impeachment hearing. online more local news. westudio. of e page click and find more local news. or download our nbc bay a can w. explosive testimony that the president and his top aide did impose a quid pro quo on the release of millions of dollars of u.s. security assistance to ukraine. i think we're at the level to say fasten your seat belts. >> absolutely. this is a level at what line he would take. he's changed his testimony once and we'll hear more from him in

a few moments. his name is gordon sondland. he's probably the most anticipated witness yet. a developer who donated monday to the inaugural. -- he became the point person for the president or one of them on ukraine ant that has been described as a diplomatic fact channel. the connection to the president is at the heart of this inquiry, what he knew, what he talked to the president about and whether or not there really was a bribery attempt, a quid pro quo, aid in exchange for promise of investigation into political -- >> we've had an advance look. there will be people under the wheels of the bus. this begins moments from now. with us to follow it is moderator more "meet the press" chuck todd and legal analyst -- let's begin with jeff bennett on capitol hill. what is sondland set to testify to? >> good morning.

ambassador sondland is a key player. with a direct line to president trump. he's prepared to tell house investigators, in his view, mike pompeo and john bolton, the national security adviser were fully aware of what he, former ambassador kurt volker and rick perry, the so-called three amigos were doing as they worked alongside rudy giuliani, president trump's outside attorney to help run the trap in ukraine and democrats say to pressure officials that would be beneficial to president trump. sondland says this. he says they were working at the express direction, i'm reading from his opening statement. working at the express direction of the president of the united states. we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. we played the hand that we were dealt. beyond that, lester and savannah. sondland will tell this committee according to his opening statement that giuliani's demands of the

ukrainians, this is a quote, arranging a white house visit. mr. giuliani demanded that they make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 and burisma. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states and we knew the investigations were important to the president. this testimony clearly is compelling, it is apparently damaging to president trump's case. but his appearance here today sondland's appearance here today is a jump ball in this push and pull, this contest between democrats and republicans to control the narrative of the overall impeachment inquiry. what will matter the most is if sondland comes across as truthful and credible. if he doesn't, they will seize on that and try to make the point that sondland was presuming what it was that president trump wanted as opposed to working expressly as a result of president trump's direct orders. >> there was a credibility issue with sondland. he goes before this committee.

>> for every witness who comes before the committee but all the more so for him. because he came in, gave a deposition behind closed doors. later amended his testimony significantly on this issue of whether or not there was a quid pro quo. now we see this testimony if not changing outright being added to. i turn to neil. -- even though they work in the white house. here's a guy who gave a million bucks to the inaugural committee and a clear trump ally and appointed by president trump. how does that play into the republicans' strategy today. >> that's the most important thing. he's truly trump's guy. indeed trump pointed to sondland when this story unfolded. he said read his text message saying there's no quid pro quo.

he compares that text message and what trump was relying on which literally has a section called there was a quid pro quo and you realize how much trouble trump is in. >> sondland entering the committee chamber and chuck todd, this issue of the phone call, the july 26th phone call overheard with sondland and the president, he's going to have to go into detail about that. >> he is. it's going to be uncomfortable, especially when he has to likely make him reiterate what he said. >> he basically, according to his advance testimony, says he doesn't remember a lot of that colorful language. now he says he doesn't remember it. >> it is interesting when you put -- basically yesterday was gordonandid it. today sondland is going to say rudy giuliani did it. it is interesting here, they're sort of -- we went from nothing happened to, wait a minute, those guys -- >> this is going to be -- >> those guys ordered. >> i will say this. mike pompeo will be the

interesting new character that can surface. sondland makes it clear that -- mike pompeo says -- >> to lester's point, there has been testimony notably from bill taylor last week saying there was a real channel, the official channel in ukraine dealings and then a fact channel illegal. >> what sondland is about to tell this committee, there was not an irregular channel. we did what president trump told us to do which is deal with giuliani. we were assigned to it. bolton, the then national security adviser and mike pom p pay owe the second of state knew what we were doing. it's blessed by the national security officials at the highest level including the president it sounds like, neal. >> i think chuck is right to say that sondland is pointing the finger at giuliani in the testimony. but the first few pages of sondland's testimony make tleer

that giuliani was acting at the behest of the president. >> let's hear -- going to hear the gavel. >> i think they're about to gavel in. we could go to hallie real quick. hallie, what's the white house expecting today? >> well, the president is heading to texas later this morning. if he wants to talk about this, he'll take questions on the white house south lawn. if you look at the ambassador getting ready to begin. a couple of notes. you mentioned at the top of this, somebody is going to be thrown under the bus. that appears to be mike pompeo. gordon sondland says he did not want to work with rudy giuliani. he makes that very clear. he was doing it because the president told him to do it, which is significant. one other note here. when he about the quid pro quo, it's for a white house meeting. sondland does seem to stop short of saying that it was tied to security assistance. i would watch for republicans to push on that point today.

importantly, for democrats to try to draw that out to sondland. if he believes there's a quid pro quo, does he believe there was one for a security assistance. military aid money for those investigations as well. very importantly, did the president directly tell him to do that? he also does not dispute anything about the july 26th call, savannah. >> he doesn't. although he says he doesn't recall a lot of the colorful language. he remembers a lot of things. there was the case of a rapper accused in sweden. >> chuck, your knowledge of -- [ overlapping talking ]. >> in any event, he remembered sort of broad details from the call. he doesn't get into the color of the call. there has been testimony that suggests there was interesting language used on both sides of the call. >> hotel language. >> by the way, the july 10th meeting that was described so dramatically by the previous

witnesses that bolton abruptly says this meeting is over, sondland doesn't remember it that way. he doesn't remember himself. he says i do not recall any yell or screaming as others have said. >> come to order. good morning everyone. this is the fifth in a series of public hearings the committee will be holding as part of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry. without objection the chair is authorize fd to declare a recess at any time. there is a quorum present. we'll proceed today in the same fashion as other hearings. i'll make an opening statement and ranking member nunes will have an opportunity to make an opening statement. we'll turn to our witness to make a statement. audience members we respect your interest in being here. we ask for your respect in being here. as chairman, i'll make all necessary and appropriate steps to nan tan order and to ensure the committee is run in accordance with house rules and house resolution 660.

with that i recognize myself. give an opening statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump, the 45th president of the you united states. we'll hear from gordon sondland, the american ambassador to the european union. we're here today as part of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry because president donald trump sought to condition military aid to ukraine in a new ukrainian president in exchange for politically motivated investigations that trump believed would help his re-election campaign. the first investigation was of a discredited conspiracy theory that ukraine not russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election. second investigation that trump demanded into -- was into a political rival that he apparently feared most, joe biden. trump sought to weaken biden and to refute the fact that his own election campaign in6

been helped by russian hacking and dumping -- directed by vladimir putin to help trump. trump's scheme undermined military and dip low i can -- trump put his personal and political interests above those of the united states. as ambassador sondland would later tell career foreign service officer david holmes immediately after speaking to the president, trump did not give an expletive about ukraine. he cares about big stuff that benefits him like the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing. ambassador sondland was a skilled deal maker, but trying to satisfy directive from the president found himself embroiled in an effort to impress the ukrainian president that deviated from the norm of policy and process. in february ambassador sondland traveled to ukraine on his first

official trip to that country. while there, he met with marie yovanovitch and found her with a deep demand of internal dynamics. on april 21st, zelensky was elected president and spoke to president trump who congratulated him and said he would look into attending zelensky's inauguration but pledged to send someone at a very, very high level. between the time of that call and the inaugural on may 20, trump's attitude towards ukraine hardened. on may 13th, the president ordered vice president mike pence not to attend zelensky's inauguration opting instead to dub the three amigos, energy secretary rick perry, ambassador sondland and ambassador kurt volker, the special ambassador for ukraine negotiations. after returning from the inauguration, they briefed president trump on their encouraging first interactions with the new ukrainian administration.

they urged the president to meet with zelensky, but the president's reaction was decidedly hostile. the president's order was clear, however. talk with rudy. during this meeting, ambassador sondland became aware of what juligiuliani and the president interested in. it was a continuum he testified at his deposition starting at the may 23rd meeting ending up at the end of the line when the transcript of the call came out. it was a continuum, he would explain, that became more insidious over time. the three amigos were disappointed with trump's directive to engage juligiuliant vowed to press ahead. ambassador sondland testified we could abandon a white house meeting with zelensky which the group deemed crucial for the

relations or do as president trump directed. we chose the latter path. in the coming weeks, ambassador sondland got more involved with policy making starting with the june 4 u.s. admission to the eu independence day in brussels one month early. secretary perry breck tell and the state department counsel lar and sondland met with president zelensky whom sondland invited personally on the margins of the event. on june 10, 2019, secretary cal and volker and others, reviewed you crain strategy and decided that they would assist bill ambassador in kyev and discussed somehow involved. we felt comfortable with the strategy moving forward. two weeks later on june 27th, ambassador sondland called taylor to say that, quote, zelensky needed to make clear to

president trump that he was not standing in the way of investigations. on july 10, ambassador sondland and other officials met at the white house with a group of u.s. and ukrainian officials. participants in the meeting have told us that ambassador sondland invoked acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and the meeting sought by ukrainian president would happen only if ukraine undertook certain investigations. they abruptly ended the meeting upon hearing this. undeterred, they brought the delegation down to another part of the white house and was more explicit. according to witnesses, ukraine needed to investigate the bidens, burisma in the 2016 election interference if they wanted to get a meeting at all. following the this meeting in july, bolton said that he would not be part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this. sondland continued to press for a meeting but they were willing to settle for a phone call.

on july 21, texted sondland that president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously not merely as an instrument for washington domestic re-election politics. sondland responded absolutely. but we need to get the conversation started and the relationship built irrespective of the pretext. so that zelensky and trump could meet and all of this will be fixed. on july 25, the day of the trump zelensky call, volker had lunch in keefe and later texted the aide to say he had heard from the white house assuming president z he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down dates for a visit to washington. good luck. ambassador sondland spoke to president trump a few minutes before the call was placed but was not on the call.

during that now infamous phone call with zelensky, the expression of appreciation for u.s. defense support and requested to buy more missiles by saying i would like you to do us a favor, though. trump asked zelensky to investigate the discredit conspiracy theory and ominously look into the bidens. neither had been part of the official preparatory material for the call but they were in donald trump's personal interest and the interest of his re-election campaign. and the ukrainian president knew about both in advance, in part because of ambassador volker and ambassador sondland's effort to make him aware of what the president was demanding. around this time ambassador sondland became aware of the suspension of security assistance to ukraine which had been announced on a video conference on july 18th. telling us that it was extremely odd that nobody involved in making and implementing policy

towards ukraine knew why the aid had been put on hold. during august -- said that the gist of every call what was going to go in the press statement. in august text message with volker sondland said i think they want the deliverable which was a deliverable public statement that president trump wanted to see or hear before a white house meeting could happen. on september 1, ambassador sondland participated in vice president pence's bilateral meeting with zelensky in warsaw during which they raised the security assistance. following that meeting, sondland approached the seen i can't remember ukrainian officials to tell them what could help them move the aid i general would go to the mic and announce he was opening the burisma investigation. sondland told taylor he made a mistake telling the ukrainians

an oval office meeting was dependent on an investigation, in fact, everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. even the announcement by the prosecutor general would not satisfy the president. on september 7, sondland spoke to the president and told tim morrison and bill taylor about the call shortly thereafter. the president said that although this was not a quid pro quo, if president zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. more over, announcement by the prosecutor general would not be enough. president zelensky must personally, announce personally that he would open the investigation. sondland told taylor that him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. the check referred to here was the u.s. military assistance to ukraine and ukraine has to pay

up with investigations. around early september, volker and sondland sought to close the deal that zelensky would announce slegs. after taylor texted sondland that i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. 16 days later, the transcript of the july 25th call was made public and the american people learned the truth of how our president tried to take advantage of a vulnerable ally. now it is up to congress as the people's representatives to determine what response is appropriate. if the president abused this power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he thought to condition extort or bribe an ally into conducting investigations and did so by withholding official acts, a white house meetings or hundreds of millions of dollars be up to us to decide whether those acts are compatible with the office of the presidency.

finally, i want to say a word aboutpompeo's obstruction of this investigation. we have not received a single document from the state department and as ambassador sondland's opening statement today will make clear, those documents bear directly on this investigation and this impeachment inquiry. i think we know now, based on a sample of the documents attached to ambassador sondland's statement that the knowledge of this scheme was far and wide. and included, among others, secretary of state pompeo, as well as the vice president. we can see why secretary pompeo and president trump have made such a concerted and across the board effort to obstruct this investigation and this impeachment inquiry.

and i will just say this. they do so at their own peril. i remind the president that article 3 of the impeachment articles drafted against president nixon was his refusal to obey the subpoenas of congress. with that, i recognize ranking member nunes for any remarks that he would wish to make. >> thank the gentleman. we learned last night story time last night we get story time first thing this morning. ambassador sondland, welcome. g. but welcome to the fifth day of this circus. as i've noted before, the democrats on this committee spent three years accusing president trump of being a russian agent. in march 2018, after a year long investigation, intelligence committee republicans issued a 240-page report describing in detail how the russians meddled

in the 2016 elections and making specific recommendations to improve our election security. announcing the report as a whitewash and accusing republicans of subverting the investigation, the democrats issued their own report. focusing on their now debunked conspiracy theory that the trump campaign colluded with russia to hack the election. notably, the democrats vowed at the time to present a further, quote, comprehensiveep. for some completely pl their russia hoax, the democrat comprehensive report. we're still waiting. this episode shows how the democrats have exploited the intelligence committee for political purposes for three years. culminating in these impeachment hearings in their mania to attack the president, no conspiracy theory is too

outlandish for the democrats. time and time again, they floated the possibility of some far-fetched mal fee sans by trump, declared the dire need to investigate it and suddenly dropped the issue and moved on to their next asinine theory. a sam j of their accusations and insinuations includes these. the russians gave trump advance agent as described in the dossier. access to emails stolen by the dnc in the hillary clinton campaign. the trump campaign based some of the activities on the stolen documents. trump received nefarious materials from the russians through a trump campaign aide. trump laundered russian money through real estate deals. trump was blackmailed by russians through his financial exposure with deutsche bank. trump had a diabolical plan to build a trump tower in moscow.

trump changed the republican national committee platform to hurt ukraine and benefit russia. the russians laundered money. trump's son-in-law lied about russian contacts while obtaining security clearance am. it's a long list of charges. all fall. i could go on and on and on. bill spare you for these moments. clearly, these ludicrous accusations don't reflect committee members who are honestly searching for the truth. they're the actions of partisan transformed it into the impeachment committee. abandoned the core oversight functions and turned it into a beachhead for ousting an elected president from office. you have to keep that history in mind as you consider the democrats' latest catalog of supposed trump out rages.

granted, a friendly call with the ukrainian president wouldn't seem to rise to the same level as being a russian agent. but the democrats were running out of time. if they waited any longer, their impeachment circus would intervene with their own candidate's 2020 campaign. so you have to give them points for creativity in selling this absurdity as an impeachable offense. all this explains why the democrats have gathered zero republican support in the house of representatives for their impeachment crusade. in fact, the vote we held was a bipartisan vote against this impeachment inquiry. speaker pelosi, chairman schiff and chairman nadler, those behind the crusade all proclaimed that impeachment is so damaging to the country that it can only proceed with bipartisan support. are those declarations suddenly

no longer true? did impeachment become less divisive? of course not. they know exactly what kind of damage they're inflicting on this nation. but they've passed the point of no return. after three years of preparation work, much of it spearheaded by the democrats on this committee using all the tools of congress to accuse, investigate, indict and smear the president, they stoked a frenzy gsstanatical su they can no longer control. ambassador sondland, you are here today to be smeared.ecia yo this country. in closing, democrats have

zeroed in on an anonymous whistle-blower complaint that was cooked up in cooperation with the democrats on this very committee. they lied to the american people about that cooperation and refuse to let us question the whistle-blower to discover the truth. meanwhile, the democrats lash out against anyone who questions or casts doubt on this spectacle. when ukrainian president zelensky denies anything improper happened on the phone call, the democrats say that he's a liar. when journalists report on ukraine election meddling and hunter biden's position on the board of corrupt ukrainian companies, the democrats label thim conspiracy theorists. when the democrats can't get any traction for their allegations of quid pro quo, they move the goalposts and accuse the president of extortion, then bribery, and last resort,

obstruction of justice. the american people sent us to washington to solve washington, not to raise scorched earth political warfare against the other party. this impeachment is not helping the american people, it's not a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars and it's not improving our national security. finally, the democrats fake outrage that president trump used his own channel to communicate with ukraine. remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that our first president, george washington, directed his own diplomatic channels to secure a treaty with great britain. if my democratic colleagues were around in 1794, they'd probably want to impeach too. mr. chairman, this morning we

have transmitted to you a letter exercising our rights under h res 660 to subpoena documents and witnesses. we take this step because you've failed to give fairness and objectivity in this inquiry. we need to subpoena hunter biden ane door depositions as well as documents, hunter biden's firm, rose mant zen ka and the whistle-blower. in the interest of some basic level of fairness, we expect you to concur with these subpoenas. i'll submit that letter for the record. yield back the pal balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman.isfter ambassador gordon sondland. i'm sorry, this morning. it was a long day yesterday. gordon sondland is the u.s. representative to the european

union with the rank of ambassador. before joining the state department pass bass sondland was the founder and ceo of providence hotels, a national owner and operator of full service hotels. ambassador sondland was engaged in charitable enterprises. two final points before our witness is sworn. first witness depositions as part of this inquiry were in unclassified -- unclassified in nature and all open hearings will be held at the unclassified level. any information that may touch on classified information will be addressed separately. second, congress will not tolerate any reprisal, right of reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any u.s. government official testifying before congress, including you or any of your colleagues. if you would please rise and raise your right hand. i will begin by swearing you give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth the testimony you are about to witness answered in the affirmative.

>> the mike owe phone is sensitive. please speak directly into it. without objection, your written statement will be made a part of the record. with that, you are now recognized for your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you ranking member nunes. i appreciate the opportunity to speak again to the members of this committee. first, let me offer my thanks to the men and women of the u.s. department of state who have committed their professional lives to support the foreign policy work of the united states. in particular, i want to thank my staff at the u.s. mission to the european union. your integrity, dedication and hard work often performed without public acclaim or recognition serve as a shining example of true public service and i am personally grateful to

work beside you each and every day. it is my honor to serve as the u.s. ambassador to the european union. the u.s. mission to the eu is the direct link between the states and the european union and its members. america's longest standing allys and one of the largest economic blocks in the world. every day, i work to support its strong, united and peaceful europe. strengthening our ties with europe serves both american and european goals. as we together promote political stability and economic prosperity around the world. i expect that few americans have heard my name before these events. so before i begin, my substantive testimony, please let me share some of my personal background. my parents fled europe during the holocaust.

escaping the atrocities of that time, my parents left germany for uruguay and then in 1953, washington, where i was born and raised. like so many immigrants, my family was eager for freedom and hungry for opportunity. they raised my sister and me to be humble, hard working and patriot patriotic. and i am forever grateful for the sacrifices they made on our behalf. public service has always been important to me. as a lifelong republican, i have contributed to initiatives of both republican and democratic administration. in 2003, i served as a member of the transition team for oregon the ve serve on various statewide boards. in 2007, president george w. bush appointed me as a member of the commission on white house fellows. i worked with president bush on charitable events for his

foundation's military service initiative and i also worked briefly with former vice president joe biden's office in connection with the vice president's nationwide anti-cancer initiative at a local northwest hospital. and, of course, the highest honor in my public life came when president trump asked me to serve as the united states ambassador to the european union. the senate confirmed me as an vote and i assumed the role in brussels on july 9, 2018. although today is my first public testimony on the ukraine matt matter, this is not my first time cooperating with this committee. as you know, i've already provided ten hours of deposition testimony. and i did so despite directives from the white house and the state department that i refuse

to appear. as many others have done. i agreed to testify because i respect the gravity of the moment and i believe i have an obligation to account fully for my role in these events. but i also must acknowledge that this process has been challenging. in many respects less than fair. i have not had access to all of my phone records, state department emails and many, many other state department documents. and i was told i could not work together the relevant files and information. having access to the state department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom i spoke and met and when and what was said. as ambassador, i've had hundreds of meetings and calls with

individuals, but i'm not a note taker or a memo writer. never have been. my job requires that i speak with heads of state, senior government officials, members of the cabinet, the president, almost each and every day. talking with foreign leaders might be memorable to some people, but this is my job, i do it all the time. my lawyers and i have made for these materials. yet, these materials were not provided to me. and they have also refused to share these materials with this committee. classified and, in fairness, and in fairness should have been made available. in the absence of these materials, my memory, admittedly has not been perfect. and i have no doubt that a more

fair, open and orderly process of allowing me to read the state department records and other materials would have made this process far more transparent. i don't intend to repeat my prior opening statement or attempt to summarize ten hours of previous deposition testimony. however, a few critical points have been obscured by noise over the last few days and weeks. and i'm worried that the bigger picture is being ignored. so let me make a few key points. first, secretary perry, ambassador volker and i worked with mr. rudy giuliani on ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the united states. we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt.

we all understood that if we refused to work with mr. giuliani, we would lose a very lations between the united states and ukraine. so we followed the president's orders. second, although we disagreed giuliani, at the time we did not believe that his role was improper. as i previously testified, if i had known of all of mr. giuliani's dealings or associations with individuals, some of whom are now under criminal indictment, i personally would not have acquiesced to his participation. still, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong. third, let me say precisely,

because we did not think that we were engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decision makers at the national security council and the state department knew the important details of our efforts. the suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false. i have now identified certain state department emails and messages that provide c contemporaneous support for my view. these show that the leadership of the state department, the national security council and the white house were all informed about the ukraine effort from may 23rd, 2019, until the security aid was

released on september 11, 2019. i will quote from some of those messages with you shortly. fourth, as i testified previously, as i testified previously, mr. giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. mr. giuliani demanded that ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigation of the 2016 election dnc server and burisma. mr. giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the united states and we knew these investigations were important to the president. fifth, in july and august of 2019, we learned that the white house had also suspended security aid to ukraine.

i was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid. i was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid as the ukra e ukrainians needed those funds to fight against russian aggression. d.tried diligently to ask why but i never received a clear answer. still haven't to this day. in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, i later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and burisma as mr. giuliani had demanded. i shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with senator ron johnson. and i also shared my concerns

with the ukrainians. finally, at all times i was acting in good faith. i was acting in good faith. as a presidential appointee, i followed the directions of the president. we worked with mr. giuliani because the president directed us to do so. we had no desire to set any conditions. we had no desire to set any conditions on the ukrainians. indeed, my own personal view, which i shared repeatedly with others was that the white house and security assistance should have preceded without pre conditions of any kind. we were working to overcome the problems given the facts as they existed. our only interest and my only interest was to advance long-standing u.s. policy and to

support ukraine's fragile democracy. now, let me provide additional details, specifically about ukraine and my involvement. first, my very first days as ambassador to the eu, which was starting back in july of 2018, ukraine has featured prominently in my broader portfolio, ukraine's political and economic development are critical to the long-standing and long lasting stability of europe. more over, the conflict in eastern ukraine and crimea remains one of the most significant security crisis for europe and the united states. our efforts to counterbalance an aggressive russia depend in substantial part on a strong ukraine.

on april 21, 2019, zelensky was president of ukraine in an historic election. in the support of secretary pom poe owe i attended the inauguration as part of the u.s. delegation which was led by energy secretary rick perry. the u.s. delegation also included senator johnson, ukraine's session envoy volker and lieutenant colonel alex vindman, the national security council.rati was not my first four days after assuming my post as ambassador in july of 2018, i received an official delegation from the government of then ukraine, the meeting took place at the mission of brussels and prearranged by career eu missions staff and i've had

several meetings since then in brussels. later, in february of 2019, i worked well with u.s. ambassador marie yovanovitch in making my first official visit to ukraine where a u.s. navy visit to the strategic black seaport of odessa. the reason i raise these prior ukraine activities, the meetings in brussels, my visit to odessa, is to emphasize that ukraine has been a part of my portfolio since my time as an ambassador. any claim that i muscled my way into the relationship is simply false. on may 20th, the u.s. delegation developed a very positive view of the ukraine government. we were impressed by president

zelensky's wanting to promote a strong relationship with the united states. we admired his -- and excited making the changes necessary to support a greater western economic investment. and we were excited that ukraine might after years and years of lip service finally get serious about addressing its own well-known corruption problem. with that enthusiasm, we returned the white house on may 23rd to brief president trump. we advised the president of the strategic importance of ukraine and the value of strengthening the relationship with president zelensky. to support this reformer, we asked the white house for two things. first, a working phone call between presidents trump and zelensky and second, a working oval office visit.

in our view, both were vital to cementing the u.s./ukraine relationship. demonstrating support for ukraine in f russian aggression and advancing broader u.s. foreign policy interests. unfortunately, president trump wa he expressed concerns that the ukrainian government was not serious about reform and he even mentioned that ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. in response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, president trump directed us to, quote, talk with rudy. we understood that talk with rudy meant talk with mr. rudy giuliani. the president's personal lawyer. let me say again, we weren't happy with the president's directive to talk with rudy.

we did not want to involve mr. giuliani. i believed then as i do now that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for ukraine matters. nonetheless, based on the president's direction, we were schedule the white house phone unquestionably in our foreign policy interest or we could do as president trump had directed and talk with rudy. we chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us. over the course of the next several months, secretary perry, ambassador volker and i were in communication with mr. giuliani. secretary perry volunteered to make the initial call with mr. giuliani given their prior

relationship. ambassador volker made several of the early calls and generally informed us of what was discussed. i first communicated with mr. giuliani in early august, several months later. mr. giuliani emphasized that the president wanted a public statement from president zelensky committing ukraine to look into the corruption issue. mr. giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election, including the dnc server and burisma as two topics of importance to the president. we kept the leadership of the state department and the nsc informed of our activities. and that included communications with secretary of state pompeo, his counselor, his executive secretary, lisa kenna and also

communications with ambassador bolton, dr. hill, mr. morrison and their staff at the nsc. they knew what we were doing and why. on july 10, 2019, senior ukrainian national security officials met with ambassador bolton, ambassador volker, dr. hill, secretary perry, myself and several others in washington, d.c. during that meeting, we all discussed the importance of the two action items i identified earlier. one, a working phone call and two, a white house meeting between presidents trump and zelensky. from my perspective, the july 10th meeting was a positive step toward accomplishing our shared goals. while i am now aware of accounts of the meeting from dr. hill and lieutenant colonel vindman,

their recollections of those events simply don't square with prerequisite of investigations but i do not recall any yell or screaming or abrupt terminations as others have said. instead, after the meeting, ambassador bolton walked outside with our group and we all took some great pictures together outside on the white house lawn. more important, those recollections of protests do not square with the documentary record of our interactions with the nsc in the days and weeks that followed. we kept the nsc apprised of our efforts, including specifically our efforts to secure a public statement from the ukrainians that would satisfy president trump's concerns.

for example, on july 13 -- this is three days after that july 10th meeting -- i e-mailed tim morrison. he had just taken over dr. hill's post as the director and i met him that day for the first time. i wrote to mr. morrison with these words. the call between zelensky and potus -- president of the united states -- should happen before 7/21. which is the parliamentary elections in ukraine. sole purpose to give potus reassurances of new sheriff in town, corruption ending on bundling moving forward and -- i emphasized any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. goal is for potus to invite him to oval. volker, perry, bolton and i strongly recommend.

mr. morrison acknowledged and said, thank you. and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues. again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigation. moreover, i've reviewed other state department documents, some of which are not currently in the public domain, detailing mr. giuliani's efforts. for example, on july 10th, the very same day that ambassador volker, secretary perry and i were meeting with the ukraine officials in washington, ambassador taylor received a communication that mr. giuliani was still talking with ukrainian prosecutor in what messages -- ambassador taylor wrote to us as follows.

-- just had a meeting with ukraine foreign minister. taylor said the ukrainians were quote, very concerned about what was told to them. that according to rg, meaning rudy giuliani, the zelensky/potus meeting will not happen. volker responded, good grief, please tell him to let the u.s. government representative speak for the u.s. lieu seng owe has his own self-interest here. taylor confirmed that he had communicated that message to the ukrainians. he added, i briefed ulrich this afternoon on this. referring to breck tell. everyone is in the loop. three things are critical about this whatsapp exchange.

>> first while the ukrainians will -- they were communicating without our knowledge. ambassador taylor, ambassador volker and i were all surprised by this. second, mr. giuliani was communicating with the reportedly corrupt ukrainian prosecutor and discussing whether a zelensky trump meeting was going to happen, again, without our knowledge. third, with this alarming news, ambassador taylor briefed the counselor to secretary of state pompeo. and even as late as september 24th of this year, secretary pompeo was directing kurt volker to speak with mr. giuliani. in a whatsapp message, kurt volker told me in part, spoke with rudy per guidance from s. s is the state department official designator.

spoke with rudy per guidance from s. look, we tried our best to fix the problem. while keeping the state department and the nsc closely apprised of the challenges we faced. on july 25th, presidents trump and zelensky had their official call. i was not on the call. i don't think i was invited to be on the call. in fact, i first read the transcript on september 25th, the day it was publicly released. all i had heard at that time was that the call had gone well. looking back, i find it very odd, very odd that neither i nor ambassador volker ever received a detailed readout of that call with the biden references. now there are people who say they had concerns about the call, but no one shared any

concerns about the call with me at the time, which frankly would have been very helpful to know. on july 26th, ambassador taylor, ambassador volker and i were all meeting with president zelensky. the timing of that trip, immediately after the call between presidents trump and zelensky was entirely, entirely coincidental. the kyev meetings were scheduled well between the date that the white house fixed the call. during the meeting i do not recall president zelensky discussing the substance of his call with president trump nor did he discuss any request to investigate vice president biden reich we all later learned was rted comments from ambassadors volker and taylor.

aide, andre your mack. i don't recall the specifics of our conversation but i believe the issue of the investigations was probably a part of that agenda or meeting. also, on july 26th, shortly after our kyiv meeting, i spoke by phone with president trump. the white house, which has finally, finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys confirms this. the call lasted five minutes. i remember i was at a restaurant in kyiv and i have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. again, given mr. giuliani's demand that president zelensky make a public statement about investigations, i knew that investigations were important to president trump. we did not discuss any