Theres nothing wrong with georgetown. Its a fine place. Right . Its a wonderful place. But its the only choice at the end of a distinguished career, after all that. Its not the end of a hallmark movie. Its the end of a really bad Reality Tv Show brought to you by someone who knows a lot about that. Why did you you previously testified that you sought advice from ambassador sondland at this time about what to do. Is that correct . I did. And why did you reach out to the ambassador . Because this was clearly so political and was not going to be you know, the state department was not in a position, shall we say, to manage the issue. It didnt appear to me. And so i asked ambassador sondland, who said that he, you know, he was a political appointee. Said he was close to the president , and so he had just been in ukraine for a ship visit with some of his eu colleagues from brussels and so i reached out to him for advice. When this was no longer a ukraine kind of, an interview with mr. Yut sienko and others repeating allegations i asked for him advice. Meant a lot to you. An extraordinary time, the advice went a lot and what was his advice . Well, he suggested that i needed to go big or go home and he said that the best thing to do would be to, you know, send out a tweet, praise the president , that sort of thing. And what was your reaction to that advice . Well, my reaction was that im sure he meant well, but it was not advice that i could really follow. It felt it felt partisan. It felt political, and i i just that was not something that i thought was in keeping with my role as ambassador as a Foreign Service officer. Did he give you suggestions what to say to the president of the United States . Or just Say Something nice about him . Yes. Just praise him. I yield the balance to the chairman. I want to followup on a question and come back to something asked by minority counsel earlier. Do you think you could have gone more to push back against this Smear Campaign and im not suggesting this is what counsel was getting at bun sometimes victims are asked, arent you responsible for your own victimization. What would you say to people who say, isnt it kind of your fault, ambassador, that you didnt fight your own severe harder . Smear harder . Well, i think that ive been a Foreign Service officer for a long time. And just like the military we have our own culture. We have our own kind of chain of command, so to speak, and i did everything that i could to, you know, to address these issues and ask the state department to do what i felt was the right thing, which was support me when it was important to do so, because it was also about supporting the policy. I think it was for others to stand up for me. Quite agree. Representative stefanik. Thank you. Since the chairman has gavelled out all of my colleagues with their unanimous consent i am going to read for the record many of the chairmans comments in september of the importance of hearing from the whistleblower. Again, ambassador, thank you for your patience. Thank you for your service, but since we havent been able to conduct ourselves in normal procedures im going to use the five minutes for this. September 29th, in the wall street journal, the whistleblower will testify in the house very soon. This is a quote by the chairman. Usa today september 29th. Talking with abc news this week. Schiff, the democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee said the whistleblower would testify very soon. The only thing standing in the way was getting security clearances for the attorneys representing the whistleblower to attend the testimony. From vox, september 29th, rep adam schiff said sunday the whistleblower at the center of a growing scandal surrounding President Donald Trump will testify before the House Intelligence Committee very soon. On cnn, september 29th, schiff said sunday on abc as well as nbcs meet the press he expects the kwwhistleblower to testify very soon. Washington post, in appearance on abc news this week schiff echoed pelosis message and expected the Intelligence Committee to hear from the whistleblower very soon pending a security clearance from acting director of National Intelligence joseph maguire. In the huffington post, schiff expects the whistleblower to appear before this committee very soon. In the New York Post well get the unput itered testimony of the whistleblower. In the Washington Times what whistleblower will be in. Quotes from adam schiff, chairman. The question posed by george stephanopoulos. Have you reached agreement with the whistleblower and his or her attorneys about coming before the committee and providing information firsthand . Yes, we have schiff responded. That whistleblower will be allowed to come in without from the Justice Department or white house to tell the whistleblower that we can and cannot say. Well get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower. Also were ready to hear from the whistleblower soon as that is done and keep obviously riding shotgun to make sure the acting director doesnt delay in the clearance process. In cnbc, well get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower. Market watch, House Intelligence Committee said sunday an agreement is reached where the whistleblower will testify before the committee very soon. I can go on but the chairman refused to put these into the record as unanimous consent, its important to prevent whistleblower from retaliation and firing and want to make sure whistleblowers are able to come forward but in this case the fact we are getting criticized by chairman adam schiff for statements he made early on in the process shows the due police duplicity and ill yield to colleague jordan. Thank you, general lady for yielding and add the chairman promised well see the transcripts but theres still four people deposed we have not been either to see their transcripts and have their transcripts released and the testimony provided were not able to use in these open hearings. Its an open hearing, all of the available testimony from depositions that has been taken by the committee should be available to be discussed for the American People to see but, no, no, no. Mr. Morse morris and mr. Hale, and two others, ms. Williams and another one not yet released. I hope the chairman releases them. One other point i would make in the last minute of ms. Stefaniks time. Democrats asserted this whole thing with ambassador yovanovitch was part of a sinister scheme by the white house. To get mr. Zelensky to do an, president zelensky to do an investigation. If recalling ambassador yovanovitch was part of some scheme by trump and pompeo and giuliani to get president zelensky to do an investigation, why would they replace her with the democrats first witness . Their star witness. Bill taylor. I mean, if thats the plan, not the best plan ive ever seen put together. Their star witness, their first witness, mr. Taylor, was here wednesday. Thats what they were up to . I think that just demonstrates that is not what went on here. Mr. Zelensky never undertook any investigations and the reason the aide was released as we discussed wednesday was because Vice President pence, ambassador bolton, u. S. Senators all talked with president zelensky and were convinced he was the real deal as the ambassador alluded to in her testimony. Thats why the money was released. I yield back. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman a lot changed since the whistleblower came forward. Two things in particular. First most of what the whistleblower has alleged has been corroborated by the witnesses that we have heard from. Second, the president who my colleagues so shamelessly continue to defend continue to pressure, threaten and intimidate the whistleblower. Id like unanimous consent to put into the record a september 26th, 2019 article from business insider. Trump suggested the whistleblower who filed a complaint against him is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death. Without objection. How about september 26, 2019, vanity fair. Trump suggests executing the whistleblower sources like in the good old days. Without objection. Third, september 29th. Whistleblowers lawyer raises fear for clients safety. Axi axios. The whistleblower has a right to anonymity and will only answer questions now in writing. I wish my colleagues would join me protecting the whistleblowers rights of anonymity. Were here to talk about you, and you saw a lot about mr. Giuliani. I want to read a quote from mr. Giuliani but first ask when you were in ukraine you understood that Rudy Giuliani was Donald Trumps personal lawyer. Is that right . Yes, thats right. Are you familiar with Rudy Giulianis quote in the New York Times describes himself as the lawyer saying, he basically knows what im doing, sure, as his lawyer. Were you familiar with that quote . It sounds familiar. And you have a lawyer with you today, ms. Yovanovitch . Uhhuh. And you understand that lawyers act on their clients behalf. Is that right . Yes. That it would be improper for a lawyer to go outside any directive that a client gives. Is that right . Thats my understanding. Are you familiar with a New York Times story on may 9, 2019 where Rudy Giuliani said that he intends to visit ukraine and said, were not meddling in an election. Were meddling in an investigation. Are you familiar with that quote . Yes. Thats 11 days before you were removed as ambassador. Is that right . Yes. He is talking publicly about designs on coming to ukraine but what i think is interesting is that mr. Giuliani says, were, as in, we are. He doesnt say, i am not meddling in an election. He doesnt say im not meddling in an investigation. He says, we. Hes speaking for himself and his client. And i want to talk about that quote, were not meddling in an election, were meddling in an investigation. Is it proper for you or anyone who acts on behalf of United States government to meddle in an investigation . No, i dont believe so. Why not . Well, there are Law Enforcement channels and if things need to be, they need to be handled properly and without political bias. Now, this anticorruption crusader, President Trump, who my colleagues touted out as having such a great interest in anticorruption, in both the calls referenced today, the august 21 call and the july 25 call, isnt it true that President Trump never mentions the word corruption . Yes, thats true. As far as the foreign aid my colleagues keep saying, well, he cant be guilty. He didnt complete the cheat, the aid went to the ukrainians. Isnt it true that the only reason the aid or the only time the aid went to the ukrainians was after the whistleblower complaint became public . Yes, it was after the whistleblower complaint became public. So you dont really get points when you get your hand caught in the cookie jar and someone says, hey, hes got his hand in the cookie jar and then you take your hand out, which is essentially what my republican colleagues and the president are trying to take credit for. Finally i want to put up the disgusting tweet from the president today. Where he attacks your character, but i think i know who you are ambassador, i think the country knows who you are. He smeared you when you were in ukraine, he smeared you on that phone call with president zelensky on july 25, he smeared you now as you are testifying. Ambassador yovanovitch, are the president s smears going to stop you from fighting corruption . Well, i will continue with my work. If your country asks you again to fight corruption, will you still do that despite the smears . Yes. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Hurd . Your excellenciy, 33 years move over here. 33 years, six senior Foreign Service performance awards, five state department subpoena hperi awards. President s distinguished Service Award and the secretarys diplomacy in human rights award. Youre tough as nails and smart at hell, and i will hear a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. Youre an honor to your family, you are an honor to the Foreign Service, you are an honor to this country and i thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country. Im nervous about what im getting ready to do. I want to do a fiveyear history of ukraine in about 45 seconds, and now that youre a professor you can grade my paper. Okay . Valentines day 2014, ukraine people get fed up with the ukrainian president yanukovych and basically overthrow him. He goes on the run. This was the revolution of dignity. Who was the acting president during that time when yanukovych went out . I think it was churchnov . Thank you for helping me. In march of 2014 we saw little green men coming into ukraine and ultimately the russians invade the ukraine and yone annex, try to annex crimea, but also try to invade, they invade the entire country and eastern donbass as well. Yes. And then an election and the ukrainian president pass poorchenko in june of 2014 then you came to post in 2016 of august. Correct . Two years later. January 2017 trump elected. And in december of 2017 is when the javelins were approved. Right . And we saw those javelins delivered in april of 2018 to be put to first use. Then we had zelensky elected in 2019, april. Correct . Now at the zelensky defeated the previous president poroshenko. Yes. No love lost between those two dudes is there . I dont think so. Okay. Then in may 2019 zelensky is sworn in . Yes. So my questions, we talk a lot about Rudy Giuliani. Do we know what officials within the zelensky regime he actually met with . I know two. A gentleman named yermak, one of zelenskys senior advisers and then we also know of the former attorney general that weve already established here, was corrupt, lachenko. He served xooumexcuse me. August . Yes. And their parliament voted him out. Yes, thats correct. So if Rudy Giuliani is trying to influence the zelensky regime, would a guy that worked under the previous regime, under poroshenko, be the right guy to do it . So are you saying mr. Lutsenko . Yes. That he could you so did mr. Lutsenko have much credibility within the zelensky regime . Current, the current regime . I dont think so. He didnt. Do you know of any other ukrainians that mr. Giuliani was meeting with that was part of the zelensky regime . Just to remind, i would have already have left ukraine by that point so im not aware. Even with the administration to come, right . Zelensky won the election. There was a twomonth period of preparing to be installed as president. Even during that time were you aware of any there was, so there is a, one of the oligarchs as weve heard about, one of the oligarchs met with mr. Fruman and mr. Parnas when that was apparently to get a meeting for mr. Giuliani. But those are not people actually in government or became in the zelensky regime. Is that correct . No. Okay. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman an thank you ambassador for your 33 years of service to our nation. A big question here today is why you were pushed aside as ambassador. For example, americans know that an employer has a right to fire an employee but shouldnt do it for certain reasons. You shouldnt be fired because youre disabled, because youre a woman, because youre black, and for other reasons. And i think most americans agree that a president shouldnt fire an ambassador or recall an ambassador because the ambassador is standing in his way of doing a corrupt act. So i want to ask you, did the president ever tell you why he was recalling you . No. Did anybody at the white house ever tell you why you were being recalled . No. Did the president ever consult you about who the good guys and the bad guys were in the ukraine . No. Did secretary pompeo ever tell you why you were being recalled . No. And it appears in the testimony that weve heard and the Intelligence Committee so far, that there were a group of the president s men, perhaps secretary perry, Rudy Giuliani, ambassador sondland, who were in on this scheme to help the president get the bidens and barisma investigated. And i want to put aside President Trump for just a second. And ask you, in all of your years of service, have you ever come across a president , been asked by a president or known of colleagues who were asked by an american president to have, to help that president get an american investigated overseas . Im not aware of that. And if a president asked you to investigate a former Vice President for this purpose what would you have said . I mean with what i know today i would have said, no. And would you have considered it an unlawful act . I dont know that its unlawful, per se, but i think, again, that there are channels for conducting proper investigations, and that that would have been the best way to handle Something Like this. But certainly it would be its bizarre for a president to ask that some american be inv t investigated by another government . Its very unusual. Also you mentioned that there is corruption in ukraine. Ukraine isnt the only country that confronts corruption. If the people in power in a country where krups is rampant are being asked by a foreign leader whos got a lot of leverage over them to conduct an investigation, could that be dangerous, because they could trump up charges against someone . If they wanted . They could. And i also want to ask you. I spoke to ambassador kent who made a comment yesterday about selective prosecutions, and what it means Going Forward. What kind of precedent it sets and you had spoken about a dangerous precedent for the state department and diplomats. Help us consider the precedent Going Forward if theres no consequences for