-My role was not some irregular channel,
but the official channel.
I reported directly to Secretary of State Tillerson and Pompeo.
In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea
of investigating possible corruption
involving the Ukrainian company Burisma
as equivalent to investigating former Vice President Biden.
I saw them as very different --
the former being a appropriate and unremarkable,
the latter being unacceptable.
In retrospect, I should have seen
that connection differently,
and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.
The problem was that despite the unanimous positive
assessment and recommendations of those of us
who were part of the US presidential delegation
that attended the inauguration of President Zelensky,
President Trump was receiving a different negative narrative
about Ukraine and President Zelensky.
-I understand the gravity of these proceedings,
but I beg you not to lose sight of the military conflict
underway in Easter Ukraine today.
The ongoing illegal occupation of Crimea
and the importance of reform of Ukraine's politics and economy.
Every day that the focus of discussion
involving Ukraine is centered on these proceedings
instead of those matters is a day
that we are not focused on the interest Ukraine,
the United States, and Western-style liberalism share.
-I don't think that raising 2016 elections
or Vice President Biden
or these things that I consider to be conspiracy theories
that have been circulated by the Ukrainians,
particularly the former prosecutor general, are --
They're not things that we should be pursuing
as part of our national security strategy with Ukraine.
-What did you recommend that he do
to prevent the call record from leaking?
-I recommend that we restrict access to the package.
-Had you ever asked the NSC legal advisor
to restrict access before? -No.
-And what reason did Mr Eisenberg give you
for why the call record was put in the highly classified system?
-It was a mistake. -He said it was just a mistake?
-It was an administrative error.
-What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told Mr Yermak?
-That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general
make a statement with respect to the investigations
as a condition of having the aid lifted.
-Now, did you tell Ambassador Bolton
about this conversation, as well?
-I reached out to him, as well,
and requested his availability for a secure phone call.
-And what was his response when you explained to him
what Ambassador Sondland had said?
-Tell the lawyers.
-The president came into the meeting
and immediately started speaking.
He had just a string of comments that,
"Ukraine is a terrible place.
They're all corrupt.
They're terrible people.
They tried to take me down."
I tried to explain, but the president was not convinced,
and he said that Zelensky is no different,
that he has terrible people around him.
You know, "It's not what I hear about Ukraine,"
what we're telling him.
You know, "I hear that, you know,
nothing has changed, talk to Rudy,"
that kind of dialogue, as I described.
I was never involved in anything
that I considered to be bribery at all.
-Okay. Or extortion?
-Or extortion. -Okay.
-Among the discussions I had with Dr Hill
were about Ambassador Sondland.
I think she might have coined it "The Gordon Problem,"
and I decided to keep track
of what Ambassador Sondland was doing.
I didn't necessarily always act on things
Gordon suggested that he believed were important.
-At the time, we deposed you,
and I think we were there for six, seven, or eight hours,
and we were asking you specifically about
what you knew about these investigations.
You didn't remember that Gordon Sondland had brought this up
in the July 10th meeting with Ukrainians
and Ambassador Bolton called an end to the meeting.
Ambassador Bolton described that meeting as some drug deal
that Sondland and Mulvaney cooked up.
You had no recollection of that? -Right.
So, in terms of Gordon bringing it up,
no, I did not remember that
at the time of my October 3rd testimony.
I read the account by Alex and that jogged my memory.
"Yes, that's right. That did happen."
I do not, still, to this point,
recall it being an abrupt end to the meeting.
-Is the whistleblower required by law,
as the Speaker said, to testify to us or not?
And what is his absolute
right to anonymity that you questioned?
With that, I yield back.
-The time of the gentleman has expired.
I'd be happy to inter
to the record the whistleblower statute.
That allows the whistleblower to remain anonymous.