TEST. TEST. TEST. TEST. TEST.
CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY VITAC
>>> THE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO 
ORDER.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
THIS IS THE SEVENTH IN A SERIES 
OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THE COMMITTEE
WILL BE HOLDING AS PART OF THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS 
AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS 
OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME.
WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THE 
SAME FASHION AS OUR OTHER 
HEARINGS.
I'LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT, 
AND THEN RANKING MEMBER NUNES 
WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
A STATEMENT AND WE WILL TURN TO 
OUR WITNESSES FOR THEIR OPENING 
STATEMENTS AND TO QUESTIONS.
FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME
YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN
BEING HERE.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE 
COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT 
DISRUPTIONS.
I'LL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND 
APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN 
ORDER AND ENSURE THAT THE 
COMMITTEE IS RUN IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH HOUSE RULES.
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO GIVE AN 
OPENING STATEMENT IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD 
J. TRUMP THE 45th PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
YESTERDAY MORNING THE COMMITTEE 
HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR GORDON 
SONDLAND.
THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, THE DE FACTO 
LEADER OF THE THREE AMIGOS, WHO 
HAD REGULAR ACCESS TO PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP AND PRESSED THE NEW
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT FOR TWO 
INVESTIGATIONS TRUMP BELIEVED 
WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN.
THE FIRST INVESTIGATION WAS OF A
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
THAT UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA WAS 
RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN 
OUR 2016 ELECTION.
THE SECOND INVESTIGATION WAS 
INTO THE POLITICAL RIVAL TRUMP 
APPARENTLY FEARED MOST, JOE 
BIDEN.
TRUMP SOUGHT TO WEAKEN BIDEN AND
REFUTE THE FACT THAT HIS OWN 
ELECTION HAD BEEN HELPED BY A 
RUSSIAN HACKING AND DUMPING 
INITIATIVE.
TRUMP SCHEME'S STOOD IN AND SET 
BACK ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN 
UKRAINE.
IN CONDITIONING A MEETING WITH 
ZELENSKY AND MILITARY AID AND 
SECURING AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS
RIVAL, TRUMP PUT HIS PERSONAL 
AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE 
THE UNITED STATES.
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD 
LATER TELL DAVID HOLMES 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPEAKING TO 
THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP DID NOT 
GIVE AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF THAT 
BENEFITS HIM LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT GIULIANI WAS 
PUSHING.
DAVID HOLMES IS HERE WITH US 
TODAY.
HE IS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER 
CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE 
POLITICAL COUNSELOR AT THE U.S. 
AMBASSADOR IN KIEV.
ALSO WITH US IS FIONA HILL.
DR. HILL LEFT THE NS CLRKS IN 
JULY AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS 
IN THAT POSITION.
DR. HILL AND MR. HOLMES PROVIDE 
A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON ISSUES 
RELATING TO UKRAINE.
DR. HILL FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., 
AND MR. HOLMES FROM ON THE 
GROUND IN KYIV.
DR. HILL BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT 
THE PRESENCE OF GIULIANI WHO WAS
ASSERTING QUITE FRANKLY IN 
PUBLIC APPEARANCE THAT HE HAD 
BEEN GIVEN SOME AUTHORITY OVER 
MATTERS IN UKRAINE.
HER BOSS JOHN BOLTON WAS PAYING 
ATTENTION AS WELL AS HOLMES AT 
THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KYIV.
BOLTON VIEWED GIULIANI HAS A 
HAND GRENADE THAT IS GOING TO 
 
BLOW EVERYBODY ELSE AND WAS 
POWERLESS TO MARIE YOVANOVITCH'S
FIRING.
YOVANOVITCH'S DISMISSAL AS A 
RESULT OF GIULIANI'S SMEAR 
CAMPAIGN WAS ONE OF THE THINGS 
THAT CONCERNED HILL.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN 
ALSO WAS AT THE MEETING.
AND THEY ADVISED THE LEADER TO 
STAY OUT OF DOMESTIC POLITICS.
ANOTHER CONCERN THAT AROSE FOR 
DR. HILL AROUND THIS TIME WAS 
THE DISCOVERY OF A BACK CHANNEL 
ON UKRAINE.
HILL LEARNED THAT A STAFF MEMBER
WHO DID NOT WORK ON UKRAINE AND 
FOR HER MAY HAVE BEEN PROVIDING 
UKRAINE RELATED INFORMATION TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT DR. HILL 
WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF.
ACCORDING TO HOLMES, FOLLOWING 
THE ZELENSKY INAUGURATION, 
SONDLAND AND PERRY TOOK AN 
ACTIVE AND UNCONVENTIONAL ROLE 
IN FORMULATING OUR PRIORITIES 
FOR THE NEW ZELENSKY 
ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONALLY 
REACHING OUT TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND HIS SENIOR TEAM.
SONDLAND'S NEWFOUND 
ASSERTIVENESS CONCERNED DR. HILL
WHO HAD ENJOYED A CORDAL WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE 
AMBASSADOR.
HILL HAD A BLOWUP WITH SONDLAND 
WHEN HE TOLD HER HE WAS IN 
CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT SONDLAND
GOT TESTY WITH ME AND I SAID WHO
HAS PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF IT.
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT.
ON JULY 10th DR. HILL WAS PART 
OF A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
WITH OFFICIALS INCLUDING BOLTON,
SONDLAND, AND ENERGY SECRETARY 
PERRY.
THE MEETING WAS INTENDED AMONG 
OTHER THINGS TO GIVE THE 
UKRAINIANS TO CONVEY THAT THEY 
WERE ANXIOUS TO SET UP A NEW 
MEETING.
SONDLAND INFORMED THE GROUP THAT
ACCORDING TO MICK MULVANEY, THE 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING WOULD HAPPEN
IF UKRAINE UNDERTOOK CERTAIN 
INVESTIGATIONS.
HEARING THIS BOLTON ABRUPTLY 
ENDED THE MEETING.
UNDETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT THE
DELEGATION AND LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL VINDMAN DOWNSTAIRS TO 
ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
WHERE THEY WERE LATER JOINED BY 
DR. HILL.
IN THIS SECOND MEETING, SONDLAND
WAS MORE EXPLICIT, UKRAINE 
NEEDED TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS
IF THEY WERE TO GET A MEETING AT
ALL.
BOLTON DIRECTED DR. HILL TO 
REPORT THIS TO LEGAL ADVISER 
JOHN EISENBERG, TELLING HER THAT
YOU TELL EISENBERG THAT I AM NOT
PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL 
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE 
COOKING UP ON THIS AND YOU TELL 
HIM WHAT I'VE HEARD AND WHAT I 
SAID.
DR. HILL DID SO AS DID 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WHO 
APPROACHED THE LAWYERS WITH HIS 
SAME CONCERNS.
ON JULY 18th, THE DAY BEFORE 
DR. HILL LEFT HER POST AT THE 
NSC, HOLMES PARTICIPATED IN A 
SECURE VIDEO CONFERENCE ON 
UKRAINE.
TOWARDS THE END OF THE MEETING, 
A REPRESENT FROM THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AANNOUNCED
THAT THE FLOW OF NEARLY 
$400 BILLION IN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE WAS BEING
HELD UP.
THE ORDER HAD COME FROM THE 
PRESIDENT AND HAS BEEN CONVEYED 
TO OMB WITHOUT FURTHER 
EXPLANATION.
HOLMES UNAWARE OF THE HOLD PRIOR
TO THE CALL WAS SHOCKED.
HE THOUGHT THIS SUSPENSION OF 
AID WAS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT, 
UNDERMINING WHAT HE HAD 
UNDERSTOOD TO BE LONG-STANDING 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS IN 
UKRAINE.
ONE WEEK LATER ON JULY 25th, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BY PHONE.
WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BROUGHT 
UP U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT AND 
NOTED THAT UKRAINE WOULD LIKE TO
BUY MORE ANTI-TANK MISSILES FROM
THE UNITED STATES, TRUMP 
RESPONDED BY SAYING, I WOULD 
LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, 
THOUGH.
TRUMP THEN REQUESTED THAT 
ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE 
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 
2016 ELECTION.
TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY TO LOOK 
INTO THE BIDENS.
NEITHER REQUEST HAS BEEN 
INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL TALKING
POINTS FOR THE CALL BUT BOTH 
WERE IN DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL 
INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF 
HIS 2020 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW
ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE, IN PART 
BECAUSE OF EFFORTS BY 
AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND VOLKER 
TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S DEMANDS.
THE NEXT DAY, JULY 26th, IN 
KYIV, HOLMES SERVED AS A 
NOTETAKER DURING A MEETING 
BETWEEN BILL TAYLOR, VOLKER AND 
SONDLAND WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
AND OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS.
ZELENSKY SAID ON THE PREVIOUS 
DAY'S CALL, SAID ON THE PREVIOUS
DAY'S CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD,
QUOTE, THREE TIMES RAISED SOME 
VERY SENSITIVE ISSUES THAT HE 
WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE
ISSUES WHEN THEY MET IN PERSON.
ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT REALIZE IT 
AT THE TIME, HOLMES CAME TO 
UNDERSTAND THAT THE SENSITIVE 
ISSUES WERE THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED ON
THE JULY 25th CALL.
FOLLOWING THE MEETING WITH 
ZELENSKY, HOLMES ACCOMPANIED 
SONDLAND TO A SEPARATE MEETING 
WITH ONE OF UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT'S TOP ADVISERS.
BUT HOLMES WAS NOT ALLOWED INTO 
THE MEETING AND WAITED FOR 30 
MINUTES WHILE SONDLAND AND THE 
UKRAINIAN MET ALONE WITHOUT ANY 
NOTE TAKERS TO RECORD WHAT THEY 
SAID.
AFTER THE MEETING SONDLAND, 
HOLMES AND TWO OTHER STAFF WENT 
TO LUNCH AT A NEARBY RESTAURANT 
AND SAT ON AN OUTDOOR TERRACE.
SONDLAND PULLED OUT HIS CELL 
PHONE, PLACED A CALL TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND ASKED TO BE 
CONNECT TODAY THE PRESIDENT.
WHEN TRUMP CAME ON THE LINE 
HOLMES COULD HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT'S VOICE CLEARLY.
HOLMES CALL THAT HAD THE 
PRESIDENT'S VOICE WAS VERY LOUD 
AND RECOGNIZABLE AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HELD THE PHONE AWAY 
FROM HIS EAR FOR A PERIOD OF 
TIME, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF THE 
LOUD VOLUME.
SONDLAND SAID HE WAS CALLING 
FROM KYIV.
HE TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR 
ASS.
HOLMES HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ASK, SO HE'S GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION?
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED, 
HE'S GOING TO DO IT, ADDING THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO 
ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM.
AFTER THE CALL ENDED, HOLMES 
TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK 
SONDLAND FOR HIS CANDID 
IMPRESSION OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
VIEWS ON UKRAINE.
IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT 
SONDLAND REVEALED THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP DOESN'T GIVE A EXPLETIVE 
ABOUT UKRAINE.
THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT 
BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE 
PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION AND MR. GIULIANI 
WAS PUSHING.
A MONTH LATER, BOLTON TRAVELED 
TO KYIV.
BETWEEN MEETINGS WITH GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS, HOLMES HEARD BOLTON 
EXPRESS HIS FRUSTRATION ABOUT 
MR. GIULIANI'S INFLUENCE WITH 
THE PRESIDENT.
BOLTON MADE CLEAR, HOWEVER, 
THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO 
ABOUT IT.
BOLTON FURTHER STATED THAT THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
WOULD NOT BE LIFTED PRIOR TO THE
UPCOMING MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND
WOULD HANG ON WHETHER ZELENSKY 
WAS ABLE TO IMPRESS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
TRUMP CANCELED HIS TRIP TO 
WARSAW, BUT OTHERS CONTINUED TO 
PRESS FOR A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT 
FOR THE OPENING OF 
INVESTIGATIONS BY ZELENSKY.
ON SEPTEMBER 8th, TAYLOR TOLD 
HOLMES THAT, QUOTE, NOW THEY'RE 
INSISTING ZELENSKY COMMIT TO THE
INVESTIGATION IN AN INTERVIEW 
WITH CNN.
HOLMES WAS SURPRISED THE 
REQUIREMENT WAS SO SPECIFIC AND 
CONCRETE SINCE IT AMOUNTED TO 
NOTHING LESS THAN A, QUOTE, 
DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
COMMIT TO A SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL ON A 
CABLE NEWS CHANNEL, UNQUOTE.
ON SEPTEMBER 9, THIS COMMITTEE 
ALONG WITH THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES 
LAUNCHED OUR INVESTIGATION OF 
THIS CORRUPT SCHEME.
PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASED THE 
HOLD ON AID TWO DAYS LATER.
THE UKRAINIANS CANCELED THE CNN 
INTERVIEW SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
TWO WEEKS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 
25th, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY
25th CALL WAS RELEASED BY THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND THE DETAILS OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME STARTED 
COMING INTO VIEW.
IN THE COMING DAYS, CONGRESS 
WILL DETERMINE WHAT RESPONSE IS 
APPROPRIATE.
IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, 
COERCE, EXTORT OR BRIBE A 
VULNERABLE ALLY INTO CONDUCTING 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO AID AND DID 
SO BY WITH HOLDING OFFICIAL 
ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR 
NEEDED MILITARY AID, IT WILL BE 
FOR US TO DECIDE WHETHER THOSE 
ACTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE 
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD 
LIKE TO MAKE.
>> THANK YOU.
THROUGHOUT THESE BIZARRE 
HEARINGS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE 
STRUGGLED TO MAKE THE CASE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED SOME 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE ON HIS PHONE
CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE OFFENSE ITSELF CHANGES 
DEPENDING ON THE DAY ARRANGING 
FROM QUID PRO QUO, TO EXTORTION,
TO BRIBERY, TO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, THEN BACK TO QUID PRO 
QUO.
IT'S CLEAR WHY THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE BEEN FORCED ONTO THIS 
CAROUSEL OF ACCUSATIONS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD GOOD REASON 
TO BE WEARY OF UKRAINIAN 
ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST HIS 
CAMPAIGN AND OF WIDESPREAD 
CORRUPTION IN THAT COUNTRY.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO DIDN'T 
EVEN KNOW AID TO UKRAINE HAS 
BEEN PAUSED AT THE TIME OF THE 
CALL HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THERE 
WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE 
CONVERSATION.
THE AID WAS RESUMED WITHOUT THE 
UKRAINIANS TAKING THE ACTIONS 
THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY BEING 
COERCED INTO DOING.
AID TO UKRAINE UNDER PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS BEEN MUCH MORE ROBUST 
THAN IT WAS UNDER PRESIDENT 
OBAMA.
THANKS TO THE PROVISION OF 
JAVELIN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS.
AS NUMEROUS WITNESSES HAVE 
TESTIFIED, TEMPORARY HOLDS ON 
FOREIGN AID OCCUR FREQUENTLY FOR
MANY DIFFERENT REASONS, SO HOW 
DO WE HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE HERE WHEN THERE'S NO 
ACTUAL MISDEED AND NO ONE 
CLAIMING TO BE A VICTIM?
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED TO 
SOLVE THIS DILEMMA WITH A SIMPLE
SLOGAN, HE GOT CAUGHT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WE ARE TO 
BELIEVE, WAS JUST ABOUT TO DO 
SOMETHING WRONG AND GETTING 
CAUGHT WAS THE ONLY REASON HE 
BACKED DOWN FROM WHATEVER 
NEFARIOUS THOUGHT CRIME THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE ACCUSING HIM OF 
ALMOST COMMITTING.
I ONCE AGAIN URGE AMERICANS TO 
CONTINUE TO CONSIDER THE 
CREDIBILITY OF THE DEMOCRATS ON 
THIS COMMITTEE WHO ARE NOW 
HURLING THESE CHARGES FOR THE 
LAST THREE YEARS.
IT'S NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO GOT
CAUGHT.
IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WHO GOT 
CAUGHT.
THEY GOT CAUGHT FALSELY CLAIMING
THEY HAD MORE THAN 
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT 
TRUMP CONCLUDED WITH RUSSIANS TO
HACK THE 2016 ELECTION.
THEY GOT CAUGHT ORCHESTRATING 
THIS ENTIRE FARCE WITH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER AND LYING ABOUT 
THEIR SECRET MEETINGS WITH HIM.
THEY GOT CAUGHT DEFENDING THE 
FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF THE STEELE 
DOSSIER WHICH WAS PAID FOR BY 
THEM.
THEY GOT CAUGHT BREAKING THEIR 
PROMISE THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD 
ONLY GO FORWARD WITH BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT BECAUSE OF HOW DAMAGING 
IT IS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY GOT CAUGHT RUNNING A SHAM 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS FEATURING 
SECRET DEPOSITIONS, HIDDEN 
TRANSCRIPTS, AND AN UNENDING 
FLOOD OF DEMOCRAT LEAKS TO THE 
MEDIA.
THEY GOT CAUGHT TRYING TO OBTAIN
NUDE PHOTOS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
FROM RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS 
PRETENDING TO BE UKRAINIANS.
AND THEY GOT CAUGHT COVERING UP 
FOR A DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE OPERATIVE WHO COLLUDED
WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO 
SMEAR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BY 
IMPROPERLY REDACTING HER NAME 
FROM DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS AND 
REFUSING TO LET AMERICANS HEAR 
HER TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS IN 
THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THAT IS THE DEMOCRATS' PITIFUL 
LEGACY IN RECENT YEARS.
THEY GOT CAUGHT.
MEANWHILE, THEIR STAR WITNESS 
TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS GUESSING 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS 
TRYING -- TIEING UKRAINIAN AID 
TO INVESTIGATIONS DESPITE NO ONE
TELLING HIM THAT WAS TRUE AND 
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF EXPLICITLY
TELLING HIM THE OPPOSITE, THAT 
HE WANTED NOTHING FROM UKRAINE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UNLESS THE
DEMOCRATS ONCE AGAIN SCRAMBLE 
THEIR KANGAROO COURT RULES, 
TODAY'S HEARING MARKS THE END OF
THE SPECTACLE IN THE IMPEACHMENT
COMMITTEE, FORMALLY KNOWN AS THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
WHETHER THE DEMOCRATS REAP THE 
POLITICAL BENEFIT THEY WANT FROM
THIS IMPEACHMENT REMAINS TO BE 
SEEN, BUT THE DAMAGE THEY HAVE 
DONE TO THIS COUNTRY WILL BE 
LONG LASTING.
WITH THIS WRENCHING ATTEMPT TO 
OVERTHROW THE PRESIDENT, THEY 
HAVE PITTED AMERICANS AGAINST 
ONE ANOTHER AND POISONED THE 
MIND OF FANATICS WHO ACTUALLY 
BELIEVE THE ENTIRE GALAXY OF 
BIZARRE ACCUSATIONS THEY HAVE 
LEVELED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT 
SINCE THE DAY THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE ELECTED HIM.
I HOPE THE DEMOCRATS END THIS 
AFFAIR AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO
OUR NATION CAN BEGIN TO HEAL THE
MANY WOUNDS IT HAS INFLICTED ON 
US.
THE PEOPLE'S FAITH IN GOVERNMENT
AND THEIR BELIEF THAT THEIR VOTE
COUNTS FOR SOMETHING HAS BEEN 
SHAKEN.
FROM THE RUSSIA HOAX TO THE 
UKRAINIAN SEQUEL, THE DEMOCRATS 
GOT CAUGHT.
LET'S HOPE THEY FINALLY LEARN A 
LESSON, GIVE THEIR CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES A REST, AND FOCUS ON 
GOVERNING FOR A CHANGE.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RULE 11, THE 
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS TRANSMIT OUR 
REQUEST TO CONVENE A MINORITY 
DAY OF HEARINGS.
YOU HAVE BLOCKED KEY WITNESSES 
THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED FROM 
TESTIFYING IN THIS PARTISAN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THIS RULE WAS NOT DISPLACED BY H
REZ 660 AND UNDER HOUSE RULE 11,
CLAUSE 1A IT APPLIES TO THE 
DEMOCRATS' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE CHAIR 
SCHEDULING AN AGREED UPON TIME 
SO WE CAN HEAR FROM WITNESSES 
THAT YOU HAVE BLOCKED FROM 
TESTIFYING.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE A 
QUICK MOMENT ON ASSERTION MS. 
HILL MADE IN A STATEMENT THAT 
SHE SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE 
IN WHICH SHE CLAIMED THAT SOME 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS DENY THAT 
RUSSIA MEDDLED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION.
AS I NOTED IN MY OPENING 
STATEMENT ON WEDNESDAY, IN MARCH
2018 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
REPUBLICANS PUBLISHED THE 
RESULTS OF A YEAR-LONG 
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN 
MEDDLING.
THE 240-PAGE REPORT ANALYZED 
2016 RUSSIAN MEDDLING CAMPAIGN, 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT REACTION TO 
IT, RUSSIAN CAMPAIGNS IN OTHER 
COUNTRIES AND PROVIDED SPECIFIC 
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE 
AMERICAN ELECTION SECURITY.
I WOULD ASK MY STAFF TO HAND 
THESE REPORTS TO OUR TWO 
WITNESSES TODAY JUST SO THEY CAN
HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THEIR 
MEMORY.
AS AMERICA MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW.
DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO SIGN ONTO 
THE REPUBLICAN REPORT.
INSTEAD, THEY DECIDED TO ADOPT 
MINORITY VIEWS FILLED WITH 
COLLUSION CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
FOR TWO SEPARATE NATIONS TO 
ENENGAGE IN MEDDLING AT THE SAME
TIME REGARDLESS OF WHICH 
CAMPAIGN IS THE TARGET.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE 
RECORD A COPY OF OUR REPORT 
TITLED REPORT ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE 
MEASURES.
I YIELD BACK.
>> TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY 
DR. FIONA HILL AND DAVID HOLMES.
DR. FIONA HILL IS A FORMER 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND SENIOR DIRECTOR 
FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA.
BEFORE RETURNING TO GOVERNMENT, 
SHE WAS A SENIOR FELLOW AT THE 
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION WHERE SHE 
DISTRICTED THE CENTER ON THE 
UNITED STATES AND EUROPE.
SHE PREVIOUSLY WORKED AT THE 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL, 
THE EURASIA FOUNDATION AND THE 
JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF 
GOVERNMENT.
DAVID HOLMES IS THE POLITICAL 
COUNSELOR AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN
KYIV.
HE IS A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE 
OFFICER, HE HAS PREVIOUSLY 
SERVED IN MOSCO AND KABUL.
HE SERVED AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT 
TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY 
OF STATE.
TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE OUR 
WITNESSES ARE SWORN, FIRST 
WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF 
THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED 
IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS 
WILL 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 AN ATTEMPT TO 
RETALIATE AGAINST ANY OFFICIAL 
FOR TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF 
CONGRESS.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE, RAISE 
YOUR RIGHT HAND, I WILL BEGIN BY
SWEARING YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE 
TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH 
AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO 
HELP YOU GOD?
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE 
WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE 
AFFIRMATIVE.
THANK YOU AND YOU MAY BE SEATED.
THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE, 
SO YOU'LL NEED TO SPEAK DIRECTLY
INTO THEM.
WITHOUT OBJECTION YOUR WRITTEN 
STATEMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF 
THE RECORD.
WITH THAT, MR. HOLMES, YOU ARE 
NOW RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT AND WHEN YOU CONCLUDE,
DR. HILL, YOU WILL BE 
IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED 
THEREAFTER FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS DAVID HOLMES.
SINCE AUGUST 2017, I HAVE BEEN 
THE POLITICAL COUNSELOR AT THE 
U.S. EMBASSY IN KYIV, UKRAINE.
WHILE IT IS AN HONOR TO APPEAR 
BEFORE YOU TODAY, I WANT TO MAKE
CLEAR THAT I DID NOT SEEK THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.
SINCE YOU DETERMINED THAT I MAY 
HAVE SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THESE
PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUED A 
SUBPOENA, IT IS MY OBLIGATION TO
APPEAR AND TO TELL YOU WHAT I 
KNOW.
INDEED, AS SECRETARY POMPEO HAS 
STATED, I HOPE EVERYONE WHO 
TESTIFIES WILL DO SO TRUTHFULLY 
AND ACCURATELY.
WHEN THEY DO, THE OVERSIGHT ROLE
WILL HAVE BEEN PERFORMED AND I 
THINK AMERICA WILL COME TO SEE 
WHAT TOOK PLACE HERE.
THAT IS MY ONLY GOAL, TO TESTIFY
TRUTHFULLY AND ACCURATELY TO 
ENABLE YOU TO PERFORM THAT ROLE.
TO THAT END, I PUT TOGETHER THIS
STATEMENT TO LAY OUT AS BEST I 
CAN MY RECOLLECTION OF EVENTS 
THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS 
MATTER.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, I HAVE 
SPENT MY CAREER AS A FOREIGN 
SERVICE OFFICER.
LIKE MANY OF THE DEDICATED 
PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO HAVE 
TESTIFIED, MY ENTIRE CAREER HAS 
BEEN IN THE SERVICE OF MY 
COUNTRY.
I'M RECEIVED DEGREES FROM 
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FROM 
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.
I JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 
2002, THROUGH AN APOLITICAL 
MERIT-BASED PROCESS UNDER THE 
GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION 
AND I HAVE PROUDLY SERVED 
ADMINISTRATIONS OF BOTH PARTIES 
AND WORKED FOR THEIR APPOINTEES 
BOTH POLITICAL AND CAREER.
PRIOR TO MY CURRENT POST IN 
KYIV, UKRAINE.
I SERVED IN THE POLITICAL AND 
ECONOMIC SECTIONS AT THE 
EMBASSIES IN RUSSIA.
IN WASHINGTON, I SERVED ON THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF 
AND AS A SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO 
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE.
MY PRIOR OVERSEAS ASSIGNS 
INCLUDING INDIA, AFGHANISTAN, 
AND KOSOVO.
AS THE POLITICAL COUNSELOR AT 
THE EMBASSY IN KYIV, I LEAD THE 
INTERNAL SECTION.
AND I SERVE AS THE SENIOR POLICY
AND POLITICAL AMBASSADOR TO -- 
ADVISER TO THE AMBASSADOR.
THE JOB OF AN EMBASSY POLITICAL 
COUNSELOR IS TO GATHER 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOST 
COUNTRIES POLITICAL LANDSCAPE, 
TO REPORT BACK TO WASHINGTON, TO
REPRESENT U.S. POLICIES TO 
FOREIGN CONTACTS, AND TO ADVISE 
THE AMBASSADOR ON POLICY 
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION.
IN THIS ROLE, I'M A SENIOR 
MEMBER OF THE EMBASSY'S COUNTRY 
TEAM AND INVOLVED IN ADDRESSING 
ISSUES AS THEY ARISE.
I'M ALSO OFTEN CALLED UPON TO 
TAKE NOTES IN MEETINGS INVOLVING
THE AMBASSADOR OR VISITING 
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS WITH 
UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS.
FOR THIS REASON, I'VE BEEN 
PRESIDENT IN MANY OF THE 
MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
AND HIS ADMINISTRATION, SOME OF 
WHICH MAY BE GERMANE TO THIS 
INQUIRY.
WHILE I'M A POLITICAL COUNSELOR 
AT THE EMBASSY, IT IS IMPORTANT 
TO NOTE THAT I'M NOT A POLITICAL
APPOINTEE OR ENGAGED IN U.S. 
POLITICS IN ANY WAY.
IT IS NOT MY JOB TO COVER OR 
ADVISE ON U.S. POLITICS.
ON THE CONTRARY, I'M AN 
APOLITICAL FOREIGN POLICY 
PROFESSIONAL AND MY JOB IS TO 
FOCUS ON THE POLITICS OF THE 
COUNTRY IN WHICH I SERVE SO THAT
WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE 
LOCAL LANDSCAPE AND BETTER 
ADVANCE U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS 
THERE.
IN FACT, DURING THE PERIOD THAT 
WILL COVER TODAY, MY COLLEAGUES 
AND I FOLLOWED DIRECT GUIDANCE 
FROM AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO FOCUS ON 
DOING OUR JOBS AS FOREIGN POLICY
PROFESSIONALS AND TO STAY CLEAR 
OF WASHINGTON POLITICS.
I ARRIVED IN KYIV TO TAKE UP MY 
ASSIGNMENT AS POLITICAL 
COUNSELOR IN AUGUST 2017 A YEAR 
AFTER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
RECEIVED HER APPOINTMENT.
UNTIL HER REMOVAL FROM POST, I 
WAS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S 
CHIEF POLICY ADVISER AND 
DEVELOPED A DEEP RESPECT FOR HER
DEDICATION, DETERMINATION, 
DECENCY, AND PROFESSIONALISM.
DURING THIS TIME WE WORKED 
TOGETHER CLOSELY SPEAKING 
MULTIPLE TIMES HER DAY AND I 
ACCOMPANIED AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH TO MEETINGS WITH HER
COUNTERPARTS.
OUR WORK IN UKRAINE FOCUSED ON 
PEACE AND SECURITY, ECONOMIC 
GROWTH AND REFORM, AND 
ANTI-CORRUPTION AND RULE OF LAW.
THESE POLICIES MATCH THE THREE 
CONSISTENT PRIORITIES OF THE 
UKRAINIAN PEOPLE SINCE 2014 AS 
MEASURED IN PUBLIC POLLING.
RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC POLICIES 
THAT DELIVER EUROPEAN STANDARDS 
OF GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY, AND 
EFFECTIVE AND IMPARTIAL RULE OF 
LAW INSTITUTIONS THAT DELIVER 
JUSTICE IN CASES OF HIGH-LEVEL 
OFFICIAL CORRUPTION.
OUR EFFORTS ON THIS THIRD POLICY
PRIORITY MERIT SPECIAL MENTION 
BECAUSE IT WAS DURING AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH'S TENURE THAT WE 
ACHIEVED THE PASSAGE OF A LAW 
ESTABLISHING A COURT TO TRY 
CORRUPTION CASES.
THIS STRAINED AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH'S RELATIONSHIP WITH 
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO.
IT WOULD HELP ENSURE THAT NO 
UKRAINIANS, HOWEVER POWERFUL, 
WERE ABOVE THE LAW.
DESPITE THIS RESISTANT, THE 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EMBASSY KEPT 
PUSHING ANTI-CORRUPTION AND 
OTHER PRIORITIES OF OUR POLICY 
TOWARD UKRAINE.
BEGINNING IN MARCH 2019, THE 
SITUATION AT THE EMBASSY AND IN 
UKRAINE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
SPECIFICALLY, THE THREE 
PRIORITIES OF SECURITY, ECONOMY 
AND JUSTICE AND OUR SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINIAN DEMOCRATIC RESISTANCE 
TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION BECAME 
OVERSHADOWED BY A POLITICAL 
AGENDA PROMOTED BY FORMER NEW 
YORK CITY MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI 
AND A GROUP OF OFFICIALS WORKING
WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.
THAT CHANGE BEGAN WITH THE 
EMERGENCE OF PRESS REPORTS 
CRITICAL OF AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH AND OTHERS TO 
DISCREDIT HER.
IN MID-MARCH 2019, A COLLEAGUE 
LEARNED THAT MR. LUTSENKO 
COMPLAINED THAT AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH DESTROYED HIM UNTIL 
HE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH HIS 
COMMITMENTS.
IN RETALIATION, MR. LUTSENKO 
MADE A SERIES OF ALLEGATIONS 
AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
SUGGESTING THAT AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH IMPROPERLY USED THE 
EMBASSY TO ADVANCE THE POLITICAL
INTERESTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY.
THE EMBASSY HAD ORDERED THE 
INVESTIGATION OF A FORMER 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL BECAUSE THAT 
OFFICIAL WAS THE MAIN UKRAINIAN 
CONTACT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 
AND OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PERSONALLY AND THAT THE EMBASSY 
HAD PRESSURED LUTSENKO 
PREDECESSOR TO CLOSE A CASE 
BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONNECTION
BETWEEN BURISMA AND FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON.
HE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD NEVER 
RECEIVED $4.4 MILLION IN U.S. 
FUNDS.
FINALLY MR. LUTSENKO CLAIMED 
THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAD 
GIVEN HIM A DO NOT PROSECUTE 
LIST CONTAINING THE NAMES OF HER
ALLIES, AN ALLEGATION THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT CALL ADD FABRICATION 
AND MR. LUTSENKO LATER 
REATTRACTED.
MR. LUTSENKO SAID THAT AS A 
RESULT OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD 
FACE SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE 
UNITED STATES.
PUBLIC OPINION POLLS INDICATED 
THAT UKRAINIANS DID NOT BELIEVE 
MR. LUTSENKO ALLEGATIONS AND ON 
MARCH 22nd, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED
A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.
FOLLOWING MR. LUTSENKO' 
ALLEGATIONS.
MR. GIULIANI AND OTHERS MADE A 
NUMBER OF POLITICAL STATEMENTS 
CRITICAL OF AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH, QUESTIONING HER 
INTEGRITY.
MR. GIULIANI WAS ALSO MAKING 
FREQUENT PUBLIC STATEMENTS 
PUSHING FOR UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 ELECTION AND ISSUES RELATED
TO BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON MAY 1st, 2019, 
THE "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED 
THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD DISCUSSED 
THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION AND 
ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE BIDENS
WITH THE OUSTED UKRAINIAN 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND THE 
CURRENT PROSECUTOR.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT 
MR. GIULIANI SAID HE PLANNED TO 
TRAVEL TO UKRAINE TO PURSUE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND INTO 
THE INVOLVEMENT OF FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT'S SON IN A UKRAINIAN 
GAS COMPANY.
OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, 
MR. GIULIANI ISSUED A SERIES OF 
TWEETS ASKING WHY BIDEN 
SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED 
ATTACKING THE NEW PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE ZELENSKY FOR BEING 
SILENT ON THE 2016 ELECTION AND 
BIDEN INVESTIGATIONS AND 
THIS TIME THE ELECTION WAS 
APPROACHING AND VOLODYMYR 
ZELENSKY WHO HAD PLAYED A 
PRESIDENT ON TELEVISION WAS 
SURGING IN THE POLLS AHEAD OF 
MR. LUTSENKO' ELECTRICAL ALLY.
I WAS PRESIDENT FOR AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH'S FINAL MEETING WITH
THEN CANDIDATE ZELENSKY.
AS IN HER TWO PRIOR MEETINGS 
THAT ATTENDED, THEY HAD A 
PLEASANT CONVERSATION AND 
SIGNALED THEIR MUTUAL DESIRE TO 
WORK TOGETHER.
HOWEVER, THE NEGATIVE NARRATIVES
ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAD
GAINED CURRENCY IN CERTAIN 
SEGMENTS.
ON APRIL 26th.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DEPARTED 
FOR WASHINGTON, D.C., WHERE SHE 
LEARNED THAT SHE WOULD BE 
RECALLED EARLY.
THE ALLEGATIONS DIRECTED AT 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, A CAREER
AMBASSADOR, IS UNLIKE ANYTHING I
HAVE SEEN IN MY PROFESSIONAL 
CAREER.
FOLLOWING PRESIDENT ELECT 
ZELENSKY'S VICTORY, OUR 
ATTENTION IN THE EMBASSY FOCUSED
ON GETTING TO KNOW THE INCOMING 
ADMINISTRATION AND ON 
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 
INAUGURATION SCHEDULED FOR MAY 
20th, THE SAME DAY THAT 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DEPARTED 
POST PERMANENTLY.
IT QUICKLY BECAME CLEAR THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS NOT PREPARED TO 
SHOW THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR 
THE ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION THAT
WE HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED.
IN EARLY MAY, MR. GIULIANI 
ALLEGED THAT MR. ZELENSKY WAS, 
QUOTE, SURROUNDED BY ENEMIES OF 
THE U.S. PRESIDENT AND CANCELED 
A VISIT TO UKRAINE.
SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE LEARNED 
THAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE NO 
LONGER PLANNED TO LED THE 
PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION TO THE 
INAUGURATION.
THE WHITE HOUSE WHITTLED DOWN A 
PROPOSED LIST FOR THE OFFICIAL 
DELEGATION FROM OVER A DOZEN 
INDIVIDUALS TO JUST FIVE.
SECRETARY PERRY, SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE 
NEGOTIATIONS KURT VOLKER, 
REPRESENTING THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL DIRECTOR ALEX VINDMAN, 
JOSEPH PENNINGTON REPRESENTING 
THE EMBASSY AND GORDON SONDLAND.
WHILE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
MANDATE AS THE ACCREDITED 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
DID NOT COVER INDIVIDUAL MEMBER 
STATES, LET ALONE NONMEMBER 
COUNTRIES LIKE UKRAINE, HE MADE 
CLEAR THAT HE HAD DIRECT AND 
FREQUENT ACCESS TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY AND PORTRAYED HIMSELF 
AS THE CONDUIT TO THE PRESIDENT 
AND MR. MULVANEY FOR THIS GROUP.
SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
STYLED THEMSELVES THE THREE 
AMIGOS AND MADE CLEAR THEY WOULD
TAKE THE LEAD ON COORDINATING 
OUR POLICY AND ENGAGEMENT WITH 
THE ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION.
AROUND THE SAME TIME, I BECAME 
AWARE THAT MR. GIULIANI, A 
PRIVATE LAWYER WAS TAKING A 
DIRECT ROLE IN UKRAINIAN 
DIPLOMACY.
ON APRIL 25th, MR. ZELENSKY'S 
CHILDHOOD FRIEND AND WAS 
APPOINTED THE HEAD OF THE 
SECURITY SERVICES OF UKRAINE 
INDICATED TO ME PRIVATELY THAT 
HE HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY SOMEONE
NAMED GIULIANI WHO SAID HE WAS 
AN ADVISER TO THE VICE 
PRESIDENT.
I REPORTED THE MESSAGE TO GEORGE
KENT.
OVER THE FOLLOWING MONTHS IT 
BECAME APPARENT THAT 
MR. GIULIANI WAS HAVING A DIRECT
INFLUENCE ON THE FOREIGN POLICY 
AGENDA THAT THE THREE AMIGOS 
WERE EXECUTING ON THE GROUND IN 
UKRAINE.
IN FACT AT ONE POINT, DURING A 
PRELIMINARY MEETING OF THE 
INAUGURAL DELEGATION, SOMEONE 
WONDERED WHY MR. GIULIANI WAS SO
ACTIVE IN THE MEETING.
MY REACTION WAS THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND STATED, EVERY TIME RUDY
GETS INVOLVED HE GOES AND "F"s 
EVERYTHING UP.
THE INAUGURATION TOOK PLACE AND 
I TOOK NOTES.
DURING THE MEETING, THERE WAS A 
LIST DESCRIBED AS PEOPLE THAT HE
TRUSTS.
HE SAID HE COULD SEEK ADVICE FOR
THE PEOPLE ON THIS LIST WHICH 
WAS THE TOPIC OF SUBSEQUENT 
MEETINGS SECRETARY PERRY AND KEY
UKRAINIAN ENERGY SECTOR 
CONTACTS, EMBASSY PERSONNEL WERE
EXCLUDED FROM SOME OF THESE 
MEETINGS.
ON MAY 23rd, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, SECRETARY 
PERRY AND SENATOR RON JOHNSON 
WHO HAD ALSO ATTENDED THE 
INAUGURATION RETURNED TO THE 
UNITED STATES AND BRIEFED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ON MAY 29th, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SIGNED A LETTER TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WHICH INCLUDED AN 
INVITATION TO VISIT THE WHITE 
HOUSE AT AN UNSPECIFIED DATE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT A WHITE HOUSE VISIT WAS 
CRITICAL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO 
SHOW U.S. SUPPORT AT THE HIGHEST
LEVELS IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE 
TO RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN THAT 
HE HAD U.S. BACKING AS WELL AS 
TO ADVANCE HIS ANTI-CORRUPTION 
REFORM AGENDA AT HOME.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TEAM BEGAN 
PRESSING TO SET A DATE FOR THAT 
VISIT.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SENIOR 
MEMBERS OF HIS TEAM MADE CLEAR 
THAT THEY WANTED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S FIRST OVERSEAS TRIP 
TO BE TO WASHINGTON TO SEND A 
STRONG SIGNAL OF AMERICAN 
SUPPORT AND REQUESTED A CALL 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AS SOON AS 
POSSIBLE.
WE AT THE EMBASSY ALSO BELIEVED 
THAT A MEETING WAS CRITICAL TO 
THE SUCCESS OF PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S ADMINISTRATION AND 
ITS REFORM AGENDA AND WE WORKED 
HARD TO GET IT ARRANGED.
WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TEAM 
DID NOT RECEIVE A CONFIRMED DATE
FOR A WHITE HOUSE VISIT, THEY 
MADE ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S FIRST 
OVERSEAS TRIP TO BE TO BRUSSELS 
INSTEAD.
IN PART TO ATTEND AN AMERICAN 
INDEPENDENCE DAY EVENT THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HOSTED ON 
JUNE 4th.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HOSTED A 
DINNER IN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
HONOR FOLLOWING THE RECEPTION 
WHICH INCLUDED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, JARED KUSHNER, SENIOR 
EUROPEAN UNION OFFICIALS AND JAY
LENO.
AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR ARRIVED 
ON JUNE 17th.
FOR THE NEXT MONTH, THE FOCUS OF
OUR ACTIVITIES WAS TO COORDINATE
A WHITE HOUSE VISIT.
TO THAT END, WE WERE WORKING 
WITH UKRAINIANS TO DELIVER 
THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT PRESIDENT
TRUMP MIGHT CARE ABOUT SUCH AS 
COMMERCIAL DEALS THAT WOULD 
BENEFIT THE UNITED STATES WHICH 
MIGHT CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TO AGREE TO A MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE UKRAINIAN POLICY COMMUNITY 
WAS UNANIMOUS IN RECOGNIZING THE
IMPORTANCE OF SECURING THE 
MEETING AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
SUPPORT.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REPORTED THAT 
SECRETARY POMPEO TOLD HIM PRIOR 
TO HIS ARRIVAL IN KYIV, QUOTE, 
WE NEED TO WORK ON TURNING THE 
PRESIDENT AROUND ON UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TOLD US THE 
FIRST -- THAT THE NEXT FIVE 
YEARS COULD HANG ON WHAT COULD 
BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NEXT 
THREE MONTHS.
I TOOK THAT TO MEAN IF WE DID 
NOT EARN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
SUPPORT, WE COULD LOSE PROGRESS 
DURING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
FIVE-YEAR TERM.
WITHIN A WEEK OR TWO, IT BECAME 
APPARENT THAT THE ENERGY SECTOR 
REFORMS, THE COMMERCIAL DEALS, 
AND THE ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS 
ON WHICH WE WERE MAKING PROGRESS
WERE NOT MAKING A DENT IN TERMS 
OF PERSUADING THE WHITE HOUSE TO
SCHEDULE A MEETING.
ON JUNE 27th.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN A PHONE 
CONVERSATION, THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WAS NOT STANDING IN THE
WAY OF, QUOTE, INVESTIGATIONS.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS MEANT THE
BIDEN/BURISMA INVESTIGATIONS.
WHILE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DID NOT 
BRIEF ME ON EVERY DETAIL OF HIS 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE THREE 
AMIGOS, HE DID TELL ME THAT ON A
JUNE 28th CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND 
THE THREE AMIGOS, IT WAS MADE 
CLEAR THAT SOME ACTION ON 
BURISMA/BIDEN INVESTIGATION WAS 
A PRECONDITION FOR AN OVAL 
OFFICE VISIT.
ALSO ON JUNE 28th WHILE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL NOT 
MOVING FORWARD ON A MEETING WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WE MET 
WITH -- HE MET WITH RUSSIAN 
PRESIDENT PUTIN AT THE G-20 
SUMMIT IN JAPAN SENDING A 
FURTHER SIGNAL OF LACK OF 
SUPPORT TO UKRAINE.
WE BECAME CONCERNED THAT EVEN IF
A MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENTS 
TRUMP AND ZELENSKY COULD OCCUR, 
IT WOULD NOT GO WELL AND I 
DISCUSSED WITH EMBASSY 
COLLEAGUES WHETHER WE SHOULD 
STOP SEEKING A MEETING ALL 
TOGETHER.
WHILE A WHITE HOUSE VISIT WAS 
CRITICAL TO THE ZELENSKY 
ADMINISTRATION, A VISIT THAT 
FAILED TO SEND A CLEAR AND 
STRONG SIGNAL OF SUPPORT LIKELY 
WOULD BE WORSE FOR PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY THAN NO VISIT AT ALL.
CONGRESS HAD APPROPRIATED 
$1.5 BILLION IN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE SINCE 
2014.
THIS ASSISTANCE HAS PROVIDED 
CRUCIAL MATERIAL AND MORAL 
SUPPORT TO UKRAINE IN ITS 
DEFENSIVE WAR WITH RUSSIA.
IT HAS HELPED UKRAINE BUILD ITS 
ARMED FORCES VIRTUALLY FROM 
SCRATCH INTO ARGUABLY THE MOST 
CAPABLE LAND FORCE IN EUROPE.
I'VE HAD THE HONOR OF VISITING 
THE MAIN TRAINING FACILITY IN 
WESTERN UKRAINE WITH MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS AND MEMBERS OF THIS 
VERY COMMITTEE WHERE WE 
WITNESSED FIRSTHAND U.S. 
NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALONG WITH
ALLIES CONDUCTING TRAINING FOR 
UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS.
SINCE 2014 NATIONAL GUARD UNITS 
FROM CALIFORNIA, OKLAHOMA, NEW 
YORK, TENNESSEE AND WISCONSIN 
HAVE TRAINED SHOULDER TO 
SHOULDER WITH UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS.
GIVEN THE HISTORY OF U.S. 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
AND THE BIPARTISAN RECOGNITION 
OF ITS IMPORTANCE, I WAS SHOCKED
WHEN ON JULY 18th A ANNOUNCED 
THE HOLD ON UKRAINE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT CAME TOWARD THE
END OF A NEARLY TWO-HOUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SECURE
VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL WHICH I 
PARTICIPATED IN FROM THE EMBASSY
CONFERENCE ROOM.
THE OFFICIAL SAID THAT THE ORDER
HAD COME FROM THE PRESIDENT, AND
HAD BEEN CONVEYED TO OMB BY MR. 
MULVANEY, WITH NO FURTHER 
EXPLANATION.
THIS BEGAN A WEEK OR SO OF 
EFFORTS BY VARIOUS AGENCIES TO 
IDENTIFY THE RATIONAL FOR THE 
FREEZE, TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF 
THE ASSISTANCE, AND TO REAFFIRM 
THE UNANIMOUS VIEW OF UKRAINE 
POLICY COMMUNITY OF ITS 
IMPORTANCE.
NSC COUNTERPARTS CONFIRMED TO US
THERE HAD BEEN NO CHANGE IN OUR 
UKRAINIAN POLICY, BUT COULD NOT 
DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE HOLD 
OR HOW TO LIFT IT.
ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
MADE A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AFTER HIS
PARTY WON A COMMANDING MAJORITY 
IN UKRAINE'S PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTION.
CONTRARY TO STANDARD PROCEDURE, 
THE EMBASSY RECEIVED NO READOUT 
OF THAT CALL AND I WAS UNAWARE 
OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED UNTIL THE 
TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED ON THE 
25th.
UPON READING THE TRANSCRIPT, I 
WAS DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE 
THE PRESIDENT RAISED NONE OF 
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD TO BE OUR 
INTERAGENCY AGREED UPON FOREIGN 
POLICY PRIORITIES IN UKRAINE, 
AND INSTEAD RAISED THE BIDEN 
BURISMA INVESTIGATION AND 
REFERRED TO THE THEORY ABOUT 
CROWDSTRIKE AND ITS SUPPOSED 
CONNECTION TO UKRAINE IN THE 
2016 ELECTION.
THE NEXT DAY, JULY 26th, 2019, I
ATTENDED MEETINGS THE 
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION 
BUILDING IN KYIV WITH AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND I TOOK 
NOTES DURING THOSE MEETINGS.
OUR FIRST MEETING WAS WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S CHIEF OF 
STAFF, IT WAS BRIEF, AS HE HAD 
ALREADY BEEN SUMMONED BY 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO PREPARE 
FOR A BROADER MEETING.
BUT HE SAID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE 
DECISIONS RELATED TO THE GENERAL
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.
THE DELEGATION THEN MET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SEVERAL 
OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS.
DURING THE MEETING, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY STATED THAT DURING THE 
JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAD, QUOTE, THREE TIMES RAISED 
SOME VERY SENSITIVE ISSUES, AND 
THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW UP,
HE, ZELENSKY, WOULD HAVE TO 
FOLLOW UP ON THE ISSUES WHEN HE 
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP MET IN 
PERSON.
NOT HAVING RECEIVED A READOUT OF
THE JULY 25th CALL, I DID NOT 
KNOW AT THE TIME WHAT THOSE 
SENSITIVE ISSUES WERE.
AFTER THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR QUICKLY LEFT 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION 
BUILDING FOR A TRIP TO THE FRONT
LINES.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO WAS TO 
FLY OUT THAT AFTERNOON, STAYED 
BEHIND TO HAVE A MEETING WITH 
ANDRIY YERMAK.
AS I WAS LEAVING THE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, I WAS 
TOLD TO JOIN THE MEETING WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MR. 
YERMAK TO TAKE NOTES.
I HAD NOT EXPECTED TO JOIN THAT 
MEETING AND WAS A FLIGHT OF 
STAIRS BEHIND MR. SONDLAND AS HE
REACHED MR. YERMAK.
WHEN HE REACHED MR. YERMAK'S 
OFFICE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD 
ALREADY GONE INTO THE MEETING, I
EXPRESSED TO MR. YERMAK'S 
ASSISTANT I WAS TO JOIN THE 
MEETING AS THE EMBASSY'S 
REPRESENTATIVE AND STRONGLY 
URGED HER TO LET ME IN, BUT SHE 
TOLD ME AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
MR. YERMAK INSISTED THE MEETING 
BE ONE ON ONE WITH NO NOTE 
TAKER.
I THEN WAITED IN THE ANTE ROOM 
UNTIL THE MEETING ENDED WITH A 
MEMBER OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
STAFF AND A MEMBER OF THE KYIV 
STAFF.
WHEN THE MEETING ENDED, THE TWO 
STAFFS AND I ACCOMPANIED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OUT OF THE 
BUILDING, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAID HE WANTED TO GO TO LUNCH 
AND I TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO JOIN HIM AND 
THE TWO STAFFERS FOR LUNCH IF HE
WANTED TO BRIEF ME OUT ON HIS 
MEETING WITH MR. YERMAK OR 
DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID I 
SHOULD JOIN.
THE FOUR OF US WENT TO A NEARBY 
RESTAURANT AND SAT ON AN OUTDOOR
TERRACE.
I SAT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
THE TWO STAFFERS SAT OFF TO OUR 
SIDES.
AT FIRST THE LUNCH WAS LARGELY 
SOCIAL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SELECTED A BOTTLE OF WINE HE 
SHARED AMONG THE FOUR OF US AND 
WE DISCUSSED TOPICS SUCH AS 
MARKETING STRATEGIES FOR HIS 
HOTEL BUSINESS.
DURING THE LUNCH, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID HE WAS GOING TO 
CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP TO GIVE HIM
AN UPDATE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PLACED A 
CALL ON HIS MOBILE PHONE, I 
HEARD HIM ANNOUNCE HIMSELF 
SEVERAL TIMES ALONG THE LINES OF
GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
IT APPEARED THAT HE WAS BEING 
TRANSFERRED THROUGH SEVERAL 
LAYERS OF SWITCH BOARDS AND 
ASSISTANTS, AND I THEN NOTICED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S DEMEANOR 
CHANGED, AND I UNDERSTOOD HE HAD
BEEN CONNECTED TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
WHILE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
PHONE WAS NOT ON SPEAKERPHONE, I
COULD HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE
THROUGH THE EAR PIECE OF THE 
PHONE.
THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE WAS LOUD 
AND RECOGNIZABLE.
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HELD THE
PHONE AWAY FROM HIS EAR FOR A 
PERIOD OF TIME, PRESUMABLY 
BECAUSE OF THE LOUD VOLUME.
I HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
GREET THE PRESIDENT AND EXPLAIN 
HE WAS CALLING FROM KYIV, I 
HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN 
CLARIFY THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
WAS IN UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED, 
YES, HE WAS IN UKRAINE AND WENT 
EN TO STATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
QUOTE, LOVES YOUR ASS.
I THEN HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK
SO HE'S GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION.
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED 
HE'S GOING TO DO IT.
ADDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WILL DO ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO 
DO.
EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT TAKE NOTES
OF THE STATEMENTS, I HAD A CLEAR
RECOLLECTION OF THESE STATEMENTS
WERE MADE.
I BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUES WERE 
SITTING AT THE TABLE ALSO KNEW 
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS 
SPEAKING WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THE CONVERSATION THEN SHIFTED TO
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S EFFORTS ON
BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT TO 
ASSIST A RAPPER JAILED IN SWEDEN
AND I CAN ONLY HEAR AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S SIDE OF THE 
CONVERSATION.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT THAT THE RAPPER WAS, 
QUOTE, KIND OF F'd THERE AND 
SHOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY.
HE RECOMMENDED THE PRESIDENT, 
QUOTE, WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE 
SENTENCING OR ONLY MAKE IT 
WORSE, AND HE ADDED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD LET HIM GET 
SENTENCED, PLAY THE RACISM CARD,
GIVE HIM A TICKER-TAPE WHEN HE 
COMES HOME.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FURTHER TOLD
THE PRESIDENT THAT SWEDEN, 
QUOTE, SHOULD HAVE RELEASED HIM 
EN YOUR WORD, BUT YOU CAN TELL 
THE KARDASHIANS YOU TRIED.
AFTER THE CALL ENDED, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND REMARKED THE PRESIDENT 
WAS IN A BAD MOOD, AS AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND STATED WAS OFTEN THE 
CASE EARLY IN THE MORNING.
I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK 
HIM FOR HIS CANDID IMPRESSION OF
THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON 
UKRAINE.
IN PARTICULAR, I ASKED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IF IT WAS 
TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT 
GIVE AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AGREED THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT GIVE AN 
EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE.
I ASKED WHY NOT.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED THE 
PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG 
STUFF.
I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF 
GOING ON IN UKRAINE, LIKE A WAR 
WITH RUSSIA.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED HE 
MEANT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS 
THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION, THAT MR. GIULIANI
WAS PUSHING.
THE CONVERSATION THEN MOVED ON 
TO OTHER TOPICS.
UPON RETURNING TO THE EMBASSY, I
IMMEDIATELY BRIEFED MY DIRECT 
SUPERVISOR, THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF 
MISSION, ABOUT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND MY CONVERSATION WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
I TOLD OTHERS AT THE EMBASSY 
ABOUT THE CALL AS WELL.
I ALSO EMAILED AN EMBASSY 
OFFICIAL IN SWEDEN REGARDING THE
ISSUE WITH U.S. RAPPER DISCUSSED
ON THE CALL.
JULY 26th WAS MY LAST DAY IN THE
OFFICE AHEAD OF A LONG PLANNED 
VACATION THAT ENDED ON AUGUST 
6th.
AFTER RETURNING TO THE EMBASSY, 
I TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT 
THE JULY 26th CALL.
I ALSO REPEATEDLY FERV LY
I ALSO REPEATEDLY FERV REFERRED 
THE CALL IN MEETINGS AND 
CONVERSATIONS WHERE THE ISSUE OF
THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST IN 
UKRAINE WAS POTENTIALLY 
RELEVANT.
AT THAT TIME, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S STATEMENT TO THE 
PRESIDENT, STATEMENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S LACK OF INTEREST IN 
UKRAINE WAS OF PARTICULAR FOCUS.
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IN ORDER TO 
SECURE A MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK 
HARD TO FIND A WAY TO EXPLAIN 
UKRAINE'S IMPORTANCE TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN TERMS HE 
FOUND COMPELLING.
OVER THE ENSUING WEEKS, WE 
CONTINUED TO TRY TO IDENTIFY 
WAYS TO FRAME THE IMPORTANCE OF 
UKRAINE IN WAYS THAT WOULD 
APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT.
TO DETERMINE HOW TO LIFT THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND 
TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE 
SCHEDULING OF A WHITE HOUSE 
VISIT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY, 
AUGUST 24th, PRESENTED ANOTHER 
GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW SUPPORT
FOR UKRAINE.
SECRETARY POMPEO HAD CONSIDERED 
ATTENDING, AS NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER BOLTON HAD ATTENDED IN 
2018 AND DEFENSE SECRETARY 
MATTIS IN 2017.
NOBODY SENIOR TO AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER ATTENDED.
SHORTLY THERE AFTER ON AUGUST 
27th, AMBASSADOR BOLTON VISITED 
UKRAINE AND BROUGHT WELCOME NEWS
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD AGREED 
TO MEET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON 
SEPTEMBER 1st IN WARSAW.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON FURTHER 
INDICATED THAT THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WOULD NOT BE
LIFTED PRIOR TO THE WARSAW 
MEETING, WHERE IT WOULD HANG ON 
WHETHER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS 
ABLE TO, QUOTE, FAVORABLY 
IMPRESS PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I TOOK NOTES AND AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON'S MEETINGS THAT DAY WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS CHIEF
OF STAFF.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD THE CHIEF
OF STAFF THAT THE MEETING WOULD 
BE CRUCIAL TO CEMENTING THEIR 
RELATIONSHIP.
HOWEVER, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ULTIMATELY PULLED OUT OF THE 
WARSAW TRIP AND THE HOLD 
REMAINED IN PLACE WITH NO CLEAR 
MEANS TO GET IT LIFTED.
BETWEEN THE MEETINGS ON AUGUST 
27th, I HEARD AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
EXPRESS TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND
NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR 
MORRISON HIS FRUSTRATION, MAKING
CLEAR THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD
DO ABOUT IT.
HE RECOMMENDED THAT MR. 
LUTSENKO'S REPLACEMENT.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED 
FRUSTRATION ABOUT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S EXPANSIVE 
INTERPRETATION ABOUT HIS 
MANDATE.
AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP CANCELED 
HIS VISIT TO WARSAW, WE FINNED 
TO TRY TO APPEAL TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND FOREIGN POLICY AND
NATIONAL SECURITY TERMS.
TO THAT END, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
TOLD ME THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
RECOMMENDED THAT HE AND 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SEND A FIRST 
PERSON CABLE TO SECRETARY 
POMPEO, ARTICULATING THE 
IMPORTANCE OF THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE.
AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S 
DIRECTION, I DRAFTED AND 
TRANSMATED THE CABLE ON 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S BEHALF ON 
AUGUST 29th, WHICH FURTHER 
ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THE 
IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE AND THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO U.S. 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
BY THIS POINT, HOWEVER, MY CLEAR
IMPRESSION WAS THAT THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS LIKELY 
INTENDED BY THE PRESIDENT EITHER
AS AN EXPRESSION OF 
DISSATISFACTION WITH THE 
UKRAINIANS, WHO HAD NOT YET 
AGREED TO THE BURISMA BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION, OR AS AN EFFORT 
TO INCREASE THE PRESSURE ON THEM
TO DO SO.
 ON SEPTEMBER 5th, I TOOK NOTES 
AT SENATOR JOHNSON AND SENATOR 
CHRIS MURPHY'S MEETINGS WHERE 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED ABOUT 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
ALTHOUGH BOTH SENATORS STRESSED 
STRONG BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, SENATOR 
JOHNSON CAUTIONED PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS A NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE 
AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WOULD HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME 
OVERCOMING IT.
SENATOR JOHNSON FURTHER 
EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD BEEN, 
QUOTE, SHOCKED BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S NEGATIVE REACTION DURING
AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON MAY 
23rd WHEN HE AND THE THREE 
AMIGOS PROPOSED THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP MEET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
AND SHOW SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.
 ON SEPTEMBER 8th, AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR TOLD ME, QUOTE, NOW 
THEY'RE INSISTING ZELENSKY 
COMMIT TO THE INVESTIGATION IN 
AN INTERVIEW WITH CNN, WHICH I 
TOOK TO REFER TO THE THREE 
AMIGOS.
I WAS SHOCKED THE REQUIREMENT 
WAS SO SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE, 
WHILE WE HAD ADVISED OUR 
UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS TO VOICE 
A COMMITMENT TO FOLLOWING THE 
RULE OF LAW AND GENERALLY 
INVESTIGATING CREDIBLE 
CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS, THIS WAS
A DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
PERSONALLY COMMIT ON A CABLE 
NEWS CHANNEL TO A SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL.
ON SEPTEMBER 11th, THE HOLD WAS 
FINALLY LIFTED, AFTER 
SIGNIFICANT PRESS COVERAGE AND 
BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL 
EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN ABOUT THE
WITHHOLDING OF SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE.
ALTHOUGH WE KNEW THE HOLD WAS 
LIFTED, WE WERE STILL CONCERNED 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD 
COMMITTED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE 
LIFTING TO GIVE THE REQUEST TO 
CNN INTERVIEW.
WE HAD SEVERAL INDICATIONS THAT 
THE INTERVIEW WOULD OCCUR.
FIRST, THE CONFERENCE IN KYIV 
WAS HELD FROM SEPTEMBER 12th TO 
14th AND FAREED ZAKARIA WAS ONE 
OF THE MONITORS.
SECOND, EN SEPTEMBER 13th, A 
COLLEAGUE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL,
FROM ANOTHER COLLEAGUE, WHO 
WORKED FOR AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
MY COLLEAGUE TEXTED ME REGARDING
THAT CALL THAT, QUOTE, SONDLAND 
AND ZELENSKY INTERVIEW -- 
SONDLAND SAID THE ZELENSKY 
INTERVIEW IS SUPPOSED TO BE 
TODAY OR MONDAY, AND THEY PLAN 
TO ANNOUNCE AN CERTAIN 
INVESTIGATION ON HOLD WOULD 
PROGRESS.
SONDLAND'S AID DID NOT KNOW IF 
THIS WAS DECIDED OR IF HE WAS 
ADVOCATING FOR IT.
APPARENTLY HE HE'S BEEN 
DISCUSSING THIS WITH YERMAK.
ON 13th, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I
RAN INTO MR. YERMAK.
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STRESSED THE 
IMPORTANCE OF STAYING OUT OF 
U.S. POLITICS AND SAID HE HOPED 
NO INTERVIEW WAS PLANNED.
MR. YERMAK DID NOT ANSWER, BUT 
SHRUGGED IN RESIGNATION AS IF TO
INDICATE THAT HE HAD NO CHOICE.
IN SHORT, EVERYBODY THOUGHT 
THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN 
INTERVIEW AND THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS BELIEVED THEY HAD TO 
DO IT.
THE INTERVIEW ULTIMATELY DID NOT
OCCUR.
 ON SEPTEMBER 21st, AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR AND I COLLABORATED ON 
INPUT HE SENT TO MR. MORRISON TO
BRIEF PRESIDENT TRUMP AHEAD OF A
SEPTEMBER 25th MEETING, THAT HAD
BEEN SCHEDULED WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN NEW YORK ON THE 
MARGINS OF THE U.N. GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL
WAS RELEASED THE SAME DAY.
AS OF TODAY I STILL NOT SEEN A 
READOUT OF THE 25th MEETING.
AS THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS 
PROGRESSED, I HAVE FOLLOWED 
PRESS REPORTS AND REVIEWED THE 
STATEMENTS OF AMBASSADORS TAYLOR
AND YOVANOVITCH.
BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES IN 
UKRAINE, MY ELECTION IS 
GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THEIR 
TESTIMONY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE RELEVANT 
FACTS WERE THEREFORE BEING LAID 
OUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
HOWEVER, IN THE LAST COUPLE 
WEEKS I READ PRESS REPORTS 
EXPRESSING FOR FIRST TIME THAT 
CERTAIN SENIOR OFFICIALS MAY 
HAVE BEEN ACTING WITHOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S KNOWLEDGE OR 
FREELANCING IN THEIR DEALINGS 
WITH UKRAINE.
AT THE SAME TIME I ALSO READ 
REPORTS NOTING THE LACK OF 
FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE IN THE 
INVESTIGATION AND SUGGESTING 
THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEING 
ILLICITED AT HEARINGS WAS 
HEARSAY.
I CAME TO REALIZE THAT I HAD 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE REGARDING 
CERTAIN EVENTS ON JULY 26th THAT
HAD NOT OTHERWISE BEEN REPORTED.
AND THAT THOSE EVENTS 
POTENTIALLY BORE ON THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT DID IN 
FACT HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT THOSE 
SENIOR OFFICIALS WERE USING 
LEVERS OF DIPLOMATIC POWER TO 
INFLUENCE THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE THE 
OPENING OF A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.
 IT IS AT THAT POINT THAT I MADE
THE OBSERVATION TO AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR THAT THE INCIDENT I HAD 
WITNESSED ON JULY 26th HAD 
ACQUIRED GREATER SIGNIFICANCE, 
WHICH IS WHAT HE REPORTED IN HIS
TESTIMONY LAST WEEK AND IS WHAT 
LED TO THE SUBPOENA FOR ME 
APPEAR HERE TODAY.
IN CONCLUSION, I'D LIKE TO TAKE 
A MOMENT TO TURN BACK TO 
UKRAINE.
TODAY, THIS VERY DAY, MARKS 
EXACTLY SIX YEARS SINCE THRONGS 
OF PRO WESTERN UKRAINIANS 
SPONTANEOUSLY GATHERED ON KYIV'S
INDEPENDENCE SQUARE TO LAUNCH 
THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY.
WHILE THE PROTESTS BEGAN IN 
OPPOSITION TO A TURN TOWARDS 
RUSSIA AND AWAY FROM THE WEST, 
THEY EXPANDED OVER THREE MONTHS 
TO REJECT THE ENTIRE CORRUPT 
REPRESSIVE SYSTEM THAT HAD BEEN 
SUSTAINED BY RUSSIAN INFLUENCE 
IN THE COUNTRY.
THOSE EVENTS WERE FOLLOWED BY 
RUSSIA'S OCCUPATION AND ENSUING 
WAR THAT TO DATE HAS CAUSED 
ALMOST 14,000 LIVES.
DESPITE THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION 
OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, 
UKRAIIANS BUILT A SHATTERED 
ECONOMY, ADHERED TO A PEACE 
PROCESS AND MOVED CLOSER TO THE 
WEST, TOWARD OUR WAY OF LIFE.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, LARGE 
MAJORITIES OF UKRAINIANS AGAIN 
CHOSE A FRESH START BY VOTING 
FOR A POLITICAL NEWCOMER AS 
PRESIDENT.
REPLACING 80% OF THE PARLIAMENT,
AND ENDORSING A PLATFORM 
CONSISTENT WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC 
VALUES, OUR REFORM PRIORITIES 
AND OUR STRATEGIC INTERESTS.
THIS YEAR'S REVOLUTION AT THE 
BALLOT BOX UNDERSCORES THAT 
DESPITE ITS IMPERFECTIONS, 
UKRAINE IS A GENUINE AND VIBRANT
DEMOCRACY AND AN EXAMPLE TO 
OTHER POST SOVIET COUNTRIES AND 
BEYOND FROM MOSCOW TO HONG KONG.
HOW WE RESPOND TO THIS HISTORIC 
OPPORTUNITY WILL SET THE 
TRAJECTORY OF OUR RELATIONSHIP 
WITH UKRAINE AND WILL DEFINE OUR
WILLINGNESS TO DEFEND OUR 
BEDROCK INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES
AND LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THE 
WORLD.
UKRAINIANS WANT TO HEAR A CLEAR 
AND UNAMBIGUOUS REAFFIRMATION 
THAT OUR LONG-STANDING 
BIPARTISAN POLICY OF STRONG 
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE REMAINS 
UNCHANGED, AND THAT WE FULLY 
BACK IT AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO RE-CREATE
FROM OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH 
UKRAINE.
BUT RATHER TO DOUBLE DOWN ON IT.
AS WE SIT HERE, AS WE SIT HERE 
TODAY, UKRAINIANS ARE FIGHTING A
HOT WAR ON UKRAINIAN TERRITORY 
AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
THIS WEEK ALONE SINCE I HAVE 
BEEN HERE IN WASHINGTON, TWO 
UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS WERE KILLED 
AND TWO INJURED BY RUSSIAN LED 
FORCES IN EASTERN UKRAINE 
DESPITE A DECLARED CEASE-FIRE.
I LEARNED OVERNIGHT THAT SEVEN 
MORE WERE INJURED YESTERDAY.
AS VICE PRESIDENT PENCE SAID 
AFTER HIS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, THE 
U.S.-UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP HAS 
NEVER BEEN STRONGER.
UKRAINIANS CHERISH THEIR 
BIPARTISAN AMERICAN SUPPORT AND 
SUSTAINED THEIR EURO ATLANTIC 
ASPIRATIONS AND RECOIL AT THE 
THOUGHT OF PLAYING A ROLE IN 
U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS OR 
ELECTIONS.
AT A TIME OF SHIFTING 
ALLEGIANCES AND RISING 
COMPETITORS IN THE WORLD, WE 
HAVE NO BETTER FRIENDS THAN 
UKRAINE.
A SCRAPPY, UNBOWED, DETERMINED 
AND ABOVE ALL DIGNIFIED PEOPLE 
WHO ARE STANDING UP AGAINST 
RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM AND 
AGGRESSION.
THEY DESERVE BETTER.
WE'RE NOW AT A POINT IN UKRAINE 
AND IT IS CRITICAL TO OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY THAT WE STAND 
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF OUR 
UKRAINIAN PARTNERS.
UKRAINIANS AND FREEDOM-LOVING 
PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ARE WATCHING 
THE EXAMPLE WE SET HERE OF 
DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. HOLMES.
DR. HILL. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
 DO I NEED TO ADJUST THE 
MICROPHONE?
>> IS THE MICROPHONE ON?
>> I BELIEVE IT IS NOW.
IS THAT -- 
>> YES, PERFECT.
>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES AND MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR 
INVITING ME TO TESTIFY BEFORE 
YOU TODAY.
I HAVE A SHORT OPENING 
STATEMENT.
I APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF 
CONGRESS' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
AND I'M APPEARING TODAY AS A 
FACT WITNESS.
AS I DID DURING MY DEPOSITION ON
OCTOBER 14th.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT 
WHAT I SAW, WHAT I DID, WHAT I 
KNEW, AND WHAT I KNOW WITH 
REGARD TO THE SUBJECT OF YOUR 
INQUIRY.
I BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE 
INFORMATION THAT THE CONGRESS 
DEEMS RELEVANT HAVE A LEGAL AND 
MORAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE IT.
I TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN THE FACT 
THAT I'M A NONPARTISAN FOREIGN 
POLICY EXPERT WHO SERVED UNDER 
THREE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENTS.
I HAVE NO INTEREST IN ADVANCING 
OUTCOME OF YOUR INQUIRY IN ANY 
PARTICULAR DIRECTION EXCEPT 
TOWARD THE TRUTH.
I WILL NOT PROVIDE A LONG 
STATEMENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE 
INTEREST OF CONGRESS AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IS BEST SERVED 
BY ALLOWING YOU TO ASK ME YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
AND I'M HAPPY TO EXPAND UPON MY 
OCTOBER 14th DEPOSITION 
TESTIMONY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR 
QUESTIONS TODAY.
BUT BEFORE I DO SO, I'D LIKE TO 
COMMUNICATE TWO THINGS.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO SHOW A LITTLE
BIT WHO I AM, I'M AN AMERICAN BY
CHOICE, AND I'VE BECOME A 
CITIZEN IN 2002.
I WAS BORN IN NORTHEAST OF 
ENGLAND AND THE SAME REGION THAT
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S ANCESTORS 
CAME FROM.
MY REGION AND MY FAMILY HAVE 
DEEP TIES TO THE UNITED STATES.
MY PATERNAL GRANDFATHER FOUGHT 
THROUGH WORLD WAR I IN THE ROYAL
FIELD ARTILLERY, SURVIVING BEING
SHOT, SHELLED AND GASSED BEFORE 
AMERICAN TROOPS INTERVENED TO 
END THE WAR IN 1918.
DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR, 
OTHER MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY 
FOUGHT TO DEFEND THE FREE WORLD 
FROM FASCISM ALONGSIDE AMERICAN 
SOLDIER, SAILERS AND AIRMEN.
THE MEN IN MY FATHER'S FAMILY 
WERE COAL MINERS WHOSE FAMILY 
ALWAYS STRUGGLED WITH POVERTY.
WHEN MY FATHER WAS 14, HE JOINED
HIS FATHER, BROTHERS, BROTHER, 
UNCLES AND COUSINS IN THE COAL 
MINE TO HELP PUT FOOD ON THE 
TABLE.
ON THE LAST OF THE LOCAL MINES 
CLOSED IN THE 1960s, MY FATHER 
WANTED TO EMIGRATE TO THE UNITED
STATES TO WORK IN THE COAL MINES
IN WEST VIRGINIA AND 
PENNSYLVANIA.
BUT HIS MOTHER, MY GRANDFATHER, 
WAS CRIPPLED FROM HARD LABOR AND
MY FATHER COULDN'T LEAVE.
SO HE STAYED IN NORTHERN ENGLAND
UNTIL HE DIED IN 2012.
MY MOTHER STILL LIVES IN MY 
HOMETOWN TODAY.
WHILE HIS DREAM OF EMIGRATING TO
AMERICA WAS THWARTED, MY FATHER 
LOVED AMERICA, ITS CULTURE, 
HISTORY, ITS ROLE AS A BEACON OF
HOPE FOR THE WORLD.
HE ALWAYS WANTED SOMEONE IN THE 
FAMILY TO MAKE IT TO THE UNITED 
STATES.
I BEGAN MY UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN
1984 WHEN I JUST LEARNED I WENT 
TO THE SAME UNIVERSITY AS MY 
COLLEAGUE HERE, MR. HOLMES.
JUST THOUGHT I WOULD ADD THAT.
AND IN 1987, I WON A PLACE ON AN
ACADEMIC EXCHANGE TO THE SOVIET 
UNION.
I WAS THERE FOR THE SIGNING OF 
THE INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCES 
TREATY AND WHEN PRESIDENT RONALD
REAGAN MET MIKAIL GORBACHEV IN 
MOSCOW THIS WAS A TURNING POINT 
FOR ME, AN AMERICAN PROFESSOR 
WHO I MET THERE TOLD ME ABOUT 
GRADUATE STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS TO
THE UNITED STATES AND THE VERY 
NEXT YEAR THANKS TO HIS ADVICE I
ARRIVED IN AMERICA TO START MY 
ADVANCED STUDIES AT HARVARD.
YEARS LATER, I CAN SAY WITH 
CONFIDENCE THAT THIS COUNTRY 
OFFERED ME OPPORTUNITIES I NEVER
WOULD HAVE HAD IN ENGLAND.
I GREW UP POOR, WITH A VERY 
DISTINCTIVE WORKING CLASS 
ACCENT.
IN ENGLAND, IN THE 1980s AND 
1990s THIS WOULD HAVE IMPEDED MY
PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT.
THIS BACKGROUND NEVER SET ME 
BACK IN AMERICA.
FOR BEST PART OF THREE DECADES 
I'VE BUILT A CAREER AS A 
NONPARTISAN, NONPOLITICAL 
NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONAL 
FOCUSES ON EUROPE AND IRASIA AND
THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.
I SERVED OUR COUNTRY UNDER THREE
PRESIDENTS AND MY MOST RECENT 
CAPACITY UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AS WELL AS IN MY FORMER POSITION
UNDER NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 
OFFICER FOR RUSSIA AND IRASIA 
AND PRESIDENTS GEORGE W. BUSH 
AND BARACK OBAMA.
AND THAT ROLE I WAS THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY SENIOR 
EXPERT ON RUSSIA AND THE FORMER 
SOVIET REPUBLICS INCLUDING 
UKRAINE.
IT WAS BECAUSE OF MY BACKGROUND 
AND EXPERIENCE THAT I WAS ASKED 
TO JOIN THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL IN 2017.
AT THE NSC, RUSSIA WAS PART OF 
MY PORTFOLIO, BUT I WAS ALSO 
RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING 
U.S. POLICY FOR ALL OF WESTERN 
EUROPE, ALL OF EASTERN EUROPE, 
INCLUDING UKRAINE, AND O AND THN
UNION.
I WAS HIRED BY GENERAL MICHAEL 
FLYNN, KATIE McFARLAND AND 
GENERAL KEITH KELLOGG BUT I 
STARTED WORKING APRIL 2017 WHEN 
GENERAL McMASTER WAS THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.
I AND THEY THOUGHT I COULD HELP 
THEM WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
STATED GOAL OF IMPROVING 
RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA, WHILE 
STILL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES 
DESIGNED TO DETER RUSSIAN 
CONDUCT THAT THREATENED THE 
UNITED STATES.
INCLUDING THE UNPRECEDENTED AND 
SUCCESSFUL RUSSIAN OPERATION TO 
INTERFERE IN THE 2016 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THIS RELATES TO THE SECOND THING
I WANT TO COMMUNICATE.
BASED ON QUESTIONS AND 
STATEMENTS I HAVE HEARD, SOME OF
YOU ON THIS COMMITTEE APPEAR TO 
BELIEVE THAT RUSSIA AND ITS 
SECURITY SERVICES DID NOT 
CONDUCT CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR 
COUNTRY AND THAT PERHAPS SOMEHOW
FOR SOME REASON UKRAINE DID.
THIS IS A FICTIONAL NARRATIVE 
THAT IS BEING PERPETRATED AND 
PROPAGATED BY THE RUSSIAN 
SECURITY SERVICES THEMSELVES.
THE UNFORTUNATE TRUTH IS THAT 
RUSSIA WAS THE FOREIGN POWER 
THAT SYSTEMATICALLY ATTACKED OUR
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN 2016.
THIS IS THE PUBLIC CONCLUSION OF
OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, 
CONFIRMED IN BIPARTISAN 
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS.
IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE.
EVEN IF SOME OF THE UNDERLYING 
DETAILS MUST REMAIN CLASSIFIED.
THE IMPACT OF THE SUCCESSFUL 
2016 RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN REMAINS 
EVIDENT TODAY.
OUR NATION IS BEING TORN APART, 
TRUTH IS QUESTIONED, OUR HIGHLY 
PROFESSIONAL EXPERT CAREER 
FOREIGN SERVICE IS BEING 
UNDERMINED.
U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, WHICH 
CONTINUES TO FACE AGGRESSION IS 
BEING POLITICIZED.
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S GOAL IS
TO WEAKEN OUR COUNTRY.
TO DIMINISH AMERICA'S GLOBAL 
ROLE AND TO NEUTRALIZE A 
PERCEIVED U.S. THREAT TO RUSSIAN
INTERESTS.
PRESIDENT PUTIN AND THE RUSSIAN 
SECURITY SERVICES AIM TO COUNTER
U.S. FOREIGN IN UKRAINE WHERE 
MOSCOW WISHES TO REASSERT 
POLITICAL DOMINANCE.
I SAY THIS AS A REALIST.
I DO NOT THINK LONG-TERM 
CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA IS 
DESIRABLE OR INEVITABLE.
I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT WE 
NEED TO SEEK WAYS OF STABILIZING
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH MOSCOW 
EVEN AS WE COUNTER THEIR EFFORTS
TO HARM US.
RIGHT NOW RUSSIA SECURITY 
SERVICE UNDER PROXIES HAVE 
GEARED UP TO REPEAT THEIR 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 
ELECTION.
WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME TO 
STOP THEM.
AND THE COURSE OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION, I ASK THAT YOU 
PLEASE NOT PROMOTE FALSEHOODS 
THAT CLEARLY ADVANCE RUSSIAN 
INTERESTS.
AS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS 
AGREE TOWARD DECADES, UKRAINE IS
A VALUED PARTNER OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND PLAYS AN IMPORTANT 
ROLE IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
AS I TOLD THE COMMITTEE LAST 
MONTH, I REFUSE TO BE PORT OF AN
EFFORT TO LEGITIMIZE AN 
ALTERNATE NARRATIVE THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IS AN 
ADVERSARY AND UKRAINE, NOT 
RUSSIA, ATTACKED US IN 2016.
THESE FICTIONS ARE HARMFUL EVEN 
IF FOR PURELY DOMESTIC POLITICAL
PURPOSES.
PRESIDENT PUTIN ACTS LOOK A 
SUPER PAC.
THEY DEPLOY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
TO WEAPONIZE OUR OWN POLITICAL 
OPPOSITION RESEARCH AND FALSE 
NARRATIVES.
WHEN WE ARE CONSUMED BY PARTISAN
RANCOR, WE CANNOT COMBAT THESE 
EXTERNAL FORCES AS THEY SEEK TO 
DIVIDE US AGAINST EACH OTHER TO 
DEGRADE OUR INSTITUTIONS AND 
DESTROY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND 
OUR DEMOCRACY.
I RESPECT THE WORK THAT THIS 
CONGRESS DOES IN CARRYING OUT 
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL 
RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDING THIS 
INQUIRY.
AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU TO THE 
BEST OF MY ABILITY.
IF THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE 
IMPEDES OR SUBVERTS THE NATIONAL
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, 
IN ORDER TO FURTHER DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST, 
THAT'S MORE THAN WORTHY OF YOUR 
ATTENTION.
BUT WE MUST NOT LET DOMESTIC 
POLITICS STOP US FROM DEFENDING 
OURSELVES AGAINST A FOREIGN 
POWERS WHO TRULY WISHES HARM.
I'M READY TO ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DR. HILL.
I WILL NOW PROCEED TO THE FIRST 
ROUND OF QUESTIONS.
AS DETAILED IN THE MEMO PROVIDED
TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, 45 
MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED 
BY THE CHAIRMAN OR MAJORITY 
COUNCILFULED BY 45 MINUTES FOR 
THE RANKING MEMBER OR MINORITY 
COUNCIL.
FOLLOWING THAT, UNLESS I SPECIFY
ADDITIONAL EQUAL TIME FOR 
QUESTIONING WE'LL PROCEED UNDER 
THE FIVE MINUTE RULE.
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR MAJORITY 
COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF 
QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, BOTH, 
FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING.
DR. HILL, YOUR STORY REMINDS ME 
A GREAT DEAL OF WHAT WE HEARD 
FROM ALEXANDER VINDMAN.
FEW IMMIGRANT STORIES WE HEARD 
JUST IN THE COURSE OF THESE 
HEARINGS ARE AMONG THE MOST 
POWERFUL I HEARD.
YOU AND DR. -- AND COLONEL 
VINDMAN AND OTHERS ARE THE BEST 
OF THIS COUNTRY.
AND YOU CAME HERE BY CHOICE AND 
WE ARE SO BLESSED THAT YOU DID.
SO WELCOME.
MY COLLEAGUES TOOK SOME UMBRAGE 
WITH YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN 
BE FORGIVEN IF THEY HAVE THE 
SAME IMPRESSION, LISTENING TO 
SOME OF THE STATEMENTS OF MY 
COLLEAGUES DURING THIS HEARING 
THAT RUSSIA DIDN'T INTERVENE IN 
OUR ELECTION, IT WAS ALL THE 
UKRAINIANS.
THERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT TO TAKE
A TWEET HERE AND OP-ED THERE AND
NEWSPAPER STORY HERE AND SOMEHOW
EQUATE IT WITH THE SYSTEMIC 
INTERVENTION THAT OUR 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES FOUND THAT
RUSSIA PERPETRATED IN 2016 
THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE SOCIAL 
MEDIA CAMPAIGN AND A HACKING AND
DUMPING OPERATION.
INDEED, THE REPORT MY COLLEAGUES
GAVE YOU THAT THEY PRODUCED 
DURING THE INVESTIGATION CALLS 
INTO QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S FINDING
THAT RUSSIA INTERVENED TO HELP 
ONE SIDE, TO HELP DONALD TRUMP 
AT THE EXPENSE OF HILLARY 
CLINTON.
NO ONE IN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
QUESTIONS THAT FINDING.
NOR DOES THE FBI, NOR DOES THE 
SENATE, BIPARTISAN, INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE REPORT, THE MINORITY 
COMMITTEE REPORT OF THIS 
COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN 
REPORT IS AN OUTLIER.
BUT LET ME ASK YOU, DR. HILL, 
ABOUT YOUR CONCERN WITH THAT 
RUSSIAN NARRATIVE THAT WASN'T 
THE RUSSIANS THAT ENGAGED IN 
INTERFERING IN THE ELECTION IN 
2016, AND, OF COURSE, THIS WAS 
GIVEN A BOOST WHEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HELSINKI AND THE PRESIDENT
QUESTIONED HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES, BUT WHY ARE THE 
RUSSIANS PUSHING THAT NARRATIVE?
>> THE RUSSIANS INTERESTS TO 
DELEGITIMIZE OUR ENTIRE 
PRESIDENCY.
ONE ISSUE I DO WANT TO RAISE AND
I THINK THIS WOULD RESONATE WITH
OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE 
FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS 
THAT THE GOAL OF THE RUSSIANS 
WAS TO PUT WHOEVER BECAME THE 
PRESIDENT BY TRYING TO TIP THEIR
HANDS ON ONE SIDE OF THE SCALE 
UNDER A CLOUD.
SO IF SENATOR CLINTON HAD BEEN 
ELECTED AS PRESIDENT, AS INDEED 
MANY EXPECTED IN THE RUN-UP TO 
THE ELECTION IN 2016, SHE TOO 
WOULD HAVE HAD MAJOR QUESTIONS 
ABOUT HER LEGITIMACY.
AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING 
HERE AS A RESULT OF ALL OF THESE
NARRATIVES AS THIS IS EXACTLY 
WHAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WAS 
HOPING FOR.
MISINFORMATION, DOUBT, THEY HAVE
EVERYBODY QUESTIONING THE 
LEGITIMACY OF A PRESIDENTIAL 
CANDIDATE, BE IT PRESIDENT TRUMP
OR POTENTIALLY A PRESIDENT 
CLINTON, BUT THEY WOULD PIT ONE 
SIDE OF OUR ELECTORATE AGAINST 
THE OTHER, THEY WOULD PIT ONE 
PARTY AGAINST THE OTHER.
AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE 
SUCH A STRONG POINT AT THE VERY 
BEGINNING.
BECAUSE THERE WAS CERTAINLY 
INDIVIDUALS AND MANY OTHER 
COUNTRIES WHO HAD HARSH WORDS 
FOR BOTH OF THE -- WHO HAD HARSH
WORDS FOR MANY OTHER CANDIDATES 
DURING THE PRIMARIES, A LOT OF 
PEOPLE WHO WERE RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT ON THE REPUBLICAN 
SIDE.
THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE TRYING 
THEMSELVES TO GAME THE OUTCOME 
AS YOU KNOW IN THE UNITED 
KINGDOM, THE BOOKIES TAKE BETS, 
YOU CAN GO TO LADBROKES OR 
WILLIAM HILL AND LAY BETS ON WHO
YOU THINK WILL BE THE CANDIDATE.
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WERE 
TRYING TO LAY THEIR OWN BETS.
THEY WANT TO GIVE A SPREAD, MAKE
SURE THAT WHOEVER THEY HAD BET 
ON WHOEVER THEY TRIED TO TIP THE
SCALES WOULD ALSO EXPERIENCE 
SOME DISCOMFORT THAT THEY WOULD 
BE BEHOLDEN TO THEM IN SOME WAY,
THAT THEY WOULD CREATE JUST THE 
KIND OF CHAOS WE HAVE SEEN IN 
OUR POLITICS.
SO I JUST WANT TO, AGAIN, 
EMPHASIZE WE NEED TO BE VERY 
CAREFUL AS WE DISCUSS ALL OF 
THESE ISSUES NOT TO GIVE THEM 
MORE FODDER THAT THEY CAN USE 
AGAINST US IN 2020.
>> I QUITE AGREE.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT, 
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, THE 
RUSSIANS ARE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 
MEDDLERS.
THEY WILL NOT ONLY HELP ONE 
SIDE, BUT THEY WILL ALSO JUST 
SEEK TO SEW DISCORD IN THE 
UNITED STATES.
BUT THERE IS ALSO A BENEFIT NOW,
ISN'T THERE, FOR RUSSIA TO PUT 
THE BLAME ON UKRAINE.
TO CAST DOUBT ON WHETHER THEY 
INTERVENED AT ALL IN OUR 
ELECTION AND BLAME IT ON A U.S. 
ALLY AS A WAY OF DRIVING A WEDGE
BETWEEN THE U.S. AND UKRAINE.
ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> THAT'S THE CASE.
AND IN FACT YOU JUST MADE THE 
POINT ABOUT U.S. ALLIES.
THE RUSSIANS LIKE TO PUT A LOT 
OF BLAME ON U.S. ALLIES FOR 
INCIDENTS THAT THEY HAVE 
PERPETRATED.
WE SAW THAT RECENTLY WITH THE 
UNITED KINGDOM.
AND THE RUSSIAN SECRET SERVICES 
ATTACK ON A FORMER SPY, WHOSE 
DAUGHTER IN ENGLAND WHERE YOU 
MAY RECALL THAT THE RUSSIANS 
ACTUALLY ACCUSED THE BRITISH 
GOVERNMENT OF PERPETRATING THIS 
THEMSELVES.
SO THIS FALLS INTO A LONG 
PATTERN OF DEFLECTION AND OF THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO PIN
THE BLAME ON SOMEONE ELSE.
AND AS MY COLLEAGUE, MR. HOLMES 
HERE, LAID OUT, THE RUSSIANS 
HAVE A PARTICULAR VESTED 
INTEREST IN PUTTING UKRAINE AND 
UKRAINIANS AND UKRAINIAN LEADERS
IN A BAD LIGHT.
ALL OF THE ISSUES WE STARTED TO 
DISCUSS TODAY AND YOU ON THE 
COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN DEEPLY 
INVOLVED IN BEGAN WITH RUSSIA'S 
ILLEGAL ANNEXATION OF THE 
PENINSULA OF CRIMEA FROM UKRAINE
IN 2014.
AND IN RESPONSE IN 2015, AND ALL
OF THE DIFFERENT ACTS OF 
AGGRESSION THAT RUSSIA HAS 
ENGAGED IN SINCE STARTING A WAR 
IN THE DON BASS, SHOOTING DOWN 
RUSSIAN OPERATIVES AND THE PLANE
OVER THE DON BASS.
IT SUITS THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 
VERY MUCH IF WE ARE ALSO LOOKING
AT UKRAINE TO SOMEHOW PERPETRATE
ACTS AGAINST US. 
>> MR. HOLMES, I WANT TO ASK YOU
A QUICK COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, AND
I THINK AS OFTEN IS THE CASE FOR
PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, I WAS AT YOUR 
DEPOSITION, READ YOUR OPENING 
TESTIMONY.
AS YOU LEARN MORE FACTS YOU SEE 
THINGS IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT, 
EVEN THOUGH YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT IS VERY MUCH 
CONSISTENT WITH YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT DURING THE DEPOSITION.
I WAS STRUCK IN PARTICULAR BY 
SOMETHING YOU SAID ON PAGE 10 OF
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, WHILE WE
HAD ADVISED OUR UKRAINIAN 
COUNTERPARTS TO VOICE A 
COMMITMENT TO FOLLOWING THE RULE
OF LAW, AND GENERALLY 
INVESTIGATING CREDIBLE 
CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS THIS WAS 
A DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
PERSONALLY COMMIT ON A CABLE 
NEWS CHANNEL TO A SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL.
THIS GETS TO A POINT I MADE AT 
THE CLOSE OF OUR HEARING 
YESTERDAY, ABOUT HYPOCRISY.
HERE WE ARE, AND WE ARE URGING 
UKRAINIANS TO COMMIT TO 
FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW AS YOU
SAID.
AND ONLY INVESTIGATE GENUINE AND
CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS AND WHAT 
ARE WE DOING?
WE'RE ASKING THEM TO INVESTIGATE
THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL.
UKRAINIANS ARE PRETTY 
SOPHISTICATED ACTORS, AREN'T 
THEY?
THEY CAN RECOGNIZE HYPOCRISY 
WHEN THEY SEE IT.
WHAT DOES THAT DO OUR 
ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS WHEN 
THEY SEE WE'RE ENGAGING IN 
CORRUPTION OURSELVES?
>> YES, SIR.
SO OUR LONG-STANDING POLICY IS 
TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO ESTABLISH 
AND BUILD RULE OF LAW 
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE CAPABLE 
AND INDEPENDENCE AND CAN PURSUE 
CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS.
THAT'S OUR POLICY, WE HAVE BEEN 
DOING THAT FOR QUITE SOME TIME 
WITH SOME SUCCESS.
SO FOCUSING ON PARTICULAR CASES,
INCLUDING PARTICULAR CASES WHERE
THERE IS AN INTEREST OF THE 
PRESIDENT, JUST NOT PART OF WHAT
WE HAVE DONE, IT IS HARD TO 
EXPLAIN WHY WE WOULD DO THAT.
>> HARKENS BACK TO THE 
CONVERSATION, AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
TESTIFIED ABOUT WHEN HE URGED 
UKRAINE NOT TO INVESTIGATE OR 
PORT POROSHENKO AND THE REPLACE 
FROM MR. YERMAK WAS, OH, LOOK 
YOU WANT US TO DO WITH THE 
BIDENS AND THE CLINTONS.
THEY'RE SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH 
ACTORS TO RECOGNIZE WHEN WE'RE 
SAYING DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE 
DO, ARE THEY NOT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> YOU ALSO IN YOUR TESTIMONY, 
AND I WAS STRUCK BY THIS ANEW 
TODAY, WHEN EVEN AFTER THE AID 
IS LIFTED, UKRAINE STILL FELT 
PRESSURE TO MAKE THESE 
STATEMENTS.
AND YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
WERE WORRIED THEY WERE GOING TO 
DO IT ON CNN.
AND YOU SAID THAT AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE 
OF STAYING OUT OF U.S. POLITICS 
AND SAID HE HOPES NO INTERVIEW 
WAS PLANNED.
MR. YERMAK DID NOT ANSWER, BUT 
SHRUGGED IN RESIGNATION, AS IF 
TO INDICATE THEY HAD NO CHOICE.
IN SHORT, EVERYONE THOUGHT THERE
WAS GOING TO BE AN INTERVIEW AND
THE UKRAINIANS THOUGHT THEY HAD 
TO DO IT.
YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING, I THINK, 
MR. HOLMES, ARE YOU NOT, THAT 
UKRAINE FELT PRESSURED TO 
UNDERTAKE THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT, RUDY 
GIULIANI, AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND OTHERS WERE 
DEMANDING?
>> YES, SIR.
AND ALTHOUGH THE HOLD ON THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE MAY HAVE 
BEEN LIFTED, THERE WAS STILL 
THINGS THEY WANTED THAT THEY 
WEREN'T GETTING INCLUDING 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN 
THE OVAL OFFICE.
WHETHER THE HOLD -- THE SECURITY
SYSTEM HOLD CONTINUED OR NOT, 
UKRAINE UNDERSTOOD THAT'S 
SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WANTED 
AND WANTED IMPORTANT THINGS FROM
THE PRESIDENT.
SO I THINK THAT CONTINUES TO 
THIS DAY.
I THINK THEY'RE BEING VERY 
CAREFUL, THEY STILL NEED US NOW 
GOING FORWARD.
IN FACT, RIGHT NOW, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IS TRYING TO ARRANGE A 
SUMMIT MEETING WITH PRESIDENT 
PUTIN IN THE COMING WEEKS TO -- 
HIS FIRST FACE TO FACE MEETING 
WITH HIM TO TRY TO ADVANCE THE 
PEACE PROCESS.
HE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT.
HE NEEDS PRESIDENT PUTIN TO 
UNDERSTAND THAT AMERICA SUPPORTS
ZELENSKY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.
SO THIS IS -- THIS DOESN'T END 
WITH THE LIFTING OF THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE HOLD.
UKRAINE STILL NEEDS US AND AS I 
SAID STILL FIGHTING THIS WAR TO 
THIS VERY DAY. 
>> I WOULD UNDERSCORE AS MY 
COLLEAGUE DID SO ELOQUENTLY THEY
GOT CAUGHT.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE AID 
WAS LIFTED.
MR. GOLDMAN?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU.
YESTERDAY WE HEARD TESTIMONY 
FROM AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND 
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION WHO 
TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WANTED UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO BIDEN, THE 
BIDENS, BURISMA, AND THE 2016 
ELECTIONS BECAUSE THEY WOULD 
BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY AND HE 
USED THE LEVERAGE OF THAT WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING AND THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO PRESSURE PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY TO DO SO.
DR. HILL, YOU TESTIFIED, I 
BELIEVE, THAT IN MID-JUNE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU 
THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE
POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 
>> WHO DID HE TELL YOU HAD PUT 
HIM IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY?
>> HE TOLD ME IT WAS THE 
PRESIDENT.
>> MR. HOLMES, DID YOU ALSO 
UNDERSTAND THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD BEEN GIVEN SOME 
AUTHORITY OVER UKRAINE POLICY 
FROM THE PRESIDENT?
>> WE UNDERSTOOD THAT HE HAD 
BEEN TOLD TO WORK WITH MR. 
GIULIANI.
>> AND DID HE HOLD HIMSELF OUT 
AS HAVING DIRECT CONTACT AND 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIORITIES AND INTERESTS?
>> YES, SIR.
>> MR. HOLMES, I'M GOING TO GO 
TO THAT JULY 26th DATE WHEN YOU 
OVERHEARD THE CONVERSATION 
BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, A 
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LEADUP TO 
THAT CONVERSATION.
BEFORE THE LUNCH THAT YOU 
DESCRIBED, YOU SAID THAT YOU 
ACCOMPANIED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND,
VOLKER AND TAYLOR TO A MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND YOU TOOK NOTES AT THAT 
MEETING?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> AND YOU REVIEWED THOSE NOTES 
BEFORE YOU CAME HERE TO TESTIFY 
TODAY?
>> YES.
>> AND THEY WERE HELPFUL TO 
REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO 
WHAT HAPPENED, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> DURING THAT MEETING, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID THAT ON 
HIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THE PREVIOUS DAY THAT 
THREE TIMES PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
MENTIONED SENSITIVE ISSUES.
DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS REFERRING
TO WHEN HE SAID THE SENSITIVE 
ISSUES?
>> I COULDN'T BE SURE WHAT HE 
WAS REFERRING TO UNTIL I LATER 
READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 
25th CALL, BUT I WAS AWARE OF 
VARIOUS CONTACTS BETWEEN THE 
THREE AMEEGOS AND HIS GOVERNMENT
ABOUT THIS SET OF ISSUES. 
>> AND AFTER YOU READ THE CALL, 
WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE TO BE THE
SENSITIVE ISSUES THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY REFERENCED?
>> THE BURISMA BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> AFTER THIS MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAD A ONE ON ONE 
MEETING WITH ANDRIY YERMAK AND 
THAT YOU WERE PROHIBITED FROM 
GOING INTO THAT MEETING TO TAKE 
NOTES, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> AND YESTERDAY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TESTIFIED HE PROBABLY 
DISCUSSED THE INVESTIGATIONS 
WITH MR. YERMAK.
DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU
AT ALL WHAT THEY DISCUSSED?
>> HE DID NOT.
>> NOW AFTER THIS MEETING WITH 
MR. YERMAK, YOU WENT TO LUNCH.
AND CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE WHERE 
YOU WERE SITTING AT THE 
RESTAURANT?
>> YES, SIR.
THE RESTAURANT HAS SORT OF GLASS
DOORS THAT OPENED ON TO A 
TERRACE.
AND WE WERE AT THE FIRST TABLES 
ON THE TERRACE SO IMMEDIATELY 
OUTSIDE OF THE INTERIOR OF THE 
RESTAURANT, THE DOORS WERE ALL 
WIDE OPEN.
THERE WERE -- THERE WAS TABLES, 
TABLE FOR FOUR, I RECALL IT 
BEING TWO TABLES FOR TWO PUSHED 
TOGETHER, IN ANY CASE, QUITE A 
WIDE TABLE.
AND THE TABLE WAS SET, SORT OF A
TABLE RUNNER DOWN THE MIDDLE.
I WAS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND WE'RE 
CLOSE ENOUGH THAT WE COULD SHARE
AN APPETIZER BETWEEN US AND THE 
TWO STAFFERS TO OUR RIGHT AT 
THIS NEXT TABLE.
>> NOW, YOU SAID THAT AT SOME 
POINT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PULLED
OUT HIS CELL PHONE AND CALLED 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THIS WAS AN UNSECURE CELL PHONE?
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESTAURANT
IN KYIV?
>> YES.
>> NOW, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE 
ABLE TO HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
VOICE THROUGH THE RECEIVER.
HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR IF IT 
WAS NOT ON SPEAKERPHONE?
>> IT WAS -- SEVERAL THINGS, IT 
WAS QUITE LOUD WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT CAME ON, QUITE 
DISTINCTIVE, I BELIEVE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID 
YESTERDAY HE OFTEN SPEAKS VERY 
LOUDLY OVER THE PHONE AND I 
CERTAINLY EXPERIENCED THAT.
HE -- WHEN THE PRESIDENT CAME 
ON, HE SORT OF WINCED AND HELD 
THE PHONE AWAY FROM HIS EAR, 
LIKE THIS, AND HE DID THAT FOR 
THE FIRST COUPLE EXCHANGES.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE THEN TURNED 
THE VOLUME DOWN, GOT USED TO IT,
IF THE PRSIDENT MODERATED HIS 
VOLUME, I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S HOW
I WAS ABLE TO HEAR. 
>> YOU WERE ABLE TO HEAR SOME OF
WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RIGHT?
>> FIRST PORTION OF THE 
CONVERSATION, YES. 
>> AND WHAT DID YOU HEAR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY TO -- SORRY,
NOT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TO 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
>> WHAT DID I -- 
>> WHAT DID YOU HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT SAY TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND?
>> HE CLARIFIED WHETHER HE WAS 
IN UKRAINE OR NOT, AND HE SAID 
YES, UKRAINE, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID HE LOVES YOUR ASS,
WILL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.
HE'LL DO THE INVESTIGATION.
>> SO YOU HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ASK AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IS HE 
GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION?
>> YES, SIR.
>> WHAT WAS AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S RESPONSE?
>> HE SAID, OH, YEAH, HE'S GOING
TO DO IT.
HE'LL DO ANYTHING YOU ASK.
>> AND WAS THAT THE END OF THE 
UKRAINE PORTION OF THE 
CONVERSATION?
>> YES.
>> AFTERWARDS, YOU DESCRIBED A 
FOLLOW ON CONVERSATION THAT YOU 
HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
WHERE YOU ASKED HIM, I THINK, 
GENERALLY, WHAT DID PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THINK OF UKRAINE, IS THAT 
RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> WHAT DOES AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
SAY TO YOU?
>> HE SAID HE DOESN'T REALLY 
CARE ABOUT UKRAINE.
>> DID HE USE SLIGHTLY MORE 
COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAN THAT?
>> HE DID. 
>> WHAT DID HE SAY THAT HE DOES 
CARE ABOUT?
>> HE SAID HE CARES ABOUT BIG 
STUFF.
>> DID HE EXPLAIN WHAT HE MEANT 
BY BIG STUFF?
>> I ASKED HIM, WELL, WHAT KIND 
OF BIG STUFF?
WE HAVE BIG STUFF GOING ON HERE,
LIKE WITH RUSSIA, AND HE SAID, 
NO, BIG STUFF LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI 
IS PUSHING.
>> NOW, WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH 
THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT HE 
REFERENCED AT THAT POINT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND HOW DO YOU HAVE SUCH A 
SPECIFIC AND CLEAR RECOLLECTION 
OF THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND YOUR CONVERSATION 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?
>> YEAH.
SO THIS WAS A VERY DISTINCTIVE 
EXPERIENCE IN MY -- I'VE NEVER 
SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN MY 
FOREIGN SERVICE CAREER, SOMEONE 
AT LUNCH AT A RESTAURANT MAKING 
A CALL ON A CELL PHONE TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
BEING ABLE TO HEAR HIS VOICE, 
VERY DISTINCTIVE PERSONALITY, WE
HAVE SEEN ON TELEVISION, VERY 
COLORFUL LANGUAGE WAS USED, THEY
WERE DIRECTLY ADDRESSING 
SOMETHING THAT I HAD BEEN 
WONDERING ABOUT WORKING ON FOR 
WEEKS AND EVEN MONTHS, A TOPIC 
THAT HAD LED TO THE RECALL OF MY
FORMER BOSS, THE FORMER 
AMBASSADOR, AND SO HERE WAS A 
PERSON WHO SAID HE HAD DIRECT 
CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT AND 
SAID THAT OVER THE COURSE OF 
TIME, HERE HE IS ACTUALLY HAVING
THAT CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT,
HEARING THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE 
AND TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF 
THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT I 
HAD BEEN HEARING ABOUT.
>> SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, DURING 
THE PHONE CALL THAT YOU 
OVERHEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
HAD WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, YOU 
HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF 
ASK THE ONLY QUESTION THAT YOU 
REALLY HEARD HIM ASK, I BELIEVE,
IS WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO DO 
THE INVESTIGATION TO WHICH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED 
THAT HE WOULD AND HE WOULD, IN 
FACT, DO ANYTHING THAT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WANTS.
IS THAT AN ACCURATE RECITATION 
OF WHAT HAPPENED?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND THEN AFTER THAT CALL, YOU
HAD A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHERE 
HE IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE TOLD YOU
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT
UKRAINE, HE ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG
STUFF RELATED TO HIMSELF AND 
PARTICULARLY THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT GIULIANI WAS 
PUSHING?
>> CORRECT.
>> NOW, A DAY BEFORE YOUR LUNCH 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID SPEAK WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS YOU 
REFERRED, AND CERTAINLY THE 
PRESIDENT MADE IT CLEAR TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE CARED
ABOUT THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION.
NOW, NEITHER OF YOU DID LISTEN 
TO THIS CALL, BUT AS YOU 
TESTIFIED, YOU BOTH READ IT, 
SUBSEQUENT TO ITS PUBLICATION.
DR. HILL, YOU, DURING YOUR TIME,
TWO AND A HALF YEARS IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE, LISTENED TO A 
NUMBER OF PRESIDENTIAL PHONE 
CALLS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> CAN YOU ESTIMATE 
APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY?
>> I CAN'T ACTUALLY.
SOMETIMES THERE WOULD BE 
MULTIPLE CALLS DURING THE WEEK.
I WAS THERE FOR MORE THAN TWO 
YEARS, SO IT IS A PHONE NUMBER. 
>> HAVE YOU EVER HEARD A CALL 
LIKE THIS ONE THAT YOU READ?
>> I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON 
THIS CALL BECAUSE THIS IS IN MY 
VIEW AN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
IN TERMS OF THE TESTIMONY -- 
YES -- 
>> I THINK THAT AS A THRESHOLD 
MATTER, I THINK THERE ARE ISSUES
OF CLASSIFICATION REGARDING HEAD
OF STATE COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE 
DO WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO IN 
THIS FORUM AMONG OTHER ISSUES. 
>> UNDERSTOOD.
I'M REALLY JUST FOCUSSED ON THIS
ONE CALL DECLASSIFIED AND 
PUBLISHED AND JUST ASKING YOU 
WHETHER YOU HAD EVER HEARD ANY 
PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALL ALONG 
THOSE -- THESE LINES?
>> AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST 
FOCUS ON THIS TESTIMONY ON THIS 
PARTICULAR CALL AND I WILL JUST 
SAY I FOUND THIS PARTICULAR CALL
SUBJECT MATTER AND THE WAY IT 
WAS CONDUCTED SURPRISING.
>> YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION 
TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE VERY 
SHOCKED AND VERY SADDENED TO 
READ IT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHY WAS THAT?
>> BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE 
DISCUSSION, THE JUXTAPOSITION OF
THE ISSUES IN WHICH THEY WERE 
RAISED AND ALSO THE -- GIVEN THE
FACT THAT I, MYSELF, HAD 
ACTUALLY OPPOSED ALONG WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON FOR SOME 
PERIOD HAVING A CALL UNLESSPREP 
WERE CONFIDENT THAT THE ISSUES 
THAT UKRAINE AND THE UNITED 
STATES WERE MOST GENERALLY 
TOGETHER INTERESTED IN WERE 
GOING TO BE RAISED.
AND I SAW IN THIS CALL THAT THIS
WAS NOT THE CASE.
>> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT YOU 
WERE CONCERNED THAT THIS CALL 
WAS TURNING A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING INTO SOME KIND OF ASSET.
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
>> I DON'T THINK IT WAS 
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT CALL, 
BUT I RECALL THE TESTIMONY, 
BECAUSE THIS WAS CLEARLY THE 
DISCUSSION PRECEDING THE CALL.
REMEMBER, I LEFT ON JULY 19th, 
THE CALL TOOK PLACE THE 
FOLLOWING WEEK.
AND THE MONTHS LEADING UP TO 
THAT, FROM MAY ONWARD, IT BECAME
VERY CLEAR THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING ITSELF WAS BEING 
PREDICATED ON OTHER ISSUES, 
NAMELY INVESTIGATIONS AND THE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE IN 2016.
>> MR. HOLMES, YOU INDICATE IN 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY HAD INDICATED TO YOU 
THAT IN THIS PHONE CALL ON JULY 
25th THERE WAS A DISCUSSION 
ABOUT PERSONNEL ISSUES RELATED 
TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S 
OFFICE.
AFTER YOU READ THE CALL, DID YOU
UNDERSTAND WHO AND WHAT THAT WAS
REFERRING TO?
>> YES, SIR.
IN THAT BRIEF MEETING WITH THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF, IT WAS VERY 
CONFUSING TO ME WHY IN THE -- 
ONLY THE FEW MINUTES WE HAD WHY 
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ISSUE 
HE RAISED, SO WASN'T UNTIL I 
READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL 
ON THE 25th I UNDERSTOOD THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAD SPECIFICALLY 
MENTIONED PROSECUTOR GENERAL 
LUTSENKO AND CARVING OUT ALL HIS
SORT OF UNDERLINGS WHO HAD BEEN,
YOU KNOW, COLLABORATING WITH HIM
ON SOME OF THE CORRUPTION WE SAW
THERE. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU ALSO SAID 
THAT PRESIDENT LUTSENKO WAS THE 
SOURCE OF SOME OF MR. GIULIANI'S
PUBLIC VIEWS AND ALLEGATIONS, IS
THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
SO ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE 
PRESS KIND OF WAVE WE SAW 
TARGETING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH
BECAME PUBLIC IT WAS REPORTED 
PRIVATELY THAT MR. LUTSENKO WAS 
SENDING THESE MESSAGES AND MET 
WITH AN AMERICAN JOURNALIST TO 
TRY TO GET THE MESSAGES OUT. 
>> WHAT WAS THE U.S. EMBASSY IN 
UKRAINE'S VIEW OF PROSECUTOR 
GENERAL LUTSENKO. 
>> HE WAS NOT A GOOD PARTNER.
HE FAILED TO DELIVER ON THE 
PROMISED REFORMS THAT HE HAD 
COMMITTED TO WHEN HE TOOK 
OFFICE.
AND HE WAS USING HIS OFFICE TO 
INSULATE AND PROTECT POLITICAL 
ALLIES WHILE PRESUMABLY 
ENRICHING HIMSELF.
>> ANOTHER WAY TO DESCRIBE THAT 
CORRUPT?
>> YES.
>> I WANT TO LOOK AT A COUPLE OF
EXCERPTS FROM THIS JULY 25th 
CALL WITH YOU, THE FIRST ONE 
OCCURS AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
THANKED PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE 
UNITED STATES SUPPORT IN THE 
AREA OF DEFENSE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IMMEDIATELY THEN
SAYS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A
FAVOR THOUGH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY
HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND 
UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT 
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE WHOLE 
SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.
THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE.
I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR 
WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER, THEY
SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.
DR. HILL, IS THIS A REFERENCE TO
THIS DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
ABOUT UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION THAT YOU 
DISCUSSED AT THE -- IN YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT AS WELL AS 
WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF?
>> THE REFERENCE TO CROWDSTRIKE 
AND THE SERVER, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING 
THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THESE
ALLEGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT IN.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> NOW, ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT 
SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MOST 
SENIOR ADVISERS HAD INFORMED HIM
THAT THIS THEORY OF UKRAINE 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION WAS FALSE?
>> ONE OTHER EXHIBIT THAT GO 
BACKS TO WHAT YOU WERE 
TESTIFYING EARLIER, DR. HILL, 
ABOUT RUSSIA'S INTEREST IN 
PROMOTING THIS THEORY.
THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM A 
FEBRUARY 2nd, 2017 NEWS 
CONFERENCE WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN 
AND PRIME MINISTER ORBAN OF 
HUNGARY WHERE PUTIN SAYS SECOND,
AS WE ALL KNOW, DURING THE 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN THE 
UNITED STATES, THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT ADOPTED A UNILATERAL 
POSITION IN FAVOR OF ONE 
CANDIDATE.
MORE THAN THAT, SURGEON 
OLIGARCHS CERTAINLY WITH THE 
APPROVAL OF THE POLITICAL 
LEADERSHIP FUNDED THIS CANDIDATE
OR FEMALE CANDIDATE TO BE MORE 
PRECISE.
MR. HOLMES, YOU SPENT THREE 
YEARS AS WELL IN THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN RUSSIA.
WHY WOULD IT BE TO VLADIMIR 
PUTIN'S ADVANTAGE TO PROMOTE 
THIS THEORY OF UKRAINE 
INTERFERENCE?
>> TO DEFLECTION FROM THE 
ALLEGATIONS OF RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE, SECOND OF ALL TO 
DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND UKRAINE WHICH RUSSIA 
WANTS TO ESSENTIALLY GET BACK 
INTO ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, 
THIRDLY TO BESMIRCH UKRAINE AND 
ITS POLITICAL LEADERSHIP TO 
DEGRADE AND ERODE SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE FROM KEY PARTNERS AND 
ELSEWHERE. 
>> AND DR. HILL, BY PROMOTING 
THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION, WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ADOPTING VLADIMIR PUTIN'S VIEW 
OVER HIS OWN SENIOR ADVISERS AND
INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS?
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY 
CAREFUL ABOUT THE WAY THAT WE 
PHRASE THAT.
THIS IS A VIEW THAT PRESIDENT 
PUTIN AND THE RUSSIAN SECURITY 
SERVICES AND MANY ACTORS IN 
RUSSIA HAVE PROMOTED.
BUT I THINK THIS VIEW HAS ALSO 
GOT SOME TRACTION, PERHAPS IN 
PARALLEL AND SEPARATELY HERE IN 
THE UNITED STATES, AND THOSE TWO
THINGS HAVE OVER TIME STARTED TO
FUSE TOGETHER. 
>> WELL, BACK IN MAY OF THIS 
YEAR, DO YOU RECALL THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A PHONE 
CONVERSATION IN EARLY MAY WITH 
PRESIDENT PUTIN?
>> I DO.
>> AND THAT HE ALSO THEN MET IN 
MID-MAY WITH PRIME MINISTER 
ORBAN WHO JOINED PRESIDENT PUTIN
AT THIS PRESS CONFERENCE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> NOW THAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN 
THE TIME WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
WAS ELECTED ON APRIL 21st, AND 
HIS INAUGURATION ON MAY 20th, IS
THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND IN FACT PRESIDENT -- 
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ASKED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE
TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION AFTER
HIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ON APRIL 21st?
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN SAY THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ASKED THE 
VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.
I WAS NOT IN ANY MEETING IN 
WHICH THAT TOOK PLACE.
I CAN SAY THAT I MYSELF AND MANY
OTHERS AT THE NSC AND THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT WERE QUITE KEEN AND 
EAGER TO HAVE VICE PRESIDENT 
PENCE GO TO UKRAINE TO REPRESENT
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND
THE PRESIDENT. 
>> AND IS THAT ALSO YOUR 
RECOLLECTION, MR. HOLMES, THAT 
YOU WANTED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE 
TO ATTEND?
>> YES, SIR.
AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS 
THE PLAN.
>> NOW, JENNIFER WILLIAMS, FROM 
THE OFFICE OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT, TESTIFIED HERE THAT 
ON MAY 13th, WHICH IS THE SAME 
DAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MET 
WITH PRIME MINISTER ORBAN, THAT 
THE PRESIDENT CALLED OFF VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE'S TRIP FOR 
UNKNOWN REASONS, BUT BEFORE THE 
INAUGURATION DATE HAD BEEN 
SCHEDULED.
AND DR. HILL, WERE YOU AWARE 
ALSO THAT DURING THAT PERIOD 
THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLICITY AND
I THINK MR. HOLMES YOU 
REFERENCED THIS IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT AS WELL, ABOUT RUDY 
GIULIANI'S INTEREST IN THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS IN UKRAINE?
>> I WAS CERTAINLY AWARE, YES.
>> AND THE -- AROUND THIS TIME, 
DR. HILL, YOU ALSO, I BELIEVE, 
TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON
HAD EXPRESSED SOME VIEWS TO YOU 
ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S INTEREST IN
UKRAINE, DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU 
SAID?
>> YES.
>> WHAT HE SAID TO YOU, RATHER?
>> I DO RECALL, YES.
IT WAS PART OF A CONVERSATION 
ABOUT THE THINGS THAT MR. 
GIULIANI WAS SAYING VERY 
FREQUENTLY IN PUBLIC.
WE SAW THEM OFTEN, SAW HIM OFTEN
ON TELEVISION MAKING THESE 
STATEMENTS.
AND I HAD ALSO BROUGHT TO 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S ATTENTION 
THE ATTACKS, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN 
AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
AND EXPRESSED GREAT REGRET ABOUT
HOW THIS WAS UNFOLDING.
AND IN FACT THE SHAMEFUL WAY IN 
WHICH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS
BEING SMEARED AND ATTACKED.
AND I ASKED IF THERE WAS 
ANYTHING WE COULD DO ABOUT IT.
AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD LOOKED
PAINED, BASICALLY INDICATED WITH
BODY LANGUAGE THAT THERE WAS 
NOTHING MUCH WE COULD DO ABOUT 
IT, AND HE THEN, IN THE COURSE 
OF THAT DISCUSSION SAID THAT 
RUDY GIULIANI WAS A HAND GRENADE
THAT WAS GOING TO BLOW EVERYONE 
UP. 
>> DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE 
MEANT BY THAT?
>> I DID, ACTUALLY. 
>> WHAT DID HE MEAN?
>> I THINK HE MEANT THAT 
OBVIOUSLY WHAT MR. GIULIANI WAS 
SAYING WAS EXPLOSIVE IN ANY CASE
AND HE WAS FREQUENTLY ON 
TELEVISION MAKING QUITE 
INCENDIARY REMARKS ABOUT 
EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS, AND 
HE WAS CLEARLY PUSHING FORWARD 
ISSUES AND IDEAS THAT WOULD, YOU
KNOW, PROBABLY COME BACK TO 
HAUNT US AND IN FACT I THINK 
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
>> MR. HOLMES, DID THE 
UKRAINIANS UNDERSTAND THAT RUDY 
GIULIANI REPRESENTED THE 
PRESIDENT'S VIEWS?
>> I BELIEVE THEY DID.
FIRST HE WAS REACHING OUT TO 
THEM DIRECTLY.
HE ALSO -- AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH'S REMOVAL I THINK IS
RELEVANT TO THIS INQUIRY BECAUSE
SHE WAS REMOVED FOLLOWING THIS 
MEDIA CAMPAIGN IN WHICH RUDY 
GIULIANI AND ASSOCIATES WERE 
VERY PROMINENT.
AND CRITICIZING HER FOR NOT 
TAKING SERIOUSLY SOME OF THE 
THEORIES AND ISSUES THAT LATER 
CAME UP, AND SO WHEN SHE WAS 
REMOVED, I -- I COMMENTATORS IN 
UKRAINE BELIEVED THAT LUTSENKO 
WITH GIULIANI SUCCEEDED IN 
GETTING HER REMOVED.
THEY WERE AWARE OF MR. GIULIANI 
AND HIS INFLUENCE, THE ISSUES 
THAT HE WAS PROMOTING, AND 
THE -- AND ULTIMATELY THAT HE 
WAS ABLE TO GET AN AMBASSADOR 
REMOVED.
PARTLY BECAUSE OF THAT.
SO HE WAS SOMEONE TO CONTEND 
WITH, AND IN ADDITION, 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER INAUGURATION 
HE BEGAN REACHING OUT TO THE 
ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION, KEY 
FIGURES IN THE ZELENSKY 
ADMINISTRATION, AND CONTINUED TO
DO THAT.
>> LET'S FOCUS ON THE 
INAUGURATION FOR A MINUTE.
YOU ESCORTED FOR LACK OF A 
BETTER WORD THE U.S. DELEGATION 
AROUND?
>> I JOINED THEM IN SOME OF 
THEIR MEETINGS, BUT NOT FOR THE 
ENTIRE DAY. 
>> WHO WAS THE OFFICIAL -- WHO 
WAS ON SOME 
MEETINGS BUT NOT FOR THE ENTIRE 
DAY. 
>> WHO WAS ON THE OFFICIAL 
DELEGATION?
>> IT WAS FIVE PEOPLE, THE HEAD 
WAS SECRETARY PERRY, AND THEN IT
WAS AMBASSADOR VOLAR, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND WHERE OUR TEMPORARY 
SHAR JAY, AND ALEX VINDMAN 
REPRESENTING THE WHITE HOUSE. 
>> AND DID THE DELEGATION HAVE A
MEETING THAT YOU ATTENDED?
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED I THINK IN 
YOUR PREVIOUSLY THAT SECRETARY 
PERRY GAVE A LIST OF SOME SORT 
TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THAT 
MEETING.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
>> YES.
IN THE MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, SECRETARY PERRY IS 
THE HEAD OF THE DELEGATION, 
OPENED THE MEETING OF THE 
AMERICAN SIDE.
AND HAD A NUMBER OF POINTS HE 
MADE.
AND DURING THAT PERIOD HE HANDED
OVER A PIECE OF PAPER.
I DID NOT SEE WHAT WAS ON THE 
PAPER, BUT SECRETARY PERRY 
DESCRIBED WHAT WAS ON THE PAPER 
AS A LIST OF TRUSTED INDIVIDUALS
AND RECOMMENDED THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY COULD DRAW FROM THAT 
LIST FOR ADVICE ON ENERGY REFORM
ISSUES. 
>> DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS ON THAT 
LIST?
>> I DIDN'T SEE THE LIST.
I DON'T KNOW.
OTHER COLLEAGUES -- THERE ARE 
OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN 
THE MIX FOR AWHILE ON THAT SET 
OF ISSUES.
OTHER PEOPLE SECRETARY PERRY HAS
MENTIONED AS BEING PEOPLE TO 
CONSULT ON REFORM. 
>> AND ARE THEY AMERICANS?
>> YES. 
>> NOW, DO YOU ALSO RECALL THAT 
CONE VINDMAN SPOKE TO ZELENSKY 
IN THAT MEETING?
>> YES. 
>> WHAT DID HE SAY IN TERMS OF 
SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'RE 
ADDRESSING HERE?
>> YES, SIR.
HE WAS THE LAST TO SPEAK, MADE A
GENERAL POINT ABOUT THE 
IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE TO OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY, AND HE SAID 
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS 
ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION STAY OUT
OF U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS. 
>> WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE 
UKRAINIANS WERE ALREADY STARTING
TO FEEL SOME PRESSURE TO CONDUCT
THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS?
>> YES. 
>> AND THOSE WERE THE ONES 
RELATED TO BIDEN AND BURISMA AND
THE 2016 ELECTION?
>> CORRECT. 
>> NOW, DR. HILL, YOU ALSO 
TESTIFIED THAT AROUND IN SAME 
TIME IN MAY, YOU LEARNED THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RECEIVING 
INFORMATION FROM SOMEONE ELSE AT
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, 
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS NOT QUITE RIGHT.
I WAS TOLD IN PASSING THAT 
SOMEONE ELSE AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO 
THEM BECAUSE OF SOME MATERIALS 
RELATED TO UKRAINE.
>> AND DID THAT PERSON INDICATE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT THAT 
WAS THE DIRECTOR OF UKRAINE?
>> THAT WAS CORRECT.
IT WAS A VERY BRIEF 
CONVERSATION, JUST TO BE CLEAR. 
>> WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF 
UKRAINE?
>> THE DIRECTOR OF UKRAINE IS 
ALEX VIND ZAN AND WHO DID THIS 
INDIVIDUAL AND THE EXECUTIVE 
SECRETARY'S OFFICE REFER TO?
>> THE INDIVIDUAL JUST SAID THE 
NAME, CASH. 
>> DID YOU KNOW WHO THAT WAS?
>> INITIALLY WHEN I WAS THINKING
ABOUT IT, I HAD TO SEARCH MY 
MIND, AND THE ONLY CASH THAT I 
KNEW AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL WADS CASH PATEL. 
>> AND CASH DID NOT WORK ON 
UKRAINE MATTERS THAT YOU 
OVERSAW?
>> NOT THAT I OVERSAW, NO. 
>> THE INDICATION IS CASH PATEL 
HAD PROVIDED INFORMATION TO THE 
PRESIDENT WITHOUT YOUR 
KNOWLEDGE?
>> THAT SEEMED TO BE THE 
INDICATION. 
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE JULY
25th CALL RIGHT NOW WHERE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ANOTHER 
EXCERPT ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
ABOUT HIS POTENTIAL POLITICAL 
OPPONENT, VICE PRESIDENT JOE 
BIDEN.
AND IN EXCERPT, THE PRESIDENT 
SAID, THE OTHER THING, 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 CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO 
IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT.
IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.
NOW, DR. HILL, THIS WAS OF 
COURSE ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS 
THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUSHING, 
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND NOW CONFIRMED IN THIS 
JULY 25th CALL THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ALSO INTERESTED IN
THIS?
>> YES.
>> AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND 
SONDLAND HAVE TRIED TO DRAW A 
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEIR 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONNECTION 
BETWEEN BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.
BUT DR. HILL, WAS IT APPARENT TO
YOU THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
RUDY GIULIANI OR ANYONE ELSE WAS
PUSHING FOR AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO BURISMA, THAT THE REASON 
WHY THEY WANTED THAT 
INVESTIGATION RELATED TO WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID HERE, THE 
BIDENS?
>> IT WAS VERY APPARENT TO ME 
THAT THAT WAS WHAT RUDY JULIAN 
INTENDED, YES, TO CONVEY THAT 
BURISMA WAS LINKED TO THE 
BIDENS.
HE SAID THIS PUBLICLY 
REPEATEDLY. 
>> MR. HOLMES, YOU UNDERSTOOD 
THAT BURISMA WAS CODE FOR 
BIDENS?
>> YES. 
>> DO YOU THINK THAT ANYONE 
INVOLVED IN UKRAINE MATTERS IN 
THE SPRING AND SUMMER WOULD 
UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL?
>> YES. 
>> NOW, ARE EITHER -- DR. HILL, 
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?
>> I AM NOT, NO. 
>> AND IN FACT, MR. HOLMES, THE 
FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF 
UKRAINE, WHO VICE PRESIDENT 
BIDEN ENCOURAGED TO FIRE, WAS 
ACTUALLY CORRUPT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND WAS NOT PURSUING 
CORRUPTION INVESTIGATIONS AND 
PROSECUTIONS, RIGHT?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE 
PROSECUTOR GENERAL AT THE TIME, 
SHOKIN, WAS NOT AT THAT TIME 
PURSUING INVESTIGATIONS OF 
BURISMA OR THE BIDENS. 
>> AND IN FACT REMOVING THAT 
CORRUPT PROSECUTOR, GENERAL, WAS
PART OF THE U.S.' ANTISKRUPGS 
POLICY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
NOT JUST US BUT ALL OF OUR 
ALLIES AND OTHERS INVOLVED IN 
THE UKRAINE. 
>> DR. HILL, YOU UNDERU 
INDICATED THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD 
THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS 
CONDITIONED ON THE PURSUIT BY 
UKRAINE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
AND I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE JULY 
10th MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE 
WHERE THAT CAME TO LIGHT.
YOU INDICATED THAT IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS A LARGE
MEETING THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
RAN WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
VOLKER AND SECRETARY PERRY ALSO 
ATTENDED, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 
>> AND WHY WERE THEY INCLUDED IN
THAT MEETING WITH TWO UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS ABOUT NATIONAL 
SECURITY MATTERS?
>> WELL, THE INITIAL INTENT HAD 
NOT BEEN TO INCLUDE THEM.
WE HAD ANTICIPATED THAT THE TWO 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WOULD HAVE A
NUMBER OF MEETINGS, AS IS 
USUALLY THE PROCEDURE.
I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE 
MEETINGS AT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, POTENTIALLY AT THE 
ENERGY DEPARTMENT.
AND THEN THERE WAS A REQUEST TO 
HAVE AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND 
VOLKER INCLUDED COMING DIRECTLY 
FROM THEIR OFFICES.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, CLEARLY
GIVEN THE IMPORTANT ROLE THAT 
SECRETARY PERRY WAS PLAYING IN 
THE ENERGY SECTOR REFORM IN 
UKRAINE AND THE FACT THAT HE HAD
ALSO BEEN IN THE DELEGATION TO 
THE PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION IN
UKRAINE, WE DECIDED IT WOULD BE 
BETTER TO INCLUDE ALL THREE OF 
THEM. 
>> TOWARD THE END OF THIS 
MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS RAISED 
THEIR ONGOING DESIRE FOR AN OVAL
OFFICE MEETING?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY DID 
THAT?
>> WELL, I LISTENED VERY 
CAREFULLY TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, 
SO I WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING
WHERE I THINK IT'S EASY TO 
EXPLAIN WHY HE HAD A DIFFERENT 
INTERPRETATION OF HOW THIS CAME 
OTHER INTO BEING.
THE MEETING HAD INITIALLY BEEN 
SCHEDULED FOR ABOUT 45, YOU 
KNOW, MINUTES TO AN HOUR.
AND IT WAS DEFINITELY IN THE 
WRAP-UP FACE OF THE MEETING.
WE HAD GHON THROUGH A SERIES OF 
DISCUSSIONS.
ALEXANDER DANNY LUCK WANTED TO 
GET INTO THE WEEDS OF HOW HE 
MIGHT REFORM A NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL.
HE HAD TALKED TO ME ABOUT THIS 
PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND HE WAS 
HOPING AND HAD HAD THIS 
OPPORTUNITY WITH THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO GET HIS FIRSTHAND 
OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS ON WHAT 
MIGHT HAPPEN.
WE'D ALSO WANTED TO GO THROUGH A
DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT 
IT WAS FOR UKRAINE TO GET ITS 
ENERGY SECTOR REFORM UNDERWAY, 
AND CLEARLY SECRETARY PERRY HAD 
SOME TALKING POINTS TO THIS.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT AMBASSADOR
BOLTON WAS ALSO INTERESTED IN.
WE KNEW THE UKRAINIANS WOULD 
HAVE ON THEIR AGENDA INEVITABLY 
THE QUESTION ABOUT A MEETING.
AS WE GET THROUGH THE MAIN 
DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING INTO 
THAT WRAP-UP PHASE, THE 
UKRAINIANS, MR. DANYLYUK STARTS 
TO ASK ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
WAS TRYING TO PARRY THIS BACK.
ALTHOUGH HE'S THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER, HE'S NOT IN 
CHARGE OF SCHEDULING.
WE GO THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS.
IT'S NOT HIS ROLE TO START 
PULLING OUT THE SCHEDULE AND 
SAYING IF THIS TUESDAY AND THIS 
MONTH IS GOING TO WORK WITH 
THIS.
HE DOES NOT AS A MATTER OF 
COURSE LIKE TO DISCUSS THE 
DETAILS OF THESE MEETINGS.
HE LIKES TO LEAVE THEM TO THE 
APPROPRIATE STA OF FOR THIS.
THIS WAS ALREADY GOING TO BE 
UNCOMFORTABLE.
AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS TRYING 
TO MOVE THAT PART OF THE 
DISCUSSION AWAY, I THINK HE WAS 
GOING TO TRY TO DEFLECT IT ON TO
ANOTHER TOPIC, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND LEANED IN BASICALLY TO 
SAY, WELL, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT 
THAT THERE WILL BE A MEETING OF 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS ARE PUT 
UNDERWAY.
THAT'S WHEN I SAW AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON STIFFIN.
I WAS SITTING BEHIND HIM AND SAW
HIM SIT BACK SLIGHTLY LIKE THIS.
HE HAD BEEN MOVING MORE FORWARD 
TO THE TABLE.
FOR ME THAT WAS AN UNMISTAKABLE 
BODY LANGUAGE AND CAUGHT MY 
ATTENTION.
HE LOOKED UP TO THE CLOCK AND, 
YOU KNOW, AT HIS WATCH OR 
TOWARDS HIS WRIST IN ANY CASE 
AND AGAIN I WAS SITTING BEHIND 
HIM AND BASICALLY SAID, WELL, 
IT'S BEEN GREAT TO SEE YOU.
I'M AFRAID I'VE GOT ANOTHER 
MEETING.
>> AND DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAY WHO HIS AGREEMENT ON THIS 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS WITH?
>> IN THAT PARTICULAR JUNCTURE I
DON'T BELIEVE SO.
IT WAS LATER, WHICH I'M SURE ALL
YOU'LL WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT 
HE DID SAY MORE SPECIFICALLY. 
>> WHAT DID HE SAY LATER?
>> THAT HE HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH
CHIEF OF STAFF MULL VAIPY IN 
RETURN FOR INVESTIGATIONS THIS 
MEETING WOULD GET SCHEDULED. 
>> WAS HE SPECIFIC AT THAT POINT
LATER ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO?
>> HE SAID THE INVESTIGATIONS IN
BURISMA. 
>> NOW, DID YOU HAVE A 
CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON AFTER THIS SUBSEQUENT 
PLEATING WITH AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND?
>> I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HIM 
AFTER AND THEN ONE IMMEDIATELY 
AFTER THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING. 
>> SO THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING OR 
AFTER BOTH WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM
AND RELAYED TO HIM WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, WHAT 
DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAY TO 
YOU?
>> I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT 
FIRST OF ALL THAT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WANTED ME TO HOLD BACK IN
THE ROOM, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE 
MEETING.
AGAIN I WAS SITTING ON THE SOFA 
WITH A COLLEAGUE. 
>> JUST IN THAT SECOND MEETING?
>> HE WAS MAKING A VERY STRONG 
POINT THAT HE WANTED TO KNOW 
EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING SAID.
WHEN I CAME BACK AND RELATED IF 
TO HIM, HE HAD SOME VERY 
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION FOR ME.
I'M PRESUMING THAT THAT'S THE 
QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING. 
>> WHAT WAS THAT?
>> I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS TO
JOHN EISENBERG, SENIOR COUNSEL 
FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNSEL TO SAY, YOU TELL 
EISENBERG AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD
ME THAT I AM NOT PART OF THIS 
WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY
AND SONDLAND ARE COOKING UP. 
>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM 
TO MEAN BY THE DRUG DEAL THAT 
MULVANEY AND SONDLAND WERE 
COOKING UP?
>> I TOOK IT TO MEAN 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING. 
>> DID YOU GO SPEAK TO THE 
LAWYERS?
>> I CERTAINLY DID. 
>> YOU RELAYED EVERYTHING THAT 
YOU JUST TOLD US AND MORE?
>> I RELATED PRECISELY AND MORE 
THE DETAILS OF HOW THE MEETING 
HAD UNFOLDED AS WELL, WHICH I 
GAVE A FULL DECISION OF THIS IN 
MY OCTOBER 14 DEPOSITION. 
>> MR. HOLMES, YOU HAVE 
TESTIFIED THAT BY LATE AUGUST, 
YOU HAD A CLEAR IMPRESSION THAT 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS
SOMEHOW CONNECTED TO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED.
HOW DID YOU CONCLUDE THAT -- HOW
DO YOU MAKE REACH THAT CLEAR 
CONCLUSION?
>> SIR, WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT
THE INVESTIGATIONS SINCE MARCH, 
MONTHS BEFORE, AND WE'D BEEN -- 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RECEIVED 
A CONGRATULATORY LETTER FROM THE
PRESIDENT SAYING HE'D BE PLEASED
TO MEET HIM FOLLOWING HIS 
INAUGURATION IN MAY.
AND WE HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET 
THAT MEETING.
AND THEN THE SECURITY HOLD CAME 
UP.
WITH NO EXPLANATION.
AND I'D BE SURPRISED IF ANY OF 
THE UKRAINIANS YOU SAID EARLIER,
WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, SFICHT 
SOPHISTICATED PEOPLE, WHEN THEY 
RECEIVED NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY 
THAT WAS IN PLACE, THEY WOULDN'T
HAVE DRAWN THAT CONCLUSION. 
>> BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATIONS 
WERE STILL BEING PURSUED?
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND THE HOLD WAS STILL 
REPLAINING WITHOUT EXPLANATION?
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO THIS TO YOU WAS THE ONLY 
LAJCAL CONCLUSION YOU COULD 
REACH?
>> CORRECT. 
>> SORT OF LIKE TWO PLUS TWO 
EQUALS FOUR?
>> EXACTLY. 
>> CHAIRMAN, I YIELD.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE MAJORITY 
QUESTIONING.
WE ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE VOTES I 
THINK FAIRLY SOON.
THIS WILL BE APPROPRIATE TIME TO
BREAK AND WE'LL RESUME WITH THE 
MINORITY 45 MINUTES.
IF PEOPLE COULD ALLOW THE 
WITNESSES TO LEAVE FIRST, AND IF
COMMITTEE MEMBERS COULD COME 
BACK PROMPTLY AFTER VOTES.
>>> COMMITTEE WILL BE IN RECESS.
>>> THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE TAKING A BREAK IN 
THEIR HEARING DUE TO HOUSE VOTES
HAPPENING NOW ON THE FLOOR.
THEY'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE 
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
ANALYST ON RUSSIA FIONA HILL AND
DAVID HOLMES POLITICAL COUNSELOR
AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE.
WE WILL HAVE LIVE COVERAGE WHEN 
THE HEARING RESUMES.
WE'LL GET TO YOUR CALLS AND 
COMMENTS.
DEMOCRATS 202-748-8920, 
202-748-8921, OTHERS 
202-748-8922.
NANCY PELOSI HAS BEEN TALKING 
ABOUT THE HEARINGS GOING ON. 
>> PLEASE LET US KNOW.
YES, SIR.
>> BEFORE YOU FULLY EMBRACE THE 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, YOU SAID 
ONE OF THE REASONS YOU WERE 
CAUTIOUS ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOU 
SAID THE PROCESS WOULD BE LONG, 
ARDUOUS AND DIVISIVE.
IT TURNS OUT YOU WERE RIGHT.
IT SEEMS AS IF WE'RE IN THIS 
POSITION.
BUT IN THE SENSE THAT BOTH SIDES
ARE DUG IN AND IMPEACHMENT HAS 
SORT OF TAKEN ON THE TENOR OF 
BEING JUST LIKE ANY OTHER 
PARTISAN DISPUTE. 
>> I DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO THAT.
I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION 
PREDICATED ON THAT. 
>> THERE'S NOT BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT. 
>> IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN THE
DENIAL ABOUT THE FACTS, THEY DO 
NOT WANT TO HONOR THEIR OATH OF 
OFFICE, THEN I DON'T THINK THAT 
THIS SHOULD BE -- WE SHOULD BE 
CHARACTERIZED AS PARTISAN IN ANY
WAY BECAUSE WE ARE PATRIOTIC.
WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION. 
>> HOW DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR 
CALCULUS GOING FORWARD?
>> NO, THE FACTS -- WE SAID WE 
WANTED TO SEE THE FACTS AND THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE THE 
FACTS.
WHATEVER DECISION IS MADE, AND 
IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE YET, 
WHATEVER THE DECISION IS MADE TO
GO FORWARD WILL BE BASED ON OUR 
HONORING OUR OATH OF OFFICE, NOT
ON THE RESISTANCE TO THE TRUTH 
OF THE REPUBLICANS ON THE OTHER 
SIDE.
I THINK THE SAD TRAGEDY OF ALL 
OF THIS IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE DEFENSE OF 
THAT BEHAVIOR BY THE 
REPUBLICANS.
YES, SIR?
>> MADAM SPEAKER, ON A DIFFERENT
SUBJECT, TRADE, WHAT ADDITIONAL 
GUARANTEES OR WHAT ADDITIONAL 
GUARANTEES ARE NEEDED ON USMCA 
TO SECURE ENFORCEABILITY, NUMBER
ONE?
AND NUMBER TWO, RECENTLY YOU 
SAID YOU THOUGHT A -- WITH 
AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER WAS 
IMMINENT.
IS THAT STILL THE CASE TODAY 
AFTER YOUR MEETING WITH RICHARD 
TRUMPCA AND YOUR PRESS STATEMENT
WITH THE CHAIRMAN RICHARD NEAL A
COUPLE OF DAYS AGO?
>> THANK YOU FOR REFERENCING THE
STATEMENT WITH RICHARD NEAL 
BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE CLARITY, ONE
SENTENCE, WE WANT TO SEE 
ENFORCEABILITY.
AND THE TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 
KNOWS THAT.
JUST THINK OF YOURSELF AS A 
WORKER OUT THERE WHO'S BEEN 
AFFECTED BY TRADE.
FELT VERY BETRAYED BY THE -- BY 
NAFTA.
WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO 
DRASTICALLY IMPROVE THE 
SITUATION, THAT IS TO SAY TO 
MAKE IT REAL, NOT JUST NAFTA 
WITH SUGAR ON TOP BUT A CHANGE 
IN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF IT.
AND SO THAT YOU HAVE 
ENFORCEABILITY.
SO WHAT WE SAY AND PROMISE 
PEOPLE, WE CAN GET A RESULT FOR 
THEM.
SO FOR THE AMERICAN WORKERS, WE 
HAVE TO HAVE ENFORCEABILITY.
AND I THINK IF WE CAN GET TO 
THAT PLACE, WE CAN HAVE A 
TEMPLATE FOR TRADE AGREEMENTS 
THAT WILL SERVE US WELL IN 
FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS.
BUT JUST TO HAVE A RHETORICAL 
COMMENTS IS INTERESTING.
IT'S PLEASANT.
BUT IT'S NOT MAKING A DIFFERENCE
IN THE LIVES OF AMERICA'S 
WORKERS.
AND IF WE DON'T IMPROVE THE 
LEVERAGE FOR AMERICA'S WORKERS, 
WE DON'T IMPROVE THE LEVERAGE 
FOR MEXICAN WORKERS.
THE LOWER THEY GET PAID THE MORE
JOBS GO TO MEXICO, THE MORE THE 
MIGRATION ISSUE FESTERS.
AND AGAIN WE HAVEN'T HELPED 
AMERICAN WORKERS. 
>> SO THE MEXICANS HAVEN'T DONE 
ENOUGH IN TERMS OF REFORMS AND 
THEIR COMMITMENT TO -- 
>> WE HAVE TO MAKE AN EVALUATION
ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO HONOR 
THEIR COMMITMENTS.
AND WE ARE TRUSTWORTHY IN THAT 
RESPECT.
BUT WE HAVE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS
IN THE BILL, AGAIN, I VOTED FOR 
NAFTA, YOU HEARD ME SAY THAT 
OVER AND OVER, BASED ON SIDE 
BARS AND LETTERS AND THINGS LIKE
THAT, WHICH WERE NEVER HONORED.
ALL THESE GOOD INTENTIONS, LET'S
HONOR OUR WORKERS BY PUTTING 
THEM IN THE BILL SO THAT THEY 
HAVE THE EFFECT OF LAW. 
>> TIMING?
>> TIMING?
I'D LIKE TO -- I'M EAGER TO GET 
THIS DONE.
I ASSUME -- SEE, PEOPLE HAVE -- 
WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF INSTANT 
GRATIFICATION.
YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT?
WHEN THE BILL IS THE COMING?
NO, THERE'S A LOT OF WRITING AND
CONVERSATIONS WITH CANADA, WITH 
MEXICO, ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WE 
MIGHT COME TO AGREEMENT ON IN 
TERMS OF THE CHANGE IN THE 
ACTUAL TREATY AND THE ACTUAL 
AGREEMENT.
SO IT WILL TAKE TIME TO WRITE 
AND THEN TO BRING TO THE FLOOR.
BUT ONE GIANT STEP WILL BE IF WE
COULD COME TO TERMS.
AND WE HAVE REALLY CLARITY IN 
WHAT OUR POSITION IS.
SO IT'S NOT VAGUE IN ANY WAY.
WE HAVE CLARITY.
YOU'RE EITHER FOR ENFORCEMENT OR
YOU'RE FOR NOT -- 
>> AND OUR COVERAGE OF SPEAKER 
PELOSI'S BRIEFING CONTINUING 
ONLINE LIVE AT C-SPAN.ORG.
THE LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE 
BUILDING, THE SCENE THE PAST 
WEEK AND LAST WEEK AS WELL OF 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS ON THE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY.
THEY'RE HEARING TODAY FROM FIONA
HILL, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY 
EXPERT ON RUSSIA, AND DAVID 
HOLMES, THE POLITICAL COUNSELOR 
TO THE U.S. EMBASSY AT THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN UKRAINE.
THEY'RE IN A BREAK NOW BECAUSE 
THERE'S A SERIES OF VOTES ON THE
HOUSE FLOOR.
WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.
202-748-8920, REPUBLICANS 
202-748-8921, AND FOR ALL OTHERS
THAT'S 202-748-8922.
LET'S HEAR FIRST FROM TREASA IN 
CHESSA PEAK, VIRGINIA, ON OUR 
REPUBLICAN LINE. 
>> Caller: HOW ARE YOU?
>> FINE. 
>> Caller:.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF
POINTS.
THIS IS A TRAVESTY IN OUR 
JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LACK 
OF DUE PROCESS WITH THE THIRD 
AND FOURTH PARTY INFORMATION, 
THE HEARSAY, THE LEADING OF THE 
WITNESSES.
I HAVE A REAL ISSUE WITH ADAM 
SCHIFF, WHO ALSO ALREADY BEEN 
COMPROMISED WITH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER, LEADING THIS 
INVESTIGATION.
I FEEL LIKE THAT HIS HATE AND 
HIS, YOU KNOW, OPINIONS ARE SO 
STRONGLY THROWN OUT THERE THAT 
THERE'S NO WAY THAT ANY PERSON 
WATCHING THESE HEARINGS COULD 
THINK THAT THEY'RE BEING DONE 
FAIRLY.
MY OTHER ISSUE IS THAT I FEEL 
LIKE MISS HILL'S POINT ABOUT HOW
OUR WEAKNESSES AND DIVIDING OUR 
COUNTRY, YOU KNOW, OTHER PEOPLE 
THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WAITING TO 
TAKE OVER THE WORLD ARE WATCHING
THAT AND THAT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS ALLOW THEIR HATE OF 
ONE MAN TO TRUMP THEIR LOVE OF 
COUNTRY.
NOW, MISS PELOSI JUST STOOD UP 
AND TALKED ABOUT HONOR AND OATH 
OF OFFICE.
I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT 
BOTH SIDES, DEMOCRATS, 
REPUBLICANS, WHATEVER YOUR TITLE
IS, THAT ALL OF THEM WENT BACK 
TO HONOR AN OATH OF OFFICE AND 
DID THE JOBS THEY WERE ELECTED 
TO DO, THAT IS, TO GOVERN OUR 
COUNTRY INSTEAD OF SEARCHING FOR
EVERYTHING THEY CAN FIND WHEN A 
MAN THEY JUST HATE.
>> ALL RIGHT, WE'LL HEAR FROM 
COREY NEXT WHO'S CALLING FOR 
IRVING, TEXAS.
HI, THERE. 
>> Caller: HI.
I JUST WANTED TO CALL IN TO MAKE
SURE THAT AMERICANS ARE USING 
PROPER LOGIC WHEN THEY'RE 
ASSESSING THESE SORTS OF 
SCENARIOS.
AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SORTS OF 
LOGICAL FALLACIES EXIST AND HOW 
THEY'RE BEING IMPLEMENTED WITHIN
THESE KINDS OF HEARINGS.
YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF DEMOCRATS
ASKING ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE 
FACTS OF THE MATTER AND GETTING 
TO THE BOTTOM, AND YOU SAY IF A,
THEN B, IF B, THEN C, TO REACH 
SOME CONCLUSION AND GETTING THE 
FACTS THAT LINE UP.
YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF 
REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS 
USING LOGICAL FALLACIES SUCH AS 
A RED HERRING, WHICH IS A 
DIVERSIONARY TACTIC, SUCH AS, 
OKAY, WE WANT WANT TO ARGUE IF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ACTUALLY 
DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS 
POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL OR 
IMPEACHABLE, SO INSIDE WE'RE 
GOING TO FOCUS ON THE BIDENS, SO
YOU GUYS LOOK OVER HERE BECAUSE 
WE WANT TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT 
AND INQUIRY SOMETHING THAT IT'S 
NOT.
OR, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF 
STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS WHERE THEY'RE
OVER SIM PLOOIFY A VIEWPOINT AND
SAY, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ARGUE 
THAT THERE WAS NO AID THAT WAS 
WITHHELD IN THE END AND THERE 
WAS NO INVESTIGATION THAT WAS 
LAUNCHED, SO THEREFORE NOTHING 
BAD HAPPENS HAPPENED, WHICH IS A
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT WHICH IS A 
LOGICAL FALLACY AS WELL.
I THINK THAT THE POPULATION IN 
GENERAL IS GETTING DUPED BY 
REPUBLICANS OVER SIMPLE LOGICAL 
FALLACIES THAT ARE EASY TO SHOW 
AND EASY TO VALIDATE, AT WHOSE 
INTENTIONS ARE MORE CLEAR AND 
WHOSE TRYING TO DUPE THE 
POPULATION. 
>> ARE YOU HEARING THE SAME SORT
OF ISSUES WITH THE COUNSELS ON 
EITHER SIDE, MR. GOLDMAN, 
MR. CASTOR ON THE REPUBLICAN 
SIDE?
>> HONESTLY, CASTOR IS DOING A 
GOOD JOB OF ASKING QUESTIONS, 
BUT NOT REALLY OF FINDING 
ANYTHING OUT.
SO HE IS USING GOOD LOGIC ON 
THE -- THEMSELVES.
BUT HE'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
YOU KNOW, HE'S RUNNING THROUGH 
THE MOTIONS, IT SEEMS LIKE TO 
ME.
BUT I SUGGEST THAT A LOT OF THE 
AMERICAN POPULATION LOOK AT 
PHILOSOPHY, UNDERSTAND HOW TO 
FORM AN ACTUAL LOGICALLY SOUND 
STATEMENT BEFORE YOU DICTATE 
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS INQUIRY
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOME PARTIES 
ARE LOOKING TO PREY ON PEOPLE 
THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES
SOMETHING VALID AND WANT TO GET 
AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE OUT OF 
PEOPLE.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE MORE 
EDUCATED PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND 
WHAT'S TRULY GOING ON AND NOT BE
DUPED BY SOME OF THESE 
POLITICIANS.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT.
LET'S HEAR FROM CAROL NEXT WHO'S
CALLING ON OUR DEMOCRATS' LINE 
IN LOUISIANA.
CAROL, HI THERE. 
>> Caller: HI.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME ON HERE.
I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF.
I CAN SAY A LOT OF THE THINGS 
THAT I THINK ABOUT MR. TRUMP 
BECAUSE I REALLY CAN'T CALL HIM 
PRESIDENT, SORRY.
I FIND IT IRONIC THAT THE FIRST 
CALLER TALKED ABOUT THE 
DEMOCRATS' HATE FOR HIM.
MY CONCERN IS THAT ALL I'M 
HEARING FROM DEVIN NUNES AND THE
REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE IS
THEIR LOVE OF THIS ONE MAN ABOVE
AND BEYOND THEIR COUNTRY, OUR 
COUNTRY, OUR CONSTITUTION.
THEY ARE DEFENDING HIM OVER AND 
AGAINST THE CONCLUSIONS OF OUR 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES, AS 
DR. HILL JUST POINTED OUT SO 
CLEARLY IN HER OPENING 
STATEMENT.
I WANT TO KNOW HOW IT IS THAT 
THEIR LOYALTY IS TO THIS ONE MAN
OVER OUR COUNTRY.
AND THAT'S JUST IN THIS HEARING 
HERE.
AS I SAY, THERE'S A LOT OF 
THINGS THAT I THINK THAT THEY'RE
COVERING FOR HIM FOR, BUT I'LL 
JUST KEEP IT TO THIS PARTICULAR 
SUBJECT.
>> ALL RIGHT, HERE'S ANGIE, NEXT
UP, REPUBLICAN IN CROSSVILLE, 
ALABAMA.
WELCOME. 
>> Caller: HI.
THANK YOU.
I'M GLAD YOU'RE TAKING MY CALL.
I HAVE WATCHED THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY FROM BEGINNING TO NOW.
AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE SHRED OF
CONCRETE EVIDENCE.
I HEAR A BUNCH OF HEARSAY AND 
CONJECTURE.
I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN TAKE 
SOMEBODY'S WORDS FOR SOMETHING 
AND IT NOT BE PROVIDED WITH 
EVIDENCE.
I WANT TO SEE PAPERS.
I WANT TO SEE CALL RECORDS.
I WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW -- I 
DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT 
MR. HOLMES' CONVERSATION.
I WANT TO HEAR, OKAY, HERE'S A 
CALL RECORD OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT -- AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND.
>> RIGHT.
SO YOU WANT TO SEE A CALL RECORD
OF THAT?
>> I WANT A CALL RECORD OF THAT.
I WANT A CALL RECORD OF 
EVERYTHING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
HAS SAID TO PROVE THAT HE HAS 
NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG.
IT'S ALL BEEN HEARSAY.
I HEAR, YOU KNOW, THIS THROUGH 
THE GRAPEVINE.
WELL, WHO'S ALL THESE PEOPLE IN 
THE GRAPEVINE?
AND THE OTHER THING IS WHY CAN'T
THE REPUBLICANS -- OUR 
WITNESSES, WHY DOES SCHIFF KEEP 
SHUTTING US DOWN?
I THINK IT'S A SCHIFF SHOW AND I
THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT 
GETTING A FAIR OPPORTUNITY.
>> AND OF COURSE THE RANKING 
MEMBER, DEVIN NUNES MAENGSED 
THAT LATE LAST NIGHT AS THE 
HEARING WRAPPED UP, THE 
DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE 
BLOCKING THE REQUESTS BY 
REPUBLICANS FOR DOCUMENTS AND 
TESTIMONY FROM THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER, FROM HUNTER 
BIDEN, FROM THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
IT'S LIVE COVERAGE HERE ON 
C-SPAN3 AND RADIO OF THE HEARING
TODAY, TODAY HEARING FROM FIONA 
HILL, A FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY
EXPERT ON UKRAINE, ON RUSSIA AND
UKRAINE, AND ALSO FROM DAVID 
HOLMES WHO IS POLITICAL 
COUNSELOR AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN
UKRAINE.
THE HEARING IN A BREAK RIGHT 
NOW.
THERE'S A SERIES OF VOTES COMING
UP ON THE HOUSE FLOOR ON A BILL 
THAT THEY'VE DEBATED EARLIER 
TODAY.
AND WE WILL HAVE LIVE COVERAGE 
OF COURSE WHEN THE HEARING 
RESUMES.
CONTINUING TO TAKE YOUR CALLS, 
YOUR COMMENTS, 202-748-8920 FOR 
DEMOCRATS.
202-748-8921 FOR REPUBLICANS.
AND 202-748-8922.
LET'S HEAR WHAT PEOPLE ARE 
SAYING OUTSIDE THE HEARING ROOM.
>> SEEMS TO BE TELLING 
EVERYTHING HE KNOWS AS PART OF A
BOOK DEAL BUT NOT THIS INQUIRY.
I THINK IT'S UNREALISTIC TO 
EXPECT BOLTON TO COME IN AND 
COOPERATE. 
>> BETTER TO JUST MOVE FORWARD 
WITH WHAT YOU HAVE?
>> WE'RE NOT IN CONTROL.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET -- BY 
HAVING -- EEK THEIR WAY IN THE 
JUDICIAL PROCESS. 
>> WOULDN'T YOU THINK IT BETTER 
TO HAVE IT LOEKD DOWN 
COMPLETELY, MULVANEY, POMPEO, 
EVEN IF IT TAKES LONGER?
>> TALK TO THE PRESIDENT.
HE'S THE ONE WHO'S IN CONTROL OF
THAT.
HE'S TELLING PEOPLE, NO, NO, NO.
>> BUT YOU HAVE -- IN COURT?
>> COURT TAKES A REALLY LONG 
TIME.
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S EFFORT IS TO 
STONEWALL AND THEN THE SLOW-WALK
IN COURT AND ESSENTIALLY AVOID 
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE PRESIDENT COULD MAKE ALL 
THAT HAPPEN IF HE PROVIDED A 
LEVEL OF COOPERATION THAT WAS 
PROVIDED BY PRESIDENT NIXON AND 
BY PRESIDENT CLINTON.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE 
PRESIDENT DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT 
CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY UNDER 
ARTICLE ONE TO DO AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY, AND THAT PUTS HIM ABOVE
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ABOVE ANY
AUTHORITY AT ALL.
HE'S CHALLENGING THE ROLE OF 
CONGRESS AND THE SEPARATION OF 
POWERS AND COEQUAL BRANCHES OF 
GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
>> IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY WITNESS 
EVEN THOSE MORE FRIENDLY TOWARDS
THE PRESIDENT, ALL OF THEM AGREE
THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION 
TOWARD A MEETING WITH KWITD PRO 
QUO.
IS THAT ENOUGH ITS OWN OR DO YOU
HAVE TO PROV OUT THE MILITARY 
EYED?
>> THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT USED PUBLIC OFFICE FOR
PRIVATE GAIN.
AND THE TWO THINGS THAT HE WAS 
LEVERAGING WAS HIS ABILITY TO 
GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND 
HIS ABILITY OR THE AUTHORITY TO 
WITHHOLD MILITARY AID.
SO I THINK THESE ESTABLISH BOTH.
THOSE ARE THE TOOLS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAD. 
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT 
HOLMES' STATEMENT THAT SECRETARY
PERRY MET WITH KEY UKRAINIAN 
ENERGY SECTOR CONTACTS WITHOUT 
EMBASSY PERSONAL PRESENT?
>> MAKES YOU WONDER WHAT WAS 
GOING ON THERE.
A LOT OF THE CORRUPTION WAS IN 
THE ENERGY SECTOR.
SO THAT'S A VERY UNUSUAL THING 
TO HAPPEN.
AND ESPECIALLY WHEN SECRETARY 
PERRY WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE 
DIPLOMATIC, THAT'S NOT HIS 
PORTFOLIO, BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE
THREE AMIGOS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DISCUSSED
BUT IT'S QUITE SUSPICIOUS. 
>> DO YOU THINK THIS IS THE LAST
HEARING?
>> I'M NOT SURE.
WE'RE GOING TO MEET AS A 
COMMITTEE AFTER THIS BUT AT THIS
POINT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER 
SCHEDULES. 
>> THANKS A LOT. 
>> THANKS A LOT, YOU GUYS. 
>> THANK YOU.
YEP. 
>>> CONGRESSMAN PETER WELCH OF 
VERMONT, ONE OF THE 13 DEMOCRATS
ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE, THERE ARE NINE 
REPUBLICANS, REPORTERS CATCHING 
UP WITH HIM AS THERE'S A SERIES 
OF VOTES CERTAINLY ABOUT TO GET 
UNDERWAY ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN A 
BREAK BECAUSE OF THAT.
WE'RE TAKING YOUR CALLS.
LET'S GO TO BEN, ATHENS, 
GEORGIA, ON OUR OTHERS LINE. 
>> Caller: HOW ARE YOU DOING?
>> FINE, THANK YOU. 
>> Caller: ADDRESSING A CALLER 
JUST HERE WHERE SHE DISCUSSED 
ABOUT HOW THERE WAS NO DIRECT 
EVIDENCE.
I FIND THAT INTERESTING 
CONSIDERING TRUMP DID RELEASE OF
TRANSCRIPT OF HIS ORIGINAL CALL 
WHERE HE DID ASK, YOU KNOW, I 
WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, RIGHT
AFTER HE MENTIONED THE MILITARY 
AID.
AND THAT IS ITSELF DIRECT 
EVIDENCE.
AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, 
SINCE TRUMP IS AN ORIGINAL 
AUTHORITY, CAN RELEASE THIS -- 
ANY AMOUNT OF COMMUNICATIONS OR 
INFORMATION ABOUT THIS THEY WANT
TO AT ANY POINT IN TIME.
SO I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT THE 
OBJECTIVE HERE IS BY KEEPING TO 
BRINGING UP THE REPUBLICANS AND 
THEIR VARIOUS POINTS. 
>> GET YOU TO HOLD A QUICK SEC.
WE UNDERSTAND JACKIE SPOOE 
SPEIER IS OUTSIDE THE HEARING 
ROOM. 
>> DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR CASE 
WOULD BE STRONGER WITH MORE -- 
MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY AND GETTING
THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO HELP 
TRYING TO FIGHT THAT OUT IN 
COURT?
WOULD YOUR CASE BE STRONGER ON 
THIS MAJOR ISSUE?
>> I THINK WE HAVE BEEN HAMPERED
IN OUR ABILITY BECAUSE THE WHITE
HOUSE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, HAVE ALL 
WITHHELD DOCUMENTS FROM US.
BUT EVEN WITH OUR HANDS TIED 
BEHIND OUR BACKS, WE'VE BEEN 
ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR
MOVING FORWARD WITH A REVIEW OF 
WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BROUGHT 
TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. 
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE RISK OF 
TRYING TO FIGHT THIS OUT?
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE 
VERY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC THAT THERE WAS PRESIDENT 
ABUSED HIS OFFICE.
SHOULD YOU GET THAT FIGHT IS OUT
IN COURT AND GET THAT KEY 
TESTIMONY WHERE THERE WILL BE 
BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID?
>> WELL, ACTUALLY THE PRESIDENT 
HELPED US OUT BY RELEASING THE 
SUMMARY OF HIS TELEPHONECALL.
WE HAVE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT FILE THAT WAS AN 
EFFORT TO PROOENT US FROM 
ACCESSING THAT.
HE THEN RELEASES THE SUMMARY OF 
HIS CONVERSATION, WHICH 
ESTABLISHES THE ELEMENTS OF 
BRIBERY, WHERE SOMEONE IN OFFICE
REQUESTS FROM SOMEONE ELSE 
SOMETHING OF VALUE, THE 
INVESTIGATION, THEN WITHHOLDS 
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE 
MILITARY AID. 
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE FACT 
THAT PARTICULARLY SOME OF THOSE 
FOLKS LIKE MR. HOLMES WHO IS A 
LOWER LEVEL EMPLOYEE SEEM TO 
MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN 
BURISMA AND BIDEN INSTANTLY AND 
SOME OF THESE MORE HIGH POWERED 
FOLKS SEEM TO HAVE MISSED THAT 
CONNECTION?
>> I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL FOREIGN 
SERVICE OFFICERS AND APPOINTEES.
>> DO YOU BUY THAT 
EXPLANATION -- BURISMA AND 
BIDEN?
>> THEY TESTIFIED TO THAT UNDER 
OATH.
I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT THEY'RE 
TELLING THE TRUTH.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
MEMBER JACKIE SPEIER OF 
CALIFORNIA.
WE WERE ON THE LINE WITH BEN 
FROM ATHENS, GEORGIA.
GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR POINT.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE 
AND YOU WERE MENTIONING A 
PREVIOUS CALLER.
FINISH YOUR THOUGHT, BEN. 
>> Caller: YEAH, THE OTHER PART 
I WANTED TO BRING UP IS THAT WE 
KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS 
INFORMATION THAT'S SUPPOSEDLY 
OUT THERE ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE 
HUNTER BIDEN OR BURISMA OR ET 
CETERA.
BUT IT'S CURIOUS CONSIDERING 
DEVIN NUNES LED THIS COMMITTEE 
FOR TWO WHOLE YEARS PREVIOUSLY, 
AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
CLEARLY KNEW THAT THERE WAS A 
QUOTE/UNQUOTE POTENTIAL 
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST.
WHY IS THIS JUST COMING UP NOW 
IS WHAT I WANT TO ASK MY 
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS HERE?
WHY IS ALL OF THIS INFORMATION 
CONVENIENTLY COMING UP NOW?
WHY DID DEVIN NUNES NOT BRING 
ANY OF IT UP IN THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE BACK THEN?
IT SEEMS VERY CONVENIENT NOW 
THAT TRUMP HAS BEEN CAUGHT DOING
SOMETHING, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN 
THERE ARE OTHER THEORIES THAT 
NEED INVESTIGATING?
>> HERE'S KENNETH ON OUR 
DEMOCRATS LINE.
THAIFRMGZ FOR WAITING.
GO AHEAD. 
>> Caller: GOOD MORNING.
HOW IS EVERYONE DOING?
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. 
>> Caller: THE REPUBLICANS HAD A
CHANCE TO CALL ANYONE THEY 
WANTED TO TESTIFY, BUT THEY 
CHOSE TO ASK BIDEN AND HIS SON 
AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
IT'S LIKE ANNOUNCING, OKAY, 
SOMEONE SAW THE BUILDING ON FIRE
AND PULLED THE FIRE ALARM, AND 
EVERYBODY SAID, YES, THERE'S A 
FIRE, AND LET'S PUT IT OUT.
AND NOW THEY WANT THE PERSON 
THAT PULLED THE FIRE ALARM TO 
SAY YES, I PULLED IT.
THAT'S REALLY NOT THE POINT.
THEY HAD A CHANCE TO CALL ANYONE
THEY WANTED, AND THEY CHOSE TO 
CALL PEOPLE THAT REALLY ARE NOT 
RELEVANT TO SAY TRUMP DID THIS, 
AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 
WHAT HE DID.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHY THE 
REPUBLICANS ARE SO HARPED UP ON 
THAT WHEN WE COULD HAVE CALLED 
WHOEVER THEY WARRANTED TO, IF 
THEY HAD SOMEBODY IN DEFENSE 
THEY COULD HAVE CALLED THE 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF OR ANYBODY 
THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT CAN'T 
COME BY THESE SUBPOENAS, DENYING
THESE SUBPOENA REQUESTS, THEY 
SHOULD HAVE COME UP AND SAID 
WHAT THEY WANTED TO SAY.
THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT.
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE HAVING A 
BAD LEG THEY'RE STANDING ON. 
>> BRIAN IS NEXT IN BAR TOE, 
PENNSYLVANIA.
>> Caller: HI, HOW ARE YOU?
>> DOING FINE, THANK YOU. 
>> Caller: I JUST THINK THAT 
THIS IS A COMPLETE OUTRAGE AND 
WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY CALLING 
TO TESTIFY PEOPLE THAT -- 
>> BRIAN, I THINK WE DID LOSE 
YOU.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
DROPPED CALL THERE.
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, MARY 
IS ON THE OTHERS LINE.
GO AHEAD. 
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING 
MY CALL. 
>> YOU BET. 
>> Caller: I JUST HAVE TWO QUICK
POINTS.
THE FIRST POINT IS I KNOW THAT A
LOT OF THIS -- I'M HEARING THAT 
A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT 
LIKE THE LAST CALLER THAT JUST 
GOT DROPPED, ABOUT TAXPAYERS' 
MONEY ON THIS IMPEACHMENT 
HEARING OR INQUIRY AND WHY CAN'T
WE WAIT UNTIL -- TO TAKE IT OUT 
ON THE 2020, WE CAN JUST HANDLE 
IT AT THE BALLOTS.
BRU THE PROBLEM IS WITH THAT, 
AND I'M AN INDEPENDENT VOTER, 
THE PROBLEM WITH WAITING UNTIL 
2020 TO, YOU KNOW, SEE IF WE CAN
BEAT TRUMP, SO TO SAY, AT THE 
BALLOTS, IS IF YOU'RE CHEATING 
AND IF THIS HEARING IS ABOUT 
CHEATING OR POLITICAL ADVANTAGES
OR WHATEVER, IT WOULD SEEM THAT 
AMERICA WOULD WANT TO STRAIGHTEN
THAT OUT BEFORE WE GET TO THE 
ELECTIONS.
DOESN'T EVERYONE WANT TO HAVE 
FAIR ELECTIONS?
YOU KNOW, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE 
EVERYONE WOULD WANT TO HAVE A 
FAIR ELECTION, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR
IF YOU'RE HEARING ALL OF THIS --
THESE ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO 
POLITICAL ADVANTAGES.
>> DO YOU THINK AT ALL, MARY, OF
THE LONGER THIS PROCESS GOES ON,
THE PROBLEMS IT MAY PRESENT IN 
TERMS OF THE 2020 ELECTIONS, NOT
JUST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
BUT THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS?
IS IT AN ISSUE THAT MAY NOT GO 
AWAY?
>> Caller: WELL I DON'T THINK 
THIS ISSUE IS GOING TO GO AWAY 
QUICKLY, BECAUSE HISTORY IS 
GOING TO REMEMBER EVERYONE 
THAT'S INVOLVED.
YOU KNOW, IT'S MORE THAN JUST 
TRUMP.
IT'S SHOWING THAT THEY'RE -- 
WHEN TRUMP SAID HE WAS GOING TO 
DRAPE THE SWAMP, BOY, IS HE 
RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
AND WE ARE REALLY GETTING TO THE
BOTTOM OF WHO WE HAVE IN 
CONGRESS AND SENATE AND WHAT 
PEOPLE REALLY STAND FOR IN 
AMERICA.
IS IT MORE THAN A JOB?
IS IT, YOU KNOW, IS IT ABOUT 
AMERICA?
IS IT ABOUT YOUR CONSTITUENTS?
IS IT -- I WANT TO SEE PEOPLE 
STANDING FOR WHAT THEY WERE 
VOTED IN TO DO.
YEAH.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO FOLLOW -- 
THIS IS GOING TO BE -- THIS IS 
GOING TO LAST LONGER THAN TRUMP 
ERA.
BUT AGAIN, WHEN IT COMES TO THE 
WHOLE TRUMP SITUATION, IF HE 
WAS, YOU KNOW, GETTING PEOPLE TO
MEDDLE IN THE ELECTIONS OR 
ASKING ZELENSKY OR THE 
UKRAINIANS TO DO THIS OR THAT OR
TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS, FOR 
WHAT?
THAT'S A WASTE OF TIME.
WE KNOW THAT BIDEN, YOU KNOW, 
ASKED -- WE KNOW THAT BIDEN -- 
WHAT BIDEN DID.
WE KNOW THAT BIDEN WAS TRYING TO
STOP CORRUPTION.
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS WITH 
HIS SON.
THE POINT IS, HIS SON IS NOT 
GOING TO BE PRESIDENT.
YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T WANT US TO
BE HAVING TO WAIT UNTIL 2020 
ELECTIONS FOR A PRESIDENT THAT'S
CHEATING, IS SUPPOSED TO BE 
FAIR.
AND MY LAST POINT I WANTED TO 
MAKE IS, AND I'M SAYING THIS 
BECAUSE I REALLY CARE ABOUT 
AMERICA AND ALL OF US.
WHENEVER TRUMP SAYS THAT HE CAN 
SHOOT SOMEONE ON 5th AVENUE, AND
HIS BASE WILL STILL STAND WITH 
HIM, THAT'S NOT A COMPLIMENT.
HE IS OUTRIGHT INSULTING YOU.
OKAY?
THAT'S AN INSULT. 
>> WE'LL CONTINUE TO TAKE YOUR 
CALLS.
FOR 202-748-8920, FOR 
REPUBLICANS 202-748-8921, OTHERS
202-748-8922.
THIS IS THE LAST HEARING FOR THE
WEEK FOR THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE.
THEY STARTED AT 9:00.
THEY'RE IN A BREAK FOR A SERIES 
OF FOUR VOTES ON THE HOUSE 
FLOOR.
THEY'LL RESUME AFTER THAT AS FOR
OUR LIVE COVERAGE ON C-SPAN.
A COUPLE OF CALLERS BEFORE 
TALKED ABOUT THAT PHONE CALL THE
DAY AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE 
WITH ZELENSKY, THE PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 
THE EUROPEAN UNION, GORDON 
SONDLAND, WHICH WAS OVERHEARD BY
DAVID HOLMES WHO IS THE 
POLITICAL COUNSELOR AT THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN UKRAINE, MR. HOLMES 
TALKED ABOUT THAT IN HIS OPENING
STATEMENT, AND HERE'S A LOOK AT 
THAT NOW.
>> WHEN THE MEETING ENDED THE 
TWO STAFFERS AND I ACCOMPANIED 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OUT OF THE 
BUILDING.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE 
WANTED TO GO TO LUNCH.
I TOLD HIM I'D BE HAPPY TO JOIN 
HIM AND THE STAFFERS FOR LUNCH 
IF HE WANTED TO BRAEF ME ON HIS 
MEETING WITH YERMAK.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID I 
SHOULD JOIN.
THE FOUR OF US WENT TO A NEARBY 
RESTAURANT AND SAT ON A TERRACE.
I SAT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HIM.
AT FIRST THE LUNCH WAS LARGELY 
SOCIAL.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SELECTED A 
BOTTLE OF WINE.
WE DISCUSSED TOPICS SUCH A 
MARKETING STRATEGIES FOR HIS 
HOTEL BUSINESS.
DURING THE LUNCH, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID HE WAS GOING TO 
CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP TO GIVE AN 
UPDATE.
HE PLACED A CALL ON HIS MOBILE 
PHONE.
I HEARD HIM ANNOUNCE HIMSELF 
SEVERAL TIMES ALONG THE LINES OF
GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.
IT APPEARED HE WAS BEING 
TRANSFERRED THROUGH SEVERAL 
LAYERS OF SWITCH BOARDS.
I THEN NOTICED HIS DEMEANOR 
CHANGED AND UNDERSTOOD HE HAD 
BEEN CONNECTED TO PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
WHILE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
PHONE WAS NOT ON SPEAKERPHONE, I
COULD HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE
THROUGH THE EARPIECE OF PHONE.
THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE WAS LOUD 
AND RECOGNIZABLE AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HELD THE PHONE AWAY 
FROM HIS EAR FOR A PERIOD OF 
TIME PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF THE 
LOUD VOLUME.
I HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
GREET THE PRESIDENT.
I HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP CLARIFY 
AMBASSADOR WAS IN UKRAINE.
REPLIED.
HE SAID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LOVES
YOUR ASS.
I HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK, SO 
HE'S GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION?
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED, HE 
IS GOING DO IT ADDING THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO 
ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO DO.
EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT TAKE NOTES
OF THESE STATEMENTS, I HAVE A 
CLEAR RECOLLECTION THAT THESE 
STATEMENTS WERE MADE.
I BELIEVE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WHO
WERE SITTING AT THE TABLE ALSO 
KNEW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WAS SPEAKING WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THE CONVERSATION THEN SHIFTED TO
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S EFFORTS ON
BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT TO 
ASSIST A RAPPER IN SWEDEN.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT THAT THE RAPPER WAS 
KIND OF F'D THERE AND SHOULD 
HAVE PLED GUILTY.
HE RECOMMEND TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER
THE STENSING AND HADDED THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD LET HIM GET 
SENTENCED, PLAY THE RACISM CARD,
GIVE HIM A TAKER TAPE WHEN HE 
COMES HOME.
HE FURTHER TOLD THE PRESIDENT 
THAT SWEDEN SHOULD HAVE RELEASED
HIM ON YOUR WORD BUT THAT YOU 
CAN TELL THE CAR DASH YAPZ YOU 
TRIED.
AFTER THE CALL ENDED, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND REMARKED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS IN A BAD MOOD AS 
AMBASSADOR STATED WAS OFTEN THE 
CASE EARLY IN THE MORNING.
I THEN TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
ASK AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR HIS 
CANDID IMPRESSION OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON UKRAINE.
I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IF 
IT WAS TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID NOT GIVE A EXPLEATIVE ABOUT 
UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AGREED THAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT GIVE AN 
EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE.
I ASKED WHY NOT?
HE STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF.
I NOTED THERE WAS BIG STUFF 
GOING ON IN UKRAINE LIKE A WAR 
WITH RUSSIA.
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED 
HE MEANT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS
THE PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI 
WAS PUSHING.
THE CONVERSATION THEN MOVED ON 
TO OTHER TOPICS.
UPON RETURNING TO THE EMBASSY I 
IMMEDIATELY BRIEFED MY DIRECT 
SUPERVISOR THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF 
MISSION ABOUT THE CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MY 
SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
I TOLD OTHERS AT THE EMBASSY AS 
APPROXIMATELY.
I ALSO EMAILED SOMEONE IN SWEDEN
ABOUT THE U.S. RAPPER DISCUSSED.
JULY 26th WAS MY LAST DAY IN THE
OFFICE AHEAD OF A LONG-PLANNED 
VERICATION THAT ENDED ON AUGUST 
6th.
AFTER RETURNING I TOLD 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THE 
CALL.
I REPEATEDLY REFERRED TO THE 
CALL IN THE CONVERSATION WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN MEETINGS 
AND CONVERSATIONS WHERE THE 
ISSUE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
INTEREST IN UKRAINE WAS 
POTENTIALLY RELEVANT.
AT THAT TIME, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S STATEMENT TO THE 
PRESIDENT -- STATEMENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S LACK OF INTEREST IN 
UKRAINE WAS OF PARTICULAR FOCUS.
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IN ORDER TO 
SECURE A MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK 
HARD TO EXPLAIN UKRAINE'S 
IMPORTANCE'S IMPORTANCE TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN TERMS THAT HE
FOUND COMPELLING. 
>> AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETING 
ABOUT MR. HOLMES' TESTIMONY 
SAYING I'VE BEEN WATCHING PEOPLE
MAKE PHONE CALLS MY ENTIRE LIFE.
MY HEARING IS AND HAS BEEN 
GREAT.
NEVER HAVE I BEEN WATCHING A 
PERSON MAKING A CALL NOT ON A 
SPEAKERPHONE AND BEEN AGE TO 
HEAR AND UNDERSTAND.
I'VE TRIED.
TRY IT LIVE.
WE'LL CONTINUE WITH YOUR CALLS 
AND COMMENTS.
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
IN A BREAK HERE FOR VOTES ON THE
HOUSE FLOOR.
202-748-8920 IS THE DEMOCRATS' 
LINE.
REPUBLICANS 202-748-8921.
AND FOR ALL OTHERS, 
202-748-8922.
WE'LL GO TO JASON NEXT, MAY 
BANK, TEXAS, ON THE REPUBLICAN 
LINE.
>> Caller: GOOD MORNING.
HOW ARE YOU?
>> I'M DOING WELL. 
>> Caller: LET ME PREFACE THIS 
BY SAYING I'VE BEEN WATCHING 
THIS VERY BEGINNING FROM DAY ONE
UNTIL NOW.
AND WITH A RHETORICAL AND 
CRITICAL THINKING IN PLACE, I DO
BELIEVE THAT THIS HERE IS A FAR 
STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION TO 
COME UP WITH ANY KIND OF 
CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ANY 
KIND OF CRIME.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT BOILS 
DOWN TO THREE SCHOOLS OF 
THOUGHT.
YOU'VE GOT THREE VERY DISTINCT, 
STRONG-MINDED INDIVIDUALS.
YOU'VE GOT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY 
THAT HAS THEIR VEHEMENT 
DISPAINMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT.
YOU HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT 
HIS VERY STAUNCH BELIEF OF 
FOREIGN AID.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT.
AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS MADE
UP OF CAREER BUREAUCRATS THAT 
HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 20 AND 30 
YEARS.
THEY ALL TRANSSCENT ANY 
PRESIDENT IN PLACE.
ANY PRESIDENT THAT'S GOING TO BE
THERE FOUR OR EIGHT YEARS AND 
GONE.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, 
20 AND 30 YEARS.
YOU HAVE THOSE THREE SCHOOLS OF 
THOUGHTS, THE DEMOCRATS SDS 
PARTY, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT.
WELL, FOR THE LONGEST TIME, THE 
TADR HATRED OF THE PRESIDENT BY 
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THEY'VE 
BEEN SEARCHING FOR ANYTHING TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.
THEY FAILED TO COME UP WITH 
ANYTHING THEY COULD ACTUALLY 
GRASP.
NOW THIS PHONE CALL COMES UP 
WITH A TRANSCRIPT.
SO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY TAKES 
FIBERS FROM EACH SCHOOL OF 
THOUGHT OR EACH TAPESTRY HANGING
THERE AND WEAVE TOGETHER AN 
ILLUSION OF IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS 
THIS IS AN INQUIRY.
THIS IS NOT A CRIME, A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION.
IT'S AN IFRPGRY TO FIND OUT IF 
THERE'S INITIALLY ENOUGH 
EVIDENCE TO BRING UP ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> RIGHT. 
>> Caller: AND ONCE IT BOILS 
DOWN TO WHAT IT IS, THEY'RE 
GOING TO PICK APART THINGS FROM 
THE BUREAUCRATS FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, SMALL THINGS FROM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS 
STATEMENTS AND THE THINGS HE HAS
DONE, AND PICK APART THINGS FROM
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND TRY TO 
WEAVE AN ILLUSION THAT THERE IS 
ENOUGH EVIDENCE.
ONCE THIS ACTUALLY GOES TO THE 
SENATE, THEN IT BECOMES A RULE 
OF LAW THING.
ONCE IT BECOMES A RULE OF LAW, 
YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE TANGIBLE AND 
OFFICIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT 
THERE WAS A CRIME.
IF THIS WAS IN THE -- AN 
APPELLATE OR FEDERAL COURT, YOU 
CAN'T HAVE A JUDGE SAYING, OKAY,
WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?
AND BRING UP, THE EVIDENCE IS MY
ASSUMPTION OR I PRESUMED THIS OR
THAT.
THE JUDGE WILL THROW IT OUT AND 
LAUGH AT IT.
IF JOHN Q PUBLIC SHOWED ME THE 
CARD, WELL YOU DON'T HAVE THAT.
ONCE YOU THROW ALL THE 
ASSUMPTIONS OUT THERE THE JUDGE 
WILL THROW THE CASE OUT. 
>> LET ME ASK YOU, JASON.
IN SOME CASES YOU DO HAVE 
FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE ANYWAY, THE 
TESTIMONY OF PEOPLE WHO WERE 
THERE, I'M THINKING SPECIFICALLY
OF SOMEBODY LIKE GORDON SONDLAND
WHO WAS ON THE OTHER END OF THAT
PHONE CALL.
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, DAVID 
HOLMES WAS TALKING ABOUT IN HIS 
OPENING TESTIMONY.
SO THERE IS FIRSTHAND TESTIMONY,
THAT'S NOT JUST THAT -- THAT'S 
NOT JUST HEARSAY. 
>> THAT'S TESTIMONY, TRUE.
FIRSTHAND TESTIMONY OF WHAT THEY
HEARD AND THE WAY THEY PERCEIVED
IT TO BE.
GO BACK TO THE DAY BEFORE WHEN 
THEY TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP VEHEMENTLY SAID I DO NOT 
WANT.
I DON'T WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.
ALL I WANT IS ZELLENCY IS RUN ON
WHAT HE RAN ON, TRANSPARENCY, AS
TRUMP DID.
MR. TRUMP SAID I'M GOING TO RUN 
ON THESE THINGS.
AND HE RAN ON BORDER SECURITY, 
YOU KNOW, ALL THESE THINGS HE 
RAN ON, AND HE'S TRYING TO 
FOLLOW THROUGH.
HE WANTED THE EXACT SAME THING 
REFLECTED OR MIRRORED IN 
ZELENSKY.
THE THING IS, THIS HERE IS -- IT
IS IMPORTANT.
THIS INQUIRY IS.
BUT IT'S NOT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO
TANGIBLE EVIDENCE WHERE IT SAYS,
OKAY, LOOK HERE.
IT IS -- CIRCUMSTANTIAL THAT JOE
BIDEN AND HIS SON IS NOW PART OF
THIS, BECAUSE THEY BECAME DRAWN 
INTO THIS LOOP TWO OR THREE 
YEARS AGO WHEN HE WAS VICE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS SON BECAME 
PART OF BURISMA.
IT JUST BECAME COINCIDENCE THAT 
HE IS NOW RUNNING AS A CANDIDATE
FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IT BECOMES THIS COLLUSION THEORY
THAT YOU'RE INVESTIGATING YOUR 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THAT'S JUST BY HAPPENSTANCE.
THAT IS A CRAPPY LUCK OF THE 
DRAW.
YOU KNOW, IT WAS NOT -- I DON'T 
THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU 
KNOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, OH, 
MY GOSH, BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT NOW.
I'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO 
DISCREDIT HIM.
I DO NOT THINK IN TRUMP'S MIND, 
JOE BIDEN IS GOING TO BE A 
THREAT TO HIM IN ANY CAMPAIGN 
FROM NOW UNTIL 2020.
>> WELL, LAST QUESTION, LAST 
QUESTION FOR YOU, BECAUSE 
YESTERDAY LAURA COOPER, THE 
DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY 
PARTICULARLY FOR UKRAINE, 
TESTIFIED THE MONEY THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE MONEY EVENTUALLY 
FREED UP AND WILL GO TO UKRAINE,
IS THAT THE SORT OF EVIDENCE 
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT THEY 
WOULD EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT?
OR CERTAINLY BE EVIDENCE AGAINST
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING TO
PROVE IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY?
>> THAT WOULD BE PART OF IT, 
YES.
BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER SHE 
TESTIFIED THAT THE MONEY WAS 
RELEASED BUT THE PART THAT WAS 
HELD UP WAS ONLY A SMALL PART OF
IT.
THERE WAS SOME PART OF IT FOR 
THE DEFENSE THAT WAS NOT HELD 
UP.
THEY COULD STILL PURCHASE 
WEAPONS.
THEY COULD STILL DO THESE OTHER 
MINUTE THINGS IN THAT ENTIRE 
DECLARATION THAT WAS HELD UP 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HOLDS FOR A 
MONTH AND 25 DAYS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER FOREIGN
COUNTRIES WHERE THEIR MONEY IS 
HELD UP FOR MUCH MORE THAN A 
MONTH AND 25 DAYS. 
>> I'M GOING TO LET YOU GO 
THERE.
THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WE'LL GO TO ALEX NEXT, RIZZEL 
PARK, NEW JERSEY, ALEX CALLING 
ON OUR OTHERS LINE.
GO AHEAD, ALEX. 
>> Caller: HOW YOU DOING?
>> FINE, THANK YOU. 
>> Caller: I THINK THAT, COMING 
FROM MORE IN THE MIDDLE, I 
WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THAT THIS
ENTIRE THING IS JUST KIND OF 
POINTING OUT THE ABSURDITY OF 
WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COUNTRY 
IN TERMS OF THE DIVIDE IN OUR 
POLITICAL STATE.
I FEEL LIKE EVEN THE PEOPLE ON 
THE CALL, ON C-SPAN, EVERY TIME 
A DEMOCRAT COMES UP THEY'RE 
SAYING WE HAVE THIS, AND THEN 
THE REPUBLICANS SAY YOU DON'T 
HAVE THAT.
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS
BEEN.
BUT I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO 
HAPPEN IS PEOPLE ARE SO AWARE OF
THE BACK-AND-FORTH THAT THEY'RE 
JUST GOING TO PUSH THROUGH ALL 
OF THIS, NOT EVEN LOOKING TO 
WHAT'S GOING ON, AND EVERYBODY 
HAS THEIR ASSUMPTION MADE UP 
ABOUT WHERE IT'S GOING TO END.
WE ALL KNOW THAT THE HOUSE IS 
GOING TO VOTE YES AND THE SENATE
IS GOING TO VOTE NO UNLESS 
SOMEONE COMES OUT AND SAYS 
SOMETHING LIKE I'M GOING TO GO 
AGAINST.
WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT TO LOSE 
VOTES IN THE NEXT ELECTION?
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING 
TO LOOK FORWARD TO, IS WILL THIS
SUCCESSFULLY GET -- THIS IS A 
BIG STEPPINGSTONE TO THE NEXT 
ELECTION, NOT JUST FOR ARE WE 
GOING TO ELECT TRUMP OUT OF THE 
OFFICE?
BUT IT'S GOING TO BE, WHAT'S 
GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE OF
THE POLITICS OF THIS COUNTRY?
ARE WE GOING TO GO MORE TOWARDS 
THE LEFT OR RIGHT BASED ON THIS 
CASE ALONE?
I THINK THE FIRST THING TO POINT
OUT THIS ABSURDITY WAS THE 
KAVANAUGH CASE BECAUSE EVERYBODY
REALIZED IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE
DID WHAT HE DID.
IT'S A MATTER OF, DO YOU BELIEVE
THE WOMAN OR NOT?
DO YOU BELIEVE KAVANAUGH OR NOT?
I THINK IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT 
WAY.
BUT THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING 
THIS WEEK HAS BEEN UTTERLY 
IMPORTANT TO SHOWING WHERE 
EVERYTHING IS GOING TO GO AND 
NOT JUST FOCUSING ON THIS ONE 
EXACT MOMENT. 
>> HOW DO YOU RESOLVE THAT?
HOW DO YOU GET TO THE BOTTOM OF 
ISSUES?
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE KAVANAUGH 
HEARING LAST YEAR.
WHEN PEOPLE GO INTO THEIR 
SEPARATE CORNERS AND CAMPS, 
EITHER IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS OR 
PERHAPS HERE TAKING PHONE CALLS,
HOW DO WE RESOLVE THAT?
>> WE RESOLVE IT BY REALIZING 
THAT BIPARTISANSHIP IS SOMETHING
THAT EXISTS, BUT YOU HAVE TO 
ADMIT THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT 
ALL PARTIES TOGETHER CAN STOP 
EVERYTHING FROM JUST BEING 
ONE-SIDED.
YOU HAVE TO LET THE FOOTBALL 
GAME GO BACK AND FORTH FROM ONE 
SIDE OF THE FIELD TO THE OTHER, 
ORRELS IT'S GOING TO BE A 
ONE-SIDED MESS.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THIS 
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT 
THAT SOMEBODY IN THE END IS 
GOING TO GET WHAT THEY WANT AND 
SOMEBODY ISN'T GOING TO GET WHAT
THEY WANT. 
>> PETE IS NEXT IN SELLERSBURG, 
INDIANA ON THE DEMOCRATS' LINE.
PETE, YOU THERE?
OKAY.
WE'LL GO TO SUSAN, HAMPTON, NEW 
JERSEY.
SUSAN IS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.
HI. 
>> Caller: HI.
I WANTED TO MAKE THE COMMENT 
THAT THIS WHOLE THING IS SUCH AN
EMBARRASSMENT TO OUR COUNTRY, 
AND AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
RUNNING AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST
THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AND THEY'RE ACCUSING THE 
PRESIDENT OF RUNNING AN 
INVESTIGATION AGAINST A 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AND IT'S -- IT'S MIND-BOGGLING 
THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING 
THROUGH THIS.
THE FACT IS, IF THERE IS THE 
PRESIDENT HAS A PRESIDENT HAS A 
RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN 
BECAUSE HE'S RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT, DOESN'T MAKE HIM 
IMMUNE TO INVESTIGATION, JUST 
LIKE THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF 
SHOULD NOT BE IMMUNE FROM BEING 
INVESTIGATED.
I THINK EVERYBODY NEEDS TO TAKE 
A STEP BACK AND TRY TO GET TO 
THE FACTS AND NOT FEELINGS.
I JUST THINK THIS IS REALLY, 
REALLY SAD.
IT IS TRUE, WE HAVE TO GET BACK 
TO LOVE OF COUNTRY AND NOT 
POLITICAL -- PEOPLE WHO WE DON'T
LIKE.
I DID NOT LIKE OBAMA BUT I 
WANTED HIM TO BE SUCCESSFUL 
BECAUSE IT MEANT OUR COUNTRY 
WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL.
AND I DID NOT WANT TO SEE 
ANYTHING TERRIBLE HAPPEN TO HIM 
OR HIS FAMILY.
THIS ROAD THAT WE'RE GOING DOWN 
IS GOING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY 
AND IT'S NOT A GOOD THING.
I HAVE TO REMIND MYSELF NOT TO 
FEEL AND THINK SUCH TERRIBLE 
THOUGHTS ABOUT DEMOCRATS EVEN 
THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH THEM.
I THINK EVERYBODY NEEDS TO GET 
BACK TO THAT.
I MEAN, THIS IS DESTROYING US.
IT'S NOT A GOOD THING FOR 
ANYBODY. 
>> LET'S GO TO OUR DEMOCRATS 
LINE NEXT.
CHARLES IN BROOKLYN, GOOD 
MORNING, WELCOME.
>> Caller: GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING.
JUST IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LAST 
CALLER, UNFORTUNATELY I FEEL 
THAT REPUBLICANS LOVE TO PLAY 
THE BLAME GAME.
I THINK UNFORTUNATELY DONALD 
TRUMP HAS TOTALLY HIJACKED THE 
POLITICAL SYSTEM.
THERE'S NOT A REPUBLICAN THAT 
HAS A BACKBONE TO STAND UP TO 
THE FACTS.
THE FACTS HAVE BEEN LAID OUT.
THERE'S A QUESTION OF OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
HE HAS COLLUDED WITH A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT.
HE IS A TRAITOR TO ALL OF OUR 
INSTITUTIONS.
HE IS PURPOSELY, DELIBERATELY 
ATTACKED EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO
HAS TESTIFIED.
A COLONEL FROM AN IMMIGRANT 
FAMILY WHO IMMIGRATED TO THIS 
COUNTRY ONLY TO REALIZE THE 
AMERICAN DREAM.
FIONA HILL AS WELL.
PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING OUR 
COUNTRY TO THE HIGHEST VALUES 
AND REPRESENTING WHAT THIS 
COUNTRY IS SUPPOSEDLY BASED ON.
AND ALL THE REPUBLICANS CAN DO 
IS BLAME THE PAST 
ADMINISTRATION.
EVERY SINGLE THING THAT HAS BEEN
WRONG WITH THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION, IF IT'S NOT 
HILLARY, IT'S OBAMA.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO START 
GOVERNING?
YOU HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 3 
YEARS.
YOU HAVE PASSED NO LEGISLATION, 
IN LEGISLATION TO EVEN BUILD A 
LEGACY OF SOMEWHAT TO REFLECT 
THAT YOU ARE A DECENT HUMAN 
BEING.
THERE ARE CHILDREN BEING SHOT.
THERE ARE CHILDREN THAT GO TO 
SCHOOL AND HAVE GUNS IN THEIR 
SCHOOL.
WHERE IS THIS COUNTRY GOING?
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BEING 
DEMOCRATIC OR ABOUT BEING 
REPUBLICAN.
THIS IS ABOUT BEING AMERICAN.
THIS IS ABOUT LIVING UP TO WHAT 
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY IS 
STANDING HERE IN THE HUDSON 
RIVER.
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A BEACON 
OF HOPE.
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT A 
DREAM.
>> CHARLES IN BROOKLYN IN NEW 
YORK, APPRECIATE THE CALL.
THE HOUSE IN THE FIRST OF SIX 
VOTES ON THE HOUSE FLOOR RIGHT 
NOW.
THAT'S WHY THE COMMITTEE IS 
TAKING A BREAK FOR THOSE VOTES.
THEY WILL RESUME WHEN THAT VOTE 
SERIES IS WRAPPED UP.
THAT COULD BE AN HOUR OR SO THE 
WAY THE HOUSE WORKS.
WE'RE COMING TO YOU LIVE HERE 
ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE U.S. 
CAPITOL, ACTUALLY FROM THE HOUSE
SIDE OF THE U.S. CAPITOL.
A SHORT DISTANCE IN THE OTHER 
DIRECTION, THE SUPREME COURT, 
WHERE ON MONDAY THE COURT ISSUED
A STAY THAT BLOCKED HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS EFFORTS, THEIR 
SUBPOENA FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
TAX RETURNS.
THEY'LL MAKE A DECISION ON THAT 
IN THE COMING WEEKS, WE EXPECT.
BUT SPEAKER PELOSI WAS ASKED 
ABOUT THAT THIS MORNING AT HER 
BRIEFING AND HOW IT'S AFFECTING 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN
ABOUT THE TIMING AND GOING WHERE
THE FACTS -- 
>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. 
>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT YOU 
WOULD ACTUALLY SORT OF PAUSE AND
HAVE ALL OF THESE LEGAL CASES 
PLAY OUT?
>> NO, I NEVER SAID THAT.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I DON'T THINK SO.
WE CANNOT BE AT THE MERCY OF THE
COURTS.
THE COURTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN
ALL OF THIS.
THOSE CASES WILL CONTINUE BUT I 
HAVE NEVER SAID WE CANNOT 
PROCEED WITHOUT THE COURTS.
BECAUSE THAT'S A TECHNIQUE ON 
THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION, 
JUST KEEP RATCHETING UP TO A 
HIGHER COURT.
I'VE NEVER SAID THAT. 
>> -- SAME PACE. 
>> WE'RE MOVING AT THE PACE THAT
TRUTH TAKES US.
WHEN MORE EVIDENCE UNFOLDS, IF 
THAT REQUIRES MORE TIME, THAT'S 
WHERE WE'LL GO.
BUT IF IT IS A QUESTION OF THE 
COMMITTEE SAYING I THINK THAT AS
YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION HOW MUCH 
MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW, IT'S 
SO SELF-EVIDENT, OKAY, THE OTHER
SIDE HAS A COUNTER TO IT, UNDER 
OATH THE OTHER SIDE CAN SUBMIT 
HIS COUNTER TO THAT UNDER OATH. 
>> IN LIGHT OF SONDLAND'S 
TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, DO YOU 
THINK THE HOUSE SHOULD DO 
EVERYTHING IT CAN TO ACQUIRE 
TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE LIKE MICK 
MULVANEY, MIKE POMPEO AND JOHN 
BOLTON BEFORE MOVING FORWARD TO 
DRAFTING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> THAT'S ALL IN THE COURT ABOUT
WHETHER THE CONGRESS -- AS THE 
COURT HAS DECLARED IN THE CASE 
OF RICHARD NIXON, UNANIMOUSLY, 
THAT CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO 
SUBPOENA AND INQUIRY AND THEY 
SHOULD BE COMING BEFORE US.
THEY KEEP TAKING IT TO COURT.
NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAIT 
UNTIL THE COURTS DECIDE.
THAT MIGHT BE INFORMATION THAT'S
AVAILABLE TO THE SENATE IN TERMS
OF HOW FAR WE GO AND WHEN WE GO.
WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THAT, BECAUSE 
AGAIN, IT'S A TECHNIQUE.
IT'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
SO WE CANNOT LET THEIR FURTHER 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BE AN 
IMPEDIMENT TO OUR HONORING OUR 
OATH OF OFFICE.
THANK YOU ALL.
>> SPEAKER PELOSI, PART OF HER 
BRIEFING FROM THIS MORNING.
THE U.S. HOUSE IS IN A VOTE.
THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS IN A 
BREAK.
AHEAD OF THE THANKSGIVING BREAK,
THEY'VE BEEN HEARING FROM FIONA 
HILL, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
EXPERT ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, 
ALSO FROM DAVID HOLMES, THE 
POLITICAL COUNSELOR AT THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN UKRAINE.
WE CONTINUE TO TAKE YOUR 
THOUGHTS, YOUR CALLS AND 
COMMENTS.
LET'S HEAR FROM RICKY NEXT IN 
HUDSON, FLORIDA. 
>> Caller: HELLO.
HOW ARE YOU TODAY?
>> DOING WELL.
THANK YOU, RICKY.
>> Caller: THE POSITION I HAVE, 
I FORGET THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME 
BUT HE WAS FROM BROOKLYN.
NONE OF IT'S REALLY WORKING FOR 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE REPUBLICANS WANT THIS, THE 
DEMOCRATS WANT THAT.
SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THEN YOU --
>> RICK, STILL THERE?
RICKY IN FLORIDA.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GO ONTO ANNA PROSPECT, 
KENTUCKY ON THE DEMOCRATS LINE.
GO AHEAD. 
>> Caller: GOOD MORNING.
I WANT TO SAY QUICKLY ABOUT 
SOMETHING THE LAST CALLER SAID.
NOBODY IS WORKING FOR THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THROWING OUR HANDS UP AND JUST 
SAYING OH, YOU KNOW, BOTH SIDES,
THIS SIDE, THAT SIDE, IT'S ALL 
THE SAME.
THAT IS SO DANGEROUS.
ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY
WITH WHAT WE'RE PURSUING RIGHT 
NOW.
AN INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH AS TO 
WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF HAVE 
ADMITTED, WHAT WE KNOW HAPPENED 
ACTUALLY HAPPENED, BEING 
SPECIFICALLY SOMETHING THAT THE 
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE
VERY CLEAR TO PUT IN THE 
CONSTITUTION AS A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR, BRIBING A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY TO INTERFERE WITH OUR 
BUSINESS, WITH OUR DOMESTIC 
POLITICS AND USING THE LEVERS OF
HIS POWER AND HIS OFFICE TO DO 
SO FOR PERSONAL GAIN, NOT FOR 
OUR GAIN.
IT DOESN'T GET MORE FUNDAMENTAL 
THAN THIS.
IF THIS IS THE PRECEDENT THAT WE
WANT TO SET, THAT THIS IS 
PERFECTLY FINE FOR PRESIDENTS TO
ENGAGE IN, THAT THIS IS JUST HOW
WE ROLL AND GET OVER IT, THAT 
THIS IS IT NOW, IT'S EXTREMELY, 
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
WE DO HAVE RIGHT NOW A SITUATION
WHERE THERE IS A PARTY THAT HAS 
PEOPLE IN IT WHO ARE WORKING FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WE SPEAK,
PASSING HUNDREDS OF BILLS THAT 
GO TO THE SENATE TO DIE.
THAT'S THE DEMOCRATS.
AND PURSUING AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT
IS THE TRUTH AND IS THIS WHO WE 
ARE AS AMERICANS.
THAT'S ALSO THE DEMOCRATS RIGHT 
NOW.
WE'RE UP AGAINST THE PROJECTION,
THE OUTRIGHT LIES AND THE 
OBFUSCATION OF THE OTHER PARTY 
TRYING TO INSIST THAT WE DON'T 
SEE WHAT WE SEE, THAT WE DON'T 
HEAR WHAT WE HEAR.
SO IT'S NOT BOTH SIDES RIGHT 
NOW.
IT'S NOT TIT FOR TAT RIGHT NOW.
IT'S NOT THIS IS ALL BASED ON 
HATRED FOR DONALD TRUMP.
THAT'S NOT WHAT ANY OF THIS IS 
ABOUT.
YES, PEOPLE HATE DONALD TRUMP.
YES, PEOPLE LOVE DONALD TRUMP.
THAT IS A THING THAT IS REAL.
YES, THERE ARE POLITICIANS ON 
BOTH SIDES THAT DO THIS OR THAT 
AND THAT IS REAL.
HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE SEEING GOING
ON WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
AND WITH THE BUSINESS BEING 
CONDUCTED IN CONGRESS IS THAT WE
DO HAVE ONE PARTY IN CONGRESS 
WORKING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
BY AND LARGE AND THE OTHER PARTY
LYING EVERY DAY TO PROTECT ONE 
MAN WHO DOESN'T SEEM TO BE 
WORKING IN THE INTEREST OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN A FEW 
DIFFERENT WAYS. 
>> ANNA.
THANKS FOR YOUR CALL.
SHE MENTIONED THE SENATE THERE.
THE SENATE IS IN SESSION TODAY.
THEY'LL BE WRAPPING UP WORK 
TODAY ON THE SHORT-TERM SPENDING
MEASURE, KEEPING IN MIND THAT 
GOVERNMENT FUNDING, THE CURRENT 
SHORT-TERM MEASURE EXPIRES 
TONIGHT AT MIDNIGHT, THE SENATE 
AIMING TO PASS YET ANOTHER 
SHORT-TERM MEASURE THIS WOULD 
CONTINUE GOVERNMENT FUNDING 
THROUGH DECEMBER THE 20th.
FOLLOW THE SENATE OVER ON C-SPAN
2.
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY RESUMING
AFTER HOUSE VOTES.
LIVE COVERAGE HERE ON C-SPAN 3 
AND C-SPAN RADIO.
WE GO TO JOHN NEXT IN GOODING, 
IDAHO, ON THE REPUBLICAN LINE. 
>> Caller: I JUST WANTED TO 
TOUCH ON THE PREVIOUS CALLER 
THAT MENTIONED LOGICAL 
FALLACIES.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS JUST 
TRYING TO SLAM REPUBLICANS ON 
THIS, BUT THE THING IS, YOU 
KNOW, WE'RE NOT DUMB.
WE GO BACK TO THE ELECTIONS AND 
DEMOCRATS FROM DAY ONE WERE 
USING LOGICAL FALLACY.
THEY WERE USING COGNITIVE 
DISTORTIONS.
THIS ISN'T JUST A ONE-SIDED 
DEAL.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE LIVING IN TWO 
SEPARATE HISTORIES RIGHT NOW.
THEY RUN PARALLEL BUT THEY'RE 
JUST SLIGHTLY OFF.
EACH OF US ARE VIEWING WHAT'S 
GOING ON SEPARATELY.
THE MAJOR THING THAT WE ARE 
SEEING RIGHT NOW IS DEMOCRATS, 
TO US, IT LOOKS LIKE A COUP 
DE.
>> YOU SAID A LOT THERE.
APPRECIATE YOU CALLING IN.
WE SHOWED YOU SOME OF THE 
TESTIMONY EARLIER OF DAVID 
HOLMES, THE POLITICAL COUNSELOR 
FROM THE EMBASSY IN UKRAINE.
THE OTHER WITNESS TODAY IS FIONA
HILL.
UP UNTIL JULY OF THIS SUMMER, 
SHE WAS THE RUSSIA AND UKRAINE 
EXPERT ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL.
SHE TALKED ABOUT A MEETING OVER 
THE PAST SUMMER WITH NATIONAL 
SECURITY DIRECTOR JOHN BOLTON.
HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID. 
>> NOW, TOWARD THE END OF THIS 
MEETING THE UKRAINIANS RAISED 
THE ONGOING DESIRE FOR AN OVAL 
OFFICE MEETING, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY DID 
THAT?
>> WELL, I LISTENED VERY 
CAREFULLY TO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY 
SO I WANT TO ACTUALLY POINT OUT 
SOMETHING WHERE I THINK IT'S 
EASY TO EXPLAIN WHY HE HAD A 
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF HOW 
THIS CAME INTO BEING.
THE MEETING HAD INITIALLY BEEN 
SCHEDULED FOR ABOUT 45 MINUTES 
TO AN HOUR.
IT WAS DEFINITELY IN THE WRAP-UP
PHASE OF THE MEETING WHEN THIS 
OCCURRED.
WE'D GONE THROUGH A SERIES OF 
DISCUSSIONS.
ALEXANDER DANYLUK WHO WAS THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OF 
UKRAINE REALLY WANTED TO GET 
INTO THE WEEDS OF HOW YOU MIGHT 
REFORM A NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL.
HE WAS HOPING AND HAD HAD THIS 
OPPORTUNITY TO GET HIS FIRSTHAND
OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS ON WHAT 
MIGHT HAPPEN.
WE'D ALSO WANTED TO GO THROUGH 
DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT 
IT WAS FOR UKRAINIAN TO GET ITS 
ENERGY SECTOR REFORM UNDERWAY.
CLEARLY SECRETARY PERRY HAD SOME
TALKING POINTS TO THIS.
THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS ALSO 
INTERESTED IN.
WE KNEW THAT THE UKRAINIANS 
WOULD HAVE ON THEIR AGENDA 
INEVITABLY THE QUESTION ABOUT A 
MEETING.
AS WE GET THROUGH THE MAIN 
DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING INTO 
THAT WRAP-UP PHRASE MR. DANYLUK 
STARTED TO ASK ABOUT A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING.
MR. BOLTON WAS TRYING TO PARRY 
THIS BACK.
HE'S NOT IN CHARGE OF SCHEDULING
THE MEETING.
WE HAVE INPUT RECOMMENDING THE 
MEETINGS.
IT'S NOT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S 
ROLE TO PULL OUT THE SCHEDULE 
AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AND 
SEE IF THIS TUESDAY AND THIS 
MONTH IS GOING TO WORK WITH US 
AND HE DOES NOT AS A MATTER OF 
COURSE LIKE TO DISCUSS THE 
DETAILS OF THESE MEETINGS.
HE LIKES TO LEAVE THEM TO THE 
APPROPRIATE STAFF FOR THIS.
THIS WAS ALREADY GOING TO BE AN 
UNCOMFORTABLE ISSUE.
AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS TRYING 
TO MOVE THAT PART OF THE 
DISCUSSION AWAY, DEFLECT IT ONTO
ANOTHER WRAP-UP TOPIC, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LEANED IN TO
SAY WELL WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT 
THAT THERE WILL BE A MEETING IF 
SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS ARE PUT 
UNDERWAY.
THAT'S WHEN I SAW AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON STIFFEN.
I WAS SITTING BEHIND HIM IN THE 
CHAIR AND I SAW HIM SIT BACK 
SLIGHTLY LIKE THIS.
HE'D BEEN MORE MOVING FORWARD 
LIKE I AM TO THE TABLE.
FOR ME, THAT WAS AN UNMISTAKABLE
BODY LANGUAGE AND IT CAUGHT MY 
ATTENTION.
THEN HE LOOKED UP TO THE CLOCK 
AND AT HIS WATCH OR TOWARDS HIS 
WRIST AND BASICALLY SAID WELL, 
IT'S BEEN REALLY GREAT TO SEE 
YOU, I'M AFRAID I'VE GOT ANOTHER
MEETING. 
>> DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY 
WHO HIS AGREEMENT ON THIS WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING WAS WITH?
>> IN THAT PARTICULAR JUNCTURE, 
I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
IT WAS LATER THAT HE DID SAY 
MORE SPECIFICALLY. 
>> WHAT DID HE SAY LATER?
>> LATER HE SAID THAT HE HAD AN 
AGREEMENT WITH CHIEF OF STAFF 
MULVANEY IN RETURN FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS THIS MEETING 
WOULD GET SCHEDULED. 
>> WAS HE SPECIFIC AT THAT POINT
LATER ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO?
>> HE SAID THE INVESTIGATIONS IN
BURISMA. 
>> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION 
WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AFTER 
THIS SUBSEQUENT MEETING WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?
>> I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON BOTH AFTER THE
MEETING IN HIS OFFICE, A VERY 
BRIEF ONE, AND THEN ONE 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER. 
>> SO AFTER BOTH MEETINGS WHEN 
YOU SPOKE TO HIM AND RELAYED TO 
HIM WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
SAID, WHAT DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON
SAY TO YOU?
>> I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT 
FIRST OF ALL THAT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WANTED ME TO HOLD BACK IN
THE ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE 
MEETING.
AGAIN, I WAS SITTING ON THE SOFA
WITH A COLLEAGUE. 
>> IN THAT SECOND MEETING WHAT 
DID HE SAY?
>> HE WAS MAKING A VERY STRONG 
POINT THAT HE WANTED TO KNOW 
EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING SAID.
WHEN I CAME BACK AND RELATED IT 
TO HIM, HE HAD SOME VERY 
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION FOR ME.
I'M PRESUMING -- 
>> WHAT WAS THAT SPECIFIC 
INSTRUCTION?
>> THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS 
THAT I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS,
TO JOHN EISENBERG TO BASICALLY 
SAY YOU TELL EISENBERG THAT I AM
NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL 
THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND ARE 
COOKING UP. 
>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT 
TO MEAN?
>> I TOOK IT TO MEAN 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING.
>> DID YOU GO SPEAK TO THE 
LAWYERS?
>> I CERTAINLY DID.
>> YOU RELAYED EVERYTHING THAT 
YOU JUST TOLD US?
>> PRECISELY.
THE MORE DETAILS OF HOW THE 
MEETING HAD UNFOLDED AS WELL, 
WHICH I GAVE A FULL DESCRIPTION 
OF THIS IN MY OCTOBER 14 
DEPOSITION. 
>> FIONA HILL'S TESTIMONY FROM 
THIS MORNING.
HERE'S HOW WASHINGTON'S TWO 
NEWSPAPERS REPORTING IT SO FAR.
"WASHINGTON POST," FIONA HILL 
WARNS OF GOP'S FICTIONAL 
NARRATIVE ON UKRAINE.
WASHINGTON TIMES, FIONA HILL 
BUCKS DEMOCRATS' PRODDING TO 
LINK TRUMP TO PUTIN.
WE ARE LIVE WAITING FOR THE 
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
WE'VE HEARD FROM FIONA HILL AND 
DAVID HOLMES.
202-748-8920 FOR DEMOCRATS.
8921 FOR REPUBLICANS.
ALL OTHERS, 202-748-8922.
THE HEARING WE EXPECT TO RESUME.
TO PLANO, TEXAS AND DAMOND 
REPUBLICAN I USED TO BE A 
REPUBLICAN.
I JUST SEE SO MUCH GOING ON ON 
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
IT'S TEARING THE COUNTRY APART.
WE'RE FORCED TO PICK SIDES AND 
MAKE CONCLUSIONS BEFORE THE 
FACTS ARE EVEN LAID OUT.
I REALLY HOPE TO SEE A RISE OF 
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT IN THIS 
COUNTRY AND IT CITIZENS AND WE 
GET BACK TO BEING AMERICANS AND 
STRIVING FOR WHAT'S BEST.
THERE IS A LOT GOING ON AND 
THERE'S A LOT OF SPIN BEING PUT 
OUT THERE.
THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE PICKING 
SIDES BEFORE WE EVEN HAVE A 
CHANCE TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING 
ON.
IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT DONALD 
TRUMP DID SOMETHING THAT A LOT 
OF PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK IS 
WRONG.
TO JUST SIT THERE AND DENY THAT 
WOULD BE GOING AGAINST THE 
TRUTH.
I ALSO SEE PROTECTION FROM THE 
LEFT ON PEOPLE LIKE JOE BIDEN 
AND HUNTER BIDEN AND SAYING THEY
CAN'T BE INVESTIGATED IS JUST 
WRONG.
I BELIEVE IN THE TRUTH AND I 
BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO FIND OUT
WHAT'S GOING ONTO OUR COUNTRY BY
THESE PEOPLE IN THESE ELITE 
POSITIONS AND REALLY GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OF IT.
ALSO I'D LIKE TO THOUGH OUT 
THERE THAT EPSTEIN DID NOT KILL 
HIMSELF. 
>> I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR LAST 
POINT. 
>> Caller: I'D LIKE TO THROW OUT
THERE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, 
DON'T DROP THE EPSTEIN CASE.
HE DID NOT KILL HIMSELF. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GO TO OUR DEMOCRATS LINE 
NEXT AND HEAR FROM JUNE IN 
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA. 
>> Caller: HI.
I JUST WANT TO SAY YEAH I'M A 
DEMOCRAT AND PROUD OF IT JUST AS
PROUD AS MY FATHER WAS.
HE FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR II WITH 
101st AIRBORNE YANKEE INFANTRY 
DIVISION AND HE WAS ALSO A 
DEMOCRAT.
AS FAR AS THESE FALSE 
EQUIVALENCIES THAT BOTH SIDES 
ARE WRONG AND BELIEF IN DUE 
PROCESS THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE
CLAIMING, THERE IS A PROCESS 
THAT GOES ON AFTER MONEY HAS 
BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS AND 
IT'S A VERY STRICT, ARDUOUS 
PROCEDURE AND THE UKRAINE 
QUALIFIED FOR THOSE FUNDS AND 
THERE WAS NO REASON, NO 
LEGITIMATE REASON FOR DONALD 
TRUMP TO WITHHOLD THEM.
I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT AND 
ALSO THAT IF THE REPUBLICANS 
WERE REALLY PURSUING CORRUPTION,
THEY NEED ONLY LOOK ABOUT THREE 
WEEKS AGO AT THE LEGAL DECISION 
THAT THE DONALD TRUMP CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION RUN BY DONALD TRUMP, 
DONALD TRUMP JR., IVANKA TRUMP 
AND ERIC TRUMP WERE ALL FOUND 
GUILTY.
THEY HAVE TO PAY RESTITUTION FOR
RIPPING OFF PEOPLE WHO WERE 
DONATING TO CHARITY AND THEY 
ENDED UP PALMING A LOT OF THE 
PROCEEDS.
AND THAT WAS DEEMED BY A COURT 
IN OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
IF THEY HAD RESPECT FOR RULE OF 
LAW AND THEY WANT TO ROOT OUT 
CORRUPTION, WHY NOT PAY SOME 
ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN 
REALITY LAND?
I COULD SAY A LOT MORE SINCE I'M
FROM NEW YORK.
PEOPLE FROM NEW YORK NOT ONLY 
KNOW WHO DONALD TRUMP IS, THEY 
KNOW WHAT HE IS.
I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT WHERE IT 
LIES.
AS FAR AS DUE PROCESS GOES. 
>> WE'LL MOVE ONTO BILL IN NEW 
MEXICO, REPUBLICAN LINE.
GOOD AFTERNOON. 
>> Caller: HI.
JUST ONE MINUTE.
I DROPPED MY PHONE.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE 
NOW IS AN EXERCISE IN KNOWLEDGE 
OF PARTIAL FACTS.
I THINK IT'S AN ABSOLUTE PARTIAL
FACT THAT THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT
OF THE UKRAINE POROSHENKO WAS 
TRYING TO TAMPER WITH THE 2016 
ELECTIONS.
IN FACT, HIS AMBASSADOR TO THE 
UNITED STATES WROTE A LENGTHY 
CRITICISM OF DONALD TRUMP AND IT
WAS IN THE "WASHINGTON POST."
THEN NOT LONG AFTER THAT, JOE 
BIDEN STEPPED IN AND AS THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR BURISMA WERE 
TAKING PLACE AND THE UKRAINIAN 
INVESTIGATOR HAD RAIDED THE HOME
OF THE OWNER OF BURISMA, A 
UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH, JOE BIDEN 
STEPPED IN AND DEMANDED THAT THE
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR BE FIRED.
NOW, IT'S JUST A FACT.
IT'S ON YOUTUBE.
YOU CAN SEE HIM.
HE'S TALKING TO THE COUNSEL ON 
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
IT'S ONLY A MINUTE AND 15 
SECONDS LONG, THE CLIP IS.
HE CONFIRMS THAT THAT PROSECUTOR
WAS FIRED AT HIS REQUEST AND THE
REASON THAT MAN WAS FIRED WAS 
BECAUSE BIDEN WAS HOLDING UP 
FUNDS TO THE UKRAINE.
I BELIEVE THE TITLE OF IT IS JOE
BIDEN BRAGS ABOUT GETTING THE 
UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR FIRED.
GOING FORWARD FROM THERE, IT'S 
JUST A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS STATUTORILY OBLIGATED 
TO CONFIRM THAT GOVERNMENTS WHO 
HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE 
CORRUPTION PRONE DO NOT USE 
AMERICAN AID FUNDS IMPROPERLY.
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS CERTAINLY 
DOING HIS DUE DILIGENCE IN THE 
PROCESS OF ALL OF THIS.
YEAH, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A 
SECONDARY THING WITH BIDEN, BUT 
BIDEN WASN'T REALLY A FACTOR IN 
THE RACE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
I SEE SO MANY PEOPLE WITH SO 
MANY PARTIAL FACTS WHO DON'T GO 
ALL THE WAY BACK TO JOE BIDEN'S 
DEMANDING THAT THIS PROSECUTOR 
BE FIRED RIGHT AFTER THIS 
PROSECUTOR RAIDED THE HOMES AND 
BUSINESSES OF THIS UKRAINIAN. 
>> BILL, APPRECIATE YOU POINTING
THAT OUT.
BILL MENTIONED THAT CLIP OF VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN SPEAKING IN 
SUMMER OF 2018, COULD HAVE BEEN 
2017.
HE TALKED ABOUT THE CLIP.
YOU CAN SEE THE VICE PRESIDENT'S
ENTIRE COMMENTS AND THE FULL 
EVENT.
WE ACTUALLY COVERED THAT AND 
THAT'S AVAILABLE AT C-SPAN.ORG.
WE'LL HEAR FROM BOBBY NEXT 
MACON, GEORGIA, ON THE OTHERS 
LINE. 
>> Caller: HOW YOU DOING?
I NOTICED THE LADY SAID 
SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE INVESTIGATING THEIR 
POLITICAL RIVAL, WHICH IS TRUMP.
SHE FAILED TO REALIZE THAT THE 
A.G. FAILED TO GET INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL TO DO THE INVESTIGATION 
SO THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO 
INVESTIGATE TRUMP AND HIS 
CORRUPTION.
ALSO, THE THING ABOUT BIDEN, I'M
NO FAN OF BIDEN BUT BIDEN WAS 
CLEARED ON THAT.
WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S NOT A FACTOR.
THE FACTS ARE THAT TRUMP DID 
SOMETHING THAT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN DOING.
IT'S IN PLAIN SIGHT.
IT'S NOT HIDDEN.
IF TRUMP WAS SO INNOCENT, WHY 
WON'T HE JUST PROVE IT?
HE CAN DISCLOSE ALL THE 
INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED TO 
CLEAR HIS NAME.
ALSO WHAT'S UP WITH HIS TAXES?
WHY WON'T HE RELEASE HIS TAXES?
I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO TIE HIM 
TO SOME CORRUPT OLIGARCH OVER IN
RUSSIA.
THANK YOU. 
>> MORE OF YOUR CALLS AND 
COMMENTS COMING UP.
HERE'S WHERE THINGS STAND.
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
HAS BEEN IN BREAK FOR SOME BIT 
HERE AS THE HOUSE ITSELF IS 
TAKING A NUMBER OF VOTES ON WHAT
SHOULD BE THE LAST PIECE OF 
LEGISLATION FOR THE WEEK.
WE WILL HAVE LIVE COVERAGE 
RESUMING WHEN THE COMMITTEE 
GAVELS BACK IN.
WE'LL ALSO BRING YOU THE 
COMMENTS OF REPUBLICAN LEADER 
KEVIN McCARTHY.
HE'S SUPPOSED TO HOLD A BRIEFING
HERE IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES OR SO, 
12:30 EASTERN.
WHILE WE WAIT FOR THAT TO START 
WE'LL SHOW YOU THE OPENING 
STATEMENT THIS IS MORNING FROM 
THE COMMITTEE SHARE ADAM SCHIFF 
AND THE RANKING REPUBLICAN DEVIN
NUNES.
>> YESTERDAY MORNING THE 
COMMITTEE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR 
GORDON SONDLAND, THE AMERICAN 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, THE DEFACTOR LEADER OF 
THE THREE AMY GOES WHO HAD 
ACCESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR 
TWO INVESTIGATIONS TRUMP 
BELIEVED WOULD HELP HIS 
REELECTION CAMPAIGN.
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED 
THAT HE MEANT BIG STUFF THAT 
BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE
BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT MR. 
GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.
IN EARLY 2019, DR. HILL BECAME 
CONCERNED BY INCREASING 
PROMINENCE OF RUDY GIULIANI, THE
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.
HER BOSS JOHN ON BOLTON WAS ALSO
PAYING ATTENTION AS WERE OTHER 
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, 
INCLUDING HOLMES AT THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN KYIV.
BOLTON KNEW GIULIANI AS A HAND 
GRENADE THAT IS GOING TO BLOW 
EVERYBODY UP AND POWERLESS TO 
PREVENT THE FORMER MAYOR FROM 
ENGINEERING FORMER U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH'S FIRING IN LATE 
APRIL, OR HER RECALL.
HOLMES WAS STUNNED BY THE 
INTENSITY AND CONSISTENCY OF 
MEDIA ATTACKS ON YOVANOVITCH BY 
NAME AS A U.S. AMBASSADOR AND 
THE SCOPE OF THE ALLEGATIONS 
THAT WERE LEVELED AGAINST HER.
YOVANOVITCH'S DISMISSAL AS A 
RESULT OF GIULIANI'S SMEAR 
CAMPAIGN, WAS ONE OF SEVERAL 
THINGS THAT UNSETTLED DR. HILL.
ANOTHER WAS THE ROLE OF GORDON
SONDLAND WHO EMERGED AS A KEY 
PLAYER IN UKRAINE POLICY IN MAY 
WHEN HE WAS NAMED AS PART OF THE
U.S. DELEGATION LED BY SECRETARY
RICK PERRY TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.
THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER
VINDMAN ALSO ATTENDED THE 
INAUGURATION.
AND AS HOLMES RECALLS, DURING A 
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADVISE 
THE UKRAINE LEADER TO STAY OUT 
OF U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS.
ANOTHER CONCERN THAT AROSE FOR 
DR. HILL AROUND THIS TIME WAS 
HER DISCOVERY OF A POTENTIAL NSC
BACK CHANNEL ON UKRAINE.
HILL LEARNED THAT AN NSC STAFF 
MEMBER, WHO DID NOT WORK ON 
UKRAINE AND FOR HER MAY HAVE 
BEEN PROVIDING UKRAINE-RELATED 
INFORMATION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
THAT DR. HILL WAS NOT MADE AWARE
OF.
ACCORDING TO HOLMES, FOLLOWING 
THE ZELENSKY INAUGURATION, 
SONDLAND AND PERRY TOOK AN 
ACTIVE AND UNCONVENTIONAL ROLE 
IN FORMULATING OUR PRIORITIES 
FOR THE NEW ZELENSKY 
ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONALLY 
REACHING OUT TO PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AND HIS SENIOR TEAM.
SONDLAND'S NEW FOUND 
ASSERTIVENESS ALSO CONCERNED DR.
HILL WHO PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED A 
CORDIAL WORKING RELATIONSHIP 
WITH THE AMBASSADOR.
ON JUNE 18, 2019,
HILL HAD A BLOWUP WITH SONDLAND 
WHEN HE TOLD HER HE WAS IN 
CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT SONDLAND
GOT TESTY WITH ME, AND I SAID 
WHO HAS PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF IT?
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT.
ON JULY 10th, DR. HILL WAS PART 
OF A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
WITH A GROUP OF U.S. AND 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WITH BOLTON,
SONDLAND AND SECRETARY PERRY, 
ANOTHER OF THE THREE AMIGOS.
THE MEETING WAS TO GIVE THE 
UKRAINIANS THEY WERE ANSWER TO 
SET UP A MEETING, A FIRST 
MEETING BETWEEN THEIR NEW 
PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SONDLAND INTERJECTED TO INFORM 
THE GROUP THAT
ACCORDING TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF 
OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, THE 
MEETING WOULD HAPPEN IF UKRAINE 
UNDERTOOK CERTAIN 
INVESTIGATIONS.
HEARING THIS, BOLTON ABRUPTLY 
ENDED THE MEETING.
UNDETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT THE
UKRAINIAN DELEGATION AND 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN DOWNSTAIRS TO ANOTHER 
PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE 
THEY WERE LATER JOINED BY DR. 
HILL.
IN THE SECOND MEETING, SONDLAND 
WAS MORE EXPLICIT.
UKRAINE NEEDED TO CONDUCT 
INVESTIGATIONS IF THEY WERE TO 
GET A MEETING AT ALL.
BOLTON DIRECTED DR. HILL TO 
REPORT THIS TO NSC LEGAL ADVISER
JOHN EISENBERG, TELLING HER YOU 
GO AND TELL EISENBERG THAT I AM 
NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL 
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE 
COOKING UP ON THIS.
AND YOU GO AHEAD AND TELL HIM 
WHAT YOU'VE HEARD AND WHAT I 
SAID.
DR. HILL DID SO, AS DID 
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER 
VINDMAN WHO SEPARATELY 
APPROACHED THE SAME LAWYERS WITH
HIS CONCERNS.
ON JULY 18, THE DAY BEFORE DR. 
HILL LEFT HER POST AT THE NSC, 
HOLMES PARTICIPATED IN A SECURE 
INTER AGENCY VIDEO CONFERENCE ON
UKRAINE.
TOWARDS THE END OF THE MEETING, 
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
ANNOUNCED THAT THE FLOW OF 
NEARLY $400 MILLION IN SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE WAS BEING
HELD UP.
THE ORDER HAD COME FROM THE 
PRESIDENT AND HAD BEEN CONVEYED
TO OMB BY MICK MULVANEY WITHOUT 
FURTHER EXPLANATION.
HOLMES UNAWARE OF THE HOLD PRIOR
TO THE CALL WAS SHOCKED.
HE THOUGHT THE SUSPENSION OF AID
WAS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT, 
UNDERMINING WHAT HE HAD 
UNDERSTOOD TO BE LONGSTANDING 
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS IN 
UKRAINE.
ONE WEEK LATER, ON JULY 25th, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BY PHONE.
WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BROUGHT 
UP U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT AND 
NOTED THAT UKRAINE WOULD LIKE TO
BUY MORE JAVELIN ANTI TANK 
MISSILES FROM THE UNITED STATES,
TRUMP RESPONDED BY SAYING, I 
WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR,
THOUGH.
TRUMP THEN REQUESTED THAT 
ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE 
DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY 
THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 
2016 ELECTION.
EVEN MORE OMINOUSLY, TRUMP ASKED
ZELENSKY TO LOOK INTO THE 
BIDENS.
NEITHER REQUEST HAD BEEN 
INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL TALKING
POINTS FOR THE CALL PREPARED BY 
THE NSC STAFF, BUT BOTH WERE IN 
DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTEREST
AND THE INTEREST OF HIS 2020 
RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW
ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE IN PART 
BECAUSE OF EFFORTS BY 
AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND VOLKER 
TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S DEMANDS.
THE NEXT DAY, JULY 26th, IN 
KYIV, HOLMES SERVED AS A NOTE 
TAKER BETWEEN AMBASSADOR BILL 
TAYLOR,S VOLKER AND SONDLAND 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS.
ZELENSKY SAID ON THE PREVIOUS 
DAY'S CALL, SAID THAT ON THE 
PREVIOUS DAY'S CALL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAD, QUOTE, THREE TIMES 
RAISED SOME VERY SENSITIVE 
ISSUES THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO 
FOLLOW UP ON THOSE ISSUES WHEN 
THEY MET IN PERSON.
ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT REALIZE IT 
AT THE TIME, HOLMES CAME TO 
UNDERSTAND THAT THE SENSITIVE 
ISSUES WERE THE INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED ON
THE JULY 25th CALL.
FOLLOWING THE MEETING WITH 
ZELENSKY, HOLMES ACCOMPANIED 
SONDLAND TO A SEPARATE MEETING 
WITH ONE OF UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT'S TOP ADVISERS, ANDRIY
YERMAK.
BUT HOLMES WAS NOT ALLOWED INTO 
THE MEETING AND WAITED FOR 30 
MINUTES WHILE SONDLAND AND THE 
UKRAINIAN MET ALONE WITHOUT ANY 
NOTE TAKERS TO RECORD WHAT THEY 
SAID.
AFTER THE MEETING, SONDLAND, 
HOLMES, AND TWO OTHER STATE 
DEPARTMENT STAFF WENT TO LUNCH 
AT A NEARBY RESTAURANT AND SAT 
ON AN OUTDOOR TERRACE.
AT SOME POINT DURING THE MEAL, 
SONDLAND PULLED OUT HIS CELL 
PHONE, PLACED A CALL TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND ASKED TO BE 
CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT.
WHEN TRUMP CAME ON THE LINE, 
HOLMES COULD HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT'S VOICE CLEARLY.
HOLMES RECALLED THAT, QUOTE, THE
PRESIDENT'S VOICE WAS VERY LOUD 
AND RECOGNIZABLE AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HELD THE PHONE AWAY 
FROM HIS EAR FOR A PERIOD OF 
TIME, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF THE 
LOUD VOLUME.
SONDLAND SAID HE WAS CALLING 
FROM KYIV.
HE TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR 
ASS.
HOLMES THEN HEARD PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ASK, SO HE'S GOING TO DO 
THE INVESTIGATION?
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED, 
HE'S GOING TO DO IT.
ADDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
WILL DO ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM.
AFTER THE CALL ENDED, HOLMES 
TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK 
SONDLAND FOR HIS CANDID 
IMPRESSION OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
VIEWS ON UKRAINE.
IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT 
SONDLAND REVEALED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T GIVE A 
EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE.
THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT 
BIG STUFF, THAT BENEFITS THE 
PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI 
WAS PUSHING.
A MONTH LATER, NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER BOLTON TRAVELED TO KIEV.
BETWEEN MEETINGS WITH UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, HOLMES 
HEARD BOLTON EXPRESS TO BILL 
TAYLOR HIS FRUSTRATION ABOUT MR.
GIULIANI'S INFLUENCE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
BOLTON MADE CLEAR, HOWEVER, 
THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO 
ABOUT IT.
BOLTON FURTHER STATED THAT THE 
HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
WOULD NOT BE LIFTED PRIOR TO THE
UPCOMING MEETING BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY IN 
WARSAW, WHERE IT WOULD HANG ON 
WHETHER ZELENSKY WAS ABLE TO 
FAVORABLY IMPRESS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
TRUMP CANCELED HIS TRIP TO 
WARSAW BUT SONDLAND, VOLKER AND 
OTHERS CONTINUED TO PRESS FOR A 
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 
OPENING OF INVESTIGATIONS BY 
ZELENSKY.
ON SEPTEMBER 8, TAYLOR TOLD 
HOLMES THAT, QUOTE, NOW THEY'RE 
INSISTING ZELENSKY COMMIT TO THE
INVESTIGATION IN AN INTERVIEW 
WITH CNN.
HOLMES WAS SURPRISED THE 
REQUIREMENT WAS SO SPECIFIC AND 
CONCRETE SINCE IT AMOUNTED TO 
NOTHING LESS THAN A, QUOTE, 
DEMAND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
PERSONALLY COMMIT TO A SPECIFIC 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL ON A 
CABLE NEWS CHANNEL, UNQUOTE.
ON SEPTEMBER 9, THIS COMMITTEE, 
ALONG WITH THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES, 
LAUNCHED OUR INVESTIGATION OF 
THIS CORRUPT SCHEME.
PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASED THE 
HOLD ON AID TWO DAYS LATER.
AS CNN'S FAREED ZAKARIA HAS 
REVEALED, THE UKRAINIANS 
CANCELED THE CNN INTERVIEW 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
TWO WEEKS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 
25th, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY
25th CALL WAS RELEASED BY THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND THE DETAILS OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME STARTING 
COMING INTO VIEW.
IN THE COMING DAYS, CONGRESS 
WILL DETERMINE WHAT RESPONSE IS 
APPROPRIATE.
IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS 
POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
IF HE IS THOUGHT TO CONDITION, 
COERCE, BRIBE A VULNERABLE ALLY 
INTO CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS 
TO AID HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING 
OFFICIAL ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS OF NEEDED MILITARY 
AID, IT WILL BE FOR US TO DECIDE
WHETHER THOSE ACTS ARE 
COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY.
I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD 
LIKE TO MAKE.
>> THANK YOU.
THROUGHOUT THESE BIZARRE 
HEARINGS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE 
STRUGGLED TO MAKE THE CASE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED SOME 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE ON HIS PHONE
CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.
THE OFFENSE ITSELF CHANGES ON 
DAY, RANGING FROM QUID PRO QUO 
TO EXTORTION TO BRIBERY TO 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEN 
BACK TO QUID PRO QUO.
IT'S CLEAR WHY THE DEMOCRATS 
HAVE ENFORCED ONTO THIS CAROUSEL
OF ACCUSATIONS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD GOOD REASON 
TO BE WORRIED OF UKRAINIAN 
ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST HIS 
CAMPAIGN AND OF WIDESPREAD 
CORRUPTION IN THAT COUNTRY.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHO DIDN'T 
EVEN KNOW AID TO UKRAINE HAD 
BEEN PAUSED AT THE TIME OF THE 
CALL, HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THERE 
WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE 
CONVERSATION.
THE AID WAS RESUMED WITHOUT THE 
UKRAINIANS TAKING THE ACTIONS 
THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY BEING 
COERCED INTO DOING.
AID TO UKRAINE UNDER PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS BEEN MUCH MORE ROBUST 
THAN IT WAS UNDER PRESIDENT 
OBAMA THANKS TO THE PROVISION OF
JAVELIN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS.
AS NUMEROUS WITNESSES HAVE 
TESTIFIED, TEMPORARY HOLDS ON 
FOREIGN AID OCCUR FAIRLY 
FREQUENTLY FOR DIFFERENT -- MANY
DIFFERENT REASONS.
SO HOW DO WE HAVE AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE HERE WHEN THERE IS NO 
ACTUAL MISDEED AND NO ONE EVEN
CLAIMING TO BE A VICTIM?
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED TO 
SOLVE THIS DILEMMA WITH A SIMPLE
SLOGAN, HE GOT CAUGHT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WE ARE TO 
BELIEVE WAS JUST ABOUT TO DO 
SOMETHING WRONG AND GETTING 
CAUGHT WAS THE ONLY REASON HE 
BACKED DOWN FROM WHATEVER 
NEFARIOUS THOUGHT CRIME THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE ACCUSING HIM OF 
ALMOST COMMITTING.
I ONCE AGAIN URGE AMERICANS TO 
CONTINUE TO CONSIDER THE 
CREDIBILITY OF THE DEMOCRATS ON 
THIS COMMITTEE WHO ARE NOW 
HURLING THESE CHARGES.
FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS.
IT'S NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO GOT
CAUGHT.
IT'S THE DEMOCRATS.
WHO GOT CAUGHT.
THEY GOT CAUGHT FALSELY CLAIMING
THEY HAD MORE THAN 
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT 
TRUMP COLLUDED WITH RUSSIANS TO 
HACK THE 2016 ELECTION.
THEY GOT CAUGHT ORCHESTRATING 
THIS ENTIRE FARCE WITH THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER AND LYING ABOUT 
THEIR SECRET MEETINGS WITH HIM.
THEY GOT CAUGHT DEFENDING THE 
FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF THE STEELE 
DOSSIER, WHICH WAS PAID FOR BY 
THEM.
THEY GOT CAUGHT BREAKING THEIR 
PROMISE THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD 
ONLY GO FORWARD WITH BIPARTISAN 
SUPPORT BECAUSE OF HOW DAMAGING 
IT IS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY GOT CAUGHT RUNNING A SHAM 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS FEATURING 
SECRET DEPOSITIONS, HIDDEN 
TRANSCRIPTS AND UNENDING FLOOD 
OF DEMOCRAT LEAKS TO THE MEDIA.
THEY GOT CAUGHT TRYING TO OBTAIN
NUDE PHOTOS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
FROM RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS 
PRETENDING TO BE UKRAINIANS.
AND THEY GOT CAUGHT COVERING UP 
FOR ALEXANDER CHALUPA, A 
COMMITTEE OPERATIVE WHO COLLUDED
WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO 
SMEAR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
BY IMPROPER REDACTING HER NAME 
FROM DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS AND 
REFUSING TO LET AMERICANS HEAR 
HER TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS IN 
THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THAT IS THE DEMOCRATS' PITIFUL 
LEGACY IN RECENT YEARS.
THEY GOT CAUGHT.
MEANWHILE, THEIR SUPPOSED STAR 
WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS 
GUESSING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS TRYING -- TYING UKRAINIAN 
AID TO INVESTIGATIONS DESPITE NO
ONE TELLING HIM THAT WAS TRUE.
AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF 
EXPLICITLY TELLING HIM THE 
OPPOSITE, THAT HE WANTED NOTHING
FROM UKRAINE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UNLESS THE
DEMOCRATS ONCE AGAIN SCRAMBLE 
THEIR KANGAROO COURT RULES, 
TODAY'S HEARING MARKS THE 
MERCIFUL END OF THIS SPECTACLE 
IN THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE 
FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
WHETHER THE DEMOCRATS REAP THE 
POLITICAL BENEFIT THEY WANT FROM
THIS IMPEACHMENT REMAINS TO BE 
SEEN.
BUT THE DAMAGE THEY HAVE DONE TO
THIS COUNTRY WILL BE LONG 
LASTING.
WITH THIS REACHING ATTEMPT TO 
OVERTHROW THE PRESIDENT,
THEY HAVE PITTED AMERICANS 
AGAINST ONE ANOTHER AND POISONED
THE MIND OF FANATICS WHO 
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE ENTIRE 
GALAXY OF BIZARRE ACCUSATIONS 
THEY HAVE LEVELED AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT SINCE THE DAY THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED HIM.
I SINCERELY HOPE THE DEMOCRATS 
END THIS AFFAIR AS QUICKLY AS 
POSSIBLE SO THE NATION CAN BEGIN
TO HEAL THE MANY WOUNDS 
INFLICTED ON US.
THE PEOPLE'S FAITH IN GOVERNMENT
AND THEIR BELIEF THAT THEIR VOTE
COUNTS FOR SOMETHING HAS BEEN 
SHAKEN.
FROM THE RUSSIA HOAX TO THE 
SHODDY UKRAINIAN SEQUEL, THE 
DEMOCRATS GOT CAUGHT.
LET'S HOPE THEY FINALLY LEARN A 
LESSON, GIVE THEIR CONSPIRACY 
THEORIES A REST, AND FOCUS ON 
GOVERNING FOR A CHANGE.
IN ADDITION, MR. CHAIRMAN, 
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RULE 11, 
CLAUSE 2J1, THE REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS TRANSMIT OUR REQUEST TO 
CONVENE A MINORITY DAY OF 
HEARINGS.
TO DATE YOU HAVE BLOCKED KEY 
WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED
FROM TESTIFYING IN THIS PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THIS RULE WAS NOT DISPLACED BY 
H RES 660 AND THEREFORE, UNDER
HOUSE YOU RULE 11, CLAUSE 1A, IT
APPLIES TO THE DEMOCRATS' 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE CHAIR 
PROMPTLY SCHEDULING AN AGREED 
UPON TIME FOR THE MINORITY DAY 
OF HEARINGS SO THAT WE CAN HEAR 
FROM KEY WITNESSES THAT YOU HAVE
CONTINUALLY BLOCKED FROM 
TESTIFYING.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TAKE A 
QUICK MOMENT ON AN ASSERTION MS.
HILL MADE IN THE STATEMENT THAT 
SHE SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE.
IN WHICH SHE CLAIMED THAT SOME 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS DENY THAT 
RUSSIA MEDDLED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION.
AS I NOTED IN MY OPENING 
STATEMENT ON WEDNESDAY, THAT IN 
MARCH 2018, INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS PUBLISHED 
THE RESULTS OF A YEAR-LONG 
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN 
MEDDLING.
THE 240-PAGE REPORT ANALYZED 
2016 RUSSIAN MEDDLING CAMPAIGN, 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT REACTION TO 
IT, RUSSIAN CAMPAIGNS IN OTHER 
COUNTRIES, AND PROVIDED SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE 
AMERICAN ELECTION SECURITY.
I WOULD ASK MY STAFF TO HAND 
THESE REPORTS TO THE TWO 
WITNESSES TODAY JUST SO THEY CAN
HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THEIR 
MEMORY.
AS AMERICA MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, 
DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO SIGN ON TO 
THE REPUBLICAN REPORT.
INSTEAD, THEY DECIDED TO ADOPT 
MINORITY VIEWS FILLED WITH 
COLLUSION, CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT IS ENTIRELY 
POSSIBLE FOR TWO SEPARATE 
NATIONS TO ENGAGE IN ELECTION 
MEDDLING AT THE SAME TIME AND 
REPUBLICANS BELIEVE WE SHOULD 
TAKE MEDDLING SERIOUSLY BY ALL 
FOREIGN COUNTRIES REGARDLESS OF 
WHICH CAMPAIGN IS THE TARGET.
I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE 
RECORD A COPY OF OUR REPORT 
TITLED "REPORT ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE
MEASURES."
I YIELD BACK.
>>> THE OPENING STATEMENTS THIS 
MORNING FROM THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING 
MEMBER DEVIN NUNES, BEFORE THAT 
ADAM SCHIFF, THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE CHAIR.
THE COMMITTEE'S BEEN IN A BREAK 
FOR A SERIES OF VOTES WRAPPING 
UP NOW ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AS 
THEY'RE VOTING ON FINAL PASSAGE 
ON A MEASURE AIMED AT CURBING 
HEALTH CARE VIOLENCE FOR HEALTH 
CARE WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE 
WORKERS.
THE COMMITTEE SHOULD GAVEL BACK 
IN SHORTLY.
THE SENATE IS PASSING OR VOTING 
ON THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THIS 
SHORT-TERM FUNDING MEASURE 
FUNDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
THROUGH DECEMBER 20th.
FOLLOW THAT OVER ON C-SPAN 2.
HERE WE'LL CONTINUE TO BRING YOU
LIVE COVERAGE IN THE IMPEACHMENT
HEARING WHEN IT GETS UNDERWAY 
AND RIGHT NOW CONTINUE WITH YOUR
PHONE CALLS AND COMMENTS.
WE GO TO JOE IN INDIAN ORCHARD, 
MASSACHUSETTS, DEMOCRATS LINE.
>> Caller: YES.
I JUST WISH PEOPLE WOULD ASK 
THEMSELVES THIS QUESTION 
REGARDING INCIDENTS THAT HAVE 
HAPPENED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
HOW DOES RUSSIA ALWAYS SEEM TO 
BENEFIT FROM ALMOST EVERYTHING 
WE DOES IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY?
EVEN WITH DESERTING THE KURDS, 
RUSSIA MOVED IN.
YOU KNOW, UKRAINE, I GOT THE 
IMPRESSION THAT IF THE AID 
WASN'T GIVEN AND IF UKRAINE WAS 
KIND OF LEFT ALONE AND STILL 
LEFT ON ITS OWN AND RUSSIA MOVED
IN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE WOULD 
DO.
SO THE QUESTION I WOULD LIKE 
EVERYBODY TO ASK THEMSELVES IS 
WHY DOES RUSSIA CONTINUALLY 
BENEFIT FROM THE ACTIONS, WORDS 
AND DEEDS OF THIS PRESIDENT?
THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL GO TO KISSIMMEE, 
FLORIDA.
BEV ON THE REPUBLICAN LINE.
GO AHEAD. 
>> Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING 
MY CALL.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS SHORT AS 
WELL.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND MY 
FELLOW AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ANDLY CALL HIM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE HE HAS 
BEEN A GOOD PRESIDENT FROM WHAT 
I CAN SEE, AND THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENCY DESERVES THAT TYPE OF
RESPECT.
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP RAN ON THE 
AGENDA OF GETTING RID OF 
CORRUPTION IN OUR COUNTRY.
IT IS HIS DUTY AS AN AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT NOT TO JUST FLAGRANTLY
GIVE AWAY OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS 
AND FINANCIAL AID TO COUNTRIES 
THAT HAVE ALREADY PROVEN TO BE 
CORRUPT.
SO I BELIEVE THAT HE IS TRYING 
TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION WHETHER 
WE KNOW IT TO BE CURRENTLY.
NOW, GRANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
IS A NEW PRESIDENT AND HE ALSO 
RAN ON THE SAME AGENDA OF 
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT HE WAS 
ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET SOMETHING
ON JOE BIDEN.
JOE BIDEN ALREADY GAVE US THAT 
INFORMATION HIMSELF ON LIVE AIR.
I'M SURE EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY
HAS SEEN HIS VIDEO OF HOW IF 
THEY DIDN'T FIRE THE PROSECUTOR,
THEY WEREN'T GETTING THE MONEY.
SO I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT 
THAT WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SPOT 
AT THE TIME.
I THINK HE JUST TRULY WANTED TO 
MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT 
GIVING AWAY OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS
TO A COUNTRY THAT WAS GOING TO 
CONTINUE TO INTERFERE IN OUR 
FOREIGN POLICIES. 
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN 
WASHINGTON TODAY AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE AS MEETINGS TODAY WITH 
SENATORS MITT ROMNEY AND SUSAN 
COLLINS.
THE FIRST LADY WILL ALSO BE 
HOSTING THE AWARDS, THE 
RECIPIENTS OF THE NATIONAL 
MEDALS OF THE ARTS AND 
HUMANITIES LATER THIS AFTERNOON 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
LET'S HEAR FROM CHANDLER, 
ARIZONA, ON THE OTHERS LINE. 
>> Caller: THANKS FOR TAKING MY 
CALL.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE INQUIRY 
ALL WEEK.
REPUBLICANS FROM WHAT I CAN SEE 
ARE TRYING TO APPEAL TO THINGS 
THEY DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT.
ONE MAIN THING THEY KEEP SAYING 
IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER NEED TO 
TESTIFY AND THAT THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE HOLDING UP THE TESTIMONY OF 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
BUT IF THEY ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT
TESTIMONY, THEN THEY SHOULD BE 
CLAMORING FOR MULVANEY, RICK 
PERRY, BOLTON AND TRUMP TO 
TESTIFY.
THE OTHER LINE OF ATTACK THEY'RE
USING IS THAT TRUMP WAS SETTING 
FOREIGN POLICY, THAT HE WAS 
DOING THIS BECAUSE HE CARES 
ABOUT CORRUPTION.
TESTIMONY YESTERDAY TOLD US THAT
TRUMP ONLY WANTED THE 
INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCED.
HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING
ELSE TO BE DONE.
IT'S RIDICULOUS THAT YOU CAN 
REASONABLY ASSUME THAT TRUMP HAD
DEEP CONCERN FOR CORRUPTION AND 
THAT'S WHY HE DID THIS.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> ONTO NICHOLAS NEXT IN 
BROOKLYN ON THE DEMOCRATS LINE.
NICHOLAS, YOU THERE?
YOU'RE WATCHING MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE RETURN BACK INTO THE 
MEETING ROOM LIFE HERE ON C-SPAN
3.
THE HEARINGS SHOULD RESUME 
SHORTLY.
YOU'LL CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM 
FIONA HILL, FORMER NATIONAL 
SECURITY OFFICIAL ON RUSSIA AND 
UKRAINE, AND ALSO FROM DAVID 
HOLMES, THE POLITICAL COUNSELOR 
FOR THE U.S. AT THE EMBASSY IN 
UKRAINE.
WE GO TO NICHOLAS IN BROOKLYN, 
DEMOCRATS LINE.
>> Caller: HELLO.
JUST ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT
OUT IS THAT THE LACK OF 
EVIDENCE -- RIGHT NOW WE'RE ALL 
DEALING WITH EVIDENCE AND THE 
REASON WHY IS BECAUSE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT ALLOWING 
EVIDENCE TO COME TO CONGRESS.
THAT ALONE IS AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE.
IT'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THERE'S NO OTHER CASE WHERE 
SOMEONE CAN BE GUILTY -- OR EVEN
INVESTIGATED FOR A CRIME AND 
SAY, OH, I HAVE ALL THIS 
EVIDENCE THAT EXONERATES ME, BUT
YOU GUYS CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
THERE'S NO OTHER PERSON IN THIS 
ENTIRE COUNTRY THAT HAS THE 
POWER TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING ZERO 
EFFORT TO GET ANY OF THAT 
EVIDENCE.
IF THEY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, 
BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE 
EVIDENCE.
WHY IS THAT?
I'D ALSO JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT, 
YOU KNOW, TRUMP KEEPS REPEATING 
THIS LINE ABOUT I WANT NOTHING, 
I WANT NOTHING, BUT THAT IS 
DIRECTLY AT ODDS WITH HIM SAYING
DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH.
SO IF WE WANT TO KNOW THE 
INTENTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, HE 
SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE LIKE 
MULVANEY, BOLTON, ALL THESE 
PEOPLE NEED TO COME FORWARD, BUT
TRUMP HIMSELF IS BLOCKING THIS.
WE SEE CASES WHERE WE DO GET TO 
SEE EVIDENCE, TRUMP BECOMES AN 
UNINDICTED COCONSPIRATOR TO A 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION.
SO WE KNOW THAT TRUMP HAS 
CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
SAME THING WITH HIS CHARITY THAT
HE JUST PLEADED GUILTY FROM. 
>> WE SEE ADAM SCHIFF ENTERING 
THE ROOM.
THE HEARING WILL GET BACK 
UNDERWAY.
WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET ONE MORE
CALL.
MONTE, ARE YOU THERE?
>> Caller: I AM.
HOWDY THERE.
>> GO AHEAD.
YOU'RE ON THE AIR. 
>> Caller: HOWDY.
I JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR ALL
THE MORONS ON THE CALLS EARLIER,
ESPECIALLY FROM ALABAMA AND ALL 
THAT.
SECONDLY I JUST WANT TO SAY 
IMPEACH THE [ BLEEP ].
HAVE A GREAT DAY. 
>> THANKS MONTE IN FLORIDA.
THAT'S IT FOR PHONE CALLS.
THE COMMITTEE WILL BE GAVELING 
BACK IN SHORTLY, WE EXPECT.
YOU'RE WATCHING LIVE HERE ON 
C-SPAN 3 AND C-SPAN RADIO.
>>> THE MEETING WILL COME TO 
ORDER. 
CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE RANKING
MEMBER OR THEIR COUNSEL FOR THE 
FIRST ROUND OF THEIR 45-MINUTE 
QUESTIONS. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. 
I WANT TO GET A FEW BASIC FACTS 
ON THE TABLE OF INDIVIDUALS THAT
WERE INVOLVED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION JUST TO SEE WHO YOU 
KNOW AND WHO YOU HAVE MET WITH. 
SO I WILL START WITH YOU, MR. 
HOLMES. 
HAVE YOU MET WITH OR DO YOU KNOW
ALEXANDRA CHALUPA?
COULD YOU TURN YOUR MICROPHONE 
ON. 
>> NO. 
>> DO YOU KNOW NELLIE OHR?
HAVE YOU MET WITH NELLIE OHR?
>> NO. 
>> BRUCE OHR?
>> NO. 
>> GLENN SIMPSON?
>> NO. 
>> THANK YOU. 
SAME QUESTION FOR YOU, DR. HILL.
DO YOU KNOW OR HAVE YOU MET WITH
ALEXANDRA CHALUPA?
>> NO. 
>> NELLIE OHR?
>> NO. 
>> BRUCE OHR?
>> ONLY IN THE COURSE OF MY 
PREVIOUS POSITION AS A NATIONAL 
OFFICER THAT HE PRESIDED OVER 
THE MEETINGS I ATTENDED. 
>> A LONG TIME AGO?
>> YES. 
>> GLENN SIMPSON?
>> NO. 
>> DR. HILL, IN YOUR TESTIMONY 
YOU SAID THAT IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION, EXCUSE ME, THAT 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE WAS YOUR 
COUNTERPART AT ONE TIME. 
IS THIS CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU MET 
WITH CHRISTOPHER STEELE IN 2016,
AND I ASSUME THAT IS STILL 
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 
>> AND THE ONLY THING THAT WE 
DIDN'T GET ON THAT IS THAT DO 
YOU KNOW ABOUT WHEN THAT WAS IN 
2016 AND HOW MANY TIMES?
>> I AM AFRAID I DON'T. 
I ACTUALLY HAD MET WITH HIM, AND
HE ASKED ME IN THE DEPOSITION 
WHEN THE MOST RECENT TIME I HAD 
MET WITH HIM IN 2016, AND HE 
RETIRED FROM THE BRITISH 
INTELLIGENCE SERVICES IN 2009. 
>> I AM ASKING ABOUT AROUND 
2016?
>> I DON'T RECALL 2016, BUT I DO
REMEMBER THAT I MET WITH HIM 
BEFORE. 
>> YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE?
>> I AM AFRAID I DON'T, NO. 
>> AND SO YOU STATED IN THE 
DEPOSITION THAT THE COLLEAGUE 
HAD SHOWED YOU THE STEELE 
DOSSIER BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISH 
AND WHO IS THAT COLLEAGUE?
>> IT IS ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES AT
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION. 
>> WHO WAS NA?
>> THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 
PRESIDENT BURT TALBOT WHO HAD 
BEEN SENT A COPY OF THIS. 
>> AND HE SHOWED IT TO YOU?
>> YES, IT IS A DAY BEFORE IT 
WAS PUBLISHED IN BUZZFEED. 
>> YOU MENTIONED IN THE 
DEPOSITION THAT YOU ALSO THOUGHT
THAT IT WAS -- AND LET ME GET 
THE EXACT QUOTE THAT THE DOSSIER
WAS A RABBIT HOLE. 
IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY STILL?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> DO YOU KNOW WHO PAID 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE TO GENERATE 
THIS STEELE DOSSIER FOR SEVERAL 
OF THEM?
>> AT THE TIME I DID NOT KNOW, 
BUT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE MEDIA 
IT IS THROUGH GPS FUSION, AND IF
THAT IS NOT CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS A
LAW FIRM INVOLVED, BUT DID YOU 
KNOW THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY?
>> AT THE TIME, NO, BUT I HAVE 
READ IT IN THE "POST" AND IN 
YOUR COLLEAGUES, IT IS THE DNC I
AM LED TO BELIEVE. 
>> AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. 
>> OKAY. 
MR. CASTOR. 
>> WELCOME BACK. 
I HOPE YOU HAD A SANDWICH OR 
SOMETHING DELICIOUS. 
>> YOU, TOO. 
>> AND DR. HILL, THANK YOU FOR 
YOUR PARTICIPATION ON THE 
DEPOSITION OCTOBER 14th, 
COLUMBUS DAY, AND WE WERE WITH 
YOU MOST OF THE DAY AND WE 
APPRECIATE THAT. 
AND MR. HOLMES, TOO, AND YOU ARE
THE LATE ENTRANT INTO THIS 
SITUATION, AND THINGS SURE DID 
ESCALATE QUICKLY. 
WE SPOKE WITH YOU LAST FRIDAY 
NIGHT ABOUT A, WHAT WE THOUGHT 
WAS GOING TO BE A 30-SECOND 
VIGNETTE ABOUT A TWO-MINUTE 
PHONE CALL, AND THEN IT TURNS 
OUT YOU KNOW, WITH YOUR 
40-MINUTE OPENER TODAY, YOU HAVE
A LOT OF INFORMATION TO SHARE. 
SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING 
HERE. 
DR. HILL, YOUR LAST DAY AT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WAS 
JULY 19th, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. 
>> YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE 
JULY 25th CALL, AND YOU WERE NOT
INVOLVED WITH THE RELEVANT 
ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE PAUSE IN
THE AID?
>> I WAS NOT. 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND AS OF JULY 19th, DID YOU 
BELIEVE THAT A CALL WAS GOING TO
BE SCHEDULED FOR THE 25th?
>> I PERSONALLY DID NOT BELIEVE 
IT WOULD BE SCHEDULED THAT DAY, 
NO. 
>> WHAT IS THE THINKING OF THE 
NSC AS OF JULY 19th ABOUT THIS 
CALL?
>> WELL, I HAVE LEARNED FROM 
OTHER DEPOSITIONS TO BE CLEAR 
HERE THAT PERHAPS THERE WAS SOME
AWARENESS THAT THERE MIGHT BE A 
CALL. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IF YOU 
RECALL SHARED AN EXCHANGE WITH 
THE PERSON TAKING OVER FOR MY 
POSITION, TIM MORRISON THAT 
THERE IS GOING TO BE A CALL 
COMING UP, BUT I WAS NOT AWARE 
OF THAT. 
AND THERE WERE DIFFERENCES LET'S
SAY ABOUT THE UNDERSTANDING OF 
THAT CALL. 
>> WERE YOU IN FAVOR OF THE CALL
ON THE 19th?
>> I WAS NOT, AND DID SAY 
SOMETHING ABOUT THAT IN THE 
OPENING PART OF THE SESSIONS 
TODAY. 
>> AND HOW ABOUT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
>> I KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID IN THE E-MAIL THAT
BOLTON WAS IN AGREEMENT, AND TO 
MY KNOWLEDGE, BOLTON WAS NOT IN 
AGREEMENT AT THAT JUNCTURE TO MY
KNOWLEDGE. 
>> AND DO YOU KNOW WHY THAT WAS?
>> HE FELT THAT THE CALL WAS NOT
PROPERLY PREPARED AND AS I SAID 
EARLIER, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THERE WAS A FULSOME 
BILATERAL AGENDA DISCUSSED IN 
THESE CALLS AS USUAL. 
>> AND WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT A
CALL WAS ULTIMATELY SCHEDULED?
>> I WAS WHEN I LEARNED ABOUT 
IT, THAT IS RIGHT. 
>> AND DID YOU HAVE 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH SOMEBODY 
FROM YOUR OLD STAFF ABOUT HOW 
THAT CAME TO BE?
>> I DID NOT, NO. 
>> YOU DID LEARN ABOUT THE PAUSE
IN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AID. 
>> I LEARNED ABOUT THAT ON JULY 
18th, THE DAY BEFORE I LEFT, 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND THERE WERE SEVERAL 
MEETINGS ABOUT THIS, AND I 
BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED TO. 
>> I SAID THAT I KNEW THAT THERE
WAS GOING TO BE A MEETING IN THE
TIME FRAME AND THERE WAS ONE ON 
THE SCHEDULE THE FOLLOWING WEEK 
AND I HAD LEFT SO OF COURSE I 
DID NOT ATTEND THAT. 
>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT STARTS AND
STOPS IN AID LIKE THIS SOMETIMES
DO HAPPEN?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT 
THERE WAS A FREEZE PUT ON ALL 
KINDS OF AID AND ASSISTANCE, 
BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE PROCESS AT
THAT TIME THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT
REVIEWS GOING ON WITH FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE. 
>> YES. 
>> WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT 
THAT?
>> ABOUT THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE 
REVIEW?
>> YES. 
>> AS I RECALL THERE WAS A FULL 
SCALE REVIEW OF THE FOREIGN 
POLICY TIES AND THE TIES OF THE 
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES AND 
ASSISTANCE, AND THIS HAD BEEN 
GOING ON FOR MANY MONTHS, AND IN
THE PERIOD WHEN I WAS WRAPPING 
UP MY TIME, THERE WAS MORE 
SCRUTINY AND SPECIFIC SETS OF 
COUNTRIES AS A RESULT OF THE 
OVERALL REVIEW. 
>> AND AT THAT TIME, AS WELL, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND, THEY HAD BECOME A 
LITTLE BIT MORE INVOLVED WITH 
THE UKRAINE POLICY?
>> WELL, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS 
ALWAYS INVOLVED IN THE UKRAINE 
POLICY AT LEAST SINCE THE 
BEGINNING OF THE APPOINTMENT AS 
THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR 
NEGOTIATIONS TOWARDS THE WALL 
BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA IN 
DOM BASS. 
>> WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER?
>> I HAVE WORKED WITH HIM 
PREVIOUSLY, AND HE IS THE BIO 
AND AMBASSADOR TO NATO, AND HE 
HAS HAD A NUMBER OF POSITIONS AT
THE STATE DEPARTMENT. 
I ACTUALLY KNOW HIM PERSONALLY, 
AND SO IN THE TRUTH THAT WE ARE 
TRYING TO GET AND WHO IS KNOWING
WHO AND I KNOW AMBASSADOR VOLKER
AS WELL AND ON A PERSONAL LEVEL.
>> HE IS MAN OF INTEGRITY?
>> YES. 
>> AND ALWAYS ACTED IN THE BEST 
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES?
>> YES. 
>> AND WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN 
OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S 
INVOLVEMENT?
>> THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WITH 
THE AMBASSADOR OF THE EU HAD 
PERFECTLY INVOLVEMENT IN MATTERS
RELATED WITH THE EU AND UKRAINE.
THE UKRAINIAN DIALOGUE WITH 
RUSSIA IS KNOWN IN A FORMAT OF 
THE MINSK PROCESS WHICH IS LED 
BY THE FRENCH AND THE GERMANS 
AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS TRYING
TO FIND OUT IN THE WAYS HE COULD
WORK WITH THE FRENCH AND THE 
GERMANS TO MOVE ALONG WITH THE 
RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT 
BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA, AND 
OBVIOUSLY, THE EUROPEAN UNION OF
THE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION IN 
TERMS OF FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE 
WAS HEAVILY ACTIVE IN OFFERING 
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS 
HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE IN 
CONFLICT. 
SO IT WAS LOGICAL THAT HE WOULD 
PLAY SOME ROLE AS THE AMBASSADOR
TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. 
>> AND DID HE SEEM TO YOU AS 
SOMEBODY WHO HAD A MAJOR ROLE?
>> I DID AT THE TIME HE 
PRESENTED IT TO ME AND THIS IS 
AFTER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAD
BEEN PUSHED OUT OF HER POSITION,
AND SIT AT THAT JUNCTURE THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S ROLE GREW 
LARGER. 
>> DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERNS TO 
HIM DIRECTLY?
>> I DID. 
>> WHAT WERE THOSE CONCERNS?
>> I ASKED HIM BLUNTLY IN A 
MEETING THAT WE HAD IN JUNE OF 
THE 2019, AND THIS IS AFTER THE 
PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION THAT I
HAD SEEN THAT HE STARTED TO STEP
UP IN MUCH MORE OF A PROACTIVE 
ROLE ON UKRAINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT 
WAS HIS ROLE HERE, AND HE SAID 
THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE OF 
UKRAINE. 
I SAID, WELL, WHO PUT YOU IN 
CHARGE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT. 
>> DID IT SURPRISE YOU WHEN HE 
TOLD YOU THAT?
>> IT DID SURPRISE ME. 
WE HAD NO DIRECTIVE AND WE HAD 
NOT BEEN TOLD.
THIS AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD NEVER
INDICATED IN ANY WAY THAT HE 
FELT THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WAS PLAYING A LEADING ROLE IN 
UKRAINE. 
>> AND I BELIEVE YOU USED THE 
TERM LARGE REMIT THAT HE HAD 
BEEN GIVEN A LARGE REMIT FROM 
THE PRESIDENT. 
>> I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I SAID 
REMIT, BUT IT IS PORTFOLIO, AND 
THESE ARE ALL SYNONYMS, AND HE 
WAS TALKING TO US ABOUT THE FACT
THAT HE HAD BEEN GIVEN A VERY 
BROAD PORTFOLIO BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
HE SAID THAT HIS JOB WAS TO GO 
TOUT MAKE DEALS IN EUROPE, AND 
YOU KNOW YOURSELF LISTENING TO 
THE TESTIMONY AS WELL LISTENING 
TO TESTIMONY AS I DID, AND HE 
SAID THAT ANYTHING THAT HAD TO 
DO WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
THE MEMBER STATES WAS WITHIN HIS
PORTFOLIO. 
>> WE ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
ABOUT THAT IN HIS DEPOSITION AND
HE SAID THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN 
SPINNING A LITTLE BIT WHEN HE 
SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT 
SPECIFICALLY GAVE HIM THAT ROLE,
AND HE INDICATED THAT HIS 
AUTHORITY WAS COMING A LITTLE 
BIT MORE FROM THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE. 
AT ANY POINT IN TIME, WAS THAT 
RELATED TO YOU?
>> AT DIFFERENT POINTS HE TALKED
ABOUT TALKING TO THE CHIEF OF 
STAFF MULVANEY AND SECRETARY 
POMPEO, AND IN FACT, THERE WERE 
OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM IN THE 
MEETING IN WHICH HE ASSERTED TO 
ME THAT IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO
PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF THIS. 
>> WERE YOU ENCOURAGED AS OF 
YOUR LAST DATE IN THE OFFICE 
THAT U.S. POLICY TOWARDS THE 
UKRAINE WAS HEADED IN THE RIGHT 
DIRECTION?
>> I WAS NOT. 
>> AND WHY IS THAT?
>> WELL, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
TWO THINGS IN PARTICULAR. 
ONE WAS AGAIN THE REMOVAL OF THE
AMBASSADOR AND I WILL SAY FOR 
THE RECORD THE PRESIDENT HAS THE
RIGHT TO REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR 
FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME, AND 
I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT 
THAT HER REPUTATION HAD BEEN 
MALIGNED IN DIFFERENT PLACES 
LIKE TELEVISION AND THAT WAS 
UNNECESSARY. 
AND IF HE WANTED TO REMOVE AN 
AMBASSADOR, AND THAT HAD BEEN 
DONE BEFORE, AND WITHOUT THESE 
KINDS OF INTERVENTION, AND I 
WONDERED WHAT THAT MESSAGE WAS 
TO BE SENT THERE. 
AND ON THE SECOND FRONT, IT WAS 
VERY CLEAR AT THAT POINT THAT 
LET'S JUST SAY A DIFFERENT 
CHANNEL IN OPERATION IN 
RELATIONS TO UKRAINE AND ONE 
THAT WAS DOMESTIC AND POLITICAL 
IN NATURE AND VERY DIFFERENT THE
CHANNEL OR THE LOOP OR HOWEVER 
YOU LIKE IT THAT I AND MY 
COLLEAGUES WERE IN WHERE WE WERE
FOCUSED ON THE BILATERAL 
RELATIONS AND THE U.S. FOREIGN 
POLICY TO UKRAINE AND THESE TWO 
THINGS HAD DIVERGED AT THIS 
POINT. 
>> AND IN THE RUNUP TO 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S RELEASE
AT THE POST, DID YOU HAVE ANY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS?
>> I DID. 
>> WHO DID YOU RELATE THOSE 
CONCERNS TO?
>> I RELATED THOSE CONCERNS 
DIRECTLY TO MY COUNTERPART WHO I
KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO, 
AND ALSO DAVID HALE IN THE 
CONTEXT OF THE LARGER MEETINGS 
IN OTHER ISSUES, AND AGAIN, I 
COVERED A BROAD PORTFOLIO 
MYSELF, AND WE OFTEN WOULD TALK 
ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND I HAD
PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS WITH DEPUTY 
SECRETARY SULLIVAN, AND HE OF 
COURSE IS APPEARED BEFORE THE 
COMMITTEES HERE IN THE COURSE OF
HIS NOMINATION TO BE AMBASSADOR 
THE RUSH SHARKS AND HAS SPOKEN 
ABOUT THAT HIMSELF.
>> AND YOU ADVOCATED TO ALL OF 
THOSE OFFICIALS ABOUT YOUR 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE INFORMATION 
BEING SPREAD ABOUT AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH?
>> I DID. 
THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
CHANGED COURSES FROM THE 
PREDECESSOR AND PROVIDED LETHAL 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND WERE 
YOU IN FAVOR OF ARMING THE 
UKRAINE WITH THE JAVELINS?
>> I WAS NOT BEFORE I JOINED THE
GOVERNMENT AND MANY PEOPLE IN 
THE COMMITTEE HAVE SEEN THAT I 
VOTE A PIECE WITH THE BROOKINGS 
INSTITUTE IN THAT JUNCTURE, 
BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED A AT 
THAT POINT IN TIME THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN MILITARY WAS NOT IN A 
STATE TO TAKE ON SOPHISTICATED 
WEAPONS OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE, 
AND SO I WORRIED THAT THERE WAS 
NOT A LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE PLAN
AND GIVEN THE OVERWHELMING FORCE
THAT THE RUSSIANS COULD USE 
AGAINST UKRAINE, BUT WHEN I CAME
PHONE THE GOVERNMENT, AND YOU 
HAD COOPER HERE YESTERDAY, I 
REALIZED A LOT OF WORK HAD BEEN 
DONE ON THIS, AND THERE WAS A 
CONSISTENT AND FURTHERING PLAN 
FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE 
UKRAINIAN MILITARY AND SO I 
CHANGED MY MIND. 
>> AND YOU ARE IN FACT, I 
BELIEVE THE ONLY WITNESS THAT WE
HAVE SPOKEN TO THAT HAS BEEN 
ABLE TO ARTICULATE THE 
OPPOSITION TO PROVIDING THE 
JAVELIN, AND AS WE UNDERSTAND IT
IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE
CONSENSUS WAS TO PROVIDE THE 
JAVELINS, BUT THEY DID NOT. 
WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> YES, IT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS
THAT IT MIGHT PROVOKE THE 
RUSSIAN, AND WE WERE MINDFUL OF 
THAT WHEN THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS
INTERNALLY ABOUT THE LETHAL 
DEFENSIVE WEAPONS INSIDE OF THE 
ADMINISTRATIONS. 
>> MR. HOLMES, YOU ARE ON THE 
GROUND IN KIEV, AND THE JAVELINS
HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED AND ON THE 
FIELD, AND WHAT IS YOUR VIEW AND
THE EMBASSY AS THE EFFECT OF THE
JAVELINS. 
>> THEY ARE A STRATEGIC 
DETERRENT, AND THEY ARE NOT 
ACTIVATED IN COMBAT RIGHT NOW, 
BUT IF THE RUSSIANS WERE TO 
ADVANCE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THIS 
ARMOR THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE 
CAPABILITY TO DO SO AND DETERSE 
THEM FROM DOING SO AND THEREBY 
SENDS A SYMBOLIC MESSAGE TO THE 
UKRAINIAN MILITARY THAT THEY 
HAVE THE HIGH END TECHNOLOGY AND
TRUST THEM TO DO IT. 
THEY HAVE OFFERED TO BUY SOME 
USING THEIR OWN FUNDS. 
THE INITIAL TRANCHE WAS PROVIDED
THROUGH A PROGRAM TO DO THAT, 
BUT THEY HAVE OFFERED THEIR OWN 
MONEY TO BUY MORE. 
>> AND MR. KENT HAS TESTIFIED 
THAT THIS IS IN FACT THE 
CONSENSUS OF THE INTERAGENCY 
PROVIDING THE JAVELINS. 
IS IT THE, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE 
WORKING WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, 
WAS HE ALSO AN ADVOCATE FOR 
THIS?
>> YES. 
>> MR. HOLMES, I WANT TO GO BACK
TO SOME NAMES OF AMERICANS. 
NOW I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME 
UKRAINES, AND UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. 
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH SERHIY 
LESCHENKO?
>> YES. 
>> HAVE YOU MET WITH HIM?
>> YES. 
A JOURNALIST AND THEN IN THE 
PARLIAMENT, AND CURRENTLY IN THE
PARLIAMENT?
>> JOURNALIST AGAIN. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT WHEN HE 
WAS IN THE PARLIAMENT THAT HE 
HAD PROVIDED INFORMATION TO 
FUSION GPS OPERATIVE NAMED 
NELLIE OHR?
>> I AM NOT AWARE OF NELLIE OHR 
OR WHO HE PROVIDED THE 
INFORMATION TO, BUT I AM AWARE 
AS A JOURNALIST, HE HAS PROVIDED
INFORMATION. 
>> AND WELL, HE WAS IN THE 
PARLIAMENT AT THE TIME IN THE 
2016 CAMPAIGN. 
HE PROVIDED WIDELY KNOWN AS THE 
BLACK LEDGER AND HAVE YOU HEARD 
OF THE BLACK LEDGER?
>> I HAVE. 
>> AND THE BLACK LEDGER, IS THAT
SEEN AS CREDIBLE INFORMATION?
>> YES. 
>> THE BLACK LEDGER IS CREDIBLE?
>> YES. 
>> BOB MUELLER DID NOT FIND IT 
CREDIBLE FOR YOU THE DISPUTE 
WHAT BOB MUELLER'S FINDINGS WERE
AND THEY DID NOT USE IT IN THE 
PROSECUTION OR THE REPORT?
>> I AM NOT AWARE THAT BOB 
MUELLER DID NOT FIND IT 
CREDIBLE, BECAUSE IT WAS 
EVIDENCE IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS 
AND IT WAS CREDIBLE IN THOSE 
PROCEEDINGS, BUT I AM NOT AWARE 
OF IT NOW. 
>> SO THE MOTIVATION FOR 
LESCHENKO AS REPORTED WAS TO GO 
AFTER A TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL,
AND UNDERMINE TRUMP'S CANDIDACY 
AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>> IF YOU MEAN BY THE RELEASE OF
THE BLACK LEDGER, I THINK THAT 
LESCHENKO'S MOTIVATION WAS THE 
SAME AS HE HAS EXPRESSED TO 
EXPOSE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. 
>> BUT HE HAS SAID THAT HIS 
MOTIVATION WAS TO PARTLY 
UNDERMINE THE TRUMP CANDIDACY 
THAT HE DID NOT SUPPORT. 
>> HE DID NOT SAY THAT TO ME, 
AND IF HE SAID, THAT I WILL TAKE
YOUR WORD FOR IT. 
>> AND YOU ARE AWARE OF -- AND 
YOU HEARD DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY 
THAT THE STEELE DOSSIER THAT WAS
INITIALLY FED TO THE FBI, AND 
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE DEMOCRATS
HAD PAID FOR THAT INFORMATION?
>> SIR, I NEVER HAD ANY 
INVOLVEMENT WITH -- 
>> I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF 
INVOLVEMENT, AND NOT EVEN IF YOU
KNEW AT THE TIME, BUT YOU KNOW 
TODAY THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAD 
PAID FOR THAT INFORMATION?
>> SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT 
ALL OF THAT HAPPENED BEFORE I 
ARRIVED IN UKRAINE -- 
>> I AM NOT ACCUSING ANY 
INVOLVEMENT OF YOU OR THE STEELE
DOSSIER. 
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT TO BE 
CLEAR. 
IN ADDITION I HAVE READ ABOUT 
THOSE ISSUE, BUT I AM NOT AN 
EXPERT ON THOSE. 
>> BUT YOU ARE NOT DISPUTING 
THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN WERE THE SOURCE
OF FUNDS THAT FUNDED THE STEELE 
DOSSIER?
>> I WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION 
TO DISPUTE THAT, SIR. 
>> DO YOU THINK THAT IT IS 
APPROPRIATE FOR POLITICAL 
PARTIES TO RUN OPERATIVES IN 
FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO DIG UP DIRT
ON THEIR OPPONENTS?
>> NO. 
>> DR. HILL, DO YOU THINK IT IS 
APPROPRIATE FOR POLITICAL 
PARTIES TO PAY OPERATIVES TO DIG
UP DIRT ON THEIR OPPONENTS?
>> I DO NOT. 
MR. CASTOR. 
>> I TURN TO THE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION. 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
HE WAS PLEASED WITH THE SIZE OF 
THE DELEGATION, ALTHOUGH THE 
VICE PRESIDENT WAS UNABLE TO 
MAKE THE TRIP, AND SECRETARY 
PERRY, AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I 
UNDERSTAND THAT DR. HILL, YOU 
WERE INVOLVED WITH SOME OF THE 
LOGISTICS OF PUTTING THE 
DELEGATIONS TOGETHER. 
>> I WAS. 
>> WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IN 
ATTENDING OR NOT ATTENDING?
>> WELL, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE 
HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER 
WILLIAMS FROM THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE AND I DEFER 
TO HER BEING MUCH CLOSER TO THE 
DECISION MAKING OF THE VICE 
PRESIDENT'S ATTENDANCE.
I WILL SAY THAT I AND MANY 
OTHERS HAD HOPED THAT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WOULD ATTEND. 
WHAT I KNOW FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
BECAUSE I WAS NOT INVOLVED 
INTIMATELY WHERE THE VICE 
PRESIDENT OR THE IMMEDIATE STAFF
WAS THAT THERE WAS SOME 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SCHEDULE. 
AS YOU ALL KNOW THE PRESIDENT 
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT THE SAME 
TIME. 
AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL TRAVEL IN
THE SAME TIME FRAME, AND SO, 
THERE WAS A QUITE A BIT OF THE 
BACK AND FORTH AS TO WHETHER IT 
WOULD BE FEASIBLE FOR THE VICE 
PRESIDENT IN THAT TIME FRAME TO 
GO, AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS AWARE
OF, AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE 
EXTENT OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT 
MS. WILLIAMS WAS INVOLVED IN. 
>> AND THE PRESIDENT WAS 
TRAVELING IN JAPAN AND THEN TO 
THE D-DAY ANNIVERSARY, AND THE 
FOUR DAYS THAT MS. WILLIAMS 
PROVIDED AT THE END OF MAY, AND 
30, 31st AND THEN TO JUNE 1st. 
AND THEN AS IT TURNED OUT THE 
UKRAINIANS DECIDED ON MAY 16th, 
TO SCHEDULE THE INAUGURATION FOR
FOUR DAYS LATER, AND BY THIS 
POINT IN TIME, THE VICE 
PRESIDENT HAD BEEN REROUTED TO 
CANADA FOR A TRIP ABOUT THE 
UMCA. 
I WANT TO ASK YOU WHETHER, YOU 
DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE
VICE PRESIDENT WAS ENCOURAGED 
NOT TO ATTEND FOR ANY OTHER 
REASON, DO YOU?
>> I PERSONALLY DO NOT. 
AGAIN, I DEFER TO MS. WILLIAMS. 
>> THE TESTIMONY OF MS. WILLIAMS
IS THAT SHE HAD HEARD FROM THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF'S ASSISTANT THAT 
THE VICE PRESIDENT COULD NOT GO,
AND THE LEAP THAT THE REASON FOR
THAT WAS RELATED TO ANY OF THESE
INVESTIGATIONS HASN'T BEEN FULLY
ESTABLISHED. 
AND I WANTED TO JUST NOTE FROM 
THE MATERIALS THAT YOU PROVIDED 
FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, THAT THERE 
WAS A DISCUSSION WHETHER 
PRESIDENT URBAN MAY HAVE 
INFLUENCED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
DECISION ON THAT MAY 13th DAY. 
DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THE MEETING
WAS WITH THE PRESIDENT?
>> I DO. 
>> WHEN WAS THAT?
>> IN MAY 13th. 
>> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME OF 
THE DAY ON THE 13th?
>> TO BE HONEST, USUALLY THESE 
MEETINGS ARE AROUND LUNCHTIME, 
AND IN THAT TIMEFRAME IN THE ERL
THROW THE MID-PART OF THE DAY, 
BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR SURE, AND 
I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT I 
CANNOT SPEAK ABOUT STATE 
ENGAGEMENTS. 
>> AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS 
TESTIFIED THAT SHE LEARNED ABOUT
11:00 OR 11:15 AND THE PRESIDENT
WITH PRESIDENT URBAN WAS NOT 
SCHEDULED UNTIL LATER IN THE 
AFTERNOON, AND YOUR RECOLLECTION
IS AROUND 1:45?
>> LUNCHTIME, AND DEPENDING UPON
WHEN ONE HAS LUNCH, I GUESS. 
>> BUT OVERALL, GIVEN THE FOUR 
DAYS' NOTICE, AND SECRETARY 
PERRY'S INVOLVEMENT, AND WAS THE
DELEGATION A GOOD-SIZED GROUP?
>> I DO. 
AND LET ME ALSO MAKE A POINT 
THAT WE DON'T TRY TO MAKE THESE 
DELEGATIONS LARGE. 
THIS IS ON THE TAXPAYER'S DIME. 
AND IT IS PRETTY EXPENSIVE TO 
GET PEOPLE THERE, AND YOU HAVE 
TO HAVE THE MILITARY AIR, AND WE
TRY TO KEEP THEM SMALL. 
IF WE HAD A LONGER LEAD TIME, 
POSSIBLY OTHER ARRANGEMENTS, BUT
FOUR DAYS IS NOT A LOT OF TIME. 
>> AND SECRETARY PERRY HAD BEEN 
CONCERNED WITH ISSUES THERE IN 
UKRAINE?
>> I HAD SUGGESTED THAT HE COME.
>> AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT 
HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN POLICY?
>> WELL, MR. PERRY WAS THE 
SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND HIS 
FORMER GOVERNORSHIP, AND 
SECRETARY PERRY IS A VERY GOOD 
VOICE IN THE ENERGY ATMOSPHERE, 
AND ALSO, THE ACHILLES' HEEL OF 
THE MILITARY ADVANTAGE WITH 
RUSSIA IS ACTUALLY ENERGY, AND 
UKRAINE REMAINS THE MAIN POINT 
FOR RUSSIAN OIL AND GAS AND 
PIPELINES TO EUROPE. 
SO THIS IS MANIPULATED 
REPEATEDLY, AND ESPECIALLY SINCE
2006 BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, 
AND IN FACT, MANY OF YOU HERE 
WILL REMEMBER IN THE RIGAN ERA 
THERE WAS A HUGE DISPUTE BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE 
ABOUT, WHETHER IT MADE SENSE FOR
THERE TO BE PIPELINES FROM THE 
SOVIET UNIONS TO BRING GAS TO 
THE EUROPEAN MARKETS. 
>> MR. HOLMES, WHAT WAS YOUR 
VIEW OF THE DELEGATION?
DO YOU THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT 
SIZED GROUP AND THE RIGHT LEVEL 
OF PRESTIGE TO SIGNAL TO THE 
ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION THAT THE
U.S. STANDS BEHIND THEM?
>> I THINK IT WAS FINE IN THAT 
REGARD. 
>> SINCE WE ARE ON THE TOP TICK 
OF UKRAINE ENERGY, AND GOOD WAY 
FOR US TO SEGUE INTO BURISMA 
WHICH I ASSUME THAT BOTH OF YOU 
ARE FAMILIAR WITH, AND YOU HAVE 
HEARD ABOUT IT FOR MANY, MANY 
YEARS. 
YOU ARE ON THE GROUND THERE NOW,
MR. HOLMES, AND I KNOW THAT YOU 
WERE NOT THERE AT THE TIME, BUT 
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2015, THEN 
AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE GEOFFREY 
PYATT, OBAMA-APPOINTED CAREER 
AMBASSADOR AND YOU KNOW HIM?
>> YES, I DO. 
>> CREDIBLE?
>> YES. 
>> SUCCESSFUL AMBASSADOR, I AM 
SURE. 
HE CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO LASHEVSKI?
>> I DID. 
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS OF 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON ON 
THE BOARD OF ISSUES?
>> I WOULD DEFER TO AMBASSADOR 
KENT. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA HAD
ROUTED $3 MILLION TO THE ACCOUNT
OF HUNTER BIDEN. 
>> I HAVE HEARD THAT. 
>> WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT, 
DR. HILL?
>> FROM NEWSPAPER REPORTS ONLY. 
>> AND DID YOU KNOW THAT -- AND 
BACK TO YOU, MR. HOLMES. 
DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA'S 
LEGAL OFFICIALS MET WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS JUST DAYS 
AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT FORCED 
THE FIRING OF THE COUNTRY'S 
CHIEF PROSECUTOR?
>> NO. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA'S 
NEW AMERICAN LAWYERS TRIED TO 
HAVE A MEETING THE DAY THAT 
SHOKIN WAS FIRED?
>> NO. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CALLED PRESIDENT 
POROSHENKO SHORTLY AFTER THE 
BURISMA'S CEO'S HOME WAS RAIDED?
>> NO. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS A
RAID ON BURISMA, AND THAT DEVON 
ARCHER AND THE DEPUTY SECRETARY 
OF STATE HAD INQUIRED ABOUT 
BURISMA?
>> NO. 
>> AND THE SAME FOR YOU, DR. 
HILL?
>> I DID NOT KNOW, NO. 
>> AND YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS 
MEDDLING IN THE ELECTIONS WITH 
THE UKRAINIANS AND YOU WERE IN 
THERE AS HEAD OF THE UKRAINE 
DES -- 
>> RIGHT. 
>> DID YOU RAISE IT UP TO 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON WITH ANY 
CONCERNS THROUGH 2017 OR 2018 
THAT CONCERNED ANY 2016 ELECTION
MEDDLING OR BURISMA CONCERNS?
>> THE WHOLE BRIEFING PROCESS 
DIDN'T REALLY WORK IN THE WAY 
THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING THERE. 
SO, IF THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED 
ABOUT ANY OF THE INFORMATION, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR 
HIM.
AND JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR. 
UKRAINE WAS NOT A TOP FOREIGN 
POLICY ISSUE HERE IN THE SAME 
WAY THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT 
TURKEY AND SYRIA, AND THERE WERE
NOT THAT MANY BRIEFINGS ON 
UKRAINE, AND THE BRIEFINGS WOULD
TAKE PLACE WHEN THERE WAS A 
SCHEDULED MEETING, AND SO AS WE 
KNOW THERE HAVE NOT BEEN TOO 
MANY OF THOSE. 
>> AND SO JUST TO AS FAR AS YOU 
KNOW, YOU DID NO BRIEFINGS, NO 
PAPERS, ANSWERED NO QUESTIONS AS
IT RELATES TO THE 2016 ELECTION 
OR BURISMA DURING YOUR TIME 
THERE?
>> NO, I DID NOT. 
NO. 
>> MR. CASTOR. 
>> YOU TOLD US IN YOUR 
DEPOSITION, DR. HILL, THAT THERE
ARE PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST TROUBLES WHEN THE CHILD
OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS 
INVOLVED WITH SOMETHING THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAS A 
OFFICIAL POLICY ROLE IN?
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK THAT ANY FAMILY 
MEMBER OF THE U.S. CONGRESS OR 
SENATE OR GOVERNMENT IS OPEN TO 
ALL KINDS OF OPTICS, AND PERHAPS
UNDUE OUTSIDE INFLUENCE IF THEY 
TAKE PLACE IN ANY ACTIVE THEY 
THAT COULD BE MISCONSTRUED WITH 
THE PARENT'S WORK, AND SO AS A 
MATTER OF CAUSE, YES, I THINK 
THAT IS THE CASE. 
>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT MR. 
SONDLAND HAD MADE A HABIT OF 
NAME DROPPING HIS INTERACTIONS 
WITH THE PRESIDENT. 
>> YES, THAT IS TRUE. 
>> AND HE WOULD WHEN YOU RAN 
INTO HIM IN THE CAMPUS HE WAS 
THERE TO MEET THE PRESIDENT, AND
THEN YOU HAD CIRCLED BACK AND 
LEARNED THAT IS NOT THE CASE?
>> YES. 
>> AND HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD 
SOME SORT OF COFFEE THAT HE HAD 
WITH YOU ON THE LAST DAY, AND I 
THINK THAT WHEN THE DEPOSITION 
TRANSCRIPT WAS RELEASED, YOUR 
COUNSEL INDICATED THAT IS 
COMPLETELY FABRICATED ON 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S PART, AND 
I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT. 
>> YES, I MEAN, UNFORTUNATELY, 
THIS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
AND WE DON'T HAVE COFFEE 
MACHINES READILY IN OUR OFFICE. 
IF HE HAD COME TO THE OFFICE AT 
THIS TIME, I COULD HAVE BEST 
OFFERED YOU A WATER. 
AND SO THE COFFEE THAT WE SHARED
IS THAT WE RAN INTO EACH OTHER 
OR HE RATHER FOUND OUT THAT I 
WAS THERE AND ASKED ME TO MEET 
HIM FOR COFFEE IN JACKSON HOLE, 
WYOMING, IN JANUARY OF 2018, AND
FULL YEAR BEFORE I LEFT. 
AND IT IS A NICE MEETING AND 
PERHAPS HE CONFLATED THEM. 
THE MEETING HE HAD COME IN TO 
MEET WITH THE DIRECTOR FOR THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, AND THIS IS MY 
LAST WEEK IN THE OFFICE. 
AS I WAS IN THE OFFICE FOR THE 
SAME TIME FOR A BRIEF PERIOD 
BEFORE GOING INTO ANOTHER 
MEETING, AND IT WAS MY LAST WEEK
IN THE OFFICE, WE AGREED TO SIT 
DOWN WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, AND WITH COLONEL
VINDMAN AND THE ASSISTANT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD BROUGHT 
WITH HIM FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT.
SO THERE WERE ACTUALLY FOUR OF 
US IN THAT MEETING. 
AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS NOT 
OVER COFFEE. 
>> AND YOU KNOW, HE WENT ON THE 
INDICATE THAT YOU WERE UPSET, 
AND UPSET WITH THE -- 
>> FIVE OF US IN THE MEETING, 
AND I CANNOT DO MATH, SORRY. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
HE INDICATED THAT YOU WERE 
UPSET, AND YOU WERE UPSET WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND UPSET WITH
THE WAY THINGS WERE GOING, AND 
YOU SAID THAT YOUR COUNSEL SAID 
THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT FABRICATION?
>> WELL, YOU MIGHT RECALL IN MY 
DEPOSITION ON OCTOBER 14th, I 
HAD SAID THAT I HAD A 
UNFORTUNATE BLOWUP WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I HAD A 
COUPLE OF NASTY ENCOUNTERS WITH 
HIM. 
AND ONE OF THOSE WHEN I ASKED 
WHO PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE
AND IT WAS A LITTLE BIT RUDE, 
AND HE SAID THE PRESIDENT. 
AND THIS OTHER MEETING THAT WAS 
ABOUT 15, 20 MINUTES EXACTLY AS 
HE DEPICTED IT WAS. 
I WAS TO BE HONEST ANGRY WITH 
HIM. 
AND YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SAY IT 
BUT OFTEN WHEN THE WOMEN SHOW 
ANGER, IT IS NOT FULLY 
APPRECIATED, BUT PUSHED OFF TO 
THE EMOTIONAL ISSUES OR 
DEFLECTED ON TO OTHER PEOPLE, 
AND WHAT I WAS ANGRY ABOUT IS 
THAT HE WAS NOT COORDINATING 
WITH US, AND I REALIZED IN THE 
DEPOSITION, HE WAS ABSOLUTELY 
RIGHT, THAT HE WAS NOT 
COORDINATING WITH US, BECAUSE WE
WERE NOT DOING THE SAME THING 
THAT HE WAS DOING. 
SO I WAS UPSET WITH HIM THAT HE 
WAS NOT FULLY TELLING US ABOUT 
ALL OF THE MEETINGS THAT HE WAS 
HAVING, AND HE SAID TO ME, BUT I
AM BRIEFING THE PRESIDENT. 
I AM BRIEFING CHIEF OF STAFF 
MULVANEY, I AM BRIEFING 
SECRETARY POMPEO AND I HAVE 
TALKED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND 
WHO ELSE DO I HAVE TO DEAL WITH?
AND THE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE A 
ROBUST AGENCY-TO-AGENCY PROCESS 
THAT INCLUDES MR. TAYLOR THE 
CHARGE D'AFFAIRES, AND A NUMBER 
OF PEOPLE, BUT IT STRUCK ME 
YESTERDAY WHEN YOU PUT UP ON THE
SCREEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
E-MAILS AND WHO WAS ON THE 
E-MAILS AND HE SAID THESE ARE 
THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO KNOW, BUT
HE WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BECAUSE
HE WAS BEING INVOLVED IN A 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND AND WE
WERE BEING INVOLVED IN NATIONAL 
SECURITY FOREIGN POLICY AND 
THOSE TWO THINGS HAD JUST 
DIVERGED, AND SO HE WAS CORRECT 
AND I HAD NOT PUT MY FINGER ON 
THAT AT THE MOMENT. 
BUT I WAS IRRITATED WITH HIM AND
ANGRY WITH HIM THAT HE HAD NOT 
BEEN FULLY COORDINATED AND I 
SAID TO HIM, AMBASSADOR GORDON 
SONDLAND, I FEAR THIS IS ALL 
GOING TO BLOW UP, AND HERE WE 
ARE. 
AND THEN WHEN I TALKED TO HIM A 
FURTHER HALF HOUR MORE TO TALK 
ABOUT HOW TO COORDINATE BETTER 
AND OTHERS COULD COORDINATE 
BETTER WHEN I LEFT THE OFFICE 
AND HIS FEELING WAS THAT THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WAS 
TRYING TO BLOCK HIM. 
AND WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS
TO BLOCK US FROM STRAYING INTO 
DOMESTIC OR THE PERSONAL 
POLITICS, AND THAT IS PRECISELY 
WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO.
BUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS NOT 
WRONG THAT HE HAD BEEN GIVEN A 
DIFFERENT REMIT THAN WE HAD BEEN
AND THEN IT WAS AT THAT MOMENT 
THAT I REALIZED THAT THOSE 
THINGS WERE DIVERGE AND I 
REALIZED THAT I WAS NOT FAIR TO 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, BECAUSE HE 
WAS CARRYING OUT SOMETHING THAT 
HE THOUGHT THAT HE WAS 
CONSTRUCTED OUT, AND WE WERE 
DOING SOMETHING THAT IS 
PERHAPSEN MORE IMPORTANT, BUT IT
WAS NOT IN THE SAME CHANNEL. 
>> DR. HILL, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
>> SORRY. 
>> DR. HILL, I WANTED TO DRILL 
DOWN ON THIS A LITTLE BIT. 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THE COMMANDER OF CHIEF 
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 2016 
ELECTIONS AND BURISMA. 
HE HAD HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY 
WORKING THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE HE
WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY 
ROBERT MUELLER'S SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, AND PARTLY BEGINNING 
WITH THE INVESTIGATION THAT 
STARTED WITH THE STEELE DOSSIER 
THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT 
THE DEMOCRATS HAD PAID FOR AND 
HAD BEEN FED INTO THE FBI. 
SO, THE END OF THE DAY, THE 
COMMANDER IN CHIEF CONCERNED 
ABOUT 2016 ELECTION MEDDLING BY 
UKRAINE SOUNDS LIKE EARLIER YOU 
TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE NOT 
AWARE OF THAT, AND IF THAT IS 
THE CONCERN OF THE PRESIDENT TO 
TRY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT, 
AND IT IS THE CONCERN OF THE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TRYING TO 
SET UP MEETINGS ON BEHALF OF TO 
ENSURE REALLY THAT MEETINGS 
OCCURRED AND PHONE CALLS 
OCCURRED TO STRENGTHEN THE 
RELATIONSHIP, AND I MEAN I 
UNDERSTAND THAT THE PEOPLE AT 
THE NSC, AND THE PEOPLE AT THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT, THEY HAD 
ISSUES WITH THAT, BUT AT THE END
OF THE DAY, ISN'T IT THE 
COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO MAKES 
THOSE DECISIONS?
>> MY POINT, MR. NUNES, IS THAT 
WE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL WERE NOT TOLD BY THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTLY OR THROUGH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON THAT WE WERE 
TO BE FOCUSED ON THESE ISSUES AS
A MATTER OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD 
UKRAINE. 
SO WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 
THE UKRAINE IN 2016, I NEVER 
PERSONALLY HEARD THE PRESIDENT 
SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT 2016
AND UKRAINE. 
I HAVE HEARD HIM SAY PLENTY OF 
THINGS PUBLICLY, BUT I WAS NOT 
GIVEN A DIRECTIVE.
IN FACT ON THE 10th I WAS GIVEN 
A DIRECTIVE TO CLEARLY STATE 
THAT I SHOULD STAY OUT OF 
POLITICS. 
>> AS OF JULY 19th, THEY HAD NOT
ENGAGED WITH RUDY GIULIANI, AND 
YOU BELIEVE BY JULY 19th, THEY 
WERE ENGAGED IN THOSE 
ACTIVITIES?
>> WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH 
CURT VOLKER WHO HAD INDICATED 
THAT HE HAD MET WITH RUDY 
GIULIANI AT THIS POINT, AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE 
COMMENTS OF MEETING WITH RUDY 
GIULIANI, AND IN THE JULY 23rd 
MEETING THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO 
MEET WITH RUDY GIULIANI, AND 
THEY HAD GVEN US EVERY 
INDICATION THAT THEY WERE 
MEETING WITH HIM, AND RUDY 
GIULIANI SAID ON TELEVISION AND 
THAT HE WAS CLOSELY COORDINATING
WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND SO
IT WAS MY BELIEF THAT HE WAS 
MEETING WITH THEM. 
>> AND THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY 
TO WORK WITH RUDY GIULIANI, AND 
SO AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID THAT 
IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON IT, GO TO
TALK TO RUDY, AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TOOK THAT DIFFERENTLY, 
AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS 
PRIMARILY THE INTERLOCKUTURE. 
>> YES, IN FACT, HE HAD WARNED 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER NOT TO MEET 
WITH RUDY GIULIANI IN A MEETING.
>> MR. MORRISON TOLD US BOTH IN 
THE DEPOSITION AND AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING THAT YOU HAD RELATED 
CONCERNS ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN'S
JUDGMENT?
>> I HAD NOT RELAYED IT IN 
GENERAL TERMS, BUT I WAS 
SOMEWHAT SURPRISED WHEN I HEARD 
MR. MORRISON MAKE THAT ASSERTION
WHEN I READ THAT DEPOSITION. 
AND THIS IS A SPECIFIC POINT 
THAT I MADE AND IT IS PERSONNEL 
ISSUES AND NOBODY HERE WOULD 
LIKE TO HAVE THEIR PRIVATE 
PERSONNEL ISSUES PUT BEFORE THE 
COMMITTEE, BUT YOU ASKED MY 
ABOUT THIS. 
AND SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF SHORT 
TRANSITION MEETINGS WITH MR. 
MORRISON. 
AND AGAIN, MR. MORRISON DID NOT 
WORK IN OUR POSITION, AND HE 
TOOK OVER AND I HAD BEEN WORKING
THERE AS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR
EUROPE AND EURASIA FOR MORE THAN
TWO POINTS AT THAT POINT, AND A 
YEAR WITH COLONEL VINDMAN AND IN
THE COURSE OF ONE OF THE 
MEETINGS, SOMETIME IN THE JUNE 
TIME FRAME I SAT DOWN WITH MR. 
MORRISON AND WITH DEPUTY 
REFERRED TO HIM IN THE 
DEPOSITION JOHNERLIFF AND WENT 
THROUGH THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
OF WHO WAS STAYING AND WHO WAS 
ROTATING OUT AND WE TALKED ABOUT
EVERYBODY'S STRENGTHS AND 
WEAKNESSES. 
I ALWAYS ASK MY STAFF TO GIVE ME
UPWARD FEEDBACK BECAUSE I WANTED
TO KNOW WHAT I NEEDED TO DO AS 
WELL. 
SO I SAID THAT I WAS CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE WAY THAT THINGS WERE 
TRENDING IN THE UKRAINE POLICY. 
SO COLONEL VINDMAN IS A HIGHLY 
DISTINGUISHED MILITARY OFFICER. 
HE CAME OVER TO US FROM THE 
CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE AND THE JOINT 
CHIEFS OF STAFF, AND WE WERE 
EVALUATING AND LOOKING AT HIM IN
THE CONTEXT OF WHAT HIS FUTURE 
POSITIONS WOULD BE IN THE 
CONTEXT OF THE U.S. ARMY. 
I WAS CONCERNED THAT FOR EXAMPLE
COLONEL VINDMAN MIGHT DECIDE TO 
LEAVE THE MILITARY, THAT PERHAPS
HE WAS NOT AS WELL SUITED FOR 
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MUCH 
MORE POLITICAL. 
I DID NOT FEEL THAT HE HAD THE 
POLITICAL ANTENNA TO DEAL WITH 
ANYTHING THAT WAS STRAYING INTO 
POLITIC, AND NOT EVERYBODY IS 
SUITED FOR THAT.
THAT IS NOT MEANING THAT I WAS 
QUESTIONING HIS OVERALL JUDGMENT
NOR WAS I QUESTIONING IN ANY WAY
HIS SUBSTANTIVE EXPERTISE. 
HE IS EXCELLENT ON THE ISSUES 
RELATED TO UKRAINE, AND BELARUS,
AND OTHER DIFFUSE, AND HE HAD 
BEEN INVOLVED IN THE RUSSIA 
CAMPAIGN AND THINKING THROUGH AT
THE CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE AND IN THE
PENTAGON. 
THIS IS A SPECIFIC ISSUE. 
BECAUSE BY JUNE, WE SAW THAT THE
THINGS WERE DIVERGING, AND WE 
NEEDED A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 
SENSITIVITY, AND SOME PEOPLE IN 
MY OFFICE HAVE WORKED AT THE 
HIGHEST LEVELS OF ADVISORY 
POSITIONS, AND HE HAD COME FROM 
CAPITOL HILL AND HE KNEW 
POLITICS INSIDE OUT, AND WE WERE
CONCERNED THAT COLONEL VINDMAN 
DID NOT AND IF HE COULD MANAGE 
WHAT WAS A HIGHLY CHARGE AND 
PARTISAN ISSUE WHICH HAD NOT 
BEEN BEFORE. 
>> AND COLONEL VINDMAN SAID IN 
HIS DEPOSITION THAT HE WAS 
SUBSEQUENTLY SORT OF CUT OUT OF 
A LOT OF THE DECISION MAKING AND
INVOLVEMENT WITH THE EMBASSY IN 
UKRAINE. 
>> NOT WITH THE EMBASSY IN 
UKRAINE, BUT WE DID PULL HIM 
BACK FROM THE MEETING IN THE 
OVAL OFFICE IN MAY, AND 
SUBSEQUENTLY, WE WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE POLITICAL ASPECTS OF 
THIS, AND WE DID NOT FEEL THAT 
WHEN JULY 10th, COLONEL VINDMAN 
HAD SOUNDED THE ALARM WHEN HE 
HAD REALIZED THAT THERE WAS A 
HIGHLY POLITICAL ASPECT OF THE 
MEETING THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> AND MR. HOLMES, I WANT TO, AT
THE END OF AUGUST, WE UNDERSTAND
THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS 
ENGAGED IN OBTAINING SOME 
INFORMATION FOR THE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT EUROPEAN ALLIES BURDEN 
SHARING IN THE REGION AS THE 
DECISION ABOUT AID WAS BEING 
DEBATED. 
>> SO, SIR, AFTER THE HOLD WAS 
PLACED ON THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, MANY PEOPLE, I THINK
THAT THEY WERE SCRAMBLING TO 
UNDERSTAND WHY. 
AND I BELIEVE IT IS SENATOR 
JOHNSON WHO HAD SAID THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT 
BURDEN SHARING AND PERHAPS 
OTHERS AS WELL, AND SO TRYING TO
INTERPRET WHY THIS MIGHT HAVE 
HAPPENED, WE WERE LOOKING INTO 
THE FACTS OF WHAT THE EUROPEANS 
HAD PROVIDED AND WHAT WE HAD 
PROVIDED AND IT IS VERY 
ILLUMINATING WHAT WE HAD 
LEARNED. 
THE UNITED STATES HAS PROVIDED 
COMBINED CIVILIAN AND MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE SINCE 
$2014, $300 BILLION AND PLUS 
THREE $1 BILLION LOAN GUARANTEES
THAT WILL BE PAID BACK LARGELY, 
AND SO JUST OVER $3 BILLION. 
THE EUROPEANS AT THE LEVEL OF 
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE 
MEMBER STATES COMBINED SINCE 
2014 MY UNDERSTANDING HAD 
PROVIDED A COMBINED $12 BILLION 
TO UKRAINE. 
>> SO YOU WERE ABLE TO 
COMMUNICATE THAT BACK TO THE END
OF AUGUST?
>> YES, IT IS DONE IN 
COLLABORATION WITH THE EU AND 
NATO AND OTHERS. 
>> DO YOU THINK THAT IS THE 
INFORMATION THAT THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS LOOKING FOR?
>> WE DON'T KNOW. 
IF THE CONCERN WAS THAT OTHERS 
WERE NOT SPENDING WHAT WE WERE 
TO SUPPORT UKRAINE, THAT SHOWED 
A DIFFERENT STORY. 
>> AND AID WAS SUBSEQUENTLY 
LIFTED THE PAUSE IN THE AID 
SHORTLY AFTER?
>> YES, MID-SEPTEMBER. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE 45-MINUTE 
ROUNDS. 
I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE 
MINUTES, AND AS A THRESHOLD 
MATTER, TO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN 
MEMBERS REPRESENT ARE YOU AWARE 
OF THIS FACT OR THAT OR SO AND 
SO TESTIFIED TO THIS OR THAT, 
AND IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL 
KNOWLEDGE, THAT IS FINE, AND I 
AM NOT SAYING THIS IS 
DELIBERATE, BUT SOMETIMES THE 
MEMBERS GET IT WRONG, AND SO LET
ME CLEAR THE RECORD ON ONE OF 
THE THINGS THAT WAS SUGGESTED TO
YOU THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT 
CANCELED HIS TRIP BECAUSE OF A 
CONFLICT WITH CANADA.
AND THAT IS NOT THE TESTIMONY. 
I ASKED WHY I WAS TOLD TO STOP 
THE TRIP PLANNING AND I WAS TOLD
THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD 
NOT ATTEND THE INAUGURATION. 
AND JUST OFF OF THAT CAUTION. 
DR. HILL, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, 
BECAUSE YOU MAY BE AWARE OF SOME
OF ATTACKS ON COLONEL VINDMAN 
SUGGESTING THAT HE HAS A DUAL 
LOYALTY AND HE IS NOT REALLY 
LOYAL TO AMERICA AND LOYAL TO 
UKRAINE. 
AS FELLOW IMMIGRANT WHAT YOU 
THINK OF THOSE KINDS OF 
ACCUSATIONS WHEN THEY ARE 
LEVELED AGAINST COLONEL VINDMAN 
AND OTHER AMERICANS?
>> I THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE, 
BECAUSE THIS IS A COUNTRY OF 
IMMIGRANTS WITH THE EXCEPTION 
PERHAPS OF VERY FEW PEOPLE STILL
HERE. 
EVERYONE HAS EMIGRATED TO THE 
UNITED STATES AT SOME POINT IN 
THEIR HISTORY, AND THIS IS WHAT 
MAKES AMERICA GREAT. 
I AM SURE THAT EVERY PERSON HERE
PERHAPS SOME PEOPLE CAME 
RELUCTANTLY, AND OTHERS CAME BY 
CHOICE AS I DID, BUT THIS IS FOR
ME, THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF 
AMERICA, AND WHY I WANTED TO BE 
HERE AND WHY I WANTED TO STAY 
HERE.
IT IS UNFAIR TO CASTIGATE 
ANYONE. 
BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS SOME 
APELET TO THEM. 
I AM BRITISH AMERICAN OR 
NATURALIZED CITIZEN, BUT I DO 
NOT BELIEVE THAT MY LOYALTY IS 
TO THE UNITED KINGDOM, BUT IT IS
TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS 
IS MY COUNTRY AND THE COUNTRY I 
SERVE. 
I KNOW THAT MANY OF MY 
NATURALIZED IN MY OFFICE AND 
ACROSS THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
OFFICE FELT THE SAME WAY AND IT 
IS DEEPLY UNFAIR. 
>> I THANK YOU. 
YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND I HAVE THIS RIGHT 
THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD 
YOU AT ONE POINT THAT HIS ROLE 
WAS TO MAKE DEALS?
>> YES, HE TOLD OTHER PEOPLE 
THAT AS WELL TO BE CLEAR. 
>> I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT ONE
OF THE DEALS. 
THE ONE THAT MR. BOLTON 
DESCRIBED AS A DRUG DEAL. 
I HAD THE INDICATION THAT WHEN 
YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE JULY 
10th MEETING AND THERE WERE TWO,
ONE IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S 
PRESENCE AND ANOTHER ONE IN THE 
WAR ROOM THAT THERE WAS MORE 
THAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT, 
AND DO YOU WANT TO WALK US 
THROUGH THAT IN MORE DETAIL. 
>> THE REFERENCE THAT AMBASSADOR
BOLTON MADE IS AFTER I HAD 
RETURNED FROM THE WAR ROOM AND 
WITH RELAYED WHAT I HAD HEARD. 
THERE HEARD.
THERE WAS A SEQUENCING OF 
MEETINGS WHICH I KNOW THAT 
THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERN ABOUT 
THE SEQUENCING HERE AND 
DISCREPANCY BETWEEN VARIOUS 
DEPOSITIONS.
SO WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY 
AFTER THE MEETING THAT 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON CALLED A 
LITTLE SHORT WAS THAT HE TOLD ME
TO HOLD BACK IN THE ROOM.
AND HE WAS ESCORTING OUT THE 
UKRAINIAN VISITORS ALONG WITH 
SECRETARY PERRY, AND AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER AND SONDLAND.
I GUESS THEY WANTED TO TAKE A 
QUICK PHOTOGRAPH OUTSIDE OF HIS 
OFFICE.
SECRETARY PERRY HAS TWEETED OUT 
THAT PHOTOGRAPH, AND THERE'S A 
PICTURE STANDING OUTSIDE OF 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE.
THIS WAS QUICK.
HE CAME BACK IN, AND AT THAT 
POINT, I GUESS THEY WERE ALREADY
MOVING DOWN TO THE BOARD ROOM 
BECAUSE ON THE WAY OUT OF 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD SAID 
LET'S REGROUP IN THE BOARD ROOM 
FOR, YOU KNOW, A QUICK HUDDLE ON
NEXT STEPS WHICH WAS TO BE 
HONEST QUITE UNUSUAL.
YOU DON'T USUALLY HUDDLE IN A 
ROOM IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO 
DISCUSS NEXT STEPS WITH FOREIGN 
DELEGATIONINGS.
WE TOOK IT TO BE NEXT STEPS ON 
SETTING UP THE MEETING WHICH 
ALREADY AS I SAID AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WASN'T PREPARED TOOT.
THAT'S WHEN HE GAVE ME THE 
STRONG INSTRUCTIONS, GO 
DOWNSTAIRS, FIND OUT WHAT WAS 
BEING DISCUSSED AND COME BACK 
AND REPORT IT TO HIM.
AS I CAME INTO THE BOARD ROOM, 
ALEX VINDMAN, COLONEL VINDMAN 
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WERE IN 
AN EXCHANGE, AND COLONEL VIND 
MANDELA LOOKED -- VINDMAN LOOKED
QUITE ALARMED.
I WATCHED HIS TESTIMONY.
THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT 
YELLING AND SHOUTING.
I CERTAINLY NEVER SAID THERE, 
THAT'S SOME EMBELLISHMENT THAT'S
CREPT IN, PERHAPS IN MEDIA 
DESCRIPTIONS OF HOW PEOPLE LIKE 
TO TELL THESE THINGS.
WHEN I CAME IN, AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WAS IN AN EXCHANGE WITH
COLONEL VINDMAN ALONG THE LINES,
WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE 
THIS MEETING, AND I CAME IN AND 
I ASKED WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, 
AND HE SAID, AND THIS IS AGAIN 
THE UKRAINIANS ARE THERE, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS THERE BUT 
AT THIS POINT I WANT TO STRESS 
SECRETARY PERRY HAD LEFT.
HE WAS NOT IN THE BOARD ROOM 
WHEN I CAME.
AS I WAS COMING IN, SECRETARY 
PERRY AND HIS COLLEAGUES WERE 
LEAVING, SO SECRETARY PERRY HAS 
NO RECOLLECTION OF THIS MEETING 
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN IT.
AND SO WHEN I CAME IN, GORDON 
SONDLAND WAS BASICALLY SAYING, 
LOOK, WE HAVE A DEAL HERE THAT 
THERE WILL BE A MEETING.
I HAVE A DEAL HERE WITH CHIEF OF
STAFF MULVANEY, THERE WILL BE A 
MEETING IF THE UKRAINIANS OPEN 
UP OR ANNOUNCE THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 AND 
BURISMA AND I CAUGHT IT OFF 
IMMEDIATELY THERE.
HAVING HEARD MR. GIULIANI OVER 
AND OVER AGAIN ON THE TELEVISION
AND ALL OF THE ISSUES HE WAS 
ASSERTING, BY THIS POINT, BA 
 --
BURISMA WAS CODE FOR THE BIDENS.
HE SAID THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE 
WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL, WE CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN
THIS, AND I HAVE LEARNED FROM 
MR. HOLMES' RENDITION TODAY THAT
COLONEL VINDMAN HAS WARNED THE 
 
UKRAINIAN, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO
STAY OUT OF U.S. POLITICS.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON MADE IT CLEAR 
WE CAN'T SET UP THE MEETING NOW.
WE HAVE TO PREPARE THIS THROUGH 
THE PROPER PROCESS, I KNOW THIS 
SOUNDS VERY BORING BUT WE HAVE 
NATIONAL SECURITY PROCEDURES.
WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE 
LITIGATING THIS, TALKING ABOUT 
THIS IN FRONT OF OUR COLLEAGUES 
FROM UKRAINE.
IT'S COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE 
FOR US TO BE THRASHING OUT IN 
FRONT OF THEM, AND HE AGREED AND
WE ASKED OUR UKRAINIAN 
COLLEAGUES TO MOVE OUTSIDE THE 
CORRIDOR IN THE BOARD ROOM WHICH
IS EXTRAORDINARILY AWKWARD.
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 
STANDING AROUND IN THE CORRIDOR 
IN THE WEST WING AT THIS 
JUNCTURE.
I PUSHED BACK ON AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND AND SAID LOOK, I KNOW 
THERE'S DIFFERENCES ABOUT 
WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE THIS 
MEETING.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE
SHOULD HAVE IT AFTER THE 
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTIONS, THE BROADER ELECTIONS
WHICH BY THAT POINT I THINK HAD 
BEEN SET FOR JULY 21st, IT MUST 
HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THIS IS JULY 
10th AT THIS POINT.
AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON WOULD LIKE
TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THAT TO 
BASICALLY SEE WHETHER PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY GETS THE MAJORITY IN 
THE PARLIAMENT WHICH WOULD 
ENABLE HIM TO FORM A CABINET, 
AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN SAID 
FAIR ENOUGH, HE REALIZED HE 
WASN'T GOING TO, YOU KNOW, BE 
ABLE TO PUSH THIS FURTHER.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER DIDN'T SAY 
ANYTHING AT THIS PARTICULAR 
JUNCTURE, AND HE SAID HE HAD 
ANOTHER MEETING AND THEY ALL 
LEFT.
AND I WENT BACK UP AND RELAYED 
THIS TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON, WHICH
IS WHEN HE GAVE ME THE SPECIFIC 
INSTRUCTION THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
BEEN THROUGH TO GO TO TALK TO 
MR. EISENBERG, JOHN EISENBERG IN
THE AMNESTY COUNCIL'S OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. NUNES. 
>> I ASSUME WE'RE GIVING EIGHT 
MINUTES.
>> I DON'T CUT OFF A WITNESS IN 
THE MIDDLE OF THEIR ANSWER.
YOU MAY PROCEED. 
>> SORRY, THAT WAS A LONG 
ANSWER.
>> MR. JORDAN. 
>> MR. HOLMES, WHY DIDN'T YOUR 
BOSS TALK ABOUT IT?
>> WHAT'S THAT, SIR?
>> WHY DIDN'T YOUR BOSS BRING UP
THE CALL YOU OVERHEARD, THE 
REASON YOU'RE HERE TODAY, YOU'RE
THEIR CLOSING WITNESS, THE FIRST
WITNESS, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
DIDN'T EVEN BRING IT UP.
WHEN WE DEPOSED YOU, YOU SAID 
THIS WAS EXTREMELY DISTINCTIVE 
EXPERIENCE, ONE OF THE MOST 
REMARKABLE EVENTS OF MY LIFE.
YOU DESCRIBED IT LIKE THIS, YOU 
SAID AFTER THE CALL HAPPENS, I 
IMMEDIATELY TOLD DEPUTY CHIEF 
ABOUT THE CALL AND YOU WENT ON 
VACATION, TOLD SEVERAL FRIENDS 
AND FAMILY ABOUT THE CALL, THEN 
YOU COME BACK ON AUGUST 6th AND 
TELL AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THE
CALL.
AND THEN IN YOUR DEPOSITION 
STATEMENT, YOU SAID IN YOUR 
STATEMENT TODAY AS WELL, I 
REPEATEDLY REFER TO THE CALL IN 
MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS WHERE
THE ISSUE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
INTEREST IN UKRAINE WAS 
RELEVANT.
I REPEATEDLY REFERRED TO THE 
CALL IN MEETINGS AND 
CONVERSATIONS WHERE THE ISSUE OF
THE PRESIDENT'S INTERESTS IN 
UKRAINE WAS RELEVANT.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE GOVERNMENT 
SPEAK FOR YOU TOLD EVERYBODY.
YET THEIR STAR WITNESS, THEIR 
FIRST WITNESS, AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR, WHEN HE CAME HERE, HE 
RELATED 13 DIFFERENT 
CONVERSATIONS HE HAD BETWEEN 
JULY 18th WHEN THE AID IS 
FROZEN, SEPTEMBER 11th WHEN IT'S
REESED, 13 DIFFERENT 
CONVERSATIONS, NEVER ONCE 
MENTIONING THIS CALL, JULY 19th,
DR. HILL, COLONEL VIND -- JULY 
20th, SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR WHAT 
HE TOLD TRUMP.
JULY 28th, MORRISON TELLS TAYLOR
WHAT HAPPENED ON THE TRUMP 
ZELENSKY CALL.
AUGUST 24th, TALKS TO TAYLOR, 
AUGUST 22nd, MORRISON TALKS TO 
TAYLOR, AUGUST 29th, SEPTEMBER 
2nd, MORRISON TELLS TAYLOR, 
SEPTEMBER 7th MORRISON TELLS 
TAYLOR WHAT SONDLAND TOLD TRUMP,
AND SEPTEMBER 8th, SONDLAND 
TELLS TAYLOR WHAT TRUMP TOLD 
SONDLAND.
NOWHERE IS THERE A HOLMES TELLS 
TAYLOR WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TOLD SONDLAND. 
>> MAY I ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
>> I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE IN A 
SECOND, BUT 13 CONVERSATIONS, 13
CONVERSATIONS FROM THEIR STAR 
WITNESS, YOU'RE THEIR CLOSING 
WITNESS, AND HE CAN'T REMEMBER A
CALL FROM A GUY HE WORKS WITH 
EVERY SINGLE DAY.
WHY?
>> YES, SIR.
SO IMMEDIATELY WHEN I WENT BACK 
TO THE EMBASSY AFTER THIS LUNCH 
ON THE 26th, I TOLD MY DIRECT 
SUPERVISOR, THE DEPUTY CHIEF 
ADMISSION.
I WOULD HAVE TOLD AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR IMMEDIATELY EXCEPT HE WAS
ON THE FRONT LINES THAT 
AFTERNOON.
I THEN WENT ON AS I TESTIFIED MY
VACATION ON SATURDAY, CAME BACK 
THE FOLLOWING MONDAY, AND ON 
TUESDAY, I WAS BACK IN THE 
AMBASSADOR'S OFFICE WHERE I 
REFERRED TO THE CALL.
IN THAT WEEK PLUS THAT I WAS 
AWAY, IT WAS MY ASSUMPTION THAT 
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ADMISSION WOULD
HAVE INFORMED OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT
THE CALL AS WELL.
SO MY RECOLLECTION IS WHEN I DID
REFER TO THE CALL IN THAT 
MEETING THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
NODDED KNOWINGLY AS THOUGH HE 
HAD BEEN BRIEFED ON IT.
SO I REFERRED TO THE CALL AND I 
MENTIONED SOME OF MY TAKE AWAYS 
FROM THE CALL, AND AT THE TIME, 
THE MAIN TAKE AWAY FROM THE CALL
WAS THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CARE 
ABOUT UKRAINE SO WE'RE GOING TO 
HAVE A TOUGH ROAD AHEAD TO 
CONVINCE HIM THAT IT'S IMPORTANT
ENOUGH FOR HIM TO SCHEDULE AN 
OVAL OFFICE MEETING NOR 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND RELEASE 
THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
THAT WAS THE TAKE AWAY, AND 
THAT'S WHAT I REFERRED TO 
REPEATEDLY IN THE COMING WEEKS, 
WHENEVER IT BECAME RELEVANT.
I'LL REMIND YOU THAT ONE MORE 
IMPORTANT POINT, THROUGHOUT THIS
TIME, AS I TESTIFIED, WE WERE 
TRYING TO FIND A FORMULA, THINGS
WE COULD DO WITH UKRAINIANS THAT
WOULD CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT 
THEY WERE WORTH TALKING TO. 
>> MAYBE THE TAKE AWAY WAS HE 
THOUGHT IT WAS NO BIG DEAL 
BECAUSE HE ALREADY KNEW.
HE DIDN'T REMEMBER IT BECAUSE WE
ALREADY HAD THE TRANSCRIPT.
HE DIDN'T REMEMBER.
WE HAD THE TRUMP ZELENSKY 
TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN OUT FOR TWO 
MONTHS, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE 
REPEATEDLY BRINGING THIS 
CONVERSATION UP, ANYTIME THERE'S
TALK ABOUT UKRAINE, YOU RECALL 
THIS CONVERSATION.
MAYBE IT WAS THE TRANSCRIPT, THE
CALL HAPPENED ON THE JULY 25th, 
THAT'S FOUR MONTHS AGO, THE 
TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN OUT FOR TWO 
MONTHS, MAYBE THE AMBASSADOR 
THOUGHT THIS IS NOTHING NEW HERE
BUT LAST WEEK, YOU COME FORWARD 
WITH SUPPOSEDLY THIS NEW 
INFORMATION.
THERE IS NOTHING DIFFERENT IN 
THERE THAN WHAT WE HAD ON THE 
TRANSCRIPT.
MAYBE THAT'S THE REASON THEIR 
STAR WITNESS, THEIR FIRST 
WITNESS DIDN'T BRING IT UP.
BUT THEY HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING 
SO YOU'RE THEY'RE CLOSING 
WITNESS BECAUSE YOU OVERHEARD 
THE PRESIDENT TALKING TO 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. 
>> IF I COULD ANSWER, I SEE FOUR
SECONDS LEFT ON THE CLOCK.
>> MR. HOLMES, YOU MAY TAKE AS 
LONG AS YOU NEED. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DID 
KNOW WHEN I BRIEFED HIM WHEN I 
RETURNED FROM VACATION ON THE 
6th.
IT WAS NOT NEWS TO HIM THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS PRESSING FOR A 
BIDEN INVESTIGATION. 
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED. 
>> I ASKED WHY HE DIDN'T SHARE 
IT WITH US. 
>> PLEASE DO NOT INTERRUPT THE 
WITNESS ANY FURTHER.
MR. HOLMES.
HIS TIME HAS EXPIRED, YOURS HAS 
NOT.
YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
>> IT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.
I BRIEFED THE CALL IN DETAIL TO 
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ADMISSION, IF 
WE COME BACK, I REFER TO THE 
CALL AND EVERYONE IS NODDING, OF
COURSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.
OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT IS 
PRESSING FOR A BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION BEFORE HE'LL DO 
THESE THINGS THE UKRAINES WANT 
THERE'S NOTHING AGREEMENT.
DID I GO THROUGH EVERY WORD IN 
THE CALL, EVERYONE BY THAT POINT
AGREED, IT WAS OBVIOUS WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS PRESSING FOR AND 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAD ALL THOSE 
OTHER INTERACTIONS. 
>> HE DIDN'T SHARE IT WITH US.
>> BUT SIR, MY VIVID 
RECOLLECTION OF AN EVENT I WAS 
INVOLVED WITH WAS A TOUCH STONE 
EXPERIENCE THAT TO ME VALIDATED 
WHAT -- 
>> MR. JORDAN, PLEASE, DO NOT 
INTERRUPT. 
>> WHAT WE BELIEVED AND 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS NOT IN 
THAT CALL.
>> AND ALL OF A SUDDEN LAST 
WEEK -- 
>> MR. JORDAN, YOU WILL ALLOW 
THE WITNESS TO ANSWER THE 
QUESTION.
>> I'LL FINISH WITH THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> HE WAS INVOLVED IN A NUMBER 
OF OTHER INTERACTIONS AS YOU'VE 
OUTLINED THAT BROUGHT HIM TO THE
SAME CONCLUSION.
IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT 
THAT -- 
>> HE DOESN'T SHARE WITH THE GUY
HE WORKED WITH HE DOESN'T SHARE 
THAT ONE. 
>> YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE 
WITNESS'S ANSWER. 
>> THERE WASN'T AN ANSWER. 
>> MR. JORDAN, WE WILL HEAR THE 
WITNESS'S ANSWER.
HAVE YOU CONCLUDED MR. HOLMES. 
>> I THINK, THANK YOU. 
>> >> YOU MADE A FAIRLY DRAMATIC
COMMENT IN YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT TO WHICH THE RANKING 
MEMBER TOOK EXCEPTIONMENT SOME 
APPEAR TO BELIEVE THAT RUSSIA 
AND SECURITY SERVICES DID NOT 
CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR 
COUNTRY AND PERHAPS SOMEHOW FOR 
SOME REASON UKRAINE DID.
I'M MORE INTERESTED IN THE 
UKRAINE PIECE OF THIS, BUT I 
WANT TO DEFEND YOU BRIEFLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY COLLEAGUES 
BELIEVE BUT I DO HAVE A PRETTY 
GOOD SENSE OF WHAT THE EFFECTS 
ARE OF CREATING AMBIGUITY, OF 
LACKING CLARITY AND CONVICTION 
AROUND THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON THE
ELECTION OF 2016.
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT, THE
RANKING MEMBER OFFERED UP A 
REPORT WHICH VARIES IN MATERIAL 
RESPECT FROM THE REPORT THAT WAS
CREATING BY THE 17 AGENCIES OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, A 
DAY DOES NOT GO BY IN WHICH 
RANKING MEMBER NUNES DOES NOT 
SPEAK OF THE RUSSIA HOAX AND 
THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH CONTEXT
IS PRETTY IMPORTANT.
DR. HILL, LET ME READ YOU A 
COMMENT BY ANOTHER SENIOR 
OFFICIAL.
WHY DID DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE TURN DOWN THE DHS 
OFFER TO PROTECT AGAINST TAX.
IT'S ALL A BIG DEM HOAX, WHY DID
THE DNC REFUSE TO TURN OVER THE 
SERVER TO THE FBI, IT'S ALL A 
BIG DEM SCAM, DR. HILL, DO YOU 
KNOW WHO SAID THOSE THINGS. 
>> IT'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, DONALD J. TRUMP.
>> I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT.
>> YOU DIDN'T MISS MUCH. 
>> THE POINT IS, AMBIGUITY, A 
FAILURE TO NAME AND SHAME THE 
RUSSIANS FOR THE ATTACK IN 2016,
THAT IS NOT IN THE SERVICE OF 
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, IS IT. 
>> IT'S NOT, NO. 
>> SO LET'S TURN TO UKRAINE.
DR. HILL, HAVE YOU SEEN -- YOU 
CHARACTERIZED THE IDEA THAT 
UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 
ELECTION AS A FICTIONAL 
NARRATIVE.
HAVE YOU SEEN ANY EVIDENCE AT 
ALL THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION. 
>> I BROUGHT WITH ME TWO 
EXHIBITS THAT I WAS POINTED TO 
BY OUR COLLEAGUES DURING THE 
DEPOSITION THAT I GAVE ON 
OCTOBER 14.
I'M GRATEFUL THEY POINTED ME IN 
THIS DIRECTION.
I WAS POINTED WITH TWO ARTICLES 
OR AT LEAST TWO PIECES OF 
INFORMATION.
ONE WAS AN OP-ED THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR CHARLIE 
WROTE IN 2016 IN THE HILL, SO 
THIS IS DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WAS THEN THE NOMINEE FOR THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY.
AND THIS IS AMBASSADOR CHARLIE 
WHO WAS THEN, YOU KNOW, STILL 
THE UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE 
UNITED STATES BEING CRITICAL OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO WAS THEN THE
NOMINEE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
FOR MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT 
UKRAINE, CRIMEA AND RUSSIA. 
>> MAY I INTERRUPT YOU.
LET ME BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT 
THOSE COMMENTS WERE.
THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE WAS A 
CANDIDATE SAID QUOTE, THE PEOPLE
OF CRIMEA FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD
WOULD RATHER BE WITH RUSSIA THAN
WHERE THEY WERE.
SO AMBASSADOR CHARLIE IS 
RESPONDING TO THAT IN THAT 
ARTICLE, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
AND HE USES THIS AS A PEG 
BECAUSE TO BE HONEST THE WHOLE 
ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY ABOUT 
UKRAINE AND THIS IS CLASSIC 
STANDARD FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO
WRITE AN OP-ED, I'VE WRITTEN 
PLENTY MYSELF, YOU PICK A PEG 
AND PROCEED TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT
TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT AMBASSADOR 
CHARLIE DOES IS TALKS ABOUT 
UKRAINE'S POSITION. 
>> CANDIDATE TRUMP HAS SUGGESTED
THE CRIMEANS WOULD RATHER BE 
WITH RUSSIA.
EVEN IF THE COMMENTS ARE 
SPECULATIVE, THEY CALL FOR 
APPEASEMENT OF AN AGGRESSOR AND 
SUPPORT THE VIOLATION OF A 
SOVEREIGN COUNTRY'S TERRITORIAL 
INTEGRITY AND A BREACH OF LAW.
THAT'S THE ATTACK ON CANDIDATE 
TRUMP. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> DOES THAT SOUND LIKE ELECTION
INTERFERENCE TO YOU. 
>> I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S 
PROBABLY NOT THE MOST ADVISABLE 
THING TO DO FOR AN AMBASSADOR 
BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHO'S 
GOING TO WIN, AND I THINK THAT 
THE SECOND PIECE THAT WAS 
PRESENTED TO ME AT GREAT LENGTH 
AND I WANT TO THANK MR. CUSTER 
FOR MAKING ME GO BACK AND READ 
IT.
I DID REMEMBER THE PIECE, 
KENNETH VOGEL IS A WELL KNOW AND
EXTREMELY GOOD JOURNALIST AND I 
REMEMBERED READING THIS BACK IN 
THE DAY IN JANUARY OF 2017.
BUT IT HAD BEEN A LONG TIME 
BETWEEN THEN AND OCTOBER.
AND YOU GAVE ME A COPY AND I 
WENT BACK AND READ IT AGAIN 
BECAUSE I THINK IT ACTUALLY IS 
EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT.
IT GETS TO THIS ISSUE HERE.
MR. VOGEL POINTS OUT THAT THE 
UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, AGAIN, YOU
KNOW, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE 
VERY WELL AT THE BOOKIES PICKING
UP THE ISSUE I POINTED OUT IN 
THE BEGINNING OF TODAY.
THEY BET ON THE WRONG HORSE.
THEY BET ON HILLARY CLINTON 
WINNING THE ELECTION.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE 
TRYING TO CURRY FAVOR WITH THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
IT'S QUITE EVIDENT HERE.
AND HE RELATES, YOU KNOW, TO 
SOME EXTENT, INDIVIDUALS AND 
SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS LIKE 
THE INTERIOR MINISTER AND A 
NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT HE 
NAMES HERE AND THAT HAVE BEEN 
NAMED AT VARIOUS POINTS AND 
TALKS ABOUT HOW THEY WERE TRYING
TO COLLECT INFORMATION AS 
RANKING MEMBER NUNES SAID ON MR.
MANAFORT AND OTHER PEOPLE AS 
WELL.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE 
CRUX OF THE ARTICLE HERE BY MR. 
VOGEL IS HE SAID THERE WAS 
LITTLE EVIDENCE OF A TOP DOWN 
EFFORT BY UKRAINE, AND HE MAKES 
A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 
RUSSIAN EFFORT THAT WAS 
PERSONALLY DIRECTED BY RUSSIAN 
PRESIDENT PUTIN, AND INVOLVED 
THE COUNTRY'S MILITARY, AND 
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES.
NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE 
TWO THINGS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.
I ALSO MENTIONED IN MY 
DEPOSITION OF OCTOBER 14th, THAT
IN FACT MANY OFFICIALS FROM MANY
COUNTRIES, INCLUDING UKRAINE, 
BET ON THE WRONG HORSE.
THEY BELIEVED THAT SECRETARY 
CLINTON, FORMER SENATOR CLINTON,
FORMER FIRST LADY CLINTON WAS 
GOING TO WIN, AND MANY SAID SOME
PRETTY DISPARAGING AND HURTFUL 
THINGS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
AND I CAN'T BLAME HIM FOR 
FEELING AGGRIEVED ABOUT THEM, 
AND WHEN WE WERE SETTING VISITS,
I HAVE A PORTFOLIO OF 50 PLUS 
COUNTRIES AND NATO AND THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, WE THOUGHT IT 
PRUDENT TO COLLECT AS MUCH AS 
POSSIBLE ABOUT COMMENTS THAT 
PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE SAID ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT DURING THE CAMPAIGN 
WHEN HE WAS EITHER ONE OF THE 
CANDIDATES TO BE THE NOMINEE FOR
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR WHEN HE 
WAS ACTUALLY THE CANDIDATE 
RUNNING AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON,
AND AN AWFUL LOT, AND PERHAPS I 
SHOULDN'T NAME THEM HERE BECAUSE
IT WOULD HAVE, SOME SENIOR 
OFFICIALS SAID SOME PRETTY 
HURTFUL THINGS ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT, AND I WOULD ALSO 
PERSONALLY TAKE OFFENSE AT SOME 
OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID IF 
I WAS THE PRESIDENT.
THE DIFFERENCE HERE HOWEVER IS 
THAT THAT HASN'T HAD ANY MAJOR 
IMPACT ON HIS FEELINGS TOWARDS 
THOSE COUNTRIES.
NOT THAT I HAVE SEEN.
BUT I'VE ALSO HEARD THE 
PRESIDENT SAY, AND HE SAID IT IN
PUBLIC, SO I'M NOT REVEALING ANY
KIND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HERE
THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO TAKE ME 
DOWN.
WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS SOME ILL 
ADVISED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, 
AMBASSADOR CHARLIE HAS BEEN 
REMOVED AS BEING THE AMBASSADOR 
FROM HERE, MADE SOME PRETTY, YOU
KNOW, UNPLEASANT STATEMENTS OR 
SOME ILL ADVISED OP-EDS, BUT I 
COULD LIST A WHOLE HOST OF 
AMBASSADORS FROM ALLIED 
COUNTRIES WHO TWEETED OUT, WHO 
HAD PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT AS WELL, AND IT DID 
NOT AFFECT SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
HAVING MEETINGS WITH THEM, IF IT
WOULD, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A 
LOT OF PEOPLE HE WOULDN'T HAVE 
MET WITH. 
>> THANK YOU, DR. HILL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEEK UNANIMOUS 
CONSENT TO THE ADD TO THE RECORD
A POLITICO ARTICLE OF DECEMBER 
1st, 2016, ENTITLED RUSSIA 
ACCUSES UKRAINE OF SABOTAGING 
TRUMP, IT OUTLINES RUSSIAN 
SENIOR OFFICIALS MAKING 
ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE WAS 
UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 ELECTION. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.
. 
>> MR. CONWAY. 
>> I YIELD TO MS. RATCLIFF FIVE 
MINUTES. 
>> I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE MY 
COLLEAGUE ACROSS THE AISLE, 
CONGRESSMAN HIMES LEFT OFF 
EARLIER.
HE WAS NOT DEFENDING YOU.
HE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF AND 
DEMOCRATS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD 
IS VERY CLEAR.
RANKING MEMBER NUNES WAS 
CORRECT, HE CORRECTLY NOTED IN 
HIS OPENING THAT REPUBLICANS, 
NOT DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE 
WERE THE FIRST ONES, THE FIRST 
ONES TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION.
THE DISAGREEMENT WASN'T ABOUT 
RUSSIAN MEDDLING, THE 
DISAGREEMENT WAS ABOUT WHETHER 
OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSPIRED
WITH RUSSIA, A FALSE ALLEGATION 
PEDDLED BY THE DEMOCRATS, 
GENERALLY, AND SPECIFICALLY BY 
SOME DEMOCRATS ON THIS 
COMMITTEE.
WITH THAT, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU
AND THE PART OF THE 
CONVERSATION, YOUR TESTIMONY 
WHERE YOU SAID YOU HEARD 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY IS HE GOING 
TO DO THE INVESTIGATION AND 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE'S 
GOING TO DO IT, HE'LL DO 
ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
>> WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY 
NEXT?
>> HE SAID GOOD, WHAT ABOUT 
SWEDEN. 
>> HE SAID WHAT?
>> I'M SORRY.
I NEED TO LOOK BACK WHERE WE ARE
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 
CONVERSATION HERE.
WHERE ARE WE IN THE TESTIMONY?
>> EXACTLY.
THEN THEY TURNED TO THE SWEDEN 
CONVERSATION. 
>> WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY 
NEXT. 
>> HE SAID, GOOD, WHAT ABOUT 
SWEDEN. 
>> GOOD, WHAT ABOUT SWEDEN.
GOOD, WHAT ABOUT SWEDEN.
WHY ISN'T THAT IN YOUR 
STATEMENT?
>> IT'S NOT A WORD FOR WORD, 
EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THE 
CONVERSATION. 
>> IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT PART 
OF THE CONVERSATION?
>> THEN THEY TURNED TO SWEDEN.
THEY TURNED TO THE OTHER TOPIC. 
>> RESPECTFULLY. 
>> MR. HOLMES, THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IS BASED ON THE CALL THE
DAY BEFORE WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP
AS PART OF A BRIBERY SCHEME, AS 
PART OF AN EXTORTION SCHEME, AS 
PART OF THE A QUID PRO QUO, 
ACCORDING TO THE DEMOCRATS, 
DEMANDED INVESTIGATIONS IN 
EXCHANGE FOR EITHER MILITARY AID
OR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE
NEXT DAY YOU WERE WITNESS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP RECEIVING WORD 
THAT THE BRIBERY SCHEME WAS 
SUCCESSFUL, THE EXTORTION SCHEME
WAS SUCCESSFUL.
AND HIS RESPONSE WAS GOOD, WHAT 
ABOUT SWEDEN?
>> YES, SIR.
THE UKRAINE PORTION OF THAT 
CONVERSATION WAS EXTREMELY 
BRIEF. 
>> WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING THE 
PRESIDENT SAID ON THE CALL?
>> YOU HAD A CLEAR RECOLLECTION 
OF THIS CONVERSATION. 
>> YES, SIR.
>> PLEASE ALLOW MR. HOLMES TO 
ANSWER. 
>> SONDLAND GREETED THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> HOW?
>> HE SAID HELLO, MR. PRESIDENT,
I'M IN KIEV, AND THE PRESIDENT 
SAID, ARE YOU IN UKRAINE. 
>> YOU THINK HE SAID I THINK 
YOU'RE IN UKRAINE. 
>> HE SAID ARE YOU IN UKRAINE. 
>> WHAT DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAY ABOUT ASAP ROCKY. 
>> I DID NOT HEAR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S SIDE OF THE CONVERSATION
ABOUT ASAP ROCKY. 
>> THE CONVERSATION WAS LOUD, 
AND HIS VOICE WAS RECOGNIZABLE 
TO HEAR, WHEN THE CONVERSATION 
SHIFTED, I COULD ONLY HEAR 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S SIDE OF 
THE CONVERSATION. 
>> AS I HAVE SAID.
THE INITIAL PART OF THE CALL, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT CAME ON THE CALL, HE 
SORT OF WINCED AND HELD THE 
PHONE AWAY FROM HIS EAR FOR THE 
INITIAL PORTION OF THE CALL AND 
AT SOME POINT IN THE CALL, HE 
STOPPED DOING THAT.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHY.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE TURNED THE 
VOLUME DOWN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT 
SPOKE QUIETLY.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE GOT USED TO 
THE VOLUME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGED. 
>> WHAT DID CHANGE?
IT WAS IMPORTANT.
>> I DON'T KNOW.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STOPPED 
MOVING THE PHONE AWAY FROM HIS 
EAR. 
>> THAT'S WHAT IT WAS?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
>> HOW DID THE CONVERSATION END?
>> I ONLY HEARD AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S SIDE OF THE 
CONVERSATION, AND AT THE END OF 
THE CONVERSATION, HE SAID -- HE 
WAS GIVING THE PRESIDENT ADVICE 
ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THE ASAP 
ROCKY SITUATION AND SAID THEY 
SHOULD HAVE RELEASED HIM ON 
THEIR WORD, AND YOU CAN TELL THE
KARDASHIANS YOU TRIED. 
>> WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP RECEIVED
WORD THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD
AGREED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS, HE
SAID GOOD.
WHAT ABOUT SWEDEN. 
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
WHEN EXACTLY DID GORDON SONDLAND
ASK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT THE
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> I'M SORRY, SIR?
>> WHEN DID HE ASK ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> WHEN DID GORDON SONDLAND ASK 
ZELENSKY ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS?
>> YEAH.
>> IN WHICH MEETING DID HE RAISE
THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> IT WAS RAISED THE DAY BEFORE 
ON THE CALL, AND THE NEXT DAY 
GORDON SONDLAND SAID THE ANSWER 
WAS HE'S GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION.
WHEN DID HE ASK ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD 
IS CLEAR THAT YESTERDAY 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED 
THAT THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATIONS 
DID NOT COME UP ON THAT DAY.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK BOTH OF 
OUR WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE 
TODAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO TURN OUR 
DISCUSSION TO THE CAMPAIGN TO 
REMOVE CAREER DIPLOMAT 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.
BOTH OF YOU IN YOUR VARIOUS 
CAPACITIES HAD TO WORK WITH HER,
AND BOTH OF YOU WITNESSED WHAT I
WOULD CALL A SMEAR CAMPAIGN.
I WANTED TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS, 
DR. HILL.
WHAT WAS YOUR VIEW OF AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH'S EXPERIENCE AND 
QUALITY OF HER WORK IN THE 
UKRAINE, AND DO YOU CONSIDER IT 
TO BE A SMEAR CAMPAIGN?
>> I HAD THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, BOTH IN 
TERMS OF HER INTEGRITY AND THE 
HIGH STANDARDS OF WORK THAT SHE 
WAS CARRYING OUT AS AMBASSADOR 
IN UKRAINE, AND BECAUSE OF HER 
WHOLE CAREER.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A 
SMEAR CAMPAIGN, AND I JUST WANT 
TO SAY, AGAIN FOR THE RECORD 
THAT I THINK IT WAS UNNECESSARY.
IF THERE WAS A DECISION TO HAVE 
A POLITICAL AMBASSADOR PUT IN 
PLACE IN UKRAINE, THAT WOULD BE 
PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.
IT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT OF THE 
PRESIDENT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
I JUST DID NOT SEE WHY IT WAS 
NECESSARY TO MALIGN AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH TO SUCH AN EXTENT. 
>> MR. HOLMES, WOULD YOU AGREE 
WITH THAT, AND CAN YOU TALK 
ABOUT THE CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, 
AND PERFORMANCE OF AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH, BOTH IN UKRAINE. 
>> YES, MA'AM.
SHE WAS EXTREMELY PROFESSIONAL, 
RESPECTED IN UKRAINE, BY 
UKRAINIANS, I THINK ALSO BY 
VISITING AMERICAN SENIOR 
OFFICIALS, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF 
THIS COMMITTEE AND CONGRESS WHO 
CAME TO VISIT.
SHE IS EXTREMELY DEDICATED, HARD
WORKING. 
>> DID YOU SEE IT AS A SMEAR 
CAMPAIGN AS WELL?
>> I DID, YES. 
>> AND WHAT WAS THE EFFECT THAT 
IT HAD ON THE MORALE OF OTHER 
PROFESSIONALS YOU WORKED WITH IN
UKRAINE. 
>> IT WAS A VERY CONFUSING TIME 
AS I SAID BEFORE, THE PRESIDENT 
HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE AN 
AMBASSADOR FOR ANY OR NO REASON 
AT ALL.
IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO US WHY THIS 
WAS HAPPENING OR WHY PEOPLE 
WEREN'T STANDING UP FOR HER. 
>> I'D LIKE TO NOW TURN DR. HILL
TO YOUR BOSS.
YOUR BOSS WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON,
RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
>> DID YOUR BOSS, AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON TELL YOU THAT GIULIANI 
WAS QUOTE A HAND GRENADE. 
>> HE DID, YES. 
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK HE MEANT BY
HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF GIULIANI
AS A HAND GRENADE?
>> WHAT HE MEANT BY THIS WAS 
PRETTY CLEAR TO ME IN THE 
CONTEXT OF ALL THE STATEMENTS 
THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS MAKING 
PUBLICLY THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS
THAT HE WAS PROMOTING, THAT THE 
STORY LINE HE WAS PROMOTING, THE
NARRATIVE HE WAS PROMOTING WAS 
GOING TO BACKFIRE.
I THINK IT HAS BACKFIRED. 
>> WAS THAT NARRATIVE ALSO 
INCLUSIVE OF FALSEHOODS ABOUT 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH?
>> AT THE PARTICULAR JUNCTURE 
THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON MADE THAT
COMMENT, ABSOLUTELY BECAUSE THAT
WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF MY 
DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT WHAT 
WAS HAPPENING TO AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH.
>> I WAS PARTICULARLY STRUCK BY 
YOUR TESTIMONY, DR. HILL, ABOUT 
RECEIVING HATEFUL CALLS AND 
BEING ACCUSED OF BEING A SOURCE,
MOLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER OR HAVE 
YOU BEEN TRUE TO YOUR PROFESSION
AND REMAIN NONPARTISAN. 
>> I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT 
THE DEFINITION OF A NEVER 
TRUMPER IS, AS I THINK MANY OF 
MY COLLEAGUES ARE FEELING THE 
SAME WAY.
IT'S A PUZZLING TERM TO BE 
APPLIED TO CAREER OR NONPARTISAN
OFFICIALS.
AND I CHOSE TO COME INTO THE 
ADMINISTRATION.
I COULD EASILY HAVE SAID NO WHEN
I WAS APPROACHED. 
>> YES, BUT YOU DIDN'T SIGN UP 
TO HAVE HATEFUL CALLS AND THE 
LIKE. 
>> I GUESS, UNFORTUNATELY, WHERE
WE ARE TODAY IN AMERICA, THAT'S 
COMING WITH THE TERRITORY.
THEY'RE CONTINUING HONESTLY, 
WE'RE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO BLOCK
TWITTER POSTS OF MY NAME AND 
ADDRESS ON THE INTERNET.
WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS OVER THE
LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
AND AS I SAID IN MY DEPOSITION, 
THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY SINGLE 
PERSON THIS THIS ROOM BE IT 
MEMBERS OF THE PRESS, BE IT 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND BE IT 
THE STAFF.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS
OF COMBATTING THIS, AND AGAIN, 
THIS GETS BACK CERTAINLY TO 
THINGS THAT OUR ADVERSARIES CAN 
ALSO EXPLOIT. 
>> EXACTLY.
I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME 
THAT THIS SHOULDN'T BECOME THE 
NEW NORMAL, WOULD YOU AGREE. 
>> THIS SHOULD NOT. 
>> I ALSO THINK THAT THIS KIND 
OF BEHAVIOR, INSTEAD OF KEEPING 
YOU DOWN, WOULD MAKE YOU 
UNDETERRED, ARE YOU MORE 
DETERMINED TO CONTINUE TO DO 
YOUR WORK AND TO DO IT 
PROFESSIONALLY?
>> I AM, AND I THINK ALL OF MY 
COLLEAGUES ARE AS WELL.
JUST AS YOU SAID, WE CAN'T LET 
THIS STAND, AND I DON'T THINK 
ANYONE HERE WANTS TO LET THIS 
STAND.
I ACTUALLY DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS
A PARTISAN ISSUE, I DON'T THINK 
ANYONE WANTS TO COME UNDER 
PERSONAL ATTACK. 
>> I THINK THIS HAS BECOME A NEW
NORM, AND WE'RE BEING LED BY THE
VERY TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN, 
WHICH IS OUR PRESIDENT, WHICH IS
UNFORTUNATE.
I'M ESPECIALLY DISHEARTENED BY 
HIS TREATMENT OF WOMEN AND I 
THINK THAT THE FACT OF THE 
MATTER IS THAT THERE'S A LONG 
LINE OF STRONG, TALENTED WOMEN 
WHO HAVE BEEN SMEARED AND 
VICTIMIZED BY THIS PRESIDENT, 
AND WE CAN EITHER CHOOSE TO 
IGNORE OR DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
AND FRANKLY, I THINK THAT 
WHETHER YOU VOTED FOR HIM OR 
WHETHER YOU SUPPORTED HIM OR 
NOT, THAT DOING SO IS WRONG.
YOU COULD SIMPLY JUST REMOVE 
SOMEONE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SMEAR THEM.
THANK YOU, AND I YIELD BACK MY 
TIME. 
>> MR. TURNER. 
>> RIGHT.
I WANT TO ECHO THAT SENTIMENT 
AND LAMENT THE ATTACKS THAT HAVE
BEEN LEVIED AGAINST OUR 
COLLEAGUE, LEE STEPHONIC ON THIS
PANEL WHICH HAS BEEN VILE AND 
HATEFUL.
FOR THOSE OF YOU KEEPING SCORE 
AT HOME, THE EFFORT TO ACCUSE 
OUR PRESIDENT OF COERCION, 
EXTORTION OR BRIBERY WITH THESE 
WITNESSES AS WE COME TO THE 
CLOSING SESSION OF THIS 
BASICALLY BREAK DOWN AS FOLLOWS,
WE HAVE KENT AND AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR WHO SPOKE OF HEARSAY, 
THEIR HEARSAY OF MATTERS THEY 
SAID THEY HEARD WERE ALL 
STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAD HEARD 
FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE ALSO 
TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF US, SO 
THERE'S NO ONE THAT'S MISSING.
THERE'S NO ONE THAT'S OUT THERE.
KENT AND TAYLOR BASICALLY SAID 
THEY HAD HEARD IT FROM MORRISON 
AND SONDLAND, MORRISON INDICATED
HE HEARD IT FROM SONDLAND, 
SONDLAND TESTIFIED HE HAD HEARD 
IT FROM NO ONE ON THE PLANET.
VINDMAN AND MORRISON HAVE DIRECT
TESTIMONY OF THE PHONE CALL WITH
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
BEYOND THAT, THEY ONLY HAD 
CONTACT WITH SONDLAND, AND 
AGAIN, SONDLAND INDICATED HE HAD
CONTACT WITH NO ONE ON THE 
PLANET.
VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT HE DID 
HAVE DIRECT CONTACT, BOTH WITH 
THE UKRAINIANS AND THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND 
INDICATED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT 
CONDITION EITHER A PHONE CALL, A
MEETING OR AID UPON UKRAINE 
UNDERTAKING INVESTIGATIONS, AND 
ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE 
UKRAINIANS DID NOT BELIEVE THAT 
EITHER.
WE ALSO HAVE THE DIRECT 
STATEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER
THAT THEY DID NOT FEEL ANY 
PRESSURE TO UNDERTAKE 
INVESTIGATIONS AND WE ALSO HAVE 
THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE ALL VERY
MUCH AWARE OF WHICH IS THEY DID 
NOT UNDERTAKE ANY 
INVESTIGATIONS.
WE ALSO YOVANOVITCH AND 
DR. HILL.
YOVANOVITCH OBVIOUSLY LEFT 
BEFORE THE TIME PERIOD.
DR. HILL, WE APPRECIATE YOU 
BEING WITH US TODAY.
AND MR. HOLMES.
DR. HILL, YOU HAVE PROVIDED ME 
PROBABLY THE GREATEST PIECE OF 
EVIDENCE THAT'S BEFORE US TO 
ILLUSTRATE THE PROBLEM WITH 
HEARSAY.
SO YOU SAID BASED ON QUESTIONS 
AND STATEMENTS I HAVE HEARD SOME
OF YOU ON THIS COMMITTEE, THAT 
WOULD BE US APPEAR TO BELIEVE 
THAT RUSSIA AND ITS SECURITY 
SERVICES DID NOT CONDUCT A 
CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR COUNTRY.
AND PERHAPS SOMEHOW FOR SOME 
REASON IT WAS UKRAINE.
THIS EVIDENCE WAS HELD UP BY 
DEVIN NUNES AS THE REPORT OF 
ACTIVE MEASURES VOTED ON BY ALL 
OF US, IT BEGINS IN THIS 
SENTENCE, IN 2015, RUSSIA BEGAN 
ENGAGING IN A COVERT INFLUENCE 
CAMPAIGN, AIMED AT THE U.S. 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
EVERY ONE OF US, SMALL EFFORT ON
YOUR PART, DR. HILL, AND YOU 
WOULD HAVE KNOWN, WHAT YOU JUST 
SAID WAS NOT TRUE, WHAT YOU HAD 
HEARD BUT YOU FELT THE NEED TO 
PUT IT IN YOUR EIGHT-PAGE 
STATEMENT BEFORE YOU WENT ON TO 
TELL US OTHER THINGS THAT YOU 
HEARD ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE NO 
MATTER HOW CONVINCED YOU WERE OF
ALSO WHICH WERE NOT NECESSARILY 
TRUE, ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT YOU 
SAID THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
MET WITH GIULIANI, ACTUALLY, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED 
THAT HE HAD NOT AS AMBASSADOR 
MET WITH GIULIANI, HE BRIEFLY 
MET HIM IN HIS LIFETIME, AND 
GIULIANI ISSUED A STATEMENT THEY
HAD NEVER MET EITHER.
NO MATTER HOW CONVINCED WE ARE, 
DR. HILL, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE 
BELIEVE WE KNOW THAT WHAT WE'VE 
HEARD IS TRUE, IT IS STILL JUST 
WHAT WE'VE HEARD.
BUT SO FAR, IN THIS HEARING, IN 
THESE SERIES OF HEARINGS, THE 
ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE IS 
VOLKER SAYING I SPOKE TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND I'VE SPOKE TO THE 
UKRAINIANS, NEITHER OF WHICH 
BELIEVE AID WAS CONDITIONED, 
NEITHER OF WHICH BELIEVED THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS REQUIRING IT.
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHICH 
SAID NO ONE ON THE PLANET TOLD 
HIM THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.
THAT'S THE SOLE EVIDENCE.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BELIEVED A 
MEETING WAS CONDITIONED UPON 
INVESTIGATIONS, AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER WHO I THINK IS A MAN OF 
VERY SIGNIFICANT INTEGRITY SAID 
THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.
EVEN IF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS 
CORRECT, THAT SOMEBODY AND 
DR. HILL, YOU TESTIFIED, AND 
AGAIN IT'S HEARSAY, YOU DON'T 
KNOW, THAT SUPPOSEDLY MULVANEY 
TOLD HIM THAT, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T
TESTIFY TO THAT, BUT LET'S SAY 
SOMEBODY BESIDES THE PRESIDENT 
TOLD HIM THAT, YOU GUYS WANT TO 
BE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF HISTORY
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T 
TAKE A MEETING.
OH, PLEASE, DEAR GOD.
PLEASE UNDERTAKE THAT.
NOW, MR. HOLMES, I GOT TO TELL 
YOU.
IS THERE A QUESTION FOR 
DR. HILL?
>> MR. HOLMES, IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THAT 
SONDLAND SAID HE LOVES YOUR ASS,
AND ALSO SAID HE'LL DO ANYTHING 
THAT YOU WANT.
MR. HOLMES, THAT INFORMATION HAD
NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH 
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ANY OF 
THESE HEARINGS.
IT WAS ANECDOTAL, IT WAS 
EXTRANEOUS, YOUR STATEMENTS THAT
YOUR INTERESTS ARE PROTECTING 
UKRAINE, ARE VERY DUBIOUS WHEN 
YOU EMBARRASS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
BY MAKING THOSE STATEMENTS THAT 
YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE.
WHO CARES THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID THAT, AND YOU 
DIDN'T EMBARRASS AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND, YOU EMBARRASSED 
ZELENSKY BECAUSE YOU KNOW HE GOT
ASKED THIS QUESTION IN HIS OWN 
COUNTRY AND PEOPLE ARE HEARING 
THAT STATEMENT AS IF IT IS TRUE,
AND IT'S -- 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, BOTH FOR
YOUR SERVICE.
DR. HILL, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK A
LITTLE BIT MORE IN-DEPTH ABOUT 
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY'S 
ROLE IN THE EVENTS UNDER 
INVESTIGATION.
YOU TESTIFIED, MA'AM, THAT MR. 
MULVANEY, AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND WERE BOTH INVOLVED WITH
A LETTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT TO
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON MAY 
29th, CONGRATULATING HIM ON HIS 
INAUGURATION.
DO YOU RECALL THAT, MA'AM?
>> I DID, YES.
>> AND TOWARDS THE END OF THAT 
LETTER, PRESIDENT TRUMP CLOSED 
WITH QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO 
INVITE YOU TO MEET ME AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 
AS SOON AS WE CAN FIND A 
MUTUALLY CONVENIENT TIME END 
QUOTE.
DR. HILL, WAS THIS 
CONGRATULATORY LETTER DRAFTED 
THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCEDURES AT
THE NFC THAT THE NFC USES TO 
SEND FOREIGN LETTERS TO HEADS OF
STATE. 
>> THE FIRST PART OF IT WAS, 
EXCEPT THE LAST PARAGRAPH. 
>> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU 
THAT HE HAD DICTATED THAT LINE 
TO THE PRESIDENT AND THAT MR. 
MULVANEY, YOU TOLD MR. MULVANEY 
TO ADD THAT TO THE LETTER, IS 
THAT CORRECT, MA'AM. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE 
NERVOUS ABOUT THAT.
WHY WERE YOU NERVOUS, DR. HILL?
>> BECAUSE AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT 
HAD BECOME QUITE APPARENT THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WASN'T VERY KEEN 
ON HAVING A MEETING WITH MR. 
ZELENSKY FOR ALL THE REASONS 
THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LAY 
OUT TODAY.
AND ONCE ONE PUTS IN A LETTER 
LIKE THAT, YOU RAISE THE 
EXPECTATION OF AN INVITATION 
COMING SHORTLY.
>> DR. HILL, YOU ALSO TESTIFIED,
MA'AM, THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
WAS FREQUENTLY MEETING WITH MR. 
MULVANEY.
MR. GIULIANI'S CAMPAIGN OF LIES 
ULTIMATELY LED TO AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH BEING RECALLED FROM 
HER POST IN APRIL OF 2019.
YOU'VE ALSO TESTIFIED, MA'AM, 
THAT HER REMOVAL WAS PRETTY 
DISSPIRITING, AND A TURNING 
POINT FOR YOU.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY, 
MA'AM. 
>> AGAIN, AS WE HAVE ALL MADE 
CLEAR, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
AND YOU SAW FOR YOURSELF IN HER 
DEPOSITION IS A PERSON OF GREAT 
INTEGRITY.
SHE'S ONE OF OUR FINEST FOREIGN 
SERVICE OFFICERS, CAREER FOREIGN
SERVICE OFFICERS AND IF THERE 
HAD BEEN A DECISION TO REMOVE 
HER TO REPLACE HER WITH A 
POLITICAL APPOINTEE, AGAIN, THAT
WAS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE RIGHTS 
OF THE PRESIDENT.
SOMETIMES IT'S HIGHLY ADVISABLE,
IN FACT, TO EMPHASIZE TO A 
COUNTRY JUST EXACTLY HOW CLOSE 
THE RELATIONSHIP IS LIKELY TO BE
TO HAVE AN APPOINTEE WHO IS 
CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT, IF IT'S 
AN IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP, BUT 
WHAT WAS DISSPIRITING WAS ALL OF
THE ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE BEING 
FIRED AT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH 
LEADING HER TO BE TWEETED, 
INCLUDING BY MEMBERS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S FAMILY.
WE ALL FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT MR. 
GIULIANI AND OTHERS INCLUDING 
THE PEOPLE WHO WERE RECENTLY 
INDICTED, THE UKRAINIAN AMERICAN
GENTLEMAN HAD FOR SOME REASON 
DECIDED THAT AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH WAS SOME KIND OF 
PERSONAL PROBLEM FOR THEM AND 
THAT THEY HAD THEN DECIDED TO 
ENGAGE IN JUST THE KIND OF 
THINGS WE WERE DISCUSSING.
AND SHE WAS AN EASY TARGET AS A 
WOMAN.
AND I'M SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT
HAS HAPPENED TO CONGRESS 
STEFANIK, AND THIS ILLUSTRATES 
THE POINT AND PROBLEM WE'RE 
DEALING WITH TODAY. 
>> CERTAINLY.
I WAS STRUCK BY YOUR TESTIMONY 
THAT YOU WERE THE TARGET OF 
FALSE ACCUSATIONS DURING YOUR 
TIME IN THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION.
YOU TESTIFIED, MA'AM, ABOUT 
RECEIVING HATEFUL CALLS AND 
BEING ACCUSED OF BEING QUOTE A 
MOLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT DEATH 
THREATS AND CALLS AT YOUR HOME, 
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT WAS IN 2017.
>> I'M SORRY YOU'VE HAD TO GO 
THROUGH ALL OF THIS MA'AM.
YOU DON'T STRIKE ME AS A WOMAN 
WHO IS EASILY DETERRED.
YOU'RE NOT EASILY DETERRED, ARE 
YOU, DR. HILL. 
>> I'M NOT, NO.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING, JUST ANOTHER FACT 
CHECK AND MY CAUTION THAT 
REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT WHAT PRIOR
WITNESSES SAID OR WHAT YOU HAVE 
EVEN SAID MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT 
WITH THE FACTS.
THIS WAS FROM AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S OPENING STATEMENT, 
AFTER THE ZELENSKY MEETING, I 
ALSO MET WITH ZELENSKY'S SENIOR 
AID, ANDRE YERMACH, I BELIEVE 
THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS WAS 
PROBABLY A PART OF THE AGENDA OR
MEETING.
NOW RECOGNIZE DR. WINSTROP. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN X 
THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.
YOU KNOW IN 1998, I VOLUNTARILY 
JOINED THE UNITED STATES ARMY 
RESERVE BECAUSE I SAW OUR 
COUNTRY UNDER ATTACK TIME AND 
TIME AGAIN.
BILL CLINTON WAS THE PRESIDENT.
I DIDN'T VOTE FOR BILL CLINTON.
BUT HE WAS MY COMMANDER IN 
CHIEF.
IT DIDN'T MATTER THAT I DIDN'T 
VOTE FOR HIM.
I WAS GRATEFUL TO LIVE IN A 
COUNTRY THAT GETS TO 
LEGITIMATELY ELECT OUR LEADERS.
AND I HAVE BEEN TO PLACES WHERE 
PEOPLE DON'T GET TO.
AND IT'S NOT PRETTY, AND I 
RESPECT OUR SYSTEM AND I ACCEPT 
THE RESULTS THAT ARE DETERMINED 
BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I DEPLOYED TO IRAQ, 2005, 2006 
AS AN ARMY SURGEON WITH SOLDIERS
FROM MANY BACKGROUNDS.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WAS WE 
WERE ALL AMERICANS.
THAT WAS FIRST AND FOREMOST.
IN OUR MISSION, WE TREATED OUR 
TROOPS, WE TREATED THE ENEMY, 
WINNING OVER THE HEARTS AND 
MINDS OF PEOPLE THAT NEVER KNEW 
US BECAUSE OF THEIR DICTATOR, 
SADDAM HUSSEIN, WHO TOLD THEM 
THAT WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
THEIR PROBLEMS AND THAT WAS HIS 
NARRATIVE.
AND SPEAKING OF NARRATIVES, 
DR. HILL, I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO 
SAY THIS, YOU SAID BASED ON 
STATEMENTS, SOME IN THE 
COMMITTEE DID NOT CONDUCT A 
CAMPAIGN AGAINST THIS COUNTRY IS
FALSE.
THAT'S MR. SCHIFF'S NARRATIVE.
THAT'S WHERE YOU'VE HEARD IT.
WE DID A WHOLE REPORT ON IT.
AND WE AGREE THAT RUSSIA HAS 
DONE THIS SINCE THE SOVIET 
UNION, AND THEY HAVE ACTUALLY 
GOTTEN BETTER AT IT.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, CERTAIN 
UKRAINIANS DID WORK AGAINST 
CANDIDATE TRUMP.
SOME WITH THE DNC, AND IF THAT'S
DEBUNKED WHY IS IT MR. SCHIFF 
HAS DENIED DNC OPERATIVE TO 
TESTIFY AND COME FORWARD AND 
DEBUNK IT.
WAS IT GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY FOR 
THE DNC AND CLINTON CAMPAIGN TO 
PAY PAY CHRISTOPHER STEELE TO 
DIG UP DIRT ON THEIR POLITICAL 
RIVAL.
WAS IT GOOD FOR AMERICA TO CLAIM
HAVING EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS WHEN HE 
DID NOT.
COSTING THE TAXPAYER MILLIONS, 
AND BEING DEBUNKED BY SPECIAL 
COUNSEL.
I'D SAY THE FALSE NARRATIVE GOT 
CAUGHT.
WAS IT GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY FOR 
AMERICANS AND FOREIGNERS ALIKE 
TO ATTEMPT TO ENTRAP MEMBERS OF 
A UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN, SPECIFICALLY THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN, SADLY, I HAVE COME TO 
BELIEVE THROUGH ALL OF THIS THAT
SOME IN POWER DO THINK IT'S 
GOOD.
THEY THINK IT'S OKAY.
CAN NOW WE'RE HERE IF AN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, 
CERTAINLY A RIGHT THAT CONGRESS 
HAS AND APPARENTLY EVEN WITH 
VERY PARTISAN RULES.
BUT I'M CURIOUS, THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY WAS ANNOUNCED BY THE 
SPEAKER BEFORE THE WHISTLEBLOWER
COMPLAINT WAS EVEN OUT.
I'M CURIOUS WHY THE LAWYER FOR 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER ANNOUNCED THAT
THE COUP TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT, THAT HE ANNOUNCED 
THAT RIGHT AFTER TRUMP WON.
THAT'S PRETTY DAMMING.
I KNOW IT HURTS AFTER LOSING AN 
ELECTION, ESPECIALLY AS 
AMERICANS.
WE USUALLY GET OVER IT.
AND I IMAGINE IT WOULD HURT EVEN
MORE IF YOU WERE PROMISED A 
POSITION IN THE NEXT 
ADMINISTRATION AND LOST.
AND YOUR HOPES AND YOUR DREAMS 
ARE DASHED.
I'VE SEEN HATRED FOR POLITICAL 
REASONS.
SPECIFICALLY ON JUNE 14th, 2017,
AT A BALL FIELD IN VIRGINIA, AND
I HAVE SEEN HATRED IN WAR.
AND I KNOW THAT HATRED BLINDS 
PEOPLE.
I'VE BEEN IN WAR, AND I'VE 
STUDIED WAR AND COUPS CREATE 
DIVISION.
AND IT'S TIME FOR THIS PHASE OF 
THE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED AND 
PROCLAIMED DEMOCRAT COUP TO END.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE, AND I 
YIELD BACK. 
>> COULD I ACTUALLY SAY 
SOMETHING BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD 
THREE -- 
>> I WAS GOING IT ASK YOU IF YOU
WOULD LIKE RESPOND.
>> I YIELDED BACK.
I DIDN'T ASK A QUESTION. 
>> DR. HILL, YOU MAY RESPOND. 
>> NO, I THINK THAT WHAT 
DR. WINSTROP SAID WAS VERY 
POWERFUL ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
OVERCOMING HATRED AND CERTAINLY 
PARTISAN DIVISION, AND IT'S 
UNFORTUNATE THAT CONGRESSMANS 
TURNER AND RATCLIFF HAVE BOTH 
LEFT AS WELL BECAUSE I THINK ALL
OF US WHO CAME HERE UNDER LEGAL 
OBLIGATIONS THOUGHT WE HAD A 
MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO, WE 
CAME AS FACT WITNESSES.
WHEN I WAS REFERRING TO 
QUESTIONS THAT I'D HEARD, IT WAS
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEPOSITION
THAT I GAVE ON OCTOBER 14th 
BECAUSE I WAS VERY WORRIED ABOUT
THE TURN IN WHICH SOME OF THE 
QUESTIONS WERE TAKING.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE POINT 
IS BEING MADE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS,
AS YOU HAVE JUST SAID, 
DR. WINSTROP AND THAT THESE 
ARTICLES LAY OUT, TAKING 
DEFINITE POSITIONS IN OUR 
ELECTIONS.
I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE 
ANY INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTION, I THINK IT WAS UNFAIR 
FOR PEOPLE TO ALREADY CALL THE 
ELECTION, AND MAKE ATTACKS ALSO 
ON CANDIDATE TRUMP AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP, AND I KNOW THAT THIS HAS 
PUT A HUGE CLOUD OVER THIS 
PRESIDENCY AND ALSO OVER OUR 
WHOLE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.
THAT'S ACTUALLY WHY AS A 
NONPARTISAN PERSON, AND AS AN 
EXPERT ON RUSSIA AND AN EXPERT 
ON VLADIMIR PUTIN AND ON THE 
RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICE, I 
WANTED TO COME IN TO SERVE THE 
COUNTRY TO TRY TO SEE IF I COULD
HELP.
I HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
THAT HE WANTED TO IMPROVE THE 
RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO.
WE CAN'T BE IN THIS UNENDING 
CONFRONTATION WITH RUSSIA.
WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO 
STABILIZE OUR RELATIONSHIP AND 
TO PROFESSIONALIZE OUR 
RELATIONSHIP AS WELL AS TO STOP 
THEM FROM DOING WHAT THEY DID IN
2016 AGAIN IN 2020.
THIS IS REALLY THE CRUX OF THE 
ISSUE THAT I AND OTHERS ARE 
TRYING TO PUT ACROSS, AND I 
THINK THAT YOU HAVE PUT ACROSS 
VERY ELOQUENTLY.
THE OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO 
THIS INQUIRY, WE'RE HERE JUST TO
PROVIDE WHAT WE KNOW, AND WHAT 
WE HAVE HEARD.
I UNDERSTAND THAT FOR MANY 
MEMBERS THIS MAY BE HEARSAY.
I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THINGS I 
HEARD WITH MY OWN EARS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND HAS SAID A LOT OF 
THINGS.
I HAVE TOLD YOU WHAT HE TOLD ME,
AND WHAT OTHERS TOLD ME.
A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID 
THINGS TO ME, AGAIN, AS WELL, 
AND ALSO TO MR. HOLMES AND WE'RE
HEAR TO RELATE TO YOU WHAT WE 
HEARD, WHAT WE SAW, AND WHAT WE 
DID.
AND TO BE OF SOME HELP TO ALL OF
YOU IN REALLY MAKING A VERY 
MOMENTOUS DECISION HERE.
WE ARE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE 
THAT DECISION.
AND I DO, AGAIN, WANT TO 
UNDERSCORE WHAT YOU SAID HERE, 
DR. WINSTROP, IT WAS VERY 
ELOQUENT AND VERY MOVING ABOUT 
YOUR SERVICE, AND TRYING TO 
BRING US ALL TOGETHER AS 
AMERICANS.
WE NEED TO BE TOGETHER AGAIN IN 
2020 SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN 
MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT THE FUTURE 
AND MAKE THEIR VOTE IN A 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WITHOUT 
ANY FEAR THAT THIS IS BEING 
INTERFERED BY, FROM ANY QUARTER 
WHATSOEVER, SO I JUST WANT TO 
THANK YOU FOR MAKING WHAT I 
THINK WAS ALSO A VERY ELEGANT 
AND ELOQUENT AND HEARTFELT 
DEFENSE. 
>> THANK YOU, DR. HILL.
MS. SPEAR. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, AND 
DR. HILL, MR. HOLMES, THANK YOU 
BOTH FOR BEING FACT WITNESSES.
WE ARE HERE AS FACT FINDERS, AND
WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOUR 
PRESENTATIONS.
DR. HILL, I WANT TO VERIFY THIS 
STORY, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT 
WHEN YOU WERE 11 YEARS OLD, 
THERE WAS A SCHOOLBOY WHO SET 
YOUR PIGTAILS ON FIRE AND YOU 
WERE TAKING A TEST, YOU TURNED 
AROUND AND WITH YOUR HANDS 
SNUFFED OUT THE FIRE AND THEN 
PROCEEDED TO FINISH YOUR TEST.
IS THAT A TRUE STORY?
>> IT IS A TRUE STORY.
I WAS A BIT SURPRISED TO SEE 
THAT POP UP TODAY.
IT'S ONE OF THE STORIES I 
OCCASIONALLY TELL BECAUSE IT HAD
UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES 
AFTERWARDS, MY MOTHER GAVE ME A 
BOWL HAIRCUT SO FOR THE SCHOOL 
PHOTOGRAPH LATER IN THAT WEEK, I
LOOK LIKE RICHARD III. 
>> I THINK IT UNDERSCORES THE 
FACT THAT YOU SPEAK TRUTH, THAT 
YOU ARE STEELY, AND I TRULY 
RESPECT THAT.
LET ME MOVE TO YOUR TESTIMONY IN
YOUR DEPOSITION.
YOU HAD INDICATED YOU WERE 
DEEPLY TROUBLED BY AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH'S, THE ATTACKS ON 
HER, AND YOU UNDERSCORED AGAIN 
TODAY THAT ALL AMBASSADORS SERVE
AT THE PLEASURE OF THE 
PRESIDENT, AND CERTAINLY IN THE 
CASE OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, 
SHE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED HER TO
COME HOME.
BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
IN FACT, THERE WAS A SYSTEMATIC 
CHARACTER ASSASSINATION THAT 
WENT ON.
AND WENT ON FROM 2018, IF I'M 
NOT MISTAKEN.
BUT YOU SAY, AND THE MOST 
OBVIOUS EXPLANATION AT THIS 
POINT, IT HAS TO BE SAID, SEEMED
TO BE BUSINESS DEALINGS OF 
INDIVIDUALS WHO WANTS TO IMPROVE
THEIR INVESTMENT POSITIONS 
INSIDE OF UKRAINE ITSELF.
YOU WERE THEN ASKED WHO DO YOU 
UNDERSTAND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 
HER REMOVAL?
AND YOU SAID, I UNDERSTAND THIS 
TO BE THE RESULT OF THE CAMPAIGN
THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD SET IN 
MOTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH 
PEOPLE WHO WERE WRITING ARTICLES
AND YOU KNOW, PUBLICATIONS THAT 
I HAVE EXPECTED BETTER OF, AND 
ALSO, YOU KNOW, JUST THE 
CONSTANT DRUM BEAT OF THESE 
ACCUSATIONS THAT HE WAS MAKING 
ON THE TELEVISION.
SO RUDY GIULIANI WAS PLAYING 
FAST AND FURIOUS IN UKRAINE, IT 
WOULD APPEAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND HE HAD NO OFFICIAL 
TASKING WITHIN THE 
ADMINISTRATION, IS THAT CORRECT.
>> NOT THAT I HAD BEEN TOLD OF. 
>> BUT HE FREQUENTLY MET WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO REQUEST 
THEY OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?
>> SO I WAS LED TO UNDERSTAND, 
YES.
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT MR. 
GIULIANI'S INVOLVEMENT WAS QUOTE
A MASSIVE COMPLICATION IN TERMS 
OF OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN 
THAT?
>> I THINK I ALREADY LAID THAT 
OUT IN THE EARLIER PART OF 
RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE 
QUESTIONS.
WE WERE ACTUALLY CONDUCTING 
WHICH, YOU KNOW, FOR A LOT OF 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MIGHT SEEM 
TO BE A RATHER BORING, STANDARD 
BILATERAL POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE,
PUSHING THEM ON ISSUES OF REFORM
IN THE ENERGY SECTOR, AND MORE 
BROADLY, WE WERE CONCERNED 
OBVIOUSLY ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE.
WE WERE TRYING TO HELP UKRAINE 
REGAIN ITS SOVEREIGNTY AFTER THE
ATTACKS BY RUSSIA. 
>> HOW DID MR. GIULIANI'S 
INVOLVEMENT AFFECT?
>> WE BASICALLY HAD WORKED OUT 
OVER THE COURSE OF TWO YEARS IN 
CONJUNCTION, CLOSE CONJUNCTION 
WITH THE EMBASSY IN KIEV, AN 
INTERAGENCY AGREED ACTION PLAN, 
AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT IN 
FACT COLONEL VINDMAN WERE 
WORKING ON, MOVING FORWARD ON 
THE VARIOUS ISSUES ON THE LIST 
OF ITEMS.
CLEARLY RUDY GIULIANI AND OTHER 
PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT 
THIS.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WASN'T 
PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN IT 
EITHER.
IT WAS QUITE BORING, WOULDN'T 
MAKE FOR GOOD COPY IN THE PRESS 
AND THE KIND OF THING EVERYBODY 
MOVES ROUTINE FORWARD ON. 
>> MR. HOLMES, YOU TALKED ABOUT 
THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER RUSSIA 
TRIES TO ASSERT AGAINST UKRAINE,
SO SINCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
NEVER GOT HIS WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING, DOESN'T THAT MAKE 
UKRAINE LOOK WEAK, AND DOESN'T 
THAT BENEFIT RUSSIA?
>> ABSOLUTELY, IT DOES. 
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO PROMOTING PUTIN'S FALSE CLAIM
OF UKRAINE INTERVENTION INTO THE
U.S. ELECTION ALSO BENEFITS 
RUSSIA, DOESN'T IT?
>> IT DOES.
>> SO WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MEETS
PRIVATELY WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN AT
THE G20 SUMMIT, WHO DOES THAT 
BENEFIT?
>> IT DOESN'T HELP UKRAINE. 
>> IT DOESN'T HELP UKRAINE.
AND BY PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLING 
UKRAINE CORRUPT AND NOT NORTH 
KOREA, FOR INSTANCE, DOES THAT 
ACCRUE TO RUSSIA'S BENEFIT. 
>> AGAIN, DOESN'T HELP UKRAINE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I THANK YOU AND MR. CHAIRMAN, 
I'LL YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME 
TO YOU. 
>> YOU'RE YIELDING ME THREE 
SECONDS, NOT EVEN I CAN MAKE USE
OF THREE SECONDS, MR. STEWART. 
>> THANK YOU.
DR. HILL, MR. HOLMES, THANK YOU 
FOR BEING HERE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT 
HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED OR MADE ANY 
POINTS THAT HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN
MADE.
I GUESS I'LL CONCLUDE BY 
SOMETHING I HAVE SAID BEFORE, 
THIS IMPEACH PALOOZA, FINALLY 
COMES TO AN END.
A YEAR OF RESISTANCE.
TWO AND A HALF YEARS OF THESE 
ABSURD ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION.
WE HAVE GONE FROM QUID PRO QUO 
TO BRIBERY TO EXTORTION, SEVEN 
WEEKS OF HEARINGS, 16 SECRET 
CLOSED DOOR SESSIONS, 12 PUBLIC 
HEARINGS, NOW OF WHICH YOU ARE 
THE LAST.
HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TESTIMONY, 
AND I REALLY THINK THAT FOR 
THOSE WHO HATE THE PRESIDENT, 
THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED THEIR MINDS
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF AMERICANS 
WHO LOOK AT THIS AND THINK IS 
THAT IT, REALLY, YOU'RE GOING TO
IMPEACH AND REMOVE A PRESIDENT 
FOR THIS.
NOW, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU DON'T 
LIKE THE PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 
ALREADY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION,
MANY PEOPLE WANTED THIS THREE 
YEARS AGO.
BUT FOR A LOT OF AMERICANS, THEY
LOOK AT THAT, AND THEY CAN SEE 
THIS, NO EVIDENCE, ZERO EVIDENCE
OF ANY BRIBERY.
ZERO EVIDENCE OF EXTORTION.
ZERO EVIDENCE, FIRSTHAND OF ANY 
QUID PRO QUO.
AND YET, IMPEACHMENT IS ALMOST 
INEVITABLE, AND WHY BECAUSE THE 
LEADERSHIP OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS
BEEN UNFAIR AND DISHONEST, AND I
KNOW WE HEAR THESE CROCODILE 
TEARS FROM SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES
WHO ARE HEARTBROKEN BECAUSE THEY
FINALLY HAVE TO IMPEACH THIS 
PRESIDENT.
AND WE KNOW THAT'S ABSURD, 
THERE'S NO HEARTBROKEN, THERE'S 
NO PRAYERFUL TEARS OVER THIS.
THEY ARE GIDDY OVER THERE, AND 
THERE'S NOT A PERSON IN THE 
COUNTRY WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT.
EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE 
GOING TO DO NEXT.
THEY'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT AND THEY'RE GOING TO 
SEND IT ON TO THE SENATE, BUT 
THAT IS THE GOOD NEWS.
THAT'S GOOD NEWS.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALL BEEN TO A 
CONCERT.
YOU GOT THE WARM UP BAND, AND 
THEN YOU GOT THE MAIN ACT, AND 
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN HERE IS THE 
WARM UP BAND.
THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THE SIOUX 
CITY CROONERS, THIS IS A BAND 
THAT NO ONE'S EVER HEARD OF BUT 
THE WARM UP BAND IS OVER, AND 
NOW WE'RE GOING ON TO THE MAIN 
EVENT AND THAT'S IN THE U.S. 
SENATE, AND IN THE U.S. SENATE 
THERE WON'T BE SECRET TESTIMONY.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A 
CHAIRMAN THAT REFUSES TO LET US 
ASK APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS OR 
DENY A DEFENSE.
WHERE IN THE WORLD, WHERE THIS 
THE COUNTRY DO YOU HAVE A TRIAL 
WHERE THE PROSECUTION PRESENTS 
THEIR CASE AND THE DEFENSE ISN'T
ABLE TO.
SO WE'LL FINALLY BE ABLE TO GET 
TO THE TRUTH.
SO I'M TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUES 
IN THE SENATE, THESE ARE SOME OF
THE WITNESSES THAT YOU NEED TO 
CALL AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE 
QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED TO ASK.
FIRST, YOU HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE
WHISTLEBLOWER.
NOW, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO DO THAT 
IN CLOSED SESSION IF THEY WANT 
TO.
I LEAVE THAT UP TO THEM.
BUT YOU CAN'T INITIATE AN 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVE 
TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.
WHO DID HE GET HIS INFORMATION 
FROM?
DID HE HAVE THE CLASSIFICATION 
AND THE CLEARANCES TO GET THAT 
INFORMATION.
WHAT'S HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH 
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
WHO HAS HE SHARED THAT 
INFORMATION WITH, INCLUDING SOME
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HERE.
I THINK OUR OWN CHAIRMAN NEEDS 
TO BE CALLED.
WHAT INTERACTIONS DID HE OR HIS 
STAFF HAVE WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER?
DID THEY HELP TO COORDINATE OR 
IN ANY WAY FACILITATE THE 
COMPLAINT?
DID THEY COORDINATE AND 
FACILITATE COUNCIL, WHAT ABOUT 
HUNTER BIDEN, HOW DID HE GET HIS
JOB?
WHAT DID HE DO TO EARN HIS 
SALARY, AND HERE'S THE KEY TO 
THIS, LOOK IF HE GOES THERE AND 
MAKES MONEY, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT.
I DON'T CARE, BUT I WANT TO KNOW
DID HE HAVE OFFICIALS OR 
CONVERSATIONS WITH GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS AND WAS GOVERNMENT 
POLICY CHANGED AT A PARTICULARLY
HIGH LEVEL BECAUSE OF SOME OF 
THOSE?
DEVIN ARCHER, FORMER BOARD 
MEMBER FROM BURISMA, ALEXANDRIA 
, PROVIDED ANTI-TRUMP 
INFORMATION TO THE DNC AND 
HARDSHIP, NELLY ORR FROM FUSION 
GPS WHO HELPED CREATE THE 
RIDICULOUS STEELE DOSSIER THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT A LOT IN 
POLITICS.
THEY UNDERSTAND THE TUSSLE, THE 
FIGHT, THE DEBATE, BUT THEY ALSO
EXPECT BASIC FAIRNESS, AND THESE
PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN ANYTHING 
BUT FAIR.
THE SENATE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
FIX THAT.
I AM CONFIDENT THEY WILL.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THEM 
COMPLETING THE JOB THAT WE COULD
HAVE DONE HERE.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL YIELD 
BACK. 
>> MR. QUIGLEY. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK
YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.
DR. HILL, WHEN WE LAST LEFT JULY
109th, I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON SAID TO YOU YOU GO AND 
TELL EISENBERG THAT I'M NOT PART
OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND 
AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON 
THIS, AND TELL HIM WHAT YOU HAVE
HEARD AND WHAT I SAID.
THAT'S CORRECT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND JOHN EISENBERG, THE CHIEF
LAWYER FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL CORRECT. 
>>> HE IS, YES. 
>> AND YOU WENT TO SEE HIM. 
>> I DID.
>> WHAT DID YOU SAY. 
>> I GAVE HIM THE SAME SUMMARY I
HAVE GIVEN TO YOU ON THE 10th OF
JULY. 
>> OF WHAT TOOK PLACE. 
>> OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, INCLUDING
SOME OF THE DETAILS I SHARED 
WITH YOU AS WELL, THE SEQUENCING
AND WHAT TRANSPIRED AS I WAS 
WALKING IN. 
>> NOW, DID I HAVE ONE OR TWO 
MEETINGS WITH HIM ABOUT THAT?
>> HE DID NOT HAVE A GREAT DEAL 
OF TIME ON THE 10th, AND I GAVE 
HIM THE QUICK SUMMARY, AND WE 
AGREED THAT WE WOULD MEET AGAIN 
ON THE 11th, ON JULY 11th, THE 
NEXT DAY, AND I ALSO WANTED TO 
BRING IN WITH ME MY COLLEAGUE, 
WELLS GRIFFITH, SENIOR DIRECTOR 
FOR ENERGY WHO HAD BEEN SITTING 
WITH ME ON THE SOFA FOR THE 
FIRST PORTION OF THE MEETING.
AND I ALSO SUGGESTED THAT HE 
SPEAK TO COLONEL VINDMAN 
SEPARATELY AS WELL BECAUSE 
COLONEL VINDMAN WAS IN THE BOARD
ROOM WHEN I ARRIVED AND 
OBVIOUSLY HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN 
DISCUSSION BEFORE I GOT THERE 
BECAUSE AS I GOT INTO THE ROOM, 
THEY WERE CLEARLY IN THE COURSE 
OF, SORRY WITH THE MICROPHONE, 
CLEARLY WITHIN THE COURSE OF 
CONVERSATION AND I THOUGHT IT 
WAS IMPORTANT FOR JOHN EISENBERG
TO HEAR FROM COLONEL VINDMAN 
HIMSELF WHAT HIS RECOLLECTIONS 
OF THE MEETINGS WERE. 
>> DID YOU RAISE THE CONCERNS 
THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD 
RAISED TO YOU TO MR. EISENBERG. 
>> I CERTAINLY DID.
THE FIRST THING I RELATED TO HIM
WAS EXACTLY AND PRECISELY WHAT 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD ASKED ME 
TO. 
>> IN THE COURSE OF THE TWO 
MEETINGS, WHAT WAS MR. 
EISENBERG'S RESPONSE. 
>> MR. EISENBERG TOOK IT ALL 
VERY SERIOUSLY.
HE SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT 
COLONEL VINDMAN SHOULD FEEL 
FREE, HE SAID THIS TO THIS TO MN
FUTURE TO GO AND BRING ANY 
CONCERNS TO HIM ABOUT THESE- 
THESE MEETINGS.
SLRLY, MYSELF AND ANY OTHERS IF 
THERE WAS ANY SUBSEQUENT 
FOLLOW-UP IN TERMS OF THESE 
ISSUES BEING RAISED AGAIN WITH 
ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE 
FUTURE.
>> HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING IN 
RESPONSE ABOUT HOW HE TOOK THAT 
MEETING OR HOW HE WOULD DESCRIBE
IT OR IF HE HAD ANY -- DID HE 
RAISE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT 
YOU TOLD HIM THAT TOOK PLACE?
>> NO, HE DID NOT.
HE LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY TO 
ALL THE INFORMATION WE IMPARTED.
>> NOW BACK TO THAT JULY 0th 
MEETING, THE SECOND MEETING IN 
THE WARD ROOM, CORRECT. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHO IS IN THAT MEETING 
BESIDES YOURSELF, THE TWO 
UKRAINIANS?
>> MR. DONALUP MR. YERMAK.
MR. YERM'S AIDE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND.
AND A COUPLE OF PEOPLE FROM THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT.
I WONDER IF ONE OF SECRETARY 
PERRY'S GROUP HAD BEEN THERE 
TOO.
I CAN'T REMEMBER. 
>> BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS 
THERE DURING THE ENTIRE TIME. 
>> HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SPEAK VERY
MUCH DURING THE MEETING.
AND AND I HEARD HIS DEPOSITION 
AND I READ HIS DEPOSITION WHERE 
HE DIDN'T REALLY RECALL THAT 
ENCOUNTER THE AGAIN, HE DIDN'T 
REALLY SPECK.
IT WAS MOSTLY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND. 
>> ITCHING YOU DESCRIBED IT -- 
AMBASSADOR SONLD SONDLAND WAS 
TALKING ABOUT A MEETING WITH 
CHIEF MULVANEY IF THEY WERE 
GOING FORWARD WITH THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
WHILE THIS WAS TAKING PLACE AND 
AFTERWARDS, HOW WERE THE 
UKRAINIANS REACTING TO WHAT WAS 
BEING SAID. 
>> AT THE TIME MR. YERMAK WAS 
QUITE IMPASSIVE.
I SAID HE HAD AN AIDE WITH HIM 
AND HIS AIDE WAS NEXT TO HIM IN 
THE ORIGINAL MEETING WITH 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND WAS FROM 
TIME TO TIME ACTUALLY ON THIS 
SIDE WHISPERING TO HIM.
I WASN'T SURE MYSELF.
BECAUSE I HAD NOT MET MR. YERMAK
BEFORE ABOUT HOW GOOD HIS FWLISH
WAS.
I WANE SURE PERHAPS MR. HOLMES 
MIGHT BE ABLE TO REFLECT ON THAT
WHETHER HE WAS HAVING POINTS OF 
CLARIFICATION FROM THE AIDE. 
>> HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS 
HAPPENING SQULOO JOO. 
>> I WASN'T SURE IF HE WAS 
FOLLOWING ALL OF THE BACK AND 
FORTH.
MR. LUKO WHO SPEAKS GOOD ENGLISH
WAS ALARMED.
I THINK HE WAS MORE ALARMED AT 
THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN COULD
COLONEL VINDMAN AND AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND.
AND HERE ARE SOME U.S. OFFICIALS
ARGUING ABOUT THE MEETING IN 
FRONT OF HIM.
AND THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY VERY 
UNCOMFORTABLE FOR HIM. 
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP TO
THAT, SIR?
>> I JUST ADDED DONULUK SPEAKS 
PERFECT ENGLISH BUT YERMAK OFTEN
ASKS FOR CLARIFICATIONS.
>> GIVEN THE TIME I WOULD YIELD 
BACK. 
>> MISS STAFFENIC.
BEFORE I TURN TO THE WITNESSES I
WANT TO SAY TO THE DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES NOT A SINGLE 
REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF IN 
COMMITTEE HAS SAID THAT RUSSIA 
DID NOT MEDDLE IN THE ELECTIONS.
WE PUBLISHED A REPORT FOCUSED ON
RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES IN 2016 
WITH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AS 
TO HOW WE STRENGTHEN OUR CYBER 
RESILIENCY AND ELECTION SECURITY
TO COUNTER RUSSIA.
I WORKED WITH MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEEN THE ISSUE BUT ALSO ON
THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES 
COMMITTEE.
TO HAVE OUR DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES SAY THE UNTRUTHFUL 
STATEMENTS WREAKS OF POLITICAL 
DESPERATION IN THE CONTINUED 
OBSESSION TO MANIPULATE 
MARITIMES MEDIA COVERAGE.
BUT THE GOOD NEWS PEOPLE 
UNDERSTAND THIS HAS BEEN A 
PARTISAN PROCESS FROM THE START.
THE DEMOCRATIC COORDINATION WITH
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, THE 
INCESTANT AND ASTOUNDING LEAKS, 
THE UNPRECEDENTED CLOSED DOOR 
PROCESS, CLOSED TO THE MAJORITY 
OF MEMBERS, CLOSED TO PRESS, THE
PEOPLE.
STARTING THIS INQUIRY WITHOUT 
TAKING A VOTE, AND THEN WHEN 
FINALLY FORCED TO TAKE A VOTE 
THE VOTE WAS WITH BIPARTISAN 
OPPOSITION.
NOW WITH FOUR MINUTES LEFT I 
TURN TO THE TWO WITNESSES THANK 
YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
THANK YOU, DR. HILL FOR COMMENTS
ON THE PERSONAL ATTACKS.
I WANTED TO ASK YOU EACH 
FACT-WASTED QUESTIONS.
DR. HILL, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU
HANDED OVER YOUR DUTIES ON THE 
NSC TO TIM MORRISON ON JULY 15th
AND THAT YOU PHYSICALLY LEFT THE
WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 19th, 
CORRECT. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 
>> THAT MEANS BY THE TIME OF THE
JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU
WERE NO LONGER ON THE NSC 
CORRECT. 
>> ACTUALLY I WAS STILL 
TECHNICALLY ON THE PAYROLL OF 
THE NSC UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.
AUGUST 30th OF 2019.
BUT I WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN THE 
BUILDING AND I HANDED OVER MY 
DUTIES TO MR. MORRISON. 
>> AND YOU WERE NOT ON THE CALL.
>> I WAS NOT ON THE CALL.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. 
>> AND ALSO CORRECT THAT YOU DID
NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE 
PREPARATION OF TALKING POINTS OR
THE SPECIFIC COORDINATION OF 
SETTING UP THE CALL. 
>> NOT FOR THAT CALL BUT SAY FOR
THE RECORD THERE HAD BEEN A LONG
ANTICIPATION THAT EVENTUALLY 
THERE WOULD BE A CALL.
SO THERE WAS A CALL PACKAGE 
PREPARED IN ADVANCE.
I CAN'T SAY HOW MUCH OF THAT 
CALL PACKAGE THAT HAD PERHAPS 
BEEN PREPARED SINCE, FOR 
EXAMPLE, THE INAUGURATION OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS USED AS 
THE BASIC MATERIAL FOR THE CALL.
I DID TAKE PART IN THE 
PREPARATION OF THE STANDARD CALL
PACKAGE.
BUT I DID NOT TAKE PART IN 
PREPARATION FOR THE SPECIFIC 
CALL ON JULY 25th. 
>> THE FIRST TIME YOU READ THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WAS WHEN 
IT WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC 
SQULOO. 
>> NACRE. 
>> MR. HOLMES, I WANTED TO TURN 
TO YOU.
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THE 
BIPARTISAN DELEGATION THAT I LED
ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE ARMED 
SERVICES COMMITTEE WITH MY 
FRIEND REPRESENTATIVE ANTHONY 
BROWN ARE FROM MARYLAND.
WE DO HAVE AN EXCEPTION THE 
INFORMATIVE VISIT WHERE WE 
HIGHLIGHTED THE BIPARTISAN 
CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR 
UKRAINE, IN PARTICULAR THE 
IMPORTANCE OF COUNTERING RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION.
AND WE DISCUSSED IN THE DISCUSS 
BRIEFING AT THE EMBASSY THE 
IMPORTANCE OF LETHAL AID IN THE 
FORM OF JAVELINS WHICH YOU 
STATED IS AN IMPORTANT DETERRENT
TO RUSSIA.
I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT ON THE 
RECORD I KNOW IT'S BEEN ASKED PB
THE JAVELIN WERE PROVIDED BY THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND NOT THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
AND I WOULD SAY I THINK WE 
DISCUSSED THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE NOT JUST THE
JAVELINS.
>> ALL OF THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WHICH I STRONGLY 
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU FOR HOSTING THAT.
DR. HILL TURNING BACK TO YOU, 
THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT 
THE PROCESS OF SCHEDULING THE 
MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.
-ON TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS 
HESITANCY TO SCHEDULE THE 
MEETING UNTIL AFTER THE 
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENTARY 
ELECTIONS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 
>> AND THAT'S BECAUSE THERE WAS 
SPECULATION IN ALL ANALYTICAL 
CIRCLES IN UKRAINE AND OUTSIDE 
THE UKRAINE THAT ZELENSKY MIGHT 
NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE MARMT 
THAT HE NEEDED TO FORM A 
CABINET, CORRECT. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT 
ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE NSC 
SCHEDULING OF THE MEETING WAS 
BASED ON BROADER CONCERNS 
RELATED TO ZELENSKY'S ABILITY TO
GLEMT ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS IN
SPECIFICS RECOMMENDATION TO 
UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHS WHO 
BASICALLY WERE THE OWNER OF THE 
TV COMPANY THAT MR. ZELENSKY'S 
PROGRAM HAD BEEN PART OF, IS 
THAT CORRECT. 
>> TURCK THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> JUST DISTILLING THIS DOWN TO 
KEY FACTS I WANTED TO ASK BOTH 
OF YOU, THREE KEY QUESTIONS, SO 
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS 
UKRAINE ULTIMATELY DID RECEIVE 
THE AID, CORRECT, MR. HOLMES. 
>> ULTIMATELY. 
>> YES AND DR. HILL. 
>> CORRECT, ULTIMATELY. 
>> >> AND THERE WAS NO 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, 
CORRECT, MR. HOLMES. 
>> THEY DID NOT OPEN A NEW 
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND DR. HILL. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND THERE WAS IN FACT A 
MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ULTIMATE 
ILY AT THE U.N., THAT IS 
CORRECT. 
>> THE PRESIDENT INVITED 
ZELENSKY TO THE OVAL OFFICE AT A
DATE UNDETERMINED THAT HASN'T 
HAPPENED. 
>> THE MEETING AT THE U.N., 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY MET AT THE U.N. 
>> AT THE NOT THE OVAL. 
>> AND DR. HILL. 
>> YES. 
>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. SWALWELL. 
>> DR. HILL, YESTERDAY INJURY A 
LOT OF AMERICANS WERE SCRATCHING
THEIR HEADS AS AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT ON 
SEPTEMBER 9 HE CALLS THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
AND JUST SAYS BROADLY, WHAT DO 
YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE?
>> AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS THERE 
IS NO QUID PRO QUO.
THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO.
LIKE BEING PULLED OVER FOR 
SPEEDING AND BEING ASKED DO YOU 
KNOW HOW FAST YOU ARE GOING AND 
SAYING, I DIDN'T ROB THE BANK.
I DIDN'T ROB THE BANK.
BUT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY IS THAT
ON JULY 10 OF IN YEAR, YOU TOLD 
ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS 
THAT YOU HAD CONCERNS THAT A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS LINKED 
TO INVESTIGATIONS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT BASED ON WHAT 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID IN THE 
WARD ROOM. 
>> AND SO AS EARLY AS JULY 10 
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAD 
KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS AT 
LEAST CONCERN BY A PRESIDENTIAL 
EMPLOYEE ABOUT A LINKAGE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> DR. HILL, JUST LIKE YOU, WE 
ARE TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL 
THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.
YOU HAD THAT SAME CONCERN WHEN 
YOU SAW MR. SONDLAND'S EMAILS 
AND YOU SAW PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE 
CHANNELS THAT YOU HAD BEEN 
WORKING ON.
SO I WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH 
SOMETHING YOU TOLD US EARLIER.
YOU SAID YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT 
AS RECENTLY AS THIS YEAR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVES SOMEONE
NAMED CASH WAS THE UKRAINE 
DIRECTOR, THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> IT'S NOT REALLY EVIDENCE.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
I WAS ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT IN 
IN MY DEPOSITION.
I DID NOT RAISE IT.
TO BE HONEST I WAS SURPRISED 
THAT I WAS ASKED THE QUESTION. 
>> WITH YOU YOU HEARD THAT THAT 
NAME CASH, THAT IS RIGHT. 
>> I DID.
BUT, AGAIN, IN PASSING AND I 
EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN 
WHICH THAT CAME UP.
BUT I WAS ASKED A QUESTION IN 
THE COURSE OF MY DEPOSITION 
ABOUT IT. 
>> AND THE ONLY PERSON AT THE 
TIME WHO WORKED AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY KWOUNL WAS CASH PATEL. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY PERSON I 
COULD THINK. 
>> AND WORKING AT NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCILS FROM 2017 TO 
2018 WORKED FOR RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES. 
>> I FOUND THAT OUT AFTER THE 
FACT.
BECAUSE I WONDERED WHY I ASKED 
WAS ASKED ABOUT HIM AND I LOOKED
IT UP. 
>> YOU CAUTIONS MEMBERS OF IN 
COMMITTEE PERHAPS PEDDLING ANY 
UKRAINIAN CONSPIRACY THEORIES 
THAT COULD BENEFIT RUSSIA.
AND I WANT TO ASK YOU IF YOU 
HAVE HEARD THE NAME LEV PARNAS 
OF UKRAINE, SOMEONE IN THIS 
INVESTIGATION WHO WAS 
INFLUENCING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
RUDY GIULIANI ABOUT SOME OF THE 
DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORIES YOU
REFERENCED EARLIER. 
>> I HAVE HEARD HIS NAME YES. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE MR. PARNAS WAS 
INDICTED OCTOBER 10 FOR MAKING 
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
REPUBLICANS IN U.S. ELECTIONS.
>> I'M AWARE. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE DAIFL 
BEAST STORY REPORTING THE LEV 
PARNAS HAS BEEN WORKING WITH 
RANKING MEMBER MR. DMUNZ AND HIS
OVERSEAS INVESTIGATIONS.
>> I'M NOT AWARE. 
>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO 
PUT INTO THE RECORD THE REPORT 
FROM THE DAILY BEAST FROM 
YESTERDAY.
FIRST TWO APPRAISES READING LEV 
PARNAS AN INDICTED ASSOCIATE OF 
RUDY GIULIANI HELPED ARRANGE 
MEETINGS AND CALLS IN EUROPE FOR
REPRESENTATIVE DEVIN NUNES IN 
2018.
HIS LAWYER TOLD THE DAILY BEAST.
DERRICK HARVEY PARTICIPATED IN 
THE MEETINGS, WHICH WERE 
ARRANGED TO HELP NUNES'S 
INVESTIGATIVE WORK.
McMAN DIDN'T SPECIFY WHAT THE 
INVESTIGATIONS ENTAILED. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN YOU HAVE BEEN 
FALSELY ACCUSED BY THE RANKING 
MEMBER AS BEING A FACT WITNESS.
NOW, IF THIS STORY IS CORRECT, 
THE RANKENING MEMBER MAY HAVE 
BEEN PROJECTING AND IN FACT HE 
MAY BE THE FACT WITNESS IF HE IS
WORKING WITH INDICTED 
INDIVIDUALS AROUND OUR 
INVESTIGATION.
BUT I WANT TO GO TO WHAT THIS IS
REALLY ALL ABOUT.
FIRST, IT'S YOUR CREDIBILITY, 
MR. HOLMES.
AND CAN YOU TELL US AND CONFIRM 
THAT IN 140U YOU RECEIVED THE 
WILLIAM RIVKIN CONSTRUCTIVE 
DISSENT AWARD FROM THE OBAMA 
KPLRGS STATE DEPARTMENT. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THAT'S FOR A POLICY YOU 
BROUGHT UP AGAINST THE 
ADMINISTRATION POLICY. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> WHAT WE ARE HERE ABOUT IS 
WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON UKRAINE.
I WANT TO LOOK AT THE PICTURE 
WHO DO YOU SEE IN THE FOREGROUND
OF THAT PHOTO. 
>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
>> THAT'S A PHOTOGRAPH IN MAY 
2019 WHERE NEWLY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY VISITED THE 
LUHANSKA REGION IN EASTERN 
UKRAINE, THE FIRST VISIT TO THE 
FRONT LINES OF DONBAS AS 
PRESIDENT.
CAN YOU TELL TAX PAYING 
AMERICANS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT 
THAT OUR HARD EARNED TAX PAYING 
DOLLARS HELP PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
AND THE MEN STANDING BESIDE HIM 
FIGHT RUSSIA IN THIS HOT WAR?
>> ABSOLUTELY, SIR.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED 
ON OVERWHELMING MAJORITY TO 
DEFEND UKRAINIAN INTERESTS.
THIS IS AT A TIME WHEN 
UKRAINIANS ARE DEFENDING THEIR 
SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIAL 
INTEGRITY ON UKRAINIAN SOIL FROM
RUSSIAN-BACKED SOLDIERS WHO ARE 
ATTACKING THEM.
THEY SAID 14,000 UKRAINING LIVES
LOST IN THE WAR SO FAR.
A FEW ALREADY THIS WEEK ALREADY.
AND THIS IS A HOT WAR.
THIS IS IN THE A FROZEN 
CONFLICT.
PEOPLE ARE SHOOTING AT EACH 
OTHER AND DYING, INJURED EVERY 
SINGLE WEEK.
AND DESPITE THE ONGOING WAR THEY
ARE STILL TRYING TO PURSUE 
PEACE.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS TRYING TO 
PURSUE A SUMMIT MEETING WITH 
PRESIDENT PUTIN IN ORDER TO TRAY
TO BRING THIS WAR TO A 
CONCLUSION SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE
ON WITH ALL THE DIFFICULT THINGS
THEY NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF 
BUILDING THE ECONOMY AND 
REFORMING THE JUDICIARY AND 
WHATNOT.
I WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER THING, 
SIR IF I MAY.
MR. TURNER HAD SUGGESTED EARLIER
THAT IT SOMEHOW EMBARRASSES 
EMBARRASSED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
I HAVE THE DEEPEST EXPECT AS FOR
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TP HE IS FROM
A JEWISH THE BRKTD FROM POST 
SOVIET INDUSTRIAL SUBURB INTO 
SOUTHERN UKRAINE MADE HIMSELF 
ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR 
ENTERTAINERS IN THE COUNTRY AND 
GOT ELECTED PRESIDENT AND HE IS 
NOT MISSING THE OPPORTUNITY.
THIS IS A UKRAINIAN PATRIOT, A 
TOUGH GUY.
AND FRANKLY HE WITH STOOD A LOT 
OF PRESSURE FOR A LONG TIME.
AND HE DIDN'T GIVE THAT 
INTERVIEW.
I HAVE THE DEEPEST RESPECT FOR 
HIM.
THE UKRAINE.
IN' PEOPLE HAVE DEEP RESPECT FOR
HIM THEY CHOSE HIM TO HELP 
DELIVER THE FULL MEASURE OF 
PROMISE OF THE REVOLUTION OF 
DIGNITY I THINK HE MERITS ALL 
OUR RESPECT. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK ASK 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER THE 
PHOTO ON THE SCREEN INTO THE 
RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, MR. HURD. 
>> THANK YOU, DR. HILL, MR. 
HOLMES FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE
TO THIS COUNTRY.
AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL BEING 
HERE TODAY.
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS I HAVE 
SAID THAT I WANT TO LEARN THE 
FACTS SO WE CAN GET TO THE 
TRUTH.
SO WHY ARE WE HERE?
BECAUSE OF TWO THINGS THAT 
OCCURRED DURING THE PRESIDENT'S 
JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE USE OF THE PHRASE, DO US A 
FAVOR, THOUGH, IN REFERENCE TO 
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
AND THE MENTION OF THE WORD 
BIDEN.
I BELIEVE BOTH STATEMENTS WERE 
INAPPROPRIATE, MISGUIDED FOREIGN
POLICY.
AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT HOW THE 
EXECUTIVE CURRENT OR IN THE 
FUTURE SHOULD HANDLE SUCH A 
CALL.
OVER THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED
ABOUT A SERIES OF EVENTS THAT IN
MY VIEW HAVE UNDERMINED OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND UNDERCUT 
UKRAINE, A KEY PARTNER ON THE 
FRONT LINES AGAINST RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION.
WE HAVE HEARD OF U.S. OFFICIALS 
CARRYING UNCOORDINATED CONFUSING
AND CONFLICTING MESSAGES 
CREATING DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY 
IN KYIV AT A TIME WHEN A NEW 
REFORMIST ADMINISTRATION HAS 
JUST TAKEN OFFICE AND WAS READY 
TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND WORK 
WITH US TO ADVANCE OTHER U.S. 
OBJECT HE WAS.
I DISAGREE WITH THIS SORT OF 
BUNKLING FOREIGN POLICY.
BUT THROUGH THE HEARINGS MANY OF
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE UNWITTINGLY 
UNDERMINED THE UKRAINEENING 
GOVERNMENT BY SUGGESTING IT'S 
SUBSERVIENT TO THE UNITED STATES
AND WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES 
THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO 
FUNCTION.
THE UKRAINIANS AS YOU STATED MR.
HOLMES IS IN A HOT WAR WITH 
RUSSIA AND THEY ARE HOLDING 
THEIR OWN.
WE COULD BENEFIT FROM THE 
EXPERIENCE OF THE UKRAINIANS, 
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
WHILE I THOUGHT THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE WOULD ACTUALLY BE 
ENGAGED IN OVERSIGHT OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY COMMUNITIES, 
UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT.
WE ARE HERE TALKING ABOUT ONE OF
THE MOST SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL 
DUTIES WE HAVE AS MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS, THE IMPEACHMENT AND 
REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
OVER THE PAST WEEKS, WE HAVE 
LEARNED A FEW THINGS.
THE OFFICIALS ON THE JULY 25th 
CALL HAVE MANY DIFFERENT 
OPINIONS ON WHETHER THE CULL WAS
CONCERNING OR NOT AND JUST 
BECAUSE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IS 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT DOES NOT 
MEAN THAT CORRUPTION RELATED TO 
BURISMA, UKRAINE'S LARGEST 
NATURAL GAS COMPANIES A AND 
AMERICAN TIES TO IT ARE NOT 
KERPG.
THERE IS A LOT WE DO DON'T KNOW.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM RUDY 
GIULIANI.
HAVEN'T HEARD FROM HUNTER BIDEN.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT BOTH
ACTIVITIES.
WHY THEY TALKED TO WHO AND TO 
WHOM.
DESPITE PROMISING FROM CHAIRMAN 
SCHIFF WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
SOMETHING THAT CAN OCCUR IN A 
CLOSED SETTING WITHOUT VIOLATING
HIS OR HER ANONYMITY.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE 
MOTIVATIONS AND LEVEL OF 
COORDINATION THAT HAPPENED PRIOR
TO HIS OR HER SUBMISSION OF THE 
COMPLAINT.
OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS AND EVEN
TODAY IT'S BEEN REITED IN 2017 
ABOUT.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MAID 
THE DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL 
AID TO UKRAINE AFTER THE OBAMA 
REFUSED.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS YUN TANDE
SIGNIFICANT ANTI-CORRUPTION 
EFFORTS INCLUDING ELIMINATING 
THE PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY FROM 
PROSECUTION.
AND AGAIN, MR. HOLMES, YOU 
MECHANICSED TODAY, UNDER 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S LEADERSHIP 
WE HAVE FINALLY SEEN PROGRESS 
THIS FALL TOWARDS ENDING THE 
RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF EASTERN 
UKRAINE.
SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US?
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE SHOULD BE
COMPELLING, OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR
AND UNAMBIGUOUS.
AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE 
RUSHED OR TAKEN LIGHTLY.
I HAVE NOT HEARD EVIDENCE 
PROVING THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED 
BRIBERY OR EXTORTION.
I ALSO REJECT THE NOTION THAT 
HOLDING THIS VIEW MEANS 
SUPPORTING ALL THE FOREIGN 
POLICY CHOICES WE HAVE BEEN 
HEARING ABOUT OVER THE LAST FEW 
WEEKS.
TO PARAPHRASE TIM MORRISON'S 
TESTIMONY THIS WEEK EVERY DAY 
THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION IS 
FOCUSED ON IMPEACHMENT NOT THE 
ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF CRIMEA NOT
THE NEED FOR REFORMS IN UKRAINE 
GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMY.
IT'S A DAY WHERE WE ARE NOT 
FOCUSED ON SHARED NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTEREST WITH KYIV.
I HOPE WE WENT LET THE PARTISAN 
PROCESS KEEP US FROM AGREEING ON
HOW A FREE AND PROSPERSOUS 
UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT TO THE 
SECURITY OF THE UKRAINIAN 
PEOPLE, THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA, AND THE REST OF THE 
WORLD.
MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I YIELD 
BACK MY TIME I'D LIKE TO MAKE A 
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD THAT 
HAS THIS COMMITTEE BEEN GIVEN 
PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY 
HOUSE RULE 11 CLAUS 23 G AT A 
BUSINESS MEETING WAS FOLLOW HA 
HAD THE CONWAY POINT OF ORDER 
BEEN PROPERLY RECOGNIZED I WOULD
HAVE RETIRE VOTED NO ON THE 
COMMITTEE'S FIRST NOTION TO 
TABLE LAST NIGHT DURING THE 
IMPROMPT EWE MEETING AND I YIELD
BACK THE BALANCE OF PIE MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU MR. KMARM.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YEAR 
TESTIMONY TODAY.
I WANT TO SAY BECAUSE IT 
SHOULDN'T GO UNMENTIONED THAT 
THE CHARACTERIZATION JUST A FEW 
MINUTES AGO WHICH ONE OF MY 
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES OF THE 
PROCEEDING, I THINK IS VILE, 
IRRESPONSIBLE, AND DANGEROUS.
AND I WANT TO -- I WANT TO 
REMIND US WHY WE ARE HERE.
BECAUSE SOMEBODY IN GOVERNMENT, 
A WHISTLE-BLOWER FELT IT WAS 
IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GET OTHER 
PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT'S ATTENTION
THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE 
COMMITTED A WRONG ACT.
WE HAVE NOW HEARD AND SEEN 
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IN FACT TRIED TO TRADE
A POLITICAL FAVOR FOR OFFICIAL 
GOVERNMENT RESOURCES.
THE MOST DAMNING WORDS COME FROM
NO ONE ELSE BUT THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF.
ON THAT PHONE CALL WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
WHERE HE ASKED FOR A FAVOR, 
MENTIONS INVESTIGATIONS, 
MENTIONS THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.
HOWEVER, AS MR. HOECHLS HAS 
TESTIFIED, MR. HOLMES ALSO 
OVERHEARD THE PRESIDENT SPEAKING
TO HIS HAND-PICKED AMBASSADOR, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS.
MR. HOECHLS HAS ALSO SAID THAT 
IN THE OFFICE EVERYBODY KNEW OR 
MANY PEOPLE KNEW AT LEAST THAT 
THERE WAS AN -- THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED AN INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS.
IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH MICK 
MULVANEY AND RUDY GIULIANI HAVE 
NOT COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, 
MICK MULVANEY AND RUDY GIULIANI 
HAVE SPOKEN PUBLICLY ON THE 
ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS.
MICK MULVANEY, THE PRESIDENT'S 
CHIEF OF STAFF, THE PERSON WHO 
USUALLY WORKS WITH THE PRESIDENT
THE MOST, DAY IN AND DAY OUT, 
WENT IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CORPS AND BASICALLY 
GHEITED AN INVESTIGATION HAD 
SOMETHING TO DO WITHHOLDING UP 
THE AID AND THAT THIS -- 
ADMITTED THE PROCESS WAS 
POLITICIZED.
RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL LAWYER, ALSO 
ESSENTIALLY ADMITTED THAT THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE AT ISSUE.
HE SAID THAT HE THINKS HE DID 
NOTHING WRONG BECAUSE HE WAS 
WORKING AT THE DIRECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT.
SO WE HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE AND HEARD SUBSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING BY THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND THIS CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO 
CONTINUE TO TAKE UP THIS VERY 
IMPORTANT ISSUE TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
MY CONCERN TODAY IS ALSO I FEEL 
AS THOUGH THE CANCER OF WRONG 
DOING MAY HAVE SPREAD BEYOND THE
PRESIDENT AND INTO OTHERS OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
AND I WANT TO ASK YOU A FEW 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
BEFORE I DO I'D LIKE CHAIRMAN TO
ENTER TWO ARTICLES INTO THE 
RECORD IF I COULD.
ONE OF THEM IS HEADLINED AFTER 
BOOST FROM PERRY BACKERS GOT 
HUGE GAS DEAL IN UKRAINE.
THE OTHER ONE IS TITLED ""WALL  
STREET JOURNAL"" FEDERAL 
PROSECUTORERS PROBE JULIE LINKS 
TO UKRAINIAN ENERGY PROJECTS.
MR. HOLMES. 
>> WITHOUT WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
YOU INDICATED SECRETARY PERRY 
WHEN IN YOURNG HAD PRIVATE 
MEETINGS WITH UKRAINIANS.
BEFORE HE HAD THE PRIVATE 
MEETINGS, IN A MEETING WITH 
OTHERS, INCLUDING YOURSELF, I 
BELIEVE, HE HAD PRESENTED A LIST
OF AMERICAN ADVISERS FOR THE 
UKRAINE ENERGY SECTOR.
DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS ON THAT 
LIST?
>> SIR, I DIDN'T SEE THE NAMES 
ON THE LIST MYSELF.
>> DO YOU KNOW IF ALEX CRANBERG 
WERE ON THE LIST AND MICHAEL 
BLAISER. 
>> I HAVE HEARD MICHAEL BLAZER 
WAS ON THE LIST. 
>> WOULD TO BE CORRECT SECRETARY
PERRY WE ALSO HEARD BEFORE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A 
PRIVATE MEETING WITH SOMEBODY.
HOW UNUSUAL WAS IT BEFORE THESE 
GUYS SHOWED UP FOR FOLKS, 
DIPLOMATS SO TO SPEAK, OR U.S. 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, TO HAVE 
PRIVATE MEETINGS WHERE THEY 
INSIST THAT NOBODY ELSE BE IN 
THE ROOM?
>> VERY RARE, ALMOST NEVER. 
>> OKAY.
AND I WANT TO ASK YOU ALSO, 
ABOUT THE PRECEDENT WE SET.
I KNOW YOU'RE HERE AS FACT 
WITNESSES BUT ALSO PUBLIC 
SERVANTS FOR THE COUNTRY.
THE PRECEDENT IN CONGRESS WOULD 
SET PUTTING ASIDE DONALD TRUMP 
FOR A SECOND, IF THE CONGRESS 
ALLOWS A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES NOW OR LATER TO ASK A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, HEAD OF 
STATE TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL
RIVAL, WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THAT 
SET FOR AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, FOR 
THE SAFETY OF AMERICANS OVERSEAS
AND FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR 
COUNTRY?
>> THAT'S A VERY BAD PRECEDENT.
>> VERY BAD PRECEDENT AND GOING 
FORWARD IF THAT WERE EVER THE 
CASE I WOULD RAISE OBJECTIONS.
>> THANK YOU BOTH.
I YIELD BACK, CHAIR. 
>> MR. RATCLIFFE. 
>> I WANT TO YIELD TO MY 
COLLEAGUE CONGRESSMAN CONWAY. 
>> DR. HILL I DON'T THINK THERE 
IS A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT ONE 
OF PUTIN'S PRIMARY OBJECT HE WAS
IN THE UNITED STATES IS TO FOMT 
UNREST IN OUR NATION, CAUSE US 
TO HAVE -- LOSE CONFIDENCE IN 
ELECTIONS AND THE RESULTS OF THE
ELECTIONS THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
THERE IS TENSION, THOUGH IN 
CONDUCTING OUR BUSINESS THE WAY 
WE SHOULD.
AND YOU KNOW PLAYING INTO 
PUTIN'S HAND.
AS AN EXAMPLE, WHILE I DISAGREE 
WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY
IT'S UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION AND 
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE AISLE BELIEVE THEY ARE 
FUNCTIONING UNDER THAT 
CONSTITUTION.
THESE HEARINGS IN ISSUE HAS BEEN
VERY ADVICIVE WITHIN OUR 
COUNTRY.
AND IS CONTINUING TO PUSH THAT 
WAY.
I THINK IT PLAYS INTO PUTIN HE 
IS A HANDS INADVERTENTLY MAYBE 
NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE 
CAN DO AS INDIVIDUALS THAT 
WOULDN'T PLAY INTO HIS HANDS.
ONE OF THEM WOULD BE THAT THE 
LOOSER IN THE 2016 ELECTION HAS 
FOR THREE YEARS CONTINUED TO 
ARGUE THAT BECAUSE SHE WON THE 
POPULAR VOTE AS SHE AND HER 
FRIENDS -- SHE WON THE POPULAR 
VOTE THAT SOMEHOW THE ELECTION 
WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT WE 
SHOULDN'T TRUST IT, THAT THE 
ELECTORAL COLLEGE VICTORY WHICH 
WAS RESOUNDING SHOULDN'T BE 
TRUSTED.
DOES THAT HELP PUTIN OR PLAY 
INTO THE NARRATIVE THAT HE WOULD
LIKE FOR US TO, THAT OUR 
ELECTIONS ARE SWHOU RIGGED AND 
SHOULDN'T BE TRUSTED IN. 
>> YES, IT DOES. 
>> SO THE R.T., PUTIN'S -- WOULD
YOU AGREE WITH ME R.T. IS 
PUTIN'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE IN 
THE UNITED STATES. 
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, YES. 
>> IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE 
T.R.T. TO BE USED TO AFFECT 
PUBLIC POLICY IN OUR NATION, FOR
EXAMPLE, A LONG SERIES OF 
ADVERTISEMENTS OR PROGRAMS ON 
R.T. GOING AGAINST FRACTURING 
SAYING IT'S BAD AND TRYING TO 
AFFECT PUBLIC POLICY IN THE 
UNITED STATES?
AND SEE APPROPRIATE USE -- 
SHOULD AMERICANS BE PAYING 
ATTENTION TO THAT?
>> IN THE TENSE THAT AMERICANS 
SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO 
R.T. AND OTHER OUTLETS USED TO 
PROTOTYPING THIS INFORMATION 
ABSOLUTELY.
I WASN'T SURE WHAT YOU MEANT. 
>> FRAKING IS A CONTROVERSIAL 
ISSUE IN OUR NATION IF WE DID 
AWAY WITH FRAKS THE UNITED 
STATES WOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION
TODAY TO DOMINATE OIL PRODUCTION
IN THE WORLD AND PLAY INTO 
STRENGTHENINGS UT PUT PUTIN'S 
HANDS. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT I'D LIKE TO 
POINT OUT IN NOVEMBER 2011 I SAT
NEXT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN AT A 
CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE MADE 
PRECISE THAT POINT.
.
IT WAS THE FIRST TIME HE HAD 
DONE SO.
TO A GROUP OF AMERICAN 
JOURNALISTS AND EXPERTS WHO WERE
BROUGHT TO SOMETHING CALLED THE 
DISCUSSION CLUB.
HE STARTED IN 2011 MAKING IT 
CLEAR HE SAW AMERICAN FRAKING AS
A GREAT THREAT TO RUSSIAN 
INTERESTS.
WE WERE ALL STRUCK BY HOW MUCH 
HE STRESSED THIS ISSUE.
AND IT'S SINCE 2011 AND SINCE 
THAT PARTICULAR JUNCTURE THAT 
PUTIN MADE A OF THIS. 
>> THEY SAID AMERICANS PAYING 
ATTENTION TO R.T. AND MISGUIDED 
BY WHATEVER PROPAGANDA HE IS 
GOING IS NOT IN HOUR NATION'S 
BEST INTERESTS.
MR. HOLMES, IN YOUR ROLE, YOU 
ARE PRIVILEGED A AWFUL LOT OF 
STUFF.
OFFICIAL THINGS.
AND THINGS THAT ARE BEST KEPT 
BETWEEN YOU AND THE OFFICIAL 
FOLKS THAT YOU DEAL WITH.
IS THERE AN EXPECT APPENDIX 
AMONG THE PRINCIPLES THAT YOU 
REPRESENT THAT YOU WILL EXERCISE
DISCRETION IN WHAT YOU SHARE 
WITH OTHERS ABOUT WHAT GOES ON?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> IN YOUR PUBLIC -- IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY -- YOUR DEPOSITION YOU
MAID -- FIRST OFF WE HAD A HARD 
TIME PINNING DOWN THE NUMBER OF 
PEOPLE YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION 
WITH ABOUT THE CONVERSATION THAT
YOU YEFR HEARD.
NOW, OUR AMBASSADOR HAD NO 
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
HE IS BLUSTERING AROUND WHAT HE 
HAS DONE.
BUT WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW 
MANY PEOPLE YOU ACTUALLY SHARED 
THAT INFORMATION WITH.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE 
INFORMATION IS UNFLATTERING TO 
THE PRESIDENT, UNFLATTERING TO 
THE AMBASSADOR.
AND THAT THAT YOUR DISCRETION IS
TO -- AT ODDS HERE.
I MEAN, YOUR TESTIMONY, YOUR 
DEPOSITION SAID YOU SHARED THAT 
WITH FOLKS WHO YOU THOUGHT WOULD
FIND IT INTERESTING.
WELL I'D ARGUE EVERYBODY ON THE 
BACK ROW WOULD FIND IT 
INTERESTING.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT 
NECESSARILY THE CRITERIA.
ON A GO FORWARD BASIS CAN YOU 
ARTICULATE IN THE FUTURE WHEN 
YOU ARE PRIVILEGED TO CERTAIN 
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT -- THAT WOULD
BE EMBARRASSING TO THE PRINCIPAL
THAT IF IT'S OFFICIAL YOU SHARED
WITH THE AMBASSADOR THAT'S FINE.
BUT FOLKS OUTSIDE THE EMBASSY OR
EVEN WITHIN THE EMBASSY THAT 
DON'T HAVE A NEED TO KNOW THAT 
YOU WOULDN'T REGAIL THEM WITH 
YOUR RECOUNTING THE INSTANCES.
>> I THINK IT WAS GORDON 
SONDLAND SHOWING INDISCRETION BY
HAVING THE CONVERSATION THAT'S 
THE PERSON -- SECOND THING. 
>> EXCUSE ME, MR. HOLMES. 
>> PLEASE LET. 
>> LET ME CLARIFY THE QUESTION. 
>> MR. HOLMES. 
>> EXCUSE ME. 
>> LET HIM ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
SIR. 
>> IT'S MY QUESTION.
YOU'RE RIGHT AND I GET TO 
CLARIFY NIGH QUESTION TO GET THE
ANSWER AND I'M HOPEFUL I GET A 
FEW MORE SECONDS BECAUSE OF THE 
INTERRUPTION FROM THE CHAIRMAN 
HIS PATIENCE IS GROWING THIN.
I WAS WORKING HARD NOT TO ERR AT
THIS TIME TATE HIM AGAIN I 
FAILED AGAIN.
THE QUESTION OF UP MR. HOLMES 
WHERE, YOUR DISCRETION.
GORDON SONDLAND DID NOT EXPECT 
THE PRIVACY -- I GOT THAT.
BUT YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN ROOMS 
FOR -- YOU'VE BEEN IN ROOMS 17 
YEARS AWARE WHERE PEOPLE TRUST 
WHATEVER WENT ON IN THE ROOM AND
LEFT THAT YOU KEPT TO OFFICIAL 
CHANNELS DIDN'T SHARE THE 
INFORMATION WITH OTHER FOLKS.
I'M ASKING YOU TO -- TO ARGUE 
FOR YOUR -- ON YOUR BEHALF, THAT
INTERESTING IS NOT SOME SORT OF 
CITE YAN ONTHAT YOU WOULD USE 
WHEN YOU SHARE INFORMATION FROM 
MEETINGS SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD 
QUESTION. 
>> SIR, I SHARED THE INFORMATION
I NEED TO SHARE WITH THE RIGHT 
PEOPLE WHO NEEDED TO KNOW IT.
I DID NOT SHARE ANY INFORMATION 
WITH PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T NEED TO 
KNOW.
>> BUT YOU DID USE THE WORD 
INTERESTING MR. CONWAY. 
>> IT CERTAINLY WAS INTERESTING.
AND I WOULD HATE TO THINK THAT 
WHAT I BROUGHT BEFORE THIS -- 
THIS PROCESS I SHOULDN'T HAVE 
DONE THAT.
I HAVE COME HERE BECAUSE YOU 
HAVE SUBPOENAED ME TO SHARE WHAT
I KNOW AND I'VE DONE THAT. 
>> MR. HOLMES YOU WERE CUT OFF 
TALKING ABOUT MR. SONDLAND'S 
DISCRETION.
DID YOU WANT TO FINISH THAT 
ANSWER. 
>> I THINK -- 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN THAT IS PATENTLY
UNFAIR. 
>> AS YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE 
ENTIRE INVESTIGATION. 
>> MR. CAN'T WAY TO. 
>> YOU'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO 
INTERRUPT ME AND TO MY INTERRUPT
MY FIVE MINUTES ONLY ON THE 
PERSON WITH UNLIMITED TIME 
ABSOLUTELY UNLIMITED TIME YOU 
HAVE ABUSED THAT POWER AND 
KIPTING TO DO THAT. 
>> MR. CONWAY THE GENTLEMEN WILL
CEASE.
WE ALLOW THOSE WITNESSES 
ANSWERING THE QUESTION IF YOU 
DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWER. 
>> THAT DOES THAT REPLY TO YOU 
AS WELL. 
>> YES. 
>> MUCH USE HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT 
THE IRREGULAR OR FOREIGN SERVICE
CHANNELS.
MY READING OF HISTORY IS THAT 
AMERICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE ON 
OCCASION USED IRREGULAR CHANNELS
WOULD YOU GENERALLY AGREE. 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> AND MY READING OF HISTORY IS 
THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING HOWEVER 
THE IRREGULAR CHANNELS HAVE 
EITHER BEEN CLOSELY COORDINATED 
WITH THE REGULAR ONES OR AT 
LEAST IN FURTHERANCE OF AMERICAN
FOREIGN POLICY AND OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY INTERESTS.
WOULD YOU AGREE?
>> THAT'S RIGHT, ZBLIER AND DO 
YOU BELIEVE, SIR THAT MR. 
GIULIANI'S EFFORTS WERE CLOSELY 
COORDINATED WITH THE REGULAR 
CHANNELS SUCH AS THE AMBASSADOR 
TO THE UKRAINE?
>> NO, THEY WEREN'T. 
>> AND WERE THEY IN FURTHERANCE 
OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AS 
YOU UNDERSTOOD IT. 
>> NO, SIR. 
>> MR. HOLMES, IF LEFT UNCHECKED
DO YOU THINK THAT RUSSIA WOULD 
EITHER BY MEANS OF FORCE OR 
OTHER MALIGN MEANS SUBJUGATE 
UKRAINE TAEPT TO RENDTER A 
CLIENT STATE IF NOT OCCUPY IT. 
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IT'S BEEN SAID THAT WITHOUT 
UKRAINE RUSSIA IS JUST A COUNTRY
BUT WITH IT IT'S AN EMPIRE. 
>> I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN TREATED
TO A GATLING GUN FIRE OF MYTH 
PROPAGATION.
REMINDS ME OF THE EXPRESSION 
ABOUT THE BIG LIE IF YOU REPEAT 
THE BIG LIE OFTEN ENOUGH PEOPLE 
WILL BELIEVE IT.
I THINK WE'VE BEEN SUBJECTED TO 
SOME OF THAT.
HERE IS A SAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT 
DIDN'T SOLICIT CAMPAIGN 
ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE IN A 
CLEAR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.
YES, HE DID.
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T WITHHOLD 
VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE IN 
FURTHERANCE OF A SUBJECTIVE TO 
OBTAIN THAT CAMPAIGN ASSISTANCE.
YES, HE DID.
RUDY GIULIANI WAS ACTING JUST ON
HIS OWN, KIND OF AS A ROGUE.
NO, HE WASN'T.
THAT ALL IN IS BUSINESS AS 
USUAL.
THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND 
STEMS FROM A PRINCIPLED 
INTEREST.
NO, IT ISN'T.
AND NO IT WASN'T.
AND THATS OKAY TO ATTACK 
PATRIOTIC DIPLOMATS IN PUBLIC 
SERVICE IF THEY STAND IN YOUR 
WAY AND HAVE THE COURAGE TO 
SPEAK UP.
AND NO, IT ISN'T.
THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE BIG 
LIES.
BUT HERE IS THE BIG TRUTH.
THE PRESIDENT DID IT.
HE DID IT.
WE ALL JUST CAME FROM THE FLOOR.
AND IT'S A MAJESTIC CHAMBER.
IN THE FRONT OF THE CHAMBER 
THERE ARE ONLY TWO PORTRAITS.
ON THE LEFT LOOKING FORWARD IS 
MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT, GEORGE 
WASHINGTON.
AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE MARQUIS 
DELA FAYETT.
AND WITHOUT HIS HELP WE WOULDN'T
HAVE GOTTEN OFF THE GROUND AND 
THAT ASSISTANCE FROM MANY OTHER 
COUNTRIES WHO ARE HELPING US 
CREATE SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER 
BEEN CREATED BEFORE.
IT WAS AN AUDACIOUS IDEA, THE 
NOTION OF OF A DEMOCRACY OF 
SEVEN GOVERNANCE.
FREEMDS SUCH AS PRESS, RELIGION,
EXPRESSION.
AND ASSEMBLY.
AND MOST OF US ROOTED IN THE 
PREMISE OF THE RULE OF LAW, NOT 
MONARCHS, NOT MILITARY 
STRONGMEN, BUT THE RULE OF LAW.
OTHERS HELPED US GET HERE.
AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT 
THEM.
AND I FRANKLY FEEL LIKE WE'RE 
ALMOST IN A LITTLE BIT OF A PAY 
IT FORWARD MOMENT.
SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT DID IT HE 
PUT AT RISK THE SECURITY OF 
UKRAINE, A STRATEGIC ALLY AND A 
NASCENT DEMOCRACY WITH THEIR 
MASSES YEARNING TO BREATHE FREE.
WHO SIX YEARS AGO THIS DAY WHEN 
THEY SAID THEY ARE NOT SIGNING 
THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH
EUROPEAN UNION ROSE UP AND TOOK 
TO THE STREETS, BECAUSE THEY 
WANTED FRANKLY WHAT WE HAVE.
AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT DID IT HE
PUT OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY AT
RISK.
BUT WHAT HE DID MOST IMPORTANTLY
WAS PUT AT RISK THAT IDEA THAT 
MAKES US EXCEPTIONAL, BECAUSE I 
DO BELIEVE AMERICA IS TRULY 
EXCEPTIONAL.
WE ARE A COUNTRY ROOTED IN 
SOMETHING THAT NOBODY HAS EVER 
TRIED BEFORE, RULE OF LAW.
HE PUT THAT AT RISK WHEN HE DID 
WHAT HE DID.
THE PRESIDENT DID IT.
AND THE ONLY QUESTION THAT 
REMAINS IS, WHAT WILL WE DO?
I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> MR. JORDAN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
DR. HILL, DURING -- DURING YOUR 
DEPOSITION I ASKED YOU WAS 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE'S DOSSIER A 
RABBIT HOLE.
DO YOU REMEMBER -- DO YOU 
REMEMBER THE ANSWER YOU GAVE TO 
THAT QUESTION. 
>> YES I THOUGHT IT WAS A RABBIT
HOLE. 
>> AND YOU ALSO SAID A COUPLE 
PAGES LATER IN THE DEPOSITION OR
IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT I HAVE 
HERE OF YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU
THOUGHT HE GOT PLAYED.
IS THAT FAIR?
>> THAT IS FAIR, YES. 
>> I WAS STRUCK BY A NUMBER OF 
THINGS YOU SAID IN YOUR 
STATEMENT.
A NUMBER OF THINGS I THOUGHT 
WERE ON TARGET.
ONE ON PAGE 7.
YOU SAID THIS, PRESIDENT PUTIN 
AT RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES 
WEAPONIZE OUR OWN POLITICAL 
OPPOSITION RESEARCH.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT 
HAPPENED IN 2016.
EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
YOU CALLED IT.
YOU KNEW IT.
YOU SAW IT.
THE DNC HIRED PERKINS KUY, WHO 
HIRED FUSION GPS WHO HIRED 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE WHO TALKED TO
RUSSIANS WHO GAVE HIM A BURCHAM 
OF DIRT, NATIONAL ENINQUIRE ERR 
GARBAGE THAT HE COMPILED IN A 
DOSSIER AND YOU'RE FBI USED IT.
THEY USED IT AS PART OF THEIR 
INVESTIGATION THAT THEY OPENED 
IN JULY OF 2016 WHERE ANY SPIED 
ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN.
MY GUESS IS THAT'S PROBABLY 
NEVER HAPPENED IN AMERICAN 
HISTORY.
AND EXACTLY WHAT DR. HILL TALKED
ABOUT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.
EXACTLY WHAT SHE TALKED ABOUT.
AND FOR TEN MONTHS JIM COMEY AND
HIS TEAM DID AN INVESTIGATION.
AND AFTER TEN MONTHS THEY HAD 
NOTHING.
BECAUSE WE DEPOSED MR. COMEY.
AND HE TOLD US AFTER TEN MONTHS 
WE DIDN'T HAVE A THING.
BUT THAT DIDN'T MATTER.
THAT DIDN'T MATTER.
WE GOT THE MUELLER 
INVESTIGATION.
$32 MILLION, 19 LAWYERS.
40 FBI AGENTS.
500 SEARCH WARRANTS, 2,800 
SUBPOENAS AND THEY CAME BACK 
THIS SPRING AND WHAT DID THEY 
TELL NEWS NO COLLUSION, NO 
CONSPIRACY, NO COORDINATION.
BUT THE GUYS ON THE OTHER SIDE 
DON'T CARE.
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY'RE DOING WHAT DR. HILL SAID
A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT THINGS IN 
HER OPENING STATEMENT.
THEY'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT 
DR. HILL TALKED ABOUT.
THE IMPACT OF A SUCCESSFUL 2016 
RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN REMAINS EVIDENT
TODAY.
OUR NATION IS BEING TORN APART.
TORN APART.
I'VE NEVER SEEN IT THIS DIVIDED.
AND IT'S NOT HEALTHY, NOT 
HEALTHY FOR OUR CULTURE, COUNTRY
OB OUR NATION NP THAT'S WHAT 
THESE GUYS ARE DOING.
NO CONSPIRACY, NO COORDINATION, 
NO COLLUSION, BUT THEY DON'T 
CARE.
NOW THIS.
THIS WHOLE IMPEACHMENT THING AS 
THE WITNESS SAID YESTERDAY, THE 
WITNESS SAID YESTERDAY, WITHOUT 
AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM ZELENSKY 
ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION THEY 
WEREN'T GETTING A CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, WEREN'T GETTING A 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND 
WEREN'T GETTING AID FROM THE 
UNITED STATES.
BUT GUESS WHAT.
UKRAINE THEY GOT THE CALL, ANY 
GOT THE MEETING.
AND THEY GOT THE MONEY.
AND THERE WAS NEVER AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY TYPE OF 
INVESTIGATION.
THIS IS -- BUT TIMOTHY DON'T 
CARE.
THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD.
THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME KIND 
OF REPORT.
THEY'LL THEY'RE GOING TO SEND 
SOMETHING TO THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AND THE PROCESS IS 
GOING FORWARD AND THERE WILL BE 
A TRIL IN THE SENATE ALL BASED 
ON SOME AANONYMOUS 
WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO CAME FORWARD 
WITH NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, 
WHOSE BIASED AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT, WHO WORKED WITH JOE 
BIDEN.
NOW ALL OF THIS.
NOW ALL OF THIS.
THIS IS -- DR. HILL ISRIGHT.
SHE SAID IT.
WE GOT TO STOP THIS.
BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO.
AND THEY'RE DOING IT ALL 11 AND 
A HALF MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT 
ELECTION.
I THINK THE MOST TELLING THING 
IS WHAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
SAID SUNDAY.
SPEAK SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAID 
SUNDAY.
THIS IS SCARY.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAID 
SUNDAY, NATIONAL SUNDAY MORNING 
TV SHOW.
SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT IS AN 
IMPOST-ER.
THE GUY THAT 63 MILLION VOTED 
FOR WHO WON THE ELECTORAL 
COLLEGE LANDSLIDE.
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CALLED 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AN IMPOST-ER.
IT'S SAD WHAT THE COUNTRY IS 
GOING THREW.
I WISH IT WOULD STOP PROCESS BUT
UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T THINK IT 
IS.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. WELCH. 
>> I WANT TO USE MY TIME TO 
SPEAK TREKTLY TO MY COLLEAGUES 
AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
TODAY'S WITNESSES AND THE ONES 
WE HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED BEFORE 
THE COMMITTEE OVER THE LAST TWO 
WEEKS HAVE PROVIDED AN 
INVALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR 
COUNTRY.
NOT JUST IN ALL YOUR CAREERS BUT
IN HAVING THE COURAGE AND THE 
PATRIOTISM TO SHARE YOUR FACTS 
WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND YOU DO SO AT CONSIDERABLE 
RISK TO YOURSELVES.
BUT YOU'VE CLEARLY STEPPED 
FORWARD FOR THE SIMPLE FACT YOU 
BELIEVE IT'S YOUR DUTY.
IN ALL YOUR TESTIMONY REAFFIRMS 
A CENTRAL FACT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITIONED OUR 
FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY ON GETTING A VALUABLE 
POLITICAL BENEFIT FROM UKRAINE.
HE WANTED UKRAINE'S NEW 
PRESIDENT TO CREATE ETHICAL 
QUESTIONS ABOUT JOE BIDEN BY 
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING 
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND TO PRESSURE PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO TAKE THAT ACTION 
THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL 
POLITICAL INTERESTS HE WITHHELD 
VITAL MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE 
AND REFUSED TO MEET WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE.
AND AS WE HEARD FROM MR. HOLMES 
AND DR. HILL TODAY, THAT MEETING
WAS EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT TO
UKRAINE AND EXTRAORDINARILY 
IMPORTANT IN SENDING A MESSAGE 
TO RUSSIA ABOUT OUR -- OUR 
UNYIELDING SUPPORT.
THE WITNESSES HAVE MADE IT 
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID.
AND IT'S EQUALLY CLEAR THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS LAUNCHED A 
COVER-UP AND DISINFORMATION 
CAMPAIGN TO HIDE THIS ABUSE OF 
POWER FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT'S WHY THE ADMINISTRATION 
REFUSES TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS TO 
THIS COMMITTEE.
AND IT'S WHY THE WHITE HOUSE HAS
TAKEN THE UNPRECEDENTED POSITION
THAT SENIOR OFFICIALS COULD 
IGNORE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS 
AND REFUSED TO TESTIFY.
THAT'S WHY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF
MULVANEY, SECRETARY OF STATE 
POMPEO AND OTHERS HAVE NOT 
TESTIFIED.
NOW THE PRESIDENT AND EVEN SOME 
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE 
PRETENDING THIS IS NORMAL.
IT IS NOT.
IT MUST NEVER BE.
NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED 
HIS OFFICE LIKE THIS BY PUTTING 
HIS OWN SMALL POLITICAL INTEREST
ABOVE OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS AND
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
YOU KNOW, I ASKED SOME OF OUR 
WITNESSES, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN 
ANY AMERICAN CITY OR TOWN IF THE
MAYOR STOPPED FUNDING THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT UNTIL THE CHIEF OF 
POLICE LAUNCHED A INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE POLITICAL RIVAL AND 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DID THAT.
THE ANSWER WAS CLEAR.
IT WOULD BE WRONG EYEBALL 
ILLEGAL AND NOT TOLERATED.
IT WOULD VIOLATE THE PUBLIC 
TRUST IN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IF IT 
MAPPED HAPPENED WITH A MILITARY 
OFFICIALS A COURT MARTIAL WOULD 
FIRED.
A CEO WOULD BE FIRED.
WE KNOW IT'S WRONG BUT THE 
PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO SAY IT 
ISN'T.
HE SAYS IT'S PERFECT AND HE 
WOULD DO IT AGAIN TOMORROW.
THE SAME RULES APPLY TO MAYORS, 
GOVERNS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, 
CEOs AND EVERYONE ELSE IN 
AMERICA.
THEY REPLY TO THE PRESIDENT TOO.
WHETHER YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR 
DEMOCRAT, YOU LIKE MSNBC OR FOX,
I THINK EVERY AMERICAN BELIEVES 
IN ONE OF OUR NATION'S FOUNDING 
PRINCIPLES.
NO PERSON IS BEFORE THE LAW, NOT
EVEN THE PRESIDENT.
JULY 24th DIRECTOR MUELLER 
TESTIFIED ABOUT RUSSIAN STATE 
SPONSORED SYSTEMATIC 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR 2016 
ELECTION.
HE EXPRESSED APPREHENSION THIS 
COULD BE THE NEW NORMAL.
THE DAY AFTER ON JULY 25th, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND ASKED A 
FAVOR.
THAT FAVOR WAS THAT UKRAINE 
INTERFERE IN OUR 2020 ELECTION.
IF WE ALLOW THIS TO STAND, TO 
BECOME THE NEW NORMAL, IT WILL 
BE THE STANDARD FOR ALL FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS.
IN GOOD CONSCIENCE NONE OF US 
CAN DO THAT.
IT CORRUPTS OUR DEMOCRACY, 
CORRUPTS HOW OUR COUNTRY 
CONDUCTS FOREIGN POLICY.
THREATENS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY 
AND THE SECURITY OF ALL 
AMERICANS.
AND IT IS IN MY VIEW A CLEAR 
BETRAIL OF THE PRESIDENT'S OATH 
OF OFFICE.
I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. MALONEY. 
>> TWO QUICK HOUSEKEEPING 
MATTERS.
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTERED
INTO THE RECORD.
THE ABC NEWS STORY SBIEMGTSED 
70% OF AMERICAN'S SAY TRUMP'S 
ACTIONS TIDE TO UKRAINE WERE 
WRONG DATED NOVEMBER 19th 2019. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> AND A NEW YORKER STORY 
ENTITLED THE INVENTION OF THE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY ON BIDEN AND 
UKRAINE HOW A CONSERVATIVE DARK 
MONEY GROUP THAT TARGETED 
HILLARY CLINTON IN 2016 SPREAD 
THE DISCREDITED STORY THAT MAY 
LEAD TO DONALD TRUMP'S 
IMPEACHMENT JANE MEYER OCTOBER, 
2019. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> GOORN.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
DR. HILL, FIRST OF ALL I THOUGHT
THAT WAS SOME EPIC MAN 
EXPLAINING YOU WERE FORCED TO 
ENDURE BY MY COLLEAGUE FL 
TURNER.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW SOME OF IT 
THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR FORBEARENS.
LET ME ASK SOMETHING.
I'M FAST NATURE BY THE MEETING- 
TWO MEETINGS ON JULY 10th.
YOU HAVE THE MEETING IN MR. 
BOLTON'S OFFICE.
SONDLAND SAYS THIS THING ABOUT 
INVESTIGATIONS.
BOLTON ENDS THE MEETING.
PHOTO.
FOLLOW ON MEETING IN THE WARD 
ROOM.
ASSERT THAT THE MEETING IS GOING
TO HAPPEN IF THERE IS THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
IS THAT WHAT IS GOING ON?
>> THAT'S RIGHT, YES.
WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IS YOU
DISAGREE, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
EXCUSE ME?
>> I'M SORRY, YES.
>> YOU OR FOR THAT MATTER THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MR. 
BOLTON, RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> THAT'S NOT WHY HE SENT YOU 
DOWN THERE TO SEE HOW THE 
MEETINGS GO.
>> CORRECT.
>> I SELF INSTRUCTED A COUPLE 
TIMES.
THAT IS THE FIRST TIME I WAS 
INSTRUCTED TO GO.
>> AND WHY DID HE SEND YOU TO 
REPORT THIS TO THE LAWYER?
>> WELL, HE CLEARLY WANTED TO 
HAVE HIMSELF ON THE RECORD AS 
NOT BEING PART OF WHAT WAS 
BASICALLY AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE A
MEETING IN RETURN FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I
AND COLONEL VINDMAN WERE ALSO 
NOT PART OF THIS AS WELL.
REMEMBER, THERE WAS A -- NOT 
GETTING INVOLVED IN DOMESTIC 
POLITICS. 
>> I UNDERSTAND. 
>> DID YOU CONQUER WITH THIS 
CONCERN THAT MR. BOLTON HAD?
>> I DID.
BECAUSE JULY 10th IS REALLY THE 
FIRST TIME THAT IT CRYSTALLIZED 
FOR ME THAT THE WORLD'S 
BASICALLY A DIFFERENT CHANNEL 
GOING ON HERE.
>> AND I THINK -- 
>> POLICY CHANNEL AND A DOMESTIC
POLICY CHANNEL.
>> AND YOU FELT IT WAS IMPROPER 
WHAT WAS OCCURRING BY MR. 
SONDLAND IN THE WAR ROOM?
>> IT WAS IMPROPER AND 
INAPPROPRIATE.
WE STHAED IN REAL TIME.
>> AND HERE'S MY POINT.
IF IT WAS IMPROPER AND YOU WENT 
SO FAR AS TO REPORT TO THE 
LAWYERS, WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF 
THE DISAGREEMENT WITH MR. 
SONDLAND WHO SAID HE HAD NO IDEA
THAT BURISMA MEANT BIDENS UNTIL 
MUCH, MUCH LATER?
AND HE AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD
A BLIZZARD OF INTERACTIONS WITH 
MR. GIULIANI.
THEY WERE AMENDING STATEMENTS.
AND QULET, HOW IT IS YOU HAVE 
THIS DISAGREEMENT IN FRONT OF 
THE UKRAINIANS AND SEND THEM OUT
INTO THE HALLWAY AT SOME POINT 
DID HE ASK YOU, KNOW, I'M JUST 
TALKING ABOUT.
HE MADE IT CLEAR WE HAVE AN 
OBJECTION.
YOU HAD AN ARGUMENT ABOUT IT.
DIDN'T HE SAY -- 
>> HE WAS OBLIVIOUS -- 
>> IT IS NOT CREDIBLE TO ME HE 
WAS OBLIVIOUS.
HE DIDN'T SAY BIDENS.
HE SAID BURISMA AND HE SAID 2016
AS WELL AS BURISMA.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
APPEARANCE HERE TODAY.
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, DR. HILL 
AND MR. HOLMES FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I HAVE NO DOUBT AFTER TODAY THAT
WE'RE A BETTER NATION BECAUSE OF
IT.
WE ALL KNOW BY NOW THAT IN JULY 
OF THIS YEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SENT AN ORDER TO THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET THAT 
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED 
MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE BE PUT 
ON HOLD.
BOTH OF YOU HAVE EXPRESSED THAT 
UKRAINE IS THE FRONT -- THE 
FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND EXPANSION
INTO EUROPE.
THAT RUSSIA'S PRIORITY IS TO 
UNDERMINE THE UNITED STATES.
IS THAT RIGHT, DR. HILL?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, 
MR. HOLMES?
>> YES, DR. HILL IN, YOUR 
PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IS IT IN 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST 
OF THE UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT 
UKRAINE WITH THE MUCH TALKED 
ABOUT MILITARY AID?
>> YES.
>> MR. HOLMES?
>> YES.
>> ALREADY SAID IT SEVERAL TIMES
TODAY AND YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED 
THAT UKRAINE IS IN WAR.
RIGHT NOW.
WITH RUSSIA.
ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. HOLMES, THAT 
EVEN THOUGH THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WAS EVENTUALLY 
DELIVERED TO UKRAINE HAD, THE 
FACT THAT IT WAS DELAYED TO A 
COUNTRY THAT IS ACTIVELY IN WAR 
SIGNALLED TO RUSSIA THAT PERHAPS
THE BOND BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE
UNITED STATES WAS WEAKENING?
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
>> AND IT COULD ACT IN A MORE 
AGGRESSIVE WAY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT WAS A
UNANIMOUS VIEW OF THE UKRAINE 
POLICY COMMUNITY THAT THE AID 
SHOULD BE RELEASED BECAUSE 
SUPPORTING UKRAINE IS IN OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.
DR. HILL, WHY DO YOU BELIEVE 
THAT THE ENTIRE UKRAINE POLICY 
COMMUNITY WERE UNANIMOUSLY IN 
AGREEMENT?
>> WELL, WE HAD THIS EXPERIENCE 
BEFORE AND I JUST WANT YOU TO 
INDULGE ME FOR A MOMENT.
IN 2008, RUSSIA ALSO ATTACKED 
THE COUNTRY OF GEORGIA.
I WAS THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 
OFFICER AT THAT PARTICULAR 
JUNCTURE AND WE WARNED TO THE 
HIGHEST LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT THAT
WE BELIEVE THERE WAS A REAL RISK
OF CONFLICT BETWEEN UKRAINE -- 
SORRY, GEORGIA AND RUSSIA.
AND, IN FACT, WE ALSO BELIEVED 
AT THAT POINT THAT RUSSIA MIGHT 
ATTACK UKRAINE.
THIS WAS IN 2008 WHEN BOTH 
GEORGIA AND UKRAINE SOUGHT 
MEMBERSHIP ACTION PLAN IN NATO.
AND RUSSIA THREATENED THEM 
OPENLY AND PROCEEDED WITH 
REQUESTS FOR NATO MEMBERSHIP 
THAT THERE WOULD BE 
CONSEQUENCES.
IN THE WAKE OF THE ATTACK ON 
GEORGIA, PRESIDENT PUTIN MADE IT
CLEAR THAT THIS WAS RELATED TO 
ME AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE 
GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT SAID TO 
PUTIN THAT YOUR WEST ALLIES 
PROMISED A GREAT DEAL.
THEY DIDN'T DELIVER.
I THREATENED, I DELIVERED.
WE HAD MADE ALL KINDS OF 
PROMISES TO GEORGIA AND UKRAINE 
IN THAT TIME FRAME AND WE DIDN'T
COME THROUGH.
>> HE THREATENED UKRAINE IN 200 
# AND IT WASN'T UNTIL 2014 WHEN 
UKRAINE TRIED TO CONCLUDE AN 
ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT WITH THE 
EUROPEAN UNION HE STRUCK.
HE WAS THREATENING THIS FOR THE 
WHOLE PERIOD SINCE 2008.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, DR. HILL.
WHAT MESSAGE DOES IT SEND TO 
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE UNITED 
STATES WHEN MILITARY HOLDS FOR 
ASSISTANCE OR IMPOSED WITH NO 
ABSOLUTELY EXPLANATION?
WHAT MESSAGE DOES IT SEND TO OUR
ALLIES IN TERMS OF THE GOOD 
FAITH AND GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE U.S.?
THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING TWO OF 
THOSE WHO PROTECT OUR NATION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
DR. HILL HAD, YOU STATED IN YOU 
DEPOSITION THAT YOU HAVE BEEN 
ACCUSED OF BEING A MOLE FOR 
GEORGE SUROS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
CORRECT?
YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT
A CONSPIRACY WAS LAUNCHED 
AGAINST YOU BY ROGER STONE ON 
INFO WARS.
>> HE WASN'T A CONVICTED FELON 
THE TIME THIS WAS LAUNCHED.
I DIDN'T USE THOSE WORDS.
IT WAS ROGER STONE IN 2017.
JUST MORE RECENTLY, BEFORE MR. 
STONE WAS AT TRIAL, THEY WERE AT
IT AGAIN.
>> AND THEY SAID I'LL QUOTE WHAT
THEY SAID ABOUT YOU.
"WE HERE AT INFO WARS FIRST 
IDENTIFIED FIONA HILL, THE 
GLOBALIST LEFTIST GEORGE SUROS 
INSIDER THAT INFILL STRAIGHTED 
McMASTER'S STAFF."
HE SAID THAT ON MAY 31st, 2017.
I PRESUME YOU'RE NOT A LEFTIST 
JORNL SUROS.
>> I THINK MY COLLEAGUES WOULD 
BE SURPRISED TO HEAR ABOUT THIS.
THE LEFT IN EUROPE IS A BIT 
DIFFERENT THAN LEFT HERE. 
>> I AGREE.
>> INTERESTINGLY, YOU STATED IN 
YOUR DEPOSITION THAT A SIMILAR 
CONSPIRACY THEORY HAD ACTUALLY 
BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND YOU SAID SPECIFICALLY 
WHEN I SAW THIS HAPPENING TO 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AGAIN, I
WAS FURIOUS BECAUSE THIS IS 
AGAIN JUST THIS WHIPPING UP OF 
WHAT IS FRANKLY AN ANTI-SEMITIC 
CONSPIRACY THEORY.
>> I DID SAY THAT.
THERE ARE OTHER PARTISAN CAREER 
OFFICIALS.
WE HAD LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX 
THERE IS CRITICISM OF THE 
PRESIDENT.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT AND HE SPUN 
IN PART.
>> THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.
IT IS THE 1900s.
THAT ACTUALLY CAN YOU STILL 
OBTAIN ON THE INTERNET AND YOU 
CAN BUY IT SOMETIMES IN BOOK 
SHOPS IN RUSSIA AND ELSEWHERE.
THIS IS THE LONGEST RUNNING 
ANTI-SEMITIC TROBE WE HAVE IN 
HIST RICH.
IT WAS ALSO CREATED FOR PUBLIC 
PURPOSES.
IT WAS INTENDED TO WRITE SBHG 
THIS BEFORE I WAS ACTUALLY 
INVITED TO COME INTO THE 
ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE IT'S AN 
ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE. 
>> I'M SORRY YOU'VE BEEN WRAPPED
UP IN THESE CRACK POT CONSPIRACY
THEORIES.
LET ME TURN TO RUDY GIULIANI.
YOU BECAME INCREASINGLY 
CONCERNED ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI'S 
INCREASING ROLE IN UKRAINE 
BETWEEN JANUARY AND MARCH OF 
2019, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND I KNOW YOU SERVE IN THE 
BUSH AND THE OBAMA 
ADMINISTRATIONS.
I PRESUME THAT GEORGE BUSH'S 
PERSONAL LAWYER AND PRESIDENT 
OBAMA'S PERSONAL LAWYERS WERE 
NEVER, YOU KNOW, DIRECTING OR 
HEAVILY INFLUENCING UKRAINE 
POLICY.
THE. 
>> I'M NOT EVEN SURE I KNOW WHO 
THEY WERE.
SO THE ANSWER IS NO.
AND THE CONCERN FOR HAVING 
SOMEONE LIKE RUDY GIULIANI, 
HAVING SUCH A STRONG INFLUENCE 
ON AMERICAN POLICY IS BASICALLY,
THAT POLICY MAY BE OPERATED NO 
THE IN BEST INTEREST OF AMERICA 
BUT PERHAPS IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF RUDY GIULIANI OR HIS CLIENTS 
OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, RIGHT?
>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
I SAID IN MY DEPOSITION THAT 
FRANKLY THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT
WAS AT THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN I
FIRST HEARD MR. GIULIANI MAKING 
THE NEGOTIATIONS.
WE HAVE AN INTERESTING CHARACTER
IN CHICAGO WHO IS NOW BEEN 
INDICTED.
HIS NAME IS MR. FERTASH.
HE'S BEEN INDICTED FOR FEDERAL 
BRIBERY CHARGES AND OTHER 
ASSOCIATE OF GIULIANI, SFLIGT. 
>> I DO KNOW HIM, CORRECT.
I KNOW OF HIM FROM MY WORK, 
THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND QUT HE THAT WE'RE ALL 
ASKING IS WHETHER AMERICAN 
FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE IS 
POTENTIALLY BEING RUN IN THEIR 
INTERESTS AND NOT OUR OWN.
>> IT CERTAINLY IS PEARS IT'S 
BEING USED, THAT THIS IS A 
SUBVERSION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN 
POLICY TO PUSH THESE PEOPLE'S HE
PERSONAL INTERESTS. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER 
QUESTIONING.
WE'LL NOW GO TO CLOSING 
STATEMENTS.
MR. NUNES, DO YOU HAVE ANY 
CLOSING REMARKS?
>> THANK YOU.
I STRESS IN THESE HEARINGS THAT 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WAS
A PRETEXT FOR DONALD TRUMP'S 
POLITICAL OPPONENTS TO DO WHAT 
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO SINCE 
HE WAS ELECTED, OUST THE 
PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
THE BRIEF TIME LINE WILL 
ILLUSTRATE THE WIDE RANGE OF 
EXTRAORDINARY ATTACKS AS THE 
ADMINISTRATION FACED.
I'M GOING TO START IN JUNE OF 
2016 WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS JUST 
A CANDIDATE.
ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN, GPS 
HIRES CHRISTOPHER STEEL TO WRITE
THE STEEL DOSSIERS, FALSE 
ALLEGATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO 
RUSSIANS SOURCES SAYING THAT 
DONALD TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT.
FAST FORWARD TO JANUARY 6, 2017.
FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY BRIEFS 
PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP ON THE 
STEEL DOSSIER.
IT IS LEAKED TO CNN AND SOON 
AFTERWARDS BUZZ FEED PUBLISHES 
THE DOSSIER.
JANUARY 20th, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
INAUGURATION DAY, "THE 
WASHINGTON POST" RUNS A STORY 
HEAD LINED, "THE CAMPAIGN TO 
IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP HAS BEGUN."
JANUARY 30th, TEN DAYS LATER, 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S CURRENT LAWYER 
TWEETS, #COUPHOUSE STARTED.
MARCH 22nd, DEMOCRATS ON THIS 
COMMITTEE FALSELY DECLARE ON 
NATIONAL TV THAT THEY HAVE MORE 
THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUDED
WITH RUSSIA.
JULY 12th, AN ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT IS FILED AGAINST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
NOVEMBER 15th, DEMOCRATS FILE 
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
AS YOU SEE, THIS WAS JUST IN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST YEAR IN 
OFFICE.
HE WAS SUBJECT TO A COORDINATED 
SPEAR OPERATION DESIGNED TO 
FALSELY PORTRAY HIM AS A RUSSIAN
AGENT AND ATTEMPTS TO IMPEACH 
HIM.
THIS ALL OCCURRED BEFORE HIS NOW
INFAMOUS CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKYY.
IN 2018, THE ATTACKS CONTINUED.
OFTEN FROM EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH 
IMPLEMENTING THE POLICIES.
RENDZ RELEASE A MEMO SAYING THAT
FBI USED FABRICATIONS AND STEEL 
DOSSIER TO GET A WARRANT TO SPY 
ON A TRUMP CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATE.
SEPTEMBER 5th, "NEW YORK TIMES" 
PRINTS A COLUMN BY AN ANONYMOUS 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL 
WHO EXPLAINS THAT HE AND OTHER 
SENIOR OFFICIALS ARE WORKING 
DILIGENTLY FROM WITHIN TO 
FRUSTRATE PARTS OF TRUMP'S 
AGENDA.
DECEMBER 7 IT, JAMES COMEY 
ADMITS TO CONGRESS THE STEEL 
DOSSIER WAS UNVERIFIED BEFORE 
AND AFTER THE FBI USED IT TO GET
A WARRANT TO SPEAK ON TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATE.
THE RUSSIA HOAX CONTINUES TO BE 
THE MAIN FOCUS OF ATTACKS GOING 
INTO 2019.
BHUT THAT ENTIRE OPERATION 
COLLAPSED, A NEW IMPEACHMENT 
PRETEXT HAD TO BE FOUND.
MAY 4, 2019, ON NATIONAL 
TELEVISION, A DEMOCRATIC 
CONGRESSMAN PROCLAIMS I'M 
CONCERNED IF WE DON'T IMPEACH 
THIS PRESIDENT, HE'LL GET 
RE-ELECTED.
JULY 24 OF THIS YEAR, SPECIAL 
COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFIES
TO CONGRESS ABOUT HIS REPORT 
WHICH DEBUNCT THE CONSPIRACY 
THEORY THAT TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
ASSOCIATES CONSPIRED WITH RUSSIA
TO HACK THE 2016 ELECTION.
JULY 25, JUST THE VERY NEXT DAY,
A NEW ANTI-TRUMP OPERATION 
BEGINS AS SOMEONE LISTENS TO THE
PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL WITH 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY.
AND LEAKS THE CONTENTS TO THE 
SO-CALLED WHISTLE-BLOWER.
SEPTEMBER 13th, DEMOCRATS ON 
THIS COMMITTEE TAKE THE 
EXTRAORDINARY STEP OF ISSUING A 
PRESS RELEASE RELATED TO THE 
WHISTLE BLOW BLOWER'S COMPLAINT.
IT IS REVEALED THAT DEMOCRATIC 
STAFF ON THIS COMMITTEE HAD 
CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
BEFORE HE SUBMITTED HIS 
COMPLAINT TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL.
CONTRADICTING DEMOCRAT DENIALS 
THAT SUCH CONTACT HAD OCCURRED.
OCTOBER 31st, HALLOWEEN, 
PROBABLY THE MOST APPROPRIATE 
DAY, DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES VOTE TO OPEN AN 
OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 
AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WHAT YOU'VE SNEEN THIS ROOM OVER
THE PAST TWO WEEKS IS A SHOW 
TRIAL.
THE PLAN RESULT OF THREE YEARS 
OF POLITICAL OPERATIONS AND 
DIRTY TRICKS.
CAMPAIGNS WAGED AGAINST THIS 
PRESIDENT.
LIKE ANY GOOD SHOW TRIAL, THE 
VERDICT WAS DECIDED BEFORE THE 
TRIAL EVER BEGAN.
AFTER ALL, AFTER DENOUNCING THE 
PRESIDENT FOR YEARS AS A RUSSIAN
AGENT AND A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY,
HOW COULD THE DEMOCRATS NOT 
IMPEACH HIM?
IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO -- IF THEY
DON'T MOVE TO OVERTHROW HIM, IT 
WOULD INDICATE THEY DON'T REALLY
BELIEVE THEIR OWN DIRE WARNINGS 
ABOUT THE THREAT HE POSES.
THE DEMOCRATS ONLY NEED AID 
PRETEXT WHEN THE RUSSIAN 
DOSSIERS AND INVESTIGATIONS 
FAILED TO DO THE JOB, THEY MOVE 
TO PLAN TWO, THE UKRAINE HOAX.
THIS SPECTACLE WITH THE SECRET 
DEPOSITIONS AND MID HEARING 
PRESS CONFERENCES IS NOT MEANT 
TO DISCOVER THE FACTS, IT WAS 
DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A SPECIFIC 
STORY LINE TO BE PUSHED FORWARD 
BY THE DEMOCRATS AND THE 
SUPPORTERS IN THE MEDIA.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS WE 
APPROACH THANKSGIVING, SPEAKER 
PELOSI HAS JUST MADE CLEAR JUST 
TODAY U.S. MCA WITH A DEAL WITH 
CANADA AND MEXICO WILL BOOST OUR
ECONOMY WON'T BE SILENT THIS 
YEAR.
SO I HOPE MR. SCHIFF WILL 
CLARIFY HOW MUCH LONGER WE'LL 
WASTE ON THIS EFFORT AND WHAT 
OTHER VITAL LEGISLATION HE'S 
WILLING TO SACRIFICE FOR THIS 
IMPEACHMENT PER SE.
WILL THERE BE EVEN MORE SECRET 
DEPOSITIONS ACCOMPANIED BY THE 
FLOOD OF DEMOCRATIC LEAKS?
WILL WE HAVE MORE PUBLIC 
HEARINGS WITH DEMOCRAT WITNESSES
BUT NOT OURS?
MY MINORITY ARE IN THE DARK 
ABOUT WHAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL 
BE DOING WHEN WE RETURN SO IS 
AMERICA.
JAMES MADISON WARNED US ABOUT 
THE DANGER POSED BY THE TYRANNY 
OF THE MAJORITY.
TO AVOID THAT THREAT, OUR 
FOUNDERS CREATED A 
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
BUT IS THERE A BETTER EXAMPLE OF
THE TYRANNY OF MAJORITY THAN THE
WAY THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS HAS
BEEN RUN IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES?
THE PROCESS THAT IS GROSSLY 
UNFAIR CAN ONLY STEM FROM A 
CYNICAL MAJORITY THAT IS WILLING
TO BREAK LONG ESTABLISHED 
PRECEDENCE, TRAMPLES ON MINORITY
CONCERNS AND IMPOSE THEIR 
ABSOLUTE WILL ON THIS BODY 
THROUGH SHEAR FORCE OF NUMBERS.
EXPLOITING THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE AS A VENUE FOR 
IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE 
GROSSEST ABUSES IN THE PROCESS 
FILLED WITH CYNICAL 
MANIPULATIONS, LARGE AND SMALL.
BUT THIS FARCE WILL SOON MOVE TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHERE 
IMPEACHMENT RIGHTFULLY BELONGS.
I WISH MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES 
WELL IN FIGHTING THIS TRAVESTY 
AND DEFENDING THE IDEA.
THIS WHICH AT ONE TIME RECEIVED 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT NOT LONG AGO.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S VOTE 
ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING.
I YIELD BACK.
>> I WANT TO THANK THE 
GENTLEMAN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
LONG YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE 
COUNTRY.
YOU'RE NOT DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES 
OR REPUBLICAN WITNESSES, YOU'RE 
NONPARTISAN WITNESSES AND YOU 
HAVE STUCK TO THE FACTS AND THAT
IS AS IT SHOULD BE.
FIRST I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE 
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE HEARING 
TODAY.
AND DR. HILL, YOU WERE 
CRITICIZED SEVERAL TIMES BY MY 
COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT.
I'M GLAD DID YOU WANT BACK DOWN 
FROM IT.
YOU'RE MUCH MORE DIPLOMATIC THAN
I AM, I HAVE TO SAY.
ANYONE WATCHING THE PROCEEDINGS,
ANYONE READING THE DEPOSITION 
TRANSCRIPTS WOULD HAVE THE SAME 
IMPRESSION THAT YOU EVIDENTLY 
HAD HAD FROM HEARING MY 
COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT THE RUSSIA
HOAX.
THAT THE WHOLE IDEA THAT RUSSIA 
HAD GOTTEN INVOLVED IN THE 2016 
ELECTION WAS A HOAX.
PUT OUT BY THE DEMOCRATS.
AND, OF COURSE, THEY'RE NOT 
ALONE IN PUSHING OUT THIS IDEA 
THAT IS TRUMPETED BY NO ONE 
OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES WHO ALMOST ON A 
DAILY BASIS AT TIMES WOULD 
COMMENT AND TWEET AND PROPAGATE 
THE IDEA THAT RUSSIA'S 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION WAS
A HOAX.
AND, OF COURSE, WE ALL REMEMBER 
THAT DEBACLE IN HELSINKI WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT STOOD NEXT TO 
PUTIN AND QUESTIONED HIS OWN 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.
I WISH I HAD HEARD JUST SOME OF 
THE RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION WE 
HEARD IN THE COMMITTEE TODAY 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT QUESTIONED 
THAT FUNDAMENTAL CONCLUSION OF 
OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES BUT, 
OF COURSE, THEY WERE SILENT WHEN
THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT T 
THEY'LL SHOW INDIGNATION TODAY 
BUT THEY WILL COWER WHEN THEY 
HEAR THE PRESIDENT QUESTIONING 
THE VERY CONCLUSIONS THAT OUR 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS 
REACHED.
MY COLLEAGUES SOUGHT TO USE YOU 
DRSHGS HILL, TO BESMER MUCH THE 
CHARACTER OF COLONEL VINDMAN.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY 
INTERESTING.
CERTAINLY WASN'T UNEXPECTED.
IT IS VERY INTERESTING FOR THIS 
REASON.
THEY DIDN'T REALLY QUESTION 
ANYTHING COLONEL VINDMAN SAID.
WHAT HE SAID IS WHAT YOU SAID.
HE WAS IN THAT JULY 10th 
MEETING.
HE HEARD THE SAME QUID PRO QUO.
THE SAME COMMENTS BY SONDLAND IF
YOU WANT THIS MEETING, 
UKRAINIANS, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT
ABOUT THIS, YOU GOT TO ANNOUNCE 
YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
THEY HEARD THE SAME QUID PRO QUO
THAT DID YOU.
SO WHY ARE THEY SMEARING HIM?
MR. HOLMES, YOU TESTIFIED JUST 
AS VINDMAN SAID, COLONEL VINDMAN
SAID THAT HE WARNED ZELENSKYY 
ABOUT GETTING INVOLVED IN U.S. 
POLITICS.
YOU DON'T QUESTION THAT.
THEY DIDN'T TAKE ISSUE WITH 
THAT.
.
SO WHY SMEAR THIS PURPLE HEART 
RECIPIENT JUST LIKE THE SMEAR OF
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.
IT'S GRATUITOUS.
I CALLS THE PRESIDENT ON AN 
INSECURE LINE IN A COUNTRY KNOWN
FOR RUSSIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
AND EAVESDROPPING, THAT IS MORAN
INDISCRETION.
THAT IS A SECURITY RISK.
BUT WHY ATTACK YOU, MR. HOLMES?
THEY DIDN'T QUESTION ANYTHING 
YOU SAID.
THEY DIDN'T QUESTION WHAT 
CONVERSATION YOU OVERHEARD 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INDEED 
DIDN'T QUESTION WHAT YOU SAID.
HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ONE 
THING THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO 
KNOW THE DAY AFTER THAT 
CONVERSATION WAS IS HE GOING TO 
DO THE INVESTIGATIONS?
THEY DON'T QUESTION THAT.
SO WHY ATTACK YOU?
THEY DIDN'T QUESTION YOUR 
TESTIMONY WHEN YOU SAID -- AND I
YOU THIS YOU ASKED AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND, DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP 
GIVE A BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE?
HE SAID, HE DOESN'T GIVE A BLANK
ABOUT UKRAINE.
HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG 
STUFF.
HE CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF 
THAT MATTERS TO HIM.
HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS LIKE THE 
BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT 
GIULIANI WANTS.
I MEAN ONE QUESTION POSED BY 
YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. HOLMES IS 
WHAT DO WE CARE ABOUT?
DO WE CARE ABOUT THE BIG STUFF 
LIKE THE CONSTITUTION, LIKE AN 
OATH OF OFFICE OR DO WE ONLY 
CARE NOW ABOUT PARTY?
WHAT DO WE CARE ABOUT?
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE 
DEPOSITIONS, THE SECRET 
DEPOSITIONS.
PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME MAY NOT 
KNOW IN THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS, 
WHICH APPARENTLY NO ONE ELSE IS 
ALLOWED TO HEAR, NO MEMBERS ARE 
ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE.
JUST SECRET, APPARENTLY.
SOUND LIKE IT'S JUST ME AND THE 
WITNESS.
ONLY OVER 100 MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE
IN THOSE SECRET DEPOSITIONS.
AND THE MINORITY IS JUST SO 
UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
THEY GOT THE SAME TIME THEY GOT 
IN THESE OPEN HEARINGS.
SO WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED THROUGH 
THE DEPOSITIONS AND TESTIMONY?
SO MUCH OF THIS IS UNDISPUTED.
WE LEARNED THAT A DEDICATED 
PUBLIC SERVANT NAMED MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH KNOWN FOR FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION, WHY DO WE EXPECT 
THROUGHOUT THE DIPLOMATIC CORE 
WAS RUTHLESSLY SMEARED BY RUDY 
GIULIANI, BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
SON, BY THEIR FRIENDS ON FOX 
PRIME TIME AND A WHOLE HOST OF 
OTHER CHARACTERS.
HER REPUTATION WAS SULLIED SO 
THEY COULD GET HER OUT OF THE 
WAY WHICH THEY DID.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT WAS GRATUITOUS.
THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE GOTTEN 
RID OF HER ANY TIME HE WANTED.
BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR THIS 
PRESIDENT.
NO.
HE HAS TO SMEAR AND DESTROY 
THOSE THAT GET IN HIS WAY.
AND SOMEONE FIGHTING CORRUPTION 
IN UKRAINE IS GETTING IN HIS 
WAY.
SO SHE'S GONE.
SHE'S GONE.
AND THIS MAKES WAY ALMOST 
IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, SHE 
LEAVES THE THREE AMIGOS COME IN.
THE THREE AMIGOS, TWO OF WHOM 
DIDN'T MAKE THE CONNECTION THAT 
BURISMA MEANS BIDEN.
BUT IN ALL THE COMPANIES IN ALL 
THE WORLD THAT RUDY GIULIANI 
JUST HAPPENED TO BE FLD THIS 
ONE?
THAT'S ABSURD.
THE INTEREST, OF COURSE, WAS IN 
AN INVESTIGATION OF DONALD 
TRUMP'S RIVAL.
THE ONE THAT HE APPARENTLY 
FEARED THE MOST.
AND THEY WERE WILLING TO DO 
WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO GET 
UKRAINE TO DO THAT DIRTY WORK, 
TO DO THAT POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATION.
AND SO IT BEGAN.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SET UP A 
PHONE CALL UNTIL YOU MAKE 
CERTAIN COMMITMENTS.
THAT WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
TESTIMONY.
THE FIRST QUID PRO QUO IS JUST 
GETTING ON THE PHONE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THEN THERE WAS THE QUID PRO QUO 
INVOLVING THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING.
AND WITNESS AFTER WITNESS AND 
NONE OF MY COLLEAGUES CAN ATTEST
TO THIS TALKED ABOUT JUST HOW 
IMPORTANT THAT MEETING WAS TO 
THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND WHY
THEY'RE AT WAR WITH RUSSIA.
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ALLY IS 
THE UNITED STATES AND THE MOST 
IMPORTANT PERSON IN THE UNITED 
STATES FOR THAT RELATIONSHIP IS 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
AND IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY CAN 
SHOW HE HAS A GOOD RELATIONSHIP 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, IT MEANS TO HIS PEOPLE 
THAT THIS NEW PRESIDENT HAS THE 
SUPPORT OF THEIR MOST IMPORTANT 
PATRON AND IT MEANS TO THE 
RUSSIANS THAT WE HAVE THEIR 
BACK.
THIS PRESIDENT, THIS NEW 
PRESIDENT WHO IS NEGOTIATING 
WITH THE FAR SUPERIOR POWER THAT
HAS INVADED HIS COUNTRY IS GOING
INTO NEGOTIATION WITH PUTIN OVER
HOW TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT 
WHETHER HE HAS GOOD LEVERAGE OR 
LOUSY LEVERAGE DEPENDS ON 
WHETHER THE RUSSIANS THINK HE 
HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
AND THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T GIVE 
HIM THAT.
NOT WITHOUT GETTING SOMETHING IN
RETURN.
AN OFFICIAL ACT FOR SOMETHING OF
CLEAR VALUE AND SOMETHING VERY 
IMPORTANT.
THE BIG STUFF AS SONDLAND 
EXPLAINED YOU TO, MR. HOLMES.
TO HELP HIS CAMPAIGN.
NOW WE ALSO HEARD ABUNDANT 
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE OTHER QUID 
PRO QUO.
THE WITHHOLDING OF SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE WHICH NO ONE CAN 
EXPLAIN.
THERE IS NO DEBATE AMONG MY 
COLLEAGUES.
EVERYONE IN THE NSC AND THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT, DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT, EVERYONE SUPPORTED 
THIS.
EVERYONE.
ALL THE REVIEWS THAT NEEDED TO 
BE DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT 
UKRAINE WAS MEETING ITS 
ANTI-CORRUPTION STANDARDS HAD 
BEEN DONE AND THEY HAD FOUND TO 
MEET THE CRITERIA.
THE AID SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
RELEASED BUT WITHHELD AND NO ONE
COULD UNDERSTAND OR GET A CLEAR 
EXPLANATION FOR WHY UNTIL IT 
GAME CLEAR TO EVERYONE IT'S ALL 
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE LEVERAGE.
IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT IT, 
THE MAN CLOSEST TO THE PRESIDENT
WHO MEETS WITH HIM EVERY DAY 
MICK MULVANEY ERASED ALL DOUBT.
YOU'RE DARN RIGHT.
YES.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE 2016 
ELECTION INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S THE WAY WE ROLL.
YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO BE 
POLITICS AND JUST GET OVER IT.
WELL, IF WE CARE ABOUT THE BIG 
STUFF, WE CAN'T JUST GET OVER 
IT.
NOW MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HAD A LOT
OF DEFENSES TO ALL THIS EVIDENCE
WHICH PILED UP DAY AFTER DAY 
AFTER DAY.
IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE SECURITY 
SYSTEM WAS BEING WITHHELD.
P WAS CLEAR TO ALL OF THE 
AMERICANS AND IT WAS CLEAR TO 
UKRAINIANS.
YOU TESTIFIED THE UKRAINIANS 
FELT PRESSURE.
THEY STILL FEEL PRESSURE.
THE NEXT DEFENSE IS IT'S ALL 
HEARSAY.
IT'S ALL HEARSAY.
NOW, I GUESS MY COLLEAGUES ARE 
NOT LAWYERS.
LAWYERS OUT THERE UNDERSTAND 
JUST HOW YONG WRONG THEY ARE 
ABOUT WHAT HEARSAY IS.
BUT LET'S JUST DISCUSS THIS IN 
TERMS THAT ALL PEOPLE CAN 
UNDERSTAND.
THE IMPRESSION THEY WOULD HAVE 
YOU TAKE IT'S ALL HEARSAY IS 
BECAUSE WE IN THIS COMMITTEE 
WERE NOT IN THAT BOARD ROOM WITH
YOU.
WE WERE NOT IN THAT MEETING WITH
DR. BOLTON.
WE'RE NOT IN THE ROOM.
IT'S ALL HEARSAY.
AFTER ALL, YOU'RE RELAYING WHAT 
YOU HEARD AND SAYING IT.
SO IT MUST BE HEARSAY AND 
THEREFORE, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE
TO THINK ABOUT IT, DO WE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT YOU HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE 
THAT THIS MEETING IS WITHHELD 
BECAUSE HE WANTS THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.
WE CAN'T ACCEPT THAT.
THE IF THAT WERE TRUE, CAN YOU 
NEVER PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE IN 
COURT UNLESS THE JURY WAS ALSO 
IN THE ROOM.
THAT IS ABSURD.
THEY DON'T ACCEPT ALL THE TEXT 
MESSAGES AQUID PRO QUOS AND 
THAT'S CRAZY AND MY WORST 
NIGHTMARE IS THE RUSSIANS GET 
IN, THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE 
DOCUMENTS.
THE FEW DOCUMENT THAT'S WE HAVE 
FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT 
WEREN'T PRODUCED BY THE WAY BY 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
SONDLAND COMMUNICATES DIRECTLY 
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE 
ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATIVE 
INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AND 
THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS 
EITHER.
I GUESS THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO 
HEARSAY.
NOW MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE 
CONVINCING IF IT THEY WERE 
JOINING US IN DEMANDING THAT THE
DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED.
BUT, OF COURSE, THEY'RE NOT.
THE DOCUMENTS ARE LIKE THAT ONE 
SAW ON THE SCREEN.
THEY IMPLICATE OTHERS INCLUDING 
SECRETARY POMPEO.
OF COURSE DONALD TRUMP AND 
POMPEO DON'T WANT US TO SEE THE 
DOCUMENTS.
BUT PARENTALLY IT'S ALL HEARSAY.
EVEN WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HEAR THE 
PRESIDENT, THAT'S HEARSAY.
WE CAN'T RELY ON PEOPLE SAYING 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID.
APPARENTLY WE CAN ONLY RELY ON 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS AND 
THERE WE SHOULDN'T EVEN RELY ON 
THAT EITHER.
WE SHOULD IMAGINE HE SAID 
SOMETHING ABOUT FIGHTING 
CORRUPTION.
INSTEAD OF WHAT ACTUALLY SAID IS
I WANT YOU TO DO US A FAVOR 
THOUGH.
I WANT YOU TO LOOK INTO THIS 
2016 CROWN STRIKE CONSPIRACY 
THEORY AND I WANT YOU TO LOOK 
INTO THE BIDENS.
I GUESS WE'RE NOT GOING TO RELY 
ON THAT BECAUSE THAT IS HEARSAY.
WELL, THAT'S ABSURD.
THAT WOULD BE LIKE SAYING YOU 
CAN'T RELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF 
THE BURGLARS DURING WATERGATE 
WAS IT'S ONLY HEARSAY OR YOU 
CAN'T CONSIDER THE FACT THAT 
THEY TRIED TO BREAK IN BECAUSE 
THEY GOT CAUGHT.
THAT'S ABSURD.
BUT THE OTHER DEFENSE BESIDES IT
FAILED, THE SCHEME FAILED, THEY 
GOT CAUGHT, THE OTHER DEFENSE IS
THE PRESIDENT DENIES IT.
I GUESS THAT'S CASE CLOSED.
HE SAYS SPONTANEOUSLY, NOT AS IF
HE WAS ASKED THIS WAY, NO QUID 
PRO QUO.
WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM CRAIG?
NO QUID PRO QUO.
THIS IS THE I'M NOT A CROOK 
DEFENSE.
YOU SAY IT.
I GUESS THAT'S THE END OF IT.
THE ONLY THING WE CAN SAY IS 
THAT IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE 
SITUATION IS DIFFERENT IN TERMS 
OF MIXON'S CONDUCT AND TRUMP'S 
CONDUCT.
WE'RE SEEING HERE IS FAR MORE 
SERIOUS THAN A THIRD RATE 
BURGLARY OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
HEADQUARTERS.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS
WITHHOLDING OF RECOGNITION AND 
THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE
WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID TO 
AN ALLY AT WAR.
THIS IS BEYOND ANYTHING NIXON 
DID.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
THAT CONGRESS AND THIS ONE.
SO WE'RE ASKING WHERE IS HOWARD 
BAKER?
WHERE IS HOWARD BAKER?
WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE 
WILLING TO GO BEYOND THEIR PARTY
TO LOOK TO THEIR DUTY?
I WAS STRUCK BY COLONEL 
VINDMAN'S TESTIMONY BECAUSE HE 
SAID HE ACTED OUT OF DUTY.
WHAT IS OUR DUTY HERE?
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO BE 
ASKING, NOT USING METAPHORS 
ABOUT BALLS AND STRIKES AND OUR 
TEAM AND YOUR TEAM.
I HEARD MY COLLEAGUES USE THE 
METAPHORS.
WHAT IS OUR DUTY?
WE ARE THE INDEPENDENCIBLE 
NATION.
WE STILL R PEOPLE LOOK TO US 
FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
JOURNALISTS FROM THEIR JAIL 
CELLS IN TURKEY, VICTIMS OF MASS
KILLING IN THE PHILIPPINES, 
PEOPLE WHO GATHERED IN SQUARE 
WANTING A REPRESENTATIVE 
GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE IN CHINA WHO 
ARE IN UKRAINE THAT WANT A 
BETTER FUTURE.
THEY LOOK TO US.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK TO THE
RUSSIANS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK TO THE
CHINESE.
THEY CAN'T LOOK TO EUROPE WITH 
ALL THEIR PROBLEMS.
THEY STILL LOOK TO US AND 
INCREASINGLY THEY DON'T 
RECOGNIZE WHAT THEY SEE.
BECAUSE WHAT THEY SEE IS 
AMERICANS SAYING DON'T ENGAGE IN
POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS.
WHAT THEY SAY BACK IS, OH, YOU 
MEAN LIKE THE BIDENS AND THE 
CLINTONS THAT YOU WANT US TO 
INVESTIGATE?
THINK SEE.
THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE.
AND THAT IS A TERRIBLE TRAGEDY 
FOR US BUT IT'S A GREATER 
TRAGEDY FOR THE REST OF THE 
WORLD.
I THINK WHEN THE FOUNDERS 
PROVIDED THE MECHANISM FOR 
IMPEACHMENT THEY WERE WORRIED 
ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAS BEEN IF 
SOMEONE UNETHICAL TOOK THE 
OFFICE IN THE LAND AND USE THE 
IT FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND NOT 
BECAUSE OF DEEP CARE ABOUT THE 
BIG THINGS THAT SHOULD MATTER.
LIKE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
OUR DEFENSE AND ALLIES AND WHAT 
THE COUNTRY STANDS FOR.
I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY PUT THAT
REMEDY IN THE CONSTITUTION.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONSULT 
OUR CONSCIENCE AND OUR 
CONSTITUENTS AND DECIDE WHETHER 
THAT REMEDY IS APPROPRIATE HERE.
WHETHER THAT REMEDY IS NECESSARY
HERE AND AS YOU KNOW, 
NOTWITHSTANDING, MY COLLEAGUES 
SAID I RESIST GOING DOWN THIS 
PATH FOR A LONG TIME.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHY I COULD 
RESIST NO MORE.
AND IT CAME DOWN TO THIS.
IT CAME DOWN TO ACTUALLY CAME 
DOWN TO TIMING.
IT CAME DOWN TO THE FACT THAT 
THE DAY AFTER BOB MUELLER 
TESTIFIED, THE DAY AFTER BOB 
MUELLER TESTIFIED THAT DONALD 
TRUMP INVITED RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE, RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE 
LISTENING, COME GET HILLARY'S 
E-MAILS AND LATER THAT DAY THEY 
TRIED TO HACK HER SERVER.
THE DAY AFTER HE TESTIFIED THAT 
NOT ONLY DID TRUMP INVITE THAT 
INTERFERENCE, BUT THAT HE 
WELCOMED THE HELP IN THE 
CAMPAIGN.
THEY MADE FULL USE OF IT.
THEY LIED ABOUT IT.
THEY OBSTRUCTED THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO IT.
AND ALL THIS IN HIS TESTIMONY 
AND HIS REPORT, THE DAY AFTER 
THAT DONALD TRUMP IS BACK ON THE
PHONE ASKING ANOTHER NATION TO 
INVOLVE ITSELF IN ANOTHER U.S. 
ELECTION.
THAT SAYS TO ME THIS PRESIDENT 
BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
BEYOND ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND IN MY VIEW THERE IS NOTHING 
NOR DANGEROUS THAN AN UNETHICAL 
PRESIDENT THAT BELIEVES THEIR 
ABOVE THE LAW.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY TO PEOPLE 
WATCHING HERE AT HOME AND AROUND
THE WORLD, IN THE WORD OF MY 
GREAT COLLEAGUE, WE ARE BETTER 
THAN THAT
