26. What did that come to mean . My understanding, ambassador sondlands use of that term was the three people in charge of ukraine policy during the summer where he, gordon sondland, ambassador volker and secretary perry. What did you come to, when did you come to learn about mr. Giulianis role and what do you consider his role to have been . I first heard about former mayor giulianis interest in ukraine in january of this year, that was a different phase than what happened during the summertime. Was it normal to have a person who is a privat citizen take an active role in foreign diplomacy . I did not find his particular engagement normal, no. Now, Ambassador Taylor, you testified that there are two channels, a regular and irregular. What did you see as Rudy Giulianis role in ukraine policy . Congresswoman, i came to see
that mr. Giuliani had a large influence on the irregular channel. And was that normal . Is that normal to have a private citizen of the United States take an active role in diplomacy . It is not normal. It is not unusual to ask for people outside the government to give opinions, to help form the policies of the u. S. Government. It is unusual to have a person put, input into the channel that goes contrary to u. S. Policy. Thank you. I field back. I yield back. Mr. Turner, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you. Ambassador taylor, thank you for your service. I have a great deal of appreciation for your profession. You have very little direct contact with decisionmakers and a tremendous amount of responsibility and not a lot of authority to effect u. S. Policy bilateral engagements or
multilateral engagements. Youre trying to shepherd through issues with our alliess one example of that, Ambassador Taylor, you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the president of the United States. Is that correct . Thats correct, sir. Mr. Taylor, mr. Kent, have you had any contact with the president of the United States . I have not. So not only no conversation with the president of the United States about ukraine, youve not had any contact with the president of the United States. Correct . Thats correct. Correct. So you both know that this Impeachment Inquiry is about the president of the United States. Dont you . I mean, the man that neither one of you have had any contact with youre the firstup witnesses. I just find that amazing that that the first up would be two people who have never had any contact with the president himself. Kurt volker did have contact with the president and contact with the president of ukraine. Mr. Ambassador, taylor you said hes a man of highest integrity. I know kurt volker and i know he served as the nato ambassador,
director of mccain institute. Highest professional ethics one of the most knowledgeable people about europe. Absolutely a truthful man. Would you agree with Ambassador Taylor hes of the highest integrity . I believe kurt volker has served the u. S. As a Public Servant very well. Do either of you have evidence mr. Volker committed perjury or lied to this, in his testimony to this committee . Do either of you have any evidence that kurt volker perjured himself or lied to this committee in his testimony, Ambassador Taylor . Any evidence . Mr. Turner, i have no evidence. Mr. Kent . I believe ambassador volkers deposition was over 400 pages and i dont have it in front of me but you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself i have no way to make that judgment, no, sir. Were not in a court gentlemen and if we were the sixth amendment would apply and rules on hearsay and opinion and most of your two testimonies would not be admissible whatsoever but i understand in
your profession you deal in words of understanding, words of beliefs and feelings, because in your profession thats what you work with to try to pull together policy and to go in and out of meetings to try to formulate opinions that affect other peoples decisionmaking. Ambassador taylor, have you ever prepared for a meeting for the president or Prime Minister of a country or told one thing before you went into the meeting what it was to be about . And the meeting be about another thing or you get in there and the beliefs of the Prime Minister or the president were other than you believed . Mr. Turner, youre asking if i ever learned something new ever walked in with a belief you thought about country you were serving in and find out they were wrong . I learned something in every meeting, mr. Turner, but i, you know Ambassador Taylor, the reason why that the sixth amendment doesnt allow hear say its unreliable because tweectly its untruth. It. Not factual. Might be believed or
understandings. You testified about a number of things you heard. Isnt it true, the things you heard werhe beli understandings you had are not accurate . That in fact youre mistaken about some of the things you testified about today on a factual basis versus a professional assessment . Mr. Turner, im here to tell you what i know. Im not going to tell you anything i dont know. Ill tell you everything i do know. Since you learned it from others thats exactly why im here. Since you learned it from others you could be wrong. Correct . Im telling you what i heard them tell me. And they could be wrong or they could be mistaken or they could have heard it incorrectly. Right, Ambassador Taylor . People make mistakes. Right. So you could be wrong. I yield the rest of my time to thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman asked if you could be wrong, were you wrong when you said you had a clear understanding that president
investigation of the bidens before the aid got released an the aid got released and he didnt commit to an investigation. I was not wrong about what i told you, which is what i heard. Thats all ive said. Ive told you what i heard. Thats the point. What you heard did not happen. It didnt happen. You had three meetings with the guy he could have told you. He didnt announce he was going to do an investigation before the aid happened. Its not just could it have been wrong, the fact is it was wrong, because it didnt happen. The whole point was you had a clear understanding that aid will not get released unless theres a commitment, not maybe, not i think the aid might happen, its my hunch its going to get released. You used clear language, clear understanding and commitment and those two things didnt happen. So you had to be wrong. Mr. Jordan, the other thing that went on when that assistance was on hold is we
shook the confidence of a close partner in our reliability, and that thats not what this proceeding is about. Time of the gentlemen expired. Thats not what this time of the gentleman xpeered. Did you want to finish your answer . No. Im good, mr. Chairman. I recognize mr. Carson five minutes. Eyield to the chairman. Thank you f followup on earlier questions about ambassador, sorry, about president zelenskys statements after this scandal came to light, when he was asked, were you pressured, how the phone call, et cetera. Ukrainians, mr. Kent, are pretty sophisticated about u. S. Politics. Are they not . Perhaps. You would agree that if president zelensky contradicted President Trump and said, of course i felt pressured. They were holding up 400 million in Military Assistance. We have people dieing every day. If he were to contradict President Trump directly, they
would be sophisticated enough to know they may pay a very heavy price with this president. Were they not . Thats a fair assessment. And president zelensky not only had to worry about retribution from donald trump should he contribute donald trump publicly he also la to worry how hes perceived domestically. Doesnt he, Ambassador Taylor . President zelensky is very sensitive to the views of the ukrainian people who, indeed are very attentive to ukrainian u. S. Politics, yes. So if president zelensky were to say, i had to Kpich Lacapitu these i was ready to go on cnn until the aid got restored, that would obviously be hurtful to him back home. Would it not . He cannot afford to be seen to be deferring to any, any foreign leader. He is very competent in his own aints and he knows that the ukrainian people expect him to be clear and defend ukrainian interests. Mr. Carson. Thank you, chairman. My colleague touched briefly on the campaign to remove Career Diplomat ambassador yovanovitch. Mr. Kent, you stated in previous testimony that you were aware of the Campaign Of Slander against the ambassador in retime, which basically unfolded in the media. Where do you understand this Misinformation Campaign was coming from and who was potentially perpetuating it . To my understanding the then Prosecutor General of ukraine now ex Yuri Lefzenko met in january a second meeting and through new york gave an interview to john solomon then
of the hill in early march and the campaign was launched on march 20th. A corrupt ukrainian prosecutor gave an interview to a reporter in the United States and made claims that the ambassador be provided officials with a do not prosecute list. Sir, do you have any reason to believe this is true . I have every reason to believe it is not true. What was the reputation of the man who made these allegations, sir . Youury longstanding, good relations with him for years. He was imprisoned by the pr president , came out, elected of the then president s party and became Prosecutor General in spring of 2016. What was your experience with ambassador yovanovitch . Was she working hard to combat Corruption In Ukraine, sir . Dedicated as is every u. S. Government official in ukraine to help ukrainians overcome the legacy of corruption, which they actually have made a number of important steps since 2014. In fact, before all of this happened you and your superiors at the State Department asked the ambassador to extend her time in the ukraine. Correct, sir . That is correct. Did you support her extension . I asked letter to extend until the end of this year to get through the Election Cycle in ukraine and under Secretary Hill in march asked her to stay until 2020. Now, some in ukraine probably disliked her efforts to help ukraine root out corruption. Is that correct . As i mentioned in my testimony you cant promote principled anticorruption action without pissing off anticorrupt people. Fair enough. Now, some of those people helped giuliani smear her. Did they not . They did. So ultimately that Smear Campaign pushed President Trump to remove her. Correct, sir . I cannot judge that. What i can say is that rudy
giulianis Smear Campaign was ubiquitous in the spring of 2016 on fox news and on the internet and twitter sphere. Ambassador kent and mr. Kent in your combined efforts at the State Department you have ever before seen an instance where an ambassador was forced out by the president following a Smear Campaign of misinformation orchestrated by the president s allies . I have not. Nor i. Mr. Chairman i yield back. Doctor . This should be easy because im going to use a lot of words from the previous deposition as we go forward. In your deposition you spoke of support for ukraine and its relationship to the United States and how much you support that. In 2014 you and im quoting this, urged Obama Administration to provide lethal defensive weapons in order to deter further russian aggression. Did the Obama Administration provide lethal weapons . No, sir. They provided mres and blankets and things like that. In your deposition you also said President Obamas objection was because it might provoke the russians and in fact you testified in your deposition that the Obama Administration didnt have a good argument since russia had already provoked and they have invaded ukraine. Is that correct . Thats correct, sir. Its a shame he didnt take the advice of combat veteran like you, sir. Someone who understands what deterrence provides, because a lot of ukrainian lives could have been saved. If he had taken your advice. In your deposition you said, and i quote happy, you were happy with the Trump Administrations assistance and it provided both lethal and financial aid. Did it not . It did, sir. And you also stated that it was a substantial improvement, is that correct . Correct, sir. So now were providing what
kills russians tanks. Mres and blankes do not do that. Today you said i was beginning to think the long u. S. Policy for ukraine was shifting. I have trouble with longstanding based on what we talked about. It wasnt really longstanding, Strong Support. Seems to me the Strong Support came with this administration, would you agree with that, sir . Unless you consider mres and blankets Strong Support i wouldnt call it longstanding. The longstanding im referring to there, doctor, is the longstanding political support, economic support and increasing military support. Certainly that Strong Support came in congress not the Previous Administration based on what this administration decided to do. The Strong Support came with this administration not the Obama Administration and maybe now we understand what President Obama meant when he told russian president medvedev hed have
more flexible after his election. Maybe that flexibility was to deny lethal aid to the ukraine, allowing russia to march right in and kill ukrainians. Again, in your deposition, you urged the Obama Administration officials to provide lethal defensive weapons to ukraine in order to deter further russian aggression. And now they have that under this administration. Dont they . Mr. Ambassador . They have the javelin, yes, sir. I yield the remainder of my time. I thank the gentleman for yielding. No pressure, no demands, to no conditions. Not corrupt. Nothing. Nothing on the call. What we heard president zelensky say, and because House Democrats charges against President Trump have been publicly repeatedly consistently been denied by president zelensky, you heard the defense now. From chairman schiff. Hes lying, because he has to. He has to lie, because the threats, the demands, the blackmail, the extortion that House Democrats are alleging, if he didnt do that, he couldnt possibly risk military aid. He would have to do anything he had to secure it. The problem with that, the hole in that argument is you have to ask yourself, what did president zelensky actually do to get the aid . The answer is nothing. He did nothing. He didnt open 23any investigations. He didnt call Attorney General bill barr. He didnt do any of the things that House Democrats say that he was being forced and coerced and threatened to do. He didnt do anything, because he didnt have to. I yield back. Ask for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for your true heroic efforts, both today and also throughout your careers. Id like to start with you, mr. Kent. In your testimony you said that you had a midaugust it became clear to me that giulianis efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now infecting u. S. Engagement with ukraine. Ledge raving president zelenskys desire for a white house meeting. Mr. Kent, did you actually write a memo documenting your concerns that there was an effort under way to pressure ukraine to open an investigation to benefit President Trump . Yes, maam. I wrote a memo to the file on august 16 bth. We dont have access to that . Do we . I submitted it to the State Department subject to the September 27th subpoena. We have not received one
piece of paper from the State 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 StatesNational Security, and our goal to continue to support sovereignty of nations. Meanwhile, russia is violently attacking people in ukraine in the donbass area. So withholding military aid, does that weaken ukraine . Well, i think it sends the wrong signal and it did for a short period of time. Again, the assistance from 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 ukraine . I think the signal that there
is controversy and question about the u. S. Support of ukraine sends the signal to <