Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Gordon Sondland to Testify in the Impeachment Probe. Aired 9- 10a ET
Aired November 20, 2019 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: -- the aid and the meeting, was it tied to this public declaration of investigations that have been demanded by Rudy Giuliani at the direction of President Trump. And Gordon Sondland makes very clear it absolutely was. And they were trying to fulfill the president's demands in pushing forward on these investigations.
So we'll see how -- what else he has to say about his specific interactions with President Trump because in this opening statement, Wolf, he does not really detail all those conversations he had with President Trump. He does talk about the July 26th conversation that he had with the president. We learned about last week in which the president urged this Ukraine investigation to go forward.
He said he doesn't remember all the details but he said wouldn't be surprised given the push between Trump and Giuliani to move forward on these investigations. The president would have brought it up, too, at that time -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Manu, I know you're going through this document. We're going through it as well. Stand by. We're going to get back to you.
Gloria, you've been going through this very closely. At one point he says in his opening statement, Ambassador Sondland, about Rudy Giuliani and his associates who have now been indicted.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.
BLITZER: By the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, "If I had known of all of Mr. Giuliani's dealings or his associations with individuals now under criminal indictment, I would not have acquiesced to his participation."
BORGER: Yes. He also says that at the time we thought nothing was improper which is kind of surprising and confusing to me about why he would think this was proper to go through Rudy Giuliani. The bigger point here, Wolf, to me is that he says everyone was in the loop. Period. End of sentence.
BLITZER: From the president on down. BORGER: It was no secret. He says it twice. Again, everyone was in
the loop. Including the vice president whom he said, you know, I think this is going to be about investigations. Including the secretary of State. Including, of course, led by the president of the United States. But he doesn't spare anybody here. He says, look, this was a committee project.
BLITZER: That's right.
BORGER: This wasn't us acting on some rogue foreign policy. This was set by the president on down, and everybody knew what the deal was. Everybody knew that in order to get this aid through, or in order -- first of all, in order to get the meeting between Zelensky and the president, you had to do this. And then he says, well, I was a little confused about why this aid wasn't -- was being held up. I couldn't get a straight answer on it and then, of course, as we all know now, the reason the money was being held up was because there was no deal set on this public announcement as Preet talked about before.
So it's very clear here that he's going to go about chapter and verse about who knew what when and who led this. And the committee is going to be very interested to know, including the president and the vice president.
BLITZER: Everybody was apparently informed about this deal and at one point, Jim, and I know you're going through this document, his opening statement as well. He says specifically what they were demanding -- everyone was demanding from the Ukrainian leadership was a public statement announcing the investigations in the 2016 election, DNC server and Burisma. They wanted all of that. Burisma meaning the dirt on the Bidens.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "NEWSROOM": Yes. Well, you know who else was in the loop? The Ukrainians.
BLITZER: Right.
BORGER: Right.
SCIUTTO: The E.U. ambassador says, I shared my concerns with Ukraine. So --
BLITZER: And he also says he shared his concerns with Senator Ron Johnson.
SCIUTTO: Well, him as well.
BORGER: That's right.
BLITZER: Yes.
SCIUTTO: This idea that the Ukrainians didn't know, how could this possibly have been an issue, that goes out the window. But clearly here, this is the E.U. ambassador, speaking to the president, says there was a quid pro quo both for the meeting in the White House and in his view for the security aid and that that was at the direction of the president. At the direction of the president. And as Gloria said, everybody knew about it. It wasn't a secret here. So this question that started this whole thing two months ago, was U.S. national security policy on the country which U.S. sees as its greatest threat along with China, Russia, was it held hostage to the president's political demands and from Gordon Sondland's testimony, sworn under oath, he faces the penalty of jail time if he is not speaking the truth here, that is a fact. And that's a remarkable, remarkable fact.
BLITZER: Yes. He says at one point, Jeffrey, everyone was in the loop. I'm reading directly from his opening statement. It was no secret everyone was informed via e-mail on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump.
Made it clear the quid pro quo, the Latin word, some Democrats don't want to use right now, that the president has repeatedly denied, T- shirts saying, no quid pro quo among his supporters. The U.S. ambassador to the European Union who was directly involved in all of this.
[09:05:04]
And there he is walking towards the committee hearing room right now. He says everything the president has been saying basically is wrong.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know, this raises one question to me. This testimony. And the question is, is there one Republican who has the integrity to see what's playing before their face? Is John Boehner right that there is no such thing as a Republican Party anymore? There is only a Donald Trump Party? Because Sondland's testimony really just lays that question out very plainly because it's obvious that the president has been lying, beginning to end, about his relationship with Ukraine and about this story. And the question is, is any Republican willing to see what's playing in front of their face?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Gordon Sondland is about to name names.
BLITZER: Yes.
CORDERO: And he is going to lay it out there for the American public. Everybody who was involved that what he was doing as was said before was at the president's direction. Everyone that needed to know at the NSC and the State Department knew exactly what was going on and as Jeffrey says, the only decision that is really going to be left for members of Congress and in particular Republicans is whether it's OK to hold out defense assistance.
BLITZER: And Preet, let me just read another sentence from when he concludes. And we'll all hear it in his own words momentarily. What he concludes by saying, "At all times, I was acting in good faith as the presidential appointee. I followed the directions of the president. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the president directed us to do so."
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's devastating. But remember, he has some baggage. He said in writing there was no quid pro quo. The president quoted from Mr. Sondland saying there's no quid pro quo. He had that exchange with Bill Taylor saying the president has been very clear on this. So he's done an about-face. It sounds like what he's now saying is the truth because it's corroborated by other people but he's going to get some withering cross-examination from some people on the panel as to why he said one thing before and a different thing now.
BLITZER: Yes. And Adam Schiff, the chairman, is now in the hearing room, Gloria.
BORGER: Well, and also, just in terms of the whole in the loop and everybody was in on the secret here, he says, in his testimony, we kept the leadership at the State Department and the NSC informed of our activities. That included communications with secretary of State. He goes on with Ambassador John Bolton, Dr. Fiona Hill, Mr. Tim Morrison and their staff at the NSC. They knew what we were doing and why.
So it was this -- what was this elephant in the room that nobody really wanted to talk about but they figured they had to get around because they all shared the goal of getting the aid to Ukraine and they knew that they had to work around the president of the United States in order to do that.
BLITZER: Now, Ross, the ambassador also says he was told not to appear, not to testify, not to give a deposition. He will say this. He disagreed with those orders. "I did so despite directions from the White House and the State Department that I refuse to appear as many others have done. I agreed to testify because I respect the gravity of the moment and believe I have an obligation to account fully for my role in these events."
ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, he is one of the key witnesses who has disregarded the administration's directive to not appear. You know, one thing that struck me in addition about his testimony is the conclusion. He says our efforts were reported and approved and then, I think, a key part, not once do I recall encountering objection. That, I think, is going to be a critical point, if it is true. And I think he's going to be pressed on that, that nobody --
BLITZER: Hold on.
GARBER: Apparently including John Bolton.
BLITZER: The photographers are leaving in front of the table. The chairman is about to call this session in order. We're watching closely. This will be a true bombshell right now that we will hear from Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Here's now -- here's the chairman.
(BEGINNING OF IMPEACHMENT HEARING)
SCHIFF: The committee will come to order. Good morning, everyone.
This is the fifth in a series of public hearings the committee will be holding as part of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. There is a quorum present.
We will proceed today in the same fashion as our other hearings. I'll make an opening statement and then Ranking Member Nunes will have the opportunity to make a statement. Then we will turn to our witness for an opening statement, and then to questions.
For audience members, we welcome you and respect your interest in being here. In turn, we ask for your respect as we proceed with today's hearing. It is the intention of the committee to proceed without disruptions. As chairman, I'll make all necessary and appropriate steps to maintain order and to ensure the committee is run in accordance with House rules and House Resolution 660.
With that, I now recognize myself to give an opening statement in the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States.
This morning, we will hear from Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union.
We are here today as part of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry because President Donald Trump sought to condition military aid to Ukraine in an Oval Office meeting with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in exchange for politically motivated investigations that Trump believed would help his re-election campaign.
The first investigation was of a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election.
The second investigation that Trump demanded into -- was into a political rival that he apparently feared most, Joe Biden. Trump sought to weaken Biden and to refute the fact that his own election campaign in 2016 had been helped by a Russian hacking and dumping operation and Russian social media campaign directed by Vladimir Putin to help Trump.
Trump's scheme undermined military and diplomatic support for a key ally and undercut U.S. anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Trump put his personal and political interests above those of the United States. As Ambassador Sondland would later tell career Foreign Service officer David Holmes immediately after speaking to the president, "Trump did not give a expletive about Ukraine. He cares about big stuff that benefits him like the Biden investigations that Rudy Giuliani was pushing."
Ambassador Sondland was a skilled dealmaker, but in trying to satisfy a directive from the president found himself increasingly embroiled in an effort to press the new Ukrainian president that deviated sharply from the norm in both terms of policy and process.
SCHIFF: In February, Ambassador Sondland traveled to Ukraine on his first official trip to that country. While in Kyiv, he met with then- U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and found her to be an excellent diplomat with a deep command of Ukrainian internal dynamics.
On April 21st Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine and spoke to President Trump, who congratulated him and said he would look into attending Zelensky's inauguration, but pledged to send someone at a very, very high level.
Between the time of that call and the inaugural on May 20, Trump's attitoward towards -- attitude towards Ukraine hardened. On May 13th, the president ordered Vice President Mike Pence not to attend Zelensky's inauguration, opting instead to dispatch the self-dubbed Three Amigos, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Kurt Volker, the special representative for Ukraine negotiations.
After returning from the inauguration, members of the U.S. delegation briefed President Trump on their encouraging first interactions with the new Ukrainian administration. They urged the president to meet with Zelensky, but the president's reaction was decidedly hostile. The president's order was clear, however: Talk with Rudy.
During this meeting, Ambassador Sondland first became aware of what Giuliani and the president were really interested in. "This whole thing was sort of a continuum," he testified at his deposition, "starting at May -- at the May 23rd meeting, ending up at the end of the line when the transcript of the call came out." It was a continuum he would explain that became more insidious over time.
The Three Amigos were disappointed with Trump's directive to engage Giuliani, but vowed to press ahead. Ambassador Sondland testified, "We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky," which the group deemed crucial for U.S.-Ukrainian relations, "or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the president's concerns. We chose the latter path."
In the coming weeks, Ambassador Sondland got more clearly involved in Ukraine policymaking, starting with the June 4 U.S. mission to the E.U. Independence Day event in Brussels one month early. Secretary Perry, Ulrich Brechbuhl and the State Department counselor -- the State Department counselor and Sondland met with President Zelensky, whom Sondland had invited personally on the margins of the event.
On June 10, 2019, Secretary Perry organized a conference call with Sondland, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, Volker and others. They reviewed Ukraine's strategy with Bolton and decided that Perry, Sondland and Volker would assist Ambassador Bill Taylor, the new acting ambassador in Kyiv, on Ukraine and discuss Trump's desire for Rudy Giuliani to be somehow involved. At the end of the call, according to Sondland, "We all felt very comfortable with the strategy moving forward." Two weeks later on June 27th, Ambassador Sondland called Taylor to say that, quote, "Zelensky needed to make clear to President Trump that he was not standing in the way of investigations."
On July 10th, Ambassador Sondland and other U.S. officials met at the White House with a group of U.S. and Ukrainian officials. Participants in the meeting have told us that Ambassador Sondland invoked acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and said that the White House meeting sought by the Ukrainian president with Trump would happen only if Ukraine undertook certain investigations. National Security Advisor Bolton abruptly ended the meeting upon hearing this. Undeterred, Sondland brought the Ukrainian delegation downstairs to another part of the White House and was more explicit. According to witnesses, Ukraine needed to investigate the Bidens or Burisma and the 2016 election interference if they wanted to get a meeting at all.
SCHIFF: Following this meeting in July, Bolton said that he would not be "part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this."
Sondland continued to press for a meeting, but he and others were willing to settle for a phone call as an intermediate step. On July 21, Taylor texted Sondland that, quote, "President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument of Washington domestic re-election politics."
Sondland responded, "Absolutely, but we need to get the conversation started and the relationship built irrespective of the pretext," so that Zelensky and Trump could meet and "all of this will be fixed."
On July 25, the day of the Trump-Zelensky call, Volker has lunch in Kyiv with a senior aide to Ukrainian President Zelensky and later texted the aide to say that he'd "heard from the White House; assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck."
Ambassador Sondland spoke to President Trump a few minutes before the call was placed, but was not on the call. During that now-infamous phone call with Zelensky, Trump responded to the Ukrainian expression of appreciation for U.S. defense support and request to buy more Javelin anti-tank missiles by saying, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."
Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the discredited 2016 conspiracy theory and, even more ominously, look into the Bidens. Neither had been part of the official preparatory material for the call, but they were in Donald Trump's personal interest and the interests of his re- election campaign, and the Ukrainian president knew about both in advance in part because of Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Sondland's efforts to make him aware of what the president was demanding.
Around this time, Ambassador Sondland became aware of the suspension of security assistance to Ukraine, which had been announced on a secure interagency video conference on July 18th, telling us that it was extremely odd that nobody involved in making and implementing policy towards Ukraine knew why the aid had been put on hold.
During August, Sondland participated in conference calls and text messages with Volker and Giuliani and said that "the gist of every call was what was going to go in the press statement."
In an August 9 text message with Volker, Sondland stated, "I think POTUS really wants the deliverable," which was, according to Sondland, "a deliverable public statement that President Trump wanted to see or hear before a White House meeting could happen."
On September 1, Ambassador Sondland participated in Vice President Pence's bilateral meeting with Zelensky in Warsaw, during which Zelensky raised the suspended security assistance. Following that meeting, Sondland approached the senior Ukraine official to tell him that he believed "what could help them move the aid was if the Ukrainian prosecutor general would go to the mike and announce that he was opening the Burisma investigation."
Sondland told Taylor that he had made a mistake by telling the Ukrainians that an Oval Office meeting "was dependent on a public announcement of investigations. In fact, everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance."
But even the announcement by the prosecutor general would not satisfy the president. On September 7, Sondland spoke to the president and told Tim Morrison and Bill Taylor about the call shortly thereafter. The president said that although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate. Moreover, an announcement by the prosecutor general would not be enough. President Zelensky must personally -- must announce personally that he would open the investigations.
Sondland told Taylor that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. The check, referred to here, was the U.S. military assistance to Ukraine and Ukraine had to pay up with investigations.
Throughout early September, Volker and Sondland sought to close the deal on the agreement that Zelensky would announce investigations. After Taylor texted Sondland on September 9, 2019, that "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
Sixteen days later, the transcript of the July 25th call was made public and the American people learned the truth of how our president tried to take advantage of a vulnerable ally. Now it is up to Congress, as the people's representatives, to determine what response is appropriate.
If the president abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he sought to condition, coerce, extort or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his re-election campaign, and did so by withholding official acts, a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid, it will be up to us to decide whether those acts are compatible with the Office of the Presidency.
Finally, I want to say a word about the president and Secretary Pompeo's obstruction of this investigation.
We have not received a single document from the State Department and, as Ambassador Sondland's opening statement today will make clear, those documents bear directly on this investigation and this impeachment inquiry.
I think we know now, based on a sample of the documents attached to Ambassador Sondland's statement, that the knowledge of this scheme was far and wide and included, among others, Secretary of State Pompeo as well as the vice president. We can see why Secretary Pompeo and President Trump have made such a concerted and across-the-board effort to obstruct this investigation and this impeachment inquiry; and I will just say this: They do so at their own peril. I remind the president that Article 3 of the impeachment articles drafted against President Nixon was his refusal to obey the subpoenas of Congress.
And with that, I recognize Ranking Member Nunes for any remarks that he would wish to make.
NUNES: Thank the gentleman.
As we learned last night, storytime last night, we get storytime first thing this morning.
Ambassador Sondland, welcome. Glad you're here. I'm really not glad you're here, but welcome to the fifth day of this circus.
As I noticed -- noted before, the Democrats on this committee spent three years accusing President Trump of being a Russian agent. In March 2018, after a year-long investigation, Intelligence Committee Republicans issued a 240-page report describing in detail how the Russians meddled in the 2016 election and making specific recommendations to improve our election security. Denouncing the report as a whitewash and accusing Republicans of subverting the investigation, the Democrats issued their own report focusing on their now debunked conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to hack the elections.
Notably, the Democrats vowed at the time to present a further, quote, "comprehensive report," unquote, after they finished their investigation into Trump's treasonous collusion with Russia.
For some completely inexplicable reason, after the implosion of their Russia hoax, the Democrats failed to issue that comprehensive report. We're still waiting.
NUNES: This episode shows how the Democrats have exploited the Intelligence Committee for political purposes for three years, culminating in these impeachment hearings in their mania to attack the president. No conspiracy theory is too outlandish for the Democrats.
Time and time again, they floated the possibility of some far-fetched malfeasance by Trump, declared the dire need to investigate it and then suddenly dropped the issue and moved on to their next asinine theory.
A sampling of their accusations and insinuations includes these.
"Trump is a longtime Russian agent," as described in the Steele dossier.
"The Russians gave Trump advance access to e-mails stolen by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign."
"The Trump campaign based some of its activities on these stolen documents."
"Trump received nefarious materials from the Russians through a Trump campaign aide."
[09:25:00]
"Trump laundered Russian money through real estate deals."
"Trump was blackmailed by Russia through his financial exposure with Deutsche Bank."
"Trump had a diabolical plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow."
"Trump changed the Republican National Committee platform to hurt Ukraine and benefit Russia."
"The Russians laundered money through the NRA for the Trump campaign."
"Trump's son-in-law lied about his Russian contacts while obtaining his security clearance."
It's a long list of charges, all false. And I could go on and on and on, but I'll spare you for these moments.
Clearly, these ludicrous accusations don't reflect committee members who are honestly searching for the truth. They are the actions of partisan extremists who hijacked the Intelligence Committee, transformed it into the Impeachment Committee, abandoned its core oversight functions and turned it into a beachhead for ousting an elected president from office. You have to keep that history in mind as you consider the Democrats' latest catalog of supposed Trump outrages.
Granted, a friendly call with the Ukrainian president wouldn't seem to rise to the same level as being a Russian agent. But the Democrats were running out of time. If they waited any longer, their impeachment circus would intervene with their own candidates' 2020 campaigns. So you have to give them points for creativity in selling this absurdity as an impeachable offense.
All this explains why the Democrats have gathered zero Republicans' support in the House of Representatives for their impeachment crusade. In fact, the vote we held was a bipartisan vote against this impeachment inquiry. Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler, the key figures behind this impeachment crusade, all proclaimed that impeachment is so damaging to the country that it can only proceed with bipartisan support. Are those declarations suddenly no longer true? Did impeachment become less divisive? Of course not. They know exactly what kind of damage they're inflicting on this nation but they've passed the point of no return.
After three years of preparation work, much of it spearheaded by the Democrats on this committee using all the tools of Congress to accuse, investigate, indict and smear the president, they stoked a frenzy amongst their most fanatical supporters that they can no longer control.
Ambassador Sondland, you are here today to be smeared. But you'll make it through it and I appreciate your service to this country and I am sorry that you've had to go through this.
In closing, the Democrats have zeroed in on an anonymous whistleblower complaint that was cooked up in cooperation with the Democrats on this very committee. They lied to the American people about that cooperation and refused to let us question the whistleblower to discover the truth.
Meanwhile, the Democrats lash out against anyone who questions to casts doubt on this spectacle. When Ukrainian President Zelensky denies anything improper happened on the phone call, the Democrats say that he's a liar. When journalists report on Ukraine election meddling and Hunter Biden's position on the board of corrupt Ukrainian companies, the Democrats label them conspiracy theorists.
When the Democrats can't get any traction for their allegations of quid pro quo, they move the goal posts and accuse the president of extortion, then bribery and, at last resort, obstruction of justice.
The American people sent us to Washington to solve problems, not to wage scorched-earth political warfare against the other party. This impeachment is not helping the American people, it's not a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars and it's definitely not improving our national security.
Finally, the Democrats' fake outrage that President Trump used his own channel to communicate with Ukraine. Remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that our first president, George Washington, directed his own diplomatic channels to secure a treaty with Great Britain.
[09:30:00]
If my Democratic colleagues were around in 1794, they'd probably want to impeach him too.
Mr. Chairman, this morning, we have transmitted to you a letter exercising our rights under H.Res. 660 to subpoena documents and witnesses. We take this step because you have failed to ensure fairness and objectivity in this inquiry. As such, we need to subpoena Hunter Biden and the whistleblower for closed-door depositions as well as relevant documents from the DNC, Hunter Biden's firm, Rosemont Seneca, and the whistleblower.
In the interest of some basic level of fairness, we expect you to concur with these subpoenas. And I'll submit that letter for the record and yield back the balance of my time.
SCHIFF: I thank the gentleman.
We are joined this afternoon by Ambassador Gordon Sondland -- I'm sorry, this morning. It was a long day yesterday. Gordon Sondland is the U.S. representative to the European Union with the rank of ambassador. Before joining the State Department, Ambassador Sondland was the founder and CEO of Provenance Hotels, a national owner and operator of full-service hotels. Also prior to his government service, Ambassador Sondland was engaged in charitable enterprises.
Two final points before our witness is sworn.
First, witness depositions as part of this inquiry were in unclassified -- were unclassified in nature, and all open hearings will also be held at the unclassified level. Any information that may touch on classified information will be addressed separately.
Second, Congress will not tolerate any reprisal, threat of reprisal or attempt to retaliate against any U.S. government official for testifying before Congress, including you or any of your colleagues.
If you would please rise and raise your right hand, I will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
SONDLAND: (OFF-MIKE)
SCHIFF: Let the record show the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated.
The microphone is sensitive, so please speak directly into it. Without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record. And with that, Ambassador Sondland, you are now recognized for your opening statement.
SONDLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Nunes. I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to the members of this Committee.
First, let me offer my thanks to the men and women of the U.S. Department of State, who have committed their professional lives to support the foreign policy work of the United States. In particular, I want to thank my staff at the U.S. Mission to the European Union. Your integrity, dedication, and hard work -- often performed without public acclaim or recognition -- serve as a shining example of true public service, and I am personally grateful to work beside you each and every day. It is my honor to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. The U.S. Mission to the E.U. is the direct link between the United States and the European Union and its members, America's longest- standing allies and one of the largest economic blocks in the world. Every day, I work to support a strong, united, and peaceful Europe. Strengthening our ties with Europe serves both American and European goals, as we together promote political stability and economic prosperity around the world.
I expect that few Americans have heard my name before these events. So before I begin my substantive testimony, please let me share some of my personal background.
My parents fled Europe during the Holocaust. Escaping the atrocities of that time, my parents left Germany for Uruguay, and then in 1953 immigrated to Seattle, Washington, where I was born and raised. Like so many immigrants, my family was eager for freedom and hungry for opportunity. They raised my sister and me to be humble, hardworking, and patriotic, and I am forever grateful for the sacrifices they made on our behalf.
[09:35:00]
Public service has always been important to me. As a lifelong Republican, I have contributed to initiatives of both Republican and Democratic administrations. In 2003, I served as a member of the transition team for Oregon Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski. Governor Kulongoski also appointed me to serve on various statewide boards.
In 2007, President George W. Bush appointed me as a member of the Commission on White House Fellows. I worked with President Bush on charitable events for his foundation's Military Service Initiative. And I also worked briefly with former Vice President Joe Biden's office in connection with the vice president's nationwide anti-cancer initiative at a local Northwest Hospital.
And of course, the highest honor in my public life came when President Trump asked me to serve as the United States ambassador to the European Union. The Senate confirmed me as an ambassador on a bipartisan voice vote and I assumed the role in Brussels on July 9th, 2018.
Although today is my first public testimony on the Ukraine matters, this is not my first time cooperating with this committee. As you know, I've already provided 10 hours of deposition testimony. And I did so despite directives from the White House and the State Department that I refuse to appear, as many others have done. I agreed to testify because I respect the gravity of the moment and I believe I have an obligation to account fully for my role in these events.
But I also must acknowledge that this process has been challenging and, in many respects, less than fair. I have not had access to all of my phone records, State Department e-mails and many, many other State Department documents. And I was told I could not work with my E.U. staff to pull together the relevant files and information. Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, and when and what was said.
As ambassador, I've had hundreds of meetings and calls with individuals. But I am not a note-taker or a memo-writer. Never have been. My job requires that I speak with heads of state, senior government officials, members of the cabinet, the president almost each and every day. Talking with foreign leaders might be memorable to some people. But this is my job. I do it all the time.
My lawyers and I have made multiple requests to the State Department and the White House for these materials; yet, these materials were not provided to me. And they have also refused to share these materials with this committee. These documents are not classified and, in fairness -- and, in fairness, should have been made available.
In the absence of these materials, my memory admittedly has not been perfect. And I have no doubt that a more fair, open, and orderly process of allowing me to read the State Department records and other materials would have made this process far more transparent.
I don't intend to repeat my prior opening statement or attempt to summarize 10 hours of previous deposition testimony. However, a few critical points have been obscured by noise over the last few days and weeks, and I'm worried that the bigger picture is being ignored. So let me make a few key points.
First, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the expressed direction of the president of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the president's orders.
Second, although we disagreed with the need to involve Mr. Giuliani, at the time we did not believe that his role was improper.
[09:40:00]
As I previously testified, if I had known of all of Mr. Giuliani's dealings or his associations with individuals, some of whom are now under criminal indictment, I personally would not have acquiesced his participation. Still, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong.
Third, let me say, precisely because we did not think that we were engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decision-makers at the National Security Council and the State Department knew the important details of our efforts. The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false.
I have now identified certain State Department e-mails and messages that provide contemporaneous support for my view. These e-mails show that the leadership of the State Department, the National Security Council and the White House were all informed about the Ukraine efforts from May 23rd, 2019 until the security aid was released on September 11th, 2019. I will quote from some of those messages with you shortly.
Fourth, as I testified previously -- as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president.
Fifth, in July and August of 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid. I was adamantly -- adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer; still haven't to this day.
In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson. And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians.
Finally, at all times, I was acting in good faith. I was acting in good faith. As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the president. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the president directed us to do so. We had no desire to set any conditions -- we had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukrainians.
Indeed, my own personal view -- which I shared repeatedly with others -- was that the White House and security assistance should have proceeded without pre-conditions of any kind. We were working to overcome the problems, given the facts as they existed. Our only interest, and my only interest, was to advance long-standing U.S. policy and to support Ukraine's fragile democracy.
Now, let me provide additional details specifically about Ukraine and my involvement.
First, my very first days as ambassador to the E.U., which was starting back in July of 2018, Ukraine has featured prominently in my broader portfolio.
[09:45:00]
Ukraine's political and economic development are critical to the long- standing and long-lasting stability of Europe. Moreover, the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea remains one of the most significant security crises for Europe and the United States. Our efforts to counterbalance an aggressive Russia depend in substantial part on a strong Ukraine. On April 21st, 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine in a -- in an historic election. With the expressed support of Secretary Pompeo, I attended President Zelensky's inauguration on May 20th, as part of the U.S. delegation which was led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry. The U.S. delegation also included Senator Johnson, Ukraine Special Envoy Volker and Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman of the National Security Council.
My attendance at President Zelensky's inauguration was not my first involvement with Ukraine. As I testified previously, just four days after assuming my post as ambassador in July of 2018, I received an official delegation from the government of then-Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko. The meeting took place at the U.S. Mission in Brussels and was pre-arranged by my career E.U. Mission Staff. And I've had several meetings since then in Brussels.
Later, in February of 2019, I worked well with U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in making my first official visit to Ukraine for a U.S. Navy visit to the strategic Black Sea Port of Odessa.
The reason I raise these prior Ukraine activities -- the meetings in Brussels, my visit to Odessa -- is to emphasize that Ukraine has been a part of my portfolio from my very first days as the U.S. ambassador. Any claim that I somehow muscled my way into the Ukraine relationship is simply false.
During the Zelensky inauguration on May 20th, the U.S. delegation developed a very positive view of the Ukraine government. We were impressed by President Zelensky's desire to promote a stronger relationship with the United States. We admired his commitment to reform and we were excited about the possibility of Ukraine making the changes necessary to support a greater Western economic investment. And we were excited that Ukraine might, after years and years of lip service, finally get serious about addressing its own well-known corruption problems.
With that enthusiasm, we returned to the White House on May 23rd to brief President Trump. We advised the president of the strategic importance of Ukraine and the value of strengthening the relationship with President Zelensky.
To support this reformer, we asked the White House for two things: first, a working phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky; and, second, a working Oval Office visit. In our view, both were vital to cementing the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, demonstrating support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, and advancing broader U.S. foreign policy interests.
Unfortunately, President Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform and he even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election.
In response to our persistent efforts in that meeting to change his views, President Trump directed us to, quote, "Talk with Rudy." We understood that, "Talk with Rudy," meant talk with Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the president's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters.
[09:50:00]
Nonetheless, based on the president's direction, we were faced with a choice. We could abandon the efforts to schedule the White House phone call and a White House visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interests. Or we could do as President Trump had directed and, "Talk with Rudy." We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us.
Over the course of the next several months, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I were in communication with Mr. Giuliani. Secretary Perry volunteered to make the initial calls with Mr. Giuliani, given their prior relationship. Ambassador Volker made several of the early calls and generally informed us of what was discussed.
I first communicated with Mr. Giuliani in early August, several months later. Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the president wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into the corruption issues. Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election, including the DNC server and Burisma as two topics of importance to the president.
We kept the leadership of the State Department and the NSC informed of our activities. And that included communications with Secretary of State Pompeo, his Counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, his Executive Secretary Lisa Kenna, and also communications with Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, Mr. Morrison, and their staff at the NSC. They knew what we were doing and why.
On July 10th, 2019, senior Ukrainian national security officials met with Ambassador Bolton, Ambassador Volker, Dr. Hill, Secretary Perry, myself, and several others in Washington, D.C. During that meeting, we all discussed the importance of the two action items I identified earlier: one, a working phone call; and, two, a White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.
From my perspective, the July 10th meeting was a positive step toward accomplishing our shared goals. While I'm now aware of accounts of the meeting from Dr. Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, their recollections of those events simply don't square with my own or with those of Ambassador Volker or Secretary Perry.
I recall mentioning the prerequisite of investigations before any White House call or meeting. But I do not recall any yelling or screaming or abrupt terminations, as others have said. Instead, after the meeting, Ambassador Bolton walked outside with our group and we all took some great pictures together outside on the White House lawn. More important, those recollections of protest do not square with the documentary record of our interactions with the NSC in the days and weeks that followed. We kept the NSC apprised of our efforts, including, specifically, our efforts to secure a public statement from the Ukrainians that would satisfy President Trump's concerns.
For example, on July 13th, and this is three days after that July 10th meeting, I e-mailed Tim Morrison. He had just taken over Dr. Hill's post as the NSC Eurasia director and I met him that day for the first time.
I wrote to Mr. Morrison with these words.
The call between Zelensky and POTUS -- the President of the United States -- should happen before 7/21, which is the parliamentary elections in Ukraine. Sole purpose is for Zelensky to give POTUS assurances of new sheriff in town. Corruption ending, unbundling moving forward, and -- and I emphasize -- any hampered investigations will be allowed to move forward transparently. Goal is for POTUS to invite him to Oval. Volker, Perry, Bolton and I strongly recommend.
Mr. Morrison acknowledged and said, thank you and specifically noted that he was tracking these issues.
[09:55:00]
Again, there was no secret regarding moving forward and the discussion of investigations.
Moreover, I have reviewed other State Department documents -- some of which are not currently in the public domain -- detailing Mr. Giuliani's efforts. For example, on July 10th -- the very same day that Ambassador Volker, Secretary Perry, and I were meeting with the Ukraine officials in Washington -- Ambassador Taylor received a communication that Mr. Giuliani was still talking with Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko.
In WhatsApp messages with Ambassador Volker, and I, Ambassador Taylor wrote to us as follows. Just had a meeting with Andriy and Vadym -- referring to Ukraine Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko.
Taylor said the Ukrainians were, quote, "Very concerned about what Lutsenko told them -- that, according to R.G.," meaning Rudy Giuliani, "the Zelensky-POTUS meeting will not happen."
Volker responded, good grief. Please tell the Vadym to let the official U.S. government representatives speak for the U.S. Lutsenko has his own self-interest here.
Taylor confirmed that he had communicated that message to the Ukrainians. And he added, I briefed Ulrich this afternoon on this -- referring to State Department Counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl.
Again, everyone's in the loop.
Three things are critical about this WhatsApp exchange. First, while the Ukrainians were in Washington at the White House, Mr. Giuliani was communicating with the Ukrainians without our knowledge. Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and I were all surprised by this.
Second, Mr. Giuliani was communicating with the reportedly corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Lutsenko and discussing whether a Zelensky-Trump meeting was going to happen, again, without our knowledge.
And third, with this alarming news, Ambassador Taylor briefed Ulrich Brechbuhl, who is the counselor to Secretary of State Pompeo. And even as late September 24th of this year, Secretary Pompeo was directing Kurt Volker to speak with Mr. Giuliani.
In a WhatsApp message, Kurt Volker told me, in part, spoke with Rudy per guidance from S -- S is the State Department's official designator for the secretary -- Spoke with Rudy per guidance from S.
Look, we tried our best to fix the problem, while keeping the State Department and the NSC closely appraised of the challenges we faced.
On July 25th, Presidents Trump and Zelensky had their official call. I was not on the call, and I don't think I was invited to be on the call. In fact, I first read the transcript on September 25th, the day it was publicly released. All I had heard at that time was that the call had gone well.
Looking back, I find it very odd -- very odd that neither I, nor Ambassador Taylor, nor Ambassador Volker ever received a detailed read-out of that call with the Biden references. Now, there are people who say they had concerns about the call. But no one shared any concerns about the call with me at the time, which, frankly, would have been very helpful to know.
On July 26th, Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and I were all in Kyiv to meet with President Zelensky. The timing of that trip immediately after the call between presidents Trump and Zelensky was entirely, entirely coincidental. The Kyiv meetings had been scheduled well-before the date that that White House finally fixed the call.
During our Kyiv meeting, I do not recall President Zelensky discussing the substance of his July 25th call with President Trump. Nor did he discuss any requests to investigate Vice President Biden, which we all later learned was discussed on the July 25th call. And this is consistent with the reported comments from Ambassadors Volker and Taylor.
After the Zelensky meeting, I also met with Zelensky's senior aide, Andriy Yermak.
[10:00:00]
END
