And I believe you testified he's a man of honor. I believe that to be true and a brilliant diplomat Yes and you have no reason to think that he would be undertaking any initiative that was counter to u.s. Interests I think that he tried to do what he thought was right. The. Turning our attention to the Trump administration's policy of aid the aid package to Ukraine. You've testified that during your tenure as ambassador America's policy actually got stronger. Crane is that accurate with the provision of javelins to the Ukrainian military Yes that was that was really positive and why was that important Well 2 things they are obviously tank busters and so if the war with Russia all of a sudden accelerated in some way and tanks come over the horizon javelins are a very serious weapon to deal with that that's number one but really the more important issue is the symbol the symbolism of it that the United States is providing javelins to Ukraine that makes Ukraine's adversaries think twice and the provision of javelins to Ukraine was was. Blocked during the previous administration is that correct. I think they made a determination. I was not a part of those discussions but obviously they had not yet made a determination about whether to provide javelins do you have any understanding of what the interagency consensus was with regard to javelins during the previous administration. I think that most of the interagency you wanted to provide javelins to Ukraine. And so in the new administration under the you know President Trump the ability to afford Ukraine this weaponry is significant advantage significant step forward we thought it was important and as it played out that way. Well. It has been a terrible and it's a symbol of our strong support for Ukraine. But when then you know this year there are questions as to whether or not our security assistance is going to go through that kind of undermines that that strong message of support. The. Ukraine still has the ability to acquire the Javelin is that correct. Or are you now talking about purchasing javelins perfectly craning government. Yes they do and it is my understanding that the security sector system did go through its pause for 55 days from July 18th this time or 11th but it ultimately went through correct it's my understanding Ok. You testified during your deposition that you were you were proud of the efforts of the United States during your tenure to. You know supply this this type of aid through to Ukraine do you still are you still happy with with the decisions. Are you talking of the Javelin the javelin and also the just the the whole aid package . Yes you do think it's efficient do you do you think we're giving Ukraine enough money. That's a hard question because one can always use additional. Funding. That said I think that that the Congress has been very generous in voting for security assistance and other forms of assistance for Ukraine. My time is coming to an end Mr Chairman thank you Germany will now go to member 5 and rounds I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Best of on which I want to follow up on some of the questions from my colleagues. This is adamant really chairman as the committee's joshing into rice doesn't have any here was completely irrelevant to the issues at hand why are you even here isn't this just some small matter that should have been referred to h.r. . So I want to. Bring our attention to someone who thought you were actually very important to this whole plot or scheme. And that is the president and states there was only one of baster I believe who is discussed by the president in the July 25th call and that was you a bastion of out of it. And I want to refer back to how you were brought up in that conversation at one point during the conversation the president brings up. This. Prosecutor who was very good and it was shut down and that's really unfair and I think you indicated earlier that it was a likely reference to Mr Lew Sankoh the current prosecutor is that right I believe that is the case but I don't know so immediately after the president brings up this corrupt. Former prosecutor. And want to sort my steps Cartmell the one American investor is brought up in the call. Immediately after the president brings up this corrupt prosecutor that he praises and says he was treated very unfairly. He then encourages Alinsky to speak with Giuliani the guy who orchestrated the smear campaign against you correct yes and. He. He then brings you up. So he praises the corrupt prosecutor he says I want you to talk to Giuliani the guy who smeared you and then he brings you up he obviously thought you were relevant to this but what is even more telling is immediately after he brings you up and says that you the woman was bad news. He says there's a lot I allot to talk about about Biden's son and Biden stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great immediately after praising this corrupt prosecutor . He attacks you. And then it goes right to Biden. That would indicate to you wouldn't ambassador that he connects you somehow with this prosecutor you were at odds with and his desire to see this investigation of Biden go forward would not. Again you're absolutely right that that is the thought progression. My colleagues also asked. In pushing you out of the way. Ultimately Ambassador Taylor got appointed as a bastard Taylor the kind of person that would further Giuliani's Ams I think we can all agree that investor Taylor is a remarkable public servant Absolutely. But what if the president could put someone else in place that wasn't a career diplomat what if he could put in place say a substantial donor to his inaugural what if you put in place someone with no diplomatic experience at all what if you put in place someone whose portfolio doesn't even include you crane might that person be willing to work with Rudy Giuliani in pursuit of these investigations Yeah maybe. That's exactly what happened wasn't yes. And my colleagues also say well the security assistance ultimately went through. So if they sought to condition or bribe Ukraine into doing these investigations by withholding scare assistance they ultimately paid the money. Are you aware of vaster of that. The security systems was not released until after a whistleblower complaint made its way to the White House yes I'm aware of that are you aware that it was not released until Congress announced it was doing an investigation yes I'm aware of that. And finally I want to ask you about the call record that my colleague read at the outset. Curious about this and just for people watching at home so they're not confuse there are 2 calls here there's the perfunctory congratulatory call after Zelinsky is inaugurated which my wrecking member read this morning and then there's of course the very problematic call in July I want the reasons we're here is what happened between April and July. But there was a readout put out by the White House at the time the April congratulatory call was made and the White House readout said that the president discussed was Alinsky helping Ukraine root out corruption. Now that in fact doesn't appear anywhere in that call so I want to ask you a baster Why would the White House put out an inaccurate reading why would the White House represent that the president said something about corruption when he said nothing about corruption in that call or in fact in the one in July. I can't answer that question I don't have that ability into that. I think. You'll know 5 minutes now to recognize the ranking member. I just remind the gentleman there's actually his ranking Republican Devin newness about to question Maria fond of each again reiterated in our last hearing a couple weeks ago about I just want to clarify something for a Yo are you against political appointed ambassador is it not the president's to Parag have to appoint whoever he wants in any country. 1st of all I am not against political embassador much as one of their And I just wanted to clear that up now can I yield to Mr phone. I need your permission you may yield Thank you Ambassador before I was interrupted I wanted to thank you for your release to Republican of New York and Washington Ottawa to Moscow to London to Kiev I also want to thank you for hosting the numerous bipartisan delegations I led one of those delegations in Ukraine my questions today will focus on 3 key themes The 1st is the role of the president when it comes to appointing our ambassadors The 2nd is longstanding corruption in Ukraine and the 3rd is aid to Ukraine earlier this week as you know we heard from George Kent and I know that Mr Kent is a colleague a friend and someone who you deeply respect in his testimony he stated all ambassadors serve the pleasure of the president you would agree with that statement correct yes and in fact he elaborated and went on to emphasize that this is without question everybody understands that you would agree with that I would agree and in your own deposition under oath you stated quote Although I understand everyone understands that I serve at the pleasure of the president is that correct. And just so there's no public confusion you are still an employee of the State Department correct yes and in the deposition you say that you personally asked whether it would be possible to be a fellow at Georgetown University and that was arranged for me and I'm very grateful that's where your posted today correct Georgetown students are lucky to have you we are lucky to have you in foreign service and I again want to thank you for your tremendous public service shifting gears to corruption in Ukraine in your powerful deposition you describe quote We have a long understood that strong anti corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine and now there is a window of opportunity to do that and so why is this important and why is this important to us Put simply. Eruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests but they also serve ours as well is that still your testimony yes and particularly at the critical time in 2014 after the Ukrainian elections you testified that the Ukrainian people had made clear in that very election that they were done with corruption correctness and you also testified that the Ukrainians thought it would be a good idea to set up this architecture of a special investigative office that would be all about the crimes of corruption correct. And I know this was before you arrived in Ukraine but you are aware that the 1st case that the u.s. U.k. And Ukraine investigators worked on was in fact against the owner of barista Yes and that was during the Obama administration. And in your testimony you and you said today the investigation was never formally closed because it's frankly useful to keep that company hanging on a hook right as you're the Ukrainian investigation was never parted with the us in the us I understand it yeah although because we didn't see the Ukrainians moving forward on that we no longer partner with them on that case or in that way but let's take a very see that a step back the 1st time you personally became aware was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings and this was in the form of practice questions and answers this was your deposition and you testified that in this particular practice q. And a with the Obama State Department it wasn't just generally about and corruption it was specifically about Hunter Biden and barista is that correct yes it is and the exact quote from your testimony ambassador is quote the way the question was phrased in this model q. And a was what can you tell us about Hunter Biden's you know being named to the board of Burris So for the millions of Americans watching President Obama's own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest. From Hunter Biden for all of that they raise it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation and yet our Democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask that same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about but we will continue asking it and lastly in my 20 seconds left I just want to get it on record in terms of the defensive lethal aid which you are an advocate for that was not provided by President Obama it was provided by President Trump That's correct I yield back 5 seconds. Most embassador thank you for your testimony today those of us who sit up here are supposed to be dispassionate and judicial and measured but I'm angry and I've been angry since I learned about this is Jim Himes Democrat I'm going to clean dismissal after a lifetime of excellent faithful service to this country I'm angry that a woman whose family fled communism in Naziism to serve this country beautifully for 33 years and in Paris or in Rome but literally under fire in places like Mogadishu and Kieve. I'm angry that a woman like you would be not just dismissed but humiliated and attacked by the president of the United States and I'm not just angry for you I'm angry for every single foreign service officer for every single military officer for every intelligence officer who right now might believe that a lifetime of service and sacrifice an excellent might be ignored by the president of the United States or worse yet attacked in language that would embarrass a mob boss. Now it's the president's defense and it's emerging from my Republican colleagues today that this is all Ok because as the president so memorably put it in his tweet this morning it is a u.s. President absolute right to appoint them basters I'm a little troubled by this idea of an absolute right because that doesn't feel to me like the system of government we have here I think that how and why we exercise our powers and rights matters. Investor when you're investor somewhere do you have the right to ask the intelligence community the CIA in them to see what operations they're doing. We talk about these things collaboratively there are some things that. In short yes so you have the right to ask the intelligence community in your embassy what they're doing what why might you do that. Because sometimes operations have. Political consequences right so the performance of your duty u.s. Interests of the United States gives you the right to ask very sensitive questions of our intelligence community in your embassy but what if instead of working through the issues that you just described you went to dinner that night and handed over that information to a Russian agent for $10000.00 would that be an appropriate exercise of your Right now if not it would not and what would happen to you if you did that. Well I can't even begin to imagine that a I would imagine that I would be pulled out of post right and this is this is not about ambassadors right a police officer has the right to pull you over but if the police officer pulls over his ex-wife because he's angry that's probably not right I have the right in fact today I cast a bunch of vote but if I cast those votes not in the interest of my constituents but because somebody bribed to me that is a severe abuse of my power wouldn't you agree yes. So I guess the question is why. After an exemplary performant as ambassador to Ukraine did the president decide that you should be removed because I think we just agreed that if that was not done in the national interest that's a problem Ambassador if you had remained embassador to Ukraine would you have recommended to the president of the United States that he asked the new Ukrainian president to investigate and I'm quoting from the transcript here Crowd Strike or the server now I would repeat once again that the u.s. Intelligence community has concluded that it was the Russians Ok And you're so in Basser if you had remained as in bad a bastard or not been summarily dismissed would you have supported a 3 month delay in congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine now Ambassador if you had remained as ambassador of Ukraine would you have recommended to the president that he ask a new president of Ukraine to quote find out about Biden's son. I know more questions I yield back the balance of my time. Just kind of what they were sure Mr Maginnis cassette into the record dear colleague letter from Speaker questions coming now from Conaway Republican of Texas expect we also expect that he will establish a path for the whistle board to speak directly to the House and Senate intelligence committees as required by law at objection Thank you I look forward to you honoring that statement from the speaker. The 30th ambassador Ambassador I for one want to thank you so very much for a long service exemplary service for us to our country and on behalf of our nation last visit about what was going on around the phone call I'd like to focus more on what's happened since then to you and your career and and and it was going on so when he got the word anytime that they ambassador changes post there's a process you go through to depict what you do next and that happened in this is can you give us a quick statement as to how what happened when you when you came back here as to what your next assignment would be at that stage. So when I came back obviously it was sort of out a cycle there was nothing set up and again I am grateful that Deputy Secretary Sullivan asked me what I would like to do next I recall that there was the fellowship at Georgetown and asked whether that might be something that could be arranged were not your only choice. I'm not sure and we didn't really discuss other our last as is Georgetown is fertile ground for State Department recruitment future fledgling for service officers there so they now been a fit from your experience in your inspiration to aspire them to have spend their professional life in service to our nation your fellow there you teach classes how many classes he teach. Well this Mr I was supposed to teach to I am still teaching one on national security the other one was on Ukraine and I asked whether I could you know the 1st one that I meet damaged your class. There are let's see I think 1414 for any other responsibilities of state other than the fellowship at Georgetown. Well I will tell you that all of this has kept me very busy Ok I get it but but but don't disturb the day to day things that you'll be reasonable for for other than the other they're not qualifying for overseas stipends and other things is your compensation been affected by being recalled the way you are now has not Ok. I'm worried about the way you might be treated by your fellow employees of state. Any. A negative opinion they told you unless high regard than they used to as a result of this do they shun you at the lunch counter they did they treat you badly as a part as a result of the way you were treated by by the president. I've actually received an outpouring of support my code the folks that you respect the most still respect you and appear to hold you and I regard enough action. Ok George Kant was into a couple days ago he may show exemplary statements about you really glowing all of us I think would like to be the recipient of something that worthy and I believe you are as well any of the any reason on earth that you can think of the George can't would be saying that because of some reason other than the fact that he believes that in his heart of hearts. I like what. I mean like so I paid him to do it. Now after I saw you and I agree that we think he was sincere in that and bragging on you that's all post recall episode that that it was very much a discussion this morning. Well I'm glad that your colleagues I would've expected nothing any different from your colleagues estate to to continue to treat you with the high regard that you'