tv Impeachment Inquiry House Hearings Impeachment Hearing With Laura Cooper ... CSPAN November 21, 2019 2:23am-4:50am EST
c-span.org, or listen wherever you are with free c-span radio app. and log onto c-span.org/impeachment, where you can find video and transcripts of testimony. plus, a feature that identifies key moments during the hearing, indicated by a star in the timeline. followed the house impeachment inquiry and the administration's response on c-span. unfiltered coverage live on tv, our radio app, and online. watch primetime re-airs on c-span, or stream any time on demand at c-span.org/impeachment. the house intelligence committee held its fifth open hearing at the impeachment inquiry against president trump. lawmakers heard testimony from deputy assistant secretary of defense for russian, ukrainian, and eurasian affairs lauren cooper, and under secretary of
order. good afternoon, everyone. this is the sixth in a series of public hearings the committee will be holing 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. there is a quorum present. we will proceed today in the same fashion as our other hearings. i will make an opening statement and the ranking member nunes will have the opportunity to make a statement and we will turn to our witnesses for their opening statements if they should choose to make one. for audience member, we welcome you and respect your interest in being here.
rep. schiff: the committee will come to order. this is the sixth in a series of hearings. there is a quorum present. we will proceed in the same fashion as the other hearings. we welcome you and respect your interest in being here. ordance with house rules and house resolution 660. with that, i now recognize myself to give an opening statement in the impeachment inquiry into donald j. trump, the 45th president of the united states. this afternoon the american people will hear from two witnesses who are both veteran national security professionals, one at the department of state and the other at the defense department. david hale is the undersecretary of state for political affairs and the most senior foreign service officer. laura keeper serves as deputy assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine, you'eurasid is responsible for the soviet union and the bal dkans. they have served both republican and democratic presidents and as
we have heard from other dedicated public servants like former ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch and former deputy assistant secretary george kent, ambassador bill taylor, lieutenant colonel alexander vindman and -- hale was witness to the smear campaign against marie yovanovitch and the the efforts by some in the state department to help her. in late march yovanovitch reached out to hale telling him in an e-mail that the tempo of social media any other criticisms of her were such shy could no longer function unless there was a strong statement of defense from the state department. she put out a full statement of defense and page and sadly to no avail. that silence continues to today. in late april we heard in
riveting testimony last friday from ambassador yovanovitch. she was called to washington and informed she had lost the confidence of the president. he did not meet with her and his subordinates dealt with her, instead. with the departure of yovanovitch, heale watched thre, and they were led by energy secretary rick perry and it would be ambassador volker and sondland working with ambassador taylor who would be the ones doing the continual work here. in midsummer, trump ordered a suspension of military aid to ukraine. despite the fact that the aid had been authorized and appropriated by congress and that the defense department in consultation with the state department had had certified ukraine met all of the necessary requirements to receive the aid including anti-corruption reform. the aid was in the national interests of the united states and critical to ukraine's security, a country that had
been invaded by russia. from her office in the pentagon, miss cooper oversaw a significant amount of security assistance flowing to the ukraine and was involved in efforts to understand and reverse the suspension of 400 million in u.s. aid. keeper, along with others learned about the freeze during a series of inner agency meetings in the last two weeks of july. at the first meeting on july 18th an omb representative relayed that, quote, the white house chief of staff has conveyed that the president has concerns about ukraine and ukraine's security assistance, end quote and that a hold had been ordered by the president. no explanation was provided. all of the agencies responsible for ukraine policy supported security assistance and advocated for lifting of the hold. the only dissenting voice was the office of management and budget which was following the orders of president trump and still no good explanation of the hold was provided.
while the aid suspension had not been made public, word was getting out. katherine kroft, special adviser for ukraine at a deposition received two separate calls in july or august from officials at the ukrainian embassy who, quote, approached me quietly and in confidence to ask me about an omb hold on ukraine security assistance. kroft was, quote, very surprised at the effectiveness of my ukrainian counter part's trade craft. as if to say they found out very early on, much earlier than i expected them to. the ukrainians wanted answer, but kroft did not have a good response. but then in late august cooper met with kurt volker with whom she had met many times in the past. during that meeting in which they were discussing the hold on security assistance, volker revealed that he was engaged in an effort to have the government to ukraine issue a statement that would, quote, commit to the
prosecution of any individuals involved in election interference, end quote. cooper understood that if volker's effort were successful the hold might be lifted. unbeknownst to cooper, no such statement was forthcoming, but the aid was abruptly restored on september 11th, days after the three committees launched an investigation into the trump-ukraine scheme. and with that, i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. >> as we republicans have argued at these hearings, the american people are getting a skewed impression of these events. that's because the democrats assume full authority to call witnesses and they promptly reject good new witnesses the republicans kwtd. i'd like to take a few of the people whose testimony has been deemed unacceptable for the american people to hear. the whistle-blower. the whistle-blower is the key figure who started this entire impeachment charade by
submitting a complaint against president trump that relied on secondhand and third-hand information and media reports. this began a bizarre series of events although the complaint had no intelligence component whatsoever. the intelligence community inspector general accepted it and even changed the guidance on the complaint forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand information. then his office back dated the forms to make them appear as if they were published a month before. democrats then took the extremely rare step of pushing a whistle-blower complaint into the public using it as the centerpiece of their impeachment crusade. we later learned that democratic staff had prior coordination with the whistle-blower and the democrats themselves his denied the on national television. following that revelation, democrats did a dramatic about
face. they suddenly dropped their insistence that the whistle-blower testified and rejected our request to hear from him. then hearing yesterday, the democrats cut off our questions and accused us of trying to out the whistle-blower even though they claim they don't even know who he is. alexander chalupa. chalupa is a former operative who worked with officials from the ukrainian embassy in washington, d.c., in order to smear the trump campaign in 2016. she met directly about these matters with then-ukrainian ambassador chalet who himself wrote an article criticizing trump during the 2016 campaign. chalupa's activities is one of several indicators of election meddling in 2016 all of which were aimed at the trump campaign. once you understand that
ukrainian officials were cooperating directly with president trump's political opponents to undermine his candidacy, it's easy to understand why the president would want to know the whole truth about the operations and why he would be schedulel and hunter biden, it's they're sparing an exam asian on the board of a company, burr mace highlights the corruption problem in ukraine that concerns not only president trump, but all of the witnesses we've interviewed so far. what did he do to earn his
lavish salary and salary, and what light could he shed on corruption at this notorious company? but biden would make an inconvenient witness for the democrats, so they have blocked his testimony. at these hearings we have heard a lot of secondhand and third hand information and speculation about president trump's intentions, but in the end, the only direct order we have heard from the president is his order to our last witness, ambassador sondland, that he wanted nothing from ukraine. that is consistent with the testimony provided by senator johnson who said that president trump angrily denied accounts that a quid pro quo existed. aside from rejecting our witnesses, democrats have tried other petty tricks to shake public opinion. just this morning, they called a break in the hearing in order to press their absurd arguments tv cameras.
then for this hearing they canceled the multiple rounds of initial questioning they had earlier today with ambassador sondland, as they have with all the previous witnesses. who they bizarrely consider us their star witnesses. when you look through the presumptions, assumptions, smoke and mirrors, you see the facts of this case are clear, president trump was spectacle of foreign aid generally, and especially skeptical of aid to corrupt companies like ukraine. he wanted to discover the facts about ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election against his campaign. a brief hold on ukrainian aid was lifted without ukraine taking any steps, they were supposedly being bribed to do. president zelensky repeatedly said there was nothing improper about president trump's call with him, and he did not even know about the hold on aid it. at the time he was supposedly being extorted with. so what are the
democrats impeaching the president for? none of us really no. because the accusations changed by the hour. once again, this is impeachment, search of a crime, mister chairman i would urge you to bring this to a close, to adjourn this hearing and move on and get back to the work of the intelligence committee. that i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. today we are joined by master david hill, and laura cooper, david hail serves as the undersecretary of state for political affairs, position he's held since 2018, he joined the foreign service in 1984 and holds the rank of career ambassador. previously served as the ambassador to pakistan, to lebanon, special envoy for middle east peace, deputy special envoy ambassador to jordan. ambassador hail also served as deputy assistant
secretary of state an executive assistant to secretary of state paul bright, laura cooper is the deputy assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia at the department of defense. she is a career member of the senior executive service, miss cooper previously served as a principle director in the office, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, and global security affairs. prior to joining the department of defense in 2001 most cooper was a policy planning officer at the state department in the office of coordinator of counter-terrorism. two final points before witnesses are sworn, first, witness depositions, as part as this inquiry, are unclassified in nature, all open hearings will also be caught at the unclassified level. anything that may touch on classified information will be touch separately. congress will not deal with any reprisal, attempt of reprisal, attempt to retaliate against any government official for testifying in front of congress including you or any of your colleagues. if you both would
please rise and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing un. >> you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative, thank you will please be seated. microphone is sensitive so please speak directly into it, without objection your written statements will be made part of the record, without, ambassador hail, if you have an opening statement you are free to give that and immediately thereafter, must cooper you are recognized for your opening statement. >> mister chairman, i don't have a prepared opening statement but i would like to comment, as you said i've been undersecretary since august of 2018, of foreign service officer for over 35 years, and ambassador three times serving both republican and democratic administrations proudly, and i'm here in response to your subpoena to answer the questions of the committee. >> thank you undersecretary, miss cooper.
>> mister chairman, ranking member, members of this committee, i appeared today to provide facts that answer questions based on my experience as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia. i would first like to describe my background as well as my role and vantage point relative to your inquiry. i bring to my daily work into this proceeding my sense of duty to u.s. national security, not to any political party. i have proudly served two democratic and two republican presidents. i entered government service through the presidents shawl management internship competition, joining the state department in 1999 to work on counter-terrorism in europe and the former soviet union. inspired by working with the u.s. military ana department of defense rotational assignment, i decided to accept a civil service position in the policy organization of the office of the secretary of defense, in
january 2001, where i have remained for the past 18 years. my strong sense of pride in serving my country and dedication to my pentagon colleagues were cemented in the moments after i felt the pentagon shake beneath me on september 11th, 2001. my office was scheduled to move into the section of the pentagon that was destroyed in the attack, but a construction delay meant that we were still on our old desks in the adjacent section on that devastating day. after we had wiped the block dust from our desks and try to get back to work, i found meaning by volunteering to work on afghanistan policy and we give my next four years to this mission. i later had the opportunity to move into the leadership ranks of my organization and have had the privilege to manage issues ranging from defense strategic planning to homeland offense and mission assurance. i accepted the position of principle director for russia,
ukraine and eurasia in 2016, and was honored to be appointed formerly to the position of deputy assistant secretary of defense in 2018. in my current role i work to advance u.s. national security with a focus on deterring russian aggression and building strong partnerships with the frontline states of ukraine and georgia as well as ten other allies and partners from the balkans to the caucuses. strengthening ukraine's capacity to defend itself against russian aggressions essential to my team's mission. the united states and our allies provide ukraine with security assistance because it is in our national security interest to deter russian aggression around the world. we also provide security assistance so that ukraine can negotiate a peace with russia from a position of strength. the human toll continues to climb in this ongoing war, with 14,000
ukrainian lives lost since rushes 2014 invasion. the sacrifices are in my mind as i lead the efforts to provide training and equipment, including defensive lethal assistance to the ukrainian armed forces. i have also supported a robust ukrainian ministry of defense program to fence reform to determine sustainability of u.s. investments and the transformation of the ukrainian military from his soviet model to a nato inner operable force. the national defense authorization act requires that we certify difference reform progress to release half of the ukraine security initiative funds, a provision we find very helpful. based on recommendations from me and other key d.o.t. advisers, the department of defense in court a nation with the department of state, certified in may 2019
that ukraine had quote, taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability, unquote, marketing obligation of the entire 250 million in u.s. ai funds. this brings me to the topic of today's proceedings. i would like to recap my recollection of the timeline in which these aren't events played out. then testified about all of this at length of my deposition. in july, i became aware of a whole being placed and an obligation of the state department's foreign military financing or fm or do you these funds. the inter agency meeting i heard that the president had directed office of management budget to hold the funds because of his concern about corruption in ukraine. let me say at the
outset that i have never discussed this or any other matter with the president. i never heard directly from him about this matter. at a senior level meeting, i attended an july 26 shared, by security council leadership and all inter agency meetings on this topic of which i was aware. the national security expressed anonymous support as what the u.s. national security interests and there was also a discussion of how ukrainian anti corruption efforts were making progress d.o.t. reiterated in our earlier certification stating that sufficient progress and finance reform including anti corruption had occurred to justify the usa i standing. i and others in the inter agency looked at the moderate that it was particularly urgent cause a takes time to make that money
and i understanding was that the money was required by september 30th for the end of the fiscal year. and the ensuing weeks until the hold was released on september 11th, i pursued three tracks. first, starting on july 31st and the inter agency meeting i made cleared to the inter agency leadership that my understanding that once d.o.d. reaches the point at which it does not have sufficient time to obligate all of the funding by the end of the fiscal year, there is only two ways to discontinue obligation of the u.s. ai. a president directed decision orprogramming action. f which would need to notified to congress. i never heard that either was being pursued. second, i was in the implementing committee to try to understand exactly when they would reach the point where they would be able to have the
funds by the end of the fiscal year. i received a series of updates and hip so temper fifth update i and other senior defensive leaders were informed that over 100 million cannot be obligated by september 30th. third, those advocating for the meeting of the cabinet mid level principles to explain why the assistance should go forward. although i heard of attempts to discuss the issue with the president i never received details about any conversations other than a status update at the hold had not been lifted. after the decision to release the funds on september 11th of this year, my colleagues across the dod security assistance enterprise worked tirelessly to ultimately obligate about 66% of the funding by the end of the fiscal year. more than they originally estimated they would be able to. do today provision in the continuing resolution, appropriating an amount equal to the an obligated funds from
the fiscal year 2019. the ultimate will be to be part of the funds and critical out these funds are and deterring russia we appreciate this congressional action. that concludes my opening statement but before answering your questions there is one other matter i would like to address. i testified in a other committee on october 23rd 2019. at that time, i was asked questions about what i knew about when the ukrainian government may have learned about hold on security assistance funds. i answered those questions based on my knowledge at that time. since my deposition they have again reviewed my calendar and the only meeting i recall the ukrainian official raising the issue with me it was on
september 5th of the independence day celebration. i have however since learned some additional information about this subject to my staff. prior to my deposition testimony i avoided discussing my testimony with members of my staff, or anyone other than my attorney to assure that my deposition testimony was based only on my personal knowledge. the deposition testimony was publicly released on november 11th 2019. members of my staff read the testimony and i've come to me since none and provided additional information. specifically, on the issue of ukraine's knowledge of the hold where ukraine asked questions about possible issues with the flow of assistance, my staff showed me to unclassified emails that they received from the state department. one was received on july 25th at 2:31 pm. that email said that the ukrainian embassy and house foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance. the
second email was received on july 25th at 4:25 pm. that email said, that the hill knows about the fmf situation to an extent and so does the creating an embassy. i did not receive any of these emails and my staff does not inform me about them and i did not recall where their content was at the time. i do not have any additional information about precisely what the ukrainians may have said or their source of information about holds or any possible issues with flows or assistance or the safe department officials may have told them. my staff also advised in the last few days that the following additional facts that may be relevant to this inquiry. again my, staff does not recall informing me and i do not recall being made aware of this. on july 3rd, at 4:23 pm. they received an email from the state department stating that they had heard that the cnn was being blocked
by onb. this reporters to the state that was set by fmf i have no information further on this. on july 25th, the member of my staff went for the ukrainian contact asking what was going on with ukraine security systems. because at that time, we did not know what the guidance was with the eu usai but the onb portion arrived but this staff member did not find out about it until later and i was informed that the staff member told ukrainian officials that we are moving forward on usai but recommended that the ukraine embassy check in with state regarding fmf. during august 6th of the ten the officer told the member of my staff that the official mice raid concerned about security assistance in an upcoming meeting. my understanding is
that this issue was not raised. i have no further information on what concerns of security assistant ukraine might of had at that time. my staff recall thinking that ukrainians were aware of the hold during august but they cannot pinpoint any specific conversations where i came up. my staff told me they are aware of additional meetings with officials from the ukrainian of his embassy in august. they believe the question of the hold came up at some point. they told me they did not find any corresponding email or records of those meetings and consequently, neither they nor eye or precisely when or what additional discussions may have occurred with the ukrainians in the month of august. if i had more details on these matters i would offer them to the committee but this is the extent of information i have received since by deposition. mister chairman i welcome your questions and will answer them to the best of my ability. thank you.
>> thank you for your testimony. for this hearing we will forego the first round of questions by committee counsel and receiving member questions with the five minute rule. i do want to respond to the comments of my ranking member however. that i think suggested that this was a surprise to minority the. we formed the minority last night after our hearing that we would because of the nature of testimony today we do not believe that a staff member was necessary. the message we got back from the minority was okay, got it thanks to the heads up. minority was raising no objection about directly to rounds. i want to point out that the minority have representative and with their witnesses and that is not accurate. mister hale appears today as a minority witness. is that how you characterize
yourself mr. but likewise two of the witnesses with ambassador volker as well as mr. morrison were both minority requested witnesses. mr. volker testified that he didn't believe any of the allegations against joe biden and in retrospect he should have understood that the investigation into burisma wasn't investigation into biden. which he acknowledged would be appropriate. mr. horses give testimony to conversations that he had with ambassador sondland about the conversation that heat related to the ukrainians about the security assistance being a result of the failure to secure the investigation. i understand why the minority does not want to carrot i -- characterize them as witnesses but the minority request those witnesses. i recognize myself for five minutes. i want to
again begin asking you buy this cooper about what you just informed us and i understand the importance of what you're saying. as early as july 25th, the same day that president trump spoke about president zelensky on the phone and asked for this favor. on the same day the president zelensky thanks to the united states for its military support and signal those ready to purchase more javelins. on that date, you've got the inquiries, your staff got inquiries from someone at the ukrainian embassy who was concerned about the status of the military assistance, is a correct? >> sir, that's correct. i would say that specifically dq craning embassy staff axed -- asked what's going on with the security assistance. >> did that come out to you that they were concerned something was in fact going on with it? >> yes sir.
>> you received -- your staff received more than one increase on that day? what was the nature of the other inquiry on july 25th? >> sir, that was the one injury to my staff but the other points that i had raised were emails reflected the outreach to the state department. >> so the ukrainian embassy was contact in the state department to find out about its military assistance? (inaudible) yes sir. >> was that similarly a concern about what's going on with our military aid? >> it was similarly a question about what's going on with security assistance. >> your staff, one of the other departments staff also heard in august in the additional inquiries from the embassy about a potential old up in the military assistance? >> i want to be careful about
how i phrases. my staff recall having had meetings with ukrainian embassy representatives during the month of august. they believe that the topic came up at some point during those meetings. but they don't recall the precise state or specifically what the nature of the discussions was. >> your staff -- your staff at least cleaned that the ukrainian embassy was aware that there was some kind of a hold on the assistance. >> sir, the way i would phrase it is that there were some kind of issue, yes. >> you are now miss cooper the third witness before a committee who assess a fight that the ukrainians found out about a problem or hole in the security assistance prior to becoming public. your first to indicate that may go back as early as the date of the president's call to president zelensky. let me move to a related issue. in august, you
testified that your deposition with kurt booker who august 20th. the security assistance was still in place and testified that ambassador volker told you that if you could get zelensky to make a public statement. quote, that would disavow any interference in the u.s. election and commit to any in vigils that involved interference and might lift a hold on security assistance is, that correct? >> sir, i believe that i testified that it was my inference that that was going to lift the hold on ukraine security assistance. >> that was you're in france because at the time you were talking about the security assistance? >> that's correct. the first part of our conversation was about to hold on security assistance. >> it was during that portion of the conversation that he brought up the effort to get this public statement? it was chairing that
conversation, i'm not sure i would say it was chairing that part of the conversation. >> what else did you discuss in the conversation? >> the only two topics that i recall are the urgency of lifting the hold on security assistance and then him relying this separate diplomatic effort that i previously had been unaware of. >> so you didn't have any discussion about any white house meeting? >> sir, i don't recall specifically talking about the white house meeting, but i have had many conversations about the desire for the white house meeting, so it is likely that that was a part of the conversation. >> but the two things you do recall are that you talked about the hold on security assistance, and that he brought up this public statement that they wanted zelensky to get what he thought might be useful? >> that is correct sir. >> mr. nunez.
>> yield to mr. ratcliffe. >> thank the gentleman for yielding, ambassador, hill miss cooper thank you both for being here. it is opening ranking member nunes, referenced president trump's general skepticism of providing aid in the amount of foreign aid being provided to foreign countries, which you agree with that characterization, state department that the president of the united states wants to make sure that aid is reviewed scrupulously so that it is in the national interest. quick since his election is it fair to say that president trump has looked to overhaul how foreign aid is distribute it? >> yes. the nsc launched a foreign assistance review process sometime in late august or early september. >> and president trump has sought to reframe american
foreign-policy in economic terms america first. well before the whistleblower the president expressed genuine concern about providing u.s. foreign assistance. is it fair to say to that point the president has wanted to ensure the american taxpayer was being effectively and efficiently spent outside the united states? yes. that is the broad intent of the foreign assistance review among other goals. >> and has the president expressed he expects our allies to give their fair share of and a point on the 25th call to that effect? >> the principle of burden sharing by like-minded allies is an important principle of foreign aid review. >> is it fair to say that u.s. aid is withheld for a number of factors? >> correct. >> and he withheld in prior testimony it is normal to have delays on aid?
>> i may have said it that way, but it does occur. >>, in the last year ukraine was not the only country to have aid withheld, correct? >> correct. >> in the past year, was aid withheld from pakistan? >> yes, sir. >> why was aid withheld from pakistan? >> because of unhappiness over the policies and behavior of the pakistani government toward certain proxy groups involved in conflict with the united states. >> in the last year, was aid withheld from honduras? >> aid was withheld from the three states in northern central america. >> in the past year, was aid withheld from lebanon? >> yes, sir. >> when aid was first withheld from lebanon, were you given a reason why it was withheld? >> no. >> so having no explanation for why aid is being withheld is not uncommon? >> i would say it is not the
normal way that we function. >> but it does happen? >> it does happen. >> is it true that when aid was withheld from lebanon, that was the same time it was being withheld from ukraine? >> correct. >> and you have testified that the aid to lebanon still hasn't been released, is that right? >> that is correct. >> but the a/d ukraine was released on september 11, correct? >> i read that, yes. >> so it is fair to say aid was withheld from several countries across the globe, for various reasons and in some cases for reasons that are still unknown, just in the last year? >> correct, sir. >> so, he is searching has been made that president trump's ukraine -- the assertion has been made that president trump+ ukraine aid changed, there was a pause, the aid was withheld. is that an accurate statement? >> that was not the way i understood things to be happening at the time.
we were not given an explanation. >> and in terms of the policy of aid to ukraine you described it as very robust? >> yes. >> as evidenced by president trump's policy decision to provide lethal defensive weapons, javelin missiles. >> it was very robust, yes. >> and that was a decision president trump made, that the prior administration had not done, legal weapons had not been provided to ukraine in the obama administration? >> i was not involved in ukrainian affairs during the obama administration, so i don't feel confident to address that. >> when aid to ukraine was put on pause i believe you testified there may have been concerned by secretary kent and ambassador taylor that it was contributing to a potentially negative effect on u.s.-ukraine relations. do you agree with that? >> well, the state department
position was to advocate for the continuation of that assistance as an important element, a key element of our strategy to support ukraine against russia. >> i yield back. himes? >> thank you to our witnesses. i am delighted to follow mr. radcliffe, because he just perfectly summarized the defense my republican colleagues are mounting of this behavior. the defense goes like this. on someident is acting deep, apparently invisible concern about corruption, and because he's so concerned about corruption in ukraine is holding up aid, being prudent and judicious. the first part of that is pretty easy to dispose of, because president trump wasn't worried about corruption in ukraine. in fact, in the two conversations he had with the president of ukraine on april
21, july 25, not once does the president use the word or mention corruption to the president. the second part is more interesting, that he's just being prudent holding up aid. that is not only wrong, it is illegal. ms. cooper, i want you to help us walk through this. since the impoundment control act of 1974, the president has not had the authority to on a whim for out of prudence, or as my republican friends say out of a general skepticism to stop foreign aid. it is the congress, not the president that controls the power of the purse, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and the security assistance authorized to ukraine was authorized and approved by the congress? >> yes, sir. >> so congress is concerned about corruption and to make sure american foreign assistance
is spent wisely. when congress authorized the money, it built in conditions as misdirected suggested. by law -- mr. radcliffe suggested. by law, ukraine would not get money until it demonstrated anticorruption reforms. under the law, the department of defense works with the state department and other agencies to establish anticorruption benchmarks and determine if ukraine has met those, correct? >> that's correct. that provision pertains to the ukraine security initiative. >> and that is a legally specified process, not the president in the oval office manifesting a general skepticism of foreign aid, right? >> it is a congressionally mandated process, sir. >> so did the process take place for the dod funding held up in july? >> there was a process that took the mayrior to
certification to the u.s. congress. >> so not only did it take ice before, as required by law, but trump before president freezes the money, the department of defense in consultation with state sent a letter, and you said this, the government of ukraine has taken substantial actions to make institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption and increasing accountability and improvements enabled byapability u.s. assistance. so by the time that president trump froze the aid, the department of defense spent weeks if not months determining that the ukrainian government met every requirement in the law and made strides in combating corruption, correct? >> that is correct, we made the termination in may. corruptionsn't about
. in fact, if there was any doubt about what was going on here, the chairman referred to your inference from the conversation ukraine made a statement about investigations that the statement -- the freeze would be lifted. and then of course the press conference when mick mulvaney let the cat fully out of the bag and revealed president trump talked to him, about "the corruption related to the dnc server" and admitted "that's why we held up the money. any other explanation for the hold is a farce. in my remaining 30 seconds, so people understand what i refer to, in the 1970's richard nixon arbitrarily decided, i don't know if it is because he had a general skepticism of foreign aid, but he decided to hold up congressionally mandated aid and as a result congress went to
work and past the impoundment control act of 1974, which prohibits the president from withholding congressionally appropriated funding without the approval of congress for any reason. is that correct? butir, i am not a lawyer, that approximates my understanding of the provision of the impoundment control act. >> ok, i will go with that approximation. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. conaway? >> here is the rest of the story. failed to put the emphasis on certain issues with certification. dod certification was not corruption writ large in the country of ukraine but was narrowly focused on defense institution reforms and combat capability, correct? >> yes. >> first off, thank you for being here. my colleague seemed to leave that out. he read it reading your statement but left out the
emphasis. so, it didn't really speak to the broader concept of corruption to the rest of ukraine the president might be, the rest of us might be familiar with? >> the main certification was specific to the defense sector, the defense industry and it did mention the importance of civilian controls, relating more broadly -- thatne of us would argue fixes corruption in the rest of the country. maybe you can shed light on this specific detail about security assistance programs, $250 million. some would argue because the pause that people died in august. can you help us understand exactly what obligated, and where there things about to be delivered to ukraine, where the out of ammunition, out of javelins, this stuff and because of the piles they didn't get certainly full equipment they needed in order to protect their
folks during the month of august? >> sir, we will deliver -- >> i am trying to get a timeline. >> there was no shortfall in equipment deliveries that were expected within that timeframe. obligate means you are putting the funding on contract. >> ok. >> those contracts will be fulfilled in the fourth quarter perhaps or whatever it was? >> i have to say, i am a policy official, not a contracting expert, but my understanding is that we will be able to make up for lost time in the contracting process. >> fantastic. to go through three or four steps because he disagreed with the hold being placed on the assistance, and i certainly agree with that. did you get any criticism from the folks you deal with, because you were going against omb direction, did you get criticized at all for that? >> absolutely not.
my entire chain of command was supportive of advocating for removing the hold on the fund. >> and you were not restricted on a full throated advocating on behalf of getting this lifted, were you? >> i faced no restrictions. >> ok. thank you for that. i thought you might be more in touch with the specifics of the accounting process. i will defer any further questions, and thank you for being here tonight. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when did youle, actually find out about the hold on the ukraine assistance? july 21? >> yes. in the deposition that i did, the closed hearing, i misspoke. i confused june 21, when state first sent the congressional notification to omb for clearance, and only after july 18, the 21st, when i heard there
was a potential hold. >> thank you for that clarification. did you attend the july 26 deputies meeting, deputies committee meeting that occurred? >> yes, i did. >> was it your understanding the president directed the hold? >> we were told in that meeting by the omb representative that they were objecting to proceedings with the assistance, because the president had so directed through the acting chief of staff. >> what was the state department position regarding the hold? >> the state department advocated as i did for proceeding with all assistance consistent with our policies and interest in ukraine. >> you believed what you said, in the release of the hold? >> yes. >> did anyone at the interagency meeting at the end of july support the hold? hold tone want the remain, and if so who at what agency? >> the only agency represented in the meeting that indicated
that they supported the hold was omb. >> ms. cooper, did you understand similarly that there was an overwhelming interagency consensus to lift the hold and that omb at the direction of the president was the only roadblock? >> yes, ma'am. >> how is the security assistance in the national security interest of the united states? what is our interest? explain that to my constituents in alabama who are wondering why we should care about the security, the hold on the security. >> this specific assistance helped build the capacity of the ukrainian armed forces and it is important to understand that these are forces fighting to defend themselves against russian aggression every day. an ongoing war. so they do need this equipment, to support ability to defend
themselves. i would say there is a larger issue here that relates to the u.s. policy on russia that we believe is very important to strengthen the capacity of ukraine to deter russian aggression elsewhere in the world. >> were you ever able to get a reason why that hold was on, did you ever get a reason? i heard about it, this was secondhand, thirdhand, was that the president was concerned about corruption, but that was all that i ever heard. ever provided additional reasons for the hold? >> no, ma'am. >> i thank you and yield the balance of my time to the chairman. >> my colleagues in the minority have, isn't it common to holds on military aid, and he said they are not unusual. but would you agree it would be
very unusual to place a hold on military aid to leverage a foreign country to get them to investigate a political opponent? >> yes. >> and i take it, you think that would be completely inappropriate? >> it would be inconsistent with the conduct of our foreign policy in general. >> it would also be wrong, wouldn't it? >> certainly not what i would do. >> mr. turner? would berse, it interesting if any witnesses ever testified that that was the case. i yield my time to mr. jordan. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all, i wanted to go where the chairman started. ambassador hale was one of our witnesses. they are all your witnesses. you called 17 witnesses, subpoenaed 15 of them. they are all your witnesses. we didn't get to subpoena anyone, didn't call anyone. you gave us an opportunity to get a list to you, a couple
weeks ago, where we made suggestions on who you might putw us to have, but we three of those 17 on the list to provide some context of semblance and framework for this thing. once again, misleading the folks watching the hearing is not helpful. thank you both for being here and for your service to our country. ambassador to pakistan, lebanon, jordan, served in tunisia, bahrain, saudi arabia. you have been to just about every hotspot on the planet. thank you for this hardship assignments. we appreciate your service. let me go first, earlier today mr. somnolent, ambassadors -- ambassador sondland, said he was denied access to records. the state department said, ambassador sondland, like every state department employee called before congress, continues to
retain all access to his state department document terry records and email account, which he is always fully free to access and review at will. that is accurate, isn't it? >> i had not seen it until shortly before entering this hearing room, but it sounds accurate. >> ambassador, you are aware of pausenection between the in aid? >> i missed a keyword. >> you are not aware of any connection between the pause in aid and some kind of investigation being done? >> correct. >> and you are not aware of secretary pompeo having any knowledge, directly, of the connection between investigation and security eight? >> i am not aware of that. he did not speak to me about that. >> not aware of any nefarious motives to withhold aid to ukraine, correct? >> correct, sir. >> you testified that what you
knew was that president trump was skeptical of foreign assistance in general, mr. radcliffe highlighted that, and skeptical of the corruption environment in ukraine, is that accurate? >> we had heard that. that was the general impression at the state department. >> the aide was actually eventually released, is that correct as well? >> yes, i read that. >> and there was just a 55 day or less than two months pause in the actual hold on the aide, is that right, ambassador? >> it seems so, yes. >> to your knowledge as a top principal at the state department, investigations into the 2016s, burisma or never happened by the ukrainians? >> i don't know that i have the ability to answer that question, having taken this job in august of 2018. >> well, since you have taken the job?
>> to my knowledge, that's correct. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. carson? >> thank you, chairman. the first, ukraine is line of defense against russian aggression and expansion into europe. numerous witnesses testified ukraine is in fact vulnerable to russian influence and control. testifiedition, you that providing security assistance is "vital to helping the ukrainians be able to defend themselves." what do you mean by that? >> that we have a long-standing policy of helping ukraine become a resilient state, to be able to defend itself. we want a reliable, resilient and self-reliant security and economic partner that can stand up to russian intimidation and aggression. >> you testified at the time of
russia's 2014 attacks the ukrainian armed forces were significantly less capable than it is today. ukrainiansay that forces were outmatched by russian military in important ways? i did not so testified. ambassador hale, this cooper -- >> would you like to comment? >> i do believe that was my deposition, but could you repeat the question briefly? >> during the time of russia's 2014 attack, the ukrainian armed forces were "significantly less capable than today. would you say that ukrainian forces were outmatched by russian military in critical ways? >> absolutely. >> rv ukrainian forces now complete the self-sufficient in your mind, in their ability to deter russian aggression? >> no, they have a long way to go. >> what you say the ukrainian armed forces now are completely self-sufficient, or, how much of
an impact does the u.s. need to have in terms of that deterrence and how critical is the relationship between ukraine and the u.s.? >> the ukrainians are on the right path to be able to provide for their own security, but they u.s. and allied support for some time, in the assistance.ible >> the question to the both of you, why was russia's illegal annexation of crimea so important in your mind? >> russia violated the sovereignty of ukraine's territory. russia illegally annexed territory belonging to ukraine. they also denied ukraine access to its naval fleet at the time,
and to this day russia is crimeag capability on designed to expand russian military power projection far beyond the immediate region. where there concerns in washington, here in washington and european capitals that russia may not stop in ukraine? >> i was not in my current position in 2014, but it is my understanding that there was significant fear about where russian aggression would stop. >> so, what about today? itshe u.s. were to withdraw military support of ukraine, what would effectively happen? if weis my belief that were to withdraw our support, it would embolden russia. it would also validate russia's
violation of international law. >> and which country stands to benefit the most, would stand to benefit the most from such a withdrawal? >> russia. >> ambassador taylor testified about the importance of the u.s. upholding the international system, and it has underwritten peace in europe since the end of world war ii. a critical aspect of that is ensuring russia cannot change its borders by military force. that is why there is strong bipartisan support for providing ukraine with security assistance, and that's why it is so incredibly destructive of the president of the united states to withhold this assistance, as part of a scheme to pressure ukraine to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory and attack former vice president biden. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
thank you both for being here. i can sayservist, proudly i served for two democratic and two republican presidents myself. i want to go to page three, i heard the president had directed the office of management and budget to hold funds because of concerns about corruption in ukraine. coming from the dod site here. and itd a year in iraq, was important and i think it is something the army always does, as i have seen, that we don't want to deliver aid or assistance if it is going to some, being delivered in some corrupt way. in other words, if we build a medical treatment facility for the iraqis, we want to make sure we aren't getting charged 10 times as much. concerned about corruption in general when we are delivering funds through the dod, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so i think that's a normal
thing to want to be concerned about. we would do that in iraq, especially if we were providing payments for something. so i want to go through a few things, because multiple witnesses have testified the toions to provide javelins ukraine by the trump administration demonstrate strong commitment to ukraine. ambassador give ottovich -- to yovanovich said our policy to ukraine got stronger. she also said in terms of lethal assistance, she felt it was very significant this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine. ambassador taylor said it was a substantial improvement, and that this administration provided javelin antitank weapons. very strong political message, the americans willing to provide more than blankets. ambassador volker testified,
providing legal defense of arms to ukraine has been asked -- lethal defensive arms to ukraine has been extremely effective. blankets are fine, but if you are being attacked by tanks, you need to be able to fight back. secretary george kent stated that javelins are incredibly effective weapons at stopping armed advances, and the russians are scared of them. special advisor catherine croft stated, the javelins helped ukraine defend themselves. a decision to provide javelins we believe is counter to russian interest. do you dispute what these witnesses testified to, taylor,g ambassadors volker, others? >> i absolutely agree the javelin system is an important capability and this was an important decision to support ukraine with this capability. >> thank you. you already testified that you are personally proud of the trump administration's decision
to arm ukraine was javelins, correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> one of the things on page three tonight, talking about the meeting on july 26, and after that you said, i was aware, the national security community expressed unanimous support in renewing the funding as a u.s. national security interest? >> correct. >> so i guess i take a little question with resuming, because we don't want to resume as-is, would that be correct? because as-is would not include javelins? >> sir, i am not sure i am following. >> what i was going to say, the previous administration, javelins were not provided, even though they could have been. president obama stopped the javelins. he could have delivered javelins, let's put it that way. >> sir, i should clarify what i meant by that statement.
resuming was just referring to the fact omb placed a hold on the assistance, so we were not spending, and i wanted to resume the spending so that we could maintain this policy, maintain this. >> maintain the policy. i guess what i am asking, there is a difference, and under secretary hale, i saw you nodding. the difference being that as it is resumed, in this case, now included javelins, which the obama administration denied, is that correct? >> it is true that he trump administration approved the release of defensive lethal assistance to include javelins, whereas the previous administration did not support that policy. >> mr. hale, do you have a comment on that? >> that seems correct. i defer to ms. cooper as the expert. >> i think we can conclude that more than blankets and mre's has been helping the ukrainians and
lethal defensive weapons or something the trump administration has approved and is a benefit to all of us. thank you. >> thank you both for being here, this evening. you know, there's this mystery surrounding the hold on the july -- the aid, in july. but ms. cooper, i believe you said there was a that was that wasid conditioned, but you certified the conditions were met, including commitment to pursue defense industry reform and passing laws enabling government procurement correct? >> correct. >> so when you find out in july they are concerned about corruption, you are scratching your head, right? >> yes, ma'am. we did not agree. >> do you know of any effort
undertaken, to assess the corruption in ukraine, in june, july, august? >> as i believe i said in my specificn, the only discussions that i am aware of related to that series of interagency meetings. sub-pcc, policy coordination committee. meetings, participants discussed the degree to which corruption was a concern and the degree to which there was progress, and my recollection of what part is up and in these meetings was that there was a very positive sense progress was being made. >> clue have these meetings. progress is being made.
nothing really changes from may until september that would then trigger the release of the money, except a whistleblower coming forward? >> ma'am, i don't know what triggered the release of the funding. >> all right. that there was reference made to money being withheld in other countries was made by some of our colleagues. but in those situations, countries like pakistan, lebanon, they are multiyear funding streams, correct? >> those accounts fall outside my purview, so i cannot answer that question. >> well, i have been told that is indeed the case. so there's not the immediate angst or hit financially that would potentially accrue. but the difference is i see it, and ukraine as compared to these other countries, is that ukraine is engaged in a hot war with
russia, right now. and it seems that withholding that money was irresponsible, considering that they had taken steps to meet all the conditions that we had requested of them, and congress had appropriated the funds. is that not the case? >> ma'am, i and my dod colleagues advocated strenuously for the release of these funds because of their national security importance. entireasically, the interest of the department of defense and state department were consistently supportive of releasing these funds. everyone was mystified as to why the funds were without, and everyone is running -- withheld, and everyone is running around trying to find an answer, and you are getting obtuse responses. saying it was the president because of corruption. now, what we see is president
zelensky gets elected in april. the expectation is vice president pence will attend the inauguration in september, and then the president pulls the carpet out from under him in terms of him going. then, he proceeds in june or july to withhold the funds. there is a concerted effort by the president of the united a manner, to act in that is not consistent with our interest in wanting to protect ukraine, and help them deal with the russian aggression at its border. would you agree with that? advocated forve the security assistance. i've advocated for high-level engagement with the government of ukraine, because i think both are in the national security
interest. >> i yield back. >> mr. stuart? >> thank you. undersecretary, assistant secretary, thank you both for being here. you are both recognizes experts, dedicated public servants, and i have to tell you, being the president of the united states is maybe the most complicated endeavor and history of the world and no one could do it without the backbone that you provide. thank you. i don't mean to repeat the same questions ad nauseum, which point we reached probably sometime yesterday. it is repetitive, and forgive me. although i do have some questions based on some things you said previously and i wanted to add for clarification. there's a question about these emails, i think they claimed, described withholding the aid, coming from capitol hill or someone on the foreign affairs committee, is that true? >> sir, are you referring to my
statement today, or something -- >> i believe this was a question we had previous. are you aware of such an email? >> i am sorry, i don't think i have enough information to make an assessment. is it from a particular stage in my deposition? >> just a reporting that there may have been communications with you, from someone on the foreign affairs committee on the hill, is that not true? >> that there may have been communications with me? >> yes, email with you. >> sir, i'm not aware. >> ok, thank you. for clarification as well, someone may have asked you, or queried you from the ukrainian embassy about the withholding of aid? is that true? did you hear from them? >> i testified earlier that the communication from the ukrainian embassy was to my staff, and my staff mentioned this to me after my deposition. the only specific communication i recollect with the ukrainians
about the specific issue was on i believe september 5, at a reception at the ukrainian embassy. >> was that just a general query about the forthcoming aid, or specifically regarding them being aware the aid was being withheld? >> sir, to be clear, he september 5 conversation that i had was specific to the whole. -- hold. there was awareness of that and a question of concern. >> thank you. ms. cooper, both of you, at the end of the day, and i have done this before, it comes down to this. the transcript i'm holding up,, the transcript of the phone call between president zelensky, president trump, but i would hope every american would take the opportunity to read. it is only a few pages long. much more information beyond that is helpful, but it really comes down to those few
sentences. mr. hale, going quickly through a series of questions, and i have your answers and so this will not take long, and you answer them generally anyway. you agree the u.s. should evaluate whether a country is worthy of our aid? >> yes, sir. >> you understand president trump has been skeptical generally of foreign aid, and some money given, is that fair? >> i think so. >> i think that's fairly consistent. he's done that since before he was elected. others in the process testified ukraine has a long history of corruption. that will not surprise any of us. we have talked about it about a thousand times. is it right that the president would test president zelensky, prior to providing some of this security assistance? >> president zelensky was new. i had met him in february and was impressed by him, but it was understandable for the administration, as any president
in ukraine was coming into office, to understand better what that policy would be an attitude toward the united states. >> i think that's key. we had it referred to, the dod completed their review around the same time, but this is a person who was elected and we knew nothing about him. he didn't have a history of governance in the ukraine. he came a little like president trump himself, did not come from a public background where we would have much information on him, and it seems prudent to kind of test him, see if he was serious about ukraine. at some point, i will conclude. i believe about labor day, the secretary was able to engage the president on security assistance, about the same time you had some others, secretary, vice president pence and bolton as well, the burden sharing review was completed, and shortly thereafter the aid was released, is that your understanding? >> i was never informed as to why the assistance was released.
i did read about it. >> ok. those events did happen, and it seems like they were the reason the aid was released, thank you both and i yield back. >> mr. quigley. >> thank you both for being here. you have both been asked about the importance of this military assistance, as it affects ukrainian sovereignty, and it is important because of potential greater ambitions by the russians. let me try to put it in context and please give me reaction, from someone who had been there a renowned international policy expert on such things. his quote seems to strike home today, "russia can either be an empire or a democracy, but it cannot be both. ithout ukraine, russia
but with be an empire, ukraine suborned and subordinated, russia automatically becomes an empire." your thoughts on how that puts this into context today, please? >> sir, i think that's a powerful and accurate quote. >> i would agree. >> ms. cooper, you talked about emails drawn to your attention. they were sent to your staff, is that correct? i discussed this evening were sent to my staff, correct. >> first of all, it is important to point this out, not something you were aware of, by pointing to a larger issue. the defense department, state department have refused to comply with the duly issued subpoena to provide this committee with documents
shedding light on precisely what the ukrainians knew about the hold. so this is not something you are aware of but there's untold information out there being blocked that would draw greater light and help us understand. is there anything else out there that you are aware of, or a possibility is out there with dod or the state department, which could help us to shed light on what the ukrainians knew, and when they knew it? >> sir, i have shared with the committees all that i recollect, but have not done exhaustive investigation, so i really cannot speculate on what else might be available by combing through all the defense department records, which are substantial. >> did the state department or department of defense ask you for your own information, or coordinate with you to get information that you had? tosir, i was told not i.t.roy anything, and our
personnel have been collecting documents, is my understanding. so that occurs without the individual having to -- >> they were collecting it and passing it to state or dod, is that correct? >> could you rephrase that? >> they weren't passing that on to you, they were passing it on to the state department, the department of defense? >> this is what they reported to me. i have not seen the documents that were collected. i only know the documents that i produced, or my staff is brought to my attention, but i have received. so, i do not know what has happened with the documents that have been collected. >> same general question to you, sir? >> i requested and was granted access to documents that either originated or were sent to me, that were relevant to the pertinent matters of this investigation during a finite time period. i don't have information about
what else is going on in terms of other documents that i did not produce or did not receive. i understood generally they had been gathered. it is not my area of responsibility. >> did they pass them on to you or to the administration somehow? >> the documents either i produced -- >> thank you. i yield back to the chairman. >> ms. stefanik. >> thank you to both of our witnesses. ms. cooper, you spoke eloquently about the threat of russia when it illegally annexed crimea, a threat to ukraine and to europe and the united states.
i sit on the house armed services committee. the most important lethal defensive eight is in the form of javelins, would you agree? >> yes. maded which administration them available? >> this administration. have you ever spoken with the president about ukraine eight? >> i have not. >> no, ma'am. >> you testified you had no direct knowledge of any motivation to withhold aid? >> correct. >> and you testified there were no strings attached to the eight, correct? page 184. >> i had no such knowledge. >> more specifically, you testified you have no knowledge of ukraine aid being held up? >> correct. temporary hold
until ambassador taylor sent you the cable, you had never even heard the words burisma or biden? >> in the context of what we are discussing, yes. >> you testified that, page 96. and ultimately the aid was released? >> yes, i read that. >> let's talk about the context broadly of the hold. you testified it isn't just ukraine, but there are other countries whose security assistance was on hold. the aid package to lebanon was being held in the same fashion, correct? >> correct. >> and foreign aid was held from northern countries of south america? >> central america. >> central america. you also testified that when you served as abbasid or to pakistan, security assistance -- ambassador to pakistan, security assistance was withheld due to failure to conform to concerns
on the afghan pakistan border? >> correct. >> let's broadly talk about the context. when we talk about aid, i always talk about, these are hard earned taxpayer dollars, would you agree? >> absolutely. >> and this administration has been conducting a foreign assistance review to reestablish norms guiding assistance as we provide aid overseas? >> correct. >> you testified this review had been going on for quite a while and the administration didn't want a business as usual approach to foreign assistance, a feeling that once a country gets a foreign assistance package, it continues forever. you continued, the program had to be a valued, that they were were the beneficiaries, that are sense, that we avoided nationbuilding strategies and provide assistance to countries that are
lost in terms of our policy to our adversaries, correct? >> correct. >> and you he warmly welcomed this review? >> correct. >> to get this on the record, security assistance was in fact released to ukraine? >> correct. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. swalwell? >> ms. cooper, your testimony today destroys two of the pillars of the president's defense and one justification for his conduct. foul,pillar, no harm, no the ukrainians didn't know the hold was in place, so it didn't really hurt them. second pillar, this president was a real champion of anticorruption. he cared about corruption in ukraine. so i want to go through your new testimony today. it's your testimony that after
employee came forward to you, you believed you had some evidence the ukrainians first inquired about security assistance to someone in your office july 25 of this year, right? >> correct. >> july 25 is also the day president trump officially talked to president zelensky, where investigation of the bidens were brought up, is that right? >> sir, i only know what has been reported publicly. >> and that was reported, is that right? >> gets correct. >> second, this president as a champion of anticorruption, your testimony states that on may 23 you certified that as far as it related to your duties, ukraine had met the corruption concerns for the aid to be released, is that right? >> the defense department certified. >> and after that date, inexplicably, the president of the united states puts a hold on
security assistance, is that right? >> that's what i heard in july. >> this anticorruption president who cares so much about rooting out corruption in ukraine, did he ever call you after he put the hold to say, ms. cooper, what's going on in ukraine? >> no, sir. >> ambassador haley did he call yo -- ambassador hale, did he call you? >> no, sir. >> did he call secretary pompeo? >> i don't know. >> ms. cooper, did he ever call the many boxes you had, secretaries or acting secretaries? >> i don't know, sir. >> now, as to the justification. the justification is the obama administration only provided blankets, so the ukrainians should be grateful, even after being shaken down, that the administration provided more. but the truth is that under the obama administration, the european reassurance initiative, $175 million were provided from
u.s. taxpayer dollars to the ukrainians, is that right? >> sir, i don't have that figure. the figure we typically use is to say we have provided $1.6 billion to date, but i don't have a breakdown in front of me. >> the obama administration also trained five military battalions of the ukrainians, correct? >> again, i don't have the figures in front of me, but the training program began in the administration, and we trained many forces. >> and under the obama administration founded here. initiative, the ukrainians were provided with armored humvees, tactical drones, nightvision devices, armored vests and medical equipment, correct? >> those sound like pieces of equipment that were provided in the obama administration to my recollection. >> you would agree that's a lot more than blankets? >> yes, sir. withheld tohat was
lebanon and pakistan, those were for legitimate foreign policy objectives, is that right? >> i would say that's true, the assistance to pakistan. i have not heard an explanation for the current hold on the lebanese program. >> and you would agree that withholding aid to investigate a political opponent is not a legitimate foreign policy agenda, is that right? >> correct. >> so i guess we can agree that even bernie madoff made charitable contributions, but that doesn't make him a good guy. todayoper, your testimony demonstrates the power of coming forward and defying lawless orders from the president. because you came forward and testified, we learned this new information, which destroys a central defense of the republicans. because ambassador taylor came forward, one of his employees
learned this defense from the republicans that all we have is hearsay evidence, and mr. holmes said, actually, i heard the president of the united states tell ambassador sondland, where are we with the investigations? your courage has helped this investigation despite the president's continued obstruction. i yield back. >> mr. hurd? >>, thank you, chairman. ambassador hale, you are in essence the number three guy at the state department, correct? >> correct. >> you represent roughly 70,000 folks? >> i wouldn't say i represent them. i am one of them, yes. >> you are part of a pretty fantastic workforce, and i am proud to serve alongside them. we shared time together in pakistan. i thank them. i know oftentimes they don't get the pants on the back or the
accolades, for what they do for national security, but there are some of us who do recognize that, and appreciate that. issue to you,ise ambassador hale about investigating the bidens or burisma? >> no, sir. >> thank you. ms. cooper, you have a great staff. i don't think my staff would have read my 115-page deposition and given me feedback, so give them gold stars. you said in your deposition, certified on 23 may, the ukraine the review of their defense industry and department of defense passed the corruption test? >> i think the wording was more along the lines of, progress has been made, or sufficient
progress has been made. it didn't reference any kind of anticorruption test, per se. >> did this change or was there a reevaluation, with a new president coming in? because president zelensky was inaugurated two days before that date, did that impact how he was going to continue some of those? was that taken into account in this review? to may 23.r >> so the review was basically done on, the efforts done by the previous poroshenko administration? >> yes, sir, although it is important to note the review related most specifically to the ministry of defense. >> sure. but they were ultimately changes under these lenski regime, correct -- zelensky regime, correct? >> there is a new ministry of defense. >> i know foreign military
financing is state department, but can you explain the and usaie between fnfmmfm, funding and how the ukrainians get lethal aid? three separate pieces to our overall ability to provide equipment to the ukrainian armed forces. the first, foreign military finance system, which is a state department authority, and countries around the world have this authority. that authority is used for some of the training, and equipment. security ukraine assistance initiative, a dod authority, which is only a one-year authority. third, there's is opportunity and thatse sales,
something we are working with ukrainians on now, so they can actually purchase u.s. equipment. but the javelins specifically was provided under fmf initially, and now ukrainians are interested in purchase of javelin. >> and there wasn't a hold put on purchasing equipment, correct? >> not to my understanding, no. >> can i ask a non-impeachment inquiry question, ms. cooper? >> a non-what? >> a non-impeachment inquiry question? >> my time is yours. >> what can we do to help the ukrainians defend against russian electronic warfare? what more can we do? >> what i can say in open hearing, there actually is some electronic warfare detection equipment that is included in equipment that is included in
the usai package. there's a piece of capability downward already working to provide. i think the specific topic is more suitable for a closed door session. >> that's a good copy. >> thanks for both of your service and chairman i yield back. >> mr. castro. >> thank you chairman and thank you all for your testimony today. i want to make an important distinction. a few my colleagues have rattled off countries where we actually held up aid. there is a big distinction between holding up aid for legitimate policy reason and holding up aid because it's part of a shake down. it is in the service of the president who asked for a political favor of a country to investigate a political rival. i think that's important for us to note. i want to ask you, miss cooper, you said the money was cleared to go by d.o.d. on may 23, is that right? >> that's correct.
>> it did not get released until september 11? >> i should clarify, the second half of the security assistance initiative was notified to congress on may 23, and then there was a waiting period for congressional approval and after that point. in the mid june roughly it was available. >> perhaps 90 days or 95 days. >> yes, i don't have it in front of me but that sounds right. you both testified for the security assistance was not any national security interests of the united states. the whole might embolden russia. we heard the same from numerous other witnesses that have come before us. this is not the only issue with the hold. we understand people within the government had significant concerns about the legality of the hold as it relates to the control act. this because money had been authorized by congress and in law by president trump. miss cooper, at the july meetings were, there any discussions on whether it could
be implemented in a legal fashion? >> in the july 26 meeting my leadership raised the question of how the president's guidance could be implemented and proffered that perhaps a reprogramming action would be the way to do this. more research would need to be done. but after that discussion, we had a lower level discussion on the 31st of july. >> let me ask you about the july 31 meeting. colleaguesation with on july 31 in the agency, did you share the understanding of the legal mechanisms already available at that time? >> yes sir. >> what were they? >> it was my understanding that
there were two ways that we would be able to influence presidential guidance to stop locating the security assistance initiative. the first option would be for the president to do a recession. the second is a reprogramming action that the defense would do. both of those would require -- would do. >> both of those would require congressional noticed? >> yes sir. >> it's an extra step that they would take to congress. as far as you know, was there any way to send this out to congress? >> sir, i did express that it required a notice to congress and that there was no such no it -- no such notice to my knowledge, or preparation of such notice to my knowledge. >> there was never any official decision or reprogramming? >> no sir. not to my knowledge. >> instead, what happen is onb had a solution involving a footnote to implement the whole. there came a time in august where the department of defense no longer supported these footnotes because of concerns or might not be sufficient time for d.o.d. to obligate the funds before the
end of the fiscal year. in violation of the control act. so, despite these concerns and mid-august -- in mid-august in omb's footnotes, they nevertheless continued for september 11, even after as an aside, this is even after the whistleblower had come forward. is that right? >> that's correct that the hold was released on september 11th, correct. >> i know i and many of us here share the same concerns about the hold. but i want to thank you miss cooper to talk in pursuing the national security interests of the united states and i yield back. >> mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you chairman. miss cooper, based on emails that you mentioned in your opening and subsequent declaration by some of the democratic colleagues. that those emails were evidence that ukrainians or aware of the military hold on july 25.
there is new reporting out there that the pentagon official with ukrainians asked about stalled security aid. it is being widely reported that ukraine asked about the hold on military aid on july 25. that's not what i heard is, that correct? sir, my exact words were that one email said that the ukrainian embassy and the foreign affairs committee are asking about security assistance. >> assistance, not hold. >> the second email was the hill knows about the fmf situation and the embassy, those were the exact words. >> what do security assistance situation in these emails mean? >> i don't want to speculate on
what it means. >> they don't necessarily mean hold, correct? >> not necessarily. >> isn't it true at the same time they put a hold on 15 state department and u.s. idea counts includingid accounts coop -- including fmf? >> i don't know that specific detail. >> but you can't say one way another whether these emails were about the hole? is that fair? >> i can't say for certain. you can't say one way or another that the ukrainians a about the hold before august 20 8, 2019, when it was reported in political, correct? >> sir i, can tell you that if the recollection of my staff that they likely knew but i do not have a certain data point to offer you. >> it's not unusual miss cooper for a foreign country to inquire about foreign aid that they're expecting from the united states, is it?
>> sir, in my experience with the ukrainians, they typically would call about specific things and not just generally checking in on their assistance package. >> are you where the president zelensky on october 10th in response to the question from one of the 300 reporters over the course of the afternoon, stated that he was not aware and had no knowledge of the security assistance during the time of the july 25 phone call with president trump. >> i believe i saw that media reporting. yes. >> i yield back. >> mr. hack. >> thank you mister chairman and i thank you both for being here this evening. ambassador hail, last week the country watched as president trump attacked and intimidated your colleague and wanted to intimidate your colleague
ambassador yovanovitch who is a witness to this proceeding and subsequently secretary pompeo declined to condemn the attack. bluntly put, secretary pompeo's silence is nothing less and a betrayal of the men and women that he swore an oath to lead. it's a pretrial that has long term consequences and attracting and retaining workforce to their effectiveness into their overall strength. so, ambassador hale, do they have an opportunity with secretary pompeo did not do? either in march of 2019 or the smear campaign which got kicked into high gear. and you sir rightfully pressed for strong statement in support of her.
or last week when the president and his son attacked her again. i'm offering you the opportunity to reaffirm this committee and the millions of americans hopefully watching. that marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot. and that she served with grace and dignity even in the face of that orchestrated and i'm -- orchestrated and unsubstantiated smear attack against her. -- hale.r hail i'm giving you the opportunity to demonstrate. i'm giving you the opportunity to send a clear and resounding message to the men and women who served in dangerous, foreign post throughout the world that what happened to murray -- marie yovanovitch was wrong. ambassador hale? the floor is yours.
>> thank you, congressman. i can endorse your description of ambassador yovanovitch. i've only met her when i took this job but immediately i understood she's an exceptional officer doing exceptional work at a critical embassy in kiev. i was very impressed by what she was doing there to the instant stan if she was willing to stay as a possibility because of the gap coming up. i believe in the institution and the state department that i have been for 35 years. all of us are committed to the national security and where the best diplomats anywhere in the world. that support extends to all state officers who testified before this committee. if i may, i would like to read a letter that the secretary on november 18th to the ranking member of the relations committee and response to a communication from him. a number of department employees testified before the house of representatives during the
inquiry on ukraine. no employee has faced any adverse action or testimony before congress on this matter. the department will not discipline any employee for appearing before congress in response to a subpoena. the department as proactively established the program and national assistance and the legal fees incurred by carbon -- by department employees. additional information but that is the message. >> are you saying marie yovanovitch is a dedicated and courageous patriot? >> i endorse what you say exactly. >> she served with grace and dignity in this campaign? >> she did. >> and what happened to her was wrong? >> i believe she should continue to stay at post. >> thank you sir. thank you for clarifying the the record because i wasn't sure where it was that she could go to set the record straight if it
wasn't new sir and where she could go to get her good name and reputation back. if it wasn't you sir. indeed, i want to encourage the -- encourage you and the strongest terms possible to stand your ground. americas security and strengthen prosperity was predicated on those professionals from our foreign service corps and they need to know that the highest ranking professional diplomat and the entire state department have their back sir. thank you for having ambassador evanovich's -- ambassador jovanovich's back this evening and mister chairman i yield back. >> mr. jordan. >> thank you mister chairman. miss cooper, why did the office of management budget behold on -- put a hold on the funds? >> sir, the only information that i received was from the office of management that they were operating at the direction
of the president and they reported that they had concerns about corruption. that is all that i knew. >> you put that in your testimony. the president told the office of management to hold the funds because of his concerns about corruption in ukraine for legitimate reasons? you agree? >> that is the statement that the president reportedly made as reported to me by the office management. >> you said in your testimony that based on recommendations that the devisers of defense with the department of state certified in may of 2019 that ukraine had taken the steps necessary and certifying the release of the dollars. is that accurate? >> that's correct sir. >> there was a small change in ukraine in the spring of 19, -- spring of 2019, wasn't there? >> yes sir.
>> can you elaborate on what that change was. >> the government -- the president zelensky was elected to government. >> you had a brand-new guy coming in. in fact, he had just been sworn in the day you approved the dollars. was it may 23? i think he was sworn in a couple of days before. but there is a change in circumstance that warrants at least a second look. that is exactly what played out for a short time. less than two months, 55 days he -- our government evaluated the new situation, pretty radical change and you got a new government. in fact, the previous one we heard all kinds of things from the democrats about the prosecutor general and the regime and how bad he was. it took a while for that all to happen. new president sworn in, a few months later a new congress
sworn in and takes them a while until september 5 that they get rid of this prosecutor and a few days later, the aid actually gets released. but the democrats got all kinds of other things they want to talk about and the way this played out seems to be as logical as you can do it. particularly when you put it in the broader framework of where this president is on concern about foreign aid. his deep rooted concerns and the corruption issue in ukraine. the experience he had with high-ranking ukrainian officials criticizing him and supporting secretary clinton in 2016 election. put all that together, it shows why it played out the way it did. with that i will yield back mr. chairman. >> mr. welch. >> thank you mister chairman. secretary hale, i want to go
back to your support and affirmation of ambassador yovanovitch. from what i understand, by the way thank you for our military and not leave snow soldier on the battlefield and in leadership positions and our intelligence committee and loyalty to each other and it's reassuring that you represent that. you first as i understand it, got information about the first -- about her situation in march and in early march pompeo mentioned that sometime in the fall they relieved a letter from the congress about the ambassador, correct? that member of congress was? >> congressman sessions. >> did you see there is any basis in the claims of disloyalty? >> not to the secretary of
state. >> you visited kiev and discussed the fact of extending yovanovitch to remain in her post, right? >> it was a personal idea of my, yes. >> you valued who continue service and he mentioned to the ukrainian press that ambassador yovanovitch represented the president of the united states here and ukraine stand behind their statement. trying to give her some public support, correct? >> correct. >> weeks later, the president of unleashed a smear campaign to combat and alistair. what was your reaction to the news article in march where corrupt ukrainian prosecutor attacked the ambassador? we were concerned, we put out a statement that some of these allegations were and all right fabrication and we began to discuss what we would do to deal with this matter. forhe problems continued
ambassador yovanovitch. as i understand, she emailed on march 24 and indicated that the social media and other criticisms were such that she felt she could no longer function. unless there was a strong statement of defense of her in the state department. is that correct? >> correct. >> this message from secretary pompeo who was aware of her situation, is that correct? >> i briefed him the next day. >> he's the ultimate authority decade issued a statement of support, correct? >> correct. >> he never did issue a statement, right? >> we did not issue a statement at the time. at the fact, you testified around the same time that the secretary did not render assistance to a long serving and highly respected ambassador. he made two phone calls to rudy giuliani.
is that right? >> that's correct. i've seen the record that he made those phone calls. >> one on march 28 and again on the next day, march 29. >> i saw the record of that yes. >> we don't know what he said to rudy, we have a pretty good idea about rudy giuliani said to him. get rid of your vonnegut. waset rid of your vonnegut gone and the state never came forward, right? correct. >> when she was recalled and wanted to find out what happened, secretary pompeo would not meet with her? i was out of the country at the time i can't comment on that.
mr. brechbuhl was there? i don't know this. it came from the news. it went from the secretary and i was in foreign travel at the time. >> it would be interesting if you can get secretary pompeo be here to tell us what his conversations were with rudy giuliani. the person who was fermented and discontent about the ambassador who was fighting corruption. i want to thank you and miss cooper for your service. >> mr. mulroney. >> miss cooper, secretary hale. ms. cooper thank you for working , late on a wednesday. the last time we heard testimony republicans were nice enough to bring pizza and not skiff. kidding aside, we detained you for about five hours that day so on behalf of the committee we appreciate your patience with this. quick question. for you and i think one question for you secretary hale.
ms. cooper, was d.o.d. able to put all these security system funds before the end of the fiscal year? >> no sir. >> how much were they not able to obligate? what was left on it? >> i believe the figure was $35 million. we were able to actually obligate 80% in total. >> you mentioned you were able because of legislation the congress passed to do that, exonerate? >> the remainder were in the process because of the provision in the continuing resolution. >> but for an act of congress, you couldn't have spent all the money? >> if we have not received the provision and the continuing resolution, we would've obligated 88% but not the full amount. >> right, which of course would be a violation of law to not spend money that congress appropriated. >> sir, i am not a lawyer but that is my understanding.
sure. thank you. secretary hale, where were you born? ann arbor, michigan. you're family from ireland? >> no sir. >> strike it. another question. with respect to secretary yovanovitch. and he served as ambassador in three countries? >> correct. >> jordan, lebanon and pakistan. while you were ambassador to those three countries, did anyone ask you to issue a support praising personally the president of united states? >> how do you view such requests? >> it depends on the situation. >> so you went to someone and yet a problem and you said how can i get better and they say you should publish something personally praising the president and flattering him. would that strike you as unusual?
>> yes. >> if someone telling you to go big or go home, would that change your mind? >> i don't quite understand. >> that's ambassador yovanovitch was treated to ambassador sondland seeking advice. she declined to do so as she said it was to political. is that consistent with the approach you might take? >> that sounds sensible, yes. thank you. i yield the rest of my time to the chairman. >> ms. demings. >> ambassador hale and ms. cooper, thank you both for being with us and just a quick question before i get into some questions about ambassador sondland that we heard from today. i want to ask both of you have president trump withheld critical military aid from ukraine because of high-ranking officials who supported the
president's political opponent. would you consider that an official, acceptable, appropriate action by the president of the united states, ambassador hale? >> it's not what i would advise. >> ms. cooper? >> no, that does not sound appropriate. >> ambassador hale, you testified that you were aware of ambassador sondland who was involving himself in matters quote, "went beyond the normal grit of the ambassador to the new european union." as you understood it, who authorized ambassador sondland to work on ukraine? >> i have no firsthand knowledge of that. i received a read out from the meeting that the president of the united states had from
delegation on may 23. the briefing i received indicated that the president wanted members of that delegation which included ambassador sondland to carry forward the policy discussed in that meeting. >> that occurred and the meeting of the oval office on may 23 is where you heard that information from? >> a written readout yes. >> you testified and i quote, it is clear that the members of that delegation were empowered by the president and that's what you testified. you said and i quote, as a practical matter, it would be ambassador volker and ambassador sondland presumably working with taylor who would be the winds really doing the continual effort here. did you understand that ambassador sondland had direct access to the president?
picking in the few occasions -- >> in the few occasions where we try to have a complication -- conversations with ambassador sondland he wasn't in contact with the president. >> you received that information directly from ambassador sondland, that he had direct contact with the president? >> in previous occasions yes not related to this. >> anything about ambassador sondland that struck u.s. problematic? >> based on what i knew at the time i was satisfied that this delegation was what the president wanted to have and continue to pursue these policies. i saw that ambassador of oakland -- ambassador volker who was a foreign service officer and had a distinction in ukrainian affairs and was part of that group. i had no gray concerns. >> what you knew at the time you are ok with but you're opinion did change about the appropriateness of this role? >> as i testified, i was unaware of these various activities to negotiations over investigations and preconditions related to that.
i wasn't aware of it so i no reason to be making any judgment. >> have you reviewed the text messages between between volker? -- i was surprised by what i saw in the media. >> i want to make sure i understand your testimony ambassador hale, you believe he was empowered by the president according to what you found out from the may 23 meeting to ukraine. you said, nothing really struck you as problematic because of the time differences, is that correct? >> based on what i knew, yes. >> you are the secretary for political affairs and testified that in that capacity you are
responsible for the management responsible for the management of the united states with and i quote every country in the world that would be recognized for the management of our policies towards those countries as well as our relationship as they relate to longtime lateral organizations. does that include u.s. policy and relations with ukraine? >> it does. when we have a special envoy and it stretches to the secretary, related to a country or special envoy will take the day-to-day responsibilities. >> how about u.s. policy and relations with the european union? >> yes, i am. >> but you are not aware fully of ambassador sondland and his activity on behalf of president trump? >> that's correct. >> thank you. mr. chair, i yield back. >> mr. krishnamurthy. >> good evening. thank you so much for being here. undersecretary hail, you and your colleagues testified that you gathered official records
and the state department with the understanding that they would be provided to congress, right? >> i was not involved in the decision-making or have no responsibility and gathering that. i understood that it was underway. i received the documents i described earlier. >> i see. in terms of the material that were collected do they , include electronic files and emails? >> i can only speak to the documents that were made available to me. >> and paper documents? >> paper documents. >> would tape recordings potentially be among the files that are gathered? >> i really couldn't speculate on that. >> you can't rule out that possibility? >> i don't know if tape recordings -- so i can't really comment on that. >> are you familiar from whom the documents have been
collected, like those individual custodians? i don't know that sir. >> you are aware that despite a duly authorized subpoena that had been served on the state department we have yet to receive the single impact? -- single document, correct? >> i understand that yes. cooper, and the interagency process, -- in the interagency process, did anyone in any committee potentially bring up the lack of allied funding as a reason for why there should be military assistance to ukraine? >> i can only speak to the three meetings that i attended with , pcc, dfg, and i have no recollection at that they are coming up and i did provide information at my deposition about what i thought was a completely separate query that i
had in june from the secretary of defense part front office -- secretary of defense's front office and one of the questions there just asked a question about the degree of which they were attributing to the security assistance to be very clear. >> but after the hold was put in place, you haven't heard any concerns about a lack of allied funding as a reason for why they should be in place? >> in those meetings that i attended i did not hear or do not recall hearing that is the reason. what i heard was the president's views on corruption and further information. >> same question to you undersecretary hale. >> can you repeat the question? >> you didn't hear about the lack of funding as the reason placee hold being put in on july 18? >> i never heard of the hold. >> i assume neither of you heard any reason whatsoever for why the hold was in place except for the fact that onb put it in
place for the president. >> that's correct. >> one of my colleagues brought up the idea that the holds bit in place to assess whether president zelensky was legit. i assume that wasn't a reason that was offered either. >> i never heard that as a reason. >> i heard no reason. le, what'scretary ha the importance of a world leader adding a meeting at the white house? >> it is case-by-case but particularly for a new leader it's extremely important opportunity to demonstrate our relationship and the building up of that relationship on a leadership level and demonstrate common goals. >> what about in the case of president zelensky? how important was it for him to have a meeting at the white house with president trump? two -- >> i never talk to
president zelensky about that myself and before he became president i met poroshenko four leading candidates. >> as an expert on these matters is it fair to say that a new world leader such as president zelensky having a meeting at the white house with president trump is extremely important for his image that he projects especially towards folks like russia? >> an oval office meeting is incredibly valuable for anyone but the general principle and ukrainian president is what you just said to demonstrate that the bond between the united states and ukraine is strong and that there is continuity in our policies and will continue to work together on our policies and countering russian aggression and ukraine. >> thank you so much. i yield back. >> that concludes the questioning. mr. nunez, do you have any concluding remarks?
>> thank you, gentlemen. what have we learned from the democrats impeachment inquiry? they promised a country a fair hearing. what are they delivered? the impeachment version of three card monte. notorious short card trick and in this case with president trump and the american public which stands no chance of winning. democrats promised the whistleblower's testimony and they told us that they need to speak with the whistleblower. then we learned, that the whistleblower was with the democratic staff before alerting the intelligence committee inspector general. to hide their con, they provide their hands on the table and gaslight the country telling us the whistleblower is entitled to a statutory right of anonymity. they accused us of trying to out the whistleblower knowing that they're the only ones who know who he is. they say if the facts are against you argued the law and of the argue is against you
argue the facts and if both are against you pound the table and yell like hell. it seems that these days there teaching assumes a fourth tactic. if the facts and a lawyer against you simply rig the game and hope your audience is too stupid to catch. this is not an impeachment inquiry, it's an impeachment inquisition. with until the middle ages the inquisitor is to bring suit against any person who is even vaguely the subject of the lowest rumor. and the accused was denied any right to confront their accusers. and credibly, or maybe not so much by the democrats track record. the inquisition victim had more rights to democrats with the president after all, deep victims had a right to know that they would know the accusers name. those of you at home, it's time
to change the channel and turn down the volume or hide the kids and put them the bed. i yield to mr. schiff for story time hour. >> i thank the gentleman as always for his remarks. [laughter] i'll be brief this evening it's been a long day. i said most of why the say earlier today. i did want to end this evening and first of all thank you both for your testimony and your service to the country. we are very grateful that you answered a lawful process of a congressional subpoena. i wanted to share a few reflections on two words that i -- that have come up a lot in these hearings. those words are corruption and anticorruption. we are supposed to believe i imagine listening to colleagues that donald trump is a great
anti-corruption fighter. that his only concern about ukraine was that they would fight corruption. but let's look at that argument. let's look at the president's words and look at his deeds. ambassador yovanovitch was an anti corruption champion. no one has contradicted that that has come forward to testify here. she was a champion. and on the day that she is at a meeting acknowledging ukraine on another anti corruption champion. a woman that had acid thrown in her face and died a painful death after months. she has called back to washington because of a vicious campaign by the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani among others. she has recalled that is not
anti corruption, that is corruption. one of the people responsible for this smear campaign in addition to giuliani and it is a long and sordid list of those who were involved is a man named lutsenko. who is the majority own witness acknowledges has a poor reputation as self serving and corrupt. what do we see about mr. lutsenko and his predecessor mr. shokin? what does the president have to say about one of these former prosecutors? he praises them. he says they were treated very unfairly, that is not anti corruption, that is corruption.
when ambassador sondland testified today, that there was unquestionably a quid pro quo and everybody knew it, conditioning a white house meeting with ukraine that they desperately wanted to show their friend and foe like they had the support of the president of the united states when that was conditioned and that official act was conditioned on the face of value of the president and the political investigations. that was not anti corruption, that was corruption. when ambassador sondland testified today that he could put two and two together and so can we. that there was also a quid pro quo on military aid and it was not going to be released unless they did a public statement, if ukraine did a public statement on these investigations that the president wanted. that's not anti corruption that is corruption. let's look at the president's words on that infamous phone
call on july 25. zelensky howdent is that reform coming? what are you doing to root out corruption? what about that new anti corruption court? of course not! are we willing to believe that this was his priority? no. what does he ask? i want you to do us a favor. investigate this crazy 2016 server conspiracy that the server is somewhere in ukraine. more ominously investigate the bidens, that is not anti corruption, that is corruption. and the next day when he's on the phone with ambassador sondland about outdoor restaurant in kiev, what does he want to know about? does he want to know how zelensky is going to fight corruption? of course not. the only thing he brings up in that call is the investigation
he wants into the bidens. that is not anticorruption, that is corruption. every now and then, there is a conversation that really says all you need to know. and sometimes it doesn't seem all that significant. but i'll tell you, this one really struck me. there was a conversation that ambassador volker related in a -- in his testimony. it was a conversation just this past september when he was talking to top advisor to president zelensky and was advising him as indeed he should. you know, you may not want to go through with an investigation or prosecution of former president poroshenko and engaging in political investigations is really not a good idea.
and you know what he says? oh, you mean like you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons? there's a word for that, and it is not corruption or anticorruption. it is called hypocrisy. this is the problem here. we do have an anti corruption policy around the world and the great men and women in your department, undersecretary and hale under your department miss cooper carry that message around the world. that the united states is devoted to the rule of law. but when they see a president of the united states who is not devoted to the rule of law was not devoted to anti corruption, but instead demonstrates a word and deed corruption, they are forced to ask themselves what does america stand for. -- stand for anymore? that concludes this evening's
hearing. i will ask the witnesses to excuse themselves. members should remain and we have a business matter to take out. -- take up? i have the ranking member's request that congress share the ranking members request the committee's to -- pursue subpoenas -- we will see their request this morning. we will add it to the record now without objection. we will review to other requests for subpoenas not compelled deposition testimony by the
whistleblower, by hunter biden. three other subpoenas to compel certain parties to produce records. the whistleblower to produce documents, communications related to the whistleblower's complaint. rosemont sent a baha'i the high to produce recommendations wade hunter biden's role in the burisma board in the democratic national committee produce communications ukrainian officials and records relating to alexandria chalupa. i do not concur on these requests for subpoenas. we will not allow as i said before, this committee to be used to either out the whistleblower or for purposes of engaging in the same improper investigation that the president sought to coerce ukraine to commit. the committee will take them up now, beginning with the first request to compel testimony by the whistleblower. is there a motion? >> mister chairman, i moved it -- >> the gentleman moves. >> this lady has not been noticed.
>> point of order, mr. chairman. >> excuse me. this is an debatable. those opposed say no. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> a roll call vote is requested. the clerk should call the roll. >> chairman schiff. >> mr. himes. >> mr. carson. >> mr. swalwell. >> mr. castro. >> miss demings. >> mr. krishnamurthy. >> mr. conway. >> mr. turner. >> dr. when struck.
>> mr. stewart. stephani.ny -- miss >> mr. jordan. >> no. >> mister chairman, there are 14 ayes and for no. >> as the motion it works is. >> point of order, mister chairman. >> general status point of order. >> mr. chairman was this , business meeting notice properly with the rules of the house? >> house resolution 660 requires that if the minority makes a request for subpoenas that we will probably take up that request and that is what we are doing. >> mister chairman, however, rule 11 -- >> is there an issue to compel the testimony of hunter biden? then we move to table, although survivor will say i. all those opposed say.
in the opinion of the, shares the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman request a roll call vote, please call the raw. >> chairman schiff. mr. himes. mr. carson. mr. quigley. mr. swalwell. mr. castro. mr. heck. mr. welch. mr. maloney. ms. demings. mr. krishnamurthy. ranking member nunez. mr. conaway. mr. turner. dr. when strip. mr. stewart. miss stefanik. mr. heard. mr. radcliffe. mr. jordan. mister chairman, there are 13 ayes and five knows.
>> motion to table is carried, the motion is now in the subpoena to compel documents in the whistleblower, is there a move to table? >> there is a move to table, all those in favor say i. i all those opposed to. no now in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. we will now move wants to compel documents. >> mr. chairman, i moved to table. all those in favor say aye. i all those in favor -- all those opposed say no. no anything to the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is tabled. last motion is on the motion to compel documents in the democratic national committee. is there a motion? >> mister chairman. i want to table. >> gentleman moves to table. all of this in favor will say i. i. all those opposed say no. no in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is tabled. >> point of order, mister chairman. >> adjourned.
>> following the testimony of david hale, undersecretary of ,tate and laura cooper representative jim jordan spoke to reporters outside of the house intelligence committee room. >> i thought another good hearing for the truth for the president. ambassador haley talked about how they are doing a conference of review of foreign aid and how aid gets held up. in fact, this year he said, on pakistan, of course, as we know, the ukraine, so, nothing unusual there, so i thought again, a much quicker hearing but i thought another good day, another good hearing to the truth and to the president. >> what did you think of laura cooper's testimony about acknowledging behold may have been much earlier?