Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Questioning Underway in First Public Impeachment Hearing; Kent & Taylor: Giuliani's Active Role in Foreign Diplomacy is Not Normal. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 13, 2019 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KENT: -- use of that term is that the three people that were in charge of Ukraine policy during the summer were he - Gordon Sondland, Ambassador Volker and Secretary Perry.

SEWELL: What did you come to - when did you come to learn about Mr. Giuliani's role and what do you consider his role to have been?

KENT: I first heard about former Mayor Giuliani's interest in Ukraine in January of this year. That was a different phase than what happened during the summertime.

SEWELL: Was it normal to have a person who is a private citizen take an active role in foreign diplomacy?

KENT: I did not find his particular engagement normal, no.

SEWELL: Now Mr. - Ambassador Taylor, you testified that there are two channels, a regular and irregular. What did you see as Rudy Giuliani's role in - in Ukraine policy?

TAYLOR: Congresswoman, I came to see that Mr. Giuliani had a large influence on the irregular channel.

SEWELL: And was that normal? Is that normal to have a private citizen of the United States take an active role in diplomacy?

TAYLOR: It is not normal. It is - it is not unusual to ask for people outside the government to give opinions to help form the - the policies of the U.S. government, it is unusual to have a person put input into the channel that goes contrary to U.S. policy.

SEWELL: Thank you, I yield back.

SCHIFF: Mr. Turner, you're recognized for five minutes.

TURNER: Thank you. Mr. Kent, Ambassador Taylor, thank you for your service. I have a great deal of appreciation for your profession. You have very little direct contact with decision makers, a tremendous amount of - of responsibility and - and not a lot of authority on - on - to affect U.S. policy, bilateral engagements or multilateral engagements. You are - you're trying to shepherd through issues with our - with our allies. One example of that, Ambassador Taylor, is that you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the President of the United States. Is that correct?

TAYLOR: That's correct, sir.

TURNER: Mr. Taylor - Mr. Kent, have you had any contact with the President of the United States?

KENT: I have not.

TURNER: So not only no conversations with the President of the United States about Ukraine, you've not had any contact with the President of the United States?

TAYLOR: That's correct.

TURNER: OK. So you both know that this impeachment inquiry is about the President of the United States, don't you? I mean, the man that neither one of you have had any contact with, you are the first up witnesses. I - I - I just find that a little amazing that - that - that the first up would be two people who have - have - who've never had any contact with the President himself.

Now Kurt Volker did have contact with the President and contact with the President on Ukraine. Mr. - Ambassador Taylor, you said that he is a man of highest integrity. Well I know Kurt Volker and I know, you know, he served as the NATO Ambassador, he served as the Director of the McCain Institute, he has the highest professional ethics, one of the most knowledgeable people about Europe, he's absolutely a truthful man.

Mr. Kent, would you agree with Ambassador Taylor that he's of the highest integrity?

KENT: I believe Kurt Volker has served the U.S. as a public servant very well.

TURNER: Do either of you have any evidence that Mr. Volker committed perjury or lied to this committee in his testimony - in his testimony to this committee? Do either of you have any evidence that Kurt Volker perjured himself or lied to this committee in his testimony? Ambassador Taylor, any evidence?

TAYLOR: Mr. Turner, I have no evidence.

TURNER: Mr. Kent?

KENT: I believe Ambassador Volker's deposition was over 400 pages and I don't have it in front of me so I can't ...

TURNER: But you have no evidence that he lied or perjured himself, right, Mr. Kent?

KENT: I have no basis to make that judgment, no, sir. TURNER: Great. Well we're not in a court, gentlemen, and if we were the Sixth Amendment would apply and so would rules on hearsay and opinion and most of your two testimonies would not be admissible whatsoever.

But I understand in your profession you deal in words of understanding, words of beliefs and feelings because in your profession, that's what you work with to try to pull together policy and to go in and out of meetings to try to formulate opinions that -- that affect other people's decision-making.

Ambassador Taylor, have you ever prepared for meeting with a president or a prime minister of a country where you were told one thing before you went into the meeting as to what it was to be about, and the meeting would be about another thing? Or you get in there and the beliefs or opinions of the president or the prime minister were other than you believed?

TAYLOR: Mr. Turner, you're asking if I ever learned something new in a -- in a meeting?

TURNER: (inaudible) Have you ever walked in with a belief that you thought about the country that -- that you were serving in and find out that they were wrong?

TAYLOR: I've learned something in every meeting, Mr. Turner, but I, you know, (inaudible)

TURNER: Well, Ambassador Taylor, the reason why the -- the Sixth Amendment doesn't allow hearsay is because it's unreliable. It's unreliable because frequently it's untruthful. It is not factual. It might be beliefs or understandings.

[14:05:00] Ambassador, you testified about -- about a number of things that you've heard. Isn't it true -- possible that the things that you've heard were not true? That some of the beliefs and understandings that you had are not accurate? That in fact, you're mistaken about some of the things that you testified today in a factual basis versus a professional assessment?

TAYLOR: Mr. Turner, I'm here to tell you what I know. I'm not going to tell you anything I don't know. I'm going to tell you everything that I do know.

(CROSSTALK)

But that's -- that's -- that's -- that's exactly -- that's exactly...

TURNER: But since you learned it from others, you could -- you could be right -- you could be wrong, right, Mr. Taylor?

TAYLOR: That's exactly why I'm here.

TURNER: But since you learned it from others, you could be wrong, correct?

TAYLOR: I am telling you what I heard them tell me.

TURNER: And they could be wrong, or they could be mistaken, or they could have heard it incorrectly, right, Ambassador Taylor?

TAYLOR: People make mistakes.

TURNER: Right, so you could be wrong.

I yield the rest of my time to Mr. Jordan.

JORDAN: Mr. -- thank you. Thank (inaudible) for yielding.

Ambassador Taylor, the gentleman asked if you could be wrong. Were you wrong when you said you had a clear understanding that President Zelensky had to commit to an investigation of Bidens before the aid got released, and the aid got released, and he didn't commit to an investigation.

TAYLOR: Mr., I was not wrong about what I told you, which is what I heard. That's all I've said. I've told you what I heard.

JORDAN: And that's the point.

TAYLOR: That's the point.

JORDAN: What you heard did not happen. It didn't happen. You had three meetings with the guy. He could have told you. He didn't announce he was going to do an investigation before the aid happened. It's not just could it have been wrong. The fact is it was wrong, because it didn't happen. The whole point was you had a clear understanding that aid will not get released unless there's a commitment, not maybe, not I think the aid might happen, and it's my hunch it's going to get released. You used clear language, clear understanding and commitment, and those two things didn't happen, so you had to be wrong.

TAYLOR: Mr. Jordan, the other thing that went on when that -- when that assistance was on hold is we shook the confidence of a -- of a close partner in our reliability, and that...

JORDAN: That's not what this proceeding's about, Ambassador Taylor.

SCHIFF: The time of the gentleman has expired. Ambassador Taylor (inaudible)

JORDAN: That's not what this whole thing started on.

SCHIFF: The time of the gentleman...

(GAVEL)

... has expired.

Ambassador Taylor, did you want to finish your answer?

TAYLOR: No, that's good, Mr. Chairman.

SCHIFF: I now recognize Mr. Carson for five minutes.

CARSON: Thank you, Chairman. I yield to the chairman.

SCHIFF: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to follow up on some of the earlier questions about Ambassador -- sorry, about President -- President Zelensky's statements after this scandal came to light, when he was asked, you know, "Were you pressured? How did the phone call go?", et cetera.

Ukrainians, Mr. Kent, are pretty sophisticated about U.S. politics, are they not?

KENT: Perhaps.

SCHIFF: You would agree that if President Zelensky contradicted President Trump and said, "Of course I felt pressured. They were holding up $400 million in military assistance. We have people dying every day." If he were to contradict President Trump directly, they would be sophisticated enough to know they may pay a very heavy price with this president, were they not?

KENT: That's a fair assessment.

SCHIFF: And President Zelensky not only had to worry about retribution from Donald Trump should he contradict Donald Trump publicly; He also has to worry about how he's perceived domestically, doesn't he, Ambassador Taylor?

TAYLOR: President Zelensky is very sensitive to the -- the views of Ukrainian people who, indeed, are very attentive to Ukraine-U.S. politics, yes.

SCHIFF: And so if President Zelensky were to say, "I had to capitulate and agree to these investigations. I was ready to go on CNN until the aid got restored," that would obviously be hurtful to him back home, would it not?

TAYLOR: He cannot afford to be seen to be deferring to any -- any foreign leader. They are -- he is very confident in his own abilities, and he's -- and he knows that the Ukrainian people expect him to -- to be clear and defend Ukrainian interests.

SCHIFF: Mr. Carson?

CARSON: Thank you, Chairman. My colleague touched briefly on the campaign to remove career diplomat Ambassador Yovanovitch. Mr. Kent, you stated in previous testimony that you were aware of the, quote, "campaign of slander against the ambassador in real time," which basically unfolded in the media. Where do you understand this misinformation campaign was coming from, and who was essentially perpetuating it?

KENT: To my understanding, the then-prosecutor general of Ukraine, now ex-, Yuriy Lutsenko, met Rudy Giuliani in New York on a private visit in January. They had a second meeting in February, and through the good offices of the former mayor of New York, Yuriy Lutsenko gave an interview to John Solomon, then of The Hill, in early March, and the campaign was launched on March 20th.

[14:10:00] CARSON: A corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor gave an interview to a reporter in the United States and made claims that the ambassador provided officials with a, quote, "do not prosecute list". Sir, do you have any reason to believe this is true?

KENT: I have every reason to believe it is not true.

CARSON: What was the reputation of the man who made these allegations, sir?

KENT: Yuriy Lutsenko was a politician of long-standing. He had been minister of interior after the Orange Revolution. The U.S. embassy had good relations with him for years. He was imprisoned by President Yanukovych; came out; was elected majority leader of Poroshenko, the then-president's party, and then became prosecutor general in the spring of 2016.

CARSON: What was your experience with Ambassador Yovanovitch? Was she working hard to combat corruption in Ukraine, sir?

KENT: She was dedicated, as is every U.S. government official in Ukraine, to help Ukrainians overcome the legacy of corruption, which they actually have made a number of important steps since 2014.

CARSON: So in fact, before all of this happened, you and your superiors at the State Department asked the ambassador to extend her time in the Ukraine, correct, sir?

KENT: That is correct.

CARSON: Did you support her extension?

KENT: I asked her to extend until the end of this year to get through the election cycle in Ukraine, and then under Secretary Hale in March, asked her to stay until 2020.

CARSON: Now, some in Ukraine probably disliked her efforts to help Ukraine root out corruption. Is that correct?

KENT: As I mentioned in my testimony, you can't promote principled anticorruption action without pissing off corrupt people.

(LAUGHTER)

CARSON: Fair enough. Now, some of those people helped Giuliani smear her, did they not?

KENT: They did.

CARSON: So ultimately, that smear campaign pushed President Trump to remove her, correct, sir?

KENT: I cannot judge that. What I can say is that Rudy Giuliani's smear campaign was ubiquitous in the spring of 2019 on Fox News and on the Internet and Twittersphere.

CARSON: So Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent, in all of your combined decades at the State Department, have you ever before seen an instance where an ambassador was forced out by the president following a smear campaign of misinformation orchestrated by the president's allies?

KENT: I have not.

TAYLOR: Nor I.

CARSON: Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

SCHIFF: Dr. Wenstrup?

WENSTRUP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Taylor, this should be easy because I'm going to use a lot of your words from the previous deposition as we go forward. In your deposition, you spoke of support for Ukraine and its relationship to the United States and how much your support that.

In 2014, you -- and I'm quoting this -- urged Obama administration to provide lethal defensive weapons in order to deter further Russian aggression. Did the Obama administration provide lethal weapons?

TAYLOR: No, sir.

WENSTRUP: They provided MREs and blankets and things like that.

In your deposition, you also said President Obama's objection was because it might provoke the Russians. And in fact, you testify in your deposition that the Obama administration didn't have a good argument since Russia had already provoked and they have invaded Ukraine. Is that correct?

TAYLOR: That's correct, sir.

WENSTRUP: It's a shame he didn't take the advice of a combat veteran like you, sir, someone who understands what deterrence provides. Because a lot of Ukrainian lives could have been saved if he had taken your advice.

In your deposition, you said -- and I quote -- happy, you were happy with the Trump administration's assistance. And it provided both lethal and financial aid, did it not?

TAYLOR: It did, sir.

WENSTRUP: And you -- you also stated that it was a substantial improvement. Is that correct?

TAYLOR: That's correct, sir.

WENSTRUP: So now we're providing Javelins, which kill Russian tanks. MREs and blankets do not do that. Today, you said, I was beginning to fear that the longstanding U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine was shifting.

I have a little trouble with "longstanding," based on what we just talked about. Because it wasn't really longstanding strong support. It seems to me, the strong support came with this administration. Would you agree with that, sir?

Unless you consider MREs and blankets strong support, I wouldn't call it longstanding.

TAYLOR: The longstanding that I'm referring to there, Dr. Wenstrup, is the longstanding political support, economic support and increasing military support.

WENSTRUP: Well, certainly, that strong support came from Congress, but it didn't come from...

TAYLOR: It did.

WENSTRUP: ... the previous administration as compared to what this administration has -- has decided to do. The strong support came with this administration, not the Obama administration.

And maybe now we understand what President Obama meant when he told Russian President Medvedev that he'd have more flexibility after his election. Maybe that flexibility was to deny lethal aid to the Ukraine, allowing Russia to march right in and kill Ukrainians.

[14:15:00]

Again, in your deposition, you urged the Obama administration officials to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression. And now they have that, under this administration, don't they, Mr. Ambassador?

TAYLOR: They have the Javelins, yes, sir.

WENSTRUP: Thank you.

And I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Ratcliffe.

RATCLIFFE: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So, no pressure, no demands, to conditions, nothing corrupt, no -- nothing, nothing on the call. That's what we heard President Zelensky say. And because House Democrats' charges against President Trump have been publicly, repeatedly, consistently been denied by President Zelensky, you heard the defense now from Chairman Schiff. He's lying because he has to. He has to lie because the threats, the demands, the blackmail, the extortion that House Democrats are alleging, if he didn't do that, he couldn't possibly risk military aid. He would have to do anything he had to secure it.

The problem with that, the hold in that argument is, you have to ask yourself what did President Zelensky actually do to get the aid? The answer is nothing. He did nothing. He didn't open any investigations, he didn't call Attorney General Bill Barr, he didn't do any of the things that House Democrats say that he was being forced and coerced and threatened to do. He didn't do anything because he didn't have to.

I yield back.

SCHIFF: Ms. Speier, you're recognized for five minutes.

SPEIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you both for your true heroic efforts, both, today and also throughout your careers.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Kent. In your testimony, you said that you had -- in mid-August, it became clear to me that Giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were not infecting (ph) U.S. engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelensky's desire for a White House meeting.

Mr. Kent, did you actually write a memo documenting your concerns that there was an effort under way to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation to benefit President Trump?

KENT: Yes, ma'am. I wrote a memo to the file on August 16th.

SPEIER: But we don't have access to that memo, do we?

KENT: I submitted it to the State Department, subject (ph) to the September 27th subpoena.

SPEIER: And we have not received one piece of paper from the State Department relative to this investigation.

Both of you have made compelling cases of the importance of Ukraine to Europe, to the 70 years of peace, the benefit that it has to the United States' national security, and our goal to continue to support sovereignty of nations.

Meanwhile, Russia is violently attacking people in Ukraine in the Donbass area. So withholding military aid, does that weaken Ukraine?

KENT: Well, I think it sends the wrong signal. And it did for a short period of time. Again (ph), the assistance from the F.Y. '19 was released and is in the process of heading towards Ukraine.

SPEIER: Does it embolden Russia when there was no aid being sent to Ukraine?

KENT: I think the signal that there is controversy and question about the U.S. support of Ukraine sends the signal to Vladimir Putin that he can leverage that as he seeks to negotiate with not only Ukraine, but other countries.

SPEIER: Thank you.

Ambassador Taylor, I think you mentioned that a White House meeting for Zelensky would boost his ability to negotiate for a peaceful settlement with Vladimir Putin and Russia in general. Is that true? TAYLOR: Ms. Speier, it is certainly true that -- that U.S. support for Mr. Zelensky, President Zelensky, in his negotiations with -- with Russians is very important and will -- will enable him to get a better agreement with that support from the United States, both from the military assistance but also just from the political assistance that we can provide.

SPEIER: But he has not yet had that White House meeting, has he?

TAYLOR: He has not.

[14:20:00] SPEIER: I think it's ironic that Soviet-born Lev Parnas, who has now been indicted, had a meeting with the president in the White House after participating in a number of campaign events for the president and contributing $325,000 to the president's pack. So, maybe it's actually the requirement that you give money to the president's pack in order to get that meeting at the White House.

Ambassador Taylor, is it true that the Prosecutor General now has opened an investigation in Ukraine?

TAYLOR: Miss Speier, the new Prosecutor General that President Zelensky has appointed, is indeed investigating crimes in general. Is that -- is that your question?

SPEIER: Yes. But is he --

TAYLOR: Yes, he is -- he is in office and is investigating criminal activity.

SPEIER: Has he specified what investigations he's undertaken?

TAYLOR: No.

SPEIER: He has not? All right. I yield the rest of my time to Chairman Schiff.

SCHIFF: Just a quick question. My colleagues -- a couple of my colleagues referenced the conversation, the hot mic conversation between President Obama and President Medvedev.

That was in 2012, there was a suggestion that he was saying he was going to go easy on Russia over the invasion of Ukraine, but that originally took place two years after that conversation. You wouldn't have any reason to believe that President Obama was referring to going on easy on Russia for an invasion that hadn't happened yet, do you?

TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge of what was in --

SCHIFF: It was more less a rhetorical question.

(LAUGHTER)

I will yield now to Mr. Stewart -- or, I'm sorry, Mr. Stewart.

STEWART: Thank you. To the witnesses, thank you. Time is precious, so I'm going to go very, very quickly. Welcome, I think, to year four of the ongoing impeachment of President Trump. I'm sorry that you have been drug into this. I think the sign behind me says it very well, by the whistleblower's attorney, the coup has started and impeachment will follow.

But after listening for, what is going on now, four hours and 21 minutes, after all of the secret hearings, after all of the leaks, after hearing witnesses, such as yourselves, give your opinions, it really comes down to this one thing, one thing it comes down to. This is the transcript that the president has released of this phone call. There is one sentence, one phone call, that is what this entire impeachment proceeding is based upon.

And I've got to tell you, if your impeachment case is so weak that you have to lie and exaggerate about to convince the American people that they need to remove this president, then you've got a problem. And the American people have been lied to again and again on this.

We first heard a lot about quid pro quo, and then many people realized that was meaningless, so they said let's go for the fences then, let's talk about extortion, let's talk about bribery, let's talk about cover-up and obstruction, for which there is zero evidence of any of that.

We heard a characterization of the president's phone call that was so outrageously inaccurate it had to be described as a parody, and none of those things matter. None of it matters, it comes down to this. We appreciate your insight, we appreciate your opinion, but all you can do is give your opinion of this, this one phone call.

Let me ask you gentlemen, both of you have said here today, you have testified, corruption in the Ukraine endemic. Would we agree on that? Simple question. Problem is -- isn't it?

KENT: It's a problem and they're taking steps to address it.

STEWART: OK. Earlier in the -- earlier in the -- in the hearing both of you said, use the word endemic agree to it. It's in the courts, it's oligarchs, it's prosecutors, it's everywhere. And I think we can also agree that that's not the only place in the world where we experience and see corruption. There's dozens and dozens of nations around the world that is steeped in corruption. Would you agree with that?

TAYLOR: Mr. -- I would say that there is corruption in every country, including ours.

STEWART: Ok, thank you. And some we're clearly more concerned about than others. So, in these corrupt nations, of which there are probably hundreds of corrupt individuals, hundreds of corrupt government officials, can you give me an example anytime where the Vice President of the United States shows up and demands that a specific prosecutor be fired and gives them a six hour time limit to do that? Are you aware of that ever happening in any other place? I guess the answer is no. And I just think it's interesting that out of hundreds of corrupt individuals, dozens of corrupt nations, that happened one time. And it happened with the individual who's son was being paid by the organization that was under investigation.

One other thing, very quickly, if someone was a candidate for a political office, even for President of the United States, should they be immune from investigation?

KENT: No one is above the law, sir.

[14:25:00] STEWART: Thank you. I agree with that. I think we all would agree with that. And yet, I think some presume that because some of the individuals we're talking about here were candidates, that they are immune from any questions or any investigation.

I think it's absurd. For heaven's sake, if those of us in public office, those of us who have -- find ourselves up for reelection or all the time as a candidate, I think we have a higher standard, not immunity from asking these types of questions.

And last thing, then I'm going to yield my time. Availability of funds, I'm quoting from the NDAA in 2019, the language is specific, availability of funds under assistance to the Ukraine, it has to be certified. And what has to be certified? Quote, for the purposes of decreasing corruption.

Are you surprised that there would be questions about corruption in Ukraine, and that it would be discussed withholding some of this aide, that's actually required by law that it be withheld if that can't certify that corruption has been eliminated or is being addressed?

KENT: The certification in that case is done by the Secretary of Defense upon advice of his staff in consultation with the Interagency Community. We were fully supportive of that conditionality and the Secretary of State had already certified that that conditionality had been met.

STEWARD: And so, we agree that we should withhold funds if there's -- if there's questions about corruption that have not been addressed. I'm going to yield my -- rest of my time to Mr. Jordan. Sir. Eighteen seconds, you going to let that go. Thank you. In that case, I will yield back. Thank you.

SCHIFF: Mr. Quigley.

QUIGLEY: So, that certification, that took place in May. Is that correct, Mr. Kent?

KENT: I do not believe it was certified by May. I would defer to my colleague, Laura Cooper, who's testified and I'm --

QUIGLEY: But it was -- it was an earlier time?

KENT: -- it had not been done by May, because when I was visiting in May, I was asked by Laura to raise a specific issue that would meat the conditionality.

QUIGLEY: But the DOD did meet -- say that they met the certification?

KENT: Yes, sir. I think it may have been in the July timeframe.

QUIGLEY: Thank you. So, it's interesting and curious that we're talking about hearsay evidence, and it's extraordinary to me that the Committee's been able to get as much information as they had, direct or hearsay, given the obstruction.

You gentlemen were both asked by the State Department not to appear for your depositions, is that correct?

KENT: We both received, I believe -- I received initially a letter directing me not to appear and once the Committees issued a subpoena, I was under legal obligation to appear, and I am here today under subpoena.

QUIGLEY: Ambassador, were you also asked not to be part of the deposition?

TAYLOR: Mr. Quigley, I was told by the State Department, don't appear under these circumstances, that was in the letter to me, and when I got the subpoena, exactly as -- as Mr. Kent said, that was different circumstances and I obeyed a legal subpoena, so that, yes sir, I'm here for that reason.

QUIGLEY: Absolutely. But we were not able to hear testimony by chief of staff Mulvaney, John Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, John Bolton, more than a dozen witnesses. So I suspect if you have a problem with hearsay, you'd have a lot more direct testimony and direct evidence if weren't blocking that ability. You'd have a lot more documents, documents that you referred to with my colleague's questions that had not yet been turned over by state or any other agency, is that correct to your knowledge, gentlemen?

KENT: We're both here under subpoena. I don't think either of us is going to comment why others have not shown up.

QUIGLEY: Has any of the documents that you turned over, to your knowledge, been turned over to the committee?

TAYLOR: No.

QUIGLEY: Mr. Kent, following the July 25th call and through the first two weeks of August, were you involved in any efforts to arrange for President Zelensky to make a statement announcing that two investigations that the president, President Trump had talked about in the July 25th call?

KENT: I was not and I would never participate in an arrangement to have them announce investigations.

QUIGLEY: Ambassador Taylor, were you involved in any such efforts?

TAYLOR: No, sir. QUIGLEY: I want to show you a text of the exchange. This one is between Ambassador Volker and Andrey Yermak, the same day to Zelensky that Volker texted before the July 25th call. You weren't involved with it, so I'll read it. The first text from August 10th. Ambassador Volker texted: "I agree with your approach. Let's iron out the statement and use that to get date and prez (ph) can go forward with it."

Then at 5:42 Mr. Yermak responds: "Once we have a day, we'll call for a press briefing announcing upcoming visit and outline a vision for reboot of U.S.-Ukraine relationship, including, among other things, Burisma and election-meddling investigations." Andrey Yermak says that: "Once we have a date, they will announce the investigations in Burisma election-meddling."

Mr. Kent, are these the same two investigations President Trump asked Ukrainian president to initiate in the July 25th meeting -- the 25th call?

KENT: It does appear to be the same issues that were mentioned --

[14:30:00]