would not be admissible whatsoever. yes, sir. because the concern is not but i understand you deal in words of understanding, words of just how ukrainian businesses beliefs and feelings because in your inprofession, that s what u run are being operated, it s work with t to try to pull alsoat concerns about how the together policy and to go in and out of meetings to try to ukrainian government is dealing formulatein opinions that affec with american businessesn tryi to operate in ukraine, is that otherha people s decisionmaking. accurate? american businesses are very ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting with the concerned about the judicial system in particular, yes, sir. i yield back my time. the president or prime minister of a country? or you were told one thing what mr. castro. thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today and for the meeting would be about or your service to our country. the meeting be about a different listening to all the evidence,
we haveem not received one piece of paper from the state in fact, historically, is it department relative to this investigation. both of you have made compelling cases of the importance of ukraine. to europe, to the 70 years of peace, the benefit that it has to the united states national security. and our goal to continue to support sovereignty of nations. meanwhile, russia is violently attacking people in ukraine donbass area. does that weaken ukraine? i think it sends the wrong signal and it did for a short period of time. again, the the assistance from the fy 19 was released and is in the process of heading towards ukraine. does it embolden russia when there was no aid being sent to
for the americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following. number one. ukraine received the aid. number two, there was, in fact, no investigation into biden. mr. kent and ambassador taylor, you both spoke eloquently and passionately about the need to support ukraine to counterrussian aggression, particularly during this very critical patime. i agree with you in that assessment. and isn t it the case that the trump administration has indeed provided substantial aid to ukraine in the form of defense of lethal aid, correct? that is correct. that is more so than the obama administration, correct? correct. the defensive lethal aid? enyes. in the transcript of the president s july 25th call with president zelensky, he tells trump they are ready to buy more j javelins. this is the most effective weapon in fighting armor tanks,
ukraine to help them overcome a recognized for five minutes. ve thank you, mr. chairman. thank you,mr both, for your tru legacy of corruption in creating new institutions and much of what we ve been discussing w heroic efforts both today and today, which involved in a also throughout your careers. regular channel, was a request i would like to start with you that went against u.s. policy mr. kent. in your testimony, you said that that have have undermined the rule of law and our long-standing policy goals in ukraine, as in other countries you had in mid-august became in the post-soviet space. those policies which were clear to me that giuliani s indeed championed by ambassador efforts politically motivated yovanovitch. you also testified on october investigations were nowy 15th in the deposition about infecting u.s. engagement with fundamental reforms necessary ukraine, leveraging president for ukraine to fight corruption zelensky s desire for a white and to transform the country.
issue this statement in early august? not the written statement, no, sir. the entire concern about the twoab investigation president trump wanted was done in what you have described as an irregular channel involving ambassador sondland and volker, isn t that correct, mr. kent? that would be my understanding. ambassador? thede same. and i guess to close on meca needs reminded that countless people have been convicted on created ecause the courts have needed exceptions to hearsay. hearsay can be much better evidence than direct as we have learned in painful instances and it s certainly valid in this instance. will gentleman yield because none of those exceptions would apply to this testimony? not the time for.