Discussing today which involved an irregular channel which is her request that went against u. S. Policy that would undermine the rule of law and our longstanding policy goals in ukraine as in other countries in the postsoviet space. Policies that were indeed championed by ambassador yovanovitch. You also testified in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country and you cited the importance of reforming certain institutions, notably security service. Was investigating President Trumps political opponents a part of those necessary reforms . Was it on that list of yours and was it on any list . No, they werent. In fact, historically is it not true than a major problem in the ukraine is bennetts misuse
of prosecutors, precisely to conduct an investigation of political opponents. Thats a legacy i dare suggest from the soviet era which as you said in your testimony prosecutors like the kgb were and i quote you now instruments of oppression. I said that and i believe its true. Finally, mr. Kent, for as long as i can remember, u. S. Foreign policy has been predicated on advancing principled interests in Democratic Values, notably freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion. Free and fair and open elections. In the rule of law. Mr. Kent, would american leaders ask foreign governments to investigate their potential rivals . Doesnt that make it harder for us to advocate on behalf of of those Democratic Values western mark i believe it makes it
more difficult for our diplomatic representatives overseas to carry out those policy goals, yes. How is that . There is an issue of credibility. I hear diplomats on the ground saying one thing and they hear other u. S. Leaders saying something else. Ambassador taylor, would you agree with that, sir . I would. Anything you would like to add about how it might make it more difficult for you to do your job, sir. Our credibility is based on a respect for the United States and if we damage that respect, then it hurts our credibility and makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. Anyone looking can see what happened was an abuse of power. Anyone looking at the facts can seem that what happened was unethical. Anyone looking at the facts can see, anyone looking at the facts
can see that what went on was just plain wrong. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Jarman. Thank you. 55 days that there was a delay on sending hard earned tax dollars of the American People to the ukraine. Ernst young said one of the most three corrupt countries on the planet. Our witness friday testified in her Deposition Corruption is not just prevalent in ukraine. Its the system. So our president said timeout. Time out. Lets check out this new guy. Lets see if zelensky is the real deal. He got elected in april, his party took power in july. Lets see if hes legitimate. Keep in mind this has already been discussed. In 2018 President Trump out already done more for ukraine that obama did. Thats right. President trump who doesnt like foreign aid, wanted European Countries to do more, who know how corrupt ukraine was, did more than obama because he gave him javelins. Take busting javelins to fight the russians. Obama gave him blankets and trump gave him missiles but when it came time to check out the new guy, President Trump said lets see if hes legit. For a 55 days we checked him out. President zelensky had five interactions with senior u. S. Officials in that time frame. One was the phone call. The july 25th phone call. There were four other facetoface meetings with other senior u. S. Officials. Guess what. Not one of those interactions, not one were Security Assistance dollars linked to investigating burisma or biden. U. S. Senators, ambassador
bolton, Vice President pence, all became convinced that zelensky was worth the risk. He was legit and the real deal and a real change and guess what. They told the president hes a reformer. Release the money. Thats exactly what President Trump did. Over the next few weeks, we are going to have more witnesses like weve had today that the Democrats Will Parade in here and theyre all going to say soandso said such and such to soandso and therefore weve got to impeach the president. Actually we can get more specific. We cover this a little bit ago. They will Say Something like ambassador sondland said in his deposition Ambassador Taylor recalls mr. Morrison told pastor taylor that i told mr. Morrison that i convey this message to mr. Yermak with connection to the visit to warsaw in a meeting with president zelensky. If you can follow that, that is the democrats plan and why they want to impeach the president. Thats what we are going to hear over the next couple weeks. Thats what were going to hear
but no matter what they do and how many witnesses they bring in, four facts will not change and they will never change. The call shows no linkage between dollars and the investigation into burisma and the bidens. President trump and president zelensky have both said there was no linkage, no pressure, no pushing. Ukrainians didnt know the aide was withheld at the time of the phone call and most importantly as its been pointed out, the ukrainians didnt take any specific action relative th to e investigation. There is one witness, one witness they wont bring in front of us. They wont bring in front of the American People. Thats the guy who started it all, the whistleblower. No. 435 members of congress, only one gets to know who that person is, only one member of congress has a staff that gets to talk to that person. The rest of us dont. Only Chairman Schiff knows who that was glorious. We dont. We will never get the chance. We will never get the chance to
see the whistleblower raise his right hand, swear To Tell The Truth And Nothing But the truth. Well never get that chance. More portly, the American People wont get that chance. This anonymous socalled whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge who worked with joe biden, the reason we are all sitting here today, and will never get a chance to question an individual. Democrats are trying to impeach the president based on all that, all that . 11 and a half months before an election . Who will not get to check out his credibility, motivations, bias. I sent this last week but this is a sad day. Its a sad day for this country. You think about what the democrats have put on our nation through for the last three years. Started in july of 2016 when they spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign and all that unfolded after that and when that didnt work, here we are. Based on this. Based on this is the american
people see through it, they understand the facts support the president. They understand the process is unfair. They see through the whole darn sham. With that, i yield back. Mr. Welch. Thank you. I say to my colleague, ive be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President trump is welcome to take a seat right there. [laughter] you know, the question here is not a dispute about the enormous power that a president has. The question is whether in this case there was an abuse of that power. The president can fire an ambassador. For any reason whatsoever. The president can change his policy, as he did when he opened the door for turkey to go in and invade curtis
dan despite many oppositions from senior advisors. The president could change his position and his position on ukraine but is there a limit . There is. Because our constitution says no one is above the law. That limit is that one cannot even its president use the public trust for personal gain. The law prohibits any one of us here on the dais from seeking foreign assistance in her campaigns. The question for us is whether the use of power by the president was for the benefit of advancing his political interests in the 2020 campaign and by the way, my colleagues if the president wants to attack joe biden and his son, he is
free to do it fair and square in campaigns. He just not free to change our Foreign Policy unless he gets his way to a system in that campaign. Thats a line you cant cross. Now you all have been very clear about what our continuous Foreign Policy was and Ambassador Taylor, very quickly describe why us Withholding Aid interfered with achieving our National Security goals. One of our National Security goals is to resolve conflicts in europe. Theres one major conflict in europe. Its a fighting war. Our National Security goals in support of ukraine, in support of a broader strategic approach
to europe is to facilitate that negotiation, try to support ukraine when it negotiates with the russians. I want to go back because in the historical context, mr. Ke mr. Kent, and Ambassador Taylor provided, we had seven years of peace after the war in which we lost 400,000 american lives and that took care of that was in jeopardy, as you described, Ambassador Taylor, and that threatened each and every one of us appear and the constituents we represent. Is that a fair statement . I want to do three dates. I only have a little time. July 24, july 25, july 26. July 24th, Director Mueller testified about his investigation and he established beyond doubt that it was the russians who interfered in our
elections. He expressed the fear that that would be the new normal. On july 25, according to the readout of the president s campaign, he asked the ukrainians to investigate ukrainian interference in our election that had been repudiated. And then july 26, as i understand it, this person who reported to you heard the president saying he wanted investigations again in ukraine. So this is a question. The new normal that Director Mueller feared, is there a new normal that you fear that a president , any president , can use congressionally approved foreign aid as a lever to get personal advantage in something thats in his interest but not the public interest. That should not be the case,
mr. Welch. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, i turn to the transcript of the call between President Trump and president zelensky. You have mischaracterized the call. In the first open hearing. Gentlewoman will suspend. I would be happy to enter the call record into the record. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you for being here today. Ambassador taylor, what year did you graduate from west point . 1969, sir. The height of the vietnam war, wasnt it . The height was about that time. What was your class rank at west point . I was number five. How many people in your class . 800. 800 cadets and you were number five. Yes, sir. The top 1 of your class was point, you probably get your pick of assignments you picked
the infantry. Yes, sir. Rifle company commander. Sir. Where did you serve . In vietnam. Did you see combat in vietnam, sir . I did. Did you earn i was awarded the Combat Infantry Badge which is my highest, i am proudest of. There was a bronze star. For valor. It is. Lets talk about july 26. A lot of years later. You go to the front with ambassador volker and you are looking on the front line of the russian soldiers. Is that what you recall . You said that ukrainian commander saying to for the American Military assistance ths
being withheld. How did that make you feel . Badly. It was clear that commander counted on us. It was clear that commander had confidence in us. It was clear that commander was appreciative of the capabilities that he was given by that assistance but also the reassurance that we were supporting him. You dont strike me as a quitter but you threaten to resign or you mentioned in your statement. Before i ask about that, lets talk about a couple days later on august 28. You find yourself in ukraine with the National Security advisor, mr. Bolton. You conveyed him your concerns, you testified to this previously about the withholding of military assistance. What does he say to you . He says he shares my concern and he advises me to express it
in a very special way to the Secretary Of State. He is a National Security advisor, works directly with the president , but he tells you you should bring it up with the Secretary Of State. How many times in your career have you sent a cable directly to the Secretary Of State . Ones. This time. Yes, sir. In 50 years. Rifle Company Commanders dont send cables but yes, sir. The National Security advisor who could tell it to the president shares your concern says you, the Ambassador Serving in ukraine, should cable the Secretary Of State directly and you do so, dont you . Yes, sir. What are the cable say . Its a classified cable. Without going into classified information. Without going into classified information, Security Assistance to ukraine at this particular time is very important. Ukraine, i also make the point that weve talked about here today. Ukraine is important for our National Security and we should support it. Not to provide that would be folly. Did you get an answer to your cable . Not directly, no, sir. Do not happen to her . Secretary kent. Secretary kent, do you know what happened to it . I was on vacation when his cable came in but my understanding is it made it to its recipient, intended recipient, Secretary Pompeo. We know that Secretary Pompeo was on the call on july 25. Its not like hes in the dark with any of it. What did he do with it . I honestly can say for sure what happened with the cable once the message was brought in at the highest level. One other question, gentlemen. On september 1, you recall a meeting between the Vice President and the president of ukraine, mr. Zelensky, and which right off the bat, the president of ukraine raises Security Assistant and theVice President according to your telling says i will talk to the president tonight about that. Do you know what the Vice President made that call . I dont know, sir. Do you know what if anything the Vice President had to do with any of this . What more can you tell us about the Vice President s role in this . Do you know if he ever raised this issue for trigger with anyone in the administration, whether he pushed for the release of the Security Assistance. I can, sir. I believe to the best of my understanding the Vice President was an advocate for the release of the assistance. Thank you. Yield back. Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the politico article on ukraine authored by ken vogel, now with the New York Times. Representative demings. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for being with us
today. Mr. Kent, you said that president has the right to remove an ambassador because the ambassador serves at the pleasure of the president. Is that correct . That is correct. Does that removal usually come with a Smear Campaign of that ambassador by the president . I think the right of the president to make decisions about representatives is separate from whatever happens outside the confines of u. S. Government processes. Do you have any idea why it was important to discredit ambassador yovanovitch . What she was not willing to do or to do, why that was important. It probably depends on the motivation of other people and im not one of them. The committees investigation has uncovered a web of Shadow Diplomacy engaged in an executed by several state Department Officials and the president s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani and ultimately directed byPresident Trump. Weve heard several ways of describing this shady, shadow operation, Shadow Diplomacy, rogue back channel. Ambassador taylor, you have described what you encountered is the top diplomat on the ground in ukraine and i quote highly irregular informal channel of u. S. Policymaking. You testified that the channel included ambassador volker, sondland, secretary perry, and as he later learned, the president s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Is that correct . Yes, maam. Both of you of it explained that you grew seriously concerned when he realized that the interests of this irregular channel diverged from official u. S. Policy and interests. Was mr. Giuliani promotingont. Mr. Kent. No, he was not. What interest you believe he
was promoting, mr. Kent . I believe he was looking to dig up Political Dirt against a potential rival in the ne