working at the security counsel 2017-2018 worked for ranking member nunes, right. >> i actually only found that out after the fact. i wondered why i was being asked about him so i went and looked this up. >> dr. hill, you cautioned us on the dangers of members of this committee perhaps peddling any ukrainian conspiracy theories that could benefit russia. and i want to ask you if you have heard the name le parnes someone influencing president trump and president rudy giuliani about. so debunked conspiracy theories you referenced earlier. >> i have heard his name, yes. >> are you aware that mr. parness was indicted on october 10 for making contributions to republicans. >> i'm aware, yes. >> are you aware of yesterday's daily beast story reporting the indicted ukrainian lev parness has been working with ranking member devin nunes on mr. nunes' overseas investigations. >> i'm not aware of that. >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent to put in the record the daily beast

story let parness help rep devin nunes from yesterday. first two perhaps lev parnas represent devin nunes 2018 mcmahon. derek harvey participated in the meetings lawyers said which were arranged to help nunes' investigative work. mcmahon didn't specify what those investigations entailed. >> without objection. >> mr. chairman, you have been falsely accused throughout these proceedings by the ranking member as being a quote, unquote, fact witness. now, if this story is correct, the ranking member may have actually been projecting and, in fact, he may be the fact witness if he is working with indicted individuals around our investigation. but i want to go to what this is really all about. first, it's your credibility, mr. holmes, and can you tell us and confirm

that in 2014 you received the william riff ken constructive award from the obama state department. >> was that for dissent that you beirut up against an administration policy; is that right? >> that's right. >> congratulations and thank you for speaking up in the way that you did. but what we're really here about is what you are working on in ukraine. i want you to take a look at the picture. who do you see in the foreground of that photo. >> president zelensky. >> that's a photograph in may 2019 where newly elected president zelensky visited the region in eastern ukraine. it was his first visit to the front lines of did you dom s as president. why is it so important that hard earned tax paying dollars help zelensky and the men standing beside him fight against russia in this hot war? >> absolutely, sir.

president zelensky was elected on overwhelming majority to defend ukrainian interest. this is a time when ukrainians are defending their sovereignty on ukrainian soil from russian-backed soldiers who are attacking them. as i said 14,000 ukrainian lives lost in this war so far. as i mentioned a few this week already. and this is a hot war. this is not a frozen conflict. people are shooting at each other and dying, being injured every single week. and despite the ongoing war, they are still trying to pursue peace. president zelensky even right now is trying to pursue a summit meeting with president putin in order to try to bring this war to a conclusion. so they can move on with all the difficult things they need to do in terms of building the economy and reforming the judiciary and whatnot. i want to add one other thing, sir, if i may, mr. turner had suggested

earlier that somehow embarrassed president zelensky. i have the deepest respect for president zelensky. this is a guy -- this is a guy of jewish background post soviet industrial suburb in southern ukraine who made himself one of the most popular entertainers in the country and somehow got elected president and he is not going to miss this opportunity. this is ukrainian patriot. this is a touch guy and frankly he withstood lot of pressure for a very long time and he didn't get that interview. i have the deepest respect for him. urken people also have the deepest respect for him. they have chosen him to deliver the full measure of promise of their revolution of dignity and i think he merits all of our respect. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter the may 27th photograph depicted on the screen into the record. >> without objection. mr. hurt? >> thank you, dr. hill. mr. holmes for your years of service to this country and i appreciate y'all being here today.

throughout this process, i have said that i want to learn the facts so we can get to the truth. so why are we here? because of two things that occurred during the president's july 25th phone call 'president zelensky. the phrase do us a favor though in reference to the 2016 election and the mention of the word by biden. i believe both statements are inappropriate misguided foreign policy and certainly not how the executive current or in the future should handle such a call. over the course of these hearings, the american people have learned about a series of events that, in my view have undermind our national security and undercut ukraine a key partner on the front lines against russian aggression. we have heard of u.s. officials carrying uncoordinated confusing an conflicting messages that created doubt and uncertainty in kiev at a time when they knew reformist administration has just taken office and was ready to fight corruption

and work with us to advance other u.s. objectives. i disagree with this sort of bungling foreign policy. but through these hearings many of my colleagues have unwittingly undermined the ukrainian government by suggesting that it is subservient to the united states and without the united states they wouldn't be able to function. the ukrainians, as you stated mr. holmes, is in a hot war with russia and they are holding their own. we could benefit from the experience of the ukrainians, not the other way around. while i fought the thought the intelligence committee would be engaged in the oversight national security communities. unfortunately we are not. we are here talking about one of the most serious constitutional duties we have as members of congress, the impeachment and removal of a president of the united states. over the past weeks we have learned a few things. the officials on the july 25th call have many different opinions on whether the call was concerning or not and just because vice president biden

is running for president does not mean that corruption related to burst marks ukraine's largest natural gas company and america's ties to it are not concerning. this there is also a lot we do not know. we have not heard from jug. we haven't heard from hunter biden. i would like to know more about both of their activities why they talked to whom and to whom. despite promises from chairman schiff we have also not heard from the whistleblower. something that can occur in a closed setting without violating his or her anonymity. we need to understand the motivations and level of coordination that happened prior to his or her submission of the complaint. over the past few weeks and even today it's been reiterated in 2017 the trump administration made the decision to provide lethal defensive aid to ukraine after the obama administration refused to do so. ukraine is receiving all the security assistance as directed by congress. president zelensky has undertaken significant anticorruption efforts, including eliminating the parliamentary immunity from prosecution and, again, mr. homsz, you mentioned this today, under president

zelensky's leadership we have finally seen some progress this fall towards ending the russian occupation of eastern ukraine. so where does this leave us? an impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous. and it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. i have not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion. i also reject the notion that holding this view means supporting all the foreign policy choices we have been hearing about over these last few weeks. to paraphrase tim morrison this week every day the national conversation focused on ukraine not the conflict did you know boss. not the need for reforms in economy is a day where we are not focused on our shared national security interest with kiev. i hope we went let this very partisan process keep from us agreeing on how a free and prosperous ukraine is

important for the security of ukrainian people, the united states of america, and the rest of the world. mr. chairman, before i yield back my time, i would like to make a statement for the record that has this committee been given proper notice as required by house rule 11 g 3 of the business meeting was to follow last night's hearing and had mr. conway's point of order appropriately been recognized i would have voted no on the committee's first motion to table during last night's impromptu meeting and i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. castro? >> thank you, chairman. thank you both of you for your testimony today. i first want to say because i think it shouldn't go unmentioned that the characterization just a few minutes ago by one of my republican colleagues of this proceeding, i think, was vile, irresponsible, and dangerous. and i want to remind us why we are here. because somebody in government, a whistleblower, felt that it was important

enough to get other people in government's attention that the president may have committed a wrong act. we have now heard and seen substantial evidence that the president, in fact, tried to trade a political favor for official government resources. the most damning words come from no one else but the president himself on that phone call with the ukrainian president. where he asked for a favor, he mentions investigations, he mentions the bidens and burisma. however, as mr. holmes has testified, mr. holmes also overheard the put speaking to his hand picked ambassador, ambassador sondland, about investigations. mr. holmes has also said that in the office everybody knew or many people knew, at least, that there was an -- the president wanted an investigation of the bidens. in addition, although mic mulvaney and rudy giuliani have not come before this committee, mic mulvaney and rudy giuliani have spoken

publicly on the issue of investigations. mic mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, the person who usually works for the president the most, day in and day out, when in front front of the white house press corps and basically admitted that an investigation had something to do withholding up the aid. and that this admitted that this process was politicized. rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, also essentially admitted that these investigations were at issue. he said that he thinks he did nothing wrong, because he was working at the direction of the president. so we have seen substantial evidence and heard substantial evidence of wrongdoing by the president of the united states. and this congress will have to continue to take up this very important issue to the american people. my concern today is also i feel as though the cancer of wrongdoing may have spread beyond the president and into others of the executive

branch. and i want to ask you a few questions about that. before i do, i would like chairman to enter two articles into the record, if i could. one of them is headlined "after boost from perry backers got huge gas deal in ukraine." the other one is titled ""wall street journal" federal prosecutors probe giuliani's links to ukrainian energy projects." mr. holmes. >> without objection. >> thank you, chairman. you indicated that secretary perry went -- when he was at the ukraine had private meetings with the ukrainians. before he had those private meetings, in a meeting with others, including yourself, i believe, he had presented a list of american advisors for the ukraine energy sector. do you know who was on that list? >> sir, i didn't see the names on the list myself. >> do you know if alex cranberg and michael blazer

were on that list. >> i have since heard that michael blazer is on the list. >> was it -- was it before secretary perry did this we also heard in testimony before that ambassador sondland also had a private meeting with somebody? how unusual was it before these guys showed up for folks, diplomats, so to speak, or u.s. government officials to have private meetings where they insist that nobody else be in the room? >> very rare. almost never. >> okay. and i want to ask you, also about the precedent that we set both of you. i know you are here as fact witnesses you are also public serve advance for this country. the president of this congress putting aside donald trump for a second. if the congress allows a president of the united

states now or later to ask a foreign government, head of state to investigate a political rival, what precedent does that set for american floms, for the safety of americans overseas, and for the future of our country? >> that's a very bad precedent. >> very bad precedent and going forward, if that were ever the case, i would raise objections. >> thank you both. i yield back. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you, chair, i want to return the favor and yield to my colleague congressman conway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. hill, i don't think there is a loft questions that one of putin's primary objectives within the united states is to foment unrest within our nation, to cause us to have lose confidence in our elections and the results of the elections and those kind of things. there is tension though. in conducting our businesses the way we should.

and playing moo putin's hands as an example while i disagree with what we are doing here today, it's under our constitution and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that they were functioning under that constitution this hearings this issue is very divisive within our country and is continuing to push that way i think it plays into putin's hands inadvertently. nothing we can do about that. there are things we can do as individuals that wouldn't play into his hands and one of them would be that the loser in the 2016 election has for three years continued to argued because she won the popular vote, she and her friends because she won the popular vote the election was inappropriate we shouldn't trust it that the electoral college victory which was resounding shouldn't be trusted. does that help putin or play into the narrative he would like for us to do that our elections are somehow rigged and shouldn't be trusted? >> yes, it does. >> so the rt, putin's --

would you agree with me that r.t. is putin's propaganda machine here in the united states. >> i would agree with you, yes. >> so is it appropriate for the r.t. to be used to affect public policy on our nation? as an example there have been a long series of advertisements or programs on r.t. going against fracking saying it's bad and trying to affect public policy in the united states? is that appropriate use or should americans be paying attention to that? >> in the tense that americans should be paying attention to rt and other outlets used to pop gait this kind of information, absolutely. i wasn't quite sure what you meant by paying attention. >> fracking. nation, if we did away with fracking, the united states would not be in a position today to dominate the oil production within the world and play into strengthening putin's hands. >> that's correct, actually i would like to point out in november of 2011, i actually sat next to vladimir putin at a conference in which he

made precisely that point it was the first time he had actually done so to a group of american journalist and experts who were brought to something called the valda discussion club. started in 2011 he saw it clear as american fracking as a great threat to russian interests. we were all struck by how much he stressed this issue and since 2011 and since particular juncture president putin has made a deal to it. >> pay attention to rt and misguided by whatever propaganda not in our nation's best interest. mr. holmes, in your role you are privileged to an awful lot of stuff, official things and things that are best kept between you and the official folks that you deal with is there an inspection among the principle that's represent that you will exercise some discussion and what you share with others about what goes on? >> yes, sir. >> in your public -- in your deposition, you made -- well, first off, we had a hard time pinning down the

number of people that you actually had this conversation with about the conversation that you overheard. now, our ambassador had no expectation of privacy. he is blustering around. what he has done. we couldn't figure out how many people you shared that information with i would argue that the information is unflattering to the president. unflattering to the ambassador. and that your discretion is, you know, at odds here. your testimony your deposition said you shared that with folks who you thought would find it interesting. i would argue everybody on the back row would find that interesting i don't know if that's criterion. on the ongoing business in the future when you are privileged to certain circumstances that would be embarrassing to the principle that it's f. it's official that you share with the ambassador that's fine that folks outside the embassy or folks inside the embassy that don't need a need to know you wouldn't regal them with your recounting of those instances? >> sir, i think it was

gordon sondland showed indiscretion by having that conversation. >> well, excuse me. >> second thing i. >> please let, excuse me, mr. holmes, let me clarify the question. excuse me. >> your question, sir. >> it's my question. you are exactly right and i get to clarify my question to get the answer and i'm hopeful i get a few more section because of the interruption from the chairman. >> his patience is growing thin. i was working hard not to irritate him again but i failed again. the question is of you, mr. holmes, your discretion. gordon holmes did not-i mean gordon sondland did not expect privacy. i got that but you are going to be in rooms -- you have been in rooms 17 years where people trust that when whatever went on in that room and left that you kept it to the official channels that you didn't share with all that information with other folks. i'm asking you to argue for your -- on your own behalf that interesting is not some sort of a criterion that you would use when you share information from meetings. simple straightforward question. >> sir, i shared the

information i needed to share with the right people who needed to know it. did i not share any information that people didn't need to know. >> you did use the word interesting. >> mr. conaway your time is up. >> i would hate to think what i brought before this process i shouldn't have done that i have come here because you subpoenaed me to share what i know and i have done that. >> you were cut off when you were talking about mr. sondland's indiscretion. did you want to finish that answer? >> mr. chairman, that's patently unfair. as is this entire investigation. >> mr. conaway to interrupt the witnesses. >> you are certainly willing to interrupt me during my five minutes. you are the only person on this dais has unlimited time. only one that has abused that power and you are continuing to do that. >> mr. conaway, the gentleman will cease. we allow the witnesses to answer the question even if those asking the question don't want to hear the answer. mr. . >> does that apply to you, as well? >> mr. holmes, much has been made about the use of

regular or regular channels. my reading of history is that american presidents have on occasion used irregular channels. would you generally agree? >> yes, sir. >> and my reading of history is that generally speaking, however those irregular channels have either been closely coordinated with the regular ones, or at least in furtherance of american foreign policy and our national security interest. would you agree? >> that's right, sir. >> and do you believe, sir that mr. giuliani's efforts were closely coordinated with the regular channels such as the ambassador to the ukraine? >> no, they weren't. >> and were they in furtherance of american foreign policy as you understood it. >> no, sir. >> mr. holmes, if left unchecked, do you think that russia would either by means of force or other maligned means, subjugate ukraine attempt to render it a client state if not occupy it? >> absolutely, sir. it's been said that without ukraine russia is just a country but with it it's an

empire. you know i feel like i have been treated to a gatlin gunfire of myth propagation over the last couple of weeks and it reminds me of that old expression about the big lie if you tell it often enough and keep repeating it that people will come to belief it i think we have been subjected to some of that here's a sample. the president didn't solicit campaign assistance from ukraine in a clear violation of federal law. -- yes, he did. the president didn't withhold vital military assistance in furtherance of a subjective to obtain that campaign assistance. yes, he did. rudy giuliani was acting just on his own, kind of as a rogue, no, he wasn't. that all this is business as usual. this happens all the time and stems from a principled

interest. no, it isn't and no it wasn't. and that it's okay to attack patriotic diplomats in public service if they stand in your way and have the courage to speak up. and no, it isn't. those are just some of the big lies but here's the big truth. the president did it. he did it. we all just came from the floor. and it's a majestic chamber. and in the front of the chamber there are only two portraits. on the left looking forward is my favorite president, george washington. and on the right is the mark key delafayette who came to this country to help us stand up our fledgling democracy. here is another big truth. without his help, we probably never would have gotten off the ground.

and that assistance from many other countries who are helping us to create something that had never been created before, it was audacious idea, this notion of a democracy of self-governance, of freedoms, such as speech and press and religion and expression and assembly and, most of all, that it would be rooted in the premise of the rule of law not monarchs. not military strong men, but the rule of law. others helped us to get here. and we wouldn't be here without them. and i frankly feel like we are almost in a little bit of a pay it forward moment. so whe when the president did it, he put it the risk the security of ukraine a strategic ally and a nay

sent democracy with their masses yearning to breathe free. six years ago on this day when their government said we are not going to sign that memorandum of agreement with european union rose up and took to the streets. because they wanted, frankly, what we have. and when the president did it, he put our own national security at risk. but, what he did, most importantly, was put at risk that idea that makes us exceptional because i do believe america is truly exceptional. we are a country rooted in something that nobody has ever tried before rule of law. he put that at risk when he did what he did. the president did it. and the only question that remains is what will we do? i yield back, mr. chairman.

>> mr. jordan? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. hill, during your deposition, i asked you was christopher steele's dossier a rabbit hole? do you remember the answer you gave to that question? >> yes, i thought it was a rabbit hole. >> and you also said a couple pages later in the deposition or in the transcript that i have here of your deposition, that you thought he got played. is that fair? >> that is fair, yes. >> i was struck by a number of things you said in your statement. a number of things i thought were right on target. one was on page 7. you said this: president putin and the russian security services weaponized our own political opposition research. and that is exactly what happened in 2016. exactly what happened. you called it, you knew it, you saw it. the dnc hired perkins couey, who hired fusion gps, who fired christopher steele, who talked to russians, who gave him a bunch of dirt, a bunch of "national enquirer"

garbage that he compiled in a dossier and our fbi used it. they used it as part of their investigation that they opened in july of 2016 where they spied on two american citizens associated with the presidential campaign. my guess is that's probably never happened in american history. and exactly what dr. hill talked about is what happened in 2016. exactly what she talked about. and for 10 months, jim comey and his team did an investigation. and after 10 months, they had nothing. because we deposed mr. comey. and he told us, after 10 months, we didn't have a thing. that didn't matter. that didn't matter. we got the mueller investigation. $32 million, 19 lawyers, 40 fbi agents, 500 search warrants, 2800 subpoenas. and they came back this spring and what did they tell us? no collusion, no conspiracy,

no coordination. but the guys on the other side don't care. they don't care. they are doing what dr. hill said a number of important things in her opening statement. they are doing exactly what dr. hill talked about. the impact of a successful 2016 russian campaign remain evident today. our nation is being torn apart. torn apart. i have never seen it this divided. and it's not healthy. it's not healthy for our culture and our country and our nation. that's what these guys are doing. no conspiracy no, coordination, no collusion but they don't care. now this. this whole impeachment thing. as the witness said yesterday, the witness said yesterday without an announcement from zelensky about an investigation, they weren't going to get a call with the president. they will weren't going to get a president with the president and were not going to get aid from the united states. guess what, ukraine, they got the call, they got the

meeting, and they got the money and there was never an announcement of any type of investigation. this is -- but they don't care. they are going to move forward. there is going to be some kind of report. they will send something, i assume to the judiciary committee and the process is going to go forward and there will be a trial in the senate all based on some anonymous whistleblower who came forward with no firsthand knowledge who is biased against the president, who worked with joe biden, now all this. now all this. this is -- dr. hill is right. she said she said it. we have got to stop this. but they are not going to. and they are doing it all 11 and a half months before the next election. i think maybe the most telling thing is what the speaker of the house said sunday. speaker of the house said sunday. this is scary. speaker of the house said sunday: national sunday morning tv show, she said the president is an imposture. the guy that's 63 million

people voted for who won electoral college land slide. the speaker of the house of representatives called the president of the united states an imposture. sad. it is sad what the country is going through. i wish it would stop, but, unfortunately i don't think it is. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. welch? >> i want to use my time to speak directly to my colleagues and to the american people. today's witnesses and the ones we have been privileged to have before the committee over the last two weeks have provided an invaluable service to our country. not just in all your careers but in having the courage and the patriotism to share your facts with the american people. and you do so at considerable risk to yourselves, but have you clearly stepped forward for the simple fact that you believe it's your duty. and in all your testimony reaffirms a very central fact. president trump conditioned our foreign policy, the

national security on getting a valuable political benefit from ukraine. he wanted ukraine's new president to create ethical questions about joe biden, by publicly announcing investigations. and to pressure president zelensky to take that action that would benefit his personal political interests, he withheld vital military aid to ukraine and refused to meet with president zelensky in the oval office. and as we heard from mr. holmes and dr. hill today, that meeting was extraordinarily important to ukraine and extraordinarily important in sending a message to russia about our unyielding support. the witnesses have made it absolutely clear what the president did. and it's equally clear that president trump has launched a cover-up and disinformation campaign to hide this abuse of power from the american people.

that's why the administration refuses to provide documents to this committee. and it's why the white house has taken the unprecedented position that senior officials could ignore congressional subpoenas and refuse to testify. that's why acting chief of staff mulvaney, secretary of state pompeo and others have not testified. now the president and even some members of this committee are pretending this is normal it is not. it must never be. no other president has betrayed his oath of office like this by putting his own small political interests above our national interest and our national security i asked some of our witnesses what would happen in any american city or town if the mayor stopped funding the police department and until the chief of police launched rival or government or member of congress did that the answer was clear, it would be wrong, it would be

illegal and it wouldn't be toll lear rated. it would violate the most basic trust we have in public officials. if it happened with the military commander, a court-martial would follow. if it happened with a corporation, the ceo would be fired. we all know this kind of conduct is wrong. but the president continues to say it isn't. he says it's perfect and he would do it again tomorrow. the same rules apply to mayors, governors, members of congress, ceos and everyone else in america they apply to the president, too. whether you are a republican or a democrat, you like msnbc or fox, i think every american believes in one of our nation's founding principles: no person is above the law. not even the president. in july 24th, director mueller testified about russian state sponsored systematic interference in our 2016 election. he expressed apprehension this could become the new normal. the day after, on july 25th,

president trump spoke to president zelensky and asked a favor. that favor was that ukraine interfere in our 2020 election. if we allow this to stand, to become the new normal it will be the standard for all future presidents in good conscience none of us can do that this conduct corrupts our democracy, corrupts how our country conducts foreign policy. it threatens our national security and the security of all americans and it is in my view a clear betrayal of the president's oath of office. i yield back. >> mr. malone? >> mr. chairman, two quick housekeeping matters. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record abc news story my friend mr. stuart entitled 70% of americans say trump's actions tied to ukraine were

wrong dated november 18th, 2019. >> without objection. >> also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a new yorker story entitled "the invention of the conspiracy theory" on biden and ukraine, how a conservative dark money group that targeted hillary clinton in 2016 spread the discredited story that may lead to donald trump's impeachment october 24th, 2019. >> without objection. >> good afternoon, thank you for being here. dr. hill, first of all, i thought that was some epic plan splain thawing were forced to endure by my colleague, mr. turner. i think it was inappropriate. i appreciate your forbearance. let me ask something. i'm fascinated by this meeting, two meetings, really on july 10th. you have the meeting in mr. bolton's office, sondland says this thing about investigations. bolton ends the meeting.

photo, follow-on meeting with the ward room. and you get there a little late and vindman is talking to sondland and they are already going at it about sondland's desire to assert that the meeting is going to happen if there is these investigations. is that the sum and substance what's going on. >> that's right, yes. >> and what i want to understand is there isn't a policy disagreement, right? no, that's correct. >> the concern is not a policy disagreement and not merely a procedural disagreement either. >> i'm sorry. >> excuse me. >> it's not, correct. >> it's neither policy nor is it procedure that's bothering you or for that matter the national security advisor, mr. bolton, right? >> correct. >> i mean, it's not why he sent you down there to see how the meeting is going? >> correct. >> and, in fact, he instructs you to go to the lawyer ever been instructed to go reported something to the nsc lawyer before. >> that was the first time.

i have self-instructed a couple of times. s that watt first time i have been instructed to go. >> why did he send you to report this to the lawyer? >> well, he clearly wanted to have himself on the record as not being part of what was basically an agreement to have a meeting in return for investigations. and he wanted to make sure that i and colonel vindman wasn't a part of this as well. remember there was a call related to this about not getting involved in domestic politics. >> yes, i understand. you, of course, did you concur with this concern that mr. bolton had? >> i did. because july 10th is really the first time that it crystallized for me that there was basically a different channel going on here. policy channel and a domestic policy channel. and we are not in that channel. >> you described it as a politicaller rand and you were doing national security policy is how you distinguished those two channels; is that fair? >> right.

>> so right. so is it fair to say that you felt it was improper what was occurring by mr. sondland in the ward room? >> it was improper and it was inappropriate and would said that in the time in realtime. >> and, here's my point if it was improper and, and you went so far as to report this to the lawyers what was the nature of your disagreement with mr. sondland who has come here and said he had no idea that burisma meant bidens until much, much later than july 10th? and, of course, we know that he and ambassador volker had a blizzard of interactions with mr. giuliani. they were amending statements, proposed statements with the ukrainian president. this went on all summer. and, yet, how is it that you had this disagreement in front of the ukrainians sent them out into the hallway at

some point did he ask, you know, i'm just talking about an investigation of corruption generally what are you getting so worried about? >> he didn't put it in that way. and i think from listening to him in his depositions and what i have read and what he deposed, he made it very clear that he was surprised that we had some kind of objection. you may remember that in his deposition and when he was here, he actually didn't remember the meeting in the same way. >> i thought you said it was pretty obvious to you, excuse me. >> it was obvious to me, correct. >> i thought it was obvious to you that burisma meant bidens. >> yes, it was. >> you actually treated that as a pretty easy thing to understand. in fact, mr. morrison figured it out with a simple google search. was it credible to you that mr. sondland was in the dark about this all summer? i mean, had an argument about it did he say what are you so worried about. >> it is not credible to me that he was oblivious. he did not say bidens, however, he said burisma he

said 2016. i took it to mean the elections as well as burisma. >> well, i want to thank you both for your appearance today. yield back, mr. chairman. >> ms. ti timmons. >> thank you very much dr. hill and mr. holmes for your service. i have no doubt today that we are a better nation because of it. we all know by now that in july of this year president trump sent an order to the office of management and budget that congressionally approved military aid to ukraine be put on hold. both of have you expressed that ukraine is the first line of defense against russian aggression and expansion into europe that russia's priority is to undermine the united states is that right, dr. hill? >> that's correct. >> would you agree with that mr. holmes? >> yes. >> dr. hill, in your

professional opinion, is it in the national security interest of the united states to support ukraine with the much talked about military aid? >> yes. >> mr. holmes? >> yes. >> we have already said it several times today and have you already testified that ukraine is in war right now with russia. isn't it true, mr. holmes, that even though the security assistance was eventually delivered to ukraine, the fact that it was delayed to a country that is actively in war signaled to russia that perhaps the bond between ukraine and the united states was weakening? >> absolutely, absolutely. >> and even the appearance that the u.s.-ukraine bond is shaky could embolden russia to act in an even

more aggressive way. >> that's correct. >> you also testified it was and i quote the unanimous view of the ukraine policy community that the aid should be released because supporting ukraine is in our national security interest. dr. hill, why do you believe that the entire ukraine policy community were unanimously in agreement? >> well, we have had this experience before. i just want you to indulge me for a moment. in 2008, russia also attacked the country of georgia. i was a national intelligence officer at that particular juncture. and we had warned in multiple documents to the highest levels of government that we believed that there was a real risk of a conflict between georgia and russia. and, in fact, we also believed at that point that

russia might attack ukraine. this is in 2008 when both georgia and ukraine saw the membership action plan in nato and russia threatened them openly. proceeded with their request for nato membership that there would be consequences. in the wake of the attack on georgia, president putin made it clear to the president of georgia and this is related to me at the highest levels of the georgian government that putin has said directly to isakash your western allies and partners promised a great deal. they will didn't deliver. i threatened. i delivered. we had made all kinds of promises to georgia and ukraine in that time frame. and we didn't come through so putin is always looking out to see if there is any hint that we will not follow through on promises that we had made because he will always follow through on a

threat as indeed he ultimately did. he threatened ukraine in 2008. and it wasn't until 2014 whe2014when ukraine tried to conclude an association agreement with the european unit that he had struck. he had been threatening this for the whole period since 2008. >> thank you so much, dr. hill. and mr. holmes, what kind of message does it potentially send to other allies of the united states when military holds for assistance or imposed with absolutely no explanation? what kind of message does it send to our allies in terms of good faith and good relationship with the u.s.? >> calls into question the extent to which they can count on us. >> policies change but u.s. interests don't. at least not for those true public servants are committed and dedicated to protecting our nation. thank you both for being two of them.

>> mr. christian murphy. >> good afternoon thanks for coming in and thank you for your service. dr. hill, you stated in your deposition you have been accused of being a mole for george soros in the white house, correct? >> that's correct. convict info wars led by alex jones, right? >> i don't think it was a convicted felon at the time that he launched. this i didn't use those exact words. it was indeed alex jones on info wars in 2017. in fact, just more recently, before mr. stone was endured his trial, they were at it again, reproving the same info wars video and adding embellishment. >> i will quote what they said about you. we here at info wart wars this s

roger stone speaking identified fiona hill the george soros insider who had infiltrated mr. master's staff may 21st, 2017. i presume you are not a globalist, leftist soros insider, correct? >> i think coal mining friends would be very surprised to hear all those things about me. leftistst perhaps not so much. the left in europe is a bit different than the left here, let's put it that way. >> i agree. interestingly, you stated in your deposition that a similar conspiracy theory had actually been launched against maria yovanovitch. >> that's correct. >> you said specifically when i saw this happening to ambassador yovanovitch, again i was furious because this is, again, just as whipping up of what is frankly an anti semitic conspiracy theory about george soros to basically target nonpartisan career officials.

isn't that what you said? >> i did say that yes. >> i'm sure you have been watching with concern what's happened to other nonpartisan career officials? whwe had lt. alex vindman and immigrant questioned for his criticism of the president in a very unfair way, basically questioning his loyalty to the country. i believe that he is also of ukrainian jewish dissent. would you say that these different theories, these conspiracy theories that have been targeting you spun in part by folks like mr. stone, as well as fueled by rudy giuliani and others basically have a tirng of anti-semitism to them at least? >> well, i would just like to point out that in the early 1900s secret police produced something protocols

of the elders of zion, can you still obtain on the internet and buy it actually sometimes in book shops and russia in else where. this is the longest running anti-semitic trope that we have in history. and a trope against mr. george soros was also created for political purposes. protocols of the elders of zion. i actually intended to write something about this before i came into the administration because it's an absolute outrage. >> i'm sorry that you have been kind of wrapped up in these crackpot conspiracy theories. let me turn to rudy giuliani. you became increasingly concerned about rudy giuliani's increasing role in ukraine between january and march of 2019. correct? >> that's correct. >> and i know you served in the bush and the obama administrations. i presume that george bush's personal lawyer and president obama's personal lawyers were never, you know, directing or heavily

influencing ukraine policy? >> i'm not even sure i know who they were. so the answer is no. >> and the concern for having someone like rudy giuliani having such a strong influence on american foreign policy is that, you know, basically that policy may be operating not in the best interest of america but perhaps in the best interest of rudy giuliani or his clients or business associates, right? >> i think that's correct. and that's, as i said in my deposition october 14th that frankly that's what i thought it was at the very beginning when i first heard mr. giuliani making these statements some of those associates included indicted folks, i gore frumin and lev parnas; is that right? wright. >> that's correct. >> we have mr. fertosh federal bribery charges and another associate of mr. giuliani, correct. >> i do know of him from my work, that's correct. >> and the question that we

are all asking is whether american foreign policy in ukraine is potentially being run in their interests and not our own. >> it certainly appears as if it's being used there is a subversion of american power of attorney policy to push these people's personal interests. >> thank you so much. that concludes the member questioning. we will now go to closing statements. mr. nunes. do you have any closing remarks? >> i have stressed in these hearings that the whistleblower complaint was merely a pretext for donald trump's political opponents to do what they have been trying to do since he was elected, oust the president from office. a brief timeline will illustrate the wide range of extraordinary attacks as the administration has faced. i want to start in june of 2016 when donald trump was just a candidate on behalf of the democratic national committee and the hillary clinton campaign. fusion gps hires christopher steele to write the steele dossiers a collection of

false allegations attributed to russian sources claiming that donald trump is a russian agent. fast forward to january 6th of 2017, fbi director james comey briefs president-elect trump on the steele dossier. the briefing is leaked to cnn and soon afterwards buzzfeed publishes the dossiers. january 20th, on president trump's inauguration day the "the washington post" runs a story headlined, quote: the campaign to impeach donald trump has begun. january 30th, 10 days later, the whistleblower's current lawyer tweets #coup has started, first of many steps, #rebellion, #impeachment will follow immediately. march 22nd, democrats on this committee falsely declare on national tv that they have more than circumstantial evidence that the trump campaign colluded with russia.

july 12th, an article of impeachment is filed against president trump and in the house of representatives. november 15th, democrats file additional articles of impeachment against president trump. as you see, this was just in president trump's first year in office. he was subjected to a coordinated smear operation designed to falsely portray him as a russian agent. as well as attempts to impeach him. this all occurred before this now infamous call with president zelensky. in 2018, the attacks continued. often from executive branch officials charged with implementing his policies. on february 2nd, 2018, intelligence committee republicans released a memo revealing that the fbi used fabrications steele dossier

to get a warrant to spy on the trump campaign associate. september 5th, the "new york times" prints a column by an anonymous trump administration official who explains that he and other senior officials are, quote: working diligently from to frustrate parts of trump's agenda." december 7th, james, he admits to congress, the steele dossier was unverified before and after the fbi used it to get the warrant to spy on a trump campaign associate. the russia hoax continue to be the main focus of attacks going on to 2019. when that entire operation collapsed, a new impeachment . may 4th, 2019 on national television, a democratic

congressman proclaims "i'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected court. july 24th of this year. special counsel robert mueller testifies about his report which debunked the conspiracy theory that the trump campaign associates conspired with russia to hack the 2016 election. july 25th, just the very next day. a new anti-trump operation begins as someone listens to the president's phone with the ukrainian president for 25. anna licks the contents to the so-called whistleblower. september 13th, democrats on this committee take the extraordinary step of issuing a press release related to the whistle-blower's complaint. october 2nd, it is revealed that democratic stuff on this

committee have contact with the whistle-blower before he submitted his complaint to the inspector general. contradicting my credit denials that such contact had occurred. october 31st, halloween, probably the most appropriate day, democrats and the house of representatives voted to open an official impeachment inquiry against president trump. what you see in this room over the past two weeks is a show trial. the plane a result of three years of political operations and dirty tricks. campaigns waged against this president. and like any good show trial, the verdict was decided before the trials ever began. after all, after denouncing the president for years as a russian agent and a threat to democracy, how could the democrats not impeach him?

if they don't move to overthrow him, it would indicate that they don't really believe their own dire warnings about the threat that he poses. the democrats only needed a pretext. when there russian dossiers and investigations failed to move the job, they moved to plan b, the ukraine hoax. the spectacle with secret depositions and mid hearing press conferences was not meant to discover the facts, it was designed to produce a specific story line to be pushed forward by the democrats and their supporters in the media. ladies and gentlemen, as we approach thanksgiving, speaker nancy pelosi has made clear today usmca try to deal with canada and mexico will boost our economy won't be signed this year. so i hope mr. adam schiff will

clarify how much we will wait on this effort and what other vital legislation is willing to sacrifice for this impeachment proceeding. will there be even more secret depositions accompanied by the usual flood of democratic leaks? will we have more public hearings with democratic witnesses but not ours? the minority are in the dark about what this committee will be doing when we return. and so is america. james madison warned us about the danger posed by the tyranny of the majority. to avoid that threat, our founders created a constitutional republic. but is there a better example of the tyranny of majority than the way this impeachment process has been run in the house of representatives? a process that is grossly unfair can only stem from a cynical majority that is willing to break long established

presidents, trample on legitimate minority concerns, and impose their absolute will on his body through sheer force of numbers. exploiting the intelligence committee as a venue for impeachment has been one of the grossest abuses of power filled with cynical manipulations, large and small. but this farce will soon move to the judiciary committee where impeachment rightfully belongs. i wish my republican colleagues well and fighting this travesty in defending the idea which at one time received bipartisan support not long ago. with the american people's vote actually means something. i yelled back >> i think that a gentleman. first of all i want to thank you both for your testimony. i want to thank you for your

long years of service to the country. you are not democratic witnesses or republican witnesses, you are nonpartisan witnesses, and you've stuck to the facts. that is as it should be. first i want to make a couple of observations about the hearing today. dr. hill, you are criticize us several times from your opening statement. you are much more diplomatic than i am, i have to say. anyone watching these proceedings, proceedings, anyone reading the deposition transcripts would have the same impression that you evidently had from hearing my colleagues talk about the russia hoax. that the whole idea that russia had gotten involved in the 2016 election was a hoax put out by the democrats. and of course, they are not alone in pushing out this idea. it is trumpeted by none other than the president of the united states who almost on a daily basis would comment, tweet, and propagate the idea

that russia's interference in our election was a hoax. and of course, we all remember that debacle when the president stood next to vladimir putin and question his own intelligence agencies. i wish i had her just some of the righteous indignation that we heard in the committee today when the president questioned that the fundamental conclusion of our intelligence agencies. but of course, they were silent when the president said that. they will show indignation today, but they will cower when they hear the president questioning the very conclusions that our intelligence community has reached. we saw something interesting also today. my colleagues sought to use you, dr. hill, to besmirch the character of colonel denman. i thought this was very interesting. it was very interesting. they didn't really question