1 2 J 4 5 PERMANENT SELECT CO]',IMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 6 j oi 7 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM 8 and the 9 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, nt wi th the l0 U.S. l1 WASHINGTON, D.C. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, t2 l3 t4 l5 INTERVIEW OF: GEORGE KENT t6 l7 l8 t9 20 Tuesday, 0ctober L5, 2019 2l Washington, D.C. 22 23 24 The interview 25 HVC-304, Capi to1 Vi in the above matter was held in Room s'itor Center, commenci ng at L0:08 a. m 2 Present: Representatives Schiff, Himes, Sewe11, Carson, I 2 Speier, Quigley, SwaIwell, Heck, l'4a1oney, J Kri shnamoorthi Al 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 Raski , Demings, Conaway, Wenstrup and Hurd. so Present: Representati ves Norton, n, Mal i nowskj , Rouda, Phi 11i ps, Engel , Perry, Meadows, and Zeldi n. 3 I Appea rances: 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 For the PERMANENT SELECT COl4t'{ITTEE 0N INTELLIGENCE: 4 I FOT thC COMMiTTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: FOT thC COMM]TTEE For GEORGE KENT: 2 J 4 5 6 7 ON FOREIGN AFFAlRS 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 ANDREW WRIGHT l6 BARRY t7 NANCY IHEANCHO l8 K&L GATES LLP t9 1-601 K Street NW 20 Washi ngton, C. 2t 22 23 24 25 M. HARTMAN D. 2005- 1600 5 I THE CHAIRMAN: The committee 2 Good morni wilt come to order. ng, Deputy Assi stant Secretary Kent, and 6 to the House Permanent Select Commi ttee on Intelligence, which, along with the Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees, is conducting thjs'investigation as part of the official impeachment inquiry of the House of 7 Representati ves. 3 4 5 welcome l3 is being conducted as part of the impeachment inquiry. In light of attempts by the State Department in coordination with the White House to direct you not to appear and efforts to limit your testimony, the committee had no choice but to compel your appearance today. We thank you for complying with the dual1y authorized t4 congress'ional subpoena, as other witnesses have done as l5 We l6 like yourself 8 9 l0 ll t2 Today's deposition expect nothing less from a dedicated career cjvjl we11. servant . Deputy Assjstant Secretary Kent has served with t7 l9 distinct'ion as a Foreign Service officer wjth deep experience relevant to the matters under investigation by the 20 comm'i 2t the European and Euras'ian Bureau you oversee policy towards 22 Ukrai l8 ttees. In hi s capaci ty as Deputy Ass'istant Secretary i n ne, MoIdova, Belarus, Georg'ia, Armeni a and Azerbai j ani 24 of mjssion jn Kyiv from 2015 until 20L8 when he returned to Washington to assume his 25 current position. 23 Previously he was deputy chief . 6 I 2 In 20L4 and 2015, he was the senior anticorruption coordi nator i n the State Department's European Bureau. Si nce 5 joining the Foreign Service in L992 he has served among other postings in Warsaw, Poland, Kyiv, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and Bangkok, Thailand. Given your unique ro1e, we look forward 6 to hearing your testimony today, including your knowledge of 7 and i nvolvement i n key pol i cy di scussi ons, meeti ngs 8 decision on Ukrajne that relate directly to areas under 9 j nvesti J 4 gation by the commi ttees. Thi and s i ncludes developments l0 related to the reca11 of ll President's July 25,2019 call with Ukrainian Pres'ident 12 Zelenskyy, as well as the documentary record Ambassador Yovanovitch, the 24 that has come to life about efforts before and after the call to get the Ukrainians to announce publicly investigations into two areaS President Trump asked President Zelenskyy to pursue: the Bidens in Burisma, and the conspiracy theory about the Ukrai ne-supported i nterference i n the 2015 U. 5 . electi ons. To state clearly on the record, I want to let you and your attorneys know that Congress will not tolerate any repri sal , threat of repri sa1 , or attempt to retal i ate agai nst you for complying with a subpoena, and testifying today as part of the i mpeachment 'inqui ry. Thi s i ncludes any ef f ort by the State Department, the White House, or any other entity of the government to claim that in the course of your testimony 25 under dual1y authorized subpoena today, you are disclosing l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 7 I 2 3 i nformati on i n a nonauthori zed manner. also expect that you will retain your current position after testifying today, and that you will be treated We 5 in accordance with your rank, such that in the normal course of the remainder of your career, you will be offered 6 assignments commensurate 4 with your experience and long 8 service. Should that not be the case, we expect you to noti f y us immedi ately and we wi 11 hold those respons'ible 9 account. 7 to 2t I turn to committee counsel to begin the depositjon, I invite the ranking member, or in his absence a minority member from the Foreign Affairs or Oversight committees to make an opening remark. l4R. JORDAN: Secretary Kent, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Kent, thank you for appearing today. 0n September 24th, Speaker Pelosi unilaterally announced that the House was begi nni ng i ts so-ca1 led i mpeachment i nqui ry. 0n 0ctober 2nd, the Speaker prom'ised that the so-cal1ed impeachment inquiry would treat the President with fairness. However, Speaker Pelosi , Chai rman Schi ff, and the Democrats are not living up to that promise. Instead, 22 Democrats are conducting 23 unprecedented i mpeachment i nqui 24 years 25 of l0 ll l2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 Before of bi a rushed, closed-door ry. and Democrats are i gnori ng 45 parti san procedures desi gned to provide elements fundamental fairness and due process. In past i mpeachment B I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 ty and mj nori ty had coequal subpoena authority and the right to require a committee vote on all subpoenas. The President's counsel had the right to attend i nqui t2 l3 t4 maj ori all depositions and hearings, including those held in executive seSSion. The President's counsel had the right to cross-examine the witnesses and the right to propose wjtnesses. The President's counsel had the right to present evidence, object to the admission of evidence, and to review all evidence presented, both favorable and unfavorable. Speaker Pelos'i and Chairman l0 ll ri es, the Schiff so-ca11ed impeachment inquiry has none of these guarantees of fundamental fairness and due process. Most disappointing, Democrats are conducting this inquiry behind closed doors. We're conducting these depositions and intervjews in a SCIF, but t7 clear every single session that there's no unclassified material being preSented in the sessions. This seems to be nothing more than hiding this work from the l8 American people. l5 l6 Democrats have been The Democrats intend l9 to undo the will of the American 20 people 13 months before the next election, they should at 2t least do so transparently and be willing to be accountable 24 for thei r acti ons. chajrman, I believe the ranking member from the Foreign Affairs Committee would like to say something as well as 25 we11. 22 23 9 I MR. MCCAUL: Thank 2 As you know, I you, Mr . Chai rman. conduct myself as both chairman and 7 in a very bipartisan way, and I think that should apply here as wel1. I am next to declaring war, this is the most important thing that the Congress can do under Article I. To hide behind that, to have it in a SCIF, to defy historical precedent that we conducted under both 8 Nixon and Clinton, which guarantees the participat'ion of 9 counsel, White House counsel J 4 5 6 l0 ll rankjng member in the room in an adversarial way. To also provide the minority the power of that subpoena. prior t2 That was done during both l3 sides recognized that with a fai r. impeachments, because both 22 It's really about fai rness. If I would j ust urge you, i f you' re goi ng to continue, and I've been back in my district for 2 weeks, talking to my constjtuents both Republican, and Democrat, and Independent, above all what they had 'in common was they wanted to see th'is done the ri ght way. I know you're a f ai r man. We've known each other for a long time. i hope that this resolution will come to the floor so that we can parti ci pate i n a democrati c system, wi th a democrati c vote, up or down, to proceed with this inquiry, so that it is 23 backed by the American people. 24 To do so otherwise, t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 25 I thjnk, defies democracy, faj rness, and i t defi es due process. And i f we' re it defies goi ng to 10 5 s, for God' s sakes, let's do i t the ri ght waY. I yield back. I think my colleagues will certainly have THE CHAIRMAN: an opportuni ty to discuss these matters further, but in the interest of moving ahead wjth the deposition I recognize 6 Mr. I 2 J 4 7 do thi Goldman. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. Thi s is a 8 deposition of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 9 Kent conducted by the House Permanent Select Commi lnte11igence, pursuant ll by the Speaker of the House on September 24th. l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2r 22 23 24 25 Mr. Kent, could you please state your fu11 spel1 your tast name ttee on to the impeachment inqui ry announced l0 t2 George name and for the record? THE WITNESS: George Peter Kent, K-e-n-t. you. Now, along with other proceedi ngs and f urtherance of th'is i nqui ry, thi s depos'i ti on a part of a joint jnvestigation, led by the Intelligence Commi ttee, i n coordi natj on wi th the Commi ttees on Forei gn Affai rs, and Oversi ght and Reform. In the room today are equal numbers of majority staff and minority staff from the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Oversi ght Commi ttee, as well as maj ori ty and mi nori ty staff from the Intelli gence Commi ttee. Thi s i s a staff-1ed deposj ti on, but Members, of course, may ask questi ons during their allotted time, and there will be equal allotted time MR. G0LDMAN: Thank 11 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 for the majori ty and the mi nori ty. My name is Daniel Goldman, I am the senjor adviser and di rector for i nvesti gati ons for the HPSCI maj ori ty staff. And I thank you very much for coming in today. I would like to do brief introductjons before we begin. To my right'is Nicholas Mitchell, who is the senior investigative counsel f or the HPSCI ma j ori ty staf f . And Mr. l'li tchel1 and I j I1 be conducting most of deposition for the majority. And I'11 let my counterparts from the minority staff introduce themselves w as we11. l'lR. CASTOR: Good morni ng, si Republican Steve Castor wi th the staff of the Oversight Committee. MR. BREWER: Good morning, staff, r, I'm David Brewer, Republican 0versi ght. MS. GREEN: l'4eghan Green, seni or counsel f or HPSCI ty. t6 mi nor i t7 20 this depos'ition will be conducted enti rely at the unclassi f i ed Ieve1. However, th'is deposition, as you no doubt know, is being conducted in HPSCI's secure spaces, and in the presence of staff with 2t appropriate security clearances, and, as we understand as of 22 thi s morni ng, your attorneys 23 clearances. 24 the State Department that addresses some of the concerns 25 about the disctosure l8 t9 MR. G0LDMAN: Now We understand all the have appropri ate securi ty that you recejved a letter from of classified information. But we want 12 to rest assured that, in I you 2 i nformati 5 di sclosure today. on that i s any event, any classified di sclosed i s not an unauthori zed 7 It i s the commj ttee's expectati on, however, that nei ther the questions asked of you nor the answers that you provide or your counsel provi de wi 11 requi re di scussi on of any jnformation that'is currently, or at any point could be 8 properly classified under Executive 0rder L3526. As you 9 doubt know, E0 L3525 states 4 5 6 no 16 that, quote "In no case sha1l i nformati on be classi fi ed, or conti nue to be mai ntai ned as classi fj ed, or fai t to be declassi fi ed" unquote, for the purpose of concealing any violations of 1aw or prevent'ing embarrassment of any person or entity. If any of our questi ons can only be answered w'ith classified information. We would ask you to inform us of that before you provide the answer, and we can as just the t7 deposi l0 ll t2 13 l4 l5 ngly . Today's deposit'ion l8 t9 ti on accordi SesSion, but because is not being taken in of sensitive and executive confidential nature of 23 of the topics and materials that wilt be discussed, access to the transcript of the deposition will be limjted to the three commjttees in attendance. You and your attorney will have an opportunity to review the transcript at a later 24 date. 20 2l 22 25 some Now before we begin the deposition, I would like to go 13 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 lr t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 of the ground ru1es. We will be following the House regulations for depositions. We have previously provjded counsel with a copy of those regulations, but let us know if you need addl tional copies. The deposition will proceed as follows today. The majority t hour to ask questions, and the m'inority will be given L hour to ask questions. Thereafter, we wjll alternate back and f orth j n 45 mi nute rounds. We'11 take peri od'ic breaks. But if, at any time, you or your counsel need a break, please just 1et us know. Under the House deposition rutes, counsel for other persons or government agencies may not attend this proceeding, and we understand that none are here. You, however, are allowed to have personal attorney present during this depos'ition, and I see that you have brought a couple. At th'is time if counsel could please state his or her name for an appearance for the record. over some Wright with t7 MR. WRIGHT: My name'is Andrew l8 MR. HARTMAN: Barry Hartman, K&L Gates. t9 MS. IHEANACH0: Nancy Iheanacho 20 MR. G0LDt"lAN: To 2t taking down with K&L Gates. K&L Gates. your lef t there i s a stenographer everything that is said, a1l questions and 23 that there is a written report for the deposition. For that record to be c1ear, please wait untjl 24 questions are completed before you provide your answers, 25 all staff 22 answers, so and members here and will wait until you finish your 14 question. The stenographer I response before asking the next 2 cannot record nonverbal answers such as a shaki ng J or an uh-huh so please make sure that you answer questions of the head 6 with an audible verbal answer. We ask that you give complete replies to questions based on your best recollection. If a question is unclear or you 7 are uncertain about the response, please 1et us know and we 8 can rephrase the questi on. 4 5 t7 if you do not know the answer to a question or cannot remember, simply say so. You may only refuse to answer a question to preserve a privilege recognized by the committee. If you do refuse to answer a question on the basis of privilege, staff may either proceed with the deposition, or seek a ruling from the cha'i rman on and objectjon, in person or otherwise, during the deposition at a time of the majority staff's choosing. if the chai r overrules any such objection, you are required to answer the l8 questi on. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 16 t9 20 2l 22 L) 24 25 And Finally, you are reminded that it is unlawful to deliberately provide false jnformation to Members of Congress, or to staff of Congress. It is imperative that you not only answer our quest'ions truthfully, but that you give ful1 and complete answers to all questions asked of you. 0missions may also be considered false statements. Now as this deposition is under oath, Deputy Assistant 15 I Secretary Kent, would you please stand and raise your 2 right-hand to be sworn? 7 or affirm the testimony that you are about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? THE WITNESS: I swear that the testimony I am about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth. MR. G0LDMAN: Thank you. Let the record reflect that 8 the witness has been sworn. But before we begin, 9 Assistant Secretary Kent, now is the time for you to 3 4 5 6 10 l1 t2 l3 t4 Do you swear Deputy make any openi ng remarks. MR. ZELDIN: Mr. Goldman, can we and have everybody identify MR. GOLDMAN: You want just go around the room themselves? back? Why don't we start at table here. Mr. Qui g1ey. Quigley from I1linois. l5 MR. QUIGLEY: Mike t6 MS. SPEIER: Jackje Speier. l7 MR. SWALWELL: l8 Eric Swa1we11. M5. SEWELL: Terri Sewe11. t9 MR. ROUDA: Harley Rouda. 20 MR. RASKIN: Jamie Raskin, 2t MR. HECK: Denny Heck, Washington State. 22 MR. MALINOWSKI: Tom 23 MR. PHILLIPS: Dean Phi11ips, Minnesota. 24 1"1R. 25 MR. NEAD0WS: Plark Meadows, North Carotina. for Marytand. Malinowski, New Jersey. R00NEY: Francis Rooney, Florida. the 16 I MR. MCCAU L : Mi 2 MR. J ORDAN : J ) MR. GOLDMAN ke PlcCaul. im Jordan, 0hi o. And then i f we could start behi nd here. 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 Mr. Kent. 2t MR. G0LDMAN: 22 MR. KENT: Good morning, as you've heard, my name is 24 Kent. I'm the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus in partjcular. I 25 have served proudly as a nonpartisan career foreign service 23 George 17 9 five Presidents, three Republican and two Democrats. As you all know, I am appearing here in response to your congressional subpoena. If I did not appear I would have been exposed to being held in contempt. At the same time, I have been instructed by my employer, the U.S. Department of 5tate, not to appear. I do not know the Department of State's views on disregarding that order. Even though section 105(c) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which is 22 U.5. Code 3905 expressly states, and I l0 quote, "Thi s secti on sha11 not be construed as authori zi ng of ll withholding of information from the Congress or the taking of t2 l6 of a member of the service who discloses i nformati on to Congress, " end quote. I have always been willing to provide f acts of wh'ich I'm aware that are relevant to any appropriate investigation by either Congress or my employer. Yet, this is where I find l7 myself today, faced with the enormous professional l8 personal cost and expense officer for 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 l3 l4 l5 more than 27 years, under any actjon and 20 of dealing with a conflict between the execut'ive and legislative branches not of my making. With that said, I appear today in same spirit that I 2t have brought 22 officer 23 support and defend the Constitution 24 one l9 25 of to my entire career, as a Foreign Serv'ice and State Department employee, who has sworn to of of the United States, as ti cal career professi onals i n the Foreign Service who embody that vow daily around the world thousands nonpol i 1B often i n harsh and dangerous condj ti ons. J to service in defense of the Constitution and U.S. natjonal interests for nearly 50 4 consecutive years and counting, ever since my father 2 There has been a George Kent sworn was 6 at Annapolis in June 1951, commi ssioned i n 1.955, after fi ni shi ng fi rst i n hi s c1aSS, and 7 serving honorably for 30 years, including as captain of 8 ballistic missile nuclear submarine. Principled service 9 country and community remains an honorable profess'ionaI 5 sworn in as a m'idshipman a l0 chojce, not just a family tradition dating back to before ll World War to t2 II, one that survived the Bataan Death March, and a 3-year stint 'in a Japanese POW camp unbroken. I hope the l3 drama now playing t7 son, out does not discourage my , from seriously considering a life of service. After two internship on a State Department Soviet desk in the tate 1980s, I formally joined the Foreign Service jn L992, and have not, for a moment, regretted that choice to t8 devote my 1 i fe t4 l5 l6 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 to pri nci pled publ i c servi ce. I served twi ce in Ukraine for a total of 6 years, posted in Kyiv, fjrst during and after the Orange Revolution from 2004 to 2008, and again, from 2015 to 2018, in the aftermath of the Revolutjon of Dignity when I worked at deputy chief of mission. In between, I worked in Washington from 20LZ to 2015, in several poticy and programming positions directly affecting U. S. strategi c i nterests i n Ukrai ne, most notably, as 19 2 director for 1aw enforcement and justice sector programming f or Europe and As"ia, and then as the European Bureau's senior J anti corrupti on coordi nator. I l0 In the summer of 20L8, then-Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, Wess Mitchell asked me to come back from Kyiv to Washington early to join his team as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State to take charge of our eastern European Caucasus portfol i o, coveri ng si x countri es i n the front line of Russian aggression and malign influence, Ukrai ne, Moldova, BeIarus, Georgi a, Armenj a, and Azerbai j an. ll The administration's national security strategy, which t2 helped 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wess t7 write, makes clear the strategic challenge before us great power competi ti on, wi th peer or near-peer ri vals, such as Russia and Chjna and the need to compete for positive influence without taking countries for granted. In that sense, Ukraine has been on the front 1jnes, not just of Russia's war in eastern Ukraine since 20L4, but of the l8 greater geopolitical challenges facing the United States t9 tod ay . l3 t4 l5 t6 Ukrai 20 ne's success, thus, i s very 21 interest in the 22 broadty )7 central 24 25 of peace fa11 much i n our national or national interests in Europe for the last 75 years, and specifically in and Eastern Europe, for the last 30 years, since the the Walf in 1989. A Europe whole, free, and at our strategic aim for the entirety of my foreign way we have defined 20 2 service career -- is not Possible wi thout a Ukrai ne fu11 free and at peace, inctuding Crimea and Donbas, both current J occupi ed by Russi a. I I 4 am grateful for all of you on the key congressional 8 to Ukraine in the past 5 years and I had occasion to speak to many in the 3 years I was in Kyiv and appropriating b'illions of dollars in assi stance i n support of our primary strategi c goals, i n 9 parti cu1ar, i ncreasi ng Ukrai ne's resi 5 6 7 committees who have traveled 1 i ency i n the face of an aggressi on i n the defense, energy, cyber, and l0 Russi ll information spheres, and empowering institutions'in civil t2 society to tackle corruption and undertake systemic reforms. I believe that all of us in the legislative and the executi ve branches 'in the 'interagency communi ty worki ng out 13 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 t9 of our embassy in Kyiv, with Ukrainians in government in the Armed Servi ces i n ci v'i1 soci ety, and wi th our tranSatlanti c allies and partners, can be proud of our efforts and our resolve in Ukrajne over the past 5 years, even though much more remains to be done. 22 S. offi ci als who have spoken publ i c1y i n Ukrai ne to push back on Russian aggreSs'ion and corrupt influences have been subj ect to defamatory and di si nformati on campai gns, and 23 even online threats 24 Ambassador 25 Ambassador Yovanovi tch. 20 2l U. for years. Starting in 2015 for former Pyatt, in 20t7 for me, and in 2018 for former 21 I That was, frankly, to be expected, from Russi an proxi es 5 indicators that our efforts were hitting their mark. You don't step jn to the pubtic arena of international diptomacy in active pursuit of U.5. principled interests against venal vested interests w'ithout expecting 6 vi gorous pushback. 2 a J 4 7 8 9 and corrupt Ukrainians, and I fulty share the concerns in Ambassador Yovanovi tch's statement on Fri day expressi ng her incredulity that the U.S. Government chose to move an 0n the other hand, te11, on unfounded and false l0 ambassador based, as best she ll t2 th clearly questionable motives, at an especi a1ly challengi ng time i n our bi lateral elections wi th l3 newly elected Ukrainian President. l4 fjnal note, I will do my best to answer your questions today and I understand there are going to be a 1ot of them. I suspect your questions may well involve some issues, conversations and documents that span a number of years. The State Department is in the process of collecting documents in response to the subpoena, not to me, but to the Department that may contain facts relevant to my testimony. I have no such documents or materials with me today. With the exception of a few documents related to the State Department inspector general's submission to Congress this month, neither the Department nor the committee has provided documents at issue in this inquiry. I w'i11, thus, l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 claims by people One wi a 22 I 2 to answer aS accurately, completely as I can to the best of my recollection. do my best and truthfully 4 with those introductory words, I'm ready to answer all your questi ons regardi ng the subj ect of the subpoena, 5 which has ordered me to appear before you today. J And you, 6 MR. GOLDMAN: Thank 7 MR. JORDAN: Could we 8 9 Mr . Kent. get a copy, could staff get a copy of the Secretary's opening statement for us, please. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah, we can l0 deal with that. EXAMINATION ll BY MR. GOLDMAN: l3 Mr. Kent, I'ffi going to pick up just where you left off there about the documents. You are aware of a request of l4 you as well t2 a l6 to provide documents. Is that right? A In the letter that was emailed to me on September 27th there was a request to appear voluntarily and to provide t7 documents, yes. l5 l8 t9 a What did do you, if anything, in relation to providing documents in response to that request? 23 A I received di rect'ion that f rom the State Department that at the same time you issued the letters to me you jssued a subpoena to the Department, and therefore the documents would be collected as part of that subpoena request since 24 they are considered Federal records. 25 THE CHAiRMAN: Ambassador, you 20 2l 22 don't need to turn the 23 I mi c off. BY MR 2 GOLDMAN: l5 of that document production by the State Department related to your personal documents or professional documents, I should say? A I collected all the different types of records that possibly could be consjdered part of the request and provided them to the listed authority at the State Department. a And have you had any followup conversations about production of those documents? A I have not. a Have you had any conversations, separate and apart, from the letters that we understand you received? Have you had any type of conversations wjth the State Department -anyone at the State Department about your testimony here l6 tod ay ? J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 t4 t7 18 a A a Are you aware of the status My testjmony Okay. today? No. So you di dn't have sorry, I don't t9 the substance of your testimony, but did you have'any 20 conversations about whether you would be 2l test i fy? 22 23 24 25 A The i nteract'ion consi sted mean testifying or of letters wj11 through counsel. a A So you had no personnel conversations I had no personal conversatjon. with anyone? 24 a 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 at Did you have any conversations with anyone the State Department about the document request? A a A a Yes. Can you Def i describe those conversations? ne conversati ons. All r'ight. Wel1, who did you speak to about the doc umen t? Okay. So the first interaction presume many of you are familiar with A was with somebody I , who 24 liaison. And initially, when I asked in emajl form whether I should start collecting documents, because I had received a personal request, I was instructed to await formal guidance, meaning formal instructjons on how to fulfill the document production request, so that was the fjrst interaction. a And what was the second interaction? A The second interaction with the Department issued written guidance on how to be responsive to the subpoena for documents to the Department late on October 2nd and that was in writing. a From whom? A The instructions were sent from the executive secretary of the Department, Lj sa Kenna. a And what did you do upon receiving those 25 instructions? 10 ll t2 l3 14 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 works with our congressional 25 I A That was after close of business. The senior 7 official at the time was Maureen Cormack (ph), and Maureen gave me a paper copy and said that the European Bureau staff on whom most of the requirements would faI1 would convene at 9 o'clock the next morning to discuss how we coutd fully be responsive to the request. a And did that meeting at 9 o'c1ock the next day 8 occu r? 2 a J 4 5 6 9 bureau A a A It occurred. t6 at that meeting? We had roughly 20 members of European Bureau sti11 there and followed the overall staff meeting of the morning which was f rom 8:30 to 9:00. l4ost people 1ef t. Those related to the inquiry stayed. And we had several additjonal staff who joined us at that meeting. a And can you just summarize the conversation at that t7 meeti ng? l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l8 A And what happened We started going through the instructions of the l9 State Department, which initially, 20 i denti 2t And so 22 "including coton" and jt listed names, was that an inclusive 23 or exclusive list? 24 25 fi ed a number of we i ndi vi the fi rst paragraph duals as key record collectors. the first question that came up was when it said it only those indjv'iduals or more? We had two people jn the room who are not members of the European Bureau staff, there could have been more, but they Was 26 I 2 J 4 5 6 liai son from the 0ffice of Legal Counsel at the and State Department. They clarified that that was not an exclusive list, meaning not only those people listed, but self-identified as from congressional others who might have records should also be respons'ive. a 0kay. At any I just want to back it up a 1itt1e ll bit and a 1itt1e bit more generally here. I appreciate your detail, but we are somewhat we didn't want to stay here all night. So I'm just trying to get a sense of, sort of, the back and forth. Was there, at any point, did you take j ssue wi th any of the di rect'ives or suggesti ons that you t2 received f rom the State Department? 7 8 9 l0 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A The letter of instruction that was issued after the close of business on October 2nd was the first formal instruction that any of us had received'in response to the subpoena to the Department and the personal letters which had been sent at the end of September 27th, so there was not any formal structured interaction, as I mentioned, that I'd had , and she directed me to initial interaction with await formal guidance. I did have several interactions with other State Department officials on Tuesday, 0ctober Lst. a Wi th whom? A With the director general of the Foreign Service, and with the acting L, so to speak, l"larek String. a And what was the purpose of those conversations? 27 5 A I approached the director general late in the afternoon mid-afternoon on 0ctober Lst, because I had not had any contact from any member on the leadership of the Department. And there was a letter sent to these committees that characterized interactions that I do not feel was 6 accu I 2 3 4 rate. a A 7 8 Can you explain what you didn't feel was accurate? We11, there was a line in there that the committees 20 to bu11y, intimidate, and threaten career foreign service officers. And I was one of two career foreign service officers which had recejved letters from the committees, and I had not felt bu11ied, threatened, and intimidated. There was another ljne in there that suggested that the career Forei gn Serv'ice of f i cers had requested the comm'i ttee's to route all communications through House 1i ai son who sent me the and I think your colleague who -- I, initjal email on Friday night received my reply, whjch indicated that I acknowtedged receipt, and that our congressional Iiaison had requested that the informatjon be routed to them. So I was concerned that the letter itself 2l di 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 had been attempting d not accurately characteri ze the i nteractj a When you' on. re talki ng about the letter, you're talking about the letter from Secretary Pompeo? A a Cor rect. And what was the response of the two individuals 28 1 2 J that you spoke to? A Well, Ms.Perez, who is one of the top two career foreign services officers and oversees the personnel system, 7 for her previously directly in a previous job. And because I'd had no contact with the leadership of the Department outside of the European Bureau, I suggested that it was time that somebody engaged me personally, particularly 8 since representations were being 4 5 6 I had worked a A a A 9 l0 ll t2 made about me. 0h, the letter? Right, the language in the letter. What representation? And what was Ambassador Perez's response? She needed to go and give a response to 150 people 2t of your people. And she said when that was fin'ished, she would reach out and find somebody that would reach out to me. And so she came back after an hour and said that the acting lega1 counselor of the Department, rrLrr in our parlance, Marek String, would reach out to me; that if I did not hear from him in 24 hours, I should contact her again. a Did hear from him? A I did after I wrote him an email. a And did you ultimately have a conversation with 22 him? l3 14 l5 t6 t7 18 l9 20 about taking care 23 A 24 Center 25 a I d'id. He called in the evening when I me back through was already And can you summarize at the 0perat j ons home. that conversation for us? 29 I 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 A He apologized for not having had anyone reach out to me prior. He said it was a very busy day, that they had responsive and were doing a lot and but I'd known Marek previously and respected him. If i t weren't for Marek, we would not have had Charge Taylor out in Kyiv. He helped wjth the process of getting him brought back on board as an Active Duty person. So I respected hi s professionali sm previously, so jt was a professjonat conversation. a A a A 9 l0 ll t2 Di d you voi ce the same simi lar concerns? I did. And what was hjs response? He apologized, because I mentioned that there had l3 not been an exchange. t4 l9 Sorry. Did you voice your concerns about the two statements in the letter that you disagreed wjth? A To the best of my recollection, again, it was a phone call at night when I was in my kitchen eating dinner at about 9 between 8 and 9. So I cannot say it was more, I think, the tonali ty. It was a pleasant, professional 20 exchange. l5 t6 t7 l8 a 2t 22 Z) 24 25 a And was there any fo1low-on conversations A Not that you had? th Marek, not wi th l4arek. That was agai n, on the ni ght on the 1st. The gui dance that we rece'ived i n writing came shortly after close of business on the 2nd. And wi 30 I then the next sort 2 our J 3rd. the a 4 European i 6 you've was the meeting, the guidance, Bureau's meeting at 9 o'clock on October 3rd, until today, 0ctober L5th' any other further conversati on that And since 0ctober s anythi ng else 5 of point had? l0 not. That was also the time where I think the 3rd was when we formally I formally engaged Andrew Wright as my counsel in this process. And therefore, there through were addi ti onal engagements, i nteracti ons wi th ll counsel. 7 8 9 t2 l3 t4 l5 A a I have Are you aware that as we sit here today, we have not rece'ived one document from the State Department? A I can read the news, but as I've answered you before, I'm not aware I did my ro1e. 0bviously there were t7 a 1ot of documents and records that I had that I needed to provide, based on the subpoena and the guidance that the l8 State Department issues. But hav'ing provided those records, t9 22 I do not know the process on reviewing them. a Af ter your conversat'ion wi th l'larek String, did you have any additional conversations with anyone in L? A I djd. There was a representative from L, as I 23 previ ously menti oned, 24 European Bureau guidance meeti ng on 0ctober 3rd. l6 20 2t 25 a , who attended the Did you have any private conversations with him? 31 1 A We have a very public exchange jn f ront of the J in the meeting. And then subsequent to that, I was ca1led out'into the ha11 where I had a continued 4 conversation with him 2 5 roughly 20 people a A Can you and describe the public exchange? public l1 in a room, closed-door room. The exchange started when we were discussing the issue of who needed to be responsive to the records collection. The jndjviduals listed primarily were in the European Bureau. And I noted several peopte who should have been listed who played key roles on staff at the embassy jn Kyiv. And then I t2 ment'i oned 6 7 8 9 l0 Wel1, 15 rs Assi stant Secretary Ri sch, because he had spoken to Rudy Giuliani several times"in January about trying to get a visa for the former corrupt prosecutor general of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. And my read of the l6 request would 'include that. l3 t4 Consular Affai took issue with my raising the additional t7 l8 information, and the conversation rapidly, I would l9 either escalated or degenerated jnto a tense exchange. a So what was h'is response to your suggestions of addi tional custodi ans? 20 2t 22 MS. SPEIER: What did he say? 23 MR. KENT say, : I've got two questions here, so I don' t know to manage Representative Speier asked me a 24 how you want 25 quest i on and you. 32 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 L) 24 25 MS. SPEIER: No, myself I didn't. I was just talking to . 0h. Sor rY. 1"1R. BAIR: It was the same question. l"lR. G0LDMAN: It's the same question. MR. KENT: of the additional I do not information and said that he didn't think he made clear that he did remember his exact words, but not think it was appropriate for me to make the Suggestion. I took the opportunity, then, to point out that that was the the meeting was the first time that we were first discussing guidance for being responsive to a subpoena. At th'is poi nt, i t was al ready 0ctober 3rd. The request f or the documents and the request for submission had been delivered on September 27lh and we had less than 2 business days to be has then said, I don't think I should respons i ve be even talking to you. It's not appropriate. I should only talk to counsel, and I talked to your counsel last night. That was, aS I knew, a factually incorrect statement at that point. He never had a conversatjon with my counsel. The conversation ended at that point, but later on when I then picked up this issue of guidance and our responsibitjties, he raised his voice again, suggested, as I told you before, I should not be talking to you, it is against the bar ethics, for me to contact and talk to you directly. I took issue t4R. KENT: He objected to my ra'ising 33 ) th that. I said I'm under no obligation to retain private counsel. I said somebody provided information to the Secretary that he said publicly in Italy that the 4 congressional committees were preventing me from talking to w'i 2 6 counsel. And I sa'id I've got L5 w j tnesses i n a room hearing you say that you don't want to talk to me. So I'm 7 worried that you as working for this office, are adopting 8 positions at odds with the language that your office is 9 providing the Secretary of State. 5 l0 1ega1 My interest in this process was so that the State ll Department and the 5ecretary would be protected, and being t2 fu1ly responsive to the 1ega1 BY MR. l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 subpoena that had been issued. GOLDMAN: hjs concern more of a process concern or did take any objection to your substantjve suggestion that addi tional custodi ans should be i ncluded? a Was A I honestty cannot answer what he was thinking. can only say what he said a A to I me. That' s what I 'm aski ng. What d i d he say? that he represented the Secretary of State and the Department's 'interest i n thi s process. And that was the end of that and he also said that he was the author of the lines about the of the letter that included the language about the bullying and intimidatjon. I pointed out to him that I thought the language he had He said to he me 34 I then drafted, since he said was the drafter, was inaccurate. 2 And he asked why 3 did I say that. I said, well, you say that the career Foreign Services are being intimidated. And he 5 sa'id, who are you speaking about? And I asked him, about whom are you speaking? And he said, you're asking me to 6 reveal confi denti a1 i nformati on. And I sai d, no, I 'm not. 7 There are only two career Foreign Service 4 ll officers who subject to this process. I'm one of them. I'm the only one working at the Department of State, and the other one is Ambassador Yovanovitch, who js teaching at Georgetown. So I'm not asking to you reveal anything that isn't already t2 commonly known. 8 9 10 So l3 a A a 14 l5 t6 l7 in t9 20 22 that part of that conversat'ion. d that? He spent the next 5 minutes glaring at me. Di d he d'isagree that Mr. Ri sch should be i ncluded What h'is response when you sai to that toPic. A O A We a And then you sai d there was an add'i ti onal d'id not return this was all with the others in the room? This is in the room with the 15 to 20 other people, Now yes. 23 conversation 24 descri be 25 was the l8 21 that A in the hallway with that conversati Cor rect. I Can you on? then said, opened the door after a 35 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 of minutes and asked if I could come out. So I excused myself before my colleagues. I apologized for them having had to hear an uncomfortable conversation. i said that jt was important that they had been there as wjtnesses, since that was likely the only such only conversation engagement I would have wi th the tegal staff of the State Department. I walked out, closed the door. And I stuck my hand out and said, Hi, I'm George Kent. We've never met. We shook hands. And then I said, that was unprofessional. And couple l0 he then said, you were unprofessional. He got very angry. ll He t2 What you di started pointing at me with a clenched jaw and saying, l6 d i n there, j f Congress knew what you were do'ing, they could say that you were trying to sort of control, or change the process of collecting documents. And what I said to him was what I hear you sayi ng i sa'id that's called projection. What I hear you saying is that you think that I 17 am doi l8 trying to do was make sure that the Department was bejng ful1y responsive. He then told me, I don't think it is appropriate for you to go back into that room. I told him that's not your business, that's my meeting, but I will agree with you, though, I wj11 go back in and tel1 my colleagues that since I'm one of the chief records cotlectors, I wi11 go back to my office and resume collecting records to be responsive to the request. l3 14 l5 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 ng that. What I was 36 And the only other th i ng we d i d was I I gave h'im my in 2 business card, he wrote his name and phone number J notebook. And he said, I imagine you will be writing up your 4 version of this conversation and I will be too. And that 5 it. 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 a A a And was did you write up your version? I did. Did you provide that to be turned over? A I be1 i eve a my yes, I Were you aware memo to the State Department di d. that the original request to the Department was made on September 9th? 22 that there was a letter sent, yes. I was traveling through much of that next week. So I am not a lawyer and I understand there are different ways of signaling how serious the issue is, but yes, I was aware that an earlier set of letters were sent prior to the September 27th letters. a Were you asked to collect your records prior to, I be1 i eve, you sai d 0ctobe r 2nd? A There was no request for anyone to collect records prior to the subpoena that was issued, to my understanding, 23 on the 27tn. 24 a l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 25 A I am aware And I assume you conversati ons wi th did not have any further ? 37 A I 2 No, and I think as counsel can confirm, once our relationship was established, h€, , was taken off 5 of my account, and while I did not participate in further conversations, my understanding is that the tone and further back and forth between L and my counsel was fu11y 6 profess j onal and respectful J 4 7 8 9 l0 . All right. Before I move on, Mr. Kent, is there anything else on the topic of the State Department's response to the Congress' subpoena that you think the commjttee should a know about A ll that you haven't addressed? No. l8 If I could, I take it, at some point, you were instructed by the State Department not to provide the documents di rectly to the comm'i ttee, but rather to provi de them to the State Department? MR. KENT: The initial document request under the subpoena was to the State Department and the 5tate Department as part of i ts guidance d'id share the considerat jon that t9 communicat'ions would be considered Federal records, and that 20 they would be handling them, and that 2t accepted. t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 THE CHAIRMAN: THE CHAIRNAN: 22 23 24 25 is a position that I But in terms of your own documents, the in your possession that we had requested, did you get instructjons from the State Department that rather than provide them to the committee, you should provide them to the ones 38 I State Department? MR. KENT: The 2 to J came 4 subpoena 5 6 7 l0 on September 27th was sent concurrently with a for those documents. And so they are considered Federal records. And all executive branch employees are rem'inded of that. So I was responsive to the request under subpoena to the Department for those records to be collected. THE CHAIRI'4AN: 8 9 me letters that came in, the letter that But did you receive any instructions from the State Department that you should not provide the documents di rectly to the commi ttee? t4 to go back and look at the written guidance that was issued on October 2nd. But I will say it was my understanding that I would provide the documents as part of the subpoena to the Department for the l5 documents. My documents are not my personal documents. l6 t7 I create in the performance of my professional duties would be considered a record of the Department of l8 S l1 t2 l3 t9 MR. KENT: I would have record that tate . THE CHAIRMAN: ANd I assume had on 2t the State Department to a KENT: That is be the MR. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. BY MR. a you turned over as well? 22 24 that any records that personal devi ce, those would have been provided to 20 25 Any right, correct. GOLDMAN: Did you have any conversations with anyone else in 39 I the State Department about youlinteracti on wi th ? t7 A Yes. a Who? A Now f ormer, I guess, techni cally ret'i red, he sent in his resignation letter, Plichael McKinley, senior adviser to the Secretary of State. I had had no prior interaction with Mr. McKinIey until the weekend after the letters were jssued, and the story became news, and he reached out to talk to me. a He reached out to you? A Correct. I was out pi cki ng apples wlth my w'if e Stribling 0rchards, a very nice place in Markham, Virginia, if you ever want to get good apples and he reached out to me through the Operations Center and said that he felt the State Department should stand up for its career Foreign Service officers and wanted to know if I had any objection to hjm trying to get the Department to issue a statement of that l8 nature. t9 a A 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 20 did you say? I think said I think it is entirely approprjate for What 2l the State Department leadership to stand up for its career 22 foreign service officers. 23 24 25 a A And what d'id you say about the statement? didn't share the statement wi th me. I if he'd already floated the idea, and if he got any He asked h'im 40 I 2 J 4 5 responses. a A agreement a 6 7 8 9 What He did he say? said he had not yet succeeded in securing an to issue such a statement. Had he heard about your interaction with ? our first conversation was on September 28th, Saturday, when I was picking apples. He then subsequently came to my office, and he was the only A So that came 1ater, because officer outsjde the European Bureau who l0 Foreign Service ll jnitiated contact and came to my office. So he checked in with me several times over the last 2 weeks to see how I was doing. And I did describe my the guidance meeting and what had occurred on the 3rd of October. a And what was his response to A He was concerned about that. He asked if I had written it up. And I said, I wrote a note to the fi1e. And he asked if, in his capacity as a senior adviser to the Secretary, i n part, responsi ble for ensuri ng that the Department leadership was connected to the career Foreign Service, if I would mind sharing it with him so that he could share it wjth other leaders of the Department, and I said I had no problem. And so I shared with him a copy of my note to the fi 1e. a Did he say who he was going to share it with? t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 /.) 24 25 41 I A Sec J counselor 4 6 a was me And di a d he indicate to the it with the Deputy Ha1e, and I bet i eve the he shared acti ng legal sorry to sharing A No. 7 8 later told reta ry 5u11ivan, Under Secretary 2 5 He , I-'la rek String. you what the any response memo? Djd he jndicate to you who he had discussed a statement wi th? 9 A Not specifically. l0 a Generally? t3 d leadershi p of the Department. That's I presume that included people outside of the European Bureau, but I did not ask specifically which individuals l4 had engaged. l5 a ll t2 A He sai Did you have any 50 he further conversations about that t6 statement t7 2t A I did ask him, one of the times he dropped by my office, I asked him if that statement had gone anywhere, and he sai d, no. a Djd he jndicate why not? A I don't know recal1 if he gave any speci fi c 22 i nformati on 23 a l8 t9 20 24 25 wjth wi th him? on why. Anything else noteworthy about your conversati ons Ambassador McKinley? A I had had never met him. I actually had to Google 42 2 s career has not crossed mi ne. He's been an ambassador in four places three tjmes in South America and 3 Afghanistan. But he appeared to 4 genuinely decent person who was concerned about what 5 happeni ng. 1 6 hi m. Hi And so me in person to be a I very much appreciated him reaching out on a 8 personal 1eve1 and showing, as someone who's been an ambassador i n f our mi ssi ons, 'includi ng Af ghani stan, 9 understanding 7 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 r9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 people a A a was it's important to be responsive and engage the who work for you. D1d you share his concerns? Which concerns? About how the career Foreign Service officers were treated duri ng thi s Process? A We11, as I ment'ioned before, that's why I reached bei ng out to the director general, Carol Perez, on 0ctober 1st because I had concernS that outside of the European Bureau, the leadership in the Department was not actually signaling its support for the career Foreign Service officers. All right. Mr. Kent, we're going spend some time today djscussing Ukraine policy as well as efforts by nongovernment'individuals to influence Ukraine policy. As you no doubt are aware one of the central players in this investigation is Rudy Giuf iani. When did you fi rst learn that Rudy Giulianj had taken an interest in Ukraine? a 43 4 A Well a 0r any Ukrai n'ians? A I think it's a matter of record that the former mayor of New York and the current mayor of Kyiv have known 5 each other f or over a decade. l"layor Klychko i s a f ormer 6 heavywei I 2 a J t2 of the wor1d. And so I bel i eve that Giuljan'i first met Ktychko, roughly, jn 2008. a OkaY. A So I think Giuliani, as a person, a private individual, has traveled to Ukra'ine over the course of the last decade. a When you were in Ukraine, did you ever meet with l3 him? 7 8 9 l0 ll t4 ght A I boxi ng champ'ion never met wi th him, never been i n the presence of l5 him, never had any l6 23 a So other than, as of 2018, at some point, did you come to learn that ['lr. Gi u1i ani was acti vely engaged i n matters relating to Ukrajne? A The first indication that I heard of contacts in 2018 came in May 2018. The then-prosecutor general of the country, Yuriy Lutsenko, had planned to go to New York and his ptane, KLM plane, was canceled. But my understanding was that his intent to go to New York was to meet wjth Rudy 24 Giuliani. t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 25 a And communi cati on wi th h"im. did you understand what the purpose of that 44 I meeti ng was? A a A 2 3 4 At the ti me, flo, because the meeti ng di dn't happen. How did you learn about it? There were stori es i n the Ukrai ni an medi a that he ll to go. I'd heard the story about the cancelatjon, KLM. Some of the stories later claimed that he did not have a visa. That was not true, because I know the plane had been canceled and he later traveled to New York. And also the head of Ukrai n j an di aspora organi zat'ion told me that he had had a conversation with Lutsenko and Lutsenko sai d h1s i ntent was to go to New York and meet wi th t2 Giuliani. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 intended a A l3 t4 Were you I was in sti11 in I left Kyiv, Ukraine on August L2th, l5 2018. l6 t7 did you learn about Mr. Giuliani's i nteracti ons wi th t4r . Lutsenko after that i ni ti a1 aborted l8 trip? t9 a And what A The next time I heard Mr. Giuliani's name mentioned 2l gth of January this year,2019, when I was copied on an email that Giuliani was calling the State Department 22 regarding the 23 Viktor Shokin 20 24 25 was on the O A How I inability of the previous prosecutor general to get a visa to come to the United States. did you learn about that? was copied on an email. Because I'm the Deputy 45 stant Secretary of State coveri ng Ukra'ine, and i t was a I Assi 2 matter about Ukra'ine. a J 4 did you have any involvement in that vjsa i ssue? A 5 6 And I was involved extensively exchanges over a A 7 in conversations and the next 2 days, yes. Descri be brj efly who Vi ktor Shoki n i s. l3 Viktor Shokin served as prosecutor general of Ukrajne from, I believe his appointment date was February 10th, 2015, until sometime of the spring, perhaps late February, early l'larch 20L5. He was a longti me prosecutor. He was known to have been the godfather of then-Presjdent Poroshenko's kids. And he was someone with whom and about t4 whom 8 9 l0 ll t2 l6 the U.S. Government had many conversations over that period of time as prosecutor general. a Was there a broad-based jnternational assessment of l7 his, l8 general? l9 24 A There was a broad-based consensus that he was a typical Ukraine prosecutor who ljved a lifestyle far in excess of his government salary, who never prosecuted anybody known for having committed a crime, and having covered up crimes that were known to have been committed. a Who was the email from that you received on January 25 9th? l5 20 2t 22 L) whether or not he was a credible or corrupt prosecutor 46 I 2 ) 4 5 A I do not recal1. I believe it may have been from one of the staff jn the Office of the Secretary of State, because Rudy Giuliani was trying to call into that office. a A And d'id you f o11ow up on thi s The i ni ti a1 redi recti on was to the Assi stant emai 1? t2 of Consular Affai rs, Mr. Ri sch. a Okay . The red'i rec t i on bY who? A I was just copied on the emai1. Since it was about a visa, I think it was entirely approprjate for the matter to be referred to the part of the State Department that deals wi th vi sas. a And what was Mr. G'iul i an j 's i nvolvement i n thi s l3 matter? t4 A 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t5 Secretary He was push'i ng a v j sa . He wanted Vi ktor Shoki n to get a visa. l8 a Had Viktor Shokin been denied a visa at that point? A Apparently, Mr. Shokjn did not have a valid visa at the ti me. I do not know whether he had been deni ed a v'isa t9 recently. t6 l7 20 MR. SWALWELL: Ambassador, can you 2l MR. KENT: I spetl bel i eve, wi th apolog'ies "Risch"? to any German 24 I think it is R-i-s-c-h, but sometimes names get changed. My ori gi na1 German name was Ki ndt, K- i -n-d-t, and then my great- great- grandmothe r changed to angl i c i ze i t to 25 K-e-n-t. 22 23 Americans, 47 MR. SWALWELL: Thank you. I BY MR. 2 a J 4 So describe generally what your vjsa matter, if role was in this any? 7 of conversations between members of the Consular Affairs front office and European Affajrs front office. For the European office, that'included 8 Assistant Secretary 9 And 5 6 A GOLDI'4AN There was a series Wess I"'litchel1 and mysetf principally. ll to the best of my recollect'ion, on the si de of Consular Affairs, it would be Assistant Secretary Risch and the deputy assistant secretary for visas, who I betieve is Ed t2 Romatowsk'i l3 18 a Just to try to get to the bottom 1ine, Mr. Giuliani, what was the State Department's view about the propriety of a visa for Mr. Shokin? A Plr. Shokin, as I ment'ioned, was well and very unfavorably known to us. And we felt, under no circumstances, should a visa be issued to someone who l9 knowingly subverted and wasted U.5. taxpayer money. And as 20 somebody who had l0 t4 l5 l6 t7 . 2l a fiduciary responsjbility for anticorruption programs, I felt personally strongly, 22 M'itchell f elt very strongly that i t was i ncorrect and so we 23 stated that view clearly to our congressional to or 24 Consular Affai 25 a Wess rs colleagues. Okay. And what did you learn why Mr. Giuliani 48 I 2 J 4 5 was pushing to have a visa granted? of my recollection, the story that he conveyed to my colleagues in Consular Affairs was that Shokin wanted to come to the United States to share information suggesting that there was corruption at the U.S. embassy. A To the best t2 a And did you understand what he was referring to? A Knowing Mr. Shokin, I had ful1 faith that it was bunch of hooey, and he was looking to basically engage in a con game out of revenge because he'd lost his job. a And do you know whether there was any engagement with Mr. Giuliani on behalf of the State Department? A To the best of my recollection, to my awareness l3 based on the ema'il exchanges, He may have had between two and 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l5 three conversations with the Assistant Secretary in that period of time, Giutiani to Risch. No time did Wess Mitchell l6 or I t4 a t7 18 2t 22 23 24 25 And . did you learn about the substance of conversati ons f rom Mr . A 19 20 engage Gi u1 i ani I Ri sch? shared what was 'in one those I recall, and I presume that either of those conversati ons were an emai 1 exchange, but I couldn't te11 you for sure. a What ultimately happened with the visa application? A When the State Department was not being responsive, my understanding is that former Mayor Giuliani attempted to call the White House, and deputy chief of staff, my that 49 l9 of staff , Rob B1air, then cal1ed the State Department to ask for a background. a Who djd Mr. Btair speak to in the State Department? A In the end, I believe it was a conference ca11. I participated sitting in Wess Mitchell's office. I believe Consular Affairs may have also been on the cal1. a And can you descri be the conversat'ion? We laid out enough frank detail about U.5. Government engagement and assessment of Mr. Shokin. And Mr. Blai r sai d, thank you very much, I 've heard enough. He identified his role at that point to ground truth the si tuation and look out af ter the 'interest of the 0f f ice of the President. And I took from his response to us that he'd heard what he needed. And that was the last I heard about that, and Mr. Shokin, to the best of my knowledge, did not ever receive a visa and has not come to the U.S. a So after Mr. Giuliani reached, attempted to convince the State Department to issue the visa directly, and was told ro, he then went around to the chief of staff's 20 office? understanding deputy chief 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 il t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 2l 22 23 24 25 That I do not know who he tried to reach at the White House. I only know that Mr. Blair reached out to us to ground truth the si tuation. a To your knowledge, had anyone in the State Department i nformed Mr . Blai r or the chi ef of staff's offi ce? A 50 J is he reached out to us, and we were responsive to him reaching out to us. a And did you understand the he learned about it from 4 Mr. Giuliani? I 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 A My understanding A I do not if he had a direct conversation. To the best of my recollection, he said he was asked, which suggests that he did not have the conversation h'imself . I don't know. a Was this the first that you had heard about any concerns about the embassy in Kyiv? A No. I was at the embassy 'in Kyiv when a series of corrupt prosecutors, including Shokjn's team accused us of not sharing our assistance to improve the prosecutor service t9 in Ukraine. And to my understanding, because it was released as part of the dis'information campaign, that included a letter from Apri1 20L6 which I signed as Charge. a Was that were those accusations accurate? A The accusations were completely without merit. a Followi ng thi s January 9th meeti ng, when i s the next time that you learned about any involvement of Rudy 20 Gi u1i l3 14 l5 t6 t7 18 2t 22 L) 24 25 an'i i n Ukrai ne matters? A 0n February l.Lth, there was a semj nar hosted at the U.S. Institute of Peace, about the conflict in Donbas, and the Mi ni ster of Interi or, Arsen Avakov, came and parti c'ipated presenting his plans for what he ca1ls a plan of small steps. We had a separate meeting, since I'm the leading 51 I policymaker focused on the let region. And during that meeting, 7 that Yuriy Lutsenko, the then-prosecutor general of Ukraine, had made a private trip to New York in whjch he met Rudy Giuljani. I said, did he know what the purpose was, and the l"linister of Interior Avakov said it was to throw mud. And I said, throw mud at whom? And he said, a 1ot of people. I asked hjm, whom? And he said, towards 8 Masha, towards you, towards others. 2 3 4 5 6 he me know a A a A 9 l0 ll t2 Masha i e Yovanovi tch? say name any other names? At that point, to the best of my recollection, Did he mentioned 14 di l5 Mari Former Ambassador Yovanovitch, yes. r3 d not s specifically menti on a A Masha and me, and he then said others but the others. Where was this meeting? t7 It would have either happened at the U.S. Institute of Peace or jn my office, which is right across the street. t8 The State Department and USIP are across the street. l6 t9 a Did he explain in any more detail what he 20 learned about the conversations between Lutsenko 2l Giuliani? 22 A had and just passing along information. That was of the meeting. The meeting was to talk He was 23 not the purpose 24 about our assistance programs. He oversees the 25 enforcement reform. It was 1aw to talk about Ukrainian politics. 52 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 t6 t7 Frankly, at the time, he was the second most powerful person in the country after President Poroshenko. It was to talk his ideas about trying to bring peace to the Donbas. And hi s comment about Lutsenko's tri p and meeti ng wj th Giuliani was and, 0h, by the way, probably the last thing he said before we fi ni shed the meeti ng. a Did he express -- why did he mention this to you? A I don't know. I would say that Mr. Avakov tikes to keep lines of communication open to a1I sides and but I cannot say why he chose to share that information. about a A Did he express any concerns about this? thing to do. He thought Lutsenko was a fool to have made a private trip He thought it was the wrong and to have done what he did. a Do you know whether he was aware of Mr. Giuliani's connection to President TrumP? A l4r. Avakov? l8 a Yes. l9 A Mr. Avakov i s a very well- i nformed person, and I 'm 2l absotutely sure he knew who Giuliani was connected to. a Di d you, after learni ng thi s i nformati on, what, i f 22 anything what if 23 anyone 20 24 25 any conversations did you have with else about the information you learned? A I cannot say w'i th complete certai nty, but I know that I shared the information that Avakov passed to me with 53 I 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 others. O A Who else? Based on my normal procedures I would guess that I in the European Bureau, as well as with the leadership of or embassy in Kyiv. a Do you know what mud Lutsenko and Giuliani were di scussi ng i n connecti on to you? A I did not know, oo. a At that time you did not know? A I sti lt don't know. O You haven't seen memoranda that A I've seen the letter that I signed in Apri1 2015. I don't know if that's a1t. I've seen a fake list that had my business card that I used temporarily in 2015, when I was at the embassy as acting DCM. The business card was the one I used in 2015, the letter itself was completely fake with lots of misspeltings. But I have never -- no one has ever shown me what Lutsenko might have been passing to Giuliani. So I did not know then and I sti1I do not know now. a You mentioned the documents that the State IG had provided to Congress. Have you reviewed those? A They were not no one shared th j s wi th me, r1o. 5o I -- what I have been to1d, I first learned about it from reporter who emailed me, a person I'd never had I contact with, and to whom I did not respond, who claimed that shared it with people who followed Ukraine 54 I she had seen the documents and asked me a quest"ion, and with 2 the many dozens of emails from media over the last several 3 weeks, since 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll this story started, I didn't answer a single one, I forwarded them all to our press offjcer. a Was thjs recent? A This was after -- it was probably a day or 2 after the IG came up and passed documents. a Did you speak to Ambassador Yovanovitch about conversation that you had with Mr. Avakov? I A d1d not the wel1, I cannot say for certain' I mean, again, the conversation was February 11th. That was l5 nar. I could say I cannot say for certain whether I talked or whether I sent a brief emai1. 0 Okay. A My guess is, to the best of my recollection, I 16 conveyed t2 l3 t4 t7 the day of the semi the i nformati on. Did you become aware of whether a Ambassador 24 th ["lr. Avakov around thi s time? A I believe it may have been that conversation that she shared that she had had a similar conversation with him. a At that point did you understand what Rudy Giuliani's 'interest was 'in meeting with Lutsenko? A I di d not have any vi si bi 1 1 ty. I had better insights into the mind of Yuriy Lutsenko than I did of Rudy 25 Giuliani. l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 Yovanovi tch had also spoken wi 55 1 2 a A And what were those Mr. Lutsenko i s insights into Mr. somebody wi th whom Lutsenko? the embassy had 4 a long relationship dating back to the 0range Revolutjon period, whjch is when I first met him. And at that time he 5 was a seemingly pro-Western 6 he's a very gregarious, outgoing person. J politician. We met with him, He was imprisoned t7 for 2 years under former President Yanokovitch, and he came out and resumed politics. When Shokin was forced out, the intent of then-President Poroshenko was to appoint someone he trusted. Yuriy Lutsenko is also the godfather of his kids. And the question was whether someone who didn't have a law degree could be a ref i able partner to try to reform the prosecutori al servi ce. So I had a series of meeti ngs with him in the spring of 2015 to judge and assess whether he would be a serious partner for us. And so, that was the initjal, if you wi11, renewal of a relationship. Subsequent to that time, it was l8 very clear that Mr. Lutsenko was not any more serious about l9 reformi ng the corrupt prosecutori 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 20 Shokjn al servi ce than Vi ktor had been. And at that point, our relationship -- not 2t personal to me, but the relationship between the embassy and 22 Mr. Lutsenko began to sour. ZJ 24 25 a So it was the embassy and the U.S. view that Mr. Lutsenko was another corrupt prosecutor general? A That was our assessment, yes. 56 a 1 2 Mr. Gi ut j When you spoke to Mr. Avakov, did you learn whether ani was worki ng wlth anyone else on matters related 7 to Ukrai ne? A He j ust mentioned hi s hi s thi s i s, by the way, asi de. Agai n, he's a Ukrai ne po1 i ti ci an servi ng as minister of interior, he was talking about another Ukraine politician serving aS prosecutor general, and his focuS waS 8 on that dynamic. And because he said he'd heard my name 9 menti oned , he ' d passed J 4 5 6 a l0 l1 l2 i When was n conversati that the next time that Rudy Giuliani came up on? THE CHAIRMAN: 13 clarification. l4 forgery. You mentioned MR. KENT: Yes? l6 THE CHAIRMAN: Can what you know if I cou1d, just for a letter with misspellings A question 15 t7 along. of i ts you tel1 us what that letter and was and Provenance? 24 that was part of series of news articles that came out I believe starting March 20th, this spring. There with a number of articles that were 'initially 1ed by John Solomon of The Hi1l, who gave who took an interview with Yuriy Lutsenko earlier in March. And so, there was, I befieve, video somewhere, there certainly were pi ctures of them doi ng i nterv'iew. And i t's part of a seri es 25 of articles, it 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 MR. KENT: Wel1, was an intense campaign. One of those 57 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 articles released because the interview on the first day that Ambassador Yovanovitch had given him a list in their first meeting of people not to prosecute. Several days later, a Iist of names was circulated on the internet, with the photograph had a copy of my temporary business card that I used for a short period of time in 2015. jt didn't look like a regular busjness So it was a real card. It was the one that we did on the embassy printer. So I think the card was genuine, and someone attached that to a list of names that was a hodgepodge of names. Lutsenko had claimed ll Some of the people I had to google, I had not heard of. l5 misspelled. Not the way that any American, or even Ukrainian, or Russian would transliterate Ukrai ni an names. My best guess, j ust from a 1i nguj sti cs semanti c poi nt 'is the person who created the f ake 1i st was l6 either t2 l3 t4 Half the names were Czech or Serbian. THE CHAIRI'4AN: So when l7 l8 letter, t9 1i st? you were you referred earljer to a forged referring to the forged do-not-prosecute 2t yeah. Thi s was the i t wasn' t a letter, it was just a list of names with my actual business 22 card attached. 20 23 MR. KENT: That was - - THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. BY MR 24 25 a GOLDMAN: When was the next time that you learned anything 58 I being Mr. 2 LLth? 3 4 A Giuliani's jnvolvement in Ukra'ine, af ter February Giuliani was almost unmissable starting i n m'id-lvlarch. As the news campai gn, or campai gn of slander We11, Mr. 6 aga'inst, not only Ambassador Yovanovitch unfolded, he had a very high a media promise, so he was on TV, his Twitter 7 feed ramped up and it was a1l focused on Ukrajne, and it 8 focused on the 9 between March 20 and 23rd. 5 l0 ll a A four story lines that unfolded in those Where was days do those storY lines unfold? They unfolded both i n the U. S . medi a and the a, simultaneously i n peri 1. t2 Ukrai n'ian medi l3 l8 O What U. S. medi a outlets? A Well, Mr. Solomon started off in The Hi11, as I recal1. There was a 1ot of tweeting, and of people that I had not previously been aware of, and then that also then played i nto late ni ght televi si on, subsequent days, both the Hannity Show and the Laura Ingraham Show covered this topic t9 extens i ve1y. 20 a t4 l5 16 t7 2t 22 ./.) 24 25 That original John Solomon on accurate i nformati A a It And was was that based on? was based on an j ntervi ew accurate, to your A article, with Yuri y Lutsenko. the information that Mr. Lutsenko provided knowledge? No. It was, if not entirely made up in fu11 cloth, 59 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 'i t was primarily non-truths and non-sequ j turs. into two parts. The first part was focused on any corruption efforts in which he went after the Ambassador and other actors on anticorruption issues. I think that is where he claimed that we hadn't shared his money, meaning his assjstance to the prosecutor general's offi ce. And the second half of the first wave theme was looking back at the 2015 campaign and allegations that the National The interview was broken l0 Anti-Corruption Bureau head, a person ll t2 list of people taking money from the discredited pro-Russian party, Party of Regions, back in l3 20L6. t4 2l one. There were two story lines that were launched more or less in paraIlel that were covered extensi vely i n the U. S. press, fi rst by The Hi 11 and amplifiers, and in Ukraine by what are known as Porokhobots, tro11s on the internet, particularly Facebook, in support of then-President Poroshenko and against the people that are perceived to be Poroshenko's opponents. a You said there were some, I think you said, 22 surprisjng Twitter l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 23 24 25 somehow So A name Artem Sytnyk, had provided the that was day I honestly I have forgotten my Twjtter password. I'm not on the Twittersphere. So they are just names that did not mean anything to me until they all of a sudden became 60 I very active, talking about Ukraine and particularly the 2 activi ties of our a J 4 this retweeted John Solomon article? A 5 in Ukraine. Were you aware of whether the Presjdent embassy To the best of my recollection, the President may 6 have retweeted something affi 1 i ated wi th the Hanni ty Show the 7 second day. a A 8 Did it reference John Solomon, as you recal1? t2 I honestly, again, I have started following Twitter more than I did before March, but I was not an active follower at that point. a Pri or to the i ni ti a1 Hi 11 arti c1e between February l3 1Lth and March 20th, was there any engagement that you t4 ei l5 any State Department t6 related to 9 l0 ll ther wi th the Ukrai ni an on the Ukrai ni an si de, or had, wi th officials about any of these issues Rudy G'iuliani? t9 If I could -- just for clarification again, I think I mentjoned one or two of the story 1ines, but you said there were four story lines. Can you tel1 us what 20 the other story lines t7 18 THE CHAIRMAN: were? third story line that 23 out the next day was focused on the Bidens and Burjsma, that was the third story 1ine. The fourth one that came out of day after was 24 going 25 anticorruption action center that were descrjbed as 2t 22 MR. KENT: The came after some civil society organizations, inctuding Soros 61 1 organi zati ons? BY MR. 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 r3 t4 GOLDMAN: a I want to we're going to go through these four a litt1e bit jn more depth, but I want to make sure that there's nothing else that occurred between February lLth and l'la rch 20th of note on th i s topi c? A I received an email from our embassy on March 19th, the deputy di rector of the Nati onal Anti -Corrupti on Bureau for Ukrajne, usually referred to as NABU, that was set up in 20L5 and proved very effective at trying to investigate high-1evel corruption as it was jntended to do. The deputy rector was a f ormer Georgi an nat'ional named Gi zo Uglava. And he came into the embassy and described his conversation the night before with a completely'inebriated, drunk, Yuriy di l6 Lutsenko, and Lutsenko was angry. He said he'd given an 'interview wjth an American journaljst 2 weeks prior and that t7 interview that he had accused the t8 and l5 embassy of undermining him, 22 his motivation, and that the embassy had been supportive of the Democrat party, and was not support'ive of the Trump party and that so basically the lines of attack that then came out in the subsequent artjcles, Lutsenko shared wi th th'is other law enf orcement i ndi vi dual, who then 23 came and shared what he had heard 24 before. 25 a t9 20 2t that was To the embassy? from Lutsenko the night 62 I 2 3 4 5 A a To the embassy, yes. And prior to March 19th, there was no other indication other than television or A To the best of my recollection, the story was not in play publicly until the first articles appeared. And to 8 the best of my recollection, somebody from The H111 reached out to us in the early evening, or the very end of the work day on the 19th, and asked the press offjcer of the European 9 Bureau whether we had reaction 6 7 l0 allegations. ll a t2 minute. 13 I Di scuss i ght. Let's go through on BY MR. l4 15 A11 ri a So ust gi ve me one GOLDMAN: did you understand why the Ukrainian enforcement source went t7 drunk Lutsenko had said? A j off the record . ] l6 l8 to a number of assertions, 1aw to the embassy to describe what a I believe, first of all, Mr. Uglava had a very t9 working relationship with the embassy. His organizat'ion, 20 NABU, was one 2l 22 23 24 25 good of the key anticorruption organizations that had been stood up af ter the Revolut'ion of Di gni ty. I t was i n i ts fi rst year, i t was functi oni ng surpri si ngly well , meani ng i t was putti ng together i nvesti gati ons on hi gh-1eve1 corrupt i ndi vi dua1s. And because of i ts 'i ni ti al effecti veness, whi ch I thjnk surprised a lot of people, it then became a target of 63 2 in places of influence, because it had been effective. And one of the people that was looking to destroy NABU as an J effective people 4 5 Bureau was Yuriy Lutsenko. did the information that you received about this, was that in writing or was it on the phone? And 2t 'it i n an emai 1 f rom the embassy. And that email should be part of the records collected, not individually, but the State Department has a system, that is supposed to automaticatly be abte to pu11 all emajls and cables that have key words. That's my understanding of how that material should be provided eventually to the comm'ittees after review. a Could you just summarize for us the four lines that you ljnes of A I think the four story lines that played out in the media, the first one was the anticorruption line jn which the embassy was attacked, and anticorruption actors in Ukraine were attacked. The second ljne was the 2015 cycle, allegations that somehow, somebody, whether it was Ukrainians or people at the embassy had animus towards Paul Manafort. The third line was a line of reporting related to the Bjdens, 22 and the interconnectivity between Vice President Biden's role 23 alleged interconnectivity between Vice President Biden's role 24 and pushing our antjcorruption agenda, and the presence of 25 his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of the gas company 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 A I recei ved 64 2 Burisma. And the fourth line of attack was alleging that certain civil society organizations were funded by the Soros J organi zati on. I 4 5 6 7 8 there, which would have overlapped with some of these events, as well as your expertise in the area and your current role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, did you befieve that there any merit to any of those four story lines? A a 9 l0 ll Now, based on your time as DCM a was I did not. I believe our time is up so I yield to the minority. BY MR. l2 CASTOR: t4 did your State Department officials do to try to counteract these stories that you believe were totally l5 fabr i cated? l6 23 A Correct. a What did you or State Department officials do to try to counteract these stories? A When stories, media occurs about any of the issues jn our area of responsibility, particularly when they touch on allegations or assertions about U.S. policy, or U.5. issues, the responsible part of the State Department wjth the press officers and the team in embassies work together to 24 prepare press guidance, and that can be a combination of 25 ei l3 t7 t8 t9 20 21 22 a ther What gui dance, i f asked, or i f a sj tuati on warrants i t, 65 1 2 J statements that would usually come out by the a A Right, so what did you spokeswoman. do? 5o immediately since our Ambassador and embassy was 4 being attacked with allegations that we fett were completing 5 baseless, we prepared press guidance, and 6 record the public record would 7 quoted that press guidance. I believe the show that the media outlets t7 that i t? That was it for those initial days, yes. In terms of the public stance jn response to media art'icles. a Was that sufficient to counteract the narrative? A The narrat'ive continued to be pushed untjl the narrative was stitl out there. It accelerated on whatever that Sunday was, because the son of the President jssued a Tweet in which he suggested that we needed more like Ambassadors like Rick Grenell and fewer, I beljeve he may have hashtagged Obama appointee was the point, and it was l8 taken by people as an attack on Ambassador Yovanovitch. t9 22 did the State Department do? I mean, this seems like jt is a major threat to the Ambassador, and major threat to the State Department. What type of addi tional fu11-throated maneuvers did the State Department 23 take here? 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 20 21 24 25 a A a A And was 5o what else The request from the embassy endorsed by the European Bureau, there should be a high-1evel endorsement of 66 Ambassador Yovanovi tch. 2 J 4 5 6 a A And then what happened there? There was no high-1evet Department endorsement of Ambassador Yovanovi tch. a What did the State Department do? You described a series of complete falsehoods in your words. t9 A Yes. a Fabricatjons, a fake 1ist, that is going to the heart of the ability of the Ambassador to serve effectively. A Cor rect. a And so is it fair to say this was a big league cri s"is f or the Ambassador? A This particularly after there were Tweets by members of the Presidential family, it was clearly a crisis for Ambassador Yovanovi tch and a cri si s that was threateni ng to consume the relationship. So our recommendation to our superiors was that there should be a clear statement of support for Ambassador Yovanovitch. a Clear statement of support, and obviously there was 20 a media statement -- 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 2t A The initiat media guidance 22 quoted extensively was, 23 nonsense as 24 25 I think, that complete we released and was fabrication, utter well as in rebutting Prosecutor General Lutsenko's allegation that somehow we had misdirected assistance met for the prosecutor general. We said something 67 1 2 along the fines that we had a fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer and when our assistance was not going to 6 it for more productive purposes. And so, those were the initial lines in that first couple of days. When we got to the weekend, past the Sunday morning talk shows, saw the President's Tweet against the 7 Ambassador. The question that consumed us was what do 8 need 9 Yovanov'i tch? J 4 5 good use, we redirected next? And how do we show support for we Ambassador 2t a And what does the State Department do? It didn't seem like the efforts were sufficient. A There were exchanges at thi s poi nt wi th offi ci als, including, to the best of my recoltection, Under Secretary Ha1e. it may have included the Counselor of the Department, Brechbuhl, at that point. And there was a suggestion made, and I can't remember by whom, i nj ti atly, but eventually, Gordon Sondland, our Ambassador to U.5. EU also joined some of the back and forth that Ambassador Yovanovi tch should issue a statement, or do a video or tweet declaring ful1 support for the foreign poticy of President Trump, essentially asking her to defend herself as opposed to hav'ing 22 the State Department defend her. l0 lt t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 a 23 You talked about the four lines. And the first one 24 you said was the anticorruption actors were be'ing attacked, 25 was that part of the non prosecution list? 6B 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 or the allegation that Ambassador Yovanovitch, in her first meeting with Yuriy Lutsenko, which, if I reca1l correctly, occurred in 0ctober 20L5. He alteged that there had been this list. There was no such 1ist, and that was part of our reason for pushing back firmly. And but that was part of, I would say, a cluster of issues around the anticorruption theme. A The non prosecution, a Has prosecute A the embassy ever communicated names not to for any reason? That's not what the purpose of our advocacy, or our l8 is. 0ur advocacy is to he1p, in terms of programming, is to build capacity, so they can have the ability to go after corruption and effectively'investigate, prosecute, and then a judge a11ege criminal activities. The issue of whether we asked at any time that they fo1low up on a prosecut'ion, if there is a criminal nexus'in the United States, we have several different ways of conveying that interest. We have something ca1led the Mutual Legal l9 Assistance Treaty, or l'lLAT. We also have FBI agents known aS ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 program 2t legal attaches overseaS. So we can do it in writing direct from the Department of Justice, or we can have the lega1 22 attaches engage 20 23 their counterparts. But what Lutsenko alleged was that we were not doing 24 1aw-enforcement-to-1aw-enforcement request based on 25 criminal nexus in the United States but that we were a a 69 I politically asking them not to prosecute Ukrainians. 2 j J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 17 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 ust don't do that. And we 70 I [L1-:37 a.m.] BY I.4R. CASTOR: 2 7 At any point in time were names of officials, whether it was for any reason, shared with the prosecutor's office in connection with do not prosecute? A Wet1, again, we don't go in and say do not prosecute. The types of conversations that we have that 8 mi J 4 5 6 9 l0 a ght be construed are di fferent. O A You mentioned Artem Sytnyk who l1 the so-ca11ed l2 Ukrai ne. l3 O A a A t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 the NABU, name Sytnyk earlier? is the sti1l and the first head of National Anti-Corruption Bureau of And was he everin the cross hairs of Lutsenko? He was. Was he being investigated? To the best of my knowledge, yes, there were open prosecutor general investigations on Mr. Sytnyk. a Do you know if anyone at the embassy ever asked to jnvestigate Sytnyk? A What I would say, I would characterize the interactions as different because what we warned both Lutsenko and others that efforts to destroy NABU as an organization, including opening up investigations of Sytnyk, threatened to unravel a key component of our anticorruption cooperation, which had started at the request of Petro Lutsenko not 71 I 2 Poroshenko. a I mean, could reasonable people interpret that as a l8 to investigate Sytnyk? A I am sure that l'lr. Lutsenko has claimed that, but he also claimed that there was a 1ist, and there was no 1ist, and he made a 1ot of other claims. And so as I said, this'is an i ssue of bef i evabi 1 ty about someone who routi nely 1 i es O You're familiar with the name Shabun"in? A Vi tal i Shabuni n perhaps? Is that a Yeah. And could you identify him for us? A He is one of the leaders of the NGO known as AnTAC, 'it's the antjcorruption center in Ukrajne. O What's AnTAC's role? A AnTAC js an advocacy group that is designed to both publicly bring attention to i ssues related to corruption, to advocate for better laws and better prosecutions, and on occasion it has also participated in some of the capacity-building activities that were funded by the U.5. t9 Government. 20 22 a A best of 23 European Union and 24 grants from the Internationat Renaissance Foundation, which 25 js the Ukrainian name and arm of the Open Society Institute. J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 2l request not 1 Who funds AnTAC is . AnTAC? an organizat'ion, has funding my knowledge, that, to the includes primarily funds from the the U.S. Government. It has also recejved 72 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 a A And who runs the Open Society The Open Soci ety Insti Instjtute? tute was i ni ti ated 20-odd years ago by George Soros. O Can you remember -- sorry. Do you know if the name I apologize for these pronunciations. Vitali A That's okay. a I'm not familjar with how to do this properly, and I apologize. I mean no disresPect. A I 'm not Ukrai n i an, so a Vi tal j Shabuni n, do you know 'if he was ever the subject of a prosecution in Ukraine by Lutsenko? A I do not know. To the best of my knowledge, he was subject to haraSsment by the Securities service known aS the Security Bureau of Ukraine. There was an'incident where Someone threw what's known aS bri ght green, i t's i odi ne-based di si nf ectant, and they actually threw i t on h'is f ace near hi s house. It can damage eyes but is oftentimes done aS a form of int'imidation in the former Soviet Union. certainly the target of harassment. But I don't know for certain whether there was an active criminal investigation by the prosecutor general's offjce. So because Shabunin was outspoken, he was a something A Was he ever up on charges of hooliganism or to that effect? I believe when the person who was picketing his 73 1 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 house and throwing this green material on him, and claiming to be a journalist even though he wasn't, provoked hjm, and Shabunin pushed him near his house. Yes, he was then -- I thi nk there was a charge of alleged hool i gani sm. a Do you know if anyone ever tried to communicate with Lutsenko's office that this was not a worthwhile charge to pursue? A I think, you know, if we're going back I don't l3 specifically about that particular incident or charge, but as a matter of conversation that U.S. officials had with Ukra'ini an of f i ci als i n shari ng our concern about the direction of governance and the approach, harassment of civil soci ety acti vi sts, i ncludi ng t''lr. Shabuni n, was one of the t4 i ssues we rai 9 l0 ll t2 know a l5 sed, yes. Was Shabunin on this list that you described as t6 fake? t7 if that list has been provided to the committee. You could show me the list and I might have some recollection. But I -- l8 t9 20 A I don't a Okay. know Do you have any 22 that 1i st? A There were about 23 very 24 Vaka 25 parliament. 2t odd. It included rchuk, who I t is the L5 names, and I who was on remember i t country's leadi ng rock star now the leader i ncluded recollection of of one wa5 Slava of the parties in very bjzarrely a person who was a 74 I friend of the current -- the ex-President Poroshenko and was l0 of the defense industry named Gladkovskiy, and i n parentheses i t had hi s previ ous name, The reason why that's memorable is because it Svi narchuk. means a pig or a pig farmer, and he changed his name before he went into government so he didn't have a name that said basi cally Mr. Pjggy. But no one knew that that was realIy knew that was his name when the list alleged1y was created in 2016. That was a story line from 2019. There were a couple of young so-cal1ed Euro optimist MPs ll where t2 sort of critics of President Poroshenko. l3 Mustafa Nayyem, Svi tlana Zali shchuk, and Serhiy Leshchenko. t4 I believe the former defense minjster, who was running for President at the time, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, was at the list. There was a judge I'd never heard of. And there may have been other people on that 1ist. I just don't remember the fu11 list. a What do you know about Leshchenko? A Serhiy Leshchenko was a journal'ist for Ukrainskaya the leading online news source Pravda, which is an online in Ukraine. He ran for parliament as one of the young pro-western members of then-Presjdent Poroshenko's party. He continued to act as an jnvestigative-sty1e public figure even as a member of parliament. 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 24 25 head of the overseer friends had joined Poroshenko's party but then become Thei r names include 75 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 did not get reelected in the parliamentary elections in September. And because he was an actjve parliamentarian, because he had been an investjgative journalist, he was someone that the U.S. Embassy had known for years. a What was his role in the Manafort issue? A To the best of my recollection he was one of the 'ind'iv'iduals who helped popularize the information that came out of the b1 ack book. I believe Andy Kramer from The New York Times was the first person to write a story in English about i t. Andy came and talked to me sometime in late 2015, 2015. I do not recall. He was based in Moscow, so he was not there in Kyiv that often. But at some point Andy shared with me where he had heard the fi rst information. And so I believe, although I cannot say for sure, that Mr. Kramer may have shared that he had talked to Leshchenko as one of his sources for that early article. He a Were there Manafort pushing out A About other sources of information regarding of Ukraine? -- wel1, Mr. Manafort operated jn Ukraine for 2t over a decade. So are you speci fi ca11y sayi ng about hi s 22 entj re time, or what's the specific 24 that tjmeframe, which of course i s know, mid-2015 is when he became involved with the 25 Pres i dent' 23 a Around s campai gn. you 76 I A Ri ght. Because Mr. Manaf ort had spent a decade 'in 2 Ukraine, Ukrainians followed his reemergence as a U.S. figure J very c1ose1y. 6 the primary person bringing that to the attention of The New York Times and the other -A No. I think, all Ukrainians, they didn't need a 7 si ngle person doi ng j 8 in Ukraine in 9 Yanukovych who 4 5 a And was Leshchenko t. Because 2005 when he was l'lr. 14anaf ort fj rst appeared hired by former Prime Minister 20 tried the steal the election that became the 0range Revolution, that was the end of 2004. To the best of my recollecti on, i n thi s case 'i t's actually quite good because I was with Ambassador Herbst at the time when Yanukovych told us that he'd hired Manafort, and that was the spring of 2005. So Mr. Manafort's time in Ukraine started in 2005, and according to public records, he participated up through the campaigns of 20L4. a Now, the allegation that the embassy shared an animus about Manafort or was interested in pushing i nformati on to the forefront, i s that an accurate descri pti on of the second narrative that was pushed in the March 2019 2t timeframe? l0 l1 t2 l3 l4 15 l6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 A That i s part of what Yuriy Lutsenko in that narrative pushed, yes. 24 a 0kay. 25 A It's, again, inaccurate, not accurate 77 I characteri zation. a 2 0kay. Is it accurate that somebody in the Ukraine, J not from the embassy, but somebody, maybe Ukrainians, 4 pushi ng 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 14 thi s narratjve? to say, given what President Yanukovych did to the country, whjch was loot tens of billions of dollars, that there were many Ukrainians who in part blamed Paul Manafort for that success because he proved to be a brilliant political technologist in giving A I think it would be accurate that helped him win the presidency. a And do you think people in the U.S., supporters of President Trump that saw this information come out of the Ukrai ne may have wondered 'if thi s was an ef f ort to attack the President or the President when he was a candidate? Yanukovych advice THE CHAIRMAN: l5 Counsel, are you asking what the American l6 public -- an opinion about what the American public l7 be 1 BY MR. a A t9 20 22 so might i eve? l8 2l were CASTOR: No. Is it reasonable I'I1 restate it. We11, I will just say, I was in Ukraine at the time I don't know what the reaction was. a Is i t reasonable to conclude that 'if you are i n 23 President Trump's world and you're seeing these stories 24 coming out 25 a poljtical attack? of the Ukraine that it appears to have the took of 78 THE CHAIRT'4AN: The wi 1 tness can answer i f they wish, but 5 re aski ng the State Department w'itness a questi on about how to evaluate the public response to MR. MEAD0WS: Mr. Chai rman, wi th all due respect, wi th you' re not all due respect, we didn't cross-examine you or 6 the counselor. 2 J 4 7 8 9 l0 you' THE CHAIRMAN: answer, but MR. it CASTOR: that's answer t2 wi tness. can seems THE CHAIRMAN: ll Mr. Meadows, I said the witness Okay. But i Thank you. t seems that you' re aski ng for beyond the knowledge an of a State Department BY MR. CASTOR: l3 2t that part of the second narrative that you described that, you know, injecting the Manafort was an effort to attack then-candidate Trump? A Again, I can't say how any individual, any American would react to a narrative. I can only answer for myself and the knowledge I had. And I'11 te11 you what I totd Ukrainians in 2015. I said that Paul Manafort was an extremely successful political adviser who had helped 22 President Yanukovych win, and no one should underestimate his t4 t5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 23 z4 25 a Was abilit'ies to help any candidate that he advised. And that was my assessment of his professional ability to help a candi date wi n, regardless of the country. 79 I 2 3 narrative that either Lutsenko is pushing or the journalist he was dealing with in the United States were pushing, do you think that related to a Do you think the second ll trying to spin up President Trump's supporters? A You're asking me to speculate on what Yuriy Lutsenko, Rudy Giuliani, and John Solomon were doing, and I would suggest that's a question for those three individuals. a Djd it have the effect of that though? A It's hard f or me to make an assessment s'ince there were so many story Iines put in play at the same time to assess how any one of those story lines had an effect on any t2 gi ven aud i ence. 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l3 t4 l5 a Did the State Department zero jn on that particular story 1ine, or did they approach all of these four at same ti me? l6 A t7 embassy were l8 as s'ituati onal awareness, we f ollowed t9 because the volume was intense, the various 20 stori es. Our primary concern was that our Ambassador line a The thi rd story 22 A Correct. 23 a And what's your knowledge 25 was I first became aware or tri ed to f o11ow different relating to Burisma? of Burisma's corruption history and efforts to prosecute Buri A and our being subjected to inaccurate accusations. But 2l 24 the sma? of the owner of Burisma, BO I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 I first went to our embassy in mid-January 2015. I went for a short period of time. At the time I was the senior anticorruption coordinator, but I'd already been selected to be the next deputy chief of mission' So my predecessor had a 3-week break. He was going back , and I was asked to to go out, because so much was happening at the time, the Russians were pushing the final push to take as much territory aS they could, that they needed an extra officer. And as well, Ambassador Pyatt thought I could be helpful in Mykola Zlochevsky, when t2 the anticorruption front. I was asked by our professional Department of Just'ice l3 former prosecutor, who was engaged l1 in capacity building, I if I would be wilting to go in and talk t4 20 to the prosecutor general's office, because in late December 20t4, somebody in the prosecutor general's office of Ukraine this is, to be cIear, pre Lutsenko, pre Shokin, a different corrupt, ineffective prosecutor who inexpllcably had shut the criminal case that had been the basis for a Br j ti sh court to f reeze $23 j 11j on 'in assets held by Mykola 2l Zlochevsky. l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 22 L) 24 25 m That was an i ssue of ourinterest because we had made a to the Ukrainian Government in 20L4 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of dollars of stolen assets out of the country. The first case that U.S., U.K., commitment 81 I and Ukrai ni an i nvesti gators worked on was a case against 2 Zlochevsky, and J 0ffi ce had already 4 Zlochevsky. that's because the British Serious Crimes opened up a case, an investigation against l0 half a m'i11jon dollars of State Department money in support of the FBI and this investigatjon and to bu'i1d capaci ty to track down stolen assets. And so, again, I had a fiduciary responsibility I'd previously been the director of the office which provided that funds to find out what had happened and why were our monies being l1 wasted. 5 6 7 8 9 We spent roughly So armed with the t2 facts that the DOJ rep gave me, at the prosecutor general's office. 13 asked for a meeting t4 made l5 And so l6 how much was t7 l8 said, ha ha ha ha, that's what President Poroshenko last week. And I sajd, and what did you telt him? l9 said $7 mi11ion, and it happened in 20 2l 22 23 24 25 we the deputy prosecutor general I went into his office, named Donylenko February available. 3, 20L5, and said, the bribe and who took it? And he laughed May They and asked us And before our team he came n, May of 20L4. I said, wrong. Somebody, a prosecutor under your whjch is not command, signed a letter on December 25 and provided Christmas in Ukraine. They celebrate it late it to the tawyer who provided it to the British judge before the FBI and the Serious Crimes 0ffice could react. So that i 82 5 after your team came into the office. He djd not offer the name of anyone he suspected of havi ng taken the brj be. He di d, however, say, well , I 've been friends with Zlochevsky for 2L years, and he's in Dubai right now. Here's his phone number. Do you want it? And I 6 said, no, i think you should actually arrest him next time 7 comes back was 6 months 2 5 4 to Ukra'ine. But I want to make very clear the seliouSness with which 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 t5 the U. S. Government takes thi s because we spent months and of dollars trying to hetp your country get your stolen aSSetS back, and somebody in your office took hundreds of thousands a bribe and shut a case, and we're angry. So that was my 'introduct'ion. And the f ocus at that point was on Zlochevsky the person, the ex-minister, when he waS minister of ecology, which oversees the unit that issues t7 the ficenses to do substrata geologic exploration for gas. He awarded it to a series of companies that happened to be l8 either through shell t9 hold i ngs , l6 wh i companies ch was known as or affiliated with the Bu r i sma . 20 But the focus at the time, the case in 2014, in the 2t frozen assets, was the assets frozen for Zlochevsky, the 22 minister, not directed to the conduct of Burisma, 23 company. 24 25 he a A the 0kay. But he controlled Buri sma? Yes. Whatever the roster may say, he's the 83 I benefi ci a1 owner, as they say. a 2 J 4 5 6 the And did they suffer from allegations of corruption, company? 'is actually a ma j or player, thanks to all the ficenses he granted to hjmself, when he was a min"ister, is a serious gas producer, but its reputation 'in A The company, whi ch 8 the industry is a company that throws elbows and uses political strings. 5o it's a legitimate company, but it 9 not have a good reputation in Ukraine. 7 l3 a Because it has a hjstory of corruption? A Because it has a history of not just competing qual i ty of servi ce. a Okay. But is that a euphemism for corrupt t4 activit'ies? l5 A l0 ll t2 He was t7 l8 is l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 on the minister and he granted himsetf licenses to explore gas. a 0kay. But you' re agreei ng wi th me, ri ght, th'is l6 does A Yes. And jt was the position of the U.S. when I went into that offjce in February 3 that the prosecutor general should, first of all, prosecute whoever took the bribe and shut the case, and second of all, there was stil1 the outstanding issue of trying to recover the stolen assets. a You had some firsthand experience with ant'icorruption issues in 20L4, 2015, and then you went to B4 I 2 a J 4 Kyiv :in 2015, correct? A a Correct. What else can you te11 us about issues relating to the company, related to corruption? 18 I think, that pretty much sums it up. If you're asking about the corruption of the company, there js the issue of how they got the licenses and then their reputation. And so our concern was primarily focused on the fact that we, working with the U.K. and Ukrainian law enforcement authorities, had frozen assets that, to the best of my knowledge, were in accounts that were under his name. a When d1d that occur? A The action this was all in 2014. And, again, to the best of my knowledge, the reason why this was the fjrst effort to try to recover stolen assets is because the U.K. Serious Crimes 0ffice had opened up a case in the spring of 201,4, and as we were talking to the Ukrainians, how can we be of he1p, there was a stolen assets recovery conference in 19 London co-hosted by 20 U.K. counterpart and the World Bank that 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 14 l5 16 t7 A We11, the attorney general and the this 22 the test case for our ability as partners in the U.S., U.K. playing a key role together to try to recover stolen assets from the 23 previ ous government. 2t 24 25 became a Did the company ever engage in, you know, public efforts to rehabiljtate their image? B5 A a A I 2 Yes. And what were those? 5 'it at the time because, again, my focus was on Zlochevsky that one of the ways that they d'id was to appoi nt westerners to thei r 6 board. J 4 a A a A 7 8 9 I later became aware I di d not know Corporate governance experts? Westerners. But not corporate governance experts? I don't l4 all the members' backgrounds. And I've served my entire life in government servjce, so I'm not fami 1j ar wj th corporate boards. a Do you know who they appointed to their board? A The big name in Ukraine was former Presjdent of l5 Poland, Aleksander l0 ll t2 l3 a A t6 t7 l8 Kwasni ewski . And why was he appointed to the board? I don't know. I've never met Mr. Zlochevsky, and I do not know why they did what they did. a l9 20 know boa rd 2t Anybody else that you recall appojnted to the ? A It's become clealin publ i c knowledge den, the son of then-Vice President 22 Bi 23 appoi nted B'iden , that Hunter was al so to the board. 24 a Any idea why they wanted 25 A Agai n, f 've never to name him to the board? had a conversation with B6 I a 2 ) how people have a A t2 Hunter 13 a l6 t7 l8 t9 I gas have never met nor do I know the background of Bi den. 0kay. 5o you don't know i f he spoke any A O A I do not know. Do you know if I don't know. a A Do you know how much he a A 22 25 in the natural of the I have he moved to Ukraine? got paid? not seen any documents. I've heard people make suggesti ons 2l 24 Did he have any experience relevant languages? l5 23 'interPreted i t. busi ness? ll 20 nk, Mr. Zlochevsky. 9 t4 dad was the Vjce That's a reasonable i nterpretati on, ri ght? As I said, I have never had a conversation with a A 7 10 his That's a questi on for Zlochevsky. That's, I thi A 6 8 because Presi dent? 4 5 I don't know. But it was probably Zlochevsky, so Did he I'm a get paid a 1ot? U.S. Government employee. I don't know how get in any countrY, but I understand a lot of people get paid a lot of money. a It wasn't a nomi na1 fee. much corporate board members 87 A I 2 J 4 don't n, I don't work 'in the corporate sector so I know what standard board compensation would be. Okay. I mean, i t's been reported that i t's somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000 a month or more? a A 5 6 Agai I have read Burisma may pay a 7 its Have you articles, and I have no 'idea how much board members. ever met with during your t'ime in Kyiv, d you ever meet wi th anybody on the board of 8 di 9 they pay a courtesy call on the Bur j sma? Dld embassy? l3 I personally never met and I don't know if board members met with the embassy. I don't know. a Did anybody affiliated with the company ever pay a courtesy call in the embassy to try to help the embassy t4 understand the company i s engagi ng 'i n rehabi 1i tating thei r l5 i mage? l0 ll t2 l6 l7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A A Again, I can only speak for myself. And there was affiliated with Burisma that asked to come to the embassy to meet me. But that' s me as the DCI'I over a 3 -year period of time. a I n engag'i ng wi th some of these anticorruptjon-focused organizations, whether it's NABU or AnTAC, did you have any firsthand experience of the efforts that Burisma was trying to rehabilitate thei r image, whether -- you know, djd NABU communicate that to you? A That would not have been a conversation that we had no one 88 I with NABU. I will say that now that you mention it, there 4 to help cosponsor, I guess, a contest that USAID was sponsoring related to clean energy. And when I heard about it I asked USAID to stop that 5 sponsorshi p. 6 a why? 7 A Because Burisma had 2 a J apparently was an 8 bus'iness, and 9 Government I di effort for Burisma a poor reputation in the dn't thi nk i t to be cosponsoring was appropri ate f or the something U. S . with a company that l0 had a bad reputation. ll t4 a When was that? A I would believe that would be sometime in mid-2015. a Okay. Any other communications with, you know, AnTAC officials or NABU about Burisma and their effort to 15 rehabi 1i t2 l3 tate themselves? 20 I do not recal1 direct communications with anybody from AnTAC. I do know that the former Ambassador to Ukraine, John Herbst, whom I mentioned previousty, had been on the board, I believe, of AnTAC. And he recounted to me an exchange with another member of the AnTAC board named Daria 2l Kaleniuk, who critic'ized him because the Atlantic Council, 22 where he runs the Ukraine t6 t7 l8 t9 A 23 Project, agreed to take Burjsma as a corporate sponsor. And so Dari a cri ti ci zed the Atlanti c 24 Counc i 25 1 for doi ng so. a When was Ambassador Herbst when was his tenure? B9 I A He was Ambassador to Ukraine between 2003 and 2005 2 a So before J A 4 a ust 1t Taylor. We11, before okay Before j 6 Herbst, and 7 quiz. t would be helpful to then to the extent you remember. This 'isn't l9 n, I went to I was then serv'ing i n Thai land afterwards, so I wasn' t necessari 1y focused on Ukrai ne. We had Ambassador Herbst. We had Ambassador Taylor, I believe f rom 2006 to the 2009. The next Ambassador, I believe, was John Tefft. And then the next Ambassador after that was Geoff Pyatt. And then there was Ambassador Yovanovitch. a The fourth narrative you identj fied, you know, going after the civil society organizatjons A Ri ght. and you identified NABU and AnTAC, right? a A Right. NABU was a -- well, it was -- AnTAC was a civil society organization, and the other one that I recall 20 being mentioned early on was something catled the Ukraine 2l Cri si s l'ledi a Center, which was 8 9 l0 lt t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 22 23 24 25 A Maybe i through the chronology of the ambassadors. We've got 5 go Bi Agai set up to help be a sort of platform for i nformatj on about Ukrai ne starti ng duri ng the Revolution of Dignity, 20L4. a Any other organjzations you can think of that faI1 into that fourth bucket? a 90 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 In the initial press coverage, AnTAC was clearly the main target, but these story lines contjnued to repeat and combi ne. So, for i nstance, i n May former Mayor Gi u1 i ani alleged that former Ambassador Yovanovitch was going to work for a Soros organization and after she left post, whjch was faIse. She went to work, sti1l as a U.S. State Department employee, as a diplomat teacher/lecturer at Georgetown. a Was there any basjs to that allegation? Like, had she considered it, or was there any talks with any of these A l0 organi zati ons? ll l6 A Absolutely none. a Okay. So it was totally, from your point of view, totatly fabri cated? A Fake news. It was, you know. He stated something that was fake, not true, Pub1iclY. a 5o you said the U.K. o[, I'm sorry, the Ukra'ine t7 Crisis 18 organi zat'ions t2 l3 t4 t5 Media Center, NABU, and AnTAC. Any other A t9 sort of Those were 20 been mentioned, 2t the re 22 23 24 25 fi t i nto that the only ones that I remember havi ng but, again, there are a lot of stories out . a Going back to Shokin's tenure as prosecutor general. A a Yes. You indicated that he was not well regarded for his 91 legi timate prosecutions? A a A a 2 J 4 5 Correct. And the same can be said of Lutsenko? Correct. Wjth regard to Shokin, it really seemed that the and the U.5. Government adopted an 6 I14F 7 Shoki official position that n had to go? 9 A a that's the subject obviously of the Vjce l0 President. ll a role 'in removi ng Shoki n, and as a result, you know, $L bi11ion 'in aid was freed up. Are you familiar with that? 8 t2 13 rect. And You know, he made some statements that have been vi deotaped about how he played A a t4 l5 l6 Cor Yes. And Government' t7 is 1t fajr to say that it was the U.S. s offj ci a1 posi ti on Shokj n needed to A a And what A Ri go? Yes. t9 djd the U.S. Government do to demonstrate that position, in addition to what the Vjce President did and 20 said? l8 2t 22 23 24 25 ght. n, as I 've stated before, U. S. State Department offi cj als feel when we' re spendi ng taxpayer money 'in a country we have a fiduciary responsibility. So I'd like at this point to explain what we felt our fiduciary respons'i bi 1i ty had been and why th'i s became an j ssue of Agai 92 1 2 J 4 5 6 po1 i cy. to help with a project in to reform the prosecutor Seneral's office. The previ ous year we'd worked wj th Mi ni ster of Interi or Avakov, whom I mentioned earlier to the taunch of what was known aS the patrol police. It was an immediate success. They were We had been asked by President Poroshenko 8 trained by the Californ'ia Highway Patrol, brand new police, highest female police officer percentage in the world at the 9 time. 7 ll to do somethi ng slmi lar i n maki ng a qui ck vi ctory reform i n the prosecutor general's offi ce ' He t2 appointed, h€, Poroshenko, appojnted a new deputy prosecutor l3 general l0 And so he asked us l5 d Sakvarel i dze, that' s a Georgi an name. Just like the deputy head of NABU, there were a 1ot of Georgians that Poroshenko brought in who had a proven track t6 record t7 20 to work with him and another deputy prosecutor general, with whom we had a good relationsh'ip via the FBI, named Vitaly Kasko. And the focus was to create an i nspector general' S uni t i nsi de the prosecutor's offi ce that 2t could go after corrupt prosecutors. 14 l8 r9 22 named Davi in Georgia. And asked us So that 23 February. 24 appointed 25 was stood up We started in the Shokin was appointed in I think Sakvarelidze may have been in March. We started working on that project, they hired a bunch of young, enthusiastic prosecutors. and 93 4 in the summertime they launched what was going to be their first case, in the central province of Poltava, as a test case. They had a busjnessman who complained he was being shaken down by a couple of corrupt prosecutors. He 5 agreed to be a cooperating witness I 2 3 And then They worked wi 6 th the securi ty servi ce, whi ch had wi retap 7 authori ty, and they tapped these two prosecutors whose names 8 I 9 names. be1 i eve are Shapakin and And then they went Korniyets. Don't know their fjrst in to get the warrants and arrest l0 them. ll t2 the reason why f'm going through atl this detail is it's important to understand that one of those two l3 prosecutors that was the t4 the former driver of Shokin, who he made his driver l5 prosecutor. l6 the IG un'it had no i dea that the f i rst corrupt prosecutor and there were a 1ot of them that they were targeting happened to have been the former driver l7 l8 And first case turned out to have been a So the people i n 24 friend of the prosecutor general. When they arrested hjm and the only reason they could arrest him is because the deputy prosecutor general heard about 'i t and ti pped them of f , except he ti pped of f the wrong corrupt prosecutor in the province Shokin went to war. He wanted to destroy anybody connected with that effort. They 25 tried to fjre l9 20 2t 22 23 and very c1ose, personal and put pressure on the judges who would issue 94 1 the warrants. They tri ed to fi re all of the i nspector 2 general prosecutors. 7 to force out everybody associated wi th that, i ncludi ng the deputy head of the securi ty servi ce, the intel service, who had provided the wjretapping coverage. It was absolute warfare protecting his assoc'iate, and he destroyed the inspector general unit that we'd been standing 8 up. J 4 5 6 He eventually managed ll that was the wasting of U.S. taxpayer resources, and so that i s the reason why the IMF, the U. S. , and the European Un'ion said collectively the justice sector and the t2 prosecutor 9 10 So then r3 is so important for the success of this country and it's so important to reform it that Victor Shokin has t4 shown l5 he' that he's actively wasti ng U. S. taxpayer dollars and s preventi ng reform. l8 in the conditionality of our sovereign loan guarantees, the U.S. Government guaranteed loans for Ukraine to borrow in the market, 201'4, 2015, and 2016, reform, l9 anticorruption reforms, and the prosecutor's reforms Were key 20 condj l6 t7 2l And because tionali ty. The conversations that went between the embassy and the 22 State Department were then brought ahead of the Vice 23 Presi dent goi ng 24 25 to Ukrai ne i n December of 20L5, and Shoki n's removal then became a condition for the loan guarantee. a What year was this? 95 8 visit that we're talking about by the Vice President was in December 2015, I believe. a And what of f i c'ia1 overt acts di d the U. S Government take with regard to Lutsenko? A At that point he was not the prosecutor general. He was actually the head of he was basically the majority leader in parliament. a No. I 'm talki ng about du ri ng Lutsenko' s rei gn as 9 the prosecutor general. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 A The . A ll 0kay. 5o we're now shi fti ng from the 2015 period to 2015 to 2019. When you say offjcjal acts, what do you t2 mean? t3 t4 a WeI1, there was a number of official acts that, you know, jt was the of f ic'ial U.S. Government's position that l5 Shoki l0 A a l6 t7 l8 n needed to Ri go. ght. And there were simi lar i ssues w'ith Lustenko that wasn't a tremendous prosecutor. Is that correct? A l9 Correct. But we never sa'id that Lutsenko should 20 go. 2l 23 a Okay. So the U.S. Government never took an official position that Lutsenko needed to go? A We didn't. We complained about some of his 24 act'ions, but 25 a 22 he It djdn't amount to the concern that you have with 96 I Shoki 2 J 4 n? A That, I bef ieve, would be an accurate assessment, a 0kay. l4r. yes. Jordan. 6 I would just ask, why? I mean, you said Mr. Shokin was terrjble. I think the term you used 7 earl i er was he's a typi ca1 Ukrai ni an prosecutor 5 8 9 l0 1l MR. J0RDAN: We11, l'4R. KENT: Yeah. -- didn't do h'is job, and that you all wanted him gone. You said his kids were him and Poroshenko were godfather to each other's kids. MR. J0RDAN: t2 MR. KENT: Yeah. l3 MR. JORDAN: And then you t4 you said get the new guy, Lutsenko, is just as bad, also kids are who you know, kids t7 with 14r. Poroshenko and him are godfather to each other's chi 1dren. Lutsenko i s showi ng up drunk, maki ng statements. And, oh, by the way, h€'s not even a lawyer. And so I think l8 the counselor's question was, where was the outrage with l5 l6 2t Mr. Lutsenko that was there for Mr. Shokin? 1'4R. KENT: Fi rst of all, the f i rst phase Yuriy Lutsenko was prosecutor general for over 3 years, almost 22 and a t9 20 23 half years. Shokin was for a year. And his unwi 11i ngness to do anythi ng and hi s venali ty and h'is 24 undermi ni ng 25 months. U .S. -supported proj ects started wi 3 thi n several 97 J Yuriy Lutsenko, as I say, is a charming person, and so it was not clear how he would end up being as a prosecutor general in actively undermining reforms immediately. Several 4 months 2 6 after he became prosecutor general in the spring of 2015, for instance, former President Poroshenko in one of his calls with then-Vice President Biden asked for a former, I 7 believe, 5 8 New Jersey State prosecutor by name. 20 for 2 years as an anticorruption advi ser under contract to the Department of J ust'ice i n Ukraj ne and spoke Ukrai ni an fIuently. And, i n fact, Poroshenko had thought about appointing him as the first head of the NABU, thi s National Antj -Corruption Bureau. It turned out he was too o1d. He was already 65, and you had to be under 65 to be appointed. So Poroshenko had actually helped recru'i t him f or a previous anticorruption job. So he asked by name whether the U.S. Government would be witling to bring him back to Ukraine as an adviser. The U.S. Government agreed and so the embassy's part of the section that does anticorruption work 2t and law enforcement reform brought 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 had served on contract 23 office to help mentor Lutsenko, to help stand up an IG unit to replace the 24 informal team that had been destroyed by Shokin. 22 25 as an adviser ins'ide the prosecutor generat's So f or the f "i rst peri od of t j me i t appeared that we were 98 to be able to work with Mr. Lutsenko on prosecutorial I gojng 2 reform, whjch was both a necessary precondition for J a successful country and a 4 programmi ng. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 It's a priority for the U.S. Government that there was broad international consensus on Shokin. Who 1ed that charge? Was that everyone was equally involved and invested in moving him, or was that led by the U.S.? MR. KENT: When i t comes to certai n condi ti onal i ti es, the IMF, particularly in the economic sphere, has, I would say, the primary voice. When i t comes to certa'in other ef f orts the U. S . of tenti mes i s the lead vo'ice. That i ncludes in the security sector where we provide the most military MR. J0RDAN: been reported l8 assjstance. And we coordinate through the European Command with willing a11ies, like the Poles, Lithuanians, U.K., Canada, and i n the j usti ce sector, as we11, the U. S. played also had a lead voice. MR. J0RDAN: So the United States would be the lead one t9 pushing 14 l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 for the new prosecutor? MR. KENT: I would say the U.S. has had more skin in the game on of course. MR. KENT: -- justice sector reform over the last MR. J0RDAN: 0h , 5 years. \4R. J0RDAN: That' s understandable. Ri ght. Thank you . 99 MR. I 2 mi ZELDIN: If I could fotlow up to that, if you don't nd, Steve. 5 did Shokin ever jnvestigate actual corruption? MR. KENT: I am not aware of any case that came to conclusion, but I do not have insight into what all the 6 prosecutors do 7 of a J 4 So l0 ll t2 l3 MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware i nvesti gati on i nto actual corrupti him ever having an on? I do not know, again, what happens behind closed doors. I th'ink proof i s i n the puddi ng. Am I aware of any case on corruption that went to court and was settled when he was prosecutor general? I'm not aware of that. MR. ZELDIN: I 'm " l5 not aski ng that. MR. KENT: Okay . What MR. ZELDIN: t6 aski ng about If a re you aski ng? you ever had an investigation. I'm not the conclusion of the j nvestigation. MR. KENT: Honestly, si r , l8 t9 of MR. KENT: t4 t7 and there are about about 25,000 them. 8 9 in Ukraine, I can' t answer that questi on. I do not know. 22 Okay. Earlier on in response to the questions you were asked with regards to Burisma and Zlochevsky,'it sounded like you were talking about actual 23 cor rupt i on. 20 2t MR. ZELDIN: MR. KENT: When I was 24 25 No? was talking talking to Mr. Danilenko, the about Zlochevsky, when I deputy prosecutor general, 100 J in, that was based on a specific case that had been developed in 20L4 before I came to Ukraine. And by t'ime I got there, that case had been di smi ssed by the 4 team against Zlochevsky, the person, by the team of 5 prosecutors that were there 6 office. I 2 7 8 9 l0 lt t2 prior to Shokin coming MR. ZELDIN: But you prior to Mr. Shokin going into did testify that Shokin had an investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky, correct? MR. KENT: I did not say that. MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware i nvesti that Shokin had an open gation i nto Buri sma and Zlochevsky? MR. KENT: I have read claims by people that there were t4 investigations, but I have no specific knowledge about whether those investigations were open or what the nature of l5 them might be. l3 l6 t7 MR. ZELDIN: When did you learn of an investigation by Shok'in i nto Buri sma and Zlochevsky? l9 I just told you, I dld not learn of an investigation. I've read claims that there may have been an 20 i nvesti gati on. l8 2l MR. KENT: MR. ZELDIN: When did you first read of claims that 23 there may be an investigat'ion into Burisma and Zlochevsky? MR. KENT: I read stories referencing that in the last 24 several months after the serjes 25 brought 22 of articles starting in this set of issues to the fore. March 101 I MR. ZELDIN: 0kay. So before the last several started reading about a case against Burisma 2 when you J Zlochevsky, you were never previously aware of 4 i nvesti gati 5 months and an on j nto Buri sma and Zlochevsky? l'lR. KENT: Specifically during Shokin's time, no. l0 followup. With regards to the EU and the IMF, was there a U.S.-1ed effort to get the EU and the Il'lF to also target Shoki n, or was that somethi ng that EU and IMF did totally on their own? ',lR. KENT: The IMF keeps its own counsel, but oftentimes ll when they go on t2 conversati ons wi th embassi es. Here i n Washi ngton, the l3 Treasury i s the 6 7 8 9 MR. ZELDIN: And one factfinding missions they often have U. S . t4 th the IMF. In terms of the European Union, traditionally in l5 country f ike Ukra'ine, the European Union Ambassador and the l6 U.S. Ambassador coordinate very t7 the German presi dency of the G7, there 'is a coordi nati ng l8 process t9 Union m'ission. And they meet almost weekly, and they discuss 20 issues and they go into issues U. S. Government 1i aj son 22 coordi nat'ing wi th regards 25 And s'ince 201.4 and like this in very deep detail. the United States and the MR. ZELDIN: So 24 closeIy. a for the G7 ambassadors plus the head of the European 2t 23 wi EU were to the ef f ort to target Shoki n? MR. KENT: The U.S. and the EU shared their assessments at the t'ime. And I have to say that in particular, if we're talking about the period of time between Thanksgiving, 2015, 102 4 of 2016, I was not 'in Ukrai ne. I was back here to take Ukrainian for several months. My understanding is that the ambassadors spoke and compared views on their concerns that Shokin's continued 5 presence as prosecutor general prevented any hope of 6 prosecutori I 2 J and l'larch al reform. MR. J0RDAN: 7 if Mr. Secretary, yotl said you didn't know for Shokin was investigating Burisma, but you 8 sure 9 Buri sma was knew l3 a troubled, corrupt company, ri ght? MR. KENT: As I said, Burisma had a reputation for being, first of all, one of the largest private producers of natural gas in Ukraine but also had a reputation for not being the sort of corporate, cleanest member of the business t4 communi l0 ll t2 ty. MR. J0RDAN: And you were l5 l6 you advised USAID not t7 activity to do any type of l8 MR. KENT: Correct. t9 MR. J0RDAN: 20 contest wi th them? Okay. MR. KENT: Correct. 22 MR. MCCAUL: thank you 24 it 25 coordinated -- sponsoring any type of corporate or 2r 23 so concerned about that that Sort of following up on that questi on, for your servjce, yeah, you referred to and Burisma as had a bad reputation essentially? l"lR. KENT: That i s what I was told by the members of our 103 4 c i ssues and had f i ai son wi th the U.S bus i ness commun i ty, yes MR. MCCAUL: And so you instructed USAiD to pu11 back on f und'ing f or a clean energy conf erence, 'i s that right, that 5 Burisma was headlining? I 2 J embassy communi ty who focused on economi MR. KENT: To 6 7 8 9 l0 the best of my awareness, it was one of it invited school kids or young Ukrainians to come up with ideas for a clean energy campaign, and there may have been something like a camera for the best these sponsor programs where proposal. ll And the cosponsorship was between a t2 worked on energy and economjc l3 'it I l4 USAID l5 t6 had concerns, so issues. part of And when I USAID that heard about I rai sed those wi th the mi ss'ion head of 'in country at the ti me and she shared my concerns. l"'lR. l'ICCAUL: So when the State Department evaluates foreign assistance to countries isn't jt approprjate for them 23 to look at the level of corruption in those countries? MR. KENT: Yes. Part of our foreign assistance was specifically focused to try to limit and reduce corruption. And we also tried, to the best of our knowledge and abiljties, to do due diligence to make sure that U.5. taxpayer dollars are being spent for the purposes that they were appropriated and that they are as effective as they can 24 be. t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 25 MR. MCCAUL: In fact, if you took at Central America, 104 2 corrupt governments down there, isn't it appropriate to evaluate the corruption factor and where the money goes to J forei gn assj stance? I on 7 I will be honest with you, sir, I've never served in the Western Hemisphere, and I've only made one trip to Panama as part of my National Defense University industrial study group. So I would defer to my colleagues 8 who are worki ng on Central Ameri can poli cy. 4 5 6 MR. KENT: But in 1i ne ll th your previous statements, the whole notion of looking at corruption in foreign governments and predicating foreign assistance on that, is an t2 appropri ate thi ng 9 l0 r3 MR. I'ICCAUL: MR. KENT: wi I believe that my colleagues who have worked 14 on international narcotics and law enforcement See when there l5 are funds appropriated by Congress to try to fight drug 16 trafficking t7 Central America. It's intended to help our national and improve the law enforcement systems in 2t interests to both stop the drug trafficking and improve the justice system so that corruption can be contained. MR. MCCAUL: And I think based on your test'imony, Ukraine has a strong and long history of corruption. Is that 22 cor rect? l8 t9 20 L) 24 25 that corruption js part of the reason why Ukrainians came out into the streets in both 2004 when somebody tried to steal the election and again jn 20L4 MR. KENT: I would say 105 because of a corrupt, kleptocrati c, ch eventually coltapsed. The Ukrai n'i ans deci ded 2 whi J was enough. 4 5 6 pro-Russi an government, enough yes, is a country that has struggled with these issues, but I would say also in the last 5 years has made great progress. And so Ukraine, l3 just for the record, I signed wjth Chairman Engel a letter to obligate the funding security assi stance to Ukra'ine. But i s i t not appropri ate f or the President of the United States to bring up with a foreign leader issues of corruption when the foreign leader brings up Javelin missiles? Is it not appropriate to discuss going after corruption in a country where we are provid'ing foreign t4 ass'istance? 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 MR. MCCAUL: And l'4R. l5 KENT: Issues of corruption have been part of the t6 high-level dialogue between U.S. leaders and Ukrajnian t7 leaders regardless of who is the U.S. leader and who the l8 Ukrainian leader t9 di pLomati c is. So di scussi on that is a normal issue of at the hi ghest 1eve1 20 MR. MCCAUL: Thank you . 2t MR. MEADOWS: 22 23 24 25 I the . 5teve, can I just get one clarifjcation? t's not 1ong. MR. CASTOR: 0f course. n, prosecutor Shoki n, really, hi s reputati on wi thj n 3 months of bei ng I'4R. MEADOWS: Di d I hear you say that Shoki 106 I appointed was 2 what you said? J really negative from your standpoint? Is that MR. KENT: That' s what I sai d. 5 it's not just my personal opinion. If you look at the political poIling, if you go to IRI or NDI, both of which 6 have done extensi ve po11 i ng i n Ukrai ne si nce 201,4, Presi dent 4 And 8 with roughly 55 percent of the vote in 20L4, maintained that support through the fjrst year. 9 And then as 7 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 Poroshenko, who was elected this controversy over the corrupt godfather of his kids, Prosecutor General Shokin, exploded in what was because one of the known aS the diamond prosecutor affair things they confiscated from his former driver was a cache of diamonds -- his support 1eve1s, Poroshenko's support 1eve1s, as po1led by the International Republican Institute'in partjcular, plummeted from about 55 percent to the mid-20s over that period of time. l8 the issue that destroyed Poroshenko's credi bl 1i ty and hi s hi gh-1eve1 support i n the eyes of the t9 Ukrai ni an people. t7 And so that was 20 MR. MEADOWS: So timeframe, was 2t MR. KENT: YCS, 22 23 24 25 that 2015? Sir. in 2015 would your opinion have been this is a bad guy, we can't trust him? I"lR. KENT: 0ur concerns about Shokin's conduct in of f ice were triggered by the reaction to the so-ca11ed diamond MR. MEAD0WS: And so when 107 I prosecutor case. Yeah. And when was that? 2 MR. MEAD0WS: J MR. KENT: That took place 4 in late summer, early fal1 of 2015. l3 right. Steve, go ahead. MR. CAST0R: With all the time I have left, I'd like to open up a new topic. I'm just kidding. I'm out of time. MR. KENT: And if we could take a break. THE CHAIRT'IAN: Yeah. Actual1y, what I was going to suggest is 1et's take a half an hour lunch break. Let's resume promptly at L:00. I want to remind all Members that may not have been here for prior sessions, although we have not discussed classified t4 'inf ormati on l5 House Ru1es, Members are l6 session. t7 I've had very litt1e luck in getting members to abide by that. But those are the ru1es, and I'm just reminding Members and staff they're not to discuss the substance of the testimony. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l t2 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MR. l'IEADOWS: A11 I today, we are i n a closed deposi ti on, and under know, Mr. Jordan, lRecess.l not to discuss testimony in a closed 108 I 2 ) [].: L0 p.m. l 0kay. Let's go back on the record. Mr. Secretary, I want to just ask you a few questjons THE CHAIRMAN: to 7 follow up on my colleague's questions, and then I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Mitchell to continue going through the ti mel i ne wi th you One question I have though is, we've come to learn of a 8 meeting between Mr. 4 5 6 . l0 Giuliani and Mr. Lutsenko, and there were some Ukrainians that were apparently apparently came to believe that President Trump had ca1led into that meeting. ll Do you know 9 anything about that? I t2 MR. KENT: l3 THE CHAIRMAN: t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 dO NOt. 0kay. Earlier in questi ons from my colleagues i n the l"lR. KENT: Correct. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: And was 22 nori ty to some you menti oned that there was an effort to get the top level of the State Department to issue a statement of fu11-throated support for the Ambassador and that statement was not forthcoming. Is that right? t9 2t mi response would come from Secretary the hope that that statement PomPeo? of that nature could come from or levels. So I think we were looking MR. KENT: The statements 23 a variety of people 24 for a statement of support from a high-ranking 25 Department offi ci a1. State 109 THE CHAIRMAN: And I 2 would it have been most helpful coming from the Secretary himself? MR. KENT: 3 It's always most helpful if the top leader I cannot recal1 during he was on travel. If he were on travel 4 issues a statement, but to be honest, 5 that 6 then Deputy Secretary 5u11ivan might have been the 7 top-ranking of f ic'iaf 8 9 l0 ll week whether in the building. I just don't recal1 on those particular days who was essentially in charge. did you ever learn why no statement was issued by a top-1eve1 official at the State Department? THE CHAIRMAN: And MR. KENT: No. t4 I think, that in this context that the suggestion was made to the Ambassador that instead of or because there would be no statement coming from l5 the top that l6 defend t7 Presi dent. 12 l3 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: You maybe herself, mention, the Ambassador should go out herself, and express her personal support for the MR. KENT: Correct. : re d'i d tha t i dea come f rom? MR. KENT: I think I reca11 being copied on emails in whjch Under Secretary David Hate made the suggestjon. Separately, Gordon Sondland made the suggestion. I thjnk with Gordon he made the suggestion specifically to be aggressive on Twitter or to tweet. But in any case, there were a number of suggestions that Ambassador Yovanovitch TH E CHAI RMAN Whe 1 10 1 2 J herself speak out against the THE CHAIRI'IAN: And how di Sondland's advi campaign against her. d you come to know Ambassador ce? 5 I believe I was copied on the emai1. It may not have been I don't think it was from him, but it was an 6 exchange between Ambassador Yovanov'i 7 leaders in the European Bureau. Again, that js an ema'i1 that 8 should be a record that was collected and 9 document 4 MR. KENT: ll not yet been provided to 14 l5 l6 Congress? in that email communication, that's where you would have learned of Ambassador Sondland's Suggestion that the Ambassador tweet out a defense of herself and express her support for the Presjdent? THE CHAIRMAN: And t"lR. KENT: And l8 THE CHAIRMAN: the President's f oreign policy, yes. You mentioned that there are appropriate 19 lega1 channels that can be used 20 conducti ng an i nvesti gation 22 23 has MR. KENT: COrrCCt. t7 2t the Part of the document collection that THE CHAIRI4AN: l3 is part of be collection. l0 l2 tch and my guess would MR. KENT: Cor if the United States'is rect. -- to get overseas evidence through LEGAT and through the l'ILAT process. Is that ri ght? THE CHAIRMAN: and wishes 24 MR. KENT: Correct. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: There have been a number of public press 111 I reports that Attorney General Bill Barr and others at the J Justice Department are essentially doing an investigation of the i nvesti gators i nto the ori gi ns of the Russ'ia 4 i nvesti gati on. 2 Do you know whether 5 6 J Mr. Barr or anyone else at the ust'i ce Department has sought i nformati on to bolster, I l4 is a bogus theory about the 2015 election that had been part of that John Solomon series? MR. KENT: I am not aware of any Justice Department i nqui ri es to Ukrai ne regardi ng 201.5, no. THE CHAIRI4AN: I thi nk you testi f i ed i n an answer to my colleague's questions that at the time that it was U.5. policy and IMF policy and the policy of other a11jes and a11ied organizations that Shokjn needed to go. Thjs was l5 based on Shoki n essenti a1ly di smantli ng an i nspector general l6 t7 offj ce the U. S. had helped fund to fi ght corrupti on j n Ukrajne, particularly in the prosecutor's office. Is that l8 ri ght? 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 think, what you descrjbe s l9 MR. KENT: That' 20 THE CHAIRMAN: And cor rect. at the time that the State Department 2t and these other internatjonal organizations were seeking to 22 have Shokin removed, you weren't even aware whether Shokin 23 had any i nvesti gat'ion 24 MR. KENT: 25 of Buri sma? I do not recall that being part of conversation. The conversation was very much the focused, first 1 12 I and foremost, on the so-ca11ed diamond prosecutors case that 2 involved these corrupt prosecutors, Korniyets and Shapakin, 6 that Shokin conducted to destroy and remove from office anyone associated with it regardless of what part of government those officials served in, prosecutors, investigators, judges, even security officials who had been 7 i J 4 5 and the campaign nvolved i n the wi retappi ng. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: And what was 9 MR. KENT: l0 ll At the time this your position at the time? was occurring, in 2015, I jn the capacity of the number two at the embassy, the deputy chi ef of mi ssi on. was THE CHAIR]'4AN: So t2 as the number two i n the embassy, at 13 thi s t'ime, you weren't even aware of even an allegati on that l4 there was an jnvestigation underway by Shokin involving t5 Bu r i sma? MR. KENT: That was 16 t7 comi ng up or bei ng d i scussed. THE CHAIRMAN: My l8 not something that I recall ever colleague also asked you about whether 2t to bring up the conversation bring up a discussjon of corruption in the context of the President of Ukraine asking for more javeljns or expressing the need for 22 more javelins. t9 20 23 24 25 it was appropriate I want to ask you actually about what the President said, because he didn't talk generically about corruption. He asked for a favor involving an investigation into 1 13 4 that conspiracy theory and for an investigation into the Bidens. Is it appropriate for the President of the United States'in the context of an a1ly seeking military support to ask that a1ly to investigate his 5 poli 1 2 3 CrowdStrike and tical rival? ll first time I had detailed knowledge of that narrati ve was after the Whi te House declassi fi ed the transcri pt that was prepared not transcri pt, the record of conversation that was prepared by staff at the White House. As a general principle, I do not believe the U.5. should ask other countries to engage'in politically associated t2 i nvesti gati ons and prosecuti ons. 6 7 8 9 l0 l3 MR. KENT: The THE CHAIRHAN: Particularty those that may interfere t4 with the U.S. election? l5 principle, I don't think that as a matter of policy the U.S. should do that period, because I have spent much of my career trying to improve the rule of 1aw. And in countries like Ukrajne and Georg'ia, both of which want to join NATO, both of whjch have enjoyed billions of dollars of assistance f rom Congress, there is an outstanding issue about people in offjce in those countries usi ng selecti vely po1 i ti cally moti vated prosecuti ons to go after their opponents. And that's wrong for the rule of law regardless of what country that happens. THE CHAIRMAN: And si nce that i s real1y U. S. pol i cy to l6 t7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MR. KENT: As a general 1 14 6 to discourage pofitical investigations, having the President of the United States effectively ask for a political investigatjon of his opponent would run directly contrary to at1 of the anticorruption efforts that we were making. Is that a fair statement? MR. KENT: I would say that request does not al i gn wi th 7 what has been our policy towards Ukraine and many other 8 countri es, yes. I 2 a J 4 5 further the rule of 1aw and THE CHAIRMAN: Mr . Mi tChC11 . 9 BY MR. MITCHELL: l0 O A a l1 t2 Good afternoon, si r. Afternoon. 15 to pi ck up where ['lr . Goldman 1ef t of f wh i ch was the end of l4a rch of th i s yea r , 20L9 . And you testified earlier that you met with the deputy director of l6 NABU l3 t4 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 I 'm goi ng , on about March 1.9. I did not. I was here in the United States. Somebody at the embassy did. a And you received correspondence regarding a meeting that the deputy director of NABU had with someone in the embassy in Kyiv. Is that correct? A Correct. Somebody in the embassy sent an email recounti ng a conversati on that was held wi th l'4r. Gi zo Uglava, deputy head of NABU. a And that email relayed a conversation that the A 1 15 I depu ty di rector had 2 A 3 a 4 wi th an about an interview that Mr. Lutsenko had given Ameri can j ournal"ist? A Correct. 6 a Was 8 learned l0 Mr. to be, Mr. A a 9 first time that you got wind of this Lutsenko had had with, what you later that the ntervi ew that i th Mr. Lutsenko Correct. 5 7 wi Solomon? Yes. OkaY. And the foltowing day, March 20, was the day t4 that Mr. Solomon publ i shed the arti cle i n whj ch there was video of part of the 'intervi ew that he had wi th Mr . Lutsenko. Is that correct? A That's my recollection of what happened on the 20th l5 of l6 l8 that article, is this when the 5tate Department issued or shortly thereafter issued these deni aIs sayi ng that i t was a complete f abricat'ion, i t was l9 false? ll t2 l3 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 March. a And once you saw Yes. It would have been on March 20 that the U.S. Embassy, which is 7 hours ahead of us, and the press team at the European Bureau would have worked to prepare guidance in response to attacks against our Ambassador. a Were you i nvolved i n that? A Yes, I was. A 1 16 a A 1 2 Okay. What was your involvement? I reviewed the language, as I do any proposed press 7 to any of the six countrjes over which I have policy oversight, and I have the ability to either clear -- with just that word "clear" or make suggestions and edits for the text. a 0kay. And i n thi s parti cular case, what di d you 8 do? J 4 5 6 9 guidance related A I betieve I may have toughened up the language, so t2 me. But I cannot te11 you i n detai 1 because press guidance i s j ust that. It's then provided by a press officer in response to press l3 inquiries. t4 l6 a Okay. But you agreed at the time, as you do now, that it was, in fact, a complete fabrication? A Yes. I can te11 you that it was my language about t7 the fiduciary responsibifity, the l8 use here today, because l0 ll l5 complete fabrication may have been from same language you heard l9 in being the di rector of the of f ice whi ch had the responsi b'i1i ty f or 20 undertakj ng these programs. of me my background 22 that language about we have the fiduciary responsibility to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being )7 used appropriately, and when they're not we redjrected them 21 24 25 And so to better purposes, that was language that I added. a And based on your personal experience and your 1 17 personal knowledge A a 2 Cor of these allegatjons? rect. 6 at some poi nt - - and the cha'i rman asked you questions about this as well there was an effort or discussion, 1et me say it that way, about whether the State Department should issue a fu11-throated defense for the 7 Ambassador? J 4 5 And then A a A a 8 9 l0 ll Yes. And that was done over emajl? that was Ambassador Sondland, Under Secretary Yes. And -- you think t2 Ha1e, and counselor l3 have been on those emails as well? A t4 Two separate strings. Counselor Brechbuhl might Ambassador Sondland's l5 communications would have been with Ambassador Yovanovi tch, t6 and then she would have communicated l7 There would have been potentially l8 European l9 Brechbuhl. a 20 2t 22 Z) 24 25 j ust front offi ce Were you on wi with communi the Department. cati ons wi th the th Under Secretary Hale and Counselor all of those communications that you've desc r i bed? that I've described are because I was copi ed on the emai 1s, and that's why in the process of collecti ng documents relevant to the subpoena research, my memory was refreshed of the email traffic on which I was A The emai 1s 1 18 copi ed. 2 a And what was the time period for that email traffic a J in relation to the article that 4 March 20? 5 A It came about on or about would have been over the next perhaps L0 days, t2 last L0 days of March. a 0kay. And du li ng that ti me per i od, were there al so additional articles that came out by 14r. 5olomon? A The articles came out, if not dai1y, almost daily, and they oftentimes combined two of the four themes I laid out before. To the best of my recollection, there was never a new line of attack, but many articles combined two of the l3 previous four 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t4 basica11y the a themes. Okay. And the suggestion was made to the 2t to release a tweet or make some sort of strong statement herself. Is that ri ght? A Correct. a Okay. And did the Ambassador do that? A This back and forth was done in the context of the upcomi ng, at that poi nt, fi rst round i n the Ukrai ni an presidential elections that took p1ace, I believe, on 22 March 3L. l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 23 24 25 Ambassador in consultation with her press attache, made a decision, she informed us, to record some preelecti on v'ideos encouragi ng Ukra'in j ans to vote. And So Ambassador Yovanovitch, 1 19 5 of that process, she included in that a statement of support of the admi n'istrati on and the f orei gn pol i cy, the admi ni strat'ion of Presi dent Trump and i ts f orei gn pol i cy. a Okay. And those videos that you just described, the purpose of them was to publish them in Ukraine. Is that 6 correct? 1 2 a J 4 as part t2 Correct. These were videos that the embassy was already planning to issue in a preelection encouragement for Ukrai ni ans to engage i n thei r ci vi c duti es. And so Ambassador Yovanovitch used that metaphor of civic duty in making reference to support as a career nonpart'isan public official who supported and carried out the foreign policy of l3 President Trump as she had with other Presidents. 7 8 9 l0 ll t4 A a So was the intended audience of those videos people l5 within the United States as well? t6 A My understanding based on the email back and forth that I received from Ambassador Yovanovitch, including her press officer, was that her intent was to send a signal such as was being suggested by her withjn the context of something t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 that was already being planned that was focused on electoral and presidential politics. a Okay. And do you know whether that video was forwarded to anyone within the White House? A a I do not know. Do you know why the Department of State elected not 120 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 15 l6 17 l8 to do a fu11-throated defense of the Ambassador? A I think that's a question that the committees could ask those outside of the European Bureau. O You do not know why? A I do not know why. a Did you have any conversations at any point with anyone who would have made that decision? A The State Department is a hierarchjcal organization. I work for the acting assistant secretary. Normally the acting assistant secretary is the one who engages officials above our bureau, to include the Under Secretary of Poli tical Affai rs, David Ha1e, who has oversight over our bureau; on occasion, the counselor of the Department, Ulrich Brechbuhl; and then depending on the situation, as appropriate, the Secretary himself. a 0kay. So these are alt the'individuals that would have made that decision? A These are the teaders of the Department of State. a l9 20 2t 22 ./.) 24 25 Okay. But did you have any conversations with them A a No. their decision not to issue a fu11-throated defense of the Ambassador? A I did not have conversations with them, no. a Are you aware of anyone from the Department of about 121 I State at around the end of March or beginning of April 2 reaching out J 4 A a A to Sean Hannity? Yes. What do you know about that? l3 I beljeve, to the best of my recollectjon, the counselor for the Department, Ulrich Brechbuhl, reached out and suggested to l'lr. Hanni ty that i f there was no proof of the allegations, that he should stop covering them. a And how do you know that? A Because I was informed of that in an emai1. a By who? A I cannot say for certain who was the sender. It could have been from the counselor, and it could have been t4 from Acti ng Assi stant Secretary Reeker. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l5 a 16 communi t7 A Okay. And why would they have informed you of this cati on to Hanni ty? 20 I'm the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State overseeing our relations with Ukraine, and I am normalty the one who would have primary communications with our ambassadors or charges for the six countrjes over which I 2l have pol i cy oversi ght. l8 l9 Because 24 Okay. So is it fair to say that you were in communi cati on wi th Ambassador Yovanovi tch pretty frequently during this tjme period, end of March, beginning of April, 25 about these i ssues? 22 23 a 122 J It is fair to say that when she was Ambassador and I was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, we were in regular communication about everything that went on in the 4 U. S. 1 2 5 6 7 8 A -Ukrai ne relati onshi a 0kay. P. And do you know whether from Counselor Brechbuhl to this communication Sean Hannity had any effect? to the U.S. and so we don't have a TV at home, so I do not watch TV at night. A I unplugged when we moved back l3 Okay. But the sjtuation regarding Ambassador Yovanovitch and the allegations against her was something that you were keenly aware of during th'is time period? A Correct. However, the week you're referring to is the week of the Ukrainian presidential elect'ion, and so my l4 focus that week was on the 15 would be the potential impact on U.S. national interests l6 as seemed 1ike1y t7 President. 9 l0 ll 12 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a a first round of results and what if, at that time, there would be a new Do you have any recollection as to when Counselor to Hann'itY? A I do not . I f you had asked me that quest'ion bef ore you gave me a timeframe, I would have given you a rough tjmeframe. I do not remember the exact days. End of March, early Aprit is what I would have said. a But, again, it's memorialized in an ema'iI to the best of your recollection? Brechbuhl reached out 123 4 of my recollection, there is some sort of emai 1 regardi ng that, yes. a Okay. Are you aware that at the beginning of March Ambassador Yovanov"itch was asked to extend her stay in 5 Embassy Kyiv? I 2 J A A a A 6 7 To the best Yes. How do you know that? fjrst l3 to consider extending her stay was me, and that was in January when she was back for the chief of mission conference. We had a challenge in the process of finding someone that we would nominate to replace her. And because of a different assignment, it was clear that that was not going to happen on l4 schedule. 8 9 l0 ll t2 The And we had l5 person who asked her concern I had concern that the country, t6 Ukra'ine, would be goi ng through transi ti on and we mi ght not t7 have an Ambassador l8 consi t9 20 2t there. So I jnitially asked her to der stayi ng on through the electi on season i n Ukrai ne. a When you say through the election season, what time period did that A encompass? There were two elections scheduled for this year in 23 Ukraine. There was presidential elections'in the spring and then there were parliamentary elections scheduled no later 24 than the fa1t. 22 25 a So when you talked to Ambassador Yovanov'i tch i n 124 of 2019 and you floated the idea that she extend her I January 2 stay you thought of extending her stay through the fa11 of a J 20L9? 4 A 5 us a chance My proposal was through to find a potential the end of the year to give number -- another nominee t4 that the White House could put forward and possibly be confirmed and be out in Ukraine, or at the very least having an experienced Ambassador there through the most crjtical part of trans'iti on and then possi bly have the Charge. a Had you talked to anyone else at the Department of State prior to making this proposal to the Ambassador in J anua ry 2019? A Not that I reca11, but it is possibte that I talked with Wess MitcheIl, who was our assistant secretary at the 15 time. 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 13 l6 a t7 p roposed l8 i t Okay. Is it fair to say that you wouldn't have thi s to Ambassador Yovanovi tch had you thought that would have met any res'istance at the Department of State? t9 A Correct. 20 a And that's because Ambassador Yovanovitch was 2t well - respected Ambassador? A 22 23 24 25 a Eu rope, a She was yes the senior-most career Ambassador in . tch's reacti in January of 20L9? And what was Ambassador Yovanovi you offered her thi s possi bi t i tY on when 125 8 willing to stay longer, and she said that she would think about it. And she came back and said she would be willing to consjder it. a 0kay. When djd she say that? A Agai n , we started the conversati on 'in J anuary. l4y guess is that she thought about it for a litt1e bit and got back to us, to me some point over the next month, which was prior to the conversation that you were referring to in 9 Ma I 2 J 4 5 6 7 l0 ll t2 A rch I asked her if she would be . Okay. So between the time that she came back to you and said that she was willing to extend her stay and the conversat'ion that you had in March, what happened with regard a t4 to this A l5 was l3 Wel1, extension? So the conversation in March was not with me. It 16 wjth Under Secretary David Ha1e. He vjsited Ukrajne the fi rst week of March. I accompani ed that vi s'it. And Under t7 Sec l8 l9 to stay unti 1 2020. Had you spoken to Under Secretary Hale about h'is before he made i t to the Ambassador? reta ry Hale asked her a proposal 20 A No. 2l a 0kay. 22 A Not that 23 a And 24 25 I did you speak with Under Secretary Hale' A reca11. Well, I was s Ambassador Yovanovitch about offer? there on the trip, and so by tjme she 126 I 2 J that she was willing to stay, because what she sa'id was she wanted to have clarity because she had a 9L-year-o1d mother with her and needed to also plan for other issues, by told him 5 time Under Secretary Hale flew away she had jndicated her witlingness to stay essentially an extra year through 2020 to 6 give the State Department and the administration time to fjnd 7 a nominee that could be nominated and confirmed and sent out 8 so that we would have an experienced Ambassador 9 important country 4 l0 ll a in an at a time of transition. When did you first learn that the offer for an extension had been rescinded? l6 I heard, per se, that the offer for an extensi on had been resc'inded. The of f er was on or about the 5th of l'4arch. The 5th to 7th of March, I thi nk, was the time when Under Secretary Hale was there. The media storm that was launched with Mr. Solomon's interview of Prosecutor t7 General Lutsenko started on March 20, 2 weeks later. t2 l3 t4 l5 l8 A a I don't 0kay. know t9 Ambassador Yovanovitch 20 were one and the 2t 22 A talk about potenti ally recal1 i ng and the rescjnding of the extension So the same? To be c1ear, there were two people representing leadership of the State Department, fjrst I, the deputy 24 ass'istant secretary, and then the under secretary who asked Ambassador Yovanovitch about her willingness to stay longer. 25 What then happened was a media campaign against 23 her, and then 127 1 a 2 J to that was a request for her to come back. Okay. And when was that request made for her to subsequent come back? 5 A To the best of my recollection, she indicated on April 25 that she'd been'instructed to get on a plane to come 6 back to Washington as soon as possible. 4 a A a 7 8 9 So she 'indi cated to you? Yes. Was that the first that you heard that she'd been l0 recalled? ll t2 I believe that was the first time I heard that instructions had been sent for her to come back to the U.S., l3 yes. t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A a Okay. So you learned for the first time that she to come back from the Ambassador herself? To the best of my recollection, yes. And did she provide any at any time, has she had been instructed A a provided any reasons why she was recalled? A I part of her opening statement that was published, she referred to a conversation she had with the Deputy Secretary of State. a A Other than her opening statement? understand that, because it was I believe that I did hear about that conversat'ion subsequently, and I cannot say whether it was from her or from one of the people above me, like acting assistant 128 J secretary. But I did hear an account of that session. heard of it before reading it on Friday, yes. O Okay. And whatever you heard before, was it 4 consistent with what you I 2 5 A Yes. 6 a Okay. Who read the reca1l of 7th floor 8 the reasons for that recal1? I A 9 on Friday? else did you speak to, if anyone, on the 7 rega rd i ng Ambassador Yovanovitch and was not havi ng conversati ons so-ca11ed ll i ssue. t2 a Anyone l3 A I or other people having t4 floor? l5 a l6 A ef f ort. l8 recal 1ed. t9 for 20 2T th anybody on the else at the State Depa r tmen t? conversati ons w'i th the 7th that you had conversations with. I did not have further conversations about that People It consul O w'i 7th floor State Department leadership about this l0 t7 I it was, she was And I believe she came back on the 25th of ApriI was presented as a decision, so tati ons. Wel1, what was your reaction to learning that she'd been recalled? 24 I, on a personal 1eve1, felt awful for her because jt was within 2 months of uS asking her, the Under Secretary of State asking her to stay another year. And within a very 25 short order she was being recal1ed. 22 23 A 129 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 But you never sought a time a to investigate why or fjnd out why she was being recalled? A My position is not to investigate. Decjsjons had been made by the leadership of the State Department and ambassadors Serve at the pleasure of. 5o when an instruction comes down that js a decision that was being made. a So on May 5 the State Department issued a statement saying that Ambassador Yovanovitch was ending her assignment t7 in Kyiv as planned. A I believe a Do you recall that statement? A I believe that was something issued by the embassy 'in Kyiv not by the State Department, and it was in the form of a management notice. a Do you recal1 seeing that at the time? A I did. O Okay. And what was your reaction to that embassy l8 not i ce? 19 A 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 16 20 would I don't think that's how I have had that news be released to the embassy 2t commun i ty 22 23 24 25 a A If I'd been the DCM, Okay. Can you explai . n? I think of a situation of that magnitude I would have ca1led a townhall meeting and talked to people face to face. Also the fact that it was leaked to the Ukrainian 130 th'in 2 hours was another i ndi cat j on of why i ssui ng a I press 2 management J the way to introduce that information to 500 employees that wi notice to roughly 600 people would not have been 22 their boss was no longer going to be their supervisor. a Okay. 5o I take i t that you took i ssue wj th the way in which it was communicated, but what about the substance of the message i tself, and speci fi cally that i t said that she was leaving her post as planned? A Again, this was an embassy management notice. If I had stiIl been the deputy chief of mission, I would have handled notjfication of the embassy staff differently, so that's -- I am now the that was my job from 2015 to 2018. My job now is as a deputy assistant secretary for oversight of policy and programming. It's not running an embassy. a 0n May L4, Rudy Giuliani told Ukrainian journalists that the Ambassador was recalled because she was part of the efforts against the President. Were you aware of Mr. Gi uli ani 's statement at the time? A I do not know that I saw that statement at that ti me, no, but I di d see an i nterv'iew that he gave wi th a Ukrai ni an publ i cati on, censor. net, that I be1 i eve was published on l'lay 27 that expressed a varjant of that opinion, 23 yes. 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 16 t7 l8 t9 20 21 24 25 131 I [L :40 p.m. ] BY MR. MITCHELL: 2 J 4 5 to ["1r. Giuliani's And what was your reactjon a statement? Mr. Giulianj, at that point, had been carry ing on A for several months fu11 of lies and incorrect 6 campa'ign 7 information about Ambassador Yovanovitch, so this was 8 conti nuati on 9 a of hi s campai gn of 1 a i es. true at the time that was removed because she was part of the 5o you did not think it was l0 the Ambassador ll l5 efforts against the President? A I believe that l'lr. Giuliani, as a U.S. citizen, First Amendment rights to say whatever he wants, but he's private citizen. H'is assertjons and altegations against former Ambassador Yovanovi tch were wi thout basi s, untrue, l6 period. t7 a How l8 Charge d'affai l9 A t2 l3 t4 djd Bill Taylor come t became clear that Ambassador Yovanovi tch to be reca1led, of my was going 2t Deputy Assistant Secretary of State was 22 resolve how we are going to 23 appropri ate leadershi p. 25 we were a res? When i One has to be appoi nted as the 20 24 a one of the unfortunate ensu re responsi bj 1 i tj es as the to try to find and that ou r key mi ss'ions have elements of the timing was that also undergoi ng a transj ti on i n my old j ob as deputy 132 6 chief of mission. The person who replaced me had already been moved early to be our DCM and Charge in Sweden, and so we had a temporary acti ng deputy chi ef of m'issi on. So that left the embassy not only without the early withdraw of Ambassador Yovanovi tch left uS not only wi thout an Ambassador but wlthout somebody who had been selected to be deputy chief 7 of I 2 J 4 5 mission. l3 collectively we all knew and the "we" is the people who ran our policy towards Europe that we needed to fjnd an experienced hand that could help the embassy in transition, help the relationship in transition, and also be a mentor to the new incoming deputy chief of mission, who had not yet arrived and had never been the deputy chief of t4 mission. l5 of looking to see who was available, who might be good. I had at one point thought of Bilt 8 9 l0 1l t2 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 So There was a process Taylor, but because he had not been a career Foreign Servjce officer but had been a senior executive civil Servant, I knew that it would be very difficult to go through the process of recalting him and getting in him in a position to go out. In a conversation with Kurt Volker, then the special repreSentati ve for Ukrai ne negoti atj ons, Kurt menti oned agai n that he thought Bill would do a good job. And I told him, I agree, but I just don't know if it's possible. So I started that process of engaging the lawyers and the people who deal 133 8 with personnel issues to see if it were actually possible to recall someone who had been an Ambassador, had been a senior executive, but had not been a senior Foreign Service officer back to serve as Charge. And that took us 3 or 4 weeks, but we eventually got to the answer that we achieved, which was yes, and he went out as Charge, arriving June LTth or L8th. a And did you have conversatjons with Bj11 Taylor about thi s possi bi 1i ty of him becomi ng the Charge d'affai res 9 during this tjme period? I 2 3 4 5 6 7 A a l0 ll Extensive conversations. 0n April 29th, Bilt Taylor sent a WhatsApp message t2 to Kurt Volker describing a conversation that you had wjth l3 B'i t4 pits, l5 l6 11 Taylor i n whi ch you talked about two, quote, two snake in Kyiv, and one in Washington. And then Mr. Taylor went on to say that you, Mr. Kent, described much more than he knew, and it was very ug1y. one Do you l7 reca1l having that conversation along these lines 24 th Mr. Taylor? A I had many conversations wjth Charge Taylor, and my reference to the snake pits would have been in the context of having had our Ambassador just removed through actions by corrupt Ukrainians'in Ukraine as well as private Amerjcan ci ti zens back here. a And what corrupt Ukrajnians in the Ukraine were you 25 talki ng about? l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 wi 134 I A The series of corrupt former -- or sti11 current 2 prosecutors who engaged for.mer Mayor Giuliani and his 3 associates, and those included former Prosecutor General 4 Shokin, the then Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who no 5 longeris, the speci a1 anti corrupti on prosecutor, Nazar 6 Khotodnytsky, and a'nther deputy prosecutor general 7 Kosti antyn Ku1yk. 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 a named And when you say engaged, what do you mean by engaged? I say engaged, they apparently met, they had conversations. Some of them were by i ntervi ewed Mr. Kulyk was i ntervi ewed, I be1 i eve A We11, those individuals -- when Mr. Solomon. Mr. Giuliani publicized his meeting with Nazar Kholodnytsky in Parjs about the same time that he gave an l6 interview to censor.net and accused former Ambassador Yovanovitch, me, and the entire U.S. Embassy of partisan t7 acti vi ty i n 20L6. And we've al ready talked about hi s l8 engagement l5 t9 a with Shokin and Lutsenko. Do you have any any information about money being of these Ukrainians that you described 20 exchanged between any 2l to Mr. Giuliani? A I have no knowledge of any money bei ng exchanged It doesn't mean that they didn't exchange money, a you j ust have no knowledge of i t? I have no information to suggest that happened. A 22 23 24 25 135 Okay. a 2 J 4 5 6 7 appeared Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman have also in the news recently? A a existence A a A Now, Yes. Were you aware of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman's at the end of Apri1, beginning of June 2019? Yes. How did you become aware of them? l0 I first heard their names through a series of conversations wi th a variety of people. a Okay. When was the first time you heard of Mr. ll Parnas and Mr. Fruman? 8 9 l3 js a U.S. -- I'11 give you a series of points and I'm trying in my mjnd sort out what I heard from whom, t4 when, but we're t2 A There l5 talking about the period primarily starting in Apri1, possibly in March. I'm not sure that I heard of l6 their t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 names before then. There j s a U. S. busi nessman who's acti ve i n gas tradi ng to Ukraine named Dale Perry, his name came up publicly last week because he was interviewed by AP. He sent an open letter complaining about corruption and pressure that he was facing, jncluding he said, an effort to unseat the American Ambassador in Ukraine. And he fi ngered three i ndi vj duals that he sai d were attempting to move into the gas business, and those included Harry Sargeant III from Florida and then two, he said, people 136 I who came from 0desa, referencing Lev Parnas and 2 So Igor Fruman. 4 first source that I reca1l hearing. Second, I heard from people when I went to Ukrajne in the first week of May that Giuliani associates were coming to 5 Ukraine, and the names that were mentioned were Fruman 6 Parnas. J that was the and 20 affiliate of the new President President-eIect at that point; he was not yet President and his name was Ivan Bakanov. He has since become head of their security service. And he mentioned Fruman's name, and he said and there's another one, I don't remember his name. And later on he WhatsApp'd me the business cards of Fruman and Parnas. And also on that trip before I met with Bakanov, I met with Min'ister of Interior Avakov, the person whom I'd had the conversation I detailed in Washington in February, and he mentioned them as wel1, and said that they were coming in to Ukraine and that he that was the first time that I heard that Rudy G'i u1i ani was planni ng to come that week as well a So the first time that you spoke with Mr. Avakov in February he did not mention Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman is that 2t correct? 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 One of the people I met was an . A a A a Correct. Okay. But then he did at the beginning of May? Correct. And when what day say exactly about l'4r. Parnas and 137 I I"lr. Fruman? AHe 2 J town and 4 well said that he had that thei r associ ate hea rd that they Rudy Gi u1 i were coming to ani was comi ng as l0 first week of May? That's when I was in Ukraine, yes. So I was in Ukraine I believe May 8th and 9th, and I believe I may have met Avakov the first day I was there, that would be the 8th, and he mentioned that he heard that Parnas and Fruman were coming, and that they were coming with their associate, the ll l'layor Giul jani. 5 6 7 8 9 a A He t2 0kay. You said also told me that it was the when he had been, he, Avakov, had l8 in the United States in February, he had communication that Mayor Giuliani had reached out to him and jnvited him to come and meet the group of them in Florida. And he told me that he declined that offer. a Did Mr. Avakov explain why he decljned that offer? A He told me he had a tight schedule and needed to t9 get back Ukraine. But he said did say that he was planning l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 been to have coffee with them, they had asked, and he was planning to meet them jn Kyiv. I don't know jf they met or not. I met him before that, but he said that if they want to meet, I'1I meet and have coffee with them. a During the May trip? A The May trip, yes. 138 I a And di d Mr . Avakov explai n to you why l'lr . Parnas, 2 Mr. Fruman, and 14r. Giuliani were traveling to Ukraine at the J begi nni ng 4 5 6 A a A a or mi d-May? He did not, no. No i ndi cati on whatsoever? did not. If I recall He l0 this conversation wjth Mr. Avakov in February, Mr. Avakov thought it was unwise what Mr. Giulianj was doing. Did I get that right? A He told me in February that he thought that it had ll been unwjse 7 8 9 when you had l2 that Yuriy Lutsenko, the prosecutor general of Ukraine, made a private trip to New York to see Rudy l3 Giuliani. t4 l8 that because we11, why? I can't answer that question. I mean, that was his assessment as the minister of interior that the prosecutor general of hjs country should not make a private trip to the United States. That was my understanding of his assertion in t9 February. 15 l6 t7 a A Was a 2t conversation 22 23 A a that you had another I can't read my own wri t'ing, Now, you indicated 20 wi th Bakanov? Bakanov. Bakanov. And what was hi s relati onshi p 24 then-candidate Zelenskyy 25 begi nni ng of May? at the tjme of this wi th meeting at the 139 4 A He was Pres'ident-e1ect Zelenskyy's oldest ch'ildhood friend. Zelenskyy told me the fi rst time we met the December of 2018 that the person he had known the longest, that he had grown up on the same corridor in their apartment block from 5 kindergarten was Ivan 2 3 Bakanov 9 a A a A 0kay. And can you describe that conversation? In December 20L8? No, I'm sorry, in l{ay of 20L9. So my conversation with Ivan Bakanov? l0 a Yes. ll A To the best 6 7 8 of my recollection that was a t2 conversation where we talked about what might happen since 'it l3 was 14 l5 t6 election, pre-inauguration. I asked him what jobs he thought he might be interested in or appointed to since his childhood friend was now the President-elect, and he descri bed to me h'is i nterest j n ei ther bei ng chi ef of in between post l8 staff or the new prosecutor general. a And what did Mr. Bakanov say with regard to l9 Mr. Fruman, ["1r. Parnas, and Mr. t7 20 2t 22 Gi uf iani ? did not mention Mr. Giuliani. To the best of recollection, the only name in that meeting that I wrote down and that's part of the records which I provided to A He 24 the State Department -- was Fruman. And then later on he followed up because he couldn't remember the other name, 25 which turned out 23 to be Parnas. my 140 And he I said, these guys want thi nk? And si nce I to meet me, what do you 4 th Mr. Avakov i n the morn i ng, I repeated what Avakov told me. He totd me, you can always meet and have a cup of coffee with people, you don't have to 5 make any commjtments. 2 3 a 6 0kay had . At the t'ime 7 of what Parnas and [''lr. 8 Mr. Gi ul i ani met Fr w'i di d uman mi you have any understanding ght be doi ng i n Ukrai ne wi th ? t4 A I understood that they were associates of Mr Giuliani, and this was now 2 months into the campaign that had led to the, ultimately, unfortunately, to the removal of our Ambassador. But I did not know their specific purpose in coming to Ukraine on or about the 10th and 11th of May. a D1d there come a tjme when you did learn what their l5 purpose would 9 l0 ll t2 l3 be? 24 I only read subsequent to leaving Ukraine the press coverage of the former Mayor of New York's stated intent to go to Ukrai ne, and then to not'ice that he canceled hi s tri p. a And when you say Mr . Gi ul j ani ' s publ i c statements about the purpose of his trip that he ultimately canceled, what is your recollection of what Mr. Giuliani sajd? A I don't recall what Mr. Gjuliani said in the paper about his reasons for canceling, other than the fact that I beljeve he may have criticized some indiv'iduals around 25 Presi dent-e1ect Zelenskyy. t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 A 141 I 2 a And do you recal1 about investigating A J I honestly the that his statements were also Bi dens? don't remember what he may have been l6 or tweeti ng. As I said earlier, at this poi nt i was not a regular I don't tweet personally, and I don' t fol low all the tweets of everybody. a When you learned that Mr. Giuliani was going to travel to Ukrai ne at the begi nni ng of ['lay, May 9th or May l.0th, d1d you have any discussions with anyone at the Department of State about his upcoming trip? A Not that I recall, no. I learned about it when I was in Ukraine. a Were you at all concerned about his trip? A He's a prjvate citizen. Prjvate citizens have the right to travel. The extent that I might have had concern, it would be what he might try to do as a private citizen t7 j l8 that it could interfere with the ordinary diplomat'ic channels that would be handled by the Department of State? A To that extent, yes. Again, I did not know the purpose of his trip, I only heard that he might be coming in a I think my time is up. 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t9 20 2l 22 23 sayi ng nvolved i n the a a -Ukrai ne offi ci a1 relati onshi p. To the extent BY MR. 24 25 U. S. We CASTOR: talked this morning about what the State 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 t2 l3 Department A a A a did in the press to counteract these narratives? Correct. The John Solomon stories and so forth. Yes. D'id the State Department undertake any ef f ort to convince the White House, not the press, but the White House, that these stories are not grounded in good facts? A That is not relations between or communications between the leadership of the State Department and the White House at that level do not go through the regional bureau. a A OkaY. So I'm not aware of the conversations that would have happened. 2t if there was any effort, I mean, they would have kept you jn the loop if they were trying to make the case that, hey, you can't be believing this stuff. And i f you' re thi nki ng about removi ng Yovanovi tch, hold on, 1et me 1et us make our case. Did that opportunity occur? A My understandi ng 'i s that there were hi gh- level discussions between the leadership of the State Department and the White House prior to the decision to reca11 22 Ambassador Yovanovitch, 23 unsuccessful, and the account that t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 a Do you know but those obviously were ultimately 24 I heard at the time is accordance with what I read Ambassador Yovanovitch had in 25 statement on Fri day. in her 143 l5 at one point the White House got involved with the visa application for Shokin? A I didn't say that. What I said was that after the State Department made clear that it was not ready to issue, it was our understanding that former Mayor Giuliani reached out to the White House, and then that was the point at which Deputy Chi ef of Staf f Bta'i r was tasked wi th calli ng us to find out the background of the story. a And ultimately Shokin didn't get the visa? A He di dn' t get the vi sa, cor rect. a So Mr. Blair was sympathetic to your point of view and di dn' t push the 'issue anymore? what I recall him saying is A My understanding is I heard what I need to know to protect the interest of the Presjdent. Thank you. And that was the end of that l6 conversation. t7 Okay. So there certainly was at least one incident where you had some positive back and forth with the White I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l8 a Okay. Because you mentioned a 23 that 1ed to a result consistent wjth your interests? A Correct. That was I believe that conversation occurred on the LLth of January, specifically about this issue of a visa for the corrupt former prosecutor. a Do you know if Shokin had come to the United States 24 on a vi sa before? l9 20 2t 22 25 House A Yes 144 I 2 So he had been granted J a a 0kay. 4 A He had had vi sas 5 some po'int i n the past, correct. 6 a 7 A 8 a 9 at visas in the past? when you And do you know when? I do not know. 0kay . Do you reca1l j f i t we re in Kyiv? l0 A Ido not ll a Was was duri ng your ti me know. the deni a1 of hi s vi sa, was thi s the fi rst ti me to the Uni ted States but had t2 he had made an attempt to travel l3 been deni t4 l8 A I do not know that. To the best of my knowledge he didn't try to travel to the U.S. and was denjed, he did not have a visa. To the best of my recollection, because of the acts of corruption affiliated with undermining U.S. programming and policy goals, we probably, if the visa had l9 not expired prudentially, revoked the visa under the 20 assumption 2t the United States. l5 t6 t7 22 23 24 25 a ed? that we don't want corrupt individuals coming to Was Lutsenko on par wi th Shoki n 'in terms of bei ng an unreliable prosecutor? A We11, prosecutor? I think how would you define unreliable 145 1 2 J 4 a Wel1, you talked at great length that Shokin was not prosecuti ng corrupti on cases? A a Cor rect. Yeah. There were cases of corruption where he just 6 simply, you know, looked the other way and caused them not to be prosecuted. And then I think you mentioned that he 7 prosecuted people that weren't doing anything wrong? 5 t4 I think Shokin's record and his nearly year tenure was not of prosecuti ng cri me. Lutsenko was i n offi ce 3 years, and so he had more opportunity to take some actjon. He did lead a number of cases that 1ed to smal1 scale convict'ions as well as settlements and payments of fines to a11ow companies to continue to operate in Ukrajne. a But what was the position of the embassy about l5 Lutsenko, was he a -- 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 16 t7 l8 l9 20 A Yeah, of our di si llusionment wi th Yuriy Lutsenko came i n late 20t7 , by that point he had been in office for a year and a half, and there was a specifjc case, and it was as emblematic as the diamond prosecutor case had been for Shokin. A So I would say the breaking point 24 Anti Corruption Bureau, NABU, became aware because of complaint that there was a ring of Ukrainian state officials that were engaged in selling biometric passports, Ukrainian passports, to people who did not have the right to 25 the passports, i ncludi ng forei gners. 2l 22 23 The National 146 the ring included deputy head of the migration service, a woman named Pimakova (ph), as well as people collaborating in the security service of Ukraine. And 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 for our own integrity, you know, we want to know that a passport from a country is issued to the correct person. And as this case was developing, Lutsenko became aware of it, and this corrupt official who was sort of the apex of the scheme went to him or to the prosecutors and became essentially a cooperating witness for them. And so they basically busted up the ring or they busted up the And, obviously, investigation by NABU. And then he went further and exposed the undercover agents that had been a part of this case. t6 that's obviously a fundamental perversion of 1aw and order to expose undercover agents. They were actuatly engaged in pursuing an actual crime, whereas, he was essenti a1ly colludi ng wi th a corrupt offj ci a1 to undermi ne t7 the i nvesti gati on. l8 24 critical to us because when we searched the database it turned out that a number of the passports that had been i ssued as part of these schemes had gone to ind'ividuals who had applied for U.S. visas. So we were very angry and upset because this threatened our securi ty, and i t potenti a1ly also threatened thei r ability to retain thejr visa free status in the European 25 Union. 13 t4 l5 t9 20 2t 22 /.) So And so this case was 147 a I So d1d the State Department take a position that 8 to go? A We didn't say that. What we said was that att the offic'ia1s that were involved in thjs ring needed to be held to account and prosecuted, and we needed to see that they were taking serjousty our concerns about the integrity of thei r passports. a Had Lutsenko had any open investigations at that 9 ti 2 J 4 5 6 7 l0 Lutsenko had me i nto any of i garchs? A Again, there are a lot of prosecutors in the ll country, and I don't l2 had open. 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a But you i nvesti gati A know which didn't investigations he might know whether have there was any specific ons i nto somebody 1 i ke Zlochevsky? I do not know if there was an jnvestigation into Zlochevsky, the 'individual, Yuriy Lutsenko has said publicly that he investigated Burisma on nonpayment of taxes. And as I recalt, there was a settlement where Burisma paid a penalty for nonpayment of taxes, and at that point Zlochevsky returned from his external home 'in Monaco and resumed a public life in Ukraine. a Going back to the passport issue. Did it present a ri sk that terrori sts would get credenti a1s? A That was a potential theoretical risk, and that is exactly what I told in the first meeting that we had with the 148 7 ster, the deputy j usti ce mi ni ster, the deputy head of the migration service, the deputy head of the securi ty servj ce, when we had occasi on, the essenti a11y, DCMs of the European Union Ambassadors, embassies, and wjth me as the U.S. DCM, we alt raised our great concerns that this uncovered ring posed a threat to our interests as well as Ukraine's continued access to for visa free travel to the 8 European Union. I 2 J 4 5 6 new deputy f orei gn m'ini a 9 What would it have taken for the U.S. Government to l0 take a stronger position as it did on Shokin with regard to 1l Lutsenko? A t2 I thi nk that the Yuriy Lutsenko, apart from thi s l5 actively undercut an'investigation that was in our interests, Lutsenko's actions did not raise to the same 1evel. We did, however, I mentioned earlier that at the 16 request t7 Jersey prosecutor l8 1et that contract lapse after roughly 9 months because jt t9 clear that Lutsenko was not going to push forward reform as 20 he had promised l3 t4 2t 22 Z) 24 25 NABU case where he of Petro Poroshenko, we made available a former to New ,we was us. So what we di d was we curtai led our capaci ty bui ldi ng to the prosecutor's office under Lutsenko whjle we continued to engage Lutsenko personally as well as other leaders on the continuing need for reform. And we made clear that we were willing to resume assistance with their assistance 149 I 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 political will to actually take the steps that were necessary to reform the prosecutor's offi ce. a What type of decisionmaking would have had to have occurred at the State Department to take an offici al posi tion that Lutsenko needed to go? A We11, I mean, it's -- I would say that we're now talking about late 20L7, and we were beyond having the potenti al leverage of soverei gn loan guarantees. Ukrai ne's economy had stabjlized. And I would say that there was less stent hi gh-1evel engagement on Ukrai ne. l0 consi ll Okay. In March of this year, Ambassador Yovanovitch gave a speech at the Ukraine Crisis media Center? t2 a 14 A a l5 Kholodnytsky l6 22 A Cor rect. a What can you te11 us about that. A Nazar Khotodnytsky was selected by Viktor Shokjn as, in our view, the weakest of the three final candidates to become the special anticorruption prosecutor. This is a new uni t that was semi - i ndependent wi thi n the prosecutor's office, and jt was set up specifically to prosecute cases of 23 high corruption that were developed by NABU. l3 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 24 25 Correct. Are you familiar with that? Where she called on to be removed? We worked intensively with Nazar for almost 2 years, until we reached breaking point with him. And that intensive work included a 150 5 in, and FBI agents embedded as mentors. Intensi ve trai ni ng tri ps to the U. S. , trai ni ng i n Ukrai ne. A mentori ng tri p to Romani a where Laura Kovesi is a very well-known ant'icorruption prosecutor and now the lead prosecutor in Europe. Because even though we saw 6 Kholodnytsky as an imperfect person, he was the 7 anticorruption prosecutor, and his success, would 8 Ukrai I 2 J 4 U.S. prosectors who were brought as the fish tank case. l0 known ll been i nvolved i n corrupt t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 be ne's success, would be our success. However, we reached a breaki ng poi 9 new nt 'in a case that was There was suspicion that he had acts, and under a Ukrai ni an warrant a bug, a tap was put in his fish tank in his office. And in the course of the first 2 weeks, he was caught trying to suborn a witness, coach him to 1ie, as well as obstruct justice in a case that involved his hometown, in an effort to bri be the mi ni ster of health, Ulyana Suprun, agreed to wear a tap .So for NABU and caught the effort on trying to give her a bribe. 2t involving corruption, and he was caught on tape suborning the witness and trying to obstruct justice. At that point it was no longer possible for the 22 U. l9 20 23 24 25 So we had a case S. Government, despi te 2 years of i nvestment, to conti nue to work wi th Nazar. We called him into the to have a conversation. This is before it went public. And I and the director of the embassy 151 I 2 international narcotics and Iaw enforcement section of the embassy had the conversation, tough conversation with him, t2 that if he were to resign quietly, given the information that was clearly ava'i1ab1e, that he was young enough that jt wouldn't necessarily destroy his career, but that we, the U.S. Government, could no longer work with him. And that jf he were to remain as the anticorruption prosecutor, we woutd cease cooperating with him. And he stood up, walked out, and you know, tweeted, you know, before he left the embassy compound that he was going to have a defi ant atti tude. 5o we stopped cooperati ng wi th him once presented with evidence that he was actively suborning a l3 wj t4 of many, many mjnutes today about the deep issues of corruption in the Ukra'ine. You tatked'in extensive detajt that the problems are in the Shokin era, during the Lutsenko era, and even now with Kholodnytsky. Is it fair to say that if the President had a deep-rooted skepticism in Ukraine's ability to fight anticorruption, that was a legi timate betjef to hold? A It 'is accurate to say that Ukrai ne has a serious problem wi th corruption, and the U. S. i s commi tted where there's a political will to work wjth Ukrain'ians, inside and outside government to make changes, but absent that political wi11, this will be a problem that wj11 stick with Ukraine and 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 and suggested tness and obstructi ng j usti ce. a You have regaled us over the course 152 3 stick w'i th the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. O So we send a lot of money to Ukraine, correct? A I would not say that we send money. Congress 4 appropriates money. The accusation by former prosecutor 5 Lutsenko 6 fundamentally I 2 is that we didn't mi show him the money, but that sunderstood how our assi stance i s 8 administered. And this was the issue in the letter that I thjnk is part of the packet that you may have received that I 9 signed 7 l0 in April He accused 2015. us, or they accused because i t was before t7 in, of and then he just picked up the accusation, that somehow we didn't hand them the money. I talked to one of his temporary deputy prosecutors who was a reformist who later chose not to work with him. And she told me that they actually thought that we, the U.5. Embassy, had bags of cash that we would hand to her or to her predecessors, and that's how we, the U. 5. Government, di d l8 busi ness. ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t9 Lutsenko came The way the U. S. Government and the Embassy supports 20 anti corrupti on programmi ng i n Ukrai ne i s 2t agreements 22 of Justice. 23 Prosecutorial Development and Training. Another waS with the 24 U.N. organization called IDL0, International Development 25 0rganization. Another was the OECD, which has a strong that we si with implementers. 0ne of those is the They have this gn Department program, OPDAT, Overseas Law and 153 I vigorous anticorruption component. And final1y, a 2 society association, J Those are the AnTAC, or grants to administer our for the reform of the Prosecutor Government signed contracts 5 justice 6 General's 0ffice. 8 9 l0 ll a A a A a A programming How much the antj-corruption center. four organizations with which the U.S. 4 7 civil grant money does AnTAC get? I do not know the exact amount. Do you know a ballpark? Huh? Do you know a ballpark? l3 I do not. I would hesi tate to offer a number i t's been years si nce I've seen any because I don't t4 spreadsheets. t2 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 MR. JORDAN: Secretary, Mr. Kent, I just want to go back to questions Steve asked earlier. What was it going to take for the government to take the same position with Mr. Lutsenko that you took with Shokin, and I've just been making a list. He wasn't a lawyer. He actually talked about showjng him the money, I thjnk you just said. We know that Z) he's been drunk on certain occasions. He was selling passports, potentially to terrorist. MR. KENT: He was not selling passports. He undermined 24 an investigation 2t 22 25 of people selling passports. MR. JORDAN: 0kay. I guess we'11 live wi th that 154 2 ) 4 5 6 7 djstinction. It's pretty minor. And the guy he hired for this new prosecutor's office was every bit as bad. The one guy he p'icked he h'i red Kholodnytsky, r i ght? MR. KENT: Shoki predecessor hi red Kholodnytsky. MR. JORDAN: MR. KENT: 9 MR. JORDAN: l0 MR. KENT: t2 l3 t4 Kholodnytsky was working when Mr. Lutsenko was prosecutor? 8 ll n h i red Kholodnytsky. So h i s Correct. didn't bring him in line? After -- he did not. He I think it sort of underscores Mr. Castor's question. What was it going to take for the United States Government to say this guy has got to go as well? MR. JORDAN: So MR. KENT: We made our concerns about the l5 ineffectiveness of Mr. Lutsenko clear to his patron, the then l6 of Ukra'ine, Petro Poroshenko, but that assignment is made by the nomination of the Ukrainian Presjdent, and the djsmissal requires a vote in the Ukrainian parliament. 17 18 President r9 MR. JORDAN: Thank you . 20 MR. PERRY: Thank you. Scott Perry, down here, from a. I j ust want to clari fy somethi ng that's been 2t Pennsylvani 22 kjnd of veered on numerous occasjons before you got here and 23 24 25 today. Are you fami 1i ar wi th the transcri pt of the call between the President of the United States and President Zelenskyy? Are you f am j 1i ar wj th 'it? 155 l'lR. KENT: I 2 Whi I read i t af ter i t was declassi f ied by the te House, yes. 6 0kay. So you have some, and 1f you need it, we can give it to you. But in a kind of exchange on the last round the implication was is that there was a favor asked by the President for an investigation. Do you know anywhere in 7 the transcript where the President uses the 8 investigation? J 4 5 MR. PERRY: word l0 I don't have the transcript in front of MR. GOLDMAN: Can we admit it as an exhibit? ll MR. PERRY: 9 MR. KENT: Su re me. . t2 It"la j ori ty Exhi bi t No. 1 23 for identification.l MR. KENT: But I will say that at the time I didn't have access to the transcript, so MR. PERRY: But you've had i t now. MR. KENT: After i t was declassi fi ed. MR. PERRY: You had it up untjl today. And I just want to 1et you know, it doesn't say an investigation. The Presi dent doesn't say an i nvesti gati on. When he uses do you see 'it as, or it was implied that the Presjdent is asking for a favor for him, but when he says, do us a favor, do you see that as the United States or the President of the United 24 States when he says do us a favor? l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 25 Was marked l'4R. KENT: Si r , I was not on the cal l . 156 1 2 I know you weren't, but I'm reading it you right now. It's on page 3 at the top. MR. PERRY: J \,lR. GOLDMAN: Could we provide him one? 4 MR. KENT: So sir, could you repeat. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 to Could you repeat your preci se question agai n. ication was jn the last round that the President was asking to do him a favor. Do the President of the United States a favor, but the verbiage says do us a favor. Do you see that as doing a favor for the United MR. PERRY: The impf States or the President himself MR. KENT: As 1l personally? I'm reading the paragraph, it refers to t4 forth, and so that 'is the f i rst time I'd ever heard of this line of thought. That does not strike me as being related to U.S. l5 po1 i t2 l3 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 CrowdStrike and Mueller and then so on and so cy. 0kay. And, again, in regard to the, do us a favor line, it has nothing to do with Biden or Burisma in this paragraph on the top of top page 3? MR. KENT: That's, as I'm readi ng through thi s agai n, it's MR. PERRY: Wel1, I'11 1et you know MR. KENT: I t' s not j n that paragraph. Yeah 1"1R. PERRY: There's nothing referred to in on page 3 regarding Biden or Burisma that can be connected with the line, do us a favor. The words, do us a favor. MR. PERRY: 157 MR. KENT: I 2 I would agree wi th you that i t's not i n that paragraph. J a MR. PERRY: Ri ght. 4 MR. KENT: As put together by 5 Securi 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 Counci 1. Okay. And do you MR. PERRY: Right. 6 7 ty i the staff at the National n thi s transcri pt where remember anywhere the President says, you know, for the President of the United States says to President Zelenskyy to dig up or get some dirt? the MR. KENT: Again, account 'is what I think the National Security Council it is. Yeah. It's not in there js my point. It's not in there. And I just want to make the record clear I"lR. PERRY: t6 for hours and hours in testimony over the course of days here there's a cont'inua1 charactertzation of these events that are not true, that are not correct, per the t7 transcript. l8 on, in the past round you were asked about your opinion about the President, is it proper for the Pres'ident to ask another country for an investigation into a political t4 l5 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 because Moving rival? I think that was the general characterization. I want to explore that a 1i ttle b j t. And 'in your answer you sa'id that it would not be the standard. And my question'is, do you have does the Department of State have a standard in that regard? 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I believe it is a matter of U.S. policy and practice, particularly since I have worked in the area of promoting the rule of 1aw, that politically related prosecutions are not the way of promoting the rule of 1aw, they undermine the rule of 1aw. MR. PERRY: But is that written as a policy somewhere or is that just standard practice? MR. KENT: I have never been in a positjon or a meeting where I've heard somebody suggest that politically motivated MR. KENT: S. nati onal i nterest. l0 prosecuti ons are i n the ll that if the United States was i nterested i n pursui ng j ustj ce of a past j nci dent, of an 'inci dent that occurred j n the past regardi ng someone that had a political office, is that off limits to the United States of America? MR. KENT: I thi nk i f there's any crimi naI nexus for any activity involving the U.S., that U.S. 1aw enforcement by all means should pursue that case, and if there's an international connection, that we have the mechanisms to ask either through Department of Justice MLAT in writing or through the presence of individuals representing the FBI, our 1ega1 attaches, to engage foreign governments directly based on our concerns that there had been some criminal act violating U.S. 1aw. t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 MR. PERRY: 0kay. U. So would you say MR. PERRY: One more, Steve. 159 Regarding your conversation about Ambassador I 2 Yovanovitch's release, and you heard her viewpoint J you heard 4 5 6 because it previous, and then you saw it related jn her opening statement here. Right? Do you th'ink there's another viewpoint? I know you know that viewpoint, is there a potential for another viewpoint? 7 MR. KENT: A viewpoint about what? 8 MR. PERRY: About her release. You heard her viewpoint. l5 s i s what happened to me. Thi s js why I was released. This is why she was released as the Ambassador. That's her vi ewpoi nt. You heard that, you knew that. Correct? MR. KENT: As I mentioned, I heard that that was the view expressed and conveyed by the Deputy Secretary of State to her. Correct. l4R. PERRY: Right. And do you think there could be l6 another viewpoint other than hers? 9 l0 l1 t2 l3 t4 Thi 14R. t7 l8 Sec reta KENT: That was the viewpoint of the Deputy ry of State. t's also hers, correct? t9 MR. KENT: And i 20 MR. KENT: She conveyed what she heard from 2t 22 23 24 25 Sec reta ry MR. my poi of the Deputy State PERRY: But there could be another viewpoint, that's nt. MR. KENT: Theoretically there are multiple points about 160 l"lR. PERRY: I 2 Right. And whose decis'ion ultimately is that? sion about what? ) MR. KENT: What deci 4 MR. PERRY: Who serves as an Ambassador from 5 6 7 8 States to another the United country? MR. KENT: A11 Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. MR. PERRY: 5o if an Ambassador is relieved for whatever t2 is that something that would normally be investigated by the Secretary Department of State? MR. KENT: A11 Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the Presi dent. And that i s wi thout quest'ion, everybody l3 understands that. 9 l0 1l t4 reason, MR. PERRY: A11 BY MR. l5 t6 t7 a When t9 20 the exhi bi t? 2t 22 23 24 25 Thank you. I yie1d. CASTOR: is the first time you heard about the call between the President and President Zelenskyy? A a 18 right. A a A Which call? The July 25th ca11, the one that 'is the subject of We11, can you repeat the question. did you hear about the call? I heard that the call was going to take place on I heard that it would take place the day before on the 24th. O 0kay. Di d State Department offi ci aIs want the call When 161 2 to occur? A Yes. I J by L'ieutenant Colonel Alex 4 Nati onal Securi 5 then emailed the 6 communjcations I was informed ty Counci that it Vi ndman, was finally scheduled who's the di rector at the 1 responsi b1e for Ukrai ne. And I Embassy suggesting that they send a 7 officer over to the presidential office to check the quality of the line because it had been a long time 8 since we had had a formal caI1, and sometimes those lines 9 l0 ll t2 l3 don't work when they get cal1s. So as far as I know, the embassy did that to ensure that when the White House situation room ca11ed out the call would go through. a Okay. You said finally scheduled, so there had been some process over time to get th'is call scheduled? l5 off for awhile for a followup call to the congratulatory call on April 2Lst, l6 the day that Zelenskyy won the presidency, and the timeline t7 slipped until it was after the parliamentary elections. l8 Those occurred on l9 4 days later on the 25th. t4 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A There had been discussions on and July 21st, and the call eventually happened a Everyone was in favor of making this call happen af ter the part'iamentary electi ons? A The State Department was supportive of a ca11. a And was there anybody who was not supportive of the call i n the U. S. Government? A I have read that there were officials that had some 162 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 re1 uc tance . a What did you read? A I think that's a question you could ask people that work at the National Security Council. a So you read there were some issue from the National Secu r i ty Counc i 1 about schedul i ng the ca1 1 ? A I read that there were some people who had some mi sgi vi ngs about the call , Yes. a 0kay. But you di dn't know about those mi sgi vi ngs pri or to the call? A I may have heard that there were some views' I did not understand what the views were behind that expression. O Okay. Who held those views? A a I don't know. 20 Okay. 5o.you didn't have any personal knowledge of any offi ci als at the Nati onal Securi ty Counci 1 bei ng uncomfortable with the jdea of having a call? A I got the impresslon that there was at least one official uncomfortable, but I didn't understand what that was about. I, the State Department, was in favor of a 2t congratulatory call after the electi l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 22 .t) 24 25 a D1d Alex Vi ndman on. te11 you anythi ng that gave you pause? A a Before the ca1l, no. 0kay. So i t's fi naIIy scheduled, i t happens on 163 I 2 J uly 25th . You weren' t on the A Correct. a J 4 Was anyone ca1 t , right? from the State Department, to your knowl ed ge? 6 I believe I was aware that the White House 5it was going to try to patch through the counselor of the 7 department, UIrich Brechbuhl. 5 A 9 l0 ll t2 Okay. Any other folks a A 8 hea rd men from That was the only name that the Room Department? I or office that I t i oned . a A Okay. It Nobody i n Kyi v? would not be normal to have the embassy patched t4 into the phone ca11. a Okay. And then after the call occurs, did you get l5 a read-out from l6 2l A I d]d. a Who did you get the read-out from? A From Li eutenant Colonel Vi ndman. a And when was the read-out? A It was not the same day. It may not have been the day after, but it could have been either July 25th or 27tn, 22 several days after. l3 t7 l8 t9 20 23 24 25 a recollecti A What anybody? did he tell you to the best of your on? It was djfferent than any read-out call that I had 164 2 I could hear it in his voice and his received. He fett hesitancy that he felt uncomfortable. He actually said that J he could not share the majority I of what was discussed because 8 of the very sensitive nature of what was discussed. He fi rst descri bed the atmospheri cs and compared i t to the previous ca11, whjch was April 2lst. That had been a short, bubbly, posi tive, congratulatory call from someone who had just won an election with 73 percent. He said thjs one 9 was much more, 4 5 6 7 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 16 the tone was cooler, reserved. That President Zelenskyy tr jed to turn on the charm, and he 'is a comedi an that the dynamics didn't click in the way that they had on Apri t 2l.st. Again, he did not share the majority of what was said. I learned the majority of the content after reading the declassj fi ed read-out. He di d share several poi nts. He mentioned that the characterization of the Ambassador as bad and a communicator, but l8 news. And then he paused, and said, and then the conversati on went 'into the di recti on of some of the t9 extreme narratives 20 all he sai d, l7 2l that have been discussed most publicly. That's Later on, he said that he made reference to a back and 22 forth about the prosecutor general, that would be Lutsenko, 23 saying, you've got a good guy, your prosecutor general, 24 he's being attacked by bad guys around you, is how I recall 25 Li eutenant Colonel Vi ndman charactertzing i t. and And then he, 165 I in 2 c summation, he sa'id in hi s assessment, Zelenskyy did not J ne. He sai d that Zelenskyy sai d, i f anythi ng bad had happened in the past, that was the old team. I'm a new 4 guy, I 've got a new team, and anythi ng we do w'i11 be 5 transparent and honest. ross any 6 7 i that as a And i s A And then there much as you can remember from you r 8 9 1 was I think the last thing that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman mentioned was there about a brief l9 -- interested in working on energy- related i ssues. Previ ous1y, I should have sai d, at the front earlier in the conversation, that he said that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman told me that President Zelenskyy had thanked the U. for all of its military assjstance. That the 5. did a lot f or Ukra'ine . And Lieutenant Colonel Vi ndman told me that the President repl i ed, yes, we do, and i t's not reci procal Is that pretty much what you can r emembe r a A That is I think the summa t i on of everything I can 20 recal 2t telt you anything about the Bidens? He did not mention, to the best of my recollection, including the notes that I took, which I've submitted to the State Department. He did he Lieutenant Colonel V'indman, did not mentjon the specifics. He just said, as I sa'id at l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 22 23 24 25 mention by Zelenskyy about U.S. S U . ? 1 . a A Did he 166 2 the beginning, he said the majority of the conversation touched on very sensitive topics that I don't feel J comfortable sharing. I O A a A a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Di d he menti on Burj sma? He did not mention any sPeci fics. didn't mention 20L6? He did not mention that to me, no. And he did you make any followup inqui ries with him 1ike, hey, can I come over and speak with you in a secure environment or learn more about this call -- A a ll And None. l5 like there's some issues relating to one of the countries that I have responsibi1ity for? A I did not, and no. a What was your expectation where you would next l6 learn t2 13 t4 seems more? A t7 It That was the second conversation between the in April, May, June, Ju1y,4 months. two at that l8 Presidents l9 20 point were focused on trying to sort through why the 0ffice of Management and Budget had put a hold on security 2t ass'istance. We We were also focused on the way forward and 23 potentially trying to arrange a meeting possibly on the I'st of September jn WarSaw on the 80th ann'iversary of the start 24 of 25 AssembIy. 22 World War II, possibly in New York during the UN General 167 So those were the next step issues I 2 both functionatly i n terms of J i a assi stance, as well as And the meeting you said could have happened in Warsaw. What was the date that Warsaw was supposed A 6 1939, Septembe r 8 Septembe r 2019 i 9 a of The start 7 l0 tary n procedurally i n terms of the possi bi 1i ty of a meeti ng. 4 5 mi 1i in the relationship, so the n Wa r You sai d World War II to be? Lst of were the Lst of was the commemorations saw. the General Assembly was the 26th, if I'm co r rec t? ll A That week, I believe the Monday may have been the t4 or the 23rd, so maybe the 23rd through the 27th was the week of the leaders' participation. a Okay. And so then you never -- did you learn any l5 more about t2 13 24th A a l6 t7 l8 wi th t9 20 5o between the tjme that you had the conversation Vi ndman, i t was on call the telephone, ri ght? A A secure a And the time when the 22 did 23 the cal 1 ? 25 No. between NSC and the State Department, yes. 2l 24 that call from any other officials? anybody A a transcript was declassified, else give you a read-out or any information about No. When the transcript was released on September -- i 168 I think it 2 i t was September 25th, did you have an advanced copy of or 4 in New York engaged in meetings with leaders in my area of responsibility and, flo, I did not have 5 any advanced knowledge. J A I was up 7 a 0kay. Now, did you have any communications after the call after you spoke with Vindman, did you then 8 subsequently debrief anybody about what happened on the calt? 6 l0 A I may have shared with other people in the European front office, which had a focus on that, and that includes ll people 1 i ke Tyler Brace, who i s our one t2 schedule C, former 9 po1 i ti ca1 appoi ntee, 13 staffer for Senator Portman, who has a specific interest in Ukraine and Russ'ia, as well as the t4 acti ng assi stant secretarY. l5 22 a Uh-huh. Any other i nd'ivi duals that you di scussed the call with? A In terms of giving a substantive read-out, I do not reca11 havi ng a substanti ve di scussi on. We have a weekly Secure video conference call with the leadership of Embassy Kyiv, now 1ed by Charge Bill Taylor, it is possible that I discussed part of that wjth him subsequently. a Now, during this time period had you been hav'ing 23 communi l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 24 25 th Ambassador Yovanovi tch? A At this point she was back in the United States' and so we di d have reason to have communi cat'ions, yes. cat'ions wi 169 I 2 3 4 a 0kay. A I And how frequently were you speaking with her? would say we're now talking about the end through the month of August, perhaps once of July or twice a week. l0 into September? Right. The second half of August I was on vacation wi th my fami Iy , so there's no contact there. We got together f or d'inner i n early September. Her mother and my wife were very close socially when we were in Washington, I'm sorry, in Kyiv, so it essentialty ll was a soc"ial gatheri ng, a meal shared. t2 t4 did you relate anything to her when you had dinner with her in early September about the call? A I may have made some reference to the negative l5 characteri zat'ion t6 20 Okay. Do you remember anything else that you may have related to her about that calt? A I would not have to the best of my recollection jn general, I wouldn't have discussed the substance of the call in part because the read-out of the call I got was not 2t substant'ive, and second of 22 appropr i ate. 23 a 5 6 7 8 9 l3 t7 l8 t9 a A a And And of her. a Okay. 24 Yovanovitch, 25 menti on? So you' it's early re all, I wouldn't have been havi ng di nner wi th Ambassador September, and you made brief 170 I 2 J 4 5 A I may have made brief mention of negative characterizalion of her personally a A a And what was her reaction? I honestly don't How remember. long were you having this discussion with 7 at di nner? A Generally, this 8 conversation because her mother and my wife were part 9 and we generally avoided 6 l0 ll her would have been a very short of it, talking about anything related to work when we were together. a Did she have any followups for you? I mean, the 20 of the Un'ited States you know, you related to her that the President of the United States may have mentioned her on a call with President A As I think she may have said to you Friday, in part because of the what the Deputy Secretary of State told her, she aware of the Presi dent's vi ews of her. a So presumably this was real1y interesting information that you had and you related to her, and I'm just wondering whether there was any addit'iona1 back and forth. I 2t mean, did she t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 President A No, not that I reca11. Ambassador Yovanovitch is introvert. And, again, she's also someone who follows very strict what is deemed proper and proprietary, and so that's -- we did not linger on an intensely private person, she's an 17 I 2 J 1 any conversation a of that Now, when you nature. related this information to her, did you provide any characterjzation about your view 8 A a view of A a 9 September, you know, leading up 4 5 6 7 Not that of the call? I recal1. Okay. Djd you provide a characterization of your how the President conducted h'imself on the call? No, that wouldn't have been appropriate, and no. Okay. And after the dinner, early part of to the release of the l0 transcri pt on the 25th, di d you have any addi ti onal ll di scussions t2 t7 I was on travel for the mid-part of the month. I was back for a couple of days, and then I was up in New York for the U.N. General Assembly meetings, which was, as you said on the 25th, I was in New York when that occurred. So, again, to the best of my recollectjon, no. a And she was at Georgetown at this point on a l8 fellowshi 13 l4 l5 t6 t9 w'i th her? A A p? She was teaching yes, a course on diplomacy at 20 Georgetown. 2t office is at the State Department. Did you have an occasion to visit with her during the workday? mean, did she come over to the State Department? Did you appear at Georgetown at any point in time? A No. She at one point asked commented that the 22 23 24 25 a And your I 172 I students in the 14asters program at Georgetown had superior l0 oral bri efi ngs ski 11s, but lacked fundamental wri ti ng ski 11s. And I had mentioned that previously we used to run essenti a1ly remedi a1 wri ti ng semi nars for the offi cers i n the European bureau as well as Embassy Kyiv, that I helped conduct, and she asked if i had the notes from that, and I said I did. And so I passed her essentially the notes of presentati ons I had made about wri ti ng well a 0kay. And then you mentioned that you spoke to her on a somewhat regular basis, but the call never came up other ll than the dinner? 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 t2 13 l4 15 . A a To the best A It could of my knowledge, I cannot recall. Okay. The communication you had with the 29th, and that was an estimated date. have been a day Vindman on or two earlier. It could 20 honestly. It's several days 1ater, depending on what day the call happened, during the week, it could have been the next ['4onday, i t could have been the Friday, I just don't remember. a Fajr enough. And you said that was your only 2t communication you had l6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 have been the 29th, A I di with the NSC d not seek to revi s'i about it? t that i ssue nor d'id I tatk to anybody else at the NSC about the cal1. a Who else was on the call wjth NSC, do you remember? A That call between L'ieutenant Colonel Vindman and I 173 I 2 was just a call a 0kaY. a between the two CAST0R: of I think I'm out of time here. J t"1R. 4 MR. ZELDIN: How much time i 5 t'4R. CAST0R: About L 6 MR. ZELDIN: Okay. I 7 mi nute s left? . am i nterested. Why wouldn' t you asked for more information about the call? MR. KENT: Ljeutenant Colonel Vindman was 8 9 us. clearly extremely uncomfortable sharing the limited amount of l0 information that he did. 5o he shared what he felt ll comfortable sharing, and that constituted the read-out that I 12 received from him. t'lR. ZELDIN: But you di dn' t want 13 to have more t4 i nformati on? l5 20 that he felt uncomfortabte sharing as much as he had actually shared. So the relationship between a director of the NSC and say someone at my level i s a relati onshi p, i t's i ntense, i t's frequent, and you have to develop a trust factor. And he made ctear to me that he had shared as much as he felt 2t comfortabte sharing, and l6 t7 18 t9 MR. KENT: He made 24 25 me I respected that. MR. ZELDIN: We' re out of time, but we mi ght revi si t 22 23 clear to that. THE CHAIRMAN: Why use the faciljties, don't we take a and we'11 come l-O-m back. j nute And break try to be and 174 I 2 prompt in L0 minutes. lRecess.l l0 right. Let's go back on the record. Secretary, I have a few questions for you. I thjnk a couple of my colleagues do, and then we'11 go back to the ti mel i ne wi th Mr . Goldman. I just very brief1y wanted to go through a bit of the call records since that was raised by my colleagues in the minority. If you turn to page 2 of that call record at the bottom, this is again the July telephone call between ll President Trump and President Zelenskyy. The very last 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 THE CHAIRMAN: A11 t6 this 'is President Zelenskyy: We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically, we are almost ready to buy more javelins from the United States for defense purposes. And there, Mr. Secretary, he's referring to Javelin t7 anti -tank t2 13 t4 15 sentence reads: We weapons? KENT: That's correct. l8 l'4R. t9 THE CHAIRMAN: 20 are ready to off either Russja in terms of fighting troops or separatists in Donbass? That are important s rect. 2l MR. KENT: That' 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Immediately 23 24 25 cor after President Zelenskyy to purchase more j avelj ns, the President says, I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a 1ot and Ukraine knows a lot about raj ses thi s desi re 175 1 2 a J it, I would like you to find out what happened wlth this whole situat'ion with Ukraine, they said CrowdStrjke. Do you that refers to, CrowdStrike? MR. KENT: i would not have known except for know what 4 the 5 newspaper media coverage afterwards explaining what 6 a reference to. that was 8 the President goes on to say, I guess you have one of your wealthy people, the server they say 9 Ukraine has 7 THE CHAIRMAN: And it. Do you know what eves Ukrai ne server the President l0 be1 i ll refer to the media articles that I have read subsequently about this explaining that there is, the founder of CrowdStrike who is a Russian American, and the media as said that that was a confused i denti ty. But that's agai n the only basi s I have to j udge that passage is what I've read in the media. THE CHAIRMAN: And further on in the paragraph, the President says: I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people, and I would like you to get to the bottom of "it. Do you have any reason to questi on the accuracy of that part of the call record? MR. KENT: I wasn't on the ca11, and the first time I saw this declassified document record of conversat'ion was after i t was declassi fi ed by the Whi te House. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, you mentioned that you when you t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 MR. KENT: I had? can only again 176 I spoke is it w'ith General V'indman? 2 MR. KENT: Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. J THE CHAIRMAN: L'ieutenant Colonel V j ndman. When you 7 to Cotonel Vindman, he said there was certain very sensi ti ve topi cs he di d not feel comfortable menti oni ng. this one of the topics that he did not mention? MR. KENT: This whole passage, which you just went 8 through, he made no reference to i t. 4 5 6 spoke THE CHAIRI"IAN: 9 Was That's correct. If thi s were a matter of standard U. S. ll poticy of fl ghti ng corruption, that wouldn't be a sensi tive topi c, would i t, i f the Presi dent was actually advocati ng 12 that l0 13 Ukrai ne fi ght corruPtion? MR. KENT: is If he had read this to me, I CrowdStrike and what does t4 him what l5 just not clear to me just reading it. l6 t7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 that would have asked mean, because it's I sajd, other people jnterpreted what the context was for that, but again, I'11 go back to what I said before. Understanding that this is a reference to concernS about 2015. if anybody did anything jn 2015 that violated U.S. elections or election laws that, you know, there's a reason to i nvesti gate somethi ng wj th the U. S. nexus, we should open that investigat'ion. And if the Ukrainians had a part'in that, then that would be natural for us to formally convey a request to the Ukrainians. THE CHAIRI"IAN: But i f i t were a legi timate 1aw As 177 1 enforcement request or 1f it were a generic discussion of J corruption in line with U.5. policy, it wouldn't have been a sensitive matter and Colonel Vindman could have raised 'it 4 wi 2 th you, ri ght? l"lR. KENT: 5 If i t was a normal matter, he probably would 7 have. Again, when he said that there were sensitive issues that he didn't feel comfortable talking about, I did not know 8 what exactly he meant 9 memorandum 6 l0 ll t2 of untit I read this declassifjed conversation. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you about another matter that did not bring up with you. The President, on the top of page 4, says: The other thing, there's a lot of it appears he 24 tatk about Bjden's son. That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do wjth the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it. Was that another one of the very sensitive topics that Colonel Vi ndman did not feel comfortable sharing with you? ]"1R. KENT That passage he made no reference that would have i n his limited read-out to me that would have matched that passage of the memorandum of the conversation THE CHAIRMAN: So the dual request to look i nto the Bi dens and to look into this CrowdStrike 201 6, for lack of 25 better description, conspiracy theory, Colonel l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 Vi ndman d'idn ' t 178 of I feel comfortable informing you that either 2 things was raised by the President during the call? those KENT: That's correct. J l'4R. 4 THE CHAIRI4AN: 5 one Mr. QuiglCy. MR. QUIGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 6 thank you for your service 7 mentjoned that 8 p1ace. 9 campa i gn? and for being here. Earlier you media campaign against the Ambassador took Were you aware of who was involved with that media t7 I could only see the figures that voluntarily associ ated themselves wi th that campai gn i n both countri es. MR. QUIGLEY: And who was that in Ukraine and who was that in the U.S? MR. KENT: Well in Ukraine, very c1ear1y, the prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, his press spokeswoman retweeted the tweet of Don Trump, Jr. attacking the Ambassador. 5o very clearly, jt wasn't just him personally l8 as a Ukrai ni an, but the i nsti tuti l0 ll t2 13 l4 l5 l6 t9 20 MR. KENT: There known aS were I on. made references earlier to what were the Porokhobots, the trol1s on social media who were 22 active in support of Poroshenko. And 10 days before the electi on, rather than attacki ng Russ'ia or attacki ng hi s .t) political 24 attacking Ambassador Yovanovitch and me by 2t 25 So I opponents, as they normally would say did, they were name. that is cluster of the Ukrainians who 179 gn. I were acti vely promoti ng thi s campai 2 the people in the United States that were promoting it. And then obvi ously 6 Sure. Referencjng Mayor Giuliani, you became aware of his activities in Ukraine. What was your understanding while this was happening of what his role was? A personal attorney working somehow for the government 7 working as a campaign person's attorney? 3 4 5 MR. QUIGLEY: MR. KENT: 8 His role in orchestrating the connections t4 to be a classic, you scratch my back, I scratch yours, issue. Yuriy Lutsenko told, as I mentioned, Gizo Uglava, that he was bitter and angry at the embassy for our positions on anti-corruption. And so he was looking for revenge. And in exchange, it appeared that the campaign that was unleashed, based on his l5 i l6 Ambassador, as 9 l0 ll t2 l3 with information from Yuriy Lutsenko ntervi ew, was dj rected towards Ameri seemed cans, pri nci palty the 20 well as organjzatjons that he saw as his enemies in Ukraine, the National Anti Corruption Bureau as well as the Anti Corruption Center. Several Ukrainjans at the time told me that they saw what Lutsenko was trying to do was get Presjdent Trump to 2t endorse President Poroshenko's t7 l8 t9 )? reelection. This was happening in March before the election. That did not occur. It would not have made a difference ejther because Zelenskyy, 24 as noted before, won with 73 percent. 22 25 MR. QUIGLEY: To your knowledge, was Mr. Giulianj ever 180 tasked, coordinated, brief ed w'i th anyone at the State 8 to do what he was doing? MR. KENT: To the best of my knowledge, in the first phase of Mr. Gi u1i an'i 's contact wi th Ukrai ni ans and hi s efforts to orchestrate the media campaign, nobody from the State Department had contact with him. When I say the first phase, that is essentially the phase involving Prosecutor General Lutsenko through the electjon of President Zelenskyy, 9 whi 2 J 4 5 6 7 Department ch occurred on Apri 1 21st. MR. QUIGLEY: So l0 the first phase, but at any time other lt tjme and after the fact, were you aware of any tasking, t2 briefing, coordination that took place? l3 MR. KENT: Yes t4 t'4R. QUiGLEY: And t5 l"lR. KENT: l6 speci t7 me . could you detai 1 that? At a certa'in al representati ve for poi nt, I Ukrai ne negoti ati ons, that he would be reaching out to l8 MR. QUIGLEY: And t9 THE CHAiRMAN: bel i eve i n J u1y, then Rudy Volker, told Giuliani. I just want to mention, we intend to go 22 this in a timeline. MR. QUIGLEY: Fi rst of all, j t's somewhat news to me, and I'11 pass it back if that's what you want, but it 23 SCCMS 20 2t through 24 THE CHAI RMAN: 25 MR. QUIGLEY: We're goi ng All right to get i nto all of th'i s 181 I 2 a J THE CHAIRI"IAN: And i t may be more orderly to do i t i n chronologi ca1 order though. MR. QUIGLEY: Very good. I'11 ask one more question. 4 In your belief, in your understanding, in your experience, 5 why was the Ambassador recalled? 6 7 8 9 l0 1l MR. KENT: Based on what I know, Yuriy Lutsenko, as prosecutor general, vowed revenge, and provided information to Rudy Giuliani jn hopes that he would spread jt and lead to her removal. I believe that was the rat'ionale f or Yuriy Lutsenko doing what he did. Separately, there are i ndi vi duals that I menti oned t2 before, i ncludi ng Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who started l3 reaching out activety l4 starting jn l5 l6 to undermjne Ambassador Yovanovitch, with a meeting with former Congressman Pete Sessions on May 9th,201"8, the same day he wrote a letter to Secretary Pompeo impugning Ambassador Yovanovi tch's loyalty 2018 2t that she be removed. And others also in 2018 were engaged in an effort to undermine her standing by claiming that she was djsloyaI. So that's the early roots of people following their own agendas and using her as an instrument to fulfitt those 22 agendas. l7 l8 t9 20 and suggesting 23 MR. QUIGLEY: 0kay. 24 THE CHAIRNAN: 25 covered so far? Ms. Speier, any questions on what we 182 I 2 J 4 5 l'lS. SPEIER: Thank you f or your 1i f etime of State for Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, jt woutd seem to me that you would be familiar with the efforts by the administration to engage with Ukraine. Is that Secretary MR. KENT: Correct. 7 MS. SPEIER: So i n 9 on behalf of the country. Secretary, as the Deputy Assistant 6 8 of service that ci rcumstance, you were read i nto that July 25th phone conversation by the Lieutenant Colonel but were not actually on the call? l5 Correct. I've never in 27 years been on a call made by a President of the United States. MS. SPEIER: So that is not consistent with your role then. Okay. MR. KENT: i have never served at the National Security Council, I've only served at the State Department and at l6 embassi l0 ll l2 l3 t4 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 .(.) 24 25 MR. KENT: es overseas. MS. SPEIER: All right. You said earlier that you all of your documents to the State Department for them to make available to us. Forgive me if I don't think they're re going to be forthcoming. But if you were to identify certain documents in particular, you mentioned a few already today, but if you were to mention certain documents that you think are particularly important for us to have access to, what would they be? MR. KENT: The, if you wi11, I guess, the unique records provided 183 I 2 J 4 5 that I generated in the course of my work would include to the file and conversations that I took down in my handwri tten notes. M5. SPEIER: Anythi ng else that comes to mi nd? I'4R. notes KENT: Li kely the WhatsApp exchange between me and l7 or sorry, Charge Taylor. I'4S. SPEIER: So is it typical for you to use WhatsApp in communi cati ng wi th your colleagues? MR. KENT: In parts of the world, WhatsApp has become a very active method of communjcation for a variety of reasons, j t's consi dered encrypted, although I don' t thj nk text messages are secure. I believe the voice encryption i s sti 11 secure. And jn countries like Ukraine there's actually no data charge for use WhatsApp, and that's what drives the use of social media, so they pay for text messages, but when they use soc"ial medja apps they don't actually pay for that data. So that has altered communjcations in parts of world by rate l8 setti ng and 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 Ambassador, how people communicate. in Latin American, for instance, and in parts of Europe and Asia, applications ljke WhatsApp have become the dom'inate f orm of communi cati on. M5. SPEIER: There has been a lot of conversation earlier today from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about Burisma as being a company that lacked some ethical commitments and moral compass of sorts. Are there So 184 1 2 other companies in Ukraine that would fa11 in that category? MR. KENT: There are many companies J 4 might fa11 into that categorY, 7 in Ukraine that Yes. MS. SPEIER: Could you g'ive us some examples? 5 6 same If you took the roster of the richest Ukrainians, they didn't build value, they largely stole it. MR. KENT: l0 the richest 20 Ukrainians and have a long conversation about the structure of the Ukrainian economy, and certainly most of the b'illionaires in the country became ll billionaires 12 under valued prices and engaged 8 9 So we could go down state assets for largely in predatory competition. MS. SPEIER: Buri sma doesn't stand l3 t4 because they acquired djfferent from any number MR. KENT: l5 in I of would say companies? that Mr. Zlochevsky's actions that he was the actual minister who himself the licenses to explore for gas exploration. l6 stood out t7 awarded one way l8 MS. SPEIER: 0kay. t9 MR. KENT: Other people may have 20 just had the minister on thei r payro1l. MS. SPEIER: 2t 22 out as bei ng Okay. Going back to that July 25th ca11, there was a 1ot of exchangeS between Ambassador Sondland, Mr. 24 Volker, and also the Charge Taylor about whether or not the aid would be forthcoming, whether or not the statement would 25 be 23 written. Were you privy to any of that? 185 6 I did not participate in those exchanges by virtue of the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, you don't have me as a participant in those exchanges, and none of those have been released. I did have my own dialogue with Charge Taylor in the course of our work, in the same way that I had a d'ialogue 7 with 8 Moldova, Azerbai j an, Armeni 9 Belarus. I 2 ) 4 5 MR. KENT: Ambassador Yovanovitch and a, with our ambassadors in and our Charges i n Georgi a and t4 I would 1i ke to address my colleague we're going to get to that through the timeline. MS. SPEIER: I'm particularly interested in 20L7. Are you go'ing to take care of that? THE CHAIRMAN: We are. Can I suggest that we have the l5 counsel continue with the t'ime1ine, and then as we get 16 through t7 Mr. l0 ll t2 l3 l8 THE CHAIRI'IAN: And 21 22 23 24 25 members can add jn wjth questions. Thank you. Goldman. MR. G0LDI'IAN: Thank BY I,IR. t9 20 it you, Mr. Chai rman. GOLDMAN: this year when I beli eve you sa'id that Rudy Gi uli ani met i n Pari s w j th Nazar Kholodnytsky, who was the prosecutor of the anti-corruption. A The special anti corruption prosecutor, yes. a Anti corruption, okay. And he had already been removed by that point, right? a Focusing your attention on May of 186 8 for over a year. We stopped cooperating with them approximately in March of 201-8 when the so-ca11ed fjsh tank scandal emerged. a 0kay. J ust to summari ze. You have testi f i ed today that Mr. Giuliani met with Yuriy Lutsenko in January, that he advocated to get the former Prosecutor General Shokin a visa jn January. And then he met with a special prosecutor in May, who the U. S. had ceased all f ormer relat'ions wi th. And 9 Lutsenko and Shokin are generally, the general consensus I 2 3 4 5 6 7 l0 ll t2 l3 A No, he had been under pressure beljef is that they either are or, at this point, or were corrupt prosecutor generals. Is that an accurate summary of Mr. Gi uf i ani 's meeti ngs wi th prosecutors i n Ukrai ne? A Yes. t4 Okay. a nt, And Mr. Gi u1 i ani had been l5 poi t6 advocati ng t7 those I'4arch arti c1es. l8 A a you al so indicated that by May of thi for the fou r on television and in s the media story lines that you summarized from Is that ri ght? Correct. Okay. And then in 2t to Ukraine and you had meeti ngs wi th Ukrai ni an offi ci aIs, two of whom menti oned to you that Mr. Giuliani wanted to meet with them. Is that 22 right? l9 20 23 24 25 May you went Giuliani. I can't recall if Mr. Bakanov mentioned Giuliani when we first talked, the one name that I wrote down jn my notes was that he mentioned A Mr. Avakov mentioned 187 I Fruman, he said he didn't remember the other name, and later l3 of Fruman and Parnas. a Thank you for clarifying that. But he knew that Fruman and Parnas were assoc j ates of Gi uli an'i , ri ght? A Cor rect. a Now, you would agree, right, that high-1eve1 Ukrainian officials don't meet wIth every private Amerjcan ci ti zen who travels to Ukrai ne. Correct? A Correct. a So the Ukrajnians certainly understood that Mr. Giuliani was not a regular private citizen. Is that right? A Correct. a And woutd you assess that they understood that he t4 represented President 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 ll 12 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 he sent me the business card Trump? A They understood A Ukra'ini ans such as Arsen Avakov are experi enced that Mr. Giulianj asserted he represented Mr. Trump i n hi s pri vate capaci ty. Yes. a Did they understand what that meant? Private capaci ty versus offi ci a1 capaci ty? 20 players willing to meet with anybody. The team of the 2l incoming president 22 had spent thei 23 entertainment company executives who had no experience in 24 politics. 25 understand at that time, President-elect Zelenskyy, r enti re careers as a ti ght-kn'it group of to try to figure out to how to navigate political networks. So they were looking 1BB I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 did you speak to any of the incoming officials about Mr. Gi uf ian'i i n thi s May, June timef rame? a And A My conversati on w1th Mr. Bakanov, as I recounted part of it before when he gave the names of the associates, one of whom he knew, the other he couldn't remember, when he asked for my counsel, I had suggested, as I said, someone like you who's an associate could meet and hear somebody out without making commitments. But at this time it would be my best counsel to you to shietd your President-elect from l0 private ci tizens. ll 13 a And to your knowledge was Mr. Giuliani promoting official U.5. policy in Ukraine at this point? A Mr. Gi u1i ani i s a private ci ti zen who was not a t4 U. l2 S. Government offi ci a1. a l5 But I understand that, but is what he was pushing t6 consistent with official U.S. policy? t7 l8 Mr. Giuliani was not consulting with the State Department about what he was do'ing 'in the f j rst half of 2019. t9 And 20 was promoting U.S. policy. A to the best of my knowledge, he's never suggested that he 22 efforts that he was making, just to be very c1ear, were they consistent with what official State 23 Department 2t 24 25 a And the actual policy was? lot of policy interests in Ukraine. It involved promoting the rule of law, energy independence, A The U.S. has a 189 I defense sector reform, and the 2 As a general ability to stand up to Russia. 6 rule, we don't want other countri es i nvolved i n our own domestjc political process, no a So around this at the end of May, there was the I s that r i ght? i nauguration of Pres'ident Zelenskyy. A Correct. I believe it may have been May 20th, to 7 be 3 4 5 8 9 prec'i se a who would Were you A Yes. ll a Can you l3 t4 i n the d'iscussi ons about represent the United States l0 t2 involved at all just summarize at that i nauguration? for us what your involvement was and what those di scussions entai led? A The starting point was the conversation between Presidents Trump and President-elect Zelenskyy on election 22 day. President Zelenskyy asked if jt would be possible for President Trump to come to inaugural. There was no date at that point. President Trump suggested that he would talk to Vice President Pence, and schedules wil1ing, that he hoped it could work out, but in any case, the U.5. would have representati on at the i naugu ra1 . That was Apr i 1 2 Lst By the time we got close to when the inauguration date was set, which was on very short notice, the outgoing 23 Ukrainian parliament voted on May l-6th, which was a Thursday, l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 24 25 . to have the inauguration on May 20th, whjch was a Monday, leaving almost no tjme for either proper preparations or 190 I forei gn delegati ons to vi si t. 5o we scrambled on Friday the L7th 2 to try to figure out ll available. Vice President Pence was not available. Secretary of State Pompeo was traveling. And so we were looking for an anchor, someone who was a person of stature and whose job had relevance to our agenda. I suggested to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, since there oftentimes is th'is dialogue between the State Department and the NSC for inaugural delegations, to having the NSC ask Secretary of Energy Perry. Because he had traveled to Ukraine, understood the issues, and energy was one of the top t2 three issues that l3 the start of that conversation, and then it was a matter of t4 bui 1di ng J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 who was we were working out possi bi 1 i ti with Ukraine. So that es. Inaugural delegations are determined by the White l5 the So whatever t7 as opti ons, ul ti mately the l8 example, when Pres'ident Yushchenko was inaugurated l9 House. and the State Department worked together l6 NSC was dec'i si on i s made elsewhere. As an in Ukraine in 2005, and I was the control officer on the ground at the 2t time, the delegation was Secretary Coli n Powe11 i n hi s last act as State of State, and five Ukrainian Americans. That's 22 1t. 20 23 24 25 In this case, we proposed a group of officials that we thought were relevant, those included a number of Senators and as well as Marcy Kaptur, the head of the Ukrainian 191 4 in the House. It included some Ukrainian American leaders here in the United States, as well as of f i c'ia1s. That was about L5 i n total to play wi th. Former National Security Advisor Bolten weighed in at 5 some American Caucus 2 3 6 7 8 9 l0 n t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 point 'in the process, and eventualty the White House settled on a list, which was, in the end, Secretary Perry, Lieutenant Colonel Vjndman representing the NSC, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, and then our Charge in country at the time, Acting Joseph Pennington. a Was Ambassador Sondland on the State Department's original list? A He was not somebody that we i ni t'ial1y proposed, but Ambassador Sondland has his own networks of influence, including chief of staff l'lulvaney. 5o it did not surprise us when he weighed in, his name emerged. a Why di d i t not surpri se you. What di d you understand Ambassador Sondland's role in Ukrajne to be by March LTth of this A Ambassador Sondland had started cultivating a relati onshi p wi th the previ ous Ukrai ni an Presi dent Poroshenko. He vi si ted, as I recal1, a shi p vi si t to Odesa, which may have been where he first met Poroshenko and other leaders. And so in the same way that he had expressed an 'interest j n our relati onshi p wi th Georgi a starti ng late i n 2018, early this year he expressed an interest in playing a 192 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 role i n managi ng our relati onshi p wi th Ukrai ne. 193 I 13 24 p.m. l BY MR. 2 3 4 a GOLDMAN: And you descri bed an i ndependent he had with the chief of staff. relati onshi p that What do you know about that? l0 I think the proof jn the pudding is, after the delegation went to the inauguratjon on May 20th and had a meeti ng wi th President Zelenskyy and that j ncluded Senator Ron Johnson, who was there not as part of the Presidential delegation but separately. But he sat in the meeting with Zelenskyy, and then he joined a briefing to the President in ll the 0va1 Office on May 23rd. 5 6 7 8 9 A It We11, l3 with Mulvaney that got them the meeting with the President. It was not t4 done through the NSC staff, through Lieutenant Colonel l5 Vindman and Ambassador Bolton. t2 t6 t7 a A was Ambassador Sondland's connections I don't understand what you We11, normally mean. for international jssues, meetings l8 would appear on the President's calendar because they were t9 staff and pushed through the National Security Advisor. In this case, the out-brief to the Presjdent of the inaugural happened because of Ambassador Sondland's connections through Chief of Staff Mulvaney, to the best of my knowledge. a So you' re talki ng about Presj dent Trump's debriefing after the inauguration on l"lay 23rd. 20 2t 22 23 24 25 proposed by the National Security 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 A The i naugurati on on May 20th. The 0va1 Offi ce to talk about that and the way forward occurred in the 0va1 0ffice on May 23rd. a Before the inauguration, you just mentioned that meeting that Ambassador Sondland was added to the list because of his relationship with the chief of staff Were you aware of Ambassador Sondland having any significant role in Ukrainian policy for the State Department by mid-May? A Again, I don't remember when the ship visit was to 0desa, but I think Sondland's visit to Ukraine to 0desa for the U.S. port visit was the start of his involvement. a I understand that. I'm asking way ahead. If that was during the time that President Poroshenko was the Presi dent, that was earl i er. A But it was the last month of his presidency. 5o he you were not surprised . did call President Poroshenko in March for instance after attack started on Ambassador Yovanovi tch to suggest the the 23 off. So his acceleration of his involvement in Ukraine and in our relationship was in one phase, just starting the last month or two of Poroshenko's presidency, and it accelerated after President Zelenskyy's assumption of office on May 2Lst. a Did it also accelerate after Ambassador Yovanovitch 24 was recatled? 25 A l8 t9 20 2t 22 Porosheno back Ambassador Yovanovitch was recalled on the 26th of 195 2 of the country by the time So it was Zetenskyy was inaugurated on May 20th ) She I April, and she was out essentially ceased serving as Presi dent cotermi nus. Ambassador, the func t i ons ll of Ambassador, on April 25th. a Ri ght. And after that, did Ambassador Sondland's role increase in Ukraine? A Yes. a Were you aware of whether that went through of f i c'ial channels or how that came to be? A The way that came to be was the main three U.S. offi ci als, executi ve branch offi ci a1s, Secretary Perry, t2 Ambassador Sondland, and r3 part of that briefing of the President. And they came out of that meeting asserting that going forward they would be the drivers of the relat jonship w'i th Ukraine. 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 t4 l5 a l6 Bef Special Representative Volker, ore the i naugurat'ion di were d you have any t7 conversations w'ith the Ambassador Sondland about Ukraine l8 gene ral 1y? A 22 of my knowledge, before May, likely during the chief of mission conference where all ambassadors come back f or several days 'in mi d-J anuary, Ambassador Sondland came through the office suite where my office is to Z) see my colteague who works wi th Western Europe. 24 (ph) i s her name. And she i ntroduced h'im to the other people 25 in the office. t9 20 2t To the best So I shook Jutie his hand. There was no Fi sher 196 7 first time I had met him, wi thout a substantive conversation, in January. a So you did not speak to him again after January? A To the best of my recollection, we had no direct conversation and were not in each other's presence until the U.N. General Assembly week, the last week in September. O So you did not attend that 0val 0ffice meeting on 8 May I 2 J 4 5 6 conversation, but that was the 23rd, right? t4 A I did not. a Okay. Did you get a readout of what occurred? A There were several readouts. That particular week I was my eldest daughter graduated from Boston University and I then took my k j ds and my wi f e up to Acadi a Natlonal Park we were hiking on Cadillac Mountain so I was not jn l5 Washington those days where 9 10 ll t2 l3 l6 t7 a A the readout occurred May 23rd. So did you subsequently learn what occurred? 5o there were several readouts provided secondhand l8 from representatives who had been 'in that meeting t9 presumably those and 2t will be part of the documents that were collected as part of your requested documents and a So you're sorry. You're referring to written 22 readouts? 20 24 Written readouts. I believe there were three separate readouts. Again not from anyone that I got that 25 forwarded by emai1. Specifically Fiona Hj11 whom I'm 23 A was 197 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 t3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 gathering that the committee talked to yesterday. She gave a office director who was probably acting for me that week, , normally office director of Eastern Europe. Kurt Volker gave a readout to his then-special assistant, Chris Anderson (ph), who is currently a language student. And Gordon Sondland would have given a readout to somebody that would have been forwarded to us. So when I came back from my New England vacation, I had three different versions of that conversation in my inbox. a And so what did you just quickly, what did you understand to have occurred at that meeting? A I shoutd say that in addition to those secondhand accounts I eventually heard Kurt Volker's account d'irectly from him, the way he characterized it to a number of interlocutors when we were together in Toronto on the 1st and 2nd of July for the Ukraine Reform Conference and the interlocutors included President Zelenskyy hjmself. He said that President Trump had been very angry about Ukraine, he said that they were corrupt, and they had wished him itl in 2015. So that was one part of the discussion. 0n the other hand, by the end of the meeti ng there was agreement that they would work moving forward to work towards an 0val 0f f ice vi si t, a v'isi t to the Whi te House whi ch Presidents Zelenskyy and Trump had talked about in that initial call on April 21st. And that energy issues would be readout to my 198 in I of 2 Secretary' Perry's presence, but the concern that the J Russians were going 4 New 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll importance going forward, keeping mind not only to cut all gas transit through Ukraine on Year's day the way they had done three times since a 2005. You finatly sorry. The last point that I recal1 from the readouts was that there would be an accelerated search for a political nominee for Ambassador, as opposed to having a career Foreign Service officer proposed from the A And State Department. a Were you aware of any evidence that Ukraine was t2 involved in any way, Ukrainian officials were involved in t3 way i n i nterf eri ng wi th the 201.6 electi on? t4 l5 A a I'm not aware of And you ' re f aml 1i any evidence a r wi to that effect, no. th the I nte11i gence Commun i ty a's i nterference? t6 assessment about Russi t7 I have read the documents that have been made available to me as part of my read. The Office of l8 any A 2l Intelligence and Research briefs me twice a week, but that does not mean that I'Ve read every document about Russia, no. a No, I understand, there is specific document that 22 the Intelligence 23 interference in the 2016 election. Are you familiar with the 24 conclusion? t9 20 25 A I know Community assessment about Russian that it exists. I can't say I don't 199 4 of it. And to the extent that it has been discussed in general in the medja I'm aware of those findings. a And you' re aware that the Intell i gence Communi ty 5 uni f ormly determi ned I 2 J 6 7 8 reca11 reading any special confidential version that Russi a 'interf ered i n the electi on? A I'm aware of that general conclusion, yes. a And are you aware that Special Counsel Mueller indicted I believe L2 Russians and laid out an ind'ictment 9 A l0 a ll A a t2 Yes. how Russi a 'interf ered. Ri ght? Yes. Do you have any reason to ther the indictment or l3 t hose ei t4 assessment is wrong in any the believe that both of Intelli gence Communi ty way? to believe that, l5 A I l6 a Okay. You mentj oned thi s Apri 1 2Lst call have no reason t7 haven't touched upon t8 call it touch. You sai d Did you get a readout of that call no. . you were not AS And on the well? l9 A I did. 20 a And what d'id you learn A Again, I received that readout from Lieutenant 2t 22 was d'iscussed on that call? It was a very short and nonsubstantive 23 Colonel Vindman. z4 ca11, as you m'ight expect. As 25 that we I recall April 2Lst was Easter Sunday i n the Uni ted States. Agai n, Ukrai ni ans are 0rthodox. 200 And we were very pleased that I Different calendar. 2 President agreed to J presumed 4 Monday. And as you might expect on a Sunday 5 probabty past 6 President Zelenskyy was 7 very posi t'ive and congratulated hi m on a great call on election day on a Sunday. We had that it might happen the next mi dni the workday, which was a call when it was ght i n Ukra'ine on electi on ni ght, in a good mood, Presjdent Trump was w'in t4 I reca1l what Alex told fie, said that he had studied President Trump's win in 2016 runnjng as an outsider and had adopted some of the same tact'ics. And 'inv j ted Presi dent Trump to hi s i naugural, the date to be determined. And Pres'ident Trump, as I said, acknowledged he would try to find somebody appropriate to attend. And sald, we'11 try to work on getti ng you to l5 Washi ngton. 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 And President Zelenskyy, as And l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 that was more or less the extent that probabty was somethi ng more sa1d , but you know on an electi on day the nt 'is what Alex summed up was, Li eutenant Colonel Vi ndman, those types of calls are designed to build rapport and he thought it was successful doing so. O Following the May 23rd 0val 0ffice meeting, where there was a -- you testi f ied there was a dec'ision to try to arrange a White House meeting. You know, what if any actions did you take or were djd other Ukrajne-focused government officials take to try to set that up? poi 201 I A That's the function of the national security staff 4 that there is input, they ask for input from othe r officials, other offices. We obviously stand ready to that's thei r functi on. That's be supportive but that's 5 not our function 2 a J To the extent 20 of a White House meeting? I was, the State Department was. Ukraine is an important country that Congress appropriates roughly in the ballpark $700 miltjon a year in assistance and Zelenskyy won a clear mandate for change and so we were support'ive of a visit to the Wh'ite House, yes. a Did you have any reason to doubt Zelenskyy's si nceri ty about hi s anti corrupti on vi ews? A I had no reason to doubt the sincerity of Zelenskyy trying to represent change for his country based on the series of meetings I had with h'im dating back to December 2018. Starting from the beginning it was clear that he had a prior association with a fairly notorious oligarch named Ihor Kolomoi sky and that was goi ng to be a mark of h'is j 11i ngness to really make a break from past relationships and stand on 2t pri nci p1e. 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 22 23 24 25 a A Were you supportive w So from not necessari 1y our fi rst conversati on i n but in the second conversation in March prior to the election, we were already talkjng about Kolomoisky and the down sides of association with somebody who had such a December, 202 I bad reputation. 5 would a White House meeting a And how important is be to President Zelenskyy? A The President of the United States is a longtime acknowledged leader of the free world, and the U.S. is 6 Ukrai 2 J 4 ne's strongest supporter. And so i n the Ukrai ne l0 context, it's very important to show that they can establish a strong relationship with the leader of the United States. That's the Ukrai ni an argument and desi re to have a meeti ng. The f oreign policy argument is 'it's a very important ll country in the front lines of Russian malign influence 7 8 9 and l3 aggression. And the U.S. spends a considerable amount of our resources supporting Ukraine and therefore it makes sense. t4 But t2 t7 that's the arguments for a meeting. The time on a President's schedule is always subject to competing priorities. a Fo11ow'ing that meeti ng you sai d that Secretary l8 Perry, Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker had asserted l5 l6 t9 20 2l 22 Z3 24 25 that they were leading Ukrainian policy efforts? Did I get that ri ght? A Correct. a Who had asserted that? A We11, the three of them asserted that. And citing the fact that they had brjefed the President coming out of that meeting, they felt they had the mandate to take the lead 203 I on coordi nati ng ef f orts 2 leadershi p. J a to engage And what engagements 4 leadershi p occurred followi ng 5 conference on July Lst 6 7 8 9 l0 the new Ukra'ini an with the that new Ukrainian meeti ng up unti 1 the that you're aware of? A I do not I do not recall. Special Representative Volker traveled frequently to Ukraine so jt js possible that he may have gone in late May. I just don't recall precisely. He traveled frequently there. There was a coordjnating meeting in the Department of ll Energy jn mid-June, on June 18th. t2 that. Ambassador SondIand, Ambassador l3 Department, Actj ng Assi stant Secretary Reeker, my di rect t4 supervisor, Tyler Brace, a1l attended that meeting'in 15 Secretary Perry's offi ce, and they also connected recently t6 arrived Charge Taylor from Kyiv. t7 2t that, to the best of my knowledge, after that May 23rd meeting, thjs June 18th meeting was the next meeti ng where a number of offi ci als got together speci fi catly to talk about policies and programs towards Ukraine. a And in June and early Juty, are you aware of any 22 conversations that Ambassador Sondland might have had wjth 23 the Chief of Staff Mulvaney about Ukraine and President 24 Zetenskyy? l8 l9 20 25 So A I So Secretary Perry chaired Volker from the State would say I'm not aware of conversations between Sondland and 204 J frankly that's a relationship that I would not be a part of. To the best of my what I am aware of j s that subsequent to the June LSth meeting, there was a 4 June 28th conference 5 Volker, and involving Charge Taylor, at the end of which they 6 were patched through I 2 7 8 9 l0 Mulvaney, but call between Secretary Perry, Sondland, to President Zelenskyy. did you learn about that conversation? I do not recaIl. I got a readout of that conversati on. Inj ti a1ly I have an emai I suggesti ng that Ambassador Sondland on June 27th had written Charge Taylor to a A And what l5 that that would be a U.S.-only meeting or a U.S.-only ca11. But in the end, on the next day, it turned into a call with President Zelenskyy after a pre-conversation among the Americans, based on what Charge Taylor has told me. a Was j t unusual that you were not 'included on that l6 conference call? ll t2 l3 14 t7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 suggest if it involves the Secretary of Energy jt's not necessarily unusual. But again, that was i think a period of time where the direction of our engagement with Ukraine shifted into shall v{e say unusual channels' a And what do you mean by unusual channels? A Wel1, I think it's somewhat unusual to have an Ambassador to the E.U., plus the Secretary of Energy engaged deeply in the policy towards a country that is not a member of the E.U. It was just again, we had our Special A Wel1, 205 t2 for Ukraine Negotiations, and I know you've talked to former Ambassador Volker. His listed responsi bi I i ti es were focused on negoti ati ng wi th Russi a over their war jn Ukraine, and then Charge Taylor as the tead representatjve in country. And so frankly, in that constellation Charge Taylor was the primary voice for our fu11 interests as the Charge of our mission in Kyiv. a And one more question, you said that you learned of the call from Charge Taylor. A Cor rect. a But he did not give you a substantive readout of l3 the call? t4 t9 did give me a readout, yes. He gave me a readout of prebrief with the Americans. O And what was that readout? A He indicated that there was a discussion about the need to rai se a sensi ti ve 'issue wi th Zetenskyy. And i n that discussion Ambassador Volker volunteered that he would be 20 seeing Zelenskyy in person the next week in Toronto and that 2t was the meeting I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l5 l6 t7 l8 22 23 24 25 Representative A a A He jn which I participated on July 2nd. the sensitive issue was? Kurt Volker told me that 'i t was giving guidance to Do you know what to characterize his willingness be cooperatjve on issues of interest to the President. Zelenskyy on how he needed to 206 a A Such as? J I did not have the ful1 details of what exactly that was, but I th'ink i t was sendi ng si gnals about potenti a1 4 i nvesti gati ons. 2 I think our time is up. a 5 BY MR. 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 We yield to the minority. CASTOR: July 25th call? a A O A a Vindman was on the A a I do not know and I th'ink not. The J uly yes . And was he on the April 2Lst call? Yes. Was he in the meeting wjth the President on May 23rd? Okay. You said you got three readouts, one from l5 Fiona Hi11, one from SondIand, and one from Volker? l6 2t aI readouts I got were, yes secondhand from these three people. It was my understanding. in on the meeting? O A My understanding is again Fiona didn't give it di rectly to me. l'ly understandi ng i s that she may have gotten it from deputy then deputy national security advisor 22 Kuppe rman t7 l8 t9 20 Z) 24 25 A a A The i n'iti . She sent you No. the readout? , was the acting deputy assistant secretary at the tjme. She had a conversation with who To 207 I the best of 2 once my knowledge. I received the readout from I 8 I came back from my vacation. a Okay. You said when you returned to your office you had three emails. Is that A Yes. I believe I got an email with I readout of a conversati on wi th Fi ona, Chri s Anderson's readout that he got from Kurt Volker and a third readout from someone jn the State Department who worked wi th our m'iss j on to the 9 European Union J 4 5 6 7 l0 that would have had Ambassador Sondland's version. ll a So Sondland gives tes j t up, sends an emai a readout to his staffer who t2 wr i l3 2l A Yes. a Volker produces one with Christina Anderson? A Chris Anderson. a Chris Anderson. And so then help me understand again. Like who produced the one from the NSC? A So Fiona had a conversation. To the best of my recollection, she had a conversation wi th , who is normally the director for Eastern Europe and, while I was away at my daughter's , was acting in my 22 stead as acti ng deputy assi stant secretary. t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 23 24 25 a A a 1 . 0h, okay. So he's a State Department employee. He's a State Department employee, yeah. Was she in the meeting? 208 A I 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 t3 l\/ly understanding is again, I did not talk to that her version of the readout came from Mr. Kupperman, the then deputy to Ambassador Bolton. But I'm not sure. her, but my understanding was a Was he in the meeting? A I'm not sure. My understand'ing again, this is now is that Fiona's readout came from third hand from I Kupperman, not from her participation in the meeting. But I don't know. I have not talked to Fiona about that. a 0kay. Was Kupperman in the meeting? A My understanding from what I heard from I relaying what he heard from Fiona hjs impression was that that came from Kupperman who was jn the meeting. But I can't t4 15 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 in the meeting? a A a A That a Did any He was Huh? He was in the meeting? is the impressjon I received from talking I in the meeting? A No. a 0kay. to of these readouts have a list of officials Can we just go through who we think was in the meeting? We know Secretary Perry, Senator Johnson. A To the best of my knowledge, the principals 209 I 2 a A Ambassador VoIker the briefers to the President were those that offic'ials that would be Secretary Perry, J represented Iead 4 Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador 6 a A 7 status. 5 8 a A and Volker and Senator Johnson. staff to the meetingT I do not know. I was again, I was on leave And they brought OkaY. l8 I wasn't in the meeting and wouldn't have been 'in the meeti ng even i f I were i n Washi ngton. a 0kay. Who from the NSC was 'in the meetingT A To the best of my understanding, all I know is that Charl i e Kupperman or Kupperman. I don' t know fi rst name, sorry. Kupperman, former deputy Nationat Security Advisor Kupperman may have been in the meeting. a 0kay. But Vi ndman wasn' t? A That is my understanding, correct. a Did Vindman tel1 you subsequently that he wasn't in l9 the meeti 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 20 2t 22 24 25 And ng? I didn't ask if he was 'in the meeting, because when I returned from work I had three different version or readouts of the meetings from others. a But you had regular commun jcat'ions wi th Vjndman. A R'ight? A I did. 210 I 2 did he ever at any point in tjme tell you that he wasn't in the meeting or was being excluded from th i ngs? J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 a And A We a A Do you didn't have a conversation along those f ines. No. th'ink he was excluded? I honestly don't know. And I had three different verSions of the meeting so I wasn't looking for a fourth. a And in your regular communications with vindman do you have any reason to believe that he'S been cut out of any of these discussions? Not just about the t"lay 23rd meeting, l3 but about subsequent relevant events? A Again, I don't I go over to the NSC when there are meetings that the NSC does not want to al1ow the State t4 Department ll t2 l8 to be on the Secure video conference system, but apart from Speci fi c meeti ngs that I'm i nvi ted over, I don't go over there on a regular basis just because it takes time. It's easier if they'11 allow us to be on vjdeo conference. It js a better use of my time. So I would say I have more l9 communications 20 phone ca11. l5 l6 t7 2t a Okay. wjth Lieutenant Colonel And in any 22 has he alerted you that )7 process? 24 25 A he Vindman by email and of those emajls or Phone calls he's been cut out of the a lieutenant colonel and colonels who have served in staff positions generally aren't people who He is 21 1 J complain. He's a -- he was a campaign planner before he came over to the NSC and he has that campaign planning mentality, you know, what's the goal and he'11 plow forward. That's 4 j 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 ust hi a A s personal i ty. Okay. And do you think he is plowing forward? He's very acti ve at schedul i ng j nteragency meeti ngs to write papers for him. a But plow'ing f orward, does i t have some sort of connotation that he's going through a tough time and he's A No. He's a lieutenant colonel who spends his day that was hi s worki ng on campai gn p1ans. That's what hi s job at the Joint Chiefs of Staff before he was brought over as a detai 1ee to the NSC. I th'ink i f you talk to most State Department employees will have an opinion that the role of the Nati onal Securi ty Counc'il i s to coordi nate the work of other agencies, not to task us. We don't respond to them. And occasionally we have to remind them of that. a You have to remind him of that? A My staff oftentimes complains that they feel that he th'inks that they work for him the way he works for other people at the JCS and have asked me on numbers of occasions to gently point out to him that we don't report to him. So I have supported my staff in gently suggesting that he remember what the roles of the National Security Council staff are vis-a-vis a bureau and an executive agency like the State and asking the State Department 212 I Department. a A 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll Did he receive that warmlY? th a smi le and that' s - - we have a good working relationship. I would say there's more tensjon perhaps between him and the staff that work for me, but we He rece'ived i t wi a respectful working relationship. a Okay. And in Fiona Hill's readout what was her what can you remember from her readout? have A I think what I recall and I can't say the specific deta'i1s particularly since there were three versions floating around that I read in rapid succession, just by 23 tonality that the meeting was perhaps more problematic than the initial readouts that we got through secondhand knowledge of what Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker said' I believe one element and I can't remember where this came from that initially the President did not want to sign a congratulatory letter. And he actually ripped up the letter that had been written for him. But by the end of the meeting, he'd been convinced and the version I recall hearing was Ambassador Sondland helped draft it. And to be honest, the second version of the letter actually read better than the fi rst versi on. I wasn't i nvolved i n ei ther of them because I had been on leave and eventually that letter was 24 si gned. 25 a t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 At the State Department in the wake of Ambassador 213 t2 , her reca1l , can you descrj be the morale wi th those closest to her? A When you say those closest to her, are you referring to the embassy staff that had been working for her in Kyiv? a And her close confidants here in Washington. A I don't know who her close confjdants in Washington would be. I was, as I mentioned, in Ukraine and Kyiv at the embassy on May 8th. I djd offer to have a restricted townhall meeting for Americans, essentially, in our version of the SCIF, and the country team, the meeting room, where we'd have and anyone who wished to have a conversation l3 about what had happened and the way forward. I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 lt t4 Yovanovi tch's And my sense was one of them actually said that when af ter members of l5 the attacks started j n ['larch, parti cularly l6 the President's family started attacking her, at t7 they reatized that she was going to be recalled, and it was a l8 matter of when, not if. t9 the embassy, was what was going to be the impact on them, on 20 the embassy, and on our policy towards Ukrajne. 2t 22 23 24 25 while I did some 1eve1 Their question, as people working at willing to answer any questions, I think they were more focused, at that point, already, having digested that she had been removed, and they wanted to know what was going to happen next. So I assured them that our policy was our policy and it would remajn our And so, basjcally I was 214 in the process of trying to find an I policy. 2 experj enced person J and would be a good leader 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll And that we were that temporari 1y would lead the mi ssi on for the people working there, the in our embassy, and also someone that could be a vo'ice and f ace f or U. S. pol i cy i n Ukrai ne. I honestly cannot remember, but probably djd not say that it was going to be Ambassador Taylor. He was the one we all wanted at that point, but we still had to work out whether we could bring him back. And those detai 1s w'ith the 250 Americans working personnel system had not yet been finalized. t2 l3 Presi dent? A t4 fit the mold for the i n the meet'ing wi th the Would Ambassador Taylor have a type of person When that was di scussed you said the person discussed in the meeting 23 th the Presi dent, meani ng what? a We11, the meeting with the President, you related that President Trump seemed angry, that he was, you know, Ukraine was corrupt. That there are those in the Ukraine that wished him 111 in 2015 and they were going to work towards an 0val 0ffice meet'ing, energy issues were important and then you mentioned that there was a decisjon to put in a new political Ambassador. A So Charge Taylor, notwithstanding the fact he was 24 nominated and confirmed by the Senate, nomjnated under 25 president George Bush, was not a permanent nominee l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 wi for the 215 1 position of a A 2 Ambassador. 0kaY. 5 called back essentially to government service because he knew all the players. He's a bundle of positivity and gets along with everyone and he's a real 6 leader. 7 Department, but he was a graduate 8 the L0Lst, and he was platoon leader in Vietnam and in 9 Germany. So 3 4 l0 lt t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 Z) 24 25 by Bj He was He was a long t'ime senior executive at the State of West Point who joined it is hard to find anybody hasn't been impressed 11 Taylor. a And permanent poli A is there sti1l an effort afoot to find ti cal a Ambassador? that is the job of the White House because i t i s the Presi dent's prerogati ve to appoi nt, nominate an Ambassador and then the Senate's role to confirm. a During his tenure as Vice President, Joe Biden had a role with regard to Ukraine. Is that correct? A Correct. a And what was the role as you understood 'it? And you were in country at the time, right? A I was, although his involvement in Ukraine predated my return to the Ukraine account. I believe it should be a matter of record, but I believe as Vice President he visited Ukraine six times, which probably is unusual for any country outside of the usual countries like Germany, like There is. And 216 of which I believe would've I one 2 Yanukovych was there and then 3 afterwards. By the time 4 I came back been when the former leader the subsequent vi on the account, it s'its was clear 7 of his administration, had delegated several foreign policy issues in Europe to Vice President Biden to take the lead. Ukraine was one of them; 8 Cyprus was the other. 5 6 that President 0bama, towards the end So, if you wi11, Vice President Biden was the top cover. 9 official l0 The State Department's lead l1 post- Russi an- i nvasi on-of - Ukrai ne/occupati on-of t2 Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland. And then we had a very -C r i mea was t4 active Ambassador, Geoff Pyatt, at the time. And so those were the chi ef vo'ices on our Ukrai ne pol i cy: Pyatt as chi ef l5 of mission, Toria as the assistant secretary, and Vice l6 President Biden as Vice President. 13 2t for the removal of Shokin, what type of planning went into that? Was that something that was planned for on the Vice President side of things or did the embassy or the State Department tee him up with the right information he needed to weigh it into 22 that? t7 l8 l9 20 23 he got involved with advocating a When A Geoff Pyatt allowed me to go back to my family at 24 Thanksgiving. I had 25 predecessor come out on an emergency basis for my 217 . I And I came out on 24 hours' notice to 4 of 0ctober for my thjrd stint. So I was not in country at the time of the visit and planning. My understanding is that the conversatjons that were 5 near-daily between 6 regarding what to do on the way forward then included 7 pitching the 0ffice of the V'ice Presjdent to push President 8 Poroshenko to remove Shoki n. 2 J 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 Ukraine the beginning Ambassador Pyatt and Toria Nuland similar push against Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk, who had several different corrupt political backers. And there was one named Martynenko who was involved in all sorts of dirty business, including nuclear fuel supplies from Russia. And so we pressured Yatseniuk to have one of his corrupt cron'ies resign, and ['{artynenko resigned. There was a And there was also the pressure on Poroshenko, on the l5 t6 corrupt prosecutor general, and Shokin was not dismjssed, I t7 believe, until early March, so 3 weeks after Vice Presjdent Bi den's vi si t i n December 201.5. l8 22 a The V'ice President, he relates to some of these deta jls on a v'ideo that's been published on I th'ink the Wal1 Street Journal. Have you seen that video? A I did. To the best of my recollection, he was at 23 some 24 in 2018, and he was telling the story in a sort of folksy 25 manne r t9 20 2l conference, maybe Council on Foreign Relations, sometjme . 218 a He was 2 where, you a unti 1 they know, folksy. And he describes a quid pro quo $1 billion worth of aid would be held up Shoki n. Is that what your understandi ng of 2t fi red the way he tells i t? sounds more or less like what he said on A That is that stage. Yes. a And going back to 20L5 when jt actually happened, was that the way i t went down? A Again, I was 'in briefly in Ukrainian language trai ni ng at the ti me of h'is vi si t so I was not i n Ukra j ne. I would think that the State Department could produce documents related to the sovereign loan guarantees and the timing of those three guarantees to align the timing. We provided one in 20L4, one in 2015, and one in 2015. And I do not reca11 the exact timing of the issuance of those loan guarantees, but I'm not aware that they aligned perfectly with his visit to Ukraine on December 20L5. a Okay. But you thjnk it is fair to say that this was a bottom up initiative? A To the best of my knowledge, the idea came from Ambassador Pyatt jn discussion with Assistant Secretary 22 Nuland and then was pitched 23 Presi dent. J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 24 25 a to the 0ffice of the Vice Okay. So if we're going to pursue additional informatjon on that, we would probably have Some documents to 219 us that we could ask for. I i nform 2 A J havi ng read That would be my impression. I would just note 4 the subpoena that the document request was date timed I bel jeve starting January 20 or 2l.st, 20L7. And we're 5 talki 6 20L5. 7 8 ng MR ti me about events that happened in November, December, ZELDIN: Steve, i f I can ask, di d you know at the of the Vi ce Presi dent's vi si t when he had made that l5 that threat? I mean, or was it some other expectation more narrowly tailored towards advocat i ng f or Shok'in to be removed? MR. KENT: Yeah. I know as was discussed earlier, the U.S. the IMF, the European Union countries, we had at1 come to the conclus'ion j n the wake of the di amond prosecutors affair that there was going to be no progress for reform on l6 the prosecutor general under Shokin. t7 But speci fi ca11y about how the 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 threat that he was going to make Vi ce Presi dent's tri ps that point. I left the day before Thanksgiving to fly back to the U.S. and to go into Ukraine language training. So at that point I was not privy to those discussions in the two weeks prior to the Vice President's visit. MR. ZELDIN: 5o you don't know whether or not the Vice President was going to threaten the loss of $1 billion? MR. KENT: My understanding, as I explained, is that messaging was managed by 220 I that waS an approach that was di scussed between Ambassador ) Pyatt and Assistant Secretary Nuland to use his visit as leverage. This was an issue that Ambassador Pyatt and 4 Assistant Secretary Nuland in her visits that was an agenda 5 item that they were pushing. And in the 2 6 7 8 that the Department of Justjce official asked me to go in to the prosecutor general office office jn February 2015 and ask who took the bribe and how much was it to shut down the case same way l0 against Zlochevsky, the Ambassador and Assistant Secretary Nuland asked the office of Vice President if the Vice ll President could push this tough 9 message. l3 to be c1ear, was Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary Nuland advocating to threaten the loss of l4 $1 bi 11 i on? t2 t'lR. ZELDIN: And 20 that i s the case. But agai n, we' re now relying on my memory of almost 4 years ago. So I believe i t was pushi ng the Ukrai ni ans essenti a1ly for an addi ti onal what would be called a prior action before we would issue the Sovereign loan guarantee. But I think that's something that we would have to look at the documents from that period of 2l time. l5 l6 t7 18 t9 22 23 24 25 MR. KENT: I be1 i eve MR. ZELDIN: You as the dePutY chief of mission were not involved in that process. in parts of 2015 I went out as essentiallY the acti ng deputy chj ef of mi ssion. I then came back to the MR. KENT: So 221 J S. the day before Thanksgiving and was in the .S. for 3.5 months for language training and then returned to Kyiv in 1 ate Ma rch 2016. So in the 2 weeks prior to the Vi ce 4 President's visit, I was al ready back i n the 5 language student 6 the conversati I 2 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 t3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 U. U as opposed U S a5 a to being an active parti ci pant i n ons. MR. ZELDIN: And you referenced Ambassador Pyatt, you 0f anyone i nvolved i n that process, are you aware of anyone jn contact with Hunter Biden at the time other than the Vice President? MR. KENT: I am not aware of, no. referenced Assi stant Secretary Nuland. MR. JORDAN: One quick question. l'lr. Secretary, you leave 2 weeks bef ore the V j ce President gets there. But this policy, thjs idea that we were goi ng to call for Shoki n' s removal i t di dn't j ust develop in those two weeks. MR. KENT: Correct. t 'involved i n a di scussi on and a decjsion to say this is going to be our official policy we're goi ng to ask the Vice Presi dent to do thi s. MR. KENT: I think someone made a reference to Ambassador Pyatt's speech i n September. Earti er at some MR. JORDAN: You weren' 24 point today, he gave a strong, hard-hitting speech against corruption, and it was clear then that we were pushing for 25 Shokin's 23 ouster. And so we had taken a harder line against 222 1 Shokin 2 mi in the wake of the diamond prosecutor affair d-20L5 in . 7 prior to Vice President Biden's visit, this was an issue that U.S. officials including our Ambassador and our Assistant Secretary of State were pushing in their meeti ngs wi th the Ukrai ni ans. I'lR. J0RDAN: I guess I'm asking, though, was there a 8 decision 9 say, we're going to ask the Vice President to do it on this J 4 5 6 l0 ll t2 So months made between Ms. Nuland, the Ambassador, and you to if so when was that made? I could not I was not MR. KENT: Again, I do not part of I would say that on a daily basis Ambassador Pyatt trip. And t4 Assistant Secretary Nuland had conversations, that was conversations that the Ambassador would have on his office l5 wjth her on a Secure l6 email back and forths. But t7 other than to say that l3 l8 and I would say phone and I'm sure there were additional I cannot give you a precise date that on the record Ambassador Pyatt's speech 23 in 0desa, which I believe was in September of 20L5 was a powerful public statement of U.S. concern about the lack of progress. And I believe i t may have speci fically mentioned both the shortcom'ings of prosecutor Shokin and reference to our concern that the case against Zlochevsky had been shut 24 down and l9 20 2t 22 25 frozen And so money was released. I think that speech is a matter of public record 223 visit I September 2015, Vice President Biden's 2 0ctober, November, December, 3 months later. happened 5 think they told the V'ice Pres'ident the 2 weeks prior to him getting there when you had left do you think that they talked to the Vjce President when he got 6 there in country? J 4 MR. JORDAN: Do you MR. KENT: Again, the way 7 a trip would normally be 8 staffed, there would be conversations prior, there would 9 paper prepared and conversations prior to the trip. be And that l3 like Assjstant Secretary Nuland going over and participating in a pretrip brief. MR. JORDAN: When djd you learn that the Vice Presjdent made this demand on the Ukrainians and specifically the t4 Presi dent? l0 ll t2 oftentimes would be someone I think don't reca11 and i n the well of the I l5 MR. KENT: l6 gave a pubtic speech t7 l9 parliament. But this demand would have been delivered in private in his meeting wi th President Poroshenko. l"lR. JORDAN: You never got a readout on how i t all went 20 down 2t I was a language student for a period of several months in the U.S. I was aware that he'd made the request. I was also aware that Shok'in remained an embattled prosecutor general for several months more until there was a vote held in their parliament to remove him. l8 22 23 24 25 I I mean, Ukrai ni he an ? MR. KENT: 224 MR. MEADOWS: So 1 1et me fol1ow up one last time. So who J the decision that Vice President Biden should be the one that communjcated this? You know, if you all are having all 4 these discussions 5 that says, let's wait until the VP goes over to 6 request? 2 made t"lR. KENT: 7 8 1l t2 make this Yeah. We11, there was no waiting, as I MR. MEADOWS: Well 3 months. a -- I gave an example of a publicly available speech that was a statement, a very strong statement on the record of MR. KENT: Well that MR. MEADOWS: Yeah, l3 t4 So many months, who made that decision menti oned. 9 l0 for was the was but your inference was is that that start of it. l6 t' s j ust that I think that's a public mark where people could see this is the t7 American Ambassador speaking on the record about our concerns l8 about the lack l5 19 MR. KENT: No, I wouldn' t say that . I of progress and the rule of law reform in 2015 a year and a half after the Revolution of Dignity. At the 2l time, there WaS constant private messaging, meSSageS and meetings that Ambassador Pyatt had in Kyiv, conversatjons or 22 meetings when Ass'istant Secretary Nuland would 23 conversations would happen when Vice President Biden would 24 talk to both President Poroshenko as well as then prime 25 mi 20 Same ni ster Arseny Yatseni uk. travel, and 225 MR. MEADOWS: So I before you went away to language 2 school, you had no recollection that the decision had J made 4 your statement? that the Vice President was going to thjs? Is that t4 that well , agai n, we' re now talking about conversations, of which I was not a part, that happened 4 years ago. I do not thjnk my guess, to the best of my abitity, I would anticipate that the issue of Shoki n's status was rai sed pri or to the Vi ce Presi dent's trip, possibly during a conversatjon. But I was not on those ca1ls between the Vice President of the United States and the Presi dent of Ukrai ne. MR. MEAD0WS: But wouldn't it be a big deal if the Vice Pres'ident i s goi ng to demand a curtai lment of $1 bi 11i on? l5 Wouldn't that have registered with you, since your passion l6 and l7 20 Right. Wel1, as I said, my understanding of how that dec'ision got to the point of having the Vjce President raise that'in the first week of December when he came to Kyiv started with conversations between Ambassador 2t Pyatt and Assistant Secretary Nuland and then 22 recommendation 23 when he vi si ted. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 t2 l3 l8 t9 24 25 MR. KENT: No. I make been would say MR. KENT: a that Vice President Bjden pushed that issue That's my understanding of how the information, the jdea, the flow pattern occurred and then he made the request 226 1 when he came out. MR. MEADOWS: 2 0kay, Steve BY I'IR. CASTOR: J 7 At the time was there any di scussion of percei ved confl i cts of interest either on the part of the Vice Presi dent or hi s son? You're now talking about a period leading up to his A 8 visit 4 5 6 a in December 2015. 9 a l0 was on A a l1 t2 We11, Hunter Biden he was the board in first reported that he mid-20L4? Correct. And the V'ice President's involvement with Ukraine 2l is pretty significant at that point in time and it remained unti t he, you know, through 2016. Correct? A Yes. a And the question was, you know, were there any discussions of a perceived-conflict of interest on the part of either Hunter Biden or the Vice President? A When I was the first time I was in Ukraine as acting deputy chief of mission in the period of mid-January to mid-February 2015, subsequent to me going into the deputy 22 prosecutor general on February 3rd and demanding who took the 13 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 t9 20 24 bribe and how much was it to shut the case against Zlochevsky I became aware that Hunter B'iden was on the board. I di d not 25 know 23 that at the time. 227 7 I was on a cal l wi th somebody on the V'ice Presjdent's staff and I cannot recaIl who it was, just briefing on what was happening into Ukrajne I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of milljons of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conffict of 8 i And when 2 a J 4 5 6 nterest. a 9 l0 1 i ne te1 1 A And what did the person on the other end of the you? 22 that I reca1l hearing back was that the Vice President's son Beau was dying of cancer and that there was no f urther bandw'idth to deal wi th f am'i1y related i ssues at that t'ime. a Was that pretty much the end of i t? A That was the end of that conversation. a 0kay. That was i n mi d-201-5? A That would have been in February, because to the best of my recollection Beau Biden died that spring. I then returned to Ukraine in August of 201.5 and I believe he passed before then. 5o the only tjme that conversation could have happened is in that narrow window between January, February, 23 20L5. ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 24 25 The message to that, did you ever think through wjth other State Department officials about maybe we should a And subsequent 228 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 try to get Hunter Biden to leave the board or maybe we should get the Vi ce Presi dent to transi ti on hi s key responsi bi 1 i ti es on Ukrai ne to some other senior U. S. offi ci a1? A No. It's easy in a conference room like this to have a considered discussion about things. In Ukraine at that time, we had a war with Russja occupation, we had an embassy staff going from 150 Americans to 250 Americans, from no Special Force U.5. Government soldiers to close to 70 in country, our assistance went from $130 million to nearly a bilfion. And we were working nearly ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 .L) 24 25 nonstop. Ambassador Pyatt, I tel1 you from working for him, would wake up between 4:58 and 5:01, because that was when I got the first email from him, and went to bed between L2:59 and 1:01, because that's when I would get the last ema'i1 . He had an i nternal clock. He only slept 4 hours. And it was nonstop,20 hours a day, 7 days a week a 0kay. Gotcha. You referenced earlier the President's congratulatory note to President Zelenskyy. A His ca11. O No, the note. A Yes. a It was ripped up? A That is what I heard from others, yes. can 229 4 that the t"'lay 29th letter? If there's a letter that's signed May 29th that would be the second version that was then sjgned. a Okay. 5o that's the only letter we're talking 5 about, ri ght? 1 2 a J 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 a A A a Was Cor rect. Okay. In the letter they tatk about a White House meeting as a prospect. A a I believe so. I can make it an exhjbit or I can read jt whatever your preference js? A a If I could look at it that would be he1pfu1. 0kay. So this wi 11 be Exh j bi t 2 Do you guys need copies or are you good? A Very positive letter, yes. . IMinority Exhjb'it No. 2 Was marked for identi fication. t6 t7 BY ]"IR. l8 l CASTOR: 22 Yes. The penultimate paragraph says, to help show that commitment the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph says, I'd tike to invite you to meet with me at the White House in Washington, D.C. as soon as we can find a 23 mutually convenj ent ti l9 20 2t 24 25 a A a me. Yes. 5o this was the spiffed up letter or 230 I 2 This is the letter that I understand that Ambassador SondIand helped arrange, yes, sir. A 4 5 6 7 I think you'd characterize the new letter a 3 possi as bly better than the ori gi nal? A a r emembe r Yes. What v,/ere the di f f erence to the extent you ? ll A Just I think stylistically I liked the second versi on. I don't know who the drafter of the f i rst versi on was and I don't know how many people were involved in production of the language of the second one. I just thought t2 the second one read better. 8 9 l0 l3 a Okay. And do you know why the President fi rst was t4 di sappoi nted wi th the l5 A It wasn't he was disappointed with the version of letter, he based on what the readout I heard from Kurt l6 version? 18 Volker and others that he was disappojnted with Ukraine. a Okay. And so the new letter was offered the to the l9 President t7 20 A for his signature somewhat latelin time? t4y understandi ng, and I th'ink thi s may have been 2t the version from Gordon Sondland that while the President 22 angry obviously 23 24 25 was at the point that he point and tore up the letter. By the end of the meeting he agreed to sign a revi sed versi on and thi s i s the versi on that he si gned. a 0kay. And the offer or the invite to come meet at 231 the White House, is that something that is customarily 2 offered to an a1ly J on th'is date? A 4 We11, as wi thout speci fi c the I mentioned before, President Trump and dent-elect Zelenskyy had thj s 5 Presj 6 when President-elect Zelenskyy had meeti ng wi 11 happen d'i scussi on on Apri 1 2Lst t4 invited President Trump to come to his inauguration, and he said, we11, I witl send somebody there, but I'd like to get you to the Whjte House. So this was following up on that theme. President Trump had offered it jn concept in April. He put it in writing in May. But, you know, as anyone who's ever staffed not just the President but a principal, you can have an agreement in pri nci ple to meet but then schedules are compl i cated, partj cularly when you' re deal i ng wi th two Presi dents of two l5 countries 7 8 9 l0 1l t2 13 t6 a So it is not uncommon for to be take a wh'i le to the meetings t7 proposed suggested, djscussed and then 18 together? put t9 A That's a fair statement, yes. 20 a And sometimes the meeti ngs don't 2l A That would also probably in certai n ci rcumstances 22 also be a fai r actually happen, assessment. 23 a 0kay. 24 A Because schedules are busy, yes. 25 a If I Because these i ssued are compl i cated? heard you correctly you mentioned that i n 232 March Ambassador Sondland contacted President Poroshenko to 8 to back off attacks on Ambassador Yovanovitch was i t? Di d I hear that ri ght? A That is probably close to what I said. And it that is what I reca11 seeing in an email exchange, yes. a Okay. So in March Poroshenko is about to lose the electi on? Ri ght? A He doesn't realize it but the rest of the country 9 does, yes. 2 J 4 5 6 7 urge him a l0 Okay. And so in urging him to back off the attacks 11 on Yovanovitch, do you have any idea whether Poroshenko t2 genui 13 nely knew that h'is apparatus was attacki ng her? A When I visited in May I had the prime min'ister, and l5 sterS, and a f ormer prime mi n'ister te11 me that Poroshenko authorized the attacks 1et me be careful. He l6 authorized Lutsenko t7 l8 that led to the attacks on Ambassador Yovanovitch. a Okay. And where did you learn of Sondland's t9 content? t4 three mi ni th Poroshenko 20 A I,,/i 2t a 0kay. 22 A In an emai 23 have been Ambassador 24 DCl4 25 to share the information with Giulian'i at the time, Pam a Okay. Di d 1 in March that I referred to. I believe from the embassy 'i t cou 1d Yovanovitch, it could have been from the Tremont. Sondland te11 you hi mself? 233 A a 1 2 J conversation was put together? A 4 5 I did not hear it directly from Sondland, no. Do you have an understandi ng of 1i ke how th'i s My understanding based on also seeing Ambassador Sondland has engaged Georgian how leaders, because I l5 ty f or Georgi a, j s that when he meets leaders in Brussels -- or, in the case of the Ukraine, he met Pres'ident Poroshenko and other leaders in 0desa during the U.5. trip visit, he hands them his business card, he gets their business card, and then starts direct communication via WhatsApp or phone ca11s. a Wi th world leaders? A With world leaders. a Okay. And he did that with President Poroshenko? A Yes. To the best of my knowledge, he did that with t6 President Poroshenko as well as the then Georgia prime t7 mi ni 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l8 al so have responsi b'i 1i ster. a I 'm goi ng to mark Exhi bi t nori ty IMi 20 was marked BY MR. 22 Z) a . Exhi bi t9 2t 3 t No. 3 for identi f ication. l CASTOR: This js a letter to Poroshenko from Senators lvlenendez, Durbi n, and Leahy about the Mueller i nvest j gati on. copies? Do you have enough? 24 Does anybody need 25 Take as much time as you need to check this out. 234 I 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 15 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Have you ever seen this letter before? 235 1 14:23 p.m.l 4 I do not recal1, but I can't rule out. The U. 5. Congress does not, as a matter of course, copy embass'ies on its correspondence with other countries, but we oftentimes 5 do receive courtesy copies sometimes through the State 6 Department. 2 J MR. KENT: BY MR. 7 a 8 9 l0 ll a Do you know if the State Department has provided us copy? A but I at least reca11 hearing about a communication which could have been this l3 letter. a t4 communi t5 A t2 CASTOR: I honestly cannot remember, Okay. And what do you cati remember about this on? Wel1, that there were some people expressing 18 interest in whether Ukrajne had possibly stopped cooperating. This is not the first tjme I've heard it, but I honestly could not give you precisely, you know., 'information. Again, l9 thjs t6 t7 20 2l 22 L) 24 25 was not a commun'icatjon a A 0f that went through the embassy course. nor did we go to the prosecutor general to raise the concerns of the three Senators who sent this letter. Okay. Do you know jf anyone in the 1eg affajrs At the time, I was working in Kyiv, so I would not necessarily have been aware. My predecessor was Bridget a A 236 is serving as our Ambassador in Slovakja. I Brink, 2 she was the Deputy Assistant Secretary who now So at the time, so I'm 4 not sure if this letter was passed through and was discussed. a If the State Department found out about this, do 5 you thi nk they would di spatch thei 3 l3 r legi slative 1i ai sons to talk wi th the 5enators or thei r Senator's staff to A Honestly, again, I was in Kyiv at the time, so I do not have knowledge of any interactjon between the Senate's three senators, their staff a Fa'i r enough and either Hill liajson or the European Bureau. A a Were you aware of any questions about whether Lutsenko was faifing to cooperate with Special Counsel t4 Mueller? 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 . A l5 Again, I didn't have any conversations with l8 Mr. Lutsenko as a general rule. By this point in May of 2018, our relations with him had soured. And so we didn't have a complete break in commun'ications, but we did not t9 we l6 t7 22 , the U . S . Embassy, d'id not meet wi th h'im f requently. a Do you know 1f anyone at the State Department had a -- picked up the phone and ca1led the Justice Department and said, you know, this Lutsenko fellow is not So great. If 23 you are getting jnformation from h'im, you might want to 24 better understand that he is not well-regarded at this point? 20 2l 25 A To be honest, I have no knowledge of that, and I 237 1 2 J can't say either yes or no. a Okay. I'11 ask you one last question, t'ime i s about to expi re af ter thi s round. There was some di scuss jon about "instances where 4 5 6 and then our 14ayor ani was operati ng i n Ukraj ne and havi ng meeti ngs. And we know that he has got some clients and other interests. Gi u1 i t4 It's fajr to say the Ukrainians are aware of hjs celebrity status, at least some Ukrainians? A I thi nk some Ukrai ni ans, 1 i ke many Ameri cans, remember him from the time he was Mayor of New York at the time of the attacks, September 11. Besides I mentioned,'in a positive 1ight, former heavyweight boxing champion, Mayor of Kyiv, Klychko. The other individuals that former Mayor Giuliani has chosen to associate in Ukraine have far less l5 posi 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 16 t7 ti ve reputati ons i n Ukrai ne. a Right. But, you know, he was at least somebody that was, you know, consjdered to be an international, you 22 polit'icaI figure from his time as Mayor of New York. A Right. Although, again, that would have had less impact in Ukrajne, whjch was focused on its own issues and challenges at the time. a Ri ght. But hi s abi 1 i ty to get meeti ngs i s 23 understandable? l8 t9 20 21 24 25 know, A I mean, he had an existing relationship with the mayor of Kyiv, and I think l4ayor Klychko would probably see 238 J at any moment. I would Say that is the leve1 of an easy ask. It was well known in Ukraine that his main paying clients in Ukraine at the time were the mayor of Kharkiv and 4 a Russian Ukrainian oligarch I 2 him 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 l3 14 Is this before 2015 I'm sorry, before A I believe that a 0kay. 2l 22 Z) 24 25 Giuliani's association with . Thank you. I could take another break. THE CHAIRMAN: Let's gets a 5-mi nute break. We sti 11 have a 1ot of material to get through, and we want to try to get you out aS a reasonable hour. So 1et's try to come back as soon as possible after a quick break. t4R. KENT: And i f THE CHAIRMAN: 20 Mayor l4ayor Kernes and Pavlo Fuks contractually began i n 20L7 l6 l9 2018 in the lRecess.l l8 Pavlo Fuks. a l5 t7 named Let's go back on the record. Secretary, I have just a few questions before I hand it back to Mr. Goldman. My colleagues asked you a great deal I want to go back to one of the origins of the narrative they were getting at. You mentioned there were four false narratives in the Solomon art'ic1e back i n Apri 1 of 2019. Is that ri ght? about the Bjdens and Burisma. four narratives that were introduced, led off by the Solomon articles. But I'm not sure that all four were introduced by 5o1omon. The first two MR. KENT: We11, there were 239 l3 definitely part one, part two, but there were a number of different platforms jn play that week. THE CHAiRMAN: And part one, was that Lutsenko's claim that Biden pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin because of the prosecutor general's off i ce i nvesti gati on of Buri sma? MR. KENT: No. I beljeve that the first day the two themes that were introduced were the anticorruption theme, and that was targeting the embassy, including the tetter that I had signed in Apri1 2015, and NABU, as in an organjzation, and then the 20L6 conversation. The discussions of the Bidens and Burisma was the third narrative theme that was introduced a day or two later. THE CHAIRMAN: So that was the third false narrative you t4 refer red to? I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 were l5 MR. KENT: Ri ght. l6 THE CHAIRMAN: And,'in fact, that false narrative that t7 the Vice President had pressured the firing of Shokin over l8 Burisma, Lutsenko himself would l9 20 tions on many j ssues that are mutually exclusive, and including on this 2t i ssue. later recant. Did he not? MR. KENT: lvlr. Lutsenko has held many posi THE CHAI RMAN 22 : Wel1, in mid-May of 201.9, Mr. Lutsenko, 23 were you aware, did an interview with Bloomberg in whjch 24 said 25 Are he had no evidence of wrongdoi you fami 1 i ar wi th that ng 'interview? by Biden or his he son. 240 J familiar w'ith the interview that he gave to The L.A. Times, in which he said that the activities related primarily to Zlochevsky's actions as minister, which 4 occurred several years before Hunter Biden came on 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 MR. KENT: I am more to the board. So hi s i ntervi ews thi s year, subsequent to leavi ng office, are more in accord with the facts as I understood them at the ti me, than h'is aSSert'ions aS prosecutor general THE CHAIRMAN: So tet me ask you a little bit more again about this false narrative since recanted. Just to be absolutely clear about this, when the Vice President was asked to make the case, or help make the case for Shokin's firing, this was the policy of the State Department, and the State Department was aski ng the V'ice Presi dent to assi st wi th the executjon of that PolicY? . l5 MR. KENT: That would be a l6 THE CHAI RMAN: And 'i t correct assessment, yes. was the pol i cy of othe r t7 international organizations as well that recognized that l8 Shokin was corrupt? 2l not allowing for reform of the prosecutor general ServiCe, and 'in contraSt, he actually waS actively undermining reform of the prosecutor general 22 servi ce and our assi stance. t9 20 23 24 25 MR. KENT: Correct. He was this involved, as you said, an effort to undermine the very inspector general office that the State Department had assiduously worked to help the Ukrainians THE CHAIRMAN: And 241 I establish to root out corruption within the prosecutor force? 2 MR. KENT: Correct. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: BY MR. 4 a 5 6 7 Mr. Goldman. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. Picking up off of that June 28 conference call that you ref erenced, f oIlowi ng that, you sa'id that you were 'in Toronto t4 for a meeting where Presjdent Zelenskyy also was present? A Correct. This was the Ukraine Reform Conference. It essentially is the primary friends, donors of Ukraine. This was the third edition. The first one was he1d, I believe, in Denmark; second in London; and the third was hosted in Canada by the Canadian Government. And Kurt VoIker and I were the ranking U.S. offjcials who attended for the l5 U.S. 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 a A a A And who was there from Ukraine? Presjdent Zelenskyy himself. of his senior aides? Many of h'is senior aides. In the meeting that we had on July 2, to the best of my recollection, those jncluded his chief of staff, Andriy Bohdan, who is a very controversi a1 fi gure; i t i ncluded hi s two closest personal And any assistants, a person named Shefir, and another one named Yermak; it included a professional in the presjdential apparatus, Igor Zhovkva; thejr ambassador to Canada, Andriy 242 I 2 Shevchenko, and an interpreter. a A And what was discussed at that meeting? 5 of U. S. -Ukrai ne relati ons, because of special representative for Ukraine negotiation Volker's focus on the Donbas conflict. That was one segment of the 6 conversati on. 7 When we J 4 The whole range got to more general bilateral relations, that 23 fi rst time, I mentioned earlier, that I heard directly from Kurt his assertion that Perry, Sondland, and Volker were now in charge of Ukraine policy. He made that asserti on to Presi dent Zelenskyy. Coming out of the meeting with the President, he explained how the meeting had gone on May 23 in the 0va1 0ff ice, that the three officers were the ones leading the he said that we're working on a phone charge, and that call wi th the Presi dent. And Zelenskyy cut him off at that point and said, just a phone call? How about the vi si t? And Volker sai d, fi rst a phone ca11, which this is a conversation happening on July 2. He said, We'11 aim for that perhaps next week, and hopefully that will lead into a meeting by the end of the month, July 29 and 30, whjch was roughly, I think, the dates that were discussed in the June L8 meeting that Secretary Perry 24 chai red. 8 9 l0 ll l2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 25 was the a Was there any discussion in that meeting in Toronto 298 I trying to understand. 2 cheri shi ng thj s 3 1 U. S. You have a reputation of loving and -Ukrai ne relati onshi p and dedi cati ng your 4 fe toward strengtheni ng the relati onshi p between the Uni ted States and Ukrai ne. That i s somethi ng that I 've heard. And 5 you get a readout from Lieutenant Colonel Vindman that 6 7 i doesn't have a 1ot of details, and you don't try to get more jnformation about the caIl. I just want to better that, any l0 got that readout that was lacking substance, that you chose not to try to get any more i nformati on. Thi s i s what you've dedi cated your 1 i fe ll towards strengthenjng t2 that. Can you better explain that? MR. KENT: I think some people try to be in the middle of everything, and some people try to do their job based on the condi ti ons whi ch they are i ssued. So, agai n, I don' t work at the Wh"ite House. There are conversations and meetings that I do not take part in. My job is to represent the State Department and try to promote our national 8 9 l3 t4 l5 16 t7 t8 understand your mindset once you this relationship. And I don't understand 2t interests through the policies that have been discussed and agreed to in the interagency format and to use the mechanisms that the State Department has under its ability, including 22 programming funded by appropriations from Congress, 23 those national 24 j t9 20 25 interests. So that's my to job. It's also ob for si x countri es. Now, admi ttedly, Ukrai ne i s the pursue bi ggest country. my 297 I 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 I stated earlier, jn my 27 years in the Foreign Service, I've never been on a Presidential call, and that is not normal for officials that are at the Embassy or at the State Department. The people who normatly are on a Presidentia1 call are staff at the National Security Counc'i1 and the White House. And I have not served as a detailee to the Nati onal Securi ty Counci 1 i n my career. MR. KENT: As t"lR. ZELDIN: As f ar as the participants on the ca1l, testified earlier that you got a readout of the call you from Li eutenant Colonel Vi ndman? ll MR. KENT: COrrCCt. t2 MR. ZELDIN: Was there anyone else on the call who would 22 typically give you a readout of that phone call? MR. KENT: I would say that it was standard procedure f or the di rector to g'ive a readout to the Deputy Assi stant Secretary. So, for instance, jt was also Lieutenant ColoneI Vindman who gave me the readout in April after the i naugural sorry, the electi on day vi ctory call . So that WaS standard practice, that the director for a country would give a readout to the DAS so that the policy DAS at State would know the substance of what was discussed so we could make sure that our policy going forward was aligned with the 23 conversati ons had by the Presi dent. l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 24 25 MR. ZELDIN: We only have a couple minutes somethi ng left, that i s sti 11 outstandi ng from a previous but round I'm 296 6 at the same time? l4R. KENT: I have not been a part of the meeting with si nce Zelenskyy si nce thi s call happened, and si nce I also I first saw this text 2 weeks ago. And of the meetings that I had with Zelenskyy previously, the meeting in March of 2019, which is when he was running as a candidate that was 7 Under Secretary Hale, Ambassador Yovanovitch, and myself 8 when 9 Zelenskyy, Ambassador Yovanovitch had already been recalled. I 2 J 4 5 Ambassador Yovanovitch I came back in May, when he was President-eIect that was jn the room at the l0 So the only meeting ll with t2 the pri nci pal i n the Ambassador Yovanovitch and Zelenskyy was meeti ng was Under MR. ZELDIN: Did you have an l3 , same time in l4arch, and Secretary Hale. opportunity to observe any t4 direct interaction l5 Yovanovi tch? t6 t7 I only saw when he was Candidate Zelenskyy w'ith her, and at that poi nt, the f ocus was on Under 5ecretary l8 Hale as the ranki ng vi si tor. between President Zelenskyy and Ambassador MR. KENT: MR. l9 ZELDIN: So no indications from that exchange that 2l that statement from President Zelenskyy with regards to loyalty to a previous President 22 not accepting Zelenskyy? 20 would help us understand MR. KENT: 23 24 25 i have no way of explaining why he said that, no MR. ZELDIN: Why and weren't you on the July 25th call? 295 I President Zelenskyy says something back 2 MR. ZELDIN: You're looking J MR. KENT: Right. at page 4? 6 is a fu11 paragraph of President Zelenskyy in the middle of the page, and towards the bottom of that paragraph, President Zelenskyy speaks about 7 Ambassador Yovanovi tch? 4 5 8 MR. ZELDIN: There MR. KENT: Yep. l0 in it, part of what President Zelenskyy says, quote: Her attitude toward me was far from the best as ll she had admired the previous President and she was on hjs t2 side. l3 enough, end quote. 9 t4 'lR. ZELDIN: And She would not accept Do you know where me as the new President well President Zelenskyy would belief that Ambassador l5 developed the l6 a previous President? have Yovanovitch was loyaI to l9 I do know that President Poroshenko thought she was not a fan of him. 1'4R. ZELDIN: And I recal1 you testi f yi ng to that 20 earlier. t7 l8 MR. KENT: I have no idea because 2t MR. KENT: Yeah. 22 MR. ZELDIN: That President Poroshenko had targeted 23 24 25 Ambassador Yovanovitch, which is why I wanted to ask you !his particular quote from President Zelenskyy. Did you have an opportunity to meet with President Zelenskyy and about 294 I parti cular meeti ngs. MR. ZELDIN: The 2 United States policy towards Ukraine 4 over the course of the last couple of years with regards to aid, support for Ukraine, would you assess it as getting 5 stronger? J MR. KENT: 6 I would say that, thanks to the appropriators 7 on the Appropriation Committee, the amounts 8 for 9 yes. l0 ll t2 13 assi stance to J available to Ukrai ne has i ncreased yearly si nce 20L4, MR. ZELDIN: And how access made important is jt to Ukraine to have avel i n. MR. KENT: I am the son of a submarine captain. I'm not the son of an Army cav or infantry offjcer, but I understand 22 experience and our Belarus desk officer was an officer who used Javelins is that they are incredibly effectjve weapons at stopping armored advance, and the Russians are scared of them. MR. ZELDIN: Earlier on, in one of the rounds, I believe this morning, there was djscussion with regards to the firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch, and later on, you testified that you read the July 25th transcript. Do you recal1 the part of the transcript where President Zelenskyy is speaking about 23 Ambassador Yovanovi tch? l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 24 25 from my colleagues who do have such MR. KENT: believe i somewhere have the transcript here, and yes, I our President says something, and then 293 I cases. 2 communi J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll Was cate there a person, an office, that you would wi th? t4R. KENT: The Ambassadors, G7 Ambassadors, plus the I believe, co11ective1y, the EU Ambassador, when they had a meet with President Poroshenko, my understanding is this was the type of i ssue that was ra'ised. Agai n, starti ng i n August 1.8, I was back in Washington, so I djd not participate in those meetings. The trend line and the deterioration started about the time I came back here to Washington. MR. ZELDIN: When communicating with Ukraine with these lists, was Lutsenko or any of the people from his office 22 of those meetings? MR. KENT: I can't say for certajn. I do not think it was normal for the prosecutor general to be attending the meetings when, you know, eight Ambassadors come in to see Presi dent Poroshenko. I t' s not 1 i ke they met that often. Prosecutor General Lutsenko, in my experience, occasionally, would summon Ambassadors or Embassy representatives to have meetings with him for sort of exchange on the situation, the current status of rule of law in the country. MR. ZELDIN: It's a possibility that somebody representing Lutsenko might be present at any of these 23 meet i ngs? t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 24 25 present in any n, thi s trend 1i ne started last summer about the time I came back, so I don't know who was in any MR. KENT: Agai 292 I 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 u t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 the names associated with the cases? MR. KENT: 0n any given month, there would have been that rose to the fore as being emblematic of the di recti on. For i nstance, last December, 20L8, one of the candidates for President, Anatoliy Hrytsenko, was assaulted i n a park'ing garage i n the ci ty of Odesa. A f ormer Def ense Minister running for President was assaulted by thugs, and there was no effort to investigate that. That is a classic example of intimidation, and the lack of an'investigation js a suggestion that those in power were not interested in holding the people to account because the accounts indjcated that they were probably connected to the power organizations. MR. ZELDIN: Did you keep track of these individual cases that we were engagi ng Ukrai ne wlth? MR. KENT: The Embassy, as part of its advocacy, would have no doubt kept a running list and, in my experience from when I was there, would have discussed this extensively with perhaps cases t9 the other likeminded Ambassadors. And there was a collection of Ambassadors to the G7 countries, plus the Ambassador to 20 the EU, met almost weekly. And the issue of the 2t deterioration of the rule of law and the lack of 22 accountability and impunity for these attacks was a frequent ZJ topi c. l8 24 25 MR. ZELDIN: would you speak Wi th regards to thi s 1 j st of cases, who to on the Ukraine side about the individual 291 the case of Katia Handz'iuk became a clarion example of the 5 failure for the country to move forward in the same way that the murder of Georgiu Gongadze in 2000 encapsulated the failure of then President Kuchma to move the country forward. MR. ZELDIN: But this would be a case that Ambassador 6 Yovanovich would be very 2 J 4 7 8 9 familiar with? MR. KENT: This is a case that was under great di scussi on. The 'ini ti al attack occurred i n the summer of 2018, I believe, that the activist eventually died in roughly of l0 November ll t2 I just don't want to put any words in your mouth, that's why I 'm aski ng the questi on. Thj s would t3 be a case that Ambassador Yovanovi tch would have been very t4 fami 1 i 2018. MR. ZELDIN: Yeah, ar wi th? I would i magi ne so, Yes l5 MR. KENT: l6 t'lR. ZELDIN: And were there many other cases . that you 22 of indivjdual names of cases as you sit here today, without having to go through the entire list? MR. KENT: I honestly the number of uninvestigated assaults on members of civil society, the media, and the opposition, as I said, eventually reached 100, and that was a trend fine and a message to everybody. So I cannot cite a1t 23 100. t7 l8 t9 20 2l 24 25 have recal1 t'lR. ZELDIN: though, I wasn't asking. I just wanted to ask, if necessary, there are many cases that you recal1 290 1 2 J 4 5 6 the media, and members of the opposition. In the year before President Poroshenko ran for reelection, there were over a hundred such attacks against ci vi 1 soci ety, the medi a, and occasi onal1y po1 i ti cal opponents, none of those were prosecuted by Yuriy Lutsenko. MR. ZELDIN: Do you reca11 the names of any of the l3 of the indjvidual cases that you spoke to or Ambassador Yovanovitch spoke to Ukraine about? MR. KENT: I would say that, in the last 3 years, the most prom'inent case was this anticorruption act'ivist that I mentioned. Her name is Katia Handziuk, H-a-n-d-z-i-u-k. She was in a town in Kherson, and according to activists, civil society, and journaf ists, there were politicians connected to t4 President Poroshenko, whjch was also Prosecutor General Yuriy l5 Lutsenko's party, as well as the party connected l6 Tymoshenko. And despite l7 18 firm action taken by the prosecutor general. MR. ZELDIN: And this was a case important to you and t9 Ambassador Yovanovi tch? 7 8 9 l0 u t2 20 2t 22 23 24 25 names MR. KENT: This was to Yuliya this general knowledge, there was no a case important for the rule of 1aw to change Ukraine, starting wi th the Revolut'ion of Di gni ty. So, i f you were to ask a Ukrainian over the last year, if they had to cite one case that encapsulated the failures of President Poroshenko and his team, which'included Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, under a President who had run 289 1 in Ukraine about any of the Ukraine cases? MR. KENT: During the period of time when Yuriy Lutsenko prosecutor 2 3 was prosecutor general, and he became prosecutor general 4 before Ambassador Yovanovitch arrived at post in August 2016, 6 the U.S. Government had concerns that Ukrainian law enforcement, prosecutorial, and intelligence services 7 occasionally harassi ng and i nvesti gati ng wi thout meri t civi 8 society activists, 9 opponents. 5 members were 1 of the media, and political l5 of concern that those in office were using that office not to prosecute crimjnats but to put pressure on ci vi 1 soci ety, the medj a, and poI i ti ca1 opponents. In that context, yes, both the Ambassador and I rai sed concerns speci fi cally about acti on taken wi thout evident merit to pressure civil society, the media, and l6 po1 i l0 ll t2 13 t4 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 And so ti cal it was a matter opponents. MR. ZELDIN: Was or were there this a conversation so1e1y in di scussions about speci fi c general, cases? MR. KENT: When, i n a country whose leadi ng j ournali st of a President in 2000, when journalists are attacked, when an ant'icorruption activist has acid thrown in her face at the orders of people that were po1 i ti ca11y connected and after L2 operati ons she di ed, yes, we raised specific cases of concern regarding the misuse of state of f i ce to go af ter ci vi 1 soci ety act'ivi sts, members of was murdered on the orders 288 ulR. I 2 ZELDIN: Assistant Secretary Nuland's name has come up a few time, Kathy Kavalec? 5 MR. KENT: Kathy Kavalec. 4 MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware of Assi stant Secretary Nuland 5 'instructing Kathy Kavalec to speak to Christopher Steele 6 during the 20L6 campaign? I was 'in 8 Kyiv, and Kathy Kavalec was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, and so I was not aware 9 of what the nature of 7 MR. KENT: engagement between Assistant Secretary l0 Nuland and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kavalec would have ll been, no. MR, ZELDIN: Are you aware t2 of Ambassador Yovanovitch l3 ever havi ng conversati ons wi th Ukrai ne offi cj a1s on speci fi t4 individual cases before the prosecutor? l'lR. KENT: When you say "specif l5 ic cases, " what do you t6 mean? l7 l8 of the prosecutor's cases, any of the Ukrai ne's prosecutor's cases, are you fami 1 i ar wi th any t9 conversations Ambassador Yovanov"itch had with that Ukraine 20 prosecutor about any 2t MR. 14R. c ZELDIN: In any of those cases? KENT: VrJhich prosecutor are you referring to? L) referring to the state prosecutor, but with regards to Ukraine's state prosecutor or 24 any cases wi thi n the Ukra1ne Government, are you aware of 25 Ambassador Yovanovitch having any conversations 22 MR. ZELDIN: We11, I was with any 287 I terminology "when Volker released his tweets"? A a 2 J I should have said WhatsApp messages; I'm sorry. And so I just wanted to circte back to that, that I 4 don't believe 5 himself. 6 you know, the A 7 8 Ambassador Volker has released anything He provided documents to the comm'ittees, and then, committee is that your understanding? I do not know how that information made it into the publ i c domai n. a A 9 Uh-huh. ll I do not engage the medi a and have stud'iously avoided the media before coming here. I cannot say that's t2 been l0 t3 t4 l5 text Kurt's approach. a Okay. But you're not messages 1i A aware of him releasing his ke aff i rmatively on hi s own? I do not know how hi s WhatsApp messages made i t 2t into the public domain. a I mean, it's conceivable that somebody on the Hj11 sjde, I know that might come as a shock, would push certain messages out. Is that something that A That's one opti on. a 0kay. So you think that maybe he's pushing his own 22 messages l6 t7 l8 t9 20 out on hi s I do not know. 24 A a 25 MR. CASTOR: 23 own? Okay. Mr. Zeldi n. 286 I 2 with this, and that was the mechanism. a You don't have concerns with that, do you? A J 4 That sounds like an appropriate centralized way of gathering documents from many people. a 5 So the function of the State Department collecting 6 the documents and going through the documents, organizing the 7 documents, and producing them 8 understand to be ordinary to Congress is what you course? l3 identified record collector was to go through all of my records and identify information and provide that information. So that's what I dld. What happens after that i s a process that I don't have a 0kay. You don't have a 1ot of experience with l4 that? A Wel1, my role as an l5 A Th'is i s the f i rst time l6 process, yes. 9 l0 ll t2 t7 a 0kay. So that I've gone through thi s you're not in a position to evaluate l8 whether the process undertaken here has been irregular or t9 i mproper? 23 s i s the fi rst time I've done thi s type of process where I've had to go through all my handwritten notes and other forms of communication to find evidence that might be respons'ive to the sub j ects that were 1i sted i n the 24 subpoena. 20 2l 22 25 A a Thi 0kay. And then a couple times you used the 285 I 2 a J the State Department did that automatically, but there were these other records that would not have been weeks was, accessed automatically, and those included memos that were 7 wrjtten but never logged and sent to a principal like the Secretary, handwri tten notes, or other commun'ications. a Okay. Did I understand your testimony that you were concerned about the integrity of the document collection 8 process? 4 5 6 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A V^/hat I said was, when we had our meeti ng on the 3rd of 0ctober, based on instructions that had been prepared by others that I presumed were'in our congressional liaison in the 1ega1 offi ce, that when they i denti fi ed potenti al chi ef record collectors, that there Were individuals that were not included that were in the listing, and, therefore, there were additional people that were asked to check for records. a Okay. And I may have heard this jncorrectly, but 'it's not your understanding that the State Department officia1s look for documents and then send them in to Congress individually, right? A It was clear in the instructions that, as part of the process of collecting documents, the records should be identifjed, and then there would be a central repository for the processing of those documents. And that's in an office that is under our what's known as the A Bureau, the Admin'istrative Bureau. So I guess there's a unit that deals 284 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll testimony or your testimony? I have not talked to Masha since Friday, no. 0kay. And to the extent you reference her testi mony, i t's the prepared statement? A It was made ava'ilable and, I read it online, A a I think The New York Times. a Okay. This morning, we were talking about the State Department's record collection procedure and responding to the subpoena. Have you ever been jnvolved with a congressionat records request? A The only previous record request I was not specifically that I have seen, as a record collector, t2 although 13 was the Senate's Select Inte11 i gence t4 documents l5 t9 far as you know, the ordinary process work for producing documents to Congress? A WeIl, again, I have been present or seen the process happen twice, once when I was at an Embassy and, the other tjme, the past 2 weeks at the State Department. At the 20 Embassy, there was a mechanism where 2t management 22 information systems, went through and were able to extract t6 t7 l8 a named Commi ttee's request for related to Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik. How did the as our information resource, our specialists who work with the from the system of backups any emails 24 the individuals listed. 25 And what was that had reference to different about this search the last 2 283 I 2 3 4 d you have any communi cat'ions wi th anyone at the State Department about your testimony here today, other than the ones you've described with the lawyers and a Di A Well , I descri bed early on a communi cati on about 5 the document search. Subsequent to that, I djd not have any 6 discussions or coordjnation about what 7 personally. 8 counsel, then went through counsel with 9 several letters that were signed by Under Secretary of i The conversati ons wi th the counSel, lega1 Management ll conversati ons that t2 parti ci pate l3 a But nobody has trjed to influence your testimony. t7 before her testimony l9 A ,Igot i n. l6 l8 ce had, which I did not Is that correct? No. That i s cor rect. A And did you talk to Ambassador a l5 offi Brian Bulatao, and then there were a number of l0 t4 would say When Yovanovitch after or with us? you say "ta1ked, " what's your timeframe? What are your time 23 a Since she appeared, which was last Friday? A I have not had any conversations with her since then. My wife, I believe, has because of the health of her mother. And my wife visited her mother in hospital and then 24 had a conversation with Masha. 20 2l 22 25 a Okay. But you didn't speak to her about her 282 I been the same week and 2 He came over from ) 2018. O A 4 5 certainly was within the same month. Joint Chiefs at the end of the Do you know when his detail was summer of up? Generally, again, I've never worked at the NSC, but general understandi ng i s i t's L-year renewable. 6 my 7 generally, because of the budget and staffing patterns, they 8 ask And ll for detailees, which the host agencies pay for. And generatly they come from State, 0ffice of Secretary of Defense, or JCS in the Intel Community, and Treasury also provides jndividuals. Under Secretary Tillerson, when he had t2 our staff freeze, he tried to limit all detailees. So, as l3 24 result, the number of State Department officials on detail at the NSC dropped dramatically, and that required, in order to staff it at similar 1eve1s, an increase in detailees from the lntel Communi ty, the Pentagon, and JCS. a Do you know when hjs detail is up? A Wel1, he's obviously in his second year now, and I get the sense that there are mechanisms to al1ow for renewable, even though that's not standard. Those jobs are incredibly draining, so most people are happy to do L year and move on. But he clearly got an extension to a second year, but I've never discussed that issue with him. But my presumpti on 'is that, at some poi nt, i t was extended by a 25 second year. 9 10 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 21 22 23 a 281 3 th your staff? A Yes. He would reach out I 'm the Deputy Assistant Secretary, but there's an office that works on 4 Ukraine, 14o1dova, and Belarus, and those are three countries 5 for whi 6 was actually recruited to work on Russia, but he ended 7 working on Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus, so he 8 one 1 2 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Vi ndman's i nteracti ons wi ch he had responsi bi 1 i ty wi thi n the NSC, although he up is a staff of or those three countri es. So 'it was natural that he would turn to an office that had multiple people working on those countries to see if they could be supportjve. a Okay. And you explained that he had, from time to time, made a lot of requests of your staff? A From time to time, he asked for a very short fuse detailed documentation that the members felt, first of all, was impossible to meet on his deadline and, second of all, distracted them from the work they had to do. And usually they would raise their complaints to their office it he d jd not f eel his . And I, di rector, conversatj ons wi th Alex could provi de suffi ci ent ref i ef, he would ask me to weigh in. a How long has this he been going on? A Well, I mean, I believe that Alex came on to the account at the end of the summer of 2018. So my return f rom Kyiv, I started work the day after Labor Day in September 2018, and his arrival to the NSC staff may have f 280 I Catheri ne doi ng her 1-year 2 Ukrai ne desk ) officer 4 Emba s 5 NSC. 6 at stint, she had worked at the the State Department. And there was an sy at the 'in Kyiv, and he came back and did a year stint So my n amed who had been working principal interlocutor when I would go at to the N5C 7 to have conversations generally was the State Department 8 di rector, 9 l0 ll t2 a 14 at the NSC do not travel on thei r own, but they often accompany principals. I l5 can say that Victoria Nuland was Assistant Secretary, t6 sometimes Celeste Wallander and l7 with her to countries, whether that would be Russia l8 Ukrai ne. l3 T t9 a 20 I 2l 22 23 24 25 Generalty, directors Charlie Kupchan would travel or life in support of others, and so it hurts me to say this, but generally people remember who the principal on the trip and not all the staff who actually do most of the work. a You talked earl i er about L'ieutenant Colonel And, again, I spend most of my was 279 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 all of which were Ukrainian, in the black book. a Would it be fair to say that there were some Ukrai ni ans that were tryi ng to 'inf luence the outcome? A I honestly do not know. I was in Ukraine, and so I was not privy to whatever activjties may have been happening here in the United States. almost a I I I ll t2 l3 14 l5 l6 t7 T l8 l9 I 20 2l 22 23 24 25 ! when I would go to the NSC, the person I would normally talk to directly was the State Department detailee, the woman I mentioned previously, Catherjne Croft, who has been working with Kurt VoIker, she was a director at the NSC for Ukraine. And prior to 278 the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the time? I a Who was 2 A It J a So, other than th'is, you know, reading would have been Bridget Brink, my predecessor. this story, 4 you djd not ever come i nto any f i rsthand j nf ormat'ion relati 5 to 6 ng ? A O No. l0 0r learn about any 'ini ti ative on behalf of the DNC to promulgate some of this information? A No. a The story walks through Serhiy Leshchenko's role in ll publi cizing the 14anafort ledgers. 7 8 9 t2 l3 t4 l5 A a A a A The so-ca11ed black ledgers, yes. What do you reca11 about that? About the black ledgers? Yeah. l8 I recal1 that those were documents apparently found at the former estate of the previous President who fled to Russi a, Vi ktor Yanukovych, and 'i t i ndi cated 'indi vi duals who t9 had been receiving payments by the former t6 l7 2t ruling party. a And at the time Leshchenko, at Ieast it's reported here, suggested that his motivat'ion was partly to undermine 22 T r ump? 20 23 A He's a Ukrai ni an ci ti zen. I don't know what hi s 24 motivations are. I know that he was an investigative 25 journatist, and there were, as I recall, hundreds of names, 277 I 15:37 p.m. l BY MR. 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll CASTOR: this article, did you do any fo1lowup, communicate with anybody at the State Department about the validity of this? A I was jn Ukraine. They were in Washington. And I presumed that people had read it. But it's an articte by two journalists that I don't think I've met. But, you know, it was obviously, people were talking about it because of the a And when you read allegatjons -- a Are you fami 1i ar wi th the Embassy's posture duri ng 2t this time period with Ambassador Chaly? A Again, at this tjme, which we're talking about the period of the election, which is November L5, and this article coming out the month of the inaugural in 20L7. I was in Ukraine, Kyiv, not here in Washington. That said, I do know Ambassador Chaly. I met h'im for the f i rst time jn the fall of 2004 when he was the think tank O And he had written an op-ed, I guess, that said some Iess than posi tive th'ings about Candidate Trump? A It's poss'ible. I mean, "h€" being Ambassador 22 Chaly? 23 a 24 A t2 l3 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 l9 20 25 focused Yeah. If you say so. Honestly, again, I on that end of the relationship. was in Ukraine 276 things just and ask you whether you have I to 2 awareness J 4 5 some any or ever remember th'is i ssue comi ng up. I 'm not going to ask you to, you know, adopt the artjcle as, you know,, personal endorsement or anythi ng. Were you aware that a Ukrainian American named 7 *rr, you know, a consultant for the Democratic National Committee and had made some overtures to the 8 Ukrai ni an Embassy? 6 I l0 A I was not aware of that. I did at the time read this article nearly 3 years ago now. But, yes, I read this ll art'ic1e. 9 t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 17 l8 t9 20 2t 22 Z) 24 25 275 A a A a A I 2 3 I said -Could you just go through that What Ri again? ght. l0 I haven't heard that name lately. That was a message that was described in the shorthand of the desi re to have thi s was the Gordon Sondland messaging of what the Ukrainians need to say in shorthand 2015. And in shorthand, it was suggested that the Ukrainians needed Zelenskyy needed to go to a microphone and basically there needed to be three words in the message, ll and 4 5 6 7 8 9 l2 l3 that was the shorthand. a A O Clinton was shorthand for 2016? 20L6, yes. l5 Okay. Are you aware of the narrat'ive that there were some Ukrainians that tried to influence the outcome of l6 the electi t4 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 on? I recal1 reading a Politico article to that effect in the spring of 20L7, yeah. lMi nori ty Exhi bi t No. 4 Was marked for identification.l A BY MR. CASTOR: what are we a Okay. I'm goi ng to mark as exhi bi t up to, 4? These guys love th'is article. Th'is is a Politico article by Ken Vogel dated January 20L7. It's, ljke, L8 pages. It goes into some depth. I'm just going to point you 274 I she said, why? And he says, 2 you want J Ukraine, you need to go 4 download those apps. to communicate with me, So she came back 5 that's back to I communicate. to the embassy communications and Diplomatic Securi 7 assessment was 8 that 9 long as records were saved. was if and have them the embassy. We checked that Viber So the prime mini ster of 6 we were authorized how ty speci a1 i with sts. our The not as secure as WhatsApp, to use WhatsApp for and communications as ll of WhatsApp by U. S . offi ci a1, State Department offi ci a1, Whi te House offj ci a1 , presents t2 problems as long as everything l3 23 I didn't say that, but at least we're in Like, what kind of problems would it present as long as everything is saved? A WeI1, I th j nk there always 'is a challenge wi th the i ntegri ty of data. And, for i nstance, Mj ni ster Avakov of Ukraine, who I've referenced several times, minister of interior, told me and another member of the staff, in 2018, that there were now ways, thanks to Israeli code writers, of cracking the alleged encryption of text messages on WhatsApp. So for people who thought they were encrypted and therefore safe, at least the text messages, the texts as opposed to the 24 voice could be accessed by people. 10 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 25 a 0kay. So the use is no saved? A a a 0kay. Moments ago you referenced the name Clinton? 273 I actively promoting the request for Ukraine to 2 i nvesti gati ons. J a open these Okay. And it would be inconsistent with your 4 understandi ng i f these i nvesti gati ons were for 5 open matters i nto m'isdeeds by Ukrai n j an genui ne m j sdeeds 6 by Ukrai ni ans, whether i t relates to Buri sma or 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Ukrai ni ans to 20L5? to have effectjve 1aw enforcement and j usti ce sector i nsti tuti ons. That' s i n order to be able to investigate, prosecute, and judge any criminal acts. Again, as I said, I think the issue for what we ask them to do in certain cases should start from whether there's a criminal nexus in the U.5. because that's our role as the U.S. Government, not to dictate that you should investigate this person because it's in our political interest. a Okay. You've mentioned WhatsApp a few times. That's a completely standard messaging application to use for State Department offi ci aIs, correct, aS long as everythi ng i s saved fi rst? A In certai n countri es i t's almost requi red for business. And I'11 give you the example of how I ended up first using WhatsApp. When Ambassador Yovanovjtch had her fi rst meeti ng wi th the then new prime mi ni ster of Ukrai ne, Volodymyr Hroysman, who is 41- years old, and she arrived'in August, so I'm presuming it was late August or early September, he asked if she were on WhatsApp and Viber. And A We obviously want Ukraine 272 for Ukraine. We both wanted the best for U.S.-Ukraine relations. He saw Rudy Giuliani as an issue to be addressed, and potentialty an a1ly to be incorporated to get the U.S. President to where we wanted our relationship to be, which is having a meeting. We 2 J 4 5 both wanted the best My concern 6 could be summed up by the means don't l0 fy you know, the ends don't necessari 1y justify the means, that jf we're trying to put trade space on the table of an i nvesti gation, that can violate a pri nci ple that undermines what we're trying to do on a matter of ll pol i cy. l2 r3 a My understanding of what how he looked at Rudy was that he thought Mr. Gi u1i an'i was ampl i f yi ng a negati ve t4 narrat'ive, meaning a false narrative, meaning that whatever l5 Rudy 7 8 9 necessari 1y j usti 20 Giuliani was communicating, you know, about to the President was something that needed to be fixed. And since the Presi dent and Rudy Gi uli ani had communi cations on a somewhat regular basis, he thought that it was a relationship he had to try to work on if he cou1d. A Yeah. That is my understanding of his rationale 21 for l6 17 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 engaging the former mayor of New York. a Okay. And by no means was he adopting the narrative that Rudy Gj uf i ani was proselyti zi ng? A I don't know what Kurt's view was about the narrative. What I know is that by September, Kurt was 27 1 th your understandi ng? A WeIt, I think I can only share the conversation I had with Kurt, and the conversation was framed differentty. i nconsi 2 J stent a A 4 wi 0kay. l5 n, I wasn't here. I haven' t Seen the transcript of what he said to you. So I can only share my recollect'ion of my conversations wi th him. a 5ure. And did he communicate that differently, or did you just maybe understand it differently, or is there a possjble disconnect there, or are these two different things? A I think that there are two people who we're talking at this point about a conversation that took place 3 months ago, that neither of us were taking notes. We were standing up. And so, I would say that, you know, he has shared his recollection of the conversation, and I shared l6 mi ne. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 t7 l8 But, agai Okay. But your recollection was that they were pushing for political investigations that had no merit? a 2t that he was going to engage Rudy Giuljani about Ukraine, because Rudy Giuliani was clearly inftuencing the President's views of Ukraine, I reminded him 22 what Rudy 23 about which l9 20 24 25 A When he said Gi u1i ani was doi ng i n Ukra'ine and about Ukrai ne, I had concerns. That's why I say that I think Kurt was approaching in my understanding, he was approaching this issue tacticatly. 270 a I 2 But he thought that it may have that the aid may be contingent on this? 5 A I have subsequently seen his tweets, which -- or not his tweets, the WhatsApp messages that Kurt Volker issued. And so it appears to me, having seen those WhatsApp 6 messages, 7 Sondland and Ambassador Volker. J 4 l'4R. G0LDI-4AN: 8 9 yi eld to the l0 ll that he was sharing his concerns with mi When 0kay. I think our time is up. So we will nori ty. BY t"IR. a Ambassador CASTOR: Votker was communicating to you about various l3 that would occur i n the Ukrai ne, whether i t relates to Buri sma 2015, i s i t poss'ible the way I t4 understood hi s t2 l5 i nvesti gati ons A a Ri you know, we spoke.to Volker. ght. 23 in here. The way I understood his the way he communicated it was that if there were Ukrainians engaged i n mi sdeeds , cor rupt i on, then , you know and i t could rel ate to Bu ri sma, i t could rel ate to br i ngi ng Hunte r Biden on the board, jt could relate to Ukrainians doing nefarious things in the run-up to the 2015 election, then the Ukrainians ought to investigate fe11ow Ukrainians. A So you' re sayi ng that's what Ambassador Volker sai d 24 to you and the l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 25 O He was commi ttee? That was my understanding of what he said. Is that 269 Ukraine is known as the YES Conference. 2 for Yalta European Strategy J under Ukrai ni an control. That used to stand back when Crimea and Yalta were 8 to happen, start in a couple of days. I flew out to Ukraine to take part in that conference as did Ambassador Volker. And Charge Taylor indicated that Ambassador Sondland was pushing a ljne that included having Presi dent Zelenskyy gi ve an i ntervi ew potenti a1ly wi th CNN 9 during the 4 5 6 7 And it was going YES Conference that weekend'in which he would willingness to send l0 this public signal of ll 'investigat'ions. t2 a And did Ambassador Sondland discuss a White House vi s'it i n the context of that statement? A I think the anticipation or the hope was that sending that signal would clear the way for both the White House visit as well as the resumption or the clearing of the admj nj strative hold on securi ty assi stance, whjch had been placed by OMB. Although, Charge Taylor asserted to me l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 announc'ing a pursue 2t that both Tim t'lorrison and Gordon Sondland specifically said that they d'id not believe that the two issues were linked. a what was Ambassador Taylor's reaction to this whole 22 conversati l9 20 23 24 25 A on? He told me he indicated to Gordon, he said, This is wrong. That's what I recall him sayi ng to me, agai n, ora11y reading out of a conversation of which I was not a part. 268 2 told B'i11 Taylor, that he, Gordon, had talked to the President, POTUS in sort of J shorthand, and POTUS wanted nothing less than President 4 Zelenskyy 5 and Cl i nton. 1 6 7 8 9 l0 And Gordon had a A told to go to And h'im, Tim, and Tim microphone and say in return for investigations, Biden, what? That was not clear to me. I wasn't part of this Bill Taytor then followed up with a video conference, our normal Monday call in whjch he elaborated on hi s conversati ons wi th both seni or di rector Morri son on the exchange. But l5 well as with Ambassador Sondland on the 8th. a And what djd he say? A He said that Morrison jndicated that Rudy Giulianj had recently tatked to the President again, and he said, as you can imagine, that creates difficulties managing the l6 Ukrai ne account. ll t2 13 14 7l.n as t7 0n his conversation with Ambassador Sondland on the 8th, l8 24 I believe they went into more detajl about Ambassador Sondland's efforts to try to facilitate a proper approach, in his vjew, to open up the possibility of a visit to the Whi te House. a So can you explain a 1itt1e bit? A Wel1, this was taking place thjs conversat'ion was taking place with Ambassador Taylor and I on the 9th of 25 September. The biggest annual conference on Ukraine in t9 20 2t 22 23 267 or his boss, which was Fiona Hill I Colonel Vindman 2 now has become Tim Morrison. J 4 5 6 7 and then a Right. And I thank you for that clarification. official U.S. policy remain the same, but there's sort of secondary or shadow policy that was now being perpetrated U.S. officialsT Was that what you learned? A I had growing concerns that individuals were l0 that had not been discussed and endorsed in the formal policy process, yes. a Now, it sounds like you went on vacation right ll after 8 9 t2 r3 t4 l5 l6 t7 this memo Did you have any subsequent conversations with this revelation that you had? A Well, I believe I went away. I Day. The next communi cat'ion reca11 was a WhatsApp message 20 September 24 25 I anyone about l9 23 by to fi1e, whjch, just as an aside, assume you also provided to the State Department -A I did. to turn over. a you wrote Labor 22 a pushing communications with Ukrainians l8 2t So 7, that came back or data poi nt that I after can Charge Taylor sent me on which would have been, I think, the Saturday after Labor Day. a And what did that WhatsApp message say? A Charge Taylor indicated that he had talked to Tim Morri Son, who 'is the seni or di rector f or Europe, Who replaced Fiona Hilt. And Tim indicated that he had talked to Gordon. 266 8 is never easy. Pres'ident Poroshenko spent several years also trying to get a visit to the White House, and that was more happenstance, the visit he made in June 20L7. 5o I have an appreciation that just because a leader of a country wants to visjt Washington and have an 0va1 Office visit doesn't mean it that happens. So I would say there was one track of trying to get a visit. There was another track of what we were engaging 9 Ukrajne formally through normal channels. And then this I 2 J 4 5 6 7 Presidents ll particular moment was the time where not just what I read on tweets by private cjtizens, but a greater understanding of t2 actions taken by U.S. off ic'ia1s, in this case, l3 VoIker, that l0 Ambassador my concerns grew. l8 just so we can understand, you sort of descri bed j ust there ki nd of two parallel tracks of offi ci a1 U . S. po1 i cy. Is that an accurate assessment? A I thi nk offi ci al U.5 . pof i cy are pol i ci es that are determined and endorsed. And in this administration there's t9 the National Security Presidential t4 l5 l6 t7 a And Memorandum 4 that was 2t in April of 20L7, and that actually is what determines the formal policy process for formulating U.S. policy on any 22 issue or country. 20 23 24 25 issued talking about now are issues and approaches that were not discussed in the interagency process as staffed by the NSC and the person of either Lieutenant And what we're 265 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 A Those a1i gn wl th the Rudy Gi u1i an'i tweet. I thi nk it was June 2L, as well as some of the other story lines from earlier in the spring before President Zelenskyy was elected. a Rlght. i just want to be clear that when you say poli ticalty mot'ivated jnvestigation A That j s what I'm referri ng to, yeah. that's what you're referring to. 0kay. a Were you aware of efforts to convince the Ukrainian Government to i ssue a statement a couple days before the l0 August L5 time period? ll of the ef f ort to negot'iate the text of the statement that came out as a result of Ambassador t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 A I was not aware Volker's testimony here, and the tweets that he released, not until I had read those. a So you were completely unaware oo, of those discussions related to a possible statement about j nvesti gati ons? A Cor rect. 23 at that point, on August 15, when you look back on the previous 2 months, let's say, the readout from the June 28 call that you got from Ambassador Taylor, the conversation that you had with Ambassador Volker in Toronto, did you have a different view on what thjs White House visit and the jnterplay between a potentjal White House visit and 24 these i nvesti gati l8 t9 20 2t 22 25 a A Now, As I ons? mentioned before, arranging visi ts between 264 4 after having had these two conversations, I wrote a note to the file saying that I had concerns that there was an effort to initiate politicatty motivated prosecutions that were injurious to the rule of 1aw, both in Ukraine and the 5 U.S. I 2 J And so l5 I informed the senior officjal sti11 present and the European Bureau at 7:30 on a Friday night in the middle of the summer, which was 14ichael Murphy, and informed him of my intent to write a note to the file, which he agreed was the right thing to do. a And when you say pol i ti cat ly mot'ivated 'investigations, are you referring to investigations that were also referenced in that JuIy 25 call record? A At the tjme, I had no knowledge of the specifics of the call record, but based on Bill Taylor's account of the t6 engagements t7 Yermak l8 investigations that were being suggested were the ones that t9 Rudy Gi u1 i 20 Buri sma, and 20L5. 2t a And I understand you didn't know the contents of the call record, but now being able to read the call record as you have, you are referring to the B'iden investigation that the President mentioned, as well as the CrowdStrike 20L6 i nvesti gati on. Is that ri ghtT 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 22 23 24 25 with Andriy Yermak that were the engagements of with Kurt Volker, at that point it was clear that the ani had been tweeti ng about, meani ng Bi den, 263 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll I described to Catherine the day before, which js the Mutual Legal Ass'istance Treaty opti on. And I told Bi 11 Taylor, that's wrong, and we shouldn't be doing that as a matter of U.5 . pol i cy. a What did he say? A He sai d he agreed wi th me. a Now, had you had any conversat'ions with Ambassador Taylor after July 25 and prior to August L5 about th'is issue? A Not that I can reca11. a Had you had any conversations with well A About this issue, I mean, we had a -what O A t2 13 Yes. regularly scheduled weekly teleconference that nvolved teams, and i f there were anyth'ing sensi l4 i l5 could fin'ish up in a one-to-one. We tive, we also had a relationship 24 that jf there were needs, just ljke with any ambassador, they could call me up, you know, for an unscheduled conversation. a And that never occurred in that 3-week span? A I do not recall us having a conversation specifically, you know, if you wi11, out of the regular schedute unti 1 Fri day, August 15. And I say i t's a Fri day, because I was scheduled to get on a p1ane, leave my house at about 5:00 a.m. to go to the airport, f1y out to California to go hiking in Yosemite with my family. So I had a very 25 time-bound limi l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 Z) t. 262 I jdeas. 2 And Some of them are great; some of them are not so good. 3 part of the role of the special assistant as well as people like me is to ensure that the ideas stay within the 4 bounds a A a 5 6 7 8 of U. S. po1 i cy And what was her that onboard. But why was that conversation important to you to She took crystalize what was going A 9 response? on? We11, because there had been a lot of ta1k, you l0 know. Frankly, what a private ci ti zen tweets i s an exercj se ll in t4 of First Amendment rights, but when you have U.S. Government employees, or i n thi s case, a spec'iat U. S. Government employee potentially seemingly to align to that view, that's when it became real for me and a matter of l5 concern. l6 t7 that was, as I said, I said the L5th and L6th, because the next day, I had a conversation with Charge Taylor l8 i l9 Special Representatjve Volker had been engaging Andriy 20 Yermakl t2 l3 2t 22 23 24 25 one way And n whi ch he ampl i f i ed the same theme. And he i ndi cated that that the President and h'is private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, were interested in the initiation of investigations; and that Yermak was very uncomfortable when this was rajsed with hjm, and suggested that if that were the case, jf that were really the position of the United States, i t should be done officially and put in wri ting, essentially 261 mouth, but there was a significance 2 What was A a J to August L5 and 15. the significance to those dates in your mind? 0n August l-5, the new special assistant to Special ll Croft, came to my office and asked me, said she was trying to find out some information on behalf of Kurt. And she said, you, George, know about our relati ons wj th Ukrai ne, part'i cularly i n 1aw enforcement. Have we ever asked the Ukrajnians to investigate anybody? And I told her, I said, we11, Catherine, there are two ways of looking at that question. If there is a crime that was comm'i tted i n the Un j ted States and any nexus f or us to t2 take act'ion, we have two mechani sms: l3 Legal Assistance Treaty, and we have the legaI attaches at t4 the embassy, and that's the way a law enforcement investigation should engage the Ukrainians' The other option, which I -- from the context of what has been spoken about 'in the preSS, maybe what you' re aski ng 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l5 l6 t7 Representative Volker, Catherine We have the Mutual 20 ti cal opti on. And i f you' re aski ng me have we ever gone to the Ukra'inians and asked them to investigate or prosecute ind'ividuats for political reasons, the answer is, I 2t hope we l8 t9 i s the pol i 23 haven't, and we shouldn't because that goes against everything that we are trying to promote in post Soviet states for the last 28 years, which js the promotion of the 24 rule of 22 25 taw. And I also then told her, I said, Kurt has a 1ot of 260 a 2 J Understood. But gi ven everyth'ing that you knew, certainly have indicated today that you were aware of the public narratives -- and you A a A 4 5 6 Yeah. what did you understand him to mean? had presumed at the time, and I may have put i n I 8 uli ani , and that was the I i nterpreted what he sai d. But, agai n, he was very 9 uncomfortable havi ng the conversati 7 my notes just in parentheses, Gi on. He l0 conversati on, but i t was very clear he ll limjted summary, including detai t of the call itself t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 shari ng thi s was i ni ti way ated the uncomfortable not going into the . a to learn whether or not Ambassador Volker -- in real time, at the time, did you come to learn that Ambassador Volker did meet w'i th Mr. Giuliani? A Kurt told me he was goi ng to meet, and so, I had eve ry reason to believe that he then fotlowed up on what he said he was goi ng to do . But he did not share with me the exact contents of h"is di scussi ons wi th the Mayor, no. a Did you know at any point whether Ambassador Votker had introduced Andriy Yermak to Mr. Giuliani? A I bel i eve I became aware of that 'in mi d-August. a So you said that earlier, a few minutes ago, you Did you come said that August 15, L5 time period was when you seemed to wel1, I don't want to put words in your confirm that 259 A I jt That's as much as I reca11 . But, agai n, as I sa1d, l0 that had a personal component that had nothing to do with work, and then part of the conversation had to do with work. a So when did you become aware that President Trump and President Zelenskyy were going to speak on July 25? A i believe I was informed by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman on July 24, the day prior. And as I mentioned before, that's when I sent a message to the embassy suggesting that they test the fine to make sure the call went ll th rough. 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 t2 l3 t4 l5 was a conversation a from the And call A a Cor I believe you said the only readout you got was from Lieutenant ColoneI Vindman? rect. When you described that readout in addition to l6 emphasizing how Mr. Vindman was uncomfortabte and the t7 l8 sensitive nature of the ca11, so he wasn't comfortable talking about it, you djd say, I wrote down here, that l9 mentioned 20 2r 22 23 24 25 he that there was a -- that President Trump had d'iscussed the extreme narratives that had been discussed publicly. Is that A At that point, I don't thjnk he said that President Trump discussed. What I recall is that he said at this point the conversation went into the most extreme narratives' And that was hjm mak'ing a summary without providing any detail. 258 1 any conversations with the Chief 2 topi of Staff Mulvaney on this c? I it ll clear to me that Ambassador Sondland had a direct connection with Chief of Staff MuIvaney, and that's actually how the l4ay 23 readout was put on the President's schedule. It was not, to the best of my knowledge, done through the national security staff and Ambassador Bolton. It was done Ambassador Sondland directly to Chief of Staff Mulvaney. a Right. But I'm asking now in Ju1y. When Dr. Hill talked to you and voiced concerns about Sondland, did she t2 menti on anythi ng about Sondland's 13 Mr. J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 t4 l5 A As mentioned before, was relati onshi p wi th Mulvaney? A a She may have, Okay. but I do not remember. recall anything else that she said Sondland in that meeting was it a meeting Do you l6 about Ambassador t7 24 or a phone call? A It was a conversation, but I will say that it was also not entirely about work. We have a mutuat friend whose wife died of cancer, and he is a Foreign Service officer and studied in St. Andrews with Fiona, and that's where he met his wife. And so she had passed away. So part of the conversation was just about our mutual friend who died. a And the part that was about Ukraine, was there 25 anything more that l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 257 5 call or a meeting, discussion. But, again, I don't remember the content, and also, keep in mind that we had responsibiljties I only had respons'ibjljties for six countries. She had responsibilities for many more. a Ri ght. Okay. So you don't remember i f she voi ced 6 any concerns about what was going on 7 anyth'ing related I 2 J 4 to with Rudy Giuliani or that? l0 I honestly can't remember the content of that conversation apart from I know that she had Some concernS about nonstandard actors. I belieVe, in that conVersation, ll she expressed concern with Gordon Sondtand's approach. 8 9 A a A t2 l3 what concerns did she express with Gordon sondland? To the best of my recollection, she had concerns t4 possibly based on having been in conversations in the l5 0ffice that l6 not match with what had actually been said in the t7 0ffi Can you 20 2t you weren't t9 that did 0va1 ce. a A a l8 he made assertions about conversations 0va1 I was elaborate with any more detail? not in those conversations, 50 I'm just asking what she told you. I in understand them. 23 I thi nk she may have been as di rect as say'ing that Gordon Sondland lies about conversations that occur in the 24 0va1 0ffice. 22 25 A O Did she indicate to you that Gordon Sondland had 256 A a I 2 J 4 su Yes. for production to Congress and pursuant to the bpoen a? A a Yes. 8 just make sure I understand. You heard from Ambassador Taylor at the end of June that there that at the end was correct me if this summary is wrong of June, that there was a conversation with Taylor, 9 Ambassador 5ondland, 5 6 7 0kay. So 1et me Volker, and Secretary Perry where they for President Zelenskyy to initiate l0 discussed the need ll l6 some I think you sa'id investigations was the readout you got in that call? A We11, sending the right signal without the details of the O Wi thout the detai 1s. And then Ambassador Volker reaffirmed that to you directly before the meeting with t7 Presi dent Zelenskyy in t2 l3 t4 l5 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A a To ron to? Correct. Okay. Up until the July 25 call, from July 2 to July 25, did you have any more discussions with anyone about the noti on of Ukrai ne pursui ng these i nvesti gati ons ei ther specifically or more generally in terms of cooperation? A i do not recall any additional conversations that I had jn Juty. But I can't rule it out. Again, I had a conversation with Fiona, I remember that, a sort of farewell 255 I A 2 assessment, 3 Secretary Perry, Sondland, and Volker. a 4 It different than the State and it was different than the was Okay. But the President was 1 Department asse5sment of j steni ng to the 22 , 0rban, Puti n conti ngent - A I don't know. accordi ng to Dr. Hi 11? a A According to Dr. Hi11, in assessing the change from late April to late May, but then we had also the instructions coming out of that meeting leading to the signing of the letter on May 29 and the efforts to help Ukraine particularly in the energy sector. 0 Dr. Hill told us that she departed on July 19, and that pri or to leav'ing, she had a conversati on wi th you. A That again, I recall us speaking sometime in JuIy. I honestly don't reca1l the content of that. One reason why I reca11 more specifics from l4ay is that as I was looking through my notes to find records to provide to the State Department to be responsive to the subpoena, I found notes that I took when I talked to her in May. When I was going through my notes I did not find notes of our conversation 'in Ju1y. But, yes, I do recall that we talked 23 'in J uly. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 20 2t 24 25 Gi u1 j ani a And did you provide the notes from that the Department -- May call to 254 O I 2 And did Dr. Hill think that that had an impact on Presi dent Trump's outlook? A J I cannot reca11 what she said in that meeting ll brief readouts of those two meetings, but that was my takeaway, and that those two world leaders, along with former Mayor Gjuliani, their communjcations w'ith President Trump shaped the President's view of Ukrajne and Zelenskyy, and would account for the change from a very positive first call on April 2L to his negative assessment of Ukraine when he had the meeting in the 0va1 0ffice on May 23. a And it was your understanding that Sondland, Perry, t2 Volker, when they 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 r3 besides giving me the the inauguration they were very posi tive about President Zelenskyy. Is that ri ght? A a t4 l5 That And came back from is correct. that generally the State Department had a 24 ti ve outlook on Presi dent Zelenskyy? A We were cautiously optjm'istic that this was an opportunity to push forward the reform that Ukraine needs to succeed jn resisting Russian aggression, building a successful economy, and, frankly, a justice system that will treat American investors and Ukrainian citizens equally before the 1aw. a But the message from 0rban, Putin, and Giuliani was different than the message that the State Department was 25 relaying. Is that right? t6 t7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 posi 253 4 ty Counci 1? A She was scheduled to leave at the end of Ju1y. I don't recall which particular day of whjch particular week. a Di d you have a meeti ng or a conversati on w'i th her 5 before she left? I 2 a J Securi A a 6 7 Yes, And I did. did you discuss any of these issues that we've l0 talki ng about today wi th her? A Yes, but to be honest, I don't reca11 the last time we had a conversation, and when we had the conversation would ll be important to what we talked about. A conversation that I t2 reca11, and I took notes actually dated to mid-May in which l3 we tatked about the change 8 9 been t4 of attitude and approach towards Ukraine, and that was in the wake of meetings that President l5 Trump had, a meeti ng wi th V'iktor 0rban, l6 Hungary, as t7 l8 t9 20 the leader of well as a call he had with Russian President Putin in early May. a And what was the change f ollow'i ng those two conversations with 0rban and Putin? A Fi ona assessed the conversati ons as bei ng simi 1ar 2t in tone and approach. 22 0rban, extensively talked Ukraine down, said it was corrupt, And both leaders, both Putin and 24 sajd Zelenskyy was in the thra11 of oligarchs, specifically mentioning this one oligarch Kolomoisky, negatively shaping 25 picture of Ukraine, and even President Zelenskyy personally. 23 a 252 I any act'iv'i ti es wi th regard 2 i nvesti gati ons? to the advocacy f or these 5 are, in your exploration of a tjmef ine, not yet to the point where that became apparent to me that thjs is where U.S. policy or not U.S. policy, where U.S. 6 engagement was headed. J 4 A We 16 0kay. And we'11 probably get there, but when would you say that time is? A WelI, I think in retrospect, from the release of the WhatsApp messages, it started earl"ier than I was aware. a When were you ultimately aware? A I would say that the middle of August, specifically August L5 and 16, was when I became aware that this was actively in p1ay. a Okay. So did you get we're going to get there, but did you get a readout from that July L0 meeting from t7 a 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 a ny body ? 2t I do not recall. I was on the road for because it was a multi-country trip. I was on the road for more than a week. I saw the picture that was tweeted out, maybe from Kurt Volker, maybe from Gordon Sondland, that had the two 22 Ukrain'ians, wh'ich were 0leksandr Danylyuk and Andriy Yermak, ZJ close assistant and associate to President Zelenskyy, as well 24 as the Americans. l8 t9 20 25 A a Do you reca11 when Fiona Hill teft the National 251 I 2 J 4 5 I wouldn't say that I was cut out of the 1oop. As I indicated, Kurt and I continued to have a back and forth. I was aware that obviously other players had come into the picture. And you had Secretary Perry convening a meeting w'i th a number of State Department of f i c'iaIs. A You had Gordon sondland 6 giving a public jnterview that 8 the three amigos were now in charge of Ukraine, and by that he meant Perry, Sondland, and Volker. I heard Volker say 9 that to President 7 l0 Zelenskyy in Toronto, but I was in that meet i ng. a A ll t2 Volker called them the three amigos to Zelenskyy? No. Sondland, in a public interview, called l5 just stated that coming out of the meeting with President Trump at the 0val 0ffice, that those were the three officials that would be taking the lead 16 on our policy towards Ukraine. l3 t4 themselves three amigos. Volker a t7 l8 regularly wi th B'it1 Taylor i n June and July? A t9 20 Were you speaki ng Yes. There's a schedule of js a generally every Monday there scheduled Secure video conference. It's not 24 ust one-on-one. Usually i t's wi th offi ce di rector, deputy director from my side, and members of the country team on his side. That was the schedule that dated back a We1l, let me rephrase the question. Did you speak 25 to 2t 22 Z) j Charge Taylor about the three ami gos, or Rudy G j u1i an'i or 250 2 a profile jn Ukrajne. Who told you that? J A The message was relayed from my supervi I and lower my sor, Acti ng 4 Assi stant Secretary Reeker message relayed from Under 5 Sec reta ry Hale. 6 7 a Do you know if jt became from above Under Secretary Hale? l0 A A1t I know is that Assistant Secretary Reeker, af ter a meet'ing wi th Under Secretary Hale sai d that Under Secretary Hale had directed me to keep my head down and a ll lower profi 1e i n Ukrai ne. 8 9 13 did you understand a lower profile in Ukraine to mean, given that you oversaw the policy for the t4 State Department on Ukraine? 12 a 16 for six countries, and thjs was a day or two before I was going on leave to go visit t7 attend my daughter's l8 so I said, Fjne, you're not going to hear me talk about l9 country l5 A And what We11, I oversee policy and go hiking in Maine. And any 20 for the next week and a half. And I did cancel some public appearances on Ukraine jn June, sort of think tank 2t sessions around Washington. 24 a And at that point, did you sense that you were cut out of the loop jn terms of State Department policy discussions and dealings with Ukraine given this Volker, 25 Sondland, Perry triumvi rate? 22 23 249 I I have since been made aware by seeing the WhatsApp messages 5 that Kurt released that he sai d he had breakf ast w'ith G'i u1i ani on J u1y L5th, so i t would make sense that my conversation wjth Kurt happened before then July 19th because he was telling me that he would reach out to Mayor 6 Giuliani. 2 J 4 a 7 8 Djd you discourage him f rom reaching out to Mayor Giutiani? t2 that's when he said, as I relayed earlier, that because, clearly, former l,layor Giuliani was an inf luence on the President's thinking of Ukra'ine that he, Kurt Volker, f e1t i t was worthwhi 1e l3 engagi ng A l0 ll a t4 l5 l8 19 20 asked him what his purpose was, and Right. I know. But did you think it was worthwhi 1e engag'rng? A 16 l7 I and I What I understood was Kurt was thinking was concerned O tactically strategically. Did you have any discussions with anyone else at the State Department by mid-Ju1y, any tjme up to mid-Ju1y or prior to, about Mr. Giuliani's potent'ial inf luence on the 23 fact that what he was advocating may be cont rary to offi ci aI U. S. Pol i cY? A I did not, in part because after Giuliani attacked 24 me, aS 2t 22 25 President and the well as Ambassador Yovanovitch and the entire embassy, in his late May interview, I was told to keep my head down 248 I a dinner for heads of delegation to which Kurt was invited. 2 I J instance, whatever the anchor night was, he went to the 4 leaders meeting, and I met with other Ukrainians who were 5 there. 6 was not because there was a just one U.S. attendee. 5o, for Are you fami1iar with a Ju1y L0 meeting 7 White House involving senior Ukrainian 8 American 9 A officials at the and senior officials? I saw l0 At the time I ll among pictures tweeted outside after the meeting. was on a multi-country swing that jncluded, other countries, Moldova and Ukraine. 20 unaware prior to the meeting occurring, you were unaware that it was happening? A I knew that there was going to be a meeting. The pri nci pals for that meeti ng were Ambassador Bolton and 0leksandr Danylyuk, who'd been appointed the head of the Nat'ional Securi ty and Def ense Counci 1 i n Ukrai ne, whi ch doesn't have an analogous role to our National Security Council but has a name that sounds similar. And 0leksandr Danylyuk is a Ukrainian off ic'ia1 well-known to many of us who 2t have worked on Ukraine. t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 a So you were just to be clear, the conversation that you had with Kurt Volker, even if you aren't sure that it was in Toronto, i t occurred before your European swi ng? A I can't telI you for certajn when in July 'it was. a Now, 247 2 the rule of 1aw. And that was the nature of the exchange, at some point in Ju1y, either at Toronto or perhaps, more J Ii 4 5 ke1y, mi a d-J uty i n the State Department. Now, Ambassador Volker Forei gn Servi ce offi cer, ri ght? 6 A He 7 a What was 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 t6 undermi ne A is a longtime, you know, is. his reaction when you said that this would the rule of 1aw and everything that we stand f or? I do not recall hjm giving a verbal response. Okay. And so presumably you and Kurt Volker we re i n Toronto for some time, right? A We arrived, to the best of my recollecti on, on the 1st and departed late afternoon of the 3rd. We did not a travel together. a Did you spend any time together there? A We were in many meetings together, yes. 21 a Did you spend anY meals together? A I do not reca1l us having working meals together, or hectic, not but jt was a hectic trip and generally, his trip, but set of meetings. There were a 1ot of Ukrainians there, and I had a lot of sidebar meetings with attendees at 22 the conference. t7 l8 l9 20 23 a So 24 A I should also say 25 that there was a was head of delegati on, the Canadi an forei gn mi because Kurt ni ster hosted 246 I 2 the meeti ng. a And what was your reaction to the ask as you t4 it from Volker at the time? A At the time, I was interested to see where this thought pattern would go. I do not recal1 whether the f o1low-on conversat'ion I had wi th Kurt about thi s was i n Toronto, or whether it was subsequently at the State Department. But he did te11 me that he planned to start reaching out to the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani. And when I asked hi m why, he sa'id that i t was clear that the former mayor had influence on the President in terms of the way the President thought of Ukraine. And I think by that moment in time, that was self-evident to anyone who was working on the issues, and therefore, it made sense to try to l5 engage the mayor. t6 l9 I raised with Kurt, I said, about what? Because former Mayor Giuljani has a track record of, you know, asking for a visa for a corrupt former prosecutor. He attacked 14asha, and he's tweeting that the new President needs to 20 investigate Biden and the 2015 2l Kurt's reaction, or response to me at that was, well , j f there's nothi ng there, what does i t matter? And i f there j s somethi ng there, 'it should be i nvesti gated. My ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t7 l8 22 23 24 25 understood When campaign. And to him was ask'ing another country to investigate a prosecutjon for political reasons undermines our advocacy of response 245 cooperati on wj th Presi dent Trump? 4 of was that there was an interest, and Kurt was sending a signal of a desire to have Zelenskyy be cooperative, but I did not know the detajls of what the 5 ask was on that date, July 2. 2 J 6 A a What I was aware 0kay. Did Kurt Volker explain to you what he with President Zelenskyy in that pu11-as'ide 7 discussed 8 afterwards? t7 A No. But he explained he was, I would say, relatively transparent beforehand. This is what I'm going to do, and this is my message and this is why. a And how did you what dld he say the why was? A WeI1, I thi nk hi s goa1, to my understandi ng, based on my conversations with him, he was trying to get through what seemed to be a hiccup in the communications, and wanted to get President Trump and Presjdent Zelenskyy together, counting on Zelenskyy's personal interactive skills to build l8 rapport and carry the relationship forward. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 0kay. But that's the why he was doing it? That was my understanding, based on what I heard from Kurt pri or to the meeti ng, Yes. a And what did he tell you after about the meeting? A It was, you know -- it was a several-minute exchange, and So I just presumed that he had said and raised the ask in the way that he had descrjbed to me right before a A 244 I signaling something in his cooperative attitude towards 2 somethi ng a J 4 the Presi dent was j nterested i n. And at that point you did not know what the President was interested 'in? 6 A At that point, Kurt Volker djd not say, nor was I aware of what the Presjdent was jnterested. Rudy Giuliani 7 was tweeting what Rudy 8 was and i s 9 the 5 U. S. Giuliani thought, but Rudy Giuliani remai ns a pri vate cj ti zen, not an offi ci al of Government. ll Rlght. Did you understand why Kurt Volker needed to have this in a private pu11-aside have this t2 conversati on i n a pri vate pu11-asi de meeti ng rather than wi th l3 everyone there? l0 t4 a A Wel1, of it, it was clear that he both wanted to restrict 2t sensitive. But, again, I had not been on the June 28 conference cal1. I heard about that subsequently from Charge Taylor. And I had also not been involved in any of the conversations that had gone on. I wasn't there at the June 1.8 nor the May 23. So sometimes I can get readouts officia1ly of meetings, but if you're not there, you miss the 22 sidebar conversations that can take place. l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 23 24 25 knowledge and considered the matter it's your testimony that you did not you were not aware at that point of what the sensitive issue that Kurt Volker needed to talk about related to President Zelenskyy's a So 243 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 on July 2 about the investigations that Rudy Giuliani been promoti had ng? in the full format of everyone on both sjdes of the table. However, prior to the meeting, Ambassador Volker told me that he would need to have a private meeting separately with the President, that he would pu1l h'im aside. And he explained to me that the purpose of that private conversatjon was to underscore the importance of the messaging that Zelenskyy needed to provide to President Trump about his willingness to be cooperative. A There was not a discussion that happened as the meeting broke up, he announced that he needed to have a private meeting. He went around to the Ukrai ni an s'ide of the table and pu11ed And t7 of staff , Bohdan, and the transtator. I was standing about L0 feet of the way, introducing myself to Andriy Yermak and talking to him. So that was Volker had several minutes with Zelenskyy, his chief of staff and the l8 i t4 l5 l6 Zelenskyy, his chief nterpreter. You said the messaging about the l9 a 20 cooperati on. 2t 22 23 24 25 A a A willing or Yeah. Cooperation about what? details at that point were not clear to me. I would say that Kurt Volker had not provided additional deta'i1s. It was more that President Zelenskyy needed to be The 299 is a country which Congress appropriates over $100 million a year. And so I am juggllng responsibilities for these si x countri es and travel i ng to all si x countrj es. 5o we are focusing on one of six countries today for which I have responsibility. 5o I do not 1ive, breathe every single second of my life focused on Ukraine, no. l4R. GOLDI{AN: I think that's time. Georgia 2 J 4 5 6 7 Ambassador 8 9 SUre MR. KENT: I 'm not Ambassador. l0 ll Kent, you've been here a long day and I'm 13 I'm sorry. Mr. Kent. The members are goi ng to have to go vote I thlnk i n about 20 mi nutes. So I know you've just sat through another hour and a half. Would t4 you t2 MR. GOLDMAN: l5 fike to take a 5-minute break MR. KENT: I'd appreciate that. MR. GOLDI'4AN: And then we'11 come l6 t7 Let's do that. t8 lRecess.l right back. 0kay. 20 record. I t' s 6: 20, and i t' s the majority's round. Mr. Kent, thank for your patience and 2l di 1 i gence today, we are neari ng t9 MR. G0LDMAN: Back Mr. 22 the end. l'li tche11. BY MR. 14ITCHELL: 23 a 24 25 on the assi Si stance. r, i n the last round, you mentj oned securi ty Can you j ust generally descri be what Ukrai ne 300 J ty Ass'istance Ini ti ative 'is? A Wel1, that is a specific term that refers to money appropriated in the Defense budget as opposed to the State 4 Department I 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 Securi budget. Tradjtionally, foreign assistance was appropri ated under what's known as forei gn mi 1i tary fi nanci ng in State Department budget. Several years ago, Congress started appropriating monies in the Defense budget. And so the Ukraine Security Initiative js monies that are made available in the Defense budget. And that is something that was started maybe 3 years ago and has grown in scope. The t2 fi scal year 2019, whi ch j ust concluded, i t was $250 mi 11 i on. a Are you generally familiar then with both USAI and l3 FMF? l1 14 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 familiar, but I did not ever have line authority over security aSsistance in the way I had for a rule of 1aw and justice sector assistance. A Generally "authority," do you mean both when you were in Ukrajne as well as in your current position? a And when you say A The way security assistance works, regardless of what budget i t 'is appropri ated i n, the moni es are executed 24 of Ukrai ne w'ith European Command, and we have an Offjce of Defense Cooperation in the Embassy. And the direction in how we spend that money is usually determined in a joint mifitary 25 commission between 2t 22 23 agents usually af f i 1i ated i n the case EUCOM and the Ukrainian general staff by 301 I admi ni a 2 J A i n Are you now talking about a budgetary process here Washi ngton? a 6 7 Are you generally familiar with the way in which, the process by which USAI funds are released? 4 5 strati ve heads. So, for example, does Ukraine need to meet certain benchmarks before those funds can be released? A 8 The authorizers in Congress have put conditionality l4 for the last several years on the second ha1f. 5o, for instance, this past year, $250 m'i11jon, there was a conditionality on the second $125 m'i11ion. In a previous year, I don't know if it was the previous year -- I don't know if it's the previous 2 years ago or the first year 3 years ago there was that conditionality, but the l5 appropriators did not appropriate as much money as the l6 authorizers authorized. So the conditionality did not kick t7 l8 n. But, yes, generatly the authorizer s and approprj ators worked together to put condi ti onal i ty on the mon'ies i n the t9 USAI. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 i a 20 2t And what was your involvement, if any, on determining whether the conditionality had been A 22 The met? conditionality js set by the Office of the 23 Secretary of Defense. My counterpart, Laura Cooper, plays 24 principal rote in that, and the determination to 25 made by the Secretary of Defense. a Congress is 302 6 is there an interagency process that takes place with regard to the release of the funds? A Once the funds are in the hands of the U.S. military and specifically, I believe, they are held w'ith the Defense Security and Cooperation Agency the State Department does not have a ro1e, no. 0n the front end, 7 di scussi ng what mi ght be appropri ate condi 1 2 J 4 5 8 9 a And ti ons, there i s a discussion, but ultimately that is a process, and the speci fi c condi ti ons, and whether they have been met, i s t4 0ffice of Secretary of Defense. a What about wi th regard to F["lF, how does that work? A Forei gn mi f i tary fi nanci ng, the State Department has a greater role in determining what the policy goals are and how that money would be applied, but that is also very l5 much l0 ll t2 l3 l6 determined by the a collaborative process. And, ult'imately, the FMF is also cut over to the U.S. military, specifically, the DSCA is l8 the executive military agent. We don't spend and implement the programming the way that we would, say, for 1aw 19 enforcement programming. 20 a greater t7 2l 22 23 24 25 It, again, is monies where We have role upf ront and voi ce, but 'i n the end, i t' executed by U.S. military components. a A pol i cy And what I is your personal involvement in FMF then? have frequent conversations with my counterpart, just about Ukraine. She covers more countries, but there's a lot of assistance going to Georgia, Laura Cooper, not s 303 I and so we have conversations about multiple countries, and 2 also talk about the condjt'ionaf ity in Ukraine. we 8 of the PCC or sub-PCC meetings i n July regardi ng securi ty assj stance for Ukrai ne? A Yes. a Which ones did you attend? A The first one where this issue came up was July L8th. It was a sub-PCC, to the best of my recollection, 9 and the i ntended topi c 3 4 5 6 7 a Did you attend any was l0 1l a Was there any discussion of the meeting at the leve1 on Juty L8th about any sort of freeze of the t2 sub-PCC l3 ty assi stance to Ukrai ne? A Yes. a Can you descr j be that di scuss'ion? A It was described as a hold, not a freeze. There was a representative of the 0ffice of Management and Budget. I was at the State Department in a security video conference, I d'id not recognize the face. And I believe the individual representing OMB at the time was not normally the person who did. It was the summer vacation cycles. And he just stated to the rest of the those participants, ejther in person or vi deo screens, that the head of the 0f f i ce of l'lanagement and Budget who was the acti ng ch j ef of staf f , l'li ck Mulvaney, at the directjon of the President had put a hold on all security t4 l5 l6 17 l8 t9 20 2t 22 )7 24 25 securi 304 1 a 2 J A 5 Management 6 yes. a 7 A the di recti on of the 1s that what you heard? is what the representative of the 0ffice of and Budget stated in the sub-PCC on Ju1y LSth, That Was there any discussion following that There was great confusion among the because we a ll t2 at announcement? 9 l0 Mulvaney had put a hold President. 4 8 to the Ukraine. assi stance ha didn't understand why Djd anyone ask at that rest of us that had happened. sub-PCC meeting why that ppe ned? l8 that he apologized, that he normally dld not deal wjth these issues, but this was the message he was asked to convey and he conveyed i t. a And the individual being this gentleman from OMB? A The representative from the OMB in that particular t9 meeti l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 20 2l 22 23 24 25 A We d'id. And the indiv'idual said ng, yes. a A a A a Was that the end of that d'iscussi on on thi s topi c? Yes. 0n that day? Yes. Did you have any internal discussions Department at the of State on or about July L8th after this 305 pronouncement had been relayed A a A 2 J 4 And who 6 processes 9 l0 ll t2 t3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 did you have those discussions with? Tyler Brace, our schedule C po1 i ti cal former staffer appoi ntee, for Senator Portman, who understand budgetary in great detajl. did you have that conversation? I believe I had it subsequent to the a A 8 you? I did. 5 7 to When sub-PCC, same day. just describe what you talked about? We djscussed what the signifjcance of that was because none of us could understand why. Since there was unanimity that this was in our national interest, it just surpri sed all of us. a When you say "unanimity" that it was in our national interest, what do you mean by that? A I beljeve that jt is a factually correct statement to say that there's broad support among both parties in Congress, both Houses in Congress, and among the State a A And can you 2t Joint Chiefs, and other elements of the U.S. Government for the security assistance 22 programs. ZJ a sort of A 20 24 25 Department, the Defense Department, Prior w"ind or No. to this Ju1y L8th meeting, had you gotten any idea that this aid would be frozen or held? 306 a I 2 And it was your understanding on conditions had been met? J A For? 4 a To release funds. 5 A That was my understandi 6 the funds for USAI and the ng. You' a Correct. 8 A That was my understanding, Yes. 9 a Has l0 A We11, t2 13 re talki ng about FMF fund? 7 ll July 18th that all your understanding since changed? eventually, the hold was released on LLth, and the funds were then apportioned by Ot,lB to the extent that it was possible to spend them by the end of the fi scal year, yes. Septembe r L8th that changed be twee n and when they were actually released i n September? t6 A When t7 a Any sort l8 A In t4 l5 a J uly So do you know anything you say what changed? of conditions. Ukrai ne? 23 a Anywhere. A My understanding of what happened after that date was that Senior Director Tim Morrison started going up the chajn of the interagency process according to National Security Presidential Memorandum 4, and that meant holding a 24 policy coordinating committee meeting, which he scheduled for 25 July 23rd, followed by a deputy smal1 group meeting, which I t9 20 2l 22 307 I believe may have occurred on July 25th. And then Senior 4 rector Morri son was looki ng to schedule a pri nci pa1 smal1 group meeting that would involve the Secretary of State personally, Secretary of Defense, and Ambassador Bolton so 5 they could di scuss the i ssue and then take 'it to the 6 Presi dent. 2 a J Di a A 7 8 9 for the PCC meeting on July 23rd? I believe I was, yes, as a back-bencher. I was not Were you present the pri nci pa1. 2t i should have asked you. 0n the L8th, did you take any notes of that meeting? A r did. a And are those among to notes thank you provided to the Department of State to produce to Congress? A They should be. I photocopied quite a lot of notes, but certainly the statement of conclusions should be 'included, although now I'm thi nki ng I'm not sure i f sub-PCCs have statement of conclusions. Those may be, only for PCC meetings. But to the extent I took notes on that meeting, I would have included them, yes. a For July 23rd, you said were you a back-bencher at 22 the l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 a A a Z) 24 25 PCC meeti ng? d j scussed Yes. And was this topic of the hold of the Ukraine ajd at that meet'ing? 308 A a A I 2 J That was the purpose of the meeting. What was discussed? To the best of my recollection, the conversation 5 the table and saying they supported the fifting of the administrative hold so that the 6 State Department and the 0ffjce of Secretary of Defense' 4 was everybody going around l0 forward. We were endi ng approachi ng the end of the fiscal year, and I believe that Laura Cooper, speaking on behalf of the Pentagon, indicated that the DOD comptroller had determined that they needed to move forward ll by August 5th t2 i 7 8 9 Pentagon, could move t4 l5 i spend the money and meet Congress' ntent. a l3 in order to Was there any discuss'ion of the legality or llegali ty of the A hold? of OMB to ons w j th 0t'4B There was discussion about the standing l8 put an 'inf ormal ho1d. Norma1ly, the conversati prior to not'ification to Congress is a courtesy, not something required under 1aw. And that is why the position l9 was expressed by Laura Cooper, 16 t7 24 to the best of my recollection, that DOD counsel had determined that they would move forward by August 6th regardless. And I reca11 Senior Director Morrison suggesting that the State Department also review its 1ega1 requirements and be prepared to have that briefed at the next meeting, which he set 3 days 1ater, as a 25 deputy small grouP meeting. 20 2l 22 23 309 a I 2 So, if OMB did not move forward by August 5th, what would be the 'implication? A 3 Again, this is about an account that was not in 4 appropriated to my department nor executed 5 so 6 best of my recollection, what she said in that meeting I would defer to my my department, colleague, Laura Cooper. But to the was ll that, according to DSCA, they may not be able to execute all of the requi rements by the end of the fj scal year. My understandi ng i s that USAI moni es are L-year moni es. The monies in the State Department FMF account are 2-year monies. a What did 0l'lB say, if anything, in response to Laura t2 Coope r ' s 7 8 9 l0 A t4 ti on was what i t had been on the 18th, that they were under the direction of their boss to put l5 hold all securi ty assi stance to Ukrai ne. l3 16 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 a A a A 0["'lB's posi Did they provide a reason? at the direction of the President. Who was present for the July 23rd meeting? That would be a matter of record because that was a PCC, and there's a statement of conclus'ions. And i n the statement of conclusions, on the first page, there's a ljsting of all part'icipants jn the meeting. a Did you receive a copy of the statement of conclusi ons for thi s meeti ng? A I befieve I did, and that would have been provided They said it was 310 1l to the document request. a Dld OMB provide any reasoning beyond simply jt was at the direction of the President? A Not to my recollection, no. a 5o they didn't describe why the President had placed this hold? A There was a lack of claritY. a What do you mean bY that? A The participants who up until that point had thought that there was unanimity that this was in our national interest d'id not receive an explanation for why this t2 parti cular acti on was taken. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l3 t4 l5 t6 Okay. So, to your knowledge, no one at the PCC meeting on July 23rd knew why the President was making the decision or at least they didn't express it at that meeting? A I do not recal1 any coherent explanation, no. a there any explanation at all, coherent or t7 a l8 i ncoherent? t9 20 A OMB placed a hold on a Process that tradjtionally, that is the office that has a voice on how the 2l executive branch spends a A 22 23 Was Was money. that unusual, in your According to, in my conversation 24 who again has worked here as 25 OMB head, Acting Chief experience? with Tyler Brace, a staffer, the previous cycle, of Staff Mulvaney, had attempted a 31 I 1 rescission at the end of the year, and indeed the next week, 5 at the beginning of August, he sent out a data call with the intent potentially to execute a rescission involving bjllions of dollars of assistance worldwjde, not just Ukraine. a 0kay. So, in your experience, though, was thjs 6 unusual? 2 J 4 A 7 I had read about Mr. Mulvaney's attempt 8 rescission at the end of the last fiscal year. 9 understanding was l0 and the ll t2 l3 t4 15 t6 effort to l8 Defense $250 l9 a 22 23 24 25 a My have a rescission was then suspended. this year, this overall greater effort to have a rescission held up the process f or much of August, but 'i t was al so t i f ted, and that left us with just the hold on Ukraine assistance. a The Ukrai ne assi stance that you j ust menti oned, i s that FMF, or is that the USAI? A 2t push that Secretary Pompeo protested vigorously, And, ultimately, the same thing happened t7 20 to i It affected both accounts, the Department of mi 11 i on, and the $L4L mi 11 i on under FMF. Okay. And you said that that was sti11 being held n August? A That hold, the OMB-directed hold, was lifted on September LLth. at the July 26th deputies' meeting? I d'id not parti ci pate i n that meeti ng. Under Secretary HaIe represented the State Department, and I cannot a A What happened 312 2 recall the exact outcome. That would also be documented in the document cal1, but it did not change the ultimate J si tuati on. I a A a 4 5 6 7 conc 1u Did you see a readout of that particular meeting? I did. And is jt in a similar form as the statement of s'i on s? t2 of mY knowledge, Yes. And what do you recall from that readout? The majn takeaway for me was that Senior Director Morrison was trying to find out when Secretary of State Pompeo and the Secretary of Defense would both be in l3 Washington so they could have an in-person t4 group meeting l5 the Presi dent. 8 9 l0 ll l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 A a A a To the best Was principal sma1l to discuss the same issue and then take it to there any discussion at the July 25th deputies' committee meeting about the reasons for the hold? I honestly cannot recal1 if there was any detajl. The bottom line was the hold remained, and we needed a principal sma11 group to carry the process forward. a But it's your understanding at the July 25th meeting that, again, there was unanimous support to release the funds to lift the ho1d. Is that right? A With the excePtion of 0MB, Yes. O Then you mentioned that there was planning to have A 313 I a meeting on July 3Lst. Did that meeting actually take 2 p1 ace? 20 A I didn't say that, but I believe that may have been one of the dates that Senior Director Morrison was attempting to schedule a principal smalI group meeting. a Was there a pri nci pals meeti ng at any poi nt? A To the best of my knowledge, because of the travel schedules of the two Secretaries, no. a So what happened next, as f ar as you know, wlth regard to the lifting of this hold? A I am aware that many Senators, partjcularly from the Republican side, who had traveled to Ukrajne from the relevant comm'ittees, cal1ed and talked to the President. I'm I saw an ema'i1 that Senator Inhof e had had aware that about a 20-minute conversation. He had visited twice when I was in Ukraine because Oklahoma National Guard was doing trai ni ng at the mai n tra'i ni ng base. Senator Portman calted, i ncludi ng the day i t was 1 i fted. And my understandi ng i s that Senate l4ajority Leader McConnell also ca11ed. a Was there any discussions at State between July 2t 31st and when the funds were actually released about the 22 freeze that you partook in? J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 23 24 25 A The State Department was concerned. Obviously, we to get the hotd ljfted so that we could get the money apportioned by OMB and then obligated. And so we were at wanted 314 I 2 a J the direction of Senior D'irector Morrison, exploring what was the absolute minjmum amount of time that would be necessary to obligate the money once the irold was lifted. So we were l3 for a decision so that we could ensure that the money could be obligated before the end of the fiscal year. a When was the first time that you heard that the securi ty assi stance mi ght somehow we be 1i nked to th'is Whi te House vi si t or i nvesti gations conducted by Ukrai ne? A Because everyone was unclear why this had happened, I think, in the vacuum of a clear explanation, people started speculating. So there was a coincidence of timing, but as I referenced earl i er i n the communi cati on wi th Charge Taylor, he indicated to me that, in his communicat'ions with both l4 Senior Director Morrison and Ambassador Sondland, and th'is l5 would have been the weekend 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 preparing t9 of the 7th and 8th of September, that both of them insisted that there was not a direct link. a And that was based on what? A This was a conveyed conversation. That was their assert'ions. According to Charge Taylor, separately, Senjor 20 Director Morrison, with 21 of 22 conversation on the 8th Z) two were not l6 t7 18 24 25 whom he had a conversation on the 7th September, and Ambassador Sondland, w1th whom he had a A of September, had asserted a that the directly linked. And how do they know? I cannot answer for them. That would be the 315 I questi on 2 Sondl and. J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 t2 l3 t4 l5 16 17 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 to di rect to Seni or Di rector Morri son and Ambassador 316 1 15:44 p.m.l BY MR. MITCHELL: 2 J a 4 sou rce? 5 A They di I was dn't provi de any i nformati on as to thei r not part of that conversation. I was having 20 th Charge Taylor. O And this conversation wjth Charge Taylor, was that over WhatsApp or was that in person or A That was a part of our regularly scheduled Monday secure ca1Is, video conferences. And that part of the conversatjon we ask all of our staff to 1eave, so it is just one on one in a secure communication. a Okay. And what else did Charge Taylor te1l you about these conversations that he had had? A I recounted to the best of my knowledge what those conversations were. That was Senior Di rector Morri son talking about his concern that Rudy Giuliani had had another conversation with the Pres"ident, as well as what Sondland relayed Rudy to be h'is i nteracti on. a And did you memorialize that conversation that you 2t had had? 6 7 8 9 10 l1 t2 l3 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 19 22 23 24 25 a conversat'ion wi Yes. That was part of a note to the file which I provided to the document collection process. a Did you talk to anyone else at the Department of 5tate about what Charge Taylor told you? A 317 J I believe I shared my concerns with my colleagues in the European front office. That would be the ones immediately near my office. Included Deputy Assjstant 4 Secretary Michael Murphy, who oversees our relations wjth the 5 Balti cs and Nord'ics and NATO. And f or large stretches of 6 time earlier in 2019 'i t was our senior Bureau of f ici aI 7 also the deputy assistant secretary, 8 oversees our relations with Western Europe, and I 2 9 l0 A relations with i n Brussels. ll t2 a Ambassador Sondland and When , and who that includes the mission he leads you said you shared concerns, what do you mean by that? A l3 I shared the I shared the sense that I had heard t4 from Charge Taylor that Ambassador Sondland was engaged in l5 the types of conversations that he was engaged in on Ukraine even though that was not part of his portfolio as our l6 t7 l8 t9 20 to the European Unjon. a And again, was this a conversation that you had with Deputy Assistant Secretary Murphy and Fisher in writing or jn person? ambassador 22 A my office 23 offi 2t 24 25 The'i r of f ices and so are between 5 and 10 f eet away f rom I -- th'is was a direct conversation in their ce. a A their reaction? They were aware of the challenge of dealing with And what was 318 J a, I would say, track record of freelancing, would be one way of putting it, but working on issues other than the reason why he was sent to Brussels to 4 work our relationship 1 2 a Ambassador Sondland who has a 5 6 with the European Union. Djd they indicate that they would try do anything about 'it? t2 I don't think there is anybody at the level of deputy assistant secretary of state who can do anything about what Gordon Sondland chooses to do. a Do you know when they escalated the i ssue? A I do not. a At any point were you given a reason why the hold l3 was 7 8 9 l0 ll A put 'in A t4 place? Not that I recall. Wel1, I believe, at least in 20 relation to the USAI, there were some concerns expressed in the Pentagon, 0ffice of Secretary of Defense, did a review and responded that they felt that the conditions and concerns that we had had been met and that the programmi ng should go f orward. But that was a speci f i c rev'iew about USAI , whi ch i s not State Department controlled, and so that was an issue 2t between the Pentagon and l5 l6 t7 t8 t9 a 22 23 24 25 I guess the White House and Do you know whether NSC. a similar review was conducted th regard to FMF? A We were not asked for a similar review. The media coverage was focused on the 250 million of USAI. If you look wj 319 1 2 3 4 at those artjcles at the time they were not mentioning $391 mi1lion, which would have been the total FMF plus USAI. a Do you know whether a sjmilar review of FMF has since been conducted? A 5 The hold was 1ifted on September LLth and we moved orward with noti f yi ng Congress and ensuri ng the f unds were 6 f 7 obtigated before the end of the fiscal year. 8 9 l0 We were not to do jn order obligate the funds as to meet the congressional jntent in asked and we proceeded appropriating with what we needed to them. l3 0kay. 5o to the best of your knowledge, you have no knowledge of any plan to conduct any such review? A We did not see it necessary nor were we asked to do t4 50. l1 t2 l5 a a A11 ri ght. Now, when you were j n Ukrai ne, Ukrai ne t9 at the ti me, cor rect? A They were receiving FMF, yes, and I betieve the start of USAI was while I was there. I do not recall specjfjcally which fiscal year USAI funds started to be 20 appropri ated. t6 t7 l8 2t 22 23 24 25 was recei vi ng USAI and FI'lF f unds a Okay. 5o based on your experience in Ukraine, welt as your experi ence here i n Washi ngton, D. C. , as how for Ukraine security? A I would assess that they are cri tically important. The Ukrainian defense establjshment was unprepared to fight a important are these funding programs 320 6 its war in 20L4. And therefore, the training that we do, which is probably the most valuable in training Ukrainians to fight, as well as the equipping that we do, have been crjtical to the success of the Ukrainian armed forces in defending their country. At the same time I would say that we probably derive 7 more benefit from the relationship than the Ukrainians do. I 2 a J 4 5 war with Russia when Russia began a A 8 9 How so? That would be somethi ng particularly with to di scuss i n my colleagues from a classi f i ed the defense l0 manner, ll 20 ntel agenc i es a But suffice to say that it was in both Ukraine's national interests as well as the United States' national interest that these funds be released to the Ukra'ine? A Very much so. a And that's true not just for the time period that you were in Ukraine but also for 2019 when you were back here in D.C.? A Correct. O Have you had any conversations with anyone about 2t what the Ukrainians' perspective was on the freeze? t2 l3 14 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 22 23 24 25 i and . A They were confused, to the best of my understandi ng. a A Okay. And how did you get that understanding? Charge Taylor was in Ukraine trying to figure out 321 5 on. My most recent trip to Ukraine, I arrived on September LLth. Fortunately that was the day that the hold was lifted. So by the time I started engaging Ukrai ni ans 'in person, i t was a good news story. a Had you prepared to answer their questions about 6 the hold? I 2 J 4 how to explain what went t4 I was prepared f or the possi b'i1i ty that i t would not be lifted and therefore the conversations would be very difficult and I would not by able to provide an adequate understandi ng or answer. a Did you try to get an adequate understanding or answer prior to your trip? A Fortunately, I didn't have to worry about that hypothetical because it was resolved essentially as I arrived l5 i l6 t7 Right. But prior to you arriving in Ukraine did you attempt to find out why the hold was jn place so that you l8 could actually have a meaningful conversatjon with the l9 Ukrai ni ans about thi 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 20 2l 22 23 24 25 A n Ukrai ne. a s i ssue? A We it was very clear that this issue was only going to be resolved they very highest 1eve1, and that's why Tim Morrison wanted to have Secretary Pompeo and SecDef Esper in the same place at the same time to have that conversation. That was the 1eve1 at which the conversation needed to happen. It didn't matter what the deputy assistant secretary 322 J or an assistant secretary or an under secretary or a deputy sec reta ry thought. a Okay. To the best of your knowledge, did that 4 fie€:ti ng happen? I 2 a 5 6 7 of my knowledge, there was never a pri nc'ipa1 smal1 group meeti ng on thi s i ssue. a What did Taylor, Charge Taylor, say to you about A To the best 12 his conversations with Ukrainians about the hold? A I honestly don't reca11 in detail. I think it was cl,ear starting, if not from Juty L8th, certainly f rom July 23rd, that this was an issue that had to be resolved in Washington, and it was a tough nut for everyone to crack 13 wi 8 9 l0 ll t4 l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 thout a lot of ctari ty. a It was your understanding at the time, though, that the issue had to be resolved at the principals level? A Once we cleared the deputy smal1 group meet'ing, wlrich I believe was July 25th, it was clear it had to be resolved at a principals level and above. And so that was clear I think to everyone after July 25th. a Okay. And when you say above, you mean speci fi ca11y the Presi dent of the Uni ted States? A Welt, the principal sma11 group, members of the Cabinet, who then could take the issue to the President. a And again there was never a PCC as far as you know? A There was a PCC on July 23rd. So in the sort of 323 I climbing the ladder we started with a sub-PCC on the 18th. 2 There was a policy coordjnating committee on the J a was a deputy smatl group on the 4 attempt 5 was Tim Morrison 6 process to schedule but lack 25th. 23rd. And there was an of principals subsequent. driving the interagency policy That review 8 in the way it was intended. a So to the best of your knowledge, thi s 'issue ultimately was not resolved by the principals, it was 9 resolved by the President? 7 There t4 A Correct. a You testified earlier about August L5th and August 15th. At the time did you think that the aid might in any way be linked to the investigations that were being pushed by Mr. Giuliani or that were discussed by the President in the l5 July 25th call? l0 lt t2 13 2t I personally did not associate them, no. Has your thinking changed in any way since then? Thi s 'is a personal opi ni on. I t str j kes me that the association was a meeting with the White House, at the White House, not related to the securi ty assi stance. But agai n, that's just my personal opinion, other people may have 22 di t6 t7 l8 t9 20 23 24 25 A O A fferent opi ni ons. a A What was Cha rge Taylor ' s opi n i on? I think there is the WhatsApp exchange where he expressed concerns that it might be linked. 324 I But what did he a tel1 you? 4 I don't reca11 having a conversation where he expressed the same opinion to me that he shared in the Wh a t sApp messages that apparently were leaked, but in any 5 case were handed over by former Special Representative 6 Volker. 2 3 A He 7 did in one conversation with me share a conversation 8 he had with Ambassador Sondland 9 who had l0 ll told him in which Ambassador Sondland, that there was no quid pro quo with the security assistance, sajd, on the other hand, you know, the President's a busjnessman and if you're going to sign a check l5 mitlion why not ask somebody for something. Now, that was sort of an informal comment that Ambassador Sondland made to Ambassador -- to Charge Taylor and that he conveyed to me. But the same person, Ambassador l6 Sondland, sa'id there was no quid pro quo on securi ty t7 assi stance. t2 13 t4 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 for $250 a When he had had wi did th Charge Taylor relay this conversation that Ambassador Sondland? A I cannot recall if it was in our secure conference call that I described on September 9th or, since I then flew to Ukraine and stayed with him over that weekend, whether he may have shared that with me in person. But I believe I did write that note up and share it with the records. So it's part of the records that were collected by the State 325 I Depa r tmen 2 a J trip or about September a And the Ukrajne A I arri ved i n Ukrai ne on September l.Lth, that's was on LLth? 4 5 t cor rect 6 . a What 7 wrote up on or 8 September? did you do with the this memo that about the 9th of September or 11th of you ll to the note on f i 1e that I had 'ini t'ia11y written on the 1.5th of August and then subsequently amended it with the conversations I had with Charge Taylor jn person t2 i 9 l0 l3 t4 A I added i t n Ukrai ne. a A dld you give that memo to? It was a note to the file, so it stayed as a note And who l5 to the file until I submitted it to the document collection l6 when those were requested. l7 23 0kay. When you say to the document collection, you're talking about -- were you referring to the subpoena? A I am referring to the subpoena. a 0kay. 5o you djdn't specifically give this memo to Deputy Assistant Secretary Murphy, for example? A To the best of my recollection, when I returned from Kyiv I wrote the note to the file and I ora11y briefed 24 Deputy Assi l8 t9 20 2l 22 25 a stant Secretary l"lurphy, Deputy Assi stant Secretary Fi sher, and Acti ng Assi stant 5ecretary Reeker. 326 a I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 It is a different brief than the ones we were talking about earlier? A Correct. The prev'ious t'ime when I talked yes, because this is sequential. So I had two conversations with two individuals on the L5th and L6th of August. That was the first time I wrote a note to a file. I had subsequent conversations with Ambassador -- Charge Taylor on the 9th of September, another note to the fi1e. And then travel to Ukraine, conversations there, return, note to the file, oral brief. 0kay. ll a t2 Reeker, and And the oral bri efi ng was wj th Fi sher, Murphy? l8 A To the best of my knowledge, yes, but I did I know that I included in my note to the file the offjcials whom I briefed orally. So I wrote it up and then I briefed and I added that as a note in the file that I -- precisely whom I had oral briefed. a Was this one oral briefing or multiple oral l9 briefings? 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 2t It was it would have been sequential because those are three different individuals. And so two of them, 22 again, offices are collocated with mine, then Acting 23 Assi 20 24 25 A stant Secretary Reeker's offi ce i s across the a A ha11 their reactions? At this point it was clear the nature of And what were the . 327 I jnteractions that Special Representative VoIker 2 Ambassador Sondtand were J of the conversations that had been clearly 4 Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador a 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 14 speci and having, so it was more confirmation ongoing between Volker with Ukrainians. And do you reca11 what Reeker's reaction was fically? I do not recal1 precisety. I think they were all A conce rned a A a . Did they commit Not that Did they I to doing anything about this? reca11. say that they were going to escalate the i ssue? A a I do not recall. You testi fied earlier thi s afternoon about a l5 conversation that you had with Charge Taylor about Zelenskyy t6 making some sort t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A I of TV interview or address, public address. mentioned what Ambassador Sondland had told that he conveyed to me, yes. a Okay. And when did Charge Taylor have that conversat'ion wi th you? A I believe that's what I conveyed to you regarding the conversatjon I had with Charge Taylor on the 9th of September, referencing his conversation w'ith Ambassador Sondland that occurred on the 8th of September. a Did you have any further conversatjons with Charge Charge Taylor and 328 I Taylor about this topic after September LLth, I guess 2 A Yes. J a And when was 4 A The next conversation would have happened breakfast table Sunday morning, which 6 15th. a A 8 9 i was? the next conversation? 5 7 it I believe was at that time? I was his house guest in the ambassador's at the September And where were you residence n Kyi v. l5 a 0kay. Can you describe who else was at that A That was just Ambassador Taylor and me. He went out for a run, and I went down to breakfast, and we met and talked 7:30 in the morning more or less. a What did you talk about? A We talked about the meeting that ambassador -- l6 Charge Taylor and Special Representative Volker had had the t7 night before with Andriy Yermak, the close personal aide of 18 President Zelenskyy. 10 ll l2 13 l4 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 a A And what were you told? Wel1, that meeti ng was the one meeti ng on Kurt's in Ukraine that he felt uncomfortable with me joining. He sa'id that it was because of numbers. It was not clear whether it would be just Yermak or whether he would also bring a gentleman named Novokov (ph), whom I have not met, and who is responsible for U.S. relations in the schedule 329 I Presi denti al offi ce. Kurt said he felt that having three Americans on one 2 J Ukraine was too much, and he said i f there were a second 4 Ukrainian 5 we 6 there was going to be an awkward conversati on, 7 was. 8 conversati on over breakfast. 9 re i nvol I could come. I ved 'i n decided another event, as not to push it since well as And Charge Taylor provi ded me a A Whi ch we antj ci pati ng that whi ch there the details of that were? l9 besides the main part of the conversation was about negoti ations wj th the Russi ans, and I won't mention that and that's not germane. But the more awkward part of the conversation came when Special Representatjve Volker made the point that the Ukrainians, who had opened their authorities under Zelenskyy, had opened investigat'ions of former Presjdent Poroshenko, he didn't think that was appropriate. And then Andriy Yermak said: What? You mean the type of investigations you're pushing for us to do on Biden and 20 Cl i nton? 2l at that point Kurt Volker did not respond. Later on in the conversation, when it came to the potential for Zelenskyy and President Trump to meet, according to Charge Taylor, Special Representative Volker said: And i t's important that President Zelenskyy give the l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 22 23 24 25 And We1l, 330 I messages 2 And 3 do that. a A a 4 5 6 7 that we discussed before. Charge Taylor told me that he then said: Don't Who sa'id don't do that? Charge Taylor. So Taylor was concerned about the way i n whi ch th'is conversation took place? A 8 My understanding is that he was concerned. And 10 Kurt made a suggestion that Charge Taylor felt was i nappropri ate he wei ghed i n wi th hi s own personal opi ni on, 1l which that was not appropriate. t2 t9 directly link'ing the White House meeting and the investigations that were bejng pushed by the President. Is that correct? A It was an elliptical readout that -- by the readout that I heard from Charge Volker sorry, Charge Taylor that Kurt, Speci a1 Representati ve Volker, was referri ng to prior conversations that he had w'ith Yermak and prior advice, meaning you should deliver the messages as we've discussed 20 before. 2l a A 9 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 18 22 23 24 25 when a And Volker was Do you know what those messages were? This goes back to the signaling for a pubtic appearance. The hoped-for i ntervi ew wi th CNN wi th Zelenskyy did not happen during the conference. Fareed Zakaria was one of the hosts, but there was no special interview. So there 331 J that Pres'ident Zelenskyy would have an interview with CNN the week of the U.N. General Assembly leaders meetings, wh'ich was the week of September 23rd to 4 27tn. I 2 was di scussi on a 5 6 7 8 9 l0 by Rudy Gi uI i ani . I think my time is up at this point. MR. G0LDMAN: Yi etd to the mi nor i ty. MR. CASTOR: We don't have any quest'ions at thi s poi nt. MR. MITCHELL: l3 We might subsequently. MR. GOLDMAN: l5 I think we're almost finished. MR. CAST0R: Thank you. l8 t"lR. G0LDMAN: And then give you an opportuni end. 20 MR. CAST0R: 0kay. 2t MR. G0LDt'lAN: 0kay? 22 We 23 lD'iscussi on of f are nearing the end. Just L second. BY ]'4R. 24 25 So we'11 take it back for a few minutes. t7 t9 wanted President to provide during the CNN interview was what? A That Zelenskyy should message that hi s willingness to open investigations jn the two areas of jnterest to the President and that had been pushed previously t2 l6 that Mr. Volker Zelenskyy ll t4 And the message a the record. l GOLDMAN: A f ew wrap-up quest'ions here. ty at the 332 That breakfast meeting that you had on September L5th I 2 that 3 well? we were just discussing, did you memor i a1 i ze that as 13 A I wrote that to note to file when I' returned to the U. S. , yes. a When you get back to the U. S. A Subsequent to Ukraine, I went to Belarus, where i was in Belarus for 2 days, including the three-quarter day vj si t of Under Secretary Ha1e. And then after that I went to Lithuania to outbrief our Lithuanian a1lies about the advances in the U.S.-Belarus Under Secretary Hate announced relationshi p, because we that we were going to return an ambassador to Belarus, which l4 we have 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 ? not had since 2008. I returned to the U. S. 'in the eveni ng of the L9th of September, I was in the office on Friday, the 20th, and then took a train up first thing Monday morning to be in New York for the U.N. General Assembly meetings. a Were there any conversations that week on the in the U.N. General Assembly week that you were aware of or were present for or that related to these investigations into Biden in 2015 that we've been discussing? A No. a You had neither had any nor heard of any? A I was not 'involved i n any meeti ngs, no of that So 333 I nature, no. It was very 2 engagement a time. J much focused on the intense of many foreign leaders who were there at that 6 a Because you said that as of September 15th there was stjll a hope, for example, that President Zelenskyy would give an interview with CNN when he was in New York for the 7 General Assembly and 8 i nvesti 4 5 gations, ri ght? A 9 specifically mention those That was my understanding of what Ambassador Volker l0 and Ambassador Sondland were requesting ll yes. t2 a A of the Ukrain'ians, But you don't know whether anything came of that? 20 of my knowledge, President Zelenskyy d'id not give an interview to CNN while in New York wjth that sort of messaging, no. a Djd you have any meetings with any Ukrainians officials during that September L1th to L5th tjmeframe yourself where they expressed where they djscussed these investigations at at1? A The only meeting that I was a part of where this 2t came up l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 To the best obliquely was with the foreign mjn'ister, Vadym Prystaiko. And that was a meeting with Kurt Volker, Charge Taylor, and myself i n whi ch the forei gn mi ni ster sai d: You guys are sending us different messages in different channels. a And what did you understand that to mean? 334 J in that meeting all three of us, Kurt Votker, Charge Taylor, and I, all reiterated that it would not be appropri ate f or the Ukrai n j ans to engage i n any act'ivi ty that 4 could be construed as j nterferi ng i n the I 2 5 6 7 8 9 A a We1l, And so what was the U. conflicting S. electi message on. that they were receivjng? A Well, I would suggest that what was said later on that night, in the meeting I was not a part of, to Andriy Yermak was the conflicting message. And as I recounted, l0 there were two messages, there was what Ambassador Volker ll said and what Charge Taylor said, and those themselves t2 conff i cti ng messages. l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 Because just to be clear -- because Ambassador Volker was saying not to investigate Poroshenko? A No. Ambassador VoIker suggested that Andriy Yermak should ensure that the agreed-upon messaging was delivered by Pres'ident Zelenskyy. And Charge Taylor sa'id: Don't do that. a I see. a You made some reference that e'ither to Yermak responding to Volker or Charge Taylor said 20 something 2l about Poroshenko a few minutes ago. 22 23 24 25 were A a Ambassador Yes. Explain that conversation again. I didn't quite catch the whole thing. A So this was again, I did not go into detail 335 of the conversation because that was about I about the bulk 2 negoti ati ng tacti cs vi s- d-vi 5 6 7 8 9 that "into a new set of issues, according to Charge Taylor, based on his notes, I didn't participate in the meeting, one of the issues that Kurt wrote raised was the fact that there were a seri es of i nvest'igati ons bei ng opened by Ukrai ni an authori ties against former President Poroshenko. And Kurt advi sed Yermak that was not a wi se way forward for the l0 count ry ll a t2 Russi ans. As the conversati on was movi ng away f rom J 4 s the to . And what did -- how did Yermak respond, according Charge Taylor? A l4 to Charge Taylor, hi s response was: you mean the types of investigations you're asking us to l5 agai 13 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 Z) 24 25 nst a Accordi ng Cl i nton and 0h, open Bj den? And j t would seem that as someone who was for anticorruption efforts that that's exactly the message that you would be concerned about on thjs. Is that accurate? A As I 've stated here previ ous1y, i t' s my bel i ef that it is inappropriate for us to ask another country to open up an i nvesti gati on agai nst po1 i ti ca1 opponents, whether i t j s political opponents domestically in the U.S. context or,'in the case of countries ljke Ukraine or Georgia, opening up selective prosecutions against perceived opponents of those responsible 336 i n power. 2 J 4 did you think it was appropriate for Vice President Biden to condit'ion the release of the loan guarantees on the firing of Prosecutor General Shokin? 5 a And A Prosecutor General Shokin was an impediment to 7 of the prosecutorial system, and he had directly undermined in repeated fashjon U.S. efforts and U.S. 8 assi stance programs. 6 reform And 9 l0 l1 the so, because we had a strategi c 'interest j n seei ng the Ukrainian prosecutor system reformed, and because we have a fiduci ary responsi bi 1i ty for U.5. taxpayer do1lars, i t was l3 the consensus view that Shokin needed to be removed so that the stated goal of reform of the prosecutor general system t4 could move forward. l5 l6 that that connection was a quid pro quo, you're not saying that that was an improper t7 quid pro t2 a A l8 t9 And so when you mentioned quo? I didn't say that it was a quid pro quo, the case that both the Il4F and the U. but it is S. Government do use 22 conditionality for assistance, whether it is macroeconomic assistance provided by the IMF or, in the case of our Sovereign loan guaranteeS, we put conditionality that related 23 to 20 2t 24 25 management of the gas system, meeting macroeconomic stability goals proposed by the IMF, social safety nets, issues related to anticorruption. And that involved the and 337 I National Anticorruption Prevention 2 Anti -Corruption Bureau, as J off i ce. Okay. . MR. GOLDNAN: 5 MR. MALIN0WSKI: Thank you. 6 l"lR 7 And j ust 9 1, the National well as the prosecutor general's 4 8 Counci . G0LDI'IAN : 14r l4a1i nowski has a f ew questi ons. 0ne th i ng . to be clear, what Vice President Biden was doing was very fundamental 1y di fferent than any advocacy for a politically oriented jnvestigation. Is that your l0 assessment? ll l3 for the dismissal of Shokin was related di rectly to him, to his actions in the diamond prosecutors case, in hi s undermi nj ng of our assi stance to 14 Ukrai ne. t2 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 MR. KENT: The request MR. GOLDMAN: And that's di sti nct from your concerns that you've rai sed today about advocacy for an investigation into Biden or the 2015 electi on? MR. KENT: distinct, That's how I would look at the two issues, yes. 23 distinction 'is between cond'i tionality to advance the national interest and condi ti onali ty to advance a personal i nterest. MR. KENT: One might say national interest versus 24 parti san i nterest, yes. 20 2t 22 25 as MR. MALINOWSKI: The MR. MALINOWSKI: I just have a couple of other subjects 338 that I 5 to ask you about. And thank you so much for your patience and precision today and for the integrity that you have shown in every part of your career, Mr. Kent. You mentioned at one point a conversation with Fiona Hill in which she had relayed to you that the Presjdent had 6 had phone conversations with 7 of 2 J 4 wanted Vjktor 0rban, the Prime Minister l5 in which she told you that they had both, I think you said, tatked down Ukraine to the President. Can you say a little bit more about that? What do you recall of that? MR. KENT: We11, to the best of my recollection, Fiona gave me a readout of both conversations at the same time. It was a phone call with President Putin on or about May 3rd. It was a meeting at the White House, so it was an in-person meeting on or about Nay 13th. The President's engagement of t6 0rban included a L-hour one-on-one, and then subsequently the t7 Hungarian foreign l8 j oi ned. t9 : In your j udgement, what moti vati on would 0rban and Putin have had to try to talk down Ukraine, Zelenskyy, to President Trump? MR. KENT: We11, Putin's motivation is very c1ear. He denies the existence of Ukraine as a nat'ion and a country, as he told President Bush in Bucharest in 2008. He invaded and occupied 7 percent of Ukraine's territory and he's 1ed to the 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 20 21 22 24 25 Hungary, and Putin minister, Szijjarto, MR. MALIN0WSKI and Ambassador Bolton 339 1 death of 13 ,000 Ukrai ni ans on Ukrai ni an terri tory si nce 20L4 of aggression. 2 as a result J of creating a greater So that's hjs Russia and ensuring agenda, the agenda that Ukraine does 6 not survi ve i ndependently. Viktor 0rban's beef with Ukra"ine is derived in part to his vision, in my opinion, of a greater Hungary. And there 7 are about 130,000 eth'ic Hungarjans who live in the trans- 8 Carpathi an provi nce 4 5 of Ukrai ne. t2 of next year, which is the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Trianon, post-Wor1d War I, which resulted in more ethnic Hungarians living outside Hungary than inside, this issue of greater Hungary is at the top of 0rban's l3 agenda. 9 l0 ll And ahead t7 this particular jssue and, for instance, blocked at1 meetings in NATO with Ukraine at the mi ni steri aI 1eve1 or above because of thi s parti cular i ssue. 5o his animus towards Ukraine is well-known, documented, and l8 has lasted now 2 years. t9 2t of these leaders would have an interest in the United States and the President of the United States endi ng or dimj ni shi ng our support for an i ndependent 22 Ukrai ne? 14 l5 t6 20 23 24 25 And so he has picked MR. MALIN0WSKI: So both I would say that that's Puti n's think 0rban is just happy to jam Ukraine. MR. MALIN0WSKI: 0kay. All right, okay. MR. KENT: posi ti on. I 340 I 2 a J 4 And then finally on the broader corruption issue. know Ukraine extremely You we11. You were also responsible for anticorruption efforts in EUR for some t'ime. Imagine that the President of the United States were to l0 call you in, President Trump, his predecessor, and that he said: George, look, I rea11y, rea11y believe this is a fundamental issue for the United States in Ukraine. The corruption is the obstacle to the transformation to this country that we seek. And I am prepared to use some leverage to do something about corruption in Ukraine, maybe even hold ll up a meeting, maybe even condition some assistance on the 5 6 7 8 9 t7 this seriously. George, what would be the three or four or five top things we shoutd be demanding, we should be asking the Ukrainians to do if we rea11y wanted to get serious on this issue, what would be what would you say, what would be on your list? 1'4R. KENT: I think for Ukraine as well as other 18 countries that have never prosecuted any large-scale crook, t2 l3 t4 15 t6 Ukrainians rea11y taking 20 putting one of the big fish, so-cal1ed big fish in jail would be a great start as a signal that there isn't impunity. And 2l that's, 22 bi ggest one. t9 23 24 25 agai n, not uni que to Ukrai ne. I thi nk that's the that there's i ntegri ty i n the prosecutor general's offi ce i s absolutely cri ti cal particularly for post-Soviet countries. There were two I thi nk demonstrati ng , 341 4 institutions that were the instruments of oppression in the Soviet Union. It was the prosecutor's office and the KGB or the secret police. And those two institutions in many of these countries are fundamentally stil1 not reformed 28 years 5 later. I 2 3 So 6 if you want to see the successful transformatjon of ll of the post-Soviet countries, reform of the security service in Ukraine, that's known as the SBU (ph), and reform of the prosecutor general's office are the fundamental keys to transforming the country. MR. MALINOWSKI: And some of these might require t2 legi slati ve changes, lega1 reforms? 7 8 9 l0 any l3 MR. KENT: Yes. t4 MR. MALINOWSKI: More l5 l6 than just go after thjs person or that person? MR. KENT: Yes. 23 then we11, 1et me ask you, 'if that js going to be your policy, if you're going to conditjon something that a country wants in exchange for that country doing something that we want in our national interest, it's logical that we would then te11 that country, here are the things that we want you to do if you want to get your meeti ng, i f you want to get your a'id, or whatever i t i s 24 worth condition'ing, correct? t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 25 l"lR. I4ALINOWSKI: To your knowledge, MR. KENT: Correct. 342 MR. MALIN0WSKI: I 2 J 4 5 0kay. To your knowledge, did any of the so-ca11ed "three amigos," if we can call them that, ever i n thei r engagements wi th the Ukrai ni an authorj tj es, especially in conversations around getting this meeting with the President or perhaps getting the aid restored, ever urge 8 the Ukrainians to pursue those deeper anticorruption measures, reforms that you just referred to? MR. KENT: What I referred to 'is strategic and 9 institutional, 6 7 that l0 And ll meet i ng and what they were working on was was what j t would take to tactical. send a message to send a . t4 t wasn't reform the securi ty servi ces, i t was not reform the prosecutor's offi ce, i t was one investigation we11, two investigations, 2016 and the l5 Bi den t2 t3 MR. MALINOWSKI: And i of intent to open an'investigation. MR. MALINOWSKI: Which is not anticorruption. MR. KENT: In and of it itself is not anticorruption, MR. KENT: l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l Signal no MR. MALINOWSKI: It is basically selective prosecution or investigat'ion. the phrase I used, yes. 22 MR, KENT: That was 23 MR. MALINOWSKI: And you've worked in and around a 1ot 24 of dictatorships in your 1ife, Uzbekistan, Thailand now, you 25 know, not Ukraine, but certainly a country struggling to 343 J build democracy. Is it not a very common feature of authori tari an or semj -authori tari an regimes that they selectively prosecute people for corrupt'ion for poli tical 4 pu I 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 rposes? is the case, yes. MR. MALINOWSKI: The people who you know in Ukraine who are dedi cated to fl ghti ng corrupti on, the actj vi sts, the reformers, and who saw the United States of America as a champion of their cause, do they see the United States of America as a champion of their cause today? MR. KENT: I stil1 believe they count on the U.S. as their best hope to get through very difficult times, yes. I"lR. KENT: Unfortunately that l3 14R. MALINOWSKI: Thank you. t4 MR. G0LDMAN: l5 two quick questjons l6 BY MR. t7 l8 Ki s1 i t9 20 23 24 25 GOLDMAN: n or Semeon A I A a (ph) am f am'i1i 've aware Cor Sam Ki st i n? ar wi th the name only recently and only read. You have no re not have you. Are you familiar with someone by the name of a you' for I go to Chairman Enge1, I just a based on what I 2t 22 Before individual or other than press reports of thi s i ndi vi dual? rect. And you, much earljer today, I think you were describing what may have been a conversation that you had 344 I with former 2 Ambassador Yovanov'itch about the July 25th ca11. A a And A That's accurate. I would not have no, I did not Rl ght. ll I think you sajd that you may have djscussed some aspects of it and that you don't recall what her response was. Is that accurate? A To the best of my recollection. And if there is other informatjon that people want to provide context to try to trigger addi tional information, I'm open to that. a So you it appears to us at least as if, A, you took a lot of notes about these events, and, B, you may have reviewed them prior to coming here today to testify. Is t2 that a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l3 l8 to testify. In order for the Department to respond to the subpoena for document collections I went through my notebooks to find any notes from meetings that would be responsive to those that document request. That's why I reviewed them, as 19 i nformati on. 20 a 14 l5 l6 t7 2t 22 23 24 25 review them before coming Djd you have any notes from your discussion with Ambassador Yovanovitch about A I did not and would not because that would have happened i nformally, a the July 25th call? not i n the offi ce. 5o if she has a different recollection as to what you guys discussed, do you think that that 345 1 2 J 4 A That's possible. She could have been much more specific about a conversation we had and the issues we've been discussing. l'ly t'imetine starts several years earlier than hers. 5o I do not rule that out. 5 MR. G0LDMAN: Okay. 6 Chairman Engel, would you 7 MR. ENGEL: like to? Yeah. Wel1, I guess in closing I want you 2t to know I stumbled jn here before they told me Clark Kent was here. So I thought he was you. But, anyway, thank you so much for your testimony. And thank you for what you not only for what you're doing now, but for what you've done through the years. It's really so critical that we learn the facts and your detai 1ed, very careful testimony today, i t's j ust so important, so important for our country, so important. And it should also not be used by the administratjon or the Department of State to retaliate against you or anybody else. I have been very much chagrined over the fact of the way employees at the Department of State have been treated for the past couple of years. Morale j s down. I t's j ust unconscionable. And I think it takes people like you who 22 have not only had commendable records through the years, but 23 who have 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 14 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 24 25 the guts to come in and speak from the really helps all of us moving forward. And of course we will move forward. We heart. It have to move 346 re ng, si r, i s a 1 forward. 2 accompljshment and tremendously important J Department and 4 5 6 And what you' doi tremendous for the State for the country as a whole. Schiff already exptained on the record earlier today why any retaliation against you or anybody else would be unlawful and just wrong. Your service I know that Chairman 8 to our country for nearly three decades is commendable and I hope it continues without harassment or undue interference 9 from the Department you have honorably served. 7 l3 just again thank you as the chairman of the House Foreign Affajrs Committee, thank you personally, and let you know that I and the Foreign Affairs Committee will hold the Department accountable to treat employees properly t4 and l0 ll t2 t5 So let me with the respect you deserve. Thank you. 20 , Mr . Chai rman. MR. G0LDMAN: A11 right. I believe that's it from the majority, we used 20 minutes in th'is record. So I yield to the minority if you would like any further questions. MR. ZELDIN: I know we stepped out. Did we have dld 2l our side have a round while we were out voting or was that 22 the majority the whole time? l6 t7 l8 l9 23 24 25 MR. KENT: Thank you of concern is Chairman Schiff appropri ately earlier made a di sclaimer to all Members and all staff that we are in a depos'ition, that deposition rules For the record, one thing 347 apply, and that there shoutd not be any leaks. This is 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 that the minority side takes extremely seriously, and it has been disappointing that during the brjef time that we stepped out to go vote that we are reading on Twitter substance from today's deposition being cited by name to Chairman Schiff and to Gerry Connolly. It's rea11y important that if the deposjtion rules apply, where Members are not allowed to talk about the substance of what is discussed today, that that is applied equally to both the majority and minority, and I want to state that for the record. We are also sti1l waiting a ruling we started two depositions ago with a request -- actually it was the second deposition a request as to what rule is governing thjs entire process. We sti11 have not received an answer as to what House rule governs any of this process. The start of the last depos'ition we had a phone call with the House parliamentarian which started with a question of what House rule is governing any of this entire process. We are reiterating that we sti1l have not rece1ved an answer. The m'inority whip, Steve 5ca1jse, just made that request on the House floor and was not provided an answer. And we would be very interested in knowing, and if that answer can't be provided now, at the start of tomorrow morni ng' s deposi t'ion, what House rule i s governi ng thi s something 348 enti re process for thi s impeachment i nqui ry. 2 MR. BITAR: For J MR. JORDAN: the record, your interest is noted. Mr. Secretary, 1et me just go back. So on 4 the July 25th call between President Trump and President 5 Zelenskyy, 6 that cal1. just to walk through it again, 7 MR. KENT: Correct. 8 MR. JORDAN: 9 MR. KENT: Yes. you were not on Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was. 13 point subsequent to that call you were on a call with the lieutenant colonel or you had some kind of meeting with him? MR. KENT: It was a call and he gave me a very limited l4 readout, correct. l5 ./.) that limited readout on that call with the lieutenant colonel did he te11 you not to talk about what you discuss with anyone else? It's MR. KENT: I don't recal1 how he characterized it. just that he said that the information obviously was of very sensitive nature and that's why he could not give me the normal readout of the fu11 content that he normally did. MR. JORDAN: And the call you had with Lieutenant Colonel Vjndman, was that the 25th, the 27ln? What day with 24 a that? l0 ll t2 l6 t7 r8 l9 20 21 22 25 l"lR. JORDAN: And MR. JORDAN: MR. KENT: It at 0kay. some And on was a subsequent day. I do not I 349 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 for certain which day he ca1led. Normally I kept my notes in a notebook. 0n thj s parti cular occasi on I grabbed a piece of paper and started writing. So it was not in a sequential notebook day by day. cannot say t within a week or was it in August? MR. KENT: It was within a week, to the best of my MR. JORDAN: Was i recollecti on. t4 tikely some tjme in July? MR. KENT: If the call happened the earliest it could have been was the 25th. To the best of my recollection, there were several days. So my guess is the 27tn. There's a weekend in there somewhere. I'm not sure which the weekend was. So I would say the last week of July would be the best I could bound i t. l5 MR. JORDAN: And then you discussed what Lieutenant 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 MR. JORDAN: So most ColoneI V'indman told you l8 th whom? MR. J0RDAN: I cannot recatl the exact content, particularly since I didn't get as much content as I just l9 a tonal poem. 5o I can't recall di rectly. l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MR. JORDAN: wi got Did the lieutenant colonel te11 you, look, I'm sharing this with you but no one eIse, or did you get the impression that he had shared thj s j nformation wi th other people maybe jn the State Department or other people'in our government or anyone else? MR. J0RDAN: I am not aware of who else he might have 350 t2 to. In the general course of readouts of that nature, I would be the natural person for him to give a readout at the State DePartment. okay. So normally MR. JORDAN: Is the fact that he you would get a readout. So was this the normal process that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman would 1et you know about this call or was this somehow different? MR. KENT: It was the normal process. He had given me a sim'ilar readout f or the Apri 1 2Lst ca11. What was di f f erent hjs concern that he did not feel at liberty to was that share all the substantive details of the ca11. That was what was different. But the readout, that he was giving me a l3 readout, was the normal procedure. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll given a readout MR. J0RDAN: And why t4 wouldn't he share everything with l9 if it's the normal process that you get briefed, you get a readout of cal1s between the President of the United States and foreign heads of state in your area, your area of the world that you're responsible for and that you deal with? And on the April catl he gave you a ful1 readout. Is that 20 right? l5 t6 t7 18 2l 22 23 you MR. KENT: Correct, although jt was a short, nonsubstant'i ve conversati on. MR. J0RDAN: 0kay. Wetl, yvere there other occasion a readout 24 where Ljeutenant ColoneI Vindman gave you 25 cal1s between President Trump and foreign heads of state? from 351 MR. KENT: To the best I of my knowledge, these were the J only two ca1ls between President Trump and a head of government of the six countries for which I have 4 responsi bi 1i ty. 2 a MR. J0RDAN: Got 5 6 7 it. Got it So you have these two. got a fu1l readout from the Apri 1 2l.st call or Apri 1 ca11, but you didn't And you 19 In Ju1y, correct. MR. JORDAN: And djd you find that unusual? MR. KENT: He made clear his extreme discomfort that there was discussions in the call that were what he described at the beginning was the majority of the call was very sensitive and he would not be giving me a futl readout. MR. JORDAN: And, wel1, I guess I'm trying to figure out if he's supposed to give you a readout, why didn't he give you the fult readout? MR. KENT: Again, all I can describe is his djscomfort in sharing what he shared without -- with his disclaimer right up front that he was not going to give me the fu11 20 normal readout. 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 MR. KENT: 2l MR. JORDAN: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. ZELDIN: In an earljer 23 24 25 i ndiv'iduat cases where the Uni round we were discussing ted States Government had with the Ukrainian Government with regards to cases under the jurisdiction of Ukraine. You cited one case spoken 352 fi cal1y as possi b1y the hi ghest profi 1e case that I speci 2 were tracki ng. J a MR. KENT: After 4 MR. ZELDIN: 5 6 you 0r one of hi ghest profi 1e cases? MR. KENT: For that perjod of time, the second half the 2018, yes. 8 of these conversations with the Ukraine Government about corruption cases that we felt 9 Ukrai ne 7 l0 ll t2 l3 MR. ZELDIN: Were any shouldn't prosecute? I'm not aware of us ever telling Ukraine not to prosecute a corrupt individual or a person believed to have engaged i n corrupti on, no. MR. ZELDIN: Is it true that Ukrajne prosecuted cases MR. KENT: l8 that were classified as a corruption case but were i nappropri ately classi fi ed as such? MR. KENT: I will give you a specific example. The National Agency to Prevent Corruption was set up to review the asset declarat'ions of the i ni ti a1ly top 1,000 and then t9 they expanded to even more Ukra'ini an of f i ci als. t4 l5 t6 t7 20 2l 22 23 24 25 In the f i rst year of thei r operat'ions they went af ter two individuals. 0ne, the reformist head of customs who paid herself an $18 bonus on Women's Day when all the women jn her office got it. And they also had launched an investigation of Serhiy Leschenko, the aforementjoned member of parliament and former i nvesti gati ve j ournal i st, who purchased an 353 I apartment. And those were the only two jnvestigations that 2 they did, and they were both reformers who were also critics 3 of 6 in reform. And there were dozens of bjllionaire oligarchs and other jndividuals, and there were no inves['igations of people whose reputations were that they had engaged in corruption for 7 years. 4 5 8 9 people who were not engaged MR. ZELDIN: So that I understand your testimony correctly, you cited two cases where two'individuals were t4 of corruption but shouldn't have been. MR. KENT: As far as I recall, those are the only two individuals or officials of Ukraine that the Natjonal Agency to Prevent Corruption went after based on the asset declarations of high rank'ing offic'ia1s and members of l5 parliament. t6 to be cIear, you just used the word Ukrainian officials. Is there a different answer with regards to Ukrainian cit'izens or when you sajd officjals did you mean Ukrainians at large? MR. KENT: I was just trying to give a very specific example for a new institutjon that we in'itia1ly helped stand up to help contain corruption based on asset declarations. And instead of using the asset declaration system to identify those who may have used public office to enrich themselves they went after two reformists who were noted critics of the l0 ll t2 l3 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 accused MR. ZELDIN: And 354 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 lack of reform in certajn parts of the Ukrainian Government. MR. ZELDIN: And what was the timeframe for this answer? I believe the NAPC, as it was known, was stood up in 2015, and so this would have been 2015, 2016. MR. ZELDIN: I understand that in a recent round you were answering questions based off of information that you obtained from others related to aid from the United States to Ukraine and the allegation of a quid pro quo. Do you have any firsthand knowledge of United States aid to Ukraine ever being connected to the opening of a new investigation? MR. KENT: I do not have direct knowledge, no. MR. ZELDIN: Thank you . That' s i t MR. G0LDMAN: Is that it? A11 right. MR. KENT: . Two more l4 l5 a t6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 BY MR. GOLDMAN: i just wanted to touch upon your some of that you have been discussing today. Do you have an understanding as to whether there the documents l8 t9 things, 2 minutes. emai 1s or other documents 'in the custody may be of the State that reflect expressions of concern about some of the topics that we discussed today, separate and apart from your memos to file or other emails that you have referenced? A I would have imagined that there are quite a number of emai 1s, yes. a You di scussed havi ng two speci fi c conversati ons Department 355 2 th Fi ona Hi11, one in May and one you remember less of J u1y. And obv'iously you had other conversations wi th J L I wi Colonel Vindman and Tim Morrison. i eutenant 4 We in re you ever aware of whether there was a separate ther individual or individuals at the 5 ei 6 Counci 7 the Ukrai ne matter outs'ide of ordi nary 1 who were provi di ng i nformati on Nat'iona1 Securi ty to the President on channel s? l0 A I did not hear about it and have no information about that, no. a Are you famitiar with someone by the name of Kash ll Patel 8 9 A t2 l3 l5 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 I am not aware that I've ever met anybody by that name, Io. t4 l6 ? a A Have you a A How ever heard that I think Patel is a fairly name? common South Asian last name. about Kash? I -- less common. I do not I cannot imagine or I can not recall any time where I was either in the presence of or heard a reference to Kash Patel. Okay. Thank you. I think we are done. And.thank you very much, Mr. Kent, for a long day. Really appreci ate i t. And we' re adj ourned. [Whereupon, at 7:42 p.m., the interview was concluded.] MR. GOLDMAN: