspend. >> we control the time, and customary of this committee where controls the time can yield to wherever they wish. if we have members of congress to ask a few questions, it seems appropriate that we be able to let ms. stefanik ask your questions. >> mr. nunes, , you or my nordic council are recognized. >> all right. mr. castor, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. nunes. ambassador, welcome. i want to thank you for your service, 33 years, and extraordinary career. it really has been a remarkable

tenure for you at the state department. i would like to thank you for participating here today. this is a crazy environment, this hearing room has turned into a television studio but before today you spent on friday the 11th you are with us for early in the morning until i believe it was it o'clock 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 to begin in the 2016 and was scheduled to end in 2019? >> yes, that's correct. >> and nobody disputes that except for the president to decide who his envoy are two posts around the world, correct?

>> i stated that clearly in my statement. >> and you returned from the ukraine on may 20, 2019? >> that's correct. >> your return coincided with the inauguration of president zelensky? >> yes. >> and you remain employed by the state department? >> i do. >> and after you returned to washington and deputy secretary john sullivan asked you what you wanted to do next, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> then you met with the director general, ambassador perez? >> yes, that's correct. >> did you identify a meaningful new assignment? >> yes. >> and you now serve in georgetown university as a fellow? >> that's true. >> this this is a rewarding posn for you? >> yes. i'm very grateful to be in the position after what happened.

>> today is the second big hearing for the democrats impeachment initiative. we understand that you don't have a lot of facts and information relating to the part of this that we are investigating, and those of those event for may 20 up until september 11 released security assistance, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> so you were not part of the delegation to the inauguration, the day you return. you are not part of the oval office meeting may 23, correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> and you are not part of the decision-making relating to whether there would be a a whie has me with president zelensky? >> that's correct. >> and you were not a part of any decision-making in the lead up to the july 25 call?

>> that's correct. >> and you first learned about the call on september 25, is that correct? >> well, i heard about the call, as indicated in the first deposition, from deputy assistant secretary george kent. >> what did he tell you about the call? >> well, 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 help him out, which i understood to be into investigations and that president zelensky had said that he is putting in a new prosecutor general and that he doesn't control it. i mean, this is approximately what he said. that person is an independent

individual. >> you learned about that before the call was made public? >> that's correct. >> likewise you were not involved in any discussion surrounding the security sector assistance to ukraine? they were pause for about 55 dates of july 18, to september 11? [inaudible] >> in your opening statement on page nine, you stated although then and now i've always understood that a stir at the pleasure of the president. i still find it difficult to comprehend that for a private entity were able to put them in use interest in. individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stages policy against corruption, that is to do the mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels.

do you believe that president trump was aiming to weaponized corruption in ukraine by removing you? >> i don't know that. >> do you believe your removal was some part of scheme to make it easier for elements of the ukrainian establishment to do things counter to u.s. interests? >> i think that's certainly what the ukrainian establishment hoped. i think that in addition there were americans, these two individuals who are working with mayor giuliani, mr. pardus and mr. fruman who have recently been indicted by the southern district of new york, who indicated that they wanted to change up the ambassador. think they must've at some reason for that. >> and to 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 who would facilitate those objectives? >> no. >> so basilar tip is a man of high integrity? >> absolutely. >> he's a good pick for the post? >> he is. i would note that he is that charge a out there. so no masochist yet or no candidate has yet been named to the position. >> but he certainly has had a decorated career serving his country? >> absolutely. a man with the highest integrit integrity. >> you testified about when you first learned that mayor giuliani and some of his you testified about when you learned mayor giuliani and some of his associates had a concerted campaign against you, when did that first come to your attention?

>> we were picking up rumors from ukrainians. i think kind of in the november-december 2018 time period, but then in january, february, and of course march, it became more obvious. >> at some point i believe you testified that minister ibakov alerted you to this campaign. >> yes. >> when was that? > he had -- he had a conversation with me in february of 2019. >> ok. do you remember what he related to you? >> yes. he said that they were working with mayor giuliani through these two individuals, mr. parnov and from freeman, that they basically wanted to remove me from post. working on y were

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 freeman, rnov and mr. so it was unclear to me why they were interested in doing this. >> were you especially influential implementing policies that symied their interest in ukraine? were advocating for -- for some sort of environment or policy that would be adverse to them? >> i think that just the general idea that obviously u.s. ambassadors, u.s. embassies, one of our most important functions

is to facilitate u.s. business abroad, whether it's trade, whether it's commerce, that's things we do but everything has to be above board. we believe in a level playing ground but we obviously advocate for u.s. business. these two individuals, you know, hindsight, what we learned later, looking to open up a new energy company, exporting , ional ral gas to ukraine never actually came to the embassy which is unusual because that would usually be a first stop, going to the american chamber of commerce, going to the u.s. embassy, get the lay of the land, see how we can provide assistance. >> was that source of frustration ever expressed to you or did you learn that separately. >> source of frustration on

whose part? >> freeman and parvos. >> i don't know that they were frustrated. frustrated by what? >> you mentioned they had business interests. i asked whether they had been stymy by anything in particular you had advocated for or you were a roadblock to them being successful and i wondered if there was any connection. >> i had never met them. when i heard those names for the first time, this was in -- which was in february of 2019, i asked my team, the econ and commercial sections are the ones who would usually meet with american business men and women and no one had heard of them. so all i could conclude was it was the general u.s. policies that we were implementing that might have been a concern of them. >> at any point did you try to reach out to the prosecutor general, mr. lusenko, and find out why he was participating in

this campaign? no. >> why didn't you do that? >> i didn't feel there was any purpose to it. >> why not? i e is -- he clearly had an animus, he was working with americans, so i reached out to the american side, in this case, the state department, to try to find out what was going on. >> when did did you first realize your relationship with lusenko had reached an adversarial point? >> probably around that time. maybe a little earlier. >> and this is march? >> yeah. and 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 ukrainians, including mr. lusenko tombings do what they said they were going to do when mr. lusenko entered office that he was going to clean up the p.g.o. and make reform, that was going to bring justice to the heavenly hundred, the people who died in 2016 -- 2014, the revolution of dignity, and he was going to prosecute cases to repatriate the 40, approximately $40 billion it's lieved that former president yanukoviych fled the country with. he didn't do any of that we kept on trying to encourage him to do the right thing. that's what the ukrainian people wanted him to do, we thought it was a good plan and he should do it. >> and then you mentioned you contacted the state department in late march, is 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. it was ongoing sort of discussion makes it sound very formal. we have many ways of going back and forth with washington and o, you know, on phone calls or d.d.c.'s, we would have this discussion. >> when did you realize this? >> if i could amplify my answer, we had the discussion, we were concerned that crew yain -- ukrainian policymakers, ukrainian leaders, were hearing that i was going to be leaving, that there was maybe somebody else waiting in the wings, etc. and that undermines not only my position but our u.s. position. the ukraine yaps 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. >> and when did you realize this concerted campaign against you was a real threat? >> a threat -- >> a threat to your ability to do the job? >> i would say that the, you know, when you go into a meeting with somebody and they ask, are you going to be leaving that is concerning. so that's probably, i don't know exactly when that started happen bug in that time frame. >> did you undertake any efforts to push back on this narrative either inside the state department or mickly? >> certainly with the ewe crepians, i said there's 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? european out to the bureau, i think you've also heard that dr. fiona hill was aware of this as well, the n.f.c., and they had other discussions with more senior people. >> ok. did you get any feedback from your chain of command? did you engage ambassador reeker, undersecretary hale? >> yes. >> did you develop a game plan to push back against the allegations? >> there are different time frames we are talking about. fast forwarding to march, i did, when undersecretary hale asked whether i'd consider extending i did raise, because i wasn't sure

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. he said he understood. he still was hoping that i could extend for another year. so that was early march. fast forward to late march and izabeth sessions, about this issue -- and these sessions about this issue continued but once it became a political story here in the united states, the the nor of everything changed. i think that the state epartment felt it wasn't working anymore and the more prudent thing would be for me to come back in july. ? do you think there's anything

you could have done differently to get ahead of the story or lobby that there was a concerted campaign against you, that you didn't believe the allegations lodged were accurate and you needed their assistance? > i think that sure, maybe i could have done that but i think they were aware and as i subsequent lew learned from secretary sullivan, the secretary of state had been well aware of this since the sum over 2018. >> the corruption is endemic in the country of ukraine, right? >> i would say corruption is a serious issue everywhere in the former soviet union. it's a post-soviet legacy. and we talk about it a lot in ukraine because there's actually opportunity to do something, to actually help the ukrainians tackle the issue. they want to tackle the issue. in other countries like russia you kevpbt talk about it. so i think it's a post-soviet legacy and it's important to

deal with it. >> you testified rampant corruption has long permeated ukraine's political and economic systems? >> that's a fair statement. >> and it's your belief it should be the u.s. foreign spoil to help the ukraine curb its corruption policy? >> yes. because it's good for the ukrainian bus also in our nterest. >> anti-corruption efforts, you mentioned, serve a national security purpose? >> i believe that to be true. >> are oligarches a big part of the problem in ukraine? >> probably because so much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very, very few, sick 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 consider improper ways?

>> yeah, i think that's a fair comment. the head of borisma, do you know him? >> i don't know him but i know ho your talking about. >> he was arrested for stealing millions and millions of dollars, sudget to an investigation, trying to get the money back. that was a big part of mr. kent's initiatives when he was there. at a bribe was paid to the rosecutors and sochevsky was let off the hook. is this something you're familiar with? >> i've heard about it. this was before my awe rival. i would say my understanding of

it, please correct me if i'm wrong, is that the u.s. money that you're referring to was the money that we -- that we used to fund an f.b.i. team that was embedded with the prosecutor general's office to go after, not to go go after but to do the investigation of them. >> mr. kent testified that this bribe was paid, the prosecution went away, and essentially nothing has been further done with regard to borismo. during your tenure in ukraine has there been any focus on re-examining allegations, whether it's of borismo or other powerful interests? like kochevsky, re-examining it?

>> on the part of the ukrainian government? >> yeah, trying to lean on the various prosecutors general to crean up the oligarchical system? >> i think yes, there have been some efforts. as i mentioned earl earl earlier in my testimony, the u.s. was welcoming of mr. lesenko's nomination to position of prosecutor general. we were hoping he would clean that up. that in fact is not what appened. it's hard to explain to a u.s. audience but in ukraine and in the former soviet union more broadly, including in russia, justice, the justice system, whether it's the -- whether it's cops on the beat, investigatoringsering whether it's prosecutor, whether it's judge, are used as a tool of the

olitical system. to be used against your political adversaries. so i think that going back to our question about borismo and kochevky, this was, as i told you earlier in a previous deposition, did not loom large when i arrived. 16, but in august 20, over time, my understanding was on the case was basically pause. it wasn't an active case. but it also was not fully closed. and that is the way, as i mentioned before, for those in power to keep a little hook in kochevzsky.nd mr. >> and right around the time the

bribe was paid they took time to spruce up their board, had the president of popoland and other luminaries, are you familiar with that? >> yoverpb exactly what the timing was but yes, to the elements. >> one of the folks they added to the board was hunter biden. which raises questions. is he a genius on the corporate governance front? is he a genes you with ukrainian oligarchical systems, cleaning that up? or was he added to the board because he's the vice president's son? was that a concern or at least the perception of that concern addressed? >> as i said, i arrived in ugust of 2016. several months before the election, several months before president trump took office. it was not a focus of what i was oing in that six-month period.

>> was the issue raised at all? >> not -- i never met him, never talked to him. what was your question? >> he was still on the board when you arrived at post and i was wondering if the perception problem was brought to your attention as ambassador. >> i was aware of it, as i told you before in the deposition, in terms of my preparation for my senate confirmation hearing there was a question about that. o i was aware of it. >> in your deposition you acknowledge that the president has long-standing concerns about corruption in ukraine is that

true? >> that's what he said. >> going back to, there's a meeting with president por sean coe in september of 2017 in the oval office. i believe you testify head expressed his concerns then. >> he said a friend of his told him ukraine was the most corrupt country in the world. >> ok. >> several people have testified that there were concerns that people were out to get him. is that something you were aware of? >> i'm certainly aware of it now. there's been a lot of press attention on that. it was not brought to my attention during the 2 1/2 years that i served under president

trump as our ambassador to ukraine. >> we've gone through the deposition, some of these elements that, you know, maybe they loom larger now but in hindsight, was there any discussion at the -- at the embassy that there's indications of ukrainians trying to at least 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 earlier, the consultant, alexander cha lieu pa has reportedly, at least her and according to ken vogel at politico, was trying to work with the ukrainian embassy in d.c. to trade information, share leads, that sort of thing? >> i saw the article. i didn't have any further information about that.

>> did you see the article at think time? did that only come to your attention subsequently? >> it's been brought to my attention subsequently. i did see something to that effect at the time. >> you're the ambassador in country at this point. did you aim to get to the bottom of that? if true if the reporting is true, if what mr. luca told mr. vogel is accurate that would be concerns, correct? >> well, i was the ambassador in ukraine starting in august of o2016. and what you're describing, true, as you said, what you're describing took place in the united states. there were concerns about what ms. cha lieu pa was doing i think that would have been handled here. >> do you know her? >> i don't believe so.

>> ever met her? >> i don't think so. i mean if she worked for the ukrainian 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 that investigative journalist mr. loshenko played in publicizing the manafort blackledgers in >> yes. >> and he publicized some information in the in a brand way in august of 2016. almost immediately coincided with mr. manafort leaving the campaign. was there anything about that issue when it was occurring that concerned you? >> i certainly noticed it because i was, you know a week or so away from arriving in ukraine. i think that from a ukrainian perspective, i realized we were looking at this from an american perspective. from the ukrainian perspective,

i think that what mr. loshenko and others looking into blackledger were most concerned about was not mr. manafort but former president yanukovych and his party and the amount of money they allegedly stole and where it wept and so forth. there's a difference in perspective depending on which country you're in. >> but you can understand the president at least from his perspective looking at these facts, certainly it is reasonable toen co-collude there are elements of the ukrainian establishment tissue establish almost -- establishment operating against him correct? >> peeking of mr. loshenko, he's a journalist, he got access to the blackledger and published it, as i think journalists would do again, i'm not sure that that -- yf any information to suggest that that was targeting

president trump. >> but the way events unfolded, mr. manafort left the campaign, it began an interest in mr. manafort's ties to russia and so forth. >> i think, again, i think that that may have been the effect here in the united states. and obviously it was of interest to journalists and others here former manafort was president yanukovych's political advisor and head of the campaign here. and so we all know that 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 election. >> with mr. loshenko's report,

there's been a question if all the information he published was authentic, correct? >> could you repeat that? >> some have question wld the information mr. leshenko published was all correct or whether it was doctored. >> i wasn't aware of that. >> ok. ambassador charlie in the august time frame wrote an op-ed in "the hill" taking issue with candidate trump. were you aware of that? >> yes. >> did you have communications with the ambassador to express concerns? >> no. >> how frequently did you communicate with the ambassador? obviously you're in different posts in different countries. >> didn't actually see him or talk to him that often. >> you wrpt in frequent communication? no. >> can you see how writing an op-ed, given the substance,

we've discussed the substance of it, there's sensitivity bus can you see thousand he simple act of writing an op-ed, the ukrainian am bass dott to the u.s., could create the impression that there were elements of the ukrainian establishment working against president trump. >> my recollection of that op-ed is he was critical of a policy position that president trump had with regard to crimea and 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 challie was dor writing about. >> do you know whether the ambassador or anybody else tried 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 rupp up to the election, the minister had said some especially candid things about then-candidate trump on some very visible media platforms are you aware of that? >> yes, as a rule of the previous deposition. >> but during the real aren't time period when it was happening you weren't aware of that? >> you know, i don't recall it. >> he's up with of the more influnerble officials in the ukraine, correct? >> yes. >> i believe he's one of the few that span both the por sean coe administration and the zelensky adsnrgs? that's correct. >> looking back on his comments in hindsight do you see how that might create a perception that a very influential ukrainian was

advocating against then-candidate trump. >> he was what? >> he was ad vo kating against president trump, he was out to get him, he said some nass think -- nasty things. >> sometimes that happens on social media. are you asking me whether it's appropriate? probably not. ut i would say that minister ovaca has been, as well as others, president poroshenko's administration as well as president zelensky's administration, has been a good partner to the united states. he's a very practical man and looking for partners and getting the job done. >> i'm shocked that social media would be the site of negative omments. you certainly can understand that the president, aware of

minister ibakove's statements, aware of with what mr. leshenko was up to and other elements we have discussed, that this forms a reasonable basis to wonder whether there are influential elements of the ukrainian establishment that were out to get the president. >> i can't speak for what president trump thought or others thought, but those elements you cited don't seem to be a plan or plot of the ukrainian government to work against president trump or anyone else. 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 community has conclusively determined that those who interfered in the elections were in russia. >> turn our attention to ambassador volcker. he's been a friend and the clerk will designate the amendment of yours for many years, is that correct in >> yes. >> i believe you testified he's a man of honor. >> i believe that to be true. and a brilliant diplomat? >> yes. >> and you have no reason to think 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 got stronger toward ukraine, is that accurate? >> with the provision of javelins to the ukrainian military yes, that was positive. >> why was that important? >> two things. they are obviously cave busters so if the war with russia all of a sudden is accelerated in some way and tanks come over the horizon, javelins are a good weapon to deal with that. that's number one. the more important issue is the symbolism of it. the united states is providing javelins to the 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 determination -- i was not part of those discussions but obviously they had not yet made a determination about whether to provide javelins. >> do you have any understanding of what the interagency consensus was with regard to javelins in the previous administration? >> i think that folks in interagency wanted to provide javelins to ukraine. >> in the new administration, under president trump, the ability to afford ukraine this weaponry is a significant advantage, significant step forward? >> we thought it was important. >> and has it played out that way in has as a symbol of ur strong support for ukraine.

but this year there are questions of whether or not our security systems are going to go there -- go through that undermines the strong message of support. >> ukraine still has the ability to acquire javelins, correct? >> are you talking about purchasing javelins? . >> it was paused for 55 days. july 18 july 18 to september 11. it ultimately went through, correct? >> my understanding. >> you testified during your deposition that you were proud of the efforts of the united states in your tenure to supply

this type of aid to ukraine. do you still -- are you still happy with the decisions? >> are you talking about the javelins? >> javelins 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 systems and other forms of assistance for ukraine. >> my time is coming to an end, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. we'll go to member five-minute rounds. i recognize myself for five minutes. am because -- ambassador, i want to follow up on some questions from my colleagues. some of the early questions

seemed to suggest that your testimony here was completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. why are you even here? isn't this some small matter that should have been referred to h.r.? so i want to bring our attention to someone who thought you were actually very important to this whole plot or scheme and that is the president of the united tates. that was only one ambassador discussed in that july 25 call, and that was you. i want to brick up how you were brought up. at one point in the conversation the president brings up this prosecutor who was very good. it was shut down and that's really unfair. and i think you indicated earlier that that was a likely reference to the corrupt prosecutor. >> i believe that's the case but i don't know. >> so immediately after the president brings up this corrupt oreign prosecutor, only one --

only one american ambassador is brought up in the call. the president brings up this corrupt prosecutor he praises, he then encourages zelensky to speak with giuliani who orchestrated the smear campaign against you, correct? >> yes. >> and he then brings you up. so he praises the corrupt prosecutor. he says i want you to talk to giuliani, the guy who smears 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, there's a s, he says lot otalk about about biden's son. 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. >> in pushing you out of the way, ultimately ambassador taylor got appointed. is ambassador taylor is the kind of person who would further giuliani's aims? i think we can all agree ambassador taylor is a remarkable public servant.

>> absolutely. >> but what if the president could put someone else in place who wasn't a career diplomat? what if he could put in place, say, a substantial donor to his inaugural? someone with no diplomatic experience at all? what if he could put in place someone whose portfolio doesn't include crew crane? might that person be willing to informations? >> maybe. >> that's exactly what happened isn't it? >> yes. >> my colleague says the security assistance ultimately went through. so if they sought to condition or bribe ukraine into doing these investigations by with holding 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? >> i'm aware of that. >> are you aware it was not announced until after congress announced it was doing an investigation? >> i'm aware of that. >> and finally, i want to ask you about the call record that my colleague read at the outset. curious about this. just for people watching at home so they're not confused, there are two calls here. there's the perfunctory congratulatory call after zelensky is inaugurated which my ranking member read this morning and then there's the very problematic call in july. one of the reasons we're here is what happened between april and uly. there was a read utah put out by the white house at the time the april congratulatory call is made and the white house readout said that the president

discussed with zelensky helping ukraine root out corruption. now that in fact doesn't appear anywhere in that call. so i want to ask you, ambassador, why did the white house put out inaccurate reading? why would the white house represent that the president said something about corruption when he saiding in about corruption? in that call or the one in yull? >> i can't answer that question, i don't have visibility into that. >> i thank you. i yield five minutes to recognize the ranking member. >> i would just remind the gentleman, there's three calls. two calls with president trump and the one that you reiterated in our last hearing a couple of weeks ago. ambassador, i want to clarify something before i yield are you against political appointed ambassadors? is it not the president's prerogative to appoint whoever he wans in any country?

>> first of all i am not against political ambassadors. to be clear. >> now can i yield to ms. stefanik. do i need your permission? >> you may yield. >> thank you, ambassador, before i was interrupted i wanted to thank you for your 30 years of public service, from mogadishu to ottawa, to moscow to throoned kiev and for hosting the numerous bipartisan delegation, i led one of those delegations in ukraine my questions will focus on three key theme, the first is the role of the president appointing am bass course, the second is long-standing corruption in ukraine and third is aid to ukraine. we heard from george kent. i know he's a colleague, a friend, someone who you deeply respect. in his testimony he stated all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. you would agree with that, correct? >> yes. >> and in fact he elaborated and

went on to emphasize that this is about question, everybody understand that, you would agree with that? >> i agree with that. >> 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. >> so there's no public confusion you're 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. 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 thaund anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in ukraine. there's a window of opportunity to do that. why is this important? and why is this important to us?

put simply anti-corruption efforts serve ukraine's interest bus they also serb ours as well. is that still your testimony? >> yes. >> and particularly at the critical time in 2014, after the ukrainian election, you testified that the ukrainian people have made clear in that very election that they were done with corruption. correct? >> yes. >> and you also testified that the ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special investigative office that would be all about the crimes of corruption, correct? >> yes. >> and i know this was before you arrived at ukraine but you are aware that the first case that the u.s., u.k. and ukraine investigators worked on was against the owners of barisma? >> yes. >> and that was during the obama administration? >> yes. >> in your testimony you said the investigation was never formally closed because it's frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook, right? >> yes. the ukrainian investigation was

never closed as i understand it. because we didn't see the ukrainians move fwargd on that we no longer partner with them on that case or in that way. >> let's take a step back. the first time you personally became aware of barisma was when you were being prepared by the obama state department for your senate confirmation hearings, that was in the form of practice questions and answers. this is your deposition. and you testified that in this particular practice q&a, with the obama state department, it wasn't just generally about barisma and corruption it was specifically about hunter biden and barisma? >> yes. >> and the exact testimony is, the way the question was phrased in this model q&a was what can you tell about hunter biden being named to the board of barisma. so for the millions of americans watch, president obama's own

state department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation and yet our democratic colleagues and the chairman of the committee cried foul when we dare ask that same question that the obama state department was so concerned about. but we will continue asking it. and lastly in my 20 seconds left i want to get it on record, in terms of the defensive lethal aid you were an advocate for, it was not provided by president obama, it was provided by president trump. >> that's correct. >> i yield back five 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. 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 newt seism, who served this country beautifully for 33 years, not in paris or rome but literally under fire in places like mogadishu and kiev, i'm angry that a woman like you would be not just dismiss bud 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 office, 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 ok. because as the president so memorably put it in his tweet this morning, it's a u.s.

president's absolute right to appoint am pass dors. i'm a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right that doesn't feel to me like the. so 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 community, the cricri -- the c.i.a. in an embassy what operations they're doing? >> we talk about these things collaboratively. there's some things that -- in short, yes. >> 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. what would happen to you if you did that? >> well, i can't even begin to imagine but i would imagine i would be pulled out of post. >> right. 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 hangry -- he's angry, that's probably not right. today i cast a bunch of votes that if i cast those votes not in the interest of my constituent bus because somebody bribed me, that's a severe abuse of my power, wouldn't you agree? >> yes. >> so i guess the question is,

hy, 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 ask the new ukrainian president to investigate, and i'm quoting from the transcript here, crowd strike for the server? >> no, i would repeat once again that u.s. intelligence community has concluded that it was the russians. >> 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 question, i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record ar dear colleague letter, they will the relevant part reads, we also expect he will establish a path for the whistle blower to speak directly to the house and senate intelligence as required by law. >> without objection. >> thank you. i look forward to you honoring that statement from the speaker. ambassador, i want to thank you so very much for a long service, exemplary service to our country

, what was going on around the phone call, i like to focus more on what's happened since then to you in your career and what's going on. when you got the word, any time an ambassador changes post, there's a process you go through to pick what you do next. that happened in this instance. can you give us a quick statement what happened when you came back here as to what your next assignment would be? >> so 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 recalled that there was a 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 sense is georgetown is crecrutement ground for future

offices so they benefit from your experience and inspiration to inspire them to prepare them. how many classes you teach? >> this semester i was supposed to teach two. i'm still teaching one on national security. the other one was on ukraine and asked whether i could -- >> how many students in your class, approximately? >> there are, let's see, i think 14. 14 or 56789 >> any other responsibilities to state other than fellowship at georgetown? >> well, i will tell you that all of this has kept me very usy. >> other than not qualifying for overseas stipends has your employment been affected by being recalled? >> no it has not. >> worried about the way you

might be treated by fellow employees of state. any negative -- are they holding you in less high regard than they used to as a result of this? do they shun you at the lunch counter or treat you badly as a result of the way you were reated by the president? >> i've received an outpouring of support. >> so the folks you respected most still respect you and appear to hold you in high regard and high affection? >> yes, sir. >> george kent was in here a few days ago, made some exemplary statements about you, all of us would like to be resip yens of something that worthy. any reason on earth you can think of that george kent would be saying that because of some reason other than the fact he believes it in his heart of hearts? >> like what? >> i mean like somebody paid him o do it.

>> i'm glad that your colleagues -- i would expect nothing any different from your colleagues at state to continue to treat you with the high regard you've earned over these years of great service. i hope whatever you decide to do after the georgetown fellowship that you're as successful there as you've been in the first 33 years. with that, i yield the balance of my time to mr. jordan. >> i have a unanimous consent request that an article entitled "house whistleblower set to testify soon" be included in the record? >> without objection. >> i have a unanimous consent request that says whistleblower reaches agreement to testify, will testify toon, "usa today" september 29, 2019. >> without objection. >> i have a unanimous consent request article entitled schiff confirms tentative agreement for whistle blower to testify before house committee, cnn, september 29 20 19. >> without objection. >> i have a unanimous consent

request, intelligence panel has teal to hear whistleblower's testimony, "washington post," september 29, 2019. >> without objection. >> i have a unanimous consent request, an article entitled whistleblower reportedly agrees to testify before house intelligence committee reported by schiff, huffington post, september 29, 019. >> without objection. >> i have a unanimous consent request, an article entitled schiff: panel will hear from whistleblower, arkansas fwa set. >> without objection. the time of the gentleman has expired. now recognize ms. sewell.

>> did your family background have any impact on your desire to enter form service? >> yes, it did. >> did you always know you wanted to be in the foreign service? i look at your background, it's perfectly suited for what you're doing. i know you studied at the russian language institute in russia to learn russian, that you have -- you also have an m.s. from the national defense university, national war college. >> yes. >> i even noticed you earned your undergraduate degree in history and russian studies in college and coincidently that was also my college but i wanted -- and you definitely are doing the nation a service by what you do every day. but i really want to know how it

felt to have your reputation sullied. not for state and nation but for personal gain. you spoke about how your service is not just your own personal service but affect yours family. and today we've seen you as this former am bsdor 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'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. >> does the president have a right to malign people's character? it may not be against any law but i would think it would be against decorum an decency. >> i mean there's a question as

campaign to d of 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 your line of work as well, all we have is our reputation. this has been a very painful period. >> how has it affected your family? >> i really don't want to get into that but thank you for asking. >> i do care. i also want to know how you think it affected your fellow colleagues in foreign service. my republican colleagues have said that since you received such addulation from and embracing from your own fellow colleagues that the incident with the president and his cronies maligning your reputation has that had a chilling effect on the ability and morale within the foreign service? can you speak to that?

>> yeah, i think that -- i think that it has had exactly that. a chilling effect. not only in embassy kiev but throughout the state department. kind people don't know of whether their efforts to pursue our stated policy are going to be supported. and that is a dangerous place to for the record, my republican colleagues will try to paint you as a never-trumper. are you a never-trumper? >> no. >> you took an oath to defend the united states regardless of who is in office. correct? >> true. >> having served for not just democratic, but republican presidents? >> four republican presidents. >> in fact, you joined the

foreign service under reagan. why do you think it is important foreign service officers are nonpartisan? can you talk to us about why it job, thaant to do your t you are nonpartisan? >> because our work is essentially nonpartisan. senator vandenberg, a republican senator who partnered with president truman, coined a phrase that politics should stop at the water's edge. i think that is exactly right. while obviously the competition of ideas in a democracy with other parties is hugely important, 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 national security interests and whether an individual works for the cia or military or state department, we

have to be nonpartisan in thinking about what is right for the united states. >> on the half of a grateful nation - -behalf of a grateful nation, thank you. >> i have a great deal of respect for what you do. i served on the armed intelligence -- arm servicese committee. i know you have little access directly to decision-makers, but you have a great deal of responsibility. it is a complex task. i want to take us from the one dimensional concept of ukraine being corrupt to other issues you had to deal with as ambassador. you had to deal with more than just our bilateral relationship with ukraine. i know you know these, but these were on your portfolio. you had to deal with the budapest agreement and the denuclearization of ukraine and issues of it territorial

integrity of its signatories, correct? >> could you run that by me again? >> the organization for security and cooperation for europe under the budapest agreement, under which ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, you had that in your portfolio? that was an issue you had to deal with on ukrainian soil. >> when ukrainians ask about our policy and whether it was keeping with the budapest agreement. >> ukraine is an aspiring nato country. you have the bucharest summit where members stated they would get membership. be on theuld that portfolio? it is also consistent with u.s. policy ukraine supports joining the eu, and they have a great deal of interest and desire for joining, correct? >> yes. >> they had a summit in ukraine in july where they talked about

the associated agreement on economic integration between the ukraine and the eu. they had a discussion about the illegal annexation of crimea and the blocking by russia of ukrainian sailors that were captured. those were all issues that would have been in your portfolio, correct? >> yes. we work closely with our eu partners. >> you have to work with france, the u.k., and germany, who all have different ideas, the ambassadors, correct? >> yes. he said they all have different ideas? >> yes. >> mostly there is a consensus. >> legal aid, human trafficking, building democratic institutions. you spoke at several ngo's while you were ambassador to ukraine. >> yes. susiet u.s. ambassador lee, they would have under their

portfolio aspiring nations to the eu, would they not? ambassador sunderland would have had ukraine -- sondland would have had ukraine in their portfolio. you agree it is within his portfolio, correct? yes. >> i would agree. >> thank you. [indiscernible] >> objection. >> the gentleman suspends. yovanovitch will be recognized. withl eu ambassadors deal countries, including aspiring countries, but it is unnatural to name the eu for all aspects to ukraine. >> it is still in his portfolio.

of ambassador holbrook, one of her most successful ambassadors. you would agree he was a man of great reputation, right? yes. madame ambassador, would it surprise you that in 2004, john kerry had a number of his -- memberho - -member of his campaign who traveled to ukraine and met with the ukrainian ambassador. a member of john kerry's campaign team for president in 2004 met with the u.s. ambassador in july. would you have taken that meeting? if a member of john kerry's campaign traveled to ukraine, would you have taken that meeting? >> i guess it would depend on the purpose of the meeting. >> that meeting actually

occurred with john holbrook. john holbrook was a private citizen, traveled to ukraine, met with ukrainian officials. , whichthere on hiv/aids is something the clinton foundation was working on. we have an official of the john kerry campaign in 2004 and private citizen. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> we meet with present individuals over time. >> mr. carson, you are recognized. >> madame ambassador, returning to the context of corruption, we hear you were successful at promoting efforts to address corruption. on wednesday in testifying about your career about anticorruption efforts in ukraine, the equity assistant secretary said "you can't promote principled anticorruption action without pissing off corrupt people." it seems your efforts as

ambassador to essentially reform the powerful prosecutor general's office in ukraine is exactly that. what concerned you about the prosecutor general's office when you were ambassador in ukraine? was therencerns us didn't seem to be any progress in the three overall objectives laid out, was importantly for the ukrainian people, but for the international community. the first thing was reforming the prosecutor general's office. it is a tremendously powerful authorityre they had not only to conduct the investigations, an fbi-like function, but to do the actual prosecution. very wide powers, which is part of the soviet legacy. 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, because some of the people in those jobs were -- were considered to be corrupt themselves. secondly, the issue immensely important to the ukrainian people of -- tremendously important to the ukrainian people of those who died in the revolution in 2014, no one has been held accountable for that. that is an open wound for the ukrainian people. certainly, ukraine needs all the money that it has. -- there is a strong belief that former president yanukovych and those around him made off with over $40 billion. that is a lot in the u.s. it is a huge amount of money in ukraine.

again, none of that money has been -- i think maybe $1 billion was repatriated, but the rest of it is still missing. >> 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. >> but his allegations were spread by mr. giuliani and donald trump, jr., were they not? >> yes. >> let me get this straight -- you are effective in 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 for your post - -from your post. in your opinion, why is it important to have a nonpartisan career in the foreign services? >> i think it is important to

have nonpartisan career foreign service office, or service, i should say. is inherently nonpartisan. it is about our national security interests, it is not what is good for a particular party at a particular time. it has to be about the greater interest of our security,and frankly in what is an increasingly dangerous world. >> can you describe what brought u.s. policy you sought to advance in post-soviet states like ukraine? >> that is a broad question. certainly in my time in russia, armenia, all of these countries are very different, as is ukraine. positive,tablishing constructive relations to the

extent that we can with those countries is really important. i mean, there are three basic areas. one is security. second is economic, and that there is political. sub-issues of the your colleague mentioned, we certainly did that in ukraine as well. >> thank you for your service. i yield to the chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. madam ambassador, thank you for being here. i appreciate your years of service and enduring years of moving around the world to dangerous places, and hearing from you today, i realized we share some of the experiences as an army surgeon. i received a call in march of 2005 telling me i was being deployed to iraq and i had to be out the door in the next two to three days.

i had patients scheduled for months. i had surgery scheduled. i understand that shocking feeling that can come with an abrupt change like that. would say my orders you are going for 18 months, but it might be shorter. i served a year in iraq. have another i personal relationship with what you were talking about. i saw a nation in iraq that craved a non-corrupt government. even though it helped to remove saddam hussein, they still have corruption concerns in iraq. i can relate to what you said, that it feels like an opened wound. i take an interest in military strategy and capabilities and those with boots on the ground like you.

in your deposition on page 144, he recorded us saying -- you are quoted as saying the administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. all quick, who makes up "we ?" would that be the team i mentioned? what line is that? >> i have to move on. you said "we all felt it was significant the administration provided lethal weapons to ukraine." i assume you meant boots on the ground. this administration, i assume you meant the trump administration. in your deposition on page 144, you spoke about the generosity of congress, increasing aid to ukraine. part of your deposition after that statement that i quoted, you responded yes.

you were asked, did you advocate for that prior to the new administration in 2016? he responded, we -- you responded, well, yeah. were you satisfied the administration was doing what is necessary to support ukraine? you said, in what respect? they said, helping to deter aggression and helping with foreign assistance. you said yeah. i agree lethal assistance with significant. i think mr. volcker and mr. taylor. wasacting ambassador taylor here wednesday. he testified about the person's decision to withhold legal aid. he said president thought it might provoke russia. mr. taylor contested russia has already been provoked and have invaded ukraine.

president obama have the right to make his own foreign policy and make his own decision as president, correct? >> yeah, there is an interagency process. >> i respect the interagency process. i'm getting to that, but he has the right to make his own decisions as president of the united states, as do all presidents, correct? >> yes. >> so president obama denied legal aid altogether -- letahal aid altogether despite boots on the ground making that recommendation, such as you did. we have another president, trump, vetted aid and provided it consistent with your interagency recommendations and that of your colleagues. standpoint,ary

would you agree the russians have much greater military offensive options and flexibility in their effort to attack the ukraine, without the ukraine having javelins? >> yeah, they had another option, although the tank war is no longer the war being fought in ukraine. >> there is a reason for that, because the javelins are there. i think that changes the scenario. i wanted to make that point that the president has a right to their own foreign policy. >> if i could supplement one of my answers. i want to thank you for your service as well, but wanted like to say is while i don't dispute the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any whatfor any reason -- but

i do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation falsely. >> i wasn't asking about that, but thank you very much. sothank you, ambassador, very much. you were confirmed by the senate on a voice vote, so unanimous, republicans and democrats. no dispute. 2018,id, in the summer of the smear campaign began. at any timey pompeo come to your aid? >> my understanding from the assistant secretary and deputy secretary is that, you know, this rumor about me, the smear campaign, which was behind closed doors at that point, that

there were a number of discussions between the president and secretary pompeo, and he did keep me in place for as long as he could. that is what i was told. >> it appears in 2018, the president was making noises that he wanted you out. it appears that as early as april of 2018, mr. parnassus was at a fundraiser for the president and recommended that you be removed. subsequently in may of 2018, was pictured at a white house dinner with the president. later in may, native conservation of over $325 -- made a contribution of over $325,000 illegally to the president's campaign. >> i am aware of the press about those things. >> does that help you understand more why the smear campaign was underway? >> yes.

you made some riveting comments in your statement this repeat,that i want to because i think we should have you expand. you said, i always understood i served at the pleasure of the president. i find it difficult to comprehend that foreign private interests were able to undermine u.s. interests in this way. individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated he was policy against corruption -- u.s. policy against corruption were able to conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. make thatn to you statement, i was thinking of all of the other persons in the foreign service who now have to be concerned that is not good enough to follow the stated u.s.

foreign policy, bu awesomet -- but also to be aware the president has a back channel of interests that is diametrically opposed to our stated foreign policy. can you expand? i think it is important that whoever is representing the president and ambassador speaks with the full authority of the president and our foreign policy establishment. withere are others helping the responsibilities in that country -- for example, ambassador kurt volker with his mission to bring peace -- that we'll speak with one voice, that about our common security interests and not about commercial or personal gain, it

is about our national security. amigoshis case, the tres appear to be getting -- appear to be more interested in getting an investigation into corruption in ukraine. is that correct? >> yes. >> you were told at one point of february early 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 didn't exactly know, but the rumor was out there at that time, and i think this minister shared that information with me that the mayor was working to have me removed. >> let me say that you have endured an orchestrated character assassination, that it

was hatched over a year and a half ago, and that it is laced with enormous campaign contributions to the president's the election campaign. and you deserve more from the american people and you deserve more from congress. i yield back. >> i have unanimous consent. >> we can take that up later. you are recognized. ambassador, thank you for being with us here today. four of theear impeachment proceedings. i am sorry you have gotten dragged into this. we have heard these outrageous and unbelievable accusations regarding russian collusion. now know aree absolute nonsense. no -- despite

illnesses -- promises we had proof. we are in year four, the speaker announced the president would be impeached and removed from office for bribery. with that statement, i feel compelled to ask you, madam ambassador, simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the united states accepting any bribes? >> no. >> do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that president of the united states has been involved with at all? >> no. >> thank you. the american people know this is nonsense. the american people know this is unfair. i have a prediction regarding this. i think public support for impeachment is actually going to

be less when these hearings are over than when the hearings begin. finally the american people will see the evidence and make their own determination. quickly. ask you this anyhave been asked that president has the ability to ask his ambassadors to serve out well. -- serve at will. do you think that is the right policy? >> yeah, i probably think it is. >> i agree as well. it may be imperfect. i agree with you, it is the right policy. i'd like to read from some previous statements, including one of your own regarding the appropriateness of investigating corruption in ukraine. the fact that there are investigations into corruption

in the energy sector is not a surprise. from your previous testimony, was in the general -- was it a general understanding this company suffered from corruption? your answer was yes. from ambassador sondland, i am generally aware it is considered a potentially corrupt company. would you agree that it is appropriate to investigate corruption? >> i think it is appropriate if it is part of our national strategy. is we have asay process, the mutual legal assistance treaty. we have one with ukraine. it goes to the ministry of justice in the country of interest. >> regardless of the process, for us it is appropriate

to investigate potential corruption. we have vowed to give some of these countries hundreds of millions of dollars. the u.s. taxpayer said, here is a dollar of mine, get it to this country, but do not -- but only a it will not be used for corrupt purpose. we mentioned earlier when the vice president went to the ukraine and called for the specific firing of a specific prosecutor, he was completing official u.s. policy, but the interesting thing is the vice president had two countries that were his responsibility, china and ukraine. influence inf his the previous administration. he said the obama administration wasn't to him, so it doesn't surprise me they would be

fulfilling a policy his vice president helped to formulate. >> [indiscernible] >> in cyprus, i'm sorry. i will yield for unanimous consent. >> i have unanimous consent that does not involve you this time. three articles in the new york times. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. [indiscernible] hashe gentleman's time expired. you are recognized. >> thank you, madam ambassador. you ended up at georgetown. this is all okay. [laughter] preference't your seven or eight months ago, correct?

it wasn't your preference to be the victim of a smear campaign. it 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 you want to do after that? >> i wasn't sure. >> there is nothing wrong with georgetown. it is a fine place. >> it is a wonderful place. >> but it is your only choice after a distinguished career like that. it is not the end of a hallmark movie, it is the end of a really bad reality tv show brought to you by someone who knows a lot about them. you previously

testified that he sought advice from ambassador sondland about what to do, correct? >> i did. >> why did you reach out to the ambassador? >> because this was clearly so political and was not going to state -- the state department was not in a position to manage the issue, it didn't appear to me. i asked ambassador sondland sondland, who was a political appointee, he said he was close to the president. he had just been in ukraine for a visit with some of his eu colleagues from brussels. i reached out to him for advice. nhen this was no longer a

oferview, it became the sort american politicians and pundits repeating those allegations, i asked him for advice. >> this is an extraordinary time. the advice meant a lot. what was his advice? >> he suggested that i needed to go big or go home. he said that the best thing to know, send to, you out a tweet, praise the president, that sort of thing. >> what was your reaction to that advice? >> my reaction was that i'm sure he meant well, but it was not advice i could really follow. it felt partisan.

it felt political. that was not something --hought was in keeping wih in keeping with my role as ambassador in foreign service. >> did he give you any specific suggestions to what to say to the united states, or just say something nice about him? >> just praise him. and want to follow up harken back to something you were asked by the minority counsel earlier. do you think you could have done more to push back against the smear campaign? i'm not suggesting this is what the council is getting at, but sometimes victims are asked, are you responsible for your own victimization? what would you say to people that say, isn't it your own fault, ambassador, that you didn't fight your own smear har

der? >> i have been a foreign service officer for a long time. just like the military, we have our own culture, we have our own chain of command. , you everything i could to know, to address these issues and ask the state department to do what i felt was the right thing, which was support me when it was important to do so. this was also about supporting the policy. it was up for others to stand up for me. >> i agree. >> thank you. since the chairman has gaveled out my colleagues through unanimous consent, i will read for the record many of the chairman's comments in september of the importance of hearing

from the whistleblower. ambassador, thank you for your patience. since we haven't been able to conduct ourselves in normal procedures, i will use the five minutes for this. september 29 in the wall street journal, "the whistleblowers in the central part of the investigation." this is a quote by the chairman. september 29, talking with abc said theiff whistleblower would testify soon, and the only thing standing in the way was getting security clearances for the attorneys representing the whistleblowers. 29, aox, september whistleblower at the center of a growing scandal will testify before the house intelligence committee very soon. said sunday he expects the whistleblower to testify very soon. , the washington post september 29, in appearance on abc news

this week, schiff said he expected the intelligence committee to hear from the whistleblower very soon a security clearance -- pending a security clearance. schiff told abc news he discussed the whistleblower to appear before this committee soon. in the new york post "we will get the unfiltered testimony of the whistleblower." in the new york times, ' whistleblower -- "that whistleblower will be allowed to come in." have youg points memo, reached an agreement with the whistleblower about coming before the committee? schiff responded. "that whistleblower will be allowed to come in from the justice department to tilde whistleblower what they can or cannot say. we will get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower." "we are ready to hear from the

whistleblower as soon as that is done. we will make sure the acting director does not delay the clearance process." "we look at the unfiltered testimony." on marketwatch, adam schiff says an agreement has been reached the whistleblower testifying before the committee soon. i can keep going, but the chairman refused to allow us to put these into the record with unanimous consent. it is important to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and from firing. we want to make sure whistleblowers are able to come forward. the fact we are getting criticized by chairman adam schiff for statements that he himself made early in the process shows the duplicity and abuse of power we are continuing to see. i will yield to my colleague. >> i will add the chairman

promised we will get to see the transcripts. there are four people we have not seen the transcripts of and the least. therefore, the testimony provided we are not able to use in these open hearings. all of the available testimony from depositions taken by the committee should be available to be discussed for the american people to see. beenthers have not released. i hope the chairman releases that. one other point i will make, the democrats have asserted this whole thing with ambassador a scheme by the white house to get president zelensky to do an investigation. t this was some scheme by

rump and giuliani to get president zelensky to do an investigation, why would they replace her with the democrat's star witness, bill taylor? if that is the plan, not the best plan i have ever seen. witness, mr.irst taylor, was here wednesday. i think it demonstrates that is not what went on. mr. zelensky never undertook any investigations. the reason the aid was released as discussed on wednesday is because u.s. senators talked and zelensky were convinced he was the real deal. that is why the money was released. >> a lot has changed since the whistleblower came forward. two things in particular.

first, most of what the whistleblower has alleged has been corroborated by the witnesses we have heard from. second, the president, who my colleagues shamelessly continues to defend, continues to pressure, threaten, and intimidate the whistleblower. i would like unanimous consent to put into the record a september 26, 2019 article from business insider. trump suggested the whistleblower who filed a complaint against him is guilty of treason, which is possible by death. vanity fair, shrum suggests executing the whistleblower's like "in the good old days." third, september 29, whistleblower's lawyer raises fear for client's safety. the whistleblower has an absolute right to anonymity. the whistleblower's lawyer says he fears for his personal safety and lonely answer questions in writing.

i wish my colleagues would join me in protecting the whistleblower's right to anonymity. we are here to talk about what you witnessed. you saw a lot as it related to mr. giuliani. i want from mr. giuliani. when you were in ukraine, you understood rudy giuliani was donald trump's personal lawyer. >> yes. >> are you familiar with rudy giuliani's quote in the new york times saying "he basically knows what i'm doing, sure, as his lawyer." are you familiar with that quote? >> it sounds familiar. >> you have a lawyer with you today, ms. yovanovitch. you understand lawyers act on their client's behalf. that it would be improper for a lawyer to go outside any directive that the client gives. >> that is my understanding.

>> are you familiar with a new york times story where rudy giuliani said he intends to visit ukraine and says "we are nnot meddling in a election, we are meddling in an investigation." he is talking publicly about designs on coming to ukraine. what i think is interesting is e're" as ini said "w "we are." he does not say i am not meddling in an investigation, he says "we." he is speaking for himself and his client. i want to talk about that quote, we are not meddling in an election, we are meddling in an investigation. is it proper for you or anyone on behalf of of the united states government to meddle in

an investigation? why not? >> there are law-enforcement channels. things need to be handled properly. without any kind of political bias. crusader,ticorruption president trump, who my colleagues touted as having a great interest in corruption, in both calls referenced today, isn't it true that president trump never mentions the word corruption? >> that is true. >> as far as the foreign aid my colleagues keep saying, he can to be guilty, he didn't complete the cheat, the aide went to the ukrainians. isn't it true that the only time the aid went to the ukrainians was after the whistleblower complaint became public? >> yes, it was after the was a little complaint became public. >> you don't get points when you

get your hands caught in the cookie jar and somebody says hey, he has his hands in the cookie jar and you take your hand at, which is essentially what my republican colleagues are trying to take credit for. i want to put the disgusting 20 from the president -- tweet from the president today where he attacks your character. i think the country knows who you are. he smeared you when you were in ukraine. he smeared you on that phone call with president zelensky on july 25. he is smearing you right now as you testify. ambassador yovanovitch, or the president's smears going to stop you from fighting corruption? >> i will continue with my work. >> if your country asks you to fight corruption, will you still do that despite the smears? >> yes. >> thank you. --your excellency

six senior foreign service awards, five state department superior honor awards, the presidential distinguished service award, and the secretary of diplomacy in human rights. you are tough as nails and you are smart as hell. you are a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. you are an owner to your family. -- honor to your family. you are in honor to this country. i thank you for all you have done and will continue to do on behalf on your country. i am nervous about what i am about to do. i want to do a five year history of ukraine in 45 seconds. since you are a professor, you

can grade my paper. valentine's day, 2014, the ukrainian people get that up with the ukrainian president in a coverage and -- fed up with ukrainian president yanukovych. this was the revolution of dignity. who was the acting president during that time? -- think it was thank you for helping me. >> excellent. >> that in march of 2014, that is when we saw little green men coming into ukraine and ultimately the russians invade nex not only to an crimea, but they invaded the northern country as well. there was an election and the ukrainian president was poroshenko in june 2014. you came to the in 2016 -- came

to post in 2016. january 2017, trump was elected. december of 2017 was when the javelins were approved. we saw those delivered in april of 2018 to be put to use. we had zelensky elected in 2019 of april. previousdefeated the president poroshenko. in may of 2019, zelensky is sworn in. we talk a lot about rudy giuliani. do we know what officials within the zelensky regime he actually met with? i know two. a gentleman that was one of zelensky's senior advisers. we also know of the former attorney general that we already

established was corrupt. underfficial served zelensky for a couple months until august. >> that is right. >> their parliament voted him out. >> that is correct. >> if rudy giuliani is trying to influence the zelensky regime, would a guy that worked under the previous poroshenko regime be the right guy to do it? >> are you saying -- that he -- could you -- >> did he have much credibility within the current zelensky regime? he didn't. do you know of any other ukrainians that mr. giuliani was meeting with that were part of the zelensky regime.

>> i would have already left ukraine by that point. >> even with the administration won the zelensky election. there was a two-month peroid of preparing to install as president. were you aware of any -- of thee is -- one with officials to get a meeting for mr. giuliani. >> those are not people actually in government in the zelensky regime, is that correct? >> no. thank you back. >> ambassador for your service to the nation. a big question is why you are pushed aside as ambassador.

americans know an employer has the right to fire an employee, but they shouldn't do it for certain reasons. you should not be fired because you are disabled, because you are a woman, because you are black, and for other reasons. it is agreed a president should not fire and ambassador because the ambassador is standing in his way of doing a corrupt fact. did -- corrupt act. does the president tell you why he was recalling you? >> no. >> did anybody at the white house tell you why you were being recalled? >> no. >> did the president outlined who were the good and bad guys in ukraine? >> no. >> it appears in the testimony we have heard so far that there were a group of the president's , rudy giuliani, ambassador sondland, who were in on this

scheme to help the president get the bidens investigated. i want to put aside president trump for just a second and ask you, in all of your years of service, have you ever come across a president, been asked by a president, or know of colleagues asked of an american president to help that resident get an american best -- president get an american investigated overseas? >> i'm not aware of that. >> if a president asked you to investigate a former vice president for this purpose, what would you have said? mean, with what i know today, i would have said no. >> would you have considered an unlawful act?

isi don't know that it unlawful, per se. i think there are channels for conducting proper investigations, and that would be the best way to handle something like this. it is very unusual. >> you mentioned ukraine is not the only country that corrupt -- that confronts corruption. if the people in power in a country where corruption is rampant are being asked by a foreign leader who has a lot of leverage over them to conduct an investigation, could that be dangerous because they could trump up charges if they wanted?

>> they could. >> i spoke to ambassador kent. he made a comment yesterday about selective prosecutions and what it means going forward, what kind of precedent it sets. you have spoken about a dangerous precedent for the state department and diplomats. i want you to consider the president going forward -- prec edent going forward if there are no consequences for president trump. what are the consequences for this country and any other american? butsomeone in politics, someone who does business in saudi arabia or another country -- if the president is going to speak to some foreign official and try to get never investigated -- to get that person investigated, what does it mean for the future of americans? >> i think investigations,

prosecutions, judicial decisions properly should remain with investigators, prosecutors, the courts. think, as i said before, when the senator said politics needs to stop at the water's edge, i think he was right about that. >> i yield back to the chairman. >> i thank the chairman. , i wouldr yovanovitch like to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in thanking you for your service. i'd like to ask you about your earlier testimony about your senate confirmation. you were asked how the obama-biden state department had prepared you to answer questions about hunter biden specifically.

do you recall that? she mentioned you had been asked for were prepared for a question about hunter biden's role on the --rd, but gave us 's office. >> the amount of money hunter biden was being paid? >> this was not part of a briefing. with big old books questions that might come up. >> in preparation for your confirmation. they thought hunter biden's role would be significant that it time.come up during your

how many companies other than burisma did the state department give you answers for? if so, which ones? >> i don't recall. >> you don't recall there were any other companies? >> i am sure there were some companies, but this is a while ago. i don't recall. recallyou specifically burisma. out of the thousands of companies in ukraine, the only one you recall, the ob ama-biden state department advising you where the vice president's son was on the board. you understood from deputy assistant secretary george hent's testimony, that

testified a few days ago -- do you understand that arrangement, hunter biden's role on the burisma board cost him enough concern that in february of 2015, i raised my concern hunter biden's status as a board member could great the perception of a conflict of interest. he went on to talk about the vice president's responsibility over ukrainian policy as one of those factors. do you recall that? >> yes. >> do you agree with that, that it was a legitimate concern to raise? could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. >> did you discuss that with mr. kent? >> i don't believe so. >> shortly before your confirmation in august 2016, a

prosecutor general was fired by president poroshenko, correct? >> yes. general wascutor the one who had opened the investigation into burisma, correct? >> i think that is right, but i'm not actually sure. >> he was in charge of it at the time as prosecutor general. are you aware of the public statements by the vice president that that firing of the prosecutor general occurred in march of 2016, six hours after the vice president told president poroshenko that he needed to fire the prosecutor general or that he wouldn't receive $1 billion from the united states. do you recall that? >> yes. >> do you think that raises a potential concerns or conflict of interest, that the vice president of the united states was ordering the firing the

prosecutor in charge of a company that is substantially correct? -- substantially corrupt? >> i don't. i think the deal t -- the view that he was not a good prosecutor general had anything to do with the burisma case. >> but the concern about hunter biden's role was legitimate, correct? >> date could create an appearance. >> i would like to renew my request that hunter biden's testimony -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> rather than as a sham. >> the gentleman suspends. your time has expired. you are not recognized. >> ambassador, i would like to thank you very much. i add my gratitude.

you are the best of this nation.

after all, he even demeaned the memory of senator mccain after he lied at the naval academy grounds despite a lifetime of public service and serving six years as a prisoner of war in a tiny cell in hanoi being tortured and beaten every day.

and after all, he belittled the goldstar family whose son gave his last measure of devotion to this country. thatmeone knows -- will never saw his 35th birthday, those words are deeply offensive. words matter. the words leveled against you constitute bullying of the worst order. your good character, your outstanding reputation, have been this marched in a way that is devoid of common decency. here is my message to you. ambassador,hing, nothing he can say or do, not a thing that will in any way diminish the major -- the nature and quality of the service you have rendered to our great nation. there is not a thing he can say or do that will diminish our

gratitude to you for that service. and i thank you again for it. >> thank you. >> asked to the larger point as to the larger point, what does this mean to ukraine when the u.s. actually engages in the kind of behavior we are attempting to discourage them from engaging in? politically motivated prosecution. what does that mean to them in their struggling efforts to become a robust democracy? what is the impact in ukraine for this behavior? ukraine, like many countries, looks to us for the power of our example. we engaged inhen questionable activities, that raises a question.

-- when we engage in questionable activities, that raises a question. it emboldens those who are corrupt who do not want to see ukraine become a democracy. a free market economy. a part of europe. stay underkraine to russia's rule. that is not in our national security interests. >> figure, ambassador. - thank you, ambassador. feel the rest of my time to the chair. >> let's take a five-minute recess. if members of the audience could please remain in their seat to allow for counsel to leave ahead of us. we will resume in a few minutes. we are in recess.

announcer: we will show you the entire hearing in a few minutes. here is a look at some of the headlines on today's hearing. former ambassador to ukraine, y., was attacked by president trump as she describes she felt threatened by him. in the hearings, she says she felt threatened by trump. earlier today at the white house, an event on health care. president trump took questions on today's impeachment hearing. >> what do you say to democrats that you were witness tampering when you made that tweet?

pres. trump: i like transparency here. i am the most transparent president in history. i will tell you about what tampering is. tampering is when a guy like shifty schiff doesn't let us have lawyers, witnesses, doesn't let us -- i have been watching today for the first time, i started watching, and it is really sad when you see people not allowed to ask questions. nobody has ever had such horrible due process. there was no due process. i think it is considered a joke all over washington and all over the world. the republicans are given no due process whatsoever. we are not allowed to do anything. it is a disgrace what is happening. but you know what? the american public understands it. that is why the poll numbers are so good and so many other things are so good. it is a political process, not a legal process. if i have somebody saying i am allowed to speak up, if someone

says we are not allowed to have any kind of representation, and almostlowed to have anything, nobody has seen anything like it. in the history of our country, there has never been a disgrace like what is going on right now. you know what? i have the right to speak, i have the freedom of speech just as other people do, but they have taken away the republican'' right. even allowed to us questions, republicans, they weren't allowed to us questions. it is a very sad thing. reporter: are you trying to intimidate marie y.? pres. trump: what freedom of speech, that is a political process. little bit of it today, i was unable to yesterday because we have the president of turkey here and i was not able to watch much. i watched some of it this morning, i thought it was a disgrace. when we have great republican

representatives, people elected by the people, and they are not even allowed to ask a question or make a statement, we are not allowed to have witnesses, legal counsel, white house counsel, it is a disgrace and an embarrassment to our nation. go ahead. quiet. quiet. please. little.think so reporter: reporter:do you think --i don't think so at all. reporter: do you think you will get impa -- impeached? pres. trump: we elected a republican governor. i was getting off the plane, and they handed me a statement that was just made from the foreign minister and president of the ukraine. loudkraine, they came a and clear that there was no linkage whatsoever, not even a little bit, you will side. i said, the show said, oh, that is the impeachment.

i said, oh, that ends the beach meant. that was a major statement put out by the foreign minister of ukraine and also by the president of ukraine. you don't even reported. -- report it. it's a disgrace. there was absolutely no linkage, we had a perfect conversation. transparency,of whether it is medical or just transparency generally, i just put out a statement today, in the statement, we released, the then congressman knew this, read the transcript with the president of ukraine, and it was a great call. it was perfect. it was equally as good as the other call. i put it out today, and the but he report it, because it is so good nobody wants to reported. if we had an honest rest of this

country, we would be so well served. when i look at your approval numbers, they are the worst they have ever been in the history of this country. the media, they are horrible. you want to put yourself back in a position where people respect the media again. i know some great journalists and people in the media, but they are -- there is a lot of dishonesty, and many of you consider members of the democrats, and it is a shame. thank you very much. announcer: earlier today, on the second day of open testimony in the impeachment inquiry, the house intelligence committee heard from former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch.