televised impeachment hearings, nixon, and bill clinton in 1998, they riveted the country, but this impeachment taking place at an even more divided america. >> reporter: exactly, george. this is going to be a very different impeachment because we as americans are very different, and so the congress is dierent. you go back to the modern era of to impeachment beginning with the watergate hearings in the senate, andi laying out of the evidence. it's a different deal, the sole solemnity. it's for its members and people wanted and aspired to be great largets. i wanted to take a look at the opening statements of the senate watergate committee. here's what howard baker, the top republican -- democratic-controlled committee,

told the country at the outset of those hearings. he said the integrity and fairnessfairness of each member committee and its fine, professional staff have been made manifest to me, and i know they will be made manifest to the american people during this proceeding. this is not in any way a partisan undertaking, senator baker said, but rather it is a bipartisan search for the unvarnished truth. those days are gone. >> you won't hear a lot of rhetoric like that today. matthew dowd, the only thing that makes this impeachment different compared to the nixon and clinton impeachments, donald trump has announced he's running for re-election. we're just a couple of months away from those first votes in the iowa caucuses. >> it's incredibly different because we will be in the midst of a presidential re-election which is different than it was with bill clinton and richard nixon who had just won overwhelmingly re-elections. the other differences, donald trump comes into this much more

weaked a weakened and wounded than bill clinton and even when nixon was when those hearings started. donald trump already has richard nixon's low approval ratings and a plurality of public supporting impeachment. the one thing donald trump has different than richard nixon, a wall of republican support that has not crumbled that began to crumble for richard nixon. >> he has also had support inside his administration. i want to bring in pierre thomas, our chief justice koe t correspondent. this has all happened since robert mueller delivered his report earlier this summer. we have learned all about these interactions with ukraine, and the attorney general, william barr, took some heat for the way he presented mueller's findings to the public. he has also been involved in this episode, taking that criminal referral from the cia, deciding it was not a crime, the president's phone call. >> reporter: george, it's all been complicated for the attorney general because you remember in that call, the president mentions attorney

general barr four times in connection with his desire to have an investigation of biden and his son, and the attorney general we're told was taken aback by that by our sources, that he was very upset that the president would include him as being apart of this operation involving rudy giuliani to investigate the president's political rivals. so in that sense, barr has been put in a very awkward position. as you said, the department did, in fact, take a look at the very narrow issue of the phone call to see if that involved a campaign finance violation. they found that it did not, but george, the thing about all of this is you have allegations that rudy giuliani, the president's personal attorney, embarked on a shadow campaign to pursue an investigation of biden, to help the president, and they enlisted the power of the u.s. government to do so, and now the question is, will these career professionals,

these diplomats, come in and make the case of what the whistle-blower alleged? >> you mentioned rudy giuliani's efforts. i want to bring in tom bossert, the president's first homeland security director inside the white house as well, and tom, these ideas that the president was pushing these investigations, the president pushing one including called crowd strike, and not involving the 2016 election, were something you warned him about at the beginning of this administration. >> reporter: yeah, george. there's a backdrop to every impeachment as your panel knows well, and the backdrop to this one is foreign policy. so it will be a little bit complicated today as we see an oversight hearing being blended into an impeachment proceeding, but when the president raises anything on the intelligence community's conclusion, that this was a russian hack into the dnc, then i always stand up and say you're wrong. >> tom bossert, thanks very much. witnesses have now entered the hearing room. there you see william taylor. he's the acting ambassador to

ukraine right now. he's set to take the oath. both appearing under subpoena this morning. the white house officials have defied that, following the direction of the president, but these career diplomats have said they will come forward and testify now that they have been subpoenaed as they did in those depositions. they will do so under oath. chairman adam schiff also in place along with the ranking republican on the committee, devin nunes. they will both have opening statements. both witnesses set to have opening statements as well, and then as we have heard, this will not be like your typical congressional hearing. the questioning will be led by the chairman, and also their appointed councils for long 45-minute stretches. let's go to the room. we're about to see the oath. those familiar butterfly clicks of all the cameras as the witness is set to take the oath. room quieted down pretty

quickly. as mary said, the chairman hoping this will be a somber proceeding today. ranking republican devin nunes, former chairman of the committee. close ally of president trump. chairman adam schiff. >> good morning, everyone. this is the first in a series of public hearings, the committee will be holding adds part of the house's impeachment inquiry. without objection, the chair has authorized to declare a resesce at any time. here's how the committee will proceed for this hearing. i will make an opening statement, and then ranking member nunes will have the opportunity to make a statement. we will go to witness statements and then to questions. for audience members, we welcome you, and we respect your interest in being here np in turn, we ask for your respect with today's hearing. >> mr. chairman. may i make a parliamentary inquiry?

>> we will instate the inquiry. >> this is the first time under this set of rules. this gives you the discretion to allow yourself and the ranking member periods of extended questions of up to 45 minutes each before other members are allowed to ask questions. if possible, we would like to know the rules of engagement before we get started. have you made a decision yet as to how many 45-minute rounds you will allow yourself and the ranking member? >> i have not, as we informed minority yesterday. we will see how the first period goes, and how much material we're able to get through. at that point, the chair will announce the period if there is a period of the second round which may be up to 45 minutes, or we'll go straight to five-minute questions by members. for audience members again, we welcome you and your interest. in turn, we expect and will insist on decorum in the

committee. we will ensure this is run with accordance with house rules. i recognize myself to give an opening statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump, the 45th president of the united states. in 2015, russia invaded the united states ally, ukraine. to reverse that of the west, and fulfill vladimir putin's desire to fulfill a russian empire. in the following year, 14,000 ukrainians died as they battled superior russian forces. earlier this year, volodymyr zelensky was elected president of ukraine, on a platform of ending and tackling corruption. he was a newcomer to politics, and sought to establish a relationship with the united states. the questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether

president trump sought to exploit that ally's s vulnerability, and invite into that our elections. whether he sought to condition certain acts such as u.s. military assistance on ukraine's willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his re-election campaign. if president trump did either, whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency. the matter is as simple and as terrible as that. our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency, but the future of the presidency itself, and what kind of conduct or misconduct the american people may come to expect from their commander in chief. there are few actions as consequential as the impeachment of a president. while the founders did not intend that impeachment be over mere differences of policy, they

made impeachment a process that the congress must utilize as necessary. the facts in the present inquiry are not seriously contested. beginning in january of this year, the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, pressed ukrainian authorities to investigate burisma, the country's largest natural gas producer, and the bidens. since vice president biden was seen as a strong potential challenger to trump. giuliani also promoted a debunked conspiracy that it was ukraine, not russia, that hacked the 2016 u.s. election. the nation's intelligence agencies have stated unequivocally that it was russia, not ukraine, that interfered in our election, but giuliani believed this conspiracy theory referred to as crowd strike, shorthand for the company that discovered the russian hack, would aid his client's re-election. he also conducted a smear campaign against the u.s.

ambassador, marie yovanovitch. she was told although she had done nothing wrong, president trump had lost confidence in her. with the sidelining of yovanovit yovanovitch, the stage was set for another channel, in which giuliani and others, including gordon sondland, now serving as ambassador to the european union could advance the president's personal and political interests. yovanovitch's replace i want in kyiv was bill taylor, a west point graduate. to better understand the scheme, he pushed back informing deputy assistant kent and others about a plan to condition u.s. government actions and funding on the performance of political favors by the ukrainian government, favors intended for president trump that would undermine our security and our

elections. several key events in the scheme took place in the month of july. on july 10th, ambassador sondland informed a group of u.s. and ukrainian officials meeting at the white house that according to you, chief of staff mick mulvaney, the white house meeting desperately sought with president trump would only happen if ukraine undertook an investigation into the energy sector which was understood to mean burisma and specifically the bidens. national security adviser bolton abruptly ended the meeting and said afterwards that he would not be, quote, part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this, end quote. a week later, on july representative of the office management bujtdget, the white house agency that oversees spending, that mulvaney at the direction of the president was freezing nearly $400 million in security assistance authorized

and proappropriated by congress which the entire national security establishment supported. one week after that, donald trump would have the now-infamous july 25th phone call with ukrainian president zelens zelensky. during that call, trump complained the u.s. relationship with ukraine had not been reciprocal. later, zelensky thanks trump for his support in the area of defense and ukraine is ready to purchase more javelins, an empty tank weapon that was the most important deference of russian military action. trump's immediate response? i would like you to do us a favor though. trump then requested that zelensky investigate the discredited crowd strike conspiracy theory, and even more ominously look into the bidens. neither of these investigations was in the u.s. national interest, and neither was part of the official preparatory

material for the call. both, however, were in donald trump's personal interests and any interest of his 2020 re-election campaign. the president knew about both in advance because sondland and others had been pressing ukraine for weeks about investigations into the 2016 election, burisma and the bidens. after the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the national security council's top lawyer. the white house would then take the extraordinary step of moving the call record to a highly classified server, exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters. in the weeks that followed, ambassador taylor learned new facts about a scheme that sondland described as becoming more insidious. taylor texted sondland, quote, are we now saying that security assistance and white house

meeting are conditioned on investigations? as summer turned to fall, it kept getting more insidious, mr. sondland testified. mr. taylor who took notes of his conversation said, the ambassador told him on a september 1st phone call that everything was dependent on the public announcement of investigations, including security assistance. president trump wanted mr. zelensky in a public box. president trump is a businessman, sondland said later. when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. in a sworn declaration after his testimony, sondland would admit to telling ukrainians aftt a september 1st meeting in warsaw,

quote, the assumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement we had been discussing for many weeks. the president's chief of staff confirmed president trump's efforts by withholding aid. when mick mulvaney was asked publicly about it, his answer was breathtaking. we do that all the time with foreign policy, he said. i have news for everybody. get of it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. that is going to happen. video of that confession is p y plain for all to see. some have argued in the president's defense that the aid was ultimately released, and that is true, but only after congress began an investigation. only after the president's lawyers learned of a whistle-blower complaint, and only after members of congress began asking uncomfortable questions about quid pro quos.

a scheme to condition official acts or taxpayer funding to obtain a personal or political benefit does not become less odious because it is discovered before it is fully consummated. in fact, the security assistance have been delayed so long it would take another act of congress to ensure that it could still go out, and that oval office meeting that zelensky desperately sought, it still hasn't happened. although we have learned a great deal about these events in the last several weeks, there are still missing pieces. the president has instructed the state department and other agencies to ignore congressional subpoenas for documents. he has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear, and he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies. these actions will force congress to consider as it did with president nixon whether

trump's constitute additional grounds for impeopachment. if the president can refuse all oversight, particularly in a proceeding, the balance of power between our two branches of government will be irrevocably altered. that is not what the founders intended, and the prospects for further corruption, abuse of power in this administration or any other, will be exponentially increased. this is what we believe the testimony will show. both as to the president's conduct and as to his obstruction of congress. the issue that we confront is the one posed by the president's acting chief of staff. when he challenged americans to g "get over it." if we find out the president of the united states has abused his power and invited foreign interference into our elections or if he sought to condition,

coerce, extort or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his re-election campaign and did so by withholding official acts, the white house meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars in needed military aid must we simply "get over it." is this what americans should now expect from their president? if this is not impeachable conduct, what is? does the oath of office itself requiring that our laws be faithfully executed that our president defend the constitution that balances the powers of its branches, setting ambition against ambition so we become no monarchy, still have meaning? these are the questions we must ask and answer. without ranker if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor and without pre prejudice if we are true to our

responsibilities. benjamin franklin was asked, what kind of country america was to become. in republic, he answered, if you can keep it. donald j. trump, the issue is, can we keep it? i'll recognize ranking member nunes for any remarks you issue to make. >> thank you, chairman. in a july openi hearing of this investigation, following the mueller report, the democrats engaged in a last-ditch effort to convince the american people that president trump is a russian agent. that hearing was the pivotal finale of a three-year long operation by the democrats, the corrupt media and partisan bureaucrats to overturn the results of the 2016 election. after the spectacular implosion of their russia hoax on july 24th in which they spent years

denouncing any republican who ever shook hands with a russian, on july 25th they turned on a dime and now claim the real malfeasance is republicans' dealings with ukraine. in the blink of an eye we're asked to simply forget about dech democrats on this committee falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between president trump and russia. we should forget about them reading fabrications of trump/russia collusion from the steele dossier. we should forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of president trump from russian pranksters who pretended to be ukrainian officials. we should forget about them leaking a false story to cnn while he was still testifying,

claiming that donald trump jr. was colluding with wikileaks. and forget about things large and small that make them the last people on earth with the credibility to hurl more preposterous claims at their opponents. and yet now here we are. we're supposed to take these people at face value when they trot out a new batch of allegations, but anyone familiar with the democrats' scorched earth war against trump would not be surprised to see the typical see typical signs that this is a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign. for example, after vowing publicly that impeachment requires by partisan report, they are pushing forward without the backing of a single republican. the witnesses deemed suitable for television by the democrats were put through a closed door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of

the capital where democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner. violating their own guidelines, departments repeatedly redacted from the transcripts, the name of alexander chalupa, who worked with the ukrainian officials to collect dirt on trump during the campaign which he provided to the clinton campaign. most of the republicans' witnesses requests were rejected, and the crucial witnesses are denied a platform if their testimony does not support the democrats' absurd accusations. notably, they are trying to impeach the president for inquiring about hunter biden's activities. yet they refuse our request to

hear from biden himself. the whistle-blower was acknowledged to have a bias against president trump, and his attorney touted a coup against the president and called for his impeachment just weeks after the election. at a prior hearing, democrats on this committee read out a purely fictitious rendition of the president's phone call with president zelensky. they clearly found the real conversation to be insufficient for their impeachment narrative, so they just made up a new one. and most egregiously, the staff of the democrats on this committee had direct discussions with the whistle-blower before his or her complaint was submitted to the inspector general. republicans can't get a full account of these contacts because democrats broke their promise to have the whistle-blower testify to this committee. democrat members hid these contacts from republicans, and then lied about them to the

american people on national television. i have noted before the democrats have a long habit of accusing republicans of offenses they themselves are committing. let's recall for years they accused the trump campaign of colluding with russia when they themselves were colluding with russia by funding and spreading the steele dossier which relied on russian sources. and now they accuse president trump of malfeasance in ukraine when they themselves are culpable. the democrats cooperated in ukrainian election meddling, and they defend hunter biden's securing of a lavishly paid position with a corrupt ukrainian company, all while his father served as vice president. despite this hypocrisy, the democrats are advancing their impeachment sham, but we should not hold any hearings at all until we get answers to three

crucial questions the democrats are determined to avoid asking. first, what is the full extent of the democrats' prior koo coordination with the whistle-blower, and who else did the whistle-blower coordinate this effort with? second, what is the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against the trump campaign? and third, why did burisma hire hunter biden, what did he do for them, and did his position affect any u.s. actions under the obama administration? these questions will remain outstanding because republicans were denied the right to call witnesses that know these answers. what we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance staged by the democrats. ambassador taylor and mr. kent, i would like to welcome you here. i would like to congratulate you for passing the democrats' star

chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the capitol. it seems you agreed witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama, but the main performance, the russia hoax has ended, and you have been cast in the low rent ukrainian sequel. i'll conclude by noting the immense damage, politicized bu ro bureaucracy has done, charged with implementing the policy set by our president who was elected and responsible to the american people. elements of the civil service have decided that they, not the president, are really in charge. thus as we'll learn in these hearings, after expressing skepticism of foreign aid and foreign corruption in the campaign trail, trump outraged the bureaucracy by lodging

skepticism about foreign aid, and discussing concerns about foreign corruption. the alarm was the president's actions based on secondhand, third hand and even fourth hand rumors and innuendo. they believed it was an outrage for the president to fire an ambassador even though the president has full authority to retain or remove diplomats for any reason at any time. officials show the surprising lack of interest and the indications of ukrainian election meddling, that deeply concerned the president at whose ple pleasure they serve. despite the satisfaction with the policy, the president approved the supply of weapons to ukraine, unlike the previous administration which provided blankets as defense against invading russians. by undermining the president who they are supposed to be serving,

the elements of the fbi, the department of justice and now the state department have lost the confidence of millions of americans who believe that their vote should count for something. it will take years, if not, decades to restore faith in these institutions. this spectacle is doing great damage to our country. it's nothing more than an impeachment process in search of a crime. i yield back. >> today we are joined by ambassador william taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state george kent. both who are appearing under subpoena. william tailer has serylor has country for half a century, going to west point, serving as an infantry officer including in the airborne division during the vietnam war.

he was awarded the bronze star medal and the air medal for valuer. following his military service, he worked for the department of energy as a staffer in the u.s. senate, as an adviser as well as the u.s. ambassador to nato. in the 1990s, ambassador taylor coordinated assistance to eastern europe, and the zsoviet union, and served in iraq, and worked on the peace process. president bush nominated him as ambassador to ukraine where he served until 2009, and then was appointed by president barack obama to be special coordinator for middle east transitions. ambassador taylor was serving as the executive vice president for institutions when secretary of state mike pompeo asked him to return to lead the u.s. embassy in kyiv. mr. george kent currently serves

as deputy assistant secretary in the department of state in the eurasian affairs, in ukraine and other countries. he has served twice in ukraine from 2004 to 2007. he was the deputy political counselor including during the orange revolution, and from 2015 to 2018, he served as deputy chief of mission in kyiv. since joining the joint service in 1992, mr. kent has served in poland, uzbekistan and that i would -- thailand, and he oversaw the rule of law. all witness depositions as part of this inquiry were unclassified in nature and all open hearings will also be at the unclassified level. any information that may touch on classified information will be addressed separately. congress will not accept any reprisal or attempt to

retaliate, including you or any of your colleagues. if you would both rise and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> i do. >> let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. >> mr. chairman, before we hear from the witnesses, i have a parliamentary inquiry up. >> state your inquiry. >> when can we anticipate a response to our november 9th letter requesting certain individual witnesses to be called? >> the gentlewoman should be aware that those are scheduled for next week. >> those are your witnesses, mr. chairman. what about the additional six witnesses? >> the gentlewoman may make a request following the witness testimony. >> and mr. chairman, i have a point of order under 660.

>> state your point of order. >> will you be prohibiting witnesses from answering members' questions as you have in the closed door depositions? >> as the gentlewoman should note as she was present for the depositions -- >> which i was. >> for some of them, yes. >> correct. >> the only time i prevented witnesses from answering questions along with their council, when you are trying to out the whistle-blower. we will protect the whistle-blower's identity, and i'm disturbed members of the committee who have in the past, voiced for strong whistle-blower protections seek to undermine those protections by outing the whistle-blower. >> mr. chairman, only one member in their staff on this committee has direct knowledge of the identity of the whistle-blower. >>ly suspend. you asked a parliamentary inqui inquiry. i'm responding. we will not permit the outing of the whistle-blower, and we will

inform our clients not to respond to. i will intervene. otherwise i want members to feel free to ask any questions they like. >> i would like the make a motion. >> i'm sorry. >> the gentleman is not recognized. i'm responding to the gentlewoman's point of order. otherwise, members will have an opportunity to ask any questions they like. do you seek recognition for one purpose? >> to make a motion we subpoena the whistle-blower for a closed door secret deposition so that the questions that should be appropriately asked to the whistle-blower by our side and your side may be asked, and i would prefer that rather than it be your single decision that the decision not be just by the chairman. >> i think the gentleman -- it won't be my decision. it won't be my single decision. we will entertain a motion to subpoena any witness, but after the witnesses have had an opportunity to testify.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that motion will be in order, but it will be suspended until after the witnesses testify. >> do you anticipate when we will vote? >> seek recognition? >> just to clarify. do you know when we might vote on the ability to have t whistle-blower in front of us? something you are the only member who knows who that is? your staff is the only person who has a chance to talk with that individual. when might that happen in this proceeding today? >> the gentleman knows that's a false statement. i do not the identity of the whistle-blower and i'm determined to make sure that identity is protected, but as i said to mr. conaway, you will have an opportunity after the witnesses testify to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote. with that, i now recognize witnesses. before i do, i want to just

emphasize the microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly into them. without objection, your written statements will be part of the record, and with that, deputy assistant secretary kent, you are recognized for your opening statement. ambassador taylor, you are recognized immediately after for your opening statement. >> good morning. my name is george kent, and i am deputy assistant secretary of state for eastern europe and the caucuses. i have served proudly as a non-partisan career foreign service officer for more than 27 years under five presidents, three republican and two democrat. as i mentioned in my opening che comments last month in the closed door deposition, i represent the third generation of my family to have chosen a career in public service and worn the oath of office that all u.s. public servants do in defense of our constitution. indeed there has been a george kent sworn to defend the

constitution continuously for nearly 60 years ever since my father reported to annapolis for his plebe summer after graduating first in his class in 1965, known for his heisman-winning classmate, roger staubach. he served a full 30 years including as a captain of a nuclear ballistic submarine during the height of the cold war. five great-uncles served honorably in the navy and the army in world war ii. tom taggart was stationed on pearl harbor. he survived the brutal bataan death march, and in a war camp unbroken. he returned as an air force judge advocate upholding the rule of law until his death in 1965. today i appear before you once again, under subpoena as a fact witness ready to answer all of your questions about the events and developments examined in

this inquiry to the best of my ability and recollection, subject to the limits placed on me by the law and this process. i will be begin with opening comments on the key heart of what brings me before you today. to it, public service and enduring national interests in the place of ukraine and our national security interests. for the past five years, we have focused our united efforts across the atlantic to support ukraine in its fight for the cause of freedom, and the rebirth of a country free from russian dominion and the warped legacy of soviet institutions and post-soviet behavior. as i stated in my closed door deposition last month, you don't step into the public arena of international diplomacy in act of pursuit of principled u.s. interests without expecting vigorous pushback, including personal attacks. such attacks came from the

russians, their proxies, and corrupt ukrainians. that tells me our efforts were hitting their mark. it was unexpected and most unfortunate however, to watch some americans including those who aligned themselves with corrupt ukrainians, in pursuit of private agendas, launch attacks on dedicated public servants, advancing interests in ukraine. in my opinion, those attacks undermined u.s. and ukrainian national interests and damaged our critical bilateral relationship. the united states has very clear national interest at stake in ukraine. ukraine's success is very much in our national interest in the way we have defined our national interest broadly in europe for the past 75 years. after world war ii, u.s. leadership furthered far sided policies like the marshall plan in a rules-based international order, protected by the collective security provided by

nato, western europe recovered and thrived. after the carnage of world war ii, not withstanding the shadow of the iron curtain. europe's security and prosperity contributed to our security and prosperity. support of ukraine's also fits squarely into our strategy for central and eastern europe since the fall of the wall 30 years ago this past week. a europe truly whole, free and at peace, our strategic aim for the entirety of my service career is not possible without a ukraine whole, free and at peace, including crimea and the donbas territories currently occupied by russia, represent bid the red in the map. looking forward, the trump administration's national security strategy makes clear that global strategic challenges are now before us. great power competition with rivals such as russia and china in the need to compete for

positive influence without taking countries for granted. in that sense, ukraine has been on the front lines not just of russia's conventional war in eastern europe since 2014, in its broader campaign of malign flups influence, but of the greater political challenges facing the united states. ukraine's dignity in 2014, forced a corrupt pro-russian leadership to flee to moscow. after that, russia invaded ukraine, occupying 7% of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of texas for the united states. at that time, ukraine's state institutions were on the verge of collapse. ukrainian civil society answered the challenge. they formed volunteer battalions of citizens including technology professionals and medics. they crowd sourced funding for their own weapons, body armor and supplies. they were the 21st century

ukrainian equivalent of our even minutemen of 1776, buying time for a regular army to reconstitute. since then, more than 13,000 ukrainians have died on ukrainian soil defending their territory and sovereignty. americans' support and ukraine's de facto war has been critical. by analogy, the americans would not have prevailed without the help of transatlantic friends in 1776. in an echo of lafayette's assistance to george washington's army, and paul jones' navy, they have appropriated $1.5 billion in the past five years in desperately needed trained and equipped security assistance to ukraine. these funds increase ukraine's strength and ability to fight russian aggression. it ultimate i will, ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the united

states within nato. similar to von steuben training colonials at valley forge, they have learned at the polish border and elsewhere. they helped with education for ukraine's next generation as von steuben did for america's first, and creating the resistance to russian aggression. we have a front row seat to the russian way of war in the 21st century, gaining priceless insights that contribute to our own security. this year in 2019, ukrainian citizens passed the political torch to a new generation, one that came of age not in the final years of the soviet union, but in an independent ukraine. presidential and parliamentary elections swept out much of ukraine's governing elite, and sought out president zelensky, a cabinet with an average age of 39, and a parliament with the

average age of 41. at the heart of that changed mandate, five years of dignity is a thirst for justice because there can not be dignity without justice. without a reformed judicial sector that delivers justice and sbintegrity for all, ukrainian society will remain unsettled. foreign investors will not bring the great investment needed to ensure that ukraine's long-term prosperity is secured. this is why the principle motion of the rule of law and institutional integrity is so necessary to our strategy for a successful ukraine. it is also true for other former captive nations still recovering from the ashes of soviet and communist misrule. it is why acting consistently with the core principle of the rule of law comes at great peril. i'm grateful to the staffers including many of you sitting here today who have traveled to the ukraine over the past five years and appropriated billions of dollars in assistance in

support of our primary policy goals. those funds increased ukraine's ability to fight russian aggression in the defense energy cyber and information spheres and also empowered the civil society to undertake systemic reforms and tackle corruption. i believe all of us can be proud of i believe all of us can be proud of our efforts in ukraine over the past five years, even though much remains to be done. and by all of us, i mean those in the legislative and executive branches, in both parties, the interagency community working out of our embassy in kiev, with ukrainians in government, the military and civil society, and our transatlantic allies and partners. we cannot allow our resolve to waiver, since too much is at stake, not just for ukraine and the future of european security, but for the national interests of the united states broadly defined. my prior deposition covered a lot of ground over ten hours. here are the main themes from my testimony -- i outlined my experience with longstanding u.s. interests in supporting anti-corruption efforts in ukraine.

this work gave me a front-row seat to problematic activities by successive prosecutors general in ukraine. for many of the issues this committee is investigating, my knowledge and understanding is sometimes first hand and sometimes comes from others involved in some specific conversations and meetings. this is no different than how anyone learns and carries out his or her job responsibilities. i have been and remain willing to share my factual observations with the committee and will make clear when those are based on personal knowledge, or from information gleaned from others. u.s. efforts to counter corruption in ukraine focus on building institutional capacity so that the ukrainian government has the ability to go after corruption and effectively investigate, prosecute, and judge alleged criminal activities using appropriate institutional mechanisms -- that is -- to create and follow the rule of law. that means that if there is any

criminal nexus for activity in the united states, then u.s. law enforcement should pursue that case. if we think there has been some criminal act overseas that violates u.s. law, we have the institutional mechanisms to address that. it could be through the justice department and fbi agents assigned oversees, or through treaty mechanisms, such as the mutual legal assistance treaty. as a general principle i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective, politically, associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power, because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country. the pervasive and longstanding problem of corruption in ukraine included exposure to a situation involving the energy company burisma, the primary concern of the u.s. government since 2014 was burisma's owner whose frozen assets abroad we had attempted to recover on ukraine's behalf. in early 2015, i raised questions with the deputy

prosecutor general about why the investigation of mr. zlochevsky had been terminated, based on our belief that prosecutors had accepted bribes to close the case. later, i became aware that hunter biden was on the board of burisma. soon after that, in a briefing call with the national security staff in the office of the vice president, in february 2015, i raised my concern that hunter biden's status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest. let me be clear, however, i did not witness any efforts by any u.s. official to shield burisma from scrutiny. in fact, i and other u.s. officials consistently advocated reinstituting a scuttled investigation of zlochevsky, burisma's founder, as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors who closed the case to account. over the course of 2018 and 2019, i became increasingly aware of an effort by rudy giuliani and others, including his associates lev parnas and igor fruman, to run a campaign to smear ambassador yovanovitch and other officials at the u.s. embassy in kiev.

the chief agitators on the ukrainian side of this effort were some of those same corrupt former prosecutors i had encountered, particularly victor shokin and yuriy lutsenko. they were now peddling false information in order to extract revenge against those who had exposed their misconduct, including u.s. diplomats, ukrainian anti-corruption officials and reform-minded civil society groups in ukraine. during the late spring and summer of 2019, i became alarmed as those efforts bore fruit. they led to the ouster of ambassador yovanovitch and hampered u.s. efforts to establish rapport with the new zelensky administration in ukraine. in mid-august it became clear to me that giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting u.s. engagement with ukraine, leveraging president zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. there are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for ukraine. conditions include

anti-corruption reforms, as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. the international monetary fund does the same thing. congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the ukraine security assistance initiative. regarding my testimony, i will do my best to answer your questions. questions that will involve issues, conversations and documents that span a number of years. i may be limited by three considerations. first, the state department has collected all materials in response to the september 27 subpoena that may contain facts relevant to my testimony. i have no such documents or materials with me today. i will thus do my best to answer as accurately, completely and truthfully as i can, to the best of my recollection. second, as this committee knows from deposition testimony, throughout this process, there have been concerns that questions may be asked about classified information. we have asked the state department for guidance about any classification concerns related to the public release of my deposition and the state department has declined to provide any.

so, if i'm asked a question today that i believe may implicate classified information, i will respectfully decline to answer in this public forum. third, there may also be questions focusing on the identity of people in the intelligence community. these questions were redacted from my deposition's transcript. if such a question arises today, i will follow my counsel's advice and decline to answer. i would like to conclude my opening remarks with an observation about some of my fellow public servants who have come under personal attacks -- ambassador yovanovitch, vindman and dr. hill. at least one of whom is going appear before this body in the coming days. masha, alex, and fiona were born abroad before their families or they themselves personally chose to immigrate to the united states. they all made the professional choice to serve the united states as public officials, helping shape our national security policy, towards russia in particular. and we and our national security are the better for it.

in this sense, they are the 21st century heirs of two giants of 20th century u.s. national security policy who were born abroad -- my former professor zbigniew brzezinski and his fellow immigrant henry kissinger. like the brzezinskis and kissin kissingser, the yovanovitch s and vindmans fled nazi and communist op presentation to contribute to a stronger, more secure america. that honorable transatlantic tradition goes back to the very founding of our republic -- our 18th century independence would not have been secured without the choice of european officers -- the french-born lafayette and rochambeau, the german-born von steuben and the poles pulaski and kosciuszko, to come to the new world and fight for our cause of freedom and the birth of a new country free from imperial dominion. it is my privilege to sit next to my former boss, ambassador taylor today, and it's my honor to serve with all these

patriotic americans, thank you. >> thank you, ambassador taylor. mr. chairman, i'm appearing today at the committee's request to provide my perspective on the events that are the subject of the committee's inquiry. i want to emphasize at the outset that while i'm aware that committee has requested my testimony as part of the impeachment proceedings i'm not here to take one side or the other to advocate for any particular outcome of these proceedings. my sole purpose is to provide facts as i know them. about the incidents in question and the strategic importance of ukraine to the united states. my background it's been a privilege to serve the american people for more than 50 years, starting at west point and an infantry member in vietnam. at the department of energy and

then member of senate staff, in nato, state department here and abroad, in afghanistan, iraq, jerusalem and ukraine. i retired from the state department in 2009 to join the united states institute of peace. i'm neither a career member of the foreign service or a civil service. i'm nonpartisan and i have been appointed to my positions by every president from president reagan to president trump. let me summarize my main points. first, ukraine is a strategic partner of the united states. important for the security of our country. as well as europe. ukraine's on the front line in the conflict with a newly aggressive russia. second, even as we sit here today the russians are attacking ukrainian soldiers in their own country. and have been for the last four years. i saw this on the front line last week.

the day i was there a ukrainian soldier was killed and four were wounded. third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to ukraine's defense and to the protection of the soldiers i met on the front line last week. it demonstrates to ukrainians and russians that we are ukraine's reliable strategic partner. it's clearly in our national interest to deter further russia aggression. finally, as a committee is aware, i wrote that withholding security assistance in exchange for help, would be crazy. i believe that then and i believe it now. let me tell you why. on may 28th of this year, i met with secretary of state mike pompeo who asked me to rejoin the state department and return to kiev to lead our embassy in ukraine. it's a critical time for

u.s.-ukraine relations. having been nominated by george w. bush in intervening ten years stayed engaged with ukraine. across the responsibilities i have had in public service, ukraine is the highlight and so secretary pompeo's offer to return was compelling. since i left ukraine in 2009, the country had continued to turn toward the west. but in 2013, vladimir putin was so threatened by the prospect of ukraine joining the european union that he tried to bribe the ukrainian president. this triggered mass protest in the winter of 2013 that drove that president to flee to russia in february 2014 but not before his forces killed 100 ukrainian protesters in central kiev. days later, mr. putin invaded

crimea holding a sham referendum. the russians absurdly claim that 97% voted to join russia. in early april, putin sent his army and security forces into southeastern ukraine. you can see this on the map in the right-hand portion, in the eastern portion of the country. 14,000 ukrainians have died in the war in donbas and more die each week. in july 2014, these russian-led forces in donbas shut down a civilian airline killing all 298 people onboard. we the europeans and most of the west impose economic sanctions and kicked the russia out of the g8. beginning in 2014, we and nato began to provide military

assistance to ukraine's armed forces in the form of training advice, military equipment and weapons. it's this security assistance that's at the heart of the controversy that we are discussing today. the pro-russia president who was run out of kiev in 2014, had left russian armed forces deteriorate in ruin. in response to the invasion, the new ukrainian authorities, orebuilt the army, nearly from scratch, spending more than 5% of ukrainian gdp since the war started. the whole ukrainian nation fiercely responded to the attack. the nation responded like no before, a strong fighting force and the united states played a vital role. since 2014, you in congress have provided over $1.6 billion in

military assistance to ukraine. the security assistance provides small unit training. it provides ambulances, night vision devices, communications equipment, navy ships and finally, weapons. the security assistance demonstrates our assistance to defend freedom. i was serving outside of government in 2016 and joined two other former ambassadors in urging obama administration at the state department, defense department, to provide lethal defensive weapons to ukraine in order to deter further russia aggression and i was pleased that the trump administration provided javelin aebt-tank missiles and enacted stronger sanctions. all to say that i cared about ukraine's future and the

important u.s. interests there. when secretary of state pompeo asked me to go back to kiev i wanted to say yes but it wasn't an easy answer. the former ambassador yo yovanovitch had been treated poorly both in kiev and in washington. i feared those problems were still present. i consulted both my wife and a former senior republican officials who has been a mentor, i'll tell you my wife strongly opposed the idea. the mentor counselled if your country asked you to do something do it if you can be effective. strong support for ukraine, strong diplomatic support along with robust security and technical assistance were to continuing and if i had the backing of the secretary to back that policy. i worried about the role about rudy giuliani who made

controversial statements toward the country. so during my meeting with secretary pompeo on may 28th i made clear to him and the others present that if u.s. policy toward ukraine changed he would not want me posted there and i could not stay. he assured me the policy of strong support for ukraine would continue and he would support me in defending that policy. with that understanding i agreed to go back to kiev because i was appointed by the secretary but not re-confirmed by the secretary. i was the acting ambassador to ukraine. i returned to kiev on june 17th carrying the origin name copy president trump signed the day after i met with the secretary. the president congratulated

zelensky on his election and invited to a meeting in the oval office. once i arrived in kiev, i encountered an encouraging, am larming circumstance. president zelensky supported long-stalled anti-corruption legislation. he took action including opening yuan crane's high corruption court. stemming from snap elections, president zelensky changed the ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity. the excitement in kiev was palpable. this time could be different, a new ukraine finally breaking from its corrupt post-soviet past. and yet, i found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making

u.s. policy toward ukraine. appeared to be two channels of u.s. policymaking. one regular and one highly irregular. as the acting ambassador i had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic policies including the balk of the u.s. policy to support you yan in helping defeat corruption. my colleague, george kent, and our colleagues at national security council were my contacts in washington through this regular channel. this channel is formally responsible for formulating and overseeing the implementation of u.s. foreign policy with respect to ukraine. a policy that's consistently enjoyed strong, bipartisan support both in congress and in all administrations since ukraine's independence from russia.

accountable to congress, i a channel that included special envoy kurt volker, gordon sondland. secretary of energy rick perry, white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and as i subsequently learned mr. giuliani. i was clearly in the regular channel. but i was also in the irregular one to the extent that ambassadors volker and sondland included me in conversations. it operated mostly outside of official state department channels. the irregular channel began when ambassador volker, sondland briefed president trump on may 23rd upon their return from president zelensky's inauguration, the delegation was as enthusiastic as i soon would become about the new ukrainian

president and urged president trump to meet with him early on to cement the u.s.-ukraine relationship. from what i understood from the participants president trump didn't share their enthusiasm for their meeting with president zelensky. both channels appeared to serve the same goal. a strong ukraine partnership. but it became clear to me by august that the channels had diverged in their objectives. as this occurred i became concern. in late june, both channels were trying to facilitate a visit by president zelensky to the white house for a meeting with president trump which president trump had promised in his letter of may 29th. ukrainians were clearly eager for the meeting to happen. but during my subsequent communications with ambassadors

volker and sondland. the president wanted to hear from zelensky before scheduling the meeting in the oval office. not clear to me what this meant. on june 27th, ambassador sondland told me during a phone call that president zelensky needed to make clear that he president zelensky was not standing in the way of investigations. i sensed something odd when ambassador sondland told me on june 28th he didn't want to include most of interagency in the call with mr. zelensky later that day. however, ambassador sondland said he wanted to make sure that no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added president zelensky to the call. ambassador volker separately told the u.s. participants that

he and ambassador volker planned to be explicit with president zelensky in a one-on-one meeting on july 2nd. he planned to make clear what president zelensky should do to get the white house meeting. ambassador volker said he wanted to relay that president trump want to see rule of law, transparency but kor operation on investigations to get to the bottom of things. once president zelensky joined the call the conversation was focused on energy policy president sclen skooe also said he looked forward to the meeting. by mid-july, the meeting president zelensky wanted was candidate on the investigations of burisma and allegedly interference in the 2016 u.s. elections. it was also clear that this condition was driven by the

irregular policy channel i had to come understand was guided by mr. giuliani. i heard a staff person from the office of management and budget there was a hold on security assistance to ukraine but could not say why. told the end of the meeting, the voice on the call said she was from omb and her boss instructed her not to approve any security assistance for ukraine until further notice. ukrainians were fighting russians and counted not only on the training and the weapons but also the assurance of u.s. support. all the omb staff person said was, that the directive had come from the president to the chief of staff to omb. in an instant i realized one of the key pillars of our strong

support for ukraine was threatened. it was running contrary to the goals of longstanding u.s. policy. folling the meetings, reaching the level of cabinet secretaries, at every meeting the unanimous conclusion that the assistance should be resumed, the hold lifted. they were asked to hold an unless, within a day the defense department said that the assistance was effective. my understanding the secretaries of state and defense, the cia director, sought a joint meeting with the president to convince him to release the hold but such a meeting was hard to schedule in the hold and lasted well into september. on july 9th in a phone call with then senior director for european and russian affairs

fiona hill and alex vindman at the nsc, they tried to assure me they weren't aware of any official change in u.s. policy toward ukraine. omb's announcement notwithstanding. they confirmed the hold on security assistance came from chief of staff mick mulvaney who maintained a skeptical view of ukraine. in another phone call they gave me the encount of july 10th phone call. they told me that partway through the meeting, ambassador sondland had connected investigations with an oval office meeting with president zelensky, which irritated then-national security adviser john bolton that he ended the meeting and said they should have nothing to do with domestic

policy. after the july 10th meeting, ambassador bolton opposed a call between president zelensky and president trump out of concern it would be a disaster. 6 needless to sigh, the ukrainians in the meeting were confused. ambassador bolton and the regular ukraine policy making channel wanted to talk energy and reform. ambassador sondland wanted to talk about the connection between the white house meeting and ukrainian investigations. also during our july 19th call, dr. hill informed me that ambassador volker met with mr. giuliani to discuss ukraine. this caught me by surprise. i asked volker about that meeting and received no response. these two separate decisionmaking challenges were separate and at odds. later that day, i received text

messages on a three-way whatsapp with ambassador sondland and volker. ambassador sondland said a phone call between president trump and president zelensky would take place soon. ambassador volker said what's most important that zelensky will help investigation and address any significant personal issues if there are any. on the next day, i had a phone conversation with am bats dor sondland as he was on a train frto paris. he used the phrase i will leave no stone unturned with regards when he spoke with president trump. also on july 20th, heyed a phone

conversation with alexander, president zelensky's national security adviser, who emphasized that president zelensky didn't want to be used as an instrument in a u.s. re-election campaign. the next day i texted both ambassadors volker and sondland about president zelensky's concern. on july 25th, president trump and president zelensky had the long-awaited phone conversation even though i was acting ambassador and was scheduled to meet with ambassador volker the following day i received no readout of the call from the white house. they issued a short crypted summary. during a previously planned july 26th meeting, president zelensky told ambassador volker and me that he was happy with the call but did not elaborate. president zelensky then asked about the face to face meeting in the oval office as promised in the may 29th letter from president trump.

we could give him no firm answer. after our meeting with president zelensky ambassador volker and i traveled to front line to receive a briefing from the commander of forces on the line of contact. arriving for briefing in the military headquarters the commander thanked us for the security assistance i was aware this assistance was on hold. ambassador volker and i could see the russian-led forces on the other side of the bridge, russian-led forces continued to kill ukrainians in the war one or two a week. more ukrainians would die without the u.s. assistance. although i spent the morning of july 26th with president zelensky and other ukrainian officials, the first summary of the first trump-zelensky call was during a phone call i had with tim morrison, dr. hill's

recent replacement at the is c nsc, mr. morrison told me the call could have been better and president trump suggested that president zelensky or his staff meet with mr. giuliani and and attorney general william barr. i didn't see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released september 25th. i was becoming more concerned. on later i learned a senior adviser to president zelensky that t u.s. submit a written request into burisma if that's what the u.s. desire. a formal u.s. request to ukrainians a violation of their own law. to find out the legal aspects of

the question however, i gave him the name of deputy assistance attorney general whom i thought the proper point of contact. by mid-august, the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason i could discern i was beginning to fear that the support for ukraine was shifting. i called state department counselor to discuss this on august 21st, he said he was not aware of a change in policy but would check on the status of security assistance, my concern deepened the next day during a phone conversation with mr. morrison. i asked him if there had been a change in policy, to which he responded it remains to be seen. he also told me during this call that the president doesn't want to provide any assistance at

all. that was extremely troubling to me as i had told secretary pompeo in may the policy of strong support for ukraine changed i would have to resign. based on my phone call with mr. morrison i was preparing to do is. just days later on august 27th, ambassador bolton arrived in kiev and met with president zelensky, during their meeting, security assistance wasn't discussed. as far as i knew, the ukrainians weren't aware of the hold until august 29th. i on the other hand were aware and still troubled by the hold. near the end of bolton's visit, i expressed to him about the withholding military assistance to ukraine. ambassador bolton recommend i send a first person cable to secretary pompeo directly

relaying my concerns. i described the folly i saw in holding military aid in a time where hostilities were still active in the east. the russians as i said at my deposition would love to see the humiliation of president zelensky at the hands of the americans. i told the secretary that i could not and would not defend such a policy. although i received no specific response i heard that soon thereafter, the secretary carried the cable with him to a meeting at the white house focused on security assistance to ukraine. the same day i sent my cable to the secretary, i was contacted about withheld security assistance. the hold that the white house placed on assistance had been made public. at that time i was embarrassed that i could give him no

explanati explanation. that however would change. on september 1st, three days after my cable to secretary pompeo, president zelensky met vice president pence at a bilateral meeting in warsaw. president trump had planned to travel to warsaw at last minute cancelled because of hurricane dorian. the delay of u.s. assistance was an all or nothing proposition in a sense if the white house didn't lift the hold prior to the end of the fiscal year september 30th the funds would expire and ukraine would receive nothing. i was hopeful at the bilateral meeting the white house would lift the hold but this was not to be. on the evening of september 1st, i received a readout of the

pence/zelensky call. president zelensky opened the meeting immediately asking the vice president about the cooperation. vice president responded he would talk to president trump that night. president trump wanted the europeans to do more to support ukraine and ukrainians to do more to fight corruption. during the same phone call with mr. morrison he described a conversation that sondland had in warsaw. the security assistance money would not come until president zelensky committed to pursue the burisma investigation. i was alarmed by what mr. morrison told me about this conversation. i understand that mr. morrison testified at his deposition that ambassador sondland proposed it might be efficient for the

ukraine prosecuting general mig might. first time i heard the security assistance not just the white house meeting was candidate on the investigations. very concerned on that same day, september 1st, i sent ambassador sondland a text message asking if we are now saying that the security assistance and a white house meeting are conditioned on investigations. ambassador sondland responded asking me to call him. which i did. during that phone call, ambassador sondland told me that president trump had told him that he wants president zelensky to state publicly that ukraine will investigate burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondland told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling ukrainian officials only a white house meeting with president zelensky was only

conditioned on a meeting in the white house. everything was such announcement including security assistance. he said that president trump wanted president zelensky in a public box, by making a public statement about ordering such investigations. in the same september 1st call, i told ambassador sondland that president trump should have more respect for another head of state. and that what he described wasn't in the instance of either president trump or president zelensky. at that point i asked sondland to push back on president trump trump's desire. potentially in coordination with attorney general barr's probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections. the next day, september 2nd, mr. morrison called to inform me

that danliuk asked him to come to his hotel in warsaw, express his zelensky's concern about the possible u.s. loss of support for ukraine. in particular, mr. morrison relaid to me that the inability of any u.s. officials to respond to the ukrainian's explicit questions was troubling him. on september 5th, i accompanied senators johnson and murphy during their visit to kiev. when we met with president zelensky his first question to the senators was about the withheld security assistance. my recollection of the meeting is that both senators stressed that bipartisan support for ukraine in washington was ukraine's most important strategic asset. and that president zelensky should not jeopardize that

bipartisan support by getting drawn in by u.s. domestic politics. i had been making and continue to make this point to all of my official ukrainian contacts. but the odd push to make president zelensky publicly to commit to investigations of burisma showed how the official foreign policy of the united states was undercut by the irregular efforts led by mr. giuliani. two days later, september 7th, i had a conversation with mr. morrison, he described a phone conversation between ambassador sondland and president trump earlier that day. . mr. morrison said he had a sink feeling after learning about this conversation from ambassador sondland. president trump told ambassador sondland he wasn't asking for quid pro quo. but president trump did insist that president zelensky go to a

microphone and say he's opening inve gagss of biden and 2016 election interference and that president zelensky should want to do this himself. told ambassador sondland. the following day on september 8th, we spoke on the phone, he confirmed that he talk to president trump as i suggested a week earlier but president trump was adamant that president zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public. president trump said it was not a quid pro quo. i believe this was the same conversation between ambassador sondland and president trump that mr. morrison had described to me on september 7th. ambassador sondland also said that he talked to president zelensky and told them that although this was not a quid pro

quo, if president sclzelensky d not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate. you yan would not receive the much-needed military assistance. shortly after that call with ambassador sondland i expressed my strong reservations and that the ukrainians give the interview and don't get the security assistance. the russians love it. and i quit. i was serious. the next day, september 9, i said to ambassador sondland and volker the message to ukrainians and to the russians that we send on security assistance is key. with the hold we have already shaken their faith in us. i also said that it's crazy to withhold security assistance for

help with a political campaign. ambassador sondland responded five hours later that i was incorrect about president trump's intentions. the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind. during our call on september 8th ambassador sondland tried to explain to me that president trump is a businessman. when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something the person asks them to pay upper before signing the check. i argued to both that the explanation made no sense. ukrainians didn't owe president trump anything and holding up security assistance for political gain was crazy as i said in my text message to ambassadors sondland and volker. on september 11th i learned that

the hold was lifted and security assistance would be provided. i wasn't told the reason why the hold was lifted. the next day i personally conveyed the news to president zelens zelensky. my fear at the time that since ambassador sondland told me that president zelensky agreed to do a cnn interview that he would make a statement about investigations that would play into u.s. domestic politics. i sought to confirm that president zelensky wasn't planning to given a interview to the media. initially confirmed on september 12th. i noticed on a meeting on september 13th at president zelensky's office that he looked offer comfortable in response to the question.

on september 25th, at the u.n. general assembly session in new york city president trump met president zelensky face to face. he released a transcript of the july 25th call. the united states gave the ukrainians no notice of the release and they were livid. although this was the first time i had seen the details of president trump's july 25th call with president zelensky in which he mentioned vice president biden. i had to come understand well before then that investigations was a term ambassadors volker and sondland used to meaning investigations of burisma and the bidens. last friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on july 25th. while ambassador volker and i

visited the front, we accompanied ambassador sondland, following that meeting in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. the member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland about the investigations. following the call with president trump the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland responded he cares more about the investigations about biden that giuliani was pressing for. at the time i gave my deposition on october 22nd i was not aware of this information. i'm including it here for completeness. i reported this information through counsel, as well as to counsel for the majority and

minority of this committee. the committee is following up on this matter. mr. chairman, i recognize that this is rather lengthy rezation of the events the past few months told from my vantage point in kiev. i hope that this chronology will provide some framework for your questions. as i mentioned in my deposition, the information in my testimony are based on my best recollection and a review of my personal notes. let me return to the points i made at the outset, ukraine is important to the security of the united states. the largest country in europe by land mass, ukraine is a young democracy struggling to join europe and ally itself with the united states. it's been violently attack by

russia which continues its armed aggression to this day. our security and the security of our friends and allies depends, if we believe that nations get to decide on their own economic, political and security alliances, we must support ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor. russian aggression cannot stand. republican and democratic administrations over three decades have been generous with assistance. with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, congress has imposed harsh sanctions on russia for invading and occupying ukraine. mr. chairman, there are two ukraine stories today. the first is the one we're discussing this morning that you've been hearing about for the past two weeks. a story about whistle blowers, rudy giuliani, quid pro quos,

interference in election. in this story, ukraine is merely an object. but there's another story, a positive bipartisan one n this second story, ukraine is the subject, this one is about young people in a young nation struggling to break free of its past, hopeful that their new government will finally usher in a new ukraine, proud of its independence from russia. enjoy a more secure and prosperous life. this story describes a nation developing an inclusive nation. less concerned about what language we speak, what religion if any we practice, where our parents, grandparents come from. i'm now looking forward to your questions.

>> thank you both for your testimony. i recognize myself and majority counsel for 45 minutes of questions. >> mr. chairman -- >> i'd like to begin by following up on something that you disclosed today and you disclosed earlier to both majority and minority. new information for the committee. you said in your testimony that one of your staff was present with ambassador sondland on the day after july 25th phone call, is that right? >> that's correct, mr. chairman. >> and as your staff related the event to you, your staff member could overhear mr. sondland on the phone -- over hear the president on the phone with mr. sondland? >> correct. >> the president must have been speaking loud enough -- it was a cell phone. >> yes. >> the president loud enough for your staff member to hear this? >> he was.

>> and what your staff member could overhear was president trump asking ambassador sondland about, quote, the investigations is that correct. >> that's correct. >> you had come to understand that the term "investigations" was a term that ambassador sondland as well as volker used to mean matters relating to 2016 elections and bidens burisma, is that correct. >> that's correct. >> ambassador sondland told president trump that the ukrainians were ready to move forward? >> he did. >> and i think you said that after the call when your staff asked ambassador sondland about what president trump thought about ukraine, his response was president trump cares more about the investigations of bidens, is

that correct? yes. >> he cares more about that than he does about ukraine. >> yes, sir. >> during your testimony, ambassador taylor, you also said that more ukrainians would undoubtedly die without u.s. assistance, why is is that. >> mr. chairman, the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. one of the components of that assistance is counterbattery radar, another component are sniper weapons, these weapons and this assistance allows the ukrainian military to deter further incursions by the

russians against ukrainian territory. if that further incursion, further aggression were to take place more ukrainians would die. a deterrent effect. it gives ukrainians the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate an end to the war in donbas, negotiating with the russians. this is way that would reduce the number of ukrainians who would die. >> i take it, if the u.s. military assistance save ukrainian lives, that any delay would cost ukrainians lives, is that true? >> mr. chairman, it's hard to draw any direct lines between any particular element of security assistance and any particular death on the

battlefield. it's certainly true that this assistance enabled ukrainian armed forces to be effective and deter and to be able to take counter measures to the attacks that the russians had -- >> i think you said that ukraine soldier lost their life when you in donbas. >> we keep careful take of the casualties. . the next day the information we got one was killed, four soldiers were wounded on that day. >> indeed, ukrainians lose their lives every week. >> every week. >> i think you also testified that russia was watching closely to gauge the level of american support for the ukrainian government. why is is that significant? >> this is significant, mr. chairman, because the ukrainians in particular under this new administration, are eager to end this war and they are eager to

end it in a way that the russians leave their territory. these gauches like all negotiations are difficult. ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from a position of strength or at least more strength than they now have. part of that strength, part of the ability of ukrainians to negotiate against the russians for an end to war, it depends on the united states and other international support. if we withdraw, or suspend u or threaten to withdraw our security assistance that's a message to ukrainians. it indicates to the russians who are looking for any sign of weakness, or any sign that we are withdrawing our support for ukraine. >> the suspension of the

military aid, either privately or others learn publicly, the russians would be learning also and they would take that as a lack of robust u.s. support for ukraine? is that right? >> that's correct. >> that would weaken ukraine in negotiating an end to the war in donbas? >> it would. >> people watching i'm sure are interested in how military assistance and diplomatic support for ukraine affects ukraine, even more so how does this affect our national security? now i think you said that if we believe in a principled sovereign nations where countries get to determine their own economic, political and security alliance we have to support ukraine in its fight that the kind of aggression we see by russia can't stand. how is it important to american national security that we

provide for a robust defense of ukraine sovereignty? >> mr. chairman as my colleague, george kent described, we have a national security policy, a national defense policy that identifies russia and china as adversaries. the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. until they invaded ukraine in 2014, they had abided by sovereignty of nations, of inviability of borders. that rule of law, that order, that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in europe was

violated by the russians and if we don't push back on that, those violatioviolations, then l continue. and that, mr. chairman, affects us, it affects the world that we live in that our children will grow up and our grandchildren. this affects the kind of world we want to see. that affects our national interests very directly. ukraine is on the front line of that, of that conflict. >> i want to thank you both for your decades of service to the country. i'll now recognize mr. goldman for questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. am boss dor taylor, on the heels of you discussing the importance of the security assistance to the ukraine, i want to go to the end of time line where you learned that security assistance was conditioned on ukraine announcing the investigations that the president wanted, in

particular, on september 9th of this year, you texted ambassador sondland and volker and the text message should be on the screen in front of you and if you could read what you wrote. >> as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. >> what did you mean when you said you thought it was crazy? >> mr. goldman, i meant that the -- because of the importance of security assistance that we just described and had a conversation with the chairman, because that was so important that security assistance was so important for ukraine as well as our own national interest, to withhold that assistance for no good reason, other than help with the political campaign, made no sense.

it was counter productive to all of what we had been trying to do. it was illogical. it couldn't be explain. >> when you say all of that we had been trying to do, what do you mean. >> the united states was trying to support ukraine as a front line state against russia attack and again the whole notion of a rules-based order was being threatened by the russians in ukraine. so our security assistance was designed to support ukraine. it wasn't just the united states, it was all of our allies. >> when you referenced help with a political campaign in this text message, what did you mean? >> i meant that the investigation of burisma and the bidens was clearly identified by mr. giuliani in public for months. as a way to get information on

the -- on the two bidens. >> and those -- that investigation at the very least was mentioned by president trump in the july 25th phone call with president zelensky, is that right? >> as we now know, yes. yes, on september 25th, that transcript was release zbld ambassador taylor, in your decades of military service and diplomatic service representing the united states around the world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the united states? >> no, mr. goldman, i have not. >> mr. kent, that vital military assistance that was not the only thing that president trump was withholding from ukraine, what else was contingent on ukraine initiating these investigations. >> as we talked earlier today, the possibility of a white house

meeting was being held contingent to announcement. >> how important to president zelensky was a white house meeting? >> new leaders particularly countries that are trying to have good footing in the international arena, see a meeting with the u.s. president in the oval office at the white house as the ultimate sign of endorsement and support from the united states. >> president zelensky was a relatively new president, is that right? >> that's correct. he was elected on april 21st and his government was formed after parliamentary elections in july. >> would a white house meeting for president zelensky boost his legitimacy as new president in ukraine? >> it would boost his leverage to negotiate with vladimir putin about the russian occupation of 70% of ukraine territory. >> is pressuring ukraine to

conduct political investigations a part of u.s. foreign policy to promote the rule of law in ukraine and around the world. >> it is not. >> is it in the national interest of the united states? >> in my opinion, it is not. >> why not. >> because our pom particularly in promoting the rule of law is designed to help countries in europe that's overcoming the legacy of communism. the prosecutor general office was used to sup press and persecute stengs not the rule of law. helping them have the rule of law with strong institutions is the purpose of our policy. >> in other words it's a purpose of our foreign policy to

encourage foreign nations to refrain from conducting political investigations, is that correct? >> correct. we untimes raise our concerns usually in private with countries that we feel are engaged in selective persecution of their opponents. >> ambassador taylor now we established that you ultimately did understand that president trump was withholding the security assistance and a white house meeting from ukraine until they announced these investigations to benefit his re-election campaign, let's go back a little bit in time to when you first learned about this conditionality, on september 1st, so a little more than a week before that text we just read, you sent another text to ambassador sondland and volker, if you could read what you wrote to them. >> are we now saying that

security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? >> ambassador sondland responded, call me. what information had you learned that prompted you to write this text message? >> i had learned that in after the meeting vice president pence had with president zelensky, ambassador sondland had had meetings there and had described to the assistant to president zelensky that the security assistance was also held pending announcement by president zelensky in public of

these investigations. before that, i had only understood from ambassador sondland that the white house meeting was conditioned and at this time, after i heard of this conversation, it struck me -- it was clear to me that security assistance was also being held. >> you said that previously that you were alarmed to learn this, why were you alarmed? >> it's one thing to try leverage a meeting in the white house, it's another thing i thought to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration

of support, it was much more alarming, the white house meeting was one thing, security assistance was much more alarming. >> now, ambassador taylor, in your opening statement you outlined a very detailed time line and in fact, we have a written copy here and you included some phrases and words in quotations. did you take notes of this conversation on september 1st with ambassador sondland? >> i did. >> did you take notes related to most of the conversations if not all of them that you cited in your opening statement. >> all of them. >> what do those quotations you include in your opening statement reflect? >> they reflect my notes on the exact words that i heard on that call. so it was, if i put those in quotes, those are the words used on that phone call or in that

conversation. >> did you review those notes before you drafted your opening statement and came here to testify? >> i did. >> now is that how for example you remembered that ambassador sondland was on a train from paris to london during a call in july? >> that's correct. >> and you're aware, i presume, that the state department has not provided those notes to the committee, is that right? >> i'm aware. >> we don't have the benefit of reviewing them to ask you these questions. >> correct. i understand that they may be coming sooner or later. >> well, we would welcome that. >> you also testified earlier that ambassador sondland -- or ambassador taylor, that president trump had delegated some matters overseeing ukraine policy to ambassador sondland who's a big inaugural supporter of president trump, even though ukraine is not his domain of the european union, is that right?

>> several members -- several participants in the meeting, in the oval office with president trump, with the delegation to the inauguration of president zelensky told me of that conversation and it was at that meeting as i understand it from several participants that president trump asked the participants to work with mr. giuliani over ukraine policy. >> did you come to understand that ambassador sondland had a direct line of communication into president trump? >> i did. >> and you testified or rather in that text message, ambassador sondland said to call him after you wrote that. did you in fact call him? >> i did. >> what did he say to you. >> he said that i was wrong

about president trump's intent, that there was no quid pro quo. >> but did he say anything after that? did he describe to you, i'll refresh your memory, mentioned something in your opening statement that he had said that everything, you had that in quotes, was actually contingent on the initiate of these investigations, what did we mean by everything. >> what he meant by everything was the security assistance and the white house meeting. >> i believe you also testified that he said he had made a mistake in relaying a message to the ukrainians, what was that mistake? >> mistake he told me was earlier that he had told presumably president zelensky

that what was necessary for the white house meeting was the pursuit of these investigations. and he said he recognized that was a mistake. not just the white house meeting that was dependent on the investigations. he said it was no everything. including the security assistance. >> not just the white house meeting it was also the security assistance. >> yes, sir. >> even though president trump was saying repeatedly that there's no quid pro quo ambassador sondland relaid to you that the facts of the matter were that the white house meeting and the security assistance were conditioned on the announcement of these investigations is that your understanding? >> that's my understanding. >> you referenced a television interview and a desire for president trump to put zelensky in a public box, which you also

have in quotes, was that your notes. >> that's in my notes. >> what did you mean put zelensky in a public box. >> i understood that to mean that president trump through ambassador sondland was asking for president zelensky to very publicly commit to these investigations that it was not sufficient to do this in private, that this needed to be a very public statement. >> did you understand why it needed to be in public as opposed to a private confrontation sf. >> no further comment. >> in early september, did you come to understand that from your conversations with the ukrainians or other individuals that ukraine felt pressure to initiate these investigations because of the conditionality of the white house meeting and the

security assistance? >> mr. goldman, here's what i know, i got several questions, other officials got several questions as well, from ukrainians asking about the security assistance. so what i know is that the security assistance was very important to the ukrainians. they had begun to hear from ambassador sondland that the security assistance wasn't going to come until the investigations were pursued. way heard from the defense ministry, what the senators, what senator johnson and senator murphy heard in their conversation with president zelensky was the clear concern, the urgent concern the ukrainians had about the security assistance. >> now, you also describe a conversation that you had with ambassador sondland a week later on september 8th, and in that

conversation, in your opening statement, you described how am boss dor sondland used the term "stalemate" what did you understand the concern about stalemate to mean? >> ambassador sondland said that if president zelensky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate. he began by repeating this is not a quid pro quo but if the president zelensky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate and what i understood in that meeting, the meaning of stalemate that security assistance would not come. >> so even though he said the words no quid pro quo he went on

to say but the security assistance would not come unless these investigations would come you also describe in your opening statement, a discussion about president trump being a businessman who wanted to have people pay up before signing the check. what did you understand that to mean? >> this was an explanation that am bobassador sondland gave me about his understanding president trump's thought process. ambassador sondland -- president trump's a businessman. he was explaining to me the relationship, the understanding that a businessman would have when he's about to sign a check,

and by that he clearly meant that president trump was thinking about or had in front of him the possibility of providing security it was similar to writing a check to someone who you're about to send. he used that analogy very clearly to indicate that this would be -- this would require something. if that person owed him something before he signed the check, he wanted to get whatever he was owed paid back to him. ambassador volker used very similar language about a week later which indicates to me they had that conversation as well. >> did ukraine owe anything to the united states? >> mr. coleman, they didn't. they owed appreciation for the support and they were getting support and they appreciated