1 1 2 PERMANENT SELECT COl,lMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, J j oi 4 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM 5 and the 6 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 7 U.S. 8 WASHINGTON, D.C. nt wi th the HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT]VES, 9 l0 ll l2 DEP0SITI0N 0F : l'4ARI E "MASHA" YOVAN0VITCH 13 t4 l5 t6 Fri day, 0ctober LL, 2019 t7 Washington, l8 D.C l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 The interview HVC-304, in the above matter was held in Room Capitol Vis'itor Center, commencing at 10:38 a.m. Present: 5ch'iff, Himes, Quigley, Heck, and MaIoney. Also Present: Representatives Norton, Plaskett, Raskin, Jordan, Meadows, Malinowski, Perry, and Zeldin. 2 I Appearances: 2 J 4 FOT thC PERT"IANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 FoT the COMMiTTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: 3 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 For the Comm'ittee 0N F0REIGN AFFAIRS: 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 For l6 LAWRENCE t7 LAURIE RUBENSTEIN, E5Q. l8 RACHEL l9 ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, 20 UNTEREINER 2t Street, N.W. 4th Floor Washi ngton, D. C. 20005 22 23 24 25 MARIE Y0VANOVITCH: 2000 K S. ROBBINS, ESQ. S. LI & WAI SUEN, ESQ. ORSECK, SAUBER LLP 4 5 Okay. The committee will come to order. Good morning, Ambassador, and welcome to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which along with the Forei gn Affai rs and Oversi ght, Commi ttees, i s conducti ng thi s investigation as part of the official impeachment inqui ry of 6 the I 2 J 4 THE CHAIRI"IAN: 9 l0 of Representatives. Today's depos'iti on i s bei ng conducted as part 7 8 House of the inquiry. 0n behalf of all of us today, on both sides of the table, I want to thank you for your decades of serv'ice to the Nation, and especially for so ably representing the Un'ited t2 States aS our Ambassador to Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine. As you know firsthand, the post-Soviet space has presented a l3 myriad t4 And as the successor l5 grapple with the consequences 11 success of American administrations. states, the former USSR continue to of Communism. I've read about the curtailment of your posting in t6 t7 of challenges for and I of 70 years Kyiv, have seen the shameful attacks made on you by those who t9 lack your character and devotion to country. Whiie we will doubtless explore more fu1ly the circumstances of your 20 premature reca11 duri ng thi l8 2l s i ntervi ew, I'm appalled that any administration would treat a dedicated public servant as you 22 have been treated. 23 24 25 As you know, the White House and the Secretary of State effort in trying to prevent you and others from meeting with us to tell us the facts. Because of the have spared no 5 I 2 J admi n'istrat'ion's ef f orts to block your deposi t j on and obstruct your inquiry, the committee had no choice but to compel your appearance today. We thank you for complying 7 with the duly authorized congressional subpoena. Finally, I want you to know that the Congress will not tolerate any attempt to retal'iate against you or to exact retribution of any kind. We expect that you'11 be treated in 8 accordance w'ith your rank, and of f ered assi gnments 9 commensurate 4 5 6 with your expertise and tong service. Should l0 that not be the case, we wj11 hold those responsible ll account. t2 t4 I turn to committee counsel to begin the deposition, I invite Ranking Member Nunes or any member of HPSCI, or in their absence, any of my minority colleagues to l5 make opening remarks on l6 19 rman. J ust f or the record, on 0ctober 2nd,2019, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelos'i , said that she would treat the President with fai rness. Faj rness requi res certain things. Just a few 20 mi 2t this is an offi ci aI impeachment i nqui ry. If it's an official impeachment inquiry, l3 t7 t8 22 to Before MR. J0RDAN: Thank Mr. Nunes' behalf. you, Mr. nutes ago, the chairman Cha'i of the Intel Committee sa"id we that should be 24 following precedent. Every recent impeachment has permitted mi nori ty subpoenas. The ri ght of the mi nori ty to i ssue 25 subpoenas subject 23 to the same rules as the majority has been 6 J the standard bi part'i san practi ce 'in all recent resoluti ons authorizing presidential impeachment inqui ries. That is not the case today, has not been the case since this, quote, 4 "offi ci al I 2 impeachment i nqui ry" began. 6 failure to provide ranking members with subpoena power shows thi s i s a parti san i nvesti gati on. 7 Second, Democrats have threatened witnesses who request 8 agency counsel 5 9 l0 Democrats' equal to be present for the'ir transcribed jnterview and/or deposition. State Department lawyers have a right to protect executive branch j nterests, 'includi ng nat'iona1 t2 security interests. Democrats have threatened to withhold salaries of State Department officials who ask for the l3 presence ll of State Department lawyers in depositions. I've been in countless number of depositions and/or t4 l6 transcri bed i ntervj ews, thi s i s only the second one I 'Ve ever seen where agency counsel was not permitted to be in the room t7 when l5 18 a wltness was deposed or asked questions, the first was last Thursday. The first witness as a part of this, quote, t9 "of f ic'ial impeachment inqui ry. 20 2t " I And, finally, fairness requires due process. President and minority should have the right to The see all 23 evidence, both favorable and unfavorable. The President and minority should have the ability to present evidence bearing 24 on the 22 25 credibility of testifying witnesses. The President and the minority shoutd have the abllity to raise objections 7 I relati ng to exam'inati on of wi tnesses, and the admi ss'ibi f ity J of testimony and evidence. And the President and the minority should have the ability to respond to all evidence 4 and testimony presented. 2 6 fike to yield to my colleague from the Forei gn Af f ai rs Comm'ittee, Mr. Zeldi n, f or a f ew i tems to 7 put on the record as wel1. 5 With that, I would MR. ZELDIN: Yesterday, Ranking Member McCaul sent 8 a l0 letter to Chairman Engel consistent with what Mr. Jordan was just referencing on the record, calling on the chair to honor ll the bipartisan Rodino Hyde precedence that governed both the t2 Ni l3 Presi t4 proceedi ngs, and allowed the mi nori l5 subpoena authori ty. 9 l6 xon and C1 i nton impeachment i nqui res, wh'i ch guaranteed the dent's counsel the ri ght to parti ci pate i n these Mov'ing on. The question ty to exerci se coequal js, what specific provision rules gives the House Permanent Select Committee of l7 House l8 Intelligence the jurisdjction and authority to convene an t9 24 of a State Department di plomat regarding the conduct of U.5. foreign policy toward Ukraine? That is clearly the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Commi ttee, and to date, the House has not voted to g'ive the Intel Commjttee any additional authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry outside of its jurisdictional 1ane, which 25 concerns i ntell i gence- related acti v'i ti es. 20 2t 22 23 j nvesti gati ve i nqui ry on 8 I 2 J can you please point us to anything in the House rules that gives you this authoritY? We're going THE CHAIRMAN: to move forward with the 5 ti on rather than address the mi scharacteri zati ons of both impeachment history and inquiries and process. I would 6 now recognize Mr. Goldman. 4 7 8 9 l0 1l deposi MR. MEADOWS: Mr Chai rman, poi nt of order. Poi nt of order. THE CHAIRMAN: My colleague, we're not going to allow MR. MEADOWS: Wel1, you can't not a1low -- I'm here to te11 you, Mr. Schjff -- t2 THE CHAIRMAN: l3 MR. MEADOWS: t4 . point of order in We're not going to allow any dilatory -- you know the House rules allows for any 2t of order. MR. MEADOWS: The point of order is the rules of the House are very c1ear. The gentleman raised a valid point that there are no rules that would give the authority of you to actually depose this witness. And so, under what authority I would say you're out of order. THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your opinion, but the House 22 depos'ition rules say otherwise. So, l'4r. Goldman, yotl are 23 recogn i zed l5 16 t7 18 l9 20 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: State your point . MR. ZELDIN: Point of order, though, we are asking what that rule is that gives you the authority to conduct today's 9 I deposition. 2 MR. MEAD0WS: Rule 1l. J THE CHAIRMAN: We 4 mot'ions. Mr . doesn't outline anything. won't Gotdman, you' a11ow any re MR. ZELDIN: We're asking 6 MR. GOLDMAN: Th'is i Yovanovi 8 on 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 di latory recogni zed. 5 7 further s the a simple question. depos j tion of Ambassador Marie tch conducted by the House Permanent Select Commi to the impeachment inquiry announced by the Speaker of the House on Intelli gence, also ca11ed HPSCI, pursuant September 24th. MR. G0LDMAN: Ambassador Yovanov'itch, could you please spell your last name for the record. MR. ROBBINS: I'm sorry, before we begin the deposition. Sorry, I represent the witness. My name is Larry Robbins. The ambassador has an opening statement to make. MR. GOLDMAN: We're going to get to that. state your fu11 name and t7 MR. ROBBINS: I l8 t'1R. G0LDMAN: After see. we 1ay out the ground rules here, 22 it over to the Ambassador. MR. ROBBINS: Okay. It's a dea1. MR. G0LDMAN: A11 right. If you could go ahead and please state your fu11 name and spell it for the record. 23 M5. Y0VANOVITCH: Marie Louise Yovanovitch. Marie, l9 20 2t ttee we'11 turn 24 M-A-R-I-E, Lou'ise, L-0-U-I-S-E, Yovanovitch, 25 Y-O-V.A- N-O-V- I -T-C. H . 10 I 2 J 4 you. Along with other proceedings in furtherance of the inquiry, the deposition is part of a joint investigation ted by the Permanent Select Committee on lntelligence jn coordination with the Committee on Foreign MR. G0LDMAN: Thank l9 Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform. In the room today, I believe, are at least given the option of having two majority staff and two minority staff from both the Foreign Affairs and the Oversight Comm'ittees, as well as majority and minority staff from HPSCI. This is a staff-1ed deposi tion, but members, of course, may ask questions during the allotted time. My name is DanieI Goldman, I'm a senior advisor and director of investigations for the HPSCI majority staff, and I'd like to thank you for coming in today for this deposition. I'd like to do some brief introductions. To my right is Nicolas Mitchell, senior investigative counsel for HPSCI. Mr. Mitchell and I will be conducting most of the i nterv'iew f or the ma j ori ty. And I will now 1et my counterparts who will be asking 20 any questions introduce themselves. 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 r7 l8 2t MR. CASTOR: Good morning, Ambassador. My name is 22 Castor, I'm a staffer with the Oversight and Government 23 Reform 24 25 Commi ttee, mi nori ty staff. MR. BREWER: Good morning. Oversi ght as well . I'm David Brewer from Steve 11 MR. GOLDMAN: I This deposition will be conducted entirely 8 at the unclassi fi ed 1eve1 . However, the deposi ti on i s bei ng conducted in HPSCI's secure spaces, and in the presence of staff who all have appropriate security clearances. It is the commjttee's expectation that neither questions asked of the witness nor answers by the witness or the witness' counsel will require discussion of any information that is currently, or at any point could be properly classified under 9 executive order 2 J 4 5 6 7 L3525. l4 that, quote, "io no case sha11 i nformati on be classi f i ed, conti nue to be mai ntai ned as classif ied, or f a'i1 to be declassif ied, " unquote, f or the purpose of concealing any violations of 1aw or preventing embarrassment of any person or entity. If any of our l5 questions can only be answered with classified informat'ion, t6 Ambassador Yovanovitch, t7 we l0 ll t2 13 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Moreover, E0-13525 states w€'d ask you to'inform us of that and will adjust accordingly. I would atso just note for the record that my understanding is that Ambassador Yovanovitch's counsel also has the necessary security clearances. Is that right? MR. ROBBINS: That is correct. MR. G0LDMAN: A11 r i ght. Today' s depos'i ti on i s not being taken "in executive session, but because of the sens'itive and confidential nature of some of the topics and materi a1s that wi 11 be di scussed, access to the transcri pt of 12 I 2 a J the deposi tion w'i11 be limi ted to three commi ttees i n attendance. You and your attorney will have an opportunity to review the transcript as wel1. Per the House rules for ll this deposition, no members or staff may discuss the contents of this deposition outside of the three committees, including in public. Before we begin, I'd like to briefly go over the ground rules for this deposition. We'11 be following the House regulat'ions for depositions. We have previously provided your counsel with a copy of those regulations, and we have copies here if you would like to review them at any time. t2 The deposi ti on wi 11 proceed as follows: 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 will be given t hour to ask questions and then the minority will be given t hour to ask questions. Thereafter, we will alternate back and forth between majority and mi nori ty j n 45-mi nute rounds unti I questioni ng i s complete. We will take periodic breaks, but if you need a break at any time, please let us know. under the House deposition ru1es, counsel for other persons or government agencies may not attend. And we can point you to the depositjon rule if anyone would like to look at it. You are atlowed to have an attorney present during this deposition, and I see that you have brought three. And at th'i s t'ime, i f counsel could state thei r names f or the The majority reco rd 13 MR. ROBBINS: So I I'm Lawrence Robbins from the firm of RusseIl, representing the Ambassador. With me are 2 Robb'ins J Laurie Rubenste'in and Rachel Li Wai Suen, also from our firm, 4 also for the witness. MR. G0LDMAN: There 5 is a stenographer, or two, taking everything that is said here'in order to make a written 6 down 7 record 8 wait unt'i1 the questions are finished before you begin 9 answer, and we wi 11 wai t unti of the depos'ition. For the record to be clear, please your t you f i n'ish your response l0 before asking the next question. The stenographer cannot ll record nonverbal answers, such as shaking your head. So it t2 is important that you answer each question with an audible l3 verbal t4 t7 to questions based on your best recollection. If the questjon is unclear or you are uncertain in your response, please let us know. And if you do not know the answer to a question or cannot remember, l8 simpty say so. t9 22 only refuse to answer a question to preserve a privilege that is recognized by the committee. If you refuse to answer a questjon on the basjs of privilege, staff may either proceed with the deposition or seek a ruling from 23 Chairman l5 l6 20 21 answer. We ask that you give complete replies You may 24 Schiff on the objection during the deposition at time of the majority staff's choosing. If the chai r 25 overrules any such objectjon during the depos'ition, you are a 14 I required to answer the question. These are the 2 deposition ru1es. House t2 that it is unlawful to deliberately provide false information to Members of Congress or staff. It is imperative that you not only answer our questions truthfully, but that you give fu11 and complete answerS to all questions asked of you. Omjssions may also be consi dered false statements. Now, as this deposition is under oath, Ambassador Yovanovitch, would you please ra'ise your right hand and stand and you'11 be sworn in. Do you Swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the whole truth and l3 nothi ng but the truth? J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll Fina11y, you are reminded I do. t4 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: l5 MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. The record will reflect that l6 the witness has been duly sworn, and you may be seated. t7 Ambassador Yovanovitch, I Now, understand you have Some opening 24 is the time to do them. l'4S. YOVANOVITCH: Thank you. Chai rman Schi f f Mr. Jordan, and other members and staff who are here today. I really do thank you for the opportunity to start with a statement. And I'd 1 j ke to i ntroduce myself. For the last f or the last 33 years, 'it's been my great honor to serve the American people aS a Foreign Service 0fficer over 25 six admjnistrations, four Republican l8 t9 20 2t 22 L) remarks and now , and two Democrat. I 15 2 different countries; five of them have been hardshi p posts, and I was appo'inted to serve as an J ambassador 4 by a Democratic President. I 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 have served in seven three times, tw'ice by a Republican President, once I have stayed true to the oath that Foreign Service 0fficers take and observe every day, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Like all Foreign Service 0fficers with whom I have been privileged to serve, I have understood that oath as a commitment to serve on a strictly nonpartisan basis, to advance the foreign Throughout my career, t4 policy determined by the incumbent President, and to work at all times to strengthen our nat'iona1 securi ty and promote our l5 nati onal i nterests. l3 l6 I t7 experience. l8 having seen, firsthand, the war and poverty and displacement l9 common come by these beliefs honestly and through personal My parents fled Communist and Nazi regimes. And 2t to totalitarian regimes, they valued the freedom and democracy the U.S. offers, and that the United States represents. And they raised me to cherish those values as 22 we11. 20 23 24 25 The'i r sac r i f i ce al lowed me to attend Pr i nceton University, where I focused my studies on the former Soviet Union. And given my upbringing and my background, it has 16 5 of a lifetime to help to foster those pri nci ples as a career Forei gn servi ce 0ff i cer. From August 2015 unt j 1 l'4ay 2019, I served as the U. S. Ambassador to Ukra'ine. 0ur policy, fulty embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, was to help Ukraine become a stable and 6 independent democratic 7 integrated into Europe. Ukraine is a sovereign country I 2 J 4 been the honor state, with a market economy whose l5 inviolate, and whose people have the right to determi ne the'i r own desti ny. These are the bedrock principles of our PoIicY. Because of Ukrai ne's geostrategi c posj ti on borderi ng Russia on its east, the warm waters of the oit-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO alfies to its west, it is critical to the security of the United States that Ukraine remain free and democratic, and that it cont'inue to resist l6 Russi an expansi oni sm. 8 9 l0 1l l2 l3 t4 borders are Russ'ia's purported annexation t7 18 Eastern Ukraine, and 19 Azov , make clear of Crimea, its invasion its de facto control over the Sea of Russi a' s mat i gn 'intenti ons towards Ukra'ine. 2t to stand' we will set a precedent that the United States wilt regret for decades to 22 come. 20 If we aIlow Russia's actions 24 so supporting Ukraine's integration into Europe and combati ng Russi a' s efforts to destabi 1 i ze Ukrai ne have 25 anchored our 23 of policy since the Ukrainian people protested on 17 I 2 the Maidan in 20L4 and demanded to be a part of Europe and Iive according to the rule of 1aw. That was U.5. policy when 4 I became ambassador in August 2016, and it was reaffirmed as that policy as the policy of the current administration in 5 early ) 6 20L7. The Revolution of Dignity and the Ukrainian people's t4 to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's potitical and economic systems. We have long understood that strong antj-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our poficy in Ukraine, and now there was a window of opportunity to do just exactly that. And so why 'is that i mportant? And why i s i t i mportant to us? Put simply, antj-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's l5 "interests, but they also serve ours as we11. Corrupt leaders l6 are inherently less trustworthy, while honest and accountable t7 Ukrai ni an leadershi p makes a U. S. -Ukra'i ne partnershi p more l8 refiable and more valuable to us. A level playing field in this strategicatly located country, one with a European landmass exceeded only by Russia, and with one of the largest 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 demand in which U.5. business can make more easily trade, invest, and profit. Corruption is a security issue as well because corrupt officials are vulnerable to ["loscow. In short, it is 'in our nati onal securi ty i nterest to help'Ukrai ne transform i nto a populations in Europe, creates an environment 18 I country where the rule 2 i n check. J 4 5 6 7 of 1aw governs and corruption is held to instill rule of law of values has sti1l not been fuIfilled. Since 20L4, Ukraine has been at War, not just with Russia, but within jtself, as political and economic forces compete to determine what kind of country Ukraine will become. The Same But change takes t'ime, and the aspiration l3 old o1 i garch-domi nated Ukrai ne where corrupti on i s not j ust prevalent, but frankly is the SyStem. 0r the country that Ukrai ni ans demanded i n the Revoluti on of Di gni ty. A country where rule of 1aw is the SyStem, corruption is tamed, and people are treated equal1y, and according to the 1aw. During the 2oL9 president'ia1 elect'ions in ukraine, the t4 people answered that question once again. Angered 8 9 l0 ll t2 by l9 insufficient progress in the fight against corruption, Ukra.inian voters overwhelmingty voted for a man who said that ending corruption would be his number one priority. The transition, howeVer, created fear among the political elite, setting the stage for some of the jssues I expect we will be 20 di scussi ng todaY. l5 l6 t7 18 2l 22 understandi ng ukrai ne's recent hi story, 'i ncludi ng the significant tenSion between those who Seek to transform the 24 country, and those who wi sh to cont'inue prof i ti ng f rom the old ways, iS, I believe, of critical importance to 25 understanding the events you asked me here today 23 to describe. 19 of these events, and the false narratives that I Many 2 from them, resulted from an unfortunate alliance J Ukrainians who continue to operate with'in a corrupt 4 and Americans who either 5 corrupt system, or 6 purposes, 7 I emerge between system did not understand that system, that who may have chosen, for their own to ignore it. t i s seems obv'ious, but I thi nk bears stati ng under the 8 circumstances, that when dealing with off ic'ials from 9 country, or those claiming contacts -- or connections to any t2 officialdom, one must understand thei r background, thei r personal interest, and what they hope to get out of that particular interaction before deciding how to evaluate thei r l3 description of events or acting on the'i linformation. l4 is fu1l of people who want the very things we have always said we want for the United States, a government that acts in the interest of the people, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The overwhelmi ng support for President Zelensky i n Apri 1's election proved that. And it was one of our most important tasks at the embassy in Kyiv to understand and act upon the djfference between those who sought to serve their people and those who sought to serve only themselves. With that background in mind, I would like to briefly address some of the specific issues raised in the press that I anticipate you may ask me about today. So just to repeat. l0 ll l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 To be clear, Ukraine 20 I 2 ) 4 I arrived in Ukraine on August 22,2015, and I left Ukra'ine permanently on May 20, 2019. Several of the events wjth which you may be concerned occurred before I was even in the country before I was ambassador. Here are just a few: The release 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 of the so-cal1ed Black Ledger, and Mr. Manafort's subsequent resi gnat'i on from the Trump campai gn ' The Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's 0ffice about the jnvestigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC. And the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who I have never met. These events all 0ccurred before I arrived. There are several events that occurred after I was 16 recalled from Ukraine. These include President Trump's July 25th call with President Zelensky; all of the many discussionS that have been in the press surrounding that phone call; and any discussion Surrounding the reported delay t7 of l8 happened l3 t4 l5 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 securi ty aSSi Stance after I to Ukra'ine i n summer 201'9. So that deParted. 21 l0 for the events during my tenure in Ukraine. I rea1ly want to make clear and I want to categorically state that I have never, myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any other way asked, for any government or government officiat in Ukraine or elsewhere to refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As l'lr . Lutsenko, the f ormer Ukrai ne prosecutor general has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or di ssemi nated or verbally told him a do-not-prosecute li st i s completely fa1se. And that is a story that l.,lr. Lutsenko ll himself has si nce retracted. t2 fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told our embassy team to ignore the President's orders since he was going to be impeached. That allegation'is fa1se. I have never said such a thing to my embassy colleagues or anyone eIse. Next, the Obama administration d'id not ask me to hetp the Clinton campaign, or harm the Trump campaign, and if they had, I would never have taken any such steps. I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversati ons wi th him. 0f course, I have met f ormer V'ice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, but neither he nor the previous administration ever directly orindirectly raised the issue I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 As , Equally 22 4 either of Burisma or Hunter Biden with me' with respect to Mayor Giutiani, I have only had mjnimal contact with him, a total 0f three that I reca11. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's 5 motives I 2 ) 7 for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press who have contact with Mr- Gjuliani may well have befieved that their personal and financial 8 ambi 9 Ukraine. 6 ti ons were stymi ed by our anti -cor rupti on po1 i cy j n l3 after being asked by the Department in early March to extend my tour, to stay on an extra year until 2020, .in late Apri 1, I was then abruptly asked to come back to washington from ukraine on the next plane. You will t4 understandably want l0 ll t2 Fina11y, 24 to ask why my post'ing ended so suddenly' I wanted to learn that, too, and I tried to find out. I met with the Deputy secretary of state, who informed me of the curtailment of my term. He sajd that the President had lost confidence in me, and no longer wished me to Serve as an ambassador. He added that there had been a concerted campaign against me, and that the Department had been under pressure from the President to remove me sinCe the summer of 2018. He also said that I had done nothing wrong, and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause. I departed Ukraine for good this past 25 I"lay. l5 16 t7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 23 4 I understand, everyone understands, that I served at the pleasure of the President, I was nevertheless incredulous that the U.S. Government chose to remove an ambassador based, as far as I can te11, on unfounded and 5 false claims by peopte with clearly questionable motives. 6 make I 2 a J Although To 7 all of this occurred during an especially challenging time'in bilateral relations with a newly elected 8 Ukrainian President. Th'is was precisely the time 9 t0 matters worse, when continuity at the U.5. Embassy in Ukraine was most needed. Before I close, I must share with you the deep l6 I have felt as these events have unfolded. I have served this Nation honorably for more than 30 years. I have proudly promoted and served American interests as the representative of the American people and six different Presidents over the last three decades. Throughout that time, I, like my colleagues at the State l7 Department, have always believed l8 trust with our government. We make a difference every day. And I know many of you have been out to embassies around the world, and you know that to be true. Whether it's a matter of war and peace, trade and i nvestment, or simply helpi ng an Ameri can ci t'i zen with a lost passport. We repeatedly uproot our 1ives, and we frequently put oursetves in harm's way to serve our Nation, and we do that wilfingly, because we believe in America and l1 t2 l3 t4 l5 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 disappointment and dismay sacred that we have enjoyed a 24 J its special role in the wor1d. We also believe that in return, our government will have our backs and protect us if we come under attack from foreign 4 interests. I 2 That basic understanding no longer holds 5 true. 6 we see the State Department attacked and hollowed 7 wi Today, out from 8 n. State Department leadershi p wj th Congress needs to take action now to defend this great institution, and its 9 thousands thi t2 of loyal and effective employees. We need to rebuild diplomacy as the first resort to advance America's interest, and the front line of America's defense. I fear that not doing so w'i11 harm our Natjon's interest, perhaps l3 i r reparably. That harm l0 ll 14 l5 16 w'i 11 come not j ust through the inevitable and continuing resignation and loss of many of this Nation's most loyal and talented public servants. It also will come when those diplomats who sotdier on and do l8 their best to represent our Nation, face partners abroad question whether the ambassador really speaks for the l9 President, and can be counted upon as a reliable partner. t7 who 22 private interests circumvent professional diplomats for their own gain, not for the public good. The harm will come when bad actors and countries 23 beyond Ukraine see how easy 20 2t 24 25 The harm will come when it is to use fiction and innuendo to manipulate our syStem. In such circumstances, the only interests that are going to be served are those of our 25 I 2 J strategic adversaries like Russ'ia, that spread chaos and attack the institutions and norms that the U.5. helped create and which we have benefited from for the last 75 years. I 4 5 6 7 8 9 am proud of my work in Ukraine. The U.S. Embassy under my Ieadership represented and advanced the poticies of the United States Government as articulated first by the 0bama admin'istration, and then by the Trump administration. 0ur efforts were intended, and evidently succeeded, in thwarting corrupt interests in Ukraine who fought back by l5 selling baseless conspiracy theories to anyone who would 1 i sten. Sad1y, someone was t i steni ng, and our Nati on i s worse off for that. So I want to thank you for your attention, and I welcome your questi ons. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much f or your test'imony. l6 Mr. l0 ll 12 13 t4 t7 l8 t9 Goldman. just before we begin. Pardon me, I have a terrible cold this morning and I apologize if I 'm hard to hear . Mr . Cha'i rman, I 'd j ust 1i ke to put the MR. R0BBINS: Excuse me, 2t following on the record before we begin today's depositjon. As you know, the Department of State, in which the 22 ambassador 20 23 24 25 js stil1 employed, has asserted that its lawyers should be allowed to attend this deposition so that they can assert privileges or objections the Department might wish to assert on behalf of the executive branch. As we have told 26 2 both State Department lawyers and committee lawyers, it is not our place to get in the m'iddle of that or to take sides J in a dispute between the Congress and the executive 4 and we I 6 7 8 9 don't intend to. Ambassador Yovanovitch has been subpoenaed 5 branch, and as we read the law, she to testify, is obliged to be here and wi11. We have repeatedly asked the State Department's of f ice of the legal advi sor to provi de us w'ith a written statement that we could read on their behalf so that testify, and she concernS regarding what they term, quote, "executive l0 their ll branch t4 confidentiality 'intereSts, " end quote, could be heard by thi s committee. We have asked them to speci f y i n wri ti ng particular topics with respect to which they wish us to point out their interests. And atthough we were told we woutd l5 receive such a statement, we have not. t2 l3 t7 so that Ambassador Yovanovitch can be as diligent as possi ble 'in complyi ng wi th her employer's wi shes, i wi 11 do 18 my t6 2t best, during the course of this hearing, to pojnt out quest'ions that might elicit information that I understand to fa11 wi thi n the scope of thei r concerns. I wi 11 also te11 you now that the Department told uS that they don't want our 22 appearance today 23 pri vi leges they 19 20 24 25 to be construed as a waiver of any maY ho1d. I want to be clear that I am not asserti ng any of those privi leges on the client's behalf because, of course, we 27 I don't have a right to assert those privileges at all. 2 they exist, they belong to the Department, and we wi11, of J course, make those objections subject to whatever ruling the 4 chair chooses to in the wake of those objections. And w'ith that on the record, I turn this over to counsel 5 6 make for the maj or i ty. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank 8 MR. GOLDI'IAN: Thank 9 If you. Mr. Goldman. you, Mr. Chai rman. Thank you f or that opening statement, Ambassador Yovanovitch. I think l0 everyone recognizes and appreciates your long service ll country. t2 to this EXAM]NATION BY MR. l3 a t4 We GOLDMAN: are going to get into the circumstances 2t in order, I think, to fully understand that, we need to back up a little bit. And I want to focus at the outset on press reports and other indications of Rudy Giulian'i 's involvement in Ukra'ine. When did you first become aware that Rudy Giuliani had an interest jn or was communicating with anyone in Ukraine? A Probably around November, December timeframe of 22 2018. l5 l6 t7 t8 l9 20 23 24 25 surrounding your abrupt removal, but a And describe those circumstances when you learned about A Basi it. ca1ly, i t was people i n the Ukrai ni an first 28 J said that l"lr. Lutsenko, the f ormer prosecutor general, was in commun'ication with Mayor Giuliani, and that they had plans, and that they were go'ing to, you know, do 4 thi ngs, i ncludi ng to I 2 Government who asoyoufirstheardaboutjtfromtheUkrainian 5 6 7 8 9 me. offi ci als? A That's correct. aDjdyouunderstandhowtheyWereawareofthis information? l3 I can teI1 you what I think, you know, this is perhaps not a fact. But the impression that I received is that Mr. Lutsenko was talking rather freely about this in, you know, certa'in c"i rc1es, and so others heard about i t who t4 wanted l0 ll t2 l5 l6 t7 A 20 2l 22 23 24 25 to let us know. THE CHAIRMAN: Can you move the microphone a little closer. MS. YOVAN0VITCH: SorrY. BY MR. l8 l9 5o a A a GOLDMAN: Were these Ukrai ni an Government offi ci a1s? Yes. for us who the former Prosecutor General Lutsenko 'i S , and gi ve uS Some context as to hi s background and what your assessment of him is? AYeah,he'saUkrainianpolitician.He'sbeenin politics I would say, probably, the last 20 years or, so, and can you descrjbe 29 6 ons. He' s a pol i ti cal a1ly of former President Poroshenko, or at Ieast was until the time I left, I don't know where that status is now. And he is a man who was the head of the Poroshenko faction and the Rada, which is the Ukrainian parliament, until the spring of 2016 when he was voted in to become the prosecutor 7 general. I 2 a J 4 5 he has held many h'igh government pos'i ti Is he a lawyer? ll a A a A t2 would a11ow 8 9 l0 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 No. did he become the prosecutor general? Because the Rada had to take a prior vote that So how that exception, which I believe is actually even in the constitution, eith,er constitution or 1aw. a 5o he was the prosecutor general the entire time that you were in Ukraine. Is that right? A a That's correct. just describe briefly what the role of the prosecutor general is in Ukraine? A Yes. And because Ukra'ine i s a country j n trans'it'ion, that role was in the process of becoming reformed. 5o the prosecutor general's offi ce i s, or position, is a very powerful one, it's a hold-over from the Soviet Union days. And that'indiv'idual is in charge of both jnvestigatory actions, like the FBI, for example, as wetl as the actual prosecution. So it's tremendous power. And can you 30 And I Mr. Lutsenko was brought in to reform that office to 5 t the off i ces, i nvesti gatory and prosecutori al , and to because the PGO, Prosecutor make real reforms So that General's 0ffice, was viewed as an instrument of corruption basically, to grant people favors, they could open cases, 6 they could close cases based on money passing hands or 7 whatever was most opportune, and 2 3 4 8 9 spl i it trickled down to the ordinary people's lives as we11. So it was seen as a place where 'ironically corruption thrived and he was brought in to l0 clean that ll t7 a Was he successful in cleaning that up? A No. a How would you assess his character? AHe'sverysmart.Hecanbeverycharming'He'I thi nk, i s an opportuni st and w'i11 a1ly himsetf , sometimes simultaneously, i believe, with whatever political or economi c f orces he bef ieves wi tl su'it hi s i nterests best at l8 the ti t2 l3 l4 15 l6 l9 20 2t 22 uP. me. a A Would you call him someone who is corrupt? certainty heard a lot of people call him corrupt, and there are certainly a lot of stories about his actions that would indicate that. I have 24 in your opening statement that there were false statements that were spread about you. Was he one 25 of the individuals 23 a You mentioned who spread those false statements about 31 I you ? 2 A Yes. J a Now, Iet's go back 4 Giuliani's to fi rst learni ng about Rudy did you understand in Iate Giuliani's interest i n Ukrai ne? I wasn't rea1ly sure, but he had clients in i nvolvement. What 6 to be Mr A 7 Ukraine, so that was one possi ble thi ng. But he also 8 obviously is the President's personat lawyer. 5 So I 2018 wasn't l0 really sure what exactly was going on. a Did You come to learn what hi s 'interest i n Ukrai ne ll was? t2 l5 I read the press and watch TV just like everybody else in this room, so yeah, I learned. a Did you have any further conversations with Ukrainian Government of f icials about Mr. G'iuliani's l6 acti vi ti es i n Ukrai ne? 9 l3 t4 A l8 I did. Most of the conversations were not with me directly, people on the embassy staff, but yes, I l9 have other conversations. 20 or your own conversat'ions, what did you come to learn about Mr. G'iuf ian'i 's i nterest 'in Ukrai ne? A That basjcally there had been a number of meetings between Mr. Lutsenko and Mayor Giuliani, and that they were looking I should say that Mr. Lutsenko was looking to hurt t7 2t 22 23 24 25 A We1l, you know, a Yes, And from your staff members did 32 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 in the u.s. I couldn't imagine what that was. But, you know, now I see. a What do You see now? A WetI , that I 'm no longer i n Ukrai ne ' me aFairenough.Butdescribetheevolutionofyour understanding as to how Mr. Lutsenko was trying to hurt you in the U.S.? A I think, and again, I am getting this partly from l0 conversations with people who may or may not know what really happened, as well as what has been in the media, both in ll Ukrajne and here 9 l3 in the United States. So I'11 telt you what I think. I can't say that aLetmejust.interruptyouthere.Issomeofyour l4 knowledge based on Mr. t2 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A a A G'iuliani's statements hjmself? To the Press. OkaY. I thi nk that there was Mr. Lutsenko was not that we continued at the embassy to catl for pleased that cleaning up the PGO, the Prosecutor General's 0ffice, and he came into office with, you know, three goals: One was to reform the office, one was to prosecute those who ki1Ied the so innocent people on the Ma'idan during the Revolut'ion of Dignity, and one was to prosecute money laundering caSeS to get back the $40 billion-pIus that the previous president and his cronies had absconded with. None of those things were 33 2 done. And we thought those were great goa1s, and we wanted him to encourage him to continue wjth those goals. That did ) not 1 4 5 happen. And so, we continued he realty appreci ated 'it. to encourage him, and What he wanted f rom I don't the th'ink U. S. l0 for us to set up meetings with the Attorney General, with the Director of the FBI, et cetera. And he would say, I have important information for them. As perhaps many of you know, there are, you know, usual processes for that kind of thing. We don't have principals meet and, you ll know, the forei gn pri nci pal spri ngs new i nformati on t2 or may not be vaf id to an American cab'inet don't do that. 6 7 8 9 l3 Embassy was that may member, we just 24 to do was to meet with the 1egat, the legal attache, the FBI at the embassy. That is precisely why we have the FBI in countries overseas, to work wi th host country counterparts and get 'inf ormation, whatever that information might be, develop cases, et cetera. He didn't want to share that information. And now, I think I understand that that information was falsehoods about me. a What falsehoods about you? A We11, for example, as I mentioned in the testimony, in the statement, the opening statement, that I gave him a do-not-prosecute f ist, a list of individuals that he shoutd 25 not touch. t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 And so what we kept on encouraging him 34 4 O And did You do that? A No. aDidyoulearnwhetherthereWaSanyadditional information that he wanted to share with U.S. Government 5 offi ci a1s? I 2 3 6 A Wel1, I think, you know, it was other things along l0 that 1 i ne. aOneofthethingsthathasbeenpublicizedquite si gni fi cantly i s i nformati on that Prosecutor General Lutsenko may have had in connection to either Paul Manafort or the ll 2016 electi 7 8 9 on? t2 A Uh-huh. l3 a Did t4 those topi you come to learn anything about either of cs? 15 AHe l6 a di dn' t share anYthi ng wi th Did he share anYthing with any othe r Ukrai ni an t7 officials that you then learned about it l8 about thi 19 A s 2l Mr. Giutiani. 23 24 25 or learned I thi nk, yeah, I think theY maY have been that that was more broadly a from, f rom? 20 22 me. Welt, let me ask aware what he also might share wi th the question this way: Other than informatjon about You A a Uh-huh. what other informat'ion did you come to learn 35 I while you were at post about what Mr. Lutsenko wanted to 2 share with American officials? you're asking J MR. ROBBINS: 5o 4 ambassador as opposed 5 med'ia si nce she was recalled? BY MR. 6 a 7 8 now while she was to things she's read in the paper and GOLDI"IAN: Yes, I'm aski ng wh'ile you were there, what di d you understand? A 9 Yeah, it was very amorphous, because while there sort of that gossip out there, the gossip that I l0 was ll t4 to be reca1led, and you know, people would ask me, and I'd say No, flo, I'm here, I'm working. But it was very amorphous, and so at the time, I didn't know. When it became clearer was on March 24th with the publication of The Hilt l5 interv'iew with Mr. Lutsenko. t6 2t that, you know, that was sort of the f i rst k'ind of public, on the record, in the United States, and then over the ensuing days there was more in the U.S. media, Mr. Giuliani spoke pubIicly, and DonaId Trump Jr. also tweeted that I should be removed. a 5o let's separate out your removal from any of the 22 other i nformati on. t2 l3 t7 l8 l9 20 going So A a 23 24 25 was we' Okay. Because re goi ng to WE are going to get to your removal, focus on and that. But just to get the lay of the 36 I land here. What d'id you 2 what did you come when you ref erenced The Hi 11 ' l3 to learn from The Hill about informatjon that Lutsenko was trY'ing to share? A We11, I think, I mean, I think I've already told you. So he shared information that there was he raised questions again, this happened before I arrived, but he raised queSt'ions about U.S. Government aSsistance to the PGO, and whether there was a discrepancy in the funding and whether he should be investigating it, and that the embassy had assured him, again, before I arrived, that we had fully accounted for all U.S. funds, and that we Were not concerned about this. So that was one fine that he talked about. There was the do-not-prosecute 1jst. There was, I mean, you t4 know, a number 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 a l5 l6 A as 2t 22 there anythi ng about the 2015 elect'ion or Paul O Bu r I think, yeah, I think that was in The Hitl article we11. t9 20 issues. Manafo r t? t7 l8 Was of i And what about former Vice President Joe Biden or sma? A a I think that was in the article as well. So after you learned about this in The Hi11, did 23 you have any additjonal conversations with people, either 24 Americans 25 reports? in the embassy, or Ukrainian offic'iats about the 37 7 in the embassy we were trying to figure out what was go'ing on. I also, of course, was i n touch wi th folks in Washington at the NSC, and at the State Department to try to figure out what was this, what was going on. a What did you learn? A Not much. I mean, I think people were not sure. 0n the 25th, the day af ter The Hi 11 art'icle came out, the 8 State Department had a pretty strong statement that said that 9 Mr I 2 J 4 5 6 A We1l, . Lutsenko's allegatj ons were a fabri cat'i on, and then, you t4 in the media. And, you know, the State Department was trying to figure out how to respond, I th'ink, during that time and the following week. But I di dn' t get very much i nformati on. a At that point, were you aware that 14r. Giuliani had l5 met l0 ll t2 l3 know, over the weekend, there was a l8 l9 they said it. t7 20 more with Mr. Lutsenko previously? A a A l6 lot Yeah, I think it became pretty c1ear. What do you mean by that? Because I thi nk i t was i n the med'ia, and aSo at this point, just 2t Giuliani 22 right? was never an employee so we're c1ear. I thi nk Mr. of the State Department, 23 A Not to 24 a You said that you met w'ith him, I th'ink, three 25 t i mes . my knowledge. Can you desc r j be those meeti ngs? 38 I A Uh-huh. 4 Just ask before we get to that, counsel . Did you know at the time or have you learned since why Mr. Lutsenko was engaged in pushing out these Smears 5 against you? 2 J 6 7 8 9 THE CHAIRMAN: did he want to get rid of you? MS. YoVAN0VITCH: Wel1, again, I can tel1 you what I think, but I don't know for a fact. Why THE CHAIRMAN: YOu know, baSed On what your best understanding ll you out l3 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 in the preSS, what is of why Lutsenko was trying to push from colleagues, what you've learned l0 t2 you've learned of Ukraine? I think that he felt that I and the embassy were effective at helping Ukrainians who wanted to reform, Ukrainjans who wanted to flght agajnst corruption, you know, that was not i n hi s i nterest ' I and he d'id not think also that he was, I mean, it's hard to believe, I think he was personally angry with me that we weren't we did work w'i th the PGO's office, but he wanted uS to work with him in different Ways, you know, and that we didn't have a closer relat'ionship, and that I was not facilitating trips for h'im MS. YoVAN0VITCH: to the United States with our cabinet members, when there was, frankly, nothing to tatk about because he wasn't a good partner for us. THE CHAIRNAN: You had mentioned earlier that you were trying to make sure that Ukrainian officials used proper 39 I 2 J 4 5 6 tegal channels l'lS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. -- if they had informat'ion that wanted to share wi th U.5. law enforcement? MS . Y0VANOVITCH: Ri ght. THE CHAIRMAN: THE CHAIRI4AN: Do they you thjnk that your insjstence or 8 for following the proper procedures in terms of using legat and legal channels was part of the reason why he 9 wanted you removed? 7 l0 ll t2 l3 advocacy . YOVAN0VITCH: Maybe. I{aybe. I mean , he clearly wanted to work around the system where I thjnk there's less transparency, there are more opportunities to, you know, kind of fiddle the system, shatl we say. t"l5 BY MR. t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 GOLDMAN: 0kay. And when you say work around the system, did you come to understand that that was a role that Mr. Giuliani could play for him, for Mr. Lutsenko? A WeIl, now it certainly appears that way. a But when did you come to understand that? A You know, now, you know, with the advantage of hindsight, you're going to th'ink that I'm incredibly naive, but I couldn't imagine alt of the things that have happened over the last 5 or 7 months, I just coutdn't imagine it. So we knew that there was something out there. We were asking ourselves, you know, what is going on? But then it a 40 I 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 clear with The Hill jnterview and all the subsequent things that came out in the Press. a So the State Department i ssued a statement essentiatly denying what was reported in The Hill? became A Uh-huh. aDidyoueverreceiveanypressurefromanyoneat the State Department to reconsider your pos'ition or in any way consider some of the advocacy of l4r. Giutiani? A I don't quite understand the a I'm wondering if you got any messages or l2 suggestions or directions from the state Department that were consistent with what Mr. Giuliani was discussing and what h'is l3 i ll t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 L) 24 25 nterests were? A a No. a And what was the message that, I believe, after this i nf ormat'ion came out i n The Hi 11 i n late March, you had a number of conversations both wjth people in the embassy and people back in Washington. Who were you speaking to wjthjn the State Department about thi s i ssue? A Assj stant Secretary or Acti ng Assi stant Secretary Phil Reeker of the European Bureau, who'is my boss. I spoke once with David Hale, who is the Under Secretary for Potit'ica1 Affairs. And at the NSC with F'iona Hi11. You also said rece'ived f rom them? that you generally 41 A a A I 2 J 4 Total support. They understood Yeah, I mean, that this was a fabrication? until today, nobody has ever actually asked me the question from the U.5. Government of whether I 6 actually guilty of all of these things f'm supposed to have done. Nobody even asked, because I think everybody just 7 thought 5 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 am 'i t was so out rageous. after November, December 20L8, with Ukrainian officials about Mr. Giuliani up until the time that you left in May? A I think perhaps in the February time period, I did where one of the senior Ukrainian officials was very concerned, and told me I really needed to watch my back. a Describe that conversation. A We11, I mean, he basically said, and went into some deta'i1, that there were two individuals from Florida, l'lr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, who were worki ng wi th 14ayor Giuliani, and that they had set up the meetings for Mr. Giuliani with Mr. Lutsenko. And that they were interested in having a different ambassador at post, I guess for because they wanted to have business dealings in Ukrai ne, or addi t'iona1 busi ness deal i ngs. I didn't understand that because nobody at the embassy had ever met those two individuals. And, you know, one of the biggest jobs of an American ambassador of the U.S. a Did you ever have any conversations 42 4 ness. So, of course, i f legitimate business comes to uS, you know, that's what we do, we promote U. S. busi ness. But, yeah, so a so did you deduce or infer or come to learn that 5 the business interests they had were therefore not 6 legi ti I 2 3 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 19 Embassy i s to promote U. S. busi mate? A Honestly, I d'idn't know. I didn't know enough about it at the time. I thought 'it was exceedingly strange. at some poi nt 'in April, there And then later on i n Apri 1 was an open letter, as it's calted, from somebody in the energy business, Dale Perry, who kind of put out a 1ot of informatjon of meetings that individuals had had, and he also i ndi cated that these two i ndiv'iduals wanted a di f f erent ambassador in place, that they had energy interests that they were interested in, according to this open letter, that they had energy'interests, selling LNG to Ukraine' Agai n, you know, that' s 1 j ke apple pi e, motherhood, obviously we would support exporting LNG to Ukraine at the U. S. embassy. a 20 Is that because in Part 22 the benefit of the court reporter, that's LNG, which stands for, I believe, liquefied natural 23 gas. 2t MR. RoBBINS: For BY MR. 24 25 a Can GOLDMAN: explain why you supported the export of LNG to 43 I Ukrai ne? A 2 J Welf it never actually came up. But if business walks through the door, we usually help them. a 4 correct that the importation of And am I 5 Ukraine would alleviate Ukrainian dependence on 6 other countri es, i ncludi ng Russi a? A 7 8 a t2 t4 I mean, LNG oil into from multiple sources of supply are always ng. Who was the Ukrainian senior Ukrainian official that you spoke to in February of ll l3 Yeah, an i mportant thi 9 l0 an American A a And A He was Parnas and Fruman? Minister Avakov, A-V-A-K-0-V. just for the record, what is he the minister ot? then and he is sti1l now in the new l5 administration, 14inister of Interior. l6 th ej ther Mr. Gi uli ani , Mr. Parnas, or Mr. Fruman directly, to your knowledge? A He told me that Mr. Gi u1i ani was try'ing to reach out to him, and had actually reached him when l4r. Avakov was in the United States in either late January or early February, and they had spoken briefly on the phone, but that he d'idn't actually want to meet wi th Mayor Gi uf iani because of his concerns about what they were doing. a What were his concerns as expressed to you? A He thought jt was -- so he thought it was very t7 l8 l9 20 2l z2 Z3 24 25 a Had he spoken wi 44 I ) J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll dangerouS. That Ukrai ne, si nce i ts i ndependence, has had bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans all these years, and that to start kind of getting into u.s. politics, into U.S. domestic politics, waS a dangerous place for Ukraine to be. aWhydidheth.inkthathewouldbegettingintoU.S. domesti c poli ti cs by speaki ng wi th t{r. Gi u1 i ani ? A we11, because well, he told me that, but because of what you had mentioned before, the issue of the Black Ledger. Mr. Manafort's resi gnati on from the Trump campai gn as a result. And looking into that and how did all of that t4 comeabout;theissueofwhether,youknow,itwasRuss'ia collusion or whether it was rea11y Ukraine collusion, and, you know, looking forward to the 2020 election campaign, and l5 whether this would t2 l3 l6 hurt former Vice President Biden' I thjnk he felt that that was just very dangerous terrain for t7 another countrY 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 somehow to be in. 45 [11:39 a.m.] BY MR. 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 l7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 GOLDMAN: So your understanding in February and your meeting th Mi ni ster Avakov was that he was aware at that ti me of Mr. Giuliani's interests in those topics? A Yes. a Did you have an understanding as to whether other Ukrainian Government officials were also aware of Mr. Giu1jani's interest in those specific topics? A I -- I got the impression that it was relatively openly discussed at the very, very most senior levels, but nobody else was sharing this with me at that time. O And so, was 'it your understandi ng that the Mi ni ster Avakov or other senior Ukrainian offic'iats were aware of Mr. Giuliani's connection to President Trump? A Yes, everybody knew that. O What did they know? A That he was the President's personal lawyer. a Was it your understanding that they believed that Rudy Giuliani spoke on behatf of, or for the President? A I th'ink I thi nk they di dn' t know. I thi nk they hoped that he did, and a Hoped that he did or didn't? A Hoped well, the indjviduals who were meeting wi th Mr . Gi ul i ani certai n1y hoped that Mr . Gi ul"iani was w'i 46 I 2 J 4 5 speaking on behalf of the President. did theY hoPe that? Because I th'ink that they were hopi ng that - - so i n the case of l4r. Lutsenko, I think he was hoping that 14r. Giufiani would open doors for him jn Washington. I think a A Why 8 that he was also hoping in the early period you need to remember that thjs was during presidentiat elections in Ukraine. And President Poroshenko, the polling numbers were 9 not good for 6 7 l0 ll t2 him. I think there was always a hope that President Trump would endorse President Poroshenko. And so this is something that President Poroshenko wanted. And I think And so t4 Lutsenko Mr. Lutsenko was hoping that maybe, aS a result of provi di ng i nformati on that i s of i nterest to Mr . Gi u1 i ani l5 that l3 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2l 22 maybe there could be an endorsement. in addition to Mr. Lutsenko, were the other Ukrai ni an offi ci als that you spoke to, such as Mi ni ster Avakov, also aware of this connection? A Which connection? O Sor ry, between Mr . Gi ul i ani and Mr . Trump ' a So A O Yes. And did they under -- I guess I'm trying to 23 understand why 24 democrati 25 it was of concern to the more anticorrupt or c ukrai ni an of f i ci als about l'4r. Gi u1i an'i 's actjv'ities there, and what they perceived 14r. Giuliani to be 47 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 representi ng. A We11, I think, first of all, they weren't entirely sure, right? And they but I think that what they hoped is that they could you know, that they would get something out of the relationship as wett. Am I not understanding the question? THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask one clari fication. You descri bed the conversation you had wi th Mi ni ster 1'4S. YOVAN0VITCH: Avakov. THE CHAIRI4AN: -- Avakov, and the minister raising l3 of these two i ndiv'iduals or Mr. G'iuliani might pu11 Ukraine into U.5. politics. And you mentioned the Manafort tedger. You mentioned the 'issue of t4 Ukraine collusion versus Russian collusion. ll t2 concerns about how the actions l6 d the i ssue also come up 'in that conversat j on or others about the Gi u1 i ani and hi s associ ates' i nterest i n t7 Bidens and Burisma? l8 Yeah. I mean, looking backwards to what happened i n the past, wi th a v'iew to f i ndi ng thi ngs that could be possibly damaging to a Presidential run. l5 t9 20 Di M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Joe Bjden? 2t THE CHAIRMAN: By 22 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Uh-huh. BY MR. 23 24 25 a A GOLDMAN: That was a yes, Yes. just for the record? the 48 I O Thank you. 5 this Minister Avakov, who sti11 is the Interior M'injster. Are you aware of whether he took a trip to the Unjted States in or about April of this year? A I'm not aware of that. It doesn't mean he didn't, 6 but I'm not 7 a 2 J 4 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 15 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 You mentioned aware. As the ambassador, how involved were you in organizing any government-1ed trips for any Ukrainians to go to the Uni ted States? A 5o it rea1ly depends. I mean, Ukrainians are here probably in many of your offices every day of the week. And sometimeS, the embassy'is facilitatjng that, the embassy in Kyi v i s f ac'i1i tat'ing that, and someti mes people are maki ng 'independent tri Ps and so f orth. You know, when i t's hi gher 1eve1, for Mi ni sters i n thi s example, you know, often people have private visits to the United States, like Mr. Lutsenko did when he met with Plr. Giuliani in January. Mr. Avakov came to the United States and was promoting a book once, for example. And we djdn't obvi ously, that i s not U. S. Government bus'iness, so we didn't, you know, facilitate all of that. But when he was goi ng offi ci ally and meeti ng wi th counterparts, we would defi ni tely faci 1 i tate wi th that. a After your conversation with Mr. Avakov in February, did you report back to the State Department what he 49 I said? A a 2 J 4 Yes. And what was the feedback that you got from your superiors at the State Department? 7 Well, you know, everybody is sort of shocked. We have a long relationship with Mr. Avakov, and the things he has told us are mostly credible. You know, we kind of tried 8 to find out more about that 9 know, not wjth any results. 5 6 A a l0 Was and what was going on, but, you there concern that Mr. Giuliani was actively ll involved at the highest leve1s of the Ukrainian Government at t2 this l3 point? l'lR. R0BBINS: Sorry, concern by BY l\4R. GOLDMAN: l4 l5 l6 whom? a A Wi thi n the State Department. Yes, but, you know, I mean, we now have lots more t7 information than we did at the time. And so, you know, l8 were tryi ng l9 what was going on. 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a to put our arms around 'it. Was weren't qui te sure Mr. Giutiani representing the State Department when he was having these conversations A a We we with Ukrainians? No, no. after this meeting with Minister Avakov, who d'id you speak to at the State Department? A I don't real1y reca11, but it would either have And 50 3 Phil Reeker, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State and I'm pausing because maybe he wasn't already encumbering that job or it would have been Deputy Assistant Secretary 4 George Kent. I 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2l 22 24 25 been aDidyoucommunicatehowdidyoucommunjcate usually w'ith Washi ngton f rom the A 0n weIl, embassy? we communicate d'if f erent ways, but on thi s, 'it with washington in was e j many ther on a secure phone or in what we call a SVTC, a secure video teleconference' a AnY cables on the toPi c? A No. a WhY not? A It just felt too Political. asoyourconcernatth.ispointwasthatthiswas po1 i ti cal , that thj s related to domesti c po1 i ti cs, whi ch and explain why that was a concern of yours? A We1l, you know' as I stated in my opening statement, in the Foreign service at embasrr.r, we have to leave politics in the United States. I mean, we represent all Americans. we represent our policy. And for us to start, you know, meddl i ng around i n, you know, PreSi denti a1 elections, politics, et cetera, We lose our credibility that way. we need to be, you know, as credible to thi s s'ide of the a'i sle as to that si de of the ai sle. And so, we di dn' t know what was go'ing on, but I was not comf ortable wi th 51 I putti ng anythi ng i n front channel. t7 a You mentioned this informat'ion from Dale Perry. Who is Dale Perry? A He had an energy company in the Ukraine, which, according to this open letter that he put out in April, he was kind of putting on pause for a while. a He was putting his company on pause? A I said that kind of 1oose1y, but I th'ink that he 'it's been a long time si nce I've read i t. was goi ng to be He was going to, you know, focus on his business in the United States rather than in the Ukraine. Maybe that's a better way of putt'ing i t. a And can you describe the sum and substance of this open Ietter and why it caught your eye in particular? A Well, because 'it was the f i rst except f or the meeting with Mr. Avakov, 'it was the first time that I heard the names of Mr. Parnas and Fruman. And there was some l8 deta'i1 there about meeti ngs and so f orth. 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 l9 20 2l a And what d'id you come Mr. Parnas and Mr. to understand about Fruman? l'lR. MAL0NEY: Excuse me. Would i t be possi bIe f or the 23 to speak into the microphone? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes, of course. I'm sorry. 24 I'm sorry, what was the 22 25 witness BY MR. GOLDMAN: question? 52 I a 2 J asked what the open letter revealed about Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman? A That they had business interests in the united 6 States, that they were tooking to, I think expand'is probably a better way of putting it, their business interests in Ukraine through this energy company, and that they needed a 7 better 4 5 8 9 l0 ambassador efforts a A a business' here. And at that point, did you understand what their concern was about ll to sort of facilitate the'ir You? Not rea11y. I found it completety mysterious' l6 did you learn whether Mr. Giulian'i shared the concerns of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman in and around April? A I don't recall when, you know, when well, actually, I think t4r. Avakov actualty mentioned jt to me in February, that these were the two individuals that had helped t7 Mr t2 l3 t4 l5 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 . And Lutsenko make contact wi th Mr . Gi uI i ani . did you become aware of whether Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman met with any other senior Ukrainian officiats? A I'm not aware of it. a And your or speaking out against you, waS there anything else in that Date Perry open letter that was particularly relevant to your role as the ambassador in Ukraine? A I don't recall. I mean, I simply don't recall. a Other than encouraging 53 l0 talk for a second about the three contacts you had wi th Mr. Gi uIi ani . Can you descri be those for us? A Uh-huh. The f i rst time I met ["1r. Giulian'i was in the 2003-2004 timeframe, and I was the deputy at the embassy in Ukraine. And l"'layor Gjuliani placed a courtesy call with his wife on our ambassador at the time, Ambassador Herbst. And the ambassador asked me to sit in on that call. a 0kay. Di d you let me ask 'i t thi s way: Wh j Ie you were ambassador of Ukraine, did you ever meet with ll Mr. G'iuliani? t2 A I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 Now, let's a t4 th him twice. The first t'ime was in the spring, I think it was June of 20L7, 20L7. And yes, it was 20L7. It was at a d'inner that one of the Victor l5 Pi t6 a YES Foundation where he invites prominent people from all t7 over the world, not just Americans, to come and address l8 students and do various t9 di nner where he i nvi tes, you know, 20 and several ambassadors. l3 Yes, So it w'i end of that 23 the ambassador. a things. And then he always has di And a top Ukrainian polit'icians was a d'inner f or about 25 people, and then 22 25 met nchuk, who' s a busi nessman/o1 i garch i n Ukrai ne, and he has 2t 24 I nner, I i ntroduced myself to Mayor Gi at the uli ani as did you talk about anything more substantively than sma11 talk? 54 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 ANo.Imean,I'introducedmyself'Itoldhim'you know, if there was anything I could do to help him, I'd be happy to helP. a And then when was the next time? A And then the next time was that fa11 in November of he was comi ng to ukra'ine, and 2O!7 , where he 'invi ted me through one of his associates, he jnvited me to a breakfast l2 at the hotel that he was stay'ing j n. a Who was his associate? A John Huvane, H-u-v-a-n-e. a And what was the purpose of the breakfast? A I wasn,t exactly Sure. But, you know, obviously l3 Mayor Gi uli 8 9 l0 ll t4 ani i s an important person i n the Un'i ted States, yeah. so not quite clear and so I agreed to go. And he 15 why he wanted me there. 20 O What di d you d'iscuss at the breakf ast? AHeitwashehadjustbeeninKharkiv,which 'is a ci ty to the north i n Ukra'ine, and he had some of the people who were present -- I don't recal1 all of the people who were present -- are from Were from Kharkiv, one of the 2l Rada 22 named Fuchs l6 t7 18 l9 23 24 25 deputies from Kharkiv, also a bus'inessman and oligarch from Kharkiv. so he had just been up there, and he had been talking to the mayor, Mayor Kernes, about helping them set up a system similar to our gLL system; and then the other thing is 55 1 help'ing them set up pol i ce f orces, 2 potice forces similar to our J run at the national a 4 5 6 7 8 9 own, because i municipat n Ukrai ne i t's all 1eve1. And so you never -- you dj dn't speak to him since A a A a l0 anyone ll A t2 city police, No. November 20t7? No. Are you aware of whether I'lr. else in the embassy in 'if that a A Gi uli ani spoke to Kyiv? I don't think so. I think they would have told me had been the case. l8 or Mr. Fruman? No. When the open letter came out, I did ask our economic and couns -- excuse me, commercial attaches whether, you know, I mean, djd these individuals reach out and were they i nterested 'in sett'ing stuf f up and how d'id we help them, because clearly we hadn't helped them very wel1. And nobody l9 had heard those names before. l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 How about Mr. Parnas a Was it your view that what you understood Mr. Giuliani's efforts to be in Ukraine, did they contradict, to your understand'ing, U.S. policy in Ukra'ine? I'm sorry, are you asking whether she formed that view while she was in office or whether, in retrospect, she has that view today? MR. R0BBINS: 56 BY MR. I GOLDMAN: 4 Let's start whi le you were i n off i ce ' In the February meeting with Minister Avakov, where you understood that Mr. Giuliani was promoting we11, 1et me ask you, was 5 he promoting investigations related 6 collusi on and Buri 2 3 a to Paul l4anafort and the sma and Joe Bi den? 8 It wasn't entirely clear to me what was going on. I mean, I 'lll Sorry to be not speci f i c, but i t waSn' t enti rely 9 c1ear. 7 l0 11 12 l3 t4 A aButyouunderstoodthathewasspeakingtothe Prosecutor General Lutsenko about those topics? A a A Uh-huh, uh-huh. SorrY, You need Yes. to say Yes. Excuse me. l6 aAndwhatwasyourassessmentofwhetherthose 'interests or how d'id those i nterests relate to of f i c'ia1 t7 U.S. policY? 15 23 A Well, I mean, when I think about official U'S' policy, I thjnk of people who are in government shaping that policy, creating the policy, or implementing it, whether they are in the executive branch or, you know, in congress. 0bviously, there's a partnership there for that. So private individuals, for the most part, I mean, that's not officjal 24 U.S. anything. l8 l9 20 2l 22 25 a Right. And so, as someone who was effecting 57 4 official U.S. policy, what was your view of Mr. Giuliani's efforts there? A We1l, we were concerned, like I said. You know, I mean, we tatked to Washington, what do you thjnk js going on 5 here? It I 2 J 20 in the sense that the Ukrainians also didn't know how to understand it. And obviously, some felt that they could Iike Mr. Lutsenko, that they could manage that relationship and it would benefit them. a Now, you came to understand, right, that 14r. Giuf iani was pushing Mr. Lutsenko to open investigations i nto these topi cs, 'is that ri ght, whi 1e you were there? A You know, it's hard to remember when exactly I sort of put it together. a Well, t4r. Lutsenko whi 1e you were sti 11 there, Mr. Lutsenko announced the i ni ti ation of i nvesti gations on these topics. Do you recall that? A I guess I haven't at the moment, but a I'm sorry? A No. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me, just for clarification, follow up 2l on my colleague's question. He asked you about whether what 22 you understood 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 was worrisome, 23 at the time to be the efforts of Mr. Giuliani and hj s associ ates were furtheri ng, or antagoni sti c to U. S. 24 policy 'interests. 25 If 1"1r. Gi u1i ani and hi s associ ates were pushi ng Ukrai ne 58 I to involve itself in U.S. domest'ic politics, let alone the 4 elect'ion, would that have been 'inconsistent with U'S' pol i cy, i nconsi stent wi th U . S. i nterests? MS. YoVANoVITCH: I mean, I think the short answer is 5 probably 2 J 2O2O 7 yes. I mean, I don't think we had a policy because this is sort of unprecedented. It's not like we had a policy that Ukraine should not become involved in our 8 domestic 6 u politics or, you know, somehow become involved jn 'in U.S. interests 2O2O elections, but clearly, that is not for Ukraine to start playing such a role' THE CHAIRMAN: And i t wouldn' t be i n Ukrai ne's i nterests t2 ei ther? 9 l0 13 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: No. BY MR. t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a GOLDMAN: Would You call that, to some extent, antidemocratic? A Let me just say that I think that American elections should be for Americans to decide' a Do you recall a speech you gave on l4arch 5th? A I do. a And I bel i eve i n that speech , you sa'id that i t I don't remember the exact quote, but it is is inappropriate for governments to engage in domestic politics in other countries. Is that right? A Yes. 59 l0 0r, actua1ly, in their own I don't think you speci fi ed as to other countri es, ri ght? A I don't actually reca1l saying that particular thing, but I'1I take your word for it. a It was an i nteresti ng quote so here 'it 'is. I believe you said: Government resources should never be used to target po1 i ti cal opponents. A Yes. a What did you mean by that at that time? THE CHAIRMAN: Could you move the microphone a tittle ll closer. t2 13 Yes. Thank you for reminding me. What I meant was I mean, this was a speech where jt was t4 durjng Presidentjal elections, and what we were seeing l5 20 that President Poroshenko's pol1s were goi ng down. There were a lot of people afraid that Poroshenko was going to lose and what would that mean for them and their interests. And so we were seeing the rollback of some reforms that the Poroshenko administration had done, and that we had, you know, thought was very important that we had hetped them 2t wi I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 t6 t7 l8 l9 22 23 24 25 a M5. YOVANOVITCH: was th. of that speech was to say, these are important accomplishments, and you need to keep on working at that and don't ro11 it back. And so that particular point was that in the former And so that was the purpose 60 I 2 J 4 5 6 on, 'in a number of countri es, i ncludi ng Ukrai ne at one ti me, 'if you' re i n power you have a lot of what they call Sovi et Uni administratjve reSourceS, eSpecially in a country where there js, you know, a vertical power, as they catl it, where the President can te11 the mayor, or the governor, because they appoint those individuals, you need to, you know, bring out 8 this crowd, here'S money to pay off voters or whatever. so that was a reference to that, that that i s not an 9 acceptable Pract'ice. 7 And ll aSoyouWeretryingtopromoteinUkrainetheidea that politicians targeting their political rivals was t2 inappropriate, right? l0 I l3 A t4 competi l5 in an appropriate l6 so. t7 We11, ti on between a 'is all about the pol i t'i ca1 r i val s , but one needs to do 'i t mean, democracy way and not take government resources to would that also apply do to using government resources 23 to impact elections i n other countrjes? A Yeah. i mean, I would thi nk so, although, agai n, that was not the purpose of this speech. a Understood. Were you aware, after you expressed your concerns back to the State Department in D.C., Were you aware whether anyone tried to curtail Mr. Giuliani's 24 acti vi ti es i n Ukrai ne? 18 t9 20 2t 22 25 A I - - curtai 1? I don't know. I don' t know. I 61 I I think there was concern. a Okay. And did anyone act on that mean, 2 3 4 5 6 way concern in any ? A a I'm not sure. I'm not sure. You don't know of anything, but you can't be sure whether anyone did or not? l9 A Yes. a Did you document these concerns anywhere? A Yes. At the request -- and as I said before, I don't I didn't want to put anythi ng i n wri ti ng, certai n1y not front channel; but at the request of Under Secretary Hale, he asked me to send him a classified emai1, sort of putting out what -- this would have been like about l4arch, 1ike, maybe 27tn, 28th, that Sunday that the tweet came out. And he asked me to send him an email on the classified system putting down my understanding of what was going on, which was very unformed stit1, and then why were peopte doing this. And so I did send that email to him. a Did this follow the conversation that you had with 20 Mr. Hale? 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 2t 22 23 24 25 A a Yes. Can you describe the nature of that the nature of that conversation with Mr. Hale? A Well, I had told I had sent an email to the State Department, because there was just an avalanche of and substance 62 I 2 J 4 5 attacks on me, on the embassy, in the press, and sort of Twitter storms and everything else. And so, I had told David Ha1e, among others, via email, that the State Department needed to come out and come out strong, because otherwise it j ust wasn't a sustai nable posi tj on. a A 6 7 8 9 Why not? WelI, i f you have the President's son sayi ng, you to pu11 these clownS, or however he referred me, it makes it hard to be a credible ambassador in a know, We need to 10 coun t ry ll r3 did you want Mr. Hale to do? What I wanted was the secretary of state to issue a statement that said that, you know, I have his fu11 t4 conf i dence l5 fact, t2 t6 a A And so what or somethi ng t i ke that, to i ndi cate that I ,. i n the ambassador in Ukraine, and that I speak for the President, for the Secretary of State, for our country. am a A a A t7 18 t9 20 2t . In contrast to Mr. Gi ul i ani ? I didn't Put jt that waY. But was that what You meant? Well, what I meant was that exactly what I just said. 23 a So i t wasn't necessari ly i n di rect relati on to Mr. Giuliani. It waS as much in response to the attacks on 24 you f rom 22 25 A Yes. 63 others, i nctudi ng the 1 a 2 A Yes. J a And what 4 talk to He said he would 6 a Di 7 A No. 8 a lnlas 9 A No l0 a Did you ever speak 1l A No. t2 a l3 A No t4 a D'id you ever speak you the Secretary ever hear back about that? a statement ever about any of thi about thi A d i ssued? to the Secretary directly s? to UIrich Brechbuhl di rectly s? No. So I spoke with the Acting Assistant Secretary t7 Phil Reeker, and he was talking l8 seven th I think to people on the floor about this. Mr. Reeker was relaying t9 a So 20 A Uh-huh. 2t a And 22 son? request? A l6 dent's djd Mr. Hale say in response to that 5 l5 Presi dld he messages? relay back to you what the responses were from the seventh floor? 23 A Yes. 24 a And 25 A I what were those? was told that there was caution about any kind of 64 1 z J 4 5 6 7 a statement, because it could be undermined' a I'm sorrY, it could be what? A a A a A a A It could be undermined. The statement could be undermi ned? Uh-huh. BY whom? The Pres'ident. t2 In what waY? We11, a tweet or something. I mean, that was not made specific to me. THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to make sure I'm understandi ng. The statement you' re tatki ng about, i s that l3 the requested statement by the secretary of 8 9 l0 ll t4 MS. YOVANOViTCH: Yeah. 15 THE CHAIR 4AN: So you were l6 t7 l8 statement was not going State? informed, basically, that the to be issued by the Secretary of State because it could be undermined by the President? MS. YoVANoVITCH: Yes. No statement was going to be 20 issued, not by the Secretary, not by anybody else' THE CHAIRT'IAN: Because i f the secretary di d i ssue a 2l statement, t9 it might be undermined by the President? 22 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Uh-huh. 23 THE CHAiRMAN: 24 25 Is that a Yes? MS. YOVANOViTCH: Yes, that is a Yes. BY MR. GOLDMAN: 65 J this email to Mr. Hale on the classified system, but were any of the contents of the email actuatly classified or was it just in order to maintain 4 confidentiality? I 2 a 5 a A 6 you know, 7 system. Now, you say you sent I think it I wouldn't just that it was so sens'itive that, have wanted to put it on the open was l0 a Okay. I'11 probably ci rcle back to thj s a 1i ttle bit jn the next in our next round, but I want to just jump for the last couple minutes to the April 2Lst phone call that ll President Trump had on election night with President t2 Zelensky. 8 9 l3 t4 l5 l6 A a A a A Yes. Did you know that that call was going to happen? Yeah, uh-huh. V{hen did you learn that it was going to happen? t9 it was clear that Zelensky was going to win, and win in a landslide. So we had been recommending it, you know, probably the previous 20 week and, you know, as we thought about 2t to that, you know, what is our engagement going to be with 22 the new team and so forth? t7 l8 23 24 25 We had been recommending it, because elections, even prior is for the President of the Unjted States to make a call, and he did, on that Sunday ni ght I thi nk i t was, Ukrai ne ni ght. And so most appropriate 66 2 Did you help prepare the President a I any A No. 4 a Were you 5 A No. 6 o Did you 7 A No. 8 a Were you provided l0 A No ll a Did you get a readout of what t2 A AlT I l3 two Presi dents l6 l7 20 2t 22 in? with a transcript or a summarY of told i s that i t hit it off. was WAS A good call and the the State DePartment ProbablY. THE CHAIRI"IAN: Can I j ust ask on that, would i t customary for the ambassador to get a readout of a be conversation between the President of the United States and the President of the country to which they're the ambassador? It depends on the admj ni stration. THE CHAIRMAN: 0kay. would it be useful, as ambassador, MS. Y0VANoVITCH: 23 24 25 listen a Who A And that i t was a short call. a Who told You thi s? AI--Idon'trecall,actually.Itwassomebodyin 15 19 on the calt? i t? t4 18 in way? J 9 for the call to know 67 I MS. Y0VANOVITCH: BY MR. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll a A a A a admi ni We would be very useful. GOLDMAN: And when you what happened It say, it depends on the admjnistrat'ion, in the 0bama administration? would get a transcript. You would get a transcript? Uh-huh. And what happened during your tenure strati in the Trump on? A And when I say "transcript, " I mean, sometimes it was a transcript, sometjmes it was a summary. t2 And what was your question? l3 a A And what happened i n the Trump adm j n'istration? t7 calls, at least to Ukraine. And, you know, sometimes we would get sort of an oral readout or, you know, brief little points, but never a -- to my recollection, at least, never a fu11, you know, l8 transcript. t4 l5 r6 t9 O Well, there weren't that And what about in many in the Bush administration, when you 20 were an ambassador 2t A Right. Again, because I was in Kyrgyzstan and Armeni a, there weren't that many Presi denti al ca11s. a Understood. MR. G0LDMAN: I think our time is up. So we'11 resume after the minority, but would you like to take a quick 22 23 24 25 W. Bush? 68 I bathroom break? 2 MR. ROBBINS: For sure. J THE CHAIRMAN: 4 Let's take a 5-minute break and resume. lRecess.l ll right, fo1ks. Let's come back to order. counsel f or the m'inori ty, you have one hour. BY ]'4R . CASTOR: a Good afternoon, Ambassador, Steve Castor with the Republi can staff. Thanks for comi ng i n. And I'd 1i ke to state at the outset, I'm not a career Foreign Service perSon' I'm a congress'ional staffer and have been for Some time, t2 speci a1i zi ng 5 6 7 8 9 l0 13 THE CHAIRMAN: A11 'in i nvesti gati ons. so, to the extent I mi spronounce some of these names or 15 mix up something, please accept my apologies 'in advance. I mean no di srespect. 0ur staff, and certai nly our members, l6 have the utmost respect t7 the Foreign Servjce, and they do such an important job on the t4 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 for you and for the men and women of front 1i nes of di PlomacY. So A Thank You. a Can you just help us understand the direction you'Ve been gi ven, i n terms of what consti tutes execut'ive branch confi denti ali ty and pri vi Ieges? l'4R. ROBBINS: So anything she would know, Mr. Castor, 24 that subject, she would know through advice of counsel. 25 would you on So just as Soon get that'information from me, since it 69 I 2 would be privileged coming from her? I'lR. CAST0R: Certai n1y, si r. l0 I tried to share that with you at the outset. The State Department has advj sed us, in di scussions that we've had wjth them, that there may be communications as to which they would wish to assert not executive privilege as such, because that's a pri v'i1ege that belongs to the President, but, rather, a d'ifferent category of privilege whi ch extends, i n thei r vi ew, to executi ve communi cati ons between members of the executive branch other than d'irect ll commun'ications t2 I thought it appropriate to assert on their behalf such priviIeges where they were appropriate, I invjted them to give us a document, a letter, if you wi11. I believe I shared this fact with you over the phone. I had reason until yesterday to befieve that we would, in fact, receive such a letter, which I had told them I would share with the committee at the outset of these proceedings so that the scope of their objections would be clear at the outset, and it would spare me the obligation of having to a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MR. ROBBINS: So with the Pres"ident himself. Because anticipate what those objections might be. In the end, for reasons I cannot provide, because I don't know, I never received such a letter. 5o I guess I could do my best to teIl you what I think they think, but I can't be sure I 'm ri ght. 70 1 MR. CAST0R: Thank You. BY MR. CASTOR: 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 a Ambassador, do you believe you're authorized to testify here today, on behalf of the state Department? MR. RoBBINS: That sounds like a -- cal1s for a legal and I conclusion. I can te11 you, as her counsel, that believe, again, you know all these things sjnce I've shared them all with you as I have with majority counsel she received a d'irection by the Under Secretary to decline to l0 appear voluntari ll l8 It did not address the quest'ion whether she should or should not appeailin response to a subpoena. A subpoena thereafter issued. She is here pursuant to that subpoena' I have shared with both sides of the aisle a letter exptaining why, in my view, jt was appropriate, indeed required, for her to appear pursuant to that subpoena. The question whether she iS, quote/unquote, "authorized" strikes me aS a question of law. As I expect you know, she t9 is not a lawyer, 20 question would be the result t2 l3 t4 15 16 17 2t 24 25 and anything she would venture on that of privileged whjch I am directing her not to reveal. BY MR. 22 23 1Y. a CASTOR: can you help us understand the washi ngton cha'in of strati on po1 i cy was commun'i cated to you? Yes. I mean, you know, it happens in different command, how admi ni A communications, 71 ways, but, you know, we communicate by phone, through cable 2 traffic, through emails. J was a very challenging period during the time And because Ukraine, you know, that I it was 6 there. It was a very challenging period during the time that I was there. And so we often would have interagency meetings v'ia secure teleconf erenci ng. And so, you know, through all 7 those ways, you know, we work as a team together. 4 5 a A 8 9 And who d'id you Ei report to back j n Washi ngton? ther Assi stant Secretary Wess Mi tche11, and then ll left, Acting Ass'istant Secretary Phil Reeker. They are my, you know, formal bosses, shal1 we say. The t2 day-to-day was generally with the Deputy Assistant Secretary. l3 So t4 George Kent. l5 just to clarify, not all communication goes through me. We have a big interagency at the embassy, and so, you know, there's lots of communication back and forth. a And what communications did you have with the White House or the National Security Council? A There was less of that. The State Department, as you may know, likes to manage that themselves through Washington, and but often, they were on emails. Sometimes I would reach out, hopefully always copying my colleagues at the State Department, and that sort of thing. a You men t'i oned l0 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 when he in the beginning, it And was Bridget Brink, and then it was 72 A 2 meet i ngs And they would be obviously running the interagency . t4 a You menti oned Dr. F'iona Hi 11 thi s morni ng A Yes. as one of the National Security Council a officials that was in your -- in this area of interest? A Uh-huh. Yes. a Any other Nati onal Securi ty Counci 1 offi ci als? Was she your primary liaison at NSC? A Uh-huh. a And how f requently di d you communi cate with her? A Not that often. a By "not that often," is that weekly, monthly? A Yeah. I mean, on the phone, fairly rarely. You l5 know, interagency meetings, you know, we would have them. l6 She t7 it J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 wouldn't atways chair them, but, you know, would depend what would happen, but every 2 weeks. l8 I 'm bei ng helped here. l9 Yes. And I'm sorry, I've lost 20 21 22 23 24 25 sometimes my train of thought. So how often O A a Communicate But she would be on emails too. Was she providing direction to you, or were you d that i nformati on flow? We11, it's a partnership. I mean, obviously, the provi di ng di recti on A with Fiona Hill? to her? How di 73 t4 for the President directly. And so, you know, they may share information or te11 us what to do, and we provide information about what's going on in the fie1d. We provide suggestions. You know, in the prev'ious example about the telephone call between -- the first telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, we thought that that was an important f i rst step in engaging a new administrat'ion, for example. a Can you telt us about the political environment in the Ukraine lead'ing up to the election of President Zelensky? A WeIl, it was so 5 years after the Revolution of Digni ty. And the Revolution of Digni ty rea1ly sparked a big change jn Ukraine. I think the Poroshenko administration did a lot, but, clearly, the electorate felt that it didn't do t5 enough. l6 in two rounds won over 70 percent of the vote. I mean, that's a pretty big mandate. And I think it seemed to be based on this issue of corruption. He said it was his number one goal, although he was also very focused on bringing peace to the country in the Donbass. And I think that there was, you know, as js true, I think, probably in any country during Pres'idential elections, a lot of a lot of concerns among people. This was I think a b'ig surprise for the political elite of Ukraine, which is relatively sma11. And so, I don't think they saw it coming I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 NSC works And so Zelensky 74 2 until the very end. And, So, there was surprise and' you know, all the stages of grief, anger, disbelief, how is J thi s happeni ng? I 4 5 6 7 8 9 rea11y oWhendidyouandtheembassyf.irstrealizethat Zelensky may be elected? Wetl, we were watching the pol1s. I mean, you 'i know, that' s one of the th i ngs we do. And he was r i s i ng n the spring and kind of over the summer, but, you know, not much happens over the Summer. So I asked to meet with him A l4 for the first time in September of 2018. O And at what point did you realize that he was 1 i kely to wj n? A You know, it'S hard tO look back and actually without sort of reference to notes and stuff. I think l5 mean, we were t0 il t2 l3 l6 t7 know I taking him seriously, very seriously by December. And, you know, January, February, i think we felt he was probably going to be the next President' 20 O And how did you feel about that? What were your vjews of Zelensky? Did you think he was going to be a good advocate for the anti cor rupti on i ni ti ati ves, as he was 2l campai gni 18 t9 22 23 24 25 ng on? A We didn't know. I mean, he was an untried politician. Obviously, he has a background as a comedian, aS an aqtor, aS a businessperson, but we didn't know what he would be like as a President. 75 a A I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 And what were your views on President Poroshenko? I think President Poroshenko, you know, like many leaders, is a very complicated man. And so he has worked in he has been active in Ukrainian politics since, I want to say, the late 1990s, certainly the early 2000s, when I was there before. He is a businessman and very accomplished 'in many different ways. And he came into office I believe he might be the only President who was voted into office in the first round, not going to a second round. People really wanted to give him that mandate, because the country was in a surprising war in 20L4, and they thought that even though he was an oligarch t4 himself, that he could bring the country forward. And I thi nk what we've seen 'in hi s admi ni strati on i s l5 that he made a 1ot of important changes. l6 ref orms i n Ukra'ine duri ng President Poroshenko's term than, t7 frankty, in a1I the preceding under all the preceding l8 Presi dents. 13 There were more But I think that, you know, as time passed, as the, l9 20 sha11 we say the 2t were old system wasn't as scared anymore as they 24 in 20L4, as they felt there was more space to k'ind of pursue their own interests, it became harder to pursue those reforms and there was less interest. Because when you reform, especi a1ly on the very sensi tj ve i ssue of corrupti on 25 i 22 23 ssues, every time you make a deci si on, you' re probably goi ng 76 7 or a friend'S jnterests or Something ljke that when you make a new law or whatevelit mi ght be. And so i t's hard. And so there was kind of a slowing down. And I think what we've seen in 2014, in 2019, is that what the Ukrainian peopte want is transformation. They don't want just a couple of changes here and there and k'ind of sugarcoat'ing i t on the 8 top. I 2 J 4 5 6 9 10 againSt your own interests a changi ng So the Ukrainian people thought that he wasn't fast ll A That t2 a And l3 t4 l5 16 t7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Decembe r 2018, enough? 'is our analYsi s. that first bec'ame reat crystal clear in or no. I mean, he was in about 201-5, he was starting to go down in the po11s, before I arrived. And I think it's because there was a lot of potitical in-fighting between h'im and his prime mjn jster. People apparently didn't like that. But I think there was also a sense in the country that he was attending to his own personal interests aS well, and people d'idn' t appreci ate that. a And can you explai n a f i ttle b'i t about how, as the ambassador, you have to toggle between the current President, A We11, the incumbent President, and what could be a new President? A Ri ght, ri ght. So, yotl know, our role i s obvi ously to represent the United States, but jt's also to, you know, 77 I 2 with as many different kinds of people as possible, many political forces as possible, not just me, but, you meet as t7 that is involved in this, and, you know, to get informat'ion, obviously, so that we can 1et Washington know what we think is happening in a country, what our analysi s i s of th'is, what i t means f or ourinterests, and prov'ide advice, policy opt'ions for how to move forward. I mean, often Presidents don't like it when you are meeti ng wi th thei r pol i ti ca1 ri vaIs, but, I mean, we' re pretty transparent, and we let people know that, you know, this is what the U.S. does. We meet with everybody who's a legi timate poli tical f orce out there. And, yor.l know, of ten the other -- we wouldn't, you know, pubficize it, but often, the people that we are meeting with do. 5o it wasn't like there were any secrets or anything like that. And, you know, you do business with the current you we talked to hi s campai gn Presi dent. You do l8 manager t9 strategies were, what they thought was going to happen, et 20 cetera, et cetera. J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 know, there's a whole embassy often about, you know, where they were, what their 23 with, yotr know, not just Zetensky but with the others who were running for President. And we conveyed that back to Washington. a And what do you thjnk President Zelensky felt about 24 you 2t 22 25 We met ? A Well, until I read the you know, the summary of 78 the conversation of the July 25th ca11, I thought he liked 2 me. a J 4 su rpr i se? A 5 6 7 8 l1 t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 a A 25 Wel1, what that' s what you'd 1i ke, that' s what she' 11 g'ive BY MR. a 22 24 What do You think? I think is that he thought that that would be somethi ng pleasi ng f or Pres'ident Trump ' a Do you thi nk that some of the i nterested part'ies that you discussed in the first round th'is morning had gotten to Zetensky, or do you think Zelensky had just MR. RoBBINS: Do you really want her to engage in that degree of Speculati on? I mean, she'11 anSvver the queSt'ion, but She's atready made clear that she was totally surprised by the contents of that conversation. So anything she could tel1 you and she wi t1 respond, but 'it's all guesswork. If 2t 23 Yes. aAnddoyouhaveanyreasontoknowwhyPresident Zelensky felt that waY? A Wel1, I can't say I know. I can't say I know' 9 l0 of the July 25th call took you by so the transcript you . CASTOR: Have you tearned anything since that information out to help you better understand exactly what leading up to that call? came A The JutY 25th call? happened 79 I 2 O A a Yes. No. 5 anticorruption'initiatives in Ukraine, could you walk us through sort of the landscape of the various ent'ities? There's, you know, the National 6 Anticorruption Bureau, and then the prosecutor general has 7 special prosecutor. Could you sort of walk us through the 8 anticorruption institutions? J 4 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 A The various a Uh-huh. So after the 20L4 elections, the Ukrainian in that election that they were done with corruption, and they wanted to live a life wjth dignity, ca1led the Revolution of Dignity. And what that term means for Ukrain'ians 'is that it's rule of 1aw, that what applies to you applies to me. It doesn't matter whether, you know, we hold different jobs or different status in society. It should be about the rule of 1aw. And we wanted to support that effort, and there was kind of an all-out effort. And in the very, very beginning, one of the things and the Ukrainians, and we supported them in other ways on antjcorruption issues, but I wilt just address the question. So they thought that i t would be a good 'idea to set up thi s arch'itecture, as you call it, of a special investigative office that would be all about the crimes of corruption above a certain 1eve1 of public officjals. And so i t would be devoted to that. So they would set up that organization, people had made clear 80 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 kind of like an FBI, but for a particular mjssion' Secondly, there would be a special independent anti cor rupti on prosecutor, whi ch, aS you sai d, reported to Mr. Lutsenko. And then there would be a special anticorruption court. So that you would have, you know, this contjnuum of new organizations wjth vetted jndividuals who are trajned who are handling these crimes, people who would get reasonable salaries so that they wouldn't actually be forced to go out and take bribes. And so when I arrived in the summer of 2015, August t2 2015, the NABU, the 'investi gatory branch had at ready been established, as had the anticorruption prosecutor, they were l3 all ll t4 they were both established. The court was not established until much later, and it only started working in l5 September t9 of this year, September 2019. So, you know, first of all, I mean' there's so many forces working against these courts, but it was against these institutions, but it was also kind of an issue that when they had court cases ready to go, they would go into the 20 same l6 t7 18 2l 22 23 24 25 old court system at that t'ime. a A a precede And who was aS before, which had not been reformed the speci a1 prosecutor? Mr. Kholodni tskY. was he the only special prosecutor h i m? or did somebody 81 I 2 J 4 5 A a A a He's the only one. And he's still there today? Yes. I believe so. Yes. What is your impression of his work? Better than Lutsenko, worse? t2 I don't thi nk that compari sons are helpful here. I thi nk that i n the begi nni ng, perhaps Kholodnitsky was committed, you know, to hjs mission, but I think over time, there's a lot of pressure, as I said, from all of the forces that wi11, you know, help you with funding, shalt we say, or, alternatively, have what they calt kompromat, or compromising information on you. They play l3 hardball there. t4 l6 to resist, and it appeared that he was not making progress in the way that we had originally hoped. And then he was there was a t7 tape that was revealed where he was heard coaching l8 l9 individuals on how to testify and various other things. so that's clearly not an acceptable practjce for a 20 prosecutor. 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l5 2l 22 23 24 25 A We11, i And so a A a f I may, I think it became harder and harder And trying to coach? I don't recall at the moment. Was he trying to coach peopte that were under Who was he actual i nvesti gation? A Yes. I'm sorry, I didn't realize. I thought you 82 I 2 wanted the name. Yeah. a A And he reported to Lutsenko? 6 cated. I thi nk i t was he did. Although it was sort of more of a dotted line, but yes, he d1d report to Mr. Lutsenko. a And what was your relationship with Kholodnitsky? 7 Did you have meetings with him? Did you have an exchange of 8 i deas? 3 4 5 9 A Yeah. I t was ki nd of I mean, yes, but not very often. l0 know, many other people 1l relati t2 l3 l4 l5 compl i We had a -- you in the embassy handled that onshi p. did you ever have to call for the resi gnati on or fi ri ng of any Ukrai ni an offi ci a1? A In the speech that you referred to on March 5th, when we were Very concerned about some of the rollbacks, aS I a Now, during your tenure, 20 said, as they were looking at the Presidential elections coming up. And one of the things I said is that it was inappropriate, or words to that effect, for somebody who had engaged in those k'inds of activities to sti1l be in his job. a Was that taken as that you were calling for 2t Kholodni tsky' l6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 A a s ouster? Uh-huh. that posit'ion something that you carefully thought out before the speech, or was it just a product of where the conversation took you? Did you go into the speech And was 83 I knowi ng that you were going to be 2 A Yes. J a You di d, okay. 4 And 5 A Yes. 6 a And, so, you planned that 7 that, di 8 anythi ng was that the posi t'ion d A 9 you make any of the embassy? out, and before you did posi tion known? Did you try you r on the nonpublic side? Yes. l5 a And could you describe those efforts? A We worked wi th l'lr. Lutsenko on that, because he was one of the individuals -- there were various stages, and he was one of the people who was responsible at the end. and you'11 have to a Thi s do-not-prosecute 1 i st you know, you've stated that it's been excuse me if l6 Lutsenko's recanted various statements about the t7 20 1ist, but if I may, can I walk through with you your understanding of where this comes from? A Uh-huh. a Okay. How many how frequently did you meet with 2l Lutsenko? r0 ll t2 t3 14 l8 l9 do-not-prosecute 22 23 24 25 A Maybe about L0 a Was or L2 times over 3 years, maybe more standi ng meeti it a regular ng did you have like a regular 84 A a A I No. 5 or did you just meet wjth him when he asked you? As with, yoLl know, Mr. Kholodnitsky, we have a pretty big embassy in Ukraine, and so there are a number of offices that handle 1aw enforcement or prosecutorial, et 6 cetera, 2 J 4 And so those people mostly handle those relationships. 7 8 9 l0 if there was a need for me to meet with him then I would meet with him, or if he requested a meeting, for And, you know, example. ll t2 t3 'issues. a When did the do-not-investigate f i st fi rst come into your awareness? A From t6 sorry, forgive me, but that question sort of presupposes that it's an actual thing. MR. CAST0R: We11, i t's an allegation that Lutsenko has t7 made. t4 l5 t'4R. R0BBINS: I'm 24 just rephrasing 1t? When d'id the allegation of such a list come to your attention as opposed to presupposing that it's an actual thing in the worId, which it is not. BY I4R . CASTOR: a When did this allegation first come to your attention, and when do you think Lutsenko is alleging the 25 communication happened between you and hjm? l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 MR. ROBBINS: Would you m'ind 85 6 article, or the interview in The Hi11, from, I think, it was ["larch 24th, that's when I f i rst became aware of these allegatjons. And he c1a'ims that it was in that interview, he c1a'imed that it was in the fi rst meeti ng wi th me And when was the first meeting with him, if you can a 7 remembe r I 2 J 4 5 A Well, accordi ng to the generally? 8 A 0ctober 9 a So A a That l0 ll t2 2015. ctearly, this took you by surprise. Is that f ai r? And is very fair. did you communicate your surprise or your anger l3 to Lutsenko's office or t4 attenti 15 16 him directly after it came to your on? A I don' t thi nk so. I di dn' t th'ink there would have been any poi nt i n that. l9 0r by that t'ime, had your relationship soured to the point where it wasn't worth jt to you? A Wel1, I wasn't aware until I read that article of 20 how sour t7 l8 2l 22 23 24 25 a a the relationship was. After the article, d'id you have any meetings with Lutsenko? A a A No. s the last time you met wi th h'im? You know, maybe in the fal1 of 2018. When i 86 a I Did you develop any intelligence between the fal1 2 of 3 has gone south? 2018 and March 24th that the relationship with Lutsenko t2 I described previously, Mr. Avakov let me know that Mr . Lutsenko was commun'icati ng wi th Mr . Gi u1i ani a When was the meeting with Avakov, again? A In FebruarY of 2019. a When you read about this allegation, Why didn't you try to reach out to Lutsenko and holler at him and Say, Why are you sayi ng thi s? Thi s i s completely untrue' A I didn't really think there was any point' a Did any of your embassy staff communicate at a l3 Iower 1evel? 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t4 15 l6 t7 A WeI1, as . A a A a I'm sure theY did, but I don't But not at Your behest? know' No. When you were i n your openi ng statement th'is 23 if you brought copi es of that, but i t m'ight be helpf u1 f or the members. MR. R0BBINS: We're happy to provide whatever you need. We hea rd MR . CASTOR: You ' re maki ng some copi es , okay . during the break that The Washington Post has it and there's all sorts of discussion about it, and so here in the secure 24 envi ronment, l8 l9 20 2t 22 25 morning, which, by the way, I'm not sure MS. we LI WAI SUEN: It was provided electronically before. 87 I to the House staff. MR. CASTOR: Okay, me? Okay. We didn't get a copy of We provided an electronic copy it so 2 J 4 5 6 it to the security folks, is that who? It wasn't provided to either Democratic or Republican staff, as we understand it. M5. RUBENSTEIN: We provided BY MR. 7 CASTOR: t2 it's apparentty been provided to The Washington Post, so some of our members during the break asked me to ascertain if you know how that may have happened. MR. R0BBINS: Anything she would know about that, she would know through counsel, so she's not going to answer l3 that. 8 9 l0 ll a Anyway, t4 MR. CAST0R: Did you l5 MR. ROBBINS: l6 MR. CASTOR: l7 \,lR. l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 provide it to The Washington Post? I'm not going to answer that either. WhY? R0BBINS: Because I 'm not go'ing to answer that. I ask one fo11ow-up? I"lR. CAST0R: Certainty, sjr. .,lR. MEADOWS: 5o, Counselor, i f , i ndeed, you gave i t to The Washington Post, did you beljeve that that was something that would be supported by this committee? MR. ROBBINS: I'm sorry, I'JIl not going to engage in any answers regarding work product or attorney-client privilege, and I'm not the witness. So if you have another pending MR. l'lEADOWS: Steve, can 88 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 l2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 questjon for the ambassador, you should ask it. 89 I [].2 : 57 p.m. l MR. MEADOWS: Ambassador, 2 J connected 4 Pos are you aware of to you that might have given that to The Washington t? MR. ROBBINS: Anything she would know regarding that, 5 6 she would know through counsel, 7 going to answer if at all, and she's not that question. MR. ZELDIN: Are you 8 9 anyone saying that it's subject to attorney-client privilege, your communications with an The ngton Post? t0 Washi ll t2 I'm sorry. Any communicatjon that she may have had between 0o, no. We1l, they have a copy. We made l3 the copies available to the security t4 t7 for the committee from either side of the ais1e. Anything that the witness knows and I'm not saying she knows anything but anything she knows, she would know through counsel, and she's instructed not to answer that 18 question. l5 l6 MR. ROBBINS: MR. ZELDIN: Are you asserting an t9 20 privilege for 2t Washi communications to the security fotks attorney-client that you have had with The ngton Post? 23 No. Let me try it again. I'm asserting an attorney-client privilege with respect to communications 24 between me and the witness. 22 25 MR. ROBBINS: The question is pending to the witness. The question 90 I was, does the witness know how, if at all, The Washington 5 of th'is document. That ca11s f or pri vi leged communjcatjons, period. That's the subject of my objection. MR. J0RDAN: I thi nk that, Mr . Cha'i rman, you can instruct him to anSwer that question, I believe. And I would 6 also ask, did 2 3 4 7 8 9 Post got a copy will please direct their questions to the witness and leave the counsel for the wi tness to advi se the w'itness of what the wi tness can anSWer THE CHAIRMAN: Counsel l3 or not answer based on attorney-client privilege' l'4R. JoRDAN: Did -- if I could, Ambassador, did prior -if, in fact, you did did you talk to the State Department about the possibility of releasing your opening statement to l4 the l0 ll l2 l5 l6 press? l'4S. Y0VAN0VITCH: I haven't talked to the State Department. t7 MR. ROBBINS: You can answer that. l8 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: l9 I haven't talked to the State Department. 21 talk to the State Department about releasing your opening statement to the 22 press? 20 23 24 25 MR. JORDAN: Did your counselor objection. She would know that, if at all, only by v'irtue of privileged communications between the lawyers and her, and She'S not goi ng to ansv',er MR. R0BBINS: Same exact 91 I that. 2 Next questi on. J MR. CASTOR: 4 5 6 7 There's a -- you know, part of our deposition rules, there's a prohibit'ion against disclosing the contents of the testimony. And so 'in case that's helpful for you to understand why there's some concern. MR. R0BBINS: Yeah. I'm totally mindful of that. 8 MR. ZELDIN: Ambassador Yovanovitch 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Let me -- clari fy for the Members. There's this witness can say to us or to l0 no prohibition on what 1l public. The Members are prohibited from discussing the t2 contents of the deposition. the tch, do you believe that statement to be provided MR. ZELDIN: Ambassador Yovanovi l3 20 it is appropriate for your opening to The Washington Post? MR. ROBBINS: If you have an opinion on that, you can answer i t. 1"15. Y0VAN0VITCH: I think that there's a lot of interest in this deposjtion. MR. ZELDIN: Is it your opinion that only your opening 2t statement shoutd be provided to The Washington Post? t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 MR. ROBBINS: 22 23 24 25 I'f you have a vi ew on that, you can answer it. Sorry. For the record, the opening statement is being circulated in hard copy. It was provided MR. BITAR: 92 I prior to the interview to the nonpartisan security staff J the House Intelligence committee. They had not made sufficient copies at the time, but at the request, more 4 copies were made and they are circulating now' So 5 should have a coPY. Thank You. 2 6 MR. ZELDIN: Ambassador Yovanovitch, would you that quest'ion? Do you 7 answer 8 statement should be provided 9 l0 l1 all of Members like to believe that only your opening to the press? off the record. l MR. R0BBINS: If you have an opinion, you can answer his lDi scussi on question. 15 0kay. I actually don't real1y have an opinion on that. I haven't thought about this in terms of what is most appropriate or not appropriate to share with the greater public, but I do know that there is a lot of interest l6 in this. t2 l3 t4 1'4S. Y0VANQVITCH: BY ]'4R . t7 CASTOR: did the how does the embassy and the Depa r tmen t collect informat'ion from social media? State o How 20 A I 'm sor ry. Could You rePeat? 2l a Could you help us understand how the embassy l8 t9 22 the State Department back 'in washi ngton collects 23 on soci al 24 25 med i and i nf ormati on a? I can't real1y answer the question, because I don't know all the inner details of how the press section works to A 93 I gather information. But they provide us with a press 2 summary, 5 or they used to provide me, I mean. They provide the embassy with a press summary and it goes out to other peopte at the State Department as wel1. a And i s part of that moni tori ng soci a1 medi a 6 accounts from 3 4 8 i s 9 l0 Yeah. I mean, i n today's age, yeah, A 7 real 1y at medi a important. And who determines which a soci social media accounts are moni tored? ll I A don't rea11y know. I mean, I th'ink i t's p robably t2 a corporate decision in the press section of what are the l3 i ssues t4 sure that over time'it often changes, because, you l5 different that wq' re most i nterested i n at the ti me. And I 'm know, l6 or whatever you call them, you know, are jnto different topics that might be of interest to l7 us. l8 a media influencers, efforts to bring you back took shape, begin to step up their efforts in trying to And when the 20 did the embassy fi gure out where these i ni ti atives were comi ng from by 2t looki ng at soci a1 t9 22 23 24 25 medi a accounts? A We11, I think what the embassy was -- you know, after the March 24th Hill article, I think then and then there was just an explosion in parts of the media and on so we, you know, were i nterested i n, soci a1 medi a. And so 94 of keeping track of the story so that we would I you know, kind 2 know what was goi ng on. O A J 4 5 I 8 9 I mean, there' interest since I s an i nterest was being obvi ous1y, directly attacked a A Yeah. a A a A a A a Are you familiar with something called crowdTangle? t's not like the Ukrainians where we were workjng were not following this as we1l. And so, you know, one had to be aware. l0 ll l2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 Because, had an 6 7 And I but there's also mean' 'i No. It's a software for mi ni ng open source materi als. Uh-huh. So you' re not fami f i ar wi th that? No. At any point did you did you know who, you know, which Americans were being monitored? 20 I'm sorry. By "monitored," you mean MR. CASToR: 0n the social media. we were talking soc j a1 med'ia, mi ni ng soci a1 medi a, tryi ng to better 2l understand 18 t9 MR. ROBBINS: MR. R0BBINS: 22 23 data mi about I'm sorry. Min'ing? That is to say, like, ni ng? 24 MR. CAST0R: Yes. 25 MR. ROBBINS: Okay. Are you presuming that there was 95 I data mining going on? J that soci a1 medi a i t' s my understanding of her testimony that social media accounts 4 were studied and examined 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l ?2 23 24 25 MR. CASTOR: Presumi ng and I'm sorry. Do you want to restate your testimony as to how social media is followed in the embassy at the time you were ambassador, because I thjnk there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of that work? l'4R. R0BBINS: . YOVAN0VITCH: Yeah . And , honestly, I don ' t real 1y know. I mean, I received the finished product, which is a summary of what folks in the press section thought was the most important, you know, whether it's hard print, a CNN or a FOX interview, you know, tweets or Facebook postings or whatever. I 'm not I'm j ust not i nvolved i n the deta'ils of how how things happen, you know, how MS BY MR. CASTOR: a And do you know'if the embassy staff that dealt with this liaised with Washington for extra assistance or d'id they handle i t at1 themselves? A At a certain point, to take advantage of the 7-hour tjme difference, because this was, you know, kind of a pretty pretty big task for our press section, they did request assi stance from from Washi ngton, yes. a And who in Washington is responsible for that? A Public Affairs in the European Bureau was who I 96 I think that they a 2 J i reached out to. And di d you have any dlscussi ons wi th any of f i ci a1s n D. C. about that? 5 Yeah. I felt that our staff in Kyiv was really being kind of run ragged, and could we get some more 6 assi stance. 4 7 8 A a A did you sPeak with? I know I spoke with George Kent. I'm not sure if I And who l5 else. And he was, just to remind, he was the deputy assi stant secretary. So yeah. a And did you have a request or did your media affairs officials put the request through? Did you just ask for resources or did you ask for a specific request? A Well, we thought that what would be most he1pful, since it was a 7-hour time difference, that, you know, when l6 we, you know, go home, that maybe Washington could take over, t7 f i ke, looki ng and seei ng what, you know, what's playi ng out 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 t8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 spoke with anybody in real time, and they could do a little summary and, you know, send it back to us so that we could have that kind of really good coverage. O And did that occur? A No. a And did you ask for reasons why that didn't occur? A We1I, I mean, what we were told is that folks in Washington were too busy to do this, et cetera, et cetera. I 97 it's always kind I mean, 2 issue and so forth. 0kay. J a 4 George Kent? 8 A a A a 9 communi l0 A a 5 6 7 of a, you know, personnel or How many times did you discuss resource this with I don't know. l'laybe once or twi ce. 0nce or twice. I mean, I don't recal1. Is it possible your staff was having additional cati ons wi th George Kent' s folks? l3 0h, I'm sure, yeah. And did they get any feedback as to why they couldn't support the request? A Yeah. I mean, it was a resourcing issue, is t4 understandi ng. ll t2 l5 t6 t7 a A a A It was a resource my issue? Yeah. Were there certain political 22 so, I mean, so they would you know, obvi ously i t' s deal t wi th at the worki ng 1eve1 fj rst. And then when there was no, shall we say, the kind of response we would have 1iked, then I talked to George at some point and saying, Rea1Iy, you know, you really can't help us? And the 23 answer was no. l8 l9 20 2l 24 25 a A And In your opening statement, I guess it's i might have djfferent pagination. page 6 -- 98 I 2 0h, okay. a A 0kay. I have d.ifferent pagination, I betieve, from 4 you, so you mi ght have to a It's page 6 of the statement, the butlet point' It 5 begins 3 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 with, A a "AS for events during my tenure in Ukraine." Uh-huh. "I want to categorically state that I have never myself or through others djrectly or indirectly ever directed, suggested, or in any way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine or elsewhere to refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption." was there ever an initiative to urge the, you know, any t4 of these prosecutors from not prosecuting good government, you know, people that were interested in good government and l5 anticorruption l3 l6 A a i ni ti atives? Could You restate that question? l8 to the prosecutors offices whether they should not prosecute people in favor of 19 supporti ng anti cor rupti on i ni ti ati ves, good government 20 actors? Were 2l prosecuti on? t7 22 23 24 25 was there ever any communication the good government actors ever at risk for Yeah. I mean, it happens all the time. It's one of the ways that a corrupt government can pressure people. a And did you or the embassy ever urge the prosecutor not to prosecute those individuals that were in favor of good A 99 I government and anti cor rupti on i ni t'i ati ves? 2 A J prosecution Wel l , what we would say i s that any k'i nd of 5 of whoever, whether they are, you know, good actors or bad actors, needs to be done according to the 1aw and there needs and it needs to be not politically 6 moti vated. 4 And so the question 7 a 8 someone was 9 government l0 i ni 13 t4 l5 did you ever thjnk that being prosecuted wrongly because they were a good actor, they were trying to support anti corruption ti ati ves? A ll t2 is, moti I th'ink there was probably a lot of politically vated prosecuti on goi ng on i n Ukrai ne. did you ever urge the prosecutor not to prosecute those individuals or entities? A I think that I think there's kind of a line a And l8 there. And so, you know, conversations about you need to be sure that, you know, there is a real case that is not politically motivated, that this isn't just harassment and l9 pre5sure, so those conversat'ions, you know, certainty took 20 pl ace l6 l7 2t 22 23 24 25 . a A a A O And were names used? Yeah, probably. And ent'ities? I 'm not no. Can you remember the names? 100 2 I think that the the head of NABU was there were a number of cases that looked like harassment cases to J us that were opened I A 5 of think of anybody A You know, a Can NABU, that of was of it like that. saY ll a Okay. would You say it? l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 ri ght anybody I wouldn't l4 name eIse, other than the head that you urged not to Prosecute? you think A l3 Who's the head I'ffi sorry, I'm blanki ng on hi s l0 t2 else? now. 8 9 against him. NABU? 6 7 And can you a 4 up How I would say that when we had conversat'ions, we would say that any prosecutions need to be done, you know, by the 1aw, not politically motivated. 1 egal 1y But then you i ndi cated that actual names d'id come o up f rom time to time? Wel1, the only one I can recall is NABU, and I'm A not even recalling that, but I w'i11 in a second. Is Sintac the right name? a A , 20 A Sytnyk. 2l a Sytnyk. 22 A Thank you. 23 a Can you remember anY 24 A No. 25 a But there were 0kay. names? other names? 101 A a A a A a I 2 J 4 5 6 No. I don't thi nk so. So there weren't names? just discussed one person, Mr. Sytnyk. Okay. So it's a name, not names? To the best of my recollection. And I guess what I'm getting to is, js it possible took that name as an example of somebody not to 7 Lutsenko 8 prosecute? I think we l3 A I can't really speak for his motivations or what was in his mind. a Before the removal of Lutsenko's predecessor, Shokin, there was effort on behalf of the U.S. Government, jncluding Vice Pres'ident B'iden, to have Shokin removed, l4 correct? l5 t7 thing, just to remind, as I said in my opening statement, which you now have, I was not present at that t'ime, but I can te11 you what I understand to be the l8 case. l9 a Yes. Please do. A So Vice President B'iden, the IMF, pretty much every every country that is present in Ukraine all felt that Mr. Shok'in as prosecutor general was not doing his job. a Wh'ich led to catls to oust him? A Yes. a And the tegislature has to remove him. Is that 9 l0 ll t2 t6 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A Wel1, one 102 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 correct? A a A O A a Yes, that's correct. And then that occurred. Yes. And then Lutsenko comes on board. Yes. he, in your experience because you're very knowledgeable about the region, so when I ask you'in your opinion, you have a very informed opinion was And was Lutsenko better or worse than Shokin? Almean,honestly,Idon'tknow.Imean,Ithink they're cut from the a A a EquallY same c1oth. bad? I'm not sure that these comparisons are helpful. 0kay. And there was also an issue with the special prosecutor, Kholodni tskY? A a Uh-huh. any any other beacons of hope in the prosecutorial world of Ukraine? A Well, it was kind of an unreformed office, shall we say. so I thi nk I th'ink some of the people, who I di dn't actually personally know, but some of the people who came in in the early days after the Revolution of Dignity, were considered to be quite good. And I think some of them have been brought back again under -- under this new President, were there 103 I Zelensky. So, you know, I'fi always hopeful about 2 possi bi 1 i ty for the change. 7 of a clamor to remove Lutsenko as there was Shok'in. Is that fa'i r to say? A Yeah, I think that's fair. a And what do you account for that? A I would say that there was, I think, sti11 a hope 8 that one could work with Mr. Lutsenko. There was also the 9 prospect J 4 5 6 a There was never as much of Presidential elections coming up, and as seemed l3 likely by, you know, December, January, February, whatever the time was, that there would be a change of government. And I th'ink we certai nly hoped that 14r. Lutsenko would be replaced i n the natural order of thi ngs, whi ch 'is, i n f act, t4 what happened. l5 We l0 ll t2 also had more leverage bef ore. I mean, th1s was not l8 easy. President Poroshenko and Mr. Shokin go way back. In fact, I think they are godfathers to each other's children. So this was, you know, this was a big dea1. But we had t9 assistance, as did the IMF, that we could condition. l6 t7 20 MR. GOLDMAN: Could 2t clarification? 22 go way back? I just make one point of You said President Poroshenko and 23 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. 24 MR. G0LDMAN: Do you mean Shokin 25 M5. YOVAN0VITCH: or l4r. Shokin Lutsenko? WelI, I thjnk they probably aIl go way 104 I back. It's 2 Shoki J each other's a 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 Bu elite. But President godparents BY MR. 5 7 sma1l Poroshenko and n go way back, because my understanding is that they are 4 6 a for each other's chi 1dren. CASTOR: What do you know about the investigation of ri sma? A Not very much. And, again, that happened before I arrived. a Do you know when they were being investigated and what exactly for? A 5o was it actually, I think I'm more f am'iliar with the case against Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma. Is that what You're talking about? a A a Both. 0kay. Do you know separate from its if Burisma was under investigation leader? A I be1 i eve so. And I bet i eve that and , agai n, I need to stress that this all happened before I arrived. But I be1 i eve that wi th Buri sma, the as I understand i t, that the i nvesti gati on agai n, mostly from medi a reports was dormant by the time that Lutsenko came to be prosecutor but I also understand, you know, from general, and that things in Ukra'in'ian media and people would sort of ment'ion, that the investigat'ion was never formally closed by Lutsenko, 105 2 it's, frankly, useful to keep that company hanging on a hook, r'ight? And so so i t was dormant, but i t wasn' t 3 ful1y closed I because and done with. 5 -- press reports in the Ukraine that shortly before you came back the end of March that the 6 Ukrai ni an 4 a There was a state prosecutor's offi ce was reexami ni ng i ssues t4 ty wi th that? A Wel1, that question was asked earlier, and I don't actually remember that. 5o, no, I don't. a Do you have any idea why the why Burisma again, this 'is before your time, but just wondering if you have any idea why they would make an effort to put U.S. people on their board. A I mean, I don't know, but I can give you an l5 opinion. 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 related to Buri sma. Do you have any fami 1 i ari Is that MR. R0BBINS: Is it more than a guess? M5. YOVANOVITCH: I mean, jt's an opinion. It's M5. YOVANOVITCH: a guess. I would thi nk, Ambassador, i t would be an informed opinion. Ambassador VoIker was able to give us some of the same commentary. We would like to hear it from your perspectjve since he held you in very high regard. MS. YOVANOVITCH: I -- so just to be clear, I mean, I don't actually know, but I th'ink that they probably did i t MR. l'IEADOWS: Yeah. 106 J for the Same reason most companies put,you know, people with name recognition, experts, et cetera, on their boards, to increase prestige, to let people know that they are good 4 companies, I 2 a BY MR. 5 a 6 7 ll A a A a t2 peop 1 e? 13 A 9 l0 and so forth. CASTOR: Do you know governance 8 t4 well valued, for their 'if they sought out experts i n corporate boards? I'm not famitiar w'ith that. I don't know' 0r experts in fighting corruption for thejr boards? I don't know. 0r did they just pick names of, you know, prominent I really don't know. I mean, I don't know how they went about selecting them. 16 a lot of the Ukrainian companies do this? Is i t a f ai r1y wi despread practi ce that sophi st'icated compan'ies t7 i l5 18 t9 a D1d n Ukrai ne, you know, name u. s. offi ci a1s to thei r A Wetl, I'm not sure they're offic'ials. a A 0r U. board? S. Persons. SorrY. 2l yes. I think, you know' over time, this this has been happening. so DTEK, which is one of the 22 largest 23 number 20 24 25 So, compani has es i n Ukrai ne, owned by a Ukra'ini an, has a of internationally recognized people. I had mentioned Victor Pinchuk earlier, who hosted Mayor Giuliani and other -- other people for his foundation. 0n 107 I his foundation are, you know, former officials from 2 the world, jncluding Americans. around 7 I think that peopte feel that this gives greater gravitas, sha1l we say, to their board, whether i t' s a foundati on or whether i t' s a company. a Do you thi nk 'it has any ef f ect? Do you thlnk A I don't know. You know, what do you mean by 8 "effect"? J 4 5 6 9 So, yeah, a Does I mean, it foster, you know, anti -- you know, an l0 anti corrupti on envi ronment? Does i t ll t2 just to say I'm not sure that that's why people put, you know, luminaries on thejr board, to l3 foster an anticorruption t4 A O WeI1, I mean, envi ronment. f NABU encourages people to to put officials like this on a board, Do you know i l5 encourages companies l6 or U.S. persons, or AntAC? A There one of the jdeas for good governance so this is separate from private corporations or private foundat'ions, such as the YES Foundation that Pinchuk ran. One of the things that I think started after the Revolution of Dignity was that the state monopolies, and there are many in Ukraine, that they would establish boards for those organizat'ions. Is that maybe what you're talking about? t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a Uh-huh. 108 I A And so what the government did was they would run of competitions for 2 these open and transparent kind J be on those boards. And the idea was you get experts and you 4 do get people who wou1d, you know, foster an open environment 5 and so forth. who would and, you know, to your point, 7 I mean there were international experts on those boards, for the gas monopoty, 8 Naftogaz, and others. 6 9 So O 10 he1 ped? 1l A t2 l3 t4 And do you th'ink that worked? I do thjnk it you know, jn time do we t6 MS. t7 MR. CASTOR: l8 MS. YOVANOVITCH: We' re done? t9 MR. CASTOR: We'11 20 MS 2t MR. CAST0R: Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Ambassador, would 25 with the public I do think it was helpful. MR. CASTOR: And my time is just about up, but I wanted to turn to see if any of our Members had something quickly. MR. ZELDIN: How much 24 thi nk that i t companies, the monopolies, yes, l5 23 Do you . have? LAX: Less than a minute. 0h. Sorry. So we're we'11 -- take a break w'ith our f i rst hour. YOVAN0ViTCH: 0kay. you like to take a brief lunch break? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I 'm ready to go. Sure. I mean, I'm at your disposal, 109 don't we resume at 2 o'clock? I THE CHAIRI'4AN: Why 2 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Okay. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: G'ive . people a chance 5 at 2 o' c1ock. MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 0kay. Thank you. 6 lRecess. l 4 7 8 9 t0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 eat And so we' 1 1 resume to grab a bi te to 110 I 12:07 p.m.l I turn it back to Mr. Goldman, I to just fo1low up on one of the questions that my THE CHAIRMAN: 2 5 wanted 4 colleagues i n the mi Before nori tY asked. They asked you, Ambassador, about what advice you had 5 8 in terms of whether they should enSage in poli tically motivated prosecutions or prosecutions that were not based on the 1aw or facts, what in themselves would be 9 cor rupt 6 7 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 given Ukraine . I think you said that you gave general guidance along those 1ines, that they shouldn't they should follow the rule of 1aw and they shouldn't engage in political prosecutions. And you mentioned that one of the or the one person you mentioned in this context that was by specific name was the head of NABU. And l6 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Uh-huh. t7 THE CHAIRMAN: And then you were asked, wel1, could this l8 have been the do not prosecute t9 referring to. I j ust want to ask again, 20 2t list that Lutsenko was Lutsenko recanted that whole allegation, right? Yes. 22 MS. YOVANOVITCH: 23 THE CHAIRI'4AN: So when counsel f or the m'inori ty asked 24 you, we11, coutd that have been what Lutsenko was referri 25 to, Lutsenko himself has said it was nonsense ng 111 I MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes, 2 THE CHAIRI{AN: J MR. G0LDMAN: Thank BY MR. 4 Ilr. that is true. Goldman. you, Mr. Chairman. GOLDMAN: 6 teft off a fittle bit on the April 2Lst call between President Zelensky and President Trump right after 7 President Zelensky won the election, and you said you got 8 general readout 5 a We of the call afterwards. Who a did you speak to l3 to get that readout? A I don't recall. I don't recall. And when I say "genera1," I mean rea1ly general: It was a good ca11, they hit it off. a Di d you speak to any Ukrai ni an of f i c'ials about the t4 call? 9 l0 ll t2 l5 A l6 Sunday t7 to l8 there. l9 a 20 3 2t 5 the days I don't reca11, because, I mean, that happened on a night. 0n Wednesday night, I got the call to return United States. So there wasn't a lot of time in Okay. So Iet's move i nto that, then. It was just after that call that you got a call to go back to the ta tes? 22 A Yes. 23 a Who ca11ed 24 A The di 25 a Who's that? you to order you rector general of to do that? the State Depa r tmen t 112 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A Carol Perez. a What did she say to You? A Well, in the first call, which happened at quarter of 10 in the evening Kyiv time, she sajd that she was giving me a heads-up, that things were going wrong, kind of off the off the track, and she wanted to give me a heads-up. She didn't know what was happening, but there was a 1ot of nervousness on the seventh floor and up the street. O A a 9 l0 1l t2 l3 ne What The White No. A l5 goi ng on . l8 l9 ' rvousness? giving t7 House. Did you understand what she meant about t4 l6 did she mean by "up the street"? I me And I asked her. I said, we11, thanks for a heads-up. what's the problem? Te11 me what's And she sai d she di dn' asked t know. her, we1t, is this, you know, about the allegations about me by Lutsenko and, of courSe, now it was also by l4ayor Gjuliani. And she didn't seem to be aware of that, and she said, 2l don't know, I don't know anything about that. And she said that she would try to get more information 22 and she would 20 call I me back. 24 this heads-up that there's a problem, but what's the next step? Because I don't 25 know what 23 Because I said, Okay. the problem is. So we have 113 I 2 And she said she would she would try to call me try to get more information and at midnight. 8 a Did she say whether anyone had asked her to call you to gi ve you th'i s heads- up? A I got that impression, but now I don't recatl. I mean, that's kind of the impression I have now. a And when you sai d by now G'iu1i ani was also speaki ng out against you, do you mean that by that time you were aware 9 that Giuliani J 4 5 6 7 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 A a A a A a was Uh-huh. make call i ng Yes. for your removat? Yes. Who else were you aware of who was publicly calling l9 for your removal? A We1l, as I recounted earlier, there were you know, there was a lot in socjal med'ia from various peopte, including Donald Trump, Jr. So, I mean, there was a lot out 20 there. 2t 24 a What about from the Presjdent h'imself? Were you aware of h'is f eel i ngs towards you at that poi nt? A No, but he had posted some things. There were some tweets out there, not directly about me, but some tweets out 25 there about, you know, Ukraine, concerns about Ukrajne. l6 t7 l8 22 23 114 I 2 J a And you obviously understood put words in your that we11, I won't mouth. Did you understand that if Donald Trump, Jr., is 6 Giufiani is speaking, that they represented to Some extent the President's views as well at that point? A I didn't know, but, you know, that was certainly an 7 'inf erence one could draw and 4 5 8 9 10 1l t2 l3 l4 l5 16 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 speaking and Rudy -- go ahead. And I would also add that I told you in my opening statement that I had been asked to extend. But then about, I would say, the week after the Hill article, the State Department, Phil Reeke1..in this case, was saying, we11, it's not going to be possible to extend you I mean, I obviously realized that as well -- and we'11 have to talk about dates for your departure. so there was already discussion of when I would go. But when I got the call from Carol, and I think that was the 24ln of April, or I should say Ambassador Perez, she I had understood and Phi 1 Reeker had understood that there was agreement at the State Department that I could stay on through July 2019, after the July Fourth party, which is our it's the biggest representational thing that we do in a host country, and that had been my original plan for departure. And I thought, we , we can just go back to plan A. And there seemed to have been agreement about that. And a A We1l, would that 'inf erence 115 I then I got the call from Ambassador Perez. Okay. I want to go through this step by step. a 2 But 4 just going back to what your understanding was as the motivating factor for Ambassador Perez's call to you, to that 5 point you had onty received support from the State Department J t0 at1 the way up to the seventh f1oor. Is that right? A Yeah. I mean, they I mean, they took back the offer of an extens'ion, but were working with me on, you know, what a good departure date would look like and so forth. a And did you get the sense that the State Department ll had issues with your performance 6 7 8 9 A a t2 l3 in any way? te the oppos i te. So I think that's sort of what I'm getting at. Qu i t4 from the State Department's perspect'ive, everyone on up to l5 Secretary t6 Ukra'ine and had no problems wi th your perf ormance, t7 knowl edge? Pompeo A Yes. t9 a 0kay. 20 Trump, 2t Is that Jr., Yes. 23 a And 25 heads-up A to your my understanding. social media that Donald Giuliani are calling for your ouster. right? A a is And then you see on and Rudy 22 24 supported the work that you were doing in That l8 So then Ambassador Perez cal1s you and says, just There's some nervousness, I th i nk was you r term. Uh-huh. 116 3 don't seem to me to be too many conclusions, but I don't want to put any words in your mouth. What did you think was driv'ing this concern at that 4 poi nt? I 2 a I mean, there 7 her, is this about, you know, the allegations against me that are out there. And she sa'id she didn't know, but that she would try to find out and 8 would 5 6 A We11, that's why I asked ll try to call me back. a So what haPPened when THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you one clarifying question? My colleague asked, as far as you knew in the State t2 Department, everyone was pleased with your performance, l3 indeed, they wanted you to extend another year. 9 l0 t4 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: And l6 t7 18 t9 20 I think my colleague asked you, alt the way up to the Secretary? But did you, in fact, where the Secretary was in all of this? know that we11, I'm not exactly Sure who deci des on extens'ions of thi s ki nd, but I had understood that there was a seventh floor bless'ing, if MS. YOVANOVITCH: I had understood 22 not the Secretary himself , those around h'im who are, you know, long-term colleagues and that he trusts and that can 23 speak 2t 24 25 for So I him. that there was a blessing of that extension. But to answer your question, I don't rea1ly know. had understood 117 4 did you ever find out when, you know, the allegations were being made or the attacks were being made by Donald Trump, )r., or Rudy Giuliani, did you ever find out what the Secretary of State's position, whether the 5 Secretary of State was going to defend you or not, apart from 6 the refusal by the Secretary to issue a statement in 7 defense? I 2 J THE CHAIRMAN: And MS. YOVAN0VITCH: What 8 I was your told by Phil Reeker was l6 that the Secretary or perhaps somebody around hjm was going to place a call to Mr. Hannity on FOX News to say, you know, what is going on? I mean, do you have proof of these kinds of allegations or not? And if you have proof, you know, telI me, and if not, stop. And I understand that that call was made. I don't know whether it was the Secretary or somebody else in his inner circle. And for a time, you know, things kind of simmered t7 down. l8 20 that seem extraordinary to you that the Secretary of State or some other high-ranking official would call a talk show host to figure out whether 2l you should be retained as ambassador? 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t9 THE CHAIRMAN: 22 23 24 25 MS . I mean, does YOVAN0VITCH: Wet 1 , I 'm not sure that' s exactly what was being asked. what basi s , they were aski ng i f was Hannity one of the people criticizing you? THE CHAIRMAN: Well they 118 I MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: 5o some top going 4 attacki ng you tor? . FOX host was YOVAN0VITCH: Uh- huh . 5 14S 6 THE CHAIRMAN: And did you ever get any readout on what 7 the result of that conversation 8 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: No, l0 strati on offi ci a1 was to him to find out what the basis of this J 9 admi ni was? I didn't, although I was told that it did take p1ace. But what we thought we saw was, you know, as a result of ll the media monitoring, which I'm sure everybody does, what l2 thought we saw was that l3 whi1e. t4 THE CHAIRMAN: Unti there jt simmered down for we a 1 what poi nt? t7 . YOVANOVITCH: Wel 1 , there would be , you know, 1 i ke, 1ittle blips and stuff . But I th'ink when it took off was rea11y after the elections, the 2Lst of April, the second l8 round. l9 it was that reached out to Mr. Hannity, but at some point after that conversation, things settled until after the election? MS. YOVANOVITCH: That's what it appeared to us. And I should add, to the best of my recollection. l5 l6 20 2t 22 23 24 25 14S THE CHAiRMAN: And so you don't know who 119 BY MR. I GOLDMAN: 8 recall when this conversation that the Secretary or someone close to him had with Sean Hannity was? A So the article, I think, WAS ON the was on the 26th 'is that right? 26th or the 24th of Apri1, the Hill article, that sort of a 0f April or March? A 0f March. Thank you. And so i t would have been 9 the 2 J 4 5 6 7 l0 ll t2 a Do you fo1 lowi ng week. O A a l3 electi t4 A know, jt So soon after the Hill, and Yes. so it simmered down, you said, through the on? t9 to recal1. There were you was -- it was out there, but it seemed to be, you know, simmering rather than at a high peak. a Do you know whether there was anyone else publicly advocating for your removal? You just added Sean Hann'ity. I just want to make sure we have the ful1 unjverse of people 20 that you reca11. l5 l6 t7 l8 2l A That's what I seem We11, there were a lot of people opining I can't about 22 about me and what should be done. 23 everything that everybody said, but there were a lot of 24 people out there. 25 a remember Okay. So Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, Jr., and Rudy 120 l0 Giuliani. Did you have an understanding that these were a1I close advisers of the President? A Well, they appeared to be close to the President from, you know, far, far away. a From Ukrai ne? A Yeah. a Understood. A From my vantage point from far away, I should say. a Did you ever learn about any public concerns expressed back in 2018 by Congressman Pete Sessions about ll your performance? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I learned about i t i n that arti c1e f rom The H'i11 by t2 A l3 John 5o1omon. t4 18 a A a A a t9 So l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 So you didn't know about it in realtime? No. You had only heard about it No. in you that arti cle? when there were discussions, I think you said, floor -- well, let me take a step back. When were you given the offer of an extension? A So the Undersecretary for Poli tical Affai rs, David HaIe, was in Ukraine. He arrived the evening of the 5th, stayed a couple days. And at the end of that trip to Ukraine he said that, you know, with elect'ions coming up and, I mean, on the seventh 121 4 it was. At that time we thought parliamentary elections would be in 0ctober. Obviously it's sorry i t' s always compl i cated to always compl i cated to get another ambassador named and confirmed. It's a long, 5 drawn-out process. I 2 J 6 he could see how compticated And so concerns about having Kyiv be empty at the top. l8 to whether I would consider staying for yeah. another full year. I a And you said the 5th. Is that what month? A 0f March. a 5th of l"'la rch A Same day as a Around the time you gave the speech? A Yeah. a And did you agree to do that? A Not i ni ti al1y. You know, i t's a tough post. I mean, I loved my work there, I thought we did great work, but, you know, i t was a tough post. But 'i n the end, I di d l9 agree. 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 And so he asked me . 24 did you ag r ee? He asked me to call him, 1ike, that following Monday or someth'ing or be in touch. I think I emailed him the f oIlowlng Monday. a Now, you also just referenced a conversat'ion you 25 had wi th Phi 1 Reeker shortly 20 2t 22 23 a A Around when after the Hill articles came 122 J out? Is that ri ght? A Uh-huh. Yeah. a And what did he say to you about this potential 4 extensi on? I 2 8 Well, Phil was the person so David Hale broached this with me. And then Phil was the person who was kind of working it through the system with the personnel people, Director General Carol Perez, with whoever on the seventh 9 floor 5 6 7 A t3 to bless these decisions and so forth. And my understanding was that it had been it had been approved and that, you know, then they were going to go forward for the formal paperwork. a I guess I just want to understand, when you had the t4 conversation you described with Phil Reeker where he said l5 he indicated to you that you were not going l6 stay for the fu11 year l0 ll 12 A a A a A t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 needs to be able to 0h, yeah. That was you went back to Plan A? Yeah. that was after the HiII articles, right? Well, the Hill article was at the end of March, and then there was a 1itt1e bit of a pause in all of this. Then So 24 the second round of Presidential elections was the 2Lst of April. And then the 24ln yeah the 24tn of April was 25 when 23 I got the call from Ambassador Perez, and yeah. 123 So the conversati on wi th 1 2 J 4 ter - about a week after the 1 was shortly af shortly after the Hitl article came out that probably a So this would be early April? you're right A 5 6 Ph'i Yeah, very early Apri1. Perhaps even the end of March. t4 Why weIl, did Mr. Reeker explain you to why it would be impossibte for you to stay for your year only 2 or 3 weeks after you had agreed to do j t? A Not really. I mean, it was pretty clear why. a And what was pretty clear? Can you explain? A Wel1, that this was you know, my presence at post was a sensitive issue for the administration. a So he d'idn't explai n to you, he j ust assumed that l5 you understood? 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 a l6 A a And why di d you understand A Because Yeah. l8 that 'it was had become a sensitive 'issue? Because of the article in The l9 Hill? t7 20 2l 22 23 24 25 of the article in The Hi11, because of all of the attendant, you know, tweets and postings and interviews and talk shows and various other things, and the fact that, as we djscussed earlier, the State Department did not feel that they could actualty even issue, in the face of all of thjs, a fu11-throated kind of statement of support for 124 I 2 me. a And can you explain again why you understood that 4 the State Department could not i ssue a statement of support? What I was told is that there was concern that the A 5 rug would be pul1ed out from underneath the State Department 6 if they put out something PubliclY J 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 125 I 12:27 p.m.l BY MR. 2 a A a a J 4 5 6 under By whom? The Presi dent. And in A 8 disagreement a You know, or Did you have an understanding that the State Department brass 1l understood A a A 13 that perhaps there would be a tweet of something else. l0 t2 what way would the rug be pu11ed out from them? 7 9 GOLDMAN: or the State Department executives that the President djd not support you? I mean, yeah, that seemed to be the conclusion. And did you understand why? t7 that it was as a result of the partnership, if that's the right word, between Mr. Lutsenko and l'lr. Giuliani. a And then the relationship between Mr. Giuliani and l8 Mr. l9 23 A Yeah, I think that's a fair conclusion. a So you said Ambassador Perez said she would get back to you at midnight on the night of April 241n. Did she caIl you then? A She called me about an hour later, so it's now 24 l- t4 l5 l6 20 2t 22 25 a. We11, again, I assumed Trump? m. i n the Ukra'ine. a And what did she say to you then? 126 5 A She said that there was a 1ot of concern for me, that I needed to be on the next plane home to Washington. And I was fike, what? What happened? And she sajd, I don't know, but thi s i s about your securi ty. You need to come home immediately. You need to come home on the next 6 p1 I 2 a J 4 ane. t7 I said, physical security? I mean, is there something going on here in the Ukraine? Because sometimes Washington has intel or something else that we don't necessari 1y know. And she sai d, ro, I di dn't get that impression, but you need to come back immediately. And, I mean, I argued with her. I told her I thought it was really unfair that she was pulling me out of post without any expl anati on, I mean , real 1y none, and so summa r i 1y. a She didn't give you an explanation for why it had to be so soon? A She said it was for my security, that this was for l8 my well-being, people were concerned. 7 8 9 l0 11 t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 And a A What did you understand that to mean? I didn't know because she didn't say, but my assumption was that, you know, something had happened, some conversations or something, and that, you know, now it was important that I had to leave immediately because I didn't really know. a So what did you do next? 127 2l I went home and I told, you know, my secretary, my staff assistant, and the number two at the embassy, the management officer, I asked them to come to my residence at 8 a.m. in the morning I, of course, had a ful1 slate of meetings that day and to, you know, to start the wheels going in motion to buy me a ticket. I couldn't leave on the next I mean, there wasn't a next plane because it was L a.m. when I got this news, right? 5o the next plane was at 6 a.m. or something like that on Friday morning. To get tickets. To inform them what had happened. To sort of gi ve adv'ice and i nstructi on. I didn't know how long I would be in Washington. Carol couldn't tell me that. And I had asked I said, you know, wel1, this doesn't look good. I mean, I can see where this is going. So coutd you just leave me here for another week, I will pack out and I will go. And she said, f,o, you have to be, you know, yoLI have to leave immediately. This is for you. We're concerned about you. And I sa'id, well , you wi lt let me come back to pack out, and she couldn't even give me an answer on that. O Did you speak to anybody else at the State 22 Department about thi I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 A We11, s di recti ve? 23 A 24 MR. ROBBINS: Do you mean then 25 Yeah. or ever? 128 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 15 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 BY MR. GOLDMAN: a No. Sorry. The day after you got the call and you were in the embassy trying to get everything organized, did you prior to flying back to D.C., I think that's the best did you speak to anybody else other than way to put jt Ambassador Perez at the State Department about the request for you to come home? A I'm sure i did. I don't reca11 right now. And, actual1y, I wasn't rea11y in the embassy that day because the embassy is a little bit outside of town. I mean, I kept my meeting schedule for that daY. a 0kay. Before you flew home, did you have a better sense of why you were A No. requested to come home? a A No. a What did you do when you arrived in D.C.? A WeIl, it was a Friday afternoon, and so I had the whole weekend to thi nk about thi s. And my niece 1i ves here, so I saw her, I saw friends. a Who did you fjrst meet at the State Department after arriving in Washington? A So that would be Monday morning. And there wasn't really any there weren't any meetings on Monday morning. At about L o'clock, I think it was, I met with Assistant 129 I Secretary Phil Reeker, who previewed the next meeting, which 2 was 6 with Deputy Secretary 5ultivan, which took place at around 4 o'clock. a What did l'lr. Reeker say to you at that point? A Mr. Reeker said that I, you know, I would need to leave. I needed to leave as soon as possible. That 7 apparently, as I stated in my statement, the Pres'ident had 8 been J 4 5 had wanted me to leave since July of 20L8 and or l0 the summer, I should say, the middle of the summer of 2018 and that the Secretary had tried to protect me but was no ll longer able to do that. 9 t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a A a A a A a A Who had concerns as of July of 20L8? Presi dent Trump. And was that the first that you had heard of that? Yes. What I did you say in response? was shocked. Did he explain why President Trump had concerns? No. No. I think there was just a general assumpti on that j t must have had to do w'i th the i nf ormati on that Mr. Lutsenko prov'ided to Mr. Gi u1i an j . But we real1y didn't get into that because, you know, w€, Phil and I had or Ambassador Reeker and I had had previous discussions about thi s. And, yeah, there j ust di dn't seem to be much poi nt. a Can you, wi thout getti ng "into all the detai 1s, can 130 just so we you had going into that meeting? I you summarize those previous discussions 2 understand what knowledge 5 of the discussions with Ambassador Reeker, you know, first it was about extending me for a year. he was talking to Then after the Hill article he wanted to 6 me J 4 7 8 A We11, most about, you know, my departure pIans. In'iti a1ly he had thought i t would be good i f I went to to be a poli t'ica1 advi ser to one of our f our-star work f or t7 just departed EUC0l4, so General Scaparotti (ph) did not have a political adviser and he thought that maybe I could leave Ukraine early and go and incumber that posi tion. And i ni ti a1ly I was sort of th'inki ng about that, and then I j ust d'idn't have the heart f or i t, f rankly. And so then then it became, well, when would you leave Ukraine? And then I thought we had I mean, I think we all thought that we had come to an agreement that I could leave right after the big representational event in July to l8 honor our Independence Day. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t9 generals. a He had 0kay. And just to be clear, in any of those 20 conversations with Mr. Reeker, Ambassador Reeker, leading 2t to what I 22 23 24 25 A a guess was the April 29th meeting on that up Monday Uh-huh. to you that the concerns about you had escalated all the way up to President Trump? A No, I don' t thi nk no. had he indicated 131 I 2 meet i ng when he So when you a , that was the fi rst J A Yes. 4 a And in addition 5 else to him? 6 to 7 8 9 l0 Did said that to you in that you had heard of that? to any shock, did you say anything you ask why? Di d you get an explanation as why? I'm sure I did ask why, and I'm sure, you know, I expressed my anger, I 'm sure i did all those things, but now I can't rea11y reca1l the conversati on. A a Can You and then you then met wi th the Deputy ll Secretary? t2 l8 A Uh-huh. a Can you describe that meeting for us? What did he say to you? A Yeah. So the Deputy Secretary sajd that, you know, he was sorry this was all happening, that the President had lost confidence, and I would need to depart my post. That, you know, he had you know, I said, what have I done wrong? t9 And he l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 said, you've done nothing wrong. And he said that had had to speak to ambassadors who had been recalled for cause before and this was not that. he for what I would do next, and, you know, kind of how I would you know, kjnd of my state of mind, shalI we say. And he a1so, I think, he repeated what Phil had already And he, you know, expressed concern 132 6 told me, which is that this was coming from President Trump, this was, you know, final, and that I -- that the reason they pulled me back is that they were worried that 1f I wasn't, you know, physically out of Ukrajne, that there would be, you know, some sort of public either tweet or something else from the Whi te House. And so th'is was to make sure that I would 7 be treated with as much respect as possible. I 2 J 4 5 l0 me. If I wanted to keep the previously agreed upon date of, you know, after the July Fourth event, that would be okay, but he could ll not guarantee what would 8 9 t2 13 He a A said that my departure date was up to haPPen. did you say to him? Well, you know, I expressed What my dismay and my t4 d'isappointment. I asked him what this meant for our policy, l5 what was the message that l6 l9 to take a minute? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yeah, just a minute. I'm just going to exit it for L minute. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah, we can go off the record. Can we 20 pause the time? t7 l8 MR. GOLDMAN: Do you want off the record. l 2t lDi scussi on 22 MR. G0LDt"lAN: Back on the record, and start the cIock. 24 this is a difficult and emotional topic, and we thank you for your 25 honest recollection and answers. 23 Ambassador Yovanovitch, we understand 133 1 2 J 4 Is there a pending I just want to hear 'if i s there a pendi ng questi on that she had not f ini shed answering or if you just want to ask a new one. MR. G0LDMAN: I'11 just ask a new one. MR. ROBBINS: BY MR. 5 a 6 GOLDMAN: I think where we were was I had asked you, you were 7 explaining what your reaction to Deputy Secretary Sullivan 8 was? 9 l0 u t2 l3 t4 t5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 upset. And I, you know, I wanted an explanation because this is rather unusual. But he could not offer one beyond the fact that the President had made a decision. And 'it is the President's to make, as we know. I did ask him though, you know, what does this mean for our foreign policy? What does it mean for our position on anticorruption? What message are we sending to the Ukra'inians, to the world? How were, you know, I mean, beyond fi€, how were we going to explain this? And what are we going to say, you know, not only to the people at U.S. Embassy Kyiv, but more broadly to the State Department? And I told him I thought that this was a dangerous precedent, that as far as I could te11, since I didn't have any other explanation, that private 'interests and people who don't like a particular American ambassador could combine to, you know, find somebody who was more suitable for their interests. That, you know, it should be the State A I was 134 I Department, 2 ambassador. 3 deci si 4 trustworthy. 5 a 6 7 8 9 the President, who makes deci sions about which And, obviously, the President did make a on, but I think influenced by some who are not Who A a are you referring to? Mr. Lutsenko. You don' t have any 'inf ormati on ever met with Mr. Lutsenko, though, do A that Presi dent Trump you? in Kyiv that during the meeting Mayor Giuliani and Mr. Lutsenko in January There was a rumor Mr. l0 between ll that the President got on the 1ine. a Did you ever verify whether that was true or not? A No. a But your understanding is the information came from Lutsenko via intermediaries to the President? A Yes. a And 'if thi s you asked what thi s would do to the t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l9 anticorruptjon message. What do you mean by that? A Wel1, I felt that i felt that in the public 20 discussion 18 22 of this, jn social media and in other media, they were portraying this as, you know, Lutsenko going after me because I had stymied what he wanted to do, and that I was, 23 you know, upholding our policy about helping the Ukrainians 24 transform 25 of corrupti on. 2t their themselves so that it wouldn't be a system 135 8 to leave as the symbol of that effort, I thjnk it would send a message. And I wanted to know how the State Department was going was thinking about that, how they were going to manage that message in a way that would be least damaging to our interests. a Now, you referenced the specific attacks on you. Were you also aware by this point of public statements encouraging Ukraine to 'investigate Joe Biden or some sort of 9 collusion I 2 J 4 5 6 7 l0 ll And Commi if I were between Ukraine and the Democratic National ttee i n 2015 by that poi nt? A Yeah, I think I was probably aware of that at that t2 poi nt.. l3 l8 a For example, Rudy Gi ul i an'i on the morni ng of April 24fi, went on "FOX and Friends, " said, quote, "Keep your eye on Ukraine," unquote, and discussed both of those investigations. Were you aware of that? A Yes, I aware of that. And, actually, I do now recatl that actually Minister Avakov also laid that out in l9 February. t4 l5 t6 t7 20 a Are you also aware that on the night of 2t that President Trump went on Sean Hannity's 22 di scussed Ukrai ne? 23 24 25 A Yes. He was asked 25th show and a question about Russia and he answered by responding about Ukraine. a April And what was your reaction to that? 136 A I 2 3 4 this Wel1, you know, would a A atl I mean, I was concerned about what mean. In what way? Wel1, obviously, for me personally, not to make it ll all about me, but for me personally. But a1so, what does this mean for our policy? Where are we going? a And can you just briefly describe would it be well , I ' l1 get to that i n a mi nute. benefi ci al So you understood in realtime as you were being recalled suddenly that there was a flurry of media activity in connecti on to these i nvesti gati ons i n Ukrai ne. I s that t2 right? 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l3 A a Yes. t7 did you have any understand'ing of the nature of these investigative theories? Did you know whether they were accurate or inaccurate or factual or had been investigated? Did you know anything about them by this l8 poi nt? t9 A I mean, my understanding, again, from the press was that, you know, the allegation that there was Ukrainian interference in our elections in 2015, that it wasn't Russia, it was Ukraine, that that had been debunked long ago. But, again, it wasn't the subject of my work. And so I -- again, because it's so political, I mean, it real1y k'ind of crosses the line into what I feel is proper for a foreign t4 l5 l6 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Now, 137 6 dn't go di ggi ng i nto that. a But were you aware that the Intelligence Communi ty had uniformly concluded that Russi a was respons'ible f or the interference in the election? A Yes. a And were you aware by that point that Robert 7 Muel1er, the speci a1 counsel, had issued a dozens-of-page 8 i ndi serv'ice 2 J 4 5 officer, you know, I di ctment detai 1 i ng i n great detai 1 the Russi an i nterference t2 in the election? A Yes. a Would it benefit Russia if Ukraine were if the allegations that Ukra'ine was involved in the 2015 election l3 were true? 9 t0 ll t4 l5 16 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A a A I think so. How so? Because, you know, I think most Americans believe that there shouldn' t be meddl i ng 'in our electi ons. And "if Ukraine is the one that had been meddling in our elections, think that the support that all of you have provided to Ukraine over the last almost 30 years, I don't know that think people would ask themselves quest'ions about that. a Is there anything etse about the meeting with Deputy Secretary 5ullivan that you recall? I'lR. ROBBINS: You mean the first meeting? I I 138 BY MR. I GOLDI{AN : April 29th. 2 a The meeting on J A No, not 4 a Did you meet with anybody else after you met right now. 5 Depu ty Secretary Sullivan while you 6 abou t thi s matter? Well, at his request I A 7 8 9 f o1lowi ng a were i met n Washi wi th ngton, D. C with him again the day, which I think I'm sorry, when you say "him, " Deputy Secretary l0 Sultivan? ll sorry. And, I mean, it was a relatively short meeting. I think he just wanted to make sure I was okay. And, you know, he was kind of trying to point me to the future on "So what do you think you would like to do next in the Foreign Service" type thing. So a Did you feel like the State Department supported you sti11 at this point? A Yes. I mean, I think it was not a well-known story at that ti me, but I th'ink that anybody who was aware of i t was very supportive of me. a And did you meet with Secretary Pompeo at all while you were in Washington? A No. a Did you ever meet with him after that point? A No. t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 A Yes, 139 a A a I 2 Did you ever receive any communjcation from him? No. 7 th any anybody el se f rom the State Department on the 30th or around that time? A So maybe 'it was Apri 1 or May 1st, the Wednesday of that week, I met w'ith Carol Perez, who i s the head of personnel, the D'irector General. She, you know so Deputy 8 Secretary Sullivan had said, you know, help her, you know, 9 fj nd J 4 5 6 D1d you meet wi t2 fi nd employment basi cally. And so Carol asked me what I would like to do next. And I asked whether it would be possible to be a fe11ow at Georgetown University. And that was arranged for me, and I'm r3 very grateful. t4 a Just going back to Secretary Pompeo. Did you ever ask to meet with him or speak to him? A No. I asked to speak with the counselor, Ulrich Brechbuhl, who had been handling this matter. a What do you mean by handfing this matter? A Exactly what I said. I mean, he was he seemed to be the point person that Ambassador Reeker was talking to. a Did you speak wjth Counsetor Brechbuhl? A No. a Why not? A He didn't accept the meeting request. a What ef f ect, i f any, do you thi nk that th'is abrupt l0 ll l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 140 I reca11 has had on your career? 8 I wasn't planni ng a long career afterwards. I mean, my plan A had been that I would come back after my tour, a normal toulin the Ukraine, and retire. So it's not like I was expecting an ambassadorship or anythi ng eIse. So I don't th'ink f rom a State Department point of view it has had any effect. a Because you were able to land at Georgetown, that's 9 been 2 3 4 5 6 7 l0 A lr.'Je11, A a Yes. I mean, l4 this would have been about 2 weeks 1ater, Rudy Giuliani told a Ukrainian journalist that you were reca11ed, quote, because you were part of the efforts against the President, unquote. Do you recall that l5 statement? 1l t2 l3 0n May L4th, so t6 A I t7 a How 18 A You know, i t was j ust more l9 had no do. did d you a Dj 2t A No. 22 a Do you 23 A for 25 3 years our react to that? idea what he was talki 20 24 you ng eve r badmouth of the same. I mean, I about. President Trump in Ukraine? ever speak i11 of U.S. policy in Ukraine? I mean, I was the chief spokesperson pol i cy 'in Ukrai ne. And I actually felt that in the that I was there, partly because of my efforts, but No. You know, 141 I 2 a J also the 'interagency team, and President Trump's decision to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine, that our policy actually got stronger over the three last 3 years. t2 a You were very focused on ant'icorruption efforts in Ukraj ne. Is that ri ght? A Uh-huh. a What impact do you think A Yes. it would have what impact do you think it had a for someone acting as an agent of the President to be encouraging Ukra'ine to open investigations for U.S. political purposes? How did that impact the U.S. anticorruption l3 me s s 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t4 age? A l,nlell, I would say i t's not could you rephrase l5 the questi on or repeat the quest'ion? l6 Giuliani 'is promoting these investigations that are related to American politics l7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a Sure. I A a Uh-huh. was just asking that if Rudy testified here today about how part of the anticorrupt'ion message'is that investigations in Ukraine should be conducted devoid of any political influence, how would that impact your message, your anticorruption message, if an agent of the President is promoti ng i nvesti gati ons related to po1 i ti cat i nterests? and you have 142 6 A We11, that's what I was concerned about, and that's what I asked the Deputy Secretary. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. I think our t'ime is up. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you before we turn it over, and what was hi s response when you rai sed that concern? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Wel1, he said he'd have to think about 7 that. I 2 a J 4 5 THE CHAIRMAN: 8 BY MR. 9 l0 ll t2 A yi eld to sm mi nori tY. CASTOR: Were you aware a skepti ci I of the President's deep-rooted about Ukrai ne's busi ness envi ronment? Yes. l5 did you know about that? That he I mean, he shared that concern di rectly A wi th Presi dent Poroshenko i n thei r fi rst meeti ng i n the 0va1 l6 0ffi l3 t4 t7 a And what ce. a What else did you know about it? Was it a source t9 of discussion at the embassy that the President was not confident 'in Ukraine's ability to move past thei r corruption 20 i ssues? 18 2t MR. R0BBINS: So I should just say that we have been 24 instructed by the State Department that conversations directly with the President of the United States are subj ect to a potential executive department-based privilege. I don't 25 know exactly which one they would invoke 22 23 if they were he re, 143 I but I rather suspect that a direct communication, as your ) questi on i s addressi ng, would a i sn' J t It's one that we have pledged to assert. MR. CAST0R: Got it. I got it. 6 a 8 t2 l3 R0BBINS: BY MR. 7 ll objection. It an obj ecti on that we hold. \4R. 5 l0 such an MR. CASTOR: Okay. 4 9 elicit Ukrai CASTOR: The administration had concerns about corruption in ne, correct? A a A a We a1t did. And were there We all efforts d'id. you know, once President Zelensky was elected, l5 efforts to convince the White House, convince the Nati onal Securi ty Counc'i 1, that Zelensky was a genui ne l6 reformer? t4 l7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 were there A after I 1eft. So he was elected Pres'ident on the 21st of Apri 1. I had the phone conversation with Carol Perez on Wednesday the 24th. I departed the Ukrai ne f or the f i rst t'ime on the 25th of Apri 1. 0n the 29th, I basi ca11y, even though I was st'i11 ambassador technically, I basically took myself out of all ki nd of all of these sorts of i ssues because I d'idn't f ee1 i t was proper, to tel1 you the truth. And so I was in Washington for a couple weeks. I went That really would have been 144 to Ukraine to pack out for a week. And the day I back 2 departed Ukraine permanently was May 20th, wh'ich a day that I is the same was inaugurated. So I didn't 7 that President Zelensky I wasn't privy to whatever the conversation was. a Can you testify to the difference the changes in ajd to Ukraine with the new administration starting in 20L7? The different initiatives, you know, as far as providing 8 letha1 weapons J 4 5 6 9 and Yeah. We11, I think that most of the assistance A that l0 programs ll generos'ity we had, you know, continued, and due to the t9 of the Congress actually were increased. And so that was a rea11y positive thing, I think, for Ukraine and for us. In terms of letha1 assistance, we all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide letha1 weapons to Ukraine. a Did you advocate for that? A Yes. a And did you advocate for that prior to the new 20 admi ni t2 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 l8 2t 22 23 24 25 strat'ion back i n 2015? A a WeIl, yeah. What was the hold up there? What was the issue preventi ng i t? A August I arrived in Ukraine towards the end of August, 22nd of 2016, and President Trump was elected that So 145 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll November, and then there was the inauguration in January. wasn't there wasn't as much d'iscussi on about all those things. I mean, I certainly had a strong view that this would be a good thing. That was held by the interagency both in Ukraine and I think in Washington as weIl. But there were not, you know, just given the end of the administration, there was not sort of a big ongoing discussion about that issue at that time. a Was it a heavy lift to change the policy in the new 5o there administration? MR. ROBBINS: So, again, we have been given advice by t2 the State Department that quest'ions of internal poticy r3 discussions within the State Department are subject t4 executi ve department-based l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MR. MEAD0WS: to some But, counsel, with all due respect, this is not a personal conversation. This is policy that obviously affected Ukraine that we are all very well aware of. And so to suggest for her commenting on policy that has already been implemented that somehow violates some privi lege, that just doesn't add up. MR. R0BBINS: And I hope the Congressman will appreciate that I 'm not maki ng thi s obj ecti on, I 'm j ust relayi ng MR. MEAD0WS: What I 'm sayi ng i s that ob j ect'ion i n the obscure manner in which you're invoking it goes contrary to all the other testimony that she's been giving. You know, 146 I 'it's 2 wake up. amazing, every hour you wake uP, every other hour you 4 I think it's totatly appropriate, the chairman, I believe, would agree, totally appropriate for her to give her 5 personal professi onal opi ni on on Ukrai ni an pol i cy. J And so Let me just interject here. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: 7 The State Department has not provided counsel with any 8 9 l0 list, as counsel requested, about what questions could be answered or could not. They chose not to give any itemized gui dance. In ll 1i ght of that, i t i s the posi t'ion of the chai r that t2 the quest'ion i s appropri ate and the l3 perm'itted wi tness should be l4 to answer i t. MR. MEADOWS: I thank the chairman. l5 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Coutd you repeat the question? BY MR. r6 t7 18 CASTOR: Basically trying to understand the difference in the 0bama admjnistration to the Trump administration in aid a 24 that was provided to Ukraine. You indicated you testified that you were in favor of 1etha1 weapons. And I think I had asked, was it a heavy lift on your end or your allies to get the lethal weaPons? A These are big decisions, and so properly there is a lot of discussion about it. And I can't compare, because I 25 was l9 20 2l 22 23 and support not in those discussions in the 0bama administration. 147 2 I'm trying to remember exactty when the President made the decision. But it was -- there was a long, J a tong lead up to i t. 4 the administration. I 5 But I think I also I thi nk 'i t was a year and a half would say, these are big decisions, especially 7 for a new administration. a What was the rationale not to provide lethal 8 weapons? 6 9 l0 ll t2 A i nto I think that some may have had concerns that 'i t felt that the lethal weapons could be escatatory. a But uIt'imately you were more important? l3 A Are you aski ng f or my opini t4 a Yes. on? l8 A Yes. I felt that it was important, although it was also important I mean, I thjnk, just to be ctear, jt's not 1 i ke we were provi di ng un1 i mi ted numbers of J avel i ns. We were providing a very set amount, and there are a lot fewer t9 Javelins than there are Russian tanks. l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 to Russi a and also to the Ukrainians that we support Ukraine. And it was, I think, you know, every Russian tanker knew that those Javelins were coming to Ukraine or maybe were already in Ukraine and i t g'ives them pause when they are gi ven an order So I thought i t was important that 'if thi s war became a 5o i t was a symbol'ic message . 148 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 isn't right now, it was important that Ukraine have them at their disposal for that kjnd of massive onslaught. But i ts primary import was the symbolic message that it sent. a Were you sat'isfied that the administration was doing what was necessary to support Ukraine? A In what respect? a In, you know, helping them deter Russian aggressi on, helpi ng them wi th forei gn ai d, forei gn tank war again, because it assi stance? A a A Yeah. Was it enough? t6 I think that, you know, I was the ambassador to Ukraine, so you atways want more, right? So I thjnk on the nonmilitary side, we actually were sort of at capacity in terms of what the Ukrai ni an government, Ukrai ni an ci vi 1 t7 society could absorb. l8 23 I think on the other side, on the military security side, I think we were sti1l exploring ways that we could provi de addi ti onal assi stance to Ukraj ne. a But things were moving in the right di rection. that a fai r statement? Increasi ng? A Certai n1y i n the i nteragency. And, yes, 24 i nc reas i ng. 13 t4 l5 t9 20 2t 22 25 a Were you encouraged by that? Is 149 A a I 2 J 6 7 8 9 t0 I thought that was a positive. And so were you pleased with the djrection the strati on was headi ng wi th Ukrai ne pol i cy? A 0n the official policy side everything seemed to admi ni 4 5 Yes, i be n order. a A And on the unofficial side? We11, we had these other issues that were sending perhaps a contradi ctory message a A to the Ukrai n'ians. of the Lutsenko and the Gi ul i ani ? l..lel1, I have to say that 'it was, you know, people But outs'ide 1l would ask me, are you being recalled? t2 t9 for the President? 0ur country needs a representatjve, whether it's me or somebody etse, that speaks for the admi ni stration. you menti oned earl i er thi s morni ng a That di dn' t that that didn't rea1ly take root until the fa11 of 2018. Is that fair? 0r did it start happening earlier? ASo a You had about 2 years, right, before the Lutsenko 20 allegati ons rea11y. l3 t4 15 t6 t7 l8 Are you speaking 22 Yeah. 5o my understanding -- or one of the things I've heard, and maybe that's a rumor, is that the first 23 meet'ing, we actually heard 24 deput'ies, that the f i rst meeti ng between 25 Mayor 2t A this f rom one of 14r. Lutsenko's l'lr. Lutsenko and G'iuljani was actuatly in June of 2018. There was the 150 I 2 3 Pete Sessions letter. There was, you know, as I now know, the President's concernS that started in the summer of 20L8 I think that, you know, since there seems to be a back l5 , sha1l we say, between Ukrai ni an offi ci aIs and or Amerjcan people I think that American officials white I may not have been in the 1oop, I think others were. a Backi ng up a 1i ttle b'i t, what was Vi ce Pres j dent Bi den' s role wi th Ukrai ne pol i cy, to your knowledge? A He was -a Did he have an official responsibility? A Well, he was the Vice President. And he was the one who sort of led the effort, an interagency effort on hetping Ukraine after 20L4, the Maidan (ph), pulling our assi stance together, pu1li ng our poli cy together. He was very acti ve 'in terms of managi ng the relati onshi p wi th l6 President Poroshenko and with the prime minister. 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 t7 channel a And you may have mentioned this when we were before 1unch, but when did the issues related to 18 speaki ng t9 Buri sma f i rst 20 arrived'in get your attention? Was that as soon as You country? 23 of i t when I was being prepared for my Senate confi rmati on heari ngs. So I 'm sure you' re fami 1j ar w ith the concept of questions and 24 answers and various ot her thi ngs. 2t 22 25 A Not real ly. And so there was I fi rst became aware one there about Burisma, and so, You 151 5 that's when I first heard that word. a Were there any other companies that were mentioned i n connecti on wi th Buri sma? A I don't recall. a And was it in the general sense of corruption, 6 there was a company bereft with corrupt? I 2 3 4 7 know, A The way the question was phrased in this model Q&A l5 tetl us about Hunter Biden's, you know, being named to the board of Burisma? a Once you arrived in country did the embassy staff brief you on issues relating to Burisma? A No, it was -- it was not I don't reca1l that i was briefed on that. But I was drinking from a fire hose when I arrived. I mean, there were a lot of things that were going on. And as we spoke before, Burisma and the Zlochevsky l6 case was dormant. Not closed, but dormant. 8 9 10 ll t2 13 t4 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 was, what can you 152 I [3 : 09 p.m. ] BY MR. 2 a a J V{as CASTOR: it the general understanding that 4 company Burisma was 5 of 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 Burisma was a a company that suffered from allegations cor rupt i on? A a A a A a Yes. And i t's the head of the comPanY? Plr. Zlochevsky? Yes, the former mi ni ster. What about him? That he had at various times been under 'investi gati on. A a Yes. that characteristjc of other of igarchs in the Ukraine, or was that specific to him? A We11, it is characteristic that there are a Are they all under investigation? Do they all And was 2t battle allegations of corruption or A They all battle allegations of corruption. Some of them are investigated, some for cause, some because it's an easy way, as we discussed before, to put forward political 22 pressure on your poli ti cal opponents. So yeah. l8 t9 20 23 24 25 a Did Burisma ever come up in your meetings with Lutsenko? A I don't believe so. I mean, to the best of my 153 I recollection, I don't think a 2 J So subsequently, when Lutsenko raised issues of Burisma, that caught you by surprise? A a Yeah. I 8 A a 9 i nvesti gate? l0 A a 4 5 6 so. d Lutsenko menti on any other you know, i n h'is allegati on that 7 ll Di don' t be1 i compani es 'in hi s eve so. you know, he was given instruction not to I don't be1 i eve so. Did anyone at the State Department -did when you were at t2 coming on board as the new ambassador, l3 State Department brief you about this tricky issue, that t4 Hunter Biden was on the board l5 suffered from allegations of corruption, and provide l6 gu i dance? A a t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 of this Wel1, there was that Q&A anyone company and that I the the company you mentioned. But once you became the ambassador, did you have any debriefings with the 5tate Department that alerted you to tricky issue? A No. It was, as I mentjoned, it just wasn't a front burner issue at the time. a And did it ever become front burner? A WeI1, only when Mr. Giulian'i and Mr. Lutsenko kind of ra'ised 'it to what you see now, starti ng wi th that j 11 this, what coutd be a H 154 interview. 2 3 You talked about the Vi ce Presi dent, Vi ce Presi dent a Biden's advocating for the removal of Shokjn, among other 6 for his removal, you mentioned. Did the did anyone ever formally call for Lutsenko's resignation in the same public way, whether it was 7 the IMF or 4 5 institutions. The IMF was advocating l3 I don' t bel i eve so. 0kay. And can you account for why that is? Is it because Lutsenko wasn't qui te as bad as Shoki n, oli t j ust hadn' t - - i t hadn't reached the dramati c c1 imax there? A We1l, as I mentioned before, when you asked me this question, I think that, you know, we were hopeful in the t4 beginning that we could have a rea11y good working l5 relationship w'ith him. He had three goals that he wanted to t6 pursue, and so, we were hopefut t7 we weren' 8 9 l0 ll t2 18 A a t in the beginning, even though seei ng progress. And then, of course, it got closer to Presidential 20 elections. It was pretty clear that Mr. Zelensky was going to win, which he did. And we were hopeful that he would 2t replace Mr. Lutsenko, which he has t9 22 23 24 25 The other done. thing I would say is that, you know, as I said before, you know, it's -- these are to use your phrase, these are heavy lifts, and you need to make sure that the international community is speaking with one voice and you 155 2 to have a certain amount of leverage to do it, because Mr. Lutsenko was a close I mean, not without controversy, J but he had a close working relationship with President 4 Poroshenko. I 5 6 7 8 9 have for the removal of Kholodnitsky in March, could you and I know I asked you thjs this morning, and I apologi ze f or asklng you agai n, i f you thi nk I am, but could you just walk us through all the facts that you had that led to your deci sion to call f or h'is removal, to the a When you called l0 extent you can remember them. ll t4 this is earlier this year, many months have elapsed, but if you could just walk us through the thought process there, I think that might be heIpful. A Yeah. We were very concerned that there was a l5 tape, which he acknowledged was genuine, and that everybody l6 would understand once the circumstances were t2 l3 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Obviously, out, where he is coaching witnesses for how to avoid prosecution, et cetera, in anticorruption cases that, as I understood it, were in front of both NABU and his office. That seemed to us not just to us but to the entire international community and any Ukra'inian that was paying attention, to be beyond the pa1e. I mean, this is a man who was put in his position to fight corruption, and yet there he is on tape coaching witnesses how to obstruct justice. And so there was a process that the Ukrajnian Government 156 I 2 J in the end, made a decision that, you know, he was not going to remove Mr. Kholodnitsky. And I would say that it rea1ly undermined the credibiljty of went through. I'ilr. Lutsenko, 5 the special anticorruption prosecutor when you have the guy who's there at the top not holding true to the mission of 6 that offi 4 7 ce. O A a A Was there any blow-back to your call for removal? t2 was there was a lot of cri ti ci sm. 0n which different fronts? Well, the Kholodni tsky hjmseLf, as you can imagine, was not happy with that. There were you know, there was other crjt'icism in kind of pro-Poroshenko, l3 pro-admi ni 8 9 l0 ll t4 Ci Yes. There strat'ion medi a and so f orth. v'i1 soci ety, others who, you know, perhaps are more l6 in their desires to transform Ukraine, were very happy. So, you know, as always, in any controversy, there's t7 two si des. l8 20 to call f or the removal , was that you know, something that was the product of just people on U.S. officials in country, or was that something you 2l soc'ia1i zed l5 l9 genuine a And your deci s'ion w'i th Washi ngton bef ore you di d i t? 23 I'fi forgetting now, but I beli eve I soci al i zed i t wi th Washi ngton. If I di dn't, 24 somebody 22 25 A a I believe you know, else did. And was it more of a heads-up or is that something 157 5 to get authorization for? A I think it was more of a heads-up. a But nobody expressed any concerns? A No. MR. CASTOR: I want to pi vot to Plr. Zeld j n. 6 Twenty-two 7 MR. ZELDIN: Ambassador, going back I you need 2 J 4 mi nutes. to page 5 of your t2 this morning, we djscussed the bullet starting with "as for events during my tenure in Ukraine. " And there was a brief discussion to follow in quest'ion and answer with regards to which cases you did, in fact, end up aski ng the government to ref rai n f rom i nvesti gat'ing or t3 prosecuting, and the t4 in that Q&A this morning. MS. Y0VANOVITCH: And if I may just correct the record, that I think what I said is there was a discussion. I don't betieve I have ever said, you know, don't prosecute thjs individual. But what I d'id say is that jt's important to do these things according to the rule of 1aw and not on a po1 i ti cally moti vated basi s. l'1R. ZELDIN: Do you recall how many cases you discussed wi th Ukrai ne? 8 9 l0 ll l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 opening statement that NABU was referenced 23 M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: No. 24 MR. ZELDIN: Was 25 case was the only specific case the NABU can you give us an estimate? I mean, are we talking about 5, 20, 50, 100? 158 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Honestly, 1 2 your colleague, the most I don't know. And as of the relationship with I told any of J 5 in the embassy, whether it was the FBI, whether it was other State Department officers, other 6 agencies. They were the ones who handled those 7 relati 4 8 9 did. There were others onshi ps. in addition to the NABU case, did you di scuss any other i nd'ivi dual cases wi th Ukrai ne? \4R. ZELDIN: But l0 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yeah, ProbablY. ll I'4R. l2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 ZELDIN: And can you estjmate? Are we talking about fjve or are we talking about 5,000? Can you give us some perspectjve as to how many individual cases you d'iscussed wi th Ukrai ne? I'4S. Y0VAN0VITCH: Well , i t certai nly i sn' t 5,000. I wish there were that many cases on anticorruption in Ukraine. But honestly, I don't know, and I don't want to mislead you. MR. ZELDIN: But the number is more than one, but you can't te11 us anything beYond that? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes, that i s correct. MR. ZELDIN: And when you would djscuss individual cases w'ith Ukraine, how would you reference the case in your 24 conversation? Earlier, there was back-and-forth where you stated that there was you don't reca11 ever djscussing an 25 entity 23 and you onty recall discussing a name once. So how 159 J in your conversat'ion with Ukraine if you weren't referencing jt by entity or name? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: We11, earlier, what we were 4 speci I 2 would you reference the case 5 fi ca11y talki ng about was the allegati ons agai nst me, that I was giving instructions not to prosecute, right? So 6 when you asked 7 about cases. That's a di fferent set I'lR. ZELDIN: 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 the question, you were asking did we talk i ndi of ci rcumstances. Okay. I'm asking how many cases, v'idual cases di d you speak to Ukrai ne about? The only I've been able to get so far is that the answer is more than one. You can't recall ever referenci ng enti ti es i n that conversation, and you only recatl referenc'ing a name once. So f 'm asking, in that conversat'ion with Ukraine about indiv'idual cases, how did you reference the case if you weren't referri ng to enti ty or name? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I mean, I'm sorry, I don't I can't answer your question. I don't know. MR. ZELDIN: D'id you use case numbers? Di d you was there code? How did you reference these individual how answer 22 did you have a conversation with Ukra'ine about an'individuat case, not referencing name or entity? MS. YOVANOVITCH: I mean, I ask me again. I just 23 don't 20 2t 24 25 know what you're trying to get at. 0kay. You stated that you spoke to Ukraine about indiv'idual cases of corrupt'ion. You stated that you MR. ZELDIN: 160 to I spoke 2 how many ) Ukraine them about more than one case, but you cases. How don't know d'id you engage i n a conversati on wi th ll on how did you reference an indiv'idua1 caSe with Ukraine if you weren't referencing entity or name? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: So here's the thing: I know that we spent a lot of today talking about anticorruption cases. That's not the whole universe out there. So when I spoke to you about Mr. Sytnyk in that respect, I mean, that is what I reca1l in that sphere, but I know there were other areaS. And how would we have ref erred to 'it? Certai nly not by case number, I'm not in the weeds like that, but by somebody's t2 name. But 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l3 -- MR. ZELDIN: How many corruption cases as'ide from l6 did you speak to Ukraine about other corruption cases? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: We11, at thi s poi nt, I only reca11 that you know, and i n thi s context where you are ask'ing me t7 whether -- or one of you was asking me whether t4 15 l8 t9 2A 2t 22 23 24 25 NABU, I told people not to prosecute, right? So, in that context, what I recall now is the conversation with regard to Mr. Sytnyk. MR. ZELDIN: Okay. But just to clarify so that there's no mj sunderstandi ng, my questi on i s, how many i ndi vi dual cases djd you speak to Ukra'ine about related to corruption? Is your answer one, or is your answer more than one? MS. YOVAN0ViTCH: You know, at this point, I can't recall anythi ng else. 161 6 clarify one other thing about your opening statement, turning to page 7, the next bu11et after the one that we were just discussing, there's a sentence that said: I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the embassy team to ignore the President's orders, quote, "since he was going to be impeached. " That 7 allegatjon i s false. I 2 a J 4 5 MR. ZELDIN: To Just to clarify, so we understand the wording of your 8 9 openi ng statement, when you say, " that allegati on i s false, ll js that specificalty with regards to that quote, or are you saying that you never told the embassy team to i gnore the t2 Presi l0 dent's orders? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Both r3 or embassy l5 That would be wrong. MR. ZELDIN: That's why t7 we' re on l8 MR. l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 I never told anybody in the anyplace else to ignore the President's orders. t4 l6 " the same page. ROBBINS: She I'm asking the question, just so Go ahead. hadn't fj ni shed her answer. Are you done? . YOVAN0VITCH: Yeah . I j ust I guess al so wanted to say that I certainly never said that the Presjdent was going to be impeached, because I didn't believe that at the tjme, I mean, you know, when I was still in Ukraine. MR. ZELDIN: Thank you. I wanted to understand what you were saying when you said the allegation is false, to make I'lS 162 I sure you weren't specifically 2 and you were, just referring to your quote ) in fact, talking about -MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Thank you for clarifying. 4 l'4R. 5 ZELDIN: Have you read the July 25th transcript of the call between President Trump and President Zelensky? 6 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. 7 MR. ZELDIN: And 8 9 had did you read what Presjdent Zelensky to say about you? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. l0 MR. ZELDiN: When did you first meet President l1 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: In September of t2 MR. ZELDIN: And how would you characterize your l3 t4 Zelensky? 2018. relationship with President Zelensky? MS. YQVANQVITCH: I mean, I didn't meet him often enough t7 to have, you know, kind of a relationship, but I thought that we were off to a good start. I met with him for over an hour on the 20th of Apri1, the day before the final round of 18 Presi denti a1 electi ons. l5 l6 22 All of us thought that that was a real1y positive sign of, you know, Ukrajnian the new administration's, because We were pretty sure he was going to win, interest in a strong relationship with the United States. And so I thought it was 23 a pretty good relationshiP. l9 20 2l 24 25 in the transcript djdn't have some nice things to say about you. He NR. ZELDIN: So President Zelensky, as you know, 163 I referred to you ?s, quote, "a bad ambassador. " This is going 4 to be hard to hear, but in order to ask the question. Quote: Hgt attitude towards me was tar from the best, as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would 5 not accept 2 a J 6 7 8 9 l0 me as a new Pres'ident well enough. Is there anythi ng i n your i nteracti ons wi th Presi dent Zelensky di rectly that you recal1 that would support that statement of President Zelensky? M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: No. I was very surprised by that statement. ll MR. ZELDIN: Do you know where President Zelensky formed t4 his opinion about your loyalty to the prior ambassador, your atti tude towards Pres'ident Zelensky, ca11i ng you a bad ambassador? Do you know where Pres'ident Zelensky got that l5 f rom? t2 t3 I have no idea. l6 NS. Y0VANOVITCH: t7 l"lR. ZELDIN: And how would you characterize your l8 relati onshi p wi th Poroshenko? . l9 MS 20 MR. 2t 22 23 24 25 cordi a1 , Y0VANOVITCH: Compl i cated. ZELDIN: D'id you get along adversari wi th him? Was i t a1? It was cordial, but I think he I believed that I was insufficientty support'ive, that I and the embassy talked too much about the things that stjll needed to be done without giving proper credit with the 14S. YOVANOVITCH: 164 2 things that had been done and had been accomplished. t4R. ZELDIN: How would you characterize your 3 relati onshi p wi th former I Vi ce Presi dent Bi den? 5 I don't know, a handful of times over, you know, the years that I've been jn 6 government servi ce. 4 MS. YOVANOVITCH: 9 mean, MR. ZELDIN: What was the 7 8 I I've met him, closest that you've worked th Vice President Biden? What posi tion? When? When did you have that opportun'i ty to i nteract wi th hi m the most? wi MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Probably when l0 I was ambassador to l3 of the 0bama adm'ini strati on, where there I only met him once in that period of time in January of 20L7, hjs last trip to Ukraine. t4 But there were phone ca11s between former Vice President ll t2 Ukrai ne i n the wani ng days l5 Biden and the Prime Minister and the President, and so there t6 would be preparatory 17 to speed on the issues, and then we would often be on the line as l8 we11. MR. ZELDIN: 19 calts to, you know, get Earljer, him up you t,{ere asked about Burisma and 20 Hunter Biden. Vice President Biden was the point man for 2t relationships between the 22 Were you aware 23 Bu r 24 25 i 0bama admin'istration and Ukraine. at that time of Hunter Biden's role with sma? Yes. As I mentioned, I during the Q&A in the prep for my testimony. MS. YOVANOVITCH: became aware 165 MR. ZELDIN: Were you aware I 2 re of that MR. ZELDIN: Did you know that he was getting paid MS 4 6 7 8 9 l0 ll how much money Hunter Biden was getting paid by Burisma? J 5 of just Bu . Y0VANOVITCH: No, I wasn ' t awa . by r i sma? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: I can't say that as a fact, but I assumed he was. have you now know that Hunter Biden was getting paid money from Burisma for his position? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes, according to the news reports. MR. ZELDIN: You MR. ZELDIN: But while you were serving with Vice President Bjden, you were not aware of, l3 t7 for that position? MS. YOVANOVITCH: We11, as I said, I assumed he was since it is, you know, corporate practjce that you pay board Burisma members, but th'is was not, as we discussed earlier wasn't a big issue in the fal1 of 2018 2015, when I l8 arrived. t4 l5 l6 t9 at point, Hunter t2 any Biden being paid MR. ZELDIN: When you state that Burisma, the 20 investigation was dormant, 'if I understand your testimony at 2t the beginning of the day, you base that word from press 22 reports that you 23 24 25 read? but I think there was also you know, I think there was other -- other information, and I don't reca11 exactly what. But the impress'ion that I had was MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yeah, 166 2 that i t wasn't closed because i t was conveni ent to a convenjent lever to put pressure on Burisma or the J the I 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 i t was owner of company. MR. ZELDIN: What's your source outsjde of press reports? MS. YOVANOVITCH: I don't recalI. I 'm ble that you di dn't trying to understand, because -- I'm trying to understand your testimony, because earlier in the day you said that, MR. ZELDIN: Is i t possi that it was dormant. You may have had additional information it was dormant, or you don't know? MS. Y0VANOViTCH: Yes. And all I can te11 you is 'it was a long time ago and it just wasn't a big issue. MR. ZELDIN: So I just want to understand your position. Obviously, you knew that Burisma was dormant, based on press reports. That was what you stated earljer. based on press reports, your understanding was MS. YOVANOVITCH: Uh-huh. that you may have had other informat'ion, but you don't recall that now? I'lR. ZELDIN: But you're saying MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I may have had other information, but that impression that it was be'ing used as a lever to turn the pressure on and off. Maybe that, too, came from the press, or maybe it was, you know, somebody who told me that. I just don't recall. I don't recall how I had 167 I MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware of a May 4th, 2018, 2 sent to Lutsenko f rom three 3 Leahy, and Durbi letter Senate Democrats, Menendez, n? 4 MS. YOVANOVITCH: 2018? 5 MR. ZELDIN: May 4th 6 M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: Can you refresh my memory? 7 MR. ZELDIN: May 4th, 2018, there was of 2018? a letter sent to 8 the prosecutor general from three Democratic l4embers of the 9 United States Senate: Robert Plenendez, Patrick Leahy, l0 R'ichard Durbi n. ll THE CHAIRMAN: t2 MR. ZELDIN: Yes, we can l3 want t6 t7 l8 to make Mr. Zeldin, can you show her the letter? enter it'into an exhibit if we a copy if we want to pause the tjme. THE CHAIRMAN: Do t4 l5 and you have only the one copy? if there's a way to make a copy, we can formally enter it into as an exhibit. 5o we'11 come back to the question wjth regards to l{ay 4,2018. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Jordan. MR. ZELDIN: I would be happy MR. J0RDAN: Ambassador, t9 so 'in your testimony on page 4, talk about two wars, the war w'ith a and, of course, 20 you 2t the war on corruption, which we've talked a lot about today. Russi 23 I j ust want to make sure I got everyth'ing strai ght f rom the fj rst hour wi th questi oni ng from, I be1 i eve, Mr. Goldman and 24 maybe 22 25 Mr. Castor. So Shokin and Poroshenko were good friends. You said 168 I they were godfather to each other's chjldren. 2 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. J MR. J0RDAN: Right? 4 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. 5 MR. JORDAN: And 6 think you said that pretty 7 him 8 9 much fi red. Is that ri ght? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. before I arrived. MR. JORDAN: l0 ll Mr. Shokin is a bad guy. Everyone, I And just to reca11, that was But then the guy they replaced him wi th also a friend of Mr. MS. YOVANOVITCH: l2 the whole darn world wanted of the President, right? I don't know if they're friends'in same t4 for a great many years, on and off. MR. JORDAN: I think you said in the first hour this morning, you said Mr. Lutsenko is cut from the same cloth Mr. Shoki n. Is that ri ght? t6 t7 a11ies 18 11S. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. r9 MR. J0RDAN: And 20 2t 22 23 24 25 the way, but they've certai n1y, you know, been po1 i ti cal l3 l5 'is as you've indicated here several times that Mr. Lutsenko is not the kind of prosecutor we want when you're dealing with a war on corruption. MS. YOVANOVITCH: That's certainly my opinion. 1"1R. J0RDAN: ln your testimony, your wri tten test'imony, you said that in oligarch-dominated Ukraine, where corruption 'is not just prevalent, it is the system so this is like 169 I 2 J 4 this is as important as it gets. So the one bad guy goes, the other bad guy comes i n, and l'4r. Poroshenko i s the guy responsible for both of these bad guys being the top guy to deal wi th corrupt'ion. Is that f ai r? 5 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Uh-huh. 6 MR. J0RDAN: Then, as 7 THE CHAIRMAN: 8 l"lS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. Mr . Zeldi n i ndi cated I'm sorry, can you just say yes or no? t2 oh, in your statement then on the same page, you said: In the 2019 Presidential election, you got this reformer coming along who has made ending corruption his number one priori ty. See that l3 on page 4, mjddle 9 l0 ll MR. J0RDAN: As of Mr. Zeldin indicated page 4? t4 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Uh-huh. l5 MR. J0RDAN: And l6 that's referring to current Zelensky. Is that right? t7 .,lS. Y0VANOVITCH: l8 MR. J0RDAN: 5o t9 President is the guy. You That's correct. th'is i s f ike thi s i s what you want, thi s got Poroshenko, who had Shokin, who's bad, 24 with, who's just as bad, cut from the same cloth. And now you get a guy elected who is as good as i t gets, ri ght? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: WeI1, let me just recast that, if poss j b1e, and 'if my counsel a11ows. So j ust as I don' t 25 bef i eve Ukra'i nj ans should be i nterferi ng i n 20 2t 22 23 Lutsenko he replaced him our electi ons, I 170 I don't thjnk 2 electi ons. Americans should be MR. J0RDAN: I 'm 5 interfering in Ukrainian not aski ng that. I 'm j ust sayi ng said, this 4 I'm just looking at what you said. 5 Zelensky's number one priority, what he ran the entire 6 campaign on was ending 7 MS. YOVANOVITCH: corruption. You Fai r guy enough? That's what he said, but 1et me just I can say this, what my advice was to the that we don't you know, we can't real1y 8 te11 you, assuming 9 State Department, l0 make there were many people very comfortable ll Mr. Poroshenko. But we don't have either the pul1 nor should t2 we l3 one. t4 l5 16 t7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 try to indicate in any way that we have wj th favorites, number two, all three of the top candidates there was also Yuliya Timoshenko, who you probably know. A11 three of the top candidates are flawed in some way, as, you knov'I, Number frankly, all of uS are. But we could probably work with each of them. And that what we need to do in the preelectoral peri od 'is to somebody, I thi nk you asked, you know, how do we do that outreach during campaigns and everything. We need to keep those lines open so that whoever w'ins' we will be able to get in through the door and start advancing our -- continuing our advances, if i t was Poroshenko, of the advance of U.S. interests, or start advancing those interests with new partners. So that's what 171 J thing. So we didn't have a dog in that fight. I just want to make that clear. MR. J0RDAN: I'm not asking that. I'm just saying, th"is 4 guy comes a1ong, runs a campaign base, on your testimony, 5 your written testimony, that his number one focus was deafing 6 wi I 2 was the most important 8 th corrupti on, and he wi ns overwhelm'ingly. So he wi ns, gets elected, and yet, when he's having a call with the President of the United States, he says he's glad you're 9 bei 7 he ng recalled. r3 I'm wondering, like, how does that happen? The guy who is all about dealing with anticorruption and focused on that who wins a major overwhelming win, how does he form that judgment'if that has been the entire focus and, as you say, t4 an actual war that goes on l5 corrupti l6 2t I don't know. As I told you before, everybody before, I was very surprised, because I thought we had a good beginning to a good relationship. MR. J0RDAN: But I thi nk you sa'id to Mr . Goldman, you thought he was responding to what Presjdent Trump said to h'im you sai d when he sa'id that you were bad news. I s that 22 that l0 ll t2 t7 l8 l9 20 And 25 on? MS. YOVANOVITCH: ea r1 i er? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: 23 24 in his country dealing with I think there's a certain element to that. MR. JORDAN: But he didn't just it seems to me if he 172 3 that way, he would say, okay, Mr. President, I agree with you, but he didn't say that. He said, she admired the previous Pres'ident and was on his side. And you just 4 told I 2 5 6 7 8 9 l0 was responding don't do that. I'm wondering how the current President of Ukraine felt that you were on the side of Mr. Poroshenko and said this to the President of the United States. MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I have no idea, because I think if you ask President Poroshenko, he would not agree with that So statement. ll t2 me you THE CHAIRT'IAN: The time is expired. Would you like to take a 1itt1e break? l3 MR. R0BBINS: Thank You. t4 THE CHAIRMAN: Why l5 b reak don't we take about a 5- or 10-minute . l6 lRecess. l t7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, l8 l9 20 2t 22 let's go back on the record. I just had a couple fo11ow-up questions and then I want to pass i t over to Mr. l'li tche11. My colleague in the minority asked you if official policy towards the Ukraine was, in your view, good policy, and I think you said that it was. Is that right? 23 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: 25 for that offi ci a1 And, indeed, you were the spokesperson po1 i cY? 173 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes. I z J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 I thi nk what you've descri bed, though, i s the problem wasn't the official policy. The problem was the unofficial or back channel be'ing executed by Mr. GiuIiani, h'is associates, and possibly others. Was that the issue? HS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. It compljcated things. THE CHAiRMAN: And it complicated things, not the least in part because the message you were advocating, as the representative of the Un'ited States, was, Ukraine, you should be fighting corruption; and here you had people that were potentially engaging in corruption, advocating through a back channel to the Whi te House? THE CHAIRMAN: H5. Y0VANOVITCH: So when we say "people," are l3 t4 talking about Ukrainian l5 THE CHAIRMAN: we people? Wel1, it may involve Ukrainian people, l8 but if the policy of the United States is not to be engaging 'in political prosecut'ions or political'investigations, and you have a lawyer for the President advocating wlth Ukrainian l9 offi 20 investigations and prosecutions, d'idn't that run 2t cont l6 t7 22 23 24 25 ci a1s to do exactly that, to rary to U. engage j n pol i ti ca1 d'i rectly S. poli cy and an anti corrupti on message? t di d. THE CHAIRMAN: I also wanted to ask you, Mr. Zeld'in read you a portion of the call record in which he quoted the call record as saying, referring to you: Her attitude towards me MS . YOVANOVITCH: I bel i eve 'i 174 5 far from the best, as she admired the previous President, et cetera. Mr . Zeldi n di dn' t read you the 1 i ne i mmedi ately before that, so let me read that to you. President Zelensky says: It was great that you were the f irst one who told me that she was a bad ambassador, because I agree w1th you 100 6 percent. I 2 J 4 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 was is referring to the fact that the Presjdent had brought you up in the conversation first, or whether the President had brought you up in a prior conversation? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I don't know. I had assumed it was the April 21st phone ca11, that first phone ca11, because that, to my knowledge, is the only time other time that they tatked. But you're right, I mean, maybe it could be earl i elin thi s transcri pt. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know whether part of the reason you didn't get a readout of the first catl may have involved the President bashing you in the first call? N5. Y0VAN0VITCH: It's possible. Now, do you know whether President Zelensky THE CHAIRI4AN: Now, 20 2l wanted a meeting 22 di 23 24 25 dn't l'4S Pres'ident Zelensky desperately with the President at the White House, he? . Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes. that kind of a meet'ing is important for a new President to show they have a relationship with the THE CHAIRNAN: And 175 I U. S. Presi dent? 2 M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. J THE CHAIRMAN: And 4 5 6 7 mi this is at a time in which Ukra'ine is ti tari 1y dependent on the Uni ted States? t'lS . YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Economically dependent States? certain extent, 8 M5. YOVAN0VITCH: To a 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Di plomati l0 ll t2 l3 on the United yes. cal1y dependent on the Uni ted States? MS. YOVANOVITCH: We are the most important partner for Ukrai ne. we're the most important THE CHAIRNAN: And because t4 partner for Ukraine, the President is the most important l5 person in that partnership with the United States? l6 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. t7 THE CHAIRMAN: So mai ntai ni ng, establ i shi ng a l8 relationship i s real1y important to thi s l9 Zelensky? . YOVANOVITCH: Cri ti ca1 20 MS 2t THE CHAIRMAN: And does 22 in this conversation, 23 Presi dent? . President Zelensky, therefore, have an incentive 24 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, 25 THE CHAIRI4AN: And new President to agree with the I think so. if he believes that the Pres'ident 176 I doesn't like the former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, 2 it J Presi dent? 4 5 make sense does for him to express his agreement with the MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yeah, absolutely, especially since I was already gone. 8 prior to th'is ca11, there had been an effort to get Ukraine to initiate two investigations that would be politically beneficial to the President, one 9 involving the 2015 election and one involving the Bidens. Is 6 7 l0 ll THE CHAIRMAN: And that ri ght? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes. t9 efforts you now can te11 us i nvolved Rudy Gi ul i ani and some of h j s assoc'iates? MS . YOVANOVITCH: So yes , I thi nk that' s true. Yes THE CHAIRI4AN: My colleague will ask you more questions about thi s, but at the t'ime that thi s was goi ng on and most of our questions to you have been what you knew at the time that this was going on when you were the amba'ssador. You now know a lot more has come out since and text messages 20 and whatnot. t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 2t THE CHAIRMAN: And those . Generally, what can you telt us nov{, looking back on 24 that you only dimly understood, what can you te1l us now that was going on in the run-up to this call? M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: I -- I mean, I don't have I mean, 25 since I wasn't there, I mean, I left l4ay 20th, and this 22 23 what was go'ing on of 177 I course, this phone call took place 2 months 1ater. So I -- I J can't actually really telt you beyond what I've seen of texts back and forth and so forth that, you know, this 4 i nvesti gati 2 5 6 7 8 on unearthed. THE CHAIRI"IAN: Now, when you got recalled as ambassador, were you replaced as ambassador? l'4S. YOVAN0VITCH: Bill Taylor, Ambassador Bill Taylor went out as Charge. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: And what was Ambassador l0 14S. Y0VANOVITCH: Ambassador Sondland ll the Sondland's role? is, of course, our t2 to the EU, and he took a special interest in Ukraine and Georgia I know. I don't know whether he took l3 other countri t4 22 that interest while you were sti11 there or that happened after you left? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: It started while I was sti1l there. And he came 'in February. He and Ambassador Volker sort of put together a delegation of EU important figures to come to Odessa, Ukraine, when we had a ship visit. And so, that was actually a really good initiative to show the U.S. and Europe together supporti ng Ukrai ne. Thi s, as you wi 11 recall , was several months after the Russians seized three ships and the 23 2L sai 1ors. l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 24 25 ambassador on es. THE CHAiRMAN: And had THE CHAIRMAN: Mr . 14i BY MR. MITCHELL: he taken on tchel l . 178 a A a I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 Good afternoon. Hi. You test'ified eartier that the first time you of the May 2018 letter from then-Congressman Sessions was the following year in approximately late March of 2019, as a result of the John Solomon article in The Hi11. Is that correct? A That i s cor rect. became aware MR. HECK: 9 Mr. Mi tche11, please pu11 the mi c closer. BY MR. 14ITCHELL: l0 Are you aware of the reporting that Mr. Parnas t1 a t2 Mr. Fruman, l3 Mr. who we've di scussed earl i er and are associ ates of l5 , had d'inner wi th Congressman Sessi ons the day that that letter was sent? A We11, I've become aware of reporting to that effect l6 recently. t7 testified earfier that you learned from, I believe, a deputy of l"lr. Lutsenko that there were rumors that Mr . Gi u1i an'i had met wi th Mr . Lutsenko Someti me i n the Summer of 2018. Is that correct? A Yes. a That's around the same time that Congressman Sessions sent this letter about you? A Yes. a You also testified earf ier today about a meeting t4 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Gi uf iani a And you 179 I 2 that you had, I betieve, with Mr. Giuliani in approximately June of 20L7. Is that right? A a A a a J 4 5 6 7 Uh-huh. In connection with the Victor Yes. And you indicated obviously, Mr. A a A 9 l0 Yes. Was Mr. Poroshenko there as well? No. ty ll IMa t2 was marked a t4 t7 l8 j ori Exh j bi for t No. ]. i denti fi cati on. I BY MR. 14ITCHELL: l3 l6 Giuliani was there and you were there? 8 l5 Pinchuk Foundation? I'm going to hand you a press release from the I'm goi ng to mark i t as Maj ori ty Exhi bi t No. L. Take your time reading it, ma'am, but I'm going to direct your attention to the very last paragraph. Pi nchuk fund. A a [Wi tness revi ewed the document. ] 2t I'm going to direct your attention to the very last paragraph. This is a point that I think we can quickly dispatch with. It says: Besides giving the lecture, Rudy 22 Giuliani l9 20 So 23 with the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, the Prime Minister, the Kyiv mayor, as well as Prosecutor 24 General 25 met of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko. A Yes, I do. Do you see that? 180 O A a I 2 Were you part of that meeting? No. 4 that l'4r. G'iul"iani met with Mr. Lutsenko in connection with this Victor Pinchuk 5 Foundati on? J A a 6 7 Were you aware I don't think I Have you seen knew that. the indictment against Mr. Parnas, 8 Mr. Fruman, and others that was unsealed yesterday, I believe 9 i t was? 12 I haven't read it, but I've read about it. IMaj ori ty Exhi bi t No. 2 was marked for identi fication. l 13 BY MR. MITCHELL: l0 A 1l t6 to hand you Maj ori ty Exhi bi t No. 2, and, again, I'm going to direct you to particular spots in the indictment. I'm going to start the bottom of page 7. t7 Paragraph 17, are you there? l8 A Yes. a It says in the mjddle: These contributions were made for the purpose of getting 'influence with politjcians so as to advance their own personal financ'ia1 interests and the political interests of Ukrainian Government officials. A I'm sorry, where are you reading? a Page 7, paragraph L7. A 0kay. I'm wjth you now. t4 l5 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 a I 'm goi ng 181 MR. ROBBINS: You're I 2 MR. PIITCHELL: Correct. J BY MR. 14ITCHELL: 4 a 5 7 a sentence. a 6 starting in the middle of I'11 start at the begi nni ng: Much as wi th the contributions described above, these contributions were made for the purpose of gaining'influence with politic'ians so as l0 to advance their own personal financial interests and the poli tical interests of Ukrainian Government offic'ials, i ncludi ng at least one Ukrai ni an Government of f i ci a1 w'ith ll whom 8 9 Do you know who t2 l3 they were working. whom l5 wi th they were working? A a t4 the Ukra'ini an Government of f i ci ats No. 0n page 8, the following page, the paragraph in the t6 middle, it's paragraph number L. It says: At and around the t7 same l8 for l9 Congressman 20 2t 22 23 24 25 time Parnas and Fruman committed to raising those funds Congressman L, Parnas met with Congressman 1 and sought L's assistance 'in causing the U.S. Government to remove or reca11 the then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, the ambassador. Do you understand that reference to be to you? A I do. a And then the next sentence says: Parnas' efforts to remove the ambassador were conducted, at least in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian Government officials. 182 Do you know who those one I 2 offi aIs A a 3 4 5 ci or more Ukrainian Government are? No. What was your reaction when you first saw these allegations concerning you'in this indictment? A a 6 7 Again, I mean, just feel shock. Do you have any reason 8 Ukrai ni an Government 9 Mr. offi ci to befieve that the aIs referenced here could i nvolve Lutsenko? l5 I th'ink that would be a good guess. Now, you testi fi ed earl i er, wi th regard to 14r. Lutsenko, that the Burisma investigation was dormant and I might have written this down incorrectly, but I want to make sure I have it correct -- because'it was useful to have that hook I th'ink i s what I wrote down. Do I have that t6 right? l0 ll t2 l3 t4 A a A O A l7 l8 t9 Yes. What did you mean by that? That because because Ukraine js not yet a rule 23 of 1aw country, prosecutions are used as leverage over people for to acquire funds, to get them to do certain things or whatever. And so, if you have a case that is not completely closed, it's always there as a way of keeping somebody, as I 24 said before, on the hook. That was, you know, something that 25 I 20 2t 22 had understood by that phrase "dormant." 183 a A a I 2 J 4 Yes. It could keep anyone involved in Burisma on the hook? A a A a 5 6 7 8 9 So i t could keep Buri sma on the hook? Uh-huh. You have to answer yes or no. Yes. Yes. And it could investigation on the A a l0 keep anyone interested jn the hook? What do you mean by that? t6 I believe you are suggesti ng correct me i f I 'm wrong had the Buri sma investigation in hjs back pocket, and that he had the authori ty or the power to rev'ive the i nvest'igati on at wi 11 A Yes. he could use that as a hook to, or as leverage O t7 agai ll t2 13 t4 l5 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 nst A a A a 5o if Mr. Lutsenko, as Buri sma, correct? Yes. Agai nst people i nvolved wi th Burj sma Yes. or people who would actually want that investigation to go forward? A Uh-huh. a Is that correct? A Yeah. 184 a You J A Yes. 4 a And 5 A Yes. 6 a I 2 testified a ljtt1e bit about the July cat1. that the was long 8 A Yes. 9 a When did 25th call between July ll Zelensky? t2 A l3 by the The Whi a p i n Ukra'ine, and si nce you' ve at Georgetown. Is that correct? been working l0 after you had teft ambassadorshi 7 l4 25th day you it first learn of the contents of the President Trump and President was made public, like about 2 weeks ago, te House. What about the general subject matter of that call? l5 Did you learn anyth'ing about what was discussed between the l6 two Presidents from sources other than simple press t7 reporti l8 A l9 20 2t ng? mentioned a Yes. In passing, Deputy Assistant that there was this phone cal1. And did Deputy Assistant George Kent say anything about what took place during that call? I'm trying to reca11 now exactly he did indicate that there had been a 23 He I he said, but he 24 request by the President 25 my understand'ing 22 George Kent had A mean, what for assistance, as we now know, but of that conversation with Mr. Kent was that 185 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll of agreed, that he noted that, you know, it was the previous administration that was responsible for some of these things and that he was going to have his own prosecutor. a And what was your reaction to Mr. Kent's recitation President Zelensky had not sort and of the substance of this call? A My react'ion was that, you know, to be frank, a Iittle bit of dismay that Pres'ident Trump had made those requests. And I was happy that Presi dent Zelensky had apparently not acceded. a And, again, that was based on information that t2 Mr. Kent had provided to you and what you believed to be the t3 truth at the time? A Yes. a And since then, you've read a copy of the rough transcri pt of that call? A Yes. a And it turns out that Mr. Kent's recitation was inaccurate at least in one regard. Is that right? A Yeah. I mean, I think there's room for interpretation, but yeah, I now have a different view. a And do you happen to have a copy of that call in front of you now? A Yes. Thi s ca1l, i s that what you' re talki ng about? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. It's marked as an exhibit. t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 186 I l'lS. YOVANOVITCH: No, 2 MR. MITCHELL: J MR. ROBBINS: You're 4 MR. t4ITCHELL: 5 exhi bi t No. 3 that's our copy. Let's go ahead and mark it. not going to mark our copy. No. We'11 go ahead and mark 'i t as . ori ty Exhi bi 6 [l\4aj 7 was marked t No. 3 for identification.l BY MR. MITCHELL: 8 l0 getting to the text of thjs ca11, what was Mr. Kent's reaction to the substance of the call when you ll had 9 t2 l3 t4 a that A Prior to me ti a1 di scussi on about i t? So just to clarify, he was not on the call so he i ni et cetera. I th'i nk he thought i t was, you know, a relatively posi tive reaction was getti ng, you know, readouts, l6 the Ukrai ni an Presi dent. a So, in other words, the fact that President t7 Zelensky did not accede 18 was vi ewed posi l5 from to this request by President Trump tively by both you and l'4r. Kent? 2t A Yes. a I'11 take you to page 3 of the ca11. And President Trump at the bottom says: Good, because I heard you had a 22 prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's l9 20 23 24 25 really unfair. Do you know who do you believe President Trump was talking about when he said, you had a prosecutor who was very 187 I good and was shut down? ) A J 14r. Lutsenko. 4 a 5 Wel1, I don't know, but I believe that it's Mr. Lutsenko was still in office at the time of thi s ca11, correct? 7 A a 8 announced by 9 14r. Lutsenko was going 6 l0 ll t2 A a Yes. But had Mr. excuse me, President Zelensky the time of th'is ca11, July 25th, that Yes, to be replaced? I believe he had. Do you have any opin'ion as to why you believe that President Trump would speak positively about Mr. Lutsenko? 24 I mean, the only thi ng I can conclude i s that he had been told good things about Mr. Lutsenko. O By peopte who had possibly met with l4r. Lutsenko? A Uh-huh. Yes. a L'ike Mr. Giuliani? A Most likely. a Do you know whether anyone in the State Department at the tjme had generally a positive view of Mr. Lutsenko? A Wel1, you know, it's hard to speak for everybody, but certainly the people that I knew did not have a good opi ni on of Mr . Lutsenko. O For all the reasons that you testifjed about 25 earlier? l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 A 188 I A 2 THE CHAiRMAN: Yes? 5 1'4S Uh-huh. . YOVANOVITCH: Yes . Excuse me. BY MR. 14ITCHELL: 4 a 5 So despi te Pres'ident Trump's comments to President 6 Zelensky, wouldn't Mr. Lutsenko's removal have been viewed 7 positively by your colleagues at the Department of A a 8 State? Yes. l3 2, going back a page, at the bottom, the very bottom, last sentence, it says: 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 that's Presj dent Zetensky, t4 correct? 9 l0 ll t2 A a l5 0n page Yes. 24 testified a litt1e bit earlier about Javelins being U.S.-made ant'i-tank missiles. Is that right? A Yes. a Hade by Raytheon? A Yes. a If you know, did the Ukrainians believe that it was important for them to have Javelins for their own defense? A Yes, they thought it was important. a And weire you involved, when you were ambassador to 25 Ukrai l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 And you ne, about any di scuss'ions i nvolv'ing provi di ng J avel j ns 189 I to A 2 J 4 7 8 excuse me, to Ukraine? Yes. I believe you test'if ied earlier that you were supportive of provi di ng those. Is that correct? 5 6 or, the Uni ted States a And A Yes. t only i n Ukraj ne's best i nterests, but it was also in the best i nterests of the United States as well for Ukrainians to have these anti-tank a Because i was not ll missiles. Is that correct? A I thought it strengthened the bilateral relationship and sent a powerful signal of our support for t2 Ukrai ne. l3 t4 after President Zelensky mentions the Javelins, on the top of page 3, President Trump mentions l5 CrowdStrike, and then he also says, The server, they say l6 Ukrai ne has i t7 A a 9 l0 a l8 l9 was Then immediately t. Yeah. Do you have any understanding talking about of what the President there? A We11, And what's your understandi ng? 24 a A 25 was somehow 2t I d'idn't at the time that I first read this summary, but obv'ious1y, there has been explanation in the 22 NEWS. 20 23 Well, that the server that was used to hack the DNC in Ukra'ine or moved to Ukraine, controlled by the 190 I 2 J Ukrainians. The Ukrainians then put out some sort of disinformation that it was Russia. And that this is what the President is referring to that it's important to get to the 2t of i t. a In that same paragraph he continues, and I'm not starting at the beginning of the sentence, but he mentions Robert Mueller and he says: They say a 1ot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. Do you see that? A Yes. a Do you have any understanding of what the President i s referri ng to there? A I think it's the befief that Ukraine was behind interference in our 2016 elections. a And then President Trump continues at the top of page 4, and he mentions: The other thing, there's a 1ot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a 1ot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me. Do you see 22 that? 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 bottom 23 A Yes. 24 a And you 25 testified earlier that your understanding here i s that the Presi dent, President Trump, was encouraging 191 1 2 a J 4 5 6 President Zetensky to conduct an investigation involving Is that correct? That's how I understood i t. Hunter B'iden. A a And what was your reaction when you saw this transcript for the fi rst time, and particularly, these requests that we just went through by President Trump? n A Wel1, I was surprised and dismayed. a And in your experience, do U.S. Presidents typically ask foreign governments to conduct particular investigations like the ones that are requested here, or are they just general requests, such as fighting corruption, for t2 example? l3 l8 I thjnk generally generally, there's preparation for phone calls and there are talking po'ints that are prepared for the pri nci pa1. And obvi ous1y, i t's up to the principal whether they choose to, you know, keep it general, keep 'it more specif ic,. whatever the case m'ight be. But it's usually vetted and it's usually requests that would be in our l9 national security interests, right? 7 8 9 l0 14 l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A 192 I 14:26 p.m. l 2 MR. MITCHELL: As opposed 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 to the President's personal political interests? MS . YOVAN0VITCH: Cor rect. MR. l'4ITCHELL: Which is what was happening on this ca11. Is that correct? MR. ROBBINS: Again, she was not present for this ca11. She was not the ambassador during this ca11. All she can do is interpret it as a reader after the fact, and I don't rea11y thi nk th'is i s wj thi n the compass of her experti se. ll BY MR. MITCHELL: l3 Well, based on your decades of experience, Ambassador, did you find th'is call and these requests to t4 outside of the t2 a be norm? A l6 Usually specific requests on prosecutions and 'investigations goes through the Department of Justice through t7 our l5 MLAT l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 he process. That's the mutuat 1ega1 assistance treaty. a Is it your understanding that that's what happened A a Wel1, as re? far as as far as I know, I'lo. Also on page 4, at the top, President Trump said, "The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was with in the Ukraine were bad news, so I just want to let you know that." bad news and the people she was dealing Do you see that? 193 I 2 J A a A Yes. What was your reaction when you saw that? Again, I hate to be repetitive, but I was shocked. 7 I mean, I was very surprised that President Trump would -first of all, that I woutd feature repeatedly in a Presidential phone ca11, but secondly, that the President would speak about me or any ambassador in that way to a 8 forei gn counterpart. 4 5 6 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 a At the bottom of that same page, President Trump , she's goi ng to go through some thi ngs. " What did you understand that to mean? A I didn't know what it meant. I was very concerned. says, "WeI1 I st'i11 am. a Did you feel threatened? A Yes. a Di d you f eel that you mi ght be retal i ated aga'inst? A You know, there's a universe of what it could mean. I don't know. a Welt, what did you interpret it to be? A Maybe. I was wondering you know, soon after this transcript came out there was the news that the IG brought to this committee, a1t sorts of documentation, I guess, about me that had been transferred to the FBI. You know , I was wonde r i ng, i s the re an ac t'i ve i nvesti gati on agai nst me i n the FBI? I don't know. I mean, 194 I 2 J 4 5 I just simply don't know what this could mean, but it not leave me in a comfortable position. a Are you concerned about your employment? A Yes. O Are you concerned about your pension? does 6 A Yes. 7 a Do you have concerns about 8 A So far, 9 a But you hesjtate in saying, "So far, flo, " or you l0 condition that on your personal safety? no what might happen in the future. So what ll t2 l3 conce rned t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 WelI, I would say a number of A a my friends are very . You talked about earlier that you spoke to Mr. Kent or to the release of thi s transcri pt. Have you spoken with anybody at the Department of State after the release of th'is transcri pt about thi s transcri pt? A Yes, but not anybody who is, 1ike, working on these issues. So I have friends at the State Department who are not necessarily, you know, focused on these issues. So, !€s, but not in a work context, if that's what you're asking. a So you didn't speak to l4r. Kent, for exampte? A INonverbal response. ] a I'm sorry. A 0h, no, I did not. pri 195 I 2 J 4 5 a What about any Ukrainian sti11 be in contact with? Have you had an opportunity to talk to them about thi s call after i t was released? A about th'i No. I s mean, 9 A No l0 a And 8 ll t2 13 have talked read thi s at the Department of State reach out thejr concerns concerning this call after the to you about transcript was A Yes. did anyone re1 eased? 0ther than the friends who don't work on these t4 a l5 i ssues? l6 A Yes. t7 a And who l8 A Mi ke t9 a I'm 20 A Mi ke McKi nley. 2t a What you r 22 A He wanted to see how 23 to Ukrainians, but not call transcri pt, did you raise any concerns about the transcri pt through any sort of of f i c'i aI channel s wj th the Department of State? When you 7 I . a 6 officials that you may concerned was that? McKinley. so r ry? WAS that there conversati on wi th Mr. had been 24 a And what -- 25 A I should also I 14cKi nley about? was doing, and he was no outreach to oh, yeah. me. He wanted to' know how i 196 I was doing and he was concerned 2 outreach and no kind that there had been no l3 of public support from the Department. I also wanted to say that that's from kind of a senior level. The European Bureau did have a deputy director of an of f i ce, of the Ukrai ne of f "ice, reach out to me. The deputy director of the Ukraine office was also instructed to reach out to me. a Was also instructed to reach out to you? A Uh-huh. a And what's the name of that individual? A Brad Freden. a And who i nstructed l"lr. Freden to reach out to you? A The pri nci pal deputy assi stant secretary for EUR, t4 so J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 Phi 1 Reeker's deputy. a l5 And can you just descrjbe generally that l6 conversation that you had with Mr. l7 l8 Yeah. I mean, he ca1led to see how I was doing you know, obviously we had worked very closely together t9 before, when I was in Ukraine and said that, you 20 everybody was concerned and wanted 2t did I Freden? A to see how I know, was doing and need anything. 23 a And did he have any sort of reaction about the call itself or was he just was he just reaching out to see how 24 you were doing? 22 25 A He was reaching out to see how I was doing. 197 a A I 2 What about the conversation wjth Mr. He also wanted know, you know, kind 4 Department had been 1ike. a call Did you see how I was doing, wanted to of what communication with the ) 5 to PlcKinley? call did you discuss the contents of the l0 th Mr. McKi nley? A I think, you know, if we did, it doesn't it doesn't come back to me. I mean, I think it was the meta of, you know, everything else that's going on. a Have you spoken to Mr. McKinley about his ll resi gnati 6 7 8 9 t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 2t wi on? He a 0ther than j ust noti f y'ing you that thi s was goi ng catled me me know. to happen, did he talk to you about why he was resigning? A Yes. He said that he was concerned about how the Department was handling, you know, this cluster of issues. a Can you elaborate further, please? A I think he felt that the Department should stand by i ts offi cers. And was he referring to you in that regard? a 22 A Yes. 23 a Was he 24 A I think 25 before it became public to 1et A referring, to others as well? perhaps George Kent as welI know, there may have been others as welL And for all I 198 a 1 2 Can you explain why he was referring to George Kent? 6 testify. All right. So Mr. Kent has been asked to testify, and Mr. lv'lcKi nley i ndi cated that he was di sappoi nted that the Department was not standing behind its employees. Is that 7 co r rec t? J 4 5 A a A a 8 9 We11, he's also been asked to come and Yes. 0kay. So did he explain to you why he believed 1l that the Department was not standing behind Mr. Kent? A He did. He noted that there had been a difficult t2 conversation w'ith the State Department lawyers and that l3 George had shared l0 a t4 l5 A that wi th h'im. difficult conversation between the State Department lawyers and? A a A l6 George Kent. 19 Mr. Kent. Okay. About coming to testify? I think it was about the response to the subpoena for documents. I think that was the issue where there was a 20 d t7 l8 2l 22 23 24 25 And i sagreement. a A What did Mr. McKinley say in that regard? That he was concerned about the way George had been treated. a A But did he explain how George had been treated? He said that there had been an argument and that he 199 I to, you know, share this further up, is what he I don't know what "up" means or who that means because he didn't feel that ostractzing employees was going J said that 4 bultying 5 Depa r 2 6 7 8 employees was and and the appropriate reaction from the tment. a A What was I don ' t the argument? exactly know, but I do know that 'i t had to do with the subpoena for documents. t2 didn't describe to you exactly the nature of the document or excuse me, the nature of the argument, simply that it was about the documents? A Yeah. And that George and at least one lawyer, l3 perhaps more, had had a d'isagreement about that. 9 l0 ll t4 a a So Mr. McKinley Okay. And just to be clear, when we l5 documents" and you said disagreement about l6 talking about is a production of documents congressi onal request. I s that ri ght? t7 l8 t9 20 2t A a say "the that, what we're in response to a I believe that's correct. And at the time when did you have this conversation wi th l''lr. McKi nley? A Wel1, it was the 5unday after -- actua11y, I think Yes, 24 I'm conflating two conversations now. I think he first just reached out to me, you know, as a human being, basically. And then I think he called me 1ater, 25 perhaps sometime midweek 22 23 tast week, maybe, to just share the 200 1 information and ask me whether -- you know, how I was being 2 treated. a J 0kay. It was during this more recent conversation 4 that you discussed this disagreement about the production of 5 documents? 6 7 8 A a Right, right. So that would have been i n response to congressional subpoena. Is that correct? A a 9 l0 Yes. And do you know whether the disagreement surrounded ll on whether the Department t2 i l3 l5 of State should produce n response to the subpoena? A Actually, I don't a t4 a documents know. Do you know whether Kent was arguing for the of documents? I can't tel1 you. I don't know. production A a t6 l8 the argument was at all related to whether Mr. Kent should come and testify before this 19 commi t7 Do you know whether ttee? 24 didn't say that, so I don't know. THE CHAIRMAN: If I can just interject with a question. Are you aware of any specific documents for which there was a concern that they may be provided to the committee? MS. YOVANOVITCH: No. I have been instructed by my 25 lawyers 20 2l 22 23 A He Mike 201 I MR. R0BBINS: Ah, ah, ah, ah, 2 M5. YOVANOVITCH: Okay. 5orry. J THE CHAIRI4AN: 4 MR. R0BBINS: 5 Any anythi ng That's only one t'ime an hour that I time a witness -- THE CHAIRMAN: Any 7 MR. R0BBINS: 8 l'lR. MEADOWS: Let the record l0 you woke up l3 t4 l5 f That's the or the other THE CHAIRMAN: I ll t2 reflect there was one time s'ide. '11 yi eld back to 14r. Mi tche11. thout di vulg'ing any communi cati ons that you may have had with your attorney a Wi A a Okay. Yeah. have you had any disagreements of State about any production of Department t7 concerni ng you? 20 A a A 2t MR. ROBBINS: Ah. 22 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: l9 moment. BY MR. 14ITCHELL: t6 l8 wake up. 6 9 ah. with the documents No. At1 right. But I should also say, I haven't had Okay. All ri ght. 24 to say that you have not had any conversations with the Department of State about 25 these matters? 23 MR. MITCHELL: Were you about 202 MR. ROBBINS: Her lawyers have done I all the talking. BY MR. I,IITCHELL: 2 7 I believe you said that I believe you used the word "bu11yi ng." Is that ri ght? A Yes. a What did you mean by that? i t's what Wel1, it wasn't my word. It's what A 8 Mike said J 4 5 6 a l0 used the 11 te 12 n the context of the way i n whi ch Mr. McKi nley "bullyi ng, " what was your understandi ng of that And i a 9 wo rd rm? A My understandi ng was it was between that 'in thi s di spute, L, the lega1 people and Mr. Kent, l3 whatever t4 l8 that the lawyers bullied George. That was my understanding, but he didn't go into the details and I don't know what form that would have t aken a All ri ght. Di d Mr. McKi nley menti on any other individuals from the Department of State who may have been l9 i nvolved i n 20 documen ts? l5 t6 t7 2l 22 23 24 25 . A a Secretary A thi s d'ispute regardi ng the producti on of I can't recall whether he named anybody. Do you reca11 whether Mr. McKinley mentioned Pompeo during the course of this call? Not not that I recatl. I mean, f,o, I don't thi nk he di d. 203 a And you said that l"lr . McKi nley sai d that the 7 is not supporting the employees. What did you understand that to mean? A We11, I think, you know, as we had discussed earlier, that there are all sorts of attacks and allegations out there, and the Department is not saying anything about it. That's very unusual if, in fact, there is no cause for 8 my removal. 2 J 4 5 6 Department l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 I think MR. M]TCHELL: 9 TH E CHAI RI,IAN And j ust to : Mr. CAST0R: t7 MR. JORDAN: Ambassador, mentioned you were last hour with Mr. Mitche11, talking you t9 conversation with George Kent. 20 What's George Kent's 23 let l'lembers know, we are It's feast or fami ne here, it started to smell like a Mr. Jordan l8 22 up. to turn the air back on. and we're my staff te1ls me locker room in here. So we'11 turn it over to the minority and we'11 turn the air back on. going l6 2t time is my some about your titte again at the State Depa r tmen t? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Deputy the European Assistant Secretary of State in Bureau. 0kay. And you'd 24 MR. J0RDAN: 25 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. dealt with him before? 204 \4R. I 2 i J0RDAN. Okay. And you officially left your duties n the Ukrai ne? 3 M5. YOVAN0VITCH: May 20th. 4 1'4R. J0RDAN. May 20th. And then when were you hired at 8 for the teaching position? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I took home leave, and I started on I think it was July 25th. yeah. That' s MR. JORDAN. J u1y 25th . Okay. And 14r . 9 i 5 6 7 Georgetown nteresti ng. ll t4 MR. JORDAN. call that President Trump had with President Zelensky. Is that right? about the MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes, uh-huh. l6 MR. JORDAN. And can you conversation you No. I mean, some time after that. Some time after what? MS. YOVANOVITCH: 19 MR. J0RDAN. 20 MS. YOVANOVITCH: 2l MR. JORDAN: 22 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. 23 MR. JORDAN: Was 25 Was it in give me the date of that had? l8 24 that Mr. Mitchell said you talked to Mr. Kent l5 t7 made connecti on. t2 l3 I hadn't actually MS. YOVANOVITCH: 10 After the ca11. Okay. And some time before September it in September? Was it in 25th? August? Juty? M5. YOVANOVITCH: I don't recal1 exactly, but it was 205 4 some we1l, it might even have been in September. I would say probably August, but I also know that they were on vacation, so maybe it was even jn September. MR. J0RDAN. So you got a readout of what transpired 5 you were not on the ca1l. 1 2 a J probably . YOVAN0VITCH: No. 6 t'lS 7 MR. J0RDAN. 8 MS 9 MR. JORDAN. But you . Rlght? l'lr. Kent was not on the call? YOVANOVITCH: No. got a readout from what happened l0 the call prior to any of us in the public knowing about the ll contents t2 Zetensky? between President Trump and President MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: l3 t4 of the call I think readout is a, you know, a big term. l5 MR. J0RDAN. And you l6 MS. YOVANOVITCH: He shared t7 l8 l9 i nformati with me some MR. J0RDAN. And you thjnk that was in August or early 5eptembe r? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: INonverbal response. 2l MR. JORDAN. So weeks before the ] September 25th, the date the rest of us got to see what was in that 23 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Right. 24 MR. JORDAN: 25 some on about i t. 20 22 on public. -- 5o you got and got the transcript and it that information weeks before? was 206 I 2 5 4 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. did you get that information? Did you conti nui ng have any other responsi bi 1 i ti es wi th responsibilities wjth Ukrajne and your former position there? MR. J0RDAN. Why . YOVANOVITCH: No. 5 MS 6 MR. J0RDAN: Why would 7 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: 8 9 Mr. Kent share that with I think he knows that i sti1l you? care about the bi tateral relati onshi p and I 'm sti 11 i nterested. MR. JORDAN. Is that normal? ll that Yeah. i mean, I think that there are conversations about, you know, all sorts of things t2 that take place. l3 l6 I guess what I'm asking'is you got a call between two heads of state. You have certain staff, I assume NSC staff, some State Department staff, potentially Justice Department, I don't know who's all on that cat1, but it's t7 probably not something that should be shared and probably not l8 common t9 State shares jt with 10 t4 l5 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: MR. JORDAN. knowledge. And yet the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 2t is no longer involved with Ukrai ne, who's teachi ng a course at Georgetown. And I 'm j ust has that ever happened before, to your wondering, is that 22 knowl edge? 20 . someone who Y0VANOVITCH: I 'm su 23 MS 24 MR. J0RDAN. Real1y? 25 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yeah. re i t has . 207 4 just share the contents of heads of states, the President of the United States' call with someone who's not working in that particular area? . Y0VANOVITCH: I - - I mean, you' re aski ng me my 5 opinion. I 2 J MR. JORDAN. People would 1"lS 6 MR. JORDAN. Okay. 7 MS. YOVANOVITCH: So 8 sure something like that MR. JORDAN: 9 l0 contents ll Zelensky I'm sharing my opinion that I'm has happened before. Did anyone else talk to you about the of the call between Pres'ident Trump and President prior to September 25th when it was made public? t2 MS. YOVANOVITCH: No. l3 MR. J0RDAN. Did Mr. Kent say that he had shared this t4 information with anyone etse prior to when the rest of the l5 country got to see it? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: l6 t7 No. I MR. JORDAN. 0kay. l9 MR. CAST0R: Have you I don' t thi nk he sai d talked to anybody else about your testi mony? I"lR. ROBBINS: 2t 22 mean, that. l8 20 two I'm sorry. Could I hear that question aga i n? MR. CAST0R: Have you 23 talked to anybody else at the 24 State Department since you've been invited to testify about 25 some of the facts here? 208 Y0VAN0VITCH: I MS . , 2 MR. JORDAN. Hey, ) No. But I was subpoenaed to testi fy. Steve, j ust gi ve me one second. J ust a qui ck fo11ow. I apologi ze, Steve. That 4 call is classified? The call between President 5 Trump and Pres'ident Zelensky, do you know i f i 6 unclassified at the time that he shared information about the 7 contents was of the call? 8 t'45. YOVANOVITCH: 9 l'4R. JORDAN: Okay. I don't know. BY MR. CASTOR: 10 Other than with your lawyer, who have you a ll t2 t had discussions with about your testimony today? A a l3 My brother. My brother has come uP t6 family members. I'm sorry. I don't to ask you about discussjons with your family. A Yes. I have not discussed my testimony with t7 anybody. t4 l5 And your Okay. a 18 i ni bpoen aed t9 su 20 turned into 2t wi th the a So since you've been i nvi ti subpoena was a voluntary i nvi te and then i t you haven't had any discussions No. A 23 MR. CASTOR: 25 it ted to testi fy, or key players? 22 24 a1ly want I want to 4? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. mark as exhibit are we up to 209 MR. CAST0R: And we I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 We don't need to do majority, minority? just call it No. 4? all friends. I'lR. ROBBINS: Sorry. Could we have just one moment? I'lr . CAST0R: 5u re IDi scussi on off the record. ] IMaj ori ty Exhj bi t No. 4 was marked for identi fication. I MR. R0BBINS: I have a -- for minority counsel. MR. G0LDNAN: We're . l0 MR. CASTOR: Sure. ll MR. R0BBINS: The witness would t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 prior like to expand on answer -- Mr. CASTOR: 0f course. ROBBINS: that she gave a moment ago. Plr. CAST0R: Please, please. At any tjme, feel free do that. There's nothi ng wrong wi th MR. t7 M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Thank you. l8 So you had asked me about di scuss'ions w'ith State I that I wasn't having l9 Department lawyers, and 20 conversations with State Department lawyers. 2t 22 23 24 25 a answered to any But I've been reminded that in August one of the staffers reached out to me on my personal emai1, and I alerted the State Department about that, the request to, you know, come and talk to the committee. And so subsequently, and I th'ink i t was the week bef ore 210 I 2 J 4 th Cliff Johnson, f rom the State Department Legal Affai rs offi ce, as from the Legislative office. well as So just to be sure that I'm absolutely factual. Labor Day, I had BY MR. 5 a telephone conversation w'i CASTOR: 10 a We've marked Exhibit 4. This is a letter. I'11 give it to you first. A Thank you. a This is the letter we are referring to in the last round with Mr. Zeldin. I'11 ask some questions and then I'11 ll ask Mr. Zeldin jf he has any additjonal. t2 This is the letter to Lutsenko from Senators Durbin, and Leahy, dated May 4th, 2018? 6 7 8 9 13 l4 A l5 a Yes. t of ti me to look at i t are you famitiar with this letter? Is thjs the first Do you need l6 or t7 time you've seen i t? 18 t9 20 2l h 22 us. ave Menendez, a li ttle b'i A I don't think I've seen it before. a But this was during y'our tenure as the ambassador? A Yes. Yeah, but Congress doesn' t always and doesn' t to share correspondence with foreign governments with 24 0f course. I 'm j ust aski ng i f you've seen it or if you know of anybody at the embassy that was aware of this 25 i ssue. 23 a 211 2 J I -- you know, I just don't recall ever having A I th'is bef ore. a When senators, especially senators jnvolved with 5 the committees of jurisdiction, transmit letters, js that ordinarily something that gets cal1ed to the embassy's 6 attenti 4 7 8 9 l0 seen on? A O It j ust depends. 0r does it happen so frequently that it's not necessarily an jssue? A a I would say it just depends. t2 Okay. And so you had no advance notice this letter on any of the Senate staffs was coming? Nobody at the l3 communicated l4 A a ll with the embassy, to your knowledge? I don't bel i eve so. 24 at Lutsenko's office communicated with the embassy that they received this letter? Do you know how they handled this letter? A I don't know that Mr. Lutsenko or anybody in his office communicated with us about this, and I don't know whether they responded, or any of that. a Is there anything else about this communication, about this set of facts, that you can share with us that you do remember, whether jt was at the time or subsequently? A I mean, do you want to ask me a more specific 25 questi l5 l6 l7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 on? And do you know if anybody 212 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 a I'm just asking if A Yeah. 'if you can recal1 anythi ng else about thi s a letter, three senators, I believe they're all on the Foreign Relations Committee, writing to express great concern about reports that Lutsenko's office has taken steps to impede cooperati on wi th the ["lue11er probe. A Uh-huh. Yeah. a 5o the question is, can you recall any additional set of facts about this particular letter? A No. No, I can't. a And do you have any facts about the Mueller probe and offi ci a1s i n Ukrai ne cooperati ng or not cooperati ng wi th the Mueller probe outside of this letter? A No. a Di d you know 'i t was an i ssue or an al leged i ssue? A No, I didn't. But, you know, before I was saying 20 treaty with Ukraine. And so when there are matters, you know, that appropriately would be taken up by DOJ or the FBI or something like that, 2t they go through those channels. l8 t9 that we have a mutual 1ega1 assistance 23 don't always, depending on what the issue is, whether jt's either so insignificant or whether it's, you 24 know, compartmentalized and very closely he1d, they don't 25 always share with us those things. 22 And they 213 ng well , yeah. So I 'm not aware. I I 'm assumi 2 Mr. CAST0R: l'lr. Zeldin, do you have any additional J fo1low-up on this one? just testified that someone out to you personally in August on your personal MR. ZELDIN: Ambassador, you 4 5 had reached 6 devi ce? ll I'm sorry? MR. ZELDIN: In clarifying an answer to a question asked by the majority, I just want to understand what you were saying. A staffer or somebody reached out to you in August? MS. YOVANOVITCH: 0h, yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. 0n my t2 personal 7 8 9 l0 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: emai 1. MR. ZELDIN: And what was 13 that about? 20 They from the Foreign Affairs Committee, and they wanted me to come in and talk about, I guess, the circumstances of my departure. MR. ZELDIN: Come in and talk where? Who where were they calling from? NS . Y0VANOVITCH : No . Th'i s was an ema i 1 l"lR. ZELDiN: An emai 1. Where were they ema j ling you 2t f rom? t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 MS. Y0VANOViTCH: . MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I presume Washington. It was Forei gn Affai rs. 24 MR. ZELDIN: A House Foreign 25 M5. YOVANOVITCH: Yeah. Affairs staffer House 214 ZELDIN: reached out to you in I MR. 2 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Uh-huh. J MR. ZELDIN: Do you remember when 4 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: 5 mj d-August, maybe. Maybe mi 7 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. 8 t'4R. ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 that was? maybe August d-August. MR. ZELDIN: Did you know l0 August I want to say, 1ike, 6 9 in August? this ZELDIN: And how did person? where did you know that person f rom? MS. YOVANOVITCH: She had previously worked at the State Department. MR. ZELDIN: And how do you know that person at the State Department? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Because she worked at the State Department. MR. ZELDIN: Where did you work together at the State Depa r tmen t? 20 I'fi not exactly sure. I thi nk she worked in DRL and in the office that handles human rights, and it must have been either jn connection with my 2l Ukrai ne work 22 don't reca11 exactly l8 t9 23 24 25 MS. Y0VANOViTCH: WeI1, or prev'ious work i n the European Bureau. I when we met. MR. ZELDIN: And when communi was how often do you cate w'ith thi s person? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: That was the only time. 215 MR. ZELDIN: When was I 2 wi the last time you had communicated th that person? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Well J , I should actualty clari fy. So 6 me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And she emailed me again and said, you know, who should I be in touch 7 w'i 4 5 8 9 l0 ll t2 t3 t4 l5 l6 l7 l8 she emailed th? try to get you to come in and testify to the House Foreign Affairs Committee? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: It wasn't clear to me whether it was going to be whether this was a discussion with her, whether this was a discussion with other staffers, whether it was a deposi tion. I mean, i t j ust didn't get that far because I transferred that information to the State Department lawyers well , H, actual1y. MR. ZELDIN: To , MR. ZELDIN: And what specifically was she asking you to speak about? MS. YOVANOVITCH: I think I think it was the 2t of my departure, or maybe she just kept it more general and sa'id to catch up, but I understood i t as that. MR. ZELDIN: Do you know if she had reached out to other 22 people about that? l9 20 23 24 25 circumstances I don't know. MR. ZELDIN: And you one more tjme. do af ter you rece'ived the emai 1? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: And what did you 216 MS. YOVANOVITCH: I I alerted the State Department, I'm sti11 an employee and so matters are generally 2 because J handled through the State Department. MR. ZELDiN: Was 4 5 someone else? 6 MS 7 8 the . Legi that person responded to by you or YOVAN0VITCH: I bel j eve, yes , in bY slative Affai rs office. MR. ZELDIN: Did you receive any subsequent requests to l3 testify to the House Foreign Affairs Committee or to come in to speak to someone at the House Foreign Affairs Comm'ittee followi ng that i ni ti a1 emai 1? Was there any fo11ow-up? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: We11, as I said, there was the second email where she sajd, oh, okay, you know, who should I be t4 talki ng to? 9 l0 1l t2 l5 l6 t7 l8 to that emai1, because I had already transferred everything to the State Department and I figured they would be in touch, and they were. I didn't MR. respond ZELDIN: Shifting gears, a question. Do you know l9 who a member 20 Derkach? of the Ukraine parliament js 2t MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. 22 MR. ZELDIN: And what can you named Andrei tel1 us about Andrei 23 Derkach? D1d you have any personal interaction with this 24 person? 25 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I don't think so. I don't think so. 217 1 He was 2 as you J the son of a former intel chief and was a Rada deputy, just pointed out. MR. ZELDIN: Was this 4 the Ukraine, not respected? 5 character was Andrei Derkach respected in Do you know anything about his 8 or reputation? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: I think he was generally believed to be kind of part of the old system, shall we say, and so not terribly respected by those who were trying to reform 9 Ukra'ine. 6 7 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware I just don't know him and know him that we11, and I can't reca1l at this time. MS. Y0VANOVITCH: MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Ambassador. You strike me loves her enterpri . MR. PERRY: 23 24 25 as a person who loves her country and se. YOVAN0VITCH: Thank you. t9 22 Scott Perry from Pennsylvania. l'4S 2t Derkach ever lying about anything stated publicly? l8 20 of Andrei I appreciate your indulgence and patience today. MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Thank you. I want to go back to your opening statement, page 7 for me here. I don't know where it is for you. But the line in quotes, "since he was going to be impeached." And I'm just wondering, you said the allegation is MR. PERRY: 218 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 false, but would there be anything that you could think of where one of your team members or somebody close to you would you might imply something that you said would imply or that they would infer a negative connotation regarding the administration, administration policy, the President particularly, other than that exact verbiage? Like, instead of saying "sjnce he was going to be impeached," you might say, "We1l, he's not going to be around very long, " anything l3 like that at all? MS . YOVAN0VITCH: No. MR. PERRY: Nothing at all that you would think that would be negative that you they could imply or infer? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Not not what not what you're t4 talki ng about, no. 9 l0 ll t2 l5 MR. PERRY: Okay , ma' 16 Movi ng on. am. Ukra'ini an ol i garch Vi ctor Pi nchuk, I t9 I'm hoping you're aware, so I'm going to ask you a couple questions. I think he's a donor to the Cfinton Foundation and the Atlantic Council. Also Mr. Pinchuk and 20 Buri sma helped f und the t7 l8 think Atlant'ic Counci 1. 23 Atlantic Council, I don't know whether you're aware, but I'm asking to ask you if you are, released a report regardi ng thei r assert'ion of Shoki n's corrupti on. Are 24 you aware of that? 2t 22 25 And the MS. YOVANOVITCH: No, but i t' s 'in 1i ne wi th the ki nd of 219 I 2 work that they do. MR. PERRY: 0kay. J and Burisma both helped 4 maybe even some 5 the Atlanti c 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 t6 And that, like I said, Victor to fund the Atlantic Council Pinchuk and of the Burisma members are on the board of Counci 1. that report, shortly thereafter, Shokin got fired, and then very shortly thereafter Burisma went to the new prosecutor general and asked for a reset. Does that and I know that earlier you kind of impfied that you didn't want to get involved or didn't see jt as your pos'ition to get involved in the politics, the elections, et cetera, of kind of either country in some way, the United States of America or Ukraine, but because of some of the relationsh'ips there, are you do you know who Victor Pinchuk is? Do you have a relat'ionship w'ith h'im? 0nce they released MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. 20 is your relationship? MS. YOVANOVITCH: He's one of the wealth'iest men in Ukrai ne. He's the son- i n-1aw of former Presi dent Kuchma. And so he is wealthy and obviously very involved in his 2l busi nesses. t7 l8 l9 MR. PERRY: What 24 is interested'in politics, I think funds, you know, various political actors. At one time, he had h'is own political party. At one time, he was a Rada deputy 25 himself. 22 23 But he also 220 I 2 J 4 5 And he also has th'is YES Foundati on, the Yalta Economi c in Crimea, now is held in Kyiv every year, and he inv'ites all sorts of luminaries f rom all over the world to come to that. Summit, which previously was held And then throughout the year he does various events l3 te somebody, 1 i ke Mayor Gi u1 i ani , for example, and then they'11 have events, and one of the events is a dinner. 5o they do all sorts of things with MR. PERRY: But it didn't strike you at all concern'ing I mean, wi th corruption bei ng a ki nd of a -one of the hallmarks, unfortunately, of the country of Ukraine, 'it didn't strike you we11, you didn't know l4 anything about the Atlantic Council's report? 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 where he'11 i nvi MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Wel1, it of events 14R. PERRY: Chain of events, correct. MS. YOVAN0VITCH: that that would that the release of that article or report woutd have been well before I arrived in Ukra'ine. descri bi ng the timelj ne PERRY: 0kay. 2t 1"1R. 22 MS. YOVANOVITCH: And as 23 24 25 sounds from the way you're I said before, I wasn't aware of that parti cular report f rom the Atlant'ic Counc'i1 MR. PERRY: Fai r enough, then. But then movi ng on, regarding the 2016 elections, and you arrived in August . 221 6 of 2015, did you have any concerns regarding corruption about Ukra'ine's involvement in the Manafort investigation, Burisma Holdings, et cetera, and the fact that in December of'18, so that's about 2 years -- a little over 2 years after you arrived, there were two convictions in Ukra'ine regarding election interference of the Un'ited States? 5o did that 7 concern you? I 2 J 4 5 And 8 just as a curiosity for me, and maybe everybody ll role in that, especi a1ly wi th the coltaborative agreement that the Uni ted States has with Ukraine with thjs alleged or actual t2 corruption and the convictions? 9 l0 e1se, what do you see the ambassador's MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Wel1, my understanding l3 t4 lower court are you talking about Mr. MR. PERRY: There were two convi cti l5 16 the 'individuals' t7 them. MS. YOVANOVITCH: l8 l9 names what I WelI, there was 2l MS. YOVANOVITCH: There was 24 25 ons. I don' t have so I'11 tell you know. MR. PERRY: Sure. 23 Leshchenko? at this time. But I'm sure we can get 20 22 is that the a court case, and you're correct that in the lower courts, they were found guilty. And I'm not exactly sure what the charge was, but it was overturned 'in the upper courts. MR. PERRY: But jt wasn't overturned until recently? 222 . s cor rect. MR. PERRY: So at that time, you're the I MS 2 YOVANOVITCH: That' ambassador at 7 that time, and, of course, you see everything that's going on in the United States regarding the charge of Russian collusion and Russian interference into the election, and even though I think you said at some point that the Ukrainian involvement was debunked, apparently it wasn't debunked in 8 2018 when these two J 4 5 6 individuals were convicted. ll if any, or what did you see your role as i n regardi ng our collateral relat'ionshi p i n the f orm of a treaty regarding corruption between the United States t2 and Ukrajne, you as the ambassador? Did you have any 13 interest? Did you do anything? l4 anyth i ng? l5 18 I -- so you put a 1ot of things on the tab1e, and so if I could just separate them out. MR. PERRY: Yes , ma' am. MS. YOVANOViTCH: So the issue of Burisma, I think, has t9 been addressed. 20 questi ons? 9 l0 l6 t7 What was your ro1e, Should you have done MS. YOVANOVITCH: 0r do you have other, it seems to part of the conversation, whether in the past t"lR. PERRY: Wel1, 2t 22 be an ongoing 23 wi more specific I mean, i t was part of 24 th Pi nchuk duri ng the i nvesti gation heretofore, because you knew it was out there, it had been started, it was, what was 25 the word you calIed? 223 I MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Dormant. J but it was hanging out there maybe as leverage. And now, of course, it's come to tight 4 again and has been in some 5 So, again, to me corruption's a b'ig issue. We've got 2 MR. PERRY: It was dormant, 1ight. a t2 just won a 70 percent election on corrupti on i tse1f. There's all thi s corrupti on conversati on goi ng around, but qui te honestly, no di srespect i ntended, I don't know what the ambassador's involvement is in dealing wi th that , so that' s why I 'm aski ng. What is it? What should it be? What do you view your role to be? What was the expectat'ion f rom the State l3 Depa r tmen t? t4 l9 I think I mean, my role was to set djrection, to support various offjces. We had the FBI there, we had the narcotics law enforcement office, the State Department has a big presence there. We have a number of different offices, USAID, et cetera, et cetera, alI of whom have, you know, some portion of some of the issues that 20 you ' ve ra'i sed 2t to set d'i recti on, provi de support, and, you know, kind of be the public persona. I don't get i nvolved i n everyth'i ng. PeopIe rai se i ssues as they thi nk it's appropriate or I need to get involved. 5o I don't know if that gives you a sense 6 7 8 9 l0 u l5 t6 t7 l8 22 23 24 25 new Presjdent who MS. YOVANOVITCH: . And so my j ob i s 224 \,lR. PERRY: I 2 J 4 5 Did you have any conversations with the of State, your bosses, George Kent or otherwise, regarding Burisma, regarding the fact that 'it was involved in Department the investigation, and that t'lr. Biden, Vice President Biden's son was a board member, or any or with the Department of 7 Justice? Did you have any conversations at all regarding those proceedi ngs and those occurrences over that course of 8 time? 6 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: So Mr. Kent was the deputy in the until last summer, so we worked obviously very closely together at that t'ime. We, to my knowledge, we never discussed Hunter Biden and his board role and all of that, or to my recollection, I should saY. embassy MR. PERRY: Okay. l6 did share with me his understanding of what happened, what occurred with regard to the British t7 court case against Zlochevsky, the head of Burjsma. That, 18 you know, again, happened before my arrival. That was, you l9 know, l5 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: He 23 it. MR. PERRY: So it was Leshchenko who was one of the two persons convicted in 2018. Both were convicted of attempting to influence the 2015 U.S. election. I'm sure you must have had a keen awareness of it and the conviction. Just, do you 24 have any 25 at the time? 20 2l 22 pretty much further thoughts on that and what you were thinking 225 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yeah. I mean, honestly, I didn't 2 believe the charges. I thought that they were politically 3 motivated aga'inst Leshchenko. 4 things are judgment ca11s, but 5 6 7 8 9 We I guess all of these MR. PERRY: 0kay. I did not feel MR. MEADOWS: So let me make sure. I want the spelling of thi s. Is thi s L-e-s-h-c-h-e-n-k-o? Is that Leshchenko? M5. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. Yeah. I mean MS. Y0VANOVITCH: l0 MR. MEAD0WS: Go ahead. ll M5. YOVANOVITCH: it, but that's there's many different ways you can t2 spe11 l3 for th'is North Carolina guy, that's as close as f'm going to get. A11 right. Go ahead. I di dn't mean to i nterrupt. I 'm sorry. MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 5o I felt it was kind of a politically motjvated charge against Mr. Leshchenko, and I -- again, you know, it felt too political to me. There were no instructions from the State Department or DOJ or', you know, Washington to, you know, go in and do X, Y, or Z, and so I really felt that we wanted to stay away from t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l one. MR. MEADOWS: We11, 22 MR. PERRY: Okay. 23 MS. YOVANOVITCH: what seemed 24 25 to be internal fi ghts ki nd of usi ng us. MR. PERRY: It didn't concern you as the ambassador, Ukrai ni an pof i ti ca1 226 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 th everythi ng that we were embroi 1ed here 'in the Un j ted States, that you didn't hear anybody, anything from higher up in the State Department or in the Department of Justice regarding the conviction, regardless of what your view of it was? Does that seem because it was affect'ing the United States electjon. And I don't have to probably remind you of what's been going on for the last 2-L/2,3 years here. So it didn't strike you that you didn't get a phone ca11, an emai 1, or anythi ng, you know, sayi ng what's happening here? Is this legitimate? Shoutd we be concerned? Is this something we should pursue? MS. YOVANOVITCH: The court system in Ukraine, and certainly at the time that we're tatking about, was sti11 not reformed, and so the court system didn't have a great deal, and sti1l does not enjoy, a great deal of credibility. wi t6 MR. PERRY: 0kay. t7 MS. YOVANOVITCH: 5o l8 t9 20 2t I think people, you know, just didn't find it to be credible. I"lR. MEAD0WS: So, Ambassador - - excuse me, Scott, i f I in, because I want to follow up, I guess, on a couple of questions that have come up earlier. can jump 22 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Uh-huh. 23 MR. MEADOWS: Because you've said that you have not 24 gotten involved rea11y in the polit'ica1 sense, and yet here 25 we have 227 I try very I MS. Y0VANOVITCH: 2 MR. t''IEAD0WS: Here we have J meddling, and you just viewed hard. a convict'ion of U.5. that as not being sign'ificant l0 just dismissed it? I just find that you know, everything else you've been saying today, you know, that just is hard to believe that, based on the backdrop of what we have, that you just di smi ssed that and suggested that i t j ust wasn't credi ble. MS. YOVANOVITCH: Wel1, that was our view, that it wasn't credi ble. The court process was conti nui ng. And i n ll the end, they were acquitted. 4 5 6 7 8 9 and you tet t2 I"lR. MEADOWS: So l3 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Okay. t4 MR. MEADOWS: So you' l5 l6 t7 me re l9 MR. MEAD0WS: 5o ry, I j umped on the earfier you were asked about people was asking you . Mr. Sytnyk. MR. MEADOWS: And so I've got MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 23 25 sor that you might have mentioned, when Mr. Zeldin quest'ions, and you could only reca11 22 24 ng of your statement. The court process was continuing and they've been i t's been overturned by a hi gher court now. Is that what you were going to say? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. 2t sayi little bit further. end l8 20 go a some names that I just to kind of lay out for you to maybe would refresh year memory. And one the of those names, actually the reason why want 228 J I spelled it out, was this very individual that Mr. Perry is bringing up, that according to some of our sources would jndicate that the State Department and your group may have 4 menti oned I 2 5 that you wanted certai n guardrai 1s around Mr. Leshchenko. Is that correct? . Y0VANOVITCH: No. 6 MS 7 MR. MEADOWS: So 8 9 l0 at the State Department regarding Mr. Leshchenko in terms of saying, wel1, we need to make sure that he's off anybody limits? ll 'l5. t2 MEAD0WS: No l3 MS t4 l5 l6 . YOVANOVITCH: No. special treatment for YOVANOVITCH: No. right. Wel1, you mentioned, was it Nayem? Is that correct? Have you mentioned that before? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Have I mentioned what? MR. MEADOWS: So who was the one individual you said that you wei ghed i n on? l9 Mr. CAST0R: Sytnyk. 20 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Sytnyk. 2t MR. MEAD0WS: A11 right. 22 name ri ng a bell to Sytnyk. How about MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. 24 MR. MEADOWS: So have you we'ighed regards AntAC? Does that you? 23 25 him? MR. MEADOWS: A11 t7 l8 you've never had a conversation with in verbally with to any special treatment for AntAC? 229 J No. But here' s the thi ng. What I have consistently done is said that any prosecutions need to be done accord'ing to the law and not be pol i ti cally 4 mot'ivated. I 2 a MS . Y0VANOVITCH: 6 that's consistent with your earlier testimony. However, earlier, when Mr. Zeldjn was asking you 7 about indiv'idual cases that you might have brought up and he 8 was saying case numbers, there seemed to be a 5 MR. MEAD0WS: And l0 1itt1e bit of confusion. I guess is thjs one of the cases that you might have brought up with other individuals at the State ll Depa r tmen t? 9 t2 l3 M5. YOVAN0VITCH: There was at the State Department? We probably 0r t4 MR. MEADOWS: l5 M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: anywhere etse. Yeah. So there was one of the 2t of AntAC was there were demonstrations, I think, in the I can't remember whether it was the fal1 or the spring of 2015, and one of the individuals that Ieads AntAC was there was, 1ike, some hooliganism charge or something ljke that where he had there was some charge like that. Again, I'm sorry, it was a long time ago. I don't reca11 the 22 detai 1s. t6 l7 l8 t9 20 23 24 25 leaders n, not an anti corruptj on case. But, agai n, cases should be deal t wi th 'in a consi stent manner, and, again, not politically motjvated, and according to the 5o thi s i s, agai 230 I rule of 1aw. 4 I think, you know, in that hooliganism case, I think members of the embassy probably did raise the issue that he seemed to be scapegoating and be'ing held to a different 5 standard than others who were maybe more atigned with the 6 administration. 2 J And I'lR. MEADOWS: So you di d wei gh i n on 7 8 that one i n terms of t2 It was not an anticorruption issue. MR. MEAD0WS: 0kay. So 1et me give you another name, then. Is it Shabunin, S-h-a-b-u-n-i-n? MS. YOVANOVITCH: That's actually the name of the l3 'individual. 9 10 ll t4 l5 1'4S. YOVAN0VITCH: MR. MEADOWS: A11 right. So that's the individual with An tAC? l6 MS. YOVANOVITCH: That was up on hooliganism charges. t7 MR. I'IEAD0WS: A11 l8 N-a-y-e-m? Does that ring a right. And how about Nayem, be11? 19 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Mustafa (ph) Nayem? 20 MR. MEAD0WS: 2t 22 23 24 25 I'm sorry. I'm not Ukrainian. So you Yeah. I don ' t recal I MS . YOVANOVITCH: Nei ther am I . him actually MR. MEADOWS: So you don' t recal1 wei ghi ng i n wi th to that individual in anY MS. YOVANOVITCH: I don't think regards he was ever arrested or 231 I 2 3 charged wi th anythi ng. t say that. I sai d di d you wei gh in in terms of putting guardrails in terms of MR. MEAD0WS: I di dn' 4 H5. YOVANOVITCH: 5 MR. MEAD0WS: 6 7 indjviduat with No. -- the treatment of that particular anyone from the embassy? MS. YOVANOVITCH: And can I -- and I would also say, we l0 don't put guardrails on individuals. l4R. MEAD0WS: 0kay . Wel l , let ' s change the words because those are my words. 5o obvi ously you' re say'ing we' re ll looki ng at t2 to the one individual, you did say you felt tike they were getting a bum deal. Is that correct? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yeah. I think what we try to do is to talk about the principles that should govern the way, you know, whether jt's law enforcement or other things are conducted, but we don't say yea or nay. MR. MEAD0WS: Yeah. And so I want to make sure I'm you know, I 'm sayi ng wei ghi ng 'in. It was actually wei ghi ng 'i n wi th the prosecutor, i s what I ' m tal ki ng about. So when you've weighed in with the prosecutor on any of these four people, or the four names that I've given you, have you wei ghed 'in w j th the prosecutor f rom the embassy to the prosecutor i n Ukra'ine at all? 8 9 l3 t4 l5 l6 l7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 , 'i t a t'i ttle di f f erently. And obvi ously wi th regards MS. YOVANOVITCH: I'm not sure that conversation took 232 1 place with the prosecutor. MR. MEADOWS: Wel1, 2 3 4 5 i think you know where I'm going with this, but if need to spel1 it out, I'm willing to do that. 7 MR. MEADOWS: 10 I just want to I want to make sure you clarify the record, because you've seemed like you're trying to get the testimony right, and that's why I'm giving you these ll t2 with the And MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 5o 9 anyone associated prosecutor? 6 8 with names. MS . Y0VANOVITCH: Uh- huh . So you ' re say i ng that I wei ghed i n. t7 actually happening is that on this particular case w'ith Mr. Shabunin, the Pres'idential administration was weighing in with me and wjth us at the embassy, because they felt that we had influence with Mr. Shabunin and to see whether he could, you know, curtai I hi s cri ti cj sm, sha1l we 18 say, of l3 l4 l5 l6 What was . Poroshenko and events 'in Ukrai ne. And they when there was this incident, which I don't l9 Mr 24 that and said, you know, you see clearly he's a bad apple my words now, not theirs' And, you know, again, I said, we11, you know, I mean, obviously you have processes, but they need to be according to the principles that we've been talking about for all this 25 time. 20 2t 22 23 reca11 very we11, they raised I 233 MR. MEADOWS: So I 2 because 1et me switch gears real quickly, I don't know that we've got much tjme 1eft. time do we have 1eft. ) How much 4 Mr. CASTOR: The tjme expires at 5:27, so we've got 5 about 7 minutes. MR. MEADOWS: A11 6 right. So 1et me switch gears and ollow up on someth'ing that Mr. Jordan had asked about. 7 f 8 was 9 Mr. Kent. He talking about the conversation you had in August with l0 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. ll MR. MEADOWS: And Mr. Kent shared, I guess, the details t4 or his percept'ion of a classified phone conversation between two leaders with you. Is that THE CHAIRMAN: If I could just interject. No one has l5 sai t2 l3 t6 d it fi ed except MR. MEADOWS: Well, I mean, was classi t7 unclassified for us to see it. l8 "unclass'if ied" on the top. l9 THE CHAIRMAN: We11, to I mean, jt we had have it says you're posi ting, though, that the tness has sai d that thi s i s a class'if i ed calt or that 20 wi 2t that's an establ i shed fact. MR. MEADOWS: Well, tet her answer that. Did he indicate that it was a classified calt? MS . Y0VANOVITCH: No. MR. MEADOWS: Did you have any jdea that it perhaps 22 23 24 25 234 I could be a classified . between two foreign leaders? Y0VANOVITCH: INonverbal response. 2 MS J MR. MEADOWS: 4 call ] You're a career dipfomat. I can't imagine that 8 Yeah. I d'idn' t thi nk that the particular thing, the particular part that he shared with actually was classified. MR. MEADOWS: What particular part did he share with 9 you 5 6 7 MS . YOVANOVITCH: ? l0 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: ll I"lR. MEADOWS: t2 in that WeIl, as I said -- Did he talk about a whistleblower at all conversation? l3 MS. YOVANOVITCH: No, no. t4 MR. MEADOWS: So why l5 l6 me did he reach out to you? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I'm not sure he reached out to me. MR. MEADOWS: Well, you said he called you, ri ght? 20 dn't. I mean, I thi nk I thi nk you were agai n, I can't recall whether i t was 'in asking me whether it was in August or September. But we, you know, at a meeting or something, we spoke about this. It 2t wasn't over a t7 l8 t9 22 MS. YOVANOVITCH: No, I di phone. MR. MEADOWS: So at a meet'ing at Georgetown? Where was 23 the meeti ng? I mean, because you weren't i n your off i ci aI 24 capaci 25 ty. I'm j ust trYi ng to t'4S . YOVANOVITCH: YCAh . 235 MR. MEADOWS: I -- get a sense of why alt of a sudden the 2 two of you would be talking about something that we didn't J find out about until MS. YOVANOVITCH: 4 5 later. Right. I'm sorry. I can't remember the circumstances of the conversation. MR. MEADOWS: Do you remember where 6 7 weeks the conversat'ion took place? r0 I do not. I do not. so it may MR. MEADOWS: So you just know that jt took have been in a meeting olit may have been in a phone call, ll but you don't 8 9 t"'ls. YOVAN0VITCH: reca11? pretty sure 'it wasn't a calt, because I'm pretty sure it wasn't a phone M5. Y0VANOVITCH: Well , I 'm t2 l3 phone t4 caIl. But I -- you know, as to l5 that I so you're asking why? I still interested, sti11 16 think t7 i l8 20 -- he knew you were interested in a phone call that took place that you didn't know had !lS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Interested in the bilateral 2l relati t9 because he knew was nterested i n Ukrai ne. MR. I" EADOWS: So he was onshi p. I beg your pardon? 22 MR. MEADOWS: 23 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Interested 24 25 in the bilateral p, and, you know, hopi ng MR. MEADOWS: So did he say anything negative about the relati onshi 236 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 of the United States in that conversation with you? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: No, I wouldn't say that. MR. MEADOWS: So it was a -- he sa'id 'it 'in a positive bring me jnto the room, into manner about -- I mean, help Presjdent the conversation. How did he characterize the President's actions, in a positive or negative manner? I think it was just a factual that this occurred and this was Zelensky's response. MS. YOVANOVITCH: manner, 237 I 2 3 [5:25 p.m.] MR. MEADOWS: And so Zelensky didn't see it as a big deal is what he said? 7 that President Zelensky, that he noted that, you know, some of the things that President Trump was talking about happened, you know, under the previous administration, and that he would have his own 8 person, you know, as prosecutor general. 4 5 6 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: He sa'id ll I don't think that Mr. Kent was on the call either, and so maybe he didn't have f u11 inf ormat'ion, but he took that to mean that President Zelensky had not t2 accepted the proposal. l3 MR. MEADOWS: Do 9 l0 And, you know, you recall how he shared with you how t7 call since he wasn't on it? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: No, I don't know. MR. MEADOWS: So he just said it's water cooler talk? I mean, how would George Kent how would Mr. Kent, Ambassador l8 Kent know about that? l9 I don't know. MR. MEAD0WS: Okay. And then finally, I guess, 'is, once the characterization he made of the call when you read the transcript for yourself, was that consistent with the way that he characterized it? wel1, I th'ink MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: It didn't seem to you that the ca11, the summary of the call is a Iittle bit l4 l5 l6 20 2t 22 23 24 25 he found out about the MS. Y0VANOVITCH: 238 it in d'ifferent ways. And so it seemed that was more open to the various proposals than I I can interpret 2 Mr. Zelensky J had understood. 7 did he call you to talk about the corruption element of the phone call, or did he call to tetl you that you were mentioned in the phone call? MS. YOVANOVITCH: As I said, I am pretty sure it was not 8 a phone cal1, 4 5 6 MR. J0RDAN: Ambassador, number one. t4 0kay. But the conversation, what was it about, both of those 'issues or because I'm not exactly sure what he commun'icated to you other than that there was this call between President Trump and President ZeIensky, and then he characterized elements of, you know, what took place on that phone call in a meeting with you. What did he teIl l5 you 9 l0 l1 t2 l3 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MR. JORDAN: ? MS. YOVANOVITCH: We11, he told me what I just relayed to your colleague. He did not say, however, anything about me. I had no idea that I featured in this conversation. MR. J0RDAN: So he didn't te11 you that you were mentioned in the phone call between President Zelensky I,IS . YOVANOViTCH: NO. MR. J0RDAN: Interesting, okay. Thank you. \4R. MEADOWS: And since we're out of time, I just want to know one thing. Ambassador Votker said awful nice things about you , and he sa'id that you' re called Masha. 239 1 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. 2 MR. MEADOWS: Where a MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Welt J 4 5 d'id you get that , despi te name from? my posti ng to Ukrai ne, I'm actually half Russian, and it's a Russian nickname. MR. MEAD0WS: I yield back. you 1jke to take a fittle 6 THE CHAIRNAN: Would 7 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: How much longer? 8 l'lR. ROBBINS: How close are we to bei ng done i s the key 9 break? question? l0 THE CHAIRMAN: I I would hope although I can't 13 that maybe a 45-minute round, a 45-minute round, we should be close to done, but I don't want to promise, depending on but we're going to do our very t4 best. ll t2 guarantee, would hope Do you want to just keep motoring through? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Wel1, why l5 don't we keep motoring l6 through, but if it's another 45 minutes after that, I t7 going to have to take a break. l8 THE CHAIRMAN: l9 I just 20 to 2t long? my 0kay, that sounds colleagues. You were Ambassador MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Almost 3 years. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: 25 good. I yielded to Ukraine for how had a quick fol1ow-up question before 22 24 am Almost 3 years. And did you develop in 'its f uture? also just say that these 3 years a deep i nterest i n Ukrai ne and MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: I did. And I would 240 I 2 this was my second tour in Ukraine, so yes. THE CHAIRNAN: And when J a country, does that 4 interest in that 5 mean you stop being an Ambassador to that you no longer have any country? MS. YOVANOVITCH: No. 7 in the Diplomatic Corps would know you were sti1l interested in the happenings in that 8 country, would they not? 9 MR. R0BBINS: That 6 l0 ll t2 THE CHAIRMAN: And people is correct. left prior posts in Armenia and elsewhere, people would continue to keep you informed on how Armenia was doing, I imagine. THE CHAIRMAN: And, indeed, when you l3 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Sti11 do. l4 THE CHAIRMAN: Sti11 do. So not unusual at a1t once you l6 for colleagues to continue sharing with you informat'ion about how that country is doing and how relations t7 are between the U.S. and that country? l5 leave a post That 'is correct. l8 t"lS. YOVAN0VITCH: t9 THE CHAIRI4AN: 20 MR. I{AL0NEY: Thank 2l Ambassador Yovanovitch, my name 22 23 24 25 Mr. Maloney. you, Mr. Cha'irman. is Sean Maloney. I district in New York. We've been here for more than 7 hours so, first of all, thank you very much for your pati ence wi th us. And I think it's useful sometimes at that point in the represent a 241 just to summarize, and so I day 2 questions and J 4 5 I just want to I just make have a few summary sure I understand your f you thi nk I 'm misstating anything, but you spent more than 30 years in the Forei gn Servi ce. Is that correct? testi mony. And so please di sagree wi th me 'i 8 rty-three years. MR. MAL0NEY: And you were the Un'ited States Ambassador to Ukraine; and having spent hours listening to you, it sure 9 seems 6 7 l0 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Thj like you were committed to that job. Is that fair say? ll MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes, very much so. t2 MR. MAL0NEY: And you were good l3 to at it, weren't you, ma ' am? I think so. t4 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: l5 MR. MAL0NEY: And you had the approval of your bosses at l6 the State Department. In fact, they wanted to extend your t7 tour. Is that fair to say? l8 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. l9 MR. MALONEY: And then along came Rudy Gjuliani, and of American bus'inessmen, now indicted, 20 represented a group 2t who believed 22 that you were somehow in their way. Is that fair to say, that you were in the way of their business 23 i nterests i n Ukrai ne? 24 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: That appears 25 t4R. t'IAL0NEY: We're to be the case. talking about Mr. Parnas and he 242 I 2 Mr. Fruman? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. t4 of course, advancing Presi dent Trump' s desi re and 'i nterests , whi ch the Presi dent has adm'itted i n gett'ing an i nvesti gati on of the Bi dens goi ng i n Ukrai ne. That' s true as well , i sn' t i t? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: It appears to be the case. MR. MALONEY: But, again, you were in the way, at least in the minds of Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump and Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman. You were an obstacle, it seems, to President Trump's politica1 interests and the financia1 jnterests of Mr. Giuliani's now-indicted associates. Is that the sum and substance of your testimony today? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Wel1, that appears to be how events l5 have unfolded. J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 l6 l7 l8 l9 t'1R. I4AL0NEY: And he was a1so, so, they partnered I believe that they partnered with Mr. Lutsenko to get you MR. MALONEY: And word fired. Isn't that right? was your MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. 22 got a story in The Hill newspaper about you. They fired up Sean Hannity. They got a Republican Congressman, Pete Sessions, to write a letter 23 cri ti ci zi ng you. They made a bunch of i l1egat - - apparently 24 i11ega1 campaign contributions we now know 25 tried to 20 2l MR. MAL0NEY: They dump about. They even a bunch of dirt on you, as I understand, 243 J IG. Is that all correct? want me to leave off the last one? MR. ROBBINS: Wel1, she's not a lawyer. She can't 4 comment on whether these 5 not. I 2 through the State Department You are campaign finance v'iolations or t2 I appreciate that, 14r. Robbins. There was a story in The Hj11 newspaper. Sean Hannity got involved, Pete Sessions wrote a letter, and there are apparently illegaI campaign contributions, all related to yor..r, isn't that right, and the desire to get you fired? l'4S. Y0VANOVITCH: That appears to be the case. MR. ['1AL0NEY: Wel1, and it worked, didn't it, l3 Ambassador? 6 7 8 9 l0 1l MR. MAL0NEY: t4 M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. l5 MR. MAL0NEY: They l6 l7 me got you out of the way. It seems to they threw you to the wolves. Is that what happened? MS. YOVANOVITCH: We11, clearly, they didn't want me'in l8 Ukrai ne anymore. l9 so, if you were going to sum up why you were such a problem for the political interests of the President in trying to get this investigation started of the Bi dens and the fi nanci aI i nterests of Mr. Gi ul i ani 's now-indicted associates, why were you such a thorn in their side that you had to be fired? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Honestly, it's a mystery to me; but 20 2l 22 23 24 25 MR. MALONEY: And 244 I 2 J all I can conclude from everything that I've seen over the last 5 or 6 months is that they felt that our policy to try to make Ukraine stronger and more resilient, through the 5 anticorruption policies as well as through, you know, the other assistance that we've talked about today, and that our 6 policies 7 leader of the U.S. embassy, 8 them. I don't 9 our policy. 4 l0 1l t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 actions, as the were, you know, problematic for and our actions, and know why specifically my that would be, though, because it is I want to tel1 you that I've spent years working at the White House in State government, years now in the Congress. I've spent a 1ot of time around a lot of senior government officials, a 1ot of members of the Foreign Service. I attended the Georgetown School of Foreign Service. I want to let you know that I don't reca1l ever seeing someone treated as poorly as you've been treated, and I think you're owed an apology by your government. And I thjnk you've served the country well and honorably for a long, long time, and you didn't deserve this. And I appreciate your appearance today, and I just want to let you know that some of us feet very badly about what's happened to you. MR. MAL0NEY: Wel1, l4adam Ambassador, Z) MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: 25 Representative Heck. I'd just like to say amen to that. 245 1 z a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 MR. HECK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. is Denny Heck. I have the privilege to represent the 10th District of Washington State. My questioning will be brief, beginning with: 0nce you reach ambassadorial ranking at the State Department, does the Department have any systematic feedback or performance for ambassadors, however formal or informal? M5. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. We have an evaluation process every year that js written, and then there are counseling sessi ons, you know, three or four duri ng the year. But there's a written document of how you have done that year. Madam Ambassador, my name MR. HECK: Did you have that evaluation performed while you were 'in Ukraine? t4 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. 15 MR. HECK: 0nce or twice or three times? l8 Actually, I'm not even sure, because there was it was at teast four times, maybe even more, because there was a change of administration. So the direct l9 supervisor, the Assistant Secretary changed, et cetera, et 20 cetera. l6 t7 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: So a number of evaluations. 2t MR. HECK: Were any 22 MS 23 MR. HECK: Did any 24 25 aspect . of those evaluations negative? YOVAN0VITCH: No. of of your performance? MS. YOVANOVITCH: No. them cite serious concerns for any 246 1 2 J 4 5 6 MR. HECK: the State Is that also true of your entire Department? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Pretty much. Is it fair or accurate to say that during your 33 years at the State Department, more or 1ess, you had a steady progression of responsibilities given to you? MR. HECK: 7 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes. 8 MR 9 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Thank you. . HECK: Thank you fo r you l0 THE CHAIRMAN: MAIiNOWSKi. ll I'lR. MALIN0WSKI: Thank you. t2 Ambassador, l3 t4 33 years at r se rv i ce , ma ' am . I first want to echo Representative Maloney's comments. M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Thank you. 20 in the same institution on two separate occasions. I served at the NSC. What you're describing is completely alien to me, I guess with the caveat that I have seen it in other countries, but not in the United States of America, and shocked and dismayed js very diplomatic language that you used for what you 2l descri bed ensued. l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 22 23 24 25 1'4R. MALINOWSKi: As you know, we served I want to spend a 1itt1e bit of time running through with you some of the things you said about our anticorruption policies. I want to have I want to make sure that everyone has a better understanding of what we as a country, 247 J actually about. That there was a comprehensive anticorruption policy being pursued by the administration through you, through the 4 embassy and I 2 we as a government are 5 other agenc'ies. That would have involved provi di ng fi nancj aI support, grants through USAID to 6 anticorruption organizat'ions operating in Ukraine. Is that 7 cor rect? . Y0VANOVITCH: 8 MS 9 MR. MALIN0WSKI: l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 That i s cor rect. It would have involved a at strengthening the various anticorruption 'inst'ituti ons i n the country. You menti oned the Nati onal Anti corrupti on Bureau of Ukrai ne, NABU, for example, whi ch was, would you agree, good in concept but needed improvement in terms of how it was operating? \,lS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes, that i s correct. MR. I'IALIN0WSKI: More t7 My understanding l9 of advocacy aimed l6 18 lot support, more resources. -- there's also an ant'icorruption court, which was an important reform, but also would you say something that needed significant improvement? 22 it's only just been stood up. It just started working in September of thjs year. ' MR. MALINOWSKI: Understood. My understanding js that 23 over 100 cases, specific cases, have been referred from 20 2t 24 25 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Wel1, and to the anticorruption court that Does that sound right to you? have not yet NABU been acted on. 248 I 2 J right as of about the time that I 1eft, but I don't know what the status is now. MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: That sounds MR. MALIN0WSKI: Understood. So we would have been 6 institutions to accelerate, intensify that to show better results. Is that correct? That' s what the Ukrai n i an MS . Y0VANOVITCH: Yeah . 7 people want. 4 5 8 pushing these MR. MALINOWSKI: There was of public officials a law on illicit work enrichment l5 courts, and then we were advocating that'it be reintroduced by the new admi ni stration. Is that correct? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes, and it was specifically one of the issues that I mentioned in that March 5th speech. MR. t4ALINOWSKI: And i think you also mentioned in that speech the need to fight corruption in the defense sector. l6 You mentioned Ukroboronprom, the ma'in defense company. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 wh'ich was struck down by the t7 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Uh-huh. l8 MR. MALINOWSKI: And there have been a lot of, you know, jllicit 20 contracts, people profiting on the side from arms acquisitions, and you were very concerned about that. You 2t asked t9 22 23 24 25 for an audjt of that company. Is that correct? l'4S. YOVANOVITCH: That 'is correct, because this was all taking place at a time when Ukraine was actually in a shooti ng war wi th Russi a. t'lR. MALIN0WSKI: And then we have di scussed the 249 I all-important office of the special anticorruption 2 prosecutor, J MS 4 MR. MALIN0WSKI: 5 6 . Mr . Kholodni tsky. YOVAN0VITCH: Kholodni tsky. Kholodnitsky. And in that speech, to the coaching of suspects in anticorruption cases, and you pointed out that nobody could serve effectively in po'inted ll that capacity who was caught doing such things. The day after actually you gave that speech, Under Secretary Hale visited Ukraine. Is that MS. YOVANOVITCH: He arrived that night. 14R. MALINOWSKI: And so, those issues might -- were t2 those issues raised by Under Secretary 7 8 9 l0 l3 Hale? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes, they were raised in bilaterat t4 meetings. And I obviously told him about the speech and l5 him a copy and so forth. l6 t7 you MR. MALINOWSKI: And was that speech cleared in gave the Depa r tmen t? l8 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: No. t9 MR. MALIN0WSKI: But you did discuss it, as you folks back home? 20 mentioned before, with 2t 22 t a surpri se to anybody. I can't remember whether I had the conversation or somebody Z3 else did. 24 25 MS . YOVANOVITCH: I t wasn' MR. MALINOWSKI: And nobody of it? objected to the thrust 250 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: I 2 No. We were quite concerned about the rollback of these reforms. 10 this was a comprehensive anticorruption strategy with a lot of asks, probably many that I didn't mention and don't know about. So my next question is, to your knowledge, did Mayor Giuliani, in any of his meetings with Ukra'inian officials, in any of his public statements or interviews, did he press the Ukrai ni ans to pursue those ref orms to th'is system of corruption, these specific things that the U.S. Government, ll under the Trump admjnjstration, waS asking the Ukrainians to t2 do? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. MALiN0WSKI: So l5 I'm not sure, but I did notice that the one of the papers that you prov1ded, whi ch was Mr. G'iuli ani 's speech at the YES Conf erence, he talked about l6 the importance of fighting corruption and so forth. But I'm t7 not sure l3 14 MS. Y0VANOViTCH: t9 In general terms, but d'id he MS. YOVANOVITCH: In general terms. 20 MR. t"'IALIN0WSKI: 2t Did he raise the need l8 22 23 MR. MALINOWSKI: Did he raise the anticorruption court? to strength NABU and to MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Not that I'm aware of. MR. MALIN0WSKI : Di d Ambassador SondIand, i n hi s with the Ukrainian authorities, press on these 24 engagements 25 specific, not anticorruption jn general, but press on these 251 I 2 J 4 5 6 that we were seeking? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I don't think so. Recalling that, you know, his sort of interest in Ukraine or engagement with Ukraine started sort of at the end of February, and I was gone by April 20th or May 20th. MR. MALINOWSKI: To your knowledge, did the President or specific reforms and changes t6 to speak for the President press the Ukrai ni ans on these speci fi c reforms? MS. YOVANOVITCH: We11, of course I''lR. MALINOWSKI: I mean you, of course. MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: we. We represent the President. MR. MALIN0WSKI: But, I mean, these emissaries, these sort of more informal folks who were coming in who were not you the ambassador or the State Department, were they pressi ng on thi s speci fi c reform agenda? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: I do feel that Ambassador Sondland, as t7 a businessman himself, understood that corruption was taking l8 a heavy tol1 on Ukraine, and so he did the top note. t9 Right. But as far as specifics MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I don't reca1l the specifics, yeah. MR. MALINOWSKI: But as far as specifics, did these individuals raise any specific cases or issues other than Burisma and th'is theory about what may have happened in 2015, to your knowledge? MS. YOVANOVITCH: Not to my knowtedge. 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 20 2t 22 23 24 25 anyone purporting MR. MALINOWSKI: 252 MR. t'lALIN0WSKI: So I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 this it's been argued, you know, since has become a major public issue, that perhaps the that were made to hold up the provision of the J avel i ns, mi 1 i tary ai d, to hold a potenti a1 Presidential meeting with President Zelensky, that they were linked to broader concerns about corruption in Ukraine. Is there any evidence that the folks who were communicating those decisions were, again, raising any specific concerns with regard to corruption, policy subsequent decisions l0 corruption reforms in Ukraine, other than Burisma and what ll they think happened in MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Not t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 20L6? to my knowledge. I mean, that's i nteresti ng, don't you think, that with all this rhetoric about corruption, and we MR. MALINOWSKI: highly specific policies pursued by the Trump administration through the State Department, through offic'ial channels, and yet, with military assistance at stake, none of those issues get discussed. Do you find that odd? have 20 Yeah. I mean, there are a lot of important bilateral issues that need to be d'iscussed at the 2t hi t9 l'4S. YOVANOVITCH: ghest 1eve1s. 24 of the subsequent decisions and I know you were not there for the ultimate discussions about the aid being suspended, but I did want to 25 ask you how you believe the Ukrainians would have perceived 22 23 MR. MALINOWSKI: So, speaking 253 I those deci si ons 'in thi s context. 4 at the time that you were there, signs that there is perhaps a paralleI policy. You've said that the official adm'inistration policy, as represented by the State 5 Department, was very pos'itive towards Ukraine. You strongly 6 supported 7 0bama admi ni 2 J You have, jt, that it was, in one respect, better than the strati on' s po1 i cy. But did it begin to seem as if there was, perhaps, 8 a 23 parallel policy, represented by Mr. Giuliani and those around him, that had a dj fferent set of priori ties? l'lS . Y0VAN0VITCH: Wel l , i n ret rospect, you know, that characterization seems to be correct. But at the time, you know, we weren't seeing, you know, al1 of the pieces. I mean, we could feel that there was stuff out there, but we hadn't put i t all together. And so, you know, I mean, I was telling everybody, you know, keep on charging forward. This is our poticy. This is agreed policy that Republicans, Democrats have all approved. NR. MALIN0WSKI: And before the aid was suspended, it would have been fair, perhaps, for the Ukrainian Government to share your view that the offic'ia1 policy was as you were representing it. Is that fair to say? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Except I think that there were other 24 emi 25 focusing on other things that would have maybe confused 9 l0 l1 t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 ssari es, you know, perhaps shari ng other thj ngs or 254 I 2 peopl e . MR. MALINOWSKI: But would the knowledge on the part of 4 the Ukrainians that there were now consequences, aid was suspended, a meeting was being held up, would that not have 5 rai sed the leve1 J of alarm? ll Yes. Yes, absolutely. MR. MALIN0WSKI: And so in a sense the paralle1 poficy, no pun jntended, started to trump the offjcjal policy at that point, in retrospect, based on what you know? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: In retrospect, yes. MR. MALINOWSKI: And if you're a foreign government, and t2 you're receiving a l3 emissaries 6 7 8 9 l0 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: message from people who you betieve are t4 of the President, would you believe that 'if it's coming from the Presjdent, then that's what you listen to l5 above what you may be hearing from l6 other agencies that, again, no pun intended, the President t7 trumps all the State Department or others? l8 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. 19 MR 20 THE CHAIRMAN: 2l MS. NORTON: l4adam Ambassador, 22 23 24 25 . PIAL I NOWSKI : Thank you . Eleanor Holmes Norton. I want to commend you on the way you've handled yourself here today and as Ambassador. I'd really like you my questjon real1y goes to your role as ambassador during such change in leadership jn Ukra'ine, whether you f e1t your role was changi ng at all 255 I during that kind of upheaval in the country itself and, if 2 so, how? M5. YOVAN0VITCH: You mean a J 4 with regard to elections, aI elections? MS. N0RTON: No, with regard to the Presidenti 5 you are the 6 ambassador. These changes are occurri ng duri ng your tenure. 7 You have l0 to relate to not only these changes, but to changes 'in personnet. I'm tryi ng to f i nd out how you related to changes in personnel during your time as Ambassador. M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: Yes, during with the new Zelensky ll team? 8 9 t2 MS. NORTON: Excuse l3 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: With t4 MS. NORTON: Yes. l5 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: So l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 me? the new Presidential team? that didn't ful1y occur untj 1 actually the day I left, because the day I left permanently, May 20th, was the day of President Zelensky's inauguration. But, again, we could see it coming, and so you want to make is, you know, some kind of a game plan, at least, for how we're going to be sure the relationships are so1id, that there with the new team and so forth. And so, you know, after that first meeting that I had w'ith President Zelensky i n September where I sti 11 didn't befieve that Poroshenko wouldn't be the you know, reelected, but we started, you know, having meetings with engaging 256 in I him. 2 U.5. VIPs, as appropri ate. a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 And November, we started introducing him to visiting when we've mentioned the David Hale vis'it. When David Hale was in town in March, we made sure that he had some t'ime wi th Zelensky, because we wanted to, f i rst of all, socialize Washington to the fact that there might be a pretty significant changei but secondly, you know, let Zelensky know that we you know, our foreign our leaders, we want our leaders to be abte to meet with you, engage with you, and start that process. So And, you know, we had a whole team that was covering, l3 obviously, the elections. And as Zelensky's team members became evident, people in the political section were reaching t4 out to you know, 20 to their appropriate contacts and so f orth, because t,,,e want to make Sure we have a very strong despite everything we've discussed today, we have a very strong bilateral relat'ionship with Ukraine. And we want to make sure that that continues, because we have huge equities in that country, you know, starting with the fact that we don't want Russia to win that war. And so, 2l we wanted to 22 sti11 be open to 23 know, became accfimated t2 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 make sure that from day one, the doors would US, as the new Zelensky government, you to its new ro1e. 24 Did that answer the question? 25 vlS. NORTON: Yes. But were there discussions, specific 257 of military aid from the United States to Ukraine before you left, and during those changes within I discussions 2 during 3 the country, and were there differences or was that 4 consistent with respect to how that military a'id was viewed? 6 Right. So yes, there are constant djscuss'ions of military assistance to Ukraine, both on the 7 American s'ide, on the Ukrainian 5 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 8 side, and, you know, with other international partners that also are prov'iding security 9 and l0 ll t2 l3 t4 military assistance. there's a whole process that obviously is led by DOD of consultations on these issues. Where do the Ukrainians think they need help, which one of the foreign partners could best help Ukraine with that part'icular request, and so forth. So that goes on pretty much all year. So l6 of course, there is the budget process that the Congress is in charge of, and there are, you know, t7 multiple discussions, as you probably know better than I, l8 about, you know, what is most appropriate, what can we do? t9 And, you know, Members have strong views and, obviously, 20 those views are incorporated as wel1. 2l MS. N0RTON: F'ina11y, were 22 Washington during these changes l5 And then, there any instructjons from 23 that you were experiencing, or were you essentialty left to decide for yourself how to 24 operate as 25 ambassador? MS. YOVANOVITCH: You know, that's a rea1ly good 258 J you know,'i t's kjnd of an iterative quest'ion. So it's process, that we're always in touch with each other. 5o you know, w j th modern commun'icati on, whether i t ' s we' re 4 emai1, whether I 2 by 5 it's by phone, whether it's, you know, a formal cable back to the Department, whether it's, you know, 6 vi si 7 what we're thinking, what our advice 8 challenges might be, how Washington can formulate the best 9 policy to 10 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 tors comi ng, but meet we' re always shari ng what we' re seei ng, that challenge. And but, you know, I don't get to answer, you know, the specific question. It's very rare for an ambassador to get, you know, kind of a fu11 instruct'ion on Monday of the you know, that week. I mean, things you need to do that we might get an instruction to go in on a particular issue that we feel strongly about with regard to arms control or Iran or something, but usuatly, it's a very iterative process when it comes to bilateral affairs. So we MS. NORTON: We11, thank you, Madam Ambassador, service in a very tough situation. MS. YOVANOViTCH: Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. t"li tche11. BY f'IR. MITCHELL: 23 25 it's kind of an iterative process. 2l 24 is, what the possible a Madam Ambassador, are you familiar with i ndjvidual named Dmytry Fi rtash? an for your 259 A a A I 2 I know who he i s. What do you know about him? 5 is living in Vienna now and is fight'ing extradition to the U.S. by the FBI. a And do you know what he's been charged with in 6 Uni J 4 8 9 the ted States? A a 7 He I thi nk j t's Do you know money launderi ng charges. if he has any sort of Mr. Firtash sort of relati onshi p w'ith 14r. Parnas? A I'm not sure. a What about with Mr. Fruman? has any l0 ll 21 A I 'm not I 'm not su re. a Mr. Shoki n? A Yes. a What's their relationship? A I don't know what the relationship is, but I saw, I think, it was last week that he testified in some court process in Vienna. a " He" bei ng Mr . Shoki n? A Yes. a And do you know who represents Mr. Firtash in the 22 Uni t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 23 24 25 ted States? A a I'm not sufficiently confident to say. Do you know whether Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova represent Mr. Firtash? 260 I A 2 a J I've read that in the press. But you have nothing -- no other knowledge other than what you've read 'in the press about 4 A No. 5 a Okay. 6 i n And you i ndi cated A Yes. 8 a And are you aware l0 11 t2 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 l8 t9 that Mr. Fi rtash resi des Vi enna? 7 9 them? were arrested a couple of that days Mr ago . Parnas and Mr. Fruman at Dulles Ai rport wi th tickets to Vienna? A I read that i n the news. a And are you aware that Mr. Giuliani has also said that he had tickets to Vi enna? A I wasn't aware of that. O Are you aware of any Congressmen traveling to Vienna this year? A I'm sure lots of Congressmen travel to Vienna. a A a To meet with Mr. Firtash? That I'm not aware of. 22 testified earlier that you had a conversat'ion with Mr. Avakov in about February of 2019, I bel i eve, whi ch you d'i scussed wi th Mr. Avakov Mr . Gi uI i ani ' s 23 acti vi ti es i n Ukra'ine. You learned about what Mr. Avakov 24 believed Mr. Giuliani was up 20 2t 25 A Now, you to. Is that correct? Yeah, although, you know, he focused more on 261 Mr. Lutsenko and 14r. Fruman and Mr. a 2 3 conversati A a 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 23 24 25 Gi uIi ani was also di scussed duri ng that on? Yes. And you also ind'icated that you had at least one I believe a deputy of Mr. Lutsenko about the f act that Mr. G'iu1i ani had met wi th Mr . Lutsenko sometime in the middle of 2018. Is that correct? A I didn't have that conversation. The Charge at the time in Ukraine had that conversation. a And who was that? A J oseph Penn i ngton a About what time period did you have that conversati on wi th Mr. Penni ngton? A It would have been it was the week the week that I left. So the end of April. a Did you have more than one conversatjon with Mr. Penni ngton or j ust that one about thi s top'ic? A I think on, you know, what Yenin told him, Mr. Yenin told him, just the one. conversation with . a 2t 22 But Mr. Parnas. But what about generally on the topic of s acti vi ti es i n Ukrai ne, di d you have more than one conversat'ion wi th l'4r. Penni ngton about that? A I mean, the short answer is probabty. I don't recall any particular conversation that stands out. Aga'in, I Mr. Gi ul i ani ' 262 4 at the embassy, because there was a Presi denti al electi on. We were coveri ng i t. We were trying to figure out how to move our policies forward in a time of change. And all of this I thought, I hoped was a 5 d'istraction. I 2 J tried to we were super busy 7 I tried to, you know, look at the media and not dwell on it too much. And my instructions to the team were 8 fu11 speed ahead. 6 And so We have not been instructed by Washington 10 our policy or activities in any way, and we need to be out there and demonstrating that we are sti1l at work. We ll are stil1 representing the American people. 9 to change t2 a t3 Volker about t4 A Do you reca11 having any conversations Gi u1i No. ani with Kurt 's acti vi ti es 'in Ukrai ne? About maybe a week, a week and a half after l5 The Hi 11 art'ic1e, we had a conversati on, but about the t6 Donbass. And he started the conversation by saying, t7 know, You l8 over. I it's unpleasant now. But that was the extent of the 19 conversation. 20 O 2l it's going to be okay. It wilI all And when you blow know say, "it wi11 all blow over," he was referring to the article in The Hill? 24 the you know, the tweets, the social media, the interviews, et cetera. a And what about conversations with George Kent about 25 Gi 22 23 A Yeah, the art'ic1e, uf i ani ' s acti v'i ti es i n Ukrai ne, di d you have more than one 263 I conversation with Mr. Kent about that topic? A a 2 3 Yes. Do you recall roughly when the first time would 4 have been when you had conversat'ions with Mr. Kent about 5 Gi ul i ani ' t7 in the November-December 2018 time period, because that's when Avakov, M'ini ster Avakov, not to me, but to embassy people, or an embassy person, said, you know, that there's something out there, she needs to be she, ffi€, needs to be careful. And so, you know, the next phone conversation I mean, I didn't have anything specific to report except for what I just told you now. a And it sounds like you had more than one conversat'ion with Mr. Kent about this topic? A Yes. a So the first one would have been late 2018. When was the next time that you had an occasion to talk to l8 Mr. Kent about th'is? l9 the next time was probably when I was here i n Washi ngton f or the Chi ef of Mi ssi on Conf erence 'in early 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 13 t4 l5 l6 20 A s act'ivi ti es i n Ukrai ne? A Probably We11, so 22 January. And I saw, you know, George. So we d'iscussed these issues. But, you know, there wasn't anything really there at 23 that 2r time 24 a That you were aware of? 25 A Yes, exactly. I mean, I didn't know at that time 264 I 2 that with 5 6 7 actually in the U.S. in January to meet 14r. Giuliani. a J 4 14r. Lutsenko was So when you had thi s conversation wi th l'lr. Kent 'in of 2019, you knew, generally, of Mr. Giuliani's activities, but you knew a 1ot less then than you know now? A Yeah. a Can you describe the nature of that conversation January l0 that you had with Mr. Kent? A Yeah. 5o there was, you know, as reported, that these contacts between Giuliani and there was this ll Lutsenko. That was very nebulous and I didn't have much to t2 go on, but there was also another issue that dealt with l3 Mr. 8 9 l8 , where the embassy had rece'ived so, j ust backing up to explain it. The embassy had received a visa application for a tourist visa from Mr. Shokin, the previous prosecutor general. And he said that he was coming to visit his children, who live in the United States. And so, the t9 consular fo1ks, you know, got the appfication, recognized the t4 l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Gi uf iani that he was inetigible for a visa, based on hi s , you know, known corrupt acti vi ti es. And they alerted me to this. And I said, Wel1, what would you do if he wasn't 1f it wasn't l4r. Shokin, if it was some other businessman that we didn't recognize the name? And they said, We would refuse the visa. And 50, my name, and believed 265 l3 that that 'is what happened, either a formal hard refusal, or what we call a 22LG, which js an admin'istrative refusal, asking for more information. The next thing we knew so I alerted Washington to this, that this had happened. And the next thing we knew, Mayor Giuljani was calljng the White House as well as the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, saying that I was btocki ng the vi sa f or Mr. Shoki n, and that Mr. Shok'in was coming to meet h'im and provide informat'ion about corruption at the embassy, including my corruption. a Did you know the purported purpose of l\4r. Shokin's travel to the United States at the time when you had this discussion with the consular folks about foltowing normal t4 p I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 15 16 understanding is that that's rotocol A a A No. and not making any exceptions for Mr. Shokin? 22 told I mean, we can only go by what a visa applicant tel1s us. What he told us was that he was going to I don't know if it's child or children, but a chi1d, at 1east, in the United States, and so, we assumed that that was the truth. a And you indicated that you notif ied, or you alerted 23 Washington. What do you t7 l8 l9 20 2t 24 25 No. What he mean by that? I called, again, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, George Kent, to 1et you know, since A We1l, you know, 266 I 2 he's the person who is responsible day-to-day for Ukraine policy, I think I called h'im to 1et him know that this was 5 out there. I wasn't sure whether there would be I mean, what I was imagining is that maybe President Poroshenko, since they have a close relationship, might complain, or that 6 maybe J 4 the Ambassador here might complain. 13 I thought that since he was a man who prev'iously held a high position and continues to know those individuals that there might be complaints, and you never want to bfindside Washington. So we let them know. And, agai n, I know that l'lr. Kent talked to Assi stant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell. And Wess -- Mr. Mitchell was completely supportive, that this had been the right l4 decision. l5 22 when you know, of course, when the ca1ls came from Mr. Giuliani to the White House and to the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, they got in touch with the European Bureau, and Mr. Mitchell, you know, held firm. I mean, it was a consular decision. The consular folks felt that they had made the right decision. And, you know, there was the added issue that, you know, basically the notorious reputation of Mr. Shokin. And, frankly, at the end of the 23 day, he 1 i ed on hi s vi sa appl i cati 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 24 25 I mean, because And a A on. did he lie? He told us that he was going to visit a chjld How or 267 I children, but then the next thing that we know is he was 2 real J 4 . . 5 6 7 ly goi ng to see Mayor G'i uI i ani a And you tearned that? A From Mayor Gi ut i ani a Hr. Gi uIi an'i stated such? A Yeah. I mean, I djdn't hear that obvi ously, but a 8 di rectly, Did you have any conversations with Ambassador 2t Giuliani's activities in Ukra'ine? A The only activity I had was I'm sorry, the only conversation I had was after The Hill article, after the weekend of, you know, all the attacks and Hannity and everything else and the tweet from Donald Trump Jr., I called Mr. Sondland to ask h'im his advice of you know, when this appeared to be a Ukraine story, when it was Lutsenko's interview, the State Department was supportjve. There was actually a vi si ti ng delegat'ion of Congressional l'lembers. They were very supportive and raised this in alf issues, that this is not the way to treat our ambassador. I really appreciated that. But then when the story seemed to shift to the Uni ted States, then obv'iously i t became much more 22 de1 i 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 20 23 Sondland about cate. a And what 24 him about thi 25 A He did Mr. Sondland say when you talked to s topi c? hadn't been aware of it, that the story had 268 I shifted, and he said, yoLl know, you need to go big or go 6 to, you know, tweet out there that you support the President, and that all these are lies and everything else. And, you know, so, you know, I mean, obviously, that was advice. It was advice that I did not see how I could implement in my role as an Ambassador, and as a 7 Forei gn Servi ce 2 J 4 5 home. You need offi cer. l3 a Why not? A Wel1, for one thing, the State Department was silent. i just didn't see that there would be any advantage to publicly taking on a fight with those who were criticizing me in the United States. a Was that your only conversation with Mr. Sondland t4 about thi 8 9 l0 ll t2 s? 'it 23 story, I had talked to him about it, and he was quite heIpful. But, you know, when it shifted 1ocus, then that was the only one. a You testified earlier that Mr. Brechbuhl, I think you said, was runni ng poi nt on duri ng the time period that you were recalled. Is that correct? A Yes. a Did you have any conversations with Counsel Brechbuhl at any t'ime about t{r. Giuliani's activities in 24 Ukrai ne? l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 25 A A Yes. I No, mean, when was a Ukrai ne I've never met him. 269 I MR. MITCHELL: Chajrman, do you have any? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: J MR. ST0SZ: Four 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Four mi nutes. i do. mi How much time do we have left? nutes. 7 of whether V'ictori a Toensi ng or Joseph diGenova played any role in assisting Mr. Giuliani with getting Ukraine to conduct these two political 8 'investi gati ons? 5 6 Were you aware 9 MS . Y0VANOVITCH: No. THE CHAIRMAN: You mentioned l0 that there was a rumor that t2 joined, by phone, a meeting between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Lutsenko. What was the time of that l3 meet i ng? ll the President may have t4 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: That was l5 THE CHAIRMAN: And where l6 the January 2018 meeting. did you hear this particular rumor from? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: From Mr. Yeni t7 n. And I di dn't hear i t l9 directly. I heard it through Joseph Pennington, the Charge at the time. The I'm sorry, could you repeat the 20 questi l8 THE CHAIRMAN: You were 21 22 on? that telling me where you had heard rumor from. 24 l'lr. Yenin, the deputy welt, was one of the deputy prosecutors to Mr. Lutsenko and he 25 handled i nternati onal affai rs. 23 M5. Y0VANOVITCH: 0h, he 270 2 this came from the Ukrainians, this information or rumor that the President may have joined this J meeting by phone? I THE CHAIRMAN: So 4 \/lS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: 6 MS. YOVANOVITCH: NO, 7 THE CHAIRMAN: 8 Did you hear that from anyone else? I dON,t thi NK SO. Did he tell you where he had heard that f rom? I didn't have the conversation, was he was either -- that he had MS. YOVANOVITCH: Again, 9 l0 but i -- 1l heard t2 l3 you're saying was that Mr. Lutsenko had told him that the President had phoned into their t4 meet i ng? my understanding it from Mr. Lutsenko. THE CHAIRMAN: So l5 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Uh-huh. l6 THE CHAIRMAN: t7 MS. YOVANOVITCH: l8 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a yes? That's a yes. While you were Ambassador to Ukraine, did l9 you ever raise any concerns with the State Department about 20 Gi ul i ani 's acti vi ti es i n Ukrai ne? 2l MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Wet1, you know, there was 22 conversations, as we learned more and more. And 23 24 25 a series of I don't know if that constitutes rajsing concerns. I would say it does consti tute rai si ng concerns, but 'it's not f ike I sent i n a formal cable outlining everything. It felt very very 271 I sensi and very poli tica1. THE CHAIRMAN: And who 2 J tive did you express those wi th? 4 M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: The European Bureau. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: And who in particular? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: George Kent; Phil Reeker, 6 7 on boa rd l0 their response raised the concerns that Giuliani that may when he came . THE CHAIRMAN: And what was 8 9 concerns be was i when you nvolved i n acti vi ti es at odds w1 th U. S. pol i cy? il M5. YOVAN0VITCH: t2 THE WeIt, they were concerned too. CHAIRMAN: And how did they express their concerns l3 to t4 l9 I don't really know how to it was kind of a mean, it was answer that question. what are you hearing, what do you think is happening? You know, 'i t was that ki nd of a conversation THE CHAIRMAN: And one last question before I yield to the minority. Did anyone at the State Department try to stop 20 those efforts? l5 t6 t7 l8 2t 22 you? MS. YOVANOVITCH: I I MS. YOVANOVITCH: I mean, don't thi nk so. I don't thj nk they felt they could. 23 THE CHAIRT'IAN: Do you 24 MR. ROBBINS: 25 longer we' re Yes. I goi ng toni ght? want to take wonder if I a can break before inquire we how much 272 I THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask the minority, do you expect 2 you'11 use the entire 45 minutes? Okay. J questions 4 break? 5 I think on our side. MR. R0BBINS: Well 6 a trip back to 7 ton i gh t? 8 9 , THE CHAIRI"IAN: Yeah. let's take a L0-minute So are we have a few more like to take a thi ngs, I 've got goi ng past 7 to plan o'c1ock I thi nk we are, yeah. A11 ri ght, break. l0 lRecess. l ll THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, t2 the time is with the mjnority. l3 So would you among other New York. We 1et's go back on the record, and MR. CASTOR: Thank you. BY NR. l4 CASTOR: t7 to you know, restate our appreciat'ion for your participation here today aS well as your 30-plus year career. We value your service and l8 we thank you l5 t6 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a Ambassador, once aga'in, we want for it. The fact that we're asking questions here today and some of the questions, you know, may or may not be the questions you'd like to be talkjng about here today, we're doing our best to try to find the facts, but thank you again for your service, and we have the utmost respect for your career and just wanted to officialty say that to you. A Thank you. 273 ) In your February meeting with Minister Avakov, what specific issues did he say Mr. Giuliani was trying to raise J w'ith I a A a A a 4 5 6 7 8 him? He said that Mr. Giuliani wanted to meet him. And Avakov was trying to avoid that meeting? Yes. And did he ever come to learn what Giuliani was tryi ng to impart to him at that meet'ing? t2 I don't believe he did. I think he assumed it had it was related to Mr. Lutsenko's work with Mr. Giuliani, because it was Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Fruman and Parnas who were trying to persuade Mr. Avakov to meet with l3 Mr. Giuliani. l4 a l5 anti -Trump? l6 A a 9 l0 ll A t7 To your knowledge, was Mr. Avakov, was he I think he was pro-Avakov. Okay. He had some he had some negative l8 statements'in the media about the President. Are you l9 of that? 22 A hasn' t a 23 person? 20 2t 24 25 aware A a No. I mean, maybe I was at the time, but it i t d'idn' t regi ster wi th me. You didn't especialty identify him as an anti-Trump I think he is a very pragmatic man. He asserted on Twitter the President was diagnosed 274 I as a dangerous A 2 No. misfjt. Did you have any awareness of When did he do that? t No. 5 was marked for identi fication. 3 I 4 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 Exhi bi l BY MR. CASTOR: 5 6 that? O This 'is jn a Facebook post. I have a Politico article here. Maybe it's just helpful if I pass it around. I'11 mark 'it as exh'ibit 5. I got copies. This is a Pot jtico article from January 201,7, so this is the beginning of your term. Have you ever seen this article before? A I don't know. I mean, I can't read through it, and I'm not sure I would remember from early 20L7. it goes through various efforts a 0kay. It just of Ukrainians that were just trying to sabotage Trump, and Avakov i s quoted on page L4: Ukrai ni an's Mi ni ster of Internal Affai rs, Arsen Avakov, pi led on, trashi ng Trump on Twitter in July ?s, quote, "a clown and asserting that Trump is, quote, an even bigger danger to the U.S. than terrorism." 23 talks about the Facebook post, but does this refresh any of your recollection? Did you realize that he was as hotly anti-Trump as these comments? A As I said, I mean, this obviously was before I arrived in Ukraine, and so, I might have seen it at the time. 24 But 25 very pragmatj c man. l9 20 2t 22 The subsequent paragraph during during my time in Ukraine, I mean, Avakov is He' s looki ng for partnershi ps. I f the a 275 J of the United States is DonaId Trump, he's going to work with Donald Trump. If it is you, he's going to work with you, and he's going to find partnerships and ways to 4 make I 2 President that work. l8 a This Politico report talks about somebody by the name of Alexandra Chalupa, if I'm pronouncing that name correctly. Did you ever hear of her before? A Yeah. a What do you know about her? A On1y what is in the press. a Have you ever met her? A No, or at least to the best of my knowledge, I haven't met her, because, I mean, press also reported that she worked at the Ukra'ini an Embassy. So I 've been obvi ously to the Ukrainian Embassy here, and I may have met her at an event or something. a Do you know about any efforts that she undertook to work with the Ukrainian Embassy to further negative l9 information about the now-President 5 6 7 8 9 l0 lt t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 A a All I Trump? is what I've read in the media. Has Chatupa ever come up at the embassy in your di scussions at post? A No, I don't thi nk so. a 0n page 13 of thi s report, 'it talks about the Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S., Cha1y, publishing an op-ed know 276 I 2 J 4 5 6 President. Does that ri ng any be11s? have any fami 1 i ari ty wi th that? chasti si ng the A a A a Do you t say that? lt's on page L3 of 18. Where does i Uh-huh. The bottom paragraph: The Ambassador Chaly penned l0 Hill in which he chastised Trump for a confusing series of statements? A Yeah, I do remember the op-ed. a 0kay. What do you know about Ambassador Chaly's ll perspective on President t2 recollection of the op-ed was that he was concerned about some statements that candidate Trump at the time had made with regard to, you know, whether Crimea was Russian or Ukrainian. And so, I think that was the 7 8 9 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 an op-ed A for The WeIl, I think Trump? my for the op-ed. I mean, obviously, this is a very sensi ti ve i ssue for the Ukrai ni ans. a The story goes on to just tatk about how the Ukra'inian officials were, in fact, supporting Hillary Clinton, not President Trump. Is that a fair assessment of Ukrai ni an offi ci als at the time, duri ng the 2016 peri od leading up to the election? A I mean, when you say supporti ng Hi l1ary Cl i nton, I mean, I've read these articles, but, you know, I'm not sure that I mean, I can't judge the validity of what was reason 277 I 2 a J 4 happening here a about the A a in the United States. Fair enough. communi We spoke a couple djfferent times cati on you had wlth George Kent. Uh-huh. 7 I thought it might be helpful to just go through the whole episode again from beginning to end, where you could just teI1 us exactly what happened, where it 8 happened, anything you remember about 5 6 9 A And I don't think I that have anything to communication? add to what I've 22 told you previously. a So I guess we' re aski ng you to j ust recount i t again, because it came up during the questioning of a couple different Members and at a couple different times, and we're just trying to get a fu11 accounting of it, if we may. THE CHAIRMAN: Can I j ust suggest, because j t's getti ng 1ate, that she has tatked about th'is quite a 1ot. If you have a specific question, I think, rather than having her repeat everythi ng she' s a1 ready sai d. MR. I"IEAD0WS: 14r. Chairman, with all due respect, we don't tell you how to ask questions and we haven't all day. And I don't think when it's the minority's time, it'is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to instruct us on how to ask 23 questions. l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 24 25 I'm making a recommendation to my colleague. He can follow it or not follow it. And the THE CHAIRMAN: 278 4 if she wishes or she can go through it all over again, but in the interest of time it's been a long day for the Ambassador -- I'm recommending that we not simply retread 5 ground we've al ready covered. I 2 J 6 witness can say she's already answered the question MR. JORDAN: Ambassador, what 7 tel1 you about the phone call 8 President specifically did Mr. Kent between President Zelensky and Trump? t7 I think we've covered this and I'11 instruct the witness not to answer it yet another time. MR. MEADOWS: Your objectjon, Counselor, is based on what? I mean, I'm j ust tel1i ng you, based on the transcri pts that we have to date, it js unclear exactly what the full scope of her testimony is. And so, I would suggest that there's been a 1ot of redundant questions here by the majority, and if you will just allow us to clarify, we want to make sure that we don't l8 have the ambassador's words tangled up with our t9 understandi ng. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 l4R. ROBBINS: 22 Yeah. I don't accept the premise that I 'm sorry, I wasn't qui te fi ni shed. I don't accept the premise that the witness needs to clarify anything. I don't 23 accept the premise 24 questi ons. 20 2l 25 MR. R0BBINS: that there And the predicate have been lots of redundant of the question that was pending is, I 279 7 this several times, but just so I can hear it one more time. That sounds like a question that lawyers I 'm not done. call MR. MEAD0WS: Wel1, I'm not done ei ther. We can ask 'it jn a different way, Counselor, if that's what we need to do. MR. R0BBINS: Alt right. WeI1, I've stated my objection and the objection is pending, and I'lI 1et the chairman rule 8 as he wi shes. I 2 a J 4 5 6 know you've said l3 I asked you the question earlier, you said he did not talk to you about the fact that you were mentioned in the call. So we know that wasn't what we know that wasn't happened. And aI1 we're asking is di scussed. So at1 we' re aski ng i s, what was speci fi cally t4 di scussed? 9 l0 ll t2 MR. J0RDAN: Ambassador, when If it wasn't l5 rst thi ng he would I think many people would think the tel1 you 'is, Hey, there was a call l6 fi t7 between President Trump and Presjdent Zelensky, and you were l8 2t in the call. That would seem to me to be the most obvious thing. But you told me directly a couple hours ago that that was not the case. He did not tell you that you were mentioned in the calt. So all we're asking js, what did 22 he say speci fi ca1ly about the call? l9 20 ment'ioned 23 z4 25 MR. ROBBINS: You can answer it one more time and that's MS. Y0VANOVITCH: The reason I was so emphatic about the it. 280 l6 didn't say that, that I was featured in this phone ca11, is that I would have remembered that. I mean, I can tell you that for sure. 5o l'4R. JORDAN: And i f he knew that, Ambassador, you would have thought Mr. Kent would have probably told you that first thing, right? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I think he would have told me. MR. JORDAN: 0kay. So all we're asking is, he made a point to talk to you about the call, but he didn't tell you the most obvious thing. Maybe he didn't know that, I don't know. So what did he tel1 you? this was a MS. Y0VANOVITCH: So, you know, he relati vely short conversat'ion. He sai d that the two Presidents had spoken. I said, good, because, you know, that's the sort of thing you always want, right, to strengthen a bilateral relationship, that kind of leadership t7 engagement. l8 I reca1l him saying is that Trump had you know, for some President Trump had asked for assistance on the investigations, and that President Zelensky had said that, you know, all of the concerns that President Trump had, that happened, you know, in the previous administration and this was a new team and that he was going to be having his own prosecutor general. That's what I reca11 of the conversation. I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 fact that he And what 281 I MR. JORDAN: 0kay, thank you. 2 MR. CASTOR: l'lr. Perry had some questions. J \4R. PERRY: Thank you. ll I want to talk to you a little bit about soc'ial media activities. During your tenure in Ukraine, did your you talked about this a litt1e bit, but I 'm did your staff moni tor soci a1 medi a accounts unrelated to visa applications? And I know you said you didn't get into the nuts and bolts of it, but she'11 answer the 1'4R. R0BBINS: May I j ust ask question. I just want to understand what the Member means by t2 the word "monitor," because there have been some stories l3 floating 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 Ambassador Yovanovitch, l8 internet suggesting all kinds of surrepti tious moni tori ng, and that word can MR. PERRY: I'm not going to use "surreptjtious." MR. ROBBINS: I understand, but the word connotes a number of different kinds of things, and I just want to be sure that the record i s clear as to what the l'lember means t9 when he uses the word "mon'i tor . " t4 l5 l6 l7 around the I 23 to 1et us know what the scope of thei r moni tori ng was, but to me i t would mean that you check on a regular basis the accounts and the activities of certain individuals that you're interested 24 in. 20 2l 22 25 MR. PERRY: We11, MR. R0BBINS: would ask the ambassador That's fair enough. Please. 282 MS. YOVANOVITCH: I Yeah. I thi nk I mean, that' s what 2 our press section did on issues that were of, you know, 3 i 4 nterest to the Ukrai ne-U. S. relationshi p, to other related i ssues . Obvi ously, when th'i s whole set of i ssues came up , we 5 were also followi ng that. t2 I don't know exactly you know, discuss what the word "monitor" is and so forth. i don't know exactly how they they knew who how the press team did 'i t, but I thi nk they was most active, for example, on issues of, say, NAT0 membership, or IMF 'issues, et cetera, that would have been of interest. And I think over time, these things, you know, who I think that's the word we use might we would follow l3 change over t4 over time for whatever reason. l5 l8 let me ask you this: Who in the press office that would do this following or monitoring should we be interested in talking to, you know, to find out the scope? Is there a person that we can address that to, these l9 questi ons? 6 7 8 9 l0 11 l6 t7 20 2t 22 23 24 25 time, because an issue becomes less interesting MR. PERRY: Okay, M5. YOVAN0VITCH: We11, I guess I would say, you know, the head of the section. don't know the name? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I'm sorry, I'fi getting tj red, but will remember by the end of this. MR. PERRY: You MR. PERRY: Do you know how they selected I the specific 283 7 I think you just said, but I want to clarify based on the subject they might be covering, whether it was is that how they selected the'ind'ividuals? the IMF or MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yeah. So we have you know, the press section is obviously very integrated into the rest of the work of the embassy. So they know what is of interest to Lrs, you know, whether it's somebody in the econ section, the 8 defense attache, somebody e1se. And I 2 J 4 5 6 people and so, they wi11, you t4 that's covering them most? Is jt the you know, aga'in, the New York Times? And so, they wi tl term I know js "follow," but I don't precisely know what that means. They wi 11 follow those accounts, whether i t's Facebook, whether i t' s Twi tter or whatever MR. PERRY: Okay. So would that i nclude followi ng l5 Ameri cans? 9 l0 ll t2 l3 know is it . l6 l7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 FOX News 1"lS New . YOVANOVITCH: Yeah York Times, FOX. . I mean, many of you know, 284 I 16:47 p.m.l 5 me I'm going to give you a list of names, and you can just say yes or rto, if you know. Did your staf f request ass'istance f rom any D.C. bureau to monitor or follow the social media account of Jack 6 Prezobi 2 3 4 l'lR. PERRY: Let ak (ph) ? I don't know. 7 MS. YOVANOVITCH: 8 MR. PERRY: DonaId Trump, Jr.? 9 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: I'm not into that leve1 of detail in l0 terms of ll I'm just going to, if you don't mind, I'lll going to ask you a list of names. You can say, I don't know, no, yes, but I want to go through the list of names. So you sa'id, " I don' t know" to Donald Trump , )r ., r i ght? t2 l3 t4 MR. PERRY: l5 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Uh-huh. 16 MR. PERRY: Laura Ingraham. t7 MS. YOVANOVITCH: l8 MR. PERRY: Sean Hannity. l9 M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: 20 MR. PERRY: Michael McFaul. 2t MS. Y0VANOVITCH: 22 MR. PERRY: Dan Bongino. 23 NS. Y0VAN0ViTCH: 24 MR. PERRY: Ryan Sevettera (ph). 25 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. 285 GiuIiani. I MR. PERRY: Rudy 2 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: Don't know. J MR. PERRY: Sebastian Gorka. 4 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Don't know. 5 MR. PERRY: J ohn Solomon. f 'm gett i ng 6 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: 7 MR. PERRY: Lou Dobbs. 8 MS. YOVANOVITCH: No, 9 MR. PERRY: Pam Gellar. Okay. Don't I don't l0 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Pam GeIlar? 1l MR. PERRY: Pam Gel1ar. t2 MS l3 MR. PERRY: Sara Carter. t4 14S. YOVANOVITCH: l5 MR. PERRY: l6 . No. I . mean, Y0VAN0VITCH: And can MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am. t9 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Can 20 don't 2t you know, 25 know. the use of any following l8 24 know. I don't know. Okay. Do you know if or did you promote l'1S 23 . YOVAN0VITCH: No. t7 22 to the end know I -- excuse me, si r. I just say that just because I doesn't mean that a request wasn't made. There's, lots of people doing thjs I that. We're j ust tryi ng to just trying to establish who knew what at what level and so on and so forth so we have a ful1 view of what was happening and why it was happening. It's not meant to be MR. PERRY: And understand 286 1 2 5 intrusive or invasive or derogatory or anything like that. and fike I said, that's why I asked, too, if We're just not you, who would know this information, because we're going 5 to have to find out. Do you know if you promoted the use of the following 6 search terms intersecting with the above people: 7 Yovanovi 8 Bi den? 4 tch, Ukrai ne ambassador, Ukra'i ne Soros, or Ukrai ne l0 I'm just going to well, I'm going to 1et you answer. Do you know if that was jncluded in the mechanics of ll the search intersection? 9 And t4 I don't know. MR. PERRY: 0kay. Can you just explain how any of this f o11ow'ing or searchi ng would be related to your of f i ci a1 l5 duties as t2 l3 M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: No, MR. R0BBINS: t6 t7 20 2t 24 25 assumes that any of that MR. PERRY: 0kay. Right? So we don't know that and neither does she. She already told you that, right? MR. PERRY: Wel1, she's told me she didn't know. MR. R0BBINS: MR. R0BBINS: 22 23 That, of course, happened. l8 l9 ambassador? know Right. So how is she going to possibly the answer to that question? I'm not going to put any words in her mouth or thoughts i n her mi nd. I 'm j ust aski ng the questi on, si r MR. PERRY: . 287 All ri ght. I 2 Di d you di scuss any of thi s acti vi ty wi th George Kent? 4 I don't know how to answer that quest'ion, because I wasn't 'involved in requesting, you know, 5 these ki nds of J l'4S. Y0VAN0VITCH: MR. PERRY: 6 7 Well, it seems to me if you either weren't involved or it wasn't happening, or if it was t2 didn't know, then there would be no reason for you to discuss it, but so 1'45. YOVAN0VITCH: So let me just go back to your previous conversation, where I did you know, when my staff because you put this in the context of the embassy l3 requesti ng help 8 9 l0 ll happening and you t4 MR. PERRY: R'ight. t5 MS. YOVANOVITCH: from Washington. So when that help l8 I don't know whether this is exactly what they were requesting or whether it was something else or jn add j ti on to, but when they d'idn' t get the support they f e1t t9 they t6 t7 and needed 20 MR. PERRY: The assistance. 2t l'ls. Y0VAN0VITCH: I - - you know, they told me. And 22 so I talked to George about that. But that level of detajl 23 and whether 24 25 that is exactly the same thing, I cannot MR. PERRY: 0kay. Fair enough. But you did ask main State Department resources be made available on a 24/ 7 basis 288 I 2 J for following or monitoring? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I don't reca1l putting it quite like that. The conversations we 4 MR. PERRY: How would you 5 \4S. Y0VAN0VITCH: put it? WeI1, what we were saying is because 6 of the 7-hour time difference, that they could pick up when 7 we went home type thing. I"lR. PERRY: 8 9 l0 me ask you questions that are unrelated to the social monitoring Did you or anyone on your Is that a technical t4 MR. PERRY: Unmask'ing. You're l5 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Sorry. l6 MR. PERRY: t9 MR. PERRY: 23 24 25 not familiar? that? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: What does 22 term? Okay. Is there a better way to describe l8 2l any individuals? MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 20 or staff request unmasking of l3 t7 a couple other following. 1l t2 Okay. Let you can make a -- If someone i and their s it mean? r identi ty i s unknown, and that identity is involved thei in official classified conversations, then there can be a request be made to see who that individual is, because they won't be ljsted by name in the description, it will be listed a different way, and so you can ask. MR. BITAR: I'm sorry. One administrative matter. This 289 J js an unclassified briefing, so I just want to make that c1ear. If your question relates to unmasking of intelligence-related products or reports, that's going to 4 a separate matter that I 2 MR. PERRY: 5 6 be we 0kay. I'm asking about unmasking of any kind, so not necessarily related to MR. MEADOWS: 7 But 'it could i nctude that. It could include that. MR. MEADOWS: And that wouldn' t be classi fi ed. THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think there is such a term of art MR. PERRY: 8 9 l0 il apart from intelligence products, t2 l6 re not aski ng who, Mr. Chairman. We're just asking if the request was made, and so I don't know how that would be classified. It appears that she doesn't know anything about that, but the very fact that she asked is not classified unless we're talk'ing about t7 whom l3 t4 l5 MR. MEAD0Il,,s: Yeah, t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 f ami f we' she asked to have unmasked. THE CHAIRMAN: l8 but so ia r w'i We1t, I think she said she's not even th that term. let her answer. But, I mean THE CHAIRMAN: As long as it doesn't involve anything in the classified realm, you certainly may answer if you know. MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 0kay. So MR. MEAD0WS: You can answer. He's got to run. l'4R. PERRY: I'11 be back. MR. MEAD0WS: We11, 290 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Okay. I J Sorry. Thank you. MR. I'4EADOWS: It's nothing you said. 4 MR. CAST0R: Welcome to 5 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: So I got lost a 1itt1e bit in MR. PERRY: 2 6 Congress. the conversation. Are we talking about -- Let's ask him to repeat it. 7 MR. GOLDMAN: 8 I'4R. MEADOWS: You 9 MS can ask the pecans. YOVANOVITCH: l,nlould you mi nd repeati ng the questi on? t4 can't. Okay. 5o MR. MEAD0WS: So I thjnk the gentleman from Pennsylvania was talking about in general terms as it relates to monitoring, was there any 1et me phrase jt this way. Was there any special request to look at potential l5 conversations that may not be normally monitored through l6 source methods? How about that? l0 ll t2 l3 t7 Or . 0h. we I'4S. YOVAN0ViTCH: So 'i t open sounds - - 2l Is that qualif ied enough? THE CHAIRMAN: If you're just talking about what is the press section following in terms of what newspapers and what columns, whatever, I don't really thi nk that's generally 22 descri bed as moni tori ng, but the wi tness can certai 23 to the best of her ability. l8 l9 20 24 25 1"1R. MEAD0WS: MS. Y0VANOVITCH: So, you know, nly answer the press section just by i ts very name, i t's all unclassi fi ed stuff, ri ght? And 291 6 all the press section did was look at, you know, what does The New York Ti mes publ i sh , The Wal 1 St reet J ou rnal publ i sh about Ukrai ne or U. S. bi lateral relati ons wi th Ukrai ne, that sort of thing. And now with the advent of social media, obviously there are many other kinds of outlets that are reviewed for, you 7 know, what's out there 'in the news, what do we know, what 8 we need I 2 a J 4 5 to take action on, et cetera. MR. MEADOWS: But'in the nonclassified rea1m. Is that 9 l0 do what you' re sayi ll ng? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: It's at1 unclassified. It's press, 23 yes. It's press revi ew. MR. MEAD0WS: Right. So let me follow up, then, on one thi ng. Thi s extraordi nary activi ty that you asked the State Department to do, the 24/7, or however you want to classify it, when did that happen? MR. R0BBINS: Okay. So I want to object to the i nserti on of the word "extraordi nary" as i f i t's somethi ng not routine in some respect. MR. MEAD0WS: We11, the addj tional request -- I'11 rephrase it, counselor the additional request that she made of the State Department to provide additionat resources to monitor social media of certain ind'ividuals, when was that 24 made t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 25 ? MS . YOVAN0VITCH: f 'm not sure. At some 292 5 after the Hill art'icle that MS. YOVANOVITCH: At some point after that, yes. MR. I4EAD0WS: So was it directly related to the negative publicity that you were getting this request? \4S. Y0VANOVITCH: It was related to the news blowing up 6 around us. I 2 J 4 7 8 9 10 'lR. MEAD0WS: Was it made to relate all to the negative stories about you and the request for additjonal resources, is what it appeared. 5o you're saying the timing came after the Hi 11 arti c1e? MR. MEAD0WS: Yeah. It seemed ll MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Uh-huh. t2 MR. MEADOWS: A11 l3 MR. t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 ZELDIN: I Earlier on, answering quest'ions from the majority w'ith regards to the July 25th ca11, you testified that it is your belief that President Trump was referring to Lutsenko. Do you know, in fact, he was referring to Lutsenko and not Shokin on that phone call? MS. YOVANOVITCH: 20 BY t'IR. 22 23 24 25 back. have one qui ck questi on, hopefully. l9 2l right. I'11 yield a NO. CASTOR: Hel1o agai n. 0ur round ends at 7: 11, i n case you're lookjng at the c1ock. Is it fair to say it's been related to us that at all times U.S. officials involved in this matter have acted with the highest degree of personal and professional integrity and 293 I with the best interests of the United States. Is that 2 something you can A O J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 know, the Wh'ich matter? The matter we're here discussing, about call and the subsequent MS. YOVANOVITCH: l6 THE CHAIRNAN: call Yeah. I'm to the ca11. Subsequent to the call? I'm not sure l9 THE CHAIRMAN: 20 what you're asking, and 2t what you' re aski ng, ei ther. 24 25 not was appropriate? MR. CASTOR: Subsequent 23 activities. -- she thinks that what took ptace on the l8 22 you A So the July 25th call? a Uh-huh. AUm a And the relationship with Zelensky and the various, you know, efforts to, you know, bring him in for a White House meeting, some of the back and forth that there has been with the statement that occurred after you left. THE CHAIRMAN: So clarification, counsel. Are you asking the witness if l5 l7 the, I'm not sure the witness MR. CASTOR: You know, Ambassador the di ffj culti es that Rudy understands Volker testified about ani presented, you know, i n U.S.-Ukrainian relations, but he was very clear that at all ti mes, he told us, U. S. offi ci als acted wi th the hi ghest Gi u1 i 294 of personal and professional integrity. Is that something that you would agree with, based on the f acts that you have at your d'isposal? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I would say two things. In my in my dealings with Kurt Volker, and we are dealings with friends as well as colleagues, over the last 30-something years, I have I consider him to be a man of honor and somebody who's a brilliant diplomat. And, you know, I think he is working'in the interests of our country. W1 th regard to the speci f i c questi on that you are you know, I wasn't there. I don't have the asking, I just knowledge to be able to address it properly. MR. CAST0R: But you think the'individuals at the lDi scussion off the record. l degree 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 BY MR. l5 t6 a CASTOR: Ambassador Volker mentioned the fact that to the 18 extent there are corrupt Ukrainians and the United States is advocating for the Ukraine to investigate themselves, that l9 certai n1y would be an appropri ate i ni t'iati ve f or 20 offi ci als to advocate for. Is that ri ght? t7 2t 22 23 24 25 A a A a U. S. If that's what took Place. Have you ever used WhatsAPP? Yes. Is that a texting app? Is that something that's back and forth used by diplomats to communicate with 295 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 across the overseas A a I mean, communi it's cati used by ons? lots of people. Okay. So you don't attach a negative connotation to anybody that uses WhatsApp? A a A No. That's a legitimate app to So do you want use? to be more specific in your ques t i on? a Well , the Federal Records Act - - 'in compl i ance wi th l0 the Federal Records Act, you know, texting over WhatsApp ll presents t2 concerned about some unique issues for those that are, you know, l3 A -- from a Federal Records Act perspective. In terms of retention of documents? t4 a Yes. l5 A Well, l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 told that we needed to and forgive me, you know, I don't know all the technical terms but that we needed to kind of upload our texts to the cloud. And I got a special, I don't know what the right word is, but it was somehow done for me. So, you know, my belief is based on, you know, the conversations when th'is first came out, that we needed to retain our texts, I mean, I think that that was being done for me and my texts are somewhere safe. a So assuming people are keeping their texts, the use of WhatsApp is completely appropriate, as far as you know? we were 296 2 Yeah. That's what the State Department told us. I mean, i f I could j ust clari fy, assumi ng i t's not confi denti a1 J or classified. I A MR. CASTOR: 4 BY MR. 5 6 7 Mr. Jordan, are you ready? CASTOR: a 0n Monday, we' re goi ng A a 0n to be heari ng from Fi ona Hi11. 8 Monday? Uh-huh. And I just l5 to prepare for that interview, what do you think are the types of issues Dr. Hill can contribute to this discussion? she was the director, obviously, as A Wel1, she is you know, of the National Security Council, the European division at the and she is a welt known expert not only in the region, but on Russia itself, and has written a landmark l6 book on Presi dent Puti n. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 as we try So she would obviously have a l7 tot of firsthand knowledge l8 about our relations and what took place with regard to t9 Russi a, w'i th regard to Ukrai ne, and other European countri es. 24 a How frequently did you speak with her in your -A Not that not that often. a Not that often? A Yeah. I mean, you know, I would call on her when I was in Washington. You know, she would run some of the NSC 25 meetings. And sometimes she was on emails as wel1, you know, 20 2l 22 23 297 I 2 a J in the back and forth with Washington. a Now, do you have any personal knowledge or direct information regarding why the President curtailed your A 4 5 0n1y what Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan told me. 7 don't know if it actua1ly was the President, then, that was responsible for curtailing 8 tour? 6 9 l0 term? a And you A We11, I guess I was telling the truth. assumed your that the deputy secretary That's all I have. Does anybody ll MR. CASTOR: t2 MR. MEADOWS: l3 There was a bicameral, bipartisan codel Yeah. Just one. to the Ukraine, l5 I think, where they had the honor of your presence. And the way it was characterized by some of my colleagues was that l6 they believed that you had a pro-Poroshenko mindset. l7 2l th that characteri zation or di sagree w j th i t? M5. Y0VAN0VITCH: We11, that's real1y interesting. I thought that he was -- we could obviously continue to work with him, but'it was clear that he was unpopular, and we did not believe at that time that he was going to be 22 reelected presi dent. t4 l8 l9 20 23 Would you agree wl What I would also say, though, is that with regard to 24 Zetensky, who was the other top candidate there, we di dn't 25 know what kind of a President he was going to be He'd never 298 I held elective office. So, you know, there was a big questjon 2 mark 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 there. You know, he's very engaging, he, you know, said many of the right things, but we just didn't know. MR. MEAD0WS: The way jt was characterized to me and you correct this, because, obviously, I'ffi just trying to figure out how accurate that is the way it was characterjzed to me was that you believed that the United States had made a substantial investment in the existing Presi dent, and that i t was a known quanti ty, and that 'i t was in the U.5. best interests if he were to remain as President, because of the unknown nature of Mr. Zelensky. Would you agree wi th that? no. Not MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Not t4 MR. MEAD0WS: What l5 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: part would you disagree with? I -- I thought that over time in l6 the beginning, President Poroshenko was, as everybody was, t7 was rea11y driven by the l8 Dignity. inspiration of the Revolution of 20 forth in part because they were inspired, jn part because their backs were up agai nst the wal1, there's th'is war wi th Russi a, they were 2l goi ng 22 they had to do certai n thi ngs i n order to rece'ive the 23 that they needed to t9 24 25 And they moved on reforms and so bankrupt, and we were condi ti oni ng our assi stance that keep the country afloat. So they were desperate, they were scared didn't take action money that if they people would turn against them again, and 299 I I think they were inspired. 2 moti So there were many, many vati ons. But as time passed and the country, you know, got J a l3 t of breathi ng space, they weren' t, you know, fearing that they were going to go bankrupt, things were getting a tittle bit better, I think that space which, you know, in any country is never, you know, forever, the space for making reform, the kinds of things that we thought were best for Ukraine and our bilateral relationship with Ukraine and the reforms the Ukrain'ian people wanted, that space got narrower and it was harder to move things forward. MR. MEAD0WS: So it would be fair to say that my colteagues were wrong, in that you were more in the t4 pro-Zelensky 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 1 i ttle Wetl, I would never want to say that is wrong, but MR. MEADOWS: I can, but go ahead. MS. YOVANOVITCH: But I -- you know, it's interesting Member t7 l8 l9 camp? MS. YOVANOVITCH: 15 t6 bi see of a Congress to how you were more pro-ZeIensky? 20 l",lR. MEADOWS: So 2t PlS. YOVANOVITCH: s. I was more, you know, here is the 24 don't get to vote i n thi s etecti on. MR. MEADOWS: Yeah, but you have an opinion, Ambassador. Come on. You've been here 30 years. You get paid to give 25 your opinion from a foreign ops standpoint. 22 23 analysi We 300 1 So you had no opinion on who the President what would J of the United States, which President would be the best fit for us going forward? 4 had no opi n i on? 2 be in the best interests You 7 I'11 answer it with two sentences. I thought we could work with any of the top three candidates. I think I said that before, and I continue to 8 bel i eve that. 5 6 9 MS. YOVANOVITCH: So I thought that Poroshenko's time was uP, because the l0 Ukrainian people were so angry with him, and that we needed ll l8 to make the best efforts we could to work wj th Zelensky so that i t would be a strong b'ilateraI relationshi p. MR. MEADOWS: So let me finish with this last question, then. So there was never a communication from you to anyone else in the State Department that you can recall where you said jt would where you indicated that it was not better for the United States that Poroshenko would stay in office? You never communicated that to anybody at the State t9 Depa r tmen t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 t? I 20 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: 2t MR. MEAD0WS: That you can reca11. 22 14S. YOVAN0VITCH: When? 23 24 25 mean prior to his election. MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I mean, there were there MR. MEADOWS: We11, of discussion. Who was a 1ot are these people? What would be the 301 I best for Ukraine? Best for us? 2 relati onshi p How do we move the forward? And so forth. 6 I thlnk, you know, from a conservative point of view, I th1nk there were a number of people who thought that we know Poroshenko, we are comfortable with him, et cetera. I''lR. l"lEAD0WS: And that's exactly my point. That's what 7 my colleagues were saying. J 4 5 8 So was 9 others had, t2 l3 so MS. YOVAN0VITCH: l0 ll that the prevaifing thought that you had and of I don't think from the embassy point vi ew, because we could see that h'is number was up. point of view, I mean, one just has to go with what you can see is going to happen and position the And so from our t6 in the best way possible. MR. J0RDAN. Ambassador, which of the three top cand'idates were vi ewed as the ref ormer and more of the l7 outsider? t4 l5 l8 l9 20 United States MS . YOVANOVITCH: I th'ink Presi dent Zelensky was vi ewed as the outsider, but atso as the reformer. I'1R. JORDAN. That's consistent with what Speciat Envoy 2t Volker told us, that he was the reformer. And as the 22 reformer, he would be viewed as the one most 1ikely, as 23 said in your statement, that would be focused on making or 24 ending corruption would be 25 fair to say as well? you his number one priority. Is that 302 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I 2 J 4 5 That's what he said his platform Okay. So he's the outsider, he's the reformer, and his entire campaign was about ending corruption i n Ukrai ne? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: And bringing piece to the Donbass. MR. JORDAN. 6 MR. JORDAN. Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: We 8 are almost to the end. This is the lightning round. We just have a few more questions. M5. YOVANOVITCH: Okay. 9 10 THE CHAIRI"IAN: And ll My t2 colleagues then hopef t4 THE CHAIRMAN: t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 we'11 be done. asked you quite a bit about the press operation. MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Uh-huh. l6 ully in the minority l3 l5 was. That's not an operation that's unique to the Ukraine embassy, is it? This is something that almost every embassy of any s'ize around the world would engage in, that is, monitoring the press to see what issues are Ukrainians talking about, what are other people talking about, what rumors may be going viral, what issues are coming up? That's something every embassy does, is it not? MS. YOVANOVITCH: It is. And every embassy has to do it to be cu r rent. and THE CHAIRMAN: You were also asked by my colleagues in the State Department acted in the best interests of the Department, or someth'ing along those 1ines. whether everyone 303 We now know I from text messages that have been produced 2 that there was an effort to conditjon that sought-after J meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump w'ith 5 getting a deliverable from Ukraine, and that deliverable was: We want Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and we want Ukraine 6 to 4 i nvesti 9 l0 I think you've said that it was not in the i nterests of Ukra'ine to be pul1ed i nto the next Presidential election. Is that right? THE CHAIRMAN: ll t2 l3 t4 l5 2016. MS. YOVANOVITCH: Uh.huh. 7 8 gate M5. YOVAN0VITCH: Yes. effort to conditjon a meeting that Ukraine desperately wanted and it was Ukraine's best THE CHAIRMAN: So an interests on sucking them 'into the 2020 election would not have been good policy or conduct by the State Department? It 2t certainly not good policy, especially since, as I understand those texts and what occurred, is that this was not a foreign policy goal, something that is in the interests of all of us, a public good, but 'it was ki nd of a parti san game. THE CHAIRMAN: It was in the interest of a political 22 goal t6 t7 l8 t9 20 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: was ? 23 M5. YOVANOVITCH: Uh-huh. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: And 25 campaign in that js to help the President'ia1 I'm sorry. You have to answer "yes" or "no. " 304 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: I 2 "yes. 4 assist the President's 5 i nvesti gati ons? 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 what 2020 through these two That's how I understand, you know, condition a sought-after meeting with the White House on political investigations, I assume you would also you would also share the view that it would be even more damaging to condition vital military support on these two po1 i ti cal i nvesti gati ons? these MS. YOVANOVITCH: YCS. just a couple more questions, if these repeat anything, I apologize, so just te11 me I already went there and I won't bother it. THE CHAIRI4AN: I Were you aware that Kurt Volker introduced Andrey have and of President Zelensky's senior advisers, to Yermak, one 20 Mr. Giuliani? 22 in is in the media and what was in the texts. THE CHAIRMAN: And i f "it would not be appropri ate to t9 2t the goal was a political one to campaign MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 6 I think the answer was " THE CHAIRNAN: And a J 7 I think MS. YOVAN0VITCH: I'm aware of that because of the media reports of that. But that took place after you had left? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: 24 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: 25 THE CHAIRI4AN: After I departed. 0kay. In the call record, the Presi dent, 305 2 after Pres'ident Zelensky talks about the need for more Javelins, our President says that he would tike to ask a J favor, I How 4 5 8 9 l0 MS. Y0VANOVITCH: l3 t4 t7 l8 I think, as we stated before, or as we for Ukra'ine. And so I think a Ukrainian President would try, if at all possjble, to do whatever an American President requested. THE CHAIRMAN: Did anyone from the Trump admini stration its behalf encourage the Ukra'inian government or law enforcement officials not to cooperate with the investigation of Special Counsel Mueller? or anyone acting on MS. YOVANOVITCH: Not l5 l6 of Ukraine take a request from a djscussed before, we are the single most important partner ll t2 would the President U.S. President for a favor? 6 7 though. to my knowledge. I'm not aware of that. THE CHAIRMAN: And pl ayed any rol . e 'i n do you know whether Mr. G'iuf iani tha t? YOVANOVITCH: I 'm unaware. l9 MS 20 THE CHAIRMAN: After President Zelensky in the call 2t record says, "The former ambassador from the United States, 22 the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with 23 24 25 in Ukraine were bad news, so I just wanted to 1et you know that" I 'm sorry, that's Presi dent Trump speaki ng the President thereafter, referring to you, says, "We11, she is 306 I going to go through some things." 2 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. J THE CHAIRMAN: What d'id you what was your reacti on the President had said that to his Ukrainian 4 when you saw 5 counterpart, that you were going to go through some things? 6 MS. Y0VAN0VITCH: 7 was I 8 meant. 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 I was shocked and THE CHAIRMAN: was shocked. I I was shocked and I was apprehensjve about what that Mr. Malinowski. MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you. Just one question. that Ambassador Sondland at one point had advised you to, quote, "go big or go home," and "go big" meant putting out a tweet or public statement saying that, I think you mentioned, that you supported President Trump and rejected all of these false accusations. Did he You mentioned, Ambassador, . YOVANOVITCH: Somethi l6 MS t7 MR. MALINOWSKI: ng 1 i ke that. Did he actually say, "support Pres'ident l8 Trump"? Was that his advice, that you publicly say something t9 to that effect? 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. I mean, he may not have used the words "support President Trump," but he said: You know the don't know him personally, but you know, you know, the sorts of things that he 1ikes. You know, go out there battling aggressively and, you know, praise him or support him. President. WeI1, maybe you 307 2 Is that a normal request from a political appointee to a career ambassador, in your J expe r i ence? I 4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. MALINOWSKI: that in response to my request for advice on, How do I deal with this? I've never seen anything like this. I don't know what to do. And that was hi s response. So, I mean, I have to admit that the advice took me aback, but I did ask him. N5. YOVAN0VITCH: He said l0 MR. MALIN0WSKI: 0kay. l3 Finally, I would say to aIl of my colleagues on both sides that I would be honored if you followed me on Twitter, and I wi 11 not accuse you of mon'itori ng me. My handle j s t4 @mal ll t2 l5 l6 l7 i nowski . spell that one? MR. I'IALINOWSKI: It's hard. Almost as hard as MR. MEADOWS: How do you Yovanovi tch. Exactly. l8 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: l9 THE CHAIRMAN: ["1r. Goldman. 20 MR. G0LDMAN: Thank 2t You uIt'imately 22 THE CHAIRMAN: BY MR. 23 24 25 a A you. Just a few last things. I thought your handle was @pecan. GOLDIVIAN: You left Ukrajne for That ' s Thank you. cor rect. good May 20th. Is that right? 308 I 2 a A a And that was the day of Zelensky's inauguration? Coincidentally, yes. l0 at all of the formation of the U.S. delegation to the inauguration in Ukraine? A Not really. I mean, I was, you know, 50 busy, frankly, packing out and everything. I had heard that Ambassador Sondland was on the delegation, for example. But, I mean, I wasn't fotlowing. I mean, I was super busy trying to sort of pul1 everythi ng together and leave Ukra'ine. a So you were not rea1ly engaged in the prep for the ll i naugurati on t2 A O A a A J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Were you aware No. in any way? Huh-uh. Who led that? I think yeah. I thjnk at that time, Joseph Pennjngton was charge. of a Bloomberg article on May L4th, So it would have been 6 days before you left, where Lutsenko stated that he had, quote, no evidence of wrongdoing, unquote, by ejther of the Bidens? A Yes. I recall that. a You ment'ioned earlier Naftogaz. A Yes. a V{hat 'is Naf togaz? a Were you aware 309 3 It is the gas monopoly that is owned by the Government of Ukraine. a Has it had some corruption issues in the past, 4 your knowledge? I 2 A to 7 it's reatly cleaned up its act. I mean, we consider it to be one of the success stories in Ukrai ne. But that doesn't mean i t's done. I mean, there's 8 sti 11 i ssues goi ng forward. 5 6 A It has. You know, t9 a Di d the act cteani ng up occulin con j uncti on wi th the fact that they added a superv'i sory board to the company? A I think that was important. I thjnk the most important thing, though, was actually the head of Naftogaz, a guy by the name of Andrei Kobalyev, who is, you know, as clean as they come, and was fearless and determined to sort of shake everything up and really made some anazing steps forward, I mean, from a country that was getting the vast majority, something f ike 93 percent, of its gas f rom Russ'ia to import'ing zero from Russ'ia. So, I mean, if you think about that from a security 20 standpoint, huge steps forward. 9 l0 ll l2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 2t 22 23 24 25 a , Right. Do you know when they added a supervisory board? A a I want to say, f i ke , 20L7 . that be somewhat sjmi lar to Buri sma's board that we were talking about earlier, same concept? And would 310 6 I don't exactly know what the, you know, the dutjes of the board for Burisma are or how they select the'i r members, et cetera. But I suppose i n pri nci ple i t's kind of similar. a In principle in the sense that both boards include international individuals, right, non-Ukrainians? Is that 7 your understandi I 2 J 4 5 8 9 A A We11, ng? Yeah. Yeah. And I that both boards, you know, do traditionally what boards do, set direction and so assume orth. l0 f ll 18 efforts this past year by Secretary Rick Perry of the Department of Energy to change some of the members on the Naftogaz board? A I read about that in the media. a But were you aware of that while you were at post? A No. Thi s happened af ter - - accord'ing to the medi a, this was happening after I left. a And you d'idn't hear f rom any of your Department of 19 State colleagues about this? t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 20 2t a A a Are you aware of any No. Did you ever hear about a March 2019 meeting in 22 Houston between Parnas, Fruman, and a senjor Naftogaz 23 executi ve, Andrei Favorov? 24 25 A Yeah. That was 'in the open letter that i referenced many hours ago. 311 The Dale Perry open tetter? J a A a 4 Houston meeti I 2 5 A That's ri ght. That's where I heard of that. And what did you understand occurred 'in that ng? WeIl, you know, all I understood was what was l7 in that art'icle. I have no way or open letter -- I have no way of knowing whether it's true or not, but that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman wanted Mr. Favorov to take over and become the head of Naftogaz. a WhY? A I don't know, but I assume that they thought that that would be in their best interests. a Did you ask anyone at your embassy to follow up on thjs Dale Perry open letter, look into this? A This was at the I want to say it was at the end of April, and I had a lot of other things going on then. a Okay. There's a new prosecutor general now, l8 correct? 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 l9 20 what was said A a Yes. lt's absolutely no chance I'm going to be able to the name. So am I correct that he was appointed 2t pronounce 22 August 29th? 24 A a 25 appoi ntment? 23 That sounds right. 0kay. Are you fam'i1iar with him from before h'is 312 A a A I 2 I've met him a couple What do you know of of times. him by reputation or otherwise? 5 I think we think that he's clean and he's a reformer. He spent the last couple of years -- the reason I don't really know him well or better is that he 6 hi J 4 By reputation, 7 s wi f e has a j ob somewhere 'in Europe. And so he was 1i vi ng in Europe but came back to help President Zelensky with his 8 campaign, and so l9 in that context. a And could you just say his name for the record and spell it, if you could? A Is it Ryboshapka? a Sounds ri ght. I'm not goi ng to debate you. A Spe1l i t? R-y-a-b no. SorrY. Yeah. a Yeah. I thi nk they have A So this is what I would do: R-y-b-o-s-h-a-p-k-a. a Okay. And you'11 recall in that July 25th call between Pres'ident Trump and Zelensky that President Zelensky said that the next prosecutor general was 100 percent going to be his guy. Is this person 100 percent his guy, as far as 20 you 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 I met him know? 23 Well, he came back from Europe to help him run the election campaign and now he's in the adm'inistration. I mean, when he was on the campaign he was saying that he was 24 going 2t 22 25 A to go back to Europe, but evidently a Okay. Two more questi ons. not. 313 Are you aware of whether any other U.S. I officials 8 officials to investigate Joe Biden or the 2015 election, perhaps outside of the State Department? A No. a And my last question for you is that you testified i n response to some of Mr . l'laI i nowsk'i ' s questi ons about sort of parallel policies in Ukraine. One was the official U.S. policy of the State Department that you were promoting and 9 one was the shadow 2 J 4 5 6 7 pressed any Ukrainian Gi ul i ani -Trump po1 i cy. t2 with the benefit of hindsight, can you describe how these two policies were proceeding on paralleI tracks and what the impact was? Can you kind of summarize l3 for t4 24 A Well, I mean, for one thing, it was although we really trjed to keep our eye on the ball at the embassy, because, again, it was a challenging time, there was an election campaign, an election for pres'ident, and we needed to know what was happening and we needed to manage that and manage the relationship and whatever the future of the relatjonship would be. So it was distracting in many ways. But the other thing is, because there were there was, you know, the press 'interview and then all of the other subsequent arti cles, soc'i a1 medi a posti ngs, et cetera, Ukrainians were wondering whether I was going to be leaving, 25 whether we rea1ly represented the President, U.5. policy, l0 ll l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 Now, looking back us? 314 5 et cetera. And so I think it was -- you know, it real1y kind of cut the ground out from underneath us. MR. GOLDMAN: I yield back. MR. MEADOWS: 14r. Chairman, before you close it out, I th1nk we had 4 j nutes tef t, and I want to f o1low up on one 6 thing that you had I 2 J 4 m 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Please. 8 MR. ZELDIN: We had more than 9 MR. MEADOWS: Okay. 0kay. 10 THE CHAIRI'{AN: Go ahead. ll MR. NEADOWS: A11 t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 4 minutes. right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. there's been, and Chairman Schiff kind of alluded to this, and when we start talk'ing about Javelins and foreign aid, for the record, I want to make sure that we're clear. The foreign aid that was has been reported as being held up, it doesn't relate to Javelins, does it? Ambassador, l4S. Y0VAN0VITCH: t7 No. At least I'm not aware that it l8 does. l9 or FMS , as you would call it, js rea1ly a totally separate track, is it not? Forei gn mi 1 i tary sales get approved, but they' re actually a purchase that happens with, in this case, it would have been Ukraine. Is that correct? Presi dent Zelensky was MS . YOVAN0VITCH: So, yes . talking about a purchase. But separately, as I understand 20 2t 22 23 24 25 MR. MEADOWS: Because forei gn mi 1 i tary sales, 315 t, and, agai n, thi s i s from news accounts, the securi ty I i 2 assistance that was being held up was security assistance, J wasn't the FMS. MR. l'IEAD0WS: 4 But 'i t was actually ai d that had been 5 appropriated and it had nothing to do with Javelins. 6 you agree wi th M5. YOVANOVITCH: That's my understandi ng. 8 MR. MEAD0WS: i n h'is context l0 Javelins, ll j t2 l3 l4 l5 t6 t7 Yeah. when he " that Because it's critically happens on cycles that are not necessarity ust appropri ati on cycles. In your h'istory as a f orei gn serv'ice di plomat, you've again. Is that correct? MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Yeah. I assumed that what it meant is that, you know, they were getting paperwork together, et cetera, and working wjth our military colleagues. seen that, I assume, over and over MR. MEAD0WS: And when the a'id ultimately came through, 'it didn't impact the purchase of those Javelins l9 aid ultimately was approved. 20 MS. YOVAN0VITCH: Not 21 MR. MEAD0WS: Ri ght. 23 24 25 important says, "We're almost ready f or the l8 22 Would that? 7 9 it even when the Would you agree? to my not to my knowledge. In response to one of the chairman's questions related to aid from the Un'i ted States to Ukraine and investigations, you responded that that was not a good policy. What policy were you referring to when you said it MR. ZELDIN: 316 I was not a good policy? MS. Y0VANOVITCH: So 2 J said, I don't remember exactly what I but 5 I could rephrase the question in a way that might make jt easier for you to respond without 6 even 4 l'lR. ZELDIN: 7 8 9 l0 you want, reflecting on the question 1'4S . Y0VAN0VITCH: 0kay. Ptease. of a policy where aid from the United States to Ukraine was linked to investigating the B'idens? 145. YOVAN0VITCH: There' s no off i c i al No, pol i cy I am MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware t4 MS. YOVANOVITCH: We11, l5 forth, it t6 po1 i made me wonder not. official policy. I of an unofficial policy? texts and so whether there was an unofficial mean, reading the cy. MR. ZELDiN: Now, Ambassador t7 An . l3 here, he was test'if yi ng that 18 was t9 fo1low-up 20 concerned about. 2t and answer. MR. ZELDIN: Are you aware ll t2 If The B Volker's test'imony when he j tl Taylor's text was as a to a Politico story that he had read that texts that you reference also include Taylor where it says, the President has Ambassador 23 absolutely crystal clear there's no quid pro quo. 25 was responses to 22 24 he been with regards to the texts, are you talking about some of the texts or all of the texts in saying that there was an So 317 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 unoffjcial policy? I'lS . YOVAN0VITCH: I thi nk that I probably should decl i ne to answer that question, because I was not in the policy world at that point. I'1R. ZELDIN: That's a f antasti c answer, and I 'm glad you're giving that answer, because I wouldn't say that there would be an unofficial policy without having a1l of your information to be able to say there actually was an unofficial poficy. I would have no further questions So I think that based off of that answer to the last question. THE CHAIRMAN: Ambassador, we want to thank you very much for a very long day, and we want to thank you very much for a very long and distinguished career. l5 And we are adjourned. l6 l'15 l7 [Whereupon, l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 . YOVAN0VITCH: Thank you . at 7:3L p.m. , the interview was concluded. ]