President , correct . Its appropriate for the Justice Department and the Prosecutor General to cooperate and to exchange information, yes. But to the extent that the president has concerns and to the extent that 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 that you should be in touch with our official channels . Mr. Castor, i dont know the precise appropriateness of these kind of relations. Now, were you involved, either of you involved with the preparation for the 7 25 call . I was not. I was not. And how do you account for that . I mean, you were the 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 the ukraine, why wouldnt
you ordinarily be involved with preparation . Sir, we work for the Department Of State in an embassy overseas and in preparation for a president ial phone call that responsibility lies within 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 and my understanding, having never ever worked at the Security Council is National Security staff write a memo to the president and none of us see that outside of the National Security staff. Okay. So the sergeant or the u. S. Ambassador to the country wouldnt be on the call with the foreign leader. Thats 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 ambassador, give them a heads up and ask them to ensure that the secured Communications Link in the office of the president of the ukraine was functional so the call could be patched through from 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. And the call was scheduled, you know, you testified earlier that the call was on againoff again. And after the July 10th Meeting with ambassador bolton, the consensus was the call was not going to happen; is that correct . I would not say that was the consensus. The States Department position was that a call between the two president s would be useful and once zelenskys party won the first ever absolute majority in parliamentary elections on july 21st, the idea of a congratulatory call made
perfect sense from our perspective. Okay. And the call was scheduled and did you get a readout, Ambassador Taylor, initially 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. And 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 vinman, yes. You said the Ukrainian Readout was cryptic. Is that because its initially written in ukrainian and translated to the u. S. . No. Its as a general rule, both 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 mentioned it was cryptic. Why did you think it was cryptic . Knowing now having read the transcript, and looking back at their summary. Umhuh. As i recall, 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. And did president zelensky raise any concerns about his views of the call . He said right. So, Ambassador Volker,
ambassador sondland were in his office. And we asked him, i think, how was the call he . Said the call was fine. I was happy with the call. Okay. And did you get any additional readout subsequently . 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. Okay. It could have been. I have it here if you would like. Yeah, its on page 3. The first mention of s on page 3. From president and president zelensky says i will personally tell you one of my assistants spoke with mr. Giuliani just recently and were hoping very much that mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine and we will meet once he comes to ukraine. Did that surprise you . Again, i didnt have the transcript at the time. All i heard was that giuliani was mentioned. Mr. Morrison said that giuliani was mentioned in the call. But the way zelensky states it here, it sounds like he is very much looking forward to speaking 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 Ukraine is endemic, correct . Thats correct. And it effects 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 consensus at the state department and the National Security council and the white house is that zelensky is the real deal. Rereformer. He is genuinely interested in rooting out corruption, prosecuting the bad guys. Correct . I would say we are cautiously optimistic and we will work wherever there is the political will to do the right thing and put forward genuine reform. And at the heart of the corruption is this oligarc 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, he has a little bit of a storied history of corruption, doesnt he . Mr. La krzyzewski was minister of energy in 20102012. He used his authority to award gas an act of corruption in my view, yes. Certainly selfdeal . Certainly selfdealing and selfenriching. And how did the Ukrainian Government ultimately pursue that . In the spring of 2014 the Ukrainian Government, the new government after revolution of dignity returned 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 came
from mr. La krzyzewski, Serious Crimes Office in the ukraine had opened up an investigation. They opened up with us and ukrainian authorities developed more information. The 23 million was frozen until until somebody in the general Prosecutors Office of ukraine shut the case, issued a letter to his lawyer and that money pentagon poof. Essentially pay to bribe to make the case go away. That is our strong assumption, yes, sir. Okay. At any point in time, is anyone in the Ukrainian Government tried to reinvestigate that . Or did those crimes go unpunished and was he free to go . Mr. La krzyzewski 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 we have continued to press ukrainian officials to for why d corrupt prosecutors had closed a case and we have
till now, not gotten a satisfactory answer. So to summarize, we thought the la cress ski had stolen money and prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case and those were our 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 find hot corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe and how much it was paid. And thats what i said to the Deputy Prosecutor General on february 3rd, 2015. But in addition to prosecuting the person that took the bribe, shouldnt the organization or individual that sponsored the bribes be prosecuted . I would agree that the ukrainian Law Authority should uphold the rule of law and hold people account for breaking ukrainian law. So, 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. But keep in mind this is a country where those that commit crimes generally never get held to account. So there is a lot to review. Okay. Now, this the bribe was paid in what year . To the best of my knowledge, the case against la krzyzewski, the former minister was shut down december 2014. Okay. And right around that time,
burisma starts adding people to its board; is that correct . My understanding is that, yes, la krzyzewski invited a series of new individuals to join the board in 2014. Do you know what his strategy was in adding officials to his board. I have never met mr. La chef ski. Who are some of the folks that he added to the board. The most prominent person he added to the board was the former president of poland. Anyone else. There were a number of others including some americans and the most prominent one in this context is hunter biden. So hunter biden is added to the board of burisma. Now, do you think that creates a problem 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 and so i believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons. Not only not only build business plans. Was hunter biden a Corporate Governance expert. I have no idea what hunter biden studied at university or what his cv says. Iis He The Jeffrey of ukraine . I have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was and what he may have done on the board of burisma. So you dont know whether he has any Business Experience in ukraine prior to joining burismas board . I have heard nothing about prior experience, no. 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 dad is a former Vice President . I dont. Or at the time was the Vice President . I have no knowledge of hunter biden. But you would agree it raises questions, right . Right . He was getting paid, i think, 50,000 a month to sit on a board . Do you know if he relocated to ukraine . Im sorry, mr. Say
again . Do you know if hunter biden relocated to ukraine . No knowledge. Do you know mr. Kent . Again, no knowledge. Okay. So, he is getting paid 50,000 a month but we dont know whether he had any experience, he had any spoke the language or whether he moved to ukraine, correct . Correct. Now, at this time, Vice President biden was taking a specific 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 and that would make five visits after the revolution of dignity which started february of 2014. Okay. And you were the dcm, the Deputy Chief Of Mission at the time, correct . Starting in 2015, yes. Okay. And did Vice President biden come when you were post . He did no. I came back for ukrainian Language Training so i missed several visitors. Now, you have seen Vice President bidens he has
sort of given a speech is he a little folksy about how he went into ukraine and he told the ukrainians that if they dont fire the prosecutor they are going to lose their 1 billion in loan guarantees. Have you seen that correct . I have. I think it was a speech at the counsel of Foreign Relations in 2014. Right. You have also said he has been to ukraine 13 times. Do you know if thats accurate . Tij, when he was Vice President he made six visits. And did the state department ever express any concerns 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. Okay. But, given Hunter Bidens role on. [buzzer] thats 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
that concern that you expressed . I have no idea. I routerred my concern to the office of the Vice President. Okay. And that was the end of it . Nobody sir, you would have to ask people who work in the office of Vice President during 2015. But after you expressed concern of a perceived conflict of interest, at the least, the Vice President s engagement in ukraine 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 was the 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. And 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. Yeah, agree. Okay, we have Ambassador Volker who is a former Senate Confirmed ambassador to nato, a Longtime State Department diplomat and have you known Ambassador Volker for years, correct . Thats correct. A man of unquestioned integrity, correct . Thats correct. And somebody with Incredible Knowledge of the region . With very goodtes. Yes, im sure thats right. And the best interest of ukraine . His First Priority is clearly the United States. Okay. And to the extent that ukraine has an implication for that, yes. Okay. Ukraine as well. The second member of the irregular channel is ambassador sondland who i