to congress? democrats say, if the answer to all of those questions is yes, then they will likely move forward with articles of impeachment. >> we'll have to meet that standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. what's the republican strategy today? >> reporter: well, republicans are going to say that these two individuals, while highly respected, they've got more than a half century of foreign policy experience between the two of them, that they're inferring a lot of the information they have. that they talk to individuals who spoke to individuals who spoke to the president. that they don't know for sure that the president wanted to withhold this aid in order to pressure the president of ukraine and other ukrainian officials to do what he wanted, which was to open an investigation. the problem is thesese two witnesses, like all the others who have testified, norah, have told a very similar story about what they saw and heard. >> nancy, stand by as we wait for these hearings to begin any moment now. i want to bring in paula reed at

the white house and has been talking to her sources there. paula, do we know, will the president be watching these hearings? >> reporter: he will be watching these hearings, norah, but the white house insists he won't watch the whole thing. he has other business to attend to. staffers will be watching very closely. up until now, the president has been a one-man war room handling impeachment messaging on his own. a krcbs news poll shows 56% of americans don't think he's doing a very good job. they will try a rapid response to try to counter what comes out in these hearings. they will go on twitter, have staffers out. we have to inject some skepticism because so far we've seen almost none of that from the white house. i was here yesterday asking about strategy and there did not appear to be any war room. this morning we see more of the same. the president has been on twitter. he's been quoting fox news and insisting that people go and

read the transcripts. >> let's talk about substance. the president's personal attorney, rudy giuliani, who is at the center of a lot of this, was mentioned more than 1,200 times in the closed-door depositions. explain for everyone, what is his role in all of this? >> reporter: giuliani is clearly a liability for the president because he is -- as you noted, he is allegedly at the center of this conspiracy to oust the former ambassador to ukraine. now, i am told giuliani is still part of the president's personal legal team, but he is not supposed to be participating in anything related to ukraine. last night he published an an op-ed in "the wall street journal." i spoke with the white house. they said they did not koord wi coordinate with him at all. the question is bouncing around washington, why is he still on the president's legal team? the president has said publicly and sources have told me, norah, the president believes rudy

giuliani brings gravitas to his defense. the president still sees giuliani around the time of 9/11, the mayor of the world. that's why he still has this position on the president's legal team, despite the fact he's at the center of the impeachment inquiry and cbs news has confirmed he's under investigation by the southern district of new york, by federal investigators in new york for possibly violating federal lobbying laws and his efforts to oust the former ambassador to ukraine. he hired a team of lawyers. nor norah, we know, it is never good when your lawyers have to hire lawyers. >> that's true, paula. thank you. want to bring in senior correspondent and "face the nation" moderator margaret brennan. today, too, is the day of the diplomats, right? we're going to hear from these two experts on u.s. policy with ukraine. explain what you know they're going to testify, because we've talked to their attorneys and

done some reporting, but also the larger question about the trump administration's policy to ukraine and russia. >> it's going to be fascinating to watch these nonpoliticians, these career public servants, who unlike the people asking questions of them, are not very comfortable in the public spotlight. they were subpoenas delivered to them to compel them to appear today as foreign service officers. what you'll hear is a description by subject matter experts. they're going to come back time and again to why ukraine is stuck in this tug of war between vladimir putin's russia and the west. and they will emphasize why it was so dangerous from their perspective and undermining of u.s. national security to have even the hint of military aid withheheld. remember, ukraine is caught in a hot war with russia in its east. in 2004 putin sent in militias to annex crimea. the trump administration has been providing aid, something

president obama did not do in terms of providing lethal assistance, but president trump's been very reluctant. it is professionals like those you'll hear from today who have urged the continuation of the support to ukraine, even though president trump time and again has raised his personal concerns, not with corruption but specifically with the idea he sees ukraine as a country that's been out to get him. he tells advisers often, he refers back to 2016, the fact his former campaign manager, paul manafort, is now serving time behind bars with financial crimes that have ties to ukraine, a country rampant with corruption. he sees this as a country that has been a thorn in his side and feeds his concern that somehow this is a political scheme out to get him. you'll hear all of that. the diplomats today will try to come back to the facts. this concern of unofficial channels. >> these are just about to get

under way. major garrett, our chief washington correspondent, is here with us as well. major, this is a big day. it's an historic day. >> impeachment leaves a mark on everyone. the congress that initiates it, the president that's the subject of that investigation. and if a president's impeached -- that's the chairman. >> public hearings, committee will be holding as part of the house's impeachment inquiry. without objection the chairman can authorize recess at any time so there is a quorum present. i will make an opening statement and then ranking member nunes will have an opportunity to make a statement. then we'll go to witness statements and then to questions. for audience members, we welcome you and we respect your interest in being here. in turn we ask for your respect as we proceed with today's hearing. mr. chairman, it is the intention of the committee to proceed without interruptions. >> mr. chairman, may i make a parliamentary inquirinquiry?

>> you may make your inquiry. >> this is our first set of hearings under new set of rules. house rule 660 gives you the discretion to allow yourself and ranking member periods of extended questions of up to 45 minutes each before other members are allowed to ask questions. if possible, we'd 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 the quorum in the committee. as chairman, i'll take all

necessary and appropriate steps to maintain order and ensure the committee is run in accordance with house rules and house resolution 660. with that i recognize myself to give an opening statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump, the 45th president of the united states. in 2014 russia invaded the united states' ally, ukraine, to fulfill vladimir putin's desire to build a russian empire. in the following years, 14,000 ukrainians died as they battled superior russian forces. earlier this year volodymyr zelensky was cted pre of ukraine on a platform of ending the conflict and tackling corruption. he was a newcomer to politics, and immediately sought to establish a relationship with ukraine's most powerful patron, the united states. the questions presented by this

impeachment inquiry is whether president trump sought to exploit that ally's vulnerability and invite ukraine's interference in our elections, whether president trump sought to condition official acts such as a white house meeting or u.s. military assistance on ukraine's willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his re-election campaign. and 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 inconsequential as impeachment. the founders did not intend impeachment be employed for mere

differences over policy, they made impeachment a constitutional 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 and the bidens since vice president joe biden was seen as a strong challenger to president trump. giuliani also promoted a debunked conspiracy that it was ukraine, not russia, that hacked the u.s. 2016 election. the u.s. intelligence agencies have stated unequivocally that it was russia, not ukraine, that interfered in our election, but giuliani believed this conspiracy theory known as crowdstrike, shorthand for the company that discovered the russian hack, would aid his client's re-election. giuliani started a smear

campaign against the u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch. on april 29th a state department official told her thatle although she had done nothing wrong, president trump had lost confidence in her. with the sidelining of yovanovitch, the stage was set for the establishment of an irregular channel in which giuliani and later others, including gordon sondland, an influential donor to the president's inauguration, now serving as ambassador to the european union, could advance the president's personal and political interests. yovanovitch's replacement in kiev, ambassador bill taylor, is a west point graduate and a vietnam veteran. as he began to better understand the scheme through the summer of 2019, he pushed back, informing deputy assistant secretary 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 this 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 chief of staff mick mulvaney, a white house meeting desperately sought by the ukrainian president with president trump would happen only if ukraine took an investigation into the energy sector which was understood to mean burisma and specifically the bidens. national security adviser bolton ended the meeting and said he would not be part of whatever drug deal mulvaney and sondland are cooking up on this, end quote. on july 18th representative of the office management of budget, the white house agency that oversees federal spending, announced on a video conference that mulvaney at the direction of the president was freezing nearly $400 million in security assistance authorized and

appropriated by congress in which the entirety of the u.s. national security establishment supported. one week after that donald trump would have the now infamous july 25th phone call with ukrainian president zelensky. during that call trump complained the u.s. relationship with ukraine had not been reciproc reciprocal. later zelensky thanks trump for his support in the area of defense and says that ukraine is ready to purchase more javelins, an anti-tank weapon that was of importance. trump's immediate response, i would like you to do us a favor, though. trump then requested zelensky investigate the discredited 2016 crowdstrike conspiracy theory and even more ominous, the ominous look into the bidens. neither of these investigations was in the u.s. national

interest. and neither was the official preparatory taerl fmaterial for call. both, however, were in donald trump's personal interest and any interest of his 2020 re-election campaign. the ukrainian 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 sondland, even sondland would describe as becoming more insidious. taylor texted sondland, quote, are we now saying 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 at 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 one declaration after taylor's testimony, sondland would admit to telling ukrainians at a september 1st meeting in warsaw, quote, the

resumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we have been discussing for many weeks. the president's chief of staff confirmed trump's efforts to coerce ukraine 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 over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. that is going to happen. the video of that confession is 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 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 obstruction of the constitutional duties constitute additional grounds for impeachment. if the president can simply refuse all oversight, particularly in the context of an impeachment proceedings, 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 and abuse of power in this administration or any 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 get over it. if we find that the president of the united states abused his power and invited foreign interference in 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 of 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 its powers, setting ambition against ambition so we become no monarchy still have meaning? these are the questions we must ask and answer, without rancor, if we can, without party favor and without prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities.

benjamin franklin was asked what kind of a country america was to become. a republic, he answered, if you can keep it. the fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump is, can we keep it? and i now recognize ranking member nunes for any remarks you may wish to make. >> thanks, gentlemen. in a july open hearing of this committee following publication of 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 pitiful finale of a three-long hearing by corrupt media, partisan bureaucrats to overturn the results of 2016 election. after the spectacular implosion of their russia hoax on july

24th in which they spent years denouncing any republican who 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 democrats on this committee falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between president trump and russians. we should forget about them reading fabrications of trump/russia collusion from the steele dossier into the congressional record. we should also forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of 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 to our committee, claiming that donald trump jr. was clolluding

with wikileaks, and countless other deceptions, large and small, that make them the last people on earth with the credibility to hurl more preposterous accusations at their political 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 president trump would not be surprised to see all the typical signs that this is a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign. for example, after vowing publicly that impeachment requires bipartisan support, democrats are pushing impeachment 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 capitol 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, democrats repeatedly redacted from the transcripts the name of alexander chalupa, a contractor who worked with ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the trump campaign, which he provided to the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign. the democrats rejected most of the republican witness requests resulting in horrifically one-sided process where 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. if 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. democrats hid these contacts from republicans and then lied

about them to the american people on national television. i've 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 friending and spreading the steele dossier which relied on russian sources. now they accuse president trump of malfeasance in ukraine, whether 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 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 and what did he do for them and did his position affect any u.s. government 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 like to welcome you here. i'd 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've been cast in the low-rent ukrainian sequel. i'll conclude by noting the immense damage the politicized bureaucracy has done to american's faith in government. though executive branch employees are charged with implementing the policies set by our president, who is elected and responsible to the american people, elements of the civil service have decided they, not the president, are really in charge. thus, as we'll learn in these hearings, after expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about foreign corruption on the campaign trail, president trump outraged the bureaucracy by acting skeptically about foreign aid and expressing

concerns about foreign corruption. officials' alarm at the president's action was typically based on secondhand, thirdhand and even fourthhand 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 in the indications of ukrainian election meddling that deeply concern the president at whose pleasure they serve. despite all their dissatisfaction with president trump's ukraine policy, the president approved a 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 believed 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. with that i yield back. >> today we are joined by ambassador william taylor and deputy assistant secretary of state george kent, both of whom are appearing under subpoena. ambassador taylor has served our country for over half a century. he attended u.s. military academy at west point, graduating in the top 1% of his class, before serving as an infantry officer in the u.s. army for six years, including with 101st airborne division during the vietnam war.

ambassador taylor led a rifle platoon in vietnam and was awarded the bronze star medal and the air medal for valor. following his military service, he worked at the department of energy as a staffer in the u.s. senate, as an adviser as well to u.s. ambassador to nato. in the 1990s, ambassador taylor coordinated u.s. assistance to eastern europe and the former soviet union and later served in afghanistan, iraq and worked on the middle east peace process. in 2006, 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 executive vice president of the nonpartisan institute of peace when in june 2019 secretary of state mike pompeo asked him to return to lead the u.s. embassy in kiev.

mr. george kent, currently serves as assistant deputy of secretary in european overseeing policy towards ukraine and other countries. he has served twice in ukraine from 2004 to 2007. he was the deputy political counselor including during it is orange revolution. and from 2015 to 2018, he served as deputy chief of mission in kiev. since joining the foreign service in 1992, mr. kent has served in poland, uzbekistan and thailand. he served as senior anti-corruption coordinator and oversaw programs to strengthen 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 tolerate any reprisal, threat of reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any u.s. government official for

testifying before congress, 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 the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> 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. >> state your parliamentary inquiry. >> mr. chairman, when can we anticipate a response to our november 9th letter requesting certain individual witnesses to be called? >> the gentle woman should be aware the three witnesses the minority requested are scheduled for next week. >> those are your witnesses, mr. chairman. what about the additional six witnesses? >> the gentle woman may inquire about additional witnesses or make a request for additional witnesses following the witness' testimony. >> i have a point of order under

hres 660. >> state your point of order. >> mr. chairman, will you be prohibiting witnesses from answering members' questions as you have in the closed-door depositions? >> as the gentle woman should know, she was present for the depositions -- >> which i was. >> for some of them, yes. >> correct. >> the only times i prevented witnesses from answering questions, along with their counsel, is when it was apparent members were seeking to out the whistle-blower. we will do everything necessary to protect the whistle-blower's identity. i'm disturbed to hear members of the committee who have in the past voiced strong support for whistle-blower protections seek to undermine those protections by outing the whistle-blower. >> mr. chairman, only one member and their staff -- >> and the gentle woman -- >> on this committee has the direct knowledge of the whistle-blower. >> gentle woman will suspend. you asked a parliamentary inquiry and i'm responding. we will not permit the outing of the whistle-blower and questions

along those lines, counsel will inform their clients not to respond to. if necessary, i will intervene. otherwise, i want members to feel free to ask any questions they like. >> mr. chairman, may -- >> i would like to make a motion. >> i'm sorry. the gentleman is not recognized. i'm responding to the gentle woman's point of order. otherwise members will have any opportunity to ask questions they like. >> we subpoena the whistle-blower for a closed door secret deposition so that the questions that should be appropriately asked 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 committee speak to that issue rather than just the chairman. i move that we -- >> i thank the gentleman. >> and the whistle-blower. >> it won't be my single decision. we'll entertain a motion to subpoena any witness, but after the witnesses have had an opportunity to testify.

motion will be in order, but that motion will be suspended until after the witnesses -- >> thank you. >> do you anticipate when we would vote -- >> for purposes, mr. jordan seeks recognition. >> for clarification, do you know when we'll vote on to have the whistle-blower in front of us? something you, the 435 members of congress, you are the only member who knows who that individual is and your staff is the only staff of member of congress who have had a chance to talk to that individual. we would like that opportunity. when will that happen in the proceedings today? >> first, that is want a false statement. i do not know the identify of the whistle-blower and i will make sure that identity is protected. as i said to mr. conaway, you will have a chance after the witness' testimony. i now recognize the witnesses. before i do, i want to emphasize

the microphones are sensitive so speak directly into them. without objection your written statements will be made part of the record. with that, deputy assistant secretary kent, you are recognized for your opening statement. ambassador taylor, you are recognized immediately thereafter for your opening statement. >> good morning. my name is george kent and i am the deputy assistant secretary of state for eastern europe and the caucuses. i have served proudly as a nonpartisan career foreign officer for more than 27 years under five presidents, three republican and two democrat. as i mentioned in my opening 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 sworn the oaths 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 an appe annapolis, my father served a full honorable 30 years including captain as a nuclear ballistic submarine during the height of the cold war. five great auncles served in th army and navy in world war ii. tom taggert was stationed in the philippines at the time of pearl harb harbor. he served 3 1/2 years in a japanese prison of war camp unbroken. he returned to service 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 limits placed on me by the law and this process. i will begin with opening comments on a key principle at the heart of what brings me before you today. to wit, principled public service enduring our national public service. 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 dough minim dominion and the warped legacy of soviet union behavior. as i stated in my closed-door deposition last month, you don't step into the public arena of diplomacy in active 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 the mark. it was unexpected and most unfortunate, however, to watch some americans, including those who allied themselves with corrupt ukrainians in pursuit of private agendas launch attacks on dedicated public servants advancing u.s. 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 interests 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-sighted policies like the martial plan in a rules-based order protected

by the collective service provided by nato, western europe recovered and thrived. after the carnage of world war ii, not notwithstanding the shadow of the iron curtain. u.s.'s security and prosperity contributed to our security and prosperity. support of ukraine's support 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 entire foreign service career is not possible without a ukraine whole, free and at piece, including crimea territories currently occupied by russia, represented by the red on the map. looking forward, the trump administration's national security strategy makes clear that global strategic challenge now before us, great power competition with rivals such as russia and china and 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 and its broader campaign of maligned influence, but of the greater geopolitical challenges now facing the united states. ukraine's popular revolution of dig dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-russia 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. ukraine civil society answered the challenge. they formed battalions of citizens, they crowd sourced funding for their own weapons, body armor and supplies. they were the 21st century

ukraine equivalent of our own minutemen of 1776. buying time for a regular army to reconstitute. since then, more than 13,000 ukrainians have died on ukrainian soil from russian aggression. america's support has been critical in this regard. by analogy, the american colo colonies may want have prevailed with the british might without the help of transatlantic friends after 1776. in an echo of lafayette's assistance to general george washington's army and admiral john paul jones' army, congress has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over 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. ultimately, ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the united states

within nato. similarly to von stuben at valley forge, u.s. and ally trained near the polish border and elsewhere. they helped rewrite military education for ukraine's next generation as von stuben did for america's first. in supporting ukraine's brave assistance 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 previous governing elite, seating president volodymyr zelensky with a cabinet average age of 39 and

parliament average age of 41. after that mandate, favor years after is a thirst for justice. without a reformed judicial sector, ukrainian society will remain unsettled. foreign investors, including american investors, will not bring the great investment needed to ensure that ukraine's long-term prosperity is secured. this is why the principled promotion 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 inconsistently with the core principle of the rule of law comes at great peril. i am grateful to all members of congress and staffers, many sitting here today, who have traveled to ukraine over the past five years and appropriated

billions of dollars of assistance in support of our primary policy goals. those funds increase ukraine's ability to fight russian aggression in the defense, cyber and energy spheres and empower state institutions and civil society to undertake systematic reforms and tackle corruption. 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. by all of us, i mean those of us in the ledgislative and executie branches, both parties, the interagency community working in kiev, with civil society and transatlantic allies and partners. we cannot allow our resolve to waiver since too much is at stake. not just for ukraine and 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 ten themes from my testimony -- i outlined my experience with long-standing

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 institutions this committee is investigating, my knowledge and understanding is sometimes firsthand and sometimes comes from others involved in 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 institutional capacity so 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 are

criminal nexuss for activity in the united states, they should pursue the case. if we think there is a criminal act overseas that rviolates the law, we can pursue that. it could be through the fbi or treaty mechanisms such as mutual legal treaty. as a general principle i don't 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 long-standing problem of corruption in ukraine included exposure to a situation involving the energy company burisma. the owner whose frozen assets abroad we attempted to recover on ukraine's behalf. in 2015 i raised questions with

the deputy prosecutor general about why the investigation had been terminated based on our belief prosecutors 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 office of vice president in february of 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 effort by any u.s. official to shield bursma from scrutiny. we advocated reinstituting a investigation of the founder, including the 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 to start a campaign to smear

yovanovitch. the chief agitators on the ukrainian side were the fame corrupt prosecutors i encountered, particularly leschenko. ukrainian anti-corruption officials and reform-minded civil society groups in ukraine. during the late summer and spring of 2019 i became alarmed as those efforts bore fruit. they led to the ousting of yovanovitch and 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. 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 today, 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 27th 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 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 be questions focusing on the identity of people in the intelligence community. these were redacted from my deposition transcript. if such questions arise 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, lieutenant colonel vindman and dr. hill. they 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 u.s. national security policy who also were born abroad. my former professor and his fellow immigrant henry kissinger. the yovanovitches and vindmans fled nazi oppression to a stronger, more secure america. that honorable transition of transatlantic ties goes back to the founding of our republic. we would not have been secured without the choice of european officers, the french-born lafayette and, german born van stuben and poles to come to the new world and fight for our cause of freedom and the by the way birth of a new country free from imperialism.

>> 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 am aware that the committee has requested my testimony as part of impeachment proceedings, i am not here to take one side or the other. or 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 as well as my views about the strategic importance of ukraine to the united states. by way of background, it has been a privilege for me to serve my country and the american people for more than 50 years starting as a cadet at west point, infant triofficer for six years including the 101st

airborne in vietnam, department of energy, as member of senate staff, with nato, and with the 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 nor the civil service. i'm nonpartisan and 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 is 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 is clearly in our national interest to deter further russian aggression. finally, as the committee is aware, i wrote that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the united states would be crazy. i believed 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 to return to kiev to lead our embassy in ukraine. it was and is a critical time

for u.s./ukraine relations. i served as ambassador to uk from 2006 to 2009. having been nominated by george w. bush and stayed engaged with ukraine. across the responsibilities i have had in public service, ukraine is the highlight. so, secretary pompeo's offer was compelling. since i left ukraine in 2009, the country continued to turn to the west. 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 protests in the winter of 2013 that drove the 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 at the point of russian army rifles. the russians absurdly claimed that 97% voted to join russia. in early april putin sent his security forces into southeastern ukraine to get illegal armed formations and puppet governments. 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 dombas and more die each week. in july 2014, these russian-led forces shot down a civilian airliner en route from amsterdam to malaysia, killing all 298 people on board. we, the europeans and most of the west impose economic sanctions and kicked the russians out of the g-8. 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 is this security assistance that is at the heart of the controversy that we are discussing today. the pro-russian president, who was run out of kiev in 2014, had let the russian armed forces deteriorate to the point of ruin. in response to the russian invasion, the new ukrainian authorities, with an amazing outpouring of support from regular ukrainian people, rebuilt the army nearly from scratch. spending more than 5% of ukrainian gdp on defense since the war started. the whole ukrainian nation fiercely responded to the russian attack. the nation united like never before. a ragtag army developed into a strong, fighting force and the united states played a vital role. since 2014, you and congress have provided over $1.6 billion

in military assistance to ukraine. the security assistance provides small unit training at an army base in the western of the country. it provides ambulances, night vision devices, communications equipment, counter battery radar, ships and finally, weapons. the security systems demonstrates our commitment to resist aggression and defend freedom. during the 2014 to 2016 period, i was serving outside of government and joined two other former ambassadors to ukraine and urging the obama administration officials at the state department, defense department and other agencies to provide lethal defense weapons to ukraine in order to deter further russian aggression. i also supported much stronger sanctions on russia. i was pleased when the trump administration provided javelin anti-tank missiles and an enacted stronger sanctions. all to say, i cared about ukraine's future and the

important u.s. interests there. so, when secretary pompeo asked me to go back to ki yev, i want to say yes, but it was not an easy decision. the former ambassador, marie yovanovitch, has been treated poorly, both in kiev and washington. i feared those problems were still present. i consulted both my wife and the respected former senior republican official who has been a mentor. i will tell you that my wife, in no uncertain terms, strongly opposed the idea. the mentor counselled if your country asks you to do something you do it if you can be effective. i can be effective only if the u.s. policy of strong support for ukraine, strong diplomatic support along with robust security, economic, and technical assistance were to continue. if i had the backing of the secretary of state to implement that policy. i worried about what i had heard considering the role of rudy

giuliani who had made several controversial statements about ukraine and u.s. policy toward the country. so during my meeting with secretary pompeo on may 28th, i made clear to him and the others present that if the u.s. policy towards ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there and i could not stay. he assured me that the policy of strong support for ukraine would continue and that 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 reconfirmed by the senate, my official position was charge d affairs i was the acting ambassador to ukraine. i returned to kiev carrying the original copy of the letter president trump signed the day after i met with the secretary. in that letter president trump congratulated president zelensky

on his election victory and invited him to a meeting in the oval office. once i arrived in kiev, i discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances. first the encouraging, president zelensky was reforming ukraine in a hurry. he appointed reformist ministers and supported long-stalled anti-corruption legislation. he took quick executive action including opening ukraine's high anti-corruption court, with a new parliamentary majority stemming from snap elections, president zelensky changed the ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunities from the source of raw corruption for two decades. 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 it confusing

and unusual arrangement for making u.s. policy towards ukraine. there appeared to be two channels of u.s. policy making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. as the acting ambassador i had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic processes, including the bulk of the u.s. effort to support ukraine against russian invasion and to help it defeat corruption. my colleague deputy asonia sotomayorent secreta-- deputy at of state george kent were my main points of contact. this channel is responsible for formulating and overseeing the implementation of u.s. foreign policy with respect to ukraine, a policy that has consistently enjoyed strong bipartisan support both in congress and in all administrations since ukraine's independence from russia in 1991. at the same time, however, i encountered an irregular, informal u.s. channel of u.s.

policy making with respect to ukraine. unaccountable to congress. a channel that included then special envoy kurt volker, u.s. ambassador to the european union, 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 in the irregular one to the extent that ambassadors volcker and sondland included me in certain conversations. although this irregular channel was well connected in washington, it operated mostly outside of official state department channels. the irregular channel began when ambassador volcker, ambassador sondland, secretary perry and senator ron johnson briefed president trump on may 23rd upon their return from president zelensky's inauguration. the delegation was as enthusiastic as i would soon become about the new ukrainen

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 did not share their enthusiasm for a meeting with president zelensky. when i arrived in kiev the actions of both the regular and irregular channels of foreign policy appeared to serve the same goal, a strong u.s./ukraine partnership. it became clear to me by august that the channels had diverged in their objectives. as this occurred i became increasingly concerned. in late june both xanchannels w trying to facilitate a visit by president zelensky at the white house for a meeting with president trump which president trump promised in his congratulatory letter of may 29th. ukrainians were eager for the meeting to happen. but during my subsequent communications with ambassadors volcker and sondland they

related to me that president wanted to hear from zelensky before scheduling the meeting in the oval office. it was not clear to me what this meant. on june 27th ambassador sondland told me during a phone conversation president zelensky needed to make clear to president trump that he, president zelensky, was not standing in the way of investigations. i sensed something odd when ambassador sondland told me on june 28th that he did not wish to include most of the regular inner agency participants in a call planned with president zelensky later that day. ambassador sondland, ambassador volcker, secretary perry, and i were on this call, dialing in from different locations. however, ambassador sondland said he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added president zelensky to the call. also, before president zelensky joined the call, ambassador volcker separately told the u.s.

participants that he, ambassador volcker, planned to be explicit with president zelensky in a one-on-one meeting in toronto on july 2nd. in that meeting ambassador volcker planned to make clear what president zelensky should do to get the white house meeting. i did not understand what this meant, but ambassador volcker said he would relay that president trump wanted to see rule of law, transparency, but also specifically cooperation on investigations to get to the bottom of things. once president zelensky joined the call the conversation was focused on energy policy and the war. president zelensky also said he looked forward to the white house visit. president trump had offered in his may 29th letter. by mid-july it was becoming clear to me that the meeting president zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 u.s. elections. it was also clear that this

condition was driven by the irregular policy channel i had come to understand was guided by mr. giuliani. in a regular nsc conference call on july 18th i heard a staff person from the office of management and budget say there was a hold on security assist tons ukraine but could not say why. for the end of an otherwise normal meeting a voice on the call, the person was off screen, said that she was from omb and her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending on security assistance for ukraine until further notice. i and others sat in astonishment. ukrainians were fighting russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the assurance of u.s. support. all that 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, the regular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of long-standing u.s. policy. it followed a series of ncs interagency meetings starting at the staff level and quickly reaching the level of cabinet secretaries. at every meeting the unanimous conclusion was that security assistance should be resumed, the hold lifted. at one point the defense department was asked to perform an analysis of the febtiveness of the assistance. within a day the defense department came back with a determination that assistance was effective and should be resumed. my understanding was that the secretaries of defense and state, the cia director and the national security adviser sought a joint meeting with the president to convince him to release the hold, but such a meeting was hard to schedule and the hold lasted well into september. on july 9th n inn a phone call with senior director for european and russian affairs

fiona hill and director of european affairs lieutenant colonel alex vindman at the nsc they tried to assure me they were not aware of any official change in u.s. policy towards ukraine, omb's announcement notwithstanding. they did confirm that the hold on security assistance for ukraine came from chief of staff mick mulvaney who maintained a skeptical view of ukraine. in the same july 19th phone call, they gave me an account of a july 10th meeting with ukrainian and american officials at the white house. they told me that part way through the meeting ambassador sondland had connected investigations with an oval office meeting for president zelensky, which so irritated then national security adviser john bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting telling dr. hill and lieutenant colonel vindman they should have nothing to do with domestic politics an directed dr. hill to brief the lawyers. dr. hill said that ambassador

bolton referred to this deal as -- this as a drug deal. after the july 10th meeting. ambassador bolton opposed a call between president zelensky and president trump out of concern it would be a disaster. needless to say, the ukrainians in the meetings were confused. ambassador bolton in the regular ukraine policy making channel wanted to talk about security, energy and reform. dor sondland would participate in the irregular channel wanted to talk about the connection between a white house meeting and ukrainian investigations. also during our july 19th call, dr. hill informed me that ambassador volcker had met with mr. giuliani to discuss ukraine. this caught me by surprise. the next day i asked ambassador volcker about that meeting but received no response. i began to sense that these two separate decision making chams, the regular and the irregular, were separate and at odds.

later that day, i received text messages on a three-way whatsapp text conversations with roll kerr and sondland provided by ambassador volker. ambassador sondland said a call between president trump and president zelensky would take place soon. ambassador volker said that what was most important is for zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues if there are any. on the next day, july 20th, i had a phone conversation with ambassador sondland while on a train from paris to london. ambassador sondland told me, that he had recommended to president zelensky that he use the phrase i will leave no stone unturned with regard to investigations when president zelensky spoke with president trump. also on july 20th, i had a phone

conversation with alexander dontook, president zelensky's national security adviser who emphasized president zelensky did not want to be used as an instrument in a u.s. re-election campaign. the next day i texted both ambassador the 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 president zelensky along with ambassador volker the following day i received no read out of the call from the white house. the ukrainian government issued a short cryptic 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 the front line in northern dombass to receive a briefing from the commander of forces on the line of contact. arriving for the briefing in the military headquarters the commander thanked us for the security assistance, but i was aware that this assistance was on hold which made me uncomfortable. ambassador volker and i could see the armed and hostile russian-led forces on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line of contact. russian led forces continued to kill ukrainians in the war one or two a week. more ukrainians would undoubtedly 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 july 25th trump/zelensky call i heard from anybody inside the u.s. government was during a phone call i had with tim morrison, dr. hill's recent

replacement at the nsc on july 28th. mr. morrison told me that the call could have been better, and that president trump had suggested that president zelensky or his staff meet with mr. giuliani and president -- and attorney general william barr. i did not see any official read out of the call until it was publicly released september 25th. by august i was becoming more concerned. august 16th i exchanged text messages with ambassador volcker which i learned that an dri yourmock a senior adviser had asked that united states submit an official request for an investigation into burisma's alleged violations of ukrainian law. if that is what the united states desired. a formal u.s. request to the ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper and i recommended to ambassador volker that we stay clear.

to find out the legal aspects of the question, however of course i gave him the name of deputy attorney general who i thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking a u.s. request for a foreign investigation. by mid-august, because the security assistance had been held over a month for no reason that i could discern, i was beginning to fear that the long-standing u.s. policy of support for ukraine was shifting. i called state department counselor brekdal to discuss this on august 21st. he said he was not aware of a change in policy but would check on the status of the security assistance. my concern deepened august 22nd during a phone conversation with mr. morrison. i asked him if there had been a change in policy, a strong support for ukraine, to which he responded it remains to be seen. he told me during this call 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 if the policy of strong support for ukraine were to change i would have to resign based on my call with mr. morrison, i was preparing to do so. just days later, on august 27th, ambassador bolton arrived in kiev and met with president zelensky. during their meeting security assistance was not discussed. as far as i knew, the ukrainians were not aware of the hold until august 29th. i on the other hand was all too aware of and still troubled by the hold. near the end of ambassador bolton's visit i asked to meet him privately during which i expressed to him my serious concern about the withholding of military assistance to ukraine while the ukrainians were defending their country from russian aggression. ambassador bolton recommended i send a first person cable to secretary pompeo directly relaying my concerns. i wrote and transmitted such a

cable on august 29th describing the foley i saw in withholding military aid to ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when russia was watching closely to gauge the level of american support for the ukrainian government. 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 for ukraine. the same day that i sent my cable to the secretary, mr. yurmok contacted me concerned asking about the withheld security assistance. the hold the white house placed on assistance had just been made public that day in a political story. at that point i was embarrassed i could give him no explanation for why it was withheld.

it had still not occurred to me that the hold on security assistance could be related to the investigations. that however would change. on september 1st, just 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, but at the last minute had canceled because of hurricane dorian. just hours before the pence/zelensky meeting i contacted to let him know that delay of u.s. assistance was an all or nothing proposition in the sense that if the white house did not 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 that at the bilateral meeting or shortly thereafter the white house would lift the hold but this was not to be. on the evening of september 1st i received a read out of the pence/zelensky meeting over the phone from mr. morrison during

which he told me that president zelensky had opened the meeting by immediately asking vice president about the security cooperation. the vice president did not respond substantively but said that he would talk to president trump that night. the vice president did say that president trump wanted the europeans to do more to support ukraine and that he wanted the ukrainians to do pomore to figh corruption. during the same phone call with mr. morrison, he described a conversation ambassador sondland had with mr. yurmock in warsaw. ambassador sondland told him that 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 the sondland/yermock conversation and understand mr. morrison testified at his deposition that ambassador sondland proposed it might be sufficient for the ukrainian prosecutor general to

commit to pursue the investigations as opposed to president zelensky, but this was the first time that i had heard that the security assistance, not just the white house meeting, was conditioned on the investigations. very concerned on that same day, september 1st, i sent ambassador sondland a text message saying we are saying the security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations. ambassador sondland responded asking me to call him which i did. ambassador as opposed toland told me president trump told him he wants president zelensky to state publicly ukraine will investigate burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondsland told me he now recognized that he had made a mistake by telling ukrainian

officials. in fact, ambassador sondland said, everything was dependent on such an 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 was not in the interest of either president trump or president zelensky. at that point, i asked ambassador sondland to push back on president trump's demand. ambassador sondland pledged it try. i suggested the possibility that ukrainian prosecutor general rather than president zelensky would make a statement about the investigations, potentially in coordination with attorney general barr's probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections. the next day, september 2nd, mr.

boris called to inform me they asked him to come to his hotel in warsaw. he expressed president zelensky's concern about the possible loss of u.s. support for ukraine. in particular, mr. morrison relayed to me that the inability of any u.s. officials to respond to the ukrainian's explicit questions about security assistance was troubling them. i was experiencing the same tension in my dealings with the ukrainians including a meeting i had had with the defense minister that day. 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 getting drawn into u.s. domestic politics. i had been making and continued to make this point to all of my official ukrainian contacts but the odd push to make president zelensky publicly commit to investigations of burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election 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 in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between ambassador sondland and president trump. mr. morrison said he had a sinking feeling after learning about this conversation from ambassador sondland. according to mr. morrison, president trump told ambassador sondland he was not asking for a quid pro quo. president trump did insist that

president zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of biden and 2016 election interference. and that president zelensky should want to do this himself. mr. morrison said that he told ambassador bolton and the nsc lawyers of this phone call between president trump and ambassador sondland. the following day on september 8th, ambassador sondland and i spoke on the phone. he confirmed he had talked to president trump, as i had suggested a week earlier, but that 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 believed this was the same conversation between ambassador sondland and president trump that mr. morrison described to me on september 7th. ambassador sondland also said that he had talked to president zelensky and mr. yourmock and had told them 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. i understood a stalemate to mean ukraine would not receive the much needed military assistance. ambassador sondland said this conversation concluded with president zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on cnn. shortly after that call with ambassador sondland i expressed my strong reservations in a text message to ambassador sondland stating that my nightmare is they, the ukrainians, give the interview and don't get the security assistance. the russians love it and i quit and i was serious. the next day, september 9th, i said to ambassador volcker and sondland the message we send with the decision on security assistance is key with the hold we have already shaken their faith in us. i also said i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance

for help with the political campaign. ambassador sondland responded about five hours later that i was incorrect about president trump's intention, the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind. during our meeting -- 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 businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. volker used the same language several days later while we were together at the european strategy conference. i argued to both that the explanation made no sense. ukrainians did not owe president trump anything and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was crazy as i had said in my text message to ambassador sondland and volker on september 9thp finally on

september 11th i learned that the hold had been lifted and security assistance would be provided. i was not told the reason why the hold had been lifted. the next day i personally conveyed the news to president zelensky and the ukrainian foreign minister and reminded mr. yourmock of the high strategic value of bipartisan support for ukraine and the importance of not getting involved in other country's elections. my fear at the time was that since ambassador sondland told me president zelensky agreed to do a cnn interview he would make a statement regarding investigations that would have played into domestic u.s. politics. i sought to confirm that president zelensky was not planning to give such an interview to the media while he initially confirmed that on september 12th, i noticed during a meeting on the morning of september 13th that president zelensky's office that mr. yourmock looked uncomfortable in response to the question. again, i asked mr. donnielook to confirm there would be no cnn interview he did.

on september 25th, at the u.n. general assembly session in new york city president trump met president zelensky face to face and also released the transcript of the july 25th call. the united states gave the ukrainians virtually 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 come to understand well before then that investigations was a term ambassadors volker and sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections and investigations of burisma and the bidens. last friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on july 26th. while ambassador volker and i

visited the front a member of my staff accompanied ambassador sondland, sondland met with mr. yer mack. following that meeting in the presence of my staff 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. ambassador sondland told president trump the ukrainians were ready to move forward. following the call with president trump, the member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland responded that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden, which 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. as the committee knows i reported this information through counsel to the state department's legal adviser as well as to counsel for both the majority and the minority of

this committee. it's my understanding that committee is following up on this matter. mr. chairman, i recognize that this is rather a lengthy recitation of the events of the past few months, told from my vantage point in kiev, but i always -- i also recognize the importance of the matters your committee is investigating and i hope that this chronology will provide some framework for your questions. as i mentioned in my october 22nd deposition, the information in quotes in my testimony are based on my best recollection as well as 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 allally itself with e united states. it has been violently attacked

by russia which continues its armed aggression against ukraine to this day. if we believe in the prince. of the sovereignty of nations on which our security and the security of our friends and allies depend, 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 funding both civilian and military and political support. 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 you have been hearing about for the past two weeks. it's a rank russ story about whistleblowers, mr. giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos,

corruption and interference in elections. in this story, ukraine is merely an object. but there's another story, a positive, bipartisan one. in 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, eager to join western institutions and enjoy a more secure and prosperous life. this story describes a nation developing an inclusive democratic nationalism not unlike what we in america in our best moments feel about our diverse country. less concerned about what language we speak, what religion if any we practice, where our parents and grandparents came from, more concerned about building a new country. and i'm now looking forward to your questions.

>> i thank you both for your testimony and i now recognize myself and majority counsel for 45 minutes of questions. >> mr. chairman -- >> i would like to begin by following up on something that you have disclosed today and you disclosed earlier to majority minority but it is new information for the committee. you said in your testimony that one of your staff was present with ambassador sondland on the day after the 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, could overhear the president on the phone with mr. sondland, is that right? >> that's correct. >> so the president must have been speaking loud enough on the phone, a cell phone i take it? >> it was a cell phone. >> the president must have been speaking loud enough for your staff member to be able to overhear this?

>> it was. >> and what your staff member could overhear was president trump asking ambassador sondland about, quote, the investigations, is that right? >> that's correct. >> i think you testified also that you had come to understand that the term investigations was a term that ambassador sondland as well as volker used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections and to the investigations of burisma and the bidens, is that correct? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> your staff member overhears the president asking about the investigations, burisma and the bidens in se2016 and the ambassador 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 what president trump thought of ukraine, his response was that president trump cares more about the investigations of biden? is that right?

>> and burisma, yes, sir. >> and i take it the import of that 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 that? >> mr. chairman, the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. one of the components of that assistance is counter battery 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. so it is a deterrent effect that these weapons provide. it's also the ability, it gives the ukrainians the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate an end to the war, negotiating with the russians. this also is a way that would reduce the number of ukrainians who would die. >> i take it if the provision of the u.s. military assistance would save ukrainian lives, that any delay in that assistance may also cost ukrainian lives, is that true? >> mr. chairman, of course it's hard to draw any direct lines between any particular element of security assistance and any particular death on the battle

field but it is certainly true that that assistance had 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 a ukrainian soldier lost their life while you were visiting? >> we keep very careful track of the casualties and i noticed on the next day, the information that we got that 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 game tuge the level of suppo for the ukrainian government. why 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 negotiations, 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 the ukrainians to negotiate against the russians, with the russians for an end to the war, depends on united states and other international support. if we withdraw or suspend or threaten to withdraw our security assistance, that's a message to the ukrainians, but it's at least as important as your question indicates, mr. chairman, to the russians who are looking for any sign of weakness or any sign that we are withdrawing our support ukraine. >> when the ukrainians learned of the suspension of the military aid either privately or

when others learned publicly, the russians would be learning also? 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. >> it would. >> people watching, i'm sure, are interested in how military assistance and diplomatic support affects ukraine, but even more so interested in how does this affect our national security? i think you said that if we believe in a principle of sovereignty of nations where countries get to determine their own economic, political and security alliances 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's sovereignty? >> mr. chairman, as my colleague, deputy assistant secretary george kent described, we have a national security policy, national defense policy, that identifies russia and china as adversaries. the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understanding, that 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, on those violations, then that will continue. and that, mr. chairman, affects us, it affects the world that we live in that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren. this affects the kind of world that we want to see. that affects our national interests very directly. ukraine is on the front line of that conflict. >> i want to thank you both for your decades of service to the country and i now recognize mr. goldman for questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador taylor, on the heels of your discussing the importance of the security assistance to ukraine, i want to go to the end of the timeline where you learned that 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 important -- because of the importance of security assistance, that we had 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 a political campaign, made no

sense. it was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. it was illogical. it could not be explained. it was crazy. >> when you say all of what we were trying to, what do you mean by we? >> i mean that the united states was trying to support ukraine as a frontline state against russian 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. that's -- it was not just the united states. it was all of our allies. >> when you reference 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 -- giuliani in public for months as a way to

get information 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 released. >> 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? >> well, as we've talked earlier

today, the possibility of a white house meeting was being held contingent to an 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 a -- as the ultimate sign of endorsement and support from the united states. >> and 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 a new president in ukraine? >> it would primarily boost his leverage to negotiate with vladimir putin about the russian occupation of 7% of ukrainian territory. >> mr. kent, is pressuring

ukraine to conduct what i believe you've called 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 policies, particularly in promoting the rule of law, are designed to help countries and in eastern europe and central europe, that is overcoming the legacy of communism. in the communist system and in particular the prosecutor general office was used to suppress and persecute citizens, not promote the rule of law. in helping these countries reach their own aspirations to join the western community of nations, and live lives of dignity, helping them have the rule of law with strong institutions is the purpose of our policy. >> so in other words, it is a purpose of our foreign policy to encourage foreign nations to

refrain from conducting political investigations, is that right? >> correct. in fact, as a matter of policy, not of programming, we oftentimes raise our concerns usually in private with countries that we feel are engaged in selective political prosecution and persecution of their opponents. >> ambassador taylor, now that we've 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 which should also be on the screen in front of you and if you could read what you wrote to them. >> are we now saying that

security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? >> and ambassador sondland responded call me. >> he did. >> what information had you learned that prompted you to write this text message? >> i had learned that in warsaw after the meeting vice president pence had with president zelensky, ambassador sondland had had meetings there and had described to mr. yermack the assistance 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 previously you were alarmed to learn this. why were you alarmed? >> it's one thing to try to 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 -- 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 timeline 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 recited in your opening statement? >> all of them, mr. goldman. >> and what are those quotations that you included 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 that meant that 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 remember that ambassador sondland was on a train from paris to london during a call in july? >> that's correct. >> and you are aware, i presume, that the state department has not provided those notes to the committee, is that right? >> i am aware. >> so 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, ambassador sondland, or ambassador taylor, that president trump had delegated some matters overseeing ukraine policy to ambassador sondland, who is a big inaugural supporter of president trump, even though ukraine is not in 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 on ukraine policy. >> did you examicome to underst that ambassador sondland had a direct line of communication in to president trump? >> i did. >> and you testified or rather in that text message ambassador sondland says to call him after you wrote that. did you, in fact, call him? >> i did. >> and what did he say to you? >> he said that i had -- i was

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

yermak that what was necessary for the white house meeting was the pursuit of these investigations. and he said he recognized that that was a mistake. it was not just the white house meeting that was dependent on the investigations. he said it was now everything. it included the security assistance. >> so it was not just the white house meeting, it was also the security assistance? >> yes, sir. >> even though president trump was saying repeatedly there is no quid pro quo, ambassador sondland relayed 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. >> now, you reference a television interview and a desire for president trump to put zelensky in a public box,

which you also have in quotes. was that in your notes? >> it was in my notes. >> what did you understand that to mean, to 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. >> and did you understand why it needed to be in public? as opposed to a private confirmation? >> no further information on that. >> now during this time period 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 the security assistance was very important to the ukrainians. they had begun to hear from ambassador sondland that the security assistance was not going to come until the investigations were pursued. what i heard from the defense minister, what the senators, what senator johnson and senator murphy heard in their conversation with president zelensky, was the strong -- the clear concern, the urgent concern, that ukrainians had about the security assistance. >> now you also described a conversation that you had with ambassador sondland a week later on september 8th.

in that conversation in your opening statement you described how ambassador sondland used the term stalemate. what did you understand the concern about a stalemate to be? >> ambassador sondland said that if president zelensky did not clear things there were

no quid pro quo but the security assistance will not come unless investigations are done. >> that's what was meant by stalemate. >> you described in your opening statement a discussion you had 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 ambassador sondland gave me about his understanding of president trump's thought process. ambassador sondland is a businessman. president trump is 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 assistance to ukraine. it was similar to writing a to writing a check to someone you're about to send. he used that analogy very clearly to indicate that 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 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? >> they didn't. they owed appreciation for the suppor a