government and the justice department, that's the perfect way to raise an issue with the ukrainian president, correct? >> it is appropriate for the justice department and the prosecutor again to cooperate and exchange information, yes. >> to the extent the president had concerns and the attorney general is having u.s. attorney durham looking into that. is that entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for should be in touch with our official challenge? >> i don't know the precise appropriateness of these kinds of relations. >> now, were you involved, either of you involved in the preparation for the 7/25 call? >> i was not. >> i was not. >> how do you account for that? >> i mean you were the two officials responsibility with ukrainian policies. if the president of the united

states having a call with the leader of ukraine, why would you not ordinarily be involved with the preparations. >> in preparations for a presidential phone call that lies within staff of the national security council. if there is enough efficient time, national security staff can solicit information usually from the state department and we can draw an embassy. that's only background information. national security staff writes a memo to the president and none of us sees that outside of national security staff. >> so the u.s. ambassador t country would not be on the call with the foreign leader? >> that's correct. >> we are not. >> anyone reaching out to you mr. kent in preparation for the call? >> i was given notification the day before on july 24th and the

extent, i had any role was to reach out the embassy and give them a heads up and ensure the communication to the office of the president of ukraine so the call can be pass through the white house's situation room. >> did you forget any advice to conne colonel vitamin mandman of the ? >> i was not asked and provided. >> same to you, ambassador? >> the same. >> the call was scheduled and you testified earlier that the call was on and off again. after the july 10th, meeting when baambassador bolton, the c sen consensus that would not happen. >> once zelensky's party won the absolute majority on july 21st,

the where had of a congratutory call made perfect sense. >> did you get a read out ambassador taylor from the call? >> i didn't. i read the, we all read the statement that the crew ukraiuk put out. i got a read-out from mr. morrison national security council. >> how about you mr. kent? >> i like wise first saw the ukrainians' statements and the next day july 26th which was a friday, i did get a partial read out from colonel vindman. >> is that because it is initially written in ukraine and translated in tuu.s.? >> no, as a general rule, the

united states and other countries including ukraine will put out short summaries that hit the highlights of the discussion but without going into details. >> you mentioned there were scriptic. looking back at their summary as i renault, i don't recall the exact words but they said that there were issues to be pursued to improve relations between the two countries. >> it seems ordinary. >> you heard from president zelensky the next day? >> we had a meeting with him the next day. >> did president zelensky raise any concerns of his view of the call? >> he said, volker, ambassador

sondland were in his office and we asked him on the policy. he said the call was fine. i was happy with the call. >> did you get any additional read-out subsequently? >> when did you learn that the call contain things that concerned you? >> was it not until the 25th? >> mr. morrison briefed me several days later before the end of july. and as where i said in my testimony that he said could have gone better. he said the call mentioned mr. rudy giuliani and also mentioned the call mentioned former ambassador. both of those were concerning.

>> i don't recall. >> it could been. >> i have it here if you would like it. >> yeah, it is on page 3. the first mention of rudy giuliani was president zelensky was on page 3. and president zelensky says i will personally tell you one of my assistants spoke with mr. rudy giuliani recently and we are hoping very much that mr. rudy giuliani will be able to travel to ukraine and we'll meet once he comes to ukraine. did that surprise you? >> again, i didn't have the transcript at the time. all i heard was rudy giuliani was mentioned but mr. martian says rudy giuliani was mentioned in the call. >> zelensky is looking forward to speak to america's mayor. >> that's what i found out when i read the transcript on the 25th of september or so. >> no, mr. kent, corruption in

ukraine is epidemic, correct? >> that's correct. >> it affects the courts, the prosecutors and historically been problems with all prosecute rs with ukraine, correct? >> up until the new set of prosecutors appointed by president zelensky in the last two months, correct. >> the u.s. government, the consensus of the state department and national security council and white house. skelet zelensky is a real deal. he's interested in rudy giuliani's corruption and prosecuting the bad guys. correct? >> we are cautiously optimistic. we'll work where ever there is a pleasant hill cal will to do the right thing and put forward genuine reform. >> this alioligarchs take contr

by virtual theft, for example, their rights on certain energy licenses, correct? >> that's one element. >> the company, burisma, he had a little bit of a story history of corruption, does he? >> mr. lachesky, he used his authority to himself controlled. that would be an act of corruption in my view. yes. >> self-dealing and self-enriching. >> how did the ukrainian government pursue that? >> the new government, the revolution of dignity turns into partner with the u.s. and u.k. to try to recover tens of billions of dollars of stolen

assets. the first case that we tried to recover that money came from mr. ch chesky. >> the $23 million was frozen until somebody in the general prosecutor's office in ukraine shuts the case and issues the letter to his lawyer and that money went poof. >> has anyone in the ukrainian investigation tried to -- >> we continue to raise as a point of order but because u.s. taxpaye taxpaye taxpayers' dollars have been used and we continue to press ukrainian officials to answer

why alleged corrupt prosecutors had closed a case and we have knocked out the satisfactory. those were our main concerns. >> are you in favor of fully being investigated and prosecuted? >> i think u.s. taxpayers' dollars are wasted, i would love to find out who the prosecutor was that took the bribe and how much it was paid. that's what i said to the the deputy in 2019. in addition the person that took the bribe should not be an organization or individuals that sponsored the bribes and bribes accused. >> i agree they should hold people account for breaking ukrainian law. this company burisma involved in

a lot of criminal activities, correct? >> i do not no know that. it has been a number of questionable -- it is the last largest producer in the country and business reputation is mixed. it would be fair for the genuine prosecutors to re-examine old times that had not been brought up to justice. >> i believe he made a statement to that end and reviewing past cases, keep in mind this is a country where those commit crimes generally never gets held to account so there is a lot to review. >> it was paid in what year? >> december of 2014.

>> right around that time, burisma started adding officials to its force. is that correct? >> yes, they invited a series of new individuals to join the board in 2014. >> you know what his strategy was and adding officials to his ward? >> i have never met him. >> who were some of the folks he added todd the board. >> the most prominent was the president of alexander. >> plrp a number of others, including some americans, the most cprominent one is hunter e biden. i believe companies build their boards with a variety of reasons and not only to promote their business plans. >> was hunter biden a corporate

governance expert? >> i had no idea. >> i have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was and what he may have done on the board. >> so you don't know whether he has any business experience in ukraine prior to joining burisma board. >> do you know if he speaks crew ukrai ukrainian? >> no, i do not. >> did you notice whether -- >> i have no knowledge of hunter biden. >> you would agree to raise questions, right? >> he was getting paid $50,000 a month to sit on the board. >> did you know he relocated to

ukraine? >> did you know if hunter biden relocated to ukraine? >> no knowledge. >> mr. ken? >> again, no knowledge. >> he's getting paid $50,000 a month but we don't know whether he had any experience or had any spoke the language or whether he moved to ukraine, correct? >> correct. >> biden was taken a specific interests of ukraine, was he? >> he was. >> while he was vice president, he made a total of six visits to ukraine. one is the old regime and that would make five visits after he started february 2014. >> and you were the dcm of that mission at the time? >> starting in 2015, yes. >> did vice president come -- i

missed several. >> you see vice president biden sort of given a speech and folksy how he went into ukraine and if they don't fire their prosecutors, they'll lose $1 billion. >> i have. he also said he's been there ukraine 13 times. do you know that's accurate? >> he made six visits. did the state department ever expressed any concerns to the vice president's office or his role at the time, engaging on ukraine presented in any issues? >> no. the vice president's role is critically important. it was top cover to help us pursue our policy agenda. >> okay, but you know hunter biden, at some point you testify

in your deposition, you express or concerns of the president. >> what did they do about that? >> i have no idea. i reported my concerns to the office of the vice president. >> that was the end of it? >> you would have to ask people work ing in the office of the vice president in 2015. >> the vice president engaged in ukraine and ukraine did not decrease, did it? >> the vice president was burisma did not seize, did it? >> to the best of my knowledge, it did not. concern there was a possibility of a perception of a conflict of interests. >> baas ambassador taylor. i want to turn to the discussion of the irregular channel and in

fairness, this irregular channel of diplomacy, it is not o outlandiou outlandish as it could be, is that correct? >> yes, i agree with you. >> we have ambassador volker, a former senate confirm, nato and state department and diplomat. you have known him for >> somebody with good knowledge of the region. >> and the best interests of the united states and ukraine? >> yes, i am sure you are right. his first priority is clearly the united states. to the extent that ukraine has an implication for that, yes. >> okay. >> second member of the ambassador sondland who is senate confirmed, ambassador of the eu, so his involvement here

while not necessarily part of his official dutieduties, it is certainly not outlandish for him to be interested or engaged or pursuant to secretary pompeo. >> it is unusual for the ambassador of the eu play a role in ukraine policy. >> it may be deregular but it is not certainly outlandish. >> secretary perry is the third member of the irregular channel. certainly a senate confirmed official and somebody with deep experience and energy and he was pursuing the flanatural gas prot in ukraine? >> perry's involvement is perfectly acceptable? >> it is. >> this irregular channel has it

develops, when did you determine that if tbecame problematic. appropriately is the leader of the regular channel. >> at least the participant. there is another lead other the regulators. >> when did you develop concerns of the irregular channel was being problematic? >> i arrived in late september. i had a couple of phone call with -- >> you arrived in june, right? >> sorry, mid june. by the end of june, e hi had be to hear references to investigations as something would have to happen prior to

the meeting that president trump had offered to zelensky. that began to raise questions for me. >> now, you have done baas to volker and you have a reasons to know about baas to -- >> i didn't try to rush control of the regular channel >> why not though? >> because at the time, as secretary kent testified, both channels, both channels were interested in having a reading between president trump and zelensky. there is no reason to kind of rush control if we are going

antonio t into the same direction. >> your opening statements was here and you are the impeachment witness number one and number two. for impeaching of the president of the united states, you testified about the regular channel. >> i was concerned, the irregular channel going against the direction of and purpose of the regulator channels. >> i understand the record or whatever. you had the support of the secretary counsel of the deal, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> they assured you if you have any ken, you will be able to contact them and have you back. >> you know going in the rudy giuliani element presented some

omnivore plaintiff's exhibitt complexities, correct? >> yes. >> i was concerned of rudy giuliani's statements. >> when it became concerned for you, what did you do to engage sondland and rudy giuliani and perry. by the way, did you ever meet rudy giuliani? >> no, mr. rudy giuliani visited ukraine one time when i was there in 2007 or 2008. you never had any communications with rudy giuliani as part of this irregular channel business? >> that's correct. >> and anyway, getting back to my question, did you try to engage fuel or the secretary during this time?

>> i know you said you had an obvious 21st or 22 telephone call. that's correct. >> is that sort of the universe initiatives you took inside the state department to raise your concerns about thor regulaoor i channel. >> i raised concerns early on where i mentioned this phone call that was odd in that, it did not include the normal staff, professor sondland staff and that struck me as unusual. i con sukted with mr. kent and his sugts made a note of this. i think at thp point i had a

conversation with mr. -- >> that was a june 28th call. >> that's correct. >> in your opening statement, you expressed concerns. so the june the 28th call did not play out or presented any problems to you. >> the president where presid-- call. that again was irregular and it did not have the staff. it was almost in that precall, that 15 minutes before president zelensky ot gone the phone wearing a vest or volker told the rest of the participant that

he was planning to have a conversation with president zelensky in toronto in three or four days. where he'll outline president zelensky the important components of the phone call that we are trying to establish. >> you didn't have an issue with that, did you? there was reference to investigation. i have to check my notes on that. the raised issues for me that i did not understand what ambassador volker had in mind that he was going to raise with mr. zelensky. that was a little bit of concerns. the president expressed interests in his investigation. and relating to this corrupt

burisma. that was not consistent with the president's message, right? >> i am not sure. can you ask you to repeat the question? >> the president's concerns about the 2016 election in order to get to the bottom of it, the president is concerned is it multiple relating to the burisma company. >> value boar is raising that way with zelensky, consistent with the direction of the president, correct? >> the president's interest, i would say mr. rudy giuliani's interest. that was very clear at the time. mr. rudy giuliani's interest in pursuing these investigations

was a concern. >> did you know how many times volker met with rudy giuliani? >> i don't. >> how many would you guess? >> i don't know. he tested back and forth with the mayor and he had a call or two. but it was not a persuasive investigation for ambassador volker. were you aware of that? >> i was aware of one breakfast, i think. that was the only one i was aware of. i want to circle back to the company of burisma, you hesit e hesitathesitat hesitated testified there was an instance where you had engage with parishion-- you took issue and recommended usaid to pull

back. >> ser ptember of 2014. the part of the usa, the nation that worked on economics and government and including energy con spored some sort of contests for young ukrainians. they coupon sor-- given the pas history of our interests in recovering still an asset from mr. chesky. it was inappropriate for the embassy to be corespondering a contest with burisma. >> the u.s. ad mission kept the contest but dropped the public

pa partnership and sponsorship. >> i will now move to five minutes memory m minutes. >> you testified about a time an aligarchs was awarding himself contracts, what was that? he was minister of ecology under the president of 2012 or 2010. so this corrupted sales dealing and was partially seven years before the events that bring us together. the phone call zr ruand runs ar

it. >>? 2010 and 2012. hunter biden joining the border of 204. >> you read the transcript, have you not. >> i have not read it for about a month. >> is tlp any mention of discussion of president trump and zelensky. >> is there a discussion of awarding contracts to one self or the corrupt act in the 2012 or 2014 time frame. >> what the brings up is crowd strike and the bidens, am i right? >> i see it here, right? >> it was on some of the diskigss of that call setting up an anty corruption of courts and among oligarhs.

in again. >> the president focuses on two things, 2016 and the bidens, am i light? >> i believe so. >> i am not sure the yiet should ask -- prosecutions against the opponents of those in power. >> such selected action under bi mind the rule of law. this investigation are prosecution against the opponents of those who are in power. >> are you referring to the bidens there. >> that would apply to the president of the united states, speaking for an opponent. >> i that i can it in your discussion of master taylor with ambassador sondland or others, what was communicated to you was the president wanted the

investigation in 2016 into the biden and the oligarchs. was that your sunday. >> that was my sunsing. >> when you said your staff over heard this call between ambassador sun land and the president, that call, the president brings up investigations, does he not? >> in immediately after the after gets off the phone with con grand. >> what is the president think of eye crane. his answer is he's entrust interested in the buy dens. >> he was more interested in the bidens. things that happened 70 years ago. he was interested in the bidens. you also testified that,

masterson latold you that president trump wants zelensky in a public box. >> does it mean that private statements, private promises to do the investigation were not enough. ha you had to go on tv and because the president wanted him in that box. is that your understanding? >> mr. chairman, i don't know what he had in mind, i am not sure what ambassador dosondlandn mind. >> the implications needed to be public as posed to be a private assuran assurance. >> and i think you said in that same call, you asked ambassador sondland to push back on president's demand, is that correct? >> that's correct. sir. >> you understand from your conversation with sondland, this was the president's demands.

not sondland's demand. you wanted some land to push back, am i right? >>. >> so ambassador sondland is clearly able to have dfrgs with the the president. i thought the psh on another president, president zelensky was not a good idea. i suggested in that phone call with ambassador sondland since he regular or frequently had conversations with the president he could make that point. >> i think the way you ux presspreswant him to ex perpress back. >> you wanted sondland to push back? >> yes, i asked boambassador so land to push back.

>> after the aide was released, the white house learned there was a whistleblower's complaint. even after those events, you were still worry that sen szele may go on and asking for this. >> i worried that he may do that. when there were some indication that there may still be a plan for the cnn interview in new york which is upcoming. >> the united nations general spli me spli. >> i want to be sure so i didn't address it to staffs. >> the national security add z advisors that they did not want to use as tools or politics.

>> he knew it was a bad idea to interject and interfere in other nation's elections. >> but it appears until the aid was lifted, that he felt compel to do it. >> he was making plans to have him make some kind of announcement, i don't know what it would have been on cnn in public. even though he did not want to be u.s. politics. >> hermr. nunes, you are recognd for 7 minutes and 10 seconds. >> thank you, gentleman for that. >> you said the first time you heard of the deposition, you read it in "the new york times." >> is that correct? >> i do remember that, noticing

about mr. rudy giuliani being involved in that article, yes. >> one of the mother of all conspiracy theory that somehow the president of the united states would want a country he does not even like, he did not want the foreign aids in having the ukrainians start an investigation into the bidens. >> we know that from your deposition in those 55 days that aide is delayed, you met with president zelensky three times. the first one was july 26th. the day after president trump and zelensky's call. >> sen according to our testimo there was no linkage of security system dollars to investigating burisma or the bidens.

>> august 27, second meeting. president zelensky meets with you and the president. there is no link -- there was no linkage to an investigation of burisma and the bidens. >> three meetings with the president of the ukraine and no linka linkage, is that accurate? >> mr. jordan, certainly accurate on the first two meetings because to my knowledge. the yu caltrukraine people were aware on the whole of the system until the 29th of august. >> the third meeting that you mentioned was the senators,

there was discussions of the security systems but. >> no linkage? >> there was not discussion of linkages. >> repeating face-to-face with president zelensky no linkage. you said this and you said it general in the first hour. my clear understanding that security system money would not come until president zelensky committed to spur sue the investigati investigation. >> my clear understanding was i am going to get the money until president - president zelensky did not announce he was going to investigate burisma or the bidens. >> he didn't do a press conference and say i am going to investigate burisma or the bidens. he didn't do the cnn interviews

how he's going to eninvestigate burisma or the eybidens. >> president szelensky does not allow it. you said you have a clear understanding that those two things it is going to happen. the money was going to get released until until the investigation and that did not happen. >> where did you get this clear understanding? >> as i testified mr. jordan. this came ambassador sondland. >> i am going to bring you a piece of paper from ambassador sondland statement. >> go ahead. i am going to let you finish. shall i read this? >> i want you to have it because i am going to read it. i want you to go ahead finish. you said you got this from ambassador sondland. >> that's correct.

he told them although this was not a quid pro quo, if president did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stair way. that was one point. it was also the case -- >> mr. morrison talked to you, right? >> son ladland told me he recognized it was a mistake. he told the ukrainians, the president was held up in order to get these investigation. >> it was also the security system. that's everything. so those two discussions. >> so again, just to recap. >>. >> no linkages of those three meetings came up. >> ambassador did not announce he's going to do the

investigation. he didn't do any of that. >> and now what you have in front of you is an aidddendumad. >> i want you to look at point two, second sentence. ambassador taylor recalls it mr. morrison told mr. morrison that i convey this message on september 1st, 2019 and a meeting the president of zelensky. >> this is clarification. we got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding. >> which i mean even though you had three opportunities with

zelensky. >> you were on the call? >> no, i was not. >> you never talked to mulvaney. >> you never heat the president? >> that's correct. >> who of those days i have never heard about it. >> this is what i can't believe and you are their star witness. your their first respect. >> you the guy based on this. i have seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this. ambassad baas ambassador taylor, i hear from gordon sondland. i convey this message september 21st, this all happens by the way war sew.

point-to-point pence meets with president skeleton szelensky. >> would you like to response? >> the only way to response is. let me just say i don't consider myself as star witness for anything. i want konding to your question. i think i was clear about i am not here to take one side or the other or advocate any particular outcomes. let me restate that. my understanding only comes from people that i talk. >>. >> we we got that. >> and i think this clarification from ambassador song land was because he said he didn't remember this in his first deposition. he wanted to clarify. >> mr. jordan, the way i read

this,he remembers it the same way i do. it is real clear, right? >> thank you. >> gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. one of the things i find startling of these proceedings, we are faced with allegations of presidential k presidential conduct. they spin theories of black ledgers and steele dossier and the startling linkage that the opening statement when he attacked democrats, he attacked the the strong men and woim of the fish.

wheandwhen defense does emerged. >> mr. kent, you worked in 27 years of rules of law, is that correct? >> yes. since 2012. >> reporter: like most of us up here, i don't have a good sense of what a real anticorruption effort that we must engage in all over the world all the time. >> what does it look like in. >> let me take a minute to carrica characterize for us. >> you need institution with integrity. >> that starts with investigators and goes to prosecutors and go tos court. country like crane we start with law enforcement and that's what we did in 2014 or 2015 with new

patrol police. they needed to a specialized, there was a different body that was reviewed for unusual wealth of national any corruption preprenpr prevention. that was trying to cure rate investigators prosecutors in courts with integrity that could not be bought and focused on high level of corruption. >> what i am hearing is a comprehensive effort. lets me read you to trump's own words. >> there were a lot of talk about biden son's son. a lot of people want to find out about that. >> whatever ugh do with the attorney general, would be great. >> biden went around and said he

stopped the constitution. >> >>. >> i do not. >> mr. kent and mr. taylor, the defenders of the president's behavior have made a big deal. vice president biden encouraged the ukrainian to remove a corrupt prosecute rs. senate erraor ramal -- >> is that correct? are those exactly the same thing? if they are not, how are they different? >> i do not think they are the same things. >> what former vice president requested of president ukraine was the removal of a corrupt

prosecutors general, victor shoekin, under mind a prom of a distance that you try to build an independent invest baiters and go after prosecutors. there was a case called the, the judges issued the warrants and the law enforcement that had warrants to do the wiretapping, everybody to protect this former driver who he made a prosecutor. that was what joe biden was asking. joe biden was participating in an effort englishment to address corruption in the ukraine. >> that's correct. >> as you look at this whole ops a comprehensive and whole of

corruption in ukraine? >> referring to the we quest in july, i would not say no. >> i don't think he was trying to aim corruption at ukraine. i yield back the balance of my time. >> recognizing for five minutes. >> i yield my time to the gentleman in texas. >> the gentleman in texas >> zelensky. ambassador taylor you said one of his first act in office was to remove immunity. you have had personal dealings with him. has he given you any reason to question his honesty or integrity? >> no, sir. >> in your prior deposition i'll

asked you, i'll read it directly. not aware of the hold and as a matter of law and matter of fact, nott quid pro quo based o military aid. to your knowledge, nobody was aware of the hold. is that still your testimony? >> mr. ratcliffe. i'm talking on july 25th. >> they did not know this. >> as it turns out, president zelensky agreed with you. on october 10th president zelensky held a press marathon with over 300 reporters that he said repeatedly and consistency that he was not aware of a military hold during the july 25thdu call. in fact, in his official press release from the ukrainian government available on his website that i'll be introducing into the recorddu he said our phone conversation bears no

relations to arms. they blocked the provision of military assistance prior to our telephone conversation but the issue had notnv been discussed during our conversation. i meandu i didn't even know. so, now, in addition to confirming that because he had no knowledge of it, there was no quidth pro quo involving milita aid duringnv that call, preside zelensky went on to confirm a number of things. that there was no pressure and no conditions. and there were no threats on military naid. there were no conditions or pressure to investigate the 2016 electi election. that there was no blackmail and no corruption of any kind during the july 25th call. again, from his official press release. therefore, there was noro blackmail because it wasre not e subject of our conversation with the president of the united states. there were no conditions on the investigation either because of arms or the situation around

barisma company. he told "l.a. times" no pressure or blackmail from the united states. he told japan's kioto news, i was never pressured and no conditions being imposed. it was not corruption. it was just a call. the ukrainian president stood in front of the world press and repeatedly, consistently over and over again, interview after interview said he had no knowledge of military aid being withheld and no quid pro quo, no demands, no threats, no blackmail, nothing corrupt. unlike the first 45 minutes that we heard from the democrats today, that's not second-hand information. that's not hearsay and not what someone overheard ambassador sondland say. that was his exact testimony. ambassador, do you have any evidence to assert that president zelensky was lying to the world press when he said

those things? yes or no? >> mr. ratcliffe -- >> my time is short. yes or no. reason to doubt what the president said in his -- >> okay. very good. in this impeachment hearing today whereac we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or high crimes. where is the impeachable offense in that call? are either of you here to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? shout it out. anyone?ff >> mr. ratcliffe, let me reiterate -- >> i just have one minute left. >> you asked the witness a question. >> i withdraw the question. ambassador, let me ask you this question.sk >> the general will suspend, ambassador taylor would you like to r answer. we will suspend the clock. >> spsuspend the clock.

one minute, please. >> master taylor, would you like to respond to the question? >> mr. ratcliffe, i am not here having to do with anything to decide about impeachment. that is not what either of us are here to do. >> can we restore the clock to one minute?th >> no,to but you can continue wh 22 seconds. >> mr. ambassador, i think everyone knowsas that house democrats have made up their mindde to impeach one president. the questionim that we've just learned is whether or not they're prepared to impeach two. because, to be clear, if house democrats impeach president trump for a quid pro quo involving military qaid, they have to a call president zelens a liar. if they are making threats or demands, they have to call president zelensky a liar to do it. ifo they impeach president tru for blackmail or extortion or making threats or demand, they have to call president trump a liar to do it.

i yield back. >> chair recognizes representative. >> i yield aog few minutes to m esteemed chairman. >> thank you. ambassador outaylor, i don't kn if you had a chance to read some of the transcripts that have been released. are you aware other witnesses have testified that ukraine, in fact, found out the aid was being withheld before it become public knowledge? >> mr. chairman, i have read that. i think there's some question of when they may have heard. >> and ultimately, they did find out when the political story came out to your knowledge, but others have said even sooner. but they did find out, right ambassad ambassador? >> they did, mr. chairman. >> at the time they found>> out they knew what president trump wanted from them. he wanted these investigations, correct? >>st ambassador sondland inform president zelensky's staff, of

what was required. yes. >> so, ukraine find out about the hold. you're not able to give them a reason for the hold. no one is able to give them a reason for the hold. they know the presidents wants these investigations and then they're told in warsaw by ambassador sondland, essentially you're noton getting the aid unless you do these investigations, is that dcorre? >> that is correct. >> you've been asked how could there be conditioning if the ukrainians didn't know. but ukrainians weren't told by ambassador sondland, did they not? >> the ukrainians did not know about the hold on the phone call on july 25th. that's true. but they were told, mr. chairman, on the 1st of september. >> in fact, they may not have known during the time of the call, they would find out. when they did find out, they would know what the president wanted, correct?

>> that's correct.t >> representative. >> so, mr. kent, i'd like to refer you to the discussion of may 23rd meeting in the oval office. when the president met with those who had p gone to the ukraine for the inauguration. you briefly testified that you helped propose names for individuals to go to that inauguration. was ambassador sondland who was ambassador todl the european unn one of the names that you submitted? >> no, it was not. >> but he ultimately attended that inauguration, is that not right? >> that is correct. >> do you know how he ended up as a part of that official delegation? >> i do not know for sure, but my understanding is once the list left the nsc staff, it went for a review through the part of the white house t that determin presidentiale delegations. >> you alsoal testified that up returning, ambassador so indlan used hisquotes, connections

with mulvaney, in order to secure this meeting in the oval office, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> it seems like it was a pivotal turning point in the ukraine policy. coming out ofpo that meeting, w was given responsibility to your recollection? who wasyo given responsibility r the ukraine policy? >> i never saw any document that changed the nature of policy determination in the u.s. government, under the trump administration -- >> didn't you also say. i just haveal little time. you did say in your testimony that you felt that that, you testified that secretary perry, ambassador sondland and volker, quote, felt they had the mandate to take the lead, end quote. >> their feeling doesn't mean that they actually got delegated responsibility. >> have you hearded of the team three amigos? >> i referenced that on july

26efth. >> what do you come to mean by three e amigos. >> my understanding of ambassador sondland's use of that term thed' three people in charge of ukraine policy during the summer was he, gordon sondland and ambassador volker and secretary perry. >> when did you come to learn about mr. t giuliani's role and what do you consider his role to have been?er >> i first heard about former mayor jewgiuliani's interest in ukraine in january of this year. that was a different phase than what happened during the summertime. >> is it normal to have ape pern who is private citizen take a role in foreign diplomacy? >> i did not find it formal, no. >> ambassador taylor, you testified two channels regular and irregular. what did you see as rudy giuliani's role in ukraine policy