POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND FOR CONTRIBUTIONS BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> Woodruff: GOOD MORNING.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

WELCOME TO OUR SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM ONE KEY WITNESS-- MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

SHE WAS THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE BEFORE BEING FIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IN THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, TWO TOP DIPLOMATS TESTIFIED ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GUILIANI, ORCHESTRATED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN TO GET YOVANOVITCH REMOVED FROM HER POST.

AT THE HEART OF THE INVESTIGATION: DID PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATE HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND JEOPARDIZE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY BY PRESSURING UKRAINE TO TAKE STEPS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY, NAMELY TO UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL?

ONCE AGAIN, OUR LISA DESJARDINS IS AT THE CAPITOL AND WILL BE IN THE ROOM.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

NICK SCHIFRIN IS AT THE TABLE WITH ME, ALONG WITH: MIEKE EOYANG-- SHE WAS A TOP STAFFER FOR DEMOCRATS ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FROM 2007 TO 2010.

SHE IS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AT "THIRD WAY," A WASHINGTON THINK TANK.

AND MICHAEL ALLEN SERVED AS STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP FROM 2011 TO 2013.

HE IS NOW A MANAGING DIRECTOR AT THE ADVISORY FIRM "BEACON GLOBAL STRATEGIES."

WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU.

IT IS SECOND DAY OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WE ARE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION AFTER ALMOST A FULL DAY OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MON.

MIEKE, WHAT ARE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TELLING YOU THEY EXPECT TODAY?

>> WELL, DEMOCRATS HAD A BE CONFERENCE CALL WITH SOME REPORTERS TODAY.

THE REASON THEY ARE CALLING MARIA YOVANOVITCH, HERROUS TER WAS A PLAN TO TRY TO FURTHER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLANS.

ALSO MAKE THE POINT THAT PRESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE AMBASSADORS AT WILL.

ONE QUICK NOTE JUDY, A LITTLE MORE CALM TODAY, NOT AS BIG OF A CROWD, I THINK THAT'S TO BE EXPECTED WITH OUR SECOND DAY HEARING NOW, SECOND HEARING.

>> Woodruff: LISA WE'LL BE COMING TO YOU LATER.

YAMICHE, YOU TOLD US THEY WERE WATCHING CLOSELY.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?

>> THE WHITE HOUSE WILL BE WATCHING THIS PUBLIC HEARING VERY CLOSELY.

THE PRESIDENT HAS SOME PRETTY CLEAR AGENDA.

ONLY AT 2 P.M.

HE WILL BE SPEAKING.

HE HAS AN OPEN SCHEDULE TODAY.

HE HAS ALREADY TWEETED TODAY, SAYING NANCY PELOSI SHOULD BE DOING THINGS IN HER OWN DISTRICT AND NOT GOING AFTER HIM.

THE POLITICAL LEANINGS OF THE DEMOCRATS, ALSO SAYING ESSENTIALLY THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT SED OVER AND OWNERSHIP AGAIN AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN COORDINATING VERY CLOSELY WITH REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WHO WILL BE ASKING QUESTIONS DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

WHEN YOU HEAR REPUBLICANS ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, ABOUT HOW MUCH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH KNEW, WE'LL HAVE TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT BUT THE PRESIDENT IS DEFINITELY PLAYING A BIG ROLE EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T SEE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE ROOM.

>> Woodruff: WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO KEEP OUR CAMERAS FOCUSED ON THE HEARING ROOM, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ABOUT TO GET UNDER WAY.

NANCY PELOSI, A REFERENCE TO HER COMMENTS AT HER PRESS BRIEFING YET, SHE BLOOS OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE AMOUNTS TO BRIBERY WHICH IN THE CONSTITUTION IS PART OF THE DEFINITION OF WHAT WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

NICK SCHIFRIN HERE AT THE TABLE, AS WE WAIT FOR CHAIRMAN SCHIFF TO GAVEL THIS MEETING INTO SESSION.

MARIE YOVANOVITCH IS REALLY AT THE CENTER OF THIS, BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN THERE IN UKRAINE, SOMEONE, CAREER FOREIGN-SERVICE OFFICER FOR THE UNITED STATES, AND YET SHE BECAME SOMEONE THE TRBS OF ARE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID DID NOT WANT TO BE THERE.

>> SHE WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S AMBASSADOR TO THE ARE UKRAINE.

STAYED THERE, 33 YEAR DIPLOMAT WITH A HISTORY OF BEING AMBASSADOR IN MULTIPLE COUNTRIES.

WE'LL HEAR FROM HER TODAY THAT SHE WAS NONPARTISAN.

WHAT LISA SED SHE WAS THE FIRST CHAPTER OF WHAT HAPPENED.

WHAT THAT MEANS, THE DEMOCRATIC ARGUMENT IS GOING TO BE SHE WAS FIRED BECAUSE SHE STOOD IN THE WAY OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO DO, WHO RUDY IS GIULIANI WANTED TO DO.

THERE WERE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO WANTED HER OUT, WERE CORRUPT AND LAUNCHED A DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ABOUT HER.

THAT CAMPAIGN WAS PICKED UP BY GIULIANI, AND WAS MOTIVATED NOT BY NATIONAL INTERESTS BUT BY BUSINESS INTEREST.

THAT'S THE CORE OF WHAT THAT FIRST CHAPTER MEANS.

DEMOCRATS ARE ALSO GOING TO PAINT HER AS PARTLY OF A PATTERN OF ABUSE AGAINST CAREER OFFICIALS.

WHEN CAREER OFFICIALS SAW THIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER THEY TRIED TO GO TO SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO AND SAY CAN, HEY, YOU NEED TO DEFEND THIS WOMAN.

THIS IS A NONPARTISAN CAREER OFFICIAL.

HE DECLINED TO DO SO.

THAT IS GOING TO BE PART OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAY IS A PATTERN OF POLITICALLY APPOINTED OFFICIALS GOING AFTER CAREER OFFICIALS.

THE REPUBLICANS AS LISA SAID ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE THE AMBASSADOR THAT HE WANTS AND SHE WASN'T PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHOICE AT ALL.

>> Woodruff: WE ARE BACK IN THE HEARING ROOM.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF FARES TO BE JUST ABOUT TO GAVEL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

TRICHT, WHAT IS A RECORDED TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST CALL WITH VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY.

A CONGRATULATORY CALL.

WE KNOW THAT YAMICHE AND OUR NewsHOUR STAFF READING THROUGH THAT VERY QUICKLY TO SEE WHAT IS NEW IN THERE.

THIS IS MARIE BT YOVANOVITCH.

>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

THIS IS THE SECOND IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT THE HOUSE WILL BE HOLDING IN PART OF THE INQUIRY.

THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT.

WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THIS SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING.

I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND WE WILL TURN TO OUR WITNESS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN TO QUESTIONS.

FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS WE WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST Iñ IN RETURN WE BE APPRECIATE YOUR RESPECT IN PROCEEDING WITH THIS HEARING.

AS CHAIRMAN I'LL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEMS TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND ENSURE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS RUN IN ACCORDANCE TO HOUSE RULES 660.

OPENING STATEMENT INTO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD TRUMP, THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN 2015, SHE WAS CALLED BY A SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND TOMENTD TO GET ON THE NEXT PLANE BACK TO WASHINGTON.

UPON HER RETURN TO D.C, SHE WAS INFORMED BY HER SUPERIORS THAT ALTHOUGH SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT.

IT WAS A STUNNING TURN OF EVENTS FOR THIS HIGHLY REGARDED CAREER DIPLOMAT WHO HAD DONE SUCH REMARKABLE JOB FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE THAT A SHORT TIME EARLIER SHE HAD BEEN ASKED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO EXTEND HER TOUR.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS BEEN IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE FOR 33 YEARS AND SERVED MUCH OF THAT TIME IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

SHE IS AN EXEMPLARY OFFICER WHO IS WIDELY PRAISED AND RESPECTED BY HER COLLEAGUES.

SHE IS KNOWN AS AN ANTICORRUPTION CHAMPION WHOSE TOUR IN KIEV WAS VIEWED AS VERY SUCCESSFUL.

AMBASSADOR MICHAEL McKINLEY STATED THAT FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS OF HER CAREER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE SHE WAS WITH EXCELLENT.

SERIOUS.

COMMITTED.

I CERTAINLY REMEMBER HER BEING ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SEEMED TO BE DESTINED FOR GREATER THINGS.

HER SUCCESSOR IS AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR DESCRIBED HER AS VERY FRANK.

SHE WAS VERY DIRECT.

SHE MADE POINTS VERY CLEARLY AND SHE WAS INDEED TOUGH ON CORRUPTION AND SHE NAMED NAMES.

AND THAT SOMETIMES IS CONTROVERSIAL OUT THERE BUT SHE'S A STRONG PERSON AND MADE THOSE CHARGES.

IN HER TIME IN KIEV, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS TOUGH ON CORRUPTION.

TOO TOUGH ON CORRUPTION FOR SOME.

AND ALREADY PRINCIPAL STANCE MADE HER ENEMIES ABOUT.

AS AMBASSADOR KENT TOLD US WEDNESDAY, YOU CAN'T PRINCIPLE ANTICORRUPTION ACTION WITHOUT PISSING OFF IMPORTANT PEOPLE.

AND AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DIDN'T JUST PISS OFF POLITICIANS BUT CERTAIN AMERICANS LIKE RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AROUND TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE WORKED WITH HIM, LEV PARNAS, PROMOTED A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATION HE.

AT THE TIME STATE DEPARTMENT THERE WAS AN EVIDENT TO PUSH BACK BASED ON A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM SECRETARY POMPEO THAT THOSE EFFORTS FAILED WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED HER GONE HAVE ARGUED THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

AND THAT IS TRUE.

FTC THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT WHETHER DONALD TRUMP COULD RECALL AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WITH A STELLAR REPUTATION FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT WHY WOULD E-WANT TO?

WHY DID RUDY GIULIANI WANT H%g GONE AND WHERE WOULD DONALD TRUMP?

WHY WOULD THE THREE AMEETING OWES TO WORK WITH THE SAME MAN, RUDY GIULIANI WHO PLAYED SUCH A CENTRAL ROLE IN THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HIM.

RUDY GIULIANI HAS MADE NO SECRET IN HIS ROLE, AS WELL AS A CONSPIRACY THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

AS HE SAID IN ONE INTERVIEW IN MAY 2019, WE ARE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION, WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION WHICH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO.

MORE RECENTLY HE TOLD CNN'S CHRIS QUOMO, OF COURSE I DID WHEN ASKED IF HE HAD PRESSED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.

AND HE HAS NEVER BEEN SHY ABOUT WHO HE IS DOING THIS WOULD BE FOR: HIS CLIENT, THE PRESIDENT.

ONE POWERFUL ALLY, GIULIANI HAD IN UKRAINE THE PROMOTE THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS WAS LUTSENKO THE CORRUPT BE GENERAL, CERTAIN UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR NAMED MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT IN THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL WITH ZELENSKY, DONALD TRUMP BRINGS UP THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR, AND PRAISES HIM AND CLAIMS THIS FORMER PROSECUTOR WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR.

BUT THE WOMAN KNOWN FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION HIS OWN FORMER AMBASSADOR, THE WOMAN RUTHLESSLY SMEARED AND DRIVEN FROM HER POST, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOTHING BUT DISPARAGE OR, WORSE, THREATEN.

WELL, SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, THE PRESIDENT DECLARES.

THAT TELLS YOU A LOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES, AND INTENTIONS.

GETTING RID OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HELPED SET THE STAGE FOR A REGULAR CHANNEL THAT OCOULD PURSUE THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT MEANT SO MUCH TO THE PRESIDENT.

THE 2017 CONSPIRACY THEORY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2020 POLITICAL OPPONENT HE APPARENTLY FEARED MOST, JOE BIDEN.

AND THE PRESIDENT CAPS SCHEME MIGHT HAVE WORKED EXCEPT THE MAN WHO WOULD SUCCEED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ACTING AMBASSADOR TAIRLT WOULD PRESS UKRAINE INTO CONDUCTING THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND WOULD PUSH BACK AND BUT FOR THE FACT THAT SOMEONE W BLEW THE WHISTLE.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS FOLLOWING AMERICA'S INTEREST IN WORKING IN UKRAINE.

FOR THAT SHE WAS SMEARED AND CAST ASIDE.

THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY ARE IMMENSE.

BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE.

AND THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR CORRUPT PURPOSE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT THEIR PRESIDENT TO USE THE AUTHORITY THEY GRANT HIM, IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATION.

NOT TO DESTROY OTHERS, TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL OR POLITICAL INTERESTS.

AND I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ FOR HIS REMARKS.

>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT TODAY AND FOR MOST OF NEXT WEEK WE WILL CONTINUE ENGAGING IN THE DEMOCRATS DAY-LONG TV SPECTACLES.

INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE PROBLEMS WE WERE ALL SENT TO WASHINGTON TO ADDRESS.

WE NOW HAVE A MAJOR TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA AND MEXICO READY FOR APPROVAL.

A DEAL THAT WOULD CREATE JOBS AND BOOST OUR ECONOMY.

MEANWHILE, WE HAVE NOT YET APPROVED FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT WHICH EXPIRES NEXT WEEK.

ALONG WITH FUNDING FOR OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM.

INSTEAD THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CONVENED US ONCE AGAIN TO ADVANCE THEIR OPERATION TO TOPPLE A L D DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.

I'LL NOTE THAT FIVE, FIVE, MEMBERS HAD VOTED TO IMPEACH BEFORE THE, DAY HE WAS ELECT HE.

SO AMERICANS CAN RIGHTLY SUSPECT THAT HIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS USED AS AN EXCUSE OR THE -- FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO FULFILL THEIR WATERGATE FANTASIES.

I'M GLAD THAT ON WEDNESDAY AFTER THE DEMOCRATS STAGED SIX WEEKS OF SECRET DEPOSITIONS IN THE BEARSMENT OF THE CAPITAL LIKE SOME KIND OF STRANGE CULT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FINALLY GOT TO SEE THIS FARCE FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY SAW US SIT THROUGH HOURS OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY ABOUT CONVERSATIONS WITH TWO GLOAMENTS WHO NEVER SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT, THAT HEARD SECONDHAND THIRD HAND AND FOURTH HAND FROM OTHER PEOPLE, IN OTHER WORDS, RUMORS.

THE PROBLEM OF TRYING TO OVERTHROW A PRESIDENT BASED ON THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS OBVIOUS.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR WHOLE CASE RHYMES ON.

BEGINNING WITH SECONDHAND AND THIRD HAND INFORMATION CITED BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THAT'S WHY ON WEDNESDAY THE DEMOCRATS WERE FORCED TO MAKE THE ABSURD ARGUMENT THAT HEARSAY CAN BE MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE.

AND JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THE SPECTACLE COULDN'T GET MORE BIZARRE COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS RECEIVED A MEMO FROM THE DEMOCRATS THREATENING ETHICS REFERRALS IF WE OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE WELL AWARE, NO REPUBLICANS HERE KNOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S IDENTITY BECAUSE THE WHISTLEBLOWER ONLY MET WITH DEMOCRATS.

NOT WITH REPUBLICANS.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF CLAIMED NOT TO KNOW WHO IT IS YET HE ALSO VOWED TO BLOCK US FROM ASKING QUESTIONS THAT COULD REVEAL HIS OR HER IDENTITY.

REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE LEFT WONDERING, HOW IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO BLOCK QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON WHOSE IDENTITY HE CLAIMS NOT TO KNOW.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY BE SEEING THESE ABSURDITIES FOR THE FIRST TIME BUT REENLS ON THE DAIS ARE -- REPUBLICANS ON THIS DYES ARE USED TO THEM.

DEMOCRATS SHOWED LITTLE INTEREST FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS IN ANY TOPIC ASIDE FROM THE RIDICULOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT.

WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF ON THE PHONE LIKE THE DEMOCRATS DID WITH RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS OFFERING YOU NUDE PICTURES OF TRUMP AND AFTERWARDS YOU ORDER YOUR STAFF TO FOLLOW UP AND GET THE PHOTOS AS THE DEMOCRATS ALSO DID, THEN IT MIGHT BE TIME TO ASK YOURSELF IF YOU'VE GONE OUT TOO FAR ON A LIMP -- ON A LIMB.

EVEN AFTER THEY WERE ACCUSING REPUBLICANS FOR CONCLUDING WITH RUSSIANS, BASED ON RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN SOURCES.

MEANWHILE THEY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UKRAINIANS MEDDLING IN OUR ACTIONS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE COOPERATING WITH THAT OPERATION.

THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF A JULY 20th, 2017 LETTER SENT BY SENATOR GRASSLE TO THEN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN.

THE LETTER RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF ALEXANDER CHALUPA A CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WHO WORKED WITH UKRAINIAN EMBASSY OFFICIALS TO SPREAD ON THE CAMPAIGN.

QUOTE, CHALUPA'S ACTIONS APPEAR TO SHOW THAT SHE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY WORK ON BEHALF OF THE UKRAINIAN CAMPAIGN AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TO NOT ONLY INFLUENCE THE CAMPAIGN BUT U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, UNQUOTE.

AFTER TOUTING THE STEEL DOSSIER, WHICH ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BY INSPECTOR GENERAL HOR WIT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, EVEN THOUGH CHALUPA PUBLICLY ADMITTO THE DEMOCRATS SCHEME.

LIKEWISE THEY ARE BLIND TO THE BLARING SIGNS OF CORRUPTION SURROUNDING HUNTER BIDEN'S WELL PAID POSITION ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER SERVED AT VICE PRESIDENT AND POINT MAN FOR UKRAINIAN ISSUES IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

WHAT THE DEMOCRAT MEDIA HACKED ONLY CARED ABOUT THAT ISSUE BRIEFLY WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO STOP JOE BIDEN FROM RUNNING AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON IN 2015.

AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED THESE HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BE OCCURRING AT ALL UNTIL WE GET ANSWERS TO THREE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO ASK.

FIRST, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHO ELSE DID THE WHISTLEBLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH.

SECOND, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE'S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

AND THIRD, WHY DID BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND DID HIS ACTION HE AFFECT ANY ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

DEMOCRATS VOWED THAT THEY WOULD NOT PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH A WRENCHING IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WITHOUT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND THEY HAVE NONE.

ADD TO THAT BROKEN PROMISES AND DESTRUCTIVE DECEPTIONS.

IN CLOSING, MR.

CHAIR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELEASED HIS TRANSCRIPTS RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I READ THIS INTO THE RECORD SO THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION OVER THIS FIRST PHONE CALL THAT OCCURRED ON APRIL 21st, WITH PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY AND I'D LIKE TO READ IT.

THE PRESIDENT: I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON A JOB WELL DONE AND CONGRATULATIONS ON A FANTASTIC ELECTION.

ZELENSKY: GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

IT'S NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU AND I APPRECIATE THE CONGRATULATIONS.

THE PRESIDENT: THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE ELECTION.

ZELENSKY: AGAIN, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

AS YOU CAN SEE WE TRIED VERY HARD TO DO OUR BEST.

WE HAD YOU AS A GREAT EXAMPLE.

THE PRESIDENT: I THINK UL YOU WILL DO A GREAT JOB.

I HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN UKRAINE WHO KNOW YOU AND LIKE PICKUP I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM UKRAINE WHO FRANKLY EXPECTED YOU TO WIN AND IT'S REALLY AN AMAZING THING HAD A YOU'VE DONE.

I GUESS IN A WAY, I DID SOMETHING SIMILAR.

WE'RE MAKING TREMENDOUS PROGRESS IN THE U.S., WE HAVE THE MOST TREMENDOUS ECONOMY EVER.

I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE YOU.

I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU WILL BE A FANTASTIC PRESIDENT.

ZELENSKY: FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH AGAIN FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS.

WE IN UKRAINE ARE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY, AN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE.

WE ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE.

YOU ARE AS I SAID A GREAT EXAMPLE, WE ARE HOPING WE CAN EXPAND ON OUR JOBS AS YOU DID.

YOU WILL ALSO BE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR MANY.

YOU ARE A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR OUR NEW MANAGERS.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO INVITE YOU IF POSSIBLE TO THE INAUGURATION.

I KNOW HOW BUSY YOU ARE BUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO COME TO THE INAUGURATION CEREMONY THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

GREAT FOR YOU TO BE WITH US ON THAT DAY.

THE PRESIDENT: THAT'S VERY NICE.

I'LL LOOK INTO THAT AND GIVE US A DATE AT THE VERY MIMENT WE'LL HAVE A GREAT REPRESENTATIVE.

OR MORE FROM THE UNITED STATES, WILL BE WITH YOU ON THAT GREAT DAY.

SO WE WILL HAVE SOMEBODY AT A MINIMUM, A VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL AND WILL BE WITH YOU, REALLY AN INCREDIBLE DAY FOR AN INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT.

ZELENSKY: AGAIN THANK YOU.

WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR VISIT TO THE VISIT OF A HIGH LEVEL DELEGATION BUT THERE ARE NO WORDS THAT CAN DESCRIBE OUR WONDERFUL PEOPLE, HOW NICE WARM AND FRIENDLY OUR PEOPLE ARE, HOW TASTY AND WONDERFUL OUR PEOPLE ARE, IT WOULD BE BEST TO SEE IT YOURSELF SO IF YOU COULD COME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

SO AGAIN I INVITE TO YOU COME.

THE PRESIDENT: WELL I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO IT.

WHEN I OWN MISS UNIVERSE THEY ALWAYS HAD GREAT PEOPLE.

UKRAINE WAS ALWAYS VERY WELL REPRESENTED.

WHEN YOU ARE SETTLED IN AND READY, I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT.

BUT WE'RE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY.

ZELENSKY: THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION.

WE ACCEPT THE THE INVITATION AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE VISIT.

THANK YOU AGAIN, THE WHOLE TEAM AND I ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE VISIT.

THANK YOU FOR THE CONGRATULATIONS, I THINK IT WOULD STILL BE GREAT IF YOU COULD COME AND BE WITH US ON THIS IMPORTANT DAY.

THE RESULTS ARE INCREDIBLE.

THEY'RE VERY IMPRESSIVE FOR US.

TO IT WILL BE ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC IF YOU COULD COME ON THAT DAY.

THE PRESIDENT: VERY GOOD.

WE'LL LET YOU KNOW VERY SOON AND WE'LL SEE YOU VERY, VERY SOON REGARDLESS.

CONGRATULATIONS AND PLEASE SAY HELLO TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE AND YOUR SYSTEM.

LET THEM KNOW I SEND MY BEST REGARD.

ZELENSKY: THANK YOU, HAVE A SAFE FLIGHT AND SEE YOU SOON.

THE PRESIDENT: TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND I'LL SEE YOU SOON.

ZELENSKY IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME BUT I WILL PRACTICE ENGLISH AND I WILL MEET IN ENGLISH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE PRESIDENT: THANK YOU I COULD NOT DO IT IN YOUR LANGUAGE.

ZELENSKY: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THE PRESIDENT: GOOD DAY GOOD LUCK.

I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD, NOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE VERY FIRST CALL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WP CAN THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER UNDER 660.

>> STATE THE POINT OF ORDER.

>> WILL THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUE TO BE AS YOU DID THIS WEEK WHEN YOU INTERRUPTED OUR QUESTIONS.

>> NOT A PROPER ORDER, GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

RECOGNIZED.

>> I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.

>> THE DISWRA IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> I HAVE A POINT OF OF ORDER.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> I HAVE A POINT MUCH ORDER.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- >> GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

GENTLEMEN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> HOLY COW.

>> THE RANKING MEMBER WAS EXCEEDING THE OPENING STATEMENT AND I WAS HAPPY TO LET HIM DO SO.

I WANT TO RESPOND TO THE CALL RECORD.

FIRST OF ALL I'M GRATEFUL THE PRESIDENT HAS RELEASED THE CALL RECORD.

I WOULD ASK THE CHAIRMAN TO RELEASE THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER REPORTS HE HAS DIRECTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO RELEASE, INCLUDING ARE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S NOTES, CABLE, GEORGE KENT'S MEMO, ABOUT WHY THE MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- THAT IS MY POINT OF ORDER.

>> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.

WE WOULD ASK THE PRESIDENT TO STOP OBSTRUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND WHILE WE ARE GRATEFUL HE HAS RELEASED A SINGLE DOCUMENT, HE HAS NONETHELESS OBSTRUCTED WITNESSES AND THEIR TESTIMONY AND THE PRODUCTION OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER RECORDS.

AND FINALLY I WOULD SAY THIS MR. PRESIDENT, I HOPE YOU'LL EXPLAIN TO THE COUNTRY TODAY WHY IT WAS AFTER THIS CALL AND WHILE THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS MAKING PLANS TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION, THAT YOU INSTRUCTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER UNDER -- >> THE GENERALITYWOMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.

>> THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY GORE MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

SHE WAS BORN IN CANADA TO PARENTS WHO FLED THE SOVIET UNION AND ENTERED THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE IN 1986.

SHE HAS SERVED AS U.S.

AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES AND BEEN NOMINATED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES.

GEORGE W. BUSH NOMINATED HER TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE KIERGEZ REPUBLIC WHERE SHE CONSERVED FROM 2005 TO 2008.

PRESIDENT OBAMA THEN NOMINATED HER TO BE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA WHERE SHE SERVED FROM 2008 TO 2011 AND U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WHERE SHE SERVED TO 2016, WHEN SHE WAS RECALLED FROM OFFICE THIS LAST MAY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

SHE HAS SERVED OTHER POSITIONS IN THIS GARMENT INCLUDING EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS.

TAUGHT NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY AT U.S. UNIVERSITY.

SERVED IN KIEV AND MOGADI SURVETIONHU.

INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD AND THE SECRETARY'S DIPLOMACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD.

TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE OUR WITNESS IS SWORN.

FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND OPEN HEARINGS WERE ALSO 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, 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 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 WITNESS HAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED.

WITHOUT OBJECTION YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

WITH THAT AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

>> AMBASSADOR YOU'LL NEED TO SPEAK VERY CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO START WITH THIS STATEMENT.

TO REINTRODUCE MYSELF TO THE COMMITTEE, AND TO HIGHLIGHT PARTS OF MY BIOGRAPHY AND EXPERIENCE.

I COME BEFORE YOU AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, WHO HAS DEVOTED THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE, 33 YEARS, TO SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY THAT ALL OF US LOVE.

LIKE ANY COLLEAGUES, I ENTERED -- LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I ENTERED THE FOREIGN SERVICE UNDERSTANDING THAT MY JOB WAS TO IMPLEMENT IF FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS OF THIS NATION AS DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT, AND CONGRESS, AND TO DO SO REGARDLESS OF WHICH PERSON OR PARTY WAS IN POWER.

I HAD NO AGENDA, OTHER THAN TO PURSUE OUR STATED FOREIGN POLICY GOALS.

MY SERVICE IS AN EXPRESSION OF GRATITUDE FOR ALL THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS GIVEN TO ME AND MY FAMILY.

MY LATE PARENTS DID NOT HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE TO COME OF AGE IN A FREE SOCIETY.

MY FATHER FLED THE SOVIETS MANY AND MY MOTHER GREW UP STATELESS IN NAZI GERMANY BEFORE ULTIMATELY MAKING HER WAY TO THE UNITED STATES.

THEIR PERSONAL HISTORIES, MY PERSONAL HISTORY GAVE ME BOTH DEEP GRATITUDE TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT EMPATHY FOR OTHERS LIKE THE RAINIAN PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE FREE.

I GLOIND -- JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY SERVED THREE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AS WELL AS TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS.

IT WAS MY GREAT HONOR TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES RETIRES BY GEORGE H.W.

BUSH AND ONE -- GEORGE W. BUSH AND ONCE BY PRESIDENT OBAMA.

LEGALITY ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF MY REALITY.

IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EASY.

I HAVE MOVED 13 TIMES, AND SERVED IN SEVEN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

FIVE OF THEM HARDSHIP POSTS.

MY FIRST TOUR WAS MOGADISHU, SOMALIA, AS THAT COUNTRY'S CIVIL WAR GRINDING ON AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS WEAKENING.

THE GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER POLICING FUNCTIONS IN A PARTICULARLY BRUTAL WAY AND BASIC SERVICES DISAPPEARED.

SEVERAL YEARS LATER AFTER THE L SOVIET UNION CLATCHESSED I HEMMED OUR EMBASSY IN UZBEKISTAN.

SPRAYED THE EMBASSY BUILDING WITH GUN FIRE.

I LATER SERVED IN MOSCOW.

IN 1993, DURING THE ATTEMPTED COUP IN RUSSIA I WAS CAUGHT IN CROSS FIRE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY FORCES.

IT TOOK US THREE TRIES, WITHOUT A HELMET OR BODY ARMOR TO GET INTO A VEHICLE TO GO TO THE EMBASSY.

WE WENT BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR ASKED US TO COME.

AND WE WENT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR DUTY.

FROM AUGUST, 2016, UNTIL MAY, 2019, I SERVED AS THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

DURING MY TENURE IN UKRAINE I WENT TO THE FRONT LINE APPROXIMATELY TEN TIMES DURING A HOT WAR TO SHOW THE AMERICAN FLAG, TO HEAR WHAT WAS GOING ON, SOMETIMES LITERALLY AS WE HEARD THE IMPACT OF ARTILLERY AND TO SEE HOW OUR ASSISTANCE DOLLARS WERE BEING PUT TO USE.

I WORKED TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY.

FULLY EMBRACED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE TO HELP UKRAINE BECOME A STABLE AND INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC STATE WITH A MARKET ECONOMY INTEGRATED INTO EUROPE.

A SECURE DEMOCRATIC AND FREE UKRAINE SERVES NOT JUST THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL.

THAT'S WHY IT WAS OUR POLICY, CONTINUES TO BE OUR POLICY, TO HELP THE UKRAINIANS ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES.

THEY MATCH OUR OBJECTIVES.

THE U.S. IS THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF OUR VALUES.

AND OUR VALUES HAVE MADE POSSIBLE THE NETWORK OF ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT BUT RESTS OUR OWN STRENGTH.

UKRAINE WAS AN ENORMOUS LAND MASS AND POPULATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTNER FOR THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS A FORCE-MULTIPLIER ON THE SECURITY SIDE.

WE SEE THE POTENTIAL IN UKRAINE.

RUSSIA SEES, BY CONTRAST, SEES THE RISK.

THE HISTORY IS NOT WRITTEN YET.

BUT UKRAINE COULD MOVE OUT OF RUSSIA'S ORBIT.

AND NOW, UKRAINE IS A BAMENT GROUND FOR GREAT POWER COMPETITION WITH A HOT WAR FOR THE CONTROL OF TERRITORY AND A HYBRID WAR TO CONTROL UKRAINE'S LEADERSHIP.

THE U.S. HAS PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT SECURITY ASSISTANCE SINCE THE ONSET OF THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN 2014.

AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRENGTHENED OUR POLICY BY APPROVING THE PROVISION TO UKRAINE OF ANTITANK MISSILES KNOWN AS JAVELINS.

SUPPORTING UKRAINE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

IT'S ALSO THE SMART THING TO DO.

IF RUSSIA PREVAILS AND UKRAINE FALLS TO RUSSIAN DOMINION, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE OTHER ATTEMPTS BY RUSSIAN TO EXPAND ITS TERRITORY AND ITS INFLUENCE.

AS CRITICAL AS THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS, UKRAINE'S STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY HAS AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT CHALLENGE.

BATTLING THE SOVIET LEGACY OF CORRUPTION WHICH HAS BATTLED UKRAINE'S GOVERNMENT.

UKRAINE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT'S WHY THEY LAUNCHED THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014, DEMANDING TO BE A PART OF EUROPE, DEMANDING THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM, DEMANDING TO LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAWL.

UKRAINIANS WANTED THE LAW TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE.

WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION IS THE PRESIDENT, OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN.

IT WAS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS, OF DIGNITY.

HERE AGAIN, THERE IS A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS.

CORRUPT LEADERS ARE INHERENTLY LESS TRUSS WORTHY, WHILE AN HONEST UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP MAKES U.S. PARTNERSHIP MORE RELIABLE AND MORE VALUABLE TO THE UNITED STATES.

A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN THIS STRATEGICALLY LOCATED COUNTRY ORDERING FOUR NATO ALLIES, CREATES A BUSINESS IN WHICH THE U.S. CAN MORE SAFELY TRADE.

FTC CORRUPT OFFICIALS ARE VULNERABLE TO MOSCOW.

IN SHORT, IT IS IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO HELP UKRAINE TRANSFORM INTO A COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW GOVERNS AND CORRUPTION IS HELD IN CHECK.

IT WAS AND REMAINS A TOP U.S.

PRIORITY TO HELP UKRAINE FIGHT CRUCHTION AND SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE 2014 REVOLUTION OF DID I TONIGHT.

UNFORTUNATELY AS THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HAVE UNDERLINED NOT ALL UKRAINIANS EMBRACEOUR ANTICORRUPTION WORK.

THUS PERHAPS IT WAS NOT SURPRISING THAT WHEN OUR ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS GOT IN THE WAY OF A DESIRE FOR PROFIT OR POWER, UKRAINIANS WHO PREFER TO PLAY BY THE OLD CORRUPT RULES SOUGHT TO REMOVE ME.

WHAT CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME IS THAT THEY FOUND AMERICANS WILLING TO PARTNER WITH THEM AND WORKING TOGETHER, THEY APPARENTLY SUCCEEDED IN ORCHESTRATING THE REMOVAL OF A U.S.

AMBASSADOR.

HOW COULD OUR SYSTEM FAIL LIKE THIS?

HOW IS IT THAT FOREIGN CORRUPT INTERESTS COULD MANIPULATE OUR GOVERNMENT?

WHICH COUNTRY'S INTERESTS ARE SERVED WHEN THE VERY CORRUPT BEHAVIOR WE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZING IS ALLOWED TO PREVAIL?

SUCH CONDUCT UNDERMINES THE U.S., EXPOSES OUR FRIENDS, AND WIDENS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR AUTOCRATS LIKE PRESIDENT PUTIN.

THIS DEPENDS ON THE POWER OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE CONSISTENCY OF OUR PURPOSE.

BOTH HAVE NOW BEEN OPENED TO QUESTION.

WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES I SUGGEST YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT, STARTING WITH MY TIME LINE IN UKRAINE AND THE EVENTS OF WHICH I DO AND DO NOT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.

I ARRIVED IN UKRAINE AUGUST 22nd, 2016 AND LEFT UKRAINE PERMANENTLY ON MAY TWIMENT, 2019.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EVENTS YOU ARE INVESTIGATING TO WHICH I CANNOT BRING FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.

THE EVENTS INCLUDE THE RELEASE OF THE SO-CALLED BLACK LEDGER.

AND MR. MANAFORT'S SUBSEQUENT RESIGNATION FROM MR. TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN, THE REMOVAL OF INSPECTOR GENERAL VIKTOR SHOHAN.

THIS INCLUDES JULY 25th, 2019 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THAT CALL AND ANY DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE IN THE SUMMER OF 2019.

AS FOR EVENTS DURING MY TENURE IN UKRAINE, I WANT TO REITERATE FIRST, THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT I DISSEMINATED A DO NOT FROST CUTE LIST WAS A FABRICATION.

MR. LUTSENKO THE FORM HE PROSECUTOR GENERAL 0 MADE THAT ALLEGATION HAS MADE A STATEMENT THAT THERE LIST DID NOT EXIST.

I DID NOT TELL MR. PLUGHTS OR OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE.

INSTEAD I ADVOCATED THE U.S.

POSITION THAT RULE OF LAW SHOULD PREVAIL.

AND UKRAINIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES SHOULD STOP WIELDING THEIR POWER SELECTIVELY AS A POLITICAL WEAPON AGAINST THEIR ADVERSARIES.

AND START DEALING WITH ALL CONSISTENTLY AND ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

ALSO, UNTRUE, ARE UNSOURCED ALLEGATIONS THAT I TOLD UNIDENTIFIED EMBASSY EMPLOYEES OR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERS SHOULD BE IGNORED BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE IMEECHED OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON.

I DID NOT AND WOULD NOT SAY SUCH A THING.

SUCH STATEMENTS WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH MY TRAINING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER AND MY ROLE AS AN AMBASSADOR.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID NOT ASK ME TO HELP THE CLINTON CAMPIGN OR HARM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

NOR WOULD I HAVE TAKEN ANY SUCH STEP IF THEY HAD.

PARTISANSHIP OF THIS TYPE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROLE OF A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.

I HAVE NEVER MET HUNTER BIDEN NOR HAVE I HAD ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM.

AND ALTHOUGH I HAVE MET FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF OUR MANY YEARS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE, NEITHER HE NOR THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION EVER RAISED THE ISSUE OF EITHER BURISMA OR HUNTER BIDEN WITH ME.

WITH RESPECT TO MAYOR GIULIANI, I'VE HAD ONLY MINIMAL CONTACT WITH HIM, A TOTAL OF THREE, NONE RELATED TO THE EVENTS AT ISSUE.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MR. GIULIANI'S MOTIVES FOR ATTACKING ME NOR CAN I OFFER AN OPINION WHY HE BELIEVED THE ALLEGATION HE SPREAD ABOUT ME.

CLEARLY NO ONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID.

WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT MR. GIULIANI SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THOSE CLAIMS WERE SUSPECT, COMING AS THEY REPORTEDLY DID, FROM INDIVIDUALS WITH QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES AND WITH REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL AMBITIONS WOULD BE STYMIED BY OUR CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE.

AFTER BEING ASKED BY THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE IN 2019 TO EXTEND MY TOUR UNTIL 2020, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME ENTERED A NEW PUBLIC PHASE IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN THE WAKE OF THE NEGATIVE PRESS, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS SUGGESTED AN EARLIER DPDEPARTURE AND WE AGREED ON JUY 2019.

I WAS THEN ABRUPTLY TOLD JUST WEEKS LATER IN APRIL TO COME BACK TO WASHINGTON FROM UKRAINE ON THE NEXT PLANE.

AT THE TIME I DEPARTED, UKRAINE HAD JUST CONCLUDED GAME-CHANGING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

IT WAS A SENSITIVE PERIOD.

WITH MUCH AT STAKE FOR THE UNITED STATES.

AND CALLED FOR ALL THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE WE COULD MUSTER.

WHEN IB8á STATES, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE SULLIVAN TOLD ME THERE HAD BEEN A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME.

THAT THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WISHED ME TO SERVE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, AND THAT IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR MY REMOVAL SINCE THE PRIOR SUMMER.

AS MR. SULLIVAN RECENTLY RECOUNTED DURING HIS SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING NEITHER HE NOR ANYONE ELSE EVER EXPLAINED THE SLOT TO JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT ME NOR DID ANYONE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT JUSTIFY MY EARLIER DEPARTURE BY SUGGESTING I HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG.

I APPRECIATE THAT MR. SULLIVAN PUBLICLY AFFIRMED AT HIS HEARING THAT I HAD SERVED CAPABLY AND COMIERABLY.

THEN AND NOW I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT I STILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE U.S.

INTERESTS IN THIS WAY.

INDIVIDUALS WHO APPARENTLY FELT STYMIED BY OUR EFFORTS TO STATED POLICY AGAINST CORRUPTION THAT IS TO DO OUR MISSION WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A CITY OFFICIAL USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS.

AS VARIOUS WITNESSES HAVE RECOUNTERRED THEY SHARED BASELESS ALLEGATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONVINCED HIM TO REMOVE ME AS AMBASSADOR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE AND THE SOURCES HIGHLY SUSPECT.

THESE EVENTS SHOULD CONCERN EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM.

AMBASSADORS ARE THE SYMBOL OF THE UNITED STATES ABROAD.

THEY ARE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT.

THEY SHOULD ALWAYS ACT AND SPEAK WITH FULL AUTHORITY TO ADVOCATE FOR U.S. POLICIES.

IF OUR CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE IS HANDICAPPED IT LIMITS OUR EFFECTIVENESS TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAMIN NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW, WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL LANDSCAPE IS MORE COMPLICATED AND MORE COMPETITIVE THAN IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION.

OUR UKRAINE POLICY HAS BEEN DLOAN INTO DISARRAY AND SHADY INTERESTS, THE WORLD OVER, HAVE LEARNED HOW LITTLE IT TAKES TO REMOVE AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WHO DOES NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.

AFTER THESE EVENT, WHAT FOREIGN OFFICIAL, CORRUPT OR NOT, COULD BE BLAMED FOR WONDERING WHETHER THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR REPRESENTATIVES THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS?

AND WHAT U.S.

AMBASSADOR COULD BE BLAMED FOR HARBORING THE FEAR THAT THEY CAN'T COUNT ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT THEM AS THEY IMPLEMENT STATED U.S. POLICY AND PROTECT AND DEFEND U.S.

INTERESTS?

I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE TAKING YOUR QUESTIONS.

AT THE CLOSED DEPOSITION I EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEGRADATION OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

AND THE FAILURE OF STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP TO PUSH BACK AS FOREIGN AND CORRUPT INTERESTS APPARENTLY HIGH JARKED OUR UKRAINE -- HIJACKED OUR UKRAINE POLICY.

I REMAIN DISAPPOINTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS ARE DANGEROUSLY WRONG.

THIS IS ABOUT FAR, FAR MORE THAN ME OR A COUPLE OF INDIVIDUALS.

AS FOREIGN SERVICE PROFESSIONALS ARE BEING DENIGRATED AND DEMEANED, FOREIGN OFFICIALS ARE ALSO BEING DENIGRATED.

THIS WILL SOON CAUSE HARM IF IT HADN'T ALREADY.

EVEN RCHT AS THE MILITARY MIGHT OF THE PENTAGON.

BUT WE ARE AS THEY SAY, THE POINTY END OF THE SPEAR.

IF WE LOSE OUR EDGE, THE U.S. WILL INEVITABLY HAVE TO USE OTHER TOOLS, EVEN MORE THAN IT DOES TODAY.

AND THOSE OTHER TOOLS ARE BLUNTER.

MORE EXPENSIVE.

AND NOT UNIVERSALLY EFFECTIVE.

MOREOVER, THE ATTACKS ARE LEADING TO A CRISIS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AS THE POLICY PROCESS IS VISIBLY UNRAVELING.

VACANCIES ARE BEING UNFILLED AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS PONDER AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE.

THE CRISIS HAS MOVED FROM IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS TO IMPACT ON THE BL INSTITUTION ITSELF.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BEING HOLLOWED OUT FROM WITHIN AT A COMPETITIVE AND COMPLEX TIME ON THE WORLD STAGE.

THIS IS NOT A TIME TO UNDERCUT OUR GLOAMENTS.

DIPLOMATS.

IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADER TO STAND UP FOR THE INSTITUTION AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE THAT INSTITUTION STILL TODAY THE MOST EFFECTIVE DEPLOYMENT FORCE IN THE WORLD.

IN -- DIPLOMAT FORCE IN THE WORLD.

CONGRESS HAS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR SECURITY THAT IS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, IT IS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE?

IN OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE.

AS HE CLOSE LET ME BE CLEAR ON WHO WE ARE, AND HOW WE SERVE THIS COUNTRY.

WE ARE PROFESSIONALS.

WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO BY VOCATION AND TRAINING PURSUE THE POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF WHO HOLDS THAT OFFICE, OR WHAT PARTY THEY AFFILIATE WITH.

WE HANDLE AMERICAN CITIZENS SERVICES, FACILITATE IN COMMERCE, WORK SECURITY ISSUES, REPRESENT THE U.S. AND REPORT TO AND ADVISE WASHINGTON TO MENTION JUST SOME OF OUR FUNCTIONS.

AND WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE EVERY DAY.

WE ARE PEOPLE WHO REPEATEDLY UPROOT OUR LIVES, WHO RISK AND SOMETIMES GIVE OUR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY.

WE ARE THE 52 AMERICANS WHO, 40 YEARS AGO, THIS MONTH, BEGAN 444 DAYS OF DEPRIVATION, TORTURE AND CAPTIVITY IN TEHRAN.

WE ARE THE DOZENS OF AMERICANS STATIONED AT OUR EMBASSY IN CUBA AND CONFLICTS IN CHINA WHO MYSTERIOUSLY AND DANGEROUSLY AND SOME CASES PERHAPS EVEN PERMANENTLY WERE INJURED FROM ATTACKS FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES SO MANY YEARS AGO.

AND WE ARE AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS, SEAN PATRICK SMITH AND KEN DAUGHERTY, RIGHTLY CALLED HEROS FOR THIS NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS IN LIBYA EIGHT YEARS AGO.

WE HONOR THESE INDIVIDUALS.

THEY REPRESENT EACH ONE OF YOU HERE AND EVERY AMERICAN.

THESE COURAGEOUS INDIVIDUALS WERE ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY SYMBOLIZE AMERICA.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, WHAT AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW, IS THAT WHILE THANKFULLY MOST OF US ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY IN FAR LESS DRAMATIC WAYS, EVERY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER RUNS THE SAME RISKS AND VERY OFTEN SO DO OUR FAMILIES.

THEY SERVE, TOO, AS INDIVIDUALS, AS A COMMUNITY, WE ANSWER THE CALL TO DUTY TO ADVANCE AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE TAKE OUR OATH SERIOUSLY.

THE SAME OATH THAT EACH ONE OF YOU TAKE.

TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC AND TO BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALEGION ANNALS TO THE SAME.

I COUNT MYSELF LUCKY TO BE A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.

FORTUNATE TO SERVE WITH THE BEST AMERICA HAS TO OFFER.

BLESSED TO SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THE LAST 33 YEARS.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU AMBASSADOR.

WE COUNT OURSELVES LUCKY TO HAVE YOU SERVE THE COUNTRY AS YOU HAVE FOR DECADES.

WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE 45 MINUTE ROUNDS.

I RECOGNIZE MYSELF AND MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR 45 MINUTES.

MS. YOVANOVITCH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR APPEARING TODAY.

ALL AMERICANS ARE DEEPLY IN YOUR DEBT.

BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO MR. GOLDMAN OUR STAFF COUNSEL I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE PERMISSIBLAL EVENTS OF INTEREST TO THE COUNTRY.

FIRST OF ALL WAS FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE A KEY ELEMENT OF U.S. POLICY AND ONE ON WHICH YOU PLACED THE HIGHEST PRIORITY?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY?

>> IT WAS IMPORTANT, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY STATED IN OUR POLICY, AND IN OUR STRATEGY, IT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE CORRUPTION WAS UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM IN UKRAINE.

AND AS I NOTED IN MY STATEMENT, COUNTRIES THAT HAVE LEADERS, THAT ARE HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY, MAKE BETTER PARTNERS FOR US.

COUNTRIES WHERE THERE'S A LEVEL PLAYINGFIELD FOR OUR U.S. BUSINESS -- PLAYING FIELD FOR OUR U.S. BUSINESS MAKE IT BETTER FOR OUR COUNTRY TO DO BUSINESS THERE AND TO PROFIT IN THOSE COUNTRIES.

AND WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE SOVIET UNION, THIS IS VERY MUCH A SOVIET LEGACY, CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS THREATENING THE POTENTIAL OF UKRAINE, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE CAPABLE, TRUSTWORTHY PARTNER IN.

>> I KNOW THIS IS AWKWARD, SINCE THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR REPUTATION, BUT IS IT SAFE TO SAY YOU HAVE EARNED A REPUTATION OF BEING A CHAMPION OF ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE?

>> YES.

YES.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH GEORGE KENT'S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY BUT IF YOU FIGHT CRUCHTION YOU ARE GOING TO PISS OFF SOME CORRUPT PEOPLE?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU ANGER SOME OF THE CRUCHT LEADERS IN UKRAINE?

>> YES-- CORRUPT LEADERS IN UKRAINE?

>> YES.

>> WAS ONE OF THE CORRUPT PEOPLE PROSECUTOR GENERAL YOOR LUTSENKO,.

>> YES I THINK SO.

FTC.

>> ANOTHER PROSECUTOR GENERAL NAMED VIKTOR SHOKIN?

>> APPARENTLY SO ALTHOUGH I'VE NEVER MET HIM.

>> AT SOME POINT WERE YOU AWARE THAT BOTH WITH LUTSENKO AND SHOKIN WERE IN TOUCH WITH RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY?

>> YES.

>> TO DENY SHOKIN A VISA?

>> YES THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD.

>> AND THAT WAS DENIED BASED ON MR. SHOKIN'S CORRUPTION?

>> YES, THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

>> COORDINATED WITH MR. GIULIANI TO PEDDLE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU AS WELL AS THE BIDENS, YES.

>> YES, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> AROUND WERE THESE SMEARS ALSO AMPLIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT'S SON DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR AS WELL AS HOSTS ON FOX?

>> YES, YES, THAT IS THE CASE.

>> IN THE FACE OF THIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN DID COLLEAGUES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TRY TO GET A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR YOU FROM SECRETARY POMPEO?

>> YES.

>> WERE THEY SUCCESSFUL?

>> NO.

>> DID YOU COME TO LEARN THAT THEY COULDN'T ISSUE SUCH A STATEMENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED IT WOULD BE UNDERCUT BY THE PRESIDENT?

>> YES.

>> AND THEN WERE YOU TOLD THAT THOUGH YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG YOU DID NOT ENJOY THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS AMBASSADOR?

>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IN FACT YOU FLEW HOME FROM KIEV ON THE SAME DAY AS THE INAUGURATION OF THE UKRAINE'S NEW PRESIDENT?

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> THAT INAUGURATION WAS ATTENDED BY THREE WHO HAVE BECOME KNOWN AS THE THREE AMIGOS, SONDLAND, VOLKER AND PERRY IS IT?

>> YES.

>> THREE DAYS AFTER THAT INAUGURATION IN A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT DESIGNATED THESE THREE AMIGOS TO COORDINATE WITH RUDY GIULIANI?

>> SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THAT.

>> THE SAME RUDY GIULIANI WHO THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU?

>> YES.

>> GIULIANI RECOMMENDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDEN?

BIDENS?>> YES.

>> FINALLY AMBASSADOR IN THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL THE PRESIDENT PRAISES ONE OF THESE CORRUPT FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS AND SAYS THEY WERE TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY.

THEY WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY.

NOT YOU.

WHO WAS SMEARED AND RECALLED.

BUT ONE OF THEM.

WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV?

>> I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT THE BASIS FOR THAT KIND OF A STATEMENT WOULD BE.

CERTAINLY NOT FROM OUR REPORTING OVER YEARS.

>> DID YOU HAVE CONCERN THOUGH, DO YOU HAVE CONCERN TODAY, ABOUT WHAT MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION SENDS TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL IN UKRAINE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES, WHEN A WELL RESPECTED AMBASSADOR CAN BE SMEARED OUT OF HER POST, WITH THE PARTICIPATION AND ACQUIESCENCE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> WELL, IT'S I THINK BEEN A BIG HIT FOR MORALE BOTH AT U.S. EMBASSY KIEV BUT MORE BROADLY IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> IS IT NATURE TO SAY THAT OTHER AMBASSADORS AND OTHERS OF LESSER RANK WHO SERVED THE UNITED STATES IN EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND THINK IF I TAKE ON CORRUPT PEOPLE IN THESE COUNTRIES, THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ME?

>> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT, YES.

>> MR. GOLDMAN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ON APRIL 24th, OF THIS YEAR, AT APPROXIMATELY 10 P.M, YOU RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL WHILE YOU WERE AT THE EMBASSY IN KIEV FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THIS WAS JUST THREE DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ELECTION AND THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ.

AT THE TIME THAT THIS URGENT CALL CAME IN, WHAT WERE YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING?

>> I WAS HOSTING AN EVENT IN HONOR OF KATIA HUNTUK, WHO WAS AN ANTIERUPTION ACTIVIST IN UKRAINE.

WE HAD GIVEN HER THE WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD FROM UKRAINE, AND IN FACT, THE WORLDWIDE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT AT THE WORLDWIDE WOMEN OF COURAGE EVENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C, SECRETARY POMPEO SINGLED HER OUT FOR HER AMAZING WORK IN UKRAINE TO FIGHT CORRUPT INTERESTS IN THE SOUTH OF UKRAINE.

SHE VERY TRAGICALLY DIED BECAUSE SHE WAS ATTACKED BY ACID, AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER DIED A VERY, VERY PAINFUL DEATH.

WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT JUSTICE BE DONE FOR KATIA HUNTUK AND FOR TOARTS WHO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

BECAUSE THIS IS -- IT IS NOT KIND OF A TABLE TOP EXERCISE THERE, LIVES ARE IN THE BALANCE.

SO WE WANTED TO BRING ATTENTION TO THIS.

WE HELD AN EVENT, AND GAVE HER FATHER, WHO OF COURSE IS STILL MOURNING HER, THAT AWARD, A WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT.

>> AND THE WOMAN OF COURAGE EVENT STEMS FROM HER ACTIONS IN UKRAINE.

>> YES, IT IS TRUE.

>> WAS IT EVER DETERMINED THROUGH ACID WHO KILLED HER?

>> THERE HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATIONS BUT WHILE SOME OF THE LOASH RANKING INDIVIDUALS THAT -- LOWER RANKING INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED THOSE WHO ORDERED THIS HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPREHENDED.

>> AFTER YOU STEPPED AWAY FROM THIS ANTICORRUPTION EVENT THE TAKE THIS CALL WHAT DID THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL TELL YOU?

>> SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN ON THE SEVENTH FLOOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THAT'S WHERE THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT SITS, THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN, THEY WERE WORRIED, SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS-UP ABOUT THIS.

AND YOU KNOW, THINGS SEEMED TO BE GOING ON AND SO SHE JUST WANTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS-UP.

I -- HARD TO KNOW HOW TO REACT TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I ASKED HER WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, WHAT DID SHE THINK IT WAS ABOUT, SHE DIDN'T MO.

SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO TRY TO FIND OUT MORE BUT SHE DID HAD WANTED ME TO HAVE A HEADS UP.

IN FACT SHE HAD EVEN BEEN INSTRUCTED TO GIVE ME A HEADS-UP ON THAT.

I ASKED HER WHAT WAS THE NEXT STEP HERE?

SHE SAID SHE WOULD TRY TO FIND OUT MORE AND SHE WOULD TRY TO CALL ME BY MIDNIGHT.

>> WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

>> AROUND 1:00 IN THE MORNING SHE CALLED ME AGAIN AND SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE GREAT CONCERNS, THERE WERE CONCERNS UP THE STREET, AND SHE SAID I NEEDED TO GET -- COME HOME IMMEDIATELY.

GET ON THE NEXT PLANE TO THE U.S. AND I ASKED HER WHY.

AND SHE SAID SHE WASN'T SURE, BUT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY.

I ASKED HER MY PHYSICAL SECURITY?

BECAUSE SOMETIMES WASHINGTON KNOWS MORE THAN WE DO ABOUT THESE THINGS.

AND SHE SAID NO, SHE HADN'T GOTTEN THAT IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS A PHYSICAL SECURITY ISSUE BUT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MY SECURITY AND I NEEDED TO COME HOME RIGHT AWAY.

YOU KNOW, I ARGUED.

THIS IS EXTREMELY IRREGULAR, AND NO REASON GIVEN.

BUT THEY END I DID GET ON THE NEXT -- IN THE END I DID GET ON THE NEXT PLANE.

>> YOU SAID THERE WERE CONCERNS UP THE STREET.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN?

>> THE WHITE HOUSE.

ARE.

>> DID SHE EXPLAIN IN ANY MORE DETAIL WHAT SHE MEANT BY CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR SECURITY?

>> NO.

SHE DIDN'T.

I DID SPECIFICALLY ASK WHETHER THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE MAYOR GIULIANI'S ALLEGATION HE AGAINST ME AND SO FORTH.

AND SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T KNOW, DIDN'T EVEN ACTUALLY APPEAR TO ME THAT SHE SEEMED TO BE AWARE OF THAT.

NO REASON WAS OFFERED.

>> DID SHE EXPLAIN WHAT THE URGENCY WAS FOR YOU TO COME BACK ON THE NEXT FLIGHT?

>> THE ONLY THING THAT'S PERTINENT TO THAT WAS THAT WHEN SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT MY SECURITY.

THAT'S ALL.

BUT IT WAS NOT FURTHER EXPLAINED.

>> NOW, PRIOR TO THIS ABRUPT CALL-BACK TO WASHINGTON, D.C, HAD YOU BEEN OFFERED AN EXTENSION OF YOUR POST BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT?

>> YES.

UNDERSECRETARY, THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS HAD ASKED WHETHER I WOULD EXTEND FOR ANOTHER YEAR, DEPARTING IN JULY OF 2020.

>> WHEN WAS THAT REQUEST MADE?

>> IN EARLY MARCH.

>> SO ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE THIS CALL?

>> YES.

>> DID ANYONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT EVER EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE?

>> NO.

>> THOUSAND AFTER YOU RETURNED -- NOW AFTER YOU RETURNED TO WASHINGTON A COUPLE DAYS AFTER THAT YOU MET WITH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE.

AND AT YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THAT THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE TOLD YOU THAT YOU HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, BUT THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU.

WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT?

>> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

BUT I TOOK IT TO MEAN THAT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MAYOR GIULIANI AND OTHERS WERE PUTTING OUT THERE, THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

>> AND WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU?

>> THERE WERE SOME MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND OTHERS, IN MAYOR GIULIANI'S CIRCLE.

>> AND WHO FROM UKRAINE?

>> IN UKRAINE, I THINK -- WELL, MR. LUTSENKO, THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, MR. SHOKIN, HIS PREDECESSOR, CERTAINLY.

>> AND AT THIS TIME, MR. LUTSENKO WAS THE LEAD PROSECUTOR-GENERAL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND HAD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INDICATED WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS GOING TO KEEP HIM OFF AFTER THE ELECTION?

>> HE HAD INDICATED HE WOULD NOT BE KEEPING ON MR. LUTSENKO.

>> AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT MR. LUTSENKO HAD A REPUTATION FOR BEING CORRUPT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOW DURING THIS CONVERSATION, DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR FUTURE AS THE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE?

>> WELL, HE TOLD ME I NEEDED TO LEAVE.

>> WHAT DID HE SAY?

>> HE SAID THAT -- I MEAN THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BUT ULTIMATELY HE SAID THE WORDS THAT EVERY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER UNDERSTANDS, THE PRESIDENT HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU.

THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, A TERRIBLE THING TO HEAR.

AND I SAID WELL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I HAVE TO GO THEN.

BUT NO REAL REASON WAS OFFERED AS TO WHY I HAD TO LEAVE AND WHY IT WAS BEING DONE IN SUCH A MANNER.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU?

>> NO.

>> AND WERE YOU PROVIDED ANY REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT LOST CONFIDENCE IN YOU?

>> NO.

>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED AT YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU WERE TOLD AT SOME POINT THAT SECRETARY POMPEO HAD TRIED TO PROTECT YOU, BUT THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO DO THAT.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE EFFORTS TO PROTECT YOU?

>> NO I WAS NOT.

UNTIL -- UNTIL THAT MEETING WITH DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN.

>> AND WERE YOU -- DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHO HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT YOU FROM?

>> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WANTED ME TO LEAVE.

AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT OVER THE PRIOR MONTHS.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING WHY SECRETARY POMPEO WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROTECT YOU?

>> NO.

IT WAS JUST A STATEMENT MADE THAT HE WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO PROTECT ME.

>> SO JUST LIKE THAT, YOU HAD TO LEAVE UKRAINE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

>> YES.

>> HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?

>> TERRIBLE, HONESTLY.

I MEAN AFTER 33 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, IT WAS TERRIBLE.

IT'S NOT THE WAY I WANTED MY CAREER TO END.

>> NOW YOU ALSO TOLD THE DEPUTY SECRETARY THAT THIS WAS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> I WAS WORRIED, I WAS WORRIED ABOUT OUR POLICY BUT ALSO PERSONNEL.

THAT -- AND I ASKED HIM HOW, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS TO PEOPLE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE PRESS, THE PUBLIC?

UKRAINIANS?

BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS WATCHING.

AND SO IF PEOPLE SEE SOMEBODY WHO -- AND OF COURSE IT HAD BEEN VERY PUBLIC, THE -- FRANKLY THE ATTACKS ON ME BY MAYOR GIULIANI AND OTHERS AND MR. LUTSENKO IN UKRAINE, IF PEOPLE SEE THAT I, WHO HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, PROMOTING OUR POLICIES, ON ANTICORRUPTION, IF THEY CAN UNDERMINE ME AND GET ME PULLED OUT OF UKRAINE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR OUR POLICY?

DO WE STILL HAVE THAT SAME POLICY?

HOW ARE WE GOING TO AFFIRMATIVELY PUT THAT FORWARD, NUMBER ONE?

NUMBER TWO, WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES, OTHER ACTORS IN OTHER COUNTRIES SEE THAT PRIVATE INTERESTS, FOREIGN INTERESTS CAN COME TOGETHER AND GET A U.S.

AMBASSADOR REMOVED, WHAT'S GOING TO STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT IN THE FUTURE IN OTHER COUNTRIES?

OFTEN, THE WORK WE DO, WE TRY TO BE DIPLOMATIC ABOUT IT.

BUT AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT SAID, SOMETIMES WE GET PEOPLE REALLY ANGERRARY WITH US.

UNCOMFORTABLE.

AND WE ARE DOING OUR JOBS, BUT SOMETIMES, PEOPLE BECOME VERY ANGRY WITH US.

AND IF THEY REALIZE THAT THEY CAN JUST REMOVE US, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

>> HOW DID THE DEPUTY SECRETARY RESPOND?

>> HE SAID THOSE WERE GOOD QUESTIONS.

AND HE WOULD GET BACK TO ME.

>> DID HE EVER GET BACK TO YOU?

>> HE ASKED TO THE FOLLOWING DAY.

>> WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU THEN?

>> HE -- REALLY, THE CONVERSATION WAS MORE, AND YOUIN' AGAIN I'M GRATEFUL FOR THIS BUT REALLY WANTED TO SEE HOW I WAS DOING, AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD I DO NEXT, KIND OF HOW COULD HE HELP.

>> BUT HE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT YOU FLAGGED FOR HIM?

>> NO.

>> NOW, YOU UNDERSTOOD OF COURSE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD REMOVE YOU AND THAT YOU SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IS.

>> BUT IN YOUR 33 YEARS AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, YOU HAVE EVER HEARD OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RECALLING ANOTHER AMBASSADOR WITHOUT CAUSE, BASED ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ITSELF KNEW TO BE FALSE?

>> NO.

>> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU HAD LEFT UKRAINE BY THE TIME OF THE JULY 25th CALL.

BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THE CALL RECORD FOR THIS PHONE CALL?

>> WHEN IT WAS RELEASED PUBLICLY AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER, I BELIEVE.

>> AND PRIOR TO READING THAT CALL RECORD, WERE YOU AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SPECIFICALLY MADE REFERENCE TO YOU IN THAT CALL?

>> NO.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO LEARNING THAT?

>> I WAS SHOCKED.

ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED.

AND DEVASTATED FRANKLY.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DEVASTATED?

>> I WAS SHOCKED AND DEVASTATED THAT I WOULD FEATURE IN A PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO HEADS OF STATE IN SUCH A MANNER, WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT I WAS BAD NEWS TO ANOTHER WORLD LEADER AND THAT I WOULD BE GOING THROUGH SOME THINGS.

SO I WAS -- IT WAS A TERRIBLE MOMENT.

A PERSON WHO SAW ME ACTUALLY READING THE TRANSCRIPT SAID THAT THE COLOR DRAINED FROM MY FACE.

I THINK I EVEN HAD A PHYSICAL REACTION.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, EVEN NOW WORDS KIND OF FAIL ME.

>> WELL, WITHOUT UPSETTING YOU TOO MUCH, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE EXCERPTS FROM THE CALL.

AND THE FIRST ONE WHERE FROM THE SAYS, "THE FORMER AMBASSADOR FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN WAS BAD NEWS.

AND THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING WITH IN THE UKRAINE WERE BAD NEWS.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW."

WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REFER TO YOU AS "BAD NEWS"?

>> I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.

AGAIN, SHOCKED, APPALLED, DEVASTATED.

THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD TALK ABOUT ANY AMBASSADOR LIKE THAT TO A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE.

AND IT WAS ME.

I MEAN I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.

>> THE NEXT EXCERPT, WHEN THE PRESIDENT REFERENCES YOU, WAS A SHORT ONE.

BUT HE SAID, "WELL, SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS."

WHAT DID YOU THINK, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND YOU READ THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS?

>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK.

BUT I WAS VERY CONCERNED.

>> WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT?

>> SHE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS, IT DIDN'T SOUND GOOD.

IT SOUNDED LIKE A THREAT.

>> DID YOU FEEL THREATENED?

>> I DID >> HOW SO?

>> I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY.

IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, A VERY PRECISE PHRASE.

BUT I THINK IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I WAS -- I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ANY FURTHER EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IT KIND OF FELT LIKE A VAGUE THREAT.

AND SO I WONDERED WHAT THAT MEANT.

IT CONCERNED ME.

>> NOW, IN THIS SAME CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENT, AS YOU JUST SAID, THREATENS YOU TO A FOREIGN LEADER, HE ALSO PRAISES, RATHER, THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WHO LED THE FATALITIES SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU.

FTC I WANT TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER EXCERPT OR TWO FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OR THE CALL RECORD, RATHER, WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS, "GOOD, OBECAUSE I HEARD YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS VERY GOOD AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT'S REALLY UNFAIR.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT.

THE WAY THEY SHUT YOUR VERY GOOD PROSECUTOR DOWN, AND YOU HAD SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE INVOLVED. "

AND HE WENT ON LATER TO SAY, I HEARD THE PROSECUTOR WAS TREATED VERY BADLY AND HE WAS A VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR.

SO GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING.

NOW, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AFTER NEARLY THREE YEARS IN UKRAINE WHERE YOU TRI TO CLEAN UP THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE WAS IT THE U.S. EMBASSY'S VIEW THAT THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS A VERY GOOD AND VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR?

>> NO, IT WAS NOT.

>> IN FACT HE WAS RATHER CORRUPT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT WAS OUR BELIEF.

>> THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE IS A LONG RUNNING PROBLEM IN UKRAINE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> SO HOW DO YOU FEEL WHEN YOU HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAK SO HIGHLY OF THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WHO HELPED TO EXECUTE THE EXPHEER CAMPAIGN TO HAVE YOE YOU REMOVED?

>> WELL, I WAS -- IT WAS DISAPPOINTING.

IT WAS CONCERNING.

IT WASN'T CERTAINLY BASED ON ANYTHING THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE REPORTED OR FRANKLY ANYBODY ELSE IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

THERE WAS AN INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS THAT WHILE WHEN MR. LUTSENKO CAME INTO OFFICE WE WERE VERY HOPEFUL THAT HE WOULD ACTUALLY DO THE THINGS THAT HE SAID HE WOULD SET OUT TO DO, INCLUDING REFORMING THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, BUT THAT DID NOT MATERIALIZE.

>> SO THIS WAS NOT THE UNIFORM POSITION OF THE OFFICIAL U.S.

POLICY-MAKERS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> NOW LET'S GO BACK TO THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT YOU REFERENCED, AND IN MARCH WHEN YOU SAID IT BECAME PUBLIC.

AND YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAD LEARNED THAT RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER AND REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THAT JULY 25th CALL, WAS IN REGULAR COMMUNICATION WITH THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR-GENERAL, IN LATE 2018 AND EARLY 2019.

AND AT ONE POINT IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THAT THEY -- THAT BEING GIULIANI AND THE CORRUPT FOREIGN PROSECUTOR-GENERAL HAD PLANS TO, QUOTE, DO THINGS TO ME.

WHAT DID YOU DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD BY UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

>> DID YOU SUBSEQUENT UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT THAT MEANT?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW NOW, WITH THE ADVANTAGE OF HINDSIGHT, I THINK THAT MEANT REMOVING ME FROM MY JOB IN UKRAINE.

>> WHO DID YOU UNDERSTAND TO BE WORKING WITH MR. GIULIANI AS HIS ASSOCIATES IN UKRAINE?

>> WELL, CERTAINLY, MR. LUTSENKO, MR. SHOKIN, I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE ALSO UKRAINIAN AMERICANS, MR. PARNAS AND MR. FRUMAN WHO HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INDICTED.

>> THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT HAVE BEEN INDICTED IN NEW YORK?

>> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

>> NOW AT THE END OF MARCH, THIS EFFORT BY GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES RESULTED IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES IN THE HILL PUBLICATION THAT WERE BASED IN PARTS ON ALLEGATIONS BY LUTSENKO, THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

AND JUST TO SUMMARIZE SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS THERE WERE AMONG OTHERS THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

ONE CATEGORY INCLUDED THE ATTACKS AGAINST YOU WHICH YOU REFERENCED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT INCLUDING THAT YOU HAD BAD-MOUTHED THE PRESIDENT AND HAD GIVEN PROSECUTOR GENERAL A DO NOT PROSECUTE LIST.

THERE WAS ANOTHER THAT INCLUDED OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, AND THEN THERE WAS A THIRD THAT RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING BURISMA AND THE BIDENS, IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> YES.

>> WERE THESE ARTICLES AND ALLEGATIONS THEN PROMOTED BY OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES?

>> THEY SEEMED TO BE PROMOTED BY THOSE AROUND MAYOR GIULIANI.

>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS, INCLUDING A TWEET HERE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF, ON MARCH 20th, WHICH WAS THE FIRST DAY THAT ONE OF THESE ARTICLES WAS PUBLISHED.

IT APPEARS TO BE A QUOTE THAT SAYS, JOHN SOLOMON WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLES, COLON AS RUSSIAN CONCLUSION FADES, UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION UNFOLDS,@SEAN HANNITY.

LATER, THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S SON, DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR, WE NEED MORE AT RICHARD GRINNELS, THAT IS THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY, IS THAT RIGHT WILLIAM.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND LESS OF THESE JOKERS, A RETWREET OF SOLOMON'S ARTICLES OR REFERENCING ALLEGATIONS, CALLS GROW TO REMOVE OBAMA'S U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE TWEETS AT THE TIME?

>> YES.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO SEEING THESE?

>> I WAS WORRIED.

>> WHAT WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT?

>> THAT THIS DIDN'T SEEM -- THESE TACKS WERE, YOU KNOW, BEING -- THESE ATTACKS WERE BEING REPEATED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND HIS SON.

>> AND THE WERE YOU AWARE WHETHER -- AND WERE YOU AWARE WHETHER THEY RECEIVED ATTENTION ON PRIME TIME TELEVISION ON FOX NEWS AS WELL?

>> YES, I DID.

>> NOW WAS THE ALLEGATION THAT YOU WERE BAD MOUTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP TRUE?

>> NO.

>> WAS THE ALLEGATION THAT YOU HAD CREATED A DO-NOT-PROSECUTE LIST TO GIVE TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL IN UKRAINE TRUE?

>> NO.

>> IN FACT DIDN'T THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL HIMSELF LATER RECANT THOSE ALLEGATIONS?

>> YES.

>> NOW WHEN THESE ARMS WERE FIRST PUBLISHED, DID THE STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUE A RESPONSE?

>> AS YOU SAID, THERE WAS A SERIES OF ARTICLES.

SO AFTER THE FIRST ARTICLE WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. LUTSENKO AND WAS ONLY REALLY ABOUT ME, AND MADE SOME ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ME, THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT THE FOLLOWING DAY WITH A VERY STRONG STATEMENT SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE FABRICATIONS.

>> SO THE STATEMENT ADDRESSED THE FALSITY OF THE ALLEGATION THEMSELVES?

>> YES.

>> IT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE IN ANY WAY?

>> UM -- HONESTLY, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN A VERY LONG TIME.

I THINK IT WAS GENERALLY PROBABLY LAUDATORY.

I CAN'T RECALL.

>> DID ANYONE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT RAISE ANY CONCERNS WITH YOU OR EXPRESS ANY BELIEF IN THESE AUTOMATIONS?

-- IN THESE ALLEGATIONS?

>> NO.

I MEAN PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS RIDICULOUS.

>> NOW AFTER THESE FALSE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE AGAINST YOU, DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE IN LEADERSHIP IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT A POTENTIAL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OR THE SECRETARY HIMSELF?

>> YES.

AFTER THE TWEETS, THAT YOU JUST SHOWED US,, I MEAN IT SEEMED TO ME THAT IF THE PRESIDENT'S SON IS SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS, THAT IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO CONTINUE IN MY POSITION, AND HAVEv:xD AUTHORITY IN UKRAINE S IF STATE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT PRETTY STRONGLY BEHIND ME.

AND SO, YOUr THE WEEKEND OF LIKE MARCH 22nd, I THINK THAT'S ABOUT THE DATE, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON E-MAIL AMONG A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COULD BE DONE.

THAT I AND THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS CALLED ME ON SUNDAY AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE SECRETARY HIMSELF COME OUT AND BE SUPPORTIVE.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BE THE KIND OF REPRESENTATIVE YOU NEED HERE.

AND HE SAID HE WOULD TALK TO THE SECRETARY.

I MEAN THAT WAS -- THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF THE CALL.

THAT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY HOW IT PLAYED OUT BUT THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

>> THIS IS DAVID HALE THE UNDERSECRETARY OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS THE NUMBER 3 PERSON AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT?

>> YES.

>> DID HE INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE SUPPORTED SUCH A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR YOU?

>> I THINK HE MUST HAVE.

BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE SECRETARY IF HE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT.

I MEAN, HE WOULDN'T BRING A BAD IDEA TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

>> YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING IS YOU DID HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND IN FACT DURING YOUR 33 YEAR CAREER AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, DID YOU EVER HEAR OF ANY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE?

>> NO.

>> WAS IF STATEMENT OF SUPPORT -- THE STATEMENT OF SUPPORT ULTIMATELY ISSUED FOR YOU?

>> NO, IT WAS NOT.

>> DID YOU LEARN WHY NOT?

>> YEAH.

YES.

I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN ON THE SEVENTH FLOOR THAT IF A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT WAS ISSUED, WHETHER BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR BY THE SECRETARY PERSONALLY, THAT IT COULD BE UNDERMINED.

>> HOW COULD IT BE UNDERMINED?

>> THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ISSUE A TWEET CONTRADICTING THAT OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

>> SO LET ME SEE IF I GET THIS RIGHT: YOU WERE ONE OF THE MOST SENIOR DIPLOMATS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

YOU HAD BEEN THERE FOR 33 YEARS.

YOU'D WOVEN NUMEROUS AWARDS.

YOU'D BEEN APPOINTED AS AN AMBASSADOR THREE TIMES BY BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS.

AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT ISSUE A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF YOU, AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS, BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A TWEET FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> IF I COULD GO OFF ON THAT QUESTION IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE TIME.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AS WE SIT HERE TESTIFYING THE PRESIDENT IS ATTACKING YOU ON TWITTER AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

I'LL READ PART OF ONE OF HIS TWEETS.

EVERYWHERE MARIA YOVANOVITCH WENT TURNED BAD.

SHE STARTED OFF IN SOMALIA, HOW DID THAT GO?

HE GOES ON TO SAY, LATER IN THE TWEET, THE U.S. PRESIDENT'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS.

FIRST OF ALL, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THE SENATE HAS A CHANCE TO CONFIRM OR DENY AN AMBASSADOR DO THEY NOT?

>> YES, ADVICE AND CONSENT.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTACK THAT EVERYWHERE YOU WENT TURNED BAD?

>> WELL, I -- I MEAN, I DON'T THINK I HAVE SUCH POWERS.

NOT IN MOGADISHU, SOMALIA AND NOT IN OTHER PLACES.

I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WHERE I'VE SERVED OVER THE YEARS, I AND OTHERS HAVE DEMONSTRABLY MADE THINGS BETTER FOR THE U.S. AS WELL AS FOR THE COUNTRIES THAT I'VE SERVED IN.

UKRAINE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THERE ARE HUGE CHALLENGES, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, ON THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.

OF CORRUPTION.

HUGE CHALLENGES.

BUT THEY'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS SINCE 2014, INCLUDING THE YEARS THAT I WAS THERE.

AND I THINK IN PART, I MEAN UKRAINE, PEOPLE GET THE MOST CREDIT FOR THAT.

BUT A PART OF THAT CREDIT GOES TO THE WORK OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO ME, AS THE AMBASSADOR, IN THE -- IN UKRAINE.

>> AMBASSADOR, YOU HAVE SHOWN THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD TODAY AND TESTIFY.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT YOU WERE URGED BY THE WHITE HOUSE OR STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AS YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER, THE PRESIDENT IMPLICITLY THREATENED YOU IN THAT CALL RECORD, AND NOW, THE PRESIDENT IN REALTIME IS ATTACKING YOU.

WHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK THAT HAS ON OTHER WITNESSES' WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD AND EXPOSE WRONGDOING?

>> WELL, IT'S VERY INTIMIDATING.

>> IT'S KIND TO INTIMIDATE, IS IT NOT?

-- DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE IS IT NOT?

>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO GUT I THINK THE EFFECT IS TO BE INTIMIDATING.

>> WELL, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, AMBASSADOR, THAT SOME OF US HERE TAKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

MR. GOLDMAN.

>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, YOU INDICATED THAT THOSE SAME ARTICLES IN MARCH THAT INCLUDED THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN ALSO INCLUDED ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO UKRAINE'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE BURISMA-BIDEN CONNECTION, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> SO I'M GOING TO END MY QUESTIONING WHERE WE WERE BEFORE.

WHICH WAS THE JULY 25th CALL.

AND PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ONLY INSULTS YOU AND PRAISES THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL BUT HE ALSO AS YOU KNOW BY NOW REFERENCES THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS.

FIRST, IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS, QUOTE, GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE, UNQUOTE, PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDS, "I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOI, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.

THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE, I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEACH, THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.

AND THEN HE GOES ON IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH TO SAY, WHATEVER YOU CAN DO IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO IT, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. "

NOW IMLOR YOVANOVITCH IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS AND UNDERSTANDING THAT MANY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT IN POLITICS BEFORE HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT AND WAS A NEW PRESIDENT ON THIS CALL, HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INTERPRET A REQUEST FOR A FAVOR?

>> THE U.S.

RELATIONSHIP FOR UKRAINE IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP.

AND SO I THINK THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ANY PRESIDENT, WOULD, YOU KNOW, DO WHAT THEY COULD TO, YOU KNOW, LEAN IN ON A FAVOR REQUEST.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S A YES.

I'M SAYING THEY WOULD TRY TO LEAN IN AND SEE WHAT THEY COULD DO.

>> FAIR TO SAY THAT IF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT IS SO DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES WOULD DO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING WITHIN HIS POWER TO PLEASE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IF HE COULD?

>> IF HE COULD, I'M SURE THERE ARE LIMITS ON OUR END I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT ALL OF THIS.

BUT, YEAH, WE ARE AN IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP ON THE SECURITY SIDE AND ON THE POLITICAL SIDE.

AND SO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION, IS THAT INDIVIDUAL HAS IS TO MAKE SURE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S. IS ROCK SOLID.

>> NOW, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THESE ALLEGATIONS OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 016 ELECTION?

>> I MEAN THERE HAVE BEEN RUMORS OUT THERE ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NOTHING HARD AT LEAST NOTHING THAT I WAS AWARE.

>> THERE'S NOTHING BASED IN FACT TO SUPPORT THESE ALLEGATIONS.

>> YES.

>> AND IN FACT, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING AND MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> WELL, THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS RUSSIA.

>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ARE YOU AWARE IN FEBRUARY OF 2017, VLADIMIR PUTIN HIMSELF PROMOTED THIS THEORY OF UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> YOU KNOW, MAYBE I KNEW THAT ONCE AND HAVE FORGOTTEN BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT NOW.

>> LET ME SHOW YOU A PRESS STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN MADE IN A JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH VICTOR OBAN OF HUNGARY ON FEBRUARY 2nd OF 2017.

WHERE HE SAYS, SECOND AS WE ALL KNOW DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED STATES, UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ADOPTED A UNILATERAL POSITION IN FAVOR OF ONE CANDIDATE.

MORE THAN THAT, CERTAIN OLIGARCHS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP FUNDED THIS CANDIDATE OR FEMALE CANDIDATE TO BE MORE PRECISE.

NOW, HOW WOULD THIS THEORY OF UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION BE IN VLADIMIR PUTIN'S INTEREST?

>> WELL, I MEAN, PRESIDENT PUTIN MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS IN THE U.S. ABOUT RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION, AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL WAS FOR RUSSIAN MEDDLING WAS IN THE FUTURE.

SO, CLASSIC FOR AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER TO TRY TO THROW OFF THE SENSE AND CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE THAT MAYBE MIGHT GET PICKED UP AND GET SOME CREDENCE.

>> AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE THAT WOULD ABSOLVE HIS OWN WRONGDOING?

>> YEAH.

WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT AN OLIGARCH AND TALKS ABOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, THERE'S ALSO A REFERENCE IN THE JULY 25th CALL TO A WEALTHY UKRAINIAN.

IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN IS SAYING HERE IN THIS PRESS STATEMENT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS ON THE JULY 25th CALL RELATED TO THE 2016 ELECTION?

>> MAYBE.

>> LET ME SHOW YOU ANOTHER EXHIBIT FROM THE CALL RELATED TO THE BIDENS WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ALLEGATION -- THESE ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?

>> YES.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE EVER WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION OF ANYONE?

>> NO.

>> IN FACT WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED TO REMOVE THE FORMER CORRUPT PROSECUTOR IN UKRAINE, DID HE DO SO AS PART OF OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY?

>> OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

ENDORSED AND WITH THE POLICY OF A NUMBER OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS, OTHER COUNTRIES, OTHER MONETARY INSTITUTIONS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

>> IN FACT IF HE WERE HELPED TO REMOVE A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL, WHO WAS NOT PROSECUTING ENOUGH CORRUPTION, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT CORRUPT COMPANIES IN UKRAINE WOULD BE INVESTIGATED, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> ONE WOULD THINK SO.

>> THAT COULD INCLUDE BARISMA, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> NOW, AT THE TIME OF THIS CALL VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POTENTIAL NEXT OPPONENT IN THE ELECTION.

DID YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST TO HAVE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN INVESTIGATED WAS THAT PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AS YOU KNEW IT?

>> WELL, I SHOULD SAY THAT I HAD AT THE TIME OF THE PHONE CALL I HAD ALREADY DEPARTED UKRAINE TWO MONTHS.

>> BUILT YOU'RE FAMILIAR, DIDN'T CHANGE THAT MUCH IN TWO MONTHS, RIGHT?

>> IT CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE POLICY IN MAY WHEN I LEFT.

>> AND WERE THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS PART OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM THAT YOU CHAMPIONED IN UKRAINE FOR THREE YEARS?

>> NO.

>> THESE INVESTIGATIONS DID THEY APPEAR TO BE TO YOU BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS RATHER THAN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS?

>> WELL, THEY CERTAINLY COULD.

>> NOW, JUST RETURNING TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE HILL PUBLICATION IN MARCH THAT WERE PROMOTED BY MR. GUILIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, WERE THOSE TWO ALLEGATIONS SIMILAR TO THE TWO ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE?

>> YES.

>> SO ULTIMATELY IN THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENDORSED THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU AND THE BIDENS STREETS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

>> VOTES ARE FAIRLY IMMINENT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS.

I WOULD ASK EVERYONE TO RE REMAIN -- TO EXITS THE ROOM.

AND WE WILL RESUME AFTER VOTES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE A POINT OF INQUIRY?

>> GENTLEMAN CAN SEEK RECOGNITION AFTER WE RESUME.

>> WITH THAT CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF SAYS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL BE IN A BRIEF RECESS AS THEY PREPARE TO TAKE VOTES.

YOU SEE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WALKING OUT OF THE ROOM AFTER TESTIMONY THAT RUN A LITTLE OVER ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF.

BEFORE MEMBERS OF THE AS WE WATCH THE SECOND DAY OF LIVE HEARINGS AS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TAKES PART IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THAT IS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALONGSIDE THE RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN DEVIN NUNES.

WE'RE HERE IN THE STUDIO WATCHING MY COLLEAGUE NICK SCHIFRIN ALONG WITH MIEKE EOYANG WORK ON THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

BUT NICK, WHAT WE'VE SEEN HERE JUST IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES IS SYSTEMATIC EFFORT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO ESSENTIALLY LAYOUT A CAMPAIGN OF INTIMIDATION AGAINST THIS AMBASSADOR WHO AS SHE SAID SERVED 33 YEARS THE UNITED STATES, I THINK SHE SAID SEVEN DIFFERENT POSTS OVER THE YEARS.

SHE MOVED A LOT, BUT THE PRESIDENT EVEN AS THIS HEARING HAS BEEN GOING ON HAS BEEN TWEETING AGAINST HER SAYING AT ONE POINT IN ONE TWEET, EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH SERVED THINGS TURNED BAD.

THIS IS KIND OF UNPRECEDENTED.

>> Reporter: IT CERTAINLY IS UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE A PRESIDENT TWEETING OF COURSE DURING A LIVE IMPEACHMENT HEARING WHAT THE DEMOCRATS CRY TO ARGUE OR CREATE A PICTURE OF THE PRESIDENT SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT YOVANOVITCH DESPITE AS HE SAID HER 33 YEAR CAMPAIGN.

WHAT WE HEARD THAT WAS NEW TOWARDS THE END THERE IS A FEW NEW WORDS.

THE DEMOCRATIC COUNSEL GOT HER TO SAY THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT BAD THINGS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN TO MARIE YOVANOVITCH, THAT IT WAS, QUOTE, A VAGUE THREAT.

THIS IS YOVANOVITCH, IT FELT LIKE A VAGUE THREAT.

AND THEN LATER THEY ASKED HER WELL HOW DOES IT FEEL OR WHAT IS THE RESPONSE, WHAT IS THE AFFECT OF THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, NOT ONLY VAGUE THREAT THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT SHE WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS BUT ALSO TWEET TODAY WHILE SHE'S THERE, AND SHE SAYS THE AFFECT IS INTIMIDATING.

AND THAT'S WHEN YOU SAW CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF SAY, WE TAKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION VERY SERIOUSLY.

THAT IS A NEW LINE OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEMOCRATS ONE THAT IS GOING TO EMERGE.

>> Woodruff: IN FACT I THINK SEPARATELY SHE CALLED IT VAGUE THREAT AT ONE POINT ANOTHER POINT SHE SAID IT FELT LIKE A THREAT.

SHE MADE LEAR.

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU TOLD US EARLIER YOU EXPECTED THE PRESIDENT TO KEEP AN EYE ON THIS HE WAS NOT ONLY KEEPING AN EYE, HE WAS TWEETING AT THE SAME TIME MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS TESTIFYING.

>> Reporter: IT WAS REALLY POWERFUL TO SEE THE PRESIDENT TWEETING ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, HE WAS ATTACKING HER BAKESLY SAYING SHE WAS A BAD AMBASSADOR THAT THE COUNTRIES THAT SHE WENT TO THAT THEY WERE WORSE OFF.

I WANT TO READ PART OF HIS TWEET IN REALTIME.

HE SAID EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WENT TURNED BAD, SHE STARTED OFF IN SOMALIA, HOW DID THAT GO?

THEN FAST FORWARD UKRAINE WHERE THE NEW PRESIDENT SPOKE UNFAVORABLY ABOUT HER IN MY SECOND PHONE CALL WITH HIM.

IT IS A U.S. PRESIDENT RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS.

HE GOES ON TO SAY, THAT HE COULD REMOVE HER WHENEVER HE FELT LIKE HE WANTED TO DO THAT.

A POINT THERE, IN THE SECOND PHONE CALL ON JULY 25 IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO STARTED TALKING BADLY ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR BEING THE FIRST PERSON TO TELL ME ABOUT HOW BAD OF AN AMBASSADOR SHE WAS.

THAT IS REALLY PRESIDENT TRUMP MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IT WAS HIM SAYING TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT A U.S.

AMBASSADOR WAS A BAD AMBASSADOR.

IT WAS POWERFUL TO WATCH WHERE YOVANOVITCH SAY I FEEL INTIMIDATED IN REALTIME.

OF COURSE WE SAW REPRESENTATIVE SCHIFF SAY, WE TAKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION VERY SERIOUSLY HERE.

HE'S HINTING AT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT TWEETING IS WITNESS INTIMIDATION.

>> Woodruff: AS THE PRESIDENT'S SON WAS BROUGHT INTO THIS OTHER FIGURES, RUDY GUILIANI SAYING OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER HAS COME UP AS PART OF THIS CAMPAIGN OF INTIMIDATION, PART OF AN EFFORT THAT LED ULTIMATELY TO MARIE YOVANOVITCH BEING FIRED.

SO YAMICHE THE I DON'T THINK FEELINGS ABOUT HER GO WELL BACK IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, DON'T THEY?

>> Reporter: THEY GO WAY BACK.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE TARGETING ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I HAD TO BE REMOVED SO ABRUPTLY.

LAID OUT THE FACT THAT SHE WAS CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER THAT HER DUTY WAS TO PURSUE U.S. POLICY AND SHE THOUGHT THAT THE PLACES THAT SHE WENT ALL THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES THAT SHE SERVED THAT THEY WERE REALLY PLACES THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO CARRY OUT U.S. POLICY, SHE ALSO SAYS THIS WASN'T A GLAMOROUS JOB.

YOU SURVIVED GUN ATTACKS, I SEE MYSELF AS SERVING IN CONSTITUTIONAL WAY.

NOW WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SEEKING AIM, THIS IS A BAD PERSON AND I WANTED HER REMOVED I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE HER.

SHE SAID, I NEVER MET RUDY GUILIANI WHO IS OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE MAIN PEOPLE WHO WAS LEADING THIS EFFORT TO HAVE HER REMOVED AS THE AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE.

>> Woodruff: MIEKE WHO SERVED ON THE STAFF OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO BROADEN THIS OUT, WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE AND REMOVE ANY AMBASSADOR THAT HE WANTS.

THESE ARE APPOINTED POSITIONS.

BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A DIFFERENT PROCESS, DOESN'T IT, FROM THE NORM?

>> YES.

WE HAVE SCENE REPEATEDLY THE PRESIDENT CHAFFING AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THE POWER, HE SAYS I HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS, ACTUALLY, NO, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU CAN APPOINT THEM WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.

THE SENATE CONFIRMS THEM.

HE CAN APPOINT PEOPLE, BUT TO REALLY VIEW THEM WITH THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, TO MAKE THEM THAT SYMBOL OF AMERICA, THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TALKED ABOUT HE HAS TO CLEAR THAT THROUGH CONGRESS.

WHICH CONSTITUTIONALLY IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE STRONGER BRANCH.

THAT IS WHY THIS PROCESS IS SO IMPORTANT.

BECAUSE IT IS CONGRESS THAT ENFORCES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THE PRESIDENT.

>> Woodruff: MICHAEL ALLEN ALSO WORKED ON THE STAFF DIRECTOR FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN RECENT YEARS, THE REPUBLICAN PUSHBACK HAS BEEN, NO MATTER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTIRELY WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO PUT THE PERSON IN THAT JOB THAT HE WANTED.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO RETURN TO THAT -- WE ASSUME THEY'RE GOING TO RETURN TO THAT ARGUMENT WHEN THEY GET THEIR CHANCE TO QUESTION HER.

>> I THINK THEY WILL.

AND TO ME THAT IS KIND OF OFF POINT HERE.

I THINK THAT WHAT THEY REALLY WANT TO DO IS TRY AND PAINT THE PICTURE THAT IT WAS A CORRUPT UKRAINE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTING PROPERLY BY TRYING TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION AND OTHERWISE PUT THE REQUEST THAT HE MADE, THE REQUEST THAT HE CALLED PERFECT THAT MANY OF US DISAGREE WITH, PUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF EXTREME CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

BUT TO ME WHAT IS MOST STRIKING ABOUT THIS MORNING ARE THE DANGERS OF HAVING AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL OF DIPLOMACY.

ONE OF THE HALLMARKS OF OUR AMERICAN SYSTEM IS WE HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL PROCESS THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE VIEWS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, STATE, DOD AND THE REST, BUT HERE WE'VE GOT RUDY GUILIANI, WHO HAS CLIENTS WHO ARE UKRAINIAN WHO APPARENTLY HAVE A BEEF WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND GUILIANI HAS A BACK CHANNEL DIRECT ALSO TO THE PRESIDENT.

AND HE'S PUTTING ALL KINDS OF THINGS IN THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD WHICH EVENTUALLY CAUSES HURT TO THE UNDERMINE AND HER TO BE FIRED.

THIS IS MORE OF A HALLMARK OF PUTIN WHO RECEIVED BAD INFORMATION OR THIRD WORLD DICTATOR WHO HAS IMPERFECT INFORMATION.

AND IT'S JUST NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD BE OPERATING HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

>> Woodruff: HAVE WE SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE, MIKA?

>> NO.

THIS PRESIDENT IS HISTORIC IN SO MANY WAYS THAT THIS -- WHAT WE WERE HEARING THE LAST HEARING ABOUT THE TWO CHANNELS THE REGULAR AND IRREGULAR, WE HAVE NOT SEEN THIS BEFORE.

HAVE THE PRESIDENT SENT INDIVIDUAL ENVOYS TO PURSUE OTHER OPTION, IS THAT MAY FEED INTO AMERICAN POLICY, YES.

BUT NOT SEEN SUCH CONTRARY POLICY POSITIONS BEING TAKEN IN THE REGULAR AND IRREGULAR CHANNELS.

IN SOME WAYS THIS IS ALMOST LIKE SCORSESE MOVIE YOU HAVE THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO FIGHT CORRUPTION ON THE GROUND, AND VERY PERVASIVE ENVIRONMENT.

ABOUT WHAT KIND OF CORRUPTION WAS ON THE GROUND IN UKRAINE.

AND THEY ARE DOING THAT ON BEHALF OF WASHINGTON, THEN THEY COME BACK TO WASHINGTON AND FIND OUT ACTUALLY THEIR LEADERSHIP IS PURSUING THE SAME AGENDA AS THE CORRUPT PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO COMBAT INSIDE THAT COUNTRY.

>> Woodruff: NICK, BOTH SIDES ARE SAYING THEY WERE TRYING TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

CLEARLY SOME MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS SAYING THAT WAS A PRINCIPLE OBJECTIVE OF HER.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POINTS TO A DIFFERENT PATH OF CORRUPTION THEY WERE POINTING TO WHAT THEY SAY WAS UKRAINE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

THE INVOLVEMENT OF JOE BIDEN'S SON, HUNTER, IN AN ENERGY COMPANY IN UKRAINE.

THEY ARE BOTH TALKING ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT LOOKING AT TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION VERSUS TRUMP BASICALLY.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICY IS TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE JUST LIKE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POLICY WAS BEFORE IT.

AND THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE EU, GORDON SONDLAND WHO IS CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLS IT VANILLA CORRUPTION, HE NAMES IT.

THIS IS A GENERAL ATTEMPT TO TRY TO TAKE A COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN VERY CORRUPT OVER THE YEARS, TRY TO MAKE IT LESS CORRUPT.

THAT WAY IT WILL BECOME CLOSER TO THE WEST AND FARTHER AWAY FROM RUSSIA.

WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING WAS A VERY SPECIFIC TYPE OF CORRUPTION.

NUMBER ONE, DID UKRAINE HACK INTO THE 2016 ELECTION?

DID UKRAINE INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION THAT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT HAS BEEN DISPROVEN BY INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY THAT SAYS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

NUMBER TWO, WAS IT CORRUPT FOR JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER BIDEN WHILE JOE BIDEN WAS VICE PRESIDENT LEADING UKRAINE POLICY FOR HUNTER BIDEN TO HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD OF BEEN REES MA.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, IT WAS VERY CORRUPT AND HOW CORRUPT IT WAS SO YOU'VE GOT VANILLA CORRUPTION THAT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES HAS WANTED TO PURSUE FOR EVER, REALLY, BUT MORE TO THE POINT THE LAST TWO ADMINISTRATIONS, LAST FIVE YEARS IN UKRAINE VERSUS THIS PARTICULAR CORRUPTION THAT HAS TO DO WITH BIDEN HAS TO DO WITH 2016 AGAIN I SHOULD SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT 2016 CORRUPTION THAT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

>> Woodruff: AND LISA HAS COME OUT OF THE HEARING CAN TALK WITH US.

LISA I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING MORE, WE ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO HEAR MORE FROM THE REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITTEE ABOUT THE CORRUPTION THAT NICK WAS JUST DESCRIBING, THE CORRUPTION THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON.

>> Reporter: THAT'S RIGHT, THIS BREAK TIME BENEFITS THEM IN A WAY BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TIME TO GATHER THEIR THOUGHTS.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG BREAK AS YOU MAY HAVE TOLD VIEWERS, I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN TODAY AND IN THE HEARING A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL TO WITHHOLD FIRE EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN TELL THEY ARE VERY FRUSTRATED.

THEY ARE USED TO SORT OF GOING AT IT, THROWING PUNCHES OVER PROCESS, THEY HAVE DONE RELATIVELY LITTLE OF THAT SO FAR ESPECIALLY FOR THIS GROUP OF REPUBLICANS THAT KIND OF EMBRACES THAT SORT OF CONFLICT IN A HEARING ROOM.

SO I THINK YOU'LL SEE AFTER THIS BREAK THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK THEY WILL GO AFTER EXACTLY THE KIND OF THINGS THAT NICK WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE.

BUT TO ME, JUDY, TO ADD WHO WHAT NICK IS SAYING HERE.

THE REASON THAT YOVANOVITCH IS SO IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRATS, ONE OF THE REASONS, IS THAT SHE IS LAYING OUT A CASE THAT WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING OR WHATEVER THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS THE CONCERN WAS, CORRUPTION, THE TRUTH IS DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN REMOVING MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS ACTUALLY HELPING CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND CORRUPT PROSECUTORS IN UKRAINE.

THAT IT WAS ALLOWING RUDY GUILIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES IS THEIR ARGUMENT TO USE A CORRUPT SYSTEM TO THEIR BENEFIT.

AND THAT IS REALLY KIND OF GETTING AT THE ARGUMENT I THINK MICHAEL WAS SAYING THAT DEMOCRATS ARGUMENT NOT SO MUCH COULD THE PRESIDENT HAVE REMOVED THIS AMBASSADOR, WAS THERE A CORRUPTION HENCE IN REMOVING THIS AMBASSADOR, DEMOCRATS SAY, YES, THIS WAS CORRUPTION RIGHT HERE IN REMOVING THIS AMBASSADOR.

>> Woodruff: COME BACK TO THE TABLE ON THAT POINT, LISA.

MICHAEL, TO WHAT EXTENT WILL DEMOCRATS BE ABLE TO PROVE CORRUPT INTENT?

>> I THINK THE TWEET GOES THAT THE PRESIDENT SENT DURING HER TESTIMONY INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY HERE IS TO DEGRADE HER REPUTATION.

I THINK IT BOLSTERS THE DEMOCRATIC ARGUMENT THAT ALL ALONG THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING TO SORT OF REMOVE HER AS A PLAYER HERE IN THE UKRAINE SAGA.

WHAT IS SORT OF INTERESTING TO ME AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A STAFFER AND TRIED TO ADVISE MEMBERS ON THE FLY, HERE IS A PRESIDENT HAS COME IN AT OUT OF LEFT FIELD WITH A CHEAP SHOT ON THE WITNESS, I THINK THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO DO TODAY.

SHE HAS COME ACROSS, THE AMBASSADOR THAT IS COME ACROSS AS VERY SYMPATHETIC AND I THINK THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON HAVING HER ESTABLISH THE CORRUPTION WAS RIPE WITHIN UKRAINE MAYBE THE PRESIDENT WAS SUGGESTING WHAT HE WAS SUGGESTING VIS-A-VIS BARISMA THIS THROWS A GRENADE I THINK THAT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR SOME OF THE BASE BUT I DON'T THINK IT HELPS THE REPUBLICANS SITTING THERE IN THE HEARING ROOM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PLAY WITH THE WITNESS WHO IS COMING ACROSS SO SYMPATHETICALLY AND NOT AS SOME NEFARIOUS, UNELECTED BUREAUCRAT.

>> Woodruff: LISA, BACK TO YOU, ARE YOU GETTING A SENSE THAT REPUBLICANS -- HOW REPUBLICANS HAVE REACTED TO THIS TWEET?

WE SAW THE CHAIRMAN, ADAM SCHIFF, MAKE A POINT OF INTERRUPTING THE QUESTIONING TO READ THE TWEET AND ASK FOR THE AMBASSADOR'S REACTION.

>> Reporter: THAT WAS SUCH EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT, JUDY, I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT MYSELF.

SOMETHING NEW IN THE TRUMP AIR THE IDEA OF WITNESS BEING TOLD THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN REALTIME UNDER ATTACK BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK REPUBLICANS TO A DEGREE, ABLE TO QUICKLY SPEAK TO WITHIN NOW SEE SOME REACTION FROM OTHER REPORTERS, I THINK THEY ARE ACTUALLY -- THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT TWEET SO MUCH.

I THINK A KEY REACTION I'VE SEEN OTHER REPORTERS JUST GETTING NOW FROM REPUBLICAN, MARK MEADOWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, KEY ALLY OF THE PRESIDENT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HIM BEFORE.

HE IS SAYING THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT OF RUDY GUILIANI.

RUDY GUILIANI IS NOT THE PRESIDENT.

SOMETHING MEADOWS IS SAYING THAT IS INTERESTING FOR TWO REASONS, ONE THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING OR SAYING.

ALSO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE MOVING MORE AND MORE TO TALKING ABOUT RUDY GUILIANI, WAS REPORTED BEFORE THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THIS IDEA OF HOW MUCH DO THEY PIN ON RUDY GUILIANI.

HOW MUCH DO THEY TALK ABOUT RUDY GUILIANI.

DOES HE BECOME THE BAD GUY SO TO SPEAK, REPUBLICANS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN UP UNTIL NOW BUT MARK MEADOWS IS OPENING A SLIGHT DOOR TO SORT OF PUT RUDY GUILIANI IN THE LIMELIGHT FROM THEIR SIDE SOMETHING I HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE.

>> Woodruff: I'M TOLD THAT WE HAVE JUST A SHORT CLIP OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SPEAKING ABOUT RUDY GUILIANI, I THINK WE HAVE THAT CUED SUBPOENA THAT RIGHT?

>> WITH RESPECT TO MAYOR GUILIANI.

I HAVE HAD ONLY MINIMUM CONTACT WITH HIM, A TOTAL OF THREE.

NONE RELATED TO THE EVENTS AT ISSUE.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MR. GUILIANI'S MOTIVE FOR ATTACKING ME NOR CAN I OFFER AN OPINION ON WHETHER HE BELIEFS THE ALLEGATIONS HE'S SPREAD ABOUT ME.

CLEARLY NO ONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DOES.

WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT MR. GUILIANI SHOULD HAVE KNOWN COMING AS THEY REPORTEDLY DID FROM INDIVIDUALS WITH QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES WITH REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL AMBITIONS WOULD BE STYMIED BY OUR ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY IN THE UKRAINE.

>> Woodruff: THAT WAS FROM AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S OPENING STATEMENT.

I WANT TO GO TO YAMICHE AT THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET COMMENTS FROM RUDY GUILIANI, EVEN TALKING TO HIM FOR NUMBER OF MONTHS.

WHAT DOES HE SAY ABOUT ALL THIS?

>> Reporter: I'VE SPOKEN TO RUDY GUILIANI SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN AN UNFAIR SCHEME TO HAVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH REMOVED.

HE TOLD ME THAT HE SAW HIS WORK FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AS HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY AS INTERTWINED WITH NATIONAL SECURITY AND U.S.

INTERESTS.

WHAT AUTOS SAYING I WAS DOING WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE PRESIDENT AND BEST FOR THE UNITED STATES.

OF COURSE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE WANTED ME TO GO, I WAS DOING EXACTLY WHAT U.S. POLICY HAD BEEN BOTH THROUGH REPUBLICANS AND THROUGH DEMOCRATS.

HE IS SAYING LOOK, I AM SOMEONE WHO RUDY GUILIANI TARGETED WITH BAD INFORMATION AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY HE HAD THE POWER ESSENTIALLY TO HAVE PEOPLE PUSH ME TO LEAVE UKRAINE.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS DEMOCRATS ESSENTIALLY MAKING THE CASE THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IS A KEY WITNESS TO RUDY GUILIANI HAVING THIS UNFAIR SCHEME AND REALLY BEING FOCUSED VERY SQUARELY ON INVESTIGATING JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON.

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT RUDY GUILIANI, HE SAW AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AS SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO BE IN THE WAY OF THAT INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVALS THAT'S WHY SHE HAD TO GO.

DEMOCRATS WILL SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHY SHE HAD TO LEAVE, RUDY GUILIANI UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE HAD TO GO BECAUSE THEY WANTED HER FOR MOVED OUT OF THE WOW SO THAT THEY COULD PURSUE THESE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THESE, IN SOME WAYS DEBUNKED CLAIMS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON.

I THINK IT'S POWERFUL BECAUSE HE'S SAYING I AM ALMOST A CASUAL, NOT A VICTIM BUT SOMEONE WHO WAS REALLY UNKNOWINGLY USED BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PERSONAL ALLIES.

>> Woodruff: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHETHER RUDY GUILIANI HIMSELF WILL APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE?

>> Reporter: SO FAR RUDY GUILIANI HAS SAID THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY.

HE IS HIRED SEVERAL LAWYERS TO MAKE THAT CASE.

I'VE BEEN TALKING TO HIM, HE TELLS ME THAT HE ESSENTIALLY FEELS AS THOUGH THAT HAS ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

THAT GOES BACK TO THE IDEA THAT HE IS THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND THERE ARE DEMOCRATS SAY THERE SHOULD BE NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR WORK IN UKRAINE BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IS PART OF YOUR ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATS SAY IS UNACCEPTABLE.

>> Woodruff: NICK SCHIFRIN AT THE TABLE HERE.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT WAS AT THE ROOT, AT THE BOTTOM OF WHAT RUDY GUILIANI WAS TRYING TO DO, CLEARLY WORKING CLOSELY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> Reporter: SO, WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAS ACTUALLY PULLED BACK A LITTLE BIT FROM HER DEPOSITION.

SO INTERDEPOSITION SHE SAYS I HAVE I CANNILY CITED HIS INTERESTS THAT GUILIANI'S ALLIES HAD IN UKRAINE THAT SHE WAS SOMEHOW IN THE WAY OF THOSE BUSINESS INTERESTS.

SHE DID NOT REPEAT THAT THIS MORNING.

WE'LL SEE IF SHE REPEATS IT AND SEE IF REPUBLICANS BRING THAT UP.

THE OTHER THINGS THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE FOCUSED ON IS EXACTLY WHAT YAMICHE SAID, THAT THERE WAS A PERCEPTION THAT THE AMBASSADOR WAS SOMEHOW GOING TO STOP GUILIANI AND HIS UKRAINIAN ALLIES FROM CONVINCING THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT, THE NEW UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT COMING IN FROM LAUNCHING THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

NOT CLEAR WHY THEY WERE CONVINCED OF THAT BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT FROM HER PERSPECTIVE SHE WAS SOME KIND OF IMPEDIMENT THAT GUILIANI AND HIS ALLIES THOUGHT THAT, HEY, SHE'S JUST GOT TO GO.

THIRD OPTION IS THIS, THAT THERE ARE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO WANTED TO CURRY FAVOR WITH GUILIANI.

WANTED TO SOMEHOW CONVINCE GUILIANI -- THAT WE'RE REALLY IMPORTANT, TELL YOUR BOSS BY THE WAY THAT WE'RE REALLY IMPORTANT.

THOSE PEOPLE WANTED HER OUT.

AND SO THIS IS LESS ABOUT GUILIANI'S MOTIVATION THAN HIM BEING CONVINCED BY THE CORRUPT, ACCORDING TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE CORRUPT OFFICIALS THAT HE'S WORKING WITH THAT, HEY, SHE'S ONE WHO GOT TO GO, RUDY, TELL YOUR BOSS THAT AND THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO CURRY FAVOR WITH THE PRESIDENT SO THAT THEY COULD KEEP THEIR JOBS.

>> Woodruff: BUT IF IT WASN'T BUSINESS INTERESTS OF RUDY GUILIANI WHICH YOU'RE POINTING OUT, SHE TESTIFIED OFF CAMERA IN THE PRIVATE HEARINGS FOR HOURS AND HOURS, WE'VE ONLY HEARD HER FOR A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR THIS MORNING, MAY BE THAT THAT IS GOING TO COME OUT.

IF IT WASN'T BUSINESS INTERESTS, WHAT WOULD RUDY GUILIANI MOTIVATION BE?

>> Reporter: HARD FOR US TO KNOW.

ONE OTHER THING THAT GUILIANI HAS SAID IS, I HAVE BEEN DEFENDING MY CLIENTS, THIS IS WHAT HE TWEETED WHILE HIS NAME WAS REALLY BECOMING THE MOST PROMINENT ONE IN ALL THESE DEPOSITIONS, BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, I WAS PROTECTING MY CLIENTS, MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM BASELESS ALLEGATIONS.

WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT BASICALLY IS THAT THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS THROUGHOUT LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOMEHOW COLEWDED THAT THE CAMPAIGN, SOMEHOW CLUEDED WITH RUSSIA THIS WAS WAY TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT, TRY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT THERE'S SOME DOUBT THAT RUSSIA WAS ACTUALLY BEHIND THE 2016.

MAYBE IT WAS UKRAINE, THAT OF COURSE HELPS THE PRESIDENT DEFEND HIMSELF FROM ANY ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE WAS ANY COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA.

>> Woodruff: THAT BRING US BACK TO THE CONSENSUS, THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT IT WAS RUSSIA THAT TRIED REPEATEDLY TO INTERFERE DID SUCCEED IN BY SOME MEASURE IN INTERFERING IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THE ONLY DOUBT ABOUT THAT CONCLUSION SEEMS TO BE COMING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> THAT'S.

IF THERE WERE SUBSTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION, WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IF THAT WERE LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT VIOLATION OF AMERICAN LAW IS THAT YOU WOULD SEE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO THE UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE OR POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE IN THE WAY THEY ASSESS RUSSIA INTERFERENCE.

WE DON'T SEE.

THAT WE SEE UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION OF THE COMMUNITY TESTIFIED TO ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS BY THE PRESIDENT'S SENIOR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OFFICIALS SAYING IT WAS RUSSIA, REPEATEDDEDLY TECHNICAL AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST SAY THEY DON'T SEE THE BASIS.

>> Woodruff: MICHAEL ALLEN, TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE KNOW THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AS LOOKED INTO ALLEGED UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> FAIR TO SAY THEY LOOKED AT THE ISSUE AS PART OF THE TREMENDOUS FOCUS THAT WENT ON TO THESE QUESTIONS JUST IN LATE 2016 AND EARLY 2017.

AND I -- THEY DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE.

I THINK MOST REPUBLICANS ON THE HILL BELIEVE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY SAY, RUSSIA WAS BEHIND THE MEDDLING, BUT WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING AFTER ARE THESE ARTICLES BY SEEMINGLY REPUTABLE REPORTERS THAT INDICATE THAT A DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE WAS IN KEY OF -- KIEV BEFORE THE OWEL MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE MANAFORT LEDGER AND THE REST.

THIS IS CHALUPA REFERENCE, THAT WAS WORKING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

SO I THINK THAT IS WHERE THEY'RE GOING WITH THIS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THERE IS THERE, CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO TRUMP SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS TRULY RUSSIA THAT INTERVENED.

THERE IS SOME THAT BOTHERS SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS TO PURSUE THAT LIKE OF QUESTIONING.

>> IF I COULD JUMP IN ON THAT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT LINE OF ARGUMENT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE WERE THE MANY COUNTER INTELLIGENCE ABOUT PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN MANAGER, PAUL MANAFORT, THAT WERE EMERGING DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.

HE HAD A LONG RECORD OF TAKING MONEY, OF BEING A FOREIGN AGENT FOR VARIOUS CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS, NIGERIANS, UKRAINIANS, WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT MANAFORT AND GLOSSING THAT I THINK IS A LITTLE TOUGH.

>> Woodruff: LISA IS AT THE CAPITOL WANTING TO GET A WORD HERE.

>> Reporter: SPEAKING TO WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY'RE CORRECT OF COURSE THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN AN INVESTIGATION OF UKRAINE ANGLE HERE ON THE HILL.

AND MOST REPUBLICANS THAT I TALK TO JUST AS MICHAEL WAS SAYING, ARE NOT CALLING FOR THAT.

MOST BUT NOT ALL I WANT TO POINT OT THAT SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, IMPORTANT ALLY OF THE PRESIDENT NOW HIMSELF A COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HE HIMSELF WOULD LIKE TO INVESTIGATE THIS.

HE'S CALLING FOR THOSE KINDS OF INVESTIGATIONS AS WELL AS OTHER INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS PROVE SYSTEMIC BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THERE IS THAT GRAIN OF THOUGHT HERE, IT IS PART OF CONVERSATION ON CAPITOL HILL SOME REPUBLICANS ARE PUSHING FOR IT BUT AGAIN NOT ALL OF THEM.

TO ME, THOUGH, TAKING A STEP BACK, SO INTERESTED IN WHAT YOUR GUESTS THINK ON THIS, WHAT I SEE HERE IS IN A TELL GENERALS COMMITTEE THAT I'VE COVERED A LONG TIME THAT TYPICALLY HAS BEEN ONE OF THE LEAST PARTISAN COMMITTEES ON THE HILL.

THEY GENERALLY DO NOT TALK IN PUBLIC, THEY DON'T COMMUNICATE A LIEUTENANT WITH THE PRESS.

AND THEY DO THAT BECAUSE THEIR WORK IS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND WITH EACH OTHER, THERE'S USUALLY A REAL CAMARADERIE ON THIS COMMITTEE, BUT WE'RE SEEING OF COURSE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, A REAL BREAK DOWN, ESPECIALLY ON THE HOUSE SIDE AND I THINK IF DEVIN NUNES WERE RUNNING THIS, HE WOULD TRY TO LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION ON THIS UKRAINE ANGLE BECAUSE ALL OF THIS HAS BECOME SO INFLAMED BIPARTISANSHIP ON BOTH SIDES.

>> Woodruff: I WANT TO GET TO THAT BUT NICK YOU DID HAVE A POINT YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE ABUT THIS UKRAINE QUESTION BEFORE WE COME TO THAT.

>> Reporter: JUST TO SEIZE ON ONE OF LISA'S WORDS IS BIAS.

THERE'S A DISTINCTION THAT'S BEING LOST A LITTLE BIT.

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SPOKE PUBLICLY AGAINST CANDIDATE TRUMP IN 2016.

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE MANAFORT BLACK LEDGER, THE BOOK THAT BASICALLY FORCED CAMPAIGN MANAGER PAUL MANAFORT OUT OF HIS POSITION WAS FOUND, WAS DISCOVERED BY UKRAINIAN JOURNALISTS AND UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION.

THERE IS THAT'S, YES, UKRAINIANS WERE INVOLVED IN EXPOSING SOME OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ALLIES WERE DOING IN UKRAINE ALSO CRITICIZE CANDIDATE TRUMP.

THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS RAISED.

THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN SAYING THAT UKRAINE HACKED INTO DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND KEPT THE SERVER WHICH AGAIN IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

THAT IS DIFFERENT -- >> Woodruff: THERE'S BEEN R NEVER BEEN ANY EVIDENCE TO BOLSTER THAT.

>> Reporter: ACTUALLY MISSES THE WHOLE POINT.

THIS GETS TO THE RABBIT HOLE, THE SERVER IS NOT IMPORTANT, THERE WAS NO SERVER IN UKRAINE, WHAT WAS IMPORTANT WERE THE IMAGES THAT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE THEY HANDED THOSE OVER TO THE FBI.

AGAIN, THE DIFFERENCE OF THE BIAS THAT SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SHOWED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, INVESTIGATION THAT LED MANAFORT TO LOSE HIS JOB, THAT IS ONE CATEGORY THAT REALLY WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE WHEN WE CAN LOOK AT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S USE OF -- THE FOCUS ON 20166 COURSE THE PRESIDENT'S FOCUS.

>> Woodruff: THIS IS A TECH INVESTIGATIVE COMPANY.

ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITHIN WE HAVE HOURS TO SPEND.

BUT I DO WANT TO COME BACK TO LISA'S POINT TO YOU, MICHAEL AND MIEKE, WE'RE SEEING AN INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT IS MORE PARTISAN THAN WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, EVER SEEN, MICHAEL?

>> THAT'S CERTAINLY THE CASE.

I THINK NANCY PELOSI WILL REGRET HAVING DONE THIS WHEN THERE'S TIME TO REFLECT UPON THIS MANY YEARS -- >> Woodruff: MEANING -- >> DONE THIS, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WITH THE LEAD TO BE THE IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTORS HERE OF A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> INSTEAD OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

>> OR CREATING A SPECIAL IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

>> Woodruff: SOME CALLED ON HER -- >> EXACTLY.

THE REASON IS, IS THAT THERE WERE WELL-KNOWN INTELLIGENCE ABUSES BY THE CIA AND THE FBI AND NIXON ERA IN THE '70s.

THE CHURCH COMMITTEES RECOMMENDED THAT WE HAVE VERY STRONG COMMITTEES TO OVERSEE THE CIA AND OUR 17 AGENCIES IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

THE INTENT FOR THEM WAS TO BE A COCOON, SORT OF A SANCTUARY FROM POLITICS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL WHERE THERE BY THE WAY WHEN YOU SEE THE HEARING ROOM THERE ISN'T A PLACE FOR AUDIENCE BECAUSE THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN AUDIENCE THERE.

EVERYTHING IS SUPPOSED TO -- EVERYONE IS SUPPOSED TO CHECK THEIR PARTISANSHIP AT THE DOOR.

INSTEAD WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE IS THE MOST PARTISAN EXERCISE, AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IN COMMITTEE BY DESIGN THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE LEAST PARTISAN.

SO THIS IS A COMPLETE MISMATCH -- IT'S NEVER BEEN PARTISANSHIP ON THESE COMMITTEES, IT BROKE OUT IN BENGHAZI, IN THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION, BUT THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG APPLICATION OF THIS COMMITTEE.

>> Woodruff: YOU SERVED ON THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THREE YEARS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

HOW DID IT WORK AT THAT TIME?

>> WE WERE COMING OFF OF A PERIOD OF INTENSE PARTISANSHIP AT THAT POINT.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION USED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE, TORTURE PROGRAMS REALLY DIVIDED THE COMMITTEE.

SO IT WAS VERY CONTENTIOUS.

BUT THAT WAS ABOUT POLICY, THAT WAS NOT ABOUT THE POLITICS OF THE COUNTRY AT THE TIME.

SO, WHILE WE MIGHT ARGUE ABOUT PARTICULAR POLICY DECISIONS, GENERALLY SPEAKING IT WAS NOT A PARTISAN AS IT IS NOW.

I AGREE WITH MICHAEL THAT A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THIS PARTICULAR INQUIRY MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BETTER APPROACH.

BUT I THINK THAT THE DECISION THAT SPEAKER WAS FACED WITH WAS AMONG THE EXISTING COMMITTEES, WHO WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE THE MOST THOROUGH IN GETTING TO THE HEART OF THIS MATTER, GIVEN THAT THIS MATTER STARTED WITH A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THROUGH THE DNIG IT MADE SENSE.

>> Woodruff: COME BACK TO LISA AT THE CAPITOL.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHY SPEAKER BELLOW SEE CHOSE TO GO WITH INTELLIGENCE FIRST?

HOW MUCH DO IT HAVE TO DID WITH THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE?

>> Reporter: I BELIEVE DEMOCRATS WILL SAY FIRST AND FOREMOST THIS WAS OVERALL AN INTELLIGENCE MATTER THAT THE ORIGINAL WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

SO THERE IS A CLEAR SUBSTANTIVE MATCH THERE.

BUT THERE IS ALSO A GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE FROM SPEAKER PELOSI IN CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF.

HE IS LARGELY SEEN AS SORT OF THE HEIR APPARENT TO SPEAKER PELOSI AT THIS TIME EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS FLUID HERE.

BUT RIGHT NOW HE IS PROBABLY THE MOST HIGHLY REGARDED MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS AFTER SPEAKER PELOSI.

HE IS SEEN AS SOMEONE WHO CAN SPEAK TO THE PRESS, THAT HE'S GENERALLY EVEN TEMPERED, THAT HE IS SOMEONE WHO MAKES VERY GOOD AND SMART DECISIONS.

AND HE'S SOMEONE WHO HAS A LOT OF PERSONAL CAPITAL WITH DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS BEHIND THE SCENES.

NOW, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I'VE WATCHED HIM FOR SO LONG THAT I HAVE SEEN HIM BECOME MORE AGGRESSIVE IN THIS COMMITTEE KIND OF SHOW SIGNS OF MORE EMOTIONS, A LITTLE BIT MORE ANGER AND FRUSTRATION, NOT A LOT, BUT MORE THAN I'M USED TO SEEING.

I'VE READ THAT AS SIGN.

PRESSURE WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS SORT OF BOILING FEELINGS UNDERNEATH FROM THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS ABOUT THIS PROCESS, ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT AND ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO TRANSMIT TO THEIR BASE THAT THEY NEED TO SHOW THE CASE THIS EMOTION, THIS IDEA OF ANGER AND TO SOME DEGREE THAT THEIR CAUSE IS RIGHTEOUS, HE'S VERY CAREFUL WITH THAT, BUT USUALLY I HAVE SEEN LESS OF THAT FROM THIS CHAIRMAN THAN I HAVE IN THE INSTANCE.

WE'LL SEE.

HE'S SOMEONE THAT HAS TREMENDOUS RESPECT AND FROM THAT A GREAT DEAL OF POWER IN THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.

>> Woodruff: LISA, JUST QUICKLY, IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE HIM THIS MORNING AS REPUBLICANS REPEATEDLY TRIED TO ASK A QUESTION OR MAKE WHAT THEY CALL A POINT OF ORDER.

HE PRETTY MUCH SHUT THAT DOWN AND SAID I'M NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU.

>> Reporter: THAT WAS FASCINATING BECAUSE AT THE SAME TIME, HE TOOK A FEW MINUTES TO MAKE REMARKS THAT I THINK WERE DEBATEDLY OUT OF ORDER HIMSELF.

SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT, SAYING, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS WHAT I HOPE YOU TAKE FROM THIS.

THAT WAS REALLY MORE A SPEECH THAN A QUESTION.

THE DO LEADERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AT WILL BUT AT THAT POINT HIS SPEAKING TIME HAD SOMEWHAT ENDED HE WAS SHUTTING DOWN OTHERS.

JUST SHOWS THE POWER OF THE CHAIRMAN.

REPUBLICANS DO THE SAME THING.

HE MADE THAT DECISION TODAY TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE HIMSELF NOT LET REPUBLICANS DO THE SAME.

>> Woodruff: JUST REMIND OUR VIEWERS WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BREAK IN THIS SECOND PUBLIC DAY OF PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

MEMBERS HAVE GONE TO TAKE A VOTE, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO LAST WE ARE PLAYING THIS BY EAR, IF YOU WI WILL.

AND WE ARE WATCHING VERY CLOSELY THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHEN THEY COME BACK.

I DO WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY, YAMICHE YOU'RE LISTENING TO THIS WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, RUDY GUILIANI, WHO YOU AS YOU SAID YOU'VE BEEN REPORTING ON HIM FOR A LONG TIME, BEEN IN CONTACT, WHAT HIS MOTIVE OR MOTIVATION WOULD HAVE BEEN IN GETTING -- WANTING TO REMOVE, SEE THE PRESIDENT REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

WHAT WERE RUDY GUILIANI'S INTERESTS IN UKRAINE?

>> THERE WERE TWO GOOD POINTS, LISA WAS TALKING ABOUT BIAS AND MOTIVE.

HE IS MOAT SEPARATED TO TRY TO HELP THE PRESIDENT FEEL LESS PARANOID.

AS WE SEE HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAVING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH ADAM SCHIFF YOU HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTING TO HAVE CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE IN HIS WHITE HOUSE.

YOU LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT HE FEELS PARANOID INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE FEELS LIKE THERE ARE PEOPLE LISTENING TO HIS CALLS THEN LEAKING THEM.

THERE'S PEOPLE COMING OUT WITH BOOKS, WRITING ABOUT HIM IN ANONYMOUS TITLES, HE FEELS REALLY PARANOID NORTH DAKOTA.

ALSO ABOUT UKRAINE, HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, RUDY GUILIANI, GOING TO UKRAINE.

HE SAYS IN A WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN MAY OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN.

TALKING ABOUT UKRAINE.

HE'S CONVINCED THAT THERE ARE AUTO CRANIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT WANT HIM TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE WORKING AGAINST THAT GOAL.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS THE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY HAVING SOMEONE CLOSE TO HIM GO TO UKRAINE TO TRY TO FIND SOME WAY TO DIG UP DIRT.

DIRT THAT HAS BEEN PRETTY MUCH DEEMED TO BE CONSPIRACY THEORY, BUT BELIEVES WAS PERSONALLY ATTACKING HIM.

>> Woodruff: ALL RIGHT.

AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

LISA AT THE CAPITOL.

WE ARE AS WE SAID IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS BREAK, WE'RE WAITING ANY MOMENT TO GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEE BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE REPORT THAT YAMICHE AND LISA DID FOR US A FEW DAYS AGO ON THE "NEWSHOUR" AS WE ANTICIPATED THESE HEARINGS ESSENTIALLY REMINDING US HOW WE GOT TO THIS MOMENT.

>> MORE THAN A DOZEN WITNESSES, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF TESTIMONY AND WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT WE LEARNED ABOUT ONLY IN SEPTEMBER.

IT ALL LED TO DEMOCRATIC HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI DOING THIS.

>> I'M ANNOUNCING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MOVING FORWARD WITH AN OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> THIS ALL HAPPENED QUICKLY, ALMOST TOO QUICKLY TO PROCESS.

WE WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT HOW WE GOT HERE.

LET'S START WITH THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN.

THAT LETTER FROM ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER, HE WRITES THAT MOST U.S. OFFICIALS TOLD THEM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE FOR OWN POLITICAL GAIN.

HE WANTED UKRAINE TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION INTO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON HUNTER.

THE YOUNGER BIDEN SERVED ON AN ENERGY COMPANY.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SOLICITING INTERFERENCE FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY THOUGHT TO PRESSURE THE LEADER TO HELP THE PRESIDENT'S 2020 REELECTION BID.

>> THIS IS THE CORE CHARGE BY DEMOCRATS LED BY HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CHAIR, ADAM SCHIFF.

>> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BETRAYED HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND SACRIFICED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IN DOING SO.

>> Reporter: PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ALLIES INSIST THIS IS A POLITICAL ATTACK.

>> THIS IS A WITCH HUNT AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL AND SO BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY.

>> Reporter: THERE'S PLENTY OF RHETORIC FROM ALL SIDES, WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY KNOW?

>> SOME KEY DATES IN MAY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH ABRUPTLY REMOVED FROM THAT JOB.

THIS HAPPENED JUST TWO WEEKS BEFORE CHANGE IN UKRAINE.

ON MAY 20th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AN ACTOR AND COMEDIAN IS INAUGURATED.

HE PLEDGES TO FIGHT CORRUPTION.

BUT HE HAS ANOTHER PROBLEM.

A CONTINUED COSTLY WAR WITH RUSSIA OVER LARGE SWATHS OF LAND.

ALSO CLEAR BACKING FROM THE U.S. >> ON JULY 20, A KEY EVENT.

AT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH THE UKRAINIAN, GORDON SONDLAND AN U.S.

AMBASSADOR STATES THAT UKRAINIANS NEED TO REOPEN SOME INVESTIGATION, ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE WITNESSES, SONDLAND HERE ON THE RIGHT IN THIS PICTURE AFTER THE MEETING TESTIFIED HE DOES NOT REMEMBER SAYING THAT.

BUT THEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON ERUPTS, ACCORDING TO OTHER WITNESSES, CALLING THE IDEA A DRUG DEAL AND FLAGGING IT FOR WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS.

RIGHT AROUND THAT TIME IN MID JULY, THE UNITED STATES FREEZES $391 MILLION IN AID TO UKRAINE, SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFY THEY WERE TOLD THIS WAS BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THROUGH ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY.

MULVANEY HASN'T COMMENTED BUT HAS DEFENDED THE PRESIDENT.

>> I HAVE NO NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.

GET OVER IT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

>> Reporter: THIS EVENT RAT THE HEART OF ALL OF THIS.

THE JULY TON CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TELLS ZELENSKY THAT THE UNITED STATES HATS BEEN VERY GOOD TO UKRAINE SENSES, QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, HE GOES ON TO SAY HE WOULD LIKE HIM TO LOOK INTO TWO THINGS, THE 2016 ELECTION AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON HUNT ARE BIDEN DEALINGS IN UKRAINE.

>> AMONG THE OFFICIALS ON THAT CALL AN ARMY LIEUTENANT KERNEL.

HE'S USUALLY BEHIND THE SCENES NOW HE IS CENTRAL.

VINDMAN TESTIFIES WHAT HE HEARD ON THE CALLFULS NOT PROPER, PRESIDENT DEMANDING THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. SILT SEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE CALL WAS GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

>> WE ARE LOOKING AT CORRUPTION, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT POLITICS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT CORRUPTION.

>> Reporter: DEMOCRATS SAY IT IS IN THAT NOW FAMOUS CALL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY TRIED TO EXTORT UKRAINE.

>> ABOUT A MONTH LATER ON AUGUST 29th A NEWS REPORT REVEALS TO THE PUBLIC AND SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT THE AID MONEY WAS ON HOLD.

ON SEPTEMBER 1, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MEANS IN WAR STAR WITH SAW ZELENSKY.

THAT SAME DAY KEY MEETING AND TOP ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

SONDLAND TELLS UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL THAT U.S. AID WOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO UKRAINE MADE A PUBLIC PLEDGE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

>> ONE MORE DATE BY SEPTEMBER 11th FOLLOWING HEAVY CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE IS TAKEN OFF HOLD AND SENT.

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG PUBLIC HEARINGS OR ANY IMPEACHMENT DEBATE WILL LAST.

WE DO KNOW THE FOURTH PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY WE'RE SURE TO LEARN MORE FROM ALL SIDES AS IT UNFOLDS.

>> Woodruff: THAT WAS OUR LOOK AS WE ANTICIPATED THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARINGS REMINDING US EVERYTHING THAT LED UP TO THE BEGINNING OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HOLDING THESE HEARINGS WHICH STARTED WEDNESDAY WE'RE NOW FRIDAY.

THE SECOND DAY OF LIVE HEARINGS.

THE COMMITTEE, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS TAKING A SHORT BREAK AS YOU JUST SAW YAMICHE AT THE WHITE HOUSE, LISA COVERING FOR US AT THE CAPITOL.

HERE AT THE TABLE WITH ME, NICK SCHIFRIN OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, MIEKE AND MICHAEL ALLEN SERVED ON THE STAFF OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

MICHAEL, YOU WERE JUST TELLING US LOOKING AT WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE CAPITOL, THE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AS THEY LEAVE THE ROOM TO TAKE A BREAK.

THE REACTION FROM SOME REPUBLICANS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETS THIS MORNING WHILE AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS TESTIFYING.

CRITICIZING HER.

AT ONE POINT SAYING, EVERYWHERE SHE SERVED THINGS TURNED BAD.

>> WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT SORT OF HAND GRENADE ROLLED INTO THE COMMITTEE ROOM THAT IS UPSETTING I THINK WHAT THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY FOR THE DAY WOULD HAVE BEEN.

BUT I SEE A MODERATE REPUBLICAN WOMAN FROM A DISTRICT IN UPSTATE NEW YORK TELLING REPORTER THAT SHE DISAGREES WITH THE PRESIDENT TRUMP CITING YOVANOVITCH'S SERVICE, CALLING HER A PUBLIC SERVANT.

I EVEN SEE PEOPLE ON FOX QUESTIONING THE WISDOM OF THE TWEET.

I THINK THAT IS BASICALLY BECAUSE IT'S GIVEN THE DEMOCRATS AN OPPORTUNITY, REALLY A FIELD DAY TO POINT OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ATTACKING A SOMEONE WHO WE ALL AGREE IS GIVEN RIVETTING TESTIMONY TODAY THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE OUT OF CONTRO UNELECTED BUREAUCRAT THAT TRIES TO MAKE THEIR OWN VIEWS INSTEAD OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S ARE.

I THINK THIS IS A REAL -- SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT.

>> Woodruff: AND MIEKE EOYANG, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, SO UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BE WEIGHING IN, NOT ONLY WHILE THE HEARING IS GOING ON BUT IN ESSENCE ATTACKING THE WITNESS.

WE HEARD AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SAY SHE HAS SERVED IN A NUMBER OF POSTS, SOME OF THEM HARDSHIP POSTS, SOMALIA, AND IT WASN'T JUST UKRAINE WHERE SHE SERVED THE UNITED STATES.

>> SHE'S EM BLAH MAT PARTICULAR CHOOSING VERY HARD POSTS WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ON THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES THAT AMERICA HAS.

IT'S A LITTLE OUTRAGEOUS FOR THIS PRESIDENT TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE FOR CHOOSING TO GO TO THOSE HARD PLACES.

AND NOT STAY IN SAFER PLACES.

IN HER TESTIMONY SHE WAS VERY STRIKING WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT THE RISKS THAT DIPLOMAT TAKE WHEN THEY GO OUT THERE.

ESPECIALLY MAKING A REFERENCE TO WHAT HAPPENED IN BENGHAZI AND DIPLOMATS WHO WERE KILLED THERE.

THESE ARE VERY EMOTIONAL THINGS WHERE THEY LOOK TO THEIR LEADERSHIP TO SUPPORT THEM AS THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY.

>> Woodruff: LISA IS AT THE CAPITOL.

MICHAEL ALLEN WAS JUST NOTING WHAT SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY CONGRESSWOMAN STEFANIK A REPUBLICAN OF NEW YORK HAD TO SAY IN SAYING SHE DISAGREED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET, CRITICIZING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

>> Reporter: RIGHT.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MICHAEL WAS SAYING, REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO PRESENT THIS AS A SERIOUS HEARING, I THINK THEY REALIZE EARLY ON WHEN SOME OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS FROM CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY WAS COMING OUT AND WE SAW A FEW REPUBLICANS GO AFTER SAY WILLIAM TAYLOR WHO HAS A LONG REPUTATION, MILITARY CAREER COMBAT VETERAN, THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

THAT GOING AFTER THESE MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED THEIR COUNTRY WITHOUT ANY BLEMISH UNTIL NOW IS A PROBLEM FOR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

IT COULD MAKE THEM -- COULD BACKFIRE.

I THINK YOU SEE STEFANIK AND OTHERS WILL SAY THAT.

THESE ARE MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, MEMBERS WHO WORK A LOT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WITH THE FOREIGN SERVICE AND WITH THE MILITARY.

AND THEY PERSONALLY KNOW THE KIND OF SACRIFICE THAT A SOMEONE LIKE MARIA YOVANOVITCH HAS MADE IN HER CAREER.

PART OF THIS IS POLITICAL BUT PART IS A GENUINE LIKELY STATEMENT OF WE SHOULDN'T GO AFTER THIS KIND OF PERSON, THIS IS A KIND OF PERSON, THIS KIND OF CAREER THAT WE SHOULD HONOR.

>> Woodruff: AND IT DOES POINT BACK TO PART OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY WHERE SHE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE AFFECT THIS IS HAVING ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT WE HAVE THAT CLIP WE CAN SHOW EVERYONE THEN WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS.

>> ATTACKS ARE LEADING TO A CRISIS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS THE POLICY PROCESS IS VISIBLY UNRAVELING.

LEADERSHIP VACANCIES GO UNFILLED AND SOON YOUR AND MID LEVEL OFFICERS PONDER AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE.

THE CRISIS HAS MOVED FROM THE IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS TO IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTION ITSELF.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BEING HOLLOWED OUT FROM WITHIN AT A COMPETITIVE AND COMPLEX TIME ON THE WORLD STAGE.

THIS IS NOT A TIME TO UNDERCUT OUR DIPLOMATS.

>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT OTHER AMBASSADORS AND OTHERS OF LESSER RANK WHO SERVED THE UNITED STATES AND EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND THINK, IF I TAKE ON CORRUPT PEOPLE IN THESE COUNTRIES THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ME?

>> I THINK THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT, YEAH.

>> Woodruff: THAT'S A VERY POWERFUL EXCHANGE, NICK SCHIFRIN WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS A MOMENT AGO.

BUT TO -- WHEN YOU THINK AMERICANS ARE REPRESENTING AMERICANS WHO WORK FOR THE -- WORK FOR ALL OF US ARE REPRESENTING THIS COUNTRY ALL AROUND THE WORLD AND TO SEE THESE KINDS OF NOT JUST CRITICISMS BUT ATTACKS ON PUBLIC SERVANTS, CAN BE AT THE VERY LEAST UNDERMINING, DEMORALIZING AS WE HEARD THE AMBASSADOR SAY, HOLLOW IT OUT.

>> Reporter: I HAVE TALKED TO SO MANY FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS, CIVIL SERVICE OFFICERS INSIDE THE STATE DEPARTMENT, DIPLOMATS OVER THE LAST V.A.

YEARS WHO WORK FOR THE ADDV ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

WHO NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE POLICIES THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO ENACT.

AND TO A PERSON EVERY SINGLE ONE IS TAKING PRIDE IN NOT BEING PART OF -- >> Woodruff: DIDN'T AGREE WITH POLICIES.

>> EITHER DISAGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP OR DISAGREE WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA OR PRESIDENT BUSH BEFORE THEM, BUT PURSUED THE POLICY -- -- SPEAKS VOLUMES DOES IT NOT THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE WOULD NOT PUT IN A WORD, SAY A GOOD WORD ABOUT SOMEONE WHO HAS SERVED THE COUNTRY OVER THREE DECADES?

>> WELL, AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO THE CORROSIVENESS OF THE IRREGULAR GUILIANI CHANNEL.

I SERVED IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE, YOU WANT TO BE IN ALL THE BIG MEETINGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN FOREIGN POLICY IS BEING DISCUSSED BECAUSE YOU WANT YOUR VIEWS REPRESENTED.

WHEN RUDY GUILIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WHO HAS CLIENTS IN UKRAINE WHO MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN UNDERMINING THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR, HAS HIS OWN INDEPENDENT CHANNEL BACK TO THE PRESIDENT AND CAN PUT THINGS IN HIS EAR ABOUT THE AMBASSADOR, IT PUTS SECRETARY OF STATE IN THIS TERRIBLE POSITION OF, I WANT TO SUPPORT MY PEOPLE BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS THIS IDEA THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL IS WORKING AGAINST HIM.

I WORKED ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, MR. POMPEO WAS THERE, I KNOW HIS INSTINCTS WOULD BE TO PROTECT HIS PEOPLE BUT HE SAW HE LOST HIS BOSS ON THE QUESTION JUST HAD TO DEAL WITH WHAT THE FACTS WERE.

AND THAT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT RUNS SORT OF IMPROVISATIONAL NATIONAL SECURITY SCHEME AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> Woodruff: I WANT TO PICK UP ON THAT WITH YAMI, THISHE, I THINK YOU'RE STILL THERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE, IF YOU CAN, EXPLAIN TO US HOW THE PRESIDENT SEES HIS ROLE AS PRESIDENT SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, THE OFFICIAL APPARATUS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.

>> Reporter: THE IDEA IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SEES ALL OF THESE AGENCIES AS REALLY BEING THE WORKING FOR HIM AND WORKING FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL IDEAS.

SO THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT, I CAN REMOVE WHOEVER I WANT DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS IF YOU'RE DOING IT FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING BASICALLY YOU ELECTED ME AND I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS PREPARE -- REPUBLICANS SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY HERE, I HAVE REPORTING THAT LIZ CHENEY, CONGRESSWOMAN OF WYOMING A CLOSE ALLY OF THE PRESIDENT SHE HAS BEEN ON THE PHONE AT LEAST ONE WITNESS' WIFE, ALEXANDER VINDMAN WHO WAS ON THE CALL ON THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT CALL.

LIZ CHENEY HAS TOLD HIS WIFE THAT SHE SHOULD BE VERY -- SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT ANY SORT OF ATTACKS BECAUSE SHE WON'T ALLOW THAT TO STAND.

YOU FAST FORWARD THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOW ATTACKING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FOR HIS PATRIOTISM SAYING THAT WHEN SHE WAS GOING TO THESE POSTS THAT SHE WAS MAKING THESE PLACES WORSE.

I THINK WE MIGHT SEE SOME REPUBLICANS ACTUAL THREE SPEAKING OUT SAYING, LOOK, WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID HERE IS NOT IMPEACHABLE BUT HE SHOULD NOT BE FOCUSING ON CAREER SERVICE OFFICER'S ACTUALLY WORK WHEN IT COMES TO THE FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

AS TO THAT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO BEEN ACCUSED BY AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH OF PLAYING BOOT HANDS OF RUSSIA, ALWAYS THIS UNDERLYING ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT, THEY OFTEN SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS WORKING IN TANDEM WITH RUSSIA, WORKING FOR RUSSIA'S GOALS.

BUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IN NONPARTISAN WAYS, WHAT IT TELLS COUNTRIES INCLUDING RUSSIA IS THAT YOU CAN PUSH AND PUSH AND GET A U.S.

AMBASSADOR REMOVED FROM HER POST IF YOU HAVE A DIRECT LINE TO PEOPLE LIKE RUDY GUILIANI.

AND SHE SAYS THAT IS BAD U.S. POLICY, BUT IT'S ALSO BAD FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POLICY.

NEED TO THINK ABUT THAT AS WE LISTEN TO HER THINK HOW SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE FEWER FUTURE NOT JUST WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST BUT IN THE FUTURE.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE WHEN ROUGHLY, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT CONGRESSWOMAN CHENEY WHO IS IN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MADE THAT -- MADE THOSE COMMENTS TO COLONEL VINDMAN'S WIFE?

HE IS SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY IN PUBLIC NEXT WEEK.

>> Reporter: THIS IS A FEW WEEKS AGO WHEN REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT AT ONE POINT WERE ATTACKING ARMY CRORE NELL VINDMAN'S -- HIS SERVICE, BASICALLY ATTACKING HIS CHARACTER.

LIZ CHENEY GOT ON THE PHONE WITH THE WIFE OF ARMY LIEUTENANT CRORE NELL VINDMAN.

WE HAVE WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ATTACKS ON HIS PATRIOTISM.

HE'S NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL NOT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

HE IS DETAILED TO THE WHITE HOUSE BY THE ARMY.

BUT MY REPORTING IS THAT ALSO SECOND IN COMMAND AT THE ARMY SPOKE TO ALEXANDER VINDMAN'S FAMILY WE HAVE YOUR BACK NOT GOING TO BE RETALIATED AGAINST.

WHAT YOU HAVE ARE REALLY AMERICAN AGENCIES AND THE U.S. ARMY SAYING LOOK, WE CAN DISAGREE ON POLITICAL ISSUES, WHEN IT COMES TO ATTACKING CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS OR PEOPLE IN THE ARMY WE'RE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE THAT.

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE WITH THE SAME PEOPLE WORKING WITHIN HIS ADMINISTRATION.

>> Woodruff: FASCINATING REPORTING, YAMICHE ALL THAT VERY HELPFUL.

MIEKE AS SOMEONE WHO WORKED ON INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WATCH THIS PROCESS FOR A LONG TIME, WHAT DO PEOPLE PUT ON THE LINE WHEN THEY GO FORWARD TO TESTIFY?

IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS IN PUBLIC?

>> THIS IS VERY FRAUGHT MOMENT FOR THE CAREER OFFICIALS WHO ARE COMING FORWARD TO TESTIFY GIVEN THE WAY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS OPERATED.

WE'VE SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS TRY TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK THE TRUTH AND SAY, THIS IS HOW WE ASSESS THINGS AND THE IT IS PRESIDENT UNDERCUTS THOSE STATEMENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THE FORMER DIRECTOR, DAN COATS TRYING TO MAKE ASSESSMENTS ABOUT NORTH KOREA AND COMPLIANCE WITH DENUCLEARIZATION.

A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE LOSE FAVOR WITH THE PRESIDENT, THEY LOSE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS BUT FOR CAT REAR FOLKS, WHAT WE SEE THEY COULD LOSE THEIR JOBS, IN THIS ADMINISTRATION WE SAW FOR THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, PEOPLE GET FIRED, GET FIRED IN WAYS THAT FORCE THEM TO LOSE THEIR PENSION, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF VERY DIFFICULT RETALIATION HAPPENING THAT'S BEEN INVESTIGATED INSIDE THIS ADMINISTRATION.

>> Woodruff: THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING TO EVERYONE WE DON'T WANT YOU TO COOPERATE.

WE DON'T WANT TO YOU TESTIFY.

SOME HAVE DONE IT UNDER SUBPOENA.

BUT WE NOW KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, HAVE GONE TO COURT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE IS THE GREATER LOYALTY.

IS IT TO THE PRESIDENT OR IS IT TO THE CONGRESS?

SO IT GETS DOWN TO FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

>> IT GETS DOWN TO FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AND THE FUNDAMENTAL OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

I THINK THAT HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK ON AMBASSADOR BOLTON, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, HE HAS INDICATED, HIS LAWYER HAS INDICATED A LITTLE BIT OF A HINT THAT HE MAY TESTIFY SO WE'RE GOING TO SEE HOW THAT ONE PLAYS OUT.

BUT I THINK THE LARGER POINT OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS CRORAL VINDMAN'S CASE TO EMBLEMATIC OF THIS.

THIS IS A MAN WHO WAS BORN IN UKRAINE, MOVED TO THE UNITED STATES, WHO SPEAKS UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN.

HE IS A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY.

THIS IS REALLY THE CREAM OF THE CROP OF THE PEOPLE WHO BECOME INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS LEADING THE MILITARY, THE DEFENSE WHO WORKS WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE REAL ANALYST IS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION.

>> Woodruff: WE OFTEN VERY MUCH DON'T KNOW.

>> WE NEVER HEAR OF UNLESS THEY BECOME THREE OR FOUR STARS THEN A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HIM.

THE FACT THAT WE KNOW HIM IS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, I KNOW I'VE SPOKEN TO PEOPLE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL HE IS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE BY THE FACT THAT HE'S BEEN MADE PUBLIC.

THAT IS THE ARMY'S CREAM OF THE CROP IN MANY WAYS.

YOU HAVE SEEN SECRETARY -- DEFENSE SECRETARY COME OUT SPECIFICALLY AND DEFEND VINDMAN.

HE WAS ASKED COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, IS THIS GUY'S CAREER TOAST?

THAT'S WHAT HE WAS ASKED.

BECAUSE IN THE MILITARY ESPECIALLY NOT ONLY FOR DIPLOMATIC WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO FEAR THIS MOMENT, THE MILITARY ESPECIALLY ARE REAL SENSE OF, I BETTER NOT OVERSTEP MY BOUNDS.

VINDMAN HAS COME OUT, HE'S NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER BUT COMING OUT AND CRITICIZING THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WAS ASKED IS HIS CAREER TOAST, HE SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOT.

HE SAYS THAT THIS PERSON WILL BE DEFENDED AND THIS PERSON WILL CONTINUE ALONG HIS PATH AND VERY POSITIVE PATH THAT HE'S GOING, YOU SAW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, FEEL THE NEED TO VERY PUBLICLY BACK VINDMAN UP AND MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY WHO I'VE TALKED TO WERE PLEASED WITH THAT BACK UP.

>> Woodruff: IT'S JUST KIND OF A REMARKABLE -- SO MANY ASPECTS OF THIS ARE REMARKABLE THAT'S ANOTHER ASPECT.

JUST SHOW EVERYBODY THE FACT THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM IS PRETTY MUCH EMPTY OF MEMBERS RIGHT NOW.

I DON'T THINK I SEE ANY OF THE MEMBERS IN THEIR CHAIRS.

THEY HAVE TAKEN A BREAK FOR VOTES.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS GOING TO GO ON.

WE ARE CERTAINLY EXPECTING THEM TO COME BACK THEY GOT A LONG WAY TO GO AT THIS POINT THERE'S ONLY BEEN QUESTIONING OF THE WITNESS, FORMER AMBASSADOR, U.S. AT AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH ONLY BEEN QUESTIONING BY THE DEMOCRATS.

DEMOCRATIC SIDE BRIEFLY BY CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF THEN BY THE DEMOCRATS COUNSEL, DANIEL GOLDMAN.

AND THAT WENT ON UP UNTIL ALMOST AN HOUR AGO AND WE WERE TOLD IT COULD BE A LONG BREAK THAT THEY'RE TAKING BUT WE KNOW THEY'RE COMING BACK.

REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE THEIR CHANCE TO QUESTION AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

AND THEN EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL HAVE SHORTER OPPORTUNITIES.

BUT EVERY MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO QUESTION HER.

LISA DESJARDINS, ARE YOU LEARNING ANYTHING ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE COMING BACK OR WHAT THE PLAN IS WHEN THEY DO COME BACK.

>> Reporter: LET ME SAY HOW EXCITED I AM TO EVER BE TALKING ABOUT THIS NERDY BIT OF PROCESS ON TELEVISION.

I NEVER GET TO TALK ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING.

SO HERE WE GO.

THEY ARE ON THE 6th OF 8 VOTES RIGHT NOW IN THE HOUSE.

AFTER THIS VOTE ENDS WHICH I BELIEVE IS IMMINENT, THEN THERE WILL BE TEN MINUTES OF DEBATE ON SOMETHING CALLED THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT WHICH IS GOING TO PROCEDURAL MOTION, USUALLY THE REPUBLICANS MINORITY USES IT.

THERE WILL BE TEN MINUTES OF DEBATE THEN TWO MORE FIVE-MINUTE VOTES.

THAT MEANS ABOUT 20 MINUTES TECHNICALLY ON THE CRUX FOR THE HOUSE TO VOTE STILL.

I JUST GOT CONFIRMATION FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THEY DO EXPECT TO RESUME THE HEARING VERY SHORTLY AFTER THAT LAST VOTE BEGINS.

SO THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE, 15 MINUTES WAS LAST VOTE BEGINS, QUESTION IS HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE ADAM SCHIFF AND HIS COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO WALK FROM THE CAPITOL OVER TO THE HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WON'T TAKE VERY LONG.

I THINK WE'RE ABOUT 15-20 MINUTES OUT.

I'M GUESSING IS WHAT I'M TOLD AND THIS VOTE SERIES FOR THE HOUSE IS THE LAST OF THE WEEK SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, MOST OF THESE MEMBERS ARE PREPARING TO GO HOME I THINK THERE ARE LITERALLY JUST AT REAGAN AIRPORT DOWN THE STREET.

THIS COMMITTEE HEARING SHOULD BE RESUMING IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES OR SO.

I ALSO WANTED TO TAG ON TO SOMETHING THAT ALL OF YOUR GUESTS AND YOU HAVE BEEN RAISING ABOUT THE CONCERN HERE OVER HOW GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN.

THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, MR. VINDMAN HAS RAISED HERE.

THIS ISN'T JUST A QUESTION FOR IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE WHILE IMPEACHMENT IS SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY DEMOCRATS ARE PURSUING AT THIS POINT, SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI, WHILE SHE BEGAN THIS INQUIRY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, I'VE BEEN TOLD AGAIN AND AGAIN, SHE SEES THE END GAME HERE NOT AS IMPEACHMENT, BUT NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION.

SO DEMOCRATS HERE ARE NOT ONLY BUILDING A CASE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BUT REALLY, JUDY, ALSO BUILDING A CASE THAT THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO SHOULD NOT BE IN OFFICE.

AND SHOULD NOT BE RE-ELECTED.

THEY ARE BUILDING A CASE THAT HE IS A POOR PERFORMING PRESIDENT WHO IS MAKING GOVERNMENT CHAOTIC WORKS IS RISKING U.S.

REPUTATION ABROAD WHO IS HARMING GOOD PUBLIC SERVANTS HERE DOMESTICALLY.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT WHATEVER HAPPENS IN IMPEACHMENT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, FOR SPEAKER PELOSI ALSO VERY MUCH ABOUT THE NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION.

>> Woodruff: AND SO IMPORTANT TO BE REMINDED OF THAT.

LISA GIVING US A SENSE THAT MAY BE ANOTHER 15-20 MINUTES AS THEY FINISH UP THE VOTES AT THE CAPITOL.

I WANT TO TURN BACK TO YOU, MICHAEL AND MIEKE, AS WE THINK ABOUT THESE WITNESSES WHO HAVE BEEN CALLED NOT ALL OF THEM CERTAINLY WHO THE COMMITTEE WANTED TO HEAR FROM, WILL WE HEAR FROM BUT GOING TO HEAR FROM A SIGNIFICANT ARRAY OF PEOPLE WHO TOUCH IN SOME WAY HOW THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DEALT WITH UKRAINE, RELATED TO THE UKRAINE, UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT THAT PHONE CALL, IT WAS MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

ARE WE GOING TO GET, I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHEN YOU THINK OF THE WITNESSES THAT WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT, MICHAEL ALLEN, ARE WE GOING TO GET A PRETTY FULL PICTURE, DO YOU THINK OF WHAT HAPPENED?

DO WE KNOW YET?

>> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET A PRETTY FULL PICTURE FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND NEXT WEEK AS WELL AS AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER.

HAVING BEEN CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER HAVING REVIEWED HIS TRANSCRIPT, I THINK HE WANTS TO COME IN AND TELL THE TRUTH AND GIVE AN ABSOLUTE FAITHFUL RENDITION OF THINGS THAT HE HEARD.

I THINK AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS NEW TO THIS PROCESS, I THINK HE REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED A HOT STOVE AND HAS GONE HIMSELF INTO A WORLD OF TROUBLE.

I THINK HE TRIED TO BE THE GUY WHO WAS GOING TO DELIVER THE MAIL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND GET THE QUID PRO QUO GOING, AS WE SAY.

GET THE STATEMENT FROM UKRAINIANS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN MATTERS AND THERE FOR MOVE THE UKRAINIAN-U.S.

RELATIONSHIP FORWARD.

AND THEN I THINK HE REALIZED THAT HE HAD BEEN CONFROM DISTRICT IN MANY KEY WAYS THAT'S WHAT HE AMENDED HIS TESTIMONY SO I THINK THAT WILL BE TWO WITNESSES NEXT WEEK WHO ARE MORE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO KNOCK ONE OF THE LEGS OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT THAT ALL OF THIS IS HEARSAY.

SO I THINK NEXT WEEK IS GOING TO BE A BIG WEEK AS THE HOUSE REPRESENTS TO GO OUT FOR THANKSGIVING.

>> Woodruff: HOW DO YOU LOOK ON NEXT WEEK?

>> I AGREE WITH THAT.

THIS WEEK THE ACTION HAS BEEN ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN UKRAINE, PEOPLE ON THE GROUND THERE.

THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CORRUPTION THAT WAS ENDEMIC IN THAT COUNTRY THEY THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO COMBAT THAT AND DO WHAT WAS CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTO.

NEXT WEEK WE MOVE TO WASHINGTON INTO THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF, INTO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT, PEOPLE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN THE ROOM AND ARE WITNESSING WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION IS AND HOW HE'S HANDLING THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THESE TWO DIFFERENT CHANNEL.

>> Woodruff: AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM SOME OF THOSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR FROM ALL AS WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING.

SOME OF THEM ARE SAYING I'M NOT GOING TO COME OR CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO COME.

>> MICK MULVANEY THE ACTING CHIEF OF STOP THE TOP OF THE LIST, PERSON WHO PROBABLY KNOWS THE MOST ABOUT THIS ON SATURDAY, THOUGH, IT APPEARS THAT WE MIGHT GET THE FIRST TESTIMONY FROM AN OFFICIAL IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AS REMINDER OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET IS LED BY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, SEEN TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT THROUGH HIM AND THROUGH THE OMB ORDERED THAT MILITARY AID TO BE DELAYED BY FEW MONTHS THAT'S OF COURSE ONE OF THE KEY QUESTIONS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE BUT MORE THAN THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WE'RE GOING TO SEE SPECIFICALLY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT.

AND THAT IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO EU AND TWO QUICK KEY MOMENTS FROM HIS TESTIMONY IS ONE, WHAT MICHAEL SAID, AMENDMENT TESTIMONY.

JUST REMINDER, HE AMENDED HIS TESTIMONY SO THAT ON SEPTEMBER 1st AFTER VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SAW ZELENSKY, SONDLAND PULL ONE OF THE AIDES ASIDE AND SAID, THERE IS NO MILITARY AID AND THERE IS NO MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT UNTIL THE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION, IS THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO ARE DONE.

VERY CLEAR THAT HE MADE THAT CLAIM ON SEPTEMBER THE 1st.

THEN WHAT WE LEARNED FROM BILL TAYLOR THAT BILL TAYLOR STAFF OVERHEARD HIM TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT AND EFFECTIVELY THE MESSAGE FROM THAT, THE PRESIDENT CARES MORE ABOUT THE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION OF 2016 AND BIDEN THAN UKRAINE.

>> Woodruff: AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AMENDED THAT TESTIMONY AFTER IT WAS RE-- AFTER TESTIMONY WAS RELEASED THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN IN PRIVATE BUT THAT WAS MADE PUBLIC AND FOR WHATEVER REASON HE FELT HE NEEDED TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT THAT CHANGE.

>> JUDY WHAT NICK IS SAYING ABOUT COMMUNICATION DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT IS IMPORTANT.

BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE DELIVERING THE ASK IN THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL TO THE UKRAINIAN.

THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING, THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING, TO GET THE AID RELEASED, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY SET THE CONTEXT FOR ALL THE PRESIDENT'S CALLS AND ACTUALLY SET THE TERMS OF THIS QUID PRO QUO.

>> Woodruff: I'M TOLD THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS B I'M TOLD TH HAS BEEN TWEETING A LITTLE MORE.

YAMICHE HAS THE LATEST.

WHAT DO WE KNOW?

>> THE PRESIDENT IS CONTINUING TO PUSH BACK ON AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S TEMPORARY.

I WANT TO READ YOU A TWEET.

HERE IT IS.

WE HAVE VACANCIES IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT OR NEED AS MANY PEOPLE AS PAST ADMINISTRATIONS AND SAVE GREAT COSTS.

THE DEMOCRATS DELAY THE APPROVAL PROCESS TO LEVELS UNPRECEDENTED.

WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS SAYING MORALE IS NOT LOW.

THE REASON WE HAVE VACANCIES IS ARE THE BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS SLOW IT DOWN.

THE DEMOCRATS SAY THIS IS A PRESIDENT THAT IS ATTACKING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE A WITNESS AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING HE'S DOING THE BEST HE CAN AND IT'S THE AGENCIES THAT ARE THE PROBLEM HERE.

I THINK THAT IS REMARKABLE.

IT'S REMARKABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT SEEN A PRESIDENT TREAT PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS IN THIS WAY.

YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT RETWEETED VIDEO OF REPUBLICANS ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

THE PRESIDENT'S ACCOUNT HAS 60 MILLION PEOPLE FOLLOWING IT.

HE'S SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO HIS FOLLOWERS TO SAY I HAVE A CASE I WANT TO MAKE AND I'M GOING TO MAKE IT IN REAL TIME BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF EYES WATCHING THESE HEARINGS.

>> YAMICHE, GOOD TO HAVE YOU WATCHING THAT.

WE'RE TRYING TO MONITOR, KEEP AN EYE ON THE TESTIMONY THIS MORNING AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE PUT IT IN CONTEXT, THINK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT WEEK.

YOU CAN TELL US WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING THROUGHOUT OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GULIANI.

KEY ROLE IN THIS.

A FEW DAYS AGO, YAMICHE PULLED TOGETHER THIS LOOK AT GULIANI'S BACKGROUND, HOW HE CAME TO PLAY THE ROLE HE THE.

YAMICHE WENT -- SHE BECAMELY REPORTS ON HOW HE WENT FROM BEING NEW YORK CITY'S MAYOR TO A CENTRAL FIGURE IN THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

>> THE ATTACK ON SEPTEMBER 1 11,2001, THRUST RUDY GULIANI ON THE >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, RUDY GULIANI!

>> I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THE GROUND.

>> FOR A CITY IN CRISIS, GULIANI, THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK, WAS SEEN AS A STEADY LEADER.

HE RALLIED THOSE IN GRIEF.

PRIOR TO 9-11, GULIANI WAS A POLARIZING FIGURE.

>> I SPEAK MY MIND.

IT WAS THAT WAY YESTERDAY AND THE SAME TOMORROW.

>> PRESENT AS A TOUGH ON CRIME MAYOR THAT WOULD CLEAN UP THE CITY.

>> GOING TO STOP AND END UNTIL WE CHANGE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING NEW YORK CITY.

>> UNDER HIS TENURE, NEW YORK USHERED IN CONTROVERSIAL POLICING ACC TICKS.

A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED THE TACTICS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BEFORE HE WAS MAYOR, GULIANI MADE A NAME FOR HIMSELF AS ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S MOST POWERFUL PROSECUTORS.

>> DEALING WITH A TRUE CRIME EMPIRE.

>> EARLY IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, HE WAS THE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE THIRD HIGHEST IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THEN HE BECAME U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN MANHATTAN.

HE WAS KNOWN FOR GOING AFTER CORRUPTION AND ORGANIZED CRIME.

>> 12 BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AIDED AN ABETTED WIRE FRAUD.

>> ANDREA BERNSTEIN FROM WNC COVERED GULIANI FOR DECADES.

>> HE PUT THE FAMILIES THAT RAN THE NATIONAL MAFIA IN PERSON.

HE SENT CORRUPT POLITICAL FIGURES TO PRISON, INCLUDING ROY COHEN WHO PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFERRED TO THE LAWYER NOBODY ELSE COULD MATCH.

HE WENT AFTER WALL STREET TRADERS.

>> IN NEW YORK, GULIANI WAS A BIG NAME.

SO WAS TRUMP.

THE TWO RAN IN SIMILAR CIRCLES.

>> THEY'RE OF A CERTAIN ERA.

THEY BOTH HAVE REALLY MADE THEIR BONES BY SELLING THEIR BRAND.

IN TRUMP'S CASE, GLITZ AND SUCCESS.

IN RUDY GULIANI'S CASE, LAW AND ORDER.

WHEN RUDY RAN FOR MAYOR, TRUMP WAS A MAYOR FINANCIAL BACKER AND THE GULIANI ADMINISTRATION HELPED TRUMP'S BUSINESS PROJECTS.

THEY STRUCK UP A FRIENDSHIP, A CHEMISTRY, WHICH HAS LASTED ALL THE WAY TO THE PRESENT.

>> IN THE YEAR 2000, THE TWO APPEARED TOGETHER IN A COMEDY SKETCH FOR A PRESS DINNER.

>> YOU DIRTY BOY.

DONALD, I THOUGHT YOU WERE A GENTLEMAN.

>> IN 2007 GULIANI RAN FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT.

FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, HE WAS THE FRONTRUNNER BUT DROPPED OUT AFTER THE FLORIDA PRIMARY WITHOUT SECURING A SINGLE DELEGATE.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK, YOUR SPIRIT AND YOUR SUPPORT.

>> IN 2016, GULIANI WAS AN EARLY SUPPORTER OF CANDIDATE TRUMP.

>> WHAT I DID FOR NEW YORK, DONALD TRUMP WILL DO FOR AMERICA.

>> WHEN ROBERT MUELLER STARTED INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TURNED TO GULIANI TO BE ONE OF HIS PERSONAL LAWYERS.

GULIANI TOOK HIS DEFENSE TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION ON TV.

>> THE PRESIDENT DID NOT -- >> NOBODY HAD ANY CONTACT -- >> NOBODY -- >> NOW GULIANI FINDS HIMSELF AT THE CENTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> YOU DID ASK UKRAINE TO LOOK TO JOE BIDEN.

>> OF COURSE I DID.

>> IN CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITIONS A PARADE OF WITNESSES SAID GULIANI PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN SHAPING U.S. POLICY TO UKRAINE TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP POLITICALLY.

THE INITIAL WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT THAT PARKED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY STATES THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GULIANI, THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THIS EFFORT.

THE TOP U.S. DIP PILLOW MATE SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT GULIANI'S ACTIONS.

HE SAID THAT GULIANI WAS LEADING AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL OF U.S. POLICY MAKING WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE.

FOR GULIANI, HIS WORK ABROAD HAS BEEN MET WITH LEGAL SCRUTINY.

IN 2001, GULIANI LAUNCHED A LUCRATIVE CONSULTING FIRM.

HIS CLIENTS WERE ALL OVER THE WORLD.

>> BY THE TIME HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2007, HIS DISCLOSURE FORM SHOWED THAT HE HAD GONE FROM HAVING ABOUT LESS THAN $5 MILLION IN ASSETS WHEN HE LEFT CITY HALL TO ABOUT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 20 AND 50 MILLION IN ASSETS.

MUCH OF THAT HAD COME THROUGH THESE FOREIGN BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS.

>> A LOT OF THAT WORK IS MYSTERIOUS.

FOR EXAMPLE, HIS WORK IN TURKEY AND WITH AN IRANIAN DISSIDENT GROUP MAY HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.

>> RUDY GULIANI IS GOING ON A FISHING TRIP IN UKRAINE.

>> UKRAINE IS AT THE HEART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRELY AND COULD BE PART OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO GULIANI.

>> A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TO RUDY GULIANI.

>> JOINING US FROM NEW YORK, RUDY GULIANI.

>> GULIANI MADE HIS FIRST TRIP TO UKRAINE IN 2003.

THAT BEGAN A DECADE OF CONSULTING AND PUBLICITY TRIPS TO THE COUNTRY.

>> PEOPLE IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD SEE HIM AS A CONDUIT TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

HE BEGAN WORKING IN UKRAINE FOR THE MAYORS OF VARIOUS CITIES, THE MAYOR OF KIEV.

HE BEGAN MAKING TRIPS THERE.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THESE TRIPS INVOLVED REAL CONSULTING WORK.

MAYBE A SPEECH.

CERTAINLY APPEARANCES.

>> DURING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, GULIANI RAMPED UP HIS TRIPS TO UKRAINE.

HE SOUGHT TO DIG UP DIRT ON HIS POLITICAL RIVALS THERE.

TO DO SO, HE TURNED TO TWO ASSOCIATES.

>> THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF BUSINESSES BUT NO REAL TRACK RECORD IN AMERICAN POLITICS BEGAN TO GET VERY, VERY CLOSE AND TO MAKE VERY GENEROUS DONATIONS TO TRUMP'S POLITICAL CAUSES.

WHAT WAS UNUSUAL ABOUT THIS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BUSINESS PROFILE AND YET THEY WERE MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS RUNNING UP TO THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CAUSES.

>> GULIANI DISPATCHED THE TWO TO KIEV, THE CAPITAL CITY OF UKRAINE.

THEY WERE TO UNCOVER INFORMATION TO UNDERMINE THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER'S FINDINGS THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

IN THEIR EFFORTS, THE TWO CONNECTED GULIANI WITH THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL AT THE TIME.

>> LUSENKO IS SOMEBODY THAT AT ONE POINT IN THE PAST YEAR SAID THAT HE HAD INFORMATION THAT COULD BE DAMAGING TO THE BIDENS AND WAS WORKING CLOSELY WITH RUDY GULIANI IN HIS EFFORT TO, AS GULIANI SAW IT, EXPOSE SOME MALFEASANCE BY THE BIDEN FAMILY.

>> GULIANI'S MEETING WITH THE UKRAINIIAN THREAD ARE AN IMPORTANT FOR THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

>> THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPT BEHAVIOR, DELIBERATE LAW BREAKING.

>> THE TWO HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR ALLEGEDLY ILLEGALLY FUNNELING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO GET THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE REMOVED FROM HER POST AMONG OTHER CHARGES.

>> MY KNOWLEDGE IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF THIS YEAR ABOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT OF MR. GULIANI WAS IN CONNECTION WITH A CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

>> THAT WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA, DEPUTY ZAKIM OF STATE JOHN SULLIVAN.

IN HIS PUBLIC CONFIRMATION LAST MONTH.

AS THESE QUESTIONS SWIRL, GULIANI HAS BEEN NOTICEABLY ABSENT FROM HIS ONCE FREQUENT TV APPEARANCES.

HE'S BEEN SUBPOENAED BY THE U.S. HOUSE.

SO FAR HE'S REFUSING TO COMPLY.

FOR THE PBS NEWS HOUR, I'M YAMICHE ALCINDOR.

>> YAMICHE DID THIS IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THE HEARINGS.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

WE FOLLOW THE SECOND DAY OF LIVE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

WE DO HAVE NEWS WE WANT TO SHARE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM AT THE U.S. CAPITOL.

RIGHT NOW VERY FEW, IF ANY, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE THERE, DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THERE'S VOTES UNDERWAY ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.

WE'RE TOLD THEY'LL BE BACK IN MINUTES.

THEY'VE BEEN AWAY OVER AN HOUR AND WE'RE WATCHING CLOSELY FOR WHEN THEY COME BACK.

MEANTIME, THERE'S BEEN SOME NEWS IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES THAT WE'VE LEARNED THE JURY THAT WAS CONSIDERING CHARGES AGAINST LONG-TIME REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT ROGER STONE, SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO HAS BEEN A LONG-TIME ADVISER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, ROGER STONE WAS CHARGED WITH WITNESS TAMPERING, WITH LYING TO INVESTIGATORS AMONG OTHER CHARGES AND THE JURY HAS JUST COME BACK IN A FEDERAL COURT IN WASHINGTON AND FOUND ROGER STONE GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES.

YAMICHE IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

YAMICHE, WHAT MORE DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT THESE CHARGES WERE AGAINST ROGER STONE?

>> ROGER STONE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF WITNESS TAMPERING AND LYING TO CONGRESS AMONG OTHER CHARGES, THIS IS IN AMONG HIS CONTACTS WITH WIKILEAKS.

THIS WAS PART OF HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BID.

THIS IS AT LEAST THE THIRD PERSON WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT IS HEADING TO JAIL.

THERE'S TWO PEOPLE SERVING TIME.

ONE IS PAUL MANAFORT, THE CHAIRMAN OF HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BID.

ALSO HAVE MICHAEL COHEN, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

BOTH ARE IN CUSTODY AND SERVING TIME AS WE SPEAK.

SO NOW ROGER STONE, IF HE'S SENTENCED TO ACTUAL TIME, WHICH FROM MY UNDERSTANDING HE'S FACING 50 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON, HE WOULD BE ANOTHER PERSON THAT WOULD BE CONNECTED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT WOULD GO.

THIS TRIAL TOOK ABOUT LESS THAN TWO WEEKS.

THIS IS ALSO CONNECTED TO ROBERT MUELLER'S WORK WHEN HE WAS SPECIAL COUNSEL LOOKING INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

THIS IS A BIG VERDICT AND SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> AGAIN AS YAMICHE SAID, THE CHARGES GREW OUT OF THE FINDINGS OF ROBERT MUELLER.

MAINLY KNOWN FOR THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.

I'M HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUE, NICK SCHIFRIN, MICHAEL ALLEN AND MIEKE EOYANG.

NICK, BRING US BACK TO WIKILEAKS.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH COME UP IN THE TESTIMONY WE'VE BEEN HEARING TODAY AND WEDNESDAY BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BUT IT'S VERY MUCH A PART OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY.

REMIND US WHY ROGER STONE IS IN TROUBLE.

>> ROGER STONE WAS INDICTED ON LYING TO LAWMAKERS ABOUT WIKILEAKS AND OBSTRUCTING A HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PROBE, THE SAME HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WE'RE WATCHING TODAY AND THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY THE INVESTIGATION IF THERE WAS ANY KIND OF COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2016 AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

THE MEDIATOR IN THAT COORDINATION THAT ROBERT MUELLER LOOKED INTO, ONE OF THE MEDIATORS IS WIKILEAKS.

SO HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN WAS HACKED.

HACKED BY ACTORS INSIDE OF RUSSIA'S MILITARY INTELLIGENCE.

THAT HACKING WAS DESIGNED TO GET DIRT ON HILLARY CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS.

HOW DO YOU DISTRIBUTE THAT DIRT?

THE RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE ACCORDING TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT USED WIKILEAKS AND A COUPLE OF OTHER OUTLETS AS A WAY TO DISTRIBUTE THAT DIRT.

ROGER STONE IS IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE HE WAS COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH WIKI LIKES.

THERE'S THE QUESTION IF HE WAS GETTING SECONDHAND INFORMATION OR REGARDLESS, HE WAS TRYING TO GET INFORMATION BEFORE WIKILEAKS DUMPS THESE E-MAILS.

THAT'S THE QUESTION, WAS HE COORDINATING WITH WIKILEAKS OR DID HE TELL CANDIDATE TRUMP, HEY, THIS IS COMING AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC DATES THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE LOOKING AT WHAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS DOING AND SAID THE PRESIDENT -- CANDIDATE TRUMP SAID SOMETHING LIKE HEY, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A DUMP.

SOME HINTS ABOUT HIS KNOWING FORE SOME OF THESE E-MAILS WERE RELEASED BEFORE THEY WERE RELEASED.

ROGER STONE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT AND BEEN CONVICTED OF LYING TO LAWMAKERS ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT AND WHETHER HE TRIED TO OBSTRUCT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PROBE.

BY THE WAY, HE TAMPERED WITH WITNESSES BY APPARENTLY INTIMIDATING ONE OF THEM BY THREATENING TO TAKE HIS DOG.

>> SOME STRANGE TRAILS THAT WE FOLLOW HERE.

REMINDING EVERYBODY WHAT WIKILEAKS IS.

WE ALL REFER TO IT ALL THE TIME AS AN ENTITY THAT CAME TO BEING SOME YEARS AGO PROFESSING TO BE PART OF JOURNALISM.

THEY WERE ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.

THEY WERE -- THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS LEAKED THAT WAS FROM CONFIDENTIAL DIPLOMATIC CABLES.

MICHAEL ALLEN AND MEIKE, THIS WAS A SUBJECT OF GREAT CONTROVERSY WHETHER WIKILEAKS WAS IN THE GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY, GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OR NOT.

THERE WAS A HUGE DEBATE ABOUT THAT FOR YEARS.

>> WELL, THE DEBATE IS OVER NOW.

QUESTION HAVE DISCOVERED SINCE 2016 THAT THEY WERE A MOUTHPIECE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY THOUGHT THEY WERE ESPECIALLY CONDEMNABLE FOR THE WAY THAT THEY PUT OUT SO MANY DIFFERENT CABLES THAT REVEALED THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS EVEN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY HAD WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS THAT LATER GOT THOSE HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS IN TROUBLE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

SO I THINK WE REVEALED ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT WIKILEAKS IS A BAD ORGANIZATION.

>> WIKILEAKS IS ALSO THE PRECURSOR OVER A LOT OF THE FIGHTS OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS HAPPENING NOW.

THE PERSON THAT GAVE THE CABLES TO WIKILEAKS, THEN CHELSEA MANNING SHE'S KNOWN NOW PROVIDED THAT HUGE CACHE OF INFORMATION AND WAS CONVICTED FOR LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WENT TO JAIL FOR THAT.

BUT PEOPLE DID FEEL LIKE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION HAD PUBLIC INTEREST OR VALUE.

SO AT THE END OF HIS TERM, PRESIDENT OBAMA COMMUTED MANNING'S SENTENCE TO TIME SERVED IN RECOGNITION THAT YES, THIS WAS A CRIME.

SO THERE WAS SOME FORGIVENESS THERE.

BUT THE SENSE -- THEY HAD TO LEAK THE INFORMATION INSTEAD OF TAKING IT TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES.

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES WERE NOT SEEN AS A PLACE FAVORABLE OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS.

NOW SOME PARTS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT WHISTLE-BLOWER IDENTITIES.

>> AND AGAIN, NICK, BY THIS VERDICT ROGER STONE -- IT CALLS INTO SUSPICION EVERYTHING THAT ROGER STONE WAS DOING.

HE WAS WORKING FOR THE PRESIDENT, HE WAS WORKING TO HELP HIS CAMPAIGN IN 2015 AND EARLIER.

HE WAS ADVISING HIM SINCE THE 80s.

THEY'VE NONE EACH OTHER FOR DECADES.

HE WAS ADVISING THE PRESIDENT AND TO THE EXTENT THAT HE BECAME, AS YOU SAID, THE GO-BETWEEN AND USING WIKILEAKS TO GET THESE E-MAILS PUBLISHED.

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO RELITIGATE ROBERT MUELLER'S 400 PAGES.

THIS WON'T OVERTURN THAT.

MUCH OF WHAT WAS REDACTED IN ROBERT MUELLER'S TWO VOLUMES HAD TO DO WITH THIS CASE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE DETAILS THAT WE DIDN'T SEE IN THE MUELLER DOCUMENTS THANKS TO THIS CASE BEING CLOSED AND AS WE CONTINUE TO READ THIS, WE'LL UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT CANDIDATE TRUMP DID OR DID NOT KNOW, WHAT WAS COMING, WAS THERE COORDINATION VIA ROGER STONE OR NOT ABOUT THE RELEASE OF THESE E-MAILS.

AGAIN, NO ONE IS ACCUSING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF HAVING ANY PART IN THE HACKING OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF IT.

THIS IS A QUESTION OF -- >> THAT WAS DONE BY OTHERS.

>> THAT WAS DONE BY RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE ACCORDING TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO DENIGRATE HILLARY CLINTON AND HELP GET TRUMP ELECTED.

NOW THE QUESTION WAS WAS THERE ANY COORDINATION, WAS THERE ANY COOPERATION.

ROBERT MUELLER SAID WELL, I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THERE WAS.

HE DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT ON THAT.

>> HE DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT.

BUT THIS ALL COMES BACK TO MICHAEL ALLEN WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

THE PRESIDENT TRYING VERY MUCH TO SAY IT WASN'T RUSSIA THAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON.

IT WAS UKRAINE BECAUSE UKRAINE WAS TRYING TO UNDERMINE MY CAMPAIGN.

THAT COMES BACK TO THE INDIVIDUALS YOU MENTIONED.

THERE'S ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS IN KIEV, THE CAPITOL OF UKRAINE, AND UPON WHICH MANY OF THE REPUBLICANS ARE HANGING THEIR THESIS ON.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE'S BEEN REPORTING AND NOT JUST WHAT PEOPLE CALL SORT OF CONSERVATIVE OUTLETS THAT SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THERE WERE DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVES IN UKRAINE, IN KIEV IN 2016 TRYING TO SEE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OR THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP HAD INTERESTS THERE AND CERTAINLY MANAFORT DID.

SOUNDED LIKE, OF COURSE, THAT MANAFORT GOT WHAT HE DESERVED.

THERE WAS A LEVEL OF CORRUPTION THERE.

BUT SOME REPUBLICANS DO WONDER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED OVER THERE.

>> AND LISA IS AT THE CAPITOL.

YOU'VE BEEN REPORTING ON THIS FOR MANY MONTHS.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, ANYBODY CONNECTED TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WERE DOING OR WERE EVEN IN UKRAINE IN 2016.

>> WELL, I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB EXPLAINING THAT.

THERE'S ONE DNC STAFFER THAT REPORTEDLY DID RESEARCH IN TO PAUL MANAFORT AND DID CONTACT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HERE IN WASHINGTON AT LEAST ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND AND THAT'S SOMEONE THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD A LOT FROM.

SO IT'S MURKY ON ALL SIDES.

SO TO NICK'S POINT THAT WE CAN'T RELITIGATE THE MUELLER REPORT EXCEPT DEMOCRATS DO STILL CONSIDER MATERIAL IN THE MUELLER REPORT AS VERY VIABLE AND VERY POSSIBLE TO BE INCLUDED IN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD THEY MOVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY BELIEVE THAT WHAT MUELLER HAD TO SAY ABOUT OBSTRUCTION WITH THE PRESIDENT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AND THIS ROGER STONE VERDICT TODAY IS A HUGE DEAL TO DEMOCRATS ON THE HILL.

FOR THAT REASON, FOR ONE, IT EMBOLDENS THEM TO SAY SOMETHING IMPROPER GOING ON HERE AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN IMPEACH ON OR SHOULD.

SECOND OF ALL, THE FACT THAT IT HAS TO DO WITH LYING TO THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY IS SOMETHING THAT ADDS TO THE LEVERAGE THAT THEY HAVE WITH WITNESSES NOW.

IT'S ONE REASON THAT YOU SEE SO MANY WITNESSES COMING HERE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR OTHERS NOT TO.

IT REALLY ADDS TO THEIR SENSE OF MUSCLE AND THE DEMOCRATS SENSE THAT THEY'VE BEEN WINNING IN THE PROCESS FIGHT IN COURTS ON THIS.

I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO FEEL VERY HAPPY ABOUT THIS VERDICT, DEMOCRATS AT LEAST.

>> NO QUESTION THAT THE TIMING OF THIS SEEMS TO WORK IN FAVOR OF THE DEMOCRATS.

THE FACT THAT ROGER STONE VERY CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT FOR A LONG TIME HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY ON SEVERAL COUNTS.

AGAIN, LISA, YOU JUST REFERENCED THIS.

RIGHT NOW THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS FOCUSED NARROWLY, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, ON THE UKRAINE PIECE OF THE STORY.

NOT JUST THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, BUT ALL THE -- ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WENT INTO THE EFFORTS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN, TO INVESTIGATE HIS SON, HUNTER BIDEN, TO INVESTIGATE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN 2016 THAT MIGHT HAVE BENEFITTED THE DEMOCRATS AND HURT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AS YOU POINT OUT, THERE WAS AN OPTION EARLIER FOR THIS INQUIRY TO BE MUCH BROADER, TO LOOK INTO RUSSIA, THE RUSSIA ANGLE.

AND AS YOU SAID, SPEAKER PELOSI HAS NOT RULED THAT OUT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY HAVE NEVER TAKEN THAT OFF THE TABLE.

THERE'S MANY INVESTIGATIONS THAT COULD BE PART OF IMPEACHMENT EFFORTS.

OF THOSE AFTER THE UKRAINE QUESTION THE NEXT ONE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING ADDING TO IMPEACHMENT ARE THESE QUESTIONS COMING OUT OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

OTHER INVESTIGATIONS HAVING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S HOTEL OWNERSHIP, THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEADING ALL THIS UP.

SO THAT'S WHY WE DON'T HEAR AS MUCH ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS ABOUT FINANCIAL DEALINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT ADD UP TO SOMETHING, THE SO-CALLED EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE WHERE THE PRESIDENT RECEIVING BENEFITS WHILE IN OFFICE.

AND YAMICHE, ARE YOU -- THERE YOU ARE.

WHAT HAS THE WHITE HOUSE SAID ABOUT THE FACT THAT WHAT WAS POTENTIALLY A BROADER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN NARROWLY FOCUSED ON UKRAINE?

>> THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN MAKING THE CASE THIS IS MUELLER PART 2.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE AFTER THE PRESIDENT, ANGRY THAT HE WAS ELECTED IN 2016, SO THEY WANT TO GO AFTER THE PRESIDENT.

THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION IS AN EXTENSION OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

DEMOCRATS SAY IT'S DIFFERENT.

THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETELY.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS, I'VE BEEN TALKING TO A LOT OF SOURCES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.

DEMOCRATS TELL ME THAT THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON THE 25 WORDS.

THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL GAIN.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY.

THERE'S THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONY, HOURS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

DEMOCRATS WANT TO MAKE THAT CASE.

SO I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF DEMOCRATS ROLL IN OTHER THINGS.

THEY'LL MENTION OTHER THINGS.

THE CASE THEY WANT TO MAKE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHICH HASN'T BEEN TUNED TO ALL OF THE THINGS HAPPENING IS JUST THAT, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO GET DIRT ON JOE BIDEN SO THAT HE COULD WIN THE 2020 ELECTION AND TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO MEDDLE AND INTERFERE IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN, FORMER STAFF DIRECTOR FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

YOU WANT TO WEIGH-IN HERE.

>> I THINK YAMICHE IS ON TO SOMETHING.

THE IMMEDIATE REACTION TO THIS IS OH, THIS IS GREAT FOR DEMOCRATS BECAUSE IT SHOWS MORE ASSOCIATES OF THE PRESIDENT WERE CORRUPT.

MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING TO THIS.

I WONDER WHETHER SPEAKER PELOSI THINKS THIS IS IN HER BEST INTEREST.

WHAT DO WE KNOW SO FAR?

THE CORRECT EXAMINATION OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS THAT INDEPENDENTS THINK THIS IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS, THEY'RE FRUSTRATED THAT THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET BACK TO KITCHEN TABLE ISSUES.

NANCY PELOSI CONSTRUCTED AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS SHE BELIEVES SHE HAD TO.

HER CAUCUS BELIEVES SHE HAD TO.

BUT IT WAS TO FOCUS JUST ON WHAT YAMICHE SAID, A VERY NARROW SLICE OF WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID WRONG AND TO GET THAT ESTABLISHED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE THROUGH SOME HEARINGS AND UP AND OFF THE FLOOR.

AT ONCE IT WAS BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

NOW WE KNOW IT WILL BE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

TO MOVE IT OUT OF THE WAY SO THAT IN THE ELECTION YEAR OF 2020, THEY CAN TALK ABOUT KITCHEN TABLE ISSUES.

TO ME THIS STARTS TO CONFUSE RUSSIAN AND UKRAINE AND EVERYTHING BACK AGAIN.

THOSE OF US -- >> THE STONE VERDICT.

>> THE STONE VERDICT BRINGS THE RUSSIA THING BACK IN.

A LOT OF CRITICS OF THE PRESIDENT THAT WILL SAY SEE, I TOLD YOU SO.

I WONDER IF IT CLOUDS THE CASE.

>> YAMICHE?

>> IT'S CLEAR THAT RUSSIA IS IN THE UKRAINE PROBLEM.

WE'VE SEEN CONVERSATIONS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT PUTIN.

IT'S IN RUSSIA'S INTEREST TO TRY TO SEPARATE THE UNITED STATES AND THE UKRAINE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

THREE TRYING TO DENIGRATE UKRAINE, TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT UKRAINE TO GET OUT FROM UNDER THIS OCCUPATION.

THERE'S LINKS TO UNDERSTAND HERE.

BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE THESE LINGERING ISSUES AND WE TALK ABOUT THE MUELLER ISSUES.

I THINK SPEAKER PELOSI HAS MANY, MANY CASES THAT SHE COULD BRING AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT AND IS TRYING TO FOCUS ON ONES THAT ARE ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY HERE.

I DO THINK THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO NAVIGATE THIS A BIT.

>> THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE QUITE A POINT OF REFERRING BACK TO WHAT SPEAKER PELOSI SAID, NICK.

IF WE GO AHEAD WITH IMPEACHMENT, IT NEEDS TO BE COMPELLING, AND IT NEEDS TO BE BIPARTISAN.

RIGHT NOW THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING OF COURSE IT'S NEITHER.

THEY'RE POINTING OUT THAT IT'S NOT BIPARTISAN AT THIS POINT.

NONE OF THE REPUBLICANS VOTED TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS INQUIRY.

IN FACT, TWO DEMOCRATS WHO HAPPEN TO BE IN VERY SWING DISTRICTS, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE WELL, REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE WELL IN THE PAST, VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS AGAINST THIS INQUIRY.

>> RIGHT.

THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE TO KEEP THIS NARROW, TO KEEP THIS POINTED AS PERHAPS THE BETTER WORD, WHAT MICHAEL IS TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT YAMICHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

BUT THERE IS AN ASPECT OF RUSSIA TO THIS STORY, THAT EVEN IF WE ARE POINTED ON UKRAINE AND THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ON THAT, THE BASIS OF THE REASON WHY UKRAINE POLICY IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT RUSSIA HAAS BEEN TRYING TO DO IN UKRAINE SINCE 2014 AND WHY UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA.

RUSSIA INVADED CRIMEA AND ANNEXED CRIMEA.

RUSSIAN SOLDIERS HELP INVADE EASTERN UKRAINE AND CREATING A FROZEN LINE, THAT BY THE WAY, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT SAID, FOR YEARS SO THAT UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T BE WHOLE.

THEY'D BE TOO DISTRACTED, NOT BE ABLE TO ONE, TAKE THE REFORMS ON CORRUPTION AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THE WEST, THAT NATO, THE EUROPEAN UNION IS ASKING THEM TO TAKE AND THAT SIMPLY THE GOVERNMENT IN KIEV WOULD BE DISTRACTED.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COALESCE THEIR OWN COUNTRY, WHICH IS IN SOME WAYS DIVIDED -- I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT, BUT MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE COMPETING INTERESTS IN UKRAINE VERSUS THE EAST VERSUS THE WEST.

SO WHAT RUSSIA HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARDS UKRAINE TRYING TO END THE WAR IN THE EAST, FIX CORRUPTION AND VLADIMIR PUTIN HAS THE DESIRE AND INTEREST FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND TO KEEP THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT BY KEEPING THEM OFF BALANCE.

>> IT SO IMPORTANT TO KEEP THIS IN CONTEXT.

FRANKLY, UKRAINE WAS FOREFRONT IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

CERTAINLY WHEN RUSSIA CAME IN AND EFFECT ANNEXED CRIMEA.

THERE WAS A STANDOFF BETWEEN THE U.S. AND RUSSIA OVER THAT.

IN THE END, PRESIDENT OBAMA DECIDED TO GO ASSERT -- TOOK A CERTAIN NUMBER OF STEPS TO SUPPORT UKRAINE BUT DIDN'T GO ALL THE WAY.

IN THE END, HE WAS NOT PROVIDING WEAPONRY -- >> LETHAL WEAPONRY.

>> OFFENSIVE WEAPONRY TO YOU CRANE.

THAT IS A POINT THAT REPUBLICANS MAKE.

THEY SAY WE UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE DOING MORE TO COME TO UKRAINE'S DEFENSE THAN WAS THE CASE DURING PRESIDENT OBAMA.

SO EACH SIDE HAS ARGUMENTS TO MAKE.

WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE FACT THAT WHAT -- IN TERMS OF WHAT RUSSIA'S POSITION IS IN ALL OF THIS, THAT UKRAINE DOESN'T STAND ALONE.

IT'S JUST SOME COUNTRY IN EASTERN EUROPE.

WE'RE BACK ON THE HEARING ROOM NOW.

WE CAN SEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF SETTLING IN HIS SEAT.

THE RANKING REPUBLICAN, DEVIN NUNES WAS IN HIS SEAT.

IT'S NOW THE TURN OF REPUBLICANS TO BEGIN TO QUESTION THE WITNESS, FORMER AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT.

THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN OUT OF SESSION, THEY'VE BEEN TAKING A BREAK FOR ABOUT 1 1/2 HOURS.

SO WE EXPECT THIS WILL START ANY MINUTE NOW.

MIEKE, REMIND US WHY THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROCESS FOR THEM TO BE OUT IN THE OPEN, TAKING A PUBLIC STEP IN THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

>> SO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS ONE OF THE FEW SELECT COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS.

IT MEANS THE LEADERSHIP ON EITHER SIDE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO DECIDES WHO THE MEMBERS ARE AND THEY CAN CHANGE THEM OUT AS WE'VE SEEN WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF JIM JORDAN ON THIS COMMITTEE.

THE COMMITTEE'S BUSINESS IS ABOUT THE SOURCES AND METHODS OF THE COMMITTEE.

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES, HOW DO WE COLLECT THAT INFORMATION, WHAT ARE THE SECRET PROGRAMS THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS OUT THERE.

ALL OF THAT HAS TO HAPPEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

ALL OF THAT HAPPENS CURRENTLY IN THEIR HEARING ROOMS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL.

IT'S VERY SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN, IT'S INTERESTING, THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL IS -- IN TRUTH, IT'S THE HEARING ROOM NOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT'S A SOUND PROOF COCOON IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL WHERE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ARE NOT ABLE TO EAVESDROP OR TAP INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS THERE.

SO YES, IT'S BY DESIGN.

>> THAT'S WHERE THE COMMITTEE DOES IT WORK.

THE REPUBLICANS MADE IT OUT TO BE A NEFARIOUS VENTURE THAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE UNDERTAKING.

WE REMEMBER THE DAY WHEN SOME REPUBLICAN MEMBERS STORMED THE COMMITTEE ROOM AND SAYING WE NEED TO BE HERE, WE NEED TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS.

THERE WERE REPUBLICANS WHO WERE THERE.

BUT THERE WAS STILL THE STORM EPISODE.

>> AND THEY STORMED PAST THE BARRIER OUT FRONT WITH THEIR PHONES.

TO MICHAEL'S POINT, IT'S A SKIFF, A SECURE INFORMATION FACILITY.

THIS IS DESIGNED NOT ONLY TO KEEP FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE OUT, BUT DESIGNED TO KEEP ANY ELECTRONICS OUT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE WOULD MONITOR THAT.

SO THAT MOMENT WAS POINTED OUT THAT REPUBLICANS WHO KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING THEIR CELL PHONES IN BECAUSE OF HOW SECURE IT IS, THEY BROUGHT THEIR PHONES IN THERE.

>> THE REPUBLICANS WERE VERY CRITICAL OF THE PRIVATE HEARINGS.

NOW THEY'RE IN PUBLIC, THEY HAVE THEIR CHANCE.

>> NOW IT'S A CHANCE TO SEE IF THE REPUBLICANS CAN GET BACK ON TRACK AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET.

HEY, THE PRESIDENT HAD A RIGHT TO FIRE THE AMBASSADOR.

SO WHAT?

HE FIRED HER.

HE LOST CONFIDENCE IN HER.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING.

THEY TRY TO GET BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE YESTERDAY, WHICH IS LISTEN.

THERE'S A LOT OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

BARISMA IS ONE OF THE PILLARS OF CORRUPTION IN THAT PARTICULAR PLACE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON WAS ON AN ADVISORY BOARD.

THEREFORE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE MADE INQUIRIES OR ASKED THE UKRAINIANS TO DO SOME SORT OF INVESTIGATION.

THAT'S AT THE HEART OF EVERYTHING.

I THINK THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO MINIMIZE IT SO WE'LL SEE IF THEY CAN GET BACK ON TRACK THIS AFTERNOON.

>> THE WITNESS IS THE FORMER U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

SHE WAS RELIEVED OF HER POSITION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO DIDN'T WANT HER TO CONTINUE TO SERVE.

LOOKS AS IF THE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF IS ABOUT TO GAVEL THE COMMITTEE BACK IN SESSION NOW THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE IN THEIR PLACE.

WE CAN SEE -- LET'S LISTEN.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

IT APPEARS THAT COUNSEL FOR THE WITNESSES HAS PAPER COPIES OF THE SLIDES USED DURING THE QUESTION.

IF THAT IS TRUE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU AND YOU REMEMBER TEAM HAS BEEN IN COORDINATION WITH MIM AND/OR HER WITH RESPECT TO HER TESTIMONY THIS MORNING?

IF THAT'S TRUE, HOW DOES THAT COMPORT WITH H REV 660 AND -- >> THE GENTLEMAN, THE TV FOR THE WITNESS WASN'T WORKING SO THEY WERE GIVEN COPIES THIS MORNING.

IT'S 45 MINUTES TO RANKING MEMBER NUNES -- >> YOU SAID THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF THEM IS NOT WORK SOMETHING.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE SCREEN WAS NOT WORKING IN FRONT OF THEM, SO THEY WERE GIVEN COPIES TO READ ALONG SINCE THEY CAN'T SEEN THE SCREEN THAT WE CAN.

MR. NUNES, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 45 MINUTES WITH MINORITY COUNSEL.

>> FIRST, MR.

CHAIR, I WANT TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD, SENATOR GRASSLEY'S LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DATED JULY 20, 2017.

I READ A PORTION OF THAT IN TO THE RECORD DURING MY OPENING STATEMENT.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> AMBASSADOR, CONGRATULATE YOU.

YOU'VE BEEN DOWN IN THE SECRET DEPOSITION MEETING ROOMS.

YOU GRADUATED FOR YOUR PERFORMANCE TODAY.

LATER THIS AFTERNOON, I SHOULD NOTE THAT FOR THE PUBLIC THAT WE WILL BE BACK DOWN IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL DOING MORE OF THESE SECRET DEPOSITIONS.

AMBASSADOR, I DON'T REALLY HAVE MANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

YOU ADMITTED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO.

BUT I DO WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SENATOR GRASSLEY VERY BRIEFLY.

I ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW WHO SENATOR GRASSLEY IS.

>> YES, SIR, I DO.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SENATOR GRASSLEY IS A SERIOUS AND CREDIBLE ELECTED OFFICIAL?

>> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE.

>> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE JULY 25th TRUMP ZELENSKY PHONE CALL OR PREPARATIONS FOR THE CALL?

>> NO, I WAS NOT.

>> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE DELIBERATIONS ABOUT THE PAUSE IN MILITARY SALES TO UKRAINE AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REVIEWED NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S COMMITMENT TO CORRUPTION REFORMS?

>> IT'S FOR THE DELAY IN THE -- >> FOR THE PAUSE.

>> FOR THE PAUSE.

NO, I WAS NOT.

>> WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE TRUMP-ZELENSKY LATER PENCE-ZELENSKY MEETINGS IN WARSAW POLAND ON SEPTEMBER 1?

>> NO, I WAS NOT.

>> DID YOU EVER TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2019?

>> NO, I HAVE NOT.

>> MICK MULVANEY?

>> NO, I HAVE NOT.

>> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT SHE'S DOING HERE TODAY.

THIS IS THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT IS NOW TURNED INTO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE.

THIS SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AT THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, IF THERE'S ISSUES WITH EMPLOYMENT, DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE SETTING INSTEAD OF AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING WHERE THE AMBASSADOR IS NOT A MATERIAL FACT WITNESS TO ANYTHING, ANY OF THE ACCUSATIONS BEING HURLED AT THE PRESIDENT FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS I THINK TO GET TO.

I KNOW YOU HAD A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS FOR THE AMBASSADOR.

YIELD TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. NUNES.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

>> THE GENTLE WOMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> WHAT IS THE INTERRUPTION?

>> YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED.

MR. NUNES, YOU'RE -- >> I JUST RECOGNIZED -- >> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO YIELD TIME -- >> THE RANKING MEMBER YIELDED TIME TO ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS.

>> THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.

>> THAT IS ACCURATE.

>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, I WANT TO THANK YOU -- >> THE GENTLE WOMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE INTERRUPTED DULY ELECTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS -- >> THE GENTLE WOMAN WILL SUSPEND.

>> MR.

CHAIR, WE CONTROL THE TIME AND CUSTOMARY WHOEVER CONTROLS THE TEAM CAN YIELD TO WHOEVER THEY WISH.

IF WE HAVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT WE DEAL TO LET MISS STEFFANIC ANSWER HER QUESTIONS.

>> MR. NUNES, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

>> ALL RIGHT.

MR. CASTER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MR. NUNES.

AMBASSADOR, WELCOME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

33 YEARS, AN EXTRAORDINARY CAREER.

IT HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE TENURE FOR YOU AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING HERE TODAY.

THIS IS A CRAZY ENVIRONMENT.

THIS HEARING ROOM HAS TURNED INTO A TELEVISION STUDIO.

BEFORE TODAY YOU SPENT ON FRIDAY THE 11th, YOU WERE WITH US FOR EARLY IN THE MORNING UNTIL I BELIEVE 8:00 P.M. PEOPLE MISSED TRAINS BACK TO NEW YORK.

IT WAS A COMPLETE -- VERY COMPLETE DAY.

SO THANK YOU.

YOU WERE SERVING A THREE-YEAR ASSIGNMENT IN THE IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND IT BEGAN IN 2016?

SCHEDULED TO END IN 2019?

>> YES, SIR.

THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOBODY DISPUTES THAT THE PRESIDENT DECIDES WHO HIS ENVOYS TO POST AROUND THE WORLD.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I STATED THAT CLEARLY IN MY STATEMENT.

>> AND YOU RETURNED FROM THE UKRAINE ON MAY 20th, 2019?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOUR RETURN COINCIDED WITH INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU REMAIN EMPLOYED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT?

>> I DO.

>> AND AFTER YOU RETURNED TO WASHINGTON, THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, JOHN SULLIVAN, ASKED YOU WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO NEXT.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU MET WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, AMBASSADOR PEREZ?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHO IDENTIFIED A MEANINGFUL NEW ASSIGNMENT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU NOW SERVE AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AS A FELLOW?

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> THIS IS A REWARDING POSITION FOR YOU?

>> I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO BE IN THAT POSITION AFTER WHAT HAPPENED.

>> TODAY IS THE SECOND BIG HEARING FOR THE DEMOCRATS IMPEACHMENT INITIATIVE.

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND -- WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FACTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PART OF THIS THAT WE'RE INVESTIGATING.

THOSE ARE THE EVENTS FROM MAY 20th UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11th, TO RELEASE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE DELEGATION OF THE INAUGURATION.

YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING MAY 23.

CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU WERE NOT PART OF THE DECISION MAKING RELATING TO WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH ZELENSKY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU WERE NOT A PART OF ANY DECISION MAKING IN THE LEAD UP TO THE JULY 25th CALL?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU FIRST LEARNED ABOUT THE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 25.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WELL, I HEARD ABOUT THE CALL AS I INDICATED IN THE FIRST DEPOSITION FROM DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT.

>> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THE CALL?

>> WELL, AS IT TURNS OUT, IT WASN'T CORRECT.

BUT WHAT I RECALL IS THAT HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHETHER HE COULD HELP HIM OUT AND -- WHICH I UNDERSTOOD TO BE THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD SAID THAT HE IS PUTTING IN A NEW PROSECUTOR AND THAT HE DOESN'T CONTROL -- THIS IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT HE SAID.

THAT THAT PERSON IS AN INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL.

>> AND YOU LEARNED ABOUT THAT BEFORE A CALL WAS MADE PUBLIC?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO UKRAINE?

THEY WERE PAUSED FOR ABOUT 55 DAYS FROM JULY 18 TO SEPTEMBER 11?

NO DISCUSSIONS.

>> OKAY.

IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT ON PAGE 9 YOU STATED ALTHOUGH THEN AND NOW I'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT I SERVED AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT FOREIGN AN PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE U.S.

INTERESTS IN THIS WAY.

INDIVIDUALS FELT STYMIED AGAINST CORRUPTION HAD A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS.

TO YOU BELIEVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS AIMING TO WEAPONIZE CORRUPTION IN THE YOU CRANE BY REMOVING YOU?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT.

>> YOU BELIEVE YOUR REMOVE VALUE WAS PART OF A SCHEME TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINE ESTABLISHMENT TO DO THINGS COUNTER TO THE U.S.

INTERESTS?

>> I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT HOPED.

THERE'S WERE SOME AMERICANS, THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE WORKING WITH MAYOR GULIANI WHO HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INDICTED BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WHO INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE OUT THE AMBASSADOR.

I THINK MUST HAVE HAD SOME REASON FOR THAT.

>> DO YOU THINK THEY WERE SEEKING A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AMBASSADOR THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THEIR OBJECTIVES?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER REASON THERE WOULD BE.

>> OKAY.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT WOULD FACILITATE THOSE OBJECTIVES?

>> NO.

>> SO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IS A MAN OF HIGH INTEGRITY?

>> YES.

>> HE'S A GOOD PICK FOR THE POST?

>> YES.

NO AMBASSADOR HAS BEEN -- NO CANDIDATE HAS BEEN NAMED TO THE POSITION.

>> BUT HE'S CERTAINLY HAD A DECORATED CAREER SERVING HIS COUNTRY?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

A MAN OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY.

>> YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT WHEN YOU FIRST LEARNED THAT MAYOR GULIANI AND SOME OF HIS ASSOCIATES WERE -- HAD A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU, WHEN DID THAT FIRST COME TO YOUR ATTENTION?

>> WE WERE PICKING UP RUMORS FROM UKRAINIANS.

I THINK KIND OF IN THE NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2018 TIME PERIOD.

IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AND OF COURSE MARCH, IT BECAME MORE OBVIOUS.

>> AT SOME POINT I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE MINISTER ALERTED YOU TO THIS CAMPAIGN.

>> YES.

>> WHAT WAS THAT?

>> HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ME IN FEBRUARY OF 2019.

>> OKAY.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE RELATED TO YOU?

>> YES.

HE SAID THAT HE WAS WORKING WITH MAYOR GULIANI THROUGH THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, THAT THAT BASICALLY WANTED TO REMOVE ME FROM POST.

AND THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON THAT.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY AWARENESS AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHY THEY WERE SEEKING YOUR OUSTER?

>> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

I HAD NEVER MET THE TWO GENTLEMEN.

SO IT WAS UNCLEAR WHY THEY WERE INTERESTED IN DOING THIS.

>> WERE YOU ESPECIALLY INFLUENTIAL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES THAT STYMIED THEIR INTERESTS IN THE UKRAINE, ADVOCATING FOR A POLICY THAT WOULD BE ADVERSE TO THEM?

>> I THINK THAT JUST THE GENERAL IDEA THAT OBVIOUSLY U.S.

AMBASSADORS, U.S. EMBASSIES, ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IS TO FACILITATE U.S. BUSINESS ABROAD, RIGHT?

WHETHER IT'S TRADE, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCE, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO.

BUT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ABOVE BOARD.

WE BELIEVE IN A LEVEL PLAYING GROUND AND ADVOCATE FOR U.S. BUSINESS.

THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS WITH HINDSIGHT, WHAT WE LEARNED LATER, LOOKING TO OPEN UP A NEW ENERGY COMPANY EXPORTING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TO THE UKRAINE NEVER ACTUALLY CAME TO THE EMBASSY, WHICH IS UNUSUAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD USUALLY BE A FIRST STOP.

GOING TO THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, GOING TO THE EMBASSY, SEEING HOW WE COULD PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.

>> WAS THAT SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION EVER EXPRESSED TO YOU OR DID YOU JUST LEARN THAT SEPARATELY?

>> THE FRUSTRATION, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

ON WHOSE PART?

>> ONNED PARNAS AND -- >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE FRUSTRATED.

FRUSTRATED BY WHAT?

>> YOU MENTIONED THEY HAD BUSINESS INTERESTS.

I ASKED YOU IF THEY WERE STYMIED BY ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU ADVOCATED FOR OR YOU WERE A ROAD BLOCK TO THEM BEING SUCCESSFUL.

IS THERE ANY CONNECTION?

>> I NEVER MET THEM.

WHEN I HEARD THE NAMES FOR A FIRST TIME, IN FEBRUARY OF 2019, I ASKED MY TEAM IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTIONS, THE ONES THAT WOULD MEET WITH AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN AND NOBODY HAD HEARD OF THEM.

I CAN CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS THE GENERAL U.S. POLICIES THAT WE WERE IMPLEMENTING.

>> DID YOU EVER REACH OUT TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND FIND OUT WHY HE WAS PARTICIPATING IN THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN?

>> NO.

>> WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THAT?

>> I DIDN'T FEEL THERE WAS ANY PURPOSE TO IT.

>> WHY NOT?

>> HE CLEARLY HAD, I WOULD SAY, AN ANIMUS FOR DOING THAT.

HE WAS WORKING WITH THE AMERICANS.

I REACHED OUT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

>> WHEN DID YOU FIRST REALIZE THAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH LUTSENKO REACHED AN ADVERSARIAL POINT?

>> EARLIER THAN THAT.

>> THIS IS MARCH?

>> YEAH.

WHAT I'D SAY ADVERSARIAL, THAT'S A STRONG WORD.

AT THE U.S. EMBASSY, WE'RE VISITING PEOPLE FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES.

WE WERE PUSHING THE UKRAINIANS TO DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO.

MR. LUTSENKO ENTERED OFFICE, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CLEAN UP THE PGO AND MAKE REFORMS AND BRING JUSTICE TO WHAT THEY CALLED THE HEAVENLY HUNDRED, THE PEOPLE THAT DIED IN 2014, THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY.

HE WAS GOING TO PROSECUTE CASES TO REPATRIATE THE $40 BILLION THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT FLED THE COUNTRY WITH.

HE DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT.

WE KEPT ON TRYING TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THAT'S WHAT THE UKRAINIANS WANTED HIM TO DO AND WE THOUGHT HE SHOULD DO IT.

>> YOU CONTACTED THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE UNDER SECRETARY HALE?

>> ABOUT WHAT?

>> THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU.

>> I CONTACTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT EARLIER THAN THAT.

DISCUSSION MAKES IT SOUNDS FORMAL.

WE HAD MANY WAYS OF GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH WASHINGTON.

SO ON PHONE CALLS OR DDCs, WE WOULD HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

>> WHEN DID YOU REALIZE -- >> IF I COULD AMPLIFY MY ANSWER.

WE HAD THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED THAT UKRAINIAN POLICY MAKERS, UKRAINIAN LEADERS WERE HEARING THAT I WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING, THAT THERE WAS MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WAITING IN THE WINGS, ET CETERA.

THAT UNDERMINES NOT ONLY MY POSITION BUT OUR U.S.

POSITION.

THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK.

WE HAVE TO BE OUT THERE AT ALL TIMES FIRING ON ALL CYLINDERS TO PROMOTE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

SO IT WAS A CONCERN.

>> AND WHEN DID YOU REALIZE THIS CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU WAS A REAL THREAT?

>> A THREAT -- >> TO YOUR ABILITY TO DO YOUR JOB?

KIEV.

>> I'D SAY THAT THE -- WHEN YOU GO TO A MEETING WITH SOMEBODY AND THEY ASK, ARE YOU GOING TO BE LEAVING, THAT IS CONCERNING.

SO THAT PROBABLY -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THAT STARTED HAPPENING BUT IN THAT TIME FRAME.

>> DID YOU UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO PUSH BACK ON THIS NARRATIVE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR PUBLICLY?

>> CERTAINLY WITH THE UKRAINIANS, THERE'S NOTHING TO THIS.

THIS IS A DISTRACTION AND WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE JOB, OUR POLICY REMAINS THE SAME.

YES, WE HAD DISCUSSIONS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS.

>> IN HINDSIGHT, DID YOU ALERT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO THIS MOUNTING CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU?

>> I DID WHAT I COULD.

>> WHAT WAS THAT?

>> REACHED OUT TO THE EUROPEAN BUREAU.

YOU HEARD THAT DR. FIONA HILL WAS AWARE OF THIS FROM THE NSC AND THEY HAD OTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH MORE SENIOR PEOPLE.

>> OKAY.

DID YOU GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND?

DID YOU ENGAGE THE AM BASS -- AMBASSADOR UNDER SECRETARY HALE?

>> THERE'S DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES HERE.

FAST FORWARDING TO MARCH.

I DID -- WHEN UNDERSECRETARY HALE ASKED WHETHER I WOULD CONSIDER EXTENDING, I DID RAISE BECAUSE I WAS PRESIDENT SURE THAT HE WAS AWARE OF IT.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE KNEW THAT MAYOR GULIANI HAD BEEN OUT THERE SAYING UNTRUE THINGS ABOUT ME.

I WANTED HIM TO BE AWARE OF THAT.

HE SAID HE UNDERSTOOD.

HE STILL WAS HOPING THAT I COULD EXTEND FOR ANOTHER YEAR.

SO THAT WAS EARLY MARCH.

THEN FAST FORWARD TO LATE MARCH.

YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE CONTINUED BUT OBVIOUSLY IT BECAME -- ONCE IT BECAME A PUBLIC POLITICAL STORY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, THE TENOR OF EVERYTHING CHANGED.

I THINK THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FELT THAT IT WASN'T MANAGEABLE ANYMORE.

THE MORE BRYANT THING IS FOR ME TO COME BACK IN JULY.

>> YOU THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE TO GET AHEAD OF THE STORY ANDTELL PEOPLE THAT THERE WAS A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU, YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE THE ALLEGATIONS LODGED WERE ACCURATE AND YOU NEEDED THEIR ASSISTANCE?

>> I THINK THAT -- SURE, MAYBE I COULD HAVE DONE THAT.

I THINK THEY WERE AWARE.

AS I SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED FROM DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD BEEN WELL AWARE OF THIS SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2018.

>> CORRUPTION IS ENDEMIC IN THE COUNTRY OF UKRAINE, RIGHT?

>> I'D SAY THAT CORRUPTION IS A SERIOUS ISSUE EVERYWHERE IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

IT'S A POST SOVIET LEGACY.

WE TALK ABOUT IT A LOT IN UKRAINE BECAUSE THERE'S ACTUALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING.

TO ACTUALLY HELP THE UKRAINIANS TACKLE THE ISSUE IN OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA, YOU CAN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT.

SO I THINK IT'S A POST SOVIET LEGACY AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH IT.

>> YOU TESTIFIED RAMPANT CORRUPTION HAS LONG PERMEATED UKRAINE'S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS?

>> YES, THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.

>> IT'S YOUR BELIEF THAT IT SHOULD BE THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO HELP UKRAINE CURB THEIR CORRUPTION PROBLEM?

>> YES.

IT'S GOOD FOR THE UKRAINIANS AND ALSO IN OUR INTEREST.

>> AND ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS, YOU MENTIONED SERVE A NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSE?

>> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE.

>> ARE OLIGARCHS A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM IN UKRAINE?

>> PROBABLY.

BECAUSE SO MUCH WEALTH IS CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A VERY, VERY FEW SIX OR SEVEN INDIVIDUALS.

THEY ALSO HAVE POLITICAL POWER AND CONTROL THE MEDIA.

>> A LOT OF THEIR POWER HAS BEEN ACQUIRED THROUGH WHAT WE HERE IN THE U.S. WOULD CONSIDER IMPROPER WAYS?

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT.

>> THE HEAD OF BARISMA, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HIM?

>> I DON'T KNOW HIM BUT I KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED A COUPLE DAYS AGO THAT HE WAS INVESTIGATING FOR STEALING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SOME OF WHICH HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE U.S., GREAT BRITAIN, A SUBJECT TO AN INVESTIGATION TRYING TO GET THE MONEY BACK THAT WAS A BIG PART OF MR. KENT'S INITIATIVES WHEN HE WAS THERE THAT A BRIBE WAS PAID TO THE PROSECUTORS ND HE WAS LET OFF THE HOOK.

THIS WAS IN 2014.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH?

>> I'VE HEARD ABOUT IT.

THIS WAS BEFORE MY ARRIVAL.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY MY UNDERSTANDING -- PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- STRAWBERRY THAT THE U.S. MONEY THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WAS THE MONEY THAT WE -- THAT WE USED TO FUND AN FBI TEAM THAT WAS EMBEDDED WITH THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE TO GO AFTER -- NOT TO GO AFTER BUT TO DO THE INVESTIGATION OF BARISMA.

>> MR. KENT TESTIFIED THAT THE BRIBE WAS PAID, THE PROSECUTION WENT AWAY AND YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY NOTHING HAS BEEN FURTHER DONE WITH REGARDS TO BARISMA.

DURING YOUR TENURE IN UKRAINE, LAST THERE EVER BEEN ANY FOCUS ON REEXAMINING ALLEGATIONS, WHETHER IT'S OF BURISMA OR OTHER POWERFUL INTERESTS LIKE -- REEXAMINING IT?

>> ON THE PART OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT?

>> YEAH.

TRYING TO LEAN ON THE VARIOUS PROSECUTORS GENERAL TO CLEAN UP THE OLIGARCHAL SYSTEM.

>> YES, THERE HAS BEEN SOME EFFORTS.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN MY TESTIMONY, THE U.S. WAS WELCOMING OF THE NOMINATION TO THE POSITION OF PROSECUTOR GENERAL BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING HE WOULD CLEAN THAT UP.

THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

-- IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN TO A U.S.

AUDIENCE.

BUT IN UKRAINE, IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION MORE BROADLY, INCLUDING RUSSIA, JUSTICE -- THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHETHER IT'S THE COPS ON THE BEAT, INVESTIGATORS, WHETHER IT'S PROSECUTORS, WHETHER IT'S JUDGES, ARE USED AS A TOOL OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM TO BE USED AGAINST YOUR POLITICAL ADVERSARIES.

SO I THINK THAT GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BURISMA AND VLOCHEZSKY, AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER, THIS DID NOT LOOM LARGE WHEN I ARRIVED.

I ARRIVED IN 2016, AUGUST 2016.

BUT OVER TIME, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE CASE WAS BASICALLY ON A PAUSE.

THAT IT WASN'T AN ACTIVE CASE, BUT IT ALSO WAS NOT FULLY CLOSED.

AND THAT IS A WAY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, FOR THOSE IN POWER TO KEEP A HOOK IN TO BURISMA AND VLOCHEZSKY.

>> AROUND THE TIME THE BRIBE WAS PAID, BURISMA SPRUCED UP THEIR BOARD AND DIGNITARIES OF POL POLAND -- >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIMING WAS BY YES TO THE ELEMENTS.

>> ONE OF THE PERSON THEY ADDED IS HUNTER BIDEN, JOE BIDEN'S SON.

IS HE A UNION IN THE OLIGARCH SYSTEMS OR WAS HE ADDED TO THE BOARD BECAUSE HE'S THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON?

WAS THAT EVER A CONCERN OR AT LEAST A PERCEPTION OF THAT CONCERN ADDRESSED?

>> AS I SAID, I ARRIVED IN AUGUST OF 2016, SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTIONS AND SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE.

IT WAS NOT A FOCUS OF WHAT I WAS DOING IN THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD.

>> WAS THE ISSUE EVER RAISED AT ALL?

>> YOU KNOW, NOT -- >> HE WAS STILL ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE JUST RECENTLY LEFT IN 2019.

I NEVER MET HIM.

NEVER TALKED TO HIM.

I'M SORRY.

WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

>> HE WAS STILL ON THE BOARD WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT POST.

I WAS WONDERING IF AT LEAST THE PERCEPTION PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS THE AMBASSADOR.

>> I WAS AWARE OF IT BECAUSE AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE IN THE DEPOSITION THERE HAD BEEN A -- IN TERMS OF THE PREPARATION FOR MY SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR UKRAINE, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

AND A SELECT ANSWER.

SO I WAS AWARE OF IT.

>> OKAY.

>> IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS LONG STANDING CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE.

IS THAT TRUE?

>> THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.

>> WE'RE GOING BACK TO -- THERE'S A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT POROSHENKO IN 2018 AND HE SAID HEAD CONCERNS THERE.

>> HE SAID A FRONT OF HIM TOLD HIM UKRAINE WAS THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

>> SEVERAL WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS THAT THERE'S CERTAIN ELEMENTS THAT A UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT DURING 2016 WERE OUT TO GET HIM.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WERE AWARE OF AT ANY POINT IN TIME?

>> WELL, I'M CERTAINLY AWARE OF IT NOW.

OBVIOUSLY THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PRESS ATTENTION ON THAT.

IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION DURING THE 2 1/2 YEARS THAT I SERVED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AS AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE.

>> WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE DEPOSITIONS.

SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT MAYBE THEY LOOM LARGER NOW, BUT YOU KNOW, IN HINDSIGHT, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AT THE EMBASSY THAT THERE'S THESE INDICATIONS OF UKRAINIANS TRYING TO AT LEAST ADVOCATE AGAINST THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP?

>> ACTUALLY, THERE WEREN'T.

WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE IT THAT WAY.

>> WERE YOU AWARE OF -- I KNOW THERE WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.

THE CONSULTANT ALEXANDER CHALUPA HAS REPORTEDLY ACCORDING TO HER AND ACCORDING TO KEN VOGEL WITH POLITCO THAT -- WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY TO TRADE INFORMATION, SHARE LEADS OF THAT SORT OF THING?

>> I SAW THE ARTICLE.

YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.

>> DID YOU SEE THE ARTICLE AT THE TIME OR DID YOU ONLY -- DID THAT ONLY COME TO YOUR ATTENTION SUBSEQUENTLY?

>> CERTAINLY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION SUBSEQUENTLY.

I THINK I DID SEE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AT THE TIME AS WELL.

>> YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE AMBASSADOR IN COUNTRY AT THIS POINT.

DID YOU AIM TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT?

YOU KNOW, IF TRUE, IF THE REPORTING IS TRUE, IF WHAT MRS. CHALUPA TOLD MR. VOGEL IS ACCURATE, THAT WOULD BE CONCERNING, CORRECT?

>> WELL, I WAS THE AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE STARTING IN AUGUST OF 2016.

WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, IF TRUE, AS YOU SAID, WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING TOOK PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO IF THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT MRS. CHALUPA WAS DOING, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED HERE.

>> DO YOU KNOW MRS. CHALUPA?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> YOU EVER MET HER?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

IF SHE WORKED FOR THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY, I MIGHT HAVE MET HER.

I DIDN'T BELIEVE I KNOW HER.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE ROLE THAT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST MR. LASHENKO PLAYED IN THE MANAFORT BLACK LEDGERS?

>> HE PUBLISH SIZED INFORMATION IN A GRAND WAY IN AUGUST 2016 AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY CO INSIGHTED WITH MR. MANAFORT LEAVING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ISSUE WHEN IT WAS OCCURRING THAT CONCERNED YOU?

>> WELL, I CERTAINLY NOTICED IT.

I WAS, YOU KNOW, A WEEK OR SO AWAY FROM ARRIVING IN UKRAINE.

I THINK THAT MR. A UKRAINIAN PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE.

FROM A UKRAINIAN PERSPECTIVE, WHAT MR. LASHENKO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS NOT MR. MANAFORT BUT FORMER PRESIDENT AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY STOLE AND WHERE IT WENT AND SO FORTH.

I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN PERSPECTIVE DEPENDING ON WHICH COUNTRY YOU'RE IN.

>> BUT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT AT LEAST FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE LOOKING AT THINKS FACTS IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE'S ELEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIAN ESTABLISHMENT THAT ARE ADVOCATING AGAINST THEM AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

CORRECT?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, JUST SPEAKING ABOUT MR. LASHENKO, HE'S AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST.

HE GOT ACCESS TO THE BLACK LEDGER AND HE PUBLISHED IT AS I THINK JOURNALISTS WOULD DO.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT -- I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO SUCK GUEST THAT THAT WAS TARGETING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> BUT THE WAY THAT HAS UNFOLDED, MR. MANAFORT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LEFT THE CAMPAIGN AND CERTAINLY DID BEGIN A PERIOD OF INTERESTS IN MANAFORT'S TIES TO RUSSIA AND SO FORTH.

>> I THINK -- AGAIN, I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE EFFECT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS OF INTEREST TO JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS HERE THAT MR. MANAFORT -- FORMER PRES PRESIDENTIAL ADVISERS.

WE KNOW THERE'S BEEN COURT CASES AND SO FORTH WHERE MR. MANAFORT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CERTAIN ACTIONS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THE ELECTION.

>> WITH THE REPORTING, THERE'S BEEN A QUESTION OF WHETHER ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HE PUBLISHED WAS AUTHENTIC.

CORRECT?

>> I'M SORRY.

COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> THERE'S BEEN -- SOME HAVE QUESTIONS WHETHER THE INFORMATION MR. LASHENKO PUBLISHED WAS ALL CORRECT OR WHETHER IT WAS DOCTORED.

>> OKAY.

I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT.

>> OKAY.

YOU KNOW, AMBASSADOR TROLLY WROTE AN OP-ED IN THE HILL TAKING ISSUE WITH THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT WHEN IT OCCURRED?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE AMBASSADOR TO EXPRESS CONCERNS?

>> NO.

>> HOW FREQUENTLY DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE AMBASSADOR?

OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE IN DIFFERENT POSTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES BUT -- >> YEAH.

DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE HIM OR TALK TO HIM.

>> SO YOU WEREN'T IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION?

>> NO.

>> CAN YOU SEE HOW WRITING AN OP-ED -- GIVEN THE SUBSTANCE, THERE'S SENSITIVITIES, BUT CAN YOU SEE HOW THE SIMPLE FACT OF WRITING AN OP-ED THAT A UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S. THAT THERE WERE ELEMENTS OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WERE ABDICATING AGAINST CANDIDATE TRUMP?

>> MY I'M PRESS -- IMPRESSION OF THE OP-ED IS THAT HE WAS CRITICAL OF A POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH REGARD TO CRIMEA AND WHETHER CRIMEA WAS A PART OF UKRAINE OR A PART OF RUSSIA.

THAT'S A TREMENDOUSLY SENSITIVE ISSUE IN UKRAINE.

MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THAT IS WHAT THE AMBASSADOR WAS WRITING ABOUT.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE AMBASSADOR OR ANYBODY FROM THE EMBASSY MADE CONTACT WITH THE TRUMP CAMP TO TALK ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS BEFORE LODGING AN OP-ED?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> OKAY.

DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD IN THE RUN UP TO THE ELECTION, THE ADMINISTER SAID SOME CANDIDATE THINGS ABOUT THE THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP ON VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> YES.

AS A RESULT OF THE DEPOSITION, THE PREVIOUS DEPOSITION.

>> BUT DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD WHEN IT HAPPENED, YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT?

>> I DON'T RECALL IT.

>> OKAY.

HE'S ONE OF THE MORE INFLUENTIAL OFFICIALS IN THE UKRAINE, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> I BELIEVE HE'S ONE OF THE FEW THAT SPAN BOTH POROSHENKO ADMINISTRATION?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> LOOKING BACK ON HIS COMMENTS IN HINDSIGHT, DO YOU SEE HOW THAT MIGHT CREATE A A VERY INFLUENTIAL UKRAINIAN WAS ADVOCATING AGAINST TRUMP?

>> HE WAS DOING WHAT?

OUT TO GET HIM.

HE WAS DOING BAD THINGS.

>> ARE YOU ASKING IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE BUT THE MINISTER HAS BEEN, AS WELL AS OTHERS, THEY HAVE BEEN A GOOD PARTNER TO THE UNITED STATES.

HE'S HAVE VERY PRACTICAL MAN.

>> I'M SHOCKED AT SOCIAL MEDIA WITH THE SIGHT OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS HIS STATEMENTS AWARE OF WHATEAMBASSADOR CHARLIE WAS UP TO AND THESE OTHER ELEMENTS WE DISCUSSED THEY FORM A REASONABLE BASES TO WONDER WHETHER THERE ARE INFLUENTIAL ELEMENTS THAT WERE OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT.

>> I CAN'T THINK FOR WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAW OR OTHERS THOUGHT.

THOSE ELEMENTS YOU RECITED DON'T SEEM TO BE THE UKRAINIAN PLAN OR PLOT.

I DON'T THINK THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT IS WORKING AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE.

THEY ARE ISOLATED INCIDENTS.

THEY ARE CRITICAL.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WOULD SAY OUR OWN U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS DETERMINED THAT THOSE WHO INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION WERE IN RUSSIA.

>> YOU -- I WOULDN'T TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

HE'S BEEN A FRIEND FOR YEARS?

>> YES, THAT'S TRUE.

OU TESTIFIED HE WAS A MAN OF HONOR AND BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT.

>> YES.

OU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK HE WOULD BE UNDERTAKING FINISHTIVE THAT WAS COUNTER TO U.S. INTRUST.

>> I BELIEVE HE TRIED TO DO WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT.

>> TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATIONS POLICY OF THE AID PACKAGE TO THE UKRAINE.

YOU HAVE TESTIFIED DURING YOUR TENURE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WAS STRONGER.

>> YES, THAT WAS REALLY POSITIVE.

>> WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT?

TWO THINGS, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY TANK BUSTERS.

IF THE WAR WITH RUSSIA ACCELERATED IN SOMEWAY AND TANKS COME OVER THEIR HORIZON THOSE ARE SERIOUS WEAPONS TO DEAL WITH THAT.

THE SYMBOLISM OF IT.

THE UNITED STATES IS PROVIDING THIS EQUIPMENT TO THE UKRAINE.

THAT MAKES THE UKRAINES UKRAINES ADD HAVE A S ADVERS A RY TO THINK TWICE.

>> I THINK MOST AGENCIES WANTED TO PROVIDE THE EQUIPMENT TO THE UKRAINE.

>> THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE THIS IS AN ADVANTAGE.

>> WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT.

>> HAS IT PLAYED OUT THAT WAY?

>> WELL, IT HAS.

SPEAKING OF JAVELINS.

IT WAS STRONG UP PORT TO UKRAINE.

THERE ARE QUESTIONS THEY WILL UNDERMINED THE STRONG MASSAGE OF SUPPORT.

>> UKRAINE HAS THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE THE JAVELINS.

>> YES, THEY DO.

IT WAS PAUSED FROM 55 DAYS BUT IT ULTIMATELY WENT THROUGH?

>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.

THEY SUPPLIED THIS TYPE OF AID TO THE UKRAINE.

ARE YOU STILL HAPPY WITH THE DECISIONS.

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE JAVELINS?

>> THE JAVELINS AND THE WHOLE AID PACKAGE.

DO YOU THINK WE HAVE GIVEN THE UKRAINE ENOUGH MONEY?

>> THAT'S A HARD QUESTION.

ONE CAN ALWAYS USE ADDITIONAL FUNDING.

THAT SAID I THINK CONGRESS HAS BEEN VERY GENEROUS IN VOTING VOTING FOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND OTHER ASSISTANCE FOR THE UKRAINE.

>> MY TIME IS COMING TO AN END MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FROM FIVE MINUTES.

SOME OF THE EARLY QUESTIONS SEEM TO SUGGEST YOUR SYSTEM HERE WAS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUES AT HAND.

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

SHOULDN'T THIS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO H.R.

I WANT TO BRING OUR ATTENTION TO SOMEONE WHO THOUGHT YOU WERE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE PLOT FOR SCHEME.

THAT'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE AMBASSADOR THAT DISCUSSED THE CALL AND THAT WAS YOU AMBASSADOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO REFER BACK TO HOW YOU WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE CONVERSATION.

AT ONE POINT THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP THIS PROSECUTOR THAT WAS VERY GOOD AND IT WAS SHUTDOWN AND VERY FAIR.

YOU INDICATED THAT WAS A LIKELY REFERENCE TO THE TOP PROSECUTOR, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PRESIDENT BRINGS UP THIS CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTOR.

THE ONLY ONE AMERICANS BROUGHT UP IN THE CALL.

AFTER THEY BROUGHT UP THIS CORRUPT PROSECUTOR HE PRAISES HE THEN ENCOURAGES HIM TO SPEAK WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI THAT ORCHESTRATED THIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU.

>> YES.

HE THEN BRINGS YOU UP.

HE PRAISES THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR.

HE SAID I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TALK TO RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND BRINGS YOU UP.

HE THOUGHT YOU WERE RELEVANT TO THIS.

AFTER HE BROUGHT YOU UP AND SAID YOU THE WOMAN WAS BAD NEWS HE SAYS THERE IS A LOT TO TALK ABOUT ABOUT BIDEN'S SON.

BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRAISING THE CORRUPT PROSECUTOR HE ATTACKS YOU.

THEN HE GOES RIGHT TO BUY DEN.

THAT WOULD INDICATE HE CONNECTED YOU SOMEHOW WITH THIS PROSECUTOR YOU WERE AT ODDS WITH AND DESIRE TO SEE THIS INVESTIGATION OF BIDEN TO GO FORWARD, WOULD IT NOT.

>> AGAIN, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THAT'S THE THOUGHT PROGRESSION.

>> MY COLLEAGUES ALSO ASKED IN PUSHING YOU OUT-OF-THE-WAY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR GOT APPOINTED.

IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THE PERSON THAT WOULD FARTHER RUDOLPH GIULIANI'S AIMS?

HE'S A REMARKABLE PUBLIC SERVANT.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT COULD PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN PLACE THAT WASN'T A CAREER DIPLOMAT.

WHAT IF HE COULD PUT IN PLACE SAY A SUBSTANTIAL DONOR TO HIS INAUGURAL.

WHAT IF HE PUT IN PLACE SOMEONE WHOSE PROFORT YO DOESN'T INCLUDE THE UKRAINE.

>> MAYBE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, WASN'T IT.

>> YES.

MY COLLEAGUES ALSO SAY THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ULTIMATELY WENT THROUGH.

IF THEY SOUGHT TO CONDITION OR BRIBE THE UKRAINE INTO DOING THESE INVESTIGATIONS THEY ULTIMATELY PAID THE MONEY.

ARE YOU AWARE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WASN'T RELEASED UNTIL AFTER THE COMPLAINT MADE IT'S WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> YES, I'M AWARE OF THAT.

ARE YOU AWARE IT WASN'T RELEASED UNTIL CONGRESS SAID THEY WOULD DO AN INVESTIGATION.

>> YES, I'M AWARE.

FINELY, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE CALL RECORD MY COLLEAGUE READ.

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS.

JUST FOR PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME SO THEY ARE NOT CONFUSED THERE ARE TWO CALLS HERE.

THERE IS A CONGRATULATE CALL AFTER ZELE NSKY IS INAUGURATED.

THERE IS ANOTHER CALL-IN JULY.

WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN APRIL AND JULY.

THERE WAS A READ OUTPUT OUT BY THE WHITE HOUSE AT THE TIME THE APRIL CONGRATULATORY RECALL WAS MADE.

HE WAS HELPING HIM ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

THAT DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE CALL.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, AMBASSADOR, WHY WOULD THE WHITE HOUSE PUT-OUT AN INACCURATE READING.

WHY WOULD THEY SAY HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CORRUPTION WHEN HE DIDN'T.

>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

I DON'T HAVE VISIBILITY IN THAT.

>> I YIELD MY FIVE MINUTES TO THE RANKING MEMBER.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE JUNIOR COLLEGE THERE ARE THREE CALLS.

THERE WAS ONE YOU REITERATED IN THE LAST HEARING.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.

ARE YOU AGAINST POLITICAL APPOINTED AMBASSADORS?

IS IT NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PREROGATIVE TO APPOINT WHOEVER HE WANTS.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT AGAINST AMBASSADORS.

I JUST WANT THAT CLEAR.

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

>> AMBASSADOR, BEFORE I WAS INTERRUPTED I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 30 YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE NUMEROUS DELEGATIONS.

MY QUESTION TODAY WILL FOCUS ON THREE KEY THEMES.

THE FIRST IS THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN IT'D COMES TO APPOINTING OUR AMBASSADORS.

THE THIRD IS AID TO THE UKRAINE.

EARLIER THIS WEEK YOU KNOW YOU HEARD FROM GEORGE KENT.

HE'S A COLLEAGUE, FRIEND, AND SOMEONE YOU RESPECT.

IN HIS TESTIMONY HE STATED ALL AMBASSADORS SEVERED THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, YES?

>> YES.

THIS IS WITHOUT QUESTION.

EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND I SEVER AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> YES.

IN THE DEFINITION YOU SAY YOU PERSONALLY ASKED WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE TO BE A FELLOW AT GEORGE TOWN UNIVERSITY AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL.

THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE POSTED TODAY.

>> THEY ARE LUCKY TO HAVE YOU.

I AGAIN WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE.

IN YOUR POWERFUL DEPOSITION YOU DESCRIBE ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS MUST FORM AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR POLICY.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT AND WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO US.

ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS SEVER UKRAINE'S INTEREST AND OURS AS WELL.

>> AFTER THE ELECTION YOU TESTIFIED THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THE UKRAINIANS THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE OFFICE.

>> I KNOW THIS IS BEFORE YOU ARRIVED IN THE UKRAINE BUT THE FIRST CASE THEY WORKED ON WAS IN FACT AGAINST THE OWNER OF BERISMA.

THAT WAS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

>> YES.

OU SAID THE INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER FORMALLY CLOSED BECAUSE IT'S FRANKLY USEFUL TO KEEP THAT COMPANY HANGING ON A HOOK, RIGHT.

>> YEAH.

THE UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER CLOSED.

>> PART OF IT.

WE DIDN'T SEE THEM MOVING FORWARD ON THAT WE NO LONGER PARTNER WITH THEM ON THAT CASE OR IN THAT WAY.

>> LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK.

THE FIRST TIME YOU BECAME AWARE OF THE COMPANY WAS WHEN YOU WERE BEING PREPARED FOR YOUR SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING.

THIS WAS IN THE FORM OF PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

YOU TESTIFY IN THE PARTICULAR Q AND A WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT IT WAN'T GENERALLY ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT IT WAS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND BURISMA.

THEY WERE SO CONCERNED THEY RAISED IT THEMSELVES BEFORE PRESSING THE NOMINATION.

OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES AND CHAIRMAN CRIED FOUL WHEN WE DEAR ASK THAT SAME QUESTION THAT THE OBAMA STATE DEPARTMENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT.

QUESTION WILL CONTINUE TO ASK YOU THAT.

IT WASN'T PROVIDED BY OBAMA BUT TRUMP.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

I YIELD BACK FIVE SECONDS.

AMBASSADOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.

THOSE OF US THAT SIT-UP HERE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE DISSIPATIONUATE AND MEASURED.

I HAVE BEEN ANGRY SINCE I LEARNED ABOUT YOUR SUMMERY AND UNEXPLAINED DISMISS RE.

I'M ANGRY A WOMAN'S WHO FAMILY LET COMMUNISM AND NAZIISM AND SEVERED THE COUNTRY FOR 33 YEARS ARE UNDER FIRE.

I'M ANGRY A WOMAN LIKE YOU WOULD NOT JUST BE DISMISSED BUT HUMILIATED AND ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I'M NOT JUST ANGRY FOR YOU BUT EVERY SINGLE FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, MILITARY OFFICER, AND INTELLIGENCE OFFICER THAT RIGHT NOW, MIGHT BELIEVE A LIFETIME OF SERVICE AND SACRIFICE AND EXCELLENCE MIGHT BE IGNORED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR WORSE YET ATTACKED IN LANGUAGE THAT WOULD EMBARRASS A MOB BOSS.

NOW IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE AND EMERGING FROM THE COLLEAGUES TODAY THIS IS ALL OKAY.

THIS AS HE PUT IT IN IT'S TWEET IT'S THE U.S. PRESIDENT'S RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS.

THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THIS IS HOW AND WHY WE EXERCISE OUR POWER AND RIGHTS.

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE CIA WHAT OPERATIONS THEY ARE DOING?

>> WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS COLLABORATIVELY.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT -- IN SHORT, YES.

>> YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

WHY MIGHT THEY DO THAT?

>> BECAUSE, SOMETIMES OPERATIONS HAVE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES.

>> RIGHT, SO, THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR DUTIES IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ASK VERY SENSITIVE QUESTIONS OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

WHAT INSTEAD ARE WE WORKING THROUGH THE INTEREST WE JUST DESCRIBED.

IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF YOUR RIGHT?

>> NO, IT WOULD NOT.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU WOULD HAVE DONE THAT?

>> I CAN'T IMAGE BUT I WOULD IMAGE I WOULD BE PULLED OUT OF POST.

>> THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMBASSADORS.

A POLICE OFFICER HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL YOU OVER.

IF HE PULLS OVER HIS EX-WIFE BECAUSE HE'S ANGRY THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CAST A BUNCH OF VOTES.

IF I CAST THEM NOT IN THE INTEREST OF MY CONSTITUENTS THAT'S A SEVERE ABUSE OF MY POWER.

>> YES.

I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHY AFTER AN EXAMPLARY PERFORMANCE WHY WERE YOU ASKED TO BE RENORMED.

IF IT WASN'T DONE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST THAT'S A PROBLEM.

IF YOU WOULD HAVE REMAINED AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE WOULD YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT HE ASK THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE.

I'M QUOTING FROM THE TRANSCRIPT HERE PROUD STRIKE OR THE SEVER.

>> NO, I WOULD REPEAT THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CONCLUDED IT WAS THE RUSSIANS.

>> IF YOU WOULD HAVE REMAINED AS AMBASSADOR AND NOT BEEN DISMISSED, WOULD YOU HAVE SUPPORTED A THREE MONTH DELAY IN AID TO THE UKRAINE?

>> NO.

AMBASSADOR, IF WOW WOULD HAVE REMAINED AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE WOULD YOU RECOMMEND HE ASK A NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO FIND OUT ABOUT BIDEN'S SON.

>> NO.

I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> YOUR COLLEAGUE LETTER FROM SPEAKER PELOSI DATED SEPTEMBER 23.

WE ALSO EXPECT HE WILL ESTABLISH A PATH FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES.

>> OBJECTION.

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU HONORING THAT STATEMENT FROM THE SPEAKER.

AMBASSADOR, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LONG SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND ON BEHALF OF THE NATION.

>> I WOULD LIKE THAT NOW.

WHEN YOU HAVE THE WORD ANY TIME THEY CHANGE POST I'M GRATEFUL THE DEPUTY SECTARY ASKED ME WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NEXT.

WAS THAT YOUR ONLY CHOSE.

>> IT WAS FOR SERVICE OFFICERS.

THEY KNOW BENEFIT FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE AND INSPIRATION.

>> HOW MANY CLASSES ARE YOU TEACHING.

>> I'M TEACHING ONE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE OTHER UKRAINE.

I ASKED IF I COULD DEFER ON THAT.

>> HOW MANY STUDENTS?

I BELIEVE 14 STUDENTS.

ANY OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OTHER THAN THE FELLOWSHIP.

>> WELL, I'LL TELL YOU THAT ALL OF THIS HAS KEPT ME BUSY.

ANY NEGATIVE -- DO THEY HOLD YOU IN LESS HIGH REGARD OR SHUN YOU AT THE LUNCH COUNTER.

DO THEY TREAT YOU BADLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU WERE TREATED BY THE PRESIDENT?

>> I HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AN OUT POWERING OF SUPPORT.

>> THE FOLKS YOU RESPECT THE MOST STILL RESPECT YOU AND HOLD YOU IN HIGH REGARD?

>> THEY DO.

GEORGE KENT MADE SOME REALLY GLOWING STATEMENTS ABOUT YOU.

WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO BE THE REACCEPTIENT RECIPF SOMETHING THAT GLOWING.

ANY REASON HE WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE OF SOME REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT HE BELIEVES IT IN HIS HEART OF HEARTS?

>> LIKE WHAT?

SOMEONE PAID HIM TO DO IT?

>> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WE BOTH BELIEVE THAT'S SEN SINCERE.

>> INTELLIGENCE PANEL DEALT WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TESTIMONY.

I HAVE A CONSENT REQUEST.

AN ARTICLE BELIEVED TO TESTIFY BEFORE SCHIFF.

THE HUFFINGTON POST.

>> IS THAT AN OBJECTION.

HAVE AN ARTICLE CALLED SCHIFF PANEL WILL HEAR FROM WHISTLE-BLOWER.

>> OBJECTION.

THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.

>> YOU SPOKE SO MOVINGLY ABOUT YOUR FAMILY BACKGROUND.

YOU STATED YOUR PARENTS LEAD COMMUNIST AND N A AZI REGIME.

DID THAT INSPIRE YOUR CAREER CHOSE?

>> YES.

I LOOKED AT YOUR BACKGROUND AND IT'S SUITED FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

YOU ALSO HAVE AN MS FROM THE NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE.

>> YES.

I EVEN NOTICED YOU EARNED YOUR UNDER GRADUATE DEGREE IN STUDIES IN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

THAT WAS ALSO MY COLLEGE.

I WANTED IS THIS IS IN THE NATIONS SERVICE BY WHAT YOU DO EVERYDAY.

I REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW IT FELT TO HAVE YOUR REPUTATION SULLIED.

NOT FOR STATE AND NATION BUT FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

YOU SPOKE ABOUT HOW YOUR SERVICE IS NOT JUST YOUR OWN PERSONAL SERVICE BUT EFFECTS YOUR FAMILY.

TODAY WE HAVE SEEN YOU AS THERE FARMER AMBASSADOR OF 33 YEAR VETERAN OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY AND HOW THIS HAS EFFECTED YOU PERSONALLY AND YOUR FAMILY?

>> IT'S BEEN A DIFFICULT TIME.

I'M A PRIVATE PERSON.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT ALL OF THAT OUT THERE BUT IT'S BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT TIME BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE HIS OWN OR HER OWN AMBASSADOR IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

>> DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MALIGN PEOPLES CHARACTER.

IT MIGHT NOT BE AGAINST THE LAW BUT DECORUM.

>> THERE IS A QUESTION TO WHY THE CAMPAIGN TO GET ME OUT OF UKRAINE HAPPENED.

ALL HE HAS TO SAY IS HE WOULD LIKE A DIFFERENT AMBASSADOR.

IN MY LINE OF WORK AND YOURS AS WELL ALL WE HAVE IS OUR REPUTATION.

THIS HAS BEEN A VERY PAINFUL PERIOD.

>> HOW HAS IT EFFECTED YOUR FAMILY?

>> I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING.

>> I DO CARE.

HOW DID IT AT EFFECT YOUR FELLOW COLLEAGUES.

YOU RECEIVED SUCH ADULATION FROM YOUR OWN FELLOW COLLEAGUES.

WHAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRESIDENT MALIGNING YOUR REPUTATION.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT?

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT IT HAS HAD EXACTLY THAT.

A CHILLING EFFECT.

PEOPLE DON'T KNOW.

WHETHER THEIR EFFORTS TO PURSUE OUR STATE OF POLICY ARE GOING TO BE TOO.

THAT'S A DANGEROUS PLACE TO BE.

>> MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL PAINT YOU AS A NEVER TRUMPER, ARE YOU A NEVER TRUMPER.

>> NO.

YOU TOOK ANNEDIDAE SEVER NO MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE.

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OU ALSO SEVERED DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS BUT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

>> FOUR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

>> YOU JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE UNDER REAGAN.

>> YES, THAT'S TRUE.

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO THINK THEY ARE NONPARTISAN.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO YOUR JOB IN YOUR FELLOW FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS TO DO YOUR JOB.

>> YOU KNOW, SENATOR DANBERG THAT PARTNERED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP TRUE MAN COINED A PHRASE THAT POLITICS SHOULD STOP AT THE WATERS EDGE.

I THINK THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE WHILE OBVIOUSLY THE COMPETITION OF IDEAS IN DEMOCRACY WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES AND INDIVIDUALS IS HUGELY IMPORTANT BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES IT NEEDS TO BE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE UNITED STATES.

THOSE ARE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL WORKS FOR THE CIA, MILITARY, OR STATE DEPARTMENT WE HAVE TO BE NONPARTISAN AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE UNITED STATES.

>> ON BEHALF OF A GRATEFUL NATION I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> MR. TURNER.

I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR WHAT YOU DO.

I WORK WITH THE ASSEMBLY.

I KNOW THE COMPLEXITY OF WHAT YOU DO.

I KNOW YOU HAVE LITTLE ACCESS DESERVE SIGNIFICANCE MAKERS AND LITTLE RESOURCES YOU HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPONSIBILITY.

IT'S A COMPLEX TASK.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE US FROM ONE DIMENSIONAL UKRAINE TO BEING CORRUPT TO OTHER ISSUES.

YOU DEALT WITH MORE THAN OUR BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UKRAINE.

THESE ARE ON YOUR PORTFOLIO.

YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF THE BUDAPEST AGREEMENT AND THE ISSUES OF IT'S INTEGRITY OF THE SIGNATORY RES, CORRECT?

>> CAN YOU RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN.

>> THE OSC, AND THE BUDAPEST AGREEMENT IN WHICH UKRAINE GAVE UP THEIR WEAPONS.

YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THAT IN YOUR PORTFOLIO.

>> WELL, YES.

THAT'S AN ISSUE YOU DEALT WITH.

>> WHETHER WE ARE KEEPING WITH THE AGREEMENT.

>> OKAY, THEY ARE AN INSPIRING NATO COUNTRY.

THEY MADE A STATEMENT THAT THEY GET MEMBERSHIP.

>> CERTAINLY.

IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY THAT THE U.S.

SUPPORTS THE UKRAINE SUPPORTING THE EU AND THEY HAVE AN INVEST AND DESIRE FOR JOINING.

>> YES.

THEY JUST HAD A SUMMIT IN UKRAINE IN JULY WHERE THEY SPOKE ABOUT THE ASSOCIATED AGREEMENT OF INTEGRATION BETWEEN THE UKRAINE AND E.U.

AND THE ILLEGAL ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA.

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM ON THAT.

THE AMBASSADORS TO THE UKRAINE, GERMANY.

>> DID YOU SAY THEY HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT THE ISSUE.

>> SOME OF THEM YES BUT MOSTLY THERE IS A CONCONCENSUS.

>> THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO THE E.U.

THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER THEIR PORTFOLIO INSPIRING NATIONS.

>> YEAH.

SO, EU AMBASSADOR WOULD HAVE HAD UKRAINE IN THEIR PORTFOLIO, CORRECT.

>> I THINK HE TESTIFIED -- YOU AGREED IT'S WITHIN HIS PORTFOLIO, CORRECT?

YOU WOULD A DEGREE IT'S WITHIN HIS PORTFOLIO.

YES.

>> I WOULD AGREE.

'M SORRY CAN YOU LET HER FINISH HER ANSWER.

>> SHE HAS NOT FINISHED HER ANSWER.

>> NOT ON MY TIME.

YOU ARE DONE.

>> THE AMBASSADOR WILL BE RECOGNIZED.

>> I WOULD SAY ALL E.U.

AMBASSADORS DEAL WITH OTHER COUNTRIES INCLUDING INSPIRING COUNTRIES.

IT'S UNUSUAL TO NAME THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS.

>> I'LL TAKE YOUR INITIAL ANSWER STILL IN HIS PORTFOLIO.

>> HE WAS UNDER GREAT INTEGRITY.

YOU KNOW HIM BY HIS REPUTATION.

YOU WOULD AGREE HE'S A MAN OF GREAT REPUTATION?

>> YES.

WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IN 2004 JOHN KERRY HAD A MEMBER OF HIS CAMPAIGN THAT TRAVELED TO THE UKRAINE IN JULY AND MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR.

DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU?

A MEMBER OF JOHN KERRY'S TEAM TRAVELED TO THE UKRAINE AND MET WITH THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR.

>> NOT NECESSARILY.

WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN THAT AMBASSADOR IF A MEMBER OF JOHN KERRY'S TEAM TRAVELED TO THE UKRAINE.

>> IT WOULD DEPEND CONCRETE AREA THE E OF THE MEETING.

>> IT WAS JOHN WHOLEBROOK.

HE WAS THERE ON HIV AIDS WHICH IS SOMETHING THE CLINTON FOUNDATION WAS WORKING ON.

WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL OF THE JOHN KERRY CAMPAIGN, A PRIVATE CITIZEN -- >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.

WE MEET WITH INDIVIDUALS ALL OF THE TIME.

>> IT PROBABLY WASN'T UNUSUAL FOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI EITHER.

>> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

RETURNING TO THE TOPIC OF CORRUPTION.

WE HEARD EVIDENCE YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL OF PROMOTING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION.

ON WEDNESDAY TESTIFYING ABOUT YOUR CAREER AS A CHAMPION OF ANTICORRUPTION TEAMS THERE WAS ANTICORRUPTION ACTION.

SEEMS YOUR EFFORTS AS AMBASSADOR TO REFORM THE GENERALS OFFICE AND THEY DID THAT.

WHAT CONCERNED YOU ABOUT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE WHEN YOU WERE THE AMBASSADOR TO THE UKRAINE?

>> WHAT CONCERNED US WAS THERE WAS NO PROGRESS IN THE THREE OVERALL OBJECTIVES THAT HE HAD LAID OUT.

MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE BUT THE COMMUNITY.

THE FIRST THING WAS REFORMING THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.

IT'S A POWER PHYSICAL UNIVERSITIES WHERE THEY HAD AUTHORITY NOT ONLY TO CONDUCT FBI BUT THROUGH AN FBI LIKE FUNCTION BUT DO THE PROSECUTION.

VERY, VERY WIDE POWERS.

THAT'S PART OF THAT SOVIET LEGACY.

THERE JUST WASN'T A LOT OF PROGRESS IN THAT.

THERE WASN'T A LOT OF PROGRESS IN HANDLING PERSONNEL ISSUES AND HOW THE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ORGANIZED AND WHO SHOULD HAVE THE IMPORTANT JOBS BECAUSE SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE JOBS KNOWN -- THEY WERE CONSIDERED TO BE CORRUPT.

THE ISSUE THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WAS TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE OVER 100 PEOPLE WHO DIED IN 2014.

NOBODY HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT.

THAT'S KIND OF AN OPEN WOUND FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.

YOU NEED TO LEAK ALL OF THE MONEY YOU HAD.

THERE IS A STRONG BELIEF THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT AND THOSE AROUND HIM MADE OFF WITH OVER $40 BILLION.

THAT'S A LOT IN THE U.S.

SO, AGAIN, NOBODY HAS -- NONE OF THAT MONEY HAS BEEN -- I THINK MAYBE $1 BILLION WAS REPATE TRAITED.

>> WAS THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE CORRUPT?

>> WE BELIEVE SO.

YOU BELIEVE HE WAS A DRIVING FORCE.

>> I DO.

ULTIMATELY LEAD TO YOUR REMOVAL, CORRECT.

>> YES.

IT WASN'T JUST HIM.

HIS ALLEGATIONS WERE PICKED UP AND SPREAD BY MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND DONALD TRUMP JR. >> YES.

YOU WERE EFFECTIVE AT FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE.

THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

YOU WERE PUNISHED FOR THAT ULTIMATELY BEING REMOVED FROM YOUR POST BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO IN YOUR OPINION, MADAM AMBASSADOR, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A NONPARTISAN CAREER IN FOREIGN SERVICES.

>> IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE NONPARTISAN CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE -- SERVICE I SHOULD SAY BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS INHERITLY DONE.

IT'S ABOUT THE GREATER INTEREST OF OUR SECURITY.

>> COULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT BROUGHT U.S. POLICY IN YOUR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE IN SPECIFICALLY POST SOVIET STATES LIKE THE UKRAINE?

>> THAT'S A BROAD QUESTION.

I THINK THAT CERTAINLY IN MY TIME IN RUSSIA, ARREST MANIA ALL OF THE COUNTRIES ARE THERE BUT ESTABLISHING CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONS WITH THOSE COUNTRIES IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT, YOU KNOW.

THERE ARE THREE BASIC AREAS.

ONE IS SECURITY.

SO, WORKING ALL OF THE SUB ISSUES YOUR COLLEAGUE MENTIONED MANY OF THEM.

WE CERTAINLY DID THAT IN THE UKRAINE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I YIELD TO THE UKRAINE AS WELL.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE AND DURING YEARS OF MOVING AROUND THE WORLD.

HEARING FROM YOU TODAY I REALIZE WE SHARE SOME OF THE SAME FEELINGS AND EXPERIENCES AS AN ARMY RESERVE SURGEON.

I RECEIVED A CALL ON MONDAY AFTERNOON AND I HAD TO BE OUT THE DOOR WITHIN THE NEXT TWO TO THREE DAYS.

I HAD PATIENTS SCHEDULED FOR MONTHS AND SURGERIES SCHEDULED AND I HAD TO UNDERSTAND THAT SHOCKING FEELING THAT COULD COME WITH ABRUPT CHANGE LIKE THAT.

I WUSS PROCESSING IT A FEW DAYS LATER AND I WAS TOLD MY ORDERS WOULD SAY YOU ARE GONE FOR 18 MONTHS.

I SEVERED A YEAR IN IRAQ.

THIS IS WHERE I HAVE ANOTHER PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP.

I SAW PEOPLE WHO CRAVED A NONCORRUPT GOVERNMENT.

IT HAPPENED REMOVE SEDONA.COM THEY WERE REMOVED.

IT FEELS LIKE AN UNOPENED WOUND.

YOU MIGHT IMAGE WITH THAT BACKGROUND AND STRATEGY AND CAPABILITY.

IN YOUR DEP SIXTH ON PAGE 144 YOU ARE QUOTED ASSAYING IN TERMS OF ASSISTANCE WE FELT IT WAS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD PROVIDE WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINE.

WHO MAKES UP WE ALL?

>> JUST ONE SECOND.

WHAT LINE IS THAT?

I HAVE TO MOVE ON.

YOU SAID WE ALL FELT IT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINE.

I ASSUME THOSE WITH BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

YOU MEANT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

>> YES.

IN YOUR DEPOSITION ALSO ON PAGE 144 YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE GENEROSITY OF CONGRESS.

YOU MENTIONED INJURY CREASING AID TO UKRAINE.

DID YOU ADVOCATE FOR THAT, YOU RESPONDED YES.

YOU WERE ASKED DID YOU ADVOCATE FOR THAT PRY OR TO THE MINISTRATION IN 2016 YOU RERESPONDED YEAH.

THE QUESTION WAS WERE YOU SATISFIED AND THEY SAID IN WHAT RESPECT.

YOU SAID, YEAH.

I AGREE THAT ASSISTANCE WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT AS YOU SAID.

I THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I THANK MR. VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID.

HE SAID THE PRESIDENT FELT IT MIGHT PROVOKE RUSSIA.

MR. TAILOR CONTESTED THAT THEY HAD BEEN PROVOKED AND INVADED THE UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP OBAMA PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE SIS OWN DID SIGNIFICANCES AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> YEAH, THERE IS AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS.

>> HE HAS THE RIGHT AS PRESIDENT.

I RESPECT THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS.

HE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN FOREIGN POLICY AND DECISIONS AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS DO ALL PRESIDENT'S CORRECT.

>> YES.

WE HAVE ONE PRESIDENT, OBAMA, THAT DENIED LETHAL AID WHAT SO EVER.

HE RECOMMENDED MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION SUCH AS YOU DID.

WE HAVE ANOTHER PRESIDENT, TRUMP, HE VETTED THOSE RECEIVING THE AID AND PROVIDED IT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR INTERAGENCY RECOMMENDATION AND THAT OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.

FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT WITHOUT JAVELINS WOULD YOU AGREE THEY HAD OPTIONS ABDOMEN FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ATTACK THE UKRAINE, WITHOUT THE UKRAINE HAVING JAVELINS.

>> YEAH, THEY HAD ANOTHER OPTION.

THE TANK WAR IS NO LONGER THE WAR BEING FOUGHT IN THE UKRAINE.

>> I'M JUST SAYING WITH THE JAVELINS.

>> THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT BECAUSE THE JAVELINS ARE THERE.

THAT CHANGES THE SCENARIO.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR OWN FOREIGN POLICY AND MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

FOR THAT I YIELD BACK.

>> IF I COULD SUPPLEMENT AN ANSWER.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AS WELL.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS WHILE I OBVIOUSLY DON'T DISPUTE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW AN AMBASSADOR AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON BUT WHAT I DO WONDER IS WHY IT WAS NECESSARY TO SMEAR MY REPUTATION.

>> I WASN'T ASKING ABOUT THAT BUT THANK YOU.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SPEAR.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU AMBASSADOR SO MUCH.

YOU WERE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE ON A VOTE.

>> YES.

UNANIMOUS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, CORRECT.

NO DISPUTE.

YOU SAID IN THE SUMMER OF 2018 THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN BEGAN IN YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY.

DID SECTARY POMPEO EVERY COME TO YOUR AID?

>> SULLIVAN AND REEKER SAID THIS SORT OF HAS RUMORS ABOUT ME FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.

THIS WAS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS THAT HE ACTUALLY DID KEEP ME IN PLACE.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD.

>> BACK IN 2018 THE PRESIDENT WAS ALREADY MAKING NOISES THAT HE WANTED YOU OUT OF THERE.

IT APPEARS AS EARLY AS APRIL OF 2018 AT A FUNDRAISER AND RECOMMENDED THAT YOU BE REMOVED.

IN MAY OF 2018 THERE WERE PICKS AT A WHITE HOUSE DINNER.

LATER IN MAY MADE A CONTRIBUTION OF $325,000 ILLEGALLY TO THE PRESIDENT REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

>> I'M AWARE OF THOSE THINGS.

DOES THAT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND A BIT MORE WHY THIS MERE CAMPAIGN WAS UNDERWAY?

>> YES, I MEAN -- OU MADE SOME VERY RIFFING COMMENTS THIS MORNING.

>> I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD I SEVERED AT THE PRESIDENT.

THEY WILL COMFORT HIM AND FOREIGN AND PRIVATE INTEREST WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINED U.S.

INTERESTS.

>> OUR EFFORTS FOR U.S. POLICY AND CORRUPTION TO DO OUR MISSION AND ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN OF DISINFORMATION AGAINST A SITTING AMBASSADOR USING UNOFFICIAL BACK CHANNELS.

NOW, AS I LISTEN TO YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT I WAS THINKING OF ALL OF THE OTHER PERSONS IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE THAT HAVE TO BE CONCERNED IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO FOLLOW THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

ALSO TO BE AWARE THE PRESIDENT HAS A BACK CHANNEL OF INTEREST THAT HE IS PROMOTING THAT'S OPPOSED TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

>> I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHOEVER IS REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT, AN AMBASSADOR SPEAKING WITH THE FULL AUTHORITY.

THEY ARE ALSO HELPING WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE COUNTRY.

WE ALL SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE.

IT'S ABOUT OUR COMMON SECURITY INTERESTS AND IT'S NOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PERSONAL GAIN OR COMMERCIAL GAIN OR ANYTHING ELSE.

IT'S ABOUT O NATIONAL SECURITY.

>> IN THIS CASE THE TR ES AMIGOS WERE INTERESTED IN THIS.

YOU WERE TOLD AT ONE POINT IN 2019, IN FEBRUARY OF EARLIER OF THIS YEAR.

YOU SPOKE TO AN ADMINISTER THAT WARNED WHEN IT CAME TO RUDOLPH GIULIANI YOU NEEDED TO WATCH YOUR BACK.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN?

>> I DIDN'T KNOW BUT YOU KNOW, THE RUMOR WAS OUT THERE AT THAT TIME.

I BELIEVE THE MINISTER SHARED THAT INFORMATION THAT THE MAYOR WAS WORKING TO HAVE ME REMOVED.

>> LETTERS ME SAY TO CONCLUDE YOU HAVE ENDURED AN ORCHESTRATED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

IT WAS HATCHED A YEAR AND HALF AGO AND LACED WITH ENORMOUS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

YOU DESERVE MORE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MORE FROM CONGRESS IN SUPPORTING YOU.

I YIELD BACK.

>> YOU MAN MUSS MAN E UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> YOU CAN TAKE THAT UP LATER.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

WELCOME AS I SAID A FEW DAYS AGO TO THE WITNESSES.

WELCOME TO YEAR FOUR OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

I'M SORRY YOU WERE DRAGGED INTO THIS.

THERE WERE UNBELIEVABLE ACCUSATIONS REGARDING COLLUSION.

THEY ARE ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

THERE WAS NO BASES AT ALL DESPITE PROMISES FROM THE COMMITTEE THEY HAD SECRET PROOF.

WE KNOW IT WAS NONSENSE.

IN YEAR FOUR WE MOVE ONTO UKRAINE AND QUID PRO QUO CULMINATING YESTERDAY WHEN THE SPEAKER ANNOUNCED THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE OR BRIBERY.

WITH THAT STATEMENT I WOULD NOW FEEL COMPELLED TO ASK YOU, MADAM AMBASSADOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EXCEPTING ANY BRIBES?

>> NO.

DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH AT ALL?

>> NO.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT DIRECTLY.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THIS IS NONSENSE AND KNOW THIS IS UNFAIR.

I HAVE A PREDICTION REGARDING THIS.

I THINK THAT PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT WILL BE LESS WHEN THESE HEARINGS ARE OVER THEN WHEN THEY BEGAN.

FINALLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL SEE THE EVIDENCE.

THEY WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION REGARDING THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ONE THING VERY QUICKLY.

YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN.

YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED AS YOU RECOGNIZE IF ANY PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO ASK HIS AMBASSADORS TO SEVER AT WILL.

I'LL CURIOUS, DO YOU THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT POLICY?

>> YEAH, I BELIEVE IT IS.

I DO AS WELL.

IT MIGHT BE IMPERFECT AND NOT USED PERFECTLY.

I AGREE WITH YOU.

IT'S THE RIGHT POLICY.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM PREVIOUS STATEMENTS INCLUDING ONE OF YOUR OWN REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS REGARDING CORRUPTION IN THE U.K. AGAIN, THE FACT THE INVESTIGATION IS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR OF THE UKRAINE IS NOT THE PRICE.

FROM YOURSELF, YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.

QUESTION, WAS IT THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS THE COMPANY SUFFERING FROM ALLEGATIONS.

>> FROM THE AMBASSADOR.

I AM JUST GENERALLY AWARE THIS IS CONSIDERED A CORRUPTION COMPANY.

WOULD YOU AGREE, THEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION.

>> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR DOING THAT.

IT'S THE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY.

IT GOES FROM OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE MINISTRY OF THE COUNTRY OF INTEREST.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT.

REGARDLESS, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE.

WE ARE ABOUT TO GIVE SOME OF THESE COUNTRIES HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

THE U.S. TAXPAYERS SAID HERE IS A DOLLARS AMOUNT AND GIVE IT TO THIS OTHER COUNTRY.

PLEASE ONLY DO IT IF YOU KNOW IT WON'T BE USED FOR PURPOSES OR AGAINST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST.

I'LL CONCLUDE WITH THIS.

I PROMISED MY FRIEND I WOULD SEEK HIM A BIT OF TIME.

WE MENTIONED EARLIER THE VICE PRESIDENT WHEN HE WAS WORKING WITH THE UKRAINE AND ABOUT THE SPECIFIC FIRING.

WE COMPLETED OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

THE INTERESTING THING IS THIS.

THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD TWO COUNTRIES THAT WERE HIS RESPONSIBILITY.

CHINA, AND THE UKRAINE.

HE BRAGGED ABOUT HIS INFLUENCE IN THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

HE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME.

THESE POLICIES OF THE VICE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY HELPED TO FORMULATE.

>> THANK YOU.

I'LL YIELD.

HAVE CONSENT THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU THIS TIME.

IT'S THREE ARTICLES IN THE 2004 CAMPAIGN.

THE FOREIGN POLICY CREW -- >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.

WE WILL PICK UP.

I MAY RECOGNIZE YOU RECOGNIZE Y.

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> THANK YOU.

MADAM AMBASSADOR, LIKE A HALLMARK MOVIE.

YOU ENDED UP IN GEORGETOWN.

THIS IS ALL OKAY.

[LAUGHTER] BUT IT WASN'T YOUR PREFERENCE SEVEN, EIGHT MONTHS AGO, CORRECT?

>> NO, IT WAS NOT.

>> IT WASN'T YOUR PREFERENCE TO BE THE VICTIM OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN, WAS IT?

>> NO.

>> IT WAS PRESIDENT YOUR PREFERENCE TO BE DEFAMED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS IT?

>> NO.

>> IT WASN'T YOUR PREFERENCE TO BE OUSTED AT THE PINNACLE OF YOUR CAREER, WAS IT?

>> NO.

>> YOU WANTED TO FINISH YOUR EXTENDED TOUR, CORRECT?

>> I DID.

>> WHAT DID YOU WANT TO DO AFTER THAT?

DID YOU KNOW?

>> I WASN'T SURE.

>> THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH GEORGETOWN.

IT'S A FINE PLACE, RIGHT?

>> WONDERFUL PLACE.

>> IT'S YOUR ONLY CHOICE AT THE END OF A DISTINGUISHED CAREER AFTER ALL THAT.

IT'S NOT THE END OF A HALLMARK MOVIE.

IT'S THE END OF A REALLY BAD REALITY TV SHOW BROUGHT TO YOU BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THAT.

[LAUGHTER] WHY DID YOU -- YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU SOUGHT ADVICE FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT WHAT TO DO, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> WHY DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE AMBASSADOR?

>> THIS WAS CLEARLY SO POLITICAL AND WAS NOT GOING TO BE -- THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT IN POSITION, SHALL WE SAY, TO MANAGE THE ISSUE, IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO ME, SO I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO SAID THAT HE WAS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE, HE SAID HE WAS CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT.

SO HE HAD JUST BEEN IN UKRAINE FOR A SHIP VISIT WITH SOME OF HIS E.U.

COLLEAGUES FROM BRUSSELS.

SO I REACHED OUT TO HIM FOR ADVICE.

WHEN THIS WAS NO LONGER A UKRAINE KIND OF -- AND INTERLUDE WITH THE UKRAINIANS AND POLITICIANS AND PUNDITS WERE REPEATING THE ALLEGATIONS, I ASKED HIM FOR ADVICE.

>> AND IT MEANT A LOT TO YOU.

AN EXTRAORDINARY TIME.

THE ADD MEANT A LOT.

WHAT WAS HIS ADVICE?

>> HE SUGGESTED THAT I NEEDED TO GO BIG OR GO HOME.

AND HE SAID THAT THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO, YOU KNOW, SEND OUT A TWEET, PRAISE THE PRESIDENT, THAT SORT OF THING.

>> AND WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THAT ADVICE?

>> MY REACTION IS THAT I'M SURE HE MEANT WELL, BUT IT WAS NOT ADVICE THAT I COULD REALLY FOLLOW.

FELT -- IT FELT PARTISAN, FELT POLITICAL.

I JUST -- THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT WAS IN KEEPING WITH MY ROLE AS AMBASSADOR IN A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.

>> HE GAVE YOU ANY SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR JUST SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT HIM?

>> YEAH, JUST TO PRAISE HIM.

>> THANK YOU.

I YIELD THE BALANCE TO THE CHAIRMAN.

>> I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING AND HARKEN BACK TO SOMETHING YOU WERE ASKED BY MINORITY COUNSEL EARLIER.

YOU WERE ASKED A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.

YOU THINK YOU COULD HAVE DONE MORE TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN?

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE GETTING AT BUT AREN'T YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN VICTIMIZATION?

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO PEOPLE THAT SAY, ISN'T IT KIND OF YOUR FAULT, AMBASSADOR, THAT YOU DIDN'T FIGHT YOUR OWN SMEAR HARDER?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR A LONG TIME.

AND JUST LIKE THE MILITARY, WE HAVE OUR OWN CULTURE, WE HAVE OUR OWN KIND OF CHAIN OF COMMAND, SO TO SPEAK.

I DID EVERYTHING THAT I COULD TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND ASK THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RIGHT, WHICH WAS TO SUPPORT ME.

IT WAS ABOUT SUPPORTING THE POLICY.

I THINK IT WAS FOR OTHERS TO STAND UP FOR ME.

>> I QUITE AGREE.

REPRESENTATIVE STEFFANIC.

>> THANK YOU.

SINCE THE CHAIRMAN HAS GAVELLED OUT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT, I'M GOING TO READ NOR THE RECORD MANY OF THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS IN SEPTEMBER OF THE IMPORTANCE OF HEARING FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

AGAIN, AMBASSADOR, THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND SERVICE.

SINCE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CONDUCT OURSELVES NORMALLY, I'M GOING TO USE THE FIVE MINUTES FOR THIS.

SEPTEMBER 29, "WALL STREET JOURNAL."

"THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AT THE CENTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION WILL TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE SOON.

THIS IS A QUOTE BY THE CHAIRMAN.

"USA TODAY," SEPTEMBER 29th, TALKING WITH ABC NEWS THIS WEEK, SCHIFF WHO CHAIRS THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SAID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WOULD TESTIFY SOON AND THE ONLY THING STANDING IN THE WAY WOULD BE GETTING SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR THE ATTORNEYS.

FROM VOX, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF SAID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AT THE CENTER OF THE SCANDAL SURROUNDING PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VERY SOON.

ON CNN, SEPTEMBER 29th, SCHIFF SAID ON ABC MEET THE PRESS THAT HE EXPRESSED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TESTIFY SOON.

"THE WASHINGTON POST," SEPTEMBER 29th, IN APPEARANCE ON ABC NEWS THIS WEEK, SCHIFF ECHOED PELOSI'S MESSAGE THAT HE ALSO SAID THAT HE EXPECTED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER VERY SOON PENDING A SECURITY CLEARANCE FROM ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, JOSEPH MAGUIRE.

SCHIFF TOLD ABC'S THIS WEEK THAT HE EXPECTS IS WHISTLE-BLOWER TO APPEAR SOON.

IN THE "NEW YORK POST," "WE'LL GET THE UNFILTERED TESTIMONY OF THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER."

IN THE QUASHING ON THE TIMES, "THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER WILL BE ALLOWED TO COME IN."

THESE ARE ALL QUOTES FROM CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF.

IN TALKING POINTS ME MOW, BY JEFF STEPPHANOLOUS, DURING THE HEARING, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WILL BE ALLOWED TO COME IN.

WE'LL GET THE UNFILTERED TESTIMONY OF THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER.

IN DAILY COAST, WE'RE READY TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AS SOON AS THAT ISTDONE.

WE'LL KEEP RIDING SHOTGUN TO MAKE SURE THE ACTING DIRECTOR DOESN'T DELAY IN THAT CLEARANCE PROCESS.

IN CNBC, WE'LL GET THE INFILTERED TESTIMONY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

IN MARKET WATCH, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF SAID AN AGREEMENT WOULD BE REACHED AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WOULD TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VERY SOON.

I CAN KEEP GOING, BUT AGAIN, THE CHAIRMAN REFUSED TO ALLOW US TO PUT THESE INTO THE RECORD WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

SO I'VE READ THEM OUT.

AS WE KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROTECT WHISTLE-BLOWERS FROM RETALIATION AND FROM FIRING.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHISTLE-BLOWERS ARE ABLE TO COME FORWARD.

BUT IN THIS CASE THE FACT THAT WE'RE GETTING CRITICIZED BY CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF FOR STATEMENTS THAT HE HIMSELF MADE EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS SHOWS THE DUPLICITY AND JUST THE ABUSE OF POWER THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO SEE.

WITH 1:54, I'LL YIELD TO MR. JORDAN.

>> I THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING.

I WOULD ADD THE CHAIRMAN HAS PROMISED WE WOULD SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS.

STILL FOUR PEOPLE WE DEPOSED THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS, HAVE THEM RELEASED AND THEREFORE THE TESTIMONY THEY PROVIDED WE'RE NOT ABLE TO USE IN THESE OPEN HEARINGS.

IT'S AN OPEN HEARING, ALL OF THE AVAILABLE TESTIMONY FROM DEPOSITIONS THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO BE DISCUSSED FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE.

BE NO, NO, NO.

MR. MORRIS AND MR. HALE AND TWO OTHERS HAVE NOT YET BEEN RELEASED.

I HOPE THE CHAIRMAN RELEASES THAT.

ONE OTHER POINT TO MAKE IN THE LAST MINUTE OF MRS. STEFANIK'S TEAM.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ASSERTED THIS THING WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS PART OF A SINISTER SCHEME BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET MR. -- PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO AN INVESTIGATION.

IF CALLING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS PART OF A SCHEME BY TRUMP AND POMPEO AND GULIANI TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO AN INVESTIGATION, WHY WOULD THEY REPLACE HER WITH THE DEMOCRAT'S FIRST WITNESS?

THEIR STAR WITNESS.

BILL TAYLOR.

I MEAN, THAT IS THE PLAN, NOT THE BEST PLAN I'VE EVER SEEN PUT TOGETHER.

THEIR STAR WITNESS, THEIR FIRST WITNESS, MR. TAYLOR, HERE WEDNESDAY, THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE UP TO?

IT DEMONSTRATES THAT'S NOT WENT ON HERE.

MR. ZELENSKY NEVER UNDERTOOK ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

THE REASON THE AIDE WAS RELEASED AS WE DISCUSSED WEDNESDAY IS BECAUSE VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND U.S.

SENATORS ALL TALKED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THEY WERE CONVINCED HE WAS THE REAL DEAL AS THE AMBASSADOR HAS ALLUDED TO IN HER TESTIMONY.

THAT'S WHY THE MONEY WAS RELEASED.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. SWALWELL.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER CAME FORWARD.

TWO THINGS IN PARTICULAR.

FIRST, MOST OF WHAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS ALLEGED HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE WITNESSES THAT WE HEARD FROM.

SECOND, THE PRESIDENT WHO MY COLLEAGUES SO SHAMELESSLY CONTINUE TO DEFEND CONTINUE TO PRESSURE, THREATEN AND INTIMIDATE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

SO I'D LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PUT IN THE RECORD A SEPTEMBER 26th, 2019 ARTICLE FROM BUSINESS INSIDER.

TRUMP SUGGESTED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM IS GUILTY OF TREASON, WHICH IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.

>> NO OBJECTION.

>> HOW ABOUT SEPTEMBER 26, 2019, VANITY FAIR?

TRUMP SUGGESTED EXECUTING THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S SOURCES LIKE IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

THIRD -- >> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> SEPTEMBER 29th, WHISTLE-BLOWER'S LAWYER RAISES FEAR FOR CLIENT'S SAFETY.

FROM AXIOS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS A RIGHT TO ANONYMITY.

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S LAWYERS SAY HE FEARS FOR HIS SAFETY AND WISHES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN WRITING.

I WISH MY COLLEAGUES WOULD PROTECT HIS ANONYMITY.

BUT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT YOU, MRS. YOVANOVITCH.

YOU SAW A LOT AS RELATES TO MR. GULIANI.

I WANT TO READ A QUOTE FROM MR. GULIANI BUT FIRST ASK YOU WHEN YOU WERE IN UKRAINIAN, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RUDY GULIANI WAS DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH RUDY GULIANI'S QUOTE IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS THE LAWYER SAYING "HE BASICALLY KNOWS WHAT I'M DOING, SURE, AS HIS LAWYER."

WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT QUOTE?

>> SOUNDS FAMILIAR.

>> YOU HAVE A LAWYER WITH YOU TODAY, MRS. YOVANOVITCH.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT LAWYERS ACT ON THEIR CLIENT'S BEHLF, THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR A LAWYER TO GO OUTSIDE ANY DIRECTIVE THAT A CLIENT GIVES.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A "NEW YORK TIMES" STORY WHERE RUDY GULIANI SAID THAT HE INTENDS TO VISIT UKRAINIAN AND SAYS WE'RE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION.

WE'RE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH QUOTE?

>> YES.

>> THAT'S 11 DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE REMOVED AS IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> HE'S TALKING PUBLICLY ABOUT DESIGNS ON COMING TO UKRAINE.

WHAT I THINK IS INTERESTING IS THAT MR. GULIANI SAYS "WERE" AS IN WE ARE.

HE DOESN'T SAY I AM NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION.

HE DOESN'T SAY I'M NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION.

HE SAYS WE.

HE IS SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS CLIENT.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT QUOTE WE'RE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION.

WE'RE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION.

IS IT PROPER FOR YOU OR ANYONE WHO ACTS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO MEDDLE IN AN INVESTIGATION?

>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> WHY NOT?

>> WELL, THERE'S LAW ENFORCEMENT CHANNELS AND THINGS NEED TO BE HANDLED PROPERLY AND WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS.

>> NOW, THIS ANTI-CORRUPTION CRUSADER, PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TOUTED OUT AS HAVING SUCH A GREAT INTEREST IN ANTI-CORRUPTION IN BOTH THE CALLS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TODAY, THE AUGUST 21 CALL AND THE JULY 25 CALL, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER MENTIONED THE WORD CORRUPTION?

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> AS FAR AS THE FOREIGN AID THAT MY COLLEAGUES KEEP SAYING HE CAN'T BE GUILTY.

HE DIDN'T COMPLETE THE CHEAT.

THE AID WENT TO THE UKRAINIANS.

ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE ONLY REASON THE AID OR THE ONLY TIME THE AID WENT TO THE UKRAINIANS WAS AFTER THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT BECAME PUBLIC?

>> YES, AFTER THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT BECAME PUBLIC.

>> SO YOU DON'T GET POINTS WHEN YOU GET YOUR HANDS CAUGHT IN THE COOKIE JAR AND SOMEONE SAYS HEY, HE HAS HIS HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR AND YOU TAKE YOUR HAND OUT, WHICH IS WHAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND THE PRESIDENT ARE TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR.

LASTLY, THE DISGUSTING TWEET FROM THE PRESIDENT TODAY.

HE ATTACKS YOUR CHARACTER BUT I THINK I KNOW WHO YOU ARE, AMBASSADOR.

I THINK THE COUNTRY KNOWS WHO YOU ARE.

HE SMEARED YOU WHEN YOU WERE IN UKRAINIAN, HE SMEARED YOU ON THE PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON JULY 25, HE IS SMEARING YOU RIGHT NOW AS YOU ARE TESTIFYING.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ARE THE PRESIDENT'S SMEARS GOING TO STOP YOU FROM FIGHTING CORRUPTION?

>> I WILL CONTINUE WITH MY WORK.

>> IF YOUR COUNTRY ASKS YOU TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, WILL YOU DO THAT DESPITE THE SMEARS?

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. HURT.

>> YOUR EXCELLENCY -- MOVE OVER HERE.

33 YEARS, SIX SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE PERFORMANCE AWARDS, FIVE STATE DEPARTMENT SUPERIOR HONOR AWARDS.

THE PRESIDENTIAL DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD AND THE SECRETARY'S DIPLOMACY IN HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS.

YOU'RE TOUGH AS NAILS AND SMART AS HELL.

YOUR A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT OUR AMBASSADORS SHOULD BE LIKE.

YOU'RE AN HONOR TO YOUR FAMILY, AN HONOR TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE, YOU'RE AN HONOR TO THIS COUNTRY AND I THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO ON BEHALF OF YOUR COUNTRY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I'M NERVOUS ABOUT WHAT I'M GETTING READY TO DO.

I WANT TO DO A FIVE-YEAR HISTORY OF UKRAINIAN IN 45 SECONDS.

NOW THAT YOU'RE A PROFESSOR, YOU CAN GRADE MY PAPER.

VALENTINE'S DAY 2014, UKRAINIAN PEOPLE GET FED UP WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND BASICALLY OVERTHROW HIM.

HE GOES ON THE RUN.

THIS WAS THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY.

WHO WAS THE ACTING PRESIDENT DURING THAT TIME WHEN HE WENT OUT?

>> I THINK IT WAS -- >> CHURCHINOV.

>> THANK YOU.

AND IN MARCH OF 2014, WE SAW LITTLE GREEN MEN COMING INTO UKRAINIAN AND ULTIMATELY THE RUSSIANS INVADE THE UKRAINIAN AND NOT ONLY ANNEX -- TRY TO ANNEX CRIMEA, BUT ALSO TRY TO INVADE THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IN THE EASTERN PART AS WELL.

>> YES.

>> AND THEN AN ELECTION AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WAS POROSHENKO.

AND THEN YOU CAME TO POST IN 2016 OF AUGUST.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> TWO YEARS LATER.

>> JANUARY 2017 TRUMP WAS ELECTED.

IN DECEMBER OF 2017 IS WHEN THE JAVELINS WERE APPROVED.

RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> WE SAW THE JAVELINS DELIVERED IN 2018 TO BE PUT TO FIRST USE.

THEN WE HAD ZELENSKY ELECTED IN 2019.

APRIL.

CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> NOW AT THE ZELENSKY DEFEATED THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT POROSHENKO.

THERE'S NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN THESE TWO DUDES.

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> OKAY.

IN MAY OF 2019, ZELENSKY IS SWORN IN.

>> YES.

>> SO MY QUESTIONS, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT RUDY GULIANI.

DO WE KNOW WHAT OFFICIALS WITHIN THE ZELENSKY REGIME HE ACTUALLY MET WITH?

I KNOW TWO.

A GENTLEMAN NAMED YURAMAK, ONE OF ZELENSKY'S SENIOR ADVISERS AND WE ALSO KNOW OF THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED HERE, THAT WAS CORRUPT, LUSHENKO.

HE SERVED UNDER ZELENSKY FOR A COUPLE MONTHS UNTIL AUGUST.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> THEIR PARLIAMENT VOTED HIM OUT.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SO IF RUDY GULIANI IS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE ZELENSKY REGIME, WOULD A GUY THAT WORKED UNDER THE PREVIOUS REGIME, UNDER POROSHENKO, BE THE RIGHT GUY TO DO IT?

>> SO ARE YOU SAYING MR. LUTSE -- >> DID MR. LUTSENKO HAVE MUCH CREDIBILITY IN THE ZELENSKY REGIME, THE CURRENT REGIME?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> HE DIDN'T.

DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER UKRAINIANS THAT MR. GULIANI WAS MEETING WITH THAT WAS PART OF THE ZELENSKY REGIME?

>> JUST TO REMIND, I WOULD HAVE ALREADY LEFT UKRAINE BY THAT POINT.

I'M NOT AWARE.

>> EVEN WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME, ZELENSKY WON THE ELECTION, THERE WAS A TWO-MONTH PERIOD OF PREPARING TO BE INSTALLED AS PRESIDENT, EVEN DURING THAT TIME WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY -- >> THERE WAS -- SO THERE IS A -- ONE OF THE OLIGARCHS THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT.

HE MET WITH FROM FRUMAN AND MR. PARNAS.

THAT WAS APPARENTLY TO GET A MEETING FOR MR. GULIANI.

>> THOSE ARE NOT PEOPLE THAT WERE IN GOVERNMENT OR BECAME IN THE ZELENSKY IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO.

>> OKAY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. CASTRO.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR FOR YOUR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR NATION.

A BIG QUESTION HERE HAD TO IS WHY YOU WERE PUSHED ASIDE AS AMBASSADOR.

FOR EXAMPLE, AMERICANS KNOW THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS A RIGHT TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE, BUT THEY SHOULDN'T DO IT FOR CERTAIN REASONS.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE FIRED BECAUSE YOU'RE DISABLED, BECAUSE YOU'RE A WOMAN, BECAUSE YOU'RE BLACK, AND FOR OTHER REASONS.

AND I THINK MOST AMERICANS AGREE THAT A PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T FIRE AN AMBASSADOR OR RECALL AN AMBASSADOR BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR IS STANDING IN HIS WAY OF DOING A CORRUPT ACT.

I WANT TO ASK YOU, DID THE PRESIDENT EVER TELL YOU WHY HE RECALLED YOU?

>> NO.

>> DID ANYBODY AT THE WHITE HOUSE TELL YOU WHY YOU BEING RECALLED?

>> NO.

>> DID THE PRESIDENT EVER CONSULT YOU ABOUT WHO THE GOOD GUYS AND THE BAD GUYS WERE IN THE UKRAINE?

>> NO.

>> DID SECRETARY POMPEO TELL YOU WHY YOU WERE BEING RECALLED?

>> NO.

>> IT APPEARS IN THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HEARD IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SO FAR THAT THERE WERE A GROUP OF THE PRESIDENT'S MEN PERHAPS SECRETARY PERRY, RUDY GULIANI, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT WERE IN ON THE SCHEME TO GET THE BIDENS AND BURISMA INVESTIGATED.

I WANT TO PUT ASIDE PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR JUST A SECOND AND ASK YOU, IN ALL OF YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE, HAVE YOU EVER COME ACROSS A PRESIDENT, BEEN ASKED BY A PRESIDENT OR KNOWN OF COLLEAGUES ASKED BY AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO HAVE -- TO HELP THAT PRESIDENT GET AN AMERICAN INVESTIGATED OVERSEAS?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.

>> AND IF A PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO INVESTIGATE A FORMER VICE PRESIDENT FOR THIS PURPOSE, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE SAID?

>> I MEAN, WITH WHAT I KNOW TODAY, I WOULD HAVE SAID NO.

>> WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED AN UNLAWFUL ACT?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S UNLAWFUL PER SE, BUT I THINK, AGAIN, THAT THERE ARE CHANNELS FOR CONDUCTING PROPER INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

>> BUT CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE -- IT'S BIZARRE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK THAT SOME AMERICAN BE INVESTIGATED BY ANOTHER GOVERNMENT.

>> IT'S VERY UNUSUAL.

>> AND ALSO, YOU MENTIONED THERE'S CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

UKRAINE ISN'T THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT CONFRONTS CORRUPTION.

IF THE PEOPLE IN POWER IN A COUNTRY WHERE CORRUPTION IS RAMPANT IS BEING ASKED BY A FOREIGN LEADER WHO HAS A LOT OF LEVERAGE OVER THEM TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, COULD THAT BE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY COULD TRUMP UP CHARGES AGAINST SOMEONE IF THEY WANTED?

>> THEY COULD.

>> AND I ALSO WANT TO ASK YOU, I SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR KENT.

HE MADE A COMMENT YESTERDAY ABOUT SELECTIVE PROSECUTIONS.

WHAT IT MEANS GOING FORWARD.

WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT IT SETS.

YOU HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND FOR DIPLOMATS.

I WANT YOU TO HELP US CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD.

IF THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCES FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP OR REALLY ANY PRESIDENT WHO DOES THIS, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THIS COUNTRY AND FOR ANY AMERICAN, NOT JUST A FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR EVEN SOMEBODY IN POLITICS, BUT A PERSON IN BUSINESS THAT DOES BUSINESS IN SAUDI ARABIA OR SOME OTHER COUNTRY, IF A PRESIDENT IS GOING TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER HEAD OF STATE OR SOME FOREIGN OFFICIAL AND TRY TO GET THAT PERSON INVESTIGATED, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY AND FOR AMERICANS?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT INVESTIGATIONS, PROSECUTIONS, JUDICIAL DECISIONS PROPERLY SHOULD REMAIN WITH INVESTIGATORS, PROSECUTORS AND THE COURTS.

AND I THINK THAT, AS I SAID BEFORE, I THINK SENATOR VANDENBERG WHEN HE SAID POLITICS HAVE TO STOP AT THE WATER'S EDGE, HE'S RIGHT IN THAT.

>> I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.

>> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN AND AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, I'D LIKE TO JOIN IN MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY ABOUT YOUR SENATE CONFIRMATION AND CONGRESSWOMAN STEFANIK ASKED YOU HOW THE OBAMA-BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARED YOU TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN SPECIFICALLY.

YOU RECALL THAT?

>> YES.

>> AND SHE MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD BEEN ASKED OR BEEN PREPARED FOR A QUESTION ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA BUT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU GAVE US THE ANSWER OR ANSWERS THAT THE OBAMA-BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARED YOU TO GIVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THOSE ANSWERS WERE?

>> YES.

IT WAS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF I WOULD DEFER YOU TO THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE ON THAT.

>> SO DID THEY IN THE COURSE OF THAT BRIEF YOU ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS BEING PAID BY BURISMA?

>> NO.

THIS WASN'T PART OF A BRIEFING.

I MEAN, I HAD SORT OF BIG OLD BOOKS WITH QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT COME UP.

>> IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR CONFIRMATION, AND THEY THOUGHT THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE AT BURISMA MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD COME UP DURING YOUR CONFIRMATION.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> APPARENTLY SO.

THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF QUESTIONS.

>> WELL, HUNDREDS OF QUESTIONS, BUT WERE THERE HUNDREDS OF COMPANIES?

HOW MANY COMPANIES OTHER THAN BURISMA THE I DID -- DID THE OBAMA-BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARE YOUR FOR ANSWERS FOR.

IF THERE WERE, WHICH ONES?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>> YOU DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WERE ANY OTHER COMPANIES.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I'M QUITE SURE THERE PROBABLY WERE SOME COMPANIES, BUT I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AWHILE AGO.

I DON'T RECALL.

>> YOU SPECIFICALLY >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT.

OUT OF THOUSANDS OF COMPANIES IN THE UKRAINIAN, THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU RECALL THE OBAMA-BIDEN STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IS THE ONE WHERE THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON WAS ON THE BOARD.

IS THAT FAIR?

>> YES.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT'S TESTIMONY, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT ARRANGEMENT, HUNTER BIDEN'S ROLE AS HE TESTIFIED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT IN FEBRUARY OF 2015 "I RAISED MY CONCERN THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S STATUS AS A BOARD MEMBER COULD CREATE THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST."

HE WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES OVER UKRAINIAN POLICY AS ONE OF THOSE FACTORS.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU EVER -- DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> YES.

>> THAT IT WAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO RAISE?

>> I THINK THAT IT COULD RAISE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> DID YOU DISCUSS THAT EVER WITH MR. KENT?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> SHORTLY BEFORE YOUR CONFIRMATION IN AUGUST OF 2016, PROSECUTOR GENERAL SCHULKIN WAS FIRED BY POROSHENKO.

>> YES.

>> AND PROSECUTOR GENERAL SCHULKIN OPENED THE INVESTIGATION TO BURISMA, CORRECT?

>> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

I'M NOT SURE.

>> HE WAS IN CHARGE OF IT AT LEAST AT THAT POINT IN TIME AS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

>> UH-HUH.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE VERY PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THAT FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OCCURRED IN MARCH OF 2016, SIX HOURS AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT TOLD PRESIDENT POROSHENKO THAT HE NEEDED TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OR THAT HE WOULDN'T RECEIVE $1 BILLION FROM THE UNITED STATES?

DO YOU RECALL >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT.

DO YOU THINK THAT THAT RAISES A POTENTIAL CONCERN OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ORDERING THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR IN CHARGE OF A COMPANY THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ONE THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY CORRUPT?

>> I ACTUALLY DON'T.

I DON'T THINK THAT -- THE VIEW THAT MR. SCHULKIN WAS NOT A GOOD ATTORNEY GENERAL FIGHTING CORRUPTION -- >> BUT THE CONCERN ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN WAS A CONCERN, CORRECT?

>> IT CREATE AS CONCERN OF -- >> BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR, I'D LIKE TO RENEW MY REQUEST, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S TESTIMONY THAT -- >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> REQUESTED BY THE REPUBLICANS BE CONSIDERED AS LEGITIMATE THAN AS A SHAM -- >> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> I HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST.

>> YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED.

MR. HECHT, YOU ARE.

>> AMBASSADOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ADD MY VOICE OF GRATITUDE FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE.

YOU'RE THE BEST OF THIS NATION.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANYBODY ELSE I WOULD RATHER HAVE REPRESENTING US IN A FOREIGN CAPITOL THAN YOU.

MY COLLEAGUES HAVE GONE TO A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT TO SURROUND THE FACTS OF YOUR REMOVAL.

IT'S CLEAR.

THERE WAS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND ORCHESTRATED BY A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR, THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY, THE PRESIDENT'S SON AND EVEN SOME OF THE PRESIDENT'S ALLIES AT HIS FAVORITE TV STATION.

SO THAT CAMPAIGN LED TO YOUR REMOVAL DESPITE 33 YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE, PROGRESSIVE RESPONSIBILITY AND AWARDS.

I SIT HERE WITH A MIX OF EMOTIONS.

ON THE ONE HAND, THERE'S SOME EMPLOYED AND GRATITUDE FOR ALL OF YOUR OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M ANGRY.

LIKE MY FRIEND FROM CONNECTICUT.

IN FACT, I'M VERY ANGRY.

ABOUT HOW IT IS THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WOULD REMOVE YOU FROM OFFICE AFTER YOUR STELLAR SERVICE AND SOMEHOW FIELD COMPELLED TO CHARACTERIZE YOU AS BAD NEWS.

AND TO OMINOUSLY THREATEN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS.

[ AUDIO DIFFICULTIES ] .

[ AUDIO DIFFICULTIES ] HERE'S MY MESSAGE TO YOU.

THERE'S NOTHING, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, NOTHING THAT HE CAN SAY OR DO, NOT A THING, THAT WILL IN ANY WAY DIMINISH THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE SERVICE YOU HAVE RENDERED TO OUR GREAT NATION.

NOT A THING.

THERE'S NOT A THING THAT HE CAN SAY OR DO THAT WILL DIMINISH OUR GRATITUDE TO YOU FOR THAT SERVICE.

I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR IT.

>> THANK YOU.

SO AS TO THE LARGER POINT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER WHAT DOES THIS MEAN UKRAINE WHEN THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY ENGAGES IN THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING THEM TO NOT BE IN, NAMELY A POLITICAL-MOTIVATED PROSECUTION?

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THEM AND THEIR STRUGGLING EFFORTS TO BECOME ROBUST DEMOCRACY?

WHAT IS THE IMPACT IN UKRAINE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR?

>> YEAH.

I THINK UKRAINIAN, LIKE MANY COUNTRIES, LOOK TO US FOR THE POWER OF OUR EXAMPLE.

I THINK THAT WHEN WE ENGAGE IN QUESTIONABLE ACTIVITIES, THAT RAISES A QUESTION.

AND IT -- IT EMBOLDENS THOSE THAT ARE CORRUPT THAT DON'T WANT TO SEE UKRAINIAN BECOME A DEMOCRACY, FREE MARKET ECONOMY, A PART OF EUROPE, BUT WANT UKRAINE TO STAY IN -- UNDER RUSSIAN'S THRALL.

THAT'S NOT IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

>> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

THANKS SO MUCH.

I YIELD THE PLANS OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIR.

>> THE GENTLEMAN -- I UNDERSTAND THE WITNESS WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK.

LET'S TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS.

IF MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE COULD PLEASE REMAIN IN THEIR SEATS TO ALLOW THE WITNESS AND HER COUNSEL TO LEAVE AHEAD OF US.

WE WILL RESUME IN A FEW MINUTES.

WE'RE IN RECESS.

>> AND WITH THAT, CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF DOES CALL THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO A SHORT RECESS.

WE ARE HERE COVERING WITH LIVE COVERAGE OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF IN WASHINGTON WITH MY COLLEAGUES, NICK SCHIFFRIN AND MIEKE EOYANG.

NICK, SINCE IF COMMITTEE CAME BACK FROM THAT LONG RECESS WHEN THEY WENT AWAY TO HAVE VOTES ON THE HOUSE FLOOR, HAS BEEN AROUND THE PRESIDENT'S ATTACKS ON AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH WHO IS THE ONLY WITNESS TODAY.

THE PRESIDENT TWEETED MUCH EARLIER TODAY WHILE SHE WAS TESTIFYING THAT IN ESSENCE -- I'M QUOTING.

EVERYWHERE SHE WENT, IT TURNED OUT BAD.

SO THE COMMITTEE, WE'VE SEEN DEMOCRATS COMING TO HER DEFENSE VIGOROUSLY.

CONGRESSMAN HECHT FROM WASHINGTON STATE AND EVEN REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN STARTING THEIR COMMENTS THANKING HER FOR HER SERVICE.

>> YEAH, I THINK AS MICHAEL POINTED OUT EARLIER IN THE DAY, THIS WAS NOT THE REPUBLICAN'S PLAN FOR WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP CRITICIZED HER, DENIGRATED HER WHILE SHE WAS SPEAKING, THAT ALLOWED ADAM SCHIFF TO PAINT A PICTURE OF MONTHS LONG SLANDER, I THINK THE WORD HE USED, SMEAR CAMPAIGN IS THE WORD WE'VE SEEN, THAT STARTED MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO THAT LED TO HER FIRING.

AND THAT ALLOWED ADAM SCHIFF AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER TO USE THE WORD WITNESS INTIMIDATION.

THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDED SAYING THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS.

IT ALSO CONNECTED TO YOVANOVITCH'S OVERALL ARGUMENT, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO DEFEND HER, THAT WIDENED THE PLAYING FIELD FOR AUTOCRATS LIKE PUTIN, THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS BEING UNDERMINED.

SO THAT NARRATIVE HAS CONTINUED THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU SAID, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DEFENDING HER AND THERE'S A STRING NOW OF THE CAMPAIGN THAT GOT HER FIRED, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL CRITICISM OF HER EARLIER IN THE YEAR AND NOW THE PRESIDENT'S CRITICISM OF HER TODAY AND THAT STRING HAS BEEN MADE IN PART BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT TWEETED WHEN HE DID AND HOW DEMOCRATS TWEETED THAT.

>> IT'S STRIKING.

MIEKE THAT EVEN REPUBLICANS AND MICHAEL WEIGH-IN AS WELL, ARE MAKING A POINT TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES, IF YOU WILL, FROM WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TO SAY.

>> THE REPUBLICANS SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM THE PRESIDENT AND NOT WANTING TO RECOGNIZE PEOPLE THAT ARE NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS.

THE COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN THAT POSITION.

WHAT YOU DID SEE WITH YOVANOVITCH IS THEY WERE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE DAMAGE DONE TO HERE.

IN THE MORNING, WE HEARD ADAM SCHIFF ELICITED FROM HER THAT SHE FELT THREATENED, HAD VAGUE THREATS, CONCERNS THAT HAVE TAKEN A TOLL ON HER PERSONAL LIFE.

REPUBLICANS SAID YOU'RE STILL AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

NOW YOU HAVE THIS CUSHY JOB AT GEORGETOWN.

DIDN'T EVERYTHING TURN OUT FINE FOR YOU AS OPPOSED TO YOVANOVITCH WHO SPENDS HER CAREER BEING PULLED OFF OF POST IN AN IMPORTANT PLACE AND BEING PUT IN AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION, THAT'S NOT A PROMOTION FOR HER.

MICHAEL?

>> TOMORROW OR TONIGHT IS ONE OF THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS AND A LOT OF SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND BLIND QUOTES SAYING THE PRESIDENT DID IT AGAIN WITH pHIS TWEET.

HERE, THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO PROVE TODAY THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS UNJUSTIFIABLY SMEARED AND WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT DO?

HE BOMBS IN WITH A TWEET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HEARING AND INJUSTIFIABLELY SMEARS HER.

THE REPUBLICANS DID THEIR BEST TO CLEAN IT UP AND TO MOVE ON WITH THE BUSINESS AT HAND, WHICH IS TO PROVE A LOT OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND BRING IT AROUND TO BURISMA AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, WHICH IS WHERE I THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE GONE SOONER THAN THEY DID.

>> WE JUST HEARD A FEW MINUTES AGO IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS FROM ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS, SHE -- AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HUNTER BIDEN HAVING A POSITION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LARGEST I BELIEVE ENERGY COMPANY IN UKRAINE DID HAVE A APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WHAT DID YOU SEE THERE THAT WE DIDN'T SEE BECAUSE THE CAMERAS ARE FOCUSED PRETTY NARROWLY ON WHAT WE'RE WATCHING?

>> I THINK MICHAEL HAS GOOD POINTS HERE ABOUT REPUBLICANS TRYING TO REFOCUS.

ONE OF THE STRONGER MOMENTS FOR THEM IS WHEN CHRIS STEWART OF UTAH BROUGHT OUT TO ASK THE AMBASSADOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT THE PRESIDENT DID ANYTHING CRIMINAL.

SHE SAID NO.

THEN HE WENT ON TO REALLY MAKE SOMETHING THAT HITS TO THE TRUMP CORE AUDIENCE.

THE VOTERS BELIEVE THIS IS AN UNFAIR PROCESS.

HE MEANS TRUMP VOTERS.

HE THOUGHT THEY ARTICULATED THAT IN A CLEAR WAY.

I'M INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT JIM JORDAN HAS TO SAY, WHAT HE DOES WITH HIS FIVE MINUTES OF TIME.

HE'S OBVIOUSLY HAD A FEW MINUTES BEFORE NOW THAT HE WILL BE THE CLOSER FOR REPUBLICANS.

DEVIN NUNES WILL GET A CHANCE TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS.

JIM JORDAN IS THE ONE TO WATCH.

I WILL SAY THAT OVERALL THE ATMOSPHERE IS MORE SUBDUED THAN YESTERDAY.

I'VE SEEN MORE SLEEPY EYES ON THE DIAS AND IN THE AUDIENCE.

MAY HAVE TO DO WITH THE SLOWER PACE HERE.

I THINK THAT WHEN YOU WATCH MARIE YOVANOVITCH IN PERSON, YOU NOTICE HER POISE.

SHE'S -- SHE HAS SAT THERE WITH NO SUPPORT THIS ENTIRE TIME.

REALLY A FEEL BACK, VERY SELDOM DOES SHE GIVE OFF ANY EXPRESSIONS AT ALL WHEN THE TWO TIMES I NOTICE AN EXPRESSION ON HER PART WAS WHEN SHE WAS SAYING, OF COURSE I BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW ANY AMBASSADOR BUT MY QUESTION IS WHY ATTACK MY REPUTATION, THE BACK AND FORTH IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN TELL THAT SHE WAS DISPLEASED WITH.

SHE FELT DISMISSED A LITTLE BIT RIGHT AFTER SHE SAID THAT.

>> IT WAS STRIKING, LISA.

I MADE A NOTE OF THAT AS WELL.

SHE SAID I UNDERSTAND HE DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO NAME ANOTHER AMBASSADOR BUT WHY DID HE SMEAR MY REPUTATION.

HE NOTICED THAT SHE BECAME I THINK THE CLOSEST WE'VE SEEP TO BECOMING EMOTIONAL WHEN SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF ALL OF THIS ON HER FAMILY.

>> YES, SEEMS SHE HAD TO PAUSE.

IT WASN'T A LARGE PAUSE.

YOU REALLY FELT IT IN THE ROOM.

SORT OF THE WEIGHT ON HER AT THAT MOMENT.

SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

THAT WAS A MOMENT THAT I THINK EVERYONE FELT LOOKING AT EACH OTHER LIKE DID YOU SEE WHAT I SAW, THAT THIS WAS A WOMAN STRUGGLING WITH HOW TO HANDLE THIS AND DECIDING TO -- IT WASN'T SOMETHING SHE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.

>> LISA, THANK YOU AT THE CAPITOL, THIS IS A SHORT BREAK THAT THE COMMITTEE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS TAKE ACCORDING TO THE CHAIRMAN, ADAM SCHIFF.

YAMICHE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TAKING PAINS TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES OF THE PRESIDENT'S CRITICISM OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH'S AND HIS TWEETS TODAY.

WE NOTICED THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS ZAKIM, STEPHANIE GRISHAM, MADE A STATEMENT THIS AFTERNOON.

>> WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY STEPHANIE GRISHAM SAID THIS WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO INTIMIDATE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

HE WAS JUST SHARING HIS OPINION THERE WHICH HE SAYS HE'S ENTITLED TO TO.

THAT BEING SAID, WHAT YOU SAW TODAY IS THE PRESIDENT BREAKING FROM THE PRESIDENT PARTY.

YOU SAW REPUBLICANS ON THE HILL SAYING IT WAS WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT TO TWEET ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF LIZ CHENEY, THE THIRD RANKING REPUBLICAN IN THE HOUSE.

SHE'S ALSO THE SAME PERSON THAT MADE THAT CALL TO AMBASSADOR -- ARMY LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN THAT WAS ON THE CALL AND SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL.

SO YOU HAVE LIZ CHENEY COMING OUT NOW TWICE SAYING THE PRESIDENT SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM ATTACKING CAREER SERVICE PEOPLE.

IN THE DEPOSITION, IN THIS HEARING, I SHOULD SAY, YOU SAW ANOTHER -- THE ONLY WOMAN ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHO THE REPUBLICANS -- SHE SAID I'M VERY HAPPY FOR YOUR SERVICE.

WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE YOU.

SHE SAID THAT.

THAT WAS A KEY MOMENT WHERE A REPUBLICAN WAS SAYING I'M NOT DOING TO BACK WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING HERE.

WHILE THE WHITE HOUSE IS STICKING TO THE PRESIDENT'S TWEETS, REPUBLICANS ON THE HILL ARE DISTANCES THEMSELVES FROM THE PRESIDENT.

>> LISA, TO YOU AGAIN.

BRING US THIS ALL BACK TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

HOW DOES WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY FROM AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, HOW IS IT CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE INQUIRY AND TO WHETHER THIS PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED?

>> IT WILL BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER ALL OF THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE ENDED IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO POSSIBLY IS THIS COMMITTEE WILL WRITE A REPORT.

THE DEMOCRATS WILL WRITE A REPORT AND DETERMINE IF THEY'RE RECOMMENDING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OR NOT.

IT FEELS LIKE THEY'RE GOING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THAT REPORT WILL GO TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH COULD WRITE THOSE ARTICLES AND THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, IF THEY GO THAT DIRECTION, WILL VERY LIKELY REFER TO SPECIFIC WORDS BY THIS AND OTHER WITNESSES IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

USE THAT AS EVIDENCE FOR REASONS TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

IT WILL BE A DIRECT CONNECTION.

>> LISA, SINCE THE HOUSE TOOK THAT VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED WITH A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, WHEN WE SAW NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN BE ON BOARD, IS THERE ANY SENSE OF ANY MORE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE BACKING THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?

>> CERTAINLY NOT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

NOT AT THIS TIME.

IN FACT, I THINK IT'S GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION.

THERE SEEMS TO BE GROWING MOMENTUM SUPPORTING THE PRESIDENT, TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THIS IS AN UNFAIR INVESTIGATION, BLOCKING THE PROCESS.

KIND OF RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS.

THAT'S THE DIRECTION IN THE HOUSE FOR SURE.

REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE ARE A DIFFERENT GROUP.

THEY'RE TRYING TO STAY A LITTLE ARMS DISTANCE FROM THIS.

THERE'S SOME VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE THAT ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS SERIOUSLY AND DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN UKRAINE, WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE WAS AND I WOULD PUTHEM IN THE UNDECIDED CAMP OF HOW WRONG IT WAS OR WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AS A RESULT.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT AMONG THE DEMOCRATS, LISA?

ONLY TWO OF ALL THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN THE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE VOTED AGAINST THE INQUIRY.

ANY SENSE OF ANY SECOND GUESSING SINCE THEN ON ANY SIDE?

>> NOT YET.

I AM GOING TO BE KEEPING A CLOSE TOUCH WITH 31 DEMOCRATS.

THAT'S THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS WHO ARE IN OFFICE, BUT WHOSE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY'RE THE MOST VULNERABLE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

IF THEY ALL VOTE FOR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, SHOULD THEY COME TO THE HOUSE FLOOR, IT WOULD BE A SIGN OF THEIR CONFIDENCE NOT ONLY IN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT BUT IN THE POLITICS OF IT, THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN VOTE FOR THIS -- SOME OF WILL STAY ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE.

POLITICS IS INVOLVED HERE.

I WATCH THE 31 DEMOCRATS.

DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW CAN ONLY LOSE 15 OR SO SEATS AND STILL HOLD A MAJORITY.

SO THAT'S A LOT OF VULNERABLE DEMOCRATS.

NANCY PELOSI IS ALSO WATCHING VERY CLOSELY.

>> BEFORE I COME BACK TO THE TABLE, HOW WORRIED IS THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT THIS?

>> THE PRESIDENT IS SPEAKING STILL.

HE'S SAYING THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO ATTACK AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

HE SAYS THAT HE HAS FREE SPEECH AND HE SHOULD SAY WHAT HE WANTS.

HE SAYS THERE'S IN DUE PROCESS AND THAT REPUBLICANS ARE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

WHAT WE HAVE TO NOTE, THIS IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HIS WORDS HAVE WEIGHT.

HE'S GOT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF FOLLOWERS.

THERE'S PEOPLE ATTACKING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH BECAUSE OF HIS TWEETS.

HE SAID I'M JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER AMERICAN AND I SHOULD CRITICIZE HER IN REAL TIME, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DOING.

THE REPUBLICANS ON THE HILL ARE NOT DOING WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING.

>> SO HE'S STANDING HIS GROUPED.

VERY INTERESTING.

WE'LL LOOK FOR FURTHER REPORTS FROM THE PRESIDENT.

BACK TO THE TABLE HERE WITH NICK AND MIEKE AND MICHAEL.

NICK, REMIND US HOW THE TESTIMONY TODAY, THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FIT IN TO THE ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT STORY?

>> I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE USE OF THE WORD THREAT AND THAT KIND OF TAKES THE HEADLINES.

AT THE CORE OF TODAY, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAID THEY WANTED TO DO AND WHAT ADAM SCHIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT LAID OUT IS THAT YOVANOVITCH STOOD IN THE WAY OF THE IRREGULAR CAMPAIGN.

THAT WAS THEIR ARGUMENT.

THAT WAS THEIR ARGUMENT AND -- >> BACK TO ORDER.

>> WE'RE BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.

>> THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

AMBASSADOR, SHOULD AMBASSADORS EVER TRY TO INFLUENCE HOST COUNTRY ELECTIONS?

>> NO.

>> I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, PARTISANSHIP OF THIS TIME IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ROLE OF A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.

IN AUGUST OF 2016, THE MOMENT YOU WENT TO UKRAINE AS OUR AMBASSADOR, THE UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WROTE AN OP-ED IN THE HILL.

SAID MESSAGE.

VERY MONTH YOU'RE OVER THERE AT OUR AMBASSADOR, HE WRITES THAT OP-ED.

IT WASN'T JUST THAT ATTACK AS MR. CASTOR GOT IN TOER WILL IER, IT WASN'T JUST THAT ATTACK, WE HAD THE FORMER UKRAINIAN PRIME MINISTER THAT CRITICIZED CANDIDATE TRUMP.

EARLIER YOU SAID THAT MR. IVAKOV ALERTED YOU TO THE EFFORTS OF RUDY GULIANI.

HE CALLED THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP A TERRORIST, ALL KINDS OF NAMES.

WE HAVE MR. LUSHENKO, A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, A SOURCE OF THE FUSION GPS AND THE DOSSIER THAT FLOWED FROM FUSION'S WORK, HE SAID THIS IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES AGAIN IN AUGUST OF 2016 WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED IN UKRAINE, HE SAID THIS.

THE MAJORITY OF UKRAINIANS POLITICIANS ARE ON HILLARY CLINTON'S SIDE."

YOU HAVE SEVERAL HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WAS THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINIAN CRITICIZED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW, WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING, DID YOU GO TALK TO ANYONE IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT THIS?

DID YOU GO SAY TO SOME OF THESE OFFICIALS, HEY, YOU GUYS NEED TO KNOCK THIS OFF?

THIS PERCEPTION THAT WE GOT, AS MR. LUSHENKO SAY, THE MAJORITY ON HILLARY CLINTON'S SIDE, THAT'S NOT GOOD?

DID YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION?

>> NO.

>> DIDN'T TALK TO ANYONE IN -- DID YOU TALK TO PRESIDENT POROSHENKO?

>> NO.

DIDN'T ALERT ANYBODY IN GOVERNMENT?

>> NO.

>> WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE HEARD SO MUCH OVER THE LAST SIX WEEKS IN DEPOSITIONS AND FRANKLY IN THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY IS HOW IMPORTANT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IS FOR UKRAINE.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE THAT THEY WANT TO HELP UKRAINE.

THE DEMOCRATS FIRST WITNESS, STAR WEDNESDAY ON WEDNESDAY, MR. TAYLOR SAID UKRAINE'S MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC ASSET IS THIS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

YOU'D AGREE WITH THAT, RIGHT?

>> I DO.

>> YOU SAID THIS.

IN HIS TESTIMONY ON WEDNESDAY, ON SEPTEMBER 11th, I LEARNED THAT THE HOLD HAD BEEN LIFTED THE NEXT DAY.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID I SAID THIS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND I REMINDED THEM OF THE HIGH STRATEGIC VALUE OF BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN OTHER COUNTRY'S ELECTIONS.

SO WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THE AID HAD BEEN LIFTED, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR MADE THIS STATEMENT TO THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AND HE MAKES THIS AFTER THERE'S NOTHING BEEN DONE BY UKRAINE TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTION.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN'T ANNOUNCE AN A VESTGATION BUT THE AID WAS LISTED.

IN 2016 WHEN WE KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS WANT CLINTON TO WIN BECAUSE IT WAS SAID BY A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT WHEN THE AMBASSADOR CRITICIZES CANDIDATE TRUMP, WHEN MR. IVAKOV CALLED TRUMP NAMES, NOBODY TELLS HIM TO KNOCK IT OFF.

DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS AMBASSADOR WITH VICTORIA NEWLAND AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS BEING FOR CANDIDATE CLINTON AND NOT -- AND OPPOSED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> NO ONE DID ANYTHING.

NO ONE DID ANYTHING.

YOU SEE WHY MAYBE, MAYBE THE PRESIDENT WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WENT ON IN UKRAINE?

YOU COUPLE THAT WITH THE CORRUPTION LEVEL THAT WE KNOW EXISTED IN UKRAINE?

YOU ADD TO THAT THIS IDEA THAT HE'S NOT A BIG FAN OF FOREIGN AID, WHY HE MIGHT BE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT SENDING IF HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THE UKRAINE?

>> I'M SORRY.

IS THERE A QUESTION THERE?

THERE WAS.

>> COULD YOU REPEAT IT?

>> I'D ASK YOU -- >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED BUT I'LL ALLOW YOU TO REPEAT THE QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU.

MAYBE WE CAN KIND OF SEE WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED WHEN YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT, THE AMBASSADOR CRITICIZING IT, PARLIAMENTARY MEMBER LUSHENKO CRITICIZING IT, IVAKOV, THE GUY THAT TOLD YOU ABOUT GULIANI CRITICIZING, ALL THIS GOING ON AND YOU COUPLE THAT WERE THE CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION, THE CONCERNS ABOUT EUROPE NOT DOING ENOUGH, THE CONCERNS HE HAS ABOUT RELUCTANCE TO SENDING THE HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS -- >> I HAVE INDULGED YOU WITH EXTRA TIME.

>> I APPRECIATE IT.

>> INDULGENCE IS WEARING OUT.

>> OUR INDULGENCE WORE OUT WITH YOU A LONG TIME AGO.

>> I'M ABOUT TO GAVEL YOU DOWN.

IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION -- >> I'M ASKING HER, DO YOU THINK THERE'S A REASON THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONCERN WAS JUSTIFIED?

>> YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE PRESIDENT ON THIS.

BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS YOU'VE LISTED A NUMBER OF ACTIONS.

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THAT DOESN'T CREATE A UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT STRATEGY TO INTERFERE IN OUR -- >> I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

>> MR. JORDAN, ALLOW THE AMBASSADOR TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>> SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, U.S.

POLITICIANS WILL CRITICIZE POLICIES OF FOREIGN COUNTER PARTS, EVEN PERHAPS DURING THEIR ELECTIONS.

YOU KNOW, THIS HAPPENS IN POLITICS.

I THINK THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE INTERFERENCE.

>> WOULD YOU -- >> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED -- >> MR. WELCH, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE EVERYBODY HERE -- I'M GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR CAREER REPUBLIC SERVICE AND I FEEL VERY BADLY ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE HAD TO ENDURE.

LIKE YOUR COLLEAGUES, YOU DON'T COMPLAIN.

YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB.

I FEEL BADLY ABOUT THE INSULTS, THE TWEET THIS MORNING.

THE FACT THAT YOU WERE SMEARED, NOT FIRED.

THE QUESTION IS YOU KNOW IT'S NOT HOW YOU WERE TREATED.

THE QUESTION IS WHY THE PRESIDENT DID WHAT HE DID AND WHETHER WHAT HE DID WAS A BREACH OF TRUST.

THE QUESTION REALLY IS ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY PRESIDENT, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED AID TO CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON EXTRACTING FROM A FOREIGN LEADER A WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

THAT'S THE QUESTION.

AND THAT BRINGS US TO YOU AS PART OF THIS STORY.

THE QUESTION IS WHY WERE YOU FIRED FROM THAT POSITION.

I WANT TO READ A PORTION OF THE PRESIDENT'S CALL ON JULY 25 WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THIS IS THE PAINFUL PART WHEN YOU FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT.

THE FORMER AMBASSADOR FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE WOMAN, WAS BAD NEWS.

THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING WITH IN THE UKRAINE WERE BAD NEWS.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT.

THE OTHER THING, HE GOES RIGHT INTO THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOP THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT."

YOU INDICATED IN RESPONSE TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. CASTRO'S QUESTION, THAT IF YOU WERE ASKED TO APPROACH A FOREIGN LEADER AND CONDITION AMERICAN SUPPORT ON THEIR BEING INVOLVED IN OUR CAMPAIGN, YOU WOULD REFUSE TO DO THAT.

>> YES.

>> AND -- YOU'RE AWARE NOW BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THERE, BUT THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALLED THAT OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER DIRECTOR MUELLER REPORTED THAT THE INTERFERENCE IN OUR 2016 CAMPAIGN WAS NOT FROM UKRAINE.

IT WAS ACTIVE CONCERTED ENERGETIC AND BY THE CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> NOW, AS AMBASSADOR, YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHATEVER IT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY SEEMS TO HAVE WANTED TO GET FOR COOPERATION IN THIS INVESTIGATION.

ISN'T THAT -- THAT'S CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> NOW, YOU'VE BEEN ASKED ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY TO REPLACE AN AMBASSADOR.

YOU'VE AGREED THAT THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S PREROGATIVE.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> THAT ASSUMES THAT THE REASONS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE PERSONAL PRIVATE POLITICAL INTERESTS THAT THE PRESIDENT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> YOU'VE BEEN THE TARGET OF TH.

YOU JOINED SOME DISTINGUISHED COMPANY, BY THE WAY.

SENATOR MCCAIN, GENERAL KELLY.

A MAN I ADMIRE, AND I THINK ALL OF US DO, GENERAL MATIS.

>> WE'RE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT, UNLESS THE REASON YOU GET INSULTED TODAY, ESSENTIALLY BLAMING YOU FOR SOMALIA.

>> THIS IS ANOTHER STEP BY THE PRESIDENT TO INTIMIDATE WITNESSES.

DIDN'T INTIMIDATE YOU.

YOU'RE HERE.

YOU'VE ENDURED.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT CAN EXPECT THE TRUMP TREATMENT IF THEY COME FORWARD.

THAT'S A QUESTION FOR US.

NOW YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE PREROGATIVE TO APOINT A NON-CAREER PERSON.

TO BE CANDID, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE THAT.

>> MR. SONDLAND INDICATEED THAT EVERYTHING HINGED, THE MEETING, THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE RELEASE OF THE VITAL WHITE HOUSE AID, THAT EVERYTHING HINGED AND TO BE WILLING TO DO THAT INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU'VE INDICATED THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD NOT AGREE TO DO?

>> YES.

>> AND SONDLAND WAS QUITE WILLING TO DO.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, AND I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. MALONEY.

>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.

THE FIRST TIME WE MET, IT WASN'T CLEAR.

I WANT TO START WITH A QUICK COENT.

YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS INQUIRY BROKE THEAM.

YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE THROUGH THAT STONE WALL THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO SET UP.

I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE FOLLOWED YOUR EXAMPLE.

THERE'S AN OLD EXPRESSION THAT THE FIRST PERSON THROUGH THE WALL GETS A LITTLE BIT BLOODY.

HE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT EXPRESSION IN A NEW WAY.

BUT THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE DAY YOU WERE LET GO.

I KNOW THIS IS A PAINFUL SERIES OF EVENTS.

APRIL 24th.

YOU'VE TOLD US A FEW THINGS THAT STUCK WITH ME.

YOU SAID YOU WERE ASKED THE EMBASSY OF UKRAINE, AND HONORING AN UKRANIAN WOMEN, ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVITY, CATERINA, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> IT WAS AT MY HOUSE.

>> EXCUSE ME.

AND YOU WERE GIVING HER THE WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD, I BELIEVE.

>> THE EMBASSY OF KIEV, WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD.

>> AND THAT'S THE DAY YOU GET A CALL FROM A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE.

DID YOU KNOW CAROL PEREZ?

>> YES.

>> YOU MET HER BEFORE?

>> YES.

>> SHE SAID THERE'S TROUBLE COMING, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP.

IT'S COMING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

I'LL CALL YOU LATER?

>> YES.

>> AND THAT EVENING YOU'RE HONORING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVITY, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND NOT JUST ANY WOMAN, BUT A WOMAN WHO WAS HORRIBLY ATTACKED AND KILLED FOR HER EFFORTS.

SHE WASN'T JUST KILLED.

YOU SAID -- YOU SAID I BELIEVE SOMEONE THREW ACID ON HER?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I WENT AND I CHECKED DURING THE BREAK, AND IT TURNS OUT SHE WAS HORRIBLY INJURED, AND IT TOOK FOUR MONTHS FOR HER TO DAY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> VERY TERRIBLE DEATH.

>> WHY WOULD SOMEBODY ATTACK HER WITH ACID?

>> I THINK THEY WANTED HER OUT OF THE WAY.

BUT I THINK THE METHOD THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU TOO IF YOU CONTINUE HER WORK.

>> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GO UP AGAINST CORRUPT PEOPLE IN UKRAINE?

>> IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN.

THERE'S OTHER WAYS.

>> DO YOU REMEMBER SPEAKING AT THAT EVENT?

>> I DO.

>> I LOOKED AT WHAT YOU SAID.

YOU SAID CATERINA PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE FOR FEARLESSNESS IN FIGHTING AGAINST CORRUPTION AND DETERMINED EFFORTS TO DEALT A DEMOCRATIC UKRAINE.

DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT?

>> YES.

>> AND THEN YOUR PHONE RINGS.

YOU HEAR THIS TROUBLE.

AND CAROL PEREZ CALLED YOU BACK LATER THAT NIGHT, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> 1:00 A.M., I BELIEVE?

WERE YOU SLEEPING?

>> NO.

>> YOU STAYED UP TO GET THE PHONE CALL?

>> YES.

>> AND SHE SAYS TWO THING THAT IS STUCK WITH ME.

SHE SAID WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR SECURITY >> YES.

>> YOU WERE JUST HONORING A WOMAN KILLED FOR FIGHTING ANTI-CORRUPTION.

WAS SHE SPEAKING EUPHEMISTICALLY OR DID SHE MEAN THE NEXT PLANE?

>> SHE MEANT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

BUT PRETTY MUCH IT WAS THE NEXT PLANE.

>> THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD FLIGHT BACK FROM KIEV TO WASHINGTON.

YOU'RE ON YOUR WAY TO MEET WITH DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN.

HE SAID TO YOU TWO THINGS.

HE SAYS THERE WAS CONCERTED EFFORT AGAINST YOU.

AND HE SAYS, YOU'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

>> CORRECT.

>> I'M FASCINATED WHEN HE SAYS YOU'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WOULD DO NEXT?

>> YOU KNOW, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT A DECISION HAD BEEN MADE BY THE PRESIDENT IMPLEMENTED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT I HAD TO LEAVE UKRAINE, BUT I -- YOU KNOW, I'D HOPED THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE PUBLIC SUPPORT.

>> DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO HAVE YOUR BACK?

>> YES.

>> WERE YOU SURPRISED WHEN YOU FOUND OUT THEY WEREN'T?

>> NOT AT THAT POINT ANYMORE.

>> WHY?

>> WELL, BECAUSE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THAT D NOT BEEN THE CASE.

>> IN YOUOPENING STATEMENT YOU SAID HOW COULD A SYSTEM FAIL LIKE THIS?

HOW IS IT THAT A FOREIGN -- EXCUSE ME.

HOW IS IT THAT FOEIGN CORRUPT INTERESTS COULD MANIPULATE OUR GOVERNMENT?

HOW IS IT THAT FOREIGN CORRUPT INTERESTS COULD MANIPULATE OUR GOVERNMENT?

THAT'S THE QUESTION WE'RE DETERMINEED TO GET THE ANSWER FOR.

I WANT TO THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF OUR COUNTRY FOR YOUR SERVICE, AND WITH OUR WORK IN ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.

I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AMBASSADOR, EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR NATION.

I HAVE FOUR LITTLE GIRLS IN MY LIFE, AND AS I SIT HERE THINKING ABOUT THEM, AND AS A WOMAN, I COULDN'T BE PROUDER OF YOU, AND I CONSIDER YOU AN INSPIRATION FOR WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD.

I JUST HAVE TO SAY BEFORE I GET INTO MY QUESTIONING -- I THINK IT'S DISGRACEFUL TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES REFER TO YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY AS A PERFORMANCE TODAY OR SPEAK IN A CONDESCENDING WAY, BASICALLY SUGGESTING THAT THE WOMAN -- BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S HOW THE PRESIDENT REFERRED TO YOU -- I'M NOT SURE HE KNOWS YOUR NAME OR THERE'S SOME OTHER MEANING THERE -- BUT TO BASICALLY SUGGEST THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR WHATEVERSHE WAS LEFT WITH.

SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND ALL, AFTER YOU WERE RECALLED.

BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW TODAY THAT WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, YOUR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE.

AMBASSADOR, ON A PRESS CONFERENCE CALL ON OCTOBER 17th, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY DISCUSSED HIS BELIEF THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR FOREIGN POLICY.

HE SAID IF YOU READ THE NEWS AND YOU BELIEVE THEM, WHAT DID McKINLEY SAY YESTERDAY.

McKINLEY SAID HE WAS UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS.

AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.

GET OVER IT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, DO YOU SHARE THE CONCERN RAISED BY AMBASSADOR McKINLEY IN TESTIMONY RAISED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY?

>> WELL, AS I SAID BEFORE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP POLITICAL INFLUENCE OUT OF FOREIGN POLICY, BECAUSE WE ALL, WHETHER WE'RE REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS OR SOMETHING ELSE HAVE COMMON SECURITY INTERESTS.

THAT NEEDS TO BE SAFEGUARDED AND ADVANCED.

>> AND WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK IT SENDS TO OTHER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHEN AN ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO SUPPORT ITS OWN OFFICIALS IN THE FACE OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN?

>> WELL, IT'S DEEPLY TROUBLING.

DEEPLY TROUBLING, AND THERE ARE MORALE ISSUES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> MORALE ISSUES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

I UNDERSTAND WHY.

ON MARCH 20th, 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED AN ARTICLE THAT INCLUDED A LETTER FROM SESSIONS THAT SAID YOU SPOKE PRIVATELY AND POLITICAL PLEA ABOUT YOUR DISDAIN FOR THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, IN A WAY THAT MIGHT CALL FOR THE EXPULSION OF YOU AS AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE AND IMMEDIATELY.

DID YOU SPEAK PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY ABOUT YOUR DISDAIN FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?

>> NO.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO PUSH SUCH A LIE?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW.

>> U.S.

INTERESTS DON'T FOR THOSE SEEKING TO DO THE WORK OF PROTECTING OUR NATION, THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE FOR DECADES.

PRESIDENT, CHIEF OF STAFF, AND HIS ALLIES SEEM TO WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO SMEAR THE GOOD PEOPLE TRYING TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY, AND TO HIJACK OUR INSTITUTIONS FOR THEIR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN.

AGAIN, AMBASSADOR, WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.

AND I'LL YIELD MY REMAINING TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK THE GENTLEWOMAN.

I GO TO YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON AMBASSADOR, AND THANK YOU TO THE FAMILY AS WELL IN BEING HERE IN SUPPORT OF YOU TODAY.

I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO AN AREA OF BIPARTISAN, NAMELY AID TO UKRAINE.

CONGRESS ON AN OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN BASIS APPROPRIATED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND THAT'S BEING USED TO FIGHT A COMMON ADVERSARY, RUSH ARIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND THE U.S. PARTNERED TO KEEP RUSSIA AT BAY AND MAINTAIN THE PEACE IN EUROPE, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SUGGESTED EARLIER THIS WEEK, SUPPORTING UKRAINE HELPED MAINTAIN PEACE SO THAT AMERICANS DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR AGAIN IN EUROPE, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> SUSPENDING THAT AID AND WEAKENING UKRAINE CAN INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE OPPOSITE, CORRECT?

>> YES, IT'S EXTREMELY SHORT SIGHTED.

>> THE LAST TIME YOU WERE IN UKRAINE WAUM MAY 20th OF THIS YEAR, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID HE TOOK CHARGE IN UKRAINE ON JUNE 17th.

>> YES.

>> THEREFORE THERE WAS ALMOST AN ONE MONTH GAP BETWEEN THE TIME YOU DEPARTED AND WHEN TAYLOR TOOK OVER, RIGHT?

>> YES >> DURING THAT TIME ON MAY 20th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, RICK PERRY AND OTHERS CAME TO THE INAUGURATION OF ZELENSKY, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> AND DURING THAT GAP IN TIME, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND VISITED THE WHITE HOUSE ALONG WITH OTHERS AND GOT DIRECTIONS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TALK TO RUDY.

THOSE WERE HIS WORDS.

TALK TO RUDY ABOUT WHAT TO DO IN UKRAINE, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT YOUR DEPARTURE AND THE ONE MONTH GAP BETWEEN THE TIME YOU LEFT, AND WHEN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ARRIVED PROVIDEED THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE TO BASICALLY TAKE OVER UKRAINE POLICY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> YEAH.

>> AMBASSADOR, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER INTO THE MIC.

>> YES.

>> ON PAGE 10 OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU MENTIONED QUOTE UNQUOTE, CORRUPT INTERESTS APPARENTLY HIJACKING UKRAINE POLICY, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> A COUPLE SUSPECT INDIVIDUALS IN THAT REGARD WERE LEV PARNAS AND IGOR FRUMAN, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU LEARNED THAT FRUMAN AND PARNAS WERE ATTEMPTING TO OPEN A LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS COMPANY, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> HOW DID YOU LEARN THAT.

>> FROM THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR.

>> INTERESTING AT NOON TODAY THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" REPORTED THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN MANHATTAN ARE INVESTIGATING INTO RUDY GIULIANI STOOD TO PERSONALLY PROFIT FROM THAT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS VENTURE.

DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT?

>> NO, I DO NOT.

>> MAYBE WE SHOULD TALK TO RUDY?

AMBASSADOR, I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO ANOTHER LINE OF QUESTIONING I HAD FOR IMPASSE TAYLOR EARLIER THIS WEEK.

HE SAID THERE WERE IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF POLICY IN UKRAINE CIRCUMVENTING NORMAL CHANNELS AND THREATENING U.S.

INTERESTS IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE INTERESTS.

I ASKED CAN YOU RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THESE IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY ARE BEING USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE WE CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY.

HE SAID HE COULD NOT RULE IT OUT.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH I ASK YOU -- AND I ASSUME YOU CAN'T RULE IT OUT EITHER, CORRECT?

>> I CAN'T.

BUT I WOULD ADD I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THESE IRREGULAR CHANNELS OF DIPLOMACY MAY BE AT WORK ELSEWHERE?

>> I THINK IT'S A POSSIBILITY.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS A QUOTE UNQUOTE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT PRIVATE INTERESTS AND PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE THE PARTICULAR AMBASSADOR COULD COMBINE TO REPLACE THAT AMBASSADOR.

ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT OTHER AMBASSADORS MAY SUFFER THE SAME FATE AS YOU?

>> YES.

>> AMBASSADOR, IN YOUR SERVICE AS AN AMERICAN DIPLOMAT, YOU'VE ENCOUNTERED VARIOUS DICTATORS AND STRONG MEN RULING OTHER COUNTRIES, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE, YOUR PARENTS FLED THE SOVIET UNION AND NAZI GERMANY, AND THEY BECAME FAMILIAR WITH DESPOTS AND DICTATORS AS WELL, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> INDEED, YOU'RE AN AUTHORITY ON ATHORITARIANISM, RIGHT?

>> MAYBE.

>> IS IT PART OF ATHORITARIANISM FOR THE RULERS TO CLAIM ABSOLUTE RIGHTS?

>> YES.

>> AND IS IT A HALLMARK OF AUTHORITARIANISM FOR THOSE RULERS TO SMEAR THEIR OPPONENTS?

>> SOMETIMES, YES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> MR. NUNES, DO YOU HAVE CONCLUDING REMARKS?

>> I WOULD SAY TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA TODAY'S SHOW TRIAL HAS COME TO AN END.

WE'RE HEADED TO THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL TO GO UNTIL WHAT TIME.

WE'LL BE BACK THERE HIDING AGAIN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, INTERVIEWING MORE WITNESSES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IN THE PUBLIC.

I HATE TO BREAK IT TO MY COLLEAGUES IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE WATCHING TELEVISION RATINGS, BUT THEY MUST BE PLUMMETING RIGHT NOW.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GET BACK TO THE WORK OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THAT WE PASS THE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES MEXICO AND CANADA THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUT, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EMBARRASSMENT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN MAY I BE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION?

>> NO.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE CONCLUDING REMARKS.

>> AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DECADES OF SERVICE, AND THANK YOU, AS MR. MALONEY SAID FOR BEING THE FIRST ONE THROUGH THE GAP.

WHAT YOU DID COMING FORWARD, AND ANSWERING A LAWFUL SUBPOENA WAS TO GIVE COURAGE TO OTHERS THAT ALSO WITNESS WRONGDOING.

THEY TOO COULD SHOW THE SAME COURAGE THAT YOU HAVE, THAT THEY COULD STAND UP, SPEAK OUT, ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THEY COULD ENDURE WHATEVER THREATS, INSULTS WHEN THEY COME THEIR WAY.

AND SO, IN YOUR LONG AND DISTINGUISHED CAREER, YOU HAVE DONE ANOTHER GREAT PUBLIC SERVICE IN ANSWERING THE CALL OF OUR SUBPOENA AND TESTIFYING BEFORE US TODAY.

I THINK YOU GATHERED FROM OUR COMMENTS THAT WE NOT ONLY GRIEVE FOR WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH, BUT WHAT DAMAGE IS BEING DONE TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT, TO CAREER FEDERAL FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

I AM PROFOUNDLY GRATEFUL TO YOU AND MR. KENT AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO HAVE DONE SO MUCH IN THE LAST TWO DAYS OR THREE DAYS, TO SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE FACE OF OUR DIPLOMATIC CORE.

THE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO WORK ALL AROUND THE WORLD IN VERY DANGEROUS PLACES AS YOU HAVE.

AND SO, I'M GLAD THEY'VE GOTTEN TO SEE YOU, BECAUSE YORE OFTEN VILLIFIED AS BUREAUCRATS WHERE DIPLOMACY IS DIMINISHED AS UNIMPORTANT.

ANYTHING OTHER THAN MILITARY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, WHEN IT'S YOUR EFFORTS THAT PREVENT US FROM GOING TO WAR.

SOMETIMES YOU'RE DISPARAGED AS THE DEEP STATE.

BUT WHAT YOU ARE IS WHAT HOLDS THIS COUNTRY TOGETHER, WHAT HOLDS FOREIGN POLICY TOGETHER, WHAT MAKES IT SEAMLESS AND WORK.

I'M GLAD AMERICA GETS TO SEE THAT.

I WILL JUST EMPHASIZE ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR TESTIMONY.

MR. KENT AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR GAVE US THE BROAD OUTLINES OF THIS STORY.

THIS IS A STORY ABOUT AN EFFORT TO COERCE, CONDITION OR BRIBE A FOREIGN COUNTRY INTO DOING THE DIRTY WORK OF THE PRESIDENT.

INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL BY CONDITIONING U.S.

TAXPAYER MONEY, BY CONDITIONING A MEETING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DESPERATELY WANTED AND NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MOST POWERFUL PATRON OF UKRAINE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

THE FACT THAT THEY FAILED IN THIS SOLICITATION OF BRIBERY DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS BRIBERY.

DOESN'T MAKE IT LESS IMMORAL OR CORRUPT.

IS IT JUST MEANS IT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.

TO THAT WE OWE OTHER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO BLEW THE WHISTLE.

IF THEY HADN'T, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.

IT'S APPALLING THAT MY COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO WANT TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER SO HE OR SHE CAN BE PUNISHED BY THE PRESIDENT.

BUT LET'S UNDERSCORE ONCE AGAIN, WHILE YOU WERE THE BEGINNING OF THIS STOREY, YOU'RE NOT THE END OF IT.

THE BEGINNING IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY IS AN EFFORT TO GET YOU OUT OF THE WAY, AN EFFORT BY RUDY GIULIANI AND FRUMAN AND PARNAS AND CORRUPT UKRANIANS LIKE LUTSENKO, TO GET YOU OUT OF THE WAY BECAUSE THEY FELT YOU WEREARN IMPEDIMENT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

GIULIANI MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, HE WAS ON UKRAINE ON A MISSION FOR HIS CLIENT, FOR THE PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

AND YOU WERE VIEWED AS AN OBSTACLE THAT HAD TO GO, NOT JUST BY GIULIANI, BUT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IF PEOPLE HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT IT, THEY SHOULD DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKS, READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

WHAT THEY'LL SEE IN THAT TRANSCRIPT IS THE PRESIDENT PRAISES THE CORRUPT LUTSENKO.

HE CONDEMNS THE JUST, YOU.

AND THEN HE ASKS FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

THERE IS NO CAMOUFLAGEING THAT CORRUPT INTENT.

WE'RE ADJOURNED.

>> MAY I SPEAK ON CONDITIONS YOU DISPARAGE THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE, WE SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THE REMARKS.

I DEMAND TO SPEAK.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> AND THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WRAPS UP THE SECOND DAY OF LIVE TESTIMONY, WITH A STANDING OVATION, IN ESSENCE FOR ADAM SCHIFF AFTER A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE CHALLENGED HIM, CHALLENGED WHAT HE WAS SAYING, HIS CRITICISM OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT HAS BEEN A DAY, WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.

MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

HE'S BEEN QUESTIONED BY DEMOCRATS.

QUESTIONED BY REPUBLICANS.

IT'S ALL PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO THE PRESIDENT.

IN THE FEW MINUTES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE WE WRAP UP LIVE COVERAGE, NICK SCHIFRIN OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS Kxá*SHD, DID WE HEAR INFORMATION TODAY THAT VCHBSS THE CASE OF THE DEMOCRATS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SUBVERTING THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND VIOLATING OATH OF OFTION?

>> YOU HEARD WHAT ADAM SCHIFF TRIED TO DO.

THEY SAID IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY.

THEY TRIED TO GET YOU OUT TO PURSUE THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL.

THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HOPED TO DO.

THE REPUBLICANS SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, IF THEY TRIED TO GET YOU OUT, WHO ELSE CAN THEY GET BEHIND YOU.

>> BILL TAYLOR.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF TRIED TODAY.

AND BILL TAYLOR USED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO GO AROUND THE REGULAR CHANNEL, BUT SAID MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS BLOCKING IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT THEY NEEDED TO GET HER OUT?

THAT WASN'T A DIRECT CONNECTION TODAY.

>> SO MUCH, MIEKE OEYANG, HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTSS OR SOMETHING NEFARIOUS WHAT HE DID WHEN HE ESSENTIALLY FIRED THIS AMBASSADOR TO GET HER OUT OF THE WAY.

>> YOU SAW THE REPUBLICANS MAKE A CASE OF THAT, CLAIMING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT, AND ALL AMBASSADORS SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE AND CAN BE DISMISSED ANY TIME.

SHE CAME BACK AND SAID I GET I CAN BE DISMISSED AT ANY TIME, BUT WHY SMEAR ME IN THE PROCESS.

THERE WAS ANIMUS, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO SHOW A CORRUPT PURPOSE IN THE DISMISSAL.

>> AND A LOT OF CURSE WORDS SPOKEN TODAY.

YOU SENSE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS AND THE REPUBLICANS.

BOTH OF YOU SAID THIS IS NOT THE NORM.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT I'M USE TO IS HAVING AN EQUAL FIGHT IN PUBLIC, BUT IN PRIVATE THEY ACTUALLY GET ALONG.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE.

THIS IS REALLY BLOOD FEUD BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS, AT LEAST GOING BACK TO THE RUSSIA PROBE, AND NOW THIS.

TWO OF THE MOST PARTISAN EXERCISES PUT TOGETHER ON THIS COMMITTEE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU GET HERE IN THE TRUMP ERA.

IT'S HIGHLY POLITICAL CHARGED ATMOSPHERE.

>> AND QUICKLY, MIEKE OEYANG, IN THE REFERENCE THERE FROM DEVIN NUNES, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE BASEMENT AND HAVE SKET MEETINGS.

REFERENCE TO WHAT?

>> WE'RE GOING TO THE COMMITTEE ROOM LOCATED THERE, IT'S A NORMAL COMMITTEE ROOM, AND HEAR CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY FROM THE FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER WHO HEARD THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYING HE CARED MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION THAN HE DID ABOUT THE FOREIGN POLICY AND UKRAINE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE.

THAT DOES CONCLUDE THE SPECIAL LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IN THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THANK YOU TO MIEKE OEYANG, AND MICHAEL ALLEN.

AND OUR CORRESPOND AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

DESIARDINS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

JOIN US TONIGHT ON PBS AT THE REGULAR TIME.

FOR ALL OF US ON THE NEWS HOUR, THANK YOU, AND WE'LL SEE YOU SOON.

>