Mean, thats the appropriate way to raise an issue with the ukrainian president , correct . Its appropriate for the Justice Department and the Prosecutor General to cooperate and to exchange information, yes. To the extent the president has concerns and to the extent the Attorney General is having u. S. Attorney durham look into it, isnt it entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for president zelensky and say youn touch with our official channels . Mr. Castor, i dont know the precise appropriateness of these kinds of relations. Now, were either of you involved with the preparation for the 7 25 call . I was not. I was not. How do you account for that . I mean, you were two of the key officials with responsibility for ukrainian policy. If the president of the United States is going to have a call with the leader of ukraine, why
wouldnt you ordinarily be involved with the preparation . Sir, we work for the Department Of State in an embassy overseas. Preparation for a president ial phone call, that responsibility lies with the staff of the National Security council. Normally if there is enough sufficient time, National Security staff can solicit information, usually from the state department and we can draw on the embassy. But thats only background information. My understanding having never worked at the National Security council is that National Security staff write a memo to the president and none of us see that outside of the National Security staff. Okay. So the u. S. Ambassador to the country wouldnt ordinarily be on a call with a foreign leader . That is correct, would not. And did Colonel Vindman or anyone at the National SecurityCouncil Staff reach out to you, mr. Kent, in preparation for the call . I was given notification the day before on july 24th. And to the extent i had any role, it was to reach out to the embassy, give them the headsup and ask them to ensure that the secure Communications Link in the office of the ukraine was functional so the call could be patched through to the white house situation room. Did you provide any substantive advice to Colonel Vindman about the call and what ought to be the official position . I was not asked and i did not provide. Okay. Same with you, ambassador . The same. The call was scheduled you know, you testified earlier that the call was on again off again and after the July 10th Meeting with ambassador Bolton The Consensus was the call was not going to happen, was that correct . I would not say that was the consensus. The state departments position was that a call between the two president s would be useful. And once zelenskys party won the majority on july 21st, the
idea of a congratulatory call made eminent sense from our perspective. Did you get a readout, ambassador taylor, from the call . I didnt, mr. Castor. I read the we all read the statement that the ukrainians put out. I got a readout several days later from mr. Morrison, National Security council. Okay. How about you, mr. Kent . I likewise first saw the ukrainian statement and i believe the next day july 26th, which would have been a friday, i did get a partial readout from Lieutenant Colonel vindman, yes. You said that the Ukrainian Readout was cryptic. Is that just because its initially written in ukrainian and translated to the u. S. . No. Its as a general rule, both the United States and other countries including ukraine will
put out very short summaries that kind of hit the highlights of the discussion, but without going into detail. Okay. And you mention eed it was cryptic. Why did you think it was cryptic . Knowing now having read the transcript and looking back at their summary, as i recall, and I Dont Recall the exact words, but they said that there were issues to be pursued in order to improve relations between the two countries or Something Like that. That seems pretty ordinary. It seems pretty ordinary. You were with president zelensky the very next day . We were. We had a meeting with him the very next day. Did president zelensky raise any concerns about his views of the call . He said right. So i, Ambassador Volker, ambassador sondland were in his office and we asked him how, i think, was the call. He said, the call was fine, i was happy with the call. Did you get any additional readout subsequently about the call . Like when did you first learn that the call contained things that concerned you . Was that not until September 25th . Mr. Morrison, as i say, briefed me several days later before the end of july and i think this is where i said in my testimony that he said it could have gone better and he said that the call mentioned mr. Giuliani. He also said that the call mentioned the former ambassador. Both of those were concerning. Giuliani was first raised on the call by president zelensky,
correct . I dont recall. It could have been. I have it here if youd like. Yeah. Its on is from president zelensky. Its on page 3. President zelensky says i will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with mr. Juligiuliani just recently and are hoping very much that giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine and we will meet once he comes to ukraine. Did that surprise you . I didnt have the transcript at the time. All i heard is giuliani was mentioned. Mr. Morrison said giuliani was mentioned in the call. The way zelensky states it here, it sounds like he is very much looki ing forward to speakg with americas mayor. Thats what i found out when i read the transcript on the 25th Of September or so. Okay. Now, mr. Kent, corruption in
ukrainian is endemic, correct . That is correct. And it affects the courts, the prosecutors and there have historically been problems with all the prosecutors in ukraine, correct . I would say up until the new set of prosecutors appointed by president zelensky in the last two months, correct. Okay. So the u. S. Government, the real deal, hes a real reformer, hes genuinely interested in rooting out corruption, prosecutoring t prosecuting the bad guys, correct . I would say we are cautiously optimistic and we will work whether theres the political will to do the right thing and put forward genuine reform. At the heart of the corruption is this oligarchical system, correct, where the oligarchs take control often by
virtual theft of, you know, for example, the right to Certain Energy licenses, correct . That is one element, yes, sir. And the company burisma, its leader has a little bit of a storied history of corruption, doesnt he . He was Minister Of Energy from 20102012 under the pro russian government and he used his Regulatory Authority to award Gas Exploration licenses to companies that he himself controlled. That would be considered an act of corruption in my view, yes. Certainly selfdealing. Certainly selfdealing and selfenriching. How did the Ukrainian Government ultimately pursue that . In the spring of 2014, the Ukrainian Government, the new government after the revolution of dignity turned to partners particularly the u. S. And the u. K. To try to recover tens of billions of dollars of stolen
assets. The first case that we tried to recover that money the Serious Crimes Unit in the u. K. Had opened an investigation. They worked with us to develop more information. The 23 million was frozen until somebody in the general Prosecutors Office of ukraine shut the case, issued a letter to his lawyer and that money went poof. Essentially paid a bribe to make the case go away. That is our strong assumption, yes, sir. At any point in time has anyone in the Ukrainian Government tried to reinvestigate that, or did those crimes just go unpunished and was he free to go . He spent time as far as i understand in moscow and monaco after he fled ukraine. We continued to raise as a Point Of Order that because u. S. Taxpayer dollars had been used to try to recover frozen assets that we have a fiduciary responsibility and weve
couldn continued to press ukrainian officials for why alleged prosecutors have closed a case and we have until now not gotten a satisfactory answer. To summarize, we thought that he had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case and those were our main concerns. Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted . I think since u. S. Taxpayer dollars were wasted, i would love to see the ukrainian Prosecutor Generals Office who the Corrupt Prosecutor was who took the bribe and how much was paid. Thats what i said to the Deputy Prosecutor General on february 3rd, 2015. In addition to prosecuting the person that took the bribes, shouldnt the organization or individual that sponsored the bribes be prosecuted . I would agree that the Ukrainian Authority should uphold the rule of law and hold people account for breaking ukrainian law. So is this company burisma
involved in lots of criminal activity, correct . I do not know that. Over the years its been involved in a number of questionable dealings, correct . I would say that its the largest private gas producer in the country and its Business Reputation is mixed. So to the extent a new regime is coming in under president zelensky, it certainly would be fair for the new prosecutor, a genuine prosecutor to reexamine old crimes that hadnt sufficiently been brought to justice, right . I believe that the new Prosecutor General made a statement to that and that they would be reviewing past cases. Keep in mind this is a country where those that commit crimes generally never get held to account. So theres a lot to review. The bribe was paid in what year . To the best of my knowledge, the case against the former minister was shut down december of 2014. Okay. Right around that time, burisma
starts adding officials to its board, is that correct . My understanding is, yes, that a series of new individuals was invited to join the board in 2014. Do you know what his strategy was in adding officials to his board. I have never met him. Who are some of the folks he added to the board . The most prominent person he added to the board was the former president of poland. Anyone else . Hunter biden. Hunter biden is added to the board of burisma. Do you think that creates a problem that burisma may be adding people to its board for protection purposes. Sir, i work for the government. I dont work in the corporate sector. So i believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons not only to promote their business plans. Was hunter biden a corporate
governance expert . I have no idea what hunter biden studied at university or what his cv says. I have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was. You dont know whether he has any Business Experience in ukrainian prior to joining burismas board . Ive heard nothing about prior experience. Do you know if he speaks ukrainian . I do not. Do you know if he possesses any other element other than the fact that he is the son of at the time the sitting Vice President . I do not. Ambassador taylor, do you know whether hunter biden offers anything other than the fact that his dads the former Vice President . I dont. Or at the time was the Vice President . I have no knowledge of hunter biden. You would agree it raises questions, right . He was getting paid i think 50,000 a month to sit on the board. Do you know if he relocated to
ukraine . Say it again. Do you know if hunter biden relocated to ukraine . No knowledge. Do you know, mr. Kent . Again, no knowledge. Hes getting paid 50,000 a month but we dont know whether he had any experience, he had any he spoke the language or whether he moved to ukraine, correct . Correct. At this time Vice President biden was daycataking a specifi interest in ukraine, wasnt he . He was. Could you tell us about that . I believe while he was Vice President he made a total of six visits to ukraine. One may have been during the old regime. You were the dcn at the time, correct . Starting in 2015, yes. Did Vice President biden come when you were at post . He did not. I came back for ukrainian Language Training so i missed several visits. Youve seen Vice President
bidens hes sort of given a spee speech. Hes a little folksy about how he went into ukraine and told the ukrainians if they dont fire the prosecutor, theyre going to lose their 1 billion in loan guarantees. Have you seen that . I have. He also said hes been to the ukraine 13 times. Do you know if thats accurate . To the best of my knowledge while he was Vice President , he made six visits. Did the state department never express my concern to the Vice President s office that the Vice President s role at the time engaging on ukraine presented any issues . No. The Vice President s role was critically important. It was top cover to help us pursue our policy agenda. But given Hunter Bidens role in burismas board of directors, at some point you testified in your deposition that you
expressed some concern to the Vice President s office is that correct . That is correct. What did they do about the concern you expressed . I have no idea. I reported my concern to the office of the Vice President. That was it . Sir, youd have to ask people who worked in the office of the Vice President during 2015. But after you expressed the concern of a perceived Conflict Of Interest at the least, the Vice President s engagement in ukrainian didnt decrease, did it . Correct, because the Vice President was promoting u. S. Policy objectives in ukraine. And Hunter Bidens role on the board of burisma didnt cease, did it . To the best of my knowledge, it didnt. My concern was that there was a possibility of a perception of a Conflict Of Interest. Now, ambassador taylor, i want to turn to the discussion of the irregular channel you described. In fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, its not
as outlandish as it could be, is that correct . Its not as outlandish as it could be. We have Ambassador Volker, a long Time State Department diplomat. Youve known Ambassador Volker for years, correct . That is correct. A man of unquestioned integrity. That is correct. And somebody with Incredible Knowledge of the region . Very good knowledge of the region. And the best interest of the United States . Im sure thats right. And the best interests of ukraine . His First Priority is clearly the United States. And to the extent that ukraine has an implication for that, yes. And the second member of the irregular channel is ambassador sondland, who is Senate Confirmed ambassador to the eu. So his involvement here, while
not necessarily part of his official duties as ambassador to the eu, its certainly not outlandish for him to be interested and engaged pursuant to the president or secretary pompeos direction, correct . Its a little unusual for the u. S. Ambassador to the eu to play a role in Ukraine Policy. You know, it might be irregular, but its certainly not outlandish. And then Secretary Perry is the third member of the irregular channel. Certainly a Senate Confirmed official, somebody with deep experience in energy markets, and he was pursuing some Liquified Natural Gas projects in ukraine. That is correct, mr. Castor. Secretary perrys involvement is perfectly acceptable . It is. This irregular channel as it
developed, when did you determine that it became problematic . In your Opening Statement you identified yourself appropriately as the leader of the regular channel. At least a participant. Heres another leader of the regular channel. So when did y