Watch Live: Trump Impeachment Inquiry Hearings – November 15, 2019 (Day 2) | NBC News

>>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT. THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. HERE IS LESTER HOLT AND SAVANNAH GUTHRIE. >> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE WELCOME TO NBC NEWS' LIVE COVERAGE ON TODAY'S HEARING ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. A KEY HOUSE COMMITTEE WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING ON THIS QUESTION. DID PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSE THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE BY PRESSURING A FOREIGN COUNTRY, UKRAINE, FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT TO INVESTIGATE A 2020 LIKELY POLITICAL RIVAL JOE BIDEN? AND DID HE IMPROPERLY WITHHOLD BADLY NEEDED MILITARY AID AND OTHER SUPPORT TO INCREASE THAT PRESSURE? >> THIS IS THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WEDNESDAY. THIS MORNING'S WITNESS FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH. SHE HAS ALREADY ARRIVED AT THE HILL THIS MORNING. MORE THAN 30 YEARS SHE SPENT A VETERAN OF THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE SERVING UNDER BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS. SHE BECAME A TARGET OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYER RUDY GUILIANI AND WAS OUSTED BY THE PRESIDENT EARLIER THIS YEAR. HELPING US FOLLOW IT ALL THIS MORNING WE HAVE CHUCK TODD OUR "MEET THE PRESS" MODERATOR IN WASHINGTON.

ANDREA MITCHELL IS HERE. RICHARD ENGEL AND FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROSECUTOR ANDREW WEISMAN NOW AN NBC NEWS LEGAL ANALYST. LET'S START ON THE HILL. NBC'S JEFF BENNETT AT HIS POST WITH WHAT TO EXPECT THIS MORNING. GOOD MORNING. >> Reporter: GOOD MORNING TO YOU. MARIE YOVANOVITCH HAS BEEN A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR SOME 33 YEARS SERVING IN SIX PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS, THREE TIMES AS AN AMBASSADOR IN HOT SPOTS ALL AROUND THE WORLD, TWO TIMES APPOINTED BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP, HIMSELF.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAY HER TESTIMONY IS KEY BECAUSE SHE REALLY, THEY SAY, PUT A PERSONAL FACE, A HUMAN FACE ON THE ENTIRE UKRAINE CONTROVERSY SINCE HER TESTIMONY IS THAT SHE WAS STEAM ROLLED, SMEARED, AND ULTIMATELY SIDELINED ONCE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLIES REALIZED SHE WOULD BE AN OBSTACLE TO HIS DESIRED PRESSURE CAMPAIGN, YOVANOVITCH SAYING SHE FEARED FOR HER SAFETY AS A RESULT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> NOW TO OUR NBC LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER DOJ PROSECUTOR. HELP US UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE FITS. WE SAW THE NARRATIVE LAID OUT WEDNESDAY FAIRLY CLEARLY OF WHAT DEMOCRATS CLAIM THE PRESIDENT DID.

HOW DOES SHE FIT? WHY IS HER TESTIMONY IMPORTANT AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME? >> FOR ANY TRIAL YOU CAN'T TELL THE STORY ALL AT ONCE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE BUILDING BLOCKS. SHE IS AN IMPORTANT BUILDING BLOCK AND THE ISSUE I THINK FOR HER IS NOT THAT SHE WAS FIRED. IT'S WHY SHE WAS FIRED. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR I THINK TODAY OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE CONCERN FROM THE REPUBLICANS THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG LEGALLY WITH THE PRESIDENT FIRING AN AMBASSADOR. IT CAN HAPPEN ALL OF THE TIME BUT I THINK WHAT SHE IS GOING TO LAY OUT IS THE WHY. WHY WAS IT THAT SHE WAS BEING RAILROADED AT THIS TIME? I ALSO THINK SHE'LL BE IMPORTANT IN SETTING UP JUST HOW EASY A MARK THE UKRAINE WAS FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FRIENDS. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE IMPORT OF HER TESTIMONY. >> DO WE THINK THAT REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE AN EASIER TIME TAKING AIM AT HER THAN THEY DID IN THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY? >> WELL, YOU KNOW, WITH ANY WITNESS WE HAVEN'T SEEN THEM LIVE TO SEE THEIR CREDIBILITY, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE HAS BECAUSE THEY'VE SEEN HER AT THE DEPOSITION.

BUT I THINK BY ALL ACCOUNTS SHE, I ASSUME, IS GOING TO BE A VERY STRONG, CREDIBLE WITNESS. I MEAN, SHE IS SOMEBODY WHO SERVED IN THE DEPARTMENT FOR YEARS, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR YEARS. SHE IS NOT ALIGNED WITH ANY ONE PARTICULAR PARTY. SO I SUSPECT THAT SHE IS GOING TO BE QUITE A CREDIBLE WITNESS LIKE THE TWO WITNESSES THAT WE SAW THE OTHER DAY. >> LET ME TURN TO CHUCK TODD WHO IS IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME, CHUCK, WE HEARD YESTERDAY HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI REALLY PUT THIS IN STARK TERMS. SHE USED THE TERM BRIBERY AND IT WAS A SIGNAL OF WHAT AN IMPEACHMENT CHARGE, IF IT COMES, MIGHT BE. HOW SIGNIFICANT DO YOU THINK THAT WAS? >> WELL, I THINK THAT'S A — I THINK THEY BELIEVE THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT, TRYING TO PENETRATE WHAT THEY THINK IS A LITTLE BIT OF A FILTER IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY CONSUMING ALL OF THIS RIGHT NOW.

BUT I EXPECT TO SEE, TO HEAR SOME OF THAT SAME LANGUAGE ECHOED TODAY PARTICULARLY BY THE DEMOCRATS. EXPECT TO HEAR A LOT ABOUT RUDY GUILIANI TODAY. A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT RUDY GUILIANI. ABOUT WHAT HE WAS UP TO. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SOME SURPRISING, ODD THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON THE SIDE CHANNEL, RUDY GUILIANI. THERE MAY EVEN BE SOME FOX NEWS PERSONALITIES WHOSE NAMES GET DROPPED DURING THIS DEPOSITION. THE ENTIRE RUN UP TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN UKRAINE BEFORE ZELENSKY WON, I THINK, IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT ABOUT TODAY AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHAT SHE CAN TESTIFY TO BECAUSE SHE WAS THERE FOR THAT.

I'LL BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DO WITH HER. DO THEY TRY TO GO AFTER HER CREDIBILITY OR DO THEY BASICALLY BACK OFF AND SAY YOU KNOW WHAT? SHE WASN'T THERE FOR THE CALL. NEVER MIND. BECAUSE I THINK THEY RUN THE RISK IF THEY GO AFTER HER HARD THEY RUN THE RISK OF MAKING HER SEEM MORE SYMPATHETIC. THEY MAY END UP JUST DECIDING, YOU KNOW WHAT? SHE IS NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF THIS HEARING AND THEY MAY BACK OFF ON THEIR QUESTIONING. I'LL BE VERY CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THEY HANDLE HER. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP NOTABLY SAID HE DIDN'T WATCH WEDNESDAY'S HEARING BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE HE MAY BE TRYING TO COUNTER PROGRAM THIS ONE. LET'S GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE. >> Reporter: HE SURE IS, LESTER. NOT ONLY WITH AN EVENT LATER TODAY FOCUSED ON HEALTH CARE BUT ALSO WITH THIS JUST HITTING OUR INBOXES HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT TWO MINTS AGO RIGHT AT THE STROKE OF 9:00 A.M.

AS I SEE THE WITNESSES COMING IN IT IS THE FIRST TRANSCRIPT, THE FIRST CALL RATHER, THE SUMMARY OF THAT FIRST DISCUSSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BACK IN APRIL. THIS IS A CONGRATULATORY CALL, THE PRESIDENT ON MY FIRST READING DOES NOT BRING UP THE BIDENS BUT DOES SAY WE HAVE MORE TO TALK ABOUT DOWN THE ROAD AFTER CONGRATULATING ZELENSKY ON HIS VICTORY. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE CALL IN QUESTION. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT CENTERED AROUND THE JULY CALL NOT THIS INITIAL ONE RIGHT WHEN ZELENSKY WAS FIRST ELECTED. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PROMISING TO RELEASE IT. VERY INTERESTING TIMING THAT HE CHOOSES TO DO SO AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS DOING SO AS THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS BEGINNING. >> THANKS VERY MUCH AS WE LOOK AT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TAKING HER PLACE, WAITING FOR THIS HEARING TO START. >> TO ANDREA, YOU'VE ALSO COVERED FOREIGN POLICY FOR MANY YEARS. THERE IS A REPUBLICAN DEFENSE HERE THAT SAYS THAT MILITARY AID WHILE IT WAS WITHHELD FOR A TIME ULTIMATELY WAS RELEASED AND SO THERE WAS NO DAMAGE DONE.

HOW CAN DEMOCRATS BATTLE THAT PARTICULAR ARGUMENT? >> Reporter: THEY ARE ARGUING AND MOST FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS ARE ARGUING THAT IT WAS REALLY DAMAGING TO ZELENSKY, TO HIS STANDING AS A NEW, YOUNG LEADER THAT IT FATALLY DAMAGED HIS ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN BECAUSE BY THEN PUTIN KNEW PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS IN HIS CORNER NOT ZELENSKY'S CORNER AND THE AID WAS CONDITIONED. >> THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING THIS AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR HAS AUTHORIZED THE RECESS OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME. THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT. WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING. I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN RANKING MEMBER NUNES WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT. WE WILL TURN TO OUR WITNESS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN TO QUESTIONS. FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS WE WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HERE.

IN TURN, WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S HEARING. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS. AS CHAIRMAN I WILL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS. TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND ENSURE THE COMMITTEE IS RUN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE RULES AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. WITH THAT I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF DONALD J. TRUMP THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IN APRIL, 2019, THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH, WAS IN KIEV WHEN SHE WAS CALLED BY A SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND TOLD TO GET ON THE NEXT PLANE BACK TO WASHINGTON. UPON HER RETURN TO D.C., SHE WAS INFORMED BY HER SUPERIORS THAT ALTHOUGH SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT. IT WAS A STUNNING TURN OF EVENTS FOR THIS HIGHLY REGARDED CAREER DIPLOMAT WHO HAD DONE SUCH A REMARKABLE JOB FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE THAT A SHORT TIME EARLIER SHE HAD BEEN ASKED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO EXTEND HER TOUR.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS BEEN IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE FOR 33 YEARS AND SERVED MUCH OF THAT TIME IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION. HER PARENTS HAVE FLED STALIN AND LATER HITLER BEFORE SETTLING IN THE UNITED STATES. SHE IS AN EXEMPLARY OFFICER WHO IS WIDELY PRAISED AND RESPECTED BY HER COLLEAGUES. SHE IS KNOWN AS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CHAMPION WHOSE TOUR IN KIEV WAS VIEWED AS VERY SUCCESSFUL. AMBASSADOR MICHAEL McKINLEY WHO HAD SERVED WITH HER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE FOR SEVERAL DECADES STATED THAT FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS OF HER CAREER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE SHE WAS EXCELLENT, SERIOUS, COMMITTED. I CERTAINLY REMEMBER HER BEING ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SEEMED TO BE DESTINED FOR GREATER THINGS. HER SUCCESSOR IS ACTING CHIEF OF MISSION IN UKRAINE AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, DESCRIBED HER AS VERY FRANK. SHE WAS VERY DIRECT. SHE MADE POINTS VERY CLEARLY. AND SHE WAS INDEED TOUGH ON CORRUPTION. AND SHE NAMED NAMES. AND THAT SOMETIMES IS CONTROVERSIAL OUT THERE, BUT SHE'S A STRONG PERSON AND MADE THOSE CHARGES.

IN HER TIME IN KIEV, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS TOUGH ON CORRUPTION. TOO TOUGH ON CORRUPTION FOR SOME. AND HER PRINCIPLED STANCE MADE HER ENEMIES. AS GEORGE KENT TOLD THIS COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY YOU CAN'T COMMIT TO ANTICORRUPTION PRINCIPLED ACTION WITHOUT PISSING OFF CORRUPT PEOPLE. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DIDN'T JUST PISS OFF CORRUPT UKRAINIANS LIKE THE FORMER GENERAL LUTSENKO BUT ALSO CERTAIN AMERICANS LIKE RUDY GUILIANI, DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, AND TWO INDIVIDUALS NOW INDICTED WHO WORKED WITH HIM, IGOR FRUMAN AND LEVPARNAS. THEY AND OTHERS WHO WOULD COME TO INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN SON DON JR. PROMOTED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS. AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO PUSH BACK TO OBTAIN A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM SECRETARY POMPEO BUT THOSE EFFORTS FAILED WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED HER GONE. SOME HAVE ARGUED THE PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR THAT HE WANTS. THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THAT IS TRUE.

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT WHETHER DONALD TRUMP COULD RECALL AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WITH A STELLAR REPUTATION FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WHY WOULD HE WANT TO? WHY DID RUDY GUILIANI WANT HER GONE AND WHY DID DONALD TRUMP? WHY WOULD DONALD TRUMP INSTRUCT THE NEW TEAM HE PUT IN PLACE THE THREE AMIGOS, RICK PERRY AND KURT VOLKER TO WORK WITH THE SAME MAN RUDY GUILIANI WHO PLAYED SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER? RUDY GUILIANI HAS MADE NO SECRET OF HIS DESIRE TO GET UKRAINE TO OPEN INVESTIGATIONS NAH THE BIDENS.

AS WELL AS THE CONSPIRACY THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. AS HE SAID IN ONE INTERVIEW IN MAY, 2019, WE'RE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION. WE'RE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION. WHICH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO. MORE RECENTLY, HE TOLD KRN'S CHRIS CUOMO, OF COURSE HE DID WHEN ASKED IF HE HAD PRESSED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN. AND HE HAS NEVER BEEN SHY ABOUT WHO HE IS DOING THIS WORK FOR. HIS CLIENT, THE PRESIDENT. ONE POWERFUL ALLY GUILIANI HAD IN UKRAINE TO PROMOTE THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS LUTSENKO, THE CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL. AND ONE POWERFUL ADVERSARY LUTSENKO HAD WAS A CERTAIN UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR NAMED MARIE YOVANOVITCH. IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT IN THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL WITH ZELENSKY DONALD TRUMP BRINGS UP A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR AND PRAISES HIM AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE TRUMP CLAIMS THIS FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR. BUT THE WOMAN KNOWN FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION HIS OWN FORMER AMBASSADOR, THE WOMAN RUTHLESSLY SMEARED AND DRIVEN FROM HER POST, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOTHING BUT DISPARAGE. OR, WORSE, THREATEN. WELL, SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, THE PRESIDENT DECLARES.

THAT TELLS YOU A LOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES AND INTENTIONS. GETTING RID OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HELPED SET THE STAGE FOR AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT COULD PURSUE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT MATTERED SO MUCH TO THE PRESIDENT. THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORY AND, MOST IMPORTANT, AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2020 POLITICAL OPPONENT HE APPARENTLY FEARED MOST, JOE BIDEN. AND THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME MIGHT HAVE WORKED BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THE MAN WHO WOULD SUCCEED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHOM WE HEARD FROM ON WEDNESDAY ACTING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WOULD EVENTUALLY DISCOVER THE EFFORT TO PRESS UKRAINE INTO CONDUCTING THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND WOULD PUSH BACK.

BUT FOR THE FACT, ALSO, THAT SOMEONE BLEW THE WHISTLE. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS SERVING OUR NATION'S INTERESTS AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. BUT SHE WAS CONSIDERED AN OBSTACLE TO THE FURTHERANCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL AGENDA. FOR THAT, SHE WAS SMEARED AND CAST ASIDE. THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY ARE IMMENSE. BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE AND THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR CORRUPT PURPOSE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT THEIR PRESIDENT TO USE THE AUTHORITY THEY GRANT HIM IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATION, NOT TO DESTROY OTHERS TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS. I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR HIS REMARKS. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT TODAY AND FOR MOST OF NEXT WEEK WE WILL CONTINUE ENGAGING IN THE DEMOCRATS' DAY LONG TV SPECTACLES INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE PROBLEMS WE WERE ALL SENT TO WASHINGTON TO ADDRESS. WE NOW HAVE A MAJOR TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA AND MEXICO READY FOR APPROVAL, A DEAL THAT WOULD CREATE JOBS AND BOOST OUR ECONOMY.

MEAN WHILE WE HAVE NOT YET APPROVED FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH EXPIRES NEXT WEEK. ALONG WITH FUNDING FOR OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM. INSTEAD, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CONVENED US ONCE AGAIN TO ADVANCE THEIR OPERATION TO TOPPLE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT. I'LL NOTE THAT FIVE — FIVE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAD ALREADY VOTED TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT BEFORE THE TRUMP-ZELENSKY PHONE CALL OCCURRED. IN FACT, DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN VOWING TO OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP SINCE THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED. SO AMERICANS CAN RIGHTLY SUSPECT THAT HIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO FULFILL THEIR WATERGATE FANTASIES. BUT I'M GLAD THAT ON WEDNESDAY, AFTER THE DEMOCRATS STAGED SIX THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL LIKE SOME KIND OF STRANGE CULT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FINALLY GOT TO SEE THIS FARCE FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY SAW US SIT THROUGH HOURS OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THAT TWO DIPLOMATS WHO HAD NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT HEARD SECOND HAND, THIRD HAND, AND FOURTH HAND FROM OTHER PEOPLE. IN OTHER WORDS, RUMORS. THE PROBLEM OF TRYING TO OVERTHROW A PRESIDENT BASED ON THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS OBVIOUS. BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR WHOLE CASE RELIES ON BEGINNING WITH SECOND-HAND AND THIRD-HAND INFORMATION CITED BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. THAT'S WHY ON WEDNESDAY THE DEMOCRATS WERE FORCED TO MAKE THE ABSURD ARGUMENT THAT HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE. AND JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THE SPECTACLE COULDN'T GET MORE BIZARRE, THE COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS RECEIVED A MEMO FROM THE DEMOCRATS THREATENING ETHICS REFERRALS IF WE OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE WELL AWARE, NO REPUBLICANS HERE KNOW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S IDENTITY BECAUSE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ONLY MET WITH DEMOCRATS. NOT WITH REPUBLICANS. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF CLAIMED NOT TO KNOW WHO IT IS. YET HE ALSO VOWED TO BLOCK US FROM ASKING QUESTIONS THAT COULD REVEAL HIS OR HER IDENTITY. REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE LEFT WONDERING HOW IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO BLOCK QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON WHOSE IDENTITY HE CLAIMS NOT TO KNOW. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY BE SEEING THESE ABSURDITIES FOR THE FIRST TIME BUT REPUBLICANS ON THIS DAIS ARE USED TO THEM. UNTIL THEY SECRETLY MET WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER DEMOCRATS SHOWED LITTLE INTEREST FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS IN ANY TOPIC ASIDE FROM THE RIDICULOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT.

WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF ON THE PHONE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS DID WITH THE RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS OFFERING YOU NUDE PICTURES OF TRUMP AND AFTERWARD YOU ORDER YOUR STAFF TO FOLLOW UP AND GET THE PHOTOS, AS THE DEMOCRATS ALSO DID, THEN IT MIGHT BE TIME TO ASK YOURSELF IF YOU'VE GONE OUT TOO FAR ON A LIMB. EVEN AS THEY WERE ACCUSING REPUBLICANS OF COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES WERE COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS BY FUNDING THE DOSSIER.

MEAN WHILE THEY TURNED A BLIND EYE TO UKRAINIANS MEDDLING IN OUR ELECTIONS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE COOPERATING WITH THAT OPERATION. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF A JULY 20th, 2017 LETTER SENT BY SENATOR GRASSLEY TO THEN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN. THE LETTER RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES ALEXANDER CHALUPA A CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WHO WORKED WITH EMBASSY OFFICIALS TO SPREAD DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. AS SENATOR GRASSLEY WROTE, CHALUPA'S ACTIONS, QUOTE, CHALUPA'S ACTIONS APPEAR TO SHOW SHE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY WORKING ON BEHALF OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, AND ON BEHALF OF THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN AN EFFORT TO INFLUENCE NOT ONLY THE U.S. VOTING POPULATION BUT U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. UNQUOTE. AFTER TOUTING THE DOSSIER AND DEFENDING THE FBI'S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHICH ARE NOW BEING INVESTIGATED BY INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE IGNORE UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING EVEN THOUGH CHALUPA PUBLICLY ADMITTED TO THE DEMOCRATS' SCHEME. LIKE WISE, THEY ARE BLIND TO THE BLARING SIGNS OF CORRUPTION SURROUNDING HUNTER BIDEN'S WELL PAID POSITION ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT AND POINT MAN FOR UKRAINE ISSUES IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

BUT THE DEMOCRATS' MEDIA HACKS ONLY CARED ABOUT THAT ISSUE BRIEFLY. WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO STOP JOE BIDEN FROM RUNNING AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON IN 2015. AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, THESE HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BE OCCURRING AT ALL UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWERS TO THREE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO ASK. FIRST, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS' PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND WHO ELSE DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH? SECOND, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? AND, THIRD, WHY DID THE COMPANY HIRE HUNTER BIDEN? WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM? DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION? NOTE THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOWED THEY WOULD NOT PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH A WRENCHING IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WITHOUT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

AND THEY HAVE. ADD THAT TO THERE EVER GROWING LIST OF BROKEN PROMISES AND DESTRUCTIVE DECEPTIONS. IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELEASED HIS TRANSCRIPT RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT I READ THIS INTO THE RECORD SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION OVER THE FIRST PHONE CALL THAT OCCURRED ON APRIL 21st WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY.

I'D LIKE TO READ IT. THE PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON A JOB WELL DONE AND CONGRATULATIONS ON A FANTASTIC ELECTION. ZELENSKY, GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. IT'S NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THE CONGRATULATIONS. THE PRESIDENT, THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE ELECTION. ZELENSKY, AGAIN, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE TRIED VERY HARD TO DO OUR BEST. WE HAD YOU AS A GREAT EXAMPLE. THE PRESIDENT — I THINK YOU WILL DO A GREAT JOB. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN UKRAINE WHO KNOW YOU AND LIKE YOU. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM UKRAINE AND, FRANKLY, EXPECTED YOU TO WIN. AND IT'S REALLY AN AMAZING THING THAT YOU'VE DONE. I GUESS IN A WAY I DID SOMETHING SIMILAR. WE'RE MAKING TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN THE U.S. WE HAVE THE MOST TREMENDOUS ECONOMY EVER.

I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE YOU. I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU WILL BE A FANTASTIC PRESIDENT. ZELENSKY: FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. AGAIN, FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS. WE IN UKRAINE ARE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE. WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE. YOU ARE, AS I SAID, A GREAT EXAMPLE. WE ARE HOPING WE CAN EXPAND ON OUR JOBS AS YOU DID. YOU WILL ALSO BE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR MANY. YOU ARE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR OUR NEW MANAGERS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO INVITE YOU IF POSSIBLE TO THE INAUGURATION.

I KNOW HOW BUSY YOU ARE BUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO COME TO THE INAUGURATION CEREMONY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. GREAT FOR YOU TO DO TO BE WITH US ON THAT DAY. THE PRESIDENT: THAT'S VERY NICE. I'LL LOOK INTO THAT. GIVE US A DATE. AT THE VERY MINIMUM WE'LL HAVE A GREAT REPRESENTATIVE OR MORE FROM THE UNITED STATES WILL BE WITH YOU ON THAT GREAT DAY. SO WE WILL HAVE SOMEBODY AT A MINIMUM, A VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL, AND WILL BE WITH YOU, BRILLIANT AND INCREDIBLE DAY FOR AN INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT.

ZELENSKY: AGAIN, THANK YOU. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR VISIT, TO THE VISIT OF A HIGH LEVEL DELEGATION, BUT THERE'S NO WORDS THAT CAN DESCRIBE OUR WONDERFUL COUNTRY, HOW NICE, WARM, AND FRIENDLY OUR PEOPLE ARE, HOW TASTY AND DELICIOUS OUR FOOD IS, AND HOW WONDERFUL UKRAINE IS. WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE OUR COUNTRY SO IT WOULD BE BEST FOR YOU TO SEE IT YOURSELF. SO IF YOU CAN COME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO, AGAIN, I INVITE YOU TO COME. THE PRESIDENT: WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. ALWAYS HAD GREAT PEOPLE. UKRAINE ALWAYS VERY WELL REPRESENTED. WAS ALWAYS VERY WELL REMD. WHEN YOU'RE SETTLED IN AND READY I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT. BUT WE'RE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY. ZELENSKY: THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION. WE ACCEPT THE INVITATION AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE VISIT. THANK YOU AGAIN. THE WHOLE TEAM AND I ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE VISIT. THANK YOU FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS. AND I THINK IT WILL STILL BE GREAT IF YOU COULD COME AND BE WITH US ON THIS IMPORTANT DAY.

THE RESULTS ARE INCREDIBLE. THEY'RE VERY IMPRESSIVE FOR US. SO IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC IF YOU COULD COME ON THAT DAY. THE PRESIDENT: VERY GOOD. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW VERY SOON. AND WE WILL SEE YOU VERY, VERY SOON REGARDLESS. CONGRATULATIONS. AND PLEASE SAY HELLO TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND YOUR FAMILY. LET THEM KNOW I SEND MY BEST REGARDS. WELL, THANK YOU — ZELENSKY: WELL THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A SAFE FLIGHT AND SEE YOU SOON. THE PRESIDENT: TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND GIVE A GREAT SPEECH TODAY. YOU TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND I'LL SEE YOU SOON. ZELENSKY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME BUT I WILL PRACTICE ENGLISH AND I WILL MEET IN ENGLISH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE PRESIDENT: LAUGHING, THAT'S BEAUTIFUL TO HEAR. THAT IS REALLY GOOD. I COULD NOT DO IT IN YOUR LANGUAGE. I'M VERY IMPRESSED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ZELENSKY: THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE PRESIDENT: GOOD DAY. GOOD LUCK. I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD SO NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE VERY FIRST CALL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >> THE GENTLEMAN WAS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER UNDER HRES 660.

>> STATE THE POINT OF ORDER. >> THE POINT OF ORDER IS WILL THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUE TO PROHIBIT WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE DONE IN CLOSED HEARINGS AND AS YOU DID — >> CHAIRMAN WILL SUSPEND. THAT IS NOT A PROPER POINT OF ORDER. GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE — >> GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. I DO WANT TO RESPOND — >> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> THIS IS FOR TRANSCRIPTS NOT RELEASED — >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> HOLY COW. >> THE RANKING MEMBER WAS ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE OPENING STATEMENT AND I WAS HAPPY TO ALLOW HIM TO DO SO. I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO THE CALL RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, I'M GRATEFUL THE PRESIDENT HAS RELEASED THE CALL RECORD. I WOULD NOW ASK THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER RECORDS THAT HE HAS INSTRUCTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO RELEASE, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S NOTES, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE, INCLUDING GEORGE KENT'S MEMO, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ABOUT WHY THE MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I WANT YOU TO RELEASE THE FOUR TRANSCRIPTS OF THE DEPOSITIONS — >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> THAT IS MY POINT OF ORDER. >> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> GEE. >> WE WILL ASK THE PRESIDENT TO STOP OBSTRUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WHILE WE ARE GRATEFUL HE HAS RELEASED A SINGLE DOCUMENT HE HAS NONETHELESS OBSTRUCTED WITNESSES AND THEIR TESTIMONY AND THE PRODUCTION OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER RECORDS.

AND, FINALLY, I WOULD SAY THIS, MR. PRESIDENT, I HOPE YOU'LL EXPLAIN TO THE COUNTRY TODAY WHY IT WAS AFTER THIS CALL AND WHILE THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS MAKING PLANS TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION THAT YOU INSTRUCTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. >> THE CHAIR WILL NOT RECOGNIZE. >> SO WE KNOW CLEARLY YOU ARE GOING TO INTERRUPT US THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING. >> THE GENTLE WOMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> CHAIRMAN I HAVE A UNANIMOUS REQUEST. >> NO. THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH. SHE WAS BORN IN CANADA TO PARENTS WHO FLED THE SOVIET UNION AND THE NAZIS.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH EMIGRATED TO CONNECTICUT AT 3, BECAME A NATURALIZED AMERICAN AT 18, AND ENTERED THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE IN 1986. SHE HAS SERVED AS U.S. AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES AND BEEN NOMINATED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES. GEORGE W. BUSH NOMINATED HER TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2005 TO 2008. PRESIDENT OBAMA THEN NOMINATED HER TO BE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2008 UNTIL 2011. AND U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2016 UNTIL SHE WAS RECALLED TO WASHINGTON BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THIS MAY.

BEYOND THESE POSTS SHE HAS HELD NUMEROUS OTHER SENIOR POSITIONS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING IN THE BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS. SHE SERVED AS A DEAN AT THE FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE AND TAUGHT NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY AT THE DEFENSE UNIVERSITY. SHE ALSO PREVIOUSLY SERVED AT U.S. EMBASSYIES IN KIEV, OTTAWA, MOSCOW, LONDON, AND MOGADISHU. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE HONORS FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR HER DIPLOMATIC WORK INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD AND THE SECRETARY'S DIPLOMACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD. TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE OUR WITNESS IS SWORN. FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF REPRISAL, OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE AGAINST ANY U.S.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FOR TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE WITNESS HAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED. WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

WITH THAT, AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER NUNES, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. >> AMBASSADOR, YOU'LL NEED TO SPEAK VERY CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO START WITH THIS STATEMENT. TO REINTRODUCE MYSELF TO THE COMMITTEE, AND TO HIGHLIGHT PARTS OF MY BIOGRAPHY AND EXPERIENCE. I COME BEFORE YOU AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAS DEVOTED THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE, 33 YEARS, TO SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY THAT ALL OF US LOVE. LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I ENTERED THE FOREIGN SERVICE UNDERSTANDING THAT MY JOB WAS TO IMPLEMENT THE FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OF THIS NATION AS DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS AND TO DO SO REGARDLESS OF WHICH PERSON OR PARTY WAS IN POWER.

I HAD NO AGENDA OTHER THAN TO PURSUE OUR STATED FOREIGN POLICY GOALS. MY SERVICE IS AN EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE FOR ALL THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS GIVEN TO ME AND TO MY FAMILY. MY LATE PARENTS DID NOT HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE TO COME OF AGE IN A FREE SOCIETY. MY FATHER FLED THE SOVIETS BEFORE ULTIMATELY FINDING REFUGE IN THE UNITED STATES. MY MOTHER'S FAMILY ESCAPED THE USSR AFTER THE REVOLUTION AND SHE GREW UP STATELESS IN NAZI GERMANY BEFORE, ALSO, EVENTUALLY MAKING HER WAY TO THE UNITED STATES. THEIR PERSONAL HISTORY, MY PERSONAL HISTORY, GAVE ME BOTH DEEP GRATITUDE TOWARD THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT EMPATHY FOR OTHERS, LIKE THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE FREE. I JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY SERVED THREE OTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AS WELL AS TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS.

IT WAS MY GREAT HONOR TO BE APPOINTED TO SERVE AS AN AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES, TWICE BY GEORGE W. BUSH AND ONCE BY BARACK OBAMA. THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT DIPLOMATS LEAD A COMFORTABLE LIFE, THROWING DINNER PARTIES IN FANCY HOMES. LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF MY REALITY. IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EASY. I HAVE MOVED 13 TIMES AND SERVE IN SEVEN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, FIVE OF THEM HARDSHIP POSTS. MY FIRST TOUR WAS MOGADISHU, SOMALIA. AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS PLACE AS THAT COUNTRY'S CIVIL WAR KEPT GRINDING ON AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS WEAKENING. THE MILITARY TOOK OVER POLICING FUNCTIONS IN A PARTICULARLY BRUTAL WAY AND BASIC SERVICES DISAPPEARED. SEVERAL YEARS LATER AFTER THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED, I HELPED OPEN OUR EMBASSY IN UZBEKISTAN. AS WE WERE ESTABLISHING RELATIONS WITH A NEW COUNTRY OUR SMALL EMBASSY WAS ATTACKED BY A GUNMAN WHO SPRAYED THE EMBASSY BUILDING WITH GUNFIRE. I LATER SERVED IN MOSCOW. IN 1993, DURING THE ATTEMPTED COUP IN RUSSIA, I WAS CAUGHT IN CROSSFIRE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY FORCES.

IT TOOK US THREE TRIES, ME WITHOUT A HELMET OR BODY ARMOR, TO GET INTO A VEHICLE TO GO TO THE EMBASSY. WE WENT BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR ASKED US TO COME. WE WENT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR DUTY. FROM AUGUST, 2016, UNTIL MAY, 2019, I SERVED AS THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE. DURING MY TENURE IN UKRAINE, I WENT TO THE FRONT LINE APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES. DURING A HOT WAR OF. TO SHOW THE AMERICAN FLAG, TO HEAR WHAT WAS GOING ON, SOMETIMES LITERALLY AS WE HEARD THE IMPACT OF ARTILLERY, AND TO SEE HOW OUR ASSISTANCE DOLLARS WERE BEING PUT TO USE.

I WORKED TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY, FULLY EMBRACED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE, TO HELP UKRAINE BECOME A STABLE AND INDEPENDENT, DEMOCRATIC STATE WITH A MARKET ECONOMY INTEGRATED INTO EUROPE. A SECURE, DEMOCRATIC, AND FREE UKRAINE SERVES NOT JUST THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL. THAT'S WHY IT WAS OUR POLICY AND CONTINUES TO BE OUR POLICY TO HELP THE UKRAINIANS ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES. THEY MATCH OUR OBJECTIVES. THE U.S. IS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF OUR VALUES. AND OUR VALUES HAVE MADE POSSIBLE THE NETWORK OF ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT BUTTRESSES OUR OWN STRENGTHS. UKRAINE, WITH AN ENORMOUS LAND MASS AND A LARGE POPULATION, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTNER FOR THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER ON THE SECURITY SIDE. WE SEE THE POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE. RUSSIA SEES A CONTRAST, SEES THE RISK. THE HISTORY IS NOT WRITTEN YET.

BUT UKRAINE COULD MOVE OUT OF RUSSIA'S ORBIT, AND NOW UKRAINE IS A BATTLEGROUND FOR GREAT POWER COMPETITION. WITH A HOT WAR FOR THE CONTROL OF TERRITORY AND A HYBRID WAR TO CONTROL UKRAINE'S LEADERSHIP. THE U.S. HAS PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT SECURITY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE ONSET OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN 2014. AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRENGTHENED OUR POLICY BY APPROVING THE PROVISION TO UKRAINE OF ANTITANK MISSILES KNOWN AS JAVELINS. SUPPORTING UKRAINE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IT'S ALSO THE SMART THING TO DO. FALLS TO RUSSIAN DOMINION, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE OTHER ATTEMPTS BY RUSSIA TO EXPAND ITS TERRITORY AND ITS INFLUENCE.

AS CRITICAL AS THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS, UKRAINE'S STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY HAS AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT CHALLENGE — BATTLING THE SOVIET LEGACY OF CORRUPTION, WHICH HAS PERVADED UKRAINE'S GOVERNMENT. CORRUPTION MAKES UKRAINE'S LEADERS EVER VULNERABLE TO RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY LAUNCHED THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014 DEMANDING TO BE A PART OF EUROPE. DEMANDING THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM. DEMANDING TO LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. UKRAINIANS WANTED THE LAW TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION IS THE PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN. IT WAS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS. OF DIGNITY. HERE AGAIN, THERE IS A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS. CORRUPT LEADERS ARE INHERENTLY LESS TRUST WORTHY WHILE AN HONEST AND ACCOUNTABLE UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP MAKES A U.S./UKRAINIAN PARTNERSHIP MORE RELIABLE AND MORE VALUABLE TO THE UNITED STATES.

A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN THIS STRATEGICALLY LOCATED COUNTRY BORDERING FOUR NATO ALLIES CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH U.S. BUSINESS CAN MORE EASILY TRADE, INVEST, AND PROSPER. CORRUPTION IS ALSO A SECURITY ISSUE BECAUSE CORRUPT OFFICIALS ARE VULNERABLE TO MOSCOW. IN SHORT, IT IS IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO HELP UKRAINE TRANSFORM INTO A COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW GOVERNS AND CORRUPTION IS HELD IN CHECK. IT WAS AND REMAINS A TOP U.S. PRIORITY TO HELP UKRAINE FIGHT CORRUPTION AND SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE 2014 REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY. UNFORTUNATELY, AS THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HAVE UNDERLINED NOT ALL UKRAINIANS EMBRACED OUR ANTICORRUPTION WORK. THUS, PERHAPS, IT WAS NOT SURPRISING THAT WHEN OUR ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS GOT IN THE WAY OF A DESIRE FOR PROFIT OR POWER, UKRAINIANS WHO PREFER TO PLAY BY THE OLD, CORRUPT RULES SOUGHT TO REMOVE ME.

WHAT CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME IS THAT THEY FOUND AMERICANS WILLING TO PARTNER WITH THEM AND WORKING TOGETHER THEY APPARENTLY SUCCEEDED IN ORCHESTRATING THE REMOVAL OF A U.S. AMBASSADOR. HOW COULD OUR SYSTEM FAIL LIKE THIS? HOW IS IT THAT FOREIGN, CORRUPT INTERESTS COULD MANIPULATE OUR GOVERNMENT? WHICH COUNTRY'S INTERESTS ARE SERVED WHEN THE VERY CORRUPT BEHAVIOR WE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZING IS ALLOWED TO PREVAIL? SUCH CONDUCT UNDERMINES THE U.S., EXPOSES OUR FRIENDS, AND WIDENS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR AUTOCRATS LIKE PRESIDENT PUTIN. OUR LEADERSHIP DEPENDS ON THE POWER OF OUR EXAMPLE AND THE CONSISTENCY OF OUR PURPOSE. BOTH HAVE NOW BEEN OPENED TO QUESTION. WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES I EXPECT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT, STARTING WITH MY TIMELINE IN UKRAINE AND THE EVENTS ABOUT WHICH I DO AND DO NOT HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE. I ARRIVED IN UKRAINE ON AUGUST 22nd, 2016. AND LEFT UKRAINE PERMANENTLY ON MAY 20th, 2019. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EVENTS YOU ARE INVESTIGATING TO WHICH I CANNOT BRING ANY FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE.

THE EVENTS THAT PREDATED BY UKRAINE SERVICE INCLUDE THE RELEASE OF THE SO-CALLED BLACK LEDGER AND MR. MANAFORT'S SUBSEQUENT RESIGNATION FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN. AND THE DEPARTURE FROM OFFICE OF FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL SHOHEN. SEVERAL OTHER EVENTS OCCURRED AFTER I RETURNED FROM UKRAINE. THESE INCLUDE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25th, 2019 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THAT PHONE CALL, AND ANY DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE DELAY OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE IN THE SUMMER OF 2019. AS FOR EVENTS DURING MY TENURE IN THE UKRAINE, I WANT TO REITERATE, FIRST, THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT I DISSEMINATED A DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST WAS A FABRICATION.

MR. LUTSENKO, THE FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WHO MADE THAT ALLEGATION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE LIST NEVER EXISTED. I DID NOT TELL MR. LUTSENKO OR OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE. INSTEAD, I ADVOCATED THE U.S. POSITION THAT RULE OF LAW SHOULD PREVAIL. AND UKRAINIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, PROSECUTORS, AND JUDGES SHOULD STOP WIELDING THEIR POWER SELECTIVELY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AGAINST THEIR ADVERSARIES AND START DEALING WITH ALL CONSISTENTLY AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW. ALSO UNTRUE ARE UNSOURCED ALLEGATIONS THAT I TOLD UNIDENTIFIED EMBASSY EMPLOYEES OR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERS SHOULD BE IGNORED BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. I DID NOT AND I WOULD NOT SAY SUCH A THING. SUCH STATEMENTS WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH MY TRAINING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER AND MY ROLE AS AN AMBASSADOR. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID NOT ASK ME TO HELP THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN OR HARM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

NOR WOULD I HAVE TAKEN ANY SUCH STEPS IF THEY HAD. PARTISANSHIP OF THIS TYPE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROLE OF A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER. I HAVE NEVER MET HUNTER BIDEN NOR HAVE I HAD ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM. AND ALTHOUGH I HAVE MET FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF OUR MANY YEARS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE, NEITHER HE NOR THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION EVER RAISED THE ISSUE OF EITHER BARISMA OR HUNTER BIDEN WITH ME. WITH RESPECT TO MAYOR GUILIANI, I HAVE HAD ONLY MINIMAL CONTACT WITH HIM, A TOTAL OF THREE. NONE RELATED TO THE EVENTS AT ISSUE. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MR. GUILIANI'S MOTIVES FOR ATTACKING ME NOR CAN I OFFER AN OPINION ON WHETHER HE BELIEVED THE ALLEGATIONS HE SPREAD ABOUT ME. CLEARLY, NO ONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID. WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT MR. GUILIANI SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THOSE CLAIMS WERE SUSPECT COMING AS THEY REPORTEDLY DID FROM INDIVIDUALS WITH QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES AND REQUEST REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL AMBITIONS WOULD BE STYMIED BY OUR ANTICORRUPTION POLICY IN UKRAINE.

AFTER BEING ASKED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN EARLY MARCH, 2019, TO EXTEND MY TOUR UNTIL 2020, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME ENTERED A NEW PUBLIC PHASE IN THE UNITED STATES. IN THE WAKE OF THE NEGATIVE PRESS, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS SUGGESTED AN EARLIER DEPARTURE AND WE AGREED UPON JULY, 2019. I WAS THEN ABRUPTLY TOLD JUST WEEKS LATER IN LATE APRIL TO COME BACK TO WASHINGTON FROM UKRAINE ON THE NEXT PLANE. AT THE TIME I DEPARTED, UKRAINE HAD JUST CONCLUDED GAME CHANGING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. IT WAS A SENSITIVE PERIOD. WITH MUCH AT STAKE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CALLED FOR ALL THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE WE COULD MUSTER. WHEN I RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE SULLIVAN TOLD ME THERE HAD BEEN A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME, THAT THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WISHED ME TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, AND THAT, IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR MY REMOVAL SINCE THE PRIOR SUMMER.

AS MR. SULLIVAN RECENTLY RECOUNTED DURING HIS SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING, NEITHER HE NOR ANYONE ELSE EVER EXPLAINED OR SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT ME NOR DID ANYONE IN THE DEPARTMENT JUSTIFY MY EARLY DEPARTURE BY SUGGESTING I HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG. I APPRECIATE MR. SULLIVAN PUBLICLY AFFIRMED AT HIS HEARING THAT I HAD SERVED CAPABLY AND ADMIRABLY. ALTHOUGH THEN AND NOW I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINUS US INTERESTS IN THIS WAY. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO APPARENTLY FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE STATED U.S.

POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION, THAT IS TO DO OUR MISSION, WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS. AS VARIOUS WITNESSES HAVE RECOUNTED THEY SHARED BASELESS ALLEGATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONVINCED HIM TO REMOVE HIS AMBASSADOR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE AND THE SOURCES HIGHLY SUSPECT. THESE EVENTS SHOULD CONCERN EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM. AMBASSADORS ARE THE SYMBOL OF THE UNITED STATES ABROAD. THEY ARE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY SHOULD ALWAYS ACT AND SPEAK WITH FULL AUTHORITY TO ADVOCATE FOR U.S. POLICIES. IF OUR CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE IS KNEE CAPPED IT LIMITS OUR EFFECTIVENESS TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW, WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL LANDSCAPE IS MORE COMPLICATED AND MORE COMPETITIVE THAN IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION. OUR UKRAINE POLICY HAS BEEN THROWN INTO DISARRAY. AND SHADY INTERESTS, THE WORLD OVER, HAVE LEARNED HOW LITTLE IT TAKES TO REMOVE AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WHO DOES NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.

AFTER THESE EVENTS, WHAT FOREIGN OFFICIAL, CORRUPT OR NOT, COULD BE BLAMED FOR WONDERING WHETHER THE U.S. AMBASSADOR REPRESENTS THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS? AND WHAT U.S. AMBASSADOR COULD BE BLAMED FOR HARBORING THE FEAR THAT THEY CAN'T COUNT ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT THEM AS THEY IMPLEMENT STATED U.S. POLICY AND PROTECT AND DEFEND U.S. INTERESTS? I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE TAKING YOUR QUESTIONS. AT THE CLOSED DEPOSITION I EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEGRADATION OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND THE FAILURE OF STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP TO PUSH BACK AS FOREIGN AND CORRUPT INTERESTS APPARENTLY HIJACKED OUR UKRAINE POLICY.

I REMAIN DISAPPOINTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS HAVE DECLINED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ATTACKS AGAINST ME AND OTHERS ARE DANGEROUSLY WRONG. THIS IS ABOUT FAR, FAR MORE THAN ME OR A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUALS. AS FOREIGN SERVICE PROFESSIONALS ARE BEING DENIGRATED AND UNDERMINED THE INSTITUTION IS ALSO BEING DEGRADED. THIS WILL SOON CAUSE REAL HARM IF IT HASN'T ALREADY. THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS A TOOL OF FOREIGN POLICY OFTEN DOESN'T GET THE SAME KIND OF ATTENTION OR EVEN RESPECT AS THE MILITARY MIGHT OF THE PENTAGON. BUT WE ARE, AS THEY SAY, THE POINTY END OF THE SPEAR. IF WE LOSE OUR EDGE, THE U.S. WILL INEVITABLY HAVE TO USE OTHER TOOLS EVEN MORE THAN IT DOES TODAY. THOSE OTHER TOOLS ARE BLUNTER, MORE EXPENSIVE, AND NOT UNIVERSALLY EFFECTIVE.

MOREOVER, THE ATTACKS ARE LEADING TO A CRISIS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS THE POLICY PROCESS IS VISIBLY UNRAVELING. LEADERSHIP VACANCIES GO UNFILLED AND SENIOR AND MID LEVEL OFFICERS PONDER AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. THE CRISIS HAS MOVED FROM THE IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS TO AN IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTION, ITSELF. THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BEING HOLLOWED OUT FROM WITHIN AT A COMPETITIVE AND COMPLEX TIME ON THE WORLD STAGE. THIS IS NOT A TIME TO UNDERCUT OUR DIPLOMATS. IT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERS TO STAND UP FOR THE INSTITUTION AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE THAT INSTITUTION STILL TODAY THE MOST EFFECTIVE DIPLOMATIC FORCE IN THE WORLD. AND CONGRESS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REINVEST IN OUR DIPLOMACY. THAT'S AN INVESTMENT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT'S AN INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE, IN OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE. AS I CLOSE, LET ME BE CLEAR ON WHO WE ARE AND HOW WE SERVE THIS COUNTRY. WE ARE PROFESSIONALS. WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO BY VOCATION AND TRAINING PURSUE THE POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF WHO HOLDS THAT OFFICE OR WHAT PARTY THEY AFFILIATE WITH.

WE HANDLE AMERICAN CITIZEN SERVICES, FACILITATE TRADE AND COMMERCE, WORK SECURITY ISSUES, REPRESENT THE U.S., AND REPORT TO AND ADVISE WASHINGTON, TO MENTION JUST SOME OF OUR FUNCTIONS. AND WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE EVERY DAY. WE ARE PEOPLE WHO REPEATEDLY UPROOT OUR LIVES, WHO RISK AND SOMETIMES GIVE OUR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY. WE ARE THE 52 AMERICANS WHO 40 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH BEGAN 444 DAYS OF DEPRIVATION, TORTURE, AND CAPTIVITY IN TEHRAN. WE ARE THE DOZENS OF AMERICANS STATIONED AT OUR EMBASSY IN CUBA AND CONSULATE IN CHINA WHO MYSTERIOUSLY, DANGEROUSLY, IN SOME CASES EVEN PERMANENTLY WERE INJURED AND ATTACKED FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND WE ARE AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS, SEAN PATRICK SMITH, TY WOODS, GLEN DOHERTY, PEOPLE RIGHTLY CALLED HEROES FOR THEIR ULTIMATE SACRIFICE TO THIS NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS IN LIBYA EIGHT YEARS AGO. WE HONOR THESE INDIVIDUALS. THEY REPRESENT EACH ONE OF YOU HERE AND EVERY AMERICAN. THESE COURAGEOUS INDIVIDUALS WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY SYMBOLIZED AMERICA. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, WHAT AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW IS THAT WHILE, THANKFULLY, MOST OF US ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY IN FAR LESS DRAMATIC WAYS, EVERY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER RUNS THE SAME RISKS AND VERY OFTEN SO DO OUR FAMILIES.

THEY SERVE, TOO. AS INDIVIDUALS, AS A COMMUNITY, WE ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY TO ADVANCE AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. WE TAKE OUR OATH SERIOUSLY. THE SAME OATH THAT EACH ONE OF YOU TAKE, TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND TO BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME. I COUNT MYSELF LUCKY TO BE A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, FORTUNATE TO SERVE WITH THE BEST AMERICA HAS TO OFFER, BLESSED TO SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THE LAST 33 YEARS.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR. WE COUNT OURSELVES LUCKY TO HAVE YOU SERVE THE COUNTRY AS YOU HAVE FOR DECADES. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE 45-MINUTE ROUNDS. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF AND MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR 45 MINUTES. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR APPEARING TODAY. ALL AMERICANS ARE DEEPLY IN YOUR DEBT. GOLDMAN OUR STAFF COUNSEL I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A FEW OF THE PIVOTAL EVENTS OF INTEREST TO THE COUNTRY. FIRST OF ALL, WAS FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE A KEY ELEMENT OF U.S. POLICY AND ONE ON WHICH YOU PLACED THE HIGHEST PRIORITY? >> YES, IT WAS.

>> AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? >> IT WAS IMPORTANT AND IT WAS ACTUALLY STATED IN OUR POLICY AND IN OUR STRATEGY. IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE CORRUPTION WAS UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOVERNMENT — GOVERNANCE SYSTEM IN UKRAINE. AND AS I NOTED IN MY STATEMENT, COUNTRIES THAT HAVE LEADERS THAT ARE HONEST AND TRUST WORTHY MAKE BETTER PARTNERS FOR US. COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OUR U.S. BUSINESS MAKES IT EASIER FOR OUR COMPANIES TO DO BUSINESS THERE AND TRADE AND PROFIT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. AND WHAT HAD BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE SOVIET UNION AND THIS IS VERY MUCH A SOVIET LEGACY IS THAT CORRUPT INTERESTS WERE UNDERMINING NOT ONLY THE GOVERNANCE BUT ALSO THE ECONOMY OF UKRAINE. WE SEE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE CAPABLE, MORE TRUSTWORTHY PARTNER THERE. >> AND I KNOW THIS MAY BE AWKWARD FOR YOU TO ANSWER, SINCE IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR REPUTATION, BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU EARNED A REPUTATION FOR BEING A CHAMPION OF ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE? >> YES.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO WATCH GEORGE KENT'S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY BUT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH HIS RATHER FRANK ASSESSMENT THAT IF YOU FIGHT CORRUPTION, YOU'RE GOING TO PISS OFF SOME CORRUPT PEOPLE? >> YES. >> AND IN YOUR EFFORTS FIGHTING CORRUPTION, TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY INTERESTS, DID YOU ANGER SOME OF THE CORRUPT LEADERS IN UKRAINE? >> YES. >> WAS ONE OF THOSE CORRUPT PEOPLE PROSECUTOR GENERAL YURI LUTSENKO? >> YES, I BELIEVE SO. >> WAS ONE OF THOSE ANOTHER CORRUPT GENERAL PROSECUTOR? >> APPARENTLY SO THOUGH I'VE NEVER MET HIM. >> AT SOME POINT DID YOU COME TO LEARN THAT BOTH LUTSENKO AND SHOKIN WERE IN TOUCH WITH RUDY GUILIANI PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER AND REPRESENTATIVE? >> YES. >> IN FACT, DID GUILIANI TRY TO OVERTURN A DECISION YOU PARTICIPATED IN TO DENY SHOKIN A VISA? >> YES.

THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD. >> AND THAT DENIAL WAS BASED ON HIS CORRUPTION? >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. >> WAS IT MR. LUTSENKO AMONG OTHERS WHO COORDINATED WITH MR. GUILIANI TO PEDDLE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOU AS WELL AS THE BIDENS? >> YES. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> AND WERE THESE SMEARS ALSO AMPLIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT'S SON DONALD TRUMP JR. AS WELL AS CERTAIN HOSTS ON FOX? >> YES, YES. THAT IS THE CASE. >> IN THE FACE OF THIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN DID COLLEAGUES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TRY TO GET A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR YOU FROM SECRETARY POMPEO? >> YES. >> WERE THEY SUCCESSFUL? >> NO. >> DID YOU COME TO LEARN THAT THEY COULDN'T ISSUE SUCH A STATEMENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED IT WOULD BE UNDERCUT BY THE PRESIDENT? >> YES.

>> AND THEN WERE YOU TOLD THAT THOUGH YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG YOU DID NOT ENJOY THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND, IN FACT, YOU FLEW HOME FROM KIEV ON THE SAME DAY AS THE INAUGURATION OF UKRAINE'S NEW PRESIDENT? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> THAT INAUGURATION WAS ATTENDED BY THREE WHO HAVE BECOME KNOWN AS THE THREE AMIGOS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, VOLKER, AND PERRY WAS IT? >> YES.

>> AND THREE DAYS AFTER THAT INAUGURATION, IN A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT DESIGNATED THESE THREE AMIGOS TO COORDINATE UKRAINE POLICY WITH RUDY GUILIANI? >> SINCE THEN I HAVE BECOME AWARE OF THAT. >> THIS IS THE SAME RUDY GUILIANI WHO ORCHESTRATED THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU? >> YES. >> AND THE SAME RUDY GUILIANI WHO DURING THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL THE PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED TO ZELENSKY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BIDENS? >> YES. >> AND, FINALLY, AMBASSADOR, IN THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL, THE PRESIDENT PRAISES ONE OF THESE CORRUPT FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS AND SAYS THEY WERE TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY. THEY WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY — NOT YOU, WHO WAS SMEARED AND RECALLED — BUT ONE OF THEM. WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV? >> I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT THE BASIS FOR THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT WOULD BE. CERTAINLY NOT FROM OUR REPORTING OVER YEARS. >> DID YOU HAVE CONCERN, THOUGH, DO YOU HAVE CONCERN TODAY ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS SEND TO THE PEOPLE STILL IN THE UKRAINE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES WHEN A WELL RESPECTED AMBASSADOR CAN BE SMEARED OUT OF HER POST WITH THE PARTICIPATION AND ACQUIESCENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> WELL, IT'S, I THINK, BEEN A BIG HIT FOR MORALE BOTH AT U.S.

EMBASSY KIEV BUT ALSO MORE BROADLY IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT OTHER AMBASSADORS AND OTHERS OF LESSER RANK WHO SERVE THE UNITED STATES IN EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND THINK, IF I TAKE ON CORRUPT PEOPLE IN THESE COUNTRIES, THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ME? >> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT, YES. >> MR. GOLDMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ON APRIL 24th OF THIS YEAR AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00 P.M., YOU RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL WHILE YOU WERE AT THE EM-BASSEY IN KIEV FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THIS WAS JUST THREE DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ELECTION AND THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM RANKING MEMBER NUNES.

AT THE TIME THAT THIS URGENT CALL CAME IN, WHAT WERE YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING? >> I WAS HOSTING AN EVENT IN HONOR OF AN ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST OR WAS AN ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST IN UKRAINE. WE HAD GIVEN HER THE WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD FROM UKRAINE AND, IN FACT, THE WORLDWIDE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT, AT THE WORLDWIDE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C., SECRETARY POMPEO SINGLED HER OUT FOR HER AMAZING WORK IN UKRAINE TO FIGHT CORRUPT INTERESTS IN THE SOUTH OF UKRAINE.

SHE VERY TRAGICALLY DIED BECAUSE SHE WAS ATTACKED BY ACID AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER DIED A VERY, VERY PAINFUL DEATH. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT JUSTICE BE DONE FOR HER AND FOR OTHERS WHO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A TABLE TOP EXERCISE THERE. LIVES ARE IN THE BALANCE. AND SO WE WANTED TO BRING ATTENTION TO THIS. WE HELD AN EVENT AND GAVE HER FATHER, WHO OF COURSE IS STILL MOURNING HER, THAT AWARD, THE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT. >> AND HER WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD STEMMED FROM HER ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE? >> YES, THAT IS TRUE. >> WAS IT EVER DETERMINED WHO THREW THE ACID AND KILLED HER? >> THERE HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATIONS BUT WHILE SOME OF THE LOWER RANKING INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, THOSE WHO ORDERED THIS HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPREHENDED. >> AFTER YOU STEPPED AWAY FROM THIS ANTICORRUPTION EVENT TO TAKE THIS CALL, WHAT DID THE DIRECTOR GENERAL TELL YOU? >> SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN ON THE 7th FLOOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S WHERE THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT SITS.

THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN. THEY WERE WORRIED. SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP ABOUT THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS SEEMED TO BE GOING ON AND SO SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP. I, YOU KNOW, HARD TO KNOW HOW TO REACT TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I ASKED HER WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, WHAT DID SHE THINK IT WAS ABOUT. SHE DIDN'T KNOW. SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS GOING TO TRY AND FIND OUT MORE BUT SHE HAD WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP. IN FACT, I THINK SHE MAY EVEN HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP ON THAT. AND SO I ASKED HER KIND OF WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP HERE? SO SHE SAID SHE WOULD TRY TO FIND OUT MORE AND SHE WOULD TRY TO CALL ME BY MIDNIGHT.

>> WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? >> AROUND 1:00 IN THE MORNING SHE CALLED ME AGAIN AND SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE GREAT CONCERNS, THERE WERE CONCERNS UP THE STREET, AND SHE SAID I NEEDED TO GET — COME HOME IMMEDIATELY. GET ON THE NEXT PLANE TO THE U.S. AND I ASKED HER WHY. AND SHE SAID SHE WASN'T SURE BUT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY. I ASKED HER, MY PHYSICAL SECURITY? BECAUSE SOMETIMES WASHINGTON KNOWS MORE THAN WE DO ABOUT THESE THINGS. AND SHE SAID, NO. SHE HADN'T GOTTEN THAT IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS A PHYSICAL SECURITY ISSUE BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MY SECURITY AND I NEEDED TO COME HOME RIGHT AWAY. YOU KNOW, I ARGUED. THIS IS EXTREMELY IRREGULAR. AND NO REASON GIVEN. BUT IN THE END, I DID GET ON THE NEXT PLANE HOME. >> YOU SAID THERE WERE CONCERNS UP THE STREET. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN? >> THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> DID SHE EXPLAIN IN ANY MORE DETAIL WHAT SHE MEANT BY CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR SECURITY? >> NO. SHE DIDN'T. I DID SPECIFICALLY ASK WHETHER THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE — MAYOR GUILIANI'S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME AND SO FORTH. AND SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T KNOW. IT DIDN'T EVEN ACTUALLY APPEAR TO ME THAT SHE SEEMED TO BE AWARE OF THAT. NO REASON WAS OFFERED. >> DID SHE EXPLAIN WHAT THE URGENCY WAS FOR YOU TO COME BACK ON THE NEXT FLIGHT? >> THE ONLY THING THAT'S PERTINENT TO THAT WAS WHEN SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY.

THAT'S ALL. BUT IT WAS NOT FURTHER EXPLAINED. >> NOW, PRIOR TO THIS ABRUPT CALL BACK TO WASHINGTON, D.C., HAD YOU BEEN OFFERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR POST BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT? >> YES. THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS HAD ASKED WHETHER I WOULD EXTEND FOR ANOTHER YEAR, DEPARTING IN JULY OF 2020. >> WHEN WAS THAT REQUEST MADE? >> IN EARLY MARCH. >> SO ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE THIS CALL? >> YES. >> DID ANYONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT EVER EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE? AT YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE TOLD YOU YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG BUT THERE WAS A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU.

WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT? >> I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE. >> I'M NOT EXACT LOY SURE BUT I TOOK IT TO MEAN THAT THE ALLEGATIONS MAYOR GUILIANI AND EARS WERE PUTTING OUT THERE THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. >> WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN? >> SOME MEMBERS OF THE PRESS. IN THE UKRAINE, I THINK — HIS PREDECESSOR, CERTAINLY. >> AND AT THIS TIME MR. LUTSENKO WAS THE LEAD PROSECUTOR GENERAL IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> HAD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INDICATED WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS GOING TO KEEP HIM ON AFTER THE ELECTION? >> HE HAD INDICATED HE WOULD NOT BE KEEPING ON MR. LUTSENKO. >> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT MR. LUTSENKO HAD A REPUTATION FOR BEING CORRUPT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, DURING THIS CONVERSATION DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR FUTURE AS THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE? >> HE TOLD ME I NEEDED TO LEAVE.

>> WHAT DID HE SAY? >> HE SAID THAT — I MEAN, THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BUT ULTIMATELY HE SAID THE WORDS THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER UNDERSTANDS, THE PRESIDENT HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU. THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, A TERRIBLE THING TO HEAR. AND I SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I HAVE TO GO THEN. BUT NO REAL REASON WAS OFFERED AS TO WHY I HAD TO LEAVE AND WHY IT WAS BEING DONE IN SUCH A MANNER. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU? >> NO. >> AND WERE YOU PROVIDED ANY REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU? >> NO.

>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED AT YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU WERE TOLD AT SOME POINT THAT SECRETARY POMPEO HAD TRIED TO PROTECT YOU BUT THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO DO THAT. WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE EFFORTS TO PROTECT YOU? >> NO I WAS NOT UNTIL THAT MEETING WITH DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN. >> DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHO HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT YOU FROM? >> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WANTED ME TO LEAVE AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT OVER THE PRIOR MONTHS. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING WHY SECRETARY POMPEO WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROTECT YOU? >> NO. IT WAS JUST A STATEMENT MADE THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROTECT ME. >> SO JUST LIKE THAT YOU HAD TO LEAVE UKRAINE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? >> YES. >> HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL? >> TERRIBLE, HONESTLY. I MEAN, AFTER 33 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, IT WAS TERRIBLE.

IT'S NOT THE WAY I WANTED MY CAREER TO END. >> YOU ALSO TOLD THE DEPUTY SECRETARY THAT THIS WAS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> I WAS WORRIED ABOUT OUR POLICY BUT ALSO PERSONNEL, THAT — AND I ASKED HIM HOW — HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO PEOPLE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE PRESS, THE PUBLIC, UKRAINIANS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS WATCHING. AND SO IF PEOPLE SEE SOMEBODY WHO — AND OF COURSE IT HAD BEEN VERY PUBLIC, FRANKLY, THE ATTACKS ON ME BY MAYOR GUILIANI AND OTHERS AND MR. LUTSENKO IN UKRAINE. IF PEOPLE SEE THAT I, WHO HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, PROMOTING OUR POLICIES ON ANTICORRUPTION, IF THEY CAN UNDERMINE ME AND GET ME PULLED OUT OF UKRAINE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR OUR POLICY? DO WE STILL HAVE THAT SAME POLICY? HOW ARE WE GOING OURALLACY? HOW ARE WE GOING TO AFFIRMATIVELY PUT THATTER IT FORWARD, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, WHEN OTHER ACTORS, IN OTHER COUNTRIES SEE THAT PRIVATE ININTERESTS, FOREIGN INTERESTS CAN COME TOGETHER AND GET A U.S. AMBASSADOR REMINEDX WHAT'S GOING TO STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT IN THE FUCH IN OTHER COUNTRIES? OFFEN THE WORK WE DO, WE TRY TO BE DIPLOMATIC ABOUT IT BUT AS GEORGE KENT SAID IT CAN GETEPAL ANGRY WITH US, UNCOMFORTABLE.

WE ARE DOING OUR JOBS BUT SOMETIMESEPAL BEBECOME VERY ANGRY AND IF THEY REALIZE THEY CAN JUST REMOVE US, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT. >> HOW DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY RESPOND? >> THAT THOSE WERE GOOD QUESTIONS AND HE WOULD GET BACK TO ME. >> DID HE GET BACK IT TO YOU? >> HE ASKED TO SEE ME THE FOLLOWING DAY. THE CONVERSATION WAS MORE — AND AGAIN I'M GRATEFUL FOR THIS BUT TO SEE HOW I WAS DOING AND WHAT WOULD I DO NEXT? HOW COULD HE HELP. >> BUT HE DIDN'T DISCUSS THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT? >> NO. >> YOU UNDERSTOOD, OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT OF OF THE UNITED STATES COULD REMOVE YOU AND YOU SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HAVE YOU HEARD OF OF A PRESIDENT RECALLING ANOTHER AMBASSADOR WITHOUT CAUSE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS THE STATE DEPARTMENT ITSELF KNEW TO BE FALSE? >> NO. >> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU HAD LEFT UKRAIN BY THE TIME OF THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THE CALL RECORD FOR THIS PHONE CALL? >> WHEN IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY EAT THE END OF SEPTEMBER. >> AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SPECIFICALLY MADE REFERENCE TO YOU IN THAT CALL? >> NO. LEARNING THAT? >> I WAS SHOCKED. ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED AND DEVASTATED, FRANKLY. >> WHAT IT DO YOU MEAN BY DEVASTATED? >> I WAS SHOCKED AND DEVASTATED THAT I WOULD FEATURE IN A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO HEADS OF STATE IN SUCH A MANNER WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT I WAS BAD NEWS TO ANOTHER WORLD LEADER AND THAT I WOULD BE GOING THROUGH SOME THINGS. IT WAS A TERRIBLE MOMENT. A PERSON WHO SAW EME LEAD TO TRANSCRIPT SAID THE COLOR DRAINED FROM MY FACE. I THINK I EVEN HAD A PHYSICAL REACTION. EVEN NOW WORDS FAIL HE. >> WITHOUT UPSETTING YOU TOO MUCH, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE CAN EXCERPTS FROM THE CALL AND THE FIRST ONE, WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE FORMER AMBASSADOR FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN, WAS BAD NEWS AND THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING WITH IN UKRAIN WERE BAD THUZ.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW. WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REFER TO YOU AS BAD NEWS? >> I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. SHOCKED, APPALLED, DEVASTATED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD TALK ABOUT ANY AMBASSADOR LIKE THAT TO A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE AND IT WAS ME. I MEAN I COULDN'T I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. >> THE NEXT EXCERPT WHEN THE PRESIDENT REFERENCES YOU IS A SHORT ONE. HE SAID WELL, SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS? >> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK BOUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED.

>> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? >> SHE'S GOING IT GO THROUGH SOME THINGS DIDN'T SOUND GOOD. SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT. >> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED? >> I DID. >> HOW SO? >> I DIDN'T KNOW KAKTLY. EXACTLY. IT'S THOUGHT A VERY PRECISE PHRASE BUT I THINK IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I WAS — I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWERER THE QUESTION ANY FURTHER EXCEPT TO SAY IT FELT LIKE A BIG THREAT AND SO I WONDERED WHAT THAT MEANT. IT CONCERNED ME. >> NOW IN THE SAME CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENT, AS YOU JUST SAID, THREATENS YOU TO A FOREIGN LEADER, HE ALSO PRAISES RATHER THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN ROS KURT WHO LED THE FALSE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU. I WANT TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER EXCERPT OR TWO FROM THE PHONE CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS GOOD BECAUSE I HEARD YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT. THE WAY THEY SHUT YOUR VERY GOOD PROSECUTOR DOWN AND YOU HAD SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE INVOLVED. AND HE WENT ON LATER TO SAY "I HEARD THE PROSECUTOR WAS TREATED VERY BADLY AND HE WAS A VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR. SO GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING." AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AFTER NEARLY THREE YEARS IN UKRAIN WHERE YOU TRIED TO CLEAN UP THE OFFICE, WAS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS A VERY FAIR AND GOOD PROSECUTOR? >> THOUGH T WAS NOT. >> IN FACT HE WAS RATHER CORRUPT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT WAS OUR BELIEF. >> THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE IS A LONG RUNNING PROBLEM IN UKRAIN, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> SO HOW DID YOU FEEL WHEN YOU HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAK SO HIGHLY OF THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WHO HELPED TO EXECUTE THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN IT TO HAVE YOU REMOVED? >> I WAS — IT WAS DISAPPOINTING, CONCERNING.

IT WASN'T BASED ON ANYTHING THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE RECORDED OR ANYBODY ELSE. THERE WAS AN INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS THAT WE WERE HOPEFUL HE WOULD DO THE THINGS WE SET OUT TO DO INCLUDING RETORMING THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE. BUT THAT DID NOT MATERIALIZE. >> SO THIS WAS NOT THE UNIFORM POSITION OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY MAKERS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> NOW LET'S GO BACK TO THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN YOU REFERENCED AND IN MARCH WHEN YOU SAID IT BECAME PUBLIC AND YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU LEARNED THAT RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER AND R79 REPRESENTATIVE ALSO MENTION SAID IN THE JULY 25TH CALL WAS IN REGULAR COMMUNICATION IN LATE 2018 AND EARLY 2019.

AND AT ONE POINT IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THEY, THAT BEING GIULIANI AND THE IT FOREIGN PROSECUTOR GENERAL, HAD PLANS TO QUOTE DO IT THINGS TO ME. WHAT DID YOU KNOW BY THAT? >> I DIDN'T KNOW BUT THAT'S WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD BY UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. >> DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE OF WHAT THAT MEANT? >> WITH THE ADVANTAGE OF HINDSIGHT I THINK THAT MEANT REMOVING ME FROM MY JOB IN UKRAIN. >> WHO DO YOU THING WAS WORKING WITH MR. GIULIANI AS HIS ASSOCIATES IN UKRAIN? >> CERT. ENLY MR.

SA, THE KO AND UKRAINIAN AHAIRCONS THAT HAD RECENTLY BEEN THEDITED. >> THOSE WERE THE TWO THAT HAD BEEN INDICTED IN THORK? >> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. >> AT THE END OF MARCH WE TO SUMS ARE SH OF THE ALLEGATIONS AHUNG OTHERS THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. ONE CAT DWOIRER INCLUDED THE ATTACKS AGAINST YOU WHICH YOU REFERENCED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TO GIVE THE ROS KURT GENERAL A DO-THOUGHT PROSECUTE LIST AND ONE THAT INCLUDED UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND ONE INCLUDING THE BIDENS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. DID THESE SEEM TO BE RUHOTED BY THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES? >> THEY SEEMED TO BE AROUND RUDY GIULIANI. >> A TWEET HERE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF ON MARCH 20th, THE FIRST DAY THAT ONE OF THE ARTICLES WAS PUBLISHED. IT APPEARS TO BE A QUOTE THAT SAYS JOHN SOL 00 IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLES.

AS RUSSIAN FADS, PLOT TO HELP CLINTON EMERGES AND IT I COULD DWE TO ANOTHER TWEET TOUR DAYS LATER. THIS IS THES'S SON, DONALD TRUMP JR. WHO TWEETS WE NEED MORE @RICHARD GRENELL'S — AND THAT'S AMWASDER OF GERMANY? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND LESS OF THESE JOKERS. AND IT'S ARE A RETWEET OF THE ARTICLE REFERENCING THE ALLEGATION THAT SAYS CALLS GROW TO IT REMOVE OBAMA'S U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAIN. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE TWEETS AT THE TIME? >> YES. >> WHAT WAS REACTION TO ESEEING THIS? >> I WAS WORRIED. >> WHAT WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT? >> THESE ATTACKS WERE BEING REPEATED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND AND HIS SON. >> AND WERE YOU AWARE WHETHER THEY RECEIVED ATTENTION ON FOX THUZ AS WELL? >> YES. WAS THE ALLEGATION YOU WERE BAD MOUTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP TRUE? >> THOUGH. >> WAS IT TRUE YOU GAVE A NO PROSECUTOR LIST TO UKRAIN? >> THOUGH. >> IN FACT DIDN'T THE ROS KURT GENERAL LATER RECANT THOSE ALLEGATIONS? >> YES. >> WHEN THEY WERE FIRST PUBLISHED DID THEY ISSUE A ERESPONSE? >> AS YOU SAID THERE WAS A SERIES OF ARTICLES.

SO AFTER THE FIRST ARTICLE, WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW WAS ONLY REALLY ABOUT ME AND MADE FOR ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ME, THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT THE FOLLOWING DAY WITH A VERY STRONG STATEMENT. SAYING THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE FABRICATIONS. >> SO IT ADDRESSED THE FALSITIES ITSELF? >> YES. >> IT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE IN ANY WAY? >> I HAVEN'T LOOKED THAT IN A LONG TIME. I CAN'T RECALL. >> DID ANYONE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT RAISE CONCERNS OR EXPRESS ANY BELIEF IN THESE ALLEGATIONS? >> NO.

I MEAN PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS RIDICULOUS. >> NOW AFTER THESE FALSE ALDWAGZS WERE MADE AGAINST YOUX DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS OF ANYONE IN LEADERSHIP ABOUT A POTENTIAL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM THE IT DEPARTMENT OR SECRETARY HIMSELF? >> AFTER THE TWEETS YOU SHOWED HE, IT SEEMED IF THE PRESIDENT'S SON IS SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS, IS GOING TO BE HARD TO CONTINUE MY POSITION IN UKRAIN UNLESS THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT VERY STRONGLY BEHIND HE. I THINK MARCH 22nd THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON EMAIL AMONG A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE.

I AND THE UNDERSEC REERITARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS CALLED ME ON SUNDAY AND I SAID IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THE SECRETARY HIMSELF COME OUT AND BE SUPPORTIVE. BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BE THE KIND OF REPRESENTATIVE YOU NEED. AND HE SAID HE WOULD — THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF THE CALL. THAT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY HOW IT PLAYED OUT. THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. >> THIS IS DAVID HALE, THE NUMBER THREE PERSON AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT? >> YES. >> DID HE INDICATE HE HAD SUCH A SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR YOU? >> I THINK HE MUST HAVE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE SECRETARY IF HE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT. I MEAN YOU WOULDN'T BRING A BAD IDEA TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. >> YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS YOU DID HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, RIGHT? >> YES.

>> IN FACT DURING YOUR 33-YEAR CAREER, DID YOU EVER HEAR OF ANY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE? >> NO. >> WAS THE STATEMENT OF SUPPORT ULTIMATELY ISSUED FOR YOU? >> NO T WAS NOT. >> DID YOU LUN WHY NOT? >> YES, I WAS TOLD THERE WAS CONCERN THAT IT A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT WAS ISSUED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR SECRETARY PURSE THAT HE WILL THAT IT COULD BE UNDERMINED. >> HOW COULD IT BE UNDERMINED? >> THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ISSUE A TWEET LIKE THAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> YOU WERE ONE OF THE SENIOR MOST PEOPLE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, BEEN THERE NUMEROUS YEARS, UP WITH RR NUMEROUS AWARDS, APPOINTED AN AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES BY BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT ISSUE A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF YOU AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A TWEET FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> IF I COULD FOLLOW UP ON IT THAT QUESTION. SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE TIME. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AS WE SIT HERE TESTIFYING, THE PRESIDENT IS ATTACKING YOU ON TWITTER. I'LL READ PART OF ONE OF HIS TWEETS. EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WENT TURNED BAD. SHE STARTED OFF IN SOMALIA. HOW DID THAT GO? HE GOES ON TO SAY LATER IN THE TWEET IS U.S.

PRESIDENT'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS. FIRST OF ALL, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THE SENATE HAS A CHANCE TO CONFIRM OR DENY AN AMBASSADOR, DO THEY NOT? >> YES, ADVISE AND CONSENT. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE ATTACK THAT EVERYWHERE YOU WENT TURNED BAD? >> WELL, I — I MEAN I DON'T THINK I HAVE SUCH POWERS IN SOMALIA OR OTHER PLACES. I ACTUALLY THINK WHERE I'VE SERVED OVER THE YEARS I AND OTHERS HAVE DEMONSTRAEBL MATED THINGS BETTER FOR THE U.S. AS WITH WELL AS FOR THE COUNTRIES I SERVED IN. UKRAIN, FOR CAN EXAMPLE WHERE THERE ARE HUGE ISSUES, INCLUDING THE TOPIC WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, CORRUPTION HUGE CHALLENGES. BUT THEY'VE MADE HUGE STRIDES AND THE UKRAINIANEPAL GET THE MOST CREDIT FOR THAT. BUT A PART OF THAT CREDIT GOES TO THE WORK OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO ME, AS THE AMBASSADOR IN THE UKRAIN. >> AMBASSADOR, YOU'VE SHOWN THE CURTJ TO COME FORWARD TODAY AND TESTIFY. NOT WITH STANDING THE FACT THAT YOU WERE URGED BY THE WHITE HOUSE OR STATE DEPARTMENT THOUGHT TO, NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AS YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER, THE PRESIDENT IMPLICITLY THREATENED YOU IN THAT CALL RECORD.

AND NOW THE PRESIDENT IN REAL TIME IS ATTACKING YOU. WHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK THAT HAS ON OTHER WITNESS WILLING IFNESS TO COME FORWARD AND EXPOSE WRONG DOING? >> IT'S INTIMIDATINGING. >> DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE, IS NOT? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO BUT THE EFFECT CAN BE INTIMIDATING. >> I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT SOME OF US HERE TAKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION VERY SERIOUSLY. >> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, YOU INDICATED THE SAME ARTICLES IN MARCH THAT INCLUDED THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN ALSO INCLUDED ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO UKRAIN'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BARISMA/BIDEN CONNECTION, CORRECT? >> YES. >> SO I WANT TO GO TO THE JULY 25th CALL. PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCES THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS. FIRST, IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP THANKS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON HIS GREAT JOB ON DEFENSE, QUOTE UNQUOTE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO A FAVOR BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAIN KNOW AS LOT ABOUT IT.

I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAIN. THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE. I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER. THEY SAY UKRAIN HAS IT AND HE GOES ON TO SAY WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT YOU CAN DO IT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. NOW AS YOUR EXPERIENCE TO UKRAIN FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS AND UNDERSTANDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT IN POLITICS BEFORE HE RAN AND WAS A NEW PRESIDENT ON THIS CAN CALL, HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INTERPRET A REGRES A FAVOR? >> THE U.S. RELATIONSHIP FOR UKRAIN IS THE SINGLE MOST RELATIONSHIP. AND SO I THINK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ANY PRESIDENT, WOULD DO WHAT THEY COULD TO LEAN IN ONB A FAVOR REQUEST. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S A YES. I'M SAYING THEY WOULD LEAN IN AND SEE WHAT THEY COULD DO. >> FAIR TO SAY UKRAIN, WHICH IS SO DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES, WOULD DO EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO PLEASES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IF HE COULD? >> YOU KNOW F HE COULD.

I'M SURE THERE ARE LIMITS AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT ALL OF THIS. BUT, YEAH. I MEAN WE EARE AN IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP ON A SECURITY AND POLITICAL SIDE. STOW THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAIN, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS HE HAS IS TO MAKE SURE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES IS ROCK SOLID. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> I MEAN THERE HAVE BEEN RUMORS OUT THERE ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THERE WAS NOTHING HARD. AT LEAST NOTHING I WAS AWARE OF. >> NOTHING BASED IN FACT TO SUPPORT THESE ALLIGATIONS? >> YES. >> AND IN FACT WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING AND MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> WELL, THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS RUSSIA. >> ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN FEBRUARY OF 2017 VLADIMIR PUTIN HIMSELF PROMOTED THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> YOU KNOW, MAYBE I KNEW THAT ONCE AND HAVE FORGOTTEN BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT NOW. >> LET ME SHOW YOU A PRESS STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN MADE IN A JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH VICTOR ORBON OF HUNGARY WHERE HE SAYS SECOND, AS WE EALL KNOW DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ADOPTED A UNILATERAL POSITION ON ONE CANDIDATE.

CERTAIN OLIGARCHS FUNDED THIS CANDIDATE OR FEMALE CANDIDATE TO BE MORE PRECISE. NOW, HOW WOULD THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE BE IN VLADIMIR PUTIN'S INTEREST? >> HE MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE OF RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL WAS FOR RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE FUTURE. CLASSIC FOR AN THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER TO TRY TO THROW OFF THE SCENT AND CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE THAT MIGHT GET CREEDANCE. >> THAT WOULD HAVE ABSOLVED HIS OWN WRONG DOING? >> YEAH. >> AND WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT AN OLIGARCH AND HE TALKS ABOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, THERE'S ALSO A REFERENCE IN THE JULY 25th CALL TO A WEALTHY UKRAINIAN. IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN IS SAYING IN 2017 SIMILAR TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID IN RELATION TO THE 2016 ELECTION? >> MAYBE. >> NOW LET ME SHOW YOU ANATH — ANOTHER EXHIBIT FROM THE CALL.

THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT. SO WHATEVER YOU COULD DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT. BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO IF YOU COULD LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO FORMER PRESIDENT BIDEN? >> YES. >> DO YOU KNOW IF HE EVER WENT ROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION OF ANYONE? >> NO. >> AND IN FACT WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED TO REMOVE THE FORMER CORRUPT PROSECUTOR IN UKRAIN, DID HE DO SO AS PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >> OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY THAT WAS ENDORSED AND WAS THE POLICY OF A NUMBERF OTHER INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS, OTHER COUNTRIES, OTHER MONETARY, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. >> AND IN FACT IF HE WERE HELPED TO REMOVE A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WHO WAS NOT PROSECUTING ENOUGH CORRUPTIONX THAT WOULD INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT CORRUPT COMPANIES IN UKRAIN WOULD BE INVESTIGATED, CORRECT? >> I WOULD THINK SO.

>> AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST TO HAVE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN INVESTIGATED, WAS THAT PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AS YOU KNEW IT? >> I SHOULD SAY AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE CALL I HAD ALREADY DEPARTED UKRAIN TWO MONTHS PRIOR. >> DIDN'T CHANGE THAT MUCH IN TWO MONTHS? >> IT CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE POLICY IN MAY WHEN I LEFT. >> WERE THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS PART OF THE ANTICORRUPTION PLATFORM THAT YOU CHAMPIONED IN UKRAIN FOR THREE YEARS? >> NO. >> WAS TO MATCH THE POLITICAL INTERESTS, RATHER THAN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS? >> THEY CERTAINLY COULD.

>> RETURNING TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE HILL PUBLICATION IN MARCH THAT WERE PROMOTED BY MR. GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, WERE THOSE SIMILAR TO THE ALLEGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE? >> YES. >> SO ULTIMATELY IN THE JULY 25th PHONE QUAL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENDORSED THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU THE BIDENS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> I YIELD BACK. >> VOTES ARE FAIRLY IMMINENT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. I WOULD ASK EVERYONE TO ALLOW THE WITNESS TO PLEASE EXIT THE ROOM AND WE WILL RESUME AFTER VOTES.

>> THE GENTLEMAN CAN SEEK RECOGNITION AFTER WE RESUME. >> SO WHAT ADAM SCHIFF IS SAYING. THERE'S OTHER BUSINESS OF OF THE HOUSE, VOTES THEY HAVE TO TAKE. SO THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE BREAK WHEN THEY CAN COME BACK. WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO MARIE YOVANOVITCH, THE FORMER AMBASSADOR OF UKRAIN, HOW SHE FELT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT CALLING HER OUT IN NEGATIVE TERMS IN THE JULY 25th CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDEN OF UKRAIN. FIRST OF ALL, ANDREW WEISZMAN, ONE OF OF THE QUESTIONS WE ASKED IS HOW WOULD SHE PLAY IN THE NARRATIVE THAT THE PRESIDENT DEMOCRATS TRIED TO LAY OUT WEDNESDAY. >> ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS HOW DID SHE COME OFF IN TERMS OF OF CREDIBILITY AND SHE'S SPECTACULAR. IF YOU'RE CALLING HAD HER AS A WITNESS, THIS IS THE KIND OF WITNESS YOU WANT. POISED, CREDIBLE AND EMOTIONAL IN A REALLY SINCERE WAY. IN TERMS OFF SUBSTANCE, SHE ALSO GAVE THE DEMOCRATS SOMETHING REALLY TERRIFIC IN TERMS OF MAKING THEIR POINT BECAUSE SHE WAS THE REGULAR CHANNEL VERSES IRREGULARER.

SHE WAS AN EXAMPLE OF THE REGULAR CHANNEL THAT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED TO CARRY OUT THEIR SCHEME. >> THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL IN WHICH THEY ASKED FOR INVESTIGATION THE TO IT BIDENS TO THE 2016 DEMOCRATS. IF THAT'S THE CULMINATION HERE. SHE'S KIND OF OF THE BACK STORY. SHE'S SORT OF LAYING OUT THE BACKGROUND OF HOW THAT PHONE CALL EVER COULD HAVE HAPPENED. AS SOMEONE WHO COVERED THE AREA FOR MANY YEARS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW SHE FITS INTO THE BACKGROUND? >> SO SHE WAS A AMBASSADOR GETTING IN THE WAY. REPRESENTS THE OFFICIAL POLICY AND HER POLICY WAS TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES AND FIGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAIN WHICH ALSO HELPS U.S. INTERESTS BECAUSE IT MAKES GOVERNMENT MORE TRANSPARENT, BETTER PARTNERS, ETC. SO SHE'S PURSUING ONE CHANNEL AND THEN COMES ALONG RUDY GIULIANI WITH HIS TEAM AND THEY'RE LOOKING INTO HUNTER BIDEN, OLD ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DIG UP DIRT ON THE BIDEN FAMILY.

SHE'S GETTING IN THE WAY. SO A SMEAR CAMPAIGN IS LAUNCHED AND REMOVED, THREATENED. THE BLOOD DRAINED OUT OF HERSELF AS SHE FELT THREATENED. >> THE THEORY OF THE CASE WAS TO CONTINUE WITH YOU THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OBSTACLE, PRESUMABLY, ACCORDING TO THIS THEORY THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OBSTACLE TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT GIULIANI WANTED UNDERTAKEN OF BIDEN? >> AND BY EXTENSION AN OBSTACLE TO THE PRESIDENT'S OBJECTIVES TO DIG UP DIRT. NOT ONLY IS THE PRESIDENT REACHING DOWN AND REMOVING AN AMBASSADOR FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND SHE'S NOT GETTING ANY SUPPORT FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND SEVERAL HAVE RESIGNED IN PROTEST OF MIKE POMPEO FOR NOT DOING THAT.

BUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GETTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO REMOVE HER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. TO CALL AN AMBASSADOR IN A PLACE THAT HAS JUST BEEN VIOLENT, WE'VE BEEN ATTACKED AND KILLED AS A RESULT BY THE MOB, IF YOU WILL AND THEY'RE TELLING HER YOUR SECURITY IS AT RISK. TAKE THE NEXT PLANE OUT. THIS NEVER HAPPENS. PEOPLE ARE EVACUATED BUT THEY'RE NEVER TOLD YOU'RE PUT ON A PLANE COMMERCIALLY AND BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE. THEY ARE AMONG THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS HOW UNUSUAL THIS WAS, WHY SHE FELT THREATENED. WHY HER 33-YEAR CAREER AND THE FACT THE PRESIDENT IS TWEETING AGAINST HER IN REAL TIME — >> WE DIDN'T SEE HIM TWEET AGAINST GEORGE KENT OR BILL TAYLOR. HE SAYS EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WENT TURNED BAD. SHE WENT TO SOMALIA. HOW DID THAT GO? AND T IS A U.S. PRESIDENT'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS. >> THAT IS CLEAR BUT IT'S NOT HIS RIGHT TO REMOVE AN AMBASSADOR FOR CORRUPT REASONS. THAT WOULD SAY, THEY WOULD SAY, AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. ABOUT SOMALIA. HER FIRST POST UNDER RONALD REGAN WAS SOMALIA.

IT ENDED UP GOING BADLY, AS THE PRESIDENT SUGGEST ESS. BUT TO SUGGEST EVERYTHING SHE WENTZ HAVE WENT BADLY. SHE'S WON MANY AWARDS FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION. >> HE DIDN'T TWEET ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR ABOUT GEORGE KENT AND TAYLOR. THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF IT BY RELEASING THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE EARLIER APRIL CALL. I SUPPOSE TO SAY WE HAVE CALLS AND NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS AND DEMOCRATS. IS THAT THE POINT? >> Reporter: THE PRESIDENT IS ONE FOR THE CONGRATULATORY CALL. HE MADE TWO IMPORTANT POINTS. THE FRAMING ADAM SCHIFF USED WAS NOTABLE. WHEN THE PRESIDENT TWEETED IN REAL TIME AS THE HEARING WAS UNFOLDING ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ONLY TOOK HIM 20 MINUTES OR SO TO BRING THEM UP.

SHE SAYS I DON'T HAVE THAT POWER TO MAKE SOMALIA TURN BAD F YOU WILL TO THE POINT ANDREW IS MAKING AND SHE SAID SHE FELT INTIMIDATED BY WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING. YOU SAW THE CHAIRMAN TRY TO MAKE THE POINT THAT PRESIDENT WAS CONDUCTING, AS WE SPEAK, WITNESS INTIMIDATION OF PEOPLE PART OF OTHIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WHAT WE HEARD LESS THAN 90 MINUTES AGO, WHICH IS THAT HE WAS WATCHING DEVYN NUNES OPENING STATEMENT AND CONTINUING WITH THE WORK OF THOAMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT HE'S KEYED IN ON THIS. UNLIKE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR OR KENT, THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN A NOTABLE INTEREST IN HER. YOU ALSO MENTION THIS CALL AND LET'S BE CLEAR. THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL THAT WAS RELEASED, THAT IS NOT THE CALL AT THE CENTER OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. IT WAS IN APRIL.

IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL. NOBODY EXPECTED ANYTHING NEFARIOUS. A SHORT CALL A FEW PAGES AND MOSTLY COMPLIMENTARY, ETC. THEY SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP SPECIFICALLY TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION. THIS TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO SUCH REFERENCE CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION INVESTIGATIONS AT ALL. WHY THE DISCREPANCY. THEY SAID IN APRIL IT'S ONE THING AND NOW BASED ON THE PAPERER THEY RELEASED, IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. AND IT RAISES MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT IN A BIT OF COUNTERPROGRAMMING ABOUT A HEALTH CARE INITIATIVE. >> AND I'LL TURN TO RICHARD. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN THIS WHITE HOUSE WAS ALL ABOUT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAIN. >> SO WHAT IS CORRUPTION? WHO IS FIGHTING CORRUPTION IS AT THE CENTER OF ALL OF THIS AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO BREAK DOWN A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS. THERE WERE TWO PROSECUTOR GENERALS WE KEEP HEARING BOUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

ONE IS VICTOR SHOEKEN HE WAS WIDELY — EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WANTED HIM REMOVED AND THAT'S THE AMBASSADOR GENERAL THAT — >> U.S. POLICY. >> — THAT U.S. POLICY WANTED TO REMOVE. HE WAS REMOVED. HE WAS THEN REPLACED BY AND IT'S NOT JUST THE TOP COP, IT'S LIKE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL AND AN FBI DIRECTOR IN ONE. >> VERY POWERFUL. >> THIS PERSON GETS TO CHOOSE WHO GETS INVESTIGATED WHO DOESN'T AND HAS THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT INVESTIGATIONS. IN ANY COUNTRY THAT'S A POWERFUL PERSON. IT WAS THE SECOND PROSECUTOR WHO CLEARED AND HE IS ENJOYING THIS POSITION HE'S A A BIT OF AN UNUSUAL CHARACTER. BUT HE LIKES THE POWER THAT HE HAS. YEARS PASS AND THEN HE IS UDENLY IS FACING THE END. HIS JOB IS ENDED AND HE WANTS TO KEEP HIS JOB. AND THIS IS WHERE IT CAME WITH AMBASSADOR. THE U.S. POLICY WAS TO WEAKEN HIS PORTFOLIO, HAVE JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAIN AND SPLIT UP THINGS IN THE PORTFOLIO.

WHICH HE DIDN'T LIKE OBVIOUSLY. AND THEN HE MEETS WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND THE — GIULIANI IS LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA AND SAID VEE HAVE TO GET OUT. >> IT WAS THE SITTING PROSECUTOR STILL WHEN HE STARTED DEALING WITH GIULIANI OR IS HE OUT OF OFFICE? >> NO, HE WAS STILL IN. >> IT MATTERS BECAUSE WHO GETS INVESTIGATED MATTERS WHO CAN INVESTIGATE BIDEN AND THAT'S WHY THIS ISSUE OF CORRUPTION, THAT'S WHAT IT STAND FOR IN THIS CONTEXT.

>> I THINK ONE POINT YOU MAKE FOR THE DEMOCRATS OF THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. IF THAT WAS TRUE, THAT EXPLAINS WHY HE SAYS I'M GOING TO HOLD CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. IT DOES EXPLAIN THE RELIEF. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION, IS THE PRESIDENT GOING TO SAY IN THE FEW WEEKS BETWEEN THE HOLD AND RELEASE THERE WAS NO LONGER A CORRUPTION PROBLEM? SO THAT REASONING I THINK IS GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME EXPLAINING THE TIMELINE. >> WE'RE PRIVILEGED TO HAVE FORMER AMBASSADOR SERVED IN RUSSIA DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WITH US. I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN INTERESTING POINT IN THE END WHERE THE — IT FEELS LIKE A COURT OF LAW BUT IT ISN'T. WHERE HE PUT UP SOMETHING VLADIMIR PUTIN HIMSELF SAID.

AND IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS TRYING TO DRAW A BIG PICTURE ABOUT WHERE DOES ALL THIS COME FROM? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS TRYING TO LAY IT RIGHT AT PUTIN WAS FEET. IS THAT HOW YOU READ IT? >> ABSOLUTELY. I REMEMBER WHEN HE SAID THAT IN REAL TIME, VLADIMIR PUTIN. CHANGE THE NARRATIVE, CREATE DISINFORMATION ON THE SIDE THAT UKRAINIANS WERE INVOLVED IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND LOW AND BEHOLD, THE PRESIDENT OFF THE UNITED STATES HAS BOUGHT IN. >> LET ME BRING IN CHUCK TODD. WHEN WE SPOKE THE OTHER DAY YOU SAID AFTER WEDNESDAY'S TESTIMONY IT LEFT YOU WANTING MORE. OBVIOUSLY DEMOCRATS HAVE A LONG WAY TO BUILD THIS COMPLETE NAIR ITATIVE BUT GIVE ME YOUR THOUGHTS BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN THIS MORNING.

>> I THINK FOR THE FIRST TIME — THE FIRST TWO WITNESS WITHES WEDNESDAY STEERED CLEAR OF WHY THEY'RE TESTIFYING. IS THE PRESIDENT ABUSING HIS OFFICE? WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS? SHE HAS VOICED THE RATIONAL FOR WHY SHE THINKS WE'RE HERE WHICH DEMOCRATS, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PROSECUTOR THE CASE AND THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS, HAVE TO START MAKING A CASE FOR WHY THEY'RE USING IMPEACHMENT. WHY IS IT THAT A POTENTIAL REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IS AT STAKE. SOMETHING SHE SAID AND I THINK IT'S VERY KEY. AFTER THESE EVENTS WHAT FOREIGN OFFICIALX CORRUPT OR NOT, COULD BE BLAMED FOR WONDERING IF THE AMBASSADOR REPRESENTS THE PRESIDENCY AND WHAT U.S. AMBASSADOR COULD BE BLAMED FOR HARBORING FEAR TO DEFEND U.S.

POLICY AND INTEREST. AND THOSE IN HER OPENING STATEMENT SHE INCAPSULATES WHY WE'RE AT THIS POINT. WHY THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS AND WHY THIS IS SO SERIOUS. WHAT'S IRONIC IS I'VE NOT HEARD A DEMOCRAT PUT IT AS SUSTINGTLY. ANYBODY ON THE DAY ASKING QUESTIONS PUT IT SUSINKLY AS SHE DID. >> SHE SAID ANY AMBASSADOR IS UNDER THREAT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE UNITED STATES IS NOT PLAYING BY THE TRADITIONAL RULES OF OUR VALUES. THAT ANY AMBASSADOR CAN BE REMOVED AT WILL AND AS SHE WAS. AND THAT MAKES THE POINT AS JUST TO HOW THIS HAS CORRUPTED FOREIGN POLICY AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DOES JUSTIFY REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE THIS CLOSE TO ELECTION. >> HER OPENING STATEMENT WAS AN INDICTMENT ABOUT WHERE THEY LOOK TODAY. >> SHE'S SAYING SHE'S THE CAUTIONARY TALE. EVERYONE KNOWS AN AMBASSADOR DOES SERVE AT THE PLEASURER OF THE PRESIDENT AND CAN BE REMOVED AT ANY REASON BUT WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO SEE HER GONE WERE ABLE TO CO OPT THIS SIDE CHANNEL OF U.S.

PERSON IN THE FORM OF RUDY GIULIANI AND ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN. I THINK TO CHUCK'S POINT AND YOURS THE OTHER DAY. MANY REPUBLICANS SAY LOOK, I DON'T LOVE WHAT HAPPENED ON THE CALL. IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE BUT DOES IT REALLY RISE TO THE REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT, SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER DONE IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY? DEMOCRATS HAVE TO MAKE THAT CASE. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT ESTABLISHING FACTS. BUT ESTABLISHING THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS MOMENT TO REMEDY THE SITUATION. >> BEFORE HAND WE WERE THINKING WHAT WOULD SHE REALLY ADD BECAUSE THERE'S A SIDE ISSUE AND IT'S A LOT OF BACKGROUND. SHE EMOTIONALLY, IN TERMS OF MAKINGING IT EMOTION RESINATE TO LISTENER AND SHE USED THE PHRASE HOLLOW OUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS TO THE COUNTRY. >> AND WITH SECRETARY POMPEO SO MUCH IN THE ORBIT OF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE ONLY SURVIVOR IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM.

BOLTON IS GONE, MADDEN IS GONE, H.R. McMASTER GOING BACK. SO FOR POMPEO NOT DEFENDING HER FOR MONTHS AND BEING ASKED BY McKINLEY, BY TAYLOR. REMEMBER WILLIAM TAYLOR SAID ONCE WITH IN 40 PLUS YEARS HE HAD SENT A CABLE TO A SECRETARY OF STATE AND IT WAS TO SAY THIS IS NOT RIGHT. YOU HAVE TO DEFEND HER. SHE'S BEING REMOVED FOR NO CAUSE AND THE NIGHT POMPEO DID NOT RESPOND. NOR DID HE RESPOND TO ANY THOUFGTER APPEALS. THE CLOSEST ADVISOR RESIGNED. SO IT JUST SAYS THERE WERE NO GUARDRAILS LEFT. AND THAT'S THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT. >> LET'S LOOK AT WHAT ADAM SCHIFF SAYS IN TERMS OF CORRUPTION.

DID YOU PICK UP ON THAT? IS THIS THE ULTIMATE AIM RIGHT HE IS TO MAKE THAT POINT? >> I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM AND IF THE CONGRESS WILL BE LOOKING AT OBSTRUCTION, SHE IS A GREAT WITNESS TO HANG THAT ON SO YOU HAVE THE INTIMIDATION OF THIS WNGS WITNESS AND ADAM SCHIFF SAYING WHAT IS THE MESSAGE — >> THERE'S A REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THREAT AND INITTIMIDATION. >> I CAN TELL YOU BEING TWEETED ABOUT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A COMFORTABLE FEELING. IT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE IT SENDS, IT'S DETERES IT. >> AS I TURN TO YOU IN THE FEW MINUTES WE HAVE. LET'S LOOK AT IT FROM THE OTHER SIDE. A LOT OF REPUBLICANS MENTIONED SAY EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THIS ESSENCE OF THE FACTS THAT THEY'VE BEEN LAID OUT, PARTICULARLY IN THE WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPT. I MEAN THAT IS AN UNDISPUTED PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THEY STILL DON'T THINK IT AMOUNTS IT TO AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND DEMOCRATS ARE EXHIBITING A DESIRE TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT THROUGH A WAY OTHER THAN THE ELECTION.

THAT THEY'VE ALWAYS WANTED HIM GONE AND WHAT'S THE REPUBLICAN'S BEST ARGUMENT? >> I THINK IT'S THEIR BEST ARGUMENT TO MAKE THE CASE BUT BECAUSE WHEN THEY GO ON THE MERITS AND FACTS, IT DOESN'T WORK. THIS IS WHERE — THE BEST ARGUMENT THE PRESIDENT'S SUPPORTERS ARE COMING UP WITH IS HE'S TOO INCOMPETENT TO COME UP WITH THIS SCHEME. IT'S AMAZING TO ME THE PRESIDENT'S BEST DEFENDERS ARE NOT DEFENDING HIS ACTIONS AND? STEAD QUESTIONING WHETHER HE'S CAPABLE OF HAVING THIS SOPHISTICATED OF AN OPERATION. IT WAS A RUNNING EXCUSE DURING MUELLER. I THINK LINDSEY GRAHAM SAYS THESE GUYS COULDN'T COLLUDE ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO EAT A HAMBURGER. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY THINK THIS IS THEIR BEST DEFENSE. IT'S A WAY TO KEEP HIM FROM BEING OUSTED FROM OFFICE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THEY'RE BASICALLY MAKING THE ARGUMENT HE SHOULDN'T BE REELECTED.

HOW MANY REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE THE INCOMPETENT ARGUMENT AS THEY BASICALLY GRASP FOR SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE FACTS AT HAND BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE AS WE'VE BEEN POINTING OUT. ER THEY DON'T LIKE HOW HE HANDLES IT. WHICH I THINK WILL UNDERMINE HIS REELECTION. >> WHAT'S THE BUZZ IN THE HALLWAY DURING THIS BREAK? >> I'VE BEEN TEXTING WITH DEMOCRATIC FORCES AND THEY THINK YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY LIFTS THE LID OFF OF THE ABUSE OF POWER ARGUMENT THEY SAY IS AT THE CORE OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IN ADDITION TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS PIECE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. THEY SAY YES, AMBASSADOR, POLITICAL APPOINTEES SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF ANY PRESIDENT BUT WHAT IS CLEAR IS SHE WAS REMOVED ON BASELESS GROUNDS AND HAD TO DO WITH THAT SHE KNOWINGLY RAN AFOUL OF THE BACK CHANNEL THAT PTS PRESIDENT TRUMP DEPUTEIZED THOSE OFICIALS TO EXECUTE THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HIM.

THE OTHER REASON THEY SAY IT'S SO KEY IS BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINE SHE HELPS ESTABLISH. REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO NARROW THE FOCUS. IF YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE OR PERHAPS TWO PHONE CALLS, THAT LOOKS BETTER FOR HIM. BUT IT MAKES CLEAR THERE WAS A COORDINATED CAMPAIGN AND CONTINUED THROUGH SEPTEMBER WHEN THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED UNDER PRESSURE. >> AND HOUSE KEEPING, THEY'RE VOTING ON NON-RELATED MATTERS AT THE BREAK? >> EXPORTS/IMPORT BANKS. >> WE'RE IN THE MIDWAY POINT OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY. REPUBLICAN COUNSEL WILL QUESTION FOR 45 MINUTES AND THEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WILL GET A SHOT AT IT WHEN WE RETURN THRUM BREAK. >> SO WE WILL TAKE BREAK AND RETURN TO OUR COVERAGE WHEN THEY GET BACK TO IT. NOW, I'M LESTER HOLT AND ON BEHALF OF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM, THANK YOU FOR WATCHING AND WE'LL SEE YOU LATER ON. IN HIS CORNER NOT ZELENSKY'S CORNER AND THE AID WAS CONDITIONED. >> THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING THIS AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR HAS AUTHORIZED THE RECESS OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME. THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT. WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING. I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN RANKING MEMBER NUNES WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT. WE WILL TURN TO OUR WITNESS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN TO QUESTIONS. FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS WE WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HERE. IN TURN, WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY'S HEARING. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS. AS CHAIRMAN I WILL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS. TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND ENSURE THE COMMITTEE IS RUN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE RULES AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. WITH THAT I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF DONALD J. TRUMP THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN APRIL, 2019, THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH, WAS IN KIEV WHEN SHE WAS CALLED BY A SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND TOLD TO GET ON THE NEXT PLANE BACK TO WASHINGTON. UPON HER RETURN TO D.C., SHE WAS INFORMED BY HER SUPERIORS THAT ALTHOUGH SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT. IT WAS A STUNNING TURN OF EVENTS FOR THIS HIGHLY REGARDED CAREER DIPLOMAT WHO HAD DONE SUCH A REMARKABLE JOB FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE THAT A SHORT TIME EARLIER SHE HAD BEEN ASKED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO EXTEND HER TOUR.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS BEEN IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE FOR 33 YEARS AND SERVED MUCH OF THAT TIME IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION. HER PARENTS HAVE FLED STALIN AND LATER HITLER BEFORE SETTLING IN THE UNITED STATES. SHE IS AN EXEMPLARY OFFICER WHO IS WIDELY PRAISED AND RESPECTED BY HER COLLEAGUES. SHE IS KNOWN AS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CHAMPION WHOSE TOUR IN KIEV WAS VIEWED AS VERY SUCCESSFUL. AMBASSADOR MICHAEL McKINLEY WHO HAD SERVED WITH HER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE FOR SEVERAL DECADES STATED THAT FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS OF HER CAREER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE SHE WAS EXCELLENT, SERIOUS, COMMITTED.

I CERTAINLY REMEMBER HER BEING ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SEEMED TO BE DESTINED FOR GREATER THINGS. HER SUCCESSOR IS ACTING CHIEF OF MISSION IN UKRAINE AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, DESCRIBED HER AS VERY FRANK. SHE WAS VERY DIRECT. SHE MADE POINTS VERY CLEARLY. AND SHE WAS INDEED TOUGH ON CORRUPTION. AND SHE NAMED NAMES. AND THAT SOMETIMES IS CONTROVERSIAL OUT THERE, BUT SHE'S A STRONG PERSON AND MADE THOSE CHARGES. IN HER TIME IN KIEV, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS TOUGH ON CORRUPTION. TOO TOUGH ON CORRUPTION FOR SOME. AND HER PRINCIPLED STANCE MADE HER ENEMIES.

AS GEORGE KENT TOLD THIS COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY YOU CAN'T COMMIT TO ANTICORRUPTION PRINCIPLED ACTION WITHOUT PISSING OFF CORRUPT PEOPLE. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DIDN'T JUST PISS OFF CORRUPT UKRAINIANS LIKE THE FORMER GENERAL LUTSENKO BUT ALSO CERTAIN AMERICANS LIKE RUDY GUILIANI, DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, AND TWO INDIVIDUALS NOW INDICTED WHO WORKED WITH HIM, IGOR FRUMAN AND LEVPARNAS. THEY AND OTHERS WHO WOULD COME TO INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN SON DON JR. PROMOTED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS. AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO PUSH BACK TO OBTAIN A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM SECRETARY POMPEO BUT THOSE EFFORTS FAILED WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED HER GONE. SOME HAVE ARGUED THE PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR THAT HE WANTS. THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THAT IS TRUE.

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT WHETHER DONALD TRUMP COULD RECALL AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WITH A STELLAR REPUTATION FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WHY WOULD HE WANT TO? WHY DID RUDY GUILIANI WANT HER GONE AND WHY DID DONALD TRUMP? WHY WOULD DONALD TRUMP INSTRUCT THE NEW TEAM HE PUT IN PLACE THE THREE AMIGOS, RICK PERRY AND KURT VOLKER TO WORK WITH THE SAME MAN RUDY GUILIANI WHO PLAYED SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER? RUDY GUILIANI HAS MADE NO SECRET OF HIS DESIRE TO GET UKRAINE TO OPEN INVESTIGATIONS NAH THE BIDENS.

AS WELL AS THE CONSPIRACY THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. AS HE SAID IN ONE INTERVIEW IN MAY, 2019, WE'RE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION. WE'RE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION. WHICH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO. MORE RECENTLY, HE TOLD KRN'S CHRIS CUOMO, OF COURSE HE DID WHEN ASKED IF HE HAD PRESSED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN. AND HE HAS NEVER BEEN SHY ABOUT WHO HE IS DOING THIS WORK FOR. HIS CLIENT, THE PRESIDENT. ONE POWERFUL ALLY GUILIANI HAD IN UKRAINE TO PROMOTE THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS LUTSENKO, THE CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL. AND ONE POWERFUL ADVERSARY LUTSENKO HAD WAS A CERTAIN UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR NAMED MARIE YOVANOVITCH. IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT IN THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL WITH ZELENSKY DONALD TRUMP BRINGS UP A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR AND PRAISES HIM AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE TRUMP CLAIMS THIS FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR.

BUT THE WOMAN KNOWN FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION HIS OWN FORMER AMBASSADOR, THE WOMAN RUTHLESSLY SMEARED AND DRIVEN FROM HER POST, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOTHING BUT DISPARAGE. OR, WORSE, THREATEN. WELL, SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, THE PRESIDENT DECLARES. THAT TELLS YOU A LOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES AND INTENTIONS. GETTING RID OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HELPED SET THE STAGE FOR AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT COULD PURSUE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT MATTERED SO MUCH TO THE PRESIDENT. THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORY AND, MOST IMPORTANT, AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2020 POLITICAL OPPONENT HE APPARENTLY FEARED MOST, JOE BIDEN.

AND THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME MIGHT HAVE WORKED BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THE MAN WHO WOULD SUCCEED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHOM WE HEARD FROM ON WEDNESDAY ACTING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WOULD EVENTUALLY DISCOVER THE EFFORT TO PRESS UKRAINE INTO CONDUCTING THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND WOULD PUSH BACK. BUT FOR THE FACT, ALSO, THAT SOMEONE BLEW THE WHISTLE. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS SERVING OUR NATION'S INTERESTS AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. BUT SHE WAS CONSIDERED AN OBSTACLE TO THE FURTHERANCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL AGENDA. FOR THAT, SHE WAS SMEARED AND CAST ASIDE. THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY ARE IMMENSE. BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE AND THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR CORRUPT PURPOSE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT THEIR PRESIDENT TO USE THE AUTHORITY THEY GRANT HIM IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATION, NOT TO DESTROY OTHERS TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS.

I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR HIS REMARKS. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT TODAY AND FOR MOST OF NEXT WEEK WE WILL CONTINUE ENGAGING IN THE DEMOCRATS' DAY LONG TV SPECTACLES INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE PROBLEMS WE WERE ALL SENT TO WASHINGTON TO ADDRESS. WE NOW HAVE A MAJOR TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA AND MEXICO READY FOR APPROVAL, A DEAL THAT WOULD CREATE JOBS AND BOOST OUR ECONOMY. MEAN WHILE WE HAVE NOT YET APPROVED FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH EXPIRES NEXT WEEK. ALONG WITH FUNDING FOR OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM. INSTEAD, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CONVENED US ONCE AGAIN TO ADVANCE THEIR OPERATION TO TOPPLE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT. I'LL NOTE THAT FIVE — FIVE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAD ALREADY VOTED TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT BEFORE THE TRUMP-ZELENSKY PHONE CALL OCCURRED.

IN FACT, DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN VOWING TO OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP SINCE THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED. SO AMERICANS CAN RIGHTLY SUSPECT THAT HIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO FULFILL THEIR WATERGATE FANTASIES. BUT I'M GLAD THAT ON WEDNESDAY, AFTER THE DEMOCRATS STAGED SIX THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL LIKE SOME KIND OF STRANGE CULT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FINALLY GOT TO SEE THIS FARCE FOR THEMSELVES. THEY SAW US SIT THROUGH HOURS OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THAT TWO DIPLOMATS WHO HAD NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT HEARD SECOND HAND, THIRD HAND, AND FOURTH HAND FROM OTHER PEOPLE. IN OTHER WORDS, RUMORS. THE PROBLEM OF TRYING TO OVERTHROW A PRESIDENT BASED ON THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS OBVIOUS. BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR WHOLE CASE RELIES ON BEGINNING WITH SECOND-HAND AND THIRD-HAND INFORMATION CITED BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

THAT'S WHY ON WEDNESDAY THE DEMOCRATS WERE FORCED TO MAKE THE ABSURD ARGUMENT THAT HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE. AND JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THE SPECTACLE COULDN'T GET MORE BIZARRE, THE COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS RECEIVED A MEMO FROM THE DEMOCRATS THREATENING ETHICS REFERRALS IF WE OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE WELL AWARE, NO REPUBLICANS HERE KNOW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S IDENTITY BECAUSE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ONLY MET WITH DEMOCRATS. NOT WITH REPUBLICANS. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF CLAIMED NOT TO KNOW WHO IT IS.

YET HE ALSO VOWED TO BLOCK US FROM ASKING QUESTIONS THAT COULD REVEAL HIS OR HER IDENTITY. REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE LEFT WONDERING HOW IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO BLOCK QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON WHOSE IDENTITY HE CLAIMS NOT TO KNOW. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY BE SEEING THESE ABSURDITIES FOR THE FIRST TIME BUT REPUBLICANS ON THIS DAIS ARE USED TO THEM. UNTIL THEY SECRETLY MET WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER DEMOCRATS SHOWED LITTLE INTEREST FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS IN ANY TOPIC ASIDE FROM THE RIDICULOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT. WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF ON THE PHONE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS DID WITH THE RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS OFFERING YOU NUDE PICTURES OF TRUMP AND AFTERWARD YOU ORDER YOUR STAFF TO FOLLOW UP AND GET THE PHOTOS, AS THE DEMOCRATS ALSO DID, THEN IT MIGHT BE TIME TO ASK YOURSELF IF YOU'VE GONE OUT TOO FAR ON A LIMB.

EVEN AS THEY WERE ACCUSING REPUBLICANS OF COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES WERE COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS BY FUNDING THE DOSSIER. MEAN WHILE THEY TURNED A BLIND EYE TO UKRAINIANS MEDDLING IN OUR ELECTIONS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE COOPERATING WITH THAT OPERATION. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF A JULY 20th, 2017 LETTER SENT BY SENATOR GRASSLEY TO THEN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN. THE LETTER RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES ALEXANDER CHALUPA A CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WHO WORKED WITH EMBASSY OFFICIALS TO SPREAD DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. AS SENATOR GRASSLEY WROTE, CHALUPA'S ACTIONS, QUOTE, CHALUPA'S ACTIONS APPEAR TO SHOW SHE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY WORKING ON BEHALF OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, AND ON BEHALF OF THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN AN EFFORT TO INFLUENCE NOT ONLY THE U.S. VOTING POPULATION BUT U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. UNQUOTE. AFTER TOUTING THE DOSSIER AND DEFENDING THE FBI'S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHICH ARE NOW BEING INVESTIGATED BY INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE IGNORE UKRAINIAN ELECTION MEDDLING EVEN THOUGH CHALUPA PUBLICLY ADMITTED TO THE DEMOCRATS' SCHEME.

LIKE WISE, THEY ARE BLIND TO THE BLARING SIGNS OF CORRUPTION SURROUNDING HUNTER BIDEN'S WELL PAID POSITION ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER SERVED AS VICE PRESIDENT AND POINT MAN FOR UKRAINE ISSUES IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. BUT THE DEMOCRATS' MEDIA HACKS ONLY CARED ABOUT THAT ISSUE BRIEFLY. WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO STOP JOE BIDEN FROM RUNNING AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON IN 2015. AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, THESE HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BE OCCURRING AT ALL UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWERS TO THREE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO ASK. FIRST, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS' PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND WHO ELSE DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH? SECOND, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? AND, THIRD, WHY DID THE COMPANY HIRE HUNTER BIDEN? WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM? DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION? NOTE THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOWED THEY WOULD NOT PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH A WRENCHING IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WITHOUT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. AND THEY HAVE. ADD THAT TO THERE EVER GROWING LIST OF BROKEN PROMISES AND DESTRUCTIVE DECEPTIONS. IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELEASED HIS TRANSCRIPT RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT I READ THIS INTO THE RECORD SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION OVER THE FIRST PHONE CALL THAT OCCURRED ON APRIL 21st WITH PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY. I'D LIKE TO READ IT. THE PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON A JOB WELL DONE AND CONGRATULATIONS ON A FANTASTIC ELECTION. ZELENSKY, GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. IT'S NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU. AND I APPRECIATE THE CONGRATULATIONS. THE PRESIDENT, THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE ELECTION.

ZELENSKY, AGAIN, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE TRIED VERY HARD TO DO OUR BEST. WE HAD YOU AS A GREAT EXAMPLE. THE PRESIDENT — I THINK YOU WILL DO A GREAT JOB. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN UKRAINE WHO KNOW YOU AND LIKE YOU. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM UKRAINE AND, FRANKLY, EXPECTED YOU TO WIN. AND IT'S REALLY AN AMAZING THING THAT YOU'VE DONE. I GUESS IN A WAY I DID SOMETHING SIMILAR. WE'RE MAKING TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN THE U.S. WE HAVE THE MOST TREMENDOUS ECONOMY EVER. I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE YOU. I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU WILL BE A FANTASTIC PRESIDENT. ZELENSKY: FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. AGAIN, FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS. WE IN UKRAINE ARE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE. WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE.

YOU ARE, AS I SAID, A GREAT EXAMPLE. WE ARE HOPING WE CAN EXPAND ON OUR JOBS AS YOU DID. YOU WILL ALSO BE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR MANY. YOU ARE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR OUR NEW MANAGERS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO INVITE YOU IF POSSIBLE TO THE INAUGURATION. I KNOW HOW BUSY YOU ARE BUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO COME TO THE INAUGURATION CEREMONY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. GREAT FOR YOU TO DO TO BE WITH US ON THAT DAY. THE PRESIDENT: THAT'S VERY NICE. I'LL LOOK INTO THAT. GIVE US A DATE.

AT THE VERY MINIMUM WE'LL HAVE A GREAT REPRESENTATIVE OR MORE FROM THE UNITED STATES WILL BE WITH YOU ON THAT GREAT DAY. SO WE WILL HAVE SOMEBODY AT A MINIMUM, A VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL, AND WILL BE WITH YOU, BRILLIANT AND INCREDIBLE DAY FOR AN INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT. ZELENSKY: AGAIN, THANK YOU. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR VISIT, TO THE VISIT OF A HIGH LEVEL DELEGATION, BUT THERE'S NO WORDS THAT CAN DESCRIBE OUR WONDERFUL COUNTRY, HOW NICE, WARM, AND FRIENDLY OUR PEOPLE ARE, HOW TASTY AND DELICIOUS OUR FOOD IS, AND HOW WONDERFUL UKRAINE IS.

WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE OUR COUNTRY SO IT WOULD BE BEST FOR YOU TO SEE IT YOURSELF. SO IF YOU CAN COME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO, AGAIN, I INVITE YOU TO COME. THE PRESIDENT: WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. ALWAYS HAD GREAT PEOPLE. UKRAINE ALWAYS VERY WELL REPRESENTED. WAS ALWAYS VERY WELL REMD. WHEN YOU'RE SETTLED IN AND READY I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE. WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT. BUT WE'RE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY. ZELENSKY: THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION. WE ACCEPT THE INVITATION AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE VISIT. THANK YOU AGAIN. THE WHOLE TEAM AND I ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE VISIT.

THANK YOU FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS. AND I THINK IT WILL STILL BE GREAT IF YOU COULD COME AND BE WITH US ON THIS IMPORTANT DAY. THE RESULTS ARE INCREDIBLE. THEY'RE VERY IMPRESSIVE FOR US. SO IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC IF YOU COULD COME ON THAT DAY. THE PRESIDENT: VERY GOOD. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW VERY SOON. AND WE WILL SEE YOU VERY, VERY SOON REGARDLESS. CONGRATULATIONS. AND PLEASE SAY HELLO TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND YOUR FAMILY. LET THEM KNOW I SEND MY BEST REGARDS. WELL, THANK YOU — ZELENSKY: WELL THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A SAFE FLIGHT AND SEE YOU SOON. THE PRESIDENT: TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND GIVE A GREAT SPEECH TODAY. YOU TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND I'LL SEE YOU SOON. ZELENSKY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME BUT I WILL PRACTICE ENGLISH AND I WILL MEET IN ENGLISH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE PRESIDENT: LAUGHING, THAT'S BEAUTIFUL TO HEAR.

THAT IS REALLY GOOD. I COULD NOT DO IT IN YOUR LANGUAGE. I'M VERY IMPRESSED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ZELENSKY: THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE PRESIDENT: GOOD DAY. GOOD LUCK. I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD SO NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE VERY FIRST CALL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. >> THE GENTLEMAN WAS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER UNDER HRES 660. >> STATE THE POINT OF ORDER. >> THE POINT OF ORDER IS WILL THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUE TO PROHIBIT WITNESSES FROM ANSWERING REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE DONE IN CLOSED HEARINGS AND AS YOU DID — >> CHAIRMAN WILL SUSPEND.

THAT IS NOT A PROPER POINT OF ORDER. GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE — >> GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. I DO WANT TO RESPOND — >> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> THIS IS FOR TRANSCRIPTS NOT RELEASED — >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> HOLY COW. >> THE RANKING MEMBER WAS ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE OPENING STATEMENT AND I WAS HAPPY TO ALLOW HIM TO DO SO. I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO THE CALL RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, I'M GRATEFUL THE PRESIDENT HAS RELEASED THE CALL RECORD. I WOULD NOW ASK THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER RECORDS THAT HE HAS INSTRUCTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO RELEASE, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S NOTES, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE, INCLUDING GEORGE KENT'S MEMO, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ABOUT WHY THE MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD. >> MR. CHAIRMAN I WANT YOU TO RELEASE THE FOUR TRANSCRIPTS OF THE DEPOSITIONS — >> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> THAT IS MY POINT OF ORDER. >> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> GEE. >> WE WILL ASK THE PRESIDENT TO STOP OBSTRUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WHILE WE ARE GRATEFUL HE HAS RELEASED A SINGLE DOCUMENT HE HAS NONETHELESS OBSTRUCTED WITNESSES AND THEIR TESTIMONY AND THE PRODUCTION OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER RECORDS. AND, FINALLY, I WOULD SAY THIS, MR. PRESIDENT, I HOPE YOU'LL EXPLAIN TO THE COUNTRY TODAY WHY IT WAS AFTER THIS CALL AND WHILE THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS MAKING PLANS TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION THAT YOU INSTRUCTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. >> THE CHAIR WILL NOT RECOGNIZE. >> SO WE KNOW CLEARLY YOU ARE GOING TO INTERRUPT US THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING. >> THE GENTLE WOMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. >> CHAIRMAN I HAVE A UNANIMOUS REQUEST. >> NO. THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED. TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH. SHE WAS BORN IN CANADA TO PARENTS WHO FLED THE SOVIET UNION AND THE NAZIS.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH EMIGRATED TO CONNECTICUT AT 3, BECAME A NATURALIZED AMERICAN AT 18, AND ENTERED THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE IN 1986. SHE HAS SERVED AS U.S. AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES AND BEEN NOMINATED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES. GEORGE W. BUSH NOMINATED HER TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2005 TO 2008. PRESIDENT OBAMA THEN NOMINATED HER TO BE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2008 UNTIL 2011. AND U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2016 UNTIL SHE WAS RECALLED TO WASHINGTON BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THIS MAY.

BEYOND THESE POSTS SHE HAS HELD NUMEROUS OTHER SENIOR POSITIONS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING IN THE BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS. SHE SERVED AS A DEAN AT THE FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE AND TAUGHT NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY AT THE DEFENSE UNIVERSITY. SHE ALSO PREVIOUSLY SERVED AT U.S. EMBASSYIES IN KIEV, OTTAWA, MOSCOW, LONDON, AND MOGADISHU. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE HONORS FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR HER DIPLOMATIC WORK INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD AND THE SECRETARY'S DIPLOMACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD.

TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE OUR WITNESS IS SWORN. FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF REPRISAL, OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FOR TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE WITNESS HAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED. WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. WITH THAT, AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER NUNES, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

>> AMBASSADOR, YOU'LL NEED TO SPEAK VERY CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO START WITH THIS STATEMENT. TO REINTRODUCE MYSELF TO THE COMMITTEE, AND TO HIGHLIGHT PARTS OF MY BIOGRAPHY AND EXPERIENCE. I COME BEFORE YOU AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAS DEVOTED THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE, 33 YEARS, TO SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY THAT ALL OF US LOVE. LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I ENTERED THE FOREIGN SERVICE UNDERSTANDING THAT MY JOB WAS TO IMPLEMENT THE FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OF THIS NATION AS DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS AND TO DO SO REGARDLESS OF WHICH PERSON OR PARTY WAS IN POWER. I HAD NO AGENDA OTHER THAN TO PURSUE OUR STATED FOREIGN POLICY GOALS. MY SERVICE IS AN EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE FOR ALL THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS GIVEN TO ME AND TO MY FAMILY.

MY LATE PARENTS DID NOT HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE TO COME OF AGE IN A FREE SOCIETY. MY FATHER FLED THE SOVIETS BEFORE ULTIMATELY FINDING REFUGE IN THE UNITED STATES. MY MOTHER'S FAMILY ESCAPED THE USSR AFTER THE REVOLUTION AND SHE GREW UP STATELESS IN NAZI GERMANY BEFORE, ALSO, EVENTUALLY MAKING HER WAY TO THE UNITED STATES. THEIR PERSONAL HISTORY, MY PERSONAL HISTORY, GAVE ME BOTH DEEP GRATITUDE TOWARD THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT EMPATHY FOR OTHERS, LIKE THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE FREE.

I JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY SERVED THREE OTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AS WELL AS TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS. IT WAS MY GREAT HONOR TO BE APPOINTED TO SERVE AS AN AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES, TWICE BY GEORGE W. BUSH AND ONCE BY BARACK OBAMA. THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT DIPLOMATS LEAD A COMFORTABLE LIFE, THROWING DINNER PARTIES IN FANCY HOMES. LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF MY REALITY. IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EASY.

I HAVE MOVED 13 TIMES AND SERVE IN SEVEN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, FIVE OF THEM HARDSHIP POSTS. MY FIRST TOUR WAS MOGADISHU, SOMALIA. AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS PLACE AS THAT COUNTRY'S CIVIL WAR KEPT GRINDING ON AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS WEAKENING. THE MILITARY TOOK OVER POLICING FUNCTIONS IN A PARTICULARLY BRUTAL WAY AND BASIC SERVICES DISAPPEARED. SEVERAL YEARS LATER AFTER THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED, I HELPED OPEN OUR EMBASSY IN UZBEKISTAN. AS WE WERE ESTABLISHING RELATIONS WITH A NEW COUNTRY OUR SMALL EMBASSY WAS ATTACKED BY A GUNMAN WHO SPRAYED THE EMBASSY BUILDING WITH GUNFIRE. I LATER SERVED IN MOSCOW. IN 1993, DURING THE ATTEMPTED COUP IN RUSSIA, I WAS CAUGHT IN CROSSFIRE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY FORCES. IT TOOK US THREE TRIES, ME WITHOUT A HELMET OR BODY ARMOR, TO GET INTO A VEHICLE TO GO TO THE EMBASSY. WE WENT BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR ASKED US TO COME. WE WENT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR DUTY. FROM AUGUST, 2016, UNTIL MAY, 2019, I SERVED AS THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

DURING MY TENURE IN UKRAINE, I WENT TO THE FRONT LINE APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES. DURING A HOT WAR OF. TO SHOW THE AMERICAN FLAG, TO HEAR WHAT WAS GOING ON, SOMETIMES LITERALLY AS WE HEARD THE IMPACT OF ARTILLERY, AND TO SEE HOW OUR ASSISTANCE DOLLARS WERE BEING PUT TO USE. I WORKED TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY, FULLY EMBRACED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE, TO HELP UKRAINE BECOME A STABLE AND INDEPENDENT, DEMOCRATIC STATE WITH A MARKET ECONOMY INTEGRATED INTO EUROPE. A SECURE, DEMOCRATIC, AND FREE UKRAINE SERVES NOT JUST THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL. THAT'S WHY IT WAS OUR POLICY AND CONTINUES TO BE OUR POLICY TO HELP THE UKRAINIANS ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES. THEY MATCH OUR OBJECTIVES. THE U.S. IS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF OUR VALUES.

AND OUR VALUES HAVE MADE POSSIBLE THE NETWORK OF ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT BUTTRESSES OUR OWN STRENGTHS. UKRAINE, WITH AN ENORMOUS LAND MASS AND A LARGE POPULATION, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTNER FOR THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER ON THE SECURITY SIDE. WE SEE THE POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE. RUSSIA SEES A CONTRAST, SEES THE RISK. THE HISTORY IS NOT WRITTEN YET. BUT UKRAINE COULD MOVE OUT OF RUSSIA'S ORBIT, AND NOW UKRAINE IS A BATTLEGROUND FOR GREAT POWER COMPETITION. WITH A HOT WAR FOR THE CONTROL OF TERRITORY AND A HYBRID WAR TO CONTROL UKRAINE'S LEADERSHIP. THE U.S. HAS PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT SECURITY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE ONSET OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN 2014. AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRENGTHENED OUR POLICY BY APPROVING THE PROVISION TO UKRAINE OF ANTITANK MISSILES KNOWN AS JAVELINS. SUPPORTING UKRAINE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IT'S ALSO THE SMART THING TO DO. FALLS TO RUSSIAN DOMINION, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE OTHER ATTEMPTS BY RUSSIA TO EXPAND ITS TERRITORY AND ITS INFLUENCE.

AS CRITICAL AS THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS, UKRAINE'S STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY HAS AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT CHALLENGE — BATTLING THE SOVIET LEGACY OF CORRUPTION, WHICH HAS PERVADED UKRAINE'S GOVERNMENT. CORRUPTION MAKES UKRAINE'S LEADERS EVER VULNERABLE TO RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY LAUNCHED THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014 DEMANDING TO BE A PART OF EUROPE. DEMANDING THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM. DEMANDING TO LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. UKRAINIANS WANTED THE LAW TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION IS THE PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN. IT WAS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS. OF DIGNITY. HERE AGAIN, THERE IS A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS. CORRUPT LEADERS ARE INHERENTLY LESS TRUST WORTHY WHILE AN HONEST AND ACCOUNTABLE UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP MAKES A U.S./UKRAINIAN PARTNERSHIP MORE RELIABLE AND MORE VALUABLE TO THE UNITED STATES. A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN THIS STRATEGICALLY LOCATED COUNTRY BORDERING FOUR NATO ALLIES CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH U.S.

BUSINESS CAN MORE EASILY TRADE, INVEST, AND PROSPER. CORRUPTION IS ALSO A SECURITY ISSUE BECAUSE CORRUPT OFFICIALS ARE VULNERABLE TO MOSCOW. IN SHORT, IT IS IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO HELP UKRAINE TRANSFORM INTO A COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW GOVERNS AND CORRUPTION IS HELD IN CHECK. IT WAS AND REMAINS A TOP U.S. PRIORITY TO HELP UKRAINE FIGHT CORRUPTION AND SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE 2014 REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY. UNFORTUNATELY, AS THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HAVE UNDERLINED NOT ALL UKRAINIANS EMBRACED OUR ANTICORRUPTION WORK. THUS, PERHAPS, IT WAS NOT SURPRISING THAT WHEN OUR ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS GOT IN THE WAY OF A DESIRE FOR PROFIT OR POWER, UKRAINIANS WHO PREFER TO PLAY BY THE OLD, CORRUPT RULES SOUGHT TO REMOVE ME. WHAT CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME IS THAT THEY FOUND AMERICANS WILLING TO PARTNER WITH THEM AND WORKING TOGETHER THEY APPARENTLY SUCCEEDED IN ORCHESTRATING THE REMOVAL OF A U.S. AMBASSADOR. HOW COULD OUR SYSTEM FAIL LIKE THIS? HOW IS IT THAT FOREIGN, CORRUPT INTERESTS COULD MANIPULATE OUR GOVERNMENT? WHICH COUNTRY'S INTERESTS ARE SERVED WHEN THE VERY CORRUPT BEHAVIOR WE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZING IS ALLOWED TO PREVAIL? SUCH CONDUCT UNDERMINES THE U.S., EXPOSES OUR FRIENDS, AND WIDENS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR AUTOCRATS LIKE PRESIDENT PUTIN.

OUR LEADERSHIP DEPENDS ON THE POWER OF OUR EXAMPLE AND THE CONSISTENCY OF OUR PURPOSE. BOTH HAVE NOW BEEN OPENED TO QUESTION. WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES I EXPECT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT, STARTING WITH MY TIMELINE IN UKRAINE AND THE EVENTS ABOUT WHICH I DO AND DO NOT HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE. I ARRIVED IN UKRAINE ON AUGUST 22nd, 2016. AND LEFT UKRAINE PERMANENTLY ON MAY 20th, 2019.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EVENTS YOU ARE INVESTIGATING TO WHICH I CANNOT BRING ANY FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE. THE EVENTS THAT PREDATED BY UKRAINE SERVICE INCLUDE THE RELEASE OF THE SO-CALLED BLACK LEDGER AND MR. MANAFORT'S SUBSEQUENT RESIGNATION FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN. AND THE DEPARTURE FROM OFFICE OF FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL SHOHEN. SEVERAL OTHER EVENTS OCCURRED AFTER I RETURNED FROM UKRAINE. THESE INCLUDE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25th, 2019 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THAT PHONE CALL, AND ANY DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE DELAY OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE IN THE SUMMER OF 2019. AS FOR EVENTS DURING MY TENURE IN THE UKRAINE, I WANT TO REITERATE, FIRST, THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT I DISSEMINATED A DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST WAS A FABRICATION. MR. LUTSENKO, THE FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WHO MADE THAT ALLEGATION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE LIST NEVER EXISTED. I DID NOT TELL MR. LUTSENKO OR OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE. INSTEAD, I ADVOCATED THE U.S. POSITION THAT RULE OF LAW SHOULD PREVAIL. AND UKRAINIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT, PROSECUTORS, AND JUDGES SHOULD STOP WIELDING THEIR POWER SELECTIVELY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AGAINST THEIR ADVERSARIES AND START DEALING WITH ALL CONSISTENTLY AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

ALSO UNTRUE ARE UNSOURCED ALLEGATIONS THAT I TOLD UNIDENTIFIED EMBASSY EMPLOYEES OR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERS SHOULD BE IGNORED BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. I DID NOT AND I WOULD NOT SAY SUCH A THING. SUCH STATEMENTS WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH MY TRAINING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER AND MY ROLE AS AN AMBASSADOR. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID NOT ASK ME TO HELP THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN OR HARM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. NOR WOULD I HAVE TAKEN ANY SUCH STEPS IF THEY HAD. PARTISANSHIP OF THIS TYPE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROLE OF A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER. I HAVE NEVER MET HUNTER BIDEN NOR HAVE I HAD ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM.

AND ALTHOUGH I HAVE MET FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF OUR MANY YEARS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE, NEITHER HE NOR THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION EVER RAISED THE ISSUE OF EITHER BARISMA OR HUNTER BIDEN WITH ME. WITH RESPECT TO MAYOR GUILIANI, I HAVE HAD ONLY MINIMAL CONTACT WITH HIM, A TOTAL OF THREE. NONE RELATED TO THE EVENTS AT ISSUE. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MR. GUILIANI'S MOTIVES FOR ATTACKING ME NOR CAN I OFFER AN OPINION ON WHETHER HE BELIEVED THE ALLEGATIONS HE SPREAD ABOUT ME. CLEARLY, NO ONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID. WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT MR. GUILIANI SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THOSE CLAIMS WERE SUSPECT COMING AS THEY REPORTEDLY DID FROM INDIVIDUALS WITH QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES AND REQUEST REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL AMBITIONS WOULD BE STYMIED BY OUR ANTICORRUPTION POLICY IN UKRAINE.

AFTER BEING ASKED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN EARLY MARCH, 2019, TO EXTEND MY TOUR UNTIL 2020, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME ENTERED A NEW PUBLIC PHASE IN THE UNITED STATES. IN THE WAKE OF THE NEGATIVE PRESS, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS SUGGESTED AN EARLIER DEPARTURE AND WE AGREED UPON JULY, 2019. I WAS THEN ABRUPTLY TOLD JUST WEEKS LATER IN LATE APRIL TO COME BACK TO WASHINGTON FROM UKRAINE ON THE NEXT PLANE. AT THE TIME I DEPARTED, UKRAINE HAD JUST CONCLUDED GAME CHANGING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. IT WAS A SENSITIVE PERIOD. WITH MUCH AT STAKE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CALLED FOR ALL THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE WE COULD MUSTER. WHEN I RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE SULLIVAN TOLD ME THERE HAD BEEN A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME, THAT THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WISHED ME TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, AND THAT, IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR MY REMOVAL SINCE THE PRIOR SUMMER.

AS MR. SULLIVAN RECENTLY RECOUNTED DURING HIS SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING, NEITHER HE NOR ANYONE ELSE EVER EXPLAINED OR SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT ME NOR DID ANYONE IN THE DEPARTMENT JUSTIFY MY EARLY DEPARTURE BY SUGGESTING I HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG. I APPRECIATE MR. SULLIVAN PUBLICLY AFFIRMED AT HIS HEARING THAT I HAD SERVED CAPABLY AND ADMIRABLY. ALTHOUGH THEN AND NOW I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINUS US INTERESTS IN THIS WAY. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO APPARENTLY FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE STATED U.S.

POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION, THAT IS TO DO OUR MISSION, WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS. AS VARIOUS WITNESSES HAVE RECOUNTED THEY SHARED BASELESS ALLEGATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONVINCED HIM TO REMOVE HIS AMBASSADOR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE AND THE SOURCES HIGHLY SUSPECT. THESE EVENTS SHOULD CONCERN EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM. AMBASSADORS ARE THE SYMBOL OF THE UNITED STATES ABROAD. THEY ARE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY SHOULD ALWAYS ACT AND SPEAK WITH FULL AUTHORITY TO ADVOCATE FOR U.S. POLICIES. IF OUR CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE IS KNEE CAPPED IT LIMITS OUR EFFECTIVENESS TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW, WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL LANDSCAPE IS MORE COMPLICATED AND MORE COMPETITIVE THAN IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION. OUR UKRAINE POLICY HAS BEEN THROWN INTO DISARRAY.

AND SHADY INTERESTS, THE WORLD OVER, HAVE LEARNED HOW LITTLE IT TAKES TO REMOVE AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WHO DOES NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. AFTER THESE EVENTS, WHAT FOREIGN OFFICIAL, CORRUPT OR NOT, COULD BE BLAMED FOR WONDERING WHETHER THE U.S. AMBASSADOR REPRESENTS THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS? AND WHAT U.S. AMBASSADOR COULD BE BLAMED FOR HARBORING THE FEAR THAT THEY CAN'T COUNT ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT THEM AS THEY IMPLEMENT STATED U.S. POLICY AND PROTECT AND DEFEND U.S. INTERESTS? I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE TAKING YOUR QUESTIONS. AT THE CLOSED DEPOSITION I EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEGRADATION OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND THE FAILURE OF STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP TO PUSH BACK AS FOREIGN AND CORRUPT INTERESTS APPARENTLY HIJACKED OUR UKRAINE POLICY.

I REMAIN DISAPPOINTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS HAVE DECLINED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ATTACKS AGAINST ME AND OTHERS ARE DANGEROUSLY WRONG. THIS IS ABOUT FAR, FAR MORE THAN ME OR A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUALS. AS FOREIGN SERVICE PROFESSIONALS ARE BEING DENIGRATED AND UNDERMINED THE INSTITUTION IS ALSO BEING DEGRADED. THIS WILL SOON CAUSE REAL HARM IF IT HASN'T ALREADY. THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS A TOOL OF FOREIGN POLICY OFTEN DOESN'T GET THE SAME KIND OF ATTENTION OR EVEN RESPECT AS THE MILITARY MIGHT OF THE PENTAGON.

BUT WE ARE, AS THEY SAY, THE POINTY END OF THE SPEAR. IF WE LOSE OUR EDGE, THE U.S. WILL INEVITABLY HAVE TO USE OTHER TOOLS EVEN MORE THAN IT DOES TODAY. THOSE OTHER TOOLS ARE BLUNTER, MORE EXPENSIVE, AND NOT UNIVERSALLY EFFECTIVE. MOREOVER, THE ATTACKS ARE LEADING TO A CRISIS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS THE POLICY PROCESS IS VISIBLY UNRAVELING. LEADERSHIP VACANCIES GO UNFILLED AND SENIOR AND MID LEVEL OFFICERS PONDER AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. THE CRISIS HAS MOVED FROM THE IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS TO AN IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTION, ITSELF. THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BEING HOLLOWED OUT FROM WITHIN AT A COMPETITIVE AND COMPLEX TIME ON THE WORLD STAGE. THIS IS NOT A TIME TO UNDERCUT OUR DIPLOMATS. IT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERS TO STAND UP FOR THE INSTITUTION AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE THAT INSTITUTION STILL TODAY THE MOST EFFECTIVE DIPLOMATIC FORCE IN THE WORLD. AND CONGRESS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REINVEST IN OUR DIPLOMACY. THAT'S AN INVESTMENT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT'S AN INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE, IN OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE. AS I CLOSE, LET ME BE CLEAR ON WHO WE ARE AND HOW WE SERVE THIS COUNTRY.

WE ARE PROFESSIONALS. WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO BY VOCATION AND TRAINING PURSUE THE POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF WHO HOLDS THAT OFFICE OR WHAT PARTY THEY AFFILIATE WITH. WE HANDLE AMERICAN CITIZEN SERVICES, FACILITATE TRADE AND COMMERCE, WORK SECURITY ISSUES, REPRESENT THE U.S., AND REPORT TO AND ADVISE WASHINGTON, TO MENTION JUST SOME OF OUR FUNCTIONS. AND WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE EVERY DAY. WE ARE PEOPLE WHO REPEATEDLY UPROOT OUR LIVES, WHO RISK AND SOMETIMES GIVE OUR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY. WE ARE THE 52 AMERICANS WHO 40 YEARS AGO THIS MONTH BEGAN 444 DAYS OF DEPRIVATION, TORTURE, AND CAPTIVITY IN TEHRAN.

WE ARE THE DOZENS OF AMERICANS STATIONED AT OUR EMBASSY IN CUBA AND CONSULATE IN CHINA WHO MYSTERIOUSLY, DANGEROUSLY, IN SOME CASES EVEN PERMANENTLY WERE INJURED AND ATTACKED FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND WE ARE AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS, SEAN PATRICK SMITH, TY WOODS, GLEN DOHERTY, PEOPLE RIGHTLY CALLED HEROES FOR THEIR ULTIMATE SACRIFICE TO THIS NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS IN LIBYA EIGHT YEARS AGO.

WE HONOR THESE INDIVIDUALS. THEY REPRESENT EACH ONE OF YOU HERE AND EVERY AMERICAN. THESE COURAGEOUS INDIVIDUALS WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY SYMBOLIZED AMERICA. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, WHAT AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW IS THAT WHILE, THANKFULLY, MOST OF US ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY IN FAR LESS DRAMATIC WAYS, EVERY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER RUNS THE SAME RISKS AND VERY OFTEN SO DO OUR FAMILIES. THEY SERVE, TOO. AS INDIVIDUALS, AS A COMMUNITY, WE ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY TO ADVANCE AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. WE TAKE OUR OATH SERIOUSLY. THE SAME OATH THAT EACH ONE OF YOU TAKE, TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND TO BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME.

I COUNT MYSELF LUCKY TO BE A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, FORTUNATE TO SERVE WITH THE BEST AMERICA HAS TO OFFER, BLESSED TO SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THE LAST 33 YEARS. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR. WE COUNT OURSELVES LUCKY TO HAVE YOU SERVE THE COUNTRY AS YOU HAVE FOR DECADES. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE 45-MINUTE ROUNDS. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF AND MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR 45 MINUTES. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR APPEARING TODAY. ALL AMERICANS ARE DEEPLY IN YOUR DEBT. GOLDMAN OUR STAFF COUNSEL I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A FEW OF THE PIVOTAL EVENTS OF INTEREST TO THE COUNTRY.

FIRST OF ALL, WAS FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE A KEY ELEMENT OF U.S. POLICY AND ONE ON WHICH YOU PLACED THE HIGHEST PRIORITY? >> YES, IT WAS. >> AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? >> IT WAS IMPORTANT AND IT WAS ACTUALLY STATED IN OUR POLICY AND IN OUR STRATEGY. IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE CORRUPTION WAS UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOVERNMENT — GOVERNANCE SYSTEM IN UKRAINE. AND AS I NOTED IN MY STATEMENT, COUNTRIES THAT HAVE LEADERS THAT ARE HONEST AND TRUST WORTHY MAKE BETTER PARTNERS FOR US. COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OUR U.S. BUSINESS MAKES IT EASIER FOR OUR COMPANIES TO DO BUSINESS THERE AND TRADE AND PROFIT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. AND WHAT HAD BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE SOVIET UNION AND THIS IS VERY MUCH A SOVIET LEGACY IS THAT CORRUPT INTERESTS WERE UNDERMINING NOT ONLY THE GOVERNANCE BUT ALSO THE ECONOMY OF UKRAINE.

WE SEE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE CAPABLE, MORE TRUSTWORTHY PARTNER THERE. >> AND I KNOW THIS MAY BE AWKWARD FOR YOU TO ANSWER, SINCE IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR REPUTATION, BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU EARNED A REPUTATION FOR BEING A CHAMPION OF ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE? >> YES. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO WATCH GEORGE KENT'S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY BUT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH HIS RATHER FRANK ASSESSMENT THAT IF YOU FIGHT CORRUPTION, YOU'RE GOING TO PISS OFF SOME CORRUPT PEOPLE? >> YES. >> AND IN YOUR EFFORTS FIGHTING CORRUPTION, TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY INTERESTS, DID YOU ANGER SOME OF THE CORRUPT LEADERS IN UKRAINE? >> YES. >> WAS ONE OF THOSE CORRUPT PEOPLE PROSECUTOR GENERAL YURI LUTSENKO? >> YES, I BELIEVE SO. >> WAS ONE OF THOSE ANOTHER CORRUPT GENERAL PROSECUTOR? >> APPARENTLY SO THOUGH I'VE NEVER MET HIM.

>> AT SOME POINT DID YOU COME TO LEARN THAT BOTH LUTSENKO AND SHOKIN WERE IN TOUCH WITH RUDY GUILIANI PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER AND REPRESENTATIVE? >> YES. >> IN FACT, DID GUILIANI TRY TO OVERTURN A DECISION YOU PARTICIPATED IN TO DENY SHOKIN A VISA? >> YES. THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD. >> AND THAT DENIAL WAS BASED ON HIS CORRUPTION? >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. >> WAS IT MR. LUTSENKO AMONG OTHERS WHO COORDINATED WITH MR. GUILIANI TO PEDDLE FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST YOU AS WELL AS THE BIDENS? >> YES. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> AND WERE THESE SMEARS ALSO AMPLIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT'S SON DONALD TRUMP JR. AS WELL AS CERTAIN HOSTS ON FOX? >> YES, YES. THAT IS THE CASE. >> IN THE FACE OF THIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN DID COLLEAGUES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TRY TO GET A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR YOU FROM SECRETARY POMPEO? >> YES. >> WERE THEY SUCCESSFUL? >> NO. >> DID YOU COME TO LEARN THAT THEY COULDN'T ISSUE SUCH A STATEMENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED IT WOULD BE UNDERCUT BY THE PRESIDENT? >> YES. >> AND THEN WERE YOU TOLD THAT THOUGH YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG YOU DID NOT ENJOY THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND, IN FACT, YOU FLEW HOME FROM KIEV ON THE SAME DAY AS THE INAUGURATION OF UKRAINE'S NEW PRESIDENT? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> THAT INAUGURATION WAS ATTENDED BY THREE WHO HAVE BECOME KNOWN AS THE THREE AMIGOS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, VOLKER, AND PERRY WAS IT? >> YES.

>> AND THREE DAYS AFTER THAT INAUGURATION, IN A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT DESIGNATED THESE THREE AMIGOS TO COORDINATE UKRAINE POLICY WITH RUDY GUILIANI? >> SINCE THEN I HAVE BECOME AWARE OF THAT. >> THIS IS THE SAME RUDY GUILIANI WHO ORCHESTRATED THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU? >> YES. >> AND THE SAME RUDY GUILIANI WHO DURING THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL THE PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED TO ZELENSKY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BIDENS? >> YES. >> AND, FINALLY, AMBASSADOR, IN THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL, THE PRESIDENT PRAISES ONE OF THESE CORRUPT FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS AND SAYS THEY WERE TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY. THEY WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY — NOT YOU, WHO WAS SMEARED AND RECALLED — BUT ONE OF THEM. WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV? >> I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT THE BASIS FOR THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT WOULD BE. CERTAINLY NOT FROM OUR REPORTING OVER YEARS.

>> DID YOU HAVE CONCERN, THOUGH, DO YOU HAVE CONCERN TODAY ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS SEND TO THE PEOPLE STILL IN THE UKRAINE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES WHEN A WELL RESPECTED AMBASSADOR CAN BE SMEARED OUT OF HER POST WITH THE PARTICIPATION AND ACQUIESCENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> WELL, IT'S, I THINK, BEEN A BIG HIT FOR MORALE BOTH AT U.S. EMBASSY KIEV BUT ALSO MORE BROADLY IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT OTHER AMBASSADORS AND OTHERS OF LESSER RANK WHO SERVE THE UNITED STATES IN EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND THINK, IF I TAKE ON CORRUPT PEOPLE IN THESE COUNTRIES, THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ME? >> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT, YES. >> MR. GOLDMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ON APRIL 24th OF THIS YEAR AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00 P.M., YOU RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL WHILE YOU WERE AT THE EM-BASSEY IN KIEV FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THIS WAS JUST THREE DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ELECTION AND THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM RANKING MEMBER NUNES. AT THE TIME THAT THIS URGENT CALL CAME IN, WHAT WERE YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING? >> I WAS HOSTING AN EVENT IN HONOR OF AN ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST OR WAS AN ANTICORRUPTION ACTIVIST IN UKRAINE. WE HAD GIVEN HER THE WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD FROM UKRAINE AND, IN FACT, THE WORLDWIDE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT, AT THE WORLDWIDE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C., SECRETARY POMPEO SINGLED HER OUT FOR HER AMAZING WORK IN UKRAINE TO FIGHT CORRUPT INTERESTS IN THE SOUTH OF UKRAINE. SHE VERY TRAGICALLY DIED BECAUSE SHE WAS ATTACKED BY ACID AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER DIED A VERY, VERY PAINFUL DEATH. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT JUSTICE BE DONE FOR HER AND FOR OTHERS WHO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A TABLE TOP EXERCISE THERE.

LIVES ARE IN THE BALANCE. AND SO WE WANTED TO BRING ATTENTION TO THIS. WE HELD AN EVENT AND GAVE HER FATHER, WHO OF COURSE IS STILL MOURNING HER, THAT AWARD, THE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT. >> AND HER WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD STEMMED FROM HER ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE? >> YES, THAT IS TRUE. >> WAS IT EVER DETERMINED WHO THREW THE ACID AND KILLED HER? >> THERE HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATIONS BUT WHILE SOME OF THE LOWER RANKING INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, THOSE WHO ORDERED THIS HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPREHENDED. >> AFTER YOU STEPPED AWAY FROM THIS ANTICORRUPTION EVENT TO TAKE THIS CALL, WHAT DID THE DIRECTOR GENERAL TELL YOU? >> SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN ON THE 7th FLOOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S WHERE THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT SITS. THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN. THEY WERE WORRIED. SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP ABOUT THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS SEEMED TO BE GOING ON AND SO SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP.

I, YOU KNOW, HARD TO KNOW HOW TO REACT TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I ASKED HER WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, WHAT DID SHE THINK IT WAS ABOUT. SHE DIDN'T KNOW. SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS GOING TO TRY AND FIND OUT MORE BUT SHE HAD WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP. IN FACT, I THINK SHE MAY EVEN HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS UP ON THAT. AND SO I ASKED HER KIND OF WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP HERE? SO SHE SAID SHE WOULD TRY TO FIND OUT MORE AND SHE WOULD TRY TO CALL ME BY MIDNIGHT.

>> WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? >> AROUND 1:00 IN THE MORNING SHE CALLED ME AGAIN AND SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE GREAT CONCERNS, THERE WERE CONCERNS UP THE STREET, AND SHE SAID I NEEDED TO GET — COME HOME IMMEDIATELY. GET ON THE NEXT PLANE TO THE U.S. AND I ASKED HER WHY. AND SHE SAID SHE WASN'T SURE BUT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY. I ASKED HER, MY PHYSICAL SECURITY? BECAUSE SOMETIMES WASHINGTON KNOWS MORE THAN WE DO ABOUT THESE THINGS. AND SHE SAID, NO. SHE HADN'T GOTTEN THAT IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS A PHYSICAL SECURITY ISSUE BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MY SECURITY AND I NEEDED TO COME HOME RIGHT AWAY.

YOU KNOW, I ARGUED. THIS IS EXTREMELY IRREGULAR. AND NO REASON GIVEN. BUT IN THE END, I DID GET ON THE NEXT PLANE HOME. >> YOU SAID THERE WERE CONCERNS UP THE STREET. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN? >> THE WHITE HOUSE. >> DID SHE EXPLAIN IN ANY MORE DETAIL WHAT SHE MEANT BY CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR SECURITY? >> NO. SHE DIDN'T. I DID SPECIFICALLY ASK WHETHER THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE — MAYOR GUILIANI'S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME AND SO FORTH. AND SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T KNOW.

IT DIDN'T EVEN ACTUALLY APPEAR TO ME THAT SHE SEEMED TO BE AWARE OF THAT. NO REASON WAS OFFERED. >> DID SHE EXPLAIN WHAT THE URGENCY WAS FOR YOU TO COME BACK ON THE NEXT FLIGHT? >> THE ONLY THING THAT'S PERTINENT TO THAT WAS WHEN SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY. THAT'S ALL. BUT IT WAS NOT FURTHER EXPLAINED. >> NOW, PRIOR TO THIS ABRUPT CALL BACK TO WASHINGTON, D.C., HAD YOU BEEN OFFERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR POST BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT? >> YES.

THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS HAD ASKED WHETHER I WOULD EXTEND FOR ANOTHER YEAR, DEPARTING IN JULY OF 2020. >> WHEN WAS THAT REQUEST MADE? >> IN EARLY MARCH. >> SO ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE THIS CALL? >> YES. >> DID ANYONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT EVER EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE? AT YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE TOLD YOU YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG BUT THERE WAS A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU.

WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT? >> I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE. >> I'M NOT EXACT LOY SURE BUT I TOOK IT TO MEAN THAT THE ALLEGATIONS MAYOR GUILIANI AND EARS WERE PUTTING OUT THERE THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. >> WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN? >> SOME MEMBERS OF THE PRESS. IN THE UKRAINE, I THINK — HIS PREDECESSOR, CERTAINLY. >> AND AT THIS TIME MR. LUTSENKO WAS THE LEAD PROSECUTOR GENERAL IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> HAD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INDICATED WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS GOING TO KEEP HIM ON AFTER THE ELECTION? >> HE HAD INDICATED HE WOULD NOT BE KEEPING ON MR. LUTSENKO. >> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT MR. LUTSENKO HAD A REPUTATION FOR BEING CORRUPT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, DURING THIS CONVERSATION DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR FUTURE AS THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE? >> HE TOLD ME I NEEDED TO LEAVE. >> WHAT DID HE SAY? >> HE SAID THAT — I MEAN, THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BUT ULTIMATELY HE SAID THE WORDS THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER UNDERSTANDS, THE PRESIDENT HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU.

THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, A TERRIBLE THING TO HEAR. AND I SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I HAVE TO GO THEN. BUT NO REAL REASON WAS OFFERED AS TO WHY I HAD TO LEAVE AND WHY IT WAS BEING DONE IN SUCH A MANNER. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU? >> NO. >> AND WERE YOU PROVIDED ANY REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU? >> NO. >> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED AT YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU WERE TOLD AT SOME POINT THAT SECRETARY POMPEO HAD TRIED TO PROTECT YOU BUT THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO DO THAT. WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE EFFORTS TO PROTECT YOU? >> NO I WAS NOT UNTIL THAT MEETING WITH DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN. >> DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHO HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT YOU FROM? >> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WANTED ME TO LEAVE AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT OVER THE PRIOR MONTHS. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING WHY SECRETARY POMPEO WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROTECT YOU? >> NO. IT WAS JUST A STATEMENT MADE THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROTECT ME.

>> SO JUST LIKE THAT YOU HAD TO LEAVE UKRAINE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? >> YES. >> HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL? >> TERRIBLE, HONESTLY. I MEAN, AFTER 33 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, IT WAS TERRIBLE. IT'S NOT THE WAY I WANTED MY CAREER TO END. >> YOU ALSO TOLD THE DEPUTY SECRETARY THAT THIS WAS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> I WAS WORRIED ABOUT OUR POLICY BUT ALSO PERSONNEL, THAT — AND I ASKED HIM HOW — HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO PEOPLE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE PRESS, THE PUBLIC, UKRAINIANS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS WATCHING. AND SO IF PEOPLE SEE SOMEBODY WHO — AND OF COURSE IT HAD BEEN VERY PUBLIC, FRANKLY, THE ATTACKS ON ME BY MAYOR GUILIANI AND OTHERS AND MR. LUTSENKO IN UKRAINE. IF PEOPLE SEE THAT I, WHO HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, PROMOTING OUR POLICIES ON ANTICORRUPTION, IF THEY CAN UNDERMINE ME AND GET ME PULLED OUT OF UKRAINE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR OUR POLICY? DO WE STILL HAVE THAT SAME POLICY? HOW ARE WE GOING OURALLACY? HOW ARE WE GOING TO AFFIRMATIVELY PUT THATTER IT FORWARD, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, WHEN OTHER ACTORS, IN OTHER COUNTRIES SEE THAT PRIVATE ININTERESTS, FOREIGN INTERESTS CAN COME TOGETHER AND GET A U.S. AMBASSADOR REMINEDX WHAT'S GOING TO STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT IN THE FUCH IN OTHER COUNTRIES? OFFEN THE WORK WE DO, WE TRY TO BE DIPLOMATIC ABOUT IT BUT AS GEORGE KENT SAID IT CAN GETEPAL ANGRY WITH US, UNCOMFORTABLE. WE ARE DOING OUR JOBS BUT SOMETIMESEPAL BEBECOME VERY ANGRY AND IF THEY REALIZE THEY CAN JUST REMOVE US, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT. >> HOW DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY RESPOND? >> THAT THOSE WERE GOOD QUESTIONS AND HE WOULD GET BACK TO ME. >> DID HE GET BACK IT TO YOU? >> HE ASKED TO SEE ME THE FOLLOWING DAY.

THE CONVERSATION WAS MORE — AND AGAIN I'M GRATEFUL FOR THIS BUT TO SEE HOW I WAS DOING AND WHAT WOULD I DO NEXT? HOW COULD HE HELP. >> BUT HE DIDN'T DISCUSS THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT? >> NO. >> YOU UNDERSTOOD, OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT OF OF THE UNITED STATES COULD REMOVE YOU AND YOU SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HAVE YOU HEARD OF OF A PRESIDENT RECALLING ANOTHER AMBASSADOR WITHOUT CAUSE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS THE STATE DEPARTMENT ITSELF KNEW TO BE FALSE? >> NO. >> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU HAD LEFT UKRAIN BY THE TIME OF THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THE CALL RECORD FOR THIS PHONE CALL? >> WHEN IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY EAT THE END OF SEPTEMBER. >> AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SPECIFICALLY MADE REFERENCE TO YOU IN THAT CALL? >> NO. LEARNING THAT? >> I WAS SHOCKED. ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED AND DEVASTATED, FRANKLY. >> WHAT IT DO YOU MEAN BY DEVASTATED? >> I WAS SHOCKED AND DEVASTATED THAT I WOULD FEATURE IN A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO HEADS OF STATE IN SUCH A MANNER WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT I WAS BAD NEWS TO ANOTHER WORLD LEADER AND THAT I WOULD BE GOING THROUGH SOME THINGS.

IT WAS A TERRIBLE MOMENT. A PERSON WHO SAW EME LEAD TO TRANSCRIPT SAID THE COLOR DRAINED FROM MY FACE. I THINK I EVEN HAD A PHYSICAL REACTION. EVEN NOW WORDS FAIL HE. >> WITHOUT UPSETTING YOU TOO MUCH, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE CAN EXCERPTS FROM THE CALL AND THE FIRST ONE, WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE FORMER AMBASSADOR FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN, WAS BAD NEWS AND THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING WITH IN UKRAIN WERE BAD THUZ. SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW. WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REFER TO YOU AS BAD NEWS? >> I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.

SHOCKED, APPALLED, DEVASTATED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD TALK ABOUT ANY AMBASSADOR LIKE THAT TO A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE AND IT WAS ME. I MEAN I COULDN'T I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. >> THE NEXT EXCERPT WHEN THE PRESIDENT REFERENCES YOU IS A SHORT ONE. HE SAID WELL, SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS? >> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK BOUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED. >> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? >> SHE'S GOING IT GO THROUGH SOME THINGS DIDN'T SOUND GOOD. SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT. >> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED? >> I DID. >> HOW SO? >> I DIDN'T KNOW KAKTLY. EXACTLY. IT'S THOUGHT A VERY PRECISE PHRASE BUT I THINK IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I WAS — I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWERER THE QUESTION ANY FURTHER EXCEPT TO SAY IT FELT LIKE A BIG THREAT AND SO I WONDERED WHAT THAT MEANT.

IT CONCERNED ME. >> NOW IN THE SAME CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENT, AS YOU JUST SAID, THREATENS YOU TO A FOREIGN LEADER, HE ALSO PRAISES RATHER THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN ROS KURT WHO LED THE FALSE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU. I WANT TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER EXCERPT OR TWO FROM THE PHONE CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS GOOD BECAUSE I HEARD YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT.

THE WAY THEY SHUT YOUR VERY GOOD PROSECUTOR DOWN AND YOU HAD SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE INVOLVED. AND HE WENT ON LATER TO SAY "I HEARD THE PROSECUTOR WAS TREATED VERY BADLY AND HE WAS A VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR. SO GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING." AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AFTER NEARLY THREE YEARS IN UKRAIN WHERE YOU TRIED TO CLEAN UP THE OFFICE, WAS IT YOUR VIEW THAT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS A VERY FAIR AND GOOD PROSECUTOR? >> THOUGH T WAS NOT.

>>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT. THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. >> WE ARE COMING BACK ON THE DAY AS THE HEARING IS ABOUT TO RESUME IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, WE WANT TO GO TO PETE WILLIAMS WITH BREAKING NEWS. ROGER STONE HAS JUST BEEN FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. PETE. >> Reporter: ALL COUNTS OF LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT HIS ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT WikiLeaks AND USE AN INTERMEDIARY TO TRY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH JULIAN ASSANGE ABOUT DAMAGING Emails TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. AND ANOTHER COUNT OF DRIVING TO — TRYING TO GET ANOTHER PERSON THAT HE WAS TALKING TO, TRYING TO PERSUADE THAT PERSON ALSO TO LIE TO CONGRESS. SO STONE WILL BE SENTENCED ON FEBRUARY 6. AND HE COULD FACE JAIL TIME HERE. MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON THESE COUNTS IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE STATUTE BOOK IS 20 YEARS, BUT OF COURSE HE WON'T BE SENTENCED TO THAT, HE IS A FIRST TIME OFFENDER AND HE HAS NO OTHER CRIMINAL RECORD.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A RESULT OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, THEY HAVE ALL GOTTEN SOME JAIL TIME, SOME PRISON TIME, INCLUDING PAUL MANAFORT. RICK GATES WILL PROBABLY BE SENTENCED NEXT MONTH. BUT THIS IS A SPECTACULAR FALL FROM GRACE FOR ROGER STONE, LONG TIME DIRTY TRICKSTER IN REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGNS AND FOR MANY YEARS A FRIEND OF DONALD TRUMP. HE HAD BRAGGED TO TRUMP THAT HE HAD INSIDE INFORMATION ON WHAT WikiLeaks HAD ON THESE HACKED Emails FROM THE DEMOCRATS AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND HE TOLD THEM BASICALLY HE WAS GOING TO GET ADVANCE INFORMATION AND HAD AN INSIDE TRACK TO JULIAN ASSANGE. LATER HE SAID THAT WASN'T TRUE BUT WHEN HE TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS, HE DENIED THAT HE HAS ANY Email CONTACT AT ALL WITH ANYBODY ABOUT WikiLeaks WHICH OBVIOUSLY TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TRUE.

HE PRESENTED VERY LITTLE DEFENSE, ONLY THING HIS LAWYERS DID IN THIS MULTIDAY TRIAL IS PLAY ABOUT AN HOUR'S WORTH OF STONE'S TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THAT IS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SAID THAT HE LIED. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, HE DIDN'T TRY TO CONTRADICT ANY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES. AND AMONG THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WAS STEVE BANBANNON, FORMER CAMADVISER. HE GOT IN TROUBLE WITH THE JUDGE IN THE RUN UP TO THE TRIAL AND HE IS STILL UNDER A GAG ORDER, SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE WILL HEAR FROM HIM. HE WILL BE FREE UNTIL HE IS SENTENCED IN FEBRUARY. >> ALL RIGHT, PETE, THANK YOU. AND AS WE MENTIONED, WE ARE WAITING MORE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE OUSTED U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH. SHE IS ABOUT TO RESUME WITH THE QUESTIONING BY THE REPUBLICAN'S SIDE. THIS MORNING THE DRAMATIC TESTIMONY INCLUDED YOVANOVITCH BEING TARGETED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS NOW FAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT. SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT BY DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL DANIEL GOLD GOLDMAN. >> THE NEXT EXCERPT WHEN THE PRESIDENT REFERENCES YOU, HE SAID, WELL, SHE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS? >> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK. BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED. >> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? >> SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS. DIDN'T SOUND GOOD. IT SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT. >> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED? >> I DID. >> AND IN ANOTHER EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF ASKED YOVANOVITCH ABOUT TWEETS DIRECTED AT HER BY PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING THE HEARING ITSELF. >> AND THOUSAND THE PRESIDENT IN REAL TIME IS ATTACKING YOU. WHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK THAT HAS ON OTHER THAN WITNESSES' WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD AND EXPOSE WRONGDOING? >> WELL, IT IS VERY INTIMIDATING.

>> DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE, IS IT NOT? >> I MEAN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO. BUT I THINK THE EFFECT IS TO BE INTIMIDATING. >> WELL, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, AMBASSADOR, THAT SOME OF US HERE TAKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. >> AND SO THERE IS A LOT TO TALK ABOUT WITH OUR PANEL. CHUCK TODD IN WASHINGTON AND WITH ME HERE IN THE STUDIO, RICHARD ENGEL AND FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROSECUTOR ANDREW WEISSMANN, NOW AN NBC LEGAL ANALYST. BUT LET'S START WITH GEOFF BENNETT AND SET THE SCENE ABOUT WHAT COMES NEXT. >> Reporter: IF THE IMMEDIATE PAST IS PROLOGUE, I THINK THAT WE CAN EXPECT THE REPUBLICANS TO TAKE THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING AROUND RABBIT HOLES.

AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE TOP REPUBLICAN DEVIN NUNES THOUGHT DO WITH HIS OPENING STATEMENT. AND RATHER THAN TRYING TO UNDERCUT THE CREDIBILITY OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH WHICH WOULD BE A HEAVIER LIFT GIVEN THAT SHE HAS A STELLAR REPUTATION THAT MAIN ATTEST TO, WHAT THEY WILL TRY TO DO IS SAY THAT HER TESTIMONY IS UNRELATED AND IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND BECAUSE THEY WILL SAY THAT SHE WAS NOT ON HER POST WHEN THIS PHONE CALL IN QUESTION, THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY HAPPENED. BUT THE FACT THAT SHE WAS NOT ON THE JOB AROUND THAT TIME GOES DIRECTLY TO THE HEART OF THE CASE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE PRESENTING.

THE REASON THAT SHE WAS OUSTED, THE REASON THAT SHE WAS SMEARED AND SIDELINED IS BECAUSE IT BECAME CLEAR TO ALLIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, DEMOCRATS ALLEGE, THAT SHE WAS AN OBSTACLE TO THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN, TO THE EXTORTION SCHEME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO RUN AS A MEANS OF GETTING THE UKRANIANS TO OPEN INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE POLITICALLY BENEFICIAL TO HIM. SO AS REPUBLICANS TAKE ON THEIR 45 MINUTES TO QUESTION HER DIRECTLY, EXPECT THEM TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON THE FINER POINTS OF THIS JULY 25th CALL, PERHAPS THEY MIGHT INTRODUCE THIS APRIL 21st CALL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASED THIS MORNING. BUT AGAIN, DEMOCRATS SAY THAT THE ISSUE HERE SPEAKS TO A LONG COORDINATED PLOT THAT BEGAN IN THE SPRING JUST BEFORE MARIE YOVANOVITCH'S OUSTER AND CONTINUED UP THROUGH UNTIL ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO.

>> GEOFF, THANK YOU. I WANT TO BRING IN NOW HALLIE JACKSON AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWING TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS. >> Reporter: AND EVEN THE ROGER STONE PROCEEDINGS THAT YOU STARTED OFF DISCUSSING WITH PETE WILLIAMS. THE PRESIDENT TWEETING JUST LITERALLY SECONDS AGO SO NOW THEY CONVICT ROGER STONE FOR LYING AND WANT TO JAIL HIM. HE SAYS WHAT ABOUT CROOKED HILLARY, COMEY, STRZOK, PAGE, OTHERS, DIDN'T THEY LIE? HE BEGINS TWEETSTORM. CLEARLY HE IS ENGAGED IN THE NEWS OF THE DAY. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE MIDST OF AN INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING THAT WAS SET TO START AT NOON.

I WAS UPSTAIRS IN THE WEST WING LOOKING FOR OFFICIALS, TRYING TO GET SOME ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE AND I SAW A COUPLE TOP STAFFERS WALKING TOWARD THE OVAL OFFICE AND ONE OF WHOM SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A GREAT ATTITUDE CURRENTLY TODAY. I WILL SAY THIS, THERE ARE TWO BIG QUESTIONS THAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS NEED TO ANSWER AT SOME POINT TODAY. I ASKED THEM BOTH OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND BOTH DECLINED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHICH IS, WAS THE PRESIDENT INTENDING TO INTIMIDATE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH? YOU MENTIONED THAT EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT WHEN CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF RAISED THAT TWEET THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED AT YOVANOVITCH, BLAMING HER IT SEEMED FOR SOME OF THE ISSUES AT SOME OF THE PLACES WHERE SHE'D BEEN POSTED AND TALKING ABOUT HER. THERE IS NOT A CLEAR RATIONAL YET FOR WHY THE PRESIDENT DID THAT IN REAL TIME DESPITE HIS PRESS SECRETARY HAVING SAID THAT THE ONLY PIECE OF THE HEARING THAT HE WOULD WATCH WOULD BE THE BEGINNING PART. THE OTHER ISSUE IS THIS ISSUE OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THE TRANSCRIPT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL IN WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE BRIEFLY.

THAT SAID, WHAT IS IN THE READ OUT THAT WAS RELEASED TODAY DOES NOT MATCH THE READOUT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED MONTHS AGO BACK IN APRIL AND THERE IS NOT A CLEAR REASON AS TO HOW THAT MATCHES UP. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TALK ABOUT FOR EXAMPLE ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION AS THE WHITE HOUSE INITIALLY INDICATED THAT HE DID. LEAVING US WITH THE QUESTION, IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING FROM THE FIRST TRANSCRIPT THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE A SERIES OF MEETINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE LAST HOUR, A LOT OF ACTIVITY IN THE WEST WING. BUT AGAIN, THE WHITE HOUSE STILL WANTS TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS FOCUSED ON THE WORK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, HE HAS AN EVENT ON HEALTH CARE PRICING IN A COUPLE HOURS. IT WILL BE OUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF. ONE OTHER NOTE, THE WHITE HOUSE HAD BEEN PLANNING TO BRING IN OUTSIDE PEOPLE TO HELP WITH SOME OF THEIR MESSAGING ON IMPEACHMENT. I CAN CONFIRM TO THAT YOU ONE OF THEM, FORMER TREASURY AIDE, HAS NOW STARTED AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY ARE BEEFING UP THEIR STAFFING WHEN IT COMES TO HOW THEY WILL RESPOND TO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE SET TO RESTART HERE IN JUST A MOMENT.

>> AND LET ME QUICK GET A QUESTION INTO ANDREW HERE ABOUT WHAT WE SAW WITH THAT TWEET TODAY. WAS THAT WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN YOUR VIEW? >> WELL, I THINK YOU HEARD DIRECTLY FROM THE WITNESS. I THINK ADAM SCHIFF WAS VERY SMART AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE WITNESS TO SAY YES, IT IS INTIMIDATING. AND I CAN'T SPEAK OBVIOUSLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU HOW I FELT. >> WAS IT AN ENDORSEMENT ESSENTIALLY OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM HER ALL MORNING LONG? >> I THINK THAT THAT IS CLEARLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL ARGUE. AND I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A GOOD POINT. >> LET ME BRING IN CHUCK TODD. YOU HEARD HALLIE MENTION THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE READOUT AND WHAT WE SAW THIS MORNING.

AND IT DOESN'T MINKS THE MENTION THE IDEA OF INTERFERENCE. WILL IT CHANGE IT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION? >> I'M FAIRLY FASCINATED TO WATCH WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE, WHICH IS I THOUGHT THAT CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO SORT OF LAYOFF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH ON THE PERSONAL STUFF, HER JOB TENURE, AND FOCUS MORE ON WHAT SHE COULD NOT SPEAK TO, WHICH IS ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED AFTER SHE LEFT UKRAINE UP UNTIL THE AID WAS EVENTUALLY RELEASED. BUT I THINK THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET THIS MORNING REALLY THREW A WRENCH IN THOSE PLANS. WE CAN READ BETWEEN ALL SORTS OF LINE, BUT PROBABLY NO ACCIDENT THAT HALLIE IS REPORTING SUDDEN MEETINGS ON THIS.

BECAUSE I THINK THIS SCRAMBLED A LOT OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS HOPED TO DO. THEY WANTED TO DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF HER TESTIMONY. FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE PRESIDENT'S RATTLED. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GRIEVANCING LAST NIGHT AND ALL THIS STUFF. HE CANNOT SEEM TO COMPARTMENTALIZE THIS AT ALL AS WE'RE SEEING IN REAL TIME. >> AND HOW CRITICAL IS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE THE NEXT 45 MINUTES? >> WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT.

I'LL BE CURIOUS, DO THE REPUBLICANS STICK TO THE STRATEGY THAT THEY SEEMED TO FORESHADOW WHICH WAS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF HER, OR NOW DOES THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET MEAN THAT THEY ALL HAVE TO TAKE A CUE FROM HIM AND ESSENTIALLY TRY TO DISCREDIT HER. SO HOW MUCH DO THEY SPEND TIME TRYING TO DISCREDIT HER VERSUS MINIMIZING HER. I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS PUT THE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS HERE THAT ARE QUESTIONING HER I THINK IN A REAL BOX. >> AND THIS IS A LIVE PICTURE OF THE AMBASSADOR NOW MAKING HER WAY BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM.

LET ME TURN TO RICHARD ENGEL. REPUBLICAN DEFENSE HAS BEEN ALL ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT WANTED CORRUPTION ROOTED OUT IN UKRAINE. SHE HAS TESTIFIED ABOUT, YOU NOTICE, BEING AT AN EVENT HONORING SOMEONE, A CORRUPTION — ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVIST. HOW HARD WILL IT BE TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT DEFENSE WITH HER IN THE ROOM? >> I THINK THAT THEY WILL CERTAINLY TRY TO ARGUE THAT SHE WAS INEFFECTIVE, THAT SHE WAS IRRELEVANT, SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY CORRECT INFORMATION. BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING POLICIES. THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT THE OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY WHICH SHE WAS PURSUING AND WHICH ANTI-CORRUPTION WAS PART OF IT, AND THEN ANOTHER FOREIGN POLICY THAT WAS BEING DRIVEN TO HELP THE CAMPAIGN OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND THAT WAS BEING LED BY RUDY GIULIANI. AND THEY WERE COMPETING AND SHE WAS THE VICTIM. >> LET'S TAKE YOU INTO THE HEARING ROOM. >> APPEARS COUNSEL BEFORE THE WITNESS HAS PAPER COPIES OF THE QUESTIONING. IF THAT IS TRUE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU AND OR YOUR TEAM LAST BEEN IN COORDINATION WITH HIM AND OR HER WITH RESPECT TO HER TESTIMONY THIS MORNING? AND IF THAT IS TRUE, HOW DOES THAT COMPORT WITH THE FAIRNESS THAT IS PURPORTEDLY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RESOLUTION? >> THE TV FOR THE WITNESS WASN'T WORKING SO THEY WERE GIVEN COPIES THIS MORNING.

IT IS NOW 45 MINUTES TO RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND — >> YOU SAID THAT THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF THEM IS NOT WORKING? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SCREEN SCREEN WAS NOT WORKING IN FRONT OF THEM, SO THEY WERE GIVEN COPIES SO THEY CAN READ ALONG SINCE THEY CAN'T SEE THE SCREEN. MR. NUNES, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 45 MINUTES ALONG WITH MINORITY COUNSEL. >> FIRST, MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD SENATOR GRASSLEY'S LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DATED JULY 20th, 2017. I READ A PORTION OF THAT INTO THE RECORD DURING MY OPENING STATEMENT. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> AMBASSADOR, CONGRATULATE YOU. YOU'VE BEEN DOWN IN THE SECRET DEPOSITION MEETING ROOMS. YOU'VE GRADUATED FOR YOUR PERFORMANCE TODAY. LATER THIS AFTERNOON, I SHOULD NOTE THAT FOR THE PUBLIC THAT WE WILL BE BACK DOWN THIS THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL DOING MORE OF THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS. I DON'T HAVE VERY MANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. YOU ADMITTED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO.

BUT I DO WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SENATOR GRASSLEY VERY BRIEFLY. I ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW WHO SENATOR GRASSLEY IS. >> YES, SIR, I DO. >> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SENATOR GRASSLEY IS A SERIOUS AND CREDIBLE ELECTED OFFICIAL? >> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE. >> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE JULY 25th, TRUMP/ZELENSKY PHONE CALL OR PREPARATIONS FOR THE CALL? >> NO. >> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE DELIBERATION ABOUT THE POSSIBLE MILITARY SALES TO UKRAINE AS THE PRESIDENT REVIEWED THEIR COMMITMENT TO CORRUPTION REFORMS? >> FOR THE DELAY? >> THE PAUSE. >> NO, I WAS NOT. >> WERE YOU PROPOSED IN THE PROPOSED TRUMP/ZELENSKY LATER PENCE/ZELENSKY MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 1? >> NO, I WAS NOT. >> DID YOU EVER TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2019? >> NO, I HAVE NOT. >> MICK MULVANEY? >> NO, I HAVE NOT. >> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE AMBASSADOR IS DOING HERE TODAY. THIS IS THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE.

THIS SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AT THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH EMPLOYMENT, DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION. IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THIS WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE SETTING INSTEAD OF AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING WHERE THE AMBASSADOR IS NOT A MATERIAL FACT WITNESS TO ANYTHING, ANY OF THE ACCUSATIONS THAT ARE BEING HURLED AT THE PRESIDENT FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, I THINK MR. KASTOR WANTS TO GET TO. I'LL YIELD TO YOU, MS. STEFANIK. >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE — >> THE AGAIN WOMAN WILL SUSPEND. YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZED. >> I JUST RECOGNIZED HER. >> UNDER HOUSE 660, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO YIELD TIME EXCEPT TO COUNSEL. >> YOU'RE GAGGING THE LADY FROM NEW YORK? >> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR — >> YOU ARE NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE INTERRUPTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, NEWLY ELECTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. >> THE GENTLE WOMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> WE CONTROL THE TIME AND IT IS CUSTOMARY THAT WHOEVER CONTROLS THE TIME CAN YIELD TO WHOEVER THEY WISH. IF WE HAVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO LET MS.

STEFANIK ASK HER QUESTIONS. >> MR. NUNES, YOU OR MINORITY COUNSEL ARE RECOGNIZED. >> MR. KASTOR, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> AMBASSADOR, WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 33 YEARS, AN EXTRA ORDINARY CAREER. REALLY HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE TENURE FOR YOU AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING HERE TODAY. THIS IS A CRAZY ENVIRONMENT, THIS HEARING ROOM HAS TURNED INTO A TELEVISION STUDIO. BEFORE TODAY, YOU SPENT ON FRIDAY THE 11th, YOU WERE WITH US FOR EARLY IN THE MORNING UNTIL I BELIEVE IT WAS 8:00 AT NIGHT.

PEOPLE MISSED TRAINS BACK TO NEW YORK AND IT WAS A COMPLETE — VERY COMPLETE DAY. SO THANK YOU. YOU WERE SERVING A THREE YEAR ASSIGNMENT IN THE UKRAINE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IT BEGAN IN 2016 AND WAS SCHEDULED TO END IN 2019? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND NOBODY DISPUTES THAT IT IS UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE WHO HIS ENVOYS ARE TO POST AROUND THE WORLD, CORRECT? >> I STATED THAT CLEARLY IN MY STATEMENT. >> AND YOU RETURNED FROM THE UKRAINE ON MAY 20th, 2019? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOUR RETURN COINCIDED WITH INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> YES. >> AND YOU REMAIN EMPLOYED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT? >> I DO.

>> AND AFTER YOU RETURNED TO WASHINGTON, DEPUTY SECRETARY JOHN SULLIVAN ASKED YOU WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO NEXT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THEN YOU MET WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AMBASSADOR PEREZ? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> TO IDENTIFY A MEANINGFUL NEW ASSIGNMENT? >> YES. >> AND YOU NOW SERVE AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AS A FELLOW? >> THAT IS TRUE. >> AND THIS IS A REWARDING POSITION FOR YOU? >> I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO BE IN THAT POSITION AFTER WHAT HAPPENED.

>> TODAY IS THE SECOND BIG HEARING FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INITIATIVE. BUT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND — OR WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FACTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PART OF THIS THAT WE'RE INVESTIGATING AND THOSE ARE THE EVENTS FROM MAY 20th UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11th, RELEASE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO UP NOT PART OF THE DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION, THAT WAS THE DAY YOU RETURNED.

YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING MAY 23, CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE DECISION MAKING RELATING TO WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU WERE NOT A PART OF ANY DECISION MAKING IN THE LEAD UP TO THE JULY 25th CALL? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 25th, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WELL, I HEARD ABOUT THE CALL AS I INDICATED IN THE FIRST DEPOSITION FROM DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT. >> AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THE CALL? >> WELL, AS IT TURNS OUT, IT WASN'T CORRECT, BUT WHAT I RECALL IS THAT HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHETHER HE COULD HELP HIM OUT AND WHICH I UNDERSTOOD TO BE THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD SAID THAT HE IS PUTTING IN A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND THAT HE DOESN'T CONTROL — I MEAN, THIS IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT HE SAID.

THAT THAT PERSON IS AN INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL. >> AND YOU LEARNED ABOUT THAT BEFORE THE CALL WAS MADE PUBLIC? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> LIKEWISE YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO UKRAINE, THAT THEY WERE PAUSED ABOUT 55 DAYS FROM JULY 18 TO SEPTEMBER 11th? >> NO DISCUSSIONS. >> IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT ON PAGE 9, YOU STATED ALTHOUGH THEN AND NOW I'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE U.S.

INTERESTS IN THIS WAY. INDIVIDUALS WHO APPARENTLY FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE STATED U.S. POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION, THAT IS TO DO THE MISSION, WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST THE SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS AIMING TO WEAPONIZE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BY REMOVING YOU? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT. >> OKAY. DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR REMOVAL WAS PART OF SOME SCHEME TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR ELEMENTS OF THE UKRANIAN ESTABLISHMENT TO DO THINGS COUNTER TO U.S. INTERESTS? >> I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY WHAT THE UKRANIAN ESTABLISHMENT HOPED. I THINK THAT IN ADDITION THERE WERE AMERICANS, THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, WHO WERE WORKING WITH MAYOR GIULIANI, MR. PARNAS AND MR. FRUMAN, RECENTLY INDICTED, WHO INDICATE THAT HAD THEY WANTED TO CHANGE OUT THE AMBASSADOR AND I THINK THAT THEY MUST HAVE HAD SOME REASON FOR THAT. >> AND DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WERE SEEKING A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AMBASSADOR THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THEIR OBJECTIVES? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER REASON THERE WOULD BE.

>> OKAY. IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT WOULD FACILITATE THOSE OBJECTIVES? >> NO. >> SO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS A MAN OF HIGH INTEGRITY? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> AND HE IS A GOOD PICK FOR THE POST? >> HE IS. I WOULD NOTE THAT HE IS THE CHAREGIE. NO ADVOCATE HAS BEEN NAMED TO THE POSITION.

>> BUT HE HAS HAD A DEDICATED CAREER SERVING HIS COUNTRY? >> ABSOLUTELY. A MAN OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY. >> YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT WHEN YOU FIRST LEARNED THAT MAYOR GIULIANI AND SOME OF HIS ASSOCIATES WERE — HAD A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU. WHEN DID THAT FIRST COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? >> WE WERE PICKING UP RULE ARE ORS FROM UKRANIANS.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 TIME PERIOD. BUT THEN JANUARY, FEBRUARY, IT BECAMEOBVIOUS. >> I BELIEVE THE MINISTER ALERTED YOU TO THE CAMPAIGN? >> YES. >> WHEN WAS THAT? >> HE HAD ARE A CONVERSATION WITH ME IN FEBRUARY OF 2019. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE RELATED TO YOU? >> YES. HE SAID THAT MR. LUTSENKO WAS WORKING WITH MAYOR GIULIANI THROUGH THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS MR. PARNAS AND MR. FRUMAN, THAT THEY BASICALLY WANTED TO REMOVE ME FROM POST. AND THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON THAT. >> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY AWARENESS AT THAT POINT IN TIME OF PRECISELY WHY THEY WERE SEEKING YOUR OUSTER? >> YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T.

I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT AT ALL. BECAUSE I HAD NEVER MET MR. PARNAS AND MR. FRUMAN. AND SO IT WAS UNCLEAR TO ME WHY THEY WERE INTERESTED IN DOING THIS. >> WERE YOU ESPECIALLY INFLUENTIAL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES THAT STYMIED THEIR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE? WERE ADVOCATING POLICIES THAT WOULD BE ADVERSE TO THEM? >> I THINK JUST THE GENERAL IDEA THAT OBVIOUSLY U.S. AMBASSADORS, U.S. EMBASSY, ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IS TO FACILITATE BUSINESS ABROAD, WHETHER TRADE, COMMERCE, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO. AND — BUT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ABOVE BOARD. WE BELIEVE IN A LEVEL PLAYING GROUND AND SO FORTH, BUT WE OBVIOUSLY ADVOCATE FOR U.S.

BUSINESS. THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, WITH HINDSIGHT AND WHAT WE LEARNED LATER, LOOKING TO OPEN UP AN ENERGY COMPANY EXPORTING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TO UKRAINE, NEVER ACTUALLY CAME TO THE EMBASSY WHICH IS UNUSUAL. BECAUSE THAT WOULD USUALLY BE A FIRST STOP GOING TO THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, GOING TO THE U.S. EMBASSY, GET THE PLAY — LAY OF THE LAND, SEE HOW WE CAN PROCEED ASSISTANCE. >> AND WAS THAT SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION EVER EXPRESSED TO YOU OR DID JUST LEARN THAT SEPARATELY? >> THE SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION? ON WHOSE PART? >> FRUMAN AND PARNAS. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE FRUSTRATED. I MEAN, I — FRUSTRATED BY WHAT? >> WELL, YOU MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD BUSINESS INTERESTS — I ASKED YOU WHETHER THEY HAD BEEN STYMIED BY ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU HAD ADVOCATED FOR OR YOU WERE A ROAD BLOCK TO THEM BEING SUCCESSFUL.

AND I WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION. >> I NEVER MET THEM. WHEN I HEARD THOSE NAMES FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHICH WAS IN FEBRUARY OF 2019, I ASKED MY TEAM, THE ECON AND COMMERCIAL SECTIONS ARE THE ONES WHO WOULD USUALLY MEET WITH AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN, AND NOBODY HAD HEARD OF THEM. SO ALL I CAN CONCLUDE IS THAT IT WAS THE GENERAL U.S. POLICIES THAT WE WERE IMPLEMENTING THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OF CONCERN TO THEM. >> AND AT ANY POINT DID YOU EVER TRY TO REACH OUT TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL MR. LUTSENKO AND FIND OUT WHY HE WAS PARTICIPATING IN THIS CAMPAIGN? >> NO. >> WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THAT? >> I DIDN'T FEEL THAT THERE WAS ANY PURPOSE TO IT. >> WHY NOT? >> HE IS — HE CLEARLY HAD I WOULD SAY A ANIMUS FOR DOING THIS AND HE WAS WORKING WITH AMERICANS.

SO I REACHED OUT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST REALIZE THAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH LUTSENKO HAD REACHED AN ADVERSARIAL POINT? >> PROBABLY AROUND THAT TIME, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. >> AND THIS IS MARCH? >> YEAH. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY — ADVERSARIAL IS A REALLY STRONG WORD. WE AT THE U.S.

EMBASSY ARE VISITING PEOPLE FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES. WE WERE PUSHING THE UKRANIANS, INCLUDING MR. LUTSENKO, TO DO WHAT THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO. MR. LUTSENKO ENTERED OFFICE AND SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO CLEAN UP THE PGO AND MAKE REFORMS, THAT HE WAS GOING TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE WHAT THEY CALL THE HEAVENLY HUNDRED, THE PEOPLE WHO DIED IN 2014, THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY. AND HE WAS GOING TO PROSECUTE CASES TO REPATRIATE THE APPROXIMATELY $40 BILLION IT IS BELIEVED THAT FORMER PRESIDENT AND HIS CRONIES FLED THE COUNTRY WITH. AND HE DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT. AND WE KEPT TRYING TO ENCOURAGE HIM DO THE RIGHT THING. >> AND THEN YOU MENTIONED YOU CONTACTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN LATE MARCH. IS THAT UNDER SECRETARY HALE? >> CONTACTED ABOUT WHAT.

>> ABOUT THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAD ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU. >> I CONTACTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EARLIER THAN THAT. IT WAS AN ONGOING — DISCUSSION MAKES IT SOUND FORMAL. WE HAD MANY WAYS OF GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH WASHINGTON, PHONE CALLS, DVCs, WE WOULD HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. AND IF I COULD JUST AMPIFY MY ANSWER, WE HAD THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED THAT UKRANIAN POLICYMAKERS, UKRANIAN LEADERS, WERE HEARING THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING, THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WAITING IN THE WINGS. ET CETERA. AND THAT UNDERMINES NOT ONLY MY POSITION, BUT OUR U.S.

POSITION. THE UKRANIANS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK AND WE NEEDED TO BE FIRING ON ALL CYLINDERS TO PROMOTE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. SO IT WAS A CONCERN. >> AND WHEN DID YOU REALIZE THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU WAS A REAL THREAT? >> A THREAT? >> A THREAT TO YOUR ABILITY DO THE JOB KIEV. >> I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO INTO A MEETING WITH SOMEBODY AND THEY ASK, ARE YOU GOING TO BE LEAVING, THAT IS CONCERNING. SO THAT IS PROBABLY — I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THAT STARTED HAPPENING, BUT IN THAT TIME FRAME. >> AND DID YOU UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO PUSH BACK ON THIS NARRATIVE, EITHER INSIDE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR PUBLICLY? >> CERTAINLY WITH THE UKRANIANS.

I SAID THERE IS NOTHING TO THIS, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A DISTRACTION. AND WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE JOB, OUR POLICY REMAINS THE SAME. AND, YES, WE HAD DISCUSSINGS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS. >> IN HINDSIGHT DO YOU THINK YOU DID ENOUGH INSIDE THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO ALERT THEM TO THIS MOUNTING CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU? >> I DID WHAT I COULD. >> AND WHAT WAS THAT? >> REACHED OUT TO THE EUROPEAN BUREAU. I THINK YOU'VE ALSO HEARD THAT DR. FIONA HILL WAS AWARE OF THIS AS WELL. SO THE NSC. AND THEY HAD OTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH MORE SENIOR PEOPLE. >> OKAY. AND DID YOU GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND? DID YOU ENGAGE AMBASSADOR REEKER UNDER SECRETARY HALE? >> YES. >> DID YOU DEVELOP SORT OF A GAME PLAN TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE ALLEGATIONS? >> SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAST FORWARDING TO MARCH, I DID — WHEN UNDERSECRETARY HALE ASKED WHETHER I WOULD CONSIDER EXTENDING, I DID RAISE BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE THAT HE WAS AWARE OF IT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE KNEW THAT MAYOR GIULIANI HAD BEEN OUT THERE SAYING THINGS ABOUT ME, UNTRUE THINGS.

AND I WANTED HIM TO BE AWARE OF THAT. AND HE SAID HE UNDERSTOOD. HE STILL WAS HOPING THAT I COULD EXTEND FOR ANOTHER YEAR. SO THAT WAS EARLY MARCH. AND THEN FAST FORWARD TO LATE MARCH AND, YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE CONTINUED, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT BECAME — ONCE IT BECAME A PUBLIC POLITICAL STORY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, THE TENOR OF EVERYTHING CHANGED BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FELT THAT IT WASN'T MANAGEABLE ANYMORE AND THAT THE MORE PRUDENT THING WOULD BE FOR ME TO COME BACK IN JULY. >> DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANYTHING THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY TO GET AHEAD OF THE STORY AND TO LOBBY THE SECRETARY AND HIS COUNSELOR THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU, THAT YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE THE ALLEGATIONS LODGED WERE ACCURATE AND YOU NEEDED THEIR ASSISTANCE? >> I THINK THAT — SURE, MAYBE I COULD HAVE DONE THAT, BUT I THINK THEY WERE AWARE AND AS I SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED FROM DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN, THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD BEEN WELL AWARE OF THIS SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2018.

>> CORRUPTION IS ENDEMIC IN THE COUNTRY OF UKRAINE, RIGHT? >> I WOULD SAY THAT CORRUPTION IS A SERIOUS ISSUE EVERYWHERE IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION. IT IS A POST-SOVIET LEGACY. AND WE TALK ABOUT IT A LOT IN UKRAINE BECAUSE THERE IS ACTUALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING, TO ACTUALLY HELP THE UKRANIANS TACKLE THE ISSUES. IN OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA, YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. SO I THINK THAT IT IS A POST-SOVIET LEGACY AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH IT. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED RAMPANT CORRUPTION HAS LONG PERMEATED UKRAINE'S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS? >> YES, THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT. >> AND IT IS YOUR BELIEF THAT IT SHOULD BE THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO HELP UKRAINE CURB ITS CORRUPTION PROBLEM? >> YES, BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR THE UKRANIANS, BUT ALSO IN OUR INTERESTS.

>> AND ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS, YOU MENTIONED THEY SERVE A NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSE? >> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE. >> ARE OLIGARCHS A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM IN UKRAINE. >> PROBABLY. BECAUSE SO MUCH WEALTH IS CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A VERY, VERY FEW, SIX OR SEVEN INDIVIDUALS. AND THEY ALSO HAVE POLITICAL POWER AND CONTROL THE MEDIUM. >> AND A LOT OF THEIR POWER HAS BEEN ACQUIRED THROUGH WHAT WE HERE IN THE U.S. WOULD CONSIDER IMPROPER WAYS? >> YEAH, I THINK THAT IS A FAIR COMMENT. >> THE HEAD OF BURISMA, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HIM? >> I DON'T KNOW HIM. BUT I KNOW WHO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS INVESTIGATING FOR STEALING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLAR, SOME OF WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE U.S., GREAT BRITAIN, SUBJECT TO AN INVESTIGATION, TRYING TO GET THE MONEY BACK.

THAT WAS A BIG PART OF MR. KENT'S INITIATIVES WHEN HE WAS THERE. THAT BRIBE WAS PAID TO THE PROSECUTORS AND SOCHEVSKI WAS LET OFF THE HOOK. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH? >> I'VE HEARD ABOUT IT. IT WAS BEFORE MY RIFLE. AND MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT THE U.S.

MONEY THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO WAS THE MONEY THAT WE USED TO FUND AN FBI TEAM THAT WAS EMBEDDED WITH THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE TO GO AFTER — NOT TO GO AFTER, BUT DO THE INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA. >> MR. KENT TESTIFIED THAT THIS BRIBE WAS PAID, THAT THE PROSECUTION WENT AWAY, AND ESSENTIALLY NOTHING HAS BEEN FURTHER DONE WITH REGARDS TO BURISMA. DURING YOUR TENURE IN UKRAINE, HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY FOCUS ON REEXAMINING ALLEGATIONS WHETHER IT IS BURISMA OR OTHER POWERFUL INTERESTS LIKE SOLCHEVSKI? >> THE PART OF THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT? >> YEAH, TRYING TO LEAD ON THE PROSECUTORS GENERAL TO CLEAN UNTIL OLIGARCHICAL SYSTEM.

>> YES, THERE HAD BEEN SOME EFFORTS. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE U.S. WAS WELCOMING OF MR. LUTSENKO'S NOMINATION TO THE POSITION OF PROSECUTOR GENERAL BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING THAT HE WOULD CLEAN THAT UP. THAT IN FACT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. AND BECAUSE — YOU KNOW, IT IS KIND OF HARD TO EXPLAIN TO A U.S. AUDIENCE, BUT IN UKRAINE, IN THE FORMER — THE FORMER SOVIET UNION MORE BROADLY INCLUDING IN RUSSIA, THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHETHER IT IS THE COP ON THE BEAT, WHETHER INVESTIGATORS, WHETHER IT IS PROSECUTORS, AS A TOOL OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM TO BE USED AGAINST YOUR POLITICAL ADVERSARIES.

AND SO I THINK THAT GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BURISMA, MY UNDERSTANDING — THIS WAS AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER IN THE PREVIOUS DEPOSITION, THIS DID NOT LOOM LARGE WHEN I ARRIVED. I ARRIVED IN 2016, AUGUST 2016. BUT OVER TIME, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE CASE WAS BASICALLY SORT OF ON A PAUSE. THAT IT WASN'T AN ACTIVE CASE BUT IT ALSO WAS NOT FULLY CLOSED. AND THAT IS A WAY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, FOR THOSE IN POWER TO KEEP A LITTLE HOOK INTO BURISMA. >> RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THAT THE BRIBE WAS PAID, THEY TOOK AN EFFORT TO SPRUCE UP THEIR BOARD AND THEY ADDED I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND AND OTHER LUMINARIES? >> YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIMING OF ALL THIS WAS, BUT, YES, TO THE ELEMENTS. >> AND ONE OF THE FOLKS THEY ADDED TO THE BOARD WAS THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON, HUNTER BIDEN, WHICH, YOU KNOW, RAISES QUESTIONS IS HE A GENIUS ON THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRONT, IS HE A GENIUS WITH THE UKRANIAN OLIGARCHICAL SYSTEMS AND CLEANING THAT UP OR WAS HE JUST ADDED TO THE BOARD BECAUSE HE IS THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON.

WAS THAT EVER, YOU KNOW, A CONCERN OR AT LEAST THE PERCEPTION OF THAT CONCERN ADDRESSED? >> AS I SAID, I ARRIVED IN AUGUST OF 2016. SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTIONS AND SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE. AND IT WAS NOT A FOCUS OF WHAT I WAS DOING IN THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD. >> OKAY. WAS THE ISSUE EVER RAISED AT ALL? HE WAS STILL ON THE BOARD I THINK AT THE TIME. >> YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS IS THAT HE JUST RECENTLY LEFT IN 2019. I NEVER MET HIM. NEVER TALKED TO HIM. AND I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? >> HE WAS STILL ON THE BOARD WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT POST AND I WAS WONDERING IF AT LEAST THE PERCEPTION PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS THE AMBASSADOR.

>> I WAS AWARE OF IT BECAUSE AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE IN THE DEPOSITION THERE HAD BEEN A — IN IT TERMS. PREPARATION FOR MY SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR UKRAINE, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. AND A SELECT ANSWER. SO I WAS AWARE OF IT. >> IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS LONG STANDING CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, IS THAT TRUE? >> THAT IS WHAT HE SAYS. >> GOING BACK TO THERE WAS A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT AND HE EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS. >> HE SAID THAT UKRAINE WAS THE MOST CORRUPTION COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. >> SEVERAL WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE UKRANIAN ESTABLISHMENT WERE OUT TO GET HIM. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WERE AWARE OF? >> I'M CERTAINLY AWARE OF IT NOW. OBVIOUSLY THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PRESS ATTENTION ON THAT. IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION DURING THE 2 1/2 YEARS THAT I SERVED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE. >> WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE DEPOSITION, SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY LOOM LARGER NOW, BUT IN HINDSIGHT, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AT THE EMBASSY THAT THERE ARE THESE INDICATIONS OF YOU UKRANIANS TRYING TO AT LEAST ADVOCATE AGAINST THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP? >> ACTUALLY, THERE WEREN'T.

I MEAN, WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE IT THAT WAY. >> WERE YOU AWARE — MR. NUNES MENTIONED THIS EARLIER — THE CONSULTANT ALEXANDRA CHALUPA AT LEAST ACCORDING TO HER AND ACCORDING TO KEN VOGEL AT POLITICO WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY IN D.C. TO TRADE INFORMATION, SHARE LEADS OF THAT SORT OF THING? >> I SAW THE ARTICLE. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. >> DID YOU SEE THE ARTICLE AT THE TIME OR DID YOU ONLY — DID THAT ONLY COME TO YOUR ATTENTION SUBSEQUENTLY? >> IT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO HIGH ATTENTION SUBSEQUENTLY.

I THINK I DID SEE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AT THE TIME AS WELL. >> AND YOU'RE THE AMBASSADOR IN COUNTRY AT THIS POINT. DID YOU AIM TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF TRUE, IF THE REPORTING IS TRUE, IF WHAT MS. CHALUPA TOLD MR. VOGEL IS ACCURATE, THAT WOULD BE CONCERNING, CORRECT? >> WELL, I WAS THE AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE STARTING IN AUGUST OF 2016. AND WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, IF TRUE AS YOU SAID, WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING TOOK PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES. SO IF THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT MS. CHALUPA WAS DOING, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED HERE. >> AND DO YOU KNOW MS. CHALUPA? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> EVER MET HER? >> I DON'T THINK SO. IF SHE WORKED FOR THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I MET HER IN A LARGE GROUP OR SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I KNOW HER.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE ROLE THAT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST MR. LESCHENKO PLAYED IN PUBLICIZING THE MANAFORT BLACK LEDGERS? >> YES. >> AND HE PUBLICIZED SOME INFORMATION IN A PRETTY GRAND WAY IN AUGUST OF 2016 AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY COINCIDED WITH MR. MANAFORT LEAVING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ISSUE WHEN IT WAS OCCURRING THAT CONCERNED YOU? >> WELL, I CERTAINLY NOTICED IT BECAUSE I WAS, YOU KNOW, A WEEK OR SO AWAY THERE ARRIVING IN UKRAINE. I THINK THAT FROM A UKRANIAN PERSPECTIVE, I REALIZED THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IT FROM AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE. FROM THE UKRANIAN PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT WHAT MR. LESCHENKO AND OTHERS WHO WERE LOOKING INTO THE BLACK LEDGER WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT WAS ACTUALLY NOT MR. MANAFORT BUT FORMER PRESIDENT AND HIS POLITICAL PARTY AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY ALLEGEDLY STOLE AND WHERE IT WENT AND SO FORTH. JUST A DIFFERENCE IN PERSPECTIVE DEPENDING ON WHICH COUNTRY YOU ARE IN. >> BUT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE LOOKING AT THESE FACTS CERTAINLY IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF THE UKRANIAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT WERE ADVOCATING AGAINST HIM AT THIS POINT IN TIME, CORRECT? >> WELL, JUST SPEAKING ABOUT MR.

LESCHENKO, HE IS AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AS YOU SAID AND HE GOT BEING A SAYS TO THE BLACK LEDGER AND HE PUBLISHED IT AS I THINK JOURNALISTS WOULD DO. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT — I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT THAT WAS TARGETING PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> THE WAY THE EVENTS UNFOLDED, I MEAN MR. MANAFORT WAS — HE SUBSEQUENTLY LEFT THE CAMPAIGN AND IT CERTAINLY BEGAN A PERIOD OF INTEREST INTO MANAFORT'S TIES TO RUSSIA AND SO FORTH. >> I THINK, AGAIN, I THINK THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE EFFECT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS OF INTEREST TO JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS HERE THAT MR. MANAFORT WAS THE POLITICAL ADVISER AND HEAD OF A CAMPAIGN HERE. SO WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE HAD BEEN COURT CASES AND SO FORTH WHERE MR. MANAFORT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CERTAIN ACTIONS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE ELECTION. >> WITH MR. LESCHENKO'S REPORTING, THERE HAS BEEN A QUESTION OF WHETHER ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HE PUBLISHED WAS AUTHENTIC, CORRECT? >> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? >> SOME HAVE QUESTIONED WHETHER THE INFORMATION MR.

LESCHENKO PUBLISHED WAS CORRECT OR WHETHER IT WAS DOCTORED. >> I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT. >> DURING THE AUGUST TIME FRAME, AMBASSADOR CHO LCHLT E WROTE AN ESPECIALLY ED TAKING ISSUE WITH CANDIDATE TRUMP. WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT WHEN IT OCCURRED? >> YES. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE AMBASSADOR TO EXPRESS CONCERNS? >> NO. >> AND HOW FREQUENTLY DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE AMBASSADOR? OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE IN DIFFERENT POSTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, BUT — >> I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE HIM OR TALK TO HIM THAT OFTEN.

>> SO YOU WEREN'T IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION? >> NO. >> CAN YOU SEE HOW WRITING AN OP-ED GIVEN THE SUBSTANCE — WE'VE DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF IT, THAT THERE ARE SENSITI SENSITIVITIES, BUT CAN YOU SEE HOW JUST THE SIMPLE FACT OF WRITING AN OP-ED THAT THE UKRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S. MIGHT CREATE A PERCEPTION THAT THERE WERE ELEMENTS OF THE UKRANIAN ESTABLISHMENT ADVOCATING AGAINST THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP? >> MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HE WAS TAKING A — HE WAS CRITICAL OF A POLICY POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH REGARD TO CRIMEA. AND WHETHER CRIMEA WAS A PART OF UKRAINE OR A PART OF RUSSIA. THAT IS A TREMENDOUSLY SENSITIVE ISSUE IN UKRAINE. AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THAT IS WHAT THE AMBASSADOR WAS WRITING ABOUT. >> AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE AMBASSADOR OR ANYBODY FROM THE EMBASSY TRIED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE TRUMP CAMP TO TALK ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS BEFORE LODGING AN OP-ED? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> DURING THAT SAME TIME PERIOD IN THE RUN-UP TO THE ELECTION, THE MINISTER HAD SAID SOME SPECIALLY CANDID THINGS ABOUT THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP ON VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> YES, AS A RESULT OF THE DEPOSITION, THE PREVIOUS DEPOSITION. >> BUT DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING, YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT? >> YOU KNOW, I DON'T RECALL. >> HE IS ONE OF THE MORE INFLUENTIAL OFFICIALS IN THE UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND I BELIEVE HE IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT SPAN SPAN BOTH THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION.

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> LOOKING BACK ON HIS COMMENTS IN HINDSIGHT, DO YOU SEE HOW THAT MIGHT CREATE A PERCEPTION THAT A VERY INFLUENTIAL UKRAINIAN WAS ADVOCATING AGAINST THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP? >> THAT HE WAS DOING WHAT? I'M SORRY. >> JUST ADVOCATING — HE WAS OUT TO GET HIM. HE SAID SOME REAL NASTY THINGS. >> WELL, SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND I — ARE YOU ASKING ME WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE? PROBABLY NOT. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT MINISTER AVAKOV HAS BEEN, AS WELL AS OTHERS, PRESIDENT POROSHENKO'S ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS THE ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN A GOOD PARTNER TO THE UNITED STATES. AS I THINK I TOLD YOU BEFORE, HE'S A VERY PRACTICAL MAN AND LOOKING FOR PARTNERS AND GETTING THE JOB DONE. >> I'M SHOCKED THAT SOCIAL MEDIA WOULD BE THE SITE OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS. THE — YOU CERTAINLY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESIDENT AWARE OF MINISTER AVAKOV'S STATEMENTS, AWARE OF WHAT MINISTER LESHCHENKO WAS UP TO, WHAT CHARLIE WAS UP TO, THAT THERE CERTAINLY WAS A REASONABLE BASIS TO WONDER WHETHER THERE ARE INFLUENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT WERE OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT. >> I — YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT OR WHAT OTHERS SOUGHT. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THOSE ELEMENTS THAT YOU'VE RECITED DON'T SEEM TO ME TO BE THE UKRAINIAN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PLAN OR A PLOT OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO WORK AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE.

THEY'RE ISOLATED INCIDENTS. WE ALL KNOW, I'M COMING TO FIND OUT MYSELF, THAT PUBLIC LIFE CAN BE — YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL. AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE IS OR A GOVERNMENT IS UNDERMINING EITHER A CAMPAIGN OR INTERFERING IN ELECTIONS. AND I WOULD JUST REMIND AGAIN THAT OUR OWN U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED THAT THOSE WHO INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION WERE IN RUSSIA. >> YOU — TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HE'S BEEN A FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE OF YOURS FOR MANY YEARS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> 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 INITIATIVES 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 TOWARD UKRAINE. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> WITH THE PROVISION OF JAVELINS TO THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY, YES. THAT WAS REALLY POSITIVE. >> AND WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT? >> WELL, TWO 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 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 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 HADN'T MADE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER TO PROVIDE JAVELINS.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS WAS WITH REGARD TO JAVELINS DURING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION? >> I THINK THAT MOST IN THE INTERAGENCY WANTED TO PROVIDE JAVELINS TO UKRAINE. >> IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP THE ABILITY TO AFFORD UKRAINE THIS WEAPONRY IS SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE, SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD? >> WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT. >> AND HAS IT PLAYED OUT THAT WAY? >> WELL, IT HAS — >> THE PROVISION OF JAVELINS. >> IT'S A SYMBOL OF OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE. BUT WHEN THEN THIS YEAR THERE ARE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT OUR SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH, THAT KIND OF UNDERMINES THAT STRONG MESSAGE OF SUPPORT. >> UKRAINE STILL HAS THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE THE JAVELINS, CORRECT? >> ARE YOU NOW TALKING ABOUT PURCHASING JAVELINS? BY THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT? >> YES.

>> YES, THEY DO. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> AND THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE DID GO THROUGH. IT WAS PAUSED FOR 55 DAYS FROM JULY 18th TO SEPTEMBER 11th BUT IT ULTIMATELY WENT THROUGH, CORRECT? >> TO MY UNDERSTANDING. >> YOU TESTIFIED DURING YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU WERE PROUD OF THE EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES DURING YOUR TENURE TO SUPPLY THIS TYPE OF AID TO UKRAINE. DO YOU STILL — ARE YOU STILL HAPPY WITH THE DECISIONS? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE JAVELINS? >> THE JAVELIN AND ALSO JUST THE WHOLE AID PACKAGE. >> YES. >> DO YOU THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT? 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 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. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. WE'LL NOW GO TO MEMBER FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES. SOME OF THE EARLY QUESTIONS SEEMED TO SUGGEST THAT YOUR TESTIMONY 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 HR. SO I WANT TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY THOUGHT YOU WERE VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS WHOLE PLOT OR SCHEME, AND THAT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THERE WAS ONLY ONE AMBASSADOR I BELIEVE WHO WAS DISCUSSED BY THE PRESIDENT IN THE JULY 25th CALL, AND THAT WAS YOU, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH. 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 WAS A LIKELY REFERENCE TO MR. LUTSENKO, THE CORRUPT 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, ONLY ONE — I'M SORRY, MY STAFF HAS CORRECTED ME. ONLY ONE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR 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 ZELENSKY TO SPEAK WITH GIULIANI, THE GUY WHO ORCHESTRATED THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND 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 — A LOT TO TALK ABOUT ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED 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 HE GOES RIGHT TO BIDEN. HE CONNECTS YOU SOMEHOW WITH THIS PROSECUTOR YOU WERE AT ODDS WITH AND HIS DESIRE TO SEE THIS INVESTIGATION OF BIDEN GO FORWARD, WOULD IT 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. IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THE KIND OF PERSON THAT WOULD FURTHER GIULIANI'S AIMS? AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT AMBASSADOR 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 HE COULD PUT IN PLACE SOMEONE WITH NO DIPLOMATIC EXPERIENCE AT ALL? WHAT IF HE COULD PUT IN PLACE SOMEONE WHOSE PORTFOLIO DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE UKRAINE? MIGHT THAT PERSON BE WILLING TO WORK WITH RUDY GIULIANI IN PURSUIT OF HIS INVESTIGATIONS? >> YEAH, MAYBE. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, WASN'T IT? >> YES.

>> AND MY COLLEAGUES ALSO SAY, WELL, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ULTIMATELY WENT THROUGH, SO IF THEY SO THE TO CONDITION OR BRIBE UKRAINE INTO DOING THESE INVESTIGATIONS BY WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE THEY ULTIMATELY PAID THE MONEY. ARE YOU AWARE, AMBASSADOR, THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT RELEASED UNTIL AFTER A WHISTLE-BLOWER 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. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS. AND JUST FOR PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME SO THEY'RE NOT CONFUSED, THERE ARE TWO CALLS HERE. THERE'S THE PERFUNCTORY CONGRATULATORY CALL AFTER ZELENSKY IS INAUGURATED, WHICH MY RANKING REMEMBER READ THIS MORNING, AND THEN THERE'S OF COURSE THE VERY PROBLEMATIC CALL IN JULY.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE 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 WITH ZELENSKY HELPING UKRAINE ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. NOW, THAT IN FACT DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THAT CALL. SO I WANTED TO ASK YOU, AMBASSADOR, 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 VISIBILITY INTO THAT. >> I THANK YOU. I YIELD FIVE MINUTES NOW TO RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER. >> I'D JUST REMIND THE GENTLEMAN THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE CALLS. THERE'S THE TWO CALLS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE ONE THAT YOU REITERATED IN OUR LAST HEARING A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. AMBASSADOR, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING BEFORE I YIELD. ARE YOU AGAINST POLITICAL-APPOINTED AMBASSADORS? IS IT NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PREROGATIVE TO APPOINT WHOEVER HE WANTS IN ANY COUNTRY? >> FIRST OF ALL, I AM NOT AGAINST POLITICAL AMBASSADORS — >> I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. NOW CAN I YIELD TO MISS STEPHENEK? >> YOU MAY YIELD. >> MISS AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 30 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE FROM MOGADISHU TO OTTAWA TO LONDON TO MOSCOW TO KYIV.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HOSTING THE NUMEROUS BIPARTISAN DELEGATIONS YOU LED. MY FOCUS WILL FOCUS ON THREE KEY THEMES. THE FIRST IS THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO APPOINTING OUR AMBASSADORS. THE SECOND IS LONG-STANDING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. AND THE THIRD 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 YOU DEEPLY RESPECT. IN HIS STATEMENT HE STATED ALL AMBASSADORS SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. YOU WOULD ADPREE 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 WITH THAT. >> AND IN YOUR OWN DEPOSITION UNDER OATH YOU STATED, "ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND, EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT." IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> 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 YOU'RE POSTED TODAY, CORRECT? >> YES. >> 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 DESCRIBED, "WE HAVE 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. SO WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT AND WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO US? PUT SIMPLY, ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS SERVE UKRAINE'S INTERESTS BUT THEY ALSO SERVE OURS AS WELL." IS THAT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY? >> YES. >> AND PARTICULARLY AT 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.

CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINIANS THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A CAN GOOD IDEA TO SET UP THIS ARCHITECTURE OF A SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE OFFICE THAT WOULD BE ALL ABOUT THE CRIMES OF CORRUPTION. CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND I KNOW THIS WAS BEFORE YOU ARRIVED IN UKRAINE, BUT YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE FIRST CASE THAT THE U.S., UK, AND UKRAINE INVESTIGATORS WORKED ON WAS IN FACT AGAINST THE OWNER OF BURISMA. >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. >> YES. >> AND IN YOUR TESTIMONY — AND YOU SAID TODAY THE INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER FORMALLY CLOSED BECAUSE "IT'S FRANKLY USEFUL TO KEEP THAT COMPANY HANGING ON A HOOK," RIGHT? THAT'S YOUR QUOTE. >> YEAH. THE UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER CLOSED. >> PARTNERED WITH THE U.S.

AND THE UK. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT. 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 FIRST STEP — A STEP BACK. THE FIRST TIME YOU PERSONALLY BECAME AWARE OF BURISMA 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 IS YOUR DEPOSITION. AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR PRACTICE Q&A WITH THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT IT WASN'T JUST GENERALLY ABOUT BURISMA AND CORRUPTION, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, IT IS. >> AND THE EXACT QUOTE FROM YOUR TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR, IS "THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS PHRASED IN THIS MODEL Q&A WAS WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S, YOU KNOW, BEING NAMED TO THE BOARD OF BURISMA." SO FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WATCHING, PRESIDENT OBAMA'S OWN STATE DEPARTMENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS FROM HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE AT BURISMA THAT THEY RAISED 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 WERE AN ADVOCATE FOR, THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. IT WAS PROVIDED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I YIELD BACK FIVE SECONDS. >> MR. HYMES, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> AMBASSADOR, 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 YOUR SUMMARY AND UNEXPLAINED DISMISSAL AFTER A LIFETIME OF EXCELLENT AND FAITHFUL SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY. I'M ANGRY THAT A WOMAN WHOSE FAMILY FLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM, WHO SERVED THIS COUNTRY BEAUTIFULLY FOR 33 YEARS, NOT IN PARIS OR IN ROME BUT LITERALLY UNDER FIRE IN PLACES LIKE MOGADISHU AND KYIV. I'M ANGRY THAT I WOMAN LIKE YOU WON JUST BE 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 AND EXCELLENCE 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 IT IS ALL OKAY BECAUSE AS THE PRESIDENT SO MEMORABLY PUT IT IN HIS TWEET THIS MORNING IT IS A U.S. PRESIDENT'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS.

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. AMBASSADOR, WHEN YOU'RE AMBASSADOR SOMEWHERE, DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THE CIA IN AN EMBASSY 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. WHY MIGHT YOU DO THAT? >> BECAUSE SOMETIMES OPERATIONS HAVE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES. >> RIGHT. SO THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR DUTIES IN THE 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 YOU JUST DESCRIBED YOU WENT TO DINNER THAT NIGHT AND HANDED OVER THAT INFORMATION TO A RUSSIAN AGENT? WOULD THAT BE YOUR RIGHT? >> NO, IT WOULD NOT.

>> AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU DID THAT? >> I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE BUT I IMAGINE THAT I WOULD BE PULLED OUT OF POST. >> RIGHT. AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMBASSADORS. A POLICE OFFICER HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL YOU OVER. IF THE 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 VOTES. BUT IF I CAST THOSE VOTES NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF MY CONSTITUENTS BUT BECAUSE SOMEBODY BRIBED ME, THAT IS A SEVERE ABUSE OF MY POWER. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? >> YES. >> SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHY AFTER AN EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE 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 AMBASSADOR 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"? >> NO. I WOULD REPEAT ONCE AGAIN THAT THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS THAT — >> SO AMBASSADOR, IF YOU HAD REMAINED AS AMBASSADOR AND NOT BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED, WOULD YOU HAVE SUPPORTED A THREE-MONTH DELAY IN CONGRESSIONALLY MANDATED MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE? >> NO. >> 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 "FIND OUT ABOUT BIDEN'S SON"? >> NO. >> I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. CONAWAY. >> I'D LIKE TO ENTER THE RECORD A LETTER TOFROM SPEAKER PELOSI DATED SEPTEMBER 23rd. RELEVANT PART READS "WE ALSO EXPECT THAT HE WILL ESTABLISH A PATH FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES AS REQUIRED BY LAW." >> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> THANK YOU. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU HONORING THAT STATEMENT FROM THE SPEAKER. TURNING TO THE AMBASSADOR, AMBASSADOR, I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR A LONG SERVICE, EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND ON BEHALF OF OUR NATION. 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 WHAT'S GOING ON. WHEN YOU GOT THE WORD — ANYTIME AN AMBASSADOR CHANGES POSTS THERE'S A PROCESS YOU GO THROUGH TO PICK WHAT YOU DO NEXT. AND THAT HAPPENED IN THIS INSTANCE. CAN YOU GIVE US A QUICK STATEMENT AS TO HOW — WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU CAME BACK HERE, AS TO WHAT YOUR NEXT ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE AT THIS DATE? >> SO WHEN I CAME BACK, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS SORT OF OUT OF CYCLE. THERE WAS NOTHING SET UP. >> SURE. >> AND AGAIN, I AM GRATEFUL THAT DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN ASKED ME WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NEXT.

I RECALLED THAT THERE WAS THE FELLOWSHIP AT GEORGETOWN AND ASKED WHETHER THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ARRANGED. >> WAS THAT YOUR ONLY CHOICE? >> I'M NOT SURE. WE DIDN'T REALLY DISCUSS OTHER OPTIONS. >> GEORGETOWN IS FERTILE GROUND FOR STATE DEPARTMENT RECRUITMENT, FUTURE FLEDGLING FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS. SO THEY NOW BENEFIT FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE AND YOUR INSPIRATION TO INSPIRE THEM TO SPEND THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIFE IN SERVICE TO OUR NATION. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE A FELLOW THERE. YOU TEACH CLASSES. HOW MANY CLASSES DO YOU TEACH? >> WELL, THIS SEMESTER I WAS SUPPOSED TO TEACH TWO. I AM STILL TEACHING ONE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE OTHER ONE WAS ON UKRAINE, AND ASKED WHETHER I COULD — >> DEFER. HOW MANY STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASS? APPROXIMATELY. LET'S SEE. I THINK 14. 14, 15. >> ANY OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES AT STATE OTHER THAN THE FELLOWSHIP AT GEORGETOWN? >> WELL, I WILL TELL YOU THAT ALL OF THIS HAS KEPT ME VERY BUSY. >> OKAY. I GET THAT. BUT NO NECESSARILY DAY-TO-DAY THINGS YOU'D BE RESPONSIBLE FOR? >> NO. >> OTHER THAN NOT QUALIFYING FOR OVERSEAS STIPENDS AND OTHER THINGS, HAS YOUR COMPENSATION BEEN AFFECTED BY BEING RECALLED THE WAY YOU WERE? >> NO, IT HAS NOT.

>> OKAY. WORRIED ABOUT THE WAY YOU MIGHT BE TREATED BY YOUR FELLOW EMPLOYEES AT STATE. ANY NEGATIVE — DO THEY HOLD YOU IN LESS HIGH REGARD THAN THEY USED TO AS A RESULT OF THIS? DO THEY SHUN YOU AT THE LUNCH COUNTER? DO THEY TREAT YOU BADLY AS A RESULT OF THE WAY YOU WERE TREATED BY THE PRESIDENT? >> I'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AN OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FROM MY COLLEAGUES. >> SO THE FOLKS THAT YOU RESPECT THE MOST STILL RESPECT YOU AND APPEAR TO HOLD YOU IN HIGH REGARD AND HIGH AFFECTION? >> THEY DO. >> GEORGE KENT WAS IN HERE A COUPLE DAYS AGO. HE MADE SOME 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 AS WELL. ANY REASON ON EARTH YOU CAN THINK OF THAT GEORGE KENT WOULD BE SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF SOME REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVES IT IN HIS HEART OF HEARTS? >> LIKE WHAT? >> LIKE SOMEBODY PAID HIM TO DO IT.

>> OH. NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. >> SO YOU AND I AGREE THAT WE THINK HE WAS SINCERE IN THAT BRAGGING ON YOU. AND THAT'S ALL POST THE RECALL EPISODE THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING. WELL, I'M GLAD THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES — I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED NOTHING ANY DIFFERENT FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES AT STATE TO CONTINUE TO TREAT YOU WITH THE HIGH REGARD THAT YOU'VE EARNED OVER ALL THESE YEARS OF GREAT SERVICE. AND I HOPE THAT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TO DO AFTER THE GEORGETOWN FELLOWSHIP THAT YOU'RE AS SUCCESSFUL THERE AS YOU'VE BEEN IN THE FIRST 33 YEARS.

WITH THAT I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. JORDAN. >> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST THAT AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "WHISTLE-BLOWER IS EXPECTED TO TESTIFY SOON, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAYS, "WALL STREET JOURNAL" SEPTEMBER 29th, 2019, BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST THAT AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "WHISTLE-BLOWER REACHES AGREEMENT TO TESTIFY, WILL APPEAR VERY SOON, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF SAYS," "USA TODAY," SEPTEMBER 29th, 2019. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. ZBLIF A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST ARTICLE ENTITLED "SCHIFF CONFIRMS TENTATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, CNN, SEPTEMBER 29th, 2019." >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST INTELLIGENCE PANEL HAS DEAL TO HEAR WHISTLE-BLOWER'S TESTIMONY SAYS SCHIFF," "WASHINGTON POST" SEPTEMBER 29th, 2019. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "WHISTLE-BLOWER REPORTEDLY AGREES TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORTED BY SCHIFF," HUFFINGTON POST SEPTEMBER 29th, 2019.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "SCHIFF, PANEL WILL HEAR FROM WHISTLE-BLOWER," ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE SEPTEMBER 29th, 2019. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. AND I NOW RECOGNIZE MISS SEWELL. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR, IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY YOU SPOKE SO POFGLY ABOUT YOUR FAMILY BACKGROUND. YOU STATED THAT YOUR PARENTS COMMUNIST AND NAZI REGIMES AND THAT THEY VALUED FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY OFFERED IN AMERICA. HAVING EXPERIENCED TOTALITARIAN REGIMES. DID THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON YOUR DESIRE TO ENTER INTO THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN SERVICE? >> YES, IT DID. >> DID YOU ALWAYS KNOW THAT YOU WANTED TO BE IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE? I LOOK AT YOUR BACKGROUND AND IT IS PERFECTLY SUITED FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I NOTE THAT YOU STUDIED AT THE PORSHINSKI STATE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE IN RUSSIA TO LEARN RUSSIAN. >> YEAH. >> DO YOU ALSO HAVE AN M.S. FROM THE NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE? >> YES. >> I EVEN NOTICED YOU THAT EARNED YOUR UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN HISTORY AND RUSSIAN STUDIES IN COLLEGE AND COINCIDENTALLY THAT WAS ALSO MY COLLEGE.

BUT I WANTED — AND YOU DEFINITELY ARE DOING PRINCETON AND THE NATION SERVICE BY WHAT YOU DO EVERY DAY. >> THANK YOU. >> BUT I REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW IT FELT TO HAVE YOUR REPUTATION SULLIED. NOT FOR STATE AND NATION BUT FOR PERSONAL GAIN. YOU SPOKE ABOUT HOW YOUR SERVICE IS NOT JUST YOUR OWN PERSONAL SERVICE, IT AFFECTS YOUR FAMILY. AND TODAY WE'VE SEEN YOU AS THIS FORMER AMBASSADOR, THIS 33-YEAR VETERAN OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE, BUT I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY AND HOW THIS HAS AFFECTED YOU PERSONALLY AND YOUR FAMILY. >> YEAH. IT'S BEEN A DIFFICULT TIME. I MEAN, I'M A PRIVATE PERSON. I DON'T WANT TO PUT ALL THAT OUT THERE. BUT IT'S BEEN A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TIME BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE HIS OWN OR HER OWN AMBASSADOR IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. >> BUT DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACTUALLY MALIGN PEOPLE'S CHARACTER? I MAY NOT BE AGAINST ANY LAW BUT I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE AGAINST DECORUM AND DECENCY.

>> I MEAN, THERE'S A QUESTION AS TO WHY THE KIND OF CAMPAIGN TO GET ME OUT OF UKRAINE HAPPENED. BECAUSE ALL THE PRESIDENT HAS TO DO IS SAY HE WANTS A DIFFERENT AMBASSADOR. AND IN MY LINE OF WORK, PERHAPS IN YOUR LINE OF WORK AS WELL, ALL WE HAVE IS OUR REPUTATION. AND SO THIS HAS BEEN A VERY PAINFUL PERIOD. >> HOW HAS IT AFFECTED YOUR FAMILY? >> I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. BUT THANK YOU FOR HAVING. >> BECAUSE I DO CARE. I ALSO WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU THINK IT AFFECTED YOUR FELLOW COLLEAGUES IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE. MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID THAT SINCE YOU RECEIVED SUCH ADULATION FROM — AND EMBRACING FROM YOUR OWN FELLOW COLLEAGUES THAT WHAT OCCURRED, THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CRONIES, YOU KNOW, MALIGNING YOUR REPUTATION.

HAS THAT HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE ABILITY AND THE MORALE WITHIN THE FOREIGN SERVICE? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? >> YEAH. I THINK THAT — I THINK IT HAS HAD EXACTLY THAT, A CHILLING EFFECT. NOT ONLY IN EMBASSY KEYS BUT THROUGHOUT THE STATE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW KIND OF WHETHER THEIR EFFORTS TO PURSUE OUR STATED POLICY ARE GOING TO BE SUPPORTED. AND THAT IS A — THAT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE. >> NOW, FOR THE RECORD, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL PROBABLY TRY TO PAINT YOU AS A NEVER TRUMPER. ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER? >> NO. >> AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER YOU TOOK AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT REGARD FOR WHO IS IN OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> HAVE YOU ALSO SERVED IN YOUR 33 YEARS FOR NOT JUST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS BUT ALSO REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS? >> FOUR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

>> FOUR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. IN FACT, YOU JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE UNDER REAGAN, IS THAT NOT RIGHT? >> YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS ARE NON-PARTISAN? CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND YOUR FELLOW FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS TO DO YOUR JOB THAT YOU'RE NON-PARTISAN? >> YEAH. BECAUSE OUR WORK IS ESSENTIALLY NON-PARTISAN AND SENATOR DANSENBERG, A REPUBLICAN SENATOR WHO ACTUALLY PARTNERED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMAN, COINED A PHRASE THAT POLITICS SHOULD STOP AT THE WATER'S EDGE. AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. BECAUSE WHILE OBVIOUSLY THE COMPETITION OF IDEAS IN A DEMOCRACY WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES, DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS, IS HUGELY IMPORTANT BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES IT NEEDS TO BE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE UNITED STATES. THOSE ARE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. AND WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL WORKS FOR THE CIA OR THE MILITARY OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WE'VE GOT TO BE NON-PARTISAN AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE UNITED STATES.

>> WELL, ON BEHALF OF A GRATEFUL NATION I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. TURNER. >> AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO SAY I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR WHAT YOU DO. I SERVE ON THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. I'VE WORKED WITH THE NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY INCLUDING BEING ITS PRESIDENT. AND I KNOW THE COMPLEXITY OF WHAT YOU DO. I KNOW YOU HAVE LITTLE ACCESS DIRECTLY TO DECISION MAKERS, LITTLE RESOURCES BUT YOU HAVE STILL A GREAT DEAL OF RESPONSIBILITY.

IT'S A COMPLEX TASK. AND I WANT TO TAKE US FROM JUST THE CONCEPT OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL UKRAINE BEING CORRUPT TO THE OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH AS THE UKRAINE AMBASSADOR. YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH MORE THAN JUST OUR BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE. FOR EXAMPLE, CONFIRMATION THAT — OBVIOUSLY I KNOW YOU KNOW THESE, BUT THESE WERE ON YOUR PORTFOLIO. YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF THE OSCE BUDAPEST AGREEMENT AND THE DENUCLEARIZATION OF UKRAINE AND THE ISSUES OF ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF THE SIGNATORIES, CORRECT? >> COULD YOU RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN? >> THE OSCE, THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION FOR EUROPE, AND THE BUDAPEST AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH UKRAINE GAVE UP ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND BELIEVED THEY HAD ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA. YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THAT IN YOUR PORTFOLIO. >> WELL, THAT — >> WAS AN ISSUE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH UKRAINIANS ON. >> YEAH. WHEN THE UKRAINIANS WOULD ASK ABOUT OUR POLICY AND WHETHER IT WAS IN KEEPING WITH THE BUDAPEST AGREEMENT.

>> EXCELLENT. NATO. UKRAINE IS AN ASPIRING NATO COUNTRY. AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE THE BUCHAREST SUMMIT WHERE THE U.S. AND NATO ALLIES MADE A STATEMENT THEY WOULD GET MEMBERSHIP. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON YOUR PORTFOLIO. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH YOU — >> YEAH. THEIR ASPIRATIONS TO NATO MEMBERSHIP WOULD BE — >> IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY THAT THE U.S. SUPPORTS UKRAINE JOINING THE EU AND THEY HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF INTEREST AND DESIRE FOR JOINING THE EU, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THEY JUST HAD A SUMMIT IN UKRAINE IN JULY WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT THE ASSOCIATED AGREEMENT ON ECONOMIC INTEGRATION BETWEEN THE UKRAINES AND THE EU AND THEY ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ILLEGAL ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA AND THE BLOCKING BY RUSSIA OF THE UKRAINIAN SAILORS THAT CAME OUT OF THE AZOV SEA AND WERE CAPTURED.

THOSE WOULD HAVE ALL BEEN ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN YOUR PORTFOLIO AND THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE EU'S ISSUES ARE, CORRECT? >> YES. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH OUR EU PARTNERS. >> IN ADDITION TO TALK REIN YOU'D HAVE TO WORK WITH FRANCE AND UK AND GERMANY ALL OF WHICH WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF THOSE. THE AMBASSADORS TO THE UKRAINE, FRANCE, GERMANY, CORRECT? >> YEAH. DID YOU SAY THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT THESE ISSUES? >> SOME OF THEM, YES.

>> BUT MOSTLY THERE'S A CONSENSUS. >> YOU'D HAVE TO WORK WITH NGOs, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, ON ISSUES OF LEGAL AID, HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND HIV/AIDS. >> YES. >> YOU SPOKE AT SEVERAL NGOs WHILE YOU WERE THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE. >> YES. >> NOW, THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EU, THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER THEIR PORTFOLIO ASPIRING NATIONS TO THE EU, WOULD THEY NOT? >> YEAH. >> SO EU AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THEN, WOULD HAVE HAD UKRAINE IN HIS PORTFOLIO BECAUSE THEY'RE AN ASPIRING NATION AND HE'S OUR U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EU, CORRECT? >> I THINK HE TESTIFIED THAT ONE OF HIS FIRST — >> BUT YOU AGREE THAT IT'S WITHIN HIS PORTFOLIO, CORRECT? >> SHE WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTION. >> YOU WOULD AGREE IT'S IN HIS PORTFOLIO, WOULD YOU NOT? YES? >> I WOULD AGREE THAT — >> THANK YOU. >> I'M SORRY. CAN SHE FINISH HER ANSWER, PLEASE? >> HOLBROOK — >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. MISS YOVANOVITCH HAD NOT FINISHED HER ANSWER. YOU MAY FINISH YOUR ANSWER. >> NOT UNDER MY TIME. YOU'RE DONE. >> NO. THE AMBASSADOR WILL BE RECOGNIZED. >> I WILL SAY THAT ALL EU AMBASSADORS DEAL WITH OTHER COUNTRIES INCLUDING ASPIRING COUNTRIES BUT THE — IT IS UNUSUAL TO NAME THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EU TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF UKRAINE. >> I'LL TAKE YOUR ADDITIONAL ANSWER. IT'S STILL IN HIS PORTFOLIO, WHICH WAS MY QUESTION. YOU KNEW AMBASSADOR HOLBROOK PROBABLY. I DID. HE'S A MAN OF GREAT INTEGRITY, ONE OF OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL AMBASSADORS. YOU KNEW HIM BY HIS REPUTATION. YOU WOULD AGREE HE WAS A MAN OF GREAT REPUTATION, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YES. MADAM AMBASSADOR, WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF IN 2004 JOHN KERRY HAD A MEMBER OF HIS CAMPAIGN WHO WAS A FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER WHO TRAVELED TO THE UKRAINE IN JULY AND MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR? WOULD THAT SURPRISE YOU? A MEMBER OF JOHN KERRY'S CAMPAIGN TEAM FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2004 TRAVELED TO UKRAINE AND MET WITH THE U.S. AMBASSADOR IN JULY. >> NOT NECESSARILY. WHAT — >> WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN THAT MEETING? IF A MEMBER OF JOHN KERRY'S CAMPAIGN TRAVELED TO THE UKRAINE, WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN THAT MEETING? >> I GUESS IT WOULD DEPEND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS. >> WELL, THAT MEETING ACTUALLY OCCURRED AND IT WAS WITH JOHN HOLBROOK.

JOHN HOLBROOK WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, TRAVELED TO UKRAINE, MET WITH THE U.S. AMBASSADORS, MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. HE WAS ALSO THERE ABOUT HIV/AIDS, WHICH WAS IN ADDITION SOMETHING THE CLINTON FOUNDATION WAS WORKING ON. SO WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL OF THE JOHN KERRY CAMPAIGN IN 2004 AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN MEETING WITH OUR AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE — >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. >> IS THAT UNUSUAL? >> WE MEET WITH PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ALL THE TIME. >> IT PROBABLY WASN'T UNUSUAL FOR GIULIANI — >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MR. KRSON, YOUR TIME IS RECOGNIZED. AT PROMOTING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION. ON WEDNESDAY IN TESTIFYING ABOUT YOUR STERLING CAREER AS A CHAMPION OF ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT SAID, "YOU CAN'T PROMOTE PRINCIPLED ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTION WITHOUT PISSING OFF CORRUPT PEOPLE." IT SEEMS YOUR EFFORTS AS AMBASSADOR TO REFORM THE POWERFUL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN UKRAINE DID EXACTLY THAT. MADAM AMBASSADOR, WHAT CONCERNED YOU ABOUT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE WHEN YOU WERE THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE? >> WHAT CONCERNED US WAS THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ANY PROGRESS IN THE THREE OVERALL OBJECTIVES THAT MR. LUTSENKO HAD LAID OUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT ALSO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. SO THE FIRST THING WAS REFORMING THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE. IT'S A TREMENDOUSLY POWERFUL OFFICE WHERE THEY HAD AUTHORITY NOT ONLY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS ON AN FBI-LIKE FUNCTION BUT ALSO TO DO THE ACTUAL PROSECUTION.

SO VERY, VERY WIDE POWERS WHICH IS PART OF THAT SOVIET LEGACY. AND THERE JUST WASN'T A LOT OF PROGRESS IN THAT. THERE WASN'T A LOT OF PROGRESS IN HANDLING PERSONNEL ISSUES. AND HOW THE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ORGANIZED AND WHO SHOULD HAVE THE IMPORTANT JOBS BECAUSE SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THOSE JOBS WERE KNOWN TO — WERE CONSIDERED TO BE CORRUPT THEMSELVES. SECONDLY, THE ISSUE THAT WAS TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE OF BRINGING JUSTICE TO THE OVER 100 PEOPLE WHO DIED ON THE MAIDAN DURING THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2018. NOBODY HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR NAP AND THAT IS AN OPEN WOUND FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. AND THIRDLY, UKRAINE NEEDS ALL THE MONEY THAT IT HAS AND THERE IS A STRONG BELIEF THAT FORMER PRESIDENT YANUKOVYCH AND THOSE AROUND HIM MADE OFF WITH OVER $40 BILLION.

$40 BILLION. THAT'S A LOT IN THE U.S. IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN UKRAINE. NONE OF THAT MONEY HAS REALLY BEEN — I THINK MAYBE $1 BILLION WAS REPATRIATED BUT THE REST OF IT IS STILL MISSING. >> MADAM AMBASSADOR, WAS THE HEAD OF THAT OFFICE CORRUPT? >> WE BELIEVE SO. >> AND YOU GOT THE SENSE, DID YOU NOT, THAT HE WAS A DRIVING FORCE OF SOME OF THE ATTACKS AGAINST YOU. >> I DID. >> WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO YOUR REMOVAL, CORRECT? >> YES. >> BUT IT WASN'T JUST HIM. HIS ALLEGATIONS WERE PICKED UP AND SPREAD BY MR. GIULIANI AND DONALD TRUMP JR., WERE THEY NOT? >> YES. >> SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU WERE EFFECTIVE AT FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE, FIGHTING THAT CORRUPTION WAS IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND YOU WERE PUNISHED FOR THAT, ULTIMATELY BEING REMOVED FROM YOUR POST BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO IN YOUR OPINION, MADAM AMBASSADOR, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A NON-PARTISAN CAREER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICES? >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE NON-PARTISAN CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICE — OR SERVICE I SHOULD SAY BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS INHERENTLY NON-PARTISAN. IT IS ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD FOR A PARTICULAR PARTY AT A PARTICULAR TIME. IT HAS TO BE ABOUT THE GREATER INTEREST OF OUR SECURITY. AND FRANKLY IN WHAT IS AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS WORLD. >> AND COULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT BROAD U.S. POLICIES YOU HAVE SO THE TO ADVANCE IN YOUR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE AND SPECIFICALLY IN POST-SOVIET STATES LIKE UKRAINE. >> WELL, THAT'S A BROAD QUESTION. BUT I THINK THAT CERTAINLY IN MY TIME IN RUSSIA, ARMENIA, KYRGYZSTAN, ALL OF THESE COUNTRIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT, AS IS UKRAINE. BUT I THINK THAT ESTABLISHING POSITIVE CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN WITH THOSE COUNTRIES IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND THAT — THERE ARE THREE BASIC AREAS. ONE IS SECURITY. THE SECOND IS ECONOMIC. AND THE THIRD IS POLITICAL. AND SO WORKING ALL THE SUBISSUES. YOUR COLLEAGUE MENTIONED MANY OF THEM. YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY DID THAT IN UKRAINE AS WELL. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> THANKS. >> DR. WEN STRUP. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MADAM AMBASSADOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. AND I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING I APPRECIATE YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE AND DURING YOUR YEARS OF MOVING AROUND THE WORLD TO DANGEROUS PLACES. AND HEARING FROM YOU TODAY I REALIZE THAT WE SHARE SOME OF THE FEELINGS AND EXPERIENCES. AS AN ARMY RESERVE SURGEON I RECEIVED A CALL ON A MONDAY AFTERNOON IN MARCH OF 2005 THAT TOLD ME I WAS BEING DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AND I HAD TO BE OUT THE DOOR IN THE NEXT TWO TO THREE DAYS.

I HAD PATIENTS SCHEDULED FOR MONTHS. I HAD SURGERY SCHEDULED. AND HAD TO — SO I UNDERSTAND THAT SHOCKING FEELING THAT CAN COME WITH SOME ABRUPT CHANGE LIKE THAT. AND I WAS PROCESSING IT A FEW DAYS LATER. AND I WAS TOLD MY ORDERS WOULD SAY YOU'RE GOING FOR 18 MONTHS BUT IT MAY BE A LITTLE SHORTER THAN THAT. BUT I SERVED A YEAR IN IRAQ, 2005-2006, ONE OF THE BLOODIEST TIMES OF THE WAR. AND THIS IS WHERE I HAVE ANOTHER PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. I SAW A NATION IN IRAQ OF PEOPLE THAT CRAVED A NON-CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. AND SADLY TODAY EVEN THOUGH IT HELPED TO REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN THEY STILL HAVE CORRUPTION CONCERNS IN IRAQ AND I CAN RELATE TO WHAT YOU SAID JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO THAT IT FEELS LIKE AN OPEN WOUND WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED.

BUT YOU MIGHT IMAGINE WITH THAT MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND I TAKE AN INTEREST IN MILITARY STRATEGY AND CAPABILITIES AND THE THOUGHTS OF THOSE WITH BOOTS ON THE GROUND LIKE YOU AND MR. VOLKER AND MR. TAYLOR. IN YOUR DEPOSITION ON PAGE 144 YOU'RE QUOTED AS SAYING "IN TERMS OF LETHAL ASSISTANCE WE ALL FELT IT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE." JUST IN GENERAL WHO MAKES UP THE TERM WE ALL? WAS THAT WHO I MENTIONED? >> JUST ONE SECOND. WHAT LINE IS THAT? >> WELL, I'D HAVE TO MOVE ON. YOU SAID "WE ALL FELT IT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE." I ASSUME THAT IS THOSE THAT HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

THEN THIS ADMINISTRATION I ASSUME YOU MEANT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. >> YES. >> IN YOUR DEPOSITION, ALSO ON PAGE 144, YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE GENEROSITY OF CONGRESS. YOU MENTIONED IT TODAY. INCREASING AID TO UKRAINE. AND PART OF YOUR DEPOSITION AFTER THAT STATEMENT THAT I QUOTED BEFORE, YOU ASKED DID YOU ADVOCATE FOR THAT, YOU RESPONDED QUESTION. THEN YOU WERE ASKED DID YOU ADVOCATE FOR THAT PRIOR TO THE NEW ADMINISTRATION IN 2016 AND YOU RESPONDED, WELL, YEAH. ON PAGE 148 YOU WERE — THE QUESTION WAS WERE YOU SATISFIED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS DOING WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. YOU SAID IN WHAT RESPECT? THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, IN HELPING THEM DETER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, HELPING THEM WITH FOREIGN AID AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE. AND YOU SAID YEAH. AND I AGREE THAT LETHAL ASSISTANCE WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT, AS YOU SAID. AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I THANK MR. VOLKER AND I THANK MR. TAYLOR. YOU KNOW, THE — ACTING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS HERE WEDNESDAY. HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD LETHAL AID. AND HE SAID THE PRESIDENT FELT IT MIGHT PROVOKE RUSSIA. AND MR.

TAYLOR CONTESTED THEN THAT RUSSIA HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVOKED AND THEY HAVE INVADED THE UKRAINE. YOU KNOW, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN FOREIGN POLICY AND MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, CORRECT? >> YEAH. I MEAN, THERE'S AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS AND OBVIOUSLY CONGRESS DOES AS WELL. >> HE HAS THE RIGHT AS WELL. I RESPECT THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS. I'M GETTING TO THAT. BUT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN FOREIGN POLICY AND MAKE DECISIONS AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS DO ALL PRESIDENTS, CORRECT? >> YES. >> SO WE HAVE ONE PRESIDENT, OBAMA, WHO DENIED LETHAL AID ALTOGETHER IN SPITE OF AMBASSADORS AND OTHER BOOTS ON THE GROUND RECOMMENDING — MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION, SUCH AS YOU DID. WE HAVE ANOTHER PRESIDENT, TRUMP, WHO VETTED THOSE THAT WERE GOING TO RECEIVE THE AID AND PROVIDE TD CONSISTENT WITH YOUR INTERAGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. LET ME JUST ASK YOU FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT, WITHOUT JAVELINS WOULD YOU AGREE THE RUSSIANS HAD MUCH GREATER MILITARY OFFENSIVE OPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR EFFORT TO ATTACK THE UKRAINE? WITHOUT THE UKRAINE HAVING JAVELINS.

>> YES. I MEAN, THEY HAVE ANOTHER OPTION. ALTHOUGH THE TANK WAR HAS — IS NO LONGER THE WAR THAT IS BEING FOUGHT IN UKRAINE. >> BUT I'M JUST SAYING WITH THE JAVELINS — >> IT'S ANOTHER OPTION. >> AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. BECAUSE THE JAVELINS ARE THERE. SO I THINK THAT CHANGES THE SCENARIO. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR OWN FOREIGN POLICY AND TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> YEAH. IF I COULD JUST SUPPLEMENT ONE OF MY ANSWERS. >> OF COURSE. >> SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AS WELL. BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS WHILE I OBVIOUSLY DON'T DISPUTE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW AN AMBASSADOR AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON, BUT WHAT I DO WONDER IS WHY IT WAS NECESSARY TO SMEAR MY REPUTATION — >> I WASN'T ASKING ABOUT THAT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. >> REPRESENTATIVE SPEIER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR, SO VERY MUCH. YOU WERE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE ON A VOICE VOTE, WEREN'T YOU? >> YES. >> SO UNANIMOUS. REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. CORRECT? >> YES.

>> NO DISPUTE. YOU SAID THAT IN SUMMER OF 2018 THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN BEGAN. IN YOUR TESTIMONY EARLIER TODAY. DID SECRETARY POMPEO AT ANY TIME COME TO YOUR AID? >> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHIL REEKER AND DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS — SORT OF THE RUMORS ABOUT ME FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN WHICH WAS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AT THAT POINT, THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY POMPEO AND THAT HE ACTUALLY DID KEEP ME IN PLACE FOR AS LONG AS HE COULD. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD. >> SO IT APPEARS THAT BACK IN 2018 THE PRESIDENT WAS ALREADY MAKING NOISES THAT HE WANTED YOU OUT OF THERE.

IT APPEARS THAT AS EARLY AS APRIL OF 2018 MR. PARNAS WAS AT A FUND-RAISER FOR THE PRESIDENT AND RECOMMENDED THAT YOU BE REMOVED AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN MAY OF 2018 WAS PICTURED AT A WHITE HOUSE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THEN LATER IN MAY MADE A CONTRIBUTION OF OVER $325,000, ILLEGALLY, TO THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> I'M AWARE OF THE PRESS ABOUT THOSE THINGS. >> DOES THAT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE WHY THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN WAS UNDER WAY? >> YES. I MEAN — >> ALL RIGHT. YOU MADE SOME VERY RIVETING COMMENTS IN YOUR STATEMENT THIS MORNING THAT I JUST WANT TO REPEAT BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE YOU EXPAND ON IT. YOU SAID, "I'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE U.S. INTERESTS IN THIS WAY. INDIVIDUALS WHO APPARENTLY FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE STATED U.S. POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION, THAT IS, TO DO OUR MISSION, WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS." NOW, AS I LISTENED TO YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT, I WAS THINKING OF ALL THE OTHER PERSONS IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE WHO NOW HAVE TO BE CONCERNED THAT IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO FOLLOW THE STATED U.S.

FOREIGN POLICY BUT ALSO TO BE AWARE THAT MAYBE THE PRESIDENT HAS A BACK CHANNEL OF INTERESTS HE IS PROMOTING THAT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR STATED FOREIGN POLICY. CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT, PLEASE? >> WELL, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHOEVER IS REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT, AN AMBASSADOR, SPEAKS WITH THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT AND THEIR FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT. AND IF THERE ARE OTHERS WHO ARE ALSO HELPING WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES IN THAT COUNTRY, FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER WITH HIS IMPORTANT MISSION TO BRING PEACE TO THE DONBASS, THAT WE ALL SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE, THAT IT'S ALL ABOUT OUR COMMON SECURITY INTEREST AND IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL GAIN OR COMMERCIAL GAIN OR ANYTHING ELSE, THAT IT'S ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. >> BUT IN THIS CASE THE TRES AMIGOS APPEARED TO BE MORE INTERESTED IN GETTING AN INVESTIGATION THAN IN PROMOTING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT IN UKRAINE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT APPEARS TO BE THE CASE.

>> YOU WERE TOLD AT ONE POINT IN 2019, IN FEBRUARY EARLIER THIS YEAR, YOU SPOKE TO A MINISTER IN UKRAINE WHO WARNED THAT WHEN IT CAME TO RUDY GIULIANI YOU NEEDED TO "WATCH YOUR BACK." WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN? >> I DIDN'T EXACTLY KNOW. BUT YOU KNOW, THE RUMOR WAS OUT THERE AT THAT TIME AND IN FACT I THINK THIS MINISTER ALSO SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH ME THAT THE MAYOR WAS WORKING TO HAVE ME REMOVED. >> LET ME JUST SAY TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU HAVE ENDURED AN ORCHESTRATED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION — >> WE ARE WATCHING THE BACK AND FORTH, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATE QUESTIONING OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH, THE FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WHO TESTIFIED IN CALM TONES TODAY AND VERY PRECISE ABOUT WHAT SHE THINKS WAS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT LED TO HER SUDDEN OUSTER IN MAY OF THIS YEAR FROM THE POSITION OF — I'M SORRY, MAY OF — YEAH, MAY OF 2019.

I WANT TO GO TO HALLIE JACKSON RIGHT NOW AT THE WHITE HOUSE. HALLIE, HAS THE PRESIDENT BEEN WATCHING THIS? SO LET'S GO TO GEOFF BENNETT, I'M SORRY, ON CAPITOL HILL. GEOFF? >> Reporter: HEY, LESTER. TO THE QUESTION YOU PUT TO HALLIE, IT DOES APPEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AT LEAST IN THE EARLIER PART OF YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY WAS IN FACT WATCHING THIS. BECAUSE HE RAGE TWEETED AT HER. AND OF COURSE THAT TWEET THE PRESIDENT SENT BECAME PART OF THE TESTIMONY TODAY. THE DEFENSE THAT WE SAW FROM REPUBLICANS HAVING TO DO WITH THE TWEET WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID IN EFFECT THAT EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH HAD GONE HAD BEEN BAD, NAMELY SOMALIA AND SOME OF THE OTHER HARDSHIP POSTS, WAS THAT IN THEIR VIEW IT WASN'T WITNESS INTIMIDATION, AND THIS IS SORT OF A LOGICAL GYMNASTICS EXERCISE HERE TO FOLLOW THIS. BUT THEY SAY THAT BECAUSE YOVANOVITCH WAS HERE GIVING TESTIMONY AND WASN'T AWARE OF THE TWEET IN REAL TIME AND THAT IT HAD TO BE READ TO HER BY ADAM SCHIFF THAT THAT MEANT THAT IT WAS SCHIFF WHO INTRODUCED IT AND IT WAS SCHIFF WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING THE WITNESS, NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF.

ALL OF THAT REFLECTS THE FACT THAT REPUBLICANS DID NOT HAVE A LOT TO WORK WITH AS THEY TRIED TO UNDERCUT MARIE YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY. AND SO RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES — AN HOUR LEFT IN THIS TESTIMONY. AND THEN THEY EXPECT TO HEAR FROM ANOTHER WITNESS SEPARATELY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. THIS OF COURSE IS THE STAFFER TO AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, WHO IS SAID TO HAVE OVERHEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP CHECKING IN A DAY AFTER THIS JULY 25th CALL AND QUESTION THE PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS THAT HE HAD LEANED ON SONDLAND TO HELP EXECUTE. >> YEAH.

BOTH SIDES TREATING HER WITH GREAT RESPECT. GEOFF, THANK YOU. NOW LET ME GO TO HALLIE AT THE WHITE HOUSE. HALLIE, ASIDE FROM THIS QUESTION OVER WHETHER THERE WAS WITNESS INTIMIDATION, WHAT'S THE GENERAL FEEL AT THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY AND HOW DAMAGING IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE? >> Caller: BASED ON THE PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO TODAY IN JUST THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS, THE WHITE HOUSE SEEMS TO BE COALESCING AROUND THE ARGUMENT THAT JUST BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T LIKE SOMEBODY'S JOB PERFORMANCE DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. I IMAGINE THAT AS THE DAY GOES ON YOU WILL SEE THAT ARGUMENT BE MADE PUBLICLY. AND IN FACT WE'RE ALREADY STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THAT, LESTER. THE PRESIDENT'S PRESS SECRETARY PUTTING OUT A STATEMENT JUST MOMENTS AGO SAYING THAT THAT TWEET THAT YOU AND GEOFF JUST REFERENCED WAS NOT WITNESS INTIMIDATION, IT WAS SIMPLY THE PRESIDENT'S OPINION, WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO, GOING ON TO REPEAT THAT IN HER VIEW, THIS IS AN ILLEGITIMATE CHARADE, THE WHOLE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THAT IS STACKED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF.

THIS IS GOING TO BE THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU WILL SEE, THAT ESSENTIALLY THE PRESIDENT HAD THE RIGHT TO FIRE SOMEBODY IF HE WANTED TO, LESTER. >> LET ME GO TO CHUCK TODD. THANKS, HALLIE. CHUCK, DOES THIS WORK AS A COMPANION PIECE TO WHAT WE HEARD FROM GEORGE KENT AND WILLIAM TAYLOR? >> I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE HER AN EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE WITNESS. BECAUSE WHAT IT TURNED INTO WAS REPUBLICANS A BIT I THINK ALMOST IN RETREAT HAVING TO GO OUT OF HAVING TO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PRAISE HER COMPETENCE, HAVING TO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SHOW SHE WAS DOING HER JOB PROPERLY, WHICH THEN REINFORCES THE ODDITY OF HER DISMISSAL.

SO TODAY COULD HAVE BEEN A DAY THAT WOULDN'T HAVE HAD AN IMPACT, BUT THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET MADE HER MUCH MORE RELEVANT, MUCH MORE SALIENT, AND MUCH MORE DAMAGING TO THE PRESIDENT. >> THANK YOU. LET ME TURN TO ANDREW WEISSMAN. AT FIRST WE HEARD DEVIN NUNES ALMOST WANT TO DISMISS, IT SAYING THIS IS AN HR ISSUE, IT SHOULDN'T REALLY BE HERE. LOOKING AT IT FROM YOUR PROSECUTOR'S STANDPOINT, WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN BETTER JUST TO LET THIS GO AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE? >> ABSOLUTELY. SO I AGREE VERY MUCH WITH CHUCK THAT THEY BASICALLY HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION AND BY PRAISING HER SO MUCH, BOTH SIDES, AND SAYING HOW WONDERFUL SHE IS, AND THIS IS A GREAT CAREER SERVANT, THEY LEAVE COMPLETELY UNANSWERED THE QUESTION OF SO WHY WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP TRYING TO GET RID OF HER? WHAT WAS HE UP TO? WHY ARE YOU NOT SIDING WITH HER AND INSTEAD YOU'RE SIDING WITH AS SHE POINTED OUT TWO INDICTED PEOPLE AROUND RUDY GIULIANI WHO WERE INDICTED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK? WHY WAS THE PRESIDENT SIDING WITH THEM AND NOT WITH HER? >> ANDREW AND RICHARD ENGEL, YOU'VE BEEN IN UKRAINE, YOU'VE TALKED TO MANY OF THE PLAYERS HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE A COMPLICATED PLACE.

DID SHE SIMPLY GET CAUGHT IN TWO STREAMS? >> SHE GOT CAUGHT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. THERE WAS THE OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY THAT SHE WAS PURSUING AND THEN THERE WAS THIS BACK CHANNEL FOREIGN POLICY THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS PURSUING. AND THAT OBJECTIVE WAS TO HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. AND SHE WASN'T ON BOARD WITH THAT. SHE WAS PERCEIVED TO BE AN OBSTRUCTION TO THIS BACK CHANNEL. AND WHENEVER YOU HAVE A BACK CHANNEL, IT ATTRACTS ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE.

IT ATTRACTS THE FORMER PROSECUTOR WHO'S GOT AN INTEREST. IT ATTRACTS THESE TWO — YOU KNOW, PARNAS AND FRUMAN. YES, SHE GOT CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. AND YOU SAW WHO WON, BY THE WAY. >> RICHARD ENGEL. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO MONITOR OF COURSE THIS HEARING. NOT TOO MUCH TIME LEFT IN IT BUT WE'LL HAVE FULL WRAP-UP AND COVERAGE WHEN WE SEE YOU ON NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS." AND REMEMBER, THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND OF SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS. THERE IS MORE TO COME NEXT WEEK. I WILL SIGN OFF FOR NOW. IF WARRANT, WE WILL CERTAINLY COME BACK ON THE AIR,E WAS CALM AND COMPOSED. ALMOST WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT A DIPLOMAT WOULD BE. DID ANYTHING NEW COME OUT OF THE TESTIMONY? ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT WE WERE NOT EXPECTING TO SEE, BECAUSE OF COURSE, AS THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE TESTIFIED THIS WEEK, TAYLOR AND KENT, WE HEARD FROM THEM BE.

As found on YouTube