support for ukraine. in particular, they related to me that the inability of officials to respond to explicit questions about security assistance was troubling them. i was experiencing the same tension in my dealings, including a meeting i had had with the defense minister that day. 5, i companied senators johnson and murphy during their visit to keith -- kiev. zelensky's first question was about the withheld security assistance my understanding was that both senators had stressed that support in washington was ukraine's most supportive -- important strategic asset and zelensky should not jeopardize that support getting drawn in to u.s. domestic politics. i continued to make this point all of my official contacts but the odd push to make president zelensky publicly commit to investigations of alleged interference in the election showed how the official foreign policy of the united states was undercut by the irregular efforts led by mr. giuliani. two days later, i had a conversation with mr. morrison where

afekds ukraine. but even more so interested in how does this affect our national security? now, i think you said that if we believe in a principle sovereignty of nations where countries get to determine their own economic, political and security alliances, we have to support ukraine and its fight, that the kind of aggression we see by russian 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, a national defense policy, that identifies russia and china as adsaries. the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings, 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 invooibi inviability of borders, that order that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity as well as pea

circus but let's focus on how ukraine the ukraine the ukraine project that the west has had since the coup in 2014 is changed russia's foreign policy and it's something that's beginning to worry people. in and i mean worrying people at the neo cons in washington in the in the swamp we could talk about sanctions we're going to energy policy that turned to china and europe's reassessment there's a lot going on right here that's never talked about in western media go ahead allan well indeed we just happened over the last. period of about 10 years but it is specially since 2014 is of the crisis in ukraine i think is crystallized russian doubts about the extent to which a partnership with the west is possible and what we saw after 2014 is that there you can take the russians by surprise you can never panic them and they will always adjust very rapidly and very effectively to changes in policy by the west and to aggressive moves by the west so what has happened is that the russians firstly adjusted their energy policy and they weren't going to let ukraine continue to sit on top of their tra

affects ukraine. but even more so interested in how does this affect our national security? now, i think you said that if we believe in a principle 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 secretary george kent described, we have a national security policy, a national defense policy, that identifies russia and china as adversaries. the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings, that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. until they invade ukraine in 2014 they had aboyhoabided by sovereignty of nations, inviability of borders. >> that rule of law -- that order that kept the peace in europe and allowed for prosperity as well as

of ukraine or you know the so-called bullying or. against ukraine or was merely almost a sort of treason so throwing away a critical or strategic ally in order to get an upper hand on the bidens now i do think at the root of press and also as a strong international dimension obviously this 00 order of this in 2002 and then to his book at a summit this was the main what the americans were pushing very hard to get. ukraine and georgia into nato but the europeans resisted knowing that yes this would be a strategic advantage or an expansion towards russia which would which could be a secure. blunder yeah well the consequences would have to be bared by the europeans. this one has the creator which conflicts with russia so do you think that this effort to. change the language in the sense of begin to bring ukraine gradual in. reflects something much deeper than merely this working against trump it what's really interesting here demon is that if you if you kind of step back and you look at what's going on under the new president's alinsky h

-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 channels were trying to facilitate a visit by president zelensky to the white house for a meeting with president trump which president trump had promised in his congratulatory letter of may 29th. the ukrainians were clearly eager for the meeting to happen. during my subsequent communications with ambassadors volker and sondland they relayed to me that the 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 that 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 he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call

-ukraine relations. i served as ambassador to ukraine from 2006 to 2009. having been nominated by george w. bush and in the intervening ten years had stayed engaged with ukraine. across the responsibilities i have had in public service, ukraine is the highlight and so secretary's pompeo's offer was compelling. since i left ukraine in 2009 the country had continued to turn toward the west, but in 2013 vladimir putin was so threatened by the prospect of ukraine joining the european union that he tried to bribe the ukrainian president. this triggered mass protests in the winter of 2013 that drove the president to flee to russia in 2014 but not before his forces killed 100 ukrainian protesters in central kiev. days later mr. putin invaded crimea at the point of russian army rifles. the russians absurdly claimed that 97% voted to join russia. in early april putin sent his army and security forces into southeastern ukraine to generate illegal arm formations and puppet governments in what we know as dombas. you can see this on the map, in the right-hand portion,

-ukraine relationship. from what i understood from the participants president trump didn't share their enthusiasm for their meeting with president zelensky. both channels appeared to serve the same goal. a strong ukraine partnership. but it became clear to me by august that the channels had diverged in their objectives. as this occurred i became concern. in late june, both channels were trying to facilitate a visit by president zelensky to the white house for a meeting with president trump which president trump had promised in his letter of may 29th. ukrainians were clearly eager for the meeting to happen. but during my subsequent communications with ambassadors volker and sondland. the president wanted to hear from zelensky before scheduling the meeting in the oval office. not clear to me what this meant. on june 27th, ambassador sondland told me during a phone call that president zelensky needed to make clear that he president zelensky was not standing in the way of investigations. i sensed something odd

support to ukraine. ambassador yovanovitch in her deposition said president trump's decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine, that our policy actually got stronger over the last three years. she also said in terms of lethal assistance, we all thought it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. ambassador taylor said it was a substantial improvement in that this administration provided javelin anti-tank weapons. very strong political message that said the americans are willing to provide more than blankets. ambassador volker testified providing this to ukraine has been extremely helpful. mres and blankets are fine but if you're being attacked by mortars and artillery and tanks, you need to be able to fight back. george kent testified that javelins are incredibly effective in stopping advance, and russians are afraid of them. croft stated the javelins help defend themselves. we believe that's counter to russian interest. do you dispute what

embassy in kyiv, ukraine. while it is an honor to appear before you today, i want to make clear that i did not seek this opportunity to testify today. since you determined that i may have something of value to these proceedings and issued a subpoena, it is my obligation to appear and to tell you what i know. indeed, 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. that is my only goal, to testify truthfully and accurately to enable you to perform that role. to that end, i put together this statement to lay out as best i can my recollection of events that may be relevant to this matter. by way of background, i have spent my career as a foreign service officer. like many of the dedicated public servants who have testified, my entire career has been in the service of my country. i'm received degrees from international affairs from princeton univers

we in ukraine are an independent country, an independent ukraine. we're going to do everything for the people. you are, as i said, a great example, we're hoping we can expand on our jobs as you did. you will also be a great example for many. you're a great example for our new managers. i'd also like to invite you, if possible, to the inauguration. i know how busy you are, but if it's possible for you to come to the inauguration ceremony, that would be great, great for you to do to be with us on that day. the president: that's very nice, i'll look into that and give us a date at the very minimum we'll have a great representative or more from the united states will be with you on that great day. so we will have somebody at a minimum a very, very high level and will be with you, really an incredible day for an incredible achievement. zelensky: again, thank you, we're looking forward to your visit, to the visit of a high level delegation, but there's no word that can describe our wonderful country, how nice, warm and friendly our people are. how tasty a

embassy in kyiv, ukraine. while it is an honor to appear before you today, i want to make clear that i did not seek this opportunity to testify today. since you determined that i may have something of value to these proceedings and issued a subpoena, it is my obligation to appear and to tell you what i know. indeed, 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. that is my only goal, to testify truthfully and accurately to enable you to perform that role. to that end, i put together this statement to lay out as best i can my recollection of events that may be relevant to this matter. by way of background, i have spent my career as a foreign service officer. like many of the dedicated public servants who have testified, my entire career has been in the service of my country. i'm received degrees from international affairs from princeton univers

-ukraine partnership. it became clear to me by august that the channels had diverged in their objective. as this occurred i became increasingly concerned. in late june, both channels were trying to facilitate a visit by president zelensky to the white house for a meeting with president trump which president trump promised in his congratulatory letter of may 29th. ukranians were clearly eager for that to happen. in my subsequent communications with ambassador volcker and sondland they related to me the president wanted to hear from zelensky before scheduling the meeting in the oval office. it was not clear to me what this meant. june 27th, ambassador sondland told me in a phone conversation, president zelensky needed to make clear to president trump he president zelensky was not standing in the way of investigations. i sensed something odd when ambassador sondland told me on june 28th he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call planned with president zelensky later that

thirdly, ukraine people. thirdly, ukraine needs all of the money that it has. there is a strong belief that former president cove village and those around him made off with over $40 billion. $40 billion. that is a huge amount of money in ukraine. again, none of that money has really been, i think maybe $1 billion may be, but the the rest of it still missing. >> was the head of that office corrupt? >> we believe so. >> you got the sense that he was a driving force against some of these attacks against you? >> i do. >> which ultimately led to your removal. >> correct. >> let me get this straight. you are effective effective at fighting corruption in ukraine. fighting that corruption was important to the security of the united states. you were punished for that. ultimately being removed by the president of the united states. in your opinion, why is it important to have a nonpartisan career in the foreign services. >> i think it is important to have a nonpartisan partisan service because what we do is inherently nonpartisan. it is about our national security intere

ambassador to ukraine. during my tenure in ukraine i went to the front line approximately ten times. during a hot war. to show the american flag, to hear what was going on, sometimes literally as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put the use. i worked to advance u.s. policy, fully embraced by democrats and republicans alike, to help ukraine become a stable and independent democratic state with a market economy competent grated into europe. a secure democratic and free ukraine serves not just the ukrainian people but the american people as well. that's why it was our policy, continues to be our policy, to help the ukrainians achieve their objectives. they match our objectives. the u.s. is the most powerful country in the history of the world in large part because of our values. and our values have made possible the network of alliances and partnerships that buttresses our own strength. ukraine was an enormous landmass and enormous population has the potential

and what happened in ukraine is huge you know so 1st i'm concerned about ukraine now i'm also concerned about the united states because this whole ukrainian affair is now the basis for these so-called impeachment hearings where i hear i'm sorry a lot of inaccurate information a lot of people i get an angry and if truong supporters feel deceived they aren't being easy if they feel that you know they voted in 2016 for this man and the view it as their last chance to keep the country that is slipping out of their. hands under their control this is not my words you know i read it in there plenty of it's an article by young bremmer a preview would article you know about the supporters so which see how 1st ukraine was destabilized the united states was destabilized now the european union is destabilized and they blame it all all trump to trump and putin i hear them almost like charlie chaplin saying all the time competent competent competent which it was kind and in reality it's the same people in washington in brussels who destabilized ukraine destabilize the united states now through these

support to ukraine. ambassador yovanovitch in her deposition said president trump's decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine, our policy actually got stronger over the last three years. she also said in materials of lethal assistance, we all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. ambassador taylor said its a substantial improvement in that this administration provided javin anti-tank weapons and the americans are willing to provide more than blankets. ambassador volker testified providing lethal defensive arms to ukraine has been extremely helpful. mr. volker stated mres and blankets is fine but if you're being attacked with mortars and artilleries and tanks you need to be able to fight back. secretary george kent stated javelins are incredibly advanced weapons to stop the russians advanced and russians are scared of them. and ambassador stated the decision to provide javelins we believe is counter to russian interests. do you di

of the state department says that ukraine isn't. just it's not just an abuse of power by the president but the harm he inflicted on ukraine a critical ally are the constant assault by russian forces more than $13000.00 ukrainians have died on your cranial soil defending their territorial integrity against the russian aggression fiction well so again 1000 people were killed this is the general number of people killed in eastern ukraine during the. started in 2014 a lot of these people are civilians live in donetsk and lugansk killed by the there was no russian aviation there there was all the ukrainian aviation they were killed by warps and mystic can't all live to the corner. when he says that they died defending the enhanced russian aggression this is just brute jury in fact you know he no no no i don't believe and i don't like to push back but i mean this is a cry oh no nothing like that or has it and said this many times i mean and it made us this it totally markets in london i mean these these hearings and they talk about americ

we in ukraine are an independent country, an independent ukraine. we're going to do everything for the people. you are, as i said, a great example, we're hoping we can expand on our jobs as you did. you will also be a great example for many. you're a great example for our new managers. i'd also like to invite you, if possible, to the inauguration. i know how busy you are, but if it's possible for you to come to the inauguration ceremony, that would be great, great for you to do to be with us on that day. the president: that's very nice, i'll look into that and give us a date at the very minimum we'll have a great representative or more from the united states will be with you on that great day. so we will have somebody at a minimum a very, very high level and will be with you, really an incredible day for an incredible achievement. zelensky: again, thank you, we're looking forward to your visit, to the visit of a high level delegation, but there's no word that can describe our wonderful country, how nice, warm and friendly our people are. how tasty a

we in ukraine are an independent country and independent ukraine. we're going to do everything for the people. you are as i said, a great example. we are hoping we can expand on our jobs as you did. you will also be a great example for many. you are a great example for our new managers. i would also like to invite you, if possible, to the inauguration. i know how busy you are, but if it's possible for you to come to the inauguration ceremony, that would be great. great for you to do to be with us on that day. the president, that's very nice. i'll look into that, and give us a date. at the very minimum, we'll have a great representative or more from the united states will be with you on that great day. so we will have somebody at a minimum, a very, very high level, and will be with you. really incredible day for an incredible achievement. >> zelensky, again, thank you. we're looking forward to your visit. to the visit of a high level delegation, but there's no words that can describe our wonderful country, how nice, warm and friendly our people are,

ukraine is delighted. ukraine says, thank you for saying something publicly. your support means the world to us. we got a thank you phone call. but then the president hears that this aid is going to ukraine and they get this series of questions, right? wait a second, why is the president concerned about this? dun, dun, dun. and then in july, it all just starts to fall apart. july 18th, laura cooper sends her deputy to a white house meeting. at that meeting, it's where it's announced the white house has ordered a hold on some of the u.s. government's aid for ukraine. at this point, laura cooper, this defense department official, seems to be hopeful even if the other aid that's help up to ukraine, the aid that goes through the state department, at least the military aid is still going to go through, right? no. five days later on july 23rd, cooper, herself, goes to participate in a white house meeting. she's increasingly concerned because she still hasn't heard anything specifically about the military funds, but that other u.s. aid that's supposed to go through t

we in ukraine are an independent country and independent ukraine. we're going to do everything for the people. you are, as i said, a great example. we are hoping we can expand on our jobs as you did. you will also be a great example for many. you are a great example for our new managers. i'd also like to invite you if possible to the inauguration. i know how busy you are but if it's possible for you to come to the inauguration ceremony, that would be great. great for you to do to be with us on that day. the president: that's very nice. i'll look into that. give us a date. at the very minimum we'll have a great representative or more from the united states will be with you on that great day. so we will have somebody at a minimum, a very, very high level, and will be with you, brilliant and incredible day for an incredible achievement. zelensky: again, thank you. we're looking forward to your visit, to the visit of a high level delegation, but there's no words that can describe our wonderful country, how nice, warm, and friendly our people are, how ta

>> our eight to ukraine? >> yes. >> yes. >> as evidenced by president trump's policy decision to provide legal defensive weapons, javelin missiles. >> it was very robust, yes. >> and that was a decision the president trump made, that the prior administration, obama, had not done, lethal weapons had not been provided to ukraine in the obama administration, correct? >> i was not involved in ukrainian affairs during the obama administration so i don't feel competent to address that. >> and when a to ukraine was put on pause, i believe you have testified that there may have been a concern by secretary can't, and by ambassador taylor that it was contributing to a potentially negative effect on u.s. ukraine relations, do you agree with that? >> while the state department position was to advocate for the continuation of that assistance as an important element, in fact a key element of our strategy to support the ukraine against russia. my time is expired i yield back. >> mr. himes. >> thank you mister chairman, than

security assistance for ukraine. vice president responded that ukraine had the united states unwavering support and promised to relay their conversation to president trump that night. during the september 1st meeting, neither the vice president nor president zelensky mention the specific investigations discussed during the july 25th phone call. >> there wasn't a quid pro quo but if there was no mention of investigations doing a very important meeting, what does that suggest? >> it's interesting, and it goes to this issue of these twohat vice president pence had, it appears that none of these things were discussed in terms of the investigation or into burisma or biden or any of that. you also have this letter that you and i discussed earlier today from senator ron johnson who said the same thing. he said he met with ukrainian officials several times during that june and july period and that nothing was brought up about withholding aid. he says that president trump did not do a quid pro quo to him and in conversations,

policy towards ukraine. whawould the administration of sanctions againstut russia backs to make something of some kindd bargain with russia in which it would train if youou could trade the seizure of ukrainian tterritory for some other deal n syria or elsewhere. but the administration recognize the claim to annexation in crimea? would've become another frozen conflicts? there were a vast number of vacancies in the positions so no one was representing the united states in the process of ending the war in eastern ukraine. during over two years of my tenuren in the u.s. special representative, we fundamentally turn to the u.s. policy around. the policy towards ukraine was strong, consistent, and had support across the administration, bipartisan support in congress come and support among our allies and ukraine. he changed the languagthey chane commonly used to describe russia's aggression. i was the administration's most outspoken figure highlighting russia's invasion and occupation of parts of ukraine, calling

ukraine. to reverse the nation's embrace of the west and to fulfill vladimir putin's desire to build a russian empire. in the following years, 14000 ukrainians died as a battle superior russian forces. earlier this year bottom is zelensky was elected president of ukraine on a platform of ending the conflict and tackling corruption. he was a newcomer to politics and sought to establish a relationship with ukraine's most powerful patron, the united states. the questions presented by this impeachment inquiry of whether the president sought to exploit the vulnerability and bring ukraine's into our election and the condition of the official acts such as the white house meeting or u.s. military assistance on ukraine's willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection 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 q

we have one with ukraine. it goes to the ministry of justice in the country of interest. >> regardless of the process, for us it is appropriate to investigate potential corruption. we have vowed to give some of these countries hundreds of millions of dollars. the u.s. taxpayer said, here is a dollar of mine, get it to this country, but do not -- but only a it will not be used for corrupt purpose. we mentioned earlier when the vice president went to the ukraine and called for the specific firing of a specific prosecutor, he was completing official u.s. policy, but the interesting thing is the vice president had two countries that were his responsibility, china and ukraine. influence inf his the previous administration. he said the obama administration wasn't to him, so it doesn't surprise me they would be fulfilling a policy his vice president helped to formulate. >> [indiscernible] >> in cyprus, i'm sorry. i will yield for unanimous consent. >> i have unanimous consent that does not involve you this time. thre

embassy in kyiv, ukraine. while it is an honor to appear before you today, i want to make clear that i did not seek this opportunity to testify today. since you determined that i may have something of value to these proceedings and issued a subpoena, it is my obligation to appear and to tell you what i know. indeed, 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. that is my only goal, to testify truthfully and accurately to enable you to perform that role. and to that end, i put together this statement to lay out as best i can my recollection of events that may be relevant to this matter. by way of background, i have spent my entire professional career as a foreign service officer. like many of the dedicated public servants who have testified in these proceedings, my entire career has been in the service of my country. graduate of pomona colle

embassy in kyiv, ukraine. while it is an honor to appear before you today, i want to make clear that we did not seek this opportunity to testify today. since you determined that 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. indeed 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. that is my only goal, to testify truthfully and accurately to enable you to perform that role. and to that end, i have put together this statement to lay out as best i can, my recollection of events that may be relevant to this matter. my way of background, i have spent my entire professional career as a foreign service officer. like many of the dedicated public servants who have testified in these proceedings, my entire career has been in the service of my country. i'm a graduate in clai

. < david holmes, to ukraine.dor yovanovitch as us ambassador to ukraine. < david holmes, the member of taylors' staff that overheard the call between sondland and the president is set to testify on thursday. > (áboxesá) thanks kellie. ( james ) and we will be streaming the hearings live from start to finish on our kron on app. you can watch the hearings uninterrupted. all you have to do is go to the app store to download the app. breaking news we are following out of the south bay... one man is dead after a hit-and-run accident in san jose. kron 4's will tran is on the scene with the latest. wil? thanks will. thanks will. ( james ) still ahead on the kron 4 morning news... a local civil rights attorney is reacting after the decision to not file charges against men arrested in the deadly orinda shooting. ( james ) plus... one man is dead.. another in custody after a stabbing on a bart train. latest details on the investigation. (james) and then.. more delays related to bart - why officials say the opening of the e

embassy in kiev, ukraine. while it is an honor to appear before you today, i want to make clear that i did not seek this opportunity to testify today. since you determined that 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. indeed 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. that is my only goal to testify truthfully and accurately to enable you to perform that role. to that end i put together this statement to lay out as best i can my recollection of events that may be relevant to this matter. by way of background i have spent my entire professional career as a foreign service officer. like many of the dedicated public servants who have testified in these proceedings, my entire career has been in the service of my country. i am a graduate of of california and r

the second's long-standing corruption ukraine, and the third is eight ukraine. we heard from george kent. i know that mr. kent is a colleague, a friend, and someone you deeply respect. in his testimony he stated all ambassadors serve the pleasure of the president. he would agree with that statement, correct? >> yes. >> in fact, he elaborated and went on to emphasize that this is with a question. he would agree with that? >> i would agree. >> in your deposition you stated, "although i understand, everyone understands, that i serve at the pleasure of the president read" is that correct? >> yes. >> just so there is no public confusion, you're still an employee of the state department, correct? >> yes. >> in the deposition you said he personally asked whether it was possible to be a fellow at georgetown university, that was arranged for me, and i'm very grateful." that is where your posted, correct? >> correct. >> we are glad to have you in service and i want to thank you for your public service. shifting to corruption in ukraine, in your powerful deposition you des

gets into ukraine the more it seems to resemble the ukraine go ahead. alex absolutely true and if you drill through to what these impeachment argument is all about what it is is accusations made by each side not without some course that they have become implicated in ukrainian corruption yet that's what it's all about ultimately that's what that's why we're talking hearing all this about you know hunter biden and riz my holdings it's all about people being involved in getting payoffs in ukraine american officials american politicians the sons of american politicians receiving large amounts of money to provide protection to bear is on the go ox ukrainian oligarchs that one side is the other side is accusing the republicans of dorothy's and donald trump of rummaging around ukraine getting bromley they're trying to use ukrainian politicians or you create an agency is to investigate their opponents it's all about this and of course it's unsurprising because when the united states went into ukraine in such a massive way in 2014 it had totally unrealistic geo

diplomat in ukraine. we will show you that hearing now in its entirety. >>> the committee will come to order. good morning, everyone. this is the seventh in a series of public hearings the committee will be holding as part of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. we will proceed today in the same fashion as our other hearings. i'll make an opening statement, and then ranking member nunes will have an opportunity to make a statement and we will turn to our witnesses for their opening statements and to questions. for audience members, we welcome you and respect your interest in being here. it is the intention of the committee to proceed without disruptions. i'll take all necessary and appropriate steps to maintain order and ensure that the committee is run in accordance with house rules. i recognize myself to give an opening statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump the 45th president of t

military aid to ukraine was being held up, that itself is a damaging thing to ukraine. not just them losing the aid which hurts them materially but everybody knowing their aid was in jeopardy, it was being held up by the american president, that itself incurs damage. >> 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 the 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 we are withdrawing our support for ukraine. >> the russians are looking for any sign of weakness, any sign that we are withdrawing our support for ukraine. so if it becomes known that that support is threatened, that itself hurts ukraine. that b

in the done boss area so withholding military aid does that weaken ukraine. well i think it sends the wrong signal and it did for a short period of time again the assistance from a foreign 19 was released and is in the process of heading towards ukraine as it involved in russia when there was no aid being sent to ukraine i think the signal that there is controversy and question about the u.s. support of ukraine sends the signal to vladimir putin that he can leverage that as he seeks to negotiate with not only ukraine but other countries i think you ambassador taylor i think you mentioned that a white house meeting for zelinsky would boost his ability to negotiate for a peaceful settlement with vladimir putin and russia in general is that true mysterious certainly true that. the u.s. support for mr dylan to be present in his negotiations with with the russians is very important and will will enable him to get a better agreement with the support from the united states both from the military says but also just from the political systems that we can provide but h

military assistance to ukraine, and ukraine had to pay up with investigations. throughout early september, sroebger and sondland sought to close the deal on an agreement that zelensky would announce investigations. after taylor texted sondland september 9, 2019, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. 16 days later, the transcript of the july 25th call was made public, and the american people learned the truth of how our president tried to take advantage of a vulnerable ally. you now it is up to congress as the peoples representatives to determine what response is appropriate. if the president abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he's thought to condition, coerce, extort or bribe to aid in his re-election campaign and did so by withholding official acts, a white house meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid, it will be up to us to decide whether those acts are compatible with the office of the presidency. finally, i want to say a word about the president an

policy towards ukraine? >> u.s. approximately see toward ukraine w ukraine was -- >> it was specifically about this kinds of investigation. you said the investigation was burisma -- >> wait. >> okay. >> in order to fight corruption you need to conduct investigations and you need to see what ukrainian citizens were up to and doing. >> was that the purpose of that or was it because the president -- you knew that -- well, that the president wanted those investigations to be done as a condition for them to actually have a meeting with the -- with the white house. >> well, first off, we have to be clear when we're talking about in terms of investigations. we're not talking about vice president biden. we're not talking about -- >> burisma has nothing to do with -- you're saying that -- >> i'm saying whether ukrainians within the company of burisma had acted in a corrupt way or sought to buy influence. that's a legitimate thing for ukraine to investigate and if ukraine can make a statement about their intentions about figh

/ukraine relationship. demonstrating support for ukraine in the face of russian aggression and advancing broader u.s. foreign policy interests. unfortunately president trump was skeptical. he expressed concerns that the ukrainian government was not serious about reform, and he even mentioned that ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. in response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, president trump directed us to, quote, talk with rudy. we understood that talk with rudy meant talk with mr. rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. let me say again, we weren't happy with the president's directive to talk with rudy. we did not want to involve mr. giuliani. i believed then as i do now that the men and women of the state department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for ukraine matters. nonetheless, based on the president's direction, we were faced with a choice. we could abandon the efforts to schedule the white house phone call and a

and ukraine's efforts to shore up its own democracy have made it harder for the u.s. to basically hold a consistent stance in support of nato and ukraine and sort of westernization and liberalization efforts and even after the trump administration will make it harder for the united states to be able to claim sort of foreign policy credibility this is basically publicly laid bare that the trump administration is running a shadow foreign policy in contradiction to its own a stance of bleeding neutral foreign policy towards ukraine so that sort of is undermined american credibility going forward as well and into that debate foreign policy that the dave hall is described as pro peace economic growth and anti-corruption all right robinson the burns thank you so much assistant professor at howard university so de paul is as we were talking about he is the foreign service officer who was based at the embassy in ukraine he described the moment of this testimony when it became clear to him that ambassador song lennon was the leader of the 3 amigos as they recall that would be

support for ukraine and for ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. i think he was stressing that to the vice president to really underscore the need for the security assistance to be released. >> and that if the united states was holding the security assistance, is it also true then that russia could see that as a sign of weakening u.s. support for ukraine and take advantage of that? >> i believe that's what the president zelenskyy was indicating. that any signal or sign that u.s. support was waivering, would be construed by russia as essentially an opportunity for them to strengthen their own hand in ukraine. >> did vice president pence provide a reason for the hold on security assistance to the ukrainian president in that meeting? >> vice president did not specifically discuss the reason behind the hold. but he did reassure president zelenskyy of the strongest u.s. unwaivering support for ukraine. and they talked about the need for european countries to step up and provide more assistance to ukraine as well. >> did vice president pence report back