News & Blog

. THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. HERE’S LESTER HOLT AND SAVANNAH GUTHRIE. >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO NBC NEWS LIVE COVERAGE OF TODAY’S IMPEACHMENT HEARING OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. THERE IS THE COMMITTEE ROOM, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LET IN A MOMENT AGO AND MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL BE TAKING THEIR PLACES. WE’LL BE UNDER WAY QUITE SOON. THEY’LL BE HEARING TESTIMONY ON THE CONTINUING QUESTION, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSE THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE BY MEDDLING IN THE 2020 ELECTION FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT, PRESSURING A FOREIGN COUNTRY, UKRAINE, TO INVESTIGATE A 2020 POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN, AND DID HE IMPROPERLY WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BADLY NEEDED CONGRESSIONALLY AUTHORIZED MILITARY AID AND A PROMISED WHITE HOUSE MEETING. >> THIS IS THE THIRD HEARING IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IT KICKS OFF A BUSY WEEK IN WASHINGTON. NINE WITNESSES SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY, INCLUDING FOUR PEOPLE TODAY.IT STARTS TODAY WITH JENNIFER WILLIAMS. A CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE MEMBER DETAILED TO THE WHITE HOUSE WORKING FOR VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AT THE TIME IN QUESTION. APPEARING ALONGSIDE HER TODAY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN. HE’S AN IRAQ WAR VETERAN, AWARDED THE PURPLE HEART AFTER BEING INJURED BY A ROADSIDE BOMB IN 2004. BOTH WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT AS NEVER-TRUMPERS. MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THIS HEARING TODAY, THEY WERE ACTUALLY LISTENING ON THAT FAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >> THAT’S KEY BECAUSE THEY COMPLAINED OTHER WITNESSES DID NOT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT CALL. >> JOINING US IS CHUCK TODD AND ANDREW WEISSMANN, AN NBC NEWS ANALYST. LET’S START WITH JEFF BENNETT ON CAPITOL HILL. >> Reporter: THE POINT YOU MAKE IS A PERFECT ONE. YOU HAVE BOTH OF THESE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN, BOTH OF WHOM LISTENED IN ON THIS KEY JULY 25th CALL IN QUESTION AND BOTH OF WHOM, BASED ON THEIR PRIOR CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY, DISAGREED.JENNIFER WILLIAMS, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL DETAILED TO MIKE PENCE’S NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM. SHE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INTERACTION WITH HIS UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND UNUSUAL. AND THEN VINDMAN, THE ARMY OFFICER ASSIGNED TO THE WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. HE WAS SO ALARMED BY WHAT HE HEARD ON THAT CALL THAT HE FLAGGED THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER, HE SAYS, OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY. BOTH OF THESE TESTIMONIES REALLY BRING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, LESTER, CLOSER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAN EVER BEFORE. >> GEOFF, THANK YOU. >> WE TURN TO PETER ALEXANDER ON DUTY AT THE WHITE HOUSE THIS MORNING. PETER, WE ALWAYS ASK AT THE START OF THESE HEARINGS IF THE PRESIDENT PLANS TO WATCH. WE KNOW HE DID THE OTHER DAY BECAUSE HE TWEETED IN REAL-TIME TALKING ABOUT THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE MOMENT, AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH. >> Reporter: SOME OF THE PRESIDENT’S ALLIES ON HIS PREFERRED CABLE CHANNEL, FOX NEWS, HAVE ENCOURAGED HIM PUBLICLY NOT TO TWEET DURING TODAY’S TESTIMONY, NOT TO MENTION ANY OF THESE WITNESSES. FOR THE FIRST TWO JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND ALEXANDER VINDMAN, HE SAID BOTH OF THEM ARE NEVER-TRUMPERS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT UP.WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS HERE ARE SAYING IT IS LIKELY THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ENGAGED TODAY. EVEN AS EARLY AS THIS MORNING, THOUGH, THEY’RE TRYING TO CREATE SOME FORM OF COUNTERPROGRAMMING, SAYING THE PRESIDENT IS LIKELY TO BE DOING LOCAL RADIO INTERVIEWS WITH STATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY, TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY, TO FOCUS ON THE USMCA, THAT TRADE DEAL, AMONG OTHER TOPICS, IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE IS NOT FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF UKRAINE, EVEN IF THE CAPITOL CLEARLY IS TODAY. >> PETER, AS WE SPEAK, AS YOU SPEAK, WE JUST SAW THE TWO WITNESSES WHO WILL BEGIN THIS MORNING’S PROCEEDINGS, COLONEL VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS TAKE THEIR STANDS — EXCUSE ME, TAKE THEIR PLACES AND THEY’LL BE SWORN IN IN JUST A MOMENT. AS WE TURN TO OUR PANEL, CHUCK TODD AND ANDREW WEISSMANN WITH US. >> CHUCK, WE’LL HEAR — WE’VE SEEN TRANSCRIPTS OF THIS TESTIMONY ALREADY.WE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID LAST WEEK. HAS THE CASE IN MANY WAYS BEEN MADE? IF SO, WHAT’S THIS ALL ABOUT? >> WELL, I THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THE CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT APPEARED TO TIE ALL THIS UKRAINIAN, BOTH THE MEETING AND ASSISTANCE TO THIS. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY HAVE MADE THE CASE THAT IT HITS THIS EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH BARTHA SAYS, YOU KNOW, DISQUALIFY HIM FROM EVEN SEEKING RE-ELECTION. THAT HAS TO BE THE BAR THEY HIT AT SOME POINT IF THEY’RE GOING TO — YOU KNOW, IF THIS IMPEACHMENT CASE SEES ITS WAY THROUGH. TODAY IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW AGGRESSIVE REPUBLICANS GET, PARTICULARLY WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. HE’S SOMEBODY THAT RON JOHNSON, WHO THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN, HAS PUT OUT — IS GOING TO BE QUOTED, IT LOOKS LIKE, BY SOME REPUBLICAN MEMBERS TODAY IN QUESTIONING VINDMAN BY SAYING, HE GOT THE SENSE THAT VINDMAN WAS SPEAKING ON HIS OWN. WASN’T NECESSARILY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT. I’LL BE CURIOUS TO SEE HOW AGGRESSIVE — >> COLONEL VINDMAN, BY THE WAY, YOU SEE — >> HE HAS A STELLAR MILITARY RECORD.THE BIDENS, BURISMA, THE 2016 ELECTION. AND YET THAT — WE KNOW THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT. AND THEN THE ACTUAL READOUT OF THE CALL, THE SO-CALLED TRANSCRIPTS, IS BEREFT OF ANY SIGNS OF BURISMA OR BIDENS TALKED ABOUT. THERE WILL BE — >> YOU’RE SAYING THERE’S AN IMPLICATION THAT SOME OF THIS STUFF THAT WOULD HAVE LOOKED BAD WAS LIFTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE? YOU THINK THAT TESTIMONY SUGGESTS THAT? >> I THINK THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM VINDMAN, THIS IS WHAT HE HEARD ON THE CALL AND YET IT’S NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT. >> AND LATER WITH SONDLAND, HOW FASCINATING WILL THAT BE? >> IT WILL BE FASCINATING TO SEE WHAT HE DOES BECAUSE HE’S ALREADY BACKTRACKED ONCE.SIGNS ARE, I THINK, THAT HE’LL HAVE TO BACKTRACK AGAIN. HIS CREDIBILITY IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE AT ISSUE IN TERMS OF WHETHER HE CAN REALLY BE BELIEVED. >> THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN AN INTERESTING SPOT HERE. WE CERTAINLY HEARD IT FROM THE PRESIDENT, WE HEARD IT FROM ADVISERS. THESE WITNESSES ARE SAYING FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THEY’RE DEEP STATERS OR THEY DON’T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. SOMETHING THAT CAN’T BE SAID OF THESE TWO WITNESSES TODAY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE THOSE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, LIKE MICK MULVANEY, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO THE WHITE HOUSE IS BLOCKING THEIR TESTIMONY. SO, THEY CAN ONLY GO SO FAR WITH THAT ARGUMENT. >> RIGHT. THIS IS WHY I THINK IT’S — IT’S LIKE HOW THEY’RE TRYING TO USE RON JOHNSON.WE HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HIM AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE HIS OBSERVATIONS. IT’S NOT LIKE IT’S A DEPOSITION. KNOWING THIS PRESIDENT, EVEN HE’LL GO AGAINST HIS OWN COUNSEL, I WON’T — >> MORNING, EVERYONE. >> THE HEARING BEGINS. >> THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING AS PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES’ IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS AT ANY TIME THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT. WE’LL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING. I’LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND REPRESENTATIVE NUNES WILL HAVE A CHANCE FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.WE’LL TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN TO QUESTIONS. FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HERE. IN TURN 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’LL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER. AND ENSURE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS RUN IN THE ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE RULES AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. WITH THAT I 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 WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SCHEME TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTS WITH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF U.S.MILITARY AID TO FIGHT RUSSIANS ON A DELIVERABLE BY NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO POLITICLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS TRUMP BELIEVED WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVED THE BIDENS AND THE OTHER INVOLVED A DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN OUR 2016 ELECTION. AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD LATER TELL DAVID HOLMES IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP DID NOT GIVE A — HE THEN USED AN EXPLETIVE — ABOUT UKRAINE. HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION. 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. ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE. W 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, CAREER PROFESSIONALS BECAME CONCERNED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT INVOLVED HIS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, EU AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI, WAS PUSHING A POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE AT ODDS WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST. THIS MORNING WE HEAR FROM TWO OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS WHO BECAME AWARE OF THOSE EFFORTS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN, WHOSE FAMILY FLED OPPRESSION IN THE SOVIET UNION WHEN HE WAS A TODDLER IS A CAREER ARMY OFFICER, AN 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 ISSUES. FOLLOWING HIS CONGRATULATORY CALL WITH VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIM TO COME TO HIS UPCOMING INAUGURATION.PENCE WOULD BE A COVETED ATTENDEE, SECOND IN SIGNIFICANCE ONLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND WOULD HAVE SENT AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL OF SUPPORT TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. IN EARLY MAY, HOWEVER, RUDY GIULIANI HAD BEEN PLANNING TO GO TO UKRAINE TO PURSUE THE PRESIDENT’S INTERESTS IN HAVING THE BIDENS INVESTIGATED, BUT HAD TO CALL OFF THE TRIP AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC. AMONG OTHERS, GIULIANI BLAMED PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR HAVING TO CANCEL AND CLAIMED THEY WERE ANTAGONISTIC TO TRUMP. INSTEAD A LOWER-LEVEL DELEGATION WAS NAMED, ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, THE THREE AMIGOS.SENATOR RON JOHNSON AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD ALSO ATTEND. AFTER RETURNING FROM THE INAUGURATION, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION BRIEFED TRUMP ON THEIR FIRST ENCOURAGING INTERACTIONS WITH ZELENSKY. THEY URGED TRUMP TO MEET WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, BUT TRUMP INSTEAD CRITICIZED UKRAINE AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO WORK WITH JUDY — WORK WITH RUDY. A FEW WEEKS LATER ON JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH A GROUP OF U.S. AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, INCLUDING COLONEL VINDMAN AND FORMED THE GROUP, ACCORDING TO CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, THE MEETING WITH ZELENSKY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD TAKE PLACE IF THEY DID CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS. THEY ENDED THE MEETING AND SAID HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS. I’M DETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION DOWN TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND WAS MORE EXPLICIT, ACCORDING TO WITNESSES.UKRAINE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS OR BURISMA IF THEY WERE TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH TRUMP. AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH VINDMAN WITHNESSED, HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL’S TOP LAWYER TO REPORT THE MATTER. HE WAS TOLD TO RETURN WITH ANY CONCERNS. HE WOULD SOON FIND THE NEED TO DO SO. A WEEK LATER ON JULY 18th A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ANNOUNCED ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL THAT MULVANEY, AT TRUMP’S DIRECTION, WAS FREEZING NEARLY $400 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND ENJOYED THE SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT. ONE WEEK AFTER THAT TRUMP WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY. DURING THAT CALL, TRUMP COMPLAINED THAT THE U.S. RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAD NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL. LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP FOR HIS SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE AND SAYS UKRAINE WAS READY TO PURCHASE MORE JAVELINS, AN ANTI-TANK WEAPON, THE MOST IMPORTANCE DETERRENCE OF FURTHER RUSSIAN MILITARY ACTION.TRUMP’S RESPONSE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH. TRUMP THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 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’S PERSONAL INTEREST AND IN THE INTEREST OF HIS 2020 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE, BECAUSE SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN PRESSING UKRAINE FOR WEEKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, BURISMA AND THE BIDENS. BOTH COLONEL VINDMAN AND MISS WILLIAMS WERE ON THE JULY 25th CALL. VINDMAN TESTIFIED DUE TO THE UNEQUAL BARGAINING POSITION OF THE TWO LEADERS AND UKRAINE’S DEPENDENCY ON THE U.S., THE FAVOR TRUMP ASKED 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 THAT VINDMAN RAISED CONCERNS WITH NSC LAWYERS. FOR HER PART, WILLIAMS ALSO BELIEVED ASKING ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS WAS INAPPROPRIATE. AND THAT IT MIGHT EXPLAIN SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHE HAD BECOME AWARE OF, THE OTHERWISE INEXPLICABLE HOLD ON U.S. MILITARY AID. VINDMAN AND MISS WILLIAMS TOOK NOTE OF THE WORD BURISMA BY ZELENSKY. A FACT CONSPICUOUSLY LEFT OUT OF THE CALL NOW LOCKED AWAY ON AN ULTRASECURE SERVER. COLONEL VINDMAN BELIEVED ZELENSKY MUST HAVE BEEN PREPPED FOR THE CALL TO MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BIDEN AND BURISMA, A FACT OTHER WITNESSES HAVE NOW CONFIRMED. IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED THE JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN CONTINUED TO PUSH FOR A RELEASE OF THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND STRUGGLED TO LEARN WHY IT WAS BEING WITHHELD. MORE DISTURBING, WORD OF THE HOLD REACHED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PRIOR TO IT BECOMING PUBLIC. BY MID-AUGUST THE DEPUTY AMBASSADOR ASKED VINDMAN WHY THE UNITED STATES WAS WITHHOLDING THE AID. VINDMAN DIDN’T HAVE AN ANSWER. THEY NEEDED TO PUBLICLY COMMIT TO THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS IF THEY HOPED TO GET THE AID.MISS WILLIAMS, WE ALL SAW THE PRESIDENT’S TWEET ABOUT YOU ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON. AND THE INSULTS HE HURLED AT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LAST FRIDAY. YOU ARE HERE TODAY, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL. COLONEL VINDMAN, WE HAVE SEEN MORE ATTACKS ON YOUR CHARACTER AND WATCHED CERTAIN PERSONALITIES ON FOX QUESTION YOUR LOYALTY. I KNOW YOU HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR AMERICA AND WE OWE YOU AN IMMENSE DEBT OF GRATITUDE. I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE BACKS PART OF THOSE ATTACKS. TODAY’S WITNESSES, LIKE THOSE WHO TESTIFIED LAST WEEK, ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBPOENAED TO HERE, 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, COERCE, EXTORT OR BRIBE AN ALLY INTO CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS TO AID HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING 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. I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW 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 DISLIKED 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.BUT 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’S BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME PREPOSTEROUS REPORTING THE MEDIA OFFERED FOR THREE YEARS ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX. THE TOP NEWS OUTLETS IN AMERICA REPORTED BREATHLESSLY ON THE NEWEST BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS, SHOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EVERYONE SURROUNDING HIM WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS. IT REALLY WASN’T LONG AGO WE WERE READING THESE HEADLINES. FROM CNN, CONGRESS, INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN INVESTMENT FUND WITH TIES TO TRUMP OFFICIALS. THIS WAS FALSE. “NEW YORK TIMES,” TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDES REPEATED CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.ALSO FALSE. SLATE, WAS A TRUMP SERVER COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA? THIS WAS FALSE. 12K3W4R50ISHGSDZ “NEW YORK “MAGAZINE, THIS IS FALSE. “THE GUARDIAN,” THEY HELD SECRET TALKS WITH AN ECUADORAN EMBASSY. ALSO FALSE. BUZZFEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 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 MEDIA RUSSIA STORIES JUST AS A FEVERED RUSH TO TARNISH A PRESIDENT WHO PRETEND THE MEDIA IS SOMETHING DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, PUPPETS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. WITH THEIR BIAS MISREPORTING ON THE RUSSIA HOAX, THE MEDIA LOST CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AND BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW BADLY THEY BOTCHED THE STORY, THEY LEARNED NO LESSONS AND SIMPLY EXPECT AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE THEM AS THEY TRY TO STOKE YET ANOTHER PARTISAN FRENZY.IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS I’VE OUTLINED THREE QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA DON’T WANT ASKED 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 WHISTLE-BLOWER AND WHO ELSE DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH? THE MEDIA HAVE FULLY ACCEPTED THE DEMOCRATS’ STUNNING REVERSAL ON THE NEED FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TESTIFY TO THIS COMMITTEE. WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE INSISTING ON HIS TESTIMONY, THE MEDIA WANTED IT, TOO. BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE IT BECAME CLEAR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER PROBLEMATIC QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE THESE — WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S PRIOR COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, HIS STAFF AND ANY PEOPLE HE COOPERATED WITH WHILE HE PREPARED THE COMPLAINT? WHAT ARE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S POLITICAL BIASES AND CONNECTIONS TO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS? HOW DOES THE WHISTLE-BLOWER EXPLAIN THE INACCURACIES IN THE COMPLAINT? WHAT CONTACT DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAVE WITH THE MEDIA, WHICH APPEARS TO BE ONGOING? WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S INFORMATION? WHO ELSE DID HE TALK TO? AND WAS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 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 WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS SUCCESSFULLY KICKSTARTED IMPEACHMENT, HE HAS DISAPPEARED FROM THE STORY, AS IF THE DEMOCRATS PUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 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 ELECTION TO OPPOSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. MANY OF THESE INSTANCES WERE REPORTED INCLUDING THE POSTING OF MANY PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS BY VETERAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST JOHN SOLOMON. SINCE THE DEMOCRATS SWITCHED FROM RUSSIA TO UKRAINE FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE, SOLOMON’S REPORTING ON BURISMA, HUNTER BIDEN AND UKRAINE ELECTION MEDDLING HAS BECOME INCONVENIENT SO THE MEDIA IS FURIOUSLY SMEARING AND LIBELING SOLOMON. THE PUBLICATION “THE HILL” SAID IT WOULD CONDUCT A REVIEW OF SOLOMON’S REPORTING. COINCIDENTALLY THE DECISION COMES THREE DAYS AFTER A DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE TOLD A “HILL” WRITER 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. NOW THAT SOLOMON’S REPORTING FOR THE DEMOCRATS IS A PROBLEM FOR THE DEMOCRATS, IT’S A PROBLEM FOR THE MEDIA AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER SOLOMON’S STORY ABOUT UKRAINE’S INTERFERENCE. I ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TODAY TO READ THIS STORY AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE SOLOMON HAS GATHERED. ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT WE PUT THIS INTO THE RECORD, MR. CHAIR. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> THE CONCERTED CAMPAIGN BY THE MEDIA DISCREDIT AND DISOWN SOME OF THEIR OWN COLLEAGUES IS SHOCKING. AND 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 BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN? WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM? DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY 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’S 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. IF THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA ARE SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT BRIBERY, YOU THINK THEY WOULD TAKE INTEREST IN BURISMA PAYING HUNTER BIDEN $83,000 A MONTH. AND THINK THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN JOE BIDEN THREATENING TO WITHHOLD U.S. LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THE UKRAINIANS FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS INVESTIGATING BURISMA.THAT WOULD BE A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY. THE MEDIA, OF COURSE, ARE FREE TO ACT AS DEMOCRAT PUPPETS AND FREE TO LURCH FROM THE RUSSIA HOAX TO THE UKRAINE HOAX. THEY CANNOT EXPECT TO REASONABLY DO SO WITHOUT ALIENATING HALF THE COUNTRY WHO VOTED FOR THE PRESIDENT THEY’RE TRYING TO EXPEL. AMERICANS ARE LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE FAKE NEWS WHEN THIS HE SEE IT. IF MAINSTREAM PRESS WON’T GIVE IT TO THEM STRAIGHT, THEY’LL GO ELSEWHERE TO FIND IT, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DOING. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. TODAY WE ARE JOINED BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS.LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN IS AN ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY OFFICER WHO JOINED THE ARMY AFTER COLLEGE AND SERVED MULTIPLE TOURS OVERSEAS. SERVING IN SOUTH KOREA, GERMANY AND IRAQ. HE WAS DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AT A TIME OF HEAVY FIGHTING WAS AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AFTER BEING WOUNDED BY A ROADSIDE BOMB. SINCE 2008 COLONEL VINDMAN HAS SERVED AS A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN EURASIA, SERVING AT HOME AND EMBASSIES IN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA.HE HAS SERVED AS A POLITICO AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR THE CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEF OF STAFFS. HE JOINED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN 2018 WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO SERVE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. JENNIFER WILLIAMS BEGAN HER CAREER IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN 2005 AFTER GRADUATING COLLEGE JOINING HOMELAND SECURITY DURING THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND WORKING ON THE BUSH/CHENEY PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. 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 MISS WILLIAMS WAS DETAILED TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, MIKE PENCE, WHERE SHE SERVES AS A SPECIAL ADVISER ON HIS FOREIGN POLICY TEAM COVERING EUROPE AND RUSSIA ISSUES.IN THAT CAPACITY SHE KEEPS THE VICE PRESIDENT AWARE OF FOREIGN POLICIES IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA AND PREPARES HIM FOR FOREIGN POLICY ENGAGEMENTS AND MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS. TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE OUR WITNESSES ARE SWORN. FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. ANY INFORMATION THAT MAY TOUCH TO 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 TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.IF YOU WOULD BOTH PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, I’LL 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. 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, MISS WILLIAMS, YOUR RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. WHEN YOU’RE CONCLUDED, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU’RE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. >> THANK YOU RANKING MEMBER SCHIFF FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THIS STATEMENT. 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 UNDER SECRETARY MICHAEL CHERDOFF. I SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION ADMINISTERED BY A PERSONAL HERO OF MINE, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZA RICE.AS A CAREER OFFICER I’M COMMITTED TO SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ADVANCING AMERICAN INTERESTS ABROAD IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT’S FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES. I’VE BEEN INSPIRED AND ENCOURAGED IN THAT JOURNEY BY THE THOUSANDS OF OTHER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO I’M PROUD TO CALL COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE FOREIGN SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE, MILITARY AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. I HAVE SERVED OVERSEAS TOURS IN KINGSTON, JAMAICA. AND SERVED AS AN ADVISER ON MIDDLE EAST ISSUES TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE. THIS SPRING IT WAS THE GREATEST HONOR OF MY CAREER TO BE ASKED TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA.OVER THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH THE 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 7th, I APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR A CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION PURSUIT TO THE 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 21st, VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WON THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. ON APRIL 23rd, 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 THAT 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 14th.AS A RESULT, WE DID NOT EXPECT TO KNOW WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BE — COULD ATTEND UNTIL MAY 14th, AT THE EARLIEST. WE MADE ONLY PRELIMINARY TRIP PREPARATIONS IN EARLY MAY. ON MAY 13th, AN ASSISTANT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF CALLED AND INFORMED ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DECIDED THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ATTEND THE INAUGURATION IN UKRAINE.SHE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION. I RELAID 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 HEAD OF DELEGATION TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES AT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION. ON JULY 3rd I LEARNED THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HAD PLACED A HOLD ON TRANCHE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE DESIGNATED TO UKRAINE.ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED OMB WAS REVIEWING WHETHER THE FUNDING WAS ALIGNED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION’S PRIORITIES. I SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED MEETINGS OF THE POLICY COORDINATION COMMITTEE WHERE THE HOLD ON UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS DISCUSSED. DURING THOSE MEETINGS, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS ADVOCATED THAT THE HOLD SHOULD BE LIFTED. AND OMB REPRESENTATIVES REPORTED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF HAD DIRECTED THAT THE HOLD SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE. ON SEPTEMBER 11th, I LEARNED THAT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE HAD BEEN RELEASED. I HAVE NEVER LEARNED WHAT PROMPTED THAT DECISION. ON JULY 25th, 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 25th, I HAD PARTICIPATED IN ROUGHLY A DOZEN OTHER PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS.DURING MY CLOSED-DOOR DEPOSITION, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND WHETHER I HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL. AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND THE JULY 25th 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 25th CALL, I PROVIDED AN UPDATE IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S DAILY BRIEFING BOOK INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A CALL THAT DAY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. A HARD COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM TRANSCRIBING 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 25th CALL WITH VICE PRESIDENT OR ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE NSC.ON AUGUST 29th, I LEARNED THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD BE TRAVELING TO POLAND TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 1st. AT THE SEPTEMBER 1st 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’ UNWAVERING SUPPORT AND PROMISED TO RELAY THEIR CONVERSATION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT NIGHT. DURING THE SEPTEMBER 1st MEETING, NEITHER THE VICE PRESIDENT NOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DISCUSSED DURING THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS STATEMENT. I’D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO UKRAINE AND MY ROLE IN THE EVENTS UNDER INVESTIGATION. I’VE 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 INFANTRY OFFICER I SERVED MULTIPLE OVERSEAS TOURS, INCLUDING SOUTH KOREA AND GERMANY, AND I WAS DEPLOYED TO IRAQ FOR COMBAT OPERATIONS. SINCE 2008 I HAVE BEEN A FOREIGN AREA OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN EURASIA, AND I SERVED IN EMBASSIES IN KIEV AND MOSCOW, RUSSIA. IN WASHINGTON, D.C., I WAS THE POLITICAL AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR RUSSIA FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WHERE I DRAFTED THE ARMED GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO COUNTER RUSSIA AND RUSSIA MALIGNED INFLUENCE. IN JULY 2018 I WAS ASKED TO SERVE AT THE WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. AT THE NSC, I’M THE PRINCIPAL ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER 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 MILITARY AND ECONOMIC NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES OF 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 BULWORK.IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW, PROMOTING UKRAINE PROSPERITY, A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIAN HAS BEEN STRATEGY ACROSS VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS, BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S ELECTION IN APRIL 2019 CREATED AN UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE OUR STRATEGY — A STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE. IN THE SPRING OF 2019 I BECAME AWARE OF TWO DISRUPTIVE ACTORS, PRIMARILY UKRAINE’S THEN PROSECUTOR LUTSENKO AND MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, PROMOING FALSE NARRATIVES THAT UNDERMINED THE U.S./UKRAINE POLICY. THE NSC AND INTERAGENCY DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT, GREW INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT SUCH INFORMATION WAS HAVING ON OUR COUNTRY’S ABILITY TO ACHIEVE THE NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES. ON APRIL 21, 2019, VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN A LANDSLIDE VICTORY ON UNITY REFORM AND ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM. PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON APRIL 21, 2019 TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS VICTORY. I WAS THE STAFF OFFICER WHO PRODUCED THE CALL MATERIALS AND WAS ONE OF THE STAFF OFFICERS WHO LISTENED TO THE CALL. THE CALL WAS POSITIVE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO WORK WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED AN INVITATION 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 THIS DEBRIEFING, PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNED A CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND EXTENDED ANOTHER INVITATION TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE. ON JULY 10, 2019, UKRAINE’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER WHO VISITED WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR A MEETING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER BOLTON. AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SONDLAND — AMBASSADORS VOLKER, SONDLAND AND SECRETARY RICK PERRY ALSO ATTENDED THE MEETING I ATTENDED WITH DR. HALE. WE FULLY ANTICIPATED THE UKRAINIANS WOULD RAISE THE ISSUE OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTS.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 BURISMA. I STATED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. DR. HILL ALSO ASSERTED HIS COMMENTS WHEN PROPER. AFTERWARDS, DR. HALE AND I AGREED TO REPORT IT TO JOHN EISENBERG. ON JULY 21, 2019, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON A PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION IN ANOTHER LANDSLIDE ELECTION. ON JULY 25th, 2019, 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 CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG.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. THIS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY RESULT IN UK LOSING BIPARTISAN SECURITY AND ADVANCING RUSSIA’S STRATEGYTIC OBJECTIVES IN THE REGION. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10th RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THEN JULY 25th RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY. I PRIVATELY 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’D 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 PRESIDENT’S 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 AND ARE SCHEDULED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO SAY THAT THE CHARACTER ATTACKS ON THESE DISTINGUISHED AND HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS AND REPREHENSIBLE. IT IS NATURAL TO DISAGREE AND ENGAGE IN SPIRITED DEBATE, AND THIS HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM OF OUR COUNTRY SINCE THE TIME OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, BUT WE ARE BETTER THAN PERSONAL ATTACKS. THE UNIFORM I WEAR TODAY IS THAT OF A UNITED STATES ARMY — IS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY. THE MEMBERS OF OUR ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE ARE MADE UP OF A PATCH WORK OF PEOPLE FROM ALL ETHNICITIES, REGIONS, SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS WHO COME TOGETHER UNDER A COMMON OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFENDS 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 THAT GAVE MY FAMILY REFUGE FROM AUTHORITARIAN OPPRESSION. FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO REPRESENT AND PROTECT 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 LIVES. 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 SITS BEHIND ME HERE TODAY. OUR COLLECTIVE MILITARY SERVICE IS A SPECIAL PART OF OUR FAMILY’S HISTORY, A STORY IN AMERICA. I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT 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 ACT OF EXPRESSING CONCERN TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN AN OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE CHANNEL, WOULD HAVE SEVERE PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL REPERCUSSIONS AND OFFERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT WOULD SURELY COST ME MY LIFE. I’M GRATEFUL TO MY FATHER — FOR MY FATHER’S BRAVE ACT OF HOPE 40 YEARS AGO AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND PUBLIC SERVANT WHERE I CAN LIVE FREE FEAR FOR MY AND MY FAMILY’S SAFETY.DAD, I’M SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITOL TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS, TALKING TO OUR ELECTED PROFESSIONALS IS PROOF YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION AND COME 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’LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, COLONEL.THANK YOU, MISS WILLIAMS. COLONEL, YOUR BROTHER AND FAMILY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME HERE. GRATEFUL TO HAVE THEM WITH US. WE’LL PROCEED WITH THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS AS DETAILED IN THE MEMO PROVIDED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY CHAIRMAN OR MAJORITY COUNSEL, FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES FOR RANKING MEMBER OR MINORITY COUNSEL UNDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. THAT TIME MAY NOT BE DELEGATED TO OTHER MEMBERS. UNLESS I EXPRESS ADDITIONAL EQUAL TIME FOR QUESTIONING, WE’LL PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE AND EVERY MEMBER WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. I NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR MAJORITY COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST 45 MINUTES.BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR TESTIMONY, MISS WILLIAMS, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE ON SEPTEMBER 18th. WERE YOU ON THAT CALL? >> I WAS. >> AND DID YOU TAKE NOTES OF THE CALL? >> YES, SIR. >> IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT CALL THAT YOU THINK MAY BE RELEVANT TO OUR INVESTIGATION? >> CHAIRMAN, AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMITTEE, THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT SEPTEMBER — >> SIR, COULD YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOU? >> AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WITH BOTH MAJORITY/MINORITY STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE, THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE SEPTEMBER 18th CALL IS CLASSIFIED.AS A RESULT WITH RESPECT TO THE CALL, I’D REFER THE COMMITTEE TO THE PUBLIC RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES MISS WILLIAMS’ NOVEMBER 7th TESTIMONY, WHICH HAS BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC READOUT OF THAT CALL, WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. BEYOND THAT, GIVEN THE POSITION OF THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE ON CLASSIFICATION, I’VE ADVISED MISS WILLIAMS NOT TO ANSWER FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CALL IN AN UNCLASSIFIED SETTING. >> THANKS, COUNSEL.MISS WILLIAMS, I ONLY ASK YOU IN THIS SETTING WHETHER YOU THINK THERE’S SOMETHING RELEVANT TO OUR INQUIRY IN THAT CALL AND IF SO, IF YOU’LL 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’M VERY HAPPY TO APPEAR FOR A CLASSIFIED SETTING DISCUSSION AS WELL. >> IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO APPEAR IF YOU’LL BE WILLING TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION IN WRITING TO THE COMMITTEE. >> I’D BE HAPPY TO DO SO. >> THANK YOU. COLONEL VINDMAN, IF I COULD TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21st CALL, THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 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 IN THE CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> THOSE WERE THE RECOMMENDED TALKING POINTS THAT WERE CLEARED THROUGH THE NSC STAFF FOR THE PRESIDENT, YES. >> DID YOU LISTEN IN ON THAT CALL? >> YES, I DID. >> THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOW RELEASED THE RECORD OF THAT CALL. DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER MENTION CORRUPTION IN THE APRIL 21st CALL? >> TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, HE DID NOT. >> ON THE APRIL 21st CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE WOULD SEND A HIGH-LEVEL U.S. DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION. FOLLOWING THAT CALL, MISS WILLIAMS, WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE VICE PRESIDENT TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION IN KIEV? >> YES, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> AND DID THE PRESIDENT SUBSEQUENTLY TELL THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION? >> I WAS INFORMED BY OUR CHIEF OF STAFF’S OFFICE, BY THE VICE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF OFFICE, 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 13th, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AM I ALSO CORRECT THAT THE INAUGURATION DATE HAD NOT BEEN SET BY MAY 13th? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT ACCOUNTED FOR THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION TO INSTRUCT THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO ATTEND? >> I DO NOT. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE U.S. DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION ON MAY 20th, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, CHAIRMAN.>> AND DURING THAT TRIP, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER ANY ADVICE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> YES, 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 — TO BE PARTICULARLY CAUTIOUS WITH REGARDS TO RUSSIA AND ITS DESIRE TO PROVOKE UKRAINE. AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO STAY OUT OF U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY. >> DO YOU MEAN POLITICS? >> POLITICS, YES. >> 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 TIME FRAME, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THERE WERE — THERE WERE ACTORS IN THE U.S. — PUBLIC ACTOR, NONGOVERNMENTAL ACTORS, THAT WERE PROMOTING THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATIONS, AND 2016 UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE, AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY TO ADVISE ANY COUNTRY, ALL 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. >> MR. GOLDMAN WILL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT WHEN I TURN TO HIM. LET ME TURN, IF I CAN, TO THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, WHICH I THINK YOU BOTH TESTIFIED YOU LEARNED ABOUT IN EARLY JULY. NEITHER OF YOU WERE GIVEN A REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT PUT A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE? >> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT OMB WAS REVIEWING THE ASSISTANCE TO MAKE SURE IT WAS IN LINE WITH ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES, BUT IT WAS NOT MADE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT.>> COLONEL VINDMAN? >> THAT IS CONSISTENT — OR THE REVIEW WAS — REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ATTENDED A MEETING IN JOHN BOLTON’S OFFICE ON JULY 10th WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INTERJECTED TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION BY SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE 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 INVESTIGATIONS. >> AND WHAT WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S RESPONSE OR REACTION TO THAT COMMENT? >> THE — 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 10th MEETING, WAS IT YOUR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE UKRAINIANS UNDERSTOOD 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 THE MEETINGS AND HE HAD — HE HAD STATED THAT HIS — HE HAD THIS — THIS WAS DEVELOPED PER CONVERSATION WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MR. MICK MULVANEY, BUT THE CONNECTION TO THE PRESIDENT WASN’T CLEAR AT THAT POINT.>> BUT THE IMPORT OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID DURING THAT MEETING IS THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH MICK MULVANEY THAT ZELENSKY WOULD GET THE MEETING IF THEY WOULD UNDERTAKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT JULY 10th MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THEIR SECOND CALL, THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL. COLONEL ZELENSKY, WHAT WAS YOUR REAL-TIME REACTION TO HEARING THAT CALL? >> CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION, I KNEW THAT 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 — PROPER PEOPLE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. >> AND WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN? >> WELL, 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’S AT BEST DUBIOUS BELIEF THAT THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION.AND THAT THIS WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS IF IT BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND IT WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS A PARTISAN PLAY. IT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR UKRAINE POLICY. AND IT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. >> COLONEL, YOU’VE DESCRIBED THIS AS A DEMAND, THIS FAVOR THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKS A FAVOR LIKE THIS, IT’S REALLY A DEMAND? >> CHAIRMAN, THE CULTURE I COME FROM, THE MILITARY CULTURE, WHEN A SENIOR ASKS YOU TO DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT’S POLITE AND PLEASANT, IT’S NOT — IT’S NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A REQUEST.IT’S 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. >> MISS WILLIAMS, I THINK YOU DESCRIBED YOUR REACTION IN YOUR DEPOSITION AS — WHEN YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL AS YOU FOUND IT UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE. BUT I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING ELSE YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION. YOU SAID IT SHED SOME LIGHT ON POSSIBLE OTHER MOTIVATIONS BEHIND A 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. AND IN REFLECTING ON WHAT I WAS THINKING IN THAT MOMENT, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD INTERNALLY THE PRESIDENT REFERENCE PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS THAT PREVIOUSLY I HAD ONLY HEARD ABOUT THROUGH MR. GIULIANI’S PRESS INTERVIEWS, IN PRESS REPORTING. SO, 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.SO, IT WAS — IT WAS NOTEWORTHY IN THAT REGARD. I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DRAW ANY FIRM CONCLUSION. >> BUT IT RAISED THE QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER THE TWO WERE RELATED? >> IT WAS THE FIRST I HAD HEARD OF ANY REQUESTS OF UKRAINE, WHICH WERE THAT SPECIFIC IN NATURE, SO IT WAS NOTEWORTHY TO ME IN THAT REGARD. >> BOTH OF YOU RECALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THAT CONVERSATION RAISING THE ISSUE OR MENTIONING BURISMA, DO YOU NOT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> CORRECT. >> AND YET THE WORD BURISMA APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE CALL RECORD THAT’S BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> CORRECT. >> DO YOU KNOW WHY THAT’S THE CASE, WHY THAT WAS LEFT OUT? >> I DO NOT. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THAT TRANSCRIPT. >> I ATTRIBUTE THAT TO THE FACT THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT THAT IS BEING PRODUCED MAY NOT HAVE CAUGHT THE WORD, BURISMA. AND IT WAS IN THE — IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS RELEASED, IT WAS RELEASED, THE COMPANY, WHICH IS ACCURATE. IT’S NOT A SIGNIFICANT OMISSION.>> COLONEL, YOU POINTED OUT THE FACT THAT WORD WAS USED, DID YOU NOT? >> CORRECT. >> AND YET IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. >> THAT’S RIGHT. I’D SAY IT’S INFORMED SPECULATION THAT THE FOLKS THAT PRODUCE THESE TRANSCRIPTS DO THE BEST THEY CAN, AND THEY JUST DIDN’T CATCH THE WORD. THAT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO — TO THEN MAKE SURE THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. THAT’S WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO BY PUTTING THAT WORD BACK IN BECAUSE THAT WAS IN MY NOTES. >> I THINK, COLONEL, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU FOUND IT STRIKING THAT ZELENSKY WOULD BRING UP BURISMA. THAT IT INDICATED TO YOU THAT HE HAD BEEN PREPPED FOR THE CALL, TO EXPECT THIS ISSUE TO COME UP. WHAT LED YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION? >> IT SEEMED UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH A SINGLE COMPANY IN THE CONTEXT OF A CALL THAT HAD — THAT WAS ON THE BROADER BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP AND IT SEEMED TO ME HE WAS EITHER TRACKING THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE PRESS OR HE WAS OTHERWISE PREPPED.>> MR. GOLD MAN? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. ON JULY 25th AT APPROXIMATELY 9:00 A.M. YOU BOTH WERE SITTING IN THE SITUATION ROOM, PROBABLY NOT TOO MUCH FURTHER AWAY THAN YOU ARE RIGHT NOW AND YOU WERE PREPARING FOR A LONG AWAITED PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. NOW, COLONEL VINDMANN ADVANCE OF THIS PHONE CALL, DID YOU PREPARE FOR THE PHONE CALL AS YOU DID THE APRIL 21st CALL? >> YES, I DID. >> WHAT WERE THE TALKING POINTS BASED UPON? >> THEY WERE — THIS IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND I CAN’T COMMENT TOO DEEPLY, BUT WHAT IS — THE AREAS THAT WE’VE CONSISTENTLY TALKED ABOUT IN PUBLIC, IT WAS COOPERATION ON SUPPORTING REFORM AGENDA, ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS AND HELPING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IMPLEMENT HIS PLANS TO END RUSSIA’S WAR AGAINST UKRAINE. >> IN OTHER WORDS, THEY’RE BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >> CORRECT. >> AND IS THERE A PROCESS TO DETERMINE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >> YES. THAT IS MY JOB IS TO COORDINATE U.S.POLICY. SO THROUGHOUT THE PRECEDING YEAR THAT I HAD BEEN ON STAFF, I HAD UNDERTAKEN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A COHESIVE POLICY. >> AS YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL, DID YOU OBSERVE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS FOLLOWING THE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >> COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT COULD CHOOSE TO USE THE TALKING POINTS OR NOT. HE’S THE PRESIDENT.BUT THEY WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I PROVIDED, YES. >>LET TAKE A LOOK AT A COUPLE OF EXCERPTS FROM THIS CALL. RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKED PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE UNITED STATES’ SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 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, THOUGH, 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 SA UKRAINE HAS IT. >> WAS THIS 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. >> NOW, AT THE TIME OF THIS JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN, WERE YOU AWARE OF A THEORY THAT UKRAINE INTERVENED OR INTERFEARED 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’M WELL AWARE OF THAT FACT. >> AND ULTIMATELY, WHICH COUNTRY DID U.S. INTELLIGENCE SERVICES DETERMINE TO HAVE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN THE U.S. ELECTIONS IN 2016. >> LET’S GO TO ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM THIS CALL WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.HERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS THE OTHER THING, 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 CAN LOOK INTO IT. IT SOUND HORRIBLE TO ME, HE SAID. AGAIN, COLONEL VINDMAN, WAS THIS INCLUDED IN YOUR TALKING POINTS? >> IT WAS NOT. >> 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. >> NOW, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NOTION THAT VICE PRESIDENT 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 BIDEN? >> NO, I’M NOT. >> NOW, MS. WILLIAMS, PRIOR TO THE JULY 25th CALL, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN LEADERS HAD YOU LISTENED TO? >> I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY A 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 BIDEN AND HIS SON STRUCK ME AS POLITICAL IN NATURE GIVEN THAT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT’S. >> SO YOU THOUGHT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DESIGNED TO ASSIST PRESIDENT TRUMP’S RE-ELECTION EFFORT? >> I CAN’T SPEAK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVATION WAS IN REFERENCING IT, BUT I JUST NOTED THAT THE REFERENCE TO BIDEN SOUNDED POLITICAL TO ME. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, 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 WHO ARE NOT ROCKET SCIENTISTS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT? >> SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WAS THE CONNECTION TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND IMPROPER.I MADE THAT CONNECTION AS SOON AS THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE — PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REQUEST FOR A FAVOR FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A DEMAND TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AFTER THIS CALL, DID YOU EVER HEAR FROM ANY UKRAIUKRAINIANS, R 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 IN WASHINGTON, D.C.? >> YES, I DID. >> DID YOU DISCUSS THE DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS WITH THEM? >> 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.>> AND THAT WAS BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? >> I BELIEVE I SAID THAT — 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 SYSTEMS THAT WE PROVIDE UKRAINE IS SIGNIFICANT. ABSENT THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND MAYBE EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE SIGNAL OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, THAT WOULD LIKELY ENCOURAGE RUSSIA TO PURSUE POTENTIALLY ESCALATE, TO PURSUE FURTHER AGGRESSION UNDERMINING, FURTHER UNDERMINING YU YAN CRAN SOVEREIGNTY, AND U.S. SECURITY. >> SO IN OTHER WORDS, UKRAINE IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON UNITED STATES SUPPORT, BOTH DIPLOMATICALLY, FINANCIALLY AND ALSO MILITARILY? >> CORRECT. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, WHAT LANGUAGES DO YOU SPEAK. >> RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN AND A LITTLE BIT OF ENGLISH.>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT — DO YOU RECALL WHAT LANGUAGE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE ON THIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL? >> I KNOW HE MADE A VALIANT EFFORT TO SPEAK ENGLISH. HE HAD BEEN PRACTICING UP HIS ENGLISH, BUT HE ALSO SPOKE UKRAINIAN. >> I WANT TO LOOK AT THE THIRD EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25th CALL. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ADDRESSED THIS WITH YOU IN HIS QUESTIONING. 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. >> YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT HIS USE OF OR HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED THE BIDENS, THAT THAT REFERRED TO THE COMPANY BURISMA SOUNDED TO YOU LIKE HE WAS PREPPED OR PREPARED FOR THIS CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, IF WE COULD, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A TEXT MESSAGE THAT NEITHER OF YOU IS ON.BUT THIS IS FROM AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER TO ANDRE — WHO IS THIS PERSON? >> HE’S A SENIOR ADVISER WITHIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION TO UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION. HE’S THE SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >> THIS TEXT MESSAGE IS LESS THAN A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL ON JULY 25th. AND SINCE NEITHER OF YOU ARE ON IT, I’LL READ IT. IT SAYS FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS. HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE. ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, QUOTE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED, UNQUOTE, IN 2016.WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON. GOOD LUCK. SEE YOU TOMORROW. KURT. NOW IS THIS THE SORT OF THING THAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PREPARED FOR THIS CALL? >> THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT, YES. >> NOW, TURNING TO THE FOURTH EXCERPT FROM THE JULY 25th CALL WHERE UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S 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, D.C. ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO WANTED TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WILL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION. COLONEL VINDMAN, WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD YOU AGREE HE’S ACKNOWLEDGING A LINKAGE BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT HE MENTIONS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE AND THE INVESTIGATIONS HE MENTIONS IN THE SECOND SENTENCE? >> IT COULD BE TAKEN THAT WAY. 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 AMBASSADOR VOLKER SENT TO ANDRE YAR MOCK BEFORE THE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> SEEMINGLY SO. >> YOU’VE TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT THE — VISITING — AN OVAL OFFICE VISIT IS IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. WHY IS THAT? >> THE SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY STILL A BRAND NEW PRESIDENT, FRANKLY, A NEW POLITICIAN ON THE UKRAINIAN POLITICAL SCENE, LOOKING TO ESTABLISH AS A REGIONAL AND MAYBE EVEN A 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 HIM WITH WITH ADDITIONAL LEGITIMACY AT HOME? >> YEAH. >> JUST TO SUMMARIZE, IN THIS JULY 25th 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’S POLITICAL INTEREST, NOT THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AND IN RETURN FOR HIS PROMISE OF A MUCH DESIRED WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, COLONEL VINDMAN IS THAT AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE EXCERPTS WE JUST LOOKED AT? >> YES. >> MS. WILLIAMS? >> YES. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THIS CALL TO THE NSC LAWYERS. WHY DID YOU DO THAT? >> AT THIS POINT, I HAD ALREADY BEEN TRACKING THIS INITIALLY WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE, FALSE NARRATIVE AND I WAS CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS STARTING TO REVERBERATE, GAIN TRACTION, THE FACT THAT THE JULY 10th CALL ENDED UP BEING PRONOUNCED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD ME ALERTED TO THIS AND I WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT REPORT, I WAS INVITED TO FOLLOW-UP WITH ANY OTHER CONCERNS TO MR. IDENTIFY EN BERG. >> WE’RE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT JULY 10th MEETING IN A MOMENT.WHEN YOU SAY ALTERNATIVE FALSE NARRATIVES, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REFERENCED IN THE CALL? >> YES. >> NOW AT SOME POINT DID YOU ALSO DISCUSS HOW THE WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE CALL RECORD SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH THE NSC LAWYERS? >> THERE WAS — FOLLOWING THE REPORT, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION IN THE LEGAL SHOP ON THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE A TRANSCRIPT, YES. >> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THEY 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 PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRANSCRIPT, IT SHOULD BE SEGREGATED TO A SMALLER GROUP OF FOLKS. >> TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRANSCRIPT, WHAT DID THAT MEAN? >> I’M NOT SURE — IT SEEMS LIKE A LEGAL TERM. I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY. BUT IT WAS — I DIDN’T TAKE IT AS ANYTHING NEFARIOUS. I UNDERSTOOD THEY WANTED TO KEEP IT IN A SMALLER GROUP. >> IF THERE WAS REAL INTEREST IN PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRANSCRIPT, DON’T YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED YOUR CORRECTION THAT BURISMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED? >> NOT NECESSARILY.THE WAY THESE EDITS OCCUR, THEY GO THROUGH LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, AN APPROVAL PROCESS. I MADE MY CONTRIBUTION. IT WAS CLEARED BY MR. MORRISON, THEN WHEN I RETURNED IT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN. THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS, I THINK IN THIS CASE, I DIDN’T SEE — WHEN I FIRST SAW THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT THE TWO SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS I ATTEMPTED TO INCLUDE, I DIDN’T SEE IT AS NEFARIOUS, I SAW IT AS OKAY, NO BIG DEAL. MIGHT BE MEANINGFUL, BUT NO BIG DPEEL. >> YOU SAID TWO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES. WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? >> THERE WAS ONE IN A SECTION OF — ON PAGE 4 THE TOP PARAGRAPH, LET ME FIND THE RIGHT SPOT. OKAY. YES. YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT. ELLIPSE, THERE ARE VIDEOS AS I RECALL OR RECORDINGS. >> INSTEAD OF AN ELLIPSE, IT SHOULD HAVE 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 THE 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 HAD IT. >> CAN’T YOU ALSO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF 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 MY — AFTER THE FACT — AFTER I CONVEYED MY CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG, MR. ELLIS CAME IN, HE HADN’T HEARD THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION. WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IT WAS SENSITIVE, IT WAS ON THE FLY DECISION TO — >> MR. EISENBERG AND MR. ELLIS ARE THE NSC LAWYERS? >> CORRECT. >> IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING IT WAS NOT I MISTAKE TO PUT IT 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 AT BOTH OF YOU ABOUT THE APRIL 21st 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 THE APRIL 21st CALL. AND I’M NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING. YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION WHERE IT SAYS ROOT OUT CORRUPTION? >> YES. >> SO IN THE END THIS READOUT WAS FALSE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S — THAT’S — MAYBE THAT’S A BIT OF A — IT’S NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE.BUT I’M NOT SURE IF I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS FALSE. IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY AND THESE ITEMS ARE USED AS MESSAGING TOOLS ALSO. SO A STATEMENT THAT GOES OUT, IN ADDITION TO CATO — READING OUT THE MESSAGE IS A MESSAGING PLATFORM TO SAY WHAT IS IMPORTANT — >> IT IS A PART OF U.S. OFFICIAL POLICY THAT UKRAINE SHOULD ROOT OUT CORRUPTION EVEN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MENTION IT IN THAT APRIL 21st PHONE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? CERTAINLY. >> HE DID NOT MENTION IT IN THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS INCLUDED IN HIS TALKING POINTS FOR THE APRIL 21st CALL AND PRESUMABLY, EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN’T TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE JULY 21st CALL, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN EITHER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> FOR THE APRIL 21st CALL — >> DID NOT MENTION IT IN EITHER, RATHER? >> 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 ZELENSKY EARLIER THIS YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> NOW, MS. WILLIAMS, YOU’VE TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT AFTER THIS APRIL 21st CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO ATTEND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND THAT ON MAY 13th, YOU WERE INFORMED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF’S OFFICE THAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE SHOULD NOT — WILL NOT BE GOING AS PER REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S WHAT I WAS INFORMED, YES. >> AND YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HAD CHANGED FROM APRIL 21st TO MAY 13th, IS THAT RIGHT? >> NO, NOT IN TERMS OF THAT DECISION. >> WELL, COLONEL VINDMAN, SINCE YOU IN PARTICULAR A LITTLE BIT MORE PERHAPS THAN MS. WILLIAMS WHO HAS A BROAD R PORTFOLIO FOCUSES ON UKRAINE, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT BETWEEN APRIL 21st TO MAY 13th.WERE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS ABRUPTLY RECALLED. >> YES. >> WERE YOU AWARE — >> TO CORRECT IT, SHE WAS RECALLED PRIOR — LET’S SEE. SO THE NOTIFICATION OCCURRED TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL AND SHE WAS FINALLY RECALLED IN MAY TIME FRAME, I THINK MAY 20th IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. >> SHE LEARNED ABOUT IT AFTER APRIL 21st, ON THE 24th, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A TELEPHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN DURING THIS TIME PERIOD IN EARLY MAY? >> I WAS. >> AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD PLANNED A TRIP TO GO TO UKRAINE TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINIANS TO INITIATE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED ON THE JULY 25th CALL IN THIS TIME PERIOD? >> I WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS TRAVELING THERE AND THAT HE HAD BEEN PROMOTING THE IDEA OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS. >> I WANT TO MOVE NOW TO THAT JULY 10th MEETING THAT YOU REFERENCE, COLONEL VINDMAN.WHAT EXACTLY DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 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. >> AND WHAT HAPPENED TO — >> WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS. >> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BROADER MEETING AFTER HE MADE THAT REFERENCE? >> AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY ENDED THE MEETING. >> HOW — DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THIS MEETING? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> DID YOU FOLLOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THE OTHERS TO THE WARD ROOM FOR A MEETING FOLLOW-UP? >> IT WAS A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY THAT WE LEVERAGED IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE U.S. SUPPORT. SO THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT DEMONSTRATING USE FOR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND TECHNOCRAT AND AFTER THAT, WE WENT DOWN TO A SHORT POST MEETING DEBRIEF. >> WERE THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION THAT IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REFERENCED IN THE LARGER MEETING ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE WARD ROOM MEETING? >> THEY WERE. >> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY? >> HE REFERRED TO INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS, BURISMA 2016. >> HOW DID YOU RESPOND, IF AT ALL? >> I SAID THAT THE REQUESTS TO CONDUCT THESE MEETINGS WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. >> WAS AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN THIS MEETING AS WELL? >> I DON’T RECALL SPECIFICALLY. I BELIEVE HE WAS THERE FOR AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE TIME. I DON’T RECALL IF HE WAS THERE FOR THAT — THE WHOLE MEETING. >> WAS — WAS THIS STATEMENT MADE IN FRONT OF THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS? >> I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE — TO THE UKRAINIANS LEAVING WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THERE WAS 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’RE REFERRING TO, DID THAT INCLUDE FIONA HILL, YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME? >> CORRECT. >> YOU SAID YOU REPORTED THIS INCIDENT TO THE NSC LAWYERS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE? >> JOHN EISENBERG SAID THAT HE TOOK NOTES AND WOULD LOOK INTO IT. >> WHY DID YOU REPORT THIS MEETING AND THIS TO THE NSC LAWYERS? >> BECAUSE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND FOLLOWING THE MEETING I HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION ON THE POST MEETING MEETING IN THE WARD ROOM, HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR — CORRECTION — DR.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 10th 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 1st MEETING BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE ABOUT AT THAT MEETING? >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ASKED THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE STATUS OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE BECAUSE HE HAD SEEN THE POLITICO ARTICLE AND OTHER NEWS REPORTING THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT IN THAT CONVERSATION PRESIDENT 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? >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPLAINED THAT MORE THAN — 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.HE WAS STRESSING THAT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT TO REALLY UNDERSCORE THE NEED FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED. >> AND THAT 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’S WHAT THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS INDICATING, 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 PENCE PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THAT MEETING? >> VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE REASON BEHIND THE HOLD BUT HE DID REASSURE PRESIDENT 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 PENCE REPORT BACK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THAT MEETING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? >> VICE PRESIDENT CONVEYED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW-UP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT EVENING AND CONVEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHAT HE HAD HEARD FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH REGARD TO HIS EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT REFORMS IN UKRAINE. I AM 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 TEN DAYS AFTER THIS MEETING? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND AM I CORRECT THAT YOU DIDN’T LEARN THE REASON WHY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU DIDN’T LEARN A REASON WHY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE COMMITTEES LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE UKRAINE MATTERS SEPTEMBER 9th, TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HOLD WAS LIFTED? >> I AM AWARE AND I WAS AWARE. >> ON SEPTEMBER 10th, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REQUESTED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 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 WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT PRIOR TO THAT DATE? >> THE FIRST I HEARD OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IS I BELIEVE WHEN THE NEWS BROKE. I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE COMMITTEES INVESTIGATING THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.>> SO IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY, COLONEL VINDMAN THAT WHATEVER REASON THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE HOLD, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, WHICH WOULD — WELL, WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE HOLD, WOULD SUPPORT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT RIGHT, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> I’M SORRY, I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND. >> I WAS ASKING THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPORTED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> SO THE INTERAGENCY POLICY WAS TO SUPPORT ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> NOW, RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES. >> MS. WILLIAMS, WELCOME. I WANT TO ESTABLISH A FEW BASIC FACTS ABOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. UKRAINE, BURISMA AND THE ROLE OF THE BIDENS. YOU SPEND A EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF YOUR TIME ON UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> UKRAINE IS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO. I WOULD NOT SAY AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME.BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED ON THIS IN MY EIGHT MONTHS. >> IT’S IN YOUR PORTFOLIO? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> FIRST OFF, WERE YOU AWARE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2015 THEN U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, PUBLICLY CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT OF BURISMA, WERE YOU AWARE OF THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS? >> NO, NOT AT THE TIME. >> YOU ARE TODAY, THOUGH? >> I HAVE SINCE HEARD THEM, YES. >> DID YOU KNOW OF ANTI-TRUMP EFFORTS BY VARIOUS UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AS WELL AS ALEXANDER CHALUPA, DNC CONSULTANT? >> NO I WAS NOT AWARE. >> DID YOU KNOW ABOUT SECRETARY OF STATE KENT’S CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST INTO HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA? >> I DID NOT WORK ON UKRAINE POLICY DURING THAT TIME FRAME. I’VE BECOME AWARE OF IT THROUGH — >> IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO? >> I’VE BECOME AWARE OF IT THROUGH MR.KENT’S TESTIMONY, THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY ROUTED $3 MILLION THROUGH AMERICAN ACCOUNTS TIED TO HUNTER BIDEN? >> I WAS NOT AWARE. >> UNTIL — >> UNTIL — >> YOU PREPARED FOR THIS HEARING? >> UNTIL OTHERS HAVE BEEN TESTIFYING IN MORE DETAIL ON THE ISSUES. >> YOU’VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT MORE CLOSELY? >> CORRECT. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA’S AMERICAN LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AFTER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORCED THE FIRING OF THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR? >> AGAIN, SIR, I WAS NOT WORKING ON THAT POLICY DURING THAT TIME. >> THESE ARE NOT TRICK QUESTIONS. I’M. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> THEY PRESSURED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE RAID AND MONTH BEFORE THE FIRING OF SHOW CAN AND THAT THEY INVOEBLGD HUNTER BIDEN’S NAME AS A REASON TO INTERVENE? >> I WAS NOT AWARE. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN CALLED YU YAN CRAN PRESIDENT THREE TIMES IN FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE PRESIDENT’S HOME WAS RAIDED BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE THERE? >> I’VE BECOME AWARE OF THAT THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING.>> THANK YOU. MS. WILLIAMS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I’LL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS TO ESTABLISH BASIC FACTS ABOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT UKRAINE, BURISMA AND THE ROLE OF THE BIDENS. IN SEPTEMBER 2015, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, JEFFREY PYATT CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT OF BURISMA. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE 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 THE DEPOSITIONS AFTER THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEGAN. >> DID YOU KNOW OF ANTI-TRUMP EFFORTS BY VARIOUS UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS WELL AS ALEXANDER CHALUPA, A D AND C CONSULTANT. >> I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE INTERFERENCE EFFORTS. >> DID YOU KNOW ABOUT DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE KENT’S CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH HUNTER BIDEN SITTING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA? >> ONLY THING I’M AWARE OF IS PERTAINS TO HIS DEPOSITION. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT FINANCIAL RECORDS SHOW A UKRAINIAN NATURAL GOES COMPANY 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 MR. BIDEN MAY HAVE — THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I’M AWARE OF. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DAYS AFTER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FORCED THE FIRING OF THE COUNTRY’S CHIEF PROSECUTOR? >> I’M NOT AWARE OF THESE MEETINGS. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT BURISMA LAWYERS PRESSURED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN FEBRUARY 2016 AFTER THE RAID AND A MONTH BEFORE THE FIRING OF SHOEK AN THAT THEY INVOKED HUNTER BIDEN’S NAME AS A REASON TO INTERVENE? >> I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THESE FACTS. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT JOE BIDEN CALLED YU YAN CRAN PRESIDENT POUR CHENG OWE THREE TEAMS IN FEBRUARY OF 2016 AFTERBURISMA’S HOME WAS RAIDED BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE? >> I’M AWARE OF THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT — VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS VERY 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 THREE YEARS CONDUCTING VARIOUS INVESTIGATIONS STARTING WITH THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX, ABUSE, DEMOCRATIC HYSTERIA OVER THE LACK OF COLLUSION IN THE MUELLER REPORT AND NOW THIS IMPEACHMENT CHARADE. ONE OF THE MOST CONCERNING THINGS REGARDING ALL OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS IS THE AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED OR OTHERWISE SENSITIVE INFORMATION I READ IN THE PRESS THAT DERIVE EITHER FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR SOURCES IN THE ADMINISTRATION. TO BE CLEAR, I’M NOT ACCUSING EITHER ONE OF YOU OF LEAKING INFORMATION. HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT YOU ARE THE FIRST WITNESSES WHO ACTUALLY HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CALL BY LISTENING IN ON JULY 25th, IT’S IMPERATIVE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS THAT WE GET A QUICK 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 JULY 25th TO SEPTEMBER 25th. >> OKAY. >> DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR ANY MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHONE CALL WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THE PRESS? >> NO. >> TO BE CLEAR, YOU NEVER DISCUSSED THESE MATTERS WITH “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” THE “WASHINGTON POST,” 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 25th 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 25th PHONE CALL OR MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >> NO, I DO NOT. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, SAME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25th 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 DID NOT DISCUSS THIS WITH “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” THE “WASHINGTON POS,” POLITICO, CNN OR ANY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET? >> I DID NOT. >> DID YOU ASK OR ENCOURAGE ANY INDIVIDUAL STO SHARE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25th 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 25th PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >> WE HAVE AN NIC PRESS SHOP AND THEY FIELD 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 25th PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >> WE HAVE AN NCS PRESS SHOP WHOSE JOB IS TO ENGAGE ON ANY OF THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. I AM NOT AWARE OF BUT IT IS POSSIBLE AND LIKELY THAT THE PRESS SHOP WOULD HAVE HAD — WOULD FIELD THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. >> THE QUESTION — >> THE QUESTION IS DO YOU KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL, DO YOU PERSONALLY KNOW ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO DISCUSSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL OR ANY MATTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS? >> THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER FOR CLARIFYING. I DO NOT. >> MS.WILLIAMS, DID YOU DISCUSS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 25th OR JULY 26th AND IF SO WITH WHOM? >> NO, I DID NOT DISCUSS THE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE. >> MS. MILL YAMS, DURING YOUR TIME ON THE NSC, HAVE YOU EVER ACCESSED A COLLEAGUE’S WORK COMPUTER WITHOUT THEIR PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL? >> I HAVE NOT. I’M IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. NOT ON THE NSC. >> RIGHT. BUT REPRESENTING — >> NO, I HAVE NOT. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU DISCUSS THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE ON JULY 25th OR THE 26th AND IF SO, WITH WHOM? >> YES.I DID. MY CORE FUNCTION IS TO COORDINATE U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY, INTERAGENCY POLICY. I SPOKE TO TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH REGARDS TO PROVIDING SOME SORT OF READOUT. >> TO INDIVIDUAL THAT WERE NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >> NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, CLEARED U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WITH APPROPRIATE NEED TO KNOW. >> WHAT AGENCIES WERE THESE OFFICIALS WITH? >> DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPUTY SIS STANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTFOLIO EASTERN EUROPE, INCLUDING UKRAINE AND AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE OFFICE OF INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. >> 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 THE PROCEEDINGS — >> IT’S OUR TIME. >> BUT WE NEED TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> PLEASE STOP — >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE’S NO EFFORT TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THROUGH THESE PROCEEDINGS. IF THE WITNESS HAS A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT THIS MAY REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE THAT WE’RE HERE FOR AND I WANT TO ADVISE THE WITNESS ACCORDINGLY. >> MR. VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> RANKING MEMBER, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, PLEASE. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS. >> I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS. >> HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO NAME THESE PEOPLE AND THEN OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER? >> PER THE ADVICE OF MY COUNSEL, I’VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO ANSWER A SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. >> THIS IS — ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT’S CONDUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING? >> OF COURSE I AM. >> WOULDN’T 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 THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, I’VE BEEN ADVISED NOT TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIFICS ON WHO I HAVE SPOKEN TO WITH INSIDE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.WHAT I CAN OFFER, THESE WERE PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUALS OR WAS A PROPERLY CLEARED INDIVIDUAL WITH A NEED TO KNOW. >> WELL, THIS IS — YOU CAN REALLY PLEAD THE FIFTH. BUT YOU’RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND YOU’RE HERE UNDER SUBPOENA. SO YOU CAN EITHER ANSWER THE QUESTION OR PLEAD THE FIFTH. >> EXCUSE ME. ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, WE’RE FOLLOWING THE RULE OF THE COMMITTEE. THE RULE OF THE CHAIR WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE AND THIS IS NOT CALL FOR AN ANSWER INVOING THE FIFTH OR ANY THEORETICAL ISSUE LIKE THAT. WE’RE FOLLOWING THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. >> COUNSELOR, WHAT RULING IS THAT? >> IF I COULD INTERJECT, COUNSEL IS CORRECT. WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT BE USED TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> I’VE ADVISED MY CLIENT ACCORDINGLY. HE’S GOING TO FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. IF THERE’S AN ALTERNATIVE OR YOU WANT TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THE CHAIR, THAT’S UP TO YOU. >> WE’VE ATTEMPTED TO SUBPOENA THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO SIT FOR A DEPOSITION. THE CHAIR HAS TABLED THAT MOTION.AND HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE THOSE MOTIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUISITION PROCESS. I’LL GO TO MR. CASTER. >> THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER NUNES. >> THE TRANSCRIPT AS PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 25th IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE, WILL YOU BOTH ATTEST TO THAT, MS. WILLIAMS? >> I DIDN’T TAKE A WORD FOR WORD ACCOUNTING WHEN I FIRST SAW THE PUBLICLY RELEASED VERSION, IT LOOKED SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT TO ME. >> COLONEL VINDMAN. >> I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS SUBSTANTIVELY CORRECT. >> I THINK IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID VERY ACCURATE. >> CORRECT. >> YOU FLAGGED A COUPLE EDITS, COLONEL VINDMAN. I THINK YOU HAD BURISMA ON PAGE 4. >> YES. >> WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE COMPANY MENTIONED IN THE ISSUE? >> I’M SORRY. COULD YOU SAY THAT QUESTION AGAIN? >> YOU OFFERED AN EDIT THAT ON PAGE 4 OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS ULTIMATELY PUBLISHED, YOU THOUGHT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONED THE WORD BURISMA. >> I HAD IT IN MY NOTES. I KNOW THAT’S WHAT HE SAID, YEAH. >> MS. WILLIAMS — THAT WAS ON PAGE 4? >> CORRECT. >> MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU CHECKED YOUR NOTES AND YOU HAD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY USING THE TERM BURISMA AS WELL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> BUT THAT CAME UP ON A DIFFERENT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAN WHAT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS RELATING TO, CORRECT? >> YES, I BELIEVE SO. >> YOURS CAME UP ON PAGE 5 AND IT WAS IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE WORD CASE? >> THAT’S RIGHT. THAT’S WHERE I HAVE IT IN MY NOTES. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, WE’VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY AND ALSO YOUR DEPP STIGS ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD A DEMAND FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.YOU KNOW, I SUGGESTED 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’S POSSIBLE, ON PAGE 4, HE MENTIONS IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO HIM, HE TALKS ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR RUDY GIULIANI. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 4, HE SAYS WHATEVER YOU CAN DO. THE PRESIDENT ALSO SAYS YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT AND I ASKED YOU DURING YOUR DEPOSITION WHETHER YOU SAW OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE COULD READ THAT TO BE AMBIGUOUS. >> I SAID CORRECT. >> PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY PRECONCEIVED, IS THAT WHAT YOU TESTIFIED? >> ACTUALLY, IF I COULD ASK FOR A PAGE CITE. >> 256. >> 256. AND A LINE? JUST A MINUTE. >> WE GOT THE PAGE. >> OKAY. THEN YOU WENT ON TO SAY, YEAH. YOU AGREED WITH ME. SAID I GUESS YOU COULD INTERPRET IT DIFFERENT WAYS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY. TURNING 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’LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. THAT RELATES TO THE STORAGE OF IT. YOU HAD CONCERNS, MR. MORRISON ARTICULATED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT IF THE TRANSCRIPT WAS LEAKED OUT AND I THINK BOTH YOU AND MR. MORRISON AGREED IT NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED? >> IN THE INTEREST OF CORRECTION, I DON’T THINK IT WAS MR.MORRISON. IT WAS MR. EISENBERG, RIGHT? >> MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED AT HIS DEPOSITION — >> OKAY. WE DON’T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF US. IF YOU CAN GIVE US THAT, WE’LL TAKE A LOOK. >> I CAN SAY FOR MYSELF, THERE WERE — THE CONCERNS ABOUT LEAKS SEEMED VALID AND I WASN’T PARTICULARLY CRITICAL. I THOUGHT THIS WAS SENSITIVE AND I WAS NOT GOING TO QUESTION THE ATTORNEY’S JUDGMENT ON THAT. >> EVEN THE CODE WORD SERVER, YOU HAD ACCESS TO IT? >> YES. >> SO AT NO POINT IN TIME DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES WERE YOU DENIED ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION? >> CORRECT. >> IS THAT CORRECT? MS.WILLIAMS, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU FOR A MOMENT. YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU BELIEVE THE TRANSCRIPT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE OTHER THAN THE ONE ISSUE YOU MENTIONED? >> 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 IN ON THE CALL AS WELL. BECAUSE HE HAD HEARD THE SAME INFORMATION, I DID NOT FEEL A NEED TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT IT. >> AND YOU NEVER HAD CONCERNS WITH ANYONE ELSE IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE. >> I DID NOT DISCUSS THE CALL ANY FURTHER WITH ANYONE IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE. >> YOU DIDN’T FLAG IT FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF OR THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL OR ANYONE OF THAT SORT? >> AGAIN, MY IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, LIEUTENANT GENERAL KELLOGG WAS IN THE ROOM WITH ME.>> DID YOU AND GENERAL KELLOGG EVER DISCUSS THE CALL? >> WE DID NOT. >> THE VICE PRESIDENT OF WARSAW WAS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW. YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE VICE PRESIDENT’S BRIEFING MATERIAL? >> I WAS. >> DID YOU FLAG FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT THIS PARTS OF THE CALL THAT HAD CONCERNED YOU? >> NO. WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE CALL TRANSCRIPT IN THE TRIP BRIEFING BOOK. WE DON’T NORMALLY INCLUDE PREVIOUS CALLS IN TRIP BRIEFING BOOKS. >> IF THE CONCERNS WERE SO SIGNIFICANT, HOW COME NOBODY 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 DISCUSSION THAT WAS LIKELY TO OCCUR ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR THAT MEETING. >> TO YOUR RECOLLECTION — YOU WERE IN THE MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND ZELENSKY AND BURISMA DIDN’T COME UP. >> NO, IT DID NOT. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS LONG-STANDING CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> I DON’T RECALL. BUT THERE ARE CONCERNS. THERE ARE BROAD CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION, YES. >> YOU WOULD AGREE IF THE U.S. IS GIVING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO A FOREIGN NATION THAT HAS A CORRUPTION PROBABLE PLEM, THAT’S CERTAINLY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PRESIDENT WOULD WANT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT? >> YES. >> IF A FOREIGN COUNTRY HAS A PROBLEM WITH OLIGARCHS TAKING MONEY, TAXPAYER DOLLARS, THE PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IN ADVANCE OF DISPENSING THE AID? >> YES. >> I BELIEVE YOU DID TESTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS ENDEMIC IN UKRAINE? >> CORRECT. >> ARE YOU ALSO AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT’S SKEPTICISM OF FOREIGN AID GENERALLY. >> >>. >> HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE IT’S SPENT WISELY. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU’RE AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCERNS ABOUT BURDEN SHARING AMONG OUR ALLIES? >> YES. >> AND WITH REPEKT TO UKRAINE, HE WAS INTERESTED AND ENGAGE TO SEE IF THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR THE EUROPEAN ALLIES TO CONTRIBUTE MORE? >> YES, THAT WOULD BE IN THE CONTEXT OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE. IN TERMS OF BURDEN SHARING, THE EUROPEAN UNION PROVIDES OVER $15 BILLION. >> OKAY. SINCE 2014. >> YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONCERN OF BURDEN SHARING, RIGHT? >> I AM. >> TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPANY OF BURISMA, THE CO-FOUNDER OF BURISMA, ONE OF UKRAINE’S LARGEST NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS, CORRECT? >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. >> IT’S BEEN SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS INVESTIGATIONS OVER THE YEARS. >> I’M NOT AWARE — I GUESS I COULDN’T POINT TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS BUT THERE IS A WHAT I WOULD CALL A PATTERN OF QUESTIONABLE DEALINGS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION. >> HE HAD SERVED AS THE MINISTER OF ECOLOGY DURING PRESIDENT YANUKOVYCH’S TENURE? >> I CAME TO KNOW THAT. >> GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK. UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, 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’S A FOUNTAIN OF KNOWLEDGE, DEEPER KNOWLEDGE THAN I HAVE. IF HE — IF HE ATTESTED TO THAT, I WOULD TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT. >> HE TESTIFIED THAT THE U.S. ALONG WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM WAS EN CAGED IN TRYING TO ROW COUPE $23 MILLION FROM THEM? >> I UNDERSTAND HE TESTIFIED TO THAT, YES. >> MR. KENT ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS MOVING ALONG AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE WAS A — AND THE INVESTIGATION WENT AWAY. DID YOU HEAR HIM MENTION THAT? >> I HEARD HIM MENTION THAT. THESE ARE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE MY TIME. BEYOND WHAT HE SAID, I DON’T KNOW MUCH MORE. >> FAIR ENOUGH.RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THE BRIBE WAS PAID, THE COMPANY SOUGHT TO BOLSTER THEIR BOARD. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY TAPPED LUMINARIES FOR THEIR CORPORATE BOARD? >> CERTAINLY, I 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. >> WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT — AT YOUR DEPOSITION ABOUT WHETHER MR.BIDEN WAS QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD AND I BELIEVE YOU ACKNOWLEDGED 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. >> OKAY. >> AT ONE POINT THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE WAS FOCUSING ON ATTENDING THAT, CORRECT? >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> AND SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE DOESN’T WANT THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY AT THE SAME TIME? >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT. >> DURING THAT TIME, THE PRESIDENT WAS IN JAPAN, I BELIEVE HE WAS IN JAPAN MAY 24th TO THE 28th. AND THEN HE RETURNED TO EUROPE FOR THE D-DAY CEREMONIES. JUNE 2nd TO 7th. I THINK YOU TOLD US THERE WAS A WINDOW, YOU PROVIDED OF FOUR DAYS AT THE END OF MAY THAT IF THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO ATTEND THE INAUGURATION, IT HAD TO BE 29th, 30th, 31st OR 1st? >> OUR EMBASSY HAD BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UKRAINIANS, WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S TEAM AND AS WE LEARNED, OBVIOUSLY THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT WAS NOT GOING TO COME BACK INTO SESSION UNTIL MID-MAY. WE WOULDN’T KNOW FORMALLY WHAT THE DATE WOULD BE. BUT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INITIAL THINKING WAS THAT THE — THEY WERE LOOKING AT DATES AT THE END OF MAY.HONING IN ON THAT TIME FRAME, WE WERE AWARE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PLAN TO TRAVEL ON EITHER END. THAT’S WHY WE ADVISED THE UKRAINIANS IF VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WERE TO ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, THE ONLY AVAILABLE DAYS WERE MAY 30th, 31st OR JUNE 1st. >> BEFORE THE VICE PRESIDENT TRAVELS TO A FOREIGN NATION, YOU HAVE TO SEND THE SECRET SERVICE, DO ADVANCE WORK, BOOK HOTELS. IT’S A RELATIVELY INVOLVED PREPARATION EXPERIENCE, RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT.>> AND DO YOU KNOW IF THE SECRET SERVICE EVER DEPLOYED, BOOKED HOTELS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT OUR ADVANCE TEAM WAS LOOKING INTO THOSE PREPARATIONS, INCLUDING HOTEL AVAILABILITY. WE WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEND OUT SECRET SERVICE AND OTHER ADVANCE PERSONNEL IN ORDER TO LAY GROUNDWORK FOR A TRIP. BUT BECAUSE WE WEREN’T SURE YET WHEN THE DATE WOULD BE, WE HESITATED TO SEND THOSE OFFICIALS OUT. >> ULTIMATELY, THE SECRET SERVICE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DID NOT DEPLOY? >> I DON’T BELIEVE THEY DID, NO. >> OKAY. THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION WAS MAY 20th, IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> YOU HAD ABOUT FOUR DAYS’ NOTICE. >> IN THE END THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT DECIDED MAY 16th TO SET THE DATE FOR MAY 20th. >> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE WHOLE OPERATION TO MOBILIZE AND GET OVER TO UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WE HAD STOPPED THE TRIP PLANNING BY THAT POINT. >> AND WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? >> STOPPING THE TRIP PLANNING? >> YEAH. >> MAY 13th. >> >> HO YOU DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT. >> I WAS TOLD BY A COLLEAGUE AND VICE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF’S OFFICE TO STOP THE TRIP PLANNING. >> CHIEF OF STAFF? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND SO YOU DIDN’T HEAR ABOUT IT FROM GENERAL KELLOGG OR THE CHIEF OF STAFF? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> YOU HEARD ABOUT IT FROM MR. SCHWARTZ ASSISTANT? >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE REASONING FOR STOPPING THE TRIP? >> I ASKED MY COLLEAGUE WHY WE SHOULD STOP TRIP PLANNING. WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT BE ATTENDING. AND I WAS INFORMED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD DECIDED THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ATTEND THE INAUGURATION. >> BUT DO YOU KNOW CONTRACT PRESIDENT DECIDED? >> NO, SHE DID NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. >> OKAY. AND ULTIMATELY THE VICE PRESIDENT WENT TO CANADA FOR A USMCA EVENT? >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> DURING THIS WINDOW OF TIME, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO ENTIRELY CONCEIVABLE THAT THE PRESIDENT DECIDED VICE PRESIDENT WANTED TO GO TO CANADA INSTEAD OF DOING ANYTHING ELSE, CORRECT? >> I’M REALLY NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE HYPED THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION. >> YOU KNOW THE VICE PRESIDENT DOES A LOT OF THESE EVENTS, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> AND ARE YOU AWARE OF 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 WHO WAS PLANNING THAT TRIP THAT WE HAD COMPETING TRIPS POTENTIALLY FOR THE SAME WINDOW. BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THE UKRAINE TRIP WOULD TAKE PRIORITY. >> BUT ULTIMATELY YOU DON’T KNOW? >> ABOUT THE CANADA TRIP? >> YOU DON’T KNOW THE REASON WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS SENT TO CANADA INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE UKRAINE? >> I WOULD SAY I DON’T KNOW THE REASON BEHIND WHY THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO GO TO UKRAINE.I CAN’T SPEAK ABOUT THE CANADA TRIP MOTIVATIONS. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, I’D LIKE TO TURN A LITTLE BIT TO THE JULY 10th MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON OFFICE. AND THE SUBSEQUENT POST MEETING IN THE WAR ROOM. WHO ALL WAS IN THE MEETING TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION? >> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE WARD ROPE OR THE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON? >> WE’LL START WITH THE FIRST MEETING IN AMBASSADOR OFFICE. >> SO FROM 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 FROM THE UKRAINE. >> FOR THE UKRAINIANS SORRY. >> FOR THE UKRAINIAN SIDE, WE HAD ALEXANDER DULAYC, AND YERMAK AND THE ADVISER ALEXIS. >> OKAY. AND YOU TESTIFIED YOU COULDN’T RECALL EXACTLY WHY AMBASSADOR BOLTON STOPPED THE MEETING SHORT. AND YOU ONLY LEARNED IT SUBSEQUENTLY TALKING TO DR. FIONA HILL? >> I DIDN’T, FRANKLY, 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. >> AND THE GROUP DECAMED TO TAKE A PHOTO, CORRECT? >>> CORRECT. >> OKAY. SO THE GENERAL FEELING OF THE GROUP WAS A POSITIVE ONE AT THAT TIME EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE ENDED ABRUPTLY? >> I THINK AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED. HE UNDERSTOOD THE STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY F HAVING A PHOTO AND WE PROMPTED HIM BEFORE WE COMPLETELY ADJOURNED TO SEE IF HE WAS WILLING TO DO A PHOTO, AND HE DID. >> SO YOU WENT OUT TO WESSEX TIVE OR WHEREVER IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND I THINK YOU SAID YOU TOOK IT. >> I CERTAINLY TOOK A COUPLE OF THEM, YES. >> AND IN THE PHOTO IS SECRETARY PERRY, AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER. >> THAT’S RIGHT, YES. >> MR. LUKE AND MR. YERMAK. >> AND I APOLOGIZE WHEN I WAS RUNNING THROUGH THE U.S. SIDE, OF COURSE BOZ BOLTON, SONDLAND AND SECRETARY PERRY WAS THERE. >> OKAY. NOW, YOU TESTIFIED THAT BEFORE THE JULY 10th MEETING YOU HAD DEVELOPED CONCERNS ABOUT THE NARRATIVE INVOLVING RUDY GIULIANI. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND HAD YOU HEARD FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT FROM ANYONE ON THE INSIDE? OR HAD YOU JUST BEEN FOLLOWING NEWS ACCOUNTS? >> SO I CERTAINLY WAS FOLLOWING NEWS ACCOUNTS.AND THAT’S FROM THE UKRAINIAN SIDE, UKRAINIAN PRESS AND U.S. PRESS. >> OKAY. AND THEN — >> AND MY COLLEAGUES IN THE INTERAGENCY ALSO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AS THIS HAD STARTED IN THE MARITIME FRAME KIND OF EMANATING FROM THE JOHN SOL MAN STORY ALL THE WAY THROUGH. SO THERE HAD BEEN ONGOING CONVERSATIONS SO SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCE, COUNSEL. >> OKAY. AND SO WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MENTIONED THE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU SORT OF HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A CLUE WHAT THE ISSUE WAS? >> OH, DEFINITELY. >> OKAY. THEN YOU TOOK THE PHOTO, VERY NICE PHOTO, THEN YOU WENT TO THE WARD ROOM? >> CORRECT. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER, I THINK YOU CAN CONCEDED TO US YOU HAD A HARD TIME REMEMBERING EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID IN THE WARD ROOM. AGAIN, IT’S FOUR MONTHS AGO. IT’S HARD TO BE PRECISE WHETHER SONDLAND, WHAT SPECIFIC WORDS HE USED, WHETHER HE USED BURISMA 2016 INVESTIGATIONS. >> YEAH. SO 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, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN MAYBE GO BACK TO THIS, BUT I THINK ON PAGE 64 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DON’T REMEMBER THEM 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. >> OKAY. >> 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 WHETHER WHEN MR. MORRIS SON TOOK OVER THE PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL, WHETHER YOU WERE SIDELINES AT ALL. DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE? >> SO I CERTAINLY WAS EXCLUDED OR DIDN’T PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIP TO UKRAINE, BELARUS AT THE END OF AUGUST. AND I WASN’T INITIALLY, BEFORE IT CHANGED FROM A POT US 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. MORRIS SON ABOUT WHY YOU WEREN’T INCLUDED ON THOSE TRIPS? >> I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON LEAVE FROM THE 3 OF AUGUST UNTIL ABOUT THE 16th OF AUGUST. AND HE CALLED ME AND ASKED ME TO RETURN. THERE WAS, OBVIOUSLY, HIGH PRIORITY TRAVEL TO THE REGION, HE NEEDED MY ASSISTANCE TO HELP PLAN FOR IT.AND IN ASKING ME TO RETURN EARLY FROM LEAVE, WHICH I HAD TAKEN FREQUENTLY, I ASSUMED THAT I’D BE GOING ON THE TRIP. SO WHEN I WAS, AFTER RETURNING FROM LEAVE EARLY, WHEN I WAS TOLD I WASN’T GOING, I INQUIRED ABOUT IT, CORRECT. >> OKAY. AND WHAT FEEDBACK DID HE GIVE YOU? >> HE INITIALLY TOLD ME THAT THE AIRCRAFT THAT WAS ACQUIRED, THE MILL AIR, WAS TOO SMALL, AND THERE WASN’T ENOUGH ROOM. >> OKAY. HAD YOU EVER HAD ANY 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? >> YES. >> NO. >> DID MR. MORRISON EXPRESS CONCERNS TO YOU THAT HE THOUGHT YOU WEREN’T FOLLOWING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND? >> HE DID NOT. >> AND DID DR. HILL OR MR. MORRISON EVER ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER YOU WERE TRYING TO ACCESS INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF 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. >> AND 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 ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE WORKING ON, INCLUDING THE POLICY THAT WE DEVELOPED OVER THE PRECEDING MONTHS. AND I THOUGHT I COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THAT, TO THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. >> OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE — YOU WENT TO UKRAINE FOR THE INAUGURATION? >> CORRECT. >> MAY 20th. AT ANY POINT DURING THAT TRIP DID HE OFFER YOU? >> HE DID. >> AND HOW MANY TIMES DID HE DO THAT? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS THREE TIMES. >> AND 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 COUNTER INTELLIGENCE FOLKS ABOUT THIS, THE OFFER. >> UKRAINE IS IT A COUNTRY THAT’S EXPERIENCED A WAR WITH RUSSIA, CERTAINLY THEIR MINISTER OF DEFENSE IS A PRETTY KEY POSITION FOR THE UKRAINIANS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, TO BEST SO THAT HONOR ON YOU. >> I’M CERTAINLY AWARE OF THAT HONOR. AND I’VE KNOWN LEFT SERVICE TO NURTURE THE DEMOCRACIES IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY BALTICS. TWS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER THAT BECAME MINISTER OF DEFENSE, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. BUT I’M AN 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 THAT HE HAD TO COME BACK AND ASK A SECOND AND THIRD TIME? OR WAS HE JUST TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU? >> COUNSEL, YOU KNOW WHAT, 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. >> OKAY. >> BUT IT IS PRETTY FUNNY FOR LIEUTENANT COLONEL IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY TO BE OFFERED THAT POSITION. >> WHEN HE MADE THIS OFFER TO YOU WAS HE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH OR UKRAINIAN. >>> HE IS ABSOLUTELY FLAW LESS SPEAKER SPEAKING IN ENGLISH. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE WERE TWO OTHER STAFF OFFICERS, EMBASSY KIEV STAFF OFFICERS SITTING NEXT TO ME WHEN THIS OFFER WAS MADE. >> AND WHO WERE THEY? >> SO ONE OF THEM YOU MAY HAVE MET S IT WAS MR. DAVID HOLMES. AND THE OTHER ONE WAS, I GUESS, IT’S ANOTHER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER, KEITH BEAN. >> OKAY. WE MET MR. HOLMES LAST FRIDAY EVENING? >> I UNDERSTAND. DELIGHTFUL FELLOW. >> AND YOU SAID WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, YOU HAD GIVEN WITH CLEARANCE, WHENEVER A FOREIGN GOCHT MAKES AN OVERTURE LIKE THAT YOU PAPER IT UP AND TELL YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND? >> I DID, BUT I ALSO DON’T KNOW IF I FULLY ENTERTAINED IT AS A LEGITIMATE OFFER. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE I DID THE RIGHT THING IN TERMS OF REPORTING THIS. >> OKAY. AND DID ANY OF YOUR SUPERVISORS, DR. HILL AT THE TIME, OR DR. KUPPERMAN OR BOLTON FOLLOW UP WITH THAT? IT’S RATHER SIGNIFICANT THEY OFFER YOU A DEFENSE OF MINISTER JOB.DID YOU TELL ANYONE IN COMMAND ABOUT IT? >> I BELIEVE I TOLD THE SENIOR DEPUTY. ONCE I MENTIONED IT TO ONE OF THEM I DON’T BELIEVE THERE WAS EVER A FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION. >> SO IT NEVER CAME UP WITH DR. KUPPERMAN OR HILL. >> FOLLOWING THAT I DON’T REMEMBER HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. >> DID YOU BRIEF DIRECTOR MORSE SON WHEN HE CAME ON BOARD? >> NO, I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT IT. >> OKAY. AND SUBSEQUENT THAT, DID LUKE 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. >> OKAY. AND DID YOU EVER THINK POSSIBLY IF THIS INFORMATION GOT OUT, THIS IT MIGHT CREATE AT LEAST THE PERCEPTION OF A CONFLICT THAT THE UKRAINIANS THOUGHT SO HIGHLY OF YOU TO OFFER YOU THE DEFENSE MINISTRY POST? ONE HAND. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINIAN POLICY AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL? >> FRANKLY, IT’S MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT WHAT MY AMERICAN LEADERSHIP, AMERICAN CHAIN OF COMMAND THINKS THAN ANY OF THE — AND THIS IS — THESE ARE HONORABLE PEOPLE.I’M NOT SURE IF HE MEANT THIS AS A JOKE OR NOT. BUT IT’S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT WHAT MY CIVILIAN THINKS MORE SO THAN ANYONE ELSE. FRANKLY IF THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ME BEING ABLE TO CONTINUE MY DUTIES. >> OF COURSE. >> THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION. DR. HILL STAYED ON FOR SEVERAL MORE MONTHS. AND WE CONTINUED TO WORK TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY. >> OKAY. AND DURING THE TIMES RELEVANT OF THE COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. YERMAK OR LUKE OUTSIDE OF 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, YOU KNOW, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH ANY CONCERNS. >> AND WERE YOU FOLLOWING THIS, YOU NO HE, SORT OF TWO TRACKS, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WALKED US THROUGH IT DURING HIS TESTIMONY LAST WEDNESDAY.HE CALLED IT A REGULAR CHANNEL THEN HE CALLED IT IRREGULAR BUT NOT OUTLANDISH CHANNEL WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND VUL KERR. WERE YOU TRACKING THE SONDLAND AND VOLKER DURING THIS CHANNEL? >> CERTAINLY I WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER, SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SECRETARY PERRY WERE WORKING TOGETHER TO ADVANCE U.S. POLICY INTERESTS THAT WERE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT HAD BEEN AGREED TO. BUT I DIDN’T REALLY LEARN, LIKE I SAID, UNTIL THE JULY 10th, ACTUALLY THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A SLITLY EARLIER POINT. I RECALL A MEETING IN WHICH AMBASSADOR BOLTON FACILITATED A MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND BOLTON IN THE JUNE TIME FRAME.AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS EXTERNAL CHANNEL. >> OKAY. >> BUT I FRANKLY DIDN’T BECOME AWARE OF THESE PARTICULAR U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BEING INVOLVED IN THIS ALTERNATE TRACK UNTIL JULY SOth. >> JULY 10th. >> AND I THINK WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT GIULIANI WAS NEGATIVE. AND CERTAINLY WITH ZELENSKY IT WAS A NEW DAY AND UKRAINE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, BY THE POLICY CHANNELS WITHIN THE NSC, AND THE VOICES OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACTUALLY MET WITH HIM, INCLUDING FOREIGN OFFICIALS. >> AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND’S GOALS WERE HERE AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER’S GOALS WERE HERE, YOU THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO ADMINISTER TO THE BEST OF THE UNITED STATES? >> THAT IS IT WHAT I BELIEVE. >> AND TO THE EXTENT RUDY GIULIANI MAY HAVE HAD DIFFERENT VIEWS, THEY WERE HELPING 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 HAD SETTLED ON. >> AND YOU NEVER CONFERRED WITH MR. GIULIANI? >> NO. >> YOU NEVER HAD ANY MEETINGS, PHONE CALLS, ANY OF THIS SORT? >> I DID NOT. I ONLY KNOW HIM AS NEW YORK’S FINEST MAYOR. >> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS DURING THIS RELEVANT 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. >> THANK THE GENTLEMEN. WE ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO THE FIVE MINUTE MEMBER ROUNDS.ARE YOU GOOD TO GO FORWARD OR DO YOU NEED A BREAK? >> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK? >> SURE. >> I THINK WE’LL ELECT TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK. >> OKAY. LET’S TRY TO TAKE A FIVE OR TEN MINUTE BREAK AND RESUME WITH THE FIVE MINUTE ROUNDS. IF I COULD ASK THE AUDIENCE AND MEMBERS TO PLEASE ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM FIRST. >> AND WE’LL TAKE THAT AS OUR CUE TO ANALYZE WHAT WE’VE WATCHED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS. TWO FOLKS ON THAT CALL WHO HAVE FAMILIAR WHAT WAS LEFT OUT OF ALEXANDER, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND ALONG WITH MS. WILLIAMS BOTH TESTIFYING. AND I THINK WHAT WE SAW, SAVANNAH, WITH COLONEL VINDMAN WAS AN ATTEMPT TO USE HIM AS A CONDUIT TO GET TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> YEAH, THERE WAS AN EXTRA ORDINARY MOMENT WHERE HE WAS ASKED IF HE HAD LEAKED ANY OF THIS INFORMATION. HIS READOUT OF THE CALL TO ANY MEMBER OF THE PRESS. HE SAID HE HAD NOT. THEN HE WAS ASKED DID YOU TELL ANYONE ELSE WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION. HE STARTED TO SAY YES. AND I’M SORRY TO SAY ONE OF THOSE PERSONS WAS IN THE INTELLIGENCE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.AND IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT ADAM SCHIFF, THE CHAIRMAN REACHED OUT TO SAY, WOW, WOW, WOW, WE MIGHT BE GETTING INTO THE WHISTLEBLOWER. SO I THINK THE PRESUMPTION AS WE BRING OUR ANALYSTS INTO THIS, THAT HE COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY SAID I TOLD THIS PERSON AND THAT PERSON MAY WELL BE THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THEY SAME TIME IT’S A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED DO YOU KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER. AND VINDMAN SAYS I DON’T KNOW. BUT IT MAY BE A LITTLE TECHNICAL, ANDREW, HE MAY NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS. HE KNOWS WHO HE TOLD ABOUT THESE MATTERS. AND THAT PERSON MAY WELL BE THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> EXACTLY.SO IN OTHER WORDS HE COULD GIVE THE NAME OF WHO HE TOLD, AND HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR BY THE WAY THAT THE PERSON HE TOLD HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE TOLD AND WAS WITHIN THE PROPER CHAIN AND CLASSIFICATION. AND HE JUST DOESN’T KNOW WHETHER THAT PERSON IN TURN WAS THE WHISTLEBLOWER. BUT THAT IN EFFECT WOULD OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> IF THERE WERE ANY DOUBT, IT WAS ASSUAGED WHEN CHAIRMAN SCHIFF INTERVENED SAYING WE ARE GETTING INTO THE TERRITORY BR WE MAY REVEAL THE WHISTLEBLOWER. SO IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS THE CHAIRMAN IS CONCERNED, VINDMAN TOLD A PERSON WHO TURNS OUT TO BE THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> I HAVE TO SAY THOUGH THEY SPENT AN AWFUL LONG AMOUNT OF TIME ON TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING THAT IS BASICALLY SORT OF NOT REALLY — >> YOU MEAN THE WHISTLEBLOWER THING? >> NOT JUST THE WHISTLEBLOWER BUT TRYING TO DISCREDIT VINDMAN BECAUSE, WELL, HIS INFORMATION MIGHT BE TABT R TAINTED BECAUSE HE MAY HAVE PERSONAL VIEWS THAT ARE IFRN DID.FELT LIKE THEY SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME. THEY DIDN’T GO ANYWHERE. ALL THEY ENDED UP WAS SPENDING AN HOUR RE-AFFIRMING HIS CREDENTIALS. >> QUESTIONS WHETHER HE USED RIGHT CHANNELS? >> RIGHT. YOU WERE OFFERED THIS JOB WITH THE UKRAINE CRAN GOVERNMENT. THE EFFORTS THEY MADE TO DISCREDIT HIM ONLY REINFORCED HIS CREDIBILITY PERHAPS. BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T GET ANY WHERE WITH IT. EVEN WHEN THEY ALMOST HAD AN A-HA MOMENT, OH, YOU WERE OFFERED A JOB, AND THEN THE MORE THAT THEY GOT HIM TO EXPLAIN IT, THE MORE IT WAS OBVIOUS THE WHOLE REASON THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE HE REPORTED IT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS AND DID EVERYTHING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. SO TO ME THEY ONLY REINFORCED HIS CREDIBILITY AS HONEST GREW. >> SO HERE’S THE PROBLEM, THEY COULD ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY, LET’S SAY THEY SUCCESSFULLY ATTACKED THE TWO WITNESSES PRIVY TO THE CALL.THEY STILL HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL WITH ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTS ADMITTED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. SO THESE WITNESSES ONLY GET THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SO FAR. THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT, NEAR VERBATIM OF THIS CALL, AND THESE TWO WITNESSES ARE SAYING YES THAT’S BASICALLY HOW IT HAPPENED THOUGH THEY REMEMBER THEY ACTUALLY USED THE WORD BURISMA. >> RIGHT. AND IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DISTRACT, LET’S LOOK AT WHO POTENTIALLY IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER, WHO CARES.IN OTHER WORDS WHO CARES WHETHER VINDMAN TOLD THIS INFORMATION TO SOMEONE WHO IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER YOU HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT AND VINDMAN. DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HE TOLD THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> THIS IS REMINDER OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE REALITIES THAT THE COUNTRY HAS. IF YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THE PRESIDENT’S CHANNEL YOU FOLLOW THAT QUESTION REALLY CLOSELY. THIS IS THE CENTER OF THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT THE DEEP STATE ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER ABOUT THESE THINGS. IF YOU DON’T FOLLOW THAT, YOU ARE PROBABLY REALLY CONFUSED ABOUT THE LINE OF QUESTIONING. BECAUSE IT IS JUST BIZARRE AT SOME POINT SOME OF THE PLACES THAT THEY WENT WITH IT. SO IT IS A REMINDER, SOME OF THIS QUESTIONING THAT YOU ARE HEARING, IF YOU DON’T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THE PRESIDENT’S FAVOR, YOU ALMOST HAVE NO IDEA OF THIS NARRATIVE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO WEAVE WHICH MAKES IT — AND THERE WERE TIMES THAT THE WITNESSES WERE EVEN CONFUSED. >> LET ME BRING IN SOMEONE WITH EXPERIENCE ON THE CALL FROM LONDON. JUAN, WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU WHAT WE HEARD THIS MORNING? >> WELL, LESTER, WHAT I VEE ARE TWO NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS, ONE ON THE VICE PRESIDENT STAFF, ONE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF, THAT ARE TRYING TO WALK A FINE LINE BY SIMPLY PRESENTING THEIR FACTS AND THEIR POINT OF VIEW. BUT IT’S CLEAR THAT THE VALUE OF THESE WITNESSES, AT LEAST TO SOME OF THE MEMBERS, IS IN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT’S OUTSIDE OF THE NORMS. WHAT FELT DIFFERENT TO THESE STAFFERS BOTH IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CALL AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARALLEL PROCESS AND CHANNEL THAT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS LEADING. AND YOU SEE TWO STAFFERS THAT ARE TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE. WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE DOING AND THAT THEIR CHAINS OF COMMAND, WHETHER IT’S THROUGH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE VICE PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM, WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO TO EXECUTE THAT STRATEGY.AEN WHAT WERE THE TENSIONS AND CHALLENGES, AND FRANKLY THE BIZARRE NATURE OF THE PARALLEL PROCESSES AND WHAT IS IT REALLY A HIGH PERSONALIZED DIPLOMACY LED BY THE PRESIDENT. WHAT I’M KEEN ON POLICY FACED WITH VERY UNUSUAL PARALLEL PROCESS AND EVEN PARALLEL INTENTIONS PERHAPS FROM THE PRESIDENT. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT TENSION IN HOW THEY ARE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. YOU CAN SEE HOW CAREFUL THEY ARE TRYING TO BE IN BEING PRECISE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY WERE STAFFERS TRYING TO EXECUTE WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS THE BEST, IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND WHAT OUR POLICY WAS AND THEY ARE FACED WITH THESE REAL CHALLENGES OF A PARALLEL PROCESS. >> CAN I JUST JUMP IN THOUGH, JUAN, BECAUSE PEOPLE WATCHING HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTIONING COMING FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE WHO SAY, AND VINDMAN AGREE WITH THIS, THERE IS A LONG STANDING CORRUPTION PROBLEM IN UKRAINE.AND THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS FIT WITHIN THAT RUBRIC. SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS EXTRAORDINARY WHY THIS IS REMARKABLE AND NOT JUST THE ‘YOUR SUIT OF ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE WHICH WOULD BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES? >> YEAH, WHAT MAKES THIS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BEING POSED, IS THAT YOU HAVE TWO CORE ELEMENTS OF OUR UKRAINE POLICY THAT ARE AT PLAY. BOTH IN THE CALL AS WELL AS IN THE PRESIDENT’S PARALLEL PROCESS. AND SO, YES, THE QUESTION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE AND HOW WE HELP THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WITH ITS LEGITIMACY AND CONFRONT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IS IT A CENTRAL PART OF OUR POLICY. AND YES OF COURSE HAS TO BE PART OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT FOCUSES ON, WHAT THE FOREIGN POLICY COMMUNITY FOCUSES ON. AND, YES, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION CONCERNS ARE FUNDAMENTAL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UKRAINE. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. BUT WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARALLEL PROCESS, A BIT OF A USE OF THOSE VERY IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES AS PART OF THE PARALLEL DIPLOMACY AND PROCESS. AND WHAT GETS CONFUSING FOR VIEWERS IS THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TWO VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES.THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, CONVEYANCE OF NEARLY $400 MILLION IN AID. THE SENDING OF JAVELIN ANTI-DEFENSE MISSILE SYSTEMS TO THE UKRAINIANS. ALONG WITH A CONCERN AROUND CORRUPTION. ALL OF WHICH ARE LEGITIMATE. BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF A REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION THAT APPEARS TO BE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL AND DRIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL MOTIVES AS OPPOSED TO FOREIGN POLICY MOTIVES. AND I THINK THAT’S REALLY THE TROUBLE HERE IN UNDERSTANDING THIS. THESE ARE YOU WILL A THE ISSUES THAT MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF UKRAINE BUT DISTORTED THROUGH THE LENS OF THIS PERSONAL REQUEST THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS MAKE ZBLG JUAN, WILL ET ME TURN TO NBC ANALYST FORMER AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA. MICHAEL, AS YOU WATCH THIS, IT SEEMS IT WILL RISE AND FALL WHETHER THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVES THERE WAS A REAL NATIONAL SECURITY RISK, NOT JUST MISS DEEDS BUT NATIONAL SECURITY RISK.DID ANYTHING WE HEARD THIS MORNING ESTABLISH THAT IN BITE SIZE PIECES? >> I THINK WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY IS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES USED HIS PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN. AND WHETHER THAT RISES TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, THAT’S FOR THE U.S. CONGRESS TO DECIDE. BUT NOTHING IN THE GENERAL NARRATIVE WE’VE KNOWN NOW FOR A LONG, LONG TIME WAS QUESTION AT ALL. IN FACT, WHAT WAYS STRUCK BY WAS THE RABBIT HOLES THEY WERE GOING DOWN. FIRST, THE IDEA THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, BY THE WAY SOMEONE I SERVED IN MOSCOW, SOMEHOW DID SOMETHING WRONG BY BRIEFING THE INTERAGENCY. THAT WAS ONE LINE OF ATTACK. THEN SECOND THEY WERE QUESTIONING HIS LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BECAUSE HE HAPPENED TO BE BORN IN THE SOVIET UNION. BUT NEITHER OF THOSE WERE SUBSTANTIVE ATTACKS ON THE GENERAL STORY. THE REPUBLICANS DIDN’T DO ANYTHING TO DAMAGE THAT GENERAL STORY WHICH WE KNOW WELL NOW. >> AMBASSADOR, I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN INTERESTING MOMENT WHERE COLONEL VINDMAN WHO TESTIFIED HE’S THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY PREPARED THE TALKING POINTS, THE NOTES THAT YOU GIVE TO THE LEADER THAT YOU ARE STAFFING TO SAY THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT.THEY CAN USE THEM OR NOT USE THEM. BUT HE PREPARED THE TALKING POINTS. HE WAS ASKED BY THE DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL WHETHER OR NOT THIS IDEA OF THE UKRAINE INTERFERING IN THE ELECTION. HE SAID WAS THAT IN THE TALKING POINTS? HE SAID NO IT IS NOT. AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESTING, HE WAS ASKED, ARE YOU AWARE THAT PUTIN PROMOTES THAT THEORY, THAT IT WAS UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN 2016? AND VINDMAN SAID I’M WELL AWARE OF THAT FACT. A COUPLE OF TIMES OVER THESE FEW DAYS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY, YOU’VE SEEN THE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO PROVE WHAT HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI LIKES TO SAY, THAT ALL ROADS LEAD TO PUTIN WHEN IT COMES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> YEAH, I ALSO THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY EFFECTIVE LINE OF QUESTIONING. I ALSO WORKED AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND WROTE TALKING POINTS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA. BY THE WAY PRESIDENT OBAMA ALWAYS USED EVERY TALKING POINT THAT I WROTE. HE DIDN’T DIVERGE HERE. AND WHAT YOU SAW IN THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE REPRESENTED IN THE TALKING POINTS THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN PRESENTED ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE PRIVATE INTERESTS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.AND I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSCORE THIS FACT. VINDMAN IS NOT MAKING UP U.S. POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE. IT IS THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS ONE POLICY AND IT WAS THE PRESIDENT PURSUING THIS ALTERNATE SET OF PRESIDENTS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR HIS RE-ELECTION EFFORTS. >> JUST GOT A SHOT OF COLONEL VINDMAN IN THE HALLWAY AS THEY PREPARE TO GO BACK IN THE HEARING ROOM AFTER A SHORT BREAK. BUT LET ME GO TO PETER ALEXANDER AT THE WHITE HOUSE. PETER, HAVE WE HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT? >> Reporter: WE HAVEN’T BUT WE LIKELY WILL NOW GATHERED IN PREPARATION TO HEAD INTO THE CABINET ROOM TODAY AT 11:30 A.M. PERSON TIME EFFECTIVELY RIGHT NOW HE’S SUPPOSED TO BE BEGINNING ANOTHER CABINET MEETING. THAT’S WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS BRIEFED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION. BUT ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PRESIDENT JUST TO SPEAK HIS MIND ON WHATEVER TOPIC MAY BE THERE AT THE MOMENT. CERTAINLY THIS IS ONE TOPIC THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HEAVILY FOCUSED ON. YOU WERE SPEAKING WITH OUR EXPERTS AND TEAMMATES THAT ARE AROUND THE TABLE RIGHT NOW ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER EARLIER. IT’S REALLY BEEN THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN AMPLIFIED IT MORE THAN ANYBODY.JUST 24 HOURS AGO THE PRESIDENT TWEETING, WHERE IS THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER? HE HAS BEEN THE ONE REALLY PUSHING THIS LINE THAT ALL OF THIS SHOULD BE UNDERMINED BECAUSE OF THE PERSON WHO CAME FORWARD WITH THIS COMPLAINT IN THE VERY BEGINNING. BUT AS EVIDENCED BY JENNIFER WILLIAMS TESTIMONY AND THE TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER VINDMAN AS WELL, THEY WERE PRIMARY SOURCES. THEY WERE FIRSTHAND WITNESSES TO THAT CALL. AND WHAT WAS STRIKING IN THE WAY THAT VINDMAN DESCRIBED THAT CALL, THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT’S ALLIES HAVE SAID EVEN UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE. THAT THEY NEVER FELT ANY PRESSURE AT ANY POINT. OF COURSE, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD SAY WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT HIM TO SAY? VINDMAN SAID THAT THE WAY HE VIEWED THAT, WHEN HE SAID I’D LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR THOUGH, WAS NOT AS A REQUEST, NOT AN ASK, BUT THAT HE VIEWED IT AS AN ORDER. LESTER. >> ALL RIGHT. PETER, THANK YOU. >> LET’S GO GO TO JEFF ON CAPITOL HILL. THERE WAS AN INTERESTING MOMENT WHEN JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHO WAS A STATE EMPLOYEE TO WORK FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT A PHONE CALL WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON SEPTEMBER 18th.SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT. AND THEN ON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL SAID SHE COULDN’T DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THAT CALL BECAUSE IT WAS CLASSIFIED. AND THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ASSERTING IT WAS CLASSIFIED AND NOT PERMITTED TO TALK ABOUT IT. AND WHAT MORE DO WE KNOW ABOUT THAT CALL, IT WAS SEVEN DAYS AFTER THAT AID WAS FINALLY RELEASED? >> THE REASON WHY THE CALL MATTERS, IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS MAKE THE POINT THAT THIS CALL, THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY DID NOT HAPPEN IN ISOLATION. THAT THE CALL WAS PART OF A BROAD COORDINATED MONTHS LONG SCHEME. AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY ARE FOCUSED ON THIS SEPTEMBER 18th MEETING BETWEEN VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AND ZELENSKY IS TO GET A SENSE OF THE FOLLOW UP THAT HAPPENED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AFTER THAT CALL IN QUESTION. NOW, WHAT’S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS, IS THAT AS YOU CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, THE LAWYER IN REALTIME SAID THAT HE HAD LEARNED FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THAT CALL IS NOW CLASSIFIED.BUT UP UNTIL TODAY, YOU HAD THE VICE PRESIDENT, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN FACT, SAYING THAT HE INTENDED TO MAKE THAT CALL PUBLIC. HE SAID THAT HE WAS WORKING IN COORDINATION WITH THE WHITE HOUSE TO RELEASE THE CONTENTS OF WHAT WAS SAID. NOW, THAT IT CAME UP IN A HEARING, WE ARE TOLD THAT IT’S CLASSIFIED. BUT I’LL TELL YOU WHAT, AS WE EXPECT THIS HEARING TO COME BACK INTO SESSION ANY MINUTE NOW, A BIG QUESTION HEADING INTO THIS WAS HOW WOULD THE REPUBLICANS HANDLE THIS TESTIMONY FROM THESE FIRSTHAND FACT WITNESSES. AND NOW WE KNOW. I THINK THEY HAVE SETTLED ON WHAT IS REALLY A THREE-PRONG STRATEGY BEST TELEGRAPHED BY DEVIN NUNES AND STEVE THE REPUBLICAN COUNCIL. WHAT WE SAW DEVIN NUNES TRY TO DO IS TAKE THE UKRAINE QUESTION DOWN UNRELATED AND SOME CASE RABBIT HOLES. HE ALSO TRIED TO INVOKE THE NAME OF THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AS MANY TIMES AS HE COULD, IN PART, TO RAISE DOUBTS AND TO RAISE SORT OF DAMAGING INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF SAID HE WANTED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO DO.THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. SO WE SEE MS. WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TAKING THEIR SEATS. >> AS WE WAIT FOR THAT. ANDREW, VERY QUICKLY ON THIS ISSUE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THAT NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE PERSON WHO CALLS 911, IS SOMEONE IN CRIMINAL MATTER YOU WOULD NEED TO HEAR? >> LESS THAN A 911 CALL. BECAUSE 911 CALL IT MAY HAVE FIRSTHAND INFORMATION. HERE WE KNOW THAT THE PERSON WHO IS CALLING IN WHO IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS NO FIRSTHAND INFORMATION. SO EVEN LESS RELEVANT THAN A 911 CALL. >> WE WILL RETURN BACK TO THE HEARING NOW. >> FIRST, IF I COULD ASK MS. WILLIAMS AND COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS BY THE RANKING MEMBER AT THE OUTSET.WERE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT, AND THERE WAS A RECITATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA, THE BIDENS. IS IT FAIR TO SAY YOU HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THE MATTERS THAT WERE ASKED IN THOSE QUESTIONS? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU WERE ALSO ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT’S SKIED ACTUAL AND WHETHER HE COULD HAVE MADE THE INAUGURATION OR WAS THE PRESIDENT TRAVELING OR THE INTEREST IP TO CANADA. LET’S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING. THE PRESIDENT YOU WERE INSTRUCTED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TOLD THE VICE PRESIDENT NOT TO GO BEFORE YOU EVEN KNEW THE DATE OF THE INAUGURATION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> 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 EVEN BEEN SET YET.IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. THE DATE HAD NOT BEEN SET. SO WE WERE WEIGHING DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WHEN THE INAUGURATION MIGHT FALL. >> NOW, I THINK YOU SAID THAT ORIGINALLY THE PRESIDENT HAD TOLD HIM TO GO, AND THEN YOU RECEIVED THE INSTRUCTION THAT THE PRESIDENT NO LONGER WANTED HIM TO GO. WERE YOU AWARE IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT TELLING HIM TO GO OR THE PRESIDENT NOT TO GO, THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD TO ABORT A TRIP THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE TO UKRAINE? >> I HAD SEEN THAT IN THE PRESS, YES. >> AND HAD YOU SEEN IN THE PRESS THAT RUDY GIULIANI BLAMED PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR HAVING TO CANCEL THE TRIP? >> FOR HAVING TO CANCEL HIS TRIP? >> YES. >> I HAD READ THAT IN THE PRESS REPORTING, YES. >> AND DID YOU READ IN THE PRESS REPORTING ALSO THAT GIULIANI WANTED TO GO TO THE UKRAINE AS HE PUT IT NOT MEDDLE IN AN ELECTION, BULL INVESTIGATIONS? >> I HAD READ THAT. >> AND THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENT CANCEL SOMETHING THE VICE PRESIDENT’S TRIP TO THE INAUGURATION. >> IT DID. I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND JULY 10th. >> 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 PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED ZELENSKY TO COMMIT TO INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS, WAS IT NOT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT IS ONE OF THE FAVORS THAT YOU THOUGHT SHOULD BE PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS A DEMAND? >> THAT IS 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 INTO 2016 AND INTO THE BIDENS WERE PRECISELY THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS CALLING FOR PUBLICLY, WERE THEY NOT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO WHEN PEOPLE SUGGEST, WELL, MAYBE RUDY GIULIANI WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN AND MAYBE HE WAS A FREELANCER OR WHATEVER, THE PRESIDENT REFERRED TO THE SAME TWO INVESTIGATIONS RUDY GIULIANI WAS PUSHING ON HIS BEHALF.IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> NOW, MS. WILLIAMS YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE MEETING THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD WITH ZELENSKY IN SEPTEMBER IN WHICH THE UKRAINIANS 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 BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND BIDENS OR BURISMA CAME UP. STHARKS? >> THAT’S CORRECT THEY DID FLOT COME UP. >> THAT BILATERAL MEETING WAS A LARGE MEETING THAT INVOLVED TWO OR THREE DOZEN PEOPLE, WASN’T? >> 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 BRING UP THE INVESTIGATIONS.HE’S NEVER BROUGHT UP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. >> WERE YOU AWARE 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 ADVISERS TO ZELENSKY, AND TOLD YERMAK THAT IF THEY WANTED THE 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 MEETINGS, VIED MEETINGS THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD FOLLOWING THE VEP’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 TALK TO THE PRIVATE MEETING THAT WAS HELD IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER? >> CORRECT. THE VICE PRESIDENT MOVED ON WITH HIS SCHEDULE IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >> NOW, COLONEL VINDMAN, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT JULY 10th MEETING OR MEETINGS, THE ONE WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THEN THE ONE IN THE WARD ROOM THAT FOLLOWED QUICKLY ON ITS HEELS. WERE YOU AWARE 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 TAN THAT WAS EXPRESSED. >> NOW YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD TALK TO THE LAWYERS ON YOUR OWN? >> THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YESLE. >> 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 TALKING ABOUT? >> 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, THIS SAME CONDITIONING OR THIS SAME 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 IS CORRECT. >> SO THE VERY SAME ISSUE THAT BOLTON SAID TO HILL, GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS, THE VERY SAME ISSUE THAT PROMPTED YOU TO TALK TO THE LAWYERS, ENDS UPCOMING UP IN THAT CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND IT WAS THAT CONVERSATION THAT, ONCE AGAIN, LED YOU BACK TO THE LAWYER’S OFFICE? >> THAT IS 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. >> THANK YOU. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, BEFORE I TURN TO MR. JORDAN, I ASKED MS. WILLIAMS ABOUT THIS ABOUT IF SHE HAD EVER ACCESSED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FELLOW EMPLOYEES 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 BE STITING WHERE YOU ARE SITTING. AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE THINGS MR. MORRISON SAID IN HIS DEPOSITION. PAGE 82 OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM MR. MORRISON. MR. MORRISON SAID THIS, I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT LUTE COLONEL VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH DR. HILL AND THE TRANSITION WITH OUR TEAM, IT’S STRENGTH, ITS WEAKNESSES AND FIONA AND OTHERS HAD RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ALEX JUDGMENT. WHEN MR. MORRISON WAS ASKED BY MR. KASTER, DID ANYONE BRING CONCERNS TO YOU THAT COLONEL VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED SOMETHING.MR. MORRISON REPLIED YES. SO YOUR BOSS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT. YOUR FORMER BOSS DR. HILL HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT. YOUR COLLEAGUES HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT. AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FELT THERE WERE TIMES WHEN YOU LEAKED INFORMATION. ANY IDEA WHY THEY HAVE THOSE IMPRESSIONS, COLONEL VINDMAN? >> YES, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN, I GUESS I’LL START BY READING DR. HILL’S OWN WORDS AS TESTED TO IN MY LAST EVALUATION DATED MID-JULY BEFORE HE LEFT.ALEX IS TOP 1% BEST ARMY OFFICER I’VE WORKED WITH IN 15 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE. HE’S BRILL ANTIBIOTIC. AND EXERCISES — HE’S BRILLIANT. AND EXERCISES EXCELLENT JUDGMENT. I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA. >> THE DATE OF THAT WAS? >> YEAH, LET’S SEE, I’M SORRY, JULY 13th. >> SO MR. JORDAN, I WOULD SAY I CAN’T SAY WHAT MR. MORRISON, WHY MR. MORRISON QUESTIONED MY JUDGMENT. WE HAD ONLY RECENTLY STARTED WORKING TOGETHER. HE WASN’T THERE VERY LONG. AND WE WERE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OUR RELATIONSHIP. MAYBE IT WAS A DIFFERENT CULTURE. MILITARY CULTURE VERSUS. >> AND COLONEL, YOU NEVER LEAKED INFORMATION? >> I NEVER DID. I NEVER WOULD. THAT I WOULD NEVER DO. >> THE PEOPLE WE DEPOSED WERE NOW ON THE SOMEWHAT FAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL. THERE WAS YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL SITTING BESIDE YOU MS.WILLIAMS AND YOUR BOSS MR. MORRISON THAT I READ FROM HIS DEPOSITION. WHEN WE ASKED MS. WILLIAMS WHO SHE SPOKE TO ABOUT THE CALL SHE WAS WILLING TO ASK OUR QUESTIONS AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALLOWED HER. WHEN WE SPOKE MR. MORRISON WHO HE SPOKE TO ABOUT THE CALL. HE WAS WILLING TO ANSWER OUR QUESTION AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALLOWED HIM TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. WHEN WE FIRST ASKED YOU YOU FIRST TOLD US THREE INDIVIDUALS, YOUR BROTHER AND TWO LAWYERS. THEN YOU SAID THERE WAS A GROUP OF OTHER PEOPLE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH BUT WOULD ONLY GIVE US ONE GENTLEMEN SECRETARY KENT. AND ONLY ALLOW TO GIVE US THE NAME. WHEN WE ASKED YOU WHO ELSE YOU WOULD NOT TELL US. SO I WANT TO ASK FIRST HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE WERE IN THAT GROUP OUTSIDE OF THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS I JUST NAMED? >> MR. JORDAN, ON CALL READ OUT CERTAINLY OF A THE FIRST CALL, THERE WERE PROBABLY HALF A DOZEN PEOPLE OR MORE THAT I READ OUT. 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 KNEE NOT TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY ELSE, I ONLY READ OUT TO SIDE OF THE NSC TWO INDIVIDUALS. >> TWO INDIVIDUALS. >> KENT AND ONE OTHER INDIVIDUAL. >> AND YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO TELL US WHO THAT PERSON HAVE? >> POINT OF ORDER. >> SUSPEND. COUNCIL. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK YOU TO ENFORCE THE RULE WITH REGARD TO DISCLOSURE WITH REGARD TO THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL. AS I INDICATED BEFORE, THIS COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE USED TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THAT SAMENESSTY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU NOTE THE TIME. >> YOU ARE RECONSTRUCTION NICED MR. JORDAN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON’T SEE HOW THIS IS OUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER. THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED HE DOESN’T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS. YOU HAVE SAID, EVEN THOUGH NO ONE BELIEVES YOU, YOU HAVE SAID YOU DON’T KNOW HOT WHISTLEBLOWER IS. SO HOW IS THIS OUTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO FIND OUT WHO THIS INDIVIDUAL IS? >> MR. JORDAN, THIS IS IT YOUR TIME FOR QUESTIONING. YOU CAN USE IT ANYWAY YOU LIKE. BUT YOUR QUESTION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE WITNESS. AND YOUR QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSED TRAG TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, THERE IS ANOTHER THING THAT HE SAID IN HIS DEPOSITION. HE SAID HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALL ITSELF, HE SAID 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 THIS, HE WAS CONCERNED HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON’S POLARIZED ENVIRONMENT, HOW THE CONTENTS WOULD BE USED IN WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PROCESS. MR. MORRISON WAS RIGHT. >> EXCUSE ME, MR. JORDAN, COULD I GET A PAGE? >> PAGE 44. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. MORRISON WAS RIGHT, THE CALL LEAKS, WHISTLEBLOWER GOES TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF STAFF, THEN RUNS OFF TO THE LAWYER, SAME LAWYER WHO SAID IN JANUARY 17, THE COW 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 LINKAGE. THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL HAVE BOTH SAID NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, NO LINEAGE, FOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS, TO AN INVESTIGATION. MS. WILLIAMS, AFTER THE CALL ON THE 25th, YOU 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 FLOT SPEAK TO ANYBODY ABOUT THE CALL. >> YOU DIDN’T SPEAK TO ANYBODY? >> NO. >> I YIELD BACK. >> MR. HIMES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ENTER COLONEL VINDMAN PERFORMANCE REVIEW IN THE RECORD. >> CAN I INQUIRE COLONEL VINDMAN IF HE WOULD LIKE US TO DO THAT. IF YOU WOULD, OR IF YOU PREFER NOT TO BE PART OF THE RECORD, I’LL LEAVE IT TO YOU. >> I GUESS WERE REDACTIONS IT HAS PII IN IT THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED. AND MAYBE THE ONLY EL M ENTS THAT ARE RELEVANT ARE THE NATIONAL NARRATIVE. >> CHAIRMAN. >> DID YOU READ THE RELEVANT PORTIONS? >> I MEAN, THAT WAS THE SHORT VERSION. THERE WERE SOME 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 BECOMING A FLON PARTISAN CAREER OFFICIAL YOU WORKED AS AFIELD REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE BUSH CHENEY AND DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY UNDER SECRETARY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> NOW AS A FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER SERVED TWO PRESIDENTS IN A VARIETY OF ROLLS? >> CORRECT. >> YOU ARE TO ADVISE THE VICE PRESIDENT ON DETAILS OF RUSSIA. >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> ON SUNDAY THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY TARGETED YOU IN A TWEET. THIS IS AFTER HE TARGETED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DURING HER HEARING TESTIMONY. I’D LIKE TO SHOW AND READ YOU THE TWEET. IT READS, TELL JENNIFER WILLIAMS, WHOEVER THAT IS, TO READ BOTH TRANSCRIPTS OF 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.MISS 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. >> WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR SELF THAT WAY? >> I WOULD NOT, NO. >> DID THAT MAKE — 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. >> IT SURPRISED ME TOO AND LOOKED A AWFUL LOOK LIKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND TAMPERING AND IN EFFORT TO PERHAPS SHAPE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. LIEUTENANT COLONEL H YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU’VE DEDICATED YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. COLONEL, ABOVE YOUR LEFT BREAST YOU ARE WEARING A DEVICE WHICH IS SPRINGFIELD MUSKET ON A BLUEFIELD. WHAT IS THAT DEVICE? >> IT’S COMBAT BADGE. >> HOW DO YOU GET THAT BADGE? >> YOU HAVE TO BE SERVING IN A BRIGADE OR BELOW TACTICAL UNIT, THAT MEANS FIGHTING UNIT, IN COMBAT. >> UNDER FIRE? >> CORRECT. >> YOU ARE ALSO WEARING A PURPLE HEART. CAN YOU TELL US IN 20 OR 30 SECONDS WHY YOU ARE WEARING A PURPLE HEART? >> IN 2014, IN THE PROBABLY THE LARGEST OPERATIONS IN DECADES, OUT WE WERE CONDUCTING A PATROL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MARINES AND MY VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY AN IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE THAT PENETRATED ARMOR. >> WERE YOU INJURED? >> I WAS. >> THE DAY AFTER YOU APPEARED FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, LIEUTENANT COLONEL, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED YOU A NEVER TRUMPER. COLONEL VINDMAN, WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A NEVER TRUMPER IS THIS. >> I WOULD CALL MYSELF NEVER PARTISAN. >> THANK YOU. MR. YOUR MILITARY CAREER YOU SERVED UNDER TWO PRESIDENTS. HAVE YOU EVER WAIVE ERRED FROM WAIVERED FROM THE OATH YOU TOOK? >> IN EVERY. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS FOR YOUR APPEARANCE HERE TODAY? >> NONE. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, MULTIPLE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORIES INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN THIS ROOM THIS MORNING, THE THREE MINUTES THAT WERE SPENT ASKING YOU ABOUT THE OFFER MADE TO MAKE YOU THE MINISTER OF DEFENSE, THAT MAY HAVE COME CLOAKED IN BROOKS BROTHER SUIT, BUT THAT WAS DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY TO GIVE THE RIGHT WING MEDIA AN OPENING TO QUESTION YOUR LOYALTIES.AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT. IT’S THE KIND OF ATTACK, KIND OF THING YOU SAY WHEN YOU ARE DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE. IT’S THE KIND OF THING WHEN YOU SAY IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO ATTACK THE MEDIA, OR TO ATTACK THE DEMOCRATS, BUT IT’S WHAT YOU STOOP TO WHEN THE INDEFENSE ABILITY OF YOUR CASE REQUIRES THAT YOU ATTACK A MAN WHO IS WEARING A SPRINGFIELD RIFLE ON AFIELD OF BLUE ABOVE A PURPLE HEART. I, SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. CONWAY. >> YIELD TO RADCLIFF. >> THANK YOU THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. IN A PRESS CONFERENCE LAST YEERD SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI SAID PRUMTD DID THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE OF BRIBERY EVIDENCED IN HIS JULY 25th CALL TRANSCRIPT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IN CONCERT WITH THAT, MULTIPLE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE GAVE TV AND RADIO INTERVIEWS OVER THE 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. 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 ON JULY 25th. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN YOU USED THE WORD INAPPROPRIATE AND PROPER. I’VE WORD SEARCHED EACH OF YOUR TRANSCRIPTS. AND THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE DOESN’T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THAT. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU’VE NEVER USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT, CORRECT? >> NO, SIR. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU HAVEN’T EITHER? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE PROBLEM IS, IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAYS IS ALL ABOUT BRIBERY, WHERE BRIBERY IS THE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, NO WITNESS HAS USED THE WORD BRIBERY TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT. NONE OF THEM. THESE AREN’T ALL OF 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 BY MY COLLEGE CONGRESSMAN STEWART LAST THURSDAY IS ZERO. THE NUMBER OF TIMES WITNESSES HAVE USED THE WORD BRIBERY OR BRIBE TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCTED IN THE LAST SIS SIX WEEKS IS ZERO. IN FACT IN THESE PAGES OF SWORN TESTIMONY, AND 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. IT APPEARS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF VICE PRESIDENT’S BIDEN ALLEGED CONDUCT. THIS IS IMPORTANT. BECAUSE AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK, MY DEMOCRAT I GO COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO SAY WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS EVIDENCE FROM THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR BRIBERY. AND THEY’LL SEND A REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE AND BECAUSE MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS IT’S LIKELY GOING TO PASS.AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO BE CLEAR 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 THAT THE PRESIDENT IS BEING ACCUSED OF KEEP CHANGING. WHY DO WE GO FROM QUID PRO QUO TO EXTORTION NOW TO BRIBERY. CHAIRMAN NUNES TOLD YOU THE ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS POLLING. WASHINGTON TIMES ASKED AMERICANS, WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST DAMMING ACCUSATION? DIDN’T COME BACK QUID PRO QUO OR COME BACK EXTORTION. IT CAME BACK BRIBERY. SO THIS CASE IS ALL ABOUT BRIBERY. LOOK, IT’S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE FORBIDDEN WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCEEDING. IT’S HARD ENOUGH TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITHOUT YOUR LAWYERS PRESENT. LE BUT WHAT’S EVEN WORSE IS TRYING TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST AN ACCUSATION THAT KEEPS CHANGING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCEEDING.IF DEMOCRATS ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF HIGH CRIME OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, HE OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. AND WHEN SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAYS IT’S ALL ABOUT BRIBERY, SHE’S PROMISED EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY THAT WOULD BE COMPELLING AND OVERWHELMING AND INSTEAD IT’S INVISIBLE. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I’D 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 UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, DO YOU NOT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU EXPLAINED EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOUR JOB WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE WAS TO COORDINATE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE POLICY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT IS TO COORDINATE UNITED STATES YOU TESTIFIED IN THE SPR OF THIS YEAR THAT THESE OFFICIALS, THESE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS BEGAN ASKING YOU, QUOTE, ADVICE ON HOW TO RESPOND TO MR. GIULIANI’S ADVANCES, END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.>> WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEY MEANT BY MR. GIULIANI’S ADVANCES? >> I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN BOTH HIS PUBLIC COMMENTARY, SO PUBLICLY 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. >> AND AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU THINK MR. GIULIANI WAS ACTING UNDER? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, I DON’T KNOW. >> DID THE UKRAINIAN 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, MA’AM? >> DO YOU THINK THAT THE UKRAINIAN 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.>> — AND HOW IT IMPLICATED IT WAS UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE I’M NOT SURE. >> WAS THIS OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY, TO PUSH FOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS? >> IT WAS NOT PART OF ANY PROCESS THAT I PARTICIPATED IN. >> NOW, MISS WILLIAMS, DO YOU AGREE THAT PRESSING THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH OFFICIAL U.S. UKRAINE POLICY? >> OBVIOUSLY, ANTI-CORRUPTION 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 UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON THE CALL ON JULY 25th TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI HAS MADE NO SECRET OF THE FACT THAT HE IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. AS MR. GIULIANI TOLD “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” AND I’M GOING TO PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN, HE TOLD THEM, “MY ONLY CLIENT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.HE’S THE ONE I HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO, TO TELL HIM WHAT HAPPENED.” HE ADDED THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE “VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO MY CLIENT AND MAY TURN OUT TO BE HELPFUL TO MY GOVERNMENT.” COLONEL, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT YOU ON A DAILY BASIS — WELL, YOU’RE IN CONTACT WITH GIVEN YOUR PORTFOLIO, WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MR. GIULIANI’S ADVANCES? >> YES, THEY WERE. >> IN YOUR ASSESSMENT, DID THEY UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE REQUEST 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 ABOUT U.S. — I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS, YES. >> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT YOU WARNED THE UKRAINIANS NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I COUNSELED THEM, YES. >> COUNSELED THEM. IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THEY — THAT YOU FELT LIKE IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT YOU WERE ESPOUSING NOT JUST WHAT YOU THOUGHT BUT TRADITION AND POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAY THAT. >> IT IS WHAT I KNEW FOR A FACT TO BE U.S. POLICY. >> NOW, WHY DO YOU THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF A NATION LIKE THE UNITED STATES? >> CONGRESSWOMAN, THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT COMES TO MIND IS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016.THE IMPACT THAT HAD ON INTERNAL POLITICS AND THE CONSEQUENCES IT HAD FOR RUSSIA ITSELF. >> EXACTLY. >> THIS ADMINISTRATION ENFORCED SANCTIONS, HEAVY SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR THEIR INTERFERENCE. AND THAT WOULD NOT BE IN U.S. POLICY TO — >> AND SO MR. — COLONEL, I’M RUNNING OUT OF TIME. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> IS IT NORMAL FOR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, A NON-U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, TO GET INVOLVED IN FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS LIKE MR. GIULIANI? >> I DON’T KNOW IF I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO SAY, THAT BUT IT CERTAINLY WASN’T HELPFUL AND IT DIDN’T HELP ADVANCE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. >> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> MR. TURNER. >> MS. WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALSO FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS WE LOOK TO FORMULATING POLICY WITH BOTH OUR ALLIES AND TO TRY TO COUNTER THOSE WHO ARE NOT OUR ALLIES. I THINK WE’RE ALL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A EUROPEAN POLICY AND HOW IT CAN THWART RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. MS. WILLIAMS, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE — AS YOU SAID, AS PART OF YOUR PORTFOLIO YOU RIZ THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU SAID YOU ARE THE PRINCIPAL, IN YOUR OPENING YOU SAY YOU ARE THE PRINCIPAL ADVISER 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 THAT OFF MY JOB DESCRIPTION THAT I HAVE ON MY EVAL. BUT I CERTAINLY SPENT MUCH MORE TIME ADVISING THE AMBASSADOR THAN I DID THE PRESIDENT. >> BUT YOUR STATEMENT AS YOU SUBMITTED IT AND READ IT TODAY SAYS AT THE NSC I AM THE PRINCIPAL ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE, CORRECT? >> THAT IS NOT WHAT I READ INTO THE TRANSCRIPT.THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT I HAD IN THERE YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS DRAFTING IT BUT I CHOSE TO EASE BACK ON THAT LANGUAGE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IN MY EVALUATION JUST BECAUSE I DIDN’T WANT TO — >> BUT YOU WROTE WHAT I JUST READ. >> CONGRESSMAN, WHAT I’M SAYING IS WHAT I READ INTO THE RECORD THIS MORNING DIDN’T SAY THAT. >> OKAY. NOTED. BECAUSE YOU KNOW UKRAINE YOU KNOW THAT WE WORK THROUGH OUR ALLIES AND OUR MULTILATERAL RELATIONS AND YOU KNOW THAT UKRAINE IS AN ASPIRING MEMBER OF THE EU AND NATO.RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS? >> YES, THAT’S CORRECT. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN? >> YES, CORRECT. >> AND YOU KNOW PROBABLY THAT THE EU AND NATO BOTH HAVE OFFICES IN THE UKRAINE AND THAT WE TRY TO ADVANCE OUR POLICY WITH THE EU AND NATO AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT OUR AMBASSADOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR ADVANCING OUR POLICY INTERESTS WITH UKRAINE AT THE EU AND AT NATO. RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS? >> I WOULD SAY THAT CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF THIS SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATO AND UKRAINE THAT WOULD FALL TO AMBASSADOR HUTCHISON AND BETWEEN THE EU AND UKRAINE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE AN AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE AS WELL. >> RIGHT. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU AGREE? >> I AGREE WITH MS. WILLIAMS. >> OKAY. NOW, LIEUTENANT COLONEL, YOU SAID IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI PROMOTED FALSE INFORMATION THAT UNDERMINED THE UNITED STATES UKRAINE POLICY. HAVE YOU EVER MET GIULIANI? >> JUST TO BE, AGAIN, ACCURATE, I SAID FALSE NARRATIVES. JUST BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT I SAID IN THE RECORD THIS MORNING. I HAVE NOT MET HIM. >> YOU HAVE NEVER HAD HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT UKRAINE OR BEEN IN A MEETING WHERE HE SPOKE WITH OTHERS ABOUT UKRAINE? >> NO.JUST WHAT I SAW, HIS COMMENTS ON TV — >> SO NEWS REPORTS. >> YES. >> AND SIMILAR, YOU’VE NEVER MET THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU’VE NEVER ADVISED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON UKRAINE. >> I ADVISED HIM INDIRECTLY. I MADE ALL HIS PREPARATIONS FOR THE CALLS AND — >> BUT YOU’VE NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT AND TOLD HIM ADVICE ON UKRAINE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IN YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT YOU SAID “IN MAY I ATTENDED THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS PART OF THE PRESIDENT’S DELEGATION LED BY SECRETARY PERRY. FOLLOWING THE VISIT THE MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION PROVIDED PRESIDENT TRUMP A DEBRIEFING.” THAT’S NOT REALLY ACCURATE, RIGHT? THE MEMBERS DIDN’T. BECAUSE YOU WERE A MEMBER BUT YOU WEREN’T IN THAT MEETING, YOU WERE? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO WE’LL JUST HAVE A NOTE THERE THAT THAT MEETING OCCURRED WITHOUT YOU.YOU DO KNOW THAT THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE ULTS, DON’T YOU, LIEUTENANT COLONEL? >> I DO, REPRESENTATIVE. >> EXCELLENT. NOW, YOU’VE SAID THAT YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING U.S. UKRAINIAN POLICY. >> CORRECT. >> DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO REPORT TO YOU? >> HE DOES NOT. >> AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >> HE DOES NOT. WE COORDINATE — >> AMBASSADOR OF UKRAINE, EU, NATO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPE. ANYONE AT D.O.D. REPORT TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES OF COORDINATING U.S. POLICY WITH UKRAINE? >> CONGRESSMAN, AT MY LEVEL I CONVENE WHAT’S CALLED A SUBPOLICY COORDINATING COMMITTEE.THAT’S DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, I COORDINATE WITH — 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 NSPM 4, THE POLICY SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT — THE POLICY — >> SO HE GETS TO DO IT. >> CORRECT. >> MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS TESTIFIED AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY EITHER IN SECRET OR IN PUBLIC HAS EITHER PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE? >> I HAVE NOT READ THE OTHER TESTIMONIES AND — >> SO YOU — DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED? >> NO. BECAUSE I HAVE NOT READ THEM. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WHO HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS PERJURED THEMSELVES OR LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE? >> NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF.>> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CARSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. I YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. I WANTED TO JUST MAKE ONE POINT CLEAR FOR FOLKS THAT ARE 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. AN OFFICIAL ACT MAY BE 400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID. AND SOMETHING OF VALUE TO A PRESIDENT MIGHT INCLUDE INVESTIGATIONS OF THEIR POLITICAL RIVAL. THE REASON WE DON’T ASK WITNESSES THAT ARE FACT WITNESSES TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER A CRIME OF BRIBERY HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR WHETHER MORE SIGNIFICANTLY THE — WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY ITEMIZED BRIBERY OR OTHER 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 THAT HAVE BEEN ADDUCED DURING THE INVESTIGATION. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK TO MR. CARSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE. COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU WERE IN A JULY 10th WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S OFFICE, ISN’T THAT RIGHT, SIR? >> I’M SORRY. COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >> YOU WERE IN A JULY 10th WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON. >> CORRECT. >> IN THAT MEETING THE UKRAINIANS ASKED ABOUT WHEN THEY WOULD GET THEIR OVAL OFFICE MEETING AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REPLIED THAT THEY NEED TO “SPEAK ABOUT UKRAINE DELIVERING SPECIFIC REGSS IN ORDER TO SECURE A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT.” IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? >> THAT IS CORRECT.>> COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU LATER LEARN WHY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CUT THE MEETING SHORT? >> I DID. >> AFTER AMBASSADOR BOLTON ENDED THAT MEETING, SIR, SOME OF THE GROUP THAT ATTENDED A FOLLOW-ON MEETING IN A DIFFERENT ROOM IN THE WHITE HOUSE CALLED THE WARD ROOM, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS THERE WITH THE SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DID NSC LAWYERS TELL YOU TO COME DIRECTLY TO THEM, SIR, IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER CONCERNS AFTER JULY 10th? >> THEY SAID THAT — I BELIEVE THE WORDS WERE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS FEEL FREE TO COME BACK. >> IN THIS FOLLOW-ON MEETING, SIR, 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 VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN’S SON, ISN’T THAT CORRECT, SIR? >> THAT IS CORRECT.>> AND HE STATED HE WAS ASKING THESE REQUESTS IN COORDINATION WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, CORRECT, SIR? >> THAT IS WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY. >> COLONEL, IN YOUR CAREER HAD YOU EVER BEFORE WITNESSED AN AMERICAN OFFICIAL REQUEST THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN WHO IS RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL OPPONENT? >> I HAVE NOT. >> AND COLONEL, YOU IMMEDIATELY RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, CORRECT, SIR? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? >> AFTER I REPORTED IT TO THE — I’M SORRY. COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I APOLOGIZE. >> YOU RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, CORRECT, SIR? >> CORRECT. >> WHAT HAPPENED? >> TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY. I STATED THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. >> DID YOU ALSO RAISE CONCERN 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 WASN’T AWARE THAT DR. HILL HAD A CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON. SO I JUST RELAYED WHAT I EXPERIENCED TO THE ATTORNEY, LEAD LEGAL COUNSEL. >> AS WE ARE NOW AWARE, SIR, AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS AND INSTRUCTED DR. FIONA HILL, YOUR SUPERVISOR, TO ALSO MEET WITH THE SAME WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS TO TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED. COLONEL VINDMAN, I AGREE THAT THERE’S NO QUESTION THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS PROPOSING A TRANSACTION TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TRADING WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS FOR SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS. WITH THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF, WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS, AND HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. IN MY VIEW, SIR, THAT’S APPALLING. THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE. I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. I WOULD JUST POINT OUT AS WELL THAT WHEN THE MATTER DOES MOVE 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 SUBMIT — MAKE A SUBMISSION TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.I NOW TURN TO DR. WENSTRUP. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. AS AN ARMY COLONEL WHO SERVED A YEAR IN IRAQ, I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE THAT YOU MADE DURING THAT TIME. AND I KNOW THE ENVIRONMENT. AND I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF COMMAND. IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF CHAIN OF COMMAND. YOU WERE DIRECT REPORT TO DR. FIONA HILL AND THEN MR. TIM MORRISON AND THEY WERE YOUR SENIORS, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHEN YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE 7-25 CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, YOU DIDN’T GO TO MR. MORRISON ABOUT THAT, DID YOU? >> I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO JOHN EISENBERG, THE LEAD LEGAL COUNSEL. >> SO THAT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE CHAIN OF COMMAND. IN THE DEPOSITION — >> I’M SORRY. COULD HE ANSWER, PLEASE? >> CONGRESSMAN.>> PLEASE ALLOW COLONEL VINDMAN TO ANSWER. >> SO I REPORTED IT TO JOHN EISENBERG. I ATTEMPTED TO REPORT IT TO MR. MORRISON. I — >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> HE DIDN’T AVAIL HIMSELF. AND AT THAT POINT I WAS TOLD NOT TO — >> WELL, HE DID AVAIL HIMSELF AND I’M I’LL GET INTO THAT. >> WOULD YOU PLEASE ALLOW THE WITNESS TO FINISH? COLONEL, ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR ANSWER? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> 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 YOUR 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.” QUESTION, WHO? BASED ON OPEN SOURCE WITHOUT FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, ALEX VINDMAN ON MY — ON MY STAFF.QUESTION THEN. AND HE REPORTS TO YOU, CORRECT? ANSWER, HE DOES. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN’S DIRECT REPORT WAS MR. MORRISON. AND IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, IN YOUR DEPOSITION, PAGE 96, THE QUESTION WAS OKAY, AFTER THE CALL ON 7-25 DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. MORRISON ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS? ANSWER, “AFTER THE CALL I — WELL, PER THE — PER THE EXERCISE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND EXPRESSING I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE SENIOR NSC LEGAL COUNSEL AND SHARED THOSE CONCERNS.” THAT WOULD BE MR. EISENBERG, CORRECT? >> I’M SORRY. MY LAWYER WAS TALKING. COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? DOCTOR. >> YOU TWOENTD MR. EISENBERG. YOU’VE ALREADY SAID THAT. SO WE CAN GO ON. AND YOU ARE NOT A JAG OFFICER.YOU’RE NOT A LAWYER. AND ON PAGE 153 OF YOUR TESTIMONY, DEPOSITION, IN REFERENCE TO THAT MEETING WITH MR. EISENBERG, YOU SAID, “I WAS NOT MAKING A LEGAL JUDGMENT. ALL I WAS DOING IS SHARING MY CONCERNS WITH MY CHAIN OF COMMAND.” YET WE’VE 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, 201, IN A COLLOQUY WITH MR. STEWART 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 UNIVERSE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE THAT CAN ADVISE THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE? COULDN’T SOMEONE LIKE MISS WILLIAMS ALSO ADVISE ON UKRAINE? IT’S IN HER PORTFOLIO. >> THAT’S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. IT WOULD BE — 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, THE CONTEXT AND SO FORTH SURROUNDING THESE ISSUES.I ON MY JUDGMENT WENT, I 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. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, IN YOUR DEPOSITION PAGE 259 YOU SAID, “I FORWARDED MY CONCERNS THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND THE SENIORS THEN DECIDE THE ACTION TO TAKE.” MR. MORRISON’S YOUR SENIOR. HE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT. HOW CAN HE DECIDE AN ACTION TO TAKE? BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU SAID. IN MR. MORRISON’S DEPOSITION PAGE 60 THE QUESTION IS AT WHAT POINT DID YOU LEARN THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WENT TO EISENBERG? HE SAID ABOUT THE 25th PHONE CALL? HE SAID YES. IN THE COURSE OF REVIEWING FOR THIS PROCEEDING, VIEWING THE OPEN RECORD. SO THE NEXT QUESTION, SO EISENBERG NEVER CAME TO YOU AND RELAYED TO YOU THE CONVERSATION? HE SAID NO. ELLIS NEVER DID EITHER? NOT TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. SO MR. MORRISON WAS SKIPPED IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND ABOUT YOUR OTHER CONCERNS. SO MR. MORRISON SAID HE’S THE FINAL CLEARING AUTHORITY.HE SAID HE SAW YOUR EDITS. DO YOU REMEMBER IF ALL OF THE EDITS WERE INCORPORATED? AND HE SAID YES, I ACCEPTED ALL OF THEM. IT’S ON PAGE 61, 62. SO HE BELIEVES ALL YOUR EDITS WERE ACCEPTED. LET ME ASK, IN YOUR EDITS DID YOU INSIST THAT THE WORD “DEMAND” BE PUT INTO THE TRANSCRIPTION BETWEEN THE CONVERSATION OF THE TWO PRESIDENTS? >> I DID NOT. >> BUT YOU DID SAY THAT IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TODAY. THANK YOU. AND I YIELD BACK. >> MISS SPEIER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND 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 IS CORRECT. >> AND IT IS NOT GOING OUTSIDE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND TO SPEAK TO A LAWYER WITHIN THE INSTITUTION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> NO. HE IS THE SENIOR BETWEEN THE TWO CERTAINLY. >> ALL RIGHT. OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT OTHER WITNESSES HAVING ONLY SECONDHAND INFORMATION.BUT IN BOTH YOUR CASES YOU HAVE FIRSTHAND INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU WERE ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> NOW, COLONEL, 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 THEM.>> SO 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 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 CAN 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 NORTHWEST NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TALKING POINTS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> BECAUSE THE WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT CARRY INCREDIBLE WEIGHT. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? >> THAT IS 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 IS CORRECT. >> COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ARE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL’S DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN PREPARING THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT’S CALL? >> I DID — I PREPARED THEM. >> SO YOU PREPARED THEM. THEY WERE THEN REVIEWED AND EDITED BY MULTIPLE SENIOR OFFICERS AT THE NSC AND THE WHITE HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS 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 PRODUCTS FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SUGGESTING THAT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, THE BIDENS, OR BURISMA ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES? >> NO, I AM 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 HAD DISCUSSED UP UNTIL THAT POINT INCLUDED ANY OF THESE ELEMENTS.>> WOULD IT EVER BE U.S. POLICY IN YOUR EXPERIENCE 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, CERTAINLY A DIRECTOR AT 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 IS NO PERCEPTION OF MANIPULATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. SO IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE PARTICIPATE IN.>> MS. WILLIAMS, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE DID THE OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDE ASKING UKRAINE TO OPEN INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS? >> I HAD NOT SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THOSE PARTICULAR CASES IN OUR POLICY FORMULATION PROCESS. >> ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST SAY TO YOU, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THAT IN LISTENING TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT I HAD CHIPS UP AND DOWN MY SPINE, AND 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. MISS WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK BOTH OF YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I SEE YOU WEARING YOUR DRESS UNIFORM. KNOWING THAT’S NOT THE UNIFORM OF THE DAY, YOU NORMALLY WEAR A SUIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE, I THINK IT’S A GREAT REMINDER OF YOUR MILITARY SERVICE.I TOO COME FROM A MILITARY FAMILY. THESE ARE MY FATHER’S AIR FORCE WINGS. HE WAS A PILOT IN WORLD WAR II. FIVE OF HIS SONS SERVED IN THE MILITARY. SO AS ONE MILITARY FAMILY TO ANOTHER, THANK YOU AND YOUR BROTHERS FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOUR EXAMPLE HERE. VERY QUICKLY, I’M CURIOUS, WHEN RANKING MEMBER NUNES REFERRED TOY AS MR. VINDMAN YOU QUICKLY CORRECTED HIM AND WANTED TO BE CALLED LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. DO YOU ALWAYS INSIST ON CIVILIANS CALLING YOU BY YOUR RANK? >> MR. STEWART, REPRESENTATIVE STEWART, I’M IN UNIFORM WEARING MY MILITARY RANK. I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO STICK WITH THAT. I APOLOGIZE — I DON’T BELIEVE HE DID. BUT THE ATTACKS THAT I’VE HAD IN THE PRESS, IN TWITTER HAVE KIND OF ELIMINATED THE FACT THAT EITHER MARGINALIZED ME AS A MILITARY OFFICER OR — >> LISTEN, I JUST — I’M JUST TELLING YOU THAT THE RANKING MEMBER MEANT NO DISRESPECT TO YOU. >> I BELIEVE THAT. >> I’D LIKE TO GO BACK TO YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY TODAY. MUCH HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT AS WE’VE DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE WORD “FAVOR.” AND THIS BEING INTERPRETED AS A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.AND YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD “FAVOR,” AND I’LL PARAPHRASE YOU AND YOU FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME. YOU SAID IN THE MILITARY CULTURE, WHICH YOU AND I ARE BOTH FAMILIAR WITH, 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, YOU THINK YOUR INTERPRETATION OF A FAVOR AS A DEMAND IS BASED ON YOUR MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND THE MILITARY CULTURE. >> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT. >> I THINK THAT IS 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 BELIEVE SO.I DON’T KNOW. >> HE’S NOT. WOULD IT BE FAIR, THEN, TO TAKE A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND TO TAKE YOUR REEVALUATION OF THEIR WORDS BASED ON YOUR MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND YOUR MILITARY CULTURE AND TO ATTACH THAT CULTURE AND THAT MEANING OF THOSE WORDS TO SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER SERVED? >> REPRESENTATIVE, I MADE THAT JUDGMENT.I STICK BY THAT JUDGMENT. >> OKAY. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I THINK IT’S NONSENSE. LOOK, I WAS IN THE MILITARY. I COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A FAVOR AND AN ORDER AND A DEMAND AND SO COULD MY SUBORDINATES. AND 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 YOU INTERPRETED THE WORD FAVOR BUT THE TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER DID NOT 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 TRUE AT ALL. IT’S NOT CLEAR AT ALL. YOU SAY IT MAKES IT CLEAR. IT’S NOT CLEAR AT ALL. AND THE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE TALKING TO EACH OTHER DIDN’T INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.I’D LIKE TO GO ON TO DISCUSS YOUR REACTION TO THE PHONE CALL AND AGAIN YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY. AND FOR BREVITY AND FOR CLARITY I’M GOING TO REFER TO YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, PAGE 155. YOUR ATTORNEY’S WELCOME TO FOLLOW ALONG. QUOTING YOU, LIEUTENANT 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 BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT. IN MY MIND DID I CONSIDER THE FACTOR THERE COULD HAVE BEEN OTHER IMPLICATIONS? YES. BUT IT WASN’T THE BASIS OF, I DON’T KNOW, LODGING A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.THEN YOU GO ON TO TALK ABOUT POLICY CONCERNS AND MORAL AND ETHICAL JUDGMENTS. SO YOUR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PHONE CALL WERE NOT LEGAL. THEY WERE BASED ON MORAL, ETHICAL, AND POLICY DIFFERENCES. WHICH YOU THOUGHT WERE WRONG, TO USE YOUR WORD. YOU SAID THIS WAS WRONG. NOT ILLEGAL BUT WRONG. THERE ARE, AS I’VE STATED PREVIOUS 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 WITHHOLD — OR THREATEN TO WITHHOLD A BILLION DOLLARS IN AID AFGHAN — IT WAS THE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS INVESTIGATING A COMPANY THAT WAS PAYING HIS SON. SO I’LL ASK YOU, WAS THAT ALSO WRONG? >> THAT IS NOT WHAT — I FRANKLY DON’T HAVE ANY FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.>> YOU HAVE NOT SEEN A VIDEO? >> I’VE SEEN THE VIDEO — >> THAT’S ALL I’VE DESCRIBED IS THE VIDEO. EVERYTHING I’VE JUST SAID TO YOU IS IN THE VIDEO. WAS THAT WRONG AS WELL? >> CONGRESSMAN, THIS IS SOMETHING I ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN. >> I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN MAKE A — >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. COLONEL VINDMAN, IF YOU’D LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU’RE MORE THAN WELCOME. >> I FRANKLY DON’T KNOW THAT MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT. I SAUT SNIPPET OF THE VIDEO, BUT I DON’T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT OFF THAT. >> THANK YOU. MR. QUIGLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COLONEL, IT’S ONE THING TO ASK SOMEBODY A FAVOR LIKE HEY, GO PICK UP MY DRY CLEANING.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 THAT MILITARY ASSISTANCE, IF I COULD. MS. WILLIAMS, AGAIN, WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UP, THE NEARLY $400 MILLION THAT WAS REFERENCED? >> JULY 3rd. >> AND WERE YOU AWARE 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 ON JULY 31st. >> AND AT THAT POINT DID ANYONE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC REASON FOR THE HOLD? >> IN THOSE MEETINGS THE OMB REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT THE ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD AT THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF. >> AND DID THEY GIVE WILLIAMS 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 OTHER 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 WERE 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, AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING WITHHELD? >> ON OR ABOUT JULY 3rd. >> AND WHAT EXACTLY HAD YOU LEARNED FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT I BELIEVE THAT PROMPTED YOU TO DRAFT THE NOTICE ON JULY 3rd? >> ON OR ABOUT JULY 3rd I BECAME AWARE OF INQUIRIES INTO SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDING IN GENERAL. THERE ARE TWO TYPICAL POTS. STATE DEPARTMENT AND D.O.D. AND 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 SOME GENERAL INQUIRIES ON HOW THE FUNDS WERE BEING SPENT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, NOTHING SPECIFIC. NO HOLD CERTAINLY. >> WERE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE WITHIN 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 THE — FOLLOWING THE JULY 18th SUB PCC, WHICH IS AGAIN WHAT I COORDINATE, WHAT I CONVENE AT MY LEVEL, THERE WAS A JULY 23rd PCC THAT 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, SO THE DEPUTIES FROM ALL THE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, THERE WAS AN OPINION RENDERED THAT IT WAS — IT WAS LEGAL TO PUT THE HOLD.>> IT WAS EXCUSE ME? >> THERE WAS AN OPINION LEGAL — OPINION RENDERED THAT IT WAS OKAY TO — THAT THE HOLD WAS LEGAL. >> FROM A PURELY LEGAL POINT OF VIEW. >> CORRECT. >> I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. MISS STEFANIK. >> MS. WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE. AS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE WATCHING THROUGHOUT THE HYSTERIA AND FRENZIED MEDIA COVERAGE, TWO KEY 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 THE FOLLOWING.SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION IN CORRUPTION. TWO, HIGHLIGHTING FOR THE PUBLIC THAT BY LAW AID TO UKRAINE REQUIRES ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS. AND THREE, WHO IN OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS. SO ON CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED ONE OF THE KEY REASONS WHY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS OVERWHELMINGLY ELECTED BY THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WAS THAT THEY WERE FINALLY STANDING UP TO RAMPANT CORRUPTION IN THEIR COUNTRY. WOULD YOU BOTH AGREE WITH THE AMBASSADOR’S ASSESSMENT? >> YES. >> YES. >> AND MS. WILLIAMS, CORRUPTION WAS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE THAT WHEN YOU PREPARED THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR HIS CONGRATULATORY CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE POINTS YOU WANTED TO COMMUNICATE ON THE CALL WERE THE FOLLOWING. QUOTE, “LOOK FORWARD TO SEE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REALLY IMPLEMENT THE AGENDA ON WHICH HE HAD RUN RELATED TO ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS.” THAT’S CORRECT? >> THAT IS, YES. >> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS FOCUS ON ANTI-CORRUPTION IS A CRITICAL ASPECT OF OUR POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE? >> I WOULD.>> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU ARE AWARE THAT IN 2014 DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THE FIRST ANTI-CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION PARTNERED BETWEEN THE U.S., THE UK AND UKRAINE WAS INTO THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY BURISMA. >> I’M AWARE OF IT NOW. >> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT BURISMA HAD QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS DEALINGS, THAT’S PART OF ITS TRACK RECORD. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT REGARDING BURISMA MONEY LAUNDERING, TAX EVASION COMPORTS WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BUSINESS IS DONE IN UKRAINE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I’M NOT AWARE OF SPECIFIC INCIDENTS BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF — OUT OF THE REALM OF THE POSSIBLE FOR BURISMA. >> WELL, THAT’S PAGE 207 FROM YOUR TESTIMONY. BUT I’LL MOVE ON. YOU ARE AWARE THAT HUNTER BIDEN DID SIT ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA AT THIS TIME. >> I AM. >> WELL, I KNOW — 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 A CORRUPT COMPANY LIKE BURISMA.THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S STATE DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO CONCERNED. AND YET ADAM SCHIFF REFUSES TO ALLOW THIS COMMITTEE TO CALL HUNTER BIDEN DESPITE OUR REQUESTS. EVERY WITNESS WHO HAS TESTIFIED AND HAS BEEN ASKED THIS HAS ANSWERED YES. DO YOU AGREE THAT HUNTER BIDEN ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? >> CERTAINLY THE POTENTIAL, YES. >> AND MS. WILLIAMS? >> YES. >> NOW SHIFTING TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT OUR AID TO THE UKRAINE IS CONDITIONED ON ANTI-CORRUPTION, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT CONGRESS HAD PASSED UNDER THE UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CERTIFY THAT CORRUPTION IS BEING ADDRESSED. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT IT IS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING, WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP FOCUSING ON ANTI-CORRUPTION 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 ANTI-CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IN ORDER TO GET U.S. TAXPAYER-FUNDED AID.LIEUTENANT COLONEL VIND NAN, YOU SPOKE EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFENSIVE AID TO UKRAINE SPECIFICALLY JAVELINS. THIS WAS IN YOUR DEPOSITION. >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE JAVELIN IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN TERMS OF INFLUENCING THE RUSSIAN DECISION CALCULUS FOR AGGRESSION, IT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOOLS WE HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO PROVIDING DEFENSIVE LETHAL AID. >> SYSTEM ITSELF AND THE SIGNALING OF U.S. SUPPORT, YES. >> AND IT IS A FACT THAT THAT AID WAS PROVIDED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND MY LAST QUESTION, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I KNOW YOU SERVE AT THE NSC IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I SERVED IN THE WEST WING OF THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH ON THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL AND IN THE CHIEF OF STAFF’S OFFICE.SO I’M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICY PROCESS. I ALSO KNOW THAT 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 IS CORRECT. >> AND I RESPECT YOUR DEEP EXPERTISE, YOUR 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 A CLARIFICATION. YOU REPORT TO TIM MORRISON, CORRECT? >> IN MY ADVISORY — JUST TO CLARIFY, ONLY IN MY ADVISORY CAPACITY I ADVISE UP THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. THAT’S WHAT I DO. >> AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS TIM MORRISON TO AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> CORRECT. >> AND DO YOU AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT SETS THE POLICY AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF AS YOU TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU. MY TIME’S EXPIRED. >> MR. SWALWELL. >> THANK YOU BOTH. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I THINK THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW YORK DID NOT ASK YOU BUT IS RELEVANT FOR EVERYONE AT HOME, ISN’T IT TRUE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAD CERTIFIED THAT THE ANTI-CORRUPTION REQUIREMENTS OF UKRAINE HAD BEEN MET WHEN THE HOLD WAS PUT ON BY THE PRESIDENT? >> THAT IS 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? >> THAT IS. >> MS. WILLIAMS, YOU ALSO LISTENED TO THE CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> FAIR TO SAY, MS. WILLIAMS, 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 WASN’T PART OF THAT PROCESS, BUT THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> SO THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING FOR US AND HIS DEFENDERS TO GIVE HIM A GOLD STAR BECAUSE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE LISTENED TO THE CALL OR SAW THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND THEN HE RELEASED IT. THE DIFFERENCE OF COURSE BETWEEN THIS AND, SAY, HIS ONE-ON-ONE MEETING IN HELSINKI WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS 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 THAT EVERYONE HAD SEEN. NOW, YOU’VE BEEN ASKED TO ALSO CHARACTERIZE WHAT EXACTLY LEGALLY ALL OF THIS MEANS. AND MR. RATCLIFFE POINTED OUT THAT NO ONE HAD USED THE TERM “BRIBERY” IN OUR DEPOSITIONS. AND MISS WILLIAMS, YOU’RE NOT A LAWYER, ARE YOU? >> I’M NOT. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU A LAWYER? >> THE LAWYER’S BACK THERE. >> THE LAWYER’S YOUR BROTHER, RIGHT? >> YES. >> BORN 20 SECONDS AFTER YOU? >> NINE MINUTES. >> NINE MINUTES AFTER YOU. YOU’RE THE OLDER BROTHER. >> YEAH. >> I WANT TO GIVE YOU A HYPOTHETICAL HERE. SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A SHOOTING VICTIM AND THE POLICE RESPOND AFTER THE VICTIM IS DOING A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND THEY ASK THE VICTIM, WELL, TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. AND THE VICTIM SAYS, WELL, SOMEONE CAME UP TO MY CAR, SHOT INTO THE CAR, HIT ME IN THE SHOULDER, HIT ME IN THE BACK, HIT ME IN THE NECK.MIRACULOUSLY, I SURVIVED BUT I CAN IDENTIFY WHO THE PERSON IS THAT PULLED THE TRIGGER. THE POLICE SAY, OKAY, YOU WERE SHOT, YOU KNOW WHO IT IS. BUT SHUCKS, YOU DIDN’T TELL US THAT 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, THAT UNLESS VICTIMS OR WITNESSES IDENTIFY THE LEGAL THEORIES OF A CASE WE JUST LET PEOPLE OFF THE HOOK? IS THAT HOW IT WORKS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN? >> I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT IT DOESN’T SEEM SO. >> I DON’T THINK YOUR BROTHER WOULD THINK SO EITHER. MS. WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WAS DESCRIBED TO OUR COMMITTEE BY MR. MORRISON AS A, QUOTE, VORACIOUS READER OF HIS INTELLIGENCE READ BOOK. AND AFTER THE APRIL 21 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU PUT A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S READ BOOK, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND THE VICE PRESIDENT CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TWO DAYS LATER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND YOU TOLD US IN THE DEPOSITION THAT HE STUCK PRETTY FAITHFULLY TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SAID IN THAT APRIL 21 CALL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE HIS REMARKS WERE CONSISTENT BUT HE ALSO SPOKE ON OTHER ISSUES AS WELL INCLUDING ANTI-CORRUPTION.>> 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. BUT I WOULD SAY THE VICE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED OTHER ISSUES WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS WELL. >> AND AS WAS STATED EARLIER, THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> YOU TOLD US AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY YOU THAT PUT THE CALL TRANSCRIPT IN VICE PRESIDENT PENCE’S INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING BOOK, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I ENSURED IT WAS THERE.MY COLLEAGUES PREPARE THE BOOK. BUT YES. >> LET’S FLASH FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER 1, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MEETS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> YOU’RE THERE? >> YES. >> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE THEY TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS BUT YOU WILL AGREE THAT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DID NOT BRING UP THE BIDENS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. HE DID NOT.ZPLE 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 INTO THE BIDENS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG? >> I’M NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE. WE HAD NOT DISCUSSED THOSE PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS IN ANY OF THE PREPARATORY SESSIONS WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT — >> BUT YOU DIDN’T BRING IT UP WITH THE UKRAINIANS AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL, RIGHT? >> HE DID NOT IN THAT MEETING, NO.>> AND YOU DID NOT EITHER. >> AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, DID YOU EVER ASK THE UKRAINIANS 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 IN THE 25. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. HURD. >> MS. WILLIAMS, I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. WE SHARE A PERSONAL HERO IN DR. RICE. SO GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM THE UKRAINIANS ON THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN? >> NO, I DID NOT PARTICIPATE OR OVERHEAR DPLAGSS ALONG THOSE LINES. >> THANK YOU. LIEUTENANT 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 RESPONSIBILITIES IS DEVELOPING TALKING POINTS FOR YOUR PRINCIPALS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> PRESIDENT — I’M ASSUMING YOU ALSO DO THAT FOR YOUR DIRECT SUPERVISOR CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, MR.MORRISON, IS THAT CORRECT? >> MR. MORRISON HAS LEFT THE POSITION SOME TIME AGO ALREADY, AT LEAST THREE WEEKS AGO. >> BUT YOU PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR YOUR SUPERVISORS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> TYPICALLY FRANKLY AT THAT LEVEL THEY DON’T REALLY TAKE TALKING POINTS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE EXPERTISE. THE TALKING POINTS ARE MORE INTENDED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, ALTHOUGH AMBASSADOR BOLTON DIDN’T REALLY REQUIRE THEM BECAUSE OF HIS DEEP EXPERTISE. THE NEXT LEVEL UP, THE PRESIDENT — >> BUT TRADITIONALLY I’M JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS POSITION IS SOMEBODY WHO MAKES TALKING POINTS FOR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS 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. >> IN YOUR DEPOSITION IF YOUR LAWYER WANTS TO FOLLOW ON, IT’S PAGE 306, YOU ASK ABOUT EVENTS DURING THE TEMPORARY HOLD ON U.S. ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. THIS IS THAT 55-DAY PERIOD OR SO. AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NEW ASSURANCES FROM THE UKRAINE ABOUT ANTI-CORRUPTION 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 ON — EXCUSE ME. MAY 20th, 2019. >> AND THEN HE HAD A NEW PARLIAMENT TOO ELECTED AFTER HE WAS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> HE DID.>> AND WHEN WAS THAT PARLIAMENT SEATED? >> THAT WAS — THAT WAS, I’M SORRY, JULY 21st, 2019. >> THAT WAS WHEN THEY WON. THEY WEREN’T PROPERLY SEATED UNTIL AUGUST? >> THAT’S RIGHT. THEY WON. THEY WEREN’T SEATED UNTIL AUGUST. >> YOUR BOSS’S BOSS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, TRAVELED TO UKRAINE IN LATE AUGUST, AUGUST 27, 28, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DID HE TAKE YOU WITH YOU — DID HE TAKE YOU WITH HIM? >> HE DIDN’T. >> WE KNOW FROM OTHER WITNESS THAT’S WHEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS THERE HE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS STAFF AND THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY WERE VISUALLY EXHAUSTED BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID DURING THAT TIME PERIOD WAS CHANGE THE UKRAINIAN CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM RATA DEPUTIES, SOME OF THEIR PARLIAMENTARIANS BECAUSE THAT HAD BEEN THE SOURCE OF RAW CORRUPTION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.IS THAT ACCURATE? >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS IMPORTANT CHANGE TO UKRAINIAN LAW? >> OF COURSE. >> AND YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT’S A SIGNIFICANT ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT? >> NO, IT IS SIGNIFICANT. >> IT’S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, CORRECT? ALSO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH THIS NEW PARLIAMENT OPENED UKRAINE’S HIGH ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT. RIGHT? THIS HAD BEEN AN INITIATIVE THAT MANY FOLKS IN OUR STATE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN PUSHING TO HAPPEN. AND THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THAT TIME FRAME. WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS? >> YES. >> DO YOU THINK THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ANTI-CORRUPTION? >> I DO. >> WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT — HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> I THINK IT WAS JUST THE ONE TIME FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION. MULTIPLE ENGAGEMENTS BUT JUST THE ONE TRIP. >> AND THAT’S A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING? >> THAT WAS IN A BILATERAL — A LARGER BILATERAL FORMAT. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SMALLER VENUES. THEY WERE ALL IN — THERE WAS NEVER A ONE ON ONE. BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF, AGAIN, TOUCHPOINTS.SO THE BILATERAL MEETING, HANDSHAKE, MEET AND GREET. HE HAD A — >> SO THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE ROOM — >> YEAH. >> — WHEN YOU MET WITH HIM. BUT YOU STILL ADVISED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO WATCH OUT FOR THE RUSSIANS. >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS — AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM I’M ASSUMING THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER WAS THERE I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE YOU HAD OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION.WAS THAT — 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 BUT I DON’T RECALL SPECIFICALLY. IT’S POSSIBLE I DIDN’T. >> AND YOU COUNSELED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO STAY OUT OF U.S. POLITICS? >> CORRECT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK THE TIME I DO NOT HAVE. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. MR. CASTRO. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. MISS 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’S NICER TO YOU THAN MINE IS TO ME. DOESN’T MAKE YOU GROW A BEARD.YOU BOTH LISTENED IN REAL TIME TO THE JULY 25th CALL. IN PARTICULAR YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, “I’D LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE. THEY SAY CROWD-STRIKE AND THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.” THIS IS A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT.PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER, THOMAS P. BOSSERT, CALLED THE PRESIDENT’S ASSERTION THAT UKRAINE INTERVENED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS “NOT ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY BUT,” QUOTE, “COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.” COLONEL VINDMAN, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> CONGRESSMAN, I AM NOT. AND FURTHERMORE, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS A RUSSIAN NARRATIVE THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN HAS PROMOTED. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PART OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, ITS FOREIGN POLICY OR INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS, THAT SUPPORTS THAT THEORY? >> NO, I’M NOT AWARE.>> YOU ARE AWARE THAT OTHER PARTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS SAID DEFINITIVELY THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IT SEEMS INCREDIBLY ODD, THOUGH, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT NOT INCONSISTENT TO ME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE GIVING CREDENCE TO A CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE THAT HELPS RUSSIA REALLY IN AT LEAST TWO WAYS. FIRST, IT IGNORES AND FRANKLY 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. AND I WANT 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, “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 CAN 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 ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY? >> I DO NOT. >> IN FACT, IT SOUNDS LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENCOURAGING THE UKRAINIAN 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 UNDERTAKING POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS IS IN FACT A MAJOR PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND ARE YOU IN FACT AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IMPROPERLY INTERFERED IN 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 THAT THIS REQUEST, YOU FELT THIS REQUEST WAS WRONG. AND YOU’VE ALSO SAID THAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ENDEMIC TO UKRAINE JUST AS IT IS IN OTHER PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. WHAT IS THE — 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 UKRAINIAN 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 THE 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 CERTAINLY MORE BROADLY IN RUSSIA THAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN WHERE THE STATE WILL BE INVOLVED IN JUDICIAL OUTCOMES AND DRIVE THEM. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN. >> MR. RATCLIFFE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. MISS WILLIAMS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT WHAT YOU NOTED AS BEING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE CALL THAT TOOK PLACE ON JULY 25th WAS THAT 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 JUST REFER BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, YOU’VE TESTIFIED AND EXPLAINED TO US WHY IN YOUR MIND IT WAS A DEMAND. AND YOU’VE GIVEN US REASONS. THE DISPARITY OF POWER BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS.AND 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. >> SO TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, TWO IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS, ONE FELT THE NEED TO REPORT THE CALL BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEMAND THAT WAS IMPROPER AND ONE THAT DIDN’T REPORT IT TO ANYONE. YOU DIDN’T REPORT IT TO ANYONE, RIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS? >> I ENSURED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE TO MY SUPERIORS. >> SO WHILE ALL THIS MIGHT SEEM AS CLEAR AS MUD, I THINK YOUR HONEST AND KAIND ASSESSMENTS OF WHAT YOU HEARD ON THE CALL TELLS US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW. WE HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT FOLKS, NON-PARTISANS, 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 — 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. WE HAD THE CALL. AND THEN WE HAD A DEPUTIES MEETING WHICH CONSUMED ALL MY TIME. I WAS WORKING EXTREMELY LONG DAYS. I ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO COMMUNICATE — I MANAGED TO SPEAK TO TWO FOLKS IN THE INTERAGENCY. I ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO TALK TO MR. MORRISON. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN BEFORE I RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FROM JOHN EISENBERG TO NOT TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE ANY FURTHER. >> SO THE LAWYER — YOU NOT ONLY DIDN’T GO TO YOUR BOSS. YOU SAID YOU TRIED BUT YOU DIDN’T GO TO YOUR BOSS. YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO THE LAWYER AND THE LAWYER TOLD YOU NOT TO GO TO YOUR BOSS? >> NO, HE DIDN’T TELL ME UNTIL — WHAT ENDED UP UNFOLDING IS I HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH THE ATTORNEY, I DID MY COORDINATION, MY CORE FUNCTION, WHICH IS COORDINATION. I SPOKE TO THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE WITHIN THE INTERAGENCY. AND THEN CIRCLING BACK AROUND, MR. EISENBERG CAME BACK TO ME AND TOLD ME NOT TO TALK TO — >> I’M GOING TO READ FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.WHY DIDN’T YOU GO TO YOUR DIRECT REPORT? YOUR RESPONSE BECAUSE MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME TO TAKE MY CONCERNS TO HIM. THEN I ASK YOU, DID MR. EISENBERG TELL YOU NOT TO REPORT, TO GO AROUND MR. MORRISON? AND YOU SAID ACTUALLY, HE DID SAY THAT. I SHOULDN’T TALK TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. BUT THERE’S A WHOLE — THERE’S A PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN WHEN I TALKED TO HIM AND WHEN HE CIRCLED BACK AROUND. IT WASN’T A — >> ENOUGH TIME TORE FOR YOU TO TALK TO SOMEONE WHO IT IS. >> I’VE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN. >> HERE’S WHAT I’M GETTING TO. THE LAWYER TOLD YOU DON’T TALK TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU INTERPRET THAT AS NOT TALKING TO YOUR BOSS BUT YOU TALKED TO YOUR BROTHER, YOU TALKED TO THE LAWYERS, YOU TALKED TO SECRETARY KENT AND YOU TALKED TO THE ONE GUY ADAM SCHIFF WON’T TELL YOU — WON’T LET YOU — WON’T LET YOU TELL US WHO IT IS.RIGHT? >> REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN, I DID MY JOB. >> I’M NOT SAYING YOU DIDN’T. I’M SAYING THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE LAWYER WAS YOU SHOULDN’T TALK TO ANYBODY AND YOU, INTERPRET THAT AS DON’T TALK TO MY BOSS BUT I’M GOING TO GO TALK TO. >> I’M READING FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, COLONEL VINDMAN. >> SEQUENCE PLAYED OUT WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS I EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS. I DID MY COORDINATION FUNCTION. MR. EISENBERG CIRCLED BACK AROUND TOLD HE ME NOT TO TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE. IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME — >> THAT’S WHEN IT HAPPENED. THAT’S WHEN YOU TALKED TO SOMEONE. >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> MR. HECK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COLONEL VINDMAN, LET’S GO BACK TO THAT PAIR OF MEETINGS ON JULY 10th IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S OFFICE DOWN IN THE BOARDROOM WHERE YOU WITNESSED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORM THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, THAT AS A PREREQUISITE TO A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, “UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.” YOU SAID THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION THAT DIDN’T EXIST INTO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE SAME AFTERNOON YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG? >> THAT MEETING OCCURRED IN THE AFTERNOON. WITHIN A COUPLE OF HOURS I SPOKE TO MR. EISENBERG. >> HOW DID HE REACT? >> HE WAS COOL, CALM AND COLLECTED. HE TOOK NOTES AND SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT. >> DID HE NOT ALSO TELL YOU TO FEEL FREE TO COME BACK IF YOU HAD ADDITIONAL CONCERNS? >> HE DID, CONGRESSMAN. >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT HIS REQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS HAD BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF — ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY. DID YOU REPORT THAT TO MR. EISENBERG? >> I DID. >> AND WHAT WAS HIS REACTION? >> HE TOOK NOTES AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP OR LOOK INTO IT. I DON’T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. >> COLONEL, YOU’VE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT ON THE JULY 25th CALL NOW BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS, QUOTE, THERE WAS NO DOUBT, END QUOTE, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S SON IN RETURN FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.WITHIN AN HOUR OF THAT CALL YOU REPORTED THAT TO MR. EISENBERG, DID YOU NOT? >> I DID. >> WENT BACK TO HIM JUST AS HE HAD SUGGESTED WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? >> HE’S AN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT. IT WAS LESS A SUGGESTION, MORE OF AN INSTRUCTION. >> DID YOU TELL THE LAWYERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO SPEAK TO MR. GUILIANI? >> YES. >> AND THE LAWYERS IT WAS AT THIS POINT TOLD YOU NOT TO TALK TO ANYONE ELSE? >> THAT IS NOT CORRECT WITH REGARD TO TIMING. THEY DIDN’T FOLLOW BACK — THEY DIDN’T CIRCLE BACK AROUND. WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS IN MY COORDINATION ROLE I SPOKE TO STATE, I SPOKE TO A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL FROM ONE OF THE INTELLIGENCE BODIES NOTIFIED MR.EISENBERG THAT THERE WAS — THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION ON THE CALL, ON THE JULY 25th CALL. AT THAT POINT MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME I SHOULDN’T TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT IT. >> COLONEL, I WANT TO GO BACK TO 2014 IN IRAQ WHEN YOU WERE BLOWN UP. I PRESUME THAT GIVEN THE POINT IN YOUR MILITARY CAREER AND WHAT ELSE WAS GOING ON IN THE WORLD THAT UPON RECOVERY THERE WAS THE VERY REAL PROSPECT OR POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MIGHT ONCE AGAIN FIND YOURSELF IN HARM’S WAY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN.IT HAPPENED IN 2004, BUT YES. >> ’04, EXCUSE ME, THANK YOU. DID YOU CONSIDER LEAVING THE MILITARY SERVICE AT THAT POINT? >> NO. FRANKLY, CONGRESSMAN, I SUFFERED LIGHT WOUNDS. I WAS FORTUNATE COMPARED TO MY COUNTERPARTS IN THE SAME VEHICLE. I RETURNED TO DUTY I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT SAME DAY. >> BUT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO ADDITIONAL HARM IF YOU CHOSE TO SERVE IN UNIFORM? >> I CONTINUED TO SERVE IN UNIFORM FOR THE REMAINING 10 OR 11 MONTHS OF THE TOUR. >> COLONEL, I FINDING IT RICH BUT INCREDIBLE IRONY THAT WITHIN A WEEK OF THE PRESIDENT CONTRARY TO ALL ADVICE OF THE SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIALS, HE PARDONS THOSE WHO ARE CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES, WHICH WAS WIDELY DECRIED IN THE MILITARY COMMUNITY. WITHIN THE WEEK OF HIM DOING THAT, HE IS ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT AND ALLIES ON HIS BEHALF, INCLUDING SOME HERE TODAY, TO DEMEAN YOUR RECORD OF SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE AND THE CONTRIBUTION YOU HAVE MADE.INDEED, SIR, 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, SIR, THAT WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS JUST THE PRESIDENT AS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DELIBERATIONS IN THIS INQUIRY ISN’T SUFFICIENT TO CAPTURE WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE. INDEED, WHAT’S 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 FOR YOUR SERVICE, BUT YOU KNOW THANK YOU DOESN’T CUT IT. PLEASE KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT IT COMES FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART AND I KNOW ON THE BOTTOMS OF THE HEART OF COUNTLESS OTHER AMERICANS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, SIR. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. JORDAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SUNDAY, SUNDAY THE SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AN IMPOSTER.THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CALLED THE PRESIDENT AN IMPOSTER. THE GUY 63 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR, THE GUY THAT WON AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE LANDSLIDE THE SPEAKER CALLS AN IMPOSTER. THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY, TO THIS CONGRESS. THE SPEAKER’S STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. DEMOCRATS DON’T 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 DON’T TRUST THAT. AND THEY HAVE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO UNDO WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 8th, 2016. THEY HAVE BEEN OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT SINCE THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S LAWYER, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S LEGAL TEAM SAID THIS. JANUARY 30th, 2017, THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN IN OFFICE ABOUT A WEEK. COUP HAS STARTED, FIRST OF MANY STEPS. NEXT SENTENCE, IMPEACHMENT WILL FOLLOW ULTIMATELY. I GUESS WE’RE IN THE FINAL STEP STARTED — STARTED THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO. CONGRESSMAN TLAIB STARTED THIS CONGRESS, FIRST DAY OF CONGRESS SAID IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN SAID WE’VE GOT TO DO IT. 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 — BEFORE THE INAUGURATION, EVEN BEFORE THE ELECTION. THE RANKING MEMBER TALKED ABOUT THIS IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT.JULY 2016, FBI OPENS AN INVESTIGATION, SO-CALLED TRUMP/RUSSIA COORDINATION, COLLUSION, WHICH WAS NEVER THERE. OPENED AN INVESTIGATION, SPIED ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. MY GUESS IS THAT’S PROBABLY NEVER HAPPENED IN AMERICAN HISTORY, BUT THEY DID IT. AND FOR TEN MONTHS JIM COMEY’S FBI INVESTIGATED THE PRESIDENT. AFTER TEN MONTHS THEY HAVE NOTHING. YOU KNOW HOW WE KNOW THAT? WHEN WE DEPOSED MR. COMEY LAST CONGRESS HE TOLD US THEY DIDN’T HAVE A THING. NO MATTER, SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER GETS APPOINTED AND THEY DO A TWO-YEAR, $20 MILLION, 19 LAWYER INVESTIGATION AND THEY COME BACK AND GOT NOTHING. BUT THE DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE. SO NOW WE GET THIS. A BUNCH OF DEPOSITIONS IN THE BUNKER IN THE BASEMENT OF THE CAPITOL, WITNESSES WHO AREN’T ALLOWED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO THEY TALKED TO ABOUT THE PHONE CALL. WE GET THIS. ALL BASED ON SOME ANONYMOUS WHISTLE-BLOWER. NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. BIAS AGAINSTED THE PRESIDENT. THESE FACTS HAVE NEVER CHANGED. WHO WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT, WHO WROTE A MEMO THE DAY AFTER SOMEBODY TALKED 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 TALKED WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF’S STAFF. AND THEN HIRED THE LEGAL TEAM THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT, THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. ONE OF THOSE 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, IT IS SCARY, IT IS WRONG. AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THROUGH IT ALL. THEY KNOW THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT’S SIDE AS REPRESENTATIVE STEFANIK SAID. FOUR FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE. WE GOT THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH THEY THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT WOULD NEVER RELEASE. SHOWS NO COORDINATION, NO CONDITIONALITY. WE’VE GOT THE TWO GUYS ON THE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO SAID NOTHING WRONG, NO PUSH HERE. UKRAINIANS DIDN’T KNOW AID WAS HELD UP AND WE HAVE YET TO HAVE ONE WITNESS TO TELL US ANY EVIDENCE FROM ANYONE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID ANYTHING ON INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE AID RELEASED.THOSE FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE OF THE THE FACTS ARE ON THE PRESIDENT’S SIDE. THE PROCESS IS CERTAINLY NOT. IT HAS BEEN THE MOST UNFAIR PROCESS WE HAVE EVER SEEN AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THOSE 63 MILLION AMERICAN, THEY UNDERSTAND IT AND FRANKLY I THINK A LOT OF OTHERS DO AS WELL. THEY SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS AND THEY KNOW THIS IS WRONG, ESPECIALLY WRONG JUST 11 MONTHS BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. WELCH. >> THANK YOU. WHAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT I THINK WAS BEST STATED BY COLONEL VINDMAN’S OPENING STATEMENT. 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. VERY WELL STATED. I JUST LISTENED TO MR. JORDAN, AS YOU DID AS WELL, AND I HEARD HIS CRITICISMS 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’S 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 ANY ONE OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. COLONEL VINDMAN, MS. WILLIAMS, THANK YOU.I WANT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS THAT GO THROUGH THE BACKGROUND. WHAT’S 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 A FAIR STATEMENT, COLONEL VINDMAN? >> I THINK THAT’S A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION, CONGRESSMAN. >> AND TO GIVE FOLKS A REMINDER OF THE EXTENT OF CORRUPTION — BY THE WAY, A LEGACY OF PUTIN’S RUSSIA, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THEIR PRIOR PRESIDENT FLED TO RUSSIA INTO THE ARMS OF MR.PUTIN, HE TOOK WITH HIM $30 TO $40 BILLION OF THAT IMPOVERISHED COUNTRY? >> THERE ARE DIFFERENT ESTIMATES BUT IT’S ON THAT SCALE, YES. >> VAST SCALE FOR A POOR COUNTRY. AND IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT POWERLESS BUT MOTIVATED UKRAINIANS ROSE UP IN PROTEST TO THIS INCREDIBLE THEFT AND ABUSE BY THEIR PRESIDENT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND THAT WAS IN THE — IT WAS CALLED THE MAYDEN REVOLUTION, THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOUNG PEOPLE WENT INTO THAT SQUARE IN DOWNTOWN KYIV AND DEMONSTRATED FOR MONTHS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. AND 100 DIED. >> 106 YOUNG PEOPLE DIED AND OLDER PEOPLE DIED, CORRECT? THAT WAS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 18, 2014, AND FEBRUARY 22, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> 106 DIED, INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO WERE SHOT BY SNIPERS, KIDS, AND YANUKOVYCH PUT SNIPERS THERE TO SLAUGHTER THEM, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> BY THE WAY, I WANT 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 THAT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT AMOUNTS TO SOME OF THE KEY PILLARS. >> THAT’S RIGHT. AND THE GUILIANI, SONDLAND AND IT APPEARS TRUMP POLICY WAS NOT ABOUT THAT. IT WAS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO A POLITICAL OPPONENT, CORRECT? I’LL TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK. WE KNOW IT. AND YOU KNOW, I’LL SAY THIS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN, YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN, GO AT IT. DO IT. DO IT HARD. DO IT DIRTY. 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’S YOUR JOB, IT’S NOT HIS.MY GOAL IN THESE HEARINGS IS TWO THINGS. ONE IS TO GET AN ANSWER TO COLONEL VINDMAN’S QUESTION, 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’S NOT INVESTIGATIONS. IT’S THE RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE AND THE RESISTANCE OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. I YIELD 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 — >> HOPEFULLY THE LAST. >> I CAN’T BLAME YOU FOR FEELING THAT WAY, SIR. PARTICULARLY WHEN I’VE BEEN SITTING HERE LISTENING TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF BEING DOWN HERE AT THE KIDS TABLE IS THAT YOU GET TO HEAR THE FOLKS ABOVE YOU ASK THEIR QUESTIONS. I’VE BEEN LISTENING CLOSELY TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, AND I’VE HEARD THEM SAY JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING EXCEPT TO CONTRADICT ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY YOU’VE BOTH GIVEN.YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AND INSINUATIONS AND THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS MAYBE THAT YOUR SERVICE IS SOMEHOW NOT TO BE TRUSTED. 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. I GUESS MR. CASTOR IS IMPLYING YOU’VE GOT SOME DUAL LOYALTY WHICH IS AN OLD SMEAR WE’VE HEARD MANY TIMES IN OUR HISTORY. THEY TRY TO DEMEAN YOU AS IF MAYBE YOU’VE OVERSTATED THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR JOB. OF COURSE YOU WERE THE GUY ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING UKRAIIAN POLICY. WE’VE HEARD THEM AIR OUT SOME ALLEGATIONS WITH NO BASIS IN PROOF, BUT THEY JUST WANT TO GET THEM OUT THERE AND HOPE MAYBE SOME OF THOSE STRANDS OF SPAGHETTI, I GUESS, WILL STICK ON THE WALL IF THEY KEEP THROWING THEM.WE’VE EVEN HAD A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, THIS IS MY FAVORITE, QUESTION WHY YOU WOULD WEAR YOUR DRESS UNIFORM TODAY. EVEN THOUGH THAT DRESS UNIFORM INCLUDES A BADGE — A BREAST PLATE THAT HAS A COMBAT INFANTRY BADGE ON IT AND A PURPLE HEART MEDAL RIBBON. IT SEEMS LIKE IF ANYBODY GETS TO WEAR THAT UNIFORM, IT’S SOMEBODY WHO’S GOT A BREAST PLATE WITH THOSE COMMENDATIONS ON IT. SO LET’S DO IT AGAIN. LET’S DO THE SUBSTANCE. CAN WE DO THAT? BECAUSE WE’VE HAD A LOT OF DUST KICKED UP.MS. WILLIAMS, YOU HEARD THE CALL WITH YOUR OWN EARS, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> NOT SECONDHAND, NOT HEARSAY, YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT SPEAK. YOU HEARD HIS VOICE ON THE CALL. >> CORRECT. >> AND YOUR CONCLUSION WAS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS WAS IN YOUR WORDS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE, AM I RIGHT? >> THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY. >> AND MR.VINDMAN, YOU WERE TREATED TO A JULY 10th MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISE INVESTIGATIONS CONDITIONING A WHOUT MEETING ON THAT, INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE UNDULY POLITICAL AND YOU WENT TO NSC COUNSEL AND YOU REPORTED IT, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND LATER YOU TOO WERE ON THE WHITE HOUSE CALL, RIGHT? YOU HEARD IT WITH YOUR OWN EARS? >> CORRECT. >> NOT SECONDHAND, NOT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE, NOT HEARSAY, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT’S VOICE ON THE CALL. >> I DID. >> AND YOU HEARD HIM RAISE THAT AGAIN ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. >> I DID. >> WHEN YOU HEARD HIM SAY THAT, 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 MAYBE IN CERTAIN REGARDS MY WORST FEAR OF HOW OUR UKRAINE POLICY COULD PLAY OUT WAS PLAYING OUT. HOW THIS WAS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. >> AND YOU WENT IMMEDIATELY AND YOU REPORTED IT, DIDN’T YOU? >> I DID. >> WHY? >> BECAUSE THAT WAS MY DUTY. >> YOU STILL HAVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT HANDY? >> I DO. >> WOULD YOU READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH FOR ME AGAIN, NOT THE VERY LAST ONE, THE SECOND TO LAST ONE. WOULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN FOR ME, BECAUSE I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DESERVES TO HEAR IT AGAIN. >> I THINK MY DAD WOULD APPRECIATE THIS ONE TOO. DAD, MY SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITOL TALKING TO ELECTED OFFICIALS IS PROOF 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’LL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. >> YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU CAME FORWARD OUT OF SENSE OF DUTY THAT YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD. DO YOU REALIZE THAT, SIR? >> I KNEW I WAS ASSUMING A LOT OF RISK. >> AND I’M STRUCK BY THAT PHRASE DO NOT WORRY YOU ADDRESSED TO YOUR DAD. WAS YOUR DAD A WARRIOR? >> HE DID SERVE.IT WAS A DIFFERENT MILITARY, THOUGH. >> AND YOU WERE WORRIED IF YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF UP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> HE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT IT. IN HIS CONTEXT, IT WAS THE ULTIMATE RISK. >> AND WHY DO YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN DO THAT AND TELL YOUR DAD NOT TO WORRY? >> CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA. THIS IS THE COUNTRY I’VE SERVED AND DEFENDED, THAT ALL OF MY BROTHERS HAVE SERVED AND HERE RIGHT MATTERS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. YIELD BACK. >> MS. DEMINGS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL, MS. WILLIAMS, LET ME THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR NATION. IT TRULY MATTERS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I HAVE THE HONOR OF SPEAKING TO A GROUP OF VETERANS THIS PAST WEEKEND. WHAT I SAID TO THEM WAS THAT NO WORDS, NO WORDS ARE REALLY ADEQUATE OR SUFFICIENT TO FULLY EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE FOR THEIR SERVICE TO OUR NATION.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, THE 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, AND I QUOTE, A STRONG AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE IS CRITICAL TO OUR SECURITY INTERESTS. COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY A STRONG AND INDEPENDENT UKRAINE IS SO CRITICAL, AND WHY IT IS SO VITAL TO U.S.INTERESTS? >> WE SOMETIMES REFER TO UKRAINE AS A FRONT LINE STATE. IT’S ON THE FRONT LINE OF EUROPE. THEY HAVE ACTUALLY DESCRIBED TO ME, THE UKRAINIANS, IT IS A — THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS A BARRIER BETWEEN RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND EUROPE. WHAT I’VE HEARD THEM DESCRIBE IS THE NEED FOR U.S. SUPPORT IN ORDER TO SERVE THIS ROLE, IN ORDER TO PROTECT EUROPEAN AND WESTERN SECURITY. >> LIEUTENANT COLONEL, THIS IS NOT JUST A THEORETICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN UKRAINE AND RUSSIA. YOU’VE 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’S STABLE, BUT IT’S STILL A HOT WAR. >> AND ISN’T IT TRUE, LIEUTENANT COLONEL, THAT EVEN IF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS EVENTUALLY DELIVERED TO UKRAINE, 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./UKRAINE BOND IS SHAKY, IS THAT IT COULD EMBOLDEN RUSSIA TO ACT WITH MORE AGGRESSION. WOULD YOU SAY THAT’S CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS MY TESTIMONY. >> JUST LAST MONTH DURING AN INTERVIEW, PRESIDENT PUTIN JOKED ABOUT INTERFERING IN OUR POLITICAL ELECTIONS. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT’S 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 MITARY AID FROM UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EFFORT TO BLAME UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE. MS. WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT EVERY AMERICAN, REGARDLESS OF OUR POLITICS, SHOULD BE CRITICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.LET ME JUST SAY THIS. YES, WE DO TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TRUST US TOO AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 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. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> MR. KRISHNAMOORTHI. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN I’M CONCERNED THAT YOUR LOYALTY HAS BEEN QUESTIONED NOT JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE BRINGING FORWARD EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BUT BECAUSE YOU’RE AN IMMIGRANT. RECENTLY FOX NEWS HOST BRIAN KILMEADE SAID HE, MEANING YOU, WERE BORN IN THE SOVIET UNION, IMMIGRATED WITH HIS FAMILY YOUNG. HE TENDS TO FEEL SYMPATICO WITH THE UKRAINE. I FIND THAT STATEMENT REPREHENSIBLE BECAUSE IT APPEARS YOUR IMMIGRANT HERITAGE IS BEING USED AGAINST YOU. LIEUTENANT COLONEL, I CAME TO THIS COUNTRY WHEN I WAS 3 MONTHS OLD. YOUR FAMILY FLED THE SOVIET UNION AND MOVED TO AMERICA WHEN YOU WERE JUST 3 1/2 YEARS OLD, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR FATHER WORKED MULTIPLE JOBS WHILE ALSO LEARNING ENGLISH, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.>> YOUR FATHER STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF EMBRACING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ALL YOUR CHILDHOOD MEMORIES RELATE TO BEING AN AMERICAN, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU AND YOUR FAMILY FACED DIFFICULT TIMES DURING YOUR CHILDHOOD, CORRECT? >> YES. >> I CAN RELATE, THAT’S MY STORY TOO. BUT YOUR FATHER WENT ON TO BECOME AN ENGINEER, RIGHT? >> HE RE-ESTABLISHED HIMSELF IN HIS FORMER PROFESSION IN THE UNITED STATES. >> I CAN RELATE, I GOT A B.S. IN ENGINEERING. OF COURSE SOME PEOPLE CLAIM I PRACTICE THE B.S. PART NOW. YOUR FATHER NEVER GAVE UP WORKING HARD TO BUILD HIS VERY OWN AMERICAN DREAM, DID HE? >> HE DID NOT. >> WELL, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, 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 THAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY REPRESENT THE VERY BEST OF AMERICA.I ASSUME THAT YOU ARE AS PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN AS I AM, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> SIR, I WANT TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO YURIY LUTSENKO. YOU CALLED HIM A DISRUPTIVE ACTOR, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> HE HAS MADE VARIOUS CLAIMS ABOUT VARIOUS AMERICANS, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU ARE UNAWARE OF ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR HIS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> HE ALSO WAS A SOURCE FOR AN ARTICLE BY JOHN SOLOMON IN “THE HILL,” RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND YOU SAID THAT KEY ELEMENTS OF THAT ARTICLE AS WELL AS HIS ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> LUTSENKO IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SIR, THE OTHER SIDE CLAIMS THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PRESSURE ON THIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL. I THINK THAT’S WHAT WE HEARD EARLIER, RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> AND YOU HAVE TERMED WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATIONS ON THAT PHONE CALL AS A DEMAND, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.>> AND YOU POINTED OUT THE LARGE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE ONE HAND AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE OTHER, CORRECT? >> YES. >> THERE WAS PRESSURE ON THAT PHONE CALL, RIGHT? >> THE — THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED THE MEETING. THE UKRAINIANS SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT NEEDED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >> SO PRESSURE WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THEM, CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> SIR, COLONEL VINDMAN, LAST WEEK WE HEARD A DECORATED MILITARY VETERAN, NAMELY AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, COME BEFORE US. YOU INTERACTED REGULARLY WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND YOU KNOW HIM TO BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND HE’S A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> SUPERB INDIVIDUAL. >> I ASKED HIM A SERIES OF QUESTIONS BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE.IS AN OFFICER ALLOWED TO HOLD UP ACTION PLACING HIS TROOPS AT RISK UNTIL SOMEONE PROVIDES THEM A PERSONAL BENEFIT? AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RESPONDED NO, SIR. COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> I DO. >> I THEN ASKED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, QUOTE, IS THAT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BETRAYING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE NATION? AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RESPONDED YES, SIR. COLONEL VINDMAN, DO YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> I DO. >> I THEN ASKED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, QUOTE, COULD THAT TYPE OF CONDUCT TRIGGER A COURT-MARTIAL? AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID, YES, SIR. DO YOU AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, COLONEL VINDMAN? >> I DO. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. >> THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER QUESTIONING. REPRESENTATIVE NUNES YOU’RE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS. >> ACT ONE OF TODAY’S CIRCUS IS OVER. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING IT AT HOME, THE DEMOCRATS ARE NO CLOSER TO IMPEACHMENT THAN WHERE THEY WERE THREE YEARS AGO. IN THE PROCESS THEY HAVE — THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FBI, STATE DEPARTMENT, ELEMENTS WITHIN THE I.C., THE ICIG HAVE ALL SUFFERED LONG-TERM DAMAGE. THE DEMOCRATS CAN CONTINUE TO PUT — TO POISON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THIS NONSENSE. WE SAT HERE ALL MORNING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT WHICH WILL BE A VERY SERIOUS CRIME, HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANORS IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION. NO SUCH THING. POLICY AGREEMENTS AND THE DEMOCRATS’ FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION, I WOULD SAY IT’S ASTONISHING THAT THAT WOULD BE PUTTING TOO LITTLE EMPHASIS ON THEIR ACTIONS. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. I WANT TO THANK OUR WITNESSES TODAY, MS. WILLIAMS, COLONEL VINDMAN, BOTH OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY AND FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY.AND I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS BRIEFLY SOME OF THE EVIDENCE YOU 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 GO TALK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR, WHY DIDN’T YOU GO TALK TO MR. MORRISON, WHY DID YOU GO TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, AS IF THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG WITH GOING WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER, ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE ASKED MR.MORRISON WHETHER HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER RIGHT AFTER THE CALL AND THAT HE DID? >> I AM. >> AND ARE YOU AWARE ALSO THAT WE ASKED HIM, WELL, IF YOU HAD THIS PROBLEM WITH COLONEL VINDMAN NOT GOING TO YOU INSTEAD OF THE LAWYER, NATURALLY YOU MUST HAVE GONE TO YOUR SUPERVISOR. DO YOU KNOW WHAT HIS ANSWER WAS? HE DIDN’T GO TO HIS SUPERVISOR EITHER. HE WENT DIRECTLY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER SO I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL GIVE HIM THE SAME HARD TIME FOR NOT FOLLOWING HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND AS THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT WITH YOU. THE PRESIDENT MAY ATTACK YOU AND HAS. OTHERS ON RIGHT-WING TV MIGHT ATTACK YOU, AND THEY HAVE. BUT I THOUGHT 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.HE IS A PROFESSIONAL, COMPETENT PATRIOTIC AND LOYAL OFFICER. HE HAS MADE AN EXTRAORDINARY CONTRIBUTION TO THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IN BOTH PEACE TIME AND COMBAT. I’M SURE YOUR DAD IS PROUD TO HEAR THAT. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TRIED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT HERE TODAY, AND WE’VE HEARD IT BEFORE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST INTERESTED IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION. THAT’S OUR GOAL, FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THIS TERRIBLY CORRUPT COUNTRY. THE PROBLEM, OF COURSE, WITH THAT IS THERE’S 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 WAS KNOWN AS A STRONG FIGHTER OF CORRUPTION, SO WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT DO? HE RECALLS HER FROM HER POST. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IN FACT WAS AT A MEETING CELEBRATING OTHER ANTI-CORRUPTION FIGHTERS, INCLUDING A WOMAN WHO HAD ACID THROWN IN HER FACE ON THE DAY SHE WAS TOLD TO GET ON THE NEXT PLANE BACK TO WASHINGTON.YOU PREPARED TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT’S FIRST CONVERSATION WITH ZELENSKY. HE’S SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION. IF THIS PRESIDENT HAD SUCH A DEEP INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, SURELY HE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT UP IN THE CALL BUT OF COURSE WE NOW KNOW THAT HE DID NOT. WE THEN SEE RUDY GIULIANI NOT FIGHTING CORRUPTION, BUT ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. MY COLLEAGUES SAY MAYBE HE WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN, EVEN THOUGH HE SAYS HE’S ACTING AS THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER. MAYBE HE WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN. BUT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT RUDY GIULIANI WANTED COME UP IN THE MEETING YOU PARTICIPATE IN ON JULY 10th AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BRINGS UP THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AND 2016.TELLS THE UKRAINIANS WHO WANT THAT MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU’VE GOT TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS. NOW, THEY WOULD SAY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ACTING ON HIS OWN, BUT THAT DOESN’T QUITE WORK EITHER BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CALL RECORD FROM JULY 25th, WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO RELEASE, IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T BRING UP CORRUPTION. HE DOESN’T SAY HOW ARE THOSE ANTI-CORRUPTION COURTS GOING OR GREAT WORK. OF COURSE NOT. WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY? I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AND THIS DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY PUSHED BY VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT ALSO HELPS ME IN MY RE-ELECTION.SO MUCH FOR FIGHTING CORRUPTION. THE MESSAGE TO UKRAINE, THE REAL MESSAGE TO UKRAINE, OUR U.S. POLICY MESSAGE IS DON’T ENGAGE IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. THE MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT, HOWEVER, WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. DO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND DO IT FOR MY RE-ELECTION. AND IT’S ALSO MADE CLEAR THEY WANT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND ULTIMATELY IF THEY WANT $400 MILLION IN U.S. AID, 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 INVESTIGATIONS AND THEY STILL HAD TO RELEASE THE MONEY. THEY STILL HAVEN’T GOTTEN THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, BUT THEY HAD TO RELEASE THE MONEY BECAUSE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BLEW THE WHISTLE. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO PUNISH. AND BECAUSE CONGRESS ANNOUNCED IT WAS DOING INVESTIGATIONS, THEN VERY SOON THEREAFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO LIFT THE HOLD ON THE AID.THEY ARGUE, WELL, THIS MAKES IT OKAY, THAT IT WAS A FAILED EFFORT TO BRIBE UKRAINE, A FAILED EFFORT TO EXTORT UKRAINE. THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT BETTER. IT’S NO LESS ODIOUS BECAUSE IT WAS DISCOVERED AND IT WAS STOPPED. WE HAVE COURAGEOUS PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO COME FORWARD, WHO REPORT THINGS, WHO DO WHAT THEY SHOULD DO, WHO HAVE A SENSE AS YOU PUT IT, COLONEL, OF DUTY, OF DUTY, NOT TO THE PERSON OF THE PRESIDENT BUT TO THE PRESIDENCY AND TO THE COUNTRY.AND WE 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, NOT ANYONE ELSE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANTED TO KNOW ARE THEY GONNA DO THE INVESTIGATIONS? THIS IS THE DAY AFTER THAT JULY 25th CALL. ARE THEY GONNA DO THE INVESTIGATIONS? AND HE’S ASSURED BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEY’RE GOING TO DO IT. AND WHAT DOES SONDLAND RELATE TO THIS FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER AFTER HE HANGS UP THAT CALL? THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T GIVE A EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE. HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG THINGS THAT HELP HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS. THAT’S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. AND IT ISN’T JUST ABOUT UKRAINE, OF COURSE. UKRAINE IS FIGHTING OUR FIGHT AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, AGAINST THEIR EXPANSIONISM. THAT’S OUR FIGHT TOO. THAT’S OUR FIGHT TOO. AT LEAST WE THOUGHT SO ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS. THAT’S OUR FIGHT TOO. THAT’S WHY WE SUPPORT UKRAINE WITH THE MILITARY AID THAT WE HAVE.WELL, THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT CARE ABOUT IT, BUT WE DO. WE CARE ABOUT OUR DEFENSE. WE CARE ABOUT THE DEFENSE OF OUR ALLIES, AND WE DARN WELL CARE ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION. WE ARE ADJOURNED. I PLEASE ASK THE AUDIENCE TO ALLOW THE WITNESSES AND THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE TO GO VOTE TO LEAVE FIRST. >>> AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE’VE GOT A LOT MORE TO GO. WE’RE OVER FOUR AND A HALF HOURS NOW INTO THIS HEARING, THE SECOND WEEK OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARINGS AND THE WITNESSES TODAY, JENNIFER WILLIAMS, STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE ATTACHED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE, LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN. WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT THEY WERE LISTENING TO THAT JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.BOTH WERE BOTHERED BY IT AND PRETTY MUCH STUCK TO THEIR STORIES IN VERY MATTER OF FACT TESTIMONY. WE’LL BREAK THAT DOWN IN JUST A MOMENT. BUT WE WANT TO KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A CABINET MEETING TODAY IN WHICH HE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE IMPEACHMENT ONGOING EFFORTS. LET’S GO TO HALLIE JACKSON RIGHT NOW AT THE WHITE HOUSE. HALLIE. >> Reporter: LESTER, WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WATCHING AT LEAST PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS THIS MORNING.IN HIS WORDS HE SAID HE BELIEVED REPUBLICANS WERE KILLING IT. PLEASED WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE. I WAS ACTUALLY IN THAT CABINET MEETING ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS. AFTER THE PRESIDENT BLASTED HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AS INCOMPETENT, I ASKED HIM WHETHER HE BELIEVED LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN WAS A CREDIBLE WITNESS. WATCH. >> THE WOMAN IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT. ALL SHE WANTS TO DO IS FOCUS ON IMPEACHMENT, WHICH IS JUST A LITTLE PIPE DREAM SHE’S GOT. AND SHE CAN KEEP PLAYING THAT GAME.AND I’VE BEEN TOLD, WHO KNOWS IF THIS IS SO, BUT I THINK IT’S SO, I HAVE PRETTY GOOD AUTHORITY ON IT, THAT SHE’S USING USMCA BECAUSE SHE DOESN’T HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT VOTES SO SHE’S USING USMCA TO GET THE IMPEACHMENT VOTE. AND IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A KANGAROO COURT HEADED BY LITTLE SHIFTY SCHIFF WHERE WE DON’T HAVE LAWYERS, WE DON’T HAVE WITNESSES, WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING AND YET I JUST GOT TO WATCH AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE ABSOLUTELY KILLING IT. THEY ARE DOING SO WELL, BECAUSE IT’S A SCAM. IT’S A BIG SCAM. THEY’RE DOING SOMETHING THAT THE FOUNDERS NEVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE AND THE FOUNDERS DIDN’T WANT.I DON’T KNOW HIM. I DON’T KNOW AS HE SAYS THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL. I UNDERSTAND SOMEBODY HAD THE MISS FORTUNE OF CALLING HIM MISTER AND HE CORRECTED THEM. I UNDERSTAND NOW HE WEARS HIS UNIFORM WHEN HE GOES IN. NO, I DON’T KNOW VINDMAN AT ALL. WHAT I DO KNOW IS EVEN HE SAID THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT. IF ANYBODY READS THE TRANSCRIPTS, I HAD TWO CALLS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, WHO, BY THE WAY, SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE WHATSOEVER. THERE WAS NO ANYTHING. THEY DON’T — THEY PROBABLY THINK — THEY PROBABLY CAN’T EVEN UNDERSTANDING WHAT’S GOING ON WITH THIS COUNTRY.BUT VINDMAN, I WATCHED HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE THIS MORNING. AND I THINK HE — I’M GOING TO LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION. >> Reporter: SO THERE YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS. LET ME BRING YOU BEHIND THE SCENES INSIDE THE WEST WING AS TO WHAT WE ARE HEARING FROM OUR SOURCES BASED ON OUR REPORTING OVER THE LAST FOUR, FOUR AND A HALF HOURS OR SO.THE WHITE HOUSE, OUR SOURCES ARE LARGELY DOWNPLAYING THE HEARING CALLING THIS A DUD ESSENTIALLY. THAT’S COMING FROM OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT RAPID RESPONSE TEAM INTENDED TO MESSAGE OUT THEIR PERSPECTIVE HERE. UNSURPRISINGLY THESE OFFICIALS ARE PICKING UP PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS AS WELL. OF COURSE A DETAILEE TO THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS, TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT BACK UP IN THE WHITE HOUSE’S VIEW THEIR ARGUMENT AND THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT. YOU HEARD A LITTLE BIT OF IT THERE. PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING EVEN ALEXANDER VINDMAN SAID THE TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT, SAID THE TRANSCRIPT WAS LARGELY ACCURATE ESSENTIALLY. SO I WOULD WATCH FOR THAT MOVING FORWARD. I THINK IT’S NOTABLE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT MORE DIRECTLY ATTACK LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. REMEMBER HE DID SO LAST WEEK WHEN FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS TESTIFYING. THE PRESIDENT TWEETED HER, BLASTING HER SERVICE. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED SO FAR. THE PRESIDENT PERHAPS COGNIZANT OF THE OPTICS OF THIS.LIEUTENANT COLONEL A PURPLE HEART RECIPIENT, SERVED IN THE U.S. MILITARY SHOWING UP IN UNIFORM ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS. THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T HAVE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC EVENTS SCHEDULED BUT HE HAS A BI BUSY WEEK HERE. YOU HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT TRADE AND THE USMCA TRADE DEAL WITH MEXICO AND CANADA JUST BEFORE THAT CABINET MEETING. HE BROUGHT IN LOCAL RADIO REPORTERS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY TO DO INTERVIEWS, TO TALK WITH HIS TEAM, TO TALK WITH HIS CABINET ABOUT THAT. TOMORROW HE HEADS DOWN TO TEXAS FOR ANOTHER EVENT. THE WHITE HOUSE IS TRYING TO SHOW EVEN AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE FOCUSING ON IMPEACHMENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO DO THE WORK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT SAID, THE PRESIDENT, OBVIOUSLY BY HIS OWN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, IS VERY CLEARLY ENGAGED IN WHAT IS UNFOLDING IN FRONT OF AMERICA RIGHT NOW. >> HALLIE JACKSON, THANKS. IT PROBABLY BECAME SELF-EVIDENT BUT HE SAID I THINK THE WOMAN IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT NANCY PELOSI, NOT THE WITNESS, JENNIFER WILLIAMS. I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR BEFORE I BRING BACK OUR PANEL, CHUCK TODD AND BERIT BERGER JOIN US HERE. LET ME START WITH YOU.WE KNEW GOING IN THAT REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME OF HOW TO HANDLE THE COLONEL BECAUSE HE’S A WOUNDED WAR VET, A COMBAT VETERAN. THEY CHOSE TO GO AT THE ISSUE OF HIM JUMPING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN TERMS OF HOW HE REPORTED HIS DISCOMFORT WITH THE CALL. DID THEY MAKE INROADS THERE? >> I THINK IT PROBABLY DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK. THEY CERTAINLY MUDDIED THE WATERS A LITTLE BIT. WHAT TO ME WAS VERY CLEAR FROM COLONEL VINDMAN’S TESTIMONY IS THAT HE WAS DESPERATELY TRYING TO GET THIS INFORMATION OUT. HE WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE CHANNELS, FIRST REACHING OUT TO THE LAWYER, TAKING DIRECTION FROM THE LAWYER, TRYING TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION. NOW, DID REPUBLICANS SCORE ANY POINTS BY SAYING, WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE TO YOUR DIRECT SUPERVISOR, YOU SHOULD HAVE NOT TALKED TO ALL THESE PEOPLE. IT’S HARD TO TELL. BUT IT DOES SHOW THAT THEY PROBABLY WERE A LITTLE DESPERATE AS TO HOW TO ATTACK THIS TYPE OF A WITNESS IF THE TYPE OF REPORTING AND THE FORM OF REPORTING IS WHAT THEY CHOSE TO FOCUS ON. >> IT WAS THERE AND ALSO THEY SEIZED ON HIS RELUCTANCE OR UNWILLINGNESS TO POINT OUT WHO MIGHT BE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. >> AND THEY WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE DID YOU TALK TO “THE WASHINGTON POST,” “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” THEY WERE TRYING TO PAINT HIM AS SOMEBODY THAT WAS OUT TO GET THE PRESIDENT THE WHOLE TIME AND MAY HAVE BEEN A LEAKER. YOU KNOW, I FELT TODAY WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF WATCHING SOMEBODY PUNCH COUCH CUSHIONS. THE REPUBLICANS WERE TRYING DESPERATELY, YEAH, AND THEY WOULD SIT THERE AND TRY TO THROW SOMETHING OUT THERE AND IT WOULD GO SORT OF NOWHERE, IT WOULD FALL FLAT.THEY DON’T HAVE A WAY OF SORT OF UNDERMINING THE CREDIBILITY. I THINK THEY TRIED. IT DIDN’T REALLY GO ANYWHERE. I THINK THAT’S WHY THE WHITE HOUSE SPIN IS SAYING IT’S A DUD. WELL, IT’S A DUD FOR THEM BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THESE FOLKS DIDN’T WORK. LOOK, THEY HAVE TO PREPARE FOR WHAT’S COMING. WE’RE ABOUT TO SEE TESTIMONY IN THE SECOND HALF TODAY FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHO IS GOING TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY.AND HOW THAT PLAYS WITH THAT PANEL BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, WE’RE GOING TO GET A LITTLE HINT OF HOW TOMORROW IS GOING TO GO. GORDON SONDLAND HAS HAD TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY SINCE THE DEPOSITION. WE’LL ALSO HAVE AMBASSADOR VOLKER DOING THE SAME THING. HOW THAT IS RECEIVED TODAY WILL GIVE US A HINT AT WHAT TOMORROW IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. >> AND TIMOTHY MORRISON WILL TESTIFY.COLONEL VINDMAN’S BOSS AND CAN ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. >> AND REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING TO MAKE MORRISON — THEY BELIEVE MORRISON AND VOLKER CAN HELP THEIR STORY A BIT HERE, CAN HELP THE PRESIDENT A BIT. I DON’T KNOW — YOU KNOW, I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S THE CASE IF AMBASSADOR VOLKER ENDS UP HAVING TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY AGAIN. THAT’S GOING TO BE A REAL PROBLEM. >> BERIT, HOW CRITICAL ARE VOLKER AND MORRISON NOW IN TERMS OF TELLING THIS NARRATIVE DEMOCRATS WANT TO TELL? >> I THINK THEY’LL BE VERY IMPORTANT WITNESSES FOR THE SAME REASONS CHUCK WAS SAYING. FIRST OF ALL, THESE ARE SORT OF THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES THAT YOU’RE NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO APPROACH THEM BECAUSE THEY DON’T NECESSARILY FALL INTO THE SAME CATEGORY OF WHOLLY HELPFUL OR FRIENDLY WITNESSES TO THEM.SO IT MAY BE A LITTLE TRICKIER FOR DEMOCRATS, THEIR QUESTIONING OF THESE WITNESSES TOO. BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY IMPORTANT FOR THE NARRATIVE. LOOK, YOU SAW ONE OF THE THINGS COLONEL VINDMAN WAS REALLY CROSS EXAMINED ON TODAY WAS HIS JUDGMENT. YOU HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE PUTTING OUT ON THEIR PAGE SAYING THAT MORRISON QUESTIONED VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT. THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE THE WITNESS NOW TO ASK HIM WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS MEAN? DID YOU THINK THIS WAS SOMEBODY THAT HAD POOR JUDGMENT? WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT FOR THIS PROCEEDING? >> ADAM SCHIFF SEEMED CONCERNED ABOUT IT ENOUGH THAT HE REDIRECTED AT THE ENDING THERE, ALMOST SAYING, LOOK, MORRISON IS GOING TO END UP TESTIFYING TO THE SAME THING YOU DID, WHICH IS YOU WENT TO THE LAWYER FIRST, YOU DIDN’T GO TO YOUR DIRECT REPORT.SO IT’S INTERESTING, THEY’RE NERVOUS ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO REDIRECT THAT. BUT I ALSO THINK IT GOES TO REPUBLICANS ARE COUNTING ON, I THINK, MORRISON TO BE MORE HELPFUL THAN PERHAPS HE WILL BE. >> I WANT TO GO TO RICHARD ENGLE RIGHT NOW IN LONDON, OUR CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT. RICHARD, REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO MENTION ZELENSKY PUBLICLY SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE. WE REMEMBER THAT GET-TOGETHER WITH THE PRESIDENT AT THE U.N. CAN YOU PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, WHAT THE UKRAINIANS HAVE SAID ABOUT WHAT THE U.S. EXPECTED, WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION EXPECTED? >> WELL, OF COURSE THERE WAS PRESSURE. I’VE SPOKEN TO NUMEROUS UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THEY SAID THERE IS NO WAY THAT THERE COULD BE ANYTHING BUT PRESSURE. YOU HAVE THE BRAND-NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS OVER A SEVERAL MONTH-LONG CAMPAIGN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS THIS INFORMATION, WANTS INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT BOTH INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND INTO THE BIDEN FAMILY.SO HE’S GOING INTO THIS PHONE CALL KNOWING WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE AND THEN HE HAS TO COME OUT AND SAY WERE YOU PRESSURED. IF YOU LOOK BACK, IT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO BASICALLY SAYS TO HIM WERE YOU PRESSURED? WHAT DO YOU THINK HE’S GOING TO SAY? UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SAID, YES, OF COURSE HE WAS PRESSURED. AND ONE OFFICIAL DESCRIBED THIS TO ME ALMOST LIKE A HOSTAGE VIDEO. THAT HE DIDN’T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. NOW, WHAT I THINK IS GOING FORWARD, AS CHUCK WAS SAYING EARLIER, WE’RE GOING TO SEE A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF TESTIMONY WITH SONDLAND AND VOLKER.SO FAR WHAT WE’VE HAD ARE PEOPLE WHO FELT AGGRIEVED BY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DOING, PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THIS ALTERNATIVE TRACK FOR UKRAINE POLICY. YOU HAD THE FIRST TWO SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, WHO DIDN’T LIKE THAT RUDY GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TEAM WERE TRYING TO DEMAND THESE INVESTIGATIONS OF WITHHOLDING AID. THEN YOU HAD THE AMBASSADOR WHO WAS OPPOSED TO IT AND FOUND HERSELF SLANDERED AND REMOVED FROM HER OFFICE. NOW YOU HAD TWO PEOPLE TODAY WHO WERE ON THE PHONE CALL, TWO SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WHO THEN RAISED THE RED FLAG. THEY DIDN’T LIKE WHAT THEY WERE HEARING. GOING FORWARD, YOU’RE GOING TO SEE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER CAMP, PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THIS ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, THIS ALLEGED ABUSE OF POWER, BECAUSE IT WAS VOLKER WHO WAS TRYING TO GET THE UKRAINIANS TO DO THIS INVESTIGATION. IT WAS GUILIANI’S CAMP THAT WAS TRYING TO DO THIS. CRITICALLY GORDON SONDLAND AS A MAJOR PLAYER IN THIS. SO I THINK WE’RE GOING TO SEE A SHIFT FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE APPALLED BY WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO THOSE WHO WERE ACTIVELY INVOLVED ON THE PRESIDENT’S SIDE. >> AND WE’RE JOINED BY JEREMY BASH NOW, A NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST. I WANT TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON COLONEL VINDMAN’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS INFORMATION, THIS CONVERSATION WAS PUT IN THE SECRET SERVER. HE SEEMED TO ALLOW THAT A LITTLE UNUSUAL, BUT THERE COULD BE OTHER REASONS FOR IT. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A SENSE THAT THIS NEEDED TO STAY OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICALLY TOXIC? >> LOOK, I THINK, LESTER, UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WILL WORK HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SENSITIVE TRANSCRIPTS AREN’T DISCLOSED.BUT IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL THAT THEY WOULD PUT IT IN A COMPUTER SYSTEM THAT’S REALLY RESERVED FOR THE MOST SECRET, MOST CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE. IT SHOWS THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF WAS WORRIED NOT JUST THAT CONVERSATIONS WOULD LEAK OUT BUT THAT THE CONTENT OF THIS CONVERSATION WAS POTENTIALLY SO EXPLOSIVE. AND OF COURSE IT’S THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF WHICH HAS FUELED SO MANY OF THESE HEARINGS, MUCH OF THIS INQUIRY. THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT’S A PERFECT TRANSCRIPT. HEREIN, LESTER, YOU SEE THE STATE OF THE REPUBLICAN DEFENSE, IN ESSENCE REPRESENTATIVE STEFANIK SAID, LOOK, WE THINK INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION BY UKRAINE, THAT’S APPROPRIATE. AND THERE’S WHERE THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO GO. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT’S UNDERLYING CONDUCT. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFEND THAT TRANSCRIPT.THEY CAN’T CLAIM THERE WAS NO LINKAGE, NO QUID PRO QUO. THEY CAN’T CLAIM IT’S HEARSAY. THEY’LL HAVE TO DEFEND THE UNDERLYING — >> WE LOST JEREMY THERE. BUT THE REPUBLICANS, CHUCK, HAVE HAD SEVERAL DEFENSES AND WE SAW THEM ALL PUT UP THERE TODAY. BUT THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE SEIZED UPON IS IT’S NOT IMPEACHABLE. SO IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE DEMOCRATS PUT OUT, THEY HAVEN’T EVEN GOT TO THE PART WHERE THEY SAY HERE’S WHY THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. >> I WOULD GET FOLKS ON TO WHAT JIM JORDAN DID.HE SPENT HIS FIVE MINUTES BASICALLY SEIZING ON THE — MAKING THE CAMPAIGN ASPECT, BASICALLY MAKING A CAMPAIGN ARGUMENT, NOT A BAD ONE IF YOU’RE THE REPUBLICANS, ESSENTIALLY SAID DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN WANTING TO GET HIM FROM DAY ONE. THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. THIS IS A CAMPAIGN. YOU KNOW, IT’S ALL ABOUT THEY’RE UNDERMINING THAT ELECTION AND TRYING TO GET HIM THERE AND THEY WANT TO SHORT CIRCUIT THE ABILITY OF THE VOTERS TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. IT’S STILL THEIR BEST ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAVE, WHICH IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, SHOULD THIS BE DECIDED BY CONGRESS OR THE VOTERS. AND I THINK THE FACT THAT JIM JORDAN WENT TO THAT DEFENSE TODAY, THAT HE COULDN’T — THAT HE REALIZED THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE GAINED BY GOING AFTER VINDMAN.THEY MADE AN EARLY EFFORT, THEY GOT NOTHING. THE FACT THAT HE USED HIS ENTIRE FIVE MINUTES AT THE END TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE CAMPAIGN ARGUMENT SAYING THEY’RE JUST TRYING TO GET HIM. LET’S JUST MAKE THIS — I THINK IT’S EFFECTIVE POLITICALLY BUT IT’S ALSO AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THEY CAN’T WIN ON THE FACTS. >> IT’S DONE IN PLAIN SPEAK. BERIT, AS WE SIT HERE AND TALK, WE KNOW ALL THESE NAMES AND WHO PLAYS HERE. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, PEOPLE ARE WORKING, THEY’RE AT SCHOOL — >> IT’S A POLITICAL FIGHT, SHOULD IT BE AT THE BALLOT BOX. >> HOW DO THE DEMOCRATS BREAK THROUGH WHAT’S BECOMING MORE AND MORE COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF JUST THE PLAYERS? >> IT GOES BACK TO SOMETHING ANDREW WEISMAN SAID ON DAY ONE. IF THE OUTCOME IS TO DISQUALIFY THE PRESIDENT FROM SEEKING ANOTHER TERM, IF IT IS, THEY NEED TO BE MORE EXPLICIT THAT HE’S BEEN TRYING TO CHEAT ON 2020, THAT THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. HE CAN’T BE TRUSTED TO DO THIS. WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES HE’S DONE. THEY’RE NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT I THINK AS UP FRONT.IF THAT IS — YOU’RE ASKING THE COUNTRY TO MAKE AN EXTRAORDINARY DECISION, TO SHORT CIRCUIT WHAT WOULD BE THEIR CALL. AND YOU WANT THEM TO DO IT WITH LESS THAN A YEAR TO GO BEFORE THE ELECTION. AGAIN, AND IT MAY BE A LEGITIMATE THING TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO DO. I DON’T KNOW IF DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN AS EXPLICIT AS THEY NEED TO BE TO MAKE THAT CASE. >> BERIT, IS THERE A STAR WITNESS HERE? YOU DO TRIALS. DO YOU BRING OUT YOUR HEAVIEST HITTER AT THE END, AT THE BEGINNING OR DOES THAT PERSON EXIST? >> I’M SURE THAT PERSON EXISTS, I’M NOT SURE WE’LL HEAR FROM THAT PERSON.THERE COULD BE SOME STAR WITNESSES. >> JOHN BOLTON. >> JOHN BOLTON, EISENBERG. THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES WE KEEP HEARING BUT MY GUESS IS WE’LL NEVER HEAR FROM THEM. AS FAR AS WITNESSES THAT WE’LL HEAR FROM THIS WEEK, THE MOST INTERESTING I THINK WILL BE SONDLAND. HE CERTAINLY HAS THE MOST — HE’S SORT OF RIGHT IN THE SOUP OF ALL OF THIS. I THINK HE’LL BE THE MOST INTERESTING TO SEE HOW HE EXPLAINS THE CHANGE IN HIS TESTIMONY, HOW HE RECONCILES HIS TESTIMONY WITH THAT OF SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES. UNFORTUNATELY, IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE HYPOCRISY OF SAYING THERE ARE ALL THESE WITNESSES THAT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT WERE RIGHT THERE BUT WE’RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM TESTIFY. >> LET’S GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE HALLWAY BUZZ AT THE CAPITOL IS. THIS SESSION IS ADJOURNED. GEOFF BENNETT IS STANDING BY. GEOFF. >> Reporter: AS I STAND HERE AND TALK TO YOU, YOU HAVE MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE RUSHING ACROSS THE STREET TO VOTE ON UNRELATED LEGISLATION THAT WILL FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT BEYOND THIS THURSDAY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS SET TO RUN OUT OF MONEY. THERE’S A HUGE QUESTION MARK AROUND WHAT COMES NEXT. WE’RE SET TO HEAR FROM TIM MORRISON AND KURT VOLKER.IN PART BECAUSE FOR WEEKS I’VE TALKED TO REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE BEEN HITCHING THEIR WAGON ON THIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM MORRISON AND VOLKER BECAUSE THEY THINK IT WILL BE EXCULPATORY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. IF YOU READ THROUGH THE TESTIMONY — THE TRANSCRIPT OF THEIR PRIVATE TESTIMONY, NEITHER MAN GOES AS FAR AS REPUBLICANS ARE TELEGRAPHING THAT THEY WILL. MORRISON HAS SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INTERACTION WITH HIS UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART IS NOT ILLEGAL, HE JUST FOUNDING IT TO BE POLITICALLY PROBLEMATIC. VOLKER PREVIOUSLY SAID HE WASN’T AWARE OF A QUID PRO QUO. REPUBLICANS HAVE TAKEN THAT AND SAID HE SAID THERE WAS NONE AT ALL. I’M TOLD THAT VOLKER IS PREPARED TO AMEND HIS TESTIMONY AND HE IS GOING TO SAY THAT HE DOES NOT DISPUTE THERE WAS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN THE DELIVERY OF AID, BETWEEN THE OFFER OF THIS WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE OPENING OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE UKRAINIANS TO OPEN.HE’S JUST GOING TO SAY NOW HE WAS NOT FULLY AWARE OF IT. HE WASN’T AWARE THAT WHEN UKRAINIANS WERE TALKING ABOUT BURISMA, WHEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WERE TALKING ABOUT BURISMA THAT THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO ABOUT THE BIDENS BECAUSE THAT WAS A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ISSUE HE WASN’T FULLY BRIEFED ON. THAT’S WHAT WE EXPECT THESE TWO MEN TO TALK ABOUT. >> THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENDERS HAVE BEEN SAYING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS FOCUSED ON IMPEACHMENT AND NOTHING IS GETTING DONE. WHAT’S YOUR SENSE ABOUT THE WORK OF CONGRESS OUTSIDE THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> Reporter: WELL, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI REJECTS THAT ARGUMENT OUT OF HAND ENTIRELY. SHE POINTS TO DOZENS OF BILLS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC-LED HOUSE HAS PASSED FROM GUN CONTROL, TO LOWERING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TO A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS THAT THE REPUBLICAN SENATE WON’T TAKE UP. THE REASON WHY MITCH McCONNELL SAYS HE WON’T TAKE THEM UP IS BECAUSE HE’S NOT GOING TO PASS ANYTHING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT SIGN. >> GEOFF BENNETT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO THE FIRST PART OF TODAY’S HEARING IS CONCLUDED. AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, WHEN THE COMMITTEE RETURNS IT WILL HEAR FROM TWO MORE WITNESSES. KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND TIM MORRISON. WE’LL BE BACK ON THE AIR WHEN THE COMMITTEE RETURNS. FOR NOW I’M LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS IN NEW YORK. GOOD DAY, EVERYONE. HE’LL GO AGAINST HIS OWN COUNSEL, I WON’T — >> MORNING, EVERYONE. >> THE HEARING BEGINS. >> THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HOLDING AS PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES’ IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS AT ANY TIME THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT. WE’LL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME FASHION AS OUR FIRST HEARING.I’LL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND REPRESENTATIVE NUNES WILL HAVE A CHANCE FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. WE’LL TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN TO QUESTIONS. FOR AUDIENCE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU AND RESPECT YOUR INTEREST IN BEING HERE. IN TURN 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’LL TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER.AND ENSURE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS RUN IN THE ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE RULES AND HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. WITH THAT I 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 WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SCHEME TO CONDITION OFFICIAL ACTS WITH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF U.S. MILITARY AID TO FIGHT RUSSIANS ON A DELIVERABLE BY NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO POLITICLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS TRUMP BELIEVED WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVED THE BIDENS AND THE OTHER INVOLVED A DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN OUR 2016 ELECTION. AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WOULD LATER TELL DAVID HOLMES IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP DID NOT GIVE A — HE THEN USED AN EXPLETIVE — ABOUT UKRAINE.HE CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION. 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. ANTI-CORRUPTION 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, CAREER PROFESSIONALS BECAME CONCERNED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH AN IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT INVOLVED HIS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, EU AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI, WAS PUSHING A POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE AT ODDS WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST. THIS MORNING WE HEAR FROM TWO OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS WHO BECAME AWARE OF THOSE EFFORTS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN, WHOSE FAMILY FLED OPPRESSION IN THE SOVIET UNION WHEN HE WAS A TODDLER IS A CAREER ARMY OFFICER, AN 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 ISSUES. FOLLOWING HIS CONGRATULATORY CALL WITH VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIM TO COME TO HIS UPCOMING INAUGURATION. PENCE WOULD BE A COVETED ATTENDEE, SECOND IN SIGNIFICANCE ONLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND WOULD HAVE SENT AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL OF SUPPORT TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. IN EARLY MAY, HOWEVER, RUDY GIULIANI HAD BEEN PLANNING TO GO TO UKRAINE TO PURSUE THE PRESIDENT’S INTERESTS IN HAVING THE BIDENS INVESTIGATED, BUT HAD TO CALL OFF THE TRIP AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC. AMONG OTHERS, GIULIANI BLAMED PEOPLE AROUND ZELENSKY FOR HAVING TO CANCEL AND CLAIMED THEY WERE ANTAGONISTIC TO TRUMP. INSTEAD A LOWER-LEVEL DELEGATION WAS NAMED, ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, THE THREE AMIGOS.SENATOR RON JOHNSON AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WOULD ALSO ATTEND. AFTER RETURNING FROM THE INAUGURATION, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATION BRIEFED TRUMP ON THEIR FIRST ENCOURAGING INTERACTIONS WITH ZELENSKY. THEY URGED TRUMP TO MEET WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, BUT TRUMP INSTEAD CRITICIZED UKRAINE AND INSTRUCTED THEM TO WORK WITH JUDY — WORK WITH RUDY. A FEW WEEKS LATER ON JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH A GROUP OF U.S.AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, INCLUDING COLONEL VINDMAN AND FORMED THE GROUP, ACCORDING TO CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, THE MEETING WITH ZELENSKY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD TAKE PLACE IF THEY DID CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS. THEY ENDED THE MEETING AND SAID HE WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS. I’M DETERRED, SONDLAND BROUGHT THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION DOWN TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND WAS MORE EXPLICIT, ACCORDING TO WITNESSES. UKRAINE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS OR BURISMA IF THEY WERE TO GET A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH TRUMP. AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH VINDMAN WITHNESSED, HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL’S TOP LAWYER TO REPORT THE MATTER. HE WAS TOLD TO RETURN WITH ANY CONCERNS. HE WOULD SOON FIND THE NEED TO DO SO.A WEEK LATER ON JULY 18th A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ANNOUNCED ON A VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL THAT MULVANEY, AT TRUMP’S DIRECTION, WAS FREEZING NEARLY $400 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS AND ENJOYED THE SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT. ONE WEEK AFTER THAT TRUMP WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY. DURING THAT CALL, TRUMP COMPLAINED THAT THE U.S. RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE HAD NOT BEEN RECIPROCAL. LATER ZELENSKY THANKS TRUMP FOR HIS SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE AND SAYS UKRAINE WAS READY TO PURCHASE MORE JAVELINS, AN ANTI-TANK WEAPON, THE MOST IMPORTANCE DETERRENCE OF FURTHER RUSSIAN MILITARY ACTION. TRUMP’S RESPONSE, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH. TRUMP THEN REQUESTED ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE DISCREDITED 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’S PERSONAL INTEREST AND IN THE INTEREST OF HIS 2020 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT BOTH IN ADVANCE, BECAUSE SONDLAND AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN PRESSING UKRAINE FOR WEEKS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, BURISMA AND THE BIDENS.BOTH COLONEL VINDMAN AND MISS WILLIAMS WERE ON THE JULY 25th CALL. VINDMAN TESTIFIED DUE TO THE UNEQUAL BARGAINING POSITION OF THE TWO LEADERS AND UKRAINE’S DEPENDENCY ON THE U.S., THE FAVOR TRUMP ASKED 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 THAT VINDMAN RAISED CONCERNS WITH NSC LAWYERS. FOR HER PART, WILLIAMS ALSO BELIEVED ASKING ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.AND THAT IT MIGHT EXPLAIN SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHE HAD BECOME AWARE OF, THE OTHERWISE INEXPLICABLE HOLD ON U.S. MILITARY AID. VINDMAN AND MISS WILLIAMS TOOK NOTE OF THE WORD BURISMA BY ZELENSKY. A FACT CONSPICUOUSLY LEFT OUT OF THE CALL NOW LOCKED AWAY ON AN ULTRASECURE SERVER. COLONEL VINDMAN BELIEVED ZELENSKY MUST HAVE BEEN PREPPED FOR THE CALL TO MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BIDEN AND BURISMA, A FACT OTHER WITNESSES HAVE NOW CONFIRMED. IN THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOWED THE JULY 25th CALL, COLONEL VINDMAN CONTINUED TO PUSH FOR A RELEASE OF THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND STRUGGLED TO LEARN WHY IT WAS BEING WITHHELD. MORE DISTURBING, WORD OF THE HOLD REACHED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PRIOR TO IT BECOMING PUBLIC.BY MID-AUGUST THE DEPUTY AMBASSADOR ASKED VINDMAN WHY THE UNITED STATES WAS WITHHOLDING THE AID. VINDMAN DIDN’T HAVE AN ANSWER. THEY NEEDED TO PUBLICLY COMMIT TO THESE TWO INVESTIGATIONS IF THEY HOPED TO GET THE AID. MISS WILLIAMS, WE ALL SAW THE PRESIDENT’S TWEET ABOUT YOU ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON. AND THE INSULTS HE HURLED AT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LAST FRIDAY. YOU ARE HERE TODAY, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL. COLONEL VINDMAN, WE HAVE SEEN MORE ATTACKS ON YOUR CHARACTER AND WATCHED CERTAIN PERSONALITIES ON FOX QUESTION YOUR LOYALTY. I KNOW YOU HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR AMERICA AND WE OWE YOU AN IMMENSE DEBT OF GRATITUDE. I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE BACKS PART OF THOSE ATTACKS. TODAY’S WITNESSES, LIKE THOSE WHO TESTIFIED LAST WEEK, ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBPOENAED TO HERE, 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, COERCE, EXTORT OR BRIBE AN ALLY INTO CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS TO AID HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND DID SO BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING 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.I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A FEW 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 DISLIKED 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. BUT 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’S BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME PREPOSTEROUS REPORTING THE MEDIA OFFERED FOR THREE YEARS ON THE RUSSIAN HOAX.THE TOP NEWS OUTLETS IN AMERICA REPORTED BREATHLESSLY ON THE NEWEST BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS, SHOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EVERYONE SURROUNDING HIM WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS. IT REALLY WASN’T LONG AGO WE WERE READING THESE HEADLINES. FROM CNN, CONGRESS, INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN INVESTMENT FUND WITH TIES TO TRUMP OFFICIALS. THIS WAS FALSE. “NEW YORK TIMES,” TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDES REPEATED CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. ALSO FALSE. SLATE, WAS A TRUMP SERVER COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA? THIS WAS FALSE. 12K3W4R50ISHGSDZ “NEW YORK “MAGAZINE, THIS IS FALSE. “THE GUARDIAN,” THEY HELD SECRET TALKS WITH AN ECUADORAN EMBASSY. ALSO FALSE. BUZZFEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP 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 MEDIA RUSSIA STORIES JUST AS A FEVERED RUSH TO TARNISH A PRESIDENT WHO PRETEND THE MEDIA IS SOMETHING DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, PUPPETS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. WITH THEIR BIAS MISREPORTING ON THE RUSSIA HOAX, THE MEDIA LOST CONFIDENCE OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AND BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW BADLY THEY BOTCHED THE STORY, THEY LEARNED NO LESSONS AND SIMPLY EXPECT AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE THEM AS THEY TRY TO STOKE YET ANOTHER PARTISAN FRENZY.IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS I’VE OUTLINED THREE QUESTIONS THE DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA DON’T WANT ASKED 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 WHISTLE-BLOWER AND WHO ELSE DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE THIS EFFORT WITH? THE MEDIA HAVE FULLY ACCEPTED THE DEMOCRATS’ STUNNING REVERSAL ON THE NEED FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TESTIFY TO THIS COMMITTEE. WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE INSISTING ON HIS TESTIMONY, THE MEDIA WANTED IT, TOO. BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED SINCE IT BECAME CLEAR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER PROBLEMATIC QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE THESE — WHAT WAS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S PRIOR COORDINATION WITH CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, HIS STAFF AND ANY PEOPLE HE COOPERATED WITH WHILE HE PREPARED THE COMPLAINT? WHAT ARE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S POLITICAL BIASES AND CONNECTIONS TO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS? HOW DOES THE WHISTLE-BLOWER EXPLAIN THE INACCURACIES IN THE COMPLAINT? WHAT CONTACT DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAVE WITH THE MEDIA, WHICH APPEARS TO BE ONGOING? WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S INFORMATION? WHO ELSE DID HE TALK TO? AND WAS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 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 WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS SUCCESSFULLY KICKSTARTED IMPEACHMENT, HE HAS DISAPPEARED FROM THE STORY, AS IF THE DEMOCRATS PUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 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 ELECTION TO OPPOSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. MANY OF THESE INSTANCES WERE REPORTED INCLUDING THE POSTING OF MANY PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS BY VETERAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST JOHN SOLOMON. SINCE THE DEMOCRATS SWITCHED FROM RUSSIA TO UKRAINE FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT CRUSADE, SOLOMON’S REPORTING ON BURISMA, HUNTER BIDEN AND UKRAINE ELECTION MEDDLING HAS BECOME INCONVENIENT SO THE MEDIA IS FURIOUSLY SMEARING AND LIBELING SOLOMON. THE PUBLICATION “THE HILL” SAID IT WOULD CONDUCT A REVIEW OF SOLOMON’S REPORTING. COINCIDENTALLY THE DECISION COMES THREE DAYS AFTER A DEMOCRAT ON THIS COMMITTEE TOLD A “HILL” WRITER 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. NOW THAT SOLOMON’S REPORTING FOR THE DEMOCRATS IS A PROBLEM FOR THE DEMOCRATS, IT’S A PROBLEM FOR THE MEDIA AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER SOLOMON’S STORY ABOUT UKRAINE’S INTERFERENCE. I ENCOURAGE VIEWERS TODAY TO READ THIS STORY AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE SOLOMON HAS GATHERED. ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT WE PUT THIS INTO THE RECORD, MR. CHAIR. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> THE CONCERTED CAMPAIGN BY THE MEDIA DISCREDIT AND DISOWN SOME OF THEIR OWN COLLEAGUES IS SHOCKING. AND 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 BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN? WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM? DID HIS POSITION AFFECT ANY 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’S 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. IF THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA ARE SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT BRIBERY, YOU THINK THEY WOULD TAKE INTEREST IN BURISMA PAYING HUNTER BIDEN $83,000 A MONTH.AND THINK THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN JOE BIDEN THREATENING TO WITHHOLD U.S. LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THE UKRAINIANS FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WAS INVESTIGATING BURISMA. THAT WOULD BE A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY. THE MEDIA, OF COURSE, ARE FREE TO ACT AS DEMOCRAT PUPPETS AND FREE TO LURCH FROM THE RUSSIA HOAX TO THE UKRAINE HOAX. THEY CANNOT EXPECT TO REASONABLY DO SO WITHOUT ALIENATING HALF THE COUNTRY WHO VOTED FOR THE PRESIDENT THEY’RE TRYING TO EXPEL. AMERICANS ARE LEARNED TO RECOGNIZE FAKE NEWS WHEN THIS HE SEE IT. IF MAINSTREAM PRESS WON’T GIVE IT TO THEM STRAIGHT, THEY’LL GO ELSEWHERE TO FIND IT, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YIELD BACK. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. >>> HI, EVERYONE. I’M ALISON MORRIS. SPECIAL COVERAGE DAY THREE OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD. THE WITNESSES HAVE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. AFTER TRYING OUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, DEMOCRATS HAVE RECENTLY SETTLED ON BRIBERY. >> I CAN’T SPEAK TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVATION WAS IN REFERENCING IT, BUT I NOTED THAT THE REFERENCE TO BIDEN SOUNDED POLITICAL TO ME.>> YOU HAVE A KANGAROO COURT HEADED BY SHIFTY SCHIFF, AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING IT. >> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU DID NOT KNOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER. >> RANKING MEMBER, COLONEL, PLEASE. >> COLONEL, YOU NEVER LEAKED INFORMATION? >> I NEVER DID. NEVER WOULD. THAT IS, THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS THAT I WOULD DO THAT. >> 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. >> IT IS A PIVOTAL WEEK IN THE INQUIRY WITH THREE DAYS OF HEARINGS FROM NINE WITNESSES. SO FAR TODAY WE’VE HEARD FROM THE NFC’S TOP UKRAINE EXPERT AND DECORATED ARMY VETERAN, ALEXANDER VINMAN, AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS, A DIPLOMAT POSTED IN THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE.THEY LISTENED TO THE PRESIDENT’S JULY PHONE CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. >> ON JULY 25TH ALONG WITH SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES, I LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. I FOUND THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL UNUSUAL, BECAUSE IN CONTRAST TO OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CALLS I OBSERVED, IT INVOLVED DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL DOMESTIC MATTER. >> WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE, AND I REPORTED MY CONCERNS. IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AT A POLITICAL OPPONENT.I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I RECORDED MY CONCERNS JULY 10TH RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND THEN RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY. I REPORTEDLY CONCERNS IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THE CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY. >> VINMAN AND WILLIAMS BOTH TESTIFIED THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY NATIONAL SECURITY WHO SUPPORTED THE DECISION TO WITHHOLD THE NEARLY $400 MILLION FROM UKRAINE. THEY SAID WITHHOLDING THE AGE WAS DAMAGING TO THE TWO COUNTRY’S RELATIONSHIPS AND TO UKRAINE’S ABILITY TO CON FRONT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. DEMOCRATS HOPED TO BACK UP THE BASIS OF THEIR INQUIRY. WHILE THE HOLDING U.S. MILITARY AID MAY BE GROUNDS FOR REMOVING HIM TO OFFICE. REPUBLICANS STARTED THE HEARING TRYING TO GET THE WITNESS QUESTIONING VINMAN’S AMERICAN LOYALTY AND PROFESSIONALISM. LEE AN CALDWELL IS FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY FROM CAPITOL HILL. WHAT ARE YOUR TAKE AWAYS FROM THIS MORNING’S TESTIMONY? >> WELL, THE BIG TAKE AWAYS ARE THE FACTS THAT THESE TWO PEOPLE WERE POSITIONED TOGETHER TO TALK.AS YOU MENTIONED, THEY BOTH WERE ON THE CALL, THE INFAMOUS JULY 25TH CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THEY BOTH HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE CALL AS WELL. WHAT I NOTICED IS THAT REPUBLICANS HAD A BIG DAY. THEY DOMINATED THE QUESTION. THOSE ARE THE MOST EXPLOSIVE MOMENTS. DEMOCRATS MEANWHILE TRIED TO LET THE WITNESSES TELL THE STORY BY QUESTIONING. LETTING THEM LAY OUT WHAT THEY KNEW. GETTING BACK TO THE REPUBLICANS, E REPUBLICANS REALLY TRIED TO POKE HOLES IN ESPECIALLY ALECK ZANDER VINMAN’S ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED. ESPECIALLY SINCE HIS TESTIMONY SAID THAT HE INTERPRETED WHAT WAS HAPPENING AS EXTREME AS A DEMAND FROM THE PRESIDENT UNTO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THEY ALSO REALLY TRIED TO DISTRACT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER AS WELL. I THINK THAT OVERALL DEMOCRATS REALLY WERE ABLE TO LAY OUT SOME MORE DAMMING EVIDENCE, BUT REPUBLICANS WERE REALLY TRYING TO UNDERCUT AND SEW DISCORD AND DISBELIEF IN THE DEMOCRAT’S ARGUMENT BY POKING HOLES IN THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY.>> LET’S STICK WITH THE REPUBLICANS FOR A MOMENT. LAST WEEK THEY WENT AFTER KENT AND TAYLOR FOR NOT HAVING FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS TO THE JULY 25TH UKRAINE CALL. VINMAN AND WILLIAMS WERE BOTH ON THE CALL. HOW DID THAT AFFECT THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING TODAY? THEY TRIED TO POKE A LOT OF HOLES. >> THERE WAS NO MORE TALK ABOUT HEAR SAY. LAST WEEK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WITNESSES WITH SECOND AND THIRD HAND KNOWLEDGE. YOU DIDN’T HEAR THAT TODAY. INSTEAD WHAT REPUBLICANS TRIED TO DO IS SAY THAT THE CALL WAS NOT AS PROBLEMATIC AS THESE TWO WITNESSES SAID. BUT THEY ALSO TRIED TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE USING THE TERM BRIBERY NOW, NOT QUID PRO QUO. ONE CONGRESSMAN FROM TEXAS, A REPUBLICAN, SAID NO AND ODDLY IN THE THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF WITNESSES, NOT ONE PERSON MENTIONED BRIBERY EXCEPT FOR WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT JOE BIDEN.NOW, I DIDN’T FACT CHECK THAT. I DIDN’T DO A COUNT, BUT THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT THEY WERE MAKING. TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT BRIBERY HERE EXCEPT FOR THE DEMOCRATS. SO REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY TRYING TO INSIST THAT THE DEMOCRATS AREOVER PLAYING THEIR HAND. THAT WHILE — THAT THERE’S NOTHING IMPEACHABLE HERE, ALISON. >> BEFORE TODAY, REPUBLICANS MANY OF THEM, WENT AFTER COLONEL VINMAN’S CHARACTER. THEY QUESTIONED HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS. PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED ABOUT JENNIFER WILLIAMS LIKE HE DID LAST WEEK WITH FORMER AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH. IT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS. >> WE ALL SAW THE PRESIDENT’S TWEET ABOUT YOU ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON. AND THE INSULTS HE HURLED AT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LAST FRIDAY. YOU’RE HERE TODAY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL. COLONEL VINMAN, WE HAVE SEEN MORE SCURRILOUS ATTACKS ON YOUR CHARACTER.I NOTE YOU’VE SHED BLOOD FOR AMERICA AND WE OWE YOU OUR GRATITUDE. I HOPE NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL BE PART OF THE VICIOUS ATTACKS. >> Reporter: HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTER RISE HOW THEY TREATED THE WITNESSES? >> WILLIAMS DIDN’T GET TOUGH TREATMENT. THEY DIDN’T REALLY GO THERE. WITH VINMAN, IT WAS A DIFFERENT STORY. SO IT WASN’T THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO TALKED ABOUT THIS IDEA OF THE DUAL LOYALTY FOR VINMAN. IT WAS THE REPUBLICAN COUNCIL WHO WENT THERE. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW IN UKRAINE, VINMAN WAS GIVEN A JOB OFFER TO BE DEFENSE MINISTER IN UKRAINE.VINMAN SAID IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS MORE OF A JOKE BECAUSE THERE WERE OTHER STAFFERS THERE, AND HE REPORTED IT UP THE CHAIN. AND WHEN HE WAS PRESSED HE SAID LOOK, IN IT WAS A PROBLEM, THEY WOULD HAVE REMOVED ME FROM MY POSITION IMMEDIATELY AND TALKED TO ME ABOUT IT. BUT THERE WAS NO FOLLOWUP FROM THEM. SO VINMAN REALLY TRIED TO DISMISS THIS. AND IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE MADE THE POINT THAT YES, HE IS A FATHER EMIGRATE — HIS FATHER EMIGRATED FROM THE SOVIET UNION WHEN HIS FATHER WAS 47 YEARS OLD. HE SAID I WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO SIT HERE IF I WAS TALKING ABOUT GIVING MY OPINION OR WHAT I THOUGHT WAS WRONG ABOUT A WORLD LEADER, BUT BECAUSE I’M IN THE UNITED STATES, I’M ABLE TO DO THAT.>> LEE ANN, WE HEARD DETAILS OF HOW THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25TH CALL ENDED UP ON A HIGHLY SECURED SERVER. WHAT DID HE LEARN? >> WE’RE LEARNING A LOT MORE OF THE DETAILS NOT ONLY THROUGH THE TESTIMONIES IN THE PUBLIC, BUT ALSO IN DEPOSITIONS THAT ARE — THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT ARE ALSO BEING RELEASED. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT IT WAS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER WHO WAS THE ONE WHO PUT IT IN THOSE — IN THE SECURE SERVER, AND WHAT ALEXANDER VINMAN SAID TODAY IS THAT YEAH, THERE WAS A COUPLE WORDS THAT WEREN’T ACCURATE.AND SO HE TRIED TO CORRECT THAT. HE SAID IT WAS HIS JOB TO GIVE THE MOST ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT AS POSSIBLE. HE GAVE HIS SUGGESTIONS AND THEY WEREN’T TAKEN. NOW, THE DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THAT WAS — THAT WAS PRETTY INCREDIBLE, BECAUSE THE WORDS THAT WAS NOT USED WAS BAREESMA. THIS IS THE ENERGY COMPANY THE PRESIDENT WANTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO BECAUSE IT’S ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIDENS. VINMAN DIDN’T THINK IT WAS THAT EXTREME OF A SITUATION, AND HE SAID GENERALLY THE TRANSCRIPTS WERE CORRECT AND ACCURATE.>> WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS. WHAT WAS THE DEMOCRAT’S STRATEGY TODAY? WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO GET OUT OF VINMAN AND WILLIAMS THIS AFTERNOON? >> THEY WANTED TO KNOW HOW SEVERE THE TWO OF THEM THOUGHT THIS PHONE CALL WAS. VINMAN CHARACTERIZED IT AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PUTTING A DEMAND ON THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. THEY TRIED TO GET OUT HOW VINMAN SAID IN THE CLOSED DOOR MEETING THAT THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SO INTENSE THAT IF SOMEONE WITH AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF POWER ASKS SOMEONE WITHOUT THAT MUCH POWER AND NEEDS A FAVOR J VINMAN SAYS THAT’S A DEMAND.NOW, REPUBLICANS SAID THAT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TAKEN THAT WAY, ESPECIALLY SINCE BOTH PRESIDENTS SAID THE TRANSCRIPT WAS NINE, BUT THE DEMOCRATS THINK THAT WHAT THE TESTIMONY TODAY DID IS GIVE FURTHER EVIDENCE TO HOW WRONG THE PRESIDENT WAS IN HOW HE WAS DEALING WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. >> WE KNOW THAT JULY 25TH CALL, THE ONE THAT VINMAN AND WILLIAMS WERE NOT PROMPTED THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME FORWARD. REPRESENTATIVE SCHIFF HAD TO CAUTION A REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT NOT REVEALING THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S IDENTITY TODAY. YOU WERE IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME. DID IT FEEL LIKE HE WAS TRYING TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER THERE? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> SURE DID. NOT ONLY THAT TIME, BUT ALSO LATER IN THE HEARING WHEN CONGRESSMAN JORDAN DID SOMETHING SIMILAR.THE REASON IS BECAUSE NUNES AND JORDAN WERE ASKING A ROUND OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE ABOUT — THEY WERE ASKING VINMAN WHO HE TALKED TO, WHO HE TOLD HIS CONCERNS TO. MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN NAMED EXCEPT THERE’S ONE PERSON WHO HASN’T BEEN NAMED YET, AND SO THE REPUBLICANS ARE IMPLYING THAT THAT ONE PERSON IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER. HE INTERJECTED STOP TO TWICE THE LINE OF QUESTIONING, AND THEN LATER IN THE HEARING, REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN SAID, WELL, CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF, YOU SAID YOU DON’T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS, SO WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT’S THE WHISTLEBLOWER? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO STOP HERE? SO HE TRIED TO CATCH HIM, DO A QUICK TAKE THERE.BUT IT WAS VERY APPARENT THAT NUNES AND JIM JORDAN WERE TRYING TO GET THE WHISTLEBLOWER NAMED OR AT LEAST GIVE MORE DESCRIPTION OF WHO HE WAS. LEE ANN, IT’S BEEN A BIG DAY SO FAR. A BIG DAY AHEAD. THANK YOU. >> YES. THANK YOU. >> A LEGAL LOOK AT TODAY’S HEARINGS, LEGAL ANALYST BRETT BERGER IS HERE. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE DEMOCRATS’ OVERALL GOAL WAS WITH THE WITNESSES? >> I THINK THE DEMOCRATS’ GOAL WAS TO REESTABLISH THE CORE FACTS. HE HAD TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE LISTENING TO THE CALL COMING FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS THAT BOTH WERE ALARMED BY THE NATURE OF THE JULY 25TH CALL, AND FELT THE NEED TO SPEAK ABOUT IT. >> HOW ABOUT ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE? >> I THINK IT WAS TO CREATE A LOT OF NOISE AND MAKE THE FOCUS NOT ON THE CORE ALLEGATION.TO MAKE IT ON ALMOST ANYTHING BUT. TO MAKE THE FOCUS ON THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES. POSSIBLY TRYING TO DISCREDIT THEM. TRYING TO PUT THE FOCUS ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER. PUT THE FOCUS ON THE MEDIA. I THINK THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY WAS TO TAKE THE FOCUS AWAY FROM SORT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CALL AND PUT IT ELSEWHERE. >> WE’VE BEEN SAYING OVER THE LAST WEEK A BIG STRATEGY FOR THE REPUBLICANS WAS TO LOOK AT IT AND POINT OUT HEAR SAY AND SAY THE WITNESSES HERE DID NOT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF SEVERAL THINGS INCLUDING THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL.THAT WAS DIFFERENT TODAY, BECAUSE THESE TWO WITNESSES DID. I WANTED YOU TO TALK TO US ON BOTH SIDES. HOW DID REPUBLICANS HANDLE IT DIFFERENTLY TODAY WITH THAT IN MIND, AND THEN DID THIS PLAY INTO THE DEMOCRAT’S STRATEGY BECAUSE THE WITNESSES DID HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE? >> THAT WAS ALWAYS AN ARGUMENT THEY WERE MAKING THAT WAS GOING TO HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE. WE KNEW THERE WERE WITNESSES WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS COMING. WE KNEW IT WAS SOMEONE HYPOCRITICAL. I THINK THE REPUBLICANS’ APPROACH WAS LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. NOT TO GET INTO SOME OF THE SUBSTANCE, BUT TO MAKE THE FOCUS ON ISSUES OF THE WITNESS ITSELF. FOR EXAMPLE, ALL THE ATTACKS THAT COLONEL VINMAN TOOK BASED ON HOW HE WENT ABOUT REPORTING IT. DID HE REPORT IT TO THE RIGHT PERSON? WAS IT PROPER FOR HIM TO GO TO THE LAWYER BEFORE? THAT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ABOUT. THERE WAS A BIT OF A DISTRACTION. >> YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE MORE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD VINMAN. THE CONGRESSMAN NUNES WENT AFTER HIM HARD ASKING HIM IF HE WAS A LEAKER. CAN THAT BACKFIRE WITH A WITNESS LIKE THIS? >> ABSOLUTELY. YOU SEE IT ALL THE TIME IN FEDERAL TRIALS. YOU HAVE TO TOE THE LINE. IF YOU HAVE A JURY THAT’S FEELING SYMPATHETICALLY TO A WITNESS OR HERE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS FEELING SYMPATHETIC A WITNESS, ATTACKING THAT PERSON PERSONALLY AS OPPOSED TO THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THEY’RE TESTIFYING ABOUT CAN BACKFIRE. AND TO SOME EXTENT THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY HAS BEEN TO SAY IT DOESN’T MATTER. WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS PROPER. HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. THIS IS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY TO DO, THEN WHY ATTACK THE WITNESS WHO IS ARE JUST CAREER PUBLIC SERVANTS LISTENING IN ON A CALL AND TESTIFYING BECAUSE PROBABLY THEY DON’T WANT TO BE THERE.WE CARE ABOUT WHAT THE WITNESSES SAY AND WE’LL ATTACK THEM PERSONALLY, YET, WE’RE SEEING IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO IT. >> COLONEL VINMAN SAID HE PREPARED TALKING POINTS BUT THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T STICK TO THEM. WHY IS THAT LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT HERE? WHY IS THAT AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE? >> LOOK, I THINK THIS PROBABLY PLAYS INTO ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN NARRATIVES THEY’RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS WAS JUST HOW THOSE PRESIDENTS TAKES SOME OF THE CALLS. IT WAS NOT PART OF A PLANNED PATTERN OF TRYING TO BRIBE THE UKRAINIANS.THIS WAS JUST THE PRESIDENT SORT OF FREE WHEELING IN HIS CONVERSATION. THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY THE CAREER PERSON SAYING NO, WE CAREFULLY SCRIPT THESE. IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE CAUTIOUS. IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE CAREFUL IN YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANOTHER WORLD LEADER, IT’S SIGNIFICANT. ESPECIALLY WITH THE PRESIDENT’S DEPARTURE FROM THAT. >> IT’S HARD TO BELIEVE WE HAVE NINE WITNESSES THIS WEEK. WE’VE HEARD FROM TWO. TWO MORE THIS EVENING. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THIS EVENING, AND FROM THE OTHER WITNESSES IN THE WEEK AHEAD? >> WELL, I THINK THE WITNESSES THIS AFTERNOON ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTING. THESE ARE THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES, VOLKER AND MORRISON, THEY — IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICANS TREAT THE WITNESSES.YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER WE HAVE GORDON SONDLAND COMING UP WHO WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF AMENDING HIS TESTIMONY. HOW ARE THE DEMOCRATS GOING TO WALK HIM THROUGH THE CHANGES AND WHAT DO THE REPUBLICANS DO WITH THAT? >> SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID WHEN IS THE BIG DAY WITH SONDLAND? DO YOU FEEL THAT WAY AS WELL? >> I DO.I THINK HE’S A CRUCIAL WITNESS. HE’S RIGHT IN THE THICK OF ALL THIS. AND AGAIN, BECAUSE HE’S HAD THIS CHANGE IN HIS TESTIMONY, HE HAS A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO AS TO HOW TO RECKEN SIEL HIS TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING AND TALKING. GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN. >> YES. >> WE’RE GOING TO GO TO PRESIDENT TRUMP REACTING TO TODAY’S TESTIMONY DURING A CABINET MEETING. TAKE A LISTEN. >> RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A KANGAROO COURT HEADED BY SHIFTY SHIFT WHERE WE DON’T HAVE LAWYERS. WE DON’T HAVE WITNESSES.WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING AND YET I GOT TO WATCH AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING IT. THEY ARE DOING SO WELL. IT’S A SCAM. A BIG SCAM. >> HANS, YOU HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT SAYING THE REPUBLICANS ARE CALLING THIS A SCAM ON THURSDAY. >> THE PRESIDENT IS DISTANCES HIMSELF FROM THE LIEUTENANT SKERNL VINMAN SAYING HE DOESN’T KNOW HIM. HE’S TRYING TO DRAW HIMSELF CLOSER TO ASPECTS OF HIS TESTIMONY. WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND TESTIMONY ARE TRYING TO SAY IS VINMAN CORROBORATES THE CALL LOG IS ACCURATE. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT YOU HEAR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE FROM THE PRESIDENT ON DOWN THAT THEY THINK THEY CAN WIN THIS. THEY THINK THEY CAN DEFEND THE PRESIDENT JUST ON THE BASIS OF THAT JULY 25TH CALL. SO THERE’S AN OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT. THEY’RE SAYING NOTHING TO SEE HERE. THEY’RE NOT REALLY MENTIONING WHAT THE REACTION WAS FOR MISS WILLIAMS OR LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMAN ABOUT THE CALL. THAT’S THAT — >> I GOT TO CUT YOU.THE DEMOCRATS ARE SPEAKING. WE’RE GOING TO LISTEN IN. >> THEY’RE AFRAID TO BUCK TRUMP AND BUCK McCONNELL. THE DREAM AND PROMISE ACT. 168 DAYS AGO WAS PASSED. THE BIPARTISAN BACKGROUND CHECK, 265 DAYS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHO TO BLAME FOR THE INACTION. LEADER McCONNELL, PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> THE SENATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE. WE ARE WASTING THE UNITED STATES’ SENATE NOW. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN VOTED ON ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE CALENDAR YEAR WE’RE CURRENTLY IN? 21.21 AMENDMENTS IN THE ENTIRE YEAR. LEADER McCONNELL COME OUT AND SAYS THE REASON WE’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING IS THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FIRST TEN MONTHS OF THE YEAR MAJORITY LEADER? 21 AMENDMENTS DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME. THAT REFLECTS THE FACT THAT WE’RE NOT TAKING UP LEGISLATION ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. OBVIOUSLY LEADER McCONNELL THINKS THERE’S NOTHING TO ADDRESS. NOTHING THAT NEEDS DEBATING. WELL, I THINK HE’S OVERLOOKING THE OBVIOUS. WE HAVE A DESPERATE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE ESCALATING PRICE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. WHAT BILL IS COMING TO THE FLOOR? NONE. WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST FROM A REPUBLICAN SENATOR TO BRING A MATTER TO THE FLOOR. I’D LIKE TO SEND A NOTE TO THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS AND TELL HIM YOU SHOULD SPEAK TO YOUR MAJORITY LEADER. HE SETS THE AGENDA ON THE FLOOR AND WE OUGHT TO BE BRINGING UP A BILL THAT BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS CAN DEBATE ON BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. CHUCK MENTIONED THE PROMISING DREAM ACT.I WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT HEARING THE OTHER DAY. A HEARING THAT WILL DECIDE THE FATE OF 790,000 PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. NOW WE’LL WAIT UNTIL NEXT JUNE TO SEE IF THE SUPREME COURT RULES AND HOW THEY RULE. IN THE MEANTIME, WHAT IS THE SENATE GOING TO DO? WHAT IF WE CONSIDERED THE BILL PASSED BY THE HOUSE? THE PROMISE AND DREAM ACT WHICH WOULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE ON A LEGISLATIVE BASIS? AND DO IT QUICKLY. SO THEIR FATE COULD BE DETERMINED AND I HOPE IN A POSITIVE WAY. IT’S AN OBVIOUS INDICATION THAT LEADER McCONNELL BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS NO INTEREST IN LEGISLATING. I SAY THIS TO SENATOR McCONNELL. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO USE THE UNITED STATES SENATE, GIVE IT TO SOMEONE WHO WILL. PERHAPS MAYBE GIVE IT TO A FEW DEMOCRATS. WE’VE GOT A FEW IDEAS.>> SENATOR MURRAY. >> WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU KNOW, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS CONGRESS IN JANUARY, LEADER McCONNELL AND THE SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE WORKED AGGRESSIVELY TO HALT THE REGULAR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND TURN THIS SENATE INTO A LEGISLATIVE GRAVEYARD. REFUSING TO ALLOW THIS BODY TO DO ITS JOB TO VOTE ON LAWS THAT PROTECT AND SERVE THE FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES THAT WE REPRESENT. SO AS WE HEAR REPUBLICAN LEADERS BEGIN TO BLAME THE HOUSE PLEEMT INQUIRY FOR HOW LITTLE THE SENATE IS GETTING DONE, I HAVE TO WONDER WHAT STOPPED LEADER McCONNELL FROM CALLING UP BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION TO SECURE OUR ELECTIONS FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE THAT PASSED THE HOUSE IN MARCH.WHAT STOPPED LEADER McCONNELL FROM BRINGING UP BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE IN MAY TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM LEAVING THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT? WHAT STOPPED LEADER McCONNELL THIS FALL FROM ALLOWING THE SENATE TO VOTE ON LEGISLATION TO STOP THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FROM MAKING IT EASIER FOR INSURERS TO THREATEN CRITICAL PROTECTIONS FOR PATIENTS WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS? AND AFTER DEVASTATING, DEVASTATING BACK TO BACK MASS SHOOTINGS IN TEXAS AND OHIO IN AUGUST, WHAT PREVENTED LEADER McCONNELL FROM TAKING UP UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK LEGISLATION, OR ANY COMMON SENSE GUN SAFETY REFORMS TO FINALLY ADDRESS THE GUN VIOLENCE ISSUES THAT HAS COST TOO MANY LIVES. THE FACT IS THE SENATE HAS STOPPED LEGISLATING FOR ONE REASON, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY LEADER WOULD RATHER RUBBER STAMP PRESIDENT TRUMP’S AGENDA THAN GET ANYTHING DONE FOR OUR FAMILIES AND OUR COMMUNITIES.SENATE REPUBLICANS CAN TRY TO PASS THE BLAME ANYWHERE THEY WANT FROM THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES TO THE WEATHER, BUT THEIR ARGUMENT DOESN’T PASS MUSTER, NOT EVEN CLOSE. AND IF THEY DON’T LIKE IT, WHEN THEIR INACTION IS POINTED OUT, IT’S CLEAR WHAT THEY CAN DO. THEY CAN JOIN DEMOCRATS AND GET TO WORK ON THE LONG, LON LIST OF CHALLENGES WE CAN AND SHOULD BE MAKING PROGRESS ON. FROM HEALTH CARE TO GUN VIOLENCE TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND MORE. WE ARE READY TO GET TO WORK. WE HAVE BEEN READY TO GET TO WORK FROM DAY ONE. AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO STOP PUSHING SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERS TO START GETTING THINGS DONE HERE.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS IN THE LEGISLATIVE GRAVEYARD, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH REGARD TO GUN VIOLENCE. WE WERE TOLD AFTER THE HORRORS OF JUST THIS PAST SUMMER THAT THERE WOULD BE ACTION. THE MAJORITY LEADER TALKED ABOUT CONSIDERING A BACKGROUND CHECK IN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER BILL. OF COURSE, NEITHER HAS HAPPENED. IN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK BILL, 265 DAYS IN THE LEGISLATIVE GRAVEYARD, WE KNOW HAS A NATION WE LOSE 100 PEOPLE EVERY DAY TO GUN VIOLENCE.YOU WOULD THINK IN THE FACE OF THAT, WE WOULD AT LEAST SET A BARE MINIMUM YOU WOULD GET A VOTE ON A UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK. NO ONE WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT’S GOING TO BE ENOUGH. BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD START, BUT WE HAVEN’T EVEN HAD THAT. I CAN JUST RECITE SOME NUMBERS. UNFORTUNATELY THE NUMBERS ARE THE AGES OF PEOPLE JUST IN PHILADELPHIA JUST THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. AND I’VE ONLY REFERENCED AN AGE OF SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY KILLED. STARTING IN LATE, LATE OCTOBER, JUST UNTIL RECENTLY A SIX-YEAR-OLD, A 17-YEAR-OLD, 2-YEAR-OLD, A 19-YEAR-OLD. IT QUOS ON AND ON AND ON. AND BACK IN PENNSYLVANIA WHEN I TRAVEL ACROSS OUR STATE, EVERYWHERE YOU GO, PEOPLE ASK US WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON SOME — AT LEAST ONE MEASURE, ONE COMMON SENSE GUN MEASURE. PEOPLE ASK THAT ALL OVER THE STATE. AND I HAVE TO KEEP TELLING THEM OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IT’S UP TO ONE PERSON. ONE PERSON CAN DECIDE AND THAT PERSON IS THE MAJORITY LEADER WHO HAS CHOSEN NOT TO BRING THE BILLS TO THE FLOOR. AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE LOSING PATIENCE WITH THAT.IN ADDITION TO COMMUNITIES LIKE PHILADELPHIA WHICH HAVE SEEMINGLY DAILY OR AT LEAST WEEKLY INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE, WE HAD THE MOST RECENT IN SANTA CLARITA. A STORY OF NEW JERSEY, A FOOTBALL GAME, A TEN-YEAR-OLD NOW APPARENTLY IN A COMA FROM THAT. WE HAVE CHILDREN WHO ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH ACTIVE SHOOTER DRILLS AND EVEN THIS YEAR, THE ADVENT OF CHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL WITH BACKPACKS THAT ARE ARMORED IN A SENSE BECAUSE OF GUN VIOLENCE. IF WE’RE DEMANDING OR PUSHING FAMILIES TO TAKE THOSE STEPS AND SCHOOLS TO TAKE THOSE STEPS, THE LEAST THE UNITED STATES SENATE COULD DO IS PULL ONE BILL, AT LEAST, OUT OF THE GRAVEYARD AND VOTE ON UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. >> OKAY. QUESTIONS? >> IT WAS SAID EARLIER YOU DON’T — [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> WELL, WE HAVE TRIED TO PASS THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT MANY TIMES. PATTY MURRAY HAS HAD UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON IT AND THE HOUSE PASSED IT OVER 200 DAYS. SENATOR ERNST IS SIMPLY AFRAID OF THE NRA. ASK SENATOR ERNST IF SHE BELIEVES THAT A BOYFRIEND OF A WOMAN WHO HAS GOTTEN A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED AGAINST HIM SHOULD GET A GUN.SENATOR ERNST, EVIDENTLY BELIEVES YES. IN THE BILL SHE’S PUTTING FORWARD, IT DOESN’T HAVE THAT PROVISION EVEN THOUGH IT DID IN THE HOUSE. SO IF SENATOR ERNST WANTS TO DEBATE IT, LET HER ASK LEADER McCONNELL, MAKE A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST TO BRING THE HOUSE BILL ON THE FLOOR AND WE’LL DEBATE IT. WE CAN DEBATE HER AMENDMENT WHICH THE GUN LOBBY WANTS, BUT ALMOST NO OTHER AMERICAN WANTS. BY THE WAY, SHE JUST INTRODUCED IT TODAY. SO SHE’S A BIT, NO PUN INTENDED, JUMPING THE GUN. >> LOOK, I DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON, BUT IF WE LEARNED ANYTHING AT ALL FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION, IT TAKES THEM SEVERAL TRIES BEFORE THEY GET THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT AND THE TRUTH COMES OUT. I THINK PEOPLE ARE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE TRUTHFULNESS OF STORIES FROM THE ADMINISTRATION. IN THE MEANTIME, I WISH THE PRESIDENT WELL. FROM WHATEVER HE’S RECOVERING FROM, AND WHATEVER CAUSED THEM TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL IN THE FIRST PLACE.WE’LL DO BOTH OF YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THE BOTTOM LINE IS IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE MOST SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITIES THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE SENATE TO HAVE A TRIAL AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT SHOULD IT OCCUR IN THE HOUSE. AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO GO LET SCHEDULING REQUESTS GET IN THE WAY OF THAT SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY, PERIOD. >> BOTTOM LINE IS WE’D LIKE TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL VOTES ON THE FLOOR. THERE SHOULD BE A FULL DEBATE. SHOULD A BOYFRIEND WITH A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED AGAINST HIM BE ABLE TO GET A GUN? SHOULD A WOMAN ON AN INDIAN RESERVATION GET SIMILAR PROTECTIONS TO OTHER WOMEN? THOSE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE DEBATED. IT’S MUCH BETTER TO DEBATE THESE FULLY ON THE FLOOR UP TO NOW McCONNELL AND THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP HAS NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. LAST ONE. >> I THINK WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT SURPRISE BILLING AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROPOSALS AND I THINK THE LEADERSHIP IS WORKING THAT OUT.OKAY? THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. >> HANS NICHOLS JOINS US. I CUT YOU OFF RUDELY BEFORE, BUT THE DEMOCRATS WERE SPEAKING. WE HAD TO HEAD OVER THERE. BEFORE BUT CUT YOU OFF, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION. HE SAID THE REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING IT AND CALLING THIS A SCAM. NBC ASKED THE PRESIDENT IF HE BELIEVES LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMAN IS A CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. >> THEY’RE REALLY CHERRY PICKING SOME OF THE TESTIMONY LIKING THE PARTS THEY THINK ARE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEIR CASE, NAMELY THAT THIS TESTIMONY, THIS IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.AND THAT THAT IS THE FIGHT THE WHITE HOUSE WANTS TO HAVE. IN ALMOST EVERY DISCUSSION I HAVE WITH WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, EVERY LEVEL, THEY COME BACK TO THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT IN THEIR MINDS, DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG ON THE TRANSCRIPT. THE TRANSJIPT IS DEFENSIBLE. IT’S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT ABOUT. IT’S SO CLEAR THEY WANT TO HAVE THIS BE LITIGATED OVER THAT INITIAL MEMO TRANSCRIPT CALL LOG, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO IT. >> LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TWEETED. HE TWEETED ABOUT JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND HER TESTIMONY. THE WHITE HOUSE SENDS OUT A TWEET QUESTIONING COLONEL VINMAN’S JUDGMENT. WHEN IT HAPPENED LAST WEEK WHEN THE PRESIDENT TWEETED WHEN MA ME YOVANOVITCH WAS TESTIFIED, THEY CALLED IT WITNESS ENTIMATION. >> THAT’S NOT GOING TO STOP THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE PRESIDENT FROM TWEETING, OR EXERCISING WHAT THEY SAY IS HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.THEY REJECT THE MOTION THIS IS WITNESS INTIMIDATION. THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO COMMENT AND OFFER COMMENTARY IN REALTIME. I WOULD NOTE THAT TODAY WHILE HE WAS WATCHING, HE WAS LARGELY SILENT ON TWITTER. THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD FROM HIM WAS IN THE POOL SPRAY WHEN HE WAS IN THERE IN THE CABIN ROOM SPEAKING WITH OTHER OFFICIALS AND HE MADE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN HALLIE JACKSON STARTED ASKING SOME QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE GOT THE NEWS OF THE DAY. NOW HE’S ACTIVE ON TWITTER. HE’S RETWEETING A LOT OF THINGS HE THINKS ARE ADVANTAGEOUS TO HIM. A LOT OF FAVORABLE COMMENTS FROM CONGRESSMEN. MOMENTS THEY WANT TO FRAME THE DISCUSSION FROM HERE TO FORE. >> HANS, IS IT NOTABLE THE PRESIDENT WASN’T TWEETING EARLIER TODAY? >> NO. IT’S A WAY THE WHITE HOUSE DOES THE SCHEDULE.THEY’LL HAVE THE PUBLIC EVENTS ON HIS SCHEDULE AND THEN THERE ARE PRIVATE EVENTS. YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T HAVE ANY PUBLIC ON HIS EVENT UNTIL 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON IN THE OVAL OFFICE. IN THE MORNING EVEN THOUGH IT WASN’T ON THE SCHEDULE, HE HAD A MEETING WITH THE FED CHAIRMAN. THAT WAS IN THE RESIDENCE. SO IN GENERAL IT’S MORE DIFFICULT TO GET A SENSE OF WHO HE’S MEETING WITH IN THE RESIDENCE BECAUSE AIDES, THERE AREN’T AS MANY GOING IN AND OUT OF THE MEETING. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON WHERE THE PRESIDENT WATCHED THIS MORNING AND WHERE HE WAS, I SUSPECT IT WAS THE RESIDENCE BECAUSE THERE WASN’T A LOT OF CONVERSATION OVER HERE ABOUT WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO BE, AND I TALKED TO ONE OFFICIAL WHO SAID HE WAS EXPECTED TO BE IN THE RESIDENCE ALL MORNING.>> HANS NI >>> KURT VOLKER ARRIVED MOMENTS AGO ON CAPITOL HILL. WE’LL HEAR FROM HIM SON. HE WILL BE TESTIFYING ALONGSIDE TIM MORRISON. EARLIER TODAY THE FIRST SET OF IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WE HEARD FROM AN AIDE TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND COLONEL WHO SERVES AS THE DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. HERE ARE A FEW OF THE MOST NOTEWORTHY MOMENTS. >> ON JULY 25TH ALONG WITH SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES, I LISTENED TO A CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THE CONTENTS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED. PRIOR TO JULY 25TH APARTICIPATED IN ROUGHLY A DOZEN OTHER PHONE CALLS. DURING MY CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND WHETHER I HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25TH CALL. AS I TESTIFIED THEN, I FOUND THE JULY 25TH 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. >> I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10TH RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDSLAND AND JULY 25TH RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT, I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.I PRIVATELY REPORTED MY CONCERNS IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THE 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. >> ABOUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT JULY 10TH MEETING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD THEIR SECOND CALL, THE JULY 25TH CALL.COLONEL VINMAN, WHAT WAS YOUR REALTIME REACTION TO HEARING THAT CALL? >> CHAIRMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION, I KNEW THAT I HAD TO REPORT THIS TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL. 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? >> WELL, CHAIRMAN, AS I SAID IN MY STATEMENT, IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REQUEST — TO COMMAND 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 IT BECAME PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND IT WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS A PARTISAN PLAY THAT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR UKRAINE POLICY, AND IT WOULD UNDERMOOIN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. >> DID VICE PRESIDENT PENCE PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN THAT MEETING? >> THE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE REASON BEHIND THE HOLD, BUT HE DID REASSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF THE STRONGEST U.S. UNWAIVERING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO STEP UP AND PROVIDE MORE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AS WELL.>> 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 — >> IT’S OUR TIME, BUT WE NEED TO PROTECT THE WHISTLEBLOWER. IF — PLEASE STOP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE’S NO EFFORT TO OUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER THROUGHOUT THE 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.>> NOW, DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO ANYONE IN YOUR OFFICE ABOUT WHAT YOU HEARD ON THE CALL? >> MY SUPERVISOR WAS LISTENING IN ON THE CALL AS WELL. SO BECAUSE HE HAD HEARD THE SAME INFORMATION, I DID NOT FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT IT. >> YOUR BOSS HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT. YOUR FORMER BOSS AND COLLEAGUES HAD CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR JUDGMENT AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FELT THERE WERE TIMES WHEN YOU LEAKED INFORMATION. AND COLONEL, YOU NEVER LEAKED INFORMATION? >> I NEVER DID, NEVER WOULD. THAT IS, THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS THAT I WOULD DO IT. >> OKAY. >> THE DAY AFTER YOU APPEARED FOR YOUR DEPOSITION, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALL YOUD A NEVER TRUMPER. WOULD YOU CALL YOURSELF A NEVER TRUMPER? >> I’D CALL MYSELF NEVER PARTISAN. >> IT’S NORMAL FOR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, A NON-U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TO GET INVOLVED IN FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS LIKE MR.GIULIANI? >> I DON’T KNOW IF I HAVE EXPERIENCE TO SAY THAT, BUT CERTAINLY IT WASN’T HELPFUL AND DIDN’T HELP ADVANCE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST. >> YOU’RE AWARE HUNTER BIDEN SAT ON THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? >> I AM. >> I KNOW MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE FACT THAT HUNTER BIDEN, THE SON OF THE VICE PRESIDENT SAT ON THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT COMPANY. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION STATE DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO CONCERNED AND YET ADAM SCHIFF REFUSES TO LET THIS COMMITTEE CALL HUNTER BIDEN DESPITE A REQUEST. EVERY WITNESS WHO HAS TESTIFIED AND HAS BEEN ASKED HAS ANSWERED YES. DO YOU AGREE THAT HUNTER BIDEN ON THE BOARD OF THE COMPANY HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? >> CERTAINLY THE POTENTIAL, YES.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 UNDUE 63 MILLION VOTES AND REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. >> SITTING HERE TALKING TO U.S. ELECTED OFFICIALS TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION AND COME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY, DO NOT WORRY, I’LL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. >> YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU CAME FORWARD OUT OF SENSE OF DUTY, THAT YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD.DO YOU REALIZE THAT, SIR? >> I KNEW I WAS ASSUMING A LOT OF RISK. >> AND WHY DO YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN DO THAT AND TELL YOUR DAD NOT TO WORRY? >> CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA. THIS IS THE COUNTRY I’VE SERVED AND DEFENDED, THAT ALL MY BROTHERS HAVE SERVED AND HERE, RIGHT MATTERS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. YIELD BACK. [ APPLAUSE ] >> WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING VOTERS IN SOME OF THE THE PRIMARY STATES AND THE COUNTIES THAT COULD DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION AS THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS CONSUME WASHINGTON AND ALSO CONSUMING SOME AMERICANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE SPOKE TO VOTERS IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN. >> Reporter: HEY, ALISON, HERE IN KENT COUNTY PEOPLE ARE REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WE WERE IN AND OUT OF BUSINESSES YESTERDAY.WE WERE TALKING TO FOLKS ON MAIN STREET, AT THE FARMERS MARKET. YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THAT I MIGHT HEAR VOTERS SAY THEY’RE MORE SO PAYING ATTENTION TO ISSUES IMPACTING THEM DIRECTLY, BUT IT TURNS OUT THEY CAN DO BOTH. THEY CAN WORRY ABOUT HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY BUT ALSO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN WASHINGTON. PEOPLE HERE REALLY DO CARE ABOUT THIS. AND SOME FOLKS WE TALKED TO SAID THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF IT YET. THEY DON’T KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT AND THEY REALLY WANT MORE FACTS, THEY WANT MORE INFORMATION. SO, THEY’RE WATCHING THIS TO SEE, YOU KNOW, TO REALLY MAKE UP THEIR MINDS. SO, THOSE VOTERS THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING FOR LIVE HERE IN KENT COUNTY AND THEY ARE, IN FACT, WATCHING CLOSELY. TAKE A LISTEN TO SOME OF WHAT WE HEARD. HOW MUCH DO YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON? >> I CARE A LOT ABOUT IT.I THINK IT’S DIVIDING OUR COUNTRY REALLY. IT’S NOT GOOD FOR ANYTHING. >> Reporter: ARE YOU PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY? >> ABSOLUTELY. I LISTEN TO THE NEWS BACK AND FORTH TO WORK EVERY DAY. >> Reporter: I’M SURPRISED AT HOW MANY PEOPLE WITH WEAVE TALKED TO AROUND HERE WHO ARE VERY ENTHUSED WITH THIS PROCESS. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS? >> I THINK IT AFFECTS A LOT OF PEOPLE, NOT JUST THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE BUT A LOT OF ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE LAST THREE YEARS DURING THIS PRESIDENCY ARE AFFECTING A LOT OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY ON THE STREETS. >>> CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE A ESSENTIAL FOCUS OF THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. MATT BRADLEY VISITED THE OUSTED UKRAINE PRESIDENT AND TALKED TO UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IN THE NATION.>> Reporter: THESE DAYS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IS ALL OVER THE NEWS, BUT FOR UKRAINIANS, CORRUPTION ISN’T NEW. IT ISN’T JUST AMONG THE BIGWIG BUSINESSMEN, IT’S EVERYWHERE. YOUR AVERAGE UKRAINIAN IS REMARKABLY OPEN ABOUT IT. >> Reporter: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND BANKS CONSISTENTLY RANK UKRAINE AMONG THE CORRUPT COUNTIES IN THE WORLD. UKRAINE WAS PLACED 80 OUT OF 180 ON CORRUPTION INDEX. ECONOMIC SCARCITY TAPPED DOWN CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY WITH LACK OF TRANSPARENCY MEANT GETTING ANYTHING DONE REQUIRED WHAT SOME UKRAINIANS CALLED GIVING A GRUNT. IN A WAY, CORRUPTION IS ALMOST PART OF THE CULTURE. >> UKRAINIANS HAVE THIS — YOU CAN CALL IT — THE WORD ATTITUDE, WHERE, OKAY, BUT IF WE GET SOMETHING IN THE END, IT’S OKAY. >> Reporter: THEY’RE TOLERANT OF IT? >> YES. THEY’RE AWARE OF THIS TOLERANCE AS LONG AS THERE IS SOME VISIBLE — FOR THE COUNTRY. >> Reporter: THE SOVIET DAY SAYS ARE OVER BUT NOT THE SOVIET MENTALITY. THIS MAN USED TO WORK FOR THE SAME PROSECUTOR WHO’S NOW AT THE CENTER THE IMPEACHMENT FIGHT, SHOKIN, WHO DONALD TRUMP SAYS JOE BIDEN IMPROPERLY PRESSURED THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO FIRED. THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT BUT SHOKIN WOULD SAY HE WAS NEVER CONVICTED. WHEN THIS MAN BLEW THE WHISTLE ON THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, HE WAS FIRED. >> IT’S BEEN 35 YEARS IN THE SYSTEM OF THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE.MOST OF — MOST — THE WAY THESE GUYS DO THEIR WORK AND DID THEIR JOB WAS DIE METTICLY INCONSISTENT WITH UKRAINE. >> Reporter: TYPICAL SOVIET PROSECUTOR, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, EXACTLY? >> THAT MEANS THAT THE POWER AND THE WEALTH ARE NOT DISTINGUISHED. >> Reporter: STILL, UKRAINIANS ARE MOVING ON FROM THEIR SOVIET PAST. THE COUNTRY REINVENTED ITSELF AGAIN IN 2018 WHEN MONTHS OF PROTESTS TOPPLED THEN PRESIDENT VIKTOR YANUKOVYCH. FOR UKRAINIANS IT WAS ALSO ABOUT REJECTING CORRUPTION. NOW THE OUSTED PRESIDENT’S ENORMOUS MANSION AND ESTATE OUTSIDE KIEV ARE KIND OF LIKE A MONUMENT TO THAT DISTASTEFUL HISTORY.BEFORE 2014, MOST UKRAINIANS DIDN’T KNOW QUITE HOW MASSIVE THIS PLACE IS. PEOPLE COME OUT HERE ON DAY TRIPS TO WALK AROUND THIS BEAUTIFUL GARDEN, HIS GOLF COURSE, HIS VINTAGE CAR COLLECTION, TAKE IN THE FOUNTAINS AND CHECK OUT THE NOVELTY OUT BACK. THEY EVEN COME HERE TO SNAP WEDDING PICTURES. >> 460,000 EUROS. >> Reporter: 460,000 EUROS, OKAY. WHAT DOES THIS SYMBOLIZE FOR THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE? >> Reporter: THEY MIGHT CALL IT A MUSEUM OF CORRUPTION, BUT MOST UKRAINIANS WANT IT TO BE A MEMORIAL. THEY DON’T WANT TO REPEAT THIS HISTORY. THEY’RE WORKING ON IT. THE GOVERNMENT CREATED A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM FOR CORRUPTION IN 2014, AND JUST LAST MONTH A NEW COURT DEDICATED JUST TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION STARTED HERE. BUT FOR SOME UKRAINIANS, THAT PAST WILL ALWAYS HAUNT THEM. A FEW YEARS AGO NADIA, DIABETIC FATHER, REFUSED TO BRIBE DOCTORS IN A GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL TO TREAT A WOUND ON HIS LEG.THEY REFUSED TO HELP HIM. EVENTUALLY HE GOT GANGRENE AND HIS LEG HAD TO BE AMPUTATED. HE DIDN’T WANT TO PAY A BRIBE? >> YES, YES, YES. ALSO LIKE — THEY DON’T DO NOTHING, SO — NO MONEY, NO HONEY, YES. >> Reporter: AND NOW NADIA HAS BECOME A VOCAL OPPONENT OF CORRUPTION ON MEDIA, TAKING HER EXAMPLE FROM THE U.S. YOU KNOW, AS UKRAINIAN, WHEN YOU SEE THIS TALK ABOUT GIULIANI AND TRUMP AND CORRUPTION IN AMERICA, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I MEAN, IT’S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO AFFECT UKRAINE, BUT DOES IT — >> I THINK IT’S AFFECT UKRAINE BECAUSE I SEE — ACTUALLY WE BELIEVE WESTERN, ESPECIALLY AMERICA, KEEP EYE ON OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND SAY TO THEM, YOU SHOULDN’T BE CORRUPT AND EVERYTHING, SO IF IN AMERICA THERE’S CORRUPTION, HOW CAN WE BE SAFE? NEWS THAN ANY OTHER NEWS ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD.>>> THIS WILL MORNING WE HEARD FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. THIS AFTERNOON WE’LL HEAR FROM KURT VOLKER, THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND TIM MORRISON, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL UKRAINE AIDE. LEIGH ANN CALDWELL IS ON CAPITOL HILL. LET’S START WITH KURT VOLKER, ONE OF THE SO-CALLED THREE SA ME GOEING. THEY WERE TASKED BY THE PRESIDENT TO TACKLE UKRAINE POLICY. WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM VOLCKER TODAY? >> Reporter: VOLKER IS ONE OF THE WITNESSES REPUBLICANS WANTED. YOU COULD EXPECT HIM TO BE MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE REPUBLICANS’ ARGUMENT. WHAT WE EXPECT HIM TO HEAR, BASED ON WHAT HE’S ALREADY SAID BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE, HE SAYS, HE DIDN’T THINK THAT THE UKRAINIANS KNEW WHY THE AID WAS BEING WITHHELD.HE ALSO SAID THAT WHILE HE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS — THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THE AID WAS UNUSUAL, ALSO THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. HE’S ALSO GOING TO SAY THAT HE WASN’T AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT — THAT THERE WAS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE PRESIDENT, THAT THESE WERE DIRECTIVES COMING DOWN FROM THE OVAL OFFICE, INSTEAD IT WAS JUST BEING PUSHED BY THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI. SO, THIS COULD BE A GOOD AFTERNOON FOR REPUBLICANS, BUT WE’LL ALSO HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. >> TIM MORRISON WAS ON THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL BUT UNLIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, HE DIDN’T VIEW PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ACTIONS AS INAPPROPRIATE. CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT? >> Reporter: YES. MORRISON IS, AGAIN, ANOTHER REPUBLICAN WITNESS. WE GOT INSIGHT INTO HOW REPUBLICANS MIGHT DEAL WITH MORRISON. FROM THE TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. WHEN REPUBLICANS KEPT ASKING VINDMAN HIS — WHO WORKS FOR MORRISON, WHY MORRISON DIDN’T COMPLETELY CREDIT — GIVE VINDMAN A LOT OF CREDIT IN THAT HE QUESTIONED VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT.SO, VINDMAN WAS REALLY USED — OR MORRISON WAS REALLY USED IN TESTIMONY THIS MORNING TO TARNISH THE CREDENTIALS OF VINDMAN. WE COULD EXPECT TO SEE THE SAME THING THAT REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO DISMISS A LOT OF THESE CHARACTERS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN BY DEMOCRATS. >> YOU MENTIONED BOTH OF THIS AFTERNOON’S WITNESSES WERE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BY REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THINGS? YOU SAID THEY ARE MORE REPUBLICAN-FRIENDLY WITNESSES, BUT HOW DOES THAT ALSO PLAY SPEW THE DEMOCRATS’ STRATEGY THIS AFTERNOON? >> Reporter: WELL, WHAT’S INTERESTING ABOUT ALL THESE WITNESSES, EVERYONE’S STILL CORROBORATED EACH OTHER. YOU SAW ALL THESE TRANSCRIPTS WE’VE SEEN, THESE ARE THE TWO WITNESSES THAT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HAPPENED. THEIR CHARACTERIZATION IS THAT IT WASN’T AS BAD AS OTHER WITNESSES HAVE SAID. SO, WHAT WE COULD EXPECT FROM DEMOCRATS IS STILL TO ASK VERY CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE OF QUESTIONS OF WHAT THEY KNEW AND WHEN.AND THEY MIGHT QUESTION THE CHARACTERISTIC THAT THESE WITNESSES DO HAND OVER. SO, WHILE THESE ARE REPUBLICAN-CALLED WITNESSES, THESE ARE WITNESSES THAT HAVE ALSO SAT BEHIND DEPOSITION DOORS FOR HOURS TALKING TO THE COMMITTEE SO WE HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY’RE SAYING. EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE REPUBLICANS OR MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE PRESIDENT IN HIS ROLE HERE IN THIS UKRAINE POLICY THAT WAS BEING PLAYED OUT FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS, I’M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT IT’S GOING TO KIND OF REALLY JUST DIMINISH THE DEMOCRATS’ ENTIRE CASE HERE.>> LEIGH ANN, AS YOU HEAD BACK IN THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR YOU’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR IN THESE TESTIMONIES, SOMETHING YOU SAY, IF I HEAR THIS, IT WILL JUMP OUT AS A MAJOR MOMENT? >> Reporter: I’M GOING TO BE LISTENING FOR ANY OF THESE WITNESSES CHANGE OR ALTER WHAT THEY SAID BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. WE TALK ABOUT HOW VOLKER SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE HE DIDN’T THINK THE UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT. AND THAT HE DIDN’T THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DIRECTING ALL OF THIS. SO, I’M SUPER INTERESTED TO SEE IF HE BACKTRACKS AT ALL OR SOFTENS THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE NOW WE’LL HAVE QUESTIONS — THEY’LL FACE QUESTIONS AFTER SEEING ALL THESE OTHER DEPOSITIONS BEING RELEASED, QUESTIONS AFTER OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED.SO, IT PUTS THEIR — WHAT THEY SAY IN A MUCH MORE POINTED PERSPECTIVE AND SUPER IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE’RE NOW ABLE TO COMPARE “A” TO “B”. >> BACKTRACKING COULD BE A BIG ISSUE. TOMORROW WE HAVE GORDON SONDLAND TESTIFYING. PEOPLE HAVE SAID WEDNESDAY IS THE DAY THEY ARE ALL WAITING FOR. HE’S ANOTHER PERSON WE’RE LOOKING TO SEE, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY? ARE YOU GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. >> SONDLAND IS GOING TO BE A HUGE TESTIMONY. I THINK THAT ALL EYES ARE GOING TO BE ON SONDLAND. NOT ONLY BECAUSE — BECAUSE HE WAS SO — HE BRAGGED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT SO OFTEN, BUT BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A FRIENDLY WITNESS FOR REPUBLICANS BECAUSE HE WAS ADAMANT THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, NO BRIBERY, NO EXTORTION, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT, BUT HE’S HAD TO SINCE COME AND REVISE HIS TESTIMONY. NEITHER SIDE REALLY TRUSTS HIM. HE’S NOT — HE’S NOT A CAREER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. HE’S NOT USED TO THIS. HE’S NOT A SKILLED DIPLOMAT, AND SO THEY’RE NOT — HE’S RELEASED NO QUANTITY BUT HE’S ALSO IT IS QUANTITY THAT IS COMING TO TESTIFY THAT IS THE CLOSEST TO THE PRESIDENT. SO, SONDLAND IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY INTERESTING TOMORROW. COULD GET A LOT OF INSIGHT INTO WHAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW AND WHEN. >> LEIGH ANN, THAT’S ONLY THE MIDWAY POINT FOR THE WEEK.WE WERE SHOWING A GRAPHIC OF ALL THE PEOPLE TESTIFYING THIS WEEK. AFTER SAND LAND, WE HAVE HALE, HOLMES. AFTER SONDLAND IS THERE SOMEONE YOU’RE WATCHING OUT FOR, SOMEONE THAT COULD BRING UP A KEY POINT THIS WEEK? >> DAVID HOLMES WAS A LATE ADDITION TO THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. HIS TESTIMONY ON FRIDAY WAS JUST ADDED LAST NIGHT. WE JUST LAST NIGHT GOT THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS INTERVIEW THAT JUST HAPPENED ON FRIDAY.THIS IS ALL MOVING EXTREMELY QUICKLY. WHO IS DAVID HOLMES? HE’S A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO TALKED ABOUT A PHONE CALL THAT HE OVERHEARD BETWEEN SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT. IN THIS PHONE CALL HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED SONDLAND IF ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATIONS. SONDLAND SAID, YES, HE IS. ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR YOU. AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS GETTING TO THE POINT OF NO LONGER HEARSAY WHEN YOU HAVE DAVID HOLMES OVERHEARING A CONVERSATION DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT. SO HOLMES IS ALSO GOING TO BE A REALLY BIG WITNESS THIS WEEK. >> LAST WEEK WE SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THAT REVELATION OF THAT PHONE CALL FROM BILL TAYLOR WAS THE BOMBSHELL OF THE WEEK. WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE SINCE THEN. NOW WE’RE IN THE SECOND WEEK. IS THAT STILL THE BIGGEST BOMBSHELL OF THESE HEARINGS OR HAS THERE BEEN ANY OTHER REVELATIONS THAT YOU SAY, THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT? >> Reporter: I THINK IT’S — IT WAS A BOMBSHELL BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO NEW, RIGHT? IT’S SOMETHING WE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT.I THINK AT THAT POINT, THE FACT THAT IT IS NEW IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT’S QUESTIONED ON FRIDAY WHEN DAVID HOLMES COMES BECAUSE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT HE WASN’T AWARE OF IT UNTIL JUST RECENTLY. BUT IN HOLMES’ DEPOSITIONS, THE TRANSCRIPTS JUST RELEASED OVERNIGHT, HE SAID HE ACTUALLY TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT IT IN EARLY AUGUST WHEN HE RETURNED FROM VACATION, HE TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS PHONE CALL.YOU KNOW REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY GOING TO DIG INTO THAT AND ASK WHY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DIDN’T DISCLOSE THIS EITHER IN HIS DEPOSITION AND HE WAITED UNTIL THIS PUBLIC HEARING. HOLMES’ EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CAME OUT SO LATE, THOUGH, IS THAT HE DIDN’T THINK IT WAS RELEVANT. HE DIDN’T — HE DIDN’T CONNECT IT REALLY. >> THAT’S A SURPRISE. >> Reporter: YEAH. UNTIL HE STARTED SEEING ALL THESE NEWS REPORTS AND ACTUALLY THE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT IS SAYING EVERYTHING WAS SECOND AND THIRDHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THIS. HE THOUGHT, WAIT A MINUTE, I DIRECTLY HEARD THE PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT THIS. THAT’S NOT SECOND AND THIRDHAND KNOWLEDGE. I KNOW. I HEARD. THIS IS FIRSTHAND. HE DECIDED TO COME FORWARD WITH IT. AND THAT IS WHY THIS WAS SO — THIS HAS BEEN ADDED SO LATE. >> LEIGH ANN, IT MAKES SENSE ONCE YOU PUT THINKS IN CONTEXT. LAST WEEK AMBASSADOR McFAUL WAS SAYING, YOU DON’T JUST MAKE CELL PHONE CALLS TO THE PRESIDENT. THAT’S ALMOST UNHEARD OF. YOU SIT AND LISTEN TO THAT AND YOU GO, OKAY, I GET IT NOW. THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. >> Reporter: YEAH. HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS UNUSUAL AT THE TIME BUT HE DIDN’T THINK OF IT IN THE WHOLE PICTURE.ANOTHER THING DAVID HOLMES TALKED ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT THE — THAT SONDLAND TOOK OUT HIS PHONE — HIS CELL PHONE, CALLED THE PRESIDENT, CONNECTED THE PRESIDENT AND HE WAS ASKED ABOUT, DID YOU THINK THAT — DO YOU THINK THERE WERE RUSSIANS LISTENING TO THIS PHONE CALL? AND HOLMES SAID, WE OPERATE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE RUSSIANS ARE ALWAYS LISTENING. THEY OWN AT LEAST TWO OF THE THREE CELL PHONE COMPANIES IN UKRAINE. AND SO THAT IS JUST COMMON PRACTICE THAT THEY ALWAYS OPERATE UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION. >> LEIGH ANN, I SEE ADAM SCHIFF SITTING DOWN RIGHT NOW. I KNOW YOU NEED TO GET BACK INTO THAT HEARING ROOM.WE’LL TAKE A QUICK BREAK. THANK YOU >>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT. THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. HERE’S LESTER HOLT. >> GOOD DAY, EVERYONE, WE’RE COMING BACK ON THE AIR AS THE HEARINGS INTO THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD TRUMP CONTINUE. THE COMMITTEE HEARD THIS MORNING FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS, AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, BOTH OF WHOM WERE ON THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THEY BOTH RECOUNTED THE CONCERN THEY FELT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP INJECTING DOMESTIC AMERICAN POLITICS INTO THAT CONVERSATION. THE COMMITTEE IS NOW ABOUT READY TO HEAR FROM TWO MORE WITNESSES, KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE AND TIM MORRISON WHO WAS THE TOP RUSSIA STAFFER ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THAT HEARING IS RESUMING. >> THE CHAIR IS AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE A RECESS OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME. THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT. WE WILL PROCEED TODAY IN THE SAME FASHION AS OUR OTHER HEARINGS. I WILL MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND THE RANKING MEMBER WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS OPENING STATEMENT AND WE WILL TURN TO OUR WITNESSES FOR OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN TO QUESTIONS.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. THIS AFTERNOON, WE WILL HEAR FROM TWO WITNESSES REQUESTED BY THE MINORITY, AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, THE STATE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS AND TIM MORRISON, THE SENIOR — FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE THE MINORITY’S REQUEST FOR THESE TWO IMPORTANT WITNESSES AS WELL AS UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE DAVID HALE, FROM WHOM WE WILL HEAR TOMORROW.AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM OTHER WITNESSES, WHEN JOE BIDEN WAS CONSIDERING WHETHER TO ENTER THE RACE FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2020, THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI, BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO WEAKEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S 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 THE RECALL OF MARIE YOVANOVITCH, THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR IN KIEV, WHO WAS KNOWN FOR PUSHING ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS. TRUMP ALSO CANCELLED VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE’S PARTICIPATION IN THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON MAY 20th AND INSTEAD SENT A DELEGATION HEADED BY ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY, AMBASSADOR TO THE EU GORDON SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER.THESE THREE RETURNED FROM KIEV AND BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THEIR ENCOURAGING INTERACTIONS WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION. HOPES THAT TRUMP WOULD AGREE TO AN EARLY MEETING WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WERE SOON DIMINISHED, HOWEVER, WHEN TRUMP PUSHED BACK. ACCORDING TO VOLKER, HE JUST DIDN’T BELIEVE IT. HE WAS SKEPTICAL. AND HE ALSO SAID, THAT’S NOT WHAT I HEAR. I HEAR, YOU KNOW, HE’S GOT SOME TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO TOLD THEM 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 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY GIULIANI AT THE TRUMP HOTEL.VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT HE PUSHED BACK ON GIULIANI’S ACCUSATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN. ON JULY 22nd, JUST DAYS BEFORE TRUMP WOULD TALK TO ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH GIULIANI AND ANDRE, A TOP ADVISOR TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SO THAT GIULIANI COULD BE INTRODUCED TO HIM. ON JULY 25th, THE SAME DAY AS THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY, BUT BEFORE IT TOOK PLACE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER SENT A TEXT MESSAGE.QUOTE, HEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE/GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016. WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR A VISIT TO WASHINGTON. GOOD LUCK. EXCLAMATION POINT. LATER THAT DAY, DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE THE NOW INFAMOUS PHONE CALL WITH ZELENSKY IN WHICH HE RESPONDED TO UKRAINE’S APPRECIATION FOR U.S. DEFENSE SUPPORT AND A REQUEST BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO BUY MORE JAVELIN MISSILE BY SAYING, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH.AND THE FAVOR INVOLVED THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT GIULIANI HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR INTO THE BIDENS IN 2016. AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS NOT ON THE CALL BUT WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHAT IT REFLECTED, HE TESTIFIED, NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO HELP INTERFERE IN A U.S. ELECTION. AMONG THOSE LISTENING IN ON THE JULY 25th CALL WAS TIM MORRISON, WHO HAD TAKEN OVER AS THE NSC SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE NSC ONLY DAYS BEFORE BUT HAD BEEN BRIEFED BY HIS PRED PREDECESSOR FIONA HILL ABOUT THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT WAS OPERATING IN PARALLEL TO THE OFFICIAL ONE. LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS, LIKE THEM, MORRISON EMERGED FROM THE CALL TROUBLED. HE WAS CONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT HE HEARD ON THE JULY 25th CALL THAT HE WENT TO SEE THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR SOON AFTER IT HAD ENDED. COLONEL VINDMAN’S FEAR WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD BROKEN THE LAW, POTENTIALLY, BUT MORRISON SAID OF HIS CONCERN THAT THE — HIS CONCERN WAS THAT THE CALL COULD BE DAMAGING IF IT WERE LEAKED.SOON AFTER THIS DISCUSSION WITH LAWYERS AT THE NSC, THE CALL RECORD WAS HIDDEN AWAY ON A SECURE SERVER USED TO STORE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE WHERE IT REMAINED UNTIL LATE SEPTEMBER WHEN THE CALL RECORD WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED. FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WORKED WITH SONDLAND AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT’S CLOSE ADVISOR. WHEN HE SENT A DRAFT THAT REFUSED TO INCLUDE THE WORDS, GIULIANI SAID THE STATEMENT WOULD LACK CREDIBILITY. AMBASSADOR VOLKER ADDED BARISMA AND 2016 TO THE DRAFT STATEMENT. BOTH VOLKER AND MORRISON WERE, BY LATE JULY, AWARE THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN CUT OFF AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY. AS THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE SUSPENSION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE SCHEDULING OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BETWEEN TRUMP AND ZELENSKY DRAGGED ON, THE PRESSURE INCREASED AND ANY PRETENSE THAT THERE WAS NO LINKAGE SOON DROPPED AWAY.MORRISON ACCOMPANIED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO WARSAW WHERE PENCE AND ZELENSKY MET AND ZELENSKY RAISED THE SUSPENDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE. FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, SONDLAND APPROACHED HIM TO TELL HIM THAT HE BELIEVE ED WHAT COULD HELP MOVE THE AID WAS IF THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD GO TO THE MIC AND ANNOUNCE THAT HE WAS OPENING THE INVESTIGATION. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A TELEPHONE CALL WITH TRUMP AND ASKED HIM WHAT HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE. ACCORDING TO MORRISON, WHO SPOKE WITH SONDLAND AFTER THE CALL, TRUMP INASSISTED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MUST PERSONALLY ANNOUNCE THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATIONS AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN’T AGREE TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE U.S. AND UKRAINE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE, MEANING IT WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE MUCH NEEDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE. MORRISON HAD A SINKING FEELING AFTER THE CALL AS HE REALIZED THAT THE ASK WAS NOW BEING DIRECT AT ZELENSKY HIMSELF AND NOT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL AS SONDLAND HAD RELAYED TO HIS SENIOR UKRAINIAN AIDE IN WARSAW ON SEPTEMBER 1st. WHILE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, HIS INSIS TANS THAT ZELENSKY HIMSELF MUST PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS OR THEY WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE MADE CLEAR AT LEAST TWO OFFICIAL ACTS, WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND $400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID WERE CONDITIONED ON RECEIPT OF WHAT TRUMP WANTED, INVESTIGATIONS TO HELP HIS CAMPAIGN.THE EFFORTS TO SECURE THE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL MORE DAYS BUT APPEAR TO HAVE ABRUPTLY ENDED SOON AFTER THE THREE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP-GIULIANI UKRAINE SCHEME. ONLY THEN WOULD THE AID BE RELEASED. I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER NUNES FOR ANY REMARKS HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. >> WELCOME BACK TO ACT II OF TODAY’S CIRCUS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE ARE HERE TO CONTINUE WHAT THE DEMOCRATS TELL US IS A SERIOUS, SOMBER, AND EVEN PRAYERFUL PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO OVERTHROW A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT. IF THEY’RE SUCCESSFUL, THE END RESULT WOULD BE TO DISENFRANCHISE TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT IS CHOSEN BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT BY 13 DEMOCRAT PARTISANS ON A COMMITTEE THAT’S SUPPOSED TO BE OVERSEEING THE GOVERNMENT’S INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. AND ISN’T IT STRANGE HOW WE’VE MORPHED INTO THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE, PRESIDING OVER A MATTER THAT HAS NO INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT WHATSOEVER. IMPEACHMENT, OF COURSE, IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, NOT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. BUT PUTTING THIS FARCE IN OUR COURT PROVIDES TWO MAIN ADVANTAGES FOR THE DEMOCRATS. IT MADE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO SHROUD THEIR DEPOSITIONS IN SECRECY AND IT ALLOWED THEM TO AVOID GIVING TOO BIG OF A ROLE IN THIS SPECTACLE TO ANOTHER DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN IN WHOM THE DEMOCRAT LEADERS OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO CONFIDENCE.WHO CAN POSSIBLY VIEW THESE PROCEEDINGS AS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. THEY ARE BEING CONDUCTED BY DEMOCRATS WHO SPENT THREE YEARS SATURATING THE AIR WAVES 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 ACTIVISTS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE DENOUNCED PRESIDENT TRUMP AS A PROFOUND THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY AND VOWED THAT WE WILL SEND THAT CHARLATAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE BACK TO THE GOLDEN THRONE HE CAME FROM.HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO WOULD UTTER SUCH DRAMATIC ABSURDITIES ARE CONDUCTING A FAIR IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND ARE ONLY TRYING TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH? IT’S OBVIOUS THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO TOPPLE THE PRESIDENT SOLELY BECAUSE THEY DESPISE HIM. BECAUSE THEY PROMISED SINCE ELECTION DAY TO IMPEACH HIM AND BECAUSE THEY’RE AFRAID HE WILL WIN RE-ELECTION NEXT YEAR. NO WITNESSES HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY CREAM OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER. LAST WEEK, THE DEMOCRATS TOLD US HIS INFRACTION WAS ASKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO. THIS WEEK, IT’S BRIBERY. WHO KNOWS WHAT RIDICULOUS CRIME THEY’LL BE ACCUSING HIM OF NEXT WEEK? AS WITNESSES, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED A PARADE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO DON’T 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 OF POLICY THROUGH CHANNELS OUTSIDE THEIR OWN AUTHORITY AND CONTROL. THESE ACTIONS, THEY ARGUE, CONTRADICT THE SO-CALLED INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. THEY DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESIDENT ALONE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO SET THE POLICY. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECT THE PRESIDENT, NOT AN INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS. AND OF COURSE OUR PREVIOUS WITNESSES HAD VERY NEW — VERY LITTLE NEW INFORMATION TO SHARE IN THESE HEARINGS. THAT’S BECAUSE THESE HEARINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO UNCOVER NEW INFORMATION. THEY’RE MEANT TO SHOWCASE A HAND-PICKED GROUP OF WITNESSES WHO THE DEMOCRATS DETERMINED THROUGH THEIR SECRET AUDITION PROCESS WILL PROVIDE TESTIMONY MOST CONDUCTIVE AND CONDUCIVE TO THEIR ACCUSATIONS.IN FACT, BY THE TIME ANY WITNESS SAYS ANYTHING HERE, PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY HEARING IT FOR THE THIRD TIME. THEY HEARD IT FIRST THROUGH THE DEMOCRATS’ CHERRY-PICKED LEAKS TO THEIR MEDIA SYMPATHIZERS DURING THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS AND SECOND 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 ALEXANDER CHALUPA WHO WORKED ON AN ELECTION MEDDLING SCHEME ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. THAT’S BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO LET US HEAR FROM THEM.AS FOR EVIDENCE, WE’RE LEFT WITH — WHAT WE’RE LEFT WITH IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRUMP/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 AFTERWARDS. THE DEMOCRATS, HOWEVER, CLAIM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS BEING BRIBED AND THEREFORE HE MUST BE LYING WHEN HE SAYS THE CALL WAS FRIENDLY AND POSED NO PROBLEMS. THERE’S SOME IRONY HERE. FOR WEEKS WE HAVE HEARD 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 DISMISS HIM AS A LIAR. I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I’M FAIRLY SURE CALLING A FRIENDLY FOREIGN 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 DIDN’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT.THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT MENTION TO HIM. AND THAT DIPLOMATS HAVE TESTIFIED THEY ALWAYS ASSUMED WOULD BE LIFTED. WHICH IT WAS. WITHOUT THE UKRANIANS UNDERTAKING ANY OF THE ACTIONS THEY WERE SUPPOSEDLY BEING COERCED INTO DOING. THIS PROCESS IS NOT SERIOUS. IT’S NOT SOBER. AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT PRAYERFUL. IT’S AN AMBITIOUS ATTACK TO DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT TO ELECT A PRESIDENT THE DEMOCRATS DON’T LIKE. AS I MENTIONED, CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE CLAIMS THAT DEMOCRACY IS UNDER THREAT. IF THAT’S TRUE, IT’S NOT THE PRESIDENT WHO POSES THE DANGER. I YIELD BACK. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. WE ARE JOINED THIS AFTERNOON BY AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER AND MR. TIMOTHY MORRISON. AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER SERVED IN THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, WORKING ON SECURITY ISSUES UNDER FIVE DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS.DURING THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION, HE SERVED AS THE ACTING DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND LATER AS THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS. IN 2008, PRESIDENT BUSH APPOINTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER TO THE UNITED STATES PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO NATO WHERE HE SERVED UNTIL MAY 2009. IN JULY 2017, AMBASSADORVOLKER WAS APPOINTED TO BE THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE SERVING IN THAT POSITION UNTIL HE RESIGNED IN SEPTEMBER. IT IS A PLEASURE TO WELCOME MR. MORRISON BACK TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH WHERE HE SERVED FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES AS A REPUBLICAN STAFFER. HE WAS A PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER FOR REPRESENTATIVE MARK KENNEDY OF MINNESOTA AND SENATOR JOHN KYLE OF ARIZONA. LATER, MR. MORRISON SERVED AS THE LONG-TIME POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE. IN JULY 2018, MR. MORRISON JOINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AS SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOLLOWING THE DEPARTURE OF DR. FIONA HILL, HE ASSUMED THE POSITION OF SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA AND EUROPE. ON TWO FINAL POINTS BEFORE THE WITNESSES ARE SWORN, FIRST WITNESS DEPOSITIONS AS PART OF THIS INQUIRY WERE UNCLASSIFIED IN NATURE.AND ALL OPEN HEARINGS WILL ALSO BE HELD AT THE UNCLASSIFIED LEVEL. AND THE INFORMATION THEY 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 TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, INCLUDING YOU OR ANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. IF YOU WOULD BOTH PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE 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 AND PLEASE BE SEATED. MICROPHONES ARE SENSITIVE, SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THEM. WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL ALSO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. WITH THAT, MR. MORRISON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. >> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, RANKING MEMBER NUNES, AND MEMBERS OF THE I APPEAR 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. AS RELATED TO UKRAINE AND U.S. SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE TO THAT COUNTRY. I WILL PROVIDE YOU THE MOST COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION I CAN CONSISTENT WITH MY OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT CLASSIFIED AND 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 FROM MY DEPOSITION ON OCTOBER 31, 2019, WHICH HAS RECENTLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC. HOWEVER, I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE FOLLOWING KEY POINTS. FIRST, AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS, NOR DO I INTEND TO SPECULATE AS TO WHO THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE. SECOND, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR MY FORMER COLLEAGUES FROM THE NSC AND THE REST OF THE INTERAGENCY. I AM NOT HERE TODAY TO QUESTION THEIR CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY.MY RECOLLECTIONS AND JUDGMENTS ARE MY OWN. SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES’ RECOLLECTIONS OF CONVERSATIONS AND INTERACTIONS MAY 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 BETWEEN THE WEST AND VLADIMIR PUTIN’S RUSSIA. RUSSIA IS A FAILING POWER, BUT IT IS STILL A DANGEROUS ONE. THE UNITED STATES AIDS UKRAINE AND HER PEOPLE SO THEY CAN FIGHT RUSSIA OVER THERE AND WE DON’T HAVE TO FIGHT RUSSIA HERE. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND SOVEREIGNTY 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 25th HOW ITS DISCLOSURE WOULD PLAY IN WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL CLIMATE. MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED. I UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS BUT I BEG YOU NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE MILITARY CONFLICT UNDER WAY IN EASTERN UKRAINE TODAY. THE ONGOING ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF CRIMEA AND THE IMPORTANCE OF REFORM OF UKRAINE’S POLITICS AND ECONOMY.EVERY DAY THAT THE FOCUS OF DISCUSSION INVOLVING UKRAINE IS CENTERED ON THESE PROCEEDINGS, INSTEAD OF THOSE MATTERS IS A DAY WHEN WE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON THE INTERESTS OF UKRAINE, THE UNITED STATES, AND WESTERN STYLE LIP LIBERALISM SHARE. FINALLY, I CONCLUDED MY ACT OF SERVICE AS THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL THE DAY AFTER I LAST APPEARED BEFORE YOU. I LEFT THE NSC COMPLETELY OF MY OWN VOLITION. I FELT NO PRESSURE TO RESIGN, NOR HAVE I FEARED ANY RETALIATION FOR MY M THE. I MADE THIS CAREER SOMETIME BEFORE I DECIDED TO TESTIFY ON OCTOBER 31st. I’M PREPARED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND RECOLLECTION. >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER. 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 AND LIKEWISE VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION IN MY POSSESSION IN ORDER TO BE AS COOPERATIVE, CLEAR, AND COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE.I AM HERE TODAY, VOLUNTARILY, AND I REMAIN COMMITTED TO COOPERATING FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY WITH THIS COMMITTEE. ALL I CAN DO IS PROVIDE THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM AT THE TIME. I DID THIS ON OCTOBER 3rd, IN PRIVATE, AND I WILL DO SO AGAIN TODAY. LIKE MANY OTHERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED IN THIS INQUIRY, I’M 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 PRESIDENTS RONALD REAGAN, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH, AND BARACK OBAMA. MY LAST THREE POSITIONS BEFORE LEAVING THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE IN 2009 WERE AS DIRECTOR FOR NATO AND WEST EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT 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 TILLERSON 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 BELIEVED I COULD STEER U.S. POLICY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. FOR OVER TWO YEARS, AS U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, MY SINGULAR FOCUS WAS ADVANCING THE FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS 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 WIDER TRANSATLANTIC COMMUNITY. THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. IF WE CAN STOP AND REVERSE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE, WE CAN PREVENT IT ELSEWHERE. IF UKRAINE, THE CRADLE OF SLAVIC CIVILIZATION, PREDATING MOSCOW, SUCCEEDS AS A FREEDOM-LOVING, PROSPEROUS AND SECURE DEMOCRACY, IT GIVES US ENORMOUS HOPE THAT RUSSIA MAY ONE DAY CHANGE, PROVIDING A BETTER LIFE FOR RUSSIAN PEOPLE AND OVERCOMING ITS CURRENT PLAGUE OF AUTHORITARIANISM, CORRUPTION, AGGRESSION TOWARD NEIGHBORS, AND THREATS TO NATO AND THE UNITED STATES.THE STAKES FOR THE UNITED STATES IN A SUCCESSFUL UKRAINE COULD NOT BE HIGHER. AT NO TIME WAS I AWARE OF OR KNOWINGLY TOOK PART IN AN EFFORT TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. AS YOU KNOW FROM THE EXTENSIVE REALTIME DOCUMENTATION I HAVE PROVIDED, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS NOT A TOPIC OF OUR DISCUSSIONS. I WAS NOT ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF ANY REFERENCE TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR HIS SON BY PRESIDENT TRUMP UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CALL WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 25th, 2019. FROM JULY 7, 2017, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27, 2019, I WAS THE LEAD U.S. DIPLOMAT DEALING WITH RUSSIA’S WAR ON UKRAINE. MY ROLE WAS NOT SOME IRREGULAR CHANNEL BUT THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL. I REPORTED DIRECTLY TO SECRETARIES OF STATE TILLERSON AND POMPEO, KEPT THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WELL INFORMED OF MY EFFORTS, AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, NSA SENIOR DIRECTOR HILL AND HER SUCCESSOR, TIM MORRISON, THEN ASSISTANT SECRETARY WES MITCHELL AND PHIL REEKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, LAURA COOPER, NSC DIRECTOR ALEX VINDMAN AND MANY, MANY OTHERS.I HAVE KNOWN MANY OF THEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS. IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT. WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH LEFT KYIV, I IDENTIFIED AND RECOMMENDED BILL TAYLOR TO SECRETARY POMPEO SO WE WOULD STILL HAVE A STRONG, SEASONED PROFESSIONAL ON THE GROUND. FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THE EVENTS AT THE HEART OF THIS INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE I WAS THE MOST SENIOR DIPLOMAT VISITING THE CONFLICT ZONE, MEETING WITH VICTIMS OF RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION, URGING INCREASED U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING LETHAL DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, WORKING WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND THEN HIS SUCCESSOR, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND THEIR TEAMS. WORKING WITH FRANCE AND GERMANY IN THE SO-CALLED NORMANDY PROCESS, PRESSING FOR SUPPORT FROM NATO, THE EU AND OSCE, SUPPORTING THE OSCE’S SPECIAL MONITORING MISSION, AND ENGAGING IN NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS. AT THE TIME I TOOK THE POSITION IN THE SUMMER OF 2017, THERE WERE MAJOR COMPLICATED QUESTIONS SWIRLING IN PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF U.S. POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE. WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION LIFT SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA? WOULD IT MAKE SOME KIND OF GRAND BARGAIN WITH RUSSIA IN WHICH IT WOULD TRADE RECOGNITION OF RUSSIA’S SEIZURE OF UKRAINIAN TERRITORY FOR SOME OTHER DAILY IN SYRIA OR ELSEWHERE? WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION RECOGNIZE RUSSIA’S CLAIMED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA? WILL THIS JUST BECOME ANOTHER FROZEN CONFLICT? THERE WERE ALSO A VAST NUMBER OF VACANCIES IN KEY DIPLOMATIC POSITIONS SO NO ONE WAS REALLY REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES IN THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS ABOUT ENDING THE WAR IN EASTERN UKRAINE.DURING OVER TWO YEARS OF MY TENURE AS U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE FUNDAMENTALLY TURNED U.S. POLICY AROUND. U.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 ADMINISTRATI’S MOST OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC FIGURE, HIGHLIGHTING RUSSIA’S INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF PARTS OF UKRAINE, CALLING OUTS 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 TRY 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 REFORM, SOVEREIGNTY, AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. UKRAINE POLICY IS PERHAPS THE ONE AREA WHERE THE U.S. AND ITS EUROPEAN ALLIES HAD BEEN IN LOCK STEP. 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 WEAPONS — LETHAL DEFENSIVE ARMS TO UKRAINE, ADVOCATED FOR INCREASING U.S. ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND URGED OTHER COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW SUIT. MY TEAM AND I DRAFTED THE POMPEO DECLARATION OF JULY 25, 2018, IN WHICH THE SECRETARY CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY LAID OUT THE U.S. POLICY OF NONRECOGNITION OF RUSSIA’S CLAIMED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA.I ENGAGED WITH OUR ALLIES, WITH UKRAINE, AND WITH RUSSIA IN NEGOTIATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE MINSK AGREEMENTS, HOLDING A FIRM LINE ON INSISTING OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIAN FORCES, DISMANTLING OF THE SO-CALLED PEOPLE’S REPUBLICS AND RESTORING UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. TOGETHER WITH OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION WE KEPT U.S. POLICY STEADY THROUGH PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE AND WORKED HARD TO STRENGTHEN THE U.S.-UKRAINE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE NEW PRESIDENT AND GOVERNMENT HELPING SHEPHERD IN A PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER IN UKRAINE. SO IN SHORT, WHEREAS TWO YEARS AGO MOST OBSERVERS WOULD HAVE SAID THAT TIME IS ON RUSSIA’S SIDE, BY 2019, WHEN I DEPARTED, WE HAD TURNED THE TABLES AND TIME WAS NOW ON UKRAINE’S SIDE.IT’S 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 WAS THAT AS THE MOST SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL APPOINTED TO WORK SOLELY ON THE UKRAINE PORTFOLIO, I NEEDED TO STEP FORWARD TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP. IF WE NEEDED TO ADOPT A POLICY POSITION, I MADE THE CASE FOR IT. IF ANYONE — IF ANYONE NEEDED TO SPEAK OUT PUBLICLY, I WOULD DO IT. WHEN WE FAILED TO GET A TIMELY STATEMENT ABOUT RUSSIA’S ILLEGAL ATTACK ON UKRAINE’S NAVY AND SEIZURE OF UKRAINE’S SAILORS, I TWEETED ABOUT IT IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THE ACT. IF A PROBLEM AROSE, I KNEW 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 THAT WAS IMPEDING OUR ABILITY TO STRENGTHEN OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE’S NEW PRESIDENT 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 AND TO IGNORE IT OR TO ACCEPT THAT IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO FIX IT. I TRIED TO FIX IT. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT DESPITE THE UNANIMOUS POSITIVE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THOSE OF US WHO WERE 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 ACCUSATIONS FROM UKRAINE’S THEN-PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND CONVEYED TO THE PRESIDENT BY FORMER MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI. AS I PREVIOUSLY TOLD THIS COMMITTEE, I BECAME AWARE OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THIS WAS HAVING ON OUR POLICY EFFORTS WHEN FOUR OF US WHO WERE A PART OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DELEGATION TO THE INAUGURATION MET AS A GROUP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON MAY 23rd.WE STRESSED OUR FINDING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPRESENTED THE BEST CHANCE FOR GETTING UKRAINE OUT OF THE MIRE 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’S 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 THAT CONVERSATION, HE REFERENCED CONVERSATIONS WITH MAYOR GIULIANI. IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT DESPITE THE POSITIVE NEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BEING CONVEYED BY THIS OFFICIAL DELEGATION ABOUT THE NEW PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A DEEPLY ROOTED NEGATIVE VIEW ON UKRAINE ROOTED IN THE PAST. HE WAS RECEIVING OTHER INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES, INCLUDING MAYOR GIULIANI, THAT WAS MORE NEGATIVE, CAUSING HIM TO RETAIN THIS NEGATIVE VIEW. WITHIN A FEW DAYS, ON MAY 29th, PRESIDENT TRUMP INDEED SIGNED THE CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHICH INCLUDED AN INVITATION TO THE PRESIDENT TO VISIT HIM AT THE WHITE HOUSE. HOWEVER, MORE THAN FOUR WEEKS PASSED AND WE COULD NOT NAIL DOWN A DATE FOR THE MEETING.I CAME TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S LONG-HELD NEGATIVE VIEW TOWARD UKRAINE WAS CAUSING HESITATION IN ACTUALLY SCHEDULING THE MEETING, MUCH AS WE HAD SEEN IN OUR OVAL OFFICE DISCUSSION. AFTER WEEKS OF REASSURING THE UKRAINIANS THAT IT WAS JUST A SCHEDULING ISSUE, I DECIDED TO TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE INFORMATION REACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM MAYOR GIULIANI. I DID SO IN A BILATERAL MEETING AT A CONFERENCE ON UKRAINIAN ECONOMIC REFORM IN TORONTO ON JULY 2, 2019, WHERE I LED THE U.S. DELEGATION. I SUGGESTED THAT HE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY IN ORDER TO RENEW THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND TO ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATING AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION, THINGS ON WHICH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD BASED HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. I WAS CONVINCED THAT GETTING THE TWO PRESIDENTS TO TALK WITH EACH OTHER WOULD OVERCOME THE NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF UKRAINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP STILL HARBORED. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S SENIOR AIDE, ANDRE YERMAK APPROACHED ME SEVERAL DAYS LATER TO BE CONNECTED TO MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI. I AGREED TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP WANTED TO CONVINCE THOSE LIKE MAYOR GIULIANI WHO BELIEVED SUCH A NEGATIVE NARRATIVE ABOUT UKRAINE THAT TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THAT, UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, UKRAINE IS WORTHY OF U.S. SUPPORT. UKRAINIANS BELIEVE THAT IF THEY COULD GET THEIR OWN NARRATIVE ACROSS IN A WAY THAT CONVINCED MAYOR GIULIANI THAT THEY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND ADVANCING REFORM, MAYOR GIULIANI WOULD CONVEY THAT ASSESSMENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, THUS CORRECTING THE PREVIOUS NEGATIVE NARRATIVE. THAT MADE SENSE TO ME AND I TRIED TO BE HELPFUL. I MADE CLEAR TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT MAYOR GIULIANI WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER, AND NOT REPRESENTING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. LIKEWISE, IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MAYOR GIULIANI, I NEVER CONSIDERED HIM TO BE SPEAKING ON THE PRESIDENT’S BEHALF OR GIVING INSTRUCTIONS. RATHER, THE INFORMATION FLOW WAS THE OTHER WAY. FROM UKRAINE TO MAYOR GIULIANI IN THE HOPES THAT THIS WOULD CLEAR UP THE INFORMATION REACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP. ON JULY 10th, AFTER HEARING FROM MR.YERMAK, I WROTE TO MAYOR GIULIANI TO SEEK TO GET TOGETHER AND FINALLY ON JULY 19th, WE MET FOR BREAKFAST FOR A LONGER DISCUSSION. AT THAT MEETING, I TOLD MR. GIULIANI THAT IN MY VIEW, THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WITH WHOM HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING, MR. LUTSENKO, WAS NOT CREDIBLE AND WAS ACTING IN A SELF-SERVING CAPACITY. TO MY SURPRISE, MAYOR GIULIANI SAID THAT HE HAD ALREADY COME TO THAT SAME CONCLUSION. MR. GIULIANI ALSO MENTIONED BOTH THE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND ABOUT INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND STRESSED THAT ALL HE WANTED TO SEE WAS FOR UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND APPLY ITS OWN LAWS. CONCERNING THE ALLEGATIONS, I STRESSED THAT NO ONE IN THE NEW TEAM GOVERNING UKRAINE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016. THEY WERE MAKING TELEVISION SHOWS AT THE TIME.I ALSO SAID THAT IT’S NOT CREDIBLE TO ME THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED IN ANY WAY BY FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL MOTIVE IN CARRYING OUT HIS DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT. A DIFFERENT ISSUE IS WHETHER SOME INDIVIDUAL UKRAINIANS MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION OR THOUGHT THEY COULD BUY INFLUENCE. THAT IS AT LEAST PLAUSIBLE GIVEN UKRAINE’S REPUTATION FOR CORRUPTION, BUT THE ACCUSATION THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY DID NOT SEEM AT ALL CREDIBLE TO ME. AFTER THAT MEETING I CONNECTED MAYOR GIULIANI AND MR. YERMAK BY TEXT AND LATER BY PHONE. THEY MET IN PERSON ON AUGUST 2nd, 2019. CONVERSATIONS WITH ME FOLLOWING THAT MEETING WHICH I DID NOT ATTEND, MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT HE HAD STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE CONDUCTSING INVESTIGATIONS INTO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PART AND MR. YERMAK STRESSED HE TOLD MR. GIULIANI IT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S PROGRAM TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION AND IMPLEMENT REFORM AND THEY WOULD BE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS ANYWAY. MR. GIULIANI SAID HE BELIEVES UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT NEEDED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND HE DISCUSSED THIS WITH MR. YERMAK. I SAID I DID NOT THINK THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM SINCE THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION ANYWAY. I FOLLOWED UM WITH MR. YERMAK AND HE SAID THAT THEY WOULD INDEED BE PREPARED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. HE SAID IT WOULD REFERENCE BARISMA AND 2016 IN A WIDER CONTEXT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION ANYWAY. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. RATHER, IN REFERENCING BARISMA IN 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT HE, MR. YERMAK, WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER ANY UKRAINIANS HAD ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY. AT THIS TIME I WAS FOCUSED ON OUR GOAL OF GETTING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MEET WITH EACH OTHER, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY’RE 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. AS A PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMAT I WAS COMFORTABLE EXPLORING WHETHER THERE WAS A STATEMENT UKRAINE COULD MAKE ABOUT ITS OWN INTENTIONS TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CORRUPTION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN CONVINCING MR. GIULIANI TO CONVEY TO MR. TRUMP A MORE POSITIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW LEADERSHIP IN UKRAINE. AUGUST 16th MR. YERMAK SHARED A DRAFT WITH ME I THOUGHT LOOKED PERFECTLY REASONABLE. IT DID NOT MENTION BARISMA OR 2016 ELECTIONS BUT WAS GENERIC. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I HAD A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. GIULIANI WHO SAYS IN HIS VIEW IN ORDER TO BE CONVINCING THAT THIS GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED REAL CHANGE IN UKRAINE, THE STATEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO BARISMA AND 2016. AGAIN, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THESE CONVERSATIONS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I DISCUSSED THESE POINTS, AND I EDITED THE STATEMENT DRAFTED BY IN YERMAK TO INCLUDE THESE POINTS TO SEE HOW IT LOOKED.I THEN DISCUSSED IT FURTHER WITH MR. YERMAK. HE SAID THAT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT MR. LUTSENKO WAS STILL PROSECUTOR GENERAL HE DIDN’T WANT TO MENTION BARISMA OR 2016. I AGREE AND THE IDEA FOR PUTTING OUT A STATEMENT WAS SHELVED. THESER THE LAST CONVERSATIONS I HAD ABOUT THIS STATEMENT WHICH WERE ON OR AUB AUGUST 17th TO 18th. MY LAST CONTACT WITH MR. GIULIANI ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS WAS AUGUST 13th UNTIL HE TRIED TO REACH ME ON SEPTEMBER 20th AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS LAUNCHED. AT THIS TIME THAT IS TO SAY IN THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST, I THOUGHT THE IDEA OF ISSUING THIS STATEMENT WAS DEFINITIVELY SCRAPPED. IN SEPTEMBER I WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THERE HAD BEEN FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH UKRAINIANS AR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY POSSIBLY MAKES A STATEMENT IN AN INTERVIEW WITH U.S. MEDIA SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN AUGUST. SINCE THESE EVENTS AND SIGNS GAVE MY TESTIMONY ON OCTOBER 3rd A GREAT DEAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PERSPECTIVES HAVE COME TO LIGHT.I’VE LEARNED MANY THINGS I DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION. FIRST, AT THE TIME I WAS CONNECTING MR. YERMAK AND MR. GIULIANI AND DISCUSSING WITH MR. YERMAK AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND A POSSIBLE STATEMENT THAT COULD BE MADE BY THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT I DID NOT KNOW OF ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND UKRAINE PURSUING INVESTIGATIONS. NO ONE HAD EVER SAID THAT TO ME AND I NEVER CONVEYED SUCH A LINKAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS. I OPPOSED THE HOLD OF U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE AS SOON AS I LEARNED ABOUT IT ON JULY 18BLE AND THOUGHT WE WERE TURN IT AROUND BEFORE THE UKRAINIAN EVER KNEW AND BECOME ALARMED ABOUT IT. I KNEW IT WAS A PROBLEM WE NEEDED TO FIX INTERNALLY AND WAS CONFIDENT WE 0 WOULD DO SO. I BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE HOLD AUGUST 29th AND NOT BEFORE. THAT DATE IS THE FIRST TIME ANY OF THEM ASKED ME ABOUTED HOLD BY FORWARDING AN ARTICLE PUBLICED IN POLITICO.I SPOKE TO THE UKRAINIANS AFTER THE HOLD AUGUST 29th INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM TO DO SOMETHING TO GET IT RELEASED I TOLD THEM THE OPPOSITE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ALARMED. IT WAS AN INTERNAL U.S. PROBLEM AND WE WERE WORKING TO GET IT FIXED. I DID NOT OTHERS WERE CONVEYING A DIFFERENT MESSAGE TO THEM AROUND THE SAME TIME. SECOND, I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE STRONG CONCERNS EXPRESSEDS BY THEN NATIONAL SECURITY AS VIDOR JOHN BOLTON TO MEMBERS OF HIS NSC STAFF REGARDING THE DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS. I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10th MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER BOLTON AND THEN UKRAINIAN CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL DANYLUK. THE MEETING WAS OVER AND THE AMBASSADOR MADE A COMMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS.ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE I THOUGHT. THE CONVERSATION DID NOT COPT AND THE MEETING CONCLUDED. LATER ON IN THE WAR ROOM I MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A SIDE CONVERSATION OR HAD ALREADY LEFT THE COMPLEX BECAUSE I DO NOT RECALL FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS OF BARISMA. THIRD, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS BELIEVED THAT ANY INVESTIGATION OF THE UKRAINIAN COMPANY BARISMA HAD A HISTORY OF ACCUSATIONS OF CORRUPTION, WAS TANTAMOUNT TO INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. I DREW A SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. IT HAS LONG BEEN U.S. POLICY UNDER MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS TO URGE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE AND FIGHT INTERNAL CORRUPTION. I WAS QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH UKRAINE MAKING ITS OWN STATEMENTS ABOUT ITS OWN POLICY OF INVESTIGATING AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION AT HOME.AT THE ONE IN-PERSON MEETING WITH MAYOR GIULIANI JULY 19th MAYOR GIULIANI RAISED AND I REJECTED THE CONSPIRACY THEORY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERFERING WITH MONEY PAID TO HIS SON. I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED I HAVE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 24 YEARS, AN HONORABLE MAN AND I HOLD HIM IN HIGHEST REGARD. AT IN TIME WAS AWARE OF KNOWINGLY TAKING PART IN AN EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND YOU KNOW FROM EXTENSIVE DOCUMENT PROVISION VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS NOT A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. I WAS NOT ON THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, NOT MADE AWARE OF ANY CONVERSATION UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THAT CALL WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2019.THROUGHOUT THIS TIME I UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN BARISMA AND BIDEN AND URGED UKRAINIANS TO MAINTAIN SUCH A DISTINCTION AND DID NOT KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THIS WITH UKRAINIANS OR POSSIBLE UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT. IN RETROSPECT, FOR THE UKRAINIANS IT WOULD CLEARLY BE CONFUSING’S IN HINDSIGHT I NOW UNDERSTAND OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF THIS AS POSSIBLE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATING BARISMA AS WELL AS INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. SAW THAW THOSE AT DIFFERENT AND THE LATTER UNACCEPTABLE. IN RETROSPECT I SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT AND HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS.MUCH HAS BEEN MADE OF THE TERM THREE AMIGOS AND I CRINGE. THAT REFERS TO SENATOR McCAIN, SENATOR LIEBERMAN AND SENATOR GRAHAM IN HIS EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE SURGE IN IRAQ. MOREOVER I WAS NEVER AWARE OF ANY DESIGNATION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OR THE THREE OF US AS GROUP IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY. RATHER, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT EACH OF US IN OUR OWN RESPECTIVE OFFICIAL CAPACITIES CONTINUED TO WORK TOGETHER AFTER OUR ATTENDANCE OF SPREAD ZELENSKY INAUGURATION TO PUSH FOR GREATER U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE. LEADING THE DIPLOMACY AROUND UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS HAD LONG BEEN MY OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND I WELCOMED THE ADDED SUPPORT AND INFLUENCE OF A CABINET MEMBER AND OUR EU AMBASSADOR. SINCE I WAS NOT AWARE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP JULY 26th, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND I WERE VISITING THE CONFLICT ZONE.CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ALLOW ME TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE AND I’M PLEASED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. WE WILL PROCEED WITH FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS AS DETAILED IN THE MEMO PROVIDED THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 45 MINUTES OF QUESTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND 45 MINUTES BY THE RANK ARE OR MINORITY COUNSEL. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS. I WAS GOING TO YIELD TO THE MINORITY COUNSEL BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE A STATEMENTS IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.FIRST YOU SAID ATTORNEY GENERAL UTE SIENKO WAS NOT CREDIBLE. LUTSENKO IS WITH A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP BY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES. WHY IS IT YOU FOUND MR. LUTSENKO NOT CREDIBLE AND TOLD MR. GIULIANI SO? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL, THE ALLEGATIONS THEMSELVES INCLUDING THOSE AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH DID NOT APPEAR TO MEET TO BE CREDIBLE AT ALL. I KNOW HER TO BE AN INCREDIBLY COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL, SOMEONE I WORKED WITH MANY, MANY YEARS. THE SUGGESTION HE WAS ACTING IN SOME INAPPROPRIATE MANNER WERE NOT KNOWN TO ME. I’VE NOTE VICE PRESIDENTED BY AN LONG TIME, THOSE ACCUSATIONS WERE NOT CREDIBLE AND I WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN UKRAINE.WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE PRESIDENT POROSHENKO APPEARED TO NOT BE IN A FAVORABLE POSITION GOING INTO ELECTIONS IT WAS INCREASINGLY APPARENT THEN CANDIDATE SILENCE WAS GOING TO WIN. AS OFTEN IS THE CASE IN UKRAINE A CHANGE IN POWER WOULD MEAN CHANGE IN PROSECUTORIAL POWERS AS WELL AND THERE HAVE BEEN EFFORTS IN THE PAST AS PROSECUTING THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT. I THINK MR. LUTSENKO, IN MY ESTIMATION AND I SAID IT TO MAYOR GIULIANI WHEN I MET WITH HIM, WAS INTERESTED IN PRESERVING HIS OWN POSITION. HE WANTED TO AVOID BEING FIRED BY A NEW GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO PREVENT PROSECUTION OF HIMSELF, POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF HIMSELF, POSSIBLY ALSO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WOULD HAVE WELCOMED AS WELL, AVOIDING EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE PRESIDENT POROSHENKO AS WELL. BY MAKING ALLEGATIONS LIKE THIS, AND MAKING SURE THEY WERE REACHING U.S. MEDIA, I THINK MR. LUTSENKO WAS TRYING TO MAKE HIMSELF APPEAR TO BEFLUENTIAL PR IN THE UNITED STATES. >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT JOE BIDEN BECAUSE IT’S A CONTINUING REFRAIN FROM SOME OF ME COLLEAGUES AS WELL.WHY WAS IT YOU FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JOE BIDEN RELATED TO HIS SON OF BARISMA NOT TO BE BELIEVED? >> SIMPLY BECAUSE I’VE KNOWN VICE PRESIDENT, 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 AS HOW HE SEES BEST FOR THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.>> FINALLY, AMBASSADOR, BEFORE I TURN IT OVER, I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING YOU SAID ON PAGE 8 OF YOUR STATEMENT. WHICH READS, IN HINDSIGHT I UNDERSTAND OTHERS SAW THE IDEA INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CORRUPTION INVOLVING COMPANY BARISMA KWIV LEND TO INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. AWE SAW THEM AS DIFFER AND BEING UNREMARKABLE THE LATTER BEING UNACCEPTABLE. IN RETROSPECT YOU SAID I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT DIFFERENTLY AND HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTIONS. WHAT IS IT NOW, AMBASSADOR, IN RETROSPECT THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT YOU DIDN’T AT THIS TIME THAT LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU WOULD OR SHOULD HAVE RAISED THESE OBJECTIONS? >> YES. THAT 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’S A HISTORY WITH THE COMPANY OF BARISMA. IT’S 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. BUT THOSE THINGS I SAW AS COMPLETELY DISTINCT. AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN WORKING WITH THE UKRAINIANS WAS TO THREAD A NEEDLE. SEE WHERE THINGS THEY COULD DO APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE AS PART OF UKRAINE’S ONLY POLICY OF FIGHTING CORRUPTION TO HELP CLARIFY FOR OUR PRESIDENT THAT THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THAT VERY, THAT VERY EFFORT. THERE’S 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 THAT FOR THEM IT WAS IS A NOM MOUSE. >> ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE TURNSOUS TO THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES. I TAKE IT YOU DIDN’T KNOW UNTIL THE CALL RECORD WAS RELEASED THAT HAD PRET IN THAT CALL DOESN’T RAISE BARISMA. HE ASKS FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I TAKE IT SINCE YOU SAY THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNACCEPTABLE AND OBJECTIONABLE THAT HAD THE PRESIDENT ASKED YOU TO GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS YOU WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM SO? >> I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO THAT, YES, SIR. >> MR. GOLDMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST 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 BARISMA, BUT YOU WERE TRYING TO SEPARATE THE TWO OF THEM IN YOUR MIND? IS THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE SEPARATE. AND THAT — THIS REFERENCE TO THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH MR. GIULIANI 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 FOP ME THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. AS I SAID, I THINK THE FORMER IS UNACCEPTABLE AND THE LATTER IN THIS CASE IS — >> UNDERSTOOD. BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUNTER BIDEN AND BARISMA? >> I KNEW HE BEEN A BOARD MEMBER OF THE COMPANY AND WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO NAME A DISTINCTION. FOCUS ON THE JULY 25th CALL A MOMENT. MR. MORRISON, JUST 25th WAS DAY NUMBER, WHAT, FOR YOU AS THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OVERSEEING UKRAINE? >> I — ARRIVED THE 15th. PROBABLY TEN DAYS. VR FEW DAYS IN OFFICE. >> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU RECEIVED AN EMAIL THE MORNING OF JULY 25th FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SHORTLY BEFORE THE CALL.IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND I BELIEVE IN THAT EMAIL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT THE, IN ADVANCE OF THE CALL. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU ON ANOTHER OCCASION THAT HE COULD CALL THE PRESIDENT WHENEVER HE WANTED. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND 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. >> AND DID IT HAPPEN? >> YES. >> ON OTHER OCCASIONS WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT HE SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, DID YOU, OB SOME OTHER OCCASIONS DID YOU ALSO SEEK CONFIRMATION OF THAT FACT? >> ON SOME, YES. >> AND ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU DID SEEK TO CONFIRM THAT THEY HAD SPOKEN, WHAT DID YOU FIND? >> HE HAD. >> I WANT TO PULL UP A TEXT MESSAGE ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25th. BETWEEN — WELL, IT’S — SHOULD BE ANOTHER ONE. OH, YEAH. SORRY. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WITH YOU, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AND AT 7:54, AMBASSADOR — IN THE MORNING, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS, CALL ASAP. THEN AT 9:35, AMBASSADOR VOLKER.YOU RESPOND. THE SCREEN WORKING IN FRONT YOU YOU? >> YES. >> READ WHAT YOU SAID AT 9:35. >> YES. I SAID, HI GORDON PT GOT YOUR MESSAGE. HAD A GREAT LUNCH WITH YERMAK AND PASSED YOUR MESSAGE TO HIM. HE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW. I THINK EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE. >> AND WHO IS YERMAK? >> ANDREI YERMAK IS SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE. >> NOW, WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED? >> THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD BE CLEAR, CONVINCING, FORTHRIGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION, INVESTIGATING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS, WHATEVER THERE IS AND THAT IF HE DOES THAT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PREPARED TO BE REASSURED THAT HE WOULD SAY, YES, COME ON LET’S GET THIS FOR THIS VISIT SCHEDULED. >> DID YOU UNDERSTAND FROM THAT MESSAGE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD SPOKE TON PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> I WASN’T SURE IF HE HAD OR NOT. HE DOES SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. I KNEW HE HAD CONVERSATIONS IN GENERAL. I DIDN’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ONE LEADING UP TO THIS. >> NOW, ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IS ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE FROM YOU THAT SAME MORNING. >> YES. >> AT 8:36 IN THE MORNING TO ANDRE YERMAK. >> YES. I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE TIME DIFFERENCE, THIS IS ACTUALLY IN THE AFTERNOON. IN UKRAINE. >> IN UKRAINE. SO THIS IS EAST COAST TIME. RIGHT. SO THIS IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >> RIGHT. >> CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU WROTE THERE? >> AND JUST AFTER THE LUNCH WITH AN CREIGH YERMAK. GOOD LUNCH, THANKS. GO FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. GET TO BOTTOM WHAT HAPPENED 2016 WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT WITH WASHINGTON. GOOD LUCK. SEE YOU TOMORROW, KURT. >> DOES THIS ACCURATELY RELAY THE MESSAGE YOU RECEIVED FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >> YES. >> NOW, MR.MORRISON, DID THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ALSO PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THIS CALL? >> THE EMBASSY STAFF DID, YES. >> AND PER USUAL CUSTOM, WERE THE TALKING POINTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL UNITED STATES POLICY OBJECTIVES? >> THEY WERE. >> AND SINCE THERE’S BEEN A LITTLE DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY IS DETERMINED WITH, THROUGH THE INNER AGENCY PROCESS? >> WE APPROPRIATE UNDER WHAT’S KNOWN AS NFPM-4. NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENT’S REFERENDUM FOUR THAT LAYS OUT HOW THE PRESIDENT WNTS TO BE PROVIDED FOR HIS DECISION. >> AND AN EXTENSIVE FUNCTION TO FINALIZE ANY POLICY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> SOMETIMES. >> MR. MORRISON, YOU LISTENED TO THIS CALL ON THE 25th. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I DID. >> WHERE DID YOU LISTEN FROM? THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM. >> IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE CALL WAS NOT WHAT YOU WERE HOPING TO HEAR. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> I WAS HOPING FOR A MORE FULL-THROATED STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT CONCERNING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S REFORM AGENDA. GIVEN WHERE WE AT THE TIME WITH RESPECT TO THE OVERWHELMING MANDATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS SERVING TO THE PARTY HAD RECEIVED IN THE ELECTION. >> AND THAT RADDA, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT, THAT ELECTION OCCURRED FOUR DAYS EARLIER. >> THAT’S RIGHTS. >> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S PARTY WON IN A LANDSLIDE? >> RECEIVEDALS MORE THAN A MAJORITY IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. >> IN UKRAINE TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FOR ZELENSKY’S ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENDA. IS THAT RIGHT? >> AT THE TIME. >> AND WITHIN THE INNER AGENCY, WITHIN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, WAS THERE BROAD SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> THERE WAS BROAD SUPPORT FOR GETTING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY A CHANCE. >> AND TO THAT POINT, HE HAD SHOWN THAT HE WAS, HE HAD AT LEAST PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH WAS FOR THE THREE MONTHS HE HAD BEEN IN OFFICE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS, YES. >> NOW, I WANT TO SHOW A COUPLE EXCERPTS F 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.AND PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN SAYS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, 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 CROWDSTRIKE. YOU HAVE ONE ARE YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER. THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT. IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT EXCERPT. WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, THE OTHER THING, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN’S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION. 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 CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME. NOW, MR. MORRISON, WERE THESE REFERENCES TO CROWDSTRIKE, THE SERVER IN 2016 ELECTION, AND TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON? WERE THEY INCLUDED IN THE PRESIDENT’S TALKING POINTS? >> THEY WERE NOT. >> WAND THEY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD AS THAT TIME TO BE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >> I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY MUCH OF THIS AT THE TIME. >> IN FACT, SUBSEQUENT TO THIS CALL YOU DID NOTHING TO IMPLEMENT THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IMPLEMENTED, THE REQUEST FOR THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND ANY INSTRUCTION TO DO SO. >> AND YOU DIDN’T, YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE WITHIN YOUR, YOU COORDINATE THE INNER AGENCY PROCESS AND WERE NOT AWARE OF ANYONE ELSE DOING THAT EITHER. IS THAT CORRECT? >> RIGHT. >> NOW, YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT HEARING THIS CALL CONFIRMS WHAT YOU CALLED THE PARALLEL PROCESS THAT YOUR PREDECESSOR FIONA HILL HAD WARNED YOU ABOUT.WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH DR. HILL AND I WERE CONDUCTING HANDOFF OF MEETINGS SO THAT I COULD BE UP TO SPEED ON THE VARIOUS THINGS THAT WERE OCCURRING IN THE PORTFOLIO AT THE TIME, SHE MENTIONED THE ADDITIONAL NSPM FORM PROCESS AND THE PARALLEL PROCESS AND IN THE CON TEXAS OF DISCUSSING THE PARALLEL PROCESS SHE MENTIONED ISSUES LIKE BARISMA WHICH WERE NOTEWORTHY TO ME AT THE TIME BECAUSE I HAD NEVER HEARD OF THEM BEFORE, AND UPON HEARING THEM IN THE CALL, IT WOUND UP CONFIRMING HEY, THERE’S SOMETHING HERE. >> WHO DID SHE INFORM YOU WAS INVOLVED IN THIS PARALLEL PROCESS? >> AS I RECALL, DEFINITELY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I BELIEVE MR. GIULIANI. >> AND AFTER SHE INFORMEDAL YOU OF THIS COMPANY BARISMA, 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 THAT IT HAD SOME ASSOCIATION WITH HUNTER BIDEN? >> YES. >> NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO THIS CALL, BUT YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE SURPRISED AND TROUBLED WHEN YOU READ THE CALL RECORD AFTER IT WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 25th. AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT AFTER READING THE CALL RECORD IT WAS CLEAR TO YOU THAT THE BIDEN, BARISMA AND 20916 ELECTION INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED ON THE CALL WERE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL INTERESTS, NOT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID THAT? >> I DON’T RECALL THAT LANGUAGE FROM MY TEM FROM MY OCTOBER 3rd TESTIMONY? >> YES, IT WAS. >> THANK YOU. WELL WHAT I DO MEAN BY THAT AND I’D LIKE TO PHRASE IT IN MY OWN WORDS NOW IS, I DON’T THINK THAT RAISING 2016 ELECTIONS OR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR THESE THINGS I CONSIDER TO BE CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED BY THE UKRAINIANS, PARTICULARLY THE FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL, ARE — THEY’RE NOT THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE PURSUING AS PART OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY WITH UKRAINE. WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING UKRAINE’S DEMOCRACY, FORMS, FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION DOMESTICALLY. STRUGGLE AGAINST RUSSIA. ITS DEFENSE CAPABILITIES.THESE ARE THE HEART OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, AND I DON’T THINK PURSUING THESE THINGS SERVES A NATIONAL INTEREST. >> MR. MORRISON, SHORTLY AFTER YOU HEARD THE JULY 25th CALL, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ALERTED THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER JOHN EISENBERG PRETTY MUCH RIGHT AWAY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU INDICATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, AT LEAST YOUR DEPOSITION, THAT YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG OUT OF CONCERN OVER THE POTENTIALOLITICAL FALLOUT IF THE CALL RECORD BECAME PUBLIC AND NOT BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT WAS ILLEGAL. IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE, RIGHT, THAT ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL RIVAL IS INAPPROPRIATE. WOULD YOU NOT? >> IT’S NOT WHAT WE RECOMMEND, WHAT THE PRESIDENT DISCUSSED. >> NOW IN A SECOND MEETING WITH MR.EISENBERG WHAT DID YOU RECOMMEND HE DO TO PREVENT THE CALL FROM LEAKING? >> I RECOMMENDED RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE PACKAGE. >> HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER TO RESTRICT ACCESS BEFORE? >> NO. >> DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR DR. KUPERMAN BEFORE YOU DID THAT? >> NO. >> DID YOU RECOMMEND IT BE PUT IN A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM? >> I DID. >> WHAT REASON DID MR. EISENBERG GIVE YOU FOR WHY THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT INTO THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM. >> IT WAS A MISTAKE. >>> SAID HAD WAS JUST A MISTAKE. >> JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR. >> NOW, ISN’T IT ALSO TRUE, THOUGH, THAT YOU HAD AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT AX ON THE REGULAR SYSTEM, IF YOU WANTED TO? >> I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE APPROPRIATE STAFF TO DO SO, YES. >> SO WHY DID YOU GO TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER TO RECOMMEND THAT? >> I WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT BASED ON THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE LISTENING ROM THAT DAY I DID NOT THEN AND I DO NOT NOW RECALL ANY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR’S OFFICE AS THEY WERE OFTEN ON HEAD OF STATE CALLS BUT NOT ALWAYS AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE DON EISENBERG AND HIS LEGAL ADVISER AND DEPUTY WERE AWARE TO REVIEWS THIS PARTICULAR TRANSCRIPT. >> YOU WANTED THEM TO REVIEW IT BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES? NOT BECAUSE ANYTHING WAS WRONG? >> CORRECT. POLITICAL CONVENTIONS WAS AN UMBRELLA TERM I USED IN MY STATEMENT TO DESCRIBE SERIES OF EFFECTS I FEARED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF AND WHEN THE CONTENT OF THE TRANSCRIPT OR OF THE MEMO LEAKED. >> TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, MR. MORRISON. YOU HEARD THE CALL. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE TALKING POINTS THAT THE NSC PREPARED BASED ON OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY, AND WAS INSTEAD TALKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT FIONA HILL HAD WARNED YOU ABOUT, AND THEN YOU REPORTED IT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER. IS THAT THE CORRECT CHAIN OF EVENTS HERE? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IN THE JULY 25th CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY VOLUNTEERS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT RUDY GIULIANI HAD ALREADY SPOKEN WITH ONE OF HIS ASSOCIATES, AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HOPES GIULIANI WILL COME TO UKRAINE. AND IN RESPONSE PRESIDENT TRUMP PROCEEDS TO MENTION MR. GIULIANI 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 THEN HE ALSO REPEATED SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS MAKING’S IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE IN THE MEDIA. WERE THEY NOT? >> YES. >> AND DURING THAT MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SECRETARY PERRY TO TALK TO GIULIANI. SHIP IN THAT CORRECT? >> HE — I DIDN’T TAKE IT AS AN INSTRUCTION. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. HE SAID,S THAT NOT WHAT I HEAR. WHEN WE WERE GIVING HIM OUR ASSESSMENT ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND WHERE UKRAINE IS HEADED, THAT’S NOT WHAT I HEAR. I HEAR TERRIBLE THINGS. HE’S GOT TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM. TALK TO RUDY, AND I UNDERSTOOD, IN THAT CONTEXT, HIM JUST SAYING, THAT’S WHERE HE HERE’S IT FROM. I DIDN’T TAKE IT AS AN INSTRUCTION. >> SO WHEN HE SAID “TALK TO RUDY” YOU DIDN’T TAKE IT FOR HIM TO MEAN TALK TO RUDY? NO.I DIDN’T TAKE IT THAT WAY. I TOOK IT AT JUST PART OF THE DIALOGUE NAP I HEAR OTHER THINGS. I HEAR THEM FROM RUDY GIULIANI OR OTHER PEOPLE. THAT’S NOT WHAT’S GOING ON. HE’S SURROUNDED BY CORRUPT PEOPLE. TALK TO RUDY. IT SEEMED LIKE PART OF THE DIALOGUE. >> AFTER THAT MEETING DID YOU IN FACT TALK TO RUDY? >> AFTER THAT MEETING, NOT MEASE IMMEDIATELY, NO. REMEMBER, THIS WAS MAY 23rd AND WE CONTINUED TO PROCEED WITH OUR EFFORT TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SCHEDULED AND TO KEEP RAMPING UP OUR SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. HOPEFULLY THE NEW UKRAINE GOVERNMENT. I DID, HOWEVER, ON JULY 2nd, AS I WAS BECOMING CONCERNED THAT WE WERE NOT SUCCEEDING AT THIS, TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, I THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM AND THAT PROBLEM BEING THAT NEGATIVE FEED OF INFORMATION FROM MR. GIULIANI. >> AND ULTIMATELY I THINK AS YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU INTRODUCED MR. YERMAK TO MR. GIULIANI AND THEY EVENTUALLY MET. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> DURING THIS WHOLE TIME IN JULY INTO EARLY AUGUST WHEN THEY MET, UKRAINE STILL WANTED THAT MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU ALSO WANTED THAT MEETING THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHY WAS THAT SO IMPORTANT TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >> I THINK HE FELT NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. SHE A CHARISMATIC LEADER WHO RAN A REMARKABLE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE AGAINST THE LEGACY OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND GOVERNMENT MALAISE, 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. BUT 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 CERTAINLY YOUR ASSESSMENT. RIGHT? >> IT WAS MY ASSESSMENT AND I BELIEVE ALSO WHAT SPREAD ZELENSKY BELIEVED. >> CERTAINLY YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE IN UKRAINE THERE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT BOOST IN LEGITIMACY AT HOME FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IF THERE WERE PHOTOS OF HIM IN THE OVAL OFFICE, ET CETERA? >> THAT IS CORRECTED. >> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT MR. GIULIANI AND MR. YERMAK, ZELENSKY’S AIDE, MET AUGUST 2ndWHERE’S DP THEY MEET? >> THEY NET MADRID. DID YOU LEARN THAT MR. GIULIANI REQUESTED ANYTHING OF THE UKRAINIANS AT THAT MEETING? >> ONLY WHEN I SPOKE WITH MR. GIULIANI AFTERWARDS, HE SAID HE THOUGHT UKRAINE SHOULD ISSUE A STATEMENT, AND THEN I SPOKE WITH MR. YERMAK AFTER THIS AND HE SAID, YES, AND WE ARE PREPARED TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND THAT THEN KICKED OFF THE SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS THAT I SAID IN MY TESTIMONY. >> WE’LL GET INTO THAT IN A SECOND, BUT MR. GIULIANI DID NOT EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT STATEMENT? IN THAT CALL HAD YOU? HE SAID SOMETHING MORE GENERAL, AS I RECALL. I RECALL HIM SAYING, FIGHT CORRUPTION, THEIR COMMITMENT TO BEING DIFFERENT. MR. YERMAK TOLD ME WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM AS I RECALL, THAT THE STATEMENT WOULD INCLUDE SPECIFIC MENTION OF BARISMA AND 2016. >> RIGHT. LET’S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE TEXT MESSAGES SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO SAID WHAT. AND FIRST LET’S START ON AUGUST 9th. THIS IS A TEXT EXCHANGE BETWEEN YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WRITES AT THE TOP, MORRISON READY TO GET DATES AS SOON AS YERMAK CONFIRMS.WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? >> I SAID, EXCELLENT WITH TWO EXCLAMATION POINTS. HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS AFTER IT. >> RESPONSE, I’M NOT SURE I DID. I THIS POTUS REALLY WANTS THE DELIVERABLE. >> BUT HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, YEP. CLEARLY LOTS OF CON VOS GOING ON. MR. MORRISON YOU’RE REFERENCED IN THIS TEXT MESSAGE. HAD YOU DISCUSSED CONFIRMING A DATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AROUND THIS TIME? >> I LIKELY WOULD HAVE. >> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT A STATEMENT FOR, THAT UKRAINE WAS, THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO MAKE? >> I DID NOT. >> WERE YOU AWARE THAT — DO YOU YOURSELF KNOW WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MEANT BY THE DELIVERABLE? >> I DID NOT AT THE TIME. I THINK I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING NOW. >> AND WHAT IS THE UNDERSTANDING NOW? >> THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A STATEMENT OF VARIOUS DRAFTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS. >> BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS PART OF THAT PARALLEL PROCESS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT? >> YES. >> WE CAN NOW GO TO THE NEXT EXHIBIT, WHICH IS ANOTHER TEXT EX-CHANG’E JUST A FEW MINUTES LATER BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND YOU, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS, MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ASK ANDREI FOR A DRAFT STATEMENT EMBARGOED SO WE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT IS PROSED TO COVER EVEN THOUGH HE, ZELENSKY, DOES A LIVE PRESSER THEY CAN STILL SUMMARIZE IN A BRIEF STATEMENT. HOW DID YOU RESPOND? >> AGREE. >> THIS RELATES TO THE STATEMENT THAT MR.GIULIANI WANTED, THERE THAT RIGHT, MR.VOLKER? >> RELATES TO THE STATEMENT HE DISCUSSED. >> AND THE NEXT TEXT, ANOTHER EXCHANGE BETWEEN YOU AND MR. YERMAK. THE SAME AIDE MR. GIULIANI HAD MET IN MADRID AND IF YOU COULD READ WHAT YOU WROTE AT THE TOP AT 5:02 P.M. >> RIGHT. I WROTE, I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH. LET’S IRON OUT STATEMENT AND USE THAT TO GET DATE AND THEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CAN GO FORWARD WITH IT. >> AND MR. YERMAK RESPONDS, ONCE WE HAVE A DATE WE WILL CALL FOR A PRESS BRIEFING, ANNOUNCING UPCOMING VISIT AND OUTLINING VISION FOR THE REBOOT OF U.S./UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS BARISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING AND INVESTIGATIONS. WHAT DID YOU RESPOND? >> SOUNDS GREAT. >> NOW, THE DATE THAT HE’S REFERRING TO THAT IS THE DATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> NOW, TWO DAYS LATER ON AUGUST 12th, YOU RECEIVE ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE FROM MR.YERMAK, 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. I WANTED TO DECLARE THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE’S WE INTEND TO TO INITIATE AND HAVE A TRANSPARENT AND UNBIASED INVESTIGATION OF ALL AVAILABLE FACTS AND EPISODES WHICH IN TURN WILL PREVENT RECURRENCE OF THIS PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE. NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THIS WAS A DRAFT, WAS IT NOT, OF THE STATEMENT THAT YOU AND MR. GIULIANI AND MR. YERMAK AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD BEEN DISCUSSING? >> THE FIRST DRAFT FROM MR. YERMAK, AFTER THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD. >> IT DOES NOT MENTION BARISMA OR 20916 ELECTION INTERFERENCE. CORRECT? >> IT DOES NOT. >> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MAYOR GIULIANI HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS DRAFT AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT IF THE STATEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE BARISMA AND 2016 ELECTION, IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> NOW, THIS WAS THE — THE SAME RUDY GIULIANI THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DISCUSSING IN THAT MAY 23rd MEETING, AND ASKED YOU, YOU AND THE OTHERS TO TALK TO. CORRECT? >> THAT IS THE SAME MR. GIULIANI. >> AND EVEN AT THAT 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 THAT HAD COME FROM LUTSENKO. >> BACK IN MAY? >> BACK IN MAY. >> NOW, HE WASSISTING ON A PUBLIC COMMITMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO THESE — >> WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ME? >> BARISMA AND 2016 ELECTIONS. >> BARISMA AND — YES. >> AT THE TIME YOU WERE ENGAGED AND 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’RE 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 THAT, OKAY, I’LL GISH THIS GUY A CHANCE. >> AND PERHAPS HE ALSO WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT, BECAUSE IT WOULD LOCK PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE THOUGHT MIGHT BENEFIT HIM? >> WELL, AGAIN, WHEN WE SAY THESE INVESTIGATIONS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD US TO BE TALKING ABOUT WAS UKRAINE CORRUPTION. >> WELL WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS BARISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION. WE CAN AGREE ON THAT. >> CORRECT. >> TALKING ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS, ISN’T IT CLEAR THAT A PUBLIC STATEMENT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO MR.GIULIANI, BECAUSE IT WAS POLITICALLY USEFUL TO THE PRESIDENT? >> THE WAY I SAW IT, IS THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. >> RIGHT. >> IT WOULD BE A WAY OF BEING CONVINCING TO MAYOR GIULIANI AND ALSO THE PRESIDENT THAT THIS TEAM IN UKRAINE IS SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION, REFORM, THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING IT, A MORE POSITIVE ATTITUDE AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING SCHEDULED THEN THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. >> AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >> CORRECT. >>ING IN, A NECESSARY CONDITION AS YOU UNDERSTOOD AT THAT POINT? >> I WOULDN’T HAVE CALLED IT A NECESSARY CONDITION AND, IN FACT WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR LATER WE NOT ABLE TO AGREE ON AN AGREEMENT THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH I AGREED WITH UKRAINIANS JUST TO DROP IT. IT’S NOT WORTH IT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT 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’RE SAYING THAT BY THIS POINT IN AUGUST WITH THIS BACK AND FORTH THAT YOU WERE UNAWARE THAT THIS PUBLIC STATEMENT WAS A CONDITION FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >> I WOULDN’T HAVE CALLED IT A CONDITION.IT’S A — IT’S A NUANCE, I GUESS. BUT I VIEWED IT AS VERY HELPFUL IF WE COULD GET THIS DONE. IT WOULD HELP PROVE THE PERCEPTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHERS HAD AND THEN WE WOULD GET THE DATE FOR A MEETING. IF WE DIDN’T HAVE A STATEMENT, I WASN’T GIVING UP IN THINKING, OH, WE’LL NEVER GET A MEETING. >> GO TO THE NEXT DAY WHERE THERE IS OTHER TEXT EXCHANGE. AND AT THE TOP COULD YOU READ THE FIRST TEXT THERE? >> YES. IT SAYS, HI, ANDREI. GOOD TALKING. FOLLOWING IS TEXT WITH INSERT AT END FOR TWO KEY ITEMS. WILL WORK ON OFFICIAL REQUEST. >> AND THE OTHER IS IDENTICAL TO THE PREVIOUS ONE AND ADDS INCLUDING THESE INVOLVING BARISMA AND THE 2019 ELECTIONS.IS THAT RIGHT. >> THAT IS CORRECT, THAT’S WHAT MR. GIULIANI INSITED ADDING TO THE STATEMENT? >> WHAT HE SAID WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THEM TO BE CREDIBLE. >> AND THE UKRAINIANS ULTIMATELY DID NOT ISSUE THIS STATEMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING EITHER. DID HE? >> NOT YET. >> NOW, I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER. EARLY SEPTEMBER, WHEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEGINS TO MORE OVERTLY BE USED AS LEVERAGE TO PRESSURE UKRAINIANS TO CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED. MR. MORRISON, YOU ACCOMPANIED VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO WARSAW WHEN HE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.IS THAT RIGHT? >> I WAS IN WARSAW WHEN VICE PRESIDENT WAS DESIGNATED AS THE PRESIDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE. I WAS ACCOMPANIES AMBASSADOR BOLTON. >> UNDERSTOOD. BUT AT THE BILATERAL MEETING WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, CORRECT? >> I WAS N. THAT MEETING WERE THE UKRAINIANS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOLD ON SECURITY CLEARANCE? SECURITY CLEARANCE. MILITARY ASSISTANCE, RATHER? >> YES. >> WHAT DID THEY SAY? >> IT WAS THE FIRST ISSUE ISSUE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. THEY WERE INTERESTED AND TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND THE IMPORTANCE TO THE RELATIONSHIP. >> WHAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT PENCE’S RESPONSE? >> HE REPRESENTED THAT IT IS A PRIORITY FOR HIM. AND THATS, WE WERE WORKING TO ADDRESS, AND HE CHARACTERIZED PRESIDENTT TRUMP’S CONCERNS ABOT THE STATE OF CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE, AND THE PRESIDENT’S PRIORITIZATION OF GETTING THE EUROPEANS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE. >> DID HE DIRECTLY EXPLAIN TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT THOSE WERE THE W ACTUAL REASONS FOR THE HO OR JUST COMMENTING ON GENERAL CONCERNS OF THE PRESIDENT? >> I DON’T KNOW THAT HE NECESSARILY ACKNOWLEDGED A HOLD.HE MENTIONED THAT WE WERE REVIEWING THE ASSISTANCE AND THAT IS THE WAY I HEARD IT. THAT IS THE WAY I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT. AND THOSE WERE THE POINTS THAT HE RAISED TO HELP PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WERE IN THE PROCESS. >>ND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THOUGH O SORT OF THE S STAFF LEVEL, AS T COORDINATOR OF ALL OF THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS, YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY REVIEW OF THE UKRAINENE ASSISTANCE MONEY, WER YOU? >> WELL, WE HAD BEEN RUNNING A REVIEW AND INTRAAGENCY PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE PRESIDENT THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD BEEN DIRECTEDED TO GENERATE FOR THE PRESIDENT’S CONSIDERATION AS TO THEKR SECURITY AID FOR UKRAINE. >>ST AND SO THAT IS SUPPORTED O THE UKRAINIAN ASSISTANCE? >> YES. NOW, AFTER THIS MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU SAW MR. SONDLAND IMMEDIATELY GO PULL ANDREIY YERMAK TO THE SIDE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION? >> YES, IN AN ANTE ROOM, THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD THIS DISCUSSION, YES — MR. YERMAK AND MR. SONDLAND HAD THIS CONVERSATION. >> YES. >> AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU? >> THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AS A CONDITION OF HAVING THE AID LIFTED. >> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE NOTT COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD YOU, AND WHY OLNOT? >> WELL, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT I SAW AS ESSENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO WHAT I HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO HELP ACCOMPLISH BY GIVING THE PRESIDENT THE INFORMATION THAT HE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THAT THE SECURITY SECTOR COULD GOO FORWARD. >> BUT NOW THERE IS A NEW WRINKLE TO IT? >> THERE APPEARED TO BE ONE BASED ON WHAT MR.SONDLAND PRESENTED. >> AND WHAT ABOUTRO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> I REACHED FOURTH A SECURE PHONE CALL. >> YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT HIS TESTIMONY OTHER THAN ONE SMALL DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE AMBASSADOR WAS CORRECT WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU SAID THAT IT WAS TRUE EXCEPT FOR ONE MINISTERIAL MATTER ABOUT THE MEETING LOCATION? >> YES. >> AND YOU REACHED OUT? >> YES, I REACHED OUT FOR AVAILABILITY OF A PHONE CALL. >> AND WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN YOU SAID WHAT MR. SONDLAND HAD SAID. >> TELL THE LAWYERS. >> DID L YOU? >> YES. >> DID HEEL THE YOU WHAT TO TELL THE LAWYERS? >> NO, HE DID NOT. >> AND THEN ON THE 10th, YOU SPOKE AGAIN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO SAIDOT THAT HE HAD GOTTEN OFF OF THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. YES. >> WHAT DID MR. SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO HIM? >> IF I RECALL THIS CONVERSATION CORRECTLY, THIS IS WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RERELATED TT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, BUT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO MAKE THE STATEMENT AND THAT HE HAD TO WANT TO DO IT. >> BY THAT POINT, DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE BIDEN AND 2016 INVESTIGATIONS? >> I THINK THAT I DID, YES. >> AND THAT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A CONDITION FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED? UNDERSTOOD THAT IS WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BELIEVED. >> AFTER SPEAKING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> THAT IS WHAT HE REPRESENTED. >> AND YOUOU TESTIFIED THAT HEARING THIS INFORMATION GAVE YOU A SINKING FEELING, AND WHY? >> WELL, IF THIS IS SEPTEMBER 7tBEh, AND THE END OF THE FISCA YEAR IS SEPTEMBER 30th, AND THESE ARE ONE-YEAR DOLLARS OF THE 3DOD AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FUNDS. SO,, WE ONLY HAD SO MUCH TIME, AND IN FACT, BECAUSE CONGRESS IMPOSED A 15-DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT ON THE STATEIC DEPARTMENT FUNDS SEPTEMBER 7th, AND SEPTEMBER 30th, AND THAT MEANS THE SEPTEMBER 15th IN ORDER TO SECURE A DECISION FROM THE PRESIDENT TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO GO FORWARD. >> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THAT? >>>> YES. HE TELL YOU? >> HE SAID TO TELL THE LAWYERS. >> WHY? >> HE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE DIRECTION. >> AND HE DOES NOTSA TELL YOU HE TO GO TELL THE LAWYER, BECAUSE YOU ARE RUNNING UP ON THE EIGHT-DAY DEADLINE THERE, RIGHT? >> AGAIN, I DON’T KNOW WHY HE DIRECTED IT, BUT IT IS REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT FOR WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAY. >> AND YOU WERE NOT GOING TO TELL THEM THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU WEREYO CONCERNED, BUT ABOUT WHAT YOUNG HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAY TO YOU, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND SO JUST THAT YOU ARE CLEAR THATRE YOU HAVE TWO REPORTING CONVERSATIONS OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO THE LAWYERS INEP EARLY SEPTEMBER IN WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM HIM THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ASAG ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE TO GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE SPECIFIC POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HADSS DISCUSSED ON THE JU 25th CALL, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT MR.AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS SAYING WERE REQUIREMENTS, YES. >> AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS THE TWO THATSO PRESIDENT TRP REFERENCED ON THE JULY 25th CALL. >> BY THIS POINT, YES. AND IN THIS TIME PERIOD, DID YOU IS ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER ABOUT THIS? >> 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 ABOUT SOME OF HIS ACTIVITIES, AND THAT HE PROVIDED THAT UPDATE AND WE HAD A ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS TRACT, THIS SEPARATE PROCESS. >> WHAT DOPR YOU RECALL ASKING M ABOUT? >> I WAS INTERESTED IN KNOWING HIS UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS. >> DID YOU EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVENTS WAS? >> I WAS PRIMARILY ON THE RECEIVE MODE. >> AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, DO YOU RECALL THIS CONVERSATION? >> I DO REMEMBER A CONVERSATION WITH TIM, BUT I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING. I LEFT AROUND THAT TIME TO GO ON A TRIP, AND SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN EARLIER, BUT I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THE TIMING. WHAT I DO REMEMBER IS THAT THE DISCUSSION BEING TIM ASKING ME WHAT ISY MY IMPRESSION OF THE ROLEN THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PLAYS, AND I MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS THAT IT IS HELPFUL THAT HE HAS POLITICAL CONTACTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I H DON’T HAVE THOSE, BECAUSE IM WORKING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THEE DIPLOMATIC FRONT, BUT DON’T HAVE THE POLITICAL CONTACTS, AND SO HE IS ABLE TO USE THOSE TO SUPPORT THE SAME GOALS THAT WE ARESU WORKING TOWARDS AND I VIEW THAT AS HELPFUL. >> AND THAT IS A GOOD SEGUE TO THE NEXT EXHIBIT WHICH IS THE SEPTEMBERS 8th, TEXT EXCHANGE WITH YOU AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AT THE TOP HE SAYS, MULTIPLE CONVOES WITH Z, AND THAT IS ZELENSKY, AND POTUS AND LET’S TALK, AND THEN HE SAYS GORDON AND II JUST SPOKE, AND I CAN BRIEF YOUAM MEANING YOU AND GORN DON’T CONNECT. TONIGHT IS THEY GIVE THE INTERVIEW, AND THEY DON’T GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT. AND I QUIT. >> I’M NOT THE LOOP. TALK MONDAY. >> SO YOU WERE NOT IN THE LOOP OF THE CONVERSATIONS OF MR. MORRISON, AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TAYLOR WERE HAVING. >> CORRECT. >> AND WERE YOU AWARE AT THE THERE WAS A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT CIRCULATING AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE? >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO. >> YOU WERE AWARE OF THE RIGHT TO A PRESERVE RECORDS? >> I RECEIVE THOSE ALL OF THE TIME, AND SO I DO RECALL ONE RELATED TO TUKRAINE. >> AND WHEN IS THE HOLD LIFTED? >> SEPTEMBER 11th. >> TWO DAYS AFTER CONGRESS ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> I WAS AWARE OF THE LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN. >> THAT CONCLUDES THE 45 MINUTES, AND BEFORE I TURN TO THE MINORITY, ARE YOU AND COUNSEL OKAY ORR DO YOU NEED A BREAK? OKAY. RANKING MEMBER NUNES, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR 45 MINUTES. >> WELL, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND MR.. MORRISON, THE TV RATINGS AE WAY DOWN AND DON’T HOLD IT PERSONALLY. BUT WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THE DEMOCRATS ARE COOKING UP,, YOU ARE ON THE DIAS, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING IT. DE I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BOTH ANSWERED THIS IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT I WANT TO BRING SOME MORE CLARITY TO IT.MR. MORRISON, I WILL START WITH YOU. DID ANYONE EVER ASK YOU BRIBE OR EXTORT ANYONE AT ANY TIME IN YOUR TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >> NO, SIR. >> AND YOU WERE THE TOP PERSON R UKRAINE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, CORRECT? ATAT THE NCS LEVEL. >>SE I WOULD ARGUE THAT AMBASSAR BOLTON WAS. >> AND OTHER THAN. >> YES. >> AND MR. VOLKER, YOU HAVE A STORIED CAREER, AND WE THANK YOU FOR THE SERVICE. AND YOU WERE THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE WHITE HOUSE? >> YES. DID ANYONE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ASK YOU H THE BRIBE OR EXTORT ANYTHING OUT OF ANYBODY AT ANY TIME? >> NO, SIR. YOU. NK I WANTHA TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR I WILL YIELD TO MR. CASTOR. >> THANK YOU, MR. NUNES, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND PARTICIPATING IN THE LENGTHY DEPOSITIONS. YOU WERE HERE WITH US ON THE 23rd, MR. VOLKER, AND YOU WERE HERE WITH US ON HALLOWEEN. I WANT TO THANK MR. MORRISON FOR A LONG TIME HILL STAFFER, AND I HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR THAT AND NEARLY 20 YEARS, AND I THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, A PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT, AND THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE PART OF THE COUNTRY,T AND VERY PROUD OF IT. >> YES. I AM FROM NEARBY. >> SO I WANTED TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME POSITION, AND YOU ARE A SENATEED CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO FOR A STINT? >> YES. >> AND THEN TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THE PORTFOLIO IS MUCH OF WHAT I BELIEVE GEORGE KENT HAS NOW? >> I WAS THE PRINCIPLE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND WORKING FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND I HAD ALL OF PAN EURASIA AND NATO AND THE WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION. >> AND YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND YOU WERE THE DIRECTOR FOR NATO IN THE WESTERN EUROPE? >> YES. >> AND THEEN SENIOR DIRECTOR FO EUROPEAN AND EURASIA AFFAIRS? >> SIX MONTHS OR SO ACTING. >> AND MUCH LIKE MR. MORRISON HAD. AND WE, WILL NOTE THAT ALL OF TE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE INTERACTED WITH HAVE JUST HEAPED PRAISE P ON YOU. AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SAID THAT YOU WERE A BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT, AND HIGH PRAISE. AND SO YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU WERE THERE SPECIAL REPRESENTATI FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS? >> YES. >> YOU SERVED FOR FREE? >> YES. >> ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS? >> YES. >> YOU PUTDI A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT THERE? >> YES. >> AND THE TAXPAYERS GOT THEIR MONEY’S WORTH? >> NOT FOR ME TO SAY. >> AND YOU BELIEVE IN AMERICA’S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED IN YOUR TENURE AS A REPRESENTATIVE? >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. WHEN I LOOK BACK, WE DID AN AWFUL LOT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. >> IS THAT FAIRR TO SAY IN PART OF PRESIDENT P TRUMP? >> PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED EACH OF THE DECISION MADE ALONG THE WAY, AND PROVIDING LETHAL EQUIPMENT,T, AND THE NONRECOGNITION STATEMENT OF CRIMEA BEING TWO OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES. >> AND FOR YEAR, THERE HAD BEEN ADVOCATING FOR THE USE OF LETHAL AID? >> YES. >> AND NOT UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDT THAT AID GO THROUGH? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND SO, THE DELEGATION TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION IN MAY, AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED IT IS ONE OF THE LARGEST DELEGATIONS? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS. IUR BELIEVE IT WAS. >>> THIS IS LESTER HOLT IN NEW YORK, AND WE WILL PAUSE TO ALLOW SOME OF THE STATIONS TO RETURN TO LOCAL PROGRAMMING AND FOR OTHERS, WE RETURN TO NBC. >>> AND THE CHARGE D’AFFAIRES JOE PENNINGTON. >> >> WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT THIS ORNING, BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION CAME TOGETHER RATHER QUICKLY? >> IT DID. I BELIEVE WE HAD ABOUT THREE DAYS’ NOTICE IN WHICH TO PUT THE DELEGATION TOGETHER. >> THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO LEAD THAT EFFORT.. AND AS ITIO TURNED OUT, HE WAS T 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 INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE INLE THE DELEGATION? >> NO. >> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU TESTIFIED DURING YOUR DEPOSITION THAT AID DOES IN FACT GET HELD UP FROM TIME TO TIME FOR A WHOLE ASSORTMENT OF REASONS.IS THAT — >> THAT IS TRUE. >> SOMETIMES THE HOLD-UP IS ROOTED IN SOMETHING AT OMB, SOMETIMES IT’S THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. SOMETIMES AT THEOM STATE DEPARTMENT. SOMETIMES IT’S ON THES HILL, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND SOY WHEN THE AID WAS HELD UP FOR 55 DAYS WITH UKRAINE, THAT DIDN’T IN AND OF ITSELF STRIKE YOU AS UNCOMMON. >> NO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN MY CAREER IN THE PAST. I HAVE SEEN HOLD-UP OF ASSISTANCE. I THOUGHT IT WAS PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND WE HAD TO OVERCOME IT.>> IN FACT, THERE WERE CONCERNS THAT PERHAPS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WASN’T GOING TO BE THE REFORMER THAT HE CAMPAIGNED ON? >> THAT WAS THE SUPPOSITION THAT I MADE BECAUSE OF THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ON MAY 23rd. I THOUGHT THAT COULD BE WHAT’S BEHIND IT. >> IN FACT, THE AID WAS LIFTED SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE A HARLIMENT? >> I BELIEVE HE — LET ME GET THEET DATE STRAIGHT. Y HE WAS ABLE TO CONVENE THE PARLIAMENT AROUND THE 1st OF SEPTEMBER, AND I BELIEVE THE AID WAS RELEASED ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER. >> 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 T THAT DAY WITH THE 24-HOUR SESSION BUT THAT ITR CONTINUED FOR SOME TIM.>> THAT WAS AN ENCOURAGING SIGN? >> IT? STARTED OFF VERY ENCOURAGING WAY, YES. >> AND OTHER THAN THESE THINGS GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, WITH THE PAUSE IN THE AID, THE U.S. RELATIONS WITH T UKRAINE YOU TESTIFIED ARE — YOU STATED IT WAS ABOUT AS GOOD AS YOU’D WANT THEM TO BE? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. I’M SORRY. C >> YOU TESTIFIED AT YOUR DEPOSITION THAT ONCE THE AID WAS LIFTED, DESPITE ALL THE THINGS GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, THAT U.S./UKRAINIAN RELATIONS WERE STRONG.>> YES. >> AND YOU REFERENCED THAT THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE WAS LIFTED. ANY HOLD ON THAT, THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE MEETING IN NEW YORK. >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND THERE WAS MOMENTUM IN PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE RUSSIANS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PDEEP-ROOTED NEGATIVE VIEWN UKRAINE AND THEIR CORRUPTION ENVIRONMENT? >> YES. >> AND YOU FIRST BECAME AWARE OF HIS VIEWS BACK IN SEPTEMBER 2017? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? >> IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017, I WAS INVITED BY SECRETARYEC TILLERSO TO DO A PREBRIEF WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE HISH MEET WITH PRESIDENT POROSHENKO ON THE MARGINS OF THE U.N.GENERAL ASSEMBLY. I DID THE PREBRIEF AND THEN TOOK PART IN THE BILATERAL MEETING. >> AND LONG BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE? >> HE HAD A VERY STRONGLY NEGATIVE VIEW. >> IN 2017, DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING HE SAIDN OR DID THAT GAVE YOU A FEELING THAT HE HAD THESE NEGATIVE VIEWS? >> YES, I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE THIS WAS A BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS. I DON’TEN 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 CENT SIMP AT YOUR DEPOSITION. IS THATSK A REASONABLE POSITION? >> YES. >> AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID MOST PEOPLE WHO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT UKRAINE WOULD POSSIBLY A THINK THAT? >> YES. >> AND YOU VIEWED IT AS PART OF YOURS ROLE TO HELP CHANGE HIS MIND, THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A GENUINE REFORMER, THAT HE WAS NOT 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 UKRAINE? >> YES. THE PRESIDENT CAME INTO THE MEETING AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED SPEAKING. HE HAD A STRING OF COMMENTS THAT UKRAINE IS A TERRIBLE PLACE. THEY’RE ALL CORRUPT. THEY’RE TERRIBLE PEOPLE. THEY TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN, ALONG WITH THE. OTHERS THAT WERE THERE, EAH OF US TOOK TURNS SPEAKING. TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU. THAT HEID WAS ELECTED BECAUSE O THAT SITUATION IN UKRAINE AND HE HAS 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 HE SAID THAT ZELENSKY IS NO DIFFERENT. THAT HE HAS TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND H 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 THAT THE UKRAINIANS TRIED TO TAKE HIM DOWN, DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO? >> I DID. I BELIEVED HE WAS REFERRING TO THE RUMORS OF EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION BY PROVIDING DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OR ABOUT PAUL MANAFORT TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.THAT WAS ONE OF THE RUMORS THAT HAD BEEN OUT THERE AND THAT HAD GOTTEN SOME SUPPORT FROMOM THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL. >> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DOES THE PRESIDENT GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT? >> I BELIEVEVE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES, BUT HE BROUGHT IT UP. >> OKAY. >> AND MR. MORRISON, YOU WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT’S SKEPTICAL VIEW OF FOREIGN AID GENERALLY? >> YES. >> AND THAT THERE WAS AN INITIATIVE THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT FOREIGN AID PRETTY BROADRY? >> YES. >> TRYING TO SCRUTINIZE TO MAKE SURE THE TAXPAYERS WERE GETTING WORTH?ONEY’S >> YES. >> AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ALSO INTERESTED, WAS HEO NOT, IN BETTER UNDERSTANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED BURDEN SHARING AMONG THE EUROPEANS? >> YES. >> AND WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUTT 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 SECURITYTR ASSISTANCE.>> AND WAS THERE ANY INNER AGENCY ACTIVITY, WHETHER IT BE WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IN COORDINATION BYT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL TO LOOK INTO THAT A A LITTLE BIT FOR THE PRESIDENT? >> WE WERE SURVEYING THE DATA TO UNDERSTAND WHO WAS CONTRIBUTING WHAT AND SORT OF IN WHAT CATEGORIES. >> AND SO THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED CONCERNS THE INNER AGENCY TRIED TO ADDRESS THEM? >> YES. >> AND BY LATE AUGUST, WE JUST DISCUSSED WITH AMBASSADORUS VOLKER, THAT A NEW ROTA WAS SEATED. DID THAT GIVE HOPE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUSH THROUGH SOME OF THESE REFORMS? >> YES.>> AND DID YOU HOPE DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, DURING THIS 55 DAYS WHERE THE AIDS? WAS PAUSED THAT POTENTIALLY ZELENSKY WOULD BE ABLE TOO DEMONSTRATE HIS BONA FIDE AND WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE ABLE TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO LIFT THE AID? >> YES. >> IN FACT, YOU TRAVELED WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO THE UKRAINE RIGHT AROUND LABOR DAY WEEKEND, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON, I BELIEVE IT WAS AUGUST 29th? >> AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT>> ZELENS AND I STAFFED THAT MEETING.>> THAT’S AROUND THE TIME THE ROTA MET AND THEY STARTED TO PRESS THROUGH THEIR REFORMS? >> AS I RECALL, THE DATE OF THE MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND ZELENSKY WAS THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEW ROTA. >> AND SOME OF THESE REFORMS INCLUDED NAMING A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL? >> NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL, BRAND-NEW CABINET, YES. >> NVD THEY PUSHED THROUGH SOME LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATED IMMUNITY FOR ROTA MEMBERS? >> I BELIEVE YOU PROVIDED SOME COLOR INTO THIS MEETING AND SAD THE UKRAINIANS HAVE BEEN UP ALL NIGHT WORKING ON SOME OF THESE LIFTING INITIATIVES. >> YES, THEY WERE BY ALL APPEARANCES EXHAUSTED FROM THE PACE OF ACTIVITY.>> AND WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON ENCOURAGED BY THE ACTIVITY? >> Y HE WAS. >> WAS THE MEETING ALTOGETHER FAVORABLE? >> QUITE. >> AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DID HE HEAD WARSAW WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OR DID HE JUST — I KNOW YOU WENT TO WARSAW. >> WE HAD A FEW STOPS BETWEEN UKRAINE AND EWPOLAND, BUT, YES, AMBASSADOR BOLTON PROCEEDED TO WARSAW WHERE WE WERE EXPECTING TOWE ENSURE EVERYTHING WAS STAG PROPERLY FOR THE DPRESIDENT’S ARRIVAL. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE VICE PRESIDENT ON — >> I DID NOT.>> DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON? >> HE DDID. >> AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER FROM WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON SHARED WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE ZELENSKY MEETING? >> SO I WAS NOT THERE. THE ISSUE I REMEMBER MOST STARKLY WAS AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS QUITE ANNOYED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CRASHED THE PREBRIEF. BUT THE AMBASSADOR HAD EVERYTHING HEE NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT I WASHI — THE PRESIDENT O THE 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. >> OKAY. 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 PRESIDENT, FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT. BUT THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT DUDA OF POLAND AND 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? >>E YES. >> AND HOW DID THE VICE PRESIDENT RESPOND? >> HE REPRESENTED HIS SUPPORT FOR THEE AID. HE REPRESENTED THE STRONG COMMITMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TOTO UKRAINE AND HE EXPLAINS TH PRESIDENT TRUMP, BECAUSE THIS IS AFTER THE POLITICO ARTICLE HAD COME OUT THATLI MADE CLEAR THER WATHS A HOLD, HE EXPLAINED THAT WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE INNER AGENCY WAS EXAMINING WHAT MORE EUROPE COULD DO IN THE SECURITY SPACE AND TAKING A LOOK AT HOW UKRAINE WAS REFORMING WHAT HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION.>> AND WAS THERENY DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PART OF THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WE’VE COME TO TALK ABOUT? >> NO. >> BURISMA WASN’T RAISED? >> NO. >> 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. WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS MAY HAVE HAD A REAL SENSE THAT 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 CALLS WHERE WE, IN FACT, TALKED ABOUT, DO THE UKRAINIANS KNOW YET BECAUSE WE FELT STRONGLY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT WE ENSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION AND TO RELEASE THE AID BEFORE THE UKRAINIANS EVER FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.>> AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER IS THAT ALSO YOUR RECOLLECTION? >> YES, IT IS. >> THAT IT WASN’T UNTIL THE POLITICO ARTICLE THAT — >> THAT’S CORRECT. I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM ONE OF MY UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS ON AUGUST 29th, FORWARDING THAT ARTICLE AND THAT’S THE FIRST THEY RAISED IT WITH ME. >> COULD YOU SHARE A LITTLE ABOUT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS DURING THAT TIME PERIOD ABOUT THE HOLD IN THE AID? >> YES, I DIDN’T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE HOLD ON AID UNTIL AFTER THEY RAISED IT WITH ME FOR THE SAME REASON THAT TIM JUST GAVE. THE HOPE THAT WE COULD GET IT TAKEN H CARE OF OURSELVES BEFOR IT BECAME SOMETHING THAT 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 INNER AGENCY MEETING AND GOT A READ OUT FROM THAT MEETING FROM ONE OF MY ASSISTANTS. I THEN IMMEDIATELY SPOKE WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO OBJECT. I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A BAD DECISIONON OR A BAD HOLD.MAYBE NOT A DECISION BUT A PROCESS. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE ARGUMENTS WERE MARSHALLED TO GET IT LIFTED. SO I SPOKE WITH THE PENTAGON, LAURA COOPER, I SPOKE WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AFFAIRS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO WAS GOING TO REPRESENT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AT THE NEXT HIGHER LEVEL MEETING. I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH OFFICIALS IN THE EUROPEAN BUREAU, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF. SO I WAS ACTIVELY 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 THAT THE BEST PROSPECT FOR POSITIONING OURSELVES FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITHTI RUSSIA IS T STRONGEST DEFENSE CAPABILITY FOR UKRAINE. >> AND DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, DIDE YOU COME TO BELIEVE THAT AY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PART OF THE HOLD-UP IN THE AID? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> BACKTRACKING JUST A LITTLE BIT, YOU MET IN TORONTO WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.AND THERE HAD BEEN SOME — AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT PROVIDED SOME TESTIMONY THAT THEY HAD SOME APPREHENSION THAT PART OF THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REFERENCED WOULD RARE ITS HEAD ININ TORONTO. I’M JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN TELL US WHETHER THAT HAPPENED. >> I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER H CONVERSATIONS OR OTHER THINGS, BUT I KNOW THAT WE HAD A CONVERSATION, BILL TAYLOR AND I BELIEVE GORDON SONDLAND AND I AROUND THE 28th OF JUNE THAT LATER CONNECTED TO A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PART OF THE 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 CONTEMPORIZE WITH THE UKRAINIANS SAYING WE’RE WORKING ON IT. IT’S A SCHEDULING ISSUE. WE’LL GET THERE. DON’T WORRY. AND 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 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 TORS CONVEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION, INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THEIN PAST AND SO FORTH. SO I DID ALL OF THAT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AFTER OUR FORMAL BILATERAL MEETING.>> AND DURING THAT MEETING IN TORONTO OR THE D SERIES OF MEETINGS, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF PRECONDITIONS, INVESTIGATIONS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT? >> NO. >> AND YOU WERE THERE WITH MR. KENT? >> YES, I BELIEVE SO. AND DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITHE HIM ABOUT PRECONDITIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS? >> NOT AT THAT TIME. I THINK LATER ON THESE THINGS CAME UP ABOUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT STATEMENTS, WHETHER THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS. BUT I BELIEVE ATAT THIS TIME IN TORONTO, IT WAS REALLY MORE REFERRING TO INVESTIGATIONS GENERICALLY THAT THAT ISVE HOW U GO ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD REAFFIRM HIS COMMITMENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A DIRECT PHONE MPCALL. >> AND AT ANY POINT IN TIME HAD MR.KENT RAISED ANY CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT ANY OF THIS? >> NOT AT THAT TIME. >> NEXT EVENT IS THE JULY 10th MEETING. AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S OFFICE. TALKED A LITTLE BIT 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 A ANSWER THAT QUESTI FIRST. I’D LIKE TO COME BACK TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION FIRST, IF I MAY. ON THE JULY 10th MEETING, THIS WAS A MEETING THAT WE HAD ARRANGED BETWEEN ALEX AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER BOLTON. ATTENDING THE MEETING WAS ALSO SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, MYSELF, I BELIEVE FIONA HILL AND ALSO ANDRIY YERMAK.THE PURPOSE US WAS A KOURPT PART VISIT. I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY, THE FIRST HIGH-LEVEL MEETING WE’RE HAVING 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. THAT THEY ARE THE NEW TEAM IN TOWN. REAL DEAL ABOUT 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 NOT THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP. SO A BIT DISAPPOINTED BY THAT. AT THE END OF THE MEETING, I DO RECALL HAVING SEEN SOME OF THE OTHER TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DID RAISE THE POINT OF INVESTIGATIONS IN A GENERIC WAY. THIS WAS AFTER THE MEETING WAS ALREADY WRAPPING UP, AND I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, AND THE CONVERSATION DID NOT PICK UP FROM THERE. THE MEETING WAS OVER. WE ALL WENT OUTSIDE AND WE HAD A PICTURE TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.AND THEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON WENT DOWN TO THE WARD ROOM TO TALK ABOUT FOLLOW UP. HOW DO WE FOLLOW UP ON THIS MEETING TO KEEP THE MOMENTUM IN THE RELATIONSHIP. I THINK WE BROKE UP INTO SEVERAL SMALL GROUPS. I REMEMBER HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SECRETARY PERRY AND ONE OF HISER ASSISTANTS ABOUT ENERGY REFORM AS PART OF THAT. I DON’T RECALL OTHER CONVERSATIONS FOLLOWING UP ON INVESTIGATIONS FOR BURISMA. >> AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE WASAS NO PRECONDITIONS DISCUSSED, RIGHT? >> NO, NO. AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ONE WHERE I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS REALLY RELATED TO A GENERAL NEGATIVE VIEW ABOUT UKRAINE. THERE WAS NOTHING SPECIFIC EVER COMMUNICATED TO ME ABOUT IT OR THE REASONS WHY IT WAS HELD. AND WE CERTAINLY DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH THE UKRAINIANS. WE WANTED TO FIX IT. >> THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER, THE JULY 25th CALL HAPPENED.AND YOU WERE HEADED TO UKRAINE DURING THAT TIME PERIOD? >> YES. I WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY ON MY WAY TO UKRAINE. I THINK TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THAT. >> AND YOU RECEIVED READOUTS FROM THE U.S. SIDE AND THE UKRAINIAN SIDE. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? >> YES, SO I WAS NOT ON THE PHONE CALL. I HAD ARRIVED IN UKRAINE, AND I’VE HAD THAT 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 TWO LEADERS AND TOTO CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION. THE READOUT THAT I RECEIVED FROM MR. YERMAK AND FROM THE U.S. SIDE, ALTHOUGH I’M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHO IT WAS FROM ON THE U.S. SIDE, BUT THERE WAS A U.S. AND UKRAINIAN READOUT, WERE LARGELY THE SAME.THAT IT WAS A GOOD CALL. IT WAS AME, CONGRATULATORY PHON CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT’S WIN IN THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID REITERATE HIS COMMITMENT TO REFORM AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID REITERATE HIS INVITATION TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO COME VISIT HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE. EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT THE PHONE CALL WOULD BE, SO I WAS NOT SURPRISED AT GETTING THAT IN THE READOUT. >> AND DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT THIS? >> AT THAT TIME, WE WERE TOGETHER IN UKRAINE AT THAT TIME. WE WENT THE VERY NEXT DAY TO VISIT THEE CONFLICT ZONE. I’M SURE HE HEARD THE SAME READ DLOUT I DID. >> YOU HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 26 SNT. >> YES, WE HAD A MEETING THE DAY AFTER THE PHONE CALL. THE 26th IN THE MORNING BEFORE HEADING TO THE CONFLICT ZONE. >> WERE ANY OF THESE CONCERNING ELEMENTS SOME HAVE RAISED ABOUT THE CALL? >> NO, ONLY THE BARE BONES READOUT THAT I RECEIVED, THAT WAS ALSO HOW IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. >> SO TO THE EXTENT 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 — WELL, LET ME TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY, HE WAS VERY POSITIVE ABOUT THE PHONE CALL.I DON’T RECALL HIM SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT DEMANDS, BUT HE WAS VERY UPBEAT ABOUT THE CALL. >> 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? >> IAT DON’T REMEMBER THAT. >> AND MR. ZELDEN ASKED YOU THAT IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, ANY OF THE READ DLOUTS FROM THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE DID YOU RECEIVE ANY INDICATION FOR ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES A QUID PRO QUO. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND THE SAME WAS — WOULD GO FOR THIS NEW ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY? >>EW I HAVE ONLY SEEN AN ALLEGATION OF BRIBERY IN THE LAST WEEK. >> IT’S THE SAME COMMON SET OF FACTS. INSTEAD OF QUID PRO QUO IT’S BRIBERY. >> I WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN ANYTHING THAT I CONSIDERED TO BE BRIBERY AT ALL.>> OR EXTORTION. >> OR EXTORTION. >> OKAY. MR. CASTOR, MAY I ADDRESS TWO SPECIFIC POINTS? >> OF COURSE. >> ONE IS I’M REMINDED THAT THE MEETING WITH AMBASSADORR BOLTON TOOK PLACE ON JULY 10th AND I DID NOT BECOME AWARE ON THE HOLD OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE GIULIANI 18th SO THAT’S ANOTHER REASON THAT DID NOT A COME UP. ANGETS THAT POINT IN TIME YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT THE POTENTIAL PAUSE IN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BREWING? >> NO, I HEARD ABOUT ITNO FOR T FIRST TIME ON THE 18th.THE SECOND OBSERVATION, I DO REMEMBER HAVING SEEN SOME OF THE TESTIMONY OF MR. KENT. A CONVERSATION IN WHICH HE HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT WERE OUT THERE IN UKRAINE. I DON’T REMEMBER WHAT THE DATE OF THISIN CONVERSATION WAS, ANDY VIEW WAS, WELL, IF THERE ARE THINGS LIKEHE THAT, THEN WHY NO INVESTIGATE THEM? I DON’T BELIEVE THAT THERE’S ANYTHING TO IETHEM. IF THERE IS, 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE IS WHAT I20 WAS THINKING OF, WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT I DIDN’T REALIZE THERE WASAN ANYTHING THE TO BEGIN WITH. >> YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU SAID THE UKRAINIANS WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE OTHER UKRAINIANS FOR WRONGDOING. THAT WAS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE IN YOUR MIND? >> THAT HAS BEEN U.S. POLICY FOR YEARS. >> CERTAIN UKRAINIANS INVOLVED WITH BURISMA COMPANY — >> THAT I THINK IS THE ONLY 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 OR TO BUY INFLUENCE, IT COULD BE POSSIBLE.>> AMBASSADOR KENT TOLD US ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION INTO BURISMA TRYING TO RECOUP MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND UKRAINIANS WERERA PURSUING AN INVESTIGATIO. THERE WAS A BRIBE PAID. WERE YOURI TRACKING THAT? >> I WAS AWARE OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I COULDN’TS GIVE YOU THOSE KIND OF DETAILS. I JUST KNOW THERE WAS A REPUTATION AROUND THE COMPANY. >> AND SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE FACTS AND THE BRIBES BEING PAID, THE BURISMA COMPANY WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE AND ADDED SOME FOLKS TO THEIR BOARD, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND ANDIN HUNTER BIDEN. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTAND. >> AND TO THE EXTENT THE UKRAINIANS, THE FOLKS AFLTSD WITH KSBURISMA WANTED TO HIRE THOSE PEOPLE FOR THEIR BOARD FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES SO THEY COULD CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN MISDEEDS, IS THAT — IF THAT WAS A FACT WORTH INVESTIGATING, YOU CERTAINLY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF UKRAINIANS TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OFIN THAT, CORRECT? >> WELL, I CAN’T SPECULATE AS TO ANY OF THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WAS MOTIVATING BURISMA OR NOT. UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CORRUPTION BY UKRAINIAN CITIZENS IS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE THING FOR THEM TO DO.>> MR. MORRISON, I WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION BACKTO TO THE JUL 25th CALL. YOU WERE IN THE ROOM. DID ANYTHING CONCERN YOU ON THE CALL? >> NO. >> AFTER THE CALL ENDED, YOU, LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN, WERE — ONE OF YOUR NEXT STEPS WAS TO ENGAGE THE NSC LAWYERS. AND YOUR REASONS FOR DOING THAT WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN COLONEL VINDMAN. AND YOU ARTICULATED THREE CONCERNS. DO YOU WANT TO SHARE THEM WITH US OR WOULD YOU RATHER I DO IT? >> SO, I THINK I ARTICULATED TWO CONCERNS. IF I’M FORGETTING ONE, PLEASE REMIND ME. BUT THE TWO CONCERNS WERE, ONE, I DID NOT SEE REPRESENTATIVES OF NSC LEGAL ON THE CALL.I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LEGAL ADVISER AND HIS DEPUTY WERERE AWARE OF THE CALL. AND I WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT THE LIMITED DISCLOSURE FOR FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT LEAKING. >> AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT LEAKING BECAUSE YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT B HOW IT WOULD PL OUT IN WASHINGTON’S POLARIZED POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, NMCORREC? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE ALSO WORRIED HOW THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORTD HERE IN CONGRESS OF — TOWARDS UKRAINE, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE ALSO CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT AFFECT THE UKRAINIANS’ PERCEPTION NEGATIVELY.>> YES. >> IN FACT, ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE PLAYED OUT, HAVEN’T THEY? >> TYES. >> YOU DIDN’T ASK THE LAWYERS TO PUT IT ON THE CODEWORD SYSTEM, CORRECT? >> I WANT TO BE PRECISE ABOUT THE LEXICON HERE. I DIDSK NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE MOD TO A COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM. 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 PTCOMPARTMENTED SERVER, YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE, CORRECT? >> WELL, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO ME IT WAS A MISTAKE. I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP THAT MENCON BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF PULLING TOGETHER AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S MATERIALS AND THELS PRESIDENT’S MATERIALS FOR WHAT WAS A PLANNED BILAT BETWEEN POTUS AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AND WHEN I WENT TO DO THAT, I COULD NOT PULL UP THE PACKAGE INES OUR SYSTEM.AND I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY. I SPOKE WITH THE NSC EXECUTIVE’S STAFF AND ASKED THEM WHY. AND THEY DID THEIR RESEARCH AND INFORMED ME IT HAD BEEN MOVED TO THE HIGHER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AT THE DIRECTION OF JOHN EISENBERG WHOM I THEN ASKED WHY. I MEAN, THAT’S THE JUDGMENT HE MADE THAT’S NOT NECESSARILY MINE TO QUESTION, BUT I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND IT AND HE ESSENTIALLY TOLD ME I GAVE HIM SUCH DIRECTION. HE DID HIS OWN INQUIRY AND REPRESENTED IT BACK TO ME THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATE UF ERROR THAT WHEN HE ALSO GAVE DIRECTION TO RESTRICT ACCESS, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF STAFF TOOK THAT AS AN APPREHENSION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE CONTENT OF THE MEMCON THAT WOULD NOT EXIST ON THE LOWER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.>> THERE’S NO MALICIOUS INTENT IN MOVING THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE COMPARTMENTED SERVER? >>E CORRECT. >> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ANYBODY ON THE NSC STAFF THAT NEEDED ACCESS TO THE STAFF FOR THEIR OFFICIAL DUTY ALWAYS WAS ABLE TO ACCESS IT, CORRECT? PEOPLE THAT HAD A NEED TO KNOW AND A NEED TO ACCESS IT? >> ONCE IT WAS MOVED TO THE COMPARTMENTED SYSTEM? >> YES. >> 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 IS NOTE TAKERS IN THE SITUATION ROOM AND THEN THEY PREPARE A DRAFT THAT’S CIRCULATED AMONG RELEVANT PARTIES? >> ESSENTIALLY, YES.>> AND YOU HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FORIT COORDINATING ANY EDITS? >> YES, WE LOOK AT THE — SHORTHAND WE’LL CALL THE TRANSCRIPT, BUT THE MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION AND WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT TRANSCRIPTION IS AS CLOSE TO ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE GIVEN OUR REQUIREMENTS ON UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT. >> OKAY. AND COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED HE THOUGHT IT WAS VERY ACCURATE. DID YOU AS WELL? >> I VIEWED IT AS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE.>>>> COLONEL VINDMAN DID ARTICULATE THAT HE HAD A COUPLE OF EDITS. HE WANTED BURISMA INSERTED. I THINK IT WAS ON PAGE 3 OR 4. 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 OR THE DEPOSITION THAT HE WANTED THAT REQUEST, YES. >> AT THE TIME, DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAD ASKED FOR THAT? >> I DON’T RECALL THAT. IT WAS MY PRACTICE IF AN EDIT WAS — D IF I BELIEVED AN EDIT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED THE CALL, I WOULD ACCEPT IT. IF I DIDN’T HEAR IT IN THE CALL, IF IT DIDN’T EXIST IN MY NOTES, I WOULDN’T HAVE MADE THE EDIT.>> ON PAGE 4 HE WANTED TO SWAP OUT THE WORD COMPANY FOR THE WORD BURISMA. >> AND WHEN THAT EDIT FROM COLONEL VINDMAN WAS NOT INSTALLED, DID HE GIVE YOU ANY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK THAT IT WAS CRUCIAL THAT THAT EDIT GET IN THE DOCUMENT? >> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL. >> DID HE EVER RAISE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT? >> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL. >> DID HE EVER RAISE ANY CONCERNS TO YOU GENERALLY ABOUT THE CALL? >> WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE CHANGES OF THEIN MEMCON, I BELIE HE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL. I BELIEVE WE BOTH AGREED WE WANTED THAT MORE FULL-THROATED EMBRACE OF ZELENSKY AND HIS REFORM AGENDA, AND WE DIDN’T GET IT. >> OKAY. YOU INDICATE IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT WHEN YOU TOOK OVER THE PORTFOLIO FOR DR. HILL, JULY 15th, YOU WERE ALERTED TO POTENTIAL ISSUES IN COLONEL VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT? >> YES.>> DID SHE RELAY ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY TO YOU? WHY SHE THOUGHT THAT? >> NOT IN SUCH. MORE OF AN OVERAERCHING STATEMENT FROM HER AND HER DEPUTY WHO BECAME MY DEPUTY THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT JUDGMENT. >> OKAY. DID ANY OTHER NSC PERSONNEL RAISE CONCERNS WITH YOU ABOUT MR. VINDMAN? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. I’M SORRY, COLONEL VINDMAN. AND WHAT WERE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION? >> THEY WERE — SORRY. WE ARE NOT — 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, MR. CASTOR, PREDATED ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE I UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE. >> DURING THE DEPOSITION, I ASKED YOU, MR. MORRISON, WHETHER OTHERS RAISED A CONCERN WHETHER MR. VINDMAN MAY HAVE LEAKED INFORMATION? >> YOU DID ASK THAT, YES. >> AND YOUR ANSWER WAS? >> OTHER THAN THAT REPRESENTATIVE, YES. >> I ASKED WHETHER YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT COLONEL VINDMAN DID NOT KEEP YOUP IN THE LOOP AL THE TIME WITH HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES? >> YES.>> AND IN FACT, WHEN HE WENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL LAWYERSUR FOLLOWING THE JULY 25 CALL, HE DID NOT FIRST COME TO YOU, ISST THAT CORRECT? >> 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. T >> AND WHY IS THAT? >> ONE, IF HE HAD CONCERNS ABOT SOMETHING, ABOUT THE CONTENT OF CALL, THAT’S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO BE NOTIFIED OF.I ALSO THINK JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, SINCE WE BOTH WENT TO THE B LAWYERS, WE DIDN’T NECESSARILY BOTH NEED, TO AND ECONOMY OF EFFORT MAY HAVE PREVAILED. >> AT ANY POINT SUBSEQUENTLY, DID HE BECOME FRUSTRATED THAT HE FELT CUT OUT OF SOME OF THE UKRAINE PORTFOLIO? >> YES. >> AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS CONCERNS? >> WELL, HE — HE WAS CONCERNED WITH RESPECT TO THE UKRAINIAN TRIP THAT HE WAS NOT — HE DID NOT GO. HE ASKED ME WHY IT IS MY PRACTICE TO HAVE A NUMBER OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ONE ON ONE. THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS. >> OKAY. AND DID YOU EVER GET THE SENSE THAT YOU TRESOLVED HIS CONCERN OR DID THEY LINGER? >> I — I EXPLAINED TO HIM MY THINKING, AND THAT WAS THAT.>> OKAY. BEFORE MY TIME EXPIRES, AMBASSADORWA VOLKER, I WANT TO TURN QUICKLY TO THE — WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBES AS THEAY IRREGULAR CHANNEL. HE WAS A PARTICIPANT WITH YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HUNDREDS OF TEXT MESSAGES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >>ME AND DID HE EVER RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF THE EARLY AUGUST TIME PERIOD? >> ONLY THAT HE SAW REFLECTED IN THE TEXT MESSAGES THEMSELVES WHERE HE SAID IS THIS NOW A LINKAGE OR ARE WE DOING THIS? HE HAD A CONCERN ABOUT JUST IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, RUDY GIULIANI, I THINK ALL OF US HAD, BUT HE SAID, WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IT, ABOUT THE ROLE THAT HE’S PLAYING.AND AS YOU NOTE, WE WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT. NEARAR DAILY CONTACT THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PERIOD. >> AND SO DID HE EVER ENGAGE YOU IN A LONG TELEPHONE CALL TO ARTICULATE HIS CONCERNS? >> WE WERE ON MANY ONE ON ONE TELEPHONE CALLS. HE DID NOT RAISE THOSE CONCERNS THAT WAY, NO. >> AND, I MEAN, YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED DIPLOMAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME, SENATE CONFIRMED. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.SECRETARY PERRY IS A SECRETARY OF ENERGY. CERTAINLY NOT — DOESN’T SOUND LIKE AN IRREGULAR BUNCH. DID HE EVER ARTICULATE TO YOU THAT HE THOUGHT THE THREE OF YOU WORKING ON UKRAINE POLICY WAS A PROBLEM? >> NO,IN HE DID NOT. >>>> AND WERE YOU SURPRISED DURG HIS TESTIMONY WHEN HE CAME IN TO THE DEPOSITION WHEN YOU ESTABLISHED THESE TWO TRACKS THAT ONE WAS O A REGULAR CHANNE HE WAS IN CHARGE OF AND THE OTHER WAS A — >> YES. I — 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./UKRAINEN NEGOTIATIONS AND NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIA AND THE INNER AGENCY WORK AND WORK WITH OUR ALLIES. AND WE HAD A SECRETARY OF ENERGY WHO IS A CABINET OFFICIAL. AND I THINK HAVING SUPPORT FROM THE VARIOUGS U.S. OFFICIALS FOR OUR STRENGTHENING OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE, I VIEW THIS AS A VERY POSITIVE THING. AND IF THE CONCERN IS NOT UP SO MUCH THEN BECAUSE WE’RE ALL OFFICIALS BUT MAYOR GIULIANI, I DON’T VIEW THAT AS A CHANNEL AT ALL BECAUSE HE’SHA 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. WHY DON’T WE TAKE A FIVE OR TEN-MINUTE BREAK. IF I COULD ASK THE AUDIENCE TO ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM FIRST, AND — >> AND WE WILL TAKE THAT FIVE MINUTES HERE TOTE SUM UP WHERE ARE. THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING OF THE DAY. WEAY STARTED ABOUT — I THINK W STARTED AT 9:00 A.M. EASTERN TIME. IT’S NOW 5:41 EASTERN TIME. AND THEY ARE TAKING A BREAK. AND THEY WILL RESUME HERE SHORTLY WITHIL MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. BUT I’M HERE WITH CHUCK TODD AND BARRETT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR AND NBC NEWS LEGAL ANALYST. LET ME STARTH WITH YOU, CHUCK. GOING IN, TIM MORRISON, NSC RUSSIA EXPERT, SEEN AS SOMEONE THAT MIGHT BE MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE CAS SE REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING.HE DIDN’T HAVE A PROBLEM NECESSARILY WITH WHAT HEBL HEAR ON THAT JULY 25th CALL. DID HE DELIVER? >> I DON’T KNOW IF HE DELIVERED AS WELL AS REPUBLICANS HOPED HE WOULD. HE WAS DEFINITELY A FACT WITNESS FOR THEM. I THOUGHT, THOUGH, THEY WERE HOPINGE HE WOULD BE MORE HELPFU THAN HE WAS. YOU KNOW, YET HE DIDN’T HEAR ANYTHING ILLEGAL ON THE CALL. THAT DOESN’T MEAN HE DIDN’T HEAR ANYTHING PROBLEMATIC. IN THAT CASE, IT IS — I DON’T THINK IT’S AS HELPFUL AS REPUBLICANS THOUGHT IT WOULDS B.LOOK, I DO THINK THEY DID A GOOD JOB — THEY DID A GOOD JOB — IF THE REPUBLICAN GOAL WAS TO GET VOLKER AND MORRISON TO SAY, HEY, SOME OF THIS STUFF WAS MORE ROUTINE THAN IT COMES ACROSS, I THINK THEY PAINTED SOME OF THIS AS MORE ROUTINE. THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE IS, IS IT EVEN VOLKER AND MORRISON ARE SAYING, YEAH, BUT THAT PHONE CALL WAS HAUNUSUAL. AND SOME OF THESE REQUESTS WERE UNUSUAL. AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT I THINK HAS BEEN THE MOST DAMAGING FOR THE REPUBLICANS TODAY, BECAUSE I THINK THEYSE HOPE THAT VOLKER A MORRISON WOULD SORT OF — I THINK HELP THEM MORE THAN THEY DID. HOW MUCH VOLKER CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY. VOLKER STRIKES ME AS SOMEBODY WHO THREW HIMSELF AT THE MERCY OF — AND SAID, MAN, I DON’T KNOW WHAT GIULIANI WAS UP TO.I WAS REALLY TRYING TO LAND THIS PLANE AND HE’S GOING, I DIDN’T QUITE UNDERSTAND — >> WATCHING AID GET CUT OFF. >> I THINK SOME PEOPLE THINK, OH, YOU WERE WILLFULLY BLIND ON SOME OF THISWI IF YOU DIDN’T THK BURISMA AND BIDEN WERE THE SAME THING. MAYBE THAT’S OKAY. MAYBEMA DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE IT. IF I’M THE PRESIDENT, IF I’M REPUBLICANS, I’M NERVOUS ABOUT VOLKER ESSENTIALLY A SAYING, LO, YES, THIS WAS A MESS. I WAS TRYING TO LAND IT. I WASN’T DOING IT WITH CORRUPT INTENT. >> GIVE ME THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. ARE THEY BEING MORE HELPFUL TO ONE SIDOR THE OTHER? >>EY I’D SAY WITH CHUCK. I’M NOT SURE EITHER OF THESE WITNESSES IS REALLY GOING FAR FOR THE REPUBLICANS. LOOK, IT MAY BE THE STANDARD THAT THEY’RE NOT HURTING THEM, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS HELPING.REMEMBER, WE JUST LISTENED TO VOLKER VERY ADAMANTLY SAYING, YOU KNOW, I DON’T THINK JOE BIDEN HAD’T ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY SORT OF CORRUPTION MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE BRIEF TIME THAT HE’S ALREADY BEEN TESTIFYING. HE’S REALLY DEFLECTING ATTENTION AWAY FROM ANY WRONGDOING BIDEN MAY HAVE HAD AND THAT’S SOMETHING REPUBLICANS CAN’T LIKE HAVING REPEATED MULTIPLE TIMES. >> HOW DOES THIS RAISE THE STAKES NOW FOR SONDLAND TOMORROW? >> SONDLAND’S NAME HAS BEEN MENTIONED COUNTLESS TIMES BY EVERY SINGLE WITNESS TODAY. SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY AND IT IS AS CRITICAL AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE AND HE HAS GOT TO BE SWEATING RIGHT NOW. >> THERE’S STILL ONE MORE PERSON THAT THEY COULD LIKE TO TESTIFY THAT I THINK HE MAY GET. THAT’S JOHN BOLTON. THE MOST DEVASTATING PART OF MORRISON’S TESTIMONY IS WHAT HE RECALLED, HEY, BOLTON TOLD ME TO TALK TO THE LAWYER.>> SO WHEN SONDLAND TESTIFIES, ARE THERE ANY THOUGHT, ANY POSSIBILITY THAT HE MIGHT INVOKE THE FIFTH? >> THAT’S THE RUMOR RUNNING AROUND. TO ME, IT WOULD MAKE MATTERS WORSE. >> I AGREE. LOOK, IT’S A HUGE ACCEPTANCE OF, YOU TAKNOW, I HAVE SOMETHING TH I SHOULD FEEL POTENTIALLY WOULD INCRIMINATE ME. I THINK IT’S TOO MUCH CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. ICO THINK IT’S UNLIKELY WE’D SE THAT. THAT’S NOT TO SAY HE MAY BE IN A POSITION WHERE THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA WHERE IF YOU WERE HIS LAWYER YOU’D ADVISE HIM. >> HE’S GOT A LOT TO CLEAR UP AND THE PHONE CALL THAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT IS GOING W TO BE — >> VOL TER IS TELEGRAPHING ONE STRATEGY. DUMP ON RUDY. I’D BE CURIOUS IF GORDON SONDLAND BECOMES PART TWO OF DUMP ON T RUDY. WE’LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. >> OUR COVERAGE CONTINUES ON OUR STREAMING NETWORK NBC NEWS NOW. OF COURSE, WE’LL BE BACK ON THE AIR TOMORROW MORNING ATN 9:00 A.M.FOR TESTIMONY FROM GORDON ROSONDLAND, THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND PERHAPS THE MOST EAGERLY ANTICIPATED WITNESS SO FAR BECAUSE OFAR HIS DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS ON UKRAINE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. I’LL SEE YOU HERE SHORTLY WITH A COMPLETE WRAP-UP OF ALL WE’VE SEEN TODAY ON “NBC NIGHTLY NEWS.” UNTIL THEN, I’M LESTER HOLT. NBC NEWS IN NEW YORK. GOOD DAY, EVERYONE. >>> HEY, EVERYONE. I’M ALISON MORRISON. YOU’RE WATCHING NBC NEWS NOW. SPECIAL COVERAGE. WE’RE IN THE SECOND HALF OF DAY THREE OF THE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. LEIGH ANN CALDWELL IS ON CAPITOL HILL. SHE’S BEEN IN THE HEARINGS ALL DAY. WE’RE HEARING FROM KURT VOLKER AND TIM MORRISON. WHAT ARE THE BIG HEADLINES FOR YOU SO FAR? >> WELL, ALISON, ONE OF THE FIRST HEADLINES IS ABOUT VOLKER. HE HAS COME INTO THIS HEARING TODAY AND REVISED HIS TESTIMONY FROM HIS DEPOSITION THAT HE GAVE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS A FEW WEEKS AGO. HE SAID AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN BURISMA, THE ENERGY COMPANY, AND THE BIDENS.WELL, TODAY HE SAID AFTER LEARNING MORE SINCE HIS DEPOSITION, THAT, IN FACT, THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO. THAT BURISMA AND THE BIDENS WAS ONE IN THE SAME. AND HE ALSO SAID THAT HE HAD A LOT OF RESPECT FOR JOE BIDEN. THE FACT THAT HE SAID THAT HE KNEW JOE BIDEN FOR 25 YEARS AND THAT THERE WAS NOTHING CORRUPT ABOUT HIM. SO VOLKER’S TESTIMONY, THAT WAS EXPLOSIVE. MORRISON’S TESTIMONY, THERE’S A LOT WE CAN GO THROUGH WITH WHAT MORRISON SAID. HE’S THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL ADVISER. HE LEFT HIS POSITION. AND HE SAID THAT — IN THIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT, HE WAS DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE HE WANTED A FULL-THROATED SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. AND SO HE THOUGHT THAT THE CALL WAS UNFORTUNATE, ALISON. >> THESE WERE TWO WITNESSES THAT REPUBLICANS WANTED TO HEAR FROM TONIGHT. GIVEN WHAT WE’VE HEARD SO FAR, DO YOU THINK THESE ARE STILL TWO WITNESSES THAT REPUBLICANS WANTED TO HEAR FROM TONIGHT? >> IT’S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. SO THE REPUBLICANS CALLED THESE WITNESSES, AND YOU WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THESE WITNESSES TO REALLY POKE HOLES INTO THE DEMOCRATS’ ENTIRE THEORY HERE. BUT THEY DIDN’T DO THAT. WHAT THEY DID ACTUALLY IS CORROBORATED A LOT OF WHAT WAS ALREADY SAID BY OTHER WITNESSES BEFORE. WHERE THEY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE OTHER WITNESSES IS THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN’T THINK THINGS WERE AS EXPLOSIVE OR TRAUMATIC OR SERIOUS OF A PROBLEM AS OTHER WITNESSES DID.BUT THEY’RE NOT — THEY ALSO DIDN’T DISMISS ANYTHING HERE. THEY SAID, YES, THEY HAD PROBLEMS WITH THIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL. THEY SAID THAT, IN FACT, THE AID WAS BEING INVESTIGATED — OR WAS BEING WITHHELD. AND SO THERE WAS A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS BY THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. AND SO WHILE THESE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THE REPUBLICAN WITNESSES, THEY DID NOTHING TO ADVANCE THEIR CASE FOR REPUBLICANS.>> LEIGH ANN, WE’RE SHOWING WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE HEARING ROOM. WOULD YOU TALK TO US ABOUT WHY YOU’RE OUTSIDE OF THAT ROOM AND WE’RE CHATTING WITH YOU NOW? >> YEAH, SO WE CAN’T HAVE A CAMERA OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING ROOM SO WE WALKED TO THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR IN THE CANNON OFFICE BUILDING. WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW IS PRESS AND EVERYONE IS MILLING ABOUT. IT’S THE END OF THE DAY. THERE’S OUR OWN GEOFF BENNETT RIGHT THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE THERE TAKING PHOTOS. PEOPLE, IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK AND JUST HAVE SOME TIME. BUT IT’S THE END OF THE DAY. THIS IS HOUR NINE OR TEN, EIGHT OR SOMETHING OF HEARINGS.THE AUDIENCE HAS STARTED TO THIN OUT. THERE’S NO LONGER A LINE OUTSIDE THE HEARING ROOM. BUT THERE’S STILL PEOPLE THERE. AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ARE STILL IN THIS HEARING ROOM. GOING TO SEE THERE FOR THE DURATION WHICH IS ACTUALLY PRETTY AMAZING FOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. SO EVEN WHEN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON CAPITOL HILL ONLY LAST AN HOUR OR TWO OR MAYBE THREE HOURS ON SOME OTHER TOPICS, MEMBERS COME AND GO. THEY NEVER SIT THROUGH THE WHOLE THING. SO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THERE FROM BEGINNING TO END JUST ON ITS OWN DENOTES THE SERIOUSNESS AND HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE THIS IS.ESPECIALLY THE FACT THE REPUBLICANS ARE SITTING THERE. THEY THINK THIS IS A SHAM PROCESS, THAT THEY ARE 100% INVOLVING THEMSELVES AND PARTICIPATING IN IT. >> AND THIS IS EARLY IN THE WEEK. WE HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER HEARINGS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK. MORE TESTIMONY. A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT TOMORROW AND HOW IMPORTANT GORDON SONDLAND’S TESTIMONY WILL BE. HIS NAME CAME UP A WHOLE LOT ALREADY TODAY. WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING THAT. >> GORDON SONDLAND IS THE NAME OF THIS ENTIRE INQUIRY. IF IT WASN’T FOR THE PRESIDENT, IT’S — OTHER THAN THE PRESIDENT, IT’S GORDON SONDLAND. HE WAS INVOKED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THE MORNING SESSION AND TONIGHT AS WELL. ONE THING THAT WAS INTERESTING THAT MORRISON SAID WAS THAT HE FINALLY REALIZED THAT SONDLAND WAS, IN FACT, CONNECTING THE AID TO THE INVESTIGATION. BUT THEN MORRISON ALSO SAID THAT HE NOW KNOWS THAT THE — THAT SONDLAND WAS, IN FACT, IN TOUCH WITH THE PRESIDENT. HE SAID THAT EVERY TIME SONDLAND SAID THAT HE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT, HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT, AND IT WAS, IN FACT, TRUE. MORRISON, REMEMBER, THE REPUBLICANS’ WITNESS SAID THAT SONDLAND IS, IN FACT, IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.THE PRESIDENT SAID HE DOESN’T EVEN KNOW WHO SONDLAND IS. BARELY EVEN KNOWS THE GUY. THAT’S WHAT THE DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT. THEY WANT A DIRECT CONNECTION OF THIS QUID PRO QUO OF THIS WITHHOLDING OF AID TO THE PRESIDENT. AND THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MORRISON GAVE THEM TODAY. SO WHEN SONDLAND COMES BEFORE THE HEARING TOMORROW, HE’S GOING TO HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE BECAUSE FROM WHAT ALL THESE WITNESSES HAVE SAID IS THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO IS TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT THE MOST OTHER THAN RUDY GIULIANI. THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT CAME OUT IN TODAY’S HEARING, IN TONIGHT’S SESSION OF THIS HEARING IS THAT OUTSIDE AND UNWARRANTED INFLUENCE OF GIULIANI. BOTH MORRISON AND VOLKER MADE THOSE POINTS OVER AND OVER. >> LEIGH ANN, THANKS FOR BEING WITH US. I WANT TO BRING IN MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST DANNY SAVOLAS. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SONDLAND BUT ALSO VOLKER TODAY.HE SAID TODAY THAT THE HEARINGS HAVE CHANGED HOW HE IS INFORMED ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND THE CONNECTION TO THE BIDENS. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE WONDERING, DID HE JUST PERJURE HIMSELF? HE’S CHANGING WHAT HE WAS SAYING. >> IT’S SO HARD TO SAY. YOU HAVE MULTIPLE TESTIMONY. IT’S HARD TO SAY SO MUCH IS DEPENDENT ON WHAT HE REMEMBERS AND WHAT HE’S TESTIFYING ABOUT AND WHETHER IT’S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE TOLD PEOPLE IN THE PAST. WHETHER IT’S CONSISTENT WITH PEOPLE THAT WE’RE HEARING TODAY. IT’S REALLY CHALLENGING, AND I DON’T WANT TO GO SO FAR AS TO SAY SOMEBODY IS COMMITTING PERJURY EVER BECAUSE PERJURY IS JUST NOT THAT EASY TO PROVE ULTIMATELY. >> THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE OR THERE’S GOING TO BE A SIMILAR QUESTION OR SIMILAR ISSUE TOMORROW BECAUSE PEOPLE SAID GORDON SONDLAND TESTIFIES TOMORROW OR HE’S STEPPED BACK ON HIS TESTIMONY.HE MAY BE IN A POSITION WHERE HE HAS TO DO THAT TOMORROW. >> I DON’T NORMALLY TALK ABOUT THE VIBE I GET FROM A TRANSCRIPT, BUT GORDON SONDLAND SOUNDS TO ME, THE ONE THAT’S BEEN RELEASED, KEEP IN MIND, WE ALREADY KNOW THE THINGS GORDON SONDLAND SAID IN 300 PAGES OF TESTIMONY, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT EMERGES FROM HIS TESTIMONY IS SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO HEDGE HIS BETS. HE WAS ORDERED BY THE FROM THE GO TALK TO RUDY ABOUT WHATEVER RUDY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. HE THEN PASSES THAT ON TO OTHER FOLKS. WELL, THAT WAS REALLY PERRY’S JOB. THAT WAS VOLKER’S JOB.I GENERALLY KNEW ABOUT CORRUPTION. I DIDN’T KNOW THAT IT WAS ABOUT INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS. THAT I WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN DOWN WITH. BUT THE OTHER STUFF I SORT OF KNEW AND THIS BIDEN STUFF I FOUND OUT LATER. THEN WHEN IT GETS SQUISHY, DANGEROUS, HE FALLS BACK ON A LOT OF “I DON’T REMEMBERS.” AND THEY ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE OPERATING AT A HIGH LEFRL AND DEALING WITH IMPORTANT THINGS EVERY DAY, THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD REMEMBER. >> IF WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IF WE’RE TREATING THIS AS A TRIAL OF SORTS, IS THAT WHAT REPUBLICANS WANT FOR PEOPLE TO SORT OF BE — OR NOT BE CLEAR ON WHAT HAPPENED? DOES THIS HELP THEM MAKE THEIR CASE THAT THIS IS NOT A SPECIFIC — >> REPUBLICANS HAVE AN UPHILL BATTLE. THEY’RE DEALING WITH WITNESSES WHO ON THE WHOLE IN THE LAST WEEK, THEIR CREDIBILITY, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THEIR CHARACTER, THEIR EXPERIENCE, THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. AND I DON’T MEAN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS A PERSIPIENT WITNESS, SOMEONE WHO SAW SOMETHING HAPPEN.THEIR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT UKRAINE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THEIR EXPERIENCE IN THEIR JOBS. IT’S UNQUESTIONABLE. YOU CAN’T CHALLENGE THAT. SO FOR THE REPUBLICANS, IT HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO MOUNT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THESE WITNESSES BECAUSE OF THEIR CHARACTER. I MEAN, IT’S UNQUESTIONED. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO CREDIBILITY ISSUES. AND THEY DO THAT BY SAYING NOT THAT YOU ARE A LIAR OR YOU ARE NOT A CREDIBLE PERSON, BUT THAT YOU DON’T HAVE FIRSTHAND MG. YOU DON’T HAVE FIRSTHAND INFORMATION. YOU DIDN’T SAY THE WORD BRIBE. YOU WERE JUST WORRIED ABOUT SOMETHING. AND YOU SKIPPED THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. YOU DID ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE. THIS IS CLASSIC CROSS-EXAMINATION. BUT YOU HAVE TO PICK AND CHOOSE. YOU CAN’T KNIT PICK THINGS IN A CROSS-EXAMINATION WHEN YOU ARE CROSS-EXAMINING A WITNESS FOR A INJURY.JURIES KNOW THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON’T REMEMBER WAS IT A RED SHIRT OR BLUE SHIRT. IF YOU BEAT UP ON A WITNESS THAT MUCH IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE JURY MIGHT NOT TAKE IT OUT OF THE WITNESS. THEY MIGHT TAKE IT OUT ON THE CROSS-EXAMINING LAWYER. >> I WANT TO STAKE WITH THE REPUBLICANS. LAST WEEK WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY RELIED ON THIS ARGUMENT. YOU DIDN’T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. IT WAS HEARSAY. THAT CHANGED WHEN WE HEARD FROM VINDMAN AND WILLIAMS. THEY WERE ON THAT CALL. DID REPUBLICANS DO A GOOD JOB OF SHIFTING THEIR STRATEGY OF HANDLING THIS DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE YOU COULDN’T GO TO THE HEARSAY ARGUMENT ANYMORE? >> THEY HAD TO BUT IN A SENSE IT WAS SIMILAR TO THE HEARSAY ARGUMENT OF LAST WEEK. WE CONCEDE THAT YOU HEARD WHAT YOU HEARD ON THE PHONE CALL. BUT YOU DIDN’T REALLY HEAR ALL THIS OTHER STUFF THAT WAS GOING ON. YOU NEVER TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT BEFORE. YOU NEVER MET RUDY GIULIANI. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT WAS IN GIULIANI’S HEAD OR IN THE PRESIDENT’S HEAD. YOU DON’T KNOW WHY HE MADE THAT DECISION.AND HE’S THE PRESIDENT. HE’S ALLOWED TO MAKE A LOT OF VERY HIGH LEVEL COMMANDARGUABLY. THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY WASN’T THAT DIFFERENT. IN TERMS OF SAYING THIS IS HEARSAY, YOU AREN’T A PERCIPIENT WITNESS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN AS TO THE SMALL CIRCLE OF THINGS, BUT YOU ARE JUST A COG IN THE WHEEL OF LIFE WITNESS. YOU ONLY KNOW A SMALL CIRCLE AND THE GIANT CIRCLE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, YOU WERE NOT PRIVY TO. >> HOW ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT CASE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO LAY OUT TODAY. HOW DID THEY DO? >> THEY’VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF CALLING WITNESSES WHOSE CREDIBILITY IS STRONG, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE SECONDHAND INFORMATION OR THEY MAY NOT KNOW ALL THE POSSIBLE FACTS.THEIR CHARACTER IS IMPECCABLE. THEY ARE CAREER SERVANTS. AND THERTHS THING THAT CONGRESS IS DOING, THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IS EDUCATING THE PUBLIC. FOR THE MOST PART, PEOPLE DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE DOD AND OUR FOREIGN SERVICE CORPS, WHAT THEY DO ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. IN MANY WAYS, HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE USING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE AND THEN THE WAY THINGS WERE ACTUALLY DONE. AND THAT’S THE WAY THEY PAINT A PICTURE OF SOMETHING BEING ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF UKRAINE BECAUSE OF ALL THIS BACK CHANNEL ACTIVITY THAT WAS GOING ON AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAD SOMEONE IN RUDY GIULIANI THAT WAS DOING SOMETHING THESE FOLKS HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE. JUST ON THEIR FACE, IT SURE SMELLS FUNNY. >> TALK ABOUT HOW THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS.LET’S TALK ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT HALLIE JACKSON IS OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE. DO WE KNOW IF THE PRESIDENT WAS WATCHING TODAY, AND HOW HAS HE REACTED? >> WE DO KNOW HE WAS WATCHING. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT MY COLLEAGUES IN THE CABINET ROOM IN THE WEST WING EARLIER TODAY AS A MEMBER OF THE POOL. AND THE PRESIDENT WAS TUNED IN. HE THOUGHT REPUBLICANS, IN HIS WORDS, ARE ABSOLUTELY KILLING IT. HE WAS HAPPY TO SEE HIS GOP ALLIES RALLYING AROUND HIM, DEFENDING HIM. I ASKED THE PRESIDENT IF HE THOUGHT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS A GOOD WITNESS. HE DIDN’T GO AFTER VINDMAN IN THE WAY HE ATTACKED YOVANOVITCH. HE DID HE DID NOT KNOW HIM. WHAT WE’RE HEARING FROM SOURCES AT THE WHITE HOUSE THROUGHOUT THE DAY HAS BEEN ESSENTIALLY A SELECTIVE LOOK AT THE PARTS OF TESTIMONY FROM TIM MORRISON, FROM VINDMAN, FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS, THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF AND OTHERS, THINGS THAT BACK UP THE ARGUMENT THEY’VE BEEN MAKING.YOU ARE SEEING A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POINTS WHERE WILLIAMS AND VINDMAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAD NO ISSUE WITH THE WAY THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS PUT TOGETHER, RIGHT? YOU ARE SEEING THE WHITE HOUSE ON THAT. YOU ARE SEEING THEM SEIZE ON A POINT THAT TIM MORRISON IS TALKING ABOUT HOW HE — HE HAS THOUGHTS ON THAT JULY 25th PHONE CALL.SO THE WHITE HOUSE IS LOOKING AT CERTAIN PIECES THAT, THIS IS NOT SURPRISING. OF COURSE THEY ARE SELECTING THE PARTS THAT BACK UP THEIR ARGUMENT. I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, THAT WE’VE ALSO SEEN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TWITTER ACCOUNT FROM THE PRESIDENT’S RETWEETS SOME ATTACK ISSUES WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN. NOW GOING AFTER HIM DIRECTLY BUT RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS JUDGMENT FOR EXAMPLE. THINGS THAT HIS FORMER BOSS SAID ABOUT HIM THAT THEY FOUND PROBLEMATIC. SO THERE IS THIS MORE SUBTLE CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO DISCREDIT VINDMAN, WHICH AGAIN HAS SOME RISKS HERE. TALKED ABOUT HIS MILITARY SERVICE. TALKED ABOUT HIS FAMILY’S HISTORY COMING TO THIS COUNTRY AS A TODDLER, WHAT THAT MEANT TO HIM, HIS FATHER AND OTHERS.SOMEONE TRYING TO RELATE TO, I THINK, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THAT WAY. SO BOTTOM LINE, YES, THE PRESIDENT TUNED IN. WE’RE NOT SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT. HERE’S WHAT EVERYONE IS WATCHING FOR TOMORROW. EU AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND. THAT’S TESTIMONY THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF EYEBALLS ZEROED IN ON WHAT SONDLAND MAY HAVE TO SAY TOMORROW AS WELL. THERE’S BEEN A BACK AND FORTH THAT I WANT TO EXPLAIN ON THE USMCA.IT’S CURRENTLY BEING NEGOTIATED, WORKING ITS WAY THROUGHAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS. THE PRESIDENT IS NOW CLAIMING THAT NANCY PELOSI IS HOLDING UP THE VOTEOL ON THAT TRADE DEAL I ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY WHIP OR GAIN SUPPORT FOR AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, THOSE ARTICLES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT’S ONE THING I WOULD WATCH, THE PRESIDENT GOING AFTER SPEAKER PELOSI, CALLING HER AN INCOMPETENT WOMAN. I’M WONDERING HOW WE WILL SEE THAT DEVELOP. >> ONE LAST QUESTION BEFORE WE LET YOU GO. THE PRESIDENT HINTED HE WOULD CONSIDER TESTIFYING. ANY MORE TALK OF THAT TODAY? >> Reporter: NO. I ASKED HIM IF HE — WHAT’S HE GOING TO DO? HE DID NOT ANSWER. I WOULD SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DANGLED THE POSSIBILITY OF HIM SPEAKING TFO INVESTIGATORS BEFORE. NOTABLY DURING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION WITH ROBERT MUELLER. THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN TO THAT.HE NEVER ACTUALLY APPEARED IN FRONT OF ROBERT MUELLER. HE ANSWERED WRITTEN QUESTIONS. RIGHT? NANCY PELOSI AND OTHER DEMOCRATS THAT I HAVE TALKED TO WOULD BE OKAY IF THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED THEIR WRITTEN QUESTIONS. IF THIS GOES ANYWHERE, THAT’S POTENTIALLY WHERE THIS GOES. YOU ARE HAVING ALLIES, LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JIM JORDAN WHO THINK IT’S UNLIKELY THE PRESIDENT WILL ACTUALLY APPEAR IN FRONT OF HOUSE INVESTIGATORS. DEMOCRATIC SOURCES ARE SAYING THEY’RE NOT TAKING THAT SERIOUSLY. THEY SAY IF THE PRESIDENT REALLY WANTED TO COOPERATE WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, HE WOULD LET PEOPLE LIKE MULVANEY TESTIFY RATHER THAN BLOCKING THOSE POTENTIALLY KEY WITNESSES.TH >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING IS STARTING UP AGAIN. >> DOMESTIC POLITICAL DEBATE IN THE U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICAL NARRATIVE THAT OVERSHADOWS THAT. YOU WERE RIGHT TO POINT THAT OUT.I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISTAKE. P CAN YOU REPEAT THE READOUT YOU GOT Y OF THE JULY 25 CALL? >> YES. I RECEIVED A READOUT FROM A U.S. PERSON AND A UKRAINIAN. THE READOUT WAS THAT IT WAS A GOOD PHONE CALL, THATT IT WAS A CONGRATULATORY PHONE CALL FOR THELA PRESIDENT’S WIN. PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID REITERATE HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION ANDS PRESIDENT TRUM RENEWED HIS INVITATION FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKYKY TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE. >> I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT WAS AS YOU EXPECTED THE CALL TO GO? >> THAT’S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO TEE RYUP.>> I WANT TO SHOW YOU ONCE AGAIN THE JULY 25 TEXT THAT YOU WROTE WHICH WAS THE MESSAGE THAT YOU WERE RELAYING SO THAT HE COULD PREPARE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. YOU WILL RECALL THIS, RIGHT? YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS THE MESSAGE, GOOD LUNCH, THANKS, HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE, ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, QUOTE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN — THAT’S WHAT YOU EXPECTED FROM THE CALL? >> I EXPECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE CONVINCING IN HIS STATEMENT AND COMMENTS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS EXACTLY THAT, THAT HE WOULD INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN 2016 AND THAT IF HE WAS STRONG IN CONVEYING WHO HE IS AS A PERSON IN I DOING THAT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD BE CONVINCE AND RENEW THE INVITATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE.>> I YOU DON’T MENTION CORRUPTI IN THE TEXT, DO YOU? THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT IN THIS? >> THE WORD CORRUPTION IS NOT THERE. INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST, THAT WOULD BE CORRUPT, WOULD BE INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION. >> YOU SAY IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND YOU SAID IT AGAIN THAT INVESTIGATING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE HAPAST. YOU ARE AWARE, OF COURSE, THAT MOST INVESTIGATIONS RELATE TOED PAST? >> YES. >> THAT DOESN’T REALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE, WHETHER IT’S CURRENT OR PAST IN TERMS OF THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. >> THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. >> YOU TALKED ABOUT THE MEETING THAT YOU HAD ON JULY 26 WITH PRESIDENT 2 ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN KIEV, IS THAT RIGHT? >> ON THE 26th? WE HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YES. >> I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE TOPIC OF INVESTIGATION DID NOT COME UP AT ALL. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I DON’T RECALL THEM COMING UP, THE GENERAL PHONE CALL. >> YOU DIDN’T TAKE NOTES OF THAT CALL — THAT WAS MEETING? >> I DID NOT. >> YOU HAD — THERE WERE STAFFERS THERE TO DO THAT? >> CORRECT. >> IF THEREE ARE TWO STAFFERS WO TOOK NOTES OF THAT MEETING AND TESTIFIED THAT THE SUBJECT OF EITHER SENSITIVE TOPICS OR INVESTIGATIONS CAME UP, ARE WE BETTER OFFE TAKING THEIR WORD FR IT THAN YOURS? >> I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THEIR NOTES IF THEY WERE TAKEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE MEETING. >> ANOTHER WITNESS TESTIFIES BEFORE US, LAURA COOPER, ABOUT A MEETING THAT SHE HAD WITH YOU ON JULY — ON AUGUST 20th. SHE RECALLED WITH SOME SPECIFICITY THAT MEETING, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS BASED ON HER NOTES, THAT YOU DESCRIBED THE STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MAKE TO — I WILL QUOTE WHAT SHE SAID, DISAVOW INTERFERENCE WITH U.S. ELECTIONS. IF HE WERE TO AGREE DO THAT, SHE TESTIFIED, THEN YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT HELP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON SECURITYN ASSISTANCE.IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE CONVERSATION AS WELL? >> NOT EXACTLY. >> HOW DOES YOURS DIFFER? >> I RECALL TALKING ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE ONE THAT HAD BEEN IN THE SUBJECT OF THE EXCHANGES. I DISCUSSED THAT THIS IS AN EFFORT WE ARE DOING. THIS COULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING A RESET OF THE THINKING OF THE PRESIDENT, THE NEGATIVE VIEW 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. THERE’S THIS NEGATIVE PRESUMPTION ABOUT UKRAINE. GETTING THIS ON TRACK WOULD BE HELPFUL. >> YOU DON’T DOUBT THAT WHAT SHE TESTIFIED IS INACCURATE, DO YOU? >> I BELIEVE SHE ACCURATELY REFLECTED WHATY SHE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE CONVERSATION. >> YOU TESTIFIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE JUNE 28th CONFERENCE CALL THAT YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.I’M NOT SURE IF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY WAS ON THE LINE. >> I DON’T BELIEVE. >> AND SECRETARY PERRY BEFORE YOUTA LOOPED IN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS? WAS PERRY NOT ON IT. >> I’M SURE KENT WAS NOT ON IT. I DON’T REMEMBER WHETHER SECRETARY PERRY WAS ON IT. I DON’T REMEMBER WHETHER I STAYED ON FORI PRESIDENT ZELENSY JOINING THE CALL OR NOT. >> WERE THERE ANY STAFF MEMBERS OR NOTE TAKERS ON THE CALL? >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >> WHY? >> WE WERE HAVING A CALL AMONG OTHER OTHERSELF — OURSELVES.>> WE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION OR WHAT YOU NEEDED TO DO — WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO DO 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 TEXT MESSAGE TO THAT EFFECT. WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IS WE ARE LOOKING AT UKRAINE LOOKING INTO AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND BEING CONVINCING ABOUT THIS AND PRESENTING THE NEW TEAM AS A CHANGE IN UKRAINE. >> YOU UNDERSTOOD THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE BURISMA AND THE SM2016 ELECTION? >> YES.YOU>> INTERPRETED THOSE TO BE OY BECAUSE IN THEORY THEY WERE LOOKING INTOHE UKRAINIANS? >> CORRECT. >> WE CAN AGREE, CAN WE NOT, THAT THE INVESTIGATION — ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WERE BARISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION? >> CORRECT. >> WHAT YOU AMENDED YOUR TESTIMONY TO SAY IS THAT IN RETROSPECT, YOU DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE PURPOSE FOR MR. GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TO WANT THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION WAS TO — FOR POLITICAL BENEFIT AND DIGGING UP DIRT OR GETTING INFORMATION ON VICE-PRESIDENT BIDEN. >> I LEARNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S INTERESTS IN INVESTIGATING BIDEN FROM THE PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPT WHICH CAME MUCH, MUCH LATER.FROM GIULIANI, I DIDN’T KNOW HE WAS ACTIVELYIA PURSUING THIS. I KNOW HE RAISED THIS WITH ME DIRECTLY AND I PUSHED BACK ON IT. T >> YOU KNEW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS PURSUING THIS WHEN HEG RAISED THESE INVESTIGATIONS HIMSELF. >> AGAIN, HE DIDN’T SPECIFY BIDEN. HE DIDN’T SPECIFY BURISMA. I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE GENERIC AND SOMETHING NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT MEETING.OM >> I UNDERSTAND. BIDEN WASN’T MENTIONED. WHEN INVESTIGATIONS ARE REFERENCED, IT’S BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION? >> THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. >> WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED THAT INVESTIGATION, HE DID THATIN IN RESPONSE FROM A QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIANS ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> WHEN — YOU SAID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MENTIONED SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS AT THE JULY 10th MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON’S OFFICE. YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. >> YES . >> DIDN’T HE MAKE THAT COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ABOUT WHEN THEY COULD SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? T >> THAT I’M NOT SURE ABOUT.I REMEMBER THE MEETING ESSENTIALLY ALREADY BEING OVER AND THENRE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BRINGING THAT UP. >> IN THE JULY 2 OR 3 MEETING IN TORONTO YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, YOU MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS TO HIM, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WEREE REFERRING TO THE – >> I WAS THINKING OF BURISMA AND 2016. >> YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT’S WHAT THE UKRAINIANS INTERPRETED REFERENCES TOPR INVESTIGATIONS BE RELATED TO BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION? >> I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY AT THAT TIME IF WE TALKED THAT SPECIFICALLY WITH — THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THINKING THAT, TOO. >> MR. MORRISON, WHEN DID YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH FIONA HILL ABOUT BURISMA AND THE PARALLEL TRACK — PARALLEL PROCESS INVOLVING P AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI? >> WE HAD A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN 1 JULY AND 15 JULY.. >> IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU WERE AWARE OF THIS EFFORT TO PROMOTE THIS TH ABURISMA INVESTIGATION THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI WERE GOING ABOUT OR YOU HAD HEARD ABOUT IT FROM DR. HILL? >> I HAD HEARD ABOUT IT FROM DR. HILL. >> I WANT TO PULL UP AN EXCERPT THAT QUOTES AN E-MAIL FROM JULY 13. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE TO YOU, QUOTE, SOLE PURPOSE IS FOR ZELENSKY TO ASSURANCES OF NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN. CORRUPTION ENDING, UNBUNDLING MOVING FORWARD AND ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY. YOU RESPONDED, TRACKING. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO MEAN WHEN HE WROTE TO YOU, ANY HAMPERED INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE A FORWARD TRANSPARENTLY? >> I DON’T KNOW THAT I HAD ANY UNDERSTANDING. THESE ARE E-MAILS FROM JULY 13. I WASN’T EVEN IN THE SEAT YET. 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 HADHA TOLD YOU ABOUT BURIS AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN PARTICULAR, HIS DESIRE FOR THIS PARALLEL PROCESS TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA, RIGHT? >> YES. >> SO YOU HAD THAT ASSOCIATION WHEN YOUYO RECEIVED HIS E-MAIL ASKING YOU ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECT? >> NOT NECESSARILY. >> NO? >> NO. >> WHY NOT?>> >> AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH HILL WAS SONDLAND. SHE MIGHT HAVE COINED IT THE GORDON PROBLEM. I DECIDED TO KEEP TRACK OF WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS DOING. I DIDN’T NECESSARILYON ALWAYS A ON THINGS GORDON SUGGESTED, HE BELIEVED WERE IMPORTANT. HE WANTED TO GET A MEETING. I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO DO AND HAD AGREED TO A MEETING. SO I WAS WORKING — I WAS TRACKING THAT WE NEEDED TO SCHEDULE A MEETING.KI >> YOU WERE NOT ENDORSING THE NOTION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? >> THAT IS MY TESTIMONY.Y.>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO JUMP AHEAD. AFTER THE AID WAS RELEASED, YOU WENT TO A CONFERENCE IN UKRAINE. ARE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WHO TESTIFIED BASED ON DETAILED NOTES, INDICATED THAT EARLIER — A FEW DAYS BEFORE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TOLD HIM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN AND SO BEFORE HE WRITES A CHECK, HE LIKES TO SEE PEOPLE PAY UP.CH YOU’RE AWARE OF THAT. >> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT TESTIMONY.RE I >> YOU ARE 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? >> I Y DO. I WAS REPEATING WHAT GORDON SONDLAND HADOR SAID TO ME TO EXPLAIN TO BILL TAYLOR WHAT THAT UNDERSTANDING WAS.>> IN WHAT CONTEXT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY THAT TO YOU? >> I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUN THE RELEASE OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. HE WAS SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT, HE HAS A NEGATIVE VIEW OF UKRAINE. HE SEES A CHECK ON HIS DESK THAT’S GOING TO THE UKRAINIANS. NOT SURE ABOUT THEM. HE WANTS TO HOLD ON TO IT UNTIL HE IS ASSURED. >> RIGHT. THE .PAY-UP BEFORE HE WRITES TH CHECK IS TO GET THE INVESTIGATIONS? >> THAT WAS NOT CLEARR TO ME. >> WHAT DID YOU THINK IT MEANT? >> I DIDN’T THINK THERE WAS A PAY-UP. THE LANGUAGE WAS SIMILAR. I HAD HEARD FROM GORDON THAT HE SEES THIS CHECK, HE’S NOT SURE HEOT WANTS TO — HE WANTS TO MA SURE HE HAS A DEAL WITH THE UKRAINIANS. I DIDN’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY OTHER THAN THE GENERIC FORMULATION. >> I YIELD BACK. >> 15 MINUTES TO RANKING MEMBER NUNES. >> DO YOU EXPECT MORE OF THESE MAGICAL 15-MINUTE DEVOTIONS THAT YOU COME UP WITH IN THE BACK? >> I DON’T KNOW HOW MAGICAL THEY ARE.THEY ARE PRESCRIBED BY RESOLUTIONS THAT WE CA HAVE UP TO 45 H MINUTES. THIS IS PART OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER THEDU HOUSE RESOLUTION. >> DO YOU EXPECT YOU WILL HAVE MORE?YO >> I DO NOT EXPECT MORE WILL BE NECESSARY. N >> FOR EVERYONE WATCHING, THIS IS, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW OUT F CONTROL THIS PROCESS HAS BECOME. THE DEMOCRATS JUST MAGICALLY GIVE THEMSELVES ADDITIONAL MINUTES. WITH THE SPECIAL NOTE THEY CAN DO.YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULDHE HA THELD DECENCY TO TELL US YOU AR GOING TO HAVE 15 MINUTES MORE. I WOULD SAY THAT YOU CAN GO FOUR HOURS, WE CAN GO FIVE HOURS. WE WILL GIVE YOU ALL YOU WANT. YOU CAN KEEP DIGGING. THE DEEPER THE HOLE YOU DIG, THE MORE VIEWERS WILL TURN OFF. PEOPLE JUST AREN’T BUYING THE DRUG DEAL THAT YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO SELL. I WOULD ADD THAT SINCE WE ARE GETTING INTO PRIME TIME, THESE ARE TWO WITNESSES THAT WERE YOUR WITNESSES, THAT YOU CALLED IN TO DEPOSE. WE STILL ASK FOR WITNESSES THAT YOU DID NOT DEPOSE, INCLUDING THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO YOU AND OTHERS CLAIM NOT TO KNOW, WHICH WE STILL NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF N THAT. IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL FACT WITNESS TO HOW THIS WHOLE MESS BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE. SECONDLY, WE HAVE ASKED FOR THE DNC OPERATIVES THAT WERE WORKING WITH UKRAINIANS TO DIG UP DIRT FOR U WHAT YOU CALL — OR WHAT E LEFT CALLS CONSPIRACY THEORIES, WHICH THEY ARE ESRIGHT, THEY WI CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND DIRT THEY DUG UP TO SPIN THEIR OWN THEORIES TO ATTACK THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN THE 2016 ELECTION.I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THESE WITNESSES. I KNOW OUR MEMBERS DO. YOU HAVE A LITTLE CLEANUP HERE? >> THANK YOU, MR. NUNES. I WILL TRY TO BE QUICK AND YIELD TIME BACK ARE YOU AWARE OF A STATEMENT JUST LAST WEEK FROM THE FOREIGN MINISTER ABOUT THE — HE SAID NO ONE TOLD THE UKRAINIANS, CERTAINLY NOT HIM, THAT THERE WAS ANY T LINK BETWEEN THE SECURITY T ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND INVESTIGATIONS? >> I SAW THAT STATEMENT.T. >> DO YOU KNOW THE FOREIGN MINISTER? >> I DO. >> DURING TIMES RELEVANT, DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS AND LINKS? >> NOT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS WITH HIM. I BELIEVE I KEPT THAT DISCUSS TO OTHERS. WE DID DISCUSS WITH THEUS PRIME MINISTER AND AT THE TIME HIS DIPLOMATIC ADVISER SECURITY ASSISTANT AFTER AUGUST 29. >> THE PRIMARY PERSON YOU WORKED WITH IS MR. YERMAK? >> YES.HE ALSO HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. DID HE — DID HE GIVE YOU FEEDBACK WITH HIS INTERACTIONS WITHCK AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >> I CAN’T SAY WHETHER HE DID OR DIDN’T. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES AS WE WENT ALONG.TA >> THE EPISODE AT WARSAW WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PULLED HIM ASIDE. DID HE GIVE YOU — DID HE GIVE YOU ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT? >> I DID NOT GET ANYTHING SPECIFIC AFTER THAT. THIS WAS AROUND, I BELIEVE, SEPTEMBER 1 OR 2.IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT I HAD BEEN, I H THINK, TEXTED AND WASN TOUCH WITH HIM WHERE I TOLD THEM BOTH AND THE DEFENSE MINISTER, I TOLD THEM ALL, DON’T WORRY, WE KNOW ABOUT THIS, WE’RE TRYING TO FIX IT.Y, I THINK I LEFT THE CONVERSATION AT THAT. >> THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, THEY TRUSTED YOU? >> VERY MUCH SO. WE HAD A VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP. >> WHEN YOU MADE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT TO THEM, DO YOU THINK THEY BELIEVED ME? >> I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE OTHER CONVERSATIONS AND THEY WOULD HEAR THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE. BUT I THINK THAT THEY KNEW I WAS SINCERE. >> THEY TRUSTEDHIWA AMBASSADOR TAYLOR? >> YES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO DEMYSTIFY THE MAYOR GIULIANI ROLE. YOU MET WITH HIM ONE TIME? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> YOU EXCHANGED TEXT MESSAGES? >> YES. >> WE SORT OFSA DID AN ACCOUNTI OF YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. GIULIANI. IT WASN’T CR. — THERE WEREN’T MANY. WE ACCOUNTED FOR THEM ALL.THEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHEN HE CAME IN, HE DIDN’T HAVE — HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY ONE ON ONE MEETINGS WITH MAYOR GIULIANI. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON’T KNOW. >> I THINK HE TESTIFIED THATCOR THERE WERE A COUPLE CONFERENCE CALLS THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON WITH YOU. >> THAT IS TRUE. >> GETTING BACK TO THE REGULAR CHANNEL THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR COINED IN HISAY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF CLOSE THE LOOP WITH HIM ABOUT ANY CONCERNS WHATSOEVER OR WAS IT ALL THESE SPECIFIC INSTANCES RAISED IN THE TEXTS? >> ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC INSTANCES. >> DO YOU THINK AMBASSADOR TAYLOR INR YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM BELIEVES MR. GIULIANI WAS IN GREATER COMMUNICATION WITH YOURSELF, SECRETARY PERRY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >> I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE THOUGHT.>> THAT’S ALL I HAVE. >> I HAVE NOTHING MORE. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN ALLOW US TO YIELD TO ONE U OF OUR MEMBERS? >> THE HOUSE RULES DON’T PERMIT THAT, MR. NUNES. >> WE YIELD BACK.. >> I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES.OG I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING IN YOURAS OPENING STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE JULY 10 MEETING. YOU TESTIFIED, PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10 MEETING BETWEEN BOLTON ANDWE UKRAINIAN CHAIRMANF THEKR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. AS I REMEMBER, IT WAS OVER WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE A COMMENT ABOUTD INVESTIGATIONS. I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THE CONVERSATION DID NOT CONTINUE AND THE MEETING CONCLUDED.TITI AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WE ASKED ABOUT THAT AND YOU TOLD US NOTHING ABOUT THIS. I BELIEVE WE ASKED YOU ABOUTUT Y THE MEETING CAME TO AN END. WHY YOU HAD EARLIER INDICATED I THINK TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT IT DID NOT GO WELL AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THEY WERE IN THE WEEDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. >> THAT’S WHAT I REMEMBERED, WHAT I PROVIDED IN MY STATEMENT. AS I SAID, I LEARNED OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING SEEING THE STATEMENTS FROM FIONA HILL AND THAT REMINDED ME THAT, YES, AT THE VERY END OF THE MEETING, AS IT WAS RECOUNTED IN VINMAN’S STATEMENT, I DID REMEMBER THAT.YES, THAT’S RIGHT, GORDON DID BRING THAT UP AND THAT WAS IT. >> AT THE TIME WE DEPOSED YOU FOR SIX OR SEVEN OR EIGHT HOURS AND WE WERE ASKING YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU DIDN’T REMEMBER GORDON SONDLAND HAD BROUGHT THIS UP IN A JULY 10th MEETING WITH UKRAINIANS AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON CALLED AN END TO THE MEETING? AMBASSADOR BOLTON DESCRIBED THAT AS SOME DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND AND MULVANEY COOKED UP.YOU HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT? >> IN TERMS OF GORDON BRINGING IT UP, NO, I DID NOT REMEMBER THAT AT THE TIME OF MY OCTOBER 3 TESTIMONY. I READ THE ACCOUNT BY ALEX. THAT JOGGEDAD MY MEMORY. YES, THAT DID HAPPEN. I DID NOT RECALL IT BEING AN ABRUPT END. THE MEETING WAS ESSENTIALLY OVER AND WE GOT UP, WE WENT OUT TO THE LITTLE CIRCLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. WE TOOK A FEDERAL. IT DID NOT STRIKE ME AS ABRUPT. >> AMBASSADOR, YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. IF AS YOU SAY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ONLY MENTIONED INVESTIGATIONS IN BOLTON MEETING AND YOU DON’T RECALL HIM BEING MORE SPECIFIC, ALTHOUGH OTHERS HAVE TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS IN THE WAR ROOM, WHY DID YOU THINK IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE? >> I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING OF AN EYE ROLL MOMENT WHERE YOU HAVE A MEETING, YOU ARE TRYING TO ADVANCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP.WE HAVE THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND N DEFENSE COUNCIL. IT WAS A DISAPPOINTING MEETING. I DON’T THINK THE UKRAINIANS GOT AS MUCH OUTKR OF THAT IN TERMS THEIR PRESENTATION AS THEY COULD HAVE. THEN THIS COMES UP AT THE VERY END OF THE MEETING. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT. >> YOU HAVE SAID YOU THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE UKRAINIANS TO DO INVESTIGATIONS OF 2016 AND BURISMA AS LONG AS IT DIDN’T MEAN THE BIDENS, SOMETHING YOU HAVE NOW D — I UNDERSTAND YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE. BUT IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE, WHY ARE YOU SAYING TODAY THAT ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE? >> BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE PLACE OR THE TIME TO BRING UP THAT.THIS WAS A MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL, FIRST HIGH LEVEL MEETING WE ARE HAVING BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S ELECTION.ND >> IS PART OF THE REASON IT’S INAPPROPRIATE ALSO THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UPRI IN THE CONTEXT OF TRYING TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING? >> POSSIBLY. ALTHOUGH, I DON’T RECALL THAT BEING — I KNOW THIS WAS THE COUNSEL’S QUESTION. I DON’T REMEMBER THE EXACT CONTEXT OF WHEN THAT CAME UP. I VIEWED THE MEETING AS HAVING ENDED. >> I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR UPDATED TESTIMONY THAT YOU THINK IT’S OBJECTIONABLE TO SPEAK TO GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL. AM I RIGHT? >> TO INVESTIGATE THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SOMEONE WHO-P IS A U.S. OFFICIAL. >> YOU RECOGNIZED WHEN YOU DID SEE THE CALL RECORD, THAT’S WHAT TOOK PLACE? >> THAT’S CORRECT.>> MR. MORRISON, AMBASSADOR VOLKER THINKS IT’S INAPPROPRIATE TO ASK THE FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. PERSON, LET U ALONE A POLITICAL RIVAL, T YOU SAID YOU HAD NO CONCERN WITH THAT. DO YOU THINK THAT’S APPROPRIATE? >> AS HYPOTHETICAL, I DO NOT. >> I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT HYPOTHETICAL. I READ THE TRANSCRIPT. IN THAT TRANSCRIPT, DOES THE PRESIDENT NOT ASK ZELENSKY TO LOOK INTO THE BIDENS? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I WAS THINKING AT THE TIME. THAT IS NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT TO BE DOING. >> 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.>> I THINK YOU SAID THAT YOUR CONCERN WAS NOT THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL BUT THAT IT MIGHT LEAK. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE PROBLEM WITH LEAKING IS THAT WHAT WOULD BE LEAKING IS A PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE TO INVESTIGATE MR. BIDEN. ISN’T THAT THE PROBLEM? >> I BELIEVE I STATED I HAD THREE I 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.I WOULD STILL HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT IT LEAKING. >> WOULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE IF PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE JOHN KASICH OR NANCY PELOSI OR TO INVESTIGATE AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >> IN THE HYPOTHETICAL CASES, NO, NOT APPROPRIATE. >> BUT YOU ARE NOT SURE ABOUT JOEOT BIDEN? >> AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME. WHY I ACTED THE WAY I DID AT THE TIME.CT >> FINALLY, MY COLLEAGUES ASKED ABOUT,ED WELL, DOESN’T AID GET HELD UP FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS? AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU HAVE SEEN MILITARY AID HELD UP BECAUSE A PRESIDENT WANTED HIS RIVAL INVESTIGATED? >> I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. >> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT MR. WILLIAMS? MR. MORRISON, I’M SORRY. >> NO. >> IOR YIELD. >> YOU TOOK TWO ADDITIONAL MINUTES. ARE YOU GIVING OUR SIDE SEVEN MINUTES? >> OF COURSE. >> I RECOGNIZE MR. TURNER. >> THANK YOU. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR SERVICE IN GOVERNMENT. OUR COUNTRY IS SAFER TODAY BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF BOTH OF YOU MEN. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT DURING ALL THE TESTIMONY, 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 A HIGH DEGREE OF ETHICAL STANDARDS. AMBASSADOR VOLKER I APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENTS OF YOUR WORK TO FOCUS ON T RUSSIA AS AN INVASIO OF UKRAINE AND OCCUPATION AND YOUR WORK ON LEGAL DEFENIVE ARMS.THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE JAVELINS? >> THAT’S RIGHT. >> THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE? >> A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. >> MR. MORRISON, TELL US ABOUT YOUR MILITARY SERVICE. >> MR. TURNER, I’M A U.S. NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER..S I’M AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. >> WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW SCHOOL? >> GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY. >> GENTLEMEN, THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK UP THE PACE. THESE ARE SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEY HEARD AND THEIR UNDERSTANDINGS AND THEIR THOUGHTSY .UN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, MR. KENT, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER. THIS IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO THESE PEOPLE TALKING AND THEIR FEELINGS AND THEIR THOUGHTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS, IT 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 ARE ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE IN THE OPEN TESTIMONY THAT’S HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH.I GET TO ASK YOU, YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU BELIEVED THAT THE POLICY ISSUES THAT HE RAISED CONCERNING UKRAINE WERE VALID, CORRECT? >> YES.CE >> DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EVER SAY TO YOU THAT HE WAS NOTAY GOING TO ALLO AID TO GO TO THE UKRAINES UNLESS THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS? >> NO, HE DID NOT. >> DID THE UKRAINIANS EVER TELL YOU THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WOULD NOT GET A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MILITARY AID OR FOREIGN AID FROM THE UNITED STATES UNLESS THEY UNDERTOOK INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA,ED BI THE BIDENS OR THE ELECTION? >> THEY DID NOT. >> IF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT BELIEVE OROE INTENDED AND THE UKRAINIANS DON’T UNDERSTAND IT AND YOU ARE I THE ONLY ONE WHO STANDS IN BETWEEN THEM — AMBASSADOR, THE THREE AMIGO THING OR WHATEVER THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DISPARAGE YOU WITH, YOU ARE NOTOU PART OF AN IRREGUR CHANNEL, RIGHT? AREN’T YOU THE OFFICIAL CHANNEL? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> EXPLAIN THAT. EXPLAINAT HOW YOU ARE THE OFFICL CHANNEL. >> I WAS APPOINTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE, SECRETARY TILLERSON IN JULY OF 2017, TO BE THE U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS. THAT’S A ROLE THAT’S DIFFERENT FROM T ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE OR DIFFERENT FROM AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE.THAT ROLE IS FOCUSED ON THE DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES SURROUNDING THE EFFORTS TO REVERSE T RUSSIA’S INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF UKRAINE. IT IS MINSK IMPLEMENTATION, IT’S SUPPORT FROM NATO, IT’S SUPPORT FOR SANCTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, IT’S THE MONITORING MISSION, IT’S THE EFFORTS OF INDIVIDUAL ALLIES LIKE POLAND, THE UK, CANADA THAT ARE SUPPORTING UKRAINE. IT IS WORK AT A SENIOR LEVEL IN THE INTER-AGENCY. >> I’M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF THERE. YOU WERE ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO HAS F ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO GIULIANI, THE SO-CALLED IRREGULAR CHANNEL. ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAD FEELINGS AND UNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING. DID GIULIANI EVER TELL YOU THAT THE 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 HIM I TOOK TO BE HIS OPINION. >> I WOULD ASSUME THE UKRAINIAS NEVER TOLD YOU THAT GIULIANI TOLD THEM THAT IN ORDER TO GET A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, A PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT, MILITARY AID ORCA FOREIGN AID FM THE UNITED STATES THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THESE INVESTIGATIONS? >> NO. >> MR. MORRISON, YOU TESTIFIED YOU SPOKE TO M AMBASSADOR SONDLD AND HE TOLD YOU OF A CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ON PAGE 128 OF HIS TESTIMONY, HE RELATES THE CONTENT OF A CONVERSATION THAT HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT. HE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT. HE SAID, I — HE WAS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE WASS A QUI PRO QUO. HE SAID, I DIDN’T FRAME THE QUESTION BASICALLY TO THE PRESIDENT THAT WAY.I DID NOT FRAME THE QUESTION THAT WAY. I ASKED THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION, WHAT DO-E YOU WANT? MR. SONDLAND IN HIS TESTIMONY ASKING THIS QUESTION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THISEN IS WHAT HE REPORTS THE PRESIDENT, 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. THAT’S WHAT HE — HE KEPT REPEATING, NO QUID PRO QUO OVER AND OVER. DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE MR.N SONDLAND IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH AS THE CONTENT OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >>NI NO, CONGRESSMAN. >> DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WHO HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE EITHER IN THE SECRET TESTIMONY RELEASED OR IN THE OPEN TESTIMONY HAS PER JE PERJURED HIMSELF IN. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT..AV. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT.. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT.. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT.AVNKAVNKAV >> HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS MOVE FORWARD.SE DO YOU BELIEVE — HE 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 ASPIRING TO THE EU. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EU. IS THE UKRAINE IN THE AMBASSADOR IT’S PORTFOLIO? >> YES. ALSO BECAUSE EU SANCTIONS ON UKRAINE ARE IMPORTANT. >> MR. MORRISON? >> I AGREE. >> I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.YO PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DESCRIBED HIS JULY 25th PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AS, QUOTE, PERFECT. I THINK HE HAS DONE THAT ON TWITTER NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, BUT BY COUNT 11 TIMES. IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THIS CHARACTERIZATION OF PERFECT IS OF A PIECE WITH THE IDEA THAT WE HEAR IN DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS. THAT’S NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS PURSUING ANTI CORRUPTION. I’VE BEEN CONCERNED THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOING AFTER CORRUPTION, IT IS ABOUT AIMING CORRUPTION AT THE VICE-PRESIDENT. MR. MORRISON, YOU LISTENED IN ON THE CALL IN THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM.DID YOUU HEAR THE PRESIDENT MENTION THE COMPANY CROWDSTRIKE AND THE SERVER? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR. >>, DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUM MENTION THE BIDENS? >> YES, SIR. >> DID YOU HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE LENGTH OF THAT PHONE CALL USE THE WORD CORRUPTION? >> NO — WELL, SIR, I DON’T BELIEVE HE DID. >> WAS THE REQUEST THAT UKRAINE INVESTIGATE U CROWDSTRIKE AND T 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 AWAYTO FROM WHAT YOU DESCRIBED THIS, QUOTE, BUCKET OF INVESTIGATIONS. WHY DID YOU WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THOSE ISSUES? >> THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ADVISED BY DR. HILL. I >> YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT’S CALL WAS NOT, AND I’M QUOTING YOU, 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, THE COLONEL, OTHERS, WHAT WE PREPARED IN THE PACKAGE WE PROVIDED THE PRESIDENT WAS BACKGROUND ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, BACKGROUND ON HIS POSITIONS ABOUTIS REFORMING UKRAINE, FOREFORMING ITS INSTITUTIONS, ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION. WE WERE HOPINGT — WE RECOMMEND THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY SUPPORT WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RUN ON HIS OWN ELECTION AND WHAT HIS PARTY HAD RUN ON IN ITS ELECTION WHERE IT RECEIVED A MAJORITY MANDATE. >> THAT DIDN’T COME UP IN THE CALL, DID IT? >> NO, SIR. YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT 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 U.N.GENERAL ASSEMBLY.CE I HESITATE TO SAY DID HE EVER RAISE IT. HE DID NOT RAISE IT AT THE TIME OF THE 25 JULY PHONE CALL. >> OKAY. T SWITCHING A LITTLE BIT. YOU STRIKE ME AS A PROCESS GUY. IT’S NAGGING AT ME BECAUSE YOU CHARACTERIZED THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LINKING IN WHATEVER WAY IT HAPPENED OF AID TO AN INVESTIGATION AS THE GORDON PROBLEM. YOU SAID IT CAUSED YOU TO ROLL YOUR EYES. T AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID EVERYBODY THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. JOHN BOLTON CHARACTERIZED IT AS THE DRUG DEAL. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE’S A HUGE PROBLEM HERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WOULD BE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN YOU HAVEL AN AMBASSADOR OUT THERE GOING ROGUE AS APPARENTLY THERE WAS CONSENSUS THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS DOING, THAT NOBODY MIGHT REIGN THEM IN. WHY DIDN’T THAT HAPPEN? >> SIR, I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. I WOULD AGREE THAT AMBASSADORS WORK FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE PRESIDENT.D >> DO YOU HAVE — YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA — YOU WORKED FOR HIM. YOU DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHY JOHN BOLTON WOULD CHARACTERIZE WHAT THE AMBASSADOR WAS DOING AS A DRUG DEAL BUT NOT REIGN HIM IN. >> AMBASSADORS DON’T WORK FOR THE NATIONAL’T SECURITY ADVISER. >> BUT HE SPENDS TIME WITH THE SECRETARY OFS STATE. I’M PUZZLED THAT EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM IS CHARACTERIZING THIS AS A GORDON PROBLEM OR INAPPROPRIATE OR 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 CALL. YOU TESTIFIED ASKING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO THIS, YOU CAN SEE IT HAPPENS, THIS BECOMES EXPLOSIVE IN OUR POLITICS. YOU CALLED OPPORTUNITY ACCEPTABLE. WHAT’S SPECIFICALLY IN THAT CALL TO THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT DO YOU FIND UNACCESSIBLE OR TROUBLING? >> IT’S THE REFERENCE TO VICE-PRESIDENT BIDEN. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> THANK YOU. THIS MORNING WE HEARD ABOUT JULY 25. THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR A FAVOR. THAT EQUIVALENT TO A DEMAND, AN ORDER, A REQUIREMENT. AND YET IN THE LAST PART OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TWO HEADS OF STATE, PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT A PROSECUTOR HE IS IN FAVOR OF AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAY THERE.ZELENSKY SAYS, MR. PRESIDENT, NO, SINCE WE WON THE MAJORITY IN OUR PARLIAMENT, THE NEXT WILL BE MY PERSON, MY CANDIDATE. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A HEAD OF STATE WHO HAS BEEN COWED ORHA BULLIED AND IS UNDER THE THUMB OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> NOT AT ALL. >> NO, SIR.IT >> THE IMPACT OF THE PAUSE THAT OCCURRED — 55-DAY PAUSE IN THE ASSISTANCE, NONE OF US UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME FRAME. O NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT OTHER THAN INTERNAL U.S.FOLKS UNTIL LATE AUGUST. THE RUSSIANS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT. THUTE POTENTIAL IMPACT THAT I AGREE WITH RUSSIA’S INTERPRETATION OF OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WASN’T KNOWN UNTIL THE LAST 14 DAYS. THE IMPACT ON THE AID THAT THEY HAD, SHOULD RUSSIA HAVE TRIED TO MOVE THE LINE OF CONTACT FURTHER WEST WITH THEIR TANKS, WOULD THE LETHAL ASSISTANCE WE GIVE THEM BEENHE AVAILABLE TO THEM TO PUS BAN OF COURSE THAT? >> YES IT WOULD. >> MR. MORRISON? >> I AGREE WITH THAT. I WOULD ADD THE HOLD AS I UNDERSTOOD IT APPLIED TO UKRAINE’S SECURITY SYSTEMS, UASI. IT DID NOT APPLY TO FMS. THE JAVELINS WERE PROVIDED UNDER FMS.ER >> THE MOST LETHAL WEAPON THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM SHOULD THE S RUSSIANS HAVE PUSHED THEIR TANKS WEST? >> YES, SIR. >> EVEN WITH THE PAUSE. EVEN WITH ALL THE STUFF GOING ON. >> YES, SIR. AFF >> “ASSOCIATED PRESS” IS REPORTING THAT THE RUSSIANS IN AN ACT OF WAR TOOK TWO GUNSHIPS AND 24 SAILORS. THEY ARE REPORTING TODAY THAT THE — THEY HAVE GIVEN THE GUNBOATS BACK.DOES THAT SOUND LIKE UKRAINE SIN IS INEPT? >> NO.O. I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THEY — THE UKRAINES ARE INEPT.NEPT? >> NO. I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THEY — THE UKRAINES ARE INEPT. >> I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU OR ONE OF YOUR LAWYERS MEMBERS TO PUT INTO THE RECORD THE FEDERAL STATUTE THAT PROVIDES FOR THE SALUTE IMMUNITY — RIGHT TO IMMUNITY THAT YOU EXERTED OVER AND OVER AND OVER. I DON’T THINK IT’S THERE. IF IT IS A FEDERAL STATUTE AND/OR A BRIEF THAT YOU CAN CITE, PUT THAT INTO THE RECORD SO THAT WE WILL KNOW THAT. BEFORE YOU GET MAD AND ACCUSE ME OF WANTING TO OUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, YOU GET UPSET EVERY TIME SOMEBODY ACCUSES YOU OF KNOWING WHO THE MISSILE BLOW WHISTLE-BLOWER NONOIS. I GET UPSET EVERY TIME YOU ACCUSE ME — BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW THESE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND W WANT TO KNOWST WHAT’S GOING ON,E WANT TO OUT THAT INTERVIEWER.IT’S UNFAIR. THIS IS ABOUT LEVELIN THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE TWO TEAMS. YOU KNOW WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS. IT’S LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT YOU PUT IN THE RECORD THE BASIS ON WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO ASSERT THIS ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ANONYMITY. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. THE SPEAKER, ON SEPTEMBER 23, ISSUED — YOUR LEAGUE, THAT’S A DOCUMENT THAT WE USED TO TALK TO EACH OTHER. IT’S WITH 434 OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. IT WAS INTENDED TO BE THE TRUTH.IT WAS INTENDED TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD. SHE SAID IN THAT — YOUR LEAGUE THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS, BY LAW, IS REQUIRED TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. YOU ARE DEFYING THE SPEAKER IN THIS RECORD. I UNDERSTAND THAT’S BETWEEN YOU AND HER. IF SHE’S CORRECT, THEN YOU ARE DEFYING THE LAW. IF ON THE OTHER HAND, SHE MISLED US INTO THINKING SOMETHING NOT TRUE, THEN I THINK YOU NEED TO TELL THE SPEAKER SHEEE NEEDS TO RETRACT THAT LETTER. SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. IF THE SPEAKER IS — IS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER REQUIRED TO TESTIFY TO US OR NOT?IS WHAT IS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ANONYMITY THAT SHE QUESTIONED? I YIELD BACK. >> TIME HAS EXPIRED. I WILL PUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER STATUTE INTO THE RECORD AS WELL AS THE PRIOR COMMENTS TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ANONYMITY OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS. I RECOGNIZE MISS SEWELL. >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IT SEEMS BY EARLY JULY IT HAS BECOME CLEAR THAT MR. GIULIANI IS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE RELATIONS. YOU PREVIOUSLYOB TESTIFIED THATN JULY 2, YOU MET WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT AND HIS AIDE IN TORONTO. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I HAD A BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN THEER U.S. AND UKRAINE DELEGATION. >> THERE YOU DISCUSSED MR. GIULIANI’S, QUOTE, NEGATIVE VIEW, QUOTE, OF UKRAINE BASED ON AAS CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION.RIGHT? >> I CONVEYED16 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, 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 — >> THEIV PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF UKRAINE WAS PUTTING OUT THIS THEORY OF CONSPIRACY THAT I BELIEVE WERET SELF-SERVING AND INACCURATE.MR. GIULIANI HAD REPEATED THESE TO ME. SO I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS AFFECTED BY THOSES AND BELIEVED THOSE AND — >> BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE? >> BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE AND WAS CONVEYING THEM TO THE PRESIDENT. >> WAS IT PROBLEMATIC HE BELIEVED THEY WERE NEGATIVE? >> YES. THE WHOLE THING WAS PROBLEMATIC. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT ON JULYFI 2, YOU TOLD UKRAINIANS THEY NEEDED TO, QUOTE, COOPERATE ON INVESTIGATIONS, END QUOTE. YOU ARE NOW SAYING YOU DON’T RECALL THAT — SAYING THOSE WORDS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON’T BELIEVE I SAID THE WORDS COOPERATE ON INVESTIGATIONS. >> DID YOU SAY INVESTIGATIONS? >> I BELIEVE I DID, YES. >> WHAT DID YOUDI MEAN BY INVESTIGATIONS? >> I MEANTNT BURISMA AND 2016 W THIS MY MIND. I WANTED TO KEEP IT GENERAL. UKRAINE, BEING CONVINCING TO GIULIANI AND HOPEFULLY TO THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY ARE SERIOUS BY S FIGHTING CORRUPTION WOULD ENGAGE IN WHATEVERD INVESTIGATIONS NECESSARY TO CLEAN UP THE COUNTRY.>> MOVING TO JULY 10, AMBASSADOR VOLKER SENT YOU A TEXT. YOU SENT A TEXT MESSAGE TO GIULIANI. I THINK IT’S ON THE SCREEN NOW. YOU SAID, MR. MAYOR, COULD WE MEET FOR COFFEE OR LUNCH IN THE NEXT WEEK ORN SO? I WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE YOU ON MY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT UKRAINE. I WOULD LIKE — I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET WHAT YOU NEED.PP DID YOU SAY THAT? IS THAT — >> THAT’S AN ACCURATE TEXT MESSAGE.>> WHAT DID YOU MEAN? > CONTACT WITH THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE, THE PEOPLE NOW REPRESENTING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM. >> LATER THAT DAY YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MET WITH UKRAINE OFFICIALS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HEARD FROM SEVERAL WITNESSES THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD THE UKRAINES THAT THEY NEEDED TO COOPERATE WITH THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE, INVESTIGATIONS IN ORDER TO GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING. WERE THESE INVESTIGATIONS A PART OF THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE? >> U.S. POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE WAS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION. >> WAS IT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THESE KINDS OF INVESTIGATIONS? YOU SAID THE INVESTIGATION WAS BURISMA — >> INSM ORDER TO FIGHT CORRUPTI, YOU NEED TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS. YOU NEED TO SEE WHATAT UKRAINIA CITIZENS HAVE BEEN UP TO. >> WAS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT? WAS ITTH BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT YOU KNEW — THE PRESIDENT WANTED THOSE INVESTIGATIONS TO BE DONE AS A CONDITION OF — FOR THEM TV HAVE A MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE? >> WELL, FIRST OFF, WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR WHAT H WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATIONS. WE’RE NOTT TALKING ABOUT VICE-PRESIDENT KIBIDEN.WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT — >> BURISMA HAS NOTHING TO — >> I’M SAYING WHETHER YOU UKRAINIANS WITHIN THE COMPANY HAD ACTED IN A CORRUPT WAY OR THOUGHT TO BUY INFLUENCE, THAT’S LEGITIMATE TO INVESTIGATE. IF UKRAINE CAN MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THEIR INTENTIONS ON FIGHTING CORRUPTION DOMESTICALLY, THAT’S HELPFUL IN ORDER TOFI CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THIS IS — >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE HEARD FROM TWO WITNESSES THIS MORNING THAT THOSENE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.NS AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GETTING YOURSELF INTO.SITTING HERE TODAY, I TRUST YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PRESSURING UKRAINE TO INVOLVE ITSELF IN U.S. DOMESTIC POLICY IS SIMPLY WRONG. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.D >> I YIELD MY TIME TO JIM JORDAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMEN. YOU WERE THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO PEUKRAINE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> PRIOR TO THAT, YOU WORKED AT THE WNFC. YOU WERE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE.SENATE CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR TO NATO. AND YOUR DIPLOMATIC CAREER. IT MAY NOT BOTHER YOU, WHEN YOU REFER TO THE IRREGULAR CHANNEL, BUT IT BOTHERS REPRESENTATIVE TURNER AND ME. YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU WERE THE ADMINISTRATION’S MOST OUTSPOKEN PUBLIC FIGURE HIGHLIGHTS RUSSIA’S INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF UKRAINE AND CALLING OUT RUSSIA’S RESPONSIBILITY IN THE WAR. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IN THAT CAPACITY, YOU STRONGLY Y ADVOCATING FOR LIFTI THE BAN OF LETHAL DEFENSE TO UKRAINE. >> CORRECT. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL SKEPTICAL OF GIVING TAX DOLLARS TO UKRAINE? >> YES. >> YOU SAIDD THAT IN YOUR TESTIMONY. THE REASON IS THE GUY DOESN’T LIKE FOREIGN AID. >> THAT’S ONE REASON.UKRAINE’S HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IS ORANOTHER. >> THEHE THIRD MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. EUROPE ISN’T DOING ENOUGH. BY THE NGWAY, IN THE PRESIDENT’ MIND, HE DID THINK UKRAINE WAS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION.NG BECAUSE THINGS HAPPENED. DEMOCRATS WANT TO DENY IT. WHEN THE AMBASSADOR WRITES AN OP-ED CRITICIZING CANDIDATE TRUMP, THAT’S TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION. WHEN A KEY MINISTER IN THEIR GOVERNMENT SAYS NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE TRUMP, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT’S TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE CAMPAIGN. WHEN THEY SAY THEY WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO WIN, THAT PROBABLY STICKS IN A CANDIDATE’S MIND. WE RUN CAMPAIGNS. PEOPLE SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT US. WE DON’T NECESSARILY THINK GREAT THINGS ABOUT THEM. YOU WERE CONVINCED ZELENSKY WAS THE REAL DEAL. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE GUY. GUESS WHAT? WHEN AID WAS FROZEN, YOU KNEW IF YOU COULD GET THESE TWO IT WOULD WORK OUT. WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU TOLD THE UKRAINIANS, DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT.YOU SAID, DON’T BE ALARMED. >> YEAH. >> GUESS WHAT HAPPENED. WHEN AID IS FROZEN AND WHETHER IT’S A RELEASED, ALL INTERACTIO BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SENIOR U.S.ND OFFICIALS, RIGHT? STARTS WITH THE CALL. STARTS WITH THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.H NEXT DAY YOU MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN UKRAINE. THEN WE HAVE AMBASSADOR BOLTON MEETING WITH HIM. THEN VICE-PRESIDENT PENCE MEETING WITH HIM. THEN WE HAVE US SENATORS JOHNSON AND MURPHY MEETING WITH HIM. GUESS WHAT? IN NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, NOT A SINGLE ONE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS IN EXCHANGE FOR AN INVESTIGATION, NOT ONCE DID THEY COME UP. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> NOT ONCE. NO DISCUSSION OF AID FOR INVESTIGATIONS.IS AS YOU TESTIFIED, YOU NEVER BELIEVED AID FOR INVESTIGATIONS WAS EVER BEING TALKED ABOUT. IN ANY OF THESE CONVERSATIONS. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE MEETINGS? THEY BECAME CONVINCED OF THE SAME THING YOU KNEW.THEY ALL SAW THE SAME DARN THING. THIS GUY WAS THE REAL DEAL. HE IS A LEGITIMATE REFORMER. THEY ALL CAME BACK AND TOLD THE PRESIDENT. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS GUY IS REAL. GO AHEAD AND RELEASE THE DOLLARS. BY THE WAY IN THE SAME TIME FRAME, S YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE HAPPENED? THEIR PARLIAMENT, AS MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED TO, TO PASS REFORMS MEASURES, TO PUT IN THE SUPREME ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT, TO GET RID OF THISAN ABILITY TH NO ONE IN THEIR CONGRESS AND THEIRES PARLIAMENT COULD BE HIT WITH A CRIME. THAT’S UNBELIEVABLE. ALL THAT HAPPENED AND THEY COME BACK AND TELL PRESIDENT TRUMP, GUESS WHAT, TIME TO RELEASE THE DOLLARS. AND HE DID IT. >> THE DOLLARS WERE RELEASED. >> HE DID THE JOB. YOU DID YOUR JOB. YOU GOTTA PUT UP WITH THIS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE OUT TO GET THIS PRESIDENT. YOU DID YOUR JOB THE WAY MR. TURNER DESCRIBED YOU DID YOUR JOB OVER ALLID THESE YEARS.ALL THESE YEARS. THE DEMOCRATS PUT YOU THROUGH THIS. YOU HAVE SERVED OUR COUNTRY WELL.GH THE KIND OF DIPLOMAT WE WANT SERVING. HERE IS THE SADDEST — ONE OF THE SADDEST THINGS ABOUT ALL THIS, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING US THROUGH. YOU TWOO GUYS WHO ARE HERE TELLING IT STRAIGHT, YOU BOTH DECIDED YOU ARE GOING TO STEP OUT OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING.OF THAT’S THE SAD THING. PEOPLE LIKE AMBASSADOR VOLKER ARE STEPPING OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING.THAT’S WHY MR. TURNER GOT FIRED UP AND WHY I’M FIRED UP. WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DID. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE PRESS STATEMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUDY GIULIANI WANTED UKRAINE TO MAKE. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND YOU HAD THIS EXCHANGE. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS, MORRISON, READY TO GET DATES AS SOON AS YOUR MAN CONFIRMS. YOU REPLY, EXCELLENT. HOW DID YOU SWAY HIM? AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAYS, NOT SURE I DID. I THINK POTUS REALLY WANTS DELIVERABLE. THE DELIVERABLE WAS A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT THATUB UKRAINE WAS GOING TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND ALLEGED 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY UKRAINE.IS THAT CORRECT? >> THANK YOU. I UNDERSTOOD THE DELIVERABLE TO BE THE STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. >> ON AUGUST 13, YOU AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DISCUSSED A STATEMENT WITH MR. GIULIANI. WHY? >> BECAUSE THE IDEA THE STATEMENT HAD COME UP FROM THE MEETING WITH MR. GIULIANI. HE ASKED ME TO CONNECT HIM WITH MR. GIULIANI. I DID. THEY HAD A MEETING. THEY BOTH CALLED ME AFTERWARDS. MR. GIULIANI SAID HE THOUGHT UKRAINE SHOULD MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION.SH HE SAID, WE WILL SAY ALSO BURISMA. HE PROVIDED A DRAFT STATEMENT. I WANTED TO BE ASSURED THAT THIS STATEMENT WOULD ACTUALLY CORRECT THE PERCEPTION THAT MR.GIULIANI HAD GIULIANI HAD OF UKRAINE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR NOW SO THAT WOULD BE CONVEYED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SOLVE THIS PROBLEM THAT I HAVE OBSERVED WITH OURBL MAY 23 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT. THE PROBLEM BEING THAT HE’S GETTING A BAD SET OF INFORMATION, AF STATEMENT LIKE THIS COULD CORRECT THAT. >> WAS MR. GIULIANI SATISFIED WITH THE STATEMENT? >> NO, HE WAS NOT. >> WHY NOT? >> HE BELIEVED THAT IT NEEDED TO SAY BURISMA AND 2016 SPECIFICALLY OR ELSE IT WOULD NOTR BE CREDIBLE, WOULD NOT ME ANYTHING. >> SO, IN FACT, MR. GIULIANI WANTED A STATEMENT THAT REFERENCED BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTIONS EXPLICITLY THAT WOULD BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP. MR. AMBASSADOR, HERE IS THE TEXT YOU SENT TO THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL ON ALL 13. YOU SAID, HI, ANDRIY, GOOD TALKING. FOLLOWING IS A TEXT WITH AN INSERT AT THE END FOR THE TWO KEY ITEMS. MR. AMBASSADOR, THOSE TWO KEY ITEMS WERE REFERENCES TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA, ISN’T THAT RIGHT, SIR? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DID MR. GIULIANIITEMS TO YOU? >> I DESCRIBED THE CONVERSATION WE HAD JUST HAD WITH MR. GIULIANI. MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT IT WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE THESE THINGS TO BE CONVINCING TO HIM. I I PUT THEM IN SO WE COULD UNDERSTOOD AND I SHARED WITH ANDRIY TO SAY THIS IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. >> YOUOU INCLUDED THEM IN THE PROPOSAL TO THE UKRAINIANS? >> I PUT IT BACK IN TO BE CLEAR TO THE UKRAINIAN THIS IS IS WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS. >> MR. AMBASSADOR, IF YOU BELIEVEAM THE STATEMENT MR. GIULIANI DICTATED IN AUGUST WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA, SIR, WHY WERE THE UKRAINIANS CONSIDERING GIVING AN INTERVIEW WITH THE SAME THINGS INW SEPTEMBER? >> IFPT I MAY, CONGRESSMAN, I CONVEYEDN, THIS TO THE UKRAINIA TO BE CLEAR SO WE KNEW WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT, A FOLLOW-UP. THE UKRAINIANS SAID THEY HAD REASON NOT TOS DO THAT AND THEY DESCRIBED THE REASONS. I AGREED WITH THEM AND WE AGREED TO SCRAP THE STATEMENT. FROM THAT POINT ON I HAD NO FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THID STATEMENT. I DON’T KNOW HOW IT CAME UP OR WHY IT CAME UP THAT THERE WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DOING ANDE INTERVIEW WH U.S. MEDIA LATER SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND IN THE END HE DIDN’T DO THAT EITHER. >> THANK YOU, SIR. MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST DURING THE JULY 25th CALL WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY. I EMPHATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU, SIR, YET THESE TEXT MESSAGES SHOW THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER SPENT MUCH OF AUGUST PRESSING UKRAINE TO MEET THOSE REQUESTS. WE CAN ONLY BE GRATEFUL, I GUESS,UL THAT THE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY GOT CAUGHT AND CONGRESS PASSED AIA LAW TO ENSU THE FUNDING WAS RELEASED TO UKRAINE BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. I WANTBE TO START WITH YOU, IF CAN, MR. MORRISON. INMO DISCUSSING THE 7/25 PHONE CALL AND THE CONCERNS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN HAD. HE CAME TO YOU WITH EDITS FOR THE TRANSCRIPT, AND YOU STATED YOU ACCEPTED ALL OF HIS EDITS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED ALL THE EDITS, I BELIEVE WERE FAITHFUL TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED.>> DID HE COME TO YOU WITH AN EDIT THATN SAID THE WORD DEMAND SHOULD BE IN THERE? >> I DON’T RECALL THAT SPECIFICALLY, SIR, NO. >> HE DIDN’T EITHER. HOW SOON AFTER THE PHONE CALL DID HE MEET WITH YOU ON THAT PARTICULARN ISSUE? >> WE GOT THE DRAFT AS WAS NORMAL FAIRLY QUICKLY AFTER THE CALL. A THAT SAME DAY. >> THAT SAME DAY. TODAY HE SAID I REPORTED MY CONCERNS TO MR.Y EISENBERG. IT IS IMPROPER THE U.S. PRESIDENT DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO AEMN OPPONEN. HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONVERSATION, YET HE DID NOT AT ANY POINT ON THE EDIT SAY THERE SHOULD BEAY A DEMAND AND HE DIDT DO THAT BUT HE DID SAY THAT HE DIDN’T COME TO YOU WITH HIS CONCERNS BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T AVAILABLE BUT THAT SAME DAY HE CAME TO YOU WITH EDITS.HA IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.>> HE SAID YOU WEREN’T AVAILABLE AND YOU DIDN’T HEAR THE PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND, DID YOU? >>D NO, SIR. >> SOME TIME BETWEEN THE CALL AND TODAY, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN MUST HAVE BEEN HEARING VOICES, AND HE HEARD DEMANDS. HE DIDN’T HEAR IT THAT DAY AND DIDN’T MAKE ITAY AN ISSUE THAT Y BUT TODAY HE DOES. I THINK THAT’S PRETTY BIZARRE. WHEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WENT TO LEGAL, MR. EISENBERG, DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED NOT TODV SPEAK TO YOU? >> I DON’T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, NO, SIR.>> DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS ADVISED TO CONTACT ANYONE? >> I HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. >> YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS ADVISED WHEN HE WENT TO LEGAL? >> NO, SIR, I DO NOT. >> THANK YOU. D I APPRECIATE THAT. MR. VOLKER, I WANT TO TELL YOU, I ENJOYED YOUR OPENING TESTIMONY TODAY, TAKING US THROUGH THAT. I KNOW IT WAS KIND OF LONG BUT WASON EXTREMELY WELL DONE, LETT SIGNED AND CONCERNS ABOUT LEADERSHIP IN YOUR ASSIGNED COUNTRY, AGREEING WITH AND SOMETIMES DISAGREEING WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF YOURHE OWN COUNTR WHEN YOU FELT WAS APPROPRIATE. YOU’RE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND. PART OF THE TEAM THAT IS THERE TO SERVE THE COUNTRY AND IN THAT WAY. THAT TO ME SOUNDED LIKE THE WORKS OF A VERY GOOD DIPLOMAT AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT IS TRULY APPRECIATE. F CORRUPTION WAS A CONCERN, LEGITIMATELY,UKRAINE. POINTED OUT SOME OF THE THINGS DONE BUT UKRAINIANS IN PLAIN SIGHT, I MIGHT USE THAT TERM, BY PUTTING OP-EDS IN OUR NEWSPAPERS, AND CERTAINLY MOREPE THAN ONE COUNT CAN BE TRYING TO INFLUENCE OUR ELENGTHSES, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> I WOULD.>> WE HEAR THE WHOLE THING ABOUA UKRAINIANS. IT WAS DEBUNKED. THAT COMES FROM AN IC COMMUNITY THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE COME UP WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE SOME OFNS THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WE WI FIND OUT, IF WE HAVEN’T ALREADY, WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH THIS WHOLE RUSSIAN COLLUSION HOAX. YOU DID A GREAT JOB, YOU VETTED ZELENSKY’S INTENTIONS, WHAT HE INTENDED TO BE AS A PRESIDENT. WOULD YOU SAY THAT’S ACCURATE? >> YES, THAT WAS, IN FACT, ONE OF THE KEY, TO TAKE OUR JUDGMENT AND REPORT BACK TO THE PRESIDENT.>> AND THAT’S WHAT YOUR JOB SHOULD BE. AND YOU BECAME COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PRESIDENT, CORRECT? >> YES, I DID. >> YOU WORKED TO ASSURE OUR PRESIDENT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND IN SOME WAYS YOU HAVE TO WORK SOMETIMES THROUGH ANY MEANS AVAILABLE AND THAT MIGHT INCLUDE WORKING WITH RUDY GIULIANI IF HE COULD BE HELPFUL TO GET THAT MESSAGE AND ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT, DIRECT? >> I BELIEVE THE MESSAGES WERE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY WERE — THEY WERE AT VARIANCE WITH WHAT OUR OFFICIAL MESSAGE TO THE PRESIDENT WAS. O AND SO I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO STEP IN AND FIX THE PROBLEM. >> YOU TERMED A USEFUL BAROMETER OF WHAT THINGS WERE.>> IF THEY CAN HELP THE CAUSE AND IN THAT SITUATION IT’S NOT ILLEGAL. THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION HERE TODAY AND FOR YOUR SERVICE. I WANT TO TAKE US OUT SOME 30,000 FEET FOR A MINUTE AND TALK ABOUT COVER-UPS. BUT FOR THE FACT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER CAME FORWARD, WE WOULDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.DN BUT FOR THE FACT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE CIA FOUND IT TO BE BOTH URGENT AND CREDIBLE, WE WOULDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. MR. MORRISON, YOU SAID THAT AFTER YOU HEARD THE CALL YOU WENT TO C THE ATTORNEY AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND RECOMMENDED THAT THEY BE LIMITED ACCESS AND WERE PUT INTO A SPECIAL SERVINGER.THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT RELEASED ANY DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER TO THIS COMMITTEE.UM MR. VOLKER, THANK YOU. BUT FOR T THE FACT YOU AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL PHONE AND YOUR TEXT MESSAGES WITH MR. GIULIANI, MR. SONDLAND AND MR. — WHOMEVER ELSE, BUT FOR THOSE TEXT MESSAGES WE’VE BEEN PUTTING UP ON THE SCREEN, WE WOULD HAVE NOTHING, NOTHING. PHE AND THIS COVER-UP WOULD BE COMPLETE. THAT’S SOMETHING WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT. NOW ON JULY 19 YOU HAD BREAKFAST WITH RUDY GIULIANI AT THE TRUMP HOTEL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND IN THAT CONVERSATION AT ONE POINT, WHATEVER WAS BEING SAID IS NOT CREDIBLE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THEN HE BROUGHT UP MR. BIDEN, AND I WILL QUOTE YOU HERE, I’VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME. HE’S 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.OR WE’VE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST FEWNS DAYS ABOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA AND BIDEN AND THE 2016 CROWD STRIKE SERVER AND YOU WITH MR.GIULIANI BASICALLY DEBUNKED ALL OF THAT. NOW AT THAT TIME, AT THAT BREAKFAST, WHO ELSE WAS WITH YOU AT THATIT BREAKFAST? >> THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT MR. GIULIANI BROUGHT ALONG. I LEARNED THIS WAS PERNOFF WE’VE LEARNED ABOUT. >> SO HE WAS AT THAT BREAKFAST THAT MR. GIULIANI HAD WITH YOU AND WE NOW KNOW HE HAS SINCE BEENAS INDICTED FOR CAMPAIGN — FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HAVE SEEN THAT. >> AT ONE POINT HE REFERRED TO ZELENSKY HAVING TERRIBLE PEOPLE AROUND HIM.EF WHO DID YOU THINK THAT WAS? >> A FORMER INVESTIGATOR JOURNALIST AND LATER A PARLIAMENTARIAN. HE IS SOMEONE THAT IN MANY OF THE STORIES IS SEEN AS BRINGING FORTH A BLACKLEDGER RELATING TO PAUL MANAFORT’S DUTIES IN UKRAINE. R THAT WAS ONE PERSON.THE OTHER WAS A PERSON BEING NAMED AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S CHIEF OF PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION WHO WAS KNOWN AS A LAWYER FOR ONE OF THE MAIN OLIGARCHS. >> DO YOU THINK OF THEM AS TERRIBLE PEOPLE? >> I DON’T THINK EITHER ONE IS, NO. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.U. DR MR. MORRISON, EARLIER IN TESTIMONY ELICITED FROM OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, YOU INDICATED THAT OTHERS HAD REPRESENTED TO YOU THAT COLONEL VINDMAN LEAKED. DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT? >> YES, MA’AM. >> ALL RIGHT. COLONEL VINDMAN THIS MORNING UNDER OATH SAID THAT HE DID NOT/DOES NOT LEAK. WOULD YOU, THEREFORE, WANT TO MAYBE REARRANGE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE REFERENCES YOU MADE ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN? >> NO, MA’AM. >> EVEN THOUGH UNDER OATH HE SAID HE HAS NEVER LEAKED, YOU BELIEVE IN PEOPLE WHO SAID TO YOU THAT HE MAY HAVE LEAKED? MA’AM, I DIDN’T BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE THEM.I’MEM BARELY RELATING WHAT THEY TOLD HAME. >> THEY TOLD ME AND SO YOU DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO PUT THAT FORWARD EVEN T THOUGH YOU HAD NO — >>AD NO, MA’AM. >> THANK NOYOU, I YIELD BACK. >> MA’AM, I’M SORRY. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ANSWER. NO, MA’AM. THAT’S INCORRECT. THEY, DR. HILL, OTHERS IN THE NSC RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ALEX. THOSE CONCERNS WERE NOTED. I DIDN’T TAKE THEM FOR FACE VALUE. I TREATED THEM AS REPRESENTATIONS OF AOTHERS. I WAS ON ALERT BUT I FORMED MY OWN ORJUDGMENT. I TOOK NO ACTION BECAUSE OF THE STATEMENTS OF SOMEONE ELSE THAT I COULDN’T NEEDILY VALIDATE.>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO IMPEACHAPALOOZA 2019, COMPELLING AMERICA TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP THROUGH BOREDOM BECAUSE IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY AND IT TURNS OUT IMPEACHMENT IS BORING IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANY COMPELLING ORE CONDEMNING EVIDENCE. GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS, AND THE GOOD NEWS IS I WILL BE VERY, VERY BRIEF. WE’RE GOING ON TEN PLUS HOURS OF THIS. I WILL YIELD BACK SOME OF MY TIME. THE BAD NEWMES IS MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES AFTER ME WON’T. WE STILL HAVE SOME TIME TO GO. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, VERY QUICKLY, DO YOU THINK THAT SOMEONE SHOULD BE IMMUNE FROM INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE EVEN FOR OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> I DON’T THINK ANYONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW.>> OF COURSE ON NOT. THAT WOULD BE ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT. I WAS CERTAIN THAT’S HOW YOU WOULD ANSWERN THE QUESTION. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ALLEGED ETHICAL OR CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS OCCURRED OVERSEAS, OCCURRED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, WOULD IT BE IMPROPER TO B SEEK THE HOST COUNTRY’S HELP SUCH AS WITH INTERPOL? >> THERE ARE CHANNELS FOR DOING THAT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES ABROAD. >> AGAIN, TO SEEK THE HOST NATION’S GOVERNMENT’S HELP IS NOT UNUSUAL? >> THAT IS CORRECT AND WE OFTEN HAVE TREATIES FOR THAT. >> THAT’S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS AND THE ONLY THING THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING HERE. MR. MORRISON, I WONDER, MR. VINDMAN DESCRIBED THE SIX PEOPLE, FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE, IN A SITUATION LISTENING TO THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS. COLONEL VINDMAN DESCRIBED THEM ASED EXCEPTIONAL. HE STATED THERE WAS NO REASON TO QUESTION THEIR INTEGRITY OR PROFESSIONALISM. THIS IS A DISCUSSION WE HAD IN CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THESE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF ASES EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE? >> THEY ARE PATRIOTS, YES.>> GREAT INTEGRITY AND PROFESSIONALISM? >> YES, SIR. >> DOO ANY OF THESE — I’M SORR, DID ANY OF THESE EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE OF UNQUESTIONED INTEGRITY AND PROFESSIONALISM, INDICATE THEY HAD THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ENGAGED IN ANY ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR AS A RESULT OF THE PHONE CALL? >> NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF, CONGRESSMAN. >> DID THEY SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED WITH BRIBY OR ANY SUCH THING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? >> NOT THAT I’M AWARE OF, CONGRESSMAN. >> IT ONLY LEAVES TWO EXPLANATIONS. THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE WHAT WE DESCRIBED AS WITH GREAT INTEGRITY, EITHER THAT’S NOT TRUE, WHICH I DON’T BELIEVE, OR THEY JUST INTERPRETED AN AMBIGUOUS CONVERSATION DIFFERENTLY THANER DID COLONEL VINDMAN. AND AS AN ASIDE AS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER I NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WASHY AGAINST PROVIDING LETHAL AID. DO YOU HAVE INSIGHT INTO WHY THEY REFUSED TO DO THAT? >> I WOULD ONLY POINT TO STATEMENTS MADE AT THE TIME, PERCEPTIONS GERMANY WOULD OPPOSE IT, THAT GERMANY SHOULD BE IN THE LEAD.THERE WAS A PERCEPTION IT COULD BE PROVOCATIVE TO RUSSIA OR ESCALATE THE CONFLICT. T AS A SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE I DON’T AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS. >> I AGREE. I THINK YOU AND PRESIDENT TRUMP GOT IT RIGHT. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.NT >> MR. QUIGLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. AMBASSADOR, I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO A MEETING YOU HAD WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. YERMAK SEPTEMBER 14 IN KYIV. DO YOU RECALL THIS MEETING, SIR? >> I BELIEVE WE HAD DINNER. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER DISCUSSING WITH MR. YERMAK UKRAINE’S INTENT TO INVESTIGATE THEIR FORMER PRESIDENT? >> I REMEMBER RAISING THE ISSUE OFUE PROSECUTION.>> THEY BROUGHT IT UP? THEY TALKED ABOUT THEIR INTENTION? >> TO BE CLEAR THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK IN KYIV AT THE TIME ABOUT WHETHER THE NEW TEAM WOULD BE PROSECUTING THE FORMER PRESIDENT. AND I HAD MET WITH MR. POROSHENKO. WITH OTHER EXAMPLES OF COUNTRIES IN THE REGION THAT HAVE GONE FOR PROSECUTIONS OF THECU FORMER GOVERNMENT AND THE HAVE CREATED DEEP DIVISIONS. I CITED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY’S INAUGURATION SPEECH — I’M SORRY, HIS NATIONAL DAY SPEECH FROM AUGUST 24 THAT WAS ALL ABOUT UNIFYING THE COUNTRY.I CAUTIONED MR. YERMAK TO SAY PURSUING PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT POROSHENKO RISKS DEEPENING THE DIVISIONS IN THE COUNTRY, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS SAID HE WANTS TO DO. >> SO IT’S FAIR TO DESCRIBE IT AS YOU DISCOURAGED HIM FROM SUCH ACTION. >> I DISCOURAGED HIM. I RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT WOULD BE. >> AND WHAT WAS MR. YERMAK’S RESPONSE? >> I BELIEVE FROM THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS — >> MR. TAYLOR? >> MR. TAYLOR. >> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND MR. KENT? >> I BELIEVE MR.YERMAK SAID, WHAT, YOU MEAN LIKE ASKING US TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON AND BIDEN. >> SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF IT’S OKAY FOR YOU TO ASK US TO INVESTIGATE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU ARE, THESE SO-CALLED INVESTIGATIONS, BUT YOU DON’T WANTYO US TO INVESTIGATE OUR OW PRESIDENT. IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO DESCRIBE IT? >> I DIDN’T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO BECAUSE TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE WEREN’T ASKING TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON OR BIDEN. I WAS PUZZLED BY THE REMARK. >> IF YOU GO AND INVESTIGATE WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE MEANT OR ASK ANYBODY? >> I TOOK IT AS A DEFLECTION FROM THE POINT I WAS MAKING ABOUT DEFYING UKRAINE. >> MR. GIULIANI IN THIS TIME MENTIONED THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION. HE MENTIONED BIDEN OVER 50 TIMES AND 20-SOMETHING TIMES IN RELATION TO UKRAINE.DID THAT STIR YOUR CURIOSITY? >> HE DID BRING UP VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND I PUSHED BACK ON THAT AND SAID UKRAINE INVESTIGATING ITS OWN CITIZENS AND CORRUPTION WOULD BE FINE, GOING BEYOND THAT TO INVESTIGATE THE VICE PRESIDENT IS NOT FINE. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THELS ADMINISTRATION ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO POROSHENKO? >> YES. I RAISED THIS WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR. WE’D BEEN IN SOME OF THE SAME MEETINGS. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER I RAISED IT WITH PHIL KENT.IT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD DISCUSSED AS PART OF OUR MEETINGS IN KYIV AT THE TIME. >> IGS YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> WHEN YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION HAD YOU URGED THE UKRAINIANS NOT TO INVESTIGATE OR PROSECUTE THE FORMER PRESIDENT POROSHENKO, THEIR RESPONSE WAS, OH, YOU MEANRE LIKE YOU’RE ASKI USSK TO INVESTIGATE THE CLINTON AND THE BIDENS. THAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE? >> THAT’S WHAT I RECALL FROM SEEING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR’S TESTIMONY. >> YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND IT AT THE TIME, BUT AT THE TIME HAD YOU READ THE CALL RECORD? >> NO.YO >> NOW HAVE YOU READ THE CALL RECORD, THAT MAKES MORE SENSE, DOESN’T IT? >> YES.>> I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER WHEN YOU SAID THAT Y THE 2016 CONSPIRACY THEO HAD NO MERIT BUT YOU DIDN’T SEE ANY HARM IN D INVESTIGATING IT,S THAT GARIGHT? >> YES. >> DON’T THEY HAVE JUF LEGITIMATE CORRUPTION TO INVESTIGATE WITHOUT SPENDING TIME INVESTIGATING A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY? >> ALL KINDS TO INVESTIGATE IN UKRAINE. >> YOU PROPOSE THEY DO THIS INVESTIGATION AS SOMETHING YOU THOUGHT WITHOUT MERIT BECAUSE THIS WASIG PART OF AN EFFORT TO FIX THE PROBLEM GIULIANI WAS CREATING? >> I DID NOT PROPOSE IT. >> I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS OKAY ORT AN AMENDED STATEMENT SEEME TO INCLUDE IT.AM WAS THAT THE THINKING? >> YES. IF IT THREADS THE NEEDLE BETWEEN WHAT UKRAINE TO DO.THEN WHY NOT? >> THIS IS PART OF WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS YOUR EFFORT TO — WHEN YOU SEE A PROBLEM TO FIX IT. IS IT CLEAR TO YOU NOW, AMBASSADOR VOLKER BASED ON THE SEPTEMBER 25th CALL YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO FIX IT. I CAN SEE THERE’S A LOT ELSE GOING ONOT THAT WAS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE EFFORT I WAS MAKING WERE NOT IN THE CONTEXTN OF WHAT HAD ALREADY BEN DISCUSSED. >> A GIULIANI PROBLEM? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND MR. MORRISON FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE AND YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE AND LEADERSHIP ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. I WANTED TO START WITH A JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY. YOU WERE ON CALL AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OFL WITHHOLDING AID N THE CALL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT, CONGRESSWOMAN. >> AND NO QUID PRO QUO, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> NO BRIBERY? >> CORRECT. >> NO EXTORTION? >> CORRECT. >> AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I PRESUME YOU GOT A READOUT OF THE CALL.VO >> FROM THE U.S. PARTICIPANTS WAS THERE ANYPA REFERENCE TO WITHHOLDING AID? >> THERE WAS NOT.E >> ANY REFERENCE TO QUID PRO QUO? >> THERE WAS NONE.>> ANY REFERENCE TO EXTORTION? >> NO, THERE WAS NONE. >> I PRESUME YOU ALSO GOT FIELDBACK FROM YOUR UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS AS TO HOW THE CALL WENT. DID THEY MENTION THE WITH HOLDING OF AID? >> NO, THEY DID NOT. >> DID THEY MENTION ANY QUID PRO QUO? >> THEY DID NOT. >> DID D THEY MENTION ANY BRIBE? >> THEY DID NOT. >> AND, IN FACT, THE DAY AFTER THE CALL YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THIS WOULD BE ON JULY 26th? >> CORRECT. >> AND INJU THAT MEETING HE MAD NO MENTION OF QUID PRO QUO? >> NO. >> OF WITH HOLDING AID? >> NO.>> THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF E THIS HOLD ON AID, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND IN THE COMING WEEKS YOU WERE IN TOUCH WITHKS UKRAINIANSS PARTICIPATE OF YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THIS INCLUDED TALKING TODE UKRAINIANS OVER THE PHONE,N PERSON, IN TEXTS, AND UKRAINIANS NEVER BROUGHT UP AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT.AT >> THEY NEVER BROUGHT UP THE HE WITHHOLDING OF THE AID? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> THEY NEVER BROUGHT UPUP QUID PRO QUO OR BRIBY? >> LET ME BRING UP THE AID.THEY DID BRING THAT UP AFTER THE POLITICAL ARTICLE. >> I WILL GET TO THAT. UNTIL THE POLITICAL ARTICLE THEY DID NOT BRING IT UP. AND YOU SAID IN YOUR CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION, QUOTE, IT NEVER CAME UP IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND I BELIEVE THEY HAD TRUST IN ME THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ASKED IF THAT WAS REALLY WHAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AS YOU POINTED OUT THE UKRAINIANS NEVER EVEN KNEW THEIR FOREIGN AID WAS ON PAUSE UNTIL THE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN AUGUST.AR >> SO THEY DIDN’T KNOW DURING THE CALL. >> THAT’S CORRECT. TNG >> IN FACT, YOU HAD TO CORRECT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IN THE T CLOSED DOOR DEPOSITION. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED YOU WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING WITHHELD FOR A REASON YOU COULDN’T YOEXPLAIN, NTHO ONE CO EXPLAIN, WEREN’T THEY UNDER EVEN GREATER PRESSURE AND YOU ANSWERED, QUOTE TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE NEWS ABOUT A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE DID NOT GET INTO UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CIRCLES ASOV INDICATED TO ME BY THE CURRENT FOREIGN MINISTER UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? >> YES, IT IS. >> AND CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ALSO GOT THE FACTS WRONGOT AGAIN WHEN HE ASKED YOU THIS, QUOTE, AT THE POINT THEY LEARNED THEIR AID WAS PAUSED WOULDN’T THEY GIVE — WOULDN’T THAT GIVE THEM ADDED URGENCY TO MEET THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST ON THE BIDENS? AND YOU ANSWERED, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, QUOTE, I THINK THE UKRAINIANS FELT THEY ARE GOING INOI THE CORRECT DIRECTION AND THEY HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING ON AN INVESTIGATION, END QUOTE. ISN’T IT THE CASE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AT ONE POINT CHAIRMANSHIP SAIDOI TO YOU WHEN YOU ARE TRUTHFULLY TESTIFYING, AMBASSADOR, YOU’RE MAKING THIS MUCH MORERE COMPLICATED THAN IT HAS TO BE, END QUOTE? PAGE 127 FROM THE DEPOSITION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I REMEMBER THAT. >> BUT THE TRUTH IS, THE FACTS ARE, INDEED, NOT COMPLICATED AND I’M GOING TO CLOSE OUT WITH TWO QUESTIONS FOR THE BOTH OF YOU.DID UKRAINE OPEN AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS, MR. MORRISON? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE EITHER. >> DID ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF QUID PRO QUO? MR. MORRISON? >> NO, MA’AM. >> MR. AMBASSADOR? >> I DID NOT. >> ANY EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY? >> NO, MA’AM. >> ANY EVIDENCE OF TREASON? >> NO, MA’AM. >> NO EVIDENCE OFNO TREASON. >> WITH THAT I FIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. MORRISON DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON WANT THE SECURITY AID HOLD LIFTED? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN, HE DID. >> YOU TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH PRESIDENTE TRUMP IN LATE AUGUST RELATED TO UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.IS THAT RIGHT? >> SIR, CAN YOU POINT TO WHERE I TESTIFIED TO THAT? >> PAGE 266 YOU SAID AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH PRESIDENTN- TRUMP IN LATE AUGUST AT2019 BUT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT YETSI READY TO APPROVE E RELIEF OF THE ASSISTANCE. >> THIS IS 226? >> YES.. 266 AND 268. I’M ASKING YOU THIS, DID THAT HAPPEN OR DID IT NOT? >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR IN CHARACTERIZING IT. I SEE. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT. WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMSA SNP >>M AMBASSADOR BOLTON DID NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS READY TO APPROVE THE ASSISTANCE. >> DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON TELL YOU THE REASON THAT STEMMED FROM THIS MEETING? >> NO, SIR. R MR. MORRISON, DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF LOYAL TOON THE PRESIDE? >> YES, SIR. >> AND THE PRESIDENT EXECUTES THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT RIGHT?IC >> YES, SIR. >> AND AS A STAFFER AND EVEN SOMEONE WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY, TO EXECUTE THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> MY OATH IS TO OBEY ALL LAWFUL ORDERS. >> ON JULY 25, YOU LISTENED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TALK TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> JULY 25th, YES, SIR. >> AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU HAD PREPARED AS FAR AS TALKING POINTS FOR THATFA CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT, YOU HEARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE U BIDENS, IS TH CORRECT? >> YES, SIR, HE MADE A REQUEST.>> AND AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU TALKED TO UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS A NUMBER OF TIMES? >> YES, SIR. >>>> HOW MANY TIMES WHEN YOU TA TO Y UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS DID YOU ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS? >> NEVER, SIR. >> WHY NOT? >> SIR, IT WAS NOT A POLICY OBJECTIVE THAT I WAS AWARE OF. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, TO CARRY OUTT, YOUR POLICY OBJECTIVES. YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES’ PRIORITIES WERE TO INVESTIGATE THETA BIDENS. AND 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 THAT YOU’VE PUT THE CONVERSATION IN THE SERVER.UT THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AND THE REASONS YOU GAVE BUT YOU ALSO CHOSE TO DEFY THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO NOT COME HERE ASOM OTHERS HAVE LIKE MR. MULVANEY AND MR. BOLTON AND YOU HAVE COME HEREOL AND HAVE BEEN TRUTHFUL AND I APPRECIATE THAT. WHETHER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT PUBLICLY OR NOT YOU KNEW WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED THE UKRAINIANS TO DO WAS WRONG. AS YOU JUST DESCRIBED YOUR DUTY IS TOED FOLLOW THE FOREIGN POLI PRIORITY OF THE PRESIDENT BUT TO ALSO ONLY FOLLOW SOMETHING THAT IS A LAWFUL ORDER. I DON’TL THINK YOU BELIEVE IT WS A LAWFUL ORDER AND WHY YOU DID NOT FOLLOW UP ON THOSE PRIORITIES.ERER MR. VOLKER, WE’VE HEARD A LOT TODAY ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT BEING SUCH AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PRESIDENT. REALLY CARED ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION. IS RUSSIA A CORRUPT COUNTRY? >> WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> NO, PRESIDENT TRUMP. IS RUSSIA A CORRECT COUNTRY? >> YES, IT IS.>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MET A NUMBER OF TIMES WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, A FEW TIMES. >> AND HAS HAD A NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> IS TURKEY A CORRUPT COUNTRY? >> YES, I BELIEVE SO. >> JUST LAST WEEK DESPITE THEIR CORRUPTION AT THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT AERDOGAN HAD AN AUDIENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> YES, HE DID. >> 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. >> YOU AGREE THAT A LAWYER ACTS ON A CLIENT’S BEHALF AND ONLY ON A CLIENT’SIE BEHALF, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE THAT A LAWYER ACTS ON HISAW CLIENT’S BEHALF. I’M NOT SURE ABOUT ONLY ON A CLIENT’S BEHALF BECAUSE I THINK, AS I UNDERSTOOD MAYOR GIULIANI IN THIS CASE, HE WAS DOING A LOT I CONSIDERED TO BE ON HIS OWN.>> YOU SAID NOT MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION, HE DIDN’T SAY I, HE SAID WE, CORRECT? >> I’M TAKING THAT FROM THE STATEMENT. >> YIELD BACK. >> MR. MORRISON, MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA SUGGESTS HE KNOWS YOURS OPINIONS AND THOUGHS BETTER THAN YOU DO. HE DIDN’T GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. DO YOU WANT TO GIVE A RESPONSE? >> NO, SIR, I HEARD THE PRESIDENT MAKE A REQUEST. I RECEIVED NO DIRECTION AT ANY TIME TO ATTEMPT TO HAVE A POLICY PROCESS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I LAIDHA OUT IN MY DEPOSITION. TO ENSURE OPINION IN THE INTERAGENCY AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE, AND THAT’S WHAT I DID. I ACTED UPON THE DIRECTION I WAS GIVEN. >> GOOD COPY.WHILE WE’RE WITH YOU, MR. MORRISON, THANKS FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW POLITICAL INFORMATION COLLECTED BYOR UKRAINE ON THE BIDENS WOULD BE USED FOR POLITICAL GAIN? >> NO, SIR. >> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, THE SAME QUESTION. DID YOU PARTICIPATE S IN OR OVERHEAR ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW POTENTIAL INFORMATION COLLECTED BY I 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 12th THAT TALKED ABOUT THIS PROPOSED STATEMENT. AND MAYOR GIULIANI PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK ON WHAT HE THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT. DID MAYOR GIULIANI GET FEEDBACK ON WHAT SHOULD GO INTO THAT PROPOSED STATEMENT? >> I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED IT WITH THE PRESIDENT. >> BASED ON YOUR RECOLLECTION, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WHO WAS IN THE ZELENSKY REGIME HAS MAYOR GIULIANI AYINTERACTED WITH? IN ADDITION TO MR. YERMAK AND ALSO THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL.>> I DON’T KNOW WHO ELSE HE WOULD HAVE INTERACTED WITH IN THE ZELENSKY GOVERNMENT. I AM AWARE OF HIM HAVING CLAIMED HE MET WITH THE PREDECESSOR AS PROSECUTOR GENERAL. THAT’S NOT WITHIN WHICH WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. >> I DON’T KNOW WHO ELSE HE WOULD HAVE MET WITH. >> IN AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE, WHAT WAS 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 MAINTENANCE AND HE WANTED TO BE HELPFUL. >> WAS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH SENIOR ZELENSKY OFFICIALS WITHOUT LETTING OTHER PEOPLE KNOW?HO >> I DON’T BELIEVE THAT HE WAS NOT LETTING PEOPLE KNOW.I THINK HE MAY HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS BUT I THINK HE WAS JUST ACTING, AND I THINK WE CIRCLED BACK QUITE FREQUENTLY WITH MYSELF, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND OTHERS. >> CAN YOU SAY THAT 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 THAT I HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. I THOUGHT THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND I WERE WORKING ON THE SAMEKI OBJECTIVE WHICH IS GETTING A MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND THAT A STATEMENT THAT MENTIONEDTA BURISMA 2016 WOULD POTENTIALLY HELPFUL. I DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THEIR INTERACTION OR THOUGHTS WERE. >> YOUR DIDN’T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AS THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF T UKRAINE. DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING? >> NO, I DON’T. >> YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BURISMA AN THE BIDENS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DO YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS HAD SIMILAR UNDERSTANDING? >> YES, I DO.D >> THERE’S ALSO A PERCEPTION THAT WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, WHO WE’VE ALL HEARD 33 YEARS OF BEING AN AWESOME AMBASSADOR WHEN SHE LEFT KYIV THAT THE U.S.POSITION ON CORRUPTION WOULD WEAKEN. THAT’S A NARRATIVE FLOATING AROUND W. WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO TOOK OVER? >> IMMEDIATELY AFTER WAS PENNINGTON. >> WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL STRONG OR WEAK ON CORRUPTION? >> I WOULD SAY IN LINE WITH ALL THE REST OFIT OUR POLICIES. >> AND AFTER THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS THAT PERSON REPLACED WITH? >> THAT WAS BILL TAYLOR. >> WHO YOU SUGGESTED FOR THAT POSITION, CORRECT? WAS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STRONG O WEAK ON CORRUPTION? >> VERY STRONG.>> WHO SETS OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY? >> SIR, THE PRESIDENT. O. >> NOT SOME OTHER STAFFER WITHIN THE NSC? >> THEY ENSURE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE FULL ARRAY OF OPTIONS FOR HIS DECISION. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CASTRO? >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.U,YO IS IT CORRECT TO SAY BOTH YOU GENTLEMEN WERE EITHER APPOINTED OR HIREDOI BY THE WHITE HOUSE, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> YES, SIR.TH >> IN MY CASE BY SECRETARY TILLERSON. >> BUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> SERVING IN THE SAME ADMINISTRATION. >> SURE. >> YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, QUOTE, I JUST KNOW IF HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT I DID NOT HAVE.IN FACT, IN ONE TEXT MESSAGE DATED JULY 26th, YOU WROTE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, GREAT PHOTO, GORDON. CAN YOU GET THIS TO POTUS WITHOUT INTERMEDIARIES. JULY 26th WAS THE SAME DAY THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT FROM A RESTAURANT IN KYIV, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE DATE AGAIN? >> JULY 26th. >> YES, I KNOW THAT TO BE CORRECT NOW. >> WERE YOU AWARE OF THE CALL? >> I WAS NOT. >> THIS COMMITTEE IS AWARE OF IT NOW, AS WE ALL ARE. WERE YOU AWARE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A DIRECT LINE TO THE ECPRESIDENT? >> HE CLAIMED HE SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT FREQUENTLY. >> DID YOU HAVE REASON TO DOUBT THAT? >> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS A BIG PERSONALITY AND SOMETIMES SAYS THINGS THAT MIGHT BE BIGGER THAN LIFE. >> HE WAS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE, HAND-PICKED BYE, THE PRESIDENT SOMEBODY IN THEDE PRESIDENT’S ADMINISTRATION TO SERVE. >> I BELIEVE THAT HE COULD SPEAK WITH THE PRESIDENT. >> HE HAD ALSO BEEN A LARGE DONOR TO ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HAVE LEARNED THAT. >> MR. MORRISON, YOU STATED DURING YOUR TESTIMONY THAT WHEN YOU MET AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FOR THE FIRST TIME HE REPRESENTED THAT, QUOTE, HIS MANDATE FROM THE PRESIDENT WAS TO GO MAKE DEALS.PR AND, IN FACT, YOU TESTIFIED THAT BETWEEN JULY 25th AND SEPTEMBER 11th OF THIS YEAR YOU HEARD OR LEARNED THAT H AMBASSADOR SONDLD AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.IS IT ACCURATE THAT EVERY TIME YOU CHECKED YOU WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD, IN FACT, SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. >> MR. MORRISON, YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EMAILED YOU AND STAFF TO SAY HE BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ADVANCE OF HIS JULY 25th CALL WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. >> DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOUON WHAT HE BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT H ON? >> HE SENT ME AN EMAIL, SIR.IT WAS A VERY SUCCINCT — A LIST OF THREE ITEMS WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE. I BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT ON THE CALL. >>>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU PERSONALLY CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT A TRUMP D SPOKEN BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL. >> THAT IS CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >> AND PRESUMABLY THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM KEEPS A RECORD OF THOSE CALLS. >> SIR, THAT IS HOW I WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM IT. >> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOUR STAFF PREPARED A BRIEFING MEMO WITH SUGGESTED POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT TOIN RAISE ON JULY 25. POINTS THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >> THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T USE THOSE POINTS, DID HE? >> HE DID NOT. >> LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU PREPARED MATERIALS FOR THE PRESIDENT.EP THEY DID NOT INCLUDE REFERENCES TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS.IS THAT RIGHT? >>>> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. THE GUY WHO IS THE GORDON PROBLEM, THE GUY WHO HAS A DIRECT LINK H TO THE PRESIDENT, WHO IS TALKING ABOUT MAKING DEALS, BRIEFED PRESIDENT TRUMP, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN. >> AND THEN 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 SONDLANDMB AND THE PRESIDENT WE ON THE SAME PAGE. THEY BOTH WERE WORKING TO BENEFIT THE POLITICAL INTERESTS EVEN WHEN THATIT UNDERMINED U.S FOREIGN POLICY. I WANT TO ASK YOU IN THE SHORT TIME I HAVE BOTH YOU GENTLEMEN WHO SERVED THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WHETHER PUTTING PRESIDENT TRUMP ASIDE WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT IT’S PROPER FOR ANY PRESIDENT NOW OR LATER TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A U.S.CITIZEN AND SPECIFICALLY THAT COULD BE A POLITICAL RIVAL.IF AMBASSADOR? >> I DON’T BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DO THAT. IF WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS WITH A U.S. CITIZEN GENERALLY, THERE ARE APPROPRIATE CHANNELS FOR THAT. >> I AGREE WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SIR. >>, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, I YIE BACK. >> MR. RATCLIFFE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. GENTLEMEN, I APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU BEING HERE TODAY. I KNOW IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU. MR. MORRISON, I’M GOING TO TRY AND SUMMARIZE SOME OF WHAT WE’VE HEARD TO SHORTEN THIS. YOU WERE ON THE JULY 25th CALL. COLONEL VINDMAN ON THE JULY 25th CALL, CORRECT? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. >> AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT HE TESTIFIED EARLIER TODAY THAT 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’VE ESTABLISHED ALREADY THAT HE DID NOT DISCUSS OR REPORT ANY OF THAT TO YOU, CORRECT? >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. >> DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH COLONEL VINDMAN ABOUT OTHER CONCERNS HE HAD WITH THE CALL, AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THE FIDELITY OF THE TRANSLATION AND THE FACTRA THAT YOU BOTH SHARED DISCUSSION ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A FULL THROATED EMBRACE OF THE UKRAINIAN REFORM AGENDA. >> YES, CONGRESSMAN. >> BUT WITH RESPECT TO HIS CONCERN ABOUT SOMETHING IMPROPER, SPECIFICALLY AT NO POINT DID HE COME TO YOU AND SAY I HEARD SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT WAS IMPROPER AND WAS A CRIME. >> SIR, I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF HIM DOING THAT. >> NO BRIBE OR QUID PRO QUO? >> NO, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT. AND AS YOU WERE LISTENING, DID YOU HEAREN PRESIDENT TRUMP MAKE DEMAND OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME? >> SIR, I’VE BEEN TRYING TO STAY ON THE SAFE SIDE OF LEGAL CONCLUSIONS BUT, NO, SIR.>> YOU HAVE A LAW DEGREE. >> IAW DO, SIR. >> YOU ARE GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH BRIBY AND EXTORTION. >> GENERALLY. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY AS YOU WERE LISTENING TO THE CALL YOU WEREN’T THINKING THE PRESIDENT IS BRIBING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THAT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND? >> IT DID NOT, SIR. >> OR HE WAS EXTORTING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. >> IT DID NOT, SIR. >> AND HAVE YOU HEARD OR READ IN THE MEDIA WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREES WITH YOU, THAT HE DIDN’T HEAR ANY DEMANDS OR FEEL ANYDS PRESSURE, HE DIDN’T EXPERIENCE ANYTHING IMPROPER OR CORRUPT ON THE CALL? >> I ATTEMPTED IN NEW YORK AT THE U.N.GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND HE MADE CLEAR AT THE TIME IN FRONT OF I THE PRESS HE FELT NO PRESSURE. >> SO DID ANYONE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AFTER THIS CALL EXPRESS THAT SOME CRIME, BRIBY, EXTORTION, ANYTHING HAD OCCURRED? >> NO, SIR.HA >> I WANT TO ASK YOU, MR. MORRISON, ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT. I DON’T WANT TO ASK YOU TO SPECULATE AS TO THE IDENTITY BUT THE ACCUSATIONS THAT STARTED THIS AS TO THE VERACITY. FIRST OF ALL THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO WAS NOT ON THE CALL ADVISED THE ICIG THAT HE OR SHE WAS CONCERNED THEHE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCTS CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 3033, QUOTE, A SERIOUS PROBLEM, ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, END QUOTE. YOU DIDN’T HEAR A LAW AS YOU LISTENED TO THE CALL? >> I MADE NO JUDGMENT ABOUT ANY ILLEGAL CONDUCT OCCURRING.THAT HE SOUGHT TO PRESSURE THE LEADERSHIP TO TAKE ACTION TO HELP THE PRESIDENT’S 2020 RE-ELECTION BID. PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT MENTION 2020 DURING THE CALL, DOES HE? >> I DON’T BELIEVE HE DID. >>VE YOU DID NOT HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURE OR HAVE A DEMAND OF ANY KIND AS WE’VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT, SIR. >> A WHISTLE-BLOWER LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN USES THE WORD DEMAND. [ INAUDIBLE ] >> YOU SHOULD USE THE MICROPHONE. >> IN ALL DUE RESPECT, CONGRESSMAN, I BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID A WHISTLE-BLOWER LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN — >> NO, I’M SORRY.THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, LIKE COLONEL VINDMAN, ALSO USES THE WORD DEMAND. ON PAGE 4 THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SONDLAND PURPORTEDLY PROVIDED ADVICE TO UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP ABOUT HOW TO NAVIGATE THE DEMAND THE PRESIDENT MADE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THERE WERE NO DEMANDS? >> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. >> SO SPECULATION ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ASIDE WITH REGARD TOIT MOTIVATION, THE FACT IS TH WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS WRONG ABOUT MANY OF THE FACTS AS WELL.E- CORRECT? >> SIR, I’M NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT BUT I DID NOT HEAR A DEMAND IN THE CALL.IN >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.>> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I FRANKLY FOUND SOME OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT TO BE NOT JUST GENUINE BUT DOWNRIGHT ELOQUENT. THE PASSAGES ABOUT PUSHING BACK RUSSIAN AGGRESSION ANDNG SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT A OF STRONG, RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC AND PROSPEROUS UKRAINE, ONE THAT OVERCOMES THE LEGACY OF CORRUPTION. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY. SOME OF US BELIEVE WE’RE NOT PUSHING BACK STRONGLY ENOUGH ON RUSSIA.EL SOME THAT WE’RE NOT BEING SUPPORTIVE ENOUGH OF UKRAINE. T WE WANT TO HELP EXPLAIN WHY IT IS IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. YOU HAVE AN AUDIENCE TO LOOK INTO THE A CAMERA AND TELL WHY IS IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT UKRAINE. WHY SHOULD IT MATTER IF THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS GETTING THEIR KIDS OFF TO SCHOOL, PAYING THEIR BILLS AND THE LIKE, SIR? >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CONGRESSMAN. I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY THAT WE ARE NOT PUSHING BACK HARD ENOUGH ON RUSSIA AND THAT WE OWE UKRAINE A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT. >> WHY DOES IT MATTER? >> RUSSIA IS TRYING TO UP END SECURITY, REASSERT DOMINATION.IT HAS LED TO WAR IN EUROPE. THE WAR IN UKRAINE HAS LEFT MORE PEOPLE DEAD I IN EUROPE THAN ANYTHING SINCE THE BALKANS. IF ANYTHING SINCE WORLD WAR II. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO STAND UP FOR FREEDOM, FOR DEMOCRACY. THEY WANT REFORM TO SEE THEIR COUNTRY BE SUCCESSFUL LIKE GERMANY, SWEDEN, LIKE US. AND THEY ARE FIGHTING A WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST THEM DESIGNED TO HOLD THEM BACK. WE WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF FREEDOM FOR THE UNITED STATES, WE OUGHT TO BE SUPPORTING FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT.D SO WE’RE HERE IN PART BECAUSE OF CONCERN FOR GENERAL CORRECTION.T THERE WASN’T A CONCERN FOR GENERAL CORRUPTION BUT REVIEWING THE RECORD ON THAT, SIR, IS IT NOT TRUE IN MARCH OFT THIS YEAR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFIEFD UKRAINE AS HAVING BEEN — HAD MADE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MILITARY ASSISTANCE? >> I DON’T NOPE THE DETAILS BUT I BELIEVE THAT TO BE CORRECT.>> ON APRIL 21st PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WON AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE WITH 73% OF THE VOTE BASED V LARGELY ON HIS EFFORT F ANTI-CORRUPTION? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IS IT NOT TRUE IT WAS EXPANDED ON JULY 21st WHEN THE PARTY WON ONE PARTY CONTROL ON THE BASIS OF ANTI-CORRUPTION? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >>T IN FACT, SUBSEQUENTLY HE ENACTED SWEEPING REFORMS TO COMBAT ANTI-CORRUPTION, DID HE NOT? >> YES, HE HAS. >> EVERYBODY ON THE GROUND THOUGHT OR IS FILLED WITH OPTIMISM UKRAINE WAS GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT COMBATTING THIS CORRUPTION. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AMBASSADOR VOLKER DID YOU KNOW ONE OF THOSE PASSED IN UKRAINE WAS A LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT? >> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. >> IT’S TRUE. BECAUSE HE THOUGHT WE SHOULD START WITH HIMSELF.E MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE KEEP CHARACTERIZING THIS IMPEACHMENTG INQUIRY AS INHERENTLY WRONG, AND I’M QUOTING THEM, IT WILL OVERTURN AN ELECTION.OVER AND OVER, IT WILL OVERTURN AN ELECTION. IT IS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION TOOL AND FOR MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, YES, IT DOES OVERTURN AN ELECTION. BY DEFINITION IT OVERTURNS AN ELECTION. I DON’T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONSTITUTION PROVISION FOR IMPEACHMENT BUT I RECOMMEND THEY REREAD THE RELEVANT PASSES IN ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS TWO AND THREE AND HOW WE GOT THERE.NS NONE OF US WANTS TO BE HERE. NONE OF US CAME TO THIS EASILY. I DIDN’T. I WILL RECALL THE 48 HOURS I SPENT AT OUR FAMILY CABIN IN SELF-REFLECTION AND PRAYERFUL DELIBERATION ABOUT THIS WHOLE MATTER. COLLECTIVELY WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH THIS VERY GRAVE DECISION.OI IT’S WAITING AND IT’S GOING TO GET HARD.AI AND IT’S HARD IN PROPORTION TO ITPOS IMPORTANCE TO OUR GREAT REPUBLIC.A REPUBLIC IF WE CAN KEEP IT.. >> I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. JORDAN? >> AMBASSADOR VOLKER, IN THE NOW FAMOUS CALL TRANSCRIPT BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THIS. I HEARD YOU HAD A PROSECUTOR AND HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND THAT’S REALLY UNFAIR. DO YOU BELIEVE HE WAS TALKING ABOUTAL ZELENSKY OR SHILKIN? >> SHILKIN. >> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU HAD ISSUES WITH COLONEL VINDMAN’S JUDGMENT. IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT IS, SIR. >> YOU SAID YOU HAD CONCERNS WITH COLONELAD VINDMAN EXERCISI APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT AS TO WHOM SAID WHAT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT IS, SIR. >> YOU TESTIFIED HILL HAD CONCERNS ABOUTIL COLONEL VINDMAS JUDGMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT IS, SIR. THAT COLONEL VINDMAN DID NOT ALWAYS ADHEREID TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR. >> TRYING TO ACCESS INFORMATION OUTSIDE HISS LANE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> SIR, I BELIEVE I STATED I WAS AWARE OF THOSE WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.>> THAT HE WAS NOT INCLUDED ON CERTAIN TRIPS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT COLLEAGUES EXPRESSED CONCERN TO YOU ABOUT COLONEL VINDMAN LEAKING INFORMATION, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, SIR.G >> WHEN I ASKED COLONEL VINDMAN WHY HE DIDN’T GO TO YOU WITH HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL, EVEN THOUGH YOU,LL HIS BOSS, HAD NO CONCERNS ABOUT ANYTHING BEING, I THINK YOUR LANGUAGE WAS, NOTHING IMPROPER, NOTHING ILLEGAL ON THE CALL.I ASKED WHY HE INSTEAD WENT TO LAWYERS, HIS BROTHER, SECRETARY KENT AND ONE OTHER PERSON THAT HE WOULDN’T TELL US AND CHAIRMANSHIP WOULDN’T ALLOW HIM TO TELL US. HE INDICATED THE LAWYERS INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT AND HE TRIED TO GET HOLD OF YOU. IS THAT FAIR? HTR >> SIR, I WATCHED PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING. I HEARD HIM SAY THAT, YES, SIR. >> ONE THING CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BROUGHT UP, HE POINTED OUT THAT 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.WA >> I THINK AWED FEW THINGS YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN TODAY’S HEARING BUT I THINK AT THE TOP OF YOUR LIST WAS YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE CALL LEAKING OUT.IS THAT FAIR? >> YES, SIR. >> AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, ISN’T IT? >> SIR, I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW THAT THE CONTENTS LEAKEDON OUT. THE PRESIDENT CHOSE TO DECLASSIFY THE MEMCON. >> YOU SEEMED TO BE PROPHETIC BECAUSE YOUPH SAID IT IN YOUR STATEMENT TODAY, AS I STATED DURING MY DEPOSITION, I FEARED AT THE TIME OF I THE CALL ON JU 25th HOW THE DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL WOULD PLAY INOU WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL CLIMATE. MY FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED. YOU SAWRE WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN ANDT SURE ENOUGH DID. FAIR TO SAY? >> YES, SIR. >> AND WE DID ALL OF THIS — WE DID ALL OFS THIS AND THAT’S THE PART THAT — THAT’S THE PART THAT GETS ME.WE DID ALL THIS, THESE HEARING, WEEKS IN THE BUNKER IN THE BASEMENT OF THEHE CAPITOL AND FR FACTS WE KEEP COMING BACK TO HAVE NEVER CHANGED, WILL NEVER CHANGE.ER CONFIRMED THESE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. WE HAVE THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AS YOU BOTH SAID. NO LINKAGE TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS AND INVESTIGATIONS A IN THE CALL TRANSCRIPT, THE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERETH ON THE CALL. THEY’VE BOTH SAID NO LINKAGE, NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING. THE FACT THE UKRAINIANS DIDN’T EVEN KNOW AID HAD BEEN WITHHELD UNTIL AUGUST 29th. AND THE UKRAINIANS DID NOTHING AS FAR AS STARTING, PROMISING TO START, ANNOUNCING THEY WERE GOING TO START. DID NOTHING AND THE AID GOT RELEASED. I BELIEVE IT GOT RELEASED BECAUSE OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE GOOD WORK OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS. W I BELIEVE THAT’S WHY IT HAPPENED. HERE WE ARE AND YOU CALLED IT ALL. YOU SAW THIS COMING, WHY YOU WENT TO THE W LAWYERS. WHY YOU WANTED — THAT’S WHY THE CONCERN WAS THERE. AND THAT’S THE PART THAT’S MOST TROUBLING. I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. >>M AMBASSADOR VOLKER ON DAILY MAIL THEY HAVE THISAI HEADLINE THAT SAYS UKRAINE’S SPECIAL ENROY KURT VOLKER WALKED BACK HIS CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY AND SAYSMO HE, QUOTE, HAS NOW LEARN THERE WAS A LINK BETWEEN U.S. MILITARY AID AND A BIDEN PROBE. THAT IS NOT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, IS IT? >> I DON’T BELIEVE THAT’S IN MY TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. WELCH? >> THANK YOU. JUST FOLLOWING UP ON MR. JORDAN. THE EASIEST WAY TO AVOID AN INVESTIGATION IS TO NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG.ST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHY WE’RE HERE. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS CAN’T BE TRADED FOR HELP IN A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. LET ME GIVE AN ANALOGY AND ASK IF YOU AGREE.THE MAYOR OF A CITY — >> FOR SOME OF OUR NBC STATIONS OUR COVERAGE IS ENDING. THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN TO NBC NEWS NOW. YOU CAN WATCH THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING AND ANALYSIS ALONG WITH OUR STREAMING VIEWERS ON NBCNEWS.COM OR THE APP ON YOUR ROKU, APPLE TV OR AMAZON FIRE TV. THAT COVERAGE CONTINUES NOW. >> THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE IF IT WERE A GOVERNOR WITHHOLDING THE BUDGET REQUEST AS STATE POLICE UNLESS THE STATE POLICE AGREES TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION ON A POLITICAL RIVAL. YOU WOULD AGREE? >> CORRECT. YES, SIR. >> IN YOUR VIEW, IS IT ANY DIFFERENT FOR A MEMBER OF CONGRESS? >> OF COURSE NOT, RIGHT? CANNOT WITHHOLD AID UNLESS HE GETS AN INVESTIGATION INTO A POLITICAL RIVAL, MR. MORRISON. >> YES, SIR, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT HYPOTHETICAL. >> AND WE’RE HAVING A DEBATE AS TO BOTH SIDES HOW TO READ WHAT IS PLAINLY BEFORE US, THE PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALL WHERE THE PRESIDENTHO IGNORED THE WOR OF THE ADVISERS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TALKING POINTS AND INSTEAD CHOSE TO TALK ABOUT THE BIDENS AND HUNTER BIDEN AND ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION. SO WE ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DEBATE THAT BUT ISN’T THE PRINCIPLE THAT NO PERSON INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL AND WORTH THE A EFFORT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE CONTINUE TO GUARANTEE, AMBASSADOR MORRISON? >> SIR, I HAVEN’T BEEN — >> I’M SORRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER? >> YEAH. >> AND MR. MORRISON. >> SIR THE RULE OF LAW IS CENTRAL TOS OUR DEMOCRACY. >> IT IS SO TRUE. YOU KNOW, WE’VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS AND CHALLENGE FROM THE OTHER SIDE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY IN FOREIGN POLICY TO DO WHAT HE LIKES. AND, IN FACT, HE DOES. IN OUR RECENT PRESIDENT IS TAKE OUR TROOPS OUT OF SYRIA AND ALLOW THE TURKISH FORCES TO GO IN, LITERALLY MEANT THAT SOME KURDISH FAMILIES WENT TO BED SATURDAY NIGHT AND WOKE UP SUNDAY MORNING AND PACKED THEIR KIDS AND FLED FOR THEIR LIVES. A LOT OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE TOTALLY DISAGREED WITH THAT BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT AND IMPULSIVE AS THAT DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN, UNWISE AS IT MAY HAVE BEEN, AS THREATENING TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. WE’RE NOT N TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I LISTENED TO YOUR TESTIMONY L AND I TAKE IT D THANK YOU FOR MAKING EFFORT TO TRY TO ADVANCE WHAT HAD BEEN A BIPARTISAN UKRAINE POLICY, HELP UKRAINE GET RID OF CORRUPTION, HELP RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.BUT WHAT YOU CAME TO LEARN PAINFULLY IS THAT THERE WAS A SIDE BAR UKRAINE POLICY WITH GIULIANIIC AS THE ADVOCATE AND APPEARS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS VERY MUCH INVOLVED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, SIR. >> YOU DON’T. BUT AS YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, WHILE YOU WERE WORKING ON WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS STOPPING AGGRESSION AND ENDING — AND ELIMINATING CORRUPTION, THERE WAS ARR SIDE DEAL HERE TO GET INVESTIGATIONS GOING, CORRECT? >> SO, YES. SIR, MY OBJECTIVE WAS PURELY FOCUSED ON SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE. NATIONAL SECURITY AND NOT I HAVE LEARNED THROUGH OTHER TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATING BIDEN AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS B THAT I DI NOT KNOW ABOUT. >> RIGHT. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN’S INTEGRITY AND SERVICE. BUT AT THE BOTTOM LINE AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAVE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WASDG UP TO WITH RESPT TO THE REQUEST FOR THE FAVOR AND HOW IT REPUDIATED 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. >> GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I WAS STRUCK BY YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. YOU MOVED A LONG WAY FROM THE TESTIMONY YOU PRESENTED TO US IN OCTOBER. AND I KNOW YOU GAVE A REASON FOR THAT, WHICH IS THAT YOU WERE IN THE DARK ABOUT A LOT OF THESE THINGS. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> THAT IS ONE OF THING THAT I LEARNED A LOT OUT OF THE TESTIMONY — >> LEARNED A LOT.YOU LEARNED A LOT. AND WHAT YOU SAID ON PAGE EIGHT, I’M REFERRING TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU GAVE THIS MORNING, EXCUSE ME, THIS AFTERNOON. THAT I DID NOT KNOW, THIS IS QUOTING, I DID NOT KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR OTHERS HAD RAISED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WITH THE UKRAINIANS OR HAD CONFLATED THE INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE UKRAINE CORRUPTION WITH INVESTIGATION OF THEIN FORMER VE PRESIDENT F BIDEN. RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU DIDN’T KNOW BURISMA MEANT BIDEN, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. >> I SEPARATED THE TWO. >> WELL YOU DIDN’T KNOW. DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT, SIR.YOU WERE THERE ON MAY 23rd FOR THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE SAID TALK TO RUDY AND RUDY KARENED ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS WHICH YOU NOW KNOW MEANT BIDENST BUT YOU MISS IT ON MAY 23rd. >> NO, SIR. I UNDERSTAND AT TIME THAT HUNTER BIDEN HAD BEEN AE BOARD MEMBER. >> I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU DIDN’T READ THAT AS A REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS AT THAT TIME. >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU WERE TWO MEETINGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED THE INVESTIGATIONS BUT YOUND DIDN’T KNOW Y IT WAS ABOUT THE BIDENS, THAT IS YOUR TESTIMONY, RIGHT? AT THE TIME. >> I DIDN’T THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING SPECIFIC. >> AND YOU HEARD HIM SAY ADMINISTRATIONS AND YOU SAIDAY BECAUSE I DIDN’T THINK IT WAS THE BIDEN AND THEN I GUESS IN THE WAR ROOM AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED BURISMA AND YOU MISSED THAT TOO AS I UNDERSTAND IT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND ON JULY 18th YOU KNEW AID WAS WITHHELD AND IN AUGUST YOU SPENT A GOOD PART OF THE TIME WITH THIS STATEMENT WITH RUDY GIULIANI, RIGHT? YOU WERE THE GUY MAKING THE CHANGES AND INTERACTING WITH THE UKRAINIANS. YOU WERE PUTTING IN RUDY’S CHANGES WHICH INCLUDED A CALL FOR INVESTIGATING BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTIONS WHICH YOU NOW KNOW MEANT BIDENS. WE DIDN’T KNOW IT AT THE TIME. AND ON SEPTEMBER 21st YOU’RE IN WARSAW AND THERE WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ANDRE YERMAK HE WOULD NOT GET SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A WHITE HOUSEY MEETING UNLESS THERE WAS THE INVESTIGATION AND I UNDERSTAND YOU MISSED THAT, YOU WERE OUT OF THEER LOOP THEN. >> THAT IS NOT CORRECT, SIR. I WAS NOT IN WARSAW AT THE MEETINGS. >> EXCUSE ME. BUT YOU HEARDRD ABOUT IT FROM SONDLAND. >> THAT IS NOT QUITE CORRECT, EITHER. IT WAS SOMETIME LATER. >> I GOT IT. SO NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANT. AND YOU SAID IN RETROSPECT I SHOULDT HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTIN DIFFERENTLY AND HAD I DONE SO I WOULD HAVEE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTION. >> RIGHT. THAT IS CORRECT — >> WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIONS YOU ARRAISED, SIR? >> WHAT I WOULD HAVE RAISED IS THAT PEOPLE ARE CONFLATING INVESTIGATING THE BIDENS WITH — >> BUT YOU OBJECTED TO THE PRESIDENT ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AS YOU SIT HERE NOW YOU SAY YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN INVESTIGATION. >>>> IF IT WAS FOR BIDEN AN HIS SON. >> THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AND I WOULD HAVE OEBTD — OBJECTED TO THAT. >> AND IF YOU HEARD THEM ASK FOR IT ON THE CALL AND IN RETROSPECT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFUSING, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> IS CONFUSING THE RIGHT WORD? IT WOULD PUT THEM IN A POSITION TO DO SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDEN. >> I THINK CONFUSED IS THE RIGHT WORD BECAUSE THEY WERE CLEARLY HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENTLE FM THE PRESIDENT IN ONE CONVERSATION AND DIFFERENT FROM ME AS A U.S.SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE — >> WELL MAYBE, SIR, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT INVESTIGATING BURISMA AND INVESTIGATING 2016, IN FACT, MEANT THE BIDENS EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN’T. AT THE TIME YOU WERE TALKING TO YERMAK AND PUTTING THE CHANGES IN THE STATEMENT HE TALKED TO SONDLAND AT THE SAME TIME AND SO THE POINT BEING THAT THEY WERE PUTTING IN AN IMPOSSIBLE POSITION. ASKED TO DO SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE AND YOU NOW S KNO THAT, RIGHT? AND YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED YOUR OWN OBJECTION? >> WELLL I KNOW THEY WERE ASKIN IN THE PHONE CALL TO DO THAT, IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD WITH THE UKRAINIANS WE WERE NOT ASKING THEM TO DO THAT AND EVEN AT THAT POINT UKRAINIANS PERHAPS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PHONE CALLED WHICH I DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF N AT THE TIME, IS THAT WE JUST DON’T WANT TO GO THERE. >>O RIGHT. SO IN RETROSPECT, THOUGH, YOU WOULD HAVE RAISED OUOBJECTIONS, YOU WOULD HAVE SAID IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DOSI THIS? >> CORRECT. >> AND MR. MORRISON, COULD I JUSTSO ASK YOU, SIR, I’M STUCK THIS ISSUE OF YOU DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CALL BUT YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO NSC LEGAL TO REPORT IT. IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY? >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU,, SIR. YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MORRISON AND TO BOTH OF YOU, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY. MR. MORRISON JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUE, YOU RESPONDED EARLIER TO A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUALIFY AND BASICALLY SAW NOTHING WRONG WITH IT BUT YOU SKIPPED YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND TO GO TO LEGAL COUNSEL TO FIND OUT WHAT TO DO BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL FALLOUT, NOT ABOUT ANYTHING BEING INAPPROPRIATE OR WRONG WITH THE CALL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> MA’AM, I DON’T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE, NO. >> COULD YOU TELL ME WHY YOU FELT THE NEED AND YOU SAW NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CALL YET YOU SKIPPED YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND TO GO TO COUNSEL BECAUSE OF WHAT? WHAT WAS THE REASON W FOR THAT. >> I DON’T KNOW THAT I — I DON’T AGREE WITH THE I PREMISE. I DON’T THINK I SKIPPED THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. >> WHON IS YOUR DIRECT REPORT? >> DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. >> AND THE NAME OF THE PERSON. >> DR. CHARLES KUPPERMAN. >> DR. KUPPERMAN. DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM BEFORE YOU SPOKE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL? >> NO. >> BUT YOU DON’T FEEL YOU SKIP YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND IN DOING SO, GOING DIRECTLY TO COUNSEL? >> MA’AM, IF I MAY, I VIEWED MY ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LEGAL ADVISER AS ONE LARGELY FOCUSED ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. I WAS INTERESTED IN LOCKING DOWN THE TRANSCRIPT, IF THAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER IN MAKING SURE THAT THE LEGAL ADVISER WAS — >> AND WHY WERE YOU CONCERNED THAT THE LEGAL ADVISER — >> BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T SEE ANYBODY FROM THE LEGAL ADVISERS OFFICE IN THE LISTENING ROOM AND I WANTED TO MIEKS SURE SOMEBODY FROM THE LEGAL ADVISERS OFFICE WAS AWARE AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS A SENIOR PERSON. >> AND WHAT DID YOU WANT THEM TO BEAN AWARE OF SPECIFICALLY? >> I WANTED THEM TO BE AWARE OF THE CALL BECAUSE I WANTED THEM TO KNOW WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED. >> WHAT CONCERNED 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 JOHN EISENBERG.HE’S MY EQUIVALENT IN THAT POSITION. I WON’T GO TO SOMEBODY SUBORDINATE TO HIM. >> DIDN’T YOU TESTIFYBO EARLIER YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL FALLOUT BASED ON THE POLITICAL CLIMATE IN D.C.? >> YES — >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG HAVE YOU SUPERVISED LUNTD COLONEL VINDMAN. >> JULY C 16 TO OCTOBER 31 OR S >> THANK YOU. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU BELIEVE CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURE HELPED UNFREEZE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEING RELEASED.DO YOU STILL STAND BY THA TESTIMONY TODAY. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS IMPORTANT. I MET WITH STAFF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND 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. >> I THANK THE GENTLE WOMAN FOR YIELDING. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON QUESTIONS ABOUT UKRAINIANS NOT AWARE OF THE AID BEING WITHHELD. YOU’RE AWARE I’M SURE OF THE TESTIMONY OF COLONEL VINDMAN THAT IN FACT HE WAS CONTACTED BY SOMEONE WITHIN THE EMBASSY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WHOLE PRIOR TO IT BECOMING PUBLIC. >> I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT BUT I TAKE THAT. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF MRS. CROFT’S TESTIMONY AND TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED THAT UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT QUITEOU QUICKLY AFTER THE HD WAS PLACED IN JULY AND THAT THE UKRAINIANS HAD A REASON TO KEEP ITSO SILENT AND NOT MAKE IT PUBLIC? >> I SAW THAT IN HER TESTIMONY.>> YOU DON’T HAVE ANY REASON TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT TESTIMONY ISTI ACCURATE. >> NO, I DON’T. >> SO THE UKRAINIANS DID FIND OUT BEFORE IT WASS PUBLIC, ACCORDING TO THESEUB TWO WITNESSES. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE UKRAINIANS CERTAINLY FOUND OUT IT WAS PUBLIC WHEN IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND FROM THE TIME THEY FOUND OUT FROM THE NEWSPAPER THEY STILL HADN’T HAD THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND 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, IS THAT CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MR. KRISHNAMOORTHI. >> GOOD EVENING TO BOTH OF YOU ANDEV THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVIC. AMBASSADOR VOLKER, ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR S OPENING STATEMENT TOD YOU SAID SINCE EVENTS SURROUNDING YOURVE EARLIER TESTIMONY, OCTOBER 3rd, QUOTE/UNQUOTE A GREAT DEAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PERSPECTIVE HAVE COME TO LIGHT. I HAVE LEARNED MANY THINGS THAT I DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION, CORRECT? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT INCLUDES CONVERSATIONS THAT OCCURRED AS WELL AS MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED OF WHICH YOU WEREN’T A WPART, CORRECT. >> THAT IS 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 ACCORDING TO YOUR HOPING STATEMENT HAD A CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 26th, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ON SEPTEMBER 1st YOU WEREN’T PRESENT WITH THE SIDE BAR MEETING WITH SONDLAND AND SPECIAL ADVISER YERMAK, IS THAT RIGHT. >>TH THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND YOU CERTAINLY WEREN’T PART OF THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN AMBASSADOR TAYLORNDF AND AMBASR SONDLAND IN WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLANDAM, ACCORDING TO MULTIP PEOPLE NOW SAID THAT EVERYTHING, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND MILITARY AID WERE DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INVESTIGATIONS, ISN’T THAT RIGHT. >> T THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND CERTAINLY, SIR, YOU WEREN’T PART OF THE PHONE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 7th BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IN WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMPID INSISTING THA PRESIDENT ZELENSKYHA GO TO A MI AND MAKE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE RIVALS. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND YOUOU WEREN’T PART OF TH SEPTEMBER 8th PHONE CALL BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR — I’M SORRY PRESIDENT TRUMP WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP AGAIN INSISTS THAT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS HAVE TO HAPPEN, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SIR, YOU SAY THAT YOU WEREN’T A WITNESS TO ANY KIND OF QUID PRO QUO OR CONDITIONALITY BETWEEN MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS, WHAT SOMEONE CALLED MISSILES FOR MISINFORMATION TODAY, ISN’T THAT RIGHT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> BUT, SIR, YOU WEREN’T PRESENT FOR MANY IF NOTSE ALL OF THE PHE CALLS AND CONVERSATIONS WHERE THE C ALLEGED INSTANCES OF QUID PRO QUO OCCURRED, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SIR, LET ME TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO ANOTHER TOPIC THAT HAS COME UP TODAY. IT ACTUALLY CAME UP LAST FRIDAY. YOU HAVE HIGH REGARD FOR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, CORRECT. >> YES, I DO. >> I PRESUME THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT AS THE AMBASSADOR WAS TESTIFYING, PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY TWEETED VERY DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT HER. >> I SAW THAT MOMENT. >> AND I PRESUME THAT YOU DISAPPROVE OF THOSE TYPES OF TWEETS, CORRECT. >>RORO YES, I DON’T THINK THAT APPROPRIATE. >> YOU’VE SUPERVISED MANY PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS DURING YOUR CAREER IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE, RIGHT. >> YES, I ICAM. >> AND YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT TO ONE OF YOUR DIRECT REPORTS OR ANYBODY WHO WORKED IN YOUR ORGANIZATION, RIGHT? >> NO, I WOULD NOT. >> IT IS I JUST WRONG. >> I BELIEVEIS THAT EVEN WHEN Y FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO CRITICIZE, CRITICISM IS PRIVATE, PRAISE IS PUBLIC. >> AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU’RE A MAN OF HONOR AND YOU WOULD NOT ATTACK A VETERAN, YOU WOULD NOTRA ATTACK SOMEONE WHO CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE MILITARY WHO IS DOING THEIR DUTY, CORRECT? >> I RESPECT THE SERVICE MEMBERS IN UNIFORM. >> IN FACT, THERE IS A CERTAIN MAN THAT C WE BOTH ADMIRE. THE LATE SENATOR JOHN McCAIN. >> YES. >> WHOAT UNFORTUNATELY WAS ATTACKED NOT ONLYLY WHEN HE WAS ALIVE BUT AFTER HE DIED BY THE — THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS TRUE. >> AND I PRESUME YOU WOULD DISAPPROVE OF THE ATTACKED ON JOHN McCAIN. >> YES.. I KNEW JOHN McCAIN VERY WELL FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND HE’S A HONORABLE MAN AND VERY MUCH A WAR HERO FOR THIS COUNTRY. >> T WELL, TODAY, SIR, AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS TESTIFYING, OUR PRESIDENT USED THE OFFICIAL TWITTER ACCOUNT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO ATTACK LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN’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 IS NOT APPROPRIATE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU MR. MORRISON FOR YOURS AS WELL. >> THAT CONCLUDES THE MEMBER QUESTIONING. I NOW RECOGNIZE RANKING MEMBER FOR ANY CLOSING COMMENTS HE HAS. >> THANK YOU. AS THE FIRST DAY OF THIS WEEK’S IMPEACHMENT 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 OFFIN SESSENT DEMOCRAT EFFORTS TO FIND A CRIME TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.FIRST THEY TRIED TO MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT COLLUDEDES WITH RUSSIA. TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK THE DNC AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN WORKED WITH A SPY CRISTO FER STEELE WITH FALSE INFORMATION ALLEGING THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA AND THAT WAS LARGELY ASSEMBLED FROM RUSSIAN AND UKRAINE SOURCES THAT THE DEMOCRATS CONTRACTOR WORKED WIT. NEXT THEY PRIME THEIR HOPES ON THE WORK OF ROBERT MUELLER. MUELLER SPENT TWO YEARS AND MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS SEEKING EVIDENCE OF A PRIME THAT WE KNOW WASN’T COMMITTED. MUELLER’S FAILURE WAS DEVASTATING BLOW TO DEMOCRATS WHO CLEARLY HOPED HIS WORK TO BE THE BASIS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT. TODAY WE AREE WITNESSING THE UKRAINE HOAX. THE DIRECT TO TV SEQUEL TO THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX. THE PROD OF THE UKRAINE HOAX IS HARD TO FOLLOW. IT SHIFTS FROM DAY-TO-DAY. FIRST THE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THEY HAD EVIDENCE OF QUID PRO QUO, THEN EXTORTION AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND NOWSS DEMOCRAT ARE PINNING THEIR HOPES ON BRIBERY. LIKE ANY GOOD HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION, DEMOCRATS NEEDED A SCREEN TEST BEFORE RELEASING THE LATEST ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT. THEY LEVERAGED THE SECRECY OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO INTERVIEW A CAST OF CHARACTERS IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.FOR THE MEDIA ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT, THEY BUILT A NARRATIVE BASED ON SELECTIVELY LEAKED TESTIMONY. SPEAKER PELOSI ARE SEEKING THE TRUTH AND THEY WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWINGPE QUESTIONS THEY REFUSE TO ASK. TO WHAT EXCEPT DID THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COORDINATE WITH THE DEMOCRATS ONE- THIS COMMITT AND/OR HIS STAFF AND WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE UKRAINE MEDDLING AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2016, WHY DID BURISMA HIRE HUNTER BIDEN AND WHAT DID HE DO FOR THEM AND DID HIS POSITION IMPACT ANY U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PROMISED A GRAVE AND SOMBER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND INSTEAD THEY GOT THE SALACIOUS SPICED RING COMEDY THAT THEY’VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THREE YEARS.GOOD NIGHT. SEE YOU IN THE MORNING. >> THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND I THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. I WOULD HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS C 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 THE UKRAINIAN COMPANYHE BURISMA AS EQUIVALENT TO A INVESTIGATING FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN. I SAW THEM AS VERY DIFFERENT, THE FORMER BEING APPROPRIATE AND UNREMARKABLE AND THE LATTER BEING UNACCEPTABLE. IN RETROSPECT, YOU SAID I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT CONNECTION DIFFERENTLYCT AND HAD I DONE SOI WOULD HAVE RAISED MY OWN OBJECTION. AMBASSADOR, WE APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO AMEND YOUR EARLIER TESTIMONY IN LIGHT OF WHAT YOU NOW KNOW.AND I THINK YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT KNOWING WHAT YOU DO TODAY THAT, IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT, SOUGHT AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE COUNTENANCES ANY EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE THE UKRAINIANS ENGAGE IN SUCH CONDUCT. I APPRECIATE 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, THE EUROPEAN UNION WANTED AND THE IMF WANTED BUT WAS THE CONSENSUS POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITYIO INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU DIDN’T GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TODAY AS OTHER WITNESSES DID BECAUSE YOU EFFECTIVELY SAID THAT WAS ALL NONSENSE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR ABOUT THAT. MR. MORRISON I THINK WHAT IS MOST I REMARKABLE ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VICE PRESIDENT MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW, YOU WITNESSED GORDON SONDLAND MEETING WITH ANDRE YERMAK, TOP ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND IMMEDIATELY THERE AFTER SONDLAND TOLD YOU THAT HE INFORMED THE UKRAINIANS IF THEY WANTED THAT $400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE I PRESIDENT WANTED.YOU WERE LATER INFORMED AND SIGNIFICANT AS YOU TESTIFY HERE TODAY, THAT THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND INFORMED YOU THAT IT WASN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT WANTED, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HADWA TO DO IT HIMSELFF HE WANTED TO GET THAT AID LET ALONE THE MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE. NOW, YOU’VE BEEN ASKED TO OPINE ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM BRIBERY. ALTHOUGH YOU WEREN’T ASKED TO OPINE ON THE MEANING OF THE TERMS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. BUT BRIBERY FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME IS THE CONDITIONING OF OFFICIAL ACTS IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING OF PERSONAL VALUE. THE OFFICIAL ACTS WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DESPERATELY SOUGHT AND AS YOU ACKNOWLEDGED, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WAS DEEPLY IMPORTANT TO THIS COUNTRY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA.TO SHOW THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD U THIS NEW PRESIDENT’S BACK. THAT MEETING WAS IMPORTANT. THAT MEETING IS AN OFFICIAL ACT. THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT. BECAUSE UKRAINIANS ARE DYING EVERY DAY IN THEIR WAR WITH RUSSIA. AND SO TO WITHHOLD A MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO GET THESE INVESTIGATIONS WHICH YOU NOW HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AMBASSADOR, VOLKER, WAS WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REQUESTWR AND THE IDEA OF WITH HOLDING MILITARY AIDIT TO GET THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS SHOULD BE AN ANTHEMA AND REPUBLIC TO EVERY AMERICAN BECAUSE IT MEANS THE SACRIFICE JUST NOT OF UKRAINE BUT AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT O PERSONALLY AND POLITICALLY.NOW, MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ALL THEY SEEM TO BE UPSET ABOUT WITH THIS IS NOT THAT THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, NOT THAT HE WITHHELD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND $400 MILLION IN AID WE ALL PASSED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO DO THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, THE OBJECTION IS THEY GOT CAUGHT. THE OBJECTION IS THAT SOMEONE BLEW THE WHISTLE AND THEY WOULD LIKE THIS WHISTLE-BLOWERY IDENTIFIED AND THE PRESIDENT WANTS THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER PUNISHED. THAT IS THEIR OBJECTION.NOT THAT THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN THE CONDUCT BUT THAT HE GOT CAUGHT. THEIR DEFENSE IS, WELL, HE ENDED UP RELEASING THE AID. YES, AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT. THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT ANY LESS ODYUS. AMERICANS MAY BE WATCHING THIS AND ASKING, WHY SHOULD THE UNITED STATES CARE ABOUT UKRAINE? WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT UKRAINE? AND THIS WAS THE IMPORT I THINK OF THE CONVERSATION THE NOW INFAMOUS CONVERSATION IN THE KIEV RESTAURANT WITH GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING THE PHONE AWAY FROM HIS HEAD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS TALKING SO LOUD. WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT ASK IN THAT CALL THE DAY AFTER THE NOW INFAMOUS CALL WITH ZELENSKY AND WHAT DOES HE ASK ON THAT CELL PHONE CALL? NOTL WHETHER THE RADA HAS PASS NEW ANTI-CORRUPTION P REFORM, N ARE THE UKRAINIANS GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION, MEANING INTO BIDEN.AND SONDLAND’S ANSWER IS THEY’RE GOING TO DO IT. THEY’LL DO ESSENTIALLY ANYTHING THE PRESIDENTSS WANTS. WHAT IS MORE TELLING IS THE CONVERSATIONNG I THINK THAT SONDLAND HAD WITH THE FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT SAYS BASICALLY DONALD TRUMP DOESN’T GIVE AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE. HE CARES ABOUT THE BIG THINGS. AND MR. HOLMES SAID, WELL, UKRAINE IS AT WAR WITH RUSSIA. THE RUSSIANS, THAT IS KIND OF A BIG THING. AND SONDLAND’S ANSWER IS NO, NO, HE CARES ABOUT BIG THINGS THAT AFFECT HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS. THIS IS WHY AMERICANS SHOULD CARERI ABOUT THIS. THE AMERICANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO C OUR ALLIES. WHO ARE DYING. BUT AMERICANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT THEIR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY AND THEIR OWNUR PRESIDENT AND THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION. AND THEY WILL NEED TO ASK THEMSELVES AS WE’LL HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IN CONGRESS, ARE WE PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN LEVERAGE OFFICIAL ACTS, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS TO GET AN INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL RIVAL? ARE WE PREPARED TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT IS JUST WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.I DON’T THINK WE WANT TO GO THERE. I DON’T T THINK OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE WANTED US TO GO THERE. INDEED I THINKNK WHEN THE FOUNDG FATHERS PROVIDED A REMEDY, THAT BEING IMPEACHMENT, THEY HAD THE VERY CONCERN THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAYSI BETR THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY FOR PERSONAL INTEREST. THEYL PUT THAT REMEDY IN THE CONSTITUTION. NOT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO WILLY-NILLY OVERTURN ELECTIONS. NO, BECAUSE THEY WANTED A POWERFUL ANTI-CORRUPTION MECHANISM WHEN THAT CORRUPTION CAME FROM THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. WE’RE ADJOURNED. I ASK THE AUDIENCE TO PLEASE ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM BEFORE.