Collecting it, they were not passing it to you, they were passing it to State Department . Department of defense . This is what they reported to me. I have not seen the documents that have been collected. I only know those documents that i have produced or that my staff at my staff has brought to my attention or that i have received. So no, i do not know what has happened with the documents that have been collected. Same general question to you, sir. I requested it wants given access to documents that had originated or were sent to me for the pertinent matters of this investigation during a finite. Back. I dont have information about what is going on in terms of other documents that i did not produce or do not receive. There was a move to gather them, and i understood generally and directly and informally that they had been gathered. That is the extent of my knowledge. It is not my area of
responsibility. Yes, but did they pass them on to you or did they pass them on to the administration somehow . The only documents i received, sir, where those in the primaries i described that i requested. Which i was given where the documents that either i produced or that were sent to me relevant to the matters we are discussing today. Thank you, i yield back to the chairman. Ms. Stefanik. Think you two are witnesses for your service today. Ms. Cooper, i wanted to start with you. You spoke eloquently of the threats of russia when it illegally crimea, that is not only a threat to the ukraine, but the United States. I sit on the house arms committee. We know that the most important support for ukraine in terms of lethal defensive aide is javelins, would you agree with that . Yes, maam. What administration where those javelins made available to ukraine . This administration. The Trump Administration. A speak or not the Obama Administration . That is correct. Both of you, have you spoken to the new president about the ukraine aid . No, maam. No. You had no direct knowledge of any nefarious motivation to withhold aid to ukraine, correct . Correct. To your knowledge you testified that there were no Strings Attached to the aid, correct . That is page 184 of your deposition. I have no such knowledge. And more specifically you testified that you had no knowledge of ukraine aide being held up for investigation, is that correct . Correct. During the temporary hold of Security Insistence until ambassador taylor sent you the cable, you had never even heard the word burisma or biden, correct . Well, in the context of what we are testifying, correct. That was on page 86. And ultimately, the aide was
released to ukraine, correct . Yes, i read that. Lets talk about the context probably of this hold. You testified that it was not just ukraine, there were other countries who securities assistance was on hold the aid package to lebanon was also being held in the same fashion, correct . Correct. Aid from northern tribal countries from Central America . Central america. And when you were senator ambassador to pakistan, Security Assistance was held for their failure to conform to our concern regarding terrorist and other issues on the afghanpakistan border . Correct. Basically lets probably talk about the context of all of these holds on aid. When we talk about aide, i was think about, these are hard earned taxpayer dollars, would you agree with that . Absolutely. Isnt it correct that this
administration, the Trump Administration has been conducting a foreign Assistance Review to reestablish norms that guide the assistance as we provide aide overseas . That is correct. You testified that this review had been going on for quite a while in the administration did not want to take a business as usual approach to foreign assistance. A feeling that once a country receives an assistance package, it is something that continues forever. And you continued, the program had to be evaluated that they were actually were the beneficiaries of our assistance. That our program made sense. That we avoid nationbuilding, strategies and that we provide assistance to countries that are lost in terms of our policy to our office series. Is that correct . That is correct. You testified that you warmly welcomed this Assistance Review . Correct. And again, just to get this on record and for the million of americans viewing, Security Assistance was released to the ukraine, i know ive already asked this, but this is an
important point . Correct. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Sobol. Ms. Cooper, your testimony today destroys two of the pillars of the president s defense and one justification for his conduct. First pillar, no harm, no foul. The ukrainians did not know that to the hold was in place. So, it did not really hurt them. A second pillar, this president was a real champion of anticorruption. He cared about corruption in the ukraine. So i want to go through your new testimony today. It is your testimony now that after an employee came forward to you, you believe you have some evidence that the ukrainians first inquired about Security Assistance to someone in your office on july 25 of this year, is that right . That is correct. On july 25, also the day that President Trump officially
talked to president zelensky where the investigation of the bidens was brought up . I only know what was reported publicly. That was reported, correct . Correct. Second this president as a champion of anticorruption, your testimony is that on may 23, you certify that as far as it related to your duties, ukraine had met the Corruption Concerns for the aide to be released, is that right . Through the Defense Department certified. And after that date inexplicably, the president of the United States puts a hold on Security Assistance, is that right . That is what i heard in july, yes. This anticorruption president who cares so much about rooting out corruption in the ukraine, did he ever call you after you put the hold to say ms. Cooper, what is going on in ukraine . No, sir. Ambassador hale, did he ever call you to ask about an update on Ukraine Corruption . No, sir. To your knowledge did he ever call your Boss Secretary Pompeo . I dont know. Ms. Cooper, did he ever call the bosses that you have had at the Department Of Defense, the secretaries are Acting Secretaries . I dont know, sir. Now to the justification. The justification is that the Obama Administration only provide a blanket so that ukrainians should be grateful. Even after being shaken down that the Trump Administration provided more. But the truth, ms. Cooper, under the Obama Administration and the european reassurance initiative, 175 million were provided from u. S. Tax payer dollars to the ukrainians, is that correct . Sir, i do not have that figure. The figure we use is to provide a we have provided 1. 6 billion to date. I do not have the breakdown in front of me. The Obama Administration also
trained five literary battalions of the ukraines, is that correct . I do not have the figures in front of me, but yes, that Training Program began in the Obama Administration and we trained many forces. Under the Obama Administration founded the Security Initiative provided to the ukrainians were armored humvees, tactical drones, night vision devices, armored vests, and medical equipment, is that correct . Though sound like pieces of equipment that were provided in the Obama Administration to my recollection. You would agree that that is a lot more than blankets, right . Yes, sir. Ambassador hale, the aide that was withheld to lebanon and pakistan, those were for legitimate Foreign Policy objectives, is that right . I would say that is true. The assistance to pakistan. I have not heard an explanation for the current hold on the lebanese program. And you would agree that
withholding aid to investigate a political opponent is not a legitimate Foreign Policy objective, is that right . Correct. I guess we can agree that even bernie made off made charitable contributions, but does not make him a good guy. Ms. Cooper, your testimony today demonstrates the power of coming forward and defying lawless orders from the president. Because you came forward and testified, we learn this new information, which destroys a central depends that the republicans have put forward. Because ambassador taylor came forward, one of his employees learned this defense from the republicans that all we have is hearsay evidence. And mr. Holmes said, actually, i heard the president of the United States tell ambassador sondland, where are we with the investigations. Your courage has aided this
investigation despite the president s continued obstruction. I yield back. Thank you, chairman. Ambassador hale, you are in essence the number 3 guy at the State Department, is that correct . Correct. You represent roughly 70,000 folks . I will not say i represent them, and part of them. Are you part of a pretty fantastic work force that ive been proud to be able to serve alongside, we share missed time time time together and pakistan. So think them. I know that they oftentimes do not get the pads on the back or the accolades for what they do for a National Security, but there are some of us that do recognize that. And appreciate that. Did anybody raise issues to you or ambassador hale about investigations of bidens or
burisma . No, sir. Thank you. Ms. Cooper, you have a great staff. I dont think my staff wouldve read my 115 Page Deposition and gave me feedback. So give them gold stars. You said in your deposition, and confirmed for my colleague from california that to you started on 23 may, at the ukraine aid for the review of the department their defense in the industry of the Department Of Defense was corruption passed, is that correct . Sir, i think the wording was more along the lines of progress has been made or sufficient progress has been made. It did not reference any kind of anticorruption test per se. Did this change or was there a reevaluation with a new president coming in . Because president zelensky was inaugurated into office two days before that date, did that have
an impact on how he was going to continue some of those pieces . Was that taken into account in this review . Not prior to may 23rd. No, sir. So, the review was basically done by the previous portion of the administration . Yes, sir, but it is important to note that the review related most specifically to the ministry of defense. Sure, but there were ultimately changes under the zelensky regime, is that correct . Yes, sir, there is a new minister of defense. Can you explain, i know Foreign Military financing for State Department, can you explain the difference between fmf and uni funding and how the ukrainians get to lethal aid . Im sorry, could you repeat the last part, how the ukrainians actually got lethal aid, is that covered none under one of
these . There are three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the Ukrainian Armed forces. The first is the Foreign Military finance system, which is a State Department authority. And countries Around The World have this authority. That authority is used for some of the training and equipment. Theres also the ukraine Security Assistance initiative, that is a Dod Authority. Unlike the state authority, the Dod Authority is only a one year authority. And third, there is opportunity for defense sales. And that is something that we are working with the ukrainians on now so that they can actually purchase u. S. Equipment. But the javelins specifically was provided under fmf initially, and now the ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelins. And there was not a hold put
on purchasing of equipment, is that correct . Not to my understanding, no. Can i ask you a Nonimpeachment Inquiry Question, ms. Cooper . A nonwhite . A Nonimpeachment Inquiry Question . Sir, my time is yours. What are we doing to help the ukrainians defend against russian warfare . What more can we do to defend . What i can say in an open hearing is that there is some Electronic WarfareDetection Equipment that is included in the usi package. So there is a piece of capability that we are already working to provide them. I think this specific topic though is more suitable for a closeddoor session. That is a good copy. Thank you for both of your service to this country. And i yield back. Think you chairman, thank you for your testimony today. I want to make an important distinction, because a few of my colleagues have rattled off countries where we actually held up aid. There is a big distinction between holding up aid for a legitimate policy reason, and holding up aid because it is part of a shakedown. Because it is in the service of a president who asked for a political favor of a country to go investigate a political riv rival. I think that is important for us to note. And i want to ask you, ms. Cooper, you said that the money was cleared to go by the dod on may 23rd, is that right . That is correct. And it did not get released until September 11th . Yes, i should just clarify the second half of the ukraine Security Assistance initiative was notified to congress on, i believe it was may 23rd, and then there was a Waiting Period for congressional approval, and then after that point, sowing kind kind of midjune roughly it
was available. So perhaps 95 days or so, Something Like that . Yes, i do not have the calendar in front of me, but that sounds right. You both testified that the Security Assistance was not in the Security Interest of the United States. And the hold might embolden russia. We have heard the same from numerous other witnesses that have come before us. But this was not the only issue with the hold, right . We understand that people within the United States government have significant concerns about the legality of the hold as it relates to the control act. Because the money had been authorized by congress and signed into law by President Trump. Ms. Cooper, at the july meanings, where there any discussion of whether the hold could be implemented in a legal fashion . In the july 26 meeting, my leadership raised the question of how the president guidance
could be implemented, and proffered that perhaps a reprogramming action would be the way to do this. But that more research would need to be done. So then after that discussion, we had a lower level discussion at my level on the 31st of july. Let me ask you about the jul. Based on your conversations with colleagues at the dod. At the July 31st Interagency meeting, did you share your understanding of a legal mechanisms that were available at that time . Yes, sir. What were they . I expressed that it was my understanding that there were two ways that we would be able to implement president ial guidance to stop obligating the ukraine Security Assistance initiative. In the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. The second is a reprogramming action that the Department Of Defense would do. Both of those would require congressional notice . Yes. There would be an extra step
that the president would have to take to notify congress. As far as you know was there any other notice that was sent to congress . Sir, i did express that i believe that it will require notice to congress, and then that there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. As far as you know there was no rescission or reprogramming up that money . No, sir, not to my knowledge. Instead what happened omb devised an alternative solution including creative footnotes to implement the hold. There came a time in august when the Department Of Defense no longer supported these unusual footnotes because of concerns that they might not have sufficient time for dod to implement the funds before the end of the fiscal year in violation of the impoundment control act. So despite dods concerns midaugust about the impoundment control act, and ombs footnotes, the hold nevertheless continued through septembe September 11th, even after now as an aside, this is even after
the whistleblower had come forward, is that right . That is correct at the hold was released on September 11th, yes. I know i and many of us here share dods concerns about the legality of the hold. And i want to thank you, ms. Cooper, for foisting dods concerns to the white house and pursuing the National Security interests of the United States. I yield back. Chairman, ms. Cooper, based on the new emails that you mention in your opening and subsequent declarations by some of my democratic colleagues that those emails were evidence that the ukrainians were aware of a Military Hold on july 25th, there is now reporting out there saying that the pentagon official reveals ukrainians asked about stalled security a aid. It is being widely reported that
ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25th. That is not what i heard from you. Is that correct . Sir, my exact words were that one email said that the Ukrainian Embassy and the House Foreign Affairs committee are asking about Security Assistan assistance. Assistance, not hold. And then the second email was the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent, and so does the Ukrainian Embassy. Those are the exact words. And what do Security Assistance and fmf situations in these emails mean . I dont want to speculate on what it means. Right, they dont necessarily mean hold, correct . Not necessarily. Isnt it true that around the same time on b put a hold on 15 State Department and u. S. A. D. Accounts including fmf . I dont know that specific detail. But you cant say one way or another whether the increase in these emails were about the hold, is that fair . I cannot say for certain. And you cannot say one way or another whether the ukrainians knew about the hold before august 28th, 2019 when it was reported in politico, correct . I can just tell you that it is the recollection on my staff that they likely knew, but no, i do not have a certain data point to offer you. It is not unusual, is it, ms. Cooper, for Foreign Countries to inquire about foreign aid that they are expecting from the United States, is it . Sir, in my experience with the ukrainians, they typically would call about specific things. Not just generally checking in on their assistance package. Are you aware that
president zelensky on octobe october 10th, in response to more than 300 reporters over the course of the afternoon stated that he was not aware and had no knowledge of a hold on Security Assistance during the time of july 25th phone call with President Trump . I believe i saw that media reporting. Yes. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think you both for being here this evening. Ambassador hale. Last week the country watched as President Trump attacked and intimidated your colleague. He attempted to intimidate your colleague, ambassador yovanovitch, who is of course a witness to this proceeding. And subsequently secretary pompeo declined to condemn that attack. Bluntly put, i think secretary
pompeos silence is nothing less than a betrayal of the Men And Women whom he swore an oath to lead. And it is a betrayal that has longterm consequences to attracting and retaining workforce to their morale, to their effectiveness, and to their overall strength. So, ambassador hale, i want to give you an opportunity to now do what secretary pompeo did not do. Either in March Of 2019 when the Vicious Smear Campaign kind of got kicked into high gear. And you sir, rightfully pressed for a strong statement in support of her. Or last week when the president and his son attacked her again. I am offering you the opportunity to reaffirm to this committee and the million Millif Americans who are watching that
Marie Yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriots, and that she served with grace and dignity even in the face of that orchestrated an unsubstantiated smear attack against her. Ambassador hale . I am giving you the opportunity to demonstrate leadership. I am giving you the opportunity to send a clear and resounding message to the Men And Women who serve in dangerous foreign posts throughout the globe thats what happened to Marie Yovanovitch was wrong. Ambassador hale, the floor is yours. Thank you, congressman. Excuse me, i can endorse entirely your description of ambassador yovanovitch. I only met her when i took this job. But immediately i understood that we had an exceptional officer doing exceptional work. At a very critical embassy in
kiev. And during my visits to kiev, i was impressed with what she was doing there to the extend that i asked her if she would be willing to stay if there was a possibility because we had a gap coming up. I support and believe in the institution and the people of the State Department paradigm one of them. I have been for 35 years. All of us are committed to americas National Security, and we have the best group of diplomats all over the world. That refers to all State Officers who have testified before this committee. If i may, i would like to read a letter that the undersecretary for management wrote on novembeg member of the Senate ForeignRelations Committee in response to a communication from him. A number of Department Employees have testified before the House Of Representatives during its inquiry regarding ukraine. No employee has faced any adverse action by the department for testimony before congress on this matter. The department will not discipline any Department Employee for appearing before congress in response to a subpoena. The department has also proactively established a program to provide financial
assistance for the respective private Counsel Legal fees incurred by Department Employees. There is additional information, but that is the essence of the message. Ambassador hale, are you therefore saying Marie Yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriots . I endorse what you say exactly. And she served with grace and dignity in the face of the Smear Campaign . Yes, she did. And the what happened to her was wrong . I believe she should have been able to stay at post and do the outstanding work. And what happened to her was wrong . Thats right. Thank you, sir. Thank you for clarifying the record. Because i was not sure where was that she could go to set the record straight. If it was not you, sir. Or where she could go to get her good name and reputation back if it was not you, sir. Indeed, i want to encourage you in the strongest terms possible, stand your ground. Americas security and strength and prosperity is predicated in no small part on the
professionalism of our Foreign Services corps. And they need to know that you as the highest ranking professional diplomat in the entire State Department have their back, sir. Thank you for having ambassador yovanovitchs back this evening. And with that, mr. Terra, i yield back. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Cooper, who, why did the office of Management Budget put a hold on the funds . Sir, the only information that i have received was from the Office Of Management And Budget that they were operating at the direction of the president , and they reported that he had concerns about corruption. That is all that i you put that in your testimony. President directed the Office Budget management to hold the funds because of his concerns about corruption in ukraine. Fairly legitimate reason, do you agree . That is the statement that the president reportedly made as reported to me by the Office Of Management And Budget. And then youre setting your testimony that based on recommendations for me and other Community Advisors the Department Of Defense in coordination with the Department Of State Certified and made 2019 that ukraine had taken steps necessary and you certified the release of the dollars, is that correct . That is correct, sir. There was a small change in ukraine in the spring of 2019, wasnt there . Yes, sir. Yeah, can you elaborate on what that change was . The government of well, president zelensky was elected to government. Yeah, you have a brandnew guy coming in. In fact, he had just been, i believe sworn in the day you approved the dollars. Was in may 23rd . I think he was sworn in, i guess it was a couple of days before. But there is sort of a change in circumstances that it seems we warned at least may a second look. And thats exactly what played out. For a short time. Less than two months. 55 days, our government evaluated the new situation pretty radical change. You have a new government. In fact, the previous one, we have heard all kinds of things from the democrats about the Prosecutor General in the poroshenko regime, mr. Lutsenko and how bad he was. So it took a little while for that all to happen. New president is sworn in. Two months later the new Congress Comes in and takes them a while, not until september. September 5th that they get rid of the prosecutor and just a few days later the aid actually gets released. But the democrats have all other kinds of things they want to talk about. But the way this played out to me seems as logical as you can do it. And particularly, when you put it into a broader framework of where this president is on concern about foreign aid, his deeprooted concern and the Corruption Issue in ukraine, the experience that he had with high ranking ukrainian officials criticizing him in supporting Secretary Clinton in the 2016 election, put all of that together, sort of shows why it played out the way it did. That i would yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Welch. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary hale, i want to go back to your support and affirmation of ambassador yovanovitch. What i understand, and by the way, thank you for that. Our military leaves nobody, no soldier on the battlefield, and i think those who are in
leadership positions in the State Department and the Intelligence Community have that bond of loyalty to each other. And it is very reassuring that you represent that. You first as i understand it. Information about her situation in march, by early march, secretary pompeo had mentioned that sometime in the fall he received a letter from a foreign member of congress with complaints about the ambassador, correct . Correct. That a member of congress was . Congressman sessions. Did you see that there was any basis to the claims of disloyalty . No, i did not, nor did the secretary of state. You visited kiev and you discussed extending ambassador yovanovitchs term to remain at her post, right . It was a personal idea of mine, yes. Obviously an indication that he valued her to continue service they are. And you also stated to the
ukrainian press that ambassador yovanovitch represents the president of the United States here, in the ukraine and America Stands behind her statement obviously giving her some public support, correct . Correct. And yet, weeks later the president and mr. What can only be characterized as an ugly Smear Campaign to oust her, what was your reaction to the News Articles in late march in which a Corrupt Ukrainian Official attacked the ambassador . We were concerned, we sent out a statement that they were a complete fabrication. And we began to discuss what we could do to combat the matter. And the problems continued for ambassador yovanovitch. As i understand, she emailed to you on march 24th and indicated that the temple of social media and other criticisms were such that she felt she could no longer function unless there was a strong statement of defense of her from the State Department. Is that correct . Correct. And this message and secretary pompeo was aware of her situation. Is that correct . Yes, i briefed him in the next day. He is the ultimate authority that could issue that statement of support, correct . Correct. But he never, ever did issue a statement, right . We did not issue a statement at that time. But in fact, you testified around the same time that the secretary did not render assistance to a long serving and highly respected ambassador, he made two phone calls to Rudy Giuliani. Is that right . That is correct that i have seen a record that he made those phone calls. One on march 20th, and the next day on march 29th. I saw the record of that, yes. We dont know what he said to Rudy Giuliani, but we have a
pretty good idea what Rudy Giuliani said to him. Get rid of yovanovitch. She was gone and the statement never came forward, right . Correct. When she was recalled and wanted to find out what happened, secretary pompeo would not meet with her . I was out of the country at the time. I cannot comment on that. And mr. Backfield who is next in line did not meet with her . I dont know this. When it came time for you to give her the news . Went to the deborah a deputy secretary. It would be interesting if we could have secretary pompeo be here to tell us what his conversations were with Rudy Giuliani, the person who was fomenting the discontent about ambassador who is fighting corruption. I want to thank you and i want to thank ms. Cooper for your service. Ms. Maloney. Well, ms. Cooper, secretary hale. Ms. Cooper, thank you for working late on a wednesday, i think the last time we attempted to hear your testimony, the republicans were good enough to bring pizza down to the scif. Kidding aside, i know we detained you for five hours that day. So on behalf of the committee, thank you for your forbearance. We appreciate your patience with us. Quick question, for you and i think one question for you, secretary hale, ms. Cooper, was the dod able to put all of the Security Assistant funds in contract before the end of the fiscal year . No, sir. How much were they not able to obligate, what was left on obligated . I believe the figure was 35 million, we were able to actually obligate 88 total. I think you mentioned you were able because of
legislation, congress passed, continuing legislation to do that, right . The remainder we were in the process of obligating, because of the provision in the continuing resolution. But for the act of congress, you could not have spent all the money . If we did not receive the provision in the continuing resolution, we would have obligated 88 , but not the full amount. Which of course would be a violation of law to not spend money that congress procreated . Sir, i am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding. Sure. Thank you. Secretary hale, where were you born . Ann arbor, michigan. Is your family from ireland . Am i right about that . No, sir. Im sorry, strike it. Another question. With respect to secretary
yovanovitch, you served as ambassador to i believe three countries . Correct. Jordan . Jordan, lebanon, pakistan. What were while you were ambassador, did anyone ask you to issue a support praising personally to the president of the United States . No. How would you view such a request . It would depend on the situation, sir. Say you went to someone and you are having problem with your job and you said, how can i do better, and they said you should publish something flattering to him, with that strike you as unusual . Yes. If somebody told you to go big or go home, with that change your mind . I dont quite understand thats one ambassador yovanovitch was treated to when she went to ambassador sondland seeking advice. And she declined to do so. I believe that she said it would strike her as too political. As i consistent with the approach you might take . I thought that sounds sensible, yes. Thank you, i yield the remainder of the time back to the chairman. Thank you both for being here. Ambassador hale, ms. Cooper, thank you both for being with us. Just a quick question before i get into some questions about ambassador sondland, who we heard from today. I want to ask both of you, if President Trump withheld Critical Military aid from ukraine because highranking officials supported the president s political opponent, would you consider that an official acceptable appropriate action by the president of the United States . Ambassador hale. It is not what i would
advise. Ms. Cooper . No, that does not sound appropriate. Ambassador hale, you testified that you were aware that ambassador sondland was involving himself in matters that, and i quote went beyond the normal writ of an ambassador to the European Union. As you understood it, who authorized ambassador sondland to work on ukraine . I have no firsthand knowledge of that. I received a readout from a meeting that the president of the United States had with the delegation on may 23rd. In which the briefing i received anyway indicated that the president wanted the members of the delegation, which included ambassador solomon to Carry Forward the policies set in that meeting. That incurred in a meeting in the oval office on may 23rd where you heard that information from the readout to . A written readout, yes. You testified that, and i quote it was clear that the members of the inaugural delegation were empowered by the president. You also said, and i quote as a practical matter, it would be Ambassador Volker and ambassador sondland presumably working with taylor who would be the ones really doing the continual effort here. Or did you understand that ambassador sondland had direct access to the president . In the few occasions where id conversations with ambassador sondland, he often would let it know that he was in direct contact with the president. Thats all i knew. You receive that information directly from ambassador sondland that he had direct contact with the president . In previous occasions, not related to this particular matter. Is there anything about ambassador sondlands role that struck you as problematic . Based on what i knew at the time, i was satisfied that this
delegation was what the president wanted to have continued to pursue these policies. And i saw that Ambassador Volker who was an ambassador of distinction, and in Ukrainian Affairs was a part of that group that i had no concerns. What you knew at that time, you were okay with his role. But did your opinion change . About his appropriateness of his role . As i testified, i was not aware of these various activities related to negotiations over investigatio investigations, preconditions related to that, i just was not aware of it. So i in no reason to be making any kind of judgment one way or another. Have you reviewed the Text Messages between ambassador sondland and volker . Ive seen some reported in the media. Were you surprised by any of the messages that you heard
reported or personally witnessed or observed . I was surprised by what i saw on those reports in the media. I want to ensure that i understand your testimony, ambassador hale. You believed ambassador sondland was empowered by the president according to what you found out from the May 23rd Meeting to work on ukraine policy and you said none of that really struck you as problematic because of the time differences of what you knew, is that correct . Based on when i knew, thats correct. Okay, you are the undersecretary for political affairs. You testified that in that capacity you are responsible for the management of the United States bilateral relations with and i quote every country in the world that we recognize for the management of our policies towards those countries as well as our relationships or policies as they relate to multilateral organizations, that includes u. S. Policy and relations with
ukraine. Does, but when we have a Special Envoy a report directly to the secretary with a Special Envoy will take a daytoday responsibility. How about u. S. Policy in relation with the European Union . Yes, i am. But you were not aware fully of ambassador sondlands activities on behalf of President Trump . That is correct. Thank you, mr. Chair, i yield back. Good evening, thank you so much for being here. Undersecretary hale, you and your colleagues testified that you gathered official records at the State Department with the understanding that they would be provided to congress, right . I was not involved in the decisionmaking, i have no decisions related to gathering documents. I understood that it was underway. And i certainly receive the
documents that i described earlier. I see. In terms of the materials that were collected, do they include electronic files and emails, for instance . I can only speak to the documents that were made available to me and it did include emails. And paper documents . And paper documents. Would Tape Recordings be among the files gathered . I really could not speculate. But you cant rule out that possibility . I dont know if Tape Recordings, but i cannot really comment on that. Are you familiar with from whom the documents have been collected . The individual custodians . I dont know that, sir. You are aware despite a duly authorized subpoena has been served on the State Department, we have yet to receive even a single document, correct . I understand that, yes. Ms. Cooper, in the interagency process, did anyone in any committee potentially bring up the lack of allied funding as a reason for why there should be a hold on Military Assistance to the ukraine . I can only speak to the three meetings that i attended the pcc, psg, and then pcc. And i have no for election on the Allied Burden Sharing coming up at that point. I did provide information in my deposition about what i thought was a completely separate query that i received in midjune from the secretary of defenses front office. And one of the questions there asked a question about the degree to which allies were contributing to ukraine Security Assistance, just to be very clear. Okay, but after the hold was
put in place on july 18th, you have not heard any concerns about a lack of allied funding as a reason for why the hold should be in place . In those meetings that i attended, i did not hear that or i do not recall hearing that. As a reason. The only reason that i heard was the president s use on corruption. No further information. Same question to you, secretary hale. Could you repeat the question. I assume you did not hear about the lack of allied funding as a reason for the hold, but being put in place on july 18th . No, i never heard a reason for the hold. I assume neither of you heard any reason whatsoever for why the hold was in place except for the fact that omb put it in place at the direction of the president , right . That is correct. And i assume, one of my colleagues brought up the idea that the hold was put in place to assess whether or not president zelensky was legit. I assume that was not a reason
that was offered either . No, i never heard that as a reason. No, i heard no reason. Undersecretary hale, what is the importance of the world leader having a meeting at the white house . Well, really it is casebycase. But particularly for a new leader, it is an extremely important opportunity to demonstrate the strength of our relationship for building up that relationship at a personal level, leadership level to demonstrate common goals. How about in the case of president zelensky . How important was it for him to have this meeting at a white house with President Trump . I never talk to president zelensky about that myself. I met him before he became president. I met with president poroshenko and the two leading candidates. But as an expert on these matters, is it fair to say that a new World Leaders such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house with President Trump is extremely important for his image that he
projects, especially towards folks like russia . Well, an Oval Office Meeting is incredibly valuable for any foreign leader. Let me just take that general principle. For a ukrainian president , it is indeed what you just said. It demonstrates that the bond between the United States and ukraine is strong. And that there is continuity in our policies and that we will continue to Work Together in our policy goals include encountering iran, russian aggression and intimidation of ukraine. Thank you so much. I yield back. That concludes the member questioning. Mr. Nunez, do you have any concluding remarks . I think the gentleman. What we learn from democrats Impeachment Inquiry . They promised the country a fair hearing, what have they delivered . Impeachment version of three card monte. A notorious short ton card trick where the market, in this case
President Trump and the American Public stands no chance of winning. Democrats promise that whistleblowers testimony, and in fact they told us that we need to speak with the whistleblower. And then we learned that the whistleblower coordinated with the democrat staff before alerting the Intelligence Community inspector general. To hide their con the democrats pound the table and gaslight the country telling us that the whistleblower is entitled to an imaginary statutory right of anonymity. They accused us of trying to out the whistleblower knowing that they are the only ones who know who he is. They say that if the facts are against few argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. And if both are against you, pound the table and you like hell. It seems that law school these days, teaching their students a fourth tact it. If the facts and the law are against you, simply rig the game, and hope your audience is
too stupid to catch your duplicity. This is not an Impeachment Inquiry. Its an impeachment inquisition. And in the middle ages, the inquisitor was free to act on his own and bring suit against any person who is even vaguely the subject of the lowest rumor. And the accused was denied any right to confront their accusers. Incredibly, or maybe not so much given the democrats track record, and inquisition victim had more rights than the democrats are giving the president after all, Inquisition Victims have the right to know their accusers name. For those of you at home, time for you to change the channel, turn down the volume, or hide the kids, put them to bed. I yield to mr. Schiff for story time power. I think the gentleman as always for his remarks. I will be brief this evening. It has been a long day and i said most of what i wanted to stay earlier in the day. But i wanted to end this evening and first of all, thank you both for your testimony and yearlong service to the country. We are grateful that you answer the lawful process of a congressional subpoena. I wanted to share a few reflections on two words that have come up a lot in the course of these hearings. And those words are corruption and anticorruption. We are supposed to believe, i imagine, listening to my colleagues that donald trump is a great anticorruption fighter. That his only concern about ukraine was that it would fight corruption. But lets look at that argument, lets look at the president s words and lets look at his
deeds. Ambassador yovanovitch was an anticorruption champion. No one has contradicted that, that has come forward to testify here. She was a champion. And on the days she is at a meeting acknowledging in ukraine and other anticorruption champion, a woman who had acid thrown in her face and died a painful death after months, she is called back to washington because of a vicious spear campaign by the president s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani among others. She is recalled. That is not anticorruption. That is corruption. And one of the people responsible for this Smear Campaign in addition to mr. Mr. Giuliani, and it is a long and sordid list of those who were involved is a man name
lutsenko. To someone who the minorities own witness acknowledges has a poor reputation as a selfservig and corrupt. And what do we see about mr. Lutsenko and his predecess predecessor . What does the president have to say about one of these corrupt former prosecutors . He praises them he says they were treated very unfairly that is not anticorruption, that is corruption. And when ambassador sondland testified today that there was unquestionably a quid pro quo and everybody knew it, conditioning a white house meeting that ukraine desperately wanted to show, his friend and foe that had support of the new
president of the United States when that was conditioned, that official act was conditioned on the receipt of things of value to the president , political investigations. That was not anticorruption, that was corruption. And when ambassador sondland testified today that he could put two and two together, and so can we that there was also a quid pro quo in the military aid, that aid was not going to be released unless they did a Public Statement. Ukraine did a Public Statement of the political investigations, the president wanted, that is not anticorruption, that is corruption and lets look at the president s words on that phone call, the infamous phone call on july 25th, does he ask the president zelensky, how is that reform coming . What are you doing to root out corruption . What about that new Anticorruption Court . Of course not. Of course not. Are we willing to believe that
that was his priority . No. What does he ask . I want you to do this favor. Investigate this crazy 2016 Server Conspiracy that the server is somewhere in ukraine. More ominously, Investigat Inves be the bidens. That is not anticorruption. That is corruption. And when he is on the phone to ambassador sondland in that outdoor restaurant in kiev, what does he want to know about . Does he want to know how zelensky is going to fight corruption . Of course not the only thing he brings up in that call is the investigation that he wants into the bidens. That is not anticorruption. That is corruption. Every now and then there is a conversation that really says all you need to know, and
sometimes it does not seem all that significant, but i will tell you, this one really struck me. And it was a conversation that Ambassador Volker related in his testimony. And it is a conversation just this past september when he was talking to yermak, top advisor to president zelensky, and advising him as indeed he should. You know, you may not want to go through with an investigation or prosecution of former president poroshenko. Engaging in political investigations is really not a good idea. And you know what yermak says . Oh, you mean like you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons . Well, there is a word for that too. It is not corruption or anticorruption, it is called hypocrisy. And this is the problem here. We do have an anticorruption policy Around The World. And the great Men And Women in your department Under Secretary hale and in your department, ms. Cooper, they carry that message Around The World. That the United States is devoted to the rule of law. But when they see a president of the United States who is not devoted to the rule of law, who is not devoted to anticorruption, but instead demonstrates in word and deed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves, what does America Stand for anymore . That concludes this evenings hearing. I will ask the witness is to excuse themselves. Members should remain. We have a Business Matter to take up. So with that day for is in the books of the impeachment hearing. That was chairman adam schiff coming down on the side of anticorruption, joining me now, byron york, chief correspondent of the washington examiner, we just have a minute and a half or so, but pontificating on corruption, and corruption, what you think. It was the most dramatic day we have seen so far at these hearings, but it changed dramatically itself during the middle of the day. Everybody got extremely excited about ambassador sondlands Opening Statement, a long Opening Statement where he said they definitely had a quid pro quo, and President Trump directed it. After questioning by republicans it appeared that a lot of ambassador solomon statements which appeared to be statements of fact or as a matter of fact, what he presumed there were assumptions that he had made, and it became much less of a
story after that. The last two witnesses we got tonight did not have a whole lot to say, we learned a few interested details about the foreign aid to ukraine paired but they did not add anything. Martha what about the time issue that was brought up by laura cooper . Should she says the ukrainians were reaching out, where is our aid on the same day as the phone call that President Trump had with the president . She is the only person to bring that up. And we got more about these emails, they did not come from the State Department. What was going on, but she is really the only person to bring that up. Republicans tried to raise him questions about whether that was referring to the aid martha byron, thank you very much. On the other with, we get underway, the final witnesses the story. It we will hear from fiona hill, and she can put a bow on some of what we have seen. If we will doing live coverage starting tomorrow morning at