Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Day 5 of Impeachment Hearings Commences; Fiona Hill Criticizes GOP Lawmakers for Believing "Fictional Narrative" that Ukraine, Not Russia Interfered in 2016 Elections. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired November 21, 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: Rudy Giuliani, the role he played even about whether or not it was legal his push to get Ukraine to announce those investigations that -- to help the president politically -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Manu, what do we expect to hear from David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine?
RAJU: We expect him to recount a conversation he heard on July 26th at a restaurant in Kiev in which Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, discussed with President Trump investigations into the Bidens that could, of course, help the president politically. Something that he had asked the Ukrainians to launch that could ultimately impact his re-election campaign.
According to Holmes' account he heard this conversation and Sondland later said that the president only cared about the investigation into the Bidens. Nothing else. Not the war Ukraine was mounting with Russia. That's something Sondland had some disputed part of that testimony yesterday but we'll hear Holmes' account of exactly what he heard the president say and how fixated the president was in investigating his political rivals -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. You see several members already there. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the committee, is already in his seat. He's getting ready. We'll expect the witnesses to show up momentarily as well.
Manu, we'll get back to you.
You know, Carrie, what specifically are you looking for in the first minutes of this hearing once they start presenting their testimony?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, we're going to hear from Fiona Hill, Dr. Fiona Hill, who, again, is an expert in this area. She is someone, as Jim said earlier, who reluctantly or one of our producers said reluctantly went into this administration but did so out of duty. And I think we're going to see that sense of duty. She is going to be completely open. She had wide access and so I'm looking for an incredibly -- a very
credible voice, both from a national security perspective to be able to provide insights into why the corruption that was going on with respect to those around the president and how she saw that as a threat to U.S. national security interests and how she is concerned between now and the 2020 election and the fact that our country seems to be -- and our politicians seem to be consumed by conspiracy theories and how she views that as such a threat to our national security interest.
BLITZER: There you see some of the members, the lawyers for the Republicans and the Democrats. They're there as well.
Andrew McCabe, I'm specifically interested in David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs, who overheard that phone conversation between the president and the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. You know, very sensitive. It was a cell phone basically, and I'm sure he's going to be asked a lot of questions about security, whether that was violated.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm sure he will. You know, with each of these witnesses, Wolf, you want to think about, what is the direct evidence that they can contribute to this story. They all have incredible experience and access in their impressions of the bigger picture are interesting as well. But the direct evidence is where the rubber meets the road.
For Holmes, it's going to be his interaction with Sondland in that restaurant in Kiev, how the call took place. How Mr. Sondland was reacting to the statements that Holmes could actually hear the president making during the call. The other kind of corroborative details around the call as well.
For Dr. Hill, if you recall, Dr. Hill was involved in both of the pivotal meetings on June 10th, first with Ambassador Bolton and the delegation from Ukraine and then the kind of after meeting in the war room at the White House with just Mr. Sondland. That is the meeting where we know Sondland explicitly laid out for the Ukrainians that there would be no White House meeting with Zelensky unless they delivered on the investigations of -- the announcement of the investigations. So I'm really interested to hear what she has to say, the kind of details she can give us around those things.
BLITZER: It's interesting, you know, Jim Sciutto, because in one of the lines in her opening statement, she writes -- she says this. "I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it." That seems like a little slight against her former boss, John Bolton.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "NEWSROOM": Yes.
BLITZER: The National Security adviser who they want in to come and testify. And so far he has not done so.
SCIUTTO: And what we know of John Bolton's position on --
BLITZER: By the way, they're arriving. There you can see David Holmes. He's getting ready to walk into the hearing room. Dr. Fiona Hill will follow. The photographers will take a lot of pictures. And there she is. And then this hearing will start. But go ahead.
SCIUTTO: We know that Bolton shared the concern about this shadow foreign policy. And it was Bolton's description of a drug deal here. You know, kind of encapsulating this idea that this was extortion, this was not proper U.S. policy. That it was dirty and he didn't want to be involved. She was taking a shot there, saying, I'm here. I'm taking a risk here. Why aren't you and others?
[09:05:01]
BLITZER: And he's a career foreign service officer, Jamie. He's not a political appointee like Gordon Sondland. Gave a million dollars to the inaugural committee as a result to get -- became the U.S. ambassador to the E.U. You know, these are career officials who I don't think you can simply say they're never Trumpers or anything along those lines.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: No, and to Jeffrey's point before about where is John Bolton? Fiona Hill is no longer in the administration. John Bolton is no longer in the administration. And we have seen career official after career official come, despite the fact they were directed not to, by the White House, by the State Department, and then go back to work. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman goes back to the White House every day to work.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Awkward.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: Is there a reason why -- but do you have a good reason, Jeff, why John Bolton, the former National Security adviser, has rejected these subpoenas?
TOOBIN: Because he'd rather make money than do his civic duty. I don't know. Maybe someone else has a better explanation. That's all it seems to me.
DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think we may see him at some point. He is certainly hovering over these hearings and will again today. Fiona Hill, too, is going to do something that I think is going to be really damaging for the White House. It's to puncture this idea that Ukraine meddled in 2016. That motivated the president to such a degree and really set in motion this policy.
BLITZER: Adam Schiff will open with a statement. Devin Nunes, the ranking member, will then follow. The two witnesses will be sworn in. They will have opening statements, and then the question and answer session will begin.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): The committee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. This is the seventh 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 of the committee 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, then Ranking Member Nunes will have the opportunity to make a statement. Then we will turn to our witnesses for their opening statements 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 take all necessary and appropriate steps to maintain order and ensure that 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.
Yesterday morning the committee heard from Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, the de facto leader of the three amigos, who had regular access to President Donald Trump and pressed the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, for two investigations Trump believed would help his re-election campaign.
SCHIFF: The first investigation was of a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine and not Russia was responsible for interfering in our 2016 election.
The second investigation was into the political rival Trump apparently feared most, Joe Biden. Trump sought to weaken Biden and to refute the fact that his own election had been helped by Russian hacking and dumping operation and Russian social media campaign directed by Vladimir Putin.
Trump's scheme stood in contrast to the longstanding bipartisan foreign policy of the United States by undermining military and diplomatic support for a key ally, and set back U.S. anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.
In conditioning a meeting with Zelensky and then military aid on securing an investigation of his rival, Trump put his personal and political interests above 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 investigation that Giuliani was pushing."
David Holmes is here with us today. He is a Foreign Service officer currently serving as the political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv.
Also with us is Dr. Fiona Hill, whose job as the National Security Council's senior director for European and Russian Affairs encompassed the coordination of U.S. policy towards Ukraine. Dr. Hill left the NSC in July after more than two years in that position. Dr. Hill and Mr. Holmes each provide a unique perspective on issues relating to Ukraine, Dr. Hill from Washington, D.C. and Mr. Holmes from on the ground in Kyiv.
In early 2019, Dr. Hill became concerned by the increasing prominence of Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, who was, as she has testified, "asserting quite frequently on television, in public appearances, that he had been given some authority over matters related to Ukraine." Hill was not alone in her concerns.
[09:10:00]
Her boss, National Security Advisor John Bolton, was also paying attention, as were other NSC and State Department officials, including Holmes at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv.
Bolton viewed Giuliani as "a hand grenade that is going to blow everybody up," and was powerless to prevent the former mayor from engineering former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's firing in late April, or her recall.
Holmes was stunned by the intensity and consistency of media attacks on Yovanovitch by name as a U.S. ambassador and the scope of the allegations that were leveled against her.
Yovanovitch's dismissal as a result of Giuliani's smear campaign was one of several things that unsettled Dr. Hill. Another was the role of Gordon Sondland, who emerged as a key player in -- in Ukraine policy in May, when he was named as part of the U.S. delegation led by Secretary Rick Perry to President Zelensky's inauguration.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman also attended the inauguration and, as Holmes recalls, during a meeting with President Zelensky, took the opportunity to advise the Ukraine leader to stay out of U.S. domestic politics.
Another concern that arose for Dr. Hill around this time was her discovery of a potential NSC back channel on Ukraine. Hill learned that an NSC staff member who did not work on Ukraine and for her may have been providing Ukraine-related information to President Trump that Dr. Hill was not made aware of.
According to Holmes, following the Zelensky inauguration, Sondland and Perry took "a very active and unconventional role in formulating our priorities for the new Zelensky administration and personally reaching out to President Zelensky and his senior team."
SCHIFF: Sondland's newfound assertiveness also concerned Dr. Hill, who previously had enjoyed a cordial working relationship with the ambassador.
On June 18, 2019, Hill had a blow-up with Sondland when he told her that he was in charge of Ukraine policy. Dr. Hill testified that Sondland "got testy with me and I said, 'Who has put you in charge of it?' He said, 'The president'." On July 10th, Dr. Hill was part of a meeting at the White House with a group of U.S. and Ukrainian officials, including Bolton, Sondland and Energy Secretary Perry, another of the three amigos. The meeting was intended, among other things, to give the Ukrainians an opportunity to convey that they "were very anxious to set up a meeting, a first meeting" between their new president and President Trump.
Sondland interjected to inform the group that, according to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, the White House meeting sought by the Ukrainian president with Trump would happen if Ukraine undertook certain investigations. Hearing this, Bolton abruptly ended the meeting.
Undeterred, Sondland brought the Ukrainian delegation and the NSC director for Ukraine, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, downstairs to another part of the White House, where they were later joined by Dr. Hill. In this second meeting, Sondland was more explicit: Ukraine needed to conduct investigations if they were to get a meeting at all.
Bolton directed Dr. Hill to report this to NSC legal advisor John Eisenberg, telling her, "You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this. And you go ahead and tell him what you've heard and what I've said." Dr. Hill did so, as did Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who separately approached the same lawyers with his concerns.
On July 18, the day before Dr. Hill left her post at the NSC, Holmes participated in a secure interagency videoconference on Ukraine. Towards the end of the meeting, a representative from the Office of Management and Budget announced that the flow of nearly $400 million in security assistance for Ukraine was being held up. "The order had come from the president and had been conveyed to OMB by" acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney "without further explanation."
Holmes, unaware of the hold prior to the call, was "shocked." He thought the suspension of aid was "extremely significant," undermining what he had understood to be longstanding U.S. national security goals in Ukraine.
One week later, on July 25th, President Trump spoke with President Zelensky by phone. When President Zelensky brought up U.S. military support and noted that Ukraine would like to buy more Javelin anti- tank missiles from the United States, Trump responded by saying, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."
Trump then requested that Zelensky investigate the discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Even more ominously, Trump asked Zelensky to look into the Bidens.
[09:15:00]
Neither request had been included in the official talking points for the call prepared by the NSC staff. But both were in Donald Trump's personal interest and the interest of his 2020 re-election campaign.
And the Ukrainian president knew about both in advance, in part because of efforts by Ambassadors Sondland and Volker to make him aware of President Trump's demands. The next day, July 26th, in Kiev, Holmes served as a note-taker during a meeting between acting Ambassador Bill Taylor, Volker and Sondland with President Zelensky and other senior Ukrainian officials.
Zelensky said on the previous day's call, said that on the previous day's call, President Trump had, quote, "three times raised some very sensitive issues that he would have to follow up on those issues when they met in person." Although, he did not realize it at the times -- at the time, Holmes came to understand that the sensitive issues were the investigations that President Trump demanded on the July 25th call.
Following the meeting with Zelensky, Holmes accompanied Sondland to a separate meeting with one of Ukrainian -- the Ukrainian president's top advisors, Andriy Yermak. But Holmes was not allowed into the meeting and waited for 30 minutes while Sondland and the Ukrainian met alone without any note-takers to record what they said.
After the meeting, Sondland, Holmes and two other State Department staff went to lunch at a nearby restaurant and sat on an outdoor terrace. At some point during the meal, Sondland pulled out his cellphone, placed a call to the White House and asked to be connected to the president. When Trump came on the line, Holmes could hear the president's voice clearly.
Holmes recalled that, quote, "the president's voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume." Sondland said he was calling from Kiev. He told the president that President Zelensky loves your ass. Holmes then heard President Trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation?
Ambassador Sondland replied, he's going to do it. Adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him. After the call ended, Holmes took the opportunity to ask Sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on Ukraine. It was at this point that Sondland revealed that the President -- that President Trump doesn't give a -- expletive -- about Ukraine.
The president only cares about big stuff that benefits the president, like the Biden investigation and Mr. Giuliani was pushing. A month later, National Security adviser Bolton travelled to Kiev. Between meetings with Ukrainian government officials, Holmes heard Bolton express to Ambassador Bill Taylor his frustration about Mr. Giuliani's influence with the president.
Bolton made clear, however, there was nothing he could do about it. Bolton further stated that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted prior to the upcoming meeting between President Trump and Zelensky in Warsaw. We would hang on whether Zelensky was able to favorably impress President Trump.
Trump canceled his trip to Warsaw that Sondland, Volker and others continued to press for a public announcement of the opening of investigations by Zelensky. On September 8th, Taylor told Holmes that, quote, "now, they're insisting Zelensky commit to the investigation in an interview with CNN."
Holmes was surprised the requirement was so specific and concrete since it amounted to nothing less than a, quote, "demand that President Zelensky personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trump's political rival on a cable news channel", unquote. On September 9, this committee along with the Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees launched our investigation of this corrupt scheme.
President Trump released the hold on aid two days later. As CNN's Fareed Zakaria has revealed, the Ukrainians canceled the CNN interview shortly thereafter. Two weeks later, on September 25th, the transcript of the July 25th call was released by the White House and the details of the president's scheme started coming into view.
In the coming days, Congress will 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 a vulnerable 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 -- it will be for us to decide whether those acts are compatible with the office of the presidency.
[09:20:00]
I now recognize Ranking Member Nunes for any remarks he would like to make.
REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Thank you. Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day, ranging from quid pro quo to extortion to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo.
It's clear why the Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good reason to be worried of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread corruption in that country. President Zelensky, who didn't even know aid to Ukraine had been paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the conversation.
The aid was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were supposedly being coerced into doing. Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President Obama. Thanks to the provision of javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses have testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for different -- many different reasons.
So, how do we have an impeachable offense here when there's no actual misdeed, and no one even claiming to be a victim. The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple slogan. He got caught. President Trump, we are to believe was just about to do something wrong and getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought crime the Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on this committee who are now hurling these charges. For the last three years, it's not President Trump who got caught, it's the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack the 2016 election.
They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and lying about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations of the Steele dossier which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise that impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is to the American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process featuring secret depositions, hidden transcripts and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians.
And they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee operative who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly redacting her name from deposition transcripts and refusing to let Americans hear her testimony as a witness in these proceedings.
That is the Democrats' pitiful legacy in recent years. They got caught. Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President Trump was trying -- tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true. And the president himself explicitly telling him the opposite that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules, today's hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the impeachment committee, formally known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political benefit they want from this impeachment remains to be seen.
[09:25:00]
But the damage they have done to this country will be long lasting. With this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president, they have pitted Americans against one another and poisoned the mind of fanatics who actually believe the entire galaxy of bizarre accusations they have leveled against the president since the day the American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats end this affair as quickly as possible, so our nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people's faith in government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the Russia hoax to the shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught.
Let's hope they finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest and focus on governing for a change. In addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to house rule 11, clause 2-J1, the Republican members transmit our request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today, you have blocked key witnesses that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry.
This rule was not displaced by H.Res. 660 and, therefore, under house rule 11, clause 1A, it applies to the Democrats' impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly scheduling an agreed upon time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key witnesses that you have continually blocked from testifying.
I'd also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that she submitted to this committee in which she claimed that some committee members deny that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement, on Wednesday, that in March 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year-long investigation into Russian meddling.
The 240-page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling campaign, the U.S. government reaction to it, Russian campaigns and other countries and provided specific recommendations to improve American election security. I'm going to ask my staff to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so they can have a recollection of their memory.
As America may or may not know, Democrats refuse to sign on to the Republican report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views filled with collusion conspiracy theories. Needless to say, it's entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously by all foreign countries.
Regardless of which campaign is the target. I'd like to submit for the record a copy of our report titled "Report on Russian Active Measures". I yield back.
SCHIFF: Today, we are joined by Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes. Dr. Fiona Hill is a former deputy assistant to the president and senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council. Before returning to government, she was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution where she directed the center on the United States and Europe.
She previously worked at the National Intelligence Council, the Eurasia Foundation and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. David Holmes is a political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, where he serves as the senior policy and political adviser to Ambassador Taylor who testified earlier in these hearings.
He is a career foreign service officer. He has previously served in Moscow, New Delhi, Kabul, Bogota and Pristina. He's also served on the staff of the National Security Council as his special assistant -- as special assistant to the United States Secretary of State. Two final points before our witnesses are sworn.
First, witness depositions as part of this inquiry 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.
[09:30:00]
If you would please rise, raise your right hand, I will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Thank you, and you may be seated.
The microphones are sensitive, so you'll need to speak directly into them. Without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record.
With that, Mr. Holmes, you are now recognized for your opening statement. And when you conclude, Dr. Hill, you will be immediately recognized thereafter for your opening statement.
HOLMES: Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nunes, and members of the committee. My names is David Holmes and I'm a career Foreign Service officer with the Department of State. Since August 2017, I have been the political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine.
While it is an honor to appear before you today, I want to make clear that I did not seek this opportunity to testify today. Since you determined that I may have something of value to these proceedings and issued a subpoena, it is my obligation to appear and to tell you what I know.
Indeed, as Secretary Pompeo has stated, I hope everyone who testifies will do so truthfully and accurately. What -- when they do, the oversight role will have been performed, and I think America will come to see what took place here. That is my only goal, to testify truthfully and accurately to enable you to perform that role.
And to that end, I have put together this statement to lay out as best I can my recollection of events that may be relevant to this matter.
By way of background, I have spent my entire professional career as a Foreign Service officer. Like many of the dedicated public servants who have testified in these proceedings, my entire career has been in the service of my country.
HOLMES: I'm a graduate of Pomona -- of Pomona College in Claremont, California, and received degrees in international affairs from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
I joined the Foreign Service in 2002 through an apolitical merit-based process under the George W. Bush administration, and I have proudly served administrations of both parties and worked for their appointees, both political and career.
Prior to my current post in Kyiv, Ukraine, I served in the political and economic sections at the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Russia. In Washington, I served on the National Security Council staff as director for Afghanistan and as a special assistant to the under secretary of State. My prior overseas assignments include New Delhi, India; Kabul, Afghanistan; Bogota Colombia; and Pristina, Kosovo.
As the political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, I lead the political section covering Ukraine's internal politics, foreign relations and security policies. And I serve the senior policy and political ambassador to the -- advisor to the ambassador.
The job of and embassy political counselor is to gather information about the host country's political landscape, to report back to Washington, to represent U.S. policies to foreign contacts, and to advise the ambassador on policy development and implementation.
In this role I'm a senior member of the embassy's country team and continually involved in addressing issues as they arise. I'm also often called upon to take notes in meetings involving the ambassador or visiting senior U.S. officials with Ukrainian counterparts. For this reason, I have been present in many of the meetings with President Zelensky and his administration, some of which may be germane to this inquiry.
While I'm a political counselor at the embassy, it is important to note that I'm not a political appointee or engaged in U.S. politics in any way. It is not my job to cover or advise on U.S. politics. On the contrary, I'm an apolitical foreign policy professional, and my job -- my job is to focus on the politics of the country in which I serve so that we can better understand the local landscape and better advance U.S. national interests there. In fact, during the period that we'll cover today, my colleagues and I followed direct guidance from Ambassador Yovanovitch and Ambassador Taylor to focus on doing our jobs as foreign policy professionals and stay clear of Washington Politics.
I arrived in Kyiv to take up my assignment as political counselor in August 2017, a year after Ambassador Yovanovitch received her appointment. From August 2017 until her removal from post in May 2019, I was Ambassador Yovanovitch's chief policy advisor and developed a deep respect for her dedication, determination, decency and professionalism.
[09:35:00]
During this time we worked together closely, speaking multiple times per day, and I accompanied Ambassador Yovanovitch to many of her meetings with senior Ukrainian counterparts.
Our work in Ukraine focused on three policy priorities: peace and security, economic growth and reform, and anti-corruption and rule of law. These policies match the three consistent priorities of the Ukrainian people since 2014, as measured in public opinion polling, namely, an end the conflict with Russia that restores national unity and territorial integrity, responsible economic policies that deliver European standards of growth and opportunity, and effective and impartial rule of law institutions that deliver justice in cases of high-level official corruption.
Our efforts on this third policy priority merit special mention because it was during Ambassador Yovanovitch's tenure that we achieved the hard-fought passage of a law establishing an independent court to try corruption cases.
These efforts strained Ambassador Yovanovitch's relationship with former President Poroshenko and some of his allies, including Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who resisted fully empowering truly -- truly independent anti-corruption institutions that would help ensure that no Ukrainians, however powerful, were above the law. Despite this resistance the ambassador and the embassy kept pushing anti-corruption and other priorities of our policy toward Ukraine.
Beginning in March 2019, the situation at the embassy and in Ukraine changed dramatically. Specifically the three priorities of security, economy, and justice, and our support for Ukrainian democratic resistance to Russian aggression became overshadowed by a political agenda promoted by former New York -- New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and a cadre of officials operating with a direct channel to the White House.
That change began with the emergence of press reports critical of Ambassador Yovanovitch and machinations by then-Prosecutor General Lutsenko and others to discredit her.
In mid-March 2019, an embassy colleague learned from a Ukrainian contact that Mr. Lutsenko had complained that Ambassador Yovanovitch had, quote, "destroyed him" with her refusal to support him until he followed through with his reform commitments and ceased using his -- his position for personal gain. In retaliation Mr. Lutsenko made a series of unsupported allegations against Ambassador Yovanovitch, mostly suggesting that Ambassador Yovanovitch improperly used the embassy to advance the political interests of the Democratic Party.
Among Mr. Lutsenko's allegations were that that the embassy had ordered the investigation of a former Ukrainian official solely because that former official was allegedly the main Ukrainian contact of the Republican Party and of President Trump personally, and that the embassy allegedly pressured Lutsenko's predecessor to close a case against a different former Ukrainian official, solely because of an alleged connection between that official's company Burisma and former Vice President Biden's son.
Mr. Lutsenko also claimed that he had never received $4.4 million in U.S. funds intended for his office. And that there was a tape of a Ukrainian official saying that he was trying to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election.
Finally, Mr. Lutsenko publicly -- publicly claimed that Ambassador Yovanovitch had given him a do not prosecute list containing the names of her supposed allies, an allegation the State Department called an outright fabrication, and that Mr. Lutsenko later retracted. Mr. Lutsenko said that, as a result of these allegations, Ambassador Yovanovitch would face serious problems in the United States.
Public opinion polls indicated Ukrainians generally did not believe Mr. Lutsenko allegations, and in -- and on March 22nd, President Poroshenko issued a statement in support of Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Following Mr. Lutsenko's allegations, Mr. Giuliani and others made a number of public statements critical of Ambassador Yovanovitch, questioning her integrity and calling for her removal from office. Mr. Giuliani was also making frequent public statements pushing for Ukraine to investigate interference in the 2016 election and issues related to Burisma and the Bidens.
For example, on May 1st, 2019, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani had, quote, "discussed the Burisma investigation, and its intersection with the Bidens, with the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor general and the current prosecutor."
On May 9th, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani said he planned to travel to Ukraine to pursue investigations into the 2016 election interference and into the involvement of former Vice President Biden's son in a Ukrainian gas company.
Over the next few months, Mr. Giuliani also issued a series of tweets asking, quote, "why Biden shouldn't be investigated," attacking, quote, "the new president of Ukraine," Zelensky, for being silent on the 2016 election and Biden investigations.
[09:40:00]
And complaining about The New York Times attacking him for, quote, "exposing the Biden family history of making millions from Ukrainian criminals."
Around this time, the Ukrainian presidential election was approaching, and political newcomer and entertainer Vladimir Zelensky, who had played a president on television, was surging in the polls, ahead of Mr. Lutsenko's political ally, President Poroshenko.
On April 20th, I was president -- I was present for Ambassador Yovanovitch's third and final meeting with then-candidate Zelensky, ahead of his landslide victory in the runoff election the next day. As in her two prior meetings that I also attended, they had an entirely cordial, pleasant conversation and signaled their mutual desire to work together.
However, the negative narratives about Ambassador Yovanovitch had gained currency in certain segments of United States press. On April 26th Ambassador Yovanovitch departed from Washington, D.C., where she learned that she would be recalled early. The barrage of allegations directed at Ambassador Yovanovitch, a career ambassador, is unlike anything I have seen in my professional career. Following President-elect Zelensky's victory, our attention in the embassy focused on getting to know the incoming Zelensky administration and on preparations for inauguration scheduled for May 20th, the same day that Ambassador Yovanovitch departed post permanently. It was -- it quickly became clear that the White House was not prepared to show the level of support for the Zelensky administration that we originally anticipated.
In early May, Mr. Giuliani publicly alleged that Mr. Zelensky was, quote, "surrounded by enemies of the U.S. president," and canceled a visit Ukraine. Shortly thereafter, we learned that Vice President Pence no longer planned to lead the presidential delegation to the inauguration.
The White House then whittled down an initial proposed list for the official presidential delegation to the inauguration from over a dozen individuals to just five: Secretary Perry as its head, Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker representing the State Department, National Security Council Director Alex Vindman representing the White House, temporary acting Charge d'Affaires Joseph Pennington representing the embassy, and Ambassador of the European Union Gordon Sondland.
While Ambassador Sondland's mandate as the accredited ambassador to the European Union did not cover individual member states, let alone non-member countries like Ukraine, he made clear that he had direct and frequent access to President Trump and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and portrayed himself as the conduit to the president and Mr. Mulvaney for this group. Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker later styled themselves the three amigos, and made clear they would take the lead on coordinating our policy engagement with the Zelensky administration.
Around the same time, I became aware that Mr. Giuliani, a private lawyer, was taking a direct role in Ukrainian diplomacy. On April 25th, Ivan Bakanov, who was Mr. Zelensky's childhood friend and campaign chair, and was ultimately we appointed as the head of the security services of Ukraine, indicated to me privately that he had been contacted by, quote, "someone named Giuliani who said he was an advisor to the vice president." I reported Mr. Bakanov's message to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent.
Over the following months, it became apparent that Mr. Giuliani was having a direct influence on the foreign policy agenda that the three amigos were executing on the ground in Ukraine. In fact, at one point during a preliminary meeting of the inaugural delegation, someone wondered aloud why Mr. Giuliani was so active in the media with respect Ukraine. My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland stated, quote, "Dammit Rudy. Every time Rudy gets involved, he goes and F---s everything up."
The inauguration took place on May 20th and I took notes of the delegation's meeting with President Zelensky. During the meeting, Secretary Perry passed President Zelensky the list that Perry described as, quote, "people he trusts." Secretary Perry told President Zelensky that he could seek advice for the people on this list on issues of energy sector reform, which was the topic of subsequent meetings between Secretary Perry and key Ukrainian energy sector contacts. Embassy personnel were excluded from some of these later meetings by Secretary Perry's staff.
On May 23rd Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Ron Johnson -- who had also attended the inauguration, though not on the official delegation -- returned United States and briefed President Trump. On May 29th, President Trump signed a congratulatory letter to President Zelensky, which included an invitation to visit the White House at an unspecified date.
It is important to understand that a White House visit was critical to President Zelensky.
[09:45:00]
President Zelensky needed to show U.S. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to Russian President Putin that he had U.S. backing, as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reform agenda at home.
President Zelensky team immediately began pressing to set a date for that visit. President Zelensky and senior members of his team made clear that they wanted President Zelensky's first overseas trip to be to Washington to send a strong signal of American support, and requested a call with President Trump as soon as possible. We at the embassy also believed that a meeting was critical to the success of President Zelensky's administration and its reform agenda, and we worked hard to get it arranged.
When President Zelensky's team did not receive a confirmed date for White House a visit, they made alternative plans for President Zelensky's first overseas trip to be to Brussels instead, in part, to American Independence Day even that Ambassador Sondland hosted on June 4th. Ambassador Sondland hosted dinner in President Zelensky's honor following the reception, which included President Zelensky, Jared Kushner, Secretary Pompeo's counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl, senior European Union officials, and comedian Jay Leno, among others.
Ambassador Bill Taylor arrived in Kyiv as charge d'affaires on June 17th. For the next month, the focus of our activities -- along with those of the three amigos -- was to coordinate a White House visit. To that end, we were working with Ukrainians to deliver things that we thought President Trump might care about, such as commercial deals that would benefit the United States, which might convince President Trump to agree to a meeting with President Zelensky.
The Ukrainian policy community was unanimous in its -- in recognizing the importance of securing the meeting and President Trump's support. Ambassador Taylor reported that Secretary Pompeo had told him prior to his arrival in Kyiv, quote, "We need to work on turning the president around on Ukraine."
Ambassador Volker told us the first -- that the next five years could hang on what to be accomplished in the next three months. I took that to mean that we did not earn President Trump's support in the next three months, we could lose the opportunity to make progress during President Zelensky's five-year term.
Within a week or two, it became apparent that the energy sector reforms, the commercial deals and anti-corruption efforts on which we were making progress were not making a dent in terms of persuading the White House to schedule a meeting between the presidents.
On June 27th, Ambassador Sondland told Ambassador Taylor in a phone conversation -- the gist of which Ambassador Taylor shared with me at the time -- that President Zelensky needed to make clear to President Trump that President Zelensky was not standing the way of, quote, "investigations." I understood that -- that this meant the Biden/Burisma investigations that Mr. Giuliani and his associates had been speaking about in the media since March.
While Ambassador Taylor did not brief me on every detail of his communications with the three amigos, he did tell me that on a June 28th call with President Zelensky, Ambassador Taylor and the three amigos, it was made clear that some action on Burisma/Biden investigation was a precondition for an Oval Office visit.
Also on June 28th, while President Trump was still not moving forward on a meeting with President Zelensky, we met with -- he met with Russian President Putin at the G-20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, sending a further signal of lack of support to Ukraine.
We became concerned that even if a meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky could occur, it would not go well. And I discussed with embassy colleagues whether we should stop seeking a meeting altogether. While the White House visit was critical to the Zelensky administration, a visit that failed to send a clear and strong signal of support likely would be worse for President Zelensky than no visit at all.
Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine since 2014. This assistance has provided crucial material and moral support to Ukraine in its defensive war with Russia and has helped Ukraine build its armed forces virtually from scratch into arguably the most capable and battle-hardened land force in Europe.
I have had the honor of visiting the main training facility in Western Ukraine with members of Congress and members of this very committee, Ms. Stefanik, where we witnessed firsthand U.S. National Guard troops along with allies conducting training for Ukrainian soldiers. Since 2014, National Guard units from California, Oklahoma, New York, Tennessee and Wisconsin have trained shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukrainian counterparts.
Given the history of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and the bipartisan -- bipartisan recognition of its importance, I was shocked when, on July 18th, an Office of Management and Budget staff member surprisingly announced the hold on Ukraine security assistance.
[09:50:00]
The announcement came toward the end of a nearly two-hour National Security Council secure video conference call, which I participated in from the embassy conference room. The officials said that the order had come from the president and had been conveyed to OMB by Mr. Mulvaney with no further explanation. This began a week or so of efforts by various agencies to identify the rationale for the freeze, to conduct a review of the assistance, and to reaffirm the unanimous view of the Ukraine policy community of its importance. NSC counterparts confirmed to us that there had been no change in our Ukraine policy, but could not determine the cause of the hold or how to lift it.
On July 25th, President Trump made a congratulatory phone call to President Zelensky, after his party won a commanding majority in Ukraine's parliamentary election. Contrary to standard procedure, the embassy received no read-out of that call, and I was unaware of what was discussed until the transcript was released on September 25th.
Upon reading the transcript, I was deeply disappointed to see that the president raised none of what I understood to be our interagency agreed-upon foreign policy priorities in Ukraine and instead raised the Biden/Burisma investigation and referred to the theory about CrowdStrike, and its supposed connection to Ukraine in the 2016 election.
The next day, July 26th, 2019, I attended meetings at the Presidential Administration Building in Kyiv with Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and Ambassador Sondland and I took notes during those meetings. Our first meeting was with President Zelensky's chief of staff. It was brief, as he had had already been summoned by President Zelensky to prepare for a subsequent broader meeting, but he did say that President Trump had expressed interest during the previous day's phone call in President Zelensky's personnel decisions related to the prosecutor general's office.
The delegation then met with President Zelensky and several other senior officials. During the meeting President Zelensky stated that during the July 25th call, President Trump had, quote, "three times" raised "some very sensitive issues," and that he would have to follow up -- he, Zelensky, would have to follow up on those issues when he and President Trump met "in person." Not having received a read-out of the July 25th call, I did not know at the time what those sensitive issues were.
After the meeting with President Zelensky, Ambassador Volker and Ambassador Taylor quickly left the President Administration Building for a trip to the front lines. Ambassador Sondland, who was to fly out that afternoon, stayed behind to have a meeting with Andriy Yermak, a top aide to President Zelensky.
As I was leaving the meeting with President Zelensky, I was told to join the meeting with Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Yermak to take notes. I had not expected to join that meeting and was a flight of stairs behind Ambassador Sondland as he headed to meet with Mr. Yermak.
When I reached Mr. Yermak's office, Ambassador Sondland had already gone in to the meeting. I explained to Yermak's assistant that I was supposed to join the meeting as the embassy's representative and strongly urged her to let me in, but she told me that Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Yermak had insisted that the meeting be one-on-one with no note-taker. I then waited in the anteroom until the meeting ended, along with a member of Ambassador Sondland's staff and a member of the U.S. embassy Kyiv staff.
When the meeting ended, the two staffers and I accompanied Ambassador Sondland out of the Presidential Administration Building. Ambassador Sondland said he wanted to go to lunch. And I told Ambassador Sondland that I'd be happy to join him and the two staffers for lunch if he wanted to brief me out on his meeting with Mr. Yermak or discuss other issues, and Ambassador Sondland said that I should join.
The four of us went to a nearby restaurant and sat on outdoor terrace. I sat directly across from Ambassador Sondland, and the two staffers sat off to our sides. At first, the lunch was largely social. Ambassador Sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us and we discussed topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business.
During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard him announce himself several times along the lines of Gordon Sondland holding for the president. It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistants. And I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor changed, and understood that he had been connected to President Trump.
While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the president's voice through the earpiece of the phone. The president's voice was loud and recognizable. And Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.
I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the president and explain he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state that President Zelensky, quote "loves your ass."
[09:55:00]
I then heard President Trump ask, so he's going to do the investigation?
Ambassador Sondland replied that he's going to do it, adding that President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do.
Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the president.
The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland's efforts on behalf of the president to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden, and I could only hear Ambassador Sondland's side of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the president that the rapper was, quote, "kind of f----d there," and, "should have pled guilty." He recommended that the president, quote, "wait until after the sentencing or it will only make it worse," and he added that the president should, "let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker-tape when he comes home."
Ambassador Sondland further told the president that Sweden, quote, "should've released him on your word," but that, "you can tell the Kardashians you tried."
After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the president was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning.
I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the president's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the president did not give a expletive about Ukraine.
Ambassador Sondland agreed that the president did not give an expletive about Ukraine.
I asked why not.
Ambassador Sondland stated that the president only cares about "big stuff."
I noted that there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia.
And Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the president, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.
The conversation then moved on to other topics.
Upon returning to the embassy, I immediately briefed my direct supervisor, the deputy chief of mission, about Ambassador Sondland's call with President Trump and my subsequent conversation with Ambassador Sondland.
I told others at the embassy about the call as well. I also e-mailed an embassy official in Sweden regarding the issue with the U.S. rapper that was discussed on the call.
July 26th was my last day in the office ahead of a long planned vacation that ended on August 6th.
After returning to the embassy, I told Ambassador Taylor about the July 26th call. I also repeatedly referred to the call and the conversation with Ambassador Sondland in meetings and conversations where the issue of the president's interest in Ukraine was potentially relevant.
At that time, Ambassador Sondland's statement to the president -- statement of the president's lack of interest in Ukraine was of particular focus. We understood that, in order to secure a meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky, we would have to work hard to find a way to explain Ukraine's importance to President Trump in terms that he found compelling.
Over the ensuing weeks, we continued to try to identify ways to frame the importance of Ukraine in ways that would appeal to the president, to determine how to lift the hold on security assistance and to move forward on the scheduling of a White House visit by President Zelensky.
Ukrainian Independence Day, August 24th, presented another good opportunity to show support for Ukraine. Secretary Pompeo had considered attending, as National Security Advisor Bolton had attended in 2018 and Defense Secretary Mattis had attended in 2017. But in the end, nobody senior to Ambassador Volker attended.
Shortly thereafter, on August 27th, Ambassador -- Ambassador Bolton visited Ukraine and brought welcome news that President Trump had agreed to meet President Zelensky on September 1st in Warsaw. Ambassador Bolton further indicated that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted prior to the Warsaw meeting, where it would hang on whether President Zelensky was able to, quote, "favorably impress President Trump."
I took notes in Ambassador Bolton's meetings that day with President Zelensky and his chief of staff. Ambassador Bolton told Zelensky's chief of staff that the meeting between the presidents in Warsaw would be, quote, "crucial to cementing their relationship." However, President Trump ultimately pulled out of the Warsaw trip, so the hold remained in place with no clear means to get it lifted.
Between the meetings on August 27th, I heard Ambassador Bolton express to Ambassador Taylor and National Security Council Senior Director Tim Morrison his frustration about Mr. Giuliani's influence with the president, making clear there was nothing he could do about it.
He recommended that Mr. Lutsenko's replacement as prosecutor general opened a channel with his counterpart, Attorney General Barr, in place of the informal channel between Mr. Yermak and Mr. Giuliani. Ambassador Bolton also expressed frustration about Ambassador Sondland's expansive interpretation of his mandate.
After President Trump canceled his visit to Warsaw, we continued to try to appeal to the president in foreign policy and national security terms.
[10:00:00]
