Q: The readout was cryptic why?
T: Because they highlights were there, not detail.
Q: Why was it cryptic?
A: Reading the transcript and looking back at their summary, there were issues to be pursued - pretty ordinary. We were with Zelensy the next day.

He said he was happy with the call.
Q: When did you first realize that there were things in the call that were concerning
A: Morrison briefed him several days later, it could have gone better, it mentioned Giuliani and the former Ambassador,.

T: I didn't have the transcript, Morrison told me that he was mentioned on the call, but I didn't know that he was mentioned by Zelensky.
Q: Corruption indemic in Ukraine right? Lots of problems there with prosecutors?
AK: Yes, up until the last two months.

K: We are cautiously optimistic that Zelensky is the real deal and genuine reform is the goal.
Q: Problem is oligarchical, right?
A: Yes, that is correct.

Kent: Going over corruption in the energy industry.
Q: How did government pursue that?
K: They turned to partners to try to recover tens of billions of dollars. They worked with us and Ukranian authorities, money was frozen until someone shut the case and the money disappeared.

Q: Did anyone ever try to investigate that?
A: We considered to raise that US Taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility, and pressed for why corrupt prosecutors closed the case. We haven't gotten an answer.
Q: Are you in favor of that matter being investigated and prosecuted?

A: Taxpayer dollars were taken, and the rule of law should be upheld.
Q: Burisma, involved in criminal activity?
K: I do not know, its business reputation is mixed.
Q: Would it be fair for new prosecutor to reinvestigate?
K: There is a lot to review, but he said he would review

Q: As case is shut down, Burisma is adding to board?
A: yes, they were adding, and I dont know why.
Q: Who did he add?
A: Most prominent added, Biden and President of Poland.
Q: Does that create a problem that they are added to board for protection?
A: I work in gov. dont know

Kent has no idea about Biden or his experience, etc.
Q: Does Biden offer anything other than dad is VP? Doesnt that raise questions
Taylor and Kent not answering.

Q: At this time, VP Biden was interested in Ukraine
K: He made a total of 6 visits to Ukraine.
Q: You were the DCM at this time?
K: Pence didn't come while I was there.
Q: ou have seen he is giving a speech about how he went into Ukraine and told them if they dont fire lose aid

K: VP role was very important, I did express concern about Biden being on board, reported my concern to office of the VP.
Q: After you expressed that concern of a perceived conflict of interest, did his role decrease?
K: No, Hunter Biden stayed on board

Q: The "irregular" channel, in fairness, this irregular channel is not as outlandish as it could be
T: No, it is not as outlandish as it could be.
Q: you have known Volker for years and knowledge of region and best interest of US and Ukraine
A: Yes to all

Q: Second member, Ambassador Sondland- not outlandish for him to be interested and engaged as per direction
A: A little unusual for him to be involved with Ukraine
Q: Perry was the third member, his acceptable involvement?
T: yes.

Q: When did you determine that the "irregular" channel was inappropriate?
A: I arrived in Kiev in Mid June, and by the end of June, I had begun to hear references to investigations as something that would have to happen prior to the meeting that Trump offered to Zelensky

Q: Did you ever try to take control?
A: I didn't at the time, both channels were interested in having a meeting between Trump and Zelensky. No reason to.
Q: At some point you develop concerns. You are here #1 and #2,

A: When the irregular channel was going against the overall direction and purpose of the regular channel.
Q: You knew going in that Giuliani presented complexities.
A: I was concerned about his statements and involvement in policy.

Q: have you ever had communications with Giuliani?
A: No.
Q: did you try to engage anyone about this?
A: I raised my concerns with Kent, early on when this phone call that was odd in that it did not include the normal staff and that struck me as unusual.

Q. Once Zelensky got on the phone it was a regular call? (June 28)
A: Yes. The call with Zelensky did not, but the prep for it did- was a little irregular in that it didn't have the staff. Volker told the rest of the participants that he was planning to have a conversation

(cont) where he would outline the important components of the call. I had issue that there was reference to investigations. Raised issues that I didn't understand what was going to be raised with Zelensky.

Q> the Presidents concerns about the 2016 election and concerns as it related to Burisma, if Volker is raising to Zelensky that is consistent with direction of president?
A: Giulianis interest in pursuing these investigations was of concern
Q: How many did Volker meet with Rudy?

A: I don't know
Q: Only once that they met
A: One breakfast, but I didn't know that they were in touch.
Q: There was an instance in that USAID was going to sponsor a program and you told them to step away
A: In 2016, clean energy contest was sponsored and there was a prize

there was a cosponsorship with Burisma, it was my view that it was inappropriate for the embassy to be cosponsoring with Burisma.

Back to “to the best of my knowledge no”

Q: when you said your staff overheard a call between Sondland and potus, President brings up investigation - A: he is more interested in the Biden’s

It’s hard to do this portion live because Schiff speaks really fast

Taylor suggested that Sondland should push back on President Trump - asked him to push back on Trump wanting these investigations.

Taylor: I was still worried that Zelensky would go on CNN, I wanted to be sure that that didn’t happen so I addressed it with his staff (sorry, isn’t this sort of odd? They are threatening Zelensky?!)

Nunes: you said the first time you heard about Giuliani issue was in NYTimes. Taylor: I do remember noticing that he was involved in NYT article.

Jordan: aid is held on 7/18 and then released on 9/11. In the 55 days it’s delayed, you met with Zelensky three times. No linkage of dollars to investigating. Second meeting - no linkage. Third meeting- no link of dollars to investigations

Taylor: certainly accurate on first two meetings because to my knowledge they weren’t aware of any hold. The third meeting there was discussion of the assistance but not discussion of linkage

Three fave to face it doesn’t come up, and it isn’t announced, but you said you had a clear understanding that those things were going to happen- where did you get this understanding

Jordan gives paper: Sondland said that he talked to Zelensky, that although this was not a quid pro quo, if it wasn’t cleared that we would be at a standstill. Sondland realized it was a mistake to tell them only the meeting was held up - it was also the security assistance

Talking about Sondland addendum - it’s all three times hearsay. Jordan emphasizing that he had three times to clear up and it never happened.

Taylor: let me just say that I don’t consider myself a star witness- I think i was clear that I’m not taking sides. My understanding is only coming from people I talked to, and I think this clarification was because he said he didn’t remember this.

And just like that, RATCLIFFE DESTROYS THE DEMOCRATS ENTIRE CASE!!!!!! This will go down in history.

Ok back to this now - they are accusing Giuliani and Solomon of conducting a smear campaign against Yavonavich.

Ratcliffe: Schiff says Zelensky was lying because he had to. The hole in the argument? What did Zelensky do to get the aid. Answer? Nothing. He didn’t do anything that house Dems say he was forced to do. He didn’t do anything because he didn’t have to.

Whoever this person is is talking about the assistance being withheld as if it was, but it wasn’t. Trying to position president Trump as Russia sympathetic.

Has he specified what investigations he has undertaken? Answer: no. Well I’ll yield.

Schiff is now trying to support Obama. Ridiculous

Stuart: welcome to year four of the ongoing impeachment hearings. After all of this - it really comes down to this one thing- this is the transcript. One sentence in one phone call. If your impeachment case is so weak you need to lie so that you can bolster it you have problem

Zero evidence of any crime. We appreciate your insight and opinion - but all you can do and give your opinion. Is corruption endemic In Ukraine?

Can you give an example any time when the VP of the US demands that a specific investigator be fired and gives them 6 hours? Silence.

Making the point that the NDAA stipulates that the aid to Ukraine can be withheld if there is corruption.

Stefanik- has Trump admin provided aid to Ukraine? Yes - more than Obama? yes. Javelins weren’t made available under Obama admin? No.

Moving really quickly - I’m trying to keep up!!

For the millions of Americans viewing, the first investigation into Burisma was during the Obama administration

Swalwell You are witnesses to a shake down scheme that other people witnessed.

Going into hold on assistance to Ukraine that Mulvaney stated.

Taylor: We condition our assistance based on what will help our foreign policy (trying to now say that POTUS can not decide what happens with aid). I am going to skip Swalwell.

He is such a pretentious little guy. Taylor talking about the US holding the aid for no good reason (as per him)

Ambassador Taylor is really having a hard time because he can’t answer Swalwell without appearing partisan and he’s attempting to stop himself from looking partisan

Castro the communist is up! Stating that Zelensky was a “desperate man” on the July call. They are now trying to paint Zelensky as a weak pandering fool. The democrats are literally destroying US foreign policy before our eyes. They are dangerous.

He “begrudgingly” decided to pursue investigation. Stating that the favor was to help the Presidents career. What wasn’t there any announcement? Taylor: on 9/11 before any interview the hold was released.

Is it possible that the WH released the hold because they knew a whistleblower made a complaint? (Yes Castro, please bring up the whistleblower. I am really getting bored.) NOW CASTRO IS USING ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ROBBERY ARE A CRIME.

I’m done. I can’t listen to this trash anymore. The Democrats are horrible people. The hypocrisy makes me sick - he stating it’s not right to go after a private citizen for their business dealings overseas. THIS IS WHAT THEY DID TO POTUS

I want to fix the tweet above. He was comparing the supposed bribe to attempted murder and attempted robbery.

Ratcliffe going after Swalwell about abuse of power for firing an ambassador.

Ratcliffe is asking Schiff for a colloquy- what were his interactions with the whistleblowers. Swallows gets all up in his face.

Can’t listen anymore. I need a break. I think I’ll go for a walk.