Trump Impeachment hearings live: Public testimony from Volker, Vindman, Williams & Morrison

Trump Impeachment hearings live: Public testimony from Volker, Vindman, Williams & Morrison


>>>HELLO, EVERYONE. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I’M ANNE-MARIE GREEN. >>IT IS ANOTHER HISTORIC DAY ON CAPITOL HILL. >>DO YOU EVER GET TIRED OF SAYING THAT? >>YOU KNOW, WE PROBABLY NEED TO FRESHEN IT UP A BIT. WE’LL BE DOING THIS UNTIL 2020. ANOTHER HISTORIC DAY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WHERE WE WILL HEAR THREE OF THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. >>IT’S GOING TO START IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS WILL FACE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. HE’S THE DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE — BOTH LISTENED TO THAT CONTROVERSIAL PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINE’S LEADER IN JULY. REPUBLICANS ARE EXPECTED TO DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY. AND THEN LATER ON THIS AFTERNOON, CURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON WILL TESTIFY IN ANOTHER HEARING. MORRISON IS THE OUTGOING CHIEF OF EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. TODAY’S HEARINGS COME AFTER HOUSE COMMITTEES RELEASED THE BOMB SHELL TRANSCRIPT FROM DAVID HOLMES. HE IS A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND CONSIDERING A CRUCIAL FIGURE IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. HE CLAIMS HE HEARD A CONVERSATION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND GORDON SONDLAND ABOUT WANTING UKRAINE’S LEADER TO LAUNCH INVESTIGATIONS. >>>THIS IS A LIVE LOOK AT THE HEARING ROOM WHERE TODAY’S SHOWDOWN WILL UNFOLD. THOSE HEARINGS WILL KICKOFF AT 9:00 A.M. EASTERN. >>>BUT FIRST, LET US BRING IN NANCY CORDES WHO IS STANDING BY. NANCY’S GOING TO LAY IT ALL OUT FOR US. BASED ON WILLIAMS’ AND VINDMAN’S PRIOR TESTIMONY, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE WATCHING FOR TODAY? >>REPORTER: MORRISON AND VINDMAN ARE THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY WHO WERE ACTUALLY ON THAT CALL. AND SO THEY CAN CONVEY MORE THAN THE WORDS ON THE PAGE THAT WE’VE ALL ALREADY SEEN, BUT WHAT THE DEMEANOR WAS OF THE PRESIDENT, WHAT WAS THE TONE AND THE TENOR OF THIS CALL. VINDMAN DESCRIBE TODAY IN HIS CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION AS A DEMAND BY THE PRESIDENT THAT UKRAINE INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. HE WAS ASKED WHY DO YOU CALL IT A DEMAND? THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T SAY YOU MUST DO THIS. HE SAID YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE HUGE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. UKRAINE NEEDS THE U.S. THEY ARE ENGAGED IN A HOT WAR WITH RUSSIA. THEY NEED ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL BACKING THEY CAN GET FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ANYTHING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MENTIONS, EVEN OFF HAND AS A FAVOR, THE UKRAINIANS ARE GOING TO KNOW THEY NEED TO DO IT IN ORDER TO STAY IN THE PRESIDENT’S GOOD GRACES. VINDMAN AND MORRISON ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT TROUBLED THEM ABOUT THIS CALL. TROUBLED VINDMAN SO MUCH THAT AFTER THE CALL WAS COMPLETE, HE WENT STRAIGHT TO THE TOP LAWYER AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO TELL HIM WHAT HE HAD HEARD. HE WAS TOLD DON’T TALK ABOUT IT. THEN WE KNOW THE CALL WAS MOVED INAPPROPRIATELY TO A TOP SECRET SERVER FOR SAFE KEEPING SO PRYING EYES WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO GET A LOOK AT WHAT MANY WITNESSES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED COULD HAVE BEEN DAMAGING FOR THE PRESIDENT AND CLEARLY NOW HAS BEEN DAMAGING FOR THE PRESIDENT. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN ARE GOING TO GET TODAY. SIMILAR TO THE QUESTIONS THEY GOT IN THEIR CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITIONS THAT LED THEM TO BE LABELED “NEVER-TRUMPERS IN THE BY — NEITHER OF THEM HAS TAKEN A STANCE AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT. >>THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION, NANCY. OR A GOOD JUMPING OFF POINT FOR MY QUESTION, WHICH IS STRATEGIES FOR LAWMAKERS TODAY. I MEAN, WHEN YOU SEE COLONEL VINDMAN THERE IN HIS DRESS BLUES WITH THAT PURPLE HEART, WOUNDED IN BATTLE, DEDICATING HIS LIFE TO SERVING HIS COUNTRY, JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND — SEEMINGLY IT FEELS THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE COMING OUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND THEY ARE A POLITICAL AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE IDEA OF A NEVER- TRUMPER, ARE YOU HEARING FROM REPUBLICANS THAT’S HOW THEY INTEND TO PAINT SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, AS IF THEY’RE NOT DOING THEIR DUTY, BUT COMING OUT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>WHO ONE HAND, VINDMAN IN TACK IS A 20-YEAR VETERAN OF THE U.S. ARMY. HE’S SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN WOUNDED IN BATTLE. HE HAS A PURPLE HEART. SO ATTACKING HIS LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A GREAT IDEA THAT WOULD BE VERY FRUITFUL. ON THE OTHER HAND, REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTING BOTH IN HIS DEPOSITION AND IN SORT OF OFF-HAND COMMENTS THAT THEY THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING OFF ABOUT HIS JUDGMENT. TIM MORRISON WHO IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING THIS AFTERNOON EVEN HINTED IN HIS DEPOSITION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT CONCERNED HIM ABOUT VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT. SO I THINK YOU WILL HEAR REPUBLICANS TRY TO SORT OF PICK AWAY AT HIS CREDIBILITY IN THAT WAY. NOW, I SHOULD MENTION THAT ONE OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MORRISON, WHO’S GOING TO TESTIFY THIS AFTERNOON, AND VINDMAN IS THAT VINDMAN WAS A CAREER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL. TIM MORRISON HAD A BACKGROUND WORKING FOR REPUBLICANS, WAS BROUGHT IN BY THIS PRESIDENT AND THAT’S WHY EVEN THOUGH MORRISON, LIKE VINDMAN, SAID THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS CONVERSATION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE COULD BE SEEN AS DAMAGING, HE HASN’T BEEN ABLED A NEVER-TRUMPER THE SAME WAY VINDMAN HAS. >>CAN WE TALK MORE ABOUT THE TWO OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE TESTIFYING IN THE AFTERNOON. CURT VOLKER, STATE DEPARTMENT. TIM MORRISON, SPECIAL EXPERT FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. BOTH OF THEM ARE PEOPLE THE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO SEE TESTIFY. >>TIM MORRISON IS GOING TO TESTIFY, JUST LIKE VINDMAN WILL THIS MORNING, THAT GORDON SONDLAND, THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EU WAS TELLING THE UKRAINIANS, POINT BLANK, THAT THEY NEEDED TO OPEN INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS TO GET THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. BOTH MORRISON AND VINDMAN WERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN SONDLAND DELIVERD THAT ULTIMATUM TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. IT DISTURBED THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AT THE TIME JOHN BOLTON SO MUCH, HE ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING AND THE CLEAR SIGNAL THAT WAS GIVEN WAS THAT WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. BUT– SONDLAND CLEARLY FELT EMPOWERED TO DO THAT BY THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, WHO HE APPARENTLY WAS IN REGULAR CELL PHONE CONTACT WITH. SO MORRISON IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO ALL OF THAT. CURT VOLKER IS AN INTERESTING CASE. HE IS ONE OF THE SO-CALLED THREE AMIGOS WHO FILLED THE POWER VACUUM THAT WAS CREATED WHEN THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE WAS RECALLED EARLIER THIS YEAR, EVEN THOUGH BY ALL ACCOUNTS SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG. SHE’S THE ONE WHO WAS SMEARED BY THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI. VOLKER HAS A REPUBLICAN BACKGROUND, RUSHED IN TO FILL THE VOID WITH SONDLAND AND WITH THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY, RICK PERRY. IN THE DEPOSITION, VOLKER DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM THE SCHEME. SAID HE NEVER REALIZED UNTIL THE END THAT INVESTIGATING BARISMA WAS CODE FOR INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. AND SO HE HAS SORT OF SOUGHT SOME DISTANCE FROM THE SCHEME THAT WAS BEING PUSHED BY GORDON SONDLAND AND BY RUDY GIULIANI. OTHER THAN WITNESSES HAVE CONTRADICTED SOME OF THAT AND DEMOCRATS IN PARTICULAR ARE HIGHLY SKEPTICAL THAT HE WOULDN’T HAVE KNOWN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS, THAT SONDLAND AND GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT WERE AFTER SINCE THEY WERE IN SUCH REGULAR COMMUNICATION WITH ONE ANOTHER. SO THAT IS GOING TO BE A BIG FOCUS OF THE QUESTIONING THAT HE FACES THIS AFTERNOON. HE’S PROBABLY THE FIRST WITNESS TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY WHO IS GOING TO GET GRILLED TO SOME DEGREE BY DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY DON’T NECESSARILY SEE HIM AS AN ENTIRELY FRIENDLY WITNESS WHO HAS BEEN AS FORTH COMING WITH THEM IN THESE DEPOSITION AS SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES HAVE BEEN. >>I GOTTA ASK YOU WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM DEMOCRATS? IT SEEMS INTERESTING THAT THEY SCHEDULED THESE TWO FOLKS TO TESTIFY TODAY BECAUSE IT’S ALL GOING TO HINGE ON GORDON SONDLAND. IT MUST — IT MUST HAVE DAWNED ON MR. SONDLAND WHAT HAPPENED TO ROGER STONE LAST WEEK. AND WHATEVER HE HEAR INNED IT’S TESTIMONY WILL CERTAINLY IMPACT HOW HE APPROACHES THE CONGRESS COME WEDNESDAY. >>REPORTER: RIGHT. AND YOU’VE GOTTA WONDER HOW SONDLAND AND HIS LAWYERS ARE PREPARING FOR TOMORROW’S HEARING, WHICH WILL BE SO HIGH STAKES. HE ISSUED THAT THREE-PAGE ADDENDUM TO HIS ORIGINAL TESTIMONY. BUT THERE’S STILL SO MUCH IN HIS ORIGINAL DEPOSITION. I JUST WENT THROUGH IT YESTERDAY SORT OF HIGHLIGHTING EVERY LINE THAT WAS CONTRADICTED BY OTHER WITNESSES. AND I COULDN’T BELIEVE HOW MUCH YELLOW THERE WAS ON THE PAGES WHEN I WAS DONE. >>WOW. >>REPORTER: THERE’S JUST SO MUCH THAT HE SAID THAT DOESN’T SQUARE WITH — NOT JUST WHAT ONE OR TWO OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, BUT WITH WHAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT HIS CENTRAL ROLE PUSHING THE UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. SO HE IS GOING TO BE ON THE HOT SEAT TOMORROW AND HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT HOW CLOSELY HE HEWS TO HIS ORIGINAL DEPOSITION VERSUS KIND OF SAYING YOU KNOW, I’VE REMEMBERED SO MUCH IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTER HEARING WHAT OTHER WITNESSES HAVE HAD TO SAY AND UPON REFLECTION, THIS IS WHAT I NOW BELIEVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I THINK DEMOCRATS FRANKLY HAVE BEEN KIND OF GOING EASY ON HIM BECAUSE THEY DO WANT HIM TO MAKE THAT ABOUT FACE. THEY DO WANT HIM TO COME OUT AND SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE WAS PRESSURING THE UKRAINIANS ALL THROUGH THE SUMMER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAD TOLD HIM TO DO SO. >>ALL RIGHT. NANCY CORDES FOR US ON CAPITOL HILL. WE’RE JUST ABOUT 20 MINUTES AWAY, NANCY. THANK YOU SO MUCH AS ALWAYS. WE APPRECIATE IT. >>YOU’RE SO WOMAN. >>>AS LAWMAKERS PREPARE TO GATHER, YOU’RE LOOKING AT A LIVE PICTURE RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE A TEAM OF EXPERTS. MOLLY HOOPER. JOSEPH PINION IS A STRATEGIST AND ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT IS — JOINING US FROM DC. NOT WITH US THIS TIME AROUND, YOU’RE IN DC. >>I’M SO SORRY TO BE IN THE SWAMP. >>LET’S DIG INTO THIS. JOSEPH, YOU HEARD FROM NANCY THERE ABOUT WHAT SHE’S HEARING FROM LAWMAKERS AS TO THE STRATEGY REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING TO EMPLOY TODAY. AFTER THIS IS ALL SAID AND DONE, WILL IT STILL BE SOUND POLITICAL STRATEGY TO GO AFTER THESE INDIVIDUALS ON THEIR CREDIBILITY, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT IS OF THE SUBSTANCE — THEY’RE ALSO APPEARING UNDER SUBPOENA. THEY’RE NOT JUST VOLUNTEERING TO GO BEFORE THE HOUSE. THEY HAVE TO. >>I THINK IT’S A LOSING STRATEGY FOR REPUBLICANS TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO DISCREDIT THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY BY ALL KIND OF ACCOUNTS BY WITH HONOR, WITH DIGNITY. I THINK WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON WHAT’S OCCURRING. I THINK WE’RE HEADING TO A SITUATION WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO SAY THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT IS ALLEGED DID OCCUR, BUT IT’S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. I THINK WE RUN THE RISK OF KIND OF LEADING TO THIS KIND OF DISPARATE PLACE WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE END UP FEELING AS IF SOMEHOW EVERYONE IS RUNNING ROGUE WITH FOREIGN POLICY. I THINK THAT’S DISJOINTED IT AND MAKES THE REPUBLICANS LOOK IN NOT THE WAY YOU AT SOME POINT LOOK. >>THE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO HEAR FROM VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON. MORRISON IS GOING TO TESTIFY HE WAS AWARE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL. HE THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE SORT OF HIDDEN AWAY. HE THOUGHT CONSIDERING THE POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT IT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. >>I THINK WE’VE HAD TOO MUCH THROWN AT THE WALL RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE EVERYONE FROM DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW SAYING THEY’RE GOING TO GO BACK AND GET IN THE DELORIAN — THERE’S INFORMATION OVERLOAD HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. WHY– THE RECENT POLLING SUGGESTING TWO THIRDS OF AMERICANS DON’T BELIEVE THEY’RE GOING TO HEAR INFORMATION THAT’S GOING TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION ON THIS MATTER. >>CAN THE REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO ARGUE THE PROCESS IS BIASED AND NO GOOD AND LINDSEY GRAHAM’S NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO IT’S POISONED FROM THE START WHEN THEY’RE GETTING SOME OF THE PEOPLE THEY WANT, THEY’RE GETTING OPEN HEARINGS, THEY’RE GETTING TESTIMONY BEING RELEASED. >>THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCESS. AGAIN, IMPEACHMENT IS INHERENTLY POLITICAL, BUT WE’RE SEEING SOME OF THE SAME STRATEGIES YOU WOULD SEE AT ANY TRIAL. PEOPLE SAY LOOK, THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION WE’RE TELLING YOU TO ARRIVE AT. ULTIMATELY PEOPLE ARE LAYING THIS AT THE FEET OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN MANY WAYS DOESN’T KNOW WHERE DEMOCRATS ARE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO TAKE THEM, WHICH ULTIMATE LOW IS PROBABLY BAD FOR AMERICA, BUT FROM AN IMPEACHMENT STANDPOINT PROBABLY HELPS THE PRESIDENT. >>ANTJUAN, LET’S GET THE DEMOCRATIC VIEWPOINT HERE. WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST. REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SAY FROM THE MINUTE THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS INAUGURATED, THEY HAVE BEEN GRASPING AT ANYTHING THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON TO PROVE — TO SORT OF DO AWAY WITH THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND REMOVE THIS PRESIDENT. AND THIS JUST HAPPENED TO COINCIDE OR SORT OF FALL INTO THEIR LAPS, THEY REALIZE THERE WAS THIS PHONE CALL, THIS TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS BEING HELD. AND BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE GOOD REPORTERS THAT CAME OUT THERE, THEY SAID THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE ONE THING THAT’S GOING TO GET DONALD TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE. HOW DO DEMOCRATS CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WHAT WE SEE ON THE TRANSCRIPT WAS AT THE VERY LEAST UNETHICAL? >>I WOULD REMIND THE REPUBLICANS IT WAS THEM WHO MET THE DAY BARACK OBAMA WAS NOMINATED AND SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO MAKE HIM A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. I WILL REMIND PEOPLE HOW WE ARRIVED HERE. NANCY PELOSI IS ONE OF THE MOST STRATEGIC MINDS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. SHE DID NOTE JUST WAKE UP ONE MORNING AND SAY LET’S START IMPEACHMENT INQUIRING HEARINGS. THIS WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT ANY PERSON WOULD BE ABLE TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS THAT THIS IS ALARMING FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT. NUMBER THREE, I WOULD REMIND JOSEPH WHO SAID TO ME LAST WEEK THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. THE ABC POLL THAT CAME OUT LAST WEEKEND INDICATED THAT OVER THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PAYING ATTENTION. NUMBER 4, WE’VE SEEN THE STRATEGY FROM THE REPUBLICANS FROM DAY ONE TO SMACK, ATTACK, AND DON’T LOOK BACK. SMACK DOWN ANY CONCLUSIONS THAT MAY COME FROM THIS, ATTACK THE PROCESS AND THE FACTS AND DON’T LOOK BACK AT WHAT MAY HAPPEN BECAUSE THEIR MINDS ARE MADE UP. THAT STRATEGY WON’T WORK. THIS IS ALL SECOND HAND INFORMATION THAT DID INTIMATER. NOW THIS WEEK, WE’RE GOING TO HEAR PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAPPENED AND THEY DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA OF DOING WHAT’S RIGHT. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE TESTIMONY, I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NARRATIVES REPUBLICANS TRY TO PAINT. >>WE ALSO HEARD FROM JOSEPH THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING INFORMATION OVERLOAD. SO THE REPORTS NOW THAT — THE CONGRESS MAY BE LOOKING INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT LIED WHEN HE WROTE OUT HIS ANSWERS TO THE MUELLER REPORT; RIGHT? AND THIS IS SORT OF A DEBATE WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHEN IT COMES TO FIGURING OUT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, DO THEY FOCUS ON WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH UKRAINE OR DO THEY LOOK AT ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, WHETHER IT’S LYING TO INVESTIGATORS OR WHATEVER. DO YOU THINK GOING DOWN THIS ROAD, LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT LIED WHEN HE WROTE OUT HIS WRITTEN RESPONSES IS KIND OF LIKE TAKING YOUR EYE OFF THE BALL? >>I SAID DEMOCRATS HAVE TO FOCUS ON FACTS, NOT FEELINGS. WITH THAT SAID, I DON’T KNOW IF WE CAN IGNORE — I THINK JOSEPH AND OTHERS DO NOT GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ENOUGH CREDIT ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO PROCESS INFORMATION. I’M NOT SAYING IT’S NOT COMPLICATED. I’M NOT SAYING WE DON’T HAVE TO PACKAGE IT UP NICE TO PRESENT OUR ARGUMENTS, BUT I THINK PEOPLE CAN SEE CORRUPTION FOR WHAT IT IS. AND I THINK THEY SEE — THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE GOTTEN FATTER IN THE SWAMP BECAUSE OF DONALD TRUMP. AND WE’VE SEEN THIS PLAY OUT THROUGH ALL THESE HEARINGS. AS IT RELATES TO THE MUELLER REPORT, I THINK ONE THING DEMOCRATS HAVE DEMONSTRATED AND WE KNOW HOW TO WALK, CLUE GUM AND THINK AT THE SAME TIME. WHEN YOU SEE THEM CONTINUING TO INVESTIGATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAY HAVE STEM FRIDAY THIS, I THINK IT’S JUST OUR ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE WE CAN DO WHAT THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT DO AND THAT’S GOVERN AND INVESTIGATE. >>LET’S BRING IN RICKEY AND MOLLY TO THE DISCUSSION. I’M INTRIGUED BY THE LAST THING NANCY CORDES SAID TO US ABOUT SONDLAND. AND THE AMENDED TESTIMONY AND WHAT WE CAN ASSUME WILL BE EVEN MORE AMENDMENTS WHEN HE TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS. YOU KNOW, ROGER STONE WAS — LIED TO CONGRESS. AND WE SAW THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THAT. OTHER THANS IN THE PAST HAVE LIED TO CONGRESS AND THEY ARE NOT HIGHLY — IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE KIND OF SWAMPY THAT KNOW HOW TO NEGOTIATE THE — GORDON SONDLAND IS A BUSINESSMAN, SOMEONE WHO DECIDED TO DONATE A LOT OF MONEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. HE GOT HIS WISH, HE WAS MADE A FULL-FLEDGED MEMBER OF THE SWAMP AND NOW HE’S REALIZING DO I WANT TO GO TO JAIL JUST BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE AN AMBASSADOR? HE’S GOING TO HAVE TO TREAD LIGHTLY. I CAN SEE WHERE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ATTACK HIM. >>HE WAS ALWAYS THE KEY WITNESS HERE. >>HE KNOWS SO MUCH. >>HE’S THE DIRECT LINK: >>RIGHT, EXACTLY. >>THE DIFFICULTY HE HAS IS THIS. HE COULD TAKE THE 5TH, BY THE WAY. >>WE — WOULD THAT BE SMART? >>I WOULD NOT EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN. AS A LAWYER — >>WHY IS THAT AN OPTION FOR HIM? THAT’S TO PROTECT YOU FROM LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS; RIGHT? WHAT DID HE DO THAT COULD BE ILLEGAL? >>IN ADDITION TO HIS POSSIBLE PERJURY AND IN ADDITION TO HIS BEING INVOLVED IN A CORRUPT ACT THAT IS CALLED BRIBERY THERE ARE ROLE REASONS HERE. YOU CAN’T AS A LAWYER — I WOULD HAVE TO SAY TO HIM, WERE HE MY CLIENT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS OPTION. WHAT I DO EXPECT IS THIS. BECAUSE PRECISELY BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID — BECAUSE OF THE CONVICTION AND THE RAPID CONVICTION OF ROGER STONE, HIS LAWYERS HAVE HAD A HEART TO HEART TALK WITH HIM — AS WE USED TO CALL IT, A D AND M, DEEP AND MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION, WHICH IS TO SAY YOU HAVE TO THREAD THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE HERE AND IT IS REALLY A VERY NARROW OPENING AND YOU MUST IT WILL THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH AND WE NEED TO STRAIGHTEN OUT AND CLEAR UP ANY MISSTATEMENTS YOU MAY HAVE MADE. BECAUSE ANY OTHER STEP, IF HE DOESN’T GO THROUGH THE EYE OF THAT NEEDLE, IF IT SOMEHOW — THE THREAD MOVES TO THE RIGHT OR MOVES TO THE LEFT, THEY’RE NOT KIDDING. HE IS THE KEY HERE. YOU’RE NOT KIDDING. HE COULD REALLY BE INDICTED. >>HE DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO LOSE. ONE MIGHT ARGUE, JOSEPH AND MOLLY, SOME OF THESE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE DEFENDING PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE FACING REELECTION AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE AT THE RECEIVING END OF A TRUMP TWEET AND TRUMP SUPPORTERS DECIDING THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER FIT TO RECEIVE THEIR $179,000 SALARY AND FREE PARKING SPOT AT REAGAN NATIONAL AIRPORT. AND SO THE MEANING — THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET A REAL JOB. GORDON SONDLAND IS A MILLIONAIRE. IF TRUMP TWEETS AT HIM, WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? HE’S NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. >>BUT WE’VE SEEN C.E.O.’S JUMP WHEN DONALD TRUMP HAS TWEETED AT THEM OR TWEETED ABOUT THEIR COMPANIES. >>AND HE’S CONFUSED. HE’S CONFUSED BECAUSE HE WAS A LOYAL TRUMPER. HE WAS SOMEONE WHO REALLY BOUGHT HIS WAY IN AS MANY AN AMBASSADOR DOES. THERE’S NOTHING UNETHICAL OR IMPROPER ABOUT THAT. BUT HE HAS TO BE TORN BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE’S THE ONE PERSON WHO CAN BRING THE PRESIDENT DOWN. ANYONE WHO WOULD USE A CELL PHONE IN A RESTAURANT IN A COUNTRY WHERE YOUR CALLS ARE GOING TO BE MONITORED AND JUST PICKED UP AND CALL THE PRESIDENT TO THE UNITED STATES OR ACCEPT A CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS IS SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF GOOD JUDGMENT. >>WE KNOW REPUBLICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT USING UNSECURED DEVICES FOR COMMUNICATION. THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT IN 2016. >>HOLMES TESTIFY — RUSSIANS OWN OR HAVE A STAKE IN SEVERAL COMPANIES IN UKRAINE. >>THIS IS AN EXPLICIT CONVERSATION WHERE SONDLAND TOLD TRUMP ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR [ BLEEP ] QUOTE, UNQUOTE. SONDLAND REPLIED APPARENTLY HE’S GOING TO DO IT. HE’S GOING TO DO ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO. THEN IT GOES ON FROM THERE. I CAN’T WAIT TO HEAR FROM DAVID HOLMES. BASICALLY HOLMES TESTIFIED — HE ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHY DOESN’T — YOU KNOW, WHY DOESN’T PRESIDENT — DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP GIVE A — ABOUT UKRAINE. AND SONDLAND APPARENTLY SAID NO, HE DOESN’T. HE DOESN’T GIVE AN S AND BASICALLY HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF, MEANING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. LIKE YOU SAID, HE’S GOTTA — GORDON SONDLAND IS IN A TOUGH POSITION HERE. IT’S NOT JUST ROGER STONE. MICHAEL COHEN ALSO IS CONVICTED FOR LYING TO CONGRESS. IT’S NOT A SMALL THING TO DO. I MEAN, SOMETIMES IT’S DIFFICULT TO PROVE AND SOMETIMES IT’S DIFFICULT FOR CONGRESS TO GO DOWN THE ROAD IN CARRYING OUT AND PROSECUTING SOMEBODY FOR LYING TO CONGRESS, BUT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAVE RECENTLY SEEN ROGER STONE AND MICHAEL COHEN GO DOWN FOR THAT, YOU DON’T WANT TO TAKE THAT RISK, IT SEEMS. >>HE’S GOING TO BE A PINATA TOMORROW. IS HIS POSITION WEAKENED THOUGH, AT LEAST FOR THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE HE HAS ALREADY CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY AND WE GET A LOT OF THIS I CAN’T REALLY RECALL AND HOW CAN YOU NAIL SOMEBODY IF THEY SAY THEY CAN’T REMEMBER? >>WHICH IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS BY THE WAY WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWERS TO THE MUELLER REPORT. THEY WERE DRAWN TO THE BEST OF HIS RECOLLECTION, WHICH IS HOW A GOOD LAWYER WOULD DRAFT IT SO YOU COULD SAY SOMETHING REFRESHED MY RECOLLECTION, I MADE A MISTAKE. >>WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM HERE — I THINK TO YOUR POINT, HE’S GOING TO GET USED AS A PINATA TO BOTH SIDES. BOTH OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE ASKING WERE YOU LYING THEN OR ARE YOU LYING NOW? HE’S SAYING I WAS THE AGENT OF THE QUID PRO QUO. THAT’S NOT SOMETHING SOMEBODY WOULD FORGET. SO I THINK AGAIN FROM A — EVEN IF WE’RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A COURT OF LAW, IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC TO PRESENT THAT TO A JURY. IN THIS CASE, THE JURY IS AMERICA. IF WE REALIZE FOR A FACT THAT FOR BETTER AND WORSE AMERICANS ARE DEADLOCKED ON WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO STAND ON IMPEACHMENT SAYING HE IS GOING TO HAVE THE CREDIBILITY TO SWAY THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL OPEN, I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT. >>MOLLY, I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE TIME LINE HERE. INITIALLY WHEN IT STARTED, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS WANTED THIS WRAPPED UP BEFORE THANKSGIVING AND NOW WE KEEP ADDING NEW PEOPLE TO KEEP TESTIFYING PUBLICLY. WHETHER IT’S DRAWN OUT OR NOT, WHAT IS THE IDEAL TIME LINE FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? MAYBE IT’S GOOD TO HAVE IT GO OVER THE WEEKEND AND EVERYBODY GETS TOGETHER WITH THEIR RELATIVES AND FIGHT AND MAKE UP OF THE RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE ARE PRETTY BUSY. >>IT’S GOING TO BE A TRICKY THANKSGIVING. I’VE BEEN AROUND MY RELATIVES AND UNLIKE IN THE PAST — >>ONLY PLASTIC KNIVES. >>I GUESS YOU COULD SAY BEFORE TRUMP, YOU COULD HAVE CIVIL HEATED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POLITICS. NOW IT SEEMS LIKE ADDING TRUMP TO THE MIX, PEOPLE JUST WON’T TALK. I WAS BACK HOME IN CALIFORNIA AT A DINNER PARTY WITH MY PARENTS AND THEIR FRIENDS COULDN’T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. I THINK AS WE’VE LEARNED LAST WEEK, WE HAD THE REVELATION WITH BILL TAYLOR THAT LANDED US. DAVID HOLMES AND HIS EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY. MY GUESS WOULD BE THEY TRY TO WRAP IT UP THIS WEEK. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFFERS WORK OVER THE THANKSGIVING WEEK WHEN CONGRESS IS OUT OF SESSION — WE HAVEN’T EVEN STARTED THOSE HEARINGS YET. >>WE HAVE TWO MINUTES BEFORE THE CBS NEWS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT WHICH WILL BE ANCHORED BY — >>I’LL BE LOOKING FOR POSTURE AND TONE FROM SOME OF THE GOP’S MEMBERS WHO WILL TRY TO DISCREDIT AND JAM UP SOME OF THE WITNESSES THAT WE’LL HEAR TODAY AND ALSO WATCHING FOR THE PRESIDENT’S TWITTER. JUST– BEGGED HIM NOT TO TWEET DURING TODAY’S HEARING BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT COULD MEAN. I’LL BE WATCHING FOR — AND I’LL BE LOOKING FOR THE POSTURE FROM THE WITNESS OF HOW SERIOUS THEY LOOK LAWMAKERS IN THE FACE AND SAY I DID NOT COME WITH AN AGENDA OF TO TELL THE TRUTH. >>I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE REPUBLICANS TO FOCUS ON — IF REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS ABOUT FARM POLICY, THE JUSTIFICATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WITH U CANE — IF FOOTS — LESS TO TRYING TO DISCREDIT INDIVIDUALS. >>THE PRESIDENT SHOULD STAY OFF TWITTER, THEN? >>RICKEY? >>I’M LOOKING FOR HOW EACH WITNESS THAT IS THE MORNING WITNESS IS MISS WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN DESCRIBE THE TONE AS WELL AS THE EXACT WORDS OF THE JULY 25TH FIRM. >>I’M GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR THE SKEPTICAL REPUBLICANS, THE ONES WHO ARE SEEMINGLY NOT OKAY WITH — AND HOW THEY HANDLE THESE WITNESSES TODAY. >>ALL IS THAT THE BECAUSE IT>>>THE THE THAT THAT ONE THAT IS THE THE DEMOCRATS THE BIGGEST? “BECAUSE I TAKE >>AND, NANCY, INTERESTINGLY LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IS STILL DETAILED TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AS IS HIS BROTHER. ALSO A VETERAN AND A LAWYER THERE. WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT ATTACKS THESE WITNESSES WHILE THIS HEARING IS GOING ON? ?>>Reporter: WELL, HE’S ALREADY ATTACKED THEM SO IT WOULDN’T BE SURPRISING. HE’S ATTACKED VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS AS NEVER TRUMPERS, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY HELD ANY KIND OF GRUDGE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHATSOEVER OR HAVE EVER EXPRESSED THAT. OVER THE WEEKEND, THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE WERE BOTH ASKED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WILLIAMS, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO’S BEEN DETAILED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT. NEITHER OF THEM WOULD STICK UP FOR HER. THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE WOULD ONLY SAY, WELL, SHE’S A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL. SO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN REPEATEDLY IS ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS REFUSING TO DEFEND THESE WITNESS WHEN’S THEY’VE BEEN ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. BUT YOU KNOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO BE WATCHING FOR THAT POSSIBILITY TODAY. IT DID NOT GO OVER WELL WHEN THE PRESIDENT DID IT THE LAST TIME ON FRIDAY, EVEN REPUBLICANS TOLD HIM IT WAS NOT A GREAT IDEA. >>NANCY, THANK YOU. WANT TO BRING IN WEIJA JIANG WHO IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HEARD NANCY DESCRIBE — TODAY TAKES US INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THAT CALL. SOME WHO STILL WORK FOR THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. WHAT ARE YOU HEARING THIS MORNING ABOUT HOW THE WHITE HOUSE WILL RESPOND. AND WE’RE GOING TO SEE THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT?>>WE ARE. HE’S GOING TO VHAVE A MEETING WITH HIS ENTIRE CABINET. AND HE LIKES FOR REPORTERS TO BE INSIDE BECAUSE HE THINKS THAT OFFERS TRANSPATIENCESY. WE FULLY EXPECT HIM TO REACT TO WHAT’S HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL. THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE MADE THEIR STRATEGY INCREDIBLY CLEAR, AND THAT IS TO REUSE AND REPURPOSE THE SAME PUNCHY, MEMORABLE LINES OF DEFENSE REGARDLESS OF WHAT NEW EVIDENCE MAY SURFACE THAT CONTRADICTS THEM. SO I FULLY EXPECT THE PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE INSISTING THAT THE CALL WAS PERFECT AND ASK THE PUBLIC TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT FOR THEMSELVES, SOMETHING THAT HE BLASTS ON TWITTER IN ALL CAPS EVERY COUPLE DAYS SOMETIMES WITHOUT CONTEXT. SO WE ARE WAITING FOR HIM TO CHIME IN. WE KNOW THAT HE HAS WATCHED THE HEARINGS IN THE PAST, EVEN THOUGH HE TRIED TO DISTANCE HIMSELF BY SAYING HE’S TOO BUSY FOR THAT. BUT, NORAH, YOU KNOW, SOURCES TELL US HERE THAT HE’S DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH WHAT HAPPENS AND WILL LIKELY BE PAYING ATTENTION.>>WEIJA, THANK YOU. WANT TO GO QUICKLY NOW TO OUR CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT MAJOR GARRETT AS WE GET READY FOR THE CHAIRMAN TOO. YOU’RE HEARING THAT THERE’S SOME REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WHO HAVE BEEN WEIGHING IN WITH THE PRESIDENT. WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED?>>ON FRIDAY, NOR RAH, THE PRESIDENT CALLED SEVERAL OF HIS CHIEF DEFENDERS. THEY TOLD HIM CANDIDLY LEAVE THE TACTICS IN THE HEARING ROOMS TO US. YOUR TWEET ABOUT MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS NOT HELPFUL. IT TURNED A DAY WE WERE TRYING TO FIGHT TIE STAND STILL, TO A NET LESS FOR YOU AND FOR US. DON’T GET ON YOUR TWITTER ACONSIDE ACCOUNT. DON’T ENGAGE THESE WITNESSES. LEAVE THE TACTICS AND POLITICS TO US. >>GREAT REPORTING THERE. MARG GET BR MARGARET BEN NAN IS WITH US. YOU’VE SPOKEN TO THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. WE’RE LEARNING NOW THAT SPEAKER PELOSI SENT A LETTER TO HER COLLEAGUES ABOUT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY USE TO DESCRIBE THIS, TALK ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER. >>THEY KNOW THIS IS ABOUT WINNING THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS WORTH UNDERTAKING. BRIBERY, TREASON AND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE HOW THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. YOU WILL HEAR LANGUAGE THAT THESE THINGS THAT YOU HEAR BEING LAID OUT AS TROUBLING PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR THAT BRING YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT NOT YET DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT’S DOOR ARE AMOUNTING TO SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN PROSECUTE WHEN THEY BRING THOSE TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO ULTIMATELY WRITE THOSE ARMS OF IMPEACHMENT. >>THAT’S JENNIFER WILLIAMS THERE WHO OF COURSE GOT HER CAREER WORKING FOR GEORGE W. BUSH ON HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, SWERVED CONDOLEEZZA RICE. SHE SERVED TWO REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATS, ONE DEMOCRATIC IN OBAMA. THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ACCUSE HER AS A NEVER TRUMPER, I IMAGINE WE’LL HEAR HER RESPOND TO THAT TODAY WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT. >>YES. AND NAME-CHECKING THOSE REPUBLICAN PEOPLE AND REALLY ICONS IS PART OF HER DEFENSE HERE. IS I’M NOT DOING THIS FOR POLITICAL REASONS. SHE WILL LAY OUT THAT MORE THAN DECADES SHE HAS SERVED IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE. AND WHAT YOU WILL HEAR FROM VINDMAN AS WELL IS THAT THEY’RE ARCING THEY ARGUING THEY TOOK ON OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION, THIS IS NOT ABOUT LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT. >>JENNIFER WILLIAMS INTERESTINGLY SHE SAYS SHE’S BEEN ON I THINK IT WAS ABOUT A DOZEN OF THESE PRESIDENTIAL CALLS. SHE SAY>>>LET’S LISTEN IN NOW TO CHAIRMANSHIP.>>THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS OF THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT OBJECTION AT ANY TIME. THERE IS A CORM PRESIDENT. WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING. I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND RANKING MEMBER NUNES WILL MAKE A STATEMENT. THEN, WE WILL TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS IS AND THEN TO QUESTIONS. FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HER. INTERN, WE ASK FOR YOUR RESPECT AS WE PROCEED WITH TODAY’S HEARING. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS. AS CHAIRMAN I WILL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND ASSURE THE COMMITTEE IS RUN WITH HOUSE RULES AND RESOLUTION 660. WITH THAT, I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO DONALD J TRUMP, THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. LAST WEEK, WE HEARD FROM THREE EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATS. TESTIFIED ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP SCHEME TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS DOLLARS OF U.S. MILITARY AID TO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS ON A DELIVERABLE BY THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS THAT TRUMP BELIEVED WOULD HELP HIS INVESTIGATION AND RE-CAMPAIGN. ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVE THE BIDENS AND A DISCREDIT BUT A CONSPIRACY THEORY AND UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN OUR 2015 ELECTION. AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD LATER TELL A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE MEN, TRUMP DID NOT GIVE A, THEN HE USED AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE. HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT. LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT GIULIANI WAS PUSHING. TO PRESS A FOREIGN LEADER TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ABOVE THOSE OF THE NATION. HE UNDERMINED OUR MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT FOR A KEY ALLY, AND UNDERCUT U.S. ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE. HOW COULD OUR DIPLOMATS URGE UKRAINE TO REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS, IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS URGING UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN PRECISELY THE SAME KIND OF CORRUPT AND POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ONE OF OUR OWN CITIZENS. AT THE WHITE HOUSE, THE PROFESSIONALS BECAME CONCERNED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH ANY REGULAR CHANNEL THAT THROUGH HIS ACTIVE CHIEF OF STAFF, GORDON SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUSHING A POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE AT ODDS WITH THE NATIONAL INTERESTS. THIS MORNING WE HEAR FROM TWO OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS WHO BECAME AWARE OF THOSE EFFORTS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX LINDEMANN IS A CAREER ARMY OFFICER, AND IRAQ WAR VETERAN WHO WAS AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AND AN EXPERT IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE WHO HAS WORKED AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE PENTAGON. IN JULY 2018 HE WAS DETAILED TO THE WHITE HOUSE, IN PART TO COORDINATE POLICY ON UKRAINE. JENNIFER WILLIAMS IS A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER WHO IS CURRENTLY DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE AND EURASIA RELATIONS. FOLLOWING HIS INITIAL CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON APRIL 21, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO REPRESENT HIM AT ZELENSKY’S UPCOMING INAUGURATION. MS. WILLIAMS WAS WORKING ON LOGISTICS FOR THE TRIM TRIP. PENCE WOULD BE A COVETED ATTENDEE, SECOND IN SIGNIFICANCE ONLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND WOULD’VE SENT AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL OF SUPPORT TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. IN EARLY MAY, HOWEVER RUDY GIULIANI HAD BEEN GOING TO PLAN TO GO TO UKRAINE AND FACILITATING THE INVESTIGATION TO THE BIDENS. HE HAD TO CALL OFF THE TRIP AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC. AMONG OTHERS, GIULIANI WANED PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR HAVING TO CANCEL AND CLAIMED THEY WERE ANTAGONISTIC TO TRUMP. THREE DAYS LATER THE PRESIDENT CALLED OFF THE VICE PRESIDENT ATTENDANCE AT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION. INSTEAD, A LOWER-LEVEL DELEGATION WAS NAMED, ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR RICK VOGLER. THE THREE AMIGOS. AFTER RETURNING FROM THE INAUGURATION SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION BRIEF PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THEIR FIRST INTERACTIONS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THEY URGED RESIDENT TRUMP TO MEET WITH HIM. BUT INSTEAD HE CRITICIZED UKRAINE AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO WORK WITH RUDY A FEW WEEKS LATER, ON JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WORKED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AND A GROUP OF UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. HE INFORMED THEM THAT ACCORDING TO CHIEFS OF STAFF MULVANEY, THE STAFF WOULD HAPPEN IF UKRAINE UNDERTOOK CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING AND SAID AFTERWARDS HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE PICKING UP ON THIS. UNDETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION DOWNSTAIRS TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND WAS MORE EXPLICIT, ACCORDING TO WITNESSES. UKRAINE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS IF THEY WERE TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH TRUMP. AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH ALEX VINDMAN WITNESSED, HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE’S TOP LAWYER TO REPORT TO THE MATTER. HE WAS TOLD TO RETURN IN THE FUTURE WITH ANY CONCERNS. HE WOULD SOON FIND THE NEED TO DO SO. A WEAK LATER ON JULY 18, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AD BUDGET ANNOUNCED ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL THAT MULVANEY, AT TRANCE DIRECTION WAS FREEZING NEARLY 400 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND ENJOYED THE SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT. ONE WEEK AFTER THAT, TRUMP WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY. DURING THAT CALL, TRUMP COMPLAINED THE U.S. RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAVE NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL. LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP FOR HIS SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE AND SAID UKRAINE WAS READY TO PURCHASE MORE JAVELINS AND ANTI-TAKE WEAPON, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DETERRENCE. TRUMPS IMMEDIATE RESPONSE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH. HE THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDIT OF THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORY AND EVEN MORE OMINOUSLY, LOOK INTO THE BIDENS. NEITHER WAS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PREPARATORY MATERIAL FOR THE CALL, BUT THEY WERE IN DONALD TRUMP PERSONAL INTEREST AND IN THE INTEREST OF HIS 2020 REELECTION CAMPAIGN. THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE, BECAUSE SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAD BEEN PRESSING THE UKRAINE FOR WEEKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, CHARISMA AND THE BIDENS. BOTH COLONEL VINDMAN AND MISS WILLIAMS WERE ON THE JULY 25 CALL. VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT DUE TO THE UNEQUAL BARGAINING POSITION OF THE TWO LEADERS, AND UKRAINE’S DEPENDENCY ON THE U.S. , THE FAVOR TRUMPED ASKED OF ZELENSKY WAS REALLY A DEMAND. AFTER THE CALL, MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING VINDMAN WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH TO REPORT IT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL’S TOP LAWYER. IT WAS THE SECOND TIME IN TWO WEEKS THT LINDEMANN HAD RAISED CONCERNS WITH HENNESSY LAWYERS. FOR HER PART, WILLIAMS ALSO BELIEVED THAT ASKING ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE THIS POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS WAS INAPPROPRIATE. AND THAT IT MIGHT EXPLAIN SOMETHING ELSE SHE HAD BECOME AWARE OF, THE OTHERWISE INEXPLICABLE HOLD ON U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. BOTH COLONEL 11 AND MS. WILLIAMS TOOK NOTE OF THE CONSPICUOUS USE OF THE WORD — AND LEFT OUT OF THE TRANSCRIPT. OTHER WITNESSES HAVE NOW CONFIRMED IT. IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED THE JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN CONTINUED TO RE-ASK FOR THE úT BY MID AUGUST, THE UKRAINIAN DEPUTY AMBASSADOR ASKED VINDMAN WHY THE UNITED STATES WAS WITHHOLDING THE AID. ALTHOUGH VINDMAN DIDN’T HAVE AN ANSWER, SONDLAND MADE EXPLICIT TO THE UKRAINIANS AT A MEETING IN WARSAW. THEY NEEDED TO PUBLIC COMMIT TO THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS IF THEY HOPED TO GET THE AID. MISS WILLIAMS, WE ALL SAW THE PRESIDENTS TWEET ABOUT YOU ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON. AND THE INSULTS HE HEARD AT AMBASSADOR YVONNE OF ITS LAST FRIDAY. YOU ARE HERE TODAY, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL. COLONEL VINDMAN, WE HAVE SEEN FAR MORE SCURRILOUS ATTACKS ON YOUR CHARACTER AND WATCH AS CERTAIN PERSONALITIES ON FOX HAVE QUESTIONED YOUR LOYALTY. I NOTE THAT YOU HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR AMERICA, AND WE OWE YOU AN IMMENSE DEBT OF GRATITUDE. I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL BECOME PART OF THOSE VICIOUS ATTACKS. TODAY’S WITNESSES, LIKE THOSE WHO TESTIFIED LAST WEEK ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY WERE SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR. NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE FOR OR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT. THAT QUESTION IS FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE FACT WITNESSES. IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER AND INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, IF HE SOUGHT TO CONDITION, COURSE, EXTORT, OR BRIBE AN ALLY INTO IN THE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS TO AID HIS ELECTIONCAMPAIGN AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF NEEDED MILITARY AID, IT WILL BE UP TO US TO DECIDE WHETHER THOSE ACTS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. AND NOW I RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR REMARKS HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. >>THANK YOU GENTLEMEN. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW BRIEF WORDS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME. IF YOU WATCHED THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS LAST WEEK, YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED A DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACCOUNTS DESCRIBING IT. WHEN YOU SAW THREE DIPLOMATS WHO DISLIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S UKRAINE POLICY DISCUSSING SECONDHAND AND THIRDHAND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THEIR OBJECTIONS WITH THE TRUMP POLICY. MEANWHILE, THEY ADMITTED THEY HAD NOT TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THESE MATTERS. AND, THEY WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED. WHAT YOU READ IN THE PRESS WERE ACCOUNTS OF SHOCKING, DAMNING, AND EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY THAT FULLY SUPPORTS THE DEMOCRATS ACCUSATIONS. IF THESE ACCOUNTS HAVE A FAMILIAR RING, IT IS BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME PREPOSTEROUS REPORTING THE MEDIA OFFERED FOR THREE YEARS ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX. ON A NEARLY DAILY BASIS, THE TOP NEWS OUTLETS IN AMERICA REPORTED BREATHLESSLY ON THE NEWEST BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS, SHOWING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EVERYONE SURROUNDING HIM WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS. IT REALLY WASN’T LONG AGO THAT WE WERE READING THESE HEADLINES. FROM CNN-CONGRESS INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN INVESTMENT FUNDS WITH TIES TO TRUMP OFFICIALS. THIS WAS FALSE. THE NEW YORK TIMES-TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDES HAVE REPEATED CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. ALSO FALLS. SLADE WAS A TRUMP SERVER COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA. THIS WAS FALSE. NEW YORK MAGAZINE-WILL TRUMP BE MEETING WITH HIS COUNTERPART, OR HIS HANDLER? THIS WAS FALSE. THE GUARDIAN-MANAFORT HELD SECRET TALKS WITH ECUADORIAN MBASSY. ALSO FALLS. BUZZ FEED, PRESIDENT TRUCK DIRECTED HIS ATTORNEY TO LIE TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE MOSCOW TOWER PROJECT. ALL OF THESE WERE FALSE. THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVITY OR FAIRNESS IN THE MEDIAS RUSSIA STORIES, JUST AS A FEVERED RUSH TO TARNISH AND REMOVE A PRESIDENT WHO REFUSES TO PRETEND THAT THE MEDIA ARE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, PUPPETS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. WITH THEIR BIAS MISREPORTING ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX THE MEDIA LOST CONFIDENCE OF 1 MILLION OF AMERICANS AND THEY REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW BADLY THEY BOTCHED THE STORY. THEY HAVE LEARNED NO LESSONS AND SIMPLY EXPECT AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE THEM AS THEY TRY TO STOKE YET ANOTHER PARTISAN FRENZY. IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS, I HAVE OUTLINED THREE QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA DON’T WANT ASK OR ANSWERED. INSTEAD OF SHEDDING LIGHT ON THESE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS, THE MEDIA ARE TRYING TO SMOTHER AND DISMISS THEM. THOSE QUESTIONS START WITH, WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS PRIOR COORDINATION WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND TO US TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH? THE MEDIA HAVE FULLY ACCEPTED THE DEMOCRATS STUDY AND REVERSAL ON THE NEED FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY TO THIS COMMITTEE. AND THE DEMOCRATS WERE INSISTING ON HIS TESTIMONY. BUT, THE MEDIA WANTED IT TOO. BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER PROBLEMATIC QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE THESE, WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S PRIOR COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMANSHIP, HIS STAFF AND ANY OTHER PEOPLE HE COOPERATED WITH WHILE PREPARING THE COMPLAINT? WHAT ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS POLITICAL BIASES AND CONNECTIONS TO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS? HOW DOES THE WHISTLEBLOWER EXPLAIN THE INACCURACIES IN THE COMPLAINT? WHAT CONTACT DID THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAVE WITH THE MEDIA, WHICH APPEARS TO BE ONGOING? WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE WHISTLEBLOWERS INFORMATION? WHO ELSE DID HE TALK TO? AND, WAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM RECEIVING OR CONVEYING ANY OF THAT INFORMATION? THE MEDIA HAVE JOINED THE DEMOCRATS IN DISMISSING THE IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINING THIS CRUCIAL WITNESS. NOW THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS SUCCESSFULLY STARTED IMPEACHMENT, HIS DISAPPEARANCE FROM THE STORY IS INTERESTING, AS IF THE DEMOCRATS PUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN THEIR OWN WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM. MY SECOND QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF UKRAINE’S ELECTION MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? IN THESE DEPOSITIONS AND HEARINGS, REPUBLICANS HAVE CITED NUMEROUS INDICATIONS OF UKRAINE MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS, TO OPPOSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. MANY OF THESE INSTANCES WERE REPORTED, INCLUDING THE POSTING OF MANY PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS BY VETERAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, JOHN SULLIVAN. SINCE THE DEMOCRATS SWITCHED FROM RUSSIA TO UKRAINE FROM THERE IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE, SOLOMON HAS REPORTED ON BSRISMA, HUNTER BIDEN, AND UKRAINE ELECTION MEDDLING HAS BECOME INCONVENIENT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NARRATIVE, SO THE MEDIA IS FURIOUSLY SMEARING AND LIBELING SOLOMON. IN FACT, THE PUBLICATION ON THE HILL TOLD ITS STAFF YESTERDAY, IT WOULD CONDUCT A REVIEW OF SOLOMON’S UKRAINE REPORTING’S. COINCIDENTALLY, THE DECISION COMES JUST THREE DAYS AFTER A DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE TOLD THE HILL WRITER THAT SHE WOULD STOP SPEAKING TO THE HILL BECAUSE IT HAD RUN SOLOMON’S STORIES. AND, SHE URGED THE WRITER TO RELAY HER CONCERNS TO HILL’S MANAGEMENT. SO NOW THAT SOLOMON’S REPORTING IS A PROBLEM FOR THE DEMOCRATS, IT IS A PROBLEM FOR THE MEDIA AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD, JOHN SOLOMON’S OCTOBER 31 STORY ENTITLED DEBUNKING SOME OF THE UKRAINE SCANDAL MISS ABOUT BIDEN AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE. I ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TODAY TO READ THIS STORY AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE SOLOMON HAS GATHERED.>>AS UNANIMOUS CONSENT, WE PUT THIS INTO THE RECORD. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION. >>THE CONCERTED CAMPAIGN BY THE MEDIA TO DISOWN THEIR OWN COLLEAGUES IS SHOCKING. WE SEE IT AGAIN IN THE SUDDEN DENUNCIATIONS OF NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER, KEN VOGEL AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST AFTER HE COVERED SIMILAR ISSUES, INCLUDING A 2017 POLITICO PIECE ENTITLED, UKRAINIAN EFFORTS TO SABOTAGE TRUMP BACKFIRE. MY THIRD QUESTION, WHY DID BSRISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN? WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID HIS POSITION AFFECTING U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION? WE HAVE NOW HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE DEMOCRATS OWN WITNESSES THAT DIPLOMATS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST INVOLVING HUNTER BIDEN. THAT IS BECAUSE HE HAD SECURED A WELL-PAID POSITION, DESPITE HAVING NO QUALIFICATIONS ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY WHILE HIS FATHER WAS VICE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH OVERSEEING UKRAINIAN ISSUES. AFTER TRYING OUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE RECENTLY SETTLED ON BRIBERY. ACCORDING TO WIDESPREAD REPORTS, THEY REPLACED THEIR QUID PRO QUO ALLEGATION, BECAUSE IT WASN’T POLLING WELL. BUT, IF THE DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA ARE SUDDENLY SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT BRIBERY, YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD TAKE SOME INTEREST IN BSRISMA PAYING HUNTER BIDEN $83,000 A MONTH. AND, YOU THINK THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN JOE BIDEN THREATENING TO WITHHOLD U.S. LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THE UKRAINIANS FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS INVESTIGATING BSRISMA. THAT WOULD BE A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY. THE MEDIA, OF COURSE ARE FREE TO ACT AS DEMOCRAT PUPPETS, AND THEY ARE FREE TO ALERT FROM THE RUSSIAN HOAX TO THE UKRAINE HOAX AT THE DIRECTION OF THEIR PUPPET MASTERS. BUT, THEY CANNOT REASONABLY EXPECT TO DO SO WITHOUT ALIENATING HALF THE COUNTRY WHO VOTED FOR THE COUNTRY. AMERICANS HAVE LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE FAKE NEWS WHEN THEY SEE IT. AND, IF THE MAINSTREAM PRESS WON’T GIVE IT TO THEM STRAIGHT, THEY WILL GO ELSEWHERE TO FIND IT. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DOING. THAT I YIELD BACK.>>I THINK THE GENTLEMAN. TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN IS AN ACTIVE DUTY OFFICER WHO JOINED THE ARMY AFTER COLLEGE AND SERVED MULTIPLE TOURS OVERSEAS, SERVING IN SOUTH KOREA, JOURNEY, AND A RACK. HE WAS DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AT A TIME OF HEAVY FIGHTING AND WAS AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AFTER BEING WOUNDED BY ROADSIDE BOMBS. SINCE 2008, COLONEL VINDMAN HAS SERVED AS A FOREIGN OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN EURASIA, SERVING BOTH AT HOME AND IN U.S. EMBASSIES IN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA. HE HAS SERVED AS A POLITICAL MILITARY AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR RUSSIA FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. HE JOINED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN JULY 2018, WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO SERVE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. JENNIFER WILLIAMS BEGAN HER CAREER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN 2005. SHORTLY AFTER GRADUATING FROM COLLEGE, WHEN SHE JOINED THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE DURING THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION. AND, AFTER WORKING AS A FIELD REPRESENTATIVE ON THE 2004 BUSH/CHENEY CAMPAIGN. SHE JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE THE FOLLOWING YEAR COMPLETING TOURS IN JAMAICA, BEIRUT, AND LEBANON. PRIOR TO JOINING THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, SHE SERVED AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN LONDON AS A PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER. IN APRIL 2019, MS. WILLIAMS WAS DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, MIKE PENCE WHERE SHE SERVES AS A SPECIAL ADVISOR ON HIS FOREIGN-POLICY TEAM COVERING EUROPE AND RUSSIA ISSUES. IN THAT CAPACITY SHE KEEPS THE VICE PRESIDENT AWARE OF FOREIGN- POLICY ISSUES IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA. AND PREPARES THEM FOR FOREIGN POLICY ENGAGEMENT AND MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS. TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE WITNESSES ARE SWORN. THE FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY RUN CLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH ON CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY REPRISAL, THREAT OF REPRISAL, OR ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FOR THE TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. IF YOU WOULD BOTH BOTH PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? LET THE RECORD SHOW THE WITNESSES HAVE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU, AND YOU MAY BE SEATED. THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE, SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM. WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. WITH THAT, MS. WILLIAMS YOU ARE RECOGNIZE FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. WHEN YOU ARE CONCLUDED, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN YOU AFTERWARD FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. MS. WILLIAMS? >>THANK YOU CHAIRMANSHIP, RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS STATEMENT. I APPEARED TODAY PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA AND AM PREPARED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES. I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER FOR NEARLY 14 YEARS. WORKING FOR THREE DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS, TWO REPUBLICAN AND ONE DEMOCRATIC. I JOINED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN 2006, AFTER SERVING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNDERSECRETARY MICHAEL CHERTOFF. IT WAS WITH GREAT PRIDE AND CONVICTION THAT I SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, ADMINISTERED BY A PERSONAL HERO OF MINE, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE. AS A CAREER OFFICER, I AM COMMITTED TO SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ADVANCING AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD, IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT FOREIGN-POLICY OBJECTIVES. I HAVE BEEN INSPIRED AND ENCOURAGED IN THAT JOURNEY BY THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS, WHO I AM PROUD TO CALL COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE FOREIGN SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE, MILITARY, AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. I HAVE SERVED OVERSEE TOURS IN KINGSTON, JAMAICA, BEIRUT, AND LONDON, ENGLAND. I HAVE SERVED MILLIONS OF VICTIMS OF THIS AREA CONFLICT AND SERVED AS AN ADVISOR ON MIDDLE EAST ISSUES TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE. IN THE SPRING, IT WAS THE GREATEST HONOR OF MY CAREER TO BE ASKED TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA. OVER THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH A DEDICATED AND CAPABLE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. TO ADVANCE THE ADMINISTRATION’S AGENDA. I HAVE ALSO WORKED CLOSELY WITH TALENTED AND COMMITTED COLLEAGUES AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, STATE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AND OTHER AGENCIES TO ADVANCE AND PROMOTE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES. IN THIS CAPACITY, I HAVE ADVISED AND PREPARED THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENGAGEMENTS RELATED TO UKRAINE. AS YOU ARE AWARE, ON NOVEMBER 7 I APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR A CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE MY RECOLLECTION OF SOME OF THE EVENTS I EXPECT THE COMMITTEE MAY ASK ME ABOUT. ON APRIL 21, VLADIMIR ZELENSKY WON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. ON APRIL 23, THE VICE PRESIDENT CALLED TO CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY. DURING THE CALL, WHICH I PARTICIPATED IN, THE VICE PRESIDENT ACCEPTED AN INVITATION TO ATTEND PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY’S UPCOMING INAUGURATION, PROVIDING THE SCHEDULING WORKED OUT. THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD ONLY A NARROW WINDOW OF AVAILABILITY AT THE END OF MAY, AND THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT WOULD NOT MEET TO SET A DATE FOR THE INAUGURATION UNTIL AFTER MAY 14. AS A RESULT, WE DID NOT EXPECT TO KNOW WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT COULD ATTEND UNTIL MAY 14 AT THE EARLIEST. AND WE MADE ONLY PRELIMINARY TRIP PREPARATIONS IN EARLY MAY. ON MAY 13, AN ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT CHIEF OF STAFF CALLED AND INFORMED ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DECIDED THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ATTEND THE INAUGURATION IN UKRAINE. HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION. I RELAYED THAT INSTRUCTION TO OTHERS INVOLVED IN PLANNING THE POTENTIAL TRIP. I ALSO INFORMED THE NSC THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE ATTENDING, SO IT COULD IDENTIFY A DELEGATION TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES AT PRESENT ELENSKY’S I ON JULY 3, I LEARNED THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HAD PLACED A HOLD ON A SECURITY ASSISTANT DESIGNATED FOR UKRAINE. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED, OMB WAS REVIEWING WHERE THE FUNDING WAS ALIGNED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION’S PRIORITIES. I SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED MEETINGS OF THE POLICY COORDINATION COMMITTEE WHERE A HOLD ON UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE WITH DISGUST. DURING THOSE MEETINGS, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS ADVOCATED THAT THE HOLD SHOULD BE LIFTED. AND AND OMB REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF HAD DIRECTED THE HOLD SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE. ON SEPTEMBER 11, I LEARNED THAT THE HOLDEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE HAD BEEN RELEASED. I HAVE NEVER LEARNED WHAT PROMPTED THAT DECISION. ON JULY 25, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES I LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THE CONTENT OF WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED. PRIOR TO JULY 25, I PARTICIPATED IN ROUGHLY A DOZEN OTHER PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS. DURING MY CLOSE DOOR DEPOSITION, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND WHETHER I HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL. AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL UNUSUAL, BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I HAD OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC-POLITICAL MATTER. AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL, I PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE VICE PRESIDENTS DAILY BRIEFING BOOK INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A CALL THAT DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM TRANSCRIBED IN THE CALL WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BOOK. I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE OR THE TRANSCRIPT. I DID NOT DISCUSS THE JULY 25 CALL WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OR ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE NSC. ON AUGUST 29, I LEARNED THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BE TRAVELING TO POLAND TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 1. AT THE SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING, WHICH I ATTENDED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT NEWS ARTICLES REPORTING A HOLD ON U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE. THE VICE PRESIDENT RESPONDED THAT UKRAINE HAD THE UNITED STATES ON WAIVING REPORT AND PROMISE TO RELAY THEIR CONVERSATION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT NIGHT. DURING THE SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING, NEITHER THE VICE PRESIDENT NOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION DISCUSSED DURING THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS STATEMENT. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES RELATING TO UKRAINE AND MY ROLE IN THE OFFENSE UNDER INVESTIGATION. I HAVE DEDICATED MY ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES IT HAS BEEN MY HONOR TO SERVE AS AN OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY, AS AN INTERCITY OFFICER I SERVED MULTIPLE OVERSEE TOURS INCLUDING SOUTH KOREA AND GERMANY. SINCE 20,000 EIGHT I HAVE BEEN A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN POLITICAL MILITARY AFFAIRS. I SERVED IN UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN KIEV, UKRAINE AND MOSCOW, RUSSIA. IN WASHINGTON, DC I WAS THE POLITICAL MILITARY AFFAIRS IN RUSSIA WHERE I DRAFTED THE ARMED FORCES GLOBAL CAMPAIGN PLAN TO COUNTER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND RUSSIAN MALIGN INFLUENCE. IN JULY 2018, I WAS ASKED TO SERVE AT THE WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. AT THE NSC, I AM THE PRINCIPAL ADVISOR TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR ON UKRAINE AND OTHER COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO. MY ROLE AT THE NSC IS TO DEVELOP, COORDINATE, AND IMPLEMENT PLANS AND POLICIES TO MANAGE THE FULL RANGE OF DIPLOMATIC INFORMATIONAL AND MILITARY, AND ECONOMIC NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES FOR THE COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO. MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO COORDINATE POLICY WITH DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES. THE COMMITTEE HAS HEARD FROM MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE AS A BULWARK AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT OUR COUNTRY’S POLICY OF SUPPORTING UKRAINIAN INTEGRITY AND PROMOTING UKRAINIAN PROSPERITY AND INSTRUCTING A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC UKRAINE AS A COUNTER TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT, BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGY ACROSS ARIOUS ADMINISTRATI DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN. AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S ELECTION IN APRIL 2019 CREATED AN UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE OUR STRATEGY AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. IN THE SPRING OF 2019, I BECAME AWARE OF TWO DESTRUCTIVE ACTORS, PRIMARILY UKRAINE’S THEN PROSECUTOR AND FORMER MAYOR RUDOLPH JULIANA, THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL ATTORNEY PROMOTING FALSE NARRATIVES THAT UNDERMINED UNITED STATES UKRAINE POLICY. THE NSC, AND IT’S INTERAGENCY PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT GREW INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IT WAS DOING TO OUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVES. ON APRIL 21, 2019 LATIMER ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN A LANDSLIDE VICTORY ON THE UNITY REFORM AND ANTICORRUPTION PLATFORM. PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT LINSKY ON APRIL 25, 2019 TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS VICTORY. I WAS A STAFF OFFICER WHO PRODUCED THE CALL MATERIALS AND WAS ONE OF THE STAFF OFFICERS WHO LISTEN TO THE CALL. THE CALL WAS POSITIVE AND RESIDENTS TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO WORK WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND IN INVITED HIM TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE. IN MAY, I ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS PART OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION LED BY SECRETARY PERRY. FOLLOWING THE VISIT, THE MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION PROVIDED PRESIDENT TRUMP A DEBRIEFING OFFERING A POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM. AFTER THE DEBRIEFING, PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED A CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO PRESENT ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED ANOTHER INVITATION TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE. ON JULY 10, 2019 THE UKRAINE’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR VISITED WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR A MEETING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON. AMBASSADOR VULCAN AND SONDLAND AND SECRETARY RICK PERRY ALSO ATTENDED THE MEETING. I ATTENDED ALSO. WE FULLY ANTICIPATED THE UKRAINIANS WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT. AMBASSADOR BOLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STARTED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT UKRAINE DELIVER SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO SECURE THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, THERE WAS A SHORT DEBRIEFING DURING WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE DELIVERING THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS, AND BARISMA. I STATED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. DR. HILL ALSO ASSERTED HIS COMMENTS ERE NOT PROPER. FOLLOWING THE MEETING, WE AGREED TO REPORT THE MEETING TO THE NSC’S LEAD COUNSEL, MR. JOHN EISENBERG. ON JULY 21, 2019 PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON A PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION AND ANOTHER LANDSLIDE VICTORY. THE NSC PROPOSED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CONGRATULATE HIM. ON JULY 25, THE CALL OCCURRED. I LISTENED IN ON THE CALL IN THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WHITE HOUSE COLLEAGUES. I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL. WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE. AND I REPORTED MY CONCERTS TO MR. EISENBERG. IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AT AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT. I WAS ALSO CLEAR IF UKRAINE PURSUED THE INVESTIGATION, IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE WERE SEATED WITH AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS AND BARISMA IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A BIPARTISAN PLAY AND UKRAINE WOULD LOSE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10 RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND THEN JULY 25 RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY. I PROPERLY REPORTED MY CONCERNS IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE CONCERNS, BECAUSE THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY ACTIONS. WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS, MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY AND TO CARRY OUT MY DUTY. FOLLOWING EACH OF MY REPORTS TO MR. EISENBERG, I IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO WORK TO ADVANCE THE PRESIDENTS AND OUR COUNTRY’S FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES. I FOCUSED ON WHAT I HAVE DONE THROUGHOUT MY MILITARY CAREER, PROMOTING AMERICA’S NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE COURAGE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO SAY THAT THE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANT IS REPREHENSIBLE. IT IS NATURAL TO DISAGREE AND ENGAGE IN A SPIRITED DEBATE. THIS HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM OF OUR COUNTRY SINCE THE TIME OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. BUT, WE ARE BETTER THAN PERSONAL ATTACKS. UNIFORM I WEAR TODAY IS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY. THE MEMBERS OF OUR ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE ARE MADE UP OF A PATCHWORK OF PEOPLE FROM ALL ETHNICITIES, REGIONS, SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS, WHO COME TOGETHER UNDER A COMMON OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE DO NOT SERVE ANY POLITICAL PARTY. WE SERVE THE NATION. I AM HUMBLED TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY AS ONE OF MANY WHO SERVE IN THE MOST DISTINGUISHED AND ABLE MILITARY IN THE WORLD. THE ARMY IS THE ONLY PROFESSION I HAVE EVER KNOWN. AS A YOUNG MAN I DECIDED I WANTED TO SPEND MY LIFE SERVING THIS NATION AND GAVE MY FAMILY REFUGE FROM AUTHORITARIAN OPPRESSION. FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS HAS BEEN MY HONOR TO PROTECT AND SERVE THIS GREAT COUNTRY. NEXT MONTH WILL MARK 40 YEARS SINCE MY FAMILY ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES. WHEN MY FATHER WAS 47 YEARS OLD, HE LEFT BEHIND HIS ENTIRE LIFE, AND THE ONLY HOME HE HAD EVER KNOWN TO START OVER IN THE UNITED STATES. SO HIS THREE SONS COULD HAVE A BETTER AND SAFER LIFE. HIS COURAGEOUS DECISION INSPIRED A DEEP SENSE OF GRATITUDE IN MY BROTHERS AND MYSELF, AND INSTILLED IN US A SENSE OF DUTY AND SERVICE. ALL THREE OF US HAVE SERVED OR ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE MILITARY. MY LITTLE BROTHER, SITTING BEHIND ME TODAY. OUR COLLECTIVE MILITARY SERVICE IS A SPECIAL PART OF OUR FAMILY’S HISTORY AND AS STORIED AMERICANS. I ALSO RECOGNIZE MY SIMPLE ACT OF APPEARING HERE TODAY, JUST LIKE THE COURAGE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE ALSO TRUTHFULLY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. IN RUSSIA, MY ACTIVIST EXPRESSING CONCERN TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN AN OFFICIAL A PRIVATE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE SEVERE PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL REPERCUSSIONS. IN OFFERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT WOULD SURELY COST ME MY LIFE. I AM GRATEFUL TO MY FATHER AND HIS BRAVE ACT OF HOPE 40 YEARS AGO, AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND PUBLIC SERVANT, WHERE I CAN LIVE FREE OF FEAR FOR MINE AND MY FAMILY’S SAFETY. DAD, I AM SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITAL TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, TALKING TO THEM IS PROOF YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION, COME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY. DO NOT WORRY. I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.>>THANK YOU COLONEL AND MS. WILLIAMS. COLONEL, YOUR FAMILY AND BROTHER ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SUBJECT OF YOUR QUESTIONS, MS. WILLIAMS I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A PHONE CALL. WERE YOU ON THAT CALL? >>I WAS. >>AND DID YOU TAKE NOTE OF THE CALL? >>YES SIR. >>IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT CALL THAT YOU THINK MAY BE RELEVANT TO OUR INVESTIGATION? >>EXCUSE ME, HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THAT THE — >>– CAN YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE CLOSER? >>AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WITH BOTH MAJORITY AND MINORITY STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE, THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE SEPTEMBER 18 CALL IS CLASSIFIED. AS A RESULT, BOTH RESPECT TO THE CALL I WOULD REFER THE COMMITTEE TO THE PUBLIC RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES MS. WILLIAMS NOVEMBER SEVENTH TESTIMONY, WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC READOUT OF THAT CALL, WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED BY THE WHITEHOUSE. BEYOND THAT, GIVEN THE POSITION OF THE VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE ON CLASSIFICATION, I HAVE ADVISED MS. WILLIAMS NOT TO ANSWER FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CALL, IN AN UNCLASSIFIED SETTING. >>THANK YOU COUNSEL. MS. WILLAMS, I WOULD ONLY ASK YOU IN THIS SETTING IF YOU THINK THERE IS SOMETHING RELATIVE TO OUR INQUIRY IN THAT CALL, AND IF SO YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE A CLASSIFIED SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE? >>I WOULD ALSO REFER TO MY TESTIMONY THAT I GAVE IN THE CLOSED SESSION, AND I AM VERY HAPPY TO APPEAR FOR A CLASSIFIED SETTING DISCUSSION AS WELL.>>IT MADE NOT BE NECESSARY TO APPEAR IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION IN WRITING TO THE COMMITTEE. >>I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO. >>I THANK YOU. COLONEL VINDMAN, IF I TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21 CALL, THAT IS THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RESIDENT ZELENSKY, DID YOU PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO USE DURING THAT CALL? >>YES, I DID. >>AND, DID THOSE TALKING POINTS INCLUDE ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?>>YES. >>THAT WAS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE THE CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >>THOSE WERE THE RECOMMENDED TALKING POINTS THAT WERE CLEARED THROUGH THE NFC STAFF FOR THE PRESIDENT, YES. >>DID YOU LISTEN IN ON THAT CALL? >>YES, I DID. >>THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOW RELEASED A RECORD OF THAT CALL DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER MENTIONED CORRUPTION IN THE APRIL 21 CALL?>>TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, HE DID NOT. >>ON THE APRIL 21 CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE WOULD SEND A HIGH- LEVEL U.S. DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION. MS. WILLIAMS, WAS IT AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WAS TO ATTEND? >>YES, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. >>AND DID THE PRESIDENT THEN TELL THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION? >>I WAS INFORMED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND. I DID NOT WITNESS THAT CONVERSATION.>>AND, AM I CORRECT THAT YOU LEARNED THIS ON MAY 13? IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AM I ALSO CORRECT THAT THE INAUGURATION DATE HAD NOT BEEN SET RIGHT MAY 13th?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>DO YOU KNOW WHAT ACCOUNTED FOR THE PRESIDENT DECISION TO INSTRUCT THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND? >>I DO NOT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE A MEMBER OF U.S. DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION ON MAY 20, IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES CHAIRMAN. >>AND, DURING THAT TRIP DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER ANY ADVICE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >>YES MR. CHAIRMAN. >>WHAT WAS THE ADVICE YOU GAVE HIM?>>DURING A BILATERAL MEETING IN WHICH THE WHOLE DELEGATION WAS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM, I OFFERED TWO PIECES OF ADVICE. TO BE PARTICULARLY CAUTIOUS WITH REGARDS TO UKRAINE, WITH REGARDS TO RUSSIA EXCUSE ME. AND ITS DESIRE TO PROVOKE UKRAINE, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO STAY OUT OF U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY.>>AND, WHY DID YOU FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO ADVISE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STAY AWAY FROM U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS? >>CHAIRMAN, IN THE MARCH AND APRIL TIMEFRAME, I BECAME AWARE THAT IT WAS CLEAR THERE WERE ACTORS IN THE U.S.-PUBLIC ACTORS, NONGOVERNMENTAL ACTORS THAT WERE PROMOTING THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATIONS AND 2016 UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE. IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY TO ADVISE ANY COUNTRY, ALL OF THE COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO. ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS. SO, I WAS PASSING THE SAME ADVICE CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY. >>AND WE WILL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. BUT, LET ME TURN IF I CAN, TO THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, WHICH I THINK YOU BOTH TESTIFIED YOU LEARNED ABOUT IN EARLY JULY. AM I CORRECT THAT NEITHER OF YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH A REASON FOR WHY THE PRESIDENT WOULD HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE? >>MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT OMB WAS REVIEWING THE ASSISTANT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS IN LINE WITH ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES. BUT, IT WAS NOT MADE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN? >>THAT IS CONSISTENT. THE REVIEW WAS TO ENSURE IT REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ATTENDED A MEETING IN JOHN BOLTON’S OFFICE ON JULY 10 WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INTERJECTED TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION BY A SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL ABOUT THE WHITEHOUSE VISIT. WHAT DID HE SAY AT THAT TIME?>> TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT IN ORDER TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A DELIVERABLE, WHICH IS INVESTIGATIONS. SPECIFIC INVESTIGATONS. >>AND WHAT WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S RESPONSE OR ACTION TO THAT COMMENT? >>WE HAD NOT COMPLETED ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS, AND WE STILL HAD TIME FOR THE MEETING. AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING.>>DID YOU REPORT THIS INCIDENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYERS? >>YES, I DID. >>BASED ON AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S REMARK AT THE JULY 10 MEETING, WAS IT THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE UKRAINIANS UNDERSTAND THEY HAD TO COMMIT TO INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >>IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY CLEAR AT THAT MOMENT. CERTAINLY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CALLING FOR THESE MEETINGS, AND HE HAD STATED THAT THIS WAS DEVELOPED PER CONVERSATION WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF. MR. Mc MULVANEY, BUT THE CONNECTION TO THE PRESIDENT IS NOT CLEAR AT THAT POINT. >>BUT, THE IMPORT OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID DURING THAT MEETING WAS THAT, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH Mc MULVANEY THAT ZELENSKY WOULD GET THE MEETING IF THEY WOULD UNDERTAKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >>THAT IS CORRECT. ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT JULY 10 MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THEIR SECOND CALL, THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25 CALL. COLONEL VINDMAN, WHAT WAS YOUR REAL TIME REACTION TO HEARING THAT CALL? >>CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION I KNEW I HAD TO REPORT THIS TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. I HAD CONCERNS, AND IT WAS MY DUTY TO REPORT MY CONCERNS TO THE PROPER PEOPLE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. >>AND, WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN? >>CHAIRMAN, AS I SAID IN MY STATEMENT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REQUEST, TO DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO A POLITICAL OPPONENT, ESPECIALLY A FOREIGN POWER WHERE THERE IS AT BEST, DUBIOUS BELIEF THAT THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION.>>>> AND THAT THIS WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS IF THIS BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. IT WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS A PARTISAN PLAY AND WOULD UNDERMINE OUR UKRAINE POLICY AND UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. >>COLONEL, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THIS AS A DEMAND, THIS FAVOR THE PRESIDENT ASKED. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT LEAD YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKED A FAVOR LIKE THIS, IS REALLY A DEMAND? >>CHAIRMAN, THE MILITARY CULTURE I COME FROM, WHEN A SENIOR ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT IS UNPLEASANT, IT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A REQUEST. IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER. IN THIS CASE, THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO LEADERS, MY IMPRESSION IS THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER THESE INVESTIGATIONS. >>MS. WILLIAMS, I THINK YOU DESCRIBED YOUR REACTION IN YOUR DEPOSITION WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE CALL, THAT YOU FOUND IT UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE. BUT, I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING AS YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION. YOU SAID IT SHED SOME LIGHT ON POSSIBLE OTHER MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS ASKED DURING THE CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY HOW I FELT ABOUT THE CALL. IN REFLECTING ON WHAT I WAS THINKING IN THAT MOMENT, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD INTERNALLY THE PRESIDENT REFERENCED PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS THAT PREVIOUSLY I HAD ONLY HEARD ABOUT THROUGH MR. GIULIANI’S PRESS INTERVIEWS AND PRESS REPORTING. IN THAT MOMENT, IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THERE WAS A DIRECT CONNECTION OR LINKAGE BETWEEN THE ONGOING HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT MAY BE ASKING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE IN REGARDS TO INVESTIGATIONS. IT WAS NOTEWORTHY IN THAT REGARD. I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DRAW ANY FIRM CONCLUSIONS.>>BUT, IT RAISED A QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER THE TWO ARE RELATED? >>IT WAS THE FIRST I HAD HEARD OF ANY REQUESTS OF UKRAINE WHICH WERE THAT SPECIFIC IN NATURE. IT WAS NOTEWORTHY TO ME, IN THAT REGARD.>>BOTH OF YOU RECALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THAT CONVERSATION RAISING THE ISSUE OR MENTIONING BARISMA, DO YOU NOT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>CORRECT. >>AND YET , THE WORD BARISMA APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE CALL RECORD THAT IS BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS RIGHT.>>CORRECT.>> DO YOU KNOW WHY THAT IS THE CASE? WHY THAT WAS LEFT OUT? >>I DO NOT. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE REDUCTION OF THAT TRANSCRIPT. >>I ATTRIBUTE THAT TO THE FACT THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT THAT IS BEING PRODUCED MAY HAVE NOT CAUGHT THE WORD TRAN 13. AND, IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS RELEASED, IT WAS RELEASED TO THE COMPANY, WHICH IS ACCURATE. IT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT OMISSION.>>COLONEL, YOU POINTED OUT THAT THE WORD WOULD USE, DID YOU NOT? >>CORRECT>>AND YET IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC? >>THAT IS RIGHT. I WOULD SAY IT IS INFORMED SPECULATION THAT THE FOLKS THAT PRODUCED THESE TRANSCRIPTS TO THE BEST THEY CAN. AND, THEY JUST DIDN’T CATCH THE WORD. THAT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEN MAKE SURE THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. THAT IS WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO BY PUTTING THAT WORD BACK IN, BECAUSE IT WAS IN MY NOSE. >>COLONEL, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU FOUND IT STRIKING THAT ZELENSKY WOULD BRING UP BARISMA THAT IT INDICATED TO YOU HE HAD BEEN PREPPED FOR THE CALL, TO EXPECT THIS ISSUE TO COME UP. WHAT LED YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION? >>IT SEEMED UNLIKELY HE WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH A SINGLE COMPANY IN THE CONTEXT OF A IT SEEMED TO ME THAT HE WAS EITHER TRACKING THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE PRESS OR HE WAS OTHERWISE PREPPED. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. YOU BOTH WERE SITTING IN THE SITUATION ARE PROBABLY NOT TOO MUCH FURTHER AWAY FROM WHERE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW, AND YOU WERE PREPARING FOR A LONG-AWAITED PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. NOW IN ADVANCE OF THE PHONE CALL, DID YOU PREPARE TALKING POINTS? >>YES, I DID. >>WHAT WERE THE TALKING POINTS BASED UPON? >>THIS IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND I CAN’T COMMENT TOO DEEPLY, BUT THE AREAS THAT WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY TALKED ABOUT IN PUBLIC, COOPERATION ON SUPPORTING THE REFORM AGENDA AND ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS AND HELPING PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY IMPLEMENT HIS PLANS TO BRING AN END TO THE RUSSIAN WAR AGAINST UKRAINE. >>IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >>CORRECT. >>IS THERE A PROCESS TO DETERMINE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY. >>MY JOB IS TO COORDINATE U.S. POLICY. SO THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDING YEAR THAT I HAD BEEN ON STAFF, I HAD UNDERTAKEN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A COHESIVE AND COHERENT ADDRESS POLICY. >>DID YOU OBSERVE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS FOLLOWING THE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >>THE PRESIDENT COULD CHOOSE TO USE THE TALKING POINTS OR NOT, HE IS THE PRESIDENT, BUT THEY WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I PROVIDED. >>LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT A COUPLE OF EXCERPTS FROM THIS CALL. AND RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY THANKED PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKS HIM FOR A FAVOR AND THEN RAISES THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. HE SAYS IN THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE. I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. NOW, WAS THIS STATEMENT BASED ON THE OFFICIAL TALKING POINTS THAT YOU HAD PREPARED? >>NO. >>AND WAS THIS STATEMENT RELATED TO THE 2016 UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION PART OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >>NO. IT WAS NOT. >>AT THE TIME OF THIS JULY 25 CALL, WERE YOU AWARE OF A THEORY THAT UKRAINE HAD INTERVENED OR INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION? >>I WAS. >>ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY? >>I AM NOT. >>ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN HAD PROMOTED THIS THEORY OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >>I AM WELL AWARE OF THAT FACT. >>AN OLD MOVIE, WHICH COUNTRY DID U.S. INTELLIGENCE SERVICES DETERMINE TO HAVE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >>IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN U.S. ELECTIONS IN 2016. >>LET’S GO TO ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM THIS CALL WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL COMPONENT, OPPONENT, JOE BIDEN. ANOTHER THING, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON AND THAT BY AND STOP THE PROSECUTION. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT. HE WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO IF YOU COULD LOOK INTO IT? IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME, HE SAID. >>AGAIN, COLONEL VINDMAN, WAS THIS INCLUDED IN TALKING POINTS? >>IT WAS NOT. >>IS SUCH A REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT CONSISTENT WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY AS I UNDERSTOOD IT. >>ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NOTION THAT VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN DID SOMETHING WRONG OR AGAINST U.S. POLICY WITH REGARD TO UKRAINE? >>I AM NOT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN? >>NO, I AM NOT. NOW MS. WILLIAMS, PRIOR TO THE JULY 25 CALL, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CALLS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE OF STATES AND FOREIGN LEADERS HAD YOU LISTEN TO? >>I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY ONE DOZEN. >>HAD YOU EVER HEARD A CALL LIKE THIS? >>AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, I BELIEVE WHAT I FOUND UNUSUAL OR DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS CALL WAS THE PRESIDENT’S REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT STRUCK ME AS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER CALLS I HAD LISTENED TO. >>YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS POLITICAL IN NATURE, WHY DID YOU THINK THAT? >>I THOUGHT THAT THE REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND INVESTIGATIONS SUCH AS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON STRUCK ME AS POLITICAL IN NATURE GIVEN THAT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT. >>SO YOU THOUGHT THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DESIGNED TO ASSIST PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REELECTION EFFORT? >>I CAN’T SPEAK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVATION WAS AND REFERENCING IT, BUT I JUST NOTED THAT THE REFERENCE TO JOE BIDEN SOUNDED POLITICAL TO ME. >>COLONEL, YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT IT DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THE POLITICAL BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENT’S DEMANDS. FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE NOT ROCKET SCIENTISTS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT? >>SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CONNECTION TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER. I MADE THAT CONNECTION AS SOON AS THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE JOE BIDEN INVESTIGATION. >>YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REQUEST FOR A FAVOR FROM PRESENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A DEMAND TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AFTER THIS CALL, DID YOU EVER HEAR FROM ANY UKRAINIANS EITHER IN THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE ABOUT ANY PRESSURE THAT THEY FELT TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED? >>NOT THAT I CAN RECALL. >>DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICIALS AT THE EMBASSY HERE, THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON DC? >>YES, I DID. >>DID YOU DISCUSS IT ALL, THE DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS? >>I DID NOT. >>DID YOU DISCUSS AT ALL AT ANY POINT THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE?>>TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, IN THE AUGUST TIME FRAME, THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY STARTED TO BECOME AWARE OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THEY WERE ASKING IF I HAD ANY COMMENT ON THAT OR IF I COULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT. >>THAT WAS BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT? >>AND WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? >>I BELIEVE I SAID, I DON’T RECALL, FRANKLY. I DON’T RECALL WHAT I SAID, BUT I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, I’M NOT AWARE OF IT. >>YOU TESTIFIED THAT ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS WAS THAT UKRAINE MAY LOSE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, WHY WAS THAT A CONCERN OF YOURS? >>UKRAINE IS IN A WAR WITH RUSSIA, AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE UKRAINE IS SIGNIFICANT. ABSENT THAT SECURITY SYSTEMS AND MAYBE EVEN MORE PORTLY, THE SIGNAL OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY THAT WOULD LIKELY ENCOURAGE RUSSIA TO PURSUE, POTENTIALLY ASKING TO PURSUE FURTHER AGGRESSION UNDERMINING, FURTHER UNDERMINING UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY, EUROPEAN SECURITY, AND U.S. SECURITY. >>SO IN OTHER WORDS, UKRAINE IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON UNITED STATES SUPPORT BOTH DIPLOMATICALLY OR FINANCIALLY, AND ALSO MILITARILY? >>CORRECT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, WHAT LANGUAGES DO YOU SPEAK? >>I SPEAK RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN AND A LITTLE BIT OF ENGLISH. >>DO YOU RECALL WHAT LANGUAGE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE ON THIS JULY 25 PHONE CALL? >>I KNOW THAT HE MADE A VALIANT EFFORT TO SPEAK ENGLISH AND HAD BEEN PRACTICING UP HIS ENGLISH, BUT HE ALSO SPOKE UKRAINIAN. >>I WANT TO LOOK AT THE THIRD EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25 CALL. AND CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF ADDRESSED THIS WITH YOU IN HIS QUESTIONING. AND YOU SEE IN THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION, IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMPANY THAT YOU MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE, IS THAT THE PORTION OF THE CALL RECORD THAT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU THOUGHT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ACTUALLY SAID BURISMA? >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT HIS USE OF OR HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED THE BIDENS, THAT IT REFERRED TO THE COMPANY, BURISMA, IT SOUNDED TO YOU LIKE HE WAS PREPPED OR PREPARING FOR THIS CALL, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. I WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE IF WE COULD. IT IS ACTUALLY A TEXT MESSAGE THAT NEITHER OF YOU IS ON, BUT THIS IS FROM AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER TO ANDRE YOUR MOCK AND WHO IS THAT? >>HE IS THE SENIOR ADVISOR WITHIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL MINISTRATION, SENIOR ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >>THIS TEXT MESSAGES LESS THAN A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL ON JULY 25. AND SINCE NEITHER OF YOU WERE ON IT, I WILL READ IT. IT SAYS FROM AMBASSADOR VOELKER, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS, HEARD FROM WHITEHOUSE. ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED, UNQUOTE, IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN A DATE FOR A VISIT TO WASHINGTON. GOOD LUCK, SEE YOU TOMORROW, KURT. IS THIS THE SORT OF THING THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS PREPARED FOR THE CALL? >>THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT, YES. >>NOW TURNING TO THE FOURTH EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25 CALL WHERE UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LINKS THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS, I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY, WASHINGTON DC. ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO WANTED TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WE WILL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION. WHEN HE SAYS ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE IS ACKNOWLEDGING A LINKAGE BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT THAT HE MENTIONS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE AND THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE MENTIONS IN THE SECOND SENTENCE?>>IT COULD BE TAKEN THAT WAY, BUT I’M NOT SURE IF I, IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE CONCLUSION. >>IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXT MESSAGE THAT KURT VOLKER SENT TO ANDRE YOUR MOCK BEFORE THE CALL. >>SEEMINGLY SO. >>YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT A WHITE HOUSE VISIT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >>THE SHOW OF SUPPORT, STILL A BRAND-NEW PRESIDENT, FRANKLY A NEW POLITICIAN ON THE UKRAINIAN POLITICAL SCENE LOOKING TO ESTABLISH HIS BONA FIDES AT AS A REGIONAL OR WORLD LEADER WOULD WANT TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, AND UKRAINE’S MOST SIGNIFICANT BENEFACTOR IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT HIS AGENDA. >>IT WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH LEGITIMATE, SOME POTENTIAL LEGITIMACY AT HOME? >>YES. >>JUST TO SUMMARIZE IN THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED A FAVOR OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS THAT BOTH OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE WERE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP POLITICAL INTEREST, NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST. AND IN RETURN FOR HIS PROMISE OF A MUCH DESIRED WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IS THAT AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE EXCERPTS THAT WE JUST LOOKED AT? >>YES. >>MS. WILLIAMS? >>YES. >>YOU IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THIS CALL TO THE NSC LAWYERS, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? >>SO AT THIS POINT, I HAD ALREADY BEEN TRACKING THIS INITIALLY, WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS ALTERNATIVE ARRATIVE, FALSE NARRATIVE, AND I WAS CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS STARTING TO REVERBERATE AND GAIN TRACTION, THE FACT THAT IT, IN THE JULY 10 CALL, ENDED UP BEING PRONOUNCED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL , AMBASSADOR SOMNOLENT HAD ME ALERTED TO THIS, AND I WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT REPORT, I WAS INVITED TO FOLLOW UP WITH ANY OTHER CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG. >>WE WILL DISCUSS THE JULY 10 MEETING IN A MOMENT, BUT WHEN YOU SAY ALTERNATIVE FALSE NARRATIVES, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCED IN THE CALL? >>YES. >>AT SOME POINT, DID YOU ALSO DISCUSS HOW THE WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE CALL RECORDS SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH THE NSC LAWYERS? >>FOLLOWING REPORT, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION IN THE LEGAL SHOP ON THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE THE TRANSCRIPT. YES. >>WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCLUDED? >>MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS WAS VIEWED AS A SENSITIVE TRANSCRIPT AND TO AVOID LEAKS AND IF I RECALL THE TERM PROPERLY, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF PRESERVED INTEGRITY OF THE TRANSCRIPT, IT SHOULD BE SEGREGATED TO A SMALLER GROUP OF FOLKS. >>TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRANSFER, WHAT DID THAT MEAN? >>I’M NOT SURE I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE A LEGAL TERM, I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I DIDN’T TAKE IT AS ANYTHING NEFARIOUS. I JUST UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WANTED TO KEEP IT IN A SMALLER GROUP. >>IF THERE IS REALLY JUST IN PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRANSCRIPT, DON’T YOU THINK THEY WOULD’VE ACCEPTED YOUR CORRECTION THAT BURISMA SHOULD’VE BEEN INCLUDED? >>NOT NECESSARILY. THE WAY THESE EDITS OCCUR, THEY GO THROUGH, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, AND APPROVAL PROCESS, I MADE MY CONTRIBUTION, IT WAS CLEARED BY MR. MORRISON. AND THEN WHEN I RETURNED IT COMMUNIST, SOMETIMES THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN. THERE ARE ADMINISTERED OF ERRORS. I THINK IN THIS CASE, I DIDN’T SEE, WHEN I FIRST SAW THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT THE TWO SUBSTANDARD ITEMS THAT I TEND TO CONCLUDE, I DIDN’T SEE IT AS NEFARIOUS, JUST THOUGHT IS OKAY, NO BIG DEAL. THESE MIGHT BE MEANINGFUL, BUT IT’S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL. >>YOU SAID TWO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? >>THERE WAS A REFERENCE IN A SECTION, ONE SECOND. ON PAGE 4, THE TOP PARAGRAPH, LET ME FIND THE RIGHT SPOT. OKAY. YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT,&, THERE ARE VIDEOS IF I RECALL OR RECORDINGS, RECORDINGS. >>INSTEAD OF AN ELLIPSES, IT SHOULD’VE SAID TO WHAT YOU HEARD THAT THERE ARE RECORDINGS? >>CORRECT. >>DID YOU ULTIMATELY LEARN WHERE THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT? >>I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS BEING SEGREGATED INTO A SEPARATE SYSTEM, SEPARATE SECURE SYSTEM. >>WHY WOULD IT BE PUT ON A SEPARATE SECURE SYSTEM? >>THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT UNPRECEDENTED, BUT AT TIMES, IF YOU WANT TO LIMIT ACCESS TO A SMALLER GROUP OF FOLKS, YOU PUT IT ON THE SECURE SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO THE SECURE SYSTEM HAVE IT. >>AND YOU ALSO LIMIT THE NUMBER PEOPLE WHO CAN ACCESS IT ON THE REGULAR SYSTEM? >>YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THE DECISION WAS MADE FRANKLY ON- THE-FLY. AFTER THE FACT, AFTER I CONVEYED MY CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG, MR. ELLIS CAME IN AND HE HAD IN HER THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION, AND WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IT WAS SENSITIVE, IT WAS KIND OF AN ON- THE-FLY DECISION TO JUST SEGREGATE IN THIS OTHER SYSTEM. >>MR. EISENBERG AND MR. ELLIS ARE THE NSC LAWYERS? >>CORRECT. >>BUT IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE TO PUT ON THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I’M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. >>WAS IT INTENDED TO BE PUT ON THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM BY THE LAWYERS? OR WAS IT A MISTAKE THAT IT WAS PUT THERE? >>I THINK IT WAS INTENDED, BUT AGAIN, IT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT LEAKS AND TO LIMIT ACCESS. >>NOW YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THE APRIL 21 CALL A LITTLE EARLIER. AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DID INCLUDE IN YOUR TALKING POINTS, THE IDEA OF UKRAINE ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION. BUT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MENTION CORRUPTION. I WANT TO GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE READOUT FROM TABLE 21st CALL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING, BUT YOU SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION WHERE IT SAYS ROOT OUT CORRUPTION? >>YES. >>SO IN THE END, THIS READOUT WAS FALSE, IS THAT RIGHT? >>MAYBE THAT IS A BIT OF A, IT IS NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE. BUT I’M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS FALSE. IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY, AND THESE ITEMS ARE USED AS MESSAGING TOOLS. SO A STATEMENT THAT GOES OUT, IN ADDITION TO READING OUT THE MEETING ITSELF, IS ALSO A MESSAGING PLATFORM TO INDICATE WHAT IS IMPORTANT WITH REGARDS TO U.S. POLICY. >>SO IT IS A PART OF U.S. OFFICIAL POLICY THAT UKRAINE SHOULD ROOT OUT CORRUPTION EVEN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MENTION IT IN THE APRIL 21 PHONE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CERTAINLY. >>AND HE DIDN’T MENTION IT IN THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS INCLUDED IN HIS TALKING POINTS FOR THE APRIL 21 CALL AND PRESUMABLY EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE JULY 21 CALL, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT? >>FOR THE APRIL 21 CALL? >>YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT IN EITHER. >>CORRECT. SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS NOW THAT HE HELD UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THAT CONCERN WAS NOT EXPRESSED IN THE TWO PHONE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD WITH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY EARLIER THIS YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>NOW MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT, EARLIER, THAT AFTER THE APRIL 21 CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND THAT ON MAY 13, YOU WERE JUST INFORMED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF’S OFFICE THAT VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE SHOULD NOT, WOULD NOT BE GOING AS PER REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S WHAT I WAS INFORMED. >>AND YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HAD CHANGED FROM APRIL 21 TO MAY 13, IS THAT RIGHT? >>NOT IN TERMS OF THAT DECISION. >>WELL, COLONEL VINDMAN, SINCE YOU IN PARTICULAR, A LITTLE BIT MORE PERHAPS THAN MS. WILLIAMS WHO HAS A BROADER PORTFOLIO, FOCUSES ON UKRAINE, I WANT TO ASK YOU IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS THAT HAPPENED FROM APRIL 21 TO MAY 13. WERE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS ABRUPTLY RECALLED FROM UKRAINE IN THAT TIME? >>YES. >>WERE YOU AWARE THE OCEAN >>I’M SORRY, TO CORRECT IT, SHE WAS RECALL PRIOR, LET ME SEE , THE NOTIFICATION OCCURRED TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL AND SHE WAS FINALLY RECALLED IN THE MAY TIMEFRAME IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. >>SO SHE LEARNED ABOUT IT ON APRIL 24, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>WERE YOU AWARE THE PRISON TRUMP HAD A TELEPHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT BOUDIN DURING THIS TIME PERIOD IN EARLY MAY? >>I WAS. >>WERE YOU AWARE THAT RUDY GIULIANI PLANNED A TRIP TO GO TO UKRAINE TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINIANS TO INITIATE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED ON THE JULY 25 CALL IN THIS TIME PERIOD? >>I WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS TRAVELING AND THAT HE HAD BEEN PROMOTING THE IDEA OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS. >>I WANT TO MOVE NOW TO THE JULY 10 MEETING THAT YOU REFERENCED, COLONEL VINDMAN. WHAT EXACTLY DID AMBASSADOR SANDLIN SAY WHEN THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS RAISED THE IDEA OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >>AS I RECALL, HE REFERRED TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THAT UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER IN ORDER TO GET THESE MEETINGS. >>WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BROADER MEETING AFTER HE MADE THE REFERENCE? >>AMBASSADOR BOLTON VERY ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING. >>AND DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THIS MEETING? >>NO, I DID NOT. >>DID YOU FOLLOW AMBASSADOR SUNLIGHT AND THE OTHERS TO THE WARDROOM FOR A MEETING FOLLOW UP? >>THERE WAS A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY THAT WE LEVERAGED IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE U.S. SUPPORT, SO THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT DEMONSTRATING U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO IS A TECHNOCRAT AND AFTER THAT, WE WENT DOWN TO A SHORT POST MEETING DEBRIEF. >>FOR THIS SPECIFIC REFERENCE BY SOMEONE DISCUSSED IN THE WARDROOM MEETING? >>THEY WERE. >>WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SAW GLENN SAY? >>HE REFERRED TO INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA IN 2016. >>HOW DID YOU RESPOND IF AT ALL? >>I SAID THAT THIS REQUEST TO CONDUCT THESE MEETINGS WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THERE INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH INITIALS 30 POLICY. >>WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTER IN THIS AS WELL? >>I BELIEVE HE WAS THERE FOR A PORTION OF THE TIME, BUT I DON’T RECALL IF HE WAS THERE FOR THE WHOLE MEETING. >>WAS THIS STATEMENT MADE IN FRONT OF THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS? >>I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE UKRAINIANS LEAVING WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THERE WAS SOME DISCORD BETWEEN THE SENIOR FOLKS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND OTHER WHITE HOUSE STAFF, MYSELF, THEY WERE ASKED TO STEP OUT, SO I DON’T RECALL IF THEY WERE THERE FOR THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION. >>THE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF YOU REFER TO, IS THAT INCLUDING FIONA HILL, THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME? >>CORRECT. >>YOU SAID YOU ALSO REPORTED THIS INCIDENT TO THE NSC LAWYERS, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>AND WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE? >>JOHN EISENBERG SAID THAT HE TOOK NOTES WHILE I WAS TALKING, AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT. >>WHY DID YOU REPORT THIS MEETING AND THIS CONVERSATION TO THE NSC LAWYERS? >>BECAUSE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, AND FOLLOWING THE MEETING, I HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION FOLLOWING THE POST MEETING MEETING IN THE WARDROOM AND I HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION WITH DOCTOR HILL, AND WE DISCUSSED THE IDEA OF NEEDING TO REPORT THIS. >>SO AM I CORRECT, COLONEL VINDMAN THAT AT LEAST NO LATER THAN THAT JULY 10 MEETING, THE UKRAINIANS HAD UNDERSTOOD OR AT LEAST HEARD THAT THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING THAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANTED WAS CONDITIONED ON THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION? >>THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS AWARE OF THE UKRAINIANS BEING APPROACHED DIRECTLY BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. >>AND DIRECTLY LINKING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO THE INVESTIGATIONS? >>CORRECT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU ATTENDED THE SEPTEMBER 1 MEETING BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE ABOUT AT THE MEETING? >>HE ASKED THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE STATUS OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE, BECAUSE HE HAD SEEN THE POLITICAL ARTICLE AND OTHER NEWS REPORTING THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD. >>AND YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT IN THE CONVERSATION, PRESIDENT VOLODYMY ZELENSKY EMPHASIZED THAT THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO ASSIST UKRAINE IN FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, BUT THAT IT WAS ALSO SYMBOLIC IN NATURE? WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN BY THAT? >>RESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPLAINED THAT EQUALLY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL VALUE OF THE ASSISTANCE THAT IT WAS THE SYMBOLIC NATURE OF THAT ASSISTANCE THAT REALLY WAS THE SHOW OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND FOR UKRAINE’S SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. AND I THINK HE WAS STRESSING THAT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT TO REALLY THE NEED FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED. >>AND IF THE UNITED STATES WAS HOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS IT ALSO TRUE THEN THAT RUSSIA COULD SEE THAT AS A SIGN OF WEAKENING U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT? >>I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS úINDICAT THAT ANY SIGNAL OR SIGN THAT U.S. SUPPORT WAS WAVERING WOULD BE CONSTRUED BY RUSSIA AS POTENTIALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR OWN HAND IN UKRAINE. >>DID VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE HOLD ON 60 ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THE MEETING? >>THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE REASON BEHIND THE HOLD, BUT HE DID REASSURE PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY OF THE STRONGEST U.S. UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO STEP UP AND PROVIDE MORE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AS WELL. >>DID VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE REPORT BACK ON THE MEETING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? >>THE VICE PRESIDENT CONVEYED TO PRESIDENT FOR A ZELENSKY THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH PRESIDENT OF THAT EVENING AND CONVEY WHAT HE HAD HEARD FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH REGARD TO HIS EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT REFORMS IN UKRAINE. I’M AWARE THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT EVENING, BUT I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATION. >>ARE YOU ALSO AWARE HOWEVER THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS NOT LIFTED FOR ANOTHER 10 DAYS AFTER THIS MEETING? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND AM I CORRECT THAT YOU DIDN’T LEARN THE REASON WHY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU DIDN’T LEARN A REASON WHY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HOLD WAS LIFTED? >>I AM AWARE, AND I WAS AWARE. >>AND ON SEPTEMBER 10, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REQUESTED THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >>I DON’T BELIEVE I WAS AWARE OF THAT. >>WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS AWARE OF THIS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT PRIOR TO THE DATE? >>THE FIRST I HEARD OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT IS, I BELIEVE WHEN THE NEWS BROKE, I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATING THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >>SO IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY, COLONEL VINDMAN, THAT WHATEVER REASON THERE WAS PROVIDED FOR THE HOLD, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, WHICH WELL, WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE HOLD, OR SUPPORT THE SECURITY SYSTEMS, IS THAT RIGHT, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >>I’M SORRY, I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT. >>IS ASKING, THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES OF PRESENT DRUM SUPPORTED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >>SO THE INTERAGENCY POLICY WAS TO SUPPORT SECURITY DECISIONS FOR UKRAINE. >>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >>NOW RECOGNIZING NUNEZ FOR 45 MINUTES. >>THANK YOU. WELCOME. I WANT TO JUST ESTABLISH A FEW BASIC FACTS ABOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE , UKRAINE, BURISMA, AND THE ROLE OF THE BIDENS. YOU SPENT AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME ON UKRAINE, CORRECT? >>UKRAINE IS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO. I WOULD NOT SAY AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT CERTAINLY THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED ON UKRAINE POLICY QUITE A BIT IN MY EIGHT MONTHS. >>AND IT IS IN YOUR PORTFOLIO? >>FIRST OFF, WERE YOU AWARE IN SEPTEMBER 2015 THEN U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, JEFFREY PIATT CALLED PUBLICLY FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO SLOTS CHESKY, THE PRESIDENT OF BURISMA, WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE PUBLIC STATEMENTS? >>YOU ARE AWARE TODAY? >>I HAVE HEARD THEM, YES. >>DID YOU KNOW OF ANTI-TRUMP EFFORTS BY VARIOUS UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AS WELL AS ALEXANDER LUPO, THE DNC CONSULTANT? >>I WAS NOT AWARE. >>DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE KENT’S CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA? >>I DO NOT WORK ON UKRAINE POLICY DURING THE TIMEFRAME. I’VE BECOME AWARE OF IT. >>IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO? >>I BECOME AWARE OF IT THROUGH MR. KENT’S TESTIMONY THROUGH THE PROCESS. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN BURISMA ROUTED MORE THAN $3 MILLION TO U.S. COUNTS TIED TO HUNTER BIDEN? >>I WAS NOT AWARE. >>UNTIL — >>UNTIL YOU PREPARE FOR THIS HEARING? >>UNTIL OTHERS HAVE BEEN TESTIFYING IN MORE DETAIL ON THOSE ISSUES. >>YOU BEEN FOLLOWING IT MORE CLOSELY? >>CORRECT. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH UKRAINE OFFICIALS DAYS AFTER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORCED THE FIRING OF THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR? >>AGAIN, I WAS NOT WORKING ON UKRAINE POLICY DURING THAT TIME. >>NONE OF THESE ARE TRICK QUESTIONS, I’M JUST TRYING TO GET TO THEM. >>I UNDERSTAND. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA LAWYERS PRESSURE THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE NIGHT, AFTER THE RAID AND AFTER THE FIRING OF SCHOLL, AND THAT THEY INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN’S NAME AS A REASON TO INTERVENE? >>I WAS NOT AWARE. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN CALLED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT FORTUNE GO AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF BURISMA’S HOME WAS RAIDED EVERY SECOND BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE? >>NOT AT THE TIME, AGAIN, BECOME AWARE OF THAT THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING. >>THANK YOU. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I WILL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS. JUST TO ESTABLISH SOME BASIC FACTS ABOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT UKRAINE AND BURISMA AND THE ROLE OF THE BIDENS. IN SEPTEMBER 2015, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE JEFFREY PIATT OFFICIALLY CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT OF BURISMA. WERE YOU AWARE OF THESE PUBLIC STATEMENTS? >>I WASN’T AWARE OF THEM AT THE TIME. >>WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THEM? >>DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITIONS BEGAN. DID YOU KNOW OF EFFORTS BY ALEXANDER CHOPRA AND VARIOUS AGENTS? >>I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE INTERFERENCE EFFORTS. >>DID YOU KNOW ABOUT DEBBIE ASSISTANCE KENT’S CONCERNS ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA? >>THE ONLY THING I’M AWARE OF IS, IT PERTAINS TO HIS DEPOSITION. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND BURISMA ROUTED MORE THAN $3 MILLION TO THE AMERICAN ACCOUNTS TIED TO HUNTER BIDEN? >>I’M NOT AWARE OF THIS FACT. >>UNTIL RECENTLY? >>I GUESS I DIDN’T INDEPENDENTLY LOOK INTO IT. I’M JUST NOT AWARE OF WHAT KIND OF PAYMENTS HE MAY HAVE RECEIVED. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS JUST DAYS AFTER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN FORCED THE FIRING OF THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR? >>I’M NOT AWARE OF THESE MEETINGS. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA LAWYERS PRESSURED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2013 AFTER A RATE AND A MONTH BEFORE THE FIRING OF SPOKEN THAT THEY INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN NAME AS A REASON TO INTERVENE? >>I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE FACTS. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN CALLED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF BURISMA’S HOME WAS RAIDED BY STATE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE? >>I’M AWARE OF THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ENGAGED ON UKRAINE AND HAD NUMEROUS ENGAGEMENTS. THAT’S WHAT I’M AWARE OF. >>MS. WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, THIS COMMITTEE SPENT NEARLY 3 YEARS CONDUCTING VARIOUS INVESTIGATION STARTING WITH THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX, PFIZER ABUSE, DEMOCRATIC HYSTERIA OVER THE LACK OF COLLUSION AND THE LACK OF THE MUELLER REPORT AND THIS IMPEACHMENT CHARADE? ONE OF THE MOST CONCERNING THINGS REGARDING THESE INVESTIGATIONS IS THE AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED OR OTHERWISE SENSITIVE INFORMATION I READ IN THE PRESS THAT DERIVES EITHER FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR SOURCES IN THE ADMINISTRATION. TO BE CLEAR, I’M NOT ACCUSING EITHER ONE OF YOU OF LEAKING INFORMATION, BUT GIVEN THAT YOU ARE THE FIRST WITNESSES WHO ACTUALLY HAVE SOME FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CALL BY LISTENING IN ON JULY 25, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS THAT WE GET A QUICK FEW MATTERS OUT OF THE WAY FIRST. >>MS. WILLIAMS, LET ME GO TO YOU FIRST. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, I’M ONLY ASKING ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN, FROM JULY 25 TO SEPTEMBER 25. >>OKAY. >>DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR ANY MATTERS WITH THE PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THE PRESS? >>NO. >>TO BE CLEAR, YOU NEVER DISCUSS THESE MATTERS WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES OR WASHINGTON POST OR POLITICO, CNN, OR ANY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET? >>NO, I DID NOT. >>DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANY INDIVIDUAL TO SHARE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >>I DID NOT. >>DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OR MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >>I DO NOT. >>LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THE SAME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >>I DID NOT. >>JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU DO NOT DISCUSS THIS WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, POLITICO, CNN, OR ANY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET? >>I DO NOT. >>DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANY INDIVIDUAL TO SHARE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHONE CALL WITH EVERY, ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >>I DID NOT. >>DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >>WE HAVE AN NSC PRESS SHOP, AND THEY FEEL THAT ANY OF THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. I DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE PRESS AT ALL. >>LET ME ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >>WE HAVE AN NSC PRESS SHOP WHOSE JOB IS TO ENGAGE ON ANY OF THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. I’M NOT AWARE, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE AND LIKELY THAT THE PRESS SHOP WOULD FEEL THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. >>THE QUESTION IS. >>THE YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS DO YOU KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL, DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >>THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. I DO NOT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, DID YOU DISCUSS JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 25 OR JULY 26? AND IF SO, WITH WHOM. >>I DO NOT DISCUSS THE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE. >>MS. WILLIAMS, DURING YOUR TIME ON THE NSC, HAVE YOU EVER ACCESSED A COLLEAGUE’S WORK COMPUTER WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL? >>I HAVE NOT, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I’M IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, SO NOT ON THE NSC. >>BUT REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT. >>THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. >>LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 20 THE PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 25 OR THE 26th? AND IF SO, WITH WHOM? >>I DID. MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO COORDINATE U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY, INTERAGENCY POLICY, AND I SPOKE TO TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH REGARDS TO PROVIDING SOME SORT OF READOUT OF THE COLUMN. >>TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >>NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, CLEARED U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WITH THE APPROPRIATE NEED TO KNOW. >>WHAT AGENCIES WERE THESE OFFICIALS WITH? >>THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTFOLIO, EASTERN EUROPE INCLUDING UKRAINE AND AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE OFFICE, AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. >>WHAT, AS YOU KNOW, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS 17 DIFFERENT AGENCIES. WHAT AGENCY WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL FROM? >>IF I COULD INTERJECT HERE, WE DON’T WANT TO USE THESE PROCEEDINGS. >>IT IS OUR TIME. >>WHAT WE NEED TO PROTECT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >>PLEASE STOP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE’S NO EFFORT TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS. IF THE WITNESS HAS A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT THIS MAY REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE THAT WE ARE HERE FOR, AND I WANT TO ADVISE THE WITNESS ACCORDINGLY. >>MR. VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >>RANKING MEMBER, IT IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. >>LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS? >>I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS. >>HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO NAME THESE PEOPLE AND THEN OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER? >>PER THE ADVICE OF MY COUNSEL, I’VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. >>ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT IS CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING? >>OF COURSE I AM. >>WHAT AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR YOU TO COME TO TO TESTIFY WOULD BE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ABOUT SOMEONE WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY? >>RANKING MEMBER, PER THE ADVICE OF MY COUNSEL AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, I’VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIFICS ON WHO I’VE SPOKEN TO INSIDE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHAT I CAN OFFER IS THAT THESE WERE PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUALS OR WAS A PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUAL WITH A NEED TO KNOW. >>THIS IS, I MEAN, YOU CAN PLEAD THE FIFTH, BUT YOU ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND YOU ARE HERE UNDER SUBPOENA. SO YOU CAN EITHER ANSWER THE QUESTION OR YOU CAN PLEAD THE FIFTH. >>EXCUSE ME. ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULE OF THE COMMITTEE, THE RULE OF THE CHAIR WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE. AND THIS DOES NOT CALL FOR AN ANSWER THAT IS INVOKING THE FIFTH OR ANY THEORETICAL ISSUE LIKE THAT. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. >>COUNSELOR, WHAT RULING IS THAT? >>I COULD INTERJECT, COUNSEL IS CORRECT, THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT BE USED TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >>AND I HAVE ADVISED MY CLIENT ACCORDINGLY AND HE IS GOING TO FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. IF THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE OR YOU WANT TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THE CHAIR, THAT IS UP TO YOU. >>WELL, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUBPOENA THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO SIT FOR A DEPOSITION, THE CHAIR HAS TABLED THE MOTION AND THAT HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE THE MOTIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUISITION PROCESS, BUT THAT WILL GO TO MR. CASTRO. >>THANK YOU RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ. THE TRANSCRIPT AS PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 25 IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. WILL BOTH OF YOU ATTEST TO THAT?>>I DIDN’T TAKE A WORD FOR WORD ACCOUNTING. WHEN I FIRST SAW THE PUBLICLY RELEASED VERSION, IT LOOKED SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT ME. >>I THINK I CERTAINLY WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT. >>I THINK IN YOUR TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION, YOU SAID VERY ACCURATE? >>CORRECT. AND YOU FLAG A COUPLE OF EDITS, COLONEL VINDMAN. I THINK YOU HAD BURISMA ON PAGE , ON PAGE 4? >>WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE COMPANY MENTIONED IN THE ISSUE? >>I’M SORRY, COULD YOU SAY THAT QUESTION? >>OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, YOU EXPLAINED THAT YOU OFFERED AND EDIT THAT ON PAGE 4 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, IT WAS ULTIMATELY PUBLISHED, YOU THOUGHT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED THE WORD BURISMA? >>I HAD IN MY NOTES, I KNOW THAT THAT’S WHAT HE SAID. YES. >>AND THAT WAS ON PAGE 4, CORRECT? >>AND I BELIEVE AFTER YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU WENT BACK AND CHECKED YOUR NOTES AND YOU HAD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY USING THE TERM BURISMA AS WELL, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>BUT THAT CAME UP ON A DIFFERENT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAN WHAT THE COLONEL WAS RELATING TO? >>YES, I BELIEVE SO. >>EWERS CAME UP ON PAGE 15 AND IT WOULD’VE BEEN IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE WORD CASE? >>THAT IS WHERE I HAVE IT IN MY NOTES. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, WE’VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY AND ALSO YOUR DEPOSITION ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD A DEMAND FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AND I SUGGEST TO YOU IN THE DEPOSITION, THAT THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS ARE IN FACT, AMBIGUOUS. AND HE USES SOME PHRASES THAT CERTAINLY COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS HEDGING, ON PAGE 3 IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, HE TALKS ABOUT WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, HE TALKS ABOUT IF THAT IS POSSIBLE. ON PAGE 4, HE MENTIONS IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO HIM, TALK ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR RUDY GIULIANI, AND THEN AT THE END OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 4, HE SAYS WHATEVER YOU COULD DO AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, AND I ASKED YOU DURING THE DEPOSITION WHETHER YOU SAW OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE COULD READ THAT TO BE AMBIGUOUS?>>AND I SAID CORRECT. >>AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID I THINK PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY PRECONCEIVED, IS THAT WHAT YOU TESTIFIED? >>ACTUALLY IF I COULD ASK FOR JUST A PAGE SITE? >>256. >>JUST A MINUTE. >>JUST A MINUTE. OKAY. WE’VE GOT THE PAGE. >>THEN YOU WENT ON TO SAY, YEAH, YOU AGREED WITH ME. HE SAID I GUESS YOU COULD INTERPRET IT IF IT WEIGHS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES. >>OKAY. TURNING THE ATTENTION TO THE PREPARATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, THAT FOLLOWED THE ORDINARY PROCESS, CORRECT? >>SO I THINK IT FOLLOWED THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT EVENTUALLY IT CAME AROUND FOR CLEARANCES FOR ACCURACY, BUT IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT SYSTEM, SO. >>I WILL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. YOU HAD SOME CONCERNS, MR. MORRISON ARTICULATED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT IF THE TRANSCRIPT WAS LEAKED OUT, AND I THINK BOTH YOU AND MR. MORRISON GREETED, AGREED THAT IT HAD TO BE PROTECTED? >>JUST A CORRECTION, I DON’T THINK IT WAS MR. MORRISON, IT WAS MR. EISENBERG, RIGHT? >>MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED AT HIS DEPOSITION. >>WE DON’T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US. IF YOU COULD GIVE US THAT, WE’LL TAKE A LOOK. >>I COULD SEE FOR MYSELF, THERE WERE, THE CONCERNS ABOUT LEAKS SEEMED VALID, AND I WASN’T PARTICULARLY CRITICAL. THIS WAS SENSITIVE, AND WAS NOT GOING TO QUESTION THE ATTORNEY’S JUDGMENT ON THAT. >>EVEN ON THE CODEWORD SERVER, YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT? >>YES. >>SO AT NO POINT IN TIME DURING THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES WERE YOU DENIED ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION? >>CORRECT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU FOR A MOMENT, AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE OTHER THAN THE ONE ISSUE YOU MENTIONED? >>YES. SUBSTANTIVELY ACCURATE. YES. >>NOW, DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO ANYONE IN YOUR OFFICE ABOUT WHAT YOU HEARD ON THE CALL? >>MY SUPERVISOR WAS LISTENING ON THE CALL AS WELL. SO BECAUSE HE HAD HEARD THE SAME INFORMATION, I DO NOT FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT IT. >>AND YOU NEVER HAD ANY CONCERNS WITH ANYONE ELSE IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE? >>I DID NOT DISCUSS THE CALL WITH ANYONE. >>YOU DIDN’T FLAG IT FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL OR ANYONE OF THAT SORT? >>MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WAS IN THE ROOM WITH ME. >>AFTER THE CALL, DID YOU AND GENERAL KELLOGG DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL? >>WE DID NOT. >>IN THE MEETING IN WARSAW, THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE PREPOSITION, THE PRESENTATION? >>I WAS. >>DID YOU FLAG THIS, THE PARTS OF THE CALL THAT CONCERNED YOU? >>NO. WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND THE TRIP THING BOOK, WE DON’T NORMALLY INCLUDE PREVIOUS CALLS IN TRIP BRIEFING BOOKS. >>I’M JUST WONDERING IF THE CONCERNS WERE SO SIGNIFICANT, HOW COME NO ONE ON THE VICE PRESIDENT’S STAFF AT LEAST ALERTED HIM TO THE ISSUE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MIGHT BE ON EDGE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN MENTIONED ON THE 7/25 CALL? >>AGAIN, MY SUPERVISOR HAD BEEN IN THE CALL WITH ME. AND I ENSURED THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT IN THE MOMENT ON THAT DAY. AS WE WERE PREPARING FOR THE SEPTEMBER MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE MORE IMMEDIATE ISSUE AT HAND WAS TWO DAYS PRIOR, THE NEWS HAD BROKEN ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. SO WE WERE MUCH MORE FOCUSED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS LIKELY TO OCCUR ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THAT úM >>AND TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, YOU WERE IN THE MEETING WITH MIKE PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND BURISMA OR THE BIDENS DIDN’T COME UP? >>NO. IT DID NOT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT HAS A LONG-STANDING CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE, CORRECT? >>I DON’T RECALL, BUT THERE ARE BROAD CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION. >>BUT YOU WOULD CONFIRM THAT IF THE U.S. IS GIVING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO A FOREIGN NATION, THAT HAS A CORRUPTION PROBLEM THAT THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT? >>YES. >>AND IF THE FOREIGN COUNTRY HAS A PROBLEM WITH OLIGARCHS TAKING U.S. TAXPAYER DOLLARS, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IN ADVANCE OF DISPENSING THE AID? >>YES. >>AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU DID TESTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS ENDEMIC IN UKRAINE? >>CORRECT. >>ARE YOU ALSO AWARE OF THE PRESENT’S SKEPTICISM OF FOREIGN AID GENERALLY? >>I AM. >>AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT HE IS MADE PART OF HIS PRIORITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT U.S. FOREIGN AID IS SPENT WISELY? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND YOU ARE ALSO AWARE THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS ABOUT BURDEN SHARING AMONG OUR ALLIES? >>YES. >>AND WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE, HE WAS VERY INTERESTED AND ENGAGED IN SEEING IF THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES TO STEP UP AND CONTRIBUTE MORE? >>I THINK THAT WOULD BE IN THE CONTEXT OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE, IN TERMS OF BURDEN SHARING, THE EUROPEAN UNION PROVIDES OVER $15 BILLION. HAS PROVIDED SINCE 2014. >>BUT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE RESIDENT CONCERN OF BURDEN SHARING? >>I AM. >>TURNING ATTENTION SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMPANY OF BURISMA, MYKOLA ZLOCHEVSKY, THE COFOUNDER , ONE OF UKRAINE’S LARGEST NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS, CORRECT? >>THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. >>IT IS BEEN SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS INVESTIGATIONS OVER THE YEARS? >>I GUESS I COULD POINT TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE IS WHAT I WOULD CALL A PATTERN OF QUESTIONABLE DEALINGS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION. >>HE HAD SERVED AS THE MINISTER OF ECOLOGY DURING THE PRESIDENT’S TENURE? >>I’VE COME TO LEARN THAT THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK, THAT UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISRATION, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER HE USED HIS GOVERNMENT POSITION TO GRANT HIMSELF OR BURISMA EXPLORATION LICENSES, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >>I WOULD DEFER TO GEORGE KENT, HE IS A FUND OF KNOWLEDGE ON UKRAINE, MUCH DEEPER KNOWLEDGE THAN I HAVE. AND IF HE HAD ATTESTED TO THAT, THEN I WOULD TAKE HIS WORD FOR THAT. >>AND HE TESTIFIED THAT THE U.S. ALONG WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM WAS ENGAGED IN TRYING TO RECOUP ABOUT 23 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS FROM ZLOCHEVSKY AND THE BURISMA ENTITY? >>I UNDERSTAND HE TESTIFIED THAT, YES. >>AND MR. KENT ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS MOVING ALONG AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, THERE WAS A BROAD PAYMENT AND INVESTIGATION WENT AWAY, DID YOU HEAR MENTION THAT? >>I HEARD HIM MENTION THAT THESE ARE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE MY TIME. SO FRANKLY BEYOND WHAT HE SAID, I DON’T KNOW MUCH MORE. >>FAIR ENOUGH. >>RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THE BRIDE WAS PAID, THE COMPANY SAW, SOUGHT TO BOLSTER THE BOARD. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY TAPPED SOME LUMINARIES FOR THE CORPORATE BOARD? >>I CERTAINLY LEARNED THAT AT SOME POINT. YES. >>INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND, I BELIEVE? >>YES. >>AND HUNTER BIDEN? >>I CAME TO LEARN THAT AS WELL. >>ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE HUNTER BIDEN HAS IN THE UKRAINIAN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE WORLD? >>I DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT MR. HUNTER BIDEN. >>AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT, ABOUT YOUR DEPOSITION ABOUT WHETHER MR. BIDEN WAS QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD? AND I BELIEVE YOU’LL THE KNOWLEDGE THAT APPARENTLY HE WAS NOT IN FACT QUALIFIED? >>AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, HE DIDN’T SEEM TO BE, BUT LIKE I SAID, I DON’T KNOW HIS QUALIFICATIONS. >>OKAY. >>MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE INAUGURAL TRIP. AT ONE POINT, THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE WAS FOCUSING ON ATTENDING THAT, CORRECT? >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>AND IT’S SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE WHITE HOUSE DOESN’T WANT THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT TO BE OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT THE SAME TIME? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND DURING THE TIMEFRAME, THE PRESENT WAS IN JAPAN, I BELIEVE HE WAS IN JAPAN MAY 24- 28 AND THEN HE RETURNED TO EUROPE FOR THE D-DAY CEREMONIES , JUNE 2-7, AND I THINK YOU TOLD US THERE WAS A WINDOW THAT YOU PROVIDED, FOUR DAYS AT THE END OF MAY THAT IF THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION, IT HAD TO BE THE 29th AND 30th AND 31st OR FIRST? >>OUR EMBASSY IN KYIV WAS IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STEAM, AND WE LEARNED THAT THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT WOULD NOT COME BACK INTO SESSION UNTIL MID-MAY. SO WE WOULDN’T KNOW FORMALLY WHAT THE DATE WOULD BE. BUT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INITIAL THINKING WAS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT DATES AT THE END OF MAY. SO HONING IN ON THE TIMEFRAME, WE WERE AWARE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PLANS TO TRAVEL ON EITHER END. SO THAT’S WHY WE ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THAT IF VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE WERE ABLE TO PUT THIS BIT, THE ONLY REALLY AVAILABLE DAYS WOULD BE MAY 30, 31st OR JUNE 1. >>AND BEFORE THE VICE PRESIDENT TRAVELS TO A FOREIGN NATION, YOU HAVE TO SEND THE SECRET SERVICE TO DO ADVANCED WORK AND BOOK HOTELS AND IT’S A RELATIVELY INVOLVED PREPARATION? EXPERIENCE? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND DO YOU KNOW IF THE SECRET SERVICE EVER DEPLOYED OR BOOKED HOTELS? >>MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT OUR ADVANCED TEAM WAS LOOKING INTO THOSE PREPARATIONS INCLUDING HOTEL AVAILABILITY. AND WE WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEND OUT SECRET SERVICE AND OTHER ADVANCED PERSONNEL IN ORDER TO LAY GROUNDWORK FOR A TRIP, BUT BECAUSE WE WERE IN SURE WHEN THE DATE WOULD BE, WE HESITATED TO SEND THOSE OFFICIALS OUT. >>BUT ULTIMATE, THE SECRET SERVICE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DID NOT DEPLOY? >>I DON’T BELIEVE THEY DID. >>AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION WAS MADE THE 20th IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND HAD ABOUT >>IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT WE HAD ALREADY STOPPED THE TRIP PLANNING BY THAT POINT. >>WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? >>STOPPING THE TRIP PLANNING? >>YEAH. >>MAY 13th. >>HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT? >>I WAS CALLED BY A COLLEAGUE IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF OFFICE AND TOLD TO STOP THE TRIP PLANNING. >>IT WAS THE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO YOU DIDN’T HEAR ABOUT IT FROM GENERAL KELLOGG OR THE CHIEF OF STAFF OR THE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT, HEARD ABOUT IT FROM AN ASSISTANT? >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE REASONING FOR STOPPING THE TRIP? >>I ASKED MY COLLEAGUE WHY WE SHOULD STOP TRIP PLANNING AND WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE ATTENDING, AND I WAS INFORMED THE PRESIDENT DECIDED THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ATTEND THE INAUGURATION. >>DO YOU KNOW WHY THE PRESIDENT DECIDED THAT? >>NO, SHE DID NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. >>OKAY. AND ULTIMATELY THE VICE PRESIDENT WENT TO CANADA FOR A USMCA EVENT DURING THIS WINDOW OF TIME, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>SO IT’S CONCEIVABLE THE PRESIDENT DECIDED HE WANTED THE VICE PRESIDENT TO GO TO CANADA ON BEHALF OF USMCA INSTEAD OF DOING ANYTHING ELSE, CORRECT? >>I’M REALLY NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE WHAT THE MOTIVATIONS WERE BEHIND THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION. >>THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS DONE QUITE A FEW OF THOSE USMCA EVENTS, CORRECT? >>YES, SIR. >>ARE YOU AWARE WHETHER ANYONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT INQUIRED WITH YOUR OFFICE ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT’S AVAILABILITY FOR THE TRIP TO CANADA? >>AT WHAT POINT? >>EARLY MAY, MAYBE MAY 8th. >>I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE TRIP PLANNING FOR CANADA. ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO COVERS WESTERN HEMISPHERE WAS IN CHARGE OF THAT SO I’M NOT AWARE OF SPECIFIC REQUESTS ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT’S AVAILABILITY. I WAS AWARE FROM MY COLLEAGUE THAT WE HAD COMPETING TRIPS BUT I WAS TOLD THE UKRAINE TRIP WOULD TAKE PRIORITY. >>ULTIMATELY YOU DON’T KNOW? >>I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE CANADA TRIP? >>YOU DON’T KNOW THE REASON AS TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS SENT TO CANADA FOR THE USMCA EVENT INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE UKRAINE? >>I DON’T KNOW WHY THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO GO TO UKRAINE. I CAN’T SPEAK TO THE MOTIVATIONS ABOUT THE CANADA TRIP. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN A LITTLE BIT TO THE JULY 10th MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S OFFICE AND THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING IN THE WAR ROOM. WHO WAS IN THE JULY 10th MEETING, BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION? >>THE BOARD ROOM OR THE ACTUAL MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON? >>START WITH THE FIRST MEETING IN THE AMBASSADOR’S OFFICE. >>FROM THE U.S. SIDE, WE HAD AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DR. HILL, I BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, WELLS GRIFFITH WAS IN THERE, AND MYSELF. >>WHO FROM THE UKRANIANS? >>FOR THE UKRANIAN SIDE, WE HAD OLEKSANDR DANYLYUK, ANDREY YERMAK, AND I THINK OLEKSANDR DANYLYUK’S ADVISOR, SEMONY. >>AND YOU COULDN’T RECALL WHY AMBASSADOR BOLTON STOPPED THE MEETING SHORT AND YOU ONLY LEARNED IT SUBSEQUENTLY FROM TALKING TO DR. FIONA HILL? >>YEAH, I NOTED IT ENDED ABRUPTLY BUT I DIDN’T FRANKLY — I DIDN’T EXACTLY KNOW WHY. >>AND IN THE BOLTON MEETING, YOU DON’T REMEMBER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND USING THE WORD BIDEN? >>HE DID NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I DON’T THINK HE DID. >>THEN THE GROUP DECAMPED TO TAKE A PHOTO, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>THE GENERAL FEELING OF THE GROUP WAS A POSITIVE ONE AT THAT TIME, EVEN THOUGH IT ENDED ABRUPTLY? >>I THINK AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING A PHOTO, AND WE PROMPTED HIM TO — BEFORE WE COMPLETELY ADJOURNED, TO SEE IF HE’D DO A PHOTO, AND HE DID. >>AND HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND TOOK THE PHOTO, YOU TOOK IT? >>I TOOK A COUPLE OF THEM, YES. >>IN THE PHOTO IS SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, MR. DANYLYUK, AND MR. YERMAK? >>YES, AND I APOLOGIZE. WHEN I WAS RUNNING THROUGH THE U.S. SIDE, OF COURSE AMBASSADOR BOLTON, VOLKER AND SONDLAND WERE THERE AND SECRETARY PERRY WAS THERE. >>OKAY. YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JULY 10th MEETING, YOU HAD DEVELOPED CONCERNS ABOUT THE NARRATIVE INVOLVING RUDY GIULIANI, CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>HAD YOU HEARD LIKE A FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT FROM ANYONE ON THE INSIDE OR JUST FOLLOWING NEWS ACCOUNTS? >>SO I CERTAINLY WAS FOLLOWING THE NEWS ACCOUNTS, AND THAT’S FROM THE UKRANIAN SIDE, UKRANIAN PRESS, AND U.S. PRESS. AND MY COLLEAGUES IN THE INTERAGENCY ALSO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, AS THIS HAD STARTED IN THE MARCH TIME FRAME, KIND OF EMANATING PROSECUTE JOHN SOLOMON STORY ALL THE WAY THROUGH — SO THERE HAD BEEN ONGOING CONVERSATIONS, SO SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES. >>AND SO WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MENTIONED THE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU SORT OF HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A CLUE OF WHAT THE ISSUE WAS? >>DEFINITELY. >>AND YOU TOOK THE PHOTO, A VERY NICE PHOTO, THEN WENT TO THE BOARD ROOM? >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU HAD A HARD TIME REMEMBERS WHAT WAS SAID THERE, AND IT’S FOUR MONTHS AGO. IT’S HARD TO BE PRECISE ABOUT WHETHER SONDLAND — WHAT SPECIFIC WORDS HE USED, WHETHER HE USED BURISMA 2016 INVESTIGATIONS. >>YEAH, I BELIEVE IT’S IN THE DEPOSITION, THE THREE ELEMENTS, BURISMA, BIDENS AND THE 2016 ELECTIONS WERE ALL MENTIONED. >>IN THE WARD ROOM? >>CORRECT. >>AND I THINK MAYBE WE CAN GO BACK TO THIS, BUT I THINK ON PAGE 64 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DON’T REMEMBER HIM USING 2016 IN THE WARD ROOM. >>I BELIEVE THAT I ACTUALLY FOLLOWED UP, AND — BECAUSE THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES. I SAID ALL THREE ELEMENTS WERE IN THERE. >>SO WHEN WE ASKED THE QUESTION, IT SORT OF REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION? >>YES, I GUESS THAT’S THE TERM NOW. >>THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WHEN MR. MORRISON TOOK OVER THE PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL, WHETHER YOU WERE SIDELINED AT ALL. DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE? >>SO I CERTAINLY WAS EXCLUDED OR DIDN’T PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIP TO UKRAINE, AT THE END OF AUGUST, BEFORE IT CHANGED FROM A POTUS TRIP TO VICE PRESIDENT TRIP TO WARSAW, I WASN’T PARTICIPATING IN THAT ONE. SO I DIDN’T MISS THAT, NO. >>DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO MR. MORRISON ABOUT WHY YOU WEREN’T INCLUDED ON THOSE TRIPS? >>SO, I WAS ON LEAVE — I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON LEAVE FROM ABOUT THE 3rd OF AUGUST THROUGH ABOUT THE 16th OF AUGUST. HE CALLED ME AND ASKED ME TO RETURN. THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY HIGH PRIORITY TRAVEL TO THE REGION AND HE NEEDED MY ASSISTANCE TO HELP PLAN FOR IT, AND ASKED ME TO RETURN EARLY FROM LEAVE, WHICH I TAKE INFREQUENTLY. I ASSUMED I WOULD BE GOING ON THE TRIP. AFTER RETURNING FROM LEAVE EARLY, WHEN I WAS TOLD I WASN’T GOING, I INQUIRED ABOUT IT, CORRECT. >>AND WHAT FEEDBACK DID HE GIVE YOU? >>HE INITIALLY TOLD ME THAT THE AIRCRAFT THAT WAS ACQUIRED WAS TOO SMALL AND THERE WASN’T ENOUGH ROOM. >>HAD YOU EVER HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. MORRISON ABOUT CONCERNS THAT HE OR DR. HILL HAD WITH YOUR JUDGMENT? >>DID I EVER HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. MORRISON ABOUT IT? NO. >>DID MR. MORRISON EVER EXPRESS CONCERNS TO YOU THAT HE THOUGHT YOU MAYBE WEREN’T FOLLOWING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN ALL INSTANCES? >>HE DID NOT. >>DID DR. HILL OR MR. MORRISON EVER ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER YOU WERE TRYING TO ACCESS INFORMATION OUTSIDE YOUR LANE? >>THEY DID NOT. >>AND ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE UKRAINE PORTFOLIO THAT YOU WERE NOT A PART OF WERE SOME OF THE COMMUNICATIONS MR. MORRISON WAS HAVING WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >>CORRECT. >>DID YOU EVER EXPRESS CONCERN THAT HE WAS LEAVING YOU OFF THOSE CALLS? >>WELL, CERTAINLY IT WAS CONCERNING HE HAD JUST COME ON BOARD. HE DIDN’T HAVE THE — HE WASN’T STEEPED IN ALSO THE ITEMS WE WERE WORKING ON, INCLUDING THE POLICY THAT WE’D DEVELOPED OVER THE PRECEDING MONTHS. AND I THOUGHT I COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THAT, TO THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. >>OKAY. YOU WENT TO UKRAINE FOR THE INAUGURATION? >>CORRECT. >>AT ANY POINT DURING THAT TRIP, DID MR. DANYLYUK OFFER YOU A POSITION OF DEFENSE MINISTER WITH THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT? >>HE DID. >>HOW MANY TIMES DID HE DO THAT? >>I BELIEVE IT WAS THREE TIMES. >>DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON WHY HE ASKED YOU TO DO THAT? >>I DON’T KNOW, BUT EVERY SINGLE TIME, I DISMISSED IT. UPON RETURNING, I NOTIFIED MY CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND THE APPROPRIATE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE FOLKS ABOUT THE OFFER. >>UKRAINE IS A COUNTRY THAT’S EXPERIENCED A WAR WITH RUSSIA, AND CERTAINLY THEIR MINISTER OF DEFENSE IS A PRETTY KEY POSITION. FOR THE UKRANIANS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, MR. DANYLYUK TO BESTOW THAT HONOR ON YOU, AT LEAST ASKING YOU, THAT WAS A BIG HONOR, CORRECT? >>I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT HONOR, AND FRANKLY I’M AWARE OF SERVICE MEMBERS THAT HAVE LEFT SERVICE TO HELP NURTURE THE DEVELOPING DEMOCRACIES MANY THAT PART OF THE WORLD, CERTAINLY IN THE BALTICS, FORMER OFFICERS. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, AN AIR FORCE OFFICER BECAME MINISTER OF DEFENSE. BUT I’M AND AMERICAN. I CAME HERE WHEN I WAS A TODDLER AND IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED THESE OFFERS, DID NOT ENTERTAIN THEM. >>WHEN HE MADE THIS OFFER TO YOU INITIALLY, DID YOU LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN? WAS THERE A REASON HE CAME BACK TO ASK A SECOND OR THIRD TIME OR WAS HE TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU? >>COUNSEL, THE WHOLE NOTION IS RATHER COMICAL THAT I WAS BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER WHETHER I WOULD WANT TO BE THE MINISTER OF DEFENSE. I DID NOT LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN AT ALL. BUT IT IS PRETTY FUNNY FOR A LIEUTENANT COLONEL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, WHICH IS NOT THAT SENIOR, TO BE OFFERED THAT ILLUSTRIOUS A POSITION. >>WHEN HE MADE THIS OFFER TO YOU, WAS HE SPEAKIN IN ENGLISH OR UKRANIAN? >>MR. DANYLYUK IS AN ABSOLUTELY FLAWLES ENGLISH SPEAKER AND WAS SPEAKING IN ENGLISH. TO BE CLEAR, TWO OTHER STAFF OFFICERS, KYIV STAFF OFFICERS, SITTING NEXT TO ME WHEN THIS OFFER WAS MADE. >>WHO WERE THEY? >>ONE YOU MAY HAVE MET, MR. DAVID HOLMES, AND THE OTHER WAS — I DON’T KNOW. I GUESS I COULD — IT’S ANOTHER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, KEITH BEAM. >>OKAY. WE MET MR. HOLMES LAST FRIDAY EVENING. >>I UNDERSTAND. DELIGHTFUL. >>AND YOU SAID WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, YOU GOT THE CLEARANCE WHENEVER A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT MAKES AN OVERTURE LIKE THAT, YOU PAPER IT UP AND TELL YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND? >>I DID. I DON’T KNOW IF I FULLY ENTERTAINED IT AS A LEGITIMATE OFFER. I WAS MAKING SURE I DID THE RIGHT THING IN TERMS OF REPORTING. >>DID ANY OF YOUR SUPERVISORS, DR. HILL AT THE TIME OR DR. KUPPERMAN OR AMBASSADOR BOLTON EVER FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ABOUT THAT? RATHER SIGNIFICANT THAT THE UKRANIANS OFFERED YOU THE POST OF DEFENSE MINISTER. DID YOU TELL ANYONE IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND ABOUT IT? >>AFTER I SPOKE WITH OUR DEPUTY SENIOR DIRECTOR, ONCE I MENTIONED IT, I DON’T BELIEVE THERE WAS A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION. >>SO IT NEVER CAME UP WITH DR. KUPPERMAN OR DR. HILL? >>FOLLOWING THAT CONVERSATION I HAD WITH DR. HILL, I DON’T BELIEVE THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION, AND I DON’T RECALL EVER HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH DR. KUPPERMAN ABOUT IT. >>DID YOU BRIEF DIRECTOR MORRISON WHEN HE CAME ON BOARD? >>NO. I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT IT. >>SUBSEQUENT TO THE NATURE, DID MR. DANYLYUK EVER ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER? WERE THERE ANY OTHER OFFERS? >>NO. >>WHEN YOU VISITED FOR THE JULY 10th MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DID IT COME UP AGAIN? >>IT NEVER CAME UP AGAIN. >>DID YOU EVER THINK THAT úPOS WAS, YOU KNOW, GOT OUT, IT MIGHT CREATE AT LEAST THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT, THAT THE UKRANIANS THOUGHT SO HIGHLY OF YOU TO OFFER YOU THE DEFENSE MINISTRY POST, ON ONE HAND, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRANIAN POLICY AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. >>FRANKLY, IT’S MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT WHAT MY AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND AMERICAN CHAIN OF COMMAND THINKS THAN ANY OF THE — AND THIS IS — THESE ARE HONORABLE PEOPLE. I’M NOT SURE IF HE MEANT IT AS A JOKE OR NOT, BUT IT’S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT MY CIVILIAN WHITE HOUSE CHAIN OF COMMAND THINKS, AND FRANKLY, IF THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ME BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE MY DUTIES, THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION. DR. HILL STAYED ON SEVERAL MORE MONTHS AND WE CONTINUED TO WORK TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY. >>OKAY. DURING THE TIMES RELEVANT OF THE COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. YERMAK OR DANYLYUK OUTSIDE THE JULY 10th MEETING? >>I RECALL A COURTESY NOTE FROM MR. YERMAK WITHIN DAYS OF HIS RETURN TO JULY, IN WHICH HE WANTED TO PRESERVE AN OPEN CHANNEL COMMUNICATION. AND I SAID, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH ANY CONCERNS. >>AND WERE YOU FOLLOWING THIS — THERE’S SORT OF TWO TRACKS, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WALKED US THROUGH DURING HIS TESTIMONY LAST WEDNESDAY. HE CALLED IT A REGULAR CHANNEL AND THEN AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER. WERE YOU TRACKING THE SONDLAND AND VOLKER CHANNEL DURING THIS TIME PERIOD? >>I’M TRYING TO RECALL AT WHICH POINT I BECAME AWARE OF AMBASSADOR — CERTAINLY I WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AND SECRETARY PERRY WERE WORKING TOGETHER TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY INTERESTS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT HAD BEEN AGREED TO. BUT I DIDN’T REALLY LEARN, LIKE I SAID UNTIL THE JULY 10th — ACTUALLY, IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EARLIER POINT. I RECALL A MEETING IN WHICH AMBASSADOR BOLTON FACILITATED A MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON IN THE JUNE TIME FRAME, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS EXTERNAL CHANNEL. I FRANKLY DIDN’T BECOME AWARE OF THESE PARTICULAR U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BEING INVOLVED IN THIS ALTERNATE TRACK UNTIL JULY 10th. >>OKAY. I THINK WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION THAT, YOU KNOW, MR. GIULIANI WAS PROMOTING CERTAIN THINGS WITH UKRAINE AND WITH ZELENSKY IT WAS A NEW DAY, AND UKRAINE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >>THAT’S CORRECT, THAT IS WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, BY THE POLICY CHANNELS AND THE CONCERTED VOICES OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT HAD MET WITH THEM, INCLUDING FOREIGN OFFICIALS. >>AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU’RE AWARE OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S GOALS WERE HERE, AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER’S GOALS WERE HERE, DO YOU THINK THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO DO THE BEST THEY COULD AND TRY AND ADVOCATE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES?>>THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVED AND THAT IS WHAT I STILL BELIEVE, FRANKLY. >>TO THE EXTENT GIULIANI MAY HAVE HAD DIFFERENT VIEWS, THEY WERE TRYING TO HELP HIM UNDERSTAND IT WAS TIME TO CHANGE THOSE VIEWS? >>I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO BRING HIM INTO THE TENT AND HAVE HIM KIND OF SUPPORT THE DIRECTION THAT WE’D SETTLED ON. >>AND YOU NEVER CONFERRED WITH MR. GIULIANI? >>NO. >>YOU NEVER HAD ANY MEETINGS, PHONE CALLS OR THAT SORT? >>I DID NOT. I ONLY KNOW HIM AS NEW YORK’S FINEST MAYOR. >>AMERICA’S MAYOR. >>AMERICA’S MAYOR. >>DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS OR COMMUNICATIONS DURING THIS TIME PERIOD WITH THE PRESIDENT? >>I’VE NEVER HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >>MY TIME IS EXPIRED, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. >>WE’RE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO THE FIVE-MINUTE MEMBER ROUNDS. ARE YOU GOOD TO GO FORWARD OR DO YOU NEED A BREAK? >>I THINK WE’D LIKE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK. >>LET’S TRY AND TAKE FIVE OR TEN MINUTES AND WE’LL RESUME WITH THE FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS. IF I COULD, ASK THE AUDIENCE AND MEMBERS TO PLEASE ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM FIRST. COMMITTEE IS IN RECESS. >>ALL RIGHT, TESTIMONY THERE, REALLY SORT OF BOMBSHELL TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, AND WE HEARD FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS. YOU KNOW, WE’VE GOT OUR PANELISTS HERE. IS ANTOINE IN D.C. STILL? OKAY, HE’S HERE, JOSEPH, RIKKI KLIEMAN, MOLLY IS HERE. LET ME THROW OUT THE FIRST QUESTION. I’M NOT SURE WHO SHOULD TAKE THIS. THE VERY LAST TEN MINUTES OF QUESTIONING TO COLONEL VINDMAN I THOUGHT WAS REMARKABLE, AND IT WAS SOMETHING CHAIRMAN NUNES SAID AT THE OPENING OF HIS REMARKS, WHICH WAS THAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO TRY AND ATTACK THE LOYALTY, IF YOU WILL, OF COLONEL VINDMAN. WE SAW THAT IN THE QUESTIONING BY ASKING ABOUT THE OFFER MADE FROM A UKRANIAN OFFICIAL TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTED TO BECOME THE DEFENSE MINISTER OF UKRAINE, AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A HARPING ON THAT. IT MADE ME THINK THERE’S A CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT YOU SEE FINALLY TAKING ROOT ON THE FLOOR OF UNITED STATES CONGRESS. >>Reporter: WELL, THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. IF YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THESE WITNESSES, LET’S ATTACK THE INTEGRITY OF THESE WITNESSES. AS JOSEPH SAID, BEING THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, HE SAID IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY HE BELIEVED THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE. AND I THINK THAT — FIRST OF ALL, THESE WITNESSES DID NOT GIVE ANYTHING THAT WE DID NOT ALREADY KNOW. SO WHY TRY TO MAKE THEM INTO BIASED INDIVIDUALS, WHEN THEY’RE NOT? >>AND YOU’LL HAVE TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS. WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT FOR DEVIN NUNES TO TRY AND GET COLONEL VINDMAN TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, WHEN IT’S BEEN AGREED THE WHISTLEBLOWER RECEIVED SECONDHAND INFORMATION, AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE THERE TESTIFYING THAT WERE ON THE CALL. I’M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND THAT LINE OF THINKING. >>IT’S A LINE OF THINKING BECAUSE DEVIN NUNES AND OTHERS WHO ALIGN WITH HIM WOULD LIKE TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >>I WOULD LIKE TO ASK JOSEPH HERE, THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST. WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT? IT WAS CLEAR THAT HE WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT VINDMAN MAY HAVE SPOKEN TO. >>Reporter: IT’S ACTUALLY CONFUSING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE DEVIN NUNES BASICALLY PLAYING WHISTLEBLOWER BINGO ON THE CONGRESSIONAL FLOOR, AND NOW YOU HAVE THIS ALLEGATION THAT SOMEHOW YOU HAVE A UKRANIAN DOUBLE AGENT, YOU KNOW, WORKING KIND OF UNDERNEATH PRESIDENT TRUMP. TO ME I THINK THAT LEADS TO THIS KIND OF IMPRESSION, IF ALL THIS CRAZINESS IS HAPPENING, HOW IS ALL THIS ROGUE ACTIVITY HAPPENING IN THE WHITE HOUSE? IT’S A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. AND IT DETRACTS FROM THE FACT THAT WE HAD TWO WITNESSES THAT DIDN’T ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING TO ASSERT, AND SUPPORTED WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING GOING FORWARD. >>Reporter: NUMBER ONE, WHAT THEY ADD IS THEY WERE ON THE CALL. THEY’RE THE ONLY ONES, ASIDE FROM THE SECONDHAND REPORTS FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THE REASON THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO GET AT WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS, GOES TO A LARGER ISSUE, WHICH IS THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS DEEP STATE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT’S DOING ANYTHING THEY CAN TO REMOVE THIS PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. THIS CAN BE A CONSPIRACY THEORY BUT SOME LAWMAKERS ON CAPITOL HILL GENUINELY BELIEVE THERE’S A PORTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OUT TO GET PRESIDENT TRUMP. THEY WANT TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO THIS PERSON IS, AND PROVE THIS PERSON WORKED CLOSELY WITH JOE BIDEN AND THAT THERE WAS SOME MOTIVATION FOR LEAKING THIS REPORT THAT LAUNCHED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO BEGIN WITH. WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IT, THAT’S WHAT THE LAWMAKERS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE ARE THINKING AT THIS POINT. >>I JUST HAVE TO INTERJECT BEFORE YOU GET TO ANTOINE ON THE ALLOW. THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S IDENTITY IS PROTECTED BY LAW. YOU CANNOT OUT HIM. YOU CANNOT RETALIATE AGAINST HIM OR HISTORY. AND THIS ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF DEVIN NUNES THROUGH HIS QUESTIONS IS NOT ONLY INAPPROPRIATE, BUT POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL. IT FINALLY TOOK COLONEL VINDMAN’S LAWYER TO GET INVOLVED AND STOP IT, BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAD TO STOP IT. WE WERE SITTING HERE, SOMEWHAT AGHAST THAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >>IT WAS INTERESTING HE POINTED OUT, HEY, YOU WANTED TO PLEAD THE FIFTH. THE LAWYER HAD TO SAY, THERE’S NOTHING HERE TO PLEAD THE FIFTH ABOUT. >>NOT WITH THESE WITNESSES. >>WHICH SUGGESTS THERE WAS SOMETHING ILLEGAL, SOME WAY HE HAD TO PROTECT HIMSELF LEGALLY. IT WAS AN INTERESTING THING TO INTERJECT. JOSEPH SAID THESE TWO PEOPLE ADDED NOTHING NEW, THAT WE ALREADY KNEW EVERYTHING. ONE THING I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING, VINDMAN SEEMED TO DOWNPLAY THE OMISSION OF BURISMA IN THE INITIAL TRANSCRIPT, AND THAT IT WASN’T A DELIBERATELY REMOVED FROM THE PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT? >>Reporter: WHAT I MAKE OF THAT IS THAT THIS IS A DECORATED U.S. OFFICIAL WHO WANTS TO GET TO THE TRUTH AND DOES NOT HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA. LOOK, THE REPUBLICANS WANT A CIRCUS, AND SO WE SAW THE RANKING MEMBER BEHAVE LIKE A CLOWN DURING THIS HEARING. IT WAS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PROCESS AND TO THESE DECORATED OFFICIALS WHO CAME HERE TO JUST FLUSH OUT THE TRUTH. JOSEPH SAID WE DIDN’T LEARN ANYTHING NEW. WE LEARNED SEVERAL THINGS. WE LEARNED FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE CALL, FIRSTHAND INFORMATION THAT THE THEORY THAT’S BEEN SHOT DOWN BY THE REPUBLICANS. WE ALSO KNOW THEY HAD AN AX TO GRIND ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, JOE BIDEN. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. THE CONTINUATION OF TRYING TO ATTACK THE FACTS AND ATTACK THE PERSONS WHO WERE UNDEROATH AS WITNESSES IT’S SOMETHING YOU SEE ON LAW & ORDER BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ARGUMENT. THESE ARE THE SAME ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WANT TO SAY DEMOCRATS ARE RUNNING THE CIRCUS OR RUNNING A CLOWN CIRCUS. IT’S SO FRUSTRATING. >>ONE THING VINDMAN DID SAY IS THAT HE SAW THE SUGGESTION OF AN INVESTIGATION AS A DEMAND, AND FELT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE INTERPRETED IT AS A DEMAND. EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN’T HEAR, YOU BETTER DO THIS OR ELSE, THAT’S THE WAY HE INTERPRETED IT AND THAT’S THE WAY HE FELT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE INTERPRETED IT AS WELL. >>I THINK WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS A POWER IMBALANCE. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD MAKING A REQUEST, AND YOU’RE A NEW INCOMING PRESIDENT OF A NATION THAT DEPENDS ON AMERICANS’ SUPPORT. HOW VINDMAN WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT IS NOT NECESSARILY HOW THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IS GOING TO TAKE IT. THAT’S NOT A FACT. THAT’S A FEELING, A SENTIMENT. AGAIN, I THINK PARTISANSHIP NOTWITHSTANDING, THERE IS EVIDENCE HERE THAT THINGS ARE HAPPENING THAT CERTAIN AMERICANS WILL LOOK AT THROUGH A JAUNDICED EYE. IF YOU COME DOWN TO THE FACTS, THE FACTS ARE THAT NONE OF THESE WITNESSES SAID ANYTHING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, AND MANY OF THEIR STATEMENTS BOLSTER — >>IT’S WEIRD NOT HAVING ANTOINE HERE. HE’D BE JUMPING ON THE TABLE. >>Reporter: I WANT TO DO THE TOOTSIE ROLL ALL OVER YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU SAY WE DIDN’T LEARN ANYTHING NEW BUT FOR THE PAST SEVERAL DAYS SINCE LAST WEEK, YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO PUT A STAIN ON EVERYTHING WE’VE HEARD STARTING FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S TESTIMONY TO EVERY WITNESS WE HAVE HAD TO ALL OF THE REPORTS THAT HAVE COME OUT, EVEN SOME OF THE TRANSCRIPTS. AND NOW WE’RE HEARING IT FIRSTHAND AND NOW YOU WANT TO PIVOT TO A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT THAT WE DIDN’T LEARN ANYTHING NEW. YOU HAVE TO PICK A SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY TO DRIVE ON, MY MAN. >>THIS IS THE THING, BROTHER. YOU HAVE ABOUT 15 REPUBLICANS MAKING 25 DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS. I THINK THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABDEMOCRATS, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY THE PROBLEM. AMERICANS ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW WHICHEVER THREAD, WHATEVER REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT THEY LIKE MIGHT BE SUGGESTING TODAY. AND THE FLAVOR OF THE DAY IS NOT NECESSARILY THE ARGUMENT THAT’S GOING TO CARRY THE DAY BECAUSE THE THESIS THAT’S PRESENTED BY THE DEMOCRATS IS SO BROAD THAT IT CAN’T BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH THE PARAGRAPHS PRESENTED BY THE TEACHER. >>ANY AMERICAN WITH COMMON SENSE WHO SAW THESE TESTIMONIES TODAY FROM THESE TWO DECORATED RESPECTED INDIVIDUALS AND KNOW THAT THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH, IF YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE CAN’T SEE THROUGH THE SMOKE ON THAT, THEN YOU AND I SHOULD PROBABLY FIND A DIFFERENT CAREER BECAUSE ANY PERSON, POLITICS OR NOT, KNOW THAT THESE TWO PEOPLE HAVE NO REASON TO LIE. >>I DON’T THINK THEY WERE LYING. >>I HAVE TO BREAK THIS UP FOR A SECOND. >>I’M USUALLY BETWEEN THEM. >>VINDMAN WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT SONDLAND AND SONDLAND’S MOTIVATIONS. WE WERE SITTING HERE SAYING, SONDLAND IS THE GUY WE WANT TO HEAR. HE WAS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HE’S THE GUY THAT KNOWS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TELLING HIM TO DO. VINDMAN SEEMED TO SUGGEST THAT HE THOUGHT SONDLAND WAS DOING EVERYTHING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY. >>Reporter: AT THE VERY END WHEN VINDMAN SAID THAT, THAT SONDLAND WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE HE THOUGHT WAS DOING EVERYTHING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY, THAT CERTAINLY PERKED UP MY YEARS BECAUSE I DIDN’T EXPECT THAT FROM VINDMAN OR ANYBODY ELSE. WHAT DIDN’T MAKE SENSE OF THAT, SOME DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE HAS TO GET THAT CLARIFIED. WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE LAST WEEK THAT SONDLAND IS CARRYING OUT THE UNAUTHORIZED AGENDA, WHICH IS WHAT I’M GOING TO CALL THE RUDY GIULIANI AGENDA, FOR SHORTHAND. BUT THE UNAUTHORIZED AGENDA RATHER THAN A LEGITIMATE AGENDA. SO CERTAINLY THE UNAUTHORIZED AGENDA, WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY TO FURTHER THE PRESIDENT’S DESIRE TO GO FORWARD WITH TWO INVESTIGATIONS, OR NOT, OR TO ANNOUNCE YOU’RE GOING FORWARD, WHETHER YOU DO OR NOT, INTO THE BIDEN SITUATION, WHICH IS BURISMA, AND INTO THE QUESTION OF THE 2016 ELECTION AND UKRANIAN INTERFERENCE RATHER THAN RUSSIA. SO I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY SONDLAND IS THOUGHT ABOUT AS FURTHERING THE COUNTRY’S AGENDA. HE’S FURTHERING THE PRESIDENT’S AGENDA, OR SO WE HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE. >>LET’S PLAY A LITTLE SOUND BASED ON WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WHEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN EXPLAINS TO THE COMMITTEE AS TO WHY HE REPORTED HIS CONCERNS AND THE RATIONALE FOR DOING SO, BUT LOOKS LIKE THE CHAIRMAN MAY BE ABOUT TO GET STARTED. THIS IS PAGE 65 ON MY NOTES, WHERE LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN EMPHASIZES WHY HE REPORTED HIS CONCERNS TO SONDLAND. >>WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS JULY 10th RELATING TO SONDLAND AND JULY 25th RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY. I REPORTED MY CONCERNS IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD BE SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY ACTIONS. WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS, MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY AND CARRY OUT MY DUTY. >>WHEN HE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THAT, HE WENT ON TO SAY IT’S NOT JUST ASKING FOR THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE DONE IN UKRAINE, WHERE HE FELT IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THERE WOULD BE AN IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION, SO IT WOULDN’T BE SINCERE. >>HE HAD A MESSAGE FOR HIS FATHER, WHO I’M ASSUMING IS NO LONGER WITH US, AND THANKED THE FATHER FROM TAKING THE FAMILY FROM THE SOVIET UNION AND TO THE UNITED STATES AND HE KNEW IF HE TOLD THE TRUTH EVERYTHING WOULD BE OKAY. THIS IS FROM COLONEL KATHY TURNER, GIVEN TO DAVID MARTIN AT THE PENTAGON. THE ARMY IS PROVIDING SUPPORT TO COLONEL VINDMAN AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC ATTENTION. AS WITH ANY SOLDIER, THE ARMY WILL WORK WITH CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES TO BE SURE HE AND HIS FAMILY ARE PROPERLY PROTECTED. AGAIN, IT’S COUCHED IN PR SPEAK. >>BUT IT’S CHILLING. >>IT IS, THAT THIS DECORATED SOLDIER, WHO NEARLY LOST HIS LIFE SERVING IN IRAQ BY AN IED IS NOW POTENTIALLY FACING REPERCUSSIONS FROM FELLOW AMERICANS FOR DOING WHAT HE SAID THERE AS WHAT HE SAW WAS HIS DUTY. >>HIS SENTIMENTS ABOUT HIS FATHER, HOW CAN ANY AMERICAN LISTEN TO THAT AND FEEL UNMOVED? IF THERE WAS ONE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TESTIMONIES WE DID HEAR, ONE PERSON CALLED IT UNUSUAL, AND VINDMAN REFERRED TO IT AS IMPROPER. I THINK THAT WAS THE ONE STRONGEST DELINEATION BETWEEN THE TWO AND I WOULD HOPE THAT REPUBLICANS COMING UP WOULD ACTUALLY TEND TO REFRAIN FROM SOME OF THE ATTACKS ON VINDMAN AND TRY — LIEUTENANT COLONEL, AS HE WOULD LIKE TO BE REFERRED TO, AND IF THEY WANT TO LEAN INTO ANYTHING, LEAN ON THE ATTACKS ON BIDEN, THE NOTION OF CORRUPTION AROUND, WHAT WAS HUNTER BIDEN DOING IN UKRAINE. I THINK THAT WAS MORE EFFECTIVE EARLIER ON. >>Reporter: BASED ON DOUG COLLINS’ LETTER TO JERRY NADLER LAST NIGHT, I ANTICIPATE WE’LL HEAR REPUBLICANS BRING UP TIM MORRISON’S DEPOSITION, IN WHICH HE SAID THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT, AND — THIS IS FROM THE DEPOSITION — THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY ASKS DID ANYONE BRING CONCERNS TO YOU THEY BELIEVED COLONEL VINDMAN MAY LEAK SOMETHING, AND HE SAID YES. >>HE WAS ASKED HAD HE EVER LEAKED ANYTHING TO REPORTERS, AND BOTH HE AND MS. WILLIAMS TESTIFIED NO. >>HE WAS, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK THE REPUBLICANS, BASED ON THE LETTER/MEMO THAT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER COLLINS RELEASED IS IN LINE WITH THEIR THINKING. >>THAT’S WHY REPUBLICANS WANT MORRISON CALLED. >>Reporter: ABSOLUTELY. BUT VINDMAN SEEMS TO BE SO IMPECCABLE IN HIS INTEGRITY. THAT’S WHY THIS LAST ATTACK BY MR. CASTOR, I FOUND AS PERSONALLY SO DISTASTEFUL. >>LET’S GO BACK TO THE HEARING. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS RECONVENING. >>THERE WAS A RECITATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA, ZLOCHEVSKY, THE BIDENS. IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTERS ASKED IN THOSE QUESTIONS? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT’S SCHEDULE AND WHETHER HE COULD HAVE MADE THE INAUGURATION OR WAS THE PRESIDENT TRAVELING OR THE TRIP TO CANADA. LET’S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING: YOU WERE INSTRUCTED THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO GO BEFORE YOU KNEW THE DATE OF THE INAUGURATION? >>YES, THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO AT THE TIME HE WAS TOLD NOT TO GO, THERE WAS NO CALCULATION ABOUT WHERE HE MIGHT BE OR WHERE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE BECAUSE THE DATE HADN’T BEEN SET YET, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S RIGHT, THE DATE HAD NOT BEEN SET, SO WE WERE WEIGHING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS OF WHEN THE INAUGURATION MIGHT FALL. >>I THINK YOU SAID ORIGINALLY THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO GO, THEN RECEIVED THE INTRODUCTION THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WANTED HIM TO GO. WHERE YOU ARE IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT TELLING HIM TO GO AND NOT TO GO, THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD TO ABORT A TRIP THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE TO UKRAINE? >>I’D SEEN THAT IN THE PRESS, YES. >>AND DID YOU SEE THAT RUDY GIULIANI BLAMED PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR HAVING TO CANCEL THE TRIP? >>FOR HAVING TO CONSELL HIS TRIP? >>YES. >>I READ THAT IN THE PRESS, YES. >>AND DID YOU READ THAT RUDY GIULIANI WANTED TO GO TO UKRAINE TO, AS HE PUT IT, NOT MEDDLE IN THE ELECTIONS BUT MEDDLE IN THE INVESTIGATIONS. >>I DID READ THAT, YES. >>AND THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE TRIP TO THE INAUGURATION? >>IT DID. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE ASKED BY THE MINORITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS ON THE JULY 25th CALL AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS WERE AMBIGUOUS. WAS THERE ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S USE OF THE WORD BIDEN? >>THERE WAS NOT. >>IT WAS CLEAR THE PRESIDENT WANTED ZELENSKY TO COMMIT TO INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS, WAS IT NOT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>THAT IS ONE OF THE FAVORS THAT YOU THOUGHT SHOULD BE PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS A DEMAND? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT THAT? >>IN MY MIND, THERE WAS NOT. >>IT’S ALSO TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED ZELENSKY FOR IN 2016 AND INTO THE BIDENS WERE PRECISELY THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS CALLING FOR PUBLICLY, WERE THEY NOT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO WHEN PEOPLE SUGGEST RIGHT- HAND LANE RUDY GIULIANI WAS ACTED ON HIS OWN, THE PRESIDENT REFERRED TO THE SAME TWO INVESTIGATIONS RUDY GIULIANI WAS OUT PUSHING ON HIS BEHALF, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE MEETING THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD WITH ZELENSKY IN SEPTEMBER, IN WHICH THE UKRANIANS BROUGHT UP THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>AND YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT WHETHER IN THAT MEETING, THE BIDENS OR BURISMA CAME UP, AND YOU SAID THEY DID NOT? >>THAT’S CORRECT, THEY DID NOT COME UP. >>THAT BILATERAL MEETING WAS A LARGE MEETING WITH TWO OR THREE DOZEN PEOPLE, WASN’T IT? >>IT WAS. >>SO IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS MEETING WITH TWO OR THREE DOZEN PEOPLE, THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN’T BRING UP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? >>NO, HE DID NOT. HE’S NEVER BROUGHT UP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. >>WHERE YOU ARE THAT IMMEDIATELY — AND I MEAN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT MEETING BROKE UP, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAS SAID THAT HE WENT OVER TO MR. YERMAK, ONE OF THE TOP ADVISORS TO ZELENSKY, AND TOLD YERMAK THAT IF THEY WANTED TO MILITARY AID, THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT? >>I WAS NOT AWARE AT THE TIME OF ANY SIDE MEETINGS THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD FOLLOWING THE VICE PRESIDENT’S MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. I’VE ONLY LEARNED THAT THROUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY. >>SO AT THE BIG PUBLIC MEETING, IT DIDN’T COME UP, AND YOU CAN’T SPEAK TO THE PRIVATE MEETING HELD IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER? >>CORRECT. THE VICE PRESIDENT MOVED ON WITH HIS SCHEDULE IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE JULY 10th MEETING OR MEETINGS, THE ONE WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND THE ONE THAT FOLLOWED ON ITS HEELS. WHERE YOU ARE THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON INSTRUCTED YOUR SUPERIOR, DR. HILL, TO GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS AFTER THAT MEETING? >>I LEARNED SHORTLY AFTER SHE WAS FINISHED TALKING TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND AFTER WE WRAPPED UP WITH THE WARD ROOM, THAT SHE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH HIM AND THAT’S WHAT WAS EXPRESSED. >>YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS ON YOUR OWN, CORRECT? >>THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES. >>BUT BOLTON ALSO THOUGHT THAT DR. HILL SHOULD GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS BECAUSE OF HIS CONCERN OVER THIS DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND AND MULVANEY WERE COOKING UP, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >>AND IN FACT, THIS DRUG DEAL, AS BOLTON CALLED IT, INVOLVED THIS CONDITIONING OF THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT SONDLAND BROUGHT UP, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >>AND IN FACT, THE SAME CONDITIONS OR ISSUE OF WANTING THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND TYING IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THIS CAME UP IN THE JULY 25th CALL, DID IT NOT? WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO THE VERY SAME ISSUE THAT BOLTON SAID TO HILL, GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS, THE SAME ISSUE THAT PROMPTED YOU TO GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS ENDS UPCOMING UP MANY THAT CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND IT WAS THAT CONVERSATION THAT ONCE AGAIN LED YOU BACK TO THE LAWYERS’ OFFICE? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>I YIELD TO THE RANKING MEMBER. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU TOOK SEVEN MINUTES SO I ASSUME YOU’LL GIVE US EQUAL TIME? >>YES, MR. NUNES. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, BEFORE I TURN TO MR. JORDAN, I ASKED MS. WILLIAMS ABOUT THIS, IF SHE’D EVER ACCESSED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION A FELLOW EMPLOYEE’S COMPUTER SYSTEM. SHE ANSWERED NO TO THE QUESTION. HAVE YOU EVER ACCESSED ANYONE’S COMPUTER SYSTEM AT THE NSC WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION? >>WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE? NO. >>KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION? >>I’M SORRY? >>KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION? YOU NEVER ACCESSED SOMEONE’S COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORIZATION? >>CORRECT. >>MR. JORDAN? >>I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER. COLONEL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND SACRIFICE TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY. THIS AFTERNOON YOUR FORMER BOSS, MR. MORRISON IS GOING TO SIT WHERE YOU ARE AND HE’S GOING TO TESTIFY. I THINK WE ARE BRINGING YOU A COPY AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE THINGS HE SAID IN HIS DEPOSITION. PAGE 82 OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM MR. MORRISON. I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH DR. HILL AND THE TRANSITION WITH OUR TEAM, ITS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT ALEX’S JUDGMENT AND HE WAS ASKED DID ANYONE EVER BRING CONCERNS TO YOU THEY BELIEVED COLONEL VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED SOMETHING, MR. MORRISON REPLIED YES. SO YOUR BOSS HAD CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT, YOUR FORMER BOSS, DR. HILL HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT, AND YOUR FORMER COLLEAGUES FELT THERE WERE TIMES YOU LEAKED INFORMATION. ANY IDEA WHY THEY HAVE THOSE IMPRESSIONS COLONEL VINDMAN? >>YES, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN. I’LL START BY READING DR. HILL’S OWN WORDS, AS SHE ATTESTED TO IN MY LAST EVALUATION, DATED MIDDLE OF JULY BEFORE HE SHIFT. ALEX IS A TOP 1% MILITARY OFFICER AND THE BEST OFFICER I’VE WORKED WITH IN MY 15 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES. HE’S BRILLIANT, UNFLAPPABLE AND EXERCISES EXEMPLARY JUDGMENT, SO FORTH AND SO ON. I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA. MR. MORRISON — YEAH, THE DATE OF THAT WAS — I’M SORRY. JULY 13th. SO MR. JORDAN, I WOULD SAY THAT I CAN’T SAY WHAT MR. MORRISON — WHY MR. MORRISON QUESTIONED MY JUDGMENT. WE’D ONLY RECENTLY STARTED WORKING TOGETHER. HE WASN’T THERE VERY LONG AND WE WERE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OUR RELATIONSHIP. MAYBE IT WAS DIFFERENT CULTURES, MILITARY VERSUS — >>AND COLONEL, YOU HAVE NEVER LEAKED INFORMATION? >>I NEVER DID, NEVER WOULD. THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS THAT I WOULD DO THAT. >>OKAY. COLONEL, WE DEPOSE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE BUNKER IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL BUT OF ALL THOSE DEPOSITIONS, ONLY THREE INDIVIDUALS WE DEPOSED WERE ON THE NOW SOMEWHAT FAMOUS JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THERE WAS YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL BESIDE YOU, MS. WILLIAMS, THEN YOUR BOSS MR. MORRISON, WHO I JUST READ FROM HIS DEPOSITION. WHEN WE ASKED MS. WILLIAMS WHO SHE SPOKE TO AFTER THE CALL ABOUT THE CALL, SHE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. WHEN WE ASKED MR. MORRISON WHO HE SPOKE TO AFTER THE CALL ABOUT THE CALL, HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALLOWED HIM TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU FIRST TOLD US THREE INDIVIDUALS, YOUR BROTHER AND THE TWO LAWYERS. THEN YOU SAID THERE WAS A GROUP OF OTHER PEOPLE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH, BUT YOU WOULD ONLY GIVE US ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE GROUP AND THE CHAIRMAN WOULD ONLY ALLOW YOU TO GIVE US THAT NAME. SO I WANT TO KNOW FIRST, HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE IN THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH OUTSIDE THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS I JUST NAMED? >>MR. JORDAN, ON A CALL READOUT, CERTAINLY AFTER THE FIRST CALL, THERE WERE PROBABLY A HALF DOZEN PEOPLE OR MORE ON THE READOUT. THOSE ARE PEOPLE WITH THE PROPER CLEARANCE AND THE NEED TO KNOW. IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY OF THE CALL, AND MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO TALK TO ANYONE ELSE, KENT, AND ONE OTHER PERSON. >>AND YOU CAN’T TELL US WHO THAT PERSON IS? >>MR. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER. >>THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. I WOULD ASK YOU TO ENFORCE THE RULE WITH REGARD TO THE DISCLOSURE, WITH REGARD TO THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE. >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I INDICATED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE USED TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THAT SAME — >>MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU STOP THE TIME SO I DON’T LOSE THE TIME? >>YOU’RE RECOGNIZED AGAIN, MR. JORDAN. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON’T SEE HOW THIS IS OUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THE WITNESS TESTIFIED IN HIS DEPOSITION THAT HE DOESN’T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS. YOU HAVE SAID, EVEN THOUGH NO ONE BELIEVES YOU, YOU HAVE SAID YOU DON’T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS. SO HOW IS THIS OUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO FIND OUT WHO THIS INDIVIDUAL IS? >>THIS IS YOUR TIME FOR QUESTIONS BUT YOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE WITNESS AND NOT TO TRY AND OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, MR. MORRISON SAID HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL ITSELF, SAYING THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ON THE CALL. BUT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL LEAKING, THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL LEAKING. HE SAID HE WAS CONCERNED HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON’S POLARIZED ENVIRONMENT, HOW THE CONTENTS WOULD BE USED IN WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PROCESS. >>EXCUSE ME, MR. JORDAN, COULD I GET A PAGE? >>44. MR. MORRISON WAS RIGHT. THE CALL LEAKS, WHISTLEBLOWER GOES TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF’S STAFF THEN RUNS OFF TO THE LAWYER, THE SAME LAWYER WHO SAID IN JANUARY 2017 THE COUP HAS STARTED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. ONE THING THE DEMOCRATS DIDN’T COUNT ON, ONE THING THEY DIDN’T COUNT ON WAS THE PRESIDENT RELEASING THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, AND LETTING US ALL SEE WHAT HE SAID. THEY DIDN’T COUNT ON THAT. TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO LEAKAGE. THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL HAVE SAID NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, NO LINKAGE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS TO THE INVESTIGATION. MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER THE CALL ON THE 25th, WE KNOW THAT COLONEL VINDMAN TALKED TO SEVERAL PEOPLE. AFTER THE CALL ON THE 25th, HOW MANY PEOPLE DID YOU TALK TO ABOUT THE CALL? >>I DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYBODY ABOUT THE CALL. >>DIDN’T SPEAK TO ANYBODY. >>NO. >>I YIELD BACK. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK YOU TO CONSENT TO ENTER THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL’S PERFORMANCE REVIEW INTO THE RECORD. >>MAY I INQUIRE OF COLONEL VINDMAN, WHETHER HE’D LIKE US TO DO THAT? IF HE WOULD, WE’RE HAPPY TO. IF YOU WOULD PREFER IT NOT BE IN THE RECORD, I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO YOU. >>I GUESS WITH REDACTIONS, IT HAS PII IN IT THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED. AND MAYBE THE ONLY RELEVANT ELEMENTS ARE THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE. >>DID YOU READ THE RELEVANT PORTIONS? >>THAT WAS THE SHORT VERSION. THERE WERE OTHER PARAGRAPHS IN THERE. >>I’LL WITHDRAW MY REQUEST. >>THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU JOINED THE FOREIGN SERVICE IN 2006, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>PRIOR TO THAT, YOU WERE A FIELD REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN 1994? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>NOW AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, YOU HAVE SERVED THREE PRESIDENTS, TWO REPUBLICANS AND ONE DEMOCRAT, IN A VARIETY OF ROLES, CORRECT? >>YES, SIR. >>IN YOUR CURRENT POSITION, YOU’RE DETAILED TO STATE FOREIGN ADVISOR? >>YES. >>ON SUNDAY THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY TARGETED YOU IN A TWEET AFTER HE TARGETED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DURING HER HEARING TESTIMONY. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW AND READ YOU THE TWEET: TELL JENNIFER WILLIAMS, WHOEVER THAT IS, TO READ BOTH TRANSCRIPTS TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CALLS AND SEE THE JUST-RELEASED STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE. THEN SHE SHOULD MEET WITH THE OTHER NEVER-TRUMPERS, WHO I DON’T KNOW AND MOSTLY NEVER EVEN HEARD OF, AND WORK OUT A BETTER PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK. MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU ENGAGED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ATTACK? >>NO, SIR. >>MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU A NEVER-TRUMPER? >>I’M NOT SURE I KNOW AN OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF A NEVER- TRUMPER, BUT I WOULD NOT, NO. >>DID THAT TWEET MAKE AN IMPRESSION ON YOU WHEN YOU READ IT? >>IT CERTAINLY SURPRISED ME. I WAS NOT EXPECTING TO BE CALLED OUT BY NAME. >>SURPRISED ME TOO AND LOOKED A LOT LIKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND TAMPERING IN AN EFFORT TO GET YOU TO SHAPE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE DEDICATED YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ABOVE YOUR LEFT BREAST YOU’RE WEARING A DEVICE WHICH IS A SPRINGFIELD MUSKET ON A BLUE FIELD. WHAT IS THAT? >>COMBAT INFANTRYMAN’S BADGE. >>HOW DO YOU GET THAT? >>YOU HAVE TO SERVE IN A BRIGADE BELOW A TACTICAL UNIT, A FIGHTING UNIT, FRONT LINE UNIT IN COMBAT. >>UNDER FIRE? >>CORRECT. >>YOU’RE ALSO WEARING A PURPLE HEART. CAN YOU TELL US IN 20 OR 30 SECONDS WHY YOU’RE WEARING A PURPLE HEART? >>IN 2014 IN THE RAMP UP TO PROBABLY THE LARGEST URBAN OPERATION IN DECADES OUTSIDE FALLUJAH, WE WERE CONDUCTING A RECONNAISSANCE PATROL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MARINES AND MY VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY AN IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE THAT PENETRATED THE ARMOR. >>WERE YOU INJURED? >>I WAS. >>THE DAY AFTER YOU APPEARED FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED YOU A NEVER- TRUMPER. COLONEL VINDMAN, WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A NEVER-TRUMPER? >>REPRESENTATIVE, I WOULD CALL MYSELF NEVER PARTISAN. >>THANK YOU. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, IN YOUR MILITARY CAREER, YOU HAVE SERVED UNDER FOUR PRESIDENTS, TWO DEMOCRATS AND TWO REPUBLICANS. HAVE YOU EVER WAIVERED FROM THE OATH YOU TOOK TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION? >>NEVER. >>DO YOU HAVE ANY POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS FOR YOUR APPEARANCE HERE TODAY? >>NONE. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, MULTIPLE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI HAVE ACCUSED YOU OF HARBORING LOYALTY TO THE UKRAINE, BECAUSE YOUR FAMILY, LIKE MANY FAMILIES, EMIGRATED TO THE UNITED STATES. THEY HAVE ACCUSED YOU OF ESPIONAGE AND DUAL LOYALTIES. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THIS MORNING, THE THREE MINUTES SPENT ASKING YOU ABOUT THE OFFER MADE TO MAKE YOU THE MINISTER OF DEFENSE THAT MAY HAVE COME CLOAKED IN A SUIT, BUT THAT WAS DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY TO GIVE THE RIGHT WING MEDIA AND OPENING TO QUESTION YOUR LOYALTIES. I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT. IT’S THE KIND OF THING YOU SAY WHEN YOU’RE DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. IT’S WHAT YOU SAY WHEN IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO ATTACK THE MEDIA, THE WAY THE RANKING MEDIA GAVE OVER HIS OPENING STATEMENT OR TO ATTACK THE DEMOCRATS, BUT IT’S WHAT YOU STOOP TO WHEN THE INDEFENSIBLE OF YOUR CASE REQUIRES THAT YOU ATTACK A MAN WEARING A SPRINGFIELD RIFLE ON A FIELD OF BLUE ABOVE A PURPLE HEART. I SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>I YIELD MY FIVE MINUTES. >>THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. IN A PRESS CONFERENCE LAST THURSDAY, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF BRIBERY, EVIDENCED IN HIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IN CONCERT WITH THAT, MULTIPLE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE GAVE TV AND RADIO INTERVIEWS OVER THIS PAST WEEK DISCUSSING HOW THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT SUPPORTED HIS IMPEACHMENT FOR COMMITTING BRIBERY, ALL OF WHICH STRUCK ME AS VERY ODD, BECAUSE FOR THE LONGEST TIME THIS WAS ALL ABOUT QUID PRO QUO, ACCORDING TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. BUT AFTER WITNESS AFTER WITNESS BEGAN SAYING THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, OR EVEN THAT QUID PRO QUO WAS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE, WE SAW A SHIFT FROM THE DEMOCRATS. THEY BRIEFLY STARTED TO REFER TO THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT ON THE JULY 25th CALL AS EXTORTION. AND NOW IT’S SHIFTED AGAIN LAST WEEK TO BRIBERY. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU USED THE WORD UNUSUAL TO DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT’S CALL JULY 25th. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU USED THE WORDS INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER. I’VE WORD SEARCHED EACH OF YOUR TRANSCRIPTS, AND THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE DOESN’T APPEAR ANYWHERE MANY THAT. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HAVE NEVER USED THE WORDS BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT, CORRECT? >>NO, SIR. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN’T EITHER? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>THE PROBLEM IS, IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHERE THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAYS IT’S ALL ABOUT BRIBERY AND BRIBERY IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, NO WITNESS HAS USED THE WORD BRIBERY TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT. NONE OF THEM. THESE ARE ALL THE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS. THESE ARE JUST THE TEN THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED. SIX WEEKS OF WITNESS INTERVIEWS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TESTIMONY, THOUSANDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED, THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS GIVEN. THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT WITNESSES HAVE BEEN ASKED ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT CONSTITUTED BRIBERY BEFORE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS ASKED LAST THURSDAY IS ZERO. THE NUMBER OF TIMES WITNESSES HAVE USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS OF THIS INQUIRY IS ZERO. IN FACT, IN THESE 3500 PAGES OF SWORN DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, IN JUST THESE TEN TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED THUS FAR, THE WORD BRIBERY APPEARS IN THESE 3500 PAGES EXACTLY ONE TIME, AND IRONICALLY, IT APPEARS NOT IN A DESCRIPTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ALLEGED CONDUCT, BUT IN A DESCRIPTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S ALLEGED CONDUCT. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK, MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO SAY, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE EVIDENCE FROM THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR BRIBERY. THEY’RE GOING TO SEND A REPORT TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND BECAUSE THERE’S MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS, IT’S GOING TO LIKELY PASS. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS — WHAT THEY ARE DESCRIBING AS BRIBERY, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IS DESCRIBING AS BRIBERY. WE HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCEEDING THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ASKING, IF THE FACTS ARE THE SAME, WHY DO THE CRIMES THE PRESIDENT IS ACCUSED OF KEEP CHANGING? WHY GO FROM QUID PRO QUO TO EXTORTION AND NOW TO BRIBERY? CHAIRMAN NUNES TOLD YOU THE ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS POLLING, WASHINGTON TIMES ASKED AMERICANS WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST DAMNING ACCUSATION AND IT CAME BACK BRIBERY. IT’S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE FORBIDDEN WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCEEDING. THAT’S HARD ENOUGH. WHAT’S WORSE IS DEFENDING YOURSELF AGAINST AN ACCUSATION THAT KEEPS CHANGING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCEEDING. IF DEMOCRATS ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF HIGH CRIMES OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, HE SHOULD AT LEAST KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS. WHEN SPEAKER PELOSI SAYS IT’S ALL ABOUT BRIBERY, SHE’S PROMISED US EVIDENCE ABOUT BRIBERY THAT WOULD BE COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING, AND INSTEAD IT’S INVISIBLE. I YIELD BACK. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN EVERYONE IN THANKING BOTH OF OUR WITNESSES FOR YOUR SERVICE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, AS PART OF YOUR POLICY PORTFOLIO IN THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU MAINTAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRANIAN OFFICIALS, DO YOU NOT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>YOU EXPLAINED EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOUR JOB WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE WAS TO COORDINATE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE POLICIES, IS THAT RIGHT? >>IT IS TO COORDINATE UNITED STATES POLICY VIS-A-VIS UKRAINE, CORRECT. >>YOU TESTIFIED IN THE SPRING OF THIS YEAR THAT THESE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS BEGAN ASKING YOU QUOTE, ADVICE ON HOW TO RESPOND TO MR. GIULIANI’S ADVANCES, END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEY MET BY, MR. GIULIANI’S ADVANCES? >>I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN BOTH HIS PUBLIC COMMENTARY, PUBLISHLY CALLING FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016, BURISMA AND HUNTER BIDEN, AS WELL AS HIS DIRECT OVERTURES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE, DIRECTLY AND THROUGH PROXIES. THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. >>AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI WAS ACTING UNDER? >>CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON’T KNOW. >>DID THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS YOU SPOKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS TELLING THEM TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S SON AND DEBUNK THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORIES? >>I’M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >>DO YOU THINK THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS YOU SPOKE TO UNDERSTOOD THE UNDERLINING MEANING OF MR. GIULIANI’S ADVANCES TO BE BOTH INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS AS WELL AS DEBUNKING THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORIES? >>YES, I THINK TO BE CLEAR, I THINK YOU’RE REFERRING TO DEBUNKING THAT IT WAS A RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. >>EXACTLY. >>NOW, WAS THIS OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO PUSH FOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS? >>IT WAS NOT PART OF ANY PROCESS THAT I PARTICIPATED IN. >>MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU AGREE THAT PRESSING THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH OFFICIAL U.S.-UKRAINE POLICY? >>OBVIOUSLY ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS IS A BIG PART OF OUR POLICY. I UNDERSTAND. I WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS WERE APPROPRIATE. >>THAT’S FAIR. COLONEL, IS IT TRUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT ON THE CALL ON JULY 25th TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI HAS MADE NO SECRET OF THE FACT THAT HE’S ACTING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS MR. GIULIANI TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES, QUOTE, MY ONLY CLIENT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE’S THE ONE I HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO, AND TO TELL HIM WHAT HAPPENS. HE ADDED THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE QUOTE, VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO MY CLIENT, AND MY TURN OUT TO BE HELPFUL TO MY GOVERNMENT, END QUOTE. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE UKRANIAN OFFICIALS YOU WERE ON A DAILY BASIS YOU’RE IN CONTACT WITH WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MR. GIULIANI’S ADVANCES? >>YES, THEY WERE. >>IN YOUR ASSESSMENT, DID THEY UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE REQUESTS BEING ASKED OF THEM? >>I BELIEVE THEY DID. >>DID THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS AFFECTING U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY? >>I’M NOT SURE WHAT THEY FRANKLY UNDERSTOOD. I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS, YES. >>YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT YOU WARNED THE UKRANIANS NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I COUNSELED THEM, YES. >>IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU FELT LIKE IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT YOU WERE EXPRESSING NOT JUST WHAT YOU THOUGHT BUT TRADITION AND POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES? >>IT WAS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD TO BE U.S. POLICY. >>WHY DO YOU THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF A NATION LIKE THE UNITED STATES? >>THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT COMES TO MIND IS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016, THE IMPACT THAT HAD ON INTERNAL POLITICS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES IT HAD FOR RUSSIA ITSELF. THIS ADMINISTRATION ENFORCED SANCTIONS, HEAVY SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR THEIR INTERFERENCE. >>I’M RUNNING OUT OF TIME. IS IT NORMAL FOR THE — FOR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, A NONU.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, TO GET INVOLVED IN FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS LIKE MR. GIULIANI? >>I DON’T KNOW IF I HAVE TO EXPERIENCE TO SAY THAT. IT CERTAINLY WASN’T HELPFUL AND DIDN’T HELP ADVANCE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. >>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >>MS. WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE AS WE LOOK TO FORMULATING POLICY WITH OUR ALLIES AND TO TRY AND COUNTER THOSE WHO ARE NOT OUR ALLIES. I THINK WE ARE ALL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EUROPEAN POLICY AND HOW IT CAN THWART RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE AS YOU SAID AS PART OF YOUR PORTFOLIO, TO ADVICE THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT UKRAINE? >>CORRECT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, IN YOUR OPENING, YOU SAY YOU’RE THE PRINCIPAL ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE AND YOU COORDINATE U.S.-UKRAINE POLICY, CORRECT? >>CONGRESSMAN, IN THIS STATEMENT I ISSUED THIS MORNING, I PROBABLY EASED THAT BACK. I TOOK IT OFF MY JOB DESCRIPTION, BUT I SPENT MUCH NOT REALLY TIME ADVISING THE AMBASSADOR THAN I DID THE PRESIDENT. >>YOUR STATEMENT AS YOU SUBMITTED IT AND READ IT TODAY, SAYS AT THE NSC I’M THE PRINCIPAL ADVISOR TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. >>THAT’S NOT WHAT I READ INTO THE TRANSCRIPT. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT I HAD IN THERE YESTERDAY CHOSE TO EASE BACK IN MY LANGUAGE JUST BECAUSE I DIDN’T WANT TO — >>YOU WROTE WHAT I JUST READ? >>WHAT I READ INTO THE RECORD THIS MORNING DIDN’T SAY THAT. >>OKAY. NOTED. BECAUSE YOU KNOW UKRAINE, YOU KNOW WE WORK THROUGH OUR ALLIES AND MULTILATERAL RELATIONS, AND YOU KNOW UKRAINE IS A SPIRALING MEMBER OF THE EU? >>YES, THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND YOU KNOW PROBABLY THE EU AND NATO BOTH HAVE OFFICES IN UKRAINE, AND WE TRY TO ADVANCE OUR POLICY WITH THE EU AND NATO, AND YOU WOULD AGREE OUR AMBASSADOR HUTCHISON AND SONDLAND WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADVANCING OUR POLICY INTERESTS WITH UKRAINE AT THE EU AND AT NATO, RIGHT MS. WILLIAMS? >>I WOULD SAY THAT CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATO AND UKRAINE, THAT WOULD FALL TO AMBASSADOR HUTCHISON, AND BETWEEN THE EU AND UKRAINE, TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE AN AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE AS WELL. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WOULD AGREE? >>I AGREE WITH MS. WILLIAMS. >>LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOU SAID IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI PROMOTED FALSE INFORMATION THAT UNDERMINED THE U.S. POLICY. HAVE YOU EVER MET GIULIANI? >>JUST TO BE ACCURATE, I SAID FALSE NARRATIVE. THAT’S WHAT I SAID IN THE RECORD THIS MORNING. I’VE NOT MET HIM. >>SO YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM OR BEEN IN A MEETING WHERE HE’S SPOKEN TO OTHERS ABOUT UKRAINE? >>NO, JUST WHAT I SAW, HIS COMMENTS ON TV. >>NEWS REPORTS? >>YES. >>AND SIMILAR, YOU HAVE NEVER MET THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>YOU HAVE NEVER ADVISED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON UKRAINE? >>I ADVISED HIM INDIRECTLY AND MADE PREPARATIONS FOR THE CALLS. >>BUT YOU HAVE NEVER SOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT AND TOLD HIM ADVICE ON UKRAINE? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT, YOU SAID IN MAY I ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS PART OF THE DELEGATION WITH PERRY AND FOLLOWING, THE MEMBERS PROVIDED PRESIDENT TRUMP A BRIEFING. YOU WERE A MEMBER BUT YOU WERE NOT IN THAT MEETING, WERE YOU? >>CORRECT. >>SO THAT MEETING OCCURRED WITHOUT YOU. YOU DO KNOW THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>I DO, REPRESENTATIVE. >>YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING U.S.-UKRANIAN POLICY. >>CORRECT. >>DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO REPORT TO YOU? >>HE DOES NOT. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >>HE DOES NOT. >>AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPE, ANYONE AT DOD REPORT TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES OF COORDINATING U.S. POLICY WITH UKRAINE? >>CONGRESSMAN, AT MY LEVEL, I CONVENE A SUB POLICY COORDINATING COMMITTEE. THAT’S DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, I CHAIR THOSE MEETINGS — >>DOES ANYBODY NEED YOUR APPROVAL IN YOUR ROLE ON UKRAINE POLICY TO FORMULATE UKRAINE POLICY, DO THEY SEEK YOUR APPROVAL? >>ACCORDING TO THE EU, THE POLICY IS COORDINATED BY THE NSC, CORRECT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT ANY PERSON WHO’S TESTIFIED AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, EITHER IN SECRET OR IN PUBLIC, HAS EITHER PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE. >>I’VE NOT READ THE OTHER TESTIMONIES. >>DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED? >>NO, BECAUSE I’VE NOT READ THEM. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE HAS TESTIFIED DURING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS PERJURED HELPS OR LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE? >>NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF. >>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >>I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. >>I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. I WANTED TO MAKE ONE POINT CLEAR FOR THE FOLKS WATCHING THE HEARING TODAY. BRIBERY DOES INVOLVE A QUID PRO QUO. BRIBERY INVOLVES THE CONDITIONING OF AN OFFICIAL ACT FOR SOMETHING OF VALUE. AN OFFICIAL ACT MAY BE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING OR $400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID, AND SOMETHING OF VALUE TO A PRESIDENT MAY INCLUDE INVESTIGATIONS OF THEIR POLITICAL RIVALFUL THE REASON WE DON’T ASK WITNESSES THAT ARE FACT WITNESSES TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER A CRIME OR BRIBERY HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR MORE SIGNIFICANTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY ITEMIZED BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, IS YOU’RE FACT WITNESSES. IT WILL BE OUR JOB TO DECIDE WHETHER THE IMPEACHABLE ACT OF BRIBERY HAS OCCURRED. THAT’S WHY WE DON’T ASK YOU THOSE QUESTIONS. FOR ONE THING, YOU’RE ALSO NOT AWARE OF ALL THE OTHER FACTS INTRODUCED DURING THE INVESTIGATION. I YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE IN A JULY 10th WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>IN THAT MEETING THE UKRANIANS ASKED ABOUT WHEN THEY WOULD GET THEIR OVAL OFFICE MEETING, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED THEY NEED TO QUOTE, SPEAK ABOUT UKRAINE DELIVERING SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO SECURE A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU LATER LEARN WHY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT? >>I DIDN’T. >>AFTER AMBASSADOR BOLTON ENDED THAT MEETING, SOME OF THE GROUP HAD A DIFFERENT MEETING IN THE WARD ROOM IN THE WHITE HOUSE, CORRECT? >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS THERE WITH SENIOR UKRANIAN OFFICIALS, CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>DID NSC LAWYERS TELL YOU TO COME DIRECTLY TO THEM SIR, IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER CONCERNS AFTER JULY 10th? >>THEY SAID, I BELIEVE THE WORDS WERE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS, FEEL FREE TO COME BACK. >>AND THIS FOLLOWING MEETING, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LEFT, IN YOUR WORDS, NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHAT SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS HE WAS REQUESTING. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR THAT HE WAS REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN’S SON, THAT’S CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND HE WAS ASKING THESE IN COORDINATION WITH WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY? >>THAT IS WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY. >>COLONEL, IN YOUR CAREER, HAD YOU EVER BEFORE SEEN A REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL OPPONENT? >>I HAVE NOT. >>AND YOU IMMEDIATELY RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, CORRECT SIR? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? >>AFTER I REPORTED IT TO THE — I’M SORRY. I’M SORRY, COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >>YOU RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. WHAT HAPPENED? >>TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, I STATED THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. >>DID YOU ALSO RAISE CONCERNS THAT DAY WITH WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS? >>I DID. >>WHAT DID YOU TELL THEM? >>I REPORTED THE SAME THING. I REPORTED THE CONTENT OF THE CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. AT THAT POINT I WAS NOT AWARE THAT DR. HILL HAD HAD A CONVERSATION, SO I RELATED WHAT I HAD EXPERIENCED TO THE LEAD LEAGUE COUNSEL. >>AS WE ARE NOW AWARE SIR, AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS AND INSTRUCTED DR. FIONA HILL, YOUR SUPERVISOR, TO MEET WITH THE SAME WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS TO TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED. I AGREE THERE’S NO QUESTION AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS PROPOSING A TRANSACTION THAT UKRANIAN OFFICIALS TRADING WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS FOR SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS. BUT THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS AND HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. IN MY VIEW SIR, THAT’S APPALLING. I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >>THANK THE GENTLEMAN. I WOULD JUST POINT OUT AS WELL THAT WHEN THE MATTER MOVES TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT THE ULTIMATE RESOLUTION, THE WHITE HOUSE THROUGH ITS COUNSEL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A SUBMISSION TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I NOW TURN TO DR. WINSTON. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COLONEL VINDMAN, I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE YOU HAVE MADE, AND I KNOW TO ENVIRONMENT. I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF COMMAND. IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF COMMAND. YOU WERE DIRECTLY REPORTING TO DR. HILL AND TIM MORRISON AS YOUR SENIORS, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>WHEN YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE 25th CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS, YOU DIDN’T GO TO MR. MORRISON ABOUT THAT, DID YOU? >>I WENT TO JOHN EISENBERG, THE LEAD LEGAL COUNSEL. >>THAT’S NOT A CHAIN OF COMMAND. IN THE DEPOSITION, PAGE 58 TO 60. >>PLEASE ALLOW COLONEL VINDMAN TO ANSWER. >>I REPORTED TO JOHN EISENBERG, AND ATTEMPTED TO REPORT IT TO MR. MORRISON. >>OKAY, THANK YOU. >>HE DIDN’T AVAIL HIMSELF, AND AT THAT POINT I WAS TOLD NOT TO SPEAK OF IT. >>PLEASE ALLOW THE WITNESS TO FINISH. COLONEL, ARE YOU FINISHED? >>YES. THANK YOU. >>OKAY. IN THE MORRISON DEPOSITION ON PAGE 58 TO 60, THE QUESTION WAS, DO YOU KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE ON THE CALL WENT TO EISENBERG TO EXPRESS CONCERNS, AND THE ANSWER WAS, I LEARNED BASED ON TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS, BASED ON OPEN SOURCE REPORTING, WHICH I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, THAT OTHER PERSONNEL DID RAISE CONCERNS. WHO? BASED ON OPEN SOURCE, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE, ALEX VINDMAN ON MY STAFF. >>HE REPORTS TO YOU, CORRECT? HE DOES. THE DIRECT REPORT WAS MR. MORRISON AND IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. COLONEL VINDMAN, PAGE 96, IF QUESTION WAS AFTER THE CALL ON 7/25, DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. MORRISON ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS? ANSWER, AFTER THE CALL — PER THE EXERCISE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN EXPRESSING, I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL AND SHARED THOSE CONCERNS. THAT WOULD BE MR. EISENBERG, CORRECT? >>I’M SORRY, MY LAWYER WAS TALKING. COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >>YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG? >>YES. >>YOU HAVE SAID THAT. YOU’RE NOT A JAG OFFICER, NOT A LAWYER. AND PAGE 153 OF YOUR TESTIMONY DEPOSITION IN REFERENCING THAT MEETING WITH MR. EISENBERG, YOU SAID, I WAS NOT MAKING A LEGAL JUDGMENT, JUST SHARING MY CONCERNS WITH MY CHAIN OF COMMAND. YET WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT YOUR DIRECT REPORT IS TO MR. MORRISON. SO LET’S ESTABLISH YOUR ROLE AND YOUR TITLE. IN YOUR DEPOSITION, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, PAGE 200 AND 201, YOU SAID, I WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL I’M THE DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE. I’M RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE. I’M THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE. AND I’M HERE FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE HOUSE. ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE THAT CAN ADVISE THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE? COULDN’T SOMEONE LIKE MS. WILLIAMS ALSO ADVISE ON UKRAINE? IT’S IN HER PORTFOLIO. >>THAT’S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. FRANKLY, IT WOULD BE AMBASSADOR BOLTON. >>SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN ADVISE ON UKRAINE BESIDES YOU. GOING ON, IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID I UNDERSTAND ALL THE NUANCES, CONTEXT AND SO FORTH SURROUNDING THESE ISSUES. I, ON MY JUDGMENT, EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITHIN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, WHICH I THINK TO ME AS A MILITARY OFFICER, IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE AND I EXERCISED THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND. YOUR DEPOSITION PAGE 259, YOU SAID I FORWARDED MY CONCERNS THROUGH IF CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE SENIORS DECIDE THE ACTION TO TAKE. MR. MORRISON IS YOUR SENIOR. HE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT. HOW CAN HE DECIDE AN ACTION TO TAKE? BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU SAID. PAGE 60 OF HIS TESTIMONY, WHEN DID HE LEARN ABOUT THE THAT PHONE CALL, IN THE COURSE OF VIEWING THIS PROCEEDING, VIEWING THE OPEN RECORD. NEXT QUESTION, EISENBERG NEVER CAME TO YOU AND RELAYED THE CONVERSATION? HE SAID NO. SO MR. MORRISON WAS SKIPPED IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND ABOUT YOUR OTHER CONCERNS. SO MR. MORRISON SAID HE’S THE FINAL CLEARING AUTHORITY, AND HE SAID HE SAW YOUR EDITS. DO YOU REMEMBER IF ALL THE EDITS WERE INCORPORATED? HE SAID YES, I INCORPORATED ALL OF THEM. THAT’S PAGE 61 AND 62. HE BELIEVES ALL YOUR EDITS WERE ACCEPTED. IN YOUR EDITS, DID YOU INSIST THAT THE WORD DEMAND BE PUT IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS? >>I DID NOT. >>BUT YOU DID SAY THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY. THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOUR SERVICE. COLONEL VINDMAN, WASN’T IT THE CASE THAT MR. EISENBERG, THE ATTORNEY HAD SAID TO YOU AFTER THE JULY 5th MEETING THAT YOU SHOULD COME TO HIM IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS? >>AFTER THE JULY 10th MEETING, YES, MA’AM, THAT’S CORRECT. >>WE ARE GOING TO PAUSE FOR JUST A MOMENT TO WELCOME CBS NEWS VIEWERS TO OUR COVERAGE. WELCOME TO OUR CONTINUING COVERAGE OF THE TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER WILLIAMS, AIDE TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN. LET’S GET YOU BACK TO THE TESTIMONY. >>YOU IN YOUR COMMENTS TODAY SAID, I WANT TO STATE THAT THE VILE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS IS REPREHENSIBLE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON THAT AT ALL? >>MA’AM, I THINK THEY STAND ON THEIR OWN. I DON’T THINK IT’S NECESSARY TO EXPAND ON IT. >>IN BOTH YOUR SITUATIONS, SINCE YOU HAVE GIVEN DEPOSITIONS AND THOSE DEPOSITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC, HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE JOBS CHANGED OR HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY? >>I HAVE NOT, NO. >>SINCE THE REPORT ON THE JULY 25th, AS I STATED, I DID NOTICE I WAS BEING EXCLUDED FROM SEVERAL MEETINGS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR MY POSITION. >>SO IN SOME RESPECTS THEN, THERE HAVE BEEN REPRISALS? >>I’M NOT SURE IF I COULD MAKE THAT JUDGMENT. I WOULD SAY IT WAS OUT OF THE COURSE OF NORMAL AFFAIRS TO NOT HAVE ME PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THESE EVENTS. >>THANK YOU. IN PREPARATION FOR THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, IT’S STANDARD FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TALKING POINTS, THAT’S CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>BECAUSE THE WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT CARRY INCREDIBLE WEIGHT, THAT’S CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO IT’S IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT SAY TO A FOREIGN LEADER? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ARE THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, DID YOU PREPARE THE REMARKS FOR THE PRESIDENT’S CALL? >>I PREPARED THEM. >>AND THEY WERE REVIEWED AND EDITED BY SENIOR OFFICERS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>DID THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT CONTAIN ANY DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, THE BIDENS OR BURISMA? >>THEY DID NOT. >>ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WRITTEN PRODUCT FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SUGGESTING THAT INVESTIATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, THE BIDENS OR BURISMA ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES? >>NO, I’M NOT. >>SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ALLIES HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS FOR OFFICIAL POLICY REASONS AS PART OF SOME PLAN TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, DID THE OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDE ASKING UKRAINE TO SPECIFICALLY OPEN INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS AND INTERFERENCE BY UKRAINE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >>NOTHING THAT WE PREPARED OR DISCUSSED UP TO THAT POINT CONTAINED THESE ELEMENTS. >>WOULD IT BE YOUR POLICY TO ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO OPEN A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION? >>THERE ARE PROPER PROCEDURES IN WHICH TO DO THAT. CERTAINLY THE PRESIDENT IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THE NSC WOULD DO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING INVOLVED IN ANY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND A FOREIGN POWER, TO ENSURE THAT THERE’S NO PERCEPTION OF MANIPULATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE PARTICIPATE IN. >>MS. WILLIAMS, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, DO THE OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDE OPENING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS? >>I HASN’T SEEN ANY OF THOSE INDICATIONS IN OUR POLICY PREPARATION PROCESS. >>LET ME SAY TO COLONEL VINDMAN, IN LISTENING TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, I HAD CHILLS UP AND DOWN MY SPINE. I THINK MOST AMERICANS RECOGNIZE WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY HERO YOU ARE TO OUR COUNTRY, AND I WOULD SAY TO YOUR FATHER, HE DID WELL. I YIELD BACK. >>MR. STEWART? >>THANK YOU, MS. WILLIAMS AND COLONEL VINDMAN FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I SEE YOU’RE WEARING THE DRESS UNIFORM, KNOWING THAT’S NOT THE UNIFORM OF THE DAY, I THINK IT’S A GREAT REMINDER OF YOUR MILITARY SERVICE. I TOO COME FROM A MILITARY FAMILY. MY FATHER WAS A PILOT IN WORLD WAR II, SO ONE MILITARY FAMILY TO ANOTHER, THANK YOU AND YOUR BROTHERS FOR THEIR EXAMPLE HERE. I’M CURIOUS WHEN RANKING MEMBER NUNES CALLED YOU MR. VINDMAN, AND YOU WANTED TO BE CALLED COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU ALWAYS INSIST? >>I’M IN MILITARY UNIFORM WEARING MY RANK. I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO STICK WITH THAT. >>I’M SURE YOU MEANT NO DISRESPECT. >>I DON’T BELIEVE HE DID. BUT THE ATTACKS THAT I’VE HAD IN THE PRESS AND TWITTER HAVE KIND OF ELIMINATED THE FACT THAT, EITHER MARGINALIZED ME AS A MILITARY OFFICER OR — >>I’M JUST TELLING YOU, THE RANKING MEMBER MEANT NO DISRESPECT TO YOU. >>I BELIEVE THAT. >>I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. MUCH HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE WORDS FAVOR. THIS BEING INTERPRETED AS A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD FAVOR, AND I’LL PARAPHRASE YOU, YOU SAID IN THE MILITARY CULTURE, WHEN A SUPERIOR OFFICER ASKS FOR A FAVOR OF A SUBORDINATE, THEY WILL INTERPRET THAT AS A DEMAND. IS THAT A FAIR SYNOPSIS OF WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED? >>REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN A SUPERIOR MAKES A REQUEST, THAT’S AN ORDER. >>OKAY. IN SHORT THEN, DO YOU THINK YOUR INTERPRETATION OF A FAVOR AS A DEMAND IS BASED ON YOUR MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND THE MILITARY CULTURE? >>I THINK THAT’S CORRECT. >>I THINK THAT’S CORRECT. IS PRESIDENT TRUMP A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY? >>HE IS NOT. >>HAS HE EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY? >>NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF. >>IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY? >>I DON’T KNOW. >>HE’S NOT. WOULD IT BE FAIR THEN, TO TAKE A PERSON WHO’S NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY, AND TO TAKE YOUR EVALUATION OF THEIR WORDS BASED ON YOUR MILITARY EXPERIENCE, AND YOUR MILITARY CULTURE, AND TO ATTACH THAT CULTURE AND THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS TO SOMEONE WHO’S NEVER SERVED? >>REPRESENTATIVE, I MADE THAT JUDGMENT AND I STANDBY THAT JUDGMENT. >>I THINK IT’S NONSENSE. LOOK, I WAS IN THE MILITARY. I CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A FAVOR AND ORDER AND DEMAND, AND SO COULD MY SUBORDINATES. I THINK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID AS WELL. HE NEVER INITIATED AN INVESTIGATION. IN FACT, HE’S BEEN VERY CLEAR. HE SAID, I NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE AT ALL. SO INTERPRETED THE WORD FAVOR, BUT THE TWO PEOPLE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER DIDN’T INTERPRET THAT AS A DEMAND. IT WAS YOUR INTERPRETATION, IS THAT FAIR? >>THE CONTEXT OF THIS CALL CONSISTENT WITH THE JULY 10th MEETING WITH THE REPORTING THAT WAS GOING ON, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS NOT SIMPLY A REQUEST. >>WELL, THAT’S NOT CLEAR AT ALL. YOU SAY IT MAKES IT CLEAR. IT’S NOT CLEAR AT ALL. AND THE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TALKING TO EACH OTHER DIDN’T INTERPRET IT THAT WAY. I WOULD LIKE TO GO ONTO DISCUSS YOUR REACTION TO THE PHONE CALL AND YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY. FOR BREVITY, AND FOR CLARITY, I’LL REFER TO PAGE 155, YOUR ATTORNEYS CAN FOLLOW ALONG. QUOTING YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN, I DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THIS WAS A CRIME OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. I THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG. AND I’D LIKE TO KEY ON THE WORD WRONG HERE. IN MY MIND, DID I CONSIDER THE PACK THERE COULD HAVE BEEN OTHER IMPLICATIONS? YES, BUT NOT LIKE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT. THEN YOU TALK ABOUT POLICY CONCERNS AND ETHICAL JUDGMENTS. SO YOUR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PHONE CALL WERE NOT LEGAL. THEY WERE BASED ON MORAL, ETHICAL AND POLICY DIFFERENCES. LETTED LET ME ASK YOU, YOU SAID THIS WAS WRONG, NOT ILLEGAL, BUT WRONG. AS I’VE STATED PREVIOUSLY SITTING HERE A COUPLE DAYS AGO, THERE ARE DOZENS OF CORRUPT NATIONS IN THE WORLD, HUNDREDS OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. EXACTLY ONE TIME DID A VICE PRESIDENT GO TO A NATION AND DEMAND THE SPECIFIC FIRING OF ONE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVE A SIX- HOUR TIME LIMIT AND THREATEN TO WITHHOLD A BILLION DOLLARS IN AID. IT WAS THE ONE INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATING THE COMPANY THAT WAS PAYING HIS SON. WAS THAT ALSO WRONG? >>THAT IS NOT WHAT I — I FRANKLY DON’T HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. >>YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO? >>YOU HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO. >>THAT’S ALL I’VE DESCRIBED IS THE VIDEO. EVERYTHING I SAID TO YOU WAS IN THE VIDEO. WAS THAT WRONG AS WELL? >>CONGRESSMAN, THIS IS SOMETHING I ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN. >>THE TIME IS EXPIRED. COLONEL VINDMAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. >>I FRANKLY DON’T KNOW MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT. I SAW A SNIPPET OF THE VIDEO BUT I DON’T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT OFF THAT. >>THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COLONEL, IT’S ONE THING TO ASK SOMEBODY A FAVOR LIKE, PICK UP MY DRY CLEANING, AND IT’S ANOTHER WHEN THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MOST POWERFUL ARMY IN THE WORLD ASKS AN ALLY, WHO’S IN A VULNERABLE POSITION, TO DO HIM A FAVOR, IS IT NOT? >>YES. >>LET ME GO BACK TO THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, IF I COULD. MS. WILLIAMS, WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UP, THE $400 MILLION THAT WAS REFERENCED? >>JULY 3rd. >>WHERE YOU ARE OF ANY ADDITIONAL OR DID YOU ATTEND ANY ADDITIONAL MEETINGS IN WHICH THAT MILITARY ASSISTANCE BEING WITHHELD WAS DISCUSSED? >>I DID. I ATTENDED MEETINGS ON JULY 23rd AND JULY 26th WHERE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS DISCUSSED. I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED JULY 31st. >>AND AT THAT POINT, DID ANYONE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC REASON FOR THE HOLD? >>IN THOSE MEETINGS, THE OMB REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THE ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD AT THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF. >>AND DID THEY GIVE REASONS BEYOND THAT IT WAS BEING WITHHELD BY THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF? >>NOT SPECIFICALLY. THE REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THERE WAS AN ONGOING REVIEW, WHETHER THE FUNDING WAS STILL IN LINE WITH ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES. >>DID ANYONE IN ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS OR ANY SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION YOU HAD DISCUSS THE LEGALITY OF WITHHOLDING THAT AID? >>THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS, I BELIEVE IN THE JULY 31st MEETING, AND POSSIBLY PRIOR AS WELL, IN TERMS OF DEFENSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS LOOKING INTO HOW THEY WOULD HANDLE A SITUATION IN WHICH EARMARKED FUNDING FROM CONGRESS THAT WAS DESIGNATED FOR UKRAINE WOULD BE RESOLVED IF THE FUNDING CONTINUED TO BE HELD AS WE APPROACHED THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. >>AND FROM WHAT YOU WITNESSED, DID ANYBODY IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT WITHHOLDING THE ASSISTANCE? >>NO. >>COLONEL, WHEN DID YOU LEARN OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEING HELD? >>JULY 3rd. >>WHAT DID YOU LEARN THAT PROMPTED YOU TO DRAFT THE NOTICE JULY 3rd? >>I BECAME AWARE OF INQUIRIES INTO SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDING IN GENERAL. THERE ARE TWO TYPICAL POTS: STATE DEPARTMENT, AND DOD. I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THAT DATE THAT OMB PUT A HOLD ON CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION. >>HAD YOU HAD ANY EARLIER INDICATIONS THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE CASE? >>PRIOR TO THAT, THERE WERE GENERAL INQUIRIES ON HOW THE FUNDS WERE BEING SPENT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. NOTHING SPECIFIC, NO HOLD CERTAINLY. >>WHERE YOU ARE OF ANYONE IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNITY WHO SUPPORTED WITHHOLDING THE AID? >>NO. >>NO ONE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY? >>NONE. >>NO ONE FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT? >>CORRECT. >>NO ONE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE? >>CORRECT. >>DID ANYONE TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING RAISE THE LEGALITY OF WITHHOLDING THIS ASSISTANCE? >>IT WAS RAISED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. >>AND WHO RAISED THOSE CONCERNS? >>SO FOLLOWING THE JULY 18th SUB PCC, WHICH IS AGAIN WHAT I CONVENE AT MY LEVEL, THERE WAS A JULY 23rd PCC, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY MR. MORRISON. THERE WERE QUESTIONS RAISED AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLD. OVER THE SUBSEQUENT WEEK, THE ISSUE WAS ANALYZED AND DURING THE JULY 26th DEPUTIES — THE DEPUTIES FROM ALL THE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, THERE WAS OPINION RENDERED THAT IT WAS LEGAL TO PUT THE HOLD. >>EXCUSE ME? >>THERE WAS AN OPINION RENDERED THAT IT WAS OKAY TO — THAT THE HOLD WAS LEGAL. >>FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW? >>CORRECT. >>VERY GOOD. I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >>I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. >>MS. WILLIAMS AND COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. AS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE WATCHING THROUGHOUT THE FRENZIED MEDIA COVERAGE, TWO FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. ONE, UKRAINE IN FACT RECEIVED THE AID, AND TWO, THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS. MY QUESTION TO BOTH OF YOU TODAY WILL FOCUS ON SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE PUBLIC THAT BY LAW AID TO UKRAINE REQUIRES ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS, AND WHO IN OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS? ON CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED, ONE OF THE KEY REASONS WHY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS OVERWHELMINGLY ELECTED BY THE UKRANIAN PEOPLE WAS THAT THEY WERE FINALLY STANDING UP TO RAMPANT CORRUPTION IN THEIR COUNTRY. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE AMBASSADOR’S ASSESSMENT? >>YES. >>YES. >>AND MS. WILLIAMS, CORRUPTION WAS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR YOU THAT WHEN YOU PREPARED THE PRESIDENT FOR THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU TESTIFIED THE POINTS YOU WANTED TO COMMUNICATE ON THE CALL WERE THE FOLLOWING: LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REALLY IMPLEMENT THE AGENDA ON WHICH HE’D RUN RELATED TO ANTICORRUPTION FORMS, CORRECT? >>YES. >>AND COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD YOU AGREE THIS FOCUS ON ANTICORRUPTION IS A CRITICAL ASPECT OF OUR POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE? >>YES. >>AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU’RE AWARE THAT IN 2014 DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, IF FIRST ANTICORRUPTION INVESTIGATION PARTNERED BY THE U.S., UK AND UKRAINE, WAS INTO THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY BURISMA? >>I’M AWARE OF IT NOW. >>AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE AWARE BURISMA HAD QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS DEALS AS PART OF ITS TRACK RECORD? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND YOU TESTIFIED REGARDING BURISMA, MONEY LAUNDERING AND TAX EVASION COMPORTS WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BUSINESS IS DONE IN UKRAINE, CORRECT? >>MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF THE REALM OF THE POSSIBLE FOR BURISMA. >>THAT’S PAGE 207 FROM YOUR TESTIMONY. YOU’RE AWARE THAT HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA AT THIS TIME? >>I AM. >>I KNOW THAT MY CONSTITUENTS IN NEW YORK 21 HAVE MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE FACT THAT HUNTER BIDEN, THE SON OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, SAT ON THE BOARD OF OF CORRUPT COMPANY LIKE BURISMA. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS CONCERNED BUT ADAM SCHIFF REFUSES TO ALLOW US TO CALL BIDEN. EVERY WITNESS HAD ANSWERED YES, DO YOU AGREE THAT HUNTER BIDEN ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST? >>CERTAINLY. >>YES. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD CONGRESS HAD PASSED UNDER THE UKRANIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CERTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS BEING ADDRESSED? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND YOU TESTIFY IT’S REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING, WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP FOCUSING ON ANTICORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BUT IT IS SO CRITICAL, SO IMPORTANT THAT HARD-EARNED TAXPAYER DOLLARS WHEN GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS, THAT BY LAW OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT REQUIRES ANTICORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE IN ORDER TO GET U.S. TAXPAYER FUNDED AID. COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE AID TO UKRAINE, SPECIFICALLY JAVELINS, IN YOUR DEPOSITION? >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU TESTIFIED THE JAVELIN IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN TERMS OF INFLUENCING THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, IT’S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOOLS WE HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO PROVIDING DEFENSIVE LEGAL AID. >>THE SYSTEM ITSELF, AND SIGNALING OF U.S. SUPPORT, YES. >>AND THAT WAS PROVIDED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND COLONEL VINDMAN, I KNOW YOU SERVE AT THE NSC IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I SERVED IN THE WEST WING FOR PRESIDENT BUSH ON THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL AND I’M FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICY PROCESS. I KNOW AS A STAFF MEMBER, THE PERSON WHO SETS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES IS THE PRESIDENT, NOT THE STAFF. AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY, CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND I RESPECT YOUR DEEP EXPERTISE AND TREMENDOUS SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. WE CAN NEVER REPAY THOSE THAT HAVE WORN THE MILITARY UNIFORM AND SERVED OUR NATION. BUT I WAS STRUCK WHEN YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION, I WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL, I’M THE DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE, I’M RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE, I’M THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE, I’M THE AUTHORITY FOR UKRAINE FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE HOUSE. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION, YOU REPORT TO TIM MORRISON, CORRECT? >>IN MY — I ADVISE UP THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. >>AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS TIM MORRISON TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>CORRECT. >>DO YOU AGREE THE PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY AS COMMANDER-IN- CHIEF? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>THANK YOU. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. >>THANK YOU BOTH. COLONEL VINDMAN, I THINK THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW YORK DIDN’T ASK YOU BUT IS RELEVANT FOR EVERYONE FROM HOME, ISN’T IT TRUE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED THAT THE ANTICORRUPTION REQUIREMENTS OF UKRAINE HAD BEEN MET WHEN THE HOLD WAS PUT ON BY THE PRESIDENT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>NOW, MR. JORDAN SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING NONE OF US EXPECTED BY RELEASING THAT CALL TRANSCRIPT. YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT, LIEUTENANT COLONEL? >>IT IS. >>MS. WILLIAMS, YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES. >>IS IT FAIR TO SAY A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE AT THE WHITE HOUSE LISTENED TO THE CALL OR READ THE TRANSCRIPT? >>I CAN’T CHARACTERIZE HOW MANY. I BELIEVE THERE WERE FIVE OR SIX OF US IN THE LISTENING ROOM AT THE TIME. >>AND THE TRANSCRIPT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO OTHERS, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I DON’T KNOW, THAT’S NOT PART OF MY PROCESS. >>SO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE LISTENED TO THE CALL OR SAW THE TRANSCRIPT AND THEN HE RELEASED IT. THE DIFFERENCE OF COURSE BETWEEN THIS AND HIS MEETING WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN, THERE IT WAS A ONE ON ONE MEETING AND HE TOOK THE NOTES FROM THE INTERPRETER SO NONE OF US COULD SEE IT. THE POINT BEING, THE PRESIDENT HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO RELEASE THE CALL EVERYONE HAD SEEN. YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO CHARACTERIZE WHAT LEGALLY ALL OF THIS MEANS, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT NO ONE USED TO TERM BRIBERY IN OUR DEPOSITIONS. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU’RE NOT A LAWYER? >>I’M NOT. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU’RE NOT A LAWYER? >>NO, HE’S BACK THERE. >>BORN SOON AFTER YOU? >>NINE MINUTES. >>SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A SHOOTING VICTIM AND POLICE RESPOND AFTER THE VICTIM IS DOING BETTER AND THEY ASK THE VICTIM, TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. AND THE VICTIM SAYS, SOMEONE CAME UP TO MY CAR AND SHOT INTO THE CAR, HIT ME IN THE SHOULDER, HIT ME IN THE BACK, IN THE NECK. I SURVIVED, BUT I CAN IDENTIFY WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. POLICE SAY, OKAY, YOU WERE SHOT, YOU KNOW WHO IT IS. BUT SHUCKS, YOU DIDN’T TELL US THIS WAS AN ATTEMPTED MURDER, SO WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO LET THE PERSON GO. IS THAT HOW IT WORKS IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM, UNLESS VICTIMS IDENTIFY THE LEGAL THEORIES OF A CASE, WE JUST LET PEOPLE OFF THE HOOK? IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? >>I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT DOESN’T SEEM SO. >>I DON’T THINK YOUR BROTHER WOULD THINK SO EITHER. MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER THE APRIL 21 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU PUT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S READ BOOK, CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND THE VICE PRESIDENT CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TWO DAYS LATER, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND HE STUCK FAITHFULLY TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SAID IN THE APRIL 21 CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I BELIEVE HIS REMARKS WERE CONSISTENT, BUT HE SPOKE ON OTHER ISSUES AS WELL INCLUDING ANTICORRUPTION. >>AND YOU WOULD DESCRIBE THE VICE PRESIDENT AS SOMEBODY WHO WOULD MAKE FOLLOW-UP CALLS TO WORLD LEADERS AFTER THE PRESIDENT HAD DONE SO, IS THAT RIGHT? >>HE HAS ON OCCASION. IT’S NOT A NORMAL PRACTICE. IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. >>AND IN THAT CASE, HE STUCK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TALKING POINTS? >>I WOULD SAY THAT I PROVIDED TALKING POINTS FOR THE APRIL 23rd CALL FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHICH INCLUDED DISCUSSION OF THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION, WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ALSO DISCUSSED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. I WOULD SAY THE VICE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED OTHER IRES WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS WELL. >>AND AS WAS STATED EARLIER, THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>AND AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU PUT THE CALL TRANSCRIPT IN VICE PRESIDENT’S INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING BOOK, IS THAT RIGHT? >>MY COLLEAGUES PREPARE THE BOOK BUT YES. >>FAST FORWARD TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. YOU’RE THERE? >>AND THEY TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS BUT YOU AGREE VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DIDN’T BRING UP THE BIDENS? >>THAT’S CORRECT, HE DID NOT. >>DID NOT BRING UP INVESTIGATIONS? >>NO. >>IS ONE REASONABLE EXPLANATION THAT, ALTHOUGH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WILL DO A LOT OF THINGS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, THAT HE WAS NOT WILLING TO BRING UP INVESTIGATIONS AND BIDENS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG? >>I’M NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE. WE HAD NOT DISCUSSED THAT. >>YOU DIDN’T BRING IT UP AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL? >>NO. >>AND COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU ASK THE UKRANIANS TO DO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKING THEM TO DO AFTER THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL? >>I DIDN’T RENDER ANY OPINION ON WHAT WAS ASKED. >>THANK YOU. YIELD BACK. >>MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM THE UKRANIANS ON THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN? >>NO, I DID NOT PARTICIPATE OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ALONG THOSE LINES. >>THANK YOU. COLONEL VINDMAN, I THINK ALL OF US WOULD AGREE THAT YOUR FATHER MADE THE RIGHT MOVE TO COME HERE AND WE’RE GLAD THAT HE DID. YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT HOW PART OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS DEVELOPING TALKING POINTS, IS THAT CORRECT. >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU DO THAT FOR YOUR SUPERVISOR NOW, MR. MORRISON? >>MR. MORRISON HAS LEFT THE POSITION SOMETIME AGO, AT LEAST THREE WEEKS AGO. >>BUT YOU PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR YOUR SUPERVISORS? >>TYPICALLY, AND FRANKLY AT THAT LEVEL THEY DON’T REALLY TAKE TALKING POINTS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE EXPERTISE. THE TALKING POINTS ARE MORE INTENDED FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, THOUGH AMBASSADOR BOLTON DIDN’T REQUIRE THEM BECAUSE OF HIS DEEP EXPERTISE. THE NEXT LEVEL UP. >>TRADITIONALLY, I’M TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE POSITION WITH TALKING POINTS FOR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>DO THEY ALWAYS USE THEM? >>NO. >>IS PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWN TO STICK TO A SCRIPT? >>I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >>SO IS IT ODD THAT HE DIDN’T USE YOUR TALKING POINTS? >>NO, IT IS NOT. >>PAGE 306 OF YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU REMEMBER ASKED ABOUT EVENTS DURING THE TEMPORARY HOLD ON U.S. ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE. THIS IS THAT 55-DAY PERIOD OR SO. YOU TESTIFIED THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NEW ASSURANCES FROM UKRAINE ABOUT ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS AND THE FACTS ON THE GROUND DID NOT CHANGE BEFORE THE HOLD WAS LIFTED. IS THAT ACCURATE IN RECOUNTING YOUR TESTIMONY? >>THAT IS ACCURATE. >>WHEN WAS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SWORN IN? >>HE WAS SWORN IN MAY 20th, 2019. >>AND HE HAD A NEW PARLIAMENT ELECTED AFTER HE WAS, CORRECT? >>HE DID. >>WHEN WAS THAT PARLIAMENT SEATED? >>THAT WAS — I’M SORRY, JULY 21st, 2019. >>THAT WAS WHEN THEY WON, RIGHT? THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY SEATED UNTIL AUGUST? >>THAT’S RIGHT, AND THEY WERE SEATED IN AUGUST. >>YOUR BOSS’ BOSS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, TRAVELED TO UKRAINE IN ATE AUGUST, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>DID HE TAKE YOU WITH HIM? >>HE DIDN’T. >>WE KNOW FROM OTHER WITNESSES THAT WHEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS THERE, HE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS STAFF, AND THAT I HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY WERE VISUALLY EXHAUSTED, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID DURING THAT TIME PERIOD WAS CHANGE THE UKRANIAN CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM THE DEPUTIES, RIGHT THERE, THEIR PARTICLETARIANS, BECAUSE THAT HAD BEEN A SOURCE OF CORRUPTION FOR YEARS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S ACCURATE. >>WHERE YOU ARE OF THIS IMPORTANT CHANGE TO THE LAW? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT’S A SIGNIFICANT ANTICORRUPTION EFFORT? >>IT IS SIGNIFICANT. >>IT IS. AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH THIS NEW PARLIAMENT OPENED UKRAINE’S HIGH ANTICORRUPTION COURT. THIS HAD BEEN AN INITIATIVE THAT MANY FOLKS IN OUR STATE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN PUSHING TO HAPPEN, AND THAT WAS ESTABLISHED MANY THAT TIME FRAME. WHERE YOU WHERE YOU AWARE OF THIS? >>YES. >>DO YOU THINK THIS IS SIGNIFICANT ANTICORRUPTION? >>I DO. >>WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT — HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >>I THINK IT WAS JUST THE ONE TIME, MULTIPLE ENGAGEMENTS BUT JUST THE ONE TRIP. >>THAT’S A ONE ON ONE MEETING? >>THAT WAS A LARGER BILATERAL FORMAT. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SMALLER VENUE — THEY WERE ALL IN — THERE WAS NEVER A ONE ON ONE. BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE TOUCH POINTS, SO THE BILATERAL MEETING, HANDSHAKE, MEET AND GREET. >>SO THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHEN YOU MET WITH HIM? >>YES. >>YOU STILL ADVISED THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO WATCH OUT FOR THE RUSSIANS? >>YES. >>AND THAT WAS — AND THAT — EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM, I’M ASSUMING THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WAS THERE, I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE YOU HAD OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. WERE YOUR POINTS PREAPPROVED? DID THEY KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO BRING UP THOSE POINTS? >>WE DID HAVE A HUDDLE BEFOREHAND AND IT’S POSSIBLE I FLAGGED THEM. I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. IT’S POSSIBLE I DIDN’T. >>YOU COUNSELED THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO STAY OUT OF U.S. POLITICS? >>CORRECT. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK THE TIME. >>MR. CASTRO. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. WILLIAMS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY. COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. IT’S GREAT TO TALK TO A FELLOW IDENTICAL TWIN. I HOPE YOUR BROTHER IS NICER TO YOU THAN MINE IS TO ME, DOESN’T MAKE YOU GROW A BEARD. YOU BOTH LISTENED IN REALTIME TO THE JULY 25th CALL. IN PARTICULAR, YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, QUOTE, I’D LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE, END QUOTE. THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. THIS IS A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR CALLED THE PRESIDENT’S ASSERTION THAT UKRAINE INTERVENED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS QUOTE, NOT ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY, BUT COMPLETELY DEBUNKED, UNQUOTE. COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY THE UKRANIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >>CONGRESSMAN, I’M NOT. AND FURTHER MORE, I WOULD SAY THIS IS A RUSSIAN NARRATIVE, THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN HAS PROMOTED. >>ARE YOU AWARE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR FOREIGN POLICY THAT SUPPORTS THAT THEORY? >>NO, I’M NOT AWARE. >>YOU’RE AWARE OTHER PARTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE SAID DEFINITIVELY THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS THAT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>IT SEEMS INCREDIBLY ODD, UNFORTUNATELY BUT NOT INCONSISTENTLY, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE GIVING CREDENCE TO A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE THAT HELPS RUSSIA. FIRST, IT IGNORES AND UNDERMINES THE ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, AND SEEKS TO WEAKEN A STATE DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES’ SUPPORT TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. IT ALSO FOR THE UNITED STATES HURTS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND EMBOLDENS RUSSIA. I WOULD TO LOOK AT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING ON HIS CALL INSTEAD OF PUSHING BACK AGAINST RUSSIAN HOSTILITY. HE WAS PRESSURING UKRAINE TO DO HIS POLITICAL WORK. PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED ON THAT JULY 25th CALL, QUOTE, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, AND A LOT 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 COULD LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. COLONEL VINDMAN, WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE WORDS, DO YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT REQUESTING A THOUGHTFUL AND WELL CALIBRATED ANTICORRUPTION PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY? >>I DO NOT. >>IN FACT, IT SOUNDS LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENCOURAGING THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO ENGAGE IN PRECISELY THE SAME TYPE OF BEHAVIOR FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN POLITICAL BENEFIT THAT WE DISCOURAGE FOREIGN LEADERS FROM UNDERTAKING IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES, AND DISCOURAGING OTHER COUNTRIES FROM TAKING POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS IS PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. ANTICORRUPTION POLICY, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IMPROPERLY INTERFERED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS? >>I AM NOT. >>THESE FALSE NARRATIVES, IT SHOULD BE SAID, ARE DAMAGING OUR COUNTRY. THEY POISON OUR POLITICS AND DISTRACT FROM THE TRUTH, AND PRESSING ANOTHER COUNTRY TO ENGAGE IN CORRUPTION IS ANTITHETICAL TO WHO WE ARE AS A NATION. YOU ALSO MENTIONED YOU FELT THIS REQUEST WAS WRONG, AND YOU HAVE ALSO SAID THAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC TO UKRAINE, AS IT IS IN OTHER PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. CAN YOU SPEAK TO, WHAT IS THE DANGER OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER IT’S DONALD TRUMP OR ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT, ASKING ANOTHER NATION WHERE THERE’S RAMPANT CORRUPTION, TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL OR JUST ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN? WHAT WOULD BE THE DANGER TO THAT AMERICAN? >>CONGRESSMAN, THE UKRANIAN JUDICIARY IS IMPERFECT AT THE MOMENT. AND THE RELIANCE ON U.S. SUPPORT COULD CONCEIVABLY CAUSE THEM TO TIP THE SCALES OF JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF FINDING A U.S. CITIZEN GUILTY IF THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED TO DO THAT. >>SO THEY COULD TRUMP UP CHARGES IF THEY WANTED TO IN A CORRUPT SYSTEM LIKE THAT? >>THEY COULD, AND UKRAINE IS MAKING PROGRESS, CERTAINLILY MORE BROADLY THAN RUSSIA, AND IT’S LIKELY THE STATE WILL BE INVOLVED IN JUDICIAL OUTCOMES AND DRIVE THEM. >>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MR. RATCLIFFE? >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU NOTED WHAT WAS UNUSUAL ABOUT THE CALL ON THE 25th WAS THE PRESIDENT RAISED WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ISSUE, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>BUT RAISING AN ISSUE, EVEN ONE THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS UNUSUAL, IS DIFFERENT THAN MAKING A DEMAND. WOULD YOU AGREE? >>YES. >>AND AS I READ YOUR DEPOSITION, IT DIDN’T SOUND LIKE FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD WHAT TOOK PLACE ON THAT CALL AS A DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS. IS THAT FAIR? >>I DON’T BELIEVE I’M IN A POSITION TO CHARACTERIZE IT FURTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT DID IN TERMS OF ASKING FOR A FAVOR. >>YOU DIDN’T HEAR A DEMAND? >>AGAIN, I WOULD REFER BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF. >>LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVE TESTIFIED AND EXPLAINED TO US WHY IN YOUR MIND IT WAS A DEMAND, AND YOU HAVE GIVEN US REASONS, DISPARITY OF POWER BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS. BECAUSE YOU DID FEEL THAT WAY, YOU ALSO FELT THAT YOU HAD A DUTY TO REPORT WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPROPER, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>TWO IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS, AND ONE FELT THE NEED TO REPORT THE CALL BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEMAND AND IT WAS IMPROPER, AND ONE THAT DIDN’T REPORT IT TO ANYONE. RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS? >>I ENSURED THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE TO MY SUPERIORS. >>WHILE ALL THIS MAY SEEM AS CLEAR AS MUD, I THINK YOUR HONEST AND CANDID ASSESSMENTS OF THE CALL TELLS US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW. WE HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT FOLKS, NONPARTISANS, AND I’M NOT HEARING A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY YOU BOTH HEARD ON THE CALL THAT YOU HEARD AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, AND IF YOU CAN’T REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO WHAT HAPPENED ON THE CALL, HOW CAN ANY OF US? AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE OBVIOUS. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE OVERWHELMING AND COMPELLING, AND IF TWO PEOPLE ON THE CALL DISAGREE HONESTLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A DEMAND, AND WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING SHOULD BE REPORTED ON A CALL, THAT IS NOT A CLEAR AND COMPELLING BASIS TO UNDO 63 MILLION VOTES AND REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. I YIELD MY REMAINING TIME TO MR. JORDAN. >>I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. COLONEL VINDMAN, WHY DIDN’T YOU GO — AFTER THE CALL, WHY DIDN’T YOU GO TO MR. MORRISON? >>I WENT IMMEDIATELY, PER THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE JULY 10th INCIDENT, I WENT IMMEDIATELY TO MR. EISENBERG. AFTER THAT, ONCE I MADE THAT — EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS, IT WAS AN EXTREMELY BUSY WEEK. WE HAD A PCC JUST FINISH AND WE HAD THE CALL, THEN WE HAD A DEPUTIES’ MEETING, WHICH CONSUMED ALL MY TIME. I WAS WORKING EXTREMELY LONG DAYS. I ATTEMPTED TO TRY AND COMMUNICATE — I MANAGED TO SPEAK TO TWO FOLKS IN THE INTERAGENCY AND ATTEMPTED TO TALK TO MR. MORRISON. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN BEFORE I RECEIVED INTRODUCTIONS FROM EISENBERG TO NOT TALK TO ANYBODY FURTHER. >>SO YOU DIDN’T GO TO YOUR BOSS BUT YOU WENT TO THE LAWYER AND HE TOLD YOU NOT TO GO TO YOUR BOSS? >>NO, HE TOLD ME — WHAT ENDED UP UNFOLDING, I HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH THE ATTORNEY. I DID MY CORE FUNCTION, WHICH IS COORDINATION. I SPOKE TO THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE WITHIN THE ININTERAGENCY AND CIRCLING BACK AROUND, MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE. >>YOUR RESPONSE, PAGE 102, BECAUSE MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME TO TAKE MY CONCERNS TO HIM. I ASK YOU, DID MR. EISENBERG TELL YOU NOT TO REPORT, TO GO AROUND MR. MORRISON, AND YOU SAID HE SAID I SHOULDN’T TALK TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE, IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES, BUT THERE’S A PERIOD OF TIME IN THERE BETWEEN WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM AND WHEN HE CIRCLED BACK AROUND. IT WASN’T THAT LONG BUT ENOUGH TIME — >>ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO TALK TO SOMEONE THAT YOU WON’T TELL US WHO IT IS, RIGHT? [ CHANGING CAPTIONERS ] THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. >>I’M SORRY, CHAIRMAN, BUT THAT IS NOT THE SECRET HOW IT TURNED OUT. >>I’M LOOKING AT THE TRANSCRIPT, COLONEL VINDMAN . >>IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD I EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS AND I DID MY COORDINATION FUNCTION AND MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME NOT TO TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE . >>SO THAT IS WHEN IT HAPPENED. >>THAT IS RIGHT. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COLONEL VINDMAN , LET’S GO BACK TO THE PAIR OF MEETINGS IN THE OFFICE OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON WHERE YOU WITNESSED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORMED OFFICIALS THAT AS A PREREQUISITE THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND HE SAID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION THAT DID NOT EXIST INTO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT EXPECT THE SAME AFTERNOON? BACK I AM SURE IT WAS WITHIN A COUPLE HOURS I SPOKE TO MR. EISENBERG . >>HOW DID HE REACT? >>HE WAS COLLECTED AND TOOK NOTES AND SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT. >>DID HE NOT SAY FEEL FREE TO COME BACK? >>HE DID. >>AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SAID THAT HIS REQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS HAD BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY. DID YOU REPORT THAT TO MR. EISENBERG? >>I DID. >>WHAT WAS HIS REACTION? >>YOU TOOK NOTES AND HE SAID HE WOULD FOLLOW-UP OR LOOK INTO IT. I DO NOT RECALL EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. >>YOU’VE ALSO TESTIFIED ON THE JULY 25 CALL THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE SON OF VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN IN RETURN FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING. WITHIN ONE HOUR OF THE CALL YOU REPORTED THAT, MR. EISENBERG, DID YOU NOT? >>I DID. HE IS AN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT. IT WAS LESS A SUGGESTION AND MORE OF AN INSTRUCTION. EXPECTED UTILITY LAWYERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO SPEAK TO MR. GIULIANI ? >>YES. >>AND THE LAWYERS IT WAS AT THIS POINT TOLD YOU NOT TO TALK TO ANYONE ELSE? >>THAT IS NOT CORRECT WITH REGARDS TO TIMING. THEY DO NOT CIRCLE BACK AROUND AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WAS IN MY CORONATION ROLE I SPOKE TO A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR ONE OF THE INTELLIGENCE BUDDIES NOTIFIED MR. EISENBERG THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION ON THE CALL ON THE JULY 25 CALL. AT THAT POINT, MR. EISENBERG SAID I SHOULD NOT TALK TO ANYONE ELSE ABOUT IT . >>COLONEL, I WANT TO GO BACK TO 2014 IN IRAQ WHEN YOU WERE BLOWN UP. I PRESUME THAT GIVING THE POINT IN YOUR MILITARY CAREER AND WHAT ELSE WAS GOING ON IN THE WORLD THAT UPON RECOVERY THERE WAS THE VERY REAL POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MIGHT ONCE AGAIN FIND YOURSELF IN HARMS WAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES, CONGRESSMAN TOOK IT HAPPENED IN 2004, BUT YES. >>DID YOU CONSIDER LEAVING THE MILITARY SERVICE AT THAT POINT? >>NO. FRANKLY, I SUFFERED LIGHT WINDS. I WAS FORTUNATE COMPARED TO MY COUNTERPARTS IN THE SAME VEHICLE, AND I RETURNED TO DUTY AND I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT SAME DAY. >>BUT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING ARM AND YOU CONTINUE TO SERVE IN UNIFORM. >>I CONTINUED TO SERVE FOR THE REMAINING MONTHS OF THE TOUR. >>I FIND IT A RICH BUT INCREDIBLY PAINFUL IRONY THAT WITHIN A WEEK OF THE PRESIDENT CONTRARY TO ALL ADVICE OF THE SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIALS, HE PARDONS THOSE WHO WERE CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES, WHICH WAS DECRIED IN THE MILITARY COMMUNITY. WITHIN THE WEEK OF HIM DOING THAT, HE HAS ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT WITH ALLIES ON HIS BEHALF TO DEMEAN YOUR RECORD OF SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE AND THE CONTRIBUTION THAT YOU HAVE MADE. INDEED LESS THAN 20 MINUTES AGO THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALLY QUOTED OUT OUT OF CONTEXT THE COMMENTS REFERRED TO EARLIER BY MR. MORRISON IN YOUR JUDGMENT. I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT’S WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS JUST THE PRESIDENT AS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DELIBERATIONS IN THIS INQUIRY ISN’T SUFFICIENT TO CAPTURE WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. INDEED WHAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS INQUIRY AND WHAT IS AT PERIL IS OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE VERY VALUES UPON WHICH IT IS BASED. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOUR SERVICE BUT THANK YOU DOESN’T CUT IT. PLEASE NOTE THAT IT COMES FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, AND I KNOW ON THE BOTTOM OF THE HEART OF COUNTLESS OF OTHER AMERICANS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I YELLED BACK. >>MR. JORDAN. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SUNDAY THE SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AN IMPOSTER. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CALLED THE PRESIDENT AN IMPOSTER. THE GUY 63 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR AND WON IN A LANDSLIDE THE SPEAKER CALLS AN IMPOSTER. THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY, TO THIS CONGRESS. THE SPEAKER STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. DEMOCRATS DO NOT TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO SEND SOMEONE TO THIS TOWN WHO WAS WILLING TO SHAKE IT UP A BIT. THEY DO NOT TRUST THAT, AND THEY HAVE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO UNDO WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016. THEY HAVE BEEN ELSE TO GET THE PRESIDENT SINCE THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED PICKED IT WAS A BOY’S LAWYER, AND LEGAL TEAM SAID THIS . JANUARY 30, 2017, THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN IN OFFICE ABOUT A WEEK. THE COUP HAS STARTED . FIRST OF MANY STEPS. IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW ULTIMATELY. I GUESS WE ARE IN THE FINAL STEP. IT STARTED 3.5 YEARS AGO. CONGRESSMAN TO LEAVE STARTED THIS CONGRESS AND THE FIRST DAY OF CONGRESS SAID IF WE DO NOT IMPEACH HIM THE PRESIDENT WILL GET REELECTED AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FIVE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT BEFORE THE PHONE CALL EVER HAPPENED. THE TRUTH IS THE ATTACKS ACTUALLY STARTED BEFORE THE INAUGURATION, EVEN BEFORE THE ELECTION. THE RANKING MEMBER TALKED ABOUT THIS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. JULY 2016. FBI OPENS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SO-CALLED TRUMP RUSSIA CORONATION AND COLLUSION, WHICH WAS NEVER THERE AND SPITE ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. MY GUESS IS THAT HAS PROBABLY NEVER HAPPENED IN AMERICAN HISTORY, BUT THEY DID IT AND FOR 10 MONTHS THEY INVESTIGATED THE PRESIDENT AND THEY HAVE NOTHING AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE DEPOSED JAMES COMEY LAST CONGRESS AND THEY SAID THEY DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING AND THEY DO A TWO-YEAR AND $40,000,000.90 LAWYER UNBELIEVABLE INVESTIGATION AND GUESS WHAT, THEY COME BACK AND THEY HAVE GOT NOTHING PICK BUT THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT CARE. SO NOW WE GET THIS. A BUNCH OF DEPOSITIONS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITAL. WITNESSES WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO THEY TALKED TO ABOUT THE PHONE CALL. WE GET THIS. ALL BASED ON SOME ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER, NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, BIAS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. THESE FACTS HAVE NEVER CHANGED. WHO WROTE A MEMO THE DAY AFTER SOMEBODY TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE CALL. BUT WAITED 18 DAYS TO FILE A COMPLAINT. 18 DAYS TO FILE A COMPLAINT. WHAT DID HE DO IN THOSE 18 DAYS? WE ALL KNOW. RAN OFF AND SPOKE WITH THE STAFF OF CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND HIRED THE LEGAL TEAM THAT IT JUST TALKED ABOUT. ONE OF THE STEPS IN THE WHOLE IMPEACHMENT COUP AS HIS LEGAL TEAM HAS SAID . THIS IS SCARY WHAT THESE GUYS ARE PUTTING OUR COUNTRY THROUGH. IT IS SAD AND SCARY AND WRONG AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH IT ALL. THEY KNOW THE FACTS ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT AS REPRESENTATIVE STEPHANI SAID FOUR FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE. HE GOT THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH THEY NEVER THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT WOULD RELEASE SHOWING NO LINKAGE AND WE HAVE THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAVE SAID NOTHING WRONG AND WE HAVE THE EFFECT THE UKRAINIANS DO NOT EVEN KNOW THAT AID WAS HELD UP AT THE TIME OF THE CALL AND MOST IMPORTANT HAVE YET TO HAVE ONE WHEN YOU TELL US THAT ANY EVIDENCE FROM ANYONE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID ANYTHING TO GET THE AID RELEASED. THOSE FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE. THE FACTS ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PROCESS IS CERTAINLY NOT. IT HAS BEEN THE MOST UNFAIR PROCESS WE HAVE EVER SEEN, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE 63 MILLION AMERICANS THEY UNDERSTAND IT AND FRANKLY I THINK A LOT OF OTHERS DO AS WELL. THEY SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS, AND THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS WRONG. ESPECIALLY WRONG JUST 11 MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. I YELLED BACK. >>MR. WELCH. >>THANK YOU. WHAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT I THINK WAS BEST STATED BY THE úO VINDMAN. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THIS. IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE THE UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT? IT WAS VERY WELL STATED. I JUST LISTENED TO MR. JORDAN, AS YOU DID AS WELL, AND I HEARD HIS CRITICISM OF THE PROCESS. NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT. I DIDN’T HEAR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT IS PROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT. AND TO DATE I HAVEN’T HEARD ANYONE OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS , THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE BACKGROUND. WAS COME OUT DURING THIS PROCESS IS THAT WE HAD TWO UKRAINE POLICIES. ONE WAS BIPARTISAN AND LONG- STANDING. AND THAT WAS TO ASSIST UKRAINE, WHICH HAD FREED ITSELF FROM THE DOMINATION OF RUSSIA, TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND TO RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. IS THAT IF YOUR STATEMENT, COLONEL VINDMAN? >>I THINK THAT IS A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION. >>AND TO GIVE FOLKS A REMINDER OF THE EXTENT OF CORRUPTION. BY THE WAY, IN LEGACY OF PUTIN’S RUSSIA. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THEIR PRIOR PRESIDENT FLED TO RUSSIA HE TOOK WITH HIM 30 AND $40 BILLION OF THAT IMPOVERISHED COUNTRY? >>THERE ARE DIFFERENT ESTIMATES BUT IS ON THAT SCALE, YES. >>A VAST SCALE FOR A POOR COUNTRY AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT POWERLESS BUT MOTIVATED UKRAINIANS ROSE UP IN PROTEST TO THIS INCREDIBLE CRAFT AND THEFT AND ABUSE BY THEIR PRESIDENT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND THAT WAS CALLED THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY. >>CORRECT. >>AND YOUNG PEOPLE WENT INTO THAT SQUARE IN DOWNTOWN KYIV AND DEMONSTRATED FOR MANY MONTHS. >>CORRECT. AND 100 DIED. >>106 YOUNG PEOPLE AND OLDER PEOPLE DIED. CORRECT? THAT WAS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 2014. IS THAT CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>106 DIED, INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO WERE SHOT NICE NEIGHBORS. KIDS. YANUKOVYCH HAD PUT SNIPERS TO SHOOT INTO THAT SQUARE AND KILL AND MURDER THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>IN OUR BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, A LOT OF LEADERSHIP TO HAVE THIS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT CAME FROM YOUR SIDE. THANK YOU. BUT OUR WHOLE COMMITMENT WAS TO GET RID OF CORRUPTION AND TO STOP THE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT AMOUNTS TO SOME OF THE KEY PILLARS. >>THAT IS RIGHT. AND IT APPEARS TRUMP POLICY WAS NOT ABOUT THAT. IT IS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO A POLITICAL OPPONENT. CORRECT? I WILL TAKE THE QUESTION BACK. WE KNOW IT. AND I WILL SAY THIS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN, YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN? GO AHEAD AND DO IT. DO IT THE WAY YOU DO DO IT. JUST DON’T DO IT BY ASKING A FOREIGN LEADER TO HELP YOU IN YOUR CAMPAIGN. THAT IS YOUR JOB. IT IS NOT HIS. MY GOAL IN THESE HEARINGS IS TWO THINGS ONE IS TO GET AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF COLONEL VINDMAN. AND THE SECOND COMING OUT OF THIS IS FOR US AS A CONGRESS TO RETURN TO THE UKRAINE POLICY THAT NANCY PELOSI AND KEVIN McCARTHY BOTH SUPPORT. IT IS NOT INVESTIGATIONS. IT IS THE RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE AND THE RESISTANCE OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. I YELLED BACK. >>MR. MALONEY, THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE. YOU KNOW, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN , THIS MAY BE ONE OF YOUR FIRST CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS LIKE THIS SO YOU MAY NOT. >>AND THE LAST. >>I CANNOT BLAME YOU FOR FEELING THAT WAY. ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES TO BE AT THE KIDS TABLE IS YOU GET TO HEAR THE FOLKS ABOUT THE ASK THE QUESTION I’VE BEEN LIVING LISTENING CLOSELY AND HEARD THEM SAY JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING EXCEPT TO CONTRADICT ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAVE GOT GIVEN. YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AND INSINUATION AND SUGGESTIONS MAYBE THAT YOUR SERVICE IS SOMEHOW NOT TO BE TRUSTED, YET YOU WERE TREATED TO QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR LOYALTY BECAUSE OF SOME HALF-BAKED JOB OFFER I GUESS THE UKRAINIANS MADE YOU, WHICH YOU DUTIFULLY REPORTED AND I GUESS HE IS IMPLYING YOU HAVE SOME DUAL LOYALTY. THEY TRY TO DEMEAN YOU AS THOUGH YOU HAVE OVERSTATED YOUR IMPORTANCE OF YOUR JOB BUT OF COURSE YOU ARE THE GUY RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING UKRAINIAN POLICY. YOU HAVE HEARD THEM SHARE ALLEGATIONS WITH NO BASIS OF PROOF BUT THEY ARE HOPING MAYBE SOME OF IT WILL STICK ON THE WALL IF THEY KEEP THROWING IT. WE EVEN HAD A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE QUESTION WHY YOU WOULD WEAR YOUR DRESS UNIFORM TODAY. EVEN THOUGH THE DRESS UNIFORM INCLUDES A BREASTPLATE THAT HAS A COMBAT INFANTRY ON IT AND A PURPLE HEART MEDAL ROOM AND. IT SEEMS LIKE IF ANYONE GETS TO WEAR THE UNIFORM IT IS SOMEBODY WHO HAS GOT THOSE ON IT. SO LET’S DO IT AGAIN. LET’S DO THE SUBSTANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DUST KICKED UP. YOU HEARD THE CALL WITH YOUR OWN EARS, MS. WILLIAMS ? >>YES, SIR. >>IN YOUR CONCLUSION WAS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS WAS UNUSUAL AND AN APPROPRIATE. >>THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY . >>AND COLONEL VINDMAN YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISING INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE UNDULY POLITICAL AND YOU WENT TO THE COUNCIL AND REPORTED IT. >>CORRECT. >>AND THEN LATER YOU TWO WERE ON THE WHITE HOUSE CALLING YOU HEARD IT WITH YOUR OWN EARS NOT SECONDHAND OR FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. YOU HEARD THE VOICE OF THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALL. AND YOU HEARD HIM RAISE THE SUBJECT AGAIN THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD RAISED BEFORE ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. WHAT WAS THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT WENT THROUGH YOUR MIND ? >>FRANKLY, I COULDN’T BELIEVE WHAT I WAS HEARING. IT WAS PROBABLY AN ELEMENT OF SHOCK THAT MAY BE IN CERTAIN REGARDS MY WORST FEAR OF HOW OUR UKRAINE POLICY COULD PLAY OUT WAS PLAYING OUT AND HOW THIS WAS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. >>AND YOU REPORTED IT. WHY? >>BECAUSE THAT WAS MY DUTY. >>DO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT HANDY? COULD HE READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH FOR ME AGAIN? I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DESERVES TO HEAR IT AGAIN. >>ALL RIGHT. I THINK MY DAD WOULD APPRECIATE THIS ONE. DAD, MY SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE’S CAPITAL IS PROOF THAT YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION AND COME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY. DO NOT WORRY. I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. >>YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU CAME FORWARD OUT OF SENSE OF DUTY THAT YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD. DO YOU REALIZE THAT? >>I KNOW THAT I WAS ASSUMING A LOT OF RISK. >>YOU SAID TO YOUR DAD DO NOT WORRY. DID HE WORRY? HE WOULD HAVE WORRIED IF YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF UP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>IN HIS CONTEXT IT WAS THE ULTIMATE RISK. >>AND WHY DO HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN DO THAT AND TELL YOUR DAD NOT TO WORRY? >>BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA. THIS IS THE COUNTRY HAVE SERVED AND DEFENDED THAT ALL MY BROTHERS HAVE SERVED AND HERE RIGHT MATTERS. >>THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR NATION, MS. WILLIAMS. IT TRULY MATTERS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN , I HAD THE HONOR OF SPEAKING TO A GROUP OF VETERANS THIS PAST WEEKEND. WHAT I SAID TO THEM WAS THAT NO WORDS ARE REALLY ADEQUATE OR SUFFICIENT TO FULLY EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE FOR THEIR SERVICE TO OUR NATION. SO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, TODAY I SAY TO YOU THERE ARE NO WORDS THAT ARE SUFFICIENT TO FULLY EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR OUR NATION AND AMAZINGLY WHAT YOU ARE STILL WILLING TO DO FOR OUR NATION. IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP’S UNETHICAL DEMAND THAT UKRAINE DELIVER POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE CREATED A SECURITY RISK FOR OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL SECURITY THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT JUST PLAYING A POLITICAL GAME BY UPHOLDING MILITARY AID AND MEETINGS WITH UKRAINE, THREATENING THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT CONGRESS HAD APPROPRIATED HAS REAL-LIFE CONSEQUENCES FOR UKRAINE AND FOR THE USA. IN YOUR DEPOSITION, COLONEL VINDMAN YOU TESTIFIED A STRONG AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE IS CRITICAL TO OUR SECURITY INTERESTS. COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY A STRONG AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE IS THE CRITICAL AND WHY IT IS SO VITAL TO U.S. INTERESTS? >>WE SOMETIMES REFER TO UKRAINE AS A FRONT-LINE STATE. IT IS ON THE FRONTLINE OF EUROPE. THEY HAVE ACTUALLY DESCRIBED TO ME, THE UKRAINIANS, THAT THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS A BARRIER BETWEEN RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND EUROPE, AND WHAT I HAVE HEARD THEM DESCRIBE IS THE NEED FOR U.S. SUPPORT IN ORDER TO SERVE THIS ROLE MEANT TO PROTECT EUROPEAN AND WESTERN SECURITY. >>LIEUTENANT COLONEL, THIS IS NOT JUST A THEORETICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA. YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS MORNING THAT RUSSIA IS ACTIVELY FIGHTING TO EXPAND INTO UKRAINE. THAT UKRAINE IS IN A HOT WAR WITH RUSSIA RIGHT NOW. IS THAT CORRECT? >>IT IS STABLE BUT IT IS STILL A HOT WAR. >>AND ISN’T IT TRUE THAT EVEN EVENTUALLY DELIVERED TO CRANE, THE FACT THAT IT WAS DELAYED JUST THAT FACT COULD SIGNAL TO RUSSIA THAT THE BOND BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE U.S. WAS WEAKENING? >>THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUES. >>AND WAS THE RISK OF EVEN THE APPEARANCE THAT THE U.S. AND UKRAINE BOND IS SHAKY IS THAT IT COULD EMBOLDEN RUSSIA TO ACT WITH MORE AGGRESSION. WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY. >>LAST MONTH PRESIDENT PUTIN JOKED ABOUT INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTIONS. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BECOME TO RUSSIA AND ITS PRESIDENT. I THINK HE FELT EMBOLDENED BY THE PRESIDENT’S RECKLESS ACTIONS BOTH ATTEMPTS TO HOLD CRITICAL MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EFFORT TO BLAME UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA OR ELECTION INTERFERENCE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT EVERY AMERICAN, REGARDLESS OF OUR POLITICS, SHOULD BE CRITICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT A THAT AND LET ME JUST SAY THIS. YES WE DO TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TRUST US TO SUPPORT, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. AND WE INTEND TO DO JUST THAT. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE . I YIELD BACK. >>GOOD AFTERNOON MS. WILLIAMS AND COLONEL VINDMAN. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I AM CONCERNED YOUR LOYALTY HAS BEEN QUESTIONED NOT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE BRINGING FORWARD EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IMMIGRANT. RECENTLY FOX NEWS HOST BRIAN KILMEADE SAID THAT YOU WERE BORN IN THE SOVIET UNION AND EMIGRATED YOUNG. HE TENDS TO FEEL SIMPATICO WITH UKRAINE. I FIND THIS STATEMENT REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT YOUR IMMIGRANT HERITAGE IS BEING USED AGAINST YOU. LIEUTENANT COLONEL, I CAME TO THIS COUNTRY WHEN I WAS THREE MONTHS OLD. YOUR FAMILY MOVED TO AMERICA WHEN YOU WERE JUST 3.5 YEARS OLD. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR FATHER WORKED MULTIPLE JOBS WHILE ALSO LEARNING ENGLISH FOR YOUR FATHER STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF EMBRACING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN. >>ALL YOUR CHILDHOOD MEMORIES RELATE TO BEING AN AMERICAN. YOU AND YOUR FAMILY FACED DIFFICULT TIMES DURING YOUR CHILDHOOD. >>YES. >>I CAN RELATE. THAT IS MY STORY TO GO. BUT YOUR FATHER WENT ON TO BECOME AN ENGINEER. RIGHT? >>HE REESTABLISHED HIMSELF IN HIS FORMER PROFESSION IN THE UNITED STATES. >>I CAN RELATE. YOUR FATHER NEVER GAVE UP WORKING HARD TO BUILD HIS VERY OWN AMERICAN DREAM. LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOUR FATHER ACHIEVED THE AMERICAN DREAM, AND SO DID YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. FROM ONE IMMIGRANT AMERICAN TO ANOTHER IMMIGRANT AMERICAN, I WANT TO SAY TO YOU THE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY REPRESENT THE VERY BEST OF AMERICA. I ASSUME THAT YOU ARE AS PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN AS I AM. >>YES, SIR. >>I WANT TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO YURY LUTSENKO WHO YOU CALLED A DISRUPTIVE ACTOR. MR. LUTSENKO HAS MADE VARIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT VARIOUS AMERICANS. YOU ARE UNAWARE OF ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR HIS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND WAS A SOURCE OF JOHN SOLOMON IN THE HILL AND YOU SAID THE KEY ELEMENT OF THAT ARTICLE AS WELL AS HIS ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE. >>CORRECT. >>YURY LUTSENKO IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE. >>CORRECT. >>THE OTHER SIDE CLAIMS THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY NO PRESSURE ON THIS JULY 25 THEM CALL. I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE HEARD EARLIER. >>I BELIEVE SO. >>AND IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATIONS IT IS A DEMAND. YOU HAVE POINTED OUT THE LARGE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE ONE HAND AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE OTHER. THERE WAS PRESSURE ON THAT PHONE CALL , RIGHT? >>THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED THE MEETING. THEY NEEDED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >>SO THE PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THEM. >>I BELIEVE SO. >>LAST WEEK WE HEARD A DECORATED MILITARY VETERAN AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR COME BEFORE US. YOU INTERACTED REGULARLY WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AND YOU KNOW HIM TO BE A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. I ASKED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR A SERIES OF QUESTIONS BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE. I ASKED HIM IS AN OFFICER ALLOWED TO HOLD UP ACTION PLACING HIS TROOPS AT RISK UNTIL SOMEONE WRITES THEM A PERSONAL BENEFIT? AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RESPONDED NO, SIR. COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE ? >>I DO EXPECT I SAID IS THAT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BETRAYING THE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATION? AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YES, SIR. COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE? >>I DO. >>I THEN ASKED FOR THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT TREVOR A COURT- MARTIAL? AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID YES, SIR . DO YOU AGREE? >>I DO. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. >>THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER QUESTIONING AND REPRESENTATIVE NUNES ARE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS. >>AT ONE OF TODAY’S CIRCUSES OVER. THOSE OF YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING AT HOME, THE DEMOCRATS ARE NO CLOSER TO IMPEACHMENT THAN WHERE THEY WERE THREE YEARS AGO. IN THE PROCESS THE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, FBI, STATE DEPARTMENTS AND ELEMENTS HAVE ALL SUFFERED LONG-TERM DAMAGE. THE DEMOCRATS CAN CONTINUE TO POISON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THIS NONSENSE WE CAN SIT HERE ALL MORNING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT, WHICH WOULD BE A VERY SERIOUS CRIME. HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, AS IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION. NO SUCH THING. POLICY DISAGREEMENTS AND THE DEMOCRAT FAILURE TO KNOWLEDGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION. I WOULD SAY IT IS ASTONISHING THAT THAT WOULD BE PUTTING TOO LITTLE EMPHASIS ON THEIR ACTIONS . FOR THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>I WANT TO THANK OUR WITNESSES TODAY. MS. WILLIAMS , AND COLONEL VINDMAN BUT FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY AND FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY AND I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS BRIEFLY SOME OF THE EVIDENCE HE PRESENTED, AS WELL AS OTHERS THUS FAR IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN, FOR YOUR MILITARY SERVICE . AND I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ALL OF THE QUESTIONS YOU GOT ON WHY DIDN’T YOU CONTACT YOUR SUPERVISOR OR MR. MORRISON WHY DID YOU GO TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, AS IF THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH GOING TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER. ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE ASKED MR. MORRISON WHETHER HE WENT TONIGHT THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER RIGHT AFTER THE CALL AND THAT HE DID? AND ARE YOU AWARE ALSO THAT WE ASKED HIM IF YOU HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH COLONEL VINDMAN NOT GOING TO YOU AND CERTAINLY LAWYER NATURAL YOU MUST’VE GOT YOUR SUPERVISOR AND YOU NOTED ANSWER WAS? HE DIDN’T GO TO HIS SUPERVISOR EITHER . YOU WENT DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER SO I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WOULD GIVE HIM THE SAME HARD TIME FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND HE COMPLAINED ABOUT WITH YOU. THE PRESIDENT MAY ATTACK YOU AND HAS. OTHERS ON RIGHT-WING TV MIGHT ATTACK YOU AND THEY HAVE. BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW AND MAYBE YOU KNOW ALREADY THAT THIS IS WHAT THE FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF HAD TO SAY ABOUT YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN. IS A PROFESSIONAL, COMPETENT, PATRIOTIC, AND LOYAL OFFICER . HE HAS MADE AN EXTRAORDINARY CONTRIBUTION TO THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IN BOTH PEACETIME AND COMBAT. I AM SURE YOUR DAD IS PROUD TO HEAR THAT. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TRIED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT HERE TODAY, AND WE HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST INTERESTED IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION. THAT IS OUR GOAL FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. THE PROBLEM OF COURSE WITH THAT IS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIGHT CORRUPTION. THE EVIDENCE ALL POINTS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. THE EVIDENCE POINTS IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT INVITING UKRAINE TO ENGAGE IN THE CORRUPT ACT OF INVESTIGATING A U.S. POLITICAL OPPONENT. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IS RECALLED FROM HER POST AND A MASTER YOVANOVITCH AND THAT WAS AT A MEETING CELEBRATING OTHER ANTICORRUPTION FIGHTERS, INCLUDING A WOMAN WHO HAD ASSAYED FOR ANOTHER BASED ON THE DAY THAT SHE WAS TOLD TO GET ON THE NEXT PLANE BACK TO WASHINGTON. YOU PREPARED TALKING POINTS FOR THE FIRST CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IS SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT ROUTINE OF CORRUPTION. OF THIS PRESIDENT HAD SUCH A DEEP INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, SURELY HE WOULD’VE BROUGHT IT UP ON THE CALL BUT WE NOW KNOW THAT HE DID NOT. WE THEN SEE RUDY GIULIANI NOT FIGHTING CORRUPTION BUT ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AND MY COLLEAGUES SAY MAYBE HE WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN. BUT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GIULIANI WANTED COME UP IN THE MEETING TO PARTICIPATE IN ON JULY 10 AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD THE UKRAINIANS YOU HAVE GOT TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. NOW THEY WOULD SAY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN, BUT THAT DOESN’T WORK EITHER BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CALL RECORD FROM JULY 25, WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO RELEASE, IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T BRING UP CORRUPTION. OF COURSE NOT. WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY? I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND THIS THEORY PUSHED BY VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT ALSO HELPS ME IN MY REELECTION. SO MUCH FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION . THE REAL MESSAGE TO UKRAINE IS DO NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. THE MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. DO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND DO IT FOR MY REELECTION. IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT THEY WANT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND IF THEY WANT 400 MILLION IN USAID, THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. THE ONLY LAMENT I HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES IS IT WASN’T SUCCESSFUL. THEY GOT CAUGHT. THEY DIDN’T GET THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AND THEY STILL HAD TO RELEASE THE MONEY. BECAUSE THE WHISTLEBLOWER BLEW THE WHISTLE PICK THE WHISTLEBLOWER THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO PUNISH AND BECAUSE CONGRESS ANNOUNCED IT WAS DOING INVESTIGATIONS AND THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO LIFT THE HOLD ON THE AIDE. THEY ARGUE THIS MAKES IT OKAY THAT IT WAS A FAILED EFFORT TO BRIBE UKRAINE AND EXTORT UKRAINE . THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT BETTER. IT IS NO LESS ODIOUS BECAUSE IT WAS DISCOVERED AND STOMPED AND WE HAVE COURAGEOUS PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO COME FORWARD AND REPORT THINGS WHO DO WHAT THEY SHOULD DO AND TO HAVE A SENSE OF DUTY. NOT TO THE PERSON OF THE PRESIDENT, BUT TO THE PRESIDENCY AND TO THE COUNTRY, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THIS ALL COMES BACK TO SOMETHING WE HEARD FROM ANOTHER CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER JUST LAST FRIDAY IN A CONVERSATION HE OVERHEARD WITH THE PRESIDENT IN A RESTAURANT IN UKRAINE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT, NOT RUDY GIULIANI OR ANYONE ELSE. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANTED TO KNOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS? THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THE JULY 20 BUT CALL. AND HE IS ASSURED BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT. AND WHAT DOES HE RELATE TO THE OFFICER AFTER HE HANGS UP THE CALL? THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE. HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG THINGS THAT HELP HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS. THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. AND IT ISN’T JUST ABOUT UKRAINE OF COURSE. UKRAINE IS BITING HER FIGHT AGAINST THE RUSSIANS AND THEIR EXPANSIONISM. THAT IS OUR FIGHT TOO. AT LEAST WE THOUGHT SO ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS. THAT IS WHY WE SUPPORT UKRAINE WITH THE MILITARY AID THAT WE HAVE. THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT CARE ABOUT IT, BUT WE DO. WE CARE ABOUT THE DEFENSE OF OUR ALLIES, AND WE CARE ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION WE ARE ADJOURNED. AND PLEASE ASK THE AUDIENCE TO ALLOW THE WITNESSES AND THE MEMBERS HAVE TO GO ABOUT TO LEAVE FIRST. >>AND THAT CONCLUDES ACT I FOR TODAY’S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. I AM REENA NINAN. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. ERROR TWO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES THAT WILL TESTIFY IN ONE HOUR AND WE WILL BRING THAT TO YOU AS WELL. IF YOU’RE JUST TUNING IN, JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND BOTH HEARD THE JULY 20 BUT CALL WITH THE LEADER OF UKRAINE AND VINDMAN IS AN EXPERT ON UKRAINE AND HE HE FLED THE SOVIET UNION 40 YEARS AGO. TODAY HE SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL BECAUSE HE DID NOT THINK THAT IT WAS PROPER. >>IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT. I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTION THAT IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY AND THIS WOULD RESULT IN UKRAINE LOSING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, UNDERMINING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE REGION. I WANT TO US AS TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORT. >>WILLIAMS IS AN ADVISOR ON EUROPE AND RUSSIA AND SAID SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE CALL INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS ABOUT. >>JULY 25 WITH SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE CONTENT OF WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED. PRIOR TO JULY 25 I PARTICIPATED IN A DOZEN OTHER PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS. DURING MY DEPOSITION MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON WHETHER I HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL. AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND THE PHONE CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER CALLS OBSERVED IT ABOUT DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER. AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL, PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE DAILY BRIEFING BOOK INDICATING PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A CALL THAT DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BOOK. I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE FOR THE TRANSCRIPT. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED HIS ATTACKS EARLIER TODAY AT A CABINET MEETING PRAISING REPUBLICANS PERFORMANCE A SAYING HE DOESN’T EVEN KNOW THE OFFICIALS TESTIFYING. >>I JUST GOT TO WATCH THE REPUBLICANS ARE ABSOLUTELY KILLING IT. THEY ARE DOING SO WELL BECAUSE IT IS A SCAM. IT IS A BIG SCAM. VINDMAN I WATCHED HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING , AND I THINK I AM GOING TO LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION. BUT I DO NOT KNOW VINDMAN. I HAD NEVER HEARD OF HIM. I DO NOT KNOW ANY OF THESE PEOPLE . >>LATER THIS AFTERNOON CALLED VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON WHILE PUBLICLY TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. KURT VOLKER IS THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND WAS INVOLVED IN TRYING TO PRESSURE THE COUNTRY INTO INVESTIGATE POLITICAL RIVALS AND MORRISON IS THE DEPARTING SENIOR DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WHO TOLD LAWMAKERS IN AN EARLIER TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THAT DETAILS OF THE JULY CALL WOULD BECOME PUBLIC DID NOT THINK ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONVERSATION AND THIS ALL COMES ON THE HEELS OF NEW REVELATIONS SURROUNDING THE CALL AT THE CENTER OF THE INVESTIGATION. DAVID HOLMES SAID THAT HE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ASK GORDON SONDLAND ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVALS ONE DAY AFTER HIS CAL WITH THE UKRAINIAN LEADER AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TEST TOMORROW AND HOMELESS ON THURSDAY. I WANT TO BRING IN REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST LESLIE SANCHEZ AND MOLLY COOPER AND DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST LINDA AND ALSO JOINING US IS NANCY CORDES ON CAPITOL HILL AND WHAT WERE THE MAIN TAKEAWAYS TODAY, NANCY? >>I THINK THE MAIN TAKE AWAY WAS THAT BOTH VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS REALLY CHIPPED AWAY AT WHAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE CENTRAL WHITE HOUSE LINES OF DEFENSE HERE. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS GOING ALL OF THE WAY UP TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND CERTAINLY FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF NICK MULVANEY IS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT WITHHOLD MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF MILITARY AID UKRAINE BECAUSE HE WANTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS BUT RATHER BECAUSE HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT LONG- STANDING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE . OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS HEARING COLONEL VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER BROUGHT UP CORRUPTION IN HIS PHONE CALLS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE EVEN THOUGH VINDMAN HAD PUT IT IN MR. TRUMP’S TALKING POINTS BUT ALSO THAT VINDMAN WITNESSED THE USE AMBASSADOR TO THE EU GORDON SONDLAND AT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING TELL A UKRAINIAN DELEGATION MORE THAN ONCE THAT WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO SECURE A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS TO PROMISE INVESTIGATIONS INTO BIDEN , THE 2016 ELECTION, AND BURISMA AND WE CAN SEE THE ARGUMENT REALLY BEING UNDERCUT BY WITNESSES WHO WERE CHALLENGED TODAY TO EXPLAIN WHETHER THEY WERE INDEED IS THE PRESIDENT HAS ARGUED NEVER TRUMPERS. VINDMAN RESPONDED THAT HE CONSIDERS HIMSELF NEVER PARTISAN . >>I WANT TO TURN OUT FOR A LEGAL ANALYSIS AS WELL AND NEVER PARTISAN IS SOMETHING WE HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN. ALL OF THESE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM HAVE NOT USED THAT WORD WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS ABOUT THE USE OF THAT? >>I DO NOT EXPECT THEM TO USE THAT WORD. IT WAS A POINT REPUBLICANS WERE TRYING TO MAKE AND MR. RATCLIFFE TOOK DEPOSITIONS AND STACKED THEM SO THEY HAD HUNDREDS OF PAGES TO SAY BRIBERY HAS NEVER BEEN MENTIONED. OF COURSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN MENTIONED. WHEN SOMEONE DECIDES TO EXTORT OR BRIBE, THEY DO NOT SAY I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU A BRIBE . I AM GOING TO EXTORT YOU. THOSE THINGS DO NOT OCCUR IN REAL LIFE. WHAT OCCURS IN REAL LIFE IS YOU GIVE A LITTLE HINT ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT, AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO IN EXCHANGE FOR IT, AND THAT IS PRECISELY THE DEMOCRATIC THESIS HERE. IT WAS ANSWERED HERE I THINK MOST ARTICULATELY BY REPRESENTATIVE WELCH WHEN HE HAD TO GET THE WIND OUT OF THE SAILS OF REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN AND REPRESENTATIVE WELCH IN HIS VERY CALM MANNER SAYS THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THIS. IS IT IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT? TO DATE I HAVE NOT HEARD THEM ADDRESS THE QUESTION BUT THAT IS THE QUESTION OF THE BRIBE. IT IS UP TO THE COMMITTEE AND ULTIMATELY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO DECIDE IF THERE IS BRIBERY HERE. IT IS ONLY AFTER A WITNESS TO SAY WHAT THEY SEE, WHAT THEY HEAR, WHAT THEY SMELL, OR WHAT THEY TASTE. IT IS THEIR SENTENCES THAT BECOME A FACT WITNESS. NOT THE LEGAL CONCLUSION. >>I ALSO WANT TO TURN TO WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT WEIJIA JIANG WHO JOINS US FROM THE NORTH ONE AND IT SEEMS THE PRESIDENT IS PLEASED WITH HOW REPUBLICANS ARE HANDLING THE TESTIMONY. WHAT IS YOUR TAKE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE? >>THE PRESIDENT IS EXPRESSING APPROVAL AND SO ARE SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HERE WHO SAY THAT THE DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THIS WAS REALLY GOING TO BE THERE DAY BUT THE REPUBLICANS ARE OUTSHINING THEM IN MAKING THEIR CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG. OF COURSE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THE PRESIDENT HAS USED THE SAME LINES OF DEFENSE. THEY ARE VERY SHORT AND MEMORABLE, AND HE CONTINUES TO SAY THE CALL WAS PERFECT AND THIS IS A SHAM INVESTIGATION AND ALSO THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH THIS. THE PRESIDENT ONLY SPOKE ABOUT THIS FOR A COUPLE MINUTES, BUT HE HIT ON ALL THREE POINTS. HE SAID NANCY PELOSI IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT BECAUSE SHE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ACCOMPLISH HER AGENDA AND IS NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR CONGRESS TO RATIFY THE U.S. McA. HE SAYS THAT THIS IS A DISGRACE TO THE COUNTRY WHAT IS GOING ON ON CAPITOL HILL, AND AGAIN HE SAYS REGARDLESS OF WHAT VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS MIGHT HAVE FELT EVEN VINDMAN SAID THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS ACCURATE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ALSO SEEN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THESE TWO NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS WHO ARE TRAINED TO DETECT WRONGDOING AND POSSIBLE THREATS HAVE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE CALL BUT THEY ARE SAYING THAT ALL BOILS DOWN TO A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AND A DIFFERENCE OF WHAT U.S. POLICY SHOULD BE BECAUSE IT IS ULTIMATELY MR. TRUMP WHO SETS THAT U.S. POLICY. THEY ALSO POINTS TO THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU COMB THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT, AND YOU HAVE HEARD THIS A LOT, THAT THERE IS NO VERY DIRECT DEALMAKING OF A QUID PRO QUO AND EVEN THOUGH WE HEARD LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN DESCRIBED IT AS A DEMAND, OFFICIALS HERE POINT OUT THAT THAT IS JUST SUBJECTIVE AND ACTUALLY WASN’T A DEMAND AT ALL. EVEN IF IT WERE, THAT IS NOT RUN BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS SO OBSESSED WITH GETTING TO THE ROOT OF POTENTIAL CORRUPTION. SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT IS WATCHING TODAY. HE SAYS HE IS HAPPY SO FAR, AND THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE AFTERNOON TESTIMONY EVEN MORE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT BOTH OF THE WITNESSES WILL ONLY ADD TO THEIR CASE AND PROVE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG . >>MOLLY, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS WITH THE TESTIMONY OF VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH? >>NUMBER ONE THEY WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS WERE BOTH ON THE CALL. ONE OF THE FEW WITNESSES THAT ACTUALLY LISTENED TO THE CALL. BOTH OF THEM THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE OR IMPROPER ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID. JENNIFER WILLIAMS, WHO WAS AN AIDE TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE IS CURRENTLY A STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, BUT SHE WAS DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. úSHE SAID I POLITICAL IN NATURE BECAUSE THE BIDENS WERE MENTIONED AND THAT IT WAS UNUSUAL THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY WAS MENTIONED IN THE CALL AND SPECIFICALLY THE BIDENS AND OF COURSE VINDMAN CALLED IN INAPPROPRIATE AND BASICALLY THAT ACROSS THE LINE. BUT STILL IT IS UP TO INTERPRETATION AS WE JUST SAID. THAT IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WERE SAYING. REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS THINK. >>REPUBLICANS HAD TO HAVE KNOWN GOING INTO THIS, LESLIE. YOU WILL HAVE A DECORATED WAR VETERAN SHOWING UP IN MILITARY UNIFORM TESTIFYING. MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, THAT IS A HIGH BAR TO TRY TO DISCREDIT IF THAT IS YOUR STRATEGY. >>YOU NEVER PUT IT PAST YOU FOR US NOT TO AGREE ON WHAT A STRATEGY SHOULD BE. LET’S JUST BE HONEST ABOUT THAT. I ALWAYS FEEL THAT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MILITARY OFFICERS AND MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE IN THE MILITARY, TO REMIND YOU THAT THEY ARE THERE TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY AND NOT EXERCISE IN IT. WHEN AN ORDER COMES, THERE IS A SENSE THAT THIS IS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT THAT ORDER. FROM A SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT TO HER POINT, IT IS. HE INTERPRETED IT AS YOU DO THIS AND YOU GET THAT. IT WAS VERY MUCH ALONG THE LINES OF WHERE THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO TAKE THAT ARGUMENT. I THOUGHT CONGRESSMAN RADCLIFFE IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NOT A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE CALL THAT THEY CAN AGREE THAT THE CALL SEEMED IMPROPER AND WILL HAVE REPUBLICAN CITY DO. THEY WOULD THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE BUT IT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE OR OVERWHELMING BECAUSE HE IS ADDRESSING THIS CORRUPTION ELEMENT SO AGAIN AS DIFFICULT AS THAT MAY BE, I DO SEE THAT AS A POSITIVE FOR THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A COMPELLING OVERWHELMING KIND OF AGREEMENT OF PREQUEL. >>LINDA, I WANT YOU TO WEIGH IN. WHAT REALLY WAS THE ANGLE FOR DEMOCRATS GOING INTO THIS? WE HAVE A WEEK OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND WHERE IS THIS ALL HEADED FOR THEM? >>I THINK TO THE POINT OF MOLLY , HAVING PEOPLE WHO HAD LISTENED TO THE CALL ITSELF TAKES AWAY A TALKING POINT FROM THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON PROCESS AND TO THINK ADAM SCHIFF SAID THIS VERY WELL AND THAT NONE OF THE REPUBLICANS TODAY OR OTHERWISE HAVE EVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION DO YOU THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT. NO ONE IS DEFENDING HIM ON THOSE FACTS. WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS OF THIS. THE LANGUAGE THAT IS USED. DID THEY SAY BRIBERY? ALSO THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON THIS CALL BECAUSE THEY COLLECT SOME OF THE OTHER FACTS OF THE MATTER WHICH WE HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT AT ALL AT THIS TABLE IS THAT IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THAT CALL. THE FUNDS WERE WITHHELD IN ADVANCE OF THE CALL. THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE FIGURED OUT THAT THERE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER I WAS GOING TO BRING ALL OF THIS TO LIGHT. úTHE CALL ITSELF SECRET SERVER. TO ME ANYTHING TO ANY LOGICAL AMERICAN LISTENING THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THERE WAS SOME SIGNIFICANT WRONGDOING HERE AND IT ONLY WRONGDOING BUT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DELIBERATELY TRIED TO HIDE THE BALL. >>ONE OF THE OTHER MOMENTS FROM TODAY’S HEARING WAS A ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS TO COLONEL VINDMAN ABOUT A POSITION THAT HE WAS OFFERED . COLONEL VINDMAN ADDRESSES BEING OFFERED A JOB TO BE DEFENSE MINISTER FOR UKRAINE . >>YOU WENT TO UKRAINE FOR THE INAUGURATION? >>DIRECT. >>AT ANY POINT WERE YOU OFFERED A DEFENSE MINISTER POSITION? >>HE DID. >>AND HOW MAY TIMES? ú>>PRETE >>YOU HAVE ANY REASON WHY HE ASKED YOU TO DO THAT? >>I DO NOT KNOW. BUT EVERY SINGLE TIME I DISMISSED IT UPON RETURNING I NOTIFIED MY CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND THE APPROPRIATE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE FOLKS ABOUT THE OFFER. >>UKRAINE IS A COUNTRY THAT HAS EXPERIENCED A WAR WITH RUSSIA CERTAINLY THEIR MINISTRY OF DEFENSE IS A KEY POSITION FOR THE UKRAINIANS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE STILL THAT HONOR ON YOU. >>I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT HONOR AND I’M AWARE OF SERVICE MEMBERS WHO HAVE LEFT SERVICE TO HELP NURTURE THE DEVELOPING DEMOCRACY IN THE PART OF THE WORLD. CERTAINLY IN THE BALTICS. IT WAS IN THE FIRST OFFICER BECAME A MINISTRY OF DEFENSE BUT I AM AN AMERICAN I CAME HERE WHEN I WAS A TODDLER, AND I IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED THESE OFFERS AND DID NOT ENTERTAIN THEM. >>I WANT TO TURN TO NANCY CORDES OR CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT. NANCY, IS IT RISKY FOR REPUBLICANS TO PAINT VINDMAN AS A COMBAT VETERAN WHO IS NOT LOYAL TO HIS COUNTRY? >>IT IS AND IT WAS A STUNNING MOMENTS BECAUSE A FEW MOMENTS LATER JIM HINES SAID REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU ARE SOMEHOW LOYAL TO UKRAINE HAVE SYMPATHY IS TO UKRAINE RATHER THAN TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY AND I WANT TO POINT OUT, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THAT YOU’RE SITTING THERE WITH A PURPLE HEART THAT YOU ACQUIRED BECAUSE YOU WERE INJURED IN COMBAT IN FALLUJA IN IRAQ. HE SAID HE WANTED TO THANK VINDMAN FOR HIS SERVICE. THIS IS INTERESTING NOT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS A DRAMATIC MOMENT BUT BECAUSE VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOMETHING OF A CONCERTED EFFORT TO GO AFTER HIM AND HIS PATRIOTISM SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN UKRAINE AND MOVED HERE AS A YOUNG CHILD AND BECAUSE HE HAS HAD THE TEMERITY TO SERVE AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. HE SAID HE KNEW WHEN HE SPOKE OUT THAT HE MIGHT ANGER THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD, PRESIDENT TRUMP. BUT HE SAID THAT HE FELT DUTY- BOUND TO DO IT ADDING INTERESTINGLY THAT HE WAS EXCLUDED FROM CERTAIN MEETINGS AND CERTAIN TRIPS AFTER HE WENT TO LAWYERS AT THE WHITE HOUSE TWICE TO EXPRESS HIS CONCERNS AND THE CLEAR IMPLICATION WAS THAT HE FELT THAT HE WAS CUT OUT OF SOME OF THESE SENSITIVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE COUNTRY THAT HE WORKS ON BECAUSE HE HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING DISTRESSING THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE. >>I WANT TO TURN TO WEIJIA JIANG AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS THE U.S. ARMY IS PREPARED TO MOVE COLONEL VINDMAN AND HIS FAMILY ONTO A MILITARY BASE TO ENSURE THE SECURITY IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE IN PHYSICAL DANGER. IN RECENT WEEKS THEY CONDUCTED A SECURITY ASSESSMENT AT THE REQUEST OF COLONEL VINDMAN REVIEWING HIS AND HIS FAMILY’S PHYSICAL SECURITY AND ALSO THEIR ONLINE SECURITY. OFFICIALS HAVE ALSO BEEN MONITORING COLONEL VINDMAN AND HIS FAMILY AROUND THE CLOCK AS WELL JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT ANY IMMINENT THREAT. A SEPARATE OFFICIAL TELLS CBS NEWS THAT THERE ARE NO KNOWN THREATS TO VINDMAN BY WEIJIA, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT SHIELDED FROM TRYING TO SMEAR VINDMAN. HAVE THEY WAITING ON SOME OF THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THESE TESTIFYING? >>I ASKED THE PRESIDENT ONE TIME ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER SAFETY BECAUSE YOU WILL REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT VERY EARLY ON WAS DEMANDING THAT THIS PERSON’S IDENTITY BE OUTED AND THAT HE TESTIFY IN PUBLIC HEARINGS THE WINDOW FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S ATTORNEY THAT HIS CLIENTS LIFE WAS BEING THREATENED AND THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND HE TRIED TO SIDESTEP THAT WHEN I ASKED HIM WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO SO YOU ARE PUTTING THIS LIFE IN DANGER? HE JUST WENT ON AND ON ABOUT HOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER NEEDS TO COME OUT HERE AND EXPLAIN HIMSELF. THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT SHIED AWAY FROM ATTACKING MANY OF THESE WITNESSES. AT ONE POINT HE EVEN SAID THAT ADAM SCHIFF GOT TOGETHER A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO HATED HIM AND PUT HIM>>AFTER TODAY’S HEARING STARTED, HE WAS A LOT SOFTER. HE WAS ASKED IF VINDMAN IS A CREDIBLE WITNESS AND HE SAID, I DON’T KNOW HIM, BUT POINTED TO THE FACT THAT VINDMAN TESTIFIED TO THE FACT THAT THE CALL IN SUBSTANCE WAS ACCURATE AND HE’D LEAVE IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT TO MAKE THEMSELVES OF ALL THE WITNESSES. SO IT DOES SEEM LIKE HE’S COOLING OFF A LITTLE BIT. I ASKED SOURCES INSIDE IF THAT’S BECAUSE HE WAS ADVISED TO DO THAT, AND THE ANSWER WAS, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ADVISED TO DO A LOT OF THINGS AND HE DOES NOT LISTEN. BUT HE UNDERSTANDS THE OPTICS WOULD NOT BE GOOD. HERE YOU HAVE VINDMAN TESTIFYING IN HIS ARMY DRESS BLUES, VINDMAN, WHO REALLY IS AN IDEAL IMMIGRANT IF YOU ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP. THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO CAME HERE FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY AND DEDICATED HIS ENTIRE LIFE HERE TO MAKING LIFE BETTER FOR OTHER AMERICANS. SO PERHAPS THAT’S WHY WE ARE SEEING HIM BACK OFF. BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER HE’S DOING THAT BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL THREATS TO VINDMAN, WE DO NOT KNOW. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT VINDMAN HIMSELF SEEMED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS PUTTING HIMSELF IN DANGER, IN HARM’S WAY WHEN HE TESTIFIED. IN THAT COMPELLING OPENING STATEMENT HE SAID TO HIS DAD, YOU KNOW, SITTING HERE TODAY, TALKING TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IS PROOF THAT YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION AND COME HERE TO THE USA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY. DO NOT WORRY, I WILL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. REASSURING HIS FATHER THAT EVEN THOUGH HE WAS GOING AGAINST THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD, THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE OKAY. >>WE OFTEN DON’T THINK ABOUT THE SACRIFICES THESE FOLKS THAT COME FORWARD HAVE TO FACE. MOLLY, A LOT WAS SAID AND WHAT DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT? WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT THAT? >>Reporter: THAT WAS AN INTERESTING THREAD TODAY BECAUSE REPUBLICANS WERE ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS PRIMARILY TO JENNIFER WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE’S AIDE, AND ESTABLISHING THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL IN WHICH BIDEN AND BURISMA WERE DISCUSSED. WHEN HE WAS GOING TO HIS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, I BELIEVE IT WAS SEPTEMBER 1st, THAT REALLY HIS MAIN FOCUS WAS DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE OF GETTING AID TO UKRAINE AND FINDING OUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE U.S. WOULD ACTUALLY GET IT THERE, AND HE REALLY WASN’T AWARE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN WITHHOLDING THE AID AND THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DESIRING. THAT I THINK IS DESIGNED AGAIN BY REPUBLICANS TO SORT OF SET SOME DISTANCE BETWEEN WHAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE KNOWS AND WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING, BECAUSE AGAIN, IF SOMEHOW IT HAPPENED THAT ENOUGH REPUBLICANS SWITCHED SIDES, I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PRESIDENT IS REMOVED? THE VICE PRESIDENT STEPS IN. IF THE VICE PRESIDENT IS COMPLICIT IN ALL OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, REGARDING THESE ISSUES ON WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED, THEN YOU’RE WITH NANCY PELOSI. >>NIGHTMARE FOR REPUBLICANS. OVERALL, I THINK THERE’S A LITTLE POLITICAL DRIVE BY RUDY GIULIANI HERE IN THE BEGINNING, WHICH SHOULD NOT GO MISSED. I THINK IF YOU START PULLING THIS THREAD, I THINK THAT’S DEFINITELY SOMETHING. >>TALK ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI AND THE INVOLVEMENT HERE. WHERE DOES HE LAND IN ALL THIS AT THIS POINT? >>Reporter: AT THIS POINT I WOULD DEFER TO THE LEGAL ASPECT. >>Reporter: MAY OR ASPECT. >>MAY OR MAY NOT BE INDICTED. THAT MAY TURN INTO NOTHING. BUT WE CAN’T NEGLECT THE FACT THAT, AS I CONTINUE TO SAY, RUDY GIULIANI IS THE ELEPHANT IN THIS ROOM. >>AND HE MAY BUTT DIAL HIS WAY INTO THE AGAIN. >>I WANT TO TALK TO YOU MORE ABOUT TESTIMONY, RIKKI, PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT COME FORWARD. WHO ARE WE WAITING FOR? >>WAITING FOR SONDLAND, AND TOMORROW IS THE DAY. >>TOMORROW IS THE BIG DAY, YES. >>ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE SUBPOENAED? >>MULVANEY, BOLTON. >>THE WORLD AT LARGE. >>I THINK JOHN BOLTON AND CHARLES KUPPERMAN, BOLTON IS THE LYNCH PIN HERE BECAUSE IF HE WAS TO TESTIFY, I TOLD THE PRESIDENT IT WAS A BAD IDEA AND HE WANTED TO DO IT, I THINK YOU WOULD SEE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS CHANGING THEIR POSITION ON THIS. HE COULD BE THE SMOKING GUN. >>WHAT WOULD MAKE REPUBLICANS CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THIS? >>IF JOHN BOLTON SAID YES, I WENT TO THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY AND SAID, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING, AND THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME THAT HE WAS EXPLICITLY WITHHOLDING AID FROM UKRAINE IN EXCHANGE FOR INVESTIGATIONS LAUNCHED INTO BIDEN. THAT WOULD CHANGE A LOT OF REPUBLICAN MINDS. >>SO I WANT TO REPEAT THIS AGAIN. IF JOHN BOLTON COMES UP AND SAYS, THIS IS A DRUG DEAL — >>AND THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED ME. THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME DIRECTLY THAT WAS HIS INTENTION. >>AND DO YOU BELIEVE REPUBLICANS ARE WORRIED THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE IF BOLTON COMES FORWARD AND TESTIFIES? >>I THINK THEY DON’T WANT HIM UP THERE, I’LL SAY THAT MUCH. RIGHT NOW WHAT’S GOING ON WITH CHARLES KUPPERMAN, BASICALLY HE AND BOLTON ARE ASKING A JUDGE TO SAY, WHAT DO WE DO? WE HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED ON ONE HAND, BUT OUR BOSS THE PRESIDENT SAYS OUR CONVERSATIONS AND DEALS WITH HIM ARE PROTECTED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. SO TELL US WHAT WE DO, ABIDE THE SUBPOENA OR ABIDE BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? THAT’S WHAT WE’RE WAITING FOR IN THE COURTS. I BELIEVE THERE’S A HEARING SET FOR DECEMBER 10th TO HAMMER THAT OUT. KEEP IN MIND, IF THIS ENDS UP GOING THE DISTANCE TO THE SENATE, MAY BE JANUARY AND THERE MAY BE A RULING ON THAT. >>WE SEE KURT VOLKER WALKING IN, NEXT PERSON TO TESTIFY. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR AND WATCHING FOR IN THIS TESTIMONY COMING UP? >>I WANTED TO KIND OF TOUCH ON THE LEGAL ASPECT ON THE BOLTON THING. THAT WOULD BE THE DEMOCRATS’ DREAM, THAT ALL THE PIECES COME TOGETHER IN THAT WAY. REPUBLICANS SAY, HE’S GOING TO GO THERE AND SAY IT WAS A PERFECT CONVERSATION, THIS IS THE WAY THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO EXECUTE THIS, AND HE’S WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. SO I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF CONJECTURE AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE MYSTICAL STATE OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE. >>NO ONE KNOWS. >>NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT JOHN BOLTON KNOWS EXPECT JOHN BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >>AND JOHN BOLTON KEEPS HINTING THAT HE KNOWS SOMETHING EVERYBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO HEAR, AND HE’S WILLING TO TESTIFY IF HE GETS CLEARED BY THE COURTS. >>WE ARE WATCHING AND WAITING. HOUSE NANCY CORDES, CAN YOU REMIND US AGAIN WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR IN KURT VOLKER’S TESTIMONY AND WHY DEMOCRATS WANTED HIM HERE TODAY? >>SURE. KURT VOLKER IS A KEY FIGURE IN ALL OF THIS. HE’S ONE OF THE SO-CALLED THREE AMIGOS, THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO VERY QUICKLY AFTER THE FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS RECALLED THIS SUMMER, KIND OF SWOOPED IN TO FILL THE POWER VACUUM THERE. IT WAS VOLKER AND U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY AND U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION GORDON SONDLAND. ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED AT ONE POINT VOLKER SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, WE’RE IN CHARGE NOW. HE IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST WITNESS IN THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO GET CHALLENGED BY THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE IN HIS CLOSED-DOOR INTERVIEW, HE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NEVER REALLY THAT AWARE OF THIS WHOLE MYSTERIOUS BURISMA-BIDEN CONNECTION. HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND HE SAID WHAT THE PRESIDENT REALLY WANTED WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN. DOES HE STICK WITH HIS PREVIOUS DEPOSITION OR KIND OF HANG GORDON SONDLAND AND RICK PERRY OUT TO DRY, AND TRY TO SET HIMSELF APART FROM THE TWO OF THEM AND SAY THAT HE WAS ALWAYS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS IDEA OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO FROM THE INSIDE WAS TO STEER EVERYBODY IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. >>WEIJIA JIANG AT THE WHITE HOUSE, WE’RE GOING TO BE HEARING FROM VINDMAN’S BOSSES, TIM MORRISON LATER THIS AFTERNOON AND FIONA HILL TOMORROW. IS THERE ANY TESTIMONY THE WHITE HOUSE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS MOMENT? >>THEY ARE CLAIMING THEY ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO TIM MORRISON’S TESTIMONY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN MANY WAYS HE COULD CONTRADICT WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. WE KNOW VINDMAN RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE CALL SUMMARY, THIS SO-CALLED TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WAS COMPLETE, BECAUSE HE TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVED THEY MENTIONED THE WORD BURISMA ON THE CALL, WHICH IS THE COMPANY THAT HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON THE BOARD FOR. HE ALREADY TESTIFIED, I DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING ON THIS CALL WAS ILLEGAL. HE’S MAKING THAT DISTINCTION AND THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS IT’S IMPORTANT. ANOTHER REASON IS BECAUSE HE’S VINDMAN’S SUPERIOR, OR WAS WHEN HE WAS STILL PART OF THE NSC. WE KNOW THEY ARE CALLING IN SECOND AND THIRD-HAND WITNESSES AND THEY BELIEVE MORRISON WOULD HAVE HAD A MORE DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT, AND CERTAINLY TO FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON. SPEAKING OF, THAT’S WHERE FIONA HILL’S TESTIMONY IS REALLY GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE SHE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WAY BOLTON REACTED TO A MEETING, THE WAY HE DESCRIBED IT AS A DRUG DEAL AND SAID HE DIDN’T WANT ANY PART OF IT. WE KNOW FROM BOLTON’S ATTORNEYS, WHO FILED SOMETHING ON HIS BEHALF ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY, THEY SAY BOLTON HAS EVEN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE YET TO SURFACE. SO THEY ARE GOING TO PRESS DR. HILL ABOUT THAT TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHY HIS LAWYERS WOULD HAVE SAID THAT. WHAT OTHER INFORMATION BOLTON COULD HAVE THAT COULD BE BOMBSHELLS. AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, HE COULD BE THE ONE WITNESS TO BE A HUGE GAME-CHANGER IF HE ACTUALLY TESTIFIES. OF COURSE I THINK WE’RE FAR FROM KNOWING WHETHER THAT WILL HAPPEN, SEVERAL WEEKS. BUT WE KNOW WE’RE ZOOMING IN, GETTING CLOSER TO PEOPLE THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE PRESIDENT. SO THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT ONLY TRACKING MORRISON AND HILL BUT OF COURSE, AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AT LENGTH, TOMORROW THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, GORDON SONDLAND COULD TAKE A WRECKING BALL TO TRUMP’S ENTIRE DEFENSE IN ONE FELL SWOOP. >>THANK YOU WEIJIA JIANG, RIKKI KLIEMAN, MOLLY TUTTLE AND NANCY CORDES. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. PLEASE STANDBY. >>FOR CBSN VIEWERS, WE’LL TAKE A SHORT BREAK AND RETURN IN A MOMENT. FOR THE BROADCAST VIEWERS, úTHE LOCAL CBS STATION AND WE’LL CARRY THE SECOND PART OF TODAY’S HEARING WHEN IT BEGINS NEXT HOUR. YOU CAN ALSO DOWNLOAD THE CBS NEWS APP. I’M REENA NINAN IN NEW YORK. IF >>>WE ARE AWAITING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF KURT VOLKER, AND TIM MORRISON. VOLKER IS THE FORMER SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND MORRISON IS THE DEPARTING SENIOR DIRECTOR OF THE RUSSIAN AND UKRAINE AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. THIS COMES AFTER TESTIMONY THIS MORNING FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS. JOINING US NOW, CBSN LEGAL CONSTRICTOR AND FORMER ATTORNEY REBECCA, AND PART OF THIS TESTIMONY FOCUSED ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER. ADAM SCHIFF CAME FORWARD SAYING THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD THE RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. IS THAT TRUE? >>IT IS NOT ENTIRELY FALSE. THE STATUTE, THERE’S SOME AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHICH STATUTE APPLIES. ASSUMING THE STATUTE DOES APPLY, IT SAYS THE WHISTLEBLOWER, WHO THEN GOES TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE FIRST STEP, AND ONCE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MAKES A DETERMINAION THIS IS INDEED CREDIBLE, THAT THIS IS A CREDIBLE REPORT, THEN IT’S REPORTED TO CONGRESS. AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS THE DISCRETION, SHALL NOT REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER UNLESS IN HIS OPINION IT IS SOMEHOW NEEDED. SO IT’S A LIMITED RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. THE QUESTION IS, I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SUPPOSEDLY DID NOT REVEAL THIS INFORMATION, BUT REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO SAY ADAM SCHIFF KNOWS THE NAME OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER. ONCE ADAM SCHIFF KNOWS THE NAME OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, DOES THAT MEAN THE PROTECTION IS GONE? THAT I DON’T KNOW. DOES HE ACTUALLY KNOW THE NAME? THAT I DON’T KNOW. IT’S A LIMITED PROTECTION BECAUSE THE STATUTE IS AIMED AT RETALIATION, WHICH IN THIS SITUATION IS ALMOST BESIDE THE POINT. OF COURSE THIS PERSON I THINK COULD FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES BUT I DON’T THINK RETALIATION IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF HIS OR HER LAWYER’S MINDS RIGHT NOW. >>AT SOME POINT IN THE HOUSE OR IF THIS GOES TO THE SENATE, IF REPUBLICAN SENATORS WERE TO PUSH THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS TO COME FORWARD? >>RIGHT. I THINK WE’D BE BACK HERE. WE ARE LIKE, GO TO A COURT. THEN IT TAKES FOREVER. SO I DON’T KNOW WHETHER WE’D GET AN ANSWER TO THAT. THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A WAR BETWEEN TWO PARTICULAR VIEWS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S OBLIGATION, AND MAYBE HE’D GO TO COURT TO FIGURE THAT OUT. ONE MORE THING ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THERE’S A QUESTION ABOUT RELEVANCE. I THINK THE REPUBLICANS’ VIEW IS, WE THINK THE WHISTLEBLOWER OUGHT TO COME FORWARD BECAUSE THIS IS A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ACTION. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT MATTERS ANYMORE, BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY ON THE CALL QUESTIONED ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATION. YOU CAN ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THOSE PEOPLE AND DECIDE, DO YOU THINK THEY’RE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED? IF SO, I DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY. THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS IRRELEVANT LIKE A 911 CALLER. IF YOU CALL 911 AND POLICE COME AND WITNESS WHAT HAPPENED, AND THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF EYEWITNESSES, THOSE PEOPLE ARE RELEVANT, NOT THE PERSON WHO INITIALLY CALLED IT OUT. AND IF THEY CALLED IT OUT FOR A CORRUPT REASON, WHO CARES. >>AGAIN TODAY BURISMA CAME UP BUT IT WAS OMITTED FROM THE CALL SUMMARY. >>THE FOLKS THAT PRODUCE THESE TRANSCRIPTS DO THE BEST THEY CAN AND JUST DIDN’T CATCH THE WORD, AND THAT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEN MAKE SURE THE TRANSCRIPT WAS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE, AND THAT’S WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO BY PUTTING THAT WORD BACK IN. >>VINDMAN SAID HE OFFERED A REVISION THERE, TO REVISE A SUMMARY TO INCLUDE THE WORD, BUT THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO READ INTO THAT? >>YOU KNOW, WHAT’S INTERESTING IS, AND I THINK THE REPUBLICANS WILL BE FOCUSING ON, IS THAT WHEN THEY REALLY PRESSED VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS AS TO THE NATURE OF MAKING THIS CALL MORE CLASSIFIED, NOT NECESSARILY THE BURISMA ADDITION, BUT REALLY ONE ASPECT OF THE WHOLE CONVERSATION THAT DEMOCRATS WERE FOCUSING ON WAS THE FACT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DECIDED TO PUT THIS ON A, YOU KNOW, SUPER SECRET SERVER TO LIMIT ACCESS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD SEE IT. AND DEMOCRATS ALLEGE THIS IS BECAUSE THERE’S A NEFARIOUS REASON FOR THAT. VINDMAN SAID POINT-BLANK I DON’T THINK THERE WAS A NEFARIOUS REASON BUT THIS WAS A SENSITIVE TRANSCRIPT AND IT NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED. AND IN ADDITION, VINDMAN, LIKE WE WERE SAYING, HE WAS CLARIFYING WHY HE MADE THAT, YOU KNOW, ADDITION TO THE TRANSCRIPT. BUT IT’S HARD TO SAY YOU KNOW, IF THERE’S SOME HORRIBLE REASON WHY IT WASN’T INCLUDED. >>THE INTERESTING THING, AND WE HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT THEY TALKED ABOUT THE SECURITY, AND THIS ARMY. A LITTLE LINE IN THERE WAS LIKE, NOT CYBER, BUT CYBERSECURITY. THE BIGGEST MOST VULNERABLE AREA ANYBODY WILL TELL YOU ABOUT IS CYBERSECURITY AND CYBERTHREATS, TALKING ABOUT THE 2016, THE HACKERS, ATTACKING FARMS EVERY DAY MOVING INTO THIS. THERE’S IDEA THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF THE WORLD THERE’S HYPERSENSITIVITY AND AN URGENCY TO GET ACCESS TO INFORMATION. SO IT’S NOT SO FAR OFF THE PLANE TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO SECURE THIS INFORMATION. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY FAIR POINT. >>LINDA, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LIKE SIX MONTHS AGO AT THIS POINT, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI DID NOT WANT THIS GOING FORWARD. THEN WE HAD THIS REVELATION OF THE UKRANIAN CALL AND IT CHANGED EVERYTHING. WHAT’S THE DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY AT THIS POINT GOING FORWARD? >>I WOULD QUALIFY TO SAY SHE DIDN’T WANT THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD UNLESS THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND ENOUGH OF A FACT PATTERN TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHY DEMOCRATS WOULD BE LEADING SUCH A CHARGE. WHEN THAT PHONE CALL HAPPENED AND WHEN THE INFORMATION CAME OUT, IT BECAME A PRETTY CLEAR STORY TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HERE IS A PRESIDENT WHO’S APPEALED TO A FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIS POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS AND ESSENTIALLY BRIBING OR EXTORTING OR WHATEVER LANGUAGE YOU WANT TO USE TO ACHIEVE HIS PURPOSE. IT WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO DESCRIBE TO AN ORDINARY EVERYDAY PERSON LISTENING AT HOME WHO’S FOCUSED ON PAYING THEIR BILLS, WHY SUCH A PROCESS, SUCH A HISTORIC UNDERTAKING WOULD HAPPEN. NOW I THINK PART OF THE CONCERN IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE THEM, CONTINUE PAST POLITICAL SPECTER RISES AGAIN. IF THE HOUSE VOTED TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP, THEN THINGS GO ON TO THE SENATE. YOU HAVE ALL THESE SENATORS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL RIGHT NOW MAKING THEIR BID FOR THE OVAL OFFICE AND THEY WOULD BE LOCKED INTO SERVING AS JURORS IN THE SENATE PROCESS. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF POLITICAL DYNAMICS WRAPPED UP IN THE POLICY AND SUBSTANCE AS WELL. >>AND MITCH McCONNELL KNOWS THIS, THAT THERE ARE SIX DEMOCRATS, ONE OF WHOM IS DOING VERY WELL IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, WHO WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SIT IN HIS OR HER SEAT SIX DAYS A WEEK. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. MITCH McCONNELL RECENTLY TEASED, SORT OF SERIOUSLY, I THINK THIS WILL TAKE LONGER THAN IT DID WITH BILL CLINTON. IT COULD SPREAD OUT OVER WEEKS, MAYBE EIGHT WEEKS. ALL THAT TIME, THOSE SIX SENATORS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, THEY’RE NOT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. >>AND WHY DOES THAT MATTER? MAYBE THEY CAN’T BE ON TV OR CAN’T GRAND STAND? >>WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE, PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHAKE HANDS WITH PEOPLE. >>I WANT TO SORT OF WEIGH IN. >>THE HOUSE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THE FACTS, APPLY THE LAW, BE GUIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN CONNECTION WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY SANCTIONED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THE SPEAKER HAS MADE CLEAR SHE’S NOT GOING TO PUT A TIMETABLE ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN TERMS OF WHEN IT CONCLUDES, BECAUSE WE ARE SIMPLY GOING TO BE GUIDED BY THE TRUTH. AS IT RELATES TO THE SENATE, WE ARE A LONG WAY AWAY FROM THAT MOMENT, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT EVEN DETERMINED HERE IN THE HOUSE WHETHER ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE GOING TO BE RECOMMENDED BY THE INTEL COMMITTEE TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THAT’S THE NEXT STEP. UNTIL THAT OCCURS, IT’S HARD TO GET ANY SENSE OF WHAT THE TIMELINE IS GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD. >>THAT’S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE POLITICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE SAYING ON ONE HAND, WE HAVE NO IDEA AND WE ARE JUST WAITING FOR THE WITNESSES TO DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION SO WE CAN OBJECTIVELY MADE A DETERMINATION, WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. WE’RE LOOKING AT THE POLITICAL CALENDAR AND HOW IT LINES UP WITH IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. AND THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES LIKE POCKETBOOK ISSUES, HEALTH CARE AND SUCH. SO THAT’S THE FALSEHOOD OF THIS. THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING, THAT IT’S ALL A MANIPULATED POLITICAL CIRCUS THAT’S — YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF A CALL THAT LOOKS FINE. WAS IT IMPROPER — AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING — SHOULD IT HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY? NO, I THINK A LOT OF REPUBLICANS AGREE. BUT IS IT IMPEACHABLE? NO, AND IT’S A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY AND SUCH AN EXPENSE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS TO GO UP THERE FOR ATTORNEYS THAT ARE $1,500 AN HOUR, TO SIT WITH THEM AND PUT DEFENSES TOGETHER WHEN THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB. IT’S NOT A CLEAR CASE, AND I THINK THAT’S THE CHALLENGE. >>AND VINDMAN DID BRING HIS BROTHER. >>I THOUGHT HIS ATTORNEY — I THINK HE HIRED AN ATTORNEY. I THINK HIS BROTHER WAS THERE, AND DEFINITELY PAYING FOR THAT ATTORNEY TO ASK FOR THOSE PAGE NUMBERS. >>STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE CIRCULATED THEIR UNION HAS COME TOGETHER TO RAISE FUNDS FOR THE INDIVIDUALS THAT TESTIFIED LAST WEEK. IT’S A COSTLY EXERCISE. IT’S A DIFFICULT ONE. AND I ALWAYS FEEL FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THEIR JOB AND CHOOSE PUBLIC SERVICE, THEN PULLED THROUGH A POLITICAL PROCESS, BECAUSE IT’S NOT FAIR. >>THEY’RE NOT DOING IT FOR THE MONEY. >>NOT AT ALL. >>IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH THIS, IT’S NOT A DONE DEAL THIS GOES TO THE SENATE. WHEN IS THIS EXPECTED TO WRAP UP AND WHERE DOES IT GO FROM THERE? >>IDEALLY, IN A PERFECT WORLD, BARRING REVELATIONS OF ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN POTENTIAL WITNESSES, THIS COULD BE THE LAST WEEK OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. NEXT WEEK WHEN CONGRESS GOES HOME, MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE CAN ACTUALLY COME UP WITH THEIR REPORT ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. >>> I HAVE A FEELING THEY COULD DISCUSS CENSURE, LIKE SAYING YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG, NOT IMPEACHABLE BUT YOU’RE ON WARNING, YOU CAN’T DO THIS AGAIN. >>IN DEGREES OF SEVERITY? >>EXACTLY, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE. BUT THE SENATE IS NOT GOING TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE, BARRING JOHN BOLTON, LET’S SAY. ONCE THE REPORT GOES TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TAKES IT AND THEY HAVE THEIR PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR WITNESSES, AND THE PRESIDENT GETS TO HAVE HIS ATTORNEY THERE AND ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES. THEN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL VOTE ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THEY MAY SEND SOME TO THE HOUSE FLOOR AND MAY NOT BUT THE HOUSE WOULD VOTE ON THOSE INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AND WHATEVER IS APPROVED BY THE HOUSE GOES OVER TO THE SENATE. >>THAT’S ONE MOMENT, I WANT THIS TO BE SAID, THEY ARE FACT WITNESSES. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED. THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A CRIME HAPPENED, THAT DECISION BELONGS TO CONGRESS. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING ANY FACT WITNESS SHOULD TESTIFY ABOUT. EVEN IF THEY WERE LAWYERS, IT’S NOT THE JOB OF A FACT WITNESS TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. AND THIS IS A REPUBLICAN STRATEGY THAT I THINK IS PRETTY EFFECTIVE, WHICH IS TO SAY, THEY LOOK AT YOVANOVITCH AND SAY, SHE WASN’T EVEN THERE. WHAT IS HER RELEVANCE? SHE WASN’T THERE AND DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. EACH WITNESS TESTIFIES TO A LITTLE PIECE, THEN ALTOGETHER, CONGRESS PUTS IT TOGETHER AND DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THIS AMOUNTS TO A CRIME. SO NO ONE PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO TESTIFY TO EVERYTHING. NO ONE PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO SAY BRIBERY. THEY ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO PUT TOGETHER THESE LITTLE PIECES OF A PUZZLE THAT EITHER DO OR DO NOT AMOUNT TO AN OFFENSE THAT WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE. >>ABSOLUTELY, AND FROM A POLITICAL CONTEXT, I THINK THAT’S THE PART THAT GIVES US PAUSE, WHETHER YOU’RE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. IT’S SO HIGHLY POLITICIZED, THAT EVERYBODY LOOKS AT THIS WITH SUSPICION. REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO SAY, THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND. SO EVEN IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE, THERE’S NOT GOING TO BE — UNLESS YOU HAD A BOLTON OR A FIGURE LIKE THAT MOVE FORWARD THAT’S SO COMPELLING THAT MAKES EVERYBODY STOP IN THEIR TRACKS AND SAY, NOW I NEED TO PAY ATTENTION, EVEN THOUGH WEEKS MAY BE GOING BY, BECAUSE THIS IS A POLITICAL REPORT. >>WE SEE TIM MORRISON HERE, ALSO EXPECTED TO TESTIFY. WE SAW KURT VOLKER A FEW MOMENTS AGO ARRIVIN READY TO TESTIFY ON CAPITOL HILL AS WELL. AS WE LOOK AT THIS, AT ONE POINT DURING THE TESTIMONY FROM EARLIER TODAY, COLONEL VINDMAN TALKED ABOUT BEING ICED OUT AFTER THE MEETINGS HE HAD AND REPORTED HIS CONCERNS. I’LL PLAY IT FOR YOU. >>IN BOTH YOUR SITUATIONS, SINCE YOU HAVE GIVEN DEPOSITIONS, SINCE THOSE DEPOSITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC, HAVE YOU SEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE JOBS CHANGE OR HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY? >>I HAVE NOT, NO. >>SINCE THE REPORT ON THE JULY 25th, AS I STATED, I DID NOTICE I WAS BEING EXCLUDED FROM SEVERAL MEETINGS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR MY POSITION. >>SO IN SOME RESPECTS THEN, THERE HAVE BEEN REPRISALS? >>I’M NOT SURE I CAN MAKE THAT JUDGMENT. I WOULD SAY IT’S OUT OF THE COURSE OF NORMAL AFFAIRS TO NOT HAVE ME PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THESE EVENTS. >>SO REBECCA, WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU? >>IT SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT LIKE RETALIATION. AGAIN, HE’S NOT THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THESE ARE NOT PROTECTIONS OFFICIALLY AFFORDED TO HIM, BUT I THINK THAT’S DISTURBING. THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE STATUTE, WHEN SOMEBODY WITNESSES CERTAIN FACTS AND ARE ASKED TO COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS, THEY SHOULD DO IT TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY AND TRUTHFULLY. THERE’S A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OUT THERE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE RETALIATED AGAINST FOR DOING THAT, AND SENDS A BAD MESSAGE TO OTHERS WHO MAY WANT TO TESTIFY IN THE FUTURE OR THINK IT’S THEIR OBLIGATION TO TESTIFY IN THE FUTURE. >>THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, IF YOU CAN STANDBY. WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. WHEN WE COME BACK, WHAT COLONEL VINDMAN SAYS HAPPENED TO HIM AFTER HIS TESTIMONY. YOU’RE STREAMING CBSN. >>>WE ARE AWAITING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON, AND THEY HAVE JUST ENTERED THE ROOM. VOLKER IS FORMER SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND OF COURSE THIS TESTIMONY COMES AFTER THIS MORNING’S TESTIMONY FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND ALSO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. WHILE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARINGS UNFOLDED, PRESIDENT TRUMP SLAMMED REPORTS THAT HE HAD A HEALTH SCARE OVER THE WEEKEND THAT PROMPTED A VISIT TO WALTER REED MEDICAL CENTER. >>ONE OTHER THING, I THOUGHT I’D BRING IT UP WHILE WE’RE HERE, I WENT FOR A PHYSICAL ON SATURDAY. MY WIFE SAID, DARLING, THAT’S WONDERFUL, BECAUSE I HAD SOME EXTRA TIME, BECAUSE LOOKS LIKE JANUARY COULD BE A BUSY MONTH IF SHE’S ABLE TO GET THE VOTE, WHICH SHE SHOULD BE ABLE TO. WOMAN IS HIGHLY OVERRATED, HIGHLY INCOMPETENT, SO MAYBE SHE’LL GET IT BY USING YOUR ASSOCIATE. BUT I WENT FOR A PHYSICAL AND CAME BACK. MY WIFE SAID DARLING, WHAT’S OKAY? THEY’RE REPORTING YOU MAY HAVE HAD A HEART ATTACK. WHY DID I HAVE A HEART ATTACK? BECAUSE YOU WENT TO WALTER REED MEDICAL CENTER. I SAID, I WAS ONLY THERE FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WENT, DID A ROUTINE — JUST A PIECE OF IT. THE REST OF IT TAKE PLACE IN JANUARY, DID A ROUTINE PHYSICAL, VISITED THE FAMILY AND A COUPLE OF GROUPS, BUT THE FAMILY OF A YOUNG SOLDIER WHO WAS BADLY INJURED IN THE OPERATING ROOM. I TOURED THE HOSPITAL FOR A LITTLE WHILE, OUT OF THERE QUICKLY AND GET BACK HOME AND GET GREETED WITH THE NEWS, WE UNDERSTAND YOU HAD A HEART ATTACK. I WAS CALLED BY THE PEOPLE IN PUBLIC RELATIONS, SIR, ARE YOU OKAY? ARE YOU OKAY FROM WHAT? CNN SAID YOU MAY HAVE HAD A HEART ATTACK AND HAD MASSIVE CHEST PAINS AND WENT TO THE HOSPITAL. THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK. THEY’RE SICK. AND THE PRESS REALLY IN THIS COUNTRY IS DANGEROUS. WE DON’T HAVE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE THE OPPOSITE. WE HAVE A VERY CORRUPT MEDIA, AND I HOPE THEY CAN GET THEIR ACT STRAIGHTENED OUT, BECAUSE IT’S VERY, VERY BAD AND VERY, VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. >>THE PRESIDENT’S BEEN VERY ACTIVE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AS WELL. LET’S BRING IN CBS CONTRIBUTOR LESLIE SANCHEZ AND LINDA TRAN. >>IMPEACHMENT IS GOING ON, RIGHT? BUT SO IS CONGRESS. THE HOUSE ACTUALLY HAS TO TAKE VOTES ON THE FLOOR. WHEN THEY TAKE VOTES ON THE FLOOR, IT’S NOT JUST A 15- MINUTE VOTE OR 5-MINUTE VOTE. THESE THINGS CAN LAST FOR HOURS. THEY DON’T USUALLY LAST FOR HOURS. >>WHAT ARE THEY VOTING ON? >>IN ABOUT TEN MINUTES, THEY ARE VOTING ON THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH DECEMBER 20th, AND THIS IS A BIG DEAL. >>NOT INSIGNIFICANT. >>NOT INSIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE WE DON’T NEED A SHUTDOWN. WE COULD HAVE IT COME DECEMBER 20th, BUT THAT’S A DIFFERENT MATTER. THE HOUSE IS VOTING TO EXTEND THE CURRENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 3.1% FOR THE MILITARY. >>I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE IMPEACHMENT TODAY. IS THERE A SENSE THIS WILL GO THROUGH? >>YES, THEY DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN RIGHT NOW. IT’S THE LAST THING CONGRESS WANTS TO DEAL WITH, BOTH PARTIES. IT ALWAYS BECOMES A WRINKLE WITH THE SENATE BUT THIS SHOULD GO THROUGH. >>WE’LL EXPECT TOMORROW U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION GORDON SONDLAND TOMORROW. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR WITH HIS TESTIMONY? >>HE’S ALREADY CORRECTED HIS TESTIMONY ONCE IN RESPONSE TO THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO CAME, AND NOW THERE’S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT BILL TAYLOR GAVE ABOUT THE NEW CALL THAT DAVID HOLMES OVERHEARD IN THE RESTAURANT WITH THE PRESIDENT, HOLDING HIS CELL PHONE OUT. SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS SONDLAND GOING TO SAY WITH REGARD TO THAT CALL? DID HE REMEMBER IT, NOT REMEMBER IT, WILL HE PLEAD THE FIFTH? THAT’S A LEGAL QUESTION THAT’S INTERESTING. HAS HE WAIVED THE PRIVILEGE BY ALREADY COMING TO SPEAK OR NOT? IT WOULD BE INVOKING HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE IN REGARD TO PERJURY. >>IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN REMEMBERING SOMETHING YOU CHANGE IN YOUR TESTIMONY? >>NO, YOU CAN DO IT. BUT THERE’S A POINT AT WHICH CONGRESS ISN’T GOING TO BELIEVE YOU ANYMORE. >>CREDIBILITY, YES. >>YOU HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF GIMMES, THEN IT’S LIKE, YOU’RE LYING. SO THAT’S A QUESTION, AT WHAT POINT DOES CONGRESS SAY, YOU’RE SICK OF THIS? YOU CAN’T GIVE US TESTIMONY IN DRIPS AND DROPS. THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS. >>THAT’S THE POINT DEMOCRATS WILL SAY, AND DID WE BELIEVE YOU THEN AND DO WE BELIEVE YOU NOW, AND THIS SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATION YOU HAD ON A CELL PHONE IN A RESTAURANT IN UKRAINE, IN WHICH BASICALLY YOU WERE HEARD TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO CONDUCT, AND YOU SAID PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT, BECAUSE HE JUST WANTS YOU TO LIKE HIM ESSENTIALLY. >>CAN WE PAUSE FOR A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THE SECURITY LEVEL, TALKING ON A CELL PHONE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN UKRAINE? >>AT A RESTAURANT, A PUBLIC RESTAURANT. >>WITH THE PHONE HELD APART FROM — THAT WAS PART OF THE TESTIMONY, THAT APPARENTLY SONDLAND FOUND HIS VOICE VERY LOUD AND WAS HOLDING IT AWAY FROM HIS EAR, WHICH ADDS TO THE COMPROMISED SECURITY. >>SONDLAND’S GOT TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE DAVID HOLMES DEPOSED THE AIDE SITTING THERE AT THE TABLE, THEN FOLLOWED UP BY ASKING ABOUT IT. DAVID HOLMES IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING IN PUBLIC THURSDAY AFTERNOON. SO HE HAS TO REALLY MIND HIS Ps AND Qs. AND LOOK AT SOMEBODY LIKE ROGER STONE, MICHAEL COHEN, BOTH CONVICTED OF LYING TO CONGRESS. THOSE WERE CHARGES FILED AGAINST HEM AND THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY OF DOING THAT. YOU HAVE A FEELING GORDON SONDLAND IS ACUTELY AWARE OF THAT. >>AS WE TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY AT THIS POINT, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM DEMOCRATS ON CAPITOL HILL? WHAT ARE THEY MOST CONCERNED ABOUT GOING INTO ELECTION SEASON? >>I THINK IT DEPENDS WHO YOU TALK TO ANY GIVEN DAY. THE VAST MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS ON CAPITOL HILL ARE FOCUSED ON THE FACTS, MAKING SURE THEY GET INTO THE PUBLIC SO IT’S CLEAR WHY THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS PROCEEDING AS IT HAS BEEN. I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT. IF YOU ASK A SECOND ROUND, WHAT ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT, I THINK A WHOLE BUNCH OF DEMOCRATS ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE BACKLASH, IN PARTICULAR IN SOME OF THE MORE PURPLE STATES AS WE LOOK TO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL, AND AS YOU GET FURTHER ON DOWN. DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE GAINS OVER THE LAST COUPLE ELECTIONS, SOME MAY SAY IN PART BECAUSE OF DISLIKE FOR DONALD TRUMP, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THOSE DEMOCRATS IN THOSE DISTRICTS REALLY WALK THE LINE. IF YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE THERE’S AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE, IT’S DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF THESE PEOPLE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO HOLD ONTO THEIR SEATS. REPRESENTATIVES IN STATES LIKE TEXAS, WHO HELPED BUILD THE MAJORITY, BUT UNEXPECTEDLY SO. THERE’S CONCERN ABOUT NUMBER ONE, DOING WHAT’S RIGHT AND MAINTAINING DEMOCRACY, BUT ALSO MAINTAINING MAJORITY AND THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. >>WE HAD THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN WHO’S STUDIED IMPEACHMENT EXTENSIVELY, AND I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR HER SAY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT NIXON, ONE THING THAT REALLY CHANGED HIS MIND FOR RESIGNING WAS THE TAPES, THERE’S EVIDENCE. SECOND WAS THE FACT THAT REPUBLICAN SUPPORT, PARTICULARLY IN THE SENATE, HAD FADED AWAY, AND IN PARTICULAR TO YOUR POINT, THERE WERE REPUBLICANS WORRIED ABOUT BEING PRIMARIED. ONCE THEY WERE PAST THE PRIMARY, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A GENERAL ELECTION AND HE REALIZED HE DIDN’T HAVE THAT SUPPORT. A REMINDER FOR FOLKS WHO WEREN’T AROUND AT THAT TIME. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AT THIS POINT, THE PRESIDENT HAS WIDE RANGING SUPPORT FROM REPUBLICANS. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR THAT NOT TO LAST ANYMORE? >>IT WOULD TAKE A COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS, ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE, FROM A BOLTON, A GIULIANI GO IN THERE, NUMEROUS KIND OF PARADE OF INDIVIDUALS INTIMATELY CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT AND SAID HE DID EXACTLY THAT. BARRING THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE A PARTISAN PROCESS. THE THING WITH THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY WERE DONE BY THIRD-PARTY, WHETHER IT WAS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR A SPECIAL COUNSEL, NOT A HYPERPOLITICIZED DEMOCRATIC HOUSE COMMITTEE. AND THAT GAVE IT MORE CREDIBILITY, AT LEAST WHEN IT GOT OVER TO THE SENATE. AND THEY SAW — FOR THE POLITICAL PURPOSES, THEY SAW THAT THEY COULD NOT WEATHER BEING REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE MOVING THROUGH THE ELECTION CYCLE WITH HIS NEGATIVES INCREASING BECAUSE OF THOSE TAPES. >>HAS ANYBODY HERE HEARD, IS THERE A NUMBER — DO REPUBLICANS HAVE A NUMBER WHERE IF FAVORABILITY HITS 60%, WE’RE DONE? >>I WANT TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IT’S BEEN EXTREMELY FLAT. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN A HIGH LEVEL. >>IS THERE A POINT WHERE, WHEN THEY SEE PUBLIC SUPPORT WANING, THEY START TO BACK AWAY? >>YOU HAVE TO WONDER IF REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING A SECOND LOOK JUST BASED ON THE RECENT ELECTION RESULTS IN DEEPLY RED STATES. DONALD TRUMP THREW THE FULL FORCE OF HIS PERSONALITY, HELD MASSIVE RALLIES TRYING TO GET HIS TEAM OVER THE FINISH LINE AND IN DEEP RED STATES THEY LOST. SO IF I’M A REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, I HAVE TO BE THINKING, HOW MUCH OF A RISK IS IT TO STANDBY MY MAN NO MATTER WHAT WHEN I’M ON THE BALLOT? >>THE BIG DIFFERENCE THEY SEE, TRUMP IS NOT ON THE TICKET. HE CAN RALLY AND SUPPORT BUT THERE’S A PHENOMENON THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED, AND IT’S GALVANIZING PEOPLE THAT DON’T PARTICIPATE IN SURVEYS TRADITIONALLY. SO REALLY CALIBRATING THAT IS MORE OF AN ART THAN A SCIENCE. IN THAT SENSE, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF THE TREMENDOUS POWER. AND YOU HAVE HEARD REPUBLICANS SAY TODAY, IF YOU’RE GOING TO ERASE THE POWER OF BEING ELECTED BY 63 MILLION PEOPLE, YOU BETTER COME WITH SUCH A CLEAR AND COMPELLING CASE. >>AND WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT AS WELL, THOUGH. WHILE HE MAY BE GALVANIZING ON THE RIGHT. HE’S WHIPPING UP DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT IN WAYS WE HAVEN’T SEEN IN MANY CYCLES. WHEN HE IS ON THE BALLOT, BELIEVE THAT IS TEN TIMES, 20 TIMES. >>IT’S WHEN THOSE LAWMAKERS HEAR DIRECTLY FROM INFLUENTIAL REPUBLICANS IN THEIR DISTRICTS THAT THEY ARE HEARING FROM CONSTITUENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NO LONGER IN FAVOR, THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS OF EVER SO EGREGIOUS THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT HIM. UNTIL THEY HEAR FROM CONSTITUENTS IN SUCH A MASSIVE FLUX OF CALLS, AND NOT CALLS FROM ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DO THAT. WHEN THEY HEAR FROM TRUSTED SOURCES IN THEIR DISTRICTS, I THINK WE COULD SEE SOME CHANGE. BUT UNTIL THEN, NO. >>I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE POLITICAL RESPECTIVE, REBECCA. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AS DEMOCRATS ARE BUILDING THAT CASE LOOKING INTO THIS INQUIRY? OVER THE COMING DAYS, THE WITNESSES WE’LL ALSO BE HEARING FROM, AND THE ONES WE ALREADY HAVE, WHO DO YOU FEEL HAS MADE THE STRONGEST CASE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY, POTENTIAL CRIMES THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE COMMITTED? >>I THINK BILL TAYLOR MADE THE STRONGEST CASE SO FAR. I THINK YOVANOVITCH DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF SETTING UP A MOTIVE, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT HAPPENED IN HER TESTIMONY WAS THAT, EVEN THOUGH SHE WASN’T THERE FOR THIS PART, WHY WOULD HE HAVE PUSHED HER OUT? THAT REMAINS DANGLING, THAT QUESTION. THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT, IS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO PUT HIS PEOPLE IN WITH A DIFFERENTLY AND DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED AGENDA. THAT GIVES YOU THE CORRUPT MOTIVE YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH THIS HAPPENED. I THINK THE TWO OF THEM SO FAR HAVE ESTABLISHED A PRETTY GOOD CASE. >>REPUBLICANS TODAY BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY, WHICH DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN USING IN RECENT DAYS. WE DON’T HAVE THAT. OKAY, WE DON’T HAVE IT. AT THIS POINT, COUNTERING THE DEMOCRATIC NARRATIVE, HOW DO YOU FEEL REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THAT? >>I DON’T THINK WE’RE GOING TO KNOW THAT FOR A WHILE. THIS IS A LONG MARATHON IN TERMS OF THAT. >>I’M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU AND PLAY THAT BYTE WE WERE REFERENCING TO GET YOUR TAKE ON THAT. >>MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HAVE NEVER USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT, CORRECT? >>NO, SIR. >>COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN’T EITHER? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>BRIBERY, LESLIE. >>I WANT TO TOUCH ON WHETHER OR NOT THE AMBASSADOR WAS MOVED OUT. I THINK THE PART YOU HAVE TO ADD TO THAT IS THAT THEY WANT TO EXECUTE A PLAN THAT WAS PERHAPS ILLEGAL. IT’S THE PRESIDENT’S PREROGATIVE, THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. IT’S NOT UNUSUAL FOR CLEAR POLITICIANS TO BE REPLACED, IT’S NOT SOMETHING THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS MAY ENJOY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH THESE PEOPLE ON THE POLITICAL STAGE. BUT IT’S WITHIN REASON HE CAN DO THAT. >>YES, BUT WHAT SHE SAID SO POWERFULLY, WHY DID HE HAVE TO SMEAR HER? YOU CAN TAKE ANYBODY OUT FOR ANY REASON. WHAT’S THE POINT OF SMEARING HER? >>SMEARING HER WITH THE CALL FOR ZELENSKY? >>WHY DID HE HAVE TO UNDERMINE HER AS A PUBLIC SERVANT? AND SHE CAME ACROSS SO WELL, THAT I WAS LEFT THINKING RIGHT, WHY? JUST FIRE HER AND PUT IN YOUR PERSON IF IT’S A LEGITIMATE CHANGE IN WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED. IF YOU’RE OUT THERE HAVING A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOUR OWN AMBASSADOR, THERE MUST BE SOME MOTIVE FOR THAT. THAT WAS LEFT UNANSWERED TO ME. >>I WOULD LOVE TO SAY THERE’S A MOTIVE FOR THAT AND DONALD TRUMP, BUT THE ONLY PATTERN RECOGNITION YOU SEE HER IS HE SMEARS WHOEVER IS IN HIS WAY. >>WHY WAS SHE IN HIS WAY? >>IN WHAT WAY WAS SHE IN HIS WAY? >>LET’S BRING IN CBS NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT ED O’KEEFE FROM THE HILL NOW. CAN YOU RUN US THROUGH WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF VOLKER AND MORRISON? REFRESH OUR MEMORIES TO WHAT TO WATCH FOR. >>Reporter: KURT VOLKER IS FORMER SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE, LONG-TIME DIPLOMAT, WHO OF COURSE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST — ACTUALLY WAS THE FIRST WITNESS TO TESTIFY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AFTER ALL THAT, RESIGNED A POSITION WITH THE McCAIN INSTITUTE HERE IN WASHINGTON TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE. TIM MORRISON IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. IT’S TO HIM THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN REPORTED WHEN THEY WORKED TOGETHER THERE, AND YOU HEARD THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL SPEAK EARLIER ABOUT HOW THEY WERE STILL DEVELOPING A WORKING RELATIONSHIP. VINDMAN IN HIS TESTIMONY RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL’S WORK. REPUBLICANS SEE HIM AS A POTENTIALLY STRONG WITNESS ON THEIR BEHALF TO NOT ONLY DISCREDIT OR RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT VINDMAN SAID, BUT ALSO TO PLAY UP THIS THEORY THE REPUBLICANS HAVE AND THE ARGUMENT THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING THAT WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT DID, NO MATTER WHAT DEMOCRATS THINK ABOUT IT, IT ISN’T NECESSARILY IMPEACHABLE. SO THAT’S THE AFTERNOON SESSION. WHEN IT BEGINS DEPENDS ON A FEW THINGS. TODAY THE HOUSE AT LEAST IS PASSING A ONE-MONTH EXTENSION OF ITS SPENDING LEVELS, AGREEING TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON FOR ONE MORE MONTH ACROSS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE TOMORROW IS THE DEADLINE AND THE SENATE WILL TAKE THAT UP LATERREN OF. THIS WILL RUN THROUGH DECEMBER 20th. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20th IS ESSENTIALLY THE LAST DAY BEFORE CHRISTMAS CONGRESS COULD, YOU KNOW, UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, AT LEAST, BE IN SESSION. YOU FACE NOW A CRUNCH BETWEEN THE HEARINGS THAT ARE CONTINUING THIS WEEK, THAT WILL HAVE TO BREAK NEXT WEEK FOR THANKSGIVING AND THEN RESUME THE WEEK AFTER, EITHER IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR PERHAPS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS THEY BEGIN THINKING ABOUT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THEN YOU HAVE TO FIND TIME, ONCE THE JUDICIAR COMMITTEE DOES THAT, TO HAVE THE ENTIRE HOUSE DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, THEN KICK IT OVER BEFORE CHRISTMAS TO THE SENATE SO THEY CAN PICK IT UP. MEANTIME, THEY HAVE TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON AND THERE’S A DEBATE GOING ON BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE BILL. THINGS LIKE, IS THERE MONEY FOR THE BORDER WALL THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS, FULL FUNDING FOR THE 2020 CENSUS THAT HAS TO BE CONDUCTED NEXT YEAR? THAT WILL HAPPEN THIS AFTERNOON AS WELL. THAT LAYERED ON IMPEACHMENT SPEAKS AGAIN TO THE TRICKY NATURE OF THINGS UP HERE. IT’S PART OF WHY WE’RE SEEING THE DELAY THIS AFTERNOON AS THEY TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHEN THAT VOTE WILL BE SO THEY CAN RESUME THE HEARING. >>THANK YOU, ED O’KEEFE FOR THAT UPDATE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, AS ED PUT IT. WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME ON CAPITOL HILL. THE CONCERN THIS WEEK AS THE TESTIMONIES UNFOLD, IS THERE MORE OF THE VOTING AND CONDUCTING REGULAR BUSINESS? AS AMERICANS LOOK AT, WHAT HAS MY CONGRESSMAN DONE, IT’S WALL TO WALL IMPEACHMENT. AT SOME POINT ARE THEY CONCERNED THAT HEALTH CARE, THE ISSUES THAT ARE INCOME AND EQUALITY, THINGS THAT AFFECT THEIR POCKETBOOKS AND HOMES, ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED WHEN YOU COME TO THE BALLOT BOX NEXT YEAR? >>SURE. YOU TALK TO DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS AND THAT’S ONE OF THE CONCERNS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT A GUN CONTROL MEASURE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WORKING WITH MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE ON, IN WHICH SHE BROUGHT UP THIS TRANSCRIPT AND HE CALLED IT A PERFECT CALL, AND SHE SAID NO, THAT CALL WAS NOT PERFECT, MR. PRESIDENT. THEN THE NEXT DAY OR LATER THAT DAY, WENT ONTO ESSENTIALLY SAY, WE ARE LAUNCHING A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AND WE HAVEN’T HEARD ABOUT GUN CONTROL SINCE. THEY HAVE THE USMCA — >>AND WE HAVE HAD SHOOTINGS. >>WE HAVE HAD SHOOTINGS. BUT IN TERMS OF LEGISLATION THAT COULD PASS BOTH CHAMBERS, THAT’S BEEN STOPPED UP. WE STILL HAVE THE TRADE AGREEMENT TO PASS, THE USMCA, U.S.-MEXICO-CANADA AGREEMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY WOULD REPLACE NAFTA. THAT NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD. NANCY PELOSI SEEMS TO THINK THERE’S NO END IN SIGHT. WHEN IT COMES TO PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AN ISSUE THE SENATE AND HOUSE HAVE BEEN KIND OF WORKING TOGETHER ON, NOT SURE WHEN THAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT’S A RISK DEMOCRATS TAKE AND THAT’S WHY NANCY PELOSI WANTED TO PUT IMPEACHMENT OFF FOR SO LONG, BECAUSE ONCE THIS STARTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT PRESIDENT CLINTON. PRESIDENT CLINTON MADE A POINT OF TRYING TO DO HIS NORMAL JOB AND JUST NOT FOCUS ON IMPEACHMENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS LIKE TUNED IN. HE’S BEEN WATCHING THESE REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, TWEETING AND RETWEETING ABOUT IT. AND DEMOCRATS DON’T THINK THAT HE CAN GET OVER IT AND ACTUALLY MOVE WITH THE CONGRESS TO GET LEGISLATION PASSED. >>DAYS AFTER MONICA LEWINSKY, PRESIDENT CLINTON MADE A PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND SPOKE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US VERY MUCH. WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH MORE AND WE ARE STANDING BY FOR THE LIVE TESTIMONY ON CAPITOL HILL. STAY WITH US. >>>WHEREVER WE HAVE TO GO, WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO, EVERY EVENING WE ARE FOCUSED ON FINDING AND TELLING THE TRUTH AND EARNING YOUR TRUST. THE CBS EVENING NEWS. WHAT REALLY MATTERS IN JOURNALISM. THE TRUTH MATTERS. FACTS MATTER. GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE STORY MATTERS. IT IS WHAT WE DO AT CBS NEWS, AND IT IS OUR PROMISE TO YOU. THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH NORAH O’DONNELL. >>I AM REENA NINAN. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WE ARE WAITING FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM TIMBER WITNESSES INTO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON WILL SOON APPEAR AND VOLKER WAS INVOLVED IN TRYING TO PRESSURE THE COUNTRY INTO INVESTIGATING THE POLITICAL RIVALS OF THE PRESIDENT AND MORRISON IS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS AND HE TOLD LAWMAKERS IN PREVIOUS TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THE DETAILS OF THE PRESENCE JULY CALL WOULD BECOME PUBLIC BUT DIDN’T THINK ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS DISCUSSED. WE ALREADY HEARD FROM TWO OTHER WITNESSES EARLIER TODAY. GALLETTI SEE JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND ON THE RIGHT IT IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN WHO WERE BOTH PRESENT ON THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH UKRAINIAN LEADER. VINDMAN IS AN EXPERT ON UKRAINE, AND HIS FAMILY FLED THE SOVIET UNION 40 YEARS AGO. DURING HIS TESTIMONY COME HE SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL BECAUSE HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS PROPER. >>IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT. I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION, IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS, IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN UKRAINE LOSING SUPPORT, UNDERMINING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ADVANCING THE OBJECTIVES IN THE REGION. >>WILLIAMS IS AN ADVISOR ON EUROPE AND RUSSIA TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. SHE SAID SHE FOUND THE CALL INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. >>JULY 25 ALONG WITH SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES I LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE CONTENT OF WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED. PRIOR TO JULY 25 I PARTICIPATED IN A DOZEN OTHER PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS. DURING MY CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON WHETHER I HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL IT AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND THE PHONE CALL UNUSUAL BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I OBSERVED INVOLVED DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER. AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL, I PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE BRIEFING BOOK INDICATING PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A CALL THAT DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELINSKI AS A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BOOK. I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT REVIEWED MY UPDATE OR THE TRANSCRIPT. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED HIS ATTACK ON THE IMPINGEMENT. WORRY TODAY PRAISING THE PERFORMANCE OF REPUBLICANS AND SAYS IS NOT EVEN KNOW THE OFFICIALS TESTIFYING. >>I JUST GOT TO WATCH. THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING SO WELL. IT IS A SCAM. IT IS A BIG SCAM. VINDMAN I WATCHED HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING . I AM GOING TO LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION, BUT I DO NOT KNOW VINDMAN. I NEVER HEARD OF HIM . I DO NOT KNOW ANY OF THESE PEOPLE. >>THIS ALL COMES SURROUNDING THE CALL AT THE CENTER OF THE INVESTIGATION. DAVID HOLMES SAYS THAT HE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ASK EU AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ONE DAY AFTER HIS CALL WITH UKRAINIAN LEADER AND SONDLAND TESTIFIES TOMORROW. CBS NEWS INTELLIGENCE REPORTER OLIVIA JOINS US NOW TO SET THE STAGE. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF MORRISON AND VOLKER? >>Reporter: SURE. THEY ARE BOTH WAITING DOWNSTAIRS AND A LOT OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS PRETTY EFFECTIVELY TEED UP IN THE HEARING THIS AFTERNOON AS IT INVOLVES TIM MORRISON THE FORMER SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL WHO WAS ALEXANDER VINDMAN’S DIRECT SUPERIOR. REPUBLICANS SPEND A LOT OF TIME EXAMINING WHY LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN DID NOT NOTIFY TIM MORRISON FIRST OF HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL AND INSTEAD WENT TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. YOU HEARD OF THE VERY END CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF RESPONSE SUMMARILY TO THIS CRITICISM SAYING TIM MORRISON DID THE EXACT SAME THING. HE DID NOT INFORM JOHN BOLTON. HE ALSO WENT TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO VOICE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE CALL BUT I SPOKE WITH A COUPLE OF DEMOCRATS WHOSE TAKEAWAYS WERE THAT THE WITNESSES CAME ACROSS AS PROFESSIONAL AND RESILIENT IN THE FACE OF SOME OF THESE ATTACKS. ESPECIALLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND ESPECIALLY ON LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.. >>OF THAT TO CONTINUE BY MR. MORRISON THIS AFTERNOON. THEY ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE NEW AVENUES TO PROBE AND TIM MORRISON WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO SEQUESTER THAT CALL TO THE MORE SECURE SERVER. SHE TESTIFIED IN THE TESTIMONY THAT IS ALREADY BEEN RELEASED SAYING THAT HE HAD REAL CONCERNS THAT A LEAK OF THAT TRANSCRIPT WOULD BE DAMAGING, AND HE WAS ALSO IN DISCUSSIONS WITH WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ABOUT WHY IT SHOULD BE LIMITED IN TERMS OF THE DISTRIBUTION. THE SPECIAL ENVOY KURT VOLKER IS ALSO EXPECTED TO BE A MENTOR WHEN IS. REPUBLICANS TESTED BOTH TIM MORRISON AND QUOTE BROKER TO APPEAR AND I THINK THAT THEY HAVE SOME AVENUES TO EXPLOIT AND KURT VOLKER HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT AND IN HIS RELEASE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONCERNS HE HAD ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI FREELANCING. HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD A SINKING FEELING ABOUT A LOT OF WHAT HE WAS WITNESSING AND HE WAS OF COURSE PART OF THE THREE AMIGOS GROUP THAT WAS IN THAT LESS OFFICIAL OR COMPLETELY UNOFFICIAL CHANNEL DOING WITH UKRAINIAN’S THOSE ARE A FEW OF THE THINGS I THINK YOU CAN EXPECT BOTH SIDES TO TRY TO MINE THIS AFTERNOON IN WHAT IS THE SECOND OF TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARINGS. >>THANK YOU, OLIVIA. BEFORE WE LET YOU GO, THE TESTIMONY FROM THIS MORNING, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM DEMOCRATS ABOUT THE REMARKS THAT WERE MADE FROM VINDMAN AND FROM WILLIAMS? >>Reporter: RIGHT. DEMOCRATS AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT TOOK ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN IMMIGRANT AND A SOLDIER THAT REPUBLICANS ARE UNFAIRLY ATTACKING AND IMPUGNING HIS RECORD. I THINK YOU ALSO SAW SOME OF THE MORE EFFECTIVE LINES OF QUESTIONING COMING FROM REPUBLICANS LIKE WILL HURD WHO WAS EXPOSING THE DISTANCE THAT THOSE WITNESSES HAD FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT HAND AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NEVER MET THE PRESIDENT BEFORE AND HIS TALKING POINTS DO NOT NECESSARILY INFORM WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS IN THESE CALLS WITH LEADERS. HE ASKED IF IT WAS ODD FOR THE PRESIDENT NOT TO HAVE USED SOME OF THOSE TALKING POINTS THAT WERE PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN THAT CALL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN SAID NO IT IS NOT. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT EXACTLY ONE KNOWN TO FOLLOW A SET SCRIPT. SO NONE THE LESS THEY THOUGHT THAT THE DEMOCRAT THAT I SPOKE TO AT LEAST PARTS THAT THEY WERE EFFECTIVE. THEY RESISTED ANY SORT OF QUESTIONS THAT TRIED TO EXPOSE A PARTISAN SLANT AND TESTIFIED OF COURSE TO THEIR EXPERIENCE ACROSS DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS THAT HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS. >>OLIVIA, CHAIRMANSHIP MENTIONED HOMES AND HOW IMPORTANT WILL TESTIMONY TO BE AND I AM ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT FIONA HILL. >>Reporter: ABSOLUTELY. IN TODAY’S OPENING STATEMENT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF INVOKED THOSE IMMORTAL WORDS THAT DAVID HOLMES WITNESSED EXCHANGE BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT UKRAINE AND DAVID HOLMES TESTIMONY IN HIS CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY. HE OFFERED SOME MORE DETAIL ABOUT THIS ACCOUNT, WHICH HE ACTUALLY TOLD TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. ALMOST ANYBODY WHO WOULD LISTEN. HE TOLD HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR ABOUT HOW DISTINCTIVE IT WAS TO BE A WITNESS TO THIS CALL WITH THE LEVEL OF CANDOR AND COLORFUL LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED FOR GOOD IS PROBABLY NOT SURPRISING THAT HE IS SAVED FOR SOME OF THE LAST PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS WEEK ALONGSIDE FIONA HILL WHO HERSELF WAS VERY FORCEFUL IN HER CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY AND PUSHED BACK A LOT ON SOME LINES OF QUESTIONING THAT WE HAVE SEEN ABOUT THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE WAS IN FACT BEHIND THE 2016 INTERFERENCE AND NOT RUSSIA. SHE SAID I’M NOT HERE TO INDULGE ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF RUMORS THAT I THINK THAT THOSE TWO ARE MEANT TO BE SORT OF THE TAKE AWAY THE DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING AT LEAST THAT REMAIN IN PEOPLE’S MINDS AS THEY CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE INQUIRY. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OLIVIA GAZIS, FOR JOINING US. WE’RE STANDING BY AWAITING THE TESTIMONY OF TWO FOLKS KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON AS WE SPOKE WITH OLIVIA GAZIS. WE’RE STANDING BY IS THERE IS ABOUT TAKING PLACE WHEN I WHICH IS DELAYING THE EXPECTED TESTIMONY AND I WANT TO BRING IN OUR CONTRIBUTORS HERE WITH REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST LESLIE SANCHEZ AND MOLLY HOOPER. WE HAVE CBSN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR REBECCA RAPHE AND ALSO LYNDA TRAN. IT IS BEEN QUITE A DAY THESE DAYS. IF YOU COULD SORT OF SET THE STAGE FOR US. WHAT WOULD YOU FEEL IN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION WAS THE LEGAL MOMENT OF THE DAY? >>I THINK THE BIG LEGAL MOMENT WAS VINDMAN SAYING THAT THIS IS A DEMAND. WE REALLY ACTUALLY LOOKING AT BRIBERY IN TERMS OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE BRIBERY THAT THERE IS THIS QUESTION WAS THIS TOTALLY LEGAL WHAT HE WAS DOING OR WAS THE SOLICITATION OF A BRIBE? TO SAY WAS A DEMAND IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS WAS A QUICK QUID PRO QUO WHICH IS WHAT BRIBERY IS. >>IT WAS THE PRESIDENT DEMANDING THAT THIS PRESIDENT DO SOMETHING FOR HIM PERSONALLY IN ORDER TO GET THIS OFFICIAL ACT OF A MEETING OR THE RELEASE OF THESE FUNDS? THAT SEEMS VINDMAN SAID IT MOST DIRECTLY BUT WILLIAMS ALSO WITNESSED THE CALL AND FELT SIMILARLY THAT THERE WAS A SIMILAR MEANING. I THINK YOU CANNOT READ A TRANSCRIPT AND QUIET NOW. YOU NEED A WIN IS TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT DID IT MEAN? WE DON’T HAVE PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN BRIBERY AND EXTORTION WHO SAY BY THE WAY I HEREBY EXTORT YOU TO GET MY INVESTIGATION. IT NEVER WORKS THAT WAY. SO THE QUESTION IS IS THIS CODED LANGUAGE, IN THIS CALL? IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE A QUID PRO QUO. YOU HAD TO WITNESSES RIGHT THERE AT THE CALL UNLIKE THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO THE REPUBLICANS WERE SAYING WEREN’T THERE AND DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING ACTUALLY INTERPRETED IT QUIET WHILE THEY DIDN’T SAY DIRECTLY, DEMAND WAS THE CLOSEST WERE USED. I THINK THAT IS VERY POWERFUL AND USEFUL FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. >>WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT DOES ANY OF THIS INDICATE THE PRESIDENT? IS THERE A SMOKING GUN THAT CAN REALLY BRING THE PRESIDENCY DOWN FOR DONALD TRUMP? >>WHAT IS SO INTERESTING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THEY ARE A MIX OF LEGAL AND POLITICAL. THAT IS KIND OF WHY YOU NEED ALL OF US HERE BECAUSE I’M NOT AN EXPERT. I CAN TELL YOU FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND I CAN ALSO TELL YOU FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE A JURY BEFORE. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WORKS FROM A PROSECUTOR’S PERSPECTIVE AND WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC AND HARD IS WHEN THINGS GET COMPLICATED. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TRY TO MAKE THINGS COMPLICATED WHEN THEY TRY TO DISTRACT. REPUBLICANS ARE DOING THAT WHEN THE FACTS ARE NOT WORKING FOR THEM THEY ARE THROWING THINGS OUT LIKE WHERE IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE PROCEDURE HERE? AND THERE IS A LOT OF THAT GOING ON HERE THAT CAN BE VERY EFFECTIVE FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS . IT REALLY IS. AND THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS PRESENT THIS IN A WAY THAT WILL BE CONVINCING BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLE THAT HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED AND KEEP IT SIMPLE? OF OUR THEY HAVE BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB OF THAT, I RETURN TO OTHERS TO SEE WHAT THEY THINK YOU CAN MY MIND WOULD HAVE TO DO IS SAY IT IS SIMPLE. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AND NOBODY IS CONTESTING WHAT HAPPENED. AND THAT IS CRIMINAL HERE. >>EXACTLY, BUT IT IS ALL UP TO INTERPRETATION. THE PRESIDENT STILL BELIEVES THIS IS A PERFECT CALL. A PERFECT CALL. I DO NOT THINK YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF REPUBLICANS SAYING IT IS A PERFECT CALL BECAUSE TRADITIONALLY THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING UKRAINE. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE REALLY PUSHING THE OBAMA úADMIN AID TO UKRAINE TO FEND OFF RUSSIAN ADVANCES. AT THE SAME TIME, REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE IS IT IMPEACHABLE? PROBABLY NOT. AGAIN IT IS A MATTER OF HOW YOU INTERPRET THIS PHONE CALL. AND IT IS UP TO WHAT THEY HEAR FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS. >>IT IS EXACTLY THOSE TWO POINTS. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THESE ARE COUPLED TOGETHER THE TWO QUESTION COMPONENTS. ONE, WAS IT WRONG? DID HE DO IT? ON THIS IT IS A LITTLE BIT SUBJECTIVE LIKE THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT WAS A FINE CALL AND REPUBLICAN SAY I FEEL IT IS UNUSUAL, BUT IT GOES TO THE SECOND PART IS IT IMPEACHABLE? IS THERE MERIT TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE? AND THAT IS THE REALLY DIFFICULT HURDLE. RIGHT NOW IT ISLIKE A ROWBOAT. IT IS JUST NOT THERE. BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETELY FLIP AROUND IN TERMS OF ITS GRAVITY FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO REALLY LIFT THAT ORDER. >>WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE IF THIS WILL MOVE ON TO THE SENATE. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS MENTIONED WAS BURISMA. IT CAME UP IN THE TESTIMONY OF VINDMAN. I WILL ASK YOU WHAT IT COULD MEAN FOR JOE BIDEN POTENTIALLY. >>TURNING OUR ATTENTION SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMPANY OF BURISMA. THE COFOUNDER OF BURISMA IS ONE OF THE UKRAINE LARGEST NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS CORRECT? >>THAT IS MADE STANDING. YES. >>AND HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS INVESTIGATIONS OVER THE YEARS. >>I AM NOT AWARE THAT I GUESS I CAN POINT TO A SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION BUT THERE IS WHAT I WOULD CALL A PATTERN OF QUESTIONABLE DEALINGS, AND RUSSIANS ABOUT CORRUPTION. >>QUESTION WILL DEALINGS AND QUESTIONS OF CORRUPTION. IS THE CAMP OF JOE BIDEN CONCERNED IF THIS MOVES TO THE SENATE WHAT THIS COULD MEAN FOR HIS CANDIDACY? BUT I HAVEN’T HEARD ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JOE BIDEN BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST. I THINK HE IS WATCHING THE POLL NUMBERS MOVE ACROSS THE FIELD, AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS WORRIED ABOUT WE ALL KNOW THAT HE DID NOT BRING IN THE FUNDRAISING AS ONE WHAT IS EXPECTED FOR THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT IS THE THINGS THEY ARE FOCUSED ON. >>LESLIE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS AT THIS POINT. WHEN LOOK AT HOW THEY HAVE APPROACH THIS, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? BUT THERE IS ONE LINE OF THINKING THAT SAYS LET’S DISCREDIT ANYBODY REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE SERVICE, WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH. I THINK THAT IS A DIFFICULT THING TO GET THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BEHIND BUT THE OTHER AREAS THIS QUESTION BUT WHO WAS IN THE ROOM, WHAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION AND IS SOMEBODY SO SENIOR THAT UNDERSTANDS THIS IS WHAT HIS INTENT WAS? BECAUSE UNLESS YOU FIND THAT COMIC IT’S REALLY DIFFICULT TO SIFT THROUGH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE REPUBLICANS ARE BREAKING IT DOWN IS THERE A POLITICAL MOTIVE AND HAVE THEY DONATED TO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT CLOUD THE ISSUE BUT IT WILL TAKE SOMEONE WITH MORE SENIORITY TO SAY THEY WERE IN THE ROOM. >>AND I DID HEAR FROM ONE OR TWO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WERE NOT VERY PLEASED WITH THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID HOLMES WHO WAS DEPOSED LAST FRIDAY AND BASICALLY SAID THAT HE SPOKE WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DIRECTLY AFTER THIS CALL AND ASKED DOES A PRESIDENT CARE ABOUT UKRAINE TO WHICH SONDLAND SAID HE DOESN’T. AND THE BIGGER ISSUES INVOLVED LOOKING INTO BIDEN AND THAT MADE MEMBERS OF THE CONFERENCE UNCOMFORTABLE. >>I DID NOT MEAN TO INTERRUPT BUT WHO ARE THEY GOING TO BELIEVE? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY. BE FUNDAMENTALLY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN TESTIMONY, I WOULD LIKE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE HEARSAY WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN HIS CHARACTER. >>CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS AND TRYING TO DISCREDIT THEM, WHAT DO YOU SEE IN THAT? BUT FIRST I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE BIDEN ISSUE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT WHETHER BIDEN HUNTER BIDEN WAS ENGAGED IN CORRUPTION OR THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, NONE OF THAT HAS ANY IMPORT. IF THIS WAS A COURT OF LAW THAT WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE. IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. >>SO I WANTED TO SAY THAT. IN TERMS OF CREDIBILITY, THIS HEARSAY THING I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS. THERE IS 1 MILLION EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY AND ONE IS CO- CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS. AT THIS POINT SONDLAND LOOKS LIKE A CO-CONSPIRATOR. THOSE ARE SIGNS OF CREDIBILITY . THE HEARSAY RULES ARE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS CREDIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT. THE QUESTION IS THEIR VIEW OF WHAT IS HEARSAY IS COMPLETELY NOT WHAT IS ACCURATE. SONDLAND’S STATEMENT HERE WOULD NOT BE HEARSAY. >> I BET REPUBLICANS ARE NERVOUS FOR SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY WHEN HE IS ASKED ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION. >>I WANT TO TURN OUT TO THE REPORTER OLIVIA GAZIS WHO JOINS US FROM CAPITOL HILL. CAN YOU GIVE US A PREVIEW? WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT COULD BE DRAMATIC AND MAYBE CHANGE THE NARRATIVE . >>Reporter: IT IS CERTAINLY THE CENTRAL QUESTION AND IT IS INTRIGUING A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CAME INTO DEVICES TESTAMENT HE WANTS TO SAY THAT HIS RECOLLECTION HAD BEEN REFRESHED BY THE LIKES OF TIM MORRISON AND BILL TAYLOR AND THAT HE IN FACT REMEMBERED DELIVERING THE TERMS OF THE QUID PRO QUO TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL YANUKOVYCH AND THE CALL IS ALSO NOW CENTERSTAGE IN THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID HOLMES THAT WAS DELIVERED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY DELIVERING IN EXPLICIT DETAIL EXACTLY WHERE HE WAS AND HOW THEY WERE SITTING AT THE FACT THAT THEY HAD A BOTTLE OF WINE AND THE FACT THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS RELAXED TALKING ABOUT HIS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND THEN DECIDED TO CALL THE PRESIDENT AND OFFER AN UPDATE ON HIS MEETINGS FROM KYIV . AND HE TESTIFIES ABOUT HOW HE GOES THROUGH SEVERAL LAYERS OF SECRETARIAL INTERVENTION AND THEN FINALLY GETS CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT AND HOW HE IS WINCING AS HE IS HOLDING AWAY THE PHONE BECAUSE THE VOICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED. HE SAID AT ONE POINT HE TOOK OUT HIS PHONE TO TAKE NOTES. HE TOOK IT OUT TO BE LATE TO DOCUMENT SOME OF THE UKRAINE DETAILS BUT MANAGED TO GRAB SOME AS THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MOVES TO A SEPARATE ROCKY WHICH WAS A NEWS DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME. SO WHAT WILL BE AT ISSUE TOMORROW IS WHETHER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS I RECALL ALL OF THOSE DETAILS AS DAVID HOLMES DESCRIBED THEM OR I DO NOT RECALL THAT AT ALL OR I RECALL A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VERSION OF EVENTS BECAUSE HOUSE WAS JUST LAID OUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAS THE MOST PROXIMITY TO THE PRESENT OF ANY WITNESS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THUS FAR. A LOT OF THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK LINES HAVE BEEN THIS PERSON HAS NO DIRECT INTERACTION WITH THE PRESIDENT. THIS PERSON NEVER SPEAKS TO THE PRESIDENT AND DOESN’T ADVISE THE PRESIDENT. WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS GOING AROUND TELLING PEOPLE THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE POLICY AND THAT HE HAD A DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT. WE KNOW THAT TIM MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT HE WENT TO THE EXTENT OF CHECKING THAT HE HAD ACTUALLY DONE SO AND WE KNOW THAT THE ONLY HILL HAD ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY AND SHE SAID THE PRESIDENT. IT IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH THAT. MULTIPLE WITNESSES ARE SAYING I HAVE A DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT IN THE HEARING ROOM TOMORROW, AND YOU CAN EXPECT THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE ONE DYNAMIC CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AS TO WHAT HE RECALLS AND HOW FAR HE IS WILLING TO GO TO IMPLICATE THE PRESIDENT IN THIS ENTIRE AFFAIR. >>WE ARE STANDING BY AND IT DOES A LIVE LOOK AT CAPITOL HILL WHERE WE ARE STANDING BY FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY ANY MOMENT NOW FROM A FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL AND ALSO FORM UKRAINE SPECIAL ENVOY AS WELL. WE ARE WAITING FOR A VOTE ON CAPITOL HILL. DO HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE TIMING OF WHERE WE ARE? >>WE ARE WAITING ON THE HOUSE JUST VOTED ON THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION AND I BELIEVE THAT IT PASSED THAT DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THAT. >>IT IS EXPECTED TO. >>THAT MEANS THAT THESE WITNESSES CAN MOVE THEIR TESTIMONY THROUGH UNTIL THIS EVENING BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE MEMBERS THEY LIKE THEIR FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS, AND AGAIN THE WAY THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN WORKING THE DEMOCRATS TAKE 45 MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS TAKE THE 45 MINUTES AND THEN IT IS UP TO THE PANEL. ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN TRICKY ABOUT THESE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS FROM THE HOUSE SCHEDULING PERSPECTIVE IS THAT IT IS HARD TO SCHEDULE VOTES IN A MANNER. >>IT DID PASS IN THE HOUSE. >>THERE YOU GO. >>BUT HAS BEEN TRICKY FOR SENATE STENY HOYER BECAUSE THERE IS THIS BLOCKBUSTER TESTIMONY. >>WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK , BUT I SEE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SITTING DOWN SO LET’S TAKE A QUICK BREAK BEFORE WE ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE THE START AGAIN ANY MOMENT NOW. STICK WITH US. YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN. >>>WE WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK LIVE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING RESUMES ON CAPITOL HILL HAVE FORM YOUR SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE KURT VOLKER AND ALSO OUTGOING CHIEF OF EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TIM MORRISON. THERE IS ADAM SCHIFF THE CHAIRMAN. LET’S LISTEN IN. >>AND TIM MORRISON, THE SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE THE REQUEST FOR THESE IMPORTANT WITNESSES AS WELL AS UNDERSECRETARY ESTATE DAVID HALE FROM WHOM WE WILL HEAR TOMORROW. AS WE HAS ARE FROM OTHERS WHEN JOE BIDEN WAS CONSIDERING WHETHER TO ENTER THE RACE FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2020, RUDY GIULIANI BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO WE CAN WE CAN HIS CANDIDACY BY PUSHING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIM AND HIS SON. TO CLEAR AWAY ANY OBSTACLE TO THE SCHEME DAYS AFTER THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED, TRUMP ORDERED A RECALL OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH IN KYIV. TRUMP ALSO CANCELED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE’S PARTICIPATION IN THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SENT GORDON SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER. THESE THREE RETURNED FROM KYIV AND BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION. HOPES THAT TRUMP WOULD AGREE TO AN EARLY MEETING WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WERE SOON DIMINISHED WHEN TRUMP PUSHED BACK. ACCORDING TO KURT VOLKER COME HE JUST DIDN’T BELIEVE IT. HE WAS SKEPTICAL AND HE SAID THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEAR. I HEAR HE HAS SOME TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO TOLD HIM HE BELIEVED THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN. HE TOLD THE THREE AMIGOS TALK TO RUDY AND THEY DID. ONE OF THOSE INTERACTIONS TOOK PLACE A WEEK BEFORE THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL BETWEEN TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND HE TESTIFIED THAT HE PUSHED BACK ON THE ACCUSATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN AND ON JULY 22 DAYS BEFORE HE WOULD SPEAK WITH ZELENSKY AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUDY GIULIANI AND ON JULY 25 BEFORE IT TOOK PLACE THEY SENT A TEXT MESSAGE TO ANDRIY YERMAK HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ASSUMING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS HE WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 WE WILL NAIL DOWN A DATE FOR A VISIT TO WASHINGTON. GOOD LUCK. LATER THAT DAY DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE THE INFAMOUS PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY IN WHICH HE RESPONDED TO THE UKRAINE APPRECIATION FOR HE WAS DEFENSE SUPPORT THE REQUEST BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO BUY MORE JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILES BY SAYING I WILL LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH. AND THE FAVOR INVOLVED THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR INTO THE BIDENS. AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS NOT ON THE CALL BUT TESTIFIED NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO INTERFERE IN AN ELECTION. AMONG THOSE LISTENING IN WAS TIM MORRISON WERE TAKEN OVER AS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS DAYS BEFORE BUT HAD BEEN BRIEFED BY FIONA HILL ABOUT THE REGULAR SECOND CHANNEL THAT WAS OPERATING IN PARALLEL TO THE OFFICIAL ONE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS AND LIKE THEM TIM MORRISON WAS CONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT HE HEARD ON THE CALL THAT HE WENT TO SEE THE LEGAL ADVISOR SOON AFTER IT AND IT. THE FEAR OF COLONEL VINDMAN WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD BROKEN THE LAW BUT MORRISON SAID THAT HIS CONCERN WAS THAT THE CALL COULD BE DAMAGING IF IT RELEASED. SOON AFTER THIS DISCUSSION WITH LAWYERS, THE CALL RECORD WAS HIDDEN AWAY ON A SECURE SERVER USED IT TO STORE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE AND THERE IT REMAINED UNTIL SEPTEMBER WHEN THE CALL RECORD WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED. FOLLOWING THE JULY 20 FISCAL, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WORK WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON A STATEMENT THAT WOULD SATISFY RUDY GIULIANI AND WHEN HE DID NOT INCLUDE THE WORDS BURISMA AND 2016 HE SAID IT WOULD LACK CREDIBILITY . AMBASSADOR VOLKER ADDED BURISMA AND 2016 TO THE STATEMENT AND BOTH VOLKER AND MORRISON WERE AWARE THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN CUT UP AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND MICK MULVANEY AS THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE SUSPENSION OF SECURITY SYSTEMS BETWEEN TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DRAGGED ON AND THE PRESSURE INCREASED WITH ANY PRETENSE DROPPING AWAY. MORRISON ACCOMPANIED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO WARSAW WHERE THEY MET AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE SUSPENDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND FOLLOWING THAT MEETING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID WHAT COULD HELP MOVE THE AID WAS IF THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD GO TO THE MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS OPENING THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION. ON SEPTEMBER 7 AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A TELEPHONE CALL WITH TRUMP AND ASKED HIM WHAT HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE. ACCORDING TO MORRISON WHO SPOKE WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HE INSISTED THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MUST PERSONALLY ANNOUNCE THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATIONS, AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT. HE ALSO SAID IF HE DIDN’T AGREE TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THE U.S. AND UKRAINE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE MEANING IT WILL NOT RECEIVE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. MORRISON HAD A SINKING FEELING AFTER THE CALL AS HE REALIZED IT WAS BEING DIRECTED AT ZELENSKY HIMSELF AND NOT THE PERSECUTOR GENERAL AS SONDLAND HAD SHARED IN WARSAW ON SEPTEMBER 1. PRESIDENT TRUMP CLAIMED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT HIS INSISTENCE THAT ZELENSKY HIMSELF WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATIONS WHERE THEY WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE MADE CLEAR AT LEAST TWO OFFICIAL ACTS WITH A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND 400 MILLION MILITARY AID FOR CONDITIONS ON RECEIPT OF WHAT TRUMP WANTED, INVESTIGATIONS TO HELP HIS CAMPAIGN. THE EFFORT TO SECURE THE INVESTIGATION WOULD CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL MORE DAYS BUT APPEARED TO HAVE ABRUPTLY ENDED SOON AFTER THE COMMITTEES ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP AND UKRAINE SCHEME AND ONLY THEN WITH THE AID BE RELEASED AND I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES. >>WELCOME BACK TO THE SECOND ACT OF TODAY’S CIRCUS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE ARE HERE TO CONTINUE WITH THE DEMOCRATS TELL US IS A SERIOUS PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO OVERTHROW A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT. IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL, THE END RESULT WOULD BE TO DISENFRANCHISE TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT WAS CHOSEN BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT BY 13 DEMOCRAT PARTISANS ON A COMMITTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE OVERSEEING THE GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. ISN’T IT STRANGE HOW WE HAVE MORPHED INTO THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE? PRESIDING OVER A MATTER THAT HAS NO INTELLIGENT COMPONENT WHATSOEVER. IMPEACHMENT OF COURSE IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, NOT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. BY PUTTING THIS FARCE IN OUR COURT DIVIDES TWO MAIN ADVANTAGES TO THE DEMOCRATS. IT MADE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO SHROUD THEIR DEPOSITIONS IN SECRECY. IT ALLOWED THEM TO AVOID GIVING TOO BIG OF A ROLE IN THE SPECTACLE TO ANOTHER DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND HIM THE DEMOCRAT LEADERS OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO CONFIDENCE. YOU CAN POSSIBLY VIEW THESE PROCEEDINGS AS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL? THEY ARE BEING CONDUCTED BY DEMOCRATS WHO SPENT THREE YEARS SATURATING THE AIRWAVES WITH DIRE WARNINGS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT AND THESE OUTLANDISH ATTACKS CONTINUE TO THIS VERY DAY. JUST THIS WEEKEND IN FRONT OF A CROWD OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE DENOUNCED PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A PROFOUND THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND VALID THAT WE WILL SEND THAT CHARLATAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE GOLDEN THRONE HE CAME FROM. HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD ENTER SUCH ABSURDITIES ARE CONDUCTING A FEAR IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND ARE ONLY TRYING TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH? IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO TOPPLE THE PRESIDENT SOLELY BECAUSE THEY DESPISE THEM BECAUSE THEY PROMISED ON ELECTION DAY TO IMPEACH HIM AND BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID HE WILL WIN REELECTION NEXT YEAR. NO WITNESSES HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER. LAST WEEK THE DEMOCRATS TOLD US HIS INFECTION WAS ASKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO. THIS WEEK IT IS BRIBERY. WHO KNOWS WHAT RIDICULOUS CRIME THEY WILL BE ACCUSING HIM OF NEXT WEEK. AS WITNESSES, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED A PARADE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO DO NOT LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S UKRAINE POLICY EVEN THOUGH THEY ACKNOWLEDGE HE PROVIDED UKRAINE WITH LETHAL MILITARY AID AFTER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO DO SO. THEY ALSO RESENT HIS CONDUCT AND POLICY THROUGH CHANNELS OUTSIDE THEIR OWN AUTHORITY AND CONTROL THESE ACTIONS THEY ARGUE CONTRADICT THE SO-CALLED INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. THEY DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESIDENT ALONE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO SET THE POLICY THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED PRESIDENT NOT AN INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. AND OF COURSE OUR PREVIOUS WITNESSES HAD VERY LITTLE NEW INFORMATION TO SHARE IN THESE HEARINGS AND THAT IS BECAUSE THESE HEARINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO UNCOVER NEW INFORMATION. THEY ARE MEANT TO SHOWCASE A HAND-PICKED GROUP OF WITNESSES WHO THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUED THROUGH THEIR SECRET ADDITION PROCESS WILL PROVIDE TESTIMONY THE MOST CONDUCIVE TO ACCUSATIONS. IN FACT, BY THE TIME ANY WITNESS SAYS ANYTHING HERE, PEOPLE ACTUALLY HEARING IT FOR THE THIRD TIME THAT THEY HEARD IT FIRST THROUGH THE LEAKS TO THE MEDIA SYMPATHIZERS DURING THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS. SEOND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS PUBLISHED THOSE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS IN A HIGHLY STAGED MANNER. OF COURSE THERE ARE NO TRANSCRIPTS FROM CRUCIAL WITNESSES LIKE HUNTER BIDEN, WHO COULD TESTIFY ABOUT HIS WELL-PAYING JOB ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN COMPANY OR ALEXANDRA CHALUPA WHO WORKED ON AN ELECTION MEDDLING SCHEME WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN PICKED THAT IS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO LET US HEAR FROM THEM. AS FOR EVIDENCE, WE ARE LEFT WITH THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PHONE CALL WHICH THE PRESIDENT MADE PUBLIC. THAT MEANS AMERICANS CAN READ FOR THEMSELVES AN UNREMARKABLE CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH THE CALL AFTERWARD. THE DEMOCRATS HOWEVER CLAIM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS BEING BRIBED AND THEREFORE HE MUST BE LYING WHEN HE SAYS THE CALL WAS FRIENDLY AND IMPOSED NO PROBLEMS. THERE IS SOME IRONY HERE. FOR MANY WEEKS WE HAVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS BEMOAN THE DAMAGE PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY CAUSED TO THE U.S. UKRAINIAN RELATIONS. BUT WHEN THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT CONTRADICTS THEIR ACCUSATIONS, THEY PUBLICLY DISMISSED HIM AS A LIAR. I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I’M FAIRLY SURE CALLING A FRIENDLY BOARD PRESIDENT NEWLY ELECTED A LIAR VIOLATES THEIR SO-CALLED INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. SO OVERALL THE DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS BEING BLACKMAILED WITH A PAUSE ON LETHAL MILITARY AID THAT HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MENTION TO HIM AND THAT DIPLOMATS HAVE TESTIFIED THEY ALWAYS ASSUMED WOULD BE LIFTED. WHICH IT WAS. WITHOUT THE UKRAINIANS UNDERTAKING ANY OF THE ACTIONS THEY WERE BEING COERCED INTO DOING. THIS PROCESS IS NOT SERIOUS. IT IS NOT SOBER. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT PRAYERFUL. IT IS IN A VICIOUS ATTACK TO DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT TO ELECT A PRESIDENT THE DEMOCRATS DON’T LIKE. AS I MENTIONED, THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE CLAIMS THAT DEMOCRACY IS UNDER THREAT. IF THAT IS TRUE, IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT WHO POSES THE DANGER. YIELD BACK. >>I THINK THE GENTLEMAN. WE ARE JOINED THIS AFTERNOON BY AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR TIM MORRISON. AMBASSADOR COLTON WELKER SERVED FOR FOUR YEARS WORKING ON EUROPEAN POLITICAL AND SECURITY ISSUES UNDER FIVE DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS PICTURE IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH DEMONSTRATION HE SERVED AS THE ACTING DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS AND LATER AS A DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE EUROPEAN AFFAIRS. IN 2008 PRESIDENT BUSH APPOINTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER A PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO NATO WHERE HE SERVED UNTIL 2009. IN JULY 2017 AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS APPOINTED TO BE THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS SERVING UNTIL HE RESIGNED IN SEPTEMBER. IT IS A PLEASURE TO WELCOME MR. MORRISON BACK TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH WHERE HE SERVED FOR ALMOST 2 DECADES AS A REPUBLICAN STAFFER THAT HE WAS A PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER FOR REPRESENTATIVE MARK KENNEDY FROM MINNESOTA AND SENATOR JON KYL FROM ARIZONA SERVING AS THE POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THE HOUSE SERVICES COMMITTEE. IN JULY 2018 MR. MORRISON JOINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL FOR COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: THE DEPARTURE OF DR. FIONA HILL IN JULY 2019 MR. MORRISON ASSUMED THE POSITION OF SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA AND EUROPE. TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE THE WITNESSES ARE SWORN. THE FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITION AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. AND INFORMATION MAY TOUCH UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND WILL BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY. SECOND, CONGRESS WILL NOT TOLERATE ATTEMPT TO RETALIATE AGAINST ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. IF YOU’LL BOTH PLEASE RAISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND I WILL SWEAR YOU AND IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TEST LIKE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. THE MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM WITHOUT OBJECTIVE YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL ALSO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. WITH THAT, MR. MORRISON YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER AMBASSADOR VOLKER FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. >>CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I. BEFORE YOU TODAY UNDER SUBPOENA TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT MY TIME AS SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IS RELATED TO UKRAINE AND U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THAT COUNTRY. I WILL PROVIDE YOU THE MOST COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION THAT I CAN CONSISTENT WITH MY OBLIGATION TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. WHETHER THE CONDUCT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS INQUIRY MERITS IMPEACHMENT IS A QUESTION FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. I APPEAR HERE TODAY ONLY TO PROVIDE FACTUAL INFORMATION BASED UPON MY KNOWLEDGE AND RECOLLECTION OF EVENTS. I WILL NOT WASTE TIME RESTATING THE DETAILS OF MY OPENING STATEMENT FOR MY DEPOSITION ON OCTOBER 31, 2019, WHICH HAS RECENTLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC; HOWEVER, I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE FOLLOWING KEY POINTS. úFIRST, A I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS NOR DO I INTEND TO SPECULATE AS TO WHO THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE. SECOND, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR MY FORMER COLLEAGUES AND THE REST OF THE INTERAGENCY. I’M NOT HERE TODAY TO QUESTION THEIR CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY. MY RECOLLECTIONS ARE MY OWN. ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES RECOLLECTIONS THEY DIFFER FROM MINE BUT I DO NOT VIEW THOSE DIFFERENCES AS THE RESULT OF AN UNTOWARD PURPOSE. THIRD, I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINES OF A STRATEGIC COMPETITION úBET PUTIN’S RUSSIA. RUSSIA IS A FEELING POWER, BUT IT IS STILL A DANGEROUS ONE. THE UNITED STATES AIDS UKRAINE AT HER PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN FIGHT RUSSIA OVER THERE AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO FIGHT RUSSIA HERE. SUPPORT FOR THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN OBJECTIVE SINCE RUSSIA’S MILITARY INVASION IN 2014. IT MUST CONTINUE TO BE. AS I STATED DURING MY DEPOSITION, I FEARED AT THE TIME OF THE CALL ON JULY 25 HOW THIS DISCLOSURE WOULD PLAY IN WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL CLIMATE. MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED. UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, BUT I BEG YOU NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE MILITARY CONFLICT UNDERWAY IN EASTERN UKRAINE TODAY. THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF CRIMEA. EVERY DAY THAT THE FOCUS OF DISCUSSION INVOLVING UKRAINE IS CENTERED ON THESE PROCEEDINGS IS OF THOSE MATTERS IS A DAY WHEN WE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON THE INTEREST OF UKRAINE, UNITED STATES, AND WHAT WE SHARE. FINALLY, I CONCLUDED MY ACTIVE SERVICE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL THE DAY AFTER HE LAST APPEARED BEFORE YOU AND I LEFT THE NFC COMPANY OF MY OWN VOLITION. I FELT NO PRESSURE TO RESIGN NOR HAVE A FEARED RETALIATION. I MADE THIS CAREER CHOICE SOMETIME BEFORE I DECIDED TO TESTIFY OCTOBER 31 AND AM PREPARED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND RECOLLECTION. >>THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS TESTIMONY TODAY. AS YOU KNOW, I WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO COME FORWARD TO TESTIFY AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY. I DID SO VOLUNTARILY. LIKEWISE VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION TO BE AS COOPERATIVE, CLEAR, AND COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE. I AM HERE TODAY VOLUNTARILY AND I REMAIN COMMITTED TO COOPERATING TRUTHFULLY WITH THIS COMMITTEE. ALL I CAN DO IS PROVIDE THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM AT THE TIME. I DID THIS ON OCTOBER 3 IN PRIVATE, AND I WILL DO SO AGAIN TODAY. LIKE MANY OTHERS WHO TESTIFIED IN THIS INQUIRY, I AM A CAREER FOREIGN-POLICY PROFESSIONAL. I BEGAN MY CAREER AS AN INTELLIGENCE ANALYST FOR NORTHERN EUROPE FOR THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN 1986 BEFORE JOINING THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN 1988. I SERVED IN DIPLOMATIC POSTINGS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON EUROPEAN POLITICAL AND SECURITY ISSUES FOR OVER 20 YEARS UNDER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, GEORGE W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH, AND BARACK OBAMA. MY LAST THREE POSITIONS BEFORE LEAVING THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE IN 2009 AS DIRECTOR FOR NATO AND WESTERN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND FINALLY AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO. IN THE SPRING OF 2017 THEN SECRETARY OF STATE TO US AND ASKED IF I WOULD COME BACK TO GOVERNMENT SERVICE AS U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS. I DID THIS ON A PART-TIME VOLUNTARY BASIS WITH NO SALARY PAID BY THE U.S. TAXPAYER SIMPLY BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY IN THIS WAY. I BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE STEERED U.S. POLICY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. FOR OVER TWO YEARS AS A SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEGOTIATIONS MY SINGULAR FOCUS WAS ADVANCING THE FOREIGN-POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. IN PARTICULAR THAT MEANT PUSHING BACK ON RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRONG, RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC AND PROSPEROUS UKRAINE. ONE THAT OVERCOMES A LEGACY OF CORRUPTION AND BECOMES INTEGRATED INTO A TRANSATLANTIC COMMUNITY. IF WE COULD STOP AND REVERSE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT ELSEWHERE. IF UKRAINE THE CRADLE OF SLAVIC CIVILIZATION PREDATING MOSCOW SUCCEEDS AS A SECURE DEMOCRACY, IT GIVES US A ENORMOUS HOPE THAT RUSSIA MAY ONE DAY CHANGE PROVIDING A BETTER LIFE FOR RUSSIAN PEOPLE AND OVERCOMING ITS PLAGUE OF CORRUPTION AND THREATS TO NATO AND THE UNITED STATES . THE STEAKS AND A SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE COULD NOT BE HIGHER. AT NO TIME WAS I AWARE OF OR TOOK PART IN AN EFFORT TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. AS YOU KNOW FROM THE DOCUMENTATION I PROVIDED, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN WAS ON THE TOPIC OF OUR DISCUSSIONS. I WAS NOT ON THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF REFERENCE TO VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL WAS REALLY SEPTEMBER 25, 2019. FROM 2017 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 I WAS THE LEAD U.S. DIPLOMAT DEALING WITH THE WAR ON UKRAINE. MY ROLE IS NOT SOME IRREGULAR CHANNEL FOR THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL. I REPORTED DIRECTLY TO SECTOR IS TAKE TILSON AND POMPEO AND KEPT THEM WELL INFORMED OF MY EFFORTS AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND RUSS MITCHELL AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT, LAURA COOPER, AND ALEX BENJAMIN AND MANY OTHERS. I HAVE KNOWN MANY OF THEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS. ONE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LEFT KYIV A RECOMMENDED BILL TAYLOR SO WE WILL STILL HAVE A STRONG PROFESSIONAL ON THE GROUND. FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THE EVENTS INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE I WAS THE MOST SENIOR U.S. DIPLOMAT VISITING THE CONFLICT THEM, MEETING WITH VICTIMS OF RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION, URGING INCREASED SECURITY ASSISTANCE, WORKING WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND WORKING WITH FRANCE AND GERMANY IN THE NORMANDY PROCESS , PRESSING FOR SUPPORT FROM NATO, THE EU, AND SUPPORTING THE SPECIAL MONITORING MISSION AND ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS. AT THE TIME I TOOK THE POSITION IN DECEMBER 2017 THERE WERE MAJOR COMPLICATED QUESTIONS SWIRLING ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE. WITH A LIFT SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA? WOULDN’T MAKE A GRAND BARGAIN AND TRADE RECOGNITION OF THE SEIZURE OF TERRITORY OR ELSEWHERE? WITH THE ADMINISTRATION RECOGNIZING THE CLAIMED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA? WILL THIS JUST BECOME ANOTHER FROZEN CONFLICT? THERE IS A VAST NUMBER OF VACANCIES IN KEY DIPLOMATIC POSITIONS. DURING OVER TWO YEARS OF MY TENURE WE FUNDAMENTALLY TURNED U.S. POLICY AROUND. ‘S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE WAS STRONG, CONSISTENT, AND ENJOYED SUPPORT ACROSS THE ADMINISTRATION BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS AND SUPPORT AMONG OUR ALLIES AND UKRAINE. WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE COMMONLY USED TO DESCRIBE RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION. I WAS THE MOST OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC FIGURE HIGHLIGHTING RUSSIA’S INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF PARTS OF UKRAINE CALLING OUT RUSSIA’S RESPONSIBILITY TO END THE WAR. I VISITED THE WAR ZONE THREE TIMES, MEETING WITH SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS ALIKE ALWAYS BRINGING MEDIA WITH ME TO RAISE THE PUBLIC VISIBILITY OF RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION AND THE HUMANITARIAN IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF THE CITIZENS. WE COORDINATED CLOSELY WITH OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES IN CANADA TO MAINTAIN A UNITED FRONT AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND FOR UKRAINE’S DEMOCRACY WE FORMED SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. UKRAINE POLICY IS PERHAPS THE ONE AREA WHERE THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES HAD BEEN IN LOCKSTEP. THIS COORDINATION HELPED TO STRENGTHEN U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA AND TO MAINTAIN EU SANCTIONS AS WELL. ALONG WITH OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION I STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR LIFTING THE BAN ON THE SALE OF LETHAL DEFENSIVE ARMS TO UKRAINE AND ADVOCATED FOR INCREASING SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND URGED OTHER COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW SUIT. MY TEAM AND I DRAFTED THE POMPEO DECLARATION OF JULY 25, 20 18th, IN WHICH THE SECRETARY CLEARLY LAID OUT THE U.S. POLICY OF NONRECOGNITION OF RUSSIA’S CLAIMED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA. I ENGAGE WITH OUR ALLIES WITH UKRAINE AND WITH RUSSIA NEGOTIATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENTS HOLDING A WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIAN FORCES AND RESTORING UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. TOGETHER WITH OTHERS WE KEPT U.S. POLICY STUDY THROUGH PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE AND WORKED HARD TO STRENGTHEN THE U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE NEW PRESIDENT AND GOVERNMENT HELPING TO SHEPHERD IN A PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER. IN SHORT, WHEREAS TWO YEARS AGO MOST OBSERVERS WOULD’VE SAID TIME IS ON THE SIDE OF RUSSIA, BY 2019 I DEPARTED WE HAD TURNED THE TABLES AND TIME IS NOW ON THE SIDE OF UKRAINE. IS A TRAGEDY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND FOR UKRAINE THAT OUR EFFORTS IN THIS AREA WHICH WERE BEARING FRUIT HAVE NOW BEEN THROWN INTO DISARRAY. ONE OF THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF MY ROLE AS U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT AS THE MOST SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL APPOINTED WORKS ONLY ON THE UKRAINE FOR POLIO, I NEEDED TO STEP FORWARD TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP. IF WE NEEDED TO ADOPT A POLICY POSITION, HE MADE THE CASE FOR IT. IF ANYONE NEEDED TO SPEAK OUT PUBLICLY, I WOULD DO IT. WHEN WE FAILED TO GET A TIMELY STATEMENT ABOUT THE RUSSIA LEGAL ATTACK ON THE UKRAINE NAVY AND THE SEIZURE OF UKRAINE SAILORS I TWEETED ABOUT IT IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE ACT. IF A PROBLEM AROSE, I KNEW THAT IT WAS MY JOB TO TRY TO FIX IT. THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE WHEN I LEARNED IN MAY 2019 THAT WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IMPEDING OUR ABILITY TO STRENGTHEN OUR SUPPORT FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN HIS EFFORT TO RAMP UP UKRAINE’S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEDED REFORMS. I FOUND MYSELF FACED WITH A CHOICE TO BE AWARE OF A PROBLEM IS TO IGNORE IT OR TO ACCEPT THAT IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO FIX IT. I TRIED TO FIX IT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT DESPITE THE UNANIMOUS POSITIVE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE PART OF THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION THAT ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS RECEIVING A DIFFERENT NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THAT NARRATIVE WAS FUELED BY ACCUSATION FROM THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND CONVEYED TO THE PRESIDENT BY FORMER MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI. AS I PREVIOUSLY TOLD THIS COMMITTEE, I BECAME AWARE OF THE IMPACT THIS WAS HAVING ON OUR POLICY EFFORTS WHEN FOUR OF US WHO ARE PART OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION TO THE EGGNOG RATION MET AS A GROUP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23. WE STRESSED OUR FINDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPRESENTED THE BEST CHANCE FOR GETTING UKRAINE OUT OF CORRUPTION IT HAD BEEN IN FOR OVER 20 YEARS. WE URGED HIM TO INVITE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS VERY SKEPTICAL. GIVEN UKRAINE’S HISTORY OF CORRUPTION, THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE. HE SAID THAT UKRAINE WAS A CORRUPT COUNTRY FULL OF TERRIBLE PEOPLE. HE SAID THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN. IN THE COURSE OF THE CONVERSATION, HE REFERENCED CONVERSATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI BOOK IT WAS CLEAR TO ME DESPITE THE POSITIVE NEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BEING CONVEYED BY THIS OFFICIAL DELEGATION ABOUT THE NEW PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A NEGATIVE VIEW ON UKRAINE ROOTED IN THE PAST. HE WAS RECEIVING OTHER INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES, INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI THAT WAS MORE NEGATIVE, CAUSING HIM TO RETAIN THIS NEGATIVE VIEW. WITHIN A FEW DAYS ON MAY 29, PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED THE CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHICH INCLUDED AN INVITATION TO THE PRESIDENT TO VISIT HIM AT THE WHITE HOUSE . MORE THAN FOUR WEEKS PAST, AND WE CANNOT NAIL DOWN A DATE FOR THE MEETING. I CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S LONG-HELD NEGATIVE VIEW TOWARD UKRAINE WAS CAUSING HESITATION AND ACTUALLY SCHEDULING THE MEETING. AS MUCH AS WE HAVE SEEN IN OUR OVAL OFFICE DISCUSSION. AFTER WEEKS OF REASSURING THE UKRAINIANS THAT WAS JUST A SCHEDULING ISSUE, DECIDED TO TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH INFORMATION REACHING MR. TRUMP AND I DID SO IN TORONTO ON JULY 2, 2019 WHERE I LEAD THE U.S. DELEGATION. I SUGGESTED THAT HE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY IN ORDER TO RENEW THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND TO ENSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATING AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION. THINGS ON WHICH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD BASED HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN . I WAS CONVINCED GETTING THEM TO TALK WITH EACH OTHER WOULD OVERCOME THE NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF UKRAINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP STILL HARBORED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ‘S SENIOR AIDE ANDRIY YERMAK APPROACHED ME AND I AGREED TO MAKE THIS CONNECTION. I DID SO BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP WANTED TO CONVINCE THOSE LIKE RUDY GIULIANI WHO BELIEVED SUCH A NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE THAT TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THAT UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UKRAINE IS WORTHY OF YOUR SUPPORT. UKRAINIANS BELIEVED THAT IF THEY COULD GET THEIR OWN NARRATIVE ACROSS IN A WAY THAT CONVINCED RUDY GIULIANI THAT THEY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT ADVANCING REFORM, MAYOR GIULIANI WOULD CONVEY THAT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CORRECT A PREVIOUSLY NEGATIVE NARRATIVE. IT MADE SENSE TO ME, AND I HAVE TRIED TO BE HELPFUL. I MADE CLEAR TO UKRAINE THAT MAYOR GIULIANI WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND NOT REPRESENTING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. LIKEWISE IN MY CONVERSATIONS I NEVER CONSIDERED HIM TO BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT WERE GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS. RATHER THE INFORMATION FLOW WAS THE OTHER WAY FROM UKRAINE TO MAYOR GIULIANI IN HOPES THIS WILL CLEAR UP THE INFORMATION REACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP. ON JULY 10 AFTER HEARING FROM ANDRIY YERMAK I WROTE TO MAYOR GIULIANI AND ON JULY 19 WE MET FOR BREAKFAST AT A LONGER DISCUSSION. AT THAT MEETING I TOLD MR. GIULIANI THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WITH WHOM HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING WAS NOT CREDIBLE AND IS ACTING IN A SELF-SERVING CAPACITY. TO MY SURPRISE MAYOR GIULIANI SAID HE’D ALREADY COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AND HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT IN ANY WAY BY FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL MOTIVES IN CARRYING OUT HIS DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT. A DIFFERENT ISSUE IS WHERE SOME INDIVIDUAL UKRAINIANS MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION OR THOUGHT THEY COULD BUY INFLUENCE. THAT IS PLAUSIBLE GIVEN UKRAINE’S REPUTATION FOR CORRUPTION. THEY MET IN PERSON ON AUGUST 2, 2019. IN CONVERSATIONS WITH ME FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, WHICH I DID NOT ATTEND. MR. RUDY GILUIANI THAT HE TOLD HIM IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT’S PROGRAM THEY WOULD BE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS. S. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. IN THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, IT WAS CLEAR HE WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER ANY UKRAINIANS ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY. AT THIS TIME, I WAS FOCUSED ON OUR GOAL OF GETTING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MEET WITH EACH OTHER. I BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING SO WOULD OVERCOME THE CHRONICALLY NEGATIVE VIEW PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOWARDS UKRAINE. I WAS SEEKING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM I SAW WHEN WE MET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE OVAL OFFICE ON MAY 23rd. I WAS COMFORTABLE EXPLORING IF THERE WAS A STATEMENT UKRAINE COULD MAKE ABOUT ITS OWN INTENTIONS TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL THIS CONVINCING MR. GILUIANI TO CONVEY A MORE POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW LEADERSHIP IN UKRAINE. ON AUGUST 16, HE SHARED A DRAFT WITH ME THAT I THOUGHT LOOKED REASONABLE. IT DID NOT MENTION 2016 ELECTIONS. IT WAS GENERIC. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I HAD A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. GILUIANI SAID THE STATEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO 2016 AND MY LAST CONTACT WITH MR. GILUIANI WAS AUGUST 13th UNTIL HE TRIED TO REACH ME SEPTEMBER 20th AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS LAUNCHED. AT THIS TIME, THAT IS THE SAY IN THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST, I THOUGHT THE IDEA OF ISSUING THIS STATEMENT HAD BEEN SCRAPPED. IN SEPTEMBER, I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THERE HAD BEEN FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH UKRAINIANS ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY POSSIBLY MAKING A STATEMENT IN AN INTERVIEW WITH U.S. MEDIA SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED IN AUGUST. SINCE THESE EVENTS AND SINCE I GAVE MY TESTIMONY ON OCTOBER 3rd, A GREAT DEAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAVE COME TO LIGHT. I LEARNED MANY THINGS I DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION. FIRST, AT THE TIME I WAS CONNECTING THE TWO AND DISCUSSING WITH HIM AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO POSSIBILITY STATEMENT MADE BY THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT I DID NOT KNOW OF ANY LINKAGE OF A HOLD OF ASSISTANCE. NO ONE EVER SAID THAT TO ME. I OPPOSED TO HOLD ON U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS SOONS A I LEARNED ABOUT IT ON JULY 18th. I THOUGHT WE COULD TURN IT AROUND BEFORE UKRAINIANS EVER KNEW ABOUT IT IT. I BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE HOLD ON AUGUST 29th AND NOT BEFORE. THAT DATE IS THE FIRST TIME ANY OF THEM ASKED ME ABOUT THE HOLD BY AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN POLITICO. WHEN I SPOKE TO UKRAINIANS AUGUST 29th, INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM THEY NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING TO GET THE HOLD RELEASED. I TOLD THEM THE OPPOSITE. IT WAS A U.S. PROBLEM. WE WERE WORKING TO GET IT FIXED. I DID NOT KNOW OTHERS WERE CONVEYING A DIFFERENT MESSAGE AT THE SAME TIME. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE STRONG CONCERNS EXPECTED BY JOHN BOLTON TO MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF REGARDING THE DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS. I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10th MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON AND UKRAINIAN CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. THE MEETING WAS OVER WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE A GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS. I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THE CONVERSATION DID NOT CONTINUE. THE MEETING CONCLUDED. LATER ON IN THE WARD ROOM I MAY HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A SIDE CONVERSATION OR ALREADY LEFT THE COMPLEX BECAUSE I DO NOT REMEMBER FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT BURISMA. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND OTHERS BELIEVED ANY INVESTIGATION IN THE UKRAINIAN COMPANY BURISMA WAS AMOUNT TO INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. IT HAS LONG BEEN U.S. POLICY UNDER MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE AND FIGHT INTERNAL CORRUPTION. I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH UKRAINE MAKING ITS OWN STATEMENT ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AT HOME. MAYOR GILUIANI AND I REJECTED THE CONSPIRACY THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY HIS DUTIED AS VICE PRESIDENT BY MONEY MADE TO HIS SON. I HAVE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR 24 YEARS. HE IS AN HONORABLE MAN. I HOLD HIM IN THE HIGHEST REGARD. AT NO TIME WAS AWAY OF OR KNOWINGLY TOOK PART IN AN EFFORT TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. AS YOU KNOW, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS A NOT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. I WAS NOT ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. I WAS NOT MADE AWARE TO A REFERENCE OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WAS RELEASED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019. I UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS A DISTINCTION. I DID NOT KNOW THEY CONFLATED THE INVESTIGATION. IN RETROSPECT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFUSING. IN HINDSIGHT, I NOW UNDERSTAND OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CORRUPTION INVOLVING BURISMA AS EQUIVALENT TO INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. I SAW THEM AS DIFFERENT. THE LATTER BEING UNACCEPTABLE. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE CONNECTION DIFFERENTLY. HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS. MUCH AS BEEN MADE OF THE TERM THREE AMIGOS. I NEVER USED THAT TERM AND FRANKLY GRIN. í WHEN I HEAR IT BECAUSE IT WILL ALWAYS REFER TO SENATOR McCAIN, LIEBERMAN AND GRAHAM IN REFERENCE TO THEIR WORK IN IRAQ. I WAS NEVER AWARE OF DESIGNATION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE PUTTING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALL THREE OF US IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY. WE CONTINUED TO WORK TOGETHER AFTER OUR ATTENDANCE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION. LEADING DIPLOMACY. I WELCOMED THE INFLUENCE OF A CABINET MEMBER AND EU AMBASSADOR. FIFTH, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 26th. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I WERE VISITING THE CONFLICT ZONE. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, ALLOW ME TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR PROVIDING THIS TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL INTEREST IN UKRAINE. I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. >>WE’LL MOVE TO THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS. IT WILL BE 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES FOR THE MINORITY COUNCIL. FOLLOWING THAT WE’LL PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE. EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS. AMBASSADOR VOLKER I WAS GOING TO YIELD TO THE COUNCIL. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS YOU MADE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT FIRST. FIRST, YOU SAID THAT NOW FORMER ATTORNEY SENKO WAS NOT CREDIBLE, HE IS THE AUTHOR OF A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH. A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS SHARED WITH THE HILL. A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP BY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. WHY IS IT THAT YOU FOUND HIM NOT CREDIBLE AND TOLD MR. GILUIANI SO? >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OFF, THE ALLEGATIONS THEMSELVES, INCLUDING THOSE AGAINST AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH DID NOT APPEAR TO BE CREDIBLE AT ALL. I KNOW HER TO BE AN INCREDIBLY COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL. SOMEONE I WORKED WITH MANY, MANY YEARS. SUGGESTIONS SHE WAS ACTING IN SOME INAPPROPRIATE MANNER WERE NOT CREDIBLE TO ME. I HAVE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME. THOSE ACCUSATIONS WERE NOT CREDIBLE. SEPARATE FROM THAT, I WAS AWARE OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN UKRAINE. WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT APPEARED TO NOT BE IN A FAVORABLE POSITION GOING INTO THE ELECTIONS WHERE INCREASINGLY APPARENT THEN CANDIDATES ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO WIN. AS IS OFTEN THE CASE IN UKRAINE, A CHANGE IN POWER MEANS A CHANGE IN PROSECUTORIAL EFFORTS. HE WAS INTERESTED IN PRESERVING HIS OWN POSITION. HE WANTED TO AVOID BEING FIRED BY A NEW GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO PREVENT POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF HIMSELF. THIS IS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE WELCOMED, AS WELL, HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE AVOIDED ANY EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE AS WELL. BY MAKING ALLEGATIONS AND MAKING SURE THEY WERE REACHING U.S. MEDIA, I THINK HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE HIMSELF APPEAR TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND INFLUENTIAL PLAYER IN THE UNITED STATES. >>LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN. THAT HAS BEEN A CONTINUING REFRAIN FROM SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, AS WELL. WHY WAS IT YOU FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN RELATED TO HIS SON OR BURISMA NOT TO BE BELIEVED? >>SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAVE KNOWN FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME. I KNOW HOW HE RESPECTS HIS DUTIES OF HIGHER OFFICE. IT IS JUST NOT CREDIBLE TO ME THAT A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN ACT AS HOW HE SEES BEST FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST. >>FINALLY, AMBASSADOR, BEFORE I TURN IT OVER, I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING YOU SAID ON PAGE 8 OF YOUR STATEMENT. IN HINDSIGHT, I NOW UNDERSTAND OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE UKRAINIAN COMPANY BURISMA EQUIVALENT TO INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. IN RETROSPECT YOU SAID I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION DIFFERENTLY. HAD I DONE SO, I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY ON OBJECTIONS. WHAT IS IT NOW, AMBASSADOR, IN RIGHT ROW EXPECT THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT YOU DIDN’T AT THAT TIME THAT LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU WOULD OR SHOULD HAVE RAISED THESE OBJECTIONS? >>OTHERS DID NOT SEE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE THINGS AS I SAW IT. AS I SAID, THERE IS A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. THERE IS A HISTORY OF THE COMPANY OF BURISMA. IT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED. THAT IS WELL-KNOWN. THERE IS A SEPARATE ALLEGATION ABOUT THE VICE PRESIDENT ACTING INAPPROPRIATELY. HIS SON WAS A BOARD MEMBER OF THIS COMPANY. THESE THINGS I SAW AS DISTINCT. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN WORKING WITH UKRAINIANS WAS TO THREAD A NEEDLE TO SEE WHETHER THINGS THEY CAN DO THAT ARE APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE WAS PART OF UKRAINE’S OWN POLICY OF FIGHTING CORRUPTION THAT HELPED CLARIFY FOR OUR PRESIDENT THAT THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THAT VERY EFFORT. IF THERE IS A WAY TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH THE EFFORT TO TRY TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. AS IT TURNS OUT, I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THE OTHER PEOPLE DIDN’T SEE OR DIDN’T CONSIDER THIS DISTINCTION. FOR THEM IT WAS IS I ANONYMOUS. >>ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAW IT HAD THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDEN’S, YOU WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM SO. >>I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO THAT, YES, SIR. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. ONE FOLLOW UP ON THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHEN YOU SAY THREAD THE NEEDLE, YOU MEAN THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S SON AND BURISMA BUT YOU WERE TRYING TO SEPARATE THE TWO OF THEM IN YOUR MINE. IS THAT RIGHT? >>I BELIEVE THEY WERE SEPARATE. THIS REFERENCES THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH MR. GILUIANI, AS WELL WHERE I THINK THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE SELF- SERVING AND NOT CREDIBLE. SEPARATE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION OF UKRAINIANS THAT MAY HAVE TRIED TO CORRUPT THINGS OR BUY INFLUENCE. TO ME THERE ARE DIFFERENCE THINGS. AS I SAID I THINK THE FORMER IS ACCEPTABLE. >>YOU UNDERSTOOD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUNT BIDEN AND BURISMA? >>I KNEW HE HAD BEEN A BOARD MEMBER, YES. >>LET’S FOCUS ON THE JULY 25th CALL FOR A MOMENT. MR. MORRISON, JULY 25th WAS DAY NUMBER WHAT FOR YOU AS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OVER SEEING UKRAINE? >>15th, VERY FEW DAYS IN THE OFFICE. >>YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU RECEIVED AN E-MAIL ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25th FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SHORTLY BEFORE THE CALL. IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES. >>I BELIEVE IN THAT E-MAIL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU HE HAD BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ADVANCE OF THE CALL. YOU ALSO TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU ON ANOTHER OCCASION THAT HE COULD CALL THE PRESIDENT WHEN EVER HE WANTED. IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES. >>ON JULY 25th, DID YOU, IN FACT, MAKE AN EFFORT TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY OCCURRED? >>I DID. >>DID IT HAPPEN? >>YES. >>ON OTHER OCCASIONS WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU HE SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, DID YOU SEEK CONFIRMATION OF THAT FACT? >>YES. >>ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU DID SEEK TO CONFIRM THAT THEY HAD SPOKEN, WHAT DID YOU FIND? >>THEY HASN’T. >>I WANT TO PULL UP A TEXT MESSAGE ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25th BETWEEN — WELL IT SHOULD BE ANOTHER ONE. SORRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WITH YOU AMBASSADOR VOLKER. AT 7:54 IN THE MORNING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS CALL ASAP. THEN AT 9:35 AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU RESPOND. IS THE SCREEN WORKING IN FRONT OF YOU OR JUST TO THE SIDE? IF YOU COULD READ WHAT YOU SAID AT 935. >>I SAID HI GORDON GOT YOUR MESSAGE. HAD A GREAT LUNCH AND PASSED YOUR MESSAGE TO HIM. HE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW. I THINK EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE. >>AND WHO IS THAT? >>ANDRE IS THE SENIOR ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE. >>WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE YOU HAD RECEIVED? >>PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD BE CLEAR, CONVINCING, FORT RIGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION, INVESTIGATING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS, WHATEVER THERE IS. IF HE DOES THAT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PREPARED TO BE REASSURED THAT HE WOULD SAY YES, LET’S GET THIS DATE FOR THIS VISIT SCHEDULED. >>DID YOU UNDERSTAND FROM THAT MESSAGE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD SPOKEN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP? >>I WASN’T SURE WHETHER HE HAD OR NOT. HE DOES SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT. I KNEW HE HAD CONVERSATIONS IN GENERAL. I DIDN’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ONE. >>ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IS ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE FROM YOU THAT SAME MORNING AT 8:36 IN THE MORNING TO ANDRE. >>YES. I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE TIME DIFFERENCE, THIS IS IN THE AFTERNOON IN UKRAINE. >>THIS IS EAST COAST TIME? >>YES. >>THIS IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE. >>JUST AFTER THE LUNCH I HAD WITH ANDRE, GOOD LUCK. THANKS. HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONVINCES TRUMP INVESTIGATE AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED WE’LL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON. GOOD LUCK. SEE YOU TOMORROW. KURT. >>DOES THIS RELAY THE MESSAGE YOU RECEIVED FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >>YES. >>DID THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THIS CALL? >>THE STAFF DID, YES. >>PER USUAL CUSTOM, WERE THESE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY OBJECTIVES? >>THEY WERE. >>SINCE THERE HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY IS DETERMINED THROUGH THE INNER AGENCY PROCESS. >>IT IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET. THAT LAYS OUT HOW THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO BE PROVIDED OPTIONS FOR HIS DECISION. >>THERE IS EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO FINALIZE ANY POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT? >>SOMETIMES. >>YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL RIGHT? >>I DID. >>YOU TESTIFIED THE CALL WAS NOT WHAT YOU WERE HOPING TO HEAR? >>I WAS HOPING FOR A MORE FULL- THROATED STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT CONCERNING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S REFORM AGENDA GIVEN WHERE WE WERE AT THE TIME WITH RESPECT TO THE OVERWHELMING MANDATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SERVANT OF THE PARTY PEOPLE RECEIVED IN WASHINGTON. >>THAT IS THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT, THAT ELECTION OCCURRED FOUR DAYS EARLIER? >>SOUNDS RIGHT. >>PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S PARTY WON IN A LANDSLIDE? >>THEY RECEIVED MORE THAN A MAJORITY. >>AT LEAST IN UKRAINE THERE WAS TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FOR ZELENSKY’S ANTICORRUPTION AGENDA, IS THAT RIGHT? >>AT THE TIME. >>WITHIN THE INNER AGENCIES HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, WAS THERE BROAD SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >>THERE WAS BROAD SUPPORT FOR GIVING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A CHANCE. >>TO THAT POINT HE HAD SHOWN HE HAD AT LEAST PUT HIS MONEY WITH HIS MOUTH WAS FOR THE THREE MONTHS HE HAD BEEN IN OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT? >>APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS, YES. >>I WANT TO SHOW A COUPLE EXCERPTS FROM THIS CALL RECORD TO EACH OF YOU. THE FIRST IS PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDING TO A COMMENT BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RELATED TO DEFENSE SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES AND THE PURCHASE OF JAVELINS. PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN SAYS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH. OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT. UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CROWD STRIKE. I GET YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE. THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. THE NEXT EXEMPT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON. THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT. SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT. BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROSES CUSHION. >>I WAS NOT AWARE OF MUCH OF THIS AT THE TIME. >>IN FACT, SUBSEQUENT DO THIS CALL YOU DID NOTHING TO IMPLEMENT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I DID NOT UNDERSTAND ANY INSTRUCTION TO DO SO. >>YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE WITHIN — YOU COORDINATE THE INNER AGENCY PROCESS. YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE DOING THAT EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OF DEPOSITION THAT HEARING THIS CALL CONFIRMED WHAT YOU CALLED THE PARALLEL PROCESS THAT YOUR PREDECESSOR, FIONA HILL WARNED YOU ABOUT. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >>DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH DR. HILL AND I WERE CONDUCTING HANDOFF MEETINGS SO I COULD BE UP TO SPEED OF THE PORTFOLIO AT THE TIME, SHE MENTIONED THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS AND THE PARALLEL PROCESS. SHE MENTIONED ISSUES LIKE BURISMA, WHICH WERE NOT WORTHY TO ME AT THE TIME BECAUSE I HAD NEVER HEARD OF THEM BEFORE. UPON HEARING THEM IN THE CALL, I WOUND ALL CONFIRMING THERE IS SOMETHING HERE. >>WHO DID SHE INFORM YOU WAS INVOLVED IN THIS PARALLEL PROCESS? >>AS I RECALL IT WAS DEFINITELY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MR. GILUIANI. >>AFTER SHE INFORMED YOU OF THIS COMPANY, BURISMA, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT WAS? >>AFTER THAT PARTICULAR HANDOFF MEETING I PROCEEDED TO LOOK IT UP ON THE INTERNET. I GOOGLED IT. >>DID YOU FIND IT HAD ASSOCIATION WITH HUNTER BIDEN? >>YES. >>YOU SAID YOU WERE SURPRISED AND TROUBLED AFTER YOU READ THE CALL RECORD AFTER IT WAS RELEASED SEPTEMBER 25th. YOU SAID AFTER READING THE CALL RECORD IT WAS CLEAR TO YOU THAT THE BIDEN BURISMA PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE CALL. WERE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL INTEREST, NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST. WHAT DID YOU MEAN? >>IS THAT LANGUAGE FROM MY OCTOBER 3rd TESTIMONY? >>YES, IT WAS. WHAT I DO MEAN BY THAT AND I WOULD LIKE TO PHRASE IT IN MY OWN WORDS NOW. I DON’T THINK RAISING 2016 ELECTIONS OR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR THESE THINGS I CONSIDER TO BE CONSPIRACIES THAT HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE UKRAINIANS, PARTICULARLY THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL, ARE — THEY ARE NOT THINGS WE SHOULD BE PURSUING AS PART OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY WITH UKRAINE. WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING UKRAINE’S DEMOCRACY, REFORMS. IT IS OWN FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION, ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST RUSSIA ITS DEFENSE CAPABILITIES. THESE ARE THE HEART OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE PURSUING. I DON’T THINK PURSUING THESE THINGS SERVED A NATIONAL INTEREST. >>MR. MORRISON, SHORTLY AFTER YOU HEARD THE JULY 25th CALL, YOU TESTIFIED YOU ALERTED THE LEGAL ADVISOR PRETTY MUCH RIGHT AWAY. IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>YOU INDICATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU WENT TO HIM OVER THE CONCERN OF THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL FALLOUT IF THE CALL RECORD BECAME PUBLIC. NOT BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT WAS LEGAL. IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. YOU WOULD AGREE, RIGHT, THAT ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL RIVAL IS INAPPROPRIATE, WOULD YOU NOT? >>IT IS NOT WHAT WE RECOMMENDED THE PRESIDENT DISCUSS. >>NOW, IN A SECOND MEETING WITH HIM, WHAT DID YOU RECOMMEND THAT HE DO TO PREVENT THE CALL RECORD FROM LEAKING? >>I RECOMMENDED WE RESTRICT ACCESS. >>HAVE YOU EVER DONE THAT BEFORE? >>NO. >>DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR BEFORE YOU WENT TO SPEAK? >>NO. >>DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY LEARN THE CALL RECORD HAD BEEN PUT IN A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM. WHAT REASON DID HE GIVE YOU FOR WHY THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT IN THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM. >>IT WAS A MISTAKE. >>HE SAID IT WAS A MISTAKE. >>IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR. >>ISN’T IT TRUE THAT YOU HAD AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT ACCESS ON THE REGULAR SYSTEM IF YOU WANTED TO? >>I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE APPROPRIATE STAFF TO DO SO, YES. >>WHY DID YOU GO TO THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO RECOMMEND THAT? >>I WAS CONCERNED THAT, BASED ON THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE LISTENING ROOM, I DID NOT THEN AND I DO NOT NOW RECALL ANY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE LEGAL ADVISOR’S OFFICE AS THEY WERE OFTEN OR HEAD OF STATE CALLSER BUT NOT ALWAYS. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT JOHN AND HIS DEPUTY WERE AWARE TO REVIEW THIS PARTICULAR TRANSCRIPT. >>YOU WANTED THEM TO REVIEW IT BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IF POTENTIAL POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES? NOT BECAUSE ANYTHING WAS WRONG? >>CORRECT. POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES WAS AN UMBRELLA TERM I USED TO DESCRIBE A SERIES OF EFFECTS I FEARED ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF AND WHEN THE CONTENT OF THE TRANSCRIPT OR THE CONTENT LEAKED. >>JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, YOU HEARD THE CALL, YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE TALKING POINTS THAT THE NSC PREPARED AND WAS INSTEAD TALKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT FIONA HILL HAD WARNED YOU ABOUT. THEN YOU REPORTED IT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR? IS THAT THE CORRECT CHAIN OF EVENTS? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IN THE JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY VOLUNTEERS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT RUDY GILUIANI HAD ALREADY SPOKEN THE ONE OF HIS ASSOCIATES. AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HOPES GILUIANI WILL COME TO UKRAINE. IN RESPONSE PRESIDENT TRUMP PROCEEDS TO MENTION MR. GILUIANI ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS DURING THIS CALL. YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A MAY 23rd MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHERE THE PRESIDENT SPOKE QUITE NEGATIVELY ABOUT UKRAINE AND HOW IT WOULD TRY TO TAKE HIM DOWN. AND THAT HE ALSO REPEATED SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS MR. GILUIANI WAS MAKING. IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES. >>THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE IN THE MEDIA, WERE THEY NOT? >>YES. >>DURING THAT MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SECRETARY TERRY TO TALK TO GILUIANI, ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>I DIDN’T TAKE IT AS AN INSTRUCTION. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. HE SAID THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEAR. WHEN WE WERE GIVING HIM OUR ASSESSMENT ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND WHERE UKRAINE WAS HEADED. THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEAR. I HEAR HE HAS TERRIBLE THINGS. HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM. TALK TO RUDY. I DIDN’T TAKE IT AS AN INSTRUCTION. >>WHEN HE SAID TALK TO RUDY, YOU DIDN’T TAKE HIM TO MEAN FOR YOU TO TALK TO RUDY? >>I DIDN’T TAKE IT THAT WAY. I TOOK IT AS THAT JUST PART OF THE DIALOG THAT I HEAR OTHER THINGS — I HEAR THEM FROM RUDY GILUIANI AND OTHER PEOPLE. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON. HE IS SURROUNDED BY AN MATERIAL PEOPLE. TALK TO RUDY. IT SEEMED LIKE PART OF THE DIALOG. >>AFTER THAT MEETING, DID YOU IN FACT, TALK TO RUDY? >>AFTER THAT MEETING, NOT IMMEDIATELY, NO. REMEMBER, THIS WAS MAY 23rd. WE CONTINUED TO PROCEED WITH OUR EFFORT TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SCHEDULED AND TO WRAP UP OUR SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND GOVERNMENT. I DID, HOWEVER ON JULY 2nd, AS I WAS BECOMING CONCERNED THAT WE WERE NOT SUCCEEDING, TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY I THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM. THAT PROBLEM BEING NEGATIVE FEED OF INFORMATION FROM MR. GILUIANI. >>ULTIMATELY, I THINK AS YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU OF INTRODUCED HIM TO MR. GILUIANI AND THEY EVENTUALLY MET, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. DURING THIS WHOLE TIME IN JULY AND AFTER THE CALL IN AUGUST WHEN THEY MET, UKRAINE STILL DESPERATELY WANTED THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>YOU ALSO WANTED THAT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>WHY WAS THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING SO IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >>THINK HE FELT HE WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. HE IS A CHARISMATIC LEADER WHO RAN A REMARKABLE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE AGAINST CORRUPTION. HE HAD A MASSIVE SHOWING IN THE PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION, 73% SUPPORT. HE BELIEVED HE WAS LEADING A MOVEMENT OF MAJOR CHANGE IN UKRAINE. AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT SEE THAT OR DIDN’T APPRECIATE THAT. IF HE HAD A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN AND SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP FACE-TO-FACE, HE BELIEVED THAT HE COULD BE VERY CONVINCING ABOUT THAT AND I AGREE WITH HIM. >>THAT WAS YOUR ASSESSMENT? >>YES. AND ALSO WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BELIEVED. >>YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE IN UKRAINE THERE WOULD BE A BOOST FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IF THERE WERE PHOTOED OF HIM IN OVAL OFFICE, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>YOU TESTIFIED MR. GILUIANI AND ZELENSKY’S AID MEET ON AUGUST THE END. WHERE DID THEY MEET? >>THEY MET IN MADRID. >>DID YOU LEARN THIS MR. GILUIANI REQUESTED ANYTHING OF THE UKRAINIANS IN THE MEETING. >>MR. GILUIANI SAID HE THOUGHT UKRAINE SHOULD ISSUE A STATEMENT. WE WERE PREPARED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. THAT KICKED OFF THE SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS THAT I SAID IN MY TESTIMONY. >>WE’LL GET OF INTO THAT IN A SECOND. MR. GILUIANI DID NOT EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT STATEMENT? >>HE SAID SOMETHING MORE GENERAL, AS I RECALL. I RECALL HIM SAYING FIGHT CORRUPTION, THEIR COMMITMENT TO BEING DIFFERENT. THE STATEMENT WOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC MENTION OF BURISMA AND 2016. >>LET’S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE TEXT MESSAGES SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO SAID WHAT. FIRST, LET’S START ON AUGUST 9th. THIS IS A TEXT EXCHANGE BETWEEN YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WRITES AT THE TOP, MORRISON, READY TO GET DATES AS SOON AS CONFIRMS. WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? >>I SAID EXCELLENT WITH TWO EXCLAMATION POINTS. HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM? WITH A SMILE AFTERWARDS. >>AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED NOT SURE I DID. I THINK POTUS WANTS THE DELIVERABLE. >>HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? >>CLEARLY LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS GOING ON. HAD YOU DISCUSSED CONFIRMING A DATE FOR A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AROUND THIS TIME. >>LIKELY WOULD HAVE. >>DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT A STATEMENT THAT UKRAINE WAS — THEY WERE TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO MAKE? >>I DID NOT. >>WERE YOU AWARE — DO YOU YOURSELF KNOW WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MEANT BY THE DELIVERABLE? >>I DID NOT AT THE TIME. I THINK I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING NOW. >>WHAT JUST A FEW MINUTES LATER WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDING, MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ASK ANDRE FOR A DRAFT STATEMENT SO WE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO COVER. EVEN THOUGH ZELENSKY DOES A LIVE PRESSER THEY CAN STILL SUMMARIZE IN A BRIEF STATEMENT THOUGHTS? >>HOW DID YOU RESPOND? >>AGREE. >>THIS RELATES TO THE STATEMENT MR. GILUIANI WANTED? >>IT RELATES TO THE STATEMENT THEY DISCUSSED. >>TO THE NEXT DAY ON AUGUST 10th , THERE IS ANOTHER TEXT IS CHANGE BETWEEN YOU. I WROTE I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH. LET’S IRON OUT A STATEMENT. THEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CAN GO FORWARD. >>HE RESPONDS, ONCE WE HAVE A DATE WE’LL CALL FOR A PRESS BRIEFING, ANNOUNCING UPCOMING VISIT AND OUTLINING VISION FOR THE REBOOT OF U.S. UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS, BURISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING IN INVESTIGATIONS. WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? >>SOUNDS GREAT. >>THE DATE HE IS REFERRING TO WAS THE DATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>TWO DAYS LATER ON AUGUST 12th YOU RECEIVE ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE WHICH READS SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE PROBLEM OF INTERFERENCE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESSES OF THE UNITED STATES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF SOME UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. WE INTEND TO INITIATE AND COMPLETE A TRANSPARENT AND UNBIAS INVESTIGATION OF ALL AVAILABLE FACTS AND EPISODES WHICH WILL PREVENT THE OCCURRENCE OF THIS PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE. THIS WAS A DRAFT OF THE STATEMENT THAT YOU AND MR. GILUIANI AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD BEEN DISCUSSING? >>THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT FROM HIM AFTER THE CONVERSATION WE HAD. >>IT DOES NOT MENTION BURISMA AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE, CORRECT? >>IT DOES NOT. YOU TESTIFIED YOU AND MAYOR GILUIANI HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DRAFT AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT. >>CORRECT. >>MR. GILUIANI SAID IF THE STATEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE BURISMA AND 2016 ELECTION, IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY. IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>THIS WAS THE SAME RUDY GILUIANI THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DISCUSSING IN THAT MAY 23rd MEETING AND ASKED YOU AND OTHERS TO TALK TO, CORRECT? >>THAT IS THE SAME MR. GILUIANI. >>AT THIS POINT, MAY 23rd, YOU WERE AWARE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WAS PUBLICLY PROMOTING, CORRECT? >>I KNEW THAT HE HAD ADOPTED OR WAS INTERESTED IN ALL OF THOSE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. >>BACK IN MAY? >>BACK IN MAY. >>HE WAS INVESTING ON A PUBLIC COMMITMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? >>WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >>BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION. >>BURISMA AND 2016, YES. >>AT THE TIME YOU WERE ENGAGED IN COORDINATING FOR THIS STATEMENT, DID YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL THERE WAS SUCH AN EMPHASIS ON A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CARRY OUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING? >>I DIDN’T FIND IT THAT UNUSUAL. I THINK WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS HIGHLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BEING COMMITTED TO REALLY CHANGING UKRAINE AFTER HIS ENTIRELY NEGATIVE VIEW OF THE COUNTRY, HE WOULD WANT TO HEAR SOMETHING MORE FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO BE CONVINCED TO GIVE THIS GUY A CHANCE. >>PERHAPS, HE ALSO WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT BECAUSE IT WOULD LOCK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE THOUGHT MIGHT BENEFIT HIM? >>AGAIN, WHEN WE SAY THESE INVESTIGATIONS, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD US TO BE TALKING ABOUT WHAT UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION. >>WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION. WE CAN AGREE ON THAT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS, ISN’T IT CLEAR THAT A PUBLIC STATEMENT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO MR. GILUIANI BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICALLY USEFUL TO THE PRESIDENT? >>THE WAY I SAW IT IS THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. IT WOULD BE A WAY OF BEING CONVINCING TO MAYOR GILUIANI AND ALSO THE PRESIDENT THAT THIS TEAM IN UKRAINE IS SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION REFORM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING A MORE POSITIVE ATTITUDE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING SCHEDULED, THEN THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. >>THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >>CORRECT. >>IT WAS A NECESSARY CONDITION, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD. >>I WOULD NOT HAVE CALLED IT A NECESSARY CONDITION. IN FACT, WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR LATER THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO AGREE ON AN AGREEMENT THAT THE UKRAINIAN WERE COMFORTABLE WITH, I AGREED TO DROP IT, IT IS NOT WORTH IT. >>IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT BASED ON THE TEXT THAT YOU WROTE, LINKING THE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE 2016 ELECTION ON JULY 25th TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, YOU ARE SAYING IN AUGUST WITH THIS BACK AND FORTH YOU WERE UNAWARE THIS PUBLIC STATEMENT WAS A CONDITION FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >>I WOULD NOT HAVE CALLED IT A CONDITION. I VIEWED AS VERY HELPFUL. IF WE COULD GET THIS DONE IT IMPROVE THE PERCEPTION PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHERS HAD. WE WOULD GET THE DATE FOR A MEETING. IF WE DIDN’T HAVE A STATEMENT, I WASN’T GIVING UP AND THINKING THEN WE’LL NEVER GET A MEETING. >>LET’S GO TO THE NEXT DAY WHERE THERE IS ANOTHER TEXT EXCHANGE. AT THE TOP, WOULD YOU READ THE FIRST TEXT. >>IT SAYS HI, ANDRE, GOOD TALKING. FOLLOWING TEXT WITH INSERT AT THE END. WITH SEE WE’LL SEE THE REQUEST. >>THE OTHER IS IDENTICAL. IT JUST ADD INVOLVE BURISMA IN THE I HAVE ELECTIONS IS THAT RIGHT. >>CORRECT. >>THAT IS WHAT MR. GILUIANI ADDED TO THE STATEMENT. >>TO BE CREDIBLE. >>UKRAINIANS DID NOT ISSUE THIS STATEMENT CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING YET, DID HE? >>NOT YET. >>I WANT TO MOVE TO SEPTEMBER. MR. MORRISON YOU ACCOMPANIED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO WARSAW WHEN HE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RIGHT? >>I WAS IN WARSAW WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS DESIGNATED AT THE PRESIDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE. I WAS ACCOMPANYING MR. BOLTON. >>IN THAT MEETING, WERE THE UKRAINIANS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE? >>YES. >>WHAT DID THEY SAY? >>IT WAS THE FIRST ISSUE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED. THEY TALKED ABOUT IT IMPORTANCE TO UKRAINE. ITS IMPORTANCE TO ITS RELATIONSHIP. WHAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT PENCE’S RESPONSE? >>VICE PRESIDENT REPRESENTED IT WAS A PRIORITY FOR HIM. AND THAT WE WERE WORKING TO ADDRESS ANY CHARACTERIZED PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONCERNS ABOUT THE STATE OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. AND THE PRESIDENT’S OF GETTING EUROPEAN TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE. >>DID HE DIRECTLY EXPLAIN TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT THOSE WERE THE ACTUAL REASONS FOR THE HOLD? OR WAS HE COMMENTING ON GENERAL CONCERNS OF THE PRESIDENT? >>I DON’T KNOW THAT HE NECESSARILY ACKNOWLEDGED A HOLD. HE MENTIONED WE WERE REVIEWING THE ASSISTANCE. THAT IS THE WAY I HEARD IT. THAT IS THE WAY I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT. THOSE ARE THE POINTS HE RAISED TO HELP PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WERE IN OUR PROCESS. >>TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THE STAFF LEVEL AS THE COORDINATOR OF INNER AGENCY PROCESS, YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF A REVIEW OF THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE MONEY WERE YOU? >>WE HAD BEEN RUNNING A REVIEW. WE RAN A PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO GENERATE FOR THE PRESIDENT’S CONSIDERATION AS TO THE STATE OF INNER AGENCY SUPPORT FOR CONTINUING UKRAINE’S SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE. >>THE INTIRE INNER AGENCY SUPPORTED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >>CORRECT. >>AFTER THIS LARGER MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU SAW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IMMEDIATELY GO OVER AND PULL ANDRE ASIDE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION S THAT RIGHT? >>PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEFT THE ROOM. VICE PRESIDENT PENCE LEFT THE ROOM. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR HAD THIS DISCUSSION, YES. >>WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT HE? >>THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL MAKE A STATEMENT WITH RESPECT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS AS A CONDITION OF HAVING THE AID LIFTED. >>YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU. WHY NOT? >>WELL, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT I SAW AS AN ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO ACCOMPLISHING WHAT I HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO HELP ACCOMPLISH. WHICH WAS GIVING THE PRESIDENT THE INFORMATION HE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THAT THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE COULD GO FORWARD. >>NOW THERE IS A WHOLE OTHER WRINKLE TO IT? >>THERE WAS THE APPEARANCE OF ONE BASED ON AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPRESENTED. >>YOU TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION? >>I PROMPTED REACH OUT TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO SCHEDULE A SECURE PHONE CALL. >>YOU TESTIFY ONE SMALL DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE GENERAL WAS ACCURATE? >>QUESTION. >>GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU CONFIRMED EVERYTHING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOLD YOU EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE THING RELATING TO THE LOCATION OF A MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION? >>REACHED OUT TO HIM AND REQUESTED HIS AVAILABILITY FOR A SECURE PHONE CALL. >>WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE WHEN YOU EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID? >>DELL THE LAWYERS. >>DID YOU GO TELL THE LAWYERS? >>WHEN I RETURNED TO THE STATES, YES. >>DID HE EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY HE WANTED YOU TO TELL THE LAWYERS? >>HE DID NOT. >>A FEW DAYS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 7th YOU SPOKE AGAIN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO TOLD YOU HE HAD GOTTEN OFF THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>THAT SOUNDS CORRECT, YES. >>WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO HIM? >>IF I RECALL THIS CONVERSATION CORRECTLY, THIS WAS WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELATED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO MAKE THE STATEMENT AND HE HAD TO WANT TO DO IT. >>BY THAT POINT, DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE BIDEN 2016 INVESTIGATIONS? >>I THINK I DID, YES. >>AND THAT WAS A CONDITION FOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED. >>I UNDERSTOOD THAT IS WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BELIEVED. >>AFTER SPEAKING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP? >>YES. >>YOU TESTIFIED HEARING THIS INFORMATION GAVE YOU A SINGING FEELING. WHY WAS THAT A? >>THESE ARE ONE YEAR DOLLARS, THE DOD AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE FUNDS. WE ONLY HAD SO MUCH TIME. BECAUSE CONGRESS IMPOSED A 15 DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS, SEPTEMBER 7th, 30th, THAT REALLY MEANS SEPTEMBER 15th IN ORDER SECURE A DECISION FROM THE PRESIDENT TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO GO FORWARD. >>DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION? >>YES. >>WHAT DID HE SAY? >>HE SAID TELL THE LAWYERS. >>WHY DID HE SAY TO TELL THE LAWYERS? >>HE DID NOT EXPLAIN. >>HE DOESN’T TELL YOU TO GO TELL THE LAWYERS BECAUSE YOU ARE RUNNING UP ON THE EIGHT DAY DEADLINE, RIGHT? >>AGAIN, I DON’T KNOW WHY HE DIRECTED THAT. IT SEEMED REASONABLE AND WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO. >>AND YOU WERE NOT GOING TO TELL THEM BECAUSE OF THAT CONCERN, YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE HEARING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAY TO YOU? >>CORRECT. >>JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, YOU REPORTED TWO CONCERNING CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO THE LAWYERS IN EARLY SEPTEMBER. IN WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM HIM THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE TO GET UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE SPECIFIC POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25th CALL. >>I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS SAYING WERE REQUIREMENTS. >>YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS REFERRING TO WERE THE TWO PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCED ON THE JULY 25th CALL. >>YES. >>DURING THIS EARLY SEPTEMBER TIME PERIOD, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >>I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE CONVERSATION. >>WHAT DO YOU RECALL ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION? >>I BELIEVE ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 6th, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS IN TOWN TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON HIS ACTIVITIES. HE PROVIDED THAT UPDATE. WE HAD A ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS SEPARATE PROCESS. >>WHAT DO YOU RECALL SAYING TO HIM ABOUT THE SEPARATE PROCESS? >>I WAS INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING HIS UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS. >>DID YOU EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS WAS? >>I THINK IT WAS PRIMARILY ON RECEIVE MODE. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DO YOU RECALL THIS CONVERSATION? >>THANK YOU. I DO REMEMBER A CONVERSATION WITH TIM. I’M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING. I LEFT AROUND THAT TIME TO GO ON A TRIP. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. I’M NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING. WHAT I DO REMEMBER IS TIM ASKING ME WHAT IS MY IMPRESSION OF THE ROLE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PLAYS? MY RESPONSE TO THAT WAS WELL, I FIND IT HELPFUL HE HAS POLITICAL CONTACTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I DON’T HAVE THOSE CONTACTS. I’M WORKING THE NATIONAL SECURITY, DIPLOMATIC FRONT. I DON’T HAVE THE POLITICAL CONTACTS. HE IS ABLE TO USE THOSE TO SUPPORT THE GOALS WE ARE WORKING TOWARD. I VIEWED THAT AS HELPFUL. >>THAT IS A GOOD SEGWAY TO THE NEXT EXHIBIT WHICH IS A SEPTEMBER 8th TEXT EXCHANGE WITH YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. AT THE TOP AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS GUYS, MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH Z, PERIOD POTUS, PERIOD LET’S TALK. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, ABOUT 16 MINUTES LATER SAYS GORDON AND I JUST SPOKE AND I CAN BRIEF YOU, MEANING AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IF YOU AND GORDON DON’T CONNECT. ONE HOUR LATER AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS THE NIGHTMARE IS GIVE THE INTERVIEW AND DON’T GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT I QUIT. AT THE BOTTOM, HOW DO YOU RESPOND? >>I’M NOT IN THE LOOP. TALK MONDAY? >>SO YOU WERE NOT IN THE LOOP IN TERMS OF ALL OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. MORRISON WERE HAVING? >>CORRECT. >>ULTIMATELY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED SEPTEMBER 11th? >>THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >>WERE YOU AWARE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11th THERE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT CIRCULATING AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE? >>I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO. >>BUT YOU WERE TO PRESERVE RECORDS? >>WE RECEIVE A NUMBER OF THOSE REQUESTS. >>WHEN WAS THE HOLD LIFTED? >>S AS I UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT GAVE THAT ON SEPTEMBER 11th. >>WHICH WAS TWO DAYS CONGRESS ISSUED AN INVESTIGATION? >>YOU’LL. THAT CONCLUDES THE MAJORITY 45 MINUTES. BEFORE I TURN TO THE MINORITY, DO YOU NEED A BREAK? >>WELL, AMBASSADOR AND MR. MORRISON, I HAVE BAD NEWS FOR YOU. TV RATINGS ARE WAY DOWN. WAY DOWN. DON’T HOLD IT PERSONALLY. I DON’T THINK IT IS YOU GUYS. WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THE DEMOCRATS ARE COOKING UP HERE ON THE BIAS, AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN’T BUYING IT. I KNOW YOU BOTH ANSWERED THIS IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS BUT I JUST WANT TO BRING A LITTLE MORE CLARITY TO IT. MR. MORRISON, I’LL START WITH YOU. DID ANYONE EVER ASK YOU TO BRIBE OR EXTORT ANYONE AT ANY TIME DURING YOUR TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >>NO, SIR. >>YOU WERE THE TOP PERSON FOR UKRAINE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. >>AT THE NFC LEVEL. >>WOULD ARGUE AMBASSADOR BOLTON WOULD BE. >>REPORTING TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON. >>I WAS A SENIOR OFFICIAL, YES, SIR. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU HAVE A STORIED CAREER. WE ARE VERY THANKFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOU WERE THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>DID ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASK YOU TO BRIBE OR EXTORT ANYTHING OUT OF ANYONE AT ANY TIME? >>NO, SIR. >>THANK YOU. >>I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE. I’LL YIELD TO MR. CASTOR. >>THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND PARTICIPATING IN THE LENGTHY DEPOSITIONS. AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOU WERE THE FIRST ON OCTOBER 3rd. MR. MORRISON, YOU WERE WITH US ON HALLOWEEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRECIPITATION. MR. MORRISON, YOU ARE A LONG TIME HILL STAFFER, I HAVE AN APPRECIATE FOR THAT. NEARLY 20 YEARS. THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT, CREDIBLE PART OF THE COUNTRY. >>VERY PROUD OF IT. >>I’M FROM NEARBY. I WANT TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF YOU POSITIONS, YOU WERE SENATE CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO FOR A STENT? >>CORRECT. >>THEN YOU WERE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND YOUR PORTFOLIO SPAN MUCH OF WHAT I BELIEVE GEORGE KENT HAS CURRENTLY? >>I WAS THE PRINCIPLE DEPUTY ASSISTANCE SECRETARY. I HAD ALL OF EUROPE AND ASIA AND NATO, WESTERN EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION. >>YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. YOU WERE THE DIRECTOR FOR NATO IN WESTERN EUROPE? >>CORRECT. >>THEN YOU WERE THE SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE ASIAN AFFAIRS CAN. >>I WAS ACTING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, SIX MONTHS OR SO. >>MR. MORRISON, WE’LL NOTE ALL THE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE INTERACTED WITH — AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH SAID YOU WERE A BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT. THAT IS VERY HIGH PRAISE. FOR OVER TWO YEARS YOU SERVED AS THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS? >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU SERVED FOR FREE? >>CORRECT. >>YOU SERVED ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS? THAT JOB. I DID. >>TAXPAYERS CERTAINLY GOT THEIR MONEY’S WORTH. >>NOT FOR ME TO SAY. >>YOU BELIEVE AMERICA’S POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED DURING YOUR TENURE AS THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE? >>WHEN I LOOK BACK ANOTHER THE RECORD I THINK WE DID A LOT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. >>IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IS NO PART DUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROACHED EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY. PROVIDING LETHAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT AND THE NONRECOGNITION STATEMENT ON CRIMEA BEING TWO OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES. >>FOR MANY YEARS THERE WAS A MISSION FOR. >>CORRECT. >>IT WASN’T UNTIL PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ADMINISTRATION CAME IN THAT WENT THROUGH? >>CORRECT. THE DELEGATION TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION IN MAY, I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED IT WAS ONE OF >>AND, UM, WE TALKED A LITTLE THIS MORNING, BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION CAME TOGETHER RATHER QUICKLY. >>YES, I BELIEVE WE HAD 3 DAYS NOTICE TO PUT THE DELEGATION TOGETHER. >>THERE’S BEEN DISCUSSION WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BE ABLE TO LEAD THAT EFFORT, AND AS IT TURNED OUT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO LEAD IT. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS UNABLE TO JOIN? >>I DON’T. >>AND MR. MORRISON, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DELEGATION? >>NO. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU TESTIFIED DURING YOUR DEPOSITION THAT AID IN FACT DOES GET HELD UP FROM TIME TO TIME FOR A WHOLE ASSORTMENT OF REASONS S. THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >>THAT IS TRUE. >>AND SOMETIMES THE HOLD UPS ARE ROOTED IN SOMETHING AT OMB, SOMETIMES THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, SOMETIMES THE STATE DEPARTMENT, SOMETIMES ON THE HILL. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>WHEN THE AID WAS HELD UP FOR 55 DAYS FOR UKRAINE, THAT DIDN’T IN AND OF ITSELF STRIKE YOU AS UNCOMMON? >>NO, IT’S SOMETHING THAT HAD HAPPENED IN MY CAREER IN THE PAST. I’D SEEN HOLD UPS OF ASSISTANCE. I JUST ASSUMED IT WAS PART OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. SOMEONE HAD AN OBJECTION, AND WE HAD TO OVERCOME IT. >>AND IN FACT, UM, THERE WERE CONCERNS THAT PERHAPS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULDN’T THE REFORMER HE CAMPAIGNED ON? >>THAT WAS A SUPPOSITION I MADE DUE TO THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THE 23rd. I THOUGHT THAT COULD BE WHAT’S BEHIND IT. >>AND IN FACT THE AID WAS LIFTED SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE A PARLIAMENT? >>I BELIEVE HE, LET ME GET THE DATES STRAIGHT. I BELIEVE, YES, HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE THE PARLIAMENT AROUND THE FIRST OF SEPTEMBER AND I BELIEVE THE AID WAS RELEASED ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER. >>AND WHEN HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE A PARLIAMENT HE WAS ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH A NUMBER OF ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVES? >>THAT BEGAN WITH THE PARLIAMENT SEATED ON THAT DAY. IT WAS A24 HOUR SESSION, BUT THEN CONTINUED FOR SOME TIME. >>AND THAT WAS AN ENCOURAGING SIGN? >>IT STARTED OFF IN A VERY ENCOURAGING WAY, YES. >>AND OTHER THAN THE THINGS GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND WITH THE PAUSE IN THE AID, YOU TESTIFIED, YOU STATED THE RELATIONS WITH UKRAINE WERE ABOUT AS GOOD AS YOU WANTED THEM TO BE? >>CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >>YOU TESTIFIED AT YOUR DEPOSITION THAT ONCE THE AID WAS LIFTED DESPITE THE THINGS GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, THAT U.S. UKRAINIAN RELATIONS WERE STRONG, AS GOOD AS YOU’D WANT THEM TO BE? >>YES. >>YOU REFERENCED THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE WAS LIFTED, THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE MEETING IN NEW YORK. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND THERE WAS MOMENTUM IN PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE RUSSIANS, THAT’S CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A DEEP ROOTED NEGATIVE VIEW IN UKRAINE AND THEIR CORRUPTION ENVIRONMENT? >>YES. >>AND YOU FIRST BECAME AWARE OF HIS VIEWS BACK IN SETEMBER 2017? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? >>YES, IN 2017 I WAS INVITED BY SECRETARY TILLERSON TO DO A PRE-BRIEF WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE HIS MEETING WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON THE MARGINS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY. I DID THE PRE-BRIEF AND TOOK PART IN THE BILATERAL MEETING. >>SO LONG BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE? >>YES, HE HAD A STRONGLY NEGATIVE VIEW. >>IN 2017 DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING HE SAID OR DID THAT GAVE YOU A FEELING THAT HE HAD THE NEGATIVE VIEWS? >>UM, YES. I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE THIS WAS A BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN THE 2 PRESIDENTS. I DON’T WANT TO STRAY INTO CLASSIFIED MATERIAL, BUT MY IMPRESSION WAS HE HAD A STRONGLY NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE AT THE TIME. >>FAIR ENOUGH. AND YOU DESCRIBED THE PRESIDENT’S SKEPTICISM AT YOUR DEPOSITION AS A REASONABLE POSITION? >>YES. >>AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID MOST PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT ABOUT UKRAINE WOULD POSSIBLY THINK THAT? >>YES. >>AND YOU VIEWED IT AS PART OF YOUR ROLE TO HELP CHANGE HIS MIND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A GENUINE REFORMER, THAT HE WAS NOT, UM, RUNNING FOR OFFICE FOR SELF-ENRICHMENT, THAT HE WAS INDEED A GOOD PERSON? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>DURING THE MAY 23rd MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE, COULD YOU JUST RELATE TO US THE CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT ARTICULATED ABOUT THE UKRAINE? >>YES, THE PRESIDENT CAME INTO THE MEETING AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED SPEAKING. HE HAD, UM, 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, UM, I TRIED TO EXPLAIN ALONG WITH THE OTHERS THERE, EACH OF US TOOK TURNS SPEAKING. I TRIED TO SAY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU AND THAT HE WAS ELECTED BECAUSE OF THAT SITUATION IN UKRAINE AND HE HAD A STRONG MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE TO CHANGE IT. AND THAT’S WHY IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE ACTUALLY SHOW HIM VERY STRONG SUPPORT NOW. BUT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT CONVINCED AND 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. >>AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THE UKRAINE UKRAINIANS TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN, DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO? >>YES, I BELIEVED HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION ABOUT PROVIDING DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OR PAUL MANAFORT TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. THAT WAS ONE OF THE RUMORS THAT HAD BEEN OUT THERE AND GOTTEN SOME SUPPORT FROM THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL. >>AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE THE PRESIDENT GENUINELY BELIEVED THAT, RIGHT IN THE. >>I BELIEVE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED, BUT HE BROUGHT IT UP. >>AND YOU WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT’S SKEPTICAL VIEW OF FOREIGN AID GENERALLY? >>AND HE WAS LOOKING AT FOREIGN AID PRETTY BROADLY. >>YES. >>AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE U.S. TAXPAYERS WERE TRYING TO GET THEIR MONEY WORTH? >>YES. >>AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ALSO INTERESTED WAS HE NOT IN BETTER UNDERSTANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED BURDEN SHARING AMONG THE EUROPEANS? >>YES. >>AND WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? >>THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED THAT THE UNITED STATES SEEMED TO BEAR THE EXCLUSIVE BRUNT OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. HE WANTED TO SEE THE EUROPEANS STEP UP AND CONTRIBUTE MORE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >>AND WAS THERE ANY INTERAGENCY ACTIVITY WHETHER IT BE WITH THE STATE OR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO LOOK INTO THAT FOR THE PRESIDENT? >>WE WERE SURVEYING THE DATA TO UNDERSTAND, UM, WHO WAS CONTRIBUTING WHAT AND SORT OF IN WHAT CATEGORIES. >>AND SO THE PRESIDENT’S CONCERNS, THE AGENCY TRIED TO ADDRESS THEM? >>YES. >>AND BY LATE AUGUST, WE JUST DISCUSSED WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER THAT SOMEONE NEW WAS SEATED, SO DID THAT GIVE HOPE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH REFORMS? >>YES. >>AND DID YOU HOPE DURING THE TIME THE AID WAS PAUSED THAT POTENTIALLY ZELENSKY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE HIS BONIFIEDS AND SUBSEQUENTLY BE ABLE TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO LIFT THE AID? >>YES. >>IN FACT YOU, UM, YOU TRAVELED WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO THE UKRAINE AROUND THE LABOR DAY WENT, CORRECT? >>YES. >>AND YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY I BELIEVE ON AUGUST 29th? >>AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND I STAFFED THAT MEETING. >>AND THAT’S AROUND THE TIME THE RATA HAD MET AND THEY WERE STARTING TO PUSH THROUGH REFORMS? >>AS I RECALL, THE DATE OF THE MEETING WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEW RATA. >>AND SOME OF THE NEW REFORMS INCLUDED NAMING A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL? >>A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND BRAND NEW CABINET, YES. >>AND THEY PUSHED THROUGH SOME LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATED IMMUNITY FOR MEMBERS? >>YES. >>AND I BELIEVE YOU PROVIDED SOME COLOR INTO THIS MEETING. YOU SAID THE UKRAINIANS HAD BEEN UP ALL NIGHT WORKING ON THESE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES? >>YES, THE UKRAINIANS WERE EXHAUSTED BY THE ACTIVITY. >>AND WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON ENCOURAGED? >>YES. >>AND WAS THE MEETING ALL TOGETHER FAVORABLE? >>QUITE. >>AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME DID BOLTON HEAD OFF TO WARSAW WITH THE PRESIDENT OR JUST, YOU KNOW YOU WENT TO WARSAW. >>WELL, WE HAD A FEW STOPS BETWEEN UKRAINE AND POLAND, BUT YES, AMBASSADOR BOLTON PROCEEDED TO WARSAW WHERE WE WERE MAKING SURE EVERYTHING WAS STAGED PROPERLY FOR THE PRESIDENT’S ARRIVAL. >>AND DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE VICE PRESIDENT? >>I DID NOT. >>DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON? >>HE DID. >>AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT WHAT HE SHARED WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE ZELENSKY MEETING? >>I WAS NOT THERE, UM, THE ISSUE I REMEMBER THE MOST STARKLY WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS QUITE ANNOYED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CRASHED THE PRE-BRIEF. BUT THE AMBASSADOR HAD EVERYTHING HE NEEDED TO ENSURE THE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT WERE WELL PREPARED. >>BUT DID YOU BRIEF AMBASSADOR BOLTON BEFORE HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT? >>I DIDN’T NEED TO. AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS THERE. >>BUT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW AMBASSADOR BOLTON COMMUNICATED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THE GOINGS ON IN UKRAINE WERE POSITIVE? >>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >>WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? AND AT THIS TIME AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS ADVOCATING FOR THE LIFTING OF THE AID? >>HE HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME, YES. >>AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE WARSAW MEETINGS? >>WE HAD A REDUCED SCHEDULE FROM WHAT HAD BEEN ARRANGED FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT, BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND AND MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND I PARTICIPATED IN BOTH MEETINGS. >>WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >>IT SEEMED VERY POSITIVE. >>WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE? PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE AID, CORRECT? >>YES. >>AND HOW DID THE VICE PRESIDENT RESPOND? >>HE REPRESENTED HIS SUPPORT FOR THE AID. HE REPRESENTED THE STRONG COMMITMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO UKRAINE, AND HE EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE THIS IS AFTER THE POLITICAL ARTICLE HAD COME OUT THAT MADE CLEAR THERE WAS A HOLD, HE EXPLAINED THAT THAT WE WERE DOING WAS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE AGENCY WAS EXAMINING WHAT MORE EUROPE COULD DO IN THE SECURITY SPACE AND, UM, TAKING A LOOK AT HOW UKRAINE WAS REFORMING, UM, WHAT HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION. >>AND WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PART OF THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT ANY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS WE’VE COME TO TALK ABOUT? >>NO. >>SO THE OIL COMPANY WASN’T RAISED? >>NO. >>THE 2016 ELECTION WASN’T RAISED? >>NO. >>AND THE VICE PRESIDENT DIDN’T MENTION ANY INVESTIGATIONS AT ALL,DID HE? >>NO. >>YOU MENTIONED THE AUGUST 28th POLITICO ARTICLE. IS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS MAY HAVE HAD A REAL SENSE THE AID WAS ON HOLD? >>YES. >>SO FROM THE 55 DAY PERIOD SPANNING JULY 18th THROUGH SEPTEMBER 11th, IT DIDN’T REALLY BECOME PUBLIC UNTIL AUGUST 28th? >>THAT’S CORRECT. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I HAD A NUMBER OF PHONE CALL WHERE IS WE IN FACT TALKED ABOUT DO THE UKRAINIANS KNOW YET BECAUSE WE FELT STRONGLY THAT WE ENSURED THE PRESIDENT WAS ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION TO RELEASE THE AID BEFORE THE UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IS THAT ALSO YOUR RECOLLECTION? >>YES, IT IS. >>IT WASN’T UNTIL THE POLITICO ARTICLE? >>THAT’S CORRECT. I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM ONE OF MY UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS ON AUGUST 29th FORWARDING THE ARTICLE. >>AND CAN YOU SHARE MORE ABOUT THAT TIME ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE AID AND YOUR COMMUNICATIONS? >>YES, I HAD NO COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE HOLD ON AID UNTIL THEY RAISED IT WITH ME WITH THE SAME HOPE TIM HAD, THAT WE COULD GET IT TAKEN CARE OF OURSELVES BEFORE IT WAS SOMETHING THEY BECAME AWARE OF. INSIDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT I WAS AWARE THAT THE HOLD WAS PLACED, I WAS AWARE ON JULY 18th. IT WAS REFERENCED AT AN INTERAGENCY MEETING. GOT A READ OUT FROM THE MEETING FROM ONE OF MY ASSISTANTS. I IMMEDIATELY SPOKE WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO OBJECT. I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A BAD DECISION OR BAD HOLD. MAYBE NOT A DECISION, BUT A PROCESS, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE ARGUMENTS WERE MARSHALLED TO GET IT LIFTED, SO I SPOKE WITH THE PENTAGON, I SPOKE WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AFFAIRS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT WENT ON TO REPRESENT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AT THE NEXT HIGHER LEVEL MEETING. I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH OFFICIALS IN THE EUROPEAN BUREAU, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF. I WAS ACTIVITY TRYING TO CONVEY THIS NEEDED TO BE LIFTED, AND I WANTED THEM TO BE ABLE TO USE MY NAME IN DOING SO BECAUSE I FELT THE BEST PROSPECT FOR POSITIONING OURSELVES FOR NEGOTIATION WINDSHIELD RUSSIA IS THE STRONGEST DEFENSE CAPABILITY FOR UKRAINE. INE. >>AND DID YOU COME TO BELIEVE THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PART OF WITHHOLDINGS OF AID? >>NO I DID NOT. >>YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TORONTO IN JANUARY, AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIMONY THAT THEY HAD SOME APPREHENSION THAT PART OF THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REFERENCED WOULD REAR ITS HEAD IN TORONTO. I’M JUST WONDERING WHETHER YOU CAN TELL US IF THAT IN FACT HAPPENED. >>YES, THANK YOU. I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER CONVERSATIONS OR THINGS, BUT I KNOW WE HAD A CONVERSATION, BILL TAYLOR AND I BELIEVE GORDON SONDLAND AND I AROUND THE 23rd OF JUNE THAT COLLECTED TO I BELIEVE A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PART OF LATTER. THAT BEING SAID, I WAS CONVINCED AFTER THAT CONVERSATION WE HAD GOTTEN NOWHERE. WE HAD OUR WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd. HE SIGNED A LETTER INVITING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO THE WHITE HOUSE ON MAY 29th, AND FOR SEVERAL WEEKS WE WERE JUST SAYING WE’RE WORKING ON IT, IT’S A SCHEDULING ISSUE, WE’LL GET THERE, DON’T WORRY WITH THE UKRAINIANS. I TOLD BILL AND GORDON THAT I WAS GOING TO SEE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TORONTO, AND I FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO TELL HIM THE TRUTH. THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE, WE’RE NOT GETTING A DATE SCHEDULED. HERE’S WHAT I THINK THE PROBLEM IS. IT’S THE NEGATIVE INFORMATION FLOW FROM MAYOR GIULIANI. AND THAT HE WOULD, ALSO THAT I WOULD ADVISE HIM THAT HE SHOULD CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO RENEW THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND BE ABLE TO CONVEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND SO FORTH. SO I DID ALL OF THAT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AFTER OUR FORMAL BILATERAL MEETING. >>AFTER THAT MEETING IN TORONTO OR THE SERIES OF MEETINGS, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF PRE-CONDITIONS, INVESTIGATIONS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT? >>NO, NO. >>AND YOU WERE THERE WITH MR. KENT? >>YES, I BELIEVE SO. >>AND DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT PRE-CONDITIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS? >>NOT AT THAT TIME. I THINK LATER ON THESE THINGS CAME UP TALKING ABOUT A STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS. BUT AT THIS TIME IN TORONTO I BELIEVE IT WAS MORE REFERRING TO INVESTIGATIONS GENERICALLY, THAT THAT’S HOW YOU GO ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD REAFFIRM HIS COMMITMENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A DIRECT PHONE CALL. >>AND AT ANY POINT IN TIME HAD MR. KENT RAISED CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT ANY OF THIS? >>NO AT THAT TIME. >>OKAY. THE NEXT EVENT I WANT TO COVER IS THE JULY 10th MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S OFFICE. WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU CAUGHT THE COVERAGE. BUT THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT AT SOME POINT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTEDLY THAT THE MEETING ENDED ABRUPTLY. WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT FACT? >>THANK YOU. AND LET ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION FIRST. I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION TOO. BUT ON THE JULY 10th MEETING, THIS WAS A MEETING WE HAD ARRANGED BETWEEN THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON. ATTENDING THE MEETING WAS ALSO SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, MYSELF, I BELIEVE FIONA HILL AND THE PURPOSE WAS REALLY A COUNTERPART VISIT. I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY, IF FIRST HIGH LEVEL MEETING IN WASHINGTON WITH A SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UKRAINIANS TO MAKE THEIR CASE. THEY ARE THE NEW TEAM IN TOWN FIGHTING CORRUPTION. I WAS RATHER DISAPPOINTED WITH THE MEETING AS IT TRANSPIRED. IT STRUCK ME AS DOWN IN THE WEEDS TALKING ABOUT REFORM OF NATIONAL SECURITY STRUCTURES IN UKRAINE, LEGISLATION THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON, AND NOT THE BIG PICTURE AND BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP. I WAS A BYES DISAPPOINTED BY THAT. AT THE END OF THE MEETING, I RECALL HAVING SEEN OTHER TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DID RAISE THE POINT OF INVESTIGATIONS IN A GENERIC WAY AFTER THE MEETING WAS ALREADY WRAPPING UP. I THINK WE ALL THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND THE CONVERSATION DID NOT PUBLIC FROM THERE. THE MEETING WAS OVER. WE ALL WENT OUTSIDE AND HAD A PICTURE TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND THEN ALL OF US EXCEPT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WENT TO TALK ABOUT FOLLOW UP. HOW WE FOLLOW UP ON THE MEETING TO KEEP THE MOMENTUM IN THE RELATIONSHIP. AND I THINK WE BROKE UP INTO SEVERAL SMALL GROUPS. I REMEMBER HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SECRETARY PERRY AND ONE OF HIS ASSISTANTS ABOUT ENERGY REFORM. I DON’T RECALL OTHER CONVERSATIONS FOLLOWING UP ON BURISMA. >>AND THERE WAS CERTAINLY NO PRE-CONDITION DISCUSSED TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? >>NO, NO. AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ONE WHERE I THOUGHT THIS WAS REALLY RELATED TO A GENERAL NEGATIVE VIEW ABOUT UKRAINE. THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING SPECIFIC COMMUNICATED TO ME ABOUT IT, AND WE CERTAINLY DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH THE UKRAINIANS, WE WANTED TO FIX IT. >>AND A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL HAPPENED, AND YOU WERE HEADED TO UKRAINE DURING THAT TIME PERIOD? >>YES, I WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY ON MY WAY TO UKRAINE I THINK 2 DAYS PRIOR TO THAT. >>AND YOU RECEIVED READ OUTS BOTH FROM THE U.S. SIDE AND UKRAINIAN SIDE, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? >>YES, I WAS NOT ON THE PHONE CALL. I HAD THE LUNCH ON THE DAY OF THE PHONE CALL. I HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR THE PHONE CALL BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RENEW THE PERSONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE 2 LEADERS AND CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION. THE READ OUT I RECEIVED FROM THE UKRAINE SIDE AND THE U.S. SIDE, ALTHOUGH I’M NOT SURE WHO IT WAS FROM ON THE U.S. SIDE WERE LARGELY THE SAME. THAT IT WAS A GOOD CALL. THAT IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REITERATED HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID REITERATE HIS INVITATION FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO VISIT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. IT’S EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT THE PHONE CALL WOULD BE, SO I WAS NOT SURPRISED WITH THE úREA >>AND DID YOU EVER ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS? >>WE WERE IN UKRAINE AT THAT TIME, AND WE VISITED THE CONFLICT ZONE THE NEXT DAY, AND I’M SURE HE HAD THE SAME READ OUT WE DID. >>AND YOU HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE 26th? >>YES, THE DAY AFTER THE PHONE CALL IN THE MORNING BEFORE HEADING TO THE CONFLICT ZONE. >>WERE ANY OF THESE CONCERNING ELEMENTS RAISED ABOUT THE CALL IN THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >>NO, ONLY THE BARE BONES READ OUT I RECEIVED IS HOW IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING WITH ZELENSKY. >>SO THERE’S BEEN ASSERTIONS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT DEMANDS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MADE? >>I DON’T RECALL THAT. >>YOU DON’T RECALL THAT? >>I DON’T RECALL. LET ME TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY HE WAS VERY POSITIVE ABOUT THE PHONE CALL. >>OKAY. >>I DON’T RECALL HIM SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT DEMANDS, BUT HE WAS VERY UPBEAT ABOUT THE CALL. >>AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON HOW TO NAVIGATE THE VARIOUS — >>I DON’T RECALL THAT. >>CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ARTICULATED ABOUT THE CALL? >>I DON’T REMEMBER THAT. >>AND IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM IN READ OUTS FROM THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE DID YOU RECEIVE AN INDICATION OF ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLED A QUID QUO PRO, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND THE SAME GOES FOR THE NEW ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY? >>I’VE ONLY SEEN AN ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY IN THE LAST WEEK. >>IT’S THE SAME COMMON SET OF FACTS, IT’S JUST INSTEAD OF QUID QUO PRO, NOW IT’S BRIBERY. >>I WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN ANYTHING THAT I CONSIDERED TO BE BRIBERY AT ALL. >>OR EXTORTION? >>OR EXTORTION. >>OKAY. >>MR. CASTER, MAY I ADDRESS 2 SPECIFIC POINTS? >>OF COURSE. >>ONE IS I’M REMINDED THAT THE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOOK PLACE ON JULY 10th. >>YES. >>AND I DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL JULY 18th. >>RIGHT, OKAY. >>SO THAT’S ANOTHER REASON THAT DID NOT COME UP. >>AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT THE POTENTIAL PAUSE IN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BREWING? >>I DID NOT. NO. I HEARD ABOUT IT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE 18th OF JULY. MAY I MAKE A SECOND OBSERVATION AS WELL? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>I REMEMBER SEEING SOME OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE MR. KEPT, A CONVERSATION IN WHICH HE HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT WERE OUT THERE IN UKRAINE. I DON’T REMEMBER THE DATE OF THIS CONVERSATION, BUT MY VIEW IS IF THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THAT, WHY NOT INVESTIGATE THEM? I DON’T BELIEVE THERE’S ANYTHING TO THEM. IF THERE IS, 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS WHAT I WAS THINKING OF, WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT I DIDN’T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE TO BEGIN WITH. >>YOU TESTIFIED TO THE EXTENT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD INVESTIGATE OTHER UKRAINIANS FOR WRONGDOING, THERE WAS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE IN YOUR MIND? >>RIGHT, THAT’S BEEN U.S. POLICY FOR YEARS. >>SO IF CERTAIN UKRAINIANS INVOLVED WITH THE BURISMA COMPANY — >>THAT I THINK IS THE ONLY, UM, PLAUSIBLE THING TO LOOK AT THERE. AS I SAID, I DON’T FIND IT PLAUSIBLE OR CREDIBLE THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED IN HIS DUTIES, BUT WHETHER INDIVIDUAL UKRAINIANS IN THE SOCIETY THAT WE KNOW UKRAINE HAS BEEN FOR DECADES WERE TRYING TO ACT IN A CORRUPT WAY, THAT’S PLAUSIBLE. >>SECRETARY KENT TOLD US LAST WEEK ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA TRYING TO RECRUIT MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AND THE UKRAINIANS WERE PURSUING AN INVESTIGATION, THERE WAS A BRIBE PAID. WERE YOU TRACKING THAT? >>I WAS AWARE OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I COULDN’T GIVE YOU THE DETAILS. I JUST KNOW THAT THERE WAS A REPUTATION AROUND THE COMPANY. >>OKAY. >>AND SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE FACTS AND THE BRIBE BEING PAID, THE BURISMA COMPANY WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE AND ADDED FOLKS TO THEIR BOARD INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND AND HUNTER BIDEN, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >>THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. >>AND TO THE EXTEND THE UKRAINIANS, THE FOLKS AFFILIATED WITH BURISMA WANTED TO HIRE THOSE PEOPLE FOR THE BOARD FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN MISDEEDS, IF THAT WAS AT A FACT WORTH INVESTIGATING, YOU CERTAINLY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF UKRAINIANS TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT, CORRECT? >>WELL, I CAN’T SPECULATE TO THE SPECIFICS MOTIVATING BURISMA OR NOT, BUT UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CORRUPTION BY UKRAINIAN CITIZENS IS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE THING FOR THEM TO DO. >>MR. MORRISON, I WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE JULY 25th CALL. YOU WERE IN THE ROOM. DID ANYTHING CONCERN YOU ON THE CALL? >>NO. >>AND AFTER THE CALL ENDED YOU, UM, LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN, ONE OF YOUR NEXT STEPS WAS TO ENGAGE THE NSC LAWYERS AND YOUR REASONS FOR DOING THAT WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN COLONEL VINDMAN’S. AND YOU ARTICULATED 3 CONCERNS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THEM WITH US OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO IT? >>I THINK I ARTICULATED 2 CONCERNS. ONE WAS THAT I DIDN’T SEE REPRESENTATIVES OF NSC LEGAL ON THE CALL, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LEGAL ADVISOR AND HIS DEPUTY WERE AWARE OF THE CALL. AND I WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, TAKING STEPS TO LIMIT DISCLOSURE FOR FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT LEAKING. >>AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT LEAKING BECAUSE YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON’S POLARIZED POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, CORRECT? >>YES. >>AND YOU WERE ALSO WORRIED ABOUT IT LEADING TO BIPARTISAN SUPPORT HERE IN CONGRESS OF, UM, TOWARDS UKRAINE, RIGHT? >>YES. >>AND YOU WERE ALSO CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT IMPACT THE UKRAINIAN’S PERCEPTION NEGATIVELY? >>YES. >>AND IN FACT ALL 3 OF THESE THINGS HAVE PLAYED OUT? >>YES. >>YOU DIDN’T ASK THE LAWYERS TO PUT IT ON THE CODE WORD SYSTEM, CORRECT? >>I WANT TO BE PRECISE ABOUT THE LEXICON HERE. I DID NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE MOVED TO A COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM. >>OKAY. >>YOU JUST WANTED THE TRANSCRIPT TO BE CONTROLLED. >>I WANTED ACCESS TO BE RESTRICTED. >>OKAY. AND WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN STORED ON THE COMPARTMENTED SERVER, YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE, CORRECT? >>WELL, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE. I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP THAT úM PROCESS OF PULLING TOGETHER AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S MATERIALS AND THE PRESIDENT’S MATERIALS FOR A PLANNED BILATERAL BETWEEN POTUS AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND WHEN I WENT TO DO THAT, I COULD NOT PULL UP THE PACKAGE IN THE SYSTEM, AND I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHY. I SPOKE WITH THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY STAFF, ASKED THEM WHY, AND THEY DID THEIR RESEARCH AND INFORMED ME IT WAS MOVED TO THE HIGHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AT THE DIRECTION OF JOHN EISENBERG WHOM I THEN ASKED WHY. THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT HE MADE, THAT’S NOT NECESSARILY MINE TO QUESTION, BUT I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND IT, AND HE ESSENTIALLY TOLD ME I GAVE NO SUCH DIRECTION. HE DID HIS OWN INQUIRY AND REPRESENTED BACK TO ME THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR THAT WHEN HE ALSO GAVE DIRECTION TO RESTRICT ACCESS, THE STAFF UNDERSTOOD THAT AS AN APPREHENSION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE CONTENT THAT COULDN’T EXIST ON THE LOWER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. >>SO TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE THERE’S NO MALICIOUS INTENT IN MOVING THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE COMPARTMENTED SERVER? >>CORRECT. >>AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ANYBODY ON THE NSC STAFF THAT NEEDED ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT FOR THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES ALWAYS WAS ABLE TO ACCESS IT, CORRECT? PEOPLE THAT HAD A NEED TO KNOW AND ACCESS IT? >>ONCE IT WAS MOVED TO THE COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM? YES. >>THE MEMCON OF THE JULY 25th CALL WAS IN YOUR EXPERIENCE PREPARED NORMALLY? >>YES. >>THAT THERE ISN’T AN EXACT TRANSCRIPTION OF WHAT’S SAID ON THE CALL, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>THAT THERE’S, UM, NOTE TAKERS IN THE SITUATION ROOM AND THEN THEY PREPARE A DRAFT THAT’S CIRCULATED AMONG THE RELEVANT PARTIES? >>ESSENTIALLY, YES. >>AND YOU HAD RESPONSIBILITY FOR COORDINATING ANY EDITS? >>YES. WE LOOK AT THE SHORT HAND, WE’LL CALL IT A TRANSCRIPT, BUT THE MEMORANDUM OF THE CONVERSATION, AND WE ENSURE THAT THAT TRANSCRIPTION IS AS CLOSE TO ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. >>AND COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED HE THOUGHT IT WAS VERY ACCURATE. DID YOU AS WELL? >>I VIEWED IT AS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. >>OKAY. COLONEL VINDMAN INDICATED HE HAD A COUPLE OF EDITS, HE WANTED BURISMA INSERTED IN PLACE OF THE COMPANY IN ONE OF THE SECTIONS WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS TALKING? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT EDIT REQUEST? >>I UNDERSTAND THAT HE SAID IN EITHER THIS PROCEEDING FOR THE DEPOSITION THAT HE WANTED THAT REQUEST, YES. >>AT THE TIME DID YOU UNDERSTAND HE HAD ASKED FOR THAT? >>I DON’T RECALL THAT, UM, IT WAS MY PRACTICE IF I BELIEVED AN EDIT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED THE CALL, IT STOOD. >>YEAH, JUST ON PAGE 4 HE WANTED TO SWAP OUT THE WORD COMPANY FOR BURISMA. >>WAS IT CRUCIAL THAT THE EDIT GET INTO THE DOCUMENT? >>I DON’T RECALL. >>DID HE RAISE ANY QUESTIONS WITH YOU ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT? >>NOT THAT I CAN RECALL. >>DID HE RAISE CONCERNS GENERALLY ABOUT THE CALL? >>WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE TRACK CHANGES VERSION OF THE MEMCON HE HAD SOME ISSUES. WE WANTED A MORE FULL THROATED EMBRACE OF THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGENDA, AND WE DIDN’T GET IT. >>YOU INDICATED WHEN YOU TOOK OVER THE PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL JULY 13th YOU WERE ALERTED TO POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH COLONEL VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT? >>YES. >>DID SHE RELAY ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY TO YOU? WHY SHE THOUGHT THAT? >>NOT AS SUCH. IT WAS MORE OF AN OVERARCHING STATEMENT FROM HER AND HER DEPUTY WHO BECAME MY DEPUTY THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT JUDGMENT. >>OKAY. DID ANY OTHER PERSONNEL RAISE CONCERNS WITH YOU ABOUT MR. VINDMAN? >>YES. >>I’M SORRY COLONEL VINDMAN. AND WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CONCERNS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION? >>THERE WERE — >>I’M SORRY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO. I’M GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT’S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU’RE ASKING FOR. THESE CONCERNS PRE-DATED ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH UKRAINIAN SECTOR ASSISTANCE. >>WELL, DURING THE DEPOSITION I ASKED YOU WHETHER OTHERS RAISED A CONCERN THAT COLONEL VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED INFORMATION? >>YOU DID ASK THAT, YES. >>AND YOUR ANSWER WAS? >>OTHERS HAD REPRESENTED THAT, YES. >>OKAY. AND I ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU WERE CONCERNED COLONEL VINDMAN DID NOT KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP AT ALL TIMES WITH HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES? >>YES. >>AND IN FACT WHEN HE MEANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYERS FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL, HE DID NOT FIRST COME TO YOU? >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU WERE HIS SUPERVISOR IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>AND IN HINDSIGHT DID YOU WISH THAT HE HAD COME TO YOU FIRST BEFORE GOING TO THE LAWYERS? >>YES. >>AND WHY IS THAT? >>ONE, IF HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE CALL, THAT’S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO BE NOTIFIED OF. I ALSO THINK JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, SINCE WE BROTH WENT TO THE LAWYERS, WE DIDN’T NECESSARILY NEED TO AND ECONOMY OF EFFORT MAY HAVE PREVAILED. >>AND AT ANY POINT SUBSEQUENTLY DID HE FEEL FRUSTRATED THAT HE FELT CUT OUT OF SOME OF THE UKRAINE PORTFOLIO? >>YES. >>AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS CONCERNS? >>WELL, HE, I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO SAY IT IS HE WAS CONCERNED WITH RESPECT FOR EXAMPLE THE UKRAINE TRIP THAT HE WAS NOT, THAT HE DID NOT GO. HE ASKED ME WHY THIS WAS MY PRACTICE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ONE ON ONE AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS. >>OKAY. DID YOU EVER GET THE SENSE YOU RESOLVED HIS CONCERN, OR DID THEY LINGER? >>I EXPLAINED TO HIM MY THINKING AND THAT WAS THAT. >>OKAY. BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO TURN QUICKLY TO THE, WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBES AS THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL. HE WAS A PARTICIPANT WITH YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN HUNDREDS OF TEXT MESSAGES, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>AND SO DID HE EVER RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF THE EARLY AUGUST TIME PERIOD? >>ONLY AS YOU SAW REFLECTED IN THE TEXT MESSAGES THEMSELVES WHERE HE SAID IS HIS NOW A LINKAGE OR AR DOING THIS. HE HAD A CONCERN ABOUT JUST IN GENERAL RUDY GIULIANI, WHICH I THINK A LOT OF US HAD. BUT THE ISSUE OF WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE ROLE HE’S PLAYING. AND AS YOU NOTE, WE WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT. NEAR DAILY CONTACT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PERIOD. >>SO DID HE EVER ENGAGE YOU IN A ONE ON ONE TELEPHONE CALL TO ARTICULATE HIS CONCERNS? >>WE WERE ON MANY ONE ON ONE TELEPHONE CALLS, HE DID NOT RAISE CONCERNS THAT WAY, NO. >>AND THIS, YOU’RE AN EXPERIENCED DIPLOMAT, AT ONE TIME SENATE-CONFIRMED. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. SECRETY PERRY IS A SECRETARY OF ENERGY. CERTAINLY DOESN’T SOUND LIKE AN IRREGULAR BUNCH. DID HE EVER ARTICULATE TO YOU THAT THE 3 OF YOU WORKING ON UKRAINE POLICY WAS A PROBLEM? >>NO, HE DID NOT. >>AND WERE YOU SURPRISED DURING HIS TESTIMONY WHEN HE CAME IN FOR THE DEPOSITION AND ACCOMPLISHED THESE 2 TRACKS, THAT ONE WAS A REGULAR CHANNEL AND ONE WAS IRREGULAR? >>YES, I DON’T AGREE WITH HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT BECAUSE I HAD BEEN IN MY ROLE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. I HAD BEEN THE LEAD ON U .S.- UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS AND NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIA AND THE INTERAGENCY WORK, AND WORK WITH OUR ALLIES. WE HAVE A SECRETARY OF ENERGY WHO’S A CABINET OFFICIAL, AND I THINK HAVING SUPPORT FROM VARIOUS U.S. OFFICIALS FOR STRENGTHENING OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE I VIEWED AS A THEN BECAUSE WE’RE ALL U.S. OFFICIALS, BUT MAYOR GIULIANI, I DON’T VIEW THAT AS A CHANNEL AT ALL BECAUSE HE’S NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. HE’S A PRIVATE CITIZEN. I VIEWED HIM AS PERHAPS A USEFUL BAROMETER IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT MAY BE HELPFUL COMMUNICATION FROM THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. BUT NOT SOMEONE IN A POSITION TO REPRESENT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AT ALL. >>OKAY, THANK YOU. >>OKAY, UM, I DON’T WE TAKE A 5 OR 10 MINUTE BREAK. IF I COULD ASK, UM, THE AUDIENCE TO ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM FIRST. WE ARE IN RECESS. >>>HELLO EVERYONE. I’M TANYA RIVERO. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WE JUST HEARD TESTIMONY FROM 2 MORE WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP. THERE’S A RECESS RIGHT NOW, AND THE TESTIFYING SHOULD RESUME SHORTLY, BUT HERE’S WHAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED. KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. VOLKER IS THE FORMER SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND INVOLVED IN TRYING TO PRESSURE THE COUNTRY INTO INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL RIVALS. HE SURPRISED LAWMAKERS BY AMENDING HIS PREVIOUS CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY. HE SAYS HE NOW DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT AID FOR UKRAINE WAS LINKED TO A PUBLIC INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN. >>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 DIFFERENT. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE CONNECTION DIFFERENTLY, AND HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS. >>MORRISON IS THE DEPARTING SENIOR DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. HE TOLD LAWMAKERS IN PREVIOUS CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY HE WAS CONCERNED THE DETAILS OF THE CLOSED DOOR CALL WOULD BECOME PUBLIC, BUT DIDN’T THINK ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS DISCUSSED. DURING HIS TESTIMONY HE SAID AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND TOLD HIM AID WAS CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS. WE ALREADY HEARD FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS EARLIER TODAY. THEY WERE BOTH ON THE PRESIDENT’S JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH THE LEADER OF UKRAINE. VINDMAN IS AN EXPERT ON UKRAINE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. HIS FAMILY FLED THE SOVIET UNION 40 YEARS AGO AND DURING HIS TESTIMONY, HE SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL BECAUSE HE DIDN’T THINK IT WAS PROPER. >>IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT. I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION, IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS, THE BIDENS AND BURISMA, IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY AND RESULT IN UKRAINE LOSING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, UNDERMINING NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ADVANCING RUSSIA’S OBJECTIVES IN THE REGION. >>WE BRING IN REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST LESLIE SANCHEZ, LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER NEW YORK ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, REBECCA ROIFE, AND LINDA TRAN, A DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. LINDA, WE START WITH YOU. BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD TODAY, MORRISON, VOLKER, VINDMAN, DO YOU THINK THE DEMOCRATS MOVED THE BALL FORWARD? >>I DEFINITELY DO. IN FACT THE LAST SESSION OF TESTIMONY WAS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST BOMBSHELL. HERE YOU HAD WITNESSES BROUGHT IN MY REPUBLICANS, BY THE CHOICE OF REPUBLICANS, AND VOLKER JUST TO START THINGS OFF SAYS JOE BIDEN IS A GOOD MAN ESSENTIALLY AND THAT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM AREN’T CREDIBLE. HE SAYS IT NOT ONCE BUT TWICE. AND AS THE CLIP SHOWED, HE STARTED OFF BY AMENDING THE VERY THINGS THAT HE HAD SAID PREVIOUSLY AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. >>RIGHT. >>SO THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY AMAZING AND INTERESTING THINGS THAT BROUGHT TO LIGHT, BROUGHT TO LIFE RATHER SOME OF THE FACTS THAT DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN SEEKING TO LAY OUT OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. >>I WANT TO PLAY A SOUND BITE OF WHAT MORRISON SAID AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND SAID THE HOLDING UP OF THE AID WAS CONDITIONED UPON. LET’S LISTEN. >>WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT HE TOLD UKRAINE? >>THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS AS A EXAMINE OF HAVING THE AID LIFTED. >>IS THAT THE CLEAREST STATEMENT WE’VE HEARD OF A QUID QUO PRO THUS FAR? >>ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU BELIEE HIM, IF THAT’S ACCURATE AND SONDLAND CON IF I WERES THAT, THEN IT’S A FAIRLY CLEAR STATEMENT. NOW YOU HAVE CASTER WHO’S THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE REPUBLICANS SUGGESTING THAT THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, AND I THINK THAT’S WHERE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO GO BECAUSE THESE ARE THE FACTS. THESE ARE FACT WITNESSES. THIS LOOKS LIKE EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WANT, AND THE ONLY WAY TO SPIN IT IS SAY HE’S LYING, AND I DON’T THINK THEY WANT TO DO THAT OR SAY THIS IS BUSINESS AS USUAL, JUST THE PRESIDENT, HE THINKS HE’S PURSUING AN ANTICORRUPTION SORT OF CAMPAIGN. THAT’S A HARD POSITION TO TAKE GIVEN THE FACTS. IT MAY PLAY POLITICALLY. BUT IN TERMS OF THE FACT IT’S HARD TO ESTABLISH THAT NOW BECAUSE HOW ON EARTH DOES THIS INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN FURTHER AN ANTICORRUPTION AGENDA? WE’VE REPEATEDLY HEARD FROM EVERY EXPERT ON THE UKRAINE, EVERY PERSON ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS IN FACT COUNTERTO THAT AGENDA. >>AND NOW THIS CLOSE TIE TO THE DELAY OF THE AID WHICH IS SOMETHING WE HAVEN’T HEARD BEFORE MAKES IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT, SO LESLIE, HOW ARE REPUBLICANS GOING TO BOUNCE BACK FROM THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD TODAY? >>I THINK REPUBLICANS STILL THINK THEY HAD A FAIRLY DECENT DAY. I DON’T THINK IT’S A BOMBSHELL THE DEMOCRATS WANT IT TO BE. FIRST OFF. WE HAVE TO HEAR WHAT SONDLAND SAYS TOMORROW. REALLY THIS IS ALL A ROLL UP TO KEEP YOU TUNED IN TOMORROW BECAUSE THAT’S REALLY WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS IN ROAD IN THE SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING AND ALSO SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IN TERMS OF A CREDIBLE WITNESS IN TERMS OF CHANGING HIS TESTIMONY. BUT THE FINAL NOTE, IN LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS WE DID ALL DAY, OVER AND OVER, PERHAPS IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, BUT IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL. IT CAME OUT IN DIFFERENT PARTS, THROUGH DIFFERENT PARTS OF TESTIMONY, AND THAT’S WHERE THE REPUBLICANS WILL DRILL DOWN. >>AND THE PRESIDENT DID REACT EARLIER TO THE HEARINGS, SO LET’S LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID. >>UNDER PRESIDENTS RONALD REAGAN. >>I JUST GOT TO WATCH, AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE ABSOLUTELY KILLING IT. THEY’RE DOING SO WELL BECAUSE IT’S A SCAM. IT’S A BIG SCAM. VINDMAN, I WATCHED HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING, AND I THINK HE, I’M GOING TO LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION, BUT I DON’T KNOW VINDMAN, YOU NEVER HEARD OF HIM. I DON’T KNOW ANY OF THESE PEOPLE. >>SO LESLIE, WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY REPUBLICANS WERE QUOTE KILLING IT TODAY, BUT SOME ARE TAKING OFFENSE OR DON’T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH HIS PERCEIVED ATTACK ON VINDMAN, A MILITARY MAN. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT? >>THERE’S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. MORRISON HAS COME OUT AND SAID THAT VINDMAN DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. HE’S BEEN KNOWN TO GO OUTSIDE THAT. THAT’S GOING TO SPEAK TO WHETHER HE WAS AN INDEPENDENT AGENT IN A SENSE. HE WENT TO COUNSEL FIRST WHO TOLD HIM TO NOT GO TO MORRISON, BUT HE TOLD HIS BROTHER AND ALL THESE DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND HIS BOSS MORRISON WAS THE LAST TO KNOW. SO I THINK THERE’S QUESTIONS ABOUT RELIABILITY AND HIS VOICE AND JUDGMENT. BUT I DON’T THINK THAT’S A SALIENT POINT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO AGAIN OVERALL HE SAID THE CALL THAT SOUNDED INAPPROPRIATE, BUT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT, SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE WAS I THINK THE TERM THEY USED, AND IT’S GOING TO GET BACK TO THE ISSUE OF IS THIS SOMETHING THAT’S IMPEACHABLE, AND NOTHING HAS REACHED THAT POINT YT — >>LINDA, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND? >>I THINK ON THE FACE OF IT THE OPTICS ARE NOT GOOD FOR REPUBLICANS. THEY SPENT THE DAY, OR THE FIRST PART OF THE DAY LOBBING ATTACKS AGAINST A DECORATED WAR VETERAN WHO WAS INJURED AND RECEIVED A PURPLE HEART SERVING THE NATION. AND HE’S WHAT YOU EXPECT TO BE THE TRUMP IDEAL OF AN IMMIGRANT. HE CAME HERE AND SPENT THE LAST 40 YEARS SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. SO THE VERY FACT THAT REPUBLICANS FOUND THEMSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WERE, WHETHER TRYING TO CHIP AWAY AT HIS CREDIBILITY OR TO THROW SOME COLD WATER ON SOME OF THE PRETTY HE HAVE THINK THINGS HE WAS SAYING, THAT’S NOT A GOOD POSITION. >>BUT I DON’T THINK HE SAID ANYTHING HEFTY. NOT SUCH A BOMBSHELL. >>JUST THE FACT I THINK HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PHONE CALL, HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH WHAT HE PERCEIVED THE PRESIDENT WANTED. YOU KNOW, HE CAN’T PRETEND TO TALK FOR THE PRESIDENT AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S INTENTIONS WERE, BUT HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THE CALL THAT HE NEEDED TO REPORT IT. >>HE WENT OUTSIDE HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND, FREE WILL, WHAT HE INTERPRETED TO BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. >>BUT THAT’S ALSO A PROCESS ARGUMENT, RIGHT? BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHETHER YOU THINK VINDMAN’S VERSION OR INTERPRETATION OF THE CALL IS, UM, ACCURATE, THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE CALL, DO ME A FAVOR, LOOK INTO THE BIDENS, ALL OF THE OTHER SUBSTANCE OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND HEARINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT — >>REBECCA DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT VINDMAN DID GO OUTSIDE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND TO MAKE HIS COMPLAINT? >>I WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT HIS CREDIBILITY WHICH IS I DON’T THINK THERE’S A HUGE AMOUNT OF QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ANYMORE. I THINK IT’S PRETTY CLEAR NOW. WE’VE HAD WITNESS AFTER WITNESS AFTER WITNESS TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED. SO IF YOU WANT TO UNDERMINE HIS CREDIBILITY, IT’S ONLY TO THE QUESTION OF HOW DID HE CHARACTERIZE THIS CALL. DOES HIS SENSE THAT IT’S IMPROPER MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU ANTER? AND THAT IS, I SUPPOSE A POLITICALLY IMPORTANT POINT. BUT IN A PROCEEDING, THE WAY IT’S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IS THE FACT WITNESSES COME OUT AND TALK ABOUT THE FACTS, AND THEN THE, UM, FACT FINDERS WHO ARE HERE CONGRESS DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT’S PROPERTY. OR MAYBE THE FACT FINDERS ARE THE PUBLIC. SO I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING IS WE ARE NOW BEGINNING TO CONNECT THE DOTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. THE DEFENSE, THE REPUBLICANS, I KEEP CALLING THIS A DEFENSE BECAUSE I ENVISION IT LIKE A COURTROOM, BUT IT ISN’T. THEY’RE DEVELOPING LIKE A CORE THEORY. SO WHAT’S YOUR STORY, WHAT’S YOUR CORE THEORY? THE BEST ONE THEY HAVE SO FAR AND I THINK THEY SHOULD STICK WITH IT IS NO BIG DEAL. BECAUSE EVERY OTHER ONE LIKE THESE WITNESSES ARE TAINTED, TO ME THOSE ARE SORT OF SIDE SHOWS BECAUSE AFTER YOU HEAR IT YOU SAY I GET WHAT HAPPENED. >>AND THAT’S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE STRATEGY OF REPUBLICANS GOING FORWARD. ES, MAYBE SOME THINGS HAPPENED, BUT IT’S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. >>YES, AND I THINK CONSISTENTLY IF YOU GO LINE BY LINE, WITNESS AFTER WITNESS, IT SUMS UP TO THAT. AND THIS DOES NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING AN ORGANIZED DEFENSE, AND IT’S THE CROSS PRESSURE BETWEEN THE LEGAL ASPECTS THAT WE’RE TRYING TO PARSE THROUGH AND THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS. >>BUT LOOKING AT THE LARGER POLITICAL IMPLICATION FOR A MOMENT, WE’RE ABOUT TO HAVE AN ELECTION, OF COURSE, SO THIS HAS HUGE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT. IF HE’S GOING TO SAY IT WASN’T GREAT, BUT IT’S NOT IMPEACHABLE, LESSON LEARNED. WOULD THAT GIVE HIM MORE POLITICAL WEIGHT THAN IF HE STICKS TO HIS GUNS OF I DID NOTHING WRONG IT WAS A PERFECT PHONE CALL? >>YES, BUT HE’D HAVE TO CHANNEL BILL CLINTON. A MOMENT OF CONTRITION, THE DEFINITION OF IS IS, AND THAT’S NEVER GOING TO BE THE APPROACH OF THE PRESIDENT. HE’S DOGMATIC IN HIS INSISTENCE TO THE CALL WAS PERFECT. >>SO IS THE STRATEGY TWO PRONGED? THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY APOLOGIZES FOR THE PRESIDENT WHILE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO SAY I DID NOTHING WRONG? >>I THINK THIS IS WHAT’S FASCINATING. REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN AGREE THAT SOMETHING IS FISHY IN THE CALL. THEY DON’T FEEL PARTICULARLY COMFORTABLE ABOUT IT, BUT IS IT WORTH THE REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT? ABSOLUTELY NOT. ESPECIALLY WITH SO MANY INDIVIDUALS SAYING THEY DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING PARTICULARLY ILLEGAL. THEY FELT UNCOMFORTABLE AND IT WAS OBJECTIVE. >>BUT REASONABLE PEOPLE SAY THERE’S SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT WILL NEVER SAY THAT. >>YES, IF YOU THROW A DART, IT’S GOING TO LAND SOMEWHERE IN THAT SPACE. >>AND THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE WAY THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT LEGAL PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER SOMETHING WENT WRONG HERE, TO ME, IF THE YOU’RE FOLLOWING THE BRIBERY STATUTE, I’M STARTING TO THINK THERE’S NO QUESTION. I MEAN, THERE IS AN EXCHANGE. I MEAN, HE’S DEMANDING SOMETHING OF VALUE TO HIMSELF PERSONALLY WHICH IS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING OF VALUE WHICH IS, I MEAN SORRY A GOVERNMENT SERVICE THAT IS THE RELEASE OF THIS AID AND THAT MEETING. SO I, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT IT’S ALL LIKE I DON’T KNOW, WHAT IS THIS, IS IT BAD, IS IT NOT? HERE, I DON’T KNOW, BRIBERY IS IN THE CONSTITUTION. >>AND LINDA, IF THERE WERE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND NOT A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT FACING THE SAME ALLEGATION, HOW DO YOU THINK THE REPUBLICANS WOULD BE HANDLING IT? >>OH, THEY’D BE RELENTLESS OF COURSE. YOU SAW SOME GRAND STANDING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS TODAY, AND CERTAINLY LAST WEEK. IN FACT SOME MADE HEADLINES FOR THE GRAND STANDING THEY DID. IT WOULD BE OFF THE CHARTS. IF YOU PUT BARACK OBAMA FOR EXAMPLE IN THE POSITION THAT DONALD TRUMP IS IN RIGHT NOW, JUST IMAGINE THE FIREWORKS. >>SO LET’S TALK ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN. WE’VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY IT WAS AN APPEARANCE AT LEAST OF IMPROPRIETY TO HAVE JOE BIDEN’S SON ON THE BOARD OF THIS COMPANY, JUST LIKE THE PHONE CALL. IT’S FISHY, DOESN’T SEEM RIGHT. BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID HE KNEW JOE BIDEN WASN’T UP TO NO GOOD. LET’S LISTEN TO THE EXCHANGE. >>WHY WAS IT YOU FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN RELATED TO HIS SON AND BURISMA NOT TO BE BELIEVED? >>SIMPLY BECAUSE I’VE KNOWN FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR A LONG TIME. I KNOW HOW HE RESPECTS HIS DUTIES OF HIGHER OFFICE, AND IT’S JUST NOT CREDIBLE TO ME THAT A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN ACT HOW HE SEES BEST FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST. >>WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT VOLKER DEFENDED BIDEN SO VOCIFEROUSLY THERE? >>I LITTLE. I THINK IT CALLS INTO QUESTION, I THINK REPUBLICANS WILL SEE HE HAS A BLIND SPOT WITH RESPECT TO THAT AND COULDN’T SEE EVEN WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PREPPED THEIR OWN AMBASSADOR FOR IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THESE PERHAPS INCONSISTENCIES OR CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION. >>WHAT DO YOU THINK LINDA ABOUT VOLKER’S DEFENSE OF BIDEN? >>I THINK IT WAS STUNNING TO HAVE A REPUBLICAN CALLED WITNESS ESSENTIALLY SERVE AS A CHARACTER WITNESS FOR JOE BIDEN, THE VERY TARGET OF THE BRIBERY ATTEMPT BY DONALD TRUMP. SO I THINK THAT WAS A HUGE BOMBSHELL MOMENT THAT WE JUST DIDN’T EXPECT. AND I ALSO THINK THAT ULTIMATELY AS THIS CONTINUES TO PLAY OUT, IN SOME WAYS IT ACTUALLY DOES SPEAK TO THE OF , OBVIOUSLY THE THREAT THAT DONALD TRUMP FEELS, BUT ALSO OFFERS JOE BIDEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAN INTO HIS FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE AND OTHER COMPONENTS WE HAVEN’T REALLY HEARD AS MUCH FROM HIM UNTIL RECENTLY. >>AND HOW WILL IT PLAY OUT FOR BIDEN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, LINDA? >>WELL I THINK SAY OF COURSE I HAVE A TARGET ON MY BACK, DONALD TRUMP DOESN’T WANT TO FACE ME. HE’S THE MOST ELECTABLE. THERE’S A WAY TO TALK ABOUT IT THAT’S A POSITIVE. >>WHAT DO YOU THINK LESLIE? IT’S INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOTH TRUMP AND BIDEN FACED WITH THE FALLOUT FROM THESE, YOU KNOW, FROM THESE HEARINGS FOR THEIR CAMPAIGNS, AND YOU CAN MAKE ARGUMENTS THAT IT’S GOING TO HELP AND HURT BOTH OF THEM, CORRECT? >>RIGHT. BUT WHERE WE STAND TODAY, THE MOST DAMAGE I WOULD ARGUE IS DONE TO JOE BIDEN. NOT BECAUSE OF JOE BIDEN HIMSELF, BECAUSE OF HUNTER AND DID HE KNOW AND WAS HE SUPPORTING HIS SON AND KIND OF PULLING THAT THREAD A BIT MORE WHICH IS REALLY HOW THIS ISSUE, WHETHER PEOPLE AGREE OR NOT. >>THAT’S HOW YOU SEE IT. >>I THINK THAT’S HOW VOTERS SEE IT. >>OKAY. >>I JUST WANTED TO ADD, AND THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING TO ME, BUT I DID WANT TO ADD THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER JOE BIDEN DID ANYTHING WRONG IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE LEGAL QUESTION AT ISSUE SHEER. SO HE COULD BE AS CORRUPT AS, I MEAN, HE COULD BE THE WORST PERSON, AND THAT’S IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A BRIBE. ALL IT HAS TO BE IS THERE WAS SOMETHING OF PERSONAL INTEREST TO THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS EXCHANGE AND I THINK THAT’S BEEN ESTABLISHED. SO IT, THIS IS A REALLY INTERESTING POLITICAL QUESTION, AND OF COURSE THE — >>AND THE OTHER INTERESTING POLITICAL QUESTION IS IF THAT’S ESTABLISHED, IS THAT AN IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE AS IT’S DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, REBECCA? >>RIGHT, AND THAT’S A KEY QUESTION. TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A REASON WHY THE, UM, DRAFTERS WROTE TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THAT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE ABUSE OF OFFICE. USING AN OFFICE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD FOR PRIVATE GAIN, AND THAT’S JUST THE DEFINITION OF WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT. >>BUT IT’S SENATE REPUBLICANS THAT MAKE THE DETERMINATION, AND IS THERE ANYTHING WE HEARD TODAY, WE CAN PROBABLY ALL AGREE THAT TODAY WAS PROBABLY THE MOST DAMAGING TESTIMONY FOR THE PRESIDENT. SO IS THERE ANYTHING WE HEARD TODAY LESLIE THAT WILL CHANGE THE MIND OF A SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR. >>NO. >>THERE YOU GO. AND THAT PRETTY MUCH SAYS IT ALL. THAT KIND OF SAYS IT ALL. >>REPUBLICANS WILL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT DONALD TRUMP IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE, AND I AGREE WITH LESLIE, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT IS INCREDIBLY LOW. HOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE IF DONALD TRUMP IS IMPEACHED, AND I THINK IT’S AN IMPORTANT ABOUT SAFEGUARDING THE CONSTITUTION THAT IF SOMEONE PRETTY CLEARLY COMMITTED AN ACT OF BRIBERY, THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHED. >>I WANT TO SAY ONE THING, WHICH IS MY INTEREST HERE OR WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON IS DESPITE HOW POLARIZED WE ARE POLITICALLY, WE STILL HAVE PROCEEDINGS THAT GET THE FACTS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >>WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THAT. >>WE SHOULD BE EXTREMELY PROUD OF THAT, AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT ON EITHER SIDE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE RULE OF LAW, I SEE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE OPPOSITE OF THAT WHICH IS OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE HOLDING UP WELL UNDER A GREAT DEAL OF PRESSURE. YOU HAVE PEOPLE SPINNING THINGS ON EITHER SIDE, BUT IS THERE A REAL SENSE WE’RE DISAGREEING OVER THE FACTS? NO. WE’RE CONVERGING, AT LEAST TO A LARGE EXTENT. AND TO ME THAT’S REMARKABLE. >>SO YOU HAVE REASON TO BE HOPEFUL! >>I DO. >>YOU HEARD IT HERE. THANK GOODNESS SOMEONE SAID IT. I BELIEVE THAT VOLKER AND MORRISON MAY HAVE BEEN SEATED, AND I BELIEVE PROCEEDNGS ARE ABOUT TO BEGIN SO LET’S LISTEN IN. >>WE’LL NOW PROCEED TO 15 MINUTE ROUNDS. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU WERE RIGHT TO ASK IF A QUOTE WAS YOUR WORDS, AND I ACTUALLY READ THE WRONG PART IN THE QUOTE. WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID WAS IT CREATES A PROBLEM AGAIN WHERE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO TO ADVANCE THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP, STRENGTHEN OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, STRENGTHEN THE POSITIONING AGAINST RUSSIA IS NOT GETTING SUCKED INTO A DOMESTIC POLITICAL DEBATE IN THE U.S., DOMESTIC POLITICAL NARRATIVE THAT OVERSHADOWS THAT. SO YOU WERE RIGHT TO POINT THAT OUT, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISTAKE. I WANT TO GO BACK TO A COUPLE OF THINGS YOU SAID IN THE MINORITIES ROUND. CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT THE READ OUT OF THE JULY 25th CALL YOU GOT? >>YES, I RECEIVED A READ OUT FROM BOTH UKRAINIAN COLLEAGUES AS WELL AS FROM A U.S. PERSON. I DON’T KNOW IF IT WAS MY STAFF OR SOMEONE FROM THE EMBASSY OR WHERE. AND THE READ OUT IS THAT IT WAS A GOOD PHONE CALL. THAT IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT’S WIN IN THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION. THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RENEWED HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND ADVANCING REFORM IN UKRAINE, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP RENEWED HIS INVITATION FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE. >>AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THE READ OUT WAS EXACTLY AS YOU EXPECTED THE CALL TO GO? >>YES, THAT’S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO TEE UP. >>I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU AGAIN THE JULY 25th TEXT YOU WROTE TO ANDRE YERMACH. YOU SAID ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE QUOTE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE’LL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON, THAT’S WHAT YOU EXPECTED FROM THE CALL, RIGHT? >>I EXPECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE CONVINCING IN HIS CONVEYING WHO HE IS AS A PERSON AND DOING THAT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE CONVINCED AND RENEW HIS INVITATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE. >>BUT YOU DON’T MENTION CORRUPTION IN THIS TEXT? THE WORLD CORRUPTION IS NOT THERE. >>THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT THERE. INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST THAT WOULD BE CORRUPT WOULD BE INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION. >>YOU JUST SAID IT AGAIN THAT INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, YOU ARE AWARE OF COURSE THAT MOST INVESTIGATIONS RELATE TO THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, RIGHT? >>YES. >>SORRY? >>YES. >>SO THAT DOESN’T REALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE WHETHER IT’S CURRENT OR PAST IN TERMS OF THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. >>YES, THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION ARE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. >>YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE MEETING YOU HAD ON JULY 26th WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN KIEV. >>ON THE 26th? WE HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YES. >>AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE TOPIC OF INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT COME UP AT ALL. >>RIGHT, I DON’T RECALL THEM COMING UP. JUST THE GENERAL PHONE CALL. >>AND YOU DIDN’T TAKE NOTES? >>NO. >>BECAUSE THERE WERE STAFFERS THERE TO DO THAT. >>CORRECT. >>SO IF THERE ARE 2 STAFFERS THAT TOOK NOTES TO THE MEETING AND TESTIFIED THAT THE SUBJECT OF EITHER SENSITIVE TOPICS OR INVESTIGATIONS CAME UP, ARE WE BETTER OFF TAKING THEIR WORD FOR IT OR YOURS? >>I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR NOTES IF THEY WERE TAKEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY AT THE MEETING. >>ANOTHER WITNESS, UM, TESTIFIED BEFORE US, LAURA COOPER, ABOUT A MEETING THAT SHE HAD WITH YOU ON JULY, ON AUGUST 20th. DO YOU RECALL HAVING THAT MEETING WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT IN OUR DEPOSITION? >>I DO. I DID MENTION I HAD BEEN MAKING THE ROUNDS TO WEIGH IN ON LIFTING THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >>AND SHE RECALLED WITH SOME SPECIFICITY THAT MEETING THAT WAS ALSO BASED ON HER NOTES THAT YOU DESCRIBED THE STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DISAVOW INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION AND INVESTIGATE THOSE INVOLVED IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE, AND IF HE WERE TO AGREE TO DO THAT SHE FIREFIGHTERRED, THEN YOU THOUGHT THAT IT MIGHT HELP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE CONVERSATION AS WELL? >>NOT EXACTLY. >>HOW DOES YOURS DIFFER? >>I REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THE STATEMENT HE DISCUSSED EARLIER. THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN IN THE SUBJECT OF THE EXCHANGES BETWEEN MR. YERMAK AND MYSELF, MYSELF AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI AND BACK TO YERMAK. I DISCUSSED THIS EFFORT COULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING A RESET IN THE NEGATIVE THINKING OF UKRAINE THAT HE HAD. IF WE DID THAT, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL IN UNBLOCKING WHATEVER HOLD THERE WAS ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THAT IF THERE’S THIS NEGATIVE PRESUMPTION ABOUT UKRAINE, GETTING THIS STUFF ON TRACK WOULD BE HELPFUL. >>THAT’S A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION, BUT YOU DON’T DOUBT THAT WHAT SHE TESTIFIED IS INACCURATE, DO YOU? >>I BELIEVE SHE ACCURATELY REFLECTED WHAT SHE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CONVERSATION. >>UM, YOU TESTIFIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE JUNE 28th CONFERENCE CALL THAT YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, UM, I’M NOT SURE IF DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT WAS ON THE LINE. >>I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >>AND SECRETARY PERRY BEFORE YOU LOOPED IN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AM I RIGHT ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS OR WAS SECRETARY PERRY NOT A PART OF IT? >>I’M PRETTY SURE KENT WASN’T ON IT. I DON’T REMEMBER IF SECRETARY PERRY WAS ON IT, AND I DON’T REMEMBER IF I STAYED ON FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JOINING THE CALL OR NOT. THERE WERE 2 SEPARATE CALLS. >>WERE THERE ANY STAFF MEMBERS OR NOTE TAKERS ON THE CALL? >>I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >>WHY? >>WE WERE HAVING A CALL AMONG OURSELVES TO TALK ABOUT THE MESSAGES WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO CONVEY. >>AND AT THAT POINT WE’VE HAD OTHER TESTIMONY, UM, FROM PEOPLE WHO DID TAKE NOTES THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OR WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING. DO YOU RECALL THAT? >>I RECALL SEEING THAT IN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR’S TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A TEXT MESSAGE TO THAT EFFECT. AGAIN IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE WHAT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD WERE ABOUT BEING CONVINCING ABOUT THIS PRESENTING THE NEW PRESIDENT AND TEAM AS A CHANGE IN UKRAINE. >>WELL, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE BURISMA IN THE 2016 ELECTION, RIGHT? >>YES. >>AND YOU INTERPRETED THOSE TO BE OKAY BECAUSE IN THEORY THEY WERE LOOKING INTO UKRAINIANS? >>CORRECT. >>BUT WE CAN AGREE, CAN WE NOT, THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS, ALL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WERE BURISMA IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >>CORRECT. >>AND WHAT YOU THEN AMENDED YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY TO SAY IS THAT IN RETROSPECT, IF YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT THE PURPOSE FOR MR. GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WANT THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION WAS FOR POLITICAL BENEFITS AND IN DIGGING UP DIRT OR GETTING SOME INFORMATION ON VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. >>IT’S CORRECT THAT I LEARNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S INTEREST IN INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FROM THE PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPT WHICH CAME MUCH, MUCH LATER. FROM GIULIANI, I DIDN’T KNOW HE WAS ACTIVITY PURSUING THIS. I DID KNOW THAT HE RAISED THIS WITH ME DIRECTLY AND I HAD PUSHED BACK ON IT. >>YOU KNEW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS PURSUING THIS AT THE JULY 10th MEETING ING WHEN HE RAISED THESE INVESTIGATIONS HIMSELF. >>HE DIDN’T SPECIFY BIDEN OR BURISMA EITHER. I SAW IT AS A GENERIC COMMENT AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT MEETING. >>I UNDERSTAND THAT BIDEN WASN’T MENTIONED, BUT YOU DO AGREE THAT WHEN INVESTIGATIONS ARE REFERENCED IN THIS CONTEXT IT’S BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION. >>YES, THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. >>AND ON THAT JULY 10th CALL WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED THE INVESTIGATIONS, HE DID THAT IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT. >>REPEAT THE QUESTION? >>YOU SAID THAT YOU THAT IT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE? >>YES. >>UM, DIDN’T HE MAKE THAT COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT WHEN THEY COULD SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >>THAT I’M NOT SURE ABOUT. I REMEMBER THE MEETING ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEING OVER, AND THEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BRINGING THAT UP. >>AND IN THE JULY 2nd OR 3rd MEETING IN TORONTO YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU ALSO MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS TO HIM, RIGHT? >>YES,. >>AND YOU WERE REFERRING TO BURISMA AND 2016? >>YES. >>AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT’S WHAT THE UKRAINIANS INTERPRETED REFERENCES TO INVESTIGATIONS TO BE RELATED TO BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION? >>I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY AT THAT TIME IF WE HAD TALKED TO THAT SPECIFICALLY, BURISMA 2016, BUT THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WERE THINKING THAT TOO. >>MR. MORRISON, WHEN DID YOU HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH FIONA HILL ABOUT BURISMA AND THE PARALLEL PROCESS INVOLVING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI, DO YOU RECALL? >>WE HAD A NUMBER OF HAND OFF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN 1 JULY AND 15 JULY. >>OKAY. SO IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME YOU WERE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THIS EFFORT TO PROMOTE THIS BURISMA INVESTIGATION THAT SONDLAND AND GIULIANI WERE GOING ON ABOUT. AT LEAST YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FROM DR. HILL? >>I HEARD ABOUT IT FROM DR. HILL. >>I WANT TO PULL UP ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM A RECENT WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT QUOTES AN E-MAIL FROM JULY 13th THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SENT TO YOU. AND HE WROTE TO YOU QUOTE SOLE PURPOSE IS FOR ZELENSKY TO GIVE POTUS ASSURANCES OF NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN. CORRUPTION ENDING, UNBUNDLING MOVING FORWARD, AND ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY. AND YOU RESPONDED TRACKING. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO MEAN WHEN HE WROTE TO YOU ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY? >>I DON’T KNOW THAT I HAD ANY UNDERSTANDING. THESE ARE E-MAILS? JULY 13 E-MAILS? I WASN’T EVEN IN THE SEAT YET. BUT I KNEW THAT AMONG THE HEAD OF STATE MEETINGS WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO SCHEDULE WAS ONE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >>RIGHT. BUT IT WAS BEFORE THIS THAT DR. HILL TOLD YOU ABOUT BURISMA AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN PARTICULAR, HIS DESIRE FOR THE PARALLEL PROCESS TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA? >>YES. >>SO YOU KNEW THAT WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE E-MAIL ASKING YOU ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? >>NOT NECESSARILY. >>NO? >>NO. >>WHY NOT? >>BECAUSE AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH DR. HILL WERE ABOUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. I THINK SHE 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 HE BELIEVED WERE IMPORTANT. SO HE WANTED TO GET A MEETING. I UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO AND HAD AGREED TO A MEETING, SO I WAS TRACKING THAT WE NEEDED TO SCHEDULE A MEETING. >>YOU WERE NOT ENDORSING THE NOTION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? >>THAT IS MY TESTIMONY. >>OKAY. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO JUMP AHEAD. AFTER THE AID WAS RELEASED, YOU WENT TO THE YES CONFERENCE, RIGHT, IN UKRAINE? AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO TESTIFIED BASED ON QUITE DETAILED NOTES INDICATED THAT EARLIER A FEW DAYS BEFORE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD HIM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESS MAN, AND BEFORE HE WRITES A CHECK, HE LIKES TO SEE PEOPLE PAY UP, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. YOU’RE AWARE OF THAT? >>I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT TESTIMONY. >>AND YOU’RE ALSO FAMILIAR THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT YOU SAID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO HIM WHEN YOU WERE IN UKRAINE FOR THE CONFERENCE. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT TO AMBASSADOR TLOR? >>YES, I WAS REPEATING THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID TO ME TO EXPLAIN TO BILL TAYLOR WHAT THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS. >>AND WHAT CONTEXT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY THAT TO YOU? >>I THINK WE WERE TALKING AOUT THE RELEASE OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND HE WAS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT, HE’S ALREADY, YOU KNOW, GOT A NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE. HE SEES A CHECK ON HIS DESK THAT’S GOING TO THE UKRAINIANS, NOT SURE ABOUT THEM, SO HE WANTS TO HOLD ONTO IT UNTIL HE’S ASSURED. >>RIGHT, AND THE PAY UP BEFORE HE WRITE IT WRITES THE CHECK IS A PAY UP. >>THAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME. I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS A PAY UP. THE LANGUAGE WAS SIMILAR. I HEARD FROM GORDON, HE SEES THE CHECK AND WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE HAD A DEAL WITH THE UKRAINIANS. I DIDN’T KNOW THE GENERIC FORMULATION. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >>15 MINUTES TO RANKING MEMBER NUNES. >>DO YOU EXPECT ANY MORE OF THESE MAGICAL 15 MINUTE DEVOTIONS YOU COME UP WITH IN THE BACK? >>I DON’T KNOW HOW MAGICAL THEY ARE. THEY’RE PRESCRIBED BY HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 THAT WE CAN HAVE SUCCESSIVE ROUNDS UP TO 45 MINUTES. THIS IS PART OF PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE UNDER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION. >>DO YOU EXPECT MORE THIS EVENING? >>I DO NOT EXPECT MORE WILL BE NECESSARY. >>FOR EVERYONE WATCHING, THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW OUT OF CONTROL THIS PROCESS HAS BECOME WHERE THE DEMOCRATS JUST MAGICALLY GIVE THEMSELVES ADDITIONAL MINUTES, WHICH THEY’RE RIGHT IN THE LITTLE SPECIAL RULE THEY WROTE THEY CAN DO, BUT YOU’D AT LEAST THINK THAT THEY’D HAVE THE DECENCY TO JUST TELL US YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE 15 MINUTES MORE. AND I WOULD SAY THAT YOU CAN GO 4 HOURS, WE CAN GO 5 HOURS, WE’LL GIVE YOU ALL YOU WANT. YOU CAN KEEP DIGGING IF YOU WANT. THE DEEPER THE HOLE YOU DIG, I THINK THE MORE VIEWERS WILL TURN OFF BECAUSE PEOPLE JUST AREN’T BUYING THE DRUG DEAL YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO SELL. I WOULD ADD THAT SINCE WE ARE GETTING INTO PRIME TIME, THESE ARE 2 WITNESSES THAT WERE YOUR WITNESSES THAT YOU CALLED IN TO DEPOSE. WE STILL HAVE FOR WITNESSES YOU DID NOT DEPOSE, INCLUDING THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO YOU AND OTHERS CLAIM NOT TO KNOW, WHICH WE STILL NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL FACT WITNESS TO HOW THIS WHOLE MESS BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE. SECONDLY WE’VE ASKED FOR THE DNC OPERATIVES WORKING WITH UKRAINIANS TO DIG UP DIRT FOR WHAT THE LEFT CALLS CONSPIRACY THEORIES, WHICH THEY’RE RIGHT, THEY’RE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF DIRT THEY DUG UP TO SPIN THEIR OWN ISSUES IN THE 2016 ELECTION. I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THESE WITNESSES. I KNOW MR. CASTER DOES. >>YES, I’LL TRY TO BE QUICK AND YIELD SOME TIME BACK. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, ARE YOU AWARE OF A STATEMENT ABOUT NO ONE EVER TOLD THE UKRAINIANS, CERTAINLY NOT HIM THAT THERE WAS ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND INVESTIGATIONS? >I SAW THAT STATEMENT, YES. >>AND DO YOU KNOW THE FOREIGN MINISTER? >>I DO. >>AND DURING TIMES RELEVANT DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS AND LINKS? >>NOT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WITH HIM. I BELIEVE I KEPT THAT DISCUSSION TO BEING WITH MR. YERMAK AND WE DID DISCUSS WITH THE FOREIGN MINISTER AND DIPLOMATIC ADVISOR SECURITY ASSISTANTS AFTER IT WAS RAISED, AFTER AUGUST 29th. I DID DISCUSS THAT WITH HIM. >>THE PRIMARY PERSON YOU WORKED WITH IS MR. YERMAK? >>YES. >>HE ALSO HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. DID MR. YERMAK EVER GIVE YOU FEEDBACK ON HIS INTERACTIONS WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >I CAN’T SAY IF HE DID OR DIDN’T. WE WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT AND TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES AS WE WENT ALONG. >>THE EPISODE AT WARSAW WHERE APPARENTLY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PULLED MR. YERMAK ASIDE, DID MR. YERMAK GIVE YOU ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT MEETING? >>I DIDN’T GET ANYTHING SPECIFIC ON THAT. THIS WAS AROUND I BELIEVE SEPTEMBER 1st OR 2nd, AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME I HAD BEEN, YOU THINK, TEXTED BY MR. YERMAK, WHERE I TOLD THEM ALL DON’T WORRY, WE KNOW ABOUT THIS, WE’RE TRYING TO FIX IT. AND I THINK I LEFT THE CONVERSATION AT THAT. >>AND THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THEY TRUSTED YOU? >>VERY MUCH SO. WE HAD A VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP. >>SO WHEN YOU MADE STATEMENTS LIKE THIS, DID THEY BELIEVE YOU? >>I THINK THEY BELIEVED ME, I THINK THEY’D HEAR THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE, BUT TRUSTED MANY I. >>AND THEY ALSO TRUSTED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >>YES. >>JUST LIKE TO DEMYSTIFY A LITTLE BIT OF THE WHOLE, UM, MAYOR GIULIANI ROLE HERE. YOU MET WITH HIM I BELIEVE ONE TIME? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND YOU EXCHANGED SOME TEXT MESSAGES WITH HIM CORRECT? >>YES, BETWEEN I GUESS THE 10th OF JULY AND THE 13th OF AUGUST. >>AND DURING THE DEPOSITION, WE ACCOUNTED FOR THEM ALL AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY ONE ON ONE MEETINGS WITH GIULIANI TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT CORRECT? >>I DON’T BELIEVE SO, BUT I DON’T KNOW. >>AND I THINK AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CONFERENCE CALLS HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON WITH YOU. >>THAT’S TRUE. >>OKAY. JUST GETTING BACK TO THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COINED IN HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DID YOU HAVE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF CLOSE THE LOOP WITH HIM ABOUT ANY CONCERNS WHATSOEVER OR WAS IT ALL SPECIFIC INSTANCES RAISED IN THE TEXTS? >>ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC INSTANCESES. >>>. DO YOU THINK AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM BELIEVED THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS IN FAR GREATER COMMUNICATION WITH YOURSELF, SECRETARY PERRY, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >>I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE THOUGHT. >>OKAY. >>I THINK THAT’S ALL I HAVE MR. NUNES. >>I HAVE NOTHING MORE. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN ALLOW US TO USE OUR MAGIC MINUTES TO YIELD? >>THE HOUSE PERMITS. >>WE NOW GO TO 5 MINUTE MEMBER QUESTIONS. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 5 MINUTES. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO THE JULY 10th MEETING, YOU TESTIFY I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10th MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON. I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THE CONVERSATION DID NOT CONTINUE, AND THE MEETING CONCLUDED. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WE ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT MEETING DURING YOUR DEPOSITION, AND YOU TOLD US NOTHING ABOUT THIS. I BELIEVE WE ASKED YOU ABOUT WHY THE MEETING CAME TO AN END AND WHY YOU HAD EARLIER INDICATED I THINK TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT IT DID NOT GO WELL, AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THAT THEY WERE IN THE WEEDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS? >>BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT I REMEMBERED FROM THE MEETING. WHAT I PROVIDED IN MY OCTOBER 3rd STATEMENT. AS I SAID, I LEARNED OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING SEEING THE STATEMENTS FROM ALEX VINDMAN AND FIONA HILL AND THAT REMINDED ME THAT YES, AT THE VERY END OF THE MEETING AS IT WAS RECOUNTED IN COLONEL VINDMAN’S STATEMENT, I DID REMEMBER THAT YES, THAT’S RIGHT, GORDON BROUGHT THAT UP AND THAT WAS IT. >>SO AT THE TIME WE DEPOSED YOU AND ASKED YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU DIDN’T REMEMBER THAT GORDON SONDLAND BROUGHT THIS UP IN THE JULY 10th MEETING WITH UKRAINIANS AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON CALLED AN END TO THE MEETING AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON DESCRIBED THE MEETING AS A DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND AND MULVANEY COOKED UP. YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT? >>IN TERMS OF GORDON BRINGING THAT UP, NO, I DIDN’T REMEMBER THAT AT THE TIME OF THE MY OCTOBER 3rd TESTIMONY. I READ THE ACCOUNT BY ALEX AND I SAID YES, THAT’S RIGHT, THAT DID HAPPEN. I STILL DON’T RECALL IT BEING AN ABRUPT END TO THE MEETING. THE MEETING WAS ESSENTIALLY úOV OUT TO THE LITTLE CIRCLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, WE TOOK A PHOTOGRAPH, IT DID NOT STRIKE ME AS ABRUPT. >>NOW AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU SAID IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY TODAY, I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. NOW IF AS YOU SAY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS IN THE BOLTON MEETING, AND YOU DON’T RECALL HIM BEING MORE SPECIFIC úALTHOU WAS IN THE WARD ROOM, WHY DID YOU THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE IS THIS. >>I THOUGHT IT WAS, PUT IT THIS WAY, SOMETHING OF AN EYE ROLL MOMENT WHERE YOU HAVE A MEETING, YOU’RE TRYING TO ADVANCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP. WE HAVE THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL. IT WAS A DISAPPOINTING MEETING BECAUSE I DON’T THINK THAT THE UKRAINIANS GOT AS MUCH OUT OF IT IN TEMPERATURES OF THEIR PRESENTATION AS THEY COULD HAVE, AND THIS COMES UP AT THE VERY END OF THE MEETING LIKE THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT. >>BUT YOU’VE SAID YOU THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE UKRAINIANS TO DO INVESTIGATIONS OF 2016 AND BURISMA AS LONG AS THAT DIDN’T MEAN THE BIDENS, SOMETHING YOU HAVE NOW, I THINK, UNDERSTAND YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE. BUT NONETHELESS, IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE, WHY ARE YOU SAYING TODAY THAT ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE? >>YEAH, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE PLACE OR THE TIME TO BRING UP THAT. THIS WAS A MEETING BETWEEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL. FIRST HIGH LEVEL MEETING WE’RE HAVING BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S ELECTION. >>IS PART OF REASON SERVICE INAPPROPRIATE IS ALSO IN THE CONTEXT OF TRYING TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >>UM, PROBABLY ALTHOUGH I DON’T RECALL THAT. I DON’T RECALL THE EXACT CONTEXT OF WHEN THAT CAME UP. I VIEWED THE MEETING OF HAVING ESSENTIALLY ENDED. >>I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR UPDATED TESTIMONY THAT, UM, YOU THINK IT’S INAPPROPRIATE AND OBJECTIONABLE TO SEEK TO GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL, AM I RIGHT? >>TO INVESTIGATE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR SOMEONE WHO’S A U.S. OFFICIAL, I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD BE ASKING FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO DO THAT. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT’S TRUE OF A POLITICAL RIVAL. >>AND YOU RECOGNIZED WHEN YOU GOT THE CALL RECORD AND FINALLY DID SEE THE CALL RECORD, THAT’S WHAT TOOK PLACE ON THE CALL, THAT’S CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>MR. MORRISON, MR. VOLKER THINKS IT’S INAPPROPRIATE TO ASK A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. PERSON OR POLITICAL RIVAL, BUT YOU SAID YOU DON’T THINK SO. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>AS A HYPOTHETICAL MATTER, I DO NOT. >>I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL MATTER. LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I WAS THINKING AT THE TIME. THAT’S NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT TO BE DOING. >>BUT NONETHELESS, THIS WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME WHERE YOU WENT FROM LISTENING TO A PRESIDENTIAL CALL DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, IS IT NOT? >>YES, THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND YOUR CONCERN WASN’T THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL, BUT THAT IT WOULD LEAK. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND WHAT WOULD BE LEAKING IS A PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. >>I STATED I HAD 3 CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE CALL LEAKING MIGHT BE. >>IF IT WAS A PERFECT CALL, WOULD YOU HAVE HAD A CONCERN OF IT LEAKING? >>NO. WELL, NO, I WOULD STILL HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT IT LEAKING. >>OKAY. >>AND WOULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE IF PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE JOHN KASICH FOR NANCY PELOSI OR AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >>IN THOSE HYPOTHETICAL CASES, NO, NOT APPROPRIATE. >>BUT YOU’RE NOT SURE ABOUT JOE BIDEN? >>AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME. AND WHY I ACTED AGAIN AT THE TIME. >>FINALLY MY COLLEAGUES ASKED DOESN’T AID GET HELD UP FOR ALL KIND OF REASONS. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN MILITARY AID HELD UP BECAUSE A PRESIDENT WANTED HIS RIVAL INVESTIGATED? >>NO, I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. >>HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT MR. WILLIAMS? MR. MORRISON, I’M SORRY. >>NO, CHAIRMAN. >>I YIELD TO THE RANKING MEMBER. >>SO YOU TOOK 2 ADDITIONAL MINUTES, ARE YOU GIVING YOUR SIDE 7 MINUTES? >>OF COURSE. >>I RECOGNIZE MR. TURNER. >>GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO GOVERNMENT AND COUNTRY. WE ARE SAFE TODAY BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF YOU MEN. DURING ALL THE TESTIMONY WE’VE HAD, NO ONE HAS EVER ALLEGED THAT EITHER OF YOU HAVE DONE ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE OR IMPROPER AND EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN OF BOTH OF YOU AS HAVING A HIGH LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM AND STANDARDS. AMBASSADOR , I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THE JAVELINS, THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE WITH UKRAINE, DID IT NOT? >>VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. >>MR. MORRISON, TELL US ABOUT YOUR MILITARY SERVICE. >>I’M A U.S. NAVAL RESERVE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. >>AND WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW SCHOOL? >>GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. >>NOW THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE TO PICK UP THE PACE HERE BECAUSE THESE ARE SHORT PERIODS OF TIME WE HAVE NOW FOR THIS PORTION OF QUESTIONS. A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THEIR PERCEPTIONS, THEIR BELIEFS, THEIR FEELINGS EVEN, WHAT THEY HEARD AND THEIR UNDERSTANDINGS AND THOUGHTS. AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. KENT, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN ALL HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER AND OTHER PEOPLE, AND ALL HAD A BUNCH OF HEARSAY, BUT THIS BOILS DOWN TO JUST ONE THING. THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. SO THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, IT REALLY ONLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES INTEND AND WHAT DID HE SAY, AND WHAT DID THE UKRAINIANS UNDERSTAND OR HEAR. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU’RE ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE IN THE OPEN TESTIMONY THAT’S HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH, SO I GET TO ASK YOU. YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND YOU BELIEVE THE POLICY ISSUES HE RAISED CONCERNS UKRAINE WERE VALID, CORRECT? >>YES. >>DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EVER SAY TO YOU HE WAS NOT GOING TO ALLOW AID TO THE UNITED STATES TO GO TO THE UKRAINE UNLESS THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA, THE BIDENS, OR THE 2016 ELECTIONS? >>NO, HE DID NOT. >>DID THE UKRAINIANS TELL YOU THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD NOT GET A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR MILITARY AID UNLESS THEY UNDERTOOK INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTIONS? >>THEY DID NOT. >>SO YOU JUST TOOK APART THEIR ENTIRE CASE. IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN’T SAY IT, AND THE UKRAINIANS DIDN’T UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE THAT STANDS IN BETWEEN THEM. I ASK YOU AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THE THREE AMIGO THING, WHATEVER THEY’RE TRYING TO DISPAR AJ YOU WITH, YOU’RE NOT PART OF THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, YOU’RE PART OF THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>EXPLAIN THAT. >>I WAS APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SECRETARY TILLERSON IN JULY OF 2017, TO BE THE U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS. THAT’S A ROLE DIFFERENT FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE OR DIFFERENT FROM AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE. THAT ROLE IS PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON THE DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING THE EFFORTS TO REVERSE RUSSIA’S INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF UKRAINE. IT IS, UM, MINSK AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, SUPPORT FROM NATO, SUPPORT FOR SANCTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE OSCE AND THE MONETARY ADMISSIONS, ALLIES LIKE POLAND, THE UK, CANADA SUPPORTING THE UKRAINE. IT’S — >>GREAT DESCRIPTION. I’LL CUT YOU OFF THERE. YOU’RE ALSO ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO HAD ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO GIULIANI, AGAIN ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAD FEELINGS AND UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT WHAT GIULIANI WAS DOING. DID GIULIANI EVER TELL YOU THAT UNITED STATES AID OR A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT OCCUR FOR THE UKRAINIANS UNTIL THEY AGREED TO AN INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION? >>EVERYTHING I HEARD FROM GIULIANI I TOOK TO BE HIS OPINION. >>SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE UKRAINIANS NEVER TOLD YOU THAT GIULIANI HAD TOLD THEM THAT IN ORDER TO GET A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT, MILITARY AID OR FOREIGN AID FROM THE UNITED STATES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. >>NO. >>OKAY. MR. MORRISON, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND HE TOLD YOU OF A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ON PAGE 128 OF HIS TESTIMONY, HE RELATES THE CONTENT OF A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HE WAS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. HE SAID I DIDN’T FRAME THE QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT THAT WAY AS A LINK, I ASKED THE OPEN ENDED QUESTION WHAT DO YOU WANT. THIS IS MR. SONDLAND IN HIS TESTIMONY ASKING THIS QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS IS WHAT HE REPORTS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAID. HE SAID I WANT NOTHING. I DON’T WANT TO GIVE THEM ANYTHING, I DON’T WANT ANYTHING FROM THEM. I WANT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. HE KEPT REPEATING NO QUID PRO QUO OVER AND OVER AGAIN. DO YOU HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE MR. SONDLAND IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH AS TO THE CONTENT OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>NO CONGRESSMAN. >>AND DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE EITHER IN THE SECRET DUNGEON TESTIMONIES RELEASED OR IN THE OPEN TESTIMONIES HAS PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE? >>I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT. >>MR. MORRISON? >>NO, SIR. >>MR. MORRISON, UM, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN REPORTED TO YOU, THAT’S CORRECT? >>HE DID SIR. >>NOW YOU HAVE A LEGAL BACKGROUND. HE SAID THAT HE LISTENED TO THE PHONE CALL, A PHONE CALL YOU SAID YOU SAW NOTHING THAT HAD OCCURRED ILLEGALLY, AND HE SAID HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEMANDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS MOVE FORWARD. DO YOU BELIEVE, BECAUSE HE ONLY WAS TELLING US HIS OPINION, DO YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR OPINION THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEMANDED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERTAKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >>NO, SIR. >>TO BOTH OF YOU, UKRAINE IS AN ASPIRING TO THE EU, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EU. IS THE UKRAINE IN HIS PORTFOLIO? >>YES, ALSO BECAUSE THE SANCTIONS ON UKRAINE BY THE EU ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. >>MR. MORRISON? >>I AGREE SIR. >>I YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. PRESIDENT TRUMP DESCRIBED HIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS QUOTE PERFECT, AND I THINK HE’S DONE THAT ON TWITTER NOT ONCE, TWICE, BUT MY MY COUNT 11 TIMES. IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THIS CHARACTERIZATION OF PERFECT IS OF A PIECE WITH THE IDEA WE HEAR IN DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT IT’S JUST NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, AND I’M CONCERNED FROM THE START THAT IT’S NOT ABOUT ACTUALLY GOING AFTER CORRUPTION BUT IN FACT AIMING CORRUPTION AT THE VICE PRESIDENT. MR. MORRISON, YOU LISTENED IN ON THE CALL IN THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM. DID YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT MENTION THE COMPANY CROWD STRIKE AND THE SERVER? >>I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR. >>DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTION THE BIDENS? >>YES, SIR. >>DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE LENGTH OF THAT PHONE CALL USE THE WORD CORRUPTION? >>NO, SIR. WELL, SIR, I DON’T BELIEVE HE DID. >>WAS THE REQUEST THAT UKRAINE INVESTIGATE CROWD STRIKE AND THE BIDENS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD TO BE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY TOWARDS COMBATING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE? >>SIR, IT WAS THE FIRST I HEARD OF MUCH OF THIS. >>IN FACT IN YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU TESTIFIED YOU WANTED TO STAY AWAY FROM WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS THIS QUOTE BUCKET OF INVESTIGATIONS. WHY DID YOU WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THOSE ISSUES? >>THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ADVISED BY DR. HILL. >>YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT’S CALL WAS NOT, AND I’M QUOTING YOU HERE, THE FULL THROATED ENDORSEMENT OF THE UKRAINE REFORM AGENDA THAT I WAS HOPING TO HEAR. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >>SIR, WHAT WE, MYSELF, COLONEL VINDMAN, OTHERS, WHAT WE PREPARED IN THE PACKAGE WE PROVIDED THE PRESIDENT WAS BACKGROUND ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, BACKGROUND ON HIS POSITIONS ABOUT REFORMING UKRAINE, REFORMING ITS INSTITUTIONS, ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION. WE WERE HOPING, WE RECOMMENDED THE PRESIDENT VERY CLEARLY SUPPORT WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RUN ON IN HIS OWN ELECTION, AND WHAT HIS PARTY RAN ON IN THEIR ELECTION. >>BUT THAT DIDN’T COME UP IN THE CALL, DID IT? >>NO, SIR. >>ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER DISCUSSION WHERE THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY RAISED THOSE THINGS WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT? >>CORRUPTION REFORM? >>YES. >>SIR, IT’S BEEN SOME TIME SINCE I REFRESHED MYSELF ON THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO I HESITATE TO SAY DID HE EVER RAISE IT, BUT HE DID NOT RAISE IT AT THE TIME OF THE 25th OF JULY PHONE CALL. >>SWITCHING GEARS A BIT. YOU STRIKE ME AS A PROCESS GUY. IT’S NAGGING AT ME BECAUSE YOU CHARACTERIZE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S LINKING AND WHATEVER WAY IT HAPPENED OF AID TO AN INVESTIGATION AS THE GORDON PROBLEM. YOU SAID IT CAUSED YOU TO ROLL YOUR EYES, AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID EVERYBODY IN THE JULY 10th MEETING THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. JOHN BOLTON CHARACTERIZES THIS AS THE DRUG DEAL, SO IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM UNDERSTANDS THERE’S A HUGE PROBLEM HERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WOULD BE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN YOU HAVE AN AMBASSADOR OUT THERE GOING ROGUE AS APPARENTLY THERE WAS CONSENSUS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS DOING, THAT EITHER THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON OR SECRETARY OF STATE MIGHT REIN THEM IN. WHY DIDN’T THAT HAPPEN? >>SIR, I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE THAT AMBASSADORS WORK FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE PRESIDENT. >>DO YOU HAVE, YOU WORKED FOR HIM, YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHY JOHN BOLTON WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS A DRUG DEAL, BUT NOT REIN HIM IN? >>AMBASSADORS DON’T WORK FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, SIR. >>NO, BUT HE SPENDS TIME WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE. EVERYONE IN THE ROOM IS CALLING IT THE GORDON PROBLEM, A DRUG DEAL, AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE DOES NOTHING. >>SIR, I’M SORRY, WAS THERE A QUESTION? >>YOU DON’T HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO THAT? >>NO, SIR. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE TROUBLED ONCE YOU READ THE RECORD OF THE PRESIDENT’S JULY 25th CALL. YOU TESTIFIED VOTE THAT ASKING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO LOOK INTO THIS, YOU CAN SEE IT BECOMES EXPLOSIVE IN DOMESTIC POLITICS, AND YOU CALL THIS UNACCEPTABLE. WHAT SPECIFICALLY IN THAT CALL TO THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT DO YOU FIND UNACCEPTABLE OR TROUBLING? >>IT IS THE REFERENCE TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. ESIDENT BIDEN >>THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. >>MR. CONWAY? >>THANK YOU. THIS MORNING WE HEARD MUCH ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR A FAVOR. AT LEAST IN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN’S MIND IT WAS A DEMAND, REQUIREMENT, ORDER. BUT IN THE LAST PART OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 2 HEADS OF STATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT A PROSECUTOR HE’S PARTICULARLY IN FAVOR OF AND WOULD LIKE TO STAY THERE, AND ZELENSKY SAYS MR. PRESIDENT, NO, SINCE WE WON THE ABSOLUTE MAJORITY IN THE PARLIAMENT, THE NEXT PROSECUTOR GENERAL WILL BE MY PERSON, MY CANDIDATE. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A HEAD OF STATE WHO’S BEEN COWED OR BULLIED AND IS UNDER THE THUMB OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>NOT AT ALL. >>NO, SIR. >>ALL RIGHT. THE IMPACT OF THE PAUSE THAT OCCURRED, THE 55 DAY PAUSE IN THE ASSISTANCE OR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, NONE OF US REALLY UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME FRAME. NO ONE KNEW OTHER THAN INTERNAL U.S. FOLKS UNTIL LATE AUGUST, SO THE VISIONS WOULDN’T HAVE NECESSARILY KNOWN ABOUT IT. BUT THE IMPACT ON THE AID THAT HE ALREADY HAD, SHOULD RUSSIA HAVE TRIED TO MOVE THE LINE OF CONTACT FURTHER WEST WITH THEIR TRANSACTION WOULD THE LETHAL ASSISTANCE WE’D GIVEN THEM BE ABLE TO PUSH BACK ON THAT? >>YES, IT WOULD. >>MR. MORRISON? >>I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I WOULD ALSO ADD THE HOLD AS I UNDERSTOOD IT APPLIED TO UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IT DID NOT APPLY TO F MS, AND THE JAVELINS WERE PROVIDED ANT FMS. >>SO THE MOST LETHAL WEAPON PROVIDED TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS NATIONAL POLICY WHICH HE SET WAS ABLE TO THEM SHOULD THE RUSSIANS HAVE PUSHED THEIR TANKS WEST, THE JAVELINS? >>YES, SIR. >>THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS, EVEN WITH THE PAUSE AND EVERYTHING GOING ON? >>YES, SIR. >>THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS REPORTING THAT THE RUSSIANS IN AN ACT OF WAR TOOK 2 GUN SHIPS AND A TUG AND 24 SAILORS LAST NOVEMBER, YET THE RUSSIANS HAVE GIVEN THE 24 SAILORS BACK IN SEPTEMBER AND THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS REPORTING TODAY THAT THEY’RE GIVING THE GUN BOATS AND TUG BACK. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE UKRAINE ARE UNABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE RUSSIANS BECAUSE THEY’RE HURT BY OUR ACTIONS? >>NO, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THE UKRAINIANS ARE INEPT. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE AS A PERSONAL REQUEST, I REQUEST YOU AND ONE OF YOUR LAWYERS TO PUT INTO THE RECORD THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTE THAT PROVIDES FOR THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR RIGHT TO IMMUNITY YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT OVER AND OVER, I DON’T THINK IT’S THERE, BUT IF IT’S FEDERAL STATUTE OR A BRIEF YOU CAN CITE, BUT THAT IN THE RECORD SO WE’LL KNOW THAT, AND BEFORE YOU GET MAD AND ACCUSE ME OF WANTING THE OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, YOU GET UPSET EVERY TIME SOMEONE ACCUSES YOU OF KNOWING WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS, I GET UPSET EVERY TIME YOU ACCUSE ME, BECAUSE WE WANT TO KNOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND WHAT’S GOING ON, WHAT WE WANT TO OUT THAT INTERVIEWER. THAT’S UNFAIR FOR YOU TO MAKE THAT ACCUSATION. THIS IS ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE 2 TEAMS. YOUR TEAM KNOWS THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THEY HAVE INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHO HE OR SHE IS. IT’S SIMPLY LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. AND I KNOW THAT YOU’VE OVERRUN BY REQUEST FOR A CLOSED DOOR SUBPOENA, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT YOU PUT INTO THE RECORD THE BASIS ON WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO ASSERT THIS RIGHT TO ANONIMITY. AND A DOCUMENT WE ALL USE, INTENDED TO BE THE TRUTH AND STRAIGHT FORWARD, SHE SAYS IN THAT DEAR COLLEAGUE THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BY LAW IS REQUIRED TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. YOU’RE DEFYING THE SPEAKER. IF SHE’S CORRECT, YOU’RE DEFYING THE LAW. IF SHE MISLED US INTO THINKING SOMETHING THAT’S NOT TRUE, THEN I THINK YOU NEED TO TELL THE SPEAKER SHE NEEDS TO RETRACT THAT DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER AND SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER REQUIRED BY LAW TO TESTIFY TO US AND WHAT’S HIS ABSOLUTE RIGHT YOU QUESTIONED. I YIELD BACK. >>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. I’M HAPPY TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE ALLOWING THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS. I RECK ECONOMIZE T NEWS MISS SEWELL. >>THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IT’S CLEAR THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAS BECOME A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THE U .S.- UKRAINE RELATIONS BY JULY. YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT ON JULY 2nd YOU MET WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND HIS AID IN TORONTO, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I HAD A BILATERAL MEETING WITH UKRAINE AND THEN A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF. >>AND THERE YOU DISCUSS MR. GIULIANI’S QUOTE NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE BASED ON A CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION, RIGHT? >>I CONVEYED THAT HE WAS REPEATING A NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BASED ON ACCUSATIONS OF THE THEN PROSECUTOR GENERAL. >>ARE YOU SAYING YOU DIDN’T THINK THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE VIEWS? >>NO, THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE VIEWS. >>BUT THAT WASN’T YOUR DESCRIPTION? >>I’M SORRY, I LOST THE QUESTION. >>I WAS TRYING TO GET AT WHO SAID THE NEGATIVE VIEWS, THAT YOU DISCUSSED NEGATIVE VIEWS. >>THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF UKRAINE WAS PUTTING OUT THIS SERIES OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT I BELIEVE WERE SELF-SERVING AND INACCURATE. MR. GIULIANI HAD HAD REPEATED THESE TO ME, SO I BELIEVE HE WAS AFFECTED BY THOSE AND BELIEVED THOSE. >>AND BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE. >>BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE AND WAS CONVEYING THEM TO THE PRESIDENT. >>SO WAS IT PROBLEMATIC THAT HE BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE VIEWS? IS IT TRUE? >>YES, THE WHOLE THING WAS PROBLEMATIC. >>AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT ON JULY 2nd YOU TOLD UKRAINIANS THEY NEEDED TO QUOTE COOPERATE ON INVESTIGATIONS, END QUOTE. YOU’RE NOW SAYING YOU DON’T RECALL THOSE WORDS? >>I DON’T BELIEVE I SAIDS COOPERATION ON INVESTIGATIONS. >>DID YOU SAY INVESTIGATIONS? >>I BELIEVE I DID, YES. >>AND WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY INVESTIGATIONS? >>BURISMA 2016 WAS IN MY MIND BUT I WANTED TO KEEP IT GENERAL, AND CONVEY THEY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTINGS CORRUPTION AND WOULD ENGAGE IN WHATEVER INVESTIGATIONS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP THE COUNTRY. >>NOW MOVING TO JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR VOLKER SENT YOU A TEXT MESSAGE, YOU SENT A TEXT TO GIULIANI, AND I BELIEVE IT’S ON THE SCREEN NOW. AND YOU SAID MR. MAYOR WOULD WE MEET FOR COFFEE OR LUNCH, I WANT TO UPDATE YOU ON MY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT UKRAINE, I THINK WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET WHAT YOU NEED. IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. >>THAT’S AN ACCURATE TEXT MESSAGE. >>WHAT DID YOU MEAN? >>CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE REPRESENTING ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM. >>LATER THAT DAY YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET WITH UKRAINE OFFICIALS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HEARD THAT SONDLAND TOLD ZELENSKY HE NEEDED TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATIONS. WERE THESE INVESTIGATIONS A PART OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE? IN ORDER TO FIGHT CORRUPTION YOU NEED TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS AND SEE WHAT CITIZENS HAVE BEEN UP TO AND DOING. >>BUT WAS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT? YOU KNEW THE PRESIDENT WANTED THOSE INVESTIGATIONS TO BE DONE AS A CONDITION FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING WITH THE WHITE HOUSE? IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >>WELL FIRST OFF, WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATIONS. WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. >>BUT BURISMA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH — >>I’M SAYING UKRAINIANS WITHIN THE COMPANY ACTED IN A CORRUPT WAY OR SOUGHT TO BUY INFLUENCE. THAT’S A LEGITIMATE THING TO INVESTIGATE. THAT’S HELPFUL TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY THAT — >>WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WE HEARD FROM 2 WITNESSES THIS MORNING THAT THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE GETTING YOURSELF INTO, BUT SITTING HERE TODAY, I TRUST YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT’S SIMPLY WRONG. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>MR. TURNER? >>I YIELD MY TIME TO JIM JORDAN. >>YOU WERE THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO UKRAINE? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND PRIOR TO THAT YOU WORKED AT THE NSC, SENATE CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO, SO IT MAY NOT BOTHER YOU WHEN YOU’RE REFERRED TO AS THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, BUT IT BOTHERS REPRESENTATIVE TURNER AND ME. YOU WERE THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE, AND IN THAT ROLE YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU WERE THE ADMINISTRATION’S MOST OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC FIGURE, HIGHLIGHTING RUSSIA’S INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF UKRAINE AND CALLING OUT RUSSIA’S RESPONSIBILITY TO END THE WAR. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND IN THAT CAPACITY YOU STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR LIFTING THE BAN ON SALES TO WEAPONS TO UKRAINE RIGHT? >>YES. >>AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IT. >>YES. >>BUT IN SPITE OF THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL SKEPTICAL OF GIVING TAX DOLLARS TO UKRAINE, AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE HE DOESN’T LIKE FOREIGN AID, RIGHT? >>THAT’S ONE REASON AND UKRAINE’S HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IS ANOTHER. >>ONE OF THE THIRD MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET. AND EUROPE ISN’T DOING ENOUGH, AND IN THE PRESIDENT’S MIND, HE DID THINK UKRAINE WAS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION. >>YES. >>BECAUSE THINGS HAPPENED. THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DENY IT, BUT WHEN THERE’S AN OP ED ON AUGUST 4th, 2016 CRITICIZING THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP, THAT’S SERVELY TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION. WHEN A KEY MINISTER IN THEIR GOVERNMENT SAYS NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE TRUMP, THAT SERVELY LOOKS LIKE INFLUENCING THE ELECTION. AND WHEN THEY STATE DURING THE CAMPAIGN THE MAJORITY OF THE UKRAINIAN FIGURES WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO WIN, THAT PROBABLY STICKS IN THE CANDIDATE’S MIND. WHEN PEOPLE SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT US IN THE COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN, WE DON’T NECESSARILY THINK GREAT THINGS ABOUT THEM. BUT YOU WERE CONVINCED ZELENSKY WAS THE REAL DEAL, RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>BECAUSE YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE GUY. AND GUESS WHAT, WHAT AID WAS FROZEN, YOU KNEW IF YOU COULD GET THEM TOGETHER, IT WOULD WORK OUT. WHEN AID WAS FROZEN, YOU TOLD THE UKRAINIANS DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT. YOU SAID DON’T BE ALARMED RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>WHEN AID IS FROZEN AND RELEASED, ALL KINDS OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SENIOR U.S. OFFICIALS, RIGHT? >>STARTS WITH THE CALL. THEN YOU MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND THEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON MEETS WITH HIM, AND THEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MEETS WITH HIM, AND THEN JOHNSON AND MURPHY MEET WITH HIM. AND IN NOT ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, NOT A SINGLE ONE, DID SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS IN EXCHANGE FOR AN INVESTIGATION NOT ONCE DID THEY COME UP. DID THAT CONVERSATION COME UP, IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>NOT ONCE. NO DISCUSSION OF AID FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND, AND YOU TESTIFIED, YOU NEVER BELIEVED AID FOR INVESTIGATIONS WAS TALKED ABOUT EITHER, IN ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MEETINGS? THEY ALL BECAME CONVINCED OF THE SAME THING YOU KNEW. THEY ALL SAW THE SAME THING. THIS GUY IS THE REAL DEAL. HE’S A LEGITIMATE REFORMER. AND THEY ALL CAME BACK AND TOLD THE PRESIDENT, HEY MR. PRESIDENT, THIS GUY IS REAL. RELEASE THE DOLLARS. AND IN THE MEANTIME THEIR NEWLY ELECTED PARLIAMENT AS MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED TO STAYED UP ALL NIGHT TO PASS THE REFORM MEASURES AND GET RID OF THE PROSECUTOR, TO PUT IN THE SUPREME HIGH ANTICORRUPTION COURT AND GET RID OF THIS IDEA THAT NO ONE IN THEIR CONGRESS OR PARLIAMENT COULD BE HIT WITH A CRIME. ALL THIS HAPPENS AND THEY COME BACK AND TELL PRESIDENT TRUMP GUESS WHAT, TIME TO RELEASE THE DOLLARS, AND HE DID IT, RIGHT? >>THE DOLLARS WERE RELEASED. >>YEAH, YOU DID YOUR JOB. YOU DID YOUR JOB. AND YOU HAVE TO PUT UP WITH ALL THIS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE OUT TO GET THIS PRESIDENT. YOU DID YOUR JOB JUST LIKE YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO ALL THESE YEARS, AND THE DEMOCRATS PUT YOU THROUGH THIS. HERE’S THE SADDEST THINGS, ONE OF THE SADDEST THINGS ABOUT ALL THIS, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING US THROUGH, YOU 2 GUYS HERE TELLING IT STRAIGHT, YOU’VE BOTH DECIDED YOU’LL STEP OUT OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING. THAT’S THE SAD THING. PEOPLE LIKE AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON WHO SERVED OUR COUNTRY SO WELL ARE NOW STEPPING OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING. THAT’S WHY MR. TURNER GOT SO FIRED UP, AND I’M FIRED UP TOO BECAUSE WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DID. I YIELD BACK. >>MR. CARSON. >>THANK YOU CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE PRESS STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUDY GIULIANI WANTED UKRAINE TO MAKE ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND YOU HAD THIS EXCHANGE. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS MORRISON, READY TO GET DATES AS SOON AS YERMAK CONFIRMS. YOU REPLY EXCELLENT, HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM? AND SONDLAND SAYS I’M NOT SURE I DID. I THINK POTUS WANTS DELIVERABLE. THE DELIVERABLE WAS THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO BUIRSMA AND PUBLIC INTERFERENCE BY UKRAINE. >>I UNDERSTAND THE DELIVERABLE TO HAVE BEEN THE STATEMENT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. >>ON AUGUST 13th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DISCUSSED A DRAFT STATEMENT FROM UKRAINE WITH MR. GIULIANI. WHY DID YOU DISCUSS THE DRAFT STATEMENT WITH MR. GIULIANI? >>BECAUSE THE IDEA OF THE STATEMENT HAD COME UP FROM YERMAK’S MEETING WITH GIULIANI. REMEMBER HE ASKED ME TO CONNECT HIM WITH GIULIANI. I DID, THEY HAD A MEETING, AND THEY BOTH CALLED ME AFTERWARDS. MR. GIULIANI SAID HE THOUGHT UKRAINE SHOULD MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION. MR. YERMAK SAID AND WE’RE ALSO SAY BURISMA IN >>SO THAT WOULD BE CONVEYED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SOLVE THIS PROBLEM I HAD OBSERVED WITH THE MAY 23 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, THE PROBLEM BEING HE IS GETTING A BAD SET OF INFORMATION, A STATEMENT LIKE THIS. >>WAS MR. GIULIANI SATISFIED WITH THE STATEMENT? >>NO. >>HE BELIEVED IT NEEDED TO SAY BURISMA AND 2016 SPECIFICALLY OR IT WOULD NOT BE CREDIBLE OR ANYTHING NEW. >>IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI WANTED A STATEMENT THAT WOULD REFERENCE BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTIONS EXPLICITLY, ONE THAT WOULD BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP. MR. AMBASSADOR, HERE IS THE TEXT YOU SENT TO THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL AUGUST 13. LET’S PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN. YOU SAID HI, GOOD TALKING. FOLLOWED BY AN INSERT AT THE END FOR THE TWO KEY ITEMS. MR. AMBASSADOR, THOSE TWO KEY ITEMS WERE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>DID MR. GIULIANI DICTATE THOSE KEY ITEMS? >>HE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM TO DESCRIBE THE CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH GIULIANI. MR. GIULIANI SAID IT WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE THESE THINGS TO BE CONVINCING TO HIM, I PUT THEM IN TO MAKE SURE HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, THIS IS WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT. >>YOU INCLUDED THEM IN THE PROPOSAL TO THE UKRAINIANS. >>I PUT IT BACK IN TO BE CLEAR TO THE UKRAINIANS, THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED. >>MR. GIULIANI DICTATED IN AUGUST WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA, WHY WERE THE UKRAINIANS STILL CONSIDERING GIVING AN INTERVIEW WITH THE SAME THINGS IN SEPTEMBER? >>IF I MAY, CONGRESSMAN, I CONVEYED THIS TO THE UKRAINIANS IN ORDER TO BE CLEAR, WE KNEW WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT, FOLLOWING UP ON HIS PRIOR CONVERSATION, THE UKRAINIANS HAD REASONS NOT TO DO THAT AND DESCRIBED THOSE REASONS AND I AGREED WITH THEM, WE AGREED TO SCRAP THE STATEMENT. FROM THAT POINT ON, I DID NOT HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT. I DON’T KNOW HOW IT CAME UP OR WHY IT CAME UP THERE WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY IF PRESIDENT ZELINSKI DOING AN INTERVIEW WITH U.S. MEDIA LATER SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND IN THE END, HE DID NOT DO THIS EITHER. >>IN. MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST DURING THE JULY 25 CALL WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY. I EMPHATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU, SIR. THESE TEXT MESSAGES SHOW AMBASSADOR VOLKER SPENT MUCH OF AUGUST PRESSING UKRAINE TO MEET THOSE REQUESTS, WE CAN ONLY BE GRATEFUL, I GUESS THE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY GOT CAUGHT AND CONGRESS PASSED LAW TO ENSURE THE FUNDING WAS RELEASED TO UKRAINE BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE. I THINK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WILL START IF I CAN WITH YOU, MR. MORRISON. DISCUSSING THE 7/25 PHONE CALL AND THE CONCERNS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN HAD, THE LIEUTENANT COMMUNAL CAME WITH YOU WITH EDITS TO THE TRANSCRIPT, YOU STATED YOU ACCEPTED ALL OF HIS EDITS. IS THAT CORRECT? >>I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED ALL THE EDITS I BELIEVED WERE FAITHFUL TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED. >>DID HE COME TO YOU WITH AN ADDED THAT SAID THE WORD, DEMAND SHOULD BE IN THERE? >>I DON’T RECALL THAT SPECIFICALLY, SIR. >>HE DIDN’T EITHER. HOW SOON AFTER THE PHONE CALL DID HE MEET WITH YOU ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE? >>WE GOT THE DRAFT THAT WAS NORMAL FAIRLY QUICKLY AFTER THE CALL THAT SAME DAY. >>THAT SAME DAY, TODAY HE SAID I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG, IT IS NOT PROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE U.S. CITIZEN AND POLITICAL OPPONENT. HE WAS GOING TO MR. EISENBERG WITH HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONVERSATION, HE DID NOT AT ANY POINT ON THE EDITS SAY THERE SHOULD BE A DEMAND AND YOU KNOW, HE DIDN’T DO THAT, BUT HE DID SAY HE DID NOT COME TO YOU WITH HIS CONCERNS BECAUSE YOU WANT AVAILABLE, BUT THAT SAME DAY, HE CAME TO YOU WITH EDITS. IS THAT CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE THAT IS GENERALLY CORRECT, YES SIR. >>HE SAID YOU WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND YOU DID NOT HEAR THE PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND, DID YOU? >>NO SIR. >>SOMETIME BETWEEN THE CALL AND TODAY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN MUST HAVE BEEN HEARING VOICES, HE HEARD DEMAND AT THE TIME, HE DID NOT HEAR IT THAT DAY AND HE DID NOT MAKE IT AN ISSUE THAT THEY ARE TODAY HE DOES. I THINK THAT IS PRETTY BIZARRE. WHEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WENT TO LEGAL, MR. EISENBERG, DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED NOT TO SPEAK TO YOU? >>I DON’T HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, NO SIR. >>YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED TO CONTACT THE IG I SEE? >>NO SIR, I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. >>YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS ADVISED WHEN HE WENT TO LEGAL. >>NO SIR, I DO NOT. THANK YOU. >>MR. VOLKER, I ENJOYED YOUR OPENING TESTIMONY TAKING US THROUGH THAT, I THOUGHT IT WAS EXTREMELY WELL DONE AND I APPRECIATE IT, YOU TALK ABOUT LETTERS SIGNED AND SHARING CONCERNS ABOUT LEADERSHIP IN YOUR ASSIGNED COUNTRY, AGREEING WITH AND SOMETIMES DISAGREEING WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF YOUR OWN COUNTRY WHEN YOU FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. YOU ARE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, LET’S FACE IT, PART OF THE TEAM THERE TO SERVE THE COUNTRY IN THAT WAY. THAT ALTON HE SOUNDED LIKE THE WORKS OF A VERY GOOD DIPLOMAT, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>THANK YOU, SIR. >>IT IS TRULY APPRECIATED. CORRUPTION WAS A CONCERN, LEGITIMATELY IN UKRAINE AND IN MANY WAYS, MR. JORDAN POINTED OUT SOME OF THE THINGS DONE BY UKRAINIANS IN PLAIN SIGHT, I MIGHT USE THAT TERM, IN PLAIN SIGHT BY PUTTING UP ADS IN OUR NEWSPAPERS AND CERTAINLY MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY CAN BE TRYING TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>I AGREE WITH THAT. >>WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT THAT WHOLE THING ABOUT UKRAINIANS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, IT WAS JUST THE RUSSIANS. THAT COMES FROM A COMMUNITY, SOME OF THE PEOPLE HAVE COME UP WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE SOME OF THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WE ARE GOING TO FIND OUT IF WE HAVEN’T ALREADY WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH THIS WHOLE RUSSIAN COLLUSION HOAX. I WANT TO SAY, YOU DID A GREAT JOB, YOU VETTED ZELINSKI’S INTENTIONS, WHAT HE INTENDED TO BE A PRESIDENT. WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS ACCURATE? >>YES, THAT WAS ONE OF THE KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE INAUGURATION, TO TAKE OUR OWN JUDGMENT AND REPORT BACK TO THE PRESIDENT. >>THAT IS WHAT YOUR JOB SHOULD BE, YOU BECAME COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PRESIDENT, DIDN’T YOU? >>YES, I DID. >>YOU WANTED TO ASSURE OUR PRESIDENT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH HIM. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>IN SOME WAYS, YOU HAVE TO WORK SOMETIMES THROUGH ANY MEANS AVAILABLE. THAT MIGHT INCLUDE WORKING WITH RUDY GIULIANI IF IT CAN BE HELPFUL TO YOU TO GET THAT MESSAGE AND ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? >>I THINK THE MESSAGES CONVEYED BY MR. GIULIANI WERE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY WERE AT VARIANCE WITH OUR OFFICIAL MESSAGE TO THE PRESIDENT, NOT CONVEYING THAT POSITIVE ASSESSMENT WE ALL HAD. I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO TRY TO STEP IN AND FIX THE PROBLEM. >>IN THAT, I THINK YOU TURNED A USEFUL BAROMETER OF WHERE THINGS WORK. >>YES. >>THERE ARE USEFUL BAROMETERS THAT COME IN DIFFERENT FASHIONS LIKE DENNIS RODMAN AND NORTH KOREA AND JAMES TAYLOR WITH FRANCE, YOU’VE GOT A FRIEND, IF THEY CAN HELP THE CAUSE. IN THAT SITUATION, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. GOOD JOB, AMBASSADOR. I YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TODAY AND HEAR SERVICE. I WILL TAKE US OUT 30,000 FEET FOUR-MINUTE AND TALK ABOUT COVERUPS. BUT FOR THE FACT THE WHISTLEBLOWER CAME FORWARD, WE WOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. BUT FOR THE FACT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE CIA FOUND IT TO BOTH BE URGENT AND CREDIBLE, WE WOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID AFTER YOU HEARD THE CALL, YOU WENT DIRECTLY TO THE ATTORNEYS IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND RECOMMENDED THEY BE LIMITED ACCESS AND SUBSEQUENTLY PUT INTO A SPECIAL SERVER, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT RELEASED ANY DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER TO THIS COMMITTEE. TO YOU MR. VOLKER, THANK YOU, BUT TO THE BACK AS YOU AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL PHONE AND TEXT MESSAGE WITH MR. GIULIANI AND MR. SONDLAND AND WHOMEVER ELSE, FOR THOSE TEXT MESSAGES WE ARE PUTTING ON THE SCREEN ALL DAY, WE WOULD HAVE NOTHING AND THIS COVER-UP WOULD BE COMPLETE. THAT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT. NOW, ON JULY 19, YOU HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY GIULIANI AT THE TRUMP HOTEL, CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>IN THAT CONVERSATION, AT ONE POINT HE BROUGHT UP MR. YURIY LUTSENKO, WHATEVER HE IS SAYING, THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. IS THAT CORRECT ? >>YES. >>THEN HE BROUGHT UP MR. BIDEN, I WILL QUOTE YOU HERE, I’VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME. HE IS A PERSON OF INTEGRITY. TO GIULIANI, SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE TO ME. JOE BIDEN WOULD BE INFLUENCED IN HIS DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT BY MONEY OR THINGS FOR HIS SON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE HAVE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND TO BURISMA AND BIDEN AND THE 2016 CROWDSTRIKE SERVER. YOU AND THAT CONVERSATION WITH MR. GIULIANI BASICALLY DEBUNKED ALL OF THAT. NOW, AT THAT TIME, AT THAT BREAKFAST, WHO ELSE WAS WITH YOU AT THAT BREAKFAST? >>THERE WAS SOMEONE MR. GIULIANI BROUGHT ALONG, I LATER LEARNED THIS WAS LEV PARNAS. >>HE WAS AT THAT BREAKFAST MR. GIULIANI HAD WITH YOU AND WE KNOW LEV PARNAS HAS SINCE BEEN INDICTED FOR FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES. >>ON MAY 23, YOU WERE IN THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND AT ONE POINT, HE REFERRED TO ZELINSKI HAVING TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM. DO YOU THINK HE WAS CALLING TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM? >>THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THAT CAME TO MIND, ONE OF THEM WAS FORMER INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND JOURNALIST, LESHCHENKO IS SOMEWHAT IN THESE STORIES SEEN AS RINGING FORTH A BLACK LEDGER RELATING TO PAUL MANAFORT’S ACTIVITIES IN UKRAINE, THAT IS ONE PERSON, THE OTHER PERSON I THOUGHT IT COULD REFER TO WAS THE PERSON NAMED AS PRESIDENT ZELINSKI’S CHIEF OF PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION. HE WAS KNOWN AS A LAWYER FOR ONE OF THE MAIN OLIGARCHS IN UKRAINE . THERE’S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY AT THE TIME OF HIM APPOINTED TO THE ADMINISTRATION. >>DO YOU THINK OF THEM AS TERRIBLE PEOPLE? >>I DON’T THINK EITHER ONE IS TERRIBLE PEOPLE, NO. >>ON CUE. MR. MORRISON, EARLIER IN TESTIMONY FROM OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, YOU INDICATD OTHERS REPRESENTED TO YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN LEAKED, THE REMEMBER SAYING THAT? >>YES MAN. >>ALL RIGHT. CURL VINDMAN THIS MORNING SAID HE DID NOT, DOES NOT LEAK, WOULD YOU THEREFORE WANT TO MAYBE REARRANGE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE REFERENCES YOU MADE TO COLONEL VINDMAN? >>NO MA’AM. >>EVEN THOUGH UNDER OATH, HE SAID HE NEVER LEAKED, YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE WHO SAID TO YOU, HE MAY HAVE LEAKED. >>MA’AM, I DID NOT BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE THEM. >>THEY TOLD YOU, YOU DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO PUT THAT FORWARD EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD NO EVIDENCE. >>NO MA’AM. MA’AM, I’M SORRY, CHAIRMAN IF I COULD ANSWER. NO MA’AM, THAT IS INCORRECT. ME, DR. HILL AND OTHERS IN THE NSC RACED CONCERNED ABOUT ALEX, THOSE CONCERNS WERE NOTED. I DID NOT TAKE THEM FOR FACE VALUE, I TREATED THEM AS REPRESENTATIONS OF OTHERS, I FORM MY OWN JUDGMENTS, I TOOK NO ACTION BECAUSE OF THE STATEMENTS OF SOMEONE ELSE THAT I COULD NOT INDEPENDENTLY VALIDATE. >>MR. JORDAN. >>THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO IMPEACH LOLLAPALOOZA WHICH IS CALLING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO IMPEACH DONALD J TRUMP BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY, IT TURNS OUT IMPEACHMENT IS VERY BORING IF YOU DON’T HAVE COMPELLING OR CONDEMNING EVIDENCE. GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS. THE GOOD NEWS I WILL BE VERY BRIEF, WE ARE GOING ON 10+ HOURS OF THIS. I WILL YIELD BACK SOME OF MY TIME, THE BAD NEWS IS, MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES AFTER ME WON’T. SO, WE HAVE SOME TIME TO GO. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, VERY QUICKLY, DO YOU THINK SOMEONE SHOULD BE IMMUNE FROM INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE, EVEN OFFICE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>I DON’T THINK ANYONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW. >>OF COURSE NOT, THAT WOULD BE ABSURD. WHAT ARE SOME OF THESE ALLEGED ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS THAT OCCURRED OVERSEAS OR ANOTHER COUNTRY? WOULD IT BE IMPROPER TO SEEK THE HOST COUNTRIES HELP LIKE WE DO WITH INTERPOL OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES? >>THERE ARE CHANNELS FOR DOING THAT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES ABROAD. >>AGAIN, THE HOST NATIONS, THEIR GOVERNMENTS HELP IS NOT UNUSUAL, TO SEEK THEIR HELP. >>NO, IT IS NOT. WE HAVE TREATIES FOR THAT. >>IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, THE ONLY THING THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING. MR. MORRISON, I WONDER BRIEFLY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, HE DESCRIBED SIX PEOPLE, I BELIEVE IT WAS FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE IN THE SITUATION ROOM LISTENING TO THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN TWO PRESIDENTS. COLONEL VINDMAN DESCRIBED THE INDIVIDUALS AS EXCEPTIONAL, THERE WAS NO REASON TO QUESTION THEIR INTEGRITY OR PROFESSIONALS IN, THIS IS THE EXCHANGE HE HAD WE HAD WITH THE CLOSED-DOOR TETIMONY. YOU AGREE WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF AS EXCEPTIONL PEOPLE? >>YES, THERE PATRIOTS. >>PEOPLE OF GREAT INTEGRITY AND PROFESSIONALISM? >>YES THERE. I’M SORRY, DID ANY OF THESE EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE OF UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY, PROFESSIONALISM INDICATE TO YOU THEY THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR AS A RESULT OF THIS PHONE CALL? >>NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF, CONGRESSMAN. >>THEM SUGGEST YOU THEY THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED WITH BRIBERY OR ANY SUCH THING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? >>NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF, CONGRESSMAN. >>AND ONLY LEAVES TWO POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS, THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS DECIDE WITH GREAT INTEGRITY, EITHER THAT IS NOT TRUE, WHICH I DON’T BELIEVE OR THEY JUST INTERPRETED AN AMBIGUOUS CONVERSATION VERY DIFFERENTLY. JUST AS AN ASIDE, AS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER, I NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS AGAINST PROVIDING LEGAL AID TO UKRAINE. AMBASSADOR, DO YOU KNOW WHY HE REFUSED TO DO THAT? >>I WOULD ONLY POINT TO STATEMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME. THERE WAS A PERCEPTION OUR ALLIES WOULD OPPOSE IT, GERMANY WOULD OPPOSE IT, THERE WAS THE PERCEPTION GERMANY SHOULD BE IN THE LEAD, IT COULD BE PROVOCATIVE TO RUSSIA OR ESCALATE THE CONFLICT. AS I’VE SAID EXTENSIVELY AT THE TIME, AND AS SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE, I DON’T AGREE WITH THOSE ARGUMENTS. I BELIEVE THE RECORD HAS BORNE OUT PROVIDING LETHAL ARMS IS DEFENSIVELY IMPORTANT. >>I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK YOU GOT IT RIGHT AND PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT IT RIGHT. I WILL YIELD BACK. >>MR. QUIGLEY. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO A MEETING YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. YERMAK IN KIEV. >>I BELIEVE WE HAD DINNER DURING THE CONFERENCE. >>YOU RECALL DISCUSSING WITH MR. YERMAK, UKRAINE’S INTENT TO INVESTIGATE THEIR FORMER PRESIDENT , MR. POROSHENKO? >>MEMBER RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF PROSECUTIONS. >>THEY BROUGHT IT UP, TALKED ABOUT INTENTIONS. >>EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN, SORRY, TO BE CLEAR, THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK IN KIEV AT THAT TIME ABOUT WHETHER THE NEW TEAM WOULD BE PROSECUTING THE FORMER PRESIDENT. I HAD MET WITH PRESIDENT POROSHENKO AND OTHERS IN THE OPPOSITION AS WELL. I WANTED TO CALL MR. YERMAK’S ATTENTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS OF THIS. I’M AWARE OF OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE REGION THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH PROSECUTIONS OF THE FORMER GOVERNMENT, IT HAS CREATED THE DIVISIONS IN SOCIETY. I CITED PRESIDENT ZELINSKI’S INAUGURATION SPEECH, I’M SORRY, HIS NATIONAL SPEECH FROM AUGUST 24 ALL ABOUT UNIFYING THE COUNTRY. ICON CHINNED MR. YERMAK TO SAY PURSUING PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT POROSHENKO RISKS DEEPENING OPPOSITION IN THE COUNTRY WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT MR. ZELENSKY WANTS TO DO. >>IT IS FAIR TO SAY YOU DISCOURAGE HIM FROM SUCH ACTION. >>I DISCOURAGE HIM AND RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL ACTION MIGHT BE. >>WHAT WAS MR. YERMAK’S REACTION? >>I’VE SEEN THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS, MR. TAYLOR’S TESTIMONY >>AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT. >>I BELIEVE BASED ON THAT TESTIMONY, MR. YERMAK SAID ASKING US TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON AND BIDEN? >>SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF IT IS OKAY TO ASK US TO INVESTIGATE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU ARE THESE SO-CALLED INVESTIGATIONS BUT YOU DON’T WANT US TO INVESTIGATE OUR OWN PRESIDENT. IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO DESCRIBE THIS? >>I DID NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE WERE NOT BEING ASKED TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON OR BIDEN. I WAS PUZZLED BY THE REMARK, THAT IS WHY I DID NOT RESPOND. >>DID YOU INVESTIGATE WHAT HE MIGHT’VE MEANT OR ASK ANYBODY? >>NO, I TOOK IT AS SOMETHING OF A DEFLECTION OF THE POINT I WAS MAKING ABOUT UNIFYING UKRAINE. >>BUT IN ALL THIS TIME, MR. GIULIANI AND THIS TIME, HE MENTIONED THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION, HE MENTIONED BIDEN OVER 50 TIMES AND TWENTYSOMETHING TIMES IN RELATION TO UKRAINE, NONE OF THAT STIRRED YOUR CURIOSITY? YOU JUST NOW FINALLY COME TO THIS POINT? >>AS I TESTIFIED, I MET WITH MR. GIULIANI ONCE, HE BROUGHT UP VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND I PUSHED BACK ON THAT. I MAINTAIN A VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION, UKRAINE INVESTIGATING ITS OWN CITIZENS AND CORRUPTION IS FINE. GOING BEYOND THAT TO SAY WE WILL INVESTIGATE THE VICE PRESIDENT IS NOT FINE. >>DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO POROSHENKO? >>YES. I KNOW I HAVE RAISED THIS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN ADVANCE OF THAT, WE HAVE BEEN TO SOME OF THE SAME MEETINGS, THE COUNTRY TEAM THERE, I DON’T REMEMBER IF I RAISED IT WITH GEORGE KENT OR NOT, I MAY WELL HAVE DONE. IT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD DISCUSSED AS PART OF OUR MEETINGS IN KIEV AT THAT TIME. >>I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. >>AMBASSADOR, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, YOU USED URGED UKRAINIANS NOT TO PROSECUTE THEIR FORMER PRESIDENT POROSHENKO. THEIR RESPONSE WAS LIKE YOU ARE ASKING US TO INVESTIGATE THE CLINTONS AND THE BIDENS. THAT WAS THE RESPONSE? >>THAT IS WHAT I RECALL AFTER SEEING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR’S TESTIMONY. >>YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT AT THE TIME, AND THE TIME, HAVE YOU READ THE CALL RECORD? HAD YOU READ THE CALL RECORD, IT MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE? >>YES. >>I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER, WHEN YOU SAID THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEORY OF YURIY LUTSENKO HAD NO MERIT. THERE WAS NO HARM. DON’T THEY HAVE ENOUGH LEGITIMATE CORRUPTION TO INVESTIGATE WITHOUT SPENDING TIME INVESTIGATING A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY? >>THERE’S ALL KINDS OF CORRUPTION TO INVESTIGATE IN UKRAINE. >>NONETHELESS, YOU PROPOSE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE INVESTIGATION WITHOUT MERIT BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF AN EFFORT TO FIX THE PROBLEM GIULIANI WAS CREATING. >>I DID NOT PROPOSE IT. >>I THINK YOU SAID YOU WERE OKAY WITH IT OR AMENDED STATEMENTS AS WE HAVE SAID TO INCLUDE IT BECAUSE IF IT WOULD HELP FIX THE GIULIANI PROBLEM, IS THAT THE THINKING? >>YES, THAT IS THE CORRECT, WE WITH THREAD THE NEEDLE, REASONABLE FOR UKRAINE TO DO AND RESET THE NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS HELD BY MR. GIULIANI AND THEN THE PRESIDENT, WHY NOT. >>THIS IS WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT IS YOUR EFFORT, WHEN YOU WANT TO FIX IT, IS IT CLEAR TO YOU NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, BASED ON THE SEPTEMBER 25 CALL, YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO FIX IT? >>BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED ON THE 25th, I CAN SEE NOW THERE IS A LOT ELSE GOING ON , A LOT ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN I KNEW AT THE TIME, THE EFFORTS I WAS MAKING WERE CLEARLY NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED . >>IT IS FAIR TO SAY, YOU COULD NOT FIX THE GIULIANI PROBLEM. >>THAT IS CORRECT. MS. STEFANIK. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE AND LEADERSHIP ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. I WANT TO PARTICULARLY TECH MR. MORE SUN ON HIS WORK ON THE HOUSE ARMED COMMITTEE WHICH ICER. I WANT TO START WITH THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. MR. MORRISON, YOU ARE ON THE CALL AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF WITHHOLDING EIGHT ON THE CALL, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>NO BRIBERY OR EXTORTION? >>CORRECT. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I PRESUME YOU GOT A READOUT OF THE CALLS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>VERY TERSE READOUT, YES. >>IN THIS TERSE READOUT FROM THE CALL, AMBASSADOR, FROM U.S. PARTICIPANTS, WAS THERE ANY REFERENCE TO WITHHOLDING AID OR BRIBERY? >>NO, THERE WAS NOT. >>ANY REFERENCE TO QUID PRO QUO OR EXTORTION? >>NO, THERE WAS NOT. >>I PRESUME YOU GOT FEEDBACK FROM YOUR UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS AS TO HOW THE CALL WENT. THAT THEY MENTION THE WITHHOLDING OF AID, THE QUID PRO QUO? >>NO, THEY DID NOT. >>DID THEY MENTION BRIBERY? >>NO, THEY DID NOT. >>IN FACT, THE DAY AFTER THE CALL, YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, JULY 26 , IN THAT MEETING, HE MADE NO MENTION OF QUID PRO QUO. HE MADE NO MENTION OF WITHHOLDING THE AID, NO MENTION OF BRIBERY. >>NO. >>THE FACT IS, UKRAINIANS WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS WHOLE ON AID, CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>IN THE COMING WEEKS, YOU ARE IN TOUCH WITH UKRAINIANS AS PART OF YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES, THIS INCLUDED TALKING TO UKRAINIANS OVER THE PHONE, IN PERSON, ON TEXT, UKRAINIANS NEVER BROUGHT UP AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>THE NEVER BROUGHT UP WITHHOLDING OF THE AID OR QUID PRO QUO OR BRIBERY? >>NO. LET ME SAY THE AID, THEY DID BRING IT UP AFTER THE POLITICO ARTICLE. >>I WILL GET TO THAT, UNTIL THE ARTICLE, THEY DID NOT BRING IT UP. >>NO. >>YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION, IT NEVER CAME UP IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND I BELIEVE THEY HAD TRUST IN ME, THEY WOULD’VE ASKED IF THAT IS REALLY WHAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>YOU POINTED OUT, UKRAINIANS NEVER KNEW THE FOREIGN AID WAS ON PAUSE UNTIL THE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN POLITICAL IN AUGUST. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>THEY DID NOT KNOW DURING THE CALL. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>YOU HAD TO CORRECT ADAM SCHIFF ON THE TIMELINE AND THE CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION, THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE ASKED YOU, WHEN THEY BECAME AWARE MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING WITHHELD FOR A REASON YOU COULD NOT EXPLAIN, NO ONE COULD EXPLAIN, WHERE THEY UNDER GREATER PRESSURE TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE ASKED FOR ON THE CALL? YOU ANSWER, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE NEWS ABOUT A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE DID NOT GET INTO UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CIRCLES AS INDICATED TO ME BY THE CURRENT FOREIGN MINISTER THEN DIPLOMATIC ADVISOR UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST. IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? >>YES, IT IS. >>CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALSO GOT THE FACTS WRONG AGAIN WHEN HE ASKED YOU THIS, AT THE POINT THEY LEARNED THEIR AID WAS PAUSED, WOULDN’T THAT GIVE THEM ADDED URGENCY TO MEET THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST ON THE BIDENS LIKES YOU ANSWER, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I THINK UKRAINIANS FELT LIKE THEY ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING, THEY HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING ON INVESTIGATION. ISN’T IT THE CASE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AT ONE POINT, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID TO YOU, WHEN YOU WERE TRUTHFULLY TESTIFYING, AMBASSADOR, YOU ARE MAKING THIS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT HAS TO BE. IT IS PAGE 127 FROM THE DEPOSITION, IS THAT CORRECT? >>I REMEMBER THAT. >>THE TRUTH IS, THE FACTS ARE INDEED NOT COMPLICATED. I WILL CLOSE THAT WITH TWO QUESTIONS FOR THE BOTH OF YOU. DID UKRAINE OPEN INVESTIGATION INO THE BIDENS? >>MR. MORRISON. >>NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER. >>NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >>DID EITHER ONE OF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF QUID PRO QUO? >>NO MA’AM. >>NO. >>ANY EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY? >>NO MA’AM. >>ANY EVIDENCE OF TREASON? >>NO MA’AM. >>NO EVIDENCE OF TREASON. >>I WILL YIELD BACK. >>MR. MORRISON, DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON WANT THE SECURITY HOLD AID WITH LIFTED? >>YES, HE DID. >>YOU TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR ALTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN LATE AUGUST RELATED TO UKRAINE RELATED SECURITY ASSISTANCE? >>SIR, CAN YOU POINT TO I TESTIFIED? >>PAGE 266, AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AUGUST 2019, THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT YET READY TO APPROVE? >>226. >>266 AND 268. >>I’M ASKING YOU DID THAT HAPPEN OR DID NOT? >>SORRY, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THE WAY YOU’RE CHARACTERIZING IT. OKAY, YES SIR, I SEE. >>YOU TESTIFIED THAT. WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP? >>AMBASSADOR BOLTON DID NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS READY TO APPROVE ASSISTANCE. >>THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON REVEAL ANY REASON FOR THE REASON FOR THE HOLD FROM THIS MEETING? >>NO SIR. >>MR. MORRISON, DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF LOYAL TO THE PRESIDENT? >>YES SIR. >>AND THE PRESIDENT EXECUTES THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I WOULD SAY HE SETS IT, YES SIR. >>AS A STAFFER ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND SOMEONE WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY, IT IS YOUR JOB TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES OF THE PRESIDENT COME IS THAT RIGHT? >>MY JOB IS TO OBEY ALL LAWFUL ORDERS. >>ON JULY 20, YOU LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TALK TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. >>YES SIR. >>REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU HAD PREPARED AS TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT, YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES SIR, HE MADE A REQUEST. >>AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU TALKED TO YOU UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS A NUMBER OF TIMES? >>YES SIR. >>HOW MANY TIMES WHEN YOU TALKED TO YOUR UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS DID YOU ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS? >>NEVER, SIR. >>WHY NOT? >>SIR, IT WAS NOT A POLICY OBJECTIVE I WAS AWARE OF. >>BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. MORRISON, YOU’RE NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO CARRY OUT YOUR POLICY OBJECTIVES. YOU JUST TESTIFIED THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR THE UNITED STATES. THE ONE CALL YOU LISTENED TO BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PRIORITIES WERE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS. I’M ASKING YOU, SIR, WHY DIDN’T YOU FOLLOW UP ON THE PRESIDENT’S PRIORITIES WHEN YOU TALKED TO THE UKRAINIANS? >>SIR, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT AS A POLICY OBJECTIVE. >>MR. MORRISON, I KNOW YOU PUT THAT CONVERSATION IN THE SERVER BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, YOU FEARED POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AND OTHER REASONS YOU GAVE, BUT YOU ALSO CHOSE TO DEFY THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO NOT COME HERE AS OTHERS HAVE LIKE MR. MULVANEY AND MR. BOLTON AND YOU HAVE COME HERE AND BEEN TRUTHFUL. I APPRECIATE THAT. MR. MORRISON, WHETHER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT PUBLICLY OR NOT, I BELIEVE YOU KNEW WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE UKRAINIANS TO DO WAS WRONG AND AS YOU JUST DESCRIBED, YOUR DUTY IS TO FOLLOW THE FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES OF THE PRESIDENT. BUT TO ALSO ONLY FOLLOW SOMETHING THAT IS LAWFUL ORDER, I DON’T THINK YOU BELIEVED IT WAS LAWFUL ORDER, THAT IS WHY HE DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON THOSE PRIORITIES. MR. VOLKER, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT TODAY ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT BEING SUCH AN ANTICORRUPTION PRESIDENT, HE REALLY CARED ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION. IS RUSSIA A CORRUPT COUNTRY? >>WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >>PRESIDENT TRUMP. >>IS RUSSIA A CORRUPT COUNTRY? >>YES, IT IS. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MET A NUMBER OF TIMES WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >>YES, A FEW TIMES. >>AND HE HAS HAD A NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN. >>IS TURKEY A CORRUPT COUNTRY? >>YES I BELIEVE SO. >>DESPITE THAT, AT THE WHITE HOUSE, PRESIDENT ARAGON HAD LUNCH WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >>YES, IT IS. >>FINALLY, MR. GIULIANI ON MAY 9 TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES, PRESIDENT TRUMP BASICALLY KNOWS WHAT I’M DOING AS HIS LAWYER. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT STATEMENT? >>NO, I’M NOT. >>WOULD YOU AGREE WITH SOMEONE SITTING NEXT TO YOU, A LAWYER ASK ON A CLIENT’S BEHALF AND ONLY CLIENTS BEHALF, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I BELIEVE A LAWYER ASK ON HIS CLIENTS BEHALF, I’M NOT SURE ABOUT ONLY ON CLIENTS BEHALF BECAUSE I THINK AS I UNDERSTOOD MAYOR GIULIANI IN THIS CASE, HE WAS DOING A LOT OF WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE ON HIS OWN. I DON’T THINK HE WAS ALWAYS INSTRUCTED. >>YOU SAID NOT MEDDLING AN ELECTION, NOT INVESTIGATION. HE DID NOT SAY I, HE SAID WE, CORRECT? >>TAKING THAT FROM THE STATEMENT. >>YIELD BACK. >>MR. MORRISON, MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA SUGGEST HE KNOWS YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR THOUGHTS BETTER THAN YOU DO? HE DID NOT GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. DO YOU WANT TO GIVE A RESPONSE LIKES >>NO SIR, I HEARD THE PRESIDENT MAKE A REQUEST, I RECEIVED NO DIRECTION AT ANY TIME TO ATTEMPT TO LEAD A POLICY PROCESS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I LAID OUT IN MY DEPOSITION, I WAS DIRECTED BY DR. KUPPERMAN TO LAUNCH THE PROCESS TO ENSURE UNITY OF OPINION IN THE INTERAGENCY AS THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE. THAT IS WHAT I DID, I ACTED UPON THE DIRECTION I WAS GIVEN. >>COPY. WHILE WE ARE WITH YOU MR. MORRISON, THANKS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, CLEAR AND SOBER TESTIMONY, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OVER HERE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW POLITICAL INFORMATION ELECTED BY UKRAINE ON THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN? >>NO SIR. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SAME QUESTION, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR OVER HERE ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION COLLECTED BY UKRAINE ON THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN? >>NO, I DID NOT. >>THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A TEXT EXCHANGE YOU HAD WITH MR. YERMAK ON AUGUST 12 THAT TALKED ABOUT THIS PROPOSED STATEMENT. AND MAYOR GIULIANI PROVIDED FEEDBACK ON WHAT HE THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED ON THAT. DID MAYOR GIULIANI GET FEEDBACK FROM THE PRESIDENT ON WHAT SHOULD GO INTO THAT PROPOSED STATEMENT? >>I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK HE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE PRESIDENT.>>BASED ON YOUR RECOLLECTION, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHO IN THE ZELENSKY REGIME HAS MAYOR GIULIANI INTERACTED WITH IN ADDITION TO MR. YERMAK, WHICH WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT AND THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR. LESHCHENKO. >>I DON’T KNOW HE WOULD INTERACT WITH IN THE ZELENSKY GOVERNMENT. I’M AWARE OF HIM HAVING CLAIMED HE MET WITH YURIY LUTSENKO’S PREDECESSOR AS PROSECUTOR GENERAL. >>THAT IS NOT WITHIN WITH WHICH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. >>I DON’T KNOW WHO ELSE HE WOULD’VE MET WITH. >>IN FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S ROLE IN UKRAINE? >>HE CARED ABOUT UKRAINE, HE WANTED TO SEE U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE INCREASED, HE WANTED TO SEE EUROPEAN UNION SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE INCREASE INCLUDING SANCTIONS AND HE WANTED TO BE HELPFUL. >>WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH ZELENSKY OFFICIALS WITHOUT LETTING OTHER PEOPLE KNOW. >>I DON’T BELIEVE HE WAS NOT LETTING PEOPLE KNOW. I THINK HE MAY HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS, I THINK HE WAS ACTING, I THINK WE CIRCLED BACK QUITE FREQUENTLY WITH MYSELF, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, AND OTHERS. >>CAN YOU SAY YOU HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MAYOR GIULIANI WERE DOING IN ALL THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS? >>I CAN’T SAY I HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, I THOUGHT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I WERE WORKING ON THE SAME OBJECTIVE, GETTING A MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND A STATEMENT AS I UNDERSTOOD IT THAT MENTIONED BURISMA 2016 WOULD BE POTENTIALLY HELPFUL. I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THEIR INTERACTIONS. >>YOU DID NOT HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AS THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO UKRAINE. DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING? >>NO, I DON’T. >>YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BURISMA AND BIDEN WITH THE 2016 ELECTIONS? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS HAD SIMILAR UNDERSTANDING? >>YES, I DO. >>THERE’S ALSO A PERCEPTION WENT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, WHICH WE HAVE ALL, 33 YEARS OF BEING AN AWESOME AMBASSADOR, WHEN SHE LEFT KIEV, THE U.S. POSITION ON CORRUPTION HAD WEAKENED. THAT WAS WHAT WAS FLOATING AROUND, WHO TOOK OVER AFTER HER? >>IMMEDIATELY AFTER WAS JOE BENNINGTON. >>WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL STRONG OR WEAK ON CORRUPTION? >>I WOULD SAY IN LINE WITH ALL THE REST OF OUR POLICY. >>AFTER THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS THAT PERON REPLACED WITH? >>BILL TAYLOR. >>YOU SUGGESTED FOR THE POSITION. >>YES. >>WAS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STRONG OR WEAK ON CORRUPTION? >>VERY STRONG. >>IN MY LAST 23 MINUTES, WHO SETS OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >>THE PRESIDENT. >>NOT SOME OTHER STAFFER WITHIN THE NSC STAFF? >>THE NSC STAFF EXISTS TO MAKE SURE THE PRESIDENT HAS A FULL ARRAY OF OPTIONS FOR HIS DECISION. >>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >>MR. CASTRO. >>ON CUE, CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. IS IT CORRECT TO SAY BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN WERE APPOINTED OR HIRED BY THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >>YES OR. >>IN MY CASE, I SECRETARY TELL HER SON. >>YES, SERVING THE SAME ADMINISTRATION. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, I JUST KNOW HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP I DID NOT HAVE. IN FACT, IN ONE TEXT MESSAGE DATED JULY 26, YOU WILL TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, GREAT PHOTO, GORDON. CAN YOU GET THIS TO POTUS WITHOUT INTERMEDIARIES? JULY 26 WAS THE SAME DAY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT FROM A RESTAURANT IN KIEV. IS THAT RIGHT? >>I’M SORRY, THE DATE. >>JULY 26. >>YES, I KNOW THAT TO BE CORRECT NOW. >>WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT CALL? >>NO, I WAS NOT. >>THIS COMMITTEE IS AWARE OF IT NOW AS WE ALL ARE NOW. >>REAL WHERE HE HAD A DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT? >>HE CLAIMED HE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT FREQUENTLY. >>DID YOU HAVE REASON TO DOUBT THAT? >>AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS A BIG PERSONALITY, SOMETIMES SAYS THINGS THAT MIGHT BE A BIT BIGGER THAN LIFE. >>HE WAS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE, HAND-PICKED BY THE PRESIDENT OR SOMEONE IN THE OF ADMINISTRATION TO SERVE IN HIS POSITION . >>I BELIEVE HE COULD SPEAK WITH THE PRESIDENT. >>HE HAD ALSO BEEN A LARGE DONOR TONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES. IS THAT CORRECT? >>I HAVE LEARNED THAT, YES. >>MR. MORRISON, YOU STATED DURING YOUR TESTIMONY, WHEN YOU MET AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR THE FIRST TIME, HE REPRESENTED HIS MANDATE FROM THE PRESIDENT WAS TO GO MAKE DEALS. IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED BETWEEN JULY 25 AND SEPTEMBER 11 THIS YEAR, YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. IS IT ACCURATE EVERY TIME YOU CHECKED, YOU WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD IN FACT SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT? >>YES, CONGRESSMAN. >>MR. MORRISON, HE ALSO TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EMAILED YOU AND SEVERAL WHITE HOUSE STAFF TO SAY HE BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ADVANCE OF HIS JULY 25 CALL WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT? IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES, CONGRESSMAN. >>DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU WHAT HE BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT ON? >>HE SENT ME AN EMAIL, SIR. IT WAS VERY SUCCINCT, THREE ITEMS WITH RESPECT UKRAINE, I BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALL. >>YOU SET AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SPOKEN BEFORE THE JULY 25 CALL. >>THAT IS CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >>PRESUMABLY, THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM KEEPS A RECORD OF THOSE CALLS. >>SIR, THAT IS HOW I WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM IT. >>OKAY. YOU SEPARATELY TESTIFIED YOUR STAFF PREPARED A BRIEFING MEMO WITH SUGGESTED POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE JULY 25, POINTS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >>THE PRESIDENT DID NOT USE THOSE POINTS, DID HE? >>NO, HE DID NOT. >>LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, YOU PREPARED MATERIALS FOR THE PRESIDENT, THEY DID NOT INCLUDE REFERENCES TO THE BIDENS OR 2016 ELECTION, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >>AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THE GUY WITH THE DIRECT LINK TO THE PRESIDENT, THE GUY TALKING ABOUT MAKING DEALS BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THE 2016 ELECTION AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AFTER HE WAS BRIEFED BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? IS THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >>IT SOUNDS LIKE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT WERE ON THE SAME PAGE. THEY BOTH WERE WORKING TO BENEFIT THE PRESENCE PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS, EVEN WHEN THAT UNDERMINED U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. I WANT TO ASK YOU IN THE SHORT TIME I HAVE, BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN, WHO SERVE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, WHETHER PUTTING PRESIDENT TRUMP ASIDE, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT IS PROPER FOR ANY PRESIDENT, NOW OR LATER, TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND SPECIFICALLY, A U.S. CITIZEN BUT COULD BE A POLITICAL RIVAL? AMBASSADOR. >>I DON’T BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DO THAT. IF WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS WITH THE U.S. CITIZEN, GENERALLY THERE ARE APPROPRIATE CHANNELS FOR THAT. >>MR. MORRISON. >>I AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SIR. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELD BACK. >>MR. RADCLIFFE. >>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU BEING HERE TODAY, I KNOW IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY. MR. MORRISON, I WILL TRY TO SUMMARIZE SOME OF WHAT WE HEARD TO SHORTEN THIS. YOU WERE ON THE JULY 25 CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN WAS ON THE JULY 25 CALL, CORRECT? >>YES, CONGRESSMAN. >>I WILL TELL YOU HE TESTIFIED EARLIER TODAY, HE HEARD WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A DEMAND ON THAT CALL THAT WAS IMPROPER AND FELT HE HAD A DUTY TO REPORT THAT. I THINK WE HAVE ESTABLISHED ALREADY HE DID NOT DISCUSS OR REPORT ANY OF THAT TO YOU, CORRECT? >>YES, CONGRESSMAN. >>YOU DID HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH COLONEL VINDMAN ABOUT OTHER CONCERNS HE HAD WITH THE CALL, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THE TRANSLATION AND THE FACT YOU BOTH SHARED A DISCUSSION ABOUT THEY ARE NOT BEING A FULL THROATED EMBRACE OF THE UKRAINIAN REFORM AGENDA, IS THAT FAIR? >>YES, CONGRESSMAN. >>WITH RESPECT TO HIS CONCERN ABOUT SOMETHING IMPROPER, SPECIFICALLY AT NO POINT DID HE COME TO YOU AND SAY, I HEARD SOMETHING I THOUGHT WAS IMPROPER AND WAS A CRIME. >>NO SIR, I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF HIM DOING THAT. >>NO BRIDE OR EXTORTION OR QUID PRO QUO, ALL THE THINGS MS. THE PHONIC ASKED YOU? >>NO SIR. >>AS YOU WERE LISTENING, DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP MAKE DEMAND OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME? >>SIR, I’M TRYING TO STAY ON THE SAME SIDE OF MAKING LEGAL CONCLUSIONS, NO SIR, I DID NOT HEAR ANY DEMAND. >>YOU HAVE A LAW DEGREE. >>YES OR. >>YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH BRIBERY AND EXTORTION. IS IT FAIR TO SAY, AS YOU WERE LISTENING TO THE CALL, YOU DID NOT THINK WOW, THE PRESIDENT IS BRIBING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THAT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND? >>IT DID NOT. >>OR THAT HE WAS EXTORTING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE OR DOING ANYTHING IMPROPER? >>CORRECT, SIR. >>HAVE YOU HEARD OR READ IN THE MEDIA WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU AND SAID REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY, HE DID NOT HEAR ANY DEMAND OR CONDITIONS, HE DID NOT FEEL PRESSURE. HE DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANYTHING IMPROPER OR CORRUPT ON THE CALL. >>I ATTENDED THE BILATERALLY IN NEW YORK AND HE MADE CLEAR IN FRONT OF THE PRESS HE FELT NO PRESSURE. >>SO, DID ANYONE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AFTER THIS CALL EXPRESS TO YOU SOME CRIME, BRIBERY EXTORTION, QUID PRO QUO, ANYTHING HAD OCCURRED? >>NO SIR. >>I WANT TO ASK YOU, MR. MORRISON, ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. I DON’T WANT YOU TO SPECULATE TO THE IDENTITY, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS THAT STARTED THIS AS TO THEIR VERACITY. FIRST OF ALL, THE WHISTLEBLOWER, WHO APPARENTLY WAS NOTON THE CALL, ADVISED THE ICIG, THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT UNDER SECTION 33, “SERIOUS PROBLEM, ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER”. BEGIN TO BE CLEAR, YOU DID NOT HEAR A VIOLATION OF LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER AS HE LISTENED TO THE CALL. >>SIR, I MADE NO JUDGMENT ABOUT ANY LEGAL CONDUCT OCCURRING. >>IT WAS ASSERTED AT THE START OF THIS HEARING, PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO PRESSURE THE TRAINING LEADERSHIP TO TAKE ACTIONS TO HELP THE PRESIDENT’S 2020 REELECTION BID ? PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT MENTION 2020 DURING THE CALL. DEADLY? >>>>HE USES THE WORD DEMAND. >>COUNSEL, YOU SHOULD USE A MICROPHONE. >>I’M SORRY. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I BELIEVE YOU SAID A WHISTLEBLOWER LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN. >>NO, I’M SORRY. THE WHISTLEBLOWER, LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN, USES THE WORD DEMAND ON PAGE 4, THE WHISTLEBLOWER ASSERTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SONDLAND PURPORTEDLY PROVIDED ADVICE TO UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP ON HOW TO NAVIGATE THE DEMANDS THE PRESIDENT HAD MADE OF MR. ZELENSKY. AGAIN, THERE WERE NO DEMANDS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, MR. MORRISON? >>THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. >>SPECULATIONS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THE MOTIVATIONS, THE FACT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS WRONG ABOUT THE FACTS AS WELL, CORRECT? >>SIR, I’M NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. I DID NOT HEAR A DEMAND IN THAT CALL. >>GENTLEMEN, THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. >>MR. CHAIR. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND I FRANKLY FOUND THE SUM OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TO BE NOT JUST GENUINE BUT DOWNRIGHT ELOQUENT, IN PARTICULAR I NOTED THE PASSAGES OF PUTTING BACK ON RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRONG RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC AND PROSPEROUS UKRAINE, ONE THAT OVERCOMES A LEGACY OF CORRUPTION AND THIS IS CRITICAL FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. SOME OF US BELIEVE WE ARE NOT PUSHING BACK STRONGLY ENOUGH ON RUSSIA. SOME OF US BELIEVE WE ARE NOT BEING SUPPORTIVE ENOUGH OF THE UKRAINE. BUT ONE OF OUR CHALLENGES IS TO GO HOME TO THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM WE WE WORK AND EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY IT IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST, YOU HAVE AN AUDIENCE LIKE YOU NEVER WILL AGAIN, TO LOOK INTO THE CAMERA AND TELL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. WHY IT SHOULD MATTER TO THEM IF THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN THEIR LIFE IS GETTING THEIR KIDS OFF TO SCHOOL, PAYING THEIR BILLS AND THE LIKE. SIR. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH, CONGRESSMAN. I’D AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY, WE ARE NOT PUSHING BACK HARD ENOUGH ON RUSSIA AND WE OWE UKRAINE A GREAT DEAL OF UPPORT. >>WHY DOES IT MATTER? >>RUSSIA IS TRYING TO UPEND SECURITY IN EUROPE, REASSERT ITS DOMINATION OF NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES WHETHER IT IS GEORGIA OR UKRAINE OR THE BALTIC STATES. IT HAS LED TO WAR IN EUROPE. THE WAR IN UKRAINE HAS LEFT MORE PEOPLE DEAD IN EUROPE THEN ANY EUROPEAN WAR SINCE THE BALKANS. PEOPLE DISPLACED BY WAR IN EUROPE SINCE ANYTHING SINCE WORLD WAR II. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO STAND UP FOR FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY, THEY WANT REFORM, THEY WANT TO SEE THEIR COUNTRY BE SUCCESSFUL LIKE GERMANY AND LIKE SWEDEN AND LIKE US. THEY ARE FIGHTING A WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST THEM DESIGNED TO HOLD THEM BACK. IF WE WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF FREEDOM FOR THE UNITED STATES, IT OUGHT TO BE SUPPORTING FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. >>THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE ARE HERE IN PART BECAUSE UNDER COVER OF CONCERN FOR GENERAL CORRUPTION, SOME OF US BELIEVE THERE WASN’T. IN FACT, THERE IS SOMETHING QUITE NEFARIOUS AS THE ALTERNATIVE. THERE WASN’T A CONCERN ABOUT GENERAL CORRUPTION, BUT REVIEWING THE RECORD ON THAT, SIR, IS IT NOT TRUE IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED UKRAINE AS HAVING BEEN SUFFICIENT, MADE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MILITARY ASSISTANCE? >>I DON’T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT, I BELIEVE IT TO BE CORRECT. >>ISN’T TRUE, APRIL 21, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON OVERWHELMING MANDATE WAS 76 % OF THE VOTE, BUILT LARGELY ON HIS ANTICORRUPTION. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>IT WAS A FRIEND AND EXPAND ON JULY 21 WHEN HIS PARTY WON PARTY CONTROL ON THE BASIS OF ANTICORRUPTION? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>IN FACT, SUBSEQUENTLY HE ENACTED SWEEPING REFORMS TO COMBAT ANTICORRUPTION, DID HE NOT? >>YES, HE HAS. >>EVERYONE ON THE GROUND WAS FILLED WITH OPTIMISM UKRAINE WAS GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT COMBATING CORRUPTION? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DID YOU KNOW ONE OF THE FIRST ANTICORRUPTION MEASURES PASSED IN THE UKRAINE WAS A LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT? >>I DID NOT KNOW THAT. >>IT IS TRUE. HE THOUGHT COLLUSION SHOULD START WITH HIMSELF. I RAISE THIS ISSUE BECAUSE MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE KEEP CHARACTERIZING THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AS INHERENTLY WRONG, AND I’M QUOTING THEM, IT WILL OVERTIME AN ELECTION. OVER AND OVER, IT WILL OVERTURN AN ELECTION. IMPEACHMENT IS AN ANTICORRUPTION TOOL. MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, IT DOES OVERTURN AN ELECTION BY DEFINITION. I DON’T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR CONSTITUTION AND ITS PROVISIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT, I RECOMMEND THEY REREAD THE RELEVANT PASSAGES IN ARTICLE 1 SECTIONS 2 AND THREE, SOME OF THE HISTORY ABOUT HOW WE GOT THERE. LOOK, NONE OF US WANTS TO BE HERE DESPITE WHAT IS BEING SAID. NONE OF US CAME TO THIS EASILY. WE DIDN’T. THE CALL THE REST OF MY LIFE, THE 45 HOURS I SPEND AT THE FAMILY CAPITAL PLUNGED IN SELF REFLECTION AND LITERALLY POWERFUL DELIBERATION ABOUT THIS WHOLE MATTER. COLLECTIVELY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GRAPPLE TO PUT THIS VERY GRAVE DECISION THAT IS WAITING AND IT WILL GET HARD AND IT IS HARD IN PROPORTION TO ITS IMPORTANCE TO OUR GREAT REPUBLIC. A REPUBLIC IF WE CAN KEEP IT. I YELLED BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MR. JORDAN. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THE NOW FAMOUS TRANSCRIPT, BOTTOM OF PAGE 3, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THIS, I HEARD YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR THAT WAS SHUT DOWN. THAT IS UNFAIR. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DO YOU THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT LESHCHENKO OR SHOKIN ? >>THANK YOU, THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT AS WELL. >>MR. MORRISON, YOU TESTIFIED YOU HAD ISSUES WITH COLONEL VEND MEANT’S JUDGMENT. >>YES OR. >>YOU HAD CONCERN WITH HIM EXERCISING APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT AS TO WHO HE SAID WHAT? >>YES OR. >>YOU TESTIFIED DR. HILL, YOUR PREDECESSOR HAD CONCERNS ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN’S JUDGMENTS AS WELL. >>YES OR. >>COLONEL BEN DID NOT ALWAYS ADHERE TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, IS THAT RIGHT? >>I BELIEVE SO, YES OR. >>YOU TESTIFIED COLONEL VINDMAN TRY TO ACCESS INFORMATION OUTSIDE HIS LANE? >>SIR, I BELIEVE I STATED I WAS AWARE THERE WERE THOSE WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, YES OR. >>THANK YOU. >>COLONEL BEN WAS NOT INCLUDED ON CERTAIN TRIPS. >>YES OR. >>YOU TESTIFIED COLLEAGUES EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT COLONEL BEN LEAKING INFORMATION. IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES OR. >>WHEN I ASKED COLONEL VINDMAN WHY HE DID NOT GO TO YOU WITH HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL, EVEN THOUGH YOU, HIS BOSS HAD NO CONCERNS ABOUT ANYTHING BEING, YOUR LANGUAGE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL ON THE CALL, I ASKED COLONEL VINDMAN THIS MORNING WHY HE DID NOT GO TO YOU AND INSTEAD TALED TO THE LAWYERS, HIS BROTHER, SECRETARY KENT AND ONE OTHER PERSON HE WOULD NOT TELL US AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO TELL US. WHEN I ASKED HIM WHY HE DID THAT, HE INDICATED THE LAWYERS HAD INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT, HE TRIED TO GET A HOLD OF YOU. IS THAT FAIR? >>SIR, I WATCHED PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING, I HEARD HIM SAY THAT, YES OR. >>ONE THING CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BROUGHT UP AT THE END OF THIS MORNING’S HEARING, HE BROUGHT UP YOU, COLONEL VINDMAN’S BOSS, ALSO WENT TO THE LAWYERS. BUT YOUR REASON FOR GOING TO THE LAWYERS WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, WASN’T IT? >>YES SIR. >>YOU HAD A FEW THINGS YOU AND MR. CASTOR TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THE TOP OF YOUR LIST, YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL LEAKING OUT. IS THAT FAIR? >>YES SIR. >>THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, ISN’T IT? >>SIR, I DON’T KNOW THAT THE CONTENT LEAKED OUT, THERE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, THE PRESIDENT CHOSE TO DECLASSIFY THE MELANCON. >>IT SEEMS TO ME YOU WERE PROPHETIC, MR. MORRISON. BECAUSE YOU SAID IN YOUR STATEMENT TODAY, AS I STATED DURING MY DEPOSITION, I FEARED DURING MY TIME ON THE CALL JULY 25, HOW THE DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL WOULD PLAY IN WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL CLIMATE, MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED. IT SEEMS TO ME YOU SAW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN AND IT SURE ENOUGH DID. FAIR TO SAY? >>YES SIR. >>WE DID ALL THIS AND THAT IS THE PART THAT GETS ME. WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS, OVER THE WEEKS, IN THE BUNKER OF THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL, THE FOUR FACTS WE KEEP COMING BACK TO HAVE NEVER CHANGED, WILL NEVER CHANGE WE HEARD FROM BOTH OF YOU TODAY, CONFIRMED THESE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS, GOT THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AS HE BOTH SAID, NO LEAKAGE TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, WE HAVE A TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ON THE CALL, THEY SAID NO LINKAGE, NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING. THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT KNOW AGE WAS WITHHELD UNTIL AUGUST 29 AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE UKRAINIANS DID NOTHING AS FIRST PROMISING TO START, ANNOUNCING THEY WERE GOING TO START INVESTIGATIONS, DID NOTHING AND THE AID GOT RELEASED. I BELIEVE IT GOT RELEASED BECAUSE OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, GOOD WORK OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS. I BELIEVE THAT IS WHY IT HAPPENED, AND HERE WE ARE. YOU CALLED IT ALL, YOU SAW IT COMING, THAT IS WHY YOU WENT TO THE LAWYERS, WHY YOU WANTED THAT, WHY THE CONCERN WAS THERE. THAT IS THE PART THAT IS MOST TROUBLING. I YIELD BACK. >>AMBASSADOR VOLKER, ON DAILY MAIL, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE THIS HEADLINE, UKRAINE SPECIAL ENVOY KURT VOLKER WALKS BACK IS CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY AND SAYS HE “HAS NOW LEARNED THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN U.S. MILITARY AID AND BIDEN PROBE. THAT IS NOT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY ? >>I DON’T BELIEVE THAT IS MY TESTIMONY. >>THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. >>MR. WELCH. >>THANK YOU. FOLLOWING UP ON MR. JORDAN, THE EASIEST WAY TO AVOID INVESTIGATION IS TO NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE, OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ACTIONS CANNOT BE TRADED FOR HELPING A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. LET ME GIVE AN ANALOGY AND ASK IF YOU AGREE? COULD A MAYOR OF A CITY WITHHOLD FUNDING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET UNLESS THE POLICE CHIEF AGREED TO OPEN UP AN INVESTIGATION ON A POLITICAL RIVAL. MR. MORRISON. >>IN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, NO, I DON’T THINK YOU SHOULD DO THAT. >>MR. VOLKER, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I’M SURE YOU AGREE. THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR GOVERNOR WITHHOLDING THE BUDGET REQUEST OF THE STATE POLICE UNLESS THE STATE POLICEBUDGET R UNLESS THE STATE. áR. IS IT THE SAME FOR A MEMBEROVER CONGRESS? WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE SAME OBLIGATION AS THE MAYOR AS THE GOVERNOR, AS THE MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO NOT WITHHOLD AID UNLESS HE GETS AN INVESTIGATION INTO A POLITICAL RIVAL, MR. MORRISON. >>I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT HYPOTHETICAL. >>I WOULD AGREE. >>WE’RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO READ WHAT’S BEFORE US IN A PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENT IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE ADVISORS AND SECURITY ADVISOR ABOUT TALKING POINTS AND INSTEAD CHOSE TO TALK ABOUT THE BIDENS AND TALKED ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN AND ASKED FOR AN INVESTIGATION. SO WE’RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DEBATE THAT. ISN’T THE PRINCIPLE INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW ISN’T ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL AND WORTH THE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO GUARANTEE, AMBASSADOR MORRISON. I’M SORRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER. >>YES. >>AND MR. MORRISON. >>THE RULE OF LAW IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY. >>IT’S SO TRUE. WE’VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS AND CHALLENGE FROM THE OTHER SIDE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY IN POLICY TO DO WHAT HE LIKES AND IN FACT, HE DOES. A RECENT PRESIDENT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TAKE OUR TROOPS OUT OF SYRIA AND ALLOW THE TURKISH FORCES TO GO IN. LITERALLY MEANT THAT SOME KURDISH FAMILIES WENT TO BED FRIDAY NIGHT AND WOKE UP SATURDAY MORNING PACKED UP THEIR KIDS AND FLED FOR THEIR LIVES. A LOT OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE DISAGREE WITH THAT BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT IMPULSIVE AS THAT DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN ON UNWISE AS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN, AS THREATENING AS IT IS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE. AMBASSADOR, I HAVE LISTENED TO YOUR TESTIMONY AND I THANK YOU FOR MAKING EFFORTS TO TRY TO ADVANCE WHAT HAD BEEN A BIPARTISAN UKRAINE POLICY. HELP UKRAINE GET RID OF CORRUPTION. HELP RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. WHAT YOU CAME TO LEARN IS THERE WAS A SIDE BAR UKRAINE POLICY WITH GIULIANI AS THE ADVOCATE AND SONDLAND IS VERY MUCH INVOLVED ISN’T THAT CORRECT. >>I DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT, SIR. >>BUT AS YOU HAVE BEEN úINVOLV OF HINDSIGHT WHILE YOU WERE WORKING ON WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS STOPPING AGGRESSIVE AND ELIMINATING CORRUPTION, THERE WAS A SIDE DEAL HERE TO GET INVESTIGATIONS GOING, CORRECT. >>YEAH, SO, YES. IS THIS MY OBJECTIVE WAS PURELY FOCUSED ON SECURITY FOR UKRAINE. NATIONAL SECURITY AND I NOW HAVE LEARNED THROUGH OTHER TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATING BIDEN AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT. >>RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR ABOUT BIDEN’S INTEGRITY AND SERVICE. WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO THAT REQUEST FOR THE FAVOR. AND HOW IT REPUTEUATED THE POLICY THAT WAS THE BIPARTISAN EFFORT IN UKRAINE AND RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT HE AND THAT HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE I GAVE OF THE MAYOR. HELD HIMSELF TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK. >>MR. MALONEY STRUCK BY YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. MOVED A LONG WAY FROM THE TESTIMONY YOU PRESENTED TO US IN OCTOBER. AND I KNOW YOU GAVE A REASON FOR THAT. THAT YOU WERE IN THE DARK. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY. >>THAT’S ONE THING THAT I LEARNED A LOT OUT OF THE TESTIMONY. >>YOU LEARNED A LOT. YOU LEARNED A LOT. >>YEAH. >>AND I’M REFERRING TO THE PAGE YOU GAVE THIS MORNING, I’M SORRY THIS AFTERNOON. YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS QUOTING, THAT I DID NOT KNOW THEY HAD POSSIBLE CORRUPTION WITH INVEST INVESTIGATION OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. >>CORRECT. >>YOU DIDN’T KNOW BARISMA MEANT BIDEN. >>I HAD SEPARATED THE TWO. >>I GOT IT. WELL YOU DIDN’T KNOW. RIGHT. DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT, SIR. YOU WERE THERE ON MAY 23rd FOR THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE SAID LK TO RUDY AND RUDY SURE CARED ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS WHICH YOU NOW KNOW MEANT BIDEN. BUT YOU MISSED IT ON THE 23rd. >>NO, SIR. I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME THAT HUNTER BIDEN AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD BEEN A MEMBER. >>BUT YOU DID NOT READ IT AS BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU WERE IN NOT ONE BUT TWO MEETINGS WHERE SONDLAND BROUGHT UP THE INVESTIGATION BUT YOU DID NOT KNOW IT WAS ABOUT THE BIDENS. THAT’S YOUR TESTIMONY. >>I DID NOT HEAR HIM SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC. >>YOU SAID IT’S BECAUSE I DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS THE BIDENS I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. WHEN THEY WERE IN THE WAR ROOM AND AMBASSADOR SONDLANT BROUGHT UP BARISMAS AND THE BIDENS YOU MISSED THAT TOO AS I UNDERSTAND IT. >>>>THAT IS CORRECT. >>YOU LEARNED THAT AID HAD BEEN WITHHELD AND YOU SPENT SOME TIME WITH RUDY GIULIANI. YOU WERE THE GUY MAKING THE CHANGES AND INTERACTING WITH THE UKRAINIANS. YOU WERE PUTTING IN RUDY’S CHANGES INCLUDING PUTTING IN A CALL FOR INVESTIGATING BARISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION WHICH YOU NOW KNOW MEANT THE BIDENS. YOU DIDN’T KNOW IT AT THE TIME BUT YOU KNOW NOW. AND YOU WERE IN WARSAW, YOU WERE AT EVERY POINT OF THIS. YOU WERE IN WARSAW AND YOU WERE THERE WHEN THEY TOLD HE WAS NOT GOING TO GET SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING UNLESS THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION. I UNDERSTAND YOU MISSED THAT YOU WERE OUT OF THE LOOP THEN. >>THAT’S NOT CORRECT. I WAS NOT IN WARSAW AT THESE MEETINGS. >>OH YOU WERE NOT IN WARSAW BUT YOU HEARD ABOUT IT IMMEDIATELY AFTER FROM SONDLAND. >>NO IT WAS SOME TIME LATER. >>I GOT IT. BUT NOW YOU KNOW. NOW I KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT. AND I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION AND HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED THE CORRECT OBJECTIONS. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>WHAT OBJECTIONS WOULD YOU HAVE RAISED. >>THAT THEY’RE BRINGING UP THE BIDENS FOR AN INVESTIGATION. >>BUT IF YOU KNEW IT WAS THE BIDENS YOU WOULD HAVE RAISE KWROURD OWN OBJECTION. >>IF I KNEW IT WAS ABOUT INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT T JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE AND I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO THAT. >>IF YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD HIM ASK FOR IT IN THE CALL. IT WOULD YOU SAY BEEN CONFUSING RIGHT. >>CORRECT. >>IS CONFUSING THE RIGHT WORD S SIR. IT WOULD HAVE PUT THEM IN A POSITION TO DO SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE. INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. >>I THINK CONFUSING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT WORD. HEARING SOMETHING FROM THE PRESIDENT AN DIFFERENT FROM ME. >>THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT INVESTIGATING BARISMA AND INVESTIGATING 2016 MEANT THE BIDENS EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN’T. AT TIME YOU WERE TALKING TO. YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED YOUR OWN OBJECTIONS. >>IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WERE HAVING WITH UKRAINIANEN WE WERE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO THAT. EVEN AT THAT POINT UKRAINIANS PERHAPS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PHONE CALL WHICH I DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME SAID THEY DID NOT WANT TO GO THERE. >>SO IN RETROSPECT YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED OBJECTION. IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DO THIS. >>RIGHT. >>I’M STUCK ON THIS ISSUE OF YOU DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CALL BUT YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO NSE LEGAL TO REPORT IT. IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY TO US TODAY? >>YES, SIR. >>THANK YOU SIR. >>YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. MR.MORRISON TO BOTH OF YOU, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY. MR.MORRISON JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION FROM MY COLLEAGUE, YOU RESPONDED EARLY TORE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CALL. AND BASICALLY SAW NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. YET YOU SKIPPED YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND TO GO TO LEGAL COUNSEL TO FIND OUT I GUESS TO FIND OUT WHAT TO DO BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL FALL OUT. NOT ABOUT ANYTHING BEING INAPPROPRIATE OR WRONG WITH THE CALL IS THAT CORRECT. >>MA’AM I DON’T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE NO. >>CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU FELT THE NEED. YOU SAW NOTHING BASICALLY WRONG WITH THE CALL, YET YOU SKIPPED YOUR CHAIN IN COMMAND TO GO TO COUNSEL BECAUSE OF WHAT? WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT? >>I DON’T KNOW THAT I, AGAIN I DON’T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE MAN. I DON’T THINK I SKIPPED MY CHAIN OF COMMAND IF I WOULD HAVE SEEN SOMETHING WRONG I WOULD HAVE — >>WHO’S YOUR DIRECT REPORT? >>THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. >>AND THE NAME OF THE PERSON. >>DR. CHARLES CUPERMAN. >>DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO LEGAL COUNSEL. >>NO MA’AM. >>BUT YOU DON’T FEEL YOU SKIP KWROURD CHAIN OF COMMAND IN — YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND IN DOING SO BY GOING TO COUNSEL. >>I VIEW MY RELATIONSHIP AS ONE LARGELY FOCUSED ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. I WAS INTERESTED IN LOCKING DOWN THE TRANSCRIPT. AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER. I WAS INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THE LEGAL ADVISOR WAS AWARE OF THE CALL. >>WHY WERE YOU SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGAL ADVISOR BEING AWARE OF THIS CALL THAT YOU SAW NOTHING BASICALLY WRONG WITH THE SUBSTANCE OR CONTENT OF THE CALL? >>BECAUSE I DID NOT SEE ANYBODY FROM THE LEGAL ADVISORS OFFICE IN THE LISTENING ROOM AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE SOMEONE FROM THE LEGAL ADVISORS OFFICE WAS AWARE AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS A SENIOR PERSON. >>WHAT IS IT YOU WANTED THEM TO BE AWARE OF. >>I WANTED THEM TO BE AWARE OF THE CALL BECAUSE I WANTED THEM TO KNOW WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED. >>WHAT CONCERNED YOU TO THE POINT WHERE YOU WANTED THEM TO KNOW WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED THAT YOU WENT DIRECTLY TO LEGAL COUNSEL TO INFORM THEM OF? >>MY EQUIVALENT OF THE HEAD OF NSC LEGAL WAS AND IS ISENBERG. I WOULDN’T GO TO SOMEBODY SUBORDONANT TO HIM. HOW LONG HAVE YOU ADVISED? >>SINCE 2014. >>YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU BEING RELEASED, DO YOU STILL STAND BY THAT TESTIMONY TODAY? >>I BELIEVE IT WAS IMPORTANT. I MET WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, I THEN SAW THE LETTER THAT SEVERAL SENATORS SIGNED AND SENT TO CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY AND I WAS BRIEFED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A COUPLE OF PHONE CALLS FROM SOME SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AS WELL. >>THANK YOU. MR.CHAIRMAN I YIELD MY REMAINING TIME TO YOU. >>THANK YOU FOR YIELDING. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON UKRAINIANS NOT BEING AWARE OF THE AID BEING WITHHELD. YOU’RE AWARE I’M SURE THAT VINMAN HE WAS CONTACTED BY SOMEONE WITHIN THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY. >>I’M NOT AWARE OF THAT BUT I TAKE THAT. >>WERE YOU AWARE OF TRANSCRIPTS THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED THAT UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT QUITE QUICKLY AFTER THE HOLD WAS SET ASIDE. AND THAT UKRAINIANS HAD A REASON TO KEEP IT SILENT. >>I SAW THAT ON HER TESTIMONY. >>DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO QUESTION IF THAT TESTIMONY WAS CORRECT. >>NO I DON’T. >>NEVERTHELESS, THE UKRAINIANS CERTAINLY FOUND OUT IT WAS PUBLIC WHEN IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER RIGHT. >>S THAT CORRECT AUGUST 29th. >>AT THE TIME THEY FOUND OUT FROM THE NEWSPAPER, THEY STILL HAD NOT HAD THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THEY STILL DIDN’T HAVE THE AID. AND AT THAT POINT, THEY HAD ALREADY HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT IN WHICH HE ASKED THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS CORRECT. >>S THAT CORRECT. >>MR. CHRISTIAN MURPHY. >>GOOD EVENING TO BOTH OF YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. AMBASSADOR VOLKER ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY YOU SAID, SINCE EVENTS SURROUNDING YOUR EARLY TESTIMONY ON AUGUST 3rd, QUOTE UNQUOTE A GREAT DEAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERSPECTIVES HAVE COME TO LIGHT. I HAVE LEARNED MANY THINGS I DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION, CORRECT. >>S THAT CORRECT. >>THAT INCLUDES CONVERSATIONS AND MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED OF WHICH YOU WEREN’T A PART CORRECT. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SIR, YOU OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT A PART OF THE JULY 25th CALL. ISN’T THAT RIGHT. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 26th IS THAT CORRECT. >>>>THAT IS CORRECT. >>YOU WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE SIDE BAR MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. EVERYTHING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AS WELL AS MILITARY AID WERE DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INVESTIGATION ISN’T THAT RIGHT. >>S THAT CORRECT. >>CERTAINLY YOU WEREN’T PART OF THE PHONE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 7th BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IN WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP INSISTED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GO TO A MIC AND ANNOUNCE. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>WOW WERE NOT PART OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP INSISTS THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS HAVE TO HAPPEN. >>>>THAT IS CORRECT. >>YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT A WITNESS TO QUID PRO QUO AND INVESTIGATIONS WHAT SOMEONE CALLED MISSILES FOR MISINFORMATION TODAY ISN’T THAT RIGHT. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>BUT SIR, YOU WERE PRESENT FOR MANY PHONE CALL WHERE IS THESE ALLEGED INSTANCES OF QUID PRO QUO TOOK PLACE. CORRECT. >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>LET ME TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO ANOTHER TOPIC THAT CAME UP TODAY. OR IT CAME UP LAST FRIDAY. I PRESUME YOU WERE AWARE THAT AS THE AMBASSADOR WAS TESTIFYING PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY TWEETED VERY DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HER. >>I SAW THAT MOMENT. >>I PRESUME YOU DISAPPROVE OF THOSE TYPE OF TWEETS. >>YES, I DON’T THINK THAT’S APPROPRIATE. >>YOU HAVE SOUP VISED MANY MANY PEOPLE DURING YOUR CAREER — SUPERVISED MANY MANY PEOPLE. >>YES I HAVE. >>AND YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT TO ANYONE WHO WORKED IN YOUR ORGANIZATION. >>NO I WOULD NOT. >>IT’S JUST WRONG. >>EVEN WHEN YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO CRITICIZE. CRITICIZE IS PRIVATE. PRAISE IS PUBLIC. >>I ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU’RE A MAN OF HONOR AND YOU WOULD NOT ATTACK A VETERAN, YOU WOULD NOT ATTACK SOMEONE WHO IS CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE MILITARY WHO’S DOING THEIR DUTY CORRECT. >>I RESPECT THE SERVICE OF OUR MEMBERS IN UNIFORM. >>IN FACT, THERE’S A CERTAIN MAN THAT WE BOTH ADMIRE, THE LATE SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN. >>YES. >>WHO UNFORTUNATELY WAS ATTACKED NOT ONLY WHEN HE WAS ALIVE, BUT AFTER HE DIED BY THE CURRENT PRESIDENT ISN’T THAT RIGHT. >>THAT IS TRUE. >>I PRESUME YOU WOULD DISAPPROVE OF ALL OF THOSE ATTACKS ON JOHN MCCAIN IS THAT RIGHT. >>I KNEW JOHN MCCAIN VERY, VERY WELL FOR A VERY LONG TIME. HE’S AN HONORABLE MAN AND VERY MUCH A WAR HERO FOR THIS COUNTRY. >>WELL TODAY, SIR. AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMEN WAS TESTIFYING, THE PRESIDENT USED THE OFFICIAL TWITTER ACCOUNT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO ATTACK LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMEN’S CREDIBILITY. I PRESUME YOU DON’T APPROVE OF THOSE TYPES OF TWEETS EITHER, DO YOU. >>I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT AND WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, IT’S INAPPROPRIATE. >>I WILL YIELD. >>AS THIS TV MARATHON DRAWS TO A CLOSE I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT WE’RE WATCHING. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE THE CULMINATION OF THREE YEARS OF INCESSANT DEMOCRAT EFFORTS TO THE IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. FIRST THEY TRIED TO CREATE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA. THAT DOSSIER WAS ASSEMBLED FROM UKRAINE SOURCES THAT THE DEMOCRAT CONTRACTORS WORKED WITH WITH. THEN THEY PRIMED THEIR HOMES ON THE WORK OF MUELLER. MUELLER SPENT TWO YEARS AND TAX DOLLARS TO SEEK A CRIME THAT WE KNOW WASN’T COMMITTED. MUELLER’S FAILURE WAS A DEVASTATING BLOW TO DEMOCRATS WHO CLEARLY HOPED HIS WORK TO BE THE BASIS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT. TODAY WE’RE WITNESSING THE UKRAINE HOAX. THE DIRECT TO TV SEQUEL TO THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX. THE PLOT OF THEIR UKRAINE HOAX IS HARD TO FOLLOW. IT SHIFTS FROM DAY-TO-DAY FIRST THE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THEY HAD EVIDENCE OF QUID PRO QUO NOW EXTORTION AND NOW BRIBERY. LIKE ANY GOOD HOLLYWOOD PROTECTION, DEMOCRATS NEEDED A SCREEN TEST BEFORE RELEASING THEIR ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT. THEY INTERVIEWED A CAST OF CHARACTERS IN PREPARATION FOR THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS. WITH THE MEDIA’S ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT THEY BUILD A NARRATIVE BASED ON SELECTIVELY LEAKED TESTIMONY. SPEAKER PELOSI AND THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE SEEKING THE TRUTH THEY WOULD WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS THAT THEY REFUSE TO ASK. TO WHAT EXTEND DID THE WHISTLE BLOWER COORDINATE WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND OR HIS STAFF. WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF MEDDLING IN 2016. WHY DID BARISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID HIS POSITION IMPACT ANY ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE PROMISED A GRAVE AND SOMBER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INSTEAD THEY GOT THE SALACIOUS SPICE SCREEN COMEDY THAT THEY’VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THREE YEARS. GOOD NIGHT, SEE YOU IN THE MORNING. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. I WOULD HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT WHAT WE’VE HEARD THIS AFTERNOON. FIRST, AMBASSADOR VOLKER YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY IN WHICH YOU SAY IN HINDSIGHT I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CORRUPTION INVOLVING UKRAINIAN BARISMA AS INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. I SAW THEM AS VERY DIFFERENT. IN RETROSPECT YOU SAY I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION DIFFERENTLY AND HAD I I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT UP MY OBJECTION. WE THANK YOU FOR CHANGING YOUR TESTIMONY IN LIGHT OF WHAT YOU NOW KNOW. KNOWING WHAT YOU DO TODAY IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE COUNTENANCED ANY EFFORT TO TAKE PART IN ANY ACTION. I APPRECIATE ALSO THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO DEBUNK I HOPE FOR THE LAST TIME THE IDEA THAT JOE BIDEN DID SOMETHING WRONG WHEN HE IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. POLICY SOUGHT TO REPLACE A CORRUPT PROSECUTOR. SOMETHING THAT NOT ONLY THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT WANTED, NOT ONLY THE EUROPEAN UNION WANTED AND NOT ONLY THE IMF WANTED BUT WAS THE CONSENSUS POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU DIDN’T GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TODAY AS OTHER WITNESSES DID BECAUSE I THINK YOU EFFECTIVELY SAID THAT WAS ALL NONSENSE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR ABOUT THAT. MR.MORRISON I THINK WHAT IS MOST REMARKABLE ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW YOU WITNESSED SONDLAND MEETING WITH ANDRE YURMAK AND THEN IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD INFORMED THE UKRAINIANS THAT IF HE WANTED THAT 400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THOSE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. AND YOU WERE LATER INFORMED AND THIS IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT AS YOU’VE TESTIFIED HERE TODAY THAT THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND INFORM YOU THAT IT WASN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, PRESIDENT SHRáEUPBS ZELENSKY HAD TO DO IT HIMSELF. YOU WERE

100 Comments

  1. Big Bear Hungry says:

    The impeachment started before Trump even took office. Think about that.

  2. 52 80 says:

    Schiff already sweating during Amb. Sondland test. Of the investigations; "Trump only said Burisma and never mentioned Biden's."

    That's Googly Eyes whole case.

  3. Robert Joiner says:

    Vindman , No i am not a Never Trumper but my brother my lawyer hate him, have helped ,want, and openly state over and over a Coo , treason act, overthrough of the votes of the people by force . Ummm well seems like Vindman is just stupid and clueless about guilty by association the libral left so eager to dish out these days or he is Out To Get The Pres

  4. 52 80 says:

    Trump to Sondland; :"I want no quid pro quo, tell president Zelensky to do the right thing!"

    That's Schiff's case.

  5. T R-H says:

    Dems are investigating the political rival they most fear, TRUMP! But refuse to even consider investigating Joe Biden…the REAL Quid Pro Quo! Trump is going to win 2020 by a huge landslide so get over cry babies! Democrats are so bias and so predictable they are actually BORING!

  6. rvarnum says:

    I wasn't a fan of Trump, but this circus has opened my eyes and now I have much respect for our President.

  7. CaliforniaNrwYork CaliforniaNewYork says:

    I'm watching it now Sondland is singing…He even said "everyone was in the loop"

  8. Private Private says:

    Twitter Troll tRump Gang exposed. Sondland need more security. tRump👹, Pence 🤖, Rudy🧛‍♀️ and many many more. It’s a sad day in USA 🇺🇸

  9. Tajai Calip says:

    Impeach these People for going after a Family of two Publicly in secret without them being able to have an Attorney protect them from such attacks. What does abusing their powers and Street mentalities in secret but Publicly when they should have been shot and killed for the repeated attacks means. It means that the Suspects kept coming out of the same four Government Agencies for menaces to society in Oakland, Ca. using illegal devices to watch you unlawfully in your home without consent. A major violation. When Someone spys or record your private everything in your private space then Publicly without being arrested starts spilling the Tea without authority because they do not have any defense. That is not permissible anywhere. It is grounds for arrests EVERYWHERE in America. A Judge cannot allow the reaction or behavior of Anyone being accused of any crime if in that moment as the victim, they were forced out of their normalcy by unnecessary foul actions. In order to use any proof from the Government against a victim in a Court setting. The evidence has to be gathered legally not forcibly without cause. The Person has to not be under attack or violated for being honest. When they are attacked and attack back. That is not losing control. It is reacting normally to attacks. There is not any excuse for what the four Government Agencies was able to get away with and fail the American People by stalling in burglary cases and calling the crime an eviction. An eviction definition is very DIFFERENT. No excuses.

  10. young chazo says:

    They’re trying so hard not to blink sideways.

  11. John Doe says:

    A little fact . Calling yourself a liberal and not being that "liberal " . Makes you a hypocrite !

  12. Helen Garrett says:

    Sondland's capricious memory is being jogged. Suddenly he remembers, because everyone else remembered before him, that orders were coming from Trump, from Pompeo from Giuliani from everyone Trump. Poor Republicans! They look a bit silly.

  13. olsparky wisenheimer says:

    Is it true they've changed it from "quid pro quo" to "bribery" because Democrats still can't figure out what quid pro quo means?

  14. Bert McGee says:

    I'm watching today and it came to my attention about the election,,we don't have too look no further than this,,how he act here in any election in the U.S.. The Republican Lawyer opened up a whole lot more than he bargained for.

  15. David Anomaly says:

    HORUS EGYPTIAN SUN GOD YOUR FALSE CREATION OF TIME HOURS IS UP…IAM THE FATHER MADE TIME

  16. P H says:

    Wow, i dont like republicians after this

  17. Julia Montalvo says:

    Jordan is the dumbest clown in this court. He sucks just like nunes. Fo they're disgusting

  18. Red Neckle says:

    News people get payed to lie to Americans 🤥

  19. Jacqueline Radney says:

    Do anyone expect blind people to see

  20. Captain_Tick says:

    Is there any media out there that's not in democrats pockets.

  21. Gerson Lazo says:

    How is it a key witness ? Is it the whistleblower?

  22. Debra O'Brien says:

    I'm getting so sick of this one sided news..how the journalist are only seeing and hyping up Democrats points …All they have done was waste our time and our money and getting no work done…there was no connection to Trump and Russia lets see if Hillary has any connection…Just like now …I have seen NOTHING that OUR CHOSEN President has done to undo our votes ( not mine but Americas). ..I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. ..I voted for the "CAT IN THE HAT"….What happened with Bidden ???? I want to know !!! Why don't you do a story on that….."OUR PRESIDENT" has a RIGHT and ""DUTY "" to check and double or triple check on a countries corruption and make sure Our Taxes aren't being wasted….this is a Democratic attack so Trump don't get re-elected. So hopefully one of their corrupt democrats have a change. As a INDEPENDENT….I have ALWAYS voted more democratically then republican. …In 2020 I will be voting STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN coming from a democratic state….I don't care if Trump gets kicked out and the "Cat in the Hat" fills his spot !!! As for the News I will ONLY BE WATCHING FOX FROM NOW ON 😈👿😡 !!!!!!!! One more thing this is AFTER WATCHING Ambassador Sondland. …who Never Talk to the President like all the others and PRESUMED. ..that's like ..(Ass-u-me)(ING)…..!!!!!

  23. Captain_Tick says:

    Served my country proudly. Not impressed with what democrats are doing. Only makes us weak on the world stage.

  24. Fatty Magee says:

    Watching this hearing I have come to realize that talking to republicans is
    a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing it wastes your time and it annoys the pig

  25. Captain_Tick says:

    You go ahead and put a democrat in power. When you loose you liberty's and 2nd adm., be two late to cry. Idiots

  26. Captain_Tick says:

    Lt.Col.looks like a rat with no tail.

  27. Jaso Foo says:

    I Assume , I presume , I heard , guess what these witnesses all just proved Pelosi and schiffy are tying to frame a innocent person with fake crimes !

  28. Captain_Tick says:

    Can someone educate me on what DEMOCRATS have done for this country since 2016.

  29. Captain_Tick says:

    Williams opening statement scripted. Reading off a paper all a joke

  30. Justin Martin says:

    Stop this it's crazy

  31. Captain_Tick says:

    What ever happened to the children at our Southern border. All we heard for weeks. Guess it's not important to the democrats anymore. Bigger fish to fry. All a scam.im 64 voted democratic all my life. NEVER NEVER again. I love my country . I don't want to destory this country.

  32. JACK ANTHONY says:

    LIES…..ALL LIES!!!!!

  33. randall hapney says:

    I hope that somewhere down the line, The Republicans get equal air time for all this BS and the weekly Dumbacrates poling debuts. I would like to see Trump get 7 more years to make up for the three years wasted by Dems.

  34. Randy Maatta says:

    Just take 60 seconds and listen folks. This is over.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_c17vxrPWQ

  35. Tom Campbell says:

    A CLOWN SHOW starring Ringmaster ADAM SCHIFF…. a new LOW for the US CONGRESS….

  36. James Burns says:

    Trump is awesome Trump 2020

  37. Captain_Tick says:

    Why is the witch hunt still going on. Thought Halloween was over

  38. Ray Ursillo says:

    AMERICA IS VOTING RED ENDING DEMOCRATS DESTRUCTION

  39. Tom Campbell says:

    TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  40. Janie Garces says:

    This Ambassador Sondland is so exasperating, he really should consider taking notes. His memory does not serve him well, actually it's clear he's not being truthful. So much for his testimony, he wasn't clear about anything. Trash.

  41. Virginia Taylor says:

    IMPEACH and REMOVE in such a way that TAXPAYERS will not be SADDLED & BURDEN with paying for any benefits. Government retirement and health benefits that other former Presidents get should be NON-EXISTENT for dRUMPf.

  42. PAULO MALAGUTTI says:

    Que DEUS abençoe Trump com toda sorte de livramento em nome de JESUS amém !

  43. PAULO MALAGUTTI says:

    Presidente Trump nós anseiamos a vossa presença no Brasil venha logo por favor!

  44. Joseph Bowe says:

    Mr vindman
    What's JESUS last name !!!!!!tell the truth!
    NOW.

  45. bob washere says:

    Excellent Tactic by Corrupt DEMS and CIA to distract the Biden and Hunter Corruption and Bribery they make another Hoax attack against the best President, Trump!!! a State of Emergency needs to be called and fire all the Corrupt CIA and Dems.

  46. B.T. says:

    Even Democrats turn to Fox News to make sure they hear the truth. A few years ago I thought calling it ‘fake news’ was a bit harsh on MSM or so called (deep) state or bureaucrats’ media. Now I have to admit it is really nothing but shameless propaganda, especially since Trump made clear he will not be intimidated by MSM. The fake has become clearer because of Fox News telling the whole story and showing the complete video’s. Also the unfiltered tweets don’t give MSM selective-leaking-power anymore. So MSM are furious because they lost much of the power they had in the last decades to control the narrative. So the bureaucrats’ media want a loyal deep state President again. MSM are doing everything to remove the people’s President, Donald Trump. You can hear the MSM networks repeating exactly what racist AOC and the ISIS-loving Squad are telling Pelosi to say in public. Thank God for the people at Fox News!

  47. changa lianpa says:

    #lockhimup

  48. Real Eyes. Realize. Real Lies. says:

    And what happened to Epstein and all his money?

  49. xlioilx says:

    The Beyond Nothing Burger taste great!

  50. Kevin Corbin says:

    The truth always finds daylight, accusation, hearsay, Dems have been caught in lie after lie, people can see what's going on.
    Trump is not a politician!,brash and crude at times but no tresonist acts. Dems better shift gears or there chances to election are over

  51. Raul Aguero says:

    Since I heard that Trump said something legally inconvenient, I realized that it was another of his pitfalls. They fell off guard.

  52. Vivian Kurayami says:

    "The Democrats have never accepted the will of the American people." I feel like Mr. Jordan is being selective there as he mentioned only Trump winning the electoral college rather than the popular vote which, in my opinion, is a much more fair and accurate assessment of "the will of the American people". Then again… when "the will of the American people" doesn't vote in their favor they also claim there's illegal voters even when such claims don't stand up to scrutiny. But, well, again I suppose facts aren't relevant here since they also keep going on about conspiracy theories rather than what our own intelligence community has found.

  53. Kevin Corbin says:

    What does his service have to do with his testimony? We are all politically swayed. It's human nature. Like Dragnet "just the facts ma'am "

  54. Clinton McGaw says:

    I just wanted to come over here and ask you guys, what ever happened to world war 3 that you predicted if trump won the election? What about the crashing economy? What about war with North Korea? What about deporting all immigrants? What about locking up blacks for no reason other than trump doesn't like you? Seems like you guys couldn't have been more wrong on every single point, every single time. Why does anyone still listen to anything you liberals say?

  55. Sean Porter says:

    "here,(America) truth matters." -a true patriot. Thank you for your service and holding your duty over your personal security.

  56. Kevin Corbin says:

    Congressman Welch is a piece of work, soooo bias let's stick with the facts not hyperbole

  57. Andy Pettit says:

    Eat, consume, Obey,

  58. Kevin Corbin says:

    I'm suprised col Vindman didn't start crying! he may have been injured serving.our country……but what a whimp! Most men that serve our country ask nothing in return, they just choose to serve knowing the cost they may pay

  59. Kevin Corbin says:

    I'm so sick and tired of all these snowflakes, we're Americans for god sake, ask no quarter and give no quarter, our founding fathers are rolling over in their gaves

  60. Kevin Corbin says:

    Adam Shiff is a liar, plain and simple. What a fraud

  61. CAPTAIN ANGELO says:

    Oh yeah.
    CNN HAS ALSO BEEN 100% PROVEN TO BE A REAL LYING NEVER TO BE BELIEVED FALSE NEWS MEDIA. THEY CONSTANTLY TELL BOLD FACE LIES TO THEIR OWN VIEWERS. THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE AIR.

  62. Monsoon Eddy says:

    Trump for dummies: Have Republicans heard enough to impeach–if it was President Hillary?

  63. seester看星人 says:

    give a person all the power, they will create chao, not listening will worsen, create negative thinking, doing good for the people,have some passion, for humanity.

  64. Theboysrollupat1 says:

    I can’t believed how biased the presentation of these hearings had become. I know many people hope for this impeachment but it’s irresponsible and ignorant to think impeaching our president will improve the status of our nation.

  65. justice4all says:

    The most enormous and corrupt administration, that ever existed, against the most numerous and useless body of privileged idlers, that ever aggrieved a nation , but against the wide spread influence of a wicked, debauched, and unprincipled group.

  66. J. A. says:

    Vindman has NO POKER face. No offense, but a dishonest dweeb.

  67. Bruno Sotres says:

    Who takes daily mail seriously? 11:28:30
    Smh

  68. J. A. says:

    She has a long neck. Nice looking woman.

  69. Tesselator Tess says:

    2:50:00 – Dumb commentators! They weren't trying to make Vindman look like a "biased individual" – they were establishing the cause for his exclusion to various events by his own senior chain of command and let the American people know why in fact he was (is) clueless on all of the pertinent topics regarding the mention of Hunter Biden during the phone call(s). Basically Vindman was getting too buddy-buddy with the Ukraine government and becoming political on his own by assessing, perceiving, and interpreting the POTUS's remarks as "inappropriate". He in fact, should have been relieved of his duty immediately following that assertion. That's a heinous misstep on his [Vindman's] part!!! That's fairly near traitorous behavior!! This is confirmed by Mr. Morrison (Vindman's boss!) later in the stream!

  70. Tim Marks says:

    Rep. Devin Nunes doesn't seem to like a "
    free press."

  71. Tim Marks says:

    If the Republicans best defense is an attack…they don't have a defense!

  72. Kelly Farr says:

    bush and cheney placed troops in 4 nations, annexed an entire island chain in the indian ocean establishing their 5th permanent military base where we werent wanted. Obama and biden placed troops in more nations….5 established another 5 permanent military bases!!!

  73. Kelly Farr says:

    Previous administrations in the usa have been playing devils advocate for ww3 for decades. Trump has withdrawn troops from several places, has not created any conflicts and is investigating the former administrations.

  74. Lisa S-F says:

    Just listening to Volker's opening statement, I already don't trust him. I have a very hard time believing he's as clueless as he lets on. He knew what he was a part of, and he just wanted to get things done whether the process was legitimate or not.

  75. lawlessheromonkeys says:

    Devin Nunes: I love lamp!

  76. Barbara Acosta says:

    Jaaaaa another Kardashians show

  77. Barbara Acosta says:

    People is walkaway from democratic party stupids Afro-American latinos people with brain don't believe anymore in democommunists

  78. j sawyer says:

    Leftist news should be illegal.

  79. Lisa S-F says:

    Volker is obviously covering up his integral part in this to try to protect Trump. Smh

  80. Ava Marie Maffia says:

    The following is what is really going on, in my opinion, All U.S. diplomats, and some individuals in uniform (including generals), connected/involved with Ukraine, have been collecting huge sums of money from Ukraine and Russia( remember previous Ukraine government was corrupt and closely tied to Putin). Said huge sums of money from Ukraine oligarchs/Russian oligarchs, are deposited in off-shore accounts for these ambassadors/diplomats/men/women in uniform at highest ranks. Also,, in my opinion Joe Biden & Son are included in the aforementioned, as well as some democrat senators and representatives. The corruption in Washington, D.C., is everywhere, including certain courts, DOD, DOJ, ABC agencies, former Pres. Obama, the
    Clintons, etc., etc.,etc.. Furthermore, George Soros is very prominent in all of this. Remember, days after 2016 election, Soros met with Pelosi, Schumer, and others , in D.C. Is he one of the puppet masters??

  81. Nick Lindquist says:

    Nunes is such a traitor. Russia hoax? Uh, that’s already been proven by our intel community and reported as true by the Senate Intelligence Committee (see link). Hopefully Nunes gets the Steve Scalise treatment…only w/more permanent results.

    https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3NcGThhF6Cl3DEnGfQoOepI1kWduwZwQrrq8-1SBR-x2PM-Jztpm5EVUc

  82. Jesus Is the Way says:

    TRUMP is Commander in Chief over the armed forces. Trump needs to remove Vindman from the military, once this whole circus impeachment is over. Corrupt Vindman is insubordination to his Commanding Officer!

  83. simon huang says:

    All democracy nation are fake , fake news , fake money , evil America are good at lying , never listen what evil America said , just look at what evil America done to the world , destruction the world by war's , destroying the world economy by trade war's , evil America are war's at everything to destroy any nation who's want to be better then evil America , evil America suck and very sick evil nation .

  84. Oprahs FatAss says:

    This is just as idiotic as the Russian collusion hoax and the Stormy Daniels hoax.

  85. Eric Holzman says:

    It was all BS
    Waste of time.
    We want our $$$$$ money back

  86. Eric Holzman says:

    Nothing but Garbage only we the People were damaged

  87. Eric Holzman says:

    Lose lose

  88. Scott Gallant says:

    No one trusts you CBS.

  89. Scott Gallant says:

    No one trusts you CBS.

  90. Zach Adam says:

    Rep Conway questioning @10:13:00 was interesting. Damages the "the hold on aid held the javelins back which opened an invasion from Russia" framing.

  91. sounddoctorin says:

    oh I'm SURE Trump said "oh and I want be sure these investigations are politically motivated'… YOU DIM WIT. THE BEST case (for those seeking to hang Trump out) Is that he overtly said 'investigate Biden' Like Schiff, Comey, Paige etc. ALL COLLUDED to do w/Trump even to defrauding FISA court!! SO IF THAT IS A CRIME HANG THEM FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!! ORDER! ORDER IN THIS BOLOGNA! Sheesh.

    But even if he did say that, you can't assume it's politically motivated. Biden's son is virtually proven to be in a high pay position in foreign corp via Joe's influence. OBVIOUSLY HAUL THEIR BUTTS INTO COURT NOW! What kind of stupid country is this?

  92. X says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSlX9m1iZ6M the truth cbs will not tell you….

  93. Jason Olson says:

    Republicans ask questions that have nothing to do with anything

  94. Me Myself says:

    Republicans love our military and vets until they tell the truth about Trump's committing bribery and prioritizing his political aspirations over the good of our country . You guys are so predictably dispicable, and definitely NOT the Patriots you pretend to be. Why don't you stop flying the American flags in front of your homes, and fly a trump flag instead?
    #FakePatriots
    #FakeAmericans
    #Disgusting

  95. Me Myself says:

    Y'all Republicans on here should be ashamed of yourselves pretending to believe the guy who had a scam University, and a scam charity was trying to root out corruption in Ukraine.

  96. B.T. says:

    SOON IN THE SENATE !!
    ZeroExperienceHunter and 6hoursJoe
    The Prepped Whisteblower
    Congenital Liar Shifty Shift
    Russian asset Steele Hillary

  97. David Hines says:

    I am a victim of gang stalking, harassment and violence .. i believe because of my right wing views.. Police and FBI protects them and i was sent to a Psych ward for 72 hours for calling the cops on them.. Nothing is done about it.. i had to leave San Diego because of it and my vacation was ruined.. Even though i have hard evidence with pictures of them and their cars the police did absolutely nothing.. not once did they investigate my claims of being stalked and harassed.. I was just a visitor and it was the worst vacation i have ever experienced..

  98. Maikl Тритон says:

    What do these democrats smoke ?! They openly recognize that they have staged a coup in Ukraine and continue to rob this impoverished country ….

  99. Anne Austin says:

    The coup show!

  100. Rainbows and Sunshine says:

    The republicans have completely forgot that in the beginning. Speaker Pelosi actually was treading VERY carefully about anything to do with impeachment. The republicans were happy when she was doing that. Now, they’re attempting to smear her name. Not to mention the clearly threatening tweets that trump has been putting out about the people testifying, two women to be exact. These issues are literally only some of the many illegal things trump has done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *