Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
George Kent, Top State Dept. Ukraine Expert and Bill Taylor, Fmr. Ambassador to Ukraine Are Questioned in First Public Impeachment Hearing. Aired 1-1:30p ET
Aired November 13, 2019 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00] TAYLOR: It's appropriate for the Justice Department and the prosecutor general to cooperate and to exchange information, yes.
CASTOR: But, to the extent the president has concerns, and to the extent the Attorney General is -- is having U.S. Attorney Durham look into that, isn't it entirely appropriate for the president to flag this for President Zelensky, and -- and say that you should be in touch with our official channels?
TAYLOR: Mr. Castor, I don't know the precise appropriateness of these kinds of -- of relations.
CASTOR: Now, were you involved -- either of you involved with the preparation for the 7/25 call?
TAYLOR: I was not.
KENT: I was not.
CASTOR: And how do you account for that? I mean, you're the -- you are the -- two of the key officials with responsibility for Ukrainian policy. I mean, if the President of the United States is going to have a call with the leader of Ukraine, why -- what -- why wouldn't you ordinarily be involved with the preparation?
KENT: Sir, we work for the Department of State in an Embassy overseas, and in preparation for a presidential phone call, that responsibility lies within the staff of the National Security Council.
Normally, if there is enough sufficient time, National Security Staff can solicit information, usually from the State Department, and we can draw on the Embassy, but that's only background information, and my understanding, having never worked with the National Security Council, is that National Security staff write a memo to the president and none of us see that outside of the National Security staff.
CASTOR: OK, so the -- the charge or the U.S. Ambassador to the country wouldn't ordinarily be on a call with a foreign leader?
TAYLOR: That's correct. Would not.
CASTOR: And did Colonel Vindman or anyone at the National Security staff reach out to you Mr. Kent in preparation for the call? KENT: I was given notification the day before, on July 24th, and to the extent I had any role, it was to reach out to the Embassy, give them a heads up and ask them to ensure that the secure communications link in the Office of the President of Ukraine was functional so the call could be patched through from the White House Situation Room.
CASTOR: Did you provide any -- any substantive advice to -- to Colonel Vindman about -- about the call and what ought to be the -- the official position?
KENT: I was not asked and I did not provide.
CASTOR: OK. Same with your, Ambassador?
TAYLOR: The same.
CASTOR: And, the call was schedule -- you know, you testified earlier that the call was on again, off again, and after the July 10th meeting with Ambassador Bolton, the consensus was the call was not going to happen, is that correct?
KENT: I would not say that was the consensus. The State Department's position was that a call between the two presidents would be useful, and once Zelensky's Party won the first ever absolute majority in parliamentary elections on July 21st, the idea of a congratulatory call made imminent sense from our perspective.
CASTOR: OK. And the call was schedule, and did you get a readout, Ambassador Taylor, initially from the call?
TAYLOR: I didn't, Mr. Castor. I read the -- we all read the statement that the Ukrainians put out. I got a readout several days later from Mr. Morrison National Security Council.
CASTOR: OK. And how about you, Mr. Kent?
KENT: I, likewise, first saw the Ukrainian statement, and I believe the next day, July 26th, which would have been a Friday, I did get a partial readout from Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, yes.
CASTOR: Ambassador Taylor, you said that the Ukrainian readout was cryptic. Is that just because it's initially written in Ukrainian and translated to the U.S.?
TAYLOR: No, it's -- as a general rule, both United States and other countries, including Ukraine, will put out very short summaries that kind of hit the highlights of the discussion, but without going into detail.
CASTOR: OK. And you mentioned it was cryptic, why did you think it was cryptic?
TAYLOR: Knowing now what -- having read the transcript and looking back at their summary as I recall -- I don't recall the exact words but they said that there were issues to be pursued in order to improve relations between the two countries, or something like that. CASTOR: That seems pretty ordinary.
TAYLOR: It seems pretty ordinary.
CASTOR: You were with President Zelensky the very next day?
TAYLOR: We were -- we had a meeting with him the very next day.
CASTOR: And did President Zelensky raise any concerns about his views of the call?
[13:05:00] TAYLOR: He said -- so right -- so I, Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland were in his office and we asked him, I think how the call -- he said, the call was fine, I was happy with the call.
CASTOR: OK. And did you get any additional read outs subsequently of the call -- like when did you first learn that the call contained things that concerned you? Was that not until September 25th?
TAYLOR: Mr. Morrison -- as I say (ph) briefed me several days later before the end of July and he -- I think this is where I said in my testimony that he said it could've gone better --
CASTOR: Yes.
TAYLOR: -- and said it mentioned -- that the call mentioned Mr. Giuliani --
CASTOR: Yes.
TAYLOR: -- we also said that the call mentioned the former ambassador. Both of those were concerning.
CASTOR: Giuliani was first raised on the call by President Zelensky, correct?
TAYLOR: I don't recall.
CASTOR: OK.
TAYLOR: It -- it could have been. Well I -- I have it here if you'd like.
CASTOR: Yes, it's on page --
TAYLOR: Very good.
CASTOR: Page three. The first mention of Giuliani is from President Zelensky, it's on page three. And President Zelensky says I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we're hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. Did that surprise you?
TAYLOR: Again, I didn't have the transcript at the time, all I was that Giuliani was mentioned -- Mr. Marson said that Giuliani was mentioned in the call.
CASTOR: But the way that Zelensky states it here, it sounds like he's very much looking forward to speaking with Americas Mayor.
TAYLOR: That -- that's what I found out when I read the transcript on the --
CASTOR: Yes.
TAYLOR: -- 25th of September or so.
CASTOR: OK. Now, Mr. Kent, corruption in Ukraine's endemic, correct?
KENT: That's correct.
CASTOR: And it affects the courts, the prosecutors, and there have historically been problems with all the prosecutors in Ukraine, correct?
KENT: I would say up until the new set of prosecutors appointed by President Zelensky in the last two months, correct.
CASTOR: OK, and so the U.S. government -- the consensus over at the State Department and the National Security Council and the White House is that Zelensky's the real deal. He's a real reformer; he's genuinely interested in rooting out corruption, prosecuting the bad guys, correct?
KENT: I would say we are cautiously optimistic and we will work wherever there is the political will to do the right thing and put forward genuine reform.
CASTOR: And at the heart of the corruption is the oligarchic -- oligarcicial system, correct? Where -- where the oligarchs take control often by virtual theft of -- you know for example the right to certain energy licenses, correct?
KENT: That is one element, yes sir.
CASTOR: And the -- the company Burisma, its -- its leader, Zlochevsky, he has a -- a little bit of a storied history of corruption, doesn't he?
KENT: Mr. Zlochevsky was minister of energy from 2010 to 2012 under the pro-Russian government, and he used his regulatory authority to award gas exploration licenses to companies that he himself controlled. That would be considered an act of corruption in my view, yes.
CASTOR: Certainly self-dealing.
KENT: Certainly self-dealing and self-enriching.
CASTOR: And -- and how did the Ukrainian government ultimately pursue that? KENT: In the spring of 2014, the Ukrainian government, the new government after the Revolution of Dignity, turned to partners, particularly the U.S. and the 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. Zlochevsky. Serious Crimes Office in the U.K. had already opened up an investigation. They worked with us and the Ukrainian authorities to develop more information. The -- the $23 million was frozen until somebody in the General Prosecutors Office of Ukraine shut the case, issued a letter to his lawyer and that money went poof.
CASTOR: So essentially paid a bribe to make the case go away.
KENT: That is our strong assumption, yes, sir.
CASTOR: OK. Now, at any point in time has -- has any -- anyone in the Ukrainian government tried to reinvestigate that, or did that -- did those crimes just go unpunished, and was he free to go?
KENT: Mr. Zlochevsky spent time, as far as I understand, in -- in Moscow and Monaco after he fled Ukraine. We continue to raise, as a point of order, that because U.S. taxpayer dollars had been used to try to recover frozen assets, that we have a fiduciary responsibility, and we continue to press Ukrainian officials to answer for why alleged corrupt prosecutors had closed a case, and we have 'til now not gotten a satisfactory answer.
[13:10:00] So to summarize, we thought that Mykola Zlochevsky had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case, and those were our main concerns.
CASTOR: And are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?
KENT: I think, since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe and how much that was paid, and that's what I said to the deputy prosecutor general on February 3, 2015.
CASTOR: But in addition to prosecuting the person that took the bribe, shouldn't the organization or individual that sponsored the bribes be prosecuted?
KENT: I would agree that the Ukrainian law authorities should uphold the rule of law and hold people account for breaking Ukrainian law.
CASTOR: So this -- this company, Burisma, involved in lots -- lots of criminal activity, correct? (inaudible)
KENT: I do not know that.
CASTOR: But over the years it's been involved in -- in a number of questionable dealings, correct?
KENT: I would say that it's the largest private gas producer in the country, and its business reputation is mixed.
CASTOR: So to the extent a new regime is coming in under President Zelensky, it certainly would be fair for the -- the new prosecutor, a genuine prosecutor to -- to re-examine old crimes that hadn't sufficiently been brought to justice, right?
KENT: I believe that the new prosecutor general, Ruslan Riaboshapka, made a statement to that end; that they would be reviewing past cases.
CASTOR: Right.
KENT: But keep in mind, this is a country where those that commit crimes generally never get held to account, so there's a lot to review.
CASTOR: OK. Now, this -- the -- the bribe was paid in what year?
KENT: To the best of my knowledge, the case against Zlochevsky, the former minister, was shut down December of 2014.
CASTOR: OK. And right around that time, Burisma starts adding officials to its board. Is that correct?
KENT: Understanding is yes, that Zlochevsky invited a series of new individuals to join the board in 2014.
CASTOR: And do -- do you know what his strategy was in adding officials to his board?
KENT: I have never met Mr. Zlochevsky.
CASTOR: OK. And who were some of the folks he added to the board?
KENT: The most prominent person he added to the board was the former president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski.
CASTOR: And anyone else?
KENT: There were a number of others, including some Americans and the -- the most prominent one in this context is Hunter Biden.
CASTOR: OK, so Hunter Biden's added to the board of Burisma. Now, do you think that creates a -- a -- a problem that Burisma may be adding people to its board for protection purposes?
KENT: Sir, I work for the government. I don't work in the corporate sector, and so I believe that companies build their boards with a variety of reasons, not only to promote their business plans.
CASTOR: Yeah. Was -- was Hunter Biden a -- a corporate governance expert?
KENT: I have no idea what Hunter Biden studied at university or what his C.V. says.
CASTOR: Like, is he the -- the Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of -- of the Ukraine?
KENT: I have no awareness or knowledge of what his background was and what he may have done on the board of Burisma.
CASTOR: OK. So you don't know whether he has any business experience in Ukraine prior to joining Burisma's board?
KENT: I -- I have heard nothing about prior experience, no.
CASTOR: OK. Do you know if he speaks Ukrainian?
KENT: I do not.
CASTOR: Do you know if he possesses any other elements other than the fact that he is the son of, at the time, the sitting vice president?
KENT: I do not.
CASTOR: OK.
Ambassador Taylor, do you know whether Hunter Biden offers anything other than the fact his dad's the former vice president?
TAYLOR: I -- I don't.
CASTOR: Or at the time, was the vice president?
TAYLOR: I -- I have no knowledge of Hunter Biden.
CASTOR: But you would agree it raises questions, right? He was getting paid, I think, $50,000 a month...
TAYLOR: I - I...
CASTOR: ... to -- to sit on the board. Did you know if he relocated to Ukraine?
TAYLOR: Sorry, sir. Could I ask to say again (ph)?
CASTOR: Do you know if Hunter Biden relocated to Ukraine?
TAYLOR: No knowledge.
CASTOR: Do you know, Mr. Kent?
KENT: Again, no knowledge.
CASTOR: OK. So he's getting paid $50,000 a month, but we don't know whether he had any experience, he had any -- he spoke the language or whether he moved to Ukraine, correct?
KENT: Correct.
CASTOR: Now at this time, Vice President Biden was taking a specific interest in Ukraine, wasn't he?
KENT: He was.
CASTOR: And could you tell us about that?
KENT: I believe that while he was vice president, he made a total of six visits to Ukraine. One may have been during the old regime, Yanukovych, and that would make five visits after the Revolution of Dignity, which started February of 2014.
CASTOR: OK, and you were the -- the DCM, the deputy chief of mission at this time -- at the time, correct?
KENT: Starting in 2015, yes.
CASTOR: OK. And did Vice President Biden come when you were -- when you were at post?
KENT: He did not. I came back for Ukrainian language training, and so I missed several visits.
[13:15:00] CASTOR: OK. Now, you -- you've seen Vice President Biden's -- his -- he sort of given a -- a -- a speech, and he's, you know, a little folksy about how he went into Ukraine and he told the Ukrainians that if they don't fire the prosecutor, they're going to lose their $1 billion in loan guarantees. You've seen that, correct?
KENT: I have. I think it was a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in January, 2018.
CASTOR: Right. And he also said that he's been there, you know, the Ukraine, 13 times. Do you know if that's accurate?
KENT: To the best of my knowledge, when he was vice president he made six visits.
CASTOR: And did the State Department ever express any concerns to the Vice President's Office that the vice president's role at the time in -- in engaging on Ukraine presented any issues?
KENT: No. The vice president's role was critically important. It was top cover to help us pursue our policy agenda.
CASTOR: OK, but you know Hunter Biden's role in Burisma's board of directors. At some point you testified in your deposition that you expressed some concern to the Vice President's Office. Is that correct?
KENT: That is correct.
CASTOR: And what did they do about that concern that you expressed?
KENT: I have no idea. I reported my concern to the Office of the Vice President.
CASTOR: OK. And that was the end of it, nobody...
(CROSSTALK) KENT: Sir, you would have to ask people worked in the Office of the Vice President during 2015.
CASTOR: But after you expressed the concern of a perceived conflict of interest at the least, the vice president's engagement in Ukraine didn't decrease, did it?
KENT: Correct. Because the vice president was promoting U.S. policy objectives in Ukraine.
CASTOR: And Hunter Biden's role on the board of Burisma didn't cease, did it?
KENT: To the best of my knowledge, it didn't. And my concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest.
CASTOR: Now, Ambassador Taylor, I want to turn to the discussion of the irregular channel you describe. And in fairness, this -- this irregular channel of diplomacy, it's not as outlandish as it could be. Is that correct?
TAYLOR: It's not as outlandish as it could be. I agree, Mr. Castor.
CASTOR: OK. We have Ambassador Volker, who's a former Senate-confirmed ambassador to NATO, longtime State Department diplomat. And you've known Ambassador Volker for years, correct?
TAYLOR: That's correct.
CASTOR: A man of -- of unquestioned integrity, correct?
TAYLOR: That's correct.
CASTOR: And somebody with incredible knowledge of the region.
TAYLOR: With very good knowledge of the region, yes, sir.
CASTOR: And the best interests of the United States?
TAYLOR: Yeah, I'm sure that's right.
CASTOR: And the best interests of Ukraine?
TAYLOR: His first priority is clearly the United States.
CASTOR: OK.
TAYLOR: And to the extent that Ukraine has an implication for that, yes, Ukraine (ph) as well.
CASTOR: OK. And the second member of the irregular channel is Ambassador Sondland, who is Senate-confirmed ambassador to the E.U. So his involvement here, while, you know, not necessarily part of his official duties to the E.U., is -- certainly it's not outlandish for him to be interested and engaged pursuant to the president or Secretary Pompeo's direction, correct? TAYLOR: It's a little unusual for the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. to play a role in Ukraine policy.
CASTOR: OK. And, you know, it might be irregular, but it's certainly not outlandish.
And then Secretary Perry is the third member of the irregular channel, certainly a, you know, Senate-confirmed official, somebody with deep experience in energy markets and he was pursing some, you know, liquified national -- natural gas projects in Ukraine?
TAYLOR: That's correct, Mr. Castor.
CASTOR: So his involvement, Secretary Perry's involvement, is perfectly acceptable?
TAYLOR: It is.
CASTOR: OK. Now, this -- this irregular channel, as it developed, when did you determine that it became problematic? I mean, you, in your opening statement, identified yourself appropriately as the -- the leader of the regular channel.
TAYLOR: At least a participant. There's another leader of the -- of the regular channel.
CASTOR: So when did you first develop concerns that the -- the irregular channel was -- was being problematic?
TAYLOR: So I arrived in -- in Kiev in mid-September. By late September, a couple of phone calls with...
CASTOR: You arrive in Kiev in June, right?
TAYLOR: June, sorry. I said -- that's right.
CASTOR: June 17th?
TAYLOR: Mid-June.
CASTOR: Yes.
TAYLOR: June 17th, thank you. And so by the end of June, I had begun to hear references to investigations as something that would have to happen prior to the meeting that -- that President Trump had offered to President Zelensky.
CASTOR: OK. And (ph)...
TAYLOR: That began to raise questions for me.
[13:20:00] CASTOR: OK. Now, you've known Ambassador Volker and you've certainly -- have a reason to know Ambassador Sondland. What did you do at this point? Or did you ever try to wrest control of the irregular channel?
TAYLOR: I -- I didn't try to wrest control of the irregular channel, do that. At the time, when I...
CASTOR: Well, why not -- why not though, if you had (ph)...
(CROSSTALK)
TAYLOR: Because...
CASTOR: ... these concerns?
TAYLOR: ... because, Mr. Castor, at the time, as -- as Ambassador Kent -- no, Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent testified, both channels, both of those -- both channels were interested in having a meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump. So we are -- there's no reason to kind of wrest control if we're...
CASTOR: OK.
TAYLOR: ... going in the same direction.
CASTOR: But at some point, you -- you developed concerns. I mean, your opening statement is here. I mean, you're the impeachment witness number one, and you're number two, Mr. Kent, for the case impeaching the president of the United States because of the concerns you've testified about the irregular channel, correct?
TAYLOR: I was concerned when the irregular channel appeared to be going against the overall -- the irregular channel was going against the overall direction of and purpose of the regular channel, so (ph) yes.
CASTOR: And as I understand, the record, however, you -- when you arrived in Ukraine, you had the support of the secretary and the secretary's top advisor, Counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, correct?
TAYLOR: That is correct.
CASTOR: And they assured you that if you had any concerns, you would be able to contact them and they would have your back?
TAYLOR: That is correct.
CASTOR: And you knew, going in, that the -- the Rudy Giuliani element presented some complexities, correct?
TAYLOR: I was concerned about Rudy Giuliani's statements and involvement in the Ukraine policy, yes.
CASTOR: OK. So when it genuinely became, you know, a concern for you, what did you do to either engage Sondland and Volker and Perry, Giuliani -- by the way, have you ever met Rudy Giuliani in these -- during these times relevant (ph)?
TAYLOR: Not during the times relevant. He visited -- Mr. Giuliani visited Ukraine one time when I was there, I think in 2007 or '08.
CASTOR: OK. TAYLOR: That's the only time I've met him.
CASTOR: OK. So you've never had any -- any communications with Rudy Giuliani as part of these irregular channel business...
(CROSSTALK)
TAYLOR: That's correct, that's correct.
CASTOR: OK. And anyway, getting back to my question, did you try to engage Brechbuhl or the secretary...
TAYLOR: I...
CASTOR: ... you know, during this time period? I know you said that you had, I believe, an August 21st or 22nd telephone call with Brechbuhl, you had a July 10th telephone call with Brechbuhl, and then you sent a first-person cable to the secretary on August 29th?
TAYLOR: That is correct.
CASTOR: Is that the -- is that sort of the universe of initiatives you took inside the State Department to raise your concerns about the irregular channel?
TAYLOR: I also raised my concerns with Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent. In particular, early on when there -- I think I may have mentioned this phone call, that -- that was odd in that it did not include the normal staff, indeed, Ambassador Sondland's staff, and that struck me as unusual.
I consulted with -- with Mr. Kent. And at his suggestion, made a note of this and also had -- I think at that point, I had a conversation with Mr. Brechbuhl.
CASTOR: That was a June 28th call, I believe?
TAYLOR: That's correct.
CASTOR: And in your opening statement, you expressed some concerns about what Ambassador Sondland had said. But then once Zelensky got on the phone, it proceeded very -- in a very regular channel way, correct?
TAYLOR: That's correct.
CASTOR: OK. So the June 28th call, at least in and of itself, didn't ultimately, as it played out, present any problems for you?
TAYLOR: The call with President Zelensky did not. The preparation for that call, the preparation included maybe 15 minutes of just the United -- just the Americans that would stay on the call. And that -- again, that was a little irregular in that it didn't have the staff. It was also in that -- in that pre-call, in that 15 minutes before President Zelensky got on the phone, where Ambassador Volker told the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation with President Zelensky in Toronto in three days, four days where he would outline for President Zelensky the important components of the phone call that we were trying to establish.
[13:25:16] CASTOR: OK. And you didn't have any issue with that, did you?
TAYLOR: The only issue I had with that, Mr. Castor, was there was reference to investigations in, I believe that's -- I'll have to check my notes on that, but there was -- it raised issues or me that I didn't understand what Ambassador Volker had in mind that he was specifically going to raise with Mr. Zelensky. That was a little bit of a concern.
CASTOR: OK. The president has expressed his interest in certain investigations, certainly relating to the 2016 election and relating to this this corrupt Burisma outfit so that wasn't inconsistent with the president's message, right?
TAYLOR: I am not sure, Mr. Castor, maybe -- can I ask you to repeat the question?
CASTOR: The president's concerns about the 2016 election and needing to get to the bottom of it, and the president's concerns, is it ultimately related to the Burisma company. I mean, if Ambassador Volker is raising that with Zelensky, that that is consistent with the direction of the president, correct?
TAYLOR: The president's interest, or I would say, Mr. Giuliani's interest, because that's what we were -- that is what was very clear at the time, Mr. Giuliani's interest in pursuing these investigation was of concern. But...
CASTOR: By the way, do you know how many times Volker met with Giuliani?
TAYLOR: I don't.
CASTOR: How many would you guess? Was he talking to him all the time or meeting with him all the time?
TAYLOR: Mr. Castor, I don't know.
CASTOR; OK. From his deposition he told us just once, he texted back and forth with the mayor, and had a call or two, but it wasn't a pervasive engagement for Ambassador Volker. Were you aware of that?
TAYLOR: I was not aware. I was aware of one breakfast, I think. That's the only one I was aware of.
CASTOR: And, Mr. Kent, before my time expires, I want to circle back to the company of Burisma. And you testified at your deposition that there was an instance where USAID had engaged with Burisma in possibly sponsoring a program. And you took issue with that and recommended USAID to pull back from that. Could you tell us about that?
KENT: So I became aware in the summer, I believe, of 2016, that as a part of what I recall was a clean energy awareness campaign, the part of the USAID mission that worked on economics and governance, including energy, had sponsored a -- some sort of contest for young Ukrainians to come up with a theme and there was a prize. I believe it may have been a camera.
And they had co-sponsored, with "public-private partnership" being a buzzword, having a co-sponsorship with Burisma. Given the past history of our in interest in recovering stolen assets from Zlochevsky, it was my view that it was inappropriate for the embassy to be co-sponsoring a contest with Burisma.
I raised that with the mission director at the embassy. She agreed, and the USAID mission kept the contest but dropped the public-private partnership sponsorship.
SCHIFF: The time of the gentleman has expired.
We will now move to five-minute member rounds. I recognize myself for five minutes.
SCHIFF: Mr. Kent, I want to follow up on my colleague's questions regarding Burisma. You testified about a time when an oligarch named Zlochevsky, I think it was, was self-dealing, awarding himself contracts. When was that?
KENT: To the best my knowledge, he was minister of energy -- sorry, minister of ecology under President Yanukovych from 2010 to 2012. And at the time licenses to have substrata exploration of gas were awarded by a subdivision of the ministry of ecology.
SCHIFF: So this corrupt self-dealing then was approximately seven years -- at least seven years before the events that bring us here today, the phone call on the 25th and the events around it?
KENT: Correct. His time as minister was 2010 to 2012. Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma in 2014.
SCHIFF: And you've read the call transcript, have you not?
KENT: I have. And I have it in front of me. But I haven't read it for about a month.
SCHIFF: Is there any mention in the --
[13:30:00]
