“Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election D.N.C. server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. Members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.” “One of the things that you now remember is the discussion that you had with President Trump on July 26 in that restaurant in Kyiv, right? You confirmed to President Trump that you were in Ukraine at the time and that President Zelensky quote, ‘loves your ass.’ Do you recall saying that?” “It sounds like something I would say.” “You said President Trump had directed you to talk — you and the others — to talk to Rudy Giuliani at the Oval Office on May 23.” “If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.” “Right, you understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the president, correct?” “That’s correct.” “You testified that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president, correct?” “That’s our understanding, yes.” “But how did you know that? Who told you?” “Well, when the president says talk to my personal attorney, and then Mr. Giuliani as his personal attorney makes certain requests or demands, we assume it’s coming from the president.” “You don’t have records, you don’t have your notes because you didn’t take notes. You don’t have a lot of recollections. I mean, this is like the trifecta of unreliability. Isn’t that true?” “What I’m trying to do today is to use the limited information I have to be as forthcoming as possible with you and the rest of the committee.” “Your testimony is just simply in a pre-meeting with a group of Americans before the bilateral meeting. You referenced the fact that Ukraine needed to do these investigations in order to lift the aid.” “I think I referenced — I didn’t say that Ukraine had to do the investigations. I think I said that we heard from Mr. Giuliani that that was the case.” “So it wasn’t really a presumption. You heard from Mr. Giuliani.” “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.” “You testified that pretty much everyone could put two and two together and make four and understood that the military assistance was also conditioned on the public announcement of these two investigations, correct?” “That was my presumption.” “Now you’re capable of putting two and two together. And so are the Ukrainians. Because you told them in Warsaw they were going to need to make that public statement — likely to get that aid released as I said.” “I said I presumed that might have to be done in order to get the aid released.” “Because we’ve had a lot of argumentation here. Well, the Ukrainians didn’t know the aid was withheld. But the Ukrainians found out. And then it was made abundantly clear, if they hadn’t put two and two together themselves, that if they wanted that aid they were going to have to make these statements, correct?” “Correct.” “When did President Zelensky announce that the investigation was going to happen? On page 14 you said this: ‘Was there a quid pro quo’ — today’s, your opening statement? ‘As I testified previously with regard to requested White House call, White House meeting the answer is yes,’ that there needed to be a public statement from President Zelensky. When the chairman asked you about the security assistance dollars, you said there needed to be a public announcement from Zelensky. So I’m asking you a simple question: When did that happen?” “Never did.” “Never did.” “Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?” “I assume President Trump would benefit.” “There, we have it!” “Mr. Maloney, excuse me. I’ve been very forthright and I really resent what you’re trying to do.” “Fair enough. You’ve been very forthright. This is your third try to do so, sir. Didn’t work so well the first time, did it? We had a little declaration coming after you, remember that? And now we’re here a third time. And we’ve got a doozy of a statement from you this morning. There’s a whole bunch of stuff you don’t recall. So all due respect, sir. We appreciate your candor, but let’s be really clear on what it took to get it out of you.” “The question is not what the president meant. The question is not whether he was responsible for holding up the aid — he was. The question is not whether everybody knew it — apparently they did. The question is, what are we prepared to do about it? Is there any accountability? Or are we forced to conclude that this is just now the world that we live in?”