against u.s. policy that would have underminded the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine as in other countries in the pace. >> those policies championed by ambassador yovanovitch. you also testified in october 15th in your deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country. refocestutionsesgatingresidentf rt ofhose necessary reforms? was it on that list of you sir, indeed was it on any list. >> they, they weren't. >> in facthas be misuse of prosecutors precisely to conduct investigation of political opponents. that's a leg is a i dare suggest from the soviet era when you steatd in your testimony

prosecutors in the kgb and i scwoat you now instruments of oppression. >> i said that and i believe it's true. >> finally, mr. kent, for as long as i can remember, u.s. foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled entrants and democratic values notably freedom of speech, press awe assembly religion, free and fair open elections and the rule of law. mr. kent, when american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals, doesn't that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of those democratic values. >> i believe it makes it more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. >> how is that, sir? >> well, thrice an credible -- there's been an issue of credibility hearing

diplomats on the ground one thing and hearing leaders say something else. >> would you agree >> iould. >> would you add how it would make it more difficult for you to do your job, sir. >> our credibility is based on respect for united states. and if we damage that respect it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. >> anyone looking at the facts can see what happened was ausof. anyone looking at the facts can see that what happened was unethical. anyone looking at the facts can see, anyone looking at the facts can see that what went on was just plain wrong. yield back, mr. cman. 18 ante1 that there

was a delay on sending hard earned tax dollars of the american people to ukraine. she testified in her deposition corruption is not just prevalent in yo ukraine it's the system. so our president said time out. time out. let's check out this new guy. let's see if zelensky's the real deal. this new guy who got elected in april whose party took power in july, let's see if he's legitimate. now keep in mind as has already been discussed in 2018, president trump had already done more for ukraine tha. president trump who doesn't like foreign aid wanted the european countries to do more knew how corrupt ukraine was did more than obama because he gave them

etvelins to fight the rhesus. themles. when it came time to check out this new guy president trump said let's see if he's legit. interactions with senior u.s. officials in that time frame. one was of course the phone call. the july 25th phone call between president trump and presi face meetings with other senior u.s. officials. guess what. not one of those interactions, not one where security assistance dollars linked to investigating burisma or biden. guess what did happen in those 55 days? u.s. senators, ambassador bolten, vice president pence all became convinced that zelensky was in fact worth the risk. he was in fact law jift and a real deal and -- legit and

relevant deal and was told to release the money and that's exactly what president trump did. over the next few weeks we're going to have more witnesses like today the democrats are going to practiced in here soano efore go i e presiden ambassador sondland said in his deposition where he said ambassador taylor recalls that mr. morrison told ambassador taylor that i told mr. morrison i conveyed this message to warst zelensky. if you can follow that that's the democrat's plan and why they want to impeach the president. that's what we're going to hear in the next couple weeks. no matter how many witnesses they bring in here four facts will not change have not changed will never change. the call shoips no linkage between dollars t th

importantly as has been pointed out the ukrainians didn't take any specific action relative to investigation to get the money released. now there is one witness, one witness that they won't bring in front of us. they won't bring in front of the american people. that's the guy who started it all, the whistleblower. mof con, only one gets to know who that person is. only one member of congress has the staff that gets to talk to that person. the rest of us don't. only chairman schiff knows who the is whistleblower is. we will never get the chance to see the whistleblower raise his right hand to tel nothing but the truth. we'll never get that chance more importantly the american people won't get that chance. this anonymous so-called

whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge with bias against the president who worked with joe biden who is the reason we're all sitting here today will never get a chance to question that individual. democrats are trying to impeamp the president based on all that, all that, 11 and-a-half months before ele credibility motivations his bias. said this last week. this is a sad day. this is a sad day for this country. you think about what the democrats have put our nation through for the last three years. started july of 2016 when they anizens and based onomp this the american people see through this, they understand the facts that support the president, they understand this process is unfair and they see through the whole darn sham. with that i yield back.

>> mr. wel welch. >> i would be happen two to have the person come in and testify. president trump is welcome to take a sated right there. [. [laughter] >> there's no despot abo enormous power the president has the question is whether in this case there was an abuse of that power. the president can fire ambassador for any reason whatsoever. the president can change his policy as he did when he owned the door for turkey to go in and invade kurdistan. despite opposition from many of his senior advisors. a president could change his position and our position on ukraine but is there

there is because our execution says no is above the law. that limit is that one cannficer personal gain. the law prohibits any one of us here on the dias from seeking foreign assistance in our campaigns. the question for us is whether the use of power by the president was for the benefit of advancing his political interest in the 2020 campaign. and by the way, my colleagues, if the president wants to attack joe biden and his son he's free to do it all fair and square this campaigns. he's just not free to change our foreign policy unless he gets his way to assist him in that campaign. that's a line he can't cross. now you all have been very clear about what our continuous

foreign policy was. amy lding aid intefered with achieving our national security goals. >> mr. well much on welch, one r security goals is to resolve conflicts in europe. there is one major conflict in europe, it's a fighting war. our national security goals in support of ukraine, in support of a broader strategic approach to europe is to facilitate that negotiation is to try to support yow cranyowukrainewhen it suppo. >> in historical consent, you and ambassador taylor provided, we have 70 years a piece after

the war in which we lost over 400,000 american livcribedated f us up her the constituents we represent. is that a fair statement. >> that's a fair statement. >> i want to do three dates too. i only have a little time but july 24, july 25 and july 26. july 24th, director mueller testified about his investigation and he established beyond a doubt that it was russians who interfered in our election. he expressed the fear that would be the new normal. on july 25th, according to the read-out of the president's campaign, he asked the ukraine yuntukrainians to having ukrains

in our election that had been reputated. on july 26 the way i understand it, thistigations again in ukraine. so this is the question. the new normal that director mueller feared, is president, any president can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something that is is in his interest but not the public interest. >> that should not be the case, mr. welch. >> i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the tran script of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky misc>> gentlem woman will

suspend. by unanimous consents i'll be happy to enter the call into the record. you asked for five minutes. >> thank you for being here today. ambassador taylor, what year did you graduate from west point? >> 1969, sir. >> the height of the vietnam war wasn't it sir. >> the height was about that time. >> what was your class rank at we point. >> i was number five. how my per class. >> 800. >> 800 caus debts you0 cadets ae number five. >> yes, sir. >> you probably get the pick of assignments and you picked the infantry. >> yes, sir. >> you're a rifle company commander. >> sir? >> where did you srve. >> in vietnam. >er,id you combat in evaluat

sir -- evaluate number. >> yes, sir. >> were you awarded -- >> my highest and i'm proudestnr medal. >> that's for valor isn't it, sir. >> it is. >> talk about july 26, a lot of years later. you go to the front with ambassador volker i believe and you're on the bridge and you're looking over on the frontline of the russian soldiers. is that what you res, si >> and y said the commander in there, the ukrainian commander thanked you for the military assistance that you knew was being withheld at that time that moment. >> that's correct. >> how did that make you feel sir. >> badly. >> why? >> because it was clear that commander counted on us. it was clear that that commander had confidence in us. it was clear that commander was

appreciative of the capabilities he was given by that assistance but also the reassurance that we were supporting him. >> you don't strike me as a quitter ambassador but you threatened to resign or you mentioned it in your statement. before i ask you about that, let's just talk about a couple days later on july, excuse me ntlater on augfid yourself in ue with the national security advisor mr. bolten, right. >> yes, sir. >> you conveyed to him had your concerned about the withholding of military assistance. what does he say to you? >> he shares my concern and he adviceadvises me to express thaa way to the secretary of state. >> he's the national security advisor that works with the president but he tells you that you should bring it up with the secretary of state. >> yes, sir. >> have you ever sent a cable like that? how many times of your career 40, 50 years have you sent a cable directly to the secretary of state. >> once. >> this time. >> yes, sir.

>> in 50 years. >> they don't send kaibilityz, yes, sir. >> so the national security advisor can tell it to the president himself and he shares your concern says you, the ambassador serving ukraine should cable the secretary of state directly and you do so don't you. >> yes, sir. >> what did the cable say, sir. >> it's a classified cable. >> without going to classified information. >> without going to classified, it says security assistance what we've been talking about today, security assistance to ukraine at this particular time as in previous times is very important. ukraine, i also make the point we've also talked about here today ukraine is important for our national security and we should support it. not to provide that would be fine. >> did you get an answer to your cable. >> not directly, those. >> do you know what happened to

it? >> secretary kep secretary kent. >> i was on vacation when the cable came in but it went to secretary pompeo. >> we know secretary pompeo was on the call a month earlier onjn the dark about any of this. what did he do with it? >> i honestly can't say what happened for sure with the cable once the messa of the questions gentlemen on september 1st, you recall a meeting between the vice president and the president of ukraine, mr. zelensky in which right off the bat, the president of yow cran ukraine rs security assistance and he says i'll talk to the president about that i'll make the call. do you know if the vice president made that call. >> i don't know, sir. >> do you know what if anything the vice president had to do with any of this? what more could you tell us about the vice president's role in this? do you know if he ever raised

this issue with anyone in the administration, whether he ever pushed for the release of that security system. >> i can't, sir. to the best omy s anocateasef>> mr. chairman i s const request. >>entleman will state his>> ie authored by ken -- >> without objection that will be entered into the record. >>yo for both of you being with us today. mr. kept you said the president has the right to remove the ambassador because the ambassador serve as at the pleasure of the president is that correct. >> that's correct, ma'am. >> does that removal usually come with a smear campaign of that ambassador by the president? >> i think the right of the president to make a decision about the president's personal representative confirmed by the senate is separate from whatever

happens outside the confines of u.s. government processes. >> do you have any idea why it was important to discredit ambassador yovanovitch what she was willing to do or not tothat was important. >> i guess it depends on the motivation of other people and i'm not one otigation has uncovered a web of shadow diplomacy engaged and executed by several state departments, officials and the president'srsi and ultimately directed by president trump. we have heard several ways of describing this shady shadow separation, shadow diplomacy, rogue back channel. ambassador taylor you have described what you encountered as the top diplomat on the ground and ukraine and i quote highly irregular informal channel of u.s. policy-making. you testified that the channel

included ambassador volker, sondland, secretary perry and as you later learned, the president's personal attorney rudy giuliani. is that correct? >> yes, ma'amotf you have explad coerned wh youized tsts sanrg oe s mr. giuliani promoting u.s.nan r. kent. no, he sests do you bee he was promoting, mr. kent? >> i believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. >> ambassador taylor, what interests do you believe he was promoting. >> i agree with mr. kentucky. >> the state department's role is to promote u.s. mall ceases overseas not to help the current

president when re-election, is that correct, mr. kents. >mr. -- kept. >> all employees are subject to the hatch act promoting policy and not impart and partisan politics. >> bietz taylor. >> i agree. >> what is the risk of running a separate channel of diplomacy further u.s. policy goeschannelt ambassador taylor. >> it's possible to do one but not the other. that is if it's completely against u.s. policy goals then that's a mistake and it's not helpful. you can get advice and even have conversations outside of the normal channels. but then they need to be part of u.s. foreign policy and approaching those goals. >> mr. kent. >> agree. >> ambassador taylor you have described in your previous testimony shortly after you arrived in ukraine which

ambassador sondland asked state department officials not to listen to a july 28 call he had planned to hold with president zelensky. did you find that unusual. >> i did. >> what was the impact of ambassador sondland making that request? when you found it unusual, what do you believe the impact was. >> i'm not sure there was an immediate impact. >> but there's a recording or tran scription. >> there was not. this was the impact it was not recorded. >> do you think that's why the request was made so there would not be normal state department employees from the operationan . >> that is the normal but it is also, it is not unusual to not have it recorded. >> so yokn ment i holding your notes and refuses to provide them to congress despite a duly authorized subpoena and we know that in some instances your notes may be the only

documentary record of what happened. you are aware of that, correct. >> yes, ma'am. >> and mr. kent, you are aware that your notes have not been turned over to congress. >> i have turned all records that i had in my possession to the state department because whatever we do is considered a federal record not a personal record. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. chairman -- >> mr. murphy's request will state his request. >> i have a "new york times" op ed stating why president obama should have done more for ukraine by ambassador which include william record. mr. murphy. >> good afternoon gentlemen. i want to bring up a couple points raised by you my colleagues on the other side. the july 25 call summary shows no evidence of pressure on the ukrainian government. in fact they argue the ukraine yuntz did not feel any -- ukrainians did not feel any

pressure at any time to comply with any of president trump's requests for investigations. in fact, ambassador taylor at your deposition in october, you stayed that die to the -- stated that due to the hold that president trump placed on aid to the ukraine, the ukrainians became quote/unquote desperate. isn't that right? >> in august, they did not know as far as i'm aware but at thend of august, the article came out in september. the minister of defense, for example, came to me. i would use the word desperate to figure out why the assistance was being held. he thought that perhaps if he went to washington to talk to you, to talk to the secretary of defense to talk to the president, he would be able to find out and reassure, provide whatever answer was necessary to have that assistance released.

>> in fact, my colleagues on the other side suggest that president zelensky personally did not feel any pressure at any time and yet later on in september, he finally relength in a conversation with gourd -- gordon sondland according to your deposition where he agreed to make a statement to cnn isn't that right. >> he had planned to make a statement on cnn, yes, sir. >> my colleagues also say the hold on u.s. security assistance was lifted on september 11 withouany ig eng on the par ukrainians and therefore evng ended up fine in the end. however, mr. kent, as you know, the house intelligence foreign affairs and oversight committees began this current investigation leading to the proceedings today on september 9th. in fact, it was only two days after this particular set ofinvu

released the mt tree aid, correct -- military aid, correct. >> that is the time line, yes. >> ambassador taylor, between the time of your october deposition and now, did anyone from the trump administration contact you about your appearance before the committee today. >> those. >> how about, mr. kept? >> those. >> ambassador taylor, i would like to the turn to a word by my account you used 13 times in your opening statement and that word is concern. you were concerned that april was being conditioned on political investigations, isn't that right. >> yes, sir. >> you were concerned that irregular channels of de moment see were being usedfully diplomacy was being used in foreign paul sea to ukraine isn't that right. >> yes, sir. >> can you rule out the possibility that irregular channels of diplomacy are bei usedn oth w w

conduct foreign policy? >> i can't, i've not heard of any other separate channels that has this kind of influence. that is, the giuliani kind of guidance. >> but you can't rule it out, right. >> those. >> how about you mr. kent, you can't rule it out either. >> i have no basis to make a determination. >> you don't believe the july 25 call was perfect, do you? >> i think some of the language in call gave cause for concern. >> ambassador taylor. >> i agree. >> and what was concern for you. >> there was, part of the, the discussion of the previous ambassador was a cause for concern. >> ambassador taylor, i want to draw on your experience finally

as a west point cadet and as an infantry commander in vietnam. in a battle field situation a ia commanding officer allowed to hold up action placing his groups at risk for someone to provide -- >> those.>> if the traying their responsibility to the nation and the men and women under their command. >> yes, sir. >> if that happened and were found out could that person be subject to discipline. >> yes, sir. >> could that kind of con deduct trigger a court marshall -- conduct trigger a court marshall. >> yes, sir. >> thank you i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman? >> for what purpose -- >> i have unanimous consent to enter into the record mr. mulvaney's statement where he said there's absolutely no quid pro quo from october 17, 2019. >> without objection. you are recognized for any closing comments. >> mr. chairman. >> i recognize mr. nunez for his

comments. ms. conway we will get your motion after mr. nunez brief closing remarks and my closing remarks my intention to excuse the witnesses. we'll have a very brief recess. members should not go far. we will resume and take ms. conway's motion. mr. nunez. >> i'll be brief. i want to reiterate what i said earlier is that we really should stop holding these hearings until we get the answer to three important topics. the first being the full extent of the democrats' prior coordination with the whistle tbloar and whwhistleblower and e whistleblower coordinate with. second the full extent of ukraine's metaling in the trump -- meddling in the campaign and third why did burisma higher hunter biden and any u.s. actions under the obama administration. you're not allowing those

witnesses to appear before the committee, which i think is a problem. so we'll expect hopefully you will allow us to bring in the whistleblower, the folk that he spoke to and also numerous democratic operatives who worked with ukraine to meddle in the election. i'll yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i want to thank the witnesses for your testimony today, for your i think you exemplify so many courageous men and women who serve in our