Committee. This seems more appropriate for the subcommittee on Human Resources at the Foreign Affairs committee, if theres issues with implement, disagree was with the administration it would seem like it would be more appropriate setting instead of at impeachment hearing where the ambassador is not a material fact witness to anything, any of the accusations that are being hurled at the president for this impeachment inquiry. I have several questions i think, mr. Castor wants to get to. I know ms. Stefanik him give a few quick question for the ambassador. Yield to you, ms. Stefanik. Thank you, mr. Nunes. Ambassador yovanovitch, the gentlewoman will suspend. What is the interruption for this time . It is our time. You are not recognized. Mr. Nunes, you are i just recognize under 660 youre not allowed deal time except to spin is the Ranking Member yield a time to another thats not accurate. That is accurate. Ambassador yovanovitch, i want to thank you for being here today. You are not recognized. This is the fifth time you have interrupted members of duly speedy congresswoman will suspend. We control the time, and customary of this committee where controls the time can yield to wherever they wish. If we have members of congress to ask a few questions, it seems appropriate that we be able to let ms. Stefanik ask your questions. Mr. Nunes, you or my Nordic Council are recognized. All right. Mr. Castor, you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Nunes. Ambassador, welcome. I want to thank you for your service, 33 years, and extraordinary career. It really has been a remarkable tenure for you at the state department. I would like to thank you for participating here today. This is a crazy environment, this hearing room has turned into a Television Studio but before today you spent on friday the 11th you are with us for early in the morning until i believe it was it oclock at night. People missed trains back to new york and it was a complete, very complete day, so thank you. You were serving a threeyear assignment in the ukraine, is that correct . Yes. And to begin in the 2016 and was scheduled to end in 2019 . Yes, thats correct. And nobody disputes that except for the president to decide who his envoy are two posts around the world, correct . I stated that clearly in my statement. And you returned from the ukraine on may 20, 2019 . Thats correct. Your return coincided with the inauguration of president zelensky . Yes. And you remain employed by the state department . I do. And after you returned to washington and deputy secretary John Sullivan asked you what you wanted to do next, is that correct . Yes, thats correct. Then you met with the director general, ambassador perez . Yes, thats correct. Did you identify a meaningful new assignment . Yes. And you now serve in Georgetown University as a fellow . Thats true. This this is a rewarding posn for you . Yes. Im very grateful to be in the position after what happened. Today is the second big hearing for the democrats impeachment initiative. We understand that you dont have a lot of facts and information relating to the part of this that we are investigating, and those of those event for may 20 up until september 11 released Security Assistance, is that correct . Yes, thats correct. So you were not part of the delegation to the inauguration, the day you return. You are not part of the Oval Office Meeting may 23, correct . Yes, thats correct. And you are not part of the decisionmaking relating to whether there would be a a whie has me with president zelensky . Thats correct. And you were not a part of any decisionmaking in the lead up to the july 25 call . Thats correct. And you first learned about the call on september 25, is that correct . Well, i heard about the call, as indicated in the first deposition, from Deputy Assistant secretary george kent. What did he tell you about the call . Well, as it turns out it wasnt 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 into investigations and that president zelensky had said that he is putting in a new prosecutor general and that he doesnt control it. I mean, this is approximately what he said. That person is an independent individual. You learned about that before the call was made public . Thats correct. Likewise you were not involved in any discussion surrounding the Security Sector assistance to ukraine . They were pause for about 55 dates of july 18, to september 11 . [inaudible] in your Opening Statement on page nine, you stated although then and now ive always understood that a stir at the pleasure of the president. I still find it difficult to comprehend that for a private entity were able to put them in use interest in. Individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stages policy against corruption, that is to do the mission, were able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels. Do you believe that President Trump was aiming to weaponized corruption in ukraine by removing you . I dont know that. Do you believe your removal was some part of scheme to make it easier for elements of the ukrainian establishment to do things counter to u. S. Interests . I think thats certainly what the ukrainian establishment hoped. I think that in addition there were americans, these two individuals who are working with mayor giuliani, mr. Pardus and mr. Fruman who have recently been indicted by the Southern District of new york, who indicated that they wanted to change up the ambassador. Think they mustve at some reason for that. And to think they were seeking a different type of ambassador that would allow them to achieve some of their objectives . I dont know what other reason there would be. Okay. Is ambassador taylor the type of person who would facilitate those objectives . No. So basilar tip is a man of High Integrity . Absolutely. Hes a good pick for the post . He is. I would note that he is that charge a out there. So no masochist yet or no candidate has yet been named to the position. But he certainly has had a decorated career serving his country . Absolutely. A man with the highest integrit integrity. You testified about when you first learned that mayor giuliani and some of his you testified about when you learned mayor giuliani and some of his associates had a Concerted Campaign against you, when did that first come to your attention . We were picking up rumors from ukrainians. I think kind of in the novemberdecember 2018 time period, but then in january, february, and of course march, it became more obvious. At some point i believe you testified that minister ibakov alerted you to this campaign. Yes. When was that . He had he had a conversation with me in february of 2019. Ok. Do you remember what he related to you . Yes. He said that they were working with mayor giuliani through these two individuals, mr. Parnov and from freeman, that they basically wanted to remove me from post. Working on y were that did you have any awareness at that point in time of precisely why they were seeking your ouster . You know, i didnt understand that at all because i had never freeman, rnov and mr. So it was unclear to me why they were interested in doing this. Were you especially influential implementing policies that symied their interest in ukraine . Were advocating for for some sort of environment or policy that would be adverse to them . I think that just the general idea that obviously u. S. Ambassadors, u. S. Embassies, one of our most important functions is to facilitate u. S. Business abroad, whether its trade, whether its commerce, thats things we do but everything has to be above board. We believe in a level playing ground but we obviously advocate for u. S. Business. These two individuals, you know, hindsight, what we learned later, looking to open up a new energy company, exporting , ional ral 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, see how we can provide assistance. Was that source of frustration ever expressed to you or did you learn that separately. Source of frustration on whose part . Freeman and parvos. I dont know that they were frustrated. Frustrated by what . You mentioned they had business interests. I asked whether they had been stymy by anything in particular you had advocated for or you were a roadblock to them being successful and i wondered if there was any connection. I had never met them. When i heard those names for the first time, this was in which was in february of 2019, i asked my team, the econ and commercial sections are the ones who would usually meet with American Business men and women and no one had heard of them. So all i could conclude was it was the general u. S. Policies that we were implementing that might have been a concern of them. At any point did you try to reach out to the prosecutor general, mr. Lusenko, and find out why he was participating in this campaign . No. Why didnt you do that . I didnt feel there was any purpose to it. Why not . I e is he clearly had an animus, he was working with americans, so i reached out to the american side, in this case, the state department, to try to find out what was going on. When did did you first realize your relationship with lusenko had reached an adversarial point . Probably around that time. Maybe a little earlier. And this is march . Yeah. And adversarial, thats 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 tombings do what they said they were going to do when mr. Lusenko entered office that he was going to clean up the p. G. O. And make reform, that was going to bring justice to the heavenly hundred, the people who died in 2016 2014, the revolution of dignity, and he was going to prosecute cases to repatriate the 40, approximately 40 billion its lieved that former president yanukoviych fled the country with. He didnt do any of that we kept on trying to encourage him to do the right thing. Thats what the ukrainian people wanted him to do, we thought it was a good plan and he should do it. And then you mentioned you contacted the state department in late march, is that under secretary hale . Contacted about what . About the concerns you had about the campaign against you. I contacted the state department, much earlier than that. It was ongoing sort of discussion makes it sound very formal. We have many ways of going back and forth with washington and o, you know, on phone calls or d. D. C. s, we would have this discussion. When did you realize this . If i could amplify my answer, we had the discussion, we were concerned that crew yain ukrainian policymakers, ukrainian leaders, were hearing that i was going to be leaving, that there was maybe somebody else waiting in the wings, etc. And that undermines not only my position but our u. S. Position. The ukraine yaps didnt know what to think. We need to be out there all the time firing on all cylinders to promote our National Security interests. So it was a concern. And when did you realize this Concerted Campaign against you was a real threat . A threat a threat to your ability to do the job . I would say that the, you know, when you go into a meeting with somebody and they ask, are you going to be leaving that is concerning. So thats probably, i dont know exactly when that started happen bug in that time frame. Did you undertake any efforts to push back on this narrative either inside the state department or mickly . Certainly with the ewe crepians, i said theres nothing to this this is a distraction and we are focused on the job, our policy remains the same. And yes, 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. And what was that . European out to the bureau, i think youve also heard that dr. Fiona hill was aware of this as well, the n. F. C. , and they had other discussions with more senior people. Ok. Did you get any feedback from your chain of command . Did you engage ambassador reeker, undersecretary hale . Yes. Did you develop a game plan to push back against the allegations . There are different time frames we are talking about. Fast forwarding to march, i did, when undersecretary hale asked whether id consider extending i did raise, because i wasnt 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 that. He said he understood. He still was hoping that i could extend for another year. So that was early march. Fast forward to late march and izabeth sessions, about this issue and these sessions about this issue continued but once it became a political story here in the United States, the the nor of everything changed. I think that the state epartment felt it wasnt working anymore and the more prudent thing would be for me to come back in july. . Do you think theres anything you could have done differently to get ahead of the story or lobby that there was a Concerted Campaign against you, that you didnt 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 lew learned from secretary sullivan, the secretary of state had been well aware of this since the sum over 2018. The corruption is endemic in the country of ukraine, right . I would say corruption is a serious issue everywhere in the former soviet union. Its a postsoviet legacy. And we talk about it a lot in ukraine because theres actually opportunity to do something, to actually help the ukrainians tackle the issue. They want to tackle the issue. In other countries like russia you kevpbt talk about it. So i think its a postsoviet legacy and its important to deal with it. You testified rampant corruption has long permeated ukraines political and economic systems . Thats a fair statement. And its your belief it should be the u. S. Foreign spoil to help the ukraine curb its corruption policy . Yes. Because its good for the ukrainian bus also in our nterest. Anticorruption efforts, you mentioned, serve a National Security purpose . I believe that to be true. Are oligarches a big part of the problem in ukraine . Probably because so much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very, very few, sick 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 thats a fair comment. The head of borisma, do you know him . I dont know him but i know ho your talking about. He was arrested for stealing millions and millions of dollars, sudget to an investigation, trying to get the money back. That was a big part of mr. Kents initiatives when he was there. At a bribe was paid to the rosecutors and sochevsky was let off the hook. Is this something youre familiar with . Ive heard about it. This was before my awe rival. I would say my understanding of it, please correct me if im wrong, is that the u. S. Money that youre referring to was the money that we that we used to fund an f. B. I. Team that was embedded with the Prosecutor Generals Office to go after, not to go go after but to do the investigation of them. Mr. Kent testified that this bribe was paid, the prosecution went away, and essentially nothing has been further done with regard to borismo. During your tenure in ukraine has there been any focus on reexamining allegations, whether its of borismo or other powerful interests . Like kochevsky, reexamining it . On the part of the Ukrainian Government . Yeah, trying to lean on the various prosecutors general to crean up the oligarchical system . I think yes, there have been some efforts. As i mentioned earl earl earlier in my testimony, the u. S. Was welcoming of mr. Lesenkos nomination to position of prosecutor general. We were hoping he would clean that up. That in fact is not what appened. Its hard to explain to a u. S. Audience but in ukraine and in the former soviet union more broadly, including in russia, justice, the justice system, whether its the whether its cops on the beat, investigatoringsering whether its prosecutor, whether its judge, are used as a tool of the olitical system. To be used against your political adversaries. So i think that going back to our question about borismo and kochevky, this was, as i told you earlier in a previous deposition, did not loom large when i arrived. 16, but in august 20, over time, my understanding was on the case was basically pause. It wasnt an active case. But it also was not fully closed. And that is the way, as i mentioned before, for those in power to keep a little hook in kochevzsky. Nd mr. And right around the time the bribe was paid they took time to spruce up their board, had the president of popoland and other luminaries, are you familiar with that . Yoverpb exactly what the timing was but yes, to the elements. One of the folks they added to the board was hunter biden. Which raises questions. Is he a genius on the Corporate Governance front . Is he a genes you with ukrainian oligarchical systems, cleaning that up . Or was he added to the board because hes the Vice President s son . Was that a concern or at least the perception of that concern addressed . As i said, i arrived in ugust of 2016. Several months before the election, several months before President Trump took office. It was not a focus of what i was oing in that sixmonth period. Was the issue raised at all . Not i never met him, never talked to him. What was your question . He was still on the board when you arrived at post and i was wondering if the perception problem was brought to your attention as ambassador. I was aware of it, as i told you before in the deposition, in