Watch: Day 2 of public Trump impeachment hearings (FULL LIVE STREAM)

>>> IT’S ABOUT THE TRUTH AND THE

CONSTITUTION >> THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR

ANYTHING THEY CAN GET BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOSE THE

ELECTION >> WHAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE

OFFENSE? >> WHAT DOES IT STATE, AND ALL

OF THIS IS NOTHING LESS THAN OUR DEMOCRACY

>> IT’S DAY 2 OF THE HISTORIC REPUBLICAN PEACH COMMITTEE THEY’RE ASKING DID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMIT IMP PEACHABLE OFFENSES. YOU CAN SEE THE ALREADY CROWDED ROOM IN THE OFFICE BUILDING WHERE MEMBERS WILL BE GATHERING SHORTLY. WE SAW NOT JUST THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THERE THIS WEEK. WE SAW OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE WHO WANT TO BE IN THE ROOM TO WITNESS WHAT WILL BE TAKING PLACE. IT STARTED 2 DAYS AGO, AND TODAY, MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ACRANE. WE’LL BRING YOU THE MEETING WHEN IT GETS UNDERWAY IN ABOUT A HALF HOUR’S TIME JOINING ME IS AMBER PHILLIPS, AND THANKS SO MUCH TO BEING HERE. WHY MARIE YOB? >> DEMOCRATS’ FEAR OF THE FIRST DOMINO THAT TIPPED OVER IN THIS SHE WAS OUTED IN MAY FOR CIRCUMSTANCES NO ONE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND, AND THEN THERE WAS, LIKE, IT WAS, SHE WAS OUSTED WE KNOW IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF UKRAINIAN S, AND WORKING WITH THE LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI AND EMERGING AGAIN AND HAVE TRUMP’S EAR WITH EVERYTHING THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO DO IN UKRAINE. THE DEMOCRATS FRAMED THIS AS TRUMP TRIED TO GET HER OUT, AND THEN HE FELT LIKE HE HAD A CLEAR OPEN PATHWAY TO CRITICIZE UKRAINE >> THAT’S RIGHT. I THINK WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, BUT IF YOU GO BACK IN MAY, IT WAS YOVANOVITCH WHO EXPOSED INTEREST THE PUBLIC, THE ACTIONS OF THIS INFORMAL DIPLOMATIC CHANGE ASSISTED BY GIULIANI, AND I THINK YOVANOVITCH HAS AN INTERESTING STORY TO TELL BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS HE A DIPLOMAT, BUT SHE CAN SPEAK TO THE STAKES TO THE F1 POLICY AND LOOKING AHEAD TO WHAT COULD UNFOLD AS LAWMAKERS UNFOLD THE ALLEGED QUID PRO QURKSS UO >> THEY HAVE BEEN ON CAPITAL HILL COVERING THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. YOU WERE OUTSIDE THAT CLOSED ROOM WHEN MARIE YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED BEFORE WHAT ARE THE TOP TAKEAWAYS, AND WHAT DO YOU EXPECT IT WILL TELL US TODAY? >> I THINK THE TOP TAKEAWAY FROM HER EARLIER DEPOSITION IS THAT IT WAS VERY LONG. IT WAS 1 OF THE VERY FIRST IN THE CLOSED DOOR SESSION, AND IT TOOK ABOUT 9 HOURS. IT WAS ON A FRIDAY AND STARTED VERY EARLY IN THE DAY AND WENT THROUGHOUT INTO THE EVENING. AND IN FACT, WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT SHE DEFIED ORDERS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO COME AND GIVE A TESTIMONY. THEY TOLD HER NOT TO COME, AND THEE DEFIED THAT WHEN THEY SUBPOENAED HER, AND SHE CAME WILLINGLY. I THINK THE QUESTION IS WILL IT BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE SAW ON WEDNESDAY WITH BILL TAYLOR AND GEORGE KENT. I WOULD SAY YES WE HEARD HER IN HER STATEMENT SHE WAS AT TIMES EMOTIONAL AND THE UNFAIRNESS AND HOW SHE WAS OUSTED, AND SHE WILL MENTION GIULIANI MORE THAN WEDNESDAY, AND SHE HAD A LOT OF ONE-LINER TESTIMONY. SHE WAS TOLD TO WATCH HER BACK, AND THAT MAY STICK IN AMERICANS’ MINDS AS WE WATCH TODAY. AND SHE WAS TOLD TO TWEET. AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT MADE HER DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE SAW WEDNESDAY >> AND LET’S TALK ABOUT THE FORMAT. WE KNOW FROM WEDNESDAY THAT WE’LL SEE 45 MINUTES FROM EACH SIDE AND HAVE UNINTERRUPTED QUESTION AND ANSWERING WHICH GETS A FLOW. HOW DO WE EXPECT IT IN THE MEETING? >> YOU’LL LIKELY SEE REPUBLICANS BRING THAT UP AGAIN. THIS IS A REAL STICKING POINT THAT THEY FEEL THEY’RE NOT GETTING ENOUGH TIME. AS YOU MENTIONED, THE CHAIRMAN ADAM SMITH AND CHAIRMAN NUNEZ HAVE TIME TO GO TO QUESTIONING FOR BOTH SIDES AND THEN DEFER TO THEIR LAWYERS WHO ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS, AND THEN WHEN THEY GET THEIR 5 MINUTES, I EXPECT WHAT WE SAW ON WEDNESDAY WHERE THEY WILL GET SOME OF THEIR TIME YIELD TO SOME OF THE MEMBERS OUTSPOKEN ON THE COMMITTEE SUCH AS OHIO AND THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND THEY’LL LOOKLY BRING UP AGAIN THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND TRY TO DISCREDIT YOVANOVITCH AND SAY SHE NEVER MET TRUMP AND

THESE ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. WE’LL SEE A LOT OF THAT BACK AND FORTH PROBABLY TODAY AND WHETHER I SPOKE TO THEM, THEY SAID THEY HAVE ALL OF WHAT THEY NEED IN THE HEARINGS, AND THEY WILL HAMMER AWAY WHERE THE DETAILS THEY HAVE SUCH AS THE TRANSCRIPT WITH THE PHONE CALL OF ZELENSKY AND TRUMP. AND THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO AND THEY NEED TO GET OVER IT. WE WILL LIKELY SEE THE DEMOCRATS STICK TO THOSE MAIN POINTS AS WELL >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO AS WE LOOK AT THIS QUESTION OF PULLING YOVANOVITCH OF HER ROLE OF AMBASSADORSHIP, THEY SAID THAT IS THE PRESIDENT’S PER AUGATIVE, BUT THE DEPARTURE OF THE PARTNERSHIP IS STRANGE FOR MANY REASONS. ONE IT WAS DONE PREEMPTIVELY, BUT WHY WOULD HE HAVE HER REMOVED? >> YEAH. THEY CONSIDER YOVANOVITCH TO BE ONE OF THE MOST DISTINGUISHED DIPLOMATS, TO SEE HER RECALL SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO PULL BACK TO WASHINGTON, REALLY WITHOUT EXPLANATION WAS DIFFICULT FOR THAT COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND >> YOU KNOW, ONE QUESTION IS WHY, AND RECHZ SAY YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE A REASON WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS KNOWN FOR THE HIRING AND FIRING. THAT’S THE PER SONA HE DEVELOPED ON AMERICAN PUBLIC TELEVISION THROUGH AMERICANS’ EYES. BUT IF THEY’RE TRYING TO WORK PAST HER OR AROUND HER OR GET HER OUT OF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AMBER, THAT’S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION THE ASK >> RIGHT. I THINK SOMETHING THAT GEORGE K KENT, THE TOP DIPLOMAT OVERSEEING UKRAINE SHED LIGHT ON THAT. WHAT HE SAID IS I FELT LIKE IT WAS CORRUPT PEOPLE IN UKRAINE WHO WERE OFFENDED BY YOVANOVITCH’S AND MY EFFORT TO GET CORRUPTION OUT OF UKRAINE. HE FELT LIKE THOSE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SAW HER AS A THREAT TO THEIR FINANCIAL INTEREST AND POLITICAL INTEREST AS WELL >> YOVANOVITCH WALKS IN THERE SQUOUNTED FOR, AND WE START TO SEE HER TESTIFY IN ABOUT 20 20 MINUTES TIME THE WITNESSES ON WEDNESDAY DESCRIBED THIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN, AND A TOP OFFICIAL TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THOSE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE HER. LET’S LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAS TO SAY? >> OVER THE COURSE OF 2018 AND 2019, I BECAME AWARE OF A GIULIANI TO SMEAR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND OTHER OFFICIALS. THE CHIEF AGITATORS ON THE UKRAINIAN SIDE OF THIS EFFORT WERE SOME OF THE SAME CORRUPT PROSECUTORS I HAD ENCOUNTERED. THEY WERE NOW PEDALING FALSE INFORMATION TO EXTRACT REVENGE IN THOSE WHO HAD EXPOSED MISCONDUCT. DURING THE LATE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2019, I BECAME ALARMED AS THOSE EFFORTS BORE FRUIT. THEY LED TO THE OUSTING OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH >> THERE ARE A LOT OF NAMES WE WILL BE HEARING MORE OF TODAY, BUT WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TAKEAWAY FROM WHAT MR. KENT HAD TO SAY THERE >> I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT YOVANOVITCH WAS REMOVED CERTAINLY AS DEMOCRATS DESCRIBED AS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN TAKING PLACE ON THE ULTRACONSERVATIVE RIGHT AND UNSUBSTANTIATED THEORIES WORKING WITH DEMOCRATS TO UNDERMINE TRUMP. AND WE’LL HAVE TO LOOK AT TODAY HOW THE REPUBLICANS AIR OR CHOOSE NOT TO HAIR CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND GIVE YOVANOVITCH A CHANCE TO DENY WHAT’S BEEN ALLEGED BY HER AS A POLITICAL ACTIVIST WHICH SHE CLEARLY SAYS SHE IS NOT >> THERE’S TWO THINGS. IT’S THE FIRING AND DECISIONMAKING ABOUT THE FIRING. BUT IT’S THE QUESTION OF WAS HER ROLE THERE ONE OF, YOU KNOW, SHE HAD SUCH HISTORY IN THE DITCH LOMATIC COURSE. SHE WAS WELL KNOWN AND WORKING ON UKRAINE FOR MUCH OF HER CAREER, SHE MIGHT HAVE SMELLED A RAT SO TO SPEAK. SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE IT WAS MANIPULATIONS AND BACK CHANNEL CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE A NOT REGULAR ORDER. SO GET HER OUT OF THE WAY, AND YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, AMBER >> THAT’S EXACTLY THE ACCUSATIONS THE DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING, AND I THINK WHAT REALLY CONCERNED NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS IS THAT THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN STUFF LED BAYOU

CRANEIAN OFFICIALS AND PICKED UP HERE IN AMERICA NEEDED TO BE TAKEN TO THE TOP TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, SO DEMOCRATS NEED TO MAKE THE CASE THAT I YOU WERE OUT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT. IT WAS HIM BEING RESPECTIVE TO CORRUPT UKRAINIAN WHO IS FINANCIAL INTEREST >> AND WE CAN REMEMBER WHAT TRUMP SAID ON THE 2019 PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY. HE SAID THE WOMAN WAS BAD NEWS. THAT WAS THE KEY PHRASE. HE SAID LATER SHE’S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. NOW, HE DOESN’T SAY EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT THERE. OF COURSE HE PROBABLY DIDN’T EXPECT SOME OF THOSE THINGS WOULD BE HEARD TESTIFYING AT HIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT TRUMP DID BELIEVE AND FIND CREDIBLE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MARIE YOVANOVITCH >> THAT’S WHERE YOU HAVE A POWERFUL CHARACTER WITNESS BECAUSE SHE TESTIFIED AND SAID SHE FELT THREATENED BY THAT SHE HAD NO IDEA THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GOING TO BRING HER UP IN A PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. HE HAD BEEN OUT OF THE JOB A COUPLE OF MONTHS AT THAT POINT. SHE HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY MEANT. IN ADDITION, SHE WAS ALREADY ON EDGE EDGE BECAUSE WHEN SHE GOT OUSTED IN SPRING IN MAY, SHE GOT A PHONE CALL ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE IN DC SAYING WE’RE CONCERNED FOR YOUR SECURITY GET ON THE NEXT FLIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT IN UKRAINE SO I THINK TO THE EXTENT DEMOCRATS CAN CHARACTERIZE HER AS A VICTIM, AS, LIKE, CORRUPT UKRAINIANS WITH TRUMP FOR EVERYBODY’S OWN PERSONAL INTEREST, ALL THE BET TRR THEM >> WELL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTACKED THE DEMOCRATS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN HIS RALLY LAST NIGHT. LET’S LIST TONIGHT THAT >> WE DID NOTHING WRONG, AND THEY’RE DOING NOTHING. THEY HAVEN’T DONE A THING. SINCE NANCY PELOSI IS SPEAKER, THEY HAVEN’T DONE A THING BUT ONCE AGAIN, THEIR LIES WILL BE EXPOSED JUST LIKE THE LAST TIME THEIR SCHEMES ARE ALREADY UNRAVELING. YOU SAW YESTERDAY ABOUT WHEN THEY ASKED THE NEVER-TRUMPERS, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD YOU IMPEACH HIM FOR? AND THEY STOOD THERE AND WENT LIKE WHAT? ? >> WHO HE IS REFERRING TO IS THAT THE AMBASSADOR TAYLORER SAYING WE’RE OFFICIALS AND WE DON’T MAKE THE CALL OF WHAT YOU DO CONGRESS, HE’S OVER LOOKING THE FACT THAT THEY DID LAY OUT A CASE THEY’RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBED AS THE REGULAR CHANNEL AND THESE IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION >> YEAH. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT THEY APPROACH THE CHANNELS THAT THEY SERVE UNDER MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS, AND THEY ARE NOT PART OF A CORRUPT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SERVICE THIS IS WHAT TRUMP HAS VOICED AND EXPLAINED AGAINST HIM IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I THINK YOU WILL SEE YOVANOVITCH REMIND LAWMAKERS WHO TRY TO POLITICIZE HER JOB AND SAY SHE’S NOT PART OF THEM AND IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT >> THE PROBLEM IS HOW DO YOU DO THAT WITHOUT LOOKING — I THINK GEORGE KENT AND TAYLOR DID A GOOD JOB ON THAT WHERE REPUBLICANS THREW OUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES ON THE ELECTION, AND KENT WITHOUT GETTING ANGRY OR FRUSTRATED EVEN THOUGH WE IS SAY THAT’S NOT TRUE. IT’S NOT UKRAINE. IT’S RUSSIA WHO MEDDLED IN THE ELECTION >> 2016 ELECTION >> YES. THANK YOU. AND SO HOW DOES YOVANOVITCH PUSH BACK AGAINST THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HER, SOME WHICH SEEM FAIRLY NASTY AND BEHIND CLOSED-DOORS TESTIMONIES, WE KNOW THAT ONE LAWMAKER TRIED TO ACCUSE HER OF BEING DISLOYAL. HER NAME IS MASHA, ISN’T THAT UKRAINIAN? HOW DOES SHE PUSH BACK AND SAY THAT? >> BECAUSE SHE CAME HERE WITH HER FAMILY AS A CHILD AS AN IMMIGRANT. GEORGE KENT TALKED ABOUT THIS, LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES PUBLIC SERVE WHOONTS ARE IMMIGRANTS AND TALKED ABOUT THOSE GENERATIONS AND WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOW AND POINTED TO YOVANOVITCH AS SOMEONE HE ADMIRES FOR THE CHOICES SHE MADE IN HER CAREER

AND HER BACKGROUND. AND REPUBLICANS DIDN’T CHOOSE TO ATTACK THAT AS AN ISSUE AT THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY. WE’LL SEE IF THEY DO TRY TO BRING THAT UP TODAY >> WELL, IN ATTACKING PEOPLE’S IMMIGRATION STATUS, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, IT’S MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW IT PLAYED OUT WHEN ALEXANDER CAME FORWARD AND CORROBORATED EVERYTHING IN THE WHISTLE BALTIMORE CAMPAIGN BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONE WHO SET UP THE CALL AND LISTENED TO THE CALL. YOUR PEOPLE IN RIGHT-WING MEDIA WHO SAY HE CAME FROM UKRAINE, HOW CAN WE TRUST HIS ALLEGIANCES, AND THEN YOU HAVE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS PUSH BACK AND SAY LISTEN. HE’S AN UPGRADED MILITARY VETERAN. HE SAID HE GAVE HIS LIFE TO AMERICAN SERVICE. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT? >> AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE IN MARIE YOVANOVITCH’S OPENING STATEMENT, SHE WILL PROBABLY TALK ABOUT HER FAMILY’S HISTORY AND HOW HER FAMILY ESCAPED THE REGIME. SHE WAS BORN IN CANADA AND CAME TO UNITED STATES AT 18 AND SPENT HER ENTIRE LIFE IN PUBLIC SERVICE. I THINK SHE HAS A STRONG CASE TO MAKE OF HER PATRIOTISM AND STRONG VALUES AND WE’LL HEAR HER DO THAT I THINK >> I WANT TO PLAY SOUND FROM PELOSI, SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SHE BROUGHT IT UP IN HER NEWS CONFERENCE WHEN SHE DESCRIBED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINE AND THAT IS BRIBEERARY. RY. IT IS LISTT ADAN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE LET’S LISTEN >> THE BRIBE IS TO WITHHOLD MILITARY ASSISTANCE IN RETURN FOR A STATEMENT OF A FAKE INVESTIGATION INTO THE ELECTIONS. THAT’S BRIBERY >> COULD WE BE LOOKING AT AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? >> I DON’T KNOW THAT. WE HAVEN’T MADE A DECISION TO IMPEACH. THAT’S WHAT THE INQUIRY IS ABOUT, AND WHEN THE COMMITTEES DECIDE THAT, THEY WILL DECIDE. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ADMITTED TO AND SAID IN PERSON IT’S BRIBERY >> >> THAT’S A VERY SIGNIFICANT WORD >> IT IS, AND WE’VE SEEN THEM USE QUID PRO QUO. I THINK WE’RE SEEING THEM SHARPEN THEIR MESSAGE AS THEY GO FORWARD, AND I BET YOU WILL HEAR LAWMAKERS USE THAT TERM TODAY AS THEY TRY TO INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT MORE BROADLY TO THE PUBLIC. IT WILL BE PROBABLY #1UB9 1 MILLION PEOPLE WATCHING TODAY THAT IT WAS A CASE OF BROIBRY AND THAT BRIBERY IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE >> WE TRIED TO PIECE TOGETHER WHAT HAPPENED, AND THINK WAS IT A PRO? MAYBE IT WAS A QUID, AND SO I’M LOOKING AT DEMOCRATS AND START TO REALIZE THAT IT WASN’T AS CLEAR AS WE THOUGHT. WHY DONT WE TRY THIS OUT, AND I’M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT TODAY. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOVANOVITCH WAS IN UKRAINE WHEN ALL OF THIS HAPPENED >> I THINK IT WILL BE INTERESTING. I THINK REPUBLICANS WILL SEE YOVANOVITCH, AND THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THIS ALLEGED BRIBERY. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO WITH THAT? YOU WEREN’T PART OF THE UKRAINE POLICY MAKING AT THAT TIME YOUR FIRING DOESN’T WORK INTO THE LOGIC HERE. SO WHY DO YOU MATTER >> AND AGAIN, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT IT’S TWO DECISIONS TO FIRE HER AND WHETHER IT WAS PROMPTED BY SOME CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND THAT WAS THE LOGICAL THING TO DO AND IS THAT AN OFFENSE. BUT IT’S THE REMOVE HER AND GET HER OUT OF CONTACT? >> THE PEOPLE CLOSEST WE HAVEN’T HEARD FROM

, AND I KNOW THAT THEY WOULD FEEL BETTER, AND GIULIANI IN PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY THEY WERE DOING BEHIND THE SCENES AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE ABOUT SOMEONE LIKE YOVANOVITCH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL >> WHAT’S THE MOTIVE, RIGHT? THAT’S THE UNANSWERED QUESTION >> THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION >> ANOTHER REASON IT’S SO CRUCIAL THAT SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI IS USING THE WURTD BRIBERY IS BECAUSE IT’S USED IN THE CONSTITUTION. AND IT’S A LOT OF ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION WHAT CONSTITUTES AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. IT SAYS THE PRESIDENT CAN BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. AS DEMOCRATS HAVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE UMBREMAS THAT THEY CAN FIT UNDER, BUT BRIBERY HAS ITS OWN MEM ROW LINE >> AND I THINK THAT MAKES IT EFFECTIVE FOR DEMOCRATS TO USE THAT WORD AND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, WE HEARD REPUBLICANS SAY WELL, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE. IT WAS A CRIME. IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR, WHO CAN DEFINE THOSE? WE DON’T DEFINE IT. THE REPUBLICANS’ MESSAGE HERE IS THAT TRUMP CARED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE CAMPAIGN. HE CONSIDERED MARIE TO BE PART OF CORRUPTION, AND HE WOULD REMOVE HER. SO THAT’S A BIT OF A HARD CASE FOR THEM TO MAKE, BUT I THINK THE IDEA OF BRIBERY IS GOING TO ALLOW DEMOCRATS TO TAKE THAT CASE DIRECTLY TO THE GOP >> BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT IS SUBJECTIVE. RIGHT? I HAVE HEARD SOME REPUBLICANS SAY THEY ACKNOWLEDGE WRONGDOING AND SAY IT’S NOT RIGHT TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN LEADER. I DON’T THINK IT’S IMPEACHMENT, BUT SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI IS GOING ALONG WITH THIS AND SAYING WE’RE ACCUSING HIM OF BRIBERY, AND THAT’S LITERALLY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE >> WE SAW MARIE YOVANOVITCH TESTIFY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK. WELL, I SHOULDN’T GO THAT FAR YET. IT’S MORE TO HAPPEN LATER BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND TOMORROW AT LEAST >> YEAH. DANIEL, DAVID HOLMES >> DAVID >> DAVID HOLMES IS INVOLVED IN THE THIS. HE IS AN EMBASSY AID WHO TOLD BILL TAYLOR LAST WEEK THAT HE WAS IN A RESTAURANT WITH GORDON SONDLAND, THE AMBASSADOR, AND WHEN GORDON SONDLAND PLACED A CALL TO UPDATE HIM ON MEETINGS, THIS IS THE BIG NEWS OUT OF WEDNESDAY’S MEETING, AND WHAT HE SAID HE HEARD WAS QUOTE ON QUOTE TRUMP TALKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION. AND I THINK THAT’S REALLY CRUCIAL OF HOW EXACTLY TRUMP BUZZ INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS, HIS ACTIONS AND WORDS BEHIND THE SCENES, SO HOLMES WILL BE SPEAKING TO IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATORS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TODAY, DOING HIS OWN DEPOSITION. WE DON’T KNOW YET WHETHER HE MIGHT TESTIFY PUBLICLY, BUT IT SEEMS THE TESTIMONY WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT >> YEAH. AS BILL TAYLOR WAS TELLING THE COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY, BY THE WAY, THIS NEW INFORMATION CAME TO MY ATTENTION, BASICALLY THURPD SAME TIME WE GOT NOTICE THAT DEMOCRATS HAD ASKED DAVID HOLMES TO COME TO SQUAUSH TESTIFY. SO THEY FIND THAT, TO YOUR POINT, A RELY ESSENTIAL PART AGAINST TRUMP, BECAUSE IT’S SOMEONE WITH SECOND HAND INFORMATION, HE CAN LITERALLY HEAR THE PRESIDENT’S VOICE >> LET’S LISTEN ON WEDNESDAY THIS IS THE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TALKING ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION AND AID OVERHEARD, AND WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION >> FOLLOWING THAT MEETING AT A RESTAURANT IN THE PRESENCE OF MY STAFF, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TOLD HIM ABOUT HIS MEETINGS. MY STAFF COULD OVERHEAR HIM ON THE PHONE ASKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD. FOLLOWING THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, A MEMBER OF MY STAFF ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHAT HIGH THOUGHT ABOUT UKRAINE. HE RESPONDED SAYING HE CARED MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION OF BIDEN WHICH GIULIANI WAS PRESSING FOR >> THAT WAS THE BIG TAKEAWAY FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS. I THINK IT WAS NEWSWORTHY TO HEAR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TALK HOW IT WAS A REGULAR CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY AND IRREGULAR CHANNEL HE HADN’T SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE. WE’VE SEEN THAT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT, BUT WE THE MAENCH PUBLIC HAVEN’T HEARD IT IN OUR OWN WORDS. AND WHY WASN’T IT SO NEW? ? >> AGAIN, IT SHOWS HOW TRUMP MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED DIRECTLY, AND WE SHOULD MENTION INTIMING THIS TOOK PLACE ALLEGEDLY ON JULY 26TH, THIS FAITHFUL DAY BETWEEN TRUMP AND PRESIDENT

ZELENSKY WHERE TRUMP PRESSURED HIM TO OPEN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDEN FAMILY. AND SO IF A DAY LATER THE PRESIDENT IS ON THE PHONE WITH THE EU AMBASSADOR WHO IS PART OF THE INFORMAL CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY ASKING FOR A STATUS UPDATE, I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO A BIT OF THE PRESIDENT’S MIND’ SET, WHAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR IN ALL OF THIS AND FRANKLY HOW COMMITTED HE WAS TO SEEING THESE INVESTIGATIONS OPEN >> AND WE WILL SEE GORDON SONDLAND TESTIFY PUBLICLY >> THAT TO ME IS THE TESTIMONY THAT COULD MOVE THE POLITICAL NEEDLE >> THAT’S ON WEDNESDAY MORNING >> IT’S WEDNESDAY MORNING SONDLAND HAS EXPLAINING TO DO HE’S ALREADY TRYING TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF. HE WENT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND SAID I DON’T RECALL I DON’T RECALL. I DON’T RECALL A LOT OF THESE COVERINGS. BILL TAYLOR TESTIFIED. ANOTHER NATIONAL SECURITY TESTIFIED, AND WE MURD SONDLAND WITH THE QUID PRO QUO ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS, AND THEN HE REVISED HIS TESTIMONY AND SAID THEY REFRESHED MY RECOLLECTION THAT’S AN ACTUAL QUOTE FROM LIVE TESTIMONY. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW FROM SONDLAND AND WHAT DEMOCRATS ABSOLUTELY WANT TO ASK FIRST THING, WHAT DID TRUMP SAY TO YOU? DID HE TALK ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS AS BEING POLITICAL AND NOT JUST GENERALLY ABOUT CORRUPTION? WAS HE SAYING THE BIDEN AND WHATEVER GIULIANI WANTS, HE WANTS UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE? AND AGAIN, WHY IS THAT A BIG DEAL THAT TRUMP WANTS POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS? BECAUSE IT COULD HELP HIM POLITICALLY WITH HIS CAMPAIGN? BY HAVING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE GO ON CNN AS WE’VE HEARD TESTIMONY HE WAS EXPECTED TO DO AND SAY I’M HAVINGING BIDEN >> YOU BROUGHT IT UP ALREADY, AND HAVE OTHERS TESTIFYING NEXT WEEK. AT THAT POINT, IT’S THANKSGIVING. BASICALLY THAT TAKES US TO THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING, AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WORKS AND KICKS INTO HIGH GEAR. THE INVESTIGATION IS THAT IT’S A REPORT AND GO TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND WE EXPECT THEM TO TAKE THIS UP NEXT AT LEAST >> AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WOULD BE CRULSHZ IN THAT PROCESS OF DRAFTING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND DRAFTED BY THE POLE HOUSE. I THINK IF WE WERE TO SEE A VOTE LIKE THAT, TO PREDICT THE TIMING A LITTLE BIT, IT WOULD LIKELY BE BEFORE THE HOLIDAY, BEFORE THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY, AND THEN YOU COULD SEE A TRIAL IN THE SENATE STARTING AFTER JANUARY 1ST. BUT AGAIN AS NANCY PELOSI HAS SAID, THEY HAVEN’T FULLY DECIDED WHETHER TO DRAFT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT? NOW, THAT’S THE PUBLIC MESSAGE. MAYBE PRIVATELY THEY HAVE DECIDED. I THINK THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS WILL BE CRUCIAL >>> IGNORE THE IMPEACHMENT, AND HE’S EXCITED HE’S NOT GOING TO TESTIFY. YOU HAVE JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AT THE TIME AND REALLY FRUSTRATED BY ALL OF THIS UKRAINE POLICY CHANNEL >>

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GATHERED ON THE DAIS AND THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE A COMMITTEE AND I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS FORMAT WE SAW ON WEDNESDAY. 45 MINUTES ON EACH SIDE TO HAVE THAT Q& A AND DEVELOP THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING LIKE WHAT YOU SEE IN A TRIAL SETTING. IT HAS BEEN FRUSTRATING WHEN THERE’S BEEN THIS PING-PONG OF FIVE MINUTES ON EACH SIDE WHERE YOU CAN’T REALLY GO ANYWHERE OR GET A SENSE OF AN ARGUMENT OR EVEN A COMPLETE THOUGHT. WHAT DO YOU TAKE AWAY FROM HOW THE FORMAT HELPED OR HURT PEOPLE LAST WEEK AND I’D LIKE TO POINT OUT ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEMOCRATS AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLICANS AND WE EXPECT TO SEE THEM DO THE SAME THING >> I TALKED TO A LAWYER BACKING UP THE HOUSE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION HE SAID MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE NOT ACTUALLY GOOD QUESTIONERS THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO >> THEY ALSO HAVE A DUAL AGENDA THEY ARE TRYING TO GET ANSWERS AND MAKE MOMENTS FOR THEMSELVES WHICH MAY NOT WORK >> YOU CAN SEE SOMETIMES PARTICULARLY ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE THOSE MOMENTS CAN BE SCRIPTED AND SEE PEOPLE READING A SHARPLY WORDED QUESTION. AND THEN THEY INTERRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS WITH PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES CARRYING OUT THEIR MESSAGE. I THINK THE REPUBLICANS WILL TRY TO DISRUPT THE PROCESS AND USE IT FOR MESSAGING PURPOSES >> THE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLICANS HAD SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY TYPE STUFF. THEY DID NOT HAVE A SENSE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN RESONATING WITH THE REPUBLICAN BASE THAT HURT SOME OF THOSE LINES BEFORE. DO WE EXPECT THAT MR CASTRO LEARNED ANYTHING? >> I CAN’T WAIT TO WATCH I THINK HE STUMBLED A LITTLE BIT AFTER A STRONG PERFORMANCE BY GOLDMAN. DEMOCRATS GET TO CALL THE SHOTS AND BRING IN THE WITNESSES THEY FEEL ARE THE MOST DAMAGING TO THE PRESIDENT HOW DID REPUBLICANS GAIN TRACTION WITH THESE GUYS IF THEY DON’T HAVE THE WRONG WITNESSES? I THINK HE HAD A LINE THAT WAS QUITE MEMORABLE WHERE HE SAID I CAN COORDINATE EXACTLY RIGHT BUT IS IT THAT OUTLANDISH OF RUDY GIULIANI DOING THESE INTERACTIONS? HE CANNOT DO THAT AGAIN. I DON’T KNOW WHAT HIS STRATEGY IS >> A REMINDER THAT HE COMES ALONG WITH JIM JORDAN WHO’S BEEN PUT ON THIS COMMITTEE BY THE REPUBLICANS TO HAVE A SEAT ON THE DAIS AND WE DID SEE JIM JORDAN REALLY FIRE THINGS UP PEOPLE ON TWITTER WERE LIKE, HOW MANY RED BULLS DID HE DRINK? WHEN HIS TURN CAME TO TALK HE WANTED TO WAKE EVERYONE UP AND CREATE SOME DRAMA AND VOICES CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS AS WELL AS JUST WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING TO GET THAT THEY TRY TO SHARE THAT ROLE OF TOP REPUBLICANS AND WE SHOULD GET UNDERWAY IN JUST A MOMENT WE WILL BE BACK DURING ANY BREAKS. I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH WELL I HAVE A MOMENT FOR BEING HERE WITH US AND YOU CAN FOLLOW THE REPORTING THROUGHOUT THE SCHEDULE >> THE WOMAN IS SAID TO TESTIFY AND THE WOMEN WILL BE WATCHING >> YOU CAN CATCH [email protected] AND WE WILL BE STREAMING THESE HEARINGS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS. WE WILL BE HERE BACK NEXT WEEK WHEN THEY’VE GOT PUBLIC HEARINGS AGAIN TO SHOW THIS TO YOU AND YOU CAN CHECK THEM OUT AND COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSION ABOUT THE PROCESS AND THE WITNESSES. EVERYONE IS WAITING FOR MARIE TO COME IN SHE TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS BEFORE. PART OF WHAT THESE OFFICIALS DO BUT NEVER IN SUCH A HIGH PROFILE WAY. I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTICE IS SHE HAS A DIFFERENT STYLE OF PERSONALITY AND PHYSICAL PRESENCE THAN THE TWO MALE WITNESSES WE SAW. I WILL BE

CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THE REPUBLICAN SIDE RESPONSE TO THAT. SHE IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED OFFICIAL AND FRIENDS OF HERS TOLD ME YESTERDAY SHE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE QUITE AS BOISTEROUS >> THE FORMER AMBASSADOR IS COMING IN TO TAKE THE SEAT YOU CAN’T EVEN SEE HER THROUGH THE THRONGS OF REPORTERS AND PEOPLE THERE >> SO THERE IS A GENDER DYNAMIC THAT REPUBLICANS IN PARTICULAR NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR >> LET’S GO LIVE TO THE HEARING ROOM AS WE WATCH DAY TWO OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN MORE THAN 20 YEARS. THIS IS INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP LED BY DEMOCRATS HERE. LET’S GO THERE LIVE NOW >> THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. THIS IS THE SECOND IN A SERIES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WE WILL HOLD FOR THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT SO WE WILL PROCEED IN THE SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING AND WE WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND WE WILL TURN TO OUR WITNESS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN TO QUESTIONS. WE RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HERE AND WE ASK AS WE IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS. I WILL TAKE ALL STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER TO ENSURE WE IRAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE RULES WITH THAT I RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD J TRUMP THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN APRIL 2019 THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WAS IN KEY AVENUE WHEN SHE WAS CALLED BY A SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND TOLD TO GET ON THE NEXT PLANE BACK TO WASHINGTON. UPON HER RETURN TO DC SHE WAS INFORMED BY HER SUPERIORS THAT ALTHOUGH SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT THERE WAS A STUNNING TURN OF EVENTS FOR THIS HIGHLY REGARDED CAREER DIPLOMAT WHO HAD DONE SUCH A REMARKABLE JOB FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND SHE HAD BEEN ASKED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO EXTEND HER TOUR. SHE HAS BEEN IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE FOR 43 YEARS AND SERVED MUCH OF THAT TIME IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION HER PARENTS HAVE FLED STOLEN AND LATER HITLER BEFORE SETTLING IN THE UNITED STATES. SHE IS AN EXEMPLARY OFFICER WIDELY PRAISED AND RESPECTED BY HER COLLEAGUES SHE IS KNOWN AS AN ANTICORRUPTION CHAMPION WHO STORE WAS VIEWED AS VERY SUCCESSFUL AMBASSADOR MICHAEL McKINLEY WHO SERVED WITH HER FOR SEVERAL DECADES STATED THAT FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS OF HER CAREER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE SHE WAS EXCELLENT, SERIOUS, COMMITTED. I REMEMBER HER BEING ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO BE DESTINED FOR GREATER THINGS. HER SUCCESSOR IS ACTING CHIEF TAYLOR DESCRIBED HER AS VERY FRANK AND SHE WAS VERY DIRECT AND SHE MADE POINTS CLEARLY AND SHE WAS INDEED TOUGH ON CORRUPTION AND SHE NAMED NAMES AND THAT IS SOMETIMES CONTROVERSIAL OUT THERE THAT SHE IS A STRONG PERSON AND MADE THOSE CHARGES IN HER TIME IN KEY AVENUE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS TOUGH ON CORRUPTION. TO TAP ON CORRUPTION FOR SOME HER PRINCIPAL STANDS MADE HER ENEMIES AS GEORGE KENT TOLD THIS COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY YOU CANNOT PROMOTE ACTION WITHOUT PASSING OFF CORRUPT PEOPLE. AND AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DID NOT JUST SOFT CORRUPT UKRAINIANS LIKE THE CORRUPT BUT ALSO CERTAIN AMERICANS LIKE RUDY GIULIANI, DONALD TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WORKED

WITH THEM. GIULIANI, AND OTHERS WHO CAME TO INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT’S OWN SON DON JUNIOR PROMOTED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO PUSH BACK TO OBTAIN A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM SECRETARY POMPEO BUT THOSE EFFORTS FAILED WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THE PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED HER GONE SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE OR REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR HE WANTS. THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THAT IS TRUE. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT WHETHER HE CAN RECALL IN AMBASSADOR WITH A STELLAR REPUTATION FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WHY WOULD HE WANT TO? WHY DID RUDY GIULIANI WANT HER DONE AND WHY DID DONALD TRUMP? AND WHY WOULD DONALD TRUMP INSTRUCT THE NEW TEAM HE PUT IN PLACE THE THREE OF MY GOES TO WORK WITH THE SAME MAN RUDY GIULIANI WHO PLAYED SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER RUDY GIULIANI HAS MADE NO SECRET HIS DESIRE TO GET UKRAINE TO OPEN INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS AS WELL AS A CONSPIRACY THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE. AS HE SAID A ONE INTERVIEW IN 2018 , WE ARE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION WHICH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO. MORE RECENTLY HE TOLD CNN OF COURSE I DID WHEN ASKED IF HE HAD PRESS UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN. AND HE HAS NEVER BEEN SHY ABOUT WHO HE IS DOING THIS WORK FOR. HIS CLIENT, THE PRESIDENT. ONE POWERFUL ALL LIGHT GIULIANI HAD TO PROMOTE THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS WAS YURIY LUTSENKO A CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND ONE POWERFUL ADVERSARY YURIY LUTSENKO HAD WAS A CERTAIN AMBASSADOR NAMED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. IT’S NO COINCIDENCE IN THE CALL DONALD TRUMP BRINGS UP A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR AND PRAISES HIM AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE CLAIMS THIS FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT IS REALLY UNFAIR BUT THE WOMAN KNOW FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION HIS OWN FORMER AMBASSADOR, THE WOMAN RUTHLESSLY SMEARED AND DRIVEN FROM HER POST, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOTHING BUT DISPARAGE OR WORSE, THREATEN. WELL, SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS THE PRESIDENT DECLARES. THAT TELLS YOU A LOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS PRIORITIES AND INTENTIONS. GETTING RID OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HELP SET THE STAGE FOR IN A REGULAR CHANNEL THAT COULD PURSUE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT MATTERS SO MUCH TO THE PER DOES THE. THE CONSPIRACY THEORY AND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2020 POLITICAL OPPONENT HE APPARENTLY FEARED MOST, JOE BIDEN. THE PRESIDENTS GAME MIGHT HAVE WORKED BUT FOR THE FACT FOR THE MAN WHO WOULD SUCCEED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHO WE HEARD FROM ON WEDNESDAY ACTING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WOULD EVENTUALLY DISCOVER THE EFFORT TO PRESS UKRAINE INTO CONDUCTING THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND WOULD PUSH BACK. BUT FOR THE FACT THAT SOMEONE BLEW THE WHISTLE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS SERVING OUR NATION’S INTEREST IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE SHE WAS CONSIDERED AN OBSTACLE TO THE FURTHERANCE OF THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL AGENDA AND FOR THAT SHE WAS SMEARED AND CAST ASIDE THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY ARE IMMENSE. BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE. THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR CORRUPT PURPOSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT THE PRESIDENT TO USE THE AUTHORITY THEY GRANT HIM IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATION AND NOT TO DESTROY OTHERS TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS. I NOW RECOGNIZE MEMBER NUNEZ FOR HIS REMARKS >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT TODAY AND FOR MOST OF NEXT WEEK WE WILL CONTINUE ENGAGING IN THE DEMOCRATS DAY LONG TV

SPECTACLES INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE PROBLEMS WE WERE ALL SENT TO WASHINGTON TO ADDRESS. WE NOW HAVE A MAJOR TRADING AGREEMENT WITH CANADA AND MEXICO READY FOR APPROVAL. A DEAL THAT WOULD CREATE JOBS AND BOOST OUR ECONOMY. MEANWHILE WE HAVE NOT APPROVED FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT WHICH EXPIRES NEXT WEEK. ALONG WITH FUNDING FOR OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM INSTEAD THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CONVENED US ONCE AGAIN TO ADVANCE THEIR INVESTIGATION TO TOPPLE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT FIVE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAD ALREADY VOTED TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT BEFORE THE TRUMP ZELINSKI PHONE CALL OCCURRED THEY HAVE BEEN VOWING TO OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP SINCE THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED. AMERICANS CAN RIGHTLY SUSPECT HIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS USED TO FULFILL THEIR WATERGATE FANTASIES. BUT I AM GLAD THAT ON WEDNESDAY AFTER THE DEMOCRATS STAGE VI WEEKS OF SECRET DEPOSITIONS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL LIKE SOME KIND OF STRANGE CALLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FINALLY GOT TO SEE THIS FARCE FOR THEMSELVES THEY SAW US SIT THROUGH HOURS OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THE TWO DIPLOMATS HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT HEARD FIRST HAND, SECOND HAND AND THIRD HAND IN OTHER WORDS RUMORS. THE PROBLEM OF TRYING TO OVERTHROW A PRESIDENT BASED ON THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS OBVIOUS. BUT THAT IS WHAT THEIR WHOLE CASE RELIES ON BEGINNING WITH SECONDHAND AND THIRDHAND INFORMATION CITED BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER. ON WEDNESDAY THE DEMOCRATS WERE FORCED TO MAKE THE ABSURD ARGUMENT THAT HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE AND JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THE SPECTACLE COULDN’T GET MORE BIZARRE REPUBLICANS RECEIVED THE MEMO FROM THE DEMOCRATS THREATENING ETHICS REFERRALS IF WE OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE WELL AWARE NO REPUBLICANS HERE KNOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S IDENTITY, BECAUSE THE WHISTLEBLOWER ONLY MET WITH DEMOCRATS, NOT WITH REPUBLICANS. CHAIRMAN SHIFT CLAIM NOT TO KNOW WHO IT IS AND HE ALSO VOWED TO BLOCK US FROM ASKING QUESTIONS THAT COULD REVEAL HIS OR HER IDENTITY REPUBLICANS ARE LEFT WONDERING HOW IS EVEN POSSIBLE FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO BLOCK QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON WHOSE IDENTITY HE CLAIMS NOT TO KNOW. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY BE SEEING THESE ABSURDITIES FOR THE FIRST TIME. REPUBLICANS ON THE STYLE SO USED TO THEM UNTIL THEY SECRETLY MET WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER THEY SHOWED LITTLE INTEREST IN ANY TOPIC ASIDE FROM THE RIDICULOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES THE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT. WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF ON THE PHONE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS DID WITH THE RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS OFFERING NUDE PICTURES OF TRUMP AND YOU ORDER YOUR SAFTA FOLLOW-UP AND GET THE PHOTOS AS THE DEMOCRATS ALSO DID, IT MIGHT BE TIME TO ASK YOURSELF IF YOU’VE GONE OUT TOO FAR ON A LIMB. EVEN AS THEY WERE ACCUSING THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES WERE COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS BY FUNDING THE DOSSIER BASED ON RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN FORCES MEANWHILE THEY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UKRAINIANS MEDDLING IN OUR ELECTIONS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE COOPERATING WITH THAT OPERATION. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF A JULY 20 2017 LETTER SENT BY SENATOR GRASSLEY TO THEN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN THE LETTER RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF ALEXANDER CHALUPA A CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. HE WORKED WITH THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO SPREAD DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. A SENATOR GRASSLEY WROTE HIS ACTIONS APPEAR TO SHOW THAT SHE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY WORKING ON BEHALF OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE AND ON BEHALF OF THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN AN EFFORT TO INFLUENCE NOT ONLY THE U.S VOTING POPULATION BUT U.S GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. AFTER TOUTING THE STILL DOSSIER AND THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WHICH ARE NOW BEING INVESTIGATED BY INSPECTOR GENERAL HORWITZ AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL BAR DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE IGNORE UKRAINIAN MEDDLING EVEN THOUGH CHALUPA PUBLICLY ADMITTED TO THE DEMOCRATS SCHEME LIKEWISE THEY ARE BLIND TO THE BLARING SIGNS OF CORRUPTION SURROUNDING HUNTER BIDEN’S WELL-PAID POSITION ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT AND POINT MAN FOR UKRAINE ISSUES IN THE OBAMA

ADMINISTRATION. THE MEDIA ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT THAT ISSUE BRIEFLY. THEY WERE TRYING TO STOP JOE BIDEN FROM RUNNING AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON IN 2015 THESE HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BE OCCURRING AT ALL UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWERS TO THREE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS. FIRST, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHO WILL SET THE WHISTLEBLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE’S MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THIRD, WHY DID HE HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION? I WILL NOTE THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS BOWED THEY WOULD NOT PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH A WRENCHING IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WITHOUT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. AND THEY HAVE NONE. ADD THAT TO THE EVER-GROWING LIST OF BROKEN PROMISES AND INSTRUCTIVE DECEPTIONS. IN CLOSING, MR CHAIR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELEASED HIS TRANSCRIPT RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT I READ THIS INTO THE RECORD SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION OVER THIS FIRST PHONE CALL THAT OCCURRED ON APRIL 21 WITH PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON A JOB WELL DONE AND CONGRATULATIONS ON A FANTASTIC COLLECTION >> ZELENSKY, GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE CONGRATULATIONS >> THE PRESIDENT. THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE ELECTION >> ZELENSKY, AGAIN, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. WE TRIED VERY HARD TO DO OUR BEST WE HAD YOU IS A GREAT EXAMPLE >> THE PRESIDENT:I THINK YOU WILL DO A GREAT JOB AND I HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN UKRAINE WHO KNOW YOU AND LIKE YOU. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM UKRAINE AND FRANKLY EXPECTED YOU TO WIN. IT IS AN AMAZING THING THAT YOU HAVE DONE. I GUESS IN A WAY I DID SOMETHING SIMILAR. WE ARE MAKING TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN THE U.S. AND WE HAVE THE MOST TREMENDOUS ECONOMY EVER. I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE YOU. I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU WILL BE A FANTASTIC PRESIDENT >> TRAN03:1ST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS. WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE, AND WE WILL DO EVERYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE. YOU ARE AS I SAID A GREAT EXAMPLE. WE HOPE WE CAN EXPAND ON OUR JOBS AS YOU DID IT YOU WILL ALSO BE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR MANY. YOU ARE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR OUR NEW MANAGERS. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU A POSSIBLE TO THE INAUGURATION. I KNOW HOW BUSY YOU ARE BUT IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO COME THAT WOULD BE GREAT. GREAT FOR YOU TO BE WITH US ON THAT DATE >> THE PRESIDENT:THAT’S VERY NICE. I WILL LOOK INTO THAT AND GIVE US A DATE AT THE VERY MINIMUM WE WILL HAVE A GREAT MINIMUM OR MORE WE WILL BE WITH YOU ON THAT GREAT DAY. WE WILL HAVE SOMEBODY AT A MINIMUM A VERY HIGH LEVEL AND WILL BE WITH YOU. AN INCREDIBLE DAY FOR AN INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT >> TRAN03:AGAIN, THANK YOU. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR VISIT. THERE IS NO WORDS THAT CAN DESCRIBE OUR WONDERFUL COUNTRY AND HOW WARM AND FRIENDLY ARE PEOPLE ARE AND HOW DELICIOUS OUR FOOD IS AND HOW WONDERFUL UKRAINE IS. IT WOULD BE BEST FOR YOU TO SEE IT YOURSELF. IF YOU CAN COME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. AGAIN, I INVITE YOU TO COME >> THE PRESIDENT:I AGREE ABOUT YOU AND UKRAINE WAS ALWAYS VERY WELL REPRESENTED IN AND WHEN YOU’RE READY I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE. WE WILL HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT WE ARE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY >> TRAN03:THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION. WE ACCEPT, AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE VISIT. THE WHOLE TEAM AND I ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE VISIT. THANK YOU FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD BE WITH US ON THIS IMPORTANT DAY THE RESULTS ARE INCREDIBLE IT WILL BE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC IF YOU COULD COME ON THAT DAY >> THE PRESIDENT:VERY GOOD. WE WILL LET YOU KNOW VERY SOON AND WE WILL SEE YOU VERY SOON REGARDLESS. PLEASE SAY HELLO TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW I SEND MY BEST REGARDS >> TRAN03:THANK YOU

>> THE PRESIDENT. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF I WILL SEE YOU SOON >> ZELENSKY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME, BUT I WILL PRACTICE ENGLISH AND I WILL BE IN ENGLISH >> THE PRESIDENT, LAUGHING, I COULD NOT DO IT IN YOUR LANGUAGE. I AM VERY IMPRESSED THANK YOU SO MUCH >> TRAN03:THANK YOU SO MUCH >> THE PRESIDENT:GOOD DAY. GOOD LUCK >> NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE VERY FIRST CALL THE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY . AND WAS THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> MR. PRESIDENT I HAVE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED >> I HAVE POINT >> THE POINT OF ORDER IS WILL THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUED TO PROHIBIT WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS AS YOU’VE DONE THIS WEEK WHEN YOU INTERRUPTED OUR QUESTIONS? >> NOT A PROPER POINT OF ORDER >> MR. SPEAKER — >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED THE RANKING MEMBER WAS ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE OPENING STATEMENT I WAS HAPPY TO ALLOW HIM TO DO SO. I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO THE CALL RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, I AM GRATEFUL THE PRESIDENT RELEASED A CALL RECORD. I WOULD NOW ASKED THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE HER THOUSANDS OF OTHER RECORDS HE HAS INSTRUCTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO RELEASE INCLUDING TAYLOR’S NOTES, TAYLOR’S CABLE, GEORGE CANS MEMO, DOCUMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ABOUT WHY THE MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD, THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND WE WOULD ASKED THE PRESIDENT TO STOP OBSTRUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHILE WE ARE GRATEFUL HE RELEASE A SINGLE DOCUMENT, HE HAS NONETHELESS OBSTRUCTED WITNESSES AND THEIR TESTIMONY AND THE PRODUCTIONS OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER RECORDS. MR PRESIDENT, I HOPE YOU WILL EXPLAIN TO THE COUNTRY TODAY WHY IT WAS AFTER THIS CALL AND WHILE THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS MAKING PLANS TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION YOU INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO ATTEND ZELENSKY INAUGURATION >> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE POINT OF ORDER >> THE GENTLEWOMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SHE WAS BORN IN CANADA TO PARENTS WHO FLED THE SOVIET UNION AND THE . AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH BECAME A NATURALIZED AMERICAN AT EIGHT TEEN AND ENTERED THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 1986. SHE HAS SERVED AS U.S AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES AND BEEN NOMINATED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES. GEORGE W. BUSH NOMINATED HER TO THE REPUBLIC WHICH HE SERVED FROM 2005 TO 2008. RESIDENT OBAMA NOMINATED HER TO ARMENIA WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2008 UNTIL 2011 AND THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2016 UNTIL SHE WAS RECALLED TO WASHINGTON BY TRUMP IN MAY SHE HAS HELD NUMEROUS OTHER SENIOR POSITIONS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING IN THE BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS. SHE SERVED AS DEAN AT THE FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE AND TAUGHT STRATEGY AT THE DEFENSE UNIVERSITY. SHE SERVED AT U.S. EMBASSIES IN KIEV, OTTAWA, MOSCOW AND MOGADISHU AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE HONORS OR HER DIPLOMATIC WORK INCLUDING THIS SENIOR SERVICE AWARD AND DIPLOMACY IN HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD TWO FINAL WORDS. FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS DEPOSITION WERE UNCLASSIFIED WILL BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF REPRISAL OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU WIN DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP

YOU GOD? LET THE RECORD SHOW THE WITNESSES ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, AND PLEASE BE SEATED. YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD AND WITH THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH YOU WILL RECOGNIZE FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT >> MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER NUNES — >> SPEAK VERY CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO START WITH THE STATEMENT AND REINTRODUCE MYSELF TO THE COMMITTEE AND HIGHLIGHT PARTS OF MY BIOGRAPHY AND EXPERIENCE. I COME BEFORE YOU AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAS DEVOTED THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE, 33 YEARS, FOR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY THAT ALL OF US LOVE. LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I ENTERED THE FOREIGN SERVICE UNDERSTANDING THAT MY JOB WAS TO IMPLEMENT THE FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OF THIS NATION AS DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS AND TO DO SO REGARDLESS OF WHICH PERSON OR PARTY WAS IN POWER. I HAD NO AGENDA OTHER THAN TO PURSUE OUR STATED FOREIGN POLICY GOALS MY SERVICE IS AN EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE FOR ALL THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS GIVEN TO ME AND MY FAMILY. MY LATE PARENTS DID NOT HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE TO COME OF AGE IN A FREE SOCIETY. MY FATHER FLED AND FOUND REFUGE IN THE UNITED STATES AND MY MOTHER’S FAMILY ESCAPE THE USSR AFTER THE REVOLUTION AND GREW UP IN GERMANY BEFORE EVENTUALLY MAKING HER WAY TO THE UNITED STATES. THEIR PERSONAL HISTORIES, MY PERSONAL HISTORY GAVE ME BOTH DEEP GRATITUDE TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT EMPATHY FOR OTHERS LIKE THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE FREE I JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY SERVED THREE OTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AS WELL AS TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS. IT WAS MY GREAT HONOR TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES, TWICE BY GEORGE W BUSH, AND ONCE BY BARACK OBAMA THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT DIPLOMATS LEAD A COMFORTABLE LIFE THROWING DINNER PARTIES IN FANCY HOMES. LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF MY REALITY. IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EASY. I HAVE MOVED 13 TIMES. I HAVE SERVED IN SEVEN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, FIVE OF THEM HARDSHIP POSTS. MY FIRST WORD WAS AMMONIA AND INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS PLACE AS THE COUNTRY’S CIVIL WAR GRINDING ON AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS WEAKENING. THE MILITARY TOOK OVER POLICING FUNCTIONS IN A PARTICULARLY BRUTAL WAY, AND BASIC SERVICES DISAPPEARED SEVERAL YEARS LATER , AFTER THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED, I HELPED OPEN OUR EMBASSY IN PAKISTAN. AS WE WERE ESTABLISHING RELATIONS WITH THE NEW COUNTRY ARE SMALL EMBASSY WAS ATTACKED BY A GUNMAN WHO SPRAYED THE EMBASSY BUILDING WITH GUNFIRE. I LATER SERVED IN MOSCOW. IN 1993 DURING THE ATTEMPTED COUP IN RUSSIA I WAS CAUGHT IN CROSSFIRE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY FORCES. IT TOOK US THREE TIMES ME WITHOUT A HELMET OR BODY ARMOR TO GET INTO A VEHICLE TO GO TO THE EMBASSY. WE WENT BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR ASKED US TO COME. WE WENT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR DUTY FROM AUGUST 2016 UNTIL MAY 2019 I SERVED AS A U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE DURING MY TENURE IN UKRAINE I WENT TO THE FRONT LINE APPROXIMATELY 10 TIMES DURING A HOT WAR I SHOW THE AMERICAN FLAG AND TO HEAR WHAT WAS GOING ON SOMETIMES LITERALLY AS WE HEARD THE IMPACT OF ARTILLERY, AND TO SEE HOW OUR DOLLARS WERE BEING PUT TO USE. I WORK 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 INTEGRATED INTO EUROPE. THE SECURE DEMOCRATIC AND PRE-UKRAINE SERVES NOT JUST THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL. THAT IS WHY IT WAS OUR POLICY AND CONTINUES TO BE OUR POLICY TO HELP THE UKRAINIANS MEET THEIR OBJECTIVES. THE U.S. IS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF OUR VALUES. OUR VALUES HAVE MADE POSSIBLE THE NETWORK OF ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT BUTTRESSES OUR OWN STRENGTH. UKRAINE WAS AN ENORMOUS LANDMASS AN ENORMOUS POPULATION AND HAS THE

POTENTIAL TO BE A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTNER FOR THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER ON THE SECURITY SIDE. WE SEE THE POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE. RUSSIA SEES, BY CONTRAST, A RISK. THE HISTORY IS NOT WRITTEN YET, BUT UKRAINE COULD MOVE OUT OF RUSSIA’S ORBIT. AND NOW UKRAINE IS A BATTLEGROUND FOR GREAT POWER COMPETITION WITH A HOT WAR FOR THE CONTROL OF TERRITORY AND A HYBRID FOR TO CONTROL UKRAINE’S LEADERSHIP THE U.S. HAS PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT SECURITY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE ONSET OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN 2014 AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRENGTHEN OUR POLICY BY APPROVING THE PROVISION TO UKRAINE OF ANTITANK MISSILES KNOWN AS JAVELINS SUPPORTING UKRAINE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND ALSO THE SMART THING TO DO. OF PRESSURE PREVAILS IN UKRAINE FALLS TO RUSSIAN DOMINION WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE OTHER ATTEMPTS BY RUSSIA TO EXPAND ITS TERRITORY AND ITS INFLUENCE. AS CRITICAL AS THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS, UKRAINE’S STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY HAS AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT BATTLING THE SOVIET LEGACY OF CORRUPTION WHICH IS PERVADED UKRAINE’S CORRUPTION. CORRUPTION MAKES UKRAINE’S LEADERS VULNERABLE TO RUSSIA. THAT IS WHY THEY LAUNCHED A REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY DEMANDING TO BE A PART OF EUROPE. DEMANDING THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM DEMANDING TO LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. UKRAINIANS ONE OF THE LAW TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE BUT THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION IS THE PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN. IT WAS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS AND DIGNITY. HERE AGAIN THERE IS A COINCIDENCE OF INTEREST. CORRUPT LEADERS ARE LESS TRUSTWORTHY WHILE HONEST AND ACCOUNTABLE LEADERSHIP MAKES A PARTNERSHIP MORE RELIABLE AND MORE VALUABLE TO THE UNITED STATES. A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN A STRATEGICALLY LOCATED COUNTRY BORDERING FOR NATO ALLIES CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH U.S BUSINESS CAN MORE EASILY TRADE, INVEST, AND PROFIT. CORRUPTION IS A SECURITY ISSUE CORRUPT OFFICIALS ARE VULNERABLE TO MOSCOW. IN SHORT, IT IS IN AMERICA’S NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO HELP UKRAINE TRANSFORM INTO A COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW GOVERNS CORRUPTION IS HELD IN CHECK. IT WAS A REMAINS A TOP U.S PRIORITY TO HELP UKRAINE BY CORRUPTION AND SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE 2014 REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY UNFORTUNATELY AS THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS OF UNDERLYING, NOT ALL UKRAINIANS EMBRACE THEIR ANTICORRUPTION WORK. IT WAS NOT SURPRISING WHEN I ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS GOT IN THE WAY OF PROFIT OR POWER UKRAINIANS PREFER TO PLAY BY THE OLD CORRUPT RULES.TO REMOVE ME WHAT CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME IS THAT THEY FOUND AMERICANS WILLING TO PARTNER WITH THEM AND WORKING TOGETHER THEY APPARENTLY SUCCEEDED IN ORCHESTRATING THE REMOVAL OF ALL U.S. AMBASSADOR HOW COULD OUR SYSTEM FEEL LIKE THIS? HOW WAS IT THE FOREIGN CORRUPT INTEREST MANIPULATE OUR GOVERNMENT? WHICH COUNTRIES INTERESTS ARE SERVED WHEN THE VERY CORRUPT BEHAVIOR WE BEEN CRITICIZING IS ALLOWED TO PREVAIL? SUCH CONDUCT UNDERMINES THE U.S. AND EXPOSES OUR FRIENDS AND WIDENS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR AUTOCRATS LIKE PRESIDENT PUTIN OUR LEADERSHIP DEPENDS ON THE POWER OF OUR EXAMPLE AND THE CONSISTENCY OF OUR PURPOSE. BOTH HAVE NOW BEEN OPEN TO QUESTION WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES I EXPECT YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT STARTING WITH MY TIMELINE IN UKRAINE AND THE EVENTS OF WHICH I HAVE AND HAVE NOT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE. I ARRIVED IN UKRAINE IN 2016 AND LEFT UKRAINE PERMANENTLY ON MAY 20, 2019 THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EVENTS TO WHICH I CANNOT BRING ANY FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE. THE EVENTS THAT PREDATED MY UKRAINE SERVICE INCLUDE THE RELEASE OF THE SO-CALLED BLACK LEDGER AND MR MANAFORT SUBSEQUENT RESIGNATION FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN AND THE DEPARTURE FROM OFFICE OF FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL SEVERAL OTHER EVENTS OCCURRED AFTER I RETURNED INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S JULY 25, 2019 CALL WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND ANY DISCUSSION SURROUNDING THE DELAY OF

SECURITY ASSISTANCE . EVENTS DURING MY TENURE IN UKRAINE I LIKE TO REITERATE FIRST THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT I DISSEMINATED AND DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST WAS A FABRICATION. THE FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WHO MADE THAT IT , I DID NOT TELL HIM OR OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE INSTEAD I ADVOCATED THE U.S. POSITION THE RULE OF LAW SHOULD PREVAIL AND UKRAINIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES SHOULD STOP WILTING THEIR POWER SELECTIVELY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AGAINST THEIR ADVERSARIES AND START DEALING WITH ALL CONSISTENTLY AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW. ALSO UNTRUE ARE UNSOURCED ALLEGATIONS THAT I TOLD UNIDENTIFIED EMBASSY EMPLOYEES OR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THE PRESIDENT TRUMP SORTER SHOULD BE IGNORED BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. I DID NOT AND I WOULD NOT SAY SUCH A THING BUT STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH MY TRAINING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER IN MY ROLE AS AN AMBASSADOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID NOT ASK ME TO HELP THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN OR HARM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. NOR WOULD I HAVE TAKEN ANY SUCH STEP IF THEY HAD PARTISANSHIP OF THIS TYPE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROLE OF A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER. I HAVE NEVER MET HUNTER BIDEN NOR HAVE I HAD ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM ALTHOUGH I HAVE MET FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF OUR MANY YEARS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE, NEITHER HE NOR THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION EVER RAISE THE ISSUE OF HUNTER BIDEN WITH ME WITH RESPECT TO MAYOR GIULIANI, I HAVE HAD ONLY MINIMAL CONTACT WITH HIM A TOTAL OF THREE AND NOT RELATED TO THE EVENTS AT ISSUE. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MR. GIULIANI’S MOTIVE FOR ATTACKING ME NOR CAN I OFFER AN OPINION ON WHETHER HE BELIEVES THE ALLEGATIONS HE SPREAD ABOUT ME. CLEARLY, NO ONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT MR GIULIANI SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THOSE CLAIMS WERE SUSPECT COMING AS THEY REPORTEDLY DID FROM INDIVIDUALS WITH QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES AND REASON TO BELIEVE THE POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL AMBITIONS WOULD BE STYMIED BY HER ANTICORRUPTION POLICY IN THE UKRAINE. AFTER BEING ASKED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN EARLY MARCH 2019 TO EXTEND MY TOUR UNTIL 2020 THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME INSERT A NEW PUBLIC PHASE IN THE UNITED STATES. IN THE WAKE OF THE NEGATIVE PRESS STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS SUGGESTED IN EARLIER DEPARTURE AND WE AGREED UPON JULY 2019. I WAS ABRUPTLY TOLD WEEKS LATER IN LATE APRIL TO COME BACK TO WASHINGTON FROM UKRAINE ON THE NEXT PLANE. AT THE TIME I DEPARTED UKRAINE HAD JUST CONCLUDED GAME CHANGING RESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. IT WAS A SENSITIVE PERIOD WITH MUCH AT STAKE FOR THE UNITED STATES. THE CALL FOR ALL OF THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE WE COULD MUSTER WHEN I RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES I WAS TOLD THERE HAD BEEN A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME AND THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WISH ME TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE IN FACT THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR MY REMOVAL SINCE THE PRIOR SUMMER. AS MR SULLIVAN RECOUNTED DURING HIS SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING NEITHER HE NOR ANYONE ELSE EVER EXPLAIN I THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT’S CONCERNS ABOUT ME OR DID ANYONE JUSTIFY MY EARLY DEPARTURE BY SUGGESTING I HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG. I APPRECIATE THAT MR. SULLIVAN PUBLICLY AFFIRM THAT IS YOUR RING I SERVE CAPABLY AND ADMIRABLY. ALTHOUGH THEN AND NOW I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THE FOREIGN TO PREVENT INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE U.S. INTERESTS IN THIS WAY INDIVIDUALS WHO FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE U.S POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION TO DO OUR MISSION WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST THE SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS. AS VARIOUS WITNESSES HAVE ACCOUNTED THEY SHARED BASELESS ALLEGATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONVINCED HIM TO REMOVE HIS AMBASSADOR DESPITE THE FACT THE

STATE DEPARTMENT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE AND THE SOURCE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT. THESE EVENTS SHOULD CONCERN EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AMBASSADORS ARE THE SYMBOL OF THE UNITED STATES ABROAD AND THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THEY SHOULD ALWAYS ACT AND SPEAK WITH FULL AUTHORITY TO ADVOCATE FOR U.S POLICIES. APART CHIEF REPRESENTED HIS KNEECAP IT LIMITS OUR EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFEGUARDS VITAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL LANDSCAPE IS MORE COMPLICATED AND COMPETITIVE THAN IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION. OUR UKRAINE POLICY HAS BEEN THROWN INTO DISARRAY AND SHADY INTERESTS THE WORLD OVER HAVE LEARNED HOW LITTLE IT TAKES TO REMOVE AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WHO DOES NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. AFTER THESE EVENTS, WHAT FOR AN OFFICIAL CORRUPT ARE NOT TO BE BLAMED FOR WONDERING WHETHER THE U.S AMBASSADOR REPRESENTS THE PRESIDENT AND WHAT U.S AMBASSADOR CAN BE BLAMED FOR HARBORING THE FEAR THAT THEY CAN COUNT ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT THEM AS THEY IMPLEMENT STATED U.S. POLICY AND PROTECT AND DEFEND U.S. INTERESTS. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE TAKING YOUR QUESTIONS. AT THE CLOSE THE POSITION I EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEGRADATION OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND THE FAILURE OF STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP TO PUSH BACK AS FOREIGN AND CORRUPT INTERESTS APPARENTLY HIJACKED UKRAINE POLICY. I REMAIN DISAPPOINTED THAT LEADERSHIP HAS DECLINED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE ATTACKS AGAINST ME AND OTHERS ARE DANGEROUSLY WRONG. THIS IS ABOUT FAR MORE THAN ME OR A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUALS. AS FOREIGN SERVICE PROFESSIONALS ARE BEING DENIGRATED AND UNDERMINED THE INSTITUTION IS ALSO BEING DEGRADED THIS WILL SOON CAUSE REAL HARM IF IT HASN’T ALREADY. THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS A TOOL OF FOREIGN POLICY DOES NOT GET THE SAME KIND OF ATTENTION OR EVEN RESPECT AS A MILITARY MIGHT AT THE PENTAGON. BUT WE ARE THE POINTY END OF THE SPEAR. IF WE LOSE OUR EDGE THE U.S. WILL INEVITABLY HAVE TO USE OTHER TOOLS EVEN MORE THAN IT DOES TODAY AND THOSE OTHER TOOLS ARE BLUNTER, MORE EXPENSIVE, AND NOT UNIVERSALLY EFFECTIVE MOREOVER, THE ATTACKS ARE LEADING TO A CRISIS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS THE POLICY PROCESS IS VISIBLY UNRAVELING. SENIOR AND MID-LEVEL OFFICERS PONDER AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE THE CRISIS HAS MOVED FROM THE IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS TO AN IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTION ITSELF. THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BEING HOLLOWED OUT AT A COMPLEX TIME ON THE WORLD STAGE. THIS IS NOT A TIME TO UNDERCUT OUR DIPLOMATS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT’S LEADERS TO STAND UP FOR THE INSTITUTION AND INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE THAT INSTITUTION THE MOST EFFECTIVE DIPLOMATIC FORCE IN THE WORLD CONGRESS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REINVEST IN OUR DIPLOMACY AND THAT IS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. AND INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE AND OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE. AS I CLOSE, LET ME BE CLEAR ON WHO WE ARE AND HOW WE SERVE THIS COUNTRY WE ARE PROFESSIONALS. WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO BY VOCATION IN TRAINING PURSUE THE POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF WHO HOLDS THAT PROGRESS OR WHO THEY AFFILIATE WITH. WE HANDLE AMERICAN CITIZEN SERVICES, FACILITATE TRADE AND COMMERCE, REPRESENT THE U.S. AND REPORTS TO AND ADVISE WASHINGTON TO MENTION JUST A FEW OF OUR FUNCTIONS. WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE EVERY DAY WE ARE PEOPLE WHO REPEATEDLY UPROOT OUR LIVES AND WHO RISK AND SOMETIMES GIVE OUR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY WE ARE THE 52 AMERICANS WHO 40 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH BEGAN 444 DAYS OF DEPRIVATION, TORTURE, AND CAPTIVITY INTO RON. WE ARE STATIONED AT CUBA AND CONFLICTS IN CHINA WHO MYSTERIOUSLY AND DANGEROUSLY AND IN SOME CASES EVEN PERMANENTLY WERE INJURED IN ATTACKS FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND WE ARE AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS SEAN PATRICK SMITH, AND GLENN DOHERTY PEOPLE RIGHTLY CALLED HEROES FOR THEIR ULTIMATE SACRIFICE TO THIS NATION’S FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS IN LIBYA EIGHT YEARS

AGO. WE HONOR THESE INDIVIDUALS THEY REPRESENT EACH ONE OF YOU HERE AND EVERY AMERICAN. THESE COURAGEOUS INDIVIDUALS WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY SYMBOLIZED AMERICA. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW AND WHAT AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW IS THAT WILL THANKFULLY MOST OF OF ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY AND FAR LESS DRAMATIC WAYS, EVERY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER RUNS THE SAME RISK AND VERY OFTEN SO DO OUR FAMILIES. THEY SERVE TOO AS INDIVIDUALS, AS A COMMUNITY WE ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY TO ADVANCE AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES WE TAKE OUR OATH SERIOUSLY, THE SAME OATH THAT EACH ONE OF YOU TAKE TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC AND THEIR TRUTH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME. I COUNT MYSELF LUCKY TO BE A FOREIGN OFFICER AND FORTUNATE TO SERVE WITH THE BEST AMERICA HAS TO OFFER AND BLESSED TO SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THE LAST 33 YEARS. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS >> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR. WE CAN OURSELVES LUCKY TO HAVE YOU SERVE OUR COUNTRY. WE WILL MOVE TO THE 45 MINUTE ROUNDS. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF THE MAJORITY CANCEL FOR 45 MINUTES AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR APPEARING TODAY ALL AMERICANS ARE DEEPLY IN YOUR DEBT BEFORE I HANDED OVER TO OUR STAFF COUNSEL I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME PIVOTAL EVENTS FIRST OF ALL, ONE IN WHICH YOU PLACE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY >> YES, IT WAS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? >> IT WAS IMPORTANT AND ACTUALLY STATED IN OUR POLICY AND IN OUR STRATEGY. IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE CORRUPTION WAS UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM IN UKRAINE AND AS I NOTED IN MY STATEMENT, COUNTRIES THAT HAVE LEADERS THAT ARE ON US AND TRUSTWORTHY MAKE BETTER PARTNERS FOR US. COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OUR U.S. BUSINESS MAKES IT EASIER FOR OUR COMPANIES TO DO BUSINESS THERE, TO TRADE AND PROFIT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. AND WHAT HAD BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE SOVIET UNION , THIS IS A SOVIET LEGACY, CORRUPT INTERESTS WERE UNDERMINING NOT ONLY THE GOVERNANCE BUT THE ECONOMY OF UKRAINE WE SEE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE CAPABLE AND MORE TRUSTWORTHY PARTNER THERE >> I KNOW THIS MAY BE OFFERED FOR YOU TO ANSWER BECAUSE IT’S A QUESTION ABOUT YOURSELF BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU EARNED A REPUTATION FOR BEING A CHAMPION FOR ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE? >> YES. YES >> I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WATCH GEORGE KEN’S TESTIMONY BUT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH HIS ASSESSMENT IF YOU FIGHT CORRUPTION YOU WILL PIT STOP CORRUPT PEOPLE? >> YES >> IN YOUR EFFORTS FIGHTING CORRUPTION HAVE YOU ANCHORED CORRUPT LEADERS IN UKRAINE? >> YES >> WAS ONE OF THOSE CORRUPT PEOPLE PROSECUTOR GENERAL YURIY LUTSENKO ? >> YES >> IN FACT, DID GIULIANI TRY TO OVERTURN A DECISION THAT YOU PARTICIPATED TO DENY SHOKIN A VISA? >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD >> AND THAT WAS ON MR. SHOKIN’S — >> YES >> THAT HE PETAL FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOU AS WELL AS THE BIDENS? >> YES, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING >> WHERE THESE SMEARS AMPLIFIED BY DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR AS WELL AS OTHER HOSTS ON FOX? >> YES. THAT IS THE CASE >> IN THE FACE OF THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN TO COLLEAGUES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TRY TO GET A STATEMENT FOR YOU FROM POMPEO? AND WERE THEY SUCCESSFUL? TODAY ISSUES SUCH A STATEMENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED IT WOULD BE UNDERCUT WHY THE PRESIDENT? >> YES >> AND THEN WERE YOU TOLD THAT

THOUGH YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, YOU DID NOT ENJOY THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR? >> CORRECT >> YOU FLEW HOME ON THE SAME DAY AS THE INAUGURATION OF UKRAINE’S NEW PRESIDENT >> THAT IS TRUE >> THAT INAUGURATION WAS ATTENDED BY THE THREE AMIGOS >> YES >> THREE DAYS AFTER THAT INAUGURATION IN A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE YOU AWARE THE PRESIDENT DESIGNATED THESE THREE AMIGOS TO COORDINATE UKRAINE POLICY WITH JUDY, RUDY GIULIANI? >> I HAVE BECOME AWARE OF THAT >> THE SAME RUDY GIULIANI THAT CONDUCTED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU AND THE SAME RUDY GIULIANI ON THE PHONE CALLED THE PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED TO ZELENSKY IN THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED INTO THE BIDENS. AND FINALLY IN THAT JULY 25 PHONE CALLED THE PRESIDENT PRAISES ONE OF THESE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS AND SAYS THEY WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY THEY WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY AND NOT YOU WHO WAS SMEARED AND RECALLED THAT ONE OF THEM. WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV? >> I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE BASIS FOR THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT WOULD BE. CERTAINLY NOT FROM OUR REPORTING OVER THE YEARS. DO YOU HAVE CONCERN TODAY ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE THE PRESIDENTS ACTIONS SINCE TO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE STILL IN UKRAINE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES WHEN A WELL-RESPECTED AMBASSADOR CAN BE SMEARED OUT OF HER POST WITH THE PARTICIPATION AND ACQUIESCENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> WELL, I THINK IT’S A BIG HIT ON MORALE IS A FAIR TO SAY OTHER AMBASSADORS AND OTHERS OF LESSER RANK WHO SERVE THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND THINK IF I TAKE ON CORRUPT PEOPLE IN THESE COUNTRIES THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ME? >> I THINK THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT, YES >> MR. GOLDMAN >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN >> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ON APRIL 24 OF THIS YEAR AT APPROXIMATELY 10 PM YOU RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL WHILE YOU WERE AT THE EMBASSY IN KYIV FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THIS WAS JUST THREE DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT ZELINSKI’S ELECTION AND THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY WE JUST HEARD FROM RANKING MEMBER NUNES. WHAT WERE YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING ? >> I WAS HOSTING AN EVENT FOR AN ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST, WAS AN ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST IN UKRAINE. WE HAD GIVEN HER THE WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD FROM UKRAINE. IN FACT, THE WORLDWIDE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT , WORLDWIDE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT IN WASHINGTON DC SECRETARY POMPEO SINGLED HER OUT FOR HER AMAZING WORK IN UKRAINE TO FIGHT CORRUPT INTERESTS IN THE SOUTH OF UKRAINE. SHE TRAGICALLY DIED BECAUSE SHE WAS ATTACKED BY ACID AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER DIED A VERY PAINFUL DEATH. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT JUSTICE BE DONE FOR HER AND FOR OTHERS WHO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE THIS IS NOT A TABLETOP EXERCISE THERE. LIVES ARE IN THE BALANCE AND SO WE WANTED TO BRING ATTENTION TO THIS. WE HELD AN EVENT AND GAVE HER FATHER WHO IS STILL MOURNING HER THAT AWARD, THE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENTS >> HER WOMAN ACCUSED COURAGE AWARD EXTENDED FROM HER — >> WAS IT DETERMINED WHO THROUGH THE ACID AND KILLED HER? >> THERE HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATIONS, BUT WHILE SOME OF THE LOWER RANKING INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS HAPPEN ARRESTED, THOSE WHO ORDERED THIS HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPREHENDED >> AFTER YOU STEPPED AWAY FROM THIS ANTICORRUPTION EVENT TO TAKE THIS CALL, WHAT DID THE

DIRECTOR GENERAL TELL YOU ? >> SHE SAID THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN ON THE SEVENTH FLOOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT , GREAT CONCERN THEY WERE WORRIED AND SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP ABOUT THIS AND, YOU KNOW, SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP. IT’S HARD TO KNOW HOW TO REACT TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT I ASKED HER WHAT SHE THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT AND SHE DID NOT KNOW SHE SAID SHE WOULD TRY TO FIND OUT MORE, BUT SHE WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP. IN FACT I THINK SHE MAY HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP. I ASKED HER WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP.. SHE SAID SHE WOULD TRY TO FIND OUT MORE AND TRY TO CALL ME BY MIDNIGHT >> WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? >> AROUND 1 AM SHE CALLED ME AGAIN AND SHE SAID THERE WERE GRAVE CONCERNS, CONCERNS UP THE STREET, AND SHE SAID I NEEDED TO COME HOME IMMEDIATELY. ON THE NEXT PLANE TO THE U.S. AND I ASKED HER WHY. AND SHE SAID SHE WAS NOT SURE, BUT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY. AND I ASKED HER ABOUT MY PHYSICAL SECURITY BECAUSE SOMETIMES WASHINGTON KNOWS MORE THAN WE DO. SHE SAID NO, SHE HADN’T GOTTEN THAT IMPRESSION BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MY SECURITY AND I NEEDED TO COME HOME RIGHT AWAY. I ARGUED. THIS IS EXTREMELY IRREGULAR NO REASON WAS GIVEN. IN THE END, I DID GET ON THE NEXT PLANE >> YOU SAID THERE WERE CONCERNS UP THE STREET >> THE WHITE HOUSE >> DID SHE EXPLAIN IN ANY MORE DETAIL WHAT YOU MEANT ABOUT CONCERNS FOR YOUR SECURITY? >> NO. SHE DIDN’T. I ASKED IF THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE MAYOR GIULIANI ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME AND SO FORTH. SHE SAID SHE DID NOT KNOW. IT DIDN’T APPEAR TO ME SHE SEEMED TO BE AWARE OF THAT NO REASON WAS OFFERED >> THAT SHE EXPLAIN WHAT THE URGENCY WAS YOU TO COME BACK ON THE NEXT FLIGHT? >> THE ONLY THING PERTINENT TO THAT WAS WHEN SHE SAID THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY IT WAS NOT FOR THE EXPLAINED >> PRIOR TO THIS ABRUPT CALL BACK TO WASHINGTON DC, HAD YOU BEEN OFFERED AN EXTENSION OF THE POST BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT? >> YES, THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS ASKED WHETHER I WOULD EXTEND FOR ANOTHER YEAR DEPARTING IN JULY 2020 >> WHEN WAS THAT REQUEST MADE ? >> IN EARLY MARCH >> SO ABOUT SIX WEEKS BEFORE THIS CALL >> YES >> DID ANYONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE? >> AFTER YOU RETURN TO WASHINGTON A COUPLE DAYS AFTER THAT, YOU MET WITH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE. AT YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE TOLD YOU YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, BUT THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU. WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT? >> I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE. BUT I TOOK IT TO MEAN THAT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MAYOR GIULIANI AND OTHERS WERE PUTTING OUT THEIR THAT THAT IS WHAT IT WAS >> AND WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU? >> THERE WERE SOME MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND OTHERS IN MAYOR GIULIANI CIRCLE >> WHO FROM UKRAINE? >> IN UKRAINE, I THINK, THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, HIS PREDECESSOR CERTAINLY >> AT THIS TIME HE WAS A LEAD PROSECUTOR GENERAL, IS THAT CORRECT? AND HAD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INDICATED WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD KEEP THEM ON AFTER THE ELECTION ? >> HE HAD INDICATED HE WOULD NOT BE KEEPING HIM ON >> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT YURIY LUTSENKO HAD A REPUTATION FOR BEING CORRUPT >> CORRECT >> DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR FUTURE AS HE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE? >> WELL, HE TOLD ME I NEEDED TO LEAVE >> WHAT DID HE SAY ? >> THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK-AND-FORTH BUT ULTIMATELY HE SAID THE WORDS THAT EVERY OFFICER UNDERSTANDS, THE PRESIDENT HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN

YOU. THAT WAS A TERRIBLE THING TO HEAR AND I SAID WELL, I GUESS I HAVE TO GO THEN. NO REAL REASON WAS OFFERED AS TO WHY I HAD TO LEAVE AND WHY IT WAS BEING DONE IN SUCH A MANNER >> DID YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU? >> NO >> WHERE YOU PROVIDED ANY REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU? >> NO >> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOUR DEPOSITION YOU WERE TOLD AT SOME POINT THE SECRETARY POMPEO HAD TRIED TO PROTECT YOU, BUT THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO DO THAT. WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE EFFORTS TO PROTECT YOU? >> NO, I WAS NOT UNTIL THAT MEETING WITH DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN >> AND DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHO HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT YOU FROM? >> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WANTED ME TO LEAVE, AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT OVER THE PRIOR MONTHS >> DID YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING WHY SECRETARY POMPEO IS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROTECT YOU? >> NO. IT WAS JUST A STATEMENT MADE HE WAS NO LONGER TO PROTECT ME >> SO JUST LIKE THAT YOU HAD TO LEAVE UKRAINE >> YES >> HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL? >> TERRIBLE. AFTER 33 YEARS TO SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY IT WAS TERRIBLE. THAT IS NOT THE WAY I WANTED MY CAREER TO END >> YOU ALSO TOLD THE DEPUTY SECRETARY THAT THIS WAS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> I WAS WORRIED ABOUT OUR POLICY BUT ALSO PERSONNEL. AND I ASKED HIM HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO PEOPLE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE PRESS, THE PUBLIC, UKRAINIANS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS WATCHING. AND SO IF PEOPLE SEE SOMEBODY, AND OF COURSE IT HAD BEEN VERY PUBLIC, FRANKLY THE ATTACKS ON ME BY MAYOR GIULIANI AND OTHERS, AND IN THE UKRAINE, IF PEOPLE SEE THAT I TOO HAVE BEEN PROMOTING OUR POLICY ON ANTICORRUPTION IF THEY CAN UNDERMINE ME AND GET ME PULLED OUT OF THE UKRAINE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR OUR POLICY? DO WE STILL HAVE THAT SAME POLICY? HOW WILL WE PUT THAT FORWARD? WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES, OTHER ACTORS IN OTHER COUNTRIES SEE THE PRIVATE INTERESTS FOREIGN INTERESTS CAN COME TOGETHER AND GET A U.S. AMBASSADOR REMOVE, WHAT WILL STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT IN THE FUTURE IN OTHER COUNTRIES? OFTEN THE WORK THAT WE DO WE TRY TO BE DIPLOMATIC ABOUT IT, BUT AS GEORGE KENT SAID, SOMETIMES WE GET PEOPLE REALLY ANGRY WITH US AND UNCOMFORTABLE AND WE ARE DOING OUR JOB. BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE BECOME VERY ANGRY WITH US. IF THEY REALIZE THAT THEY COULD JUST REMOVE US, THEY ARE GOING TO DO THAT >> HOW DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY RESPOND? >> HE SAID THOSE WERE GOOD QUESTIONS. HE WOULD GET BACK TO ME >> DID HE EVER GET BACK TO YOU? >> HE ASKED TO SEE ME THE FOLLOWING DAY >> WHAT DID HE SAY THEN? >> THE CONVERSATION WAS MORE , YOU KNOW I’M GRATEFUL FOR THIS, BUT MORE TO SEE HOW I WAS DOING AND WHAT WOULD I DO NEXT HOW COULD HE HELP >> HE DID NOT ADDRESS THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT YOU FLAGGED FOR HIM. NO >> YOU UNDERSTOOD OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD REMOVE YOU AND THAT YOU SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. IS AT RIGHT? >> THAT’S RIGHT >> IN YOUR 33 YEARS AS A FOREIGN SERVICES OFFICER, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RECALLING ANOTHER AMBASSADOR WITHOUT CAUSE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ITSELF KNEW TO BE FALSE? >> NO >> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS THAT YOU HAD LEFT UKRAINE BY THE TIME OF THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY . WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THE CALL RECORD FOR THIS PHONE CALL

? >> WHEN IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER >> PRIOR TO READING THAT CALL RECORD, WERE YOU AWARE THE PRESIDENT TRUMP SPECIFICALLY MADE REFERENCE TO YOU IN THAT CALL? >> NO >> WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO LEARNING THAT ? >> I WAS SHOCKED. ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED AND DEVASTATED, FRANKLY >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DEVASTATED? >> I WAS SHOCKED AND DEVASTATED THAT I WOULD BE FEATURED IN A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO HEADS OF STATE IN SUCH A MANNER WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT I WAS BAD NEWS TO ANOTHER WORLD LEADER AND THAT I WOULD BE GOING THROUGH SOME THINGS. IT WAS A TERRIBLE MOMENT. THE PERSON WHO SAW ME READING THE TRANSCRIPT SAID THAT THE COLOR DRAINED FROM MY FACE. I THINK I EVEN HAD A PHYSICAL REACTION. EVEN NOW, WORLD, WORDS FAIL ME >> WITHOUT UPSETTING YOU TOO MUCH, I LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE EXCERPTS FROM THE CALL. THE FIRST ONE WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, THE FORMER AMBASSADOR FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN WAS BAD NEWS. AND THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING WITH IN THE UKRAINE WERE BAD NEWS. SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW. WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REFER TO YOU AS QUOTE BAD NEWS QUOTE >> SHOCKED, APPALLED, DEVASTATED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO TALK ABOUT ANY AMBASSADOR LIKE THAT TO A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE. AND IT WAS ME. I COULD NOT BELIEVE IT >> THE NEXT EXCERPT WITH THE PRESIDENT REFERENCES YOU WAS A SHORT ONE. BUT HE SAID, WELL, SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS? >> I DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK I WAS VERY CONCERNED >> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? >> SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. IT DIDN’T SOUND GOOD. IT SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT >> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED? >> I DID >> HOW SO? >> I DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY. IT IS NOT A VERY PRECISE PHRASE IT DID NOT FEEL , I REALLY DON’T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ANY FURTHER EXCEPT TO SAY IT KIND OF FELT LIKE A VAGUE THREAT AND SO I WONDERED WHAT THAT MEANT. IT CONCERNED ME >> NOW, IN THE SAME CALL WITH HER THE PRESIDENT JUST THREATENED YOU TO A FOREIGN LEADER, HE ALSO PRAISES THE CORRECT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WHO LED THE FALSE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU I WANT TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER EXCERPT OR TWO FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OR THE CALL RECORD RATHER WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS , GOOD. I HEARD YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT IS REALLY UNFAIR. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT THE WAY THEY SHUT YOUR VERY GOOD PROSECUTOR DOWN, AND YOU HAD SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE INVOLVED HE WENT ON LATER TO SAY I HEARD THE PROSECUTOR WAS TREATED VERY BADLY, AND HE WAS A VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR. SO GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING. NOW, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AFTER NEARLY 3 YEARS IN UKRAINE WHERE YOU TRY TO CLEAN UP THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE, WAS AT THE U.S. EMBASSY’S VIEW THAT THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS A VERY GOOD AND VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR? >> NO, IT WAS NOT >> IN FACT, HE WAS RATHER CORRUPT >> THAT WAS OUR BELIEF >> THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE AS A LONG-RUNNING PROBLEM IN UKRAINE IS OUR RIGHT? >> YES >> HOW DID YOU FEEL WHEN YOU HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAK SO HIGHLY OF THE PROSECUTOR THAT HELP TO EXECUTE THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN TO HAVE YOU REMOVED? >> IT WAS DISAPPOINTING. IT WAS CONCERNING. IT WASN’T BASED ON

ANYTHING THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD’VE REPORTED OR FRANKLY ANYBODY ELSE IN THE U.S GOVERNMENT. THERE IS AN INNER AGENCY CONSENSUS THAT WHEN MR. LUTSENKO CAME INTO OFFICE WE WERE HOPEFUL HE WOULD DO THE THINGS HE SET OUT TO DO AND, BUT THAT DID NOT MATERIALIZE >> SO THIS WAS NOT THE UNIFORM POSITION OF OFFICIAL U.S POLICYMAKERS >> RIGHT >> LET’S GO BACK TO THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT HE REFERENCED IN MARCH HE SAID IT BECAME PUBLIC. YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAD LEARNED RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENT TRUMP’S LAWYER AND REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THAT JULY 25 CALL , WAS IN REGULAR COMMUNICATION WITH THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL IN LATE 2018 AND EARLY 2019. AT ONE POINT IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THAT BEING GIULIANI AND THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL, HAD PLANS TO QUOTE DO THINGS TO ME. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> I DIDN’T REALLY KNOW, BUT THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY ANY, A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL >> DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANT? >> NOW WITH THE ADVANTAGE OF HINDSIGHT THAT MEANT REMOVING ME FROM MY JOB IN UKRAINE >> MR. LUTSENKO, I BELIEVE THERE WERE UKRAINIAN AMERICANS WHO HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INDICTED >> THOSE ARE THE TWO WHO HAVE BEEN INDICTED IN NEW YORK? >> THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK >> AT THE END OF MARCH THIS EFFORT BY GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES RESULTED IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES IN THE HILL PUBLICATION THAT WERE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS IN PART FROM MR. LUTSENKO THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL. AND JUST TO SUMMARIZE SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. ONE CATEGORY INCLUDED THE ATTACKS AGAINST YOU WHICH YOU REFERENCE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT INCLUDING YOU HAD BAD MOUTH THE PRESIDENT AND HAD GIVEN THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL A DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST THERE WAS ANOTHER THAT INCLUDED ALLEGATIONS OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. THERE WAS A THIRD THAT RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE BIDENS. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> WERE THESE ARTICLES AND ALLEGATIONS PROMOTED BY OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED STATES? >> THEY SEEM TO BE PROMOTED BY THOSE AROUND MAYOR GIULIANI >> I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS INCLUDING A TWEET BY PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF ON MARCH 20 WHICH IS THE FIRST DAY THAT ONE OF THESE ARTICLES WAS PUBLISHED. IT APPEARS TO BE A QUOTE THAT SAYS, JOHN SOLOMON IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLES, A RUSSIAN COLLUSION FADES A PLOT TO HELP CLINTON EMERGES AT SEAN HANNITY AT FOXNEWS IF I CAN GO TO ANOTHER TWEET FOUR DAYS LATER, THIS IS THE PRESIDENT SON DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR WHO TWEETS, WE NEED MORE THE AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY, AND LESS OF THESE JOKERS AS AMBASSADORS AND THEN A RETWEET OF ONE OF JOHN SOLOMON’S ARTICLES OR AN ARTICLE REFERENCING ALLEGATIONS THAT SAY CALLS GROW TO REMOVE OBAMA’S AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WERE YOU AWARE OF THE STREETS AT THE TIME? >> YES >> WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION? >> I WAS WORRIED >> WHAT WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT? >> THAT THIS, THESE ATTACKS WERE BEING REPEATED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND HIS SON >> ARE YOU AWARE WHETHER THEY RECEIVED ATTENTION ON PRIMETIME TELEVISION ON FOX NEWS AS WELL? >> YES >> THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU WERE BAD MOUTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP, WERE THEY TRUE? >> NO

>> WAS THE ALLEGATION YOU CREATED A DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST TO GIVE TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL IN UKRAINE TRUE? >> NO >> DIDN’T THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL HIMSELF RECANT THOSE ALLEGATIONS? >> YES >> THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUED A RESPONSE? >> AS YOU SAID, THERE WAS A SERIES OF ARTICLES AFTER THE FIRST ARTICLE WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW WITH MR LUTSENKO AND WAS ONLY REALLY ABOUT ME AND ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ME, THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT THE FOLLOWING DAY WITH A VERY STRONG STATEMENT SAYING THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE FABRICATIONS >> SO THE STATEMENT ADDRESSED THE FALSITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS THEMSELVES. THEY DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE IN ANY WAY >> HONESTLY, I HAVEN’T LOOKED AT IT IN A VERY LONG TIME. I THINK IT WAS LAUDATORY >> DID ANYONE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT RAISE ANY CONCERNS WITH YOU OR EXPRESS ANY BELIEF IN THESE ALLEGATIONS? EMAC NO PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS RIDICULOUS >> AFTER THESE FALSE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE AGAINST YOU, DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE IN LEADERSHIP IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT A POTENTIAL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OR THE SECRETARY HIMSELF? >> YES. AFTER THE TREAT THAT YOU JUST SHOWED US, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT IF THE PRESIDENT’S SON IS SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO CONTINUE IN MY POSITION AND HAVE AUTHORITY IN UKRAINE UNLESS THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT PRETTY STRONGLY BEHIND ME. OVER THE WEEKENDS OF MARCH 22 I THINK THAT IS ABOUT THE DATE, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON EMAIL AMONG A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS CALLED ME ON SUNDAY AND I SAID, IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE SECRETARY HIMSELF COME OUT AND BE SUPPORTIVE. OTHERWISE IT’S HARD FOR ME TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE YOU NEED HERE. AND HE SAID HE WOULD TALK TO THE SECRETARY THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION OF THE CALL >> AND THIS IS DAVID HILL THE POLITICAL AFFAIRS NUMBER THREE PERSON AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT >> DID HE INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE SUPPORTED SUCH A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR YOU? >> I THINK YOU MUST HAVE BECAUSE I DON’T THINK HE WOULD’VE GONE TO THE SECRETARY IF HE DIDN’T SUPPORT THAT. YOU WOULD NOT BRING A BAD IDEA TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE >> YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE DID HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT >> YES >> DURING YOUR 33 YEAR CAREER AS A FOREIGN SERVICES OFFICER DID YOU EVER HEAR OF ANY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE? >> NO >> WAS A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT ULTIMATELY ISSUED FOR YOU? >> NO, IT WAS NOT >> DID YOU LEARN WHY NOT? >> YES. I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN ON THE SEVENTH WAR THAT IF A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT WAS ISSUED RATHER BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR BY THE SECRETARY PERSONALLY THAT IT COULD BE UNDERMINED >> HOW COULD IT BE UNDERMINED? >> THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ISSUE A TWEET CONTRADICTING THAT OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT >> LET ME SEE IF I’VE GOT THIS RIGHT YOU’RE ONE OF THE MOST SENIOR DIPLOMATS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND YOU’VE BEEN THERE FOR 33 YEARS. YOU HAVE WON NUMEROUS AWARDS AND YOU BEEN APPOINTED AS AN AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES BY BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT ISSUE A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF YOU AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A TWEET FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING >> IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE TIME AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AS WE SIT HERE TESTIFYING THE PRESIDENT IS ATTACKING YOU ON TWITTER. I’D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND. I READ PART OF ONE OF HIS TWEETS EVERYWHERE SHE WENT TURNED BAD

SHE STARTED OFF IN SOMALIA AND HOW DID THAT GO? HE GOES ON TO SAY LATER IN THE TWEET, A U.S PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS. FIRST OF ALL, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THE SENATE HAS A CHANCE TO CONFIRM OR DENY RIGHT? >> YES >> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENTS ATTACK THAT EVERYWHERE YOU WENT TURNED BAD >> I DON’T THINK I HAVE SUCH POWERS NOT IN SOMALIA AND OTHER PLACES I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WERE HIGH OBSERVED OVER THE YEARS I AND OTHERS HAVE DEMONSTRATIVELY MADE THINGS BETTER FOR THE U.S. AS WELL AS FOR THE COUNTRIES THAT I HAVE SERVED IN. UKRAINE FOR EXAMPLE WHERE THERE ARE HUGE CHALLENGES INCLUDING ON THE ISSUES WE’RE DISCUSSING TODAY OF CORRUPTION. HUGE CHALLENGES THEY HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS SINCE 2014 INCLUDING THE YEARS I WAS THERE AND I THINK IN PART THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE GET THE MOST CREDIT FOR THAT. PART OF THAT CREDIT GOES TO THE WORK OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO ME AS THE AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE >> AMBASSADOR, YOU HAVE SHOWN THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD TODAY AND TESTIFY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT YOU WERE URGED BY THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AS YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THE PRESIDENT IMPLICITLY THREATENED YOU IN THAT CALL RECORD. AND NOW THE PRESIDENT IN REAL TIME IS ATTACKING YOU. WHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK THAT HAS ON OTHER WITNESSES WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD AND EXPOSE? >> WELL, IS VERY INTIMIDATING >> IT IS DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE, IS IT NOT? >> I MEAN, I CAN’T SPEAK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO. I THINK THE EFFECT IS TRYING TO BE INTIMIDATING >> WELL, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, AMBASSADOR, THAT SOME OF US TAKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION VERY SERIOUSLY. MR. GOLDMAN >> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, YOU INDICATED THAT THOSE SAME ARTICLES IN MARCH THAT INCLUDED THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN ALSO INCLUDED ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO UKRAINE’S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BURISMA/BIDEN CONNECTION. IS A TRUE ? >> I AM GOING TO END THE QUESTIONING WHERE WE WERE BEFORE WHICH WAS THE JULY 25 CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ONLY INSULTS YOU AND PRAISES THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL, BUT ALSO AS YOU KNOW BY NOW, REFERENCES THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS. FIRST IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS QUOTE GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS SAID. AND THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY, WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT YOU DO IT IF THAT IS POSSIBLE NOW AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE AS AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE FOR ALMOST 3 YEARS AND UNDERSTANDING THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT IN POLITICS BEFORE HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT AND WAS A NEW PRESIDENT ON THIS CALL, HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INTERPRET A REQUEST FOR A FAVOR? >> THE U.S. RELATIONSHIP FOR UKRAINE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP. I THINK THE PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD DO WHAT THEY COULD TO LEAN IN ON A FAVOR REQUEST I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS A YES, THEY WOULD TRY TO LEAN IN AND SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO >> IS A FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SO DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES WOULD DO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING WITHIN HIS POWER TO PLEASE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IF HE COULD? >> YOU KNOW, IF HE COULD. I AM SURE THERE ARE LIMITS. I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT ALL OF THIS

BUT YES, WE ARE AN IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP ON THE SECURITY SIDE AND ON THE POLITICAL SIDE AND SO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS A PERSON HAS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S. IS ROCKSOLID >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR OF THESE ALLEGATIONS WITH UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS? >> THERE HAVE BEEN RUMORS OUT THERE ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT BUT, YOU KNOW, NOTHING HARD, AT LEAST NOTHING I WAS AWARE OF >> NOTHING BASED IN FACT TO SUPPORT THESE ALLEGATIONS >> YES >> IN FACT, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CONCLUDED IT WAS RUSSIA >> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ARE YOU AWARE IN FEBRUARY 2017 VLADIMIR PUTIN PROMOTED THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> YOU NOW, MAYBE I KNEW THAT AND HAVE FORGOTTEN BUT I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT NOW >> LET ME SHOW YOU A PRESS STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN MADE IN A JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH ON FEBRUARY TWO OF 2017 WHERE HE SAYS, AS WE ALL KNOW DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ADOPTED A UNILATERAL POSITION IN FAVOR OF ONE CANDIDATE. BY THAN THAT, CERTAINLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP FUNDED THIS CANDIDATE OR FEMALE CANDIDATE TO BE MORE PRECISE NOW, HOW WOULD THIS SIRI OF UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION BE IN VLADIMIR PUTIN’S INTEREST? >> WELL, PRESIDENT PUTIN MUST’VE BEEN AWARE THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS IN THE U.S. ABOUT RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL WAS FOR RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE FUTURE CLASSIC FOR AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER TO TRY TO THROW OFF THE SCENT AND CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE THAT MAY BE GET PICKED UP AND GET SOME CREDENCE >> AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE THAT WOULD’VE ABSORBED HIS OWN WRONGDOING >> YES >> WHEN HE TALKS AND HE TALKS ABOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, THERE IS REFERENCE IN THE JULY 25 CALL TO A WEALTHY UKRAINIAN IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN IS SAYING IN THIS PRESS STATEMENT SIMILAR TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS RELATED TO THE 2016 ELECTION? >> MAYBE >> LET ME SHOW YOU ANOTHER EXHIBIT FROM THE CALL RELATED TO THE BIDENS WHICH I’M SURE YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH. PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE OTHER THING, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON THE BIDEN STOP THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION. IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THESE ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN? >> YES >> DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE EVER WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION OF ANYONE? >> NO >> IN FACT AND VICE PRESIDENT ACTED TO REMOVE THE FORMER CORRUPT PROSECUTOR IN UKRAINE, DID HE DO SO AS PART OF OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY? >> OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY ENDORSED AND WAS THE POLICY OF ANOTHER INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS. OTHER COUNTRIES, AND MONETARY AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS >> IN FACT, IF HE WERE HELP TO REMOVE THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WHO WAS NOT PROSECUTING ENOUGH CORRUPTION, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE CHANCES THE CORRUPT COMPANIES IN UKRAINE WOULD BE INVESTIGATOR, ISN’T THAT RIGHT AND THAT COULD INCLUDE BURISMA, ISN’T THAT RIGHT ? >> YES >> AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL PRESIDENT , VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS A FRONT RUNNER AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S NEXT POTENTIAL IN THE ELECTION IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REQUEST TO

HAVE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN INVESTIGATOR, WAS THAT PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AS YOU KNEW IT? >> WELL, I SHOULD SAY THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE CALL, I HAD ALREADY DEPARTED UKRAINE >> BUT IT DIDN’T CHANGE THAT MUCH IN TWO MONTHS IS THAT RIGHT? >> IS CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE POLICY IN MAY WHEN I LEFT >> WERE THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS PART OF THE ANTICORRUPTION PLATFORM YOU CHAMPIONS IN UKRAINE FOR THREE YEARS? >> NO >> IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS, DO THEY APPEAR TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS RATHER THAN NATIONAL INTERESTS? >> THEY CERTAINLY COULD >> JUST RETURNING TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN MARCH THAT WERE PROMOTED BY MR. GIULIANI THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER, WERE THOSE TWO ALLEGATIONS SIMILAR TO THE TWO ALLEGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE ? >> YES >> ULTIMATELY IN THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENDORSE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU AND THE BIDENS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES >> I YIELD BACK MR. CHAIRMAN >> I HAVE AN INQUIRY PLEASE >> THE GENTLEMAN IS SUSPENDED BOTH ARE FAIRLY IMMINENT AND WERE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. I WOULD ASK EVERYONE TO ALLOW THE WITNESS TO EXIT THE ROOM. WE WILL RESUME AFTER VOTES >> MR. CHAIRMAN, — >> THE GENTLEMAN CAN SEEK RECOGNITION AFTER WE RESUME >> WELCOME TO LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST. WE WILL BE WITH THE COMMITTEE WHEN THEY TAKE THEIR SEATS AND BEGIN WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. NEXT UP REPUBLICANS GET THEIR UNINTERRUPTED 45 MINUTES. THE VOTES ARE IMMINENT AND WE WILL SEE IF THAT INTERRUPTS HOW THE REPUBLICANS GET A FLOW GOING OR WHETHER THE COMMITTEE WILL WAIT UNTIL THE BUS GO FORWARD. THEY PAUSE THE PROCEEDINGS AND THEN COME BACK AFTERWARDS AND RESUME. ONE KEY COMPONENT OF THIS IS I HAVE THAT UNINTERRUPTED FLOW THAT 45 MINUTE CHUNK OF TIME THAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE ABLE TO DO JUST NOW FOR THE DEMOCRATS >> WE HEARD THE TOP REPUBLICAN BREAK SOME NEWS THIS MORNING. HE READ FROM A RECORD OF A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL TRUMP MADE MANY MONTHS AGO WITH THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE. WE HAD NOT SEEN THIS BEFORE. LET’S LISTEN TO HIM READING FROM THAT >> I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON A JOB WELL DONE AND CONGRATULATIONS ON A FANTASTIC ELECTION >> GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. IT’S NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU AND I APPRECIATE THE CONGRATULATIONS >> THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE ELECTION >> AGAIN, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH AS YOU CAN SEE WE TRY VERY HARD TO DO OUR VERY BEST WE HAD YOU AS A GREAT EXAMPLE

>> I THINK YOU WILL DO A GREAT JOB. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN UKRAINE WHO KNOW YOU AND LIKE YOU. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM UKRAINE AND FRANKLY EXPECTED YOU TO WIN. IT IS AN AMAZING THING YOU HAVE DONE. I GUESS IN A WAY I DID SOMETHING SIMILAR >> AGAIN, THANK YOU. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR VISIT, THE VISIT OF A HIGH-LEVEL DELEGATION, NO WORDS CAN DESCRIBE MY WONDERFUL COUNTRY HOW NICE, WARM, AND FRIENDLY ARE PEOPLE ARE AND HOW WONDERFUL UKRAINE IS. WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE OUR COUNTRY SO IT WOULD BE BEST FOR YOU TO SEE IT YOURSELF. IF YOU CAN COME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. AGAIN, I INVITE YOU TO COME >> I AGREE WITH YOU AND I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. WHEN I ON MISS UNIVERSE THEY ALWAYS HAD GREAT PEOPLE AND UKRAINE WAS ALWAYS VERY WELL REPRESENTED >> HE’S READING THE TRANSCRIPT OF A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THEN NEWLY ELECTED DID INCOMING PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE I’D LIKE TO WELCOME AMBER PHILLIPS >> WE DO HERE THIS INVITATION BACK AND FORTH COME TO UKRAINE FOR MY INAUGURATION AND TRUMP SAYING SOMEONE WILL GO AND WHEN YOU GET SETTLED PLEASE COME VISIT US. IT SEEMED THE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT. THIS IS A MOMENT WHERE THERE IS NO QUOTE UNQUOTE QUID PRO QUO OR ANYTHING ELSE IT’S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN SOME OF THE TRANSCRIPTS AND TESTIMONY THUS FAR, THE CALL WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE IN TERMS OF ITS PREDICTABILITY, EXPECTATIONS OR PROPRIETY BUT WAS DIFFERENT IN TONE THAN THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL >> YES. THE ONE WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS MORNING’S ONE THAT DOES SEEM IN SOME WAY PERFECT IN THAT IT IS A CONGRATULATORY CALL AND THERE IS A DISCUSSION AND A WARM DISCUSSION ABOUT GETTING TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE. WE KNOW ABOUT THE FIRST CALL WE HEARD ABOUT IT PREVIOUSLY. THE CONCERN AND THE ATTENTION CONTINUES TO FOCUS ON THE JULY 25 CALLED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT APPEARS TO CONDITION THE MEETING THAT HE TALKS ABOUT IN THE VERY FIRST CALL. GETTING INFORMATION ON BURISMA AND THE BIDENS AND THE PRESIDENTS LONGTIME INTEREST IN THIS MYSTERIOUS SERVER HE BELIEVES IS IN UKRAINE >> WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED AND ANNOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO RELEASE THIS CALL HE SAYS THIS IS THE FIRST THE MOST IMPORTANT CALL AND THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HE TALKS TO WHO ORCHESTRATED BOTH OF THOSE CALLS AND LISTEN 10. AND HE SAID , THE FIRST CALL WAS FINE, NO BIG DEAL. I HAVE NO REASON TO SUSPECT WE WOULD BE IN THIS POSITION. THE JULY CALL THE PRESIDENT HAD A COOL TONE AND IT CONCERNED OTHER OFFICIALS TO GO TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS AND REPORTED. WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THEN AND NOW, ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE IS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS OUSTED >> I’D LIKE TO SHARE THE TWEET THIS MORNING. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ASKED ABOUT IT . EVERYWHERE THAT SHE WENT TURNS BAD. SHE TURNS UP IN SOMALIA AND HOW DID THAT GO? OUCH WHAT HE’S REFERENCING IS HER OPENING STATEMENT WHERE SHE TALKS ABOUT HER LONG AND SUCCESSFUL CAREER AND TOMMY, SHE TALKS A BIT OF LANGUAGE ABOUT, AMBASSADORS LIVING THIS LIFE AND DINNER PARTIES AND LIVING IT UP BUT IN FACT SHE HAS HAD THESE HARDSHIP POSTS THAT INCLUDED TIME IN SOMALIA >> SHE HAD A 33 YEAR CAREER AS A DIPLOMAT AND HER COLLEAGUES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AT KNOWLEDGE AND SAID REPEATEDLY HAD WON HER ACCOLADES ACROSS PARTY LINES AS THE PRESIDENT STREET TODAY DISCLOSES SHE IS IN HARDSHIP LOCATIONS. IN A PLACE WHERE SHE WAS A VERY FIRM ADVOCATE FOR U.S. POLICY WAS IN UKRAINE IN KENYA HAVE UP UNTIL THE MOMENT WHEN SHE GETS CALLED BACK IN A MIDNIGHT CALL TO RETURN TO WASHINGTON AND WAS SOLD BY THE NUMBER TWO PERSON IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER HAS CONFIDENCE IN HER

SERVICE AND SHE SHOULD RETURN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS SO STRIKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY THAT PROCEEDED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IS A DESCRIPTION OF HOW MOVED AND CONCERNED SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT PEOPLE WERE ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH SHE WAS TREATED. LONG SERVING DIPLOMAT McKINLEY TESTIFIED AND WE HAVE SEEN HIS TESTIMONY IN WHICH HE SAYS HE URGED REPEATEDLY THAT THERE BE A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR AN AMBASSADOR WITH SUCH A STERLING RECORD WHO HAD BEEN ATTACKED AND UNDERMINED AND DESPITE HIS REPEATED REQUESTS, NO SUCH STATEMENT WAS FORTHCOMING >> I’D LIKE TO GO TO OUR COLLEAGUE WHO HAS BEEN INSIDE THE HEARING. I’D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT IS SETTING OUT TO YOU SINCE YOU WERE RIGHT THERE HEARING IT ALL IN FIRST PERSON >> RIGHT, LIBBY. ONLY A FEW FEET AWAY FROM THE WITNESS TABLE MARIE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE. MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WERE SHAKING THEIR HEADS WITH TRUMP’S TWEETS AND YOU’RE SEEING LAWMAKERS PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH JUST SAID. THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE SAW EARLIER THIS WEEK IN THE FIRST TWO TESTIMONIES. I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SHE IS GAINING EVERYONE’S ATTENTION IS THAT SHE IS TELLING MORE OF A STORY DETAILS OF WHERE SHE WAS WHEN SHE WAS TOLD APPLYING OUT IMMEDIATELY FROM UKRAINE AND THE MOMENT WHEN THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL ASKED HER HOW DID SHE FEEL ABOUT TRUMP’S TWEETS ABOUT HER AND HOW DID YOU FEEL WHEN HE SAID THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN TO HER. YOU CAN TELL THERE WAS A SOMBER MOOD IN THE ROOM WHICH IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN. I THINK WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE PEOPLE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT SHE IS SAYING >> THAT WILL BE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THAT SESSION? >> >> >> THAT WILL BE A MEETING LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER CLOTHES ARE DEPOSITIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND THE ELIGIBLE, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ARE ABLE TO ATTEND AND HEAR FROM THAT STAFFER WHO APPARENTLY HEARD TRUMP SPEAK ABOUT UKRAINE THERE WAS NEWS LAST NIGHT THAT ANOTHER STAFFER OVERHEARD THIS CONVERSATION TOO. APPARENTLY THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO ADD TO THE DEMOCRATS CASE THERE WAS WRONGDOING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT >> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL LET YOU GO SO YOU CAN GET BACK IN THAT HEARING ROOM >> SHE TALKS ABOUT HOW SHE GOT ASKED ABOUT A PROMINENT ACTIVIST GOT MURDERED WITH ACID THROWN ON HER AND DIED A PAINFUL DEATH SHE SAYS CORRUPT UKRAINIANS WERE MAD AT ME ABOUT THAT AND THAT IS TO BE EXPECTED. WE ARE GOING TO ANGER SOME PEOPLE THE FACT THAT IT FILTERED UP TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND I GOT FIRED BY A STATE DEPARTMENT THAT DIDN’T EVEN BELIEVE THE LIES ABOUT ME REALLY CONCERNS ME. DIPLOMATS AROUND THE WORLD IN AMERICA MIGHT GET OUSTED FOR PURSUING CORRUPTION AND THOSE CORRUPT OFFICIALS HAVING THE EAR OF THE PRESIDENT. I FELT LIKE THAT WAS A TRUE LINE THAT HADN’T BEEN USED BEFORE >> THAT WAS VERY POWERFUL. HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? HOW COULD I BE OUSTED IN THIS FASHION? WHAT IS REMARKABLE GIVEN HER TESTIMONY AND OTHER TESTIMONY WE HAVE HEARD THIS WEEK IS THAT YOU HAVE A FOCUS NOT JUST ON THE AMBASSADOR AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS WELL-REGARDED DIPLOMAT DOING HER JOB, BUT WHAT IT SAYS ACROSS THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS AND EVEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY REALM IN THE UNITED STATES FOR AN UNDERMINING OF THE WAY IN WHICH WE AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONDUCTS ITSELF INTERNATIONALLY REMEMBER, BEHIND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH THAT WE KNOW FROM OUR SECURITY

ADVISOR FIONA HILL, THE WORDS OF THE NOW DEPARTED NATIONAL SECURITY JOHN BOLTON WHO REFERRED TO SOME OF THE EFFORTS BY RUDY GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES AND PEOPLE THE AMBASSADOR SPOKE ABOUT TODAY AS A DRUG DEAL. SOMETHING THAT HAD GONE BADLY A MESS AND A HIJACKING OF THE TRADITIONAL WAYS OF CONDUCTING FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY >> TOM, WE HEARD THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TALK ABOUT THIS THREAT AND SHE WAS ACTUALLY UNDER SEEMINGLY THREATS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS SHE READ THE SUMMARY OF A CALL THE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ON JULY 25 WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND SHE WAS SHOCKED TO FIND THAT SHE WAS MENTIONED IN THAT CALL >> YES, THE CALL IS SORT OF THE APEX, THE PINNACLE, IF YOU WILL, OF WORRY SOME THINGS SHE OBSERVED. SHE DESCRIBES IN HER TESTIMONY HOW SHE HAD BEEN WARNED BY UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT SHE MIGHT BE IN SOME DANGER. AND THE THINGS HE IS BATTLING IN UKRAINE IS CORRUPTION AND THAT EQUALS IN THE CONTEXT OF UKRAINE AS IN SO MANY OTHER PLACES ORGANIZE CRIME. SHE IS TOLD SHE IS UNDER THREAT THERE AND IN MAY SHE GETS A CALL FROM THE TOP LEVELS OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAYING RETURN HOME FOR YOUR SAFETY WE HAVE TO CONFIRM WITH YOU. WHEN SHE GETS HOME SHE LEARNED SHE WILL BE TERMINATED AS AMBASSADOR AND THEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER SHE DESCRIBES BEING STUNNED AS SHE READS COMMENTS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERRING TO HER IN NEGATIVE WAYS AND SAYING THAT SHE IS GOING TO BE EXPERIENCING SOME DIFFICULTY >> BEHIND CLOSED DOORS SHE SAID SHE WAS STUNNED AND THEN FELT THREATENED AS WELL. AND, YES, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN SHE HAS AN INKLING SHE MIGHT LOSE HER JOB SHE KEEPS GETTING ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT HER SECURITY WAS AT RISK >> IT’S ENOUGH TO HAVE YOUR REPUTATION AT RISK AND THEN YOUR JOB AND YOUR LIVELIHOOD LITERALLY YOUR PAYCHECK AT RISK, BUT THEN YOUR PERSONAL SECURITY RAISES IT TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL >> AND WHAT FRUSTRATES HER TO THIS DAY IS THAT SHE DOESN’T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR ANY OF THIS. DURING THE HEARING SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS SOLD THE PRESIDENT HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU AND THAT WAS A TERRIBLE THING TO HERE. WILL, I GUESS I HAVE TO GO THEN. NO REAL REASON WAS OFFERED AS A WHY I HAVE TO LEAVE >> AND CHAIRMAN ADAM SHIFF ASKED THE FORMER AMBASSADOR ABOUT A SMEAR CAMPAIGN >> AND DID THEY TRY TO GET A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR YOU FROM SECRETARY POMPEO? >> YES >> WITH A SUCCESSFUL? >> NO >> DID YOU COME TO LEARN THEY COULDN’T ISSUE THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED IT WOULD BE UNDERCUT BY THE PRESIDENT ? >> YES >> WERE YOU TOLD EVEN THOUGH YOU DID NOTHING WRONG YOU DID NOT ENJOY THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR >> THAT IS CORRECT >> YOU FLEW HOME FROM PDF ON THE SAME DAY AS THE INAUGURATION OF UKRAINE’S NEW PRESIDENT >> THAT IS TRUE >> THAT INAUGURATION WAS ATTENDED BY THE THREE AMIGOS AND THREE DAYS AFTER THAT INAUGURATION IN A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE YOU AWARE THE PRESIDENT DESIGNATED THESE THREE AMIGOS TO COORDINATE UKRAINE POLICY WITH RUDY GIULIANI? >> I HAVE BECOME AWARE OF THAT >> I WANT YOU TO DIG INTO THAT FOR US A LITTLE BIT. LET’S POINT OUT THE REPUBLICANS WILL PICK UP ON THIS THREAD OF HOW MUCH SHE WAS AWARE OF VERSUS WHAT SHE HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF SUBSEQUENTLY >> YES, OF COURSE. WHAT WE ARE HEARING THIS MORNING IS THE SAGA OF THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WHO WAS THE TARGET FOR REASONS THAT SHE STILL AND ACKNOWLEDGES THIS MORNING SHE DOESN’T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WAS A TARGET OF ANIMUS AND COMPLAINTS FROM THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI AND SOME OF HIS ASSOCIATES. AND ULTIMATELY FROM THE PRESIDENT THERE IS A TIME HERE AND I THINK, LIBBY, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. SHE IS CALLED BACK ON APRIL 30 AND LEARNS THAT SHE WILL NEED TO DO PART UKRAINE. SHE DOES NOT LEARN ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS LANGUAGE AND INDEED, THE NATION DIDN’T LEARN ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS CONVERSATION WITH UKRAINE’S

NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON JULY 25 UNTIL MUCH LATER THE SUM OF THE SHOCK AND UPSET THAT SHE IS EXPERIENCING AND DESCRIBING TODAY RESULTS FROM THINGS SHE LEARNED LONG AFTER SHE LEFT THE POST OF THE U.S AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE HOW SHE IS ABLE TO DRAW THOSE CONCLUSIONS GIVEN SHE WAS NOT OFFICIALLY PART OF THE UKRAINE STORY AND WAS NOT ACTIVE AND HE HAVE AFTER MAY >> YOU HAVE A PIECE YOU CO-AUTHORED IN THE PAPER THAT LOOKS AT HOW THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REVEALED A LONG AND MURKY CAMPAIGN TO OUST THIS AMBASSADOR. IT HELP ME BECAUSE A CRYSTALLIZED A LOT OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED GIVEN THE TIMELINE AND ALSO EXPLAINS THE UK AND YOU OF THE STORY AND THE AMERICAN PART OF THE STORY. YOU ALSO WRITE ABOUT THIS AMERICAN FOOTPRINT THERE WAS GETTING INVOLVED. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE AMERICAN SIDE OF THINGS? >> YES. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GO THROUGH A BIT OF THE TIME LINE. ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED LAST WEEK BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IS A LONGTIME DIPLOMAT MS. CROFT WHO WAS SERVING IN A ,DETAIL AND SHE DESCRIBED ONE OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE AMBASSADOR, SOMEONE URGING HER DISMISSAL. IT CAME FROM A ONCE POWERFUL MEMBER OF CONGRESS SINCE RETIRED, BOB LIVINGSTON OF LOUISIANA. FOR SOME REASON LIVINGSTON IS CALLING HER AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LATE 27 OR EARLY 2018 SAYING THIS AMBASSADOR HAS GOT TO GO APPARENTLY NOT SAYING THE PERCEPTION IS SHE’S NOT ON BOARD WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S AGENDA SHE IS CONFUSE THE REPORT SAID TO FIONA HILL WHO TESTIFIES AND THEN SORT OF FORGETS ABOUT IT. IN 2018 ON APRIL 30 THERE IS A DINNER OF VERY SMALL INTIMATE DINNER FOR TOP DONORS SITTING DOWN AT THE TRUMP HOTEL WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS SON DON JUNIOR AND AMONG THE ATTENDEES OR TWO ASSOCIATES OF RUDY GIULIANI THESE TWO SURPRISING CHARACTERS TO EMERGE AT THIS LEVEL. THE UKRAINIAN AMERICANS WHO FOR SOME REASON ARE IN THIS DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND INFORMING HIM ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO WERE PRESENT, THE AMBASSADOR IS NOT ACTING IN YOUR INTERESTS MR PRESIDENT. ACCORDING TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, THE PRESIDENT URGES HER DISMISSAL. THAT IS APRIL 2018. SO A FULL YEAR AGO. WE KNOW THAT THE GIULIANI ASSOCIATES ARE CONTINUING TO SORT OF MUTTER ABOUT THE AMBASSADOR SAYING SHE’S NOT WORKING IN THE U.S. INTERESTS AND SHE THINKS THAT THEY VIEW HER AS A OBSTACLE TO THEIR ECONOMIC INTERESTS IN UKRAINE THEY ARE AMERICAN PEOPLE BUT SEEKING TO INVEST IN THEIR HOMELAND. AND WE KNOW THEY WERE ASSOCIATED WITH A COUPLE PROSECUTORS RUDY GIULIANI WAS INTERESTED IN INCLUDING VIKTO SHOKIN WHOSE DEPARTURE WAS ENCOURAGED BY JOE BIDEN. AND SO IT IS THROUGH THESE CHARACTERS IN RUDY GIULIANI THAT ONE FROM KYIV AND ONE FROM WASHINGTON DC SEEMED TO WINCE WINE AND POINT TOWARD THE AMBASSADOR SUGGESTING SHE IS A PERSON WHO SHOULD GO TWO REASONS EMERGE. SHE IS NOT TAKEN KINDLY TO THOSE IN UKRAINE LIKE PROSECUTOR VIKTO SHOKIN AND MR. LUTSENKO FROM HOME RUDY GIULIANI IS SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT THE WIDENS. AND THE AMBASSADOR HAS TESTIFIED THAT THEY ARE HAVE HEAVY ECONOMIC INTERESTS PERHAPS IN THE LONG CORRUPT BUSINESS AND THEY SEE HER AS AN OBSTACLE TO THEIR INVESTMENT INTERESTS >> >>> THIS ADMINISTRATION ABOUT HERE IS IT AS SIMPLE AS THE PRESIDENT

WAS TOLD SHE DOESN’T LIKE YOU SHE’S NOT WORKING IN YOUR INTERESTS. OR WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON. WAS THERE MORE INFORMATION THEY HAD ABOUT HER? >> SO LIBBY, THIS IS THE QUESTION AT THE HEART OF THE MYSTERY. AND THE AMBASSADOR DESCRIBES IT AS SOMETHING OF A MYSTERY. SHE DOES NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY THERE’S SUCH ANIMUS DIRECTED AGAINST HER. WHY THERE’S A CAMPAIGN SEEKING HER DEPARTURE. IT’S PARTICULARLY WORRY SOME TO THE CAREER DIPLOMATS WE’VE BEEN HEARING FROM THIS WEEK BECAUSE AN AMBASSADOR REPRESENTING U.S INTERESTS WILL OFTEN BE CRITICIZED IF THE AMBASSADOR AS IN THE CASE OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IS STANDING UP FOR U.S. POLICY WHICH IS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION. THOSE WHO DON’T LIKE THAT POLICY IN UKRAINE ARE GOING TO OPPOSE HER AND COMPLAIN. ONE OF THE TYPICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OF THE WHITE HOUSE IS TO DEFEND U.S. DIPLOMATS WHEN CRITICISM LIKE THIS EMERGES. IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS CRITICISM FROM SOME FACTIONS IN UKRAINE. BUT THEN IT’S JOINED IN A WAY NOT BY STATE DEPARTMENT COLLEAGUES BUT THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI. AND THEN BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. AND WE’RE GOING TO BE EXPLORING THE REASONS FOR THAT ANGER, MY GUESS IS, AND AMBER JUST REFERRED TO IT. SHE BELIEVES THAT PEOPLE IN THE UKRAINE PARTICULARLY, BUT ALSO SOME IN THE U.S. FELT THAT HER POSITION AS A STRONG ADVOCATE AGAINST CORRUPTION AND ORGANIZED CRIME IN UKRAINE WAS SOMEHOW INTERFERING WITH THE POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT HER >> AND TO THE EXTENT THE PRESIDENT WAS RECEPTIVE TO THOSE PEOPLE AS TOM SAID IS THE CENTRAL QUESTION, WHAT I HEAR DEMOCRATS DOING TODAY IS LAYING THE GROUND WORK TO ALLEGE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RECEPTIVE TO THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE HIS POLITICAL INTERESTS ALIGNED WITH THEIR DESIRE TO RAISE UP CORRUPT OFFICIALS IN UKRAINE. ADAM SCHIFF QUESTIONED YOVANOVITCH AND HE SAID ISN’T THAT INTERESTING, YOU LEFT YOUR JOB IS DAY THE THREE AMIGOS TRUMP APPOINTED WENT IN AND ATTENDED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE’S INAUGURATION. HMMM. SO I SEE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO OFFER THIS MOTIVE THAT THE PRESIDENT SAW HER AS A BLOCK AID TO HIS SPLIT AL INTEREST IN UKRAINE. I’M ALSO INTERESTED TO WATCH HOW REPUBLICANS COUNTER THAT. AS TOM SAID, THIS IS ALSO A MYSTERY >> TO THAT POINT, RHONDA IS ON CAPITOL HILL, SHE’S BEEN INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM. DO YOU GET A SENSE OF WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT? TAKE US THROUGH THE LOGISTICS, THE STEPS FOR THE REST OF THE HEARING PROCESS AND WHAT YOU’LL BE LISTENING FOR >> THE NEXT STEP WE KNOW THAT THE REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE THEIR CHANCE TO QUESTION DEVEN NUNEZ THE RANKING MEMBER WILL HAVE HIS 45 MINUTES WHEN WE GET BACK INTO THE HEARING AND LIKELY ASK A FEW QUESTIONS AND THEN DIFFER TO THE REPUBLICAN COUNCIL. AND IT’S THE SAME COUNCIL WE HEARD FROM ON WEDNESDAY. I DID NOTICE THAT WHEN CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BROUGHT UP THAT TRUMP WAS TWEETING ABOUT YOVANOVITCH AND READ THOSE TWEETS IN REALTIME I DID NOTICE THAT A FEW REPUBLICANS WERE TALKING AS THAT HAPPENED. NOW, I DON’T WANT TO SPECULATE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. BUT YOU MIGHT GATHER THAT THEY WILL BE BRINGING THAT UP WHEN THEY COME BACK FOR THEIR QUESTIONING ALSO, ONE MEMBER ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, ELISE, THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK, SHE’S ONE OF THE YOUNGEST MEMBERS EVER TO BE ELECTED TO CONGRESS, SHE’S BEEN WATCHING VERY CLOSELY, I’VE BEEN SEEING HER ON THE PLATFORM, WATCHING YOVANOVITCH VERY CLOSELY, I WOULD EXPECT SHE’S THE NUMBER TO WATCH WHEN WE GET TO THAT FIVE MINUTE ROUND. THOSE ARE MY TAKE AWAYS RIGHT NOW OF WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPECT WHEN WE GET BACK >> CONGRESS WOMAN STEFONIC HAS BEEN TRYING TO RAISE POINTS OF ORDER. WHAT’S THE ROLE OF REPUBLICANS LIKE HER. WHAT’S THEIR MOTIVATION TO ASK QUESTIONS AND TRY TO SORT OF — TRYING TO BRING TO LIGHT OR SPOTLIGHT AS THEY CALL FOR

POINTS OF ORDER >> THEY WANT TO UNDERMINE THE INQUIRY ITSELF BY SAYING THIS ISN’T LEGITIMATE. AS — THERE WAS ALMOST LIKE A — I WOULDN’T SAY YELLING BUT LAWMAKERS WERE TALKING OVER EACH OTHER AT THE BEGINNING AND I HEARD JIM JORDAN SAY, YOU WOULDN’T RELEASE LIKE THE FULL TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS SOME OF THE STUFF BLOCKED OUT AND SO THAT’S SORT OF LIKE THE ITERATION OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT THAT THESE THINGS WERE DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, I’M REMEMBERING DEVEN NUNEZ THE TOP REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE STARTED OUT BY CALLING IT A CULT LIKE MANEUVER TO GO BEHIND CLOSED DOOR. WHAT I HEAR NOW IS THE REPUBLICANS TRYING TO ATTACK THE INQUIRY ON ITS EXISTENCE NOT YET ON ITS SUBSTANCE. I DO NOT KNOW IF REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE THE PRESIDENT’S LINE OF ATTACK AND ATTACK YOVANOVITCH’S CHARACTER AND ALLEGE THAT SHE’S A BAD AMBASSADOR, SO FAR WHAT I’VE SEEN IS SHE HAS A COMPELLING STORY AND SHE DELIVERS IT IN LIKE A SYMPATHETIC WAY >> WE CAN HEAR RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ ATTACK THE PROCESS. IT’S IRONIC FOR HIM TO CALL THIS CULT LIKE WHEN REPUBLICANS HAD CONTROL OF THE HOUSE THEY HAD A LOT OF CLOSED DOOR BRIEFINGS, THIS IS WHAT COMMITTEES, ESPECIALLY THE INTEL COMMITTEE DOES, THERE ARE MEETINGS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, THERE ARE BRIEFINGS BEHIND CLOSED DOOR, AND HE WAS A LEADER OF MANY OF THOSE BRIEFINGS JUST A FEW SHORT YEARS AGO, TOM >> YES, AND WE CAN SEE I THINK A LOT OF THE, YOU KNOW, WE’RE SEEING A LOT OF TACTICAL MANEUVERS HERE. ONE OF THEM IS TO UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS PROCESS. AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS. PART OF THAT IS TO SUGGESTION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. THAT WAS A VERY STRONG AND RESONANT CRITICISM LAST WEEK. IT’S A LITTLE HARDER TO MAKE THIS WEEK AS WE HAVE TELL VISED HEARINGS AND THE PUBLIC IS INSIDE. BUT NONE THE LESS, THESE COMPLAINTS OF SORT OF PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS ARE BEING MADE. WE HEARD YESTERDAY, CONGRESSMAN JIM JORDAN COMPLAIN AND CALL FOR THE — AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO GOT A LOT OF THIS MOVING. AND I THINK WE’LL PROBABLY HEAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROCESS. AND THE INTERACTIONS HE’S ALLEGED TO HAVE HAD WITH DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE BEFORE HIS COMPLAINT BECAME PUBLIC. WE’LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT TODAY. ANOTHER EFFORT AND ANOTHER WAY I THINK TO UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS >> THIS IS WASHINGTON POST COVERAGE OF DAY TWO OF THE HEARINGS LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE DRAWN UP AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. THIS INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PLANS TO WRITE A REPORT IN A COUPLE WEEKS TIME. AND THE PROCESS GOES FROM THERE. WE EXPECT TO SEE HEARINGS AND JUDICIARY. AT THAT POINT, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT COULD BE DRAFTED AND BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR, BROUGHT UP FOR A VOTE. WE WERE TALKING THIS MORNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TIMELINE. AND ELISE WAS POINTING OUT THAT THAT PART COULD HAPPEN BEFORE THAT WINTER BREAK. THAT CHUNKY WINTER BREAK. AND GOING INTO THE NEW YEAR THE S WHEN WE CAN SEE THE SENATE KICK UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND CONDUCT REALLY A TRIAL TO GO THROUGH AND TAKE A VOTE THERE. WE’RE NOT SEEING ANY DEFECTIONS FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE AT THIS POINT WE SAW NONE ON WEDNESDAY. WE’RE NOT GETTING ANY INDICATIONS THAT WE’RE GOING TO SEE THEM TODAY >> WHEN I TALK TO REPUBLICAN STRATEGISTS AND I SAY WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING FOR? THEY TELL ME THE HOUSE VOTE. IF IT’S REPUBLICANS, NO TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND IT’S DEMOCRATS, YES, YES, YES, THAT HELPS TRUMP IN THE NEXT CRITICAL PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT PHASE, WHICH IS THE SENATE TRIAL. THAT’S BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THEY CONTROL THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE. AND TO SOME DEGREE, THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO FRAME THE TRIAL HOW THEY WANT IT TO TRUMP’S POLITICAL BENEFIT. THERE ARE RULES BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO WORK AROUND THE RULES. AND SO IF IT COMES OVER FROM THE HOUSE, THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES, AND IT’S PURELY DEMOCRATS SUPPORTING IT, IT GIVES REPUBLICANS A CHANCE TO NOT ARGUE AGAIN ON THE MERIT OF IMPEACHMENT BUT TO ARGUE — I’M SORRY, NOT ARGUE ON THE SUBSTANCE BUT TO ARGUE ON THE MERIT AND SAY THIS IS A PARTISAN EXERCISE, SO WE’RE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT >> WE’RE WATCHING THE HOUSE INTEL COMMITTEE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE DOUBLE BOX, AS SOON AS THEY COME BACK INTO SESSION, WE’LL GO BACK TO THE HEARING LIVE AND UNINTERRUPT. THERE ARE VOTES THIS MORNING IN THE HOUSE THAT’S WHY THIS LITTLE BREAK TURNED INTO A LARGER BREAK. THE VOTES ARE ARE TAKING PLACE AND THEY’LL COME BACK HERE. THE TIMING WORKS OUT TO REPUBLICANS BENEFIT. WE WEREN’T SURE IF THEY WOULD START THEIR 45 MINUTES OF

QUESTIONING. WHAT EVERYONE IS HOPING FOR FOR THEIR SIDE IS TO HAVE A LONG INTERRUPTED PROCEEDING. SO IT LOOKS LIKE REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK IN AND PICK THIS UP CLEANLY. START THEIR 45 MINUTE QUESTIONING. AND THEN WE’LL GO INTO THAT FIVE MINUTE Q&A FOR MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE GOING BACK AND FORTH TO HAVE THEIR CHANCE TO ASK MARIE YOVANOVITCH SOME QUESTIONS. TOM, WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING FOR, NOT JUST TODAY BUT THE REST OF THIS WEEKEND AND NEXT WEEK AS THE PUBLIC HEARINGS RESUME NEXT WEEK >> LIBBY, THIS WEEK WE’RE HEARING FROM THESE STATE DEPARTMENT VETERANS. YOU ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT HOW THIS FITS INTO THE ARGUMENT FOR IMPEACHMENT OR THE PRESIDENT’S ROLE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALL OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAVE SAID IS THAT THEY’RE TESTIFYING TO THEIR EXPERIENCES IN HER CASE T STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE U.S. AMBASSADOR. BUT NOT SPEAKING TO IMPEACHMENT. THEY DON’T HAVE A POSITION ON IMPEACHMENT. AND THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY’RE HERE TO DISCUSS. WE’RE IN AN EVIDENTIARY FACE. WE’RE LEARNING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY THIS WEEK, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS ABOUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. AND ABOUT THE VENERABLE INSTITUTION OF THE U.S. DIPLOMATIC CORE, THE NORMS AND THE PRESSURES THAT THEY PHASE WE’RE LEARNING ABOUT AS THEY SERVE OVER SEAS AND WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE OF SOME OF THE MOST PROMINENT PEOPLE IN THAT ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING THE TOP LIEUTENANTS TO SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, WHO HAVE ALL TESTIFIED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING QUALIFIED AMBASSADORS WHO ARE DOING THEIR JOB AGAINST POLITICAL INTERFERENCE, DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN, NEXT WEEK WE’RE GOING TO HEAR, IF YOU THINK OF THIS AS STATE DEPARTMENT WEEK, NEXT WEEK WE’RE GOING TO HEAR WHAT MAY BE AGAIN FROM SOME VERY DRAMATIC TESTIMONY. NEXT WEEK IS NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WEEK. AND WE’RE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM LIEUTENANT COLEAL VINIVIN WHOSE TESTIMONY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WAS VERY DRAMATIC. HE WAS IN THE ROOM LISTENING TO THE PRESIDENT’S JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKING TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND APPEARING TO CONDITION U.S. SUPPORT IN A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ON GETTING SOME FAVORS. A WORD THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY USED. VINDIMIN HIMSELF, A REFUGEE FROM THE FORMER SOVIET UNION CAME HERE AS A CHILD. HE AND HIS TWIN BROTHER SERVE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF. HE’S A DECORATED LIEUTENANT COLONEL IN THE ARMY AND HIS TESTIMONY AS AN EARWITNESS TO THE PRESIDENT’S CALL AND THEN THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW HE IN A STATE OF ALARM GOES TO THE LAWYER FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL JOHN EISENBURG AND REPORTS WHAT HE THINKS IS IMPROPER OFFERS AND DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. I THINK NEXT WEEK, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WEEK WILL BE QUITE DRAMATIC. AND WE KNOW MR VINDIMIN WILL TESTIFY. MR MORRISON, FIONA HILL. THESE ARE PEOPLE INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF. THEY’RE LED — OR WERE LED UNTIL RECENTLY BY JOHN BOLTON. THE PROMINENT CONSERVATIVE HAWK WITH THE MOST WELL BURNISHED REPUBLICAN CREDENTIALS. AND THOUGH HE HIMSELF HAS GONE TO COURT — I’M SORRY HIS LAWYER HAS GONE TO COURT AND SAID IF HE’S SUBPOENAED THEY’LL ASK A COURT IF HE SHOULD TESTIFY. WE’RE LEARNING MORE ABOUT JOHN BOLTON’S VIEWS OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING. THAT COULD BE SIGNIFICANT. VON BOLTON IS A PROMINENT REPUBLICAN WITH CREDIBILITY ON THE RIGHT. AND IF HE IS CRITICAL OF THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS ACTIONS, THERE’S SOME WHO THINK IT COULD BE EQUIVALENT TO IN WATERGATE. A FIGURE OF THE STATURE OF BARRY GOLDWATER SAYING TO RICHARD NIXON TIMES UP PAL. WE DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. NONE THE LESS, I THROW IT OUT THERE. THAT’S SOME OF THE DRAMA WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO NEXT WEEK >> YOU MENTIONED WATERGATE, IT’S INTERESTING, THERE’S SUCH A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IT’S LIKE TO LIVE IN THE MOMENT VERSES HOW HISTORY LOOKS BACK ON THAT MOMENT. AND SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES WHO WRITE THE GREAT NEWS LETTER POWER UP, JACKIE, AND BRETT GRIFFITH, DUCK UP

THROUGH THE WASHINGTON POST ARCHIVES TO FIND THE FRONT PAGE AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF THE WATERGATE HEARINGS. CHECK THAT OUT RIGHT THERE. YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST DAY, NOT EXACTLY HIGH DRAMA. AND OF COURSE, IT CERTAINLY TURNED INTO HIGH DRAMA AND THE STAKES GOT HIGHER AND HIGHER AS THE PROCESS WENT ON >> CAN I JUMP IN TO THE WATERGATE COMPARISONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT’S MEMORABLE FOR THE THOSE OF US WHO RECALL THE WATERGATE INVESTIGATION IS HOW DIFFERENT IT IS. AND THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE THAT I’M REMINDED OF AND I THINK IS TELLING GOING TO AMBER’S POINT EARLIER IS. THAT THE WATERGATE INVESTIGATION WAS DELIBERATELY BIPARTISAN. THE HEED COUNCIL ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH IN THE WATERGATE ERA WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE COMMITTEE, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LED BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF CONDUCTING THESE HEARINGS. THEY SOUGHT A REPUBLICAN AS THEIR JOHN DOOR AS THEIR CHIEF COUNCIL. THEY BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO BRING IN REPUBLICANS AND INCLUDE AND ENCOURAGE THEIR PARTICIPATION AND THERE WAS A MUCH DIFFERENT SENSE OF BIPARTISAN INTEREST IN LEARNING THE FACTS. AND IN PURSUING SORTA SORT OF COMMON OR AN AGREED UPON SET OF FACTS THAN WE’RE SEEING NOW. AND THE POLARIZATION THAT EXISTS NOW AND THAT WE’RE GOING TO WITNESS THIS AFTERNOON WHEN THE REPUBLICANS RETURN AND GO INTO THEIR QUESTIONS AFTER THIS BREAK ARE GOING TO STAND IN STARK CONTRAST I THINK TO THE TENOR AND THE NATURE OF A SORT OF MORE COOPERATIVE, DELIBERATIVE, BIPARTISAN APPROACH TO ACQUIRING INFORMATION IN THE WATERGATE INVESTIGATION COMPARED TO WHAT WE’RE SEEING TODAY. WHICH IS STARKLY SCHIFF AND THE DEMOCRATS AGAINST NUNEZ AND THE REPUBLICANS >> THAT HELPS REPUBLICANS MUDDY THE WATERS ON WHETHER TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. POLLS SHOW GOING INTO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THE WASHINGTON POST SAID THE PUBLIC IS SPLIT 50/50 DO YOU IMPEACH AND REMOVE THE PRESIDENT WAS THE QUESTION WE ASKED. THAT SUGGESTS THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WHAT A WEIGHTY THINGS THIS IS ESPECIALLY UP AGAINST AN ELECTION. TO THE EXTENT THAT REPUBLICANS CAN PAINT THIS AS A PARTISAN EXERCISE. AND YOU HEAR THAT LANGUAGE WHEN YOU TALK TO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, IT REALLY HELPS THEM RAISE QUESTION MARKS AMONG THE AMERICAN PUBLIC OF WHETHER ALL WE’RE HEARING IS ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING THAT SERIOUS >> AND WE HAVE HEARD SOME REPUBLICANS SAY THEY DON’T LIKE THE ACTIONS THE PRESIDENT TOOK THEY DON’T AGREE WITH HIS DECISIONS. BUT THEY DON’T FIND IT IMPEACHABLE. I’M THINKING NIKKI HALEY IS ONE EXAMPLE THEY’RE SETTING A BAR, A STANDARD, SOMEONE ELSE WE’LL HEAR FROM NEXT WEEK IS GORDON SONDLAND HE’S BEEN REFERENCED A LOT AND TALKED ABOUT A LOT. ONE ADVANTAGE TO REPUBLICANS IS HE’S CHANGED HIS STORY. THEY’LL PROBABLY BE ASKING WHETHER HE’S A RELIABLE WITNESS. BUT HE’S CHANGED HIS STORY AS OTHER TESTIMONY HAS SHOWN THAT WHAT HE SAID DID NOT LINE UP ESSENTIALLY WAS NOT TRUE COMPARED TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WERE SAYING. GORDON SONDLAND I’M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT THAT MAY BE THE MOST DRAMATIC TESTIMONY OF ALL NEXT WEEK SONDLAND COMES IN TO GOVERNMENT INTO A SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE EUROPEAN UNION REALLY FROM HIS ROLE AS A REPUBLICAN DONOR. HE’S A FUNDRAISING GUY, VERY LOYAL TO THE PRESIDENT, TAKES ON THIS ROLE THAT WE’VE HEARD REFERRED TO AS ONE OF THE THREE AMIGOS BASICALLY LEADING POLICY THAT ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY IS EFFECTIVELY DIRECTED AT LEAST IN PART BY THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI. AND GORDON SONDLAND HAS TESTIFIED IN WAYS INITIALLY THAT WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PRESIDENT’S POINT OF VIEW BUT HE HAS ADJUSTED — EXPRESSED THROUGH HIS LAWYER, A WILLINGNESS TO ADJUST SOME OF THAT TESTIMONY AS MORE MATERIAL CAME OUT AND AS HIS MEMORY HAS BEEN REFRESHED AND THEN WE HAVE AS WE WERE DISCUSSING A MOMENT AGO, A WITNESS TO ONE OF SONDLAND’S CONVERSATIONS, MR HOLMES, A POLITICAL ATASHAY IN THE U.S. EMBASSY THERE, WHO OVER HEARD A TELEPHONE CALL

CONVERSATION IN THE HOTEL DINING ROOM BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. AND AS WE LEARN ABOUT WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THAT CALL, IT COULD BE INFORMATION OR EVEN EVIDENCE THAT TAKES US TO A PLACE WHERE REPUBLICANS HAVE ARGUED WE HAVEN’T GONE YET WHICH IS EYEWITNESSES OR EARWITNESSS IN THIS CASE TO THE PRESIDENT’S BOTH STATE OF MIND AND INTENTIONS. AND MR. SONDLAND WAS A WITNESS TO THAT. WE NOW HAVE A THIRD PARTY WHO CAN CORROBORATE THIS. AND THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS NOT ONLY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CALL, BUT WHY PROTOCOL AND EVEN RULES ABOUT CONVERSATIONS SUCH AS THIS WERE CONDUCTED ON MOBILE PHONES IN A QUASI PUBLIC PLACE IN A DINING ROOM IN KIEV, A FAMOUS LISTENING POST FOR THE KREMLIN >> CONGRESS WILL HEAR FROM HIM BEHIND CLOSED DOORS LATER TODAY, AND WE’LL SEE HOW PIVOTAL THAT TESTIMONY ENDS UP BEING AND WHETHER WE CAN SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS AFTER THE FACT WE’LL SEE WHETHER OR NOT HE WILL COME BEFORE AN OPEN COMMITTEE PROCESS. THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE ROLE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS BRING UP A LOT. WE CAN EXPECT THEM TO BRING IT UP AGAIN ONCE THEY GET UNDER WAY HERE TOM. CAN YOU TAKE US THROUGH WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS AND WHAT SO FAR HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS. BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS — CEASES TO BE RELEVANT ONCE YOU GET ALL THESE OTHER WITNESSES ON THE RECORD STATING IN THEIR FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT WHAT THEY SAW, EXPERIENCED OR WERE PART OF >> EXCELLENT QUESTION, THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS IN SOME WAYS AS WE’LL HEAR I EXPECT LATER TODAY FROM CONGRESSMAN NUNEZ AND CONGRESSMAN JORDAN, THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS THE PERSON WHO REALLY GOT THE ENTIRE UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION THAT WE’RE NOW OBSERVING, THE HEART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY UNDER WAY BECAUSE IT WAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO FLAGGED FIRST TO HIS SUPERIORS AT THE CIA THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING OF CONCERN TO HIM AND TO OTHERS ABOUT THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AND THAT IS THAT AID WAS CONDITIONED ON ZELENSKY PROVIDING SOME FAVORS TO MR TRUMP, INFORMATION ON THE BIDENS AND ON THE DNC SERVER THAT ARGUABLY ARE POLITICAL, DOMESTIC POLITICAL ADVANTAGES FOR THE PRESIDENT. SO IT WAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO FIRST RAISED THESE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CONVERSATIONS WITH ZELENSKY, THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUID PRO QUO. THERE WAS SOME CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S FINDINGS OR REPORT BECAME PUBLIC. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED LIKE IT OR NOT IS THAT THERE WERE CLOSED DOOR AND NOW PUBLIC TESTIMONY ABOUT ALL OF THE MATTERS THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER BLEW THE WHISTLE ON. THAT IS THAT THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART THAT WERE INAPPROPRIATE. IT MAY HAVE INCLUDED THE IMPROPER CONDITIONING OF MILITARY AID AND USE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ON GETTING PERSONAL AND POLITICAL FAVORS AND IT RESULTED IN OTHER EXECUTIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY RATHER THAN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES BROADLY. AND INDEED THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S COMPLAINTS HAVE NOW BEEN AIRED. THEY’RE BEING DISCUSSED BY MULTIPLE WITNESSES. ALL OF THOSE WHO WE’RE HEARING THIS WEEK AND MORE WE’LL HEAR NEXT WEEK. IN A SENSE, ALTHOUGH REPUBLICANS ARE CLAMBERING FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME FORWARD AND BE QUESTIONED, THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT HE ALLEGED HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THESE WITNESSES AND IT’S BEEN EXAMINED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE. NONE THE LESS, I DON’T THINK WE WILL SEE ANY CESSATION IN ATTENTION TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER BY REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS >> THEIR CLAIM IS THAT IT LACKS TRANSPARENCY. THEY’RE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO A COURT OF LAW WHERE THE PRESIDENT MUST FACE HIS ACCUSER AND MAKING IT SORT OF A MAN ON MAN RATHER THAN THE EVIDENCE GATHERING THE INFORMATION THAT THESE COMMITTEE HAVES GONE THROUGH TO SORT OF FIND THE WITNESSES WHO CAN CORROBORATE THE INFORMATION THE WHISTLEBLOWER ORIGINALLY RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT >> YOU HAVE TWO POINTS ON THAT I DON’T KNOW IF REPUBLICANS REALLY WANT TO TALK TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER. BECAUSE AS TOM

SAID THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS GOTTEN EVERYTHING RIGHT SO FAR IN TERMS OF DAMAGING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. IT WORKS TO THEIR BENEFIT THAT HE OR SHE IS A SHADOWY FIGURE. .IN THE CIA POINTING THE FINGER AT THE PRESIDENT. IT WORKS TO THEIR BENEFIT >> TO RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT IDENTITY >> AND HELP THE PRESIDENT PROMOTE HIS CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND THEY ARE CONSPIRACY THEORIES I STRESS. SECOND I HAVE, OUR COLLEAGUE WROTE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE OF BEING ABLE TO CONFRONT YOUR WITNESS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL. IN THE COURT OF LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT SAYS THAT THE HAPPEN AND THE PROTECTIONS OFFERED ON THAT FRONT OF AN IMPEACHMENT AND THERE ARE NONE. THE PRESIDENT ISN’T, WORST CASE SCENARIO GOING TO GO TO JAIL IF THE SENATE CONVICTS HIM, HE’S GOING TO LOSE HIS JOB. THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T OFFER PROTECTIONS FOR HIM TO HEAR FROM HIS ACCUSER I’M GOING TO ADD A — TACK A THIRD POINT ON TO THAT. THE WHISTLEBLOWER AS I SEE IT ISN’T THE ONE WHO SAID CONGRESS GO AND IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THE WHISTLEBLOWER BROUGHT WHAT HE OR SHE HEARD TO THE ATTENTION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHO THEN BROUGHT IT TO CONGRESS CONGRESS THEN DECIDED WITH THIS INFORMATION, WHY DON’T WE PURSUE THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FULL FORCE. I THINK WHEN REPUBLICANS SAY THE WHISTLEBLOWER WANTS TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM HIM. THAT’S PROBABLY A PURPOSEFUL MISREADING OF WHAT HAPPENED >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE FUNDING AT THE HEART OF THIS IN SOME SENSE. THIS QUESTION OF LIKE MONEY FOR UKRAINE, WHY IS THIS SO SIGNIFICANT? WHY IS IT SOMETHING THAT UKRAINE IS SO EAGER TO GET? AND THAT GIVES THE UNITED STATES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LEVERAGE AND POWER? >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR’S TESTIMONY SPOKE ABOUT IT. THE AID WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS MILITARY AID IT WAS HELD UP CONGRESSIONALLALLY MANDATED DELIVERY TO THE UKRAINE WAS HELD UP FOR REASONS THAT REMAIN MYSTERIOUS BUT HELD UP FOR 170 DAYS. THAT IS IN FACT A VIOLATION OF LAW BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN DATE THAAD THIS AID BE DELIVERED >> BIPARTISAN. EVERYBODY IN CONGRESS >> YES, SO THIS IS — AND THE AID IS CRITICAL. AND AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YESTERDAY, YOU KNOW, HAVING A VISIT, INVITING ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT’S PRESIDENTIAL PROTOCOL. BUT AID TO THE UKRAINIANS IS VITAL TO THE SECURITY OF UKRAINE. TO UKRAINIAN LIVES. THE SURVIVAL OF AN INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC ADJACENT TO RUSSIA. AND EVEN MORE BROADLY, TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT IS STILL THE POSITION OF THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT THAT RUSSIA IS ACTING AGGRESSIVELY TOWARDS ITS NEIGHBORS AND POTENTIALLY THREATENS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS TO THE WEST. THE AID WAS VITAL TO KEEP UKRAINE NOT ONLY SECURE AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, BUT IT WAS ARRIVING JUST AT THE TIME THAT THE RUSSIANS AND THE UKRAINIANS WERE NEGOTIATING CEASEFIRES AND BORDER AGREEMENTS. HAVING THE SUPPORT, MILITARY SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES WAS CRITICAL TO UKRAINIAN CONFIDENCE IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS AND SIGNIFICANT TO BOLSTER THE UKRAINIAN POSITION VIS-A-VIS THE RUSSIANS. AND THAT IT WAS DELAYED OR PERHAPS NOT ARRIVING AT ALL. NO ONE KNEW UNTIL THE 170 DAY PERIOD OF DELAY WAS UP WHETHER IT WOULD ACTUALLY SHOW UP WAS A RISK AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TALKED ABOUT THE RISK TO UKRAINIAN LIVES THAT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO DELIVER THAT AID ON A TIMELY BASIS AS REQUIRED BY LAW >> ONE PERSON WHO WILL TESTIFY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WE BELIEVE IS MARK SANDY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. TAKING A MORE BUREAUCRATIC ROLL USUALLY AND NOT QUITE THE PROMINENT ROLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT OF WHY WAS THE MONEY HELD UP? WHEN DID IT MOVE FORWARD? AND OMB THUS FAR HAS NOT TESTIFIED. ITS PEOPLE HAVE NOT TESTIFIED >> THAT’S CORRECT. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS — WE ALL KNOW, AND OUR VIEWERS KNOW, HAS BEEN — HAS HAD A BLANKET OPPOSITION TO ANYONE TESTIFYING OR PARTICIPATING IN THIS HEARING AND THAT’S PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WHICH IS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. AND NOW HAVING A WITNESS FROM THAT OFFICE COULD UNLOCK THIS MYSTERY

OF WHY THESE FUNDS WERE HELD UP WHO ORDERS THEM HELD UP? AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THIS TESTIMONY. BUT I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS DEMOCRATS ARE EAGER TO LEARN IF THEY CAN, IS WHETHER THERE WAS A PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE BEHIND HOLDING UP THESE FUNDS AND IF SO, IT DOES DO WHAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN WARNING HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THIS CASE IT WOULD SHOW — IT COULD SHOW THE PERSONAL HAND OF THE PRESIDENT. IN HOLDING UP OR OBSTRUCTING OR RAISING A HURDLE AGAINST CONGRESSIONALLALLY MANDATED — CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED — AGAINST UKRAINE >> WE’RE WATCHING TO SEE WHEN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RESUMES THEIR HEARING HERE. IT’S DAY TWO OF THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING PROCESS. LOOKING INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE DEMOCRATS WILL ULTIMATELY DRAW UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. THERE’S A VOTE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. WHICH IS WHY WE SEE THIS DELAY. SO FAR THIS MORNING, DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD THEIR 45 MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS, WE A SAW THE COUNCIL FOR THE DEMOCRATS, GOLDMAN DOING ‘DO THAT ALONG WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WE EXPECT REPUBLICANS TO COME BACK SHORTLY AND WE’LL SEE COUNCIL STEVE CASTOR WORK ALONGSIDE DEVEN NUNEZ THE RANKING REPUBLICAN TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS, THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE THIS WORKS TO THE REPUBLICANS ADVANTAGE IN SOME WAYS, THEY CAN MAKE A PLAN NOW, THIS IS TIME TO TAKE A VOTE. IT DOESN’T TAKE THAT LONG. THEY CAN USE THE REST OF THE TIME TO ASSESS WHAT THEY’VE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, DIGEST WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THAT. AND THEN FIGURE OUT THEIR OWN STRATEGY OF HOW THEY’RE GOING TO COUNTER THE DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE OR TRY TO POKE HOLES IN THIS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT. AS WE LOOK AT JUST WHAT MAY COME OUT OF THIS SPEAKER PELOSI WAS CAREFUL YESTERDAY TO SAY LOOK, WE HAVEN’T DRAWN UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT YET. WE DON’T KNOW WHERE THIS IS ALL GOING. THERE’S NOTHING TO INDICATE DEMOCRATS WON’T TAKE THAT STEP. BRIBERY IS ONE WORD THAT SPEAKER PELOSI HAS BEGUN USING WHICH HAS ITS OWN SORT OF LINE ITEM IN THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT CALLS FOR THINGS LIKE BRIBERY AND TREASON VERY FEW ITEMS ARE MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY. THE REST OF IT IS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BRIBERY MAY BE ONE DIRECTION THE DEMOCRATS TAKE. TOM, COULD WE SEE AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WRITTEN UP ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY AND ENDANGERING NATIONAL SECURITY POTENTIALLY IS THAT SOMETHING DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO SHOW HERE. THAT POTENTIALLY WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE, HAVING IT AS A POTENTIAL BARGAINING CHIP WAS NOT JUST POTENTIALLY SORT OF A MANIPULATIVE POLITICAL PLOY BUT COULD ULTIMATELY IMPACT THE NATIONAL SECURITY NOT JUST OF UKRAINE BUT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> LIBBY, WE’RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT NEXT WEEK ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY AND THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY THAT RESULTED FROM THIS APPROACH TO UKRAINE. NOT ONLY CONDITIONING AID ON FAVORS TO THE PRESIDENT BUT ALSO SETTING UP AN UNUSUAL OUTSIDE OF NORMAL DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS WAY OF COMMUNICATING, NEGOTIATING, EVEN PRESSURING UKRAINE USING STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE SECTOR FOLKS LIKE RUDY GIULIANI SO I THINK WE WILL HEAR ABOUT THOSE TWO THINGS. WHETHER IT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A — OF PART OF AN IMPEACHMENT — AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, I DON’T KNOW. BUT WE’RE SURE TO HEAR ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY AND A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND IN SOME WAY, THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IF DEMOCRATS PURSUE THIS. IN RECENT IMPEACHMENTS, WE’VE SEEN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MENTIONED AND THERE IS BOTH IN THE TESTIMONY OF MR. SONDLAND AND MORE BROADLY THE RELUCTANCE, AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS SAID, FROM WITNESSES IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHO DON’T APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA, THEIR FAILURE TO SHOW WILL BE CONSIDERED OBSTRUCTION. AND IF THOSE ORDERS NOT TO SHOW ARE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PRESIDENT, WE’LL HEAR THAT AS PART OF AN OBSTRUCTION CLAIM >> THAT’S A GREAT POINT. I WANT TO ASK ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI. WE DON’T EXPECT HIM TO TESTIFY ONLY BECAUSE HE’S ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WHO IS NOT INTERESTED IN TESTIFYING. BUT WHAT — HE’S NOT IN THE REGULAR CHAIN OF GOVERNMENT. HE’S THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY. WHICH RAISES A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY HE WOULD EVEN BE INVOLVED IN UKRAINE POLICY. AND WHILE THE WHITE HOUSE CAN POINT OUT THAT YOU CAN GET ADVICE FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE AND IT’S TYPICAL TO LOOK OUTSIDE TRADITIONAL CHANNEL FOR ADVICE, INPUT OR FEEDBACK THAT GIULIANI PLAYED AN OUTSIDE ROLE

PERHAPS A DIRECT ROLE IN THIS PROCESS. WHAT IS HE ON THE LINE FOR? WHAT COULD BE HIS LEGAL RAMIFICATION? >> ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN EXPECT IF RUDY GIULIANI WERE CALLED TO TESTIFY, HE HAS BEEN ACTING AS THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER. AND THUS HAS LAWYER CLIENT PRIVILEGE. SO THE ACTIVITIES THAT — MANY OF THE ACTIVITIES HE ENGAGES IN, TO THE EXTENT THAT HE’S RESPONDED TO INSTRUCTIONS OR WISHES OR PROVIDING HEEL ADVICE TO HIS CLIENT WOULD BE THINGS THAT HE WOULD CLAIM A PRIVILEGE AGAINST TESTIFYING TO. THERE IS OF COURSE A WELL KNOWN EXCEPTION TO LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THAT IS IF THERE IS — IF THE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN LAWYER AND CLIENT ARE DISCUSSIONS IN PURSUIT OF A CRIMINAL ACT. THEN THE PRIVILEGE IS WAVED AS A MATTER OF LAW. BUT I AGREE THAT IT’S VERY UNLIKELY THAT RUDY GIULIANI, IF HE WERE CALLED TO WOULD TESTIFY VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT A COURT ORDER TO TESTIFY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE TESTIFIES OR NOT ASIDE, THE ROLE OF THIS PRESIDENT’S LAWYER WHO IS BY HIS OWN DESCRIPTION NOT BEING PAID BY HIS CLIENT BUT NONE THE LESS HAS THE BROAD PROTECTION OF BEING LAWYER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE THAT COMES WITH THAT. HE’S ENGAGING IN A WIDE RANGE OF ACTIVITIES WE KNOW FOR EXAMPLE THAT HE’S WORKING WITH HIS TWO ASSOCIATES, LEV AND IGOR, THE AMERICANS RECENTLY INDICTED BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. THESE ARE PEOPLE HE’S WORKING WITH VERY CLOSELY. NOT ONLY PURSUING EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL FROM UKRAINE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HIS CLIENT, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE BUSINESS DEALS TO DEATHER. TO WHAT IS RUDY GIULIANI UP TO? IT’S VERY UNUSUAL. I CAN’T THINK OF A CASE WHERE A PRESIDENT’S LAWYER HAS SIMULTANEOUSLY BEEN ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES WHILE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THIS WAY SO WHEN RUDY GIULIANI GOES TO THE FORMER SOVIET UNION OR HAS INTERESTED THERE, HE HAS MULTIPLE CLIENTS. HE TOLD US RECENTLY HE WAS LOOKING AT AN INVESTMENT DEAL IN UZBEKISTAN. ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING SOVIET REPUBLICS WHERE FOLKS TIED TO THE KREMLIN STILL REMAIN VERY PROMINENT IN POLITICS AND IN THE WORLD OF BUSINESS. RUDY GIULIANI’S ROLE IS HISTORICALLY NEW. IT’S DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING WE’VE SEEN. AND HE’S ACTING ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE AS A QUASI — AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BUT HE’S ALSO PURSUING HIS OWN PERSONAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS AT THE SAME TIME >> I JUST HAVE TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHO COULD HOLD HIM LIABLE. SO IF LEV AND IGOR HAVE BEEN INDICTED, THE PRESIDENT IS PROTECTED, OBVIOUSLY, AND RUDY GIULIANI AS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER HAS PRIVILEGES BUT WHO COULD HOLD RUDY GIULIANI ACCOUNTABLE, LEGALLY? >> WELL IT’S BEEN REPORTED, THERE ARE CERTAIN — IMPORTANT TO SAY, THERE ARE NO CHARGES AGAINST RUDY GIULIANI, THERE ARE REPORTS THAT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WHICH IS LEADING THE CASE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS AGAINST HIS TWO ASSOCIATES HAVE ALSO BEEN MAKING INQUIRYS ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI AND HIS ROLE KICKED TO THEIR ACTIVITIES THOUGH IT DOES SEEM AS THOUGH HE’S UNDER INVESTIGATION THOUGH EXACTLY FOR WHAT, WE’RE NOT SURE. THERE’S BEEN SPECULATIONS THAT IT MAY INVOLVE HIS WORK WHILE HE WAS WORKING FOR THE PRESIDENT. HE WAS COMPENSATED NOT ONLY BY THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WE JUST MENTIONED BUT ALSO BY A RANGE OF FOREIGN CLIENTS WHO SOMETIMES ASKED HIM TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF AND OTHERWISE ENGAGED HIS LEGAL SERVICES. IT’S POSSIBLE THAT THOSE THAT WORK FOR FOREIGN CLIENTS COULD COME UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT AND THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS RAISED INCLUDING IN OUR NEWS PAPER BUT ALSO BY LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERTS ABOUT WHETHER GIULIANI HAS APPROPRIATELY REGISTERED THAT WAS ONE OF THE EARLY CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST PAUL MANAFORT FOR HIS WORK REPRESENTATIVING UKRAINIAN CLIENTS THAT HE HAD NOT REGISTERED. WE TALKED TO RUDY GIULIANI. HE WAS A FREQUENT AND A WONDERFUL SOURCE WONDERFUL BECAUSE HE TOOK OUR CALLS AND HE WAS ALWAYS ON THE RECORD. IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH HIM. AND ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID WHEN WE’D ASK ABOUT HIS

ACTIVITIES, WHY ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT ME? RUDY GIULIANI SAID TO US. I’M THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND I’M BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON CORRUPT ACTIONS IN UKRAINE INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING THE LEADING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR THE UNITED STATES. THAT’S A BIG STORY. THAT’S WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK OF ME AS. HE’S BEEN A GOOD ADVOCATE FOR THE PRESIDENT. BUT HE’S RAISING TOPICS THAT HE BELIEVES ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW ABOUT AND THAT ARE WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION >> MARIE YOVANOVITCH IN HER TESTIMONY DID TALK ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF HER RERECREATION SHIP WITH THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SHE SAYS YES, SHE’S MET HIM ON OCCASION, WOW SHE’S NEVER MET HUNTER BIDEN. IN HER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, HE NEVER CAME UP >> SHE HAS NOTHING TO ADD TO THAT. WHICH I EXPECT IS A DETRIMENT TO THE ANGLE REPUBLICANS WANT TO PURSUE BECAUSE DEVEN NUNEZ ASKED AGAIN AS HE DID WEDNESDAY WHY WAS HUNTER BIDEN WORKING IN UKRAINE WHEN HIS DAD WAS ADVOCATING FOR POLICIES IN UKRAINE? I DON’T EXPECT MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION >> THAT DOESN’T MEAN REPUBLICANS WON’T ASK IT >> RIGHT >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO RHONDA COLEMAN ON CAPITOL HILL TAKING HER TIME BETWEEN GOING INTO THE HEARING ROOM TO WAIT FOR THINGS TO GET UNDER WAY AND COMING BACK OUT TO TALK TO US. SO GLAD WE CAN GET ANOTHER MOMENT WITH YOU. CAN YOU PAINT A BROAD PICTURE OF WHAT’S HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL AS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS GOING ON? >> RIGHT NOW THE HOUSE IS ON THE FLOOR, AND THEY’RE CONSIDERING A BILL THAT DEALS WITH THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK. SO THAT’S WHAT THE HOLD UP IS. THEY DID AMEND IT. AND NOW I BELIEVE THEY’RE VOTING NOW ON FINAL PASSAGE. BUT OF COURSE AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE’S ALWAYS NEWS ON THE HILL. AND ONE OF THE HEADLINES THAT’S PARALLEL TO THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SHUT DOWN DEADLINE NEXT WEEK. NOVEMBER 21st IS A GOVERNMENT FUNDING DEADLINE AND DEMOCRATS SAY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PASS A STOPGAP MEASURE THAT WILL AT LEAST FUND THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 20th. HOWEVER, THEY ARE MORE CONCERNED RIGHT NOW GIVEN THAT THAT TIMELINE MIGHT BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE SAME TIME THEY DO AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE. THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT BE WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT. AND SO YOU REMEMBER LAST YEAR WE HAD ONE OF HISTORY’S LONGEST SHUT DOWNS, THAT WAS AROUND THE SAME TIME AROUND THE HOLIDAYS. SO I TALKED WITH SOME DEMOCRATS YESTERDAY AND THERE IS CONCERN THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY PUT A HOLD ON THINGS. AND WE MIGHT SEE A SHUT DOWN. BUT OF COURSE I DON’T WANT TO GIVE US ALL HEART BURN ABOUT THAT. BUT THAT’S SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT UP HERE. SO THAT’S CERTAINLY A SERIOUS ISSUE RIGHT NOW. SPEAKER PELOSI YESTERDAY IN HER WEEKLY PRESS CONFERENCE, SHE ADDRESSED IT. AND SHE’S BEEN COMMONLY SAYING THAT YOU KNOW, THEY CAN LEGISLATE AND INVESTIGATE AT THE SAME TIME. BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE IS CONSTERNATION BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS RIGHT NOW. SO IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THAT FUNNING DEADLINE >> RHONDA, THANK YOU SO MUCH MOMENTS AGO AS HE LEFT THE HEARING ROOM TO GO ON THIS EXTENDED BREAK THE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF TALKED TO REPORTERS ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN REALTIME. LET’S WATCH >> WHAT WE SAW TO IT WAS NOT THAT SHE WAS ATTACKED FOR NO REASON. AT LEAST NO GOOD REASON BUT WE SAW TODAY INTIMIDATION IN REALTIME BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ONCE AGAIN GOING AFTER THIS DEDICATED AND RESPECTED CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT IN AN EFFORT TO NOT ONLY CHILL HER BUT TO CHILL OTHERS. AND CAN WE TAKE THIS WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND OBSTRUCTION INQUIRY VERY SERIOUSLY >> THAT’S CHAIRMAN SCHIFF TALKING TO REPORTERS. HE’S REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT TWEETING ABOUT THE FORMER AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH AS THE HEARING WAS HAPPENING THIS MORNING. THE WHITE HOUSE DOWN PLAYED THE PRESIDENT’S INTEREST IN THE HEARING PROCESS. BUT HE SEEMS TO BE CHECKING IN WITH IT THERE’S A TWEET FROM THIS MORNING. EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WENT TURNED BAD. SHE STARTED OFF IN SOMALIA, HOW DID THAT GO? READ ON FROM THERE >> CAN I CHIME IN. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY DRAMATIC MOMENT IN THE HEARING. ADAM SCHIFF JUMPED IN. HE TOOK THE MIC BACK FROM HIS COUNCIL AND SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP JUST TWEETED ABOUT YOU AMBASSADOR, HERE’S WHAT HE SAID, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND. ONE, I WOULD BE LIKE QUAKING IN MY BOOTS RESPONDING TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

BUT HE SEIZED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAINT HER AS A VICTIM. BEING ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT FOR NO REASON. HER RESPONSE WAS I DON’T THINK I HAVE THAT POWER I DON’T HAVE THE POWER TO GO TO A COUNTRY AND EVERYTHING GOES WRONG. SHE SAID I WAS IN UKRAINE SPECIFICALLY TO TRY TO MAKE THE COUNTRY MORE DEMOCRATIC, LESS CORRUPT, AND I THINK THAT BENEFITS AMERICA’S INTERESTS. I WAS UNDERMINED. >> WHEN WE TALKED TO YOU THIS MORNING BEFORE THE HEARING GOT UNDER WAY, ONE POINT YOU BROUGHT UP IS THAT DEMOCRATS NEED TO PAYMENT A PICTURE AND DRAW OUT A NARRATIVE HERE RATHER THAN SEEING WORDS PRINTED ON A PAGE OR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TALKING ABOUT THINGS AND EXPOUNDING ON THINGS TO HEAR A WITNESS IN THEIR OWN WORDS TELL A STORY AND TELL A COMPLETE NARRATIVE NOT JUST THIS FIVE MINUTE Q&A BACK AND FORTH WHERE YOU DON’T GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE STORY IS, HOW COMPELLING DO YOU THINK MARIE YOVANOVITCH HAS BEEN IN PUTTING A NAME AND A FACE AND A PERSONALITY, A SENSITIVITY TO IS A CAREER DIPLOMAT >> SHE’S BEEN EXTRAORDINARILY COMPELLING ON THAT POINT. HER PART OF THE STYRENES IN MAY, LATE APRIL WHEN SHE GOT OUSTED AND ALL THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT WRONG DOING BY TRUMP AND ALLIES WENT ON AFTER THAT THE TIMELINE CENTERS ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL. HEEDING UP TO RIGHT BEFORE AND AFTER THAT. SO DEMOCRATS NEED SOMEONE TO FILL IN THAT PART. AND SAY I WAS THERE WATCHING ALL THIS BAD STUFF HAPPEN. A NAME THAT I THINK COULD ATTEST TO SOME OF THAT IF HE WANTS TO IS LIEUTENANT COLEAL ALEXANDER VINMIN WHO VERY MUCH WANTED U.S. AND UKRAINE TO GET ALONG WITH THIS NEW PRESIDENT AND SET UP THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND WAS AGHAST TO HEAR IT GO WRONG >> THIS QUESTION THAT REPUBLICANS MAY BE ASKING IS WHAT DID YOU SEE? WHAT DID YOU HEAR? HOW DOES THAT MAY OUT OVER THE COMING COUPLE HOURS BUT ALSO NEXT WEEK AS MORE WITNESSES COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE PUBLICLY? >> THIS WOULD BE MY PREDICTION IS THAT WE WILL SEE SOME ATTENTION WHEN WE RETURN FROM THIS BREAK FROM THE VOTES ON THE HOUSE FLOOR >> THE NEVER ENDING BREAK IN THE HOUSE >> AND THE REPUBLICANS SORT OF BEGIN THEIR ALLOTTED MINUTES OF QUESTIONING. THERE WILL BE A FOCUS ON THE LIMITS OF THE AMBASSADOR’S KNOWLEDGE. AND AS WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING, SHE DEPARTS FROM HER POST AND HER SORT OF RELEVANT POSITION IN THIS STORY IN MAY. AND SO WE’LL SEE SOME ATTENTION TO THAT. AND IT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SORT OF AS A GAP TODAY. BUT NEXT WEEK, WE WILL HEAR FROM PEOPLE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WHO WERE VERY MUCH PART OF THIS STORY THROUGH THE PRESENT MOMENT. MR. VINMIN WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF THROUGHOUT. HE WILL TESTIFY. AND HIS TESTIMONY, I EXPECT, AT LEAST OF HIS, IF HIS CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY WAS ANY INDICATION, WILL ALSO BE QUITE DRAMATIC, DESCRIBING HIS EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY LISTENING TO THE JULY 25 CALL IN A STATE OF ALARM AS HE SAT IN THE SITUATION ROOM LISTENING TO THE CALL. BUT ALSO A PREVIOUS MEETING, JULY 10 WHEN THERE WAS AN INFORMAL MEETING ATTENDED BY THE THREE AMIGOS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR VULCAR AND ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY. AND IN THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL, THERE WAS — THERE WERE IN TREATIES REQUESTED TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION DELIVERED TO INTERMEDIARYS BUT COLONEL VINMIN WILL DESCRIBE THIS. THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON THE BIDENS, INFORMATION ON THE SERVERS, AND A SUGGESTION THAT FUTURE GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE U.S. MAY BE CONDITIONED ON THE PROVISION OF THAT INFORMATION. SO WE’RE GOING TO HEAR SOME DRAMATIC TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS FILLING IN THE GAP OF WHAT HAPPENS AFTER AM BASS TORE YOVANOVITCH LEAVES IN MAY AND WHAT HAPPENS IN JUNE, JUUL, AND BEYOND. COLONEL VINMIN MAY BE ASKED WHAT HIS EXPERIENCE

HAS BEEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER HE RAISES THIS ALARM INCLUDING WHAT IT’S BEEN LIKE THE THAT’S COUPLE WEEKS >> THAT WOULD MAKE HIM EVEN MORE OF A COMPELLING WITNESS THAN HE MIGHT BE. THE PERSON AT THE CENTER OF ALL THIS. AT THE RIGHT TIME. GORDON SONDLAND. POLITICAL ALLY. ACKNOWLEDGED OFFERING THE UKRAINIANS A QUID PRO QUO THOUGH HE DOESN’T USE THOSE WORDS. WHEN HE TESTIFIES, I DON’T EXPECT HIM TO BE AS DIRECT AND FORTHCOMING AND HAVE SUCH CONVICTION AS THESE DIPLOMATS HAVE. THAT THERE WAS WRONG DOING. BECAUSE THAT MIGHT THROW HIM UNDER THE BUS WE COULD HAVE A BOUNCY JAGGED TESTIMONY. THAT’S A PROBLEM FOR DEMOCRATS. HE’S PROBABLY THEIR KEY WITNESS IN THIS TIMELINE YOU MAKE A VERY CLEAR CASE FOR VINMIN BEING ABLE TO STEP IN FROM DEMOCRAT’S PERSPECTIVE >> BREAKING NEWS, COLLEAGUES AT THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTED THAT ROGER STONE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY IN THE FEDERAL CASE STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS RELATED TO WIKILEAKS. A REMINDER THAT HE’S A LONG TIME TRUMP FRIEND AND ADVISOR. HE’S BEEN ON TRIAL IN WASHINGTON ON CHARGES OF LYING TO CONGRESS, WITNESS TAMPERING, AND OBSTRUCTION OVER HIS REMARKS ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS EMAIL RELEASES IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. TOM, CAN YOU REFLECT ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CONVICTION? >> WELL, ROGER STONE IS A LONG TIME FRIEND AND ALLY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S WITH AN INFORMAL ADVISOR TO THE CAMPAIGN. AND OFFERED CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS THROUGH 2017-2018 AND THIS YEAR AS WELL, INCLUDING IN HIS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS AWARENESS OR WHETHER HE HAD ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE THAT JULIAN ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS HAD ACCESS TO HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS OR JOHN PEDESTA EMAILS THAT COULD DISADVANTAGE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE >> AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT OUR COLLEAGUE IS REPORTING THAT HE WAS FOUND GUILTY ON ALL SEVEN CHARGES. THAT’S WHAT THE JURY IS FINDING IT’S A CONVICTION OF ANOTHER VISIBLE ALLY OF THE PRESIDENT HE JOINS THE RANKS OF PAUL MANAFORT. ONCE THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN OF THE TRUMP ELECTION EFFORT. COLONEL FLYNN WHO HAS PLED GUILTY. WHO WAS OF COURSE BRIEFLY THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BEFORE HE RESIGNED. AND THIS IS AN OFFSHOOT AS I THINK OUR LISTENERS KNOW OF THE MULLER INVESTIGATION. THE PROSECUTION WAS LED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICER AFTER THE MULLER OFFICE CLOSED IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE IN WASHINGTON. AND IT’S ANOTHER BLOW TO THIS PRESIDENT. ANOTHER TOP AID CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND THIS PARTICULAR CRIME TAKES US BACK TO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND THE NOTION OF INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LED OR DIRECTED BY A FOREIGN POWER. IT’S NOT AT ALL HELPFUL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND IT MAY CAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE TO REDOUBLE THE COMPLAINS WHICH WE HEARD ABOUT SOME IN THE PRESIDENT’S TWEET THIS MORNING AGAINST THE AMBASSADOR, SUGGESTING THAT THERE’S A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY, WHICH INFECTED OUR MOST REVERES INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING THE COURTS BUT THE REALITY IS THIS IS A TRIAL AND THE PRESIDENT’S CLOSE AID HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY >> WE’RE GOING TO LET YOU GO BUT I WANT YOUR REFLECTIONS FIRST >> IT’S NOT HELPFUL TO TRUMP. IT COMES AS DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING A CASE IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT HIS ALLIES AND POSSIBLY HIM WERE CORRUPT IN UKRAINE AND WORKING WITH CORRUPT UKRAINIANS AND THEN YOU HAVE YET ANOTHER PERSON CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING CONVICTED. A CONVICTED CRIMINAL. IT JUST HELPS THEIR NARRATIVE >> AMBER PHILLIPS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE’LL BRING IN ROZ IN A MOMENT. ANOTHER INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER. TOM, IT’S INTERESTING, THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND THE ELECTION CONTINUES TO LIVE ON, RIGHT? AND IT’S LIVING ON IN NUMEROUS WAYS, ONE OF COURSE IS THIS. IN THIS CONVICTION OF ROGER STONE, BUT WE’RE ALSO HEARING THE REPUBLICANS TRY TO PIN THE BLAME ON ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND MEDDLING ON UKRAINE. CAN YOU DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR US. AND EXPLAIN WHERE REPUBLICANS ARE — WHY ARE REPUBLICANS TALKING ABOUT THAT

AT THIS MOMENT? >> WELL, IT IS THE SORT OF COUNTER NARRATIVE TO THE QUITE DAMAGING REPORT ENDORSED BY ALL OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES THAT THE KREMLIN WAS ACTING IN 2016 — WAS INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTION ON BEHALF OF DONALD TRUMP. ONE OF THE COUNTER NARRATIVES THAT I FIRST HEARD SUGGESTED BY PAUL MANAFORT AND HIS ALLIES IS THAT IN FACT THERE WAS ANOTHER FOREIGN POWER THAT WAS ENGAGED, THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE. AND DURING THE CAMPAIGN, ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT MOMENTS FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION IS WHEN NEWS WAS RELEASE THAAD PAUL MANAFORT’S NAME SHOWED UP IN A BLACK LEDGER AS RECEIVING $12 MILLION OFF THE BOOKS FROM A UKRAINIAN POLITICAL PARTY MANAFORT HAS ALWAYS DENIED RECEIVING SUCH OFF THE BOOKS CASH. BUT NONE THE LESS, THESE NEGATIVE COMMENTS THAT AFFECTED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN THAT CAME FROM KIEV CONSIDER TURNED INTO A COUNTER NARRATIVE ONE THAT SUGGESTED THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS ALIGNED WITH HILLARY CLINTON. AND AND THAT IF THERE’S REASON TO THINK THE RUSSIANS WERE BENEFITING AN UNWILLING DONALD TRUMP. MINUTE WAS THE BENEFICIARY OF ANOTHER FOREIGN POWER, THE UKRAINE. THE IDEA, THE SUGGESTION OF THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY, PROMOTED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, WAS ROUNDLY REJECTED IN THIS WEEK’S TESTIMONY AND AGAIN IN THE CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT VETERANS AND BY NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL EXPERTS. FIONA HILL AND HER CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY SAID SHE FOUND — SHE REALLY LASHED OUT ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY WHEN A REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONED HER ABOUT THIS UKRAINIAN THEORY AND SHE SAID GOING DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE IS SO DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT DISTRACTS US FROM A VERY REAL THREAT THAT THE UNITED STATES FACES IN 2020 OF KREMLIN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION AND ANY SUGGESTION THAT UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER U.S. CANDIDATE WAS IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE OR IS A DISTRACTION AND A DISTRACTION AWAY FROM A REAL NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT >> TOM, I’D LIKE TO WELCOME ROSLYN. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WE HAVE BREAKING NEWS THAT ROGER STONE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. IN A FEDERAL TRIAL OF LYING TO CONGRESS AND WITNESS TAMPERING OUR COLLEAGUES REPORT THAT THE JURY DELIBERATED FOR LESS THAN TWO DAYS BEFORE FINDING HIM GUILTY ON ALL SEVEN COUNTS. THIS IS RESULTING FROM HIS SEPTEMBER 2017 TESTIMONY TO A HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. AND THERE’S ONGOING DRAMA RIGHT NOW, I’M GETTING UPDATES FROM OUR COLLEAGUES WHO ARE IN THE COURTROOM AND THEY ARE REPORTING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS ACTUALLY ASKED THE JUDGE TO ORDER ROGER STONE IMMEDIATELY TO JAIL. WHICH IS EXTREMELY UNUSUAL. GENERALLY A DEFENDANT GOES HOME AFTER A VERDICT AND LATER THERE’S A SENTENCING PROCESS. BUT APPARENTLY THEY’RE ARGUING THAT ROGER STONE HAS BEEN VIOLATING A GAG ORDER AS RECENTLY AS LAST NIGHT. THEY SAY ALEX JONES SAID HE GOT A NOTE FROM ROGER STONE IN VIOLATION OF THE GAG ORDER. THIS IS A CONVERSATION GOING ON IN THE COURTROOM AT THIS VERY MINUTE THE JUDGE IS EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT MR. STONE’S ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH HER GAG ORDER AND WE’RE GOING TO — BUT NO I’M JUST READING THE NOTES AS THEY COME IN. APPARENTLY SHE’S NOT GOING TO SEND HIM TO JAIL IMMEDIATELY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION REQUEST. BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUS SITUATION FOR ROGER STONE. THERE WILL BE A SENTENCING PROCESS, FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE QUITE COMPLICATED. THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A LOT OF FACTORS BUT WITH SEVEN FELONY COUNTS AGAINST HIM. YOU WOULD IMAGINE THE SENTENCE WOULD INVOLVE SOME AMOUNT OF JAIL TIME >> THE TIMING OF THIS, THIS COMES DOWN RESULTING IN LARGE PART FROM TESTIMONY THAT HE GAVE TO THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AS WE WATCHED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE GET FRESH TESTIMONY FROM THESE WITNESSES, TOM — IT SHOWS THE STAKES HERE >> THE PARALLELS — ABSOLUTELY IT SHOWS THE STAKES FOR ALL WITNESSES. YOU COULD BE SENT TO PRISON FOR LYING IN THE SETTINGS THAT WE ARE WATCHING UNFOLD IN FRONT OF US. ANOTHER INTERESTING PARALLEL IS AROUND THE ISSUE OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION. ONE OF THE COUNTS THAT ROGER STONE WAS JUST FOUND GUILTY OF WAS TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS WHO ANOTHER WITNESS WHO WAS GOING TO BE APPEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BECAUSE HE HAD SENT HIM THREATENING NOTES TRYING TO PERSUADE HIM NOT TO TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY. HE SENT

HIM ONE NOTE THAT SAID PREPARE TO DIE AND LATER ARGUES THAT THAT WAS THE FUNNY BANTER. HE WAS KICKED OF WITNESS TAMPERING. SENDING INTIMIDATING MESSAGES TO A WITNESS. WE SEE THAT HAPPENING THIS VERY MORNING. THE STORY OF THE MORNING THUS FAR WITH AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS HER TESTIMONY THAT SHE IN FACT FELT INTIMIDATED BY THE PRESIDENT’S THREATS AGAINST HER. BOTH THE THREATS THAT HE MADE WHILE ON THE PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, ZELENSKY, AND THEN ALSO FRANKLY THE TWEETS THAT HE SENT JUST THIS MORNING WHILE SHE WAS APPEARING LIVE ON CAPITOL HILL >> WHEN THE TWEETS ARRIVED, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF INTERRUPTED HE SAID HE VIEWED THIS AS WITNESS TAMPERING AND OBSTRUCTION. AND HE’S POINTING HIS FINGER AT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ENGAGING IN POSSIBLE WITNESS TAMPERING AND OBSTRUCTION. AND OBSTRUCTION HISTORICALLY IN THE RECENT IMPEACHMENT CASE HAVES BEEN PART OS OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO HAVE A TWEET COME FROM THE PRESIDENT AT THIS EXACT MOMENT THAT SHE’S BEFORE THEM, YOU CAN SEE THAT SORT OF WITNESS TAMPERING REALM OF POSSIBILITY BUT SHE’S ALSO TALKED ABOUT FEELING THREATENED. AND SHE HAD THIS INCREDIBLY EVOCATIVE DESCRIPTION OF WHEN SHE FIRST READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL OR REALLY THE SUMMARY OF THE CALL. WE DON’T KNOW IF IT’S A FIRST TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. A PLACE WHERE SHE HAD BEEN POSTED. THESE INCREDIBLY POWERFUL WORLD LEADERS, TALKING ABOUT HER, AND REFERENCING HER AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BASICALLY SAYING THAT THINGS MAY HAPPEN TO HER. YOU REALLY DO GET A SENSE FROM HER TESTIMONY TODAY AS SHE DESCRIBED HOW SHE FELT BUT ALSO HOW THE PERSON WHO WAS WITH HER DESCRIBED THE COLOR DRAINING FROM HER FACE. SHE HAD A PHYSICAL REACTION TO THIS NEWS NOT JUST AN EMOTIONAL REACTION WHERE DOES THAT FALL INTO THE QUESTIONS OF INTIMIDATION? >> I MEAN THAT WAS A VERY DRAMATIC MOMENT IN THE TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. AND YOU COULD KIND OF SUDDENLY FEEL YOURSELF IN HER SHOES. SHE’S DONE THIS FOR A LONG TIME. THE CALL TOOK PLACE IN JULY. BUT THE TRANSCRIPT DID NOT COME OUT UNTIL SEPTEMBER AND SHE HAS TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD NOT HEARD THAT HER NAME WAS MENTIONED. THAT SHE WAS INCLUDED IN THE CALL. SO THE TRANSCRIPT A ROUGH TRANSCRIPT EMERGES AND SHE’S READING IT. AND THERE SHE IS. AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF HER POINTS I THINK THROUGHOUT THE MORNING HAS BEEN SORT OF TO TRY TO NOT PERSONALIZE IT ABOUT HERSELF BUT RATHER ABOUT HOW PRESIDENTS TREAT AMBASSADORS AND SO SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS REALLY SHOCKED THAT ANY U.S PRESIDENT WOULD SAY THIS KIND OF THING ABOUT ANY AMBASSADOR TO A FOREIGN LEADER BUT THEN SHE SORT OF ADDED, YOU KNOW — AND IT WAS ME. YOU KNOW. AND AS YOU SAID, SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS WITH A FRIEND WHO TOLD HER LATER THAT THE COLOR LITERALLY DRAINED FROM HER FACE. WHEN SHE READ THOSE WORDS. AND YOU KNOW, SHE WAS PUSHED A LITTLE BIT BY THE DEMOCRATS. WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU MEAN BY — WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT MEANT BY YOU’RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS AND SHE SAID SHE WASN’T QUITE CERTAIN BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY A THREAT AND I THINK SHE TESTIFIED I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE IT DIDN’T SOUND GOOD AND SHE HAD BEEN EXPERIENCING SUGGESTIONS THAT THERE WERE THREATS TO HER PHYSICAL SAFETY FROM THE TIME SHE WAS IN UKRAINE. AND SHE DESCRIBED GETTING IN HER CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY RECEIVING A CALL WITH THE WORDS, WATCH YOUR BACK PHYSICAL DANGER RATHER THAN JUST CAREER DANGER. OR TROLLING DANGER. IF THE PRESIDENT TWEETS ABOUT YOU YOU COULD BE SUBJECTED TO ONLINE TROLLS AND THAT’S CERTAINLY BY NO MEANS AN EASY SITUATION TO DEAL WITH. BUT IT’S A WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL WHEN TALKING ABOUT BEING PHYSICALLY THREATENED OR POTENTIALLY PUT IN DANGER. WHETHER IN UKRAINE OR BACK HOME IN THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS BEEN IN DANGEROUS LOCATIONS. UKRAINE

IS DANGEROUS FOR A U.S AMBASSADOR AND FOR U.S PERSONNEL. IN PART BECAUSE THE BIGGEST ISSUE THERE, WE ALWAYS HEAR ABOUT IT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT IT AS WELL. IS ENDEMIC CORRUPTION. AND PART OF THAT CORRUPTION BY DESCRIPTIONS OF OUR OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ORGANIZED CRIME. AND THERE ARE POWERFUL ORGANIZED CRIME ELEMENTS IN UKRAINE AND THE AMBASSADOR WAS ONE OF THE OUT SPOKEN CRITICS OF THOSE WHO WOULD PERMIT ANY — ANY NOSE OF THE ORGANIZED CRIME CAMEL UNDER THE TENT IN UKRAINE AND ONE OF HER SPECIFIC AREAS OF WORRY WAS UKRAINE’S NATIONAL GAS BUSINESS WHICH HAD BEEN THE OUT POST FOR SOME YEARS OF AN OLIGARCH WHO HAS SINCE BEEN CHARGED WITH CONNECTIONS TO BRIBERY IN THE UNITED STATES. SO SHE WAS AN ADVOCATE OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENCIED IN UKRAINE AND URGED CONSTANTLY IN HER CONVERSATIONS, PRIVATELY AND IN PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT UKRAINIANS RESIST CORRUPTION RESIST THE INTRUSION OF ORGANIZED CRIME. THAT WAS ONE OF HER THEMES. AND PEOPLE WHO KNOW HER SUGGEST THAT SHE DID THIS SO STRONGLY, AND SHE WAS WARNED THAT DOING SO COULD PUT HERSELF IN SOME PHYSICAL DANGER >> I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS REPORTING THAT LIZ CHENEY, REPRESENTATIVE FROM WYOMING IS CALLING IT WRONG FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO POST TWEETS CRITICAL OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH DURING HER TESTIMONY. REPRESENTATIVE CHENEY SAID QUOTE YOVANOVITCH IS CLEARLY SOMEBODY WHO WAS A PUBLIC SERVANT TO THE U.S. FOR DECADES AND I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT SHE’S A SIGNIFICANT VOICE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, SHE’S IN LEADERSHIP. SHE’S A REPUBLICAN IN LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE SHE’S ALSO THE DAUGHTER OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, DICK CHENEY, OF COURSE, AND SHE’S, WHILE COMING FROM A VERY CONSERVATIVE STATE, SHE’S BEING WATCHED AS SOMEONE WHO MAY HAVE A VOICE OF SORT OF THE TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN WING OF THE PARTY, ROZ AS SHE WEIGHS IN ON THIS >> I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE REPUBLICANS TREAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND WHAT THEIR GAME PLAN WILL BE WITH HER. I WOULD NOTE DEVEN NUNEZ IN HIS OPENING REMARKS LITERALLY DIDN’T SAY HER NAME. NOTHING IN HIS OPENING REMARKS REFERENCED HER OR HER TESTIMONY AT ALL. AND YOU KNOW, NOW WE’VE HAD THIS LONG BREAK WHERE PRETTY MUCH THIS IS, UNTIL THE ROGER STONE VERDICT, WHAT ALL THE CABLE CHANNELS ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE SPEAKING ABOUT IN THE HALLWAYS. WE’VE HAD SOME REPORTING THAT REPUBLICANS SEEM A LITTLE BIT NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS. A NUMBER OF THEM DECLINED TO COMMENT. A FEW OF THEM TOOK THE SAME POSITION AS CONGRESSMAN CHENEY, OR CONGRESS WOMAN CHENEY THAT THIS WAS NOT A GOOD MOVE WITH THE PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE ONE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN DID SORT OF SAY THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT TO FIGHT BACK OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. BUT I THINK IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE WHETHER THEY TRY TO ATTACK HER WHETHER THEY TRY TO LAY A CASE FOR WHY THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN HER REMOVAL OR IF THEY — IF THEY TAKE A SORT OF MORE HANDS OFF APPROACH AND BASICALLY SAY TO HER, ONE, ISN’T IT TRUE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE AN AMBASSADOR? WHICH SHE’S ALL READY TESTIFIED THAT’S THE CASE. AND TWO, WERE YOU PRESENT FOR ANYTHING INVOLVING WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE HEART OF THE IMPEACHMENT MATTER THE PRESIDENT’S PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY. THE POTENTIAL WITHHOLDING OF SECURITY AID THAT SORT OF THING. AND SHE HAS ALL READY TESTIFIED SHE WAS NOT AND THEN BASICALLY SAY, WELL, YOU’RE A USELESS WITNESS OTHERWISE >> THAT WOULD BE A SAFER LINE OF QUESTIONING PERHAPS. WILL IT PLEASE PRESIDENT TRUMP? THAT’S ONE QUESTION REPUBLICANS WANT TO TALK ABOUT HAVING AN AUDIENCE OF ONE AND RECOGNIZING THEY NEED TO TRY TO PLEASE PRESIDENT TRUMP SO THEY DON’T SPARK HIS IRE OR DISAPPOINTMENT >> YEAH, THAT’S A GREAT POINT AND I FEEL LIKE WHAT TRUMP HAS DONE IS SORT OF BOX THEM IN. HE HAS BOTH MADE KIND OF PUSHING BACK AGAINST HER EVEN MORE UNWISE THAN IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THIS MORNING BUT HE’S ALSO TELEGRAPHED WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN HERE. I DON’T THINK HE WOULD BE PLEASED WITH A WE DON’T THINK YOU’RE A RELEVANT WITNESS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE SORT OF APPROACH. I THINK HE’S TELEGRAPHING HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER TAKEN DOWN A PEG >> I’D WATCH FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE SEE A REEMERGENCE OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, WHICH IS THE NOTION OF THE UKRAINIAN

FORCES THAT WERE ALIGNED WITH DEMOCRATS IN THE PAST. AND ONE OF THE WAYS TO UNDERMINE THIS AMBASSADOR WHO IS DESCRIBED NOT JUST BY DEMOCRATS BUT BY CAREER DIPLOMATS AS COURAGEOUS AND STARING DOWN CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS THAT IN FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SHE WAS PART OF A FACTION IN UKRAINE AND MAYBE THE HILLARY CLINTON FACTION IN UKRAINE. THAT IS THE WAY IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT’S ALLIES SEE HER AND DISCUSS HER IN PRIVATE AND OUR STORY DEALT WITH SOME OF THAT TODAY. SHE’S DESCRIBED AS A SORT OF ANTI-TRUMPER DEEP STATER DIPLOMAT IT’LL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR IF THAT CRITICISM OF HER EMERGES TO DAY >> THERE’S A REAL SPLIT AMONGST REPUBLICANS ABOUT THAT TOPIC AND IT’S CENTRAL TO THE CASE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE WORKING TO REMOVE HER. THAT SHE WAS SOMEHOW A GEORGE SOROS PLANT. THE MAJOR PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC DONOR WHO HAD GIVEN A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO GOOD GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY GROUPS IN EUROPE SHE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF ORGANIZATIONS IN EUROPE — I’M SORRY IN UKRAINE. ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAD BEEN WIDELY SUPPORTED BY THE WEST, INCLUDING ACROSS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THAT WERE FIGHTING CORRUPTION, THAT HAD RECEIVED SOME FUNDING FROM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDED BY MINISTER SOROS. SO THAT’S THE GENESIS OF THIS MOTION THAT SOMEHOW SHE WAS A GEORGE SOROS PLANT. BUT THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE WHO MOVED AGAINST HER AND PERSUADED THE PRESIDENT THAT SHE SHOULD BE REMOVED. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE INCLUDING IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO BELIEVE THAT TO MOST AMERICANS THAT REALLY SOUNDS LIKE A CONSPIRACY THEORY AND AN ANTISEMITIC ONE AT THAT. IT’LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF IT’S BROUGHT UP THIS AFTERNOON OR IF REPUBLICANS STEER CLEAR OF THAT >> I’M KEEPING MY EYE ON THE COMMITTEE ROOM, WE’RE SEEING MEMBERS GATHER. WE’LL BRING THAT BACK TO YOU UNINTERRUPTED AS SOON AS THEY RESUME THE TESTIMONY. YOU WONDER IF REPUBLICANS DO BRING THAT UP, WILL THE FORMER AMBASSADOR GET A CHANCE TO ONCE AGAIN MAKE THE CASE AS SHE HAS THIS MORNING AND AS OUR TWO WITNESSES SAW EARLIER THIS WEEK MAKE THE CASE FOR WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CAREER DIPLOMAT WHO SERVES MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES WHO HAS WORKED FOR REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND WHO ON THE RECORD DIDN’T HAVE CRITICISMS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AT PUBLIC EVENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN WAYS THAT WOULD HAVE SIGNALED WHAT SHE FELT ABOUT THE INCOMING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND WILL REPUBLICANS GIVE HER THAT OPENING? AND WHAT WILL SHE CHOOSE TO DO WITH THAT? AND HOW COMPELLING WILL THAT BE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? OUR COLLEAGUE HAS A STORY TODAY POINTING OUT THAT SHE WAS REFERRED TO AS — BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE FORMER AM BASS TORE FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN WITH BAD NEWS AND WE GET INTO GENDER POLITICS HERE A BIT. AND FOR REPUBLICANS, IT’S LARGELY A MALE PANEL ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE REPUBLICAN HAVES TO BE AWARE OF HOW THEY TREAT HER. BECAUSE THE OBJECTS ARE IMPORTANT. THE OPTICS SPEAK TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. AND IS THERE — HOW DOES IT END UP LOOKING FOR THEM TO BE DEALING WITH A PROFESSIONAL, A CAREER DIPLOMAT IF THEY BERATE HER OR GET TOUGH WITH HER IN THIS. I WANT TO GO TO A LIVE SHOT RIGHT NOW. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN OUR CORNER BOX, ROGER STONE COMING OUT AFTER WHAT HAS BEEN A — THIS IS FROM FEBRUARY, EXCUSE ME. HE WILL BE SENTENCED IN FEBRUARY. I’M GETTING A FEED FROM THE CONTROL ROOM RIGHT NOW, SO HE WILL BE SENTENCED IN FEBRUARY, HE WAS FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS BY THE JURY JUST THIS MORNING. SO THIS IS LIVE FOOTAGE OF ROGER STONE. LEAVING THE COURTHOUSE. THIS IS A FEDERAL TRIAL. HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF LYING TO CONGRESS AND WITNESS TAMPERING. THERE WAS A QUESTION OF WHETHER HE WOULD BE REMANDED AND PUT BEHIND BARS RIGHT AWAY, BUT THE JUDGE IS LETTING HIM GO AND WE WILL BE WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE OF THIS PROCESS. >> I CAN BRING MORE INTERESTING COLOR FROM THE COURTROOM FROM OUR COLLEAGUES RACHEL AND SPENCER WHO ARE THERE. THEY’RE REPORTING THAT A FRIEND OF ROGER STONE’S, MICHAEL CAPUTO WHO SERVED AS AN ADVISOR ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS TOSSED BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO STAND FOR THE JURY, AND AFTER THEY DELIVERED THEIR VERDICT. HE STOOD UP AND TURNED HIS BACK TO THEM. THAT’S BEEN AN INTERESTING SUB-STORY WITHIN THIS TRIAL THAT THERE WERE SUPPORTERS OF STONE WHO WERE TRYING TO OUT NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE JURY WHO EVEN BEFORE THEY BEGAN DELIBERATING WERE SUGGESTING THAT THE JURY WAS, YOU KNOW, BIASED AGAINST ROGER. YOU SEE ALL

THESE PARALLELS. WE HAVE THESE SORT OF INSTITUTIONS OF PUBLIC LIFE THAT, YOU KNOW, USED TO BE WIDELY SORT OF ACCEPTED AS GOOD AND NOBLE SERVICE THAT ARE BEING ATTACKED AND I WOULDN’T BE AT ALL SURPRISED IF WE DON’T GET SOME SUPPORT FROM PEOPLE AROUND ROGER STONE CLAIMING THAT THIS JURY WAS IN SOME WAY UNFAIR OR, YOU KNOW, THAT IT SHOULD BE DISCOUNTED BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON A WASHINGTON DC JURY DOESN’T COUNT >> YOU HAVE GENERAL FLYNN WHO HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED GUILT BUT HAS A NEW ATTORNEY AND IS SORT OF JOINING IN THE SUGGESTION THAT SOME OF OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE FBI, TO NAME TWO, HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED IN SOME WAY. SO WE’RE SEEING TODAY, AT LEAST FROM SOME OF THESE ALLIES OF THE PRESIDENT, THIS UNDERMINING OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. AND IT’S PART OF — IT IS PART OF THE STRATEGY, YOU CAN SEE THE PRESIDENT IN THE HEARINGS WE’RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, ALTHOUGH WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM AN OMB EMPLOYEE WHICH IS UNUSUAL, IN GENERAL, WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEES, EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES ARE BEING BARRED BY INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL FROM TESTIFYING FROM COOPERATING WITH DEMANDS TO TESTIFY FROM THE CONGRESS SAYING THE CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY, CUEINGALLY MANDATED ONE — CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED ONE IS A WITCH HUNT >> AS WE NOTED EARLIER, THE JUDGE, AMY JACKSON CHOSE NOT TO SEND ROGER TO JAIL. SHE SAID ORDINARILY AT THIS POINT IN A TRIAL SHE WOULD LIST GAG ORDERS IN PLACE. BECAUSE THERE’S NO LONGER A WORRY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INFLUENCING THE JURY. BUT SHE DECIDED SHE WOULD KEEP THE GAG ORDER IN PLACE. BECAUSE THIS WAS A CASE THAT INVOLVED INTIMIDATION. INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES. AND SHE SORT OF IMPLIED, I HAVEN’T SEEN DIRECT QUOTES BUT SHE IMPLIED SHE’S FEARFUL THERE WILL BE INTIMIDATION POST THE VERDICT OF THIS JURY FOR THAT REASON SHE’S ORDERED THAT ROGER STONE CONTINUE TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT UNTIL HIS SENTENCING >> ROSALIND, THANK YOU SO MUCH I’M KEEPING AN EYE ON THE COMMITTEE ROOM. WHERE ADAM SCHIFF HAS TAKEN HIS SEAT AGAIN YOU SEE DANIEL GOLDMAN. WE EXPECT REPUBLICANS TO LEAD THE WAY AFTER THEY GAVEL BACK IN AND THE TOP REPUBLICAN IS DEVEN NUNEZ. THE LAWYER WHO IS LIKELY TO DO A BULK OF THE QUESTIONING AGAIN AS HE DID ON WEDNESDAY AT STEVE CASTOR. SOME REPUBLICANS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT CASTOR’S PERFORMANCE, WE’LL SEE IF HE CHANGING HIS STRATEGY. HE BROUGHT UP DEEP STATE THEORIES WITH WITNESSES. AND THIS TIES BACK TO WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. HE BROUGHT UP TALKING POINTS THAT IF YOU LISTEN TO RIGHT WING MEDIA YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH. BUT OTHERWISE, YOU DIDN’T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE. AND HAVE NO GROUNDING IN FACT. AND SO WE SAW THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE AND MR KENT BEMUSED AT THE LINE OF QUESTIONING AND NOT QUITE SURE WHERE STEVE CASTOR WAS GOING WE LIVE IN TWO INFORMATION WORLDS. THIS MAKES SENSE FOR THOSE WHO CONSUME FOX NEWS WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOW THE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT CLOSELY. BUT MAYBE NOT A LOT OF SENSE TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. CONTINUING ON INTERESTING PARALLELS. I’M SEEING PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOW RESPONDED ON TWITTER TO THE ROGER STONE VERDICT. AND IT’S KIND OF THE SAME THING. HE WRITES, SO THEY NOW CONVICT ROGER STONE OF LYING, AND WANT TO JAIL HIM FOR MANY YEARS TO COME, WHAT ABOUT CROOKED HILLARY? COMEY? STRUCK? PAGE, MCCABE? STEEL? AND ALL OF THE OTHERS, INCLUDING MULLER HIMSELF, DIDN’T THEY HIGH? A DOUBLE STANDARD LIKE NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. I MEAN FIRST OF ALL, I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE SUGGESTION WOULD EVER BE THAT BOB MULLER HAS LIED. BUT PUTTING THAT ASIDE, ALL OF THESE NAMES, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHO ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE, LIBBY, I FOE I KNOW YOU KNOW. BUT IS THAT A REFERENCE FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT’S GOING TO BE WIDELY ACCESSIBLE TO MOST AMERICANS? I’M NOT SO SURE >> PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEET THAAD THE STOCK MARKET IS UP AND HE’S TALKING ABOUT JOBS SO THERE’S A QUESTION, BIG PICTURE OF HOW MUCH THIS WILL ALL MATTER TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN TERMS OF THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT IN OFFICE AND WHETHER THEY WANT TO VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN. YOU CAN SEE THE FORMER AMBASSADOR RETURNING TO THE HEARING ROOM RIGHT NOW. BUT

PARALLEL TRACKS, ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE THE FOCUS TO BE PERHAPS ON OTHER THINGS. UNLESS HE FEELS LIKE THIS RILES UP HIS BASE ENOUGH AND MAKES THEM UPSET. TOM >> WE CAN SEE THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON HERE. THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE IS QUITE CLEAR IT’S REALLY TO UNDERMINE THOSE INSTITUTIONS AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CRITICAL OF HIM OR HIS ALLIES. SO THE COURTS ARE SELECTIVELY PROSECUTING HIS AL HIGHS AND NOT GOING AFTER DEMOCRATS AND FRIENDS OF HILLARY CLINTON AND CONGRESS HOUSE CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS ARE ENGAGED IN HIS VIEW IN A WITCH HUNT THANK YOU FOR BEING SO GENEROUS OF YOUR TIME. LET’S HEAD BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM NOW >> THANK YOU, SIR. IT APPEARS THAT COUNCIL FOR THE WITNESS THIS MORNING HAS PAPER COPIES OF THE SLIDES THAT WERE USED DURING THE QUESTIONING IF THAT’S TRUE, DOES THAT MEAN YOU OR YOUR TEAM HAS BEEN IN COORDINATION WITH HIM AND OR HER WITH RESPECT TO THEIR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING IF THAT’S TRUE, HOW DOES THAT COMPORT WITH FAIRNESS THAT IS REPORTEDLY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RESOLUTION? >> THE TV FOR THE WITNESSES WASN’T WORKING, THEY WERE GIVEN COPIES THIS MORNING. IT’S NOW 45 MINUTES TO RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ >> YOU SAID THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF THEM IS NOT WORKING >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE SCREEN WAS NOT WORKING IN FRONT OF THEM SO THEY WERE GIVEN COPIES TO READ ALONG SINCE THEY CAN’T SEE THE SCREEN WE CAN. MR NUNEZ, YOU’RE RECOGNIZED FOR 45 MINUTES ALONG WITH MINORITY COUNCIL I WANT TO SUBMIT THE LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. JULY 20th 2017. I READ A PORTION OF THAT INTO THE RECORD DURING MY OPENING STATEMENT. AMBASSADOR, CON CONGRATULATE YOU. YOU’VE BEEN DOWN IN THE SECRET DEPOSITION MEETING ROOMS, YOU’VE GRADUATED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PERFORMANCE TODAY. LATER THIS AFTERNOON, I SHOULD NOTE THAT FOR THE PUBLIC, THAT WE WILL BE BACK DOWN IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL DOING MORE OF THESE SECRET DEPOSITIONS AMBASSADOR, I DON’T HAVE VERY MANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, YOU ADMITTED IN YOUR OPENING STATE YOUR NAMES THAT YOU DON’T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE’RE LOOKING INTO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SENATOR GRASSILY BRIEFLY. I ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW WHO SENATOR GRASSLEY IS >> YES, SIR, I DO. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GRASSLEY IS A SERIOUS AND CREDIBLE ELECTED OFFICIAL >> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE >> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE JULY 25th TRUMP ZELENSKY PHONE CALL OR PREPARATIONS FOR THE CALL? >> NO I WAS NOT >> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE DELIBERATIONS ABOUT THE PAUSE IN MILITARY SALES TO UKRAINE AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REVIEWED NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S COMMITMENT TO CORRUPTION REFORMS ? >> FOR THE DELAY — >> FOR THE PAUSE? >> NO, I WAS NOT >> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE PROPOED TRUMP-ZELENSKY LATER KENT ZELENSKY MEETINGS IN WARSAW POLAND ON DECEMBER 1st >> DID YOU TALK TO TRUMP IN 2019 >> NO >> NICK MULVANEY? >> NO I HAVE NOT >> THANK YOU AMBASSADOR. I’M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE AMBASSADOR IS DOING HERE TODAY. THIS IS THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT’S NOW TURNED INTO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE. THIS SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AT THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS ECONOMY COMMITTEE, IF THERE’S ISSUES WITH EMPLOYMENT. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE SETTING INSTEAD OF AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING WHERE THE AMBASSADOR IS NOT A MATERIAL FACT WITNESS TO ANYTHING. ANY OF THE ACCUSATIONS BEING HURLED AT THE PRESIDENT FOR THIS PEOPLE INQUIRY. I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS MR. CASTOR WANTS TO GET TO. I KNOW YOU HAD A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS FOR THE AMBASSADOR? I’LL YIELD TO YOU MISS STEFANIC >> WHAT IS THE INTERRUPTION FOR THIS TIME? >> YOU’RE NOT RECOGNIZED. MR NUNEZ >> I JUST RECOGNIZED — >> YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO YIELD TIME >> THE RANKING MEMBER YIELDED TIME TO ANOTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS >> NO, THAT’S NOT ACCURATE >> THAT

IS ACCURATE. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH >> YOU’RE NOT RECOGNIZED >> THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME YOU’VE INTERRUPTED >> GENTLEWOMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. GENTLEWOMAN WILL SUSPEND >> MANY CHAIR WE CONTROL THE TIME. IT’S CUSTOMARY OF WHOEVER CONTROLS THE TIME CAN YIELD TO WHOEVER THEY WISH. IF WE HAVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT WE BE ABLE TO LET MISS STEFANIC ASK HER QUESTION >> MR. NUNEZ, YOU OR MINORITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZED >> ALL RIGHT. MR. CASTOR, YOU’RE RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU MR. NUNEZ, AMBASSADOR, WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, 33 YEARS, AN EXTRAORDINARY CAREER. IT REAL HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE TENURE FOR YOU AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. ALSO I’D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING HERE TODAY. THIS IS A CRAZY ENVIRONMENT. THIS HEARING ROOM HAS TURNED INTO A TELEVISION STUDIO. BEFORE TODAY, YOU SPENT ONLY FRIDAY THE 11th YOU WERE WITH US FOR EARLY IN THE MORNING UNTIL I BELIEVE IT WAS 8:00 AT NIGHT. PEOPLE MISSED TRAINS BACK TO NEW YORK. AND IT WAS A COMPLETE — A VERY COMPLETE DAY. SO THANK YOU. YOU WERE SERVING A THREE-YEAR ASSIGNMENT IN THE UKRAINE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES >> AND IT BEGAN IN 2016 AND WAS SCHEDULED TO END IN 2019? >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT >> AND NOBODY DISPUTES THAT IT’S UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE WHO HIS ENVOYS ARE TO POST AROUND THE WORLD, CORRECT? >> I STATED THAT CLEARLY IN MY STATEMENT >> AND YOU RETURNED FROM THE UKRAINE ON MAY 20th 2019 >> THAT’S CORRECT >> AND YOUR RETURN COINCIDED WITH THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY >> YES >> AND YOU REMAIN EMPLOYED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT? >> I DO >> AND AFTER YOU RETURN TO WASHINGTON, THE DEPUTY SECRETARY JOHN SULLIVAN ASKED YOU WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO NEXT, IS IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT >> AND THEN YOU MET WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AMBASSADOR PEREZ >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT >> TO IDENTIFY A MEANINGFUL NEW ASSIGNMENT >> YES >> AND YOU NOW SERVE AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AS A FELL LOW >> THAT’S TRUE >> AND THIS IS A REWARDING POSITION FOR YOU? >> I’M VERY GRATEFUL TO BE IN THAT POSITION AFTER WHAT HAPPENED >> TODAY IS THE SECOND DAY OF HEARINGS FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INITIATIVE. BUT WE DON’T — WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON’T HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PART OF THIS THAT WE’RE INVESTIGATING. AND THOSE ARE THE EVENTS FROM MAY 20th UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11th TO RELEASE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT >> SO YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION, THAT WAS THE DAY YOU RETURNED YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING MAY 23rd, CORRECT? >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT >> AND YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE DECISION MAKING RELATING TO WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> THAT’S CORRECT >> AND YOU WERE NOT PART OF ANY DECISION MAKING IN THE LEAD UP TO THE JULY 25th CALL >> THAT’S CORRECT >> AND YOU FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 25th? IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HEARD ABOUT THE CALL, AS I INDICATED IN THE FIRST DEPOSITION FROM DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, GEORGE KENT >> AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THE CALL? >> WELL, AS IT TURNS OUT, IT WASN’T CORRECT. BUT WHAT I RECALL IS THAT HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHETHER HE COULD HELP HIM OUT WHICH I UNDERSTOOD TO BE THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD SAID THAT HE’S PUTTING IN A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND THAT HE DOESN’T CONTROL — I MEANS THIS APPROXIMATELY WHAT HE SAID. THAT THAT PERSON IS AN INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL >> YOU LEARNED ABOUT THAT BEFORE THE CALL WAS MADE PUBLIC >> THAT’S CORRECT

>> YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO UKRAINE. THEY WERE PAUSED FOR ABOUT 55 DAYS FROM JULY 18th TO DECEMBER 11th >> NO DISCUSSIONS >> IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT ON PAGE 9, YOU STATED ALTHOUGH THEN AND NOW I’VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE U.S. INTEREST IN THE THIS WAY INDIVIDUALS WHO FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORT TO PROMOTE POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION THAT IS TO DO THE MISSION CONDUCTED A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS AIMING TO WEAPON SIZE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BY REMOVING YOU? >> I DON’T KNOW THAT >> DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR REMOVAL BUT PART OF SOME SCHEME — WAS PART OF SOME SCHEME TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT TO DO THINGS COUNTER TO U.S. INTERESTS ? >> I THINK THAT’S CERTAINLY WHAT THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT HOPED. I THINK IN ADDITION, THERE WERE AMERICANS, A FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE WORKING WITH MAYOR GIULIANI, WHO HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INDICTED BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WHO INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE OUT THE AMBASSADOR AND I THINK THEY MUST HAVE HAD SOME REASON FOR THAT. >> DO YOU THINK THEY WERE SEEKING A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AMBASSADOR THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THEIR OBJECTIVES ? >> I DON’T KNOW WHAT OTHER REASON THERE WOULD BE >> IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT WOULD FACILITATE THOSE OBJECTIVES ? >> NO >> SO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS A MAN OF HIGH INTEGRITY >> ABSOLUTELY >> HE’S A GOOD PICK FOR POST >> HE IS. I WOULD NOTE THAT HE’S THE — OUT THERE. NO AMBASSADOR OR NO CANDIDATE HAS YET BEEN NAMED TO THE POSITION >> BUT HE’S CERTAINLY HAD A DECORATED CAREER SERVING HIS COUNTRY >> ABSOLUTELY. A MAN OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY >> YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT WHEN YOU FIRST LEARNED THAT MAYOR GIULIANI AND SOME OF HIS ASSOCIATES WERE — HAD A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU WHEN DID THAT FIRST COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? >> WE WERE PICKING UP RUMORS FROM UKRAINIANS. I THINK, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN THE NOVEMBER — DECEMBER 2018 TIME PERIOD. BUT THEN IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AND OF COURSE MARCH IT BECAME MORE OBVIOUS >> AT SOME POINT, I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT MINISTER — ALERTED YOU TO THIS CAMPAIGN AND WHEN WAS THAT? >> HE HAD — HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ME IN FEBRUARY OF 2019 >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE RELATED TO YOU? >> YES. HE SAID THAT MR — WAS WORKING WITH MAYOR GIULIANI THROUGH THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, MR. PARNAS AND MR. FRUMAN AND THAT THEY BASICALLY WANTED TO REMOVE ME FROM POST. AND THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON THAT >> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY AWARENESS AT THAT POINT IN TIME OF PRECISELY WHY THEY WERE SEEKING YOUR OUSTER? >> YOU KNOW, I DIDN’T. I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND AT ALL. BECAUSE I HAD NEVER MET MR. PARNAS AND MR FRUMAN. SO IT WAS UNCLEAR TO ME WHY THEY WERE INTERESTED IN DOING THIS >> WERE YOU ESPECIALLY INFLUENTIAL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES THAT STYMIED THEIR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE? ADVOCATING FOR SOME SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES THAT WOULD BE ADVERSE TO THEM? >> I THINK THAT JUST THE GENERAL IDEA THAT OBVIOUSLY U.S AMBASSADORS,US EMBASSIES, ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IS TO FACILITATE U.S. BUSINESS ABROAD, RIGHT? WHETHER IT’S TRADE, WHETHER IT’S COMMERCE, THAT’S ONE OF THE THICKS

THINGS THAT WE DO. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ABOVE BOARD. WE BELIEVE IN A LEVEL PLAYING GROUND AND SO FORTH. BUT WE ADVOCATE FOR U.S. BUSINESS THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH HEADLINE SIGHT AND WHAT WE LEARNED LATER, LOOKING TO OPEN UP A NEW ENERGY COMPANY EXPORTING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TO UKRAINE NEVER ACTUALLY CAME TO THE EMBASSY, WHICH IS UNUSUAL. BECAUSE THAT WOULD USUALLY BE A FIRST STOP. GOING TO THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. GOING TO THE U.S EMBASSY, GET THE LAY OF THE LAND TO SEE HOW WE CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE >> WAS THAT SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION EXPRESSED TO YOU? OR DID YOU LEARN THAT SEPARATELY? >> SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION? ON WHOSE PART? FRUMAN AND PARNAS >> FRUSTRATED BY WHAT? >> YOU MENTIONED THEY HAD BUSINESS INTERESTED AND I ASKED IF THEY HAD BEEN STYMIED BY ANYTHING YOU HAD ADVOCATED FOR OR IF YOU WERE A ROADBLOCK TO THEM BEING SUCCESSFUL. I WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION >> I HAD NEVER MET THEM WHEN I HEARD THOSE NAPES FOR THE NAMES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FEBRUARY OF 2019. I ASKED MY TEAM. THE ECON AND THE COMMERCIAL SECTIONS USUALLY MEET WITH AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN. AND NOBODY HAD HEARD OF HIM. AND ALL I CAN CONCLUDE IS THAT IT WAS THE GENERAL U.S. POLICY THAT WE WERE IMPLEMENTING. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OF CONCERN TO THEM >> AT ANY POINT, DID YOU EVER TRY TO REACH OUT TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, MR. LUTENKO AND FIND OUT WHY HE WAS PARTICIPATING IN THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN? >> NO >> WHY DIDN’T YOU DO THAT? >> I DIDN’T FEEL THAT THERE WAS ANY PURPOSE TO IT >> WHY NOT? >> HE IS — HE CLEARLY HAD I WOULD SAY AN ANIMUS FOR DOING THIS. AND HE WAS WORKING WITH AMERICANS. SO I REACHED OUT TO THE AMERICAN SIDE IN THIS CASE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT. TO TRY AND FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST REALIZE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH LUSENKO REACHED AN ADVERSARIAL POINT >> PROBABLY AROUND THAT TIME MAYBE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER >> THIS IS MARCH >> YEAH, AND ADVERSARIAL, THAT’S A REALLY STRONG WORD. WE AT THE U.S. EMBASSY ARE VISITING KEY PEOPLE FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES, WE WERE PUSHING THE UKRAINIANS, INCLUDING MR. LUSENKO TO DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO WHEN MR. LUSENKO ENTERED OFFICE. CHEAP UP THE PGO AND MAKE REFORMS. THAT HE WAS GOING TO BRING JUSTICE TO WHAT THEY CALL THE HEAVENLY HUNDRED. THE PEOPLE WHO DIED IN 2014, THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY. AND HE’S GOING TO PROSECUTE CASES TO REPATRIATE THE $40 BILLION IT’S BELIEVED HIS CRONIES FLED THE COUNTRY WITH AND HE DIDN’T DO ANY OF THAT AND WE KEPT ON TRYING TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO DO THE RIGHT THING. THAT’S WHEN THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WANTED HIM TO DO. AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD PLAN AND THAT HE SHOULD DO IT >> THINK AND THEN YOU MENTIONED YOU CONTACTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN LATE MARCH UNDER SECRETARY HAIL? >> CONTACTED ABOUT WHAT? >> ABOUT THE CONCERNS YOU HAD ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU >> I CONTACTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT MUCH EARLIER THAN THAT. IT WAS AN ONGOING SORT OF DISCUSSION MAKES IT SOUND VERY FORMAL. WE HAVE MANY WAYS OF GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH WASHINGTON AND SO YOU KNOW ON PHONE CALLS, WE WOULD HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. AND IF I COULD JUST AMPLIFY MY ANSWER, WE HAD THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED THAT UKRAINIAN POLICYMAKERS, UKRAINIAN LEADERS WERE HEARING THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING. THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WAITING IN THE WINGS, ETCETERA AND THAT UNDERMINED NOT ONLY MY POSITION BUT OUR U.S. POSITION THE UKRAINIANS DIDN’T KNOW WHAT TO THINK. AND WE NEED TO BE OUT THERE ALL THE TIME FIRING ON ALL CYLINDERS TO PROMOTE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. SO IT WAS A CONCERN

>> WHEN DID YOU REALIZE THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU WAS A REAL THREAT? >> A THREAT? >> A THREAT TO YOUR ABILITY TO DO THE JOB IN KIEV >> I WOULD SAY IN A THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO INTO A MEETING WITH SOMEBODY AND THEY ASK ARE YOU GOING TO BE LEAVING, THAT IS CONCERNING. SO I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THAT STARTED HAPPENING. BUT IN THAT TIME FRAME >> DID YOU UNDER TAKE ANY EFFORTS TO PUSHBACK ON THIS NARRATIVE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR PUBLICLY >> CERTAINLY WITH THE UKRAINIANS I SAID THERE’S NOTHING TO THIS THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A DISTRACTION. AND WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE JOB, OUR POLICY REMAINS THE SAME. AND YEAH, WE HAD DISCUSSIONS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS >> IN HINDSIGHT, DO YOU THINK YOU DID ENOUGH INSIDE THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO ALERT THEM TO THIS MOUNTING CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU >> I DID WHAT I COULD >> WHAT WAS THAT? >> REACHED OUT TO THE EUROPEAN BUREAU. I THINK YOU’VE ALSO HEARD THAT DR. FIONA HILL WAS AWARE OF THIS AS WELL. THE NSC AND THEY HAD OTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH MORE SENIOR PEOPLE >> OKAY >> DID YOU GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND? DID YOU ENGAGE AMBASSADOR REEKER UNDER SECRETARY HAIL? >> YES. YES >> DID YOU DEVELOP SORT OF A GAME PLAN TO PUSHBACK AGAINST THESE ALLEGATIONS ? >> SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES HERE THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. FAST FORWARDING TO MARCH, I DID — WHEN UNDER SECRETARY HAIL ASKED WHETHER I WOULD CONSIDER EXTENDING, I DID RAISE — BECAUSE I WASN’T SURE HE WAS AWARE OF IT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE KNEW THAT MAYOR GIULIANI HAD BEEN OUT THERE SAYING THINGS ABOUT ME. UNTRUE THINGS AND I WANTED HIM TO BE AWARE OF ENTHUSIASM HE SAID HE UNDERSTOOD STOOD. HE STILL WAS HOPING THAT I COULD EXTEND FOR ANOTHER YEAR. SO THAT WAS EARLY MARCH. AND THEN FAST FORWARD TO YOU KNOW LATE MARCH. AND YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS YOU SHALL EWE CONTINUED BUT OBVIOUSLY, IT BECAME — ONCE IT BECAME A PUBLIC, POLITICAL STORY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, THE TENOR OF EVERYTHING CHANGED BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FELT THAT IT WASN’T MANAGEABLE ANY MORE. AND THAT THE MORE PRUDENT THING WOULD BE FOR ME TO COME BACK IN JULY >> DO YOU THINK THERE’S ANYTHING YOU COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY TO GET AHEAD OF THE STORY AND TO LOBBY THE SECRETARY AND HIS COUNSELOR THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU, THAT YOU DIDN’T BELIEVE THE ALLEGATIONS LODGED WERE ACCURATE AND YOU NEEDED THEIR ASSISTANCE? >> I THINK THAT, SURE, MAYBE I COULD HAVE DONE THAT, BUT I THINK THEY WERE AWARE, AND AS I SUBSEQUENT HI LEARNED FROM DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN, THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD BEEN WELL AWARE OF THIS SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2018 >> THE CORRUPTION IS ENDEMIC IN THE COUNTRY OF UKRAINE >> I WOULD SAY CORRUPTION IS A SERIOUS ISSUE EVERYWHERE IN THE SOVIET UNION. IT’S A POST SOVIET LEGACY. WE TALK ABOUT IT A LOT IN UKRAINE. BECAUSE THERE’S ACTUALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING. TO ACTUALLY HELP THE UKRAINIANS TACKLE THE ISSUE, THEY WANT TO TACKLE THE ISSUE, IN OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA, YOU CAN’T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. SO I THINK IT’S A POST SOVIET LEGACY. AND IT’S IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH IT >> AND YOU TESTIFIED RAMPANT CORRUPTION HAS LONG PERMEATED UKRAINE’S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS >> YES YOU SHALL THAT’S A FAIR STATEMENT — YES, THAT’S A FAIR STATEMENT >> IT SHOULD BE THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO HELP UKRAINE CURB THE CORRUPTION PROBLEMS >> IT’S GOOD FOR THE YouTubeS BUT IT’S ALSO IN OUR INTERESTS >> — IT’S GOOD FOR THE UKRAINIANS BUT IT’S ALSO IN OUR INTERESTS >> CORRUPTION EFFORTS SERVE A NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSE >> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE >> ARE OLIGARCHS A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM IN UKRAINE? >> PROBABLY. BECAUSE SO MUCH WEALTH IS CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A VERY FEW SIX OR SEVEN INDIVIDUALS AND THEY ALSO HAVE POLITICAL POWER AND CONTROL THE MEDIA >> AND A LOT OF THEIR POWER HAS BEEN ACQUIRED THROUGH WHAT WE HERE IN THE U.S. WOULD CONSIDER IMPROPER WAYS ? >> YEAH, I THINK THAT’S A FAIR COMMENT >> THE

HEAD OF BARIZMA, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HIM? >> I DON’T KNOW HIM. BUT I KNOW WHO YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT >> GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS INVESTIGATING FOR DEALING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SOME OF WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. SUBJECT TO AN INVESTIGATION. TRYING TO GET THE MONEY BACK THAT WAS A BIG PART OF MR. KENT’S INITIATIVE WHEN HE WAS THERE. THAT A BRIBE WAS PAID. TO THE PROSECUTORS AND ZOCHEFSKY WAS LET OFF THE LOOK IN 2014 IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH? >> I’VE HEARD ABOUT IT. THIS IS BEFORE MY ARRIVAL. I WOULD JUST SAY MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, IS THAT THE U.S. MONEY THAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO WAS THE MONEY THAT WE USED TO FUND AN FBI TEAM THAT WAS EMBEDDED WITH THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE TO GO AFTER — NOT TO GO AFTER BUT TO DO THE INVESTIGATION OF BARISMA AND CHEFSKY >> THE BRIBE WAS PAID, THE PROSECUTION WENT AWAY, AND ESSENTIALLY NOTHING HAS BEEN FURTHER DONE WITH REGARD TO BARISMA. DURING YOUR TENURE IN UKRAINE, HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY FOCUS ON RE-EXAMINE ALLEGATIONS OF WHETHER IT’S BARISMA OR OTHER POWERFUL INTERESTS ? LIKE SOCHEFSKY INTO REEXAMINING IT? >> ON THE PART OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT? >> TRYING TO LEAN ON THE GENERAL TO CLEAN UP THE OLIGARCHY SYSTEM >> I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EFFORTS. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN MY TESTIMONY, THE U.S. WAS WELCOMING OF MR LUSENKO’S NOMINATION TO THE POSITION OF PROSECUTOR GENERAL WE WERE HOPING HE WOULD CLEAN THAT UP. THAT IN FACT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. BECAUSE IT’S KIND OF HARD TO EXPLAIN TO A U.S AUDIENCE BUT IN UKRAINE, IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION MORE BROADLY, INCLUDING IN RUSSIA, JUSTICE — THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHETHER IT’S THE — WHETHER IT’S COPS ON THE BEAT, WHETHER IT’S INVESTIGATORS, WHETHER IT’S PROSECUTORS, WITH IT’S JUDGES, ARE USED AS A TOOL OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM TO BE USED AGAINST YOUR POLITICAL ADVERSARIES. AND SO I THINK THAT GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BARISMA, MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER IN THE PREVIOUS DEPOSITION, THIS DID NOT LUME LARGE WHEN I ARRIVED. I ARRIVED IN 2016, AUGUST 2016, BUT OVER TIME, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE — THAT THE CASE WAS BASICALLY SORT OF ON A PAUSE. THAT IT WASN’T AN ACTIVE CASE. BUT IT ALSO WAS NOT FULLY CHOSED. AND THAT IS THE WAY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, FOR THOSE IN POWER TO KEEP A LITTLE LOOK IN TO MR. BA ARERISMA >> AND RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THE BRIBE WAS PAID HE TOOK AN EFFORT TO SPRUCE UP THE BOARD AND THEY ADAM HODGES: PRESIDENT OF POLAND AND SOME OTHER LUMINARIES, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> I DON’T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT THE TIMING OF ALL OF THIS WAS BUT YES TO THE ELEMENTS >> ONE OF THE FOLKS THEY ADDED TO THE BOARD WAS THE VICE PRESIDENT’S SON, HUNTER BIDEN WHICH, RAISES QUESTIONS, IS HE A GENIUS ON THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRONT OR WAS HE ADDED TO THE BOARD BECAUSE HE’S THE VICE PRESIDENT’S SON. WAS THAT EVER, YOU KNOW, A CONCERN OR AT LEAST A PERCEPTION OF THAT CONCERN ADDRESSED? >> AS I SAID, I ARRIVED IN AUGUST OF 2016. YOU KNOW, SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTIONS. AND SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE. AND IT WAS NOT A FOCUS OF WHAT I WAS DOING IN THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD >> OKAY WAS THE ISSUE RAISED AT ALL? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE

RECENTLY LEFT. I NEVER MET HIM I NEVER TALKED TO HIM. AND I’M SORRY WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? >> HE WAS STILL ON THE BOARD WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT POST AND I WAS WONDERING IF AT LEAST A PERCEPTION PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS THE AMBASSADOR? >> I WAS AWARE OF IT BECAUSE AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE IN THE DEPOSITION THERE HAD BEEN A — IN TERMS OF THE PREPARATION FOR MY CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR UKRAINE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. AND A SHE CAN ANSWER. SO I WAS AWARE OF. IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU ACKNOWLEDGE NAD THE PRESIDENT HAS LONG STANDING CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. IS THAT TRUE? >> THAT’S WHAT HE SAID >> GOING BACK TO THERE’S A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT PARSHANKO IN THE OVAL OFFICE I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT HE EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS THEN >> YEAH, HE SAID THAT A FRIEND OF HIS HAD TOLD HIM UKRAINE WAS THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY IN THE WORLD SEVERAL WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ELEMENT OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT DURING 2016 WERE OUT TO GET HIM. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WERE AWARE OF AT ANY POINT IN TIME? >> WELL I’M CERTAINLY AWARE OF IT NOW. OBVIOUSLY THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF PRESS ATTENTION ON THAT IT WAS NOT — IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION DURING THE 2.5 YEARS THAT I SERVED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AS OUR AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE >> WE’VE GONE THROUGH THE DEPOSITION. SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY LOOM LARGER NOW, BUT IN HINDSIGHT, WAS THIS ANY DISCUSSION AT THE EMBASSY THAT THERE’S THESE INDICATIONS OF UKRAINIANS TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, AT HE’S ADVOCATE AGAINST THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP? >> ACTUALLY, THERE WEREN’T. WE DIDN’T REALLY SEE IT THAT WAY >> WERE YOU AWARE OF, I KNOW MR NUNEZ MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, THE CONSULTANT, ALEXANDER CHALUPA HAD ACCORDING TO HER, AND ACCORDING TO KEN VOGEL AT THE POLITICO, WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IN DC TO TRADE INFORMATION AND SHARE LEADS THAT SORT OF THING >> I SAW THE ARTICLE. I DIDN’T HAVE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THAT >> DID YOU SEE THE ARTICLE AT THE TIME. OR DID IT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION SUBSEQUENTLY? >> IT’S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION SUBSEQUENTLY. I THINK I DID SEE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AT THE TIME AS WELL >> YOU’RE THE AMBASSADOR IN COUNTRY AT THIS POINT, DID YOU AIM TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT. YOU KNOW, IF TRUE F THE REPORTING IS TRUE, IF WHAT MISS CHALUPA TOLD MR. VOGEL IS ACCURATE, THAT WOULD BE CONCERNING, CORRECT? >> WELL, I WAS THE AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE STARTING IN AUGUST OF 2016. AND WHAT YOU’RE DESCRIBING, IF TRUE AS YOU SAID, WHAT YOU’RE DESCRIBING TOOK PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES. SO IF THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT MISS CHALUPA WAS DOING, I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED HERE >> DO YOU KNOW MISS CHALUPA >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO. IF SHE WORKED FOR THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IT’S POSSIBLE I MET HER IN A LARGE GROUP OR SOMETHING BUT I DONE BELIEVE I KNOW HER >> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE ROLE THAT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST MR. LASHENKO PLAYED IN PUB HI SIZING THE MANAFORT BLACK LEDGERS >> YES >> AND HE PUB HI SIZED SOME INFORMATION — PUBLICIZED SOME INFORMATION IN A GRAND WAY IN AUGUST OF 2016 AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY COINCIDED WITH MR MANAFORT LEAVING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ISSUE WHEN IT WAS OCCURRING THAT CONCERNED YOU? >> WELL I CERTAINLY NOTICED IT BECAUSE I WAS, YOU KNOW, A WEEK OR SO AWAY FROM ARRIVING IN UKRAINE. I THINK THAT FROM A UKRAINIAN PERSPECTIVE I REALIZE WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE. FROM A UKRAINIAN PERSPECTIVE. I THINK THAT WHAT MR. LASHENKO AND OTHERS WHO WERE LOOKING INTO THE BLACK LEDGER WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT WAS ACTUALLY NOT MR

MANAFORT BUT FORMER PRESIDENT YANAKOVICH AND THE POLITICAL PARTY AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY ALLEGEDLY STOLE AND WHERE IT WENT AND SO FORTH THERE’S A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE DE PENNING ON WHICH COUNTRY YOU’RE IN >> YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT AT HE’S FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE LOOKING AT THESE FACTS, IT’S REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THERE ARE AREA OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT ARE ADVOCATING AGAINST HIM AT THIS POINT IN TIME, CORRECT? >> WELL, YOU KNOW, JUST SPEAKING ABOUT MR. LASHENKO HE’S AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AS YOU SAID. AND HE GOT ACCESS TO THE BLACK LEDGER AND PUBLISHED IT AS I THINK JOURNALISTS WOULD DO AND I’M NOT SURE — I DON’T HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT THAT WAS TARGETING PRESIDENT TRUMP >> BUT THE WAY THE EVENTS UNFOLDED, MR. MANAFORT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LEFT TO CAMPAIGN, IT CERTAINLY DID BEGIN A PERIOD OF INTEREST IN MANAFORT’S TIES TO RUSSIA AND TO FORTH. I THINK AGAIN. I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE EFFECT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OBVIOUSLY IT WAS OF INTEREST IN JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS HERE THAT MR. MANAFORT WAS FORMER PRESIDENT YANACOVI TCH’S POLITICAL ADVISOR AND THE HEAD OF A CAMPAIGN HERE. AND THERE HAVE BEEN COURT CASES AND SO FORTH WHERE MR. MANAFORT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CERTAIN ACTIONS BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE ELECTION >> WHAT MR. LASHENKO IS REPORTING THERE’S BEEN A QUESTION OF WHETHER ALL THE INFORMATION PI PUBLISHED WAS AWE THEN I CAN, CORRECT? >> THERE’S BEEN A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE INFORMATION MR LASHENKO PUBLISHED WAS ALL CORRECT OR WHETHER IT WAS DOCTORED >> I WASN’T AWARE OF THAT >> YOU KNOW, AMBASSADOR TROLLEY DURING THE AUGUST TOO MANY FRAME HE WROTE AN OP-ED IN THE HILL TAKING ISSUE WITH THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT WHEN IT OCCURRED? >> YES. DID YOU HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE AM BASS TORE TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ? >> NO >> HOW FREQUENTLY DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE AM BASS AMBASSADOR. OBVIOUSLY YOU’RE AT POSTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES >> DIDN’T ACTUALLY SEE HIM OR TALK TO HIM THAT OFTEN >> YOU WEREN’T IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION >> NO >> CAN YOU SEE HOW WRITING AN OP-ED. GIVEN THE SUBSTANCE OF IT, THERE’S SENSITIVITIES BUT CAN YOU SEE HOW JUST THE SIMPLE FACT OF WRITING AN OP-ED THE UKRAINIAN AM BASS TORE TO THE U.S. MIGHT CREATE A PERCEPTION THAT THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT WE’RE ADVOCATING AGAINST IN CANDIDATE TRUMP >> MY RECK HEAT INDEX OF THAT OP-ED IS THAT HE WAS TAKING A — HE WAS CRITICAL OF A POLICY POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH REGARD TO CRIMEA. AND WHETHER CRIMEA WAS A PART OF UKRAINE OR A PART OF RUSSIA THAT’S A TREMENDOUSLY SENSITIVE ISSUE IN UKRAINE. AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THAT IS WHAT THE AMBASSADOR WAS WRITING BACK >> DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE AMBASSADOR TRIED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE TRUMP CAMP TO TALK ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS BEFORE LODGING AN OP-ED >> I DON’T KNOW >> ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> YES AS A RESULT OF THE DEPOSITION. THE PREVIOUS DEPOSITION >> DUH DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING YOU WEREN’T AWARE OF THAT >> YOU KNOW, I DON’T RECALL IT >> OKAY. HE’S ONE OF THE MORE INFLUENTIAL OFFICIALS IN THE UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> HE IS >> I BELIEVE HE’S ONE OF THE FEW THAT SPANNED BOTH THE PORSHANKO ADMINISTRATION AND THE ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT HAS BEEN, AS WELL AS OTHERS FOR WHOM THE PRESIDENTS

ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS ZELENSKY’S ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN A GOOD PARTNER TO THE UNITED STATES. AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE HE IS A VERY PRACTICAL MAN AND LOOKING FOR PARTNERS IN GETTING THE JOB DONE >> I’M SHOCKED SOCIAL MEDIA WOULD BE THE SITE OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS. YOU CERTAINLY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESIDENT, AWARE OF THE STATEMENTS, AWARE OF MR. LUTSENKO WAS UP TO, WHAT AMBASSADOR CHARLIE WAS UP TO AND OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THERE ARE FORMS OF REGIONAL BASIS TO WONDER WHETHER THERE ARE INFLUENTIAL ELEMENTS TO THE UKRAINIAN A/ ESTABLISHMENT OUT TO THE PRESIDENT >> YOU KNOW, I CAN’T SPEAK TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT OR WHAT EVER’S THOUGHT. I WILL SAY THAT THOSE THAT YOU RECITED DON’T SEEM TO ME TO BE THE UKRAINIAN PLAN OR PLOT OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO WORK AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE. THEY ARE ISOLATED INCIDENTS. WE ALL KNOW AND AM COMING TO FIND OUT MYSELF THAT PUBLIC LIFE CAN BE — PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL. AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE OR GOVERNMENT IS UNDERMINING A CAMPAIGN OR INTERFERING IN ELECTIONS. AND I WOULD REMIND YOU AGAIN THAT OUR OWN U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED THAT THOSE WHO INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION WERE IN RUSSIA >> YOU TURN OUR ATTENTION TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER. HE’S BEEN A FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE OF YOURS FOR YEARS >> THAT’S TRUE >> AND I BELIEVE HE TESTIFIED HE’S A MAN OF HONOR >> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE >> AND THE BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT? >> YES, SIR >> YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK HE WOULD BE AN UNDERTAKING OF ANDY — ANY INITIATIVES COUNTERED IN U.S. INTERESTS? >> I THINK THAT HE TRIED TO DO WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT >> TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY OF THE AID PACKAGE TO UKRAINE. YOU HAVE TESTIFIED THAT DURING YOUR TENURE AS AMBASSADOR, AMERICAS POLICY GOT STRONGER FOR UKRAINE IS THAT ACCURATE? >> WITH THE PROVISION OF JAVELINS TO THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY, YES, THAT WAS POSITIVE >> WHY WAS THAT PASSIVE? >> TWO THINGS. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY CAKE ROSTERS AND SO IF THE WAR WITH RUSSIA, ALL OF A SUDDEN ACCELERATED IN SOME WAY AND TANKS COME OVER THE HORIZON, JAVELINS ARE VERY SERIOUS WEAPON TO DEAL WITH THAT. THAT IS NUMBER 1. BUT REALLY THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THE SYMBOLISM OF IT. THE UNITED STATES IS PROVIDING JAVELINS TO UKRAINE THAT MAKES UKRAINE’S ADVERSARIES THINK TWICE >> THE PROVISION OF JAVELINS TO UKRAINE WAS BLOCKED DURING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I THINK THEY MADE THE DETERMINATION. I WAS NOT PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE NOT YET MADE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER TO PROVIDE JAVELINS >> IS THERE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE INTERAGENCY ESTABLISHMENT WAS WITH JAVELINS UNDER THE DEMONSTRATION? >> MOST OF THE INTERAGENCY WANTED TO PROVIDE JAVELINS TO UKRAINE >> IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE ABILITY TO AFFORD UKRAINE THIS WEAPONRY A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE? A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD? >> WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT >> AND HAS A PLAYED OUT THAT WAY? >> WELL, IT HAS. IT IS A SYMBOL OF OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE. BUT WHEN, THEN, THIS

YEAR THERE ARE QUESTIONS WHETHER OR NOT OUR SECURITY SYSTEMS WILL GO THROUGH AND UNDERMINES THAT STRONG MESSAGE OF SUPPORT >> THE UKRAINE HAS THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE THE JAVELINS? IS THAT CORRECT? >> ARE YOU NOT TALKING ABOUT PURCHASING JAVELINS? FROM THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT? >> YES >> YES, THEY DO >> THE SECURITY SECTOR DID GO THROUGH. IT WAS PAUSE FOR 55 DAYS BUT ULTIMATELY WENT THROUGH. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING >> >> YOU TESTIFIED DURING DEPOSITION THAT YOU ARE PROUD OF THE EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES DURING YOUR TENURE TO SUPPLY THIS TYPE OF AID TO UKRAINE. DO YOU STILL , ARE YOU STILL HAPPY WITH THOSE DECISIONS? >> WE TALK ABOUT THE JAVELINS? >> THE JAVELIN AND THE WHOLE PACKAGE >> YES >> DO YOU THINK IT IS SUFFICIENT? YOU THINK WE ARE GIVING UKRAINE ENOUGH MONEY? >> THAT IS A HARD QUESTION BECAUSE ONE CAN ALWAYS USE ADDITIONAL FUNDING. THAT SAID, I THINK THAT THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN VERY GENEROUS IN VOTING FOR SECURITY DISTANCE AND OTHER FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE >> MY TIME IS COMING TO AN END MR. CHAIRMAN >> THANK THE GENTLEMAN. WE WILL GO FOR FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES. SOME OF THE EARLY QUESTION SEEMED TO SUGGEST THAT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE WAS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUES AT HAND. WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE AND ISN’T THIS JUST SOME SMALL MATTER THAT SHOULD’VE BEEN REFERRED TO HR? SO WANT TO BRING OUR ATTENTION TO SOMEONE WHO THOUGHT YOU WERE ACTUALLY VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS WHOLE PLOT OR SCHEME. AND THAT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THERE WAS ONLY ONE AMBASSADOR I BELIEVE THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE JULY 25 CALL AND THAT WAS YOU, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. AND I WANT TO REFER BACK TO HOW YOU WERE BROUGHT UP IN THAT CONVERSATION. AT ONE POINT DURING THE CONVERSATION, THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP THIS PROSECUTOR WHO IS VERY GOOD. AND IT WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT IS REALLY UNFAIR. AND I THINK THAT YOU INDICATED EARLIER THAT IT WAS A LIKELY REFERENCE TO MR LUTSENKO, THE PROSECUTOR. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE >> IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP THIS CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTOR, ONLY — ONLY ONE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE CALL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP THIS CORRUPT PROSECUTOR THAT HE PRAISES AND SAYS WAS TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY, HE THEN ENCOURAGES ZELENSKY TO SPEAK WITH GIULIANI, THE GUY THAT ORCHESTRATED THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU. IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT >> AND THEN HE BRINGS YOU UP. HE PRAISES THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR, SAYS I WANT YOU TO TALK TO GIULIANI, THE GUY WHO SMEARED YOU. THEN HE BRINGS YOU UP. HE OBVIOUSLY THOUGHT YOU WERE RELEVANT TO THIS. BUT WHAT IS EVEN MORE TELLING IS IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE BRINGS YOU UP AND SAYS THAT YOU, THE WOMAN WAS BAD NEWS, HE SAYS THERE IS A LOT TO TALK ABOUT, ABOUT BIDEN’S ON. THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT. SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT >> IMMEDIATELY AFTER CRAZING THIS CORRUPT PROSECUTOR HE ATTACKS YOU. AND GOES RIGHT BACK TO BITE THEM. THAT WOULD INDICATE TO YOU, WOULDN’T IT AMBASSADOR THAT HE CONNECTS YOU SOMEHOW WITH THIS PROSECUTOR THAT YOU WERE AT ODDS WITH AND HIS DESIRE TO SEE THIS INVESTIGATION ABIDE AND GO FORWARD. WOULD IT NOT? >> AGAIN, YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT IT IS THE THOUGHT PROGRESSION >> MY COLLEAGUES ALSO ASKED IN PUSHING YOU OUT OF THE WAY, ULTIMATELY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR GOT THE POINT OUT THAT — WAS HE THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT WOULD FURTHER GIULIANI’S AIDS? AND I THINK THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS A REMARKABLE PUBLIC SERVANT >> ABSOLUTELY >> WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT COULD PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN PLACE THAT

WASN’T A CAREER DIPLOMAT? WHAT IF HE COULD PUT IN PLACE SAY A SUBSTANTIAL DONOR TO HIS INAUGURAL? WHAT IF YOU COULD PUT IN PLACE HIM IN WITH NO DIPLOMATIC EXPERIENCE AT ALL? WHAT IF YOU COULD PUT IN PLACE SOMEONE HIS PORTFOLIO DOESN’T INCLUDE UKRAINE. MIGHT THAT PERSON BE WILLING TO WORK WITH RUDY GIULIANI IN PURSUIT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS? >> YES, MAY BE >> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPEN WASN’T IT? >> YES >> MY COLLEAGUES ALSO SAY, THE IS SECURITY ASSISTANCE ULTIMATELY WENT THROUGH. SO IF THEY SOUGHT TO CONDITION OR BRIBE UKRAINE INTO DOING THESE INVESTIGATIONS BY WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE, THEY ULTIMATELY PAY THE MONEY. ARE YOU AWARE AMBASSADOR THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT RELEASED UNTIL AFTER THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT MADE ITS WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE? >> YES, I’M AWARE THAT >> ARE YOU AWARE IT WAS NOT RELEASED UNTIL CONGRESS ANNOUNCED IT WAS DOING THE INVESTIGATION? >> YES I’M AWARE THAT >> FINALLY I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE CALL RECORD THAT MY COLLEAGUE READ AT THE OUTSET I’M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS. FOR PEOPLE WATCHING, AT HOME SO THEY ARE NOT CONFUSED, THERE ARE TWO CALLS. THE PERFUNCTORY CONGRATULATORY CALL AFTER ZELENSKY IS INAUGURATED WHICH MIGHT RECOMMEND USING BREAD THIS MORNING AND THE PROBLEMATIC CALL IN JULY. ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN APRIL AND JULY. BUT THERE WAS A READOUT PUT OUT BY THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE TIME THAT THE APRIL CONGRATULATORY CALL WAS MADE AND THE WHITE HOUSE READOUT SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED WITH ZELENSKY HELPING UKRAINE ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. NOW THAT IN FACT DOESN’T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THAT CALL. SO WANT TO ASK YOU AMBASSADOR, WHY WOULD THE WHITE HOUSE PUT OUT AN ACCURATE — INACCURATE READING. WHY WOULD THE WAREHOUSE REPRESENT THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CORRUPTION WHEN HE SAID NOTHING ABOUT OPTION IN THAT CALL OR IN FACT THE ONE IN JULY? >> I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION I DON’T HAVE VISIBILITY INTO THAT >> I THINK YOU. I YELLED FIVE MINUTES NOW TO RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER >> JUST TERM ON THE GENTLEMAN THERE ARE THREE CALLS. THE TWO CALLS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE ONE THAT YOU REITERATED IN THE LAST YEAR IN A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO CLEAR SOMETHING. ARE YOU AGAINST POLITICAL APPOINTED AMBASSADORS? IT IS THE THE NEGATIVE TO APPOINT ANYONE THAT A PRESIDENT WANTS IN ANY COUNTRY? >> 1st OF ALL I AM NOT AGAINST POLITICAL AMBASSADORS. JUST TO BE CLEAR >> I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP >> NOW CAN I YIELD TO MR PHONIC? >> THANK YOU AMBASSADOR. BEFORE I WAS INTERRUPTED I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE. FROM MOBEETIE SHOWED TO AUTOLOCK TO MOSCOW TO KEEFE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HOSTING THE NUMEROUS DIAL COLLATIONS. I WOULD LEAD ONE OF THE DELEGATIONS IN UKRAINE. MY QUESTIONS WILL FOCUS ON THREE THEMES THE 1st OF THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO APPOINTING AMBASSADORS. THE SECOND IS LONG-STANDING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND THIRD IS A TO UKRAINE. EARLIER THIS WEEK AS YOU KNOW WE HEARD FROM GEORGE KENT. I KNOW MR. KENT AS A COLLEAGUE, FRIEND AND SOMEONE YOU DEEPLY RESPECT. IN HIS TESTIMONY HE STATED, ALL AMBASSADORS SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. CORRECT? >> YES >> IN FACT HE ELABORATED AND WENT ON TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS WITHOUT QUESTION. EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT >> IN YOUR OWN DEPOSITION UNDER THE STATED QUOTE, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES >> SO THERE’S NO PUBLIC CONFUSION YOU ARE STILL AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT. CORRECT? >> YES >> AND IN THE DEPOSITION YOU SAY THAT YOU PERSONALLY ASKED WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO BE A FELLOW AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AND THAT WAS ARRANGED FOR ME AND I WAS GRATEFUL. THAT IS WHY YOU POSTED TODAY CORRECT? >> YES >> GEORGIA DOME STUDENTS ARE LUCKY TO HAVE YOU. WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE YOU IN FOREIGN SERVICE AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TREMENDOUS PUBLIC SERVICE SHIFTING TO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. IN YOUR PALMS THE DEPOSITION YOU DESCRIBED QUOTE, WE HAVE LONG UNDERSTOOD THAT STRONG ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS

MUST FORM AN ESSENTIAL PART OF POLICY IN UKRAINE. NOW THERE IS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. SO WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO US? PUT SIMPLY, ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS SERVE UKRAINE’S AND STRESSED AND ALSO OURS AS WELL IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY? >> YES >> PARTICULARLY AT THE CRITICAL TIME IN 2014 AFTER THE UKRAINIAN ELECTIONS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE HAD MADE CLEAR, IN THAT VERY ELECTION THAT THEY WERE DONE WITH CORRUPTION. CORRECT? >> YES >> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINIANS THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO SET UP THIS ARCHITECTURE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE OFFICE THAT WOULD BE ALL ABOUT THE CRIMES OF CORRUPTION. CORRECT? >> YES >> AND I KNOW IT WAS BEFORE YOU ARRIVED IN UKRAINE BUT YOU ARE AWARE THE FIRST CASE THAT THE U.S., UK AND UKRAINE INVESTIGATORS WORKED ON WAS IN FACT AGAINST THE OWNER OF BURISMA >> YES >> THAT WAS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION >> YES >> IN YOUR TESTIMONY SAID TODAY THE INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER FORMALLY CLOSED BECAUSE QUOTE IT IS FRANKLY USEFUL TO KEEP THAT COMPANY HANGING ON A HOOK RIGHT? >> >> THE UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION >> — WE DIDN’T SEE THE UKRAINIANS MOVING FORWARD AND WE NO LONGER PARTNER WITH THEM ON THAT CASE OR IN THAT WAY >> LET’S TAKE A FOR STEP BACK THE FIRST TIME YOU BECAME AWARE OF BURISMA WAS WHEN YOU WERE BEING PREPARED BY THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT FOR YOUR SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING. AND THIS WAS IN THE FORM OF PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. THIS IS YOUR DEPOSITION. YOU TESTIFIED THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR PRACTICE Q&A WITH THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT, IT WASN’T JUST GENERALLY ABOUT BURISMA AND CORRUPTION, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES IT IS >> THE EXACT QUOTE FROM YOUR TESTIMONY IS QUOTE, THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS FRAMED AND THIS MODEL Q&A WAS, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN BEING NAMED TO THE BOARD OF BURISMA? THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN WATCHING, PRESIDENT OBAMA’S OWN STATE DEPARTMENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FROM HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE AT BURISMA THAT THEY USE THEMSELVES AS PUMPING BEFORE HER CONFIRMATION AND OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES AND CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE CRIED FOUL WHEN WE DARED ASK THAT QUESTION THAT THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT PEER BUT WE WILL CONTINUE ASKING IT. AND LASTLY, I WANT TO GET IT ON RECORD, IN TERMS OF DEFENSE OF LETHAL AID WHAT YOU WERE AN ADVOCATE FOR, THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. IT WAS PRIVATE — PROVIDED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP >> I YIELD BACK FIVE SECONDS >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. THOSE OF US WHO SIT UP HERE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DISPASSIONATE AND JUDICIAL AND MEASURED. BUT I AM ANGRY. AND I HAVE BEEN ANGRY SINCE I LEARNED ABOUT YOUR SUMMARY AND UNEXPLAINED DISMISSAL AFTER A LIFETIME OF EXCELLENT AND FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY. I’M ANGRY A WOMAN WHOSE FAMILY FLED COMMUNISM AND SERVE THIS COUNTRY FOR 33 YEARS UNDER FIRE IN PLACES LIKE MOGADISHU AND KYIV I’M ANGRY A WOMAN LIKE YOU WOULD BE NOT JUST DISMISSED BUT HUMILIATED AND ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND I’M NOT JUST ANGRY FOR YOU, I AM ANGRY FOR EVERY SINGLE FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, EVERY SINGLE MILITARY OFFICER, FOR EVERY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER WHO RIGHT NOW MIGHT BELIEVE THAT A LIFETIME OF SERVICE AND SACRIFICE AND EXCELLENCE MIGHT BE IGNORED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR WORSE YET, ATTACK IN LANGUAGE THAT WOULD EMBARRASS A MOB BOSS. NOW IT IS THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE AND EMERGING FROM MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TODAY THAT THIS IS ALL OKAY BECAUSE AS THE PRESIDENT SO MEMORABLY PUT IT IN HIS SUITE THIS MORNING, IT IS A U.S PRESIDENT’S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS I’M A LITTLE TROUBLED BY THIS IDEA OF AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT BECAUSE IT DOESN’T FEEL TO ME LIKE THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE HERE. I THINK THAT HOW AND WHY WE EXERCISE OUR POWERS AND RIGHTS MATTER. AMBASSADOR, WHEN YOU ARE AMBASSADOR SOMEWHERE, DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THE CIA AND IN EMBASSY WHAT OPERATIONS THEY ARE DOING? >> WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS COLLABORATIVELY. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT IN SHORT, YES >> YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN YOUR EMBASSY. WHY MIGHT YOU DO THAT? >> BECAUSE SOMETIMES OPERATIONS HAVE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES >> RIGHT. SO THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR DUTIES IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES GIVES YOU THE RIGHT. TO ASK VERY SENSITIVE QUESTIONS OF OUR INTELLIGENCE

COMMUNITY IN YOUR EMBASSY WHAT IF INSTEAD OF WORKING THROUGH THE ISSUES THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, YOU WENT TO DINNER THAT NIGHT AND HANDED OVER THE INFORMATION TO A RUSSIAN AGENT FOR $10,000? WOULD THAT BE INAPPROPRIATE IN EXERCISE OF YOUR RIGHT? >> IT WOULD NOT >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU DID THAT >> I CAN’T BEGIN TO IMAGINE. BUT I IMAGINE THAT I WOULD BE PULLED OUT OF OATH >> RIGHT. AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMBASSADORS. A POLICE OFFICER HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL YOU OVER BUT IF A POLICE OFFICER PULLS OVER HIS EX-WIFE BECAUSE HE’S ANGRY, THAT IS PROBABLY NOT RIGHT. I HAVE THE RIGHT IN FACT TODAY, I CAST A BUNCH OF VOTES THAT IF I CAST THOSE VOTES NOT IN THE INTEREST OF MY CONSTITUENTS BUT BECAUSE SOMEBODY BRIBED ME, THAT IS SEVERE ABUSE OF MY POWER WOULDN’T YOU AGREE? >> YES >> I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WHY, AFTER AN EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, TO THE PRESIDENT DECIDE THAT YOU SHOULD BE REMOVED? I THINK WE JUST AGREED THAT IF THAT WAS NOT DONE IN NATIONAL INTEREST IT IS A PROBLEM. AMBASSADOR, IF YOU HAD REMAINED AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, WOULD YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT HE ASK THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE, I’M QUOTING FROM THE TRANSCRIPT HERE, CROWDED STRIKE OR THE SERVER? >> NO. I WOULD REPEAT ONCE AGAIN THAT THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS >> OKAY AMBASSADOR IF YOU REMAINED AS AMBASSADOR AND NOT SUMMARILY DISMISSED, WOULD YOU HAVE SUPPORTED A THREE-MONTH DELAY IN CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE? >> NO >> AMBASSADOR, IF YOU HAD REMAINED AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, WOULD YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE PRESIDENT THAT HE ASK A NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO QUOTE FIND OUT ABOUT BIDEN’S SON? >> NO >> I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> MR. CONWAY >> I WANT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD, A LETTER FROM SPEAKER PELOSI DATED SEPTEMBER 23. THE RELEVANT PART READS, WE ALSO EXPECT HE WILL ESTABLISH A PATH FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES AS REQUIRED BY LAW >> WITHOUT OBJECTION >> THANK YOU. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU HONORING THAT STATEMENT AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR A LONG SERVICE, EXEMPLARY SERVICE. TO OUR COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF OUR NATION WHAT WAS GOING ON AROUND THE PHONE CALL, I WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN. TO YOU AND YOUR CAREER AND WHAT IS GOING ON. WHEN YOU GOT THE WORD, ANYTIME THE AMBASSADOR CHANGES POST THERE IS A PROCESS YOU GO THROUGH TO PICK WHAT YOU DO NEXT. AND THAT HAPPENED IN THIS INSTANCE. CAN YOU GIVE A QUICK STATEMENT AS TO WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU CAME BACK HERE AND WHAT YOUR NEXT APARTMENT WOULD BE AT THE STATE? >> WHEN I CAME BACK, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS OUT OF CYCLE. THERE WAS NOTHING SET UP. AND AGAIN, I’M GRATEFUL THAT DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN ASKED ME WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NEXT. I RECALL THAT THERE WAS THE FELLOWSHIP AT GEORGETOWN AND ASKED WHETHER THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ARRANGED >> WAS THAT YOUR ONLY CHOICE? >> I’M NOT SURE. WE DIDN’T REALLY DISCUSS OTHER OPTIONS >> GEORGETOWN IS FERTILE GROUND FOR STATE DEPARTMENT RECOUPMENT NOT BENEFIT FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE AND INSPIRATION TO INSPIRE THEM TO SPEND THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIFE IN SERVICE TO OUR NATION. YOU ARE A FELLOW THERE AND TEACH CLASSES. HOW MANY DO YOU TEACH? >> THIS SEMESTER I WAS SUPPOSED TO TEACH TWO. I’M STILL TEACHING ONE ON NATIONAL SECURITY. THE OTHER ONE WAS ON UKRAINE AND I ASKED WHETHER I COULD — >> DIFFER? >> I FOUND THAT APPROPRIATE >>, AND HE QUIT — HOW MANY STUDENTS? >> 13 OR 14 >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> I WILL TELL YOU THAT ALL OF THIS HAS KEPT ME VERY BUSY >> I GET THAT. BUT DAY-TO-DAY THINGS YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR? >> NO >> OTHER THAN NOT QUALIFYING FOR OVERSEAS STIPENDS, HAS YOUR COMPENSATION BEEN AFFECTED BY BEING RECALLED? >> NO, IT HAS NOT >> I WORRIED ABOUT THE WAY YOU MIGHT BE TREATED BY FELLOW EMPLOYEES AT STATE. ANYTHING NEGATIVE, HAVE THEY TOLD YOU IN LESS HIGH REGARD THAN THEY USED

TO IN THIS? DO THEY SHINE YOU UP AT THE LUNCH COUNTER OR TREAT YOU BADLY AS A RESULT OF THE WAY YOU WERE TREATED BY THE PRESIDENT? >> I HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AN OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT >> OKAY, THE FOLKSY RESPECT THE MOST STILL RESPECT YOU AND APPEARED TO HOLD YOU IN HIGH REGARD AND HIGH AFFECTION? >> THEY DO >> GEORGE KENT WAS IN HERE A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. HE MADE EXEMPLARY STATEMENTS ABOUT YOU REALLY GOING. ALL OF US I THINK WOULD LIKE TO BE THE RECIPIENT OF SOMETHING THAT WORRY AND I BELIEVE YOU ARE AS WELL. ANY REASON ON EARTH THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT GEORGE KENT WOULD BE SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF SOME REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT HE BELIEVES IN HIS HEART OF HEARTS? >> LIKE WHAT? >> LIKE SOMEONE PAID HIM TO DO IT? >> NO >> YOU AND I AGREE THAT HE IS SINCERE IN BRAGGING ON YOU. AND THAT IS POST RECALL EPISODE THAT WAS IN THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING. I’M GLAD THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE THAT. I EXPECT NOTHING DIFFERENT FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES TO TREAT YOU IN THE HIGH REGARD YOU HAVE EARNED OVER ALL THESE YEARS OF GREAT SERVICE. AND I HOPE WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TO DO AFTER THE GEORGETOWN FELLOWSHIP THAT YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL AS YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST 33 YEARS. WITH THAT I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. JORDAN >> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST THAT THE ARTICLE WHISTLE-BLOWER EXPECTED TO TESTIFY SOON — INCLUDED IN THE RECORD >> WITHOUT OBJECTION >> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST THAT AN ARTICLE ENTITLED WHISTLE-BLOWER REACHES AGREEMENT TO TESTIFY WILL APPEAR VERY SOON REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF SAYS, “USA TODAY” SEPTEMBER 2019 >> WITHOUT OBJECTION >> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST ARTICLE ENTITLED SHIFT CONCERNS 10 AND IT AGREEMENT THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER — CNN SEPTEMBER 2019 >> WITHOUT OBJECTIONS >> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. INTELLIGENCE PANEL HAS DEAL TO HEAR WHISTLE-BLOWER TESTIMONY SAYS ADAM SCHIFF >> WITHOUT OBJECTION >> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST ON AN ARTICLE ENTITLED WHISTLE-BLOWER REPORTEDLY OF GREECE TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORTED BY SCHIFF HUFFINGTON POST 29 TEEN — 2019 >> WITHOUT OBJECTION >> ARTICLE ENTITLED SCHIFF, PANEL WILL HEAR — SEPTEMBER 29, 2019 >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED >> WE NOW RECOGNIZE REPRESENTATIVE SEWELL >> THANK YOU. IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY YOU SPOKE SO MOVINGLY ABOUT YOUR FAMILY BACKGROUND. HE STATED YOUR PARENTS LED LAST COMMUNIST AND REGIME AND THAT THEY VALUED FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY OFFERED IN AMERICA HAVING EXPERIENCED TOTALITARIAN REGIME. DID THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON YOUR DESIRE TO ENTER INTO THE UNITED STATES FOR SERVICE? >> YES, IT DID >> DID YOU ALWAYS KNOW THAT YOU WANTED TO BE IN FOREIGN SERVICE? I LOOK AT YOUR BACKGROUND AND IT IS PERFECTLY SUITED FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING. I NOTE THAT YOU STUDIED AT THE BRZEZINSKI STATE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE INSTITUTE IN RUSSIA TO LEARN RUSSIAN. THAT YOU HAVE ALSO NMS FROM THE NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE >> YES >> I EVEN NOTICE THAT YOU EARNED YOUR UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN HISTORY AND RUSSIAN STUDIES IN COLLEGE. AND COINCIDENTALLY THAT WAS ALSO MY COLLEGE. BUT YOU DEFINITELY ARE DOING THE NATION’S SERVICE BY WHAT YOU DO EVERY DAY. BUT I REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW IT FELT TO HAVE YOUR REPUTATION SULLIED NOT FOR STATE AND NATION BUT FOR PERSONAL GAIN. YOU SPOKE ABOUT HOW YOUR SERVICE IS NOT JUST YOUR OWN PERSONAL SERVICE. IT AFFECTS YOUR FAMILY. AND TODAY WE HAVE SEEN YOU AS A FORMER AMBASSADOR WITH 33 YEAR VETERAN OF FOREIGN SERVICE. THAT I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY. AND HOW THIS HAS AFFECTED YOU PERSONALLY AND YOUR FAMILY >> IT IS BEEN A DIFFICULT TIME I’M A PRIVATE PERSON. I DON’T WANT TO PUT ALL OF THAT OUT THERE BUT IT HAS BEEN A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TIME BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE HIS OWN OR HER OWN AMBASSADOR IN EVERY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD >> DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACTUALLY MALIGN PEOPLE’S CHARACTER? I MAY NOT BE AGAINST ANY LAW BUT I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE AGAINST DECORUM AND DECENCY >> I MEAN THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO WHY THE KIND OF CAMPAIGN TO

GET ME OUT OF UKRAINE HAPPENED BECAUSE ALL THE PRESIDENT HAS TO DO IS SAY HE WANTS A DIFFERENT AMBASSADOR AND IN MY LINE OF WORK, PERHAPS YOUR LINE OF WORK AS WELL, ALL WE HAVE IS OUR REPUTATIONS. SO THIS HAS BEEN A VERY PAINFUL PERIOD >> HOW IS IT AFFECTED YOUR FAMILY? >> REALLY DON’T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. THANK YOU FOR ASKING >> BECAUSE I DO CARE. I ALSO WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU THINK IT AFFECTED YOUR FELLOW COLLEAGUES IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE. MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID THAT SINCE HE RECEIVES SUCH ADULATION FROM EMBRACING YOUR OWN FELLOW COLLEAGUES THAT WHAT OCCURRED, THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRESIDENT, AND HIS CRONIES, MALIGNING YOUR REPUTATION, HAS THAT HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE ABILITY AND MORALE WITHIN THE FOREIGN SERVICE? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? >> YES. I THINK THAT IT HAS HAD EXACTLY THAT. A CHILLING EFFECT NOT ONLY IN EMBASSY KYIV BUT THROUGHOUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON’T KNOW — WHETHER THEIR EFFORTS TO PURSUE OUR STATED POLICY ARE GOING TO BE SUPPORTED. AND THAT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE >> NOW FOR THE RECORD, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL PROBABLY TRY TO PAINT YOU AS A NEVER TRUMPER. ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER? >> NO >> AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER YOU TOOK AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. WITHOUT REGARD FOR WHO IS IN OFFICE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES THAT IS TRUE >> HAVE YOU ALSO SERVED IN 33 YEARS FOR NOT JUST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS BUT ALSO REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS? >> FOUR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS >> IN FACT HE JOINED FOREIGN SERVICE UNDER REAGAN >> THAT’S TRUE >> WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS ARE NONPARTISAN? CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT WHY IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND YOUR FELLOW OFFICERS TO DO JOB NONPARTISAN? >> BECAUSE OUR WORK IS ESSENTIALLY NONPARTISAN. AND SENATOR DAN SPEHLER, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT — SENATOR WHO PARTNERED WITH RESIDENT CHAIRMAN GOING TO PHRASE THAT POLITICS SHOULD STOP AT THE WATER’S EDGE AND I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. BECAUSE WHILE OBVIOUSLY THE COMPETITION OF IDEAS IN A DEMOCRACY WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES, DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS IS USUALLY IMPORTANT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, IT NEEDS TO BE ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE UNITED DAYS. THOSE ARE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. AND WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL WORKS FOR THE CIA OR THE MILITARY OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE GOT TO BE NONPARTISAN AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE UNITED STATES >> ON BEHALF OF A GRATEFUL NATION I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME >> STUART TURNER >> AMBASSADOR I WANT TO SAY I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR WHAT YOU DO. I HAVE WORKED WITH THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY AND I KNOW THE COMPLEXITY OF WHAT YOU DO. I KNOW YOU HAVE LITTLE ACCESS TO DIRECT DECISION-MAKERS AND LITTLE RESOURCES BUT YOU HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS A COMPLEX ASK AND I WANT TO TAKE US FROM THE CONCEPT OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL UKRAINE TO INCORRUPT TO THE OTHER ISSUES YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH AS THE UKRAINE AMBASSADOR. YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH MORE THAN JUST A LATERAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UKRAINE. FOR EXAMPLE AND THE CONFIRMATION THAT YOU KNOW THESE BUT THESE WERE ON THE PORTFOLIO HAD TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF THE OSCE BUDAPEST AGREEMENT AND DENUCLEARIZATION OF THE UKRAINE AND ISSUES OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF THE SIGNATORIES.?? >> COULD YOU RUN BACK BY ME AND DAN? >> THE OSCE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY IN EUROPE AND THE BUDAPEST AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH UKRAINE GAVE UP WEAPONS — YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR PORTFOLIO? >> WHEN UKRAINE’S WOULD ASK ABOUT OUR POLICY AND WHETHER IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE BEAUTIFUL NEST AGREEMENT >> EXCELLENT. NATO, UKRAINE IS AN ASPIRING NATO COUNTRY. IN THE SUMMIT WHERE THE U.S. AND NATO ALLIES MADE A STATEMENT THEY WOULD GET MEMBERSHIP, THAT WOULD BE ON YOUR PER FOLIO? THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSING WITH YOU? >> CERTAINLY ASPIRATIONS WOULD BE >> AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY THAT THE U.S SUPPORTS UKRAINE JOINING THE EU AND HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INTEREST IN AND DESIRE TO JOIN THE EU? >> CORRECT >> AND THEY HAD A SUMMIT IN UKRAINE IN JULY WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT

THE ASSOCIATED AGREEMENT ON ECONOMIC INTEGRATION BETWEEN THE UKRAINE’S AND THE EU. THEY ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ILLEGAL ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA AND THE BLOCKING BY RUSSIA OF THE UKRAINIAN SAILORS THEY CAME OUT OF THE AS A SEA AND WERE CAPTURED. THAT WOULD BE ISSUES IN YOUR PORTFOLIO AND WORK CONSISTENT WITH THE EU ISSUES >> YES. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH PARTNERS >> YOU WORK WITH FRANCE, UK AND GERMANY ALL WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF THIS. THE AMBASSADORS TO THE UKRAINE, FRANCE, GERMANY >> YES. DID YOU SAY THEY HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS? >> SOME OF THEM, OF YES >> MOSTLY THERE IS A CONSISTENCE >> YOU HAD TO WORK WITH ORGANIZATIONS ON LEGAL AID, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, BUILDING DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HIV-AIDS >> YES >> YOU SPOKE AT SEVERAL NGOS WHAT YOU WERE AMBASSADOR >> YES >> THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EU, THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER THEIR PORTFOLIO ASPIRING NATIONS TO THE EU. WITH A NOT? >> YES >> YOU AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD HAVE UKRAINE IN HIS PORTFOLIO BECAUSE THEY ARE AN ASPIRING NATION AND HE IS AMBASSADOR TO THE EU. CORRECT? >> HE TESTIFIED TO THAT >> YOU AGREE IT IS WITHIN HIS PORTFOLIO >> YES I WOULD AGREE THAT — >> >> YOU MAY FINISH YOUR ANSWER >> NOT ON MY TIME, YOU ARE DONE >> AMBASSADOR WILL BE RECOGNIZED >> I WOULD SAY THAT ALL EU AMBASSADORS DEAL WITH OTHER COUNTRIES INCLUDING ASPIRING COUNTRIES BUT IT IS UNUSUAL TO NAME A U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EU TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF UKRAINE >> I WILL TAKE YOUR ADDITIONAL ANSWER. IT IS STILL HIS PORTFOLIO WHICH IS MY QUESTION YOU KNEW AMBASSADOR HOLBROOK PROBABLY. IS A MAN OF GREAT INTEGRITY. ONE OF OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL AMBASSADORS. YOU PROBABLY KNOW HIM BY REPUTATION AND AGREE HE’S A MAN OF GREAT REPUTATION >> YES >> MADAME AMBASSADOR WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF IN 2004, JOHN KERRY HAD A MEMBER OF HIS CAMPAIGN WHO WAS A FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR TO TRAVEL TO THE UKRAINE IN JULY AND MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS IN THE U.S AMBASSADOR. WITH THAT SURPRISE YOU? A MEMBER OF JOHN KERRY’S CAMPAIGN TEAM FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2004 TRAVEL TO UKRAINE, MET WITH THE U.S AMBASSADOR IN JULY. BUT NOT NECESSARILY >> WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN THAT MEETING IF A MEMBER OF JOHN KERRY’S CAMPAIGN TRAVEL TO UKRAINE, WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN THAT MEETING? >> I GUESS IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING >> THAT MEETING ACTUALLY OCCURRED AND WAS WITH JOHN HOLBROOK. JOHN HOLBROOK WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, TRAVEL TO UKRAINE, MET WITH THE YOU ABOUT THE — U.S. AMBASSADOR, MET WITH OFFICIALS. HE WAS ALSO THERE AND HIV-AIDS. SOMETHING THE CLINTON FOUNDATION WAS WORKING ON. WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL OF THE JOHN KERRY CAMPAIGN IN 2004 AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN MEETING WITH OUR AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE. IS THAT UNUSUAL? >> WE MEET WITH PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ALL THE TIME >> IT PROBABLY WASN’T AN UNUSUAL THING FOR JULIANNE EITHER >> THANK YOU. MADAME AMBASSADOR, RETURNING TO THE TOPIC OF CORRUPTION. WE HEARD EVIDENCE YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL AT PROMOTING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION ON WEDNESDAY IN TESTIFYING ABOUT YOUR STERLING CAREER AT THE CHAMPION OF ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT SAID QUOTE, YOU CAN’T PROMOTE PRINCIPLED ANTICORRUPTION ACTION WITHOUT IS ENOUGH PEOPLE. IS IN YOUR EFFORTS AS AMBASSADOR TO REFORM THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE — WHAT CONCERNED YOU ABOUT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE WHEN YOU WERE THE AMBASSADOR? >> WHAT CONCERNED IS THAT THERE DIDN’T SEEM TO BE PROGRESS IN THE OVERALL OBJECT IS THAT MR LUTSENKO HAD LAID OUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT ALSO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. THE FIRST THING WAS REFORMING THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE. IS A TREMENDOUSLY POWERFUL OFFICE OR THEY HAD AUTHORITY NOT ONLY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS IN FBI-LIKE FUNCTION BUT ALSO THE ACTUAL PROSECUTION. VERY WIDE POWERS, WHICH IS PART OF THE SOVIET LEGACY. AND THERE JUST WASN’T A LOT OF PROGRESS IN THAT. THERE WASN’T A LOT OF PROGRESS IN HANDLING PERSONNEL ISSUES. AND HOW THE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ORGANIZED AND WHO SHOULD HAVE THE IMPORTANT JOBS

BECAUSE SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE JOBS WERE KNOWN TO BE CORRUPT THEMSELVES. SECONDLY THE ISSUE THAT WAS TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE, BRINGING JUSTICE TO THE OVER 100 PEOPLE WHO DIED ON THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014 NOBODY HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT. THAT IS PART OF AN OPEN WOUND FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. AND THIRDLY, UKRAINE NEEDS ALL THE MONEY THAT IT HAS AND THERE IS A STRONG BELIEF THAT FORMER PRESIDENT YANUKOVYCH AND THOSE AROUND HIM MADE OFF WITH $40 BILLION. $40 BILLION IS A LOT IN THE U.S. AND A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN UKRAINE. SO AGAIN, NOBODY, NONE OF THAT MONEY HAS REALLY — I THINK MAYBE $1 BILLION WAS REPATRIATED BUT THE REST OF IT IS MISSING >> MADAME AMBASSADOR WAS THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE CORRUPT? >> WE BELIEVE SO >> AND YOU GOT THE SENSE, DID YOU NOT THAT HE WAS A DRIVING FORCE BEHIND SOME OF THE ATTACKS AGAINST YOU? >> I DID >> WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE REMOVAL >> YES >> IT WASN’T JUST HIM. HIS ALLEGATIONS WERE PICKED UP AND SPREAD BY MR. GIULIANI, AND DONALD TRUMP, JR. WERE THEY NOT? >> YES >> SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT YOU ARE EFFECTIVE AT FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, FIGHTING THAT CORRUPTION WAS IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU ARE PUNISHED FOR THAT. ULTIMATELY BEING REMOVED FROM YOUR POST BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SO IN YOUR OPINION, MADAME AMBASSADOR, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A NON-PARTISAN CAREER IN FOR SERVICES? >> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A NONPARTISAN CAREER IN FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICE — SERVICE I SHOULD SAY BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS INHERENTLY NONPARTISAN. IT IS AT ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD FOR A PARTICULAR PARTY AT A PARTICULAR TIME. IT HAS TO BE ABOUT THE GREATER INTEREST OF OUR SECURITY. AND FRANKLY WHAT IS AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS WORLD BUT CAN YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT BROUGHT U.S. POLICIES THAT YOU SOUGHT TO ADVANCE IN YOUR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE AND SPECIFICALLY IN POST-SOVIET STATES LIKE UKRAINE? >> THAT IS A BROAD QUESTION. BUT I THINK THAT CERTAINLY IN MY TIME IN RUSSIA, ARMENIA AND TURKESTAN, ALL OF THESE COUNTRIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT AS IS UKRAINE. BUT I THINK ESTABLISHING POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN WITH THOSE COUNTRIES IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT, THREE BASIC AREAS, ONE IS SECURITY, SECOND IS ECONOMIC AND THIRD IS POLITICAL. WORKING ALL THE SUBISSUES, YOUR COLLEAGUE MENTIONED MANY OF THEM. WE CERTAINLY DO THAT IN UKRAINE AS WELL >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. A YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN MADAME AMBASSADOR THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO START BY SAYING I APPRECIATE YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE. AND IN THE YEARS OF MOVING AROUND THE WORLD, TO DANGEROUS PLACES. AND HEARING FROM YOU TODAY, I REALIZE WE SHARE SOME OF THE SAME FEELINGS AND EXPERIENCES AS THE ARMY RESERVE SURGEON I RECEIVED A CALL MONDAY AFTERNOON IN MARCH 2005 THAT TOLD ME I WAS BEING DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AND I HAD TO BE OUT THE DOOR IN THE NEXT 2 TO 3 DAYS. I HAD PATIENT SCHEDULED FOR MONTHS. I HAD SURGERY SCHEDULED. AND HAD TO — I UNDERSTAND THE SHOCKING FEELING THAT CAN COME WITH ABRUPT CHANGE LIKE THAT I WAS IN PROCESSING A FEW DAYS LATER AND TOLD MY ORDERS WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE GOING FOR 18 MONTHS BUT IT MAY BE SHORTER THAN THAT. I SERVED A YEAR IN IRAQ, 2005, 2006. ONE OF THE BLOODIEST TIMES OF WAR. AND THIS IS WHERE HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I SAW A NATION IN A RACK OF PEOPLE CRAVED A NON-CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. DEADLY TODAY, EVEN THOUGH IT HELPED TO REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN, THEY STILL HAVE CORRUPTION CONCERNS IN IRAQ AND I CAN RELATE TO WHAT YOU SAID A FEW MOMENTS AGO THAT IT FEELS LIKE AN UNOPENED WOUND , ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. BUT YOU MIGHT IMAGINE WITH THE MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND, I TAKE AN INTEREST IN MILITARY STRATEGY, ABILITIES AND THOUGHTS OF THOSE THAT HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND LIKE YOU, MR. TAYLOR AND MR. VOLKER. YOU SAID WE ALL FELT IT WAS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS

ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE THE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. REAL QUICK, WHO IN GENERAL MAKES UP WE ALL? WOULD THAT BE THE TEAM I MENTIONED? >> WHAT LINE IS THAT? >> I HAVE TO MOVE ON. YOU SAID WE ALL FELT IT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE LEE THE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. I ASSUME THAT IS THOSE THAT HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND AND THIS ADMINISTRATION I ASSUMED YOU MET THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION >> YES >> IN YOUR DEPOSITION ALSO, ON PAGE 144 YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE GENEROSITY OF CONGRESS. YOU MENTIONED IT TODAY, INCREASING AID TO UKRAINE. PART OF YOUR DEPOSITION AFTER THAT STATEMENT THAT I QUOTED BEFORE, DID YOU ADVOCATE FOR THAT? YOU RESPONDED YES. AND ADVOCATE FOR THE — YOU RESPONDED, YES. ON PAGE 148, WERE YOU SATISFIED WITH WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS DOING TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AND YOU SAID WITH WHAT RESPECT. I SAID YOU KNOW HELPING DETER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND HELPING THEM WITH FOREIGN AID AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE. YOU SAID YES. YOU AGREE THAT IT IS SIGNIFICANT. I THINK MR. VOLKER AND MR. TAYLOR THE ACTING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WAS HERE WEDNESDAY AND TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT DECISION TO WITHHOLD DELAYED AND SAID THE PRESIDENT FELT IT MAY PROVOKE RUSSIA. AND MR. TAYLOR CONTESTED THAT RUSSIA HAD ALREADY BEEN PROVOKED AND INVADED THE UKRAINE. PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN FOREIGN-POLICY AND MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. CORRECT? >> YES. I THINK THERE IS AN INTERAGENCY PROGRESS >> HE HAS THE RIGHT AS PRESIDENT. I RESPECT THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS. I’M GETTING TO THAT ACTUALLY. BUT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN FOREIGN-POLICY AND MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AS TO ALL PRESIDENTS. CORRECT? >> YES >> WE HAVE ONE PRESIDENT, OBAMA WHO DENIED LEGAL AID ALTOGETHER IN SPITE OF AMBASSADORS AND OTHER BOOTS ON THE GROUND RECOMMENDING MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION SUCH AS YOU DID WE HAVE ANOTHER PRESIDENT, TRUMP, WHO VETTED THOSE WHO WOULD RECEIVE THE AID AND PROVIDED IT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR INTERAGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THAT OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. LET ME ASK FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT, WITHOUT THE JAVELINS, WOULD YOU AGREE THE RUSSIANS HAD MUCH GREATER MILITARY OFFENSIVE OPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR EFFORT TO ATTACK THE UKRAINE? WITHOUT THE UKRAINE HAVING JAVELINS? >> THEY HAD ANOTHER OPTION ALTHOUGH THE TANK WORE IS NO LONGER THE WAR BEING FOUGHT IN UKRAINE >> WHAT I’M SAYING, WITH THE JAVELINS >> IT IS ANOTHER OPTION >> THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT BECAUSE THE JAVELINS ARE THERE.’S I THINK THAT CHANGES THE SCENARIO BUT I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR OWN FOREIGN-POLICY AND TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK >> IF I COULD SUPPLEMENT ONE OF MY ANSWERS >> OF COURSE >> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AS WELL. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, WELL OBVIOUSLY I DON’T DISPUTE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW AND AMBASSADOR, AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON. BUT WHAT I DO WONDER IS WHY IT WAS NECESSARY TO SMEAR MY REPUTATION ? >> I WASN’T ASKING ABOUT THAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAN >> REPRESENTATIVE SPEAR >> THANK YOU AMBASSADORS IN A MUCH. YOU WERE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE ON A VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUS, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. CORRECT? NO DISPUTE YOU SAID IN THE SUMMER OF 2018, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN BEGAN. IN YOUR TESTIMONY EARLIER TODAY THE SECRETARY POMPEO, AT ANY TIME COME TO YOUR AID? >> I UNDERSTANDING FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN IS THAT THIS RUMOR ABOUT ME FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, SMEAR CAMPAIGN WHICH WAS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AT THAT POINT, THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY

POMPEO. AND ACTUALLY THEY DID KEEP ME IN PLACE FOR AS LONG AS HE COULD. THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD >> IT APPEARED THAT BACK IN 2018 THE PRESIDENT WAS ALREADY MAKING NOISES THAT HE WANTED YOU OUT OF THERE. IT APPEARS THAT AS EARLY AS APRIL 2018, — WAS AT A FUNDRAISER FOR THE PRESIDENT AND RECOMMENDED THAT YOU BE REMOVED IS SUBSEQUENTLY IN MAY 2018, WAS PICTURED AT A WHITE HOUSE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT. AND LATER IN MAY NEED A CONSERVATION OF OVER $325,000 ILLEGALLY TO THE PRESIDENT REELECTION CAMPAIGN ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> I AM AWARE OF THE PRESS ABOUT THOSE THINGS >> DOES THAT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE OF WHY THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN WAS UNDERWAY? >> YES >> YOU MADE SOME VERY RIVETING COMMENTS IN YOUR STATEMENT THIS MORNING THAT I JUST WANT TO REPEAT BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE YOU EXPAND ON IT. YOU SAID, I’VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE U.S INTERESTS IN THIS WAY INDIVIDUALS WHO APPARENTLY FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE STATED U.S. POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION , THAT IS TO DO OUR MISSION, WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR, USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS. NOW AS I LISTEN TO YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT, I WAS TAKING ABOUT ALL THE OTHER PERSONS IN FOREIGN SERVICE WHO NOW HAVE TO BE CONCERNED THAT IT ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH TO FOLLOW THE STATED U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. BUT ALSO TO BE AWARE THAT MAYBE THE PRESIDENT HAS A BACK CHANNEL OF INTERESTS THAT HE IS PROMOTING THAT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR STATED FOREIGN POLICY. CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT PLEASE? >> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WHOEVER IS REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT AND AMBASSADOR SPEAK WITH FULL AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT AND FOREIGN-POLICY ESTABLISHMENT AND IF THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ALSO ARE HELPING WITH RESPONSIBILITIES IN THAT COUNTRY, FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR KIRK VOLKER WITH HIS MISSION TO BRING PEACE TO THE — AND THAT WE ALL SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE. BUT IT IS ALL ABOUT OUR COMMON SECURITY IN DRESS. AND IT IS NOT ABOUT PERSONAL GAIN OR COMMERCIAL GAIN OR ANYTHING ELSE. THAT IT IS ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY >> IN THIS CASE THE TRACE AMIGOS APPEARED TO BE MORE INTERESTED IN GETTING AN INVESTIGATION THEN INTO PROMOTING ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT APPEARS TO BE THE CASE >> YOU WERE TOLD AT ONE POINT, IN 2019, FEBRUARY EARLY THIS YEAR, YOU SPOKE TO A MINISTER IN UKRAINE THAT WARNED WHEN IT CAME TO RUDY GIULIANI YOU NEEDED TO QUOTE WALKED — WATCHER BACK WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN? >> I DIDN’T EXACTLY KNOW. YOU KNOW THE RUMOR WAS OUT THERE AT THAT TIME AND IN FACT THIS MINISTER ALSO SHARED THE OF THE NATION WITH ME THAT THE MAYOR WAS WORKING TO HAVE ME REMOVED >> LET ME JUST SAY TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU HAVE ENDURED AND ORCHESTRATED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THAT IT WAS HATCHED OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO AND LACED WITH ENORMOUS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION CAMPAIGN AND YOU DESERVE MORE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND YOU DESERVE MORE FROM CONGRESS SUPPORTING YOU. ARE YOU BACK >> I HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT MR CHAIRMAN >> WE CAN TAKE THAT UP LATER MR. STEWART YOU ARE RECOGNIZED >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. AND AMBASSADOR THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US HERE TODAY. WELCOME, AS I SAID A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO TO YOUR 4 OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. I’M SORRY YOU WERE DRAGGED INTO THIS. FOR 3 YEARS WE HAVE HEARD OUTRAGEOUS AND FRANKLY UNBELIEVABLE ACCUSATIONS REGARDING RUSSIAN COLLUSION ACCUSATIONS THAT WE NOW KNOW ARE ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. THERE’S NO BASIS AT ALL, DESPITE PROMISES FROM THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT THEY HAVE SECRET PROOF THAT WOULD PROVE THIS COLLUSION AND WE KNOW IT IS

NONSENSE. NOW IN YOUR FOUR WE MOVE ON TO THE UKRAINE AND QUID PRO QUO, CULMINATING YESTERDAY WHEN THE SPEAKER ANNOUNCED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD INDEED BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR BRIBERY WITH THAT STATEMENT, I WOULD NOW FEEL COMPELLED TO ASK YOU, MADAM AMBASSADOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EXCEPTING ANY BRIBES? >> NO >> DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH AT ALL? >> NO >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING DIRECTLY. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW IS IS NONSENSE AND THAT IT IS UNFAIR. AND I HAVE A PREDICTION REGARDING THIS. I THINK PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE LESS WHEN THE HEARINGS ARE OVER THAN IT IS WHEN THE HEARINGS BEGAN. BECAUSE FINALLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION REGARDING THAT. I WANT TO ASK YOU ONE THING VERY QUICKLY AND WE’VE BEEN ASKED THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT MY QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. YOU BEEN ASKED, IF ANY PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO ASK HIS AMBASSADORS TO SERVANT WELL. I’M CURIOUS IF YOU THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT POLICY >> YES, I PROBABLY THINK IT IS >> I DO AS WELL. IT MAY BE IMPERFECT. THEY MAY BE TIMES WHEN IT ISN’T USED PERFECTLY BUT I AGREE WITH YOU. IT IS THE RIGHT POLICY. I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE THAT. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM PREVIOUS STATEMENTS INCLUDING ONE OF YOUR OWN AS WELL AS OTHERS REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IN UK AGAIN, THE FACT THERE ARE INVESTIGATIONS INTO CORRUPTION IN THE ENERGY SECTOR IN UKRAINE, RUSSIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES IS NOT A SURPRISE. FROM YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, WHAT IS IT THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT BURISMA WAS A COUNTRY THAT SUFFERED FROM ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AND YOUR ANSWER WAS YES. FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, I AM GENERALLY AWARE THAT BURISMA IS CONSIDERED A POTENTIALLY CORRUPT COMPANY WOULD YOU AGREE THEN THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION? >> I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE IF IT IS PART OF OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR DOING THAT. IT IS CALLED MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY. WE ARE ONE WITH UKRAINE AND GENERALLY GOES FROM OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE IN A COUNTRY OF INTEREST. THAT IS THE USUAL PATH >> I APPRECIATE THAT. GARGLES OF THE PROCESS IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL CORRUPTION ESPECIALLY, LOOK WE ARE ABOUT TO GIVE THESE COUNTRIES HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THE U.S TAXPAYER SAID HERE IS A DOLLAR LINE AND GIVE IT TO THIS OTHER COUNTRY. BUT PLEASE ONLY DO IT IF YOU KNOW IT IS NOT GOING TO BE USED FOR CORRUPT PURPOSES OR AGAINST NATIONAL INTERESTS. AND I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS BECAUSE I PROMISED MR. JORDAN I WOULD SAVE HIM A LITTLE TIME. WE MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHEN HE WENT TO UKRAINE AND CALLED FOR THE SPECIFIC FIRING OF A SPECIFIC PROSECUTOR THAT HE WAS, AS THEY SAY IN U.S POLICY. BUT THE INTERESTING THING IS THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD TWO COUNTRIES AND HIS RESPONSIBILITY AT THAT TIME CHINA AND UKRAINE. AND HE HAS BRAGGED AND BEEN VERY PROUD OF HIS INFLUENCE IN PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS. HE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, LISTEN TO HIM IT DOESN’T SURPRISE ME THAT THEY WOULD BE FULFILLING A POLICY THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY HELPED FORMULATE >> [ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ] >>> [ MULTIPLE SPEAKERS ] GENTLEMEN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED

>> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED MR QUIGLEY >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR, LIKE THE HALLMARK MOVIE, THIS IS ALL OKAY. [ LAUGHTER ] >> IT WASN’T YOUR PREFERENCE SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS AGO CORRECT? >> NO IT WAS NOT >> IT WASN’T YOUR PREFERENCE TO BE THE VICTIM OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN WAS IT? WAS IT YOUR PREFERENCE TO BE DEFAMED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING TODAY WAS IT? >> NO >> IT WASN’T YOUR PREFERENCE TO BE OUSTED AND SEEMINGLY THE PINNACLE OF YOUR CAREER WAS IT? >> NO >> YOU WANTED TO FINISH YOUR EXTENDED TOUR CORRECT? >> YES I DID >> WHAT DID YOU WANT TO DO AFTER THAT? DID YOU KNOW? >> I WASN’T SURE >> THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH GEORGETOWN, IT’S A FINE PLACE, RIGHT? >> IT IS A WONDERFUL PLACE >> IF IT IS THE ONLY CHOICE AT THE END OF A DISTINGUISHED CAREER, IT IS NOT THE END OF A HALLMARK MOVIE. IT IS THE END OF A REALLY BAD REALITY TV SHOW BROUGHT TO YOU BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THAT. WHY DID YOU — YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU SOUGHT ADVICE FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AT THIS TIME ABOUT WHAT TO DO IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DID >> WHY DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE AMBASSADOR? >> BECAUSE THIS WAS CLEARLY SO POLITICAL AND WAS NOT GOING TO BE — YOU KNOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT IN A POSITION SHALL WE SAY TO MANAGE THE ISSUE, IT DIDN’T APPEAR TO ME, AND SO I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO SAID THAT HE YOU KNOW WAS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE AND SAID HE WAS CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT. SO HE HAD JUST BEEN IN UKRAINE FOR A SHIP VISIT WITH SOME OF HIS EU COLLEAGUES. IN BRUSSELS. SO I REACHED OUT TO HIM FOR ADVICE, WHEN THIS WAS NO LONGER A UKRAINE KIND OF INTERVIEW WITH MR. LUTSENKO AND THE UKRAINIAN BUT IT BECAME SORT OF THE AMERICAN AMERICAN POLITICIANS AND PUNDITS ETC., WERE REPEATING THOSE ALLEGATIONS , I ASKED HIM FOR ADVICE >> IT MEANT A LOT TO YOU, THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY TIME AND THE ADVICE MENTAL LOT. WHAT WAS HIS ADVICE? >> WELL, HE SUGGESTED THAT I NEEDED TO GO BIG OR GO HOME. HE SAID THAT — THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO HIM YOU KNOW SEND OUT A TWEET, PRAISE THE PRESIDENT, THAT SORT OF THING >> WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THAT ADVICE? >> WELL, MY REACTION WAS THAT I AM SURE HE MEANT WELL BUT IT WAS NOT ADVICE THAT I COULD REALLY FOLLOW, IT FELT IT FELT PARTISAN AND POLITICAL I JUST, THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT I FELT WAS IN KEEPING WITH MY ROLE AS AMBASSADOR OF BEING A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER >> DID HE GIVE YOU ANY SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS OF WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO SAY SOMETHING NICE? >> JUST PRAISE HIM >> THANK YOU I YIELD THE BALANCE TO THE CHAIRMAN >> I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS QUESTION AND HARKING BACK TO SOMETHING YOU ASKED BY MINORITY COUNSEL EARLIER. YOU’RE JUST ABOUT DO YOU THINK YOU COULD’VE DONE MORE TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN? AND — I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS IS WORTH OR WHAT THE COUNCILS GETTING AT BUT SOMETIMES VICTIMS ARE ASKED AREN’T YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN VICTIMIZATION. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO SAY, ISN’T IT KIND OF YOUR FAULT AMBASSADOR THAT YOU DIDN’T FIGHT YOUR OWN SMEAR HARDER? >> WELL, I THINK THAT YOU KNOW I HAVE DONE A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR A LONG TIME. AND JUST LIKE THE MILITARY, WE HAVE OUR OWN CULTURE, WE HAVE OUR OWN KIND OF CHAIN OF COMMAND SO TO SPEAK AND I DID EVERYTHING THAT I COULD TO YOU KNOW — TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND ASKED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DO WHAT I FELT WAS THE RIGHT THING WHICH WAS TO SUPPORT ME WHEN IT WAS IMPORTANT TO DO SO. BECAUSE IT

WAS ALSO ABOUT SUPPORTING THE POLICY. I THINK IT WAS FOR OTHERS TO STAND UP >> I QUITE AGREE REPRESENTATIVE STEFANIK >> SINCE THE CHAIRMAN HAS GOBBLED OUT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT, I AM GOING TO READ FOR THE RECORD MANY OF THE CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS IN SEPTEMBER OF THE IMPORTANCE OF HEARING FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER. AGAIN AMBASSADOR THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR SERVICE. SINCE WE HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO CONDUCT OURSELVES IN NORMAL PROCEDURES I WILL USE THE FIVE MINUTES FOR THIS. SEPTEMBER 29 IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WHISTLEBLOWER THE CENTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL TESTIFY AT THE HOUSE 1st AND. THIS IS A QUOTE BY THE CHAIRMAN. USA TODAY SAID TURN TO 29, TALKING WITH ABC NEWS THIS WEEK, SHIFT THE DEMOCRAT WHO CHAIRS THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SAID THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD TESTIFY VERY SOON AND THE ONLY THING STANDING IN THE WAY WAS GETTING SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER SO THEY COULD ATTEND THE TESTIMONY. FROM FOX SEPTEMBER 29, REP ADAM SCHIFF SAID THE WHISTLEBLOWER AT THE CENTER OF THE GROWING SCANDAL SURROUNDING PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VERY SOON. ON CNN SEPTEMBER 29 SHIP SAID SUNDAY ON ABC AS WELL AS NBC’S MEET THE PRESS THAT HE EXPECTS THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY SOON. THE WASHINGTON POST SAID SEPTEMBER 29, AND APPEARANCE ON ABC NEWS THIS WEEK SCHIFF ECHOED PELOSI’S MESSAGE HE ALSO EXPECTED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER VERY SOON PENDING SECURITY CLEARANCE FROM ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE JOSEPH MAGUIRE. IN THE HUFFINGTON POST, SHIFT TOLD ABC’S THIS WEEK THAT THE EXPECTS THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE SOON. IN THE NEAR POST QUOTE WE WILL GET THE UNFILTERED TESTIMONY OF THAT WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE WASHINGTON TIMES QUOTE THAT WILL SO MORE WILL BE ALLOWED TO COME IN, THESE ARE ALL QUOTES FROM CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF. AND TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE QUESTION WAS POSED, THIS WAS BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HAVE YOU REACHED AN AGREEMENT YET WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND HIS OR HER TO HER ATTORNEYS ABOUT COMING FOR THE COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING INFORMATION. QUOTE YES WE HAVE AND AS DNI MAGUIRE PROMISED DURING THE HEARING, THAT WHISTLEBLOWER WILL BE ALLOWED TO COMMENT AND COME IN WITH OUT — TO TELL THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHAT THEY CAN I CANNOT SAY. WE WILL GET THE UNFILTERED TESTIMONY ON THAT WHISTLEBLOWER. IN DAILY KOS, WE ARE READY TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER AS SOON AS THAT IS DONE AND WE WILL KEEP OBVIOUSLY RIDING SHOTGUN TO MAKE SURE THE ACTING DIRECTOR DOESN’T DELAY IN THE CLEARANCE PROCESS. CNBC WE WILL GET THE UNFILTERED TESTIMONY THAT WHISTLEBLOWER HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF SAID SUNDAY AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED IN WHICH HE WILL TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VERY SOON. I CAN KEEP GOING BUT AGAIN THE CHAIRMAN REFUSED TO ALLOW US TO PUT THESE INTO THE RECORD WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT. I HAVE READ THOSE OUT AND AS WE KNOW IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM RETALIATION AND FROM FIRING. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE ABLE TO COME FORWARD BUT IN THIS CASE, THE FACT THAT WE ARE GETTING CRITICIZED BY CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF OR STATEMENTS THAT HE HIMSELF MADE EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS SHOWS THE DUPLICITY AND THE ABUSE OF POWER THAT WE ARE CONTINUING TO SEE WITH A MINUTE 54 SECONDS LEFT I WILL YOU TO MY COLLEAGUE MR. JORDAN >>> THANK YOU GENTLE LADY FOR BUILDING. I WILL AT THE CHAIRMAN HAS PROMISED PRODUCING TRANSCRIPTS BUT THERE’S STILL FOR PEOPLE WE DEPOSE THAT WE’VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO USE OR SEE THEIR TRANSITS OR HAVE THEIR TRANSCRIPTS AND RELEASED AND THEREFORE THE TESTIMONY THEY PROVIDED WE ARE NOT ABLE TO USE IN THESE OPEN HEARINGS. I WILL BE — THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO BE DISCUSSED FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE BUT NO, NO, NO, MR. HELGA MR. MORRISON, TO OTHERS AND MS. WILLIAMS, TO OTHERS AND ANOTHER HAVE NOT YET BEEN RELEASED. I HOPE THE CHAIRMAN RELEASES THAT LAST-MINUTE OF MISS STEFANIK’S TIME. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ASSERTED THAT THIS WHOLE THING WITH THE INVESTOR YOU BOUGHT THAT WAS PART OF SOME SINISTER SCHEME BY THE WHITE HOUSE. TO GET MR. ZELENSKY TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO AN INVESTIGATION IF WE ARE CALLING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS SOME PART OF SOME SCHEME BY TRUMP, POMPEO AND JULIANO GIULIANI TO GET ZELENSKY TO DO AN INVESTIGATION, WHY WOULD THEY REPLACER WITH THE DEMOCRATS FIRST WITNESS? THEIR STAR WITNESS. BILL TAYLOR. IF THAT IS THE PLAN, NOT THE BEST PLAN I’VE EVER SEEN PUT TOGETHER. THEIR STAR WITNESS IN THEIR FIRST WITNESS, MR. TAYLOR, WAS HERE WEDNESDAY, THAT’S WHAT THEY WERE UP TO? I THINK I JUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT WENT ON HERE. MR. ZELENSKY

NEVER AND TOOK THE INVESTIGATIONS COMMAND THE REASON THE AID WAS RELEASED AS WE DISCUSSED ON WEDNESDAY WAS BECAUSE OF VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND U.S SENATORS ALL TALK WITH RESIDENT THE LENS HE AND THEY WERE CONVINCED HE WAS THE REAL DEAL AS THE AMBASSADOR HAS ALLUDED TO IN HER TESTIMONY. THAT’S WHAT THE MONEY WAS RELEASED. I YIELD >>> MR. SWALLOW >> A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE WHISTLEBLOWER CAME FORWARD, TWO THINGS IN PARTICULAR. FIRST, MOST OF WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS ALLEGED HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM. SECOND, THE PRESIDENT WHO MY COLLEAGUES SO SHAMELESSLY CONTINUE TO DEFEND CONTINUED TO PRESSURE, THREATEN AND INTIMIDATE THE WHISTLEBLOWER I WOULD LIKE THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT INTO THE RECORD A SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 ARTICLE FROM BUSINESS INSIDER TRUMPS ADJUSTED THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST AND IS HILTY OF TREASON. WHICH IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH >> OBJECTION >> HOW ABOUT SEPTEMBER 26 VANITY FAIR, TRUMP SUGGESTS EXECUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S SOURCES LIKE QUOTE IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS THIRD, SEPTEMBER 29, WHISTLEBLOWERS LAWYER RAISES FEAR FOR CLIENT SAFETY FROM AXIOS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO IDENTITY AND THE LAWYERS THAT HE FEARS FOR HIS PERSONAL SAFETY AND WILL ONLY ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW IN WRITING. I WISH MY COLLEAGUES WOULD JOIN ME IN PROTECTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. HERE MISS YOU WHICH WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU WITNESS. YOU SAW A LOT AS IT RELATED TO MR GIULIANI. I WANT TO READ YOU A QUOTE FROM MR. GIULIANI BUT FIRST ASK YOU WHEN YOU WERE IN UKRAINE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS DONALD TRUMP’S PERSONAL LAWYER IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES THAT’S RIGHT >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH RUDY GIULIANI IS QUOTE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS THE LAWYERS” HE BASICALLY KNOWS WHAT I’M DOING, SURE AS HIS LAWYER. WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> IT SOUNDS FAMILIAR >> YOU HAVE A LAWYER WITH YOU TODAY MISS YOVANOVITCH. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT LAWYERS ACT ON THEIR CLASS MAYHAP IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES >> IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR THE LAWYER TO GO OUTSIDE ANY DIRECTIVE THAT THE CLIENT GIVES, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY ON MAY 9, 2019 RUDY GIULIANI SAYS THAT HE INTENDS TO VISIT UKRAINE AND SAYS WE ARE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION, WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT QUOTE? >> YES >> THAT WAS 11 DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE REMOVED AS AMBASSADOR >> YES >> HE’S TALKING PUBLICLY ABOUT DESIGNS ON COMING TO YOUR CRANE BUT WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT MR. GIULIANI SAYS WE ARE AS IN WE ARE. HE DOESN’T SAY I, I AM NOT MEDDLING, HE DOESN’T SAY I’M NOT MEDDLING IN THE INVESTIGATION, HE SAID WE. HE’S SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS CLIENT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT QUOTE WE ARE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION, WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION. IS IT PROPER FOR YOU OR ANYONE WHO ASKS ACTS ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO BE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION? >> NO. I DON’T BELIEVE SO. THERE ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT CHANNELS AND THINGS NEED TO BE HANDLED PROPERLY. WITHOUT ANY KIND OF POLITICAL BIAS >> NOW, THIS ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TOUTED AS HAVING SUCH A GREAT INTEREST IN ANTICORRUPTION, IN BOTH THE CALL THAT A REFERENCE TODAY, THE AUGUST 21:THE JULY 25 KOLKER ISN’T IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER MENTIONED THE WORD CORRUPTION? >> YES THAT’S TRUE >> AS FAR AS THE FOREIGN AID THAT MY COLLEAGUES KEEP SAYING WELL, HE CAN’T BE GUILTY AND HE DIDN’T COMPLETE THE CHEAT, THE AIDE WENT TO THE UKRAINIANS. IS IN IT TRUE THAT THE ONLY REASON THE AID OR THE ONLY TIME THE AIDE WENT TO THE UKRAINIANS WAS AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT BECAME PUBLIC? >> YES IT WAS AFTER THE COMPLAINT BECAME PUBLIC >> SO YOU DON’T GET POINTS WHEN YOU GET YOUR HAND CAUGHT IN THE COOKIE JAR AND SOMEONE SAYS HEY, HE’S GOT HIS HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR AND THEN YOU TAKE YOUR HAND OUT. WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND THE PRESIDENT ARE TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR. FINALLY I WANT TO PUT UP THE DISGUSTING TWEET FROM THE PRESIDENT TODAY. HE ATTACKS HER CHARACTER BUT I THINK I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND AMBASSADOR I THINK THE COUNTRY KNOWS WHO YOU ARE. SMEARED YOU WHEN YOU WERE IN UKRAINE , SMEARED YOU ON THAT PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON JULY

25. HE IS SMEARING YOU RIGHT NOW AS YOU ARE TESTIFYING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ARE THE PRESIDENT SMEARS GOING TO STOP YOU FROM FIGHTING CORRUPTION? >> I WILL CONTINUE WITH MY WORK >> GET THE COUNTRY ASK YOU TO FIGHT CORRUPTION WILL YOU DO THAT DESPITE THE SMEARS? IS AN YES >> THANK YOU I YIELD BACK >> MR. HEARD. YOUR EXCELLENCY, 33 YEARS, SIX PERFORMANCE AWARDS, FIVE DATE DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR HONOR AWARD, THE PRESIDENTIAL DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD. AND THE SECRETARY DIPLOMACY IN HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS. YOU ARE TOUGH AS NAILS AND SMARTEST TELL. I WOULD SAY YOU ARE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT OUR AMBASSADORS SHOULD BE LIKE. YOU ARE AN HONOR TO YOUR FAMILY AND AN HONOR TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE, YOU ARE AN HONOR TO THIS COUNTRY. I THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTRY I AM NERVOUS ABOUT WHAT I’M GETTING READY TO DO. I WANT TO DO A FIVE YEAR HISTORY OF UKRAINE IN ABOUT 45 SECONDS. AND NOW THAT YOU ARE A PROFESSOR YOU CAN GREAT MY PAPER. VALENTINE’S DAY 2014, UKRAINIAN PEOPLE GET FED UP WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT DENICO PITCH AND BASICALLY OVERTHROW HIM AND HE GOES ON THE RUN. THIS WAS THE REVOLUTION OF — WHO WAS THE ACTING PRESIDENT DURING THAT TIME WHEN YOU DENICO PITCH WHEN OUT? >> I THINK IT WAS CHURCH NOT? >> CHURCH ENOUGH. THEN IN MARCH 2014, THAT IS WHEN WE SAW LITTLE GREEN MEN COMING INTO UKRAINE AND ULTIMATELY THE RUSSIANS INVADE THE UKRAINE AND NOT ONLY ANNEX OR TRY TO ANNEX CRIMEA BUT ALSO TRY TO OR THEY INVADE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND DONBASS AS WELL >> YES >> THERE WAS AN ELECTION AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WAS POROSHENKO IN JUNE 2014 THEN YOU CAME TO POST IN 2016 OF AUGUST IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES >> JANUARY 2017 TRUMP WAS ELECTED. IN DECEMBER 2017 IS WHEN THE JAVELINS WERE APPROVED AND WE SAW THOSE JAVELINS DELIVERED IN APRIL 2018 TO BE PUT INTO FIRST USE. THEN WE HAD THE ZELENSKY ELECTED IN 2019, APRIL, CORRECT? NOW AT THE ZELENSKY DEFEATED PREVIOUS PREFACE POROSHENKO. NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN THOSE TWO IS THERE? >> I DON’T THINK SO >> THEN AND MAY UP 2019, HE WAS SWORN IN. SO MY QUESTION , WE TALK A LOT ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI. DO WE KNOW WHAT OFFICIALS WITHIN THE ZELENSKY REGIME HE ACTUALLY MET WITH, I KNOW TWO, GENTLEMAN NAME YOUR MAC WHO WAS ONE OF ZELENSKY’S SENIOR ADVISORS. AND WE ALSO KNOW OF THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED HERE, WAS CORRUPT POROSHENKO MR. LU SHINGO SERVED UNDER ZELENSKY FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS UP UNTIL AUGUST. AND THEN THERE PARLIAMENT BASICALLY VOTED HIM OUT IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES THAT’S RIGHT >> IF RUDY GIULIANI IS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE ZELENSKY REGIME, WITH A GUY THAT WORKED UNDER THE PREVIOUS REGIME UNDER POROSHENKO BE THE RIGHT GUY TO DO IT? >> ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY MR LU’S CINCO THAT COULD YOU THIS MUST BE >> DID MR. LU’S CINCO HAVE MUCH CREDIBILITY WITHIN THAT THE CURRENT REGIME? >> I DON’T THINK SO >> HE DIDN’T. DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OTHER UKRAINIANS THAT MR GIULIANI WAS MEETING WITH OUR PART OF THE ZELENSKY REGIME? >> TO REMIND, I WOULD HAVE ALREADY HAVE LEFT UKRAINE BY THAT POINT >> EVEN WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME, RIGHT, ZELENSKY WON THE ELECTION, THERE WAS A TWO-MONTH PERIOD OF PREPARING TO BE INSTALLED AS PRESIDENT, EVEN DURING THAT TIME, WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONTACT? >> SO IF THERE IS ONE OF THE OLIGARCH THAT WE HEARD ABOUT, ONE OF THE OLIGARCHS IS MR.:MOIST AND HE MET WITH MR FURMAN AND MR. PARNAS

THAT WAS APPARENTLY TO GET A MEETING FOR GIULIANI >> BUT THOSE ARE NOT PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT OR BECAME IN THE ZELENSKY REGIME, RIGHT? >> NO >> MR. CHAIRMAN I YIELD BACK >> MR. CASTOR >> THANK YOU AMBASSADOR FOR YOUR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR NATION. A BIG QUESTION HERE TODAY IS WHY YOU WERE PUSHED ASIDE AS AMBASSADOR. FOR EXAMPLE AMERICANS KNOW THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS A RIGHT TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE BUT THEY SHOULDN’T DO IT FOR CERTAIN REASONS. YOU SHOULDN’T BE FIRED BECAUSE YOU ARE DISABLED, BECAUSE YOU’RE A WOMAN, BECAUSE YOU’RE BLACK, OR FOR OTHER REASONS I THINK MOST AMERICANS AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULDN’T FIRE AN AMBASSADOR OR RECALL AND AMBASSADOR BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR IS STANDING IN HIS WAY OF DOING A CORRUPT ACT. I WANT TO ASK YOU, DID THE PRESIDENT EVER TELL YOU WHY HE WAS RECALLING YOU? >> NO >> DID ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE TELL YOU WHY YOU ARE BEING RECALLED? >> NO >> DID THE PRESIDENT CONSULT ABOUT THE WHO THE BAD GUYS AND GOOD GUYS WERE IN UKRAINE? >> NO >> DID SECRETARY PONTE YOU EVER TELL YOU WHY YOU ARE BEING RECALLED? >> NO >> IT APPEARS IN THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HAVE HEARD IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SO FAR THAT THERE WERE A GROUP OF PRESIDENTS MEN PERHAPS SECRETARY PERRY, RUDY GIULIANI, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO WERE IN ON THIS SCHEME TO HELP THE PRESIDENT GET THE BIDENS AND BURISMA INVESTIGATED. I WANT TO PUT ASIDE PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR A SECOND. AND ASK YOU, IN ALL OF YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE, HAVE YOU EVER COME ACROSS A PRESIDENT OR BEEN ASKED BY PRESIDENT OR KNOWN OF COLLEAGUES THAT WERE ASKED BY AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO HELP THAT PRESIDENT GET AN AMERICAN INVESTIGATED OVERSEAS? >> I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT >> IF A PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO INVESTIGATE A FORMER VICE PRESIDENT FOR THIS PURPOSE, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE SAID? >> I MEAN, WITH WHAT I KNOW TODAY, I WOULD’VE SAID NO >> WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED AN UNLAWFUL ACT? >> I DON’T KNOW THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL PER SE BUT — I THINK AGAIN, THERE ARE CHANNELS FOR CONDUCTING PROPER INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE SOMETHING LIKE THIS >> CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE BIZARRE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK SOME AMERICAN BE INVESTIGATED. BY ANOTHER GOVERNMENT >> VERY UNUSUAL >> AND ALSO YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE IS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, UKRAINE ISN’T THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT CONFRONTS CORRUPTION. IF THE PEOPLE IN POWER IN A COUNTRY WHERE WHERE CORRUPTION IS RAMPANT ARE BEING ASKED BY FOREIGN LEADER WHO’S GOT A LOT OF LEVERAGE OVER THEM TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, COULD THAT BE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY COULD TRUMP UP CHARGES? AGAIN SOMEONE IF THEY WANTED? >> THEY COULD >> I ALSO WANT TO ASK YOU, I SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR CAN’T COME HE MADE A COMMENT YESTERDAY ABOUT SELECTED PROSECUTIONS. AND WHAT IT MEANS GOING FORWARD WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT IT SETS AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND FOR DIPLOMATS. I WANT YOU TO HELP US CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD IF THERE’S NO CONSEQUENCES FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP REALLY ANY PRESIDENT WHO DOES THIS. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF FOR THIS COUNTRY AND FOR ANY AMERICAN, NOT JUST A FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR EVEN SOMEBODY IN POLITICS BUT A PERSON IN BUSINESS WHO DOES BUSINESS IN SAUDI ARABIA OR SOME OTHER COUNTRY. IF A PRESIDENT IS GOING TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE OR SOME FOREIGN OFFICIAL AND TRY TO GET THAT PERSON INVESTIGATED, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE FUTURE THE COUNTRY AND FOR AMERICANS? >> WELL, I THINK THAT INVESTIGATIONS, PROSECUTIONS, JUDICIAL DECISIONS, PROPERLY SHOULD REMAIN WITH INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS AND THE COURTS I THINK AS I SAID BEFORE, I THINK SENATOR — WHEN POLITICS NEEDS TO STOP AT THE WATER’S EDGE, I THINK HE WAS RIGHT >> I YIELD BACK TO THE GERMAN >> MR. RADCLIFFE >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY ABOUT YOUR SENATE CONFIRMATION AND CONGRESSWOMAN STEPANEK HAD ASKED YOU HOW THE BEAU BIDEN OBAMA BIDEN STATEHOUSE HAD PREPARED YOU TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT BEREAVEMENT AND HUNTER BIDEN SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU RECALL THAT? >> YES >> SHE MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD BEEN ASKED AND BEEN PREPARED FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA BUT I DON’T THINK YOU GAVE US THE ANSWER OR ANSWERS THAT THE OBAMA BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARED YOU TO GIVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION. YOU REMEMBER WHAT THOSE ANSWERS WERE? >> YES, IT WAS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF I WOULD DEFER YOU TO THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE ON THAT >> DID THEY IN THE COURSE OF THAT BRIEF YOU ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HUNTER ABIDING WAS BEING PAID BY BURISMA? >> NO, THIS IS AND WAS WAS NOT PART OF THE BRIEFING. I HAD SORT OF NICKEL BOOKS WITH QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT COME UP >> IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR CONFIRMATION THEY THOUGHT THAT HUNTER BIDEN’S ROWLETT BURISMA MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD COME UP DURING THE CONFIRMATION IS THAT CORRECT? >> APPARENTLY SO, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF QUESTIONS >> WELL, HUNDREDS OF QUESTIONS BUT WERE THERE HUNDREDS OF COMPANIES, HOW MANY COMPANIES OTHER THAN BURISMA DID THE OBAMA BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARED YOU TO GET ANSWERS FOR? AND IF SO, IF THERE WERE OTHERS, WHICH ONES? >> I DON’T RECALL >> YOU DON’T RECALL THAT THERE WERE OTHER COMPANIES IS THAT CORRECT? >> I’M QUITE SURE THERE PROBABLY WERE SOME COMPANIES THAT I MEAN YOU KNOW THIS IS ALL WHILE AGO AND I DON’T RECALL >> YOU SPECIFICALLY RECALL RECALL BREES >> YES >> OUT OF THOUSANDS OF COMPANIES IN THE UKRAINE THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU RECALL THE OBAMA BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARING YOU TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WAS THE ONE WHERE VICE PRESIDENT SON WAS ON THE BOARD IS THAT FAIR? >> YES >> YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT’S TESTIMONY AS IS BEEN RELATED TO YOU THAT HE TESTIFIED A FEW DAYS AGO, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT ARRANGEMENT HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE ON THE BURISMA BOARD CAUSED HIM ENOUGH CONCERN THAT AS HE TESTIFIED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT IN FEBRUARY 2015, I RAISED MY CONCERN THAT HUNTER BIDEN STATUS AT A BOARD MEMBER COULD CREATE THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HE WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENTS RESPONSIBILITIES OVER UKRAINE AND UKRAINIAN POLICY AS ONE OF THOSE FACTORS. DO YOU RECALL THAT? >> YES >> DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> YEAH >> IT WAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO RAISE? >> I THINK THAT — IT COULD RAISE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST >> DID YOU DISCUSS THAT WITH MR KENT? >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO >> SHIRLEY BEFORE YOUR CONFIRMATION IN AUGUST 2016, PROSECUTOR GENERAL SHOKIN WAS FIRED BY PRESIDENT POROSHENKO CORRECT? >> YES >> PROSECUTOR GENERAL SHOKIN WAS THE ONE WHO OPENED THE INVESTIGATION INTO BRISBANE, CORRECT? >> I THINK THAT’S RIGHT BUT I’M NOT ACTUALLY SURE >> HE WAS IN CHARGE OF IT AT LEAST AT THAT POINT IN TIME AS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE VERY PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THAT FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OCCURRED IN MARCH OF 2016, SIX HOURS AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT TOLD PRESIDENT POROSHENKO THAT HE NEEDED TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OR THAT HE WOULDN’T RECEIVE $1 BILLION FROM THE UNITED STATES. YOU RECALL THAT? >> YES >> DO YOU THINK THAT RAISES A POTENTIAL CONCERN OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ORDERING THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR IN CHARGE OF A COMPANY THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ONE THAT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY CORRUPT? >> ACTUALLY DON’T, I DON’T THINK THE VIEW THAT MR. SHOKIN WAS NOT A GOOD EXECUTED GENERAL FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND I DON’T THINK THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BURISMA CASE >> THAT THE LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE WAS LEGITIMATE CORRECT? >> I THINK IT CREATES A CONCERN THAT THERE COULD BE AN APPEARANCE — >> BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY I WOULD LIKE TO RENEW MY REQUEST

TO MR. CHAIRMAN THAT HUNTER BIDEN’S TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED [ MULTIPLE SPEAKERS ] >> YOUR TIME HAS BEEN EXPIRED >> THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED. [ MULTIPLE SPEAKERS ] >> SUSPEND >> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED >> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED >> MR. HECK >> AMBASSADOR I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND HAVE MY VOICE HEARD IN GRATITUDE FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE. YOU ARE THE BEST OF THIS NATION. I CANNOT THINK OF ANYBODY ELSE I WOULD RATHER HAVE REPRESENTING US IN A FOREIGN CAPITAL THEN YOU MY COLLEAGUES HAVE GONE TO A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS SURROUNDING YOUR REMOVAL AND I THINK THE FACTS ARE PRETTY CLEAR. IT WAS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN. IT WAS ORCHESTRATED BY A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR, THE PRESIDENT’S SON, AND EVEN SOME OF THE PRESIDENT’S ALLIES AND FAVORITE TV STATION. THAT CAMPAIGN LED TO YOUR REMOVAL DESPITE 33 YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE, IMPRESSIVE RESPONSIBILITY AND AWARDS >>> SO I SIT HERE WITH A MIX OF EMOTIONS. ON THE ONE HAND THERE IS SOME PRIDE AND GRATITUDE FOR ALL YOUR OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I AM ANGRY LIKE MY FRIEND FROM CONNECTICUT IN FACT I AM VERY ANGRY. ABOUT HOW IT IS THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WOULD REMOVE YOU FROM OFFICE AFTER YOUR STELLAR SERVICE AND SOMEHOW FEEL COMPELLED TO CHARACTERIZE YOU AS BAD NEWS AND THEN TO OMINOUSLY THREATEN THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GO’S THROUGH SOME THINGS. I AM ANGRY BUT I AM NOT SURPRISED. AFTER ALL, AS WAS SUGGESTED EARLIER, HE SAID THE WHISTLEBLOWER MAY HAVE COMMITTED TREASON, A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. EVEN THOUGH THE WHISTLEBLOWER STRICTLY ADHERED TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW AS INDEPENDENTLY ATTESTED TO BY BOTH THE TRUMP APPOINTED INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE ACTING DNI. AFTER ALL, HE EVEN DEMEANED THE MEMORY OF SENATOR McCAIN AFTER HE LIED IN HIS GRAVE AT THE NAVAL ACADEMY GROUNDS DESPITE A LIFETIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE. AND SERVING SIX YEARS OF PRISONER FOR IN A TINY CELL IN HANOI BEING BEATEN AND TORTURED EVERY DAY. AFTER ALL, HE BELITTLED THE GOLD STAR CON FAMILY WHOSE SON CAPTAIN CON GAVE HIS LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION OUT OF LOVE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND LET ME TELL YOU, AS SOMEBODY WHO’S OLDER BROTHER NEVER SAW HIS 35th BIRTHDAY BECAUSE OF SERVICE IN THE VIETNAM WAR, THOSE WORDS ARE DEEPLY OFFENSIVE. WORDS MATTER THE WORDS LEVELED AGAINST YOU CONSTITUTE BULLYING OF THE WORST ORDER. YOU YOUR GOOD CHARACTER AND YOUR OUTSTANDING REPUTATION HAVE BEEN BESMIRCHED IN A WAY THAT IS DEVOID OF COMMON DECENCY. HERE’S MY MESSAGE TO YOU. THERE IS NOTHING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, NOTHING HE CAN SAY OR DO, NOT A THING THAT WILL IN ANY WAY DIMINISH THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE SERVICE YOU HAVE RENDERED TO OUR GREAT NATION. NOT A THING. THERE IS NOT A THING HE COULD SAY OR DO THAT WILL DIMINISH OUR GRATITUDE TO YOU FOR THAT SERVICE. I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR IT >> THANK YOU >> AS TO THE LARGER POINT, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO UKRAINE WHEN THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY ENGAGES IN THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DISCOURAGE THEM FROM ENGAGING IN, NAMELY A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BY SECLUSION, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO OUR OR WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THEM IN THEIR STRUGGLING EFFORTS TO BECOME A ROBUST DEMOCRACY. WHAT IS THE IMPACT IN UKRAINE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR? >> I THINK UKRAINE LIKE MANY COUNTRIES LOOKS TO US FOR THE POWER OF OUR EXAMPLE. I THINK THAT WHEN WE ENGAGE IN QUESTIONABLE ACTIVITIES, THAT RAISES THE QUESTION IT EMBOLDENS THOSE WHO ARE CORRUPT WHO DON’T WANT TO SEE UKRAINE BECOME YOU KNOW A DEMOCRACY, FREE-MARKET ECONOMY, A PART OF EUROPE, BUT WANT UKRAINE TO STAY UNDER RUSSIA’S ROLE, THAT IS NOT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST >> THANK YOU AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. THANK YOU, SIR VERY MUCH. I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIR

>> THANK YOU GENTLEMEN, WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK LET’S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS IF MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE COULD PLEASE REMAIN IN THEIR SEATS TO ALLOW THE WITNESS AND COUNSEL TO LEAVE AHEAD OF US. WE WILL RESUME IN A FEW MINUTES. WE ARE AT RECESS >>> YOU’RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE OF THE WASHINGTON POST OF THE HEARINGS. ON WHETHER OR NOT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP WE WERE RESUME IN A FEW MINUTES. THERE ARE NOT MANY MEMBERS LEFT TO HAVE THEIR FIVE MINUTES OF Q&A. THIS PROBABLY WILL NOT GO ON A LOT LONGER. WE MAY SEE SOME SUMMATION STATEMENTS BY THE TOP DEMOCRAT AND PERHAPS IN THE RANKING MEMBER AFTER THIS >>> I WANT TO GO BACK AND PLAY SOME TAPE THAT SHOWS ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN APPROACHES AND HOW THEY GET SOME OF THEIR DEFENSES OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THIS IS CONGRESSWOMAN ELISE STEFANIK >> MY QUESTIONS WILL FOCUS ON THREE KEY THEMES IN THE FIRST OF THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO APPOINTING OUR AMBASSADORS. THE SECOND IS LONG-STANDING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND 3rd IS A TO UKRAINE EARLIER THIS WEEK AS YOU KNOW, WE HEARD FROM GEORGE KENT AND I KNOW THAT MR. KENT IS A COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND AT SOMEONE YOU DEEPLY RESPECT. IN HIS TESTIMONY HE STATED ALL AMBASSADORS SERVED THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT CORRECT? >> YES >> IN FACT HE ELABORATED AND WENT ON TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS WITHOUT QUESTION EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT, AND YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> I DO >> IN YOUR DEPOSITION UNDER OF YOU STATED QUOTE ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THAT I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES >> AND SO THERE’S NO PUBLIC CONFUSION, YOU ARE STILL AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT CORRECT? >> YES >> SHIFTING GEARS TO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. IN YOUR POWERFUL DEPOSITION YOU DESCRIBE QUOTE WE HAVE LONG UNDERSTOOD THAT STRONG ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS MUST FORM AN ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR POLICY UKRAINE AND NOW THERE IS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. SO WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT AND WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO WAS. PUT SIMPLY ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS SERVE UKRAINE’S INTEREST BUT THEY ALSO SERVE OURS AS WELL. IS THAT STILL YOU TESTIMONY? >> YES >> PROJECT WITH THE CRITICAL TIME IN 2014 AFTER UKRAINIAN ELECTIONS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINIAN PEOPLE HAD MADE CLEAR IN THAT VERY ELECTION THAT THEY WERE DONE WITH CORRUPTION >> YES. BUDGET YOU TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINIAN THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO SET UP THIS ARCHITECTURE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE OFFICE THAT WOULD BE ALL ABOUT THE CRIMES OF CORRUPTION CORRECT? >> YES >> LASTLY IN MY 20 SECONDS I WANT TO GET ON RECORD IN TERMS OF DEFENSIVE LEGAL AID WHICH YOU ARE AN ADVOCATE FOR COMP THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, IT WAS PROVIDED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP >> CORRECT >> YOU HEARD THAT CONGRESSWOMAN STEFANIK WHO WAS TAKING AN IMPORTANT ROLE WITH QUESTIONING OF THE FORMER AMBASSADOR >>> AARON BLUNCK THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. YOU BEEN FOLLOWING THIS. LET’S TALK ABOUT HOW REPUBLICANS ARE USING THEIR TIME TO QUESTION THIS WITNESS >> IT IS A LOT OF PLAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE AMBASSADORS SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE. IF HE WANTS TO GET RID OF AN AMBASSADOR, HE CAN DO THAT ANY POINT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN FROM PREVIOUS WITNESSES WHEN THE DEPUTY SECRETARY STATE JOHN SULLIVAN WAS BEEN CONFIRMED FOR RUSSIA, SULLIVAN HAS ONE TO TALK TO HER WHEN SHE CAME BACK FROM UKRAINE HE DROVE HOME THAT POINT. THAT IS VERY MUCH TRUE, YOVANOVITCH EVEN SAID I BELIEVE THAT IS THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET RID OF THEM IF THEY DON’T WANT THEM. I THOUGHT IT WAS TELLING, THERE IS AN EXCHANGE WITH WINTHROP THE REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE WHERE AT THE END OF HIS LINE OF QUESTIONING WHEN HE WAS GETTING AT THE POINT, SHE ASKED TO WEIGH IN A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THIS AND SHE STARTED MAKING THE POINT THAT IT IS TRUE THAT HE CAN REMOVE ME FOR ANY REASON HE WANTS TO AND THE WAY IT SHOULD BE BUT THEN WHY DID THEY GO TO THE LINK OF RUNNING THIS ENTIRE SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT IS WHAT IS BEYOND THE PALE, NOT THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO REMOVE ME IN THE FIRST PLACE. I

THINK THAT REALLY CRYSTALLIZED A LOT OF KIND OF THE MISDIRECTION THAT WE SEE IN SOME OF THE LINES OF QUESTION FROM REPUBLICANS THEY ARE MAKING A RELATED POINT TO WHAT WERE TALKING ABOUT ON THE HEARINGS BUT NOT NECESSARILY DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT ON WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID. THERE MAKING A SIDE POINT THAT SOMEWHAT RELATED AND ARE GOING THAT THEY ARE THE SAME THING BUT NOT DIRECTLY NOT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT. BUT IF YOU NOTICED IN THE CLIP, SHE STARTED MAKING THAT POINT AND SHE DIDN’T THINK WAS APPROPRIATE FOR HER TO BE THE VICTIM OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND THAT HE CUT IN AND SAID LET’S GET OUT OF THAT. THAT’S NOT WHAT I WAS ASKING. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS A TELLING MOMENT >> WE HAVE SEEN FOR THE MOST PART, THESE REPUBLICANS, BE EXTREMELY RESPECTFUL OF THE FORMER AMBASSADOR, PRAISING HER SERVICE. THAT DOES STAND IN CONTRAST TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN TWEET FROM THIS MORNING WHICH DEMOCRATS HAVE CONDEMNED AND ALSO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SON, DON JUNIOR WAS TWEETING TODAY AND HE IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE HE IS SOMEONE WORKING ON THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION CAMPAIGN AND REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT’S INTEREST, DON TRUMP JUNIOR TWEETING OUT THE AMERICA HIRED HIS FATHER TO FIRE PEOPLE LIKE THESE FIRST THREE WITNESSES AND CALLED THEM CAREER GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS AND NOTHING MORE THE REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING A DIFFERENT TACT. ONLY ONE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN TURNER WAS AGGRESSIVE TOWARD HER AND HAD TO CUT HER OFF. SO SHE WAS TRYING TO TALK SANK NOT ON MY TONGUE, YOU ARE DONE RIGHT WHICH CAME ACROSS AS VERY DIFFERENT TONE THAN HOW THE REST OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN TREATING HER >> AND OUTSIDE OF THE RING, CONGRESSWOMAN STEFANIK WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THAT BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN SCHIFF AND NUNES, OR AFTER THE FIRST BREAK, AFTER THE PRESIDENT HAD TWEETED THIS AND BROUGHT UP THE HEARING, SHE TOLD REPORTERS THAT SHE FELT THAT THAT WAS OR THAT THE PRESIDENT TWEET WAS WRONG SO SHE STOOD UP FOR YOVANOVITCH ON THAT FRONT LIZ CHENEY THE THIRD RANKING HOUSE REPUBLICAN MADE A SIMILAR POINT, I SAW THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT THAT LED TO THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, KEN STARR, SAID THAT WAS A VERY BAD IDEA FROM THE PRESIDENT TO BE TWEETING HIM AND THAT IT WAS INJURIOUS. I THINK THAT WAS THE WORD HE USED THIS IS VERY MUCH AGAINST THE STRATEGY THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN EMPLOYING EVER SINCE THE PUPIL WENT TOO FAR IN GOING AFTER ALEXANDER AMENDMENT A FEW WEEKS AGO. THAT MADE PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE. ARE WE GOING TO START ATTACKING MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY WHO SERVED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WHO HAVE PURPLE HEART, MAYBE THIS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA. AND THEN WE HAVE SEEN THEM GET AWAY FROM THAT AND THEN. AND WEISE ON THE HEARINGS THAT THESE MEMBERS HAD NOT REALLY SHOWN AN INTEREST IN GOING AFTER THE PEOPLE ON PERSONAL LEVELS. INSTEAD THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THEY’RE NOT FIRST-HAND WITNESSES AND ITS HEARSAY. BASICALLY ARE GOING THEY’RE NOT PROVING ANYTHING AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT INJECT HIMSELF AND PLAY THE BAD COP. I DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS A CONCERTED STRATEGY OR JUST FIRE UP THE TWEET BUT IT’S NOT IN KEEPING WITH WHAT HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING FOR >> REPUBLICANS AFTER THE LAST BREAK HAD THEIR CHANCE, THEIR 45 MINUTES OF UNINTERRUPTED BREAK TO ASK QUESTIONS. AND IT FALLS TO THE RANKING MEMBER UNIT THAT DEVIN NUNES AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLICANS STEVE CASTOR TO DO THAT JOB. CONGRESSWOMAN STEFANIK JUMPED IN. AND WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE ONE THAT LED TO WAS THE OPTICS THAT THE CHAIRMAN STOPPING HER. AND FOX NEWS FOR EXAMPLE HAS BEEN HAVING THE HEADLINES ABOUT HE WAS GAGGING HER AND HOLDING HER BACK. AND WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO DO. BUT THIS IS THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN SET UP >> I DON’T THINK THERE IS ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT INVOLVED THE ONLY FEMALE REPUBLICAN ON THAT PANEL AND I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANY CHANCE THAT DEVIN NUNES DON’T KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE. THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS IN THE RULES THAT THEY VOTED ON A FEW WEEKS AGO. THAT THIS PERIOD, THIS 45 MINUTE PERIOD AT THE START IS FOR THE CHAIRMAN AND THE STAFF MEMBER OR RANKING MEMBER , WE HAVEN’T SEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO YIELD TO EVER MEMBERS DURING THIS PERIOD INCLUDING BY DEVIN NUNES. SO I THINK IT’S APPARENT THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO RUN SOME KIND OF STUNT. IF THEY WEREN’T DOING THAT THEN THERE COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE RULES ARE THAT THE FULL HOUSE VOTED UPON. SO I THINK IT IS EVIDENT WHAT TOOK PLACE HERE AND REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO PLAY THAT UP AND APPARENTLY OF INTEREST ON CONSERVATIVE MEDIA THAT WHAT ADAM SCHIFF WAS DOING WAS COMPLETELY IN KEEPING WITH THE RULES >> AS THIS WAS HAPPENING, SO HE WENT AFTER HOW CHAIRMANSHIP IS

BEEN HANDLING >> THE REASON WHY THE 45 MINUTES WAS SPENT WITH HER GETTING OR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HER FEELINGS IS BECAUSE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WANT TO RE-CREATE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE DEPOSITION. THEY WANTED HER — IT IS UNFORTUNATE, I SAID THIS BEFORE IT HAPPENED YESTERDAY >> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? ARE YOU MAKING THIS UP? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? >> I WAS IN THE DEPOSITIONS AND INSIDE THE DEPOSITIONS, WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO HIS PART OF THE JULY 25 CALL TRANSCRIPT WHERE THEY TAKE RESIDENCE WORDS AND ASKED HER HOW SHE FELT. THEN THEY WANT TO GET HER TO CRY THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY AND OBVIOUS THEY WERE WORKING TO DO THE SAME THING THAT THEY DID LAST TIME >> HE IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THERE THAT THIS IS ALL DONE FOR SHOW. MEANWHILE, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TAKING QUESTIONS. WE WILL MONITOR THAT AND SEE WE IF WE CAN BRING THAT IN TO THE CONVERSATION. LET’S GO LIVE >> THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY DISHONEST. THAT WAS A MAJOR STATEMENT PUT OUT LAST NIGHT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF UKRAINE AND ALSO BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. AND YOU DON’T EVEN REPORTED. IT IS A DISGRACE. IT SAID THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO LINKAGE, WE HAD A PERFECT CONVERSATION. AND I ALSO BECAUSE OF TRANSPARENCY WHETHER IT’S MEDICAL TRANSPARENCY OR TRANSPARENCY GENERALLY, I ALSO PUT OUT TODAY A STATEMENT. AND IN THE STATEMENT, WE RELEASED AND THEN CONGRESSMAN NUNES READ A CALL THAT I HAD WITH PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IT WAS EQUALLY AS GOOD AS THE OTHER CALL IT WAS SO GOOD THE DON’T WANT TO REPORT A. IF WE HAD AN HONEST PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY, WE WOULD BE SO WELL SERVED WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR APPROVAL NUMBERS, THEY’RE THE WORST THEY’VE EVER BEEN IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. THE MEDIA, THE APPROVAL NUMBERS. THEY ARE HORRIBLE. SO YOU WANT TO GET YOURSELF BACK AND YOU WANT TO PUT YOURSELF BACK IN A POSITION WHERE PEOPLE RESPECT THE MEDIA AGAIN. I KNOW SOME GREAT JOURNALISTS AND SOME GREAT PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA, THERE AREN’T ENOUGH OF THEM, THERE’S A LOT OF DISHONESTY AND MANY OF YOU I JUST CONSIDER MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATS AND IT’S A SHAME OKAY, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH >>> PRESIDENT TRUMP SO HE’S TALKING ABOUT ABOUT A CALL THEY JUST GAVE A READOUT, THE FIRST CALL HE MADE WITH THE PRESIDENT ELECT, ZELENSKY SO DEVIN NUNES USE THE TIME TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL >> YES AND I TALKED BEFORE ABOUT HOW IT WAS A MISDIRECTION GOING ON ESPECIALLY THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE THINGS THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT AND NOT OTHER THINGS. IN THIS CASE, THERE’S NEVER BEEN ANYBODY WHO IS ADJUSTED THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING AMISS IN THIS INITIAL CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT’S NEVER BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION IN FACT IN HIS DEPOSITION, ALEXANDRA VINDMAN SAID HE WAS ON BOTH CALLS AND HE SAID THE FIRST CALL WAS COMPLETELY UNREMARKABLE AND FINE. WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT A PRESIDENT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH A FOREIGN LEADER, WHAT THAT WOULD SOUND LIKE. I AM NOT SURE OF WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN OKAY CALL. IT SEEMS LIKE KIND OF A NEITHER HERE NOR THERE OR DISCLOSURE >> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IS RECEDED SO WE WILL HEAD BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM >>> MR. CHAIR MINUTE , AMBASSADOR THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AMBASSADOR, SHOULD INVESTORS TRY TO INFLUENCE HOST COUNTRY ELECTIONS? >> NOW >> YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, HARDEMAN’S PARTISANSHIP IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROLE OF THE CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER >> RIGHT >> THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 IN AUGUST 2016 THE MONTH THAT YOU WENT TO UKRAINE AS OUR AMBASSADOR UKRAINIAN PASTOR HERE COME A WROTE AN OP-ED IN THE HILL THAT SAID THIS, TRUMPS COMMENTS SEND WRONG MESSAGE. THE MONTH YOU ARE THERE AS OUR AMBASSADOR UKRAINE HE WRITES THE OP-ED AND IT WASN’T JUST THAT ATTACK AS MR. CASTOR GOT INTO EARLIER, IT WASN’T JUST THAT ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT, WE HAD FORMER PRIME MINISTER CRITICIZED CANDIDATE TRUMP. WE HAVE MR. P BARKOV I BELIEVE EARLIER SAID

HE WAS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO FIRST ALERTED YOU TO THE EFFORTS OF MR. GIULIANI, HE BACKED HER IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD IN THE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE 2016 ELECTION, CALLED ORIS OUR CALL THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP ALL KINDS OF NAMES AND CALLED HIM A TERRORIST. AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE MR. LUKASHENKO THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT WHO WAS AND NOW SOMEWHAT FAMOUS DOSSIER THAT FLOWED FROM FUSIONS WERE. HE SAID THIS IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES, AGAIN, IN AUGUST OF 2016 AND HE ARRIVED IN UKRAINE, THE MAJORITY OF UKRAINIANS AND UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS ARE ON HILLARY CLINTON’S SIDE SO HE HAD SEVERAL HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WAS PRESIDENT CRITICIZED PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP ALL IN THE LATE SUMMER AND FALL OF 2016. WHAT I WANT TO DO AMBASSADOR, WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING, DID YOU TALK TO ANYONE AND UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT THIS? DID YOU SAY TO SOME OF THESE OFFICIALS, HEY YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS NEED TO KNOCK THIS OFF, THIS PERCEPTION THAT WE’VE GOT AS MR. LUCIAN COSSETTE, THE MAJORITY OF POLITICIANS ON HILLARY CLINTON SIDE, THAT IS NOT GOOD. DID YOU HAVE THE CONVERSATION? >> NO >> DIDN’T TALK TO ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT OR PRESIDENT POROSHENKO? >> NO >> DID YOU ALERT ANYONE? >> NO >> ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE HEARD FROM SO MUCH OF THE LAST SIX WEEKS IN DEPOSITIONS AND FRANKLY IN THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, IS HOW IMPORTANT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IS FOR UKRAINE. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE TO HELP UKRAINE AND AFFECT THE DEMOCRATS FIRST WITNESS, THE STAR WITNESS, HE SAID THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC ASSET IS THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, YOU WOULD AGREE? >> YES >> HE SAID, IN HIS TESTIMONY ON WEDNESDAY, ON SEPTEMBER 11 I LEARNED THAT THE WHOLE HAD BEEN HOLD HAD BEEN LIFTED THE NEXT DAY. INVESTOR TAYLOR SAID I CONVEYED THIS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND REMINDED MR. YOUR MIC OF THE HIGH STRATEGIC VALLEY OF BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN OTHER COUNTRIES ELECTIONS. WHAT I’M WONDERING IS, THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THE AID HAS BEEN LIFTED AND INVESTOR TAYLOR MADE THE STATEMENT TO THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HE MAKES THIS AFTER THERE’S NOTHING BEEN DONE BY YOUR CRANE TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTION PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN’T ANNOUNCE HE WAS DOING ANYTHING AND THE AID WAS LIFTED. HE FELT HE NEEDED TO SAY THAT IN 2016 WHEN WE KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS WANT CLINTON TO WIN, BECAUSE IT WAS SAID BY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, WHEN AMBASSADOR TO U.S. WRITES AN OP-ED CRITICIZING THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP, HE CALLS CANDIDATE TRUMP ALL KINDS OF NAMES. NOBODY GOES AND TALKS TO AND TOLD HIM TO KNOCK IT OFF YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS AMBASSADOR WITH VICTORIA NULAND OR SECRETARY OF STATE PERRY ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN 2016 AND THIS MAJORITY OF UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS BEING FOR CANDIDATE CLINTON AND NOT TRENT? >> NO I DID NOT >> NO ONE DID ANYTHING. NO ONE DID ANYTHING. YOU SEE WHY MAYBE, MAYBE THE PRESIDENT WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WENT ON UKRAINE AND YOU COUPLE THAT WITH THE CORRUPTION LEVEL THAT WE KNOW EXIST IN UKRAINE AND YOU ADD TO THAT THIS IDEA THAT HE’S NOT A BIG FAN OF FOREIGN AID WHY HE MIGHT BE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT SENDING THE HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UKRAINE? >> IS THERE A QUESTION? >> THERE WAS >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? >> I AM ASKING, >> I WILL ALLOW YOU TO REPEAT THE QUESTION >> I’M ASKING, MAYBE WE CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED WHEN YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT, THE AMBASSADOR CRITICIZING, PARLIAMENTARY MEMBER, ELISH SHINGO CRITICIZING, WHEN YOU HAVE IT BARKOV, THE GUY TOLD YOU ABOUT GIULIANI CRITICIZING HIM, ALL OF THIS GOING ON AND WHEN YOU COUPLE THAT WITH THE CONCERNS HE HAS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND CONCERNS ABOUT EUROPE NOT DOING ENOUGH AND CONCERNS ABOUT RELUCTANT TO SIT IN HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS — >> I HAVE BEEN DEALT YOU WITH EXTRA TIME BUT INDULGENCE IS WEARING OUT. IS THERE A QUESTION? >> ARE INDULGENCE WITH YOU WERE OUT A LONG TIME AGO MR CHAIRMAN >> I’M ABOUT TO GAMBLE YOU DOWN I SUGGEST YOU THAT’S MY >> IS A REASON THIS WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONCERN WAS JUSTIFIED? >> YOU KNOW, I CAN’T SPEAK FOR

THE PRESIDENT ON THIS. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS YOU HAVE LISTED A NUMBER OF ACTIONS, I THINK FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THAT DOESN’T CREATE A UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT STRATEGY. TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION >> MR. JORDAN, ALLOW THE INVESTOR TO ANSWER THE QUESTION >> I WOULD SAY THAT U.S POLITICIANS WILL OFTEN CRITICIZE POLICY OF FOREIGN COUNTERPARTS EVEN PERHAPS DURING THEIR ELECTIONS. YOU KNOW THIS HAPPENS IN POLITICS AND I THINK THAT IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE INTERFERENCE >> WOULD YOU WRITE AND OPTED >> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED >> MR. JORDAN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED >> I RECOGNIZE MR. WELCH >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY HERE AND EXTRAORDINAIRE GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR CAREER OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND FEEL BADLY ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD TO ENDURE. LIKE YOUR COLLEAGUES, YOU DON’T COMPLAIN, YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB. I FEEL BADLY ABOUT THE INSULTS THAT WERE TREATED THIS MORNING. THE FACT THAT YOU WERE SMEARED AND GOT FIRED. BUT THE QUESTION AS YOU KNOW IS NOT HOW YOU WERE TREATED. THE QUESTION IS WHY THE PRESIDENT DID WHAT HE DID AND WHETHER WHAT HE DID WAS A BREACH OF TRUST. THE QUESTION REALLY IS ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY PRESIDENT, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED AID TO CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON EXTRACTING FROM A FOREIGN LEADER A WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. THAT’S THE QUESTION. THAT BRINGS US TO YOU. AS PART OF THIS STORY BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS WHY WERE YOU FIRED. FROM THAT POSITION. I WANT TO READ A PORTION OF THE PRESIDENT’S CALL ON JULY 25 WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THIS IS THE PAINFUL PART WHEN YOU FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT. THE FORMER AMBASSADOR FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN, WAS A BAD NEWS. THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING WITH IN UKRAINE WERE BAD NEWS SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT. THE OTHER THING, HE GOES RIGHT INTO THIS, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON THAT BIDENS STOP THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT YOU INDICATED IN YOUR RESPONSE TO MY COLLEAGUE MR. CASTRO’S QUESTION, THAT IF YOU ARE ASKED TO APPROACH A FOREIGN LEADER, IN AND CONDITION AMERICAN SUPPORT ON THEIR BEING INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN, YOU WOULD REFUSE TO DO THAT >> YES >> AND YOU ARE AWARE NOW BUT I DON’T KNOW IF YOU ARE THEN BUT THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER DIRECTOR MUELLER REPORTED THAT THE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN WAS NOT FROM UKRAINE, IT WAS ACTIVE CONCERTED ENERGETIC AND BY THE RUSSIANS. CORRECT? >> YES >> AS AMBASSADOR, YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT EVER IT IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY SEEMS TO HAVE WANTED TO GET FOR COOPERATION IN THIS INVESTIGATION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES ARE NOT RELATED TO THE PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. RIGHT? >> YES >> AND YOU’VE BEEN THE TARGET OF INSULTS FROM THE PRESIDENT. YOU JOINED SOME VERY DISTINGUISHED COMPANIES, BY THE WAY. SENATOR McCAIN, GENERAL KELLY, A MAN I ADMIRE, I THINK ALL OF US DO GENERAL MATTIS. WE ARE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. UNLESS, THE REASON YOU GET INSULTED, AS YOU DID TODAY, ESSENTIALLY BLAMING YOU

FOR SOMALIA. IF THIS IS ANOTHER STEP BY THE PRESIDENT TO INTIMIDATE WITNESSES, DID NOT INTIMIDATE YOU, YOU’VE ENDURED BUT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT CAN EXPECT THE TRUMP TREATMENT IF THEY COME FORWARD THAT’S A QUESTION FOR US. NOW YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A PREROGATIVE TO APPOINT A NONCAREER PERSON AND TO BE CANDID, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE THAT. MR. SANS LINDA’S TRANSCRIPT IS OUT. HE WAS SOMEONE WHO INDICATED THAT EVERYTHING HINGED, THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, AND THE RELEASE OF THE VITAL DEFENSIVE AID, EVERYTHING HINGED ON THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BEING WILLING TO DO THAT INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT? >> YES >> YOU’VE INDICATED THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WOULD NOT AGREE TO DO >> YES >> AND SON LUND WAS QUITE WILLING TO DO >> APPARENTLY SO >> I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, AND I YIELD IT BACK >> CANNELLONI >> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY. THE FIRST TIME WE MET, IT WASN’T CLEAR, I JUST WANT TO START WITH A QUICK COMMENT. YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS INQUIRY BROKE THE DAM, YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE THROUGH THAT STONEWALL THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO SET UP, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. OTHERS HAVE FOLLOWED YOUR EXAMPLE, AND THERE’S AN OLD EXPRESSION THAT THE FIRST PERSON TO THE WALK IT’S A LITTLE BIT BLOODY. AND I THINK YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT EXPRESSION. IN A NEW WAY. BUT, THANK YOU >> THANK YOU >> I WANT TO THANK YOU, AND ASK ABOUT THE DAY YOU WERE LET GO. I KNOW THIS IS A PAINFUL SERIES OF EVENTS, BUT I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT APRIL 24th, YOU TOLD US A FEW THINGS THAT REALLY STUCK WITH ME. YOU SAID YOU WERE AT THE EMBASSY IN UKRAINE. YOU ARE HONORING A UKRAINIAN WOMAN , AND ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST, I BELIEVE HER NAME IS KATERINA HANDS YOU. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. I WAS AT MY HOUSE >> YOUR HOUSE, EXCUSE ME. AND YOU WERE GIVING HER THE WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD, I BELIEVE. TOO EMBASSY KEYS, WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD >> RIGHT. OF COURSE, THAT IS THE DAY YOU GET A CALL FROM CAROL PEREZ. A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE. DID YOU KNOW KAREN PEREZ? YOU ARE BOTH SENIOR WOMEN IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE ? AND SHE SAID THERE’S TROUBLE,, WANT TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP, CORRECT ME IF I GET THIS WRONG, AND I DON’T KNOW A LOT. IT’S COMING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, I WILL CALL YOU LATER >> THAT SUMS IT UP >> YOU ARE LITERALLY, THAT EVENING, HONORING THIS ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST, IS THAT RIGHT? NOT JUST ANY WOMAN, BUT A WOMAN THAT WAS HORRIBLY ATTACKED AND KILLED FOR HER EFFORTS. SHE WASN’T JUST KILLED, HE SAID, SHE WAS, YOU SAID I BELIEVE SOMEONE THREW ACID ON HER >> THAT’S CORRECT >> AND I WENT AND CHECKED DURING THE BREAK. IT TURNS OUT SHE WAS HORRIBLY INJURED, AND IT TOOK FOUR MONTHS FOR HER TO DIE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> A VERY PAINFUL DEATH >> WHY WOULD SOMEBODY ATTACKER WITH ACID? THERE ARE EASIER WAYS TO KILL PEOPLE, WHY DO YOU THINK THEY DID IT WITH ACID? >> I THINK THEY WANTED HER OUT OF THE WAY. THE MESSAGE WAS THIS CAN HAPPEN TO YOU, TOO, IF YOU CONTINUE HER WORK >> THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GO UP AGAINST CORRUPT PEOPLE IN UKRAINE >> IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF SIDELINING PEOPLE >> DO YOU WERE SPEAKING AT THAT EVENT? >> I DO >> I WOULD AND LOOKED AT WHAT YOU SAID. YOU SAID KATERINA PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE FOR HER FEARLESSNESS IN FIGHTING AGAINST CORRUPTION, AND FOR HER DETERMINED EFFORTS TO BUILD A DEMOCRATIC UKRAINE. EUROPE ARE SAYING THAT? >> YES >> AND THEN THE PHONE RINGS. YOU HEAR THIS TROUBLE UP THE STREET, AND CAROL PEREZ CALLED YOU BACK LATER THAT NIGHT, RIGHT? IT WAS 1 A.M. I BELIEVE. WERE YOU SLEEPING? >> NO >> YOU STAYED UP? >> YES >> THAT’S WHEN SHE SAYS TWO THINGS, I BELIEVE, THAT REALLY STUCK WITH YOU. SHE SAID WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR SECURITY. YOU JUST BEEN HONORING A WOMAN WHO WAS KILLED FOR FIGHTING, FOR HER ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS AND SHE SAYS YOU BETTER GET ON THE NEXT PLANE. WAS SHE SPEAKING EUPHEMISTICALLY, GET ON THE NEXT PLANE, WHEN YOU GET TIME, DID SHE MEAN LITERALLY THE NEXT PLANE? >> WELL, I THINK SHE MEANT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT PRETTY MUCH, IT WAS THE NEXT ONE >> THAT’S A PRETTY GOOD FLIGHT

BACK FROM KYIV TO WASHINGTON, YOU’RE ON YOUR WAY TO MEET WITH DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN. HE SAYS TO YOU TWO THINGS, HE SAYS THERE WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT AGAINST YOU, AND HE SAYS YOU’VE DONE NOTHING WRONG >> RIGHT >> WHAT I’M FASCINATED ABOUT, WHEN HE SAYS YOU’VE DONE NOTHING WRONG, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WOULD DO NEXT? >> YOU KNOW, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT A DECISION HAD BEEN MADE BY THE PRESIDENT, AND LIMITED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THAT I HAD TO LEAVE UKRAINE. BUT I, I HAD HOPED TO BE MORE PUBLIC SUPPORT >> DID YOU EXPECT THEM TO HAVE YOUR BACK? >> YES >> RE-SURPRISED WHEN HE FOUND OUT THEY WERE GOING TO? >> NOT AT THAT POINT ANYMORE >> WHY? >> WELL BECAUSE, FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, THAT HAD NOT BEEN THE CASE >> IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU SAID HOW CAN OUR SYSTEM FAIL LIKE THIS? HOW IS IT THAT A FOREIGN, EXCUSE ME, HOW IS IT THAT FOREIGN CORRUPT INTERESTS COMMITTEE PLATE OUR GOVERNMENT, HOW CAN OUR SYSTEM FAIL LIKE THIS, HOW IS IT THAT FOREIGN, CORRUPT INTERESTS COMMENDABLY OUR GOVERNMENT? I WANT YOU TO KNOW ME, THAT IS THE VERY QUESTION WE DETERMINED TO GET AN ANSWER FOR, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF YOUR COUNTRY FOR YOUR SERVICE. AND WITH OUR WORK IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN >> THANK YOU >> MISS DENNINGS >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR CHAIRMAN, AMBASSADOR, EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM. THEY SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR NATION. I HAVE FOUR LITTLE GIRLS IN MY LIFE, AND AS I SIT HERE THINKING ABOUT THEM AND AS A WOMAN, I COULD NOT BE PROUDER OF YOU. I CONSIDER YOU AN INSPIRATION FOR WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD. I JUST HAVE TO SAY, BEFORE I GET INTO MY QUESTIONING, I THINK IT’S DISGRACEFUL. TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES REFER TO YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY AS A PERFORMANCE TODAY. OR SPEAK IN A CONDESCENDING WAY, BASICALLY SUGGESTING THAT THE WOMAN, BECAUSE I THINK THAT’S HOW THE PRESIDENT REFERRED TO YOU, I’M NOT SURE HE KNOWS YOUR NAME, OR IS THERE SOME OTHER MEANING THERE, BUT TO BASICALLY SUGGEST THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR WHATEVER SHE WAS LEFT WITH. SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND ALL, AFTER YOU WERE RECALLED WHAT I WANT YOU TO KNOW, TODAY, THAT WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, YOUR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE. AMBASSADOR, ON A PRESS CONFERENCE CALL ON OCTOBER 17th, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY DISCUSSED HIS BELIEF THAT IT’S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE TO POLITICIZE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, HERE’S WHAT HE SAID. ” IF YOU READ THE NEWS REPORTS AND YOU BELIEVE THEM, WHAT DID McKINLEY SAY YESTERDAY? WELL McKINLEY SAID YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS REALLY UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS. AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT. THERE IS GOING TO BE A LYRICAL INFLUENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, DO YOU SHARE THE CONCERN RAISED BY AMBASSADOR McKINLEY IN TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY? >> WELL, AS I SAID BEFORE, I THINK IT IMPORTANT TO KEEP POLITICAL INFLUENCE OUT OF FOREIGN POLICY, BECAUSE WE ALL, WHETHER WE ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR SOMETHING ELSE HAVE COMMON SECURITY INTEREST, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE SAFEGUARDED AND ADVANCED >> AND WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK IT SENDS TO OTHER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS IN PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH WE SO DESPERATELY NEED GOOD ONES WHEN AN ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO SUPPORT ITS OWN OFFICIALS? IN THE FACE OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN? >> IT’S DEEPLY TROUBLING. IT’S DEEPLY TROUBLING, AND THERE ARE MORALITIES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT >> MORRELL ISSUES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY. ON MARCH 20th, OF 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED AN ARTICLE THAT INCLUDED A LETTER FROM REPRESENTATIVE PETE SESSIONS THAT SAID YOU HAD AND I, QUOTE, SPOKEN PRIVATELY AND REPEATEDLY ABOUT YOUR DISDAIN FOR THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, A WAY THAT MY CALL FOR THE EXPULSION OF YOU AS YOU, AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE YOU IMMEDIATELY. DID YOU SPEAK PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY ABOUT YOUR DISDAIN FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> NO >> WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO PUSH SUCH A LIE? >> I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW >> POLICIES CHANGE, BUT U.S

INTERESTS DON’T. NOT FOR THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING TO DO THE WORK OF PROTECTING OUR NATION, THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE FOR DECADES. THE PRESIDENT, HIS CHIEF OF STAFF, AND HIS ALLIES SEEM TO WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO SMEAR THE GOOD PEOPLE TRYING TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY, AND TO HIJACK OUR INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN, I GET AMBASSADOR, WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. AND I WILL YIELD MY REMAINING TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN >> THANK YOU >> I’M GOING TO GO TO MR HER SUMMER >> GOOD AFTERNOON AMBASSADOR, AND THANK YOU TO THE FAMILY AS WELL. FOR BEING HERE AND BEING IN SUPPORT OF YOU TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO AN AREA OF BIPARTISANSHIP, NAMELY AID TO UKRAINE. CONGRESS, ON AN OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN BASIS AS APPROPRIATE TO HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> YES >> AND THAT AID IS BEING USED BY UKRAINE TO FIGHT A COMMON ADVERSARY, NAMELY RUSSIA, RIGHT? >> YES >> THE U.S., IN FACT, HAS CONSISTENTLY PARTED WITH OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO KEEP RUSSIA AT BAY AND MAINTAIN THE PEACE IN EUROPE, RIGHT? >> YES >> AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SUGGESTED EARLIER THIS WEEK, SUPPORTING UKRAINE HELPS MAINTAIN PEACE, SO THAT AMERICANS DON’T HAVE TO GO TO WAR AGAIN IN EUROPE? >> YES >> SUSPENDING THAT AID, AND WEAKENING UKRAINE CAN INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE OPPOSITE, CORRECT? >> YES, IT WAS EXTREMELY SHORTSIGHTED >> THE LAST TIME YOU ARE IN UKRAINE WAS MAY 20th OF THIS YEAR, RIGHT? >> YES >> IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID HE TOOK CHARGE AND UKRAINE ON JUNE 17th. THEREFORE, THERE WAS ALMOST A ONE MONTH GAP BETWEEN THE TIME YOU DEPARTED, AND WHEN TAYLOR TOOK OVER, RIGHT? >> YES >> DURING THAT TIME, ON MAY 20th, AMBASSADOR SANS LUND, RICK PERRY, AND OTHERS CAME TO THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RIGHT? >> YES >> AND DURING THAT GAP IN TIME, AMBASSADOR SANS LUND VISITED THE WHITE HOUSE, ALONG WITH OTHERS, AND GOT DIRECTIONS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TALK TO RUDY, THOSE WERE HIS WORDS, TALK TO RUDY ABOUT WHAT TO DO IN UKRAINE, RIGHT? >> THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING >> IN OTHER WORDS, ISN’T IT THE CASE THAT YOUR DEPARTURE AND THE ONE MONTH GAP BETWEEN THE TIME YOU LEFT, AND WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ARRIVED PROVIDED THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE TO BASICALLY TAKE OVER UKRAINIAN POLICY, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> YEAH >> AMBASSADOR, YOU’RE GOING TO BE A LITTLE LOUDER INTO THE MIC >> YES, YES >> ON PAGE 10 OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU MENTIONED, QUOTE, CORRUPT INTERESTS HIJACKING A UKRAINE POLICY, RIGHT? A COUPLE OF SUSPECT INDIVIDUALS IN THAT REGARD WERE LEV PARNAS AND IGOR FRUMAN, RIGHT? >> YES >> YOU MENTIONED IN RESPONSE TO MINORITY COUNSEL EARLIER THAT YOU LEARNED THAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO OPEN A LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS COMPANY, CORRECT? >> YES >> HOW DID YOU LEARN THAT BY THE WAY? >> I HEARD THAT FROM THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR >> INTERESTINGLY, AT NOON TODAY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTED THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN MANHATTAN ARE INVESTIGATING WHETHER RUDY GIULIANI STOOD TO PERSONALLY PROFIT FROM THAT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS VENTURE. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT? >> NO, I DO NOT >> AB WE SHOULD TALK TO RUDY? AMBASSADOR, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO ANOTHER LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT I HAD FOR AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, EARLIER THIS WEEK. HE SAID THAT THERE WERE IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY AT WORK IN UKRAINE, CIRCUMVENTING NORMAL DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS AND THREATENING AMERICAN INTERESTS IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE INTEREST. I ASKED HIM THE QUESTION, CAN YOU RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THESE ARE REGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY ARE BEING USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE WE CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY? IN RESPONSE, HE SAID HE COULD NOT RULE IT OUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, I ASK YOU, AND I ASSUME YOU CAN’T RULE IT OUT, EITHER, CORRECT? >> I CAN’T, I WOULD ALSO ADD, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT >> I UNDERSTAND. ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THESE ARE REGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY MAY BE AT WORK ELSEWHERE? >> I THINK IT’S A POSSIBILITY >> YOU TESTIFIED IT WAS A, QUOTE, DANGEROUS PRESIDENT THAT PRIVATE INTEREST AND PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE A PARTICULAR AMBASSADOR COULD COMBINE TO

REPLACE THAT AMBASSADOR. ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT OTHER AMBASSADORS MAY SUFFER THE SAME FATE AS YOU? >> YES >> AMBASSADOR, AND YOUR SERVICE AS AN AMERICAN DIPLOMAT, YOU ENCOUNTERED VARIOUS DICTATORS AND STRONGMEN, RULING OTHER COUNTRIES, RIGHT? >> YES >> IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE, YOUR PARENTS FLED THE SOVIET UNION, AND GERMANY , AND THEY BECAME FAMILIAR WITH DESPOTS AND DICTATORS AS WELL, CORRECT? INDEED, YOU ARE AN AUTHORITY ON AUTHORITARIANISM, RIGHT? >> MAYBE >> IS IT A FEATURE OF AUTHORITARIANISM TO ALLOW CORRUPT INTEREST TO HIJACK FOREIGN-POLICY? >> YEAH >> IS A FEATURE OF AUTHORITARIANISM FOR THE RULERS THERE TO CLAIM ABSOLUTE RIGHTS? >> YES >> IS IT A HALLMARK OF AUTHORITARIANISM FOR THOSE RULERS TO SMEAR THEIR OPPONENTS? >> SOMETIMES, YES >> THANK YOU >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED, MR NUNEZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS? >> I WOULD JUST SAY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TODAY’S SHOW TRIAL HAS COME TO AN END. WE ARE HEADED DOWN, NOW, TO THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL TO GO AND TELL, I DON’T KNOW WHAT TIME. WE WILL BE BACK THERE, HIDING AGAIN, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. INTERVIEWING MORE WITNESSES THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE AND THE PUBLIC. I HATE TO BREAK IT TO MY COLLEAGUES, IF THERE’S ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE WATCHING TELEVISION RATINGS, BUT THEY MUST BE PLUMMETING RIGHT NOW. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GET BACK TO THE WORK OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND WE PASS A TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES, MEXICO, AND CANADA THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUT, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EMBARRASSMENT. I YIELD BACK >> MR. CHAIRMAN MAY BE RIGHT PROMOTION? >> MASTER, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR DECADES OF SERVICE. I WANT TO THANK YOU AS MR. MALONEY SAID FOR BEING THE FIRST ONE THROUGH THE GAP, WHAT YOU DID IN COMING FORWARD AND ANSWERING A LAWFUL SUBPOENA WAS TO GIVE COURAGE TO OTHERS, THAT ALSO WITNESSED WRONGDOING. THAT THEY TOO, WHICH SHOW THE SAME COURAGE YOU HAD, THAT THEY COULD STAND UP, SPEAK OUT, ANSWER QUESTIONS, THEY COULD ENDURE WHATEVER THREATS, INSULTS MAY COME THEIR WAY AND SO, IN YOUR LONG AND ESTABLISHED CAREER, YOU HAVE DONE ANOTHER, GREAT PUBLIC SERVICE IN ANSWERING THE CALL OF OUR SUBPOENA, AND TESTIFYING BEFORE US, TODAY. I THINK YOU GATHERED FROM OUR COMMENTS THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY GRATEFUL FOR WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH, BUT WHAT DAMAGE IS BEING DONE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT, TO CAREER OFFICERS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY I AM PROFOUNDLY GRATEFUL TO YOU, AND MR. KENT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WHO HAVE DONE SO MUCH IN THE LAST TWO DAYS, OR THREE DAYS, TO SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE FACE OF OUR DIPLOMATIC CORPS THE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO WORK, ALL AROUND THE WORLD, IN VERY DANGEROUS PLACES AS YOU HAVE AND SO, I’M GLAD THEY’VE GOTTEN TO SEE YOU. BECAUSE YOU ARE OFTEN VILIFIED AS BUREAUCRATS, OR DIPLOMACY IS DIMINISHED AS UNIMPORTANT ANYTHING OTHER THAN MILITARY DOESN’T REALLY MATTER. AND IT’S YOUR EFFORTS THAT OFTEN PREVENT US FROM GOING TO WAR. SOMETIMES YOU ARE DISPARAGED AS THE DEEP STATE. BUT WHAT YOU ARE IS WHAT HOLDS THIS COUNTRY TOGETHER, WHAT HOLDS OUR FULL AND POLICY TOGETHER, WHAT MAKES IT SEAMLESS, WHAT MAKES IT WORK AND I’M GLAD AMERICA GETS TO SEE THAT. I WILL JUST EMPHASIZE, ONCE AGAIN, ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. MR. KENT AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR GAVE US THE BROAD OUTLINES OF THE STORY THIS IS A STORY ABOUT AN EFFORT TO COWORKERS, CONDITION, OR BRIBE A FOREIGN COUNTRY INTO DOING THE DIRTY WORK OF THE PRESIDENT. INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL. BY CONDITIONING U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY, I CONDITIONING AND MEETING THAT PRESIDENT ZELINSKI DESPERATELY WANTED AND NEEDED TO ESTABLISH, AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MOST POWERFUL PATRON UKRAINE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE FACT THAT THEY FAILED IN THIS SOLICITATION OF BRIBERY DOESN’T

MAKE IT ANY LESS BRIBERY. IT DOESN’T MAKE IT ANY LESS IMMORAL, OR CORRUPT. IT JUST MEANS IT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. AND TO THAT, WE OWE OTHER, DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO BLEW THE WHISTLE HAD THEY NOT BLOW THE WHISTLE, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. I THINK IT IS APPALLING THAT MY COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO WANT TO OUT THIS WHISTLEBLOWER, SO THAT HE CAN BE PUNISHED BY THIS PRESIDENT. BUT LET’S UNDERSCORE ONCE AGAIN, WHILE YOU WERE THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY, NOT THE END OF IT, BUT NONETHELESS, THE BULLET BEGINNING IS IMPORTANT. BECAUSE THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY IS AN EFFORT TO GET YOU OUT OF THE WAY. AN EFFORT BY RUDY GIULIANI, AND FREEMAN, PARNASSUS, AND CORRUPT UKRAINIANS LIKE LUKASHENKO TO GET YOU OUT OF THE WAY. BECAUSE THEY FELT YOU ARE AN IMPEDIMENT TO THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT SO DESPERATELY WANTED. GIULIANI HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, HE WAS IN UKRAINE ON A MISSION FOR HIS CLIENT, FOR THE PRESIDENT, TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. AND YOU ARE VIEWED AS AN OBSTACLE THAT HAD TO GO. NOT JUST BY GIULIANI, BUT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IF PEOPLE HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT IT, THEY SHOULD DO WITH THE PRESIDENT ASKS, READ THE TRANSCRIPT. AND WHAT THEY WILL SEE AND THAT TRANSCRIPT IS THE PRESIDENT PRAISES THE CORRUPT, HE PRAISES THE CORRUPT LUKASHENKO, HE CONDEMNS THE JUST, YOU. AND THEN HE ASKS FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. THERE IS NO CAMOUFLAGING THAT CORRUPT INTENT. WE ARE ADJOURNED >> MR. SPEAKER, MR. SPEAKER >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU DISPARAGE THOSE MEMBERS ON THE SIDE OF THE AISLE, WE SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND, TO YOUR DISPARAGING REMARKS, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DEMAND, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN MR. CHAIRMAN. [ APPLAUSE ] >> THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH LEADS THE ROOM AMID CHEERING AND THE AUDIENCE THERE AS REPUBLICANS TRY TO STOP THE PROCEEDINGS AND STOPPING FROM ENDING, BUT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, WHO LITERALLY HAS THE GAVEL, HAS ENDED THIS. NOW, WE DO KNOW THAT THERE IS MORE TO COME, BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEE GOES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, WE ARE GOING TO KEEP AN EYE ON THIS TO SEE IF ANYTHING ELSE HAPPENS THIS COMMITTEE GOES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO HEAR FROM DAVID HOLMES, THE COUNSELOR FROM POLITICAL AFFAIRS AT THE U.S EMBASSY IN UKRAINE. AND MORE TO COME, TOMORROW BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND THEN PUBLIC HEARINGS NEXT WEEK. I’M LIVING CASEY, YOU’VE BEEN WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE OF THE WASHINGTON POST, I’M JOINED HERE THE CITI BIKE GREG MILLER, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, AND ERIN BLAKE, SENIOR REPORTER FRIDAY FOR THE FIX, THANKS SO MUCH TO BOTH OF YOU FOR JOINING US. I WANT TO HEAR FROM BOTH OF YOU WHAT YOUR BIG PICTURE TAKEAWAYS ARE FROM TODAY’S HEARING. GREAT, WHAT IS SOME OF THE HEADLINES AND MOMENTS THAT STAND OUT TO YOU? >> MY TAKEAWAYS TODAY ARE ONE, THERE WASN’T A WHOLE LOT OF NEWS TODAY. WE DID NOT LEARN, THERE IS NOT A BIG NEW REVEAL INTO THE UKRAINE CASE INSTEAD, IT WAS MORE ILLUMINATING THE PERSONAL PRICE THAT THOSE WHO FOUND THEMSELVES ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN PAID. PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY. EVEN AS I SAID THAT, THE OTHER BIG TAKE AWAY IS THAT, IN BOTH HEARINGS SO FAR THIS WEEK, THERE HAS BEEN A DEVELOPMENT THAT, I THINK, ARGUABLY, HAS STRENGTHENED THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR THE DEMOCRATS. ON WEDNESDAY, IT WAS THE REVELATION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD CALLED THE EU AMBASSADOR THE DATE AFTER HIS CALL TO CHECK ON THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. IT WAS ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTING DIRECTLY AT THE PRESIDENT. THAT WAS IMPORTANT. TODAY WAS THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF INSERTING HIMSELF INTO THIS. TWEETING ATTACKS AT MARIE YOVANOVITCH, AS SHE WAS TESTIFYING, AND PRESUMABLY, GIVING AMMUNITION TO ONE OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WILL LIKELY CENTER ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES >> ERIN? >> I THINK GREG IS RIGHT. THIS WAS NEVER GOING TO BE THE NEW ZS HEARING. I THINK, ACTUALLY, YOVANOVITCH, AS FAR AS PROVIDING INSIGHT INTO THE CORE VENTURE, THE CORE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, ALLEGED OFFENSES, SHE DOESN’T HAVE MUCH PROXIMITY TO MANY OF THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE SHE WAS OUT BEFORE MANY OF THEM TOOK PLACE. THIS, COMBINED WITH

WHAT WE SAW ON WEDNESDAY, WAS ABOUT ESTABLISHING A NARRATIVE OF THE POLITICIZATION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, ON WEDNESDAY WE SAW PEOPLE WHO WERE SOMEWHAT PERIPHERAL TO IT, BUT WHO INTERACTED WITH SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT PEOPLE. DESCRIBING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, NOW WE SEE SOMEBODY WHO INTERACTED WITH THIS ON THE MOST PERSONAL LEVEL OF ANYBODY IN THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. I THINK THAT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT SETTING THE STAGE, RATHER THAN GETTING SOME KIND OF A SMOKING GUN OUT OF THESE INITIAL HEARINGS. I THINK YOVANOVITCH, WHILE SHE MAYBE WASN’T ABLE TO PROVIDE HER PERSPECTIVE ON SOME OF THESE KEY EVENTS BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT AROUND AT THAT POINT, SHE IS ONE OF THE MORE, I THINK, SOLID WITNESSES THEY HAVE, WE SAW THIS ESPECIALLY IN HER OPENING STATEMENT, WHICH ARE DEPOSITION OPENING STATEMENT WAS VERY WELL-CRAFTED. I REMEMBER THINKING THAT THE FIRST ON MY SIDE, IT SEEMED LIKE SHE HAD PUT IN A FEW DAYS OF WORK ON THAT. I THINK WE SELL IT AGAIN, TODAY, THERE WILL BE CERTAIN PARTS OF THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO KEEP GOING BACK TO, WHEN IT COMES TO ESPECIALLY HER TALKING ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW, AND HER OWN TREATMENT >> I’M GOING TO REDO A HEADLINE BY GREG MILLER. THIS COMES A WEEK AGO, FORMER AMBASSADOR TESTIFIES SHE FELT THREATENED BY TRUMP’S COMMENTS ABOUT HER. WE HEARD THAT, EVEN AT THE DEPOSITION GREAT. THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A FACE, A NAME, A PERSONALITY, A LIFE STORY, ALONGSIDE THAT REPORTING YOU HAD DONE. THIS WAS A CHANCE FOR ALL OF US TO BE ABLE TO SEE MARIE YOVANOVITCH AND HEAR HER TALK ABOUT HER EXPERIENCE IN HER OWN WORDS. I WANT TO PLAY CLIP FROM TODAY, THIS IS THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TALKING ABOUT HOW SHE DID FEEL THREATENED, WHICH HE READ ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD HAD WITH HIS UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART, THE CALL HAPPENED BACK ON JULY 25th, SHE IS FINDING OUT ABOUT IT MONTHS LATER WHEN THE ROUGH TRANSCRIPT OR SUMMARY BECOMES PUBLIC, AND HERE IS A DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL TALKING TO HER ABOUT IT >> THE NEXT ACCEPT WHEN THE PRESIDENT REFERENCES YOU, IT’S A SHORT ONE. BUT HE SAID WELL, SHE’S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND YOU READ YOU ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS? >> I DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED >> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? >> SHE’S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, IT DIDN’T SOUND GOOD. IT SOUNDED, LIKE, A THREAT >> AND THAT WASN’T THE ONLY TIME THAT THE FORMER AMBASSADOR SEEMS TO HAVE FELT THREATENED. IF WE LOOK AT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TWEET FROM TODAY, THIS GARNERED DISAPPROVAL, ACTUALLY AT THE ADAM SCHIFF THERE ADDRESSING REPORTERS, LET SEE IF WE CAN GET AUDIO FOR THIS >> HAS DONE SO, ALWAYS WITH GREAT DISTINCTION, WITH GREAT COURAGE, UNDER FIRE, SOMETIMES QUITE LITERALLY. SHE SHOWED THAT SAME LEVEL OF DEVOTION AND COURAGE AND COMMITMENT TO COUNTRY, TODAY. WE ARE GRATEFUL TO HER, WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT HAVE TESTIFIED AS WELL. WHO SHOW THE COUNTRY WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A PUBLIC SERVANT, WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, WE ARE ENORMOUSLY PROUD OF THEM. THAT SHE HAD TO ENDURE YET ANOTHER ATTACK TODAY, EVEN AS SHE WAS TESTIFYING FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS JUST APPALLING. AS WE HAVE OBSERVED SO OFTEN, APPALLING IN THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOT THE LEAST BIT SURPRISING NONETHELESS, SHE ENDURED THE ATTACK AND WENT ON, WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THAT. WHAT IS QUITE CLEAR, IS THAT I THINK, FROM HER TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS OTHERS, RUDY GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT FELT IT WAS NECESSARY TO GET HER OUT OF THE WAY. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING, BUT THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS WERE TOLD ABOUT HER DEDICATION TO COUNTRY, HER COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION, IF ANYTHING, HER COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY SHE WAS PUSHED OUT. PUSHING HER OUT MADE IT POSSIBLE TO PUT IN THE THREE AMIGOS, TO CONDUCT UKRAINE POLICY. IF THERE WERE ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHY SHE WAS PUSHED OUT, I THINK THE CALL RECORD ILLUMINATES THAT DOUBT IT IS APPARENT FROM THE CALL RECORD THAT THE PRESIDENT ASSOCIATED HIS BIAS IN FAVOR OF THIS CORRUPT PROSECUTOR, LUTSENKO, WITH A NEED TO PUSH OUT YOVANOVITCH, WITH A NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL. THAT THE U.S AMBASSADOR WOULD BE SO SHAMELESSLY SMEARED AND CAST ASIDE TO FURTHER THIS CORRUPT EFFORT JUST ADDS FURTHER INSULT TO THE INJURY DONE TO THE COUNTRY, AND TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. THANK YOU >> WHAT IS YOUR EXPECTATION FOR NEXT WEEK?

>> ADAM SCHIFF, THE ATTORNEY OF THE ANTIQUITY TALKING AFTER THAT HEARING WRAPPED UP. HE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE TWEET THE PRESIDENT TRUMP LAUNCHED AS THIS HEARING WAS GOING ON, LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE IT’S GOTTEN CONDEMNATION FROM DEMOCRATS, BUT ALSO FROM SOME REPUBLICANS, WHERE HE TWEETS, QUOTE, EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WENT TURNED BAD. SHE STARTED OFF IN SOMALIA, HOW DID THAT GO? IN ESSENCE, ALMOST BLAMING HER IN SOME WAY FOR THE CRISIS IN SOMALIA, A PLACE SHE SERVED IN REFERENCE TO HER TESTIMONY, DURING HER OPEN STATEMENTS WERE SHE TALKED ABOUT HER HARDSHIP POST, THE PATRIOTISM AND EFFORTS SHE, THE LINKS SHE WENT TO A SOMEONE WHO WORKED IN THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS OVER THE TIME OF HER SERVICE SO, THE PRESIDENT WAS THEN TALKING TO REPORTERS THIS AFTERNOON AND SAID I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK, I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH JUST AS OTHER PEOPLE DID. GREAT, BREAK THIS DOWN FOR US >> SO, AMBASSADORS SERVANT DIFFICULT PLACES ALMOST BY DEFINITION. ESPECIALLY THE GOOD ONES. YOU SEND, SOMETIMES, YOUR BEST PEOPLE TO THE MOST DIFFICULT PLACES OVERSEAS. AND SO, TRUMP SEEMED TO BE ACCUSING HER OF BEING THE CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES, IN THOSE COUNTRIES, WITHOUT OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT. I THINK THAT A LOT OF HER COLLEAGUES WOULD STRENUOUSLY DISPUTE THAT. BUT I THINK THAT HER, THIS RESTRAINT THAT SHE SHOW TODAY, BECAUSE THERE WERE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR HER TO RESPOND WITH EMOTION, OR OUTRAGE, OR HENCE OF ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR PARTISAN, BUT THE RESTRAINT SHE SHOWED, I THINK, BLUNTED THAT ATTACK. BECAUSE, ANYONE WHO WAS WATCHING WOULD FIND IT HARD TO PERCEIVE HER AS THIS SUPER PARTISAN FIGURE, OUT THERE IN KIEV, UNDERMINING THE PRESIDENT IN AN ACTIVE WAY THAT JUSTIFIED HIS DECISION TO REMOVE HER >> LETS HEAD BACK TO CAPITOL HILL, RHONDA COLEMAN HAS BEEN INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM. RHONDA, AS THE FORMER AMBASSADOR WRAPPED UP HER TESTIMONY, AND WE HEARD CHAIRMANSHIP GAVEL THINGS OUT, THERE WAS A LOT OF APPLAUSE IN THE HEARING ROOM AND THE CHAMBER, CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT IT’S BEEN LIKE INSIDE THAT HEARING ROOM TODAY? >> YEAH LIBBY, THAT’S ONE OF MY MAIN TAKE AWAY FROM THE DAY, I’M NOT SURE IF YOU COULD SEE IT ON CAMERA, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC SITTING INSIDE. THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON WEDNESDAY, TOO, WITH GEORGE KENT AND BILL TAYLOR’S TESTIMONY, BUT TODAY, YOU COULD SENSE THE PUBLIC REALLY WANTED TO HEAR FROM YOVANOVITCH, YOU COULD HEAR THEIR COMMENTING TO THEMSELVES WHICH SHE SAID THINGS AND WHAT DEMOCRATS SAID SHE WAS UNFAIRLY TARGETED, YOU COULD HEAR A RESPONSE FROM THE CROWD PEOPLE WERE REALLY GLUED TO THEIR SEATS ON THIS ONE. IT WAS REALLY, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SEVERAL HOURS LONG, PEOPLE STILL FOUND IT INTERESTING AND THEY WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE WITNESS I SAW PEOPLE SHAKING THEIR HEAD IN AGREEMENT WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BEING SAID, SO THIS WAS UNIQUE IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE OTHER HEARINGS THAT WE HAVE COVERED, WHERE WE HAVE SEEN THE PUBLIC COME IN >> RHONDA, WE ARE ALSO WATCHING TO SEE WHILE REPUBLICANS SAY THINGS, BUT WHILE WE’VE GOT TO, LET’S TALK ABOUT NEXT WEEK AND WHAT TO EXPECT NEXT WEEK, WHAT SHOULD WE BE WATCHING FOR? >> ALL RIGHT, I LOVE YOU FOR A SECOND, I THINK YOU’RE ASKING ME ABOUT NEXT WEEK, SO NEXT WEEK, WE HAVE EIGHT WITNESSES. ON TUESDAY, THERE ARE GOING TO BE FOR ALTOGETHER, IN ONE DAY, WHO ARE GOING TO COME IN AND FINISH UP SOME OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL BE GORDON SONDLAND, WHO I THINK IS ONE OF THE MORE HIGHLY ANTICIPATED TESTIMONIES TO COME OUT OF NEXT WEEK, AND OUT OF THE EIGHT, IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THREE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE HERE THIS WEEK ARE PEOPLE WHO REPUBLICANS REQUESTED TO SEE THERE IS AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF BIPARTISANSHIP IN NEXT WEEK’S LIST OF WITNESSES >> ALL RIGHT, LET’S CHECK IN HERE WITH JIM JORDAN IS SAYING >> AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, UKRAINIANS SPECIFICALLY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER TOOK ANY OFFICIAL ACTION TO GET THE AID RELEASED THOSE FACTS NEVER CHANGE, AND WILL NEVER CHANGE. I WILL LET MR. FUNNY STAY AT WORK, THAT WILL TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS >> THIS WAS DAY TWO OF AN ABJECT FAILURE OF ADAM SCHIFF AND HIS REGIME OF SECRECY. AS WE SAW TODAY, HE IS MAKING UP THE RULES AS HE GOES, HE DID NOT LET REPUBLICANS PUT FORTH ANY UNANIMOUS CONSENT, HE DID NOT LET US CONTROL OUR OWN TIME, REPUBLICAN MEMBERS TIME, I THINK I WAS INTERRUPTED ABOUT SIX TIMES THROUGHOUT THE HEARING THIS IS JUST MORE OF THE RIDICULOUS ABUSE OF POWER THAT WE ARE SEEING FROM ADAM SCHIFF I THINK ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTS THAT CAME ACROSS TODAY, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN APPOINT AMBASSADORS AT WILL THAT IS IMPORTANT, THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT TO PICK WHO HIS OR HER AMBASSADORS ARE. IN MY LINE OF QUESTIONING, I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT WAS SO CONCERNED

ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THAT BOARD, THAT THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT, THAT WAS THE FIRST INSTANCE WHERE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAD EVER HEARD THE WORD PARIS’S MIKE, THAT’S AN IMPORTANT FACT TO NOTE FOR ALL OF YOU HERE TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE ASKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ADAM SCHIFF, AND I LISTED ALL OF THE INSTANCES OF THIS, ADAM SCHIFF INITIALLY IN SEPTEMBER SAID HE WAS ADAMANT ABOUT HEARING FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND IT ONLY CHANGED WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THERE WAS COORDINATION BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC STAFF AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER BEFORE THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINED WAS ISSUED >> LEBIH SAY TWO OTHER QUICK THINGS FIRST, I THOUGHT WE ARE IN THE PUBLIC STAGE OF THE SO-CALLED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, BUT YET HERE JUST A FEW MINUTES, WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE BUNKER IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL FOR ANOTHER DEPOSITION THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE WHAT THEY ALSO HAVEN’T SEEN, YET, ARE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEPOSED, WHICH MEANS UNDER HOUSE RULES, WE CANNOT USE THAT TESTIMONY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS WE WOULD LIKE TO USE PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY FROM MR. MORRISON AS AN EXAMPLE, AND THE OPEN HEARINGS. WE ARE PROHIBITED UNDER HOUSE RULES FROM DOING THAT. GREAT QUESTION FOR YOU ALL TO ASK MR. SCHIFF IS WHEN HE GOING TO RELEASE THOSE TRANSCRIPTS SO WE CAN ACTUALLY USE THAT INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS? >> ALL RIGHT, REPUBLICANS GIVING THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS. I FIND IT FASCINATING, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE CHOSEN CONGRESSMAN STEFANO TO BE SOMEONE OUT FRONT IN THIS PROCESS, SHE TOOK A ROLL ON WEDNESDAY BUT SHE ESPECIALLY TOOK A READING ROLE TODAY, WHICH MAKES SENSE IN TERMS OF OPTICS, A WOMAN BE ABLE TO INTERVIEW THIS AMBASSADOR, AND WE HAVE TO, YOU BEEN VERY CLEAR ON THIS AND TWITTER AND YOUR REPORTING THAT THE RULES GOING INTO THIS HEARING WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED, THAT IN THAT 45 MINUTE CHUNK WHERE THE CONGRESSWOMAN TRAGEDY CONTROL AND ASK HER OWN QUESTIONS, IT WAS SET UP SO THAT THE CHAIRMAN, THE RANKING MEMBER, AND COUNSEL. THAT’S THE RULES, CORRECT? >> YES, SHE DECIDE NOW, AS WE SAW TODAY, HE’S MAKING UP THE RULES AS HE GOES. I CAN’T SPEAK TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL INTERRUPTION SHE’S REFERRING TO, I THINK SHE SAID SIX OF THEM. BUT THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE WHERE SHE WAS TRYING TO GET TIME FROM DEVON NUNEZ DURING THE INITIAL 45 MINUTE PERIOD, WITH THE RANKING MEMBER IS EXPLICIT IN THE RULES THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHO CAN ASK QUESTIONS ARE THE RANKING MEMBER OR CHAIRMAN, OR A MEMBER OF THEIR STAFF. AGAIN, I THINK THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO PUT OUT THERE AS AN OPTICS THING. IT WAS KIND OF A STUNT THEY RAN. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK TO YOUR BROADER POINT OF HER BEING FRONT AND CENTER OF THIS HEARING, IT REMINDED ME A LITTLE BIT OF BACK IN THE BRETT KAVANAUGH HEARINGS, WHEN CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD WAS TESTIFYING, AND SUDDENLY REPUBLICANS REALIZED HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF OUR SIDE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS A MALE SENATOR. AND SO THEY CALLED AND A FEMALE COUNSEL TO ASK THE QUESTIONS OF BLASE FORD, AND I THINK IT WAS OBVIOUS IN THIS HEARING WHETHER WANTED HER TO BE OUT FRONT >> GREAT, YOU WROTE A BOOK. ONE MIGHT SAY YOU LITERALLY WROTE THE BOOK ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 IS CALLED THE APPRENTICE. I WANT TO GET YOUR TAKE ON THESE ALLEGATIONS BY A REPUBLICANS THAT UKRAINE MAY HAVE INTERVIEWED IN THE 26 ELECTION >> WELL, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND OF CONCERTED EFFORT INVOLVING THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN THE 26 ELECTION. IT WAS RUSSIA, THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT AMONG ANY REASONABLE FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT OR ADD HALOGENS OFFICIAL, IN THIS ADMINISTRATION, OR IN PREVIOUS AND ADMINISTRATIONS, WHAT THEY ARE CLINGING TO OUR THREADS OF ACTIVITY AROUND THE FRINGES OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING ACTIVITY HERE IN WASHINGTON. THEY ARE SO MINOR IN COMPARISON TO WHAT RUSSIA DID THAT TO TRY TO OBSCURE THIS MASSIVE, CONCERTED CAMPAIGN INVOLVING RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES BY POINTING TO, BY POINTING TO THESE FRAGMENTARY EPISODES ELSEWHERE, IT’S A HUGE MISDIRECTION, AND VERY CONFUSING TO THE PUBLIC >> I THINK THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN HER, BETWEEN YOVANOVITCH AND JIM JORDAN AT ONE POINT. IN WHICH JORDAN WAS TRYING TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT, BASICALLY, THAT THESE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PREFERRED HILLARY CLINTON TO DONALD TRUMP. AND, ISN’T THAT A SIGN THAT UKRAINE WAS IN THE BAG, AND THEY WERE DOING NEFARIOUS THINGS? AND YOVANOVITCH BASICALLY RESPONDED BY SAYING WELL, IT’S NOT UNUSUAL FOR FOREIGN POLITICIANS AND

OFFICIALS TO HAVE A PREFERENCE IN THESE RACES, OF COURSE THEY MIGHT SEE ONE POLITICIAN, RATHER THAN THE OTHER AS BEING GOOD FOR THE PURPOSES. AND THERE IS, IT’S TRUE THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS GENERALLY LIKED HILLARY CLINTON THEY WERE INVOLVED IN RELEASING THE PAUL MANAFORT BLACK LEDGER, WHICH WOUND UP BEING A VERY SIGNIFICANT THING. AND SO, THERE WAS SOME EGG ON THEIR FACE WHEN DONALD TRUMP WON THE PRESIDENCY AND THEY WANTED TO REPAIR THOSE RELATIONS. UKRAINE, MORE THAN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES, RELIES ON BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. THEY DO WANT TO ALIENATE ANYBODY. BUT TO ARGUE THAT’S THE SAME AS POTENTIAL COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA, OR SOME OF THE NEFARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE HAPPENED IN OUR ELECTION, IS NOT AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON >> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BE WATCHING FOR OVER THE NEXT WEEK, GRAY? >> I THINK NOW, YOU JUST HINTS THAT THE UPCOMING TESTIMONY OF GORDON SONDLAND, YEAH, THE U.S AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED OFFSCREEN TODAY WAS THE CONVICTION OF ROGER STONE ANOTHER OFFICIAL CONNECTED TO, ANOTHER ADVISER CONNECTED TO DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN IN 2016 WHO HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF INSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND LYING TO CONGRESS, INTIMIDATING WITNESSES AND SO ON. GORDON SONDLAND, YOU KNOW, I THINK HAS TO HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE HEADLINES ABOUT ROGER STONE TODAY, AND DONE A BIT OF A GULP, RIGHT? HIS TESTIMONY, AMONG ALL THE WITNESSES SO FAR AS THE MOST PROBLEMATIC, THE MOST INCOMPLETE. AND ARGUABLY, THE MOST INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING >> ROGER STONE, CONVICTED OF LYING TO CONGRESS >> CORRECT, RIGHT. EVEN AS, RIGHT. IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE HEARINGS >> THIS IS NOT AMATEUR HOUR, RIGHT? WHAT YOU SAY HERE HAS CONSEQUENCES >> ABSOLUTELY. AND GORDON SONDLAND HAS A LITTLE BIT OF A MESS TO TRY TO CLEAN UP NEXT WEDNESDAY >> TALK TO US MORE ABOUT THAT ERIN, LET’S GO INTO THE CLEANUP ON AISLE FIVE SITUATION, BECAUSE IT IS SIGNIFICANT >> BASICALLY, GORDON SONDLAND TESTIFIED BEFORE A LOT OF OTHER WITNESSES TESTIFIED, BASICALLY OTHER WITNESSES POINTED TO THIS JULY 10th MEETING, AND WHICH GORDON SONDLAND WAS TALKING TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, THIS WAS A MEETING WITH BOTH U.S. AND UKRAINE OFFICIALS, AND THESE WITNESSES SAID, ESSENTIALLY, GORDON SONDLAND STARTED TALKING ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS AND QUID PRO QUOS. THAT DID NOT APPEAR IN GORDON SONDLAND INITIAL TESTIMONY, HE ADDED THE CLARIFICATION THAT IT WAS RELEASED ON MONDAY OF LAST WEEK, ESSENTIALLY SAYING OH YEAH, NOW I REMEMBER THIS, THAT OTHER PEOPLE REMEMBERED, BASICALLY PROVING THE ENTIRE THING THEY WERE TRYING TO PROVE FROM THE BEGINNING, BUT I DID NOT REMEMBER IT INITIALLY. NOW I DO THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER THINGS IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT HAVE BEEN SEEMING TO BE OMITTED THAT HE DID NOT RECALL THINGS, MOST RECENTLY WE HEARD ON WEDNESDAY ABOUT THE JULY 26th CALL, THE DAY AFTER ZELENSKY CALLED, IN WHICH SOLOMON AND TRUMP WERE TALKING, AND ACCORDING TO A PERSON WHO OVERHEARD IT, TROUBLE TALKING ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, THAT ALSO DID NOT APPEAR IN GORDON SONDLAND INITIAL TESTIMONY. SO, I THINK THERE’S GOING TO BE NOT A A LOT OF PRESSURE ON HIM, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT ALSO A FUNDAMENTAL TRUST FACTOR, IS HE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS HEARING WITHOUT STEPPING IN IT AGAIN OR SAYING SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE >> AND MAY END UP WORKING AND REPUBLICAN’S FAVOR THAT HE HAS CHANGED HIS STORY, BECAUSE THEY CAN SAY HE’S NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS IN SOME WAYS. DEMOCRATS WILL BE HELPING TO PIN HIM DOWN ON AN ACCURATE TIMELINE OF WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHAT ROLE HE PLAYED, BEFORE WE LET YOU GUYS GO, I WANT YOU TO GIVE US A SENSE OF WHO ELSE YOU ARE WATCHING HERE, AND WHO REPUBLICANS MIGHT BE LOOKING TOO, AND DEMOCRATS MIGHT BE LOOKING TO AS MAJOR PLEASURE, WHO COULD EITHER BE A SCAPEGOAT, OR COULD BE INSTRUMENTAL AND HOW THIS THING UNFOLDED. HOW DO WE LOOK AT RUDY GIULIANI, HOW DO WE LOOK AT SOMEONE LIKE JOHN BOLTON, YOU’VE BEEN REPORTING ON HIM, HOW DOES HE ENTER THIS DRAMA ANYWAY THAT PROTECTS HIMSELF, WHAT IS HE THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW? >> IT’S A HUGE QUESTION. BECAUSE THERE ARE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COLLECTION OF WITNESSES, THE SLATE OF WITNESSES HEADING INTO NEXT WEEK IS FEW OF THEM, IF ANY, HAD MEANINGFUL INTERACTION WITH THE PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE THE RECORD OF THE PHONE CALL, YOU HAVE THIS OTHER CALL THAT HE MAKES TO GORDON SONDLAND THE DAY AFTER THAT CALL, BUT YOU DON’T HAVE A LOT OF WITNESSES AND TESTIMONY THAT IS GOING STRAIGHT INTO THE OVAL OFFICE OR SAYING OR DOING OR THINKING. AND SO, THOSE WITNESSES ARE NOT GOING TO APPEAR, IT DOESN’T SEEM, AT THIS STAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. OR POTENTIALLY EVEN BEFORE AN EVENTUAL SENATE TRIAL IF ONE COMES TO PASS. AND BOLTON’S POSITION AND THIS MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT

THAN ANY, BECAUSE HE IS ON THE ONE HAND, THE MOST HIGH-RANKING WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO, BY THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS, WAS THE MOST CONCERNED, OUTRAGED, AND ALARMED ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS UKRAINE. AND YET, HE HAS NOT DELIVERED ANY ASPECT OF HIS ACCOUNT. HE IS MUTE SO FAR ASIDE FROM SOME COMMENTS HE MADE IN A CLOSED-DOOR FUNDRAISER A WEEK AGO, BEFORE A GROUP OF BANKING OFFICIALS. SO, I MEAN, THE STORY IS NOT YET COMPLETE THE STORY ALREADY SEEMS SO WELL-DOCUMENTED, AND OVERWHELMING IN SOME RESPECT BUT THERE ARE WITNESSES WE HAVE YET TO HEAR FROM >> THE BIG ONE FOR ME, NEXT WEEK, IS GOING TO BE FIONA HILL WHETHER OR NOT BOLTON EVENTUALLY TESTIFIES, FIONA HILL WAS SOMEBODY WHO SERVED ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, SHE IS THE ONLY ONE, NEXT WEEK, WILL BE PARTICIPATING BY HERSELF. I HAVE TO THINK WHETHER THAT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION BY DEMOCRATS TO GIVE THAT STATEMENT HERSELF, A COMFORT LEVEL WITH THAT, AND THE PRESSURE THAT WOULD COME WITH IT, AND IF YOU LOOK AT HER DEPOSITION, SHE WAS WILLING TO STEP OUTSIDE OF JUST STATING THE FACTS AND APPLY SOME OF HER OWN ANALYSIS TO THESE THINGS, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE SAW NECESSARILY FROM TAYLOR AND KENT ON WEDNESDAY OR YOVANOVITCH TODAY. THEY WANT TO BE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, I THINK FIONA HILL COULD CRAFT MORE OF A NARRATIVE THAT DEMOCRATS COULD THEN USE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES >> SHE TESTIFIES NEXT THURSDAY AND WE WILL BE BRINGING THAT LIVE, GREG? >> I WAS THAT YOU ARE RIGHT ON FIONA. HER STORY IS INTERESTING A COUPLE WAYS. HER OWN PERSONAL LIFE AND EXPERIENCE IN SOME WAYS, THE REPUBLICANS WILL FACE A SIMILAR DYNAMIC WHAT THEY FACE TODAY WITH YOVANOVITCH. IN HER TESTIMONY, SHE TALKS ABOUT THE CONCERNS OF HOW WOMEN HAVE BEEN TREATED. WE WROTE A STORY EARLY IN HER TENURE, AT THIS WHITE HOUSE, WHERE TRUMP, HER FIRST MEETING WITH TRUMP. SHE ASSUMES SHE’S PART OF THE CLERICAL STAFF AND HANDS HER A PIECE OF PAPER AND ASKED HER TO TYPE IT UP, SHE IS A RENOWNED EXPERT ALSO, IF YOU LOOK AT HER WRITTEN, THE TESTIMONY THEY HAVE FOR HER, IT’S ALSO VERY GOOD IN A VERY PASSIONATE WAY. WHY IT’S ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BEYOND THE SORT OF THAT WE SOMETIMES GET CONCERNED WITH >> WE WILL STAY TUNED TO THE TESTIMONY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, GREG MILLER, AND AARON BLAKE, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND THANK YOU TO OUR VIEWERS FOR JOINING US. IF YOU’RE WATCHING US AT WASHINGTON POST.COM OR YOUTUBE OR TWICE, WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT, SO THAT YOU SO MUCH. WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK FOR A FULL SLATE OF IMPEACHMENT HEARING STARTING ON TUESDAY, AND ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT, AT 8 P.M. EASTERN TIME, WE WILL BE LIVE FROM ATLANTA THE WASHINGTON POST IS COHOSTING A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATE, SO PLEASE BE SURE TO DO SUBSCRIBE TO THE WASHINGTON POST WHEREVER YOU ARE WATCHING SO YOU DON’T MISS ANY NEWS OF THESE DEVELOPING STORES. SO MUCH, I’M LINDA DC