mr. holmes: yes. mr. holmes, i want to go back and name some americans, i want to talk a little about some ukrainian government officials. are you familiar with sergei lushenko. mr. holmes: yes. >> have you met with him? mr. holmes: i have. >> he was a journalist, and in the parliament, currently in the parliament? mr. holmes: journalist again. >> are you aware that when he was in the parliament, he to a fusionormation gps operative named nellie ohr? mr. holmes: i am not aware. i am aware that as a journalist he provided information. >> this was in the 2016 campaign. he provided, widely known as the "black ledger," have you heard of that? mr. holmes: i have. >> the black ledger, is that seen as credible information? mr. holmes: yes. >> the black ledger is credible? mr. holmes: yes. >> bob mueller did not find it credible. do you dispute what bob mueller's findings were, they didn't use it in the prosecution or report? mr. holmes: i am not aware that bob mueller did not find it credible. i think it was evid

mr. holmes -- >> mr. holmes, you indicated in your opening statement that the chief of staff of president zelensky indicated to you in this phone call on july 25, there was a discussion about personnel issues related to the prosecutor general's office. after you read the call, did you understand who and what that was referring to? mr. holmes: yes, sir. in that brief meeting with the chief of staff, it was confusing to me why in the few minutes we had that was the issue he raised. it wasn't until i read the transcript of the call on the 25th, that i understood the president mentioned specifically the prosecutor general lutsenko, who was in the process of replacing, carving out his und erlings who had been collaborating with him on some of the corruption we saw. chairman schiff was theou said lutsenko source of some of mr. giuliani's public views and allegations? mr. holmes: about two weeks sawre the press wave we targeting ambassador yovanovitch became public, embassy contact said privately mr. lutsenko was

mr. holmes, yes. he said, oh, yeah, he's going to do it. the chairman, and then he went on to say president zelensky will do anything you ask him to? mr. holmes, yes. the chairman, and dhoez are tth words you heard to the best of your recollection. >> yes, sir. >> it left an inprevention mpre, did it? mr. holmes, this was an extremely distinctive experience in my foreign service career. i've never seen anything like this, someone calling the president from a mobile phone at a restaurant and then having a conversation of this level of candor, colorful language. there is just so much about the call that was so remarkable that i remember it vividly. david holmes will testify to all of this in public on thursday morning in a week in which the house intelligence committee will hear from nine witnesses in morning and afternoon hearings. gordon sondland will testify the day before david holmes on wednesday morning. >>> leading off our discussion tonight is democratic congressman denny heck of washington. he

mr. holmes has testified, mr. holmes also overheard the put speaking to his hand picked ambassador, ambassador sondland, about investigations. mr. holmes has also said that in the office everybody knew or many people knew, at least, that there was an -- the president wanted an investigation of the bidens. in addition, although mic mulvaney and rudy giuliani have not come before this committee, mic mulvaney and rudy giuliani have spoken publicly on the issue of investigations. mic mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, the person who usually works for the president the most, day in and day out, when in front front of the white house press corps and basically admitted that an investigation had something to do withholding up the aid. and that this admitted that this process was politicized. rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, also essentially admitted that these investigations were at issue. he said that he thinks he did nothing wrong, because he was working at the direction of the president. so we have

mr. holmes. >> please let. >> let me clarify the question. >> mr. holmes. >> excuse me. >> let him answer your question, sir. >> it's my question. you're right and i get to clarify nigh question to get the answer and i'm hopeful i get a few more seconds because of the interruption from the chairman his patience is growing thin. i was working hard not to err at this time tate him again i failed again. the question of up mr. holmes where, your discretion. gordon sondland did not expect the privacy -- i got that. but you're going to be in rooms for -- you've been in rooms 17 years aware where people trust whatever went on in the room and left that you kept to official channels didn't share the information with other folks. i'm asking you to -- to argue for your -- on your behalf, that interesting is not some sort of cite yan onthat you would use when you share information from meetings simple straightforward question. >> sir, i shared the information i need to share with the right people who needed to know it. i did not share any information with people

mr. holmes has testified, mr. holmes also overheard the president speaking to his handpicked ambassador, ambassador sondland, about investigations. mr. holmes has also said that in the office everybody knew or many people knew at least that the president wanted investigation of the bidens. rudy giuliani and mick mulvaney haven't come before the committee, they've spoken publicly on the investigations. mick mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, the person that usually works with the president most, day in, day out, went in front of the white house press corp and basically admitted an investigation had something to do withholding up the aid. and admitted that this process was politicized. rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, also essentially admitted these investigations were at issue. he said that he thinks he did nothing wrong because he was working at the direction of the president. so we have seen substantial evidence, heard substantial evidence of wrongdoing by the president of the united states,

mr. holmes, mr. jordan's time has expired but yours has not. you may answer the question. >> it's exactly my point. i briefed the call in detail. went away for a week, refer to the call, and everyone is nodding. of course, that's what's going on. of course, the president is pressing for a biden investigation before he'll do these things the ukrainians want. every singleding agreement. word in the call? no, because everyone by that point agreed. it was obvious what the president was pressing for. and ambassador taylor, as you've just outlined, had all those other interactions. >> but you didn't share it with us. >> mr. jordan, please do not interrupt. >> but, sir, my vivid recollection of what i was involved with was a touchstone experience that, to me, validated -- >> mr. jordan, please do not interrupt. >> -- what we believed. and ambassador taylor was not in that call. >> so all of a sudden, last week -- >> mr. jordan. mr. jordan, you will allow the witness to answer the question. >> i'll finish with this. >> thank you. >> he was involved in

thank you dr hill mr holmes for years years of service to this country and i appreciate you being here today throughout this process i have said that i want to learn the facts so we can get to the truth so why are we here because of 2 things that occurred during the president's july 25th phone call with ukrainian president on the use of the phrase do us a favor though in reference to the 26000 presidential election and the mention of the word biden i believe both statements were inappropriate misguided foreign policy and it's certainly not how the executive current or in the future should handle such a call over the course of these hearings the american people have warned about a series of events that in my view have undermined our national security and undercut ukraine a key partner on the front lines against russian aggression. we've heard of u.s. officials carrying uncoordinated confusing and conflicting messages that created doubt and uncertainty and key at a time when a new reformist administration has just taken office and was ready to fight corruption and work with us to advance

mr. holmes. >> ultimately. >> yes and dr. hill. >> correct, ultimately. >> >> and there was no investigation into the bidens, correct, mr. holmes. >> they did not open a new investigation of the bidens. >> correct. >> and dr. hill. >> correct. >> and there was in fact a meeting between president trump and president zelensky ultimate ily at the u.n., that is correct. >> the president invited zelensky to the oval office at a date undetermined that hasn't happened. >> the meeting at the u.n., president trump and president zelensky met at the u.n. >> at the not the oval. >> and dr. hill. >> yes. >> thank you, i yield back. >> mr. swalwell. >> dr. hill, yesterday injury a lot of americans were scratching their heads as ambassador sondland testified that on september 9 he calls the president of the united states and just says broadly, what do you want from ukraine? >> and the president says there is no quid pro quo. there is no quid pro quo. like being pulled over for speeding and being asked do you kn

mr. holmes. did you know that burisma's legal officials met with the ukrainian officials just days after the vice president forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor? >> no. >> did you know that burisma's new american lawyers tried to have a meeting the day that shokin was fired? >> no. >> did you know that the president called president poroshenko shortly after the burisma's ceo's home was raided? >> no. >> did you know that there was a raid on burisma, and that devon archer and the deputy secretary of state had inquired about burisma? >> no. >> and the same for you, dr. hill? >> i did not know, no. >> and you know that there was meddling in the elections with the ukrainians and you were in there as head of the ukraine desk -- >> right. >> did you raise it up to ambassador bolton with any concerns through 2017 or 2018 that concerned any 2016 election meddling or burisma concerns? >> the whole briefing process didn't really work in the way that you are suggesting there. so, if the presi

both mr holmes and dr hill suggested was done for political reasons this was seen as sort of derailing american foreign policy making better yvon of it was removed it seems at the behest of mr giuliani in part because she was seen as an obstacle to the investigation that giuliani and song one wanted one thing that came out of songlines testimony yesterday that's particularly damning is suggesting that a number of white house staffers knew about this sort of shadow foreign policy effort and were involved in it including. chief of staff more veiny but also secretary of state pompei oh and the vice president and the president himself that's pretty damning it's serious ok so what is spin testify what the testimony that has come out is that there was this quid pro quo multiple witnesses have said this that the president's lunch he would not get a meeting at the white house with president trump and they would not be released if he did not make an announcement not necessarily actually make an investigation but make an announcement about an investigation into the company and the bidens and let

mr. holmes. >> vicious sir. >> thank you. mr. hymes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, dr. hill, mr. holmes, thank you for your testimony. dr. hill, you made a fairly dramatic comment in your statement to which the ranching member took some exception. i'm more interested in the ukraine piece of this. but you said some you on this committee appear to believe that russia in its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that somehow for some reason ukraine did. i'm really much more interested in the ukraine piece of this. but i do want to defend you briefly. i don't know what my colleagues believe, but i do have a pretty good sense of what the effects are of creating ambiguity, of lacking clarity and conviction around the russian attack on the election of 2016. in response to your comment, the ranking member offered up a report, which varies in material respects from the report that was created by the 17 agencies of the intelligence community. a day does not go by in which ranking member nunes does not speak of the russia hoax. and this is an area in which cont

mr. holmes will be testifying in a public hearing on thursday morning. gordon sondland will testify the day before david holmes, on wednesday morning. >>> leading off our discussion tonight is congressman denny heck of washington. he is a member of intelligence house committee. he attended david holmes' under oath deposition. also an msnbc political analyst covering his second impeachment. he was a younger man for that first one in the 1970s. >> that is correct. >> and norm lowenstein has watched all three of these impeachments from nixon forward. let me ask you about this deposition we're getting. it was dramatic enough on friday night when we read the opening statement in which he describes this phone call so clearly. but seeing the testimony that chairman schiff took him through and hearing his explanation of why he remembers it so vividly is all the more powerful. and i couldn't find in the transcript, and correct me if i'm wrong, i could not find any republican members in any way shaking david holmes on anything about that phone call. >> not for one

testified about a conversation that you and he had where he says that you told mr holmes. that the president does not care about ukraine but the president used the more colorful language including a 4 letter word that you just referenced to just reference do you recall saying that to mr holmes again i don't recall my exact words but clearly the president beginning on may 23rd when we met with him in the oval office was not a big fan but he was a big fan of the investigations apparently so and in fact mr holmes said that you that you said that president trump only cares about the quote big stuff that benefits himself is that something that you would have said at the time i don't think i would have said that i would have i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we have been talking about for quite some time to move forward that's what i would have said because that's the fact mr holmes also remembers that you told him in giving an example of the big stuff the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing do you

mr. holmes? >> again, i don't recall any exact words, but clearly the president beginning on may 23rd, when we met with him in the oval office, was not a big fan. >> but he was a big fan of the investigations? >> apparently so. >> and, in fact, mr. holmes said that you -- that you said that president trump only cares about the, quote, big stuff that benefits himself. is that something that you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we have been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said. because that's the fact. >> mr. holmes also remembers that you told him in giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing. do you recall that? >> i don't. i recall burisma, not biden. >> but do you recall saying -- at least referring to an investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing? is that something

mr. holmes. did you know that burisma's legal officials met with the ukrainian officials just days after the vice president forced the firing of the country's chief prosecutor? >> no. >> did you know that burisma's new american lawyers tried to have a meeting the day that shokin was fired? >> no. >> did you know that the president called president poroshenko shortly after the burisma's ceo's home was raided? >> no. >> did you know that there was a raid on burisma, and that devon archer and the deputy secretary of state had inquired about burisma? >> no. >> and the same for you, dr. hill? >> i did not know, no. >> and you know that there was meddling in the elections with the ukrainians and you were in there as head of the ukraine desk -- >> right. >> did you raise it up to ambassador bolton with any concerns through 2017 or 2018 that concerned any 2016 election meddling or burisma concerns? >> the whole briefing process didn't really work in the way that you are suggesting there. so, if the presi

mr. holmes has testified, mr. t speaking to his hand-picked ambassador, ambassador sondland, about investigations. mr. holmes has also said that in the office everybody knew or many people knew, at least, that there was an, the president wanted investigation of the bidens. nipgs, although mick mulvaney and rudy giuliani have not come before this committee, mick mulvaney and rudy giuliani have spoken publicly on the issue of investigations. mick mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, the person who usually works with the president the most day in and day out went in front of the white house press corps and basically admitted that an investigation had something to do with holding of the aid and at-odmitted this process was politicized. rudy giuliani the president's personal lawyer also essentially admitted that these investigations were at issue. he said that he thinks he did nothing wrong, because we was working at the direction of the president. so we have seen substantial evidence and heard substantial evidence

mr. holmes. have you met with or do you know alexandra chose but? could you put your microphone on? >> no. >> do you know nellie ohr? have you met with nellie ohr? bruce ohr? >> no. >> glenn simpson? >> no. >> thank you. same question for you, dr. hill. do you know or have you met with alexandra chu by? >> no two nellie ohr? >> no. >> bruce ohr? >> only in the course of my previous position as a national intelligence officer for russia, where he attended some of the meetings i presided over. >> years ago? >> a long time ago, correct. >> glenn simpson? >> no. >> dr. hill, in her testimony you said that dust in your deposition, excuse me, you said that christopher steele was her counterpart at one time. is this correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> you testified you met with christopher steele in 2016. i assume that is the correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> the only thing we didn't get on that, do you know about when that was in 2016 and how many times? >> i'm afraid i don't. actually i had met with

mr. holmes. this impeachment inquiry is based on the call the day before where president trump as part of a bribery scheme, as part of an extortion scheme and as part of a quid pro quo, according to the democrats demanded investigations in exchange for either military aid or white house meeting. and the next day, you were witness to president trump receiving word that the bribery scheme was successful. the extortion scheme was successful. and his response, his response was good, what about sweden? >> yes, sir. the ukraine portion of that conversation was extremely brief. >> what was the first thing the president said on the call? clear recollection of this conversation. >> sondland greeted the president. >> how? >> he said, hello, mr. president. i'm in kiev and the president said, are you in ukraine? >> you think he said, are you in ukraine? what? >> he said ukraine. >> what did you hear president trump say about. >> how did we go from the conversation was very loud and his voice was recognizable

everywhere are watching the example we set here of democracy in the rule of law thank you thank you mr holmes to dr hill. is the microphone on i believe it is now is not this perfect thank you again mr chairman mr chairman ranking member in unison members of the committee thank you for inviting me to testify before you today i have a shot opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress's impeachment inquiry and i'm appearing today as a fact witness as i did during my deposition on october 14th in order to answer your questions about what i saw what i did what i knew and what i know with regard to the subjects of your inquiry i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal under moral obligation to provide this i take great pride in the fact that i'm a non parsis on foreign policy experts it was served under 3 republican and democratic presidents i have no interest in and from seeing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth i will not provide along our system and because i believe that the interest of con

chairman thank you and dr hill and mr holmes thank you both for being fact witnesses we are here as fact finders and we appreciate very much your presentations dr hill i want to verify this story i understand that when you were 11 years old there was a schoolboy who said you were pigtails on fire and you were taking a test you turned around with your hands. snuffed out the fire and then proceeded to finish your test is that a true story that is a true story was a bit surprised to see that pop up today it's one of the stories i occasionally tell because it had some very unfortunate consequences afterwards my mother gave me a bowl haircut so. the skill photograph letter in the week i looked like richard the 3rd or a cellphone going to be in a permanent well i think it underscores the fact that you speak. truth that you are steely and i truly respect that let me move to your testimony in your deposition you had indicated you were deeply troubled by the bitches. the attacks on her and you underscored again today that about serve at the pleasure of the president and certainly in the case of a

mr. holmes, did you also understand that ambassadorou sondland had been given some authority over ukraine policy from the president? >> we understood that he had been told to work with mr. giuliani. >> and did he hold himself out as having direct contact and knowledge of the president's priorities and interests? >> yes, sir. >> mr. holmes, i'm going to that july 26th date when you overheard the conversation between ambassador sondland and president trump. and i'man going to ask you a little bit about the lead up to that conversation. before the lunch that you described, you saidha that you accompanied ambassador sondland, volker and taylor to a meeting with president zelensky, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and you took notes at that meeting? >> yes, sir. >> and you reviewed those notes before you came here to testify today? >> yes. >> they were helpful to refresh your recollection as to what happened, is that right? >> they were, yes. >> during t that meeting, president zelensky said, that on his phone call with president trump the previous day, that three times president trump had

mr. holmes: thank you. good morning, mr. chairman. members of the committee. my name is david holmes. i'm a career foreign service officer with the department of state. since august 2017, i have been a political counselor at the u.s. embassy in ukraine. while it is an honor to appear before you today, i want to make sure -- make clear i did not seek this opportunity to testify today. since you determined i may have something of value to these proceedings and issued a subpoena, it is my obligation to appear and tell you what i know. as secretary pompeo has stated, i hope everyone who testifies will do so truthfully and accurately. when they do, the oversight role will have been performed, and i think america will come to see what took place here. testifymy only goal, to truthfully and accurately to enable you to perform that role. into that end, i put together this statement to layout as best i can my recollection of events that may be relevant to this matter. my way of background, i have my entire professional career as a foreign service officer. many of the dedicated public servants

mr. holmes. dr. hill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do i need to adjust the microphone?> is the microphone on? >> i believe it is now. is that -- >> yes, perfect. >> thank you, again, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member nunes and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i have a short opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress' impeachment inquiry and i'm appearing today as a fact witness. as i did during my deposition on october 14th. to answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew, and what i know with regard to the subject of your inquiry. i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i'm a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who served under three republican and democratic presidents. i have no interest in advancing outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth. i will not provide a long statement because i believe the interest of congress and the

mr. holmes, thank you as well. you're a late entrant into this situation. we spoke with you last friday night about what we thought would be about a 30 second vignette, and it turns out with your 40 minute opener today you have a lot of information to share, we appreciate you being here. dr. hill, your last day at the national security council was july 19th, is that correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> so you were involved with the july 25th call, and you were not related to any of the activities? >> i was not, that is correct. >> as of july 19th did you believe a call would be scheduled for the 25th? >> i personally did not think it would be scheduled that day, no. >> what was the thinking at the nsc as of july 19th about this call? >> i learned from other depositions to be clear here that perhaps there was awareness that there might be a call. ambassador sondland showed an exchange in which he indicated that there would be a call coming up and i was not aware of that. there was differences, let's just say, in understanding about that call. >> were you in f

this was they had a clear recollection of this remember sation yes or please the mr holmes answer yes or you saw an greeted the president out he said i'm and he said mr bush is that hello mr president i'm in ukraine i mean kieve and the president cracked and chris said are you in ukraine you think he said i think you're in you're in ukraine he said what he said are you and you give ukraine what is your president trump say about a separate. i did not hear president trump side the conversation but as a proxy you said how did we go from the conversation was very loud and wrecked his voice was recognizable to as you say here when the conversation shifted i can only hear him bassett or someone side of the conversation yes or as i testified they nischelle part of the call and master song when sort of when the president came on the call he sort of winced and held the phone away from his ear. for the initial portion the call and then at some point the call he stopped doing that and i don't know why i don't know if you turn the volume down out of the president spoke less more quietly and he go

mr. holmes. dr. hill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do i need to adjust the microphone? >> is the microphone on? >> i believe it is now. is that -- >> yes, perfect. >> thank you, again, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member nunes and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i have a short opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress' impeachment inquiry and i'm appearing today as a fact witness. as i did during my deposition on october 14th. to answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew, and what i know with regard to the subject of your inquiry. i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i'm a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who served under three republican and democratic presidents. i have no interest in advancing outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth. i will not provide a long statement because i believe the interest of congress and t

be somewhat investor sentiment to us about you and importantly ambassador song than agrees with mr holmes as a counter of the call the only thing you object susie about your son says he doesn't didn't mention the bidens but apart from that he said yes this is what we talked about we talked about advancing the investigations and i told the president president from ukraine selenski president lewinsky would do whatever he wanted it's an extraordinary phone call the fact that it was an unsecure line as you mention is also extraordinary. dr hill also said she she didn't speak of. russia's goals as something that was there in the past she basically frame this is something that they were still currently trying to do their goals being to deal with the u.s. presidency regardless of who the president was as i said to blame ukraine the goal of that being she says to basically drive a wedge between the west and the u.s. and the west and their allies the fact that she's described this is something that is still currently happening is that a challenge to congress and maybe specifically to the republica

mr. holmes' characterization of what i said afterwards. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. christopher. good afternoon, mr. ambassador. i'm going to pick up on the september 9 conversation in which the. allegedly said i want nothing, i don't want a quid pro quo. i presume that, on this september 9th conversation, the president did not mention that that was the same day that we launched a congressional investigation into whether there was a quid pro quo. did he say that to you? >> again, i know all of that noe didn't have a time to talk about things like that. >> i presume he didn't mention the whistleblower complaint that also alleged there was a quid pro quo that day? >> he did not. so you can't rule out the possibility that the reason that he started talking that way on that day was because to have the congressional investigation? >> i can't rule that out. you know, the inauguration of president zelensky was on may 20th, correct? >> correct. as you stated, you attended this inauguration with senator johnson, secretary perry, lieutenant colon

mr. holmes? >> again, i don't recall my exact words, but clearly the president beginning on may 23rd when we met with him in the oval office, was not a big fan. >> but he was a big fan of the investigations? >> apparently so. >> and in fact, mr. holmes said that you said that president trump only cares about the "big stuff that benefits himself." is that something that you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we had been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said because that's the fact. >> mr. holmes also remembers that you told him, giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing, do you recall that? >> i don't. i recall barisma, not biden. >> but do you recall saying at least referring to an investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing, is that something that you likely would have s

mr. holmes heard this conversation. and recognized the president's voice loud and clear because he was so loud on the phone and and to the fact the recipient of the phone call and that ambassador sondland, which allowed us to hear it. >> i want to be precise, congressman. you took away the word allegedly. you're saying this is a fact. it happened. and you heard confirm that it happened. first of all, we heard taylor assert that it happened and he had an aide who heard it. we are now hearing deposition from that aide. and it was i don't think in dispute that the phone conversation occurred. so it's not here say and it's not alleged. so you're hearing from a person who overheard the conversation, david holmes. >> that's the whole purpose of today's deposition. >> i know it's the whole purpose but i want to make sure we're not pinning it on bill ta r lor any longer. we have somebody who was there opposed to someone who heard it from another person. >> i'm trying to thread a needle here so i'm not directly referring to test

mr. holmes? >> again, i don't recall my exact words, but clearly the president beginning on may 23rd, when we met with him in the oval office, was not a big fan. >> but he was a big fan of the investigations? >> apparently so. >> and, in fact, mr. holmes said that you -- that you said that president trump only cares about the, quote, big stuff that benefits himself. is that something that you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have -- i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we have been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said. because that's the fact. >> mr. holmes also remembers that you told him, and giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing. do you recall that? >> i don't. i recall burisma, not biden. >> but do you recall saying, at least referring to an investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing? is

mr. holmes, that is all hearsay. we can only rely on what the president says, and there, we shouldn't even rely on that either. we shouldn't really rely on what the president said on the call record. we should imagine he said something else. we should imagine he said something about actually fighting corruption inside of what he actually said, which was "i want you to do us a favor, though." i want you to look into this 2016 crowd strike conspiracy theory, and i want you to look into the bidens. we should not rely on that because that's hearsay. that is absurd. that would be like saying, you cannot rely on the testimony of the burglars during watergate, because it is only hearsay. or you cannot consider the fact that they tried to break in because they got caught. the actually did not get what they came for, so, no harm, no foul. that's absurd. that is absurd. but the other defense besides the scheme failed, they got caught them out the other defense is the president denies it. well, i guess that his case closed, rig

mr. holmes. ambassador sondland says, you know, the president only cares about big stuff, oh, right, because there's a war going on here. no, no, no. i mean big stuff, like the biden investigation. it is very clear here that that's what was meant. this is put in quotes. the biden investigation. biden being the operative adjective, correct? >> the evidence we have so far, erin, from the witnesses who have testified publicly is an obsession that this president had on investigating joe biden and his son, not for america's interest, but for his own selfish interest, and what is so appalling about that and the reason it's an abuse of power is not only did it benefit the president of the united states. it harmed ukrainians. because security assistance was not coming, people died. >> i want to ask you about the other hearing. >> oh, right. there's another one. >> this opening statement and i can't emphasize how it could be, and what we heard from marie yovanovitch moved many, democrats and republicans o

mr. holmes. dr. hill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do i need to adjust the microphone? >> is the microphone on? >> i believe it is now. is that right? >> yes, perfect. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member nunes and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i have a short opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress's impeachment inquiry, and i'm appearing today as a fact witness as i did during my deposition on october 14th. in order to answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew, and what i know with regard to the subjects of your inquiry. i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i'm a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who has served under three republican and democratic presidents. i have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth. i believe that the interest of congress and the american peopl

mr. holmes said that you -- that you said that mr. trump only cares about quote, big stuff that benefits himself, is that thing you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have honestly, he wasn't a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations we have been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said. because that's the fact. >> mr. holmes also remembers that you told him in, giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing, do you recall that. >> i recall burisma not biden. >> do you recall saying at least referring to investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing, is that something you would have said? >> yes. >> now, even if you don't recall specifically mentioning the biden investigation to david holmes, we know that it was certainly on president trump's mind, because just a day before in his call with president zelensky he mentions specifically the biden investigation. and i want to show you that exhibit, or th

mr. holmes, is what do we care about? do we care about the big stuff like the constitution, like an oath of office, or do we only care now about party? what do we care about? but let's go beyond your testimony today. let's look at the bigger picture. what do we know now after these depositions, these secret depositions? now people watching at home might not know that in these secret depositions, which apparently no one else is allowed to hear, no members are allowed to participate, it's just secret apparently. it sounds like it's just me and the witness. only over a hundred members of congress are able to participate in those secret depositions. and the minority was just so unable to participate. they got the same time they got in these open hearings. it was the same format that was the secret star chamber that you've been hearing so much about. so what have we learned through these depositions and through the testimony? because so much of this is really undisputed. we learned that a dedicated public servant named marie y

mr. holmes. dr. hill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do i need to adjust the microphone? >> is the microphone on? >> i believe it is now. >> perfect. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member nunes and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i have a short opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress's impeachment inquiry and i'm appearing today as a fact witness as i did during my deposition on october 14th in order to answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew and what i know with regard to the subject of your inquiry. i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal and a moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i'm a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who has served under three republican and democratic presidents. i have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth. i will not provide a long narrative statement because i believe that the interest of

talking about striking conversations mr holmes when he came here last friday in the basement. he he. he he thought your conversation that you were had with the president was like the most memorable thing he's ever experienced he how many conversations as he had with the president. hi i probably hasn't had any. but he was energized enthusiastic about telling us about this conversation so not only did i buy him lunch but i also provided entertainment and he i mean he he conferred with us that he you you regaled anyone that he came across with this story and that's i guess a gushing for thursday. but. you know other than the colorful language and he was definitely moved by by the color. but he was unequivocal that you brought up the bidens in the post call discussion and. he said something the effect of the president only interested in big things and mr mr holmes said that there's a lot of big things were going on in the ukraine like there are there's a war ukraine is under attack from the east by russia and he he puts words in your mouth to the effect of no the president only ca

mr. holmes. dr. hill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do i need to adjust the microphone? >> perfect. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i have a short opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress's impeachment inquiry and i am appearing today as a fact witness. as i did during my deposition on october 14th. in order to answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew, and what i know with regard to the subject of your inquiry. i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i am a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who has served under three republican and democratic presidents. i have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth. i will not provide a long narrative statement. i believe the interests of congress and the american people is best served by allowing you to ask me your questions and i'm happy to exp

mr. holmes, that's hearsay. we can't rely on people saying what the president said, apparently we can only rely on what the president says and there we shouldn't even rely on that either. we shouldn't really rely on what the president said on the call report, we should imagine he said something else. we should imagine, he said, something about actually fighting corruption. instead of what he actually said, which was, i want you to do us a favor, though. i want you to look into this 2016 crowd strike conspiracy theory and i want you to look into the bidens. i guess we're not even supposed to rely on that, because that's hearsay. well, that's absurd. that would be like saying you can't rely on the testimony of the burglars during watergate because it is only hearsay or you can't consider the fact that they tried to break in because they got caught. they actually didn't get what they came for, so, you know, i don't know, no harm, no foul. that's absurd. that's absurd. but the other -- the other defense, besides it

mr holmes you testified just as venom and said kernel of him and said that he warns alinsky about getting involved in u.s. politics you don't question that they didn't take issue with that so why smear this purple heart recipient just like this mayor of a vast array of audit it's just gratuitous i don't question the facts it's just gratuitous the attack on you mr holmes that you were indiscreet and mention this conversation to others well i think you're quite right the indiscretion is when an ambassador u.u. a cause the president out in secure a line in a country known for russian telecommunications and eavesdropping that's more than indiscretion that's a security risk but why attack you mr holmes they don't question anything you said in question what conversation you overheard and bastard saw online indeed didn't question what you said he had knowledge that the one thing the president wanted to know the day after that conversation was alinsky was is he going to do the investigations and so on and said yes he'll do anything you ask they don't question that so why attack you they didn't qu

mr. holmes. dr. helm? >> thank you, mr. chairman. do i need to adjust the microphone?elieve it is now. >> yes, perfect. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member nunes and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. i have a short opening statement. i appreciate the importance of congress' impeachment inquiry and i am appearing today as a fact witness, as i did during my deposition on october 14th, in order to answer your questions about what i saw, what i did, what i knew and what i know with regard to the subjects of your inquiry. i believe that those who have information that the congress deems relevant have a legal and a moral obligation to provide it. i take great pride in the fact that i'm a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who has served under three republican and democratic presidents. i have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth. i will not provide a long narrative statement because i believe that the interest of congress and the ameri

mr. holmes? >> again, i don't recall my exact words, but clearly the president beginning on may 23rd when we met with him in the oval office, was not a big fan. >> but he was a big fan of the investigations? >> apparently so. >> and in fact, mr. holmes said that you said that president trump only cares about the "big stuff that benefits himself." is that something that you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we had been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said because that's the fact. >> mr. holmes also remembers that you told him, giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing, do you recall that? >> i don't. i recall barisma, not biden. >> but do you recall saying at least referring to an investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing, is that something that you likely would have s

mr. holmes? >> again, i don't recall -- the president, when we met with him in the oval office was not a big fan. >> but he was a big fan of the investigation? >> apparently so. >> and, in fact, mr. holmes said that you -- that you said that president trump only cares about the quote big stuff that benefits himself. is that something that you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have -- i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we had been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said because that's the fact. mr. holmes also remembers that you told him, giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing. do you recall that? >> i don't. i recall burisma, not biden. >> and -- but do you recall saying at least referring to an investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing? is that something that you likely would have said? >> i w

mr. holmes because he showed up.came from ukraine, and despite mick mulvaney and john bolton and secretary rick perry refusing to cooperate with our investigation, mr. holmes continues this long line of career foreign service officers honoring the duty to cooperate with congress. and each time someone has done that just as mr. holmes did today, we have learned new information, and we learned new information today. >> and in terms of the security of that phone call, that cellphone call, did you learn any more details about exactly what kind of device that was? was that a personal cellphone making that call all the more risky? >> so, lawrence, i'm not going to go into his testimony just yet. i'll let our chairman characterize that. but i will say i think we're about five exits past operational security concerns as it relates to donald trump. we know that donald trump does not really execute or carry out operational security as it relates to his cellphone. there were concerns from other witnesses about ambassador sondla

mr. holmes' testimony saying i've been watching people make phone calls my entire life. my hearing is and has been great. never have i been watching a

mr. holmes? >> again, i don't recall my exact words but clearly the president beginning on may 23rd when we met with him in the oval office was not a big fan. >> but he was a big fan of the investigations. >> apparently so. >> and in fact mr. holmes said that you said that president trump only cares about the quote big stuff that benefits himself. is that something that you would have said at the time? >> i don't think i would have said that. i would have honestly said that he was not a big fan of ukraine and he wants the investigations that we have been talking about for quite some time to move forward. that's what i would have said. that's the fact. >> mr. holmes also remembers that you told him giving an example of the big stuff, the biden investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing. do you recall that? >> i don't. i recall burisma, not biden. >> but do you recall saying at least referring to an investigation that rudy giuliani was pushing. is that something you likely would have said? >> i w